Page 183 - Transcriptions d'actes notariés - Tome 20 - 1682-1686

wa9 read in tlie Commons, one angry rnernber declared "that they had
the exarnple of former Parliament, and knew horv tliey had acted towards
kings of England in similar cir~umstanceg."[~~) That night a group
of leaders of the radical party in tlie House niet and planned the
deposition of Charles "torvarda which the letters they had received frorn
him and his declaration in lavour of the Irish Catholics. . . would give
them sufficient reason. .
In the snrnrner of 1646, after the deleated King Charles had given
himsell np to the Seots, tlie Padiarnent made a perfunctory atternpt at
peace. They presented to the King a list of sweeping denianda known
as the Pronositioiis of Nerrrcastle. From the first. this neaotiation -
"
if it can be termed such - was plagned by the Irish isfine. The Earl
of Ormonde was concluding a peaee agreementcZ5' with the Confederate
Catholics in Ireland on behalf of the King at the very time that Robert
Goodwin - himself a leader of the Irish interest oronD in the Houfie of
"
1
Coinrnons - rvas setting ont for Newcastle to present the parliarnentary
demands to ~he King.
The Parliament demanded rrrhat amounted to nnconditional
surrenrler, (including n free hand in Irelnnd) 1'" and it is not surprising
that Goodwin and his party returned empty handed.
CliarIes' neootiations with the Irish had an adverse effect on his
. .
0 -
relations iuith the Scots, some of hhorn, at thij tirne, rvere disposed to
support him. On Sept. ïtli, Chades wrote: "1 arn more and more
aemred that nothing can be expected from the Scots; besides, 1 find
the Irish pcace angers thcm m~ch."(~') 'Che parliamentarians in London
adopted a sirnilar positicin: "What leadj me to fear that this negotiation
niay not succeed ", writes the French ambassador, "is that those rvhom
1 jee are obstinate in rvishing the abandonment of Ireland."(2E)
The city of London. in the snrnmcr of 1M, liad been incrcasingly
at odds with the Parliament and there was some reason to believe that
the King might find inflneiitial snppcirt frtirn this qnarter. But again the
London veeted interest in Irish land and debts proved a decisive factor
in tipping the scales against Chnrles. One observer, writing in Ocr.
1M6, ivns ntit optimistic as to the degree of support the King could
expect from the Londoners. "One is not assured (il the city of London",
he wrote, "for.. . it has still another snit in order to obtain possession
of the confiecated properties it acquired sorne time ago in Ireland."(")

(23' hloiirreuil ID hfmdrin, London, Jan. 22/Feli. 1, 1635, The Diplornotic
CoirrsponJrnce n/ J~rrn de ,Woi~trelril.. . . , 1615-1648, erl. J. G. Fotheringliiim,
vu1 1, The Sroitiih History Soc., 1898-9.
Ibld.
(2." Biil<rroJr: Whirelnckr, AnnaIs, D.M. Add. MS. 37,334, f. 63.
5. H. Cardiiier. Cvnvriru~ionol Dorurn~ntx oj the Puriion Reuolutioii, 3'' ed.,
Oxford. Clarrndon Pres-. 1951, p. 300.
127' Cli~rlrb 1 IO Hrnririra hldria, Newcastle, Sept. 7, 1646, Camden Soc.,
Chrrrlrs 1 in ICilb. Lnniloii, Clinden soc., 1836, pp. 03.4.
1"' P. Dr;lie~rr ru 31. Brierilie, Loiidoii, sept. 20, 164.
,IIoitrrrvrl Corrrspnndritcr. rol. 1.. p. 267.
(23' P. Ge!lieire to hl. Drirnne. Ori. 8. 16-16. Ihid., p. 300.
-6%-