Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 2 (of 3), 1642-1660Bagwell, Richard
History
Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 2 (of 3), 1642-1660
Bagwell, Richard
Ireland -- History -- 17th century
Sir Theodore Bourke, third Viscount Mayo, submitted on July 14, 1652,
and was one of the seven who signed on behalf of a large number. Those
guilty of robbery or murder during the first year of the war were
excluded from any benefit by the articles. Lord Mayo was tried at
Galway as accessory to the Shrule massacre by a commission consisting
of Sir Charles Coote and ten others. He was undoubtedly present at the
murders, and he rode away without fighting for the victims, who were
supposed to be under his protection; but there was evidence to show
that he did make some effort to save them, and that he fled only to
secure his own life. Four of the commissioners were for an acquittal,
but he was condemned by a majority and shot.[253]
[Sidenote: Cost of the war.]
[Sidenote: The city of London.]
War is a costly business. First there is the blood-tax, withdrawing
thousands of young men from remunerative work. Then there is the
expenditure on war materials, and the destruction of property, which
may take long to replace. In modern times soldiers are paid punctually,
but some part of the waste has to be met by loans, and so the expense
of war goes on when its causes are half forgotten. In the case of the
Irish rebellion, it was seen at once that the work could not be paid
for out of revenue. Except for a moment under Strafford, Ireland had
never been self-supporting, and Parliament, upon whom the King at once
cast the responsibility, as yet commanded no regular income and could
not pledge the national credit. The city of London was willing enough
to give money, but security for repayment was required, and 2500 acres
of Irish land were hypothecated for this purpose. It was assumed,
judging by the great area affected, and by the experience of former
rebellions, that a very much larger amount would be forfeited. Those
who subscribed would have something to sell as soon as their money had
done its work. In addition to this it proved, just as in Elizabeth's
time, that there was never ready cash enough to pay the soldiers
in full, and their arrears also were made a charge upon the Irish
forfeitures. There were also many miscellaneous creditors who expected
to be paid out of the same fund.[254]
[Sidenote: Charles I. a party to the plan of settlement.]
[Sidenote: Money subscribed for Ireland,]
[Sidenote: but spent in England.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account