FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES[1]Mitchell's Life of Hugh O'Neil, pp. 236, 237.[2]Mitchell's Hugh O'Neil, p. 241.[3]For a further insight to the court intrigue of that period, the reader is referred to the Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, vol. i., pp. 20 to 30.[4]The Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii., p. 571.[5]There is a very fine engraving of him given in the second volume of Story's Impartial History.[6]Dolby's History of Ireland.[7]See Barrington's Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation.[8]Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 572.[9]It is necessary to remark that Taylor, who relates this incident, confounds the name of Galmoy with Galway. They were two distinct characters: the latter, whose family patronymic was Burke, was killed at Aughrim; the former accompanied the "Brigade" to France. His family name was Butler.[10]March 24th, 1689.[11]The Student's Hume, page 550. More than one hundred thousand were on foot, and he found himself compelled to disband the greater part of them.[12]The Duke of Berwick was then in his nineteenth year, having been born on the 21st of August, 1670. He had already been raised to the rank of major-general by the Emperor of Austria, for honorable service under the great Duke of Lorrain; he was a son of James II., and nephew of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.[13]Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, page 50, vol. i.[14]This is the present name of the position then occupied by Hamilton, and seems to have been since given it, in consequence of the "Boom" that was there thrown across the river to prevent the ships of William from ascending it.[15]Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 557.[16]Taylor characterizes this act asmonstrous; yet, when were such liberal terms accorded by an English king to Catholic rebels?[17]Vol. ii., page 108.—These troubles commenced while James was yet on the English throne.[18]There is reason to think that this force is overestimated by about 3,000 men, but there is no actual authority to deny its accuracy. The numbers are taken from the Memoirs of King James, who bases his statement on the report of Southerland.[19]This must have been Sarsfield's command, for, though it is not so stated in the Memoirs, the contiguity of Trellick to Omagh, to which place Sarsfield had been ordered by de Rosen, would indicate it.[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 totheirdiscipline, 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 DublinNationfor 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.[26]Seeing the superiority of William, in numbers and artillery, he was now as eager to avoid as he had been before to court a battle. The French generals also wished to decline an engagement. The Irish declared themselves ready to fight. Under these circumstances, a kind of half-measure was adopted. It was determined to hazard a partial battle, and to retreat without risking a general engagement. To this strange determination James, in all probability, owed the loss of his kingdom.—(Taylor, vol. ii., p. 148.)[27]Nial-Caille, the last monarch of Ireland, of the house of O'Neil, after having defeated the Danes and Normans in several engagements, was drowned in the river Callan in Kilkenny, while engaged in raising the country for their total expulsion. One of his attendants having fallen into the river, he was trying to save him, and in the attempt lost his own life. The crown of sovereignty passed from the house of O'Neil, and it was not until the reign of Bryan, more than a century after, that the Danes were finally extirpated.—(See McGeoghagen's History of Ireland.)[28]On seeing this, the king gave orders for his left to move in the same direction, and sent the remainder of the baggage to Dublin. (Memoirs of Berwick, p. 397, vol. i.)[29]The water at this time was low, not reaching the drums of the band, which accompanied them.—(Haverty's History.)[30]This force actually arrived next day, and narrowly escaped being captured by the victors. Two of them were taken and hanged as spies, and the rest retired after the Irish army. Had these been in the battle, the Irish army would have been twenty-three thousand, according with the estimate of the Duke of Berwick.[31]Taylor, after commenting in indignant terms on this conduct of the Enniskilleners, adds: "Their apologists say that they misunderstood their orders, and returned again. However this may be, it is certain that William, ever after, viewed this part of his force with contempt, not unmingled with hatred." (Vol. II., page 151.)[32]Sir Jno. Hanmer crossed the river nigh a place where, the day before, the enemy had a battery of six guns, but now they were gone, as most of their artillery, etc. (Story's Imp. History, Vol. I.—The Boyne.)[33]They brought off five pieces. The other got bogged near the Pass of Slane, and was abandoned.[34]Schomberg was shot by O'Toole, an Irish officer of the exempts, who took him, from the blue ribbon which he wore, to be the Prince of Orange. (Memoirs, 398.)[35]If the French auxiliaries, six thousand, and the Irish reserves, three thousand, which performed no service throughout the day, save watching the movements of Count Schomberg, be deducted, the number actually participating in the action was only eleven thousand men.[36]This force is exclusive of William's right, which consisted of ten thousand men under Count Schomberg and General Douglas, with ten pieces of cannon and two mortars.[37]"In April, 1783, Mr. Gardiner, afterwards Lord Mountjoy, remarked in the Irish Parliament, in reference to the Irish Catholics, that 'England had America detached from her by force of Irish emigrants.'" (Plowden's Hist. Rev., vol. iii., p. 45.)[38]Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.[39]This force at the Battle of the Boyne was 10,000 men. Its artillery was twelve pieces. It sustained little loss in that action, and was now supplied with mortars.[40]It is worthy of remark, that while Taylor represents the atrocities perpetrated by the soldiery of the Prince, under his own eye, as revolting as those of Douglas's troops, he endeavors to palliate in the Prince what he execrates in the general. This is to be regretted in a historian otherwise remarkable for candor and impartiality.[41]As the siege of 1690 did not affect that part of the city in the County Clare, there is no necessity for further allusion to it here, beyond stating that the bridge leading to it was called Thomond Bridge. The other was called the City Bridge. King's Island is about two miles in length.[42]Story's map exhibits thirty-six guns and four mortars on the part of the besiegers, and but seven on that of the besieged. But as the fort on King's Island is represented to have caused great injury to William's right, it is certain that there must have been guns on it; hence the writer, and he thinks not without reason, has hazarded the assertion in the text.[43]See Haverty's History of Ireland, page 643—giving a Williamite authority for this estimate. This work came to my notice too late to make some corrections which, to a critical reader, might seem important.[44]McGeoghagen's History.[45]It is stated by some of the annalists that he lost two soldiers, who fell behind, but the text is in accordance with the Abbé's account of this adventure.[46]The Duke of Berwick, at page 69 of his Memoirs, gives the width of the breach at 100 toises, or 600 French feet,—the toise being six French, or six and a half English feet—and as he was present at the siege, his estimate is here adopted. Moreover, the breach, as exhibited on a map in Story's Impartial History, lays bare a great portion of the city, and shows the disposition of the Irish troops within it, which a breach of thirty-six feet—the width generally accepted—could not exhibit.[47]See preceding footnote.[48]William afterwards declared before Parliament, that the cause of abandoning the siege was the continual rain that kept his trenches filled with water, but the Duke of Berwick asserts that not a drop had fallen during the time specified in the text.[49]McGeoghegan's History of Ireland, Preliminary Discourse, p. 24.[50]Excesses of a savage barbarity, but upon questionable authority, have been ascribed to the king himself, on his retreat from Limerick. Disappointments might certainly have raised his resentment; at least the outrages committed by his troops contributed to stain the annals of the times; but whether they proceeded from his orders, or his want of authority, was hard to decide. (Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.)[51]The particular line of policy that brought this deputation to France, or the cause of Tyrconnell's future regret, is nowhere clearly indicated by the Duke of Berwick. But the treason of Henry Loutrell, during the subsequent stages of the war, is an accepted belief in Ireland and in her history. His secret correspondence with William and Baron Ginkle, and his attempt to surrender Galway, are well authenticated. After the war he received his elder brother's estate and a pension of 2,000 crowns annually from William, and was assassinated in Dublin in the year 1717—"nor could it ever be discovered by whom." (See Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i, p. 97.)[52]Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i., p. 71.[53]Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick.[54]He was, says Taylor, the most respectable of the natural sons of Charles II.[55]Lesley's History of the Civil Wars, &c.[56]The value of the brass money issued by the king in the early part of the war will be better understood from the following extract:1Barrel of Wheat, in Brass Money£10s.d.1Barrel of Malt," "9001Quart of Brandy," "3001Quart of Ale," "0261Pair of Men's Shoes," "11001Quart of Salt," "100[57]Story's Impartial History, 29th, 30th, and 31st of Dec., 1690, and Jan. 1st, 1691.[58]O'Callaghan's remarks on this subject are substantially as follows:—The import of his name, perhaps, marked him out to cooler-headed politicians, as a means of effecting much national good, by exciting the imagination of the people. Ball-dearg O'Donnell was accordingly sent for, to Spain, and arrived at Limerick, August, 1690. (See Greenbook, p. 242.)[59]O'Driscoll's History of Ireland, vol. ii., pp. 288, 289.—There is a letter in the Appendix to Haverty's History of Ireland, which came into the possession of its author, "through the extreme kindness of the Editor of The Four Masters," after his work had gone to press, and which he regrets not having seen in time to change or modify the estimate which he had formed of O'Donnell, and adopted in his text. But seeing that the name of the writer of theletteris not given, and that the vindication of Ball-dearg, which it contains, though plausible, is not at all convincing, the present writer adopts the generally received opinion. For, admitting many of the assertions of the letter to be true, there is no cause given for the absence of O'Donnell from the Battle of Aughrim. He was within seven or eight miles of the field during the engagement; it was, perhaps, the most momentous battle ever fought in the country, and whatever were his private grievances, he should have shared its perils.[60]From this we learn that William sent his Irish prisoners to redeem his Dutch soldiers from France, and that Louis used them to fill his ranks on the continent; while the Irish officers, who could not be induced to abandon their own cause, were left to languish in prison.[61]Ath luin.Anglice, Ford of the Moon.[62]Of these twenty-two men, the name of but one is known to history: that of Sergeant Custume, or Costy, who headed the first ten, and who was, of course, among the victims.[63]The French officers chided their recklessness, and asserted that they had never seen such bravery displayed by the men of any nation.—Rawdon Papers, letters C. L. I. and C. L. II.[64]"In this retreat the Conough regiments grew very thin, so that the foot, by desertion and maroding, was reduced from 19,000 to about 11,000 men." —King James's Memoirs, Vol. II., pp. 455 and 6.[65]As we find him, according to Captain Viller's report, at Ballinasloe on the 7th, and apparently determined to give battle there, it is reasonable to infer that he did not retire until after the storm of the 9th.[66]Story calls this building the Castle of Urrachree; but the other historians style it a house, perhaps to distinguish it from the Castle of Aughrim, and to avoid repetition.[67]Some writers say only two abreast. But if Story's map be any thing more than a fancy sketch, the narrowest part of this road would have afforded ample room for six horsemen.[68]That is, if all things else were equal, the position would be worth 1,000 men to the army occupying it, which would still leave an advantage of 9,000 men, at least, in favor of Ginckle, irrespective of his vast superiority in artillery.[69]Some very reliable historians,—among whom may be instanced Taylor and O'Driscoll,—lean to the opinion that Sarsfield was not at the battle of Aughrim, but only adopt it as a probability. This opinion also gains credence from a tradition still received in that neighborhood: that, owing to an altercation with St. Ruth, on the evening preceding the battle, he withdrew his own immediate command to Redmount Hill, about six miles distant, in a south-easterly direction, whence he returned to the field next day, but too late to restore the battle. That the altercation occurred, and that each general threatened to place the other under arrest, is abundantly corroborated; but by the same testimony the presence of Sarsfield is also established. Story names him as second in command on the day of battle, and the weight of testimony sustains that belief. But, what renders it certain, beyond peradventure, is this simple fact: that had Sarsfield, through neglect or petulance, caused the loss of that battle, he would never have appeared in France. There he would have been held accountable by King James; and neither from him, nor from the French monarch, would he have received the consideration that was afterwards accorded him. On this consideration, if on no other, the former opinion is positively rejected.[70]Richard, John, and Anthony Hamilton were brothers, as were also Ulick, Walter, and David Burke.[71]The above description of Ginckle's line of battle is taken from a copperplate engraving in Story's Impartial History, second volume, to which he refers the reader, with the following remarks:—"It is to be observed that my Lord Portland's horse is not in this order of battle, because they came not up until after it was ordered; however, they had their full share in the action; and Colonel Foulke's, which were always to guard the train, but being then convenient for it, and the General resolved to make all the force he could, they had also their part both of honor and service in the action; and though Brigadier Stuart is there set down, it is only as to his post, for he was then at Dublin, ill of wounds received at Athlone." He might also have added that Brewer's remaining force was called up from Mullingar, the safety of which was committed for the time to the militia, and that towards the evening, he was further reinforced by a large body of Enniskilleners.[72]See the preceding note.[73]The six Danish regiments of this division stood as indicated—three in front and three in rear—but their regimental leaders are not named on the map.[74]Ginckle was honored with this title after the fall of Athlone; but whether it had been already conferred is a matter of little import.[75]Story estimates the foot regiments to be each 705, the horse 286, and the dragoons 444, irrespective of officers; but many of them were actually double of those numbers; as an instance Eppinger's Royal Regiment of Holland Dragoons was 920; Portland's horse 480; several others exceeded the standard, and all had been fully recruited after the siege of Athlone.[76]"These men," says Story, "ran away from a less number than themselves, though the officer behaved himself very well."—He might have said less than half their number. The Irish were but seven men; there were sixteen of the Danes.[77]As none of the histories consulted by the writer alludes to the death of Holstaple and Talbot, save in recapitulating the loss on both sides, he deems it necessary to give his authority for placing it so early in the battle, lest his assertion shall be attributed to fancy, which should always be held in abeyance to historic truth. The following lines from Garrick's rambling play, "The Battle of Aughrim," it is hoped, will satisfy the reader. It is necessary to introduce it by stating that there was no general named Hostile in the English army, and that the renowned comedian only adopts it for the sake of euphony: Holstaple being a rough, and rather unpoetic name:—Lord Portland's horse approached the mortal fightWith sword in hand to put our troops to flight:—This Talbot saw, and like a hero bold,Disdaining life, he scorned to be controlled;But, as a Mars, amid the throng he run,And there he stood, like marble to the sun,Till, being hacked and flanked on every side,By multitudes oppressed, he bravely died.And again, after the retreat of the English, an Irish officer is made to say:Aughrim is ours, brave General Hostile's dead,Who, even now, Lord Portland's horse did head,—Drove all before him, till a lucky ball,Shot with good aim from off the castle wall,Clove up his skull, etc., etc.Nothing, perhaps, could excuse the introduction of this doggerel, save the name of the author, who lived at a time which enabled him to consult many of the real actors in the battle.[78]If the dots on the batteries, as represented in Story's map, indicate the number of guns, there were thirty of them in all; and on his other maps they do indicate them.[79]Those troops who were ordered from the rear of his left, were, either by design or inadvertence, sent from the front of that position; and on the concurrence of this and a subsequent blunder, historians have based their accusations of treason against Brigadier Henry Luttrell, who, it is said, received the order.[80]Some historians allude to the "sounding" of this marsh, and "wading" through it; but the fact is: that it was but a rushy bottom, difficult in no place, save at the stream, where it was impracticable to cavalry; for we find the Irish charging and recharging the enemy three times across it.[81]"A boast," says Taylor, "which the special interposition of Providence alone prevented him from accomplishing * * * ten minutes more would have completed the destruction of the English army."—Vol. ii., page 180.[82]It was found, on examining the ammunition with which they had been supplied, that while the men were armed with French firelocks, the balls that had been served to them were cast for English muskets, of which the calibre was larger, and that they were consequently useless.—Haverty's History of Ireland, page 661.This would seem the more probable version, although that in the text is in accordance with general authority. This book was not seen in time to alter the text: but the effect was the same.[83]Those were nearly all killed after the death of St. Ruth; for "up to that," says Taylor, "the Irish had lost scarcely a man." No insignificant number of them was put to death, after their capture, by order of General Ginckle; and for this brutal and unsoldierly order, Story offers as a palliation, the conduct of Henry V. of England, at the battle of Agincourt: —"who, seeing the king of Cicilies appear on the field, ordered every man to kill his prisoner, contrary to his generous nature,"—and among those so murdered in cold blood, was Colonel O'Moore, and that most loyal gentleman and chivalrous soldier, Lord Galway.Since writing the above, my attention has been called to Haverty's "History of Ireland," a work of much careful research and investigation, in which the loss of the Irish army is estimated at:—killed, nearly 4,000, and 526 of all ranks taken prisoners. This would seem the more probable, as Story doubts his own estimate, and in the end of the year, 1692, says, "time has informed me of some mistakes, though possibly there may be some as yet remaining."THE END.

[1]Mitchell's Life of Hugh O'Neil, pp. 236, 237.[2]Mitchell's Hugh O'Neil, p. 241.[3]For a further insight to the court intrigue of that period, the reader is referred to the Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, vol. i., pp. 20 to 30.[4]The Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii., p. 571.[5]There is a very fine engraving of him given in the second volume of Story's Impartial History.[6]Dolby's History of Ireland.[7]See Barrington's Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation.[8]Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 572.[9]It is necessary to remark that Taylor, who relates this incident, confounds the name of Galmoy with Galway. They were two distinct characters: the latter, whose family patronymic was Burke, was killed at Aughrim; the former accompanied the "Brigade" to France. His family name was Butler.[10]March 24th, 1689.[11]The Student's Hume, page 550. More than one hundred thousand were on foot, and he found himself compelled to disband the greater part of them.[12]The Duke of Berwick was then in his nineteenth year, having been born on the 21st of August, 1670. He had already been raised to the rank of major-general by the Emperor of Austria, for honorable service under the great Duke of Lorrain; he was a son of James II., and nephew of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.[13]Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, page 50, vol. i.[14]This is the present name of the position then occupied by Hamilton, and seems to have been since given it, in consequence of the "Boom" that was there thrown across the river to prevent the ships of William from ascending it.[15]Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 557.[16]Taylor characterizes this act asmonstrous; yet, when were such liberal terms accorded by an English king to Catholic rebels?[17]Vol. ii., page 108.—These troubles commenced while James was yet on the English throne.[18]There is reason to think that this force is overestimated by about 3,000 men, but there is no actual authority to deny its accuracy. The numbers are taken from the Memoirs of King James, who bases his statement on the report of Southerland.[19]This must have been Sarsfield's command, for, though it is not so stated in the Memoirs, the contiguity of Trellick to Omagh, to which place Sarsfield had been ordered by de Rosen, would indicate it.[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 totheirdiscipline, 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 DublinNationfor 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.[26]Seeing the superiority of William, in numbers and artillery, he was now as eager to avoid as he had been before to court a battle. The French generals also wished to decline an engagement. The Irish declared themselves ready to fight. Under these circumstances, a kind of half-measure was adopted. It was determined to hazard a partial battle, and to retreat without risking a general engagement. To this strange determination James, in all probability, owed the loss of his kingdom.—(Taylor, vol. ii., p. 148.)[27]Nial-Caille, the last monarch of Ireland, of the house of O'Neil, after having defeated the Danes and Normans in several engagements, was drowned in the river Callan in Kilkenny, while engaged in raising the country for their total expulsion. One of his attendants having fallen into the river, he was trying to save him, and in the attempt lost his own life. The crown of sovereignty passed from the house of O'Neil, and it was not until the reign of Bryan, more than a century after, that the Danes were finally extirpated.—(See McGeoghagen's History of Ireland.)[28]On seeing this, the king gave orders for his left to move in the same direction, and sent the remainder of the baggage to Dublin. (Memoirs of Berwick, p. 397, vol. i.)[29]The water at this time was low, not reaching the drums of the band, which accompanied them.—(Haverty's History.)[30]This force actually arrived next day, and narrowly escaped being captured by the victors. Two of them were taken and hanged as spies, and the rest retired after the Irish army. Had these been in the battle, the Irish army would have been twenty-three thousand, according with the estimate of the Duke of Berwick.[31]Taylor, after commenting in indignant terms on this conduct of the Enniskilleners, adds: "Their apologists say that they misunderstood their orders, and returned again. However this may be, it is certain that William, ever after, viewed this part of his force with contempt, not unmingled with hatred." (Vol. II., page 151.)[32]Sir Jno. Hanmer crossed the river nigh a place where, the day before, the enemy had a battery of six guns, but now they were gone, as most of their artillery, etc. (Story's Imp. History, Vol. I.—The Boyne.)[33]They brought off five pieces. The other got bogged near the Pass of Slane, and was abandoned.[34]Schomberg was shot by O'Toole, an Irish officer of the exempts, who took him, from the blue ribbon which he wore, to be the Prince of Orange. (Memoirs, 398.)[35]If the French auxiliaries, six thousand, and the Irish reserves, three thousand, which performed no service throughout the day, save watching the movements of Count Schomberg, be deducted, the number actually participating in the action was only eleven thousand men.[36]This force is exclusive of William's right, which consisted of ten thousand men under Count Schomberg and General Douglas, with ten pieces of cannon and two mortars.[37]"In April, 1783, Mr. Gardiner, afterwards Lord Mountjoy, remarked in the Irish Parliament, in reference to the Irish Catholics, that 'England had America detached from her by force of Irish emigrants.'" (Plowden's Hist. Rev., vol. iii., p. 45.)[38]Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.[39]This force at the Battle of the Boyne was 10,000 men. Its artillery was twelve pieces. It sustained little loss in that action, and was now supplied with mortars.[40]It is worthy of remark, that while Taylor represents the atrocities perpetrated by the soldiery of the Prince, under his own eye, as revolting as those of Douglas's troops, he endeavors to palliate in the Prince what he execrates in the general. This is to be regretted in a historian otherwise remarkable for candor and impartiality.[41]As the siege of 1690 did not affect that part of the city in the County Clare, there is no necessity for further allusion to it here, beyond stating that the bridge leading to it was called Thomond Bridge. The other was called the City Bridge. King's Island is about two miles in length.[42]Story's map exhibits thirty-six guns and four mortars on the part of the besiegers, and but seven on that of the besieged. But as the fort on King's Island is represented to have caused great injury to William's right, it is certain that there must have been guns on it; hence the writer, and he thinks not without reason, has hazarded the assertion in the text.[43]See Haverty's History of Ireland, page 643—giving a Williamite authority for this estimate. This work came to my notice too late to make some corrections which, to a critical reader, might seem important.[44]McGeoghagen's History.[45]It is stated by some of the annalists that he lost two soldiers, who fell behind, but the text is in accordance with the Abbé's account of this adventure.[46]The Duke of Berwick, at page 69 of his Memoirs, gives the width of the breach at 100 toises, or 600 French feet,—the toise being six French, or six and a half English feet—and as he was present at the siege, his estimate is here adopted. Moreover, the breach, as exhibited on a map in Story's Impartial History, lays bare a great portion of the city, and shows the disposition of the Irish troops within it, which a breach of thirty-six feet—the width generally accepted—could not exhibit.[47]See preceding footnote.[48]William afterwards declared before Parliament, that the cause of abandoning the siege was the continual rain that kept his trenches filled with water, but the Duke of Berwick asserts that not a drop had fallen during the time specified in the text.[49]McGeoghegan's History of Ireland, Preliminary Discourse, p. 24.[50]Excesses of a savage barbarity, but upon questionable authority, have been ascribed to the king himself, on his retreat from Limerick. Disappointments might certainly have raised his resentment; at least the outrages committed by his troops contributed to stain the annals of the times; but whether they proceeded from his orders, or his want of authority, was hard to decide. (Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.)[51]The particular line of policy that brought this deputation to France, or the cause of Tyrconnell's future regret, is nowhere clearly indicated by the Duke of Berwick. But the treason of Henry Loutrell, during the subsequent stages of the war, is an accepted belief in Ireland and in her history. His secret correspondence with William and Baron Ginkle, and his attempt to surrender Galway, are well authenticated. After the war he received his elder brother's estate and a pension of 2,000 crowns annually from William, and was assassinated in Dublin in the year 1717—"nor could it ever be discovered by whom." (See Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i, p. 97.)[52]Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i., p. 71.[53]Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick.[54]He was, says Taylor, the most respectable of the natural sons of Charles II.[55]Lesley's History of the Civil Wars, &c.[56]The value of the brass money issued by the king in the early part of the war will be better understood from the following extract:1Barrel of Wheat, in Brass Money£10s.d.1Barrel of Malt," "9001Quart of Brandy," "3001Quart of Ale," "0261Pair of Men's Shoes," "11001Quart of Salt," "100[57]Story's Impartial History, 29th, 30th, and 31st of Dec., 1690, and Jan. 1st, 1691.[58]O'Callaghan's remarks on this subject are substantially as follows:—The import of his name, perhaps, marked him out to cooler-headed politicians, as a means of effecting much national good, by exciting the imagination of the people. Ball-dearg O'Donnell was accordingly sent for, to Spain, and arrived at Limerick, August, 1690. (See Greenbook, p. 242.)[59]O'Driscoll's History of Ireland, vol. ii., pp. 288, 289.—There is a letter in the Appendix to Haverty's History of Ireland, which came into the possession of its author, "through the extreme kindness of the Editor of The Four Masters," after his work had gone to press, and which he regrets not having seen in time to change or modify the estimate which he had formed of O'Donnell, and adopted in his text. But seeing that the name of the writer of theletteris not given, and that the vindication of Ball-dearg, which it contains, though plausible, is not at all convincing, the present writer adopts the generally received opinion. For, admitting many of the assertions of the letter to be true, there is no cause given for the absence of O'Donnell from the Battle of Aughrim. He was within seven or eight miles of the field during the engagement; it was, perhaps, the most momentous battle ever fought in the country, and whatever were his private grievances, he should have shared its perils.[60]From this we learn that William sent his Irish prisoners to redeem his Dutch soldiers from France, and that Louis used them to fill his ranks on the continent; while the Irish officers, who could not be induced to abandon their own cause, were left to languish in prison.[61]Ath luin.Anglice, Ford of the Moon.[62]Of these twenty-two men, the name of but one is known to history: that of Sergeant Custume, or Costy, who headed the first ten, and who was, of course, among the victims.[63]The French officers chided their recklessness, and asserted that they had never seen such bravery displayed by the men of any nation.—Rawdon Papers, letters C. L. I. and C. L. II.[64]"In this retreat the Conough regiments grew very thin, so that the foot, by desertion and maroding, was reduced from 19,000 to about 11,000 men." —King James's Memoirs, Vol. II., pp. 455 and 6.[65]As we find him, according to Captain Viller's report, at Ballinasloe on the 7th, and apparently determined to give battle there, it is reasonable to infer that he did not retire until after the storm of the 9th.[66]Story calls this building the Castle of Urrachree; but the other historians style it a house, perhaps to distinguish it from the Castle of Aughrim, and to avoid repetition.[67]Some writers say only two abreast. But if Story's map be any thing more than a fancy sketch, the narrowest part of this road would have afforded ample room for six horsemen.[68]That is, if all things else were equal, the position would be worth 1,000 men to the army occupying it, which would still leave an advantage of 9,000 men, at least, in favor of Ginckle, irrespective of his vast superiority in artillery.[69]Some very reliable historians,—among whom may be instanced Taylor and O'Driscoll,—lean to the opinion that Sarsfield was not at the battle of Aughrim, but only adopt it as a probability. This opinion also gains credence from a tradition still received in that neighborhood: that, owing to an altercation with St. Ruth, on the evening preceding the battle, he withdrew his own immediate command to Redmount Hill, about six miles distant, in a south-easterly direction, whence he returned to the field next day, but too late to restore the battle. That the altercation occurred, and that each general threatened to place the other under arrest, is abundantly corroborated; but by the same testimony the presence of Sarsfield is also established. Story names him as second in command on the day of battle, and the weight of testimony sustains that belief. But, what renders it certain, beyond peradventure, is this simple fact: that had Sarsfield, through neglect or petulance, caused the loss of that battle, he would never have appeared in France. There he would have been held accountable by King James; and neither from him, nor from the French monarch, would he have received the consideration that was afterwards accorded him. On this consideration, if on no other, the former opinion is positively rejected.[70]Richard, John, and Anthony Hamilton were brothers, as were also Ulick, Walter, and David Burke.[71]The above description of Ginckle's line of battle is taken from a copperplate engraving in Story's Impartial History, second volume, to which he refers the reader, with the following remarks:—"It is to be observed that my Lord Portland's horse is not in this order of battle, because they came not up until after it was ordered; however, they had their full share in the action; and Colonel Foulke's, which were always to guard the train, but being then convenient for it, and the General resolved to make all the force he could, they had also their part both of honor and service in the action; and though Brigadier Stuart is there set down, it is only as to his post, for he was then at Dublin, ill of wounds received at Athlone." He might also have added that Brewer's remaining force was called up from Mullingar, the safety of which was committed for the time to the militia, and that towards the evening, he was further reinforced by a large body of Enniskilleners.[72]See the preceding note.[73]The six Danish regiments of this division stood as indicated—three in front and three in rear—but their regimental leaders are not named on the map.[74]Ginckle was honored with this title after the fall of Athlone; but whether it had been already conferred is a matter of little import.[75]Story estimates the foot regiments to be each 705, the horse 286, and the dragoons 444, irrespective of officers; but many of them were actually double of those numbers; as an instance Eppinger's Royal Regiment of Holland Dragoons was 920; Portland's horse 480; several others exceeded the standard, and all had been fully recruited after the siege of Athlone.[76]"These men," says Story, "ran away from a less number than themselves, though the officer behaved himself very well."—He might have said less than half their number. The Irish were but seven men; there were sixteen of the Danes.[77]As none of the histories consulted by the writer alludes to the death of Holstaple and Talbot, save in recapitulating the loss on both sides, he deems it necessary to give his authority for placing it so early in the battle, lest his assertion shall be attributed to fancy, which should always be held in abeyance to historic truth. The following lines from Garrick's rambling play, "The Battle of Aughrim," it is hoped, will satisfy the reader. It is necessary to introduce it by stating that there was no general named Hostile in the English army, and that the renowned comedian only adopts it for the sake of euphony: Holstaple being a rough, and rather unpoetic name:—Lord Portland's horse approached the mortal fightWith sword in hand to put our troops to flight:—This Talbot saw, and like a hero bold,Disdaining life, he scorned to be controlled;But, as a Mars, amid the throng he run,And there he stood, like marble to the sun,Till, being hacked and flanked on every side,By multitudes oppressed, he bravely died.And again, after the retreat of the English, an Irish officer is made to say:Aughrim is ours, brave General Hostile's dead,Who, even now, Lord Portland's horse did head,—Drove all before him, till a lucky ball,Shot with good aim from off the castle wall,Clove up his skull, etc., etc.Nothing, perhaps, could excuse the introduction of this doggerel, save the name of the author, who lived at a time which enabled him to consult many of the real actors in the battle.[78]If the dots on the batteries, as represented in Story's map, indicate the number of guns, there were thirty of them in all; and on his other maps they do indicate them.[79]Those troops who were ordered from the rear of his left, were, either by design or inadvertence, sent from the front of that position; and on the concurrence of this and a subsequent blunder, historians have based their accusations of treason against Brigadier Henry Luttrell, who, it is said, received the order.[80]Some historians allude to the "sounding" of this marsh, and "wading" through it; but the fact is: that it was but a rushy bottom, difficult in no place, save at the stream, where it was impracticable to cavalry; for we find the Irish charging and recharging the enemy three times across it.[81]"A boast," says Taylor, "which the special interposition of Providence alone prevented him from accomplishing * * * ten minutes more would have completed the destruction of the English army."—Vol. ii., page 180.[82]It was found, on examining the ammunition with which they had been supplied, that while the men were armed with French firelocks, the balls that had been served to them were cast for English muskets, of which the calibre was larger, and that they were consequently useless.—Haverty's History of Ireland, page 661.This would seem the more probable version, although that in the text is in accordance with general authority. This book was not seen in time to alter the text: but the effect was the same.[83]Those were nearly all killed after the death of St. Ruth; for "up to that," says Taylor, "the Irish had lost scarcely a man." No insignificant number of them was put to death, after their capture, by order of General Ginckle; and for this brutal and unsoldierly order, Story offers as a palliation, the conduct of Henry V. of England, at the battle of Agincourt: —"who, seeing the king of Cicilies appear on the field, ordered every man to kill his prisoner, contrary to his generous nature,"—and among those so murdered in cold blood, was Colonel O'Moore, and that most loyal gentleman and chivalrous soldier, Lord Galway.Since writing the above, my attention has been called to Haverty's "History of Ireland," a work of much careful research and investigation, in which the loss of the Irish army is estimated at:—killed, nearly 4,000, and 526 of all ranks taken prisoners. This would seem the more probable, as Story doubts his own estimate, and in the end of the year, 1692, says, "time has informed me of some mistakes, though possibly there may be some as yet remaining."

Mitchell's Life of Hugh O'Neil, pp. 236, 237.

Mitchell's Hugh O'Neil, p. 241.

For a further insight to the court intrigue of that period, the reader is referred to the Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, vol. i., pp. 20 to 30.

The Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii., p. 571.

There is a very fine engraving of him given in the second volume of Story's Impartial History.

Dolby's History of Ireland.

See Barrington's Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation.

Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 572.

It is necessary to remark that Taylor, who relates this incident, confounds the name of Galmoy with Galway. They were two distinct characters: the latter, whose family patronymic was Burke, was killed at Aughrim; the former accompanied the "Brigade" to France. His family name was Butler.

March 24th, 1689.

The Student's Hume, page 550. More than one hundred thousand were on foot, and he found himself compelled to disband the greater part of them.

The Duke of Berwick was then in his nineteenth year, having been born on the 21st of August, 1670. He had already been raised to the rank of major-general by the Emperor of Austria, for honorable service under the great Duke of Lorrain; he was a son of James II., and nephew of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.

Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick, page 50, vol. i.

This is the present name of the position then occupied by Hamilton, and seems to have been since given it, in consequence of the "Boom" that was there thrown across the river to prevent the ships of William from ascending it.

Popular History of Ireland, vol. ii, p. 557.

Taylor characterizes this act asmonstrous; yet, when were such liberal terms accorded by an English king to Catholic rebels?

Vol. ii., page 108.—These troubles commenced while James was yet on the English throne.

There is reason to think that this force is overestimated by about 3,000 men, but there is no actual authority to deny its accuracy. The numbers are taken from the Memoirs of King James, who bases his statement on the report of Southerland.

This must have been Sarsfield's command, for, though it is not so stated in the Memoirs, the contiguity of Trellick to Omagh, to which place Sarsfield had been ordered by de Rosen, would indicate it.

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.

Vol. II., page 137.

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 totheirdiscipline, it was that of the English army of that day.

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.

The many conflicting statements of this trifling affair are set at rest by a letter which may be seen in the DublinNationfor 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.)

Caillemotte was a brother of General Ruvigney, and Count Schomberg was a son of the duke of that name.

Seeing the superiority of William, in numbers and artillery, he was now as eager to avoid as he had been before to court a battle. The French generals also wished to decline an engagement. The Irish declared themselves ready to fight. Under these circumstances, a kind of half-measure was adopted. It was determined to hazard a partial battle, and to retreat without risking a general engagement. To this strange determination James, in all probability, owed the loss of his kingdom.—(Taylor, vol. ii., p. 148.)

Nial-Caille, the last monarch of Ireland, of the house of O'Neil, after having defeated the Danes and Normans in several engagements, was drowned in the river Callan in Kilkenny, while engaged in raising the country for their total expulsion. One of his attendants having fallen into the river, he was trying to save him, and in the attempt lost his own life. The crown of sovereignty passed from the house of O'Neil, and it was not until the reign of Bryan, more than a century after, that the Danes were finally extirpated.—(See McGeoghagen's History of Ireland.)

On seeing this, the king gave orders for his left to move in the same direction, and sent the remainder of the baggage to Dublin. (Memoirs of Berwick, p. 397, vol. i.)

The water at this time was low, not reaching the drums of the band, which accompanied them.—(Haverty's History.)

This force actually arrived next day, and narrowly escaped being captured by the victors. Two of them were taken and hanged as spies, and the rest retired after the Irish army. Had these been in the battle, the Irish army would have been twenty-three thousand, according with the estimate of the Duke of Berwick.

Taylor, after commenting in indignant terms on this conduct of the Enniskilleners, adds: "Their apologists say that they misunderstood their orders, and returned again. However this may be, it is certain that William, ever after, viewed this part of his force with contempt, not unmingled with hatred." (Vol. II., page 151.)

Sir Jno. Hanmer crossed the river nigh a place where, the day before, the enemy had a battery of six guns, but now they were gone, as most of their artillery, etc. (Story's Imp. History, Vol. I.—The Boyne.)

They brought off five pieces. The other got bogged near the Pass of Slane, and was abandoned.

Schomberg was shot by O'Toole, an Irish officer of the exempts, who took him, from the blue ribbon which he wore, to be the Prince of Orange. (Memoirs, 398.)

If the French auxiliaries, six thousand, and the Irish reserves, three thousand, which performed no service throughout the day, save watching the movements of Count Schomberg, be deducted, the number actually participating in the action was only eleven thousand men.

This force is exclusive of William's right, which consisted of ten thousand men under Count Schomberg and General Douglas, with ten pieces of cannon and two mortars.

"In April, 1783, Mr. Gardiner, afterwards Lord Mountjoy, remarked in the Irish Parliament, in reference to the Irish Catholics, that 'England had America detached from her by force of Irish emigrants.'" (Plowden's Hist. Rev., vol. iii., p. 45.)

Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.

This force at the Battle of the Boyne was 10,000 men. Its artillery was twelve pieces. It sustained little loss in that action, and was now supplied with mortars.

It is worthy of remark, that while Taylor represents the atrocities perpetrated by the soldiery of the Prince, under his own eye, as revolting as those of Douglas's troops, he endeavors to palliate in the Prince what he execrates in the general. This is to be regretted in a historian otherwise remarkable for candor and impartiality.

As the siege of 1690 did not affect that part of the city in the County Clare, there is no necessity for further allusion to it here, beyond stating that the bridge leading to it was called Thomond Bridge. The other was called the City Bridge. King's Island is about two miles in length.

Story's map exhibits thirty-six guns and four mortars on the part of the besiegers, and but seven on that of the besieged. But as the fort on King's Island is represented to have caused great injury to William's right, it is certain that there must have been guns on it; hence the writer, and he thinks not without reason, has hazarded the assertion in the text.

See Haverty's History of Ireland, page 643—giving a Williamite authority for this estimate. This work came to my notice too late to make some corrections which, to a critical reader, might seem important.

McGeoghagen's History.

It is stated by some of the annalists that he lost two soldiers, who fell behind, but the text is in accordance with the Abbé's account of this adventure.

The Duke of Berwick, at page 69 of his Memoirs, gives the width of the breach at 100 toises, or 600 French feet,—the toise being six French, or six and a half English feet—and as he was present at the siege, his estimate is here adopted. Moreover, the breach, as exhibited on a map in Story's Impartial History, lays bare a great portion of the city, and shows the disposition of the Irish troops within it, which a breach of thirty-six feet—the width generally accepted—could not exhibit.

See preceding footnote.

William afterwards declared before Parliament, that the cause of abandoning the siege was the continual rain that kept his trenches filled with water, but the Duke of Berwick asserts that not a drop had fallen during the time specified in the text.

McGeoghegan's History of Ireland, Preliminary Discourse, p. 24.

Excesses of a savage barbarity, but upon questionable authority, have been ascribed to the king himself, on his retreat from Limerick. Disappointments might certainly have raised his resentment; at least the outrages committed by his troops contributed to stain the annals of the times; but whether they proceeded from his orders, or his want of authority, was hard to decide. (Macpherson's History of England, vol. i., p. 664.)

The particular line of policy that brought this deputation to France, or the cause of Tyrconnell's future regret, is nowhere clearly indicated by the Duke of Berwick. But the treason of Henry Loutrell, during the subsequent stages of the war, is an accepted belief in Ireland and in her history. His secret correspondence with William and Baron Ginkle, and his attempt to surrender Galway, are well authenticated. After the war he received his elder brother's estate and a pension of 2,000 crowns annually from William, and was assassinated in Dublin in the year 1717—"nor could it ever be discovered by whom." (See Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i, p. 97.)

Berwick's Memoirs, vol. i., p. 71.

Memoirs of the Duke of Berwick.

He was, says Taylor, the most respectable of the natural sons of Charles II.

Lesley's History of the Civil Wars, &c.

The value of the brass money issued by the king in the early part of the war will be better understood from the following extract:

Story's Impartial History, 29th, 30th, and 31st of Dec., 1690, and Jan. 1st, 1691.

O'Callaghan's remarks on this subject are substantially as follows:—The import of his name, perhaps, marked him out to cooler-headed politicians, as a means of effecting much national good, by exciting the imagination of the people. Ball-dearg O'Donnell was accordingly sent for, to Spain, and arrived at Limerick, August, 1690. (See Greenbook, p. 242.)

O'Driscoll's History of Ireland, vol. ii., pp. 288, 289.—There is a letter in the Appendix to Haverty's History of Ireland, which came into the possession of its author, "through the extreme kindness of the Editor of The Four Masters," after his work had gone to press, and which he regrets not having seen in time to change or modify the estimate which he had formed of O'Donnell, and adopted in his text. But seeing that the name of the writer of theletteris not given, and that the vindication of Ball-dearg, which it contains, though plausible, is not at all convincing, the present writer adopts the generally received opinion. For, admitting many of the assertions of the letter to be true, there is no cause given for the absence of O'Donnell from the Battle of Aughrim. He was within seven or eight miles of the field during the engagement; it was, perhaps, the most momentous battle ever fought in the country, and whatever were his private grievances, he should have shared its perils.

From this we learn that William sent his Irish prisoners to redeem his Dutch soldiers from France, and that Louis used them to fill his ranks on the continent; while the Irish officers, who could not be induced to abandon their own cause, were left to languish in prison.

Ath luin.Anglice, Ford of the Moon.

Of these twenty-two men, the name of but one is known to history: that of Sergeant Custume, or Costy, who headed the first ten, and who was, of course, among the victims.

The French officers chided their recklessness, and asserted that they had never seen such bravery displayed by the men of any nation.—Rawdon Papers, letters C. L. I. and C. L. II.

"In this retreat the Conough regiments grew very thin, so that the foot, by desertion and maroding, was reduced from 19,000 to about 11,000 men." —King James's Memoirs, Vol. II., pp. 455 and 6.

As we find him, according to Captain Viller's report, at Ballinasloe on the 7th, and apparently determined to give battle there, it is reasonable to infer that he did not retire until after the storm of the 9th.

Story calls this building the Castle of Urrachree; but the other historians style it a house, perhaps to distinguish it from the Castle of Aughrim, and to avoid repetition.

Some writers say only two abreast. But if Story's map be any thing more than a fancy sketch, the narrowest part of this road would have afforded ample room for six horsemen.

That is, if all things else were equal, the position would be worth 1,000 men to the army occupying it, which would still leave an advantage of 9,000 men, at least, in favor of Ginckle, irrespective of his vast superiority in artillery.

Some very reliable historians,—among whom may be instanced Taylor and O'Driscoll,—lean to the opinion that Sarsfield was not at the battle of Aughrim, but only adopt it as a probability. This opinion also gains credence from a tradition still received in that neighborhood: that, owing to an altercation with St. Ruth, on the evening preceding the battle, he withdrew his own immediate command to Redmount Hill, about six miles distant, in a south-easterly direction, whence he returned to the field next day, but too late to restore the battle. That the altercation occurred, and that each general threatened to place the other under arrest, is abundantly corroborated; but by the same testimony the presence of Sarsfield is also established. Story names him as second in command on the day of battle, and the weight of testimony sustains that belief. But, what renders it certain, beyond peradventure, is this simple fact: that had Sarsfield, through neglect or petulance, caused the loss of that battle, he would never have appeared in France. There he would have been held accountable by King James; and neither from him, nor from the French monarch, would he have received the consideration that was afterwards accorded him. On this consideration, if on no other, the former opinion is positively rejected.

Richard, John, and Anthony Hamilton were brothers, as were also Ulick, Walter, and David Burke.

The above description of Ginckle's line of battle is taken from a copperplate engraving in Story's Impartial History, second volume, to which he refers the reader, with the following remarks:—"It is to be observed that my Lord Portland's horse is not in this order of battle, because they came not up until after it was ordered; however, they had their full share in the action; and Colonel Foulke's, which were always to guard the train, but being then convenient for it, and the General resolved to make all the force he could, they had also their part both of honor and service in the action; and though Brigadier Stuart is there set down, it is only as to his post, for he was then at Dublin, ill of wounds received at Athlone." He might also have added that Brewer's remaining force was called up from Mullingar, the safety of which was committed for the time to the militia, and that towards the evening, he was further reinforced by a large body of Enniskilleners.

See the preceding note.

The six Danish regiments of this division stood as indicated—three in front and three in rear—but their regimental leaders are not named on the map.

Ginckle was honored with this title after the fall of Athlone; but whether it had been already conferred is a matter of little import.

Story estimates the foot regiments to be each 705, the horse 286, and the dragoons 444, irrespective of officers; but many of them were actually double of those numbers; as an instance Eppinger's Royal Regiment of Holland Dragoons was 920; Portland's horse 480; several others exceeded the standard, and all had been fully recruited after the siege of Athlone.

"These men," says Story, "ran away from a less number than themselves, though the officer behaved himself very well."—He might have said less than half their number. The Irish were but seven men; there were sixteen of the Danes.

As none of the histories consulted by the writer alludes to the death of Holstaple and Talbot, save in recapitulating the loss on both sides, he deems it necessary to give his authority for placing it so early in the battle, lest his assertion shall be attributed to fancy, which should always be held in abeyance to historic truth. The following lines from Garrick's rambling play, "The Battle of Aughrim," it is hoped, will satisfy the reader. It is necessary to introduce it by stating that there was no general named Hostile in the English army, and that the renowned comedian only adopts it for the sake of euphony: Holstaple being a rough, and rather unpoetic name:—

Lord Portland's horse approached the mortal fightWith sword in hand to put our troops to flight:—This Talbot saw, and like a hero bold,Disdaining life, he scorned to be controlled;But, as a Mars, amid the throng he run,And there he stood, like marble to the sun,Till, being hacked and flanked on every side,By multitudes oppressed, he bravely died.

Lord Portland's horse approached the mortal fight

With sword in hand to put our troops to flight:—

This Talbot saw, and like a hero bold,

Disdaining life, he scorned to be controlled;

But, as a Mars, amid the throng he run,

And there he stood, like marble to the sun,

Till, being hacked and flanked on every side,

By multitudes oppressed, he bravely died.

And again, after the retreat of the English, an Irish officer is made to say:

Aughrim is ours, brave General Hostile's dead,Who, even now, Lord Portland's horse did head,—Drove all before him, till a lucky ball,Shot with good aim from off the castle wall,Clove up his skull, etc., etc.

Aughrim is ours, brave General Hostile's dead,

Who, even now, Lord Portland's horse did head,—

Drove all before him, till a lucky ball,

Shot with good aim from off the castle wall,

Clove up his skull, etc., etc.

Nothing, perhaps, could excuse the introduction of this doggerel, save the name of the author, who lived at a time which enabled him to consult many of the real actors in the battle.

If the dots on the batteries, as represented in Story's map, indicate the number of guns, there were thirty of them in all; and on his other maps they do indicate them.

Those troops who were ordered from the rear of his left, were, either by design or inadvertence, sent from the front of that position; and on the concurrence of this and a subsequent blunder, historians have based their accusations of treason against Brigadier Henry Luttrell, who, it is said, received the order.

Some historians allude to the "sounding" of this marsh, and "wading" through it; but the fact is: that it was but a rushy bottom, difficult in no place, save at the stream, where it was impracticable to cavalry; for we find the Irish charging and recharging the enemy three times across it.

"A boast," says Taylor, "which the special interposition of Providence alone prevented him from accomplishing * * * ten minutes more would have completed the destruction of the English army."—Vol. ii., page 180.

It was found, on examining the ammunition with which they had been supplied, that while the men were armed with French firelocks, the balls that had been served to them were cast for English muskets, of which the calibre was larger, and that they were consequently useless.—Haverty's History of Ireland, page 661.

This would seem the more probable version, although that in the text is in accordance with general authority. This book was not seen in time to alter the text: but the effect was the same.

Those were nearly all killed after the death of St. Ruth; for "up to that," says Taylor, "the Irish had lost scarcely a man." No insignificant number of them was put to death, after their capture, by order of General Ginckle; and for this brutal and unsoldierly order, Story offers as a palliation, the conduct of Henry V. of England, at the battle of Agincourt: —"who, seeing the king of Cicilies appear on the field, ordered every man to kill his prisoner, contrary to his generous nature,"—and among those so murdered in cold blood, was Colonel O'Moore, and that most loyal gentleman and chivalrous soldier, Lord Galway.

Since writing the above, my attention has been called to Haverty's "History of Ireland," a work of much careful research and investigation, in which the loss of the Irish army is estimated at:—killed, nearly 4,000, and 526 of all ranks taken prisoners. This would seem the more probable, as Story doubts his own estimate, and in the end of the year, 1692, says, "time has informed me of some mistakes, though possibly there may be some as yet remaining."

THE END.

Back to Index Next