Sarsfield
instant, which, together with the Protestants being reduced in some places to take shelter amongst the rapparees for subsistence, must needs bespeak the most dangerous circumstances." The letter referred to is given in the same vol.
11 Cal. State Papers, 7 Nov., 1690.
12 Cal. State Papers, 16 Jan., 1690 (wrongly indexed—should be 1691).
13 In his letter to Louvois from Galway, referred to in the text, Lauzun comments on the prolonged resistance at Limerick. He goes on to give us a remarkable comparison of the Irish leaders: "The Duke of Tyrconnell considers things so desperate in this kingdom that he seems entirely resolved to cross to France, whatever happens at Limerick; but in case the town is not taken, he is resolved to transfer his command (as the King gave him permission to do at his own discretion) to the hands of Sarsfield and Lord Galmoy, for the command of the troops, and to place the government of the kingdom in the hands of the Lords Justices. Sarsfield seemed to me yesterday evening inclined to cross also, but if the place is not taken, Sarsfield appears! to me to wish to uphold his country, and to carry on the war as best he can in the fortresses and in the country, without a regular army, it being impossible to form or maintain one in the state of famine which exists through the land." (Ranke, vi., pp. 125-6, Translated.)
14 Cal. State Papers, G. Clarke to Earl of Nottingham, 27 May, 1691: "Since the coming over of Marshal St. Ruth there have been great divisions among them; for he commands here for the King of France, and Sarsfield and Clifford, upon pretence of sickness, it is thought, keep at Portumna and have not as yet been with the army."
286
