We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2010
This is an account of one of the more controversial Irish conspiracies of 1641 which allegedly involved Charles I and the earl of Antrim, a prominent Gaelic warlord with extensive connections in all three of the Stuart kingdoms. No irrefutable contemporary documentation to the plot appears to have survived and so the ambiguous and scrappy evidencefor the conspiracy, dating from the 1640s, 1650s and 1660s, has been examined here in an attempt to establish whether the ‘Antrim plot’ was a myth or a reality.
1 I am grateful to Professor Aidan Clarke, Professor Michael Perceval-Maxwell, Professor Geoffrey Parker, Professor the Earl Russell and Dr David Stevensonforkindly sharing their views on this matter with me; and to Professor Perceval-Maxwell for allowing me to cite from his unpublished paper on the subject.
2 Russell, Conrad, ‘Why did Charles I call the Long Parliament?’ in History, LXIX (1984), 375-83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Clarke, Aidan, ‘The breakdown of authority, 1640-41’ in New history ofIreland, III, Early modern Ireland 1534-1691 (Oxford, 1978), 270–88Google Scholar; Russell, Conrad, ‘The British background to the Irish rebellion of 1641’ in Historical Research: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LXI, no. (06 1988), 167–70Google Scholar; Kearney, Hugh, ‘The Irish Parliament in the early seventeenth century’ in Farrell, Brian (ed.), The Irish parliamentary tradition (Dublin, 1973), pp. 89, 96, 98–101Google Scholar.
4 Hill, George, An historical account of the MacDonnells of Antrim including notices of some other Irish and Scottish (Belfast, 1873Google Scholar; reprinted 1978), p. 255, suggested that some time between April and June Antrim ‘resided for a time’ with the king at Oxford; but he offered no evidence to support this assertion. Antrim took his seat in the Irish house of lords in June 1640 and lived in the house Sir Adam Loftus, Viscount Loftus Ely, leased him, Hill, , MacDonnells, pp. 257, 270, 305Google Scholar. What role, if any, the earl played in the great parliamentary issues of the day is unclear, for the only mention of him in the journal of the lords was in February 1641 when the house heard his petition against Gee, Ralph, one of his creditors, ‘for uttering many scandalous speeches of the said earl, Journal of the house of lords [of Ireland], 1634-1800 (8 vols., Dublin, 1779-1800), I, 148–9Google Scholar.
5 These declarations arc printed in Cox, Richard, Hibemia Anglicana, or the history of Irelandfrom the conquest thereof by the English to this present time (2 vols., 2nd edn, London, 1692), II, 206–9Google Scholar and Hill, , MacDonnells, pp. 448–5Google Scholar. Cox printed Antrim's ‘information’ without indicating his source (Hill simply reprints Cox's version of the ‘Antrim plot’); however, manuscript versions of it have been found in two locations. (1) A copy of Antrim's ‘discourse’ which was endorsed by the earl of Orrery (in 1661) as ‘the copy of that paper which was delivered to me by lord bishop of Clogher’ is among the Irish state papers, see Cal [endar of] S[tate] P[apers relatingto]Ire[land], 1660-2, p. 208/The P[ublic] R[ecord] Of[fice, London], S[tate] P[apers] 63/306/47 (fo. 92). (2) (i) A document entitled “the substance of the earl of Antrim's declaration’, now housed among the duke of Ormond's papers, includes the transcripts made by Henry Jones, John Reynolds and Henry Owen of Antrim's disclosures; Antrim's declaration that their accounts were truthful and accurate; and a detailed account (not reproduced by Cox) of his trip to London in December 1650, see Bodl[eian Library, Oxford], Carte MSS 28, fos. 365-6V. (ii) Valentine Savage, who had made an almost verbatim copy of Jones's original transcript for Broghill (probably 1 above), then made a further copy (this time from memory) which was later sent to Ormond, see “The substance of an examination… of Antrim’, ‘about midsummer 1650’ (Bodl., Carte MSS 65, fos. 508-9). (iii) A further copy, written from memory (found among Clarendon's papers), adds the information – without giving a date – that Antrim actually met with Ormond at Castlehaven's house (presumably at Maddenstown) in County Kildare. For details see ‘Viscount Montgomery's account of how he secured a copy of the declaration’, c. Sept. 1650 (Bodl., Clarendon MSS 40, fos. 151-2).
