CHARLES I IN SCOTLAND. THE IRISH REBELLION.
In the middle of August 1641 Charles I reappeared in
Scotland after eight years’ absence. What restlessness had
since pervaded the country from end to end! how completely
altered was the position of the King! In the year 1633 he
had begun to establish the monarchical and despotic system
which he had in view: in 1641 he was obliged to accept and
confirm maxims entirely contrary to it.
He assented to the acts of the Assembly at Glasgow and of
the Parliament of 1640: he gave up the bishops in Scotland
and submitted without further hesitation to those claims of
parliamentary power against which he had striven so long
and desperately: he ratified the treaty already concluded
by touching it with his sceptre. But all was not yet over.
On September 16 a new act was read, by which the nomination
to the most important offices in the administration of the
state and of justice was made dependent on the approval of
Parliament. The King said that he accepted it in order to
supply a need which the country might experience through
his absence: he would in future let his Privy Council
consist of a fixed number of members, never to be exceeded,
according to the advice of the Estates: he would lay before
them a list of those to whom he thought of confiding the
great offices of state, and hoped that it would meet with
their approval. ‘At this gracious answer,’ says the old
journal, ‘one and all rose and bowed themselves to the
ground[268].’
The King’s chief object was to content the Scots, and [A.D. 1641.]
separate their cause from the English. The events of
the last year had convinced him that the connexion of
Scottish and English affairs had involved him in all his
troubles. The late projects, which were so contrary to his
views, especially the attack made by Parliament on the
bishops, he ascribed to Scottish influence. He believed
that he could manage to resist in England if he could only
pacify Scotland, but for this purpose concessions were
indispensable. Even those royalists who followed Montrose,
and had long sought to ally themselves with him, demanded
these as absolutely necessary.
Even by these however his chief opponents were not won. The
party in religion and politics which depended on Argyle,
and had alone wielded the supreme power, was unwilling to
lose it through new appointments, or even to share it with
those who had hitherto opposed them: they accepted the
King’s concessions, but at every fresh step opposed him
again.
The King could appoint neither chancellor nor treasurer to
please himself, so long as Argyle opposed him. At first
a compromise was effected, by which Loudon, the very man
whom Charles had wanted to treat as a traitor on account
of his letter to the King of France, was elevated to the
chancellorship. The King regarded it as a point of honour
to save the men who had been conspicuously true to him from
the anathema denounced against them in Scotland: the terms
of an oath which Argyle had carried through the Assembly
were so conceived that the clergy doubted whether it could
possibly be interpreted in the King’s sense. We know the
King’s predilection for Hamilton: now came the shock of
finding that the friend who had advised most of what he
had done against the dominant faction in Scotland himself
joined that very party. To save his life Hamilton had
allied himself with the Scottish commissioners, who again
were dependent on the committee, at the head of which was
Argyle: he now openly made common cause with the latter,
and in Argyle’s enemies saw his own.
During these party conflicts some very unexpected scenes
happened. Hamilton and his brother Lanerick quitted [A.D. 1641.]
Edinburgh one day with Argyle, as their lives were in
danger in the neighbourhood of the King, who inclined to
their opponents. Thereupon the King, who regarded this
mistrust as an insult, betook himself with an unusually
numerous train, including all those whom he had taken into
his protection, to the Parliament. It almost seemed as
if he meant to use force against Argyle’s adherents. The
rumour was spread that the fiercest and bitterest enemies
of Hamilton, Kerr and Home, and their borderers, had been
summoned to attack him. The consequence was that the other
party armed also, and eventually gained the upper hand.
After a fortnight’s absence Hamilton and Argyle returned,
the latter more powerful than ever in Parliament. The
second and third estates, the barons and burgesses, did
nothing without him. Though here and there a preacher drew
to the King’s side, most of them filled their churches with
all the louder complaints against the plots which were
being formed[269].
