



Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet Archive)










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. 32_s._

Vol. III.--1578-1603. 8vo. 18_s._

  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


  CHAPTER I

  MOUNTJOY AND CAREY, 1603-1605

                                                         PAGE
  Accession of James I.                                    1
  Agitation in Irish towns                                 2
  Insurrection at Cork                                     8
  Reform of the currency                                  14
  Chichester made Lord Deputy                             15


  CHAPTER II

  CHICHESTER AND THE TOLERATION QUESTION, 1605-1607

  The laws against Recusancy                              17
  Proclamation against toleration                         19
  Cases of Everard and Lalor                              21
  Attempt to enforce uniformity--the Mandates             23
  Bacon on toleration--Sir P. Barnewall                   27
  The Mandates given up                                   29


  CHAPTER III

  THE FLIGHT OF THE EARLS, 1607

  Tyrone at Court                                         30
  O'Cahan's case                                          31
  Death of Devonshire                                     33
  Earldom of Tyrconnel created                            34
  Departure of Tyrone, Tyrconnel, and Maguire             37
  The fugitives excluded from France and Spain            39
  Reasons for Tyrone's flight--Lord Howth                 41
  Uncertainty as to the facts                             42
  Lord Delvin's adventures                                44
  Royal manifesto against the Earls                       47
  Tyrone leaves the Netherlands                           48
  He reaches Rome                                         49


  CHAPTER IV

  REBELLION OF O'DOGHERTY, 1608

  The settlement at Derry                                 51
  O'Dogherty and Paulet                                   53
  Derry surprised and sacked                              54
  Flight and death of O'Dogherty                          56
  A 'thick and short' war                                 58
  A Donegal jury                                          60
  Forfeitures                                             61


  CHAPTER V

  THE SETTLEMENT OF ULSTER

  The tribal system                                       63
  Chichester's plan of colonisation                       66
  Bacon on the settlement                                 67
  The Scots in Ulster--Bishop Montgomery                  68
  Church and Crown                                        70
  Chichester and Davies                                   71
  British settlers invited                                72
  The natives neglected                                   74
  The survey                                              75
  Londonderry and Coleraine                               76
  Sir Thomas Phillips                                     77
  Slow progress                                           78
  English and Scots compared                              79
  Carew's prophecy                                        81
  Settlers and natives                                    82
  Bodley's and Pynnar's surveys                           85
  The Londoners' settlement                               87
  English, Scotch, and Irish                              88
  Optimism at Court                                       90


  CHAPTER VI

  CHICHESTER'S GOVERNMENT TO 1613

  Sir John Davies on circuit                              91
  Uniformity in Ulster--Bishop Knox                       97
  Irish swordsmen deported to Sweden                      99
  Piracy on the Irish coast                              101


  CHAPTER VII

  THE PARLIAMENT OF 1613-1615

  No Parliament for 27 years                             108
  A Protestant majority                                  109
  Roman Catholic opposition                              110
  Violent contest for the Speakership                    112
  Sir John Davies on the constitution                    114
  Patience of Chichester                                 116
  Royal commission on grievances                         117
  Election petitions--new boroughs                       118
  Opposition delegates in London                         120
  Doctrines of Suarez: Talbot, Barnewall, and Luttrell   122
  Rival churches--neglect of religion                    122
  Ploughing by the tail                                  124
  Chichester found upright by the Commissioners          126
  The King verbally promises toleration                  127
  But tries to explain away his language                 128
  Bacon as philosopher and Attorney-General              129
  The King's speech on parliamentary law                 130
  Legislation                                            132
  The Protestant majority insufficient                   134
  Taxes not easily collected                             135
  Legislation against the Recusants abandoned            136
  James falls back upon prerogative                      137


  CHAPTER VIII

  LAST YEARS OF CHICHESTER'S GOVERNMENT, 1613-1615

  The Ormonde heritage                                   139
  The MacDonnells in Antrim                              141
  Irish expedition to the Isles                          142
  Plot to surprise the Ulster settlements                145
  Chichester recalled; his position and character        147
  Death of Tyrone and Tyrconnel                          149


  CHAPTER IX

  ST. JOHN AND FALKLAND, 1616-1625

  St. John tries to enforce uniformity                   150
  Charter of Waterford forfeited                         152
  Plantation of Wexford                                  153
  General dissatisfaction                                156
  Bishop Rothe's strictures                              160
  Plantation in Longford and King's County               162
  The new plantations not successful                     164
  Plantation of Leitrim                                  166
  Irish swordsmen in Poland                              167
  Unpopularity of St. John                               168
  Lord Deputy Falkland                                   169
  Ussher and the civil power                             170
  Effect of the Spanish match in Ireland                 171
  Falkland's grievances                                  173
  Death and character of James I.                        174


  CHAPTER X

  EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I., 1625-1632

  Accession of Charles I.                                175
  Quarrel between Falkland and Loftus                    175
  The case of the O'Byrnes                               176
  Alleged plot of Lord Thurles                           180
  The 'graces'                                           180
  The bishops declare toleration sinful                  181
  Irish soldiers in England                              182
  Poynings's law                                         183
  Falkland recalled                                      184
  Wentworth as a judge                                   185
  The religious orders attacked                          186
  St. Patrick's Purgatory                                188


  CHAPTER XI

  GOVERNMENT OF WENTWORTH, 1632-1634

  Wentworth's antecedents                                190
  His alliance with Laud--'thorough'                     192
  His other friends                                      193
  Conditions of Wentworth's appointment                  195
  His journey delayed by pirates                         198
  His arrival in Ireland                                 199
  His opinion of the officials                           201
  First appearance of Ormonde                            203
  Reforms in the army                                    203
  Church and State--Bishop Bramhall                      205
  Wentworth, Laud, and the Earl of Cork                  206
  Algerine pirates--sack of Baltimore                    207
  Wentworth suppresses piracy                            209


  CHAPTER XII

  THE PARLIAMENT OF 1634

  Wentworth's parliamentary policy                       211
  Wentworth and the Irish nobility                       213
  How to secure a majority                               214
  Parliamentary forms and ceremonies                     215
  Wentworth's speech                                     216
  Supply voted                                           219
  Wentworth refused an earldom                           220
  The 'graces' not confirmed                             221
  Parliamentary opposition overcome                      222
  Judicial functions of Parliament--Gookin's case        223
  Taxation                                               226
  Parliament dissolved                                   227
  Convocation                                            227
  The Thirty-nine Articles adopted                       228
  Wentworth successful in all directions                 229


  CHAPTER XIII

  STRAFFORD AND THE ULSTER SCOTS

  Rise of Presbyterianism in Ulster                      231
  Wentworth, Laud, and Bramhall                          232
  Bishop Adair's case                                    233
  The Covenant                                           236
  The Black Oath                                         238
  Repression of the Presbyterians                        239
  A 'desperate doctrine'                                 242
  Wentworth wishes to drive out the Scots                243


  CHAPTER XIV

  WENTWORTH'S PLANS OF FORFEITURE AND SETTLEMENT

  Defective titles                                       245
  Large colonisation schemes                             246
  Roscommon, Sligo, and Mayo submit                      247
  Resistance of Galway                                   249
  Treatment of the Galway people--Clanricarde            250
  Injustice of Wentworth's policy                        251
  Attack on the Londoners' plantation                    252


  CHAPTER XV

  CASES OF MOUNTNORRIS, LOFTUS, AND OTHERS

  Lord Wilmot's case                                     255
  The Mountnorris case                                   256
  Martial law in time of peace                           257
  Hard treatment of Mountnorris                          261
  Case of Lord Chancellor Loftus                         264
  Judgment of Royalist contemporaries                    267
  Wentworth and Lord Cork                                268
  Vindictive action of Wentworth                         270
  Sir Piers Crosbie's case                               271
  Wentworth and Trinity College                          273
  Provost Chappell                                       274
  The Irish lecture abandoned                            275


  CHAPTER XVI

  STRAFFORD'S GOVERNMENT, 1638-1640

  Wentworth's account of his services                    276
  His power practically unchecked                        278
  Country life and game laws                             279
  Wentworth chief minister                               281
  Made Lord Lieutenant and Earl of Strafford             282
  Meeting of an Irish Parliament                         283
  Supply voted                                           283
  Declaration in praise of Strafford                     284


  CHAPTER XVII

  STRAFFORD'S ARMY

  Lord Antrim's plot against Scotland                    285
  Wentworth garrisons Carlisle                           287
  The new Irish army                                     288
  Muster and disbanding                                  291
  Danger from disbanded soldiers                         292
  Recruits for France and Spain                          293
  Owen Roe O'Neill and Preston                           295


  CHAPTER XVIII

  TRIAL AND DEATH OF STRAFFORD

  Wandesford as Strafford's Deputy                       297
  The Irish Parliament refractory                        298
  Strafford commander-in-chief                           299
  Strafford at York                                      300
  His arrest                                             301
  The Irish Parliament repudiate Strafford               302
  Death of Wandesford                                    303
  Trial of Strafford                                     304
  Death and character of Strafford                       308


  CHAPTER XIX

  THE REBELLION OF 1641

  Parsons and Borlase Lords Justices                     312
  Roman Catholic majority in Parliament                  313
  Apprehensions of a rising                              315
  Rory O'More, Lord Maguire, and others                  317
  The plot to seize Dublin is frustrated                 319
  Outbreak in Ulster                                     320
  The government weak                                    321
  Ulster fugitives in Dublin                             323
  State of the Pale                                      326
  Ormonde made general--Sir H. Tichborne                 327
  The Irish Parliament after the outbreak                329
  The news reaches the English Parliament                330
  And the King                                           330
  Relief comes slowly                                    331
  Monck, Grenville, Harcourt, and Coote                  332


  CHAPTER XX

  PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION

  Savage character of the contest                        333
  Conjectural estimates                                  334
  The rising in Tyrone                                   335
  In Armagh and Down                                     336
  In Fermanagh                                           337
  In Cavan--the O'Reillys                                338
  In Monaghan                                            342
  The Portadown massacre                                 342
  Imprisonment and death of Bedell                       344
  Irish victory at Julianstown                           347
  Belfast and Carrickfergus                              348
  The Pale joins the Ulster rebels                       349
  Meeting at Tara                                        350
  Defence of Drogheda                                    351
  Fire and sword in the Pale                             357




MAP


  Ireland in 1625, to illustrate colonization projects      _to face p. 1_

[Illustration: IRELAND

IN 1625

  GEORGE PHILIP & SON LTD.

_Longmans. Green & Co., London, New York, Bombay & Calcutta._]




IRELAND UNDER THE STUARTS




CHAPTER I

MOUNTJOY AND CAREY, 1603-1605


[Sidenote: Accession of James. The new era.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Excitement about the King's religion.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Disturbances at Kilkenny and Thomastown.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Mountjoy at Waterford.]

[Sidenote: Odium theologicum]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Insurrectionary movement at Cork.]

[Sidenote: Refusal to proclaim King James.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The citizens arm themselves,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Cork garrisoned by Mountjoy.]

[Sidenote: 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
200_l._ and the rest 100_l._ 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 11_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: Departure of Mountjoy. Carey Deputy.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The case of mixed money.]

[Sidenote: 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 200_l._ on condition to pay the said
Gilbert, his executors or assigns 100_l._ 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 100_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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
1,000_l._ per annum with 500_l._ 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


[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 20_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: Power of the priesthood.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 <DW7>s; 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 <DW7>s 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: Robert Lalor's case, 1606.]

[Sidenote: Præmunire.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Enforced conformity.]

[Sidenote: The Mandates.]

[Sidenote: 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 100_l._ upon six aldermen and of 50_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: Priest-hunting.]

[Sidenote: 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 100_l._
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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Opposition to the Mandates. Sir P. Barnewall.]

[Sidenote: Barnewall and others imprisoned.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Toleration not understood.]

[Sidenote: France.]

[Sidenote: Spain.]

[Sidenote: Germany.]

[Sidenote: Italy.]

[Sidenote: 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 <DW7> 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]

[Sidenote: Barnewall and Chichester.]

[Sidenote: Barnewall puzzles the Council.]

[Sidenote: Barnewall sent to England.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 32_l._ 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


[Sidenote: Mountjoy leaves Ireland, 1603.]

[Sidenote: Tyrone in favour at Court.]

[Sidenote: Mountjoy created Earl of Devonshire.]

[Sidenote: 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 600_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Case of O'Cahan.]

[Sidenote: Mountjoy's promise to O'Cahan,]

[Sidenote: which is not kept.]

[Sidenote: O'Cahan's righteous indignation.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Death of Devonshire, 1606.]

[Sidenote: Claims O'Cahan and Tyrone.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Assizes in Donegal.]

[Sidenote: Rory O'Donnell created Earl of Tyrconnel.]

[Sidenote: Extreme pretensions of Tyrconnel.]

[Sidenote: His character.]

[Sidenote: 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
300_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: Discontent of Tyrone.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Maguires.]

[Sidenote: Maguire at Brussels.]

[Sidenote: A ship hired with Spanish money.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.'

[Sidenote: Sir Cormac MacBaron.]

[Sidenote: The fugitives reach France,]

[Sidenote: 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 Quilleboeuf 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]

[Sidenote: The Earls in Flanders, Douai.]

[Sidenote: Entertained by Spinola at Brussels.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Reasons for Tyrone's flight.]

[Sidenote: Lord Howth.]

[Sidenote: Howth gives information.]

[Sidenote: Lord Delvin.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Rumoured plot to seize Dublin.]

[Sidenote: Chichester's surmises as to Tyrone's flight.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Lord Delvin is suspected.]

[Sidenote: 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 3,000_l._, 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]

[Sidenote: Delvin tires of his wanderings,]

[Sidenote: submits,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: Lady Tyrconnel.]

[Sidenote: Delvin gives evidence against a friar.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Tyrone and his company leave the Netherlands.]

[Sidenote: The Duke of Lorraine.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: The Earls are excluded from Venetian territory.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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
_Foedera_, 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


[Sidenote: Antecedents of Sir Cahir O'Dogherty.]

[Sidenote: Docwra leaves Derry, 1606,]

[Sidenote: and is succeeded by Sir George Paulet.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 1,000_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: who becomes an open rebel,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: O'Dogherty surprises Derry.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Bishop's library burned.]

[Sidenote: Collapse of the insurrection.]

[Sidenote: Derry re-occupied.]

[Sidenote: The rebels abandon Culmore.]

[Sidenote: Pursuit of O'Dogherty.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: O'Dogherty in Tyrone,]

[Sidenote: and Armagh,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Ruthless suppression of the rebellion,]

[Sidenote: which is condemned by an Irish jury.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Severities in Tory Island.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Fate of Neill Garv O'Donnell.]

[Sidenote: Irish juries will not find verdicts for treason.]

[Sidenote: Neill Garv is sent to the Tower,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The effects of O'Dogherty's rising.]

[Sidenote: 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


[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The tribal system.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Episcopal property.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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 8_l._ for every thousand acres; but where they
established British tenants this was reduced to 5_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._
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]

[Sidenote: 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.'

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The area underestimated.]

[Sidenote: 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 1,000_l._ 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
553_l._ 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 10,000_l._ worth of stock on the chance of 500_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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 20,000_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Slow progress of the work.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.'

[Sidenote: which was fulfilled.]

[Sidenote: 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.'

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Bodley's survey, 1615.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Londoners criticised.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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


[Sidenote: Optimism of Sir John Davies.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Leinster Assizes, 1604.]

[Sidenote: King's and Queen's Counties.]

[Sidenote: Carlow and Wexford.]

[Sidenote: Churches in ruins.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Justice in Connaught.]

[Sidenote: In Ulster.]

[Sidenote: In Munster.]

[Sidenote: Assizes at Waterford]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Assizes for Limerick]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Grand jury and petty juries at Monaghan]

[Sidenote: How the gentry lived.]

[Sidenote: Assizes for Fermanagh,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Act of Supremacy at Waterford, 1606,]

[Sidenote: at New Ross,]

[Sidenote: at Wexford,]

[Sidenote: and at Wicklow.]

[Sidenote: 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 400_l._ Others were indicted under the statute of Elizabeth
to recover the penalty of one shilling for absence from Church, and
about 240_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Act of Uniformity in Ulster, 1611.]

[Sidenote: Andrew Knox.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Chichester deports Irishmen to Sweden, 1609-1613.]

[Sidenote: The Swedish service unpopular.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Land thieves and water thieves.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: The Lord President blockaded by pirates.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: No part of the coast safe.]

[Sidenote: 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


[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: New constituencies are created.]

[Sidenote: The counties.]

[Sidenote: The boroughs.]

[Sidenote: Ulster.]

[Sidenote: Munster.]

[Sidenote: Leinster.]

[Sidenote: Connaught.]

[Sidenote: Character of the new boroughs]

[Sidenote: University representation.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Strong Roman Catholic opposition.]

[Sidenote: Demand for toleration.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Renewed Roman Catholic complaints.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Parliament meets.]

[Sidenote: Contest for the Speakership.]

[Sidenote: Violent proceedings in the Commons.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Continued opposition of the Recusant Lords,]

[Sidenote: and Commons,]

[Sidenote: who refuse to attend the House.]

[Sidenote: Speeches of Sir John Davies.]

[Sidenote: The Tudors held Parliaments for special objects.]

[Sidenote: King James I. to hold a real Parliament in Ireland.]

[Sidenote: Davies praises Chichester.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Patience of Chichester.]

[Sidenote: The Opposition send delegates to the King,]

[Sidenote: and the Deputy follows suit.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Proceedings of the Commissioners.]

[Sidenote: Disputed elections.]

[Sidenote: Fermanagh.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Contest in Dublin.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Contests in Boroughs.]

[Sidenote: Cavan.]

[Sidenote: Cavan members unseated.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The delegates in London.]

[Sidenote: Barnewall and Talbot.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Case for the Irish Government.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The King gives frequent audiences.]

[Sidenote: Talbot in the Tower.]

[Sidenote: Luttrell in the Fleet.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The rival Churches.]

[Sidenote: Suggestions by the Commissioners.]

[Sidenote: Military irregularities.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Ploughing by the tail.]

[Sidenote: Prevalence of the practice.]

[Sidenote: Its cruelty]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Alleged legal extortion.]

[Sidenote: Excessive fees.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Royal proclamation, Feb. 7, 1613-1614.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The King verbally promises toleration]

[Sidenote: to all who disavow Suarez.]

[Sidenote: Sir James Gough publishes the royal message,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The King cannot explain away his words,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Talbot before the Star-chamber.]

[Sidenote: The law officers discourage severity]

[Sidenote: Bacon nevertheless magnifies Talbot's offence,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The King on the constitution of Parliaments,]

[Sidenote: on Irish grievances,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Final award as to parliamentary difficulties, 1614.]

[Sidenote: The Houses get to business at last.]

[Sidenote: The Roman Catholics at first stay to prayers,]

[Sidenote: but soon desist.]

[Sidenote: Legislation proceeds smoothly,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Finance.]

[Sidenote: A free gift is asked for,]

[Sidenote: but with little success.]

[Sidenote: 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 20,000_l._ A nest egg was provided by the
Archbishop and Lord Howth, who put their names down for 100_l._ 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 <DW7>s, 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]

[Sidenote: Last session of the Parliament, 1615.]

[Sidenote: A subsidy cheerfully granted,]

[Sidenote: but collected with difficulty.]

[Sidenote: 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
30,000_l._ 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 2_s._ 8_d._
in the pound for natives and 5_s._ 4_d._ for aliens and denizens. The
imposition on realty was 4_s._ and 8_s._ 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]

[Sidenote: Proposed legislation, most of which is abandoned,]

[Sidenote: against Recusants,]

[Sidenote: for a fixed revenue,]

[Sidenote: against Tanistry,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: A highway system introduced.]

[Sidenote: Legislation against Scots repealed.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Parliament is dissolved October, 1615,]

[Sidenote: and the King falls back on prerogative.]

[Sidenote: 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 1,250_l._, _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


[Sidenote: The Ormonde heritage.]

[Sidenote: A new Earl of Desmond.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Litigation about the Ormonde estates.]

[Sidenote: James I. as an arbitrator.]

[Sidenote: 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
100,000_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: The MacDonnells in Antrim. Sir Randal MacDonnell.]

[Sidenote: MacDonnells and O'Neills.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Sir Randal's schemes in the Hebrides.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Irish expedition to the Isles.]

[Sidenote: Siege of Dunyveg,]

[Sidenote: which is taken,]

[Sidenote: and given to the Campbells.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Ulster affected by Highland politics.]

[Sidenote: The Islanders conspire with the Irish,]

[Sidenote: who are encouraged by a friar.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Rory O'Cahan's plot to surprise Coleraine,] 1615.

[Sidenote: Londonderry,]

[Sidenote: and all the settlement towns.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Chichester recalled,]

[Sidenote: and made Lord Treasurer.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Chichester's position in Irish history.]

[Sidenote: In principle a persecutor,]

[Sidenote: but tolerant in practice.]

[Sidenote: Vacillation of the English Government.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Tyrone and Tyrconnel in exile.]

[Sidenote: Death of Tyrconnel, 1608.]

[Sidenote: 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


[Sidenote: St. John becomes viceroy,]

[Sidenote: with an empty treasury,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Bacon advises a wary policy,]

[Sidenote: but does not persuade St. John,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The Waterford charter is forfeited,]

[Sidenote: 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 500_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: Fresh plantations undertaken.]

[Sidenote: The Wexford case.]

[Sidenote: 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 90_l._ out of it by Queen Elizabeth's grant.
Walter Synnott had a similar charge of 20_l._, 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]

[Sidenote: Opposition of Wexford landowners.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The more the plan is known,]

[Sidenote: the less it is liked.]

[Sidenote: The scheme is revised.]

[Sidenote: 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 400_l._ instead of
279_l._ 3_s._ 4_d._ 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 300_l._ a year, and
the expenses of the settlement were defrayed by the country.[142]

[Sidenote: Report of Commissioners on the plantation.]

[Sidenote: The Irish inhabitants willing to make some concessions,]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: A Wexford jury will not find the King's title,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Indecision of the King.]

[Sidenote: People who benefited by the settlement.]

[Sidenote: The King is convinced by the complainants,]

[Sidenote: but soon changes his mind.]

[Sidenote: 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 90_l._
to the Castle of Ferns and of 60_l._ 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 45_l._ to 50_l._, 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi.]

[Sidenote: Bishop Rothe's view of the plantation.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Plantation in Longford and King's County.]

[Sidenote: The plan better than the execution]

[Sidenote: 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 200_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: Attempt to apply the Wexford lesson.]

[Sidenote: The O'Ferralls.]

[Sidenote: A careful survey.]

[Sidenote: Ely O'Carroll]

[Sidenote: Cases of hardship.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: The undertakers non-resident.]

[Sidenote: The natives not attracted by short leases,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Plantation of Leitrim.]

[Sidenote: General ill-success of the smaller plantations.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Unpopularity of St. John.]

[Sidenote: He is praised by the King,]

[Sidenote: and by Bacon,]

[Sidenote: but is nevertheless recalled,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Lord Falkland made Viceroy, Feb. 1621-2.]

[Sidenote: Sermon by Bishop Ussher,]

[Sidenote: who wished to enforce the Act of Supremacy,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Effects of the Spanish marriage negotiations.]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: Proclamation against the priests, Jan. 1624,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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
100_l._ 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 5,000_l._
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


[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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 360_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: The case of the O'Byrnes.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Falkland wishes to colonise Wicklow,]

[Sidenote: but the plan is disliked in London.]

[Sidenote: Arrest of Phelim O'Byrne.]

[Sidenote: A royal commission on the Wicklow case,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Remarks on the O'Byrne case.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Financial difficulties.]

[Sidenote: An assembly of Notables. The 'graces.']

[Sidenote: 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 <DW7>s 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.'

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Irish soldiers in England.]

[Sidenote: The Act of Supremacy defied.]

[Sidenote: 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. <DW7>s
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 120,000_l._ 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]

[Sidenote: A Parliament is promised,]

[Sidenote: but not held.]

[Sidenote: Proclamation against regular clergy, April 1, 1629.]

[Sidenote: 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
120,000_l._ 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 14,000_l._
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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Raid on religious houses in Dublin,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: St. Patrick's Purgatory demolished.]

[Sidenote: The Queen desires its restoration.]

[Sidenote: 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
120,000_l._ 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


[Sidenote: Wentworth Lord Deputy, Jan. 1632. His antecedents.]

[Sidenote: 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.'

[Sidenote: His breach with the Puritans.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's alliance with Laud.]

[Sidenote: '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]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's assistants]

[Sidenote: Wandesford.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: Delay about Wentworth's appointment,]

[Sidenote: by which the King hopes to make money.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Conditions of the appointment.]

[Sidenote: Advice of Parsons.]

[Sidenote: The Lords Justices give offence.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Deficiency of the revenue.]

[Sidenote: Fines for not going to church.]

[Sidenote: First difference with Lord Mountnorris.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's journey delayed by pirates.]

[Sidenote: Radcliffe goes before with Lady Wentworth.]

[Sidenote: Audacity of the pirates,]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Essex in Ireland.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth lands,]

[Sidenote: and is welcomed by Lord Cork.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Wentworth receives the sword, July 25, 1633.]

[Sidenote: The Lord Chancellor's speech.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's speech.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's opinion of his Council.]

[Sidenote: A Parliament proposed to provide money.]

[Sidenote: Speech of Wentworth, who finds Parsons 'dry.']

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: Miserable state of the army.]

[Sidenote: Case of Lorenzo Cary.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth restores discipline.]

[Sidenote: An amateur general.]

[Sidenote: 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 23_s._ of firearms which were worth nothing at
all.[184]

[Sidenote: Church and State. Bishop Bramhall.]

[Sidenote: Bramhall reports to Laud. A dismal story.]

[Sidenote: Simony and pluralism.]

The Church of Ireland was in no better case than the army, and
Wentworth resolved to be guided by the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
John Bramhall, whom Laud had recommended to Wentworth for a stall in
York Minster, was now his chaplain, and was very soon given the rich
archdeaconry of Meath. He became Bishop of Derry a few months later.
Bramhall's first task was to make a general investigation into Irish
church affairs, and to report on them to Laud, who had already begun to
inform himself on the subject. A fortnight after Wentworth's arrival
Bramhall had collected enough information to inform the Archbishop
that it was 'hard to say whether the churches be the more ruinous and
sordid, or the people irreverent.' One parish church in Dublin was the
viceroy's stable, a second a nobleman's residence, and a third a tennis
court where the vicar acted as keeper. The vaults under Christchurch
were from end to end hired to Roman Catholic publicans, and the
congregation above were poisoned with tobacco smoke and with the fumes
of beer and wine. The communion table in the middle of the choir was
'made an ordinary seat for maids and apprentices.' The deanery was
held by the English Archbishop of Tuam, and the state of the cathedral
was an instructive comment on the prevailing system of pluralities.
Passing from the churches to the clergy, Bramhall found 'the inferior
sort of ministers below all degrees of contempt, in respect of their
poverty and ignorance; the boundless heaping together of benefices by
_commendams_ and dispensations but too apparent; yea, even often by
plain usurpation.' Simoniacal contracts were common, the stipends
reserved for the curates in charge being often as little as forty
shillings and seldom as much as ten pounds. One bishop was reported to
hold twenty-three benefices with cure. Few thought it worth while to
ask for less than three vicarages at once. No one knew what livings
were in the Deputy's gift, and even some whole bishoprics were left out
of the book of first fruits. Leases of church lands had been made at
trifling rents, and this practice was general in spite of prohibitions
by the Government. 'It is some comfort,' Bramhall grimly adds, 'to see
the Romish ecclesiastics cannot laugh at us, who come behind none in
point of disunion and scandal.'[185]

[Sidenote: The Boyle tomb in St. Patrick's.]

[Sidenote: Lord Cork as a benefactor.]

[Sidenote: Laud is puzzled,]

[Sidenote: but Wentworth has no doubts.]

[Sidenote: The monument is shifted.]

The Earl of Cork held a good deal of what had once been church land.
Wentworth had long been hostile to him, as appears abundantly from
his letters, and his zeal for the restitution of temporalities was
in this case sharpened by personal dislike. The Earl was rich and
powerful, and the Deputy was impatient of any influence independent
of his own. Lady Cork died in February 1630, and was buried in St.
Patrick's Cathedral with her father, Sir Geoffrey Fenton, and her
grandfather, Lord Chancellor Weston, in a vault under the place where
the high altar had formerly stood. Her husband then purchased that part
of the church from Dean Culme for 30_l._, and proceeded to raise an
immense monument of black marble in the pseudo-classical style then in
fashion. The position of this monument did not strike him as odd, for
his Protestantism was not of the Laudian type, and it seemed natural
to him that the communion-table should stand detached in the middle
of the church. He told Laud that he had been a benefactor rather than
a defacer of St. Patrick's: 'Where there was but an earthen floor at
the upper end of the chancel, which was often overflown, I raised the
same three steps higher, making the stairs of hewn stone, and paving
the same throughout, whereon the communion table now stands very dry
and gracefully.' Both Ussher and Bulkeley,' wrote Laud, 'justify that
the tomb stands not in the place of the altar, and that it is a great
ornament to that church, so far from being any inconvenience.... I
confess I am not satisfied with what they say, yet it is hard for me
that am absent to cross directly the report of two Archbishops.' The
Lord Treasurer was inclined to resent the attack on his kinsman's tomb,
and Laud warned his ally against the danger of making enemies. But
Wentworth pressed the matter on Charles's own notice, and procured from
him full powers to a commission consisting of the Lord Deputy, the two
archbishops, four other bishops chosen by Wentworth, and the deans and
chapters of the two Dublin cathedrals. The commissioners held, very
rightly no doubt, that the tomb was ill-placed, and Cork, who had more
important interests at stake, was too prudent to contest the matter. By
the following spring the monument had been taken down stone by stone,
and Wentworth reported with vindictive glee that it was 'put up in
boxes, as if it were marchpanes and banqueting stuffs, going down to
the christening of my young master in the country.' It was re-erected
on the south side of the choir, where it still stands, and the story is
important only for the light it throws on Wentworth's other dealings
with Lord Cork, and with all others who opposed him.[186]

[Sidenote: Algerine pirates.]