6 Bourke was a nephew of the earl of Clanricard and served on the delegation sent to London by the Irish house ofcommons in November 1640, Clarke, Aidan, The Old English in Ireland, 1625-42 (London, 1966), pp. 127–8, 135, 159Google Scholar. Bourke and the other member of the catholic party, Plunkett, ‘were believed to have private access to the king’ according to Russell, , ‘The British background“, 172Google Scholar. Even after the outbreak of the rebellion Charles definitely continued to use Bourke as a messenger, Gilbert, John T. (ed.), History of the Irish confederation and the war in Ireland, 1641-3… (7 vols., Dublin, 1882-1891) II, iii–vGoogle Scholar.
7 This and the rest of the account of the plot comes from ‘Information of the marquis of Antrim’ in Hill, , MacDomulls, pp. 448–51Google Scholar. Neither Antrim nor Charles 1 could afford either to pay or to arm these troops. However, this had not deterred the impractical pair in 1638-9 when they were equally impoverished and the king nevertheless hoped that Antrim would raise 5, 000 men for his service. For further details see Ohlmeyer, Jane, ‘A seventeenth-century survivor: The political career of Randal MacDonnell, first marquis and second earl of Antrim (1609-83)’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 1990), chapter 3Google Scholar.
8 Related by marriage to Antrim, Conor Maguire, Lord Enniskillen, plotted the Ulster rebellion of 1641 together with O'More, John T. Gilbert (ed.), A contemporary history of affairs in Ireland, from A.D. 1641 to 1652… (Irish Archaeological Society, 3 vols., Dublin, 1897), 1, xx–xxiiGoogle Scholar. Donough MacCarthy, Viscount Muskerry, was Ormond's brother-in-law and (like Thomas Bourke) served on thr delegation sent to London by die Irish house of commons in Nov. 1640, Clarke, . The Old English, pp. 197-8, 135, 159Google Scholar. During the 1640s he was a leading confederate (serving as president of the supreme council) and an ‘Ormondist’, Gilbert, , Irish confederation, IV, xlvii–lxvGoogle Scholar.
9 By now it was probably early June for, according to a letter from Antrim to Hamilton, he left Dublin in the middle ofJune to spend a month ‘at a friend's house’, Antrim to Hamilton, 19 Jul. 1641 (S[cottish] R[ecord] O[ffice], G[ifts and] D[eposits] 406/1/1389). As luck would have it the earl did not state where his anonymous friend's house was. It was later claimed that he met Ormond at Lord Castlehaven's house at Maddenstown, County Kildare. See, ‘Viscount Montgomery's account of how he obtained a copy of Antrim's declaration’, c. Sept. 1650 (Bodl., Clarendon MSS 40, fo. 152).
10 It was later claimed (by Sir Phelim O'Neill) that Barry was involved in plotting the Ulster rebellion and was to help take Dublin castle on behalf of the insurgents (Gilbert, , Contemporary history, III, 367)Google Scholar. Certainly he later joined the catholic confederates. However, throughout the 1640s Barry remained a loyal supporter of Ormond and often acted as his messenger (Gilbert, , Contemporary history, I, 181–3, 190, 282, 611)Google Scholar.
11 Antrim had spent eleven years at court (1627-38) and largely thanks to his marriage to the duchess of Buckingham and his friendships with Charles I's favourite, James, third marquis of Hamilton, and with the king's closest blood relative, the fourth duke of Lennox (and after 1641 Richmond) he enjoyed easy access to the royal couple. According to Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon, Antrim was ‘very well received by both their majesties, and was frequently in their presence’ (Hyde, Edward, The life of Edward, earl of Clarendon… being a continuation of the History of the Rebellion… (3 vols., Oxford, 1827), II, 77)Google Scholar. For further details on Antrim's career at court see Ohlmeyer, , ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, pp. 51–64Google Scholar.
12 Digby was certainly a trusted servant of Antrim: shortly after the outbreak of rebellion the earl instructed Digby to take charge of Dunluce castle, deposition of Gilduff O'Cahan, 10 Mar. 1653 (T[rinity] C[ollege] D[ublin], MS 383, fo. 25).