Unless Charles I were willing to break with the Parliament
he had no choice but to make terms with the men of this
party. Argyle was consulted on all weighty matters: in
the nomination to offices, his friends, the determined
supporters of the covenant, obtained the preference.
Instead of the treasurer designated by the King a
commission was named on which sat friends of Hamilton and
Argyle. Lesley, who belonged to this party, was created
Earl of Leven with all the pompous formalities of earlier
times, and Argyle was advanced to a marquisate.
Men could not understand the King’s promoting his
adversaries and passing over his supporters, and bitter
complaints were uttered against him. But it was not his
choice: it was necessity arising from the weakness of his
friends and himself. These last concessions, like the
earlier ones, originated in his plans for England. He
obtained a promise from the men whom he promoted, namely,
Argyle, Loudon and Lesley, that they would not interfere
with religious affairs in England, nor ever help the [A.D. 1641.]
English therein: they pledged him their honour, as he
asserted, that they would not[270]. He meant to separate
the ambition of the dominant Covenanters from the interests
of the parliamentary party in England. For his attention
was devoted almost entirely to England, as everything
depended on depriving the revolutionary leaders there
of the support which they derived from their connexion
with the Scots. The sequel must show whether he was not
deceiving himself, whether his old enemies now in favour
would at a later time keep their word: but the whole
question did not depend on this uncertainty. The result of
the King’s present dealings was that the Scots attained
the independence which had been their object from the
beginning, their leaders retained the posts which they
had as it were conquered, the influence of the crown was
virtually annulled. In comparison to this practical result
all the King’s schemes were of minor importance. For in
events once accomplished there is a strength, independent
of the combinations which produced them, which causes
further consequences and reactions.
Through the disturbance of the universal order of things in
the British islands, there was awakened a general and full
consciousness of the elements of which they were composed,
which found vent in movements that mocked at the union to
which they had hitherto been subject.
_The Irish Rebellion._
The government which Strafford had established in Ireland
fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to
some of the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it
authority over the whole country. The Irish army, which
had been formed with so much difficulty, and maintained
in spite of so much opposition, was disbanded without any
attention being vouchsafed to the King’s wish that it
should be allowed to enter the Spanish service. Martial [A.D. 1641.]
law, even for cases of rebellion, was virtually at an end;
the High Commission in Ireland also was declared a general
grievance and was abolished. Under the influence of events
in England government based on prerogative, and on its
connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in
Ireland since Elizabeth’s time, fell to the ground.
This revolution however might entail important results.
The Irish people was Catholic: while the Protestant
settlers were split into two hostile factions, and thereby
the highest authority in the land, which bore a really
Protestant character, was systematically weakened and
almost destroyed, the thought of ridding themselves of it
altogether was sure to arise in the nation. The steed,
never completely broken in, felt itself suddenly free from
the tight rein which hitherto it had unwillingly obeyed.
The contending principles contributed also to bring about
this result. For it had been part of Strafford’s system to
allow some toleration to the Catholics: they had been by
him introduced into the army; he had winked at a crowd of
priests from the Spanish and Netherland seminaries entering
the country and acquiring an ecclesiastical authority to
which the natives willingly submitted. On the other side
the national religious constitution which the Scots had
attained by their example induced the Irish to attempt
the same thing, but in the Catholic sense appropriate to
their case. No doubt the old Irish antipathy of the natives
against the Saxons was stimulated thereby; how could it be
otherwise? Still it was the common object of all Catholics,
alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to restore to
the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and houses
that had been taken from her, and above all to put an end
to the colonies established since James I, in which Puritan
tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old settlements
were as eager for this as the natives.
The idea originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish
extraction, Roger O’More and Lord Macguire, who had been
involved in Tyrone’s ruin, but were connected by marriage
with several English families. The first man whom O’More
won over was Lord Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old [A.D. 1641.]
English descent in Connaught, of the house of De Burgh,
of whose ancestors one, a half-brother of William the
Conqueror, came over with him to England; another came
to Ireland with Henry II[271]. The best military leader
in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of
old English origin: he had numerous connexions among the
Catholics of Leinster, and had preserved through the wars
in Flanders the religious enthusiasm which led him thither.