[Sidenote: Sack of Baltimore, June 19, 1630.]

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Admiralty. Christian Turks.]

The south-west coasts, both of England and Ireland, were infested
with pirates from Sallee and Algiers. In June 1631 a rover of 300
tons with 24 guns and 200 men and another of 100 tons with 12 guns
and 80 men lay between the Land's End and the Irish coast. Their
commander was Matthew Rice, who is called a Dutch renegade. Rice sunk
two French ships and one from Dartmouth, taking the crews on board as
well as everything that was worth keeping. Two days later he caught
a Dungarvan fishing smack and ordered the skipper, John Hackett, to
pilot them into Kinsale. Hackett said there was a fort and a man of war
there, and offered to take them to Baltimore instead. The castle of
the O'Driscolls still stands there, but the inhabitants at that time
were English Protestants, which caused its selection as a parliamentary
borough, and Hackett may not have disliked the service; but Fawlett,
the Dartmouth captain, also helped the Algerines, and was not carried
off by them finally. During the night of June 19, Rice having first
explored the harbour in boats with muffled oars, attacked the town with
the first morning light, plundered about sixty houses and took away 107
persons. The attack was so sudden that there was little fighting, and
only two of the townsmen were killed. Rice had forty other prisoners of
various nations. Captain Hook, who was at Kinsale with a King's ship,
which want of provisions kept generally in port, put to sea as soon as
he heard the news, but the Algerines got clean away. Hackett, who was
allowed to go ashore, was hanged at Cork for his share in the business,
and his body exposed on the headland at the mouth of Baltimore harbour;
but the little settlement never recovered its prosperity. The Sallee
rovers long continued to infest the south-west coast, for the Crown was
weak and the jealousy of the Admiralty officials prevented the maritime
population from protecting themselves. The French, whom Wentworth
called 'most Christian Turks,' allowed English prisoners to be led
in chains across France and shipped from Marseilles to Algiers. Five
years after the Baltimore disaster these pirates entered Cork harbour,
and carried off prisoners in open day. Lord Conway, who was serving in
the fleet a few months later, wrote to Wentworth: 'When I come home,
I will make a proposition to go with some ships to Sallee, the place
whence the pirates come into Ireland; and I do firmly believe they may
be brought to render all their prisoners, and never to trouble us more:
the like peradventure might be done by Algier, but our King cannot do
it alone.' A successful expedition went to Sallee a year later under
Captain Rainsborough, and some captives from Ireland were surrendered,
after which the rovers ceased to be troublesome.[187]

[Sidenote: Pirates of many nations.]

[Sidenote: The whole Irish coast infested by them.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth frees the Irish seas, 1637]

After the defence of the Irish seas was entrusted to Plumleigh and
James, the Algerines found the Welsh or Cornish coasts safer for their
purpose. But English pirates were not wanting, and Edward Christian,
governor of the Isle of Man under Lord Derby, seems to have had an
understanding with some of them. Wentworth's chief trouble was with
privateers who issued from St. Sebastian with Spanish letters of
marque or commissions against the Dutch, but who did not confine their
depredations to them. Men were murdered in the Isle of Man, a French
ship was boarded at sea, and honest traders of all nations were afraid
to stir. There was always one squadron on the Irish coast, another
returning, and another refitting. Dutch ships were seized in the
Shannon, in the Liffey, and in Belfast Lough; a breach of the law of
nations which the captains excused to their own crews by pretending a
licence from the King of England to 'pull the Hollanders by the ears
out of every port.' Wentworth, on the other hand, maintained that
the whole of St. George's Channel 'being encompassed on every side
with his Majesty's dominions, hath ever been held the chief of his
harbours.' Nicolalde, the resident Spanish agent in London, not only
gave commissions to buccaneers of English birth, but interceded for
them when they became obnoxious to their own government. Wentworth had
a bad opinion of Nicolalde, but he humoured him, and made proposals for
trade between Ireland and Spain. The English Admiralty were induced
to grant the Lord Deputy a vice-admiral's commission for Munster,
while Plumleigh and James continued to scour the narrow seas. Thus by
a mixture of force and diplomacy, piracy was put down for the time,
and on August 15, 1637, Wentworth was able to announce to Coke that
there was 'not so much as the rumour of Turk, St. Sebastian's men, or
Dunkirker--the merchant inward and outwards secured and assured in his
trade.'[188]

FOOTNOTES:

[173] Welwood's _Memoirs of the most Material Transactions, etc._,
being short and well written, may have had a good deal to say to
forming public opinion. There are a great many editions, and Lord
Chatham praised the book. Wentworth to Conway, January 20, 1625-6
in State Papers, _Domestic_. Wentworth's letter to Sir Robert
Askwith, December 7, 1620, is in _Camden Miscellany_, vol. ix. Other
electioneering letters are in the _Strafford Letters_, i. 8-13. Hobbes
says it is hard to judge motives, but that Wentworth's promotion was a
sign of the King's weakness, 'for in a market where honour and power is
to be bought with stubbornness, there will be a great many as able to
buy as my Lord Strafford was' (_Behemoth_, part ii.)

[174] Hacket's _Life of Williams_, pt. ii. p. 67, ed. 1692; Heylin's
_Life of Laud_, pt. i. lib. 3, pp. 184, 196, ed. 1671; Laud to
Wentworth, July 30, 1632 (misprinted 1631), April 30, and September
9, 1633, _Strafford Letters_; Wentworth to Laud, October 1633, 'in
a letter not printed,' _Additional MSS._, 38, 538, f. 197. See also
Gardiner's _History of England_, vii. 152.

[175] Wentworth to Coke, August 3, 1633; to Lord Treasurer Weston,
January 31, 1633-4, _Strafford Letters_; The King to Radcliffe,
November 13, 1632 in State Papers, _Ireland_, and to the Lord Deputy,
_ib._ May 17, 1633.

[176] Philip Mainwaring to Wentworth, October 29, 1630; Laud to
Wentworth, March 11 and October 20, 1634; the King to Wentworth, June
16, 1634, in _Strafford Letters_.

[177] Howell's _Letters_, July 1, 1629. Viscount Wilmot to Cottington,
January 10, 1631-32; Weston to Wentworth, October 11, 1631; Wentworth
to Sir E. Stanhope, October 25--all in _Strafford Letters_. The letter
from Laud placed by Knowler at July 30, 1631, certainly belongs to
1632, when Wentworth was meditating his passage to Ireland (Laud's
_Works_, vi. 300).

[178] The King to the Lords Justices, January 12, April 14, 1632;
the Lord Deputy's Propositions, February 22; Wentworth to the Lords
Justices, January 18, October 15; Sir W. Parsons to Wentworth, February
4; Lord Cottington to Wentworth, October 18; Wentworth to Weston,
October 21--all in _Strafford Letters_.

[179] Wentworth to Cottington, October 1, 1632; to Lord Mountnorris,
August 19; to the Lords Justices, October 15, _Strafford Letters_.

[180] The Lords Justices to Wentworth, February 26, 1631-2; Wentworth
to Lord Carlisle, May 20; to Weston, June 9; to Coke, August 3; Edward
Christian to Wentworth, October 4, all in _Strafford Letters_. Captain
Plumleigh to Nicholas, July 29, 1633, in State Papers, _Ireland_.
_Court and Times_, ii. 189.

[181] Earl of Cork's Diary, 23-25 July, 1633, in _Lismore Papers_, 1st
series, 'a most cursed man to all Ireland and to me in particular.'
Wentworth's friendly visit on the 24th is noted. Newsletter from
Walsingham Gresley for Lord Bristol's information in _Additional MSS._
29, 587, f. 17. Wentworth to Coke, August 3, 1633; to Essex, April 13,
1634, in answer to his letter of February 18, _Strafford Letters_.
Shirley's _Hist. of Monaghan_, 265.

[182] _Lismore Papers_, 1st series, iii. 203; Gresley's newsletter,
_ut sup._; Captain Plumleigh to Nicholas, July 29, 1633, in State
Papers, _Ireland_; Radcliffe's statement in _Strafford Letters_, ii.
430. Wentworth had been privately married in the previous October to
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Godfrey Rhodes, only one year after his
second wife's death. The shortness of the time may have been a reason
for concealment, and once in Dublin it was evidently desirable that she
should not become the centre of intrigue in her husband's absence.

[183] Wentworth to Weston and Coke, August 3, 1633, in _Strafford
Letters_, and to Carlisle, August 27, in vol. viii. of the _Camden
Miscellany_, p. 5.

[184] Wilmot to Cottington, January 10, 1631-2; the King to Wentworth,
May 27, 1633; Wentworth to Coke, January 31, 1633-4. As to the King's
excuse for appointing Cary, see Lord Carlisle to Wentworth, February
10, 1633-4, _Strafford Letters_. Third Report of _Hist. MSS. Comm._
283, August 4, 1634. Clarendon's _Hist. of the Rebellion_, vol. i. p.
184 in Macray's edition.

[185] Laud to Wentworth, July 30, 1631, in _Strafford Letters_;
Bramhall to Laud, August 10, 1633, in the Oxford ed. of Bramhall's
_Works_, i. lxxix.

[186] Mason's _Hist. of St. Patrick's_; Budgell's _Memoirs of the
Boyles_; Laud to Wentworth, November 15, 1633, March 11, 1633-4;
Wentworth to Laud, August 23, 1634, March 10, 1634-5, in _Strafford
Letters_. The King's letter is in _Lismore Papers_, 2nd series, iii.
194. Elrington's _Life of Ussher_, p. 159.

[187] The documents concerning Baltimore are printed in Caulfield's
_Council Book of Kinsale_, xxxiii. Smith's _Hist. of Cork_. Cal. of
State Papers, _Ireland_, 1631, No. 1973. Conway to Wentworth, July 14,
1636, in _Strafford Letters_. _Court and Times_, ii. 253, 259, 265. The
Baltimore of 1630 did not occupy the same ground as the modern fishing
village, but ran inland from O'Driscoll's castle. Thomas Davis wrote a
fine ballad on the sack of Baltimore:

    High upon a gallows tree, a yelling wretch is seen,
    'Tis Hackett of Dungarvan--he, who steered the Algerine!
    He fell amid a sullen shout, with scarce a passing prayer,
    For he had slain the kith and kin of many a hundred there.


[188] _Strafford Letters_, _passim_, from 1633 to 1637; see
particularly Plumleigh's letter of October 11, 1633.




CHAPTER XII

THE PARLIAMENT OF 1634


[Sidenote: A Parliament to be held.]

[Sidenote: Want of money.]

[Sidenote: The King reluctant to call a Parliament.]

[Sidenote: Hopes of Wentworth,]

[Sidenote: who proposes to hold the balance between parties.]

Wentworth was determined that his government, and especially his army,
should not depend upon benefactions extorted from the fears of the
Protestants and bought by dispensations or promises from the Recusants.
The officials of his Council were in favour of a Parliament, which
they might expect to manage, and which he, on the other hand, felt
confident in his ability to rule. People in Ireland had an idea that it
was safer to keep the revenue short, because a surplus would be sent
to England, whereas a deficit would have to be supplied from thence.
This short-sighted policy seemed wise to English settlers as well as
to the natives, for they had all good reason to distrust the King.
The result had been that the business of government was ill done, and
that the Crown owed 80,000_l._ The ordinary revenue, when there was no
parliamentary subsidy or voluntary assessment, fell 20,000_l._ short
of the expenses. The Lord Deputy's brother George was sent to England
on a special mission in February, and came back next month with the
King's leave to hold a Parliament. Charles had cause to dread these
assemblies, but Wentworth pointed out that Poynings' law made them safe
in Ireland. The order of business and the introduction of Bills being
controlled by the English Government, an enterprising viceroy might be
trusted to manage the rest. Wentworth's plan was to have two sessions,
one for supply, the other for redress of grievances. He believed that
the landowners would willingly agree to a money vote in order to
relieve themselves from the ever-present dread of having the existing
contributions established like quit-rents on their estates. And all
in Ireland realised that they could expect no redress of grievances
without having first provided for the support of the Government and
army. Charles accepted the proposed arrangement, but advised that
it should be kept secret until the time came. The next matter of
importance was the composition of the House of Commons. Wentworth
resolved that the Protestant and Roman Catholic parties should be
nearly balanced. The Protestant party might be slightly the larger,
but its subservience was to be secured by procuring the election of
many placemen. Wentworth hoped to get three subsidies of 30,000_l._
each payable in three years. This would yield 30,000_l._ over and above
current expenses, and with that much ready money he hoped to compound
for the whole debt, public creditors having been reduced to a proper
state of humility. A little more money might be hoped for after the
second session, and with this it might be possible to buy up some
of the pensions and rent-charges with which the Irish Exchequer was
burdened.[189]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's speech to his Council, April, 1634.]

[Sidenote: Everything belongs to Cæsar.]

[Sidenote: Opinions in England.]

[Sidenote: Charles on the parliamentary hydra.]

Having been allowed to hold a Parliament and to do it in his own way,
Wentworth at once set to work to make it a success. He summoned his
Council, who thought supply should be accompanied by some assurance
from the King that grievances would be remedied. They also wished to
limit the levies to the actual expenses, having a well-founded fear
that surplus money would be squandered in England, and not applied
to the liquidation of the Irish debt. Wentworth at once told them
that the King called a Parliament because he preferred standing on
the ancient ways, that he had absolute right and power to collect
all the revenue he required without the consent of anybody, and that
their business as councillors was to trust their sovereign without
asking questions. 'I told them plainly,' he said, 'I feared they began
at the wrong end, thus consulting what might please the people in a
Parliament, when it would better become a Privy Councillor to consider
what might please the King, and induce him to call one.' He would
not take less than three subsidies of 30,000_l._ each, but would get
as much more as possible without conditions, and they were not to
propose any. The State could not be too well provided. 'What,' he asked
prophetically, 'if the natives should rebel? There was no great wisdom
to be over-confident in them, being of a contrary religion and so great
in number.' And he concluded by asking them to take warning by the
troubles which the Commons' distrust of their King had brought upon the
late Parliaments in England. When this was read at the English Council
Cottington could not refrain from the obvious comment 'et quorum pars
magna fui.' Wentworth owed his own political position to his exertions
in favour of the Petition of Right, and now he said that everything the
subject had was, and ought to be, at the disposition of the Crown. That
Laud should have joked with his friend on this subject and that the
latter should have taken it as a joke, is not the least extraordinary
thing in Wentworth's career. 'As for that hydra,' said Charles of the
House of Commons, 'take good heed; for you know that here I have found
it as well cunning as malicious. Your grounds are well laid and I have
great trust in your care and judgment; yet my opinion is, that it will
not be the worse for my service, though their obstinacy make you break
them'.[190]

[Sidenote: Wentworth and the Irish nobility,]

[Sidenote: whom he treats with contempt.]

Wentworth's speech to his Council, which less earnest people in
England thought a superfluous display of strength, reduced that body
to complete subjection. He would allow no discussions anywhere about
the King's policy, and he treated the Roman Catholic nobility in the
same way as the Protestant Council. The Lord Chancellor ventured to
suggest that the Lords of the Pale should be consulted according to
precedent, but he was 'silenced by a direct and round answer.' Three
or four days later Lord Fingall came to the Castle and asked for
information on the part of his friends and neighbours, 'who had been
accustomed to be consulted before those meetings.' Wentworth, who seems
to have disliked the man as well as his communication, told him that
his Majesty would 'reject with scorn and disdain' any advice their
lordships could give. Their business was only to hear the King's will
in open Parliament, to make such remarks there as might be fitting for
obedient subjects, and to be content with such answers as his Majesty
thought fit to give. 'A little out of countenance' from the storm of
viceregal eloquence, Lord Fingall unluckily remarked that he only
wished to draw attention to precedents, and that Falkland had consulted
the lords. Wentworth said that was no rule for him, and advised his
visitor 'not to busy his thoughts with matters of that nature, but to
leave all to the royal wisdom.'[191]

[Sidenote: How a Government majority was secured]

[Sidenote: Clerical influence.]

As long as there was a Parliament in Ireland the Government generally
found means to secure a majority. Wentworth had to depend chiefly
on the boroughs, for many counties were not amenable to pressure.
Lord Cork has recorded that when he was in his coach one day with
Lord Esmond and Lord Digby a pursuivant brought him six letters from
the Lord Deputy directing the return of certain members for places
he controlled. Sir George Wentworth, the viceroy's brother, was to
sit for Bandon, his secretaries Mainwaring and Little for Lismore, a
second Mainwaring for Dingle, and other less prominent Englishmen for
Askeaton and Tallow. Wentworth and William and Philip Mainwaring were
elected accordingly, while Little procured a seat at Cashel. Every
important man whom the Lord Deputy could influence found his way into
the House of Commons. Sir William Parsons sat for the county and Sir
George Radcliffe for the city of Armagh, Charles Price for Belfast,
and Sir Adam Loftus for Newborough in Wexford. Sir Beverley Newcomen,
a distinguished naval officer, represented Tralee, and Wandesford
the borough of Kildare. Sir Charles Coote, Sir William Cole, Sir
Robert King, and many others who were well known a few years later,
also had seats. It was on the Protestants that the Crown depended in
the long run, but they had not a large majority. 'The priests and
Jesuits,' Wentworth wrote, 'are very busy in the election of knights
and burgesses, call the people to their masses, and there charge them
on pain of excommunication to give their voices to no Protestant.' A
sheriff in Dublin who seemed inclined to yield to these influences was
fined 700_l._ and declared incapable of serving, and his successor
promptly returned Sergeant Catelin and a Protestant alderman.[192]

[Sidenote: Parliamentary precedents.]

[Sidenote: The primacy secured to Armagh.]

[Sidenote: Political value of etiquette.]

[Sidenote: The opening ceremonies.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth and Ormonde.]

In matters of form and ceremony Wentworth was willing to be guided
by precedents. He found all the officials very ignorant about
parliamentary order, as Falkland's blunder had already shown, and he
sent to England for full instructions. Questions of precedence being
left by special commission entirely in his hands, the primacy of Armagh
over Dublin was settled by an order in Council, and in the established
Church this point was never again disputed, a decision which was
undoubtedly right; but Archbishop Talbot afterwards attributed it to
the slavish fears of Wentworth's Council, to his leaning in favour of
Ussher, and to the prevalent ignorance of Latin in high places. He
admitted that Bishop Leslie of Raphoe was learned, but then was he
not a suffragan of Armagh? Wentworth decided such questions when they
came in his way, but they had little interest for him--'this matter of
place I have ever judged a womanly thing.' If it had turned out that
he could not determine between the rival claims of peers and prelates,
they would, he thought be 'fit to keep the House itself busied about,'
and prevent them from talking politics. It was arranged that six or
seven lords on whom the Lord Deputy could rely should hold four or
five proxies each, so that he was in no danger of being outvoted, for
the bishops were safe enough. It was not until 1661 that the number
of proxies which could be held by any one peer was reduced to two.
The committee for privileges in Wentworth's House of Lords proposed
that every peer having Irish honours but no Irish estate should be
obliged to purchase land in proportion to his rank, but this was
never carried into effect. When the day of meeting came, Wentworth
accompanied the Peers to St. Patrick's Cathedral in great state. His
Parliament opened, Wentworth wrote, 'with the greatest civility and
splendour Ireland ever saw, where appeared a very gallant nobility
far above that I expected ... my Lord Primate made a very excellent
and learned sermon.' The afternoon was spent in formalities and the
taking of oaths. One incident at the beginning of the business session
is worth recording on account of the great celebrity of the person
principally concerned. Orders had been given to admit no one armed into
either House, and when the young Earl of Ormonde, who had carried the
sword of state at the opening ceremony, presented himself, Black Rod
peremptorily demanded his weapon. 'In your guts,' was the contemptuous
answer. Ormonde sat armed during the day, and when summoned before the
Council, produced his writ of summons which ordered him to attend 'girt
with a sword.' Wentworth had met his match for the first time, and he
held a private consultation with his two chief advisers as to what was
to be done with this formidable young man. Wandesford was for crushing
him, but Radcliffe advised conciliation, and Ormonde became a Privy
Councillor at the early age of twenty-four.[193]

[Sidenote: The case of Lord Slane.]

Among the sixty-six lords present at the beginning of this session
was William Lord Slane, who was allowed to sit and vote pending the
possible reappearance of his elder brother Thomas, who had been tried
by a jury in England for murder committed in Ireland, had become a
friar, and had not been heard of for fourteen years. This precedent
was afterwards relied on in Lord Maguire's case as establishing the
principle that an Irish peer was a commoner in England.[194]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's speech.]

[Sidenote: Private consultations forbidden.]

[Sidenote: The Recusants threatened.]

[Sidenote: Election of Speaker.]

On the second day Wentworth made a speech to both Houses, in what he
calls his mildest manner; but it was not very mild. He told them that
there was a debt of 100,000_l._ and an annual deficit of 20,000_l._
What they had to do was simply to clear off the debt and to provide a
permanent equilibrium between receipts and expenditure, so that the
necessary maintenance of the army might no longer trouble his Majesty's
princely thoughts. That would be the King's session. Later on they
would have a session of their own, where the King would grant all the
favours he thought proper, and where they were to accept his gifts
with confidence and gratitude, and without asking for more. 'Take
heed,' he said, 'of private meetings and consults in your chambers, by
design and privity aforehand to contrive, how to discourse and carry
the public affairs when you come into the Houses. For besides that
they are themselves unlawful, and punishable in a grievous measure, I
never knew them in all my experience to do any good to the public or
to any particular man; I have often known them do much harm.' With a
Deputy who knew his own mind, a session strictly limited by the King's
orders to three weeks, and no opportunity for private consultation,
the House of Commons was almost powerless. Wentworth's instinct and
the experience of 1613 told him that the chief danger would come from
the Roman Catholics, whom he had taken care should form nearly one
half of the Lower House. He told them that if adequate supplies were
withheld there would be no way of paying the army but 'by levying the
twelvepence a Sunday upon the Recusants.' The King wished to make no
distinction between English and Irish, but if it came to a fight the
predominant partner would take care not to be beaten. The first trial
of strength was about the choice of a Speaker. The official candidate
was Sergeant Catelin, recorder of Dublin and member for the city,
against whom there were many mutterings; but the House was told that
the King had a veto upon every election, and that it would be steadily
exercised until the right man was chosen. Wentworth's nominee became
Speaker without a contest, and expressed himself to his patron's
satisfaction. He was knighted at the end of the Parliament, and
received 1,600_l._ for his services. A copy of what purported to be
the Viceroy's speech was shown by Cottington before its delivery; but
this was probably a hoax, for Wentworth declared that it had not been
written down beforehand. Cottington had Wentworth's own account of his
harangue to the Irish Council, and the speech to Parliament was little
more than a repetition of it.[195]

[Sidenote: Attempt to purge the Commons.]

[Sidenote: Supply is demanded at once,]

[Sidenote: and six subsidies are voted.]

[Sidenote: The session is talked out.]

[Sidenote: The two Houses at variance.]

[Sidenote: The demand for a prescriptive title to land.]

On the fourth day of the Session the House of Commons met for business
and the Roman Catholics at once demanded that the House should be
purged, that is that all members should be expelled who did not
inhabit the districts represented by them. This would have been fatal
to the Protestant party, which comprised many official persons living
in Dublin, and it had been decided in 1613 that residence was not
essential. On the other hand Sir Thomas Bramston, who as sovereign
of Belfast had returned himself, was declared not duly elected and
ordered to refund 16_l._ which he had received as wages. These payments
were fixed as in 1613, at 18_s._ 4_d._ a day for counties, 10_s._
for cities, and 6_s._ 8_d._ for boroughs. A committee for privileges
was appointed and the Protestants carried the nomination of it by
a majority of eight. Seeing that power lay with the party who were
certain in the long run to support the Government, Wentworth summoned
his Council the same day and Chief Baron Bolton proposed to go on with
supply the next morning. He was supported, of course, by Wandesford,
Mainwaring, and Radcliffe; but Wilmot, Parsons and St. Leger, the
president of Munster, were inclined for a later day. Wentworth then
spoke in favour of the bolder and prompter course. The committee,
he said, could not possibly increase the Protestant majority, and
might have the contrary effect. The Roman Catholics would be anxious
to secure the rewards of loyalty by voting for what they could not
prevent. His real fear, though he did not say this openly, was lest
time should be given for the formation of parties. Wilmot, whom he
suspected of intriguing with members of the House of Commons, said he
retained his opinion in favour of delay, but that it was useless for
any one to speak after the Lord Deputy. The Chancellor then declared
himself on the side of power, saying that he should have been for
prompt action even if Wentworth had taken the opposite view. After a
lecture from the Viceroy on their duty to the King, the Council broke
up, and next morning Wandesford proposed a resolution to give six
subsidies 'to be levied in a parliamentary way in four years,' two in
the first and second years, and one each in the third and fourth. Some
of the Recusant party, finding themselves in a temporary majority,
at once moved to postpone the vote until the House had been purged,
and carried it by twenty-eight. But this was recognised as being what
is nowadays called a snap division, and when the original motion was
nevertheless put both parties feared to lose their credit with the
Government. The Roman Catholics, having made their protest, supported
Wandesford's motion, which passed unanimously, and all was over before
noon. The rest of this session, said the Lord Deputy compendiously,
'we have entertained and spun them out in discourses, but kept them
nevertheless from concluding anything. No other laws passed but the
two Acts of subsidies, and that other short law for confirming all
such compositions as are or shall be made upon the commission of
defective titles.' The Government was strengthened by a difference of
opinion between the two Houses, which prevented a joint petition in
favour of the graces. The Commons claimed the right to sit covered at
a conference; this was denied them, no conference took place, and the
petition forwarded was in the name of the Lower House only. Wentworth
took no trouble to reconcile the two chambers, having learnt in England
that a strict understanding between them was not favourable to the
Crown. The Lords were, however, quite as anxious for the graces as the
elected chamber, and especially for that which promised that sixty
years possession should be a good title against the Crown. Indeed,
Lord Fingall and Lord Ranelagh were more perseveringly outspoken than
any member of the House of Commons. The first, as the head of an
ancient family with a very chequered history, who had been treated with
scant civility by Wentworth, and the latter, as the son of Archbishop
Jones, had doubtless many reasons to fear an inquisition into their
titles.[196]

[Sidenote: Wentworth is refused an earldom.]

Conscious of having done great service Wentworth asked the King for
an earldom, taking precautions that no one should know he had done
so. His suit was refused in a rather disagreeable letter, and much
indignation has been expressed by many writers, but it is questionable
whether this refusal should be added to the load of blame which Charles
I. must bear. Wentworth was only forty-one, he had opposed the court
until his thirty-sixth year, and he had already received a viscounty
and two of the greatest places in the gift of the Crown. Burghley
never became an earl. Both Cranfield and Weston had to serve much
longer for the coveted honour, and neither of them had ever been in
opposition. In later times not only earls but marquesses and dukes have
been multiplied exceedingly, and it seems a small favour that Charles
refused to a great man. Thousands of people now know something about
Strafford who have scarcely heard of Cottington or Windebank, but this
was not so at the time. Indeed the fact that his work was chiefly done
in the North and in Ireland made him less prominent in the eyes of his
contemporaries than inferior men who were always about the Court.[197]

[Sidenote: Debate on the graces]

[Sidenote: Petition of the Commons.]

[Sidenote: The King's promise as to titles.]

[Sidenote: Free Trade demanded.]

The Lords had discussed the graces, and had ventured to suggest what
laws should be passed to carry out the remedial policy foreshadowed
by them. The debates had no conclusion, but Wentworth protested even
against talk as an infringement of Poynings' Act. According to him
they had no business to do anything more than offer humble prayers
to the Lord Deputy; and that was the course adopted by the Commons.
The petition begins by reciting that titles in Ireland were generally
uncertain, many documents having been lost or stolen during rude and
disturbed times, and others being defective through the ignorance of
those who drew or engrossed them; 'whereof divers indigent persons,
with eagle eyes piercing thereinto commonly took advantage to the utter
overthrow of many noble and deserving persons, that for the valuable
consideration of service unto the Crown, or money, or both, honourably
and fairly acquired their estates, which is the principal cause of
the slow improving planting and building in this land.' While this
uncertainty existed no one had the courage to make improvements, and
everyone longed for the English law of James I., which made sixty years
possession a good title even against the Crown. This grace, the Commons
said, had been 'particularly promised by his Majesty, approved by both
the Councils of State of England and Ireland, and published in all the
Irish counties at the assizes, and was most expected of all the other
graces.' They also protested, though in very guarded language, against
the common law being overridden by the Council and the Star Chamber.
Next to the security of real property the most important matter was
the encouragement of trade and manufactures, for want of which Ireland
swarmed with 'vagabonds and beggars, sound of limb and strong of body.'
Free trade was what they really asked for, which was for the benefit of
both King and people. On the faith of the graces which they believed
would give them prosperity, the subjects of Ireland had already given
310,000_l._ and now they had voted six subsidies more, which was
far in excess of what had been done in past ages. They acknowledged
Wentworth's 'strong propension' to advancing the good of the country,
and exhorted him to increase his reputation by persuading his Majesty
to redeem past promises and thus to 'conserve a right intelligence
between the best of Kings and his most faithful and dutiful subjects of
Ireland.'[198]

[Sidenote: The King's promises are not kept.]

[Sidenote: The King can do no wrong.]

[Sidenote: Prorogation August 2.]

[Sidenote: Second session, Nov. 4.]

[Sidenote: The Commons are unmanageable.]

[Sidenote: Sir Piers Crosbie.]

