Annotations and comments

San Diego Sarah has posted 9,757 annotations/comments since 6 August 2015.

Comments

Third Reading

About Poll Tax Act 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

poll tax -- noun
a tax levied on every adult, without reference to income or resources.

In English history, a tax of a uniform amount levied on each individual, or “head.”

The abolition of the poll tax in Britain was announced on 21 March, 1991. Margaret Thatcher introduced one, which probably caused the downfall of her government.

About Thursday 30 August 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"the "pole bill" also voted upon today"

Peers Poll money:
ORDERED, That John Clutterbuck is appointed, by this House, to be Receiver General for all those Monies that are to be paid by the Peers upon the Poll Bill.

Lords Commissioners for it.
¶ORDERED, That the Lords that are Commissioners for to assess the Peers upon the Poll Bill do meet Tomorrow in the Afternoon, at Three of the Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings, to put the Act into Execution, for the speedy bringing in of the Money.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…

The "Poll" in Poll Tax is an old (Saxon?) word for "head" -- the tax collector made no allowance for infirmity or poverty. Everyone specified pays (e.g. over 15).
https://www.britannica.com/money/…

To take a poll, or to poll something, means to take a random survey from anyone who happens to wander by, or happens to be in a specific place at an allotted time.

About Wednesday 20 December 1665

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... but she was gone to bed when I come again to the house, upon pretence of leaving some papers there, which I did on purpose by her consent."

Here ends Pepys friendship with Mrs. Penington, sadly. He must have concluded that she wasn't interested in taking their relationship any further.

About Sunday 5 November 1665

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... Mrs. Penington and myself a good while talking of this fine woman again ... Then the lady and I to very serious discourse and, among other things, of what a bonny lasse my Lady Robinson is, who is reported to be kind to the prisoners, and has said to Sir G. Smith, who is her great crony, “Look! there is a pretty man, I would be content to break a commandment with him,” and such loose expressions she will have often. [CAN YOU HEAR THE GIGGLES?]

"After an houre’s talke we to bed, the lady mightily troubled about a pretty little bitch she hath, which is very sicke, and will eat nothing, and the worst was, I could hear her in her chamber bemoaning the bitch, and by and by taking her into bed with her. The bitch pissed and shit a bed, and she was fain to rise and had coals out of my chamber to dry the bed again."

Thank you, Pepys -- this confirmed my impression that the Penington's were fabulous people.

"we to bed" means he spent the night at Mr. Glanville’s house where Mrs. Penington was also living or staying, along with her pregnant dog. The walls must have been thin, or Pepys had his ear to the keyhole.

About Judith Penington

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Judith Penington's family would have made her a interesting person to know:

Her father was a wealthy London merchant, who probably rued the day he entered politics, as he ended up as a regicide, and finished his days in the Tower.
http://bcw-project.org/biography/…

Her brother, Isaac Penington, was also a successful London lawyer, who became a Quaker and spent his time writing approximately 90 works (13 of them from his pre-Quaker period) and was imprisoned 6 times for refusing to take oaths or pay taxes, and never used his legal knowledge to get out of jail. He was step-father to Guili Springett.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

Another brother became a Roman Catholic priest.

Her step-niece, Guili Springett, married William Penn Jr. in 1672.

A nephew, Edward Penington, emigrated to Pennsylvania, and sired a prominent family there.

The ODNB has these biographies:
• Penington, Col. Isaac MP (c. 1584–1661), Lord Mayor of London and regicide
• Penington [née Proude], Mary [other married name Mary Springett, Lady Springett] (bap. 1623, d. 1682), Quaker and writer
• Penington, John (1655–1710), Quaker apologist and controversialist
• Penington, Edward (1667–1701), Quaker colonist

The Journal of her uncle, Adm. John Pennington (1568?-1646), when commanding a squadron 'for the gard of the Narrow Seas', 1632 to 1636, is kept at Greenwich
https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections…
and he sailed with Raleigh to the Orinoco in 1617, and had many more adventures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh…

About Sir Isaac Penington (Lord Mayor of London, 1642-3)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Col. Isaac Penington Snr. MP, former Lt. of the Tower of London, has a BCW biography:

Isaac Penington was the eldest son of Robert Penington, a London merchant with estates in East Anglia, and second cousin of John Penington, who became an admiral in Charles I's navy.