Among the natives the most notable personage was Phelim
O’Neil, who after having been long in England, and learning
Protestantism there, on his return to Ireland went back
to the old faith and the old customs: he was reckoned the
rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded popular
influence.
The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English
extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It
involved making the Catholic religion altogether dominant
in Ireland: even of the old nobility none but the Catholics
were to be tolerated: all the lands that had been seized
for the new settlements were to be given back to the
previous possessors or their heirs. In each district a
distinguished family was to be answerable for order, and
to maintain an armed force for the purpose. They would not
revolt from the King, but still would leave him no real
share in the government. Two lords justices, both Catholic,
one of Irish, the other of old English family, were to
be at the head of the government. In the Parliament,
which should no longer be in any way subordinate to the
English, the clergy also were to have seats and voices. In
the negotiations which preceded the rising, the question
had already been discussed, what should be done with the
Irish Protestants in case of victory. At a meeting of the
political and spiritual leaders held on St. Francis’ day in
the Franciscan convent at Mullifarvan in Westmeath, this
question, as well as the form of the future state, was
taken into consideration. The advice of the monks was to
drive them out, as Philip III had driven the Moors out of
Spain, without staining the land with their blood. Others [A.D. 1641.]
remarked that that prince would have done better to destroy
the Moors, since a lasting evil, the strength of the pirate
states, had been increased by his clemency: in the same
way it would be better to exterminate the Protestants
in Ireland than to incur their future hostility--a
consideration of disastrous omen. We do not hear how they
decided at the moment, but the sequel showed what feelings
were supreme in their hearts.
The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could
travel across the country without perceiving any stir or
uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day
of St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out.
In Ulster the O’Neils, under the leadership of Phelim,
succeeded in obtaining possession of Charlemount, which
commanded one of the most important points on the northern
roads. The O’Guires surprised Mountjoy; the O’Hanlons
Tanderagh in the county of Armagh, and Newry, where they
found arms and powder: in the county of Monaghan all, in
Cavan, where the sheriff himself headed the rising, nearly
all the fortified posts were seized; here and there the
government troops, where they met the insurgents, carried
away by their impulses, made common cause with them. The
insurrection, however, did not fully attain its object. The
chief attack was directed against the castle of Dublin,
where they hoped to gain great supplies of arms and
military stores; and then, with the co-operation of the
inhabitants who sympathised with them, they would have been
in a position to defy the attacks of England. This did not
seem a hard thing to achieve, for the government, which
always liked to do the exact opposite of what Strafford
had done, had neglected military matters; it had no troops
in the city, and the castle was very insufficiently
garrisoned, so that it might apparently have been captured
by two hundred men. Perhaps it may be affirmed that the
English dominion in Ireland was saved through some natives
of Irish origin having been won to Protestantism. The
conspirators applied to one of these, Owen Conolly, to
gain his accession to their cause. He was an opponent of
Strafford, as such had come into contact with the zealous [A.D. 1641.]
Puritans during a short stay in England, and by them
had been strengthened in the Protestantism which he had
always professed[272]: he abhorred the religious tendency
of the Irish rising, and on the evening of the 22nd gave
information. The government awoke from perfect security to
a sight of their terrible danger: they had still just time
to arrest the leaders who were already in the city, and
to secure the gates of the castle and city, so that those
who came up, seeing that they were discovered, obeyed the
order to disperse. Several other places also held out,
as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to
which the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the
rage and cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the
land, upon the unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands
perished: their corpses filled the land and served as
food for the kites. The elemental forces, which hitherto
had been repressed by the strong hand of the government,
arose in the wildest licence: religious abhorrence entered
into a dreadful league with the fury of national hatred.