13 Hamerton, too, was another of Antrim's servants, for in 1650 he petitioned the committee for compounding for the ‘allowance of a lease’ granted to him by Antrim, , Calendar ofthe proceedings of the committee for compounding, 1643-1660, ed. Green, Mary Anne Everett (5 vols., London, 1889-1592), III, 2188 and P.R.O., S.P. 23/10/p. 228Google Scholar.
14 Russell, , ‘The British background’, p. 179Google Scholar and Dunlop, Robert, ‘The forged commission of 1641’ in English Historical Review, II, 7 (06 1887), 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 See p. 916 below. Interestingly Ontiond seriously contemplated visiting the king in Edinburgh during the autumn of 1641, Temple to Ormond, 2 Sept. 1641 (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fo. 444); Sir Patrick Wemys to Ormond, 25 Sept. 1641 (Carte MSS 1, fo. 457); Sir Patrick Wemys to Ormond, [Oct.] 1641 (Carte MSS 1, fo. 465).
16 National Library of Ireland, MS 476, ‘A light to the blind’, p. 61, the anonymous author (writing in c. 1720) suggested that Ormond and Antrim had set 16 Nov. 1641 as the date for their rising.
17 Corish, Patrick J., ‘The rising of 1641 and the catholic confederacy, 1641-5’ in New history of Ireland, III, 289–1Google Scholar; Beckett, J. C., The Cavalier Duke. A life of James Butler – 1st duke of Ormond (Belfast, 1990), p. 19Google Scholar. Antrim, despite later accusations, was not involved in the Ulster rebellion of October 1641, deposition of Robert Maxwell, 22 Aug. 1642 (T.C.D., MSS 809, fos. 7V-8; Hickson, Mary, Ireland in the seventeenth century… (2 vols., London, 1884), I, 332–3)Google Scholar. For further details see Ohlmeyer, , ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, pp. 127–30Google Scholar.
18 Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the accession of Janus I to tht outbreak of tht civil war, 1603-42 (10 vols., London, 1899), X, 7–8, 49-51Google Scholar; Dunlop, , ‘The forged commission’, pp. 537–9Google Scholar; Clarke, , Old English, pp. 158–9, 165-8Google Scholar; Clarke, Aidan, ‘The genesis of the Ulster Rising’ in Roebuck, Peter (ed.), Plantation to partition. Essays in Ulster history in honour of J. L. McCracken (Belfast, 1981), pp. 39–40Google Scholar; Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the popish plot (Chapel Hill, 1983), p. 211Google Scholar; Corish, , ‘The rising of 1641’, p. 290Google Scholar; Beckett, , The Cavalier Duke, pp. 18–19Google Scholar. However there is some disagreement about when the first royal message was sent. Gardiner (p. 7) suggested that it was sent between 11 May and 7 Aug. 1641. Dunlop (p. 528) and Beckett (p. 18) offered no date but believed the first royal message was sent after the army was disbanded (c. late May). Clarke (p. 159) and Hibbard (p. 211) argued that the first message was sent ‘some time in July’, while Russell, , ‘The British background’, p. 179Google Scholar noted that the ‘Antrim plot’ took place ‘in June and July 1641’. No doubt these differing opinions stem from the ambiguous nature of the declaration itself which makes it difficult to date precisely the events to which Antrim was referring.
19 Antrim is not named specifically but internal evidence suggests that he was one of the ‘persons of quallitie’ to whom Bellings was referring, Gilbert, , Irish confederation, I, xvii-xviii, 10Google Scholar.
20 He offered a threefold explanation: firstly, Ormond and Antrim could never have worked together; secondly, it would have been impossible to raise 12, 000 men ‘without noise and time’; thirdly, not even Charles would have been so ‘rash and imprudent’ as to put ‘the kingdom of England in a flame’ while he was away in Scotland, Cox, Hibemia Anglicana, II, 209Google Scholar.
21 Russell, , ‘The British background’, pp. 166–82Google Scholar; Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, ‘Charles I and the Irish conspiracy in 1641’ (unpublished paper presented at a conference entitled ‘One Imperial Crown: The multiple kingdom of seventeenth-century Britain’ held at Urbana-Champaign, 3-6 04 1990)Google Scholar.
