bling of parliaments, but Wentworth thought he could secure their loyalty and subserviency, and explains his own policy in a letter to the king: The lower house should be so composed that neither the Recusants, nor yet the Protestants, should appear considerably one above the other, holding them as much as might be in an even balance, as being thus easier to govern. And then in private discourse, to show the Recusants, that if the late contribution, ending in December, of his majesty's army, was not supplied some other way, the twelve-pence per Sunday'-a penalty for not attending the parish church-'must of necessity be exacted from them. And, on the other hand, to show the Protestants that his majesty's army must not let go the twentythousand pound contribution, nor yet that he would discontent the Recusants in matter of religion till the army were else certainly provided for.' The deputy called a parliament (met 14th July, 1634,) and obtained six subsidies amounting to £240,000, without confirming any of the royal graces.' The great earl of Ormond being just of age, appeared first at this parliament, and defied an order of Wentworth to give up his sword on entering the house, justifying his refusal by citing the words of the writ of summons which required him to come gladio cinctus.

Wentworth proceeded to terrify the juries into verdicts for the king, cancelling the titles of many estates in Roscommon, Mayo, and Sligo; he fined and imprisoned the jurors of Galway, because they would not forfeit the estates of Lord Clanrickarde (1636). The discontents excited by these decisions were so alarming, that the odious process did not add in the end one acre to the possessions of the crown, nor one English plantation to the kingdom. The courageous lord deputy, who loved dominion, scandalized and alarmed even his friend, archbishop Laud, by crushing, on a mere suspicion of libel, Sir Piers Crosby, a meritorious officer and member of the privy council, and by visiting with

F

personal vengeance for some ambiguous words, Lord Mountnorris, a member of administration. He also imprisoned the lord chancellor, Loftus, for not allowing a settlement to his married daughter; and in all these despotic acts received the full support of Charles, who loved despotism. (The case of Loftus seemed to be explained by the discovery of some letters of gallantry written by Strafford.)

When the Covenant was instituted in Scotland (1638,) and the Scots armed against the king, Wentworth sent him five hundred men and thirty thousand pounds. He viewed the Scots of Ulster with suspicion, compelled them to abjure the Covenant, and visited all who refused with fines and imprisonment. Soon after this, he received from his master the higher rank of earl of Strafford, as a token of approval (1639), and raised from the Irish parliament (met 20th March, 1639-40) four subsidies; the first of £46,000, the second and third reduced by a variation in the assessment to £23,000 together; and the fourth never collected by reason of the rebellion. He also raised an additional army of eight thousand foot and a thousand horse, commonly called the Irish army.

Strafford's presence was now required by the king in England; and the Irish parliament, observing the temper of the sister legislature in the long parliament (met 1640,) reduced their subsidies, by assessing them on a tenth of the property of the subjects, and began to remonstrate about grievances. The king ordered the leaf which contained the obnoxious assessment to be torn out of the journals. To ruin Strafford was a favourite object with the English parliamentarians; and a deputation from the Irish House of Commons presented to a committee in London a remonstrance of grievances, which formed the basis of Strafford's impeachment. He was beheaded, 12th May, 1641. It seems fitting to present here an abridgment of the articles against him, as far as they related to Ireland, with his answers. It

was alleged in the third charge, that he should say that Ireland was a conquered nation, and that the king might do with them what he pleased; that the charters of the corporations were worth nothing, and did bind the king no farther than he pleased.' These words he denied, but admitted that the charters of Dublin were (1634) brought before the council, and still in the hands of the clerk of the council. IV. That he had threatened to imprison the earl of Cork, unless he would surcease a suit to try the validity of some orders of council. Strafford replies that the council is a court of record, and its orders binding. V. That he sentenced Lord Mountnorris to death for certain words: Strafford replies, that Mountnorris was not executed, and was tried, in due form, by court-martial. VI. That he had dispossessed Lord Mountnorris of land. Strafford replies that the ejectment was just. VIII. That he had imprisoned Loftus. It appeared that this imprisonment was by the king's order. IX. That he gave warrants to a bishop to imprison. Strafford alleged precedents, and that he annulled the writ when he found it abused. X. That he farmed the customs himself, and levied duties of thirty per cent. instead of five. Strafford replied, that the rates were advanced before he became the farmer, and that he was drawn into the farm by the king's command. Also that trade had increased. That under a lease 16 James I. (1619,) the duke of Buckingham had paid £9700 per annum: under a lease 7 Charles I. (1632,) the duchess of Buckingham paid £20,000 fine and £11,050 rent, and the higher dues were established: under his own lease he paid £8000 fine and £15,500 rent: the actual produce being in 1636, £39,936; in 1637, £38,889; in 1638, £57,380; in 1639, £55,582. XII. That he established monopolies by proclamation. He replies, that he is no gainer. XV. That he levied illegal taxes on certain towns, imprisoned and cessed soldiers on defaulters. He answers, that a subsidy of £120,000 had been granted, and that it was usual in

Ireland to lay soldiers on delinquents. XVI. That he procured a royal order that no complaint on Irish matters should be heard in England till it had been laid before the lord deputy; and, by proclamation (11 Charles I.,) had restrained all persons from proceeding to England without his licence. Strafford replies, that he did not improperly refuse license. XIX. That he imposed (1639) a new oath (against the covenant.) He answers, that it was done for the security of the kingdom. XXII. That he raised the 'Irish army' of 8000 foot and 1000 horse. Strafford replied, that he had the king's order, and that he designed nothing but the king's service. To sum up these criminations, we shall only say, that a man who dared so much against the popular party, could not come off scatheless, when their time for calling him to account should arrive.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE REBELLION OF 1641.

THE confusion of affairs in England encouraged the native Irish to hope for their deliverance from a yoke which the confiscation of property had lately rendered more intolerable. It is not improbable that the fierce hatred of Papists, cherished as a religious virtue by the parties now predominant in the English parliament, alarmed them with the prospect of fresh severities and fresh confiscations. In this expectation they judged rightly they brought down upon their heads, by their crimes and murders, the determined hostility of men who never turned their backs upon an enemy, who believed the extermination of the Romish creed to be a heavenly duty, and trod out the rebellion with a sternness which no sovereign of England had ever exhibited.

In the meantime, the disorganization of the British legislature offered an opportunity to the Irish natives, and they availed themselves of it, in what is known as the Irish Massacre of 1641. The heads of the insurgents were Roger O'Moore, Sir Phelim O'Neill, and Owen O'Neill.

Roger O'Moore was the head of a once powerful Irish family of Leinster. His ancestors, in the reign of Mary, had been expelled from their possessions by violence and fraud, and their sept harassed and almost exterminated by military execution. Their remains were distinguished by an hereditary hatred of the English, and Roger was irritated by the same wrongs as the rest of his family. He carefully conciliated his countrymen, and it became a common saying among the Irish, that their hope lay in God, our Lady, and