ORMONDE AND THE IRISH HIERARCHY
[Sidenote: Ormonde a consistent Royalist.]
Loyalty to the Crown of England was Ormonde's leading principle,
and this is the key to his eventful life. He surrendered Dublin to
the Parliament rather than to the Irish because he regarded the
usurping power as the State for the time being. Later on and in still
more desperate circumstances he was forced to ally himself with
the Roman Catholic clergy, but he steadily refused to destroy the
value of the reversion, and events proved that it was impossible to
reconcile the claims of the Vatican with those of a sovereign who was
constitutionally the supreme head of an Established Protestant Church.
The idea of a free Church in a free State had not yet dawned upon
Europe, and when the monarchy was restored the legal position of the
Roman Catholics remained as it had been before the civil war. After a
short struggle, which revealed great dissensions among those who sought
relief, the recusancy laws were left untouched.
[Sidenote: The Roman Catholics at the Restoration.]
[Sidenote: Peter Walsh and Orrery.]
At the Restoration the dispossessed Irish Roman Catholics, especially
those who had followed the King's fortunes abroad, looked to Ormonde
as the only man who might be willing and able to espouse their cause.
As far back as 1653 Peter Walsh, Rinuccini's determined opponent,
was licensed by the Irish Government to assist in enrolling and
transporting 4000 men for the Spanish service on condition of ceasing
while in Ireland to exercise his office as priest. Later on he was
allowed to live quietly in London, and when Ormonde returned he wrote
to him on behalf of his co-religionists. The letter was published in
the following year, and Orrery answered it. Walsh argued that the
Irish were covered by the indemnity promised in the peace of January
1649, but Orrery truly answered that it could not cover offences of
later date, and that the articles in question had been generally
infringed, particularly by the excommunication of Ormonde and his
expulsion from Ireland. Walsh naturally maintained that the rebels of
Ireland, considered as rebels, were much less guilty than those of
England, that many had expiated their fault by repentance and faithful
service, and that the innocent or at least penitent majority ought
not to suffer for the crimes of a few. Orrery, on the contrary, urged
that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been in rebellion over and
over again during the last three reigns, while the Protestants had
defended the royal authority, and that Ormonde had understood the real
bearings of the question when he surrendered Dublin; and later when
he allowed the loyal Protestants to make terms with 'Ireton himself,
esteeming them safer with that real regicide so accompanied than with
those pretended anti-regicides so principled.' Even if he had wished
it Ormonde could not have expelled the bulk of the Adventurers and
soldiers who were in possession of the forfeited land. What he did do
was to obtain tolerable terms for a great many Roman Catholics, and
it may well be that it was not always the most meritorious who came
best off. The Celtic population had begun the quarrel, and they were
the least considered. Walsh himself was always inclined to draw a
distinction in favour of the Anglo-Irish.[48]
[Sidenote: Richard Bellings.]
Richard Bellings, whose opposition to Rinuccini had been no less
strenuous than Walsh's, left Ireland with Ormonde in 1650. He had
married a Butler and was always on good terms with the head of that
family. At Paris he was engaged in controversy with Bishop French,
John Ponce, and others of the ultramontane party who did not forgive
his hostility to the nuncio. His knowledge of papal diplomacy and
influence among the Irish refugees abroad no doubt made him useful to
Hyde, who befriended him after the Restoration, when he was at first
in great difficulties. Early in 1662 Clarendon asked the King if he
intended to 'allow Dick Bellings anything to live upon, or that he
shift as he can.' Fox was thereupon ordered to pay him 400_l._ a year,
and he ultimately got back all or most of his Irish property, though
some difficulties were made about the merits of one who had been
secretary to the council of rebels. In 1663 he was sent to Rome to
solicit a cardinal's hat for Aubigny, and more privately to take what
steps were possible to bring about an understanding between Alexander
VII. and the statutory head of the Church of England. He failed in both
objects but without forfeiting the confidence of Ormonde and Clarendon,
neither of whom perhaps were fully in the secret. Evelyn met him at
Cornbury in 1664, and both before and after his Italian journey he
tried to help the Lord Lieutenant in his dealings with the Irish Roman
Catholics.[49]
[Sidenote: His appeal to Ormonde.]