22 Russell, , ‘The British background’, pp. 177–9Google Scholar.
23 Perceval-Maxwell, ‘Charles I and the Irish conspiracy in 1641’.
24 See note 5 above.
25 For further details on Crelly's talks see Ohlmeyer, , ‘A seventeenth-century lurvivor’, pp. 297–9, 304-8, 313-20, 325Google Scholar. Cárdenas to Philip IV, [Aug.] 1649 (A[rchivo] G[eneral de] S[imancai], E[stad]o 2524, fo. 33).
26 Inchiquin to Ormond, 3 Nov. 1649 (Bodl., Clarendon MSS 38, fo. 101); John Dongan to Ormond, 24 Aug. 1649 (Bodl., Carte MSS 25, fo. 349); Warrant by Ireton, 7 Jan. 1650 and Henry Jones to Antrim, 11 Feb. 1650 (Carte MSS 118, fo. 45V and T.C.D., MS 844, fo. 96). Ramsey, Robert W., Hatty Ireton (London, 1949)Google Scholar, chapters 15 and 16, highlights the conciliatory nature of Ireton's rule in Ireland.
27 John Dongan to Ormond, 24 Aug. 1649 (Bodl., Carte MSS 25, fo. 349); Dunlop, Robert (ed.), Inland under the Commontotaltk. Being a selection of documents relating to the government of Ireland from 1651 to 1650, 2 vob. (Manchester, 1913), I, 124Google Scholar; Murphy, Denis, Cromwell in Ireland. A history of Cromwell's Irish campaigns (Dublin, 1883), p. 145Google Scholar; Carte, Thomas, History of the life of Janus, first duke of Ormond (2nd edn, 6 vols., Oxford, 1851), III, 489–90Google Scholar.
28 The substance of the earl of Antrim's declaration, undated (Bodl., Carte MSS 28, fo. 366). Also see Cal[endar of] S[tate] P[apers]. Dom[estk series], 1650, p. 465.
29 Petition of adventurers and soldiers to Charles II, [Aug. 1663] (Bodl., Carte MSS 44, fos. 376-7); John Walshc to Ormond, 16 Nov. 1649 (Carte MSS 26, fo. 219). For instance, he disseminated the rumour, which he claimed that he had from a reliable parliamentary source (Colonel Michael Jones), that Lord Inchiquin, commander-in-chief of the king's army in Ireland and lord president of Munster, had sold out to the Commonwealth. Inchiquin denied the charge. But, as Gardiner noted, ‘Whatever the truth may have been, the mere fact that the charge was made weakened the authority of Inchiquin, weak enough already’. Examination of Antrim at Clonmcl, 5 Dec. 1649 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 294; P.R.O., S.P. 63/307/5.1 (fo. u)), Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 293. S. R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwtalth and Protectorate 1649-1660 (new edn, 4 vol., London, 1903; reprint, 1988), 1, 138; Gilbert, , Contemporary history, III, 332–3Google Scholar. Antrim's tactics were so effective that Ormond even contemplated resigning his post, Ormond to Charles II, 15 Dec. 1649 (Bodl., Carte MSS 26, fos. 381-3V).
30 Examination of bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, 1 Feb. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 208/P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/45 (fo. 87)).
31 ‘Information of the marquis of Antrim’ in Hill, , MacDomulls, p. 450Google Scholar; Examination of Colonel Henry Owen, 4 Feb. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 209/P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/47 (fo. gav)).
32 Petition of adventurers and soldiers, [26 Jul.] 1663 (Col. S.P. Ire., 1663-5, PP- 214-17 and Bodl., Carte MSS 44, fos. 394-5); Some observations of adventurers and soldiers on the estate claimed by Antrim, [1661] (Bodl., Carte MSS 44, fos. 328-31); Petition of adventurers and soldiers to Charles II, [Aug. 1663] (Carte MSS 44, fos. 376-7); Hill, , MacDonnalls. p. 336Google Scholar.
33 The substance of the earl of Antrim's declaration, undated (Bodl., Carte MSS 28, fo. 366). He was also given an amnesty from being arrested by his creditors for two months, ‘some observations of the adventurers and soldiers’, [Apr.], 1661 (Carte MSS 44, fo. 330); Hill, , MacDoimelLs, p. 278Google Scholar. For details on Antrim's pensions see Ohlmeyer, , ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, p. 363Google Scholar.
34 Commissioners in Dublin to the lord lieutenant, 8 Jan. 1652 (Dunlop, , Commonwealth, I, 124)Google Scholar.
35 Prior to this, the largest ‘gap’ in their correspondence was a mere four months – and that, too, may be caused by the loss of some intervening letters.
36 Antrim to Hamilton, 3 Jun. 1641 (S.R.O., G.D. 406/1/1355); Antrim to Hamilton, 19 Jul. 1641 (S.R.O., G.D. 406/1/1389).
37 Antrim to [Hamilton], 13 Jul. 1639 (S.R.O., G.D. 406/1/1164).
38 A continuation of the Triumphant and Courgious [tic] proceedings of the Protestant Army in Ireland… (London, 1 04 1642), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; Hibbard, , Popish piot, p. 117Google Scholar; Report on the manuscripts of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu (London, 1900), pp. 154–5Google Scholar; ‘Case of the Roman Catholics of Ireland’ (Bodl., Rawlinson B. 482, p. 18); Gilbert, , Irish confederation, I, xxxiv-xxxv, 285-8, 298–9Google Scholar.
39 After his capture Read was sent to London and imprisoned in the Tower; he later – late 1643 or early 1644 – escaped from the Tower and fled to Oxford. He was then implicated in a plot to hand London over to the crown, , The Kingdomts Weekly Intelligencer… Tuesday 2-Trusday January 1644, pp. 289–90Google Scholar.
40 Examination of Sir Phelim O'Neill, 23 Feb. 1653 (T.C.D., MS 836, fos. 167-8).
41 For a discussion of the various plots see Clarke, , Old English, pp. 154–8Google Scholar; Gillespie, Raymond, ‘The end of an era: Ulster and the outbreak of the 1641 rising’ in Brady, Ciaran, Gillespie, Raymond (eds.), Natives and newcomers. The making of Irish colonial society 1534-1641 (Dublin, 1986), pp. 192–4, 202-4Google Scholar; FitzPatrick, Brendan, Seventeenth-century Ireland: the war of religions (Dublin, 1988), chapter 6Google Scholar; Casway, Jerrold, Owen Roe O'Neill and the strugglefor catholic Ireland (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 46–51Google Scholar. Later historians have often confused the various plots. For example, Dunlop mixed up the ‘O'More-Maguire’ and ‘Antrim’ plots, Dunlop, , ‘The forged commission’, pp. 528–9Google Scholar.
42 Ormond to Clarendon, 27 Oct. 1663 (Bodl., Carte MSS 143, fo. 201).
43 Ormond and lords justices to Bennet, 31 Jul. 1663 (Bodl. Carte MSS 44, fos. 370-3).
44 Examination of bishop of Clogher, 1 Feb. 1661 (Col. S.P. Ire., 1660–2, p. 207; P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/44 (fos. 85–v)); Examination of Orrery, 4 Feb. 1661 (Col. S.P. Ire., 1660–2, p. 208; P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/46 (fo. 89)); Examination of bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, 1 Feb. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 308; P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/45 (fo. 87)); Examination of Colonel Henry Owen, 4 Feb. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 209; PRO., S.P 63/306/47 (fo. 92V)); Examination of bishop of Clogher, 14 Feb. 1661 (Cat. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 217; P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/60 (fo. 113)). Their examinations were then forwarded to London, Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 293. Richard Baxter claimed that at the Restoration Antrim 'was forced to produce in the… House of Commons, a letter of the king's [Charles 1], by which he gave him order for his taking up arms; which being read in the House, did put them into a silence’, Reliquiae Baxteriatuu; or, Mr Baxter's, Richardnarrative of the most memorable passages of his life and times… (London, 1696), part III at p. 83Google Scholar; and Baxter, Richard, A Vindication of the Royal Martyr Charles Ifrom the Irish Massacre in tht Tear 1641… (3rd edn, London, 1704), pp. 2–3Google Scholar. But this seems unfounded.
45 However, Bishop Boyle also asserted that Ireton and Venables were aware that Charles I — ‘a man of such wisdom’ — would never have considered using Antrim in the first place, Examination of bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, 1 Feb. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, p. 208/P.R.O., S.P. 63/306/45 (fo. 87)).
46 Antrim to Ormond, 24 Apr. 1661 (Bodl., Carte MSS 44, fo. 334).
47 Examination of Antrim, 23 Jul. 1661 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660-2, pp. 384-5/P.R.O., S.P. 63/307/59. fos 265-6).