Wentworth's answer was what might have been expected. Official
extortion he was ready to repress, and all administrative reforms he
would further to the utmost, but rather by way of concession from
the King than by law. Orders in Council were to be preferred to Acts
of Parliament, unless the latter were likely to bring profit to the
Exchequer. Nothing was to be done to limit the royal power in any way.
The much-desired sixty years' title was not to be established by law,
for it would involve the loss of fees and fines under the commission
for confirmation of defective titles, it would interfere with the
King's profit upon tenures, and it would almost entirely prevent the
colonisation schemes from which Wentworth expected so much. These
ideas were readily adopted at Court, and the word of a King was once
more shown to be of none effect. Wentworth dreaded the imputation of
refusing to redress grievances after the price of reform had been paid,
but hardly seems to have realised that he was doing that very thing. He
had the courage of his opinions, and he knew his 'great master' as he
is fond of calling Charles. 'In these particulars,' he said, 'wherein
the request of the petition shall be yielded to by your Majesty, we
desire to reserve entirely to yourself the beauty of the act, and the
acknowledgment thereof; so in the other particulars, wherein there is
reason to deny them their requests, we your servants will assume the
same to ourselves.' The Chancellor, Lord Cork, and Sir William Parsons
lent the weight of their signatures to Wentworth's memorandum, but
the name of Mountnorris is wanting. Rumours that the graces would be
withheld were soon in circulation, and on November 4, after a three
months' recess, Parliament met again in very bad humour. There had
been some delay in transmitting final instructions from England, and
it was not till the 27th that Wentworth announced the denial of the
most important graces. In the House of Commons the Roman Catholics,
through the negligence or secret sympathy of some Protestants, found
themselves in a majority upon that day, and at once broke into open
revolt. They rejected every Bill presented to them, though some were
evidently useful and harmless, and business was at a standstill. 'Had
it continued two days in that state,' said Wentworth, 'I had certainly
adjourned the House, advertised over, and craven his Majesty's
judgment.' For a moment the lead of the Opposition was assumed by
Sir Piers Crosbie, member for the Queen's County, a Protestant and a
Privy Councillor, and here Wentworth saw his opportunity. He summoned
the Council, and easily persuaded them to suspend Crosbie, and he
afterwards had instructions from England to expel him altogether. He
then went to the House of Lords. 'I told them,' he said, 'what a shame
it was for the Protestant party, that were in number the greater, to
suffer their religion to be insensibly supplanted, his Majesty in some
degree disregarded, the good ordinances transmitted for their future
peace and good government to be thus disdainfully trodden under foot by
a company of wilful, insolent people, envious both to their religion
and to their peace, and all this for want of a few days' diligent
attendance upon the service of the public.'

[Sidenote: Wentworth rallies the Protestant majority.]

[Sidenote: Expulsion of Geoffrey Baron.]

He urged each peer to exert his influence with friends in the House of
Commons; this was done, and a working majority was again secured. Among
the wilful insolent people was Geoffrey Baron, member for Clonmel, 'a
young man, a kind of petty chapman's son, who by peddling left him some
200_l._ a year,' who opposed everything and who recklessly misstated
facts. Wentworth determined to make an example of him, and the motion
for his expulsion was carried by sixteen. After this things went
smoothly, and all the Government Bills were passed into law.[199]

[Sidenote: Sir Vincent Gookin's case.]

[Sidenote: An impeachment threatened.]

[Sidenote: Judicial functions of Parliament.]

[Sidenote: Gookin on the English settlers.]

Soon after the beginning of the second session both Houses were much
excited by a letter of Sir Vincent Gookin, an enterprising English
settler who had much property in the county of Cork. It was addressed
to the Lord Deputy, though never delivered to him, and it is doubtful
whether it was printed or not. In any case it was freely circulated in
Munster, and a copy of it read out in the House of Commons. It was,
says Wentworth, 'a most bitter invective against the whole nation,
natives, old English, new English, <DW7>, Protestant, captains,
soldiers and all ... it was evident they would have hanged him if
they could. The libel indeed is wondrous foul and scandalous.' An
impeachment was threatened, and the two Houses had a conference, where
Lord Mountnorris pointed out that the House of Commons had no power to
administer an oath, but that the Lords would examine their witnesses
and give sentence even in the delinquent's absence. The judges were
consulted, and declared that his land could not be seized as security
for his appearance. Mountnorris said nothing about the Deputy and
Council, and Wentworth, to prevent the assumption of judicial authority
by Parliament, had already sent a pursuivant to arrest Gookin, who
made haste to get out of Ireland, where his life was hardly safe.
Wentworth in person informed Parliament that the principle of Poynings'
Act extended to judicial as well as to legislative functions, and
that moreover the case was already in his hands. He observed that the
King had no reason to be pleased with the exercise of parliamentary
jurisdiction in England, and having always an eye to revenue, he added
that Sir Vincent, who was a very rich man, was well able to bear a
fine great in proportion to his offence. Early in the following year
Gookin was brought back from England and imprisoned in the Castle, and
Wentworth received the thanks of Parliament with a request that he
would continue the prosecution, which the English Government left in
his hands. It does not appear whether this was done, but Gookin, who
paid 1,000_l._ a year to labourers and fishermen in the neighbourhood
of Bandon, and who had thirty years' experience of Ireland, came into
frequent collision with Lord Cork, which was likely to make Wentworth
lenient. Gookin was a strong Protestant, who hated the Irish and their
priests, and was quite willing to be hated by them in return, but he
thought the English Irish even worse. It might have been different if
the settlers could have been kept to themselves, but as it was the
English influence had a constant tendency to grow weaker. 'As soon as
any Englishman cometh over and settleth himself in this country and
hath gotten any estate, he findeth himself environed with the Irish,
and hath no safety both for himself and posterity but by some way
to stick themselves by marriage and gossiping or the like.' Gookin
died some four years later, and his son, who played a considerable
part during the Commonwealth, took a somewhat different view of the
country.[200]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's regard for privilege of Parliament.]

[Sidenote: Submissiveness of the Commons.]

[Sidenote: A parliamentary bravo.]

Another incident occurred during this same session which is important
only as an illustration of Wentworth's high-handed methods. Sir John
Dongan having made a speech unpleasing to the official party in the
House of Commons, Captain Charles Price remarked in a loud tone that he
did not know what he was doing. An altercation followed which Dongan
evidently tried to avoid, for he said he meant no harm. Price then
called him saucy, and Sir John very naturally gave him the lie. All
this happened inside the bar of the House of Commons, yet the Council
took the case up. Dongan was imprisoned in the Castle, forced to give a
written apology, fined, and ordered to be brought by the constable of
the Castle to the bar of the House and to repeat his submission there
upon his knees. This was carried out to the letter a few days later,
and entered in the journals, without comment. A committee of six was
appointed to wait on the Lord Deputy and beg him to remit the penalty
for offending the King, the offence to Parliament and to the Lord
Deputy having been already purged. Price was employed by Wentworth as
an agent at Court, for which purpose he had very long leave from his
military duties. We may judge from a letter of Lord Keeper Coventry
what sort of man he was. 'Your servant, Captain Price, is now with us,
and I assure you is not silent in anything that concerns your honour,
and in truth serves you with his tongue and protests he will not fail
to do it with his sword. I hope your lordship hath no need of the
latter in Ireland, and your friends here are well pleased to hear how
he lays about him with the former, and therefore it is hoped you will
yet spare him from his garrison till he have done here what is meet to
be done.'[201]

[Sidenote: Assessment of the subsidies.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth wishes to keep his Parliament together,]

[Sidenote: but the King insists on a dissolution.]

[Sidenote: Parliament dissolved, April 18, 1635.]

No subsidy had hitherto yielded more than about 30,000_l._, but there
had been many exemptions and many cases of fraud whereby the great
transferred their share of the burden to the poor. Wentworth succeeded
in raising each subsidy to rather more than 40,000_l._ from the
Commons, with over 6,000_l._ from the nobility, and 3,000_l._ from the
clergy. The two last sums were to be levied by the Government, but the
House of Commons, fearing lest the Deputy should be tempted to take
even more than had been agreed upon, themselves assessed the amount
which their constituents were to pay in each county. Leinster was set
down for 13,000_l._, Ulster for 10,000_l._, Munster for 11,200_l._, and
Connaught for 6,800_l._ The highest rated county was Cork, which with
the city paid nearly 4,000_l._ Dublin city and county were assessed
at 1,000_l._ apiece. The House of Commons also inquired into arrears
due by the Crown, and these they found amounted to about 130,000_l._
They recommended that certain sums due to the Archbishop of Dublin,
the Bishop of Meath, and the Dean of Christchurch should be paid at
once in full. The next to be satisfied were ladies, the attainder of
whose husbands or fathers had enriched the Crown; Lady Desmond and
her daughters, Lady Mary O'Dogherty, and Lady Mary O'Reilly being
mentioned by name. Arrears of pay due to civil or military officers
were to be satisfied in proportion to the actual benefit derived from
their services, sinecurists being left in the lurch, and all useless
places recommended to be abolished. When the work of the Parliament was
done, Wentworth wished to prorogue it. 'This House,' he said, 'is very
well composed; so as the Protestants are the major part, clearly and
thoroughly with the King, which would be difficult to compass again,
if you were now to call another.' He thought that the existence of this
obedient majority would serve to overawe the Roman Catholics, who alone
were dangerous, and who would be deterred from opposing schemes of
colonisation by the knowledge that the English recusancy laws might be
passed over their heads at any moment. But Charles was of opinion that
Parliaments 'are of the nature of cats, they ever grow curst with age,'
and directed Wentworth to dissolve as soon as the necessary business
was done. Coke had intercepted a large budget of letters between the
Irish Recusants and their French friends, and he had no doubt that as
soon as there was danger either from Spain or France 'all would join
together to replant themselves at home.' Wentworth thought a Parliament
well in hand would be a useful instrument to have ready, but he was not
allowed to keep it. The royal consent was given to a number of Acts,
and the subsidy arrangements being complete, the two Houses had little
to do except to squabble about matters of etiquette, and were dissolved
without settling them. 'We have now,' Wentworth wrote, 'under the
conduct of our prudent and excellent master, concluded this Parliament,
with an universal contentment, as I take it.' He thought it had done
more than all former Parliaments put together, both for King, Church
and subject, and that Charles was 'more absolute master by his wisdom,'
than his predecessors had ever been by the sword.[202]

[Sidenote: Meeting of Convocation, 1613-1615.]

[Sidenote: The Hundred and Four Articles.]

[Sidenote: Character of the Irish Articles.]

'Proctors in the Convocation House' are officially mentioned in Henry
VIII.'s time, but the first regular Convocation of the Irish Church
was held in connection with the Parliament of 1613. It was summoned
by the King's writ, and met in St. Patrick's Cathedral on May 24 in
that year. It consisted of the bishops and of representatives from
the four provincial synods. Lord Chancellor Jones as Archbishop
of Dublin presided in the Upper, and Randolph Barlow, after wards
Archbishop of Tuam, in the Lower House; both were Cambridge men. The
principal business of this assembly was to pass the Articles, one
hundred and four in number, which are generally attributed to James
Ussher, then professor of divinity in Dublin. Ussher's Puritanism was
more pronounced in his earlier days than afterwards, and James was
less hostile to that school than he later became. These Articles,
which superseded those of 1566, received the royal assent, though they
practically incorporated those promulgated at Lambeth in 1595. They
were more Calvinistic and more polemical than the thirty-nine received
by the Church of England upon which Burnet, in the interest of peace
and comprehension, expended his latitudinarian casuistry. It may
suffice to note that of the Irish Articles the twelfth declares that
'God hath predestinated some unto life and reprobated some unto death:
of both which there is a certain number, known only to God, which can
neither be increased nor diminished'; and the eightieth that the Pope
is 'that man of sin foretold in the Holy Scriptures whom the Lord shall
consume, &c.' In 1615 this Convocation granted one subsidy to the
King.[203]

[Sidenote: The Thirty-nine Articles are adopted, 1634,]

[Sidenote: but without repealing the others.]

[Sidenote: How Wentworth treated Convocation.]

[Sidenote: Non-subscribers to be excommunicated.]

Convocation met at the same time as Parliament, Ussher presiding
in the Upper and Henry Leslie Dean, and afterwards Bishop, of Down
in the Lower House. Wentworth's 'thorough' extended to Church as
well as to State, and his great object was to have the Thirty-nine
Articles established. Ussher and others were attached to the Irish
Articles of 1615, and the Lord Deputy thought it prudent to leave them
unrepealed while superseding them in practice, a course in which Laud
acquiesced. 'I was,' says Bramhall, now Bishop of Derry, 'the only
man employed from him to the Convocation, and from the Convocation to
him.' Wentworth had, however, private discussions with Ussher, and
of these Bramhall may have known nothing. The 'dovelike simplicity'
of the Primate, to use Bramhall's phrase, was easily borne down by
the imperious viceroy, and the House of Bishops adopted the English
Articles readily enough, as well as the canon which directed their
use. The Lower House appointed a Committee, over which George Andrews,
Dean of Limerick, presided, whose draft report excited Wentworth's
wrath, for it provided among other things that the Articles of 1615
should be received on pain of excommunication. The Lord Deputy sent
for Andrews and called him Ananias, impounded his papers, and forbade
him to report anything to the House. He then wrote to the prolocutor
Leslie, enclosing a form of canon drawn up by himself, after rejecting
one composed by Ussher, and ordered him to put it to the House 'without
admitting any debate or other discourse.' The Articles of the Church
of England were not to be disputed, and the names of those who voted
aye and no were to be sent to him. This drastic procedure succeeded,
and there was but one dissentient. As a formal concession to the
independence of the Irish Church, the canons agreed upon were not quite
identical with those of England, but the first, which established the
Thirty-nine Articles, effected all that Wentworth wanted. It provided
that 'if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in
any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good
conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated, and not absolved
before he make a public revocation of his error.' Ussher and Bramhall
are agreed that the Articles of 1615 were not abrogated, but the latter
informs us that any bishop 'would have been called to an account' who
had required subscription to them after the English Articles were
authorised under the Great Seal of Ireland.[204]

[Sidenote: Wentworth and the Queen of Bohemia.]

[Sidenote: Unpopularity of Laud.]

The veteran diplomatist Sir Thomas Roe was so much struck by
Wentworth's success that he advised the unfortunate Queen of Bohemia
to make him her friend. 'He is severe abroad and in business, and sweet
in private conversation, retired in his friendships but very firm, a
terrible judge, and a strong enemy; a servant violently zealous in his
master's ends, and not negligent of his own; one that will have what he
will, and though of great reason, he can make his will greater when it
may serve him; affecting glory by a seeming contempt; one that cannot
stay long in the middle region of fortune, but _entreprenant_; but will
either be the greatest man in England or much less than he is; lastly
one that may--and his nature lies fit for it, for he is ambitious to
do what others will not--do your Majesty very great service if you can
make him.' Laud had been misrepresented, and he also might be very
useful. Elizabeth took Roe's advice, and afterwards corresponded pretty
often with the Lord Deputy, whom she had never seen. Her great object
was to get some provision made for the poor ministers who were driven
out of the Palatinate. 'As for Laud,' she said, 'I am glad you commend
him so much, for there are but a few who do it.'[205]

FOOTNOTES:

[189] Wentworth to Charles I., January 22, 1633-34, enclosing his
opinion concerning a Parliament, with the King's answers dated April
12; Wentworth to the Lord Marshal (Arundel), March 22, 1633-34--all in
_Strafford Letters_.

[190] The King to Wentworth, April 17, 1634; Wentworth to Coke, April
29 and May 13; Laud to Wentworth, May 14, all in _Strafford Letters_.

[191] Wentworth to Coke, May 13, 1634, _Strafford Letters_.

[192] Earl of Cork's Diary at May 30, 1634, in vol. iv. of _Lismore
Papers_, 1st series. Wentworth to Coke, June 24, _Strafford Letters_.

[193] The primacy of Armagh was practically settled on this occasion,
but the Roman Catholics still agitated the question for some time. The
controversy is exhausted in Archbishop Hugh MacMahon's _Jus Primatiale
Armachanum_, published in 1728. Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 64. Wentworth to
Coke, May 13, June 24, August 18, 1634. The order of proceeding, with
the roll of the Lords, is given in the _Strafford Letters_ after the
last date, and in the journals.

[194] _Irish Lords Journals._ July 14 and 15, 1634.

[195] Wentworth to Coke, August 18, 1634. The Lord Deputy's speech
in _Strafford Letters_, i. 286, is not entered in the Journals of
Parliament. Wentworth to Cottington, _ib._ August 22; to Laud, _ib._
August 23, State Papers, _Ireland_, February 23, 1641.

[196] Wentworth to Coke, August 18, 1634. _Irish Statutes_, 10 Car.
I., session 2. Parliament was prorogued on August 2, on account of the
harvest and circuits. The Subsidy Bill was read a third time and sent
to the Lords on July 26, _Irish Commons Journals_.

[197] Wentworth's letter to the King is dated September 20, and the
answer October 23, _Strafford Letters_.

[198] Commons of Ireland to the Lord Deputy, in _Strafford Letters_, i.
310. The Lord Deputy's Protestation, _ib._ 290.

[199] Parliament met November 4, 1634, and was prorogued December 15.
The graces, with the advice of the Lord Deputy and Council, October 6,
Wentworth to Coke, December 16, _Strafford Letters_.

[200] Wentworth to Coke, December 16, 1634; Coke to Wentworth, March
25, 1635, _Strafford Letters_. _Lords' Journals_, November 25, 1634,
April 6 and 15, 1635. Gookin's letter is calendared among State Papers,
_Ireland_, under 1633, p. 181 (Addenda): it was not written until after
Wentworth's arrival, late in July.

[201] _Irish Commons Journals_, November 4 and 15, 1634. The act of
Council condemning Dongan was signed by George Shirley, Wandesford,
Mainwaring, Sir Charles Coote, Sir J. Erskine, and Adam Loftus.
Coventry to Wentworth, December 24, 1635, and the answer, March 1,
1636, announcing a further leave of six months to Price, _Strafford
Letters_; Wentworth to Price, February 14, 1636, in State Papers,
_Ireland_.

[202] Wentworth to Coke, December 16, 1634, with the King's answer of
January 22; Coke to Wentworth, January 21; Wentworth to Coke, April 7,
1635; the Commons of Ireland to the Lord Deputy, April 1, in _Strafford
Letters_, i. 408; _Irish Commons Journal_, March 20, 1634-5; Wentworth
to the Earl of Danby, April 21, 1635. There were two short sessions
between January 26 and April 18, the date of dissolution. At the
beginning a good many days were lost by the non-arrival of Bills from
England.

[203] Mant's _Irish Church_, 121; Ball's _Reformed Church of Ireland_,
108; Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, April 28, 1615. The Irish
Articles of 1565 and 1615 are printed as an appendix of Elrington's
Life of Ussher, _Works_, i. xxxv.

[204] Wentworth to Laud, August 23 and December 16, 1634, and Laud's
answer of October 20, in _Strafford Letters_; Wentworth's letter to
Leslie, December 10, 1634, is in Laud's _Works_, vii. 98; Ussher to Dr.
Ward, September 15, 1635, in his _Works_, xvi. 9; Bramhall's account of
the proceedings, written some years later, is in his _Works_, v. 80.

[205] Sir Thomas Roe to the Queen of Bohemia, December 10, 1634, from
London, and her answer from the Hague, February 11/21, 1635, in State
Papers, _Domestic_. Roe contemplated a visit to Ireland about this
time, but does not seem to have made it; see Wentworth's letter to him
of September 1, 1634.




CHAPTER XIII

STRAFFORD AND THE ULSTER SCOTS


[Sidenote: Rise of a Presbyterian community in Ulster.]

[Sidenote: Two tolerant bishops.]

[Sidenote: Extension of Laud's system to Ireland.]

The Scottish settlers in Ulster gave trouble from the first, for
crossing the sea did not change their nature, nor their religious
opinions. When Presbyterianism was oppressed at home, Ireland received
its ministers; when persecution came there, they could go back to
Scotland. Always glad to promote his own countrymen, James I. appointed
them to Irish bishoprics; they in their turn ordained others, often
without much inquiry as to their views on Church government. Andrew
Knox, who was Bishop of Raphoe from 1611 to 1633, was not over
particular about the regularity of orders, and many Presbyterians
were preferred by him. 'Old Bishop Knox,' says Adair, 'refused no
honest man, having heard him preach. By this chink John Livingston and
sundry others got entrance.' Knox died about the time of Wentworth's
coming to Ireland, and up to that time another Scotch bishop, Robert
Echlin of Down, followed in his footsteps. Livingston had been
silenced by Spottiswood in Scotland, but brought recommendations from
eminent laymen, and Knox told him he thought his own life had been
prolonged only to do such offices as ordination. He did not care
about being called my Lord, and he allowed the imposition of hands
to be by presbyters in his presence. He gave Livingston the book of
ordination, desiring him to draw a line through any words to which he
objected. 'I found,' says the latter, 'that it had been so marked by
some others before that I needed not mark anything; so the Lord was
pleased to carry that business far beyond anything that I had thought
or ever desired.' This was in 1630. Seven years before Echlin had
done a like service for Robert Blair, acting only as one of several
presbyters. 'This,' says Blair, 'I could not refuse, and so the matter
was performed.' Knox was succeeded by John Leslie, and Echlin by
Henry Leslie, neither of whom was much inclined to make terms with
Presbyterianism. The Laudian canons had altered the position for them,
and later on the Covenant made the breach irreparable.[206]

[Sidenote: Wentworth, Laud, and Bramhall, 1634.]

[Sidenote: A conference where no one is converted, 1636.]

[Sidenote: Bramhall's rhetoric.]

[Sidenote: Silenced ministers go to Scotland.]

In May 1634 Bramhall became Bishop of Derry in succession to Downham,
who had been a strong Calvinist and a friend of Presbyterians. He was
soon in correspondence with Wentworth, who encouraged him to insist
on strict conformity, and with Laud, whose confidence he enjoyed
throughout. Very many of the Scotch ministers were driven back to their
own country, there to swell the growing discontent and to prepare the
way for the lay crowds whom Wentworth's later policy was to drive out
of Ulster. Bramhall did not confine himself to his own diocese, but
gave his services to Down also, where Echlin was driven to enforce
conformity without much conviction on his own part. Henry Leslie
succeeded on Echlin's death, and a conference was held at Belfast on
August 11, 1636, between the two bishops and five Presbyterians who
refused to subscribe the new canons. Among them was Edward Brice, who
is regarded as the founder of that church in Ulster. Their spokesman
was James Hamilton, Lord Claneboy's nephew, who had been ordained
by Echlin ten years before. Both sides were no doubt satisfied
that they were wholly in the right, but Bramhall was more extreme
even than Leslie, who as bishop of the diocese of course conducted
the controversy. According to the Bishop of Derry, who intervened
frequently, Hamilton was a prattling Jack, a fellow fit to be whipped,
who might worship the devil if he pleased. He prescribed hellebore to
purge the Scot's brain, reminding him with a bold metaphor that the
weight of Church and State did not hang 'upon the Atlas shoulders of
such bullrushes' as he was; and he blamed Leslie, not without something
like a threat, for allowing so much liberty of discussion. The five
ministers were sentenced to perpetual silence so far as the diocese
of Down was concerned. Outward conformity was for a time achieved,
but only by the temporary effacement of the Scotch colony in Ulster.
Brice did not long survive the Belfast conference, but Hamilton,
Cunningham, Ridge and Colwort all retired to Scotland. Among other
ministers silenced by Leslie the most noteworthy were John Livingston
and Robert Blair, both of whom went to Scotland and helped materially
to defeat Laud. They had attempted to lead about 140 of the faithful to
New England, but were beaten back by storms from a point nearer to the
banks of Newfoundland than to any place in Europe. 'That which grieved
us most,' says Livingston, 'was that we were like to be a mocking to
the wicked; but we found the contrary, that the prelates and their
followers were much dismayed, and feared at our return.'[207]

[Sidenote: Bramhall was Wentworth's instrument.]

[Sidenote: Case of Bishop Adair.]

[Sidenote: Bishop John Maxwell.]

[Sidenote: Deprivation of Adair.]

Ussher submitted against his inclination to Wentworth and Laud. Some
years later, when they were both prisoners, Bramhall, who was in the
same position, thought it necessary to apologise to his metropolitan
for interfering in the diocese of Down, his defence being that he
was employed by the Lord Deputy. 'Since I was Bishop,' he added, 'I
never displaced any man in my diocese, but Mr. Noble for professed
popery, Mr. Hugh for confessed simony, and Mr. Dunkine, an illiterate
curate, for refusing to pray for his Majesty.' But if he was tolerably
mild as a bishop, he was much less so when acting as Wentworth's
representative. Archibald Adair, a Scotchman by birth, was made Dean
of Raphoe in 1622, and became Bishop of Killala in 1630. He was a
good Episcopalian, but a good Scot also, and he did not like to see
Canterbury lording it over his native land. In 1639 John Corbet,
minister of Bonhill, was deprived by the General Assembly for refusing
the covenant or for adhering to episcopacy, and he fled to Dublin,
where he published a bitter pamphlet against his enemies at home.
He was presented by Strafford to the vicarage of Strade in Adair's
diocese, but found the bishop by no means friendly. It was, he said,
an ill bird that fouled its own nest, and a raven (corbie) which had
been driven from the ark could expect no resting place with him.
For these and other expressions, which were thought favourable to
the Covenanters, Adair was summoned before the High Commission, but
deprivation might not have followed on such slight grounds had not the
bishopric been wanted for someone else. This was John Maxwell, Bishop
of Ross, Spottiswood's friend and executor, who had been Laud's most
active ally in Scotland. 'The satisfaction of the Bishop of Ross,'
Wentworth wrote to the King, 'shall be the only thing I shall attend in
the next place, and have found even already the means to effect it by
depriving, and that deservedly, the Bishop of Killala and substituting
the other in his place. This is one of the best bishoprics in the
kingdom, worth at least one thousand pounds a year.' And he thought
this was a good way 'to quench the venom of that rebellious humour.'
Charles and Laud were of the same opinion, and but little independence
was to be expected from the Irish High Commission. Bedell, however,
with whom it seems Chappell agreed, was against the deprivation, partly
on canonical grounds and partly because it was 'as times and things now
stood inconvenient.' He prevailed nothing; the Bishop was sentenced to
be deprived of his bishopric, deposed or degraded, fined 1,000_l._,
imprisoned during the King's pleasure, &c. Soon after the meeting of
Strafford's last Parliament a bishop, possibly Bedell, moved that Adair
should have his writ of summons. Ormonde spoke against it, and Bramhall
declared that the deprived prelate was 'fit to be thrown into the sea
in a sack, not to see sun, nor enjoy the air.' Lord Ranelagh said there
had been a patient hearing at the High Commission, where many of their
lordships' House sat, who found Adair 'guilty of favouring that wicked
Covenant which all the House detests,' and the writ was unanimously
refused. The Court wind changed when Strafford was dead and Laud a
prisoner, and Adair was made Bishop of Waterford. Maxwell succeeding
him at Killala was stripped, wounded, and left for dead by the rebels
during the massacre at Shrule, but escaped ultimately to England.
Corbet was not so fortunate, being 'hewn in pieces by two swineherds in
the very arms of his poor wife.'[208]

[Sidenote: The Scots hate Wentworth.]

[Sidenote: English, Scotch, and Irish in Ulster.]

Clarendon, who hated the Scots and did not love Strafford, says 'he had
an enemy more terrible than all the others and like to be more fatal,
the whole Scotch nation, provoked by the declaration he had procured of
Ireland and some high carriage and expressions of his against them in
that kingdom.' The Ulster colony had been injured by the Londonderry
forfeiture, and he had done what he could to discourage further
immigration, but it was not until the summer of 1638 that the attitude
of the Scotch settlers began to give him serious uneasiness. Antrim,
who was at Court and in communication both with Hamilton and Laud,
believed or professed to believe that Lorne, who became Earl of Argyll
soon after, intended to attack his estates, and suggested that the King
should provide him with plenty of arms 'to be kept in a store-house in
Coleraine, because it would be too far for me and my tenants to send
to Knockfergus, if there were any sudden invasion.' Lorne knew what
was going on at Court, and announced in Scotland that Antrim intended
to invade him. It appears from his late letters that Strafford thought
Lorne not unlikely to come, but he knew well that his Council would
advise nothing that might strengthen Tyrone's grandson. And in case
the troubles of Scotland were to extend to Ulster, he thought it very
likely that the settlers there would borrow the arms to help their
countrymen. 'They are,' he added 'shrewd children, not much won by
courtship, especially from a Roman Catholic.' He had but 2,000 foot and
600 horse, none of which could be spared for Scotland, but it might be
possible to raise double that force of English and Irish. The latter
disliked the Scots and their religion, but might be a source of danger
in other ways. In the meantime he told Northumberland, the best part of
the Irish army might be drawn down into Ulster, close upon Scotland,
'as well to amuse those upon that side as to contain their countrymen
among us in due obedience.'[209]

[Sidenote: The Scottish Covenant, 1638.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's plan to bridle Scotland.]

[Sidenote: Case of Robert Adair.]

[Sidenote: An inquisitorial policy.]

That Strafford was generally hated by the Scotch is, indeed, abundantly
proved by the record of his trial, when their commissioners denounced
him as 'the firebrand that still smoked' after the cold shower-bath of
the Ripon treaty. The quarrel was of much older date, originating with
Wentworth's espousal of the Laudian policy and his steady repression of
everything that savoured of Presbyterianism, but it was not until after
the promulgation of the Scottish Covenant at the beginning of March
1638 that the question became a national one. He kept himself well
informed, and read all public documents, but it was not until the end
of July that he first gave his opinion to Northumberland, and then in
strict confidence. Armed collision with the Scots should be avoided as
long as possible unless they crossed the border, which did not yet seem
likely. Berwick and Carlisle should be made thoroughly defensible, and
as President of the North he could prepare an armed force, particularly
in Yorkshire. He thought Leith, which he had formerly visited, might
easily be seized in the spring, and maintained with the help of the
fleet and a garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 men. 'I should hope,' he added,
'his Majesty might instantly give his law to Edinburgh, and not long
after to the whole kingdom, which though it should all succeed, yet
at the charge of that kingdom would I uphold my garrison at Leith,
till they had received our Common Prayer Book, used in our churches
of England without any alteration, the bishops settled peaceably in
their jurisdiction; nay perchance till I had conformed that kingdom
in all, as well for the temporal as ecclesiastical affairs, wholly
to the government and laws of England; and Scotland governed by the
King and Council of England in a great part, at least as we are here.'
Later on he drew attention to the importance of securing Dumbarton,
but in both cases the Covenanters forestalled him. Then as now a brisk
trade existed between Ulster and Scotland, and the colonists naturally
demanded terms as favourable as were granted to the mother country,
with which they were in thorough sympathy. The first lay Covenanter who
felt the weight of Wentworth's hand seems to have been Robert Adair,
Laird of Kilhill in Galloway, who had an estate of 400_l._ or 500_l._
a year at Ballymena, where he was a Justice of the Peace. Adair, who
was the Bishop of Killala's nephew, had taken an active part against
Charles and Laud in Scotland, and made no secret of having signed the
Covenant. Henry Leslie, Bishop of Down, who was himself a Scotchman,
reported the case to Wentworth, who advised him to 'inquire out the
names of all others that have danced after the same pipe, as also of
all such as profess themselves Covenanters, and send them hither to me;
in the rest of your proceedings, your lordship shall not be so much
as once touched upon, or heard of.' Adair retired to Scotland, and
lived securely at Kilhill, but he was declared a traitor in Ireland,
and his estate forfeited. In November 1641, when Strafford was dead
and the Ulster rebellion begun, Charles, at the unanimous request of
the Scottish Parliament, reversed the sentence passed upon Adair for
having 'adjoined himself to his own native country,' and he recovered
his Irish property.[210]

[Sidenote: The Black Oath, 1639.]

[Sidenote: The King procures a petition against the Covenant.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's threats.]

Before the end of 1638 the Scotch Covenanters were thoroughly aware
that Wentworth was their most important enemy. He sent a clever young
officer to Edinburgh to report upon the doings there, 'and this
gentleman,' he wrote, 'tells me that the whole nation universally
hates me most extremely, and threaten some personal mischief unto me.'
Ensign Willoughby pretended to Rothes that he was a Dutchman, and
the Earl answered that Holland was well governed and that Scotland
also could do very well without a king. Next day Alexander Leslie was
present and said Ireland would certainly be invaded if the King came
to blows with his Scottish subjects--a threat which Leslie himself
carried out, but not while Strafford lived. Wentworth proposed, and
Charles agreed with alacrity, if, indeed, he did not himself make the
first suggestion, that the Covenant should be met by a new and very
stringent oath binding the Scots of Ulster not only to obey the King,
but not even to protest against any command of his, and to renounce all
covenants or associations not ordered by him. This is still remembered
in Ulster as the Black Oath, and it is evidently inconsistent with all
modern ideas of liberty. The manner of imposing it matched the matter,
and we know the details from the evidence of an unwilling witness who
proved in after life that he was as strong a royalist as even Scotland
has produced. Charles himself proposed that means should be taken to
procure a petition repudiating the Covenant and in favour of the new
oath, and his plan was strictly carried out. Wentworth summoned such
of the leading Northern Scots as he thought could be trusted to meet
him in Dublin on April 27. Lord Montgomery, who was the chief of them,
caught cold on the journey and desired to be excused; but the Lord
Deputy, whether he believed in the cold or not, would not be so put
off, and adjourned the meeting to his lordship's lodgings. The two
Leslies, Bishops of Raphoe and of Down, took the lead, and the former
drew up a petition which some of the laymen thought hasty. In the words
of the oath Wentworth would allow no alteration, saying that it had
been well considered; but in the petition offering the subscribers'
services to the King he admitted the qualification 'in equal manner
and measure with other his Majesty's faithful and loyal subjects of
this kingdom.' For the rest, the petitioners declared their belief
that the Covenant had been imposed upon great numbers of their nation
by the tyranny of the dominant faction. The fiery bishop who drafted
the petition thought it much too mild, and the oath itself so mean
as not to be worth taking. To one speaker, who thought a little more
deliberation would be advisable, the Lord Deputy answered: 'Sir James
Montgomery, you may go home and petition or not petition if you will,
but if you do not, or who doth not, shall do worse.' The petitioners
were then summoned to the Council Board, and the Lord Deputy himself
administered the oath to them two or three at a time.[211]

[Sidenote: Severe measures in Ulster.]

[Sidenote: General objection to the Black Oath.]

[Sidenote: Many Presbyterians flee to the mountains, or to Scotland.]

[Sidenote: The only exemptions from taking the oath].

The petition was signed by Lords Montgomery and Clandeboye, by the two
Leslies, and by James Spottiswood, Bishop of Clogher, who was brother
to the Archbishop of St. Andrews, and had himself declined the Scottish
primacy several years before. Of the thirty-six commoners whose
signatures follow the majority were clergymen, and at least two of them
became bishops after the Restoration. It is quite evident from what
followed that they represented only a very small part of the Scottish
population of Ulster. The petition and oath were proclaimed by the
Lord Deputy and Council, including Ussher and Bulkeley. The oath was
made obligatory on all persons of the Scottish nation of the age of
sixteen years and upwards, who inhabit and have any estate whatsoever
in any houses, lands, tenements or hereditaments within this kingdom
of Ireland,' and local commissions were issued for the enforcement
of the order. If there is any ambiguity in the words quoted it is
clear that servants as well as owners of property were in practice
held liable. Three peers, Clandeboye, Montgomery, and Chichester, sat
as commissioners at Bangor in Down, and the former, who was acting
against the grain, reported progress to Wentworth. The Lord Deputy
believed there would be general and ready obedience to this, as to his
past orders in Ireland; but Clandeboye reported that great numbers
fled at his approach, and especially servants, that their masters are
doubtful to find sufficient to reap their corn.' He believed that the
chief obstructor was 'Mr. John Bole, the preacher of Killileagh, the
old blind man that was once with your lordship,' but he abstained
from arresting any clergyman, 'especially a preacher,' without direct
orders from the viceroy. These orders were given at once, and the old
blind minister was sent up to Dublin in charge of a pursuivant. He
had already been forced to take the oath on his knees with a crowd of
others, but not before time had been given to preach a sermon in which
the Presbyterians were not obscurely compared to Daniel, and Wentworth
to the ministers of Darius. Under such circumstances the parable would
be remembered, and the backsliding easily forgiven. George Rawdon was
so busy 'swearing all the Scotch men and women' in Down that he could
not go to Dublin for law business, and Mr. Spencer, another magistrate
in his neighbourhood, 'despised the employment exceedingly.' Numbers
took the oath unwillingly, but numbers also took to the woods and
mountains, leaving their corn uncut, their cattle untended, and their
houses unprotected, and a great many fled to Scotland, where Bramhall
was short-sighted enough to think they could do but little harm. He had
himself prepared the ground by first depriving and expelling the Ulster
ministers, whom Archbishop Spottiswood called 'the common incendiaries
of rebellion, preaching what and where they please.' Among the refugees
was one English gentleman, Fulk Ellis of Carrickfergus, who commanded
over a hundred of them at Newburn. The expenses of this contingent were
paid by subscription, 'having no parish in Scotland to provide for
them.... One, Margaret James, the wife of William Scott, a maltman,
who had fled out of Ireland, and were but in a mean condition, gave
seven twenty-two shilling sterling pieces, and one eleven pound
piece. When the day after I inquired at her how she came to give so
much she answered, "I was gathering and had laid up this to be part
of a portion to a young daughter I had, and as the Lord hath lately
been pleased to take my daughter to Himself, I thought I would give
Him her portion also."' Wentworth, who thought there were at least
100,000 Scots in the North, concentrated all the troops in Ulster and
Leinster at Carrickfergus, which was enough to prevent anything like
an insurrection. He insisted that the oath should be taken by all
Scots without exception, except those who professed themselves Roman
Catholics. Is it wonderful that the Scotch thirsted for his blood,
or that he was believed, however untruly, to favour the religion of
Rome?[212]

[Sidenote: A 'desperate doctrine.']

[Sidenote: The case of Henry Stewart.]

[Sidenote: Palpable high treason.]

[Sidenote: A tardy pardon.]

[Sidenote: Petitions against episcopacy, 1641.]

[Sidenote: Illegality of the Black Oath.]

'We are,' said Baillie, 'content with our advantage that my Lord
Deputy permits to go out under his patronage that desperate doctrine
of absolute submission to princes; that notwithstanding all our laws,
yet our whole estate may no more oppose the prince's deed, if he should
play all the pranks of Nero, than the poorest slave at Constantinople
may resist the tyranny of the Great Turk.' In Down and Antrim the
Scots formed a great majority of the colony, and Scotland was near.
In Tyrone and Londonderry the English element prevailed, and the
more scattered Presbyterians had the worse time. There were some who
would not yield, and either could not or would not fly.' Many were
imprisoned in Dublin, like 'worthy Mrs. Pont,' whose husband had to
leave the country, and who was shut up for nearly three years. The
case which attracted the greatest attention was that of Henry Stewart,
a native of Scotland, holding property in Ulster, who with his wife
Margaret, his daughters Katherine and Agnes, and a servant named James
Gray were brought before the Castle-chamber for refusing the oath.
Attorney-General Osbaldeston told the prisoners they were guilty of
high treason, but that the King would mercifully accept fines. He
laid down in the boldest way that kings derived no authority from the
people, but directly from above, and that everything done against their
authority is done against God. Stewart was willing to take the first
part of the oath, promising allegiance and obedience, but would not
swear to ecclesiastical conformity or abjure all other oaths. Wentworth
told him that the whole form hung together, and that no mercy would
be shown unless he took all the oath unreservedly. Ussher practically
agreed with Stewart, but Wentworth overruled him and held with Bramhall
that the non-abjuration of all oaths, bonds, and covenants was palpable
high treason. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart and their eldest daughter were fined
3,000_l._ apiece, the younger daughter and Gray 2,000_l._, making
13,000_l._ in all, and they were also condemned to imprisonment for
life. They were told that if the King thought it proper to release
them, they would have first to take the oath and to give security for
their allegiance during life. The prisoners were pardoned by the King,
but not until Strafford had been some time in the Tower, and the money
penalties were also remitted. Whitelock stated at Strafford's trial
'that Stewart was fain to sell his estate to pay his fine.' He had to
support his family in prison for fifteen months, and seems to have
been half-ruined; but he secured the favour of the Scotch Parliament,
who recommended his case in London, and in 1646 the House of Commons
voted him 1,500_l._ and Gray 400_l._ out of the estate of Sir George
Radcliffe, then sequestered. The Irish Attorney-General had married
Radcliffe's niece a few days after Stewart's trial, which adds point to
the story. Gray, who had nothing of his own, and was maintained in gaol
by his master, took an amusing and profitable revenge. He was employed
in the spring of 1641 to promote a petition against episcopacy, and
was said to have received 300_l._ for his services. Signatures were
easily got, but Bramhall said they were all of ignorant and obscure
persons, 'not one that I know but Patrick Derry of the Newry, not
one Englishman.' After Strafford's death Ormonde and others who had
taken part in Stewart's trial admitted that they had been mistaken and
were excused, but the Lords Justices Borlase and Parsons offered some
arguments in their predecessor's favour. They allowed that the case
was one for the law-courts and not for the Castle-chamber; but this
error was not Strafford's, who followed a long established practice.
The heaviness of the fine was meant to strike terror into others, and
not to ruin the individuals charged, and they were even inclined to
think that the sentence was just. It is nevertheless evident that the
invention and enforcement of the Black Oath by prerogative only was
unadulterated despotism. The Roman Catholics of Ireland had much to
complain of, but they were not called upon to take oaths which had no
parliamentary sanction.[213]

[Sidenote: Strafford proposes to drive out all the Scots, 1640.]

[Sidenote: 'Under Scots' to be deported to remote places.]

When Strafford was impeached, two witnesses swore that at the time
of Stewart's trial he had openly threatened to root out stock and
branch all Scots who would not conform, and had called them rebels
and traitors. This no doubt was said hastily and in anger, but he
afterwards expressed the same sentiments when he had had time,
plenty of time, to think. Writing to Radcliffe from York more than
a year later he proposed 'to banish all the under Scots in Ulster
by proclamation,' grounded upon a request from his subservient Irish
Parliament. By 'under Scots' he meant all who had not given hostage to
fortune by acquiring considerable estates in land. There were 40,000
able-bodied Scots ready to welcome Argyle if he landed in Ireland, and
that chief was cunning enough to tempt 'the mere Irish, the ancient
dependents of the O'Neills in that province,' to strike a blow for
lands and liberty. A vote of this kind in the Irish Parliament would
help the King much, for it would infallibly create 'a perpetual
distrust and hatred' between England and Scotland, and would add to his
Majesty's reputation in foreign parts. The banishment might be called
conditional upon the continuance of hostilities. As to the owners of
'considerable estates,' they were but few, and the loss to them of all
their tenants and servants was nothing to the general peace which would
follow the expulsion of the 'under Scots, who are so numerous and so
ready for insurrection,' and who were already armed. Even those who had
taken the Black Oath were to be treated as prospective rebels. Shipping
was to be provided at once, and the exiles landed in some bays or lochs
where the Campbell galleys could not reach them. Radcliffe, who was
in Dublin, kept this letter to himself, for he saw that the plan was
impossible, and he knew that the House of Commons there was already
getting out of hand. Strafford believed that something equivalent
to a state of siege existed, and that he was therefore justified in
the most extreme measures. History may make excuses, but to the Long
Parliament he was the man who had encouraged them to oppose the King,
who had then gone over to the side of prerogative, receiving titles and
power as the price of desertion, and who was ready to dragoon better
men into submission. To honest Scotch Covenanters he was of course the
arch-enemy, and those who espoused their cause from selfish motives
knew that his interests were not theirs.[214]

FOOTNOTES:

[206] Adair's _True Narrative_, 26; Mant's _Church of Ireland_, 457;
Blair's statement in Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, i. 103.

[207] Wentworth to Bramhall, September 12, 1634, in _Rawdon Papers_;
Report of the Belfast conference in Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, i.
195 and Appx. iv; Livingston's narrative, _ib._ 204-6.

[208] Bramhall to Ussher, April 26, 1641, in his _Works_, i. xc;
_Liber Munerum_, v. 113; Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 96; Wentworth to
the King, September 2, 1639 (from Dublin) in _Strafford Letters_,
and to Radcliffe, September 23 (from Covent Garden), in Whitaker's
_Radcliffe_, 182; Bedell to Ward, April 23, 1640; in _Two Biographies_,
365; _Irish Lords' Journal_, March 31, 1640; Hickson's _Irish
Massacres_, ii. 6-8. Corbet's 'Ungirding of the Scottish Armour' was
licensed in Dublin, May 6, 1639, by Edward Parry, afterwards Bishop
of Killaloe, on behalf of the Archbishop of Dublin. It is in the form
of a dialogue between Covenanter and anti-Covenanter. The dedication
of six pages to Wentworth contains some strong language about the
'fiery zealous faction' dominant in Scotland. 'The best of them is as a
briar; the most upright is a thorn hedge; they do evil with both hands
earnestly, hunting every man his brother with a net. They are gone in
the way of Cain, etc.' Corbet's much better known _Lysimachus Nicanor_,
dated January 1, 1640 (n.s.) was probably printed in Dublin, but has no
printer's name and no imprimatur. He is believed to have had assistance
both from Bramhall and Maxwell. Baillie (_Letters_, i. 243) wrongly
attributes it to Henry Leslie, and calls the author 'a mad scenic
railer.' It purports to be the letter of a Jesuit, who congratulates
the Scots on their approach to the views of the Society concerning
resistance to kings. See the article on Corbet in _Dict. of Nat.
Biography_. I have used the copies of the two tracts preserved in the
Cashel Library with MS. notes by Foy, afterwards Bishop of Waterford.

[209] Clarendon's _History_, ii. 101; _Strafford Letters_ in July 1638,
ii. 184-194, and Wentworth's answer to Laud, dated August 7; Baillie's
_Letters_ i. 93.

[210] _Rushworth_, viii, 672; Wentworth to Northumberland, July 30,
1638, to the Bishop of Down, October 4, and the Bishop's two letters of
September 22 and October 18; Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, i. 294.

[211] Wentworth to Windebank, January 6, 1638-9; examination of Ensign
William Willoughby, January 9, in _Strafford Letters_; the King to
Wentworth, January 16 in _Rushworth_, viii. 504; Sir James Montgomery's
evidence, _ib._ 490. On February 27 Laud wrote to Wentworth (_Works_,
vii. 526), 'I showed his Majesty your other letter sent on purpose to
show, and he was much taken with your project to have the Scotch there
take an oath of abjuration of their abominable covenant.' The text of
the Black Oath is in _Rushworth_, viii. 494, in _Strafford Letters_,
ii. 345; in Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, i. 247 n.; and in Cal. of
State Papers, _Ireland_, at September 7, 1639.

[212] Evidence at Strafford's trial, in _Rushworth_, viii. 490-494. The
Act of State with the petition, oath, and proclamation in _Strafford
Letters_, ii. 343. Lord Clandeboye's letters, August 23 and September
2, _ib._ Narrative of John Livingston quoted in Reid's _Presbyterian
Church_, i. 257. Livingston was at this time minister of Stranraer,
which was naturally full of refugees from Ulster. Robert Baillie talks
of the 'Spanish Inquisition on our whole Scottish nation there.'
_Letters_, i. 199, 206, and see Archbishop Spottiswood's letter (August
1638), ib. 466. Bramhall to Laud in State Papers, _Ireland_, January
12, 1639; Rawdon to Conway, _ib._ July 6. Bishop H. Leslie tells Conway
the swearing began in Dean Shuckburgh's parish (Connor), who cleverly
persuaded 630 to take the oath, _ib._ October 7.

[213] Baillie's _Letters_, i. 190, 195; sentence of the Castle-chamber,
September 7, 1639, in State Papers, _Ireland_; comments of Lords
Justices and Council, _ib._ July 30, 1641; _Rushworth_, viii. 496;
Bramhall to Ussher, April 26, 1641; Reid's _Presbyterian Church_,
i. 257, 294. Strafford at his trial objected to the witness Salmon
because he said Stewart was tried in October instead of September, but
the substance of his evidence is unchallenged and confirmed by other
accounts.

[214] Evidence of Salmon and Loftus, which was not shaken by rebutting
witnesses, at Strafford's trial in _Rushworth_, viii. 496. Strafford's
letter of October 8, 1840, from York, in Whitaker's _Life of
Radcliffe_, who endorsed it 'rejected by me, and crossed.'




CHAPTER XIV

WENTWORTH'S PLANS OF FORFEITURE AND SETTLEMENT


[Sidenote: Defective titles to land.]

[Sidenote: Raising the King's rents.]

It was natural, considering the history of the country, that very
few titles to Irish land should be absolutely without flaw. This
uncertainty affected all business transactions, and nothing was so
much longed for as a possessory title of sixty years, such as James
had granted by statute in England. But the opportunity of increasing
revenue was too good to be lost, and Charles, just before Wentworth's
arrival, issued to him and others a commission for defective titles
which gave almost unlimited power to compound with the owners of
property, and to give them fresh titles in consideration of such
payments as the Commissioners might think fair. Valid grants from the
Crown were not to be disturbed, and lands appropriated to certain
public uses were also excepted. Everything else was at the mercy of
the Commission, but a title once granted was to be confirmed by the
next Parliament. An Act did pass in 1634 confirming such grants as had
been already made, and prospectively ratifying those still to come. But
Wentworth contemplated new settlements like that of Ulster, and the
Commission gave him enormous power. He advised the King to give four
shillings in the pound to the Chief Justice and Chief Baron out of all
increase of revenue for the first twelve months, and so secure five
pounds a year for ever; and this he found to be 'the best advice that
ever was, for now they do intend it with a care and diligence such, as
if it were their own private.' A commission to the henwife has been
commonly found to increase the number of eggs, but the idea is scarcely
applicable to a Chief Justice. Wentworth was not corrupt himself, and
he condemned corruption in others, but in his zeal for the Crown he
advised Charles to do a far worse thing than any that had brought down
Bacon from his high estate.[215]

[Sidenote: Scope of Wentworth's plans.]

[Sidenote: Profit by wardships.]

[Sidenote: Protestant colonies.]

[Sidenote: Tipperary.]

[Sidenote: Clare.]

[Sidenote: Kilkenny.]

[Sidenote: Connaught.]

Among the twenty-six Acts passed in the second session of Wentworth's
obedient Parliament there were several relating to the tenure and
alienation of land. Secret leases for long terms and other fraudulent
conveyances were so common that titles to property were much obscured.
Feudal burdens were shirked, and private injustice was often done.
The general drift of Wentworth's legislation was to secure the public
registration of deeds and wills, and to make the actual possession of
land presumptive proof of its ownership. This reform, he wrote, 'will
without question gain the Crown six wardships for one, besides an
opportunity to breed the best houses up in religion as they fall, which
in reason of state is of infinite consequence, as we see experimentally
in my Lord of Ormonde, who, if he had been left to the education of his
own parents, had been as mere Irish and <DW7> as the best of them,
whereas now he is a very good Protestant, and consequently will make
not only a faithful, but a very affectionate servant to the Crown of
England.' The gain through the Court of Wards he afterwards reported
to be £4,000 a year. The gain to his great scheme of plantation was
obvious. Here again there was much immediate profit to the Crown and
more in prospect by the establishment of an English and Protestant
population. 'All the Protestants,' he said, 'are for plantations, all
the others against them.' If juries drawn from the Recusant majority
could be got to find the King's title to their lands, so much the
better. If not, there was a Protestant majority in the House of Commons
and the lands requisite for colonisation might be 'passed to the King
by immediate Act of Parliament.' One of the districts selected was
the north part of Tipperary called Ormond, where the Earl had grants
which would have been fatal to Wentworth's scheme, but that he at
once declared himself willing to co-operate. In Thomond or Clare Lord
Inchiquin prudently followed Ormonde's example, but in neither case was
time given to Wentworth for the establishment of his projected colony.
The sept of the O'Brennans had long been in practical possession of
Edough, the northern part of Kilkenny, which includes Castlecomer. The
King's title was found in the usual way, and the territory was granted
to Wandesford, who bought out certain other claimants and who even
made some attempts to compensate the O'Brennans. Many English tenants
were established, and Wandesford's representatives, after having been
ousted during the rebellion, held their own under the Commonwealth and
after the Restoration. Wentworth claimed the whole of Connaught for
the Crown. The general idea was that one-fourth of the land should
be given to settlers, and that the old owners should receive a valid
title for the remainder. Leitrim had been lately planted, and the other
four counties were now claimed. Galway was thought the most likely to
resist, and was left to the last, lest its example should corrupt the
others.[216]

[Sidenote: Submission of Roscommon, July 1635.]

[Sidenote: The King to have his way in any case.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's charge to the jury.]

The Commissioners for the new plantation were the Lord Deputy himself,
Lord Dillon, acting-president of Connaught, Lord Ranelagh, Sir Gerard
Lowther, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Wentworth's friend
Wandesford, his secretaries Mainwaring and Radcliffe, and Sir Adam
Loftus of Rathfarnham, who always supported him. The Commissioners
arrived at Boyle on July 9, 1635, and went to work without delay.
Before leaving Dublin Wentworth had directed the sheriff to enpanel
a jury 'of the best estates and understandings' in the county of
Roscommon. 'My reason,' he said, 'was that this being a leading case
for the whole province, it would set a great value in their estimation
upon the goodness of the King's title, being found by persons of their
qualities, and as much concerned in their own particulars as any other.
Again, finding the evidence so strong, as unless they went against it,
they must pass for the King, I resolved to have persons of such means
as might answer the King a round fine in the Castle-chamber in case
they should prevaricate, who in all seeming even out of that reason
would be more fearful to tread shamelessly and impudently aside from
the truth, than such as had less, or nothing to lose.' The threatened
landowners asked for an adjournment, but Wentworth said the chancery
proceedings begun twenty days before were notice enough. Counsel having
been heard on both sides, Wentworth told the jury that the King's great
object was to make them a civil people, that a plantation was the
readiest means to that end, and that his Majesty would not only take
from them nothing that was theirs, but would also give them something
that was his. In other words they were to be allowed to retain
three-fourths of what they, and everyone else, supposed to be their
own property. No legally valid grant should be questioned, 'but God
knows,' he told Coke, 'very few or none of their patents are good.' The
evidence, Wentworth told the jury, was clear, and if they acknowledged
it frankly they should have easy terms. But the King would have his
way anyhow, and perhaps it would be best for him that they should deny
his title, for in that case he would get all he wanted by a process in
the Exchequer, and they could then expect no mercy. With this threat
hanging over them, the Roscommon gentlemen thought it prudent to
submit, and found the King's title to the whole county.[217]

[Sidenote: Submission of Sligo and Mayo, July, 1635.]

[Sidenote: Resistance of Galway.]

[Sidenote: Opposition of Clanricarde.]

[Sidenote: Threats against all concerned.]

[Sidenote: Punishment of sheriffs and jurors.]

[Sidenote: Galway submits and the King approves of all.]

Sligo, on the 20th, and Mayo on the 31st, followed the example of
Roscommon, but at Portumna in Galway the Commissioners met with a very
different reception. The county, and especially the eastern part of it,
was much under the influence of the Earl of Clanricarde; it contained
hardly any Protestant freeholders, and the influence of the Roman
Catholic clergy was very great. Clanricarde was in England with his
son, but his nephew Lord Clanmorris attended to lead the opposition.
Another nephew was on the jury, and so was John Donnellan, the Earl's
agent or steward. The jury with two exceptions found against the King's
title, and it was observed that those who voted after Donnellan did so
with much greater decision than those who voted before him. Richard
Burke, Clanricarde's nephew, was fined 500_l._ for endeavouring to
influence a brother juror by pulling his sleeve while he was speaking
with the Commissioners. Wentworth was very angry, and resolved to carry
out his plan notwithstanding, but with the difference that half the
land in Galway was to be confiscated, instead of a quarter as in the
other three counties. The disobedient shire should be 'fully lined and
planted with English,' and bridles in the meantime with sufficient
garrisons. 'And for those counsellors at law,' the Commissioners
reported, 'who so laboured against the King's title, we conceive it
is fit that such of them as we shall find reason to proceed withal,
be put to take the oath of supremacy, which if they refuse, that then
they be silenced, and not admitted to practise as now they do; it being
unfit that they should take benefit by his Majesty's graces, that take
the boldness after such a manner to oppose his service.' Wentworth had
taken much credit to himself at Boyle for allowing counsel to appear
before the Commissioners, and this was how he understood freedom of
speech. The sheriff was fined 1,000_l._ and bound over to appear in the
Castle-chamber on a charge of packing the jury, who were also bound
over to be dealt with there. A proclamation was issued to give the
county generally an opportunity of disavowing the jury, and this was so
far successful that a verdict was obtained for the King at Galway in
April 1637. Charles thoroughly approved of the fines, the imprisonments
and the proclamations, and in particular held it 'just and reasonable'
that the Galway landowners should lose half their property instead of a
mere one-fourth.[218]

[Sidenote: Death of Richard Earl of Clanricarde,]

[Sidenote: for which Wentworth is blamed.]

[Sidenote: Ulick, Earl of Clanricarde, Governor of Galway.]

The Earl of Clanricarde had distinguished himself by his courage and
fidelity at Kinsale, and had enjoyed the especial favour of Queen
Elizabeth. He had afterwards married Walsingham's daughter, the widow
of Sidney and Essex. His services thus entitled him to consideration,
and his connections secured him friends at Court. In 1616 James I.,
after a full inquiry by two secretaries of state, had made him governor
of the county and town of Galway in such a manner as to make him
independent of the president of Connaught. This patent expired with
James, but it was amply renewed by his successor for the life of the
Earl and his eldest son. These facts were perfectly well known to
Wentworth, but he advised the King to break his word and revoke the
patent on the purely technical ground that a judicial office could
not be granted in reversion. Clanricarde died within the year, and it
was reported by Wentworth's enemies that hard usage had broken his
heart. 'They might as well,' said the Lord Deputy, 'have imputed unto
me for a crime his being threescore and ten years old.' There was more
reason for imputing to him the death in prison of Martin Darcy, the
unfortunate sheriff of Galway. 'My arrows,' he said on this point,
'are cruel that wound so mortally; but I should be more sorry by much
the King should lose his fine.' The King did not revoke the patent for
the government of Galway, and the young Earl of Clanricarde, who was
to play so important a part in the civil war, seems from the first to
have enjoyed much influence at Court. The Galway jurors were tried
in the Castle-chamber in May 1636, and sentenced to pay £4,000 each
as a fine, to be imprisoned until payment, and to acknowledge their
fault at the assizes upon their knees and in open court. The fine was
afterwards reduced at Clanricarde's request, and the difficulties with
Scotland began before any real progress could be made with the new
settlement.[219]

[Sidenote: Nature of Wentworth's policy.]

[Sidenote: There was a substantial breach of faith.]

Wentworth maintained the King's title to Connaught on purely legal
grounds, not seeming to realise that mere legality was an inadequate
foundation for what was virtually wholesale forfeiture. Some modern
writers who admire or excuse his policy have stated that he set up a
title which would satisfy lawyers; but no one had a greater contempt
for the letter of the law when it stood in his way, and it is the
substantial justice of his action that is really in question. The
Elizabethan lawyers knew perfectly well that the feudal ownership of
Connaught was vested in Edward IV. and his successors, but they did
not, therefore, consider that the land was at the Queen's mercy. The
chiefs and landowners of the province had been acknowledged over and
over again, and had always yielded something to the Crown by way of
cess. Sidney and Perrott reduced this uncertain impost to a small but
fixed rent, and by so doing confirmed the tenure of those who paid
it. It is very true that the exact terms of the contract had seldom
been fulfilled by the Irish, and that most of them had been engaged
in rebellious actions after the composition. That might have been a
reason for forfeiting their land at the time, and demands for arrears
of rent might have been made much later; but this is a very different
thing from confiscation after a generation of peace. Nor was this
all: on July 21, 1615, James I. had written to Chichester directing
that the Connaught landowners should have patents granted them, in
consideration of the composition made by Queen Elizabeth, and reserving
the same rent in future. To this Wentworth answered that the recitals
in the letter as to the fulfilment of the composition covenants were
grounded on false information; that 'the inhabitants were intruders and
had no such estates as could either be surrendered or confirmed.' The
patents actually issued were therefore void, as having been obtained
under false pretences, and for some technical flaws also. The monstrous
result is that the whole population of Connaught were squatters, and
had no rights whatever. It is no wonder that the Irish Parliament had
clamoured for a sixty years' possessory title against the Crown.[220]

[Sidenote: The Londoners' plantation.]

[Sidenote: Destruction of the forests.]

Whatever other objects he may have had in view, profit to the Exchequer
was always sought by Wentworth. In the case of the Londoners'
plantation the mere money consideration was greater, and the political
advantage much less, than in the case of the Connaught proprietors.
Sir Thomas Phillips had almost ruined himself in his contest with the
great corporation, who had certainly done much, but who could easily
be shown not to have done all that they promised. Londonderry and
Coleraine had been secured against attack, but the number of houses was
less than at first agreed upon, and in the country it was found much
easier to take rent from the native occupiers than to bring over the
full number of English settlers. Commercial corporations who become
possessed of political power are always tempted to pay too much regard
to present profit, and the Irish Society of London acted to some extent
as the East India Company did in later times. In the Bann alone more
than sixty tons of salmon were sometimes taken in one day, and this was
much more lucrative than the slow process of settling English farmers
upon the land. It was also much more convenient to convert the vast
woods into ready money than to preserve them for local use, and their
destruction was rapid. In 1803 the county of Londonderry, which had
once contained the great forest of Glenconkein, was officially reported
to be 'perhaps the worst wooded in the King's dominions.' Wentworth saw
his opportunity, and determined to exact his pound of flesh from the
Londoners in Ulster, since they were unwilling to pay arbitrary taxes
at home. A side blow might be dealt to Presbyterianism at the same
time. Proceedings in the Star Chamber against the Corporation of London
had resulted in the summer of 1631 in a Royal Commission to collect
evidence in Ireland, and special attention was ordered to be given to
the representations of Phillips. The cause dragged on for three years,
and early in 1634 Wentworth wrote to Coke to advise that in any case
the grant of the customs of Londonderry and Coleraine, for which the
grantees paid no rent, should be resumed by the Crown, as unfit to
be held by any subject, and especially by a body which owed the King
1,800_l._ 'It is,' he said, 'my humble suit, that at least you take
that feather from them again, as not fit to be worn in the round cap of
a citizen of London.'[221]

[Sidenote: A fine of 30,000_l._ refused,]

[Sidenote: and one of 70,000_l._ imposed.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth wished to confiscate the London plantation.]

The Londoners offered to compromise their case by paying a fine
of 30,000_l._, but this was refused. After a hearing which lasted
seventeen days, judgment was given in the Star Chamber at the end
of February 1635, when a fine of 70,000_l._ was imposed and the
charter declared forfeited. The actual sum levied seems to have been
12,000_l._, which was handed over to the Queen. 'The King,' said
Wentworth's correspondent Garrard, 'now hath good store of land in
Ireland.' 'The Londoners,' said another gossip, the letter-writer
Howell, 'have not been so forward in collecting the ship-money, since
they have been taught to sing heigh-down derry, and many of them will
not pay till after imprisonment, that it may stand upon record they
were forced to it. The assessments have been wonderfully unequal and
unproportionable, which is very ill taken, it being conceived they did
it on purpose to raise clamour through the city.' In the following May
an order was given in the Star Chamber to levy the fine in London, and
to sequester the estates in Ireland. Bramhall, who had a dispute of
his own about some of the lands, was appointed chief receiver, and the
appointment was not likely to be a sinecure in his hands. Wentworth
declared himself ready to carry out the forfeiture in the most drastic
way. 'Would your Majesty,' he wrote, 'be pleased to reserve it entire
to yourself, it might prove a fit part of an appanage for our young
master the Duke of York. It may be made a seigniory not altogether
unworthy his Highness; and for so good purpose I should labour night
and day, and think all I could do little.' James's experiences in
connection with Londonderry were fated to be of a much less agreeable
kind. The hostility of the Londoners had much to say to both Charles
and Wentworth losing their heads.[222]

FOOTNOTES:

[215] A faulty commission was issued in April 1633, but the corrected
version which was acted upon is calendared at June 29, 1634. The
commissioners besides Wentworth were Lord Chancellor Loftus, Cork,
Parsons, Chief Justice Lowther, Wandesford, Radcliffe, and the Barons
of the Exchequer; Sir C. Coote and Mainwaring were added later. A fresh
commission, dated September 1, 1638, is in Rymer's _Foedera_, xx. 263.
_Irish Statutes_, 10 Car. I. cap. 3. Wentworth to the King, December 9,
1636, _Strafford Letters_, ii. 41. In February 1640-1 the Irish House
of Lords asked 'whether it stood with the integrity of the judge to
take 4_s._ per £ out of all increases to His Majesty upon compositions
of defective bills, by avoiding such patents as the same judge condemns
in an extra-judicial way' (_Nalson_, ii. 575).

[216] Wentworth to Coke, December 16, 1634; to Laud, March 10, 1634-5;
Commissioners of plantation to Coke, August 25, 1635; Wentworth's notes
on the Irish revenue, July 6, 1636, _Strafford Letters_. Details as
to Edough are in Prendergast's _Ireland from the Restoration to the
Revolution_, part iii. chap. i.

[217] Wentworth to Coke, July 14, 1635, _Strafford Letters_.

[218] Lord Deputy and Commissioners to Coke, August 25, 1635, and
Coke's answer, September 30, _Strafford Letters_. Hardiman's _Hist. of
Galway_, p. 105.

[219] Wentworth to the King, December 5, 1635. Carte's _Ormonde_ i.
82. Clarendon says that Essex, who already disliked Wentworth, 'openly
professed revenge against him for his treatment of Clanricarde,
_History of Rebellion_, ii. 101.

[220] Abstract of the King's title to Connaught, 1635, _Strafford
Letters_, i. 454. King James's letter of July 21, 1622, is in _Carew_.
See Hardiman's _Hist. of Galway_, 104.

[221] Coke to Wentworth, October 24, 1633; Wentworth to Coke, January
31, 1633-4. J. C. Beresford's _Concise View of the Irish Society_, pp.
51-56.

[222] Garrard to Wentworth, March 1, 1634-5; Howell to same, March 5;
Coke to same, May 25, 1635; Wentworth to the King, April 7, _Strafford
Letters_. Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 83. Among the _Cowper MSS._, November
8, 1633, is a letter from the King ordering 5,000_l._ to Phillips out
of the 70,000_l._




CHAPTER XV

CASES OF MOUNTNORRIS, LOFTUS, AND OTHERS


[Sidenote: Laud's warning to Wentworth.]

Towards the end of 1635 Laud warned Wentworth that he was making
enemies at Court, especially 'on the Queen's side.' They said that
he was 'over-full of personal prosecutions against men of quality,'
Clanricarde, Cork, and Wilmot being particularly mentioned. 'I know,'
wrote the Archbishop, 'a great part of this proceeds from your wise and
noble proceedings against the Romish party in that kingdom; yet that
shall never be made the cause in public,' though every advantage would
be taken underhand.

[Sidenote: Case of Lord Wilmot.]

Wilmot had used his position as president of Connaught to build at
Athlone, giving fee-farm grants of Crown land to the settlers. It does
not seem to have been alleged that he took fines for his own use; but
the main facts were not denied, and he thought it prudent to obtain
a pardon. He resented Wentworth's appointment as Deputy, and being
himself of a choleric disposition he soon came into collision with him.
The pardon was not held to cover the whole case, which was brought up
again by Wentworth. Wilmot made an ample submission and tried to soften
the Viceroy's animosity, while indignantly denying any corruption on
his own part. There can be no doubt that he exceeded his authority,
and the tenants at Athlone seem to have been willing to increase their
rents to the Crown; but the case dragged on, and was perhaps unsettled
when Wentworth's government came to an end. No doubt the law was
against Wilmot, but considering the pardon and the fact that he had
made improvements, his treatment might be described as persecution by
those who disliked Wentworth.[223]

[Sidenote: Case of Lord Mountnorris.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth wishes to get rid of Mountnorris.]

[Sidenote: Mountnorris accused of malversation.]

The Vice-Treasurer, Lord Mountnorris, was married to a near relation
of Wentworth's second and best-beloved wife. This had not saved him
from a rebuke for staying away from his work in August 1632; but
for some years afterwards things seem to have gone pretty smoothly.
Mountnorris supported the Lord Deputy effectively on his first arrival
in Ireland, and at his suggestion received the King's thanks. But he
was one of those who refuse nothing and resign nothing profitable,
and he declined to surrender a reversionary patent in order to make
room for an office-seeker favoured by Wentworth and by Secretary Coke.
In May 1634 the Lord Deputy made his first serious complaint of the
Vice-Treasurer for exacting sixpence in the pound as a fee out of all
payments made to the officers of the Admiralty. The English Privy
Council directed Mountnorris to forego these fees until the King's
further pleasure should be known; but the law of the case was probably
doubtful, and he ventured to disobey. He supported the Deputy in
other matters, and at the conference between the two Irish Houses of
Parliament, 'out of such scraps as he had gotten from the Parliaments
of England, very gallantly and magisterially told the House of Commons
that they had no power to administer an oath.' Wentworth nevertheless
became very anxious to get rid of him and to give his place to Sir
Adam Loftus, who could be always trusted to obey orders. In April 1635
he told Coke that he considered 'Lord Mountnorris to be an officer
of no great nor quick endeavour to his Majesty's service, a person
held by us all that hear him to be most impertinent and troublesome
in the debate of all business. And, indeed, so weary are we of him
that I daresay there is not one of us willing to join with him in any
private counsel. My Lord Chief Baron complains of him extremely in the
Exchequer, that he disorders the proceedings of the whole court through
his wilfulness and ignorance.' He was a loose liver, fond of high
play, winning often from young men and even lending money at interest
for them to stake again. Payments from the Exchequer were said to be
delayed until a bribe had been given to his brother-in-law, and one
case was proved; but Mountnorris denied all knowledge of the matter,
and made the recipient give back the money. Yet he continued to employ
the culprit, and so gave good cause for suspicion. Mountnorris was
evidently very unpopular, and doubtless with good reason; but he was
not unwilling to resign his office for a consideration, and left the
matter in Wentworth's hands. The latter was long unwilling to undertake
the negotiation from his knowledge of the other's uncertain temper,
and this caused so much delay that Mountnorris ultimately withdrew his
offer, and the final rupture seems to have taken place at about this
point.[224]

[Sidenote: Mountnorris is charged with mutiny, 1635,]

[Sidenote: for words spoken at dinner,]

[Sidenote: tried summarily by a court martial,]

[Sidenote: and condemned to death.]

Mountnorris had a relation of his own name who was a subaltern in
the Lord Deputy's troop of horse. He was checked by Wentworth at a
review for some irregularity, and replied by an insolent gesture or
grimace. Wentworth laid his cane against the young man's shoulders,
but without striking him, and threatened to 'lay him over the pate'
if he offended so again. Annesley doubtless deserved punishment, but
it was scarcely a Lord Deputy's business to chastise offenders with
his own hand. On April 18, 1635, Annesley, who was a gentleman-usher
at the Castle, dropped a stool upon Wentworth's gouty foot, and this
became the subject of conversation at a dinner at the Lord Chancellor's
some three or four days later. Mountnorris said: 'Perhaps it was done
in revenge of that public affront which my Lord Deputy had done him
formerly; but he has a brother that would not take such a revenge.'
Something of the kind was said, but the exact words must be very
doubtful, for it is not pretended that any one took them down at the
time, and they were not sworn to until nearly eight months later. In
any case Wentworth should have remembered his own _dictum_ that every
word must not rise up in judgment against a man. Annesley had a brother
in Mountnorris's company of foot, and it was suggested that this was a
hint to him from his superior officer 'to have taken up resolutions of
dangerous consequence.' It seems much more probable that Mountnorris
was praising his own subaltern at the expense of the Lord Deputy's
gentleman-usher. Late on the evening of December 11 he was warned by a
pursuivant to attend a council of war at eight o'clock next morning.
Shortly after the appointed hour Wentworth came in, said he had called
the court to do himself right and reparation against Lord Mountnorris,
read the alleged words from a paper which had been subscribed by Lord
Moore and by the Chancellor's eldest son, Sir Robert Loftus, and
called upon the Vice-Treasurer to confess or deny them. The accused
asked for counsel and to have the charge in writing, but he was told
that councils of war allowed neither. To aggravate the case, Wentworth
read the King's letter of July 31 in which he had ordered the sixpenny
fees to be stopped. Mountnorris said the letter was obtained 'by
misinformation.' Wentworth said it was not his habit to misrepresent
anyone, 'and rebuked me,' says Mountnorris, 'with worse language than
was fit to be used to a meaner man and not a peer.' Moore and Loftus
swore to the truth of what they had signed, and Wentworth then ordered
Moore to take his seat as a judge in a case where he had already given
evidence for the prosecution. The Lord Deputy took no actual part in
the sentence, but he was present during the whole proceedings, and all
men dreaded his frown. According to the account forwarded by Wentworth
at the time, Mountnorris submitted to the court, 'protesting that what
interpretation soever his words might have put upon them, he intended
no prejudice or hurt to the person of us the Deputy.' Mountnorris
himself, in his evidence given in 1641, says he offered to swear that
he had not uttered the words, and to bring witnesses to prove that
the part referring to the public affront was spoken by others. Among
the witnesses whom he says he asked to have produced were the Lord
Chancellor and Sir Adam Loftus's son. He was ordered to withdraw, and
after less than half an hour was called in again to hear his sentence
of death, to which the court had unanimously agreed. 'My Lord Deputy,'
he says, 'took occasion to make a speech, and told me invectively
enough there remained no more now, if he pleased, but to cause the
provost-marshal to do execution; but withal added that for matter of
life, he would supplicate his Majesty. And I think he said he would
rather lose his hand than I should lose my head; which I took to be the
highest scorn, to compare his the Lord Deputy's hand with my head.' The
expression about his hand and his victim's head occurs in Wentworth's
own letters. It was reported in London that Mountnorris had been
actually shot, the parts of his body where bullets took effect being
specified.[225]

[Sidenote: Mountnorris not a soldier.]

[Sidenote: Martial law in time of peace.]

[Sidenote: The King receives 6000_l._ for Mountnorris's place.]

Mountnorris had a company, as was then customary with great men in
Ireland, but he was not really a soldier, and knew nothing of military
discipline. The words charged against him were spoken, if spoken at
all, in private society, and it is not easy to see how they could
possibly affect the discipline of the army. Yet Wentworth and his
slavish council found that they constituted a breach of two articles
of war. That which involved the death sentence was the thirteenth: 'No
man shall offer any violence, or contemptuously disobey his commander,
or do any act or speak any words which are likely to breed any mutiny
in the army or garrison, or impeach the obeying of the general or
principal officer's directions, upon pain of death.' This article is
perhaps not too severe for its purpose, especially in time of war, but
does any lawyer, does any soldier, does any man of common intelligence
suppose that it was intended to be applied or could properly be applied
to conversation at a dinner-party? And Mountnorris swore that he had
never seen the articles at the time of his condemnation under them, and
did not see them until June 1636. It does not appear that they had been
acted on in time of peace. Besides all this, the court-martial was held
without any notice; no time was given to summon witnesses; Wentworth
himself, the prosecutor, presided in person, while the accused, who
was not allowed counsel, was turned out of court, and one of the
witnesses for the prosecution sat in judgment. At Court many wondered
'that a peer of the kingdom, a Privy Councillor, a treasurer at war,
though a captain, should be tried in a marshal's court for words spoken
six months before, no enemy in the field, nor the Lord Deputy in any
danger of his life by these words.' Wentworth's energetic and talkative
emissary, Captain Price, 'laid about with his tongue' as to this and
other matters, but it was the King that really silenced the voice of
criticism. It was his nature to approve harsh measures, and in this
case he actually made 6000_l._ by the transaction. Wentworth advised
Sir Adam Loftus to spend money freely to secure the succession; from
which we may infer that he intended it to be lucrative in the hands
of a friend. Loftus promised the money to Cottington, who promptly
'gave it to him that really could do the business, which was the King
himself.' Probably only part of the money was for Cottington, and he
was to give the rest to other officials, but he got the credit of
surrendering the whole sum. Before it was actually received Charles
assigned it in part payment of 22,000_l._ which he was spending on the
purchase of an estate in Scotland. We may assume that the King was
'roundly satisfied' without delay, for Loftus was made Vice-Treasurer
at the beginning of April. The fact that the money went to provide
an endowment for the Scotch archbishoprics does not greatly improve
matters. Clarendon says that Mountnorris was notoriously unloved,
otherwise his treatment would have been thought 'the most extravagant
piece of sovereignty that in a time of peace had been ever executed by
any subject.'[226]

[Sidenote: Mountnorris under restraint for several months, 1635-37.]

[Sidenote: Deprived of his office.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth's motives.]

Lord Mountnorris, said Wentworth, 'was prisoner in the Castle some
two days, but upon his physician's certificate that the badness of
his lodging might prejudice his health, I sent him upon good bond
restrained only to his own house, where he is like to remain till I
receive his Majesty's further pleasure concerning him.' Mountnorris
makes the first confinement last six days, but the discrepancy is not
of much importance. Chief Justice Shirley gave his bond for 2000_l._,
and Mountnorris remained under restraint in his own house from the
middle of December 1635 until the second week of April following. In
February Lady Mountnorris petitioned for her husband's release on the
ground that his life was in danger, and reminded the Lord Deputy that
he and his prisoner were connected by marriage; but Wentworth seems to
have taken no notice of the lady's letter; and Clarendon endorsed his
copy as written by her to Wentworth 'when her husband was under the
sentence of death by martial law, and he was so hard-hearted that he
gave her no relief.' Lady Mountnorris went to London to try the King's
mercy, and Wentworth made this a reason for shutting his victim up
again in the Castle. After three weeks he was again released by the
doctors, in whose hands he remained for some time. In the meanwhile he
had been superseded, and the Vice-Treasurership conferred on Loftus.
Mountnorris was frequently brought before the Council on charges of
malversation, but it does not appear that any actual sentence was given
against him, and he refused to sue out his pardon in consequence.
He signed a submission to the King, but the Deputy's pride was not
satisfied, and he was again imprisoned during the whole of February
1637. In July Lady Mountnorris obtained the King's leave for her
husband's return to England, but this was not acted on for some months,
and perhaps Charles did not intend it to be taken too literally.
Writing from London to Wandesford, Wentworth directed that he should
not be allowed to leave Ireland, claiming that the case should be
decided in Dublin and by himself. It was not till the autumn of 1637
that Mountnorris got out of Ireland, 'wondrously humbled as much as
Chaucer's friar'; and in a letter to his friend Conway Wentworth
admitted his real motives. 'I told him I never wished ill to his
estate nor person further than to remove him thence where he was as
well a trouble as an offence unto me.' He had, in short, turned out an
opponent and given his place to an adherent, and that seemed to him a
sufficient explanation.[227]

[Sidenote: The story told by Mountnorris himself, 1640.]

Mountnorris's petition was presented to the House of Commons, November
7, 1640, along with the sentence of the Castle Chamber, pronounced
December 12, 1635. He says Strafford 'conceived a causeless distaste
against him, and thereupon endeavoured the revenge of some supposed
personal neglect' by ruining him. Being already secretary of the
Irish Council, King James gave him a patent of 200_l._ with other
emoluments in reversion after Sir Dudley Norton's death or retirement.
But Strafford falsely accused him of incivility to his brother Sir
George, obtained a surrender from Norton, and, 'contrary to all right
and justice, procured the said offices and fees to be conferred
upon Sir Philip Mainwaring,' and maintained him in possession by
his despotic authority. King Charles had made him Vice-Treasurer
and Receiver-General, and seven years later Treasurer at wars. He
refused when Strafford required him to make a 'dishonourable sale of
the said offices,' at which he was so enraged that he trumped up the
prosecution and 'in a time of public peace and serenity within that
realm, December 12, 1635, did call a council of war and did accuse
your petitioner of some words supposed to be spoken by your petitioner
many months before tending in his lordship's strained construction to
the disturbance of government, and without allowing your petitioner
liberty of clearing his innocence in a legal manner or so much as an
hour's time to make his just defence, proceeded to sentence at the
same time, and although the said supposed words were no ways criminal
sentenced a peer to death.' He respited the execution for the further
advancing of his 'own ends,' but used it to dispose of Mountnorris's
foot-company and kept him a prisoner in the Castle from December 12,
1635, until April 16, 1637. During that time all his effects and papers
were 'strictly searched by some of his greatest adversaries by his
lordship's direction.' Twenty days of close confinement threatening his
life obliged him to submit and accept a pardon. After this Strafford
took advantage of his imprisonment to issue a commission of his own
choice to inquire into his office, and made misrepresentations to the
King, who made Sir Adam Loftus, 'one of his accusers,' Receiver-General
and Treasurer at wars. Information was laid against him in the Castle
Chamber during his imprisonment and sickness as to his supposed
misdemeanour. He was conscious of no guilt, but finding he would be
tried by the same 'inquisitors,' all prejudiced, he was reduced 'to the
miserable choice' either to go on suffering even worse or to make a
submission as Strafford wished, 'whereupon your petitioner was enforced
in ignominious manner to make submission, hoping thereby to purchase
his liberty and go into England according to his Majesty's directions,'
but he was kept in prison all the same. No one ever maintained that
Star Chamber or Council, had any jurisdiction to try questions of title
between man and man, yet he had been deprived on a 'paper petition' of
a manor in Ireland after eighteen years' quiet possession, and turned
out by Strafford's own warrant, and he was deprived of his legal remedy
in other cases.[228]

The witnesses to the words about revenge were Lord Moore and Sir Robert
Loftus, who were present, but were not the original reporters of the
expression.

It is particularly stated that the sentence was unanimous, and that
there was a breach of the 41st and 13th articles of war--sentence for
the first, imprisonment, public disarming, and banishment from the
Army, and for ever disabled to bear arms; and for the 13th death.

The articles of war were printed and published on March 13, 1633, and
are the same as those used by Falkland, Wilmot, and others.

[Sidenote: Case of Lord Chancellor Loftus.]

[Sidenote: The Chancellor is suspended, and placed under arrest, April,
1638.]

Wentworth had probably distrusted Mountnorris from the first. The Lord
Chancellor, on the contrary, had frequently earned his praise, and as
late as the summer of 1636 a special grant of 3000_l._ was made to
him on his recommendation. A few months afterwards the two men were
engaged in an acrimonious correspondence about the appointment of a
lawyer to do temporary duty on circuit. The explanation of this charge
is to be found in certain legal proceedings which had taken place in
the meantime. In the year 1621 the Chancellor's eldest son, Robert,
had married Eleanor, daughter of Sir Francis Rushe, whose sister long
afterwards became the wife of Wentworth's brother, Sir George. It was
alleged that the Chancellor had promised to settle Monasterevan and
1500_l._ a year in land upon the young couple, and that the bride had
paid over her dowry of 1750_l._ on this consideration. It was now
sought after all these years to enforce specific performance of the
Chancellor's verbal promise. The proceedings were taken by Eleanor's
half-brother, Sir John Gifford, as her next friend, her husband
refusing to be a party, though he had a solicitor to watch the case.
It is not clear that ordinary courts of law had no jurisdiction in
the case, but it was assumed to be matter of equity, and a King's
letter was obtained remitting it to the Council on the ground that
the Lord Chancellor was chief equity judge and that he could not
adjudicate in his own cause. Sir William Colley swore in a hesitating
and inconsistent way at the trial in 1638 to what the Chancellor had
said in 1621, who upon this ground was ordered to settle all the lands
to the value of 1200_l._ a year upon Sir Robert Loftus and his heirs
general, to the exclusion of the second son, Edward, who was to have an
annual rent-charge of 200_l._ The King professed himself anxious for
the maintenance of the peerage, but the judgment, had it been finally
confirmed, would have had the contrary effect, for Sir Robert's only
son died shortly afterwards, and the property would have gone to his
sister, whose uncle, as heir male, would have had the title with
nothing to support it. This judgment was given on February 1, 1638,
but the Chancellor was in no hurry to obey, having already appealed to
the King himself, and on April 20 he was suspended by the Lord Deputy
and Council, and ordered to give up the Great Seal next day. The seal
not being so produced, Loftus was thereupon committed, and remained
under restraint for sixteen months. It was afterwards pretended that
this extreme severity to an octogenarian public servant was caused by
evidence of judicial misconduct in another case, but Wentworth did not
say so at the time. Loftus may have been guilty of some irregularities,
but nothing like corruption was proved against him, and it is probable
that little would have been heard of these grave misdemeanours if his
daughter-in-law had not been Wentworth's friend and if her sister
had not lately been married to his brother. In one letter he calls
the Chancellor's wife 'a fury,' and in another he speaks of 'that
unclean-mouthed daughter of his, the Lord Moore's wife.'[229]

[Sidenote: Severe treatment of Loftus.]

[Sidenote: The King supports Wentworth.]

[Sidenote: Loftus submits,]

[Sidenote: but appeals to the Long Parliament.]

More than ten years before Loftus had obtained a royal licence to go
to England whenever he thought fit, and to put the Great Seal into
commission. He did not now rely upon this, but asked for special
leave, and Charles granted it at once. The King's letter probably
arrived before the suspension of the Chancellor, who sent over his
second son Edward. The latter had been made a party to the suit
against his father, and Wentworth considered that this aggravated his
contempt, though Edward does not seem to have held any office. When the
Chancellor was first summoned before the Council he was not required
to kneel 'considering his age and the eminency of his place,' but a
resolution was passed that neither he nor anyone else should be so
excused in future. On the second occasion he said he would rather die
than kneel, and on the following day maintained that no such compliance
had been required from one of his rank and quality for a hundred years,
and that 'the Great Seal ought not to creep on knees and elbows to
any subordinate person in the world.' He refused to give up the seal
or to bring it with him; having received it from the King he would
surrender it only to an order under the royal hand. After this he was
committed to the Castle until the King's pleasure should be known.
In his petition to Charles for release he stated that he was 'very
aged and the prison very close and pestered with many prisoners.' But
Wentworth and his subservient Council, fortified by a petition of Sir
John Gifford, magnified the Chancellor's refusal to kneel into a great
offence, and urged the King not to allow him over to England until
he had fully submitted to their decree as to Monasterevan and the
rest. The despatch was sent over by Sir George Radcliffe, so that no
means was neglected to prejudice Charles against the old Chancellor.
The leave was suspended accordingly, and in a later letter the King
even blamed the 'over-much forbearance and patience' of the Deputy
and Council, and ordered that the prisoner should not be allowed to
go without acknowledging his fault and suing for pardon. After about
eleven months' confinement the King ordered that the Chancellor
should be kept a close prisoner, whereupon Lady Loftus was forced to
leave her husband, 'though the small sustenance whereby he liveth is
ministered by her hands.' His chaplains were also refused access to
him. Afterwards just as much relaxation was allowed as to prevent the
prisoner actually dying, and he was under restraint in his own house
for a short time. A threat of further close confinement in the Castle
at last broke his spirit, and he made over his property to trustees
who were all Wentworth's close allies--Wandesford, Sir Adam Loftus,
Lord Dillon, and his secretary, Sir Philip Mainwaring. The Chancellor
had already made a submission to the Lord Deputy in terms sufficiently
humble. Lady Moore made great exertions, and in June 1639 she was seen
on her knees before Charles at Berwick 'very earnestly soliciting for
her father's coming over.' His appeal to the King was fruitless, for
Wentworth was in London before him and at the height of his power. In
November 1639 the decree of the Irish Council was confirmed, and Sir
Richard Bolton was appointed Chancellor a few days later. Less than
twelve months after the decision of the appeal the Long Parliament was
sitting, and Wentworth was in the custody of Black Rod. Sir Robert
Loftus and his wife both died before the Chancellor, who lived long
enough to see all the decrees against him reversed by the English House
of Lords, but the litigation arising out of the case extended far into
the reign of Charles II. During the civil war the Irish estates were
not of much use to anyone.[230]

[Sidenote: Judgement of contemporaries on this case.]

[Sidenote: Clarendon.]

[Sidenote: Warwick.]

[Sidenote: Lady Loftus.]

Loftus was no doubt a difficult man to work with for he had been
on bad terms with both Falkland and Cork. He was stiff-necked, and
Wentworth demanded subserviency, as he showed in the cases both of
Wilmot and Mountnorris. Having been acting viceroy for four years,
Loftus was not inclined to step down too far, and he considered that
a Chancellor's rights and position were quite independent of the
viceroy. That, no doubt, was the unpardonable sin. 'Most men,' says
Clarendon, who had good opportunities of judging, 'that weighed the
whole matter, believed it to be a high act of oppression, and not to
be without a mixture of that policy which was spoken of before in the
case of the Lord Mountnorris; for the Chancellor, being a person of
great experience, subtlety, and prudence, had been always very severe
to departed deputies; and not over agreeable or in any degree submiss
to their full power; and taking himself to be the second person of the
kingdom during his life, thought himself little less than equal to the
first, who could naturally hope but for a term of six years in that
superiority; neither had he ever before met with the least check,
that might make him suspect a diminution of his authority, dexterity,
or interest.' 'The lofty humour of this great man,' says Sir Philip
Warwick, 'engaged him too often and against too many. And particularly
one dispute with the old Chancellor Loftus, which was sullied by an
amour, as was supposed, betwixt him and his daughter-in-law.' Clarendon
has some ambiguous expressions to which the same meaning has been
given, and the fact that Sir Robert Loftus refused to join in the suit
against his father is capable of being construed in the same way. Such
charges, however, are much easier to make than to disprove, and we
are not called upon to believe that there was any intrigue. Writing
to his friend Conway in August 1639, he announces young Lady Loftus'
death as that of 'one of the noblest persons I ever had the happiness
to be acquainted with; and as I had received greater obligations from
her ladyship than from all Ireland besides, so with her are gone the
greatest part of my affections to the country, and all that is left of
them shall be thankfully and religiously paid to her excellent memory
and lasting goodness.'[231]

[Sidenote: The great Earl of Cork.]

[Sidenote: Raleigh's successor. Church property.]

[Sidenote: Cork and Wentworth.]

Richard Earl of Cork was certainly the most important man in Ireland,
and was generally considered the King's richest subject. He had made
his great fortune himself, and it would be hard to show that it was
not made honestly. There were many opportunities for speculation
after the Desmond wars, and he used them to the utmost, buying in the
cheapest market, and selling, if he sold at all, in the dearest. After
Grandison's death he was made Lord Treasurer, and he was a royalist
to the backbone. If Wentworth had been a constitutional statesman,
rather than a despotic viceroy, he would have made a friend of Cork;
but he preferred to humiliate him, caring nothing for his hostility,
provided some of his money could be diverted to the King's coffers.
Like most public men in Ireland, Lord Cork was in possession of some
land which had belonged to the Church, and of some livings also.
He purchased Raleigh's vast possessions for 1500_l._, after their
nascent prosperity had been destroyed in the last Desmond rebellion,
and it was no fault of his if the Church had been badly treated at
the time of forfeiture. Lismore Cathedral had been burned down by
the White Knight and his crew, but even in this case Cork made some
attempt at restoration, and might have done more if his title had not
been disputed by Laud and Wentworth, who made Bishop Michael Boyle of
Waterford their stalking horse in the attack on his great kinsman. 'I
knew the bishop well,' said Laud, 'and when he lived in the college
(St. John's) he would have done anything or sold anyone for sixpence
profit.' The see-lands at Lismore and Ardmore were leased to Raleigh by
two bishops, and the blame should fall on him rather than upon Boyle,
who purchased the property as it stood. Wentworth was right in trying
to recover Church property which had been wrongly alienated, but not
in making the holder personally responsible. In the end Ardmore was
restored to the see, and Lismore was confirmed to the Earl of Cork.
After the breaking up of the third Parliament in 1629, Cork was pressed
to lend the King 15,000_l._ on the security of the Irish customs, and
had some difficulty in getting his money back. Wentworth took care
that he should pay his full share of the subsidy. 'I do believe,' he
wrote in 1640, 'there is no man living hath suffered so much by his
(Strafford's) oppressions and injustice as myself, who with truth
affirm that I am the worse by 40,000_l._ for him in my personal estate,
and 1200_l._ a year in my revenue; and all is taken from me by his
power without any suit in law. He hath enforced me to pay 4200_l._
within this five years for subsidies, which might have ransomed me if I
had been prisoner with the Turks, and was more than himself and all the
lords of the Council paid, for the last subsidy in England.[232]

[Sidenote: The case of Youghal College.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth demands a fine of 30,000_l._,]

[Sidenote: and takes 15,000_l._]

[Sidenote: Real reason of Wentworth's hostility.]

[Sidenote: Cork presents 1000_l._ to the King.]

Of the many disputes between the Lord Deputy and the Lord Treasurer
one must be noticed particularly. In 1464 Thomas Earl of Desmond
founded at Youghal a college for a warden, eight fellows, and eight
singing men, who were to serve the church hard by and perhaps others
in the neighbourhood. The institution slipped through the net which
swept away ordinary monasteries, but the celibate life in common came
to an end after the Reformation, and Wetheread, Bishop of Waterford
and Lismore, became warden. He died in 1592, having let the house
to Sir Thomas Norris, and this lease was afterwards renewed to
Raleigh's trustees, whose interest Boyle purchased. That he was thus
in possession of Church property was evident, but it was in lay hands
before he acquired it, and he had bought out those concerned without
any secrecy. The original title was not very good, and Cork took every
means possible to strengthen his position. His cousin, Richard Boyle,
Bishop of Cork, was warden many years before Wentworth's arrival,
and in 1627 agreed with the three then surviving fellows to release
their claims in consideration of life annuities, amounting altogether
to 86_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ a year. Both parties swore to fulfil their
contract. Wentworth determined to prosecute Cork in the Castle-chamber
for being privy to a fabricated bond and for taking or imposing an
illegal oath. Something would be recovered for the Church, but the main
object was to extract enough money from the Earl to pay off or reduce
the existing Crown debts in Ireland. Wentworth demanded 30,000_l._ as
a voluntary fine to avoid exposure. The charge of forgery was found to
be false, and as to the oath Cork, who throughout maintained that he
had done nothing wrong, could show that it was voluntary on both sides,
and of a character not uncommon in Ireland. His friends, including
his eldest son, knew perfectly well what the result of a trial would
be, and induced the Earl to pay 15,000_l._, Wentworth pleasantly
representing this as a saving of that sum to the accused. The day
of trial was actually fixed, and Cork found his old antagonist, the
Chancellor, sitting on a form in the gallery, who said he had read all
the pleadings and that there was nothing in them. 'Then,' says Cork,
'I told his lordship that I hoped he would deliver his vote for my
clearing. "Nay, by my faith (quoth he) I will not promise you that."
I replied again that if he were in my case I would clear him if my
conscience did assure me he were not guilty. His lordship answered
that it was very necessary for me to be exceeding careful of myself;
for that it was not my cause, but my judges, I was to fear.' In the
end Cork had the property confirmed to him by the King, abandoning
certain tithes and presentations worth about 700_l._ a year, which
were recovered for the Church, but which were in lay hands when Cork
acquired them. 'God's wounds, sir,' said Wentworth to the Earl, 'when
the last Parliament in England broke up you lent the King 15,000_l._
And afterwards in a very uncivil unmannerly manner you pressed his
Majesty to restore it you. Whereupon I resolved before I came out of
England to fetch it back again from you, by one means or other. And
now I have gotten what I desired you and I will be friends hereafter.'
The money was duly paid within two years. Laud congratulated himself
on having kept the King steady throughout; but Charles seems to have
had some misgivings, for he excused Cork from subscribing towards the
Scotch campaign, and afterwards graciously accepted a thousand pounds
in gold, which were sent down to the North after him.[233]

[Sidenote: Sir Piers Crosbie's case.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth falsely accused of killing Esmond.]

[Sidenote: Crosbie fined and imprisoned.]

Sir Piers Crosbie had been excluded from the Irish Council for opposing
Wentworth in the Parliament of 1634. This action was sustained in
England and might easily be defended, for the distinction between
executive and legislative functions was not fully observed in those
days. Privy Councillors were then the real advisers of the Crown, and
Wentworth might fairly object to one who was an open opponent. In
modern times the Cabinet has usurped the powers of the Council, but no
one could long remain a member without submitting to the Prime Minister
in his parliamentary capacity. By withholding his confidence from all
except some half-dozen Englishmen, who owed their advancement to
him, Wentworth made enemies or very lukewarm supporters of the Irish
officials and their friends. Crosbie had commanded an Irish regiment
at Rhé, but Wentworth wrote of him as 'a gentleman of so fine and
tender parts as qualifies him much better for a lady's chamber. Was
there ever man such an Adonis, think you?' These words, or others to
the like effect, were probably in circulation, and Crosbie was in a
position to give some trouble. Lord Esmond spoke openly against the
Lord Deputy, and the death of a relation of his in prison furnished
the pretext for a false charge. Robert Esmond was a ship-owner, and
he refused in November 1634 to take some timber of Wentworth's on
board. His own defence was that the pieces were too long to be stored
on board his vessel, which was already laden with wood belonging to
the Chief Justice. Perhaps the Lord Deputy did not believe him: at all
events he shook his cane at him and sent him to gaol, and as he died of
consumption soon after being released, it is possible that confinement
may have hastened his death. It was generally given out that he died of
the beating he had received, and Esmond, Mountnorris, and others appear
to have combined with Crosbie to propagate the story. 'There is,'
Wentworth wrote, 'an impudent and false conspiracy against me. And,
verily, my lord, on this Friday (a day on which it pleased God to bring
me forth into the world) I renounce all the blessings of this passion
if ever I did or had it in my thoughts to strike Esmond, and when the
poor wand shall be shown in court wherewith I must have beaten the
man to death, the impudent untruth will further appear to you.' Lord
Esmond himself seems to have ceased to believe the story, for he told
Wentworth of the report early in 1636. It was not till 1639 that the
Star Chamber in England decided the case in Wentworth's favour. Crosbie
was fined and imprisoned for a short time. According to his own account
he was released on paying the fine, but Wentworth alleged that he broke
out of the Fleet prison. From the charge of killing Esmond, Strafford
may be fully exonerated; but it can never in any age have been right
for the Chief Governor of Ireland to shake his stick at offenders,
either in his judicial or in his military capacity.[234]

[Sidenote: Case of Trinity College, Dublin.]

[Sidenote: Cambridge influences.]

[Sidenote: Provost Temple, 1609.]

[Sidenote: Bedell provost, 1627.]

[Sidenote: Laud chosen chancellor, 1633.]

It was originally intended that the University of Dublin should
include several colleges, as at Oxford and Cambridge, and unsuccessful
attempts were made to carry out the idea. But in fact the University
and Trinity College remained one. Some short-lived halls were founded
for the increase of accommodation. All the early provosts except Robert
Ussher, who was educated in the college itself, were Cambridge men,
and a Puritan or, as we might say, a Low Church tone was generally
maintained. Sir William Temple, who was provost from 1609 to 1627, made
the distinction between senior and junior fellows, and it was soon
decided that the right of election lay in the seniors only. Temple, who
was not in orders, objected to wear a surplice as directed by Abbot,
who was chancellor of the University. Bedell, who succeeded Temple, had
a comparatively short tenure of office, but he signalised his reign by
promulgating revised statutes and by taking steps for the teaching of
Irish, with a view to approach the natives through their own language.
When Abbot died in 1633 the fellows, at the instance of Primate Ussher,
chose Laud for their chancellor. Laud would have preferred that the
lot had fallen upon Wentworth himself, but Ussher urged him not to
refuse.[235]

[Sidenote: Robert Ussher provost, 1629.]

[Sidenote: Chappell provost, 1634.]

[Sidenote: Chappell's troubles.]

The Primate realised that his cousin Robert, who had succeeded Bedell
in 1629, was not an efficient provost. His legal powers were too
limited to control the senior fellows, who were always caballing
against him, and he was of 'too soft and gentle a disposition to rule
so heady a company.' He was weary of his work and would readily take
an easier place and make room for 'one of a more rigid temper and
stouter disposition.' Both Laud and Wentworth were of the same opinion,
and the provost was glad to accept the archdeaconry of Meath, and
later the bishopric of Kildare along with it. William Chappell, Dean
of Cashel, was chosen provost in his place, though he had positively
refused to be named when Bedell resigned. Perhaps he thought anything
better than residence at Cashel. 'God knows,' he exclaimed, 'what I
suffered there!' He wrote his own life, or part of it, in Latin iambics
which are not very good for the head of a college; but he is perhaps
best known as the fellow and tutor of Christ's who is supposed to have
flogged John Milton. Wentworth went to the college himself and ordered
the fellows to elect Chappell, which they readily did; in any case the
King had determined that he should be the man. Laud re-edited Bedell's
revised statutes, and reduced the number of visitors from seven, among
whom Ussher had a preponderating influence, to three--namely, himself,
the Primate, and the Archbishop of Dublin, who was an Englishman and
certain not to oppose the Crown. Chappell was found to be a useful
instrument, though he did not work at all smoothly, and Wentworth
insisted on his accepting the bishopric of Cork and holding it along
with the provostship. This he was unwilling to do, having sworn that
he would not seek such a plurality of office either directly or
indirectly; but he was overruled by Wentworth and Radcliffe. Both
Ussher and Bramhall objected, and Laud evidently had misgivings, though
he yielded to the Lord Deputy. The distance of Cork from Dublin seemed
to him a real obstacle, though he considered that the appointment
was not illegal, since the provost had not in any way solicited his
bishopric. 'So here I stick,' cries Chappell, 'distracted between
remote places, both full of quarrels, which my soul abhors as my body
does the journeys.'[236]

[Sidenote: The Irish lecture abandoned.]

[Sidenote: English fellows imported.]

Chappell suppressed the Irish lecture, abandoning all idea of reaching
the natives through their own language; and this was in accordance
with Wentworth's policy. Above all things, wrote the latter to Laud,
'I would recommend that we might have half a dozen good scholars to
be sent over to us to be made fellows; there will be room for so many
once in a year, and this encouragement I will give them, _cæteris
paribus_ I will prefer them before any but my own chaplains, which, I
assure you, are not many.' Some were brought over accordingly, and one
of them, named Harding, became tutor to Wentworth's son; but at the
age of eleven he could hardly be considered a specimen undergraduate.
Falkland had also placed his eldest son in the college, where he took
his degree at fifteen. Wentworth's plan was to put Englishmen into
every position of power or influence in Ireland and to depress all of
native birth. Even Primate Ussher, though the Lord Deputy respected and
admired him, had much less influence than Bramhall. The King was to be
absolute in both islands and State being reduced to uniformity. That
was Thorough.[237]

FOOTNOTES:

[223] The pardon, November 7, 1625, is in Morrin's _Patent Rolls_;
Wilmot's submission, October 3, 1635, in _Strafford Letters_, i. 477,
and his letter to Wentworth, _ib._ ii. 41; Laud to Wentworth, _ib._ i.
479; Wilmot to Windebank May 28, 1636, Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_.

[224] _Strafford Letters_, i. 73, 99, 107, 250, 259, 306, 349, 403.
Mountnorris held his office during pleasure.

[225] Wentworth to Coke, December 14, 1635, enclosing the sentence of
the court-martial, in Strafford's letters; this is preferable, so far
as it goes, to the account in Rushworth's _Trial of Strafford_, where
the abstract contains inaccuracies. Lord Chancellor Loftus had no son
Adam, Sir Adam was his cousin. The Annesley whom Wentworth had rebuked
and who dropped the stool, and the Annesley who was Mountnorris's
lieutenant were brothers, but neither was the Vice-Treasurer's brother,
as is so often stated. Garrard to Wentworth, January 8, 1635-6.

[226] Lord Keeper Coventry to Wentworth, December 24, 1635; James
Howell to Wentworth, January 1; Garrard to Wentworth, January 8 and 25,
1635-6; Cottington to Wentworth, January 27; Coke to Wentworth, January
31, _Strafford Letters_; Wentworth to Price, February 14 in State
Papers, _Ireland_. See also Gardiner's _Hist. of England_, chap. 81.
For further details about the 6,000_l._ see Laud to Wentworth, February
4, 1635-6, in Laud's _Works_, vii. 240. Howell says Mountnorris's
discomfiture was popular at Court, but Garrard thought differently.
Clarendon's _Hist. of the Rebellion_, ii. 101.

[227] Rushworth's Trial of Strafford, _Court and Times_, ii. 271,
Wentworth to Coke, January 3, 1635-6; to Wandesford, July 25, 1636;
to Conway, January 6, 1637-8. Cal. of Clarendon Papers, February 13,
1635-6, July 18, 1636. Conway to Wentworth, October 23, 1637.

[228] A true copy of the sentence of war pronounced against Sir Francis
Annesley, Knight and Baron Mountnorris, etc., together with his
Lordship's petition, etc. London; printed for J. B., 1641.

[229] A good view of the Loftus case may be obtained from Arthur Earl
of Essex's report in the _Drogheda Papers_ in the Ninth Report of the
Hist. MSS. Comm., Appx. ii., and in the _House of Lords Papers_ in the
4th and 5th Reports. See also _Strafford Letters_, ii. 160-164, 257,
and _Rawdon Papers_, pp. 26, 54, and the _Barrett-Lennard Papers_ in
the third vol. of the Report of the Royal Hist. Commission on 'various
collections,' 1904.

[230] Besides the authorities quoted above there is the affidavit of
Henry Parry, sworn November 16, 1652, wherein it is stated that Loftus'
chaplain was not allowed to see him with a view to administering
the sacrament in his extreme illness. Parry thinks his treatment by
Strafford cost him 24,000_l._, and that he lost 80,000_l._ more by the
rebellion.--Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, 1647-1660, p. 576.

[231] Clarendon's _History_, iii. 115-117; Warwick's _Memoirs_, 116;
_Strafford Letters_, ii. 381.

[232] _Lismore Papers_, 2nd series, iv. 187. The case for Cork as
against Strafford is contained in both series of these papers, and is
summed up in Smith's _Hist. of Cork_, vol. i. chap. 3, and in Mrs.
Townshend's _Great Earl of Cork_. If these documents had been known to
Gardiner, he might have judged Lord Cork very differently.

[233] The Earl of Cork's Remembrances, April 22 to June 2, 1636, in
_Lismore Papers_, 2nd series, iii. 247, and his Diary, _ib._ 1st
series, iv. 175, 179. Report on the Youghal case calendared at May 3,
1634, in State Papers, _Ireland_, Laud to Wentworth, October 4, 1635,
in his _Works_, vii. 171. Mrs. Townshend's _Great Earl of Cork_, chap.
16, may be consulted with advantage.

[234] Wentworth to Conway, Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, March 12,
1635; Notes of the Star Chamber trial, _ib._ May 10, 1639; _Rushworth_,
iii. 888 and viii. 109; Wentworth to Sir John Bramston, C.J., April 12,
1639, in Browning's (really Forster's) _Life of Strafford_, 1892. And
see the note to Gardiner's _Hist. of England_, ix. 71.

[235] Ussher to Laud, in his _Works_, xv. 572-575; Laud to Wentworth,
March 11, 1633-34, in his _Works_, vi. 255; Wentworth to Laud, August
23, 1634, in _Strafford Letters_.

[236] Ussher to Dr. Ward, 1633 (before September); to Laud, July
9, 1638, in his _Works_; Laud to Bramhall, August 11, 1638, in his
_Works_, vi. 532--'the motion of the Provost's keeping the College,
though he was a Bishop, proceeded originally from the Lord Deputy, and
not from me'; to Wentworth, July 30, _ib._ vii. 43; to same, September
10, 1638, _ib._ vi. 535--'Methinks you might speak privately with the
Primate, and so do what you would with him. As for the Bishop of Derry,
I presume you can rule him; if not, you were better send the Provost
fairly with honour to his bishopric, and think of as good a successor
as you can for the college'; to same, December 29, 1638, _ib._ vi. 551.
Chappell's metrical autobiography is in Peck's _Desiderata Curiosa_,
Lib. xi.

[237] Wentworth to Laud, August 23, 1634, _Strafford Letters._ Further
details may be found in Stubbs's _Hist. of the Univ. of Dublin_, and in
Dr. Mahaffy's _Epoch in Irish Hist._




CHAPTER XVI

STRAFFORD'S GOVERNMENT, 1638-1640


[Sidenote: Wentworth's account of his stewardship, 1636.]

[Sidenote: The Church.]

[Sidenote: Finance.]

[Sidenote: The army.]

[Sidenote: Law reform.]

[Sidenote: Trade.]

Wentworth was in England from the beginning of June until late in
November 1636, rooms being assigned to him at Hampton Court. Wandesford
and the Chancellor were Lords Justices, and very careful to do nothing
of themselves, so that the Lord Deputy found the situation unchanged
at his return. His best work in Ireland was already done, and he was
able to give a very good account of it. Thirty thousand pounds a year
had been recovered for the Church, impropriations in the hands of the
Crown having been all restored to the clergy. A High Commission Court
had been erected, and measures taken to prevent improvident leases of
Church lands. Some progress had been made in restoring the churches,
most of which had been roofless ruins since the Desmond and Tyrone
wars. Decency was re-established in service time, as to which it may be
sufficient to say that Wentworth had found 'the communion table was sat
upon as ordinary as any other place.' The English canons were put in
force and the Thirty-nine Articles adopted, 'those of Ireland silenced
and passed by.' He had found an excess of expenditure amounting to
24,000_l._ over income, and a debt of 94,000_l._ An equilibrium had
now been established and the arrears cleared off; and a future surplus
of 50,000_l._ might be secured if his plans were not thwarted by hasty
grants. He had inspected every single man of the 2000 foot and 600
horse forming his army, 'the great peacemaker between the British and
the natives, between the Protestant and the <DW7>'; whereas some
former generals had been several years in Ireland without reviewing
one company. The troops were properly clothed, armed, and paid, and
discipline was so strict that the soldiers dared not take a chicken
without paying 'at the owner's price.' The law had been assimilated
by the late Parliament to that of England, and its administration was
greatly improved. Trade had increased by the almost total suppression
of piracy, and means were taken to encourage the growing and spinning
of flax. But revenue was in his eyes the most important part of
commerce, and the cloth business was depressed because it interfered
with an English staple industry, 'the rather that by the wool of
Ireland the King hath four times custom: first, when it is brought
into England, and here when it is landed, and then here when it is
transported in cloth, and also for the commodities which is returned.'
On the other hand, he persuaded the King to take off a lately imposed
export duty of four shillings a ton on coal for Ireland, and another
heavy one on horses, which interfered with his military plans; and
an import duty of eighteenpence and sixpence respectively upon Irish
cattle and sheep.[238]

[Sidenote: An earldom again refused.]

[Sidenote: Lady Carlisle.]

Wentworth was useful to the King in the ship-money trouble as well
as in Ireland, more than once expressing a wish that Mr. Hampden
should be well whipped into his right senses. He had Charles's entire
approbation, and wished for a mark of honour to carry back to his
government, without which it might be supposed that he was more or
less in disgrace at Court. The last rebuff had made him shy, and this
time he used Laud's mediation; but the earldom was again refused. No
answer was given to the Archbishop, who had observed that his Majesty
'loved extremely to have such things, especially once moved, to come
from himself,' and on this occasion the sovereign laid down that titles
were useful 'not to quell envy, but to reward service.' He had not much
regard for his minister's feelings. Wentworth knew very well that his
hold upon Ireland depended on the belief that he was firmly rooted in
the King's favour, and he would have liked some outward and visible
sign of it. He left London victorious for the time, but knowing that
he had many enemies in high places and very few real friends. During
this visit he formed a close alliance with Lady Carlisle, who had been
lately left a widow. Her husband bequeathed to her his interest in
Ireland, the value of which depended much upon the good will of the
all-powerful Lord Deputy. Financial considerations may have moved the
lady first, and Wentworth on his part may have desired the help of
someone who stood well with the Queen. At all events, the admiration
was mutual, for she even regulated her movements by his, and was
repaid, as her sister Lady Leicester reported, by having 'more power
with him than any creature.' When he reached York he was nearly killed
with feasting, after which he had a few weeks' rest in the country.
'With what quietness in myself,' he wrote from Gawthorp, 'could I live
here in comparison with that noise and labour I meet with elsewhere;
and I protest put up more crowns in my purse at the year's end too.
But we'll let that pass, for I am not like to enjoy that blessed
condition upon earth. And therefore my resolution is set to endure and
struggle with it as long as this crazy body will bear it, and finally
drop into the silent grave where both all these and myself are to be
forgotten.'[239]

[Sidenote: Wentworth supreme in Ireland.]

[Sidenote: His Irish estates.]

[Sidenote: Country life.]

[Sidenote: Game laws.]

Wentworth returned to Ireland late in 1636, and remained there for
more than two years and a half. He continued to pursue the policy
already described, and as he had completely defeated his enemies at
Court his power was greater than ever, notwithstanding the last rebuff
about an earl's coronet. In every dispute he was victorious, though
we know from what happened afterwards that there was deep discontent.
He did not neglect his own affairs, and though he knew well by how
frail a tenure he held authority, the founder of a dynasty could
scarcely have proceeded with greater confidence. As a man of fortune,
he could afford to wait for profits, and his delight in building and
planting was great. He had 6000_l._ a year in England, which was a
great deal in those days; and he told Laud that his expenditure in
Ireland far exceeded his official emoluments. He did, however, acquire
a large Irish estate, though he is not seriously accused of getting
it by unfair means. In 1637 he had bought land worth some 13,000_l._,
but his debts had increased by more than half that amount. A country
residence for himself and his successors and another for the King's
representative, or for the sovereign himself should he visit Ireland,
occupied as much of his time and thoughts as could be spared from
public business. His love of the country was genuine. Writing from his
Yorkshire home in 1623, he says that his ambition there was limited
to 'looking on a tulip, hearing a bird sing, a rivulet murmuring, or
some such petty and innocent pastime ... having recovered more in a day
by an open country air than in a fortnight's time in that smothering
one of London.' He was fond of field sports, and as there were no
partridges near Dublin, he trained sparrow-hawks to fly at blackbirds.
'It is excellent sport,' he told Cottington, 'there being sometimes
two hundred horse in the field looking upon us.' In Tipperary he found
plenty of partridges, and killed them daily with his hawk, wishing that
his children had some of the plums which that county also produced.
In Wicklow he amused himself by shooting outlying bucks, complaining
that he was bitten all over by much worse midges than are found in
England--'surely they are younger brothers to the muskitoes the Indies
brag of so much.' By a drastic proclamation he tried to preserve all
pheasants, grouse, and partridges within seven miles of Dublin or
five miles of Naas. From time to time he sent eels, salt fish, and
dried venison to Laud, who much appreciated these delicacies, while
laughing at the badness of the hung beef which Wentworth procured
from Yorkshire. On one occasion he sent the Archbishop ninety-two
skins of the pine-marten, now very rare, to line a gown with. Ormonde
entertained him twice, at Carrick-on-Suir and Kilkenny Castle, which he
greatly admired as well as the country round. In writing to his wife he
praised or criticised the ladies' looks, but found no time to notice
their dresses. At Kilkenny, he says, 'the town entertained us with the
force of oratory and the fury of poetry, and rather taught me what I
should be than told me what I am.'[240]

[Sidenote: Strafford's buildings.]

[Sidenote: The park of parks.]

'They say I build up to the sky,' Wentworth wrote in the autumn of
1637; but he had already several houses in Yorkshire, and his object
was a public one. At Sigginstown or Jigginstown, near Naas, he had
almost completed a palace at an expense of 6000_l._ The King might
have it at cost price, otherwise he would bear the loss himself. He
dissuaded his wife from joining him there while he was wrangling
with workmen, but hoped it would soon be ready to receive her. Just
six years afterwards Ormonde's truce with the rebels was signed in
this very house, which still stands, though roofless. It was built
of bricks, probably Dutch-made, and there is a doubtful tradition
that they were transmitted from hand to hand all the way from Dublin.
Wentworth talked about spending 1200_l._ upon a residence for himself
in what he calls 'the park of parks' near Tinahely in Wicklow,
intending it as a health resort which might enable him to disappoint
his enemies by living a little longer. The foundations of this house,
locally known as 'Black Tom's Kitchen', may still be seen; but the
lands of Fairwood have for the most part been sold to the tenants, who
have converted the fine old trees into ready money. Wentworth's last
visit was in August 1639, but he seems to have lived in a temporary
wooden building, and the strong stone house was never finished. He
then hoped to leave to his son one of the finest places in the King's
dominions, 'where a grass-time may be passed with most pleasure of that
kind,' a good house and an income of near 3000_l._, with 'wood on the
ground as much, I daresay, if near London, as would yield 50,000_l._,
besides a house within twelve miles of Dublin, the best in Ireland,
and land to it which I hope will be 2000_l._ a year.'[241]

[Sidenote: Wentworth becomes the King's chief adviser, 1639.]

[Sidenote: His misgivings.]

While at Doncaster, after the treaty of Berwick, the King saw a
messenger from Wentworth, who gave him his latest ideas on the Loftus
case. Charles reached London on August 2 1639, and within three weeks
it was known that the Lord Deputy would be sent for and perhaps made
Lord Treasurer. He arrived at his own house in Covent Garden on
September 21, and became virtually chief minister until the meeting
of the Long Parliament, though his advice was not always taken. Juxon
remained in charge of an empty Treasury. Lord Dillon and Wandesford had
been left in Ireland as Lords Justices, but Radcliffe was more trusted
than anyone. Wentworth did not neglect the affairs of Ireland, but he
had no time to write at length, though he was able to bring the Loftus
affair to the conclusion he desired. He was particularly anxious that
Lady Carlisle's interests in Ireland should not be neglected, and no
doubt he often saw her. While devoting himself heart and soul to the
King's affairs, he was under no illusion as to their evil condition.
Writing from St. Albans on the morning of the day when he reached
London, 'I find,' he told Radcliffe, 'a great expectation is drawn
upon me, for which I am most sorry; and the nearer I come to it the
more my heart fails me; nor can I promise unto myself any good by this
journey.'[242]

[Sidenote: Wentworth advises a Parliament.]

[Sidenote: He is made Lord Lieutenant and Earl of Strafford]

On November 19, in the King's presence, the Privy Council gave judgment
for Wentworth against the Irish Chancellor. Very soon afterwards it was
decided on his recommendation that a Parliament should be held both in
England and Ireland, and he fancied that some popularity had come to
him in consequence. So much did Charles lean on him, that his presence
at the opening of both Parliaments was considered necessary. He tried
to maintain Sir John Coke in office, but indeed the Secretary was
superannuated, and he failed to obtain the succession for Leicester,
the appointment being given to Vane, whom he hated and despised. But
he was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a title which had not been
conferred since Devonshire's time, with power to appoint a deputy,
and so to direct affairs on both sides of St. George's Channel; and
he received the earldom which had been twice refused. He had the
bad taste to take a second title from Vane's house at Raby, and the
latter bitterly resented what was probably an intentional insult on
Strafford's part; 'and I believe,' says Clarendon, 'it was the loss of
his head.'[243]

[Sidenote: Strafford reconciled to the Queen.]

[Sidenote: An Irish army to subdue Scotland.]

[Sidenote: An Irish Parliament, March, 1640.]

Before taking leave of the King, Strafford attended a meeting of the
Council, where a subscription was opened to meet his Majesty's most
pressing needs, and he headed the list with 20,000_l._ He left London
on March 5 in the Queen's coach and six, which shows that he had
been reconciled to her, and carried with him instructions as to the
Irish Parliament. The King enlarged upon the enormities of the Scots,
professing himself sure of Ireland, and demanding six subsidies to
be paid in three years, but holding out hopes of two being remitted
if the misguided faction in North Britain should submit to his just
desires. That he did not much expect such submission is clear from
his determination to raise 8,000 foot and 1000 horse in Ireland, 'the
better and more speedily to reduce those others in Scotland to their
due obedience.' Strafford was attacked by gout at Beaumaris, but
hastened over to Ireland, determined, whatever pain he might have, to
be back in time for the opening of Parliament at Westminster--'I should
not fail, though Sir John Eliot were living.' Halt, lame, or blind, he
would be true to the King's service, and he reflected on what he might
be able to do with legs, since he was so brave without them. The Irish
Parliament had been summoned for March 16, and the Lord-Lieutenant
did not land until two days later. The Lords Justices and Council had
already determined to ask for four subsidies, for six had been voted
on a former occasion, and they feared an exact repetition lest the
taxpayers might take alarm at the prospect of a recurrent charge.
Nothing was actually done until Strafford arrived on the 18th, after
forty-eight hours tossing in the channel. On the 19th he summoned the
Council, and next day opened Parliament in state, and confirmed the
election of Sir Maurice Eustace as Speaker of the House of Commons.
Eustace made a pompous oration, containing six long quotations from
Horace and abundance of other Latin. 'The Brehon law,' he said, 'with
her two brats of tanistry and Irish gavelkind, like the children of the
bondwoman, are cast out as spurious and adulterate.' Everyone rejoiced
to see that the son of the free woman prevailed, and the King's
subjects should boast that they only had peace, while France, Germany,
Spain, and the dominions of the House of Austria were laid waste by
war.[244]

[Sidenote: Four subsidies voted.]

[Sidenote: Subservience of Parliament.]

[Sidenote: Declaration in praise of Strafford.]

In his opening speech to Parliament, which the journals say was
excellent, Strafford, having heard Wandesford and the rest, ventured
slightly to vary the King's instructions. Instead of demanding six
subsidies he allowed four to be moved for, and they were granted with
such alacrity that he acknowledged the plan of the Council to be best,
and confidently affirmed his belief that the Commons would be ready to
give as many subsidies more after the first four had been levied. Some
members, indeed, declared themselves ready to give the fee of their
estates, if occasion required, and to leave themselves nothing but hose
and doublet. The native representatives were loud in their loyalty, and
there were no dissentient voices, 'all expressing even with passion
how much they abhorred the Scotch Covenanters.' Not only were the
subsidies voted, but a declaration of the most extreme character was
agreed to. Both Houses were ready to give their all for the reduction
of the Covenanters, and desired that this should be 'published in print
for a testimony to all the world and succeeding ages that as this
kingdom hath the happiness to be governed by the best of kings, so they
are desirous to give his Majesty just cause to account of this people
amongst the best of his subjects.' To complete the Lord Lieutenant's
momentary triumph, the preamble of the Subsidy Bill was a panegyric
upon that 'just, wise, vigilant, and profitable governor.' He was given
full credit for the Commission for defective titles, for restoring the
Church and reforming the army, for his justice and impartiality, and
for his 'care to relieve and redress the poor and oppressed.' On March
31 he came down again to the House of Lords in state, and gave the
royal assent to the Subsidy and eight other Bills. The declaration had
been entered on the Parliament roll, and Strafford took care to have
some hundreds of copies printed for distribution by him in England. The
clergy taxed themselves very heavily, and so a revenue was provided for
some years. Strafford seems actually to have believed that the King
was infinitely reverenced in Ireland, and that he himself was quite
popular, though some spiteful people had asserted the contrary. 'God
forgive their calumnies,' he said, 'and I do.'[245]

FOOTNOTES:

[238] Report by the Lord Deputy, June 21, 1636, State Papers,
_Ireland_; Wentworth to Wandesford, July 25, _Strafford Letters_, ii.
13-23.

[239] Laud to Wentworth, August 31, September 8 and 26, 1636, _Works_,
vi. 466, vii. 279, 288; Wentworth to the King and to Laud, August 17
and 23; the King to Wentworth, September 3, _Strafford Letters_, ii.
26, 32; Dorothy, Countess of Leicester, to her husband, November 10 and
January 10, 1636-7, Collins's _Sidney Papers_, ii. 444, 456.

[240] Wentworth to Laud, September 27, 1637; to Conway, June 16,
1623; to Cottington, November 24, 1633; to Laud, May 23, 1638, all in
_Strafford Letters_; to his wife, August 1638, in Cooper's _Life of
Strafford_, ii. 39-41. The proclamation of August 3, 1637, dilates on
the importance of providing sport for the Lord Deputy and Council. No
licence to shoot with 'hail-shot' was to be granted unless the holder
would give a bond not to use it within the bounds mentioned in the
text. The privileged tract was reserved to Councillors of State for
hawking.

[241] Wentworth to Laud, September 27, 1637; to Lady Clare, August
10, 1639, in _Strafford Letters_; to his wife, September 12, 1637, in
Cooper's _Life of Strafford_, ii. 43. Naas is twenty English miles from
Dublin, a good deal more than twelve Irish, and Tinahely fifty-three
miles.

[242] R. Weckherlin to Sir John Coke, August 25, 1639, _Melbourne Hall
Papers_; W. Raylton to same, August 13, _ib._; Wentworth to Radcliffe,
September 21 and October 28 in Whitaker's _Life of Radcliffe_, 181-3.

[243] Wentworth to Radcliffe, December 10, 1639, in Whitaker's _Life
of Radcliffe_, 187. Speech on being made an Earl, January 12, 1639-40,
_Strafford Letters_, ii. 390. Coke's dismissal from the secretaryship
was decided before December 13, _Melbourne Hall Papers_, ii. 245. 'The
King declared his resolution for a Parliament in case of the Scottish
rebellion. The first movers to it were my Lord Deputy of Ireland, my
Lord Marquis Hamilton, and myself'--Laud's Diary, December 5, 1639,
_Works_, iii. 233, 283.

[244] _Irish Commons Journals_; Council of Ireland to Windebank, March
19; Strafford to the King, March 23, _Strafford Letters_, ii. 394-6.

[245] _Irish Commons Journals; Irish Statutes_, 15 Car. I.; _Strafford
Letters_, March 16-April 3, 1639-40, ii. 394-403. The Declaration is
in _Nalson_, i. 283. If further evidence were needed of Strafford's
complete reconciliation with the Queen, we have Madame de Motteville's:
'Il avait été brouillé avec la Reine, mais depuis quelque temps il
était lié à ses intérêts,' _Mémoires_, chap. 9. There is a useful
itinerary for Strafford in the ninth volume of the _Camden Miscellany_.
Cork says in his diary that Strafford left London very early 'to avoid
the concourse of myself and many others that desired to wait upon him,'
_Lismore Papers_, 1st series, v. 129.




CHAPTER XVII

STRAFFORD'S ARMY


[Sidenote: Plan to reduce the Scots. Lord Antrim.]

[Sidenote: Antrim's plan of invasion.]

[Sidenote: Wentworth disapproves of his schemes.]

As soon as the troubles in Scotland began it was natural that Charles
should expect help from Ireland. The first proposals came from Tyrone's
grandson, Randal MacDonnell, second Earl of Antrim, whose handsome
person had recommended him to the widowed Duchess of Buckingham.
Having conformed to the State Church to please her first husband, she
reverted to her original faith to please her second. The marriage of
his friend's wife was displeasing to Charles, and perhaps this made
her second husband the more anxious to do some signal service, or at
least to have the credit of intending it. Antrim was a man of much
ambition and some cunning, but his practical abilities were small, and
neither Strafford, Ormonde, nor Clarendon rated him highly. He had
been 'bred in the Highland way, and wore neither hat, cap, shoes, nor
stockings till seven or eight years old,' and a Highlander he remained
to the end. His extravagance at Court had involved him in debt to the
enormous amount of 80,000_l._, and Wentworth believed that the sale of
his whole estate would not fetch such a sum. Hatred of the Campbells
was his strongest passion. In July 1638 he asked Wentworth to supply
him with arms to be kept in a magazine in Coleraine ready to use in
case of an invasion by the dreaded clan, and six months later he
credited Argyle with the intention of getting a law passed 'that to
the end of the world no MacDonnell should be allowed to enjoy a foot
of land in Scotland.' Charles was doubtful how far it would be wise
to entrust a magazine of arms to one of Antrim's creed, but desired
the Lord Deputy and Council to 'favour him as much as anyone of his
profession in religion.' In February Wentworth told the King that the
demand for arms had not been pressed, 'my lord of Antrim perceiving
I am not ignorant of his great want of money, his credit to be so
low, as not able at this very instant to take up in Dublin poor three
hundred pounds.' Charles, however, wrote to Antrim, encouraging him to
fit out an expedition against the Scottish isles by way of making a
diversion in his favour. Windebank prudently sent a copy of the letter
to Wentworth, who was thus prepared for a sudden visit from Antrim on
March 9. The Lord Deputy's caustic criticism had taken some effect,
and the proposed 20,000 men were reduced to 5400, but the conditions
of even this modified plan might have displeased a much more patient
man than Wentworth. Among Antrim's demands were the right to appoint
his own officers, power to cut timber in the royal woods, a loan of
20,000_l._, and four of the King's ships under his own command. Twelve
field pieces, bows and arrows, muskets, carbines, pistols, swords,
armour, and buff coats were all to be provided by Government, and more
barrels of powder than the royal stores contained. One hundred old
soldiers were to be detached to drill the new levies, and Antrim talked
of bringing Irish officers over from Spain.[246]

[Sidenote: Antrim's plan is abandoned.]

[Sidenote: A primitive commissariat.]

[Sidenote: Danger of a Celtic army.]

Wentworth knew that the raw material of an army was plentiful in
Ireland, and that 40,000 'bodies of men,' to use an old phrase of Sir
Henry Sidney's--might easily be had. But to pay, feed, and train them
was another matter, and no one knew better the difference between an
army and a mob. Neither money, arms, material, nor drill-sergeants
could be spared to such a projector as Antrim. 'I desired,' said
Wentworth, 'to know what provision of victual his lordship had thought
of, which for so great a number of men would require a great sum of
money. His lordship said he had not made any at all, in regard he
conceived they should find sufficient in the enemy's country to sustain
them, only his lordship proposed to transport over with him ten
thousand live cows to furnish them with milk, which he affirmed had
been his grandfather's (Tyrone's) play.' It was suggested that Argyle
might drive off his cattle, and that Cantire and the Hebrides were
barren tracts. Antrim said his men could 'feed their horses with leaves
of trees, and themselves with shamrocks.' Wentworth doubted whether
there were any trees in the Western Islands, and was at all events sure
that they would not be in full foliage in the early spring, so that
there would be no hurry. The end of it all was that Antrim found he
could not have the whole resources of the Government at his disposal.
Having no money or credit, he could do nothing of himself, though the
King gave him a commission of lieutenancy over the western Highlands
and islands. Wentworth saw clearly the danger of raising a force in
Ireland which it would be impossible to pay. 'What sudden outrage,' he
wrote prophetically, 'may be apprehended from so great a number of the
native Irish, children of habituated rebels, brought together without
pay or victual, armed with our own weapons, ourselves left naked the
whilst? What scandal of his Majesty's service it might be in a time
thus conditioned to employ a general and a whole army in a manner Roman
Catholics? What affright or pretence this might give for the Scottish,
who are at least fourscore thousand in those parts, to arm also,
under colour of their own defence?' With a general and soldiers alike
ignorant the whole scheme would be much more likely to draw a Scotch
invasion upon Ireland than to strengthen the King in Scotland. Antrim
had not even decided in his own mind which island to land on--any one
of eighty, he thought, would do.[247]

[Sidenote: Plans for a diversion in Scotland.]

[Sidenote: A garrison for Carlisle. Sir F. Willoughby.]

The idea of using the Irish army in Great Britain originated with
Charles himself. In July 1638 he inquired what help he might expect in
the event of an outbreak in Scotland. Wentworth answered that he had
only 2000 foot and 600 horse, and that it would not be safe to send
away any, especially since the Ulster Scots undoubtedly sympathised
with their countrymen. He would have Charles trust his English
subjects, but could only recommend the most ruthless repression for
Scotland. Leith might be permanently fortified and garrisoned at the
expense of the Scots 'till they had received our common prayer-book
used in our churches of England without any alteration, the bishops
settled peaceably in their jurisdiction,' and English law substituted
for Scotch. For his own part he could only propose to concentrate
a large part of his small army in north-east Ulster. At the King's
suggestion he raised 400 additional horse, a troop of 110 cuirassiers
being given to Ormonde as the man in Ireland most able and willing
to maintain them effectively. Money was sent to Holland to provide
arms for the new men, and the equipment of the foot was also much
improved. On October 22 Charles wrote to propose that Wentworth should
provide a garrison of 500 men for Carlisle, and also some cannon if
they could be spared from Ireland. The business was taken in hand at
once, Sir Francis Willoughby, governor of Galway, being selected to
command the expedition. The pay in Ireland was sixpence a day, in
England eightpence, and Wentworth asked that they might be paid on the
higher scale after crossing the channel. Charles promised, but could
not perform this, though he did give some money by way of bounty, and
in June 1641 the regiment was back in Ireland, and their pay heavily
in arrear. Willoughby had been forty years a soldier, twenty-five in
the Netherlands, and his experience at Carlisle confirmed him in the
opinion that the discipline of great garrisons was best maintained by
paying the men well and punishing their misdemeanours.[248]

[Sidenote: Nucleus of the new Irish army.]

Each captain of foot was ordered to pick thirteen of the best unmarried
men out of the ranks, and the number was thus made up. Scots were
carefully weeded out, lest they should be tempted to correspond with
their own countrymen. The drafts were ordered to Ulster on pretence of
garrisons being required for Carrickfergus, Londonderry, and Coleraine.
'For keeping a place,' said Wentworth, 'shot is of more use than pike,
and without controversy muskets of more execution than calivers.' Three
hundred and fifty were therefore musketeers and the residue pikemen.
Willoughby landed at Whitehaven on April 1, 1639, and was at Carlisle
a few days later, where he remained until all idea of fighting the
Scots had been given up. His regiment was the admiration of the whole
country, and commanding officers begged eagerly 'for the loan of some
of our soldiers to come and learn their soldiers to exercise.' No
glory was to be gained in that war, but the excellence of Willoughby's
men was so evident, that Charles determined to raise a new Irish army
of 8000 men, expressly 'to reduce those in Scotland to their due
obedience.' Wentworth had conceived this idea long before, but he
intended all the men to be Protestants, and of British extraction as
far as possible. By the middle of 1639 he had not only his standing
army of 3000 men in perfect order, but had provided 8000 spare arms
with twelve field pieces and eight heavy guns.[249]

[Sidenote: 9000 men to be raised.]

[Sidenote: Strafford sees the danger.]

Wentworth was in England from September to March 1639-40, and as the
result of this visit steps were taken to levy 8000 foot and 1000 horse
in Ireland. This was the germ of the policy which ruined both Charles
I. and James II., and which has never succeeded with any statesman. To
lean upon Irish Roman Catholic support in order to crush opposition in
Protestant England was plainly the idea of Charles himself much more
than of Strafford; for the latter saw the danger clearly enough, though
he wilfully neglected it in pursuit of his 'thorough' ideal. It may
be said that Strafford would have succeeded if his King had seconded
him properly, but then no really able sovereign would have adopted
such a scheme. Lady Carlisle has recorded that in addition to that
which Charles consulted there was 'another little junto, that is much
apprehended,' consisting of Strafford, Laud, and Hamilton only. 'They
have met twice, and the world is full of guesses for the occasion of
it.'[250]

[Sidenote: The sinews of war.]

[Sidenote: Charles promises to find money,]

[Sidenote: but fails to do so.]

The King's order to raise the new army was issued on March 2, and
Strafford hurried over to provide funds in Ireland; he seems really
to have believed that love and not fear made the Irish Parliament so
subservient as to vote what he asked for. The raising of the new men
was taken in hand at once, and he hoped to have them all ready at
Carrickfergus by the middle of May, and in Scotland by the end of June.
He would keep them together and pay them for eighteen months, provided
the King did his part. The conditions were that 10,000_l._ should be
at once given to buy necessaries in Holland, and 40,000_l._ more at
short intervals. 'We are resolved,' Strafford told Windebank, 'to bring
as much as possible to Ireland in specie, which will give a life even
to the payment of our subsidies here, by the passing of so much ready
money from hand to hand, than which I assure you nothing is so much
wanting in this kingdom.' The rents of Londonderry and Coleraine were
to be remitted from the English to the Irish Exchequer. All powder was
to be provided in England without payment. The King's ships were to
keep the channel clear, two thousand foot and five hundred horse were
to join the Irish army in Cumberland, and Ireland was to be relieved
from payment of the garrison at Carlisle. Orders were sent to London to
draw the 10,000_l._ at once, but when Strafford, suffering agony and
borne in a litter, reached Coventry in the middle of April, he was told
that there was no money in the Exchequer. Strafford had done his part,
but the King could give him no help, and the Irish army never crossed
the channel. The mere fact that it had been raised cost them both their
heads.[251]

[Sidenote: Danger of enrolling native Irish soldiers.]

[Sidenote: Command given to Ormonde.]

[Sidenote: Most of the men Roman Catholics.]

[Sidenote: The Irish army is kept up after Newburn.]

No one saw possible danger more clearly than Strafford, but his
political position forced him into courses which in his cooler moments
he knew to be desperate. To enlist no Scots was an obvious precaution,
but there were other dangers not less real though more remote. The
Irish, he told the King, might do good service, for they hated the
Scots and their religion; 'yet it is not safe to train them up more
than needs must in the military way, which, the present occasion past,
might arm their old affections to do us more mischief, and put new
and dangerous thoughts into them after they are returned home (as of
necessity they must) without further employment or provision than what
they had of their own before.' Nevertheless, his first and much safer
plan of a Protestant army was forgotten, and he proceeded to impress
large numbers of Irish Roman Catholics. The dreaded result followed,
but before that time he had perished on the scaffold, and the evil
that he had done lived after him. The command of the new army was
given to Ormonde, the enrolment and preliminary drill being left to
St. Leger with the title of Sergeant-Major-General. The commissioners
for raising the subsidies were entrusted with the levy, and officers
were appointed at once. The old army consisted entirely, or almost
entirely, of Protestants, and one thousand men, drafted proportionally
from each company, became the nucleus of the new force. Carte would
have us believe that in consequence of these veterans 'being invested
with authority or in a state of superiority over the rest of the new
army, had it absolutely in their power; and it was of little or no
consequence what religion the other private sentinels which composed
it professed.' This might have held good if the army had been kept
together with regular pay and under a stable Government. But it was
the day of disbandment that Strafford feared, and it was the disbanded
soldiers who made the greatest difficulty when the struggle between
King and Parliament had almost paralysed the Irish Government. The bulk
of the men who were raised to put down the Scotch Covenanters were
Irish Roman Catholics, and would be sure to take sides against England
when occasion offered. Even the officers were to some extent open to
the same objection. In the regiment raised by Colonel John Butler in
Leinster Rory Maguire and Arthur Fox, both well-known in the subsequent
rebellion, had companies. Theobald Taaffe was lieutenant-colonel of the
regiment raised by Coote in Connaught, and Sir John Netterville had
a company in that levied by Bruce in Connaught, and there were many
Roman Catholics among the junior officers. The headquarters staff were
all English Protestants, but their influence ceased with disbandment.
There were many delays, but the whole force was at Carrickfergus by
the middle of July, and a month later St. Leger was able to say that
no prince in Christendom had a better or more orderly army. The rout
at Newburn took place a few days later, and after the treaty of Ripon
there could be no real chance of using the Irish army against the
Scots. They were, however, kept together, and when the Long Parliament
met in November this was not unnaturally regarded as a threatening
cloud.[252]

[Sidenote: The Irish army disbanded.]

[Sidenote: One regiment goes to France.]

[Sidenote: Those engaged for Spain are stopped.]

[Sidenote: Sir B. Rudyard's speech.]

Strafford was beheaded on May 12, 1641. Four days before Charles
ordered Ormonde to disband the new army, adding that to prevent
disturbance he had licensed certain officers to transport 8000 foot
'for the service of any prince or state at amity with us.' These
officers were Colonels James Dillon, Theobald Taaffe, John and Garret
Barry, Richard Plunket, John Butler, John Bermingham, George Porter,
and Christopher Bellings. Of these the first seven at least were
afterwards active confederates. Bellings alone sought to secure a
regiment for the French service, and, as became one who worked for
Richelieu, he lost no time, but slipped away 'very quietly' with a
thousand picked men before the end of June, in spite of the efforts of
priests and friars. Lieutenant Flower, who understood Irish, heard a
priest tell the soldiers at Drogheda that they ought to stay, though
they got only bread and water. Flower said the King allowed them to
go, to which he answered that the King was but one man. The other
colonels, having to deal with Spain, were of course late, and did
not appear until Bellings had gone. Then, yielding to parliamentary
pressure on both sides of the channel, Charles changed his mind in
August and would only give leave to the two Barrys, Porter, and Taaffe
to transport a thousand men each. In the end no shipping could be
had, for the English House of Commons passed a resolution against the
transportation of soldiers by merchants from any port in the King's
dominions. The Spaniards had no ships of their own, and so the men
remained in Ireland. Colonel John Barry did manage to embark some
400 men, but his vessel never left the Liffey. There can be no doubt
that the disbanded soldiers were more dangerous in Ireland than they
would have been in Spain, but it is unnecessary to suppose that the
parliamentary leaders had any wish to make mischief in this way.
Rudyard probably expressed the ideas of the majority when he objected
to strengthen France by recruiting her armies, or Spain in order to
enable her to crush Portugal. 'It was never fit,' he said, 'to suffer
the Irish to be promiscuously made soldiers abroad, because it may make
them abler to trouble the State when they come home. Their intelligence
and practice with the princes whom they shall serve may prove dangerous
to that kingdom of Ireland.' He thought work could be found for them as
harvesters in England.[253]

[Sidenote: The disbandment quietly effected, May 1641.]

The new army of which St. Leger had been so proud had become somewhat
disorderly when their pay began to be irregular. But the actual
disbandment was quietly effected. Pay ceased on May 25, but the Council
managed to scrape up 8000_l._, out of the 18,000_l._ due. Each soldier
was persuaded to take seven shillings as a donative and three shillings
on account of pay, while 50_l._ was assigned to each company for the
officers, many of whom got nothing more until the Restoration. The men
gave up their arms quietly, and dispersed, having been reminded that
they were amenable to the law and not privileged in any way. There were
no outrages, and sheriffs of counties were specially charged to keep
the peace.[254]

[Sidenote: French and Spanish crimps.]

[Sidenote: English settlers pressed.]

The disbanded soldiers in Ireland constituted a grave danger, as every
one could see when the rebellion had actually broken out, and which
some saw at the time of disbanding. But the other danger from great
bodies of Irishmen in the pay of foreign powers seemed to many greater
at the time, and was certainly not small. Antrim had failed, but
Lord Barrymore had succeeded in raising men for service in England,
most of whom must have drifted back to Ireland after the treaty of
Ripon. Barrymore complained bitterly of a 'swarm of interloping French
mountebanks who wander on their levies with titles and commissions
of their own stamp and coinage, with which they are so prided up, as
some of them have dared to contest for pressed men with my employed
servants.' Three hundred volunteers, collected for him by an O'Sullivan
were thus enticed away, and he believed that Strafford's enemy Sir
Piers Crosbie was at the bottom of it all. Barrymore landed in
Lancashire before the middle of June 1639, but with much less than the
thousand men whom he was authorised to raise. He had no money to tempt
recruits, and when his agents visited Kinsale the common people ran
away as from an enemy. They took bribes from the better sort. These
crimps even seized men actually engaged by the Government and employed
in the public service, and appear to have taken a malicious pleasure
in pouncing on English settlers whenever possible. Strafford observed
that this was not the way to encourage English enterprise, nor to make
intended plantations a success. If the King wanted Irish soldiers let
him send over money to the regular officials, and they would do the
work much better and cheaper than these Irish lords, 'who always either
out of too much love to their own, or out of over little knowledge
of the customs of England in these cases, express some Irish manner
or other, either very unseemly in itself, or pretending their own
greatness, further than well consists with the modesty of subjects.'
Barrymore, however, proved a brave and loyal soldier in spite of this
bad beginning.[255]

[Sidenote: Recruiting for Spain allowed.]

[Sidenote: Owen Roe O'Neill and Preston.]

[Sidenote: The French service found better than the Spanish.]

The Spaniards were allowed to recruit in Ireland during the whole of
Strafford's reign, though he had his misgivings from the first, and
though he warned Charles even before he crossed the channel for the
first time. 'It had been the safer for your Majesty to have given
liberty for the raising five times as many here in England; because
these could not have been debauched in their faith, where those were
not free of suspicion, especially being put under command of O'Neill
and O'Donnell, the sons of two infamous and arch-traitors, and so
likely not only to be trained up in the discipline of war, but in the
art of rebellion also. Secondly, as your Majesty's deputy I must tell
him, if the state of this kingdom were the same as in Queen Elizabeth's
time, I should more apprehend the travel and disturbance which two
hundred of these men might give us here, being natives, and experienced
in their own faculty as soldiers, being sent to mutiny and discipline
their own countrymen against the Crown, than of as many more Spaniards,
as they sent in those days to Kinsale for relief of the rebels.'
This opinion he retained to the end. He was allowed to appoint two
officers, and he selected men who could be trusted to give him a true
account of what went on in the Spanish Netherlands. Owen Roe O'Neill
became the favourite leader of the Irish in Belgium, but Wentworth
preferred Preston. Nevertheless men who were engaged for the latter's
regiment very often went over to the former. The French also got no
small number of Irish recruits, though they were less favoured by the
Government of Charles I. Intercepted letters in 1635 showed that Paris
was 'pestered with Irish of all sorts, from all parts,' while whole
companies raised for the Spanish Netherlands 'suffered themselves to
be debauched by the French ambassador, and now serve under the French
colours.' Irish officers deserted the Spanish for the French service to
get better and more regular pay, and Secretary Coke was clear-sighted
enough to see that the Irish troops of both powers would probably turn
against England in the end, 'and join together to replant themselves at
home.'[256]

FOOTNOTES:

[246] _Strafford Letters_, ii. 184, 211, 266-306. For personal details
see Hill's _Macdonnells of Antrim_. Lord Deputy and Council to Coke,
_Melbourne Hall MSS._ calendared by Hist. MSS. Comm. under July 1637,
but apparently belonging to 1639.

[247] Wentworth to Windebank, March 20, 1638-9, enclosing Antrim's
written proposals, _Strafford Letters_. Charles's informal commission
to Antrim, dated June 5, 1639, is printed in Hill's Macdonnells of
Antrim, Appx. 12, _Melbourne Hall MSS._, _ut sup._

[248] Willoughby to Wentworth, six letters in May and June 1639
in _Strafford Letters_; to Vane, June 18, 1641, in State Papers,
_Ireland_; to Coke, July 23, 1639, in _Melbourne Hall Papers_.

[249] _Strafford Letters_, ii. 187, 228, 244, etc. There are six
letters from Willoughby to Wentworth during April and May 1639, and
see his letter to Vane of June 18, 1641, in State Papers, _Ireland_;
Wentworth to Cottington, February 10, 1638-9, in vol. ix. of _Camden
Miscellany_.

[250] Lady Carlisle to Leicester, October 17, 1639, Collins's _Sidney
Papers_.

[251] Northumberland to Leicester, December 12, 1639, Collins's _Sidney
Papers_, ii. 624; Strafford to Coke, March 16, 1639-40; to the King,
March 23; to Windebank and Hamilton, March 24; to the King, April 16,
1640, _Strafford Letters_.

[252] Wentworth to the King, July 28, 1638, _Strafford Letters_;
Carte's _Ormonde_, book ii. Army List among _Carte transcripts_, vol.
i., to which is appended a note that 'this army was the 10,000 men
raised for the expedition into Scotland.'

[253] The King to Ormonde, May 8, 1641, and Vane to same, August
20, Carte's _Ormonde_, vol. iii.; Council of Ireland to Vane, June
30; Petition of Irish Colonels to the King, August 8, State Papers,
_Ireland_. Rudyard's speech, August 28, in _Rushworth_. Resolution of
embargo in _Nalson_, ii. 477.

[254] An unsigned paper of May 7, 1641, as to pledging private credit
for the money; Lords Justices and Council to the Sheriffs, May 21, and
to Vane, June 1; Ormonde to Vane, May 21 and June 9, State Papers,
_Ireland_.

[255] Barrymore to Cork, May 26, 1639, _Lismore Papers_, 2nd series,
vol. iv.; Wentworth to Coke, May 18, 1639, _Strafford Letters_, ii.
342; letters of Sir Adam Loftus in State Papers, _Ireland_, April 26
and 29, 1641.

[256] Wentworth to the King, July 16, 1633; to Preston, October 1,
1635; Coke to Wentworth, January 21, 1634-5; Colonel Thomas Preston to
Wentworth, July 6, 1635, _Strafford Letters_.




CHAPTER XVIII

TRIAL AND DEATH OF STRAFFORD


[Sidenote: Strafford leaves Ireland. Wandesford Deputy, 1640.]

[Sidenote: Strafford advises the King.]

Having done what was required of it, the Irish Parliament was prorogued
to June 1, and on April 3 Strafford sailed for the last time, leaving
Wandesford behind as Deputy. The gout, which he had neglected, took
its revenge at Chester, preventing him from being at the opening of
the Short Parliament, and he had to stay at Bishop Wright's house for
a full week. He then travelled by litter all the way to London, and
reached Leicester House on April 18, where he remained, generally
very ill, until August 24. Few believed that he would recover, still
fewer that he would return to Ireland, and when the next session began
Wandesford found that the Government was no longer feared. Of course
it had never really been loved. But of the old Irish army which he had
improved, or of the much larger force which he had given orders to
raise, Strafford had no doubts. Ill as he was, he wrote to the King
from Coventry begging him to provide the necessary funds, otherwise he
would lose the fourth part of his army, and that the part most to be
depended on for absolute, unquestioning obedience. Charles paid him
several visits when he was unable to go out, but he did sometimes get
to the Council, and it was by his advice that the King went to the
House of Lords and persuaded them to declare that supply ought to have
precedence of grievances. It is not quite certain how far Strafford
was to blame for the fatal dissolution of the Short Parliament. He had
advised that it should be called, and he urged the King not to run
great risks because he could not get exactly what he wanted. But the
popular fury fell upon him and Laud. Lambeth was attacked and the
archbishop withdrew to Whitehall, whereupon a lady remarked: 'Black
Tom hath more courage than his Grace, and therefore will not be so
apprehensive as he is, nor suffer a guard to attend him, knowing he
hath terror enough in his bended brows to amaze the 'prentices.'[257]

[Sidenote: The Irish Parliament turns against Strafford.]

[Sidenote: The power of the purse.]

When Wandesford met his Parliament on June 1, the wind had changed.
Strafford was believed to be at the point of death, and the subsidies
were being assessed upon an increased estimated value. This was arrived
at by fixing a quota for each county, and spreading it as equally as
possible upon the properties therein contained. The Government had
hitherto been able to secure a majority by the votes of public servants
in the Commons, but many were now absent with the army, and the Roman
Catholic members were in power, nor, as it was a question of money,
were they without plenty of allies. Radcliffe was in England, and it
was found impossible to resist the passing of a declaration against the
new method of taxation. Wandesford was forced to allow the enrolment of
the document in chancery and elsewhere, and thus the administration of
Supply was transferred from the Executive to the House of Commons. The
constitutional point having been gained, the first subsidy was allowed
to be levied as assessed, and yielded over 46,000_l._ The second and
third together, raised in the old 'parliamentary way,' came to less
than 24,000_l._, and the fourth was never levied at all. Seeing that he
could do no better, and that the House became more intemperate daily,
Wandesford prorogued Parliament on June 17 until October 1.[258]

[Sidenote: Strafford in England very ill.]

[Sidenote: Charles intends to send Strafford back to Ireland,]

[Sidenote: but makes him General instead.]

Meanwhile the man upon whom the weight of both kingdoms lay was so
ill that his recovery was doubtful. He could not turn in his bed, and
relief was obtained by losing twelve ounces of blood. In writing to
Ormonde Wandesford mourned over the unhappy dissolution of the Short
Parliament. Strafford's mind was wearing out his body, and he could
hardly bear to speak of him, 'if you did not love this man well. It is
true, if the favour and grace of a Prince shall recover him he shall
not perish, for those are heaped upon him every day; but if the good
man's heart be more willing to spend himself in great business than
to contemplate his own safety, or to live upon such favours, who can
help him? I know you love him, and you shall know when we hear better
of him.' When he seemed to be recovering Charles paid him a visit that
nearly proved fatal. Strafford left off his warm gown to receive the
King, which caused a relapse and involved the loss of eighteen ounces
of blood; it is surprising that the doctors did not bleed him to death.
It was not till a month later, at the end of June, that Radcliffe
reported steady progress towards recovery. Early in July Strafford was
at Sion House, and can have derived little comfort from association
with Northumberland, who disagreed with his views and believed an
invasion of Scotland impossible. But Charles was determined to go to
the north, and at this time intended that the Lord Lieutenant should
return to Ireland and take charge of the new army. In the meantime he
ordered him to attend every day at Oatlands until he himself started
for York, which was not till August 20, and at that moment Wandesford
was expecting him in Ireland. But Northumberland was ill, and Strafford
became commander-in-chief. Conway had been routed at Newburn, and the
Scots were in possession of Newcastle before the unfortunate general
had time to do anything. 'Pity me,' he wrote to Radcliffe, 'for never
came any man to so lost business. The army unexercised and unprovided
of all necessaries. That part which I bring now with me from Durham the
worst I ever saw. Our horse all cowardly, the country from Berwick to
York in the power of the Scot, an universal affright in all, a general
disaffection to the King's service, now sensible of his dishonour. In
one word, here alone to fight with all these evils without any one to
help. God of His goodness deliver me out of this the greatest evil of
my life.'[259]

[Sidenote: Strafford at York, September 1640.]

[Sidenote: Strafford denounced by the Scots.]

[Sidenote: Proposals as to the Irish army]

After Newburn there was no serious attempt to fight the Scots, and
Strafford never had any opportunity of showing what he could do as a
general. His health was bad, his army unpaid and without enthusiasm,
and the people generally but half-hearted. Even his own Yorkshiremen
were anxious for a new Parliament, and many could see clearly that the
Scots were upholding the cause of both nations. Still he had influence
enough to get the gentlemen of the county to undertake for the payment
of their train-bands, and for this last piece of service he was made a
Knight of the Garter. He had now reached the utmost height to which,
according to the last Roman poet, the Gods raise men in order that
their fall may be the heavier. The Great Council of Peers met at York
on September 25, and sat till October 28, and Strafford took an active
part in the debates. He had a sharp encounter in the King's presence
with the new Lord Clanricarde, ending in the latter's Connaught titles
being confirmed and all his privileges restored. The negotiations with
the Scots were carried on at Ripon, by commissioners representing both
sides, but 'the Earl of Strafford,' says Clarendon, 'had not amongst
them one friend or person civilly inclined towards him.' The King
wished them to meet under his eye at York, but the Scots positively
refused to put themselves into the power of an army commanded by
Strafford, whom they denounced as a chief incendiary. They were quite
justified in saying that he talked freely of them as traitors and
rebels, and desired their utter ruin. He had already suggested the
use of his Irish army against them, and ten days later he offered to
bring over at two days' warning 8000 foot, 2000 horse and 60 guns 'if
there be shipping to convey them.' In Scotland it was believed that
these troops had actually landed in England, and a battle was expected.
The Scots at Ripon were so far successful as to have an allowance
made to their forces of 850_l._ a day for two months, and to get the
negotiations adjourned to London, where they would be among friends.
At the head of an army whose discipline he might be able to improve
Strafford was still formidable, and he had more friends in Yorkshire
than anywhere else; but both King and Queen urged him to leave this
comparative safety, and to trust himself in London. After looking his
last on Wentworth Woodhouse, where he spent three or four days, he set
out for the south, having the King's written assurance that he 'should
not suffer in his person, honour, or fortune.'[260]

[Sidenote: Strafford under arrest, Nov. 1640.]

[Sidenote: Strafford sent to the Tower.]

[Sidenote: Impeachment of Radcliffe.]

'I am to-morrow to London,' wrote Strafford to Radcliffe, 'with
more dangers beset, I believe, than ever any man went with out of
Yorkshire.' He arrived on Monday the 9th, rested the next day, and on
Wednesday morning went down to the House of Lords. That he intended to
attack the Parliamentary leaders is clear, but the plan was not mature,
and he went away without speaking. This gave Pym his chance, and later
in the day he appeared to impeach Strafford and demand his arrest. The
accused man was with the King, but he hurried back to the House as soon
as he knew what had been done. He was not allowed to speak, and had
to kneel at the bar, when he was told that he must remain in custody
until he had cleared himself from the Commons' charges. The Usher of
the Black Rod, James Maxwell, a Scotchman, took his sword and carried
him off in his coach. Baillie, who gloats over the fallen statesman,
notes that he had to walk some distance through gazing crowds, 'no man
capping to him, before whom that morning the greatest of England would
have stood discovered.' Maxwell was not a severe gaoler, and for a
while his prisoner had many visitors, but the Commons objected, and a
few days later he was sent to the Tower, of which another Scot, Sir
James Balfour, was Lieutenant. Balfour, whom Baillie calls 'our good
kind countrieman,' might be trusted to obey the orders of the House.
Ultimately Strafford was confined to three rooms, in the outer one of
which was a guard, and no visitors were admitted to see him without the
Lieutenant's special permission. It must, however, be supposed that he
was allowed some exercise. Communication of any kind was forbidden with
Sir George Radcliffe, who was soon brought to London and imprisoned in
the Gatehouse. Clarendon is probably quite justified in saying that
the object of impeaching Radcliffe was to prevent Strafford having his
help as a counsellor or witness. When the principal was once condemned,
it was not found worth while to continue proceedings against the
accessory.[261]

[Sidenote: Wandesford's last session, Oct. 1640.]

[Sidenote: A committee sent to England.]

[Sidenote: The Irish Parliament repudiate Strafford.]

The Irish Parliament was prorogued from June to October, when
Wandesford found it as unmanageable as before. The House of Commons
lost very little time in attacking the method of levying the subsidies,
and then agreed to a Remonstrance which criticised adversely all
Strafford's policy, and formed the basis of the charges at his trial.
This document was presented to the Lord Deputy, and he was several
times asked for an answer. While waiting for this, the House appointed
a committee of twelve members to go to England and represent the
Irish case there. Clarendon says, and there can be no doubt of the
fact, that Strafford's fate was largely determined by the conduct of
this committee, who kept up communications between the revolutionary
wire-pullers on both sides of the channel; some of the members were
afterwards engaged in the Irish rebellion. They were empowered to call
for all public papers in Ireland, and to have copies free of charge.
The Remonstrance was carried over by them, and was reported to the
English House of Commons a few days later. On the next day Wandesford
gave his answer by proroguing Parliament. During the recess, by the
King's special order, he had the journals brought before the Council,
and there in the presence of several members of Parliament, tore out
the two orders relating to the subsidies. Afterwards, when the tide
had turned hopelessly against Strafford, Charles ordered the leaves
to be reinserted, but they do not appear in the printed journals. The
Lords were surprised by the sudden prorogation, but most of those who
were in Dublin met and deputed Lords Gormanston, Dillon, and Kilmallock
to carry their grievances to London. When Parliament reassembled this
action was confirmed, and Lord Muskerry was added to the number.[262]

[Sidenote: Death of Wandesford, Dec. 3, 1640.]

Wandesford died three weeks after Strafford's arrest. The autopsy
showed that his heart was diseased, so that distress of mind may have
killed him, though his daughter does not say so. He was not long enough
at the head of affairs to make much figure in Irish history, but he
was an upright judge, made many reforms in the Rolls Court, and seems
to have been generally liked. He advised his son to lead a country
life, excusing himself for having done the contrary. 'The truth is, my
affection to the person of my Lord Deputy, purposing to attend upon
his lordship as near as I could in all fortunes, carried me along
with him wherever he went, and no premeditated thoughts of ambition.'
Bramhall attended him on his deathbed and preached his funeral sermon
in Christchurch. His daughter says there were not many dry eyes among
the multitude present, and 'the Irish did set up the lamentable hone,
as they call it, for him in the church, which was never known before
for any Englishman.'[263]

[Sidenote: Trial of Strafford, March-April, 1641.]

[Sidenote: Not guilty of treason in the ordinary sense.]

The trial of Strafford, with the intrigues and discussions leading to
it, belongs to the general history of these islands. The impressive
scene in Westminster Hall has been dwelt on by historians, and is
indeed of surpassing interest. The King and Queen were present
throughout, and the concourse was such as England had never seen till
then. Even hostile witnesses have testified to the inimitable life and
grace with which the prisoner under every disadvantage maintained his
cause against the accusing Commons, and before judges who had little
sympathy with him. Lord Cork, though only a peer of Ireland, had been
called up by writ, and Baillie noticed that he sat covered daily, his
black cloak being conspicuous among the  robes. As the trial
proceeded Strafford's courage and eloquence gained him many supporters;
the ladies were all on his side, and the Queen had ample opportunities
of admiring his beautiful white hands. His object was to show, and it
is generally thought he succeeded in showing, that no single count of
the impeachment amounted to treason, and that he was entitled to an
acquittal even if every charge was proved. In Fuller's homely phrase,
no number of frogs will make a toad. The Commons, on the contrary,
maintained that he had persistently striven to upset the fundamental
laws, that there was a cumulative force in repeated offences, and that
he ought to die the death of a traitor.[264]

[Sidenote: The articles of impeachment.]

[Sidenote: Strafford's line of defence.]

The articles of Strafford's impeachment were twenty-eight in number,
and of these seventeen, from the third to the nineteenth, bore directly
upon his government in Ireland. The third article charged that he
had in a public speech in 1634 declared that Ireland was a conquered
nation, and that the King might do what he liked there; and that the
charters of cities were obsolete and at the royal discretion. This
was proved by several witnesses, of whom Cork was one, who declared
that he had come to England with Strafford's leave, that he had
determined to make no complaint, and that he had purposely left all
his papers behind him. The answer to this evidence was that Ireland
was in fact conquered, that the charters had been often violated, and
that the object of his dealing with the corporation of Dublin was to
encourage the English Protestants who had been depressed by native
competition and combination. All that he had done, however, was at most
a misdemeanour, and no treason. In support of the fourth article, which
declared that the prisoner had seized property by Order in Council,
Cork deposed that this had been done in his case, that he had tried
to appeal to the law and 'that my lord of Strafford answered "call in
your writs, or if you will not, I will clap you in the Castle; for I
tell you I will not have my orders disputed by law nor lawyers"'; and
that on another occasion the Lord Deputy had told him that he would
make an Act of State as binding as an Act of Parliament. There were
other witnesses on the latter point. Strafford replied that there was
no breach of Magna Charta, since the law and custom of Ireland had been
followed, and that during the long interval between Parliaments it
was necessary to depend upon the action of the Executive. The fifth
and sixth articles dealt with Lord Mountnorris's case, which has been
sufficiently discussed, and the eighth with the Loftus case and other
accusations of arbitrary treatment by the Lord Deputy and Council, the
general defence being that they had acted according to the established
custom of Ireland. The ninth article contained a charge of unlawfully
stretching the secular arm to support the power of certain bishops. One
case was proved, but Strafford answered that he had discontinued the
practice when he found its legality was doubtful.

[Sidenote: Strafford's financial measures: the customs.]

[Sidenote: Tobacco and linen.]

[Sidenote: Strafford discouraged Irish woollens.]

The tenth article charged Strafford with procuring the customs to be
farmed, and the rates upon merchandise raised for his own profit. The
facts could scarcely be denied, but the accused was able to show that
he had objected to having a personal interest in the revenue, and that
he was persuaded to do so by Portland as the only means of inducing
other speculators to undergo the risk. The twelfth article attacked
the tobacco monopoly which Strafford had created by proclamation, and
the thirteenth with doing something of the same sort in the case of
linen. He looked upon tobacco as a superfluity, and therefore a fit
subject for heavy taxation, but there can be no doubt that many traders
suffered severely. The linen business had always existed in Ulster, and
he tried to improve and regulate it, but no doubt he went too fast and
much hardship was caused. 'He did observe,' he said, 'that the wool of
that kingdom did increase very much, that if it should there be wrought
into cloth, it would be a very great prejudice to the clothing trade
of England, and therefore he was willing, as much as he might lawfully
and fairly, to discourage that trade; that on the other side, he was
desirous to set up the trade of linen cloth, which would be beneficial
there and not prejudice the trade of England.' He made rules for the
management of the manufacture which he believed would greatly add to
its value, but they had turned out too rigid for the working people,
who could not so quickly be induced to change their habits. He had
himself lost 3000_l._ by his share in the business.

[Sidenote: Soldiers quartered on private persons.]

[Sidenote: Strafford's arbitrary acts supported by precedents.]

[Sidenote: The Black Oath.]

[Sidenote: Opinion of the judges.]

[Sidenote: Fear made the Commons cruel.]

The fifteenth article charged that Strafford did traitorously 'by
force of arms and in a warlike manner' strive to subdue Ireland
to his arbitrary will by quartering soldiers upon private persons
without warrant of law. Hallam thought this came nearer treason than
anything of which he was accused, but that the cases proved were too
few to constitute levying war. There was much hearsay evidence, but
enough was proved to make out a strong case. Edmond Byrne testified
that soldiers were quartered on him by the Lord Deputy's order for
not paying 'a pretended debt of a matter of ten pounds' to a Mr.
Archibald, and that they had done him damage to the value of 500_l._
The sixteenth article was directed against Strafford's system of
denying appeals to England except through himself, and of preventing
anyone from leaving Ireland without his leave. In this, as in many
other things, he had found the practice in existence, and had carried
it further than his predecessors, so that it was thought worthy of
special complaint in the Remonstrance of the Irish Parliament. The
nineteenth article was concerned with the imposition of the Black Oath
on the Ulster Scots, and the fact was undeniable; but Strafford pleaded
danger from the Covenant which bound 100,000 people in the North to
their near neighbours and fellow-countrymen across the channel. The
seventh, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth articles were
postponed, and in the end were not proceeded with at all, and it was
a Bill of Attainder and not a verdict of the Lords on the Impeachment
that brought Strafford to the scaffold. It may be granted that none of
the charges taken separately amounted to treason, but the Lord Chief
Justice 'delivered the opinion of all the judges present upon all
that which their Lordships have voted to be proved that the Earl of
Strafford doth deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of High
Treason by law.' It is evident that the majority of the Commons were
determined to have the Lord Lieutenant's head, for they did not feel
safe as long as he lived. St. John brutally said that the laws of chase
were not for him, and that he should be hunted down without mercy as
a beast of prey. 'Stone dead hath no fellow,' was Essex's answer when
Hyde suggested a milder penalty. Nor can it be said that the fears of
the Puritan party were unfounded. The King, after hearing every word of
the evidence, admitted that Strafford was unfit to hold even a chief
constable's place; but Charles was not to be trusted, and his word gave
no guarantee that the hated statesman would not again be a minister and
at the head of an army.[265]

[Sidenote: The Irish army fatal to Strafford.]

[Sidenote: Charles consents to Strafford's death,]

[Sidenote: and perpetuates the Parliament.]

[Sidenote: Execution of Strafford and disbandment of his army, May
1641.]

Of all the causes for fear the greatest was the existence of the Irish
army, which Charles repeatedly refused to disband. Strafford was
accused on the authority of Vane's famous notes of saying that it might
be used to 'reduce this kingdom,' and these words, if truly reported,
were uttered in England. Yet Scotland was probably intended, and the
choice of Carrickfergus as a rendezvous pointed in that direction.
But it is not likely that the plan would have been too scrupulously
observed, and Willoughby's mission to Carlisle showed that there was
no pedantic objection to employ troops from Ireland upon English
ground. 'Strafford's pride,' says Clarendon, 'was by the hand of
heaven strangely punished by bringing his destruction upon him by two
things that he most despised, the people and Sir Harry Vane.' There is
no mystery about the proceedings of the Commons, and not much about
that of the Lords, but there was nothing to prevent the royal consent
to the Bill of Attainder being withheld. Some episcopal casuists, of
whom Ussher was not one, gave advice for hearkening to which Charles
never forgave himself. The fact that he had fears for his family, and
especially for his wife, is really no defence at all. He surrendered
the right to pardon, which is the most precious privilege of monarchy,
and the same day that he passed the fatal Bill, too agitated perhaps
to know what he was doing, he consented to another providing that
Parliament should not be dissolved without its own consent. He himself
killed prerogative, and after he had done so defied the assembly he
had perpetuated by attempting to seize the five members. If the royal
power was after that to be restored in his person it could only be by
success in war. On the day after Strafford's execution Charles wrote to
Ormonde that he had decided to disband the Irish army.[266]

[Sidenote: Character of Strafford.]

Strafford was a very great man; but he failed completely, and it is not
difficult to see why. His scheme of prerogative government depended
upon the personality of Charles I., and the minister's qualities were
not such as could make people forget the monarch's defects. In his
determination to establish the Laudian system of what Petty afterwards
called 'Legal Protestantism,' he made enemies of Roman Catholics and
Puritans alike. Strafford had read law, had a fair knowledge of the
classics and of English and French literature, and understood Scotch
and Continental affairs. He wrote and spoke brilliantly, trusting much
to his memory, which served him very well. For some years he wielded
greater power than any servant of James or his son, Buckingham only
excepted. He warned the King against war with the House of Austria
for the Palatinate, because it would necessarily weaken him at home,
and in private he gave the strong reason that Charles would be driven
by war to raise money illegally without restraint. Strafford was very
English in his views, and cared little for foreign opinion; but he
would never have insulted the Prime Minister of Spain, nor made love to
the Queen of France. He was an immeasurably abler man than Buckingham,
but resembled him, to use Clarendon's words, in that 'he never made
a noble and a worthy friendship with a man so near his equal that he
would frankly advise him, for his honour and true interest, against
the current, or rather the torrent of his impetuous passions.' Apart
from his great office Laud was not his equal, and it may be doubted if
Conway, with whom he was on intimate terms, ever gave him any advice
at all. Wandesford and Radcliffe were clever men, but mere echoes of
their master, and Ormonde was too young to have much weight. Even Laud
cautioned Strafford against making powerful enemies by his high-handed
methods. His doctrine was that no subject could have any power against
the King, or against his substitute in Ireland and Yorkshire. He spoke
with scorn of Sir Edward Coke and his year-books, drew all important
business into the Castle-chamber, and openly declared that while he
had power Orders in Council should bind as fast as Acts of Parliament.
Clarendon, who was essentially a common lawyer, has recorded his
judgment against this policy in both islands. What recalcitrant
juries or sheriffs had to suffer may be gathered from the Galway
case. Strafford took credit for a rise in the price of land while he
governed Ireland, but the same thing happened under Cromwell; for
order gives security, and Plutus is a very timorous person. His work
soon crumbled away, as the work of despots generally does, for who can
secure a fitting successor? Marcus Aurelius was followed by Commodus.
Strafford professed to rule for the benefit of the whole community,
and probably the poor did really benefit by his firm hand; but he was
hated by the official class and by most men who had anything to lose.
His letters to his third wife are affectionate enough, but he did not
consider her his equal in any way, and the want of intelligent female
friendship was supplied by Lady Carlisle in England and by Lady Loftus
in Ireland. The first famous lady is described by her friend, Sir Toby
Matthew, as having no passion at all, and the latter must have been
constantly under the eyes of Radcliffe, who declares his belief that
there was nothing wrong; but Strafford was so much hated that every
hostile report was long accepted as fact. Perhaps his unpopularity is
sufficiently accounted for by Sir Philip Warwick, who knew him and who
was one of the fifty-nine members of the House of Commons who voted
against the Bill of Attainder. All his powers and acquirements, says
that staunch royalist, were 'lodged in a sour and haughty temper; so as
it may probably be believed, he expected to have more observance paid
to him than he was willing to pay to others, though they were of his
own quality; and then he was not like to conciliate the good will of
men of the lesser station.' But he had a few friends who loved him, and
his relations to his own family leave nothing to be desired.[267]

FOOTNOTES:

[257] Strafford to the King, April 15, 1640, _Strafford Letters_, ii.
411; Gardiner's _Hist. of England_, chap. xci.; Lady Essex Cheeke to
Lord Mandeville, May 16; Eighth Report of _Hist. MSS. Comm.,_ appx. ii.
56 _b._

[258] Wandesford to Radcliffe, June 12, 1640, in Whitaker's _Life
of Radcliffe_. Writing to Ormonde in March, 1664-5, Sir W. Domville
estimated a subsidy at 15,000_l._, _Carte MSS._ vol. xxxiv.

[259] Wandesford to Ormonde, May 26 and 29, June 7, 12, and 30, 1640,
_Carte transcripts_; Strafford to Radcliffe, July 3 to September 1 in
Whitaker's _Life of Radcliffe_, p. 202.

[260] Minutes of York Council in _Hardwicke State Papers_, ii.
241, 284, September 29 and October 18, 1640; Answer of the Scots
Commissioners, October 8, in _Rushworth_, iii. 1292; Whitaker's _Life
of Radcliffe_; _Baillie's Letters_, October 1, i. 257; Clarendon's
_Hist. of the Rebellion_, ii. 107; Ulick Earl of St. Albans and
Clanricarde to Windebank, York, October 26, 1640. _Hardwicke State
Papers_, ii. 207.

[261] 'His Lordship was called into the House as a delinquent,
and brought to the bar upon his knees, I sitting in my place
covered'--Cork's Diary, November 11, 1640, in _Lismore Papers_, 1st
series, v. 164; _Rushworth_, viii. 1-15, from November 6 to 30,
1640; _Baillie's Letters_, i. 276, December 2; and 282, December 12,
_Strafford Letters_; and November 5 in Whitaker's _Life of Radcliffe_,
p. 218.

[262] _Irish Lords Journal_, February 18, 1640-41; _Irish Commons
Journal_, November 7, 11, 12, 19, 1640, February 10, 1640-1. The
Remonstrance is printed in the Journal and also in _Rushworth_, viii.
Lords Justices and Council to Vane, February 13, 1640-1, in Cal. of
State Papers, _Ireland_. On January 26, 1640-1, the Irish Commons voted
5,086_l._ for the expenses of the London Committee, which consisted
of Sir Donough MacCarthy, Sir Hardress Waller, Sir Roebuck Lynch,
Sir James Montgomery, John Walsh, N. Plunkett, N. Barnewall, Richard
Fitzgerald, Simon Digby, Geoffrey Brown, and Edward Rowley.

[263] Wandesford's _Book of Instructions_ to his son George, Cambridge,
1727. _Autobiography_ of Mrs. Alice Thornton, Surtees Society, 1875.
Wandesford's letters have not been collected, but seventeen are printed
in the Cal. of _Ormonde MSS._, Hist. MSS. Comm., 1902.

[264] Strafford's trial occupies Rushworth's eighth volume. The report
in Howell's _State Trials_ is founded upon _A Brief and Perfect
Relation of the answers and replies of Thomas Earl of Strafford_,
London, 1647. A third contemporary account is in _Baillie's Letters_,
i. 313-353. These three are the reports of eye-witnesses. The historian
May was probably also present; his book was licensed May 7, 1647,
and has some touches not found elsewhere. Nalson was an infant when
Strafford died, and his account, which was published after Rushworth's,
has no independent value. Madame de Motteville (_Mémoires_, chap. ix.),
reporting Henrietta Maria's conversation, says Strafford 'était laid,
mais assez agréable de sa personne; et la Reine, me contant toutes ces
choses, s'arrêta pour me dire qu'il avait les plus belles mains du
monde.' May says many thought of Ovid's lines: 'Non formosus erat, sed
erat facundus Ulysses, et tamen æquoreas torsit amore deas'--Earl of
Cork's Diary in _Lismore Papers_, v. 164, 170, 176. 'The natural pity
and consideration of women, sympathising with his afflictions, with
sadness of his aspect, their facility with his complacences, their
lenity with his pathetical oratory'--Earl of Strafford characterised,
1641, _Somers Tracts_, iv. 231.

[265] _Lords' Journals_, May 6, 1641: 'In equity Lord Strafford
deserves to die' as a subverter of fundamental laws--'Ingeniosissime
nequam et in malo publico facundus,' Falkland's minute book in Lady
Theresa Lewis's _Friends of Clarendon_, i. 207.

[266] _Lords' Journals_, May 10, 1641. 'The Primate of Ireland, who
is no complimenter, reported afterwards to the King that he had then
first learned to make supplications aright to Godward, and withal told
his Majesty that he had seen many die, but never such a white soul
(this was his own expression) return to his maker. At which words
the King was pleased to turn himself about and offer a tear to his
memory--tantorum mercede bonorum'--_Brief and Perfect Relation_, p. 97.

[267] Sir P. Warwick's _Memoirs_, p. 110. Clarendon's _Hist. of the
Rebellion_, ii. 101; iii. 204. 'A wise and promising face ... yet a
dark and promiscuous countenance, clouded, unlovely, and presaging an
envious and cruel disposition,' The Earl of Strafford Characterised,
1641, _Somers Tracts_, iv. 231; and the often printed lines 'Here lies
wise and valiant dust,' etc., _ib._ 297. Strafford is at his best in
the beautiful letter to Lady Clare, August 10, 1639, and in that to his
son from the Tower, April 23, 1641, _Strafford Letters_, ii. 381, 416;
and see his character by Radcliffe, _ib._ p. 433.




CHAPTER XIX

THE REBELLION OF 1641


[Sidenote: Parsons and Borlase Lords Justices, Feb. 10, 1640-1.]

[Sidenote: The Irish Parliament turn against Strafford.]

[Sidenote: Radcliffe and the Irish Committee.]

As soon as Wandesford's death was known Robert Lord Dillon and Sir
William Parsons were appointed Lords Justices. As Master of the Wards
Parsons had been useful in increasing the revenue, and he was an able
official, though he has a bad name on account of his dealings with
land. Dillon, whose son had married Strafford's sister, had been Lord
Justice before, and was obnoxious to the Irish Committee in London; he
was therefore quickly superseded in favour of Sir John Borlase, who was
a soldier without political experience, and not young enough to learn.
Wandesford's daughter, who was nearly fifteen when he died, says that
these two old gentlemen 'having lived in Ireland many peaceable years
could not be made sensible that the Irish had an ill-design against the
English,' and perhaps that is not far from the truth. They were fully
occupied at first with the difficulties made by the Irish Parliament.
Strafford was in the Tower, and the two Houses who had been his very
humble servants now joined in protesting that the complimentary
preamble to the Act of Subsidy was 'contrived, penned, and inserted
fraudulently without the privity of the House