[20] A name of unenviable notoriety in the history of those times. Hume, at page 526 of his History of England, alluding to the severity of Lord Feversham in suppressing the rebellion of Monmouth, says: "He was outdone by Kirke, a soldier of fortune, who had long served at Tangiers, and had contracted from his intercourse with the Moors, an inhumanity less known in European and free countries." His cruelty in Ireland has become proverbial as that of Cromwell. There he became as distinguished for torturing the loyal subjects of the king, as he had previously been in persecuting the followers of Monmouth. [21] Vol. II., page 137. [22] Taylor adds, that "they never hesitated to encounter any odds, however unequal." But, in no place throughout the whole course of the war, did they meet an equal number of the royal troops in the field. It may be asked, as pertinent to the point, What had become of the militia--from fifteen to twenty thousand--disbanded by Tyrconnell in 1686? They were surely not in the Jacobite army, nor is it to be believed that they were idle spectators. They were in the army of William; and as to _their_ discipline, it was that of the English army of that day. [23] Addresses of the same import were presented to James on his arrival, by the established clergy. But Taylor says their addresses to William were "probably more sincere," and instances this fact:--"James was regularly prayed for by all the churches within his lines. When William advanced his name was substituted, and when he retreated, his rival again became 'our most religious and gracious king.'"--Vol. ii., p. 145. [24] The many conflicting statements of this trifling affair are set at rest by a letter which may be seen in the Dublin _Nation_ for May, 1865. It was written by Lord Meath--who was present at the battle,--is dated July 5, 1690, and is a rare specimen of epistolary correspondence. Enlarging on the affair, Pinnock, in his Catechism of Irish History, says: "Burke, an Irish gunner, having grazed the arm of William with a cannon-shot, and having taken a fresh aim, on which he might depend, James desired him 'not to make his child a widow.' It is also asserted, and with apparent truth, that having seen his own troops overcoming those of William, he cried out repeatedly: 'O spare my unfortunate subjects!' and having turned the tide of battle against himself, by gross mismanagement, he fled precipitately to Dublin, leaving his Irish subjects behind him." Inadequate artillery, and gross mismanagement on the part of the king, were, no doubt, the causes of the final result of the battle; but such exclamations, even by this "most Christian king," would be either too saintly or too infamous, and on his own authority the statement is here rejected. It was he himself that ordered the battery down to fire at William. (See Berwick's Memoirs, vol. ix., p. 396.) [25] Caillemotte was a brother of General Ruvigney, and Count Schomberg was a son of the duke of that name.