Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 3 (of 3), 1660-1690

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[29] State Papers, Ireland, July 18, October 24, 1662. The Commissioners are given in 15th Report of Record Commissioners (1825), p. 34. Act for enlargement of time, Irish Statutes, 14 & 15 Car. II. cap. 12 (Royal assent September 27, 1662).

[30] Irish Commons Journal, February 10, 1662-3; Clarendon to Ormonde, February 28, in Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii., and Lister’s Life of Clarendon, iii. 239.

[31] Speech of Sir Audley Mervyn delivered to the Duke of Ormonde in the presence chamber in Dublin Castle, February 13, 1662-3, in Irish Commons Journal, i. 617-630. The Speaker was ordered to have his speech printed and entered in the Journals.

[32] Egerton MS., p. 789, gives all the decrees of the Court of Claims, January 13, 1662-3, to Friday, August 21, 1663—Innocent Papists 566, Innocent Protestants 141, Nocent 113. Mervyn’s speech (14 folio pages) in Irish Commons Journal, February 10, 1663; Lord Lieutenant’s letter, ib. March 10; proposed bills, ib. April 10. Ormonde to Clarendon, February 21, March 7 and 12, April 8, 1662-3, to the King, March 28, Carte MSS., vol. cxliii.; Clarendon to Ormonde, February 28 and April 18, Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii.

[33] Ormonde to the King, May 8, 1663, Carte MSS., vol. cxliii.; to Bennet, ib. June 10 and August 22.

[34] A narrative by Sir Theophilus Jones, &c., Trinity College MSS., f. 3, 18 (no. 47). This paper is unsigned but appears to be the original draft in Jones’s hand. Account of the Irish Plot in Ormonde Papers, 1st series, ii. 251; Firth’s Ludlow, appx. 450, 475. Life and death of the famed Mr. Blood, London, 1680. The Horrid Conspiracy of impenitent traitors, &c., London, 1663.

[35] State Papers, Ireland, May-July 1663, particularly James Tanner’s deposition, May 31, Sir George Lane to Bennet, June 25, and Robert Lye to Williamson, July 16. The last is a graphic description of the execution by an eye-witness. Lord Conway to Rawdon, November 18, 1663, in Rawdon Papers.

[36] Colonel Vernon to Williamson, July 1, 1663, in State Papers, Ireland; Lane to Bennet (with inclosure), ib. November 18; Pardons of Staples and Shapcote, ib. August 18, 1664. Patrick Adair’s True Narrative, chap. xvii.; Reid’s Presbyterian Church, chap. xviii.; Lang’s Hist. of Scotland. Orrery to the Munster officers, May 25, 1663, in his State Letters, vol. i.; Sir Thomas Clarges to Ormonde, May 15, in Carte Transcripts, vol. xxxii.; Firth’s Ludlow, appx. vi.

[37] State Papers, Ireland, from June 22, 1661, to May 8, 1662. Clarendon’s Life, pp. 259-267.

[38] Carte’s Ormonde, ii. 277-284. Clarendon’s Life, Cont., 262-269. Clarendon to Ormonde, July 18, 1663, Carte Transcripts, vol. xxxii., and August 1, ib. vol. xxxiii. The King’s letter of July 13 to the Lord Lieutenant and Council is in Somers Tracts, v. 626. Documents calendared, State Papers, Ireland, under August 22.

[39] Dering’s notes of the evidence are printed in Hill’s Macdonnells of Antrim, pp. 309-317, and the decree of innocence, ib. appx. 11. The decree is signed by the majority, Rainsford, Beverley, Brodrick, and Churchill. Dering, Smith, and Cooke, forming the minority, do not sign. Ormonde saw the danger of inferring that Antrim acted under the order of Charles I. Writing to Arlington on August 22, 1663, he says it was argued but too plausibly ‘that the King may as well declare any of them who have most contributed to his restoration to be nocent ... without proof as my Lord of Antrim to be innocent against proof ... no security in an Act of Parliament,’ Carte MSS., cxliii. 164.

[40] Act of Explanation, clause 172, s. 99. Arlington to Ormonde, October 17 and 27, 1663, and January 30, 1663-4, in Tom Brown’s Miscellanea Aulica, and Ormonde’s answer to the first, October 27, in Carte MSS., vol. cxliii. Murder will out, published in London between August 22 and October 17, and reprinted in Somers Tracts, v. 624. Evelyn’s Diary, August 18, 1683. Grant of quit-rents to St. Albans, State Papers, Ireland, December 15, 1665. For some of St. Albans’ jobs see Carte’s Ormonde, ii. 295.

[41] Bennet to Ormonde, October 27, 1663, in Miscellanea Aulica, and November 17 ib.; Clarendon, February 7, 1663-4, Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii. Lady Thurles to Ormonde, December 17, 1664, Carte MSS., vol. ccxv.; J. Hughes to Williamson, 1664-5, State Papers, Ireland.

[42] Clarendon to Ormonde, April 16, 1664, January 30 and March 18, 1665-6, Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii. Carte’s Ormonde, ii. 302, and Finch’s report, ib. appx. no. 91. Temple’s Essay, written in 1668. Clarendon’s Life, Cont., 276, where one-third should be read for one-fourth.

[43] Irish Statutes, 17 & 18 Car. II. cap. 2, especially clauses 4, 5, 6, 148, 159. Finch’s report in Carte’s Ormonde, ii. appx. 91.

[44] Arlington to Ormonde, August 19, 1665, in Miscellanea Aulica. Sir Nicholas Armourer to Arlington, September 11, State Papers, Ireland. Robert Leigh to Williamson, October 18, ib. Carte’s Ormonde, book vi. Armourer calls Lady Ossory ‘the best woman in this world.’

[45] Irish Commons Journal, October 26 to November 29, 1665.

[46] The petition is in Irish Commons Journal, December 11, and Ormonde’s answer in State Papers, Ireland, December 15. Opinion of the English judges, ib. February 15, 1665-6.

[47] Irish Commons Journal, December 16-18, 1665. Leigh to Williamson, December 16, State Papers, Ireland; Orrery to Arlington, ib.; Churchill to Arlington, December 27, ib.

[CHAPTER XLIII]
ORMONDE AND THE IRISH HIERARCHY

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.

The Roman Catholics at the Restoration.

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]

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 400l. 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]

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]

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]

A loyal remonstrance of the Roman Catholic clergy contemplated.

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]

Primate O’Reilly opposes the Remonstrance,

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]

The Remonstrance hangs fire.

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]

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]

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 13l. 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]

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.

The Remonstrance rejected.

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 œcumenical 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 2000l. 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]

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 500l. 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]

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]