In the summer of 1661, when the Royal declaration was known but before
the meeting of the Irish Parliament which was to make it law, Bellings
wrote from Dublin to Ormonde, who was still in London and not yet Lord
Lieutenant. The letter is essentially a plea for the Anglo-Irish who
never sought foreign help as long as there was a settled government.
There is not a word about the Ulster settlement, and the conduct of
Borlase and Parsons 'who favoured the party opposing his Majesty,'
is represented as the beginning of troubles. The new settlers, or
most of them, were 'the scum of England,' and the result of their
supremacy would be to people Ireland with 'a generation of mechanic
bagmen who are strangers to all principles of religion and loyalty.'
Ormonde's connections and natural allies would be ousted and in time
his own family would suffer. 'The King's faithful subjects, those who
have followed his fortune abroad, all the ancient families in Ireland
and among them your Grace's kindred, your allies and friends will be
made slaves.' Ormonde had saved some and might save more, and he was
reminded that the eyes of Europe were upon him.[50]
[Sidenote: Peter Walsh appointed procurator.]
The Roman Catholics of Ireland had no share in the Restoration: that
by a strange stroke of fortune was the work of their enemies, Coote
and Broghill and the Cromwellian army. Three of their bishops were in
Ireland at the moment and for some time after--namely, Edmund O'Reilly
the Primate, Anthony McGeohegan, Clanricarde's old antagonist, who had
been appointed to Meath, and Eugene Swiney, who had driven Bedell from
Kilmore. The first two were in hiding and the last was bedridden. There
were also three vicars-general and the superiors of the Capuchins,
Dominicans, and Carmelites; and Peter Walsh, who was in London, let
these ecclesiastics know that they would be expected to congratulate
the King and to declare their loyalty. They accordingly appointed
Walsh their procurator with full powers and instructions on behalf
of them all to kiss the sacred hands 'of our most serene lord king
Charles II.,' to congratulate him on his restoration, and to solicit
his favour. The least they thought themselves entitled to expect was
his adherence to the terms agreed on (1648) between Ormonde and the
Confederates. This paper was dated January 1, 1661, and received
by Walsh eight days later. Other signatures were afterwards added,
including those of Oliver Darcy, Bishop of Dromore, and Patrick
Plunket, Bishop of Ardagh. Bishop French sent a proxy from Spain, and
his representative signed the instrument of procuration in September
1662.[51]
[Sidenote: A loyal remonstrance of the Roman Catholic clergy
contemplated.]
[Sidenote: Signatures thereto.]
Armed with this instrument, which does not appear to have been ever
formally withdrawn, Walsh busied himself in London with endeavours
to better the position of his co-religionists. With Orrery and
Mountrath at the head of affairs little could be expected from the
Irish Government, but he was able through Ormonde to bring influence
to bear on the King, and procured the release of about 120 priests,
many of whom had been long in prison, and this without distinction
between the nuncionists and those who adhered to the peace of 1648. He
opened communications with his brethren in Ireland, representing the
necessity of their making some demonstration of loyalty. Bellings was
in Dublin in the winter of 1661, and there drew up a paper founded upon
a petition presented to the Long Parliament at the beginning of the
troubles. The language closely resembles the English oath of allegiance
but without clearly renouncing the Pope's deposing power. The Roman
Catholic clergy of Ireland set forth their hard case and the severe
measures taken against them. In order to show how little they deserve
such misfortunes they fully acknowledge the King's sovereignty in all
civil and temporal affairs and declare their readiness still to do so
'notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope.' They 'openly
disclaim and renounce all foreign power, be it either papal or princely
spiritual or temporal' pretending to release them from the obligations
of allegiance. Irrespective of their religion all absolute princes
and supreme governors are recognised as God's lieutenants, and they
repudiate the doctrine that it is lawful for a private person to kill
the Lord's anointed. In conclusion they maintain that their dependence
on the see of Rome in no way interferes with the obedience due to
their lawful sovereign, and they claim his protection in return. This
document, without any signatures, was conveyed to Walsh by Lord Fingall
and communicated to Ormonde, who after two days' delay said that it
might have been stronger but that it would nevertheless be acceptable
if sufficient names were attached. As an anonymous paper it would be
useless. The substance of the document was approved of by the King.
