is friends, secured them, and been instructed how
with honour and justice he might break it in regard of the breach on their
part" (p. 396, 397). Yet a little before he had resolutely declared that no
consideration should induce him to violate the same peace (p. 374, 379).
On his application afterwards for aid to the pope, he excused it, saying,
"fuisse vim manifestam: jam enim statuerant Scoti presbyterani personam
suam parliamento Anglicano tradere, si illam declarationem ab ipsis factam
non approbasset." Ex originali penes me.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Sept. 15.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Sept. 16.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. Oct. 15.]

the lord lieutenant to assume a bolder tone. He professed[a] himself
ready to assert, that both the king and his officers on one part, and the
Catholic population on the other, were bound by the provisions of the
treaty; but he previously required that the commissioners of trust should
condemn the proceedings of the synod at James-town, and join with him in
punishing such of its members as should persist in their disobedience. They
made proposals[b] to the prelates, and received for answer, that protection
and obedience were correlative; and, therefore, since the king had
publicly excluded them, under the designation of "bloody rebels," from
his protection, they could not understand how any officer acting by his
authority could lay claim to their obedience.[1]

This answer convinced Ormond that it was time for him to leave Ireland;
but, before his departure, he called a general assembly, and selected the
marquess of Clanricard, a Catholic nobleman, to command as his deputy.
To Clanricard, whose health was infirm, and whose habits were domestic,
nothing could be more unwelcome than such an appointment. Wherever he cast
his eyes he was appalled by the prospect before him. He saw three-fourths
of Ireland in the possession of a restless and victorious enemy; Connaught
and Clare, which alone remained to the royalists, were depopulated by
famine and pestilence; and political and religious dissension divided
the leaders and their followers, while one party attributed the national
disasters to the temerity of the men who presumed to govern under the curse
of excommunication; and the other charged their opponents with concealing
disloyal and interested views under the mantle of patriotism

[Footnote 1: Ponce, 257-261.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Oct. 23.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Oct. 29.]

and