pression, he submitted. Wentworth was, however, still unsatisfied, and therefore not only harassed him with fresh prosecutions in the star-chamber, but, by iniquitous decrees of the council-board, deprived him of his property, reducing him, his wife, and seven children, to beggary.

Well might such proceedings procure for Wentworth, as we learn from his letters they did, a comparison with a bashaw of Buda; and his defence did not extenuate his guilt. He argued, that in the case of Mountnorris before the council of war, he merely discharged the duty of his place in preferring a complaint; that he did not vote against the accused; that even after sentence was passed, he assured him that he was no way exposed to the hazard of his life, forgetting however, to state that it had been stipulated for by the council, as the condition on which they pronounced him guilty; and that he had interceded with his majesty for his pardon; in doing which, however, he forgot to say, that he merely joined the council, and acted up to the condition stipulated for .

Rush. vol. viii. Arts. v. and vi. Clarendon tells us that "the standers-by made an excuse for Strafforde; that Mountnorris was a man of great industry, activity, and experience in the affairs of Ireland, having raised himself from a very private, mean condition, (having been an inferior servant to Lord Chichester,) to the degree of a viscount and a privy counsellor, and to a very ample revenue in lands and offices; that "he bad always, by servile flattery, and sordid application, wrought himself into trust and nearness with all deputies at their first entrance upon their charge, informing them of the defects and oversights of their predecessors; and after the determination of their commands, and return into England, informing the state here, and those enemies they usually contracted in that time, of whatsoever they had done or

Former deputies appear to have arrogated powers inconsistent with law, but Strafforde far exceeded them all; nor does the matter rest merely on the evidence of witnesses, which yet is complete, since

suffered to be done amiss; whereby they either suffered disgrace or damage, as soon as they were recalled from their honours: So that this dilemma seemed unquestionable, that either the deputy of Ireland must destroy my Lord Mountnorris, or my Lord Mountnorris must destroy the deputy as soon as his commission was determined." This character imputed to Mountnorris, is certainly not an amiable one; but it ought to be remembered, how readily every grand witness against Strafforde was calumniated: taking it, however, as true, it merely amounts to this, that though, for his own interest, he overlooked criminality in the successive deputies during their administration, he afterwards turned informer. It is not alleged that he accused any of them unjustly; and though the part he is alleged to have acted might fairly have induced Wentworth not to place confidence in him, or shew him marks of respect, it could not on any just principle operate farther; while it must be evident that, unless he had known that he could not justify his government, he could not have had a motive for destroying Mountnorris in self preservation. Clar. vol. i. p. 221–2. Just before this, the noble historian says, "the injustice whereof" (the proceedings against Mountnorris,)" seemed the more formidable, for that the Lord Mountnorris was known for sometime before, to stand in great jealousy and disfavour with the earl, which made it be looked on as a pure act of revenge; and gave all men warning how they trusted themselves in the territories where he commanded." p. "In vain," says Mr. Hume, without quoting any authority whatever, "did Strafforde's friends add as a further apology, that Mountnorris was a man of an infamous character, who paid court by the lowest adulation to all deputies while present, and blackened their character by the vilest calumnies when recalled; and that Strafforde, expecting like treatment, had used this expedient for no other purpose than to subdue the petulant spirit of the man." Though this elegant historian does not quote an authority, it is perfectly clear to me that he had no other than the above from Clarendon; and the reader will be able to judge how far he has kept to it. Indeed, one would almost imagine from his language, that Strafforde's friends had spoken to this effect at the trial. Clarendon does not say that Mountnorris was charged with inventing calumnies, but with giving information

221.

his own dispatches fully establish it. Scarcely was he warm in his place, when he applied, in the following terms, for illegal, unlimited, powers: "I find that my Lord Falkland was restrained by proclama