There were in London at the time about thirty Irish priests, and of
these twenty-four, including one bishop, Darcy of Dromore, affixed
their signatures after two days' discussion. Others followed, both
in London and Ireland. Four or five more objected to the expediency
of the Remonstrance but not to its contents. Walsh and his friend
Caron published pamphlets in the same sense, which at first were well
received; and between London and Dublin 121 Irishmen of position,
including twenty-one peers, signed the Remonstrance. But at the
beginning of 1663 the movement had long been hanging fire, and Ormonde
hinted plainly that those who expected favour should give their names
without further delay.'[52]
[Sidenote: Primate O'Reilly opposes the Remonstrance,]
[Sidenote: which is discountenanced at Rome.]
Primate O'Reilly was summoned to Rome in 1660, and arrived there at the
end of 1661 soon after the Remonstrance was signed. He stayed three
years, so that he knew, even if he did not inspire, the proceedings of
the Roman Court in the matter. As a partisan of Rinuccini and opponent
of the peace of 1648 he had been accused of being a firebrand, and the
clergy of his province now testified in his favour as an earnest and
devoted priest, who had suffered many things for denying the royal
supremacy. Ever since his arrival in Ireland in October 1659 he had
'lurked in woods, mountain caves, and similar hiding-places, with no
bed but straw or hay and a cloak thrown over it, without comforts,
contented with coarse bread, butter and flesh, drinking beer, water
or milk, without wine except for the sacrament, and all day without a
fire.' He was careful not to commit himself by public utterances at
Rome, but the action of the Curia was not long delayed. In July 1662,
just as Ormonde was starting to assume the government of Ireland,
Jerome de Vecchiis, the internuncio at Brussels, who had authority in
the Irish Church, wrote to Bishop Darcy and to Friar Duff, who had
also signed the Remonstrance, declaring that it contained propositions
already condemned by the Holy See. Both letters fell into Clarendon's
hands. Still more strongly, and on the same ground, did Francesco
Barberini blame the Irish gentlemen in the name of Pope and Propaganda.
Before the year was out the theological faculty at Louvain condemned
the Remonstrance, declaring that the guilt of sacrilege would rest
alike on those who signed it in future or refused to revoke signatures
already given. And this was significantly dated 'on the day consecrated
to the martyrdom of the glorious pontiff Thomas of Canterbury,'
formerly Primate of England.[53]
[Sidenote: The Remonstrance hangs fire.]
[Sidenote: Royal and papal claims found incompatible.]
Out of more than two thousand priests in Ireland, only seventy signed
the Remonstrance, and but sixteen of these were of the secular clergy.
Among the fifty-four Regulars all but ten were Franciscans. The lay
signatures were 164. Even in his own order the majority soon appeared
to be against Walsh, and ultimately agreed to a much weaker declaration
of their own, which contained no definite mention of the Pope and was
at once rejected by Ormonde as inadequate. Having made but little
progress in Ireland, Walsh went to London in August 1664, and shortly
afterwards heard that the internuncio had come there secretly. A
meeting was arranged 'in the back-yard at Somerset House,' De Vecchiis
being accompanied by Patrick Maginn, one of the Queen's chaplains, and
Walsh by his friend Caron. In argument the Roman representative was
perhaps no match for the two learned Franciscans, but he took his stand
on the fact of the Remonstrance being condemned by the Pope. To the
assertion that His Holiness had been misinformed, he answered angrily
that he was the informant--_ego informavi_. Caron continuing to urge
that the Remonstrance contained nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine;
he answered, 'so you think, but the Apostolic See thinks differently.'
He seems nevertheless to have really wished for some accommodation, and
suggested that a papal bull might be issued ordering the Irish to obey
the King on pain of excommunication. This was plainly inadmissible as
it made civil allegiance depend on the Pope; and the internuncio then
proposed that His Holiness should create as many bishops as the King
chose to name, and that these prelates should have power to banish from
Ireland all clergymen whom they found disobedient to their Sovereign.
