Page 154 of 159
6 (return)
[ NOTE F, p. 166. Mr. Carte,
in his Life of the duke of Ormond, has given us some evidence to prove
that this letter was entirely a forgery of the popular leaders, in order
to induce the king to sacrifice Strafford. He tells us, that Strafford
said so to his son the night before his execution, But there are some
reasons why I adhere to the common way of telling this story. 1. The
account of the forgery comes through several hands, and from men of
characters not fully known to the public; a circumstance which weakens
every evidence. It is a hearsay of a hearsay. 2. It seems impossible but
young Lord Strafford must inform the king, who would not have failed to
trace the forgery, and expose his enemies to their merited infamy. 3. It
is not to be conceived but Clarendon and Whitlocke, not to mention others,
must have heard of the matter. 4. Sir George Ratcliffe, in his Life of
Strafford, tells the story the same way that Clarendon and Whitlocke do.
Would he also, who was Strafford’s intimate friend, never have heard of
the forgery? It is remarkable, that this Life is dedicated or addressed to
young Strafford. Would not he have put Sir George right in so material and
interesting a fact?]
7 (return)
[ NOTE G, p. 167. What made
this bill appear of less consequence was, that the parliament voted
tonnage and poundage for no longer a period than two months; and as that
branch was more than half of the revenue, and the government could not
possibly subsist without it, it seemed indirectly in the power of the
parliament to continue themselves as long as they pleased. This indeed was
true in the ordinary administration of government; but on the approaches
towards a civil war, which was not then foreseen, it had been of great
consequence to the king to have reserved the right of dissolution, and to
have endured any extremity rather than allow the continuance of the
parliament.]
8 (return)
[ NOTE H, p. 190. It is now
so universally allowed, notwithstanding some muttering to the contrary,
that the king had no hand in the Irish rebellion, that it will be
superfluous to insist on a point which seems so clear. I shall only
suggest a very few arguments, among an infinite number which occur. 1.
Ought the affirmation of perfidious, infamous rebels ever to have passed
for any authority? 2. Nobody can tell us what the words of the pretended
commission were. That commission, which we find in Rush, (vol. v. p. 400,)
and in Milton’s Works, (Toland’s edition,) is plainly an imposture;
because it pretends to be dated in October, 1641, yet mentions facts which
happened not till some months after. It appears that the Irish rebels,
observing some inconsistence in their first forgery, were obliged to forge
this commission anew, yet could not render it coherent or probable. 3.
Nothing could be more obviously pernicious to the king’s cause than the
Irish rebellion: because it increased his necessities, and rendered him
still more dependent on the parliament, who had before sufficiently shown
on what terms they would assist him. 4. The instant the king heard of the
rebellion, which was a very few days after its commencement, he wrote to
the parliament, and gave over to them the management of the war. Had he
built any projects on that rebellion, would he not have waited some little
time, to see how they would succeed? Would he presently have adopted a
measure which was evidently so hurtful to his authority? 5. What can be
imagined to be the king’s projects? To raise the Irish to arms, I suppose,
and bring them over to England for his assistance. But is it not plain,
that the king never intended to raise war in England? Had that been his
intention, would he have rendered the parliament perpetual? Does it not
appear, by the whole train of events, that the parliament forced him into
the war? 6. The king conveyed to the justices intelligence which ought to
have prevented the rebellion. 7. The Irish Catholics, in all their future
transactions with the king, where they endeavor to excuse their
insurrection, never had the assurance to plead his commission. Even
amongst themselves they dropped that pretext. It appears that Sir Phelim
O’Neale chiefly, and he only at first, promoted that imposture. See
Carte’s Ormond, vol. iii. No. 100, 111, 112, 114, 115, 121, 132, 137. 8.
O’Neale himself confessed the imposture on his trial, and at his
execution. See Nalson, vol. ii. p. 528. Maguire, at his execution, made a
like confession. 9. It is ridiculous to mention the justification which
Charles II. gave to the marquis of Antrim, as if he had acted by his
father’s commission. Antrim had no hand in the first rebellion and the
massacre. He joined not the rebels till two years after; it was with the
king’s consent, and he did important service in sending over a body of men
to Montrose.]
9 (return)
[ NOTE I, p. 220. The great
courage and conduct displayed by many of the popular leaders, have
commonly inclined men to do them, in one respect, more honor than they
deserve, and to suppose that, like able politicians, they employed
pretences which they secretly despised, in order to serve their selfish
purposes. It is, however, probable, if not certain, that they were,
generally speaking, the dupes of their own zeal. Hypocrisy, quite pure and
free from fanaticism, is perhaps, except among men fixed in a determined
philosophical scepticism, then unknown, as rare as fanaticism entirely
purged from all mixture of hypocrisy. So congenial to the human mind are
religions sentiments, that it is impossible to counterfeit long these holy
fervors, without feeling some share of the assumed warmth: and, on the
other hand, so precarious and temporary, from the frailty of human nature,
is the operation of these spiritual views, that the religious ecstasies,
if constantly employed, must often be counterfeit, and must be warped by
those more familiar motives of interest and ambition, which insensibly
gain upon the mind. This indeed teems the key to most of the celebrated
characters of that age. Equally full of fraud and of ardor, these pious
patriots talked perpetually of seeking the Lord, yet still pursued their
own purposes; and have left a memorable lesson to posterity, how delusive,
how destructive that principle is by which they were animated.
With regard to the people, we can entertain no doubt that the controversy
was, on their part, entirely theological. The generality of the nation
could never have flown out into such fury, in order to obtain new
privileges, and acquire greater liberty than they and their ancestors had
ever been acquainted with. Their fathers had been entirely satisfied with
the government of Elizabeth. Why should they have been thrown into such
extreme rage against Charles, who, from the beginning of his reign, wished
only to maintain such a government? And why not at least compound matters
with him, when, by all his laws, it appeared that he had agreed to depart
from it? especially AS he had put it entirely out of his power to retract
that resolution. It is in vain, therefore, to dignify this civil war, and
the parliamentary authors of it, by supposing it to have any other
considerable foundation than theological zeal, that great source of
animosity among men. The royalists also were very commonly zealots; but as
they were at the same time maintaining the established constitution in
state as well as church, they had an object which was natural, and which
might produce the greatest passion, even without any considerable mixture
of theological fervor.
The former part of this footnote was in
the first editions a part of the text]