48 Ormond to Charles II, 20 Oct. 1662 (Bodl., Clarendon MSS 78, fo. 39).
49 Examination of Antrim, 23 Jul. 1661 (Col. S.P. Irt., 1660–2, pp. 384–5/P.R.O., S.P63/307/159.fos. 265–6).
50 Examination of Antrim, 8 May 1662 (Cal. S.P. be., 1660-2, p. 542; P.R.O., S.P. 63/310/38, fos. 111–12).
51 While Antrim was inclined to brag and boast, there is no evidence that he lied when it was convenient for him to do so.
52 Memorandum on behalf of Antrim, [e. 1664] Cal. S.P. Ire., 1669-70, pp. 520-1; King's Inn Library, Dublin, Prendergast Papers vol. 5, fos. 310-16; Report on the manuscripts of the duke of Ormonde, NS (8 vols., London, 1902–1920), II, 185Google Scholar; Hill, , MacDomteils, pp. 292, 326–43Google Scholar. Clauses 172–80 of the act relate to Antrim and his family, The statutes at large passed in the parliament held in Ireland (1310–1716) (Dublin, 1765), III, 100–6Google Scholar.
53 Clarendon to Ormond, 1 Aug. 1663 (Bodl., Carte MSS 33, fo. 15); Bennet to Ormond, 3 Sept. 1663 (Carte MSS 46, fos. 76-81). His powerful friends and benefactors included Sir Daniel O'Neill, now a groom of the bedchamber and an intimate of Charles II, Henry Jermyn, first earl of St Albans, Lord Hollis and Roger Boyle, earl of Orrery and lord president of Minister. For further details see Ohlmeyer, , ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, pp. 387–94Google Scholar.
54 Charles II to Ormond, 8 Dec. 1662 (Cal. S.P. he., 1660–2, p. 643/P.R.O., S.P. 63/312/pp. 5–6); Henrietta Maria to Ormond, 8/18 Jun. 1662 (Bodl., Carte MSS 44, fos. 351-v); Henrietta Maria to Ormond, 9 Oct. 1662 (Carte MSS 214, fo. 369); Henrietta Maria to Ormond, 22 Mar. 1663 (Carte MSS 44, fo. 361); St Albans to Ormond, 18 Jul. 1663 (Carte MSS 44, fo. 366); Henrietta Maria to Ormond, 11 Jul. 1665 (Carte MSS 215, fo. 207); Col. S.P. Ire., 1663-5, p. 207 and Cal. S.P. Ir$., 1669-70, p. 456.
55 Beckett, , The Cavalier Duke, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.
56 It is highly unlikely that Ormond was in any way involved with the ‘O'More-Maguire plot’ as tome sources have suggested. See, for instance, Gilbert, , Contemporary history, I, 12Google Scholar; Hickson, , Inland in the seventeenth century, II, 191Google Scholar. Certainly after the outbreak of rebellion Ormond vehemently denied being involved in the ‘O'More-Maguire plot’: it is…knowen that all the last parliament (when dubtlesse this mischife was hatching) I was as fan ‘(at least) from complying with them in any of theire designes as any man that is now most vehement against them’, Ormond to Sir P. Percival, 3 Mar. 1642 (B[ritish] Lfibrary], Additional] MSS 46, 926, fos. 34–v).
57 Ohlmeyer, ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, chapter 3.
58 Ohlmeyer, ‘A seventeenth-century survivor’, chapter 4.
59 Hibbard, , Popish plot, pp. 104–8Google Scholar, 124, 163, 193–6; Elliott, John H., ‘The year of the three ambassadors’ in Lloyd-Jones, Hugh et al. (eds.), History and imagination. Essays in honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 165–181Google Scholar; Loomie, Albert J., ‘Alonso de Cardenas and the Long Parliament, 1640–8’ in English Historical Review, XCVII, no. 383 (03 1982), 291–3Google Scholar. Cregan, Donal, ‘An Irish Cavalier: Daniel O'Neill’ in Studio Hiberma, III (1963), 85–92Google Scholar suggests that the Army plots in England were linked to the ‘Colonels’ plot' in Ireland.