Walsh liked this idea better than the other, but objected that the
King, if he was a Catholic, could appoint what bishops he liked, but
that he was in fact a Protestant and that the Pope had condemned the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, while the clergy had to swear
fidelity to him. Moreover, the King could banish rebellious subjects
without any help from Rome, and the total result of the proposed
concordat would be to make ecclesiastics wholly independent of the
Crown. The conference, which lasted three hours, ended in nothing as
such encounters usually do, and De Vecchiis soon returned to Brussels,
but afterwards made another effort in which he was assisted by Aubigny
who still hoped for the red hat. Walsh and Caron were verbally invited
over to Flanders, and to the latter a letter was sent inviting him
to discuss the matter in dispute with his brethren at Brussels and
Louvain, and describing the Remonstrance as a rock of offence (_lapis
scandali_). Caron, who was ill and busy with controversial writing,
refused to go, telling his colleague that he would not have done so in
any case, for that the Court of Rome required a blind submission and
no debate. Walsh was anxious to accept the invitation, and extracted
Ormonde's unwilling consent, but the King forbade him to stir, and
Clarendon reminded him that he was a marked man on account of his
opposition to Rinuccini, that safe conducts might not be regarded
in such a case, and that the fate of Huss might be his. Walsh then
restated his case in two very long letters, and to these he received no
answer.[54]
[Sidenote: A congregation summoned]
Ormonde landed at Waterford on September 3, 1665, bringing the Act of
Explanation with him. Father Maginn, who had been at the Somerset House
interview, travelled with him, and went on to Dublin; while the Lord
Lieutenant stayed at Kilkenny looking after his own affairs and waiting
for the momentous law to be printed. Walsh had crossed by Holyhead and
met Maginn, who offered to solicit subscriptions to the Remonstrance
among his friends in the North, and went to Ulster for that purpose. He
had but little success, and Walsh made up his mind that the only chance
was a national congregation which he had opposed in 1662, chiefly on
the ground that all previous assemblies of the clergy had ended badly
for the Crown. The reasons which now weighed with him were the evident
wish of O'Reilly and others to revisit Ireland, the prospect of war
with France and Holland, and the probability that dangerous intrigues
in Ireland would be defeated if the clergy could be induced to make
a declaration of loyalty. Moreover, he fancied that he had himself
gained influence and popularity by his answer to Orrery's pamphlet.
Bishop Darcy was now dead, but Patrick Plunket, Bishop of Ardagh, who
lived in Dublin with his brother Sir Nicholas, was willing to sign the
letter of invitation, along with Patrick Daly, Oliver Dease, and James
Dempsey, vicars-general of Armagh, Meath, and Dublin. Dempsey was very
reluctant, but his letters demanding a national congregation in 1662
were produced and he submitted. There was a general desire to postpone
the day of meeting, and this did not promise success. Walsh suggested
February, but the winter was objected to. After Easter the clergy would
be collecting their revenue for the year, and 'because horse-meat would
be then scarce, they insisted upon the 11th of June as a time when
the weather being warm and grass of some growth they might travel with
more conveniency.' Walsh had to accept the date, though he foresaw that
time would thus be given to the enemies of his policy at Rome. The
letters of invitation were signed on November 18 but not sent out until
February, and Archbishop Burke of Tuam, who was in Ireland but refused
to attend, observed sarcastically that his summons had been a long time
on the road.[55]
[Sidenote: Ormonde, Walsh, and O'Reilly.]
Walsh had offered to intercede with Ormonde for Archbishop O'Reilly.
This was soon after the Restoration, and the Primate reminded the friar
of his promise when he left Rome in 1665. After some correspondence
O'Reilly addressed the Lord Lieutenant in a very submissive tone.
He 'was the publican standing far off and not daring to lift his
eyes to heaven, who begged for a share of His Majesty's unparalleled
mercies and solemnly promised compliance with his will as became a
faithful subject.' If otherwise, he concluded, 'who am I? but a worm,
the reproach of mankind, the vilitie of the people, a dead dog, a
flea.' This was written before the Congregation was decided on, and
after the invitations had gone out Ormonde gave leave to Walsh to let
the Archbishop know that he might come home safely provided that he
would sign the Remonstrance. Walsh transmitted this assurance in four
separate letters, but only in the second did he mention the condition.
O'Reilly expressly says that this second missive was never received by
him, otherwise he would not have come to Ireland. As it was he wrote
to Walsh wishing success to the expected gathering and enclosing a
letter to the members. The latter was purposely left open, and Walsh
never presented it, for it avoided any approval of the Remonstrance
and suggested that they should devise a fresh one. Walsh, he said,
nevertheless deserved thanks for his pains, and he proposed to
subscribe 13_l._ towards the expenses out of his slender revenue.[56]
Bishop French, as coadjutor to the Bishop of St. Jago, was living
at Compostella in 1665 'well looked upon and enjoying a subsistence
competent and decent for his quality.' Having been a party to
the Jamestown declaration, where all Ormonde's supporters were
excommunicated, and a prime mover in the invitation to Charles of
Lorraine, he did not think it safe to visit Ireland without the
Lord Lieutenant's special leave. Charles II. had refused to see him
at Paris. Walsh liked and respected him though their opinions were
irreconcilable, and Ormonde admitted that he was 'a good man, good
priest, and good bishop, candid and without cheat.' He justified the
Jamestown proceedings though very civil to Ormonde personally, and
regretting former strong language. In refusing to deny the Pope's
deposing power, he was, he said, supported by 'seven saints, including
St. Thomas, seven cardinals, one patriarch, three archbishops, ten
bishops, and thirty-one classical authors with other eminent divines,'
and he challenged Walsh to match this array. Failing to find a passage
from Galicia, he began his journey homewards by land, but a letter from
Walsh reached him at St. Sebastian in which he was advised not to visit
Ireland without having made a complete submission. Expressing surprise
that leave had been given to O'Reilly and refused to him, he went on to
Paris and thence to Belgium, where he spent the rest of his life.[57]
[Sidenote: The Congregation meets, June 1666.]
On June 11 the Congregation met as announced, the Remonstrance having
been previously condemned by the new internuncio Rospigliosi and by
Cardinal Barberini. Besides Walsh himself only three who had signed
it were members of the assembly. The total number present were about
sixty including many vicars-general and provincial heads of religious
orders. There were but two bishops, Plunket of Ardagh and Andrew
Lynch of Kilfenora. The latter was placed in the chair. Nothing
material was done during the first two days, but on the evening of
the second Primate O'Reilly came to Walsh's rooms having just arrived
from Flanders by way of England. He produced letters from Rospigliosi
stigmatising Walsh and Caron as apostates and their supporters as a few
nefarious brethren. The Primate was advised not to go to Ireland, and
in any case to use all his influence against the Remonstrance. He came
accordingly prepared to wreck the Congregation. At his first appearance
there he claimed the chair as primate. Lynch refused to give way, and
all the Armagh clergy followed their archbishop out of the room. An
immediate dissolution seemed imminent, which was no doubt what O'Reilly
wished for, but the chairman held his own, making a declaration that he
claimed no supremacy, and matters were patched up for the time.
[Sidenote: The Remonstrance rejected.]
[Sidenote: The Congregation dissolved.]
From the first it was evident that the Remonstrance would not be
adopted, but it would take a good-sized volume to contain even a
full abstract of Walsh's report. Ormonde employed Bellings as his
intermediary, and adhered to the position that the Congregation had met
only to pass the disputed instrument, that a most unexpected chance
had been given them of showing their loyalty, and that they would
never have such another. No serious motion to that effect was made,
nor would the Congregation entertain the negative proposition that the
Remonstrance contained nothing contrary to the Catholic faith. They
were also required to consent to six propositions of the Sorbonne, the
theological faculty of Paris, promulgated in May 1663 and declared
binding by Louis XIV. in the same year. The first three laid down that
the Pope had no temporal authority over the King, who had no temporal
superior but God, and that his subjects could not be dispensed from
their allegiance on any pretext. The other three declared that the Pope
had no power to depose bishops, that he was not above an oecumenical
council, and that he was not infallible without the consent of the
Church. The Congregation accepted the first three but rejected the
others, and agreed to an act of recognition differing widely from
the original Remonstrance. They expressed loyalty to the King and
repudiated the doctrine 'that any private subject may lawfully kill or
murder the anointed of God, his prince,' but did not mention the Pope
nor abjure his authority, though they declared themselves bound to
resist rebellion or invasion. Ormonde was not satisfied, and no further
progress was made, but those signatories of the original Remonstrance
who happened to be in Dublin made a final effort and expostulated at
great length. The letter was drawn up by Walsh, though he felt it to be
useless, and read out at the Congregation, but had not the slightest
effect. It was signed by fourteen Franciscans, two Dominicans, and
two secular priests. Oliver Plunket afterwards noticed that priests
ordained at Rome did not sign the Remonstrance, its chief support
being in France and Belgium. The assembly offered on two occasions to
compensate Walsh for his trouble and expense since the Restoration,
first by voting a sum of 2000_l._ and afterwards by proposing an annual
subscription for three years. They also declared their readiness to
promote his interest at the Roman Court. Walsh refused all such offers,
and the Lord Lieutenant, seeing that nothing could be got by further
discussion, ordered the Congregation to dissolve themselves on the
fifteenth day, and this was quietly done. 'These twenty years,' was
Ormonde's reflection, 'I had to do with those Irish bishops, I never
found any of them either to speak the truth or to perform their promise
to me; only the Bishop of Clogher (Macmahon) excepted; for during the
little time he lived after his submission to the Peace, and commission
received from me I cannot charge him.'[58]
[Sidenote: Primate O'Reilly and other prelates.]