The motives of the Sicilian Vespers and of the night of
St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim, who at once was
proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the title of
the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in his
proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at
all the man to check these cruelties. Rather cast upwards
by a sudden eruption, than raised by his own services and
exertions, he added fuel to the flame already kindled:
either when drunk, or when for a moment he believed himself
in danger, he ordered the massacre of all the prisoners. Or
did this happen in consequence of their deliberations? Did
they wish to put an end for ever to the claims of the rich
settlers by taking their lives? With all this letting loose
of ancient barbarism there was still some holding back. The
Scottish settlements were spared, although they were the
most hated of all, for fear of incurring the hostility of
the Scottish as well as of the English nation.
Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of
the old English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the [A.D. 1641.]
leadership of the sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The
younger men of Meath assembled on the Boyne, and commenced
hostilities against the Protestants: so completely had
their religious sympathies prevailed over their patriotism.
They told the King that being in the midst between the
government which mistrusted them and forbade them arms, and
the advancing rebels, threatened on both sides, they had no
escape left except by joining the latter[273]. This agrees
with their original suggestion that if they sought him he
might treat them no worse than the Scots: if he would be
gracious to them, they would shed the last drop of their
blood for him.
As the Scots had won from the King the recognition of their
national and religious independence, so also the Irish
aimed at a national and Catholic independence. There is
certainly a resemblance, but a far greater difference. In
the one it was a controversy which found vent, as it were,
prematurely in violent demonstrations and domestic feuds;
the other was one of the most cruel insurrections recorded
in history.
The King received the first tidings of the Irish rebellion
while in Scotland; he immediately informed the Scottish
Parliament and begged their aid. The Scots declared
themselves ready, but delayed to see what would happen in
England. The King, who regarded the cause as his own, in
spite of his distressed circumstances contrived out of his
own means to send over a small force of 1500 men under
experienced commanders: this was the first succour which
the Protestants received, and it gave them courage, and
contributed greatly to make the strong places that had not
surrendered in the mean time hold out to the end. False as
it is to accuse Charles I of having himself secretly taken
part in this Irish movement, it is undeniable that it was
not altogether hostile to him. It was above all a reaction
against the form of government derived from the Puritan
parliamentary principles in England. The Irish Catholics
told the King, that it was because he, in the fulness of [A.D. 1641.]
his princely love, granted them some religious liberty,
that the English Parliament, envious of their good fortune,
diminished his prerogative: it desired to call the Scots
to its assistance, and with the Bible in one hand and the
sword in the other to extirpate Catholicism in Ireland.
It is obvious that Ireland in its native condition could
exist very well under a monarchy clothed with extensive
prerogatives, but never under a parliamentary government
with predominant Puritan sentiments, such as existed and
daily grew stronger in the present Parliament.
We turn our attention to England, to those parliamentary
discussions long before proposed, and now again resumed, to
which the course of things in Scotland, and still more the
events in Ireland, furnished a new and powerful impulse.
FOOTNOTES:
[268] The diurnall of the second parliament of our
sovereign lord, King Charles. In Balfour, Annals iii. 65.
[269] Relation of the Incident, for so this event is
termed. ‘5-600 following his coach, amongst whom were all
those that were cited to the Parliament, and likewise those
that were accused to have been of this plot against us.’
[270] Despatch of the French minister Sabran, 20 March,
1645. The King assured him, ‘qu’il avait tiré serment sur
leur foi et leur honneur du chancelier d’Ecosse, du comte
d’Argyle et de Leslie, que jamais ils ne se mêleroient de
la religion d’Ingleterre et ne l’assisteroient jamais à ce
sujet.’
[271] Narrative of Macguire, in Nalson ii. Carte, who
denies it, tries in vain to clear the old English Catholics
of all participation.
[272] Sanderson 438. ‘A gentleman of a meer Irish family,
but a true Protestant by a long conversation with the
English.’
[273] This apology, as well as another addressed to the
Queen, proves clearly that the authority to seize the goods
of the Protestants, which the Irish professed to have
received from the King himself, was a deliberate invention,
as was maintained from the first moment. If not, how came
the Catholics not to refer to it?