all this appearance of prosperity was deceptive, the elements of disintegration were at work, and the unhappy country was honeycombed with conspiracies and disaffection. £70,000 was collected, in consequence of an order of the Commons that they should be collected in a manner directly contrary to the terms of the original grant (Carte, i., 102). The sum actually granted down to 1641 was £480,000, or £30,000 a year for the sixteen years of Charles's reign before the Rebellion year, when all collections ceased. 66 CHAPTER V. CONSPIRACIES DURING THE REIGNS OF JAMES I. AND CHARLES I.-SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS-THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PROPOSED PLANTATION OF CONNAUGHT. IN the first year of James's reign, the revolt of the southern towns occurred; in the third, the conspiracy of the two Earls Tyrone and Tirconnell. The design of these conspirators was to kill the Lord-Deputy and his Councillors, to possess themselves of the Castle of Dublin and the munitions of war contained in it, and then to declare themselves in open rebellion. To support the enterprise, an envoy was sent to the Archduke to solicit assistance. Some Irish writers have affected to doubt the existence of this conspiracy, but, as Dr. O'Conor says, "it was as real as any fact in history "2 We have the evidence of Carew, of Lynch, the author of Cambrensis Eversus; of Lord Delvin, who was himself engaged in 3 3" Hic [Richard Nugent, Lord Delvin, who confessed the conspiracy] Moynotae, quod præcipuum Comitis Kildariæ domicilium est, sub annum 1605, cum Tyroniæ Tirconnelliæque comitibus in colloquium venit, in quo statutum est omnium assensu, ut religionem imminentis ruinæ periculo armis subtraherent. Cujus consilii cum alium sui ordinis conscium fecissent, in spem certam elati fore ut ad religionem tuendam facile adduceretur, cœpta in fumum abierunt, illo susceptas molitiones ad senatum regium deferente. Quod ubi Tironiæ Tirconnelliæque comites obaudierunt, in fugam aversi saluti suæ consuluerunt." Supplementum Alethinologia, p. 186. See also Moore, History of Ireland, iv., p. 153. 1 it; and the corroboration of Delvin's confession by Mabel, Countess of Kildare. That the guilt of the two Earls was believed by all the leading Roman Catholics of Ireland is shown by what occurred when it was proposed in 1613 to pass an Act for their attainder and the confiscation of their estates. The matter was referred to the judgment of the Roman Catholic bishops as to the way in which the members of their community should vote. The bishops determined that the measure should be allowed to pass.3 The bill was brought in by Sir John Everard, leader of the Roman Catholic party in the Commons, and was passed unanimously, and, as a member who was present assures us, with universal acclamation. It is worth remembering, that these confiscations were afterwards put forward as one of the causes of the rebellion. 5 In 1608 occurred the rebellion of Sir Cahir O'Doherty, which, as O'Sullivan tells us, that chief was resolved to carry on until the return of Tyrone, Tirconnell, and the other fugitives with aid from the Catholic princes. In 1614, there was a conspiracy to massacre all the English in Ulster except three, who were to be spared in order to exchange them for Sir Neale O'Donnell, Sir Donel O'Cahan and Sir Cormac M'Baron O'Neill. During the six years-1628-34 -we know from the confessions of Lord Maguire and the Bishop of Clogher, that frequent applications were made to foreign courts for assistance, and that general risings were planned. The French historian, Mazure, tells us that during the siege of Rochelle in 1628, envoys from 1 Confession of Lord Delvin, Calendar State Papers, Ireland, 1606-8, p. 320. 2 Ib., 3 p. 345. 3 O'Sullivan, Hist. Cathol. Compendium, p. 328 and note. 6 Calendar State Papers, Ireland, 1615-25, preface, p. 8. L Ireland proposed to Cardinal Richelieu to cede Ulster to France, and to separate Ireland from England; and that, after the death of Richelieu, the negotiations were resumed, and that the envoys, two of whom were the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland and a bishop, actually signed a cession of Ulster to France.1 In 1639 the English Ambassador at Madrid wrote to his Government that he had discovered a conspiracy between the fugitive lords and some of the Irish bishops at home; and that two archbishops and two bishops, whom he names, had sent invitations to those lords, assuring them that Ireland was ripe for rebellion, and telling them that they were not "sons of good Catholics" if they did not seize the opportunity of relieving their country and religion. We are now able to estimate the significance of the letter which Charles I. wrote to the Irish Lords Justices in March, 1641, intimating that "an unspeakable number" of Irish priests had lately come from Spain, and that a whisper ran among the Irish friars there that a rebellion was expected in Ireland.3 To understand thoroughly the interval between the death of Elizabeth and the great Rebellion, it is desirable to state exactly and fully what the social and political condition of the Roman Catholics was before 1641. The necessity of making the subject clear will excuse some repetition. The only statutes which affected them were the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity. By the former the oath of supremacy was made a qualification for office.* 1 Histoire de la Révolution de 1688, iii., p. 399. 2 Clarendon, State Papers, ii., p. 69. 3 Carte, Appendix of Letters. * In 1612 six Roman Catholic Lords of the Pale stated, in a petition to King James, that the Act of Supremacy was sparingly and mildly" executed during the reign of Elizabeth. See the petition in Leland, ii., p. 443. But It is a universal rule that every oath should be taken in the sense affixed to it by the authority which imposes it. Queen Elizabeth declared in her Admonition, published contemporaneously with the oath, that she claimed no spiritual authority, but merely jurisdiction over all persons born within her dominions, thus merely rejecting the pretentions of the clergy to be judged in their own courts in criminal matters. This interpretation was also given in the Declaration enjoined to be read in churches before the Thirty-nine Articles were drawn up. Two years later this explanation was repeated by the Convocation,1 and in 1562 it received the sanction of the Legislature. the Popes and the ultramontane writers refused to receive this interpretation, and persisted in teaching that the English Sovereigns claimed to be the Head of the Church, a title which they have invariably declined since the second year of Queen Mary, who was the last to make use of this designation. In the early part of James's reign, after the Gunpowder Plot in England, and the revolt of the Southern towns in Ireland, the oath was required from those who aspired to office, from the heirs of tenants in capite, and from those who pleaded at the bar. But the rule was soon relaxed. As early as the twelfth year of James, we find Roman Catholics sheriffs of counties, magistrates, jurors and pleaders in the courts. In 1628, 3 1"We give not to our princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify: but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by God Himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers." 25 Eliz., c. 1, s. 14. 3 "All Popish lawyers are suffered to plead and practise, and every Popish gentleman of any ability is made justice of the peace."—Lord |