Penington made his fortune through trading in cloth and French wine. From 1626, he acted as financial agent to Admiral Penington.

Through his second wife, Mary Wilkinson, whom he married in 1629, he extended his commercial interests to include a partnership in her family's brewery business.

Penington and his wife were zealous Puritans and members of the congregation of St. Stephen's in Coleman Street.

Penington became involved in politics in 1638 when he was elected as a London sheriff.
In 1639, he became an alderman, and in 1640 was elected as a London MP to both the Short and Long Parliaments.
He led demands for the abolition of Episcopacy and was active in enforcing the destruction of idolatrous images in London churches.
During the early 1640s, he worked with fellow militant Puritan John Venn to mobilise support against the King's unpopular advisers Strafford and Laud. Penington used his influence in the City of London to raise funds for Parliament, and in January 1642, may have sheltered the Five Members after the King's failed attempt to arrest them.

When Parliament removed the Royalist Sir Richard Gurney from office in August 1642, Penington was appointed lord mayor in his place.
He became a member of the City militia committee in September 1642 and exhorted the citizens to build fortifications for the defence of London.
He was appointed lieutenant of the Tower of London in July 1643. Penington was uncompromising in his hostility to the King's cause.

He was replaced as lord mayor by the more moderate Sir John Wollaston in October 1643, but continued in his role as an intermediary between Parliament and the City.

In January 1649, Col. Isaac Penington was appointed a commissioner of the High Court of Justice.
He attended the King's trial, but did not sign the death warrant.
However, he assisted Mayor Thomas Andrews in proclaiming the abolition of monarchy in the City, and was a member of the Council of State from 1649-52.

Penington's fortunes declined during the 1650s.
He was obliged to resign from his office as alderman in 1657 because of financial difficulties.

His eldest son Isaac Penington junior (1616-79) became a Quaker, while another son became a Catholic priest.

Penington surrendered at the Restoration, hoping for leniency because he had not signed the King's death warrant. His remaining lands were confiscated and he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tower, where he died in December 1661.

Sources:
Keith Lindley, Isaac Penington, Oxford DNB, 2004

SEE http://bcw-project.org/biography/…

About Tuesday 28 August 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Agreed, Martin VT. I suspect it has also been helpful for Batten and Penn to get to know him socially, so he's more comfortable in the office. He has a lot to learn about the Navy. No doubt a few dumb questions have been asked, and that's always humiliating.

About Tuesday 22 May 1666

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 3

From here on, there are SPOILERS]

Overtures for peace between Spain and Portugal began immediately after the victory of Montesclaros. During diplomatic delays, Schomberg continued to fight, and carried all before him in 1666 and 1667.

At last peace was settled on 12 Feb., 1668.
Schomberg also participated in the settlement of the government at Lisbon. Alphonso VI’s imbecility and wild behavior were sufficient to lay him aside, and put the sceptre into the hand of his brother, Pedro.

Alphonso VI’s favorite minister tried to restore Alphonso's influence by marrying him to Mary, Princess of Nemours.
The young queen soon obtained an annulment of this marriage from the Pope, having first formed a party at court, which Schomberg joined.
Alphonso VI was also forsaken by his premier, Count Melhor; and the regal power, although only with the title of regent, was transferred to his brother Pedro, under whose rule peace was proclaimed.

Gen. Frederic Armand Mainhardt, Comte de Schomberg left Portugal on 1 June, 1668.

Schomberg's frend, D’Ablancourt, preserves some anecdotes about his time in Portugal:
The jealousy and insubordination of the Portuguese officers often resulted in their disregard of Schomberg’s orders. One night he directed Gen. Denis De Mellos to detach 6 squadrons of horse to a certain point.
The next day Schomberg quickly saw his order had not been obeyed. Gen. Mellos replied that he had sent 30 cavaliers with a guide, having thought that sufficient. “Sufficient?” exclaimed Schomberg, “yes, sufficient to cut off your head, for you had your orders in writing.”

