Sidor som bilder

was bold and obstinate, though the plague was raging in the city, which, perhaps from its situation, was long particularly subject to epidemics. The garrison was reduced more by its invisible than by its visible foe, and the contagion spread to the camp likewise, where it did not spare the self-styled saints. At last Limerick fell, destined forty years afterwards to sustain a siege which should be more memorable still. And now occurred the grand and awful scene of the trial of Terence Albert O'Brien, bishop of Emly, who summoned his unlawful judge, the ruthless Ireton, to meet him at the bar of Heaven; a month after which summons Ireton was seized with a violent fever, doubtless the plague, and died, accusing every one else of his own crime.

Matters in Ireland grew worse and worse, and Ormond was blamed for having made some appointments infringing on the conditions of the peace of '48. Indeed, though Ormond was above all things anxious to serve the cause to which he had devoted himself, his behaviour was unsatisfactory in that time of terror and confusion, and perhaps deserved the suggestions of the new council, that he should seek to make himself useful nearer the person of Charles II. That hopeful, moreover, being now victimized by his Scottish custodians, and undergoing a course of sermons which should have insured the virtue of his afterlife, had been induced or forced to repudiate the peace of '48; and though Ormond declared that the intelligence was false, the council believed it, and declared that they in return repudiated Charles II. Nevertheless the Irish soldiers carried on a "hopeless warfare" at the King's desire, or probably at Ormond's desire on the King's behalf, in order to prevent the Parliamentarian army of Ireland from uniting with that in England to defeat Charles's invasion of his own kingdom. However, Cromwell proved that he could do without the aid of the Ironsides whom he had left to pacify Ireland, and crushed the hopes of Charles II. at Worcester on another fortunate September day. And at last Ormond, who, after all, never came to any harm amidst all these manœuvres and difficulties, finding himself in a terrible position among the Irish, the King, and the invaders who would not have suffered his stately head long to burden his shoulders had he fallen into their power, and knowing that he had for ever lost the opportunity of driving back the Puritans, made his dignified escape, and sailed from Galway for the Continent. Everything which Ormond did was in its way dignified, and contributed in its degree to give him the name of the “Great Duke."

It is not recorded whether or no he indulged in prophecy on this occasion. He might have foretold that he should one day

VOL. XIX.-NO. XXXVII. [New Series.]


return to a Lord Lieutenancy more comfortable than either of the two former ones, to renew the policy of '45 and ’46, and to restore the country, according to his own idea, to some amount of prosperity ; though, as has been before observed, it is difficult to see how a country the bulk of whose people are unhappy, which those certainly were who had lost their lands, and were hunted down for making raids on their own cattle, can be entitled to be called prosperous. These things were, however, as yet unrevealed to Ormond when he saw the coast of Galway fade from his eyes, as he had seen that of Dublin fade three years before.

The helmless vessel rolled on to her destruction. There were heroes on board her yet, doomed to perish when she finally went down with all hands. Bishop French was a hero, and he would gladly have transformed Clanricarde into another; but that was a character which did not suit the Earl, who was nominal successor to the Lord Lieutenancy. Meanwhile the valiant ones of the Civil War were falling like trees before a tempest; and it is remarkable that the mere Irish, who throughout the struggle had borne a courageous and tolerably consistent part, showed far greater fortitude than did the Ormondists when called upon to pay the penalty of the great rebellion.

One of these, General Purcell, had fainted on hearing his death sentence pronounced. Sir Phelim O'Neill, guilty or not guilty, but doubtless unconscious, as were his judges themselves, of how bad a name his would become when it should be seized upon unanimously to be blackened, ended his course heroically on the glorious scaffold. He was offered his life in exchange for a crimination of Charles I., and an oath to the effect that that king had instigated the rebellion of '41; but the "wretch O'Neill," as he is often called, refused to buy safety with that falsehood, and left the umquhile Lady Abercorn to bewail her second widowhood. The Bishop of Clogher, too, who had been taken prisoner by Sir Phelim on that gentleman's second breach with his kinsman in '48-9, the Bishop being the dear friend of Eoghan O'Neill, crowned a virtuous life with a patriot's death. He was a martial prelate, and had done well enough in his soldierly capacity while his friend lived to command him, and to give him military in return for spiritual advice; but now, bereaved and despairing, his tactics were those of a will without an intellect to guide it, and after losing nearly four thousand veterans at Letterkenny, he fell into the hands of his enemies and was executed by the inhuman Coote at Enniskillen.

Nicholas French went as ambassador to Brussels to sue for help. He was well qualified for the mission, being upright,


It was

talented, and dignified; but it is easy to see, on looking back, that the fatal reef was close ahead, and that Cromwell was pacifying Ireland much too quickly for help so tardy to be of