On the evening of the fourth day Ormonde received Primate O'Reilly
at the Castle. According to Walsh he was the only other person
present, but O'Reilly says Bellings' father was there also and took an
active part in the conversation. It is not easy to reconcile the two
accounts, but it appears from both that the Lord Lieutenant treated his
visitor civilly and that no ground of agreement was found. When the
Congregation separated, the members were free to go where they pleased
except the three bishops whom Ormonde wished to see first. Lynch of
Kilfenora, the late chairman, slipped away quietly to the Continent.
Plunket of Ardagh after a few days was allowed complete liberty, and
he remained in Ireland busied in ordaining a vast number of priests
without much regard to their qualifications. In the meantime the Lord
Lieutenant received information from London which caused him to detain
Primate O'Reilly a little longer. Lord Sandwich, on his journey through
Galicia to Madrid, had heard through Bishop French that O'Reilly was on
his way to Ireland intending to give all the trouble he could. He was
told to have no fear and was not imprisoned, but a guard of soldiers
was told off to prevent him from communicating with those about
him. Ormonde had no good opinion of him and reminded Clarendon that
Arlington had intended to employ him as a spy but thought his services
too dear at 500_l._ He was conveyed at his own request to England
and thence to Calais in charge of city-major Stanley. On reaching
Louvain he wrote to Walsh that he had been fairly treated, but in a
very different strain to Rome. He made the most of his discomforts,
which were no doubt considerable, and said that Stanley was perhaps as
inhuman as the ten leopards of St. Ignatius, bishop and martyr.[59]
[Sidenote: Why the Remonstrance failed.]
'The proceedings at the meeting,' said Ormonde more than fourteen years
later, 'are at large set down in a great book by Peter Walsh. My aim
was to work a division among the Romish clergy, and I believe I had
compassed it, to the great security of the Government and Protestants,
and against the opposition of the Pope, and his creatures and nuncios,
if I had not been removed from the Government, and if direct contrary
counsels and courses had not been taken and held by my successors; of
which some were too indulgent to the whole body of Papists, and others
not much acquainted with any of them, nor considering the advantages
of the division designed. I confess I have never read over Walsh's
book, which is full of a sort of learning I have been little conversant
in; but the doctrine is such as would cost him his life, if he could
be found where the Pope has power.' This was written to his son, but
he had said the same thing to Essex seven years before. No doubt his
recall made a difference, but the Government had really very little to
give, for all the revenues went to the Established Church and there was
more to look forward to from Rome than from London. Many of Ormonde's
bitterest opponents found preferment abroad. He did indeed provide for
Walsh to the end, and for Caron till his death just before the meeting
in 1666. The Act of Explanation passed in the previous year made it
impossible for him to make better terms even for Roman Catholic laymen.
Walsh, who failed to make his party formidable, submitted to Rome just
before his death, but to Burnet who liked and admired him he seemed 'in
all points of controversy almost wholly Protestant.' He attended the
Church of England service without scruple, and Evelyn, who met him at
dinner at the Archbishop of York's, says nearly as much as Burnet.[60]
FOOTNOTES:
[48] Licence from the Irish Council to Peter Walsh, May 26, 1653, in
O'Flaherty's _West Connaught_, p. 423. Eighteenth article of peace,
January 17, 1648-9, in _Confederation and War_, vii. 198. Walsh's
letter to Ormonde written in October 1660, but not published till
after March 30, 1661, when the latter was made a Duke, and the answer
published in 1662, before Ormonde's arrival in Ireland, are both
reprinted in Orrery _State Letters_, ii. 355.
