much of the present volume as covers the decade from the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 to the retirement of Ormond from Ireland in 1650, adds many valuable details to our knowledge of events in Ireland during the memorable era of Ormond's first vice-royalty; whilst the remainder is remarkable for the wealth of its contributions to the still imperfect chronicles of the exiled court of Charles II. A considerable proportion of the collection has only a very remote bearing on those historical, archæological or topographical questions with which the work of the Historical Manuscripts Commission is concerned, and consists mainly of agents' or stewards' reports. It may be assumed that those items in the catalogue published in the Appendix to the Fourth Report which are not noticed in this volume either refer to documents of this kind which lie outside the purview of the Commission, or have already been printed elsewhere. The earliest manuscript in the series bears date November 27, 1560; but only nine of the letters or papers belong to the sixteenth century, and of these the majority are merely formal documents of no historical significance. Nor are the seventeenth century papers prior to the reign of Charles I. of very great interest or importance, though their number is more considerable. Exception must however be made of the first of these, a joint letter, written in 1602, from Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury and his Countess to Thomas, 10th Earl of Ormond-Elizabeth's 'black husband'-whom the writers affectionately address as "Tom Duff." Of the documents of the time of James I. the most valuable is the description of the territory of Ealy O'Carroll, in the King's County, by Viscount Tulleophelim, which has already been printed by Sir John Gilbert. But some interesting family letters addressed to lady Elizabeth Preston, the heiress to a large part of the Ormond estates, whose subsequent marriage to the first Duke of Ormond re-united the vast possessions of the great house of Butler, also belong to this period (pp. 18-24). The early years of Charles the First's reign are scarcely more fruitful, and although the Duke of Ormond was well acquainted with Wentworth, the collection contains no Strafford letters. This deficiency is however in some degree made good by the familiar letters of Strafford's intimate friend Christopher * Vide pp. 3-8. App. to 4th Report, p. 566. Wandesforde, Master of the Rolls in Ireland. The first of these (pp. 24-5) is noteworthy for its curious prediction in the year 1630 of that sack of Baltimore by Turkish pirates which actually took place in the following summer and which has been commemorated in the well-known ballad of Thomas Davis. Wandesforde's correspondence adds considerably to our knowledge of the character of a statesman who played a conspicuous part in the Ireland of Strafford, and these additions to our knowledge enhance the writer's character for moderation and good sense. It is, however, with the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the appearance of the first Duke, then the twelfth Earl of Ormond, as a man of action and affairs that the interest of these letters as a contribution to the materials for history really begins. During the government of the Lords Justices Parsons and Borlase, Ormond was in command of the army in Ireland, and a large section of the correspondence relates to the military operations of the time and more particularly to the condition of the Royal forces. Some of the documents, for example Sir Philip Percival's Propositions for provisioning the army (p. 47) and the Statement of the grievances of the garrison at Naas (p. 59) plainly indicate both the undisciplined state of the army and the inadequacy of the provision made by the Government for supplying its needs. But neither for this period nor for the years that follow, during which Ormond was himself Viceroy, is the collection rich in manuscripts which can be said to illuminate the politics of the time. The miserable state to which the country and capital was reduced by the ten years' incessant warfare, consequent on the civil dissensions of the time, is, however, apparent in almost every letter. The exhausted condition of the public exchequer is plainly exhibited in the “Motives and Propositions concerning the Farming of the Excise on Ale and Beer" (p. 83), while the impoverished state of Ormond's private purse is amusingly illustrated in the plaintive appeals of one Perkins, a tailor, for the payment of his bills for clothes supplied to Ormond and his sons (pp. 52, 99, 112, 115, 116, 118). Considerable additions are made incidentally to our knowledge of the capital of Ireland at this period. In an order "Concerning the Finishing of the Works about this City" (p. 113) Dublin, inclusive of its suburbs, is estimated as containing 24,000 inhabitants aged 15 and upwards, in the year 1647. The excise on ale and beer was estimated to produce on an average £109 per week in 1644 (p. 85) and the account of the collector of customs in the port of Dublin for one year from Lady Day, 1644, to Lady Day, 1645, amounted to £1,365 6s. 11d. (p. 89). A list of the foot soldiers quartered in the city in 1643 is interesting for the names of the streets and districts of Dublin which it furnishes (pp. 65-7). The letters for the period between Ormond's return to Ireland in 1648 and his final retirement are relatively more numerous than those bearing on the earlier period of his first Viceroyalty. They throw much light on the obstacles, other than purely military difficulties, which rendered success impossible for the adherents of the Royalist cause; the hopelessness of raising adequate supplies of money or food, the want of cohesion between the jarring elements opposed to the Puritan party, the disputes with the representatives of the Roman Catholic clergy ; and the universal spirit of jealousy and distrust. These are well summed up in a remonstrance addressed to Ormond by Terence Coghlan, one of the Commissioners under the Peace of '48' designed to induce the King to abandon his intention of leaving Ireland: : 6 "I am confident