of the truth. He does not pretend that the sentence was passed to subdue the petulant spirit of the man, but builds the apology upon the necessary ruin of that individual to Strafforde's own safety. No public transgression could be proved against Mountnorris; and that nothing short of his absolute ruin could pacify his enemy, the whole proceedings shew. See Straf. Let. and. Disp. vol. i. p. 497. et seq. 508, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19. vol. ii. p. 5, 15, 21, 27. Wentworth, who was allied to Lady Mountnorris through his second wife, seems at one time to have courted Mountnorris. See a very confidential letter by him to that lord, in Aug. 1632, vol. i. p. 73. which is the best answer to Mr. Hume's statement. See also p. 76, 8, 99. 115. The correspondence of Strafforde's, with Mountnorris's account, makes the matter quite clear. Mountnorris, who held the office of vice-treasurer, which in effect was that of treasurer in Ireland, (Warwicke, p. 116.) had not shewn himself quite so pliant as the Deputy had anticipated. (See Let. and Disp. vol. i. p. 119.) And after his quarrel with Sir George Wentworth, the deputy wished his removal from his offices, particularly that of vice-treasurer. He proposed, therefore, that Mountnorris should make a dishonourable sale of his office, and the proposal had been attended with altercation. But Mountnorris, not content with refusing to comply with the demand, wrote out an account of what had occurred on the occasion, (it appears by a letter afterwards referred to, that he wrote admirably,) and transmitted it to his attorney in England, who had handed it about. It fell into the hands of the Reverend Mr. Garrard, the deputy's great correspondent, who not only shewed it to Lord Cottington, but instantly announced the circumstance to his patron. Id. p. 388. Garrard's Letter is dated the 12th of March, 1634-5; and it is singular, that on the 7th of next month, the deputy has a violent attack upon Mountnorris, in a letter to Secretary Coke, as a person " held by us all that hear him, to be most impertinent and troublesome in the debate of all business." "And," says he, " indeed so weary are we of him, that I dare say, there is not one of us willing to join with him in any private counsel. Sure I am, my Lord Chief Baron complains of him extremely in the Exchequer, that he disorders the proceedings of the whole court through his wilfulness and ignorance, so as he were a

tion, not to meddle in any cause betwixt party and party, which certainly did lessen his power extremely. I know very well the common lawyers will be passionately against it, who are wont to put such a prejudice upon all other professions, as if none happy man if he were delivered of his vexation there :" This certainly disproves the idea of his sycophancy. He then censures his scandalous way of life, as a dishonour to the place-for that he was "extremely given to good fellowship, and was full of talk in that humour,”—a statement which does not accord with Clarendon's character of him; and that "he sat up by night to pay for large sums, very meanly pursuing his advantage upon young noblemen and gentlemen, not so good gamesters as himself," &c. He also makes a charge against him for not paying £200 upon a warrant, and alleges that he had agreed to resign his place in October preceding, &c. He then recommends Loftus, and desires power to inquire into some of Mountnorris's actions. Id. p. 403-4. The proceeding in the Council of War occurred in December following. P. 498. et seq.

In each of the letters referred to above, that were written by Strafforde, he vindicates the justice of the sentence, which, however, appears by the letters to have been universally execrated; and meanly pleads that he did not vote at the council, therefore, that the sentence was not his. It appears also, from these and other letters, that Wentworth was perfectly sensible of the general hatred, as resembling a bashaw of Buda; but he consoles himself with the idea that it had been his fortune all his life to have proud, revengeful qualities, &c. falsely ascribed to him. Wandesforde writes to him, Dec. 29, 1628, thus, "the breath of envy hath always blown strong against you, and like the bees over the cradle of Plato, hung over your actions ever since I was acquainted with them." vol. i. p. 50. See a very pathetic letter from Mountnorris to Strafforde, just before his execution, which throws great light upon this subject, and of itself goes far to disprove the account given of the former by Clarendon. Clar. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 135.. Wentworth himself writes to Lord Conway, that he told Mountnorris " he never wished ill to his estate nor person, further than to remove him thence, where," says he, " he was a trouble as well as an offence unto me; that being done, (howbeit through his own fault with more prejudice than I intended,) I could wish there was no more debate betwixt us, &c." Straf. Let. and Disp. vol. ii. p. 145.

were to be trusted as capable of administering justice but themselves; yet how well this suits with monarchy when they monopolize all to be governed by their year books, you in England have a costly experience; and I am sure his majesty's power is not weaker in this kingdom, wherever hitherto the deputy and council-board have had a stroke with them." It was not thought fit to recal the proclamation on this subject by a new one, conferring the powers requested; but a special dispensation was granted to Wentworth, with the single exception of cases already depending before courts of law; and how he abused his power, is established no less by his letters than by the evidence adduced against him; for he encourages Laud "to rule the common lawyers in England, as he, poor beagle, did in Ireland, declaring that he would continue to do so at the peril of his head." In his defence he, of course, attempts to justify his illegal decrees on the principle of abstract justice, and pleads that, as he was no professional lawyer, his ignorance ought to form his excuse. The last plea proceeded with a peculiarly bad grace from the individual who had boasted of ruling the common lawyers in all things, and proclaimed it as a merit that he was resolved to persist in such a course at the peril of his head. The first was no less unfounded, for, as was justly observed by Pym, the commons charged him with nothing "but what the

This has been quoted from his letters and dispatches in the preceding volume.