Jamese Marquis (subsequently Duke) of Ormond was now commander of thd King’s forces in Ireland ; next year (1643), he was appointed Lore Lieutenant. His character has been variously judged, according to the political  and  religious   standpoint  of his   critics, but it seems to be generally allowed that he was genuinely attached to the Royalist cause. For the ” Papist rebels ” he had the utmost contempt, and he did not hold himself bound by any laws of honour when dealing with them.

Meanwhile, in August 1642, the war between Charles and his Parliament had begun. The King’s greatest need was trained soldiers. Eoghan Ruadh O’Neill had brought with him from Spain, besides a good supply of arms, some 200 veterans, and, with the help of these, he had begun to drill and train the Irish levies, in such wise that they promised soon to be shaped into a valuable and efficient force. Charles was anxious to make some arrangement by means of which a part, at any rate, of these troops might be available for his service. The Confederates, at least the Palesmen, were only too anxious to treat.
They had already addressed an humble Petition to the King, setting forth their grievances, but of this no notice had been taken. Now, however, early in the year 1643, Charles appointed Ormond and the Earl of Clanrickard to inquire into these matters, and in fact, though not at first in name, to enter into negotiations with the insurgents.
The Parliamentary party in England was naturally enough very much averse to this move. It was, so they considered, an unworthy truckling with rebellion, and, worse still, it might result in substantial aids being supplied to the King.
Already, in the preceding year (March, 1642), the Parliament had caused a considerable Scottish army under General Munroe to be sent to Ulster, where it had joined with the English troops which still remained in the Province, and had been very successful in the north-east counties. Almost everywhere they, as well as the Government troops in the other provinces, had behaved to their enemies with terrible cruelty. Lord Lisle, Sir Charles Coote and afterwards his son of the same name, and Lord Inchiquin, long remembered in Ireland under the name of ” Murrogh the Burner,” were especially notorious for their atrocious deeds.

They, in most cases, put to death, not only the garrisons of captured fortresses or of those which had surrendered, but also very frequently non-combatants, women and even children, if any were found. Massacres of unarmed peasantry even were not unusual.
As before stated, the Irish party, after the first few months, cannot be charged with any such savagery. Captured garrisons were frequently suffered to depart where they would ; prisoners often remained for long periods in the hands of the Confederate troops and were finally released uninjured. Eoghan Ruadh punished with great severity any attempt of his soldiers to plunder or ill-use the civil population, and he treated his captives with the utmost consideration and courtesy. When the English  Parliament issued a decree (1644) tnat n0 quarter should in future be given to any Irishman ” taken in hostilities ” against it, the Confederate Council did not retort, as it might well have done, by a similar decree against the Parliamentarian soldiers.
A meeting was arranged to take place at Trim between the negotiators authorised by the King and representatives of the Confederates. Hostilities were not, however, suspended. Not only generals who, like Munroe and Coote, were now acting under the orders, not of the King, but of the Parliaments of Scotland or of England, but such Royalist Commanders as Ormond and Lisle, continued the campaign in various parts of the country. Lisle defeated Preston near New Ross, but the latter captured the important Castle of Ballinakill in Queen’s Co. In Ulster, O’Neill, conscious that his men were not yet sufficiently trained, avoided important engagements as far as he could. Owing, however, to the importunities of his own soldiers, who clamoured to be led to victory and threatened mutiny if refused, he was induced to join battle at Clones with an English army led by Sir William and Sir Robert Stewart.

Policy of Wentworth.—Viscount Wentworth, previous to his arrival in Ireland, had been a somewhat prominent figure in English politics. At his first entrance into public life he had sided with the Parliament in its disputes with Charles, but afterwards had suddenly changed, from motives very difficult to understand. Henceforth, for good or ill, in adversity as in prosperity, he was the King’s man. It was for the King, and solely with an eye to what he conceived to be his interest, that he intended now to govern Ireland. That a struggle between the King and his English Parliament was inevitable he foresaw, and in this struggle Ireland, if so handled as to become at once prosperous and submissive, might become a powerful auxiliary on the Royalist side—a source from which recruits and revenue might be drawn.

The best and least invidious way by which a revenue could be raised was evidently by the grant of an Irish Parliament. Therefore, having with some difficulty obtained Charles’ consent, Wentworth summoned a Parliament, to meet in Dublin, in July 1634. The balancing of the two parties, so that neither might obtain a great preponderance in the Commons, and so be able to override his own authority, was a task requiring very judicious management, and much of this management took the form of interference, open or concealed, with the elections. When Parliament assembled, the members of the Lower House were treated by Wentworth to a harangue, in which the most extreme principles regarding the absolute power of the Crown were laid down, not as things arguable, but as axiomatic truths. They were urged to vote a liberal supply to the King, who had been graciously pleased, out of respect for an old-established usage, to seek the money of which he had need by the way of Parliamentary grant, whereas he might, without any such form, have taken what he required.

Above : Picture Of Charles I

In the Declaration issued from Breda before his return to England, Charles had promised that, with certain exceptions—those, as it afterwards appeared, of the regicides who had signed Charles I*s death-warrant—none of his subjects, ” of what degree of guilt soever,” should find, that ” any crime whatsoever ” committed against either his father or himself should ” ever rise in judgment or be brought in question against any of them, to the least endangerment of them, either in their lives, liberties or estates.” This he guaranteed, ” upon the word of a King solemnly given.”