60 Dunlop suggested that Dillon's mission was linked to the ‘Antrim plot’ and that the instructions Dillon carried from the king were similar to those which he had sent to Antrim in August 1641, Dunlop, , ‘The forged commission’, p. 533Google Scholar, also see p. 529. Of Lord Dillon's instructions, Ormond later claimed that ‘I was not only a stranger to them but desired to be so’, Ormond to Sir P. Percival, 3 Mar. 1642 (B.L., Add. MSS 46, 926, fos. 34-v).
61 Stevenson, David, The Scottish revolution 1637–44. The triumph of the covenanters (Newton Abbot, 1973). PP. 223–5Google Scholar.
62 According to St Leger ‘The state of this army is now such for so many of them as are armed, so that I do not care who sees them…no prince in the Christian world hath…better men, nor more orderly’, St Leger to Ormond, 22 Aug. 1640 (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fo. 231). Gillcspie, , ‘End of an era’, p. 201Google Scholar.
63 Charles I to Ormond, 8 May 1641 (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fo. 381); Ormond to Vane, iojun. 1641 (Carte MSS 1, fo. 426). Clarke, , Old English, pp. 154–6Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1641-3, p. 16.
64 For instance in June it was reported that 100 men from Colonel Chichester's regiment were in Newry with their officers: ‘I cannot judge their inclinations to be willing to remain here, being they are all so persuaded that Dublin will afford them better means of subsistence’, [An officer in command of the Newry garrison] to [Theophilus Jones], [c. Jun. 1641] (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fo. 425V). The lords justices reported how in June ‘a popish priest or friar had been tampering with some of the late disbanded army here, that they might not depart this kingdom, [for] any foreign employment, and that they should rather live at home although they live on bread and milk’, lords justices to Vane, 3 Aug. 1641 (B.L., Egferton). MSS 2533, fos. 121–2).
65 The Spanish ambassador in London and Philip IV were both delighted by this windfall of freshly trained Irish soldiers, Cardenas to council of state, 5/15 Jul. 1641 (A.G.S., Eo. 2543 unfol.); Consulta of council of state, 12/22 Aug. 1641 (A.G.S., Eo. 2522 unfol.). Bigby, D. A., Anglo-French rtlotions, 1641–9 (London, 1933), p. 123Google Scholar; Loomie, Albert J., ‘The Spanish faction at the court of Charles I, 1630–8’ in Historical Research, LIX, no. 139 (05, 1986), 36–49Google Scholar.
66 Sir Benjamin Rudyerd. His speech made in answer to the Spanish and French Ambassadors… August 28 1641 (London, 1641), pp. 3–4Google Scholar. Russell, , ‘The British background’, p. 178Google Scholar and Cal. S.P. Ire., 1641–3, P. 85.
67 Lords justices to Vane, 3 Aug. 1641 (B.L., Eg. MSS 2533, fos. 121-2); Cal. S.P. Ire., 1633–4), p. 338; Gillespie, , ‘End of an era’, p. 201Google Scholar.
68 Vane to Ormond, 20 Aug. 1641 (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fo. 436); Cal. S.P. Ire. 1641–3, p. 162.
69 The 900 never sailed, due firstly to contrary winds and then to the outbreak of the rebellion. It is noteworthy that Cardenas spent 58, 600 escudos (out of the 70, 000 sent) or roughly £14, 000 [!] arranging the*e levies. He had clearly anticipated a far larger army being ready to leave Ireland, Cardenas to Philip IV, 8/18 May 1644 (A.G.S., Eo. 2522 unfol.); Loomie, , ‘Alonso de Cardenas’, p. 293Google Scholar.
70 Shipping was ready for at least some of them in the transport vessels which Antrim had built in 1639 to ship his forces to Scotland. In 1640 Strafford requisitioned these long boats as troop carriers, and three or four of these, ‘each of about fifteen tons, with twelve men a piece’, were earmarked for the invasion of Dumbarton in Aug. 1640, Strafford to Ormond, 17 Aug. 1640 (Bodl., Carte MSS 1, fos. 229–v); Demands of Captain Taverner [governor of Dumbarton castle?], [Aug.] 1640 (Carte MSS 1, fo. 335); Strafford to the governor of Dumbarton castle, 24 Aug. 1640 (Carte MSS 1, fo. 237). Gillespie, , ‘End of an era’, p. 211Google Scholar.