Gen. Schomberg’s name became a proverb in Portugal and in Spain. The Spanish Guards, raised soon after his departure, were called The Schombergs.
The peasants started dressing images of the saints in “embroidered coats, long periwigs, and French points.” Finally the priests forbade anyone from adorning the saints 'à la Schomberguoise.'

On 14 June, 1668, Schomberg arrived at La Rochelle. A famous wit was there to compliment him. The Count was more troubled at this praise than he ever was at the sight of the Spanish battalions. He replied that he had only been as instrumental as he could to the glory of his Prince. [LOUIS XIV]

Marshal Schomberg was home in his adopted France.
One son, Otho, had died.
Another son, Henry, died at Brussels of wounds received in battle; but we do not know when.
His wife had died, again we do not know when.
His 3 remaining sons stayed in Portugal, namely Frederic, Mainhardt, and Charles.

In 2006 our own Pedro made 3 annotations about this phase of the war from another source, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

About Tuesday 22 May 1666

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 2

In 1665, the Marquis of Caracena took over commanding the Spaniards, and marched upon Villa-Viciosa, the estate of the Dukes of Braganza, within which was the palace of Braganza.
Caracena took the town, and was besieging the fortified castle that towered above it, when Schomberg and the Portuguese army were sighted in the distance.

The two armies met on the plain of Montesclaros. This time the Portuguese had advantage in numbers.
The Spanish charged first, and the Italian auxiliary cavalry under the command of Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma, broke the first line of the Portuguese.

Marshal Schomberg advanced to rally his troops.
Parma was watching his movements, and engaged with him in personal combat, by striking him on the breast two blows with his sabre, which nearly threw him from the saddle, and would have slain him, had not the Prince’s sword been shattered at the second stroke on the cuirass which Schomberg wore under his uniform.”
Cuirass = a piece of armor consisting of breastplate and backplate fastened together.

The Portuguese won the day, and surrounded the retreating enemy.

The Spanish artillery and the troops left outside the Castle of Villa Viciosa fled to Badajoz.
The Portuguese made an irruption into Andalusia, and carried off immense booty.
Irruption = a sudden and violent invasion

The decisive battle of Montesclaros completed the Spanish misfortunes.
It fixed the crown on the head of the King of Portugal, and raised the country's reputation on the scale of European nations.
For this victory, as well as their previous successes, the Portuguese were chiefly indebted to the military skill of Gen. Schomberg and the valor of the foreign auxiliaries.

The defeat possibly hastened the death of Philip IV of Spain on 17 Sept., 1665, in his 61st year and 45th of his reign.

At the end of 1665, the idiotic and violent Alphonso VI of Portugal declared himself of age, and his mother, Queen Regent Louisa, having surrendered the government into his hands, died in a convent on 18 Feb., 1666.

[The arrival of Amb. Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich in Madrid to replace Amb. Richard Fanshawe is annotated tomorrow, 23 May, 1666. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

About Tuesday 22 May 1666

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"Thence home to my business writing letters, and so at night home to supper and to bed."

Pepys makes it seem like nothing else is happening in the world:

To bring you up-to-date, in 1662 we left Marshal Mainhardt, Comte de Schomberg on his way to lead the defending Portuguese army against the Spanish, with Louis XIV secretly paying for him and some English and other foreign troops he would lead as, by Treaty, Louis was forbidden to fight the King of Spain. http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

The following is excerpted from
Protestant Exiles from France
Book 2. Chapter 1.
THE THREE DUKES OF SCHOMBERG.
I. FREDERICK ARMAND, 1ST DUKE OF SCHOMBERG

Schomberg finally could leave Lisbon with ease, his friend Fremont d’Ablancourt (a clandestine envoy from the French court), being in constant and friendly communication with the Portuguese ministry.

The Portuguese town of Evora surrendered to the Spanish general, Don John of Austria, so the Portuguese army with its English auxiliaries under the direction of Schomberg marched to stop his progress, and cut off his supplies.

Don John had no choice but to attack, which he did near Evora, and was repulsed.
The Portuguese chased the Spanish, and caught up with them near Estremos.

Don John's troops occupied 2 steep hills, on which he planted cannon and the greater part of his infantry. His baggage was placed in the rear, and the cavalry was drawn up in 4 bodies on the plain below.
The fight dragged on, until the English auxiliaries climbed up the steep hills, using their hands and feet; many were slain, but the greater part gained the summits. This inspired 3 regiments of Portuguese infantry to ascend by an easier and more circuitous path.
The Spanish foot were surprised by this unexpected boldness. They fled, despite Don John, alighting from his charger, urging them to rally and face the enemy.
Now the Portuguese horse, which had been successful against the Spanish cavalry, advancing to help their foot, and a great slaughter ensued.

The victorious cavalry were chiefly Schomberg’s veterans. The victory was complete, Evora was restored, and 1663’s campaign was ended.

The nominal Portuguese commander-in-chief, the Count de Villa-Flor, having thwarted Schomberg on all occasions, was now removed.
Schomberg was promoted to be the Military Governor. He was also made a Grandee of Portugal, and was given the title of Count of Mertola. These honors were not only rewards for his services, but also heraldic qualifications for high military command.

In 1664, the Spanish army was again commanded by Don John, but could do little more than watch while Schomberg entered Spanish territories and took Valencia d’Alcantara.

The campaign ended in the defeat of the Duke of Ossuna, an amateur general of the Spaniards, near Castel-Rodrigo.

About Monday 27 August 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... about 10 o’clock Major Hart came to me, whom I did receive with wine and anchovies, which made me so dry that I was ill with them all night, ..."

Someone who goes to the trouble of finding you, and drops in at 10 at night, must have come for a reason, Pepys. But your -- self-inflicted -- dispepsia take over the Diary. Shame on you.

Did he bring a secret letter from Sandwich?
Did he want a job?
Was he hoping you were out so he could see Elizabeth?
Did he bring a command from the Duke of York to be at a meeting at 5 a.m. at Whitehall?

You are so frustrating sometimes!

About Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 4

The predominance of conservative Anglicans and Royalists in the Cavalier Parliament ruled out any prospect of a lasting reconciliation with the Presbyterians in a broadly based national church.
After restoring bishops to the House of Lords, Parliament set about passing a series of measures to ensure conformity to the doctrines of the Church of England and to discourage Presbyterians and the radical sects.
The Restoration religious settlement were expressed in 4 Acts of Parliament known collectively as the Clarendon Code.
The name was derived from Sir Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, who served as Charles II's lord chancellor — although Clarendon was not the instigator of the actsm and argued against some of the more severe requirements.

The Corporation Act of 1661 required all office holders in towns and cities to take oaths of allegiance to the Crown, to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant, and to take the sacrament in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England.

The Act of Uniformity of 1662 brought all ordained clergymen under the doctrines and liturgy of the established Church.
Candidates for the ministry had to be ordained by a bishop according to the rites of the Church of England.
They were required to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant and to declare their acceptance of the revised Book of Common Prayer and all doctrinal articles sanctioned by the Church.

Hundreds of Presbyterian and non-conformist clergymen were ejected from their livings on St, Bartholomew's Day (24 August) 1662 for refusing to comply with the Act of Uniformity.

The Conventicle Act of 1664 was intended to prevent clergymen ejected by the Act of Uniformity from forming their own congregations.
Fines or imprisonment were imposed upon anyone attending an independent prayer meeting or act of worship ("conventicle") that was not in accordance with the Anglican liturgy.

Similarly, the Five-Mile Act of 1665 was intended to curb the influence of dissenting clergymen by prohibiting them from residing within 5 miles of any living they had held before the Act was passed.
Furthermore, they were required to take an oath of non-resistance to royal authority before accepting any appointment as tutor or schoolmaster.

Charles II was more tolerant than the Cavalier Parliament in matters of religion and tried to modify some of the harsher legislation in favour of dissenters and Catholics. This led to increasing disharmony between Crown and Parliament as his reign proceeded.

Sources:
Godfrey Davies, The Restoration of Charles II, 1658-60 (San Marino 1955)

Ronald Hutton, Charles II, King of England, Scotland & Ireland (Oxford 1989)

Ronald Hutton, The Restoration, a political and religious history of England and Wales 1658-1667 (Oxford 1985)

Keith Wrightson: An Unsettled Settlement: The Restoration Era, 1660-1688 Open Yale courses, 2009

http://bcw-project.org/church-and…

About Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 3

The Convention Parliament was dissolved by Charles II on 29 December, 1660.
A new parliament, called under the King's authority, was elected during March and April 1661.
During the election campaign, a hardening of attitudes towards conciliation became apparent, with many Anglicans and Royalists claiming that their interests had been ignored in the initial Restoration settlement.

In March, the government was alarmed when the 4 London parliamentary seats were secured by Presbyterians amid anti-Episcopalian demonstrations in the city.
Elsewhere, the government intervened wherever possible to hinder the election of Presbyterian sympathisers, playing upon fears of political instability and religious extremism.

The new parliament first assembled on 8 May, 1661.
It came to be known as the Cavalier Parliament because of the predominance of Royalist and Anglican MPs returned.
It sat for a total of 17 sessions, and was dissolved in January 1679.

The first act of the Cavalier Parliament was to confirm all legislation passed by the Convention during the previous year.
It then set about consolidating the Convention's work in re-establishing monarchical government and defining the Crown's powers and limitations.

The Militia Act of 1661 confirmed that the monarch, as head of state, was supreme commander of the army and navy. This settled one of the most important questions over which the first Civil War had been fought.
The prerogative courts which had enabled Charles I's autocratic personal rule during the 1630s were not revived, but the Cavalier Parliament did not question the monarch's right to appoint ministers and state officials or to direct foreign policy.

The Bishops' Exclusion Act of 1641 was repealed, thus allowing Anglican bishops to take their seats in the House of Lords, which had already been re-established by the Convention.

In 1664, the Triennial Act was modified so that it was no longer possible to force the monarch to call a parliament every 3 years.

The Crown remained dependent upon Parliament for revenue, but it was found that the annual sum granted by the Convention was insufficient to meet Charles II's expenses.
In 1662, the Cavalier Parliament imposed the Hearth Tax as a supplemental tax to make up the shortfall. This caused great resentment because collectors and constables were given authority to enter households to inspect the number of hearths for taxation.
Even with the addition of the Hearth Tax, the King's expenses exceeded his income. However, the MPs were becoming critical of the Stuart brothers' lavish lifestyle and were reluctant to make further grants.

About Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 2

The principles of the Restoration land settlement were set out by the Convention Parliament.
Crown and Church lands that had been confiscated and sold off during the Commonwealth and Protectorate years were to be restored to their original owners, but the purchasers of these lands required compensation for their losses, to which Charles II had agreed in principle in the Declaration of Breda.
In many cases, this was solved by leasing out the lands at low rents to the purchasers.
Many Royalists had been obliged to sell land privately to pay Parliament's fines and taxes, and these sales remained valid.
While influential Royalists were often able to regain their former property by legal action or royal favour, many lesser Royalists suffered financially.

The Convention oversaw the disbandment of the New Model Army.
In order to raise the money required to pay off the soldiers, the Commons voted to impose a poll tax, by which each individual paid a sum appropriate to his rank in society.
In practice, there were difficulties in administering the tax.
The sum raised was not sufficient and the poll tax had to be supplemented by an additional assessment tax on property owners.
However, the task was accomplished and the New Model Army was peacefully disbanded by January 1661.
Charles II maintained a small standing army of around 3,500 men and also ensured that all permanent garrisons throughout the kingdom were commanded by officers of proven loyalty to the Crown.

The religious settlement was barely addressed by the Convention.

The restoration of the monarchy also entailed the restoration of episcopacy and the Anglican church, but Charles' Breda declaration had promised religious toleration for moderate non-Anglican Protestants.
A parliamentary committee on religion sat regularly between June and September 1660 which confirmed parish clergy who were not sectarians and had not displaced Anglicans from their livings.
In October, a conference between Anglican and Presbyterian divines reached an interim religious settlement, but the Convention voted against passing it into law by a margin of 36 votes.

The final part of the Convention's work was to make financial arrangements for the restored monarchy.
The principal sources of royal revenue were customs duties and rents from lands, but these were greatly depleted.
Although revenues from the confiscated estates of the regicides went to the Crown, these was swallowed up by the King's household expenses.
In September 1660, the Convention granted Charles II an annual income of £1,200,000 to be raised initially from grants and subsidies.

About Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

The BCW Project sees the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion as part of the Restoration Settlement of 1660-1665:

The Convention Parliament, elected in the spring of 1660 after the final dissolution of the Long Parliament, was almost unanimously Royalist in sympathy.

After Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda in May, the Convention declared that the lawful government of the nation was by King, Lords and Commons and that Charles had been rightful king since the execution of his father in January 1649.
At the invitation of Parliament, Charles landed in England on 25 May, 1660 to reclaim the throne.
The Restoration was greeted with mostly wild rejoicing throughout the nation.

During the remainder of 1660, the Convention Parliament implemented the initial Restoration settlement. It intended to restore the constitution that existed in 1641, after the Long Parliament's reforms to limit the King's arbitrary use of his powers had been passed.
Thus, all Acts of Parliament given the royal assent by Charles I before the outbreak of the first Civil War were confirmed, including the abolition of the prerogative courts (which were never restored), and the Triennial Act (which ensured that a parliament would be called at least once every 3 years).

All legislation passed during the Commonwealth and Protectorate was removed from the statute books. However, the Convention replicated and extended the Navigation Act of 1651 in a new act to regulate trade and shipping.

The generally conciliatory Act of Indemnity and Oblivion was given the royal assent in August 1660. Most of those who had supported the Commonwealth and Protectorate régimes were granted a free pardon, but a number of individuals were excepted.
About 60 people were named for capital punishment as various drafts of the bill passed between the Lords and Commons during the summer of 1660.
When the bill received the royal assent on 29 August, 33 surviving regicides who had participated directly in the trial and execution of Charles I were brought to trial as traitors. Their estates were confiscated and they were sentenced to death.
In some cases, the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.
A further 20 republicans and Cromwellians were forbidden from holding public office.

Apart from the regicides, 4 men were brought to trial for their activities during the Interregnum:
the preacher Hugh Peter was executed in 1660 for his close association with the regicide;
Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll, leader of the Scottish Covenanters, was the only Scot executed, in 1661;
Major-Gen. John Lambert, who led the last military resistance to the Restoration, was imprisoned for life,
and the prominent Commonwealth statesman Sir Henry Vane was executed in 1662.
The republican Sir Arthur Heselrige died in prison before being brought to trial.

About Randal MacDonnell (1st Marquess of Antrim)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

And now an odd story about Antrim, from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Quaker author and land-owner, and William Penn Jr.'s father-in-law, Isaac Penington:

About May 1665, Isaac Penington was arrested again, this time at the behest of John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater (1622-86), who was offended because Penington had refused to address him as 'My lord'.

Isaac Penington was released after 9 months upon petition to Randal MacDonnell, Marquess of Antrim, ...
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10…

Why on earth did a recently pardoned Roman Catholic Irish Marquess bother to get an English Quaker out of jail?
If anyone knows, I'd love to hear the story behind this one.

About Randal MacDonnell (1st Marquess of Antrim)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

The BCW Project -- again skipping the first half:

In May 1646, he arrived in the Western Isles with a force of 600 men.
That month, Charles I surrendered to the Scots and issued orders that all Royalist forces in Scotland should disband.
Anxious to keep the recaptured MacDonnell lands in Scotland, Antrim was reluctant to obey the King's command and remained in arms until the autumn of 1646.
He finally disbanded his forces when the King personally intervened with a promise that Antrim would receive the Marquis of Argyll's disputed estates in Kintyre when the King was again in a position to grant them.

From Jan. - April 1647, Antrim played a prominent role in the 7th Confederate General Assembly at Kilkenny where he sat as a member of the Supreme Council.
He allied himself with the hardline Catholic faction led by Archbishop Rinuccini and opposed negotiations with Ormonde, for a treaty between the Confederates and the Royalists.
In March 1648, Antrim went to Paris as a member of the Confederate delegation appointed to continue the negotiations with leading Royalists. He opposed both the Inchiquin Truce and the 2nd Ormonde Peace and attempted to lead a Catholic insurrection when Ormonde returned to Ireland in 1648.
However, Antrim's uprising was easily suppressed and he was obliged to seek refuge with the Ulster army of Owen Roe O'Neill.

When Cromwell invaded Ireland in 1649, Antrim unexpectedly shifted his allegiance to the Parliamentarians.
He was in communication with Col. Jones, the Gov. of Dublin, from the end of 1648 and made contact with Henry Ireton upon his arrival in Ireland in the summer of 1649.
Antrim helped to secure the surrender of New Ross to the Parliamentarians in October 1649 and persuaded his former followers to surrender Carlow peacefully in July 1650.

When the subjugation of Ireland was complete, Antrim was granted an annual pension of £500, later increased to £800.
His first wife having died in 1649; he married a Protestant heiress, Rose O'Neill, daughter of Sir Henry O'Neill, in 1653.
He remained in eastern Ulster throughout the 1650s.

At the Restoration, Antrim presented himself at the court of Charles II and was immediately imprisoned in the Tower of London.
However, with support from the Queen Mother and her courtiers, and even from creditors who wanted to ensure that they would be repaid, Antrim was released in May 1661.
Although he was accused both of involvement in the Catholic rebellion of 1641 and of collaboration with Cromwell, and despite the protests of speculators who had gained possession of his lands, he was finally granted a full pardon and restored to his estates in Ulster in 1665.
Thereafter he retired from politics and withdrew to his estates in Ireland.

Antrim died childless in February 1683.
The marquisate became extinct and he was succeeded as 3rd Earl of Antrim by his brother Alexander.
http://bcw-project.org/biography/…

About Randal MacDonnell (1st Marquess of Antrim)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Randal MacDonnell, made Marquiss of Antrim in 1645, had a chequered career during the Civil Wars, ending up on the wrong side of Ormonde and Charles II.
L&M Companion has no entry about him.

Skipping to 1645 in his Wiki entry:
He now stopped supporting the Roman Catholics or King Charles' cause; opposed the treaty between Ormonde and the confederates; supported the project of union between O'Neill and the parliament;

and in 1649 entered into communications with Cromwell, for whom he performed various services during the conquest of Ireland, although there appears no authority to support Carte's story that Antrim was the author of a forged agreement for the betrayal of the king's army by Lord Inchiquin

Later he joined Ireton, and was present at the Siege of Carlow.

Antrim returned to England in Dec. 1650, and in lieu of his confiscated estate received a pension of £500 and later of £800, together with lands in Co. Mayo.

After the Restoration in 1660, Antrim went to London to swear loyalty to the King.
Before being able to meet Charles II, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, accused of collaboration with Cromwell and the English Republicans.

Antrim was excluded from the Indemnity and Oblivion Act.
His rival, Archibald Campbell, 8th Earl of Argyll, also came to London to swear loyalty to Charles, and was also imprisoned before being taken back to Scotland, tried and executed for treason.

From July 1660 to May 1661 Randal MacDonnell, 2nd Earl of Antrim remained in the Tower. He was investigated by the new Royalist authorities for several offences: that he had taken part in the 1641 Irish Rebellion and that he had publicly suggested King Charles had secret involvement with the rising.
He was also accused of other crimes including dealings with Ireton and other Republican officers during the Irish campaigns.
Although all but the first of these accusations were essentially true, Antrim was released in 1663 without being charged.

Antrim still faced problems recovering his Irish estates. He had to prove he was innocent of any involvement in the Irish rebellion.

Called before the Lords Justice in Ireland in 1663, Antrim succeeded -- despite Ormonde's opposition -- securing a decree of innocence from the Commissioners of Claims.
This was appealled by the Adventurers who had his lands, which caused a new trial.
Antrim appealed to Charles II, and through the influence of Queen Mother Henrietta Maria, obtained a pardon; his estates were restored by the Irish Act of Explanation in 1665.

Antrim was described by Clarendon as "of handsome appearance but of excessive pride and vanity and of a marvellous weak and narrow understanding".

He married twice, but had no children, being succeeded only in the earldom in 1682 by his brother Alexander.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…