1645-6.] OF THE MARQUIS OF WORCESTER. 123 



lect, Carte charges him with forgery. While those who 

 see in the whole transaction but another instance of the 

 King s duplicity, of his contempt of every obligation 

 (which a Christian feels bound to respect), so long as he 

 fancies expediency offers him, in his high position, a 

 sufficient excuse for the boldest tergiversation, exone 

 rate the Earl from the charge of having acted on his 

 own responsibility. 



Indeed it requires a large amount of credulity to be 

 lieve that any subject, much less a man of the mild and 

 honourable tone characteristic of the Earl s whole con 

 duct, could have acted as he did, otherwise than with a 

 full and perfect previous understanding with his mis 

 guided sovereign, and empowered with sufficient proofs, 

 if even legally insufficient instruments under his hand 

 and seal to warrant his proceedings. That he had such 

 powers is well authenticated, and that he did not abuse 

 them is his highest merit. He did not coin money, or 

 appropriate property, or commit any other extravagance, 

 such as a man deficient in &quot;judgment&quot; possibly would 

 have done, under the grant of similar powers. 



We cannot be mistaken as advocates of his acts in the 

 Irish affairs, by merely showing that those acts were in 

 strict conformity with the injunctions of the Eoyal will ; 

 for so long as troops were required, no means were to 

 be spared that were found absolutely requisite to gain 

 the desired end. We rejoice that the warm-hearted 

 Earl did not succeed, that all his negotiations failed, 

 and that the exorbitant demands made on him destroyed 

 the measures they were intended to render unbounded 

 and permanent ; at the same time, as a Roman Catho 

 lic, the Earl of Glamorgan acted honestly, consistently, 

 and by no means extravagantly. The folly and blame 

 and entire shame of the whole affair weighs heavily on 

 the King s memory. 



