|
“Sir
John Read, by the same
stretch of arbitrary power, was BROUGHT TO THE RACK. This gentleman was
of the
privy chamber to the King, a lieutenant-colonel in the late disbanded
army, and
engaged by the Lords of the Pale to carry over their petitions to the
King and
Queen. He intended to make no secret of his journey, and therefore sent
a
letter by a servant of his own to Parsons, to desire a pass; who, in
answer, required him to repair to Dublin, that the council might confer with him.
–
Warner. P. 177.
He
was tortured. But no evidence
could be extorted from him – because he had no evidence to
give against the
Catholic gentry whom it was sought to convict, save that which he had
avowed
and considered no crime; namely, their having petitioned the Sovereign
for
protection. He was however made to feel that if the fact of petitioning
were
not a crime, it was at least punishable as such. Let the English reader
pause
upon the consequences:-
“Sir
J. Read was sent a prisoner to
England; and whilst
absent, and in those circumstances, was
indicted and outlawed for high treason; his lady and goods were seized
upon,
and his children turned out of doors; and when she
petitioned to these
worthy Justices to assign her some part of her effects to maintain her
family,
they absolutely refused to allow her any.” – Warner, 178.
Aye
– his wife and children
turned out to starve! There is a specimen of English humanity and
justice for
you! While the wife and children were famishing, the Government
proceeded in
their reckless career:-
“The
racking M’Mahon and Sir John
Read did not content this merciless administration; AND SO MR. BARNEWAL
OF
KILBREW WAS PUT TO THE SAME TORTURE. He was one of the most
considerable
gentlemen of the Pale; a venerable old
man of sixty-six years of age, delighting in husbandry, a lover of
quiet, and
highly respected in his country. He had sent intelligence to
the Government
of the motion of the Ulster
rebels in the month of November; and the only thing that could be said
against
him was, that he had obeyed the sheriff’s summons for the
meeting at the hill
of Crofty, when Lord Gormanston declared an union with them. It does
not appear
that he actually approved the union, or that he actually had joined
them upon
any occasion; and so little did the ministers get by putting him to the
torture, that it only served to make his
innocence, and their own inhumanity, the more conspicuous.”
– Warner, p. 179.
The
object was avowed – to force
the Catholics of property into rebellion. They were allowed no means of
defending their houses against insurgents who had already been driven
to take
up arms. They thronged into Dublin,
where they would have been under the immediate inspection of the
Government,
and would have joined in resisting the insurgents. But the object of
the
English Protestant party was to force these
Catholics of wealth to join those whom they called rebels. It required
no less
than three proclamations to force them out of Dublin.
But I will give the original authority:-
“The
gentlemen of the Pale,
banished Dublin by three successive proclamations, and on pain of death
ordered
to repair to their own houses, unable to make resistance, and seeing
not any,
even the least prospect of relief or succour, opened their defenceless
habitations to the enemy; which gave the Lords Justices occasion to
complain
that the rebels were harboured and lodged in gentlemen’s
houses of that county,
as fully as if they were good subjects. This correspondence, however
necessitated it was at first, involved them in the guilt of rebellion,
according to the rigour of the law, which they had no reason to think
would be
relaxed, on account of their unhappy situation, by any favour or
tenderness
they might hope from the then Government, made
the gentlemen in general, and the high sheriff in particular, to join
the
rebels, and put the fate of their persons and fortunes upon the issue
of the
rebellion.” – Carte’s
Ormond, I.
238.
Thus,
they were to be punished
with death if they remained in Dublin.
Driven to their own houses, they must submit to the insurgents, and
thus incur
the penalties of treason. What were they then to do? Several of these
unhappy
gentlemen fled back from the insurgents, and surrendered themselves to
the
mercy of the Justices. This was the proceeding taken against them:-
“All
the gentlemen that
surrendered themselves were, without being admitted to the presence of
the
Justices, committed prisoners to the castle. Preparations were made for
their
trial, and it was publicly said they should be prosecuted with the
utmost
severity. But as they had never appeared
in the field, nor been engaged in any warlike action, PROPER
FACTS WERE
WANTING TO SUPPORT A CHARGE AGAINST THEM. To supply this defect, the
Lords
Justices had recourse to the RACK, though against the law, in order to extort such confessions as these
miscreants had a mind to
put into the mouths of the unhappy men who were to undergo it.”
– Warner, p. 176.
The
premeditation with which the
Lords Justices arranged their plans for driving the Irish into
rebellion, is
well illustrated by the following extract; which shows that no devices
were
omitted to drive the Catholic Irish to despair, and to force them to
defend
themselves with the sword:-
“Some
time before the rebellion
broke out,” says Carte, “it was confidently
reported that Sir John Clotworthy,
who well knew the designs of the faction that governed the House of
Commons in
England, had declared in a speech THAT THE CONVERSION OF THE PAPISTS IN
IRELAND
WAS ONLY TO BE EFFECTED BY THE BIBLE IN ONE HAND AND THE SWORD IN THE
OTHER;
AND MR. PYM GAVE OUT THAT THEY WOULD NOT LEAVE A PRIEST IN IRELAND. To
the like
effect Sir William Parsons, out of a strange weakness, or detestable
policy,
positively asserted before so many witnesses, at a public
entertainment, that
WITHIN A TWELVEMONTH NO CATHOLIC SHOULD BE SEEN IN IRELAND. He had
sense enough
to know the consequences that would naturally arise from such a
declaration;
which, however it might contribute to his own selfish views, he would
hardly
have ventured to make so openly and without disguise, if it had not
been
agreeable to the politics and measures of the English faction, whose
party he
espoused, and whose directions were the general rule of his
conduct.” – Carte’s
Ormond, vol. I. p. 235.
“It
is evident,” says Dr. Warner,
(a Protestant clergyman,) “from the Lord Justice’s
letter to the Earl of
Leicester, then Lord Lieutenant, that THEY HOPED FOR AN EXTIRPATION,
NOT OF THE
MERE IRISH ONLY, BUT OF ALL THE OLD ENGLISH FAMILIES ALSO WHO WERE
ROMAN
CATHOLICS.”- Warner’s
Hist. of the Irish
Rebel.