The Duke of Lorraine expressed a readiness to protect her, but he higgled and delayed, and was confused and thwarted by Ormond and Charles II., who behaved henceforward much as Ormond and Charles I. had done. at this time that French wrote a highly uncomplimentary work on Ormond, as the “Unkind Deserter of Loyal Men and True Friends," wherein he demonstrated that the ex-viceroy's exchequer had become somewhat plethoric during the civil war, and especially after the cession of Dublin to the Puritans, although he had maintained his post " three years upon his own credit and fortune,” as one of his Red Box memoirs assures posterity. These accusations of the Bishop seem to be contradicted by certain incidents of the love tale which we find in p. 181 of the “ Account of the Carte Collection.” Lord Ossory, while at the Hague, fell in love with a Dutch beauty, whose fortune only reached the cipher of £10,000; and though Ormond himself stood the friend of the youthful pair, his wife raised many prudential and motherly objections on the ground that the dowry ought to be £20,000, for she intended not only to disengage a mortgaged estate with it, but also to transfer the remainder to her daughter Elizabeth, as a marriage portion for that young lady. She did ultimately consent to the match; but it is amusing to read that even when Ossory's union with his Dutch bride proved to be a happy one, "the Duchess generally speaks of her in a tone of complaint, as if she still retained her regrets at the marriage.” The difficulties to which Page, the messenger sent by Ormond to soften the heart of the Duchess, who still resided in Ireland, towards the youthful lovers, likewise seems to indicate that the ducal exchequer was not at that time very full, for he had to sell a stray gold ring to pay the postage of a letter to his master; which fact is a strange one, when we read that the commissioners for Ireland had left the Duchess in possession of Dunmore Park, and of lands to the value of £2,000 a year. But it seems unlikely that the suspicions of French could be well founded; Ormond appears to have always acted honestly towards the Royal family and the Royal cause, though so much cannot be said for his conduct to the Catholics of Ireland, to whom his deference had been so great when they were necessary to him, and whom after the Restoration he treated according to his old policy of dividing them among themselves, and, moreover, failed in many cases to restore the lands which the Cromwellians had wrenched from their rightful owners. Bishop French even complains that Ormond helped to prevent the comprehension of the Irish Catholics in the Act of Oblivion; so that those who had rebelled against the crown and spilt the blood of Charles I., were pardoned, and those who retained their allegiance while taking up arms against their fellow subjects in self-defence, saw their estates and houses conferred on their own and the King's enemies. Thus was treated the son of Sir Phelim O'Neill, whose “affectionate friend” Ormond, according to his own handwriting, had once been, and who had died refusing to buy his life at the expense of a crimination of Charles I. And many a humbler victim could sigh forth, as did the literary Irishman, that though the king had been restored to his realms, he himself had not been restored to the kingdom of his cottage. And never, after his terrible straits in 1649, did Ormond show sympathy for the Catholics again; while as for French, he expiated his crime against the Duke in perpetual exile.

Whilst Ormond was at Brussels and at the Hague, Cromwell accomplished his task ;-he pacified Ireland. Having hanged and beheaded men, and tossed women in blankets, the new powers allowed forty thousand of the Irish to emigrate, though those who had wolf-dogs were not to take them away, because wolves were growing numerous; transplanted sundry lords of the Pale from their fertile lands and comfortable homes into the wilds of Connaught; reduced many noble families to penury, and injured all the churches to the best of their powers. Fleetwood, the second husband of Mistress Ireton, and Henry Cromwell, were not, personally, savage rulers, though subject to the commands of the Lord Protector; but that was enough. The vessel had gone down. And the only head which bobs up to the surface again, bewigged and serene, and having picked up a ducal coronet among the ooze in the ccean of confiscation and exile, is that of our old friend the great Duke of Ormond-great, no doubt, for that very reason, because he rises with a rebound when others fall to lie for ever. At the Restoration, he appears in London, always in his glory, and having for ever finished, except as a painful retrospect called, up by petitioners, Remonstrances, and Courts of Claims, with the great game which has been played out, the mighty drama in which he made his début. His name will, however, be for ever associated with that drama, more than with his after-years of prosperity and his parks and palaces at Dublin, never more to be besieged. The other distinguished actors in the scenes of the Civil War are mostly dead, or doomed to die in exile. At Fermo, at Cavan, at Ghent, they are the dust of many countries. But Ormond lives and flourishes, prosperous and wealthy, to be restored to the viceregal throne of a ruined land.


No. II.



\HE well-known case of Pope Honorius has been so

thoroughly ventilated of late, that to believe that it can still create an insurmountable difficulty against the doctrine of Papal Infallibility would betray an unusual amount of simplicity. But, even if it were difficult to find an explanation satisfactory either as a whole or in detail, the solemn definition of Papal Infallibility pronounced by the Vatican Council is sufficient to dispel from the minds of Catholics even the slightest misgiving on the subject. This, however, should not prevent us from answering objections brought against the facts already explained, as thereby new light is shed on the truth and its demonstrative evidence. With this view we undertake to discuss in this second article the objections urged by Mr. Renouf in his pamphlet “The Case of Pope Honorius Reconsidered.” My answer on the general subject is not much needed after the excellent reply given to the author by Dr. Ward.* I will therefore avoid, as much as possible, repeating what Dr. Ward has so ably urged against Mr. Renouf's pamphlet, and will limit myself mainly to what concerns my book on Pope Honorius, though I shall be obliged to touch on the general drift of Mr. Renouf's thesis as stated in his new pamphlet.

That gentleman's first thesis is, that “Pope Honorius in his letters to Sergius really gave his sanction to the Monothelite heresy." His arguments may be summed up as follows : The letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius is thoroughly Monothelite; but the Pope accepted his doctrine: therefore he gave his sanction to the Monothelite heresy. Further on he lays great stress on the assertion that Pope Honorius maintained in his letters one will in Christ, and that he inferred it, as the other Monothelites, from His unity of person : he corroborates this assertion by the particle unde, or 69ev, used by Honorius, which implies, as he says, that the confession of one will in Christ is a corollary deduced from the doctrine of “com

[ocr errors]

* “DUBLIN REVIEW," April, 1870, pp. 372--402.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »