defended the Earl of Ormond from the aspersions of two men, Wishart and Chappell, the former of whom he successfully accused before the House of Lords. Under date of March 3 is a letter from Lord Ormond on the subject, indignantly protesting his loyalty and declaring that so far from having encouraged the Pale lords in rebellion, he was about to go out against them, and send them such "ill-favoured love tokens," that he might perhaps persuade them that if he were of their party he dissembled it notably well and acted his part to the life, nay even to the death of those who came in his way. Of his own position Ormond wrote very despondingly :

"My condition is extreme hard, my being this countryman by fortune, though not by birth, saves me not from the common calamity and loss wrought by this rebellion, nor do I find or desire that for that reason the bullets fly further off me than another man. . On the other side, my religion, faithfulness nor the hazard of my life preserves me not from the reproach and scandal daily cast upon me by those that conclude me guilty because most of my papist kindred and friends My present state would distract a wiser man than I shall ever

are so.

be" (p. 165).

Three weeks later, the Earl wrote again to Percivall, thanking him warmly for the "extraordinary care" which had discredited the scandals against him. In this letter he alludes to the sad massacre of the English at the silver mines of Tipperary, and also mentions the uncertainty as to whether Lord Muskery were "out" or no, sincerely hoping that he was not, and with this reason for his hope:

That if he would not stir when my Lord President was at the weakest, and my Lord of Mountgarrett in Munster with a greater strength than he will get together in haste [again], certainly he is mad if he declares when the tables are turned. The tables had not, however, turned so quickly as the Earl of Ormond believed.

In April, 1642, Sir Philip Percivall returned to Ireland as Commissary General of Victuals for the army, and at once set to work, with the utmost zeal, to carry out the duties of his place. He had already handed in a series of propositions in relation to the charges and allowances for victualling (p. 167) and another series concerning the carriage of provisions, the saving of hay and corn, and the protection of a market gardener, whose “roots and other garden stuff" would have provided many thousand men if the pillaging of the soldiers had not utterly discouraged him. (See Report on the Ormond MSS., New Series, vol. i. p. 47.) Percivall had also made diligent enquiry as to the office, authority and proceedings of former Commissaries General,

which produced interesting papers from Nicholas White, a Mr. Carpenter and Sir Paul Davys (pp. 168-171).

Percivall's care for the army is especially shown in the matter of the mills of Kilmainham. These mills were employed to grind corn for the army, and were leased (on Jan. 29, 1641-2) to Sir John Temple, Master of the Rolls, "who then had the oversight of the provision of corn and other victuals" for the army, with a grant to himself of one-sixteenth of all corn ground. When Percivall was made Commissary, he objected strongly to an arrangement which deprived the army of one day's bread in every sixteen, and endeavoured to get the lease transferred to himself, for the sole use of the forces. He represented this, in Dec., 1642, to the Parliament Commissioners at Dublin (see Capt. Tucker's narrative, in Gilbert's ed.: History of the Confederation), and amongst his papers is an order of Council decreeing the transfer, which cannot have been written later than December or January, 1642-3, as it speaks to the grant to Temple in "January last." This order, however, is only a draft in Percivall's own hand, and it is very doubtful whether it was ever issued. There is no copy or mention of it amongst the State Papers, and it was not until after the receipt of a letter from the King, written at the end of May, that the Council gave the mills into Percivall's hands. He gained his end, and the army got the corn, but he raised a violent animosity in Temple's mind which was the source of much trouble in the future.

Another abuse which Sir Philip desired to reform was in relation to the military hospitals. Of these there were three, and in August, 1643, they contained only about forty patients, so that "the charge of maintaining the families of the three Masters" exceeded that of the soldiers. He suggested that the hospitals should be suspended for a while and the men nursed in their quarters, where they would be "better accommodated than in hospitals where no means are allowed" (p. 189).

At this time, in spite of his vast possessions, Percivall was in real need of ready money. Not only had his rent-roll in Ireland dwindled down to practically nothing, but he was spending large sums in assisting to keep up his castles as garrisons against the enemy, and was also advancing much of the money needed for the purchase of provisions for the army. His wife was in London, under the kind care of one of his numerous cousins,

Edmund Smyth of Annables, who wrote that Lady Percivall had sold most of her plate but was unwilling to sell all; that firing and house-rent in London were extremely dear, and that he was trying to persuade her to sell the coach-horses, as the oats for them were "very chargeable" (p. 187).

Early in 1644, Percivall prepared for another journey to England. After careful directions to his company of "firelocks" (the first of his orders being that they were "daily to frequent the parish church," p. 204), and appointing Val. Savage, a young friend who worked under him officially, to be his deputy as Clerk of the Parliament and Registrar of the Wards, he left Ireland about the end of March on a mission to the King.

In this spring of 1644, the King at Oxford was the perplexed recipient of three several sets of Commissioners from Ireland. The Confederate Roman Catholics sent delegates to offer their demands and the extreme Protestants delegates to oppose them, while the Council of State despatched Sir William Stewart, Sir Gerald Lowther, Sir Philip Percivall and Justice Donelan as representatives of their views. The demands of the Roman Catholics and the answers of the extreme Protestants have been printed by Sir John Gilbert, but the views of the middle party are here given for the first time (p. 212).

Sir Philip Percival and his co-adjutors profess astonishment that the Catholics should make bold to offer such high demands; declare the Remonstrance of Trim (in pursuance of which these demands were presented) to be fraught with errors, and as "poor pillaged men" and plain lovers of truth, proceed to answer the propositions one by one. The one thing which, above all, strikes the modern reader in this, as in nearly all the religious and controversial documents of that time, is how utterly impossible it seems to have been for the men of one creed in the least to understand the point of view of anyone who differed from them. As Laud failed to see why Scotland should not welcome the prayer book which he loved so well, as Cromwell was angrily impatient that the clergy of the English Church should wish to continue their "fooling," so-and a hundred times more so-did all parties amongst the protestors against the Church of Rome unite in apparently honest bewilderment that the members of that church should resent the laws which interfered with all that they felt most sacred and holy. "I

meddle with no man's conscience," wrote Cromwell, "but as for the mass, I will not allow that." Every one sees the fallacy in the argument of the great puritan General, but it is no greater than the fallacy in the views of men who, like Sir Philip Percivall, considered themselves good churchmen.

The first argument of the Council delegates is a clever one, bringing up the ancient penal laws against foreign jurisdictions "even in the time of Popery, when the mist of darkness was at the thickest ; but from this they pass to the "excellent and moderate laws of Queen Elizabeth" for uniformity of common prayer, the administration of the sacraments, &c. Their views come out most strongly in the answer to the 7th Proposition, in which the Irish complained of “incapacity" of purchasing lands, holding offices, building schools, &c. The delegates are all amazement and indignation. Such a statement casts "aspersions of tyranny on the State," as though the natives had not power to these things, "whereas in truth it is far different." They are as capable to purchase lands (except in certain plantations) or to hold offices as any of the English, with the trifling proviso of "conforming themselves in religion," and as to schools, there are many excellent ones [all protestant, of course] and they may build as many more as they like-provided that they be governed by protestant schoolmasters, ushers and governors. Things are just as in England. What more can they want?

As to the Court of Wards, again, the Commissioners could see no oppression to the subjects of Ireland by reason thereof. It was merely "the greatest tyranny and unsupportable oppression which clamoured against an admirable institution, for no reason but "because so great care is taken for bringing up the youth, his Majesty's wards, in the true religion." This point is illustrated by two or three papers in this collection, where the relatives of these young Irish wards are seen struggling to keep the children in their own hands, that they may be brought up in their fathers' faith.

There is an interesting letter from Percivall to Ormond printed by Carte (Life of Ormonde, iii. 305) from which it is evident that no love was lost and no consultations were held between the two sets of Protestant Agents, yet the gist of their proposals was extremely similar and the tone almost equally bitter.

The royalist party was vexed, and probably surprised. Sir G. Ratcliffe wrote to Ormond on June 11, "Sir W. Stewart and Lord Chief Justice Lowther have played the fools notably .

and Sir Philip Percivall agreed with them in all things, and had gone here for a Roundhead if your Lordship had not recommended him" (Ibid. 316).

It is evident that the visit to Oxford had the effect of drawing Percivall nearer to the Parliamentary party. Some time afterwards, Sir William Kingsmill-one of the Irish officers who had been drawn to the King's standard by the assurance that if the war in England were brought to an end, that in Ireland should be effectually prosecuted-certified that he and a fellow-officer went to Oxford, to learn from Sir Philip the true state of affairs, when his representations of the favour shown to the Irish, the little heed given to the Protestants' statements, and the danger of a probable peace with the rebels, so worked upon them that they quitted the King's service and returned to Ireland (p. 281).

Sir Philip remained in England, going first to his cousin Edmund Smyth's house, Annables in Hertfordshire. When the news came of Lord Inchiquin's declaration for Parliament, at the beginning of August, 1644, Percivall was sent for to London, and diligently "attended" at various committees, giving advice and assistance in regard to Irish affairs (p. 282).

His friends in Ireland kept him well supplied with news. That relating to Munster will be spoken of later. In Dublin, his chief correspondents were his brother-in-law, Sir William Usher, and his friend and deputy, Valentine Savage. Their letters contain information and comments in relation to Ormond's "fatal work" in negotiating a peace with the Irish Savage had almost said "rebels" but dared not, a man having been "brought in a delinquent" for using the word, in relation also to Sir Charles Coote's successes in Connaught, Lord Digby's arrival, "very bare," after losing his baggage at Sherburn (including the papers and cyphers which gave so much information to the Parliament party), Lord Glamorgan's committal and Digby's disavowal of his proceedings, rumours of royalist victories followed by more certain news of royalist defeats, the state of Dublin and the condition of the Protestants there (pp. 237-283). Meanwhile, Percivall's own affairs caused him much anxiety and trouble. He was still almost without money