[Sidenote: Trial of Lord Mayo, who is shot.]

Sir Theodore Bourke, third Viscount Mayo, submitted on July 14, 1652, and was one of the seven who signed on behalf of a large number. Those guilty of robbery or murder during the first year of the war were excluded from any benefit by the articles. Lord Mayo was tried at Galway as accessory to the Shrule massacre by a commission consisting of Sir Charles Coote and ten others. He was undoubtedly present at the murders, and he rode away without fighting for the victims, who were supposed to be under his protection; but there was evidence to show that he did make some effort to save them, and that he fled only to secure his own life. Four of the commissioners were for an acquittal, but he was condemned by a majority and shot.[253]

Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum, Vol. II (of 3), 1642-1660 — Part 218

War is a costly business. First there is the blood-tax, withdrawing thousands of young men from remunerative work. Then there is the expenditure on war materials, and the destruction of property, which may take long to replace. In modern times soldiers are paid punctually, but some part of the waste has to be met by loans, and so the expense of war goes on when its causes are half forgotten. In the case of the Irish rebellion, it was seen at once that the work could not be paid for out of revenue. Except for a moment under Strafford, Ireland had never been self-supporting, and Parliament, upon whom the King at once cast the responsibility, as yet commanded no regular income and could not pledge the national credit. The city of London was willing enough to give money, but security for repayment was required, and 2500 acres of Irish land were hypothecated for this purpose. It was assumed, judging by the great area affected, and by the experience of former rebellions, that a very much larger amount would be forfeited. Those who subscribed would have something to sell as soon as their money had done its work. In addition to this it proved, just as in Elizabeth's time, that there was never ready cash enough to pay the soldiers in full, and their arrears also were made a charge upon the Irish forfeitures. There were also many miscellaneous creditors who expected to be paid out of the same fund.[254]

Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum, Vol. II (of 3), 1642-1660 — Part 218

[Sidenote: Charles I. a party to the plan of settlement.]

Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum, Vol. II (of 3), 1642-1660 — Part 218