were, in the end, destructive to the interests of both the King and the People.

It is worthy of remark, that while Ormond was parrying off the signing of the Treaty with the Irish, contrary to the positive commands of his Sovereign, and whilst he was receiving succcurs from the Irish, he was carrying on a negociation with the Parliamentarians, to surrender to them the King's authority; which he absolutely did in the following June," on condition to enjoy his own estate, not "to be subject to debts, and that he should have "50007. in hand, and a pension of 2000l. per ann. for five years.”—(Borlase, p. 234.)

66

Shortly after this Ormond left Ireland, passing first into England, and thence privately into France.

Ormond returned into Ireland 29th September, 1648, knowing that "The only visible means of saving the King's life, and retrieving his affairs, "was the uniting of all Ireland under his obedi"ence. This was the end of the Marquis of Or"mond's return into that country, and reassuming "the power of Lord Lieutenant. With this view, "he published on October 6th, a Declaration of his "intentions, for the satisfaction of Lord Inchiquin's "Army, and the Protestants of Munster..

With the same view soon after his landing, he signified to the General Assembly then sitting in "Kilkenny, that he was arrived with power to treat "and conclude a Peace with the Confederate Ca"tholics, and expected to receive Deputies, and Propositions from them at his house at Carrick." (Carte's Ormond, vol. II p. 41—2);

,,、,;

The Assembly really desirous of the pacification of the country, and anxious for the safety of the King, instantly commenced the negociation, and on the 17th of January following, the Treaty was

signed, the conditions of which were nearly the same as those contained in the Treaty with Glamorgan, in 1645, and in that with Ormond himself in the year 1646. For the particulars of the Treaty of 1648, see subjoined DOCUMENTS, No. 6, pagé

30.

Some deny the validity of this Treaty, as Ormond, as they alledge, had received no new powers to treat with the Irish; but whoever will take the trouble to consult Carte, Borlase, Warner, &c. on this subject, will find that he had directions from the King, to obey the commands of the Queen and the Prince of Wales, in respect to his transactions with the Irish Catholics, and the commands of these Royal Personages were, that Ormond should conclude the Peace. It was, however, signed too late to save the King, who was in a few days after the signing of the Treaty put to death by his rebellious Protestant subjects, at Whitehall, Lon

don.

As soon as the murder of Charles the First was made known to the Marquis of Ormond, he proclaimed Charles II. King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, at Carrick, the 16th of February, 1648, and immediately afterwards he was proclaimed in all the towns in Ireland, where either Ormond or the Confederate Catholics had power.

That Charles II. was perfectly satisfied with Ormond, respecting the Treaty of 1648, and that he considered himself bound to fulfil the conditions of it, his letters, and those of his Secretaries and friends, to Ormond, from the time of his father's death until his own restoration abundantly testify. In a letter written by his Majesty to the Marquis, dated at the Hague, March 9th, 1649, he says, "I have lately received from the Lord Byron, a "Copy of the Articles of Peace which you have "made in Ireland, together with a Copy of your

"letter to me, and am extremely well satisfied with "both, and will confirm wholly and intirely all that "is contained in the articles.

"I must not forget to give thanks to you and the "Lord Inchiquin, for your singular care, industry, and prudence, in the carriage of this business, "intreating you in my name to thank all those that "have been actors in the negociation, and con"tributors to the happy conclusion of this Peace; "which I hope, by the blessing of God, may prove "an effectual means to my re-establishment in my "other dominions."-(Carte's Original Letters and Papers, 2 vols. 8vo. London, vol. 2, p. 363.)

1

In another letter, dated at the Hague, 12th March, in the first year of his reign, he says, Right trusty and right intirely beloved Cousin, we greet you well-Having received several advertisements from England, that Sir John Winter, Knight, is to be sent from the army there into Ireland, with propositions to our Roman Catholic subjects of that Kingdom, to seduce them from their allegiance to us, and from the Peace lately made with you, by offers of toleration, and other advantages, in both Kingdoms: We think fit to give you this timely notice, that you may use such circumspection and prevention, as you shall conceive necessary in this behalf, we referring it wholly to your judgement upon the place."(Ibid, p. 364.)

66

In a letter from Sir E. Nicholas to the Marquis of Ormond, dated Breda, 2-12, 1650, the former says, "The King hath told me often, and lately very resolutely, that he never will condescend "to any thing prejudicial to the agreement your "Excellency hath made with the Irish Catholicks, or to that Nation; and I am confident his Majesty will therein be very steady." (Ibid, 379. See also, p. p. 391, 2, 3, 5, &c.)

The King himself in a variety of letters, besides those above-mentioned, declares his intention of strictly adhering to the agreement made with the Irish. When he first took the resolution of entering into a Treaty with the Scots Commissioners at Breda, he wrote to Ormond, "on 23d “January, N. S. (1650) to assure him that he "would endeavour to oblige that nation, by all "just and honourable condescensions, to engage "themselves to enter England in the Spring, with "a considerable army for his service; yet he would "not either in the said Treaty, or upon any other “occasion whatsoever, consent to any thing that "should be contrary to the agreement made with "the Roman Catholicks of Ireland; but would

fulfill and perform all grants and concessions, "which he had either made or promised to them, "according to the full extent of that Grace he had "always intended to that nation, which (as he "had new instances of their loyalty and affection "to him) he should study rather to enlarge than "to diminish or infringe in the least degree. (Carte's Ormond, vol. II. p. 129.) In like manner the King, in his "Declaration for the Settle"ment of his Kingdom of Ireland," now forming a part of the Statute Law of the Land, acknowledges this Peace, so that the Catholicks of Ireland had every reason to expect the fufillment of it in every particular; but the terms of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, as well as the deceits and treacheries of James I. and Charles I. shew what reliance the Irish should place upon the royal word of a Stuart. (See DOCUMENT, No. 8, page 53.)

Yet some will vindicate King Charles, and say he was compelled to falsify his word by hard necessity; that his own natural dispositions led him to justice, but that he was overruled by Broghill, (afterwards Lord Orrery) Coote, and others of that

party, who had been traitors and rebels to both himself and his father, but who had been admitted into the Councils of the King, upon his being proclaimed in Dublin, 14th May, 1660. These give the King great merit for that part of his answer to Broghill and Coote, and the other Commissioners, when they proposed to the King," that he should call a Parliament in Ireland, consisting of Protestant Peers and Commoners:" to which the King replied, “that he should, in due time, call a Partament, such as the law would admit." Carte's Ormond, vol. 2, p. 204—6.)

-(See

It must be confessed, that this was one act of justice to the Irish Catholics, as by it was preserved to them, their right of sitting and voting in both Houses of Parliament, A RIGIFT WHICH THEY EXERCISED ALL THROUGH THE HELD IN IRELAND, DURING THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. -(See the subjoined DOCUMENTS, Nos. 10, II, and 12, p p. 57, 59, and 60.)

PARLIAMENTS

By the Lords Journals it is evident, that at least 23 Roman Catholic Peers appeared and voted, in person or by proxy, between the 8th of May, 1661, and 7th of August, 1666; yet upon the third reading of the Act of Settlement, 30th May, 1662, not one Roman Catholic Peer appears in the list of the forty-one Lords who attended and voted upon that occasion. But if they had all attended, it would avail nothing to protect themselves, and the other Roman Catholics, from the plunder and oppressions which that unjust Act made lawful. The forty-one Protestant Peers that attended, of which eighteen were Archbishops and Bishops, would have left them in a minority.--(See DQ. CUMENT, No. 9, page 56.)

We are not able to ascertain, by the Commons Journals, that any Roman Catholic sat in the

f