Rinuccini in breaking the first peace was not only reprehensible in itself,
but productive of the most calamitous consequences both to the cause of
royalty and the civil and religious interests of the Irish Catholics. The
following is the ground on which he attempts to justify himself. Laying it
down as an undeniable truth that the Irish people had as good a right
to the establishment of their religion in their native country, as the
Covenanters in Scotland, or the Presbyterians in England, he maintains that
it was his duty to make this the great object of his proceedings. When the
peace was concluded, Charles was a prisoner in the hands of the Scots,
who had solemnly sworn to abolish the Catholic religion; and the English
royalists had been subdued by the parliament, which by repeated votes and
declarations had bound itself to extirpate the Irish race, and parcel out
the island among foreign adventurers. Now there was no human probability
that Charles would ever be restored to his throne, but on such conditions
as the parliament and the Scots should prescribe; and that, on their
demand, he would, after some struggle, sacrifice the Irish Catholics,
was plain from what had passed in his different negotiations with the
parliament, from his disavowal of Glamorgan's commission, and from the
obstinacy with which his lieutenant, Ormond, had opposed the claims of the
confederates. Hence he inferred that a peace, which left the establishment
of religion to the subsequent determination of the king, afforded no
security, but, on the contrary, was an abandonment of the cause for which
the Catholics had associated; and that it therefore became him, holding
the situation which he did, to oppose it by every means in his power.--MS.
narrative of Rinuccini's proceedings, written to be delivered to the pope;
and Ponce, 271.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1648. Sept. 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1648. Oct. 19.]