Coming
back for one moment to Sir
Charles Coote, the catalogue of whose horrors we have already
described, I will
revive the recollection of them by the following passage from
Clarendon:-
“Sir
Charles, besides plundering
and burning this town” [Clontarf] “at that time,
did massacre 16 of the
townspeople, men and women, besides three suckling infants; and in the
very
same week 56 men, women, and children, of the village of Bulloge, being
frightened at what was done at Clontarf, took boats, and went to sea to
shun
the fury of a party of soldiers that were come out of Dublin under the
command
of Colonel Crafford; but being pursued by the soldiers in other boats,
they
were overtaken and thrown overboard.”- Appendix
to Clarendon’s Hist. Irish Reb., Wilford, London, 1720.
Was
Coote punished for his
sanguinary conduct, not exceeded in atrocity by that of the modern
Robespierre?
You shall learn:-
“Sir
Charles Coote, immediately
after his inhuman executions and promiscuous murders of the people in
Wicklow, was made Governor of Dublin.”- Carte’s
Ormond, I. 259.
The
hideous monster Coote, indeed
was, as I have already said, of inestimable value to his employers. To
him was
given the part of the archfiend. It was death and destruction to place
the
least confidence in him. The Lords Justices proposed a treaty with the
Lords of
the Pale; who were most anxious to accept any terms. But they would not
put
themselves into the power of Sir Charles Coote, who they knew would
have
murdered every one of them.
“The
Lords Justices, as soon as
they were satisfied that the Lords of the Pale would not trust
themselves in
the city in the hands of Sir Charles Coote, though
they were ready to treat the commissioners sent from thence to any
place out of
his power, TOOK MEASURES IN ORDER TO CONVICT THEM OF
TREASON, AND FORFEIT
THEIR ESTATES.”- Carte’s
Orm. I. 276.
For
the present – so much for Sir
Charles Coote! I go on with my extracts.
The
next is, the orders given in
February, 1641-2, by the Lords Justices to the Earl of Ormond;
communicated to
him in the shape of a resolution, as follows:-
“It
is resolved, That it is fit
that his lordship do endeavour with his Majesty’s forces to wound, kill, slay, and destroy, by all
ways and means he may, all the said rebels, their adherents, and relievers; and burn,
spoil, waste, consume, destroy, and demolish, ALL THE
PLACES,
TOWN, AND HOUSES, WHERE THE SAID REBELS ARE, OR HAVE BEEN, RELIEVED AND
HARBOURED; and all the hay and corn there; AND KILL AND DESTROY ALL THE
MEN
THERE INHABITING CAPABLE TO BEAR ARMS. Given at his Majesty’s
Castle
of Dublin,
23rd
February, 1641-2.
“R.
DILLON, F. WILLOUGHBY,
THO. ROTHERHAM, J.TEMPLE, AB.
LOFTUS, ROBERT MEREDITH.”
– Carte, III. 61.
With
what fiendish pleasure this
tribunal of blood gloated over every word that could signify
destruction or
massacre! The French Revolutionists were but poor copyists of English
cruelty
in Ireland!
The
orders were of course carried into effect, beyond the letter, but
according to
the spirit. Here is what Leland says:-
“In
the execution of these
orders, the Justices declare, that the soldiers slew all persons
promiscuously,
NOT SPARING THE WOMEN, AND SOMETIMES NOT THE CHILDREN.”- Leland, Book V.
It
will be remarked that the
original orders were of the most cruel injustice: because they not only
sanctioned the slaughter of those who were called “rebels,
and their aiders and
abetters,” but also of all male adults who happened to reside
in any of the
quarters where the so-called rebels had been received; although such
persons
might be perfectly innocent of the “crime”
of having given them any assistance. But villainous and blood-thirsty
as were
the instructions, yet the cruelty of the execution went beyond them.
That indeed
was almost a matter of course, when one considers the sanguinary spirit
that
prevailed against the Irish.
That
these massacres were
committed, not by the over zeal of the meaner sort, but were
deliberately
planned and ordained by the persons in the highest authority, can be
established by the most abundant proofs. We have seen the diabolical
orders
issued by the Lords Justices. Read now the following extract from Lord
Ormond:-
“Sir
William Parsons hath by late
letters advised the Governor to the burning of corn, and to PUT MAN,
WOMAN, AND
CHILD TO THE SWORD; and Sir Adam Loftus hath written in THE SAME
STRAIN.” – Ormond’s
Letters, II. 350.
Here
is a specimen of a massacre
of prisoners in the streets of Dublin,
who were taken at the battle of Rathmines; it is Lord Ormond who
speaks:-
“The
army, I am sure,” says his
lordship, “was not eight thousand effective
men; and of them it is certain that there were not above six
hundred killed; and the most of them that were killed were butchered after they had laid down
their arms, and had been almost an hour prisoners, and divers of them
murdered
after they were brought within the works of Dublin.”-
Ormond, II. 396.
Those
who (according to the
practice of the day) were massacred as prisoners were not all Irish:-
“Some
Walloons, whom the soldiers
took for Irishmen, were put to the sword.”- Whitelock’s
Memorials of English Affairs.
Unlucky
Walloons!
As
I have referred to Whitelock,
I may as well give two other short extracts from that writer,
significant of
the practice of the time:-
“Their friars and priests were knocked on the head, promiscuously
with the others, who were in arms.” – Whitelock, page 412.
Again:-
“Sir
Theophilus Jones had taken a
castle, put some men to the sword, and
thirteen priests.”- Whitelock,
p.
527.
I
will give the following
instances of the conduct of General Monroe, who was employed by the
Government
in the northern expedition:-
“Monroe
put sixty men, eighteen women, and two priests to death at
Newry.”- Leland, III.
203.
The
second is this:-
“He,”
[Monroe,] “at Lord Conway’s
instance, who attended him in the expedition, advanced with 3,600 foot,
three
troops of horse, and four field pieces. He did no other service than
taking a view
of the place on the 16th July, 1642, and saw
some parties of the
enemy who had no powder to fire; he did not attack them; but making a
prey of
cattle, and killing seven hundred country
people, men, women, and children, who were driving away the
cattle, he
returned to Newry.”- Carte, vol.
I.
p. 311.
One
trait more of the Monroe:-
[Other]
“forces joining Monroe,
he made up the strongest army that had been seen in Ireland
during the war; it amounting to at least 10,000 foot, and 1,000 horse.
It was
unfit, however, for any great undertaking, not being furnished with
above three
weeks’ victual. Monroe
advanced
with it into the county
of Cavan,
from whence he sent parties into Westmeath and Longford, which burnt
the
country, and put to the sword all the
country people that they met.” – Carte’s
Ormond, I.
495.
The
following massacre took place
upon the hill above Rathcoole. It was one of the few instances which
savoured
of retaliation; but it was so horrible, that I cannot refrain from
giving the
particulars as stated by Colonel Mervyn Touchet to his brother Lord
Castlehaven. Sir Arthur Loftus, Governor of Naas, marched out with a
party of
horse, which was joined by another party sent from Dublin by the
Marquis of
Ormond, and killed such of the Irish as they met.
“But
the most considerable
slaughter was in a great straight of furze, seated on a hill, where the
people
of several villages taking the alarm had sheltered themselves. Now, Sir
Arthur
having invested the hill, set the furze on fire on all sides, where the
people,
being in considerable number, were all burned or killed, men, women,
and
children. I saw the bodies and furze still burning.”
– Castlehaven’s Memoirs.
It
is manifest that this was not
a solitary instance of such cruelty. Clarendon treats it as the usual
practice:-
“In
the year 1641-2, many
thousands of the poor innocent people of the county of Dublin, shunning
the
fury of the English soldiers, fled into thickets and furze, which the
soldiers
did usually fire, killing as many as endeavoured to escape, or forced
them back
again to be burned, and the rest of the inhabitants for the most part
died of
famine.” – Appendix of
Clarendon’s Hist.
of the Irish Reb., Wilford, London, 1720.
This
horrible roasting alive of
the inhabitants of several villages serves only to relieve by its
variety the
sanguinary slaughter of the sword.
Let
us now turn to another scene.
Two quotations more from Carte will show, how
the insurrection in Munster
was,
according to the technical phrase, “made
to explode.” That is, how the people were COMPELLED
to take arms in their
own defence. They will also show the active humanity of the Catholic
clergy,
and of many of the Catholic laity at that disastrous period, when
– I say it
with bitter regret – no such instances were shown upon the
part of the
Protestant clergy or laity:-
It
was the middle of December
before any one gentleman in the province
of Munster
appeared to favour the
rebellions. Many had shown themselves
zealous to oppose it, and had tendered their services for
that end. Lord
Muskerry, who had married a sister of the Earl of Ormond’s,
offered to raise a
thousand men at his own charge; and if the State could not supply them
with
arms, he was ready to raise money by a
mortgage of his estate to buy them... Nor did any signs of uneasiness or
disaffection appear
among the gentry,
till Sir W. St. Leger came to Clonmell, which was on the first of that
month,
three days before the action I have just now related.” [viz.,
at a place called
Mohill.] “There had been a few days before, some robberies
(of cattle)
committed in the county
Tipperary…
Sir W. St. Leger, upon notice thereof, came in two or three days after
with two
troops of horse in great fury to Ballyowen; and being informed the
cattle were
driven into Eliogarty, he marched that way. As he set forth, HE KILLED
THREE
PERSONS AT BALLYOWEN, who were said to have taken up some mares of Mr.
Kingsmill’s; and not far off, at Grange, HE KILLED OR HANGED
FOUR INNOCENT
LABOURERS; AT BALLY-O’MURRIN, SIX; AND AT BALLYGARBURT,
EIGHT, AND BURNT
SEVERAL HOUSES. Nor was it without great importunity and intercession
that he
spared the life of Mr. Morris Magrath, (grandson to Milerus, Archbishop
of
Cashel in Queen Elizabeth’s time,) a civil, well-bred
gentleman, it being
plainly proved that he had no hand in the prey, notwithstanding which
proof he
still kept that gentleman in prison. From thence Captain Peisley
marching to
Armaile, KILLED THERE SEVEN OR EIGHT POOR MEN AND WOMEN WHOM HE FOUND
STANDING
ABROAD IN THE STREETS NEAR THEIR OWN DOORS INOFFENSIVELY. AND PASSING
OVER THE
RIVER EWYER EARLY IN THE MORNING, MARCHED TO CLONOULTA, WHERE MEETING
PHILIP RYAN,
THE CHIEF FARMER OF THE PLACE, A VERY HONEST AND ABLE MAN, NOT AT ALL
CONCERNED
IN ANY OF THE ROBBERIES, GOING WITH HIS PLOUGH-IRON IN A PEACABLE
MANNER TO THE
FORGE, HE, WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY, EITHER GAVE ORDERS FOR, OR CONNIVED AT
HIS
BEING KILLED, AS APPEARED BY HIS CHERISHING THE MURDERER. FROM THENCE
HE WENT
TO GOELLYN
BRIDGE,
WEHRE HE KILLED AND HANGED SEVEN OR EIGHT OF DR. GERALD
FENNELL’S TENANTS,
HONEST INHABITANTS OF THE PLACE, AND BURNED SEVERAL HOUSES IN THE
TOWN.”- Carte’s Ormond, I.
265.
The
Catholic nobility and gentry
of Munster
remonstrated with St.
Leger. This was his answer:-
“He,
in a hasty, furious manner,
answered them, that they were all rebels, and he would not trust one
soul of
them; but thought it more prudent to hang the best of them.”
– Carte, I.
266.
