The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

IRELAND UNDER THE STUARTS

Vol. I.

By the same Author

IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS

Vols. I. and II.—From the First Invasion of the Northmen to the year 1578.

8vo. 32s.

Vol. III.—1578-1603. 8vo. 18s.

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

London, New York, Bombay, and Calcutta

IRELAND
UNDER THE STUARTS

AND

DURING THE INTERREGNUM

BY

RICHARD BAGWELL, M.A.

AUTHOR OF ‘IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS’

Vol. I. 1603-1642

WITH MAP

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA

1909

All rights reserved

[PREFACE]

These volumes have been written at such times and seasons as could be made available during an active life in Ireland, and this may induce critics to take a merciful view of their many shortcomings. I have been diligent, but there is still much extant manuscript material which I have been unable to use. Ireland is the land of violent and persistent party feeling, and no party will be pleased with the present work, for I hold with an ancient critic that the true function of history is to bring out the facts and not to maintain a thesis. If I am spared to finish the third volume, it will bring the narrative down to the Revolution, and will contain chapters on the Church or Churches and on the social state of Ireland.

The dates of all documents relied on have been given, and unless it is otherwise stated they are among the Irish State Papers calendared from 1603 to 1660. Many papers, chiefly, but not exclusively, from the Carte manuscripts, were printed by Sir J. T. Gilbert in the ‘Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland,’ or in the ‘History of the Confederation and War in Ireland.’ As these collections are more generally accessible than the Bodleian Library, I have referred to them as far as they go. The ‘Aphorismical Discovery,’ which forms the nucleus of the first, is cited under that title, and the narrative of Bellings in the second under his name. The original Carte papers at Oxford have been often consulted, as well as the transcripts in the Public Record Office, while the manuscripts in the British Museum and in Trinity College, Dublin, have not been neglected. In the case of old tracts and newsletters, of which I have read a great many, dates and titles are given.

The late Lord Fitzwilliam did not consider it consistent with his duty to let Dr. Gardiner see the Strafford correspondence preserved at Wentworth Woodhouse, and my application to his successor has also been refused. No restriction seems to have been imposed on the editors of Laud’s works, of which the last instalment was published as late as 1860. All the Archbishop’s letters are printed, Strafford’s being omitted only because they would have taken too much room. In 1739 Dr. William Knowler, working under Lord Malton’s directions, published the well-known Strafford Letters, and Mr. Firth has thrown fresh light upon them by printing some of the editor’s correspondence in the ninth volume of the ‘Camden Miscellany.’ ‘There is,’ Knowler wrote, ‘four or five times the number of letters uncopied for one transcribed, and yet I believe those that shall glean them over again won’t find many things material omitted.’ Yet Laud’s editors thought it worth while to publish a good deal of what had been left out, and probably there is still something to be done.

I have made some examination of the famous depositions in Trinity College, Dublin, concerning the rebellion of 1641, but it is unnecessary to repeat Miss Hickson’s arguments, which appear to me conclusive. The documents may be pronounced genuine in the sense that they really are what they profess to be, but they are all more or less ex parte statements, and the witnesses were not cross-examined. Deductions may be made on these grounds, especially in the case of numerical estimates, but there is a vast mass of other evidence as to the main facts. The matter is discussed pretty fully in Chapter XX.

It is unnecessary to describe here the various contemporary histories and memoirs referred to in the text and notes. Sir Richard Cox’s ‘Hibernia Anglicana’ should be used with caution. Cox was a strong partisan, but he was not a liar, and he wrote at a time when there were still living witnesses.

The maps at the beginning of each volume are intended as helps to the reader, and make no pretension to completeness. Fuller details as to the various colonies or plantations may be found in Mr. Dunlop’s map, No. 31 in the Oxford Historical Atlas. As to the short-lived Cromwellian settlement much may be learned from the map in Gardiner’s ‘Commonwealth and Protectorate,’ iii. 312, and from that in Lord Fitzmaurice’s ‘Life of Petty.’ The more lasting arrangements made after 1660 will be the subject of full discussion in my third volume. The innumerable sieges, battles and skirmishes from 1641 to 1653 may be traced in any large map of Ireland, and cannot be shown in a small one. The state of affairs at the critical moment of the first truce in 1643 is illustrated by the map in Gardiner’s ‘Great Civil War,’ i. 264.

My best thanks are due to Mrs. Shirley for lending me fourteen volumes of tracts concerning the rebellion from the library at Lough Fea. They have been very useful.

I received some valuable hints from my friend, the late C. Litton Falkiner, whose untimely death is a loss to Ireland.

Marlfield, Clonmel:

December 26, 1908.

[CONTENTS]

OF

THE FIRST VOLUME

MAP

GEORGE PHILIP & SON L^TD.

Longmans. Green & Co., London, New York, Bombay & Calcutta.

IRELAND UNDER THE STUARTS

[CHAPTER I]
MOUNTJOY AND CAREY, 1603-1605

Accession of James. The new era.

Submission of Tyrone.

The change from Elizabeth to James I. marks the transition from an heroic age to one very much the reverse. The new court was scandalous, and after the younger Cecil’s death public affairs were administered by a smaller race of men, not one of whom gained the love or admiration of his countrymen. Raleigh, the typical Elizabethan, spent thirteen years in the Tower, and died on the scaffold. But outside the sphere of politics the first Stuart reign must be regarded with interest, for it saw the production of Shakespeare’s finest plays and of Bacon’s chief works. Meanwhile England had peace, and silently prepared for the great struggle. Eliot and Pym, Wentworth and Cromwell, were all young men, and Milton was born some three years before Prospero drowned his book. The great Queen died at Richmond very early on March 24. By nine o’clock Sir Robert Carey was spurring northwards with the news, and King James was proclaimed in London the same morning. It was not until the next day that Cecil found time to send Sir Henry Danvers to Ireland, but the news had preceded the official messenger by a full week, so that Mountjoy was quite prepared. Danvers landed at Dublin on April 5, and within an hour after the delivery of his letters King James was duly proclaimed. Oddly enough, Tyrone, who had reached Dublin the day before, was the only peer of Ireland present, and he signed the proclamation which was circulated in the country. Three days later he made submission on his knees to the new sovereign, ‘solemnly swearing upon a book to perform every part thereof, as much as lay in his power; and if he could not perform any part thereof he vowed to put his body into the King’s hands, to be disposed at his pleasure.’ The earl’s submission was ample in substance, and humble enough in form; but Sir William Godolphin, who had brought him to Dublin, warned the English Government that he would not remain a good subject unless he were treated reasonably.[1]

Excitement about the King’s religion.

Agitation in the towns.

Neither his relations with his own mother nor with Queen Elizabeth had given any reason to suppose that the new king was attached to the religion of Rome. Tyrone had offered his services to James years before, and was told that he would be reminded of this when it should please God ‘to call our sister the Queen of England to death.’ After his raid in Munster Tyrone wrote in rather a triumphant strain, but still obsequiously, to the King of Scots. This did not prevent James from offering his help to Elizabeth when the Spaniards took Kinsale, for which she thanked him. A rumour that his Majesty was a Catholic was nevertheless widely circulated in Ireland, and caused a strange ferment in the corporate towns. Much stress was also laid upon his descent from ancient Irish kings. During the Queen’s later years mass had been freely celebrated in private houses, and a strong effort was now generally made to celebrate it publicly in the churches. Jesuits, seminaries, and friars, says the chronicler Farmer, ‘now came abroad in open show, bringing forth old rotten stocks and stones of images, &c.’ The agitation was strong in Kilkenny, Thomastown, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, and in the smaller Munster towns; and even Drogheda, ‘which since the conquest was never spotted with the least jot of disloyalty,’ did not altogether escape the contagion. In the latter town a chapel had long been connived at, but the municipal officers firmly repressed the agitation and even committed a man who had ventured to express a hope of open toleration. Mountjoy declared himself satisfied, but a note in his hand shows that he was still suspicious. Probably he thought it wiser not to have north and south upon his hands at the same time.[2]

Disturbances at Kilkenny and Thomastown.

Kilkenny and other towns submit.

On the evening of March 26, Carey reached Holyrood with the news of Queen Elizabeth’s death, and on the 28th Mountjoy was appointed Lord Deputy by Privy Seal. Before this was known in Ireland the Council there had elected him Lord Justice according to ancient precedent; so that practically there was no interregnum. Ulster was now almost quiet, and the Viceroy could draw enough troops from thence to make any resistance by the corporate towns quite hopeless. On April 27 he marched southwards with about 1,200 foot, of whom one-third were Irish, and 200 horse. At Leighlin he was joined by Ormonde, who had been opposed by the Kilkenny people acting under the advice of Dr. James White of Waterford, a Jesuit, and of a Dominican friar named Edmund Barry, who was said to be James Fitzmaurice’s son. Ormonde was accompanied by Sir Richard Shee, the sovereign, who was an adherent of his, and Mountjoy was easily induced to pardon the townsmen upon their making humble submission. Dr. White was vicar-apostolic in Waterford, and his authority seems to have been recognised in Ossory also, there being at this time no papal bishop in either diocese. He forbade the people to hear mass privately, and enjoined them to celebrate it openly in the churches, some of which he reconsecrated. Barry went so far as to head a mob in attacking the suppressed convent of his order, which was used as a sessions-house. The benches and fittings were broken up, and the conqueror said mass in the desecrated church. This friar came to Mountjoy, said that he had believed himself to be acting in a way agreeable to the King, and promised to offend no further now that his Majesty’s pleasure to the contrary was known. The Lord Deputy did not enter Kilkenny, but went straight to Thomastown, which had behaved in the same way. The town being small and penitent, it was thought punishment enough that the army should halt there for the night. Wexford had already fully submitted by letter, and Mountjoy marched from Thomastown to within four miles of Waterford, and there he encamped on the fourth day after leaving Dublin.[3]

Mountjoy at Waterford.

Odium theologicum

An absolute monarch.

The Suir at Waterford was unbridged until 1794, and the citizens doubtless thought that Mountjoy would be long delayed upon the left bank. But Ormonde, who had proclaimed King James at Carrick some weeks before, now brought enough boats from that place to carry over the whole army. Mountjoy encamped at Gracedieu, about a mile and a half above the city. There could now be no question of resistance, but some of the citizens came out and pleaded that by King John’s charter they were not obliged to admit either English rebel or Irish enemy, though they would receive the Deputy and his suite. As against a viceroy this argument was in truth ridiculous, and the Lord Deputy had only to say that his was the army which had suppressed both rebels and enemies. If resistance were offered he would cut King John’s charter with King James’s sword. It was then urged that the mayor had no force to restrain the mob unless the popular leaders could be gained over. Mountjoy consented to see Dr. White—who had just preached a sermon at St. Patrick’s, in which he called Queen Elizabeth Jezebel—and a Dominican friar who had acted with him. Sir Nicholas Walsh the recorder had been pulled down from the market cross when he attempted to proclaim King James, and Sir Richard Aylward, who was a Protestant, had escaped with difficulty, some citizens expressing regret that they had not both lost their heads. Walsh thought he owed his preservation more to having relations among the crowd than to any dregs of loyal compunction. The Jesuit and the Dominican now came to the camp in full canonicals and with a cross borne before them, which Mountjoy at once ordered to be lowered. White fell on his knees, protesting his loyalty and acknowledging the King’s right. A discussion arose as to the lawfulness of resistance to the royal authority, and the book learning which Essex had made a reproach to Mountjoy now stood him in good stead. According to one not very probable account, the Lord Deputy had a copy of St. Augustine in his tent, and convicted White of misquoting that great authority. ‘My master,’ he said, ‘is by right of descent an absolute King, subject to no prince or power upon the earth; and if it be lawful for his subjects upon any cause to raise arms against him, and deprive him of his regal authority, he is not then an absolute King, but hath only precarium imperium. This is our opinion of the Church of England, and in this point many of your own great doctors agree with us.’ James was of course no absolute king in our sense of the word, for he had no power to impose taxes; but the long reign of Elizabeth, the wisdom which had on the whole distinguished her, and the terrible dangers from which she saved England, had taught men to look upon the sceptre as the only protection against anarchy or foreign rule. Experience of Stuart kingcraft was destined to modify public opinion.[4]

Submission of Waterford.

White was allowed to return to Waterford, being plainly told that he would be proclaimed a traitor unless he pronounced it unlawful for subjects to resist their sovereign. The prospect of being hanged by martial law quickened his theological perceptions, and he came back after nightfall with the required declaration. Lord Power also came to make peace for the townsmen, and Mountjoy promised to intercede for them with the King. Next morning the gates were occupied, at one of which the acting mayor surrendered the keys and the civic sword. The latter was restored to the corporation, but the keys were handed to the provost-martial. Sir Richard Aylward was brought back in triumph, bearing the King’s sword before the Viceroy, who grimly remarked that he would leave a garrison of 150 men in one of the gate-towers so that the mob might not again prove too strong for the mayor. An oath of allegiance was generally taken even by the priests, but White and two other Jesuits seem to have avoided putting their names to it. Mountjoy notes with just pride that his soldiers, drawn out of the hungry north and excited by the hope of plunder, did not do one pennyworth of mischief in the city, though provisions were exorbitantly dear. The place was at their mercy all day, but the whole force, except the 150 men, evacuated it in perfect order before nightfall.[5]

Religious differences in the Pale and elsewhere.

The Irish Catholics were at this time more or less persecuted, and toleration is so excellent a thing that the historical conscience is likely to be in favour of those who claimed it. But in the then state of Ireland it is doubtful whether the public exercise of both religions was possible. The sovereign of Wexford said his fellow townsmen would have been satisfied with the use of one church without any meddling with tithes or other property of the Establishment. But the ultramontane priests, though they might have provisionally accepted this in some large towns, aimed at complete supremacy, and they were the real popular guides. Mr. Pillsworth, the parson of Naas, when he saw the people flocking to high mass, fled to Dublin and thence to England. He may have been a timid man, but his terror was not altogether unfounded. At Navan, another clergyman named Sotherne, accompanied by several gentlemen, saw two friars in the dress of their order and began to question them in the King’s name. ‘James, King of Scotland,’ said the elder of the two in Latin, ‘is a heretic; may he perish with thee and with all who have authority under him.’ Sotherne charged him with high treason, but the constable was foiled by the mob who gathered round him. ‘Thy companions,’ said the friar, ‘are no Christians since they suffer thee among them,’ and he repeated this several times in Irish for the benefit of the bystanders. A Mr. Wafer, who said he had known the friar for twenty years, and that he was an honest man, rebuked Sotherne as a ‘busy companion,’ and pointedly observed that he would get no witnesses to support his charge of treason. As some of the crowd seemed bent on violence, Sotherne bade the constable do nothing for this time, and so returned to his lodging. He remonstrated afterwards with Wafer, who said that he ‘thought no less, but I would grow a promoter, and that was cousin-german to a knave; wishing his curse upon all those that would assist in apprehending either friar or priest.’ And popular opinion was entirely on Mr. Wafer’s side.[6]

A Jesuit report on Ireland.

But perhaps the best testimony is that of two Irish Jesuits, writing to their own general, and not intending that profane eyes should ever see what they had written:—‘From our country we learn for certain that the Queen of England’s death being known in Waterford, Cork, and Clonmel, principal towns of the kingdom, the ministers’ books were burned and the ministers themselves hunted away, and that thereupon masses and processions were celebrated as frequently and upon as grand a scale as in Rome herself. The Viceroy did not like this, and sent soldiers to garrison those towns, as he supposed, but the beauty of it is that those very soldiers vied with each other in attending masses and Catholic sermons. In the metropolitan city of Cashel, to which we belong, there was one solitary English heretic, and, on the news of the Queen’s death being received, they threatened him with fire and every other torment if he would not be converted. Fearing to be well scorched he made himself a Catholic, whereupon the townsmen burned his house, so that even a heretic’s house should not remain in their city. But when the Viceroy came near enough to threaten Cashel, and the Englishmen came forward to accuse the townsmen, he merely ordered them to rebuild the house at their own expense.... I only beg your Paternity to show this letter to the most illustrious and most reverend Primate of Armagh (Peter Lombard), and to excuse me for not having written to him specially because I am unwilling to multiply letters in these dangerous times.’[7]

Insurrectionary movement at Cork.

Refusal to proclaim King James.

Tardy submission

The mere approach of Mountjoy was enough to overawe Cashel, Clonmel, and the other inland towns. Limerick was bridled by the castle, and the disorders there did not come to much. But at Cork things took a much more serious turn. When leaving Ireland Carew had left his presidential authority in the hands of Commissioners, of whom Sir Charles Wilmot was the chief. The corporation of Cork now declared that the Commissioners’ authority ceased on the demise of the Crown, and that they were sovereign within their own liberties. Captain Robert Morgan arrived at Cork on April 11 with a copy of the proclamation and orders for the Commissioners from Mountjoy. Wilmot was in Kerry stamping out the embers of Lord Fitzmaurice’s insurrection, and Sir George Thornton, who was next in rank, called upon the civic authorities to proclaim King James. Thomas Sarsfield was mayor, and he might have obeyed but for the advice of William Meade, the recorder, who defied Thornton to exercise any authority within the city, reminding him that too great alacrity in proclaiming Perkin Warbeck had brought great evils upon the kingdom. Being rebuked by Boyle for breaking out into violent language, he replied that there were thousands ready to break out. Power was claimed under the charter to delay for some days, and Meade sent a messenger to Waterford for information as though the Lord Deputy’s letters were unworthy of credit. Captain Morgan vainly urged that he had himself been present when Ormonde, the most cautious of men, had proclaimed the King at Carrick-on-Suir. Thornton and the other Commissioners, including Chief Justice Walsh and Saxey the provincial Chief Justice, were kept walking about in the streets while the corporation wasted time, and at last they were told that no answer could be given until next day. The mayor and recorder protested their loyalty, but pretended among other things that time was necessary to enable them to make due preparation. In vain did Thornton and his legal advisers insist on the danger of delay, and upon the absurdity of Cork refusing to do what London and Dublin had done instantly. Meade would listen to nothing; and one clear day having elapsed since Morgan’s arrival, Thornton went with his colleagues and about 800 persons to the top of a hill outside the town, where he solemnly proclaimed King James. Lord Roche was present, and the country folk seemed quite satisfied. The mayor soon followed suit at the market cross. The ceremonial of which the corporation had made so much was only the drinking of a hogshead of wine by the people, and no doubt that was a function which the citizens were always ready to perform at the shortest notice.[8]

Cork in possession of the Recusants.

Mass was now openly celebrated, the churches reconsecrated in the recorder’s presence, and the Ten Commandments in the cathedral scraped out so as to make some old pictures visible. The town was full of priests and friars, one of whom claimed legatine authority, and ‘they had the cross carried like a standard before them throughout the streets,’ every one being forced to reverence it. It was openly preached that James was no perfect king until he had been confirmed by the Pope, and that the Infanta’s title was in any case better. Gradually these tumultuary proceedings ripened into open insurrection, and 200 young men in two companies were ordered to be armed and maintained by the citizens. It was indeed proposed to arm the whole population from twelve to twenty-four years, but there was not time for this. Lieutenant Christopher Murrough, who had served the League in France, was active during the whole disturbance. The mayor, who vacillated between expressions of loyalty and acts of disrespect to the new sovereign, had evidently the idea of a free city in his head, and said he was ‘like the slavish Duke of Venice and could not rule the multitude.’[9]

A street procession.

‘I myself,’ says an eye-witness, ‘saw in Cork on Good Friday a procession wherein priests and friars came out of Christ’s Church with the mayor and aldermen, and best of citizens going along the streets from gate to gate all singing, and about forty young men counterfeiting to whip themselves. I must needs say counterfeiting because I saw them (although bare-footed and bare-legged), yet their breeches and doublets were upon them, and over that again fair white sheets, everyone having a counterfeit whip in his hand—I say a counterfeit whip because they are made of little white sticks, everyone having four or five strings of soft white leather neither twisted nor knotted—and always as their chief priest ended some verses which he sung in Latin these counterfeits would answer miserere mei, and therewith lay about their shoulders, sides, and backs with those counterfeit whips; but I never saw one drop of blood drawn, therefore their superstition is far worse than the Spaniards’, who do use such whipping upon their bare skin, that the blood doth follow in abundance, which they do in a blind zeal, and yet it is far better than those counterfeits did.’[10]

The citizens arm themselves,

And bombard Shandon.

Cork was then a walled town, but being commanded by high ground can never have been strong. Outside the south gate and bridge and not far from where the Passage railway station now stands Carew had begun to build a fort with the double object of overawing the town and of intercepting a foreign enemy. After the battle of Kinsale the work had been discontinued, and no guns were mounted. The north gate was commanded by Shandon Castle, which was in safe hands. The east and west sides of the city were bounded by the river, which ran among marshy islands. The approach from the open sea was partly protected by a fort on Haulbowline Island, at the point where the Lee begins finally to widen out into the great harbour, and the seditious citizens had visions of destroying this stronghold, which the recorder pronounced useless and hurtful to the corporation. Inside the town and near the north gate was an old tower known as Skiddy’s Castle, used as a magazine for ammunition and provisions. The citizens refused to allow stores to be carried out to the soldiers and at the same time obliged them to remain outside. One alleged grievance was that two guns belonging to the corporation were detained at Haulbowline, and Thornton against Boyle’s advice exchanged them for two in the town which belonged to the King. Lieutenant Murrough was placed in charge of Skiddy’s Castle, every Englishman’s house was searched for powder, ‘a priest being forward in each of these several searches,’ and the inmates expected a general massacre. Sir George Thornton left the town, Lady Carew took refuge in Shandon, and Lord Thomond’s company was sent for. Wilmot arrived with his men when the disturbances had lasted for more than a week, but the townsmen would not listen to reason, and began to demolish Carew’s unfinished fort. The recorder admitted that he had instigated this act of violence. Wilmot took forcible possession of the work, but forbade firing into the town on pain of death. The inhabitants then broke out into open war, sent round shot through the Bishop’s palace where the Commissioners lodged, and killed a clergyman who was walking past. They severely cannonaded Shandon, but, as Lady Carew reported, ‘never did any harm to wall or creature in it,’ and did not frighten her in the least.

On May 5 Thornton brought up a piece of Spanish artillery from Haulbowline, and when three or four shots had pierced houses inside the walls, a truce was made. Five days later Mountjoy arrived.[11]

Violent proceedings of the citizens.

The question of a legal toleration for the Roman Catholics and of municipal freedom for the town had been carefully mixed up together, and the possession of all Government stores by the citizens made the rising troublesome for the moment if not actually formidable. The chief commissary, Mr. Allen Apsley, was the mayor’s prisoner from April 28 to May 10, and his evidence fortunately exists. First there was an attempt to get the troops out of the neighbourhood by refusing provisions which were undoubtedly the King’s property. At last it was agreed that the stores should be removed by water to Kinsale, but the opportunity was taken to extort an extravagant freight, and when the vessel was laden she was not allowed to leave the quay. After Wilmot’s arrival on April 20 or 21, it was pretended that he wished to get possession of the town by treachery, and the mayor said he was ‘as good a man and as good a gentleman as Sir Charles Wilmot, if the King would but knight him, and give him 200 men in pay, and the like idle comparisons.’ Four days later this valiant doge had guns mounted on the gates, and the provisions and powder were disembarked again. The mayor first tried to make Apsley swear to answer all his questions, and on his refusal confined him to his own house. Two days later the recorder put him into the common gaol, and bail was refused. There seems to have been an attempt to make out that Apsley had committed treason by helping Wilmot to get possession of the stores, but of this even there was no proof.[12]

Cork garrisoned by Mountjoy.

Meade acquitted by a jury.

Meade and his party strongly urged that Mountjoy should be forcibly resisted, but more prudent counsels prevailed, and the town had to receive a garrison of 1,000 men. The chief points having been occupied by his soldiers, the Lord Deputy entered by the north gate, and saw ploughs ranged on both sides of the street as if to show that the extortion of the soldiers had made the land lie idle. The old leaguer Murrough, a schoolmaster named Owen MacRedmond, who had openly maintained the Infanta’s title, and William Bowler, a brogue-maker, were hanged by martial law. The recorder, who had land, was reserved for trial, and was ultimately acquitted by a jury at Youghal, though he was undoubtedly guilty of treason by levying war. The foreman was fined 200l. and the rest 100l. apiece, but it became evident that no verdict could be expected in any case where matters of religion might be supposed in question. Meade went abroad and remained in the Spanish dominions for many years. He is heard of at Naples, too poor to buy clothes for a servant, but in 1607 he was at Barcelona and receiving a pension of 11l. per month. In 1611 he wrote a letter of advice to the Catholics of Munster, grounded on the Act 2 Eliz., chap. 2, in which he showed that they were not bound to go to church, but the attempt to enforce attendance had then been practically abandoned.[13]

Departure of Mountjoy. Carey Deputy.

Sir John Davies Solicitor-General.

Mountjoy left Ireland on June 2, 1604, after being sworn in as Lord Lieutenant, and he never returned. He was created Earl of Devonshire, and continued till his death to have a decisive voice in the affairs of the country which he had reduced. Vice-Treasurer Sir George Carey was made Deputy, and was at once engaged with the currency question, for the state of the coinage had furnished a pretext to the Munster malcontents, and may really have had something to do with their late proceedings. He soon had the help of Sir John Davies, a native of Wiltshire, whose name is inseparably connected with Irish history, but who had been hitherto better known as a poet than as a statesman. It was perhaps the striking example of Hatton’s promotion that made the young barrister sing of dancing, but it was a poem on the immortality of the soul which attracted the King’s attention. Devonshire wished him to be made Solicitor-General for Ireland, and James readily complied. He arrived in November, and found the country richer than he supposed after all the wars, but suffering from the uncertainty caused by a base coinage.

Reform of the currency.

The money issued in 1601 contained only 25 per cent. of silver, but it was easily counterfeited with a much greater alloy, and interested people gave out that it contained no silver at all. Soon after his accession James consented to revert to the old practice of Ireland, and to establish a currency containing 75 per cent. of silver; but this was ordered by proclamation to be received as sterling. The name sterling had hitherto been applied to the much purer coinage of England, and a new element of confusion was thus introduced. The base coin of 1601 was cried down at the same time, so that a shilling should be received for fourpence of the new money. When Davies arrived he found that people would not take the dross even at the reduced rate, and they were even more unwilling to do so when another proclamation cried down the new and comparatively pure shillings also from twelvepence to ninepence. The King had granted 20,000 pardons in a few months, but Davies was of opinion that he would gain more popularity by giving twopence for every bad shilling and then recalling the whole issue than by all his clemency. The Solicitor-General could speak feelingly, his fees on all the pardons being paid in copper, while the royal revenue was in the same way reduced almost to nothing. Soldiers and officials were the greatest losers, for they had to take what the proclamations allowed, while traders could not be forced to do so. A few were sent to prison for refusing, but this only caused discontent without securing obedience, and there was a riot at Galway. The matter was brought to a crisis by a case decided in the summer of 1604.[14]

The case of mixed money.

Inconvenience of separate Exchequers.

The bad money was proclaimed current in May 1601, and in April, while the pure coin of England was still current in Ireland, one Brett of Drogheda, merchant, having bought wares from one Gilbert, in London, became bound to Gilbert for 200l. on condition to pay the said Gilbert, his executors or assigns 100l. sterling current and lawful money of England at the tomb of Earl Strongbow in Christchurch, Dublin, on a certain future day, which day happened after the said proclamation of mixed monies. On that day Brett tendered 100l. in mixed money of the new standard. The question was whether this tender was good. Sir George Carey, being Deputy and Vice-Treasurer, ordered the case to be stated for the judges who were of the Privy Council, and they decided after an immense display of learning that Brett had rightly tendered in the only lawful money of Ireland, that Gilbert was worthy of punishment for refusing to receive it, and that the Irish judges could take cognisance of no money except what was established by proclamation. The several courts of record in Dublin accepted this as law, and all the cases pending were so decided. In other words, Ireland repudiated the greater part of her debts. The situation created was intolerable, for credit was destroyed; but it was not till the beginning of 1605 that the English Government made up its mind that the various kinds of coin in Ireland might be lawfully current for their true value. In 1607 English money was made legal tender in Ireland at the rate of sixteen pence Irish to the shilling. All who knew the country best wished to have one coinage for England and Ireland, but official hindrances were constantly interposed, and the difficulty was not got over until after the unification of the two Exchequers in 1820. Some establishment charges are still paid with deductions for the difference between old Irish and sterling money.[15]

Sir Arthur Chichester Lord Deputy.

Carey retained the Vice-Treasurership along with the acting Viceroyalty, the power of the sword and of the purse being thus held in a single hand. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that charges of extortion should have been brought against him, and that he should be accused of having become very rich by unlawful means. He had only one-third of the viceregal salary, two-thirds being reserved for Devonshire as Lord-Lieutenant. There is no evidence that Salisbury or Davies gave much credit to the charges against Carey, who was himself anxious to be relieved, and who suggested that Sir Arthur Chichester should fill his place. Chichester, who had gained his experience as Governor of Carrickfergus, at first refused on the ground that he could not live on one-third of the regular salary, and he was given an extra 1,000l. per annum with 500l. for immediate expenses. He remained at the head of the Irish Government until 1616.[16]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, April 6; Tyrone to Cecil, April 7; submission of Tyrone, April 8; Godolphin to Carew, April 19. Farmer’s chronicle of this reign begins at p. 40 of MS. Harl. 3544 with a panegyric on ‘Elizabeth the virgin Queen and flower of Christendom that hath been feared for love and honoured for virtue, beloved of her subjects and feared of her enemies, magnified among princes and famozed through the world for justice and equity.’ Since these chapters were written Farmer’s book has been printed by Mr. Litton Falkiner in vol. xxii. of the English Historical Review.

[2] In Cambrensis Eversus, published in 1662, John Lynch says ‘the Irish no longer wished to resist James (especially as they believed that he would embrace the Catholic religion), and submitted not unwillingly to his rule, as to one whom they knew to be of Irish royal blood,’ iii. 53. Lynch was a priest in 1622. Stephen Duff, Mayor of Drogheda, to the Lord Deputy and Council, April 13; Mountjoy to Cecil, April 19, 25 and 26; Francis Bryan, sovereign of Wexford, to Mountjoy, April 23. James VI. to Tyrone, December 22, 1597, in Lansdowne MSS. lxxxiv. Tyrone to James VI., April 1600 in the Elizabethan S.P. Scotland. Letters of Elizabeth and James, Camden Society, p. 141. Farmer’s Chronicle.

[3] Muster of the army, April 27; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, Mountjoy to Cecil, and Sir G. Carey to Cecil, May 4; Humphrey May to Cecil, May 5.

[4] Authorities last quoted; also Smith’s Waterford.

[5] Authorities last quoted; also Hogan’s Hibernia Ignatiana, p. 121.

[6] Hogan’s Hibernia Ignatiana, p. 118; Declaration of Edward Sotherne, June 16.

[7] Barnabas Kearney and David Wale to Aquaviva (Italian), July 7, 1603, from London, in Hibernia Ignatiana, p. 117. The burning of the service-book is mentioned in the official correspondence.

[8] Brief Declaration in Carew, 1603, No. 5; account written by Richard Boyle in Lismore Papers, 2nd series, i. 43. As clerk of the Munster Council Boyle was an eye-witness of all these proceedings. Moryson’s Itinerary, part ii. book iii. chap. 2.

[9] Brief Relation in Carew, 1603, No. 5; Irish State Papers calendared from April 20 to May 14; Lismore Papers, 2nd series, i. 43-73; Mountjoy to the Mayor of Cork, May 4, in Cox, p. 7. The full account in Smith’s Cork is mainly founded on the Lismore collection. Lady Carew’s letter of May 5, 1603, among the State Papers and Lady Boyle’s of March 18, 1609, in the Lismore Papers are both printed verbatim, and are interesting to compare as specimens of ladies’ composition.

[10] Farmer’s Chronicle in MS. Harl. 3544. Farmer was a surgeon.

[11] Authorities last quoted.

[12] Apsley’s account in Lismore Papers, 2nd series, i. 66.

[13] Notices of Meade in the Calendars of State Papers, Ireland, especially No. 355 of 1611, where his tract is entered as among the Cotton MSS. There is another copy in the Bodleian, Laudian MSS. Misc. 612, f. 143. The proceedings at Meade’s trial are calendared under 1603, No. 184.

[14] Davies to Cecil, December 1, 1603; proclamations calendared at October 11 and December 3.

[15] Le Case de Mixt Moneys, Trin. 2 Jacobi in Davies’ Reports, 1628; State of the Irish coin, calendared at June 12, 1606; Lord Deputy Chichester and Council to the Privy Council, calendared at March 2, 1607.

[16] Chichester was sworn in February 3, 1604-5.

[CHAPTER II]
CHICHESTER AND THE TOLERATION QUESTION, 1605-1607

The rival Churches.

The question of religious toleration was one of the first which Chichester had to consider, for the movement in the Munster towns was felt all over Ireland. Priests and Jesuits swarmed everywhere, and John Skelton on being elected Mayor of Dublin refused after much fencing to take the oath of supremacy. Sir John Davies, who had yet much to learn in Ireland, thought that the people would quickly conform if only the priests were banished by proclamation. Saxey, chief justice in Munster, was much of the same opinion, but both these lawyers admitted the insufficiency of the Established Church. The bishops, among whom there were scarcely three good preachers, seemed to them more anxious about their revenues than about the saving of souls.

The penal laws against Recusant

The experience of James’s only Irish Parliament was to show it was scarcely possible to legislate against the Roman Catholics even when many new boroughs had been created for the express purpose of making a Protestant majority. The Act of Uniformity passed at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign remained in force, but little was done under it as long as she lived. It only provided a fine of one shilling for not attending church on Sundays and holidays, and could have little effect except upon the poor, though it might give great annoyance. Another Act prescribed an oath acknowledging the Queen’s supremacy, both civil and ecclesiastical, and denying that any ‘foreign prince, person, prelate, State, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction,’ &c. This oath might be administered to all ecclesiastical persons, to judges, justices, and mayors, and to all others in the pay of the Crown on pain of losing their offices. The open maintenance and advocacy of foreign authority was more severely visited, the penalties being the forfeiture of all goods and chattels, real and personal, with a year’s imprisonment in addition, for those not worth 20l. The second offence was a præmunire, and the third high treason. And so the law remained during the whole reign of James. The English oath of allegiance prescribed after the Gunpowder Plot involved a repudiation of the Pope’s deposing power; but this was not extended to Ireland.[17]

Power of the priesthood.

Case of the Jesuit Fitzsimon.

The repressive power in the hands of the Irish Government was weak as against the population in general, but so far as law went it was ample against the priests, who, of course, could not take the oath of supremacy; and against officials who were of the same way of thinking. Mountjoy was successful against the recalcitrant towns, but his back was no sooner turned than Sir George Carey reported that the country swarmed with ‘priests, Jesuits, seminaries, friars, and Romish bishops; if there be not speedy means to free this kingdom of this wicked rabble, much mischief will burst forth in a very short time. There are here so many of this wicked crew, as are able to disquiet four of the greatest kingdoms in Christendom. It is high time they were banished, and none to receive or aid them. Let the judges and officers be sworn to the supremacy; let the lawyers go to the church and show conformity, or not plead at the bar, and then the rest by degrees will shortly follow.’ Protestant bishops naturally agreed, though Sir John Davies thought their own neglect had a good deal to say to the matter; but he admitted that the Jesuits came ‘not only to plant their religion, but to withdraw the subject from his allegiance, and so serve the turn of Tyrone and the King of Spain.’ Now that Ireland was at peace, he thought it probable that they would gladly go away, and cites the case of Fitzsimon, a Jesuit who had petitioned to be banished. Fitzsimon, however, had been five years a prisoner in the Castle, during one month of which he had converted seven Protestants, including the head warder. The King released him mainly on the ground that he did not meddle in secular matters, and he was on the Continent till 1630, when he returned to Ireland and lived there till long after the great outbreak of 1641. About the time of Fitzsimon’s release the Protestant Bishop of Ossory was able to give the names of thirty priests who haunted his diocese, including the famous Jesuit James Archer, who was said to have legatine authority. Archer was closely connected with Tyrone, and had been his frequent companion in London, disguised as a courtier or as a farmer, and busy with Irish prisoners in the Tower. Davies advised that priests and Jesuits should be captured when possible and sent to England, where the penal laws could take hold of them; and if this were done, he thought all Ireland would go comfortably to church. Chief Justice Saxey gave much the same advice in a more truculent form. The opinions of all Englishmen officially concerned with Ireland are reflected in the King’s famous proclamation of July 4, 1605, which Chichester, who had then succeeded to the government, found awaiting him in Dublin on his return from the north.[18]

Royal Proclamation against Toleration.

James begins by repudiating the idea prevailing in Ireland since the Queen’s death that he intended ‘to give liberty of conscience or toleration of religion to his subjects in that kingdom contrary to the express laws and statutes therein enacted.’ He insisted everywhere on uniformity, resenting all rumours to the contrary as an imputation on himself, and even, as was reported, declaring that he would fight to his knees in blood rather than grant toleration. Owing to false rumours, the Jesuits and other priests of foreign ordination had left their lurking-places and presumptuously exercised their functions without concealment. The King therefore announced that he would never do any act to ‘confirm the hopes of any creature that they should ever have from him any toleration to exercise any other religion than that which is agreeable to God’s Word and is established by the laws of the realm.’ All subjects were therefore charged to attend church or to suffer the penalties provided. As to the Jesuits and others who sought to alienate their hearts from their sovereign, ‘taking upon themselves the ordering and deciding of causes, both before and after they have received judgments in the King’s courts of record ... all priests whatsoever made and ordained by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from the See of Rome shall, before the 10th day of December, depart out of the kingdom of Ireland.’ All officers were to apprehend them and no one to harbour them, on pain of the punishments provided by law. If, however, any such Jesuit or priest would come to the Lord Lieutenant or Council, conform, and repair to church, he was to have the same liberties and privileges as the rest of his Majesty’s subjects.

The Proclamation fails.

Devonshire, however, who was still Lord Lieutenant, was opposed to making any curious search for priests who did not ostentatiously obstruct the Government, and his views prevailed with the English Council. Chichester willingly acquiesced, and reported some weeks after the appointed day that no priests, seminaries, or Jesuits of any importance had left the country and that searches, even if desirable, would be useless, ‘for every town, hamlet, or house is to them a sanctuary.’ Just about Carrickfergus, where he was personally known, some secular priests had conformed, and Davies, who thought Government could do everything, believed the multitude would naturally follow. ‘So it happened,’ he said, ‘in King Edward the Sixth’s days, when more than half the kingdom of England were Papists; and again in the time of Queen Mary, when more than half the kingdom were Protestants; and again in Queen Elizabeth’s time, when they were turned Papists again.’ He did not see that the national sentiment of England was permanently hostile to Roman aggression, while the authority of the Crown was accepted as the only refuge against anarchy. The state of feeling which existed in Ireland was just the opposite.[19]

Sir John Everard’s case.

Sir John Everard, second justice of the King’s Bench, was ordered to conform or resign, though admitted to be a very honest and learned man. It was so difficult to find a successor for this able judge that he was continued in office for eighteen months after the King’s order, when he resigned rather than take the oath of supremacy. Of his loyalty in civil matters there was no question, and he received a pension of a hundred marks, which Chichester wished to make a hundred pounds. In 1608, when the Irish refugees in Spain contemplated a descent upon Ireland, Everard refused to take part in the plot, and he lived to contest the Speakership with Sir John Davies in the Parliament of 1613.[20]

Vacillation of Government.

December passed, and yet none of the priests had left the country. The Gunpowder Plot was discovered in the meantime, but there was no evidence of ramifications in Ireland, and the English Government half drew back from the policy of the late royal proclamation. It was decided, and apparently at Chichester’s suggestion, that no curious search should be made for clergymen of foreign ordination. The immediate result of the severe measures taken in England was to drive the Jesuits and other priests over to Ireland, where the law was weaker and less perfectly enforced, and where they were sure of a good reception.

Robert Lalor’s case, 1606.

Præmunire.

Submission of Lalor.

Robert Lalor, who had for twelve years acted as Vicar-General in Dublin, Kildare, and Ferns, was, however, arrested. He had powerful connections in the Pale, and it was thought that his prosecution might strike terror into others, more especially as he was a party to many settlements of land. Lalor was convicted under the Irish Act of 1560 as an upholder of foreign jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical, and remained in prison for some months. He then petitioned the Deputy for his liberty, and was induced to confess in writing that he was not a lawful Vicar-General, that the King was supreme governor, without appeal, ‘in all causes as well ecclesiastical and civil,’ and that he was ready to obey him ‘either concerning his function of priesthood, or any other duty belonging to a good subject.’ After this his imprisonment was greatly relaxed, and he was allowed to see visitors freely, to whom he boasted that he had not allowed the King any power in spiritual causes. It was then resolved to indict him under the Statute of Præmunire (16 Richard II.), which was of undoubted force in Ireland, for receiving a papal commission, for assuming the office so conferred, and for exercising every kind of episcopal jurisdiction under it, especially ‘by instituting divers persons to benefices with cure of souls, by granting dispensations in causes matrimonial, and by pronouncing sentences of divorce between divers married persons.’ The case was tried by a Dublin city jury, and all the principal gentlemen in town were present as spectators. Lalor tried to draw a distinction between ecclesiastical and spiritual, but this was quickly overruled, and his former confession was read out in open court. Davies went into the legal argument at great length, and in the end Lalor was fain to renounce the office of Vicar-General and to crave the King’s pardon. The jury then found the prisoner guilty, and in the absence of Chief Justice Ley, Sir Dominick Sarsfield gave judgment accordingly. Part of the penalty was the forfeiture of goods, and this was important, because the Earl of Kildare and other great proprietors had used the late Vicar-General’s services as a trustee, and the Crown lawyers had thus a powerful engine placed in their hands. Lalor was probably banished according to law, as his name disappears from the State correspondence. He had ceased to be of any importance, for his confession destroyed his influence with the recusants.[21]

Enforced conformity.

The Mandates.

Effect of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Irish Statute of 1560 was the only one available for coercing the laity, and its fine of one shilling, even when swelled by costs, was altogether insufficient to impress the gentry or wealthier traders, and it was resolved to eke it out by recourse to the prerogative pure and simple. All men’s eyes naturally turned to the seat of government, and the first example was made there. Mandates under the Great Seal were directed to sixteen aldermen and merchants, of whom Skelton, the late mayor, was one, ordering them to go to church every Sunday and holiday, ‘and there to abide soberly and orderly during the time of common prayer, preaching, or other service of God.’ They refused upon grounds of conscience, and the case was tried in the Castle Chamber. During the proceedings and while the court was crowded, Salisbury’s dispatch arrived with the news of the Gunpowder Plot, and Chichester ordered it to be read out by Bishop Jones, who had just been made Lord Chancellor, and who took the opportunity to make a loyal speech. This dramatic incident may or may not have influenced the decision which imposed a fine of 100l. upon six aldermen and of 50l. each upon three others, one of whom, being an Englishman, was ordered to return to his own country. Five days later similar sentences were passed upon three more, while three were reserved to try the effect of a conference with Protestant theologians. One of the sixteen escaped altogether by conforming to the established religion, and he was the only one who did conform. This could not be thought a brilliant success, and the mandates were soon subjected to a direct attack.[22]

The Act Uniformity in Munster. Sir H. Brouncker.

In the province of Munster, where Sir Henry Brouncker succeeded Carew in the summer of 1604, a more energetic course was followed. Brouncker had for many years farmed the customs of wine imported into Ireland, and had probably in that way learned much of the underground communications with Spain. He found Cork swarming with priests and seminaries who said mass almost publicly in the best houses and strenuously maintained that it was ‘his Majesty’s pleasure to tolerate their idolatry.’ For a time he was interrupted by the plague, but soon resumed his efforts to fill the churches and to apprehend the priests of Rome. His idea was to clear the towns while leaving the country districts alone, but he had little success, for the proscribed clergy were everywhere favoured and harboured in gentlemen’s houses under the name of surgeons and physicians. Brouncker maintained that he was of a mild disposition, but that he was driven by the obstinacy of the people to take sharp courses. In one circuit of his province he deposed the chief magistrates in every town except Waterford, ‘where the mayor was conformable,’ and he threatened them all with the loss of their charters. He thought it possible to collect enough fines to make the black sheep support the white.

Priest-hunting.

The Mayor of Cork goes to church.

At Limerick he captured Dr. Cadame, a notable priest long resident there, but at Carrick-on-Suir two of the worst priests in Ireland just eluded him. William Sarsfield, mayor of Cork, had been fined 100l. for disobedience to the mandates in the summer of 1606. The general answer given by him and others in the same position was ‘that their forefathers had continued as they were in the Popish religion, and that their consciences tied them to the same,’ not one of them, according to Brouncker’s return, ‘being able to define what conscience was.’ Before the year was out, the President was able to report that Sarsfield, in spite of his Spanish education and his first stubbornness, had ‘by a little correction been brought to church, and so in love with the word preached, and so well satisfied in conscience, that he offered to communicate with him.’ This sounds rather like a profane joke by a man who had been brought up among the countrymen of Suarez and Escobar, and in any case conformity so obtained was of little value. Bishop Lyon, however, had done his duty in providing preachers in his diocese, and perhaps some real progress might have been made if all bishops had been like him. At all events there was a congregation of 600 at Youghal, and some tendency to conformity was apparent even to Chichester’s eyes. Both President and Bishop received the thanks of the English Council, and Salisbury encouraged Brouncker to persevere, but when he died in the following spring James found that ‘his zeal was more than was required in a governor, however allowable in a private man.’ It was not easy to serve a sovereign who insisted on proclaiming the duty of persecution while shrinking from the unpopularity which his own words naturally produced. The fines imposed at Kinsale were altogether remitted in regard to the poverty of the town, elsewhere they were much reduced. The total, however, was considerable, while individuals were ‘reasonably well contented’ at escaping so easily.[23]

The Mandates in Connaught.

In Connaught Clanricarde had been made Lord President for his services at Kinsale, and no doubt his influence had been increased by his marriage to Essex’s widow. He was in England at the end of 1605, and Sir Robert Remington, the Vice-President, made some show of proceeding like Brouncker. Mandates were issued and a few fines imposed upon citizens of Galway, but these were not fully paid, and there is no evidence that anything was done outside that single town.[24]

Opposition to the Mandates. Sir P. Barnewall.

Barnewall and others imprisoned.

Sowing the dragon’s teeth.

A petition against interference ‘with the private use of their religion and conscience’ was presented to the Lord Deputy, and signed by two hundred and nineteen gentlemen of the Pale, of whom five were peers. The principal framer of this document was probably Henry Burnell, the lawyer, who was now very old, but who was still the same man who had opposed Sidney thirty years before, and Richard Netterville, who had then been his colleague. The chief promoter was Sir Patrick Barnewall, who was Tyrone’s brother-in-law, and from whose house of Turvey the northern chief had eloped with Mabel Bagenal in 1591. According to Carew, he was ‘the first gentleman’s son of quality that was ever put out of Ireland to be brought up in learning beyond the seas.’ The petition was presented to Chichester by Sir James Dillon and others during the last days of November, and an answer was soon pressed for. The movement being evidently concerted, and Catesby’s plot being very recent, Burnell and Netterville were restrained in their own houses on account of their infirmity, while Barnewall, Lord Gormanston, Dillon, and others were imprisoned in the Castle. Gormanston and three other peers forwarded a copy of the petition to Salisbury, and complained bitterly of the severe measures which had been taken against the aldermen for no offence but absence from the Protestant service. With something of prophetic instinct Barnewall expressed a fear that the Irish Government were laying the foundation of a rebellion, ‘to which, though twenty years be gone, the memory of those extremities may give pretence.’ Most of the prisoners were soon released on giving bonds to appear when called upon, but Barnewall had to go to England.[25]

Toleration not understood.

France.

Spain.

Germany.

Italy.

Bacon’s advice.

What we mean by toleration was nowhere understood in the early part of the seventeenth century. Even Bacon, who admired the edict of Nantes, which had not wiped out the memory of St. Bartholomew, had no idea of abrogating the Elizabethan penal code. Henry IV.’s famous edict was an exception; it was one of the kind that proves the rule, for he saw no way of securing the French Protestants but by giving them a kind of local autonomy which could not last. Rochelle was an impossibility in a modern state, and when that frail bulwark was destroyed persecution gradually resumed its sway. Of Spain, the birthplace and fixed home of the Inquisition, it is unnecessary to speak. In Germany neither party practised any real toleration. In Italy Spanish interests were dominant, and Elizabeth died an excommunicated Queen. Clement VIII. abstained from treating her successor in the same way, but he had hopes by mildness to obtain better terms for the faithful in England. Both in England and Ireland any intention of forcing men’s consciences was always disclaimed, while outward conformity was insisted on. And in the case of the Roman Catholics, who took their orders from a foreign and hostile power, it was really very difficult to say exactly how much belonged to Cæsar. Bacon was more liberal than anyone else, but his ideas fell very far short of what is now generally accepted. In Ireland, he advised Cecil, after the Spaniards had been foiled at Kinsale, ‘a toleration of religion (for a time not definite), except it be in some principal towns and precincts, after the manner of some French edicts, seemeth to me to be a matter warrantable by religion, and in policy of absolute necessity. And the hesitation in this point I think hath been a great casting back of the affairs there. Neither if any English Papist or recusant shall for liberty of his conscience transfer his person, family, and fortunes thither do I hold it a matter of danger, but expedient to draw on undertaking and to further population. Neither if Rome will cozen itself, by conceiving it may be some degree to the like toleration in England, do I hold it a matter of any moment, but rather a good mean to take off the fierceness and eagerness of the humour of Rome, and to stay further excommunications or interdictions for Ireland.’ Bacon saw the difficulty clearly, and perhaps he saw the working solution, but to persevere steadily in such a course was not in James’s nature, though Chichester might conceivably have done so if he had had a free hand.[26]

Barnewall and Chichester.

Barnewall puzzles the Council.

Barnewall sent to England.

Victory of Barnewall

Sir Patrick Barnewall was committed prisoner to the Castle on December 2, 1605. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘we must endure as we have endured many other things, and especially the miseries of the late war.’ ‘No, sir,’ answered Chichester, ‘we have endured the misery of the war, we have lost our blood and our friends, and have indeed endured extreme miseries to suppress the late rebellion, whereof your priests, for whom you make petition, and your wicked religion, was the principal cause.’ In writing to Salisbury afterwards Sir Patrick attributed the invention of the mandates to Chief Justice Ley, but it is much more likely that Davies was their author. After an imprisonment of three months, Barnewall was again brought before the Irish Council, and argued soundly in maintaining that recusancy was only an offence in so far as it was made one by statute, and that therefore all prosecution of it except that prescribed by Act of Parliament was illegal. At a further examination when the Chancellor, who was a bishop and ought to have known better, spoke of the King’s religion, Barnewall saw his advantage and exclaimed ‘That is a profane speech.’ He was not sent to England till near the end of April, and at the end of May the English Government had not yet found time to attend to him. At first he was allowed to live under restraint at his own lodgings in the Strand, but was afterwards sent to the Tower, probably with the idea of making an impression upon the public mind in Ireland. It was found impossible to answer his arguments, and the Privy Council asked the Irish Government for information as to the ‘law or precedent for the course taken in issuing precepts under the Great Seal to compel men to come to church.’ They admitted that such authority was ‘as yet unknown to them,’ but rather sarcastically supposed that the Lord Deputy and Council were better informed. The Irish Government were acting entirely by prerogative; but several of the judges in England pronounced the mandates not contrary to precedent or authority. Barnewall was induced to make some sort of submission more than a year after his original arrest. Being called upon to make one in more regular form he refused, and was then sent to the Fleet prison for a month. Having signed a bond to appear within five days of his arrival, he was returned to Ireland at the beginning of March, 1607, and Chichester at once saw that no progress had been made.

The Mandates are abandoned.

Barnewall refused to make any submission in Dublin, and in the end it was found necessary to drop all proceedings against him. His detention in London was really a triumph, for the Irish recusants regarded him as their agent, and subscribed largely for his support. Waterford contributed 32l. and the collection was general all over Ireland. He gained in fact a complete victory, and such progress as Brouncker had made in procuring outward conformity was at once arrested. The mandates were never again resorted to.[27]

FOOTNOTES:

[17] Irish Statutes, 2 Eliz. chaps. i. and ii. James I.’s Apology for the Oath of Allegiance against the two breves of Pope Paulus Quintus, &c., in his Works, 1616 (the oath is at p. 250).

[18] Enclosure in letter of John Byrd to Devonshire, September 8, 1603. Archbishop of Dublin and Bishop of Meath to the Privy Council, March 5, 1604. Davies to Cecil, April 19 and December 8. Bishop of Ossory to the Deputy and Council, June 8, 1604. Chief Justice Saxey to Cranbourne, 1604, No. 397. Hogan’s Life of H. Fitzsimon, pp. 58 sqq.

[19] Proclamation of July 4, 1605; Davies to Salisbury, No. 603 in Cal. Lords of the Council to Chichester, January 24, 1606; Chichester to Salisbury and to Chichester, February 26; Roger Wilbraham’s Diary, in vol. x. of the Camden Miscellany.

[20] Davies to Cecil, December 8, 1604, January 6, 1605; Saxey to Cecil, 1604, No. 397; the King to Chichester, June 27, 1605; his proclamation against toleration, July 4; Cornwallis to the Privy Council, April 19, 1608, in Winwood.

[21] The Case of Præmunire in Sir John Davies’s Reports, London, 1628. Lalor was arrested in March 1605-6, and finally convicted early in the following year.

[22] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, December 5, 1605; Chichester to Salisbury, December 7.

[23] Brouncker to Cecil, August 23 and October 17, 1604; Salisbury to Brouncker, March 3, 1606; Brouncker’s letter of September 12; Return of fines imposed 4 James I. printed in Irish Cal. ii. 41; Brouncker to the Privy Council, November 18; Chichester to Salisbury, December 1, 1606, and February 10, 1607; The King to Chichester, July 16, 1607; Privy Council to Chichester, January 17, 1608-9; Davies to Salisbury, June 10, 1609.

[24] Brouncker to Cecil, August 23, 1604; observation by Sir John Davies, May 4, 1606; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, September 12, 1606; Brouncker to the Privy Council, February 10, 1606-7. For Connaught see preface to State Papers, Ireland, 1606-1608, p. 46.

[25] Chichester to Salisbury, December 7 and 9, 1605; petition by the nobility and gentry of the English Pale, No. 593; Lords Gormanston, Trimleston, Killeen, and Howth to Salisbury, December 8; Davies to Salisbury, No. 603; Barnewall to Salisbury, December 16. Carew’s Brief Relation of passages in the Parliament of 1613 in Carew.

[26] Letter to Cecil, 1602, Spedding, iii. 49.

[27] Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, from December 1605 to September 1607.

[CHAPTER III]
THE FLIGHT OF THE EARLS, 1607

Mountjoy leaves Ireland, 1603.

Tyrone in favour at Court.

Mountjoy created Earl of Devonshire.

He supports Tyrone.

When Mountjoy left Ireland at the beginning of June 1603 he was accompanied by Tyrone, and by Rory O’Donnell, whose brother’s death had made him head of the clan. The party, including Fynes Moryson the historian, were nearly wrecked on the Skerries. On the journey through Wales and England Tyrone was received with many hostile demonstrations, mud and stones being often thrown at him; for there was scarcely a village which had not given some victims to the Irish war. The chiefs were entertained by Mountjoy at Wanstead, and after a few days were presented to the King, who had declared by proclamation that they were to be honourably received. Their reception was much too honourable to please men who had fought and bled in Ireland. Sir John Harrington, who had last seen Tyrone in his Ulster fastness sitting in the open air upon a fern form and eating from a fern table, gave his sorrow words in a letter to Bishop Still of Bath and Wells. ‘How I did labour after that knave’s destruction! I adventured perils by sea and land, was near starving, ate horse-flesh in Munster, and all to quell that man, who now smileth in peace at those who did hazard their lives to destroy him; and now doth Tyrone dare us old commanders with his presence and protection.’ Tyrone and O’Donnell were present at Hampton Court on July 21 when Mountjoy was made Earl of Devonshire. Before that date Tyrone was in communication with Irish Jesuits in London, and among others with the famous Archer. Devonshire’s one idea seems to have been to decide every point in his favour, and he was in a situation, so far as Ulster was concerned, not very different from that which the Earls of Kildare had formerly occupied in the Pale. He was made the King’s Lieutenant in Tyrone, and even obtained an order for 600l. on the Irish treasury, which Carey hesitated to pay, since the result would be to withhold their due from others whose claims were not founded on rebellion, but on faithful service. When he went back to Ireland in August, the sheriffs of the English and Welsh counties through which he passed were ordered to convey him safely with troops of horse, for fear of the people.[28]

Tyrone unpopular in Ireland, 1604.

After his return Tyrone lived some time at Drogheda, the gentry of the Pale being unwilling to entertain him. The horrors of the late war were remembered, and the beaten rebel was generally unpopular. He had not means to stock or cultivate the twentieth part of his country, yet he took leases of more to give him a pretext for interference. He pretended that all fugitives from Tyrone should be forced to return, and Sir John Davies thought it evident that he wished exceedingly to ‘hold his greatness in his old barbarous manner.’ Otherwise there could be no object in his opposition to having a sheriff appointed for Tyrone, and yet he could hardly hope to raise another rebellion, for he was old and poor and his country extremely depopulated.[29]

Case of O’Cahan.

Mountjoy’s promise to O’Cahan,

which is not kept.

O’Cahan’s righteous indignation.

Violence of Tyrone. 1606.

Donnell O’Cahan, chief of what is now Londonderry county, once known as Iraght O’Cahan, and more lately as the county of Coleraine, submitted to Sir Henry Docwra in July 1602. The lands had been in possession of the clan for centuries, but certain fines and services were due to the O’Neills. Tyrone was still in open rebellion for several months afterwards, and it was thought that the loss of O’Cahan’s district had much to say to his final discomfiture. O’Cahan, whose hereditary office it was to cast a shoe at the installation of an O’Neill, agreed to give up the land between Lough Foyle and the Faughan water to the Queen, and also land on the Bann for the support of the garrison at Coleraine. The rest of his tribal territory was to be granted to him by patent. This agreement was reduced to writing, signed by O’Cahan and Docwra and ratified under his hand by Lord Deputy Mountjoy. Pending the settlement of the question, O’Cahan was granted the custody of his country under the Great Seal. When it afterwards seemed probable that Tyrone would be received to mercy O’Cahan reminded Docwra that he had been promised exemption from his sway. At O’Cahan’s earnest request, Docwra wrote to Mountjoy, who again solemnly declared that he should be free and exempt from the greater chief’s control. No sooner had Tyrone been received to submission than he began to quarter men upon O’Cahan, who pleaded the Lord Deputy’s promise, and was strongly supported by Docwra. ‘My lord of Tyrone,’ was Mountjoy’s astonishing answer, ‘is taken in with promise to be restored, as well to all his lands, as his honour of dignity, and O’Cahan’s country is his and must be obedient to his command.’ Docwra reminded him that he had twice promised the contrary in writing, to which he could only answer that O’Cahan was a drunken fellow, and so base that he would probably rather be under Tyrone than not, and that anyhow he certainly should be under him. Tyrone’s own contention was that O’Cahan was a mere tenant at will, and without any estate in the lands which had borne his name for centuries. Docwra reported Mountjoy’s decision to O’Cahan, who ‘bade the devil take all Englishmen and as many as put their trust in them.’ Docwra thought this indignation justified, but realised that nothing could be done with a hostile Viceroy, and advised O’Cahan to make the best terms he could with Tyrone. Chichester was from the first inclined to favour O’Cahan’s claim, but the Earl managed to keep him in subjection until 1606, when the quarrel broke out again. Tyrone seized O’Cahan’s cattle by the strong hand, which Davies says was his first ‘notorious violent act’ since his submission, and the whole question soon came up for the consideration of the Government. Early in 1607 the two chiefs came to a temporary agreement by which O’Cahan agreed to pay a certain tribute, for which he pledged one-third of his territory, and in consideration of which Tyrone gave him a grant of his lands. O’Cahan was inclined to stand to this agreement, but Tyrone said it was voidable at the wish of either party. A further cause of dispute arose from O’Cahan’s proposal to repudiate Tyrone’s illegitimate daughter, with whom he had lately gone through the marriage ceremony, and to take back a previous and more lawful wife. His fear was lest he should have to give up the dowry also, and especially lest his cattle should be seized to satisfy the claim.[30]

Death of Devonshire, 1606.

Claims O’Cahan and Tyrone.

The Crown intervenes.

Devonshire died on April 3, 1606, and Tyrone thus lost his most thoroughgoing supporter at court. It was in the following October that O’Cahan’s cattle were seized, and in May 1607 that chief petitioned for leave to surrender his country to the King, receiving a fresh grant of it free from Tyrone’s interference. He afterwards expressed his willingness to pay the old accustomed services to Tyrone. The two chiefs were summoned before the Council, and Tyrone so far forgot himself as to snatch a paper from O’Cahan’s hand and tear it in the Viceroy’s presence; but for this he humbly apologised. The case was remitted to the King, and it was afterwards arranged that both parties should go over to plead their several causes; peace being kept in the meantime on the basis of the late agreement. The Irish lawyers were of opinion that O’Cahan’s country was really at the mercy of the Crown on the ground that, though it had been found by inquisition to be part of Tyrone’s, the Earl’s jurisdiction only entitled him to certain fixed services and not to the freehold. That they held to have been the position of Con Bacagh O’Neill, and Tyrone’s last grant only professed to restore him to what his grandfather had.[31]

Assizes in Donegal.

Rory O’Donnell created Earl of Tyrconnel.

Extreme pretensions of Tyrconnel.

His character.

Discontent of Neill Garv.

While Rory O’Donnell was in England, Chief Baron Pelham was going circuit in Donegal. The multitude, he told Davies, treated him as an angel from heaven and prayed him upon their knees to return again to minister justice to them; but many gentlemen refused the commission of peace until they had Tyrone’s approval. A sheriff was appointed, but at first he had little to do. Rory O’Donnell was treated nearly as well as Tyrone himself. On his return to Ireland in September 1603, he was knighted in Christchurch, Dublin, by Sir George Carey, and at the same time created Earl of Tyrconnel. He received a grant of the greater part of Donegal, leaving Inishowen to O’Dogherty, the fort and fishery of Ballyshannon to the Crown, and 13,000 acres of land near Lifford to Sir Neill Garv O’Donnell. On the wording of the patent Lifford itself was reserved to the Crown. Neill Garv’s very strong claim to the chiefry was passed over, he having assumed the name and style of O’Donnell without the leave of the Government. Rory was also made the King’s Lieutenant in his own country, with a proviso that martial law should not be executed except during actual war, nor at all upon his Majesty’s officers and soldiers. These ample possessions and honours were, however, not enough for the new Earl, who aimed at everything that his ancestors had ever had, and who was unwilling to leave a foot of land to anyone else. Five years after the death of Queen Elizabeth Chichester reported that the lands belonging to the Earldom of Tyrconnel were so mortgaged that the margin of rent was not more than 300l. a year. Nor is this to be wondered at for the Four Masters, who wrote in Donegal and who wished to praise its chief, said he was ‘a generous, bounteous, munificent, and hospitable lord, to whom the patrimony of his ancestors did not seem anything for his spending and feasting parties.’ The last O’Donnell being of this disposition, the attempt to change him into the similitude of an English Earl was not likely to succeed. O’Dogherty was for the time well satisfied; but Sir Neill Garv, who had destroyed his chances by anticipating the King’s decision, was angry, for Docwra and Mountjoy had formerly promised that he should have Tyrconnel in as ample a manner as the O’Donnells had been accustomed to hold it. And by the word Tyrconnel he understood, or pretended to understand, not only Donegal but ‘Tyrone, Fermanagh, yea and Connaught, wheresoever any of the O’Donnells had at any time extended their power, he made account all was his: he acknowledged no other kind of right or interest in any man else, yea the very persons of the people he challenged to be his, and said he had wrong if any foot of all that land, or any one of the persons of the people were exempted from him.’

Here we have the pretensions of an Irish chief stated in the most extreme way, and they were evidently quite incompatible with the existence of a modern government and with the personal rights of modern subjects.[32]

Discontent of Tyrone.

Secret service.

Tyrone was too wise to make claims like Neill Garv’s, but he resented all interference. He had disputes with the Bishop of Derry about Termon lands, with English purchasers of abbeys, and with several chiefs of his own name who had been made freeholders of the Crown. Curious points of law were naturally hateful to one who had always ruled by the sword, but he may have had real cause to complain of actions decided without proper notice to him. He and his predecessors had enjoyed the fishery of the Bann, which was now claimed by the Crown as being in navigable waters. Queen Elizabeth had indeed let her rights, but no lessee had been able to make anything out of the bargain. In his very last letter to Devonshire Chichester said Tyrone was discontented and always would be, but he could see no better reason for his discontent than that he had lost ‘the name of O’Neill, and some part of the tyrannical jurisdiction over the subjects which his ancestors were wont to assume to themselves.’ Davies, however, admitted that his country was quiet and free from thieves, while Tyrconnel was just the contrary. Tyrone complained that officials of all kinds were his enemies, and that he was harassed beyond bearing. His fourth wife, Catherine Magennis, was known to be on bad terms with him, and he had threatened to repudiate her. She ‘recounted many violences which he had used and done to her in his drunkenness,’ and wished to leave him, but resisted any attempt at an ecclesiastical divorce. Chichester admitted that it was ‘a very uncivil and uncommendable part to feed the humour of a woman to learn the secrets of her husband,’ but gunpowder plots were an exception to every rule, and he thought himself justified in hunting for possible Irish ramifications by equally exceptional means. James Nott, employed by Tyrone as secretary or clerk, had a pension for bringing letters to the Government. Sir Toby Caulfield was directed to see Lady Tyrone, and to examine her on oath. She repeated her charges of ill-treatment and declared that she was the last person in whom her husband would confide, but that in any case she would do nothing to endanger his life. She expressed her belief that Tyrone had no dealings with the English recusants, but that he was discontented with the Government: Tyrconnel depended on him, and that nearly all the Ulster chiefs were on good terms with the two earls. Lady Tyrone continued to live, not very happily, with her husband for many years, during which his habits did not improve. Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at Venice, reported in 1614 that ‘Tyrone while he is his own man is always much reserved, pretending ever his desire of your Majesty’s grace, and by that means only to adoperate his return into his country; but when he is vino plenus et irâ (as he is commonly once a night, and therein is veritas) he doth then declare his resolute purpose to die in Ireland; and both he and his company do usually in that mood dispose of governments and provinces, and make new commonwealths.’ Nothing seriously affecting Tyrone’s relations with the State happened until August 1607, when Chichester informed him that both he and O’Cahan were to go to England, where their differences would be decided by the King himself. Sir John Davies was warned to be in readiness to accompany them.[33]

The Maguires.

Maguire at Brussels.

A ship hired with Spanish money.

Tyrone’s farewell.

After the death of Hugh Maguire in 1600 his brother Cuconnaught, whom Chichester describes as ‘a desperate and dangerous young fellow,’ was elected chief in his stead. The English Government decided to divide Fermanagh between him and his kinsman, Connor Roe, and to this he agreed because he could not help it, but without any intention of resting satisfied. Spanish ships often brought wine to the Donegal coast, and communications were always open through these traders. In August 1606 Tyrconnel and O’Boyle inquired of some Scotch sailors as to the fitness of their little vessel for the voyage to Spain, but Chichester could not believe that he had any idea of flight, and supposed that he was only seeking a passage for Maguire. The latter found a ship after some delay, and was at the Archduke Albert’s court by Whitsuntide in 1607. While at Brussels he associated with Tyrone’s son Henry, who commanded an Irish regiment 1,400 strong. Sir Thomas Edmondes had tried to prevent this appointment two years before, but the Archduke succeeded in getting it approved by James I. The Gunpowder Plot had not then been discovered, and Devonshire’s influence was paramount in all that concerned Ireland. Tyrone sometimes professed himself anxious to bring his son home, but in other company he boasted of the young man’s influence at the Spanish court and of his authority over the Irish abroad. The Archduke now gave Maguire a considerable sum of money, with which he went to Rouen, bought or hired a ship, of which John Bath of Drogheda had the command, and put into Lough Swilly about the end of August. The ship carried nets and was partly laden with salt, under colour of fishing on the Irish coast. Tyrone was with Chichester at Slane on Thursday, August 28 (old style), conferring with him about his intended visit to England. Here he received a letter telling him of Maguire’s arrival, and on Saturday he went to Mellifont, which he left next day after taking leave of his friend, Sir Garrett Moore. He ‘wept abundantly, giving a solemn farewell to every child and every servant in the house, which made them all marvel, because in general it was not his manner to use such compliments.’ It was afterwards remembered that his farewell to Chichester also was ‘more sad and passionate than was usual with him.’ On Monday he passed through Armagh to a house of his own near Dungannon, and there rested two nights. On Wednesday he crossed the Strabane mountains, and appears to have remained in the open during the night. During this day’s journey, says Davies, ‘it is reported that the Countess, his wife, being exceedingly weary, slipped down from her horse, and, weeping, said she could go no further; whereupon the Earl drew his sword, and swore a great oath that he would kill her on the place if she would not pass on with him, and put on a more cheerful countenance withal.’ On Thursday morning they reached Burndennet, near Lifford. The Governor asked him and his son to dinner, but he perhaps feared detention, and pushed on during the afternoon and night to Rathmullen, where the French ship was lying. Tyrconnel had already arrived, and they appear to have sailed the next morning. Chichester afterwards discovered that O’Cahan wished to go too, but was unable to join the others in time.[34]

Departure of Tyrone, Tyrconnel, and Maguire.

Ninety-nine persons sailed in the vessel which carried Tyrone, Tyrconnel, and Maguire. Among the O’Neills were Lady Tyrone, her three sons Hugh, John, and Brian, and Art Oge, the son of Tyrone’s brother Cormac. Among the O’Donnells were Tyrconnel’s brother Caffar, with his wife Rose O’Dogherty, and his sister Nuala, who had left her husband Neill Garv. What, the Irish annalists ask, might not the young in this distinguished company have achieved if they had been allowed to grow up in Ireland? ‘Woe to the heart that meditated, woe to the mind that conceived, woe to the council that decided the project of their setting out on this voyage without knowing whether they should ever return to their native principalities or patrimonies to the end of the world.’

Sir Cormac MacBaron.

The fugitives reach France,

but are not allowed to stay there.

Tyrone’s brother, Sir Cormac MacBaron, waited until they were clear gone and then hurried to Slane so as to be Chichester’s first informant. ‘Withal,’ says Davies, ‘he was an earnest suitor to have the custodiam of his brother’s country, which perhaps might be to his brother’s use by agreement betwixt them; and therefore, for this and other causes of suspicion, the constable of the Castle of Dublin has the custodiam of him.’ Chichester returned to Dublin at once, and made arrangements for intercepting the fugitives should they put into Galway or into any of the Munster harbours. A cruiser on the Scotch coast was ordered to be on the look out, and the Earl of Argyle was warned by letter. Bath kept well off the coast, and, after sighting Croagh Patrick mountain, endeavoured to run for Corunna. After thirteen days tossing he despaired of reaching Spain and tried to go to Croisic in Brittany. Losing their bearings, the fugitives were driven up channel nearly to the Straits of Dover, but escaped the English cruisers and landed at Quillebœuf in Normandy after being twenty-one days at sea. They had but little provisions and were much crowded, but in no pressing want of money, for Tyrone had taken up his rents in advance. Boats were hired to convey the women and children to Rouen, while Tyrone rode with seventeen companions to meet the Governor of Normandy at Lisieux. Both parties were hospitably treated and supplied with wine and provisions by the country people. An application for their extradition was of course refused by Henry IV., but they were not allowed to stay in France nor to visit Paris. A month after leaving Lough Swilly they left Rouen, and made their way to Douai by Amiens and Arras.[35]

The Earls in Flanders, Douai.

Entertained by Spinola at Brussels.

The Earls not allowed to go to Spain.

At Douai the Earls were met by Tyrone’s son Henry, who commanded the Irish regiment, and by all the captains serving under him. Among those captains was Tyrone’s nephew, Owen MacArt O’Neill, afterwards so famous as Owen Roe, and Thomas Preston, scarcely less famous as his colleague, rival, and at last enemy. The Irish students in the seminary feasted them and greeted them in Latin or Greek odes and orations. Florence Conry and Eugene MacMahon, titular archbishops of Tuam and Dublin, met them also. At Tournai the whole population with the archbishop at their head came out to meet them. They then went on to Hal, where they were invited by Spinola and many of his officers. The captor of Ostend lent his carriage to take them to the Archduke at Binche, where they were received with much honour, and he afterwards entertained them at dinner in Brussels. Tyrone occupied Spinola’s own chair, with the nuncio and Tyrconnel on his right hand, the Duke of Aumale, the Duke of Ossuna, and the Marquis himself being on his left. The Earls left the city immediately afterwards and withdrew to Louvain, where they remained until the month of February. Edmondes remonstrated with the President Richardot about the favour shown to rebels against his sovereign, but that wily diplomatist gave him very little satisfaction. The greater part of the Irish who came over with Tyrone or who had since repaired to him were provided for by the creation of two new companies in Henry O’Neill’s regiment, but the Earls were not allowed to go to Spain, and when they left Louvain in February 1608 they passed through Lorraine to avoid French territory, and so by Switzerland into Italy. According to information received by the English Privy Council, the Netherlanders were glad to be rid of them, they having ‘left so good a memory of their barbarous life and drunkenness where they were.’[36]

Reasons for Tyrone’s flight.

Lord Howth.

Howth gives information.

Lord Delvin.

Uncertainty as to the facts.

Though there is no reason to suppose that any treachery was intended, Tyrone can hardly be blamed for mistrusting the English Government and avoiding London. He told Sir Anthony Standen at Rome that it was ‘better to be poor there than rich in a prison in England.’ And yet this may have only been a pretext, for his eldest son Henry told Edmondes that he believed the principal grievances to be religion, the denial of his jurisdiction over minor chiefs in Ulster, and the supposed intention of erecting a presidency in that province. Many obscure rumours preceded his flight. In February 1607 George St. Lawrence or Howth gave evidence of a plot to surprise Dublin Castle and to seek aid from Spain; but he incriminated no one except Art MacRory MacMahon and Shane MacPhilip O’Reilly. He was probably a relation of Sir Christopher St. Lawrence, who became twenty-second Baron of Howth in the following May, but it does not appear how far they acted in unison. The new Lord was a brave soldier, who had fought for Queen Elizabeth at Kinsale and elsewhere, but was both unscrupulous and indiscreet. In 1599, according to Camden, he had offered, should Essex desire it, to murder Lord Grey de Wilton and Sir Robert Cecil. Under Mountjoy he had done good service in command of a company, but the gradual reduction of the forces after Tyrone’s submission left him unemployed, and he was very needy. Chichester wished to continue him in pay, or at least to give him a small pension, so that he might be saved from the necessity of seeking mercenary service abroad. Nothing was done, and he went to Brussels in the autumn of 1606, but had little success there. Chichester suggested that the Archduke’s mind should be poisoned against him, so that he might come home discontented and thus dissuade other Irish gentlemen from seeking their bread in the Spanish service. That Howth was known to be a Protestant, even though he might occasionally hear a mass, was probably quite enough to prevent the Archduke from employing him. Among the Irish residents there was his uncle the historian, Richard Stanihurst, and another priest named Cusack, also related to him, and from them he heard enough to make him return to London and to give information to Salisbury. By the latter’s advice probably he returned to the Netherlands, where he met Florence Conry, the head of the Irish Franciscans, who told him that it was decided to make a descent on Ireland ‘within twenty days after the peace betwixt the King our master and the King of Spain should be broken.’ Spinola or some other great captain was to command the expedition, Waterford and Galway to be the places of disembarkation. Conry himself was to go to Ireland to sound the chief people, and it appears from the evidence of a Franciscan that he was actually expected to arrive in the summer of 1607, but that he did not go there. Howth advised a descent near Dublin, and according to his own account he made this suggestion so as to ensure failure. He said there was a large sum ready for Tyrconnel’s use at Brussels, and this was probably the very money afterwards given to Maguire for the purchase of a ship. This information was supplemented by that of Lord Delvin, and there was doubtless a strong case against Tyrconnel. Against Tyrone there was nothing but hearsay rumours as to his being involved with the others. Tyrconnel divulged to Delvin a plan for seizing Dublin Castle with the Lord Deputy and Council in it: ‘out of them,’ he said, ‘I shall have my lands and countries as I desire it’—that is, as they had been held in Hugh Roe’s time. His general discontent and his debts were quite enough to make him fly from Ireland, and this disposition would be hastened by the consciousness that he had been talking treason, and perhaps by the knowledge that his words had been repeated. Spanish aid could not be hoped for unless there was a breach between England and Spain; and of that there was no likelihood. Tyrone must have understood this perfectly well, but Chichester had long realised that he would always be discontented at having lost the title of O’Neill and the tyrannical jurisdiction exercised by his predecessors. Perhaps he really believed there was an intention to arrest him in London. Some sympathy may be felt for a man who had lived into an age that knew him not, but the position which he sought to occupy could not possibly be maintained.[37]

Rumoured plot to seize Dublin.

Chichester’s surmises as to Tyrone’s flight.

The question involved in obscurity.

On May 18, 1607, an anonymous paper had been left at the door of the Dublin council chamber, the writer of which professed his knowledge of a plot to kill Chichester and others. According to this informer the murders were to be followed by the seizure of the Castle and the surprise of the small scattered garrisons. If James still refused to grant religious toleration, the Spaniards were to be called in. Howth was not in Ireland, but Chichester noticed that the anonymous paper was very like his communications to Salisbury. He arrived in Ireland in June, when he was at once subjected to frequent and close examinations. Chichester was at first very little disposed to believe him, but the sudden departure of the Earls went far to give the impression that he had been telling the truth. ‘The Earl of Tyrone,’ said the Deputy when announcing the flight, ‘came to me oftentimes upon sundry artificial occasions, as now it appears, and, by all his discourses, seemed to intend nothing more than the preparation for his journey into England against the time appointed, only he showed a discontent, and professed to be much displeased with his fortune, in two respects: the one, for that he conceived he had dealt, in some sort, unworthily with me, as he said, to appeal from hence unto his Majesty and your lordships in the cause between Sir Donald O’Cahan and him; the other because that notwithstanding he held himself much bound unto his Majesty, that so graciously would vouchsafe to hear, and finally to determine the same, yet that it much grieved him to be called upon so suddenly, when, as what with the strictness of time and his present poverty, he was not able to furnish himself as became him for such a journey and for such a presence. In all things else he seemed very moderate and reasonable, albeit he never gave over to be a general solicitor in all causes concerning his country and people, how criminal soever. But now I find that he has been much abused by some that have cunningly terrified and diverted him from coming to his Majesty, which, considering his nature, I hardly believe, or else he had within him a thousand witnesses testifying that he was as deeply engaged in those secret treasons as any of the rest whom we knew or suspected.’ There is here nothing to show that any treachery was intended to Tyrone in England, but there was a report in Scotland that he would never be allowed to return into Ireland. And so the matter must rest. Tyrone was now old, his nerves were not what they had been, and if he believed that he would be imprisoned in London, that does not prove that any such thing was intended.[38]

Lord Delvin is suspected.

Delvin escapes from the Castle.

Lord Howth was not the only magnate of the Pale who was concerned in the intrigues which led to the flight of Tyrone and the plantation of Ulster. Richard Nugent, tenth Baron of Delvin, a young man of twenty-three, was son to the Delvin who wrote an Irish grammar for Queen Elizabeth and nephew to William Nugent who had been in rebellion against her. He had been knighted by Mountjoy in Christchurch, Dublin, at the installation of Rory O’Donnell as Earl of Tyrconnel, and had a patent for lands in Longford which the O’Farrells had asked him to accept on the supposition that they were forfeited to the Crown. It turned out that there had been no forfeiture, and he was forced to surrender, Salisbury remarking that the O’Farrells were as good subjects as either he or his father had been. The business had cost him 3,000l., and he was naturally very angry. His mother was an Earl of Kildare’s daughter, and Sir Oliver St. John told Salisbury that he was ‘composed of the malice of the Nugents and the pride of the Geraldines.’ He became involved in Howth’s schemes, and confessed that he had ‘put buzzes into the Earl of Tyrone’s head,’ telling him that he had few friends at Court and that the King suspected his loyalty. For his own part he was willing to join in an attack on the Castle, provided a Spanish army landed, but he would not agree to the murder of the Lord Deputy, ‘for he hath ever been my good friend.’ Delvin was lodged in the Castle, but there was evidently no intention of dealing harshly with him, for he was allowed the society of his secretary, Alexander Aylmer, a good old name in the Pale, and of a servant called Evers. Aylmer and Evers with some help from others managed to smuggle in a rope thirty-five yards long, though the constable had been warned that an escape was probable, and the young lord let himself down the wall and fled to his castle of Cloughoughter on a lake in Cavan. The constable, whose name was Eccleston, was afterwards acquitted by a jury, but lost his place. From Cloughoughter Delvin wrote to Chichester pleading his youth and his misfortune in being duped by Howth. He had run away only to save his estate, which would surely have been confiscated if he had been carried to England. Chichester was willing to believe him, and offered to accept his submission if he would surrender within five days and throw himself on the King’s mercy. His wife and his mother, who was supposed to have brought him up badly, were restrained at a private house in Dublin, but were afterwards allowed to go for a visit fourteen miles from Dublin.[39]

Delvin tires of his wanderings,

submits,

and is pardoned.

Being pressed by the troops Delvin stole out of Cloughoughter with two companions, leaving his infant son to be captured and taken to Dublin. He had married Jane Plunkett, and her brother Luke, afterwards created Earl of Fingal, made matters worse by reporting that Delvin had expressed a wish to kill Salisbury, a charge which was stoutly denied. Howth was mixed up with this as with all the other intrigues. Delvin was ‘enforced as a wood kerne in mantle and trowsers to shift for himself’ in the mountains, and was doubtless miserable enough. After wandering about for more than four months he appeared suddenly one day in the Council chamber, and submitted unconditionally with many expressions of repentance. Salisbury had already pardoned any offence against himself, and the King was no less merciful. Delvin was sent to England a prisoner, but the charge of complicity in O’Dogherty’s conspiracy was probably not believed, for he received a pardon under the Great Seal of Ireland. He enjoyed a fair measure of favour at Court, though he became a champion of the Recusants, and in 1621 he was created Earl of Westmeath.[40]

Florence Conry.

When Hugh Roe O’Donnell died at Valladolid in 1602 he was attended by friar Florence Conry, whom he recommended to Philip III. Conry, who was Tyrone’s emissary in Spain, became provincial of the Irish Franciscans and later Archbishop of Tuam, but never ventured to visit his diocese. He passed and repassed from Madrid to Brussels and employed Owen Magrath, who acted as vice-provincial, to communicate with his friends in Ireland.

Lady Tyrconnel.

Delvin gives evidence against a friar.

Lady Tyrconnel at Court

Magrath brought eighty-one gold pieces to Lady Tyrconnel and tried to persuade her to follow her husband abroad. Other priests gave the same advice, but the lady, who had been Lady Bridget Fitzgerald, had not the least idea of identifying herself with rebellion. She was unwilling to forswear the society of the clergy, but ready to give Chichester any help in her power. She knew nothing of her husband’s intention to return as an invader, but ‘prayed God to send him a fair death before he undergo so wicked an enterprise as to rebel against his prince.’ Magrath was mixed up with Howth and Delvin; but Chichester, though he succeeded in arresting the friar, could get little from him. He was tried for high treason and actually found guilty, mainly upon Delvin’s evidence, who swore that he had disclosed to him a conspiracy for a Spanish descent on Ireland. Philip indeed would not show himself, ‘but the Pope and Archduke will; at which the King of Spain will wink, and perchance give some assistance under hand.’ Chichester saw that Magrath was old and not very clever, and advised that he should be allowed to live in Ulster, for Delvin was repentant and would be glad to impart anything that he learned from him. James readily pardoned Magrath, the English Council shrewdly remarking that it was more important that Delvin should have given evidence against a friar ‘than to take the life of one where there are so many.’ Lady Tyrconnel was sent to England and received a pension, and James is said to have wondered that her husband could leave so fair a face behind him. She afterwards married the first Lord Kingsland; her daughter by Tyrconnel had a curiously adventurous career.[41]

Manifesto of James as to the flight of the Earls.

James thought it necessary to publish a declaration for the enlightenment of foreign countries as to the true reason of the Earls’ departure, not in respect of any worth or value in those men’s persons, being base and rude in their original. They had no rights by lineal descent, but were preferred by Queen Elizabeth for reasons of State, and fled because inwardly conscious of their own guilt. The King gave his word that there was no intention of proceeding against them on account of religion. Their object was to oppress his subjects, and the less said about their religion the better, ‘such being their condition and profession to think murder no fault, marriage of no use, nor any man to be esteemed valiant that did not glory in rapine and oppression.’ They had laboured to extirpate the English race in Ireland and could not deny their correspondence with foreign princes ‘by divers instruments as well priests as others.’ James assured himself that his declaration would ‘disperse and discredit all such untruths as these contemptible creatures, so full of infidelity and ingratitude, shall disgorge against us and our just and moderate proceedings, and shall procure unto them no better usage than they would should be offered to any such pack of rebels born their subjects and bound unto them in so many and such great obligations.’[42]

Tyrone and Tyrconnel expose their grievances.

While at Louvain, and no doubt by way of answer to the royal declaration, both Tyrone and Tyrconnel caused expositions of their grievances to be drawn up, and these documents are still preserved in London, but do not appear to have been ever transmitted to the Irish Government. No rejoinder to them or criticism of them is known to exist, and they must be taken for what they are worth as ex parte statements. Religion is placed in the forefront of both manifestoes, in general terms by Tyrconnel, but more specifically by Tyrone, the proclamation of July 1605 having been promulgated by authority in his manor of Dungannon.

Their position in Ulster was impossible.

But the case for the Earls mainly consists in an enumeration of their difficulties with the Irish Government officials, and it may well be believed that many underlings exercised their powers harshly and corruptly. What appears most clearly is that the local domination of an O’Neill or an O’Donnell, even though they wore earls’ coronets, was inconsistent with the modern spirit. They found the position of subjects intolerable. By their flight they hastened the progress of events, but their stay in Ireland could not very long have retarded it.[43]

Tyrone and his company leave the Netherlands.

The Duke of Lorraine.

Arrival in Italy.

Tyrone and the rest left Louvain on February 17, the Spanish authorities having with much difficulty and delay found money enough to speed the parting guests. Edmondes wrote to Charles of Lorraine reminding him of his near relationship to the King of England and also of the fact that ‘these fugitives and rebels had found the door shut in Spain, where the King would not admit them out of respect and friendship to King James.’ The Duke let them pass through his country, and afterwards appeared to have been greatly impressed in their favour, as such a champion of the Roman Church would naturally be. Their expenses were paid by him while in Lorraine, and he entertained them sumptuously in his palace at Nancy. They travelled by Basel and Lucerne to the St. Gothard, and one of O’Donnell’s sumpter horses fell over the Devil’s Bridge and was lost, with a large sum of money. The monks received them at the hospice, and on their descent into Italy they were well received at Faido, Bellinzona, and Como. Fuentes, the Governor of Milan, went out to meet them with his staff. They were lodged at the hostelry of the Three Kings and handsomely entertained there at the governor’s expense. Cornwallis at Madrid and Wotton at Venice complained loudly, and received soft answers. Salisbury told Cornwallis to make little of the fugitive Earls and to describe them as mere earthworms; and the ambassador bettered the instruction by saying that he esteemed them and all their company as so many fleas. The Spanish officials replied that Fuentes was generally hospitable to strangers, but that the King’s government had no idea of countenancing the exiles.

The Earls are excluded from Venetian territory.

They reach Rome.

Wotton easily persuaded the anti-Romanist and lately excommunicated Doge to exclude the Irish party from Venetian territory, and a person in his confidence followed Tyrone privately wherever he went. The exiles received 1,000 crowns from Fuentes, of which they complained as much below their expectations. They were well received at Parma and Reggio, and reached papal territory at Bologna, where Cardinal Barberini, afterwards Urban VIII., was then governor. From Ancona they made a pilgrimage to Loretto, and travelling by Foligno, Assisi and Narni, they came in sight of Rome on April 29. Several cardinals, in much state and with great retinues, went out to meet them at the Milvian bridge. One coach, which, according to Wotton’s informant, was borrowed by Parsons, contained Englishmen, and others came to see Tyrone inside the city. The Salviati palace in the Borgo was assigned to the exiles as a residence by Paul V. After this Tyrone sometimes showed himself in a coach with Tyrconnel and Peter Lombard the titular Primate of Ireland, who had never seen his see.[44]

The return of the Earls long expected.

‘I know not,’ said Chichester, ‘what aid or supportation the fugitives shall receive from the Spaniard or Archduke, but the kind entertainment they have received compared with the multitude of pensions given to base and discontented men of this nation, makes them there and their associates and well wishers here to give out largely, and all wise and good subjects to conceive the worst. I am many ways assured that Tyrone and Tyrconnel will return if they live, albeit they should have no other assistance nor supportation than a quantity of money, arms, and munition, with which they will be sufficiently enabled to kindle such a fire here (where so many hearts and actors affect and attend alteration) as will take up much time with expense of men and treasure to quench it.’ These rumours continued while Tyrone lived, and after his death his son was expected. Exiles are generally sanguine, and the friars and Jesuits kept up constant communication with Spain and the Netherlands; but the decadent Spanish monarchy could never make an attempt on Ireland or give any serious trouble until England was at war with herself.[45]

FOOTNOTES:

[28] John Byrd to Devonshire, September 8, 1603, with enclosure; Meehan’s Tyrone and Tyrconnel, p. 36; Fynes Moryson, book iii. chap. 2; Harrington’s Nugæ Antiquæ.

[29] Davies to Cecil, April 10, 1604.

[30] Docwra’s Narration, pp. 260-277; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, October 4, 1605; Davies to Salisbury, November 12, 1606; agreement between Tyrone and O’Cahan, February 17, 1606-7; Bishop Montgomery of Derry to Chichester, March 4; Chichester’s instructions to Ley and Davies, October 14, 1608, p. 60.

[31] Petition of O’Cahan, May 2, 1607; Chichester to Salisbury, June 8; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, June 26; Davies to Salisbury July 1; Docwra’s Narration, 284.

[32] Docwra’s Narration, p. 249; Davies to Cecil, December 1, 1603; Four Masters, 1608.

[33] Davies to Cecil, December 8, 1604; Chichester to Devonshire, February 26, 1605-6, endorsing Caulfield’s report; to Devonshire, April 23; to the Privy Council, August 4, 1607; examination of Sir Neill O’Neill, August 7, 1606 (State Papers, Ireland); Carleton to James I., March 18/28, 1614, in Hist. MSS. Comm. (Buccleuch), 1899.

[34] Examination of Gawen Moore and William Kilmeny, mariners of Glasgow, August 30, 1606; Chichester to Salisbury, September 12, with enclosures; examination of John Loach, under 1607, No. 493; Davies to Salisbury, September 12, 1607; notes to O’Donovan’s Four Masters under 1607; Meehan, chap. iv. As to O’Cahan see Chichester’s statement calendared at 1608, No. 98.

[35] Four Masters, 1607; James Loach’s examination, 1607, No. 493; Davies to Salisbury, September 12; Meehan, chap. iv. The latter narrative is mainly founded on an Irish manuscript by Teig O’Keenan written in 1608 and preserved at St. Isidore’s, Rome, a specimen of which was printed by O’Donovan in his notes to the Four Masters, 1607.

[36] Meehan, chap. iv.; list of Irish captains in Archduke’s army, July 22, 1607; Letters of Sir Thomas Edmondes to the English Government, October 1607 to the following March; Privy Council to Chichester, March 8, 1607-8. ‘A most lewd oration’ spoken before the Earls at Douai is calendared at January 25, 1608.

[37] Statements made by Christopher Lord Howth between June 29 and August 25, 1607, No. 336; Lord Delvin’s confession, November 6, 1607; examination of John Dunn, February 14, 1606-7; examination of the Franciscan James Fitzgerald, October 3, 1607; secret information in Wotton’s handwriting, 1607, No. 897; Chichester to Devonshire, April 23, 1606, after the latter’s death, but before it was known in Ireland.

[38] State Papers, Ireland, 1607, especially Chichester to Salisbury, May 27, September 8; Discourses with Lord Howth, No. 336; Chichester to the Privy Council, September 7 and 17.

[39] Lodge’s Peerage (Archdall), i. 237, and the State Papers, Ireland, calendared from September 8 to November 27, 1607; Lords of the Council to Chichester, May 11, 1611.

[40] Instructions for Sir A. St. Leger, December 21, 1607; Chichester to the Privy Council, June 3, 1608; Warrant for pardon, July 18.

[41] Chichester to Salisbury with enclosure, October 2, 1607; Examination of Father Fitzgerald, October 3; Chichester to Salisbury, July 2, 1609, and the answer, August 3; Delvin’s Confession, November 6, 1607. The account of Lady Tyrconnel at p. 235 of the Earls of Kildare is very incorrect. A short notice of Mary Stuart O’Donnell is in the Dict. of National Biography, xli. 446 b.

[42] Declaratio super fugam comitum de Tyrone et Tyrconnel, non propter virtutes sed ob rationes status ad honores promotorum—Rymer’s Fœdera, xvi. 664, November 15, 1607. Bacon probably had a hand in this, having received a full account from Davies, which he answered on October 23—Spedding’s Life, iv. 5.

[43] Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1607, Nos. 501 and 503; James Bathe to Salisbury, January 9, 1607-8.

[44] Edmondes to the Duke of Lorraine, January 12, 1607-8; to Salisbury, January 28, February 18 and March 30; Wotton’s letters for April and May, 1608; information in Wotton’s hand, No. 897, State Papers, Ireland; Meehan, chap. 7, with the Doge Donato’s letter at p. 270; Salisbury to Cornwallis, September 27, 1607, in Winwood’s Memorials, and Cornwallis to the Privy Council, April 19, 1608, ib.

[45] Chichester to Northampton, February 7, 1607-8, printed in Ulster Journal of Archæology, i. 180, from Cotton MS. Tit. B. x. 189.

[CHAPTER IV]
REBELLION OF O’DOGHERTY, 1608

Antecedents of Sir Cahir O’Dogherty.

Docwra leaves Derry, 1606,

and is succeeded by Sir George Paulet.

O’Dogherty is suspected.

The wild territory of Inishowen between Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly had been for ages in possession of the O’Dogherty clan, who were, however, not quite independent either of O’Neill or O’Donnell. Sir John O’Dogherty, who held Inishowen by patent, died in December 1600, and Hugh Roe O’Donnell set up his brother Phelim in his stead, to the exclusion of his son Cahir, whom he kept in his own power. Cahir’s foster-brethren, the MacDavitts, appealed to Sir Henry Docwra, and he persuaded O’Donnell to release the young man, whom the Government then adopted as chief. After the accession of James, though not with Devonshire’s good will, Sir Cahir, who had been knighted for good service in the field, was confirmed by the King in his father’s possessions. The island of Inch was leased to another, but after Devonshire’s death the King agreed to restore it. Tyrconnel complained bitterly that Inishowen was excepted from his grant, and Tyrone grumbled at losing an annual rent of sixty cows out of it, ‘never before your Majesty’s reign brought to any question.’ Docwra was Sir Cahir’s steady friend, but Devonshire’s extreme leaning to Tyrone’s side made his position intolerable, and he left Ireland in 1606, having sold his land at Derry to George Paulet, the Marquis of Winchester’s son. He was allowed to compound with Paulet for his company of foot and the vice-provostship of Derry, and this was done with Devonshire’s approval on the ground that there was ‘no longer use for a man of war in that place.’ The King’s letter describes Paulet as ‘of good sufficiency and of service in the wars,’ but Chichester was not of that opinion. He was established at Derry at the beginning of 1607, and was soon at daggers drawn, not only with the neighbouring Irish chiefs, but with the Protestant bishop Montgomery. At the same time he neglected, notwithstanding Chichester’s repeated warnings, to post sentries or to keep any regular look-out. His ill-temper made him disliked by his own men, and they despised him for his evident incompetence. After the flight of the Earls Sir Cahir O’Dogherty was one of the commissioners especially appointed for the government of Tyrone, Donegal, and Armagh, Paulet and Bishop Montgomery being among his colleagues. His ambition at this time was a place at Court. He excited suspicion by landing a few armed men upon Tory island, but the inhabitants seem to have consented. Sir Richard Hansard, who gave the first information, did not think that O’Dogherty meant much harm, for he never had more than seventy men, armed only those of Inishowen, and refused recruits from other districts. But Paulet took a view of the case which made his want of preparation inexcusable. He went with Captain Hart, the governor of Culmore, and others to O’Dogherty’s castle of Burt on Lough Swilly, where Lady O’Dogherty, Lord Gormanston’s sister, was living. He told O’Dogherty afterwards that he only went on a friendly visit, but to Chichester he said that he meant to seize the castle had he not found it well defended.

Paulet’s violent behaviour.

O’Dogherty remonstrated in a temperate letter and subscribed himself ‘your loving friend,’ but Paulet retorted that he was a traitor and that he left him to a provost-marshal and a halter. Three weeks later O’Dogherty went to Dublin, and protested his loyalty; but he was on good terms with O’Cahan, whose actions were also suspicious, and Chichester hardly knew what to think. Sir Cahir was at last suffered to depart after entering into a recognisance, himself in 1,000l. with Lord Gormanston and Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam in 500 marks each, to appear at all times upon twenty days’ notice in writing, and not to leave Ireland without licence before Easter 1609. About the close of the year 1607, Sir Cahir was foreman of the Grand Jury who found a true bill for treason against Tyrone, Tyrconnel, and their chief adherents.[46]

Paulet insults O’Dogherty,

In February 1608 O’Dogherty wrote to the Prince of Wales protesting his fidelity, and asking to be made one of the gentlemen of his privy chamber. On April 18, the very day on which he plunged into rebellion, an order was sent by the English Government to restore the island of Inch, and all other lands withheld from Sir Cahir, excepting only the fort of Culmore, which stood at the mouth of the Foyle, and thirty acres of land with it.

who becomes an open rebel,

and seizes a fort.

The Four Masters say, and this has often been repeated, that Paulet struck O’Dogherty, and that the insult drove him into rebellion. Paulet was certainly abusive, but a blow is not anywhere mentioned in the State correspondence, though no Englishman then in Ireland had anything to say in favour of the unfortunate governor, nor by Docwra, who could scarcely be ignorant of so remarkable a fact. O’Sullivan Bere, who published his history at Lisbon in 1621, says Paulet threatened to have O’Dogherty hanged, but he had evidently not heard of any blow. The Four Masters wrote in Donegal, between 1632 and 1636, but it is not certain that any of them were in Ireland in 1608; at all events there was time for the growth of a traditional addition to the facts. Whatever may have been the immediate cause of his outbreak, O’Dogherty behaved with so much treachery as to throw doubt upon all his recent professions. He invited Captain Hart, the governor of Culmore fort, to visit him at Buncrana. He complained that Lady O’Dogherty, who was of the Pale and had English tastes, suffered from the want of society, and therefore Mrs. Hart was pressed to accompany her husband. After dinner O’Dogherty took Hart into an upper room under pretence of privacy, spoke of Paulet’s harsh conduct, and told his guest that he must die or surrender Culmore. Being disarmed, and told to choose, Hart refused to betray his trust. Lady O’Dogherty then entered the room in tears, upbraided her husband and his accomplices, and called heaven to witness that she was no party to the plot. O’Dogherty threatened to throw both her and his prisoner over the walls, and told Mrs. Hart that she must devise some means of seizing Culmore or die with her husband, her children, and the whole garrison. He swore upon a book that not one person should suffer if the fort were yielded quietly. At last she was frightened into going with O’Dogherty to Culmore and calling out some of the guard, saying that her husband lay hard by with a broken arm. Once outside the gate they were seized by the Irish, who rushed in and took the fort, surprising the rest of the garrison in their beds. Hart and his family were ferried over the Foyle and told to go to Coleraine, the soldiers escaping to Lifford during the confusion of that night.[47]

O’Dogherty surprises Derry.

Treatment of the garrison.

O’Dogherty marched through the night and reached Derry at two o’clock in the morning of Tuesday, April 19, with scarcely a hundred men, not all of whom were armed. They divided at the bog-side, Sir Cahir attacking the lower forts where the storehouses were, and Phelim Reagh undertaking the governor’s house on the high ground. Paulet escaped into Ensign Corbet’s house, and there a short stand was made. Corbet fought with and wounded Phelim, but was struck down from behind. His wife killed the man who had dealt the fatal blow, and was herself slain. Paulet fell by the hand of Owen O’Dogherty. Lieutenant Gordon jumped from his bed, seized a rapier and dagger and ran out naked, killing two of the assailants and calling upon the soldiers to fight for their lives. He also was overpowered and killed. Lieutenant Baker gathered a few men together and attempted to retake the lower fort, but was ill supported, and retired into Sheriff Babington’s house. That house and the bishop’s were held till noon, but O’Dogherty’s force was constantly increasing, a piece of cannon was brought up from Culmore, and Baker, who had no provisions or ammunition, thought it best to make terms. A written undertaking was given that every man should depart with his sword and clothes, and the women with their clothes. Lady Paulet and Mrs. Susan Montgomery, the bishop’s wife, remained prisoners with O’Dogherty. According to O’Sullivan all Protestants were slaughtered, and all Catholics safely dismissed, but the total number killed did not exceed ten on either side. Lieutenant Baker, to use the language of Sir Josiah Bodley, was in ‘great grace and reputation,’ for he alone survived of those who had distinguished themselves on the fatal morning. He settled in Ulster, and his namesake, perhaps his descendant, was governor in that later siege which has made the name of Derry for ever famous.[48]

The Bishop’s library burned.

Collapse of the insurrection.

Derry re-occupied.

The rebels abandon Culmore.

Pursuit of O’Dogherty.

Surrender of Burt Castle.

Before leaving Derry Phelim Reagh, who thought the place untenable by a small force, deliberately burned Bishop Montgomery’s library in sight of his men. O’Sullivan says there were ‘2,000 heretical books,’ and that the bishop vainly offered a hundred pounds ransom for his collection. Having set fire to the buildings and to two corn ships which lay near, Phelim removed to Culmore, taking some guns with him in two boats and throwing the rest into the sea. Doe Castle on Sheep Haven was also surprised, and Captain Henry Vaughan taken prisoner. Captain John Vaughan abandoned Dunalong and fled with his men to Lifford, and a few Scotch settlers at Strabane did the same. There O’Dogherty’s successes ended. Sir Richard Hansard, who never ceased to take the precautions which Paulet neglected, easily maintained himself at Lifford, and help was not long in coming. At the beginning of May Chichester sent all his available forces to Ulster. The officers in charge were Sir Richard Wingfield, Marshal of the army since 1600, and Sir Oliver Lambert, then more hated and feared than any English soldier. Sir Thomas Ridgeway, an energetic man who had succeeded Carey as vice-treasurer, accompanied them without Chichester’s knowledge. After inspecting the garrisons about Lough Neagh and the Blackwater, and warning them to be on their guard, Wingfield and his colleagues reached Derry on May 20. They found earthworks, walls and chimneys not much damaged, but everything that would burn had been reduced to ashes, except the wooden roof of the cathedral. Ridgeway was in doubt whether they had found this roof too high to set fire to, or whether they spared it out of respect to St. Columba, ‘the patron of that place, and whose name they use as their word of privity and distinction in all their wicked and treacherous attempts.’ According to the terms of the recognisance in which he was bound, Chichester’s letter summoning O’Dogherty to appear before him was publicly read by Ridgeway at ‘the half-burned house of Master Babington’ in Derry, and at Sir Cahir’s own castle of Ellagh not far off. Cabins were run up for the inhabitants of Derry, who had already returned to their homes, and enough cows and sheep to secure them against starvation were driven in from O’Dogherty’s country. Phelim Reagh declared that he would die in defence of Culmore, but thought it more prudent to set the place on fire and to escape by water. The fort was quickly refitted and garrisoned. Parties were sent to scour the country as far as Dunaff and Malin Head, and Inishowen was completely cleared, 2,000 cows, 2,000 or 3,000 sheep and 300 or 400 horses were driven in, and Buncrana was burned ‘as well from anger as for example’s sake.’ Armed resistance there was practically none. O’Dogherty had withdrawn into the territory of the MacSwineys west of Lough Swilly, and thither did Ridgeway and his colleagues pursue him. Even among the woods of Glenveagh he was unable to make any sort of defence, and it was said that he fled thirty-five miles in one march at the approach of the troops. Various plots having been laid for his betrayal, the army returned by Raphoe to Sir Cahir’s principal castle of Burt on Lough Swilly. The garrison were divided in opinion, some thinking that they held the place for the King of Spain and others for O’Dogherty. They had but one life each, they said, which they owed to God; if they surrendered they would either be treated like dogs by the English or hanged by Sir Cahir, and so they might as well do their duty. One Dowding, or Dowling, a native of Drogheda, and presumably more civilised than the Inishowen men, at last proposed a capitulation, involving a jointure for Lady O’Dogherty and some provision of land for the rest. The answer of the English officers, who thought it ‘intolerable strange for a King’s army to make jointures for ladies with the cannon,’ was to place two pieces of artillery in position. The Irish, whose chief leader was a monk, said they would put Mrs. Montgomery in the breach, but no breach was made, and they all surrendered at discretion after the second shot. Mrs. Montgomery and Captain Brookes’ son were, in Ridgeway’s quaint language, ‘returned to their owners.’ Sir Neill Garv O’Donnell and his two brothers, Lady O’Dogherty, her only daughter and her husband’s sister, with their female attendants, were taken on board his Majesty’s ship Tramontana, and Ridgeway went with them to Dublin, partly to avoid weakening Wingfield’s force, and partly because he thought the enforced idleness of a voyage would make the ladies talk freely. Lady O’Dogherty fulfilled his expectation by indulging in ferocious invectives ‘against Neill Garv for drawing her husband into rebellion.’[49]

O’Dogherty in Tyrone,

and Armagh,

but is killed by Irish soldiers.

Unable to cope with Wingfield in Donegal, O’Dogherty made a descent upon Tyrone in the middle of June. Chichester had ordered all garrisons to keep close, and this policy was strictly adhered to. O’Dogherty was afraid to do much damage lest he should alienate the affections of Tyrone’s late subjects, and he only took enough cattle to feed his following of about 800 men. He penetrated into Armagh, but soon wandered back into Donegal, making no attempt to relieve Burt, and pretending that its loss did not signify. After Ridgeway’s departure Wingfield prepared to attack Doe Castle, and while he waited at Kilmacrenan for his artillery, the enemy, about 700 strong, unexpectedly came in sight. Neill Garv had warned O’Dogherty not to fight, but he neglected this advice and was killed by Irish soldiers who wanted his land. His head was sent to Dublin and stuck upon a spike over the new gate. Within a few days Doe Castle succumbed to a heavy cannonade, and Lough Eske was surrendered by O’Gallagher, who was foster-father to Tyrconnel’s son. Chichester received the news of O’Dogherty’s death at Dundalk, and at once issued a proclamation warning the people of Ulster that those who received or protected any of the late rebel’s followers would be regarded as traitors themselves. All who delivered up any of the delinquents dead or alive were promised free pardons and the goods of the person so given up. Phelim Reagh MacDavitt alone was excluded from all hope of pardon.[50]

Ruthless suppression of the rebellion,

which is condemned by an Irish jury.

Phelim Reagh MacDavitt.

Chichester had announced that the war should be made ‘thick and short,’ and his proclamation was well suited for the purpose. About fifty of the O’Hanlons were in arms near Mount Norris, but they were quickly dispersed with great loss on his arrival at that fort, and the prisoners hanged by martial law. O’Cahan’s brother Shane Carragh was soon afterwards brought in by the MacShane O’Neills to the post at Mountjoy. At Armagh the grand jury, almost entirely Irish, found a bill against all who were in rebellion. Being a man of importance Shane Carragh was tried by jury at Dungannon and hanged, and it was noted that the solemnity of the trial made a great impression upon the natives, who were accustomed to see summary sentences carried out at the nearest tree. The jurors were Irishmen, who attended as readily as when Tyrone was present, and the monk who had commanded at Burt voluntarily purchased life and liberty by renouncing the Pope and conforming publicly. Chichester then marched through Glenconkein, ‘where the wild inhabitants,’ according to Davies, ‘wondered as much to see the King’s Deputy as the ghosts in Virgil wondered to see Aeneas alive in hell.’ At Coleraine he heard of the capture of Sir Cahir’s illegitimate brother, whom the people wished to make O’Dogherty, of Owen O’Dogherty who killed Paulet, and of Phelim Reagh MacDavitt, who was regarded as the contriver of the whole rising. Phelim, who was hunted into a wood and found there after long search, made a stout resistance and was wounded, but great care was taken to keep him alive for his trial. He was taken to Lifford, where he made statements very damaging to Neill Garv, and was then hanged with twenty others. Chichester returned to Dublin at the beginning of September, leaving only the very dregs of a rebellion behind him.[51]

Severities in Tory Island.

The rebels destroy each other.

Shane MacManus, Oge O’Donnell, who aspired to be the O’Donnell, was the last to hold out with about 240 men in Tory and the adjacent smaller islands. Sir Henry Ffolliott, the governor of Ballyshannon, finished the business in a very ruthless manner. On his way he took the island stronghold at Glenveagh, which was held by an O’Gallagher, ‘one of Tyrconnell’s fosterers, who killed three or four of his best associates after he yielded up the island, for which we took him into protection.’ Of armed resistance there was not much, but Ffolliott’s task was made difficult by foul winds upon that rough coast, and he failed to capture Shane MacManus, who escaped with the bulk of his followers by boat into Connaught, preferring to trust to Clanricarde’s clemency, but leaving eleven men in the castle on Tory island, where Ffolliott found them. The constable called to Sir Mulmore MacSwiney, begging to be allowed to see the English commander and promising service. MacSwiney let him come out, and he was induced by Ffolliott to purchase his life by betraying the castle and taking the lives of seven out of the ten men in it. A MacSwiney who was one of the garrison was also admitted to a parley and made the like promise, but the constable got back first, ‘each of them,’ says Ffolliott, ‘being well assured and resolved to cut the other’s throat.’ He killed two of his followers and the rest scattered into the rocks, where he shot one. Ffolliott kept him to his promise of seven heads, which were to be taken without help from the soldiers. One of the others turned and stabbed his late leader to the heart and was then killed by one of his own companions. Three others were killed in the scuffle. Shane MacManus’s boat was found in the island of Arran, while his mother with a boy of ten and a girl of eleven remained prisoners. ‘And so,’ reported Ffolliott, ‘there were but five that escaped, three of them churls and the other two young boys.... Shane MacManus is deprived of his mother and two children and his boat, which I think he regards more than them all.’[52]

Fate of Neill Garv O’Donnell.

Irish juries will not find verdicts for treason.

Neill Garv is sent to the Tower,

where he dies.

Sir Neill Garv O’Donnell gave no effectual help against O’Dogherty, and he was really a fellow-conspirator. Lifford, Ballyshannon and Donegal were to be seized by him and his friends, while Sir Cahir took Derry and Culmore, and all plunder was to be divided equally between them. Sir Neill was to have Burt Castle and whatever rights O’Donnell had over Inishowen, as long as he could hold his own. He continued, however, to profess loyalty and to urge his claims over the whole of Tyrconnel. O’Dogherty’s country he regained by special grant, but he was an abettor, if not the principal contriver, of the Derry surprise, gave advice about the mode of attack, sent sixteen men of his own to help, and charged O’Dogherty to spare no one. All this was not certainly known until later, and Sir Neill obtained protection from Wingfield, whom he accompanied on his expedition into Donegal. He was soon again in communication with the rebels, was arrested at Glenveagh and sent a prisoner to Dublin, but it was not until June, 1609, that a Donegal jury could be sworn in the King’s Bench there. The jurors were Irishmen and not of very high position, for the English settlers and the principal natives had served on the grand jury which found the bill. Davies offered no evidence as to Sir Neill’s complicity in the Derry affair, though there could be no doubt of the fact, because it might be held that the treason was covered by Wingfield’s protection. There was good proof of the breach of that protection by aiding and abetting the King’s enemies, but the jury were shut up from Friday till Monday and almost starved to death. They refused to find a verdict of treason on the ground that Sir Neill had not been actually in arms against the King, and it was believed that they had bound themselves by mutual oath not to find the lord of their country guilty. They were discharged ‘in commiseration of their faintings and for reasons concerning his Majesty’s service.’ ‘The priests,’ said Davies, ‘excommunicate the jurors who condemn a traitor. The Irish will never condemn a principal traitor: therefore we have need of an English colony, that we may have honest trials. They dare not condemn an Irish lord of a country for fear of revenge, because we have not power enough in the country to defend honest jurors. We must stay there till the English and Scottish colonies be planted, and then make a jury of them.’ There being no hope of a verdict, the lawyers could only suggest that Sir Neill should be tried by a Middlesex jury as O’Rourke had been in 1591. In any case he should be sent to England, for Dublin Castle was no safe place for a prisoner who was always trying to escape, and who had already been found with a rope long enough to ‘carry him over the wall from the highest tower.’ Sir Neill went to London in due course, and died in the Tower in 1626.[53]

The effects of O’Dogherty’s rising.

Fate of O’Cahan.

The abortive rebellion of O’Dogherty made the fate of the six Ulster counties harder than it might otherwise have been. It was, say the Four Masters, ‘from this rising and from the departure of the Earls that their principalities, their territories, their estates, their lands, their forts, their fruitful harbours, and their fishful bays were taken from the Irish of the province of Ulster, and were given in their presence to foreign tribes; and they were expelled and banished into other countries, where most of them died.’ Inishowen, which O’Dogherty held by patent independently of Tyrone, was separately forfeited, and the whole of it granted to Chichester himself. The failure of trial by Jury in Neill Garv’s case prevented Davies from running a fresh risk with O’Cahan, who lay long in Dublin Castle, and was sent to the Tower late in 1609 in charge of Francis Annesley, afterwards Lord Mountnorris. Neill Garv and his son Naughton went in the same vessel. ‘The boy,’ said Chichester, ‘has more wit than either of them,’ and he had been at Oxford and at Trinity College, Dublin. No charge was made against him, but he was as proud as his father. O’Cahan remained a prisoner, and no doubt there was plenty of evidence against him, but Chichester, while carrying out the policy of the Home Government, scarcely hides his opinion that he had been badly treated, and that he had the reputation of a truth-telling man. As to the facts, the Lord Deputy’s story tallies closely with that of Docwra. Writing as late as 1614, the latter says deliberately that ‘O’Cahan, from the breach of my promise with him, derives, as well he may, the cause of all his miseries,’ and he thought he would have done nothing rebellious if faith had been kept with him. He was never tried, and spent years in the Tower, where he probably died in 1628. A thousand acres of his old territory was granted, or perhaps only promised, to his wife Honora, with reversion to her son Donell, but the young man went to the Netherlands, returned in 1642 with Owen Roe O’Neill, and was killed at Clones. His elder brother Rory was hanged for his share in the conspiracy of 1615.[54]

FOOTNOTES:

[46] Docwra’s Narration; Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, for 1607; Recognisance in Chancery and Indictment of Tyrone, &c., calendared under June 1608; O’Dogherty to the Prince of Wales, February 14, 1608.

[47] Hart’s narrative enclosed in Chichester’s despatch of May 4, disproving Cox’s statement that the garrison were murdered. O’Sullivan, Tom. iv. Lib. 1, cap. 5: ‘Georgius Paletus Luci (Derry) præfectus Anglus eques auratus O’Dochartum conviciis onerat, minans se facturum, ut ille laqueo suspendatur.’ Cox, writing in 1690, mentions a report that Paulet had given O’Dogherty a box on the ear.

[48] Bodley’s letter of May 3; Chichester’s of May 4, enclosing Hart’s and Baker’s own narratives; Newes from Ireland, concerning the late treacherous action, &c., London, 1608; O’Sullivan Bere ut sup.; Four Masters, 1608.

[49] Ridgeway’s Journal, June 30, and his letter to Salisbury of July 3. O’Sullivan, Compendium, Lib. i. cap. 5.

[50] Chichester to the Privy Council, July 6, and the proclamation dated next day; Four Masters, 1608, with O’Donovan’s notes; Sir Donnell O’Cahan to his brother Manus (from the Tower), June 1, 1610. Manus gave the letter to Chichester.

[51] Davies to Salisbury, August 5, 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, September 12.

[52] Chichester to the Privy Council, September 12 and 17, the latter enclosing Ffolliott’s narrative.

[53] Davies on the juries, State Papers, Ireland, 1608, No. 801; his and Chichester’s accounts of the trial, June 27 and July 4, 1609; abstract of evidence calendared at October 1609, No. 514; Letter to Bishop Montgomery from Ineen Duive, Hugh O’Donnell’s mother and Tyrconnel’s aunt, printed from Carte MSS. in O’Donovan’s Four Masters, 2364.

[54] Docwra’s Narration, 283. Francis O’Cahan’s petition calendared with the papers of 1649, p. 278, but evidently of a much earlier date. Hill’s Ulster Plantation, 61, 235.

[CHAPTER V]
THE SETTLEMENT OF ULSTER

Ulster before the settlement.

The tribal system known to the writers of what are called the Brehon laws survived much longer in Ulster than elsewhere. In the other three provinces the Anglo-Norman invaders may not have made a complete conquest, but they had military occupation and many of their leaders took the position of Irish chiefs when the weakening power of the Crown made it impossible to maintain themselves otherwise. Yet they never forgot their origin, and were ready enough to acquiesce when the Tudor sovereigns reasserted their authority. But there were no Butlers, Fitzgeralds, or Barries in Ulster, while the Burkes withdrew into Connaught and assumed Irish names. For a long time the native clans were left almost to their own devices. Con Bacagh O’Neill, when he accepted the earldom of Tyrone in 1543 and went to England to be invested, took a long step towards a new state of things. Through ignorance or inadvertence the remainder was given to Matthew Ferdoragh, who was perhaps not an O’Neill at all. Shane O’Neill, the eldest son of undoubted legitimacy, kept the leadership of his clan, while insisting in dealing with the government that he was Con’s lawful heir. Even Shane admitted that Queen Elizabeth was his sovereign. When the original limitation of the peerage took practical effect, and Hugh O’Neill became Earl of Tyrone, the feudal honour was most useful on one side while the tribal chiefry was still fully maintained on the other. In two cases, decided by the Irish judges in 1605 and 1608 respectively, gavelkind or inheritance by division among all males was abolished as to lands not forming part of the chief’s demesne, and Tanistry as to the land of the elective chief. This purely judge-made law was followed in the settlement of Ulster with far too little regard to the actual state of things there.[55]

The tribal system.

Backward state of the natives.

Without going into the technicalities of Celtic tenure it may be assumed for historical purposes that the Ulster Irish consisted of the free tribesmen who had a share in the ownership of the soil and the mixed multitude of broken men who were not only tolerated but welcomed by the great chiefs, but who were not joint proprietors though they might till the land of others. A large part of the inferior class consisted of the nomad herdsmen called creaghts, who were an abomination to the English. There was always much more land than could be cultivated in a civilised way, and the cattle wandered about, their drivers living in huts and sheds till the grass was eaten down, and, then removing to a similar shelter in another place. One main object was to turn these nomads into stationary husbandmen, and it was not at all easy to do. Still more troublesome were the ‘swordsmen’—that is, the men of free blood whose business had always been fighting and who would never work. They formed the retinue of Tyrone and the rest, and when the chiefs were gone they had nothing to do but to plunder or to live at the expense of their more industrious but less noble neighbours. ‘Many natives,’ says Chichester, ‘have answered that it is hard for them to alter their cause of living by herds of cattle and creaghting; and as to building castles or strong bawns it is for them impossible. None of them (the Neales and such principal names excepted) affect above a ballybetoe, and most of them will be content with two or three balliboes; and for the others, he knows whole counties will not content the meanest of them, albeit they have but now their mantle and a sword.’ Some of these men owned land with or without such title as the law acknowledged. The radical mistake of the English lawyers was in ignoring the primary fact that land belonged to the tribe and not to the individual. It is true that the idea of private property was extending among the Irish, and that the hereditary principle tended to become stronger, but the state of affairs was at best transitional, and the decision in the case of gavelkind went far in advance of the custom. Yet it might possibly have been accepted if Chichester’s original idea had been followed. He wished first to distribute among the Irish as much land as they could cultivate, and to plant colonists on the remainder. What really happened was that everything was done to attract the undertakers, and as the rule of plantation allowed no Irish tenants to have leases under them the natives who remained were reduced to an altogether inferior position. The servitors were allowed to give leases to the Irish, whom they might keep in order by their reputation and by the possession of strong houses. But the amount of land assigned for this purpose was inadequate, and the Irish tenants, who for the most part were not given to regular agriculture, soon found themselves poor and without much hope of bettering their condition. Very light ploughs attached to the tails of ponies were not instruments by which the wilderness could be made to blossom like the rose. This system of ploughing certainly shows a low condition of agriculture, and it was general wherever estates were allotted to native gentlemen. ‘Tirlagh O’Neale,’ says Pynnar, ‘hath 4,000 acres in Tyrone. Upon this he hath made a piece of a bawn which is five feet high and hath been so a long time. He hath made no estates to his tenants, and all of them do plough after the Irish manner.’ Mulmory Oge O’Reilly had 3,000 acres in Cavan, lived in an old castle with a bawn of sods, and ‘hath made no estates to any of his tenants, and they do all plough by the tail.’ Brian Maguire, who had 2,500 acres in Fermanagh, lived in a good stone house and gave leases to some of his tenants, but even they held to the Irish manner of ploughing. A good many of the undertakers made no attempt to build, and of course the lands were in the occupation of Irishmen who were liable to be disturbed at any moment, and therefore very unlikely to improve.[56]

First schemes of settlement.

The injustice of confiscating several counties for the default of certain chiefs is obvious to us, even if we admit that their forfeiture was just. But no Englishman at the time, not even Bacon, seems to have had any misgivings. The packet in which the flight of the Earls was announced contained a letter from Sir Geoffrey Fenton to Salisbury with the first rough sketch of the Ulster settlement. The old secretary pointed out that the opportunity had at last come for pulling down the proud houses of O’Neill and O’Donnell, for vesting all in the Crown, and for improving the revenue, ‘besides that many well-deserving servitors may be recompensed in the distribution, a matter to be taken to heart, for that it reaches somewhat to his Majesty’s conscience and honour to see these poor servitors relieved, whom time and the wars have spent even unto their later years, and now, by this commodity, may be stayed and comforted without charge to his Majesty.’ A few days later Chichester wrote more in detail. His idea was to divide the land among the inhabitants as far as they were able to cultivate it. After that there would be plenty left for colonists, and to reward those who had served the King in Ireland. This was the course he advised; otherwise he saw nothing for it but to transplant all the people of Tyrone, Donegal, and Fermanagh with their cattle into waste districts, ‘leaving only such people behind as will dwell under the protection of the garrisons and forts,’ which were to be strengthened and multiplied. Sir Oliver St. John advised some garrisons and corporations, but relied rather upon making the Irish tenants of the Crown at high rents. The Irish, he said, were more used to esteem a landlord whom they knew than a king of whom they seldom heard. Make the King their landlord and they will turn to him, neglecting ‘their wonted tyrants whom naturally they love not.’ Salisbury had already turned his attention to the subject, and the Privy Council in England lost no time in expressing their general approval of Chichester’s plan.[57]

Bacon on colonisation.

Bacon’s attention was much drawn to Ireland at this critical time, and Chichester’s secretary, Henry Perse, kept him well informed. Davies wrote to him at length about the flight of the Earls, and he saw that the opportunity had come for making a fresh start. ‘I see manifestly,’ he told Davies, ‘the beginning of better or worse.’ It may therefore be assumed that he had some hand in the proceedings that followed. Both he and Chichester were naturally thinking of the scheme of American colonisation which had just so nearly failed, and were anxious that the mistakes made should not be repeated. ‘I had rather labour with my hands,’ said the Lord Deputy, ‘in the plantation of Ulster than dance or play in that of Virginia.’ The American enterprise, said the Lord Chancellor, ‘differs as much from this, as Amadis de Gaul differs from Cæsar’s Commentaries.’ Bacon warned the Government against sending over needy broken-down gentlemen as settlers. Men of capital were to be preferred, such as were fit to ‘purchase dry reversions after lives or years, or to put out money upon long returns.’ They might not go themselves, but they would send younger sons and cousins to advance them, while retaining the property ‘for the sweetness of the expectation of a great bargain in the end.’ He thought enough was not done to encourage the growth of towns and fortified posts, and yet the example of the Munster failure was ready to hand as to ‘the danger of any attempts of kernes and swordsmen.’ The wisdom of this advice was seen in 1641, when Londonderry alone stood out in all the planted counties. Bacon discouraged facilities for making under-tenancies, for the excluded natives would offer tempting rents and fines, the interest of the grantee waning when he parted with actual possession. Here also the advice was good. The undertakers took Irish tenants, in spite of the rules, because they could get no others, and these tenants turned against them when the day of trial came.[58]

Scots in Ulster. Bishop Montgomery

The Scottish element in the north of Ireland has played an important part in history. One of James’s first acts was to nominate Denis Campbell, who had long been Dean of Limerick, to the sees of Derry, Raphoe, and Clogher. Campbell died before consecration, and George Montgomery was appointed instead. Montgomery was of the family of Braidstane in Ayrshire, an offshoot of the House of Eglinton, who found his way to the English Court and made himself useful both to Cecil and to the King of Scots. His elder brother Hugh remained in Scotland and retailed the news to his own sovereign. George received the living of Chedzoy in Somerset, and the deanery of Norwich, and through life he showed a remarkable aptitude for holding several preferments together. Queen Elizabeth died, and the laird of Braidstane took part in the great Scotch invasion. Having lodged himself at Westminster, says the family historian, ‘he met at Court with the said George (his only then living brother), who had with long expectations waited for those happy days. They enjoyed one the other’s most loving companies, and meditating of bettering and advancing their peculiar stations. Foreseeing that Ireland must be the stage to act upon, it being unsettled, and many forfeited lands thereon altogether wasted, they concluded to push for fortunes in that kingdom.’ The laird accordingly devoted himself to acquiring an estate and a peerage in Down at the expense of the O’Neills, and the parson to enriching the Church and himself in other parts of Ulster.[59]

A lady colonist.

The idea that high Irish preferment involved corresponding duties seems to have been very imperfectly understood at this time. Mrs. Montgomery, writing from Chedzoy, informed her relations that the King had bestowed on her husband three Irish bishoprics, ‘the names of them I cannot remember, they are so strange, except one which is Derye.’ Fifteen months later, on the eve of their departure from London, she reported that the King had dismissed the Bishop with many gracious words. ‘I hope we shall not long stay in Ireland, but once he must needs go.’ They were met and escorted into Derry ‘by a gallant company of captains and aldermen,’ and found it a much nicer place than they expected. Their house was English built, small but very pretty and capable of enlargement if Sister Peggy and her husband would come over. There were several ladies and gentlemen ‘as bravely apparelled as in England. The most that we do mislike is that the Irish do often trouble our house, and many times they doth lend to us a louse, which makes me many times remember my daughter Jane, which told me that if I went into Ireland I should be full of lice.’ Excellent flax was to be bought at sixpence a pound, and thread at one shilling, the land was good, and the tenants were continually bringing in beeves and muttons. This lady, who thought only of a short visit, was destined to have some very disagreeable adventures and to remain in Ireland till her death, when her husband wrote of ‘the best gift I ever received, the greatest loss I ever had in this world.’[60]

Episcopal property.

A jury of Celtic experts.

Montgomery was at once admitted by the King’s special order to the Irish Council, and events soon showed that he enjoyed a good share of royal favour. Chichester was directed to inquire by commission as to the state of ecclesiastical property in his three dioceses. The King’s letter set forth that Church lands had long been usurped by temporal lords, and until the legal tangle could be cleared no grants of Termon or abbey lands were to be made in Monaghan and Fermanagh. Davies, who at first accepted the Bishop’s claim without question, took enormous pains to understand the real nature of these Termon lands, and he seems to have come near the truth. Montgomery claimed that they were rightly the absolute property of the Church, while Tyrone and the other Irish chiefs maintained that only rents were payable, the tribal ownership with fixity of tenure belonging to the Erenachs, who had for ages been in actual possession. Thus old Miler Magrath, who had jobbed Church property so shamelessly, held Termon-Magrath, which included St. Patrick Purgatory, in succession to his father. Davies felt that his law was at fault, and after long controversies hit upon the plan of swearing in a jury of clerks or scholars to find the facts, ‘who gave them more light than ever they had before touching the original and estate of Erenachs and Termon lands.’ Of these fifteen jurors thirteen spoke Latin fluently. Their verdict was hostile to Montgomery, who contended that the Termons were episcopal demesne lands; but James, on his principle of ‘no bishop, no king,’ having asserted his claim to the forfeited property, made it all over to the Church. This was after the flight of Tyrone, but Montgomery’s proceedings may have been one cause of it. He claimed that his patent gave him everything that he or his predecessors had enjoyed, but others were for construing it strictly, and there were many suits against him upon colour of terming divers parcels of his inheritance to be monasteries, friaries, and of abbey land, and the Bishops of Clogher and Derry, where their predecessors had only chief rent, would now have the land itself. And he besought the King to stop such mean courses and make them rest content with what their predecessors had enjoyed for many years.[61]

Church and Crown.

Chichester’s expedition into the North in the summer of 1608 was a military promenade and an assize circuit combined, an inquiry about the escheated lands being added to the normal business. The commission included no bishop, and Montgomery, who was present during part of the circuit, made this a reason for objecting to anything being done. Davies and Ridgeway found that the Termon lands were in ‘possession of certain scholars called Erenachs, and whereof they were in ancient times true owners and proprietors, the Tyrone jury found to be vested in the Crown by the statute 11th of Elizabeth, whereby Shane O’Neill was attainted, and never since diverted by any grant from the late Queen or his Majesty.’ Montgomery claimed the Termons as demesne, and hurried over to Court with his grievance, carrying a recommendation from Chichester for the bishopric of Meath, which fell vacant at the moment. Davies took care that all the Ulster bishops should be of the next commission, but Chichester ventured to hint that Montgomery affected worldly cares too much and thought too little of reforming his clergy.[62]

Chichester’s original plan.

On October 14, 1608, Ley and Davies left Ireland, carrying with them Chichester’s instructions as to the plantation of Ulster. He briefly described the position of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Donegal, Cavan, Armagh, and Coleraine or Londonderry, desiring them to note ‘that many of the natives in each county claim freehold in the lands they possess; and albeit their demands are not justifiable by law, yet it is hard and almost impossible to displant them.’ Even those who were tainted by rebellion should be considered, and only ‘the rest of the land’ passed to undertakers or to well-chosen servitors. The oath of supremacy was to be taken by all settlers, but some exceptions might be allowed in the case of natives who were to build houses like those in the Pale. The English and Scotch settlers were to build castles, thus securing themselves against native aggression, and the poorer officers were to be placed in the most dangerous places with small salaries to enable them to keep armed men. The natives, as less outlay was demanded from them, were required, and would be willing, to pay more rent than the settlers. The committee appointed to make arrangements in London consisted of Ley and Davies, Sir Anthony St. Leger, Sir Henry Docwra, Sir Oliver St. John, and Sir James Fullerton, with whom Bishop Montgomery was afterwards associated. They all had experience of Ulster except St. Leger, who was Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and had been a commissioner of the Munster settlement, and Fullerton, who was doubtless expected to look after the Scotch element in the business. Chichester thought it necessary to warn Salisbury about his Majesty’s partiality for his original subjects, being of opinion that Highlanders or Islemen introduced into Ulster would be more troublesome and less profitable than the Irish themselves. In about two months the London committee had got so far as to produce a detailed plan for the settlement of Tyrone, and a copy of this was sent to the Lord Deputy.[63]

British settlers invited over.

At the beginning of 1609 the English Government printed and circulated a sort of prospectus, whereby settlers might be induced to offer themselves. Scotch and English undertakers were invited for tracts of a thousand, fifteen hundred, and two thousand acres, paying quit-rents to the Crown at the rate of six shillings and eightpence for every sixty acres, but rent-free for the first two years. It was intended that the largest grantees should hold by knight-service, but this burdensome tenure was afterwards abandoned at Chichester’s earnest prayer and common socage was everywhere substituted. The undertakers, whose portions were to be assigned by lot, were to build castles and bawns or courtyards within two years, and to have access to the royal forests for materials, being bound to keep, train and arm men enough for their defence. Chichester said that two years was not long enough to allow for the buildings, and the time was afterwards extended. Every undertaker was to take the oath of supremacy before his patent could be sealed; none might alienate to the Irish. They were to provide English or Scotch tenants only, and were tied to five years personal residence. Tenancies at will were prohibited. The servitors, generally men with some military experience, were allowed to have Irish tenants, in which case they were to pay 8l. for every thousand acres; but where they established British tenants this was reduced to 5l. 6s. 8d. Alienations to the Irish were forbidden, or to any one who would not take the oath of supremacy, the privileges and duties of the servitors being for the rest much the same as in the first case. The native Irish who formed the third class of grantees were subject, after the first year, to quit-rents twice as large as the undertakers, being subject to the same conditions as to tenures and building, but nothing was said about the oath of supremacy. Chichester knew that the natives could not as a rule build castles or bawns, and this part of the plan turned out to be unworkable. He protested from first to last that too little land was reserved to the Irish. There were further provisoes for erecting market towns and corporations, for at least one free school in every county and for a convenient number of parish churches with incumbents supported by tithes.[64]

Chichester’s criticisms.

All schemes of colonisation devised at a distance must necessarily be modified when the actual work begins. Chichester at once objected to the principle of division ‘in the arithmetical proportion or popular equality’ proposed. The grants should, he thought, be larger or smaller according to local circumstances, and to the qualifications of particular settlers. A few eminent persons with means and reputation might, if liberally treated, act as protectors to weaker men who would be exposed to attacks from the natives. People coming from the same part of Britain should be encouraged to settle near together, and this could not be done if everything was left to the chances of a lottery. Moses indeed was the wisest of law-givers, but ‘the Hebrews were mighty in number and rich in substance; compelled into the land of promise by divine necessity, to extinguish the nations and to possess their vineyards, cities, and towns already built, where, and not elsewhere, they and their posterities were to remain. But in the present plantation they have no armies on foot, they are but a few, without means of plantation (as being separated by sea) and every man having free will to take or leave. The country to be inhabited has no sign of plantation, and yet is full of people and subject, but of no faith nor truth in conversation, and yet hardly, or not at all, to be removed, though they be thorns in the side of the English. The county of Tyrone, with Coleraine, only has 5,000 able men.’

The natives neglected.

He objected altogether to tenure by knight-service, and that idea was abandoned, and also to a strict limitation of time for building without considering local difficulties. It was evident to him that too little land was assigned to native freeholders, especially in Tyrone, the result of which must be discontent, especially as it was intended to remove the ‘swordsmen or idle gentlemen who in effect are the greatest part of men bearing credit and sway in that province.’ And Chichester begged that the greatest possible latitude should be given to the commissioners who had to decide questions upon the spot.[65]

Survey of escheated lands.

Sir John Davies returned to Ireland at the beginning of May 1609, in full possession of the King’s mind on the subject of the plantation. A commission was issued to Chichester and fifteen others, named for the most part by him, to survey the escheated counties and to decide as to the proportions to be allotted to the settlers and natives. In order to meet difficulties about the rights of his see raised by Bishop Montgomery, he was made a commissioner along with the Primate and the Bishop of Kilmore. Davies thought seventeen too many, but the quorum was five, and nothing was to be done without the consent of the Deputy, the Chancellor, the Primate and the Bishop of Derry. The commissioners left Dundalk on August 3 and remained in Ulster until Michaelmas. Besides the business of surveying they prepared an abstract of the King’s title and held assizes for gaol delivery and other purposes in each of the six escheated counties. Davies constantly reported progress to Salisbury, not failing to point out that it was still necessary to take military precautions everywhere. ‘Our geographers,’ he said, ‘do not forget what entertainment the Irish of Tyrconnel gave to a map-maker about the end of the late great rebellion; for one Barkeley being appointed by the late Earl of Devonshire to draw a true and perfect map of the north parts of Ulster, when he came into Tyrconnel, the inhabitants took off his head, because they would not have their country discovered.’[66]

The area underestimated.

Lord Audley’s proposals

The Commissioners depended on a survey in which the amount of land available was enormously underrated, even if we suppose that all the waste was omitted. Thus the area of Tyrone was stated as 98,187 acres, whereas it really contains 806,650, of which more than a quarter is waste and water. Well informed people no doubt suspected something of this, and hoped in the scramble to get much more than the estimated quantity. One ambitious undertaker accordingly offered to take charge of 100,000 acres in Tyrone, which was more than the whole county was supposed to contain. Upon this he proposed to bind himself in a penalty of 1,000l. to build thirty-three castles with 600 acres attached to each, and as many towns each with 2,400, and to settle at least 1,000 families. There were further provisions for markets and fairs, and for the erection of glass, iron, and dye works. The rent offered was 553l. and all was to be completed within five years, when this bond might be cancelled. Upon this Chichester sarcastically remarks that he is ‘an ancient nobleman and apt to undertake much; but his manner of life in Munster and the small cost he has bestowed to make his house fit for him, or any room within the same, does not promise the building of substantial castles or a convenient plantation in Ulster. Besides which he is near to himself and loves not hospitality. Such an one will be unwelcome to that people and will soon make himself contemptible, and if the natives be not better provided for than I have yet heard of they will kindle many a fire in his buildings before they be half finished.’ Davies, however, who had married Lord Audley’s daughter, was much comforted to hear that one whose ancestors had conquered North Wales and had been among the first invaders of Ireland should desire to be an undertaker ‘in so large and frank a manner.’ Possibly Lord Audley’s intention resembled that of a speculator who applies for 10,000l. worth of stock on the chance of 500l. being allotted to him. In consideration of his services at Kinsale and elsewhere, 3,000 acres in Tyrone were granted to him and his wife, 2,000 to his eldest son Mervyn, and 2,000 to his second son Ferdinand. When Carew visited these lands in 1611 he reported that nothing at all had been done. Audley was created Earl of Castlehaven in 1616, and died in the following year, but his infamous successor was not more active. Pynnar reported in 1619 that the acreage was considerably larger than had been expressed in the grant, and that upon it there was ‘no building at all, either of bawn or castle, neither freeholders.’ There were a few British tenants at will, but they were fast leaving the land, for the tenants could not get leases without offering large fines for decreased holdings. The younger Castlehaven had by some means got possession of 2,000 acres more originally granted to Sir Edward Blunt, and upon this a house had been built. The total result was that sixty-four British tenants had sixty acres apiece, but they could lay out nothing without leases, and were all going away. The rest, says Pynnar, ‘is let to twenty Irish gentlemen, as appeareth by the Rent-roll, which is contrary to the articles of plantation; and these Irish gentlemen have under them, as I was informed by the tenants and gentlemen in the country, about 3,000 souls of all sorts.’ Thus were sown the dragon’s teeth which in due time produced the rebellion of 1641.[67]

Londonderry and Coleraine.

The fate of Randolph’s and Docwra’s settlements, or perhaps the fear that O’Cahan might yet be restored, prevented applications for grants in the county of Coleraine or what is now known as Londonderry. It occurred to James or to Salisbury that the difficulty could be got over by offering the whole district to the city of London, whose wealth might enable them to settle and defend it. The suggestion was made to the Lord Mayor, who on July 1, 1609, directed each of the City companies to name four representatives for the discussion of the subject. In addition to the published papers a special document was communicated to the City in which the advantages of the settlement were duly set forth. Derry might be made impregnable, and probably Coleraine also, and charters with great privileges were offered for each. The negotiations which followed were not conducted by the Irish Government, but between the Privy Council and the City direct. On January 28, 1610, articles were agreed upon by which the Corporation bound themselves to lay out 20,000l. and to build within two years 200 houses at Derry and 100 at Coleraine, sites being provided for 300 more in the one case and for 200 in the other. Afterwards they were allowed to finish building at Coleraine before beginning at Derry, conditional on their making the fortifications there defensible before the winter of 1611. The whole county, with trifling exceptions, was granted to the City in socage, and they had the ecclesiastical patronage within the two new towns and the fisheries of the Foyle and the Bann. It was not intended that there should be any delay in setting to work, and the Londoners undertook to build sixty houses at Derry and forty at Coleraine before November. On the other hand the King covenanted to protect them until they were strong enough to protect themselves, and to give his consent to such legislation as might be found necessary. Formal charters were not, however, granted until 1613.[68]

Sir Thomas Phillips.

After O’Dogherty’s sack some of the burned-out houses at Derry were made habitable by Captain John Vaughan, and cabins were also built among the ruins, so that the Londoners had some shelter. At Coleraine they were better off. A lease of which there were still some years to run had been granted to Captain, afterwards Sir Thomas, Phillips of the Dominican monastery there, and he had bought other land in the neighbourhood. Phillips had learned the art of war abroad, and quickly fulfilled Chichester’s prophecy that it would be safer in his hands than ‘left to the use of priests and friars, who to this time have ever enjoyed it.’ When O’Dogherty broke out, Phillips had only thirty-two soldiers available, but many fled to him from Derry, and he armed the men as they came in so that no attack was made by the Irish. When the settlement of the Londoners was first mooted, Sir Thomas gave all the help he could. He was bound to give up Coleraine to the King if required for a garrison or corporate town, but received a grant of Limavady in exchange for his other possessions. He went over to England with a strong recommendation from Chichester, and enlarged there upon the profits to be expected by the Londoners. When the agents of the City arrived in Ulster he accompanied them in their tour and gave all the help he could. ‘At Toome,’ he says, ‘I caused some ore to be sent for of which the smith made iron before their faces, and of the iron made steel in less than one hour. Mr. Broad, one of the agents for the City, who has skill in such things, says that this poor smith has better satisfied him than Germans and others that presume much of their skill.’ He showed the agents the woods and fisheries. With the exception of Phillips’s lands and those belonging to the Church all the country outside the liberties of the two corporations was divided among the twelve City companies.[69]

Slow progress of the work.

Activity of the Londoners.

Towards the close of 1610 it became evident that the settlement of Ulster could not be completed for some time. It was scarcely, Chichester said, ‘a work for private men who expect a present profit, or to be performed without blows or opposition.’ Jesuits and friars were busy in exciting the people and inducing them to expect Tyrone’s return, and they always found means to communicate with the fugitives abroad. A still greater cause for discontent was the way in which the land had been divided. Chichester ‘conceived that one-half of each county would have been left assigned to natives; but now they have but one barony in a county and in some counties less.’ He had protested against this all along, but with little effect. The Irish, Davies said, objected to be small freeholders, as they would be obliged to serve on juries and spend double the value of their land at sessions and assizes. They all preferred to be under a master, and they did not much care what master provided he were on the spot with will and power to protect them. They would live contentedly enough as tenants under any one, even a Protestant bishop, ‘as young pheasants do under the wings of a home-hen though she be not their natural mother.’ But when the time came the natives found that half a loaf was better than no bread, and accepted the lands allotted to them. The Londoners, having more capital and better support than the other undertakers, had got to work the quickest, and the Attorney-General was so struck by the preparations at Coleraine, that he was reminded of ‘Dido’s colony building of Carthage,’ and quoted Virgil’s description of the scene. Four months later he reported that undertakers were coming over by every passage, ‘so that by the end of summer the wilderness of Ulster will have a more civil form.’ Barnaby Rich, who had written many books about the country, was even more optimistic. Being asked sixteen times in one week what he thought of the new plantation, he answered that Ireland was now as safe as Cheapside: ‘the rebels shall never more stand out hereafter, as they have done in times past.’[70]

English and Scots compared.

Chichester was a good deal less sanguine than Davies both as to present and future. The English undertakers were with few exceptions not quite of the right kind. They were plain country gentlemen not apparently possessed of much money, and not very willing to lay out what they had. Many sought only for present advantage, and sold their claims to anyone who would buy. The Scotch were perhaps poorer, but they came with more followers and persuaded the natives to work for them by promising to get the King’s leave for them to remain as tenants. The Irish were ready to do anything to avoid ‘removing from the place of their birth and education, hoping at one time or other to find an opportunity to cut their landlords’ throats; for they hate the Scottish deadly, and out of their malice towards them they begin to affect the English better than they have been accustomed.’ In the meantime they provided concealed arms. Three years later it was found that the Scotch were very much inclined to marry Irish girls, for which reproof and punishment were prescribed by the King lest the whole settlement should degenerate into an Irish country. The best chance, Chichester thought, was to induce as many old tried officers as possible to settle upon the land. The natives had learned to obey them, and they knew what could and what could not be done. There was, however, a tendency in high quarters to provide for young Scotch gentlemen, and to neglect ‘ancienter captains and of far better worth and desert’ who knew the country well. Sir Oliver Lambert was sent over to represent the case of the veterans, not as the best orator but because he had ‘long travelled and bled in the business when it was at the worst, and had seen many alterations since he first came into the land.’[71]

Mission of Carew, 1611.

James was puzzled by conflicting accounts, and reminded Chichester that he had followed his guidance more closely than any king had ever followed any governor. In order that he might have someone thoroughly informed to apply to he sent over a special commissioner, who was to view the plantation as far as it had got and advise generally as to how the Irish Government might be made financially self-supporting. The person chosen was the famous ex-president of Munster, now Lord Carew, who as Vice-Chamberlain of the Queen’s household would always be at hand. Special letters were at the same time sent to Clanricarde and Thomond, who were personal friends of Carew’s. The King seems to have been struck by Chichester’s often reiterated opinion that sufficient provision had not been made for the natives in the escheated counties, and he directed Chichester and Carew to find out ‘how his Majesty may without breach of justice make use of the notorious omissions and forfeitures made by the undertakers of Munster, for supply of some such portion of land as may be necessary for transplanting the natives of Ulster.’[72]

His prophecy,

Carew left Dublin on July 30 accompanied by Chichester, Ridgeway, Wingfield, and Lambert. For three weeks there was unceasing rain, and Carew was near being drowned in fording a flooded river. The commissioners found large numbers of Irish still upon lands from which they ought to have departed according to the theory of the plantation, and at Ballyshannon they addressed a warrant to the sheriff of each escheated county to remove them all by May 1 next. The work was, however, being imperfectly done, and Carew’s real opinions may best be gathered from a paper drawn up by him three years later. Formerly, he said, there was always a strong royalist party among the older population of Ireland, but religious feeling had brought the old English and the native Irish much nearer together. Many had learned something of war abroad, and something also of policy, and they would have the advantage of giving the first blow. They would ‘rebel under the veil of religion and liberty, than which nothing is esteemed so precious in the hearts of men,’ and even the inhabitants of the Pale would be drawn in for the first time in history. ‘For this cause, in odium tertii, the slaughters and rivers of blood shed between them is forgotten and the intrusions made by themselves or their ancestors on either part for title of land is remitted.’

which was fulfilled.

A settler’s precautions.

Tyrone’s return was still looked for, and if that were unlikely on account of his age, there was always the chance of a foreign invasion. If the King of Spain sent 10,000 men into Ireland ‘armed with the Pope’s indulgences and excommunications,’ all the modern English and Scotch would be instantly massacred in their houses, ‘which is not difficult to execute in a moment by reason they are dispersed, and the natives’ swords will be in their throats in every part of the realm like the Sicilian Vespers, before the cloud of mischief shall disappear.’ The reconquest would be a Herculean labour. Citadels at Waterford, Cork, and some other places, and a small standing army always ready to move were the chief precautions to be taken. Carew was a true prophet, though the crisis did not come in his lifetime. Officers from the Netherlands, indulgences and excommunications, with occasional supplies of arms and ammunition, but without the 10,000 men of Spain, were enough to maintain a ten years’ war, and the labour of ending it was indeed Herculean.[73]

Chichester’s long experience as governor of Carrickfergus before he assumed the government, had not led him to think the Ulster Irish irreclaimable. By giving them as much land as they could manage properly, along with the example of better farmers from England and Scotland, he hoped to make them into tolerably peaceful subjects. The undertakers, however, were of course chiefly actuated by considerations of profit, and at first regarded the natives as a mere hindrance, though afterwards they learned to value their help and sometimes to be on very good terms with them. Among the first adventurers was Thomas Blenerhasset, of Horseford, in Norfolk, who was more or less joined in the enterprise with several other East Anglians. He has left us an account of how the thing struck him in 1610, and he was from the first of opinion that the main point was to guard against ‘the cruel wood-kerne, the devouring wolf, and other suspicious Irish.’ He had been with Chichester at Lifford, and learned among other things that Sir Toby Caulfield, who was not at all an unpopular man, had to drive in his cattle every night, ‘and do he and his what they can, the wolf and the wood-kerne, within caliver shot of his fort, have often times a share.’ At first he had agreed with Bacon that isolated castles could not be maintained so as to guard a settlement, but while modifying this idea somewhat, he still held that a strong town was the best guarantee for peace. He contemplated a state of things in which the burghers of Lifford, Omagh, Enniskillen, Dungannon, and Coleraine should frequently sally forth in bands of 100 at a time from each place, join their forces when necessary, and discover every hole, cave, and lurking place, ‘and no doubt it will be a pleasant hunt and much prey will fall to the followers.’ Even the wolf would be scared by these means, and ‘those good fellows in trowzes’ the wandering herdsmen would no longer listen to revolutionary counsels or shelter the lurking wood-kerne. Blenerhasset had a grant of 1,500 acres in Fermanagh on the east side of Lough Erne. When Pynnar saw the place after eight years’ work he found the undertaker’s wife and family living in a good stone house with a defensible courtyard. Over 250 acres was leased to tenants for life or years, and there were a few English cottages with the beginnings of a church. It was supposed that twenty-six men were available, ‘but I saw them not, for the undertakers and many of the tenants were absent.’

The settlers outnumbered.

In partnership with his kinsman Sir Edward, Blenerhasset had also an adjacent property of 1,000 acres which had been originally granted to John Thurston of Suffolk, and upon this Pynnar found ‘nothing at all built and all the land inhabited with Irish,’ whose names as they stood in 1629 have been preserved. Sir Edward Blenerhasset and his son Francis had another lot upon which there were twenty-two British families and no Irish, ‘but the undertaker was in England.’ The natives upon one of these three portions were no doubt more numerous than the English on the other two, and they were always there, and there is evidence to show that even where Pynnar found none there were many ten years later.[74]

Position of the natives.

If Chichester’s plan of providing for the Ulster Irish first and giving the surplus land to colonists had been carried out, there might have been some chance of a peaceful settlement. Without much capital or agricultural skill the natives would probably have remained poor, and the remnant of the chiefs would have certainly gone on trying to live in the old profuse way with diminished means; but there would have been many conservative forces at work, for most men would have had something to lose. As it was both gentlemen and kerne remained in considerable numbers, and never ceased to hope for a return to the old system. They felt themselves in an inferior position, but were never able to make a serious move until the difficulties of Charles I. with Scotland and with the English Parliament paralysed the central government. The Munster precedent ought to have given warning enough, but the means of defence possessed by the colonists were very inadequate, and the army was small. The natives had still a great numerical preponderance in Ulster, though they retained but a fraction of the land, and the colonists were not so well armed as to make up the difference. A muster taken after 1628 gives 13,092 as the total number of British men in the province, and of these only 7,336, or not much more than half, were in the escheated counties. Down, which was outside the plantation scheme, contained 4,045. The province possessed but 1,920 stand of firearms, muskets, calivers and snaphaunces, and there were not even swords or pikes for all. Any smith could make a pike, and swords were easily hidden, so that the colonists had but little advantage if regular troops are left out of the account. Lord Conway saw the necessity of protecting his property against the kerne, but the arms which he provided were stopped in Lancashire, and he had to appeal to the English Government for leave. Yet the Lord Deputy had already received strict orders to see that the tenants of Ulster undertakers were trained, and to take care that they were not fraudulently counted in among the soldiers of paid regiments.[75]

Bodley’s survey, 1615.

Pynnar’s survey, 1618-19.

To the end of his life James continued to take a great interest in the Ulster settlement, and was impatient when slow progress was reported. Sir Josiah Bodley, who had former experience to help him, made a general survey or inspection, which was concluded early in 1615. The result was disappointing, very few having carried out their engagements to the full. Some had built without planting, others had planted without building, and in general they retained the Irish style to avoid which was a fundamental reason for the enterprise. The Londoners and other defaulters were given till the end of August 1616 to make good their shortcomings, and some advance was made in consequence of the King’s threats. The survey so well known as Pynnar’s followed at the end of 1618. Pynnar found that in the six counties there were 1,974 British families, including 6,215 men having arms and being capable of bearing them. One hundred and twenty-six castles had been built and forty-two walled enclosures without houses. Of substantial unfortified houses Pynnar saw 1,897, and he heard of a good many more, but he thought it very doubtful whether the colony would endure. ‘My reason,’ he says, ‘is that many of the English tenants do not yet plough upon the lands, neither use husbandry.’ They had not confidence enough to provide themselves with servants or cattle, and much of the land was grazed by Irish stockholders, who contributed nothing to the general security. There might be starvation but for the Scottish tenants, who tilled a great deal. The Irish graziers were more immediately profitable than English tenants, and their competition kept up the rents. The Irish, though indispensable, were dangerous, and there were more of them on the Londoners’ lands than anywhere else. The agents indeed discouraged British settlers, persuading their employers at home that the land was bad, and so securing the higher rents which native graziers were ready to give or at least to promise. ‘Take it from me,’ said Bacon, ‘that the bane of a plantation is when the undertakers or planters make such haste to a little mechanical present profit, as disturbeth the whole frame and nobleness of the work for times to come.’[76]

Fresh survey in 1622.

Four years later there was yet another survey which may be taken to describe the state of the colony at the end of James I.’s reign. The commissioners, who divided the work among themselves, reported that much had been done, but that the conditions insisted on by the King had on the whole not been performed. Many of the undertakers were non-resident, their agents retained native tenants and the British settlers complained that ‘the Irish were countenanced by their landlords against them.’ But few freeholders were made, rents were too high, and covenants too stringent. Some promised leases informally ‘which giveth such as are unconscionable power to put poor men out of their holdings when they have builded with confidence of settlement.’ Much building was badly done, and instead of encouraging villages the undertakers dispersed their tenants ‘in woods and coverts subject to the malice of any kerne to rob, kill, and burn them and their houses.’ Copies of the conditions to which undertakers were bound could not be had, and so the humbler settlers were at their mercy and that of their agents and lawyers. The servitors were rather better than the undertakers, but their faults were of the same kind, and they also were ‘so dispersed that a few kerne might easily take victuals from them by force if they gave it not willingly.’ The Irish grantees as a rule built nothing, and their enclosures made with sods were valueless. They made no estate of any kind to their tenants, but kept to the old Irish exactions, and they ploughed in the ‘Irish barbarous manner by the tails of their garrons.’ The commissioners recommended that the King should give new patents instead of those which deserve to be forfeited. A full fourth part of the undertaken lands should be leased for twenty-one years or lives to the Irish on condition of living in villages, going to church, wearing English clothes, ploughing in English fashion, bringing up their children to learning an industry, and enclosing at least a fourth of their cultivated land. Undertakers were to be fined if they took Irish tenants or graziers on any other terms, and alienation for any longer term was to involve forfeiture.[77]

The natives not transplanted.

Whether as tenants, graziers, or labourers, the Irish inhabitants were found indispensable. Early in 1624 their stay was officially sanctioned, pending inquiry, and in 1626 there was a further extension to May 1628, and after that for another year; but neither then nor later was the transplantation really carried out. The undertakers, or some of them, had indeed their own grievances. Having been unable to perform their covenants strictly, and being afraid of forfeiture, some of them offered to submit to a double rent and other penalties, in consideration of a fresh title, but this arrangement was not carried out. The result of the uncertainty was that hundreds of British families gave up the idea of settling and went away, while the Irish held on desperately whether the legal landlords liked it or not.[78]

The Londoners criticised.

The first school.

Sir Thomas Phillips, officially described as ‘a brave soldier all his life,’ kept O’Cahan’s castle at Limavady in good repair, with drawbridge, moat, and two tiers of cannon. His two-storied residence, slated, with garden, orchard, and dovecote, stood by, and a mile from it he had built a village of eighteen small houses. He was thus in a position to criticise both Londonderry and Coleraine, and was much disgusted at the Londoners’ proceedings. It seemed to him that they cared only for present profit, and made very little attempt to carry out the conditions of their grant. The new city was, indeed, well walled when Pynnar saw it, but the gates were incomplete and the inhabitants not nearly enough to defend so great a circuit. Phillips was employed both by St. John and Falkland to superintend the settlement, and in the survey of 1622 he was associated with Richard Hadsor, a practised official who could speak Irish. Thomas Raven, employed as surveyor by the Londoners, evidently thought Phillips right in the main, but was shy about giving information, though anxious to do so in obedience to actual orders. The number of inhabitants in Londonderry had slightly increased, but 300 more houses would be required ere the walls could be properly manned. There were actually 109 families living in stone houses, and about twelve more in cabins, but not more than 110 armed men were available in the town, and about half that number outside. There was no church except a corner of the old monastery which had been repaired before O’Dogherty’s rising, and it would not hold half the people, few as they were. Near it, however, was ‘a fair free school of lime and stone, slated, with a base-court of lime and stone about it built at the charges of Matthias Springham of London, merchant, deceased.’ Twelve guns were mounted on the fort at Culmore. At Coleraine the number of men was nearly as great as at Londonderry, but the walls or ramparts were of earth, not faced with stones, and subject to frequent crumblings. There was a small church with a bell. The great want at this place was a bridge, and it was thought by some that the Londoners were unwilling to supply it, because they made so much by the ferry. The estates of the twelve companies were perhaps in proportion rather better managed than those of the city of London itself, but there were the same complaints everywhere of insufficient encouragement to settlers, of leases withheld or delayed, and of Irish tenants who would promise any rent being preferred to British colonists. Phillips thought there were about 4,000 adult males in the whole county, of whom three-fourths were Irish. Of the remaining quarter not two-thirds were capable of bearing arms effectively, and in the last year of James’s reign Phillips declared his belief that the colonists were really at the mercy of the natives. The towns, such as they were, seemed ‘rather baits to ill-affected persons than places of security,’ and there were so many robberies and murders that fresh settlers were hardly to be expected.[79]

English, Scotch and Irish.

The original idea of the plantation was to settle English and Scotch undertakers in about equal numbers. The Scotch on the whole made the best settlers, in spite of, or possibly in consequence of, their tendency to intermarry with the Irish, and there can be no doubt that the ecclesiastical policy of James and Charles drove many Presbyterians from their own country to Ulster. The chiefs of the Hamiltons and Montgomeries might favour the official Church, but Strafford found his most determined enemies among the humbler Scots, and he seriously thought of banishing them all. Even under Cromwell they did not get on too well with the English, but in the long run Anglicanism and Presbyterianism combined sufficiently to give a permanently Protestant tone to the northern province. The rebellion of 1641 prevented the colonists from dividing their forces as they might otherwise have done, and the alliance held good in 1688, and even, after a very short hesitation, in 1798. By the partiality of James a very great quantity of land was given to the Church, and especially to the Bishops, most of whom did not do very much for the common defence. Of the whole land granted in the six escheated counties, little more than one-tenth was given as property to the natives; the rest of them lived chiefly as dependants on the undertakers, and without legal interest in the land which they were forced to till for a subsistence. And there were a large number whose business had been fighting, and who lived on those who worked when there was no longer any fighting to be done. Thus very few of the Ulster Irish had anything to lose by a successful revolt, and many might think they had a great deal to gain. The acreage of the grants was far less than the actual contents of the different counties, and thus there was still plenty of room for the nomad herdsmen whose descendants flocked to Owen Roe’s standard.

Distribution of land.

From what seems to be authentic abstracts it appears that out of a nominal total of 511,465 acres in the escheated counties rather more than two-fifths were assigned to British undertakers. Outside of the Londoners’ district at least, the shares of Scotch and English grantees were about equal. Rather more than one-fifth went to the Church, including 12,300 acres for education, and rather more than one-fifth to servitors and natives combined, about 60,000 acres to patentees outside the settlement, and something over 6,000 acres to individual Irishmen of whom Connor Roe Maguire’s share was the largest. To servitors and natives about an equal area was given; but the latter were many times as numerous, so that their lots were very small, often as little as forty or fifty acres. 8,536 acres were devoted to schools at Enniskillen and Mountnorris, and to sites for towns at those places, as well as at Dungannon, Rathmullen, and Virginia. Many sales, exchanges, and dispositions by will were made during the reign of James, but the proportional distribution remained about the same.[80]

Results and expectations.

The permanent effects of the Ulster settlement have been very great, though statesmen like Carew could see that there were many dangers ahead. The tone of the Court and of all who wished to please the King by prophesying smooth things may be gathered from the masque which Ben Jonson produced at Somerset’s marriage. Four Irishmen are brought on the stage, who speak in an almost unintelligible jargon. An epilogue in verse alludes to the plantation, whereby James was to raise Ireland from barbarism and poverty, ‘and in her all the fruits of blessing plant.’ The letter-writer Chamberlain says many people disliked the performance, thinking it ‘no time as the case stands to exasperate the nation by making it ridiculous.’ And most modern readers will be of the same opinion.[81]

FOOTNOTES:

[55] Le Case de Gavelkind, 3 Jac., and Le Case de Tanistry, 5 Jac., in Davies’ reports, 1628.

[56] A Ballyboe varied from sixty to 120 acres, and a Ballybetagh was about 1,000. An introduction to the very large and complicated question of Celtic tenures may be had through Maine’s Early History of Institutions and Joyce’s Social History of Ancient Ireland, 1903.

[57] Fenton to Salisbury, September 9, 1607; Chichester to same, September 17; St. John to same, October 9; Salisbury to Chichester and Privy Council to same, September 27.

[58] Chichester to Salisbury, October 2, 1605; to the King, October 31, 1610. Bacon to Davies, October 23, 1607, in Spedding’s Life, iv. 5, and his ‘Considerations touching the plantation of Ireland, presented to the King’ on January 1, 1608-9, ib. pp. 123-125.

[59] Hill’s Montgomery MSS., p. 19.

[60] Letters of Mrs. Susan Montgomery (née Stayning) in Part III. of Trevelyan Papers (Camden Society), May 20, 1605; August 21, 1606; October 8, 1606 (from Derry). Bishop Montgomery’s letter of February 16, 1614, ib.

[61] The King to Chichester, May 2, 1606; Bishop Montgomery to Salisbury, July 1, 1607; Chichester to Salisbury, January 26, 1607; Tyrone’s petition calendared at 1606 No. 89 with the references there; Davies to Salisbury, August 28, 1609; Todd’s St. Patrick, p. 160. The speculations of Ussher and Ware on this subject are obsolete.

[62] Davies to Salisbury, August 5, 1608.

[63] Instructions to Ley and Davies, October 14, 1608; Chichester to the King, October 15, and to Salisbury, October 18; Project of the Committee for the plantation of Tyrone, December 20.

[64] ‘Orders and Conditions of Plantation,’ printed in Harris’s Hibernica, p. 63, and in Hill’s Plantation in Ulster, p. 78. Project for the Plantation in Carew, dated January 23, 1608, but evidently belonging to 1608-9; it does for the other escheated counties what was done for Tyrone only in the MS. dated December 20, 1608.

[65] Chichester to the Privy Council, March 10, 1609, and to Davies, March 31.

[66] The Commission is calendared at July 19, 1609, and printed in Harris’s Hibernica, and by Hill. Davies to Salisbury, August 28, 1609.

[67] The ‘Project,’ dated January 23, 1608-9, is printed in Carew, vi. 13, in Harris’s Hibernica, 53, and in Hill’s Plantation of Ulster, 90. The passages concerning Lord Audley and his family are collected by Hill.

[68] The negotiations are detailed in Hill’s Plantation. Instructions to Sir John Bourchier, May 1611.

[69] Chichester to Cecil, June 8, 1604; Phillips to Salisbury, May 10, 1608, September 24, 1609; Chichester to Salisbury, April 7, 1609. A tolerable understanding of the Ulster settlement generally, and of the Londoners in particular, may be arrived at through Hill’s Plantation in Ulster, 1877, and J. C. Beresford’s Concise View of the Irish Society, 1842.

[70] Davies to Salisbury, September 24, 1610. A more elaborate version, intended probably for private circulation, is printed from a Harleian MS. in Davies’ Tracts and dated November 8. Same to same, January 21, 1610-11. B. Rich’s New Description of Ireland, London, 1610, dedicated to Salisbury.

[71] Chichester to Salisbury, November 1610 (No. 915 in Cal.); the King to Lord Chichester, June 5, 1614.

[72] Chichester to the King and to Northampton, October 31, 1610; Davies to Salisbury, September 24. The instructions to Carew with the King’s letter to Chichester, Clanricarde, and Thomond are all in Carew, June 24, 1611.

[73] Diary of Lord Carew’s journey in 1611 in Carew, No. 126; ib. No. 156; Carew to Salisbury, September 6, 1611.

[74] Blenerhasset’s ‘Direction for the Plantation of Ulster’, 1610, is reprinted in Contemporary History, i. 317.

[75] The Ulster muster-roll printed in Contemp. Hist., i. 332 from Add. MS. 4770, mentions the Earldom of Fingal, which was not created till 1628. Directions to the Lord Deputy, 1626, No. 521. Lord Conway to the Lord Treasurer, January 4, 1628.

[76] The King to Chichester, March 25, 1615; Pynnar’s Survey, 1618-19, printed by Hill and in Harris’s Hibernica; Bacon’s speech in 1617 in Spedding’s Life, vi. 206.

[77] Brief return of the 1822 survey in Sloane MS. 4756.

[78] Proclamation of December 13, 1627, in the Irish R.O.

[79] The last volume of Russell’s and Prendergast’s Calendar passim, especially T. Raven to Phillips, June 24, 1621; Survey of the Londoners’ Plantation, August 10 to October 10, 1622; Phillips’s petition to the King, July 6, 1624, and his proposed remedies, September 24.

[80] Three papers among the Carew MSS. for 1611 calendared as Nos. 130, 131, and 132.

[81] Nicoll’s Progresses of King James, ii. 733, where Chamberlain’s letter to Carleton is dated January 5, 1513-14.

[CHAPTER VI]
CHICHESTER’S GOVERNMENT TO 1613

Optimism of Sir John Davies.

Establishment of circuits

In the course of a very thorough investigation Carew found that while much had been done by the settlers, much still remained to do. There were indeed many surveys and inquiries yet to come, before the outbreaks which he foresaw. He knew Ireland thoroughly, and was not to be deceived by false appearances of quiet and contentment. Davies, whose acquaintance with the island was of much later date, remained optimistic. ‘When this plantation,’ he wrote in 1613, ‘hath taken root, and been fixed and settled but a few years ... it will secure the peace of Ireland, assure it to the Crown of England for ever; and finally make it a civil, and a rich, a mighty, and a flourishing kingdom.’ He had been one of the first commissioners of assize who ever sat in Tyrone and Tyrconnel, and the justice which he administered, ‘though it was somewhat distasteful to the Irish lords, was sweet and most welcome to the common people.’ Davies has left a pretty full account of some of his various circuits. He visited every part of Ireland, and as his power of observation and description were unusually great it may be as well to follow him in his journeys. General peace having been made possible, first by arms and afterwards by an Act of Oblivion, it was from the establishment of justice that the greatest good was to be expected, and it was necessary to make it visible by regular assizes held in every county. ‘These progresses of the law,’ Davies wrote, ‘renew and confirm the conquest of Ireland every half year, and supply the defect of the King’s absence in every part of the Realm; in that every judge sitting in the seat of justice, doth represent the person of the King himself.’[82]

Leinster Assizes, 1604.

King’s and Queen’s Counties.

Carlow and Wexford.

Churches in ruins.

Poverty of priests and people.

Davies’s first assize appears to have been in Leinster in the spring of 1604. The country was on the whole quiet, and the gaols only half full of petty thieves. As for the King’s and Queen’s counties, the O’Mores and O’Connors had been nearly rooted out by the war: ‘the English families there begin to govern the country, and such of the Irishry as remain, such as M’Coghlan, O’Molloy, O’Doyn, O’Dempsey, they seem to conform themselves to a civil life, and gave their attendance very dutifully.’ Carlow and Wexford, however, were infested by a band of 100 kerne, Donnel Spaniagh Kavanagh and the sons of Feagh MacHugh O’Byrne being at the bottom of the mischief. Pardons had always been granted so easily that the outlaws had little to fear. At Carlow it appeared that there had lately been a conference between Tyrone, Mountgarret, Phelim and Redmond MacFeagh O’Byrne and Donnel Spaniagh. There was much drinking and swords were drawn. Davies did not know the object of the meeting, but dared affirm that it was not that religion and peace might be established in this kingdom. As for religion, indeed, there would be good hope of filling the churches if they were first repaired. In fact he found them everywhere in ruins, and the State clergy were lazy and ignorant, which did more harm than could be done by the diligence of priests and Jesuits whose object was political and not religious, but only ‘to serve the turn of Tyrone and the King of Spain. They would be glad to be banished by proclamation, for they that go up and down the Cross of Tipperary get nothing but bacon and oatmeal, the people are so poor.’[83]

Justice in Connaught.

In Ulster.

In Munster.

Assizes at Waterford

At Cork, 1606

Later in the year Davies was with Lord Clanricarde at Athlone, where he held his presidential court. Clanricarde, though he had but a weak council, not only did his business very well, but kept house in a very honourable fashion. It had been reported on both sides of the Channel that Lady Clanricarde, the daughter of Walsingham, the widow of Sidney and Essex, was not satisfied with her position, but he found her ‘very well contented and every way as well served as ever he saw her in England.’ Davies was in London during part of the following year. He was on circuit as commissioner of assize in Ulster before leaving Ireland, and in the spring of 1606 after his appointment as Attorney-General he was associated with Chief Justice Walshe as circuit-judge in Munster. The arrangement was contrary to modern ideas, but no doubt it was convenient to have a judge who could draw bills of indictment himself and afterwards pronounce upon their validity. He rightly thought Munster the finest province of the four, but it had one thing in common with Ulster, and that was the readiness of the people to accept the services of the judges. The poor northern people were glad to escape from the lewd Brehons who knew no other law but the will of the chief lords, and the Munster men, though not dissatisfied with the President, felt that the local justices might have interested motives, and were ‘glad to see strangers joined with them, and seemed to like the aspect of us that were planets, as well as that of their own fixed stars.’ At Waterford, where they held their first sittings, the judges found very few prisoners that were not ‘bastard imps of the Powers and Geraldines of the Decies.’ They always had cousins on the jury, and no convictions could be had unless the evidence was absolutely clear, when threats of the Star Chamber generally produced a verdict. The ‘promiscuous generation of bastards’ he believed due to slack government both civil and ecclesiastical. They were considered just as good as the lawful children, and commonly shared the inheritance as well as the name. ‘I may truly affirm,’ he said, ‘that there are more able men of the surname of the Bourkes than of any name whatsoever in Europe.’ And so it was with all the great families, whether Anglo-Norman or Celtic. To scatter and break up these clannish combinations appeared to Davies an excellent policy. The judges slept at Dungarvan and Youghal, where they saw the chief people, dined with Lord Barrymore on their way to Cork, and found the gaols there pretty full. They lectured the chief gentry upon their addiction to ‘coshery and other Irish occupations,’ in spite of the King’s proclamation.[84]

Assizes for Limerick

and Clare.

At Mallow Davies stayed at Lady Norris’s house ‘by a fair river in a fruitful soil, but yet much unrepaired and bearing many marks of the late rebellion.’ From Mallow the judges went by Kilmallock through ‘a sweet and fertile country to Limerick, where the walls, buildings, and anchorage were all that could be wished; yet such is the sloth of the inhabitants that all these fair structures have nothing but sluttishness and poverty within.’ They held first the assizes for Clare, of which Lord Thomond was governor. He and Lord Bourke had provided a large house on the right bank of the Shannon, so that Limerick served as quarters for both counties. In Clare, said Davies, ‘when I beheld the appearance and fashion of the people I would I had been in Ulster again, for these are as much mere Irish as they, and in their outward form not much unlike them,’ but speaking good English and understanding the proceedings well enough. He found the principal gentry civilised, but the common people behind those of Munster, though much might be hoped from Lord Thomond’s example. Having delivered the gaols, the judges considered how they might cut off Maurice McGibbon Duff and Redmond Purcell, ‘notorious thieves, or, as they term them, rebels,’ who were allied to and protected by the White Knight and by Purcell of Loughmoe in Tipperary. Purcell was enticed into a private house and given up to the Lord President, who promptly hanged him, as well as ‘many fat ones’ who sheltered Maurice McGibbon, but the latter seems to have escaped for the time, though snares were laid for him on all sides.[85]

Assizes at Clonmel.

From Limerick by Cashel, ‘over the most rich and delightful valley,’ the judges came to Clonmel, the capital of Ormonde’s palatinate, and ‘more haunted with Jesuits and priests’ than any place in Munster. There was evidence to show that some of them were privy to the Gunpowder Plot, and yet all the principal inhabitants refused any indulgence founded upon a promise to exclude them from their houses. A true bill for recusancy was found with some difficulty against 200 of the townsmen, and the chief of them were handed over to the Lord President ‘to be censured with good round fines and imprisonment.’ From Clonmel Davies went to rest on Easter Sunday at Ormonde’s house at Carrick-on-Suir. The old chief, who was blind and ill, insisted on his staying over St. George’s day, ‘when he was not able to sit up, but had his robes laid upon his bed, as the manner is.’[86]

Grand jury and petty juries at Monaghan

How the gentry lived.

Assizes for Fermanagh,

and Cavan, 1606.

On July 21 Chichester, accompanied by the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justice, and by Davies, who was again joined in commission with the judges, left Drogheda for Monaghan. Fifty or sixty horse and as many foot soldiers were now considered escort enough where a thousand were formerly necessary. At Monaghan, which was only a collection of cabins, the grand jury found true bills without any difficulty, but when it came to the trial of prisoners the petty juries ‘did acquit them as fast and found them not guilty, but whether it was done for favour or for fear it is hard to judge.’ The whole county was inhabited by three or four clans, and every man was tried by his relations, who were naturally very unwilling to serve as jurors. If they convicted any one they were in danger of being killed or robbed, and of having their houses burned. The only plan suggesting itself to the judges was to fine and imprison those who had given verdicts manifestly against the evidence, and two notorious thieves were then found guilty and executed. The principal gentlemen of the district lived upon beef stolen out of the Pale, ‘for which purpose every one of them keepeth a cunning thief, which he calleth his Cater.’ Two of these gentlemen were indicted as receivers, but were pardoned after confession upon their knees, ‘so that I believe stolen flesh will not be so sweet unto them hereafter.’ In Fermanagh, being further from the Pale, this system of purveyance was not so perfectly established, but there was no lack of malefactors. The assizes were held at Devenish near Enniskillen, but all prisoners were acquitted, owing to the careless way in which the evidence had been prepared by the sheriff and the local justices. At Cavan better order was kept, and several civil suits were decided, and the circuit through the three counties was completed in a month. While the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were delivering the gaols and hearing causes, the Lord Deputy and the Lord Chancellor were occupied with inquiries into the tenure of land. The inhabitants were invited to say what lands they actually possessed, and to set forth all their titles. The evidence thus collected was carried back to Dublin, where it could be sifted and compared with the records.[87]

The Act of Supremacy at Waterford, 1606,

at New Ross,

at Wexford,

and at Wicklow.

Rival hierarchies.

In September, 1606, Davies accompanied the Chief Justice to Waterford, where the chief business was to impose fines for recusancy. Aldermen were prosecuted in the presidency court, the total sum exacted being less than 400l. Others were indicted under the statute of Elizabeth to recover the penalty of one shilling for absence from Church, and about 240l. was raised in this way. A special jury was empanelled and a sort of commission to inquire into the ecclesiastical state of the county, and the judges then proceeded to New Ross, where they found that occasional conformity was practised, and that there was sometimes riotous brawling to ‘disturb the poor minister from making a sermon which he had prepared for his small auditory,’ and even in celebrating the Sacrament. The sovereign of the town was foremost on these occasions. The leaders were cited before the Star Chamber, and the common people were prosecuted for the shilling fine. At Wexford there were many prisoners, and one was condemned and executed for burning down the Protestant vicar’s house. There were 300 civil bills, and even Donell Spaniagh showed an inclination to substitute litigation for cattle-stealing. At Wicklow assizes were held for the newly made shire, and two ‘notable thieves in the nature of rebels’ were hanged. Here, as at Wexford, there seemed a general inclination to accept the new system, and Feagh McHugh’s son was as litigious as Donell Spaniagh. Here, as at Waterford, an inquisition was ordered into the state of the church, but Davies could not see how fitting incumbents were to be provided. The bishoprics were ‘supplied double,’ one by the King and one by the Pope, but the result was not to advance religion.[88]

Compulsory church-going, 1607.

In the following summer Davies made a circuit in Meath, Westmeath, Longford, King’s County and Queen’s County. The country was peaceful and the relentless enforcement of the shilling fine for every Sunday’s and holiday’s absence from service had the effect of filling the town churches, but this reformation was ‘principally effected by the civil magistrate,’ for ruined churches and absentee incumbents were general throughout the country. The flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnel soon after made no difference at all in the state of the country generally, and the courts in Dublin were crowded with suitors from all parts of the kingdom.[89]

The Act of Uniformity in Ulster, 1611.

Andrew Knox.

The rival churches in Dublin.

One of the most active promoters of uniformity was Andrew Knox, Bishop of the Isles, who was appointed to Raphoe in the summer of 1610, but without resigning the first see. After visiting his new diocese, he went to Court and gave such an account of Ulster as to bring on one of the King’s hot fits in the matter of enforced conformity. In his old age Knox learned that Protestants in Ireland could not afford to be divided, and was ready to stretch a point so as to include his Presbyterian fellow-countrymen in the ministry. But in his more pugnacious days he was intent on the impossible task of driving the Roman Catholic population to conform. The result of his representations was an order from James himself directing that the Ulster bishops should meet for the purpose of suppressing Papistry and enforcing uniformity. Each prelate was to visit every parish in his diocese annually, to administer the oath of allegiance to all persons of note, whether spiritual or temporal, to have Jesuits, seminary priests, and friars arrested and brought to the Lord Deputy, and to let no ecclesiastic of foreign ordination enjoy benefice or cure unless he would use the book of Common Prayer. The bishops were to be active in teaching and catechising for the purpose of reclaiming recusants, to repair ruined churches, and to appoint fit pastors, ‘or at least for the present such as can read the service of the Church of England to the common people in the language which they understand’—that is to say, for the most part in Irish. The exact method was left to Chichester’s discretion, and only four days after the date of James’s letter the Council informed the Lord Deputy that his Majesty had considered how the people were blinded by the Jesuits, and that he might introduce reforms gradually. The latter letter reached Chichester long before the other, but a meeting of bishops not confined to those of the northern province was held in Dublin in June, and while waiting for the arrival of his brethren Knox preached in the Dublin churches. He found that congregations of several hundreds had been reduced to half a dozen, that the clergy of the Establishment, with few exceptions, were careless and inefficient, and that the Papal clergy were active and well supported. The cargoes of ships unloading in Dublin harbour seemed to consist principally of ‘books, clothes, crosses, and ceremonies.’ And still he had good hopes of banishing all these things out of Ulster. Chichester, who was better informed and therefore less sanguine, reported that he had carried out the King’s orders as far as possible, and he republished the proclamation of June 1605. The oath of allegiance he had no legal power to administer. The only practical result of it all was the execution of Bishop O’Devany and some other priests, which certainly did not help the cause of the Reformation.[90]

Chichester deports Irishmen to Sweden, 1609-1613.

The Swedish service unpopular.

Others are sent to Poland.

When giving an account of his stewardship in 1614, Chichester took credit for having sent 6,000 disaffected Irishmen to the wars in Sweden. In the main these were the Ulster swordsmen, for whom it was found impossible to find room in Ireland, but some masterless Englishmen and not a few town idlers were included contrary to the Lord Deputy’s orders, and privates sought the ranks as an alternative for the gallows. The majority were partly coaxed into going and partly pressed, nor was the transfer effected without disorder. In the autumn of 1609 three ships left Lough Foyle with 800 men, and another was ready with a full cargo at Carlingford, but the Irish mutinied at the instigation of Hugh Boy O’Neill, ran the vessel on a bank, smashed the compasses, and would have done more mischief if troops had not been soon at hand. Three or four mutineers were ordered for ‘exemplary punishment,’ and were probably hanged, but Hugh Boy escaped and is no more heard of. The ship was got off, but was still unlucky, losing all her rigging in a storm and being with difficulty towed off the coast of Man into a Scotch harbour. There another craft was hired and the voyage continued, but it is not likely that all the men got to Sweden, for the captain in charge wrote from Newcastle to describe their misdoings. Chichester, however, was able to report that before the end of 1609 900 of those who troubled the quiet of Ulster had been got rid of. For example’s sake he had begun with his own territory of Inishowen, and sent away thirty tall fellows who had been in O’Dogherty’s rebellion. Many hundreds were also sent from Leinster who were either loafers in the Pale or belonging to the Kavanaghs, O’Byrnes and O’Tooles, ‘and to speak generally they were all but an unprofitable burden of the earth, cruel, wild, malefactors.’ Among the penniless young men of good Irish family who knew no trade but fighting some were willing enough to serve Sweden as they or their fathers had served Queen Elizabeth. Some had acquired a taste for camp life in Flanders, and others volunteered with a wild idea of joining Tyrone on the Continent, or because their position at home was desperate. Such men had their personal followers, but there seems little doubt that the rank and file were for the most part pressed. The Swedish service had not a good name, perhaps because the discipline was too severe, and the priests from abroad, ‘all lusty able young men, always well armed,’ did what they could to make it unpopular. Some said that it was intended to throw all the Irish swordsmen overboard; others with better reason maintained that it was ‘altogether unlawful to go to such a war, where they should fight for a heretic and an usurper agains a Catholic and a rightful King.’ The description might apply to Charles of Sweden first and later to the Elector Palatine. Chichester persevered, but assuming that he actually sent off 6,000 there were still plenty left in Ireland. Sir Robert Jacob, the Solicitor-General, said there were 2,000 idle men who had no means ‘but to feed upon the gentlemen of the country ... he is accounted the bravest man that comes attended with most of those followers.’ There were 4,000 of the same sort still in Ulster, 3,000 in Leinster, and as many in Munster. In 1619, St. John thought 10,000 might well be spared to any foreign prince. There are no better soldiers than disciplined Irishmen, but there seem to have been difficulties in Sweden with these wild men, for Gustavus Adolphus, the year before his death, declined the services of an Irish regiment as not being trustworthy. Irish friars dressed like soldiers were often busy in persuading their comrades to desert Sweden or Denmark and join the Spanish forces in the Netherlands. The King of Poland was, however, allowed a little later to raise men in Ireland. The religious question did not arise in this case, yet the Lord Deputy was ordered to watch the recruits lest they should run away, ‘as it has been ofttimes in such case,’ as soon as they had received their first pay. When the Spanish match was broken off it was thought that the Poles would exert themselves to prevent the northern powers from interfering in case the Spaniards and their allies were to invade King James’s dominions.[91]

Prevalence of piracy.

The preamble of the Act of 1614, against piracy, sets forth that ‘traitors, pirates, thieves, robbers, murderers, and confederators at sea’ often escaped punishment through defects in the law, and alterations were made which may have abated the evil but without curing it. The weak and corrupt administration of the navy, which was long sheltered by Nottingham’s great name, had made the sea unsafe, and the harbours of Munster lay open to the rovers. Before the end of 1605 a pirate named Connello was imprisoned in England for robbing some Exeter merchants, but was saved by the intercession of the Howard faction, some of whom were very probably paid. Those who had been active in apprehending him were threatened with vengeance, and Connello attacked a Barnstaple vessel and carried the oil and wool which she contained to the neighbourhood of Wexford, where he was captured. The captain, master, and one other old offender were sent to England and there hanged, though they hoped to escape through the same help as before; but Devonshire, who was still Lord-Lieutenant, probably prevented this. They could all read well, but Chichester begged that such offenders might be deprived by law of ‘the benefit of their book.’[92]

Weakness of the navy.

Chichester was willing to hang a thousand pirates if he could catch them, but this was not at all easy. Englishmen and Flemings infested the Spanish coast and fell back upon Ireland for provisions. In one year they robbed more than 100 fishing boats on the Munster station, and all trade was unsafe; but the Admiralty gave very little help. Sometimes there was a King’s ship at hand and sometimes there was not, and the Irish Government had to do as best they could with the help of private craft, or, Chichester wrote in the summer of 1607, ‘to descend to such little acts and strategems as of late has been done at Youghal.’ There were two Bristol vessels in that harbour together, one commanded by Captain Coward, who was supposed to be a pirate. Captain Hampton, instigated by the acting vice-admiral, hid eighty men under hatches, and seizing his opportunity, took possession of Coward’s and killed some of his crew. Coward’s guns fell into the hands of authority, and Chichester would have sent him over to England for trial, but Lord Thomond ‘found it more expedient to cherish him for his better part, being a good seaman and an excellent pilot upon this coast.’ It is no wonder that the Privy Council found it hard to understand such proceedings, and that they were at their wits’ ends ‘to satisfy the ambassadors of foreign princes.’ Coward naturally relapsed into his old courses in the following year, but at last he was captured with a scarcely less formidable comrade named Barrett, on the Connaught coast, by fishermen under the command of a Dutch engineer in the service of the Irish Government. These pirates appear to have been sent to England for trial, but Chichester was now in favour of pardoning them lest their allies should carry out their threat of burning the Newfoundland fishing fleet. Hitherto they had attacked foreigners chiefly, but if driven to desperation they would certainly not spare Englishmen. Whether Coward and Barrett were hanged or not, they appear no more in the Irish correspondence, but there were plenty of others to do the work.[93]

Land thieves and water thieves.

Settlement at Baltimore.

Baltimore, the scene of a terrible tragedy in the next reign, was at first thought of as a suitable haven for the pirates, but the vigilance of Mr. Thomas Crooke made it unsafe for them. Their many allies and abettors on land accused Crooke of complicity in their misdeeds, but of this there was no evidence at all. Were he never so guiltless, the Privy Council wrote, his accusers would never believe it, and he was therefore sent to London, where he was triumphantly acquitted. Like other energetic men who have helped to root English power in distant lands, Crooke had no want of detractors, but Lord Danvers, the President of Munster, was instructed to help him, and he was very willing to do so, being determined to prevent the coast of his province from being ‘like Barbary, common and free to all pirates.’ He had been specially charged by Salisbury and other ministers to look after a Spanish ship which had been seized by some rovers and was likely to reach Ireland. She was in fact brought or washed into Baltimore, and Danvers, ‘knowing she was no better than Drake’s monument at Deptford,’ was ready to believe that she had gold hidden among her rotten timbers, and undertook to save her from being broken up by the pirates or their sympathisers on land, ‘who would not leave the gates of hell unripped open in hope of gain.’ As to Crooke, the Lord President enclosed a letter from the Bishop of Cork and others which shows how precarious the position of the best English settlers was. The bishop was William Lyon, a man of the highest character and a shining light among Irish Reformation prelates, who knew the district thoroughly. In two years Crooke had ‘gathered out of England a whole town of English people, larger and more civilly and religiously ordered than any town in this province that began so lately, which has made him to be violently opposed and accused by divers persons who would weaken him in his good work.’ He had been constantly employed against the pirates and both Brouncker and Danvers had acknowledged the value of his services. When Baltimore was incorporated with a view to the Parliament of 1613, Crooke became a burgess, and was its first representative in the House of Commons.[94]

For long after the battle of Lepanto, the Spanish galleys had been supreme in the western half of the Mediterranean. The Armada proved that in a rough sea oars could do but little against sails, and in the winter the rovers had it all their own way. In summer they sought the Irish coast, where there were plenty of quiet harbours and of people who were willing to receive stolen goods.

The Lord President blockaded by pirates.

A penitent corsair.

At the beginning of 1609, Lord Danvers was afraid to leave Cork harbour without the protection of a man of war, and after that date pirates continued to multiply. Their principal resort was Long Island Sound, to the west of Schull in the county of Cork. It was a fine anchorage for the largest ships then afloat, and the estuary now called Croagh harbour was available for careening. A squadron of eleven ships with a thousand men appeared on the coast in command of Edward Bishop, whom the pirates had chosen admiral, and as many more were expected to join them. Bishop was an able man, who was perhaps sorry for having chosen such a dirty trade, and it was thought possible to reclaim and employ him. He did not like siding with Turks against Christians in the Mediterranean, and he hated the ruffian John Ward, who had seduced so many English sailors from their allegiance. The Venetians hung thirty-six men at Scio, which may have increased Bishop’s dislike to the work. When his fleet appeared off Ireland negotiations were soon opened, and after a while he submitted, and seemed really repentant, for he twice refused to accept the very lucrative command of all the corsairs in the Mediterranean at the Duke of Florence’s hands, saying ‘I will die a poor labourer in mine own country, rather than be the richest pirate in the world.’ He did some service, but was unable to prevail with most of his late comrades, and incurred the enmity of the more desperate. ‘Our intent,’ said Peter Easton, ‘when we went hence was not to rob any man, much less our countrymen, but only to find out and fight with the Hollander ships of war, who had of late carried themselves so insolently to his Majesty as to come into his harbour and seize on Bishop and his ship, being then under his Majesty’s protection.’ He had some quarrels with traders who did not understand this reasoning, and lives were lost. ‘I told the merchants,’ Easton added, ‘that I would surrender up their ship and goods if I might have any pardon; but now in respect of the Duke of Florence’s offer and the greatness of this wealth, I am otherwise resolved.’ A little later Easton and his consorts had nine ships with 500 men and 250 guns. Many of them had wives and children living in comfort at Leamcon, and the ‘land pirates’ thereabouts supplied the rovers with provisions. Spanish and Moorish money was current, and it was believed that treasure had been buried on land. Quarrels among these rascals were frequent, and Easton made away with a noted colleague named Salkeld or Sakewell, but he himself continued to give trouble, though there were hopes of reclaiming him at times. In the summer of 1613 he was surprised by the Dutch at Crookhaven, and carried to Holland, where he was most likely hanged.

Bishop retired from business himself, but he did not altogether break with the rovers, for one Fleming who had murdered a Dutch merchant was taken in his house in 1617. St. John described him as ‘an old pardoned pirate that lives suspiciously near Leamcon and Schull haven, ever plotting with and relieving of pirates.’[95]

Some notable pirates.

Another noted pirate was John Jennings, who came boldly into the Shannon towards the end of 1609, his ship laden with spoil and with a richly freighted Dutch prize which he had taken after losing sixty men in action against a French man of war. Danvers tried to stamp out the pirates by preventing the land carriage of corn, but he harassed honest men without much hurting the thieves. He believed that the pirates could always land 300 men at any point they thought fit, for it was impossible to have a man of war everywhere, and the King’s ships could not keep the seas for more than three months without refitting, the sailors being but too ready to go home on the least excuse. There were several other piratical vessels at hand, the crews of which quarrelled with Jennings about the division of the Dutchmen’s goods. Under these circumstances, and perhaps remembering Coward’s case, Jennings applied to Lord Thomond for a pardon, and offered to give up the ship, but the latter had learned by experience, and preferred to surprise the pirate with the help of his discontented comrades. They were all ready to betray each other. Chichester was inclined to think that Jennings really intended to reform, and at all events he had not plundered the King’s subjects. Some diamonds came into the hands of the Government, but the valuable ‘small ends’ (perhaps of tobacco) had been ‘carried away in the shipmen’s great breeches.’ Both Thomond and Chichester were inclined to mercy, but the English Council remembered its ill-success in Coward’s case, and Jennings was duly hanged.[96]

No part of the coast safe.

French, Dutch, and Moors.

The south-west coast was the chief but by no means the only resort of the pirates. Three were captured in Ulster in 1613, and three in the following year, and executed ‘upon the strand at low-water mark, by Dublin.’ In the latter case the pirates had stolen a Chester ship lying off Dalkey and taken her to Lough Swilly, where they were apprehended by the help of one called ‘bishop O’Coffie,’ but probably a Roman Catholic vicar-general of Derry or Raphoe. In 1610 they waylaid but failed to intercept the ship which brought the Londoners’ money to the new settlement at Coleraine. Blacksod Bay and other remote harbours in Mayo were used by Jennings and his contemporaries, and long afterwards the inhabitants were reported to be ‘so much given to idleness that their only dependence is upon the depredation and spoils of pirates, brought in amongst them by reason of the convenience and goodness of their harbours; for there is their common rendezvous.’ Even Carrickfergus sometimes served as an anchorage for rovers, who robbed small vessels between Holyhead and Dublin. Dutch and French merchants suffered more than the English, and the States Government, with the King of England’s sanction, sent a special squadron to Ireland, whom the pirates seem to have dreaded much more than their own sovereign’s cruisers. The French sometimes acted against the pirates, and there were negotiations with Spain, but the Government admitted towards the close of 1612 that the evil could only be checked in the West of Ireland ‘by laying the island and sea coast waste and void of inhabitants, or by placing a garrison in every port and creek, which is impracticable.’ In the autumn of 1611 nineteen sail of pirates were sighted on the west coasts, most of whom drew towards Morocco at the approach of winter, when the Spanish galleys were not much to be feared. This was their constant practice, and in the then state of European politics they were as sure to find employment on the sea, as their congeners the ‘bravi’ were to find it on land. The pirates continued to give trouble until Strafford’s time.[97]

FOOTNOTES:

[82] Davies’s Discovery, 1613. It appears, however, from his letter to Salisbury, December 1, 1603, that Chief Baron Pelham held the first assize in Donegal without his help, and before his arrival in Ireland. The contemporary letter must prevail against the treatise written ten years later.

[83] Davies to Cecil, April 19, 1604.

[84] Davies to Salisbury, December 8, 1604 and May 4, 1606.

[85] Davies to Salisbury, May 4, 1606; Brouncker’s letter of September 12, 1606.

[86] Davies to Salisbury, May 4, 1606; Brouncker’s letter of September 12, 1606.

[87] Davies to Salisbury, written at Waterford in September 1606, and printed in Davies’s Tracts.

[88] Davies to Salisbury, November 12, 1606.

[89] Davies to Salisbury, August 7 and December 11, 1607.

[90] The King to Chichester, April 26, 1611, sent by Knox and delivered June 15; Lords of the Council to Chichester, April 30; Bishop Knox to Abbot, July 4; Report by Chichester and Archbishop Jones, October 7. O’Sullivan has a full account of Knox’s proceedings, violent in tone but not substantially disagreeing with the official correspondence. He says the Catholics were bound to place in all parish churches at their own expense ‘biblias corruptæ, mendosæque versionis in vulgarem sermonem traductas.’—Compendium, 221.

[91] Jacob, S. G., to Salisbury, October 18, 1609; Davies to same, October 19; Chichester to same, October 31; Captain Lichfield to same, December 31, Lords of the Council to Chichester, June 8, 1610; Richard Morres (‘a poor soldier to my lord’) to Salisbury, 1611, No. 353; Note of Lord Chichester’s services calendared at May 1614, No. 825; Vice-Treasurer Ridgeway’s minute, August 1615, No. 166; Lord Esmond to Dorchester, June 20, 1631. Court and Times of Charles I., ii. 135. For the Polish element in the matter see the State Papers, Ireland, calendared at September 29, 1619, August 1621, No. 773, and June 17, 1624.

[92] Chichester to Devonshire, January 2, 1606; to Salisbury, April 13, 1608.

[93] Wilmot’s letter, January 16, 1606; Chichester to the Council, July 16, 1607; Lords of Council to Chichester, March 8, 1608, and his answer, March 30; Chief Baron Winch to Chichester, April 2; Council to Chichester, April 27, 1609; Chichester to Salisbury, July 19, 1610; to Salisbury and Nottingham, September 21; Council to Chichester, July 31.

[94] Lords of Council to Chichester, March 8, 1608, and his answer, March 30; James Salmon (afterwards first Provost of Baltimore) to Thomas Crooke, June 23; Danvers to Salisbury, November 20, enclosing the letter from Bishop Lyon and others; Privy Council to Danvers, November 20; Liber Munerum Publicorum, vii. 50, where Crooke is described as ‘armiger in legibus eruditus.’

[95] Danvers to the Council, January 19, 1609; Sir R. Moryson to Salisbury, August 22; Henry Pepwell to Salisbury, August 22; Chichester to Salisbury and Nottingham, September 21, 1610; Captain Henry Skipwith (deputy vice-admiral) to Chichester, July 25, 1611; Roger Myddleton to Salisbury, August 23; Petition of Robert Bell to the King, July 1616, No. 277; Skipwith to Sir Dudley Carleton, August 24; St. John to Winwood, April 4, 1617, in Buccleuch Papers, Hist. MSS. Comm. Leamcon is now the name of a house and watch-tower opposite Long Island, but in the time of James I. it was given to the whole of the sheltered water between Castle Point and Schull Harbour.

[96] Danvers to the Privy Council, January 19, 1609, and to Salisbury, February 24; Chichester’s letters of February 5 and April 7; the Council to Chichester, April 27; Chichester to Salisbury, Northampton, and Nottingham, April 11, 1611.

[97] Chichester’s letters of January 29 and June 27, 1610, Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 206, 314; Lords of the Council to Chichester, September 9, 1611, January 31, and November 18, 1612; Lord Carew to Salisbury, September 6, 1611. The international importance of the pirates will be best understood from the early chapters of Mr. Julian Corbett’s England in the Mediterranean.

[CHAPTER VII]
THE PARLIAMENT OF 1613-1615

The King determines to hold a Parliament, 1611.

Since the dissolution of Perrott’s Parliament in 1586 none had been held in Ireland, but James made up his mind to have one. Lord Carew was instructed to obtain information as to how it had best be done, legal sanction for the Ulster settlement and for the general establishment of English law being mentioned as principal objects. There were but four bishops and four temporal peers alive who had served on the last occasion, and no perfect list of Perrott’s House of Commons existed in Ireland. The law and practice of Parliament were almost forgotten, and William Bradley, Davies’ agent in Ulster, was appointed clerk of the proposed Lower House, and sent over to confer with the officials in England, where he unearthed a journal of Perrott’s Parliament. Having received instruction in parliamentary forms, he brought back a commission which enabled Chichester to decide all questions of precedence. Robes and a cloth of estate for the Lord Deputy were sent over by the same messenger.[98]

New constituencies are created.

The counties.

The boroughs.

Ulster.

Munster.

Leinster.

Connaught.

Character of the new boroughs

University representation.

A Protestant majority secured.

In order to carry out the royal policy in Ireland it was evidently necessary to secure a Protestant majority, and this could hardly be done without creating new constituencies. The power of the King to make boroughs was not seriously disputed, and it was exercised in England as late as 1673. Thirty-three shires, counting the Cross of Tipperary, returned two members each, and it was hoped that half of these might be depended on. The cities and boroughs which received writs for Perrott’s Parliament were thirty-six in number, but of these Carrickfergus and Downpatrick made no returns. Cavan, Derry, Gowran, and Athlone had since become corporations, and were presumably entitled to their writs in the ordinary way. James created thirty-nine new boroughs expressly for parliamentary purposes, of which no less than nineteen were in Ulster, where the late forfeitures had made the Government strong: Belfast, Coleraine, Newry, Bangor, Newtownards, Armagh, Charlemont, Dungannon, Agher, Strabane, Clogher, Derry, Lifford, Ballyshannon, Donegal, Limavady, Enniskillen, Monaghan, Belturbet. The Munster cities and towns were almost desperate, one member each from Youghal, Dungarvan, and Dingle being the most that could be expected, and nine new boroughs were created: Lismore, Tallow, Mallow, Baltimore, Bandon, Clonakilty, Ennis, Tralee, and Askeaton. In Leinster the new creations were Athy, Carlow, Newcastle (Dublin), Ballinakill, Fethard (Wexford), Enniscorthy, Kilbeggan, and Wicklow. In Connaught the new boroughs were Tuam (‘the Archbishop’s chief seat, which will send Protestants’), Sligo, Roscommon, Boyle, Castlebar, and Carrick-on-Shannon. Care was taken to select places which might at least be expected to grow into good-sized towns. A few of them were, and have remained, mere villages, but most of them are reasonably large country towns, while Belfast, Londonderry, Coleraine and Sligo have become much more. The University of Dublin returned two members for the first time; and there could be no doubt that the Government would be able to command a majority. In the House of Lords reliance was placed upon the bishops; but some of the temporal peers were Protestants, and there was little danger of accidents happening there. The Roman Catholic lords and principal gentlemen of the Pale saw that they would be in a minority, and suggested in a letter to the King that the Parliament should be held in England.[99]

The oath of supremacy not exacted.

When it was decided to call a Parliament, Carew advised that every member of the House of Commons should take the oath of supremacy, ‘as they do in England,’ or be disqualified. ‘But if that shall seem too sharp to be offered, yet a rumour that it is required will be a means to increase the number of Protestant burgesses and knights, and deter the most spirited Recusants from being of the house.’ The rumour was spread about accordingly, though the sharp offer was not actually made, and Davies thought it would have the desired effect. Ireland, he said, was rich in saints, but had never produced a martyr, and the Recusants, rather than suffer a repulse by refusing the oath, would ‘make return of such as will take it, and yet not easily yield to make sharp and severe laws against them.’ But the King decided to rely on the new boroughs and not to have the oath administered, there being no law in Ireland by which the members could be compelled to take it. It was at first intended that the Parliament should meet in November 1612, but things could not be got ready so soon, and it was postponed first to February and then to May in the following year.[100]

Strong Roman Catholic opposition.

Demand for toleration.

The peers summoned.

Opposition on the part of the Recusants was soon found to be much more determined than Davies had anticipated. As early as October 1612 Sir Patrick Barnewall had written against it, and in the following month lords Slane, Killeen, Trimleston, Dunsany, and Louth addressed a letter to the King in which they complained of not being previously consulted as to the measures to be laid before Parliament, and claimed to be the Irish Council within the meaning of Poynings Act. This position was, no doubt, unsustainable; but their other arguments were of more weight. They protested against boroughs being made out of wretched villages, by the votes of whose mock representatives ‘extreme penal laws should be imposed on the King’s subjects.’ Ecclesiastical disabilities had been very sparingly and mildly pressed by Queen Elizabeth, but now the fittest men were excluded from official positions even in the remotest parts of the country. There were already plenty of Irish rebels on the Continent, and it was undesirable to add to the number of those who ‘displayed in all countries, kingdoms, and estates, and inculcated into the ears of foreign kings and princes the foulness (as they will term it) of such practices.’ It was by ‘withdrawing such laws as may tend to the forcing of your subjects’ conscience’ that the King might settle their minds and establish their fidelity. This letter had no immediate effect; the manufacture of boroughs was proceeded with, and Chichester was made a peer, an honour, said James, which had only been deferred so that the meeting of Parliament might give it greater lustre. The King directed him to call up by writ as peers certain persons distinguished by their nobility of birth and by their estates in Ireland—namely, the Earl of Abercorn, Henry Lord O’Brien, the Earl of Thomond’s eldest son, who was a sound Protestant, Lord Ochiltree and Lord Burghley; but there was a majority without these, and they were not to come unless their private affairs admitted. As a matter of fact, they do not seem to have attended. All the old nobility, being of full age, received their writs of summons, except Lord Castle Connell, whose title was actually under litigation. Lord Barry’s claim was allowed, as it had never been disputed in fact, though he had an elder brother who was a deaf mute.[101]

Renewed Roman Catholic complaints.

Chichester’s answer.

On the eve of the opening of Parliament eleven recusant lords addressed a petition to the Lord Deputy in which they repeated the complaints of the former letter. They further objected to peers of England or Scotland being called by writ. A better-founded grievance was the partiality shown by sheriffs and returning officers. They also protested against the slur cast on their loyalty by the presence of troops, and against the Castle as a place of meeting, especially as it was over the powder magazine. The audacious allusion to the Gunpowder Plot gave Chichester a fine opportunity of retort. The powder, he said, had been removed to a safe place; ‘but let it be remembered of what religion they were of that placed the powder in England and gave allowance to that damnable plot, and thought the act meritorious, if it had taken effect, and would have canonised the actors.’ As to the boroughs, he could only stand upon the King’s prerogative, the best choice possible having been made; but disputed elections were for the House of Commons and not for him. As for the soldiers, they were but one hundred foot, brought into Dublin to protect the Government and Parliament against the tumultuous outrages of the ruder part of the citizens who lately drove their mayor from the tholsel and forbade him to repair to the Lord Deputy for succour.[102]

Parliament meets.

Contest for the Speakership.

Violent proceedings in the Commons.

Sir John Davies is elected.

Parliament met in the Castle on May 18. The discontented lords and gentlemen had brought armed retinues with them, and the Government thought that no open building would be safe. As the Recusant lords refused to attend, nothing could happen in the Upper House; but in the Commons there was an immediate trial of strength over the election of Speaker. Sir John Davies had been returned for Fermanagh, and the Protestant party at once accepted him as the Government candidate; while the Opposition were for Sir John Everard, member for Tipperary. Everard was a lawyer of high character who had been second Justice of the King’s Bench and had resigned early in 1607 rather than take the oath of supremacy. Thomas Ridgeway, the Vice-Treasurer, who sat for Tyrone, proposed Davies as the fittest person and as recommended by the King himself, and the majority assented by acclamation; but Sir James Gough, member for Waterford county, proposed Everard, and was seconded by Sir Christopher Nugent, who represented Westmeath. Gough objected to all the new boroughs and to all members who were not resident in the places which returned them; and William Talbot, member for Kildare, who had been removed from the recordership of Dublin for refusing the oath of supremacy, moved that the House should be purged from unlawful members before a Speaker was chosen. Sir Oliver St. John, Master of the Ordnance, who had been returned for Roscommon, thereupon remarked that he had sat in several English Parliaments, and that a Speaker must be chosen before election committees could be appointed. The practice in England was for the ‘Ayes’ to go out and for the ‘Noes’ to remain within. ‘All you,’ he said, ‘that would have Sir John Davies to be Speaker come with me out of the House.’ The Opposition, who stayed inside, refused to name tellers, and Sir Walter Butler, his colleague in the representation of Tipperary, placed Everard in the chair, where he was held down by Sir Daniel O’Brien of Clare and Sir William Burke of Galway. Ridgeway and Wingfield then offered to tell for both sides, but the Opposition gathered together ‘in a plumpe’ so that they could not be counted. As the majority returned the tellers called the numbers out loud, and 127 were found to be for Davies, which was a clear majority in a possible 232. St. John called upon Everard to leave the chair, but he sat still; whereupon the tellers placed Davies in his lap, and afterwards ejected him with some show of force. It was pretended that great violence was used, but an eye-witness declared that there was none—‘not so much as his hat was removed on their Speaker’s head.’ The defeated party then walked out, and Talbot said, ‘Those within are no House; and Sir John Everard is our Speaker, and therefore we will not join with you, but we will complain to my Lord Deputy and the King, and the King shall hear of this.’ The outer door having been locked during the division, Burke and Nugent re-entered to demand the keys. Davies invited them to take their seats; and when the door was opened, Everard and all his party left the Castle, declaring that they would return no more.[103]

Continued opposition of the Recusant Lords,

and Commons,

who refuse to attend the House.

Speeches of Sir John Davies.

The Tudors held Parliaments for special objects.

King James I. to hold a real Parliament in Ireland.

Davies praises Chichester.

And flatters James.

On the following day the Roman Catholic lords wrote to the King reiterating their arguments, avoiding the name of Parliament, which they called an intended action, and repeating the thinly veiled threats of their former letter. The Opposition in the House of Commons wrote in somewhat the same strain to the English Council, maintaining that Everard was the real Speaker, and that he had been forcibly put out. During the next two days they sent three petitions to the Lord Deputy. In the first they begged to be excused attendance for fear of their lives, and asked to see the official documents relating to the late elections. In the second they declared themselves ready to attend if they might be assured that their lives were safe, and that they should have an opportunity of questioning improper returns. Chichester granted this, and said he would be ready in the House of Lords to receive their Speaker. The Lower House met at nine on the morning of the 21st, but the Opposition refused to attend, and demanded the exclusion of the members to whose return they objected. Having exhausted all methods of persuasion, Chichester came down to the Lords, and the House of Commons were summoned to attend. Davies had in the meantime briefly returned thanks for his election, modestly depreciating his own fitness but enlarging upon the wisdom of those who had chosen a spokesman to represent them; ‘for the tower of Babel may be an example to all assemblies that where there is a confusion of tongues, great works can never go well forward.’ After the Lord Deputy had approved him as Speaker, Davies made a much longer speech, in which he traced the history of Parliaments in Ireland, showing how partial their nature and effects had hitherto been. During the later Middle Ages Ireland outside the Pale had not been within the scope of the Constitution, and since Henry VII. the few Parliaments summoned had been upon special occasions. Henry VIII. had held two, one for attainting the Geraldines and for abolishing the Pope’s title, the other for turning the lordship into a kingdom and for suppressing the abbeys. The object of Mary’s Parliament was to settle Leix and Offaly in the Crown, thus introducing the policy which Elizabeth had followed up. The establishment of the reformed Church, the declaration of the Crown’s title to Ulster, and the forfeitures which followed the attainder of Desmond and Baltinglas had occupied the great Queen’s three Parliaments. Now, under James, a representation of the whole kingdom was attempted for the first time, and general legislation would be taken in hand. As to the new boroughs, Davies argued that, as Mary had created two and Elizabeth seventeen counties, the right to make boroughs could hardly be denied to King James. He had made about forty, and the proportion of boroughs to counties was still less than it had been before Mary’s creations. As to the peers, there were now none who did not fully acknowledge the King; and no see was without a bishop appointed by him. Davies concluded his speech with some well-deserved praise of Chichester and with much bare-faced flattery of James. He had sung the virtues of Elizabeth in courtly verse; for he knew her weak point, in spite of which she was one of the greatest and wisest sovereigns that the world has seen. That might be excused, but a man of the Attorney-General’s attainments ought to have been above describing James as ‘the greatest and best king that now reigneth upon the face of the earth ... whose worthiness exceeds all degrees of comparison.’[104]

Patience of Chichester.

The Opposition send delegates to the King,

and the Deputy follows suit.

Frequent prorogations follow.

If Chichester had chosen to take advantage of the refusal of the Opposition to attend in either House, he might have made any laws he pleased. As it was, he showed the greatest patience. The Lord Chancellor, with the bishops and four temporal peers, came to the Upper House, but no one else appeared; and eleven Recusants sent their reasons in writing for staying away. Two days later the seceders were summoned by proclamation in order to pass a Bill for the recognition of the King’s title. The Recusants acknowledged this in writing, but refused to appear, though the Lord Deputy promised that no other business should be taken in hand, and contented themselves with sending delegates to represent their grievances to the King. A general levy of money to defray expenses was made all over Ireland, ‘whereunto the Popish subjects did willingly condescend’; but when this came to James’s ears, he ordered it to be forbidden by proclamation. The deputation, to whose departure Chichester made no objection, consisted of Lords Gormanston and Dunboyne, with Sir Christopher Plunkett, Sir James Gough, William Talbot, and Edward FitzHarris, the defeated candidate for the county of Limerick. The Government sent out Lord Thomond, Chief Justice Denham, and Sir Oliver St. John to explain the situation in London; and they carried over all the declarations and petitions of the Recusants. Parliament was adjourned until the King should be in a position to make up his mind, and afterwards, by special royal order prorogued to November 3. There were six successive prorogations, and the Irish Houses did not assemble again until October 1614, during which time the addled Parliament had met and separated in England. This may have been partly the consequence of Bacon’s advice, who saw the inconvenience of having two Parliaments going on at once. The mere fact that things were unsettled in Ireland might, he thought, be a good reason for expecting a liberal supply in England.[105]

Royal Commission for grievances.

Towards the end of August, when the King returned from his progress, he issued a commission to Chichester himself, to Sir Humphry Winch, late Chief Baron in Ireland and now a Judge of the Common Pleas; Sir Charles Cornwallis, lately Ambassador in Spain; Sir Roger Wilbraham, who had been Solicitor-General in Ireland; and George Calvert, clerk of the Council. Two sets of instructions were given to them: by the first they were to inquire into all matters concerning the Irish elections and the proceedings in Parliament; by the second to report upon all general and notorious grievances, of which a few were specially mentioned. The English commissioners reached Dublin on September 11, and immediately proceeded to inquire into parliamentary matters, at the same time giving notice far and wide that they had come to inquire into grievances generally. For a month there were no complaints, and it was not until the return of some of the recusant petitioners from London that any progress could be made in that direction. James had been very careful to tell Chichester that he did not distrust or blame him, but attributed the attacks on him to the priests and Jesuits. His great object was to teach the Irish to seek redress by an orderly petition to their Sovereign rather than ‘after the old fashion of that country, to run upon every occasion to the bog and wood, and seek their remedy that way.’ This inquiry would only strengthen the Deputy’s government. If the malcontents could be induced to get to work in Parliament by taking unopposed business first, probably the rest would follow in good time.[106]

Proceedings of the Commissioners.

Disputed elections.

Fermanagh.

Tyrone.

Having examined the officers of Chancery upon oath, the Commissioners found that writs had been duly issued to ‘all counties, ancient cities, and boroughs,’ and returns made. Where specific instances of wrongful election had been alleged, each case was gone into upon its merits. Nine of these were in counties and five in cities or boroughs. In Fermanagh it was alleged that Connor Roe Maguire and Donnell Maguire had been duly elected, notwithstanding which Sir Henry Ffolliot and Sir John Davies had been returned; and that Captain Gore had pulled out Brian Maguire’s beard because he had voted for his namesake. In this important case the defeated candidates were summoned before the Commissioners, who reported that one who spoke no English had declined to appear, and that the other, having been indicted for treason, had broken prison and betaken himself to the woods. As for Brian Maguire, he confessed that ‘Captain Gore did shake him by the beard, but pulled no part of it away, nor did him any other hurt.’ In Tyrone the question was between Sir Thomas Ridgeway, afterwards Earl of Londonderry, who was returned, and Tirlagh O’Neill, who spoke no English. It appeared that thirty-four British freeholders voted for the former and twenty-eight for the latter—such were county elections in those days. The result was that no knight of the shire was unseated; and in the worst cases the evidence was certainly conflicting.[107]

Contest in Dublin.

The Commissioners find the facts.

The writ to the sheriffs of Dublin was issued on April 1, and on the following day they gave their warrant to the mayor, Sir James Carrol, to hold an election. On the 20th, when the sheriffs sat in their court, they were persuaded by the Recusant citizens to come to an election in the mayor’s absence. Alderman Francis Taylor and Thomas Allen were returned unopposed; but the mayor ignored the proceedings, and held a fresh election seven days later on what is now College Green, outside the walls but within the liberties of Dublin. Proclamation had been made at ten that morning, and the nomination took place accordingly at two. The Recusant party acknowledged the validity of the proceedings by nominating Taylor and Barry, who had already been declared duly elected; but the mayor proposed the recorder, Richard Bolton, and Alderman Richard Barry. The voices appearing about equal, Carrol ordered a division, and declared the majority to be for his nominees, but without actually taking a poll. The beaten party petitioned on the ground that the original election was good, that the second was really held before two o’clock, and that the majority in fact was for Allen and Taylor. The first question was left by the Commissioners to the lawyers in England. Watches were perhaps not then very common in Dublin, but the weight of evidence was in favour of the appointed hour having been observed, and of the majority having been on the side of Bolton and Barry. It was not denied that no poll had been taken.[108]

Contests in Boroughs.

Cavan.

Cavan members unseated.

The Kildare case, and others.

Besides the general objection to the new boroughs special objection had been taken in five cases, of which the most remarkable was that of Cavan. It was alleged that Captain Culme, who brought a mandate from the county sheriff, had proposed himself and the Lord Deputy’s secretary, George Sexton, but that the townsmen had refused to elect them. Four or five days later the high sheriff, Sir Oliver Lambert, held an election, and it was said that he behaved with great violence, while his musketeers with matches burning excluded all but his partisans. Thomas and Walter Brady were the opposition candidates, and George Brady, who voted for his namesakes, was struck by Lambert. The Commissioners found that this was after the election, that Brady had used bad or irritating language, and that Sir Oliver had struck him ‘with a little walking-stick, but his head was not broken,’ as the petitioners alleged. Culme and Sexton were declared duly elected, but the Commissioners found upon the evidence that the two Bradys had the majority. Later on the return was annulled, and in the end the two Bradys were returned. Kildare was the only other borough where the Commissioners found that an undue election had been made.[109]

The delegates in London.

Barnewall and Talbot.

Non-residence of members.

When the Irish Parliament was just about to meet the English Council had sent for Sir Patrick Barnewall. He was known to have written letters declaring that the assembly as constituted would reduce Ireland to slavery, and that the new boroughs were erected only to pass money votes. His abilities were known, and no doubt he was considered formidable since his victory in the matter of the mandates. Barnewall may have had influence with the delegates in London, but William Talbot was the chief legal adviser of the Opposition, and their petition to the King was drawn up under his guidance. Observers in London thought him the real head of the deputation. Talbot afterwards had a son Richard, who was destined as Earl and Duke of Tyrconnel to overthrow for a moment the fabric raised by Elizabeth, James and Cromwell, and grudgingly maintained by Charles II. Gormanston and his five companions petitioned as agents for twenty-one counties and twenty-eight ancient cities and boroughs, and a schedule was appended containing particulars of electoral irregularities. They laid special stress upon an English Act of Henry V. binding in Ireland by the operation of Poynings’s Law, which required that members of Parliament should be resident in the counties for which they sat, and that knights of shires should be natives of them. The statute as to residence has been long obsolete in England, where attempts to revive it had deservedly failed, and it had been disregarded in Ireland in Perrott’s time; but in point of strict law the petitioners were right, for the requirement of residence, which had been abolished or suspended in Ireland in the time of Edward IV., was clearly reaffirmed by St. Leger’s Parliament under Henry VIII. Boldly assuming that they were the majority, the petitioners asserted that their speaker lawfully elected was ejected by violence, and that they themselves were terrorised.[110]

Case for the Irish Government.

Distinction between native and Anglo-Irish Catholics.

Thomond and his associates were instructed by Chichester to point out that many of the Irish candidates for parliamentary honours had been in actual rebellion, that some could speak no English, and that ‘all were elected by a general combination and practice of Jesuits and priests, who charged all the people, upon pain of excommunication, not to elect any of the King’s religion.’ They were to tell the Council in the petitioners’ presence that at a conference with Tyrone and his Irish allies when they thought they were going to conquer Ireland, ‘he and the rest of the Irish did solemnly declare and publish, that no person of what quality or degree soever being descended of English race, birth or blood, though they came in with the conquest, and were since degenerated and become Irish by alteration of name and customs, should inherit or possess a foot of land within the kingdom,’ and that Celtic owners could be found for all. When asked what was to happen to their Anglo-Irish allies, they answered that they might stay as vassals or labourers, ‘and if they liked not thereof they might depart the kingdom.’ Among those elected, or by the petitioners supposed to be elected, were a son-in-law of Tyrone’s and many other rebels, and among the candidates were another son-in-law and a half-brother of the arch-traitor, with many more of the same wicked crew, ‘for they would have Barabbas and exclude Jesus.’ Chichester saw clearly that the position and interests of those who were English in everything but religion differed fundamentally from those of the native Irish, and in the wars of the next generation the distinction became apparent to all.[111]

The King gives frequent audiences.

Talbot in the Tower.

Luttrell in the Fleet.

Suarez repudiated.

The original deputation from the Irish Opposition consisted of six persons, but James had declared his willingness to see twelve, and the additional number who came was considerably greater, six peers and fourteen commoners, including Everard, Barnewall and Thomas Luttrell. The latter sat for the county of Dublin and had been prominent, or in official language turbulent and seditious, during the late short session. James heard the deputation in Council several times during the month of July, ‘while they did use daily to frequent their secret conventicles and private meetings, to consult and devise how to frame plaintive articles against the Lord Deputy.’ Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the King found it hard to come to a decision, and when he went on progress to the west towards the end of the month he reserved judgment. Before this, however, Talbot was sent to the Tower for not condemning with sufficient clearness the opinions of the Jesuit Suarez, as to the deposition and murder of kings. That murder was not lawful he had no doubt, but thought that deposition might be, and he said this in the King’s presence. Luttrell lay for nearly three months in the Fleet for the same reason, when he made submission in writing. Sir Patrick Barnewall, whose loyalty was undisputed, and who had had enough of the Tower, found no difficulty in repudiating the doctrines of Suarez and Parsons as ‘most profane, impious, wicked, and detestable ... that His Majesty or any other sovereign prince, if he were excommunicated by the Pope, might be massacred or done away with by his subjects or any other.’ As for his own king he firmly held that all his Highness’s subjects should spend their lives and properties to defend him and his kingdoms, ‘notwithstanding any excommunication or any other act which is or may be pronounced or done by the Pope against him.’ Talbot’s submission was less complete, and he remained in the Tower for over a year.[112]

The rival Churches.

Suggestions by the Commissioners.

Military irregularities.

Abuses by sheriffs.

The first thing that struck the Commissioners was the general neglect of true religion, the ministers and preachers being insufficient both in number and quality, and the churches for the most part ruinous. There were, however ‘a multitude of Popish schoolmasters, priests, friars, Jesuits, seminaries of the adverse Church authorised by the Pope and his subordinates for every diocese, ecclesiastical dignity, and living of note,’ who were resident, and who lost no opportunity of execrating the reformed faith, being supported and countenanced by the native nobility. Of the magistrates, sheriffs, and other officials many were Roman Catholics, and the priesthood was constantly recruited from seminaries in Spain and Belgium. The Commissioners could only recommend the ruthless enforcement of ecclesiastical conformity. All should be driven to church or punished, Popish schools suppressed, and priests weeded out, able and religious schoolmasters being provided, while ‘idle and scandalous ministers’ gave place to well paid and conscientious successors. All this was neither very original nor very practical, and the report is more to the purpose where remediable evils are dealt with. Extortions by soldiers were loudly complained of, and not altogether denied by Chichester, though he declared that he had taken the greatest care to prevent them, and though he was ready to pay three times the value if it could be proved that he had taken ‘of the value of a hen’ wrongfully during his eight years’ government. The Commissioners found that billeted soldiers did exact money from the people at the rate of about three shillings a night for a footman besides meat and drink, and that they sometimes took cattle or goods in default of payment, ‘whereby breach of peace and affrays are occasioned.’ The viceregal warrant always required them to march straight from point to point, but they sometimes went round on purpose to gain more time at free quarters. There were many other similar disorders and oppressions, yet it did not appear that applications were often made to the Lord Deputy, ‘who upon their complaints hath given order for redress of such grievances as hath been manifested unto us.’ On the other hand aggrieved parties pleaded that they were afraid to provoke the enmity of the soldiers by complaining, and that remedies cost more than they were worth, though they admitted that Chichester was ‘swift of despatch and easy of access.’ The Lord Deputy said no sheriffs were made who had not property in their shires, ‘and if such who are of better estates are omitted it is for their recusancy,’ but the Commissioners found that many had none, either there or elsewhere, that they gathered crown rents and taxes in an irregular manner, and that they were guilty of other minor extortions, ‘the reason whereof being affirmed to be that in the civillest counties in the English Pale and in other counties there are found very few Protestants that are freeholders of quality fit to be sheriffs, and that will take the oath of supremacy as by the laws they ought to do, and by the Lord Deputy’s order no sheriff is admitted till he enter into sufficient bond for answering his accounts.’[113]

Ploughing by the tail.

Prevalence of the practice.

Its cruelty

and long continuance.

One grievance there was which deserves special mention, because its history shows how even the most obvious and reasonable reform may be resented when it involves a change in the habits of country people. It had long been the custom, especially in Ulster, to till rough ground by attaching a very short plough, which might be lifted over an obstacle, to the tails of ponies walking abreast. This was prohibited by Order in Council in 1606, the penalty being the forfeiture of one animal for the first year, two for the second, and for the third the whole team. No attempt was made to enforce this until 1611, when Captain Paul Gore, to whose company arrears were due since O’Dogherty’s rebellion, obtained leave to pay himself by realising the penalty for a year in one or two counties. Chichester consented, but limited the fine to ten shillings for each plough. The fine, smaller or greater, was often paid, but did not have the desired effect. Gore no doubt made a good bargain, for in the following year Chichester ordered the ten shillings to be levied all over Ulster, spending most of the money so raised upon roads, bridges, and the repairs of churches. James, with his usual improvidence, granted this to Sir William Uvedale for £100 Irish, and it was admitted that he made £800, while much more was really collected from the people. Collections unauthorised by Chichester had also been made in Connaught and even in the Pale. It was not the short ploughs that had been prohibited but the ploughing by the tail, and it had been particularly provided that no penalty attached if traces of any kind were used. Perhaps the collectors stretched a point, and the petitioners were at all events justified in pointing out that there was no law to support the prohibition, and that the peasants concerned had neither skill nor means to use better ploughs. The English settlers who saw these ploughs at work thought them both ‘uncivil’ and unprofitable; and the cruelty was obvious, Chichester stating that many hundred of beasts were killed or spoiled yearly. The horses stopped when they felt the jar of a stump or boulder, and no doubt the resulting tillage was of the poorest kind. In modern times spade labour was used in rough places, and was much more efficient. It was the intention of Chichester to pass an Act of Parliament against ploughing by the tail, but this was not actually done until Strafford’s time. The statute sets forth that ‘besides the cruelty used to the beasts the breed of horses is much impaired in this kingdom to the great prejudice thereof.’ The repeal of this measure was actually made a condition of peace between Charles I. and the Irish Confederates in 1646. The practice gradually ceased to be general after it had been forbidden by law, but even near the end of Charles II.’s reign it still prevailed in the rocky barony of Burren in Clare, where it was found necessary to tolerate it. Arthur Young found the barbarous custom still strong in Cavan, and in Connaught it was not quite extinct even in Queen Victoria’s reign. Its cheapness really recommended the practice, which was even defended on the ground of humanity, because it shortened the draught.[114]

Alleged legal extortion.

Excessive fees.

Chichester is absolved.

It had been complained—and in what age or country has there been no such complaint?—that clerks in the law courts exacted excessive fees, the fear of which prevented men from taking legal remedy. Chichester was able to answer that all scales of charges had been twice carefully overhauled, that they were now much less than in Queen Elizabeth’s time, and that those who had reason to complain well knew that he would give them redress if required. The Commissioners found it very hard to get the exact truth because both judges and officers were so frequently changed, but they found abuse ‘in some particular cases.’ Chichester had greatly increased the revenue, and, as he believed, without adding to the burden of the people; but some new offices had been created in the Exchequer, and it was not clear that this was always to the advantage of either King or subject. Many clerks of courts sought ‘to make their fees equal both in number and value with the fees paid to like officers in England, which seemeth heavy to the subjects of this kingdom, being generally of much less ability.’ The Commissioners made arrangement for the preparation of accurate lists of fees, and they unanimously exonerated Chichester from any malpractice. ‘We found the Deputy upright,’ wrote one Commissioner in his diary. Another in a letter, after hearing voluminous evidence, thought too much time was taken up with trivialities. ‘Whole heaps’ of cases of oppression by soldiers had nevertheless, he said, been established, and he seems to have thought the military element in the Government much too strong. It had been said by a man of good understanding, Cornwallis reported, that ‘these Irish are a scurvy nation, and are as scurvily used,’ and he supposed that when he had heard the Commissioners on their return his noble correspondent would be of the same opinion.[115]

Royal proclamation, Feb. 7, 1613-1614.

Chichester is sent for.

Having received the report of the Commissioners, the King sent Sir Richard Boyle to Ireland with 1,000 copies of a proclamation for distribution all over the country. In it James announced that he had vouchsafed in person to debate with the malcontents on several occasions, that they had not met him in a proper spirit, and that there was evidently a conspiracy among them to bring Chichester into disfavour, whose conduct he had nevertheless found ‘full of respect to our honour, zeal to justice, and sufficiency in the execution of the great charge committed unto him.’ Inferior officers remained liable to punishment for proved demerits. Boyle, who was sworn of the Privy Council as soon as he reached Dublin, also carried a letter from the King to Chichester expressing fuller confidence in him, and directing him to come over and make arrangements for another session, while so many Irish peers and members of Parliament were in London. He was not, however, to leave Ireland if he thought that reasons of state required his continued presence there. He started just a month after Boyle’s arrival, leaving the Government in the hands of Archbishop Jones and Sir R. Wingfield as Lords Justices, narrowly escaped drowning near Conway, and reached London in due course. Among those who accompanied him were Sir John Davies and Sir Josiah Bodley.[116]

The King verbally promises toleration

to all who disavow Suarez.

Sir James Gough publishes the royal message,

but is not believed.

While the Commissioners were still sitting in Dublin, Lords Gormanston and Roche, Sir James Gough, and Mr. Patrick Hussy, member for Meath and titular baron of Galtrim, took leave of the King at Royston. James made a speech, which according to Gough’s report contained the words: ‘As for your religion, howbeit that the religion I profess be the religion I will make the established religion among you, and that the exercise of the religion which you use (which is no religion, indeed, but a superstition) might be left off; yet will I not ensue or extort any man’s conscience, and do grant that all my subjects there (which likewise upon your return thither I require you to make known) do acknowledge and believe that it is not lawful to offer violence unto my person, or to deprive me of my crown, or to take from me my kingdoms, or that you harbour or receive any priest or seminary that would allow such a doctrine. I do likewise require that none of your youth be bred at Douai. Kings have long ears, and be assured that I will be inquisitive of your behaviour therein.’ There were plenty of witnesses, and James was not able to deny the substantial correctness of Gough’s version, who took care to repeat it to Sir Francis Kingsmill, a fellow-passenger across the channel. On landing Gough betook himself to Munster, where he published the King’s words at Youghal, Clonmel and Dungarvan. Having given the report a fortnight’s start in the part of Ireland where he was best known, Sir James repaired to Dublin Castle and delivered the royal message to numerous audiences in the Lord Deputy’s presence ‘in the action and tone of an orator.’ He was called into a more private place, where he maintained his faithful rendering of ‘the most great and true King’s words,’ which he was ready at his command to proclaim ‘at Hercules’ Posts.’ He threw himself upon the royal protection, professing that the Jesuit doctrine was a new thing to him, and repudiating it for himself and his colleagues. They would, he said, refuse the ministration of priests who held it, and also discover them to the authorities. Chichester, who must have cursed the garrulous monarch, declared his disbelief, and Gough was kept under restraint in the Castle.[117]

The King cannot explain away his words,

but Gough has to submit.

James admitted that he had used the language imputed to him, but without intending thereby to claim a dispensing power or to promise full toleration, and he sent over a proclamation to that effect for circulation. Against Sir James Gough he made four points, that his turbulent conduct to the Deputy must be taken as directed against the King, that he had no warrant at all to make any report to his Lordship, that he wilfully misrepresented the royal meaning, and that he had cunningly reported only so much as suited him, which was a very small part of what had been said. Gough was to be detained until he made submission, and when he had made it the Deputy might release him as an act of his own favour. In less than a month after the date of the King’s letter Gough made an ample apology. He now understood that his Majesty intended the laws against recusancy to be enforced, ‘but that his subjects should be compelled by violence or other unlawful means to resort to the Protestant churches I think it not his pleasure.’ Their consciences were to be left free. As this pretty nearly represented Chichester’s own ideas, the submission was accepted and Sir James Gough released.[118]

Talbot before the Star-chamber.

The law officers discourage severity

Bacon nevertheless magnifies Talbot’s offence,

but he is ultimately released.

Talbot was brought before the Star-chamber in London on the same day that Gough made his submission in Dublin. At a previous hearing before the Council the English oath of allegiance was tendered to him, and extracts from Suarez and Parsons were read, of which he was given a copy to meditate upon during his imprisonment. Though the oath of allegiance had no statutory force in Ireland the law officers, Hobart and Bacon, had given a cautious opinion that it might be administered to Irishmen in England, ‘but whether it be convenient to minister it unto them, not being persons commorant or settled there, but only employed for the present business, we must leave it unto his Majesty’s and your Lordships’ better judgments.’ This is a plain hint that they did not think it convenient, but they were overruled, and Bacon, who had since become Attorney-General, had to conduct Talbot’s prosecution. The prisoner not unnaturally vacillated a good deal, but at last, having studied Abbot’s excerpts from the two Jesuits, he declared that they involved matters of faith and must be submitted to the judgment of the catholic Roman church, but, he added, ‘for matter concerning my loyalty, I do acknowledge my sovereign liege lord King James to be lawful and undoubted King of all the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Highness during my life.’ The practical politician who was in Bacon along with the lawyer, the theologian, and the philosopher would no doubt have been satisfied with this; but officially he was bound to accuse Talbot of maintaining a power in the Pope to depose and murder kings. He had not merely refused the oath of allegiance, but had affirmed the power of the Church over civil matters. ‘It would astonish a man,’ said Bacon, ‘to see the gulf of this implied belief. Is nothing exempted from it? If a man should ask Mr. Talbot whether he do condemn murder, or adultery, or rape, or the doctrine of Mahomet, or of Arius instead of Zuarius; must the answer be with this exception, that if the question concern matter of faith (as no question it does, for the moral law is matter of faith) that therein he will submit himself to what the Church will determine.’ Talbot was fined £10,000, but there does not seem to have been any intention to make him pay, and he was allowed to return to Ireland after spending several more months in the Tower. This was euphemistically described by the Privy Council as ‘attendance on his Majesty’s pleasure,’ but they took care that his property should not suffer in his absence. Clemency was shown, but a theoretical gulf had been dug which made it more difficult than ever to reconcile the discordant elements of Irish life.[119]

The King on the constitution of Parliaments,

on Irish grievances,

and on toleration.

On April 12 in the council chamber at Whitehall, and in the presence of Chichester and of the recusant Irish peers and members of Parliament, James delivered the memorable speech which foreshadowed the course of Irish policy until the advent of Strafford. It manifests much cleverness, combined with a characteristic want of dignity. The parliamentary questions were of course decided against the petitioners, who were lectured for their disrespectful bearing at the outset, and for seceding when things went against them. ‘The Lower House,’ he said, ‘here in England doth stand upon its privileges as much as any council in Christendom; yet if such a difference had risen here, they would have gone on with my service notwithstanding. What,’ he exclaimed, ‘if I had created 40 noblemen and 400 boroughs? The more the merrier, the fewer the better cheer,’ adding with a good deal of truth that ‘comparing Irish boroughs new with Irish boroughs old,’ there was not so very much to choose between them, and that for the most part they were likely to increase. The legal point as to members being non-resident he was entitled to pass over lightly, for the law was obsolete in England. ‘If you had said they had no interest,’ he remarked, ‘it had been somewhat, but most have interest in the kingdom, and are likely to be as careful as you for the weal thereof.’ As to civil grievances those complained of were such as were found in all countries, and might be redressed on application to the Lord Deputy, whom the recusants admitted to be the best governor that Ireland had ever had. After full inquiry by an impartial commission the King had ‘found nothing done by him but what is fit for an honourable gentleman to do in his place.’ As to the question of religion, he said the recusants were but half-subjects, and entitled only to half privileges. ‘The Pope is your father in spiritualibus, and I in temporalibus only, and so you have your bodies turned one way and your souls drawn another way; you that send your children to the seminaries of treason. Strive henceforth to become good subjects, that you may have cor unum et viam unam, and then I shall respect you all alike. But your Irish priests teach you such grounds of doctrine as you cannot follow them with a safe conscience, but you must cast off your loyalty to the King.’ And he referred to an intercepted letter from one such priest, which was much more to the purpose than extracts from Suarez and others like him.[120]

Final award as to parliamentary difficulties, 1614.

The Houses get to business at last.

The Roman Catholics at first stay to prayers,

but soon desist.

Legislation proceeds smoothly,

and Tyrone’s attainder is passed unanimously.

Chichester left London on July 11, one week after the Irish Parliament had been prorogued by the Lords Justices for the sixth time. A letter from the King written at Belvoir Castle soon followed him, which contained the final award as to Irish parliamentary matters. The Protestant or Government party were pronounced generally to have been in the right; but the Opposition were not to be any further questioned, since there had been a certain amount of foundation for their complaints. It had been proved that eight boroughs were erected after the issue of the writs, and this disqualified their representatives during the existing Parliament. Three other boroughs were pronounced by the Commissioners to have no power by charter or prescription to send burgesses, and this decision was confirmed. The rest of the elections were declared to be duly made. Sir John Davies carried the royal letter to Dublin along with the Bills finally agreed upon, which did not include that against Jesuits, seminary priests, and other disobedient persons. The prorogation expired on October 11, on which day the Houses met, Chichester having undergone a surgical operation in the interval. He was sufficiently recovered to open Parliament in person, to make a short speech, and to see the effect of the King’s letter, which was read by the Lord Chancellor in his presence. Davies made another speech to the Commons, with the usual classical allusions and the usual appeals to history. James was the Esculapius who had healed their differences, and now there was good hope that their wills should be united. Differences of opinion there needs must be, and sound conclusions could not be reached without them, for had not Ovid said that nature could effect nothing without a struggle? At first all went smoothly, and the Roman Catholics sat patiently through prayers, which were offered up by the Speaker himself. The lawyers held that prayers said by a layman could do them no harm, but the priests thought otherwise, and attendance was discontinued after a week. In the Lords, where a bishop officiated, it was from the first considered out of the question. When the House of Commons came to business both Talbot and Everard exerted themselves to prevent any disturbance. Three Bills were passed without much difficulty, for acknowledgment of the King’s title, for the suppression of piracy, and for taking away benefit of clergy in cases of rape, burglary, and horse-stealing. The English Act of 28 Henry VIII. was never extended to Ireland, and the prevalence of piracy was attributed mainly to that. Special commissions of admiralty were now devised, pirates being denied both benefit of clergy and right of sanctuary. If a jury were sworn there could be no challenge. The Bill for the attainder of the northern chiefs was passed without a single dissentient voice, and became law. Sir John Everard, who seems to have had little sympathy with the Ulster Celts, spoke in favour of it and made little of objections. ‘No man,’ he said, ‘ought to arise against the Prince for religion or justice,’ adding that the many favours bestowed on Tyrone by the late Queen and present King greatly aggravated his offence. ‘And now,’ wrote Davies, ‘all the states of the kingdom have attainted Tyrone, the most notorious and dangerous traitor that was in Ireland, whereof foreign nations will take notice, because it has been given out that Tyrone had left many friends behind him, and that only the Protestants wished his utter ruin. Besides, this attainder settles the plantation of Ulster.’[121]

Finance.

A free gift is asked for,

but with little success.

The Protestants have no working majority.

Our Tudor and Stuart sovereigns looked upon Parliament mainly as an instrument for putting money in their purse. Ireland was a dependency, and was generally a source of expense rather than of income until after the Restoration, when inconvenient criticism was avoided by charging pensions upon the Irish establishment. ‘The King was never the richer for Ireland,’ though private adventurers sometimes made fortunes there. Chichester had greatly improved the revenue, and as there was peace in his time, except for the brief rebellion of O’Dogherty, there were good hopes of making Ireland a paying concern. After his return from England he issued letters asking for a free gift from the county of Dublin; intending to do the same elsewhere if this first appeal was successful, and hoping thus to raise 20,000l. A nest egg was provided by the Archbishop and Lord Howth, who put their names down for 100l. apiece, but the Roman Catholic majority hung back, and as soon as it was known that a parliamentary subsidy would be asked for the chance of any other contribution grew less and less. The Bill, which was the first of the kind in Ireland, was duly forwarded to the English Council, but there were many delays before it was remitted, and it did not reach Ireland until two days after Parliament had been again prorogued. The constituencies generally appear to have made their representatives regular allowances, and this was found very burdensome. Chichester had found it impossible to keep the Houses sitting with no business before them. Moreover for want of occupation the members began to make inconvenient inquiries into the general course of government, and they rejected Bills for the confirmation of titles to lands acquired by forfeiture in Elizabeth’s time. The Papists, wrote Winwood’s secretary, had been in a majority during the whole session ‘through their careful attendance and the negligent attendance of the Protestants, and this had given them such confidence of their own strength that they have dared to mutter, not many days before the Parliament was prorogued, that the new charters might yet be made void, that the Act of 2 Elizabeth might be suspended, and that the recusant lawyers who were put from pleading might be again admitted to the bar.’[122]

Last session of the Parliament, 1615.

A subsidy cheerfully granted,

but collected with difficulty.

Optimism of Sir John Davies.

Parliament was again prorogued at the end of January 1615, and James, seeing little chance of a supply, was on the point of directing a dissolution. But he changed his mind, and decided to be guided by the proceedings on the money Bill. The Houses met accordingly on April 18, and the subsidy was granted without any difficulty. Vice-Treasurer Ridgeway thought this a half-miracle, the House of Commons ‘being compounded of three several nations, besides a fourth, consisting of old English Irelandised (who are not numbered among the mere Irish or new English) and of two several blessed religions (whatsoever more), besides the ignorance of almost all (they being at first more afraid than hurt) concerning the name, nature, and sum of a subsidy.’ Contrary to the settled practice of later times the Bill was introduced first in the House of Lords. Winwood’s secretary, who sat for Lifford, was allowed precedence in the debate, and was much struck by the readiness of all parties. Many of the Irish assured Blundell that they would willingly have given two subsidies if it had not been for the great loss of cattle during the late severe winter. Nobody knew what the sum raised was likely to amount to, but Ridgeway thought it might reach 30,000l. in money and cows. Chichester said it could not be got in coin unless specie were sent from England to pay the officials, who were all in debt; their creditors might then be enabled to meet the tax. Former benevolences and cesses in Ireland had been raised on land only, and there were many exemptions for waste and in favour of influential people. Goods were now included, and taxed at 2s. 8d. in the pound for natives and 5s. 4d. for aliens and denizens. The imposition on realty was 4s. and 8s. English precedent was departed from in so far that the clergy were taxed as well as the laity, but this was changed in Strafford’s time. Half the money was to be paid in September 1615, and half in the following March. The preamble of the first Irish subsidy Bill bears evident marks of Davies’s hand, setting forth that Ireland had been hitherto only a source of expense to the Crown owing to continual disturbances. ‘But forasmuch,’ it proceeds, ‘as since the beginning of his Majesty’s most happy reign all the causes of war, dissension, and discontentment are taken away,’ principally by extirpating traitors and placing English and Scotch colonies in Ulster, the King was now ‘in full and peaceable possession of his vineyard,’ and entitled to expect some income from it. The King’s letter of thanks is an echo of this, but it was Carew and not Davies that proved a true prophet when a worse war than Tyrone’s broke out in that very Ulster which was supposed to be ‘cleared from the thorns and briars of rebellion.’[123]

Proposed legislation, most of which is abandoned,

against Recusants,

for a fixed revenue,

against Tanistry,

and for many other purposes.

It was originally hoped or intended that there should be very important legislation in this Irish Parliament. Bills were prepared for repairing churches and preventing waste of Church property and against pluralities and non-residence. On the other hand stringent enactments were contemplated against Jesuits and seminary priests, and in particular to make the English law enforceable against Recusants who fled into Ireland to have more free exercise of their religion there. No part of this programme was carried out, and it was probably from a feeling of relief that the Irish majority were so amenable in connection with the subsidy. The oath of allegiance had not been imposed by law in Ireland, and it was proposed to legalise its administration by commissioners, but this was not done. Several Bills devised to give the King a fixed revenue were also abandoned. Of twenty projected Acts ‘concerning the common weal, or general good of the subject,’ only two became law, those against piracy and against benefit of clergy in cases of felony. Of the other abortive bills that of largest scope was for abolishing the Brehon Law and the custom of gavelkind and for naturalising all the native Irish. Tanistry and gavelkind had already been declared illegal by judicial decisions, and probably it was not thought prudent to raise the question. But an Act was passed repealing certain statutes in which Irishmen had been treated as enemies or aliens, and declaring that all natives and inhabitants of Ireland did in fact live under one law. Bills for confirming royal grants to undertakers in Ulster and Munster came to nothing, and probably it was thought wiser to keep the power of forfeiture in reserve. A poor law was contemplated, but the machinery for working the 43rd of Elizabeth did not exist in Ireland, and nothing effectual was done until 1838. A Bill for the preservation of woods was abandoned, and so was another, for the protection of hawks, pheasants, and partridges, which may sound odd to modern sportsmen.’[124]

A highway system introduced.

Legislation against Scots repealed.

A general pardon.

To this Parliament Ireland owes the first establishment of a regular highway system, the remote results of which delighted Arthur Young when the roads of England were still very bad. The charge was placed on the parishes, and compulsory powers were given to take small stones out of quarries, and underwood when required, paying such compensation as the supervisor thought reasonable. An Act of Mary against bringing in Scots and marrying with them was repealed in consequence of the union of England, Scotland, and Ireland ‘under one imperial crown.’ The only other act of great importance passed was one for a general pardon of all offences not specially excepted. But the list of exceptions was a long one, including treason and misprision of treason, piracy and murder, since the beginning of the reign. Burglary, arson, horse-stealing, and rape were pardoned unless committed within one year before the beginning of the session. Witchcraft, however, and most offences against the revenue, were excepted if committed since the King’s accession. Outlaws were excepted until such satisfaction was given as would lead to a reversal of the outlawry, and a special Act was passed to restrict the power of private suitors to place their adversaries in such a position. ‘No kingdom or people,’ said Davies, ‘have more need of this Act for a general pardon than Ireland,’ but it was considered very insufficient. Nothing was done to abate extortion in the Exchequer and other courts, and there were no words of ‘pardon of intrusions and alienations, which is the burden that lies heavy upon all the gentlemen of the kingdom.’[125]

Parliament is dissolved October, 1615,

and the King falls back on prerogative.

Obsolete statutes.

The subsidy having been granted, Parliament was prorogued after sitting four weeks, and it was intended to have another session in October. Long before the recess was over James made up his mind that there should be a dissolution, and that he would not receive another deputation from the Irish Commons. The reasons given were that the existence of Parliament interfered with the ordinary course of justice, and that the luxury was too expensive both for the members and for the constituents, who paid them more or less sufficiently. That this was not the true reason may be inferred from the fact that a dissolution was very unpopular. Probably the King thought Irish Parliaments dangerous and unmanageable as he learned to regard English ones, and he had no great appetite for legislation when the prerogative was strong enough to carry out the most pressing reforms. Orders were given to reduce the scale of legal fees and to have them hung up in all the courts. If the clergy exacted excessive charges for burials they were to modify them. Restraints on trade were to be removed by proclamation, but the exportation of wool was forbidden except into England. Finally the Statute of Kilkenny and all other Acts prohibiting commerce between English and Irish were to be treated as obsolete until the next Parliament, when they might be utterly repealed. As a matter of fact no Parliament met until Strafford’s time, and the system of bureaucratic government without effective criticism was not destined to be successful.[126]

FOOTNOTES:

[98] Instructions for Carew, June 24, 1611, in Carew Papers; Chichester to Salisbury, February 17, 1611; Lords of Council to Chichester, March 7, 1613; King to same, March 21; Lords of Council to same, October 9, 1612.

[99] List of Perrott’s Parliament in Tracts Relating to Ireland, ii. 139; List of the Parliament of 1613 in Liber mun. pub. Hiberniæ, vii. 50; Remembrances touching the Parliament, No. 93 in vol. v. of Carew Papers; as to Connaught and Munster, ib., Nos. 92, 87; Calculations as to the votes of the nobility, ib. 86; Brief Relation of the Passages in Parliament (part in Carew’s hand), ib. 149. Counties and boroughs sending burgesses to Parliament in State Papers, Ireland, April 1, 1613. A letter written in 1612 by David Kearney, Archbishop of Cashel, and others, to the Irish seminaries in Spain, says, ‘What keeps everyone in a state of intense suspense is the fear of the approaching Parliament, in which the heretics intend to vomit out all their poison and infect with it the purity of our holy religion, and it is expected that things will take place in it such as have not been seen since the schism of Henry VIII. began.’—Spicilegium Ossoriense, i. 122.

[100] Carew’s Remembrances to be thought of touching the Parliament in Carew Papers, 1611, No. 93; Davies to Salisbury, October 14, 1611, State Papers, Ireland; The King to Chichester, June 2 and September 26, 1612, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland; Brief Relation, etc., in Carew Papers, 1613, No. 149.

[101] Letter of Lords Gormanston, Slane, Killeen, Trimleston, Dunsany, and Louth to the King, November 25, 1612, printed in Leland, ii. 443; the King to Chichester, March 4 and 31, 1613, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland.

[102] Petition of May 18, 1613, with Chichester’s answer in Carew Papers. The signatories are Lords Gormanston, Fermoy, Mountgarrett, Buttevant, Delvin, Slane, Trimleston, Louth, Dunboyne, and Cahir. The names of Lords Killeen and Dunsany, who signed the first letter, are absent, but the former was active later.

[103] Narratives in Carew Papers, 1613, Nos. 146, 147, 149, the last paper being a detailed account signed by forty-one Protestant members. Dr. Ryves to Dr. Dunn, May 29, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland. St. John had been active in the English Parliament of 1593, and was M.P. for Portsmouth 1604-1607.

[104] Narratives ut sup. Davies’s first speech is given in Grosart’s edition of his Prose Works, ii. 218 (Private Circulation, 1876); the other in Davies’s Tracts, 1787, from a copy in the British Museum, formerly in Clarendon’s possession, compared with one in the Commons Journal, printed by Leland as an appendix. Both speeches are printed in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica. Davies was well versed in English history and legal antiquities, but he confounds the ‘Parlement’ of Paris with the States General.

[105] Petitions and declarations by the Recusants in Parliament calendared in State Papers, Ireland, May 17-27, 1613; Lord Deputy and Council to the King, ib. No. 685; the King to Chichester, ib. July 8.

[106] The instructions to the Commissioners are in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, omitting the first two which are now supplied by Irish Cal., 1613, No. 781. Bacon to the King, January 1614, in Spedding, v. 2; The King to Chichester, September 1613, Cal. No. 759.

[107] Schedule of returns in Irish Cal., May 31, 1613, with the Commissioners’ awards at November 12, also printed in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica. The other disputed county elections were in Armagh, Cavan, Down, King’s County, Limerick, and Roscommon.

[108] Schedule ut sup.

[109] Schedule ut sup.

[110] The petition is in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 212, the names and constituencies in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1613, No. 692. Irish Statutes, 18 Edw. IV. cap. 2, 33 Henry VIII. sess. 2, cap. 1. Hallam’s Constitutional History, chap. xiii.

[111] Instructions to Thomond, Denham and St. John, June 6, 1613 in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 208 (misprinted 280).

[112] Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 231, 233; Barnewall’s letters, ib. 164; for Talbot, ib. 231, 234, 236, 321, and Irish Cal. 1614, Nos. 852 and 969.

[113] Complaints of Recusants with Chichester’s answer, 1613, No. 709.

[114] Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 369; Irish Statutes, 10 and 11 Car. I. cap. 15; Dineley’s Voyage in 1681, p. 162; Confederation and War, v. 299. Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613, as to ‘what great sums of money have been drawn out of the supposed commiseration of the hinder parts of these poor Irish garrans.’ Ulster Journal of Archæology, vi. 212. Uvedale ultimately surrendered his grant for 1,250l., Cal., March 15, 1625. Cæsar Otway’s Erris and Tyrawly (1841), p. 358.

[115] Report of Commissioners in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 359. Roger Wilbraham’s Diary (Camden Society’s Miscellany, vol. x.). Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613; Sir Robert Jacob to same, November 30. Both letters show that Cornwallis was closely in Northampton’s confidence.

[116] Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 291-301. Chichester left Chester March 21, but a letter calendared at March 27, shows that the Council were not then aware that he had left Ireland (he did not get it till the following December).

[117] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, November 24, 1613; Sir James Gough’s Discourse written and subscribed before the Lord Deputy, Chancellor and others, No. 973; Report to the King of Spain, ib. No. 969. ‘Hercules’ Posts’ was a tavern in Fleet Street.

[118] The King to Chichester, January 4, 1614. The submission, dated January 31, 1614, is in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 287.

[119] Opinion of law officers in Spedding, iv. 388; Bacon’s Speech, January 31, 1614, ib. v. 5; Privy Council to Chichester, calendared No. 798 under January 27, 1614, but perhaps of earlier date; same to same, July 25, 1614. Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 321, 393.

[120] James’s speech is in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 302, dated April 12, 1613, which is an obvious misprint. It is printed in Carew at April 20, 1614, the ‘Thursday before Easter.’

[121] The King to Chichester, August 7, 1614; St. John to Winwood, October 23 and November 4; Davies to Somerset, October 31, enclosing his speech of October 11, and to Winwood.

[122] Chichester to the King, October 16, 1614; St. John to Winwood, September 3 and 24 and October 23, 1614; Davies to Somerset, and also to Winwood, October 31; to Winwood, November 28; and to Somerset, December 2. Francis Blundell to Winwood, December 17; Chichester to same, December 18. Parliament was prorogued on November 29.

[123] Proposition for the increase of the Irish Revenue, September 1611, in Carew, No. 70, signed by Chichester, Carew, Vice-Treasurer Ridgeway, Chief Baron Denham, and Davies; Irish Statutes, 11, 12, and 13 James I., chap. 10; The King to Chichester, March 25, 1615; Chichester to the King and F. Blundell to Winwood, April 28; Ridgeway to Winwood, August 7; Chichester to Winwood, October 31; Council of War for Ireland (Grandison, Carew, and Chichester) to Conway, February 8, 1625.

[124] Abstract of Acts brought over by Sir H. Winch and Sir J. Davies 1812, No. 439. Irish Statutes, 11, 12, and 13 James I. Le Case de Gavelkind, 3 Jac. I., and Le Case de Tanistry, 5 Jac. I. in Davies’s Reports, 1628. Irish Statutes 1612, chap. 5.

[125] Irish Statutes, 1612, chaps. 6-9. Titles of proposed Acts, 1612, No. 530 in Calendar of State Papers, Ireland. St. John to Winwood. November 28, and December 9, 1614.

[126] Parliament was dissolved October 24, 1615. The King to Chichester, August 22, and October 17; Lords of Council to Chichester, June 26; Chichester to Winwood, October 31.

[CHAPTER VIII]
LAST YEARS OF CHICHESTER’S GOVERNMENT, 1613-1615

The Ormonde heritage.

A new Earl of Desmond.

The palatinate of Tipperary.

Interference with property was not limited to the ancient Irish, but was extended by James to the greatest and most loyal of the Anglo-Norman families. The tenth Earl of Ormonde, known as Black Thomas, who played so great a part in Elizabeth’s time, had been blind ever since the King’s accession. During these years his chief care was to keep the estates and the title together, and he took every possible precaution both by will and deed. Having no son living, he married his only daughter Elizabeth to her cousin Theobald, Lord Tullophelim, who was the nearest male heir, and who was in great favour both with the King and Chichester, but not with the old Earl, who accused him of ill-using his wife and of keeping bad company. Tullophelim died childless early in 1613, and a son of Lord Thomond’s immediately sought the widow’s hand; but the King insisted on her marrying Richard Preston, a Scotch gentleman of the bedchamber, who, had been about him from his childhood, accompanied him to England, and was knighted at the coronation. The marriage took place, and the favourite, who in 1607 had been created Lord Dingwall in Scotland, became Earl of Desmond in Ireland in 1619. It was actually the intention of James to endow the new coronet with everything that had belonged to the old Desmonds; but little came of this, for the forfeited lands were already occupied by others. Dingwall was with his father-in-law when he died in 1614, and was immediately involved in litigation which lasted longer than his life. In announcing Ormonde’s death, Chichester pointed out that there was now an opportunity of abolishing the palatinate of Tipperary ‘so long enjoyed by that house to the offence of most of the inhabitants of that county and of the neighbouring counties adjoining.’ No doubt it was very desirable to get rid of such an anomaly, provided it were done openly on public grounds, and with some reasonable compensation for the financial loss. But that was not James’s way of doing things. The political advisability of dividing the great Ormonde heritage went for something with him, but the really important matter was to secure a large part of it for a Scotch courtier.[127]

Litigation about the Ormonde estates.

James I. as an arbitrator.

Harsh treatment of the Earl of Ormonde.

The heir to the late Earl’s title was his nephew, known for his devotion as ‘Walter of the beads and rosaries,’ and to make everything safe this had been secured to him by fresh letters patent. He married a daughter of Lord Mountgarret, and her brothers, after Earl Thomas’s death, plotted to carry off his widow and to secure her jointure by marriage to one of themselves; but this plan was frustrated, and she married Sir Thomas Somerset. The estates were all carefully entailed upon the new Earl; but Lady Desmond was heir general, and lawyers in those days could generally find flaws in titles if those in authority wished it. In this case James did wish to give much of the property to his favourite; but it was always possible that the courts of law might act independently, and Earl Walter was induced to give a bond for 100,000l. to abide by the King’s personal decision in the matter. Perhaps he was forced to this by his difficulties for want of money, or by an exaggerated belief in James’s wisdom, or he may have been simply a bad man of business. When James made his award, the Earl found that he would not have enough to support his dignity, and declined to submit. The result was that he spent eight years under restraint, chiefly in the Fleet prison, where he endured extreme poverty and misery. The King seized the revenues of that portion which he had adjudged to the prisoner, as well as the palatinate of Tipperary, which belonged to him as heir male. Taking advantage of his adversary’s distress, Desmond even set up a claimant to the Earldom of Ormonde, but the imposture was too absurd to have any chance of success. After his death his daughter and heiress married Earl Walter’s grandson, the future Duke of Ormonde, but this did not take place until the next reign.[128]

The MacDonnells in Antrim. Sir Randal MacDonnell.

MacDonnells and O’Neills.

Tortuous policy of Sir Randal.

Randal MacDonnell, Sorley Boy’s eldest surviving son, had accompanied Tyrone to Kinsale; but deserted the falling cause in good time, brought a useful contingent to Mountjoy, and was knighted by him. While Elizabeth lived, the close connection between the MacDonnells in the isles and in Ulster had always been a source of danger, and one of James’s first cares was to secure the allegiance of the Irish branch. The northern part of Antrim, including the coast from Larne to Portrush, was granted to Randal by patent. From this grant, estimated to contain 333,907 acres, the castle of Dunluce was at first excepted, but this was afterwards thrown in with the rest, as were the fishery of the Bann and the island of Rathlin. MacDonnell married Tyrone’s daughter, which no doubt strengthened his position; but he realised clearly that parchment, and not steel, would in future decide the fortunes of families. He was in England in 1606, and Salisbury, when saying good-bye, advised him not to be his own carver. Chichester thought the grants to him were improvident, and was never quite satisfied about his loyalty, but he was able to clear himself of all complicity when Tyrone fled the country, and he took care not to obstruct the settlement afterwards. Before O’Dogherty’s outbreak he was on equally good terms with that unfortunate chief and with his opponent, Bishop Montgomery, and he was received at Court in 1608 and 1610. In 1614 he was one of those who went security for Florence MacCarthy in London.[129]

Sir Randal’s schemes in the Hebrides.

Macdonalds and Campbells.

While strengthening his position in Ireland, Sir Randal did not give up all hold on the Western Islands, for he obtained a lease of Isla and attempted to govern it along with, and according to the rules of, his Irish estate. He was never able to make much out of it, for his tenants disliked novelties, and so did the Scotch Privy Council. The strong castle of Dunyveg was entrusted by the Government to Bishop Knox of the Isles, but his weak garrison was surprised by one of the bastard Macdonalds, who in his turn had to surrender it to Angus Oig, brother of Sir James Macdonald, lord of Isla, who was a prisoner at Edinburgh. Angus professed to hold the castle for the King; but refused nevertheless to give it up to the Bishop, who had all the authority that the Government could give him. Well informed people at Edinburgh thought Argyle was at the bottom of the whole disturbance, ‘and the matter so carried that it was impossible to deprehend the plot.’ Bishop Knox, who was well versed in Highland politics, and who would have liked to settle the Hebrides with lowlanders on the Ulster plan, considered it ‘neither good nor profitable to his Majesty, nor to this realm, to make the name of Campbell greater in the Isles than they are already; nor yet to root out one pestiferous clan, and plant in another little better.’ The offer of a good rent by Sir John Campbell of Calder was nevertheless accepted, and Isla was granted to him, with the authority of King’s lieutenant, and orders to root out the Macdonalds. No notice was apparently taken of Sir Randal’s rights or claims. Sir James Macdonald’s proposals were disregarded, and in November 1614 Sir John Campbell carried a strong force to Duntroon, where he awaited assistance from Ireland. Archibald Campbell, Argyle’s representative in Cantire, was sent over to explain matters to Chichester.[130]

Irish expedition to the Isles.

Siege of Dunyveg,

which is taken,

and given to the Campbells.

Isla worth four times as much as Inishowen.

The King’s orders to Chichester were to send 200 men, under an experienced commander, to join the laird of Calder. He remembered former trouble in Isla, and had heard that the walls were thirty-six feet thick and would require the best cannon that Chichester could get in any Irish forts, as well as petards, and a skilful engineer. Sir Oliver Lambert, who had seen much fighting in Spain and the Netherlands, as well as in Ireland, offered his services, which were at once accepted. Archibald Campbell came to Dublin in November, and accompanied Lambert when he sailed on December 7. The troops were conveyed in two men of war, and a hoy carried the cannon and stores. On December 14 the expedition reached the sound of Isla; but there was no sign of Sir John Campbell, from whom Lambert was to take orders. Letters came at last, but the weather was so bad that Sir John could not come until January 1. It took another month to provide a platform for the ‘two whole cannon of brass, and one whole culverin of brass, fair and precious pieces,’ which composed Lambert’s battery. Captain Crawford, a brave officer, died from the effects of a chance shot, and little or nothing could have been done without Captain Button and his sailors. Button, who had been to Hudson’s Bay, and was a discoverer as well as a seaman, found the land-locked harbour now called Lodoms. The walls of Dunyveg turned out to be eight feet thick and not thirty-six, and three days’ cannonade was enough for the defenders, who, however, made their escape to a boat which they had hidden among the rocks, and so got away by sea to another part of the island. Their leader, Coll Keitach McGillespie, afterwards went to Ireland. The result of the whole transaction was to give Isla to Sir John Campbell, and so to increase the power of his clan. Sir Randal MacDonnell was strictly forbidden by the King to go to Isla before July 1, when he might sue in the courts at Edinburgh for anything that remained due to him. Lambert gave James a very good account of Campbell, and advised that trained soldiers should be assigned to him. ‘One hundred such Irish as with little charge we can bring are able to suppress island after island, reckon what they will of their numbers. Your Majesty’s ships will add a great countenance with such business, being well acquainted now where to harbour.’ He praised Isla, which was free from snow when Cantire, Jura, and the hills of Ireland were all white, and it was worth four times as much as Inishowen ‘that you gave my Lord Deputy of Ireland.’ ... The Irish never readily answered your Majesty’s laws till they were disarmed, compelled to eat their own meat, and live by their own labours.’ The Highlanders were fine men, and might easily be made soldiers if placed under proper government, their present rule being ‘yet more barbarous than the rudest that ever I saw in Ireland.’[131]

Ulster affected by Highland politics.

The Islanders conspire with the Irish,

who are encouraged by a friar.

A son of Tyrone’s.

The last struggle of the Macdonalds to drive the Campbells from Isla and Cantire had some connection with the movements of the discontented in Ulster, but these intrigues are very obscure, and perhaps scarcely worth unravelling. Sir James Macdonald escaped from Edinburgh in May 1615, and by the end of the year was a fugitive in Spain, his flight having been facilitated by Jesuits in or about Galway. After evacuating Dunyveg, Coll Keitach wandered from island to island, and penetrated in Ireland as far as Lough Neagh, whence he returned to Ballycastle Bay, with Sir Randal’s nephew Sorley and with other Macdonnells and O’Cahans. At first he merely intended to hide from the Scotch Government in Isla and Cantire, but after conference with his Irish friends he took to piracy, in which Sorley MacJames was his active abettor. In the meantime the Irish Government detected a conspiracy which had been brewing for two years among the landless men unprovided for in the settlement, who were always a source of danger. Alexander Macdonnell, Sir Randal’s nephew, was to head the insurrection, with his brother Sorley, and an illegitimate cousin named Lother or Ludar. In their case the grievance was that Sir Randal had obtained too much and his kinsmen too little, but there were plenty of O’Neills, O’Donnells, O’Cahans and others who were ready to join, and some of them for the sake of religion as well as for land. Cormac Maguire, acting as a sheriff’s officer in Fermanagh, was charged by a friar named Edmund Mullarkey to join Brian Crossagh and Art Oge O’Neill, who were among the chief conspirators. ‘And though thou shouldst die in this service,’ he added, ‘thy soul shall be sure to go to heaven; and as many men as shall be killed in this service all their souls shall go to heaven. All those that were killed in O’Dogherty’s war are in heaven.’ The friars great object was to get possession of Tyrone’s illegitimate son Con, a boy of fourteen, who was in Sir Toby Caulfield’s charge. The eyes of the Irish being upon him, he was sent to Eton for safety, and in 1622 to the Tower, where he may have died, for nothing more appears to be recorded of him.[132]

Rory O’Cahan’s plot to surprise Coleraine, 1615.

Londonderry,

and all the settlement towns.

The plot is frustrated.

One of the ringleaders, and perhaps the originator of this hopeless plot, was Rory Oge O’Cahan, Sir Donnell’s eldest son, who hated Sir Thomas Phillips for apprehending his father and hoped to win Limavady from him. A witness swore that he had seen a written plan signed by all the conspirators, and that the undertaking was to this effect: that first they were to attack Coleraine, where Rory Oge and others would be drinking all day, and that he by a friend could ‘command the guard to betray the town, as by letting them in, and that then, being in, they would burn the town and only take Mr. Beresford and Mr. Rowley prisoners, and to burn and kill all the rest, and to take the spoil of the town, and so if they were able to put all the Derry to death by fire and sword.’ Lifford, where Sir Richard Hansard alone was to be saved, would come next, a like fate being intended for Massereene, Carrickfergus, Mountjoy and all other English settlements. They proposed to hold the three gentlemen as hostages for the restoration of Neil Garv and his son, of O’Cahan, and of Sir Cormac MacBaron. Help was to be expected from Spain and the Hebrides, until which they could hold out and ‘not do as O’Dogherty did.’ Rory O’Cahan drank freely and bragged of his intentions, and the whole affair is important mainly as showing that the Ulster Irish were anxious to do then what they actually did do in 1641, and what Carew foretold they would do much sooner. The evidence of informers is never satisfactory, but in this case there is a mass of evidence which cannot be resisted. Winwood’s correspondents Blundell and Jacob made light of the plot, and they may have known that the secretary thought Chichester had been viceroy long enough. Six or seven of those implicated were executed, including the friar Mullarkey and a priest named Laughlin O’Laverty, with Rory O’Cahan and Brian Crossagh O’Neill, who was an illegitimate son of Sir Cormac MacBaron; Alexander MacDonnell was acquitted.[133]

Chichester recalled,

and made Lord Treasurer.

Jones and Denham, Lords Justices, 1616.

There seems to be no evidence as to any special reason for recalling Chichester, and perhaps we may take the King’s words as the whole truth. He had been Lord Deputy for over eleven years, which was unprecedented, and James, declaring that he had no wish to wear out good subjects in such hard service, gave him leave to retire to his government at Carrickfergus or to go to court, whichever seemed best to him. And there were many expressions of gratitude and good will. The Lord Treasurership of Ireland was vacant by the death of the old Earl of Ormonde, and it was conferred as a mark of honour upon the retiring viceroy. Chichester might probably have been an earl had he been willing to pay court to Somerset, but he excused himself to Humphrey May on the ground that his estate would only support a barony. James admired his letters so much that he advised the favourite to model his style upon them. Somerset’s fall does not seem, however, to have had anything to do with Chichester’s recall. The Chancellor-Archbishop, Thomas Jones, and Chief Justice Sir John Denham were appointed Lords Justices, and were instructed to report either to Winwood or Lake, but matters directly concerning the King were to be referred to Winwood only, ‘because it is likely that he will more usually attend his person than his colleague.’ They had the customary powers of a viceroy, except that they were forbidden to meddle with wardships or intrusions, or to make knights without direct orders from his Majesty, ‘because former Deputies have taken to themselves such liberty as to confer that honour upon needy and unworthy persons, and thereby have done the King’s authority and that calling too much wrong.’ The interregnum lasted nearly six months without any incident of importance, but Bacon afterwards declared that Denham had done good service as Lord Justice. About six weeks after surrendering the sword, Chichester went to England and joined the King at Newmarket. Ellesmere had warned him that he had ill-wishers among the Council, and he had answered that he desired to be judged by his actions rather than by vague and malicious detractors.[134]

Chichester’s position in Irish history.

In principle a persecutor,

but tolerant in practice.

Vacillation of the English Government.

Chichester made few mistakes.

Experience teaches most men, whether statesmen or not, the value of Walpole’s quieta non movere, and they learn to let sleeping dogs lie. There are always plenty of things which will not wait. One of Chichester’s first acts as Lord Deputy was to advise a proclamation to ‘cut off by martial law seminaries, Jesuits, and such hedge priests as have neither goods nor living, and do daily flock hither.’ He must therefore be taken as a consenting party to the famous proclamation issued less than four months later, in which James indignantly repudiated the idea that he could be guilty of toleration, and ordered the whole population of Ireland to attend church on Sundays and holidays according to the tenor and intent of the laws and statutes, upon the pains and penalties contained therein, which he will have from henceforth duly put in execution.’ As to the numerous ‘Jesuits, seminary priests, or other priests whatsoever made and ordained by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from the See of Rome’ who ranged about seducing the people, they were to leave Ireland before the end of the year on pain of incurring all statutory penalties, or to conform openly. It is just conceivable that this drastic treatment might have succeeded if it had been ruthlessly and consistently applied, but Chichester had neither the wish nor the power to do so, and in less than six months the English Government had veered completely round. Toleration, indeed, was not to be thought of, but admonition, persuasion, and instruction were to be tried before the law was enforced, and as to the priests the Lord Deputy was to ‘forbear to make a curious and particular search for them.’ After a decade of this vacillating policy Chichester may well have given up the enforcement of conformity as hopeless. He was succeeded by a money-making Archbishop, who would naturally magnify his office in a persecuting direction, and an English judge who was likely to care more for the letter of the law than for political considerations. After them came a new Deputy, who was a soldier like his predecessor, but with much less ability and without his long training in civil affairs. Chichester’s character may be estimated from his actions. He was not more tolerant in principle than other public men in his time, but in practice was as little of a persecutor as possible. His integrity is unquestionable. He has been blamed for acquiring Inishowen; but it was clearly forfeited, and might easily have been put into much worse hands. If his advice had been taken, O’Dogherty would never have risen, and perhaps the rebellion of 1641 would have been averted. On the whole he must be considered one of the greatest viceroys that Ireland has had, and if he was less brilliant than Strafford, at least his work lasted longer.[135]

Tyrone and Tyrconnel in exile.

Death of Tyrconnel, 1608.

Death of Tyrone, 1616.

Tyrone and Tyrconnel deserted Ireland in September 1607, and their return was for a long time hoped and feared. Chichester thought they might return and make trouble with very little foreign help. Tyrone himself was not quite so sanguine, but he thought he could drive all the English out of Ireland with 12,000 Spanish troops. But Philip III. remembered Kinsale too well, and even Paul V. sometimes tired of the expense of supporting the exiles, and was fain to believe, much to Parsons’ disgust, that James no longer persecuted the Catholics. Tyrconnel and others died within a year of leaving Ireland. It was said that they were poisoned, but the real cause of death was doubtless Roman fever contracted during a riotous excursion to Ostia in the hot season. The settlement of Ulster was for a time delayed by rumours of Tyrone’s return, but gradually they ceased to frighten tolerably well-informed people. A mysterious Italian proposed to poison the chief of the Irish exiles, and Wotton, though he gave him no encouragement, expressed no indignation, merely saying that his King was less given to such practices than other monarchs. Late in 1613 a Franciscan friar found his account in telling the Ulster Irish that Tyrconnel was about to return with 18,000 men from the King of Spain, and that there was a prophecy in a book at Rome that the English should rule Ireland for only two years more. Similar rumours about Tyrone were circulated in the summer of 1615, and he sometimes used to brag himself of what he would do. Except for a short visit to Naples he never left the papal territory; neither France, Spain, nor Flanders would receive him, and Cosmo II. of Florence, who wished to stand well with England, would not even allow him to come as far as Monte Pulciano. He died on July 20, 1616, and was buried near Tyrconnel in San Pietro in Montorio, but it is doubtful whether their bones still lie there.[136]

FOOTNOTES:

[127] St. John to Winwood, October 23, 1614; Chichester to the King, November 25. Ormonde died on November 22 at Carrick-on-Suir. Lady Desmond died October 10, 1628, and her husband eighteen days later; he was drowned between Dublin and Holyhead. Their daughter Elizabeth, afterwards Duchess of Ormonde and Lady Dingwall in her own right, was born in 1615.

[128] Introduction to Carte’s Ormonde; Lodge’s Peerage of Ireland (Archdall), art. Mountgarret; Morrin’s Calendar of Patent Rolls, Car. I. p. 12 &c.; Fourteenth Report of Historical MSS. Commission, Appx. vii. p. 6; several notices in the last vol. of the Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Jac. I.

[129] James’s first and chief grant was of date May 28, 1603. Hill’s MacDonnells of Antrim, State Papers, Ireland, 1603-1614, and Erck’s Patent Rolls.

[130] Gregory’s Western Highlands, chap. viii.; Burton’s History of Scotland, chap. lxiv. Avoiding the mazes of Celtic nomenclature, I have called the Scottish clansmen Macdonald, as Burton and Gregory do. The Irish branch of the same tribe I have called MacDonnell, as is usual in Ulster.

[131] The King to Chichester, October 14, 1614; St. John to Winwood, November 28; Lambert to Somerset, and to the King, February 7, 1615, the latter in Carew. Gregory’s Western Highlands, ut sup.

[132] The Friar Mullarkey’s part is detailed in State Papers, Ireland 1615, Nos. 70-72. For young Con O’Neill see Meehan’s Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, and for the Scotch element see Gregory’s Western Highlands and Hill’s Macdonnells, p. 226 sqq. See also Chichester to Winwood, November 22, 1615.

[133] The evidence of witnesses is in the Irish Cal., 1615, April to June, pp. 29-82. Chichester’s report is No. 69, Blundell’s and Jacob’s 89 and 91, Teig O’Lennar’s examination, 71. No. 144 shows that torture was used in one case, being headed ‘The voluntary confession of Cowconnaght O’Kennan upon the rack ... by virtue of the Lord Deputy’s commission.’ O’Kennan, whom Lodder MacDonnell calls Maguire’s rhymer, was a priest according to O’Sullivan Bere, who wrongly asserts that there was only one witness, whom he calls ‘lusor’ and ‘aleator.’ This may have been suggested by the fact that, according to Brian Crossagh (No. 143), a carrow, or professional gambler, was mixed up in the plot. O’Sullivan also says that the jury consisted of English and Scotch heretics, who had property in Ulster, and therefore desired the death of native gentlemen.—Hist. Cath. IV., iii. 2.

[134] The King to Chichester, November 27-29, 1615; instructions to the Lords Justices, December 19; Chichester to Ellesmere, January 12, 1616; Winwood to the Lords Justices, March 1. Both Gardiner (ii. 302) and Spedding (Life of Bacon, v. 376) suggest that Chichester was superseded because he was disinclined to be hard on the Recusants, but of this there is no evidence.

[135] Chichester to Cranbourne, March 12, 1605; Proclamation against toleration, July 4; Lords of Council (including Bancroft, Ellesmere, and Salisbury) to Chichester, January 24, 1606.

[136] Chichester to Northampton, February 7, 1608 (printed in Ulster Journal of Archæology, i. 181); to Salisbury, April 15, 1609; to Winwood, June 15 and November 22, 1615; Wotton to Salisbury, July 11 and August 8, 1608; Wotton to James I., April 24 (calendared as No. 902), giving an account of the poisoning project. Examination of Shane O’Donnelly, October 22, 1613. See Mr. Dunlop’s article on Tyrone in Dict. of Nat. Biography.

[CHAPTER IX]
ST. JOHN AND FALKLAND, 1616-1625

St. John becomes viceroy,

with an empty treasury,

but tries to enforce uniformity.

Sir Oliver St. John, who had been ten years Master of the Ordnance in Ireland, owed his appointment in part to the rising influence of Villiers; but the advice of Chichester is likely to have been in his favour. His competence was not disputed, and Bacon was satisfied of his ‘great sufficiency,’ but many people thought he was hardly a man of sufficient eminence. He landed at Skerries on August 26, 1616, but his Irish troubles began before he reached Chester. The soldiers who were to accompany him ran away when they could, and a Welsh company broke into open mutiny. He was sworn in on the 30th, after a learned sermon by Ussher in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then handed the Lord Treasurer’s white staff to Chichester, ‘who with all humility upon his knees received the same.’ The new Lord Deputy found that there were many pirates on the coast who had friends in remote harbours, and that there was not money enough to pay the soldiers. Worse than this was the case of the corporate towns, where no magistrates could be found to take the obligatory oath of supremacy or the milder oath of allegiance which was voluntary in Ireland. St. John proceeded to carry out the law. Carew, who was not a violent man, and who was well informed as to Irish affairs, reported that ‘over eighty’ of the best sort of ‘citizens’ in Dublin and elsewhere were in prison. Jurors who refused to present known and obstinate Recusants were treated in the same way, and the prisons were filled to overflowing. Carew hoped that this course might be persevered in and the towns reduced to villages by revoking their charters. ‘God,’ he said, ‘I hope will prosper these good beginnings, which tend only to his praise and glory, and to the assurance of obedience unto his Majesty.’[137]

Bacon advises a wary policy,

but does not persuade St. John,

who tries to enforce the oath of supremacy.

Bacon was of a different opinion from Carew. The late Lords Justices had been mainly concerned with Limerick and Kilkenny, where they saw the difficulty but suggested no remedy, ‘rather warily for themselves than agreeably to their duties and place.’ Bacon himself was for proceeding very warily. He was against tendering the oath of supremacy to these town magistrates at all, and in favour of trusting to gradual remedies. The plantation of Protestant settlers, he said, ‘cannot but mate the other party in time’ if accompanied by the establishment of good bishops and preachers, by improvement of the new college, and by the education of wards. These were the natural means, and if anything stronger was necessary it should be done by law and not by force. And only one town should be taken in hand at a time so as not to cause panic. St. John himself was in favour of a general attack on the municipalities who refused to elect mayors or recorders, and of carrying this policy out to its logical consequences, otherwise he said the State would only spin and unspin. It was resolved to proceed in the case of Waterford by legal process as Bacon had advised. Before the end of 1615 a decree was obtained in Chancery for forfeiture of the charter, unless the corporation surrendered under seal by a certain day. In July 1616, over six months after the appointed time, Alexander Cuffe refused to take the oath of supremacy as mayor, and at the end of the year this matter was referred to the English Privy Council. In the dearth of magistrates there was no regular gaol delivery and the criminal law was at a standstill; but it was not till October 1617 that the Earl of Thomond and Chief Justice Jones, sitting as special commissioners, obtained a verdict from a county of Waterford jury ‘even as the King’s counsel drew it.’ As late as May 1618 the forfeiture was not complete, and the citizens were allowed to send agents to England. The charter was surrendered in the following year, and Waterford, ‘of whose antiquity and fidelity,’ in Docwra’s language, ‘the citizens were wont to brag, reduced to be a mere disfranchised village.’ And so it remained until the end of the reign.[138]

The Waterford charter is forfeited,

but a Protestant corporation is unobtainable.

The citizens of Waterford valued their charter, but the oath of supremacy was too high a price to pay, and they refused to make even a show of conformity, ‘preferring to sit still and attend whatever course the King directs.’ Local magistrates were therefore unobtainable, and James suggested that fitting persons should be imported from England. The Irish Government liked the idea, and suggested that thirty families, worth at least 500l. each, should be induced to settle. They were not to be violent or turbulent folk but able to furnish magistrates, and two ruined abbeys near the river might be assigned for their reception. If the owners took advantage of the situation to exact high prices, the Government would reduce them to reason. The mayor and aldermen of Bristol were accordingly invited by the English Privy Council to fill the gap, but after a month’s inquiry they were unable to find anyone who was willing to inhabit Waterford upon the terms proposed.[139]

Fresh plantations undertaken.

The Wexford case.

The people weary of Irish tenures.

When Sir William Jones was made Chief Justice of Ireland in the spring of 1617, Lord Keeper Bacon advised him to ‘have special care of the three plantations, that of the North which is in part acted, that of Wexford which is now in distribution, and that of Longford and Leitrim which is now in survey. And take it from me that the bane of a plantation is, when the undertakers or planters make such haste to a little mechanical present profit, as disturbeth the whole frame and nobleness of the work for times to come. Therefore hold them to their covenants, and the strict ordinances of plantation.’ Seven years had then passed since the Wexford project had been first mooted, and many difficulties had arisen. The lands in question comprised the northern part of Wexford county, with a small strip in Carlow and Wicklow, partly inhabited by representatives of ancient settlers or modern grantees, but more largely by Kinsellaghs, Kavanaghs, Murroes, Macdamores, and Macvadocks, who, as Chichester said, ‘when the chief of the English retired themselves upon the discord of the houses of Lancaster and York crept into the woody and strong parts of the same.’ The most important person among the English was Sir Richard Masterson of Ferns, whose family had been long connected with the district, and who had an annuity of 90l. out of it by Queen Elizabeth’s grant. Walter Synnott had a similar charge of 20l., and both received some other chief rents. The Commissioners who visited Ireland in 1613 reported that the tract contained 66,800 acres in the baronies of Gorey, Ballaghkeen, and Scarawalsh stretching from the borders of Carlow to the sea and from Arklow to somewhere near Enniscorthy, along the left bank of the Slaney, besides much wood, bog, and mountain. Many of the inhabitants were tired of disorder, though they had been followers of ‘the Kavanaghs and other lewd persons in time of rebellion,’ and were willing to give up lands of which they had but an uncertain tenure, and to receive them back in more regular form. They claimed their lands by descent, and not by tanistry, but the descent was in Irish gavelkind and the subdivision had therefore been infinite. The investigation of their titles followed, during which it was discovered that the whole territory was legally vested in the King. Art MacMurrough Kavanagh and other chiefs surrendered their proprietary rights to Richard II. who undertook to employ them in his wars, and to give them an estate of inheritance in all lands they could conquer from rebels. Art himself was to receive an annuity of 80 marks, which was actually paid for some years. The chiefs did homage, and then the King granted the whole territory in question to Sir John Beaumont, excepting any property belonging to the Earl of Ormonde and certain other grantees, and to the Church. Beaumont’s interest became vested in Francis Lord Lovel, who disappeared at the battle of Stoke and whose attainder brought all his possessions to the Crown.[140]

Opposition of Wexford landowners.

The dissatisfaction is general.

The lively proceedings in Parliament during the spring of 1613 drew attention to Ireland and to the Wexford plantation, among other things there. Walter Synnott took the lead among the petitioners who visited London, and the result was a particular reference of the Wexford case to the Commissioners sent over to inquire into Irish grievances. Even with their report before us it is not easy to understand all the details. The Commissioners say that 35,210 acres, or more than half of the whole territory, were assigned to Sir Richard Masterson, but in the schedule the figure is only 16,529. The general result was that 12,000 acres were declared without owners, and these it was intended to divide among certain military officers. Fifty-seven natives became freeholders under the scheme, of which only twenty-one retained their ‘ancient houses and habitations, some of the remoter lands being given to new undertakers, and in exchange they are to have others nearer to their dwellings, at which they are discontented, saying that they are not sufficiently recompensed.’ Even the lucky ones had to give up part of their land, while 390, who claimed small freeholds, got nothing, and all the other inhabitants, amounting to 14,500 men, women, and children, were left at the will of the patentees, ‘though few are yet removed.’ The new undertakers declared that they would disturb no one except in so far as was necessary to make demesnes about the castles which they were bound to build, Masterson, Synnott and others being ready to let lands to them at rates merely sufficient to satisfy the crown rents.[141]

The more the plan is known,

the less it is liked.

The scheme is revised.

But few are satisfied.

Chichester’s original project was not covetous on the part of the Crown, for it aimed at no greater revenue than 400l. instead of 279l. 3s. 4d. which had hitherto been the highest annual revenue. In consideration of being bound to build castles and to inhabit mountainous regions, the rent demanded from the undertakers, who were to be all Protestants, was somewhat less than that of the Irish freeholders. Whatever might be thought of the plan no one was satisfied with the way in which it worked out. Many such of the natives, say the Commissioners, as formerly ‘agreed to this new plantation now absolutely dislike thereof, and of their proportions assigned them in lieu of their other possessions taken from them, for that, as they affirm, their proportions assigned are not so many acres as they are rated to them, and because the acres taken from them are far more in number than they be surveyed at, which difference cannot be decided without a new survey, which some of the natives desire.’ If the case of the newly-made freeholder stood thus, what must have been the feelings of men who were made altogether landless? Most of the Irish had been concerned in Tyrone’s rebellion, but some had been always loyal, like the old English inhabitants. As for Walter Synnott and others in his position, they professed themselves willing to pay the King as much as the new undertakers, but not in any way to contribute to the expenses incurred by them. After receiving the report of the Commissioners, James agreed to a revised plan which was very favourable to the Irish, or at least to some of them. The new undertakers were to receive only 16,500 acres in all and those the least fertile, the rest, after satisfying Masterson, Synnott, and another, was to be divided among the Irish. When Chichester ceased to be Lord Deputy at the end of 1615, nothing had been finally settled, and recriminations continued for some time. On a fresh survey it was discovered that ‘half the country was before distributed under the name of a quarter only.’ Eighty Irish freeholders were then made in addition to the first fifty-seven, which still left 530 claimants unprovided for according to their own account, or 303 according to the official view. The fortunate ones were of course overjoyed, but by far the greater number were not fortunate. The patentees whose titles had been clearly made surrendered and received fresh grants on a somewhat reduced scale. Of the undertakers whose patents had not been fully perfected Blundell alone secured 500 acres by the King’s especial wish, and 1,000 were assigned to the Bishop of Waterford. The royal revenue was increased by about 300l. a year, and the expenses of the settlement were defrayed by the country.[142]

Report of Commissioners on the plantation.

The Irish inhabitants willing to make some concessions,

but are dissatisfied with the terms given.

The Commissioners above mentioned were instructed to inform themselves minutely as to the proceedings in the proposed plantation, which at the time of their inquiry had been going on for more than three years; they were to find out how many families were to be displaced, of what condition they were, whether they had been good subjects or not, and whether they held by descent or by tanistry. Similar particulars were to be given about the undertakers or settlers who were to take their places and ‘whether any of them be of the Irish and namely of the Kavanaghs.’ The Commissioners were ordered to discover whether the evictions had been so managed as to deprive the people of their growing crops, and as to the houses available for them on ejectment; and also whether they were capable of making the same improvements as the undertakers were bound to, and of paying the same rents. As Chichester was himself a member of the Commission, the report may be taken as a fair or perhaps as a favourable account of what was actually done. Most of the Irish inhabitants realised that their position as tenants in gavelkind was weak, and they were ready in 1609 to surrender on condition of getting an indefeasible title to three-fourths of their land, leaving the remainder for English settlers. They said there were 667 of them in this position, but the official record only mentioned 440: probably the discrepancy was owing to many of them not having put in their claims by the appointed day. Fourteen out of the whole number had patents from the Crown to show. Before anything was actually done the discovery of the King’s title was made, but at first this seemed to make little difference, and the Irish people were almost persuaded that nothing was intended but their good. They were told that the King would be satisfied with a small increase in his revenue, ‘and that the civilising of the country was the chief thing aimed at’; but that those who thwarted his Majesty’s excellent plans ‘should have justice, which is the benefit of subjects, but were to look for no favour.’ The general idea was that freeholds should not be less than 100 acres, or sixty in some rare cases, and that the rest of the peasants should become leasehold tenants to them or to English undertakers. The freeholders alone would have to serve on juries, and it was desirable not to have too large a panel, as the difficulty of getting verdicts would be increased thereby. Fifty-seven freeholders were accordingly made, of whom twenty-one were not disturbed, the others were shifted about and were not content, declaring that the land given in compensation was insufficient. ‘To the residue,’ the report continues, ‘which claim to be freeholders, being for the most part possessed of but small portions, no allowance of land or recompense is assigned or given.’ There were 390 of these and 14,500 persons besides remained in the country ‘at the will of the patentees.’ It was not proposed actually to remove them from their houses or holdings unless they interfered with a demesne, but for this forbearance there was no adequate security.

A Wexford jury will not find the King’s title,

and strong measures are taken.

These people, or many of them, had not been unwilling to see English gentlemen come among them, and even to give up some land in order to secure the remainder, but the wind changed when it was discovered that only something like one in ten would have any estate at all. The King’s title had been found by the lawyers, but it was necessary that there should be a verdict also, and in December 1611 a Wexford jury refused to find one. The case was removed into the Exchequer with the same jury, and after much argument eleven were ready to find for the King and five against him. The minority were sent to prison and fined in the Castle Chamber, and the case was remitted to Wexford, where the eleven obedient jurors were reinforced by Sir Thomas Colclough and John Murchoe or Murphy, ‘now a patentee in the new plantation,’ and therefore an interested party, and the King’s title by Lord Lovel’s attainder was thus found.[143]

Indecision of the King.

People who benefited by the settlement.

The King is convinced by the complainants,

but soon changes his mind.

The King approves of the plantation.

The tendency of James I. to give decisions upon one-sided evidence, and to veer round when he heard the other side, is well illustrated by his dealings with the Wexford settlement. The case for the Irish inhabitants, as matters stood at the end of 1611, may be taken as sufficiently stated in the petition presented by Henry Walsh on their behalf. Walsh seems to have been a lawyer, but he was in possession of 220 acres as a freeholder, which were reduced to 130 by the plan of settlement. He stated that he and his fellows had surrendered upon the faith of a regrant in common socage ‘reduced from gavelkind and other uncertain tenures’ in consideration of paying a head rent of 90l. to the Castle of Ferns and of 60l. into the Exchequer. The regrants were delayed, but on the King’s title being set up he was induced to grant patents to several undertakers, 1,500 acres apiece being assigned to Sir Laurence Esmond, ‘servitor, and a native of Wexford,’ and Sir Edward Fisher, also a servitor. It afterwards appeared that 19,900 acres were disposed of in this way, 500 to Nicholas Kenny the escheator, 1,000 to William Parsons the surveyor and future Lord Justice, 600 to Conway Brady, the Queen’s footman, 1,000 to Francis Blundell, afterwards Vice-Treasurer, 1,000 to Sir Robert Jacob the Solicitor-General, and so forth. Some of these were put into possession by the sheriff even before the issue of their patents, military force being employed. Walsh said a hundred thousand people were affected by these transactions, which was no doubt a great exaggeration, but he could state with some truth that the interests of Sir Richard Masterson and other old English settlers were threatened by the assertion of a title ‘dormant and not heard of time out of mind.’ The Commissioners for Irish causes in London so far supported the petition that they advised the revocation of all patents granted since the surrender of the native landowners, and that no advantage should be taken of them except to exact a moderate increase of the Crown rent. The King thereupon ordered Chichester to revoke the patents to Fisher and Esmond, to raise the rent from 45l. to 50l., and not to allow Henry Walsh to be molested. The petitioners, said the King, had been denied the benefit of the Commission of defective titles, and ‘advantage taken of their surrender to their own disherison.’ Chichester objected that the Commissioners for Irish causes had been misled by false statements, and that he would suspend all action until he had fresh orders. Whereupon the King, who had been having some talk with Sir John Davies, declared that Walsh’s petition was ‘full of false and cautelous surmises,’ and ordered him to be summoned before the Irish Council and punished in an exemplary manner if he failed to prove his statements. Chichester was directed to go on with the plantation, assured of his Majesty’s continued approbation, and encouraged to make the work his own by visiting the district in person.[144]

The critics to be punished.

The preparations for holding a Parliament may have hindered Chichester’s activity, but the King’s vacillations would have caused delay in any case. At the end of 1612 James revoked all former letters on the subject except that of May 7, 1611, by which the Lord Deputy had been authorised to receive the surrender of the natives and to make ‘regrants to such of them as he should think fit such quantities of land and at such rent and upon such conditions as he should think fit.’ There might then be made such an intermixture of English settlers as would civilise the country and ‘annoy the mountain neighbours if they should thereafter stir.’ Henry Walsh and Thomas Hoare, who had held public indignation meetings and ‘endeavoured seditiously to stir up the inhabitants’ against the King’s title and against his good work of plantation, were ordered to be duly punished for their ‘inordinate and contemptuous behaviour.’[145]

Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi.

Bishop Rothe’s view of the plantation.

He foretells future trouble.

It is a well-known maxim of our law that the Crown cannot lose its rights through lapse of time. In modern practice this doctrine has been somewhat modified by statute and by the decisions of judges; but in the time of James I. it was accepted literally, and no lawyer or official seems to have thought that there was anything extraordinary in setting up a title for the King which had not been heard of for generations. Those who suffered by the transaction pleaded that Art MacMurrough had no right to the country in the feudal sense, and could not therefore surrender it; and even if the effect of Lord Lovel’s attainder were admitted, there had been no attempt to act upon it for 120 years. The official correspondence has hitherto been followed here, but it is fair to append the criticism of a thoroughly competent observer who lived not far off and who understood the subject. The learned David Rothe, who was a very honest and by no means extreme man, appealed like Bacon to foreign countries and the next age, and published the story of the Wexford settlement in Latin. He showed how little chance rude and illiterate peasants had against lawyers, and he foresaw the consequences of driving them to desperation. ‘The Viceroy,’ he wrote, ‘ought to have looked closer before he suggested an imperfect and shaky title to the King, as a solid foundation for his new right, and before he drove from their well established and ancient possession harmless poor natives encumbered with many children and with no powerful friends. They have no wealth but flocks and herds, they know no trade but agriculture or pasture, they are unlearned men without human help or protection. Yet though unarmed they are so active in mind and body that it is dangerous to drive them from their ancestral seats, to forbid them fire and water; thus driving the desperate to revenge and even the more moderate to think of taking arms. They have been deprived of weapons, but are in a temper to fight with nails and heels and to tear their oppressors with their teeth. Necessity gives the greatest strength and courage, nor is there any sharper spur than that of despair. Since these Leinster men, and others like them, see themselves excluded from all hopes of restitution or compensation, and are so constituted that they would rather starve upon husks at home than fare sumptuously elsewhere, they will fight for their altars and hearths, and rather seek a bloody death near the sepulchres of their fathers than be buried as exiles in unknown earth or inhospitable sand.’[146]

Outlaws about the plantations.

In the autumn of 1619 St. John reported that 300 outlaws had been killed, most of them doubtless in the hills between Tyrone and Londonderry, but many also near the Wexford plantation, where small bands of ten to twenty escaped detection and punishment for a long time. Their own countrymen and neighbours proved the most efficient tools of the Government, and a grandson of Feagh MacHugh O’Byrne, whom St. John addressed as his loving friend, took money for this service. Means were found to satisfy a very few more native claimants, raising the number to 150, which was considered too many, since the really suitable cases had long been dealt with. Some of the Kavanaghs who boasted themselves the descendants of kings, but whom St. John was never tired of describing as bastards and rebels, ‘with a crew of wicked rogues gathered out of the bordering parts, entered into the plantation, surprised Sir James Carrol’s and Mr. Marwood’s houses, murdered their servants, burned their towns, and committed many outrages in those parts in all likelihood upon a conspiracy among themselves to disturb the settlement of those countries. For which outrage most of the malefactors have since been slain or executed by law.’ In London a tenant of Blundell’s, who was perhaps crazy and certainly drunken, asked him for a drink, after taking which he proposed to go to Ireland and help to burn his landlord’s house. Petitioners continued to bring their complaints both to London and Dublin, and in the summer of 1622 Mr. Hadsor, who knew Irish, looked into the matter and begged them to return to their own countries on the understanding that well-founded grievances should be reported to the King.

The undertakers settle down on the land.

By the time of Hadsor’s survey things had gone too far to be altered, and the undertakers had laid out large sums, though in many cases less than they were bound to do. St. John reported in 1621 that 130 strong castles had then been built. But Hadsor retained his opinion as to the injustice attendant on the Wexford plantation far into the next reign, and other able officials agreed with him. And so the grievance slumbered or rather smouldered until 1641.[147]

Plantation in Longford and King’s County.

The plan better than the execution

Persistence of tribal ideas.

The territory of Annaly, mainly possessed by the O’Ferralls and their dependents, had been made into the county of Longford by Sir Henry Sidney. Chichester marked it as a good field for plantation in 1610, but there were many difficulties, and nothing was actually done until St. John’s time. In this, as in other cases, the general idea was to respect the rights of all who held by legal title, to give one-fourth of the remaining land to English undertakers and to leave three-fourths to the Irish, converting their tribal tenures into freeholds where the portions were large enough, and settling the rest as tenants. There can be no doubt that the new comers on the whole improved the country, and much might be said for these schemes of colonisation if they had been always fairly carried out. The intentions of the King and his ministers were undoubtedly good, but many causes conspired against them. Not a few of the undertakers in each plantation thought only of making money, and were ready to evade the conditions as to building, and above all as to giving proper leases to their tenants whether English or Irish. And among the natives there were many who hated regular labour, and preferred brigandage to agriculture. The old tribal system was incompatible with modern progress, but the people were attached to it, and their priests were of course opposed to the influx of Protestants.

In the early part of 1615 James gave his deliberate decision that plantations of some kind offered the best chance for civilising Ireland. In this way only could the local tyranny of native chiefs be got rid of, and the people improved by an intermixture of British accustomed to keep order and qualified to show a good example. The turn of Longford came next to that of Wexford, and with it was joined Ely O’Carroll, comprising the baronies of Clonlisk and Ballybritt in King’s County not contiguous to the rest of the plantation. In Ely there were no chief-rents or other legal incumbrances, but 200l. a year were due to the heirs of Sir Nicholas Malby out of the whole county of Longford and 120 beeves to Sir Richard Shaen the grantee of Granard Castle. These rent-charges were irregularly paid, and were the source of constant bickerings. There were no similar incumbrances in Ely, and neither there nor in Longford was there any pre-eminent chief at the moment, which made the task somewhat easier. It was part of the plan that there should in future be no O’Ferrall or O’Carroll with claims to tribal sovereignty.[148]

Attempt to apply the Wexford lesson.

The O’Ferralls.

A careful survey.

Ely O’Carroll

Cases of hardship.

Troubles from landless men.

It was not till towards the end of 1618 that the conditions of the plantation were at last settled. The correspondence and notes of the survey were submitted to a committee of the Privy Council consisting of Archbishop Abbot, Sir George Carew, the Earl of Arundel, and Secretary Naunton, and their report was acted upon; but a commission to carry out the scheme was not appointed until the following autumn. Chichester as well as St. John were members, and the great care which was taken seems to have made the plantation less unpopular than that of Wexford. Many objections indeed were made to acting upon such an old title as the King had to Longford, and to ignoring grants made in the late reign; though perhaps the lawyers could show that they had for the most part been nullified by the non-performance of conditions. The O’Ferralls had on the whole been loyal, and promises had been made to them. Whatever the arrangements were, it was evident that many natives would have no land, and it was urged that they would be better subjects it if was all given to them. Having no other means of living they would be driven to desperation and commit all manner of villanies, as the tribesmen of Ulster were ready to do if they got the chance. The King, however, was determined to carry out his plan, and the O’Ferralls yielded with a tolerably good grace, objecting not so much to giving up one-fourth of the country to settlers as to having to redeem Shaen’s and Malby’s rents out of the remainder. The Wexford misunderstanding was avoided by having a careful survey taken from actual measurements, and it was found that in Longford 57,803 acres of arable and pasture were available for the purposes of the plantation, the remainder, amounting to over 72,000 acres, being occupied by old grantees or by bogs and woods. Ely was better, 32,000 acres out of 54,000 being described as arable and pasture. The general order was that no freeholder should have less than 100 acres, and those who had less were to have leases for three lives or forty-one years under a planter or some more fortunate native. The unlucky ones generally and naturally complained that the measurements were inaccurate, and that they were thus unfairly reduced to ‘fractions.’ The undertakers, whether English or Irish, were to keep 300 acres in demesne about their houses. There seem to have been some cases of hardship even in the opinion of the Irish Government. Of these the most important was that of Sir John MacCoghlan in King’s County, who had fought bravely on the side of Government, but who, nevertheless, lost part of his property. As late as 1632 he was noted as a discontented man who ought to be watched, and his clansmen generally joined in the rebellion of 1641. As in the case of Wexford trouble came from those who were excluded from freehold grants. They were to have taken up the position of tenants, but could get no land at reasonable rates, and in 1622, after St. John had left Ireland, the Lords Justices reported that they were preparing to come to Dublin in multitudes. The discontent never died out, and Longford was infested with rebels or outlaws so that a rising was feared in 1827 and in 1832. Hadsor, who knew all about the matter, attributed the failure of the plantation to the way in which the natives had been treated, the ideas of King James not having been carried out in practice. Strafford’s strong hand kept things quiet for a time, but in 1641 Longford was the first county in Leinster to take part in the great rebellion.[149]

The undertakers non-resident.

The natives not attracted by short leases,

with stringent covenants.

A survey of the plantations hitherto made was taken in 1622, and the Commissioners reported that some of the undertakers in Wexford were sometimes resident, and that they had built strongly, though not within the specified time. Their colleague, Sir Francis Annesley, had his demesne stocked and servants on the spot; and it was suggested that he should be enjoined to reside. Some natives complained that they had been cheated, but the patentees had been long in quiet possession, and the Commissioners prudently refused to meddle. In Longford and Ely no undertakers were resident, ‘Henry Haynes and the widow Medhope only excepted.’ In Ely there was no actual provision for town, fort, or free school, though lands had been assigned; but Longford was better off in these respects. Twenty-acre glebes were assigned by the articles to sixteen parishes in Ely, but these had not been properly secured to the incumbents. In Longford the King made large grants to Lord Aungier and Sir George Calvert, which were satisfied out of the three-quarters supposed to be reserved for the natives. Those of the old inhabitants whose interest was too small for a freehold were expected to take leases from the undertakers, ‘but we do not find that they have any desire to settle in that kind.’ They were not attracted by the maximum term of three lives or twenty-one years, at a rent fixed by agreement or arbitration, distrainable within fifteen days, and with a right of re-entry after forty days; nor by covenants to build and enclose within four years.[150]

Plantation of Leitrim.

General ill-success of the smaller plantations.

The land unfairly divided.

The whole county of Leitrim was declared escheated, and in this case there were no settlers either from England or from the Pale. Mac Glannathy or Mac Clancy, head of the clan among whom Captain Cuellar suffered so much in the Armada year, was independent in the northern district, represented by the modern barony of Rossclogher. The rest of the county was dependent on the O’Rourkes. Some two hundred landholders declared themselves anxious to become the King’s tenants and submit to a settlement. Lord Gormanston claimed to hold large estates as representative of the Nangle family, who had been grantees in former days; but this title had been too long in abeyance. Leitrim was not a very inviting country, and the undertakers were very slow to settle; so that the business was not done until far into the new reign, and was never done thoroughly at all. Carrigdrumrusk, now Carrick-on-Shannon, had been made a borough for the Parliament of 1613, and the castle there was held for the King, but was of little use in preventing outlaws and cattle-drivers from passing between Leitrim and Roscommon. A more vigorous attempt was made at Tullagh, a little lower down the Shannon, where a corporation was founded and called Jamestown. The buildings were erected by Sir Charles Coote at his own expense, and he undertook to wall the place as an assize town for Leitrim. It was further arranged that the assizes for Roscommon should be held on the opposite bank, and the spot was christened Charlestown. But as a whole the settlement of Leitrim was not successful. At the end of 1629 Sir Thomas Dutton, the Scoutmaster-General, who had ample opportunities for forming an opinion, declared that the Ulster settlement only had prospered, and that the rest of Ireland was more addicted to Popery than in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The Jesuits and other propagandists had increased twentyfold. In Wexford, King’s County, Longford, and Leitrim corruption among the officials had vitiated the whole scheme of plantation and made it worse than nothing. Hadsor, who thoroughly understood the subject, said much injustice had been done to the natives, and that the Irish gentlemen appointed to distribute the lands had helped themselves to what they ought to have divided among others. Carrick and Jamestown returned Protestant members to Strafford’s Parliaments, but the large grant to Sir Frederick Hamilton was the most important gain to the English interest. When the hour of trial came, Manor Hamilton was able to take care of itself.[151]

Irish soldiers in Poland.

Chichester’s policy of sending Irishmen to serve in Sweden had been only partially successful, many of them finding their way home or into the service of the Archdukes. St. John reported in 1619 that the country was full of ‘the younger sons of gentlemen, who have no means of living and will not work,’ and he favoured the recruiting enterprise of Captain James Butler, who was already in the Polish service. Protestantism was repressed to the utmost by Sigismund, but it was possible to represent him as a bulwark of Europe against the Turks. Later on, when the Prince of Wales and Buckingham had returned in dudgeon from Madrid, Poland was at peace with the infidel and allied with Spain against Sweden, and it was considered doubtful policy to encourage the formation of Irish regiments who would be used to crush Protestant interests on the Continent.[152]

Unpopularity of St. John.

He is praised by the King,

and by Bacon,

but is nevertheless recalled,

leaving a starving army in Ireland.

The Spanish match affected all public transactions during the later years of James’s reign. Before his departure for Madrid in 1617 Digby warned Buckingham that all the Irish towns were watching the Waterford case in hopes of getting better terms for the Recusants, and that Spain ‘relied upon no advantage against England but by Ireland.’ At this period he himself wished that the King would proceed roundly and dash all such expectations. St. John was willing enough so to proceed, but was constantly checked by diplomatic considerations; while the priests gave out that a Spanish invasion might be expected at any time. The Lord Deputy seems always to have satisfied the King, but he was evidently unpopular with the official class, and it was perhaps more to opposition of this kind that he owed his recall than to his too great Protestant zeal, as Cox and many other writers have assumed. He told Buckingham that there was a strong combination against him in the Irish Council, and that Sir Roger Jones, the late Chancellor’s son, openly flouted him. Jones was ordered to apologise and forbidden to attend the Council until he had done so; but the opposition were not silenced, and the Privy Council in England sided with them. It was reported that he had disarmed the Irish Protestants, for which there can have been no foundation. The pay of the army was heavily in arrear, but that was not his fault, though it must certainly have contributed to make his government unpopular. He had forwarded the plantation system largely, making more enemies than friends thereby, but James thought colonisation the only plan for Ireland, and appreciated his exertions in that way. In August 1621 the King declared that it was a glory to have such a servant, who had done nothing wrong so far as he could see. He had already created him Viscount Grandison with remainder to the issue of his niece, who had married Buckingham’s brother. It is possible that the support of the favourite may have been less determined when that honour had been secured to one of his family. The fall of Bacon, who thought St. John ‘a man ordained of God to do great good to that kingdom,’ may have lessened his credit. By the end of the year it had been decided to send a Commission to Ireland with large powers, and the Privy Council maintained that their inquiries could be better conducted in the Deputy’s absence. James said he had never been in the habit of disgracing any absent minister before he were heard; but in the end it was decided to recall Grandison. He left Ireland on May 4, 1622, and the Commissioners arrived about the same time. He had never ceased to call attention to the miserable state of the army and to the ‘tottered carcasses, lean cheeks, and broken hearts’ of the soldiers, whose pay was two years and a half in arrear and who had nevertheless retained their discipline and harmed no one. They were almost starving, ‘and I know,’ he said ‘that I shall be followed with a thousand curses and leave behind me an opinion that my unworthiness or want of credit has been the cause of leaving the army in worse estate than ever any of my predecessors before have done.’[153]

Lord Falkland made Viceroy, Feb. 1621-2.

Sermon by Bishop Ussher,

who wished to enforce the Act of Supremacy,

but is rebuked by the Primate.

The King’s, or Buckingham’s, choice fell upon Henry Cary, lately created Viscount Falkland in Scotland and best known as the father of Clarendon’s hero. Falkland was Controller of the Household, and sold his place to Sir John Suckling, the poet’s father, who paid a high price. The money may not all have gone to the new Lord Deputy, but his departure was delayed for seven months by the long haggling about it, Sir Adam Loftus and Lord Powerscourt acting as Lords Justices. He was sworn in on September 8, 1622, after hearing Bishop Ussher preach a learned sermon in Christchurch on the text, ‘He beareth not the sword in vain.’ This sermon, which is not extant, was looked upon by some as a signal for persecution; and no doubt the reports of it were much exaggerated. Ussher found it necessary to write an explanatory letter to Grandison summarising the argument he had used. It rested, he had said, with the King to have the recusancy laws executed more or less mildly, but the Established Church had a right to protection from open insult. He had alluded, without giving names, to the case of ‘Mr. John Ankers, preacher, of Athlone, a man well known unto your lordship,’ who had found the church at Kilkenny in Westmeath occupied by a congregation of forty, headed by an old priest, who bade him begone ‘until he had done his business.’ The Franciscans who were driven out of Multifernham by Grandison had retaken it, and were collecting subscriptions to build another house ‘for the entertaining of another swarm of locusts.’ He asked that the recusancy laws should be strictly executed against all who left the Establishment for the Church of Rome, but deprecated violence and ‘wished that effusion of blood might be held rather the badge of the whore of Babylon than of the Church of God,’ which is a little too like the common form of the Inquisition. On the day after this letter was penned, Primate Hampton wrote a mild rebuke from Drogheda. He thought it very unwise to trouble the waters, and suggested that Ussher should explain away what he had said about the sword, for his proper weapons were not carnal but spiritual. He also advised the Bishop of Meath to leave Dublin and spend more time in his own diocese, of which the condition, by his own showing, was unsatisfactory, and to make himself loved and respected there even if his doctrine was disliked. According to Cox, Ussher preached such a sermon as the Primate advised; but there seems to be no trace of it anywhere else.[154]

Effects of the Spanish marriage negotiations.

The King of Spain treated as sovereign.

Whatever may have been the Bishop of Meath’s exact meaning, Falkland was well inclined to use his authority for the support of the Establishment. But the Spanish match was in the ascendant, and not much was done until the Prince of Wales came back without his bride. While the prospect was still held out of having an Infanta as Queen of England, the priests became bolder than ever. A clergyman was attacked by a mob of eighty women when trying to perform the funeral service for Lady Killeen. At Cavan and Granard thousands assembled for worship, and Captain Arthur Forbes reported that, unless he knew for certain that the King wished for toleration, he would ‘make the antiphonie of their mass be sung with sound of musket.’ Some priests went so far as to pray openly for ‘Philip our king.’ At Kells fair it was publicly announced that the Prince of Wales was married and that the Duke of Buckingham had carried the cross before him. The return of the royal adventurer came as a surprise, and the Roman Catholics of the Pale proposed to send agents to London to congratulate him upon it, and to make it clear that they had no hand in obstructing the marriage. The newly made Earl of Westmeath and Sir William Talbot took the lead and proposed to raise a sum of money which seemed to Falkland quite disproportioned to the necessity of the case. Earls were expected to contribute ten pounds, and there was a graduated scale down to ten shillings for small freeholders, ‘beside what addition every man will please to give.’ Falkland was very suspicious, and it is clear enough that a general redress of grievances was part of the plan; but Westmeath and his friends were probably too loyal to excite much enthusiasm, and the whole scheme was given up because subscriptions did not come in.

Proclamation against the priests, Jan. 1624,

which takes little effect.

Charles reached England in October, and early in 1624 a proclamation was printed and published, apparently by the King’s orders, banishing on pain of imprisonment all Roman Catholic priests of every kind and rank. They were to be gone within forty days, and to be arrested if they came back. The only way of escape was by submitting to the authorities and going to church. The reason set forth for this drastic treatment was that the country was overrun by great numbers of ‘titulary popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, abbots, priors, deans, Jesuits, friars, seminary priests, and others of that sect,’ in spite of proclamations still in force against them. But the King, or Buckingham, wavered, and not much was done towards getting rid of the recusant clergy. An informer who started the absurd rumour that Westmeath was to be king of Ireland, acknowledged that he had lied; but Falkland was not satisfied, because on Friday in Easter week there was a great gathering some miles from the Earl’s house, ‘made by two titulary bishops under the title of visiting a holy anchorite residing therabouts.’ In the end, Westmeath went to England, where he was able to clear himself completely, the prosecution of his detractors was ordered, and Falkland was persuaded that his chief fault was too great a love of popularity.[155]

Alarmist rumours.

The tendency of the official mind in the days before the Long Parliament was to stretch the prerogative. Ministers were responsible only to the King. It was therefore natural for Irish viceroys to magnify their office and to claim within their sphere of action powers as great as those of the sovereign himself. Being of a querulous disposition, Falkland was even more than usually jealous of any restraint. During the early part of his government the Lord Treasurer Middlesex turned his attention to Irish finance, effecting economies which may or may not have been wise, but which were certainly distasteful to the Lord Deputy, who lost perquisites and patronage. Rumours that there was to be a general massacre of English were rife throughout Ireland, but Falkland admitted that there was never such universal tranquillity, though his pessimism led him to fear that this was only the lull before a storm. Not more than 750 effective men would be available in case of insurrection which might be encouraged from Spain after the marriage treaty was broken off. The English Government thought the danger real enough to order the execution of the late proclamation against Jesuits and others who ‘picked the purses of his Majesty’s subjects by indulgences, absolutions, and pardons from Rome.’ The number of horsemen was to be increased from 230 to 400, and of foot from 1,450 to 3,600; arrangements were made as to supplies, and the forts were to be put in better order. The scare continued until the end of the reign, but Olivares, though perhaps very willing to wound, had not the means for an attack on Ireland.[156]

Falkland’s grievances.

The Lord Deputy complained that his letters were not answered, but the home Government were occupied with the English Parliament, which was prorogued May 29, 1624; and it was also thought desirable to hear what Sir Francis Annesley had to say. Falkland did not get on either with him or with Lord Chancellor Loftus, who were also Strafford’s chief opponents. He granted certain licences for tanning and for selling spirits, which required the Great Seal to make them valid, but Loftus hesitated to affix it, saying that one was void in law and the other in equity. If the judges decided against him he would submit. Falkland’s contention was that the Chancellor must seal anything he wished, but Loftus said his oath would in that case be broken and his office made superfluous. An angry correspondence ended by a reference to the King, and Loftus was called upon to explain. He was able to show that he also had suffered by Middlesex’s economies, and that his official income was much smaller than that of his archiepiscopal predecessor’s had been. A considerable increase was granted. And so the matter rested when James I. died.[157]

Death of James I.

Henry IV. is reported to have said that his brother of England was the wisest fool in Christendom. Macaulay thought him like the Emperor Claudius. Gardiner tried to be fair, but admitted that the popular estimate of James is based upon the ‘Fortunes of Nigel’; and therefore it is not likely to be soon altered. He has been more praised for his Irish policy than for anything else, and perhaps with truth; for there is such a thing as political long sight, clear for objects at a distance and clouded for those which are near at hand. The settlement has preserved one province to the English connection, and has thus done much to secure the rest; but it may be doubted whether the unfairness of it was not the chief cause of the outbreak in 1641, and so to a great degree of the bitterness which has permeated Irish life ever since.

FOOTNOTES:

[137] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616, in Court and Times; Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 1, 1616 (Spedding, v. 375). Installation of St. John in Liber Munerum, ii. 6. St. John to Winwood, August 1616 (No. 289); Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe (Camden Society) December.

[138] Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 5, 1616, in Spedding, v. 378; Davies to Lake, December 20, 1615; St. John to Winwood, December 31, 1616, and October 11, 1617; Licence to send agents, May 18, 1618; return of the Commissioners, 1618, No. 431; surrender of charter announced, August 4, 1619. Histories of Waterford by Smith and Ryland. Bacon had recommended procedure by Quo warranto or Scire facias, and St. John, doubtless prompted by Chief Justice Jones, says the same in his letter to the Privy Council, April 1618, No. 406.

[139] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, August 4, 1619; St. John to the same, November 9; Corporation of Bristol to the same, January 31, 1620. There were no mayors or sheriffs of Waterford from 1618 to 1625, both inclusive.

[140] Chichester to Salisbury, June 27, 1610. Report of Commissioners, November 12, 1613, p. 449. The latter is more fully given in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, ii. 372. In Chichester’s project (Irish Cal., 1614, No. 859) the escheated territory is described as ‘the Kinsellaghs, and Bracknagh, and McDamore’s country, McVadock’s country, the Murrowes, Kilhobuck, Farrenhamon and Kilcooleneleyer, and a small part of Farren Neale,’ to which Rothe adds ‘Clanhanrick.’ In 1606 the judges had declared that ‘Les terres de nature de gavelkind ne fueront partible enter les procheins heires males del cesty que morust seisie, mais enter touts les males de son sept.’ Davies’s Reports, 1628.

[141] Report of Commissioners in 1613, ut sup.

[142] Report of Commissioners in 1613, ut sup. Sir Henry Docwra’s letters of December 23, 1617, and March 3, 1618. Chichester’s original project and the English Council’s criticisms are calendared under 1612, Nos. 600-602.

[143] Report of 1613 Commissioners ut sup.

[144] Walsh’s petition followed by certificate, December 5, 1611; the King to Chichester, January 21 and March 22 and 31, 1612; Chichester to Salisbury, March 5. As to the intruding patentees see State Papers calendared under 1613, p. 452 sqq. A petition of Redmond MacDamore and others calendared under 1616, No. 248, is substantially the same as Walsh’s, and probably belongs to 1611. The sheriff gave possession to the patentees on May 7, 1613, forcing the doors where necessary and turning out the inmates.

[145] The King to Chichester, April 16, 1613.

[146] Rothe’s Analecta Sacra, iii. art. 19, Cologne, 1617. The text was evidently composed before Chichester had ceased to be viceroy, and therefore before the work of the Wexford settlement was quite finished.

[147] St. John to the Privy Council, September 29, 1619, on which Gardiner mistakenly states that 300 outlaws were slain in connection with the Wexford plantation only. Same to same, November 9. Grant of 100l. to Hugh MacPhelim O’Byrne, ib. No. 602, and St. John’s letter to him, June 18, 1620; Sir Francis Blundell to the Council (written in London) July 20, 1620; Lord Deputy and Council to the Council, December 6, 1620 and May 25, 1621; Sir Thomas Dutton to Charles I., December 20, 1629; and Hadsor’s opinion calendared under 1632, 2190, 7. Donnell Spaniagh of Clonmullen and thirty-five other Kavanaghs, with many Wexford neighbours, were pardoned in 1602. Morrin’s Patent Rolls, Eliz. p. 607. Hadsor in Sloane MS. 4756.

[148] The King to Chichester, April 12, 1615. Ely O’Carroll comprised the baronies of Clonlisk and Ballybritt, the southern portion of King’s County.

[149] Certificate of survey, November 20, 1618; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, November 8, 1619; Commissions for settling the plantation, September 30, 1619 and April 10, 1620; Lords Justices and Council to the Privy Council, June 22, 1622; Lord Wilmot’s discourse, 1627, No. 534; Richard Hadsor’s propositions, 1632, No. 2190; Lords Justices to Vane, November 13, 1641.

[150] Brief return of survey in Sloane MS. 4756.

[151] St. John’s description of Connaught, 1614, in Carew, p. 295. St. John to Lords of Council, December 31, 1620, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland; Sir Thomas Dutton to the King, December 20, 1629, ib.; Hadsor’s propositions, ib., 1632, p. 681. The final grant to Sir Frederick Hamilton is in Morrin’s Patent Rolls, Car. I. p. 541. In a letter to Wentworth of February 12, 1634-5, Viscount Wilmot suggests that Coote should be asked ‘what became of the 5,000l. allotted to be disbursed upon the town and wall of Jamestown,’ Melbourne Hall Papers, ii. 175.

[152] St. John to the Privy Council, September 29, 1619; Privy Council to St. John, August 1621; extract of a letter calendared at June 17, 1624.

[153] Sir John Digby to Buckingham, June 4, 1617, in Fortescue Papers (Camden Society); St. John to Buckingham, ib., November 24, 1618 and August 17, 1620; the King to St. John, concerning Sir Roger Jones, October 6, 1620. For the report as to disarming Protestants see Court and Times, ii. 304; communications between King and Privy Council calendared January 28 to February 3, 1622; St. John to the Privy Council, October 13, 1621 and April 8, 1622.

[154] Court and Times, ii. 327; Ussher to Grandison, October 16, 1622, Works, xv. 180 and Hampton to Ussher, ib. 183; Cox’s Hibernia Anglicana, ii. 39.

[155] Proclamation of January 21, 1623-4, Carew; Falkland to Calvert (with enclosures), October 20, 1623; to Conway (sent with Westmeath), April 27, 1624; Archbishop Abbot to Conway, September 10, 1623, Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, June 4, 1625.

[156] Falkland to Conway, April 24, 1624; to Privy Council, March 16, 1625; Council of War for Ireland (Grandison, Carew, Chichester, etc.) to the Privy Council, July 6, 1624.

[157] Lord Deputy to Lord Chancellor, October 22 and 28, 1624, and Loftus’s answer to the first; Conway to Grandison and others, November 24; Loftus to the Privy Council, January 10, 1625; Privy Council to the King, March 21.

[CHAPTER X]
EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I., 1625-1632

Accession of Charles I., March, 1625.

The death of James I. made little immediate difference to Ireland. King Charles was proclaimed in Dublin, and a new commission was issued to Falkland as Lord Deputy. An attack from Spain was thought likely, and the Irish Government were in no condition to resist it, for the pay of the troops was in arrear—nine months in the case of old soldiers and seven in the case of recent levies. Being hungry they sometimes mutinied, and were more dangerous to the country than to foreign invaders. The fortifications of the seaports were decayed, and ships of war were unable to sail for want of provisions. Pirates continued to infest the coast, and this evil was aggravated by constant friction between the Irish Government and the Admiralty of England. Falkland continued viceroy for more than six years after the accession of Charles I., constantly complaining that he was neglected and that his official powers and privileges were unfairly curtailed. With Lord Chancellor Loftus he continued to be on the worst of terms, and the King was at last driven to place the Great Seal in commission. Loftus was sent for to England.[158]

Quarrel between Falkland and Loftus.

The suspended Chancellor was accused of seeking popularity for himself and intriguing against the King, especially with regard to the expenses of recruiting and maintaining soldiers. There were charges, all denied, of hearing cases in private and making money by extortion; and Loftus openly claimed the right to eke out his salary of 360l. by exacting certain fees. After a long inquiry by King and Council, Loftus, who could keep his temper, was completely exonerated, and was granted the unusual privilege of quitting Ireland whenever he pleased without forfeiting his place. Prosecutions in the Castle Chambers were ordered against those who had accused him falsely. Loftus was at war with Lord Cork as well as with the Deputy, and Cork sustained the charges against him before the King and Council.[159]

The case of the O’Byrnes.

The English Government tired of plantations.

Like his two predecessors, Falkland believed that plantations were the best things for Ireland, and he had not been many months in the country before he proposed to settle the lower part of Wicklow and some strips of the adjoining counties. In the days of Feagh MacHugh O’Byrne the district had been constantly disturbed, and his son Phelim trod for a time in his footsteps; but he made his peace with Queen Elizabeth and held a considerable part of the tribal territory, though by a rather uncertain tenure. The Queen perhaps intended to secure him by patent, but this was not done during her lifetime, and James issued letters to the same effect, which Grandison managed to avoid acting on. The reason given for delay was that much of the land in question had been granted to individuals by patent, and that the whole territory belonged in fact to the King. Middlesex, for some reason not now evident, opposed Falkland’s scheme of a plantation, and the London Commissioners for Irish causes did the same. Plantations, said the latter, were very good things in themselves; but they were the cause of much exasperation in those concerned, and in several cases but little progress had been made, so that it was unreasonable to break fresh ground. Falkland would do well if he could break off the dependence of the people on their chiefs, and induce them to hold their lands by some civilised tenure and at reasonable rents. From this we may perhaps infer that some of the O’Byrne clansmen were not at all anxious to submit to Phelim’s yoke. Falkland, however, endeavoured to get Buckingham’s support for a plantation. If the matter were taken out of his hand he would apply for 6,000 acres, but if the arrangements were left to him he would ask for nothing.[160]

Falkland wishes to colonise Wicklow,

but the plan is disliked in London.

Arrest of Phelim O’Byrne.

A royal commission on the Wicklow case,

whose report is unfavourable to Falkland.

Falkland soon returned to the charge. He found, or thought he found, a widespread conspiracy in that part of Leinster which contained O’Byrne’s country, and he reiterated his opinion that a plantation commanded by a strong fort was the only way to break up the dependency of the clansmen on their chief. Two of Phelim’s sons were arrested and shut up in the Castle. All official delays, said Falkland, were attributed to fear; but there would be no cause for it if money were provided to pay the soldiers. The London Commissioners were, however, still bent upon making Phelim a great man with a court leet, court baron, fairs and markets, provided he would make his sons freeholders with 200 acres of good land apiece. Nothing decisive was done, but after three years’ watching Falkland announced that he had really got the threads of the conspiracy. Phelim O’Byrne and five of his sons were arrested, Butlers, Kavanaghs and O’Tooles being also implicated as well as some in Munster. By this time Buckingham was dead, and this may have turned the scale against Falkland. Bills of indictment were found against Phelim and his sons, and at that stage proceedings were stopped by peremptory orders from England. The King declared his intention of appointing a special commission to inquire into the whole matter, and the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, the Lord Chancellor, Chief Justice Shirley, Lord Wilmot, Sir Francis Annesley and Sir Arthur Savage were named for the purpose. Falkland bitterly complained that Loftus, Annesley and Savage were his personal enemies; with Ussher and Shirley he declared himself thoroughly satisfied. Wilmot and Annesley do not seem to have acted, but the others took their share of the work. The Commissioners proposed to examine some Irish-speaking prisoners, but Falkland refused to allow this unless he might name the interpreter. It was stated by some witnesses that he had previously used the services of Sir Henry Bellings and William Graham, both of whom were interested in the O’Byrne lands. Under these circumstances the inquiry was not satisfactory, but the Commissioners examined thirty-six witnesses and sent over the whole mass of evidence without any comments of their own. There was no cross-examination, and the facts were not properly sifted; but the whole story can scarcely be false. Some witnesses declared that their evidence before the grand jury was extorted by threats and others that they had been tortured. They were not witnesses of the best sort, for one said that he would do service against his father to save his own life, and another that after being chained in a dungeon for five weeks without fire or candle, he was ready to swear anything, ‘and he thinketh there is no man but would do so.’ A witness of a higher class was William Eustace of Castlemartin in Kildare, who testified that the foreman of the grand jury had been Sir James Fitzgerald, whose father Sir Piers, with his wife and daughter, had been burned to death in cold blood by a party which included Phelim MacFeagh. He swore that the majority of the grand jurors had not the legal freehold qualification, and that the sheriff appointed through Lord Esmond’s influence was likewise unqualified. Esmond had an interest in the lands, and so had Sir Henry Bellings, who was also a grand juror. As a result of the inquiry, the O’Byrnes were released, and no doubt this contributed to Falkland’s recall, though Ussher was most anxious to shield him. Phelim McFeagh and his sons retained some of the territory in question, but it would seem that Esmond, Graham, and others got shares, as well as Sir William Parsons and Lord Chancellor Loftus.[161]

Remarks on the O’Byrne case.

Falkland’s defence.

Carte’s account of the O’Byrne affair has been generally accepted, but it is not impartial. He suppresses facts unfavourable to Phelim MacFeagh, and he exaggerates the part taken by Sir William Parsons, whose later proceedings after Strafford’s death were distasteful to him. Moreover, he gives his reader to understand that the O’Byrnes were deprived of all their property, which was certainly not the case. Phelim died early in 1631 and his sons retained the land which they held by patent; what was considered to be in the King’s hands being granted to the Earl of Carlisle. The Irish Council were on the whole favourable to Falkland, whom they knew to have no personal interest in the matter. Phelim they declared to be a notorious rebel, whose intrigues had engaged the attention of three deputies; and he had compassed the death of a magistrate named Pont. Falkland had only taken part in the trial because the witnesses were so overawed by their priests that they refused to give evidence before any inferior minister. Lord Cork, who seems to have had no interest in the Wicklow lands, had the worst opinion of Phelim. Falkland himself was very indignant at having his conduct questioned by Commissioners who were subordinate to him as long as he was Deputy. They did not, he complained, hear both sides, and their behaviour, always excepting Ussher and Shirley, was partial and spiteful. For himself he was ‘a gentleman born of such descent as the blood of most of your honourable lordships who sit at the Council table runs in my veins,’ and he ought to be believed ‘in spite of the malicious backbitings of scandals by men of no generation or kindred, whose beginning has been either mercenary or sordid, though perchance advanced by fortune above their merit, and not understanding more of honour than the title they have obtained (I will not say how).’ This was directed against Loftus, and there is much more to the same effect.[162]

Charge against Lord Thurles,

Falkland believed that the plots in Leinster originated with Lord Thurles, Ormonde’s eldest son, whose proceedings were suspected in 1619. This young man, who was the great Duke of Ormonde’s father, was drowned at the end of that year near the Skerries during his passage to England. Nine years later an adherent of his house gave particulars as to Lord Thurles’s intentions not long before his death. Feeling that his family were likely to be ruined, he proposed to raise a force of 1,500 men, and he was in correspondence with Spain. He went from house to house swearing people to follow him, and one of his adherents was Sir John McCoghlan, who was discontented about the King’s County plantation. Suspicion having been aroused, Lord Thurles was summoned to England and was lost on his way over. The whole story is of very doubtful credibility, but there was enough to justify measures upon Falkland’s part.[163]

Financial difficulties.

An assembly of Notables. The ‘graces.’

Toleration a grievous sin.

From the very beginning of his reign Charles I. was in want of money, and he longed to make Ireland self-supporting. Some popularity was gained by restoring the charter of Waterford early in 1626, but the King’s quarrels both with France and Spain made it necessary to increase the army in Ireland at the expense of the country. It was decided to have 5,000 foot and 500 horse, but in the meantime the small existing force was unpaid and worse than useless. Falkland was directed to convene an assembly of Irish notables, and induce them to provide funds by the promise of certain privileges or ‘graces.’ The peers and bishops accordingly met in the middle of November 1626, and sat in the same room with the Council, who occupied a long table in the middle. Some delegates from the Commons were afterwards added, but neither with them nor without them could the assembly come to any decision. The negotiations went on for nine months, and ended in the appointment of agents for the different provinces who were to go to England and state their case before the King. Westmeath took an active part against the Government. The eighth of the original graces offered by Charles provided that the shilling fine for non-attendance at church on Sundays and holidays should not be exacted except in special cases. A limited toleration would thus be the consideration for a grant towards the payment of the army. Twelve bishops, with Ussher at their head, met and declared that ‘the religion of the Papists is superstitious and heretical,’ and its toleration a grievous sin. ‘To grant them toleration in respect of any money to be given or contribution to be made by them is to set religion to sale and with it the souls of the people.’

Ussher on the things that are Cæsar’s.

This was not published for some time, but while the negotiations were still in progress George Downham, bishop of Derry, a Cambridge man and a strong Calvinist, preached at Christ Church before the Lord Deputy and Council. Having read the judgment of the twelve prelates, he called upon the congregation to say Amen, and ‘suddenly the whole church almost shaked with the great sound their loud Amens made.’ Ussher himself preached next Sunday to the same effect, saying much of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver. He was, however, strongly in favour of a grant being made for the army, and his speech to the assembled notables a few days later urged the duty of contributing to the public defence. ‘We are,’ he said, ‘now at odds with two of the most potent princes in Christendom; to both which in former times the discontented persons in Ireland have had recourse heretofore, proffering the kingdom itself unto them, if they would undertake the conquest of it.’ Desmond had offered the island to France in Henry VIII.’s time, and after that the Spaniards had never ceased to give trouble. Nor were matters much improved by the late plantations; for while other colonising states had ‘removed the ancient inhabitants to other dwellings, we have brought new planters into the land, and have left the old inhabitants to shift for themselves,’ who would undoubtedly give trouble as soon as they had the chance. The burden of the public defence lay on the King, and it was the business of subjects to render Cæsar his due.[164]

Irish soldiers in England.

The Act of Supremacy defied.

Bargain between the King and the Irish agents.

The Irish agents did not leave Dublin until very near the end of 1627, and on reaching London found that toleration was by no means popular. Considerable bodies of Irish troops were billeted in England, sometimes coming into collision with the people and causing universal irritation. The famous third Parliament of Charles I. met on March 17, and one of their first proceedings was to petition the King for a stricter administration of the recusancy laws. A little later the Commons in their remonstrance against Buckingham complained of the miserable condition of Ireland, where Popery was openly professed and practised. Superstitious houses had been repaired or newly erected, and ‘replenished with men and women of several orders’ in Dublin and all large towns. A few months later a committee reported that Ireland was swarming with friars, priests, and Jesuits who devoted themselves to undermining the allegiance of the people. Formerly very few had refused to attend church in Dublin; but that was now given up, and there were thirteen mass houses, more in number than the parish churches. Papists were trusted with the command of soldiers of their own creed, and the Irish generally were being trained to arms, ‘which heretofore hath not been permitted, even in times of greatest security.’ The agents no doubt found that they had a better chance with the King than with anyone else, and they consented to waive the promise not to enforce the shilling fine for non-attendance at church, being perhaps privately satisfied that such enforcement would not take place. The agents were of course all landowners or lawyers nearly related to them, and they procured the much more important undertaking that a sixty years’ title should be good against the Crown. They agreed to pay 120,000l. in three years for the support of the army, but there were complaints that this was too burdensome, and the time for completing the payment was afterwards extended to four years.[165]

A Parliament is promised,

but not held.

Proclamation against regular clergy, April 1, 1629.

Recall of Falkland, Aug. 1629.

It was provided by the graces that the limitation of the King’s title to land and other important concessions should be secured by law, and the opening of Parliament was fixed for November 1. Roman Catholics who had formerly practised in Ireland or who had spent five years at the English inns of court were to be admitted to practise as barristers on taking a simple oath of allegiance, without any abjuration of the papal authority, and this was a considerable step towards toleration. A Parliament had been promised by the original graces in 1626 and clamoured for by the assembly of notables in 1627, but it soon appeared that it would be impossible to hold it by the beginning of November 1628, and people in Ireland were sceptical as to there being any real intention to hold one at all. Falkland issued writs, however, and it appears that some elections actually took place, when it was discovered in London that the provisions of Poynings’ Act had not been complied with. The measures proposed to be passed should have been first sent from the Irish Government, and an answer returned under the Great Seal of England authorising or amending them. The objection proved fatal, and no Parliament was held, while the Irish nobility and gentry complained that even the purely administrative part of the Graces had not been acted upon. The Government required that the 120,000l. already granted should be paid into the Exchequer, but there would then be no security for the troops being paid, and the Irish gentry, with good reason, feared that they might pay their money without escaping the extortion and disorder of the soldiers. In the meantime the English Government suggested that more activity might be shown against the religious orders in Ireland, and Falkland gladly issued a proclamation forbidding the exercise of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction derived from Rome, and ordering all monasteries and colleges to dissolve themselves. It was not intended to interfere with the secular clergy nor with the laity. According to Falkland the immediate effect of this proclamation was very great. The Jesuits and Franciscans blamed each other, and there was no resistance in Dublin. But at Drogheda, the residence of Ussher, who was a party to the proclamation, it was treated with contempt, ‘a drunken soldier being first set up to read it, and then a drunken serjeant of the town, both being made, by too much drink, incapable of that task, and perhaps purposely put to it, made the same seem like a May game,’ and mass was celebrated as regularly, if not quite so openly, as before. It was at this moment that Falkland’s recall was decided on, though he did not actually surrender the government for six months, the King declaring his unabated confidence and his wish to employ him about his person. No money was, however, allowed him for travelling expenses, and he had to sell plate and furniture, while a troop of horse and company of foot, which he held by patent for life with reversion to his second son, were cashiered. Gondomar, he observed, ‘did term patents the common faith.’ Yet he claimed to have governed more cheaply than any of his predecessors, no money having been remitted from England during his whole term of office, and he had increased the revenue by 14,000l. He had acquired no land for himself, and we may probably dismiss as mere scandal the statement that he had a share in the nefarious profits of certain pirates. He cannot, however, be considered a successful viceroy, and the querulous tone of his letters has prejudiced historians against him.[166]

Falkland falsely accused, 1631.

Falkland was an unpopular man, and many objections were made to him. He was accused of conspiring with Sir Dominic Sarsfield, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to procure the condemnation of one Bushell, a man of eighty, for the murder of his wife with intent to divide his property between them. Falkland brought this case before the Star Chamber, Lord Mountnorris being one of the defendants. He had said that the Lord Deputy ‘would not suffer the King’s servants to enjoy their places.’ Falkland succeeded completely after a trial which lasted several days. Wentworth, who gave judgment in his favour, exonerated Mountnorris, who was only proved to have said that the Deputy’s government was tyrannical and that he prevented the King’s servants from enjoying their places. ‘My Lord Mountnorris,’ said Wentworth, ‘I acquit: every word must not rise up in judgment against a man.’[167]

Youthful escapade of Lucius Cary.

One of Falkland’s later acts was to give a company to his eldest son Lucius, who was under twenty, and the Lords Justices who succeeded him transferred the command to Sir F. Willoughby, who was an excellent soldier. Young Cary admitted this, but added ‘I know no reason why therefore you should have my company any more than why therefore you should have my breeches,’ and so challenged him to fight. Willoughby said he had specified that he had rather not have this particular company or that of Sir Charles Coote. The duel did not take place, but Cary spent ten days in the Fleet, whence he was released on his father petitioning the King.[168]

Cork and Loftus Lords Justices, 1629-1633.

Lord Danby, who as Sir Henry Danvers had been President of Munster, was named for the viceroyalty, but at his age he was unwilling to undertake such an arduous task. Lord Chancellor Loftus and Lord Cork were then appointed Lords Justices, the army being placed in Wilmot’s hands. The Lords Justices were on very bad terms, but Secretary Lake urged them to make friends, and a solemn reconciliation took place in Lord Wilmot’s presence, ‘which I beseech God,’ Cork wrote, ‘his lordship observe as religiously as I resolve to do, if new provocations enforce me not to alter my resolutions.’ Wilmot was sanguine enough to think that they would not quarrel again. Their instructions were to suppress all Popish religious houses and all foreign jurisdictions, and to persuade the army and people to attend divine service. Trinity College, Dublin, was to receive every encouragement and care was to be taken in the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage and to rescue benefices from lay hands. The King’s intention to call a Parliament was reiterated and a large discretion was left to the Lords Justices, but judicial appointments, nominations to the Privy Council, and commissions in the army were reserved to the Crown.[169]

Raid on religious houses in Dublin,

and Cork.

So little effect had Falkland’s last proclamation against the regular orders, that Wilmot reported the establishment of seventeen additional houses within four months after its publication. ‘The Archbishop of Dublin,’ Lord Cork notes in his diary, ‘and the mayor of Dublin, by the direction of us the Lords Justices, ransacked the house of friars in Cook Street.’ Thomas Fleming, a Franciscan, was titular archbishop of Dublin, and his order had been much strengthened by his appointment. On St. Stephen’s Day, the day after Christmas, 1629, Archbishop Bulkeley, accompanied by the mayor and a file of musketeers, visited the Franciscan church during high mass, cleared the building, and arrested some of the friars, who were promptly rescued by a mob 3,000 strong. Showers of stones were thrown, and Bulkeley was glad to take refuge in a house. The Lords Justices appeared with their guard, but there were not soldiers enough available to act with effect, and Wilmot reported that there was not one pound of powder in the Castle. The friary was razed to the ground in the presence of the Recusant aldermen. A month later the English Privy Council approved strongly of what had been done, and ordered the demolition of the convents, which should be turned into ‘houses of correction, and to set the people on work or to other public uses, for the advancement of justice, good arts, or trades.’ The regulars had increased in every considerable town, and at Cork Sir William St. Leger by the Lords Justices’ order seized four houses; but all the inmates had warning, and escaped. There was room for forty Franciscans and twenty Dominicans, the Jesuits and Augustinians also being suitably accommodated. The Jesuit church and college in Back Lane, Dublin, were, however, annexed to Trinity College, and the former was for some time used as a lecture-room.[170]

Weakness of the Government, 1630.

The attitude of the Lords Justices to each other was little better than an armed neutrality, and not much could be expected from a Government so constituted. At the beginning of 1631 even Wilmot thought there would be an open rupture, and the Lords Justices had differences as long as they were in office; but they agreed so far as to reduce the army, and something like a proper relation between income and expenditure was thus arrived at. In May 1630 about 200 notables met the Council, and with the exception of Lord Gormanston they all demanded a Parliament, which was fixed for November, but which never met. Cork said he had known Ireland for forty-three years and had never known it so quiet, but he thought it impossible for any public man really to understand the country because the priests kept governors and governed permanently estranged. Spanish attempts on Ireland had always failed, and he did not fear them, but there was a constant source of danger in a population of hardy young men with nothing to do. The English settlers were indeed numerous, but comfortable farmers with wives and children would not easily be induced to come out and fight; and the Irish understood this perfectly. Even in Dublin and Meath large armed bands had broken into houses by night and taken what they wanted. The Government were just strong enough to hang or disperse such banditti, but the last of the voluntary subsidy would be paid at the end of 1632, and at the beginning of that year Wentworth had been appointed Deputy.[171]

St. Patrick’s Purgatory demolished.

The Queen desires its restoration.

Wentworth’s opinion.

The Ulster settlement had not put an end to St. Patrick’s Purgatory on Lough Derg, in Donegal, in the territory of Termon-Magrath, which the wicked old Archbishop of Cashel had held by patent and transmitted to his son. The Lords Justices found no difficulty in agreeing on this subject, and they bound James Magrath in a penalty of £1,000 ‘to pull down and utterly demolish that monster of fame called St. Patrick’s Purgatory, with St. Patrick’s bed, and all the vaults, cells, and all other houses and buildings, and to have all the other superstitious stones and materials cast into the lough, and that he should suffer the superstitious chapel in the island to be pulled down to the ground, and no boat to be there, nor pilgrimage used or frequented during James Magrath’s life willingly or wittingly.’ The work seems to have been thoroughly done, to the great grief of some people; and Henrietta Maria, with her own hand and in her own tongue, begged Wentworth to restore a place to which the people of the country had always been so devoted. It was, she said, the greatest favour that he could do her, and the liberty granted should be used very modestly. This letter was sent by Lord Antrim, who had probably suggested it, and he was commissioned to press the matter on the viceroy. Without granting the Queen’s request, Wentworth was able to say truly that the thing was done before his time, but that it would be hard to undo it; and he advised her to wait till a more suitable opportunity. In the meantime he was most anxious to serve her Majesty without the intervention of Antrim or any one else. The Purgatory was ‘in the midst of the great Scottish plantations,’ and the Scots were only too anxious for an excuse to find fault with the King’s Government. Pilgrimages to Lough Derg were resumed in course of time, and it was estimated that as many as 13,000 devotees went there annually in the early part of the nineteenth century.[172]

FOOTNOTES:

[158] For the wretched state of the army see State Papers, Ireland, passim, particularly the letters of Sir Richard Aldworth, October 17, 1626, and February 16, 1626.

[159] Court and Times, of Charles I., July 11, 1628, i. 377. The King to Falkland, August 4 and 16, 1628.

[160] Falkland to the Privy Council, May 3, 1623; Commissioners for Irish causes to same, July (No. 1058 in Cal.); Falkland to Buckingham, printed in Miss Hickson’s Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, i. 45. The latter is undated, but must be earlier than Middlesex’s fall in May 1624.

[161] The evidence taken by Falkland is calendared at January 20, 1629. The evidence taken before the special commission is printed in Gilbert’s Confederation and War, i. 187. Particulars as to the lands may be found in Morrin’s Cal. of Patent Rolls, Car. I. pp. 356, 366, 399, 496. Accounts from various points of view are given in Gardiner’s History, viii. 20, in Miss Hickson’s Seventeenth Century, i. 38, and in Carte’s Ormonde, book i. Ussher admitted that the special commission had made more haste than good speed, see his letter of January 22, 1628-9, Works, xv. 421.

[162] Irish Council to the King, calendared at April 28, 1629; the King to the Lords Justices for the Earl of Carlisle, March 29, 1631; Lord Esmond to Dorchester, September 18; Lord Cork to Dorchester, January 1630 (No. 1591). Falkland’s Apology, December 8, 1628, is printed in Gilbert’s Confederation and War, i. 210.

[163] Falkland to Lord Conway, September 3, 1628, enclosing two letters from Captain James Tobin; Captain Tobin’s information given in England, September 29, 1629, and January 13, 1630.

[164] The King to the Lord Deputy and Council, with the first version of the Graces, September 22, 1626. The declaration of the bishops, November 26, 1626, and Ussher’s speech, April 30, 1627, are in Elrington’s ‘Life of Ussher,’ prefixed to his Works, i. 72-88. As to Downham’s sermon, April 22, 1627, see the paper calendared No. 693. Diary of the proceedings of the Great Assembly concerning the maintenance of 5,000 foot and 500 horse, October 14, 1626, to June 26, 1627, No. 713 in Calendar. The new charter of Waterford, May 26, 1626, is in Morrin’s Patent Rolls, Car. I., 169.

[165] Rushworth, i. 514, 622. Report of Commons committee, February 24, 1628-9, in Gardiner’s Constitutional Documents, No. 14. For the billeting of Irish soldiers in England see Court and Times, i. 316, 331. It was reported in London that the Irish Recusants were giving 120,000l. for a ‘kind of public toleration’ with power to erect monasteries, ib. 375.

[166] Captain Bardsey’s note of abuses, 1625, No. 1417 in Russell and Prendergast’s Calendar; proclamation against the monasteries etc., April 1, 1629, with Falkland’s letters of April 5 and May 2; Falkland to Ussher, April 14 and May 15, 1629, in Ussher’s Works, xv. 438, 442; Falkland to Dorchester, April 17 and September 29, 1629; King’s letter of recall, August 10. The Report of the Commissioners for Irish affairs concerning Poynings’ Act is calendared at September 9, 1628, and the story is told in Rushworth, ii. 16-22. It appears from Ware’s Diary, quoted by Gardiner, viii. 18, that the election for Dublin was actually held. The graces in their complete form are in Cox’s Hibernia Anglicana, ii. 45, and in Strafford’s Letters, i. 312.

[167] Star Chamber cases, ed. Gardiner, Camden Society, 1886.

[168] The petition is in Cabala, 221, other documents are in Lady Theresa Lewis’s Friends of Clarendon, i. Appx. B-E. The imprisonment was from January 17 to 27, 1629-30.

[169] Lord Cork’s Diary in Lismore Papers, 1st series, iii. 2. Wilmot to Dorchester, October 22, 1629. The instructions to the Lords Justices are calendared under July, No. 1443.

[170] Lord Cork’s Diary in Lismore Papers, 1st series, iii. 13. Wilmot to Dorchester, January 6, 1630; Cork to same, January, No. 1591, with enclosures; Privy Council to the Lords Justices, January 31, printed in Foxes and Firebrands, ii. 74, 2nd ed., Dublin, 1682; Gilbert’s History of Dublin, i. 242, 300; Cork to Dorchester, March 2, 1630.

[171] Wilmot to Dorchester, February 1, 1631; Lord Cork’s letters of December 8, 1630, and January 12, 1631; Ware’s Diary in Gardiner, viii. 28; Lord Cork’s Diary, November 26, 1632, in Lismore Papers, iii. 167.

[172] Todd’s St. Patrick, vii.; Hill’s Plantation in Ulster, 184; Henrietta Maria to Wentworth, and his answer, October 10, 1638, in Strafford Letters; Lord Cork’s Diary, September 8, 1632 in Lismore Papers, iii. 159; Cæsar Otway’s Sketches, 1827.

[CHAPTER XI]
GOVERNMENT OF WENTWORTH, 1632-1634

Wentworth Lord Deputy, Jan. 1632. His antecedents.

His rapid promotion.

Dr. James Welwood, physician-in-ordinary to William III., wrote a short history of the hundred years preceding the Revolution and dedicated it to the King. He gave Strafford full credit as a great orator and greater statesman, and as a zealous opponent of illegal taxation during the first three Parliaments of Charles I., but goes on to say that ‘the Court bought him off, and preferred him to great honours and places, which lost him his former friends, and made the breach irreconcilable.’ That was the orthodox Whig view of the case, which prevailed when the Stuart monarchy had been finally converted into the parliamentary system of Walpole. The Puritans were satisfied to call Strafford an apostate, and the Whigs followed them. But he never really belonged to the popular party, and he sought office from the first, not only from ambition but from a love of efficient government. He became Custos Rotulorum of the West Riding in 1615, when he was only twenty-two, and a member of the Council of the North less than four years afterwards. A year later he was a successful candidate for the representation of Yorkshire, with a Secretary of State as his colleague, no other than Sir George Calvert, who became the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore. In seeking the support of an influential neighbour at the election held on Christmas Day, 1620, Wentworth said: ‘In London I will carry you to Mr. Secretary, make you known to him, not only procure you many thanks from him, but that you shall hereafter find a readiness and cheerfulness to do you such good offices as shall be in his way hereafter. Lastly, I hope to have your company with me at dinner that day, where you shall be most welcome.’

His breach with the Puritans.

Wentworth and Pym.

Early in 1626, when he was only thirty-two, Wentworth applied to be made Lord President of the North in the event of a vacancy which was then expected. He stated that he had no wish to rise except by Buckingham’s means, and that he reposed under the shadow of his favour. He was at that time out of Parliament, the favourite having had him made sheriff of Yorkshire on purpose to exclude him. The death of Buckingham cleared the way for Wentworth, and in a little more than a year after his commission to the Marshalsea for refusing to pay the forced loan, he had found no difficulty in accepting a barony, a viscounty, and the coveted Presidency of the North. His action was really analogous to that of a modern politician who opposes the Government of the day, not with a view to overthrow it, but in order that he himself may be taken inside. Though this kind of thing is never admirable we find no great difficulty in tolerating it, but it was different in the time of Charles I.; men were too much in earnest and the principles at stake were too great. It is, therefore, possible to believe Welwood’s story about Wentworth’s relations to Pym, for which there does not appear to be any contemporary authority, but which may have been derived from those who were alive at the time. According to this account Wentworth, when he had determined to make his peace with the Court, asked Pym to meet him alone at Greenwich, where he enlarged upon the danger of extreme courses, and advised him to make favourable terms for himself and his friends while there was yet time. ‘You need not,’ answered Pym, ‘use all this art to tell me that you have a mind to leave us, but remember what I tell you, you are going to be undone. Remember that though you leave us now, I will never leave you while your head is on your shoulders.’[173]

Wentworth’s alliance with Laud.

‘Thorough’

A close union between Church and State formed a necessary part of Wentworth’s political system. He hated sectaries, though he does not seem to have had any very strong theological bias. Archbishop Abbot was accused by his enemies at Court of being too intimate with Sir Thomas Wentworth, when still in opposition, the real fact being that they had met once in nine months, and then only for consultation about a young Saville to whom they were joint guardians. With Laud Wentworth had much more in common, and sought his acquaintance as soon as he became a Privy Councillor, late in 1630. ‘Coming to a right understanding of one another,’ says Heylin, ‘they entered into such a league of inviolable friendship’ as only death could part, and so co-operated for the honour of the Church and his Majesty’s service. They were in correspondence about Irish affairs before Wentworth left England, and agreed upon a policy of ‘Thorough’ both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Very soon after his arrival in Dublin Wentworth congratulated the bishop upon his translation to Canterbury, and the latter pointed out in reply that the Church was much ‘bound up in the forms of the common law,’ and that there were many clogs to the State machinery. ‘No such narrow considerations,’ wrote Wentworth soon after, ‘shall fall into my counsels as my own preservation, till I see my master’s power and greatness set out of wardship and above the exposition of Sir Edward Coke and his year-books, and I am most assured the same resolution governs in your lordship. Let us then in the name of God go cheerfully and boldly; if others do not their parts I am confident the honour shall be ours and the shame theirs, and thus you have my Thorough and Thorough.’[174]

Wentworth’s assistants

Wandesford.

Radcliffe.

In one of his first letters from Ireland Wentworth says he trusted nobody on that side of the channel but Christopher Wandesford and George Radcliffe, who were his cousins and had made themselves useful in Yorkshire. Both had begun in opposition, and had followed their leader when he espoused the cause of prerogative. Wandesford became Master of the Rolls, and was the last holder of that office in Ireland who sat as a judge until quite modern times. It became a sinecure in the hands of Sir John Temple, who succeeded him, was held by the Duke of Leinster in 1789, and on his resignation was granted in co-partnership to the Earls of Glandore and Carysfort. Radcliffe, who was attorney-general of the northern presidency, was compensated for the loss of his English practice by a grant of £500 a year, and became the Lord Deputy’s secretary. He preceded him to Ireland and prepared his way there. The rest of the Irish officials Wentworth treated as mere clerks. After a year and a half’s experience on the spot he considered nothing ‘more prejudicial to the good success of these affairs than their being understood aforehand by them here. So prejudicial I hold it indeed, that on my faith there is not a minister on this side who knows anything I either write or intend, excepting the Master of the Rolls and Sir George Radcliffe, for whose assistance in this government and comfort to myself amidst this generation I am not able sufficiently to pour forth my humble acknowledgments to his Majesty. Sure I were the most solitary man without them that ever served a king in such a place.’[175]

Radcliffe and Mainwaring.

Radcliffe retained the Lord Deputy’s full confidence to the end. He was his chief adviser always, and his representative when away from Ireland; but it was found necessary after a time to appoint another secretary through whose hands most of the official correspondence passed. The person chosen was Philip Mainwaring, of a Cheshire family, but on pretty intimate terms with Wentworth, with whom he may have become acquainted from having sat in Parliament for Boroughbridge. He is well-known from Vandyke’s picture, where he looks up in astonishment or dismay at the angry face of the master who is dictating a despatch to him. Cottington for some reason thought Mainwaring a dangerous man to appoint, and while recommending him at Wentworth’s request, declared that the latter would burn his fingers; but he became chief secretary in the summer of 1634, and remained in office until the outbreak of the civil war. Laud had a good opinion of him.[176]

Sir George Wentworth, Lord Dillon and Adam Loftus.

In matters of state Wentworth seems to have given his full confidence only to Wandesford and Radcliffe, but he got a good deal of help from his brother George, who married Frances Rushe of Castle Jordan in Westmeath. Amongst the natives of Ireland he chiefly trusted Robert, Lord Dillon, whose son James married his sister Elizabeth, and Adam Loftus of Rathfarnham, the Archbishop’s grandson and cousin to the Chancellor, who supported his policy from the beginning.

Delay about Wentworth’s appointment,

by which the King hopes to make money.

Wilmot’s warning.

If we are to believe the letter-writer Howell, who had dealings with Wentworth in the summer of 1629, the latter was then already talked of for the Irish viceroyalty. In the autumn of 1631 Weston more than once urged him to come to Court ‘for some important occasions’ not specified. Some of his friends thought there was a plan to ruin him by imposing the thankless Irish service, but he himself went no further than to hint that there were probably powerful people who would be glad to set him ‘a little further off from treading on anything themselves desire.’ The appointment did not take place until the beginning of 1632, but the King’s intention had then been for some time known, and Wentworth may have occupied himself with Irish affairs long before the public announcement. Lord Wilmot, who was commander-in-chief as well as president of Connaught, wrote from Dublin to Cottington that the appointment was expected and freely discussed in Ireland. Wilmot thought his own long service might possibly have made him Lord Deputy, but things being as they were he was ready to give his best support to the man who had been preferred before him. He saw clearly that money would be a main object with Charles, and gave emphatic warning that it would not be safe to economise by reducing the army, consisting as it did of 2,000 foot and 400 horse distributed in companies of 50. ‘Such as they are,’ he said, ‘they give countenance unto justice itself, and are the only comfort that the poor English undertakers live by, and at this hour the King’s revenues are not timely brought in but by force of soldiers ... out of long experience I have seen these people are ready to take the bit in their teeth upon all advantages, as any people living, although they pay for it, as many times they have done before, with all they are worth.’ A little, he declared, might be done in Ireland even with a small army, but if he had the means to make a great display of force the King might do what he liked. Wilmot wished to leave Ireland, where there was little to look forward to, and he was soon to find that thirty years’ laborious service was no valid title to royal favour.[177]

Conditions of the appointment.

Advice of Parsons.

The Lords Justices give offence.

Death of Sir John Eliot.

When announcing the appointment of a new Deputy to the Lords Justices of Ireland, the King asked for a detailed account of the revenue and of the state of the army. He required them ‘not to pass any pardons, offices, lands, or church livings, nor to confer the honour of knighthood upon any, or to dispose of any company of horse or foot there in the interim.’ While waiting for the Deputy, they were to confine themselves to the administration of civil justice and the maintenance of military discipline. Wentworth wrote himself a few days later asking for information as to the state of Ireland. Sir William Parsons, with whom as well as with the Lords Justices he was quite unacquainted, wisely advised him to do nothing until he crossed the channel and could see for himself. In the meantime he made arrangements with the King by which power was concentrated in his hands. To secure secrecy and promptness it was agreed that he should correspond on financial matters direct with the Lord Treasurer, and on general business direct with Secretary Coke, instead of with the Privy Council or any committee of it. The whole patronage, civil and ecclesiastical, was made to depend on the Lord Deputy, while grants of places in reversion were annulled for the past and forbidden for the future. No new office was to be created without the Deputy’s advice, and it was promised that no Irish complaint should be entertained in England unless it had been made to him first. By direct orders from the King the Lords Justices were directed to pay no arrears or other debts, but to confine their expenses of government strictly to the current cost of the establishment. They nevertheless sanctioned payment of a large sum to Sir Francis Cook. Wentworth was highly indignant, but Cottington wrote that Mountnorris as Vice-Treasurer would probably refuse to pay the money out of an almost empty Exchequer. ‘Your old dear friend Sir John Eliot,’ he added, ‘is very like to die.’ He did die six weeks later in the unwholesome prison where he lay, as a consequence of adhering to the cause which the new Lord Deputy had deserted. Yet Wentworth seems to have been surprised at the abuse which his rather late found loyalty brought upon himself. He had bound himself hand and foot to the service of the magnanimous prince who had ordered that Sir John Eliot should be buried in the Tower, in the church of that parish where he died.[178]

Deficiency of the revenue.

Fines for not going to church.

First difference with Lord Mountnorris.

The Lords Justices reprimanded.

Wentworth was well inclined to take the advice given by Parsons, but there was one department of Irish affairs which would not wait, and that was the revenue. The Lords Justices announced that they would have to begin the financial year on April 1, 1632, with less than £14,000 still to be raised out of the £120,000 promised in 1628. This was not enough to pay the army till December, and they realised that it was impossible to decrease that force. They could suggest no better means of making the ends meet than by ruthlessly exacting the fines of one shilling a Sunday from the Irish Roman Catholics who refused to go to church. A worse kind of tax could scarcely be devised, but it was legal, and Wentworth had made no scruple of levying it in Yorkshire. He sent over a Roman Catholic agent to Ireland, who obtained a promise of £20,000 from his co-religionists on condition of escaping the Sunday dues for another year. This provided money for immediate necessities, but he had no idea of letting the Protestants escape. He told Cottington that it was safer to displease the minority than the majority, and grounded his action upon this. It is not surprising that he made enemies of the Protestants in the long run, and that he did not make friends of the Roman Catholics. Nor was he particularly anxious to conciliate the men with whom he would have to work in Ireland. Lord Mountnorris lingered at Chester on account of his wife’s health, and Wentworth ordered him to go over at once and attend to his financial business. The letter is civil enough in form, but contains the scarcely-veiled threat that Mountnorris would be the sufferer if he were untrue to him or suspicious of him in any way. Considering that he himself evidently distrusted the Vice-Treasurer it was hardly wise to bid him send over £2,000 of the new Deputy’s salary at once, ‘for,’ he said, ‘I have entered fondly enough on a purchase in Yorkshire of £14,000, and the want of that would very foully disappoint me.’ To the Lords Justices Wentworth was still more outspoken. They had disobeyed orders by keeping secret the King’s letter of instructions which they had been ordered to publish, by ordering the payment of Sir Francis Cook’s arrear, and by failing to send over a detailed statement of the Irish revenue. Wentworth said plainly that he would not allow such presumption in them as to ‘evacuate his master’s directions, nor contain himself in silence, seeing them before his face so slighted, or at least laid aside very little regarded.’[179]

Wentworth’s journey delayed by pirates.

Radcliffe goes before with Lady Wentworth.

Audacity of the pirates,

who plunder the Lord Deputy’s baggage.

Wentworth intended to be in Ireland by Christmas 1632, but he did not go till more than six months later. One good reason for the delay was that the narrow seas were infested by pirates, though this did not prevent him from sending over his lately married third wife in January 1633. George Radcliffe escorted her and she lay hidden in the Castle for several months, which was considered most mysterious, and her identity was not disclosed until after her husband’s arrival. The Irish Government feared further attacks by the Algerines upon Baltimore or some other defenceless place; but it was not only Algerines who threatened the coasts and plundered the shipping, and the Lords Justices declared that the Irish revenue could hardly bear the expense of two pinnaces called the 5th and 9th Whelps, which were assigned to them as a protecting force. One or more rovers frequented the Welsh coast, preying on the trade from Ireland, and carrying off men from the Isle of Man where there was no means of resistance. Another cruised about Youghal, while the Pickpocket of Dover lay off Dublin. Trade was at a stand, and the Irish customs made unproductive. ‘The fear of being thought to linger unprofitably’ in England induced Wentworth to send over most of his household goods in May 1633, and the plate escaped, but the Pickpocket took £500 worth of his linen. The same pirate drove a Dutch ship on shore close to Dublin, took out the cargo, and burnt her to the water’s edge, the flames being visible from the Castle. ‘The loss and misery,’ said Wentworth, ‘is not so great as the scorn that such a picking villain should dare to do these violences in the face of that state, and to pass away without control.’ A notable pirate named Nutt had the impudence to send Wentworth word that he was ready to convoy him over. A powerful ship under an excellent seaman, Captain Richard Plumleigh, was provided after much delay, but she did not get out of the Medway till June, and it was July before Wentworth heard that the passage to Dublin was safe. He then hastened over, and lost no time in showing that King Stork had succeeded to King Log. Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury a few days later.[180]

Essex in Ireland.

Wentworth lands,

and is welcomed by Lord Cork.

Visits of ceremony.

A few days before the Lord Deputy’s arrival Essex, accompanied by Lord Cromwell, landed some miles from Dublin, and was met by the Lords Justices and Lord Primate with all persons of quality about town. The streets were so crowded with spectators that the coaches could hardly pass, and an old Irish woman called out ‘Blessed be the time that I live to see a son of thy father there.’ When Wentworth appeared on July 23 the water was very rough, and he was probably not inclined to eat the dinner which Lord Howth had prepared for him. At all events he declined to land near the head, and came ashore close to Dublin, nearly opposite to where the Custom House now stands. He was unexpected, and not a gun was fired, but Lord Justice Cork was quickly on the spot with his coach, and the news spread fast. The Lord Deputy, with Lord Castlehaven, Sir John Borlase, Sir Francis Cook, and others started to walk, but Cork invited them all into his coach, and by the time they reached the Castle there was such a crowd that the drawbridge had to be raised behind them. Afterwards, Cork records in his diary, ‘I having the precedency, the Lord Deputy brought me to my coach.’ Next day was given to receiving visits, which were for the most part scrupulously returned, that of Essex the first, precedency as an Earl being granted him until the viceroy was sworn. Essex soon departed to his estate at Carrickmacross, but was back in London early in the following year, whence he wrote a letter of four lines thanking the Lord Deputy for his ‘noble usage.’ Wentworth replied very civilly in a letter of eight lines, but there appears to have been nothing like intimacy between the two. ‘I visited both the Justices,’ Wentworth wrote, ‘at their own houses, which, albeit not formerly done by other Deputies, yet I conceived it was a duty I owed, being then but a private person, as also to show an example to others what would always become them to the supreme governor.’[181]

Wentworth receives the sword, July 25, 1633.

The Lord Chancellor’s speech.

Wentworth’s speech.

Wentworth makes obeisance to the King’s picture.

At two o’clock on the third day Wentworth received the sword in the Council-chamber. The ceremony had generally been performed in Christchurch, but some said the Archbishop of Dublin would not let the Primate deliver his prepared sermon, or perhaps the Lord Deputy wished to avoid publicity. After a short discussion with some of the Council ‘in his ear whispering like,’ he decided to go in procession through the rooms of the Castle instead of slipping in quietly by the gallery, as he originally proposed. When the Council were seated the Lord Deputy remained standing, while Wandesford, as Master of the Rolls, read the commission; then Lord Mountnorris, as acting secretary (having it in reversion after Sir Dudley Norton, who may well be ‘jubilayed’) read the King’s letter ordering the Lords Justices to deliver the sword, and explaining the reasons for the new governor’s late arrival. When he had been sworn, Lord Chancellor Loftus spoke of the state in which he and his colleague left the government. No fresh debt, he said, had been contracted during their time of office, everything was quiet, and they were ready to advise their successor as to many desirable reforms. ‘I for my part,’ says Cork in his diary, ‘did most willingly surrender the sword, the rather in regard the kingdom was yielded up in general peace and plenty.’ Wentworth then took the chair, and with the sword in his hand made ‘a very good speech.’ He said he would be no upholder of factions, but would most esteem those who did most for the King’s service. He had heard that there was some discontent about two men having been drafted from each company in order to raise a troop for himself. He did not want one, he said, but the creation of a permanent guard for the viceroy had caused his delay in England. The men should be restored at the first vacancy, and he thought it very unfit that a departing Deputy should retain his company. ‘Herein he touched the Lord of Falkland, who retained his.’ Grandison had done the same, with continuous leave of absence. On the return journey the sword was carried by the Earl of Castlehaven, a knight having been thought good enough to bear it before the Lords Justices, who now brought up the rear. When he came before the cloth of estate, in the presence chamber, Wentworth halted and made ‘two humble courtesies to the King’s and Queen’s picture which hang on each side, and fixing his eyes with much seriousness showed a kind of devotion.’ He knighted his brother George, his cousin Danby, who was the husband of Wandesford’s daughter, and a very young Mr. Remington, ‘not of age, who hopes to save his wardship thereby, his father being very old and sickly.’ On reaching the privy chamber, where Lady Wentworth stood with Lady Tyrconnel and others, he introduced the late Lords Justices to his wife, presenting her to be saluted with a kiss from each of them ... who until that instant had no title or place given her here but that of Mistress Rhodes.’[182]

Wentworth’s opinion of his Council.

A Parliament proposed to provide money.

Speech of Wentworth, who finds Parsons ‘dry.’

First appearance of Ormonde.

‘I find them in this place’—so runs Wentworth’s first published letter from Dublin—‘a company of men the most intent upon their own hands that ever I met with, and so as those speed, they consider other things at a very great distance.’ Three weeks later he found the officials very sharp about their own interests, but ‘with no edge at all for the public,’ and all in league to keep the Deputy as much in the dark as possible. He determined from the first to trust no one but his friend Wandesford, who had just been made Master of the Rolls, and his secretary Radcliffe, who had been in Ireland since January, and who was made a Privy Councillor within a few weeks of his chief’s arrival. To these was afterwards added Sir Philip Mainwaring, who owed his appointment to Wentworth and Laud jointly. On the day week after taking the reins of office Wentworth summoned the Council to consider how money might be raised for the payment of the army. The members of the Board were slow to begin the discussion, but Sir Adam Loftus of Rathfarnham at last proposed to continue the voluntary contribution for another year, and thus to provide the necessary funds until the end of 1634. At the same time he suggested a Parliament, not only for supply but for the settlement of disputed titles. Then there was another silence, and at last Wentworth called upon Parsons to give his opinion. The result was an expression of doubt as to the power of the Council to bind others, and a hint that the army might be provided for out of the King’s ordinary revenue, which Wentworth found ‘reduced to fee-farms’ and therefore quite unelastic. ‘I was then,’ he said, ‘put to my last refuge, which was plainly to declare that there was no necessity which induced me to take them to counsel in this business, for rather than fail in so necessary a duty to my master, I would undertake upon the peril of my head to make the King’s army able to subsist, and to provide for itself amongst them without their help.’ He had been but a week in Ireland, and was already talking about risking his head, which tends to show that Pym had really uttered the threat attributed to him, and that his old ally remembered it. The Chancellor, Cork, and Mountnorris thereupon agreed to the proposal of Loftus, and all, especially Cork, were eager for a Parliament. Wentworth, who had championed the Petition of Right, had so completely given himself to prerogative that he seems hardly to have realised that men might be very willing to pay a parliamentary tax, while shrinking from arbitrary exactions and from troops at free quarters. ‘As for Sir William Parsons,’ he said, ‘first and last I found him the driest of all the company.’ It was not Parsons, however, but Loftus, Cork, and Mountnorris who were destined to feel the weight of his hand, although they now received his thanks. The young Earl of Ormonde came next morning to the Lord Deputy, and for himself, his friends, and his tenants agreed to what had been done.[183]

Miserable state of the army.

Case of Lorenzo Cary.

Wentworth restores discipline.

An amateur general.

Improvement in arms.

Having thus provided money, Wentworth lost no time in looking closely into the state of the army upon which his government rested. There were but 2,000 foot and 400 horse, but Wilmot had solemnly warned the English Government that no revenue could be collected and no English settler subsist without their help. A larger force would do wonders if money could be found, but it was impossible to make any reduction. Discipline was very slack, officers having been in the habit of taking their duties lightly, and even of going to London without leave and staying there for an indefinite time. Before leaving England Wentworth procured a letter from the King checking such irregularities, and giving the Deputy power to cashier obstinate offenders. But Charles’s own conduct was not calculated to support his viceroy’s authority. It was the undoubted privilege of a Deputy to dispose of military commissions on the Irish establishment, and Wentworth had promised before he left England to give the first vacancy to Mr. Henry Percy, Lady Carlisle’s brother. He had told the King of this promise, and Charles had made no objection. Nevertheless when Lord Falkland, whom Wentworth believed to be his enemy and detractor, died in September from the effects of an accident the King gave his company, which he had left in very bad order, to his second son Lorenzo, who was little more than a boy, though he had seen service abroad. Wentworth struggled hard, but was obliged to submit. Charles had the excuse of yielding to the prayer of a dying man, and he may have thought that Falkland had not been very well treated. His elder son had lost his place and suffered imprisonment, and he actually held a patent for transmitting this command to the younger. Knowing that he kept his commission in spite of the Lord Deputy, Cary took little pains to please him, while Wentworth never ceased to resent his presence in the Irish army, and tried to get him transferred. He took care that neither Cary nor any one else should have a sinecure, where there was so much work to be done. The men were undrilled, their arms and armour defective, their horses of the worst kind. The captains left everything to their subalterns, while both officers and men were scattered about the country and seldom or never paraded. Every captain was now furnished with a paper describing the defects of his company, and he was ordered to make them right within six months on pains of severe punishment, and of being ultimately cashiered. Weekly field days were ordered, while two companies of foot and one troop of horse were to be always quartered in Dublin, but changed every month. Thus the whole army would be ready to march at any time, and would pass under the General’s eyes at least once in two years. Wentworth showed a good example by putting his own troop into a thoroughly efficient state, sixty such men and horses as had not been seen in Dublin before. He trained them himself, said a letter-writer, ‘on a large green near Dublin, clad in a black armour with a black horse and a black plume of feathers, though many there looked on him and on this action with other eyes than they did on the Lord Chichester, who had been bred a martial man.’ Clarendon observes that, ‘though not bred a soldier, he had been in armies, and besides being a very wise man had great courage and was martially inclined.’ The artillery was in as bad order as other things, and Wentworth asked for Sir John Borlase, an experienced soldier, as master of the ordnance; and this appointment was made in due course. Steps were also taken to see that landowners who were bound to furnish armed men or horses should have them actually available. The cavalry were armed for the first time with musket-bore carbines, and they were expected to fight on foot if required. Wentworth took steps to abolish the obsolete light pieces called calivers, of which the bore varied. ‘Muskets, bandileers, and rests’ were substituted, and Borlase knew how to prevent swords worth less than four shillings from being rated at ten, and the purchase at 23s. of firearms which were worth nothing at all.[184]