[49] Macray's _Privy Council Notes_, Roxburghe Club. Notes in
Nicholas's hand, State Papers, _Ireland_, under July 20, 1661. Evelyn's
_Diary_, October 17, 1664.
[50] Bellings to Ormonde, June 1, 1661, in _Spicilegium Ossoriense_
ii. 189. It was inevitable that Ormonde's friends and the Irish
generally should blame him for not doing enough, see Foxcroft's
_Supplement to Burnet_, pp. 60-62. The Plunket author of _A Light to
the Blind_ talks like Bellings of the 'Cromwellian scum of England,'
and calls Clotworthy, Broghill, Coote, and the rest 'little fanatic
scabs.' According to him Ireland really belonged to the Anglo-Norman
Conquerors, being royalist and Catholic; the native Irish, having
intermarried with them and remained Catholic, were of course loyal like
them.
[51] Walsh's _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 4-6. O'Reilly wrote at
this time that he was lurking 'nelle spelonche,' and McGeohegan 'in
cavernis'--Brady's _Episcopal Succession_, i. 226, 239.
[52] Walsh's _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, i.-xii. 47. Ormonde to Walsh,
January 26, 1662-3, _ib._ 94.
[53] Letter of Armagh clergy, December 13, 1660, _Spicilegium
Ossoriense_, ii. 201. Letters of Card. Barberini and De Vecchiis, July
8 and 21, 1662, Walsh's _Remonstrance_, pp. 16-19. James Rospigliosi,
internuncio in 1666, calls himself 'ministrum apostolicum cui res
Hiberniæ incumbunt,' _ib._ p. 634. Louvain judgment, December 29, 1662,
_ib._ p. 102.
[54] Peter Walsh to Essex, August 4, 1674, in his _Four Letters_, 1686,
p. 3; _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 511-513, 530-533.
[55] _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 570-574, 602.
[56] O'Reilly's letters of August 31, 1665, and April 13, 1666, in
_Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 611-613. Writing to the Propaganda
in the late autumn of 1666 he expressly says that he attended the
congregation in order to defeat its object--'ad istam congregationem
... festinavi ut impedirem quominus noster clerus amplecteretur
præfate Walchæi remonstrantiam, ut vocat, suæ fidelitatis erga
Regem'--_Spicilegium Ossoriense_, i. 446.
[57] _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 618-625. Bishop French to the
Pope, May 22, 1666, in _Spicilegium Ossoriense_, i. 449. French's Latin
is better than his English for he uses such expressions as 'from them
parts.' His great attack on Ormonde, the 'unkind deserter,' was not
till 1676.
[58] The transactions of the Congregation are in _Hist. of the
Remonstrance_, pp. 641-743, the French and Latin texts of the Sorbonne
decrees at p. 660. The account given by the Rev. W. Burgatt, a hostile
member of the Congregation, does not materially differ from Walsh's,
_Spicilegium Ossoriense_, i. 440. Ormonde to Clarendon, June 9, 1666,
and to Arlington, June 13, State Papers, _Ireland_. On July 7 Clarendon
wrote: 'If I were you I would expel all the priests out of Ireland
who refuse to subscribe the declaration, and to my understanding if
you consent to the least alteration, how insignificant soever, you
overthrow the whole and absolve all who stand now obliged by the
subscription.'--_Carte Transcripts_, vol. xlvii.
[59] _Hist. of the Remonstrance_, pp. 744-749. O'Reilly to the
Propaganda, _Spicilegium Ossoriense_, i. 448 (Latin). Sandwich left
Portsmouth, March 3, 1665-6, and reached Madrid May 26, and these dates
fit in with Walsh's account. Ormonde to Clarendon, June 9, 1666, State
Papers, _Ireland_.
[60] Ormonde to Arran, December 29, 1680, in Carte's _Ormonde_, ii.
appx. p. 101, and to Essex, December 9, 1673, in _Essex Papers_.
Burnet's _Own Times_, i. 194, 195. Evelyn's _Diary_, January 6, 1685-6.