constantly kept an agent in Spain to negotiate for suecours*. Twa invasions of the Spaniards took place in the course of this rebellion, one consisting of 6000 men at Kinsale, under Don John d'Aquila †, who were joined by Tyrone, O'Donnel, and all the strength of the Irish . Previous to this two ships arrived from Spain with arms and ammunition, and conveying many priests, who gave assurances of immediate succours. One of them, who called himself the Pope's Legate, Ambassador from Spain, and Archbishop of Dublin, said, that he was content to suffer death if he did not preach in Dublin before Michaelmas-day §. The following incidents prove that religious bigotry was the chief spring of action in this rebellion. Many of the Irish having submitted and solicited pardon, sent to Rome for dispensations for having done so. After the landing of the Spaniards, a friar, dressed as a soldier, passed through Clonmell and Waterford, having bulls from the Pope, with indulgences to those who should aid the Spaniards (sent by the Catholic King to give the Irish liberty from the English tyranny, and the exercise of the true old apostolic religion), and authority to excommunicate those that should, by letters, plots, or in person, joyn with her Majesty, whom the Pope had excommunicated, and thereby absolved all her subjects from their oath of allegiance ¶."

66

The Pope's Nuncio was killed at Carbery, at the head of a body of rebels **. Moryson observes, "the foresaid priest was a man of special authority, and had power over all spiritual livings in Ireland, so as upon his death the M'Carthys, and all Carbery, submitted to mercy.' This incontestibly proves that this fanatic was the firebrand of rebellion. The Lords of the Pale were wavering, and their fidelity depended on the success of the English arms. The Lords Mountgarret and Cabir were active rebels, and so was Lord Rock ++. The two last submitted and received pardon, but afterwards rebelled ‡‡.

M'Guire and M Mahon raised a great rebellion in Connaught, in the year 1594, to which they were incited by Guaranus, a priest, appointed Primate of all Ireland by the Pope, and who predicted their success; but they were defeated by Sir Richard Bingham §§.

Moryson, page 206, tells us, that Lord Mountjoy wrote to the Lords in England the 24th of May, 1601, that the O'Driscals, O'Donovans, and some of the M'Carthys, became odious to the rebels in general, for having come in and submitted.

Sir George Carew, Lord President of Munster in the year 1602, signified his fears to Lord Mountjoy, that a general defection would take place on the landing of the Spaniards, because such rebels as sought mercy with all humility, and with a promise of meriting it

by future services, "now since the Spanish ship arrived *, were grown proud (calling the King of Spain their king, and their ceasing from rebellion, to be the betraying of their King and the Catholic, cause) yea, tell nothing from their insolence, though they had been sometimes beaten by him +." In another letter, he says, should the Spaniards land in Ireland, from the general disaffection which prevailed, "it will then be no longer the war of Ireland, but the war of England in Ireland, to the infinite danger of both, which we beseech you give us leave still to remember you of ‡." Lord Mountjoy says, "that the Spaniards, relying on the disaffection of the Irish, would upon their revolt, and with their assistance, invade England from Ireland §." The following adage has been many centuries adopted in Ireland, and regarded as a prophecy which must be fulfilled, by the bigotted Irish, as it has been justly considered the most vulnerable part of the empire:

"He that will England win,

Must with Ireland first begin ]."

That arch traitor Tyrone, when his country was exhausted and laid waste, when he was deserted by his followers, and he had no longer the means of continuing in rebellion T, solicited the royal mercy, and obtained it in the year 1603. He and Roderick O'Donnel, who also had been an active and inveterate rebel, were graciously received by James 1. who conferred the earldom of Tyrconnel on the latter. It is most certain that he received his pardon from the Queen, though Mr. Plowden, with his usual inaccuracy, asserts the contrary; for it appears that he solicited pardon in the month of March 1602, and again in December, in consequence of which Mountjoy granted, him a safe conduct, dated the 24th of March, 1602 **. In the month of March, 1603, he received letters from the Queen, of the 16th and 17th of February, authorizing him to pardon him; and she did not die till the 24th of March ++.

When Tyrone attended Mountjoy to London, in order to make his submission to James I. he was in many places grossly insulted; and when on his return to Ireland, he was in such imminent danger, from the indignation of those, whose relations had fallen by his treachery and rebellious spirit in Ireland, that the sheriffs were obliged to attend him from place to place with troops of horse, till he embarked for Ireland ‡‡. ̧·

* This alluded to a ship which arrived with arms, ammunition and money at Ardea, to the Munster rebels.

+ Moryson, p. 225. Ibid. p. 227. Ibid. p. 136. || Ibid. p. 3. In a letter to the King of Spain he made an apology for submitting, saying, that he had continued in action till all his nearest kinsmen and followers had forsaken him." Moryson, p. 281. ** Ibid. p. 278. ++ Ibid. p. 282. ‡‡ Ibid. p. 296.

NO. XCIV, VOL. XXIV.

D

Mr.

Mr. Plowden, who never misses an opportunity of vilifying the government, makes the following observation on the termination of this rebellion. "The Deputy pardoned him (Tyrone) and his followers, and with some exceptions, promised him the restoration of his lands and dignity. On these conditions the pacification was ratified. Thus closed a rebellion, evidently brought on, stimulated and continued by the noxious policy of England's treating the Irish as a divided, separate, and enslaved people. But it was a melancholy solace, that the reduction of Ireland to this reluctant state of submission, through the gloomy tracts of blood, famine and pestilence, cost the crown of England no less than 1,198,7171. a sum in those days enormous. By union alone, can a repetition of such scenes be effectually prevented.

We have now given a sketch of the principal rebellions which agitated Ireland during Elizabeth's reign, and of their origin and effects, in order to shew the inaccuracy and inconsistency of Mr. Plowden's observations thereon, as he falsely accuses her government of tyranny, cruelty and rapacity. He complains that it was enacted by the first Parliament, held in the second year of her reign, that the spiritual jurisdiction of the Crown should be restored; that all officers, lay and ecclesiastical, should, on pain of forfeiture and total incapacity, take the oath of supremacy, and that any person who maintained the spiritual supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, should incur certain penalties; and that every person should resort to the established church, under a forfeiture of twelve-pence for every offence. Now it is evident from the declaration of the Irish Papists themselves, above eighty years after, that they did not feel the pressure of this law, and consequently that it could not have any tendency to produce that woeful disaffection, and proneness to treason, which they manifested in the course of the dreadful rebellions which we have described; though Mr. Plowden asserts the contrary, and attempts to excuse them on the ground of irritation, occasioned by this law. In their remonstrance, delivered to the King's Commissioners at Trim, the 17th of March, 1642*, to be presented to his Majesty, they say, that some of the said Catholics begun to consider the deplorable and desperate condition they were in by a statute law, here found among the records of this kingdom, of the second year of the late Queen Elizabeth, but never executed in her time, nor discovered till most of the Members of that Parliament were dead; no Catholic of this kingdom could enjoy his life, estate, or liberty, if the said statute were executed †."

These

* See Section 8 thereof.

There is not a single paragraph in this statute to warrant this false and calumnious assertion. The English House of Commons, on the 27th of August, 1644, ordered this infamous Remonstrance, and the Answer to it by the Protestants, to be published in the following words :-"That the books, entitled an Answer, presented to his Majesty at Oxford, unto

the

These were the only penal laws, if such they can be called, enacted against the Irish Papists; but it is evident from their acknowledgement, made eighty years afterwards, that they were not known, and consequently could not have been enforced during Elizabeth's reign. Nothing could be more reasonable, than that those who enjoyed offices under the state, should takes the oath of supremacy, particularly in a country, the mass of whose inhabitants had transferred their allegiance to a foreign Prince, which they were bound to do by the fundamental principles of their religion. The Parliament declared, in Henry the VIIIth's reign, that the oath of supremacy (which in truth is no more than an oath of allegiance), was a declaration of the ancient right of the Crown t. The King's supremacy, both in temporals and spirituals, is asserted in a law of Edward the Confessor ; and by the 31st of Edward 1. the 27th of Edward III. and the 16th of Richard II. In the year 1606, father Lalor, a Popish priest, was indicted under the latter act, and convicted of a præmunire, for having obtained a Papal bull, constituting him Vicar Apostolic General in the diocese of Dublin, Kildare, and Ferns §. Mr. Plowden him-self admits, that on the accession of Elizabeth, and before the enactment of this law, to which he imputes the rebellious disposition of the Irish Papists, "None of the provinces were altogether free from the disorders of internal dissention ." He He says, it may be naturally presumed, that much of the pacific conduct of the Irish, during the short reign of Mary, was attributable to the general satisfaction which. the redintegration of the civil establishment of the Catholic religion afforded to the nation at large. But no sooner had Elizabeth declared for the Reformation, than general discontent pervaded the whole nation within and without the pale T. Here Mr. Plowden endeavours to impose on the British public, by drawing inferences from facts, which are totally unfounded; for we are told by all the Irish historians, particularly by Leland, that Ireland was dreadfully convulsed during Mary's short reign; insomuch that Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sussex were constantly employed in "repressing the disorders perpetually arising in different quarters of the island **.". Such deadly feuds prevailed among the different chieftains, that John O'Neil at one time, and O'Donnell of Tirconnel at another, called in a body of Scotch to their assistance, who committed dreadful excesses. In page 72 Mr. Plowden asserts, that "the introduction of

the false and scandalous Remonstrance of the Inhuman and Bloody Rebels of Ireland, together with a Narration of the Persecutions at Oxford, be forthwith printed and published."

Mr. Plowden admits this in page 98, of vol. i. Spelman's Coun. tom. i. p. 634. Reports, title Præmunire. | Vol. i. p. 72.

rol. i. p. 446.

book iii. cap. 8.

+ State Tracts,

Ibidem.

§ Davis's Leland,

the Reformation by Elizabeth was the cause of the general discontent and disaffection which prevailed in Ireland;" and he says, therefore," that every province was soon thrown into a state of commotion, or disposed to insurrection;" though he previously admitted, that the country was much disturbed on her accession *. He then proceeds to enumerate the various outrages and acts of hostility which took place in the four different provinces.-Mr. Plowden says this merely to reflect on the government of Elizabeth. But afterwards, wishing to exculpate the Irish from the charge of being impelled by superstitious fanaticism, and hatred to a Protestant state, to enter into rebellion, though these were the real motives, he insinuates, in pages 86 and 87, that religious prejudices were but in a small degree concerned in it, and therefore, he says, that "this was not a war of Protestants against Catholics, for the royal army was filled with Irish, and that numbers of the Romish communion acted with firmness and vigour, in support of that government to which they had sworn allegiance." During the whole of this reign the contrary appears, for the mass of the Irish Papists never evinced the slightest disposition to loyalty, except when_awed into obedience by the strength, vigour, and vigilance of the English government; but when it manifested any degree of remissness or debility, they relapsed into rebellion. The uniform conduct of their leaders and chieftains, whomay be supposed to have more principle, and a stronger sense of shame than the multitude, evinces this. Moryson, page 20, makes the following observation on Tyrone's conduct: "Tyrone, hitherto with all subtlety and a thousand slights, abusing the state, when he saw any danger hanging over him, by feigned countenance and false words, pretended humblest submission, and heartfelt sorrow, for his villanies; but as soon as opportunity of pursuing him was omitted, or the forces were of necessity to be drawn from his country, with the terror of them, all his loyalty vanished, yea, he failed not to mingle secretly the greatest counsels of mischief with his humblest submissions." On his success at Blackwater, acquired by the most infamous treachery, which we have before described, Moryson observes, page 25, "by this victory the rebels got plenty of arms and victuals. Tyrone was, among the frish, celebrated as the deliverer of his country from thraldom, and the combined traitors on all sides were puffed up with intolerable pride. All Ulster was in arms, all Connaught revolted, and the rebels of Leinster swarmed in the English pale, while the English lay in their garrisons, so far from assailing the rebels, as they rather lived in continued fear to be surprized by them." In a letter from Lord Mountjoy to Sir Robert Cecil, of the 9th of August 1601, it is thus stated: "The news you received from the Pre

His words are, yet notwithstanding the general disposition to be submissive to the English government, none of the provinces were altogether free from the disorders of internal dissention."

sident