The History of Ireland: 17th Century. Bagwell Richard

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ desperate doctrine of absolute submission to princes; that notwithstanding all our laws, yet our whole estate may no more oppose the prince’s deed, if he should play all the pranks of Nero, than the poorest slave at Constantinople may resist the tyranny of the Great Turk.’ In Down and Antrim the Scots formed a great majority of the colony, and Scotland was near. In Tyrone and Londonderry the English element prevailed, and the more scattered Presbyterians had the worse time. There were some who would not yield, and either could not or would not fly.’ Many were imprisoned in Dublin, like ‘worthy Mrs. Pont,’ whose husband had to leave the country, and who was shut up for nearly three years. The case which attracted the greatest attention was that of Henry Stewart, a native of Scotland, holding property in Ulster, who with his wife Margaret, his daughters Katherine and Agnes, and a servant named James Gray were brought before the Castle-chamber for refusing the oath. Attorney-General Osbaldeston told the prisoners they were guilty of high treason, but that the King would mercifully accept fines. He laid down in the boldest way that kings derived no authority from the people, but directly from above, and that everything done against their authority is done against God. Stewart was willing to take the first part of the oath, promising allegiance and obedience, but would not swear to ecclesiastical conformity or abjure all other oaths. Wentworth told him that the whole form hung together, and that no mercy would be shown unless he took all the oath unreservedly. Ussher practically agreed with Stewart, but Wentworth overruled him and held with Bramhall that the non-abjuration of all oaths, bonds, and covenants was palpable high treason. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart and their eldest daughter were fined 3,000l. apiece, the younger daughter and Gray 2,000l., making 13,000l. in all, and they were also condemned to imprisonment for life. They were told that if the King thought it proper to release them, they would have first to take the oath and to give security for their allegiance during life. The prisoners were pardoned by the King, but not until Strafford had been some time in the Tower, and the money penalties were also remitted. Whitelock stated at Strafford’s trial ‘that Stewart was fain to sell his estate to pay his fine.’ He had to support his family in prison for fifteen months, and seems to have been half-ruined; but he secured the favour of the Scotch Parliament, who recommended his case in London, and in 1646 the House of Commons voted him 1,500l. and Gray 400l. out of the estate of Sir George Radcliffe, then sequestered. The Irish Attorney-General had married Radcliffe’s niece a few days after Stewart’s trial, which adds point to the story. Gray, who had nothing of his own, and was maintained in gaol by his master, took an amusing and profitable revenge. He was employed in the spring of 1641 to promote a petition against episcopacy, and was said to have received 300l. for his services. Signatures were easily got, but Bramhall said they were all of ignorant and obscure persons, ‘not one that I know but Patrick Derry of the Newry, not one Englishman.’ After Strafford’s death Ormonde and others who had taken part in Stewart’s trial admitted that they had been mistaken and were excused, but the Lords Justices Borlase and Parsons offered some arguments in their predecessor’s favour. They allowed that the case was one for the law-courts and not for the Castle-chamber; but this error was not Strafford’s, who followed a long established practice. The heaviness of the fine was meant to strike terror into others, and not to ruin the individuals charged, and they were even inclined to think that the sentence was just. It is nevertheless evident that the invention and enforcement of the Black Oath by prerogative only was unadulterated despotism. The Roman Catholics of Ireland had much to complain of, but they were not called upon to take oaths which had no parliamentary sanction.[213]

      Strafford proposes to drive out all the Scots, 1640.

      ‘Under Scots’ to be deported to remote places.

When Strafford was impeached, two witnesses swore that at the time of Stewart’s trial he had openly threatened to root out stock and branch all Scots who would not conform, and had called them rebels and traitors. This no doubt was said hastily and in anger, but he afterwards expressed the same sentiments when he had had time, plenty of time, to think. Writing to Radcliffe from York more than a year later he proposed ‘to banish all the under Scots in Ulster by proclamation,’ grounded upon a request from his subservient Irish Parliament. By ‘under Scots’ he meant all who had not given hostage to fortune by acquiring considerable estates in land. There were 40,000 able-bodied Scots ready to welcome Argyle if he landed in Ireland, and that chief was cunning enough to tempt ‘the mere Irish, the ancient dependents of the O’Neills in that province,’ to strike a blow for lands and liberty. A vote of this kind in the Irish Parliament would help the King much, for it would infallibly create ‘a perpetual distrust and hatred’ between England and Scotland, and would add to his Majesty’s reputation in foreign parts. The banishment might be called conditional upon the continuance of hostilities. As to the owners of ‘considerable estates,’ they were but few, and the loss to them of all their tenants and servants was nothing to the general peace which would follow the expulsion of the ‘under Scots, who are so numerous and so ready for insurrection,’ and who were already armed. Even those who had taken the Black Oath were to be treated as prospective rebels. Shipping was to be provided at once, and the exiles landed in some bays or lochs where the Campbell galleys could not reach them. Radcliffe, who was in Dublin, kept this letter to himself, for he saw that the plan was impossible, and he knew that the House of Commons there was already getting out of hand. Strafford believed that something equivalent to a state of siege existed, and that he was therefore justified in the most extreme measures. History may make excuses, but to the Long Parliament he was the man who had encouraged them to oppose the King, who had then gone over to the side of prerogative, receiving titles and power as the price of desertion, and who was ready to dragoon better men into submission. To honest Scotch Covenanters he was of course the arch-enemy, and those who espoused their cause from selfish motives knew that his interests were not theirs.[214]

      FOOTNOTES:

       Table of Contents

      [206] Adair’s True Narrative, 26; Mant’s Church of Ireland, 457; Blair’s statement in Reid’s Presbyterian Church, i. 103.

[207] Wentworth to Bramhall, September 12, 1634, in Rawdon Papers; Report of the Belfast conference in Reid’s Presbyterian Church, i. 195 and Appx. iv; Livingston’s narrative, ib. 204–6.

[208] Bramhall to Ussher, April 26, 1641, in his Works, i. xc; Liber Munerum, v. 113; Carte’s Ormonde, i. 96; Wentworth to the King, September 2, 1639 (from Dublin) in Strafford Letters, and to Radcliffe, September 23 (from Covent Garden), in Whitaker’s Radcliffe, 182; Bedell to Ward, April 23, 1640; in Two Biographies, 365; Irish Lords’ Journal, March 31, 1640; Hickson’s Irish Massacres, ii. 6–8. Corbet’s ‘Ungirding of the Scottish Armour’ was licensed in Dublin, May 6, 1639, by Edward Parry, afterwards Bishop of Killaloe, on behalf of the Archbishop of Dublin. It is in the form of a dialogue between Covenanter and anti-Covenanter. The dedication of six pages to Wentworth contains some strong language about the ‘fiery zealous faction’ dominant in Scotland. ‘The best of them is as a briar; the most upright is a thorn hedge; they do evil with both hands earnestly, hunting every man his brother with a net. They are gone in the way of Cain, etc.’ Corbet’s much better known Lysimachus Nicanor, dated January 1, 1640 (n.s.) was probably printed in Dublin, but has no printer’s name and no imprimatur. He is believed to have had assistance both from Bramhall and Maxwell. Baillie (Letters, i. 243) wrongly attributes it to Henry Leslie, and calls the author ‘a mad scenic railer.’ It purports to be the letter of a Jesuit, who congratulates the Scots on their approach to the views of the Society concerning resistance to kings. See the article on Corbet in Dict. СКАЧАТЬ