The
murders of the Irish went on;
some of the meaner sort occasionally, as was inevitable. One is not
surprised
to hear that some of the kinsmen of the murdered Philip Ryan, in
reprisal for
this and other murders, slew thirteen of the English. But this crime
served to
bring out the virtues of the Catholic Irish; thus they conducted
themselves on
that occasion:-
“All the rest of the English were saved by the
inhabitants of that place
in their houses, and had the goods which they confided them safely
restored.
Dr. Samuel Pullen, [Protestant] Chancellor
of Cashel and Dean of Clonfert, with his wife and children, was
preserved by
Father James Saul, a Jesuit. Several other Romish priests distinguished
themselves on this occasion by their endeavours to save the English;
particularly F. Joseph Everard and Redmond English, both Franciscan friars, who hid
some of them in their chapel, and even under their altar…
The English who were
thus preserved, were, according to their desire, safely conveyed into
the county of Cork, by a guard of the Irish inhabitants of
Cashel.” – Carte’s Ormond, vol.
I. p. 267.
I
will not revert to the proofs given
by the English parliament of their malignant enmity towards the unhappy
natives
of Ireland.
The
following extract is taken by Rushworth from the Journals of the
English House
of Commons:-
“October 24,
1644.
An
ordinance of the Lords and
Commons assembled in parliament, commanding that no officer or soldier,
either
by sea or land, shall give any quarter to an Irishman, or to any Papist
born in Ireland,
which
shall be taken in arms against the parliament of England:
“The
Lords and Commons assembled
in the parliament of England do declare, that
no quarter shall be given to any Irishman, or to any Papist born in
Ireland, which
shall be taken in hostility against the parliament, either upon sea, or
within
this kingdom, or dominion of Wales: and therefore do order and ordain
that the
Lord General, Lord Admiral, and all other officers and commanders both
by sea
and land, shall except all Irishmen, and
all Papists born in Ireland, out of all capitulations, agreements, and
compositions hereafter to be made with the enemy; and shall, upon the
taking of
every such Irishman and Papist born in Ireland as aforesaid, FORTHWITH
PUT
EVERY SUCH PERSON TO DEATH.
“And
it is further ordered and
ordained, that the Lord General, Lord Admiral, and the Committees of
the
several counties, do give speedy notice hereof to all subordinate
officers and
commanders by sea and land respectively; who are hereby required to use
their
utmost care and circumspection that this
ordinance be duly executed; and lastly, the Lords and
Commons do declare
that every officer and commander by sea or land, that
shall be remiss or negligent in observing the tenor of this
ordinance, shall be reputed a favourer of the bloody rebellion of
Ireland, and
shall be liable to such condign punishment as the justice of both
houses of
parliament shall inflict upon him.” – Rushworth, vol. V. p. 783.
The
following specimen of the
readiness with which this cruelty was anticipated by national
antipathy, and
carried into effect against Ireland,
is full of horror:-
“The
Earl of Warwick, and the
officers under him at sea, had, as often as he met with any Irish
frigates, or
such freebooters as sailed under their commission, taken all the seamen
who
became prisoners to them of that nation (Ireland), and
bound them back to back, and thrown them overboard into the sea,
without distinction of their condition, if they were Irish.
In this cruel
manner very many poor men perished daily; of which the King said
nothing,
because… his Majesty could not complain of it without being
concerned in the
behalf, and in favour of the rebels of Ireland.”
– Clarendon, II. 478.
Clarendon
is of course anxious to
excuse or palliate the conduct of Charles – but how does his
excuse aggravate
the demoniacal disposition of the English aristocracy and gentry, as
well as of
the people in general, towards the Irish? Let any reasonable man but
reflect
for one moment on these deliberate cruelties – cruelties not
committed in the
rage of fight, or in the heat of blood.
Here
were Protestant Christians –
ENGLISH Protestant Christians – coolly and calmly going
through the slow
process of tying back to back, and then deliberately drowning a number
of their
fellow creatures – merely because they had them in their
power, and because
they were Irish!
There
is nothing new under the
sun! The drownings of the loyalists in France, the “noyades,” as they were called,
by the revolutionary monster
Carrier, and his colleagues, had their precedent in the conduct of
Englishmen
to Irishmen, But what a difference between the cases! Carrier was a
low-born
vulgar monster – an avowed Atheist. He affected no
conscientious scruples – he
was a godless wretch. But the English who perpetuated these cruelties
were
“noblemen” and “gentlemen”
– men (in their way) of
fervent piety! with the Bible – the
Word of God – in their hands;
with prayer upon their lips; proclaiming themselves the disciples of
the God of
mercy and of charity. Yes, they were “English Protestant
Christians” – they,
who, even in the name of God, committed these barbarous cruelties!
Indignation
and execration are
vain. What country ever inflicted on another such ineffable cruelties
as England
has inflicted on Ireland?
Let me give another instance in which the bloody orders of the English
Commons
were anticipated. In the month of May, A. D. 1644-
“The
Marquis of Ormond had sent
Captain Anthony Willoughby with 150 men, which had formerly served in
the fort
of Galway, from thence to Bristol.
The ship which carried them was taken by Swanley, WHO WAS SO INHUMAN AS
TO
THROW SEVENTY OF THE SOLDIERS OVERBOARD, under the pretence that they were Irish; THOUGH THEY HAD
FAITHFULLY SERVED HIS MAJESTY against the rebels during all the time of
the
wary.”- Carte, I.
481.
Some
may possibly be so absurd as
to suppose that Captain Swanley was punished for these brutalities. He
had
barbarously assassinated faithful soldiers, serving their King and
their
country. He had basely assassinated them, for no other reason than that
they
were Irish. How did the representatives of the English people treat
him? Recollect
that these representatives were the chosen spirits of the age
– the master
minds of England – the advocates of Liberty – and
the zealous promoters of
(what they called) Religion.
Listen,
Englishmen; attend, Protestants; my authority is no less than the
Journals of
your House of Commons. Here is the fact:-
“June,
1644,” (the next month
after his murderous outrage,) “Captain Swanley was called
into the [English]
House of Commons, and had THANKS GIVEN HIM FOR HIS GOOD SERVICE; AND A
CHAIN OF
GOLD OF TWO HUNDRED POUNDS VALUE; and Captain Smith, his vice-admiral,
had
another chain of £100 value.” – Journals, III. 517.
It
will be borne in mind that I
am making selections – not
giving all the instances of
cruelty; no, nor
probably the one-thousandth part of them. It is on that account alone
that I
quit the navy, and give another specimen of the English land-service.
Just
mark, I pray you, the mode of procuring the esteem
of parliament:-
“Sir
Richard Grenville… was very
much esteemed by the Earl of
Leicester, and more by the parliament, for
the signal acts of cruelty he did every day commit upon the
Irish… hanging old
men who were bedrid, because they would not discover where
their money was
that he believed they had; and old women, some
of quality, after he had plundered them, and found
less than he
expected.” – Clarendon, II.
P. 414.
We
must ever bear carefully in
mind, that a large portion of the astounding horrors and diabolical
crimes
committed against Ireland
by England,
were confessedly perpetrated for the support, and on the behalf of the
“Protestant religion.”
In
1643, a cessation of
hostilities had been proclaimed in Ireland,
which was equally desirable to the wretched King, and to the Irish
people. The
reader will remember, that, in the reign of Elizabeth,
Spenser had recommended the destruction of provisions, in order that
the Irish
might be driven by famine “to devour each other.”
Spenser’s diabolical policy
(which had been acted upon at the time) was now revived, and patronised
by the
Protestant parliament of England.
That parliament deemed it conducive to the interests of the Protestant
religion, that the Irish Catholics should be compelled by famine
“to eat one another.”.
Accordingly, the
cessation of hostilities-
“Was
no sooner known in England, but
the two houses declared against it, with all the sharp glosses upon it
to his
Majesty’s dishonour that can be imagined; persuading
the people that the rebels were now brought to their last gasp, and REDUCED
TO SO TERRIBLE A FAMINE THAT, LIKE CANNIBALS, THEY EAT ONE ANOTHER; and
must
have been destroyed immediately, and utterly rooted out, if, by the
popish
counsels at court, the King had not been persuaded to consent to this
cessation.” – Clarendon, II.
323.
That
the persecuting bigotry of
Protestantism deliberately purposed to prolong the horrible famine thus
described, as a means of strengthening and propagating the Protestant
religion,
is a fact of which the record stands upon the Journals of the English
parliament:-
“Sept. 20, 1643.
It was resolved, upon the question, that
this house doth hold that a present cessation
of arms with the rebels in Ireland is destructive to the Protestant religion.”
– Journals, III. 248.
Rushworth’s
testimony adds the
fullest confirmation (if any were wanted) to the fact, that these
horrors were
quite congenial with the Protestant bigotry of the English Legislature.
Here
are his words:-
“The
Lords and Commons have
reason to declare against this plot and design of a cessation
of arms, as being treated and carried on without their
advice; so also because of the great
prejudice which will thereby redound to the Protestant religion, and
the
encouragement and advancement which it will give to the practice of
popery,
when these rebellious Papists shall, by this agreement, continue and
set up
with more freedom their idolatrous worship, their popish superstitions,
and
Romish abominations, in all the places of their command, to the
dishonouring of
God, the grieving of all true Protestant
hearts, the dissolving of the laws of the Crown of England,
and to the provoking the wrath of a jealous
God! as
if both kingdoms had not smarted enough already for this sin of too
much
conniving at, and tolerating of antichristian idolatry, under pretext
of civil
contracts and politic agreements.” – Rushworth,
V. 557.
Oh,
Protestantism! what
unspeakable horrors and miseries – what demoniac persecutions
– have been
inflicted in your name upon the Catholic people of Ireland!
Let
us now come back to Sir
Charles Coote the elder. Here is an additional accusation brought
against him.
There is no doubt stated as to the fact of the monstrous cruelty; the
only
question is, as to his mode of expression. There is no doubt that he
did not prevent the cruelty; and
independently
of the authority, it is difficult to doubt the expression. At all
events the
poor babe in question was brutally massacred. This act of English
friendship
was perpetrated:-
“Tuesday,
December 7, a party of
foot being sent out into the neighbourhood of Dublin in quest of some
robbers
that had plundered an house at Buskin, came to the village of Santry,
and murdered some innocent husbandsmen, (whose
heads they brought into the city in triumph, and among which were one
or two
Protestants,) under pretence that they had harboured and relieved the
rebels
who had made inroads and committed depredations in those parts. Hard
was the
case of the country people at this time, when not being able to hinder
parties
of robbers and rebels breaking into their homes and taking refreshments
there,
this should be deemed a treasonable act, AND SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE A
MASSACRE. This following so soon after the executions, which Sir
Charles Coote…
had ordered in the county of Wicklow, among which, when A SOLDIER WAS
CARRYING ABOUT
A POOR BABE ON THE END OF HIS PIKE, he” [namely, Coote]
“was charged with
saying THAT HE LIKED SUCH FROLICS, made it presently be imagined that
it was
determined to proceed against all suspected persons in the same
undistinguishing way of cruelty; and it served either for an occasion
or pretence
to some Roman Catholic gentlemen of the county of Dublin (among which
were Luke
Netterville, George Blackney, and George King) to assemble together at
Swords,
six miles from Dublin, and put themselves with their followers in a
posture of
defence.”- Carte’s
Ormond, I.
244-5.
Let
me give another specimen of
the merits of one of Coote’s coadjutors; his efforts were
directed to produce
that hideous famine which the English parliament deemed of such utility
to the
Protestant religion:-
“Among
the several acts of public
service performed by a regiment of Sir William Cole, consisting of 500
foot and
a troop of horse, we find the following hideous article recorded by the
historian Borlase, with particular
satisfaction and triumph:
‘STARVED
AND FAMISHED OF THE VULGAR
SORT, WHOSE GOODS WERE SEIZED ON BY THIS REGIMENT, SEVEN
THOUSAND.’” – Leland,
Book V. chap. 5 (note).
To
come back for the last time to
Coote himself – I take the following extract from a pamphlet
entitled “A
Collection of some of the Massacres and Murders committed on the Irish
in Ireland,
since the
23rd of October, 1641:”-
“COUNTY
OF MEATH
– 1642.
Mr.
Barnewell, of Tobertinian,
and Mr. John Hussey, innocent persons were hanged at Trim by old Sir
Charles
Coote’s party. Gerald Lynch of Donower, aged 80 years, was
killed by troopers
of Trim, being in protection. Mr. Thomas Talbot, of Crawly’s
Town, about 80 years
old, being protected, and a known servitor to the Crown, was killed at
his own
door by some of Captain Morroe’s troop. About the month of
April the soldiers
under the said Grenvilles’s command, killed in and about the
Navan 80 men,
women, and children, who lived under protection. Captain Wentworth and
his
company, garrisoned at Duno, killed no less than 200 protected persons
in the
parish of Donamora Slane, and barony of Margellion and Overmorein, the
town or
Ardmulchan, Kingstown, and Harristown, all protected persons.”
My
next quotation will be rather
long. It gives so many particulars of murders committed by the soldiers
of the
garrisons in Meath, that I am tempted to give it at length. It is in
the same
book. I confess I cannot resist inserting it; even if it were from the
circumstance alone that it was in that county – Meath
– that the hellish
miscreant Sir Charles Coote met his death; it is supposed from one of
his own
party.
“In
April, (1642,) Mrs. Ellinor
Taaffe, of Tullaghanoge, sixty years old, and six women more, were
murdered by
the soldiers of the garrison of Trim; and a blind
woman, aged eighty years, was encompassed with straw by them, to which
they set
fire and burned her. The same day they hanged two women in
Kilbride, and
two old decrepit men that begged alms of them. In the same year, Mr.
Walter
Dulin, an old man, unable to stir abroad many years before the war, was
killed
in his own house by Lieut. Col. Broughton’s troopers,
notwithstanding the said
Broughton’s protection, which the old man produced. Mr.
Walter Evers, a justice
of the peace and quorum, an aged man, and bedrid of the palsy long
before the
rebellion, was carried in a cart to Trim, and there hanged by the
Governor’s
orders. Many ploughmen were killed at Philberstowne. Forty men, women,
and
children in protection, reaping their harvest in Bonestown, were killed
by a
troop of the said garrison; who, on the same day, killed Mrs. Alison
Read at
Dunsaughlin, being 80 years old; and forty persons more, most of them
women and
children, shunning the fury of the said troop, were overtaken and
slaughtered.
About 70 men, women, and children, tenants to Mr. Francis
M’Ovoy, and under
protection, were killed by Grenville’s soldiers, and 160 more
in the parish of
Rathcoare, whereof there was one aged couple blind about 15 years
before.
Captain Sandford and his troop murdered in and about Mulhussey upwards
of 100
men, women, and children under
protection, and caused one Connor Breslan to be stuck with a knife into
the
throat, and so bled to death. And one
Eleanor Cusack, 100 years old, was tied about with lighted matches, and
so
tortured to death, in Clonmoghon. James Dowlan, about 100
years old, Donagh
Comyn, Darby Denis, Roger Bolan, and several other labourers and women
to the
number of one hundred and sixty, making
their harvest, were slaughtered by the garrison of Trim.”
One
instance more in Meath; it is
an atrocity committed by the men under command of Sir Richard
Grenville, whom I
have already mentioned:-
“Sir
Richard Grenville’s troop
killed 42 men, women, and children, and eighteen
infants, at Doramstown. A woman
under
protection was, by Captain Morroe’s soldiers, put into the
stock of a tuckmill,
and so tucked to death.” – (From a pamphlet
published in London, in 1662, entitled “A Collection of the Massacres and Murders
committed on the Irish.”)
Let
me now place before the
reader the account of the death and funeral of Sir Charles Coote. It is
exceedingly characteristic. Here it is:-
“In
April, 1642, pursuing the
rebels at Trim, he was unfortunately shot in the body, as it was
thought, by
one of his own troopers, whether by design or accident was never known.
And
this end had this gallant gentleman, who began to be so terrible to the
enemy,
as his very name was formidable to them. His body was brought to Dublin,
and there interred with great solemnity, floods
of English tears accompanying him to his grave. By his death
the fate of
the English interest in Ireland
seemed eclipsed, if not buried.” – Borlase’s
Hist. of the Irish. Reb. p. 104.
Floods
of English tears! Floods of English tears!
This
one fact at least is certain
– that a more hideous, a more horrible villain never existed.
The French
Revolution – fertile in sanguinary monsters –
produced nothing like him, who
spared neither man, woman, nor child; neither priest nor layman. Yet
this most
superlative of diabolic miscreants was embalmed with “English
tears!” – “English
tears!” How heartily they wept
for the man who was perfect in one talent – that of shedding
Irish blood! A dry
eye at his funeral would indeed
have
been, according to the modern phrase, “un-English”.
We
now approach more nearly to
the period of Cromwell’s arrival in Ireland,
and we may as well prepare for the extracts exhibiting his atrocities,
by
showing what the intentions of the Irish Government were. Nothing was
so
offensive to them as the submission
of the Irish; their object being the confiscation of the property and
the
extermination of the persons of the natives. In this they were in
general
faithfully aided by their subordinates.
“The
Chief Governors… severely
condemned the protection granted to Galway.
Their order
were expressed and peremptory that the Earl of Ormond should receive no
more
submissions; every commander of every garrison was ordered not to
presume to
hold any correspondence with the Irish, or Papists; TO GIVE NO
PROTECTION, BUT
TO PERSECUTE ALL REBELS AND THEIR HARBOURERS WITH FIRE AND SWORD. IN
THE EXECUTION
OF THESE ORDERS THE JUSTICES DECLARE, THAT THE SOLDIERS SLEW ALL
PERSONS
PROMISCUOUSLY, NOT SPARING THE WOMEN, AND SOMETIMES NOT THE
CHILDREN.”- Leland, Book
V, chap. 5.
From
Galway
let us now go to Donegal. The following are specimens of English
humanity in
that county:-
“COUNTY
OF DONEGALL.
“About
the same time,” (viz.
November, 1641,) Captain Fleming, and other officers of the said
regiment
commanding a party, smothered to death 220 women and children in two
caves. And
about the same time also, Captain Cunningham murdered about 63 women
and
children in the isles of Ross.
The
Governor of Letterkenny
gathered together on a Sunday morning 53
poor people, most of them women and children, and caused them to be
thrown off
the bridge into the river, and drowned them all.
In
November, one Reading
murdered the wife and three children of Shane O’Morghy, in a
place called
Letterkenny of Ramaltan; and after her death cut off her breasts with
his
sword.
1641-2.
About two thousand poor
labourers, women, and children, of the barony of Tirbue, were massacred
by the
garrisons of Ballyshany and Donegall; and Lieutenant Thomas Poe, an
officer
among them, coming under colour of friendship to visit a neighbour that
lay
sick in his bed, and to whom he owed money,
carried a dagger under his cloak, which, whilst he seemed to bow
towards the
sick man in a friendly manner, asking how he did, he thrust it into his
body, and told his wife her husband should be
no
longer sick.”
I
will next introduce the head of
the O’Brien family, Lord Inchiquin; I believe the direct
ancestor of the
present Marquis of Thormond. He was renowned for his acts of cruelty.
He had
sought to be made President of Munster under the King: but having been
refused
that office, to which another was appointed, he, from the paltry motive
of
selfish resentment, joined the English rebels, and committed the most
horrible
cruelties upon the Irish. He is celebrated in the recollection of the
people, even
till the present day, for his massacres in the cathedral of Cashel.
There is
something very characteristic in the following traits of his cruelty:-
“Inchiquin
commits great
destruction as far as he dares venture, about Dublin
and Tredah [Drogheda], by burning
and driving away their
cattle, hangs all he can meet with, going
to the Lord Lieutenant.” – Whitelock.
“The
Lord Inchiquin took Pilborne
castle by storm, and put all in it but
eight to the sword.”- Whitelock.
The
next fact has “damned him to
everlasting fame:”-
“Inchiquin
marched into the county
of Tipperary,
and hearing that many
priests and gentry about Cashel had retired with their goods into the
church,
he stormed it, and being entered, put three thousand of them to the
sword, taking the priests even from under the
altar.” – Ludlow’s Memoirs, vol. I. p. 106.
The
massacre not only of men and
women, but even of little children, by the Cromwellian army, is
familiar in the
traditions of our peasantry at the present day. The common phrase in
which
these ruffians justified the slaughter of unoffending infants, is
original in
its disgusting phraseology. We have the odious fact authenticated by
the Rev.
Dr. Nalson; and he, too, was a Protestant clergyman. Here are his
words:-
“I
have heard a relation of my
own, who was captain in that service, relate, that no manner of
compassion or
discrimination was showed either to age or sex; but that the little
children
were promiscuously sufferers with the guilty; and that if any who had
some
grains of compassion reprehended the soldiers for this unchristian
inhumanity, they
would scoffingly reply, ‘WHY? NITS WILL BE LICE!’
AND SO WOULD DESPATCH THEM.”
– Nalson, vol. II.
(Introduction) p.
vii.
To
come back to Dublin
county. The author of the “Collection,”
speaking
of the first week in November, 1641, says, -
“In
the same week, 56 men, women,
and children, of the village of Bulloge, (being frightened at what was
done at
Clontarf,) took boats and went to sea, to shun the fury of a party of
soldiers
come out of Dublin under the command of Colonel Crafford; but being
pursued by
soldiers in other boats, were overtaken, and thrown over board. One
Russell, a
baker in Dublin,
coming out of the
country in company with Mr. Archbold of Clogram (who went to take hold
of the
proclamation of the Lords Justices,) were both hanged and quartered. In
March,
a party of horse, of the garrison of Donshaghlin, murdered seven or
eight poor
people in protection, tenants of Mr. Dillon of Huntstowne, having
quartered in
their houses the night before, and receiving such entertainment as the
poor
people could afford. About the same time, a party of the English
quartered at
Malahyde, hanged a servant of Mr. Robert Boyne’s at the
plough, and forced a poor labourer to hang
his own
brother: and soon after they hanged 15 of the inhabitants of
Swords who
never bore arms, in the orchard of Malahyde; they likewise hanged a
woman
bemoaning her husband hanged among them.”
There
is an incident of some
interest given by the same author, immediately following my last
extract. It
relates to the cause why a Colonel Washington resigned his command and
quitted
the service. Its date is the same year – 1641:-
“In
the same year, after quarter
given by Lieutenant Colonel Gibson to those of the castle of
Carrigmain, they
were all put to the sword, being about 350, most
of them women and children, and Colonel Washington,
endeavouring to save a
pretty child of seven years old, carried him under his cloak, but the child against his will was killed in
his arms, which was a principal motive of his quitting the
service.”
Several
of the extracts already
quoted, relate to periods subsequent to Cromwell’s arrival in
Ireland.
The following extract refers to a period long before that arrival:-
“Sir
Henry Tichbourne, who had
the chief command in that driving of O’Nial from Dundalk,
performed that
service, and afterwards pursued it with such an amazing slaughter of
the Irish
in those parts, that he boasts himself that for some weeks after there
was
neither man nor beast to be found in sixteen miles, between the two
towns of
Drogheda and Dundalk; nor on the other side of Dundalk in the county of
Monaghan, nearer than Carrickmacross, a strong pile twelve miles
distant.” – Carte’s
Ormond.
I
shall add to my catalogue the
following, which I take from Borlase, than whom a more hostile witness
could not
be cited. I shall only mention one in Connaught,
and two
or three in Munster:-
“Sir
Frederick Hamilton,” says
Borlase, “entering Sligo
about the
first of July, 1642, burnt the town, and slew
in the streets three hundred of the Irish.” – Borlase, p. 112.
Here
are the instances referring
to Munster:-
“Lord
Dungarvan and Lord Brohill
summoning the castle
of Ardmore
in the county
of Waterford,
21st of August, 1642, it was yielded upon mercy. Nevertheless, one
hundred and forty men were put to the sword.” –
Borlase, p. 111.
We
cannot therefore wonder that
this Lord Broghill on another occasion declared-
“That
he knew not what quarter
meant.”- Borlase, p. 110.
Before
I proceed further, I wish
to give one extract from the relation of the many massacres committed
in Munster.
The county
of Cork
has claims upon me, and perhaps it is therefore that I cannot avoid
multiplying
my instances with the following quotation:-
“COUNTY
CORK.
“1642.
At Cloghnekilty about 238
men, women, and children were murdered, of which number 17 children were taken by the legs by soldiers who
knocked out their
brains against the walls. This was done by
Phorbis’s men, and the garrison
of Bandon Bridge.
“The
English part of this county
burned O’Sullivan Beare’s houses in Bantry, and in
all the rest of that
country, killing man, woman, and child, turning
many into their houses then on fire to be burned therein: and
among others
Thomas De Bucke, a cooper, about 80 years old, and his wife being
little less;
and all this was done without provocation, the said
O’Sullivan being a known reliever
of the English in
that country. Observe that this county is not charged in the late
Abstract with
any murders.”
In
honour of Bandon, I insert the
following short extract:-
“1641.
At Bandon Bridge, the
garrison there tied 88 Irishmen of the said town, back to back, and
threw them
off the bridge into the river, where they were all drowned.”-
Coll. p. 5.
We
will now go back a little. The
first great slaughter that occurred in the civil war after the Irish
were driven
into insurrection – (and never were such pains taken to
compel an unwilling
people to rise against a government as were taken by the Administration
in
Ireland to force the Irish to
resist
their tyranny!) – is the incident I am now going to describe.
It is taken from
the “Collection,”
and requires no
preface to excite attention. It was the fruitful source of many a
crime. The
following is the Irish account:-
“1641.
About the beginning of
November, the English and Scotch forces at Knockfergus murdered in one
night
all the inhabitants of the territory of the Island Magee, to the number
of
3,000 men, women, and children, all innocent persons, at a time when
none of
the Catholics of that country were in arms or rebellion. –
Note, that this was
the first massacre committed in Ireland
of either side.”
Now,
I will place in
juxtaposition with the above, the English Protestant account of the
same
transaction:-
“In
one fatal night they” [the
garrison of Carrickfergus] “issued from Carrickfergus into an
adjacent district
called Island Magee, where a number of the poorer Irish resided,
unoffending,
and untainted by the rebellion. If we may believe one of the leaders of
this
party, thirty families were assailed by them in their beds, and
massacred with
calm and deliberate cruelty.” – Leland,
Book
V. chap. 3.
There
is no substantial
difference between these two accounts. The difference in the number of the slain is easily accounted
for by recollecting that upon that
point the Irish would naturally be the better informed. Both agree in
the
circumstances of this most unprovoked and diabolical massacre. The
inhabitants
of the district of Island Magee, innocent, unoffending –
unarmed; without a
shadow of crime, or the least suspicion of guilt, were attacked at
night in
their beds, by English and Scotch soldiers, commanded and led on by
their
officers; and put to death with calm and deliberate cruelty. Talk of
the
barbarity of uneducated savages in any part of the globe! you cannot
find it
exceeding this deliberate slaughter, committed by English and Scotch
Protestant
soldiers on unarmed beings, who admittedly were guilty of no other
crime than
that of being Irish Catholics!
One
or two facts more, touching
the manner in which those English and Scotch soldiers conducted
themselves in
that country. I take it from the same “Collection”
I have quoted already:-
“Mr.
M’Naghten having built a
small fortress in the said county (Antrim) to preserve himself and his
followers from the outrages, until he understood what the cause of the
then rebellion
was; as soon as Colonel Campbell came near with part of the army, he
sent to
let him know that he would come to him with his party, which he did;
and they
were next day murdered to the number of 80, by Sir John Clotworthy, now
Lord
Massareen’s, soldiers.
“About
the same time, 100 poor
women and children were murdered in one night, at a place called
Balliaghuin,
by direction of the English and Scotch officers commanding in that
country.”
I
now come to the master-demon; he
who steeped his hands in the blood of his Sovereign, and came to Ireland
reeking from that crime; in order, by horrible cruelties committed on
the
Irish, to acquire popularity in England.
And he did so acquire it, until it was sufficient to confer upon him
regal
power, and to enable him to place his hand upon that throne which he
had not
moral courage to occupy. I begin with an extract descriptive of the
taking of
Wexford; although, in point of time, this was the second town in which
he
displayed his barbarity. The following is the short and pithy account
of this
transaction by the Protestant clergyman, Doctor Warner:-
“As
soon as Cromwell had ordered
his batteries to play on a distant quarter of the town, on his summons
being
rejected, Stafford” (the command of the garrison)
“admitted his men into the
castle, from whence issuing suddenly, and attacking the wall and gate
adjoining, they were admitted, either through the treachery of the
townsmen or
the cowardice of the soldiers, or perhaps both; and
the slaughter was almost as great as at Drogheda.”
– Warner, 476.
The
most recent historian, Dr.
Lingard, has added from the original authorities, the following most
striking
and melancholy circumstance:-
“No
distinction was made between
the defenceless inhabitant and the armed soldier; nor
could the shrieks and prayers of 300 females, who had gathered
around the great cross, preserve them from the swords of those ruthless
barbarians. By Cromwell himself the number of the slain is
reduced to two,
by some writers it has been swelled to five, thousand.”
– Lingard, A.D. 1649.
Three
hundred women screaming for
pity, round the emblem of salvation – the cross. Three
hundred Irish women
slaughtered in one mass – by English Protestant
“Christians” – men of great
zeal and profound piety!
|