it is not Cromwell's power, nor any past disasters that can work upon you to quit your interest here (if any such you intend). I believe rather the dispositions of some people of this kingdom, whom neither prosperity nor adversity can make capable of any preservation, causes this sudden resolution; but admitting that disobedience in some is come to that height as scarce any sign of obedience is left, and admitting that distrust and jealousies are had of you, yet ways are open to remove those impediments" (p. 143). It is, however, as already observed, for the period between Ormond's definite withdrawal from Ireland to that of the Restoration that the papers here published will be most valued by historical students. During the whole of this intricate decade Ormond was among the most trusted of the inner circle of the advisers of Charles II. His correspondents include practically every person of importance in the wandering court which followed the fortunes of its exiled sovereign. Among them for example are Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, Henry Bennett, afterwards Lord Arlington; Ulick de Burgh, Earl of Clanricarde, Ormond's Deputy in the Viceroyalty; John Bramhall, the well-known bishop of Derry and sometime Irish Primate, whose letters chiefly relate to his curiously unepiscopal functions as the Royalist prize agent; Theobald, Viscount Taaffe, the most striking of whose letters is a particularly vehement one addressed to Nicholas French, the wellknown Bishop of Ferns (p. 209); Sir Edward Nicholas, the faithful Secretary of State to Charles I.; Donough MacCarthy, Lord Muskery; Major General Edward Massey, conspicuous at different periods on either side of the great civil controversy; the first Earl of Inchiquin; Henry Coventry, afterwards Secretary of State ; and a host of lesser persons. Not all of the letters in the correspondence are printed for the first time, some of them having appeared in such collections as those contained in the Clanricarde Memoirs, Borlase's History of the Irish Rebellion, Cox's Hibernia Anglicana and the Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland. But in most cases of documents not published for the first time those here given differ in some material degree from the versions accessible elsewhere. An important letter of Henry Bennett, afterwards Lord Arlington, addressed to Ormond, on April 16, 1655, does not appear in its proper place, as, having been bound in error with the correspondence for 1665, it was not available when the documents here printed were selected. It will be found at the end of this Introduction. It is not, of course, to be expected that a collection in which there are such large gaps as those indicated above should provide anything approaching to a continuous chronicle of the events of the period covered by the correspondence. And in point of fact the letters and documents though arranged chronologically have otherwise no real sequence. None the less their interest to the historical student is great, inasmuch as when read in connexion with such collections as the Carte Papers and the Clarendon State Papers at the Bodleian Library, the Nicholas Papers and the Clarke Papers published by the Camden Society, the Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, and the History of the Confederation and War in Ireland 1641-1643, both edited by Sir John Gilbert, and the Calendars of State Papers relating to the same period, they will be found in many instances to fill serious lacune and to add materially to our knowledge of one of the most complex and difficult periods of modern history. L It is necessary, however, in this connexion to offer a word of warning to those who may consult the correspondence regarding the possibility of error in the dating of some of the letters in this. volume, especially of those written from abroad between 1647 and 1660. Much pains have been taken to avoid mistakes; but it can hardly be hoped that error has been altogether eliminated. For, owing to the confusion between the Old Style still in vogue at home, and the New Style already adopted abroad, the dating of letters written by Englishmen in the days of the Commonwealth is extremely confused and confusing, and abounds in pit-falls for the unwary student. Broadly speaking there is no doubt that the young king and his followers in exile used New Style, a practice which is certainly in accordance with the probabilities of the case, in view of the obvious practical inconvenience of adhering to a calendar different from that employed by those among whom they dwelt. But the exceptions to this rule. are numerous; and there are also many cases where copies or endorsements have confused the styles. A letter dated by the writer in the New Style may be found endorsed with the date at which it reached the recipient in the Old Style, in which case, as sometimes happens nowadays in the case of a telegram, the letter would appear to have been received before it was sent. Every letter therefore requires to be carefully scrutinised before its real date can be determined, and sometimes it is impossible to be In the latter case, however, the probabilities being greatly in favour of the New Style, it is safer to presume that this is meant. The letters here printed present in the majority of cases but little difficulty, doubtful dates being readily determinable either from internal evidence or by comparison with other letters in the Clarendon or Nicholas correspondence. In some few instances, however, it has been found impossible to determine the date with certainty; and in one at least, that of Prince Rupert's letter [p. 295] the date given by the writer, Sunday, July 8, 1653, is certainly wrong, July 8 not falling on a Sunday in that year either by New or by Old Style. sure. The contemporary spelling of the chief title of the Butler family has been uniformly followed, Ormond and not Ormonde being the form invariably used by the first Duke. This Report and Introduction have been prepared by Mr. C. Litton Falkiner, who desires to express his indebtedness to the courteous officers of the Irish Record Office, especially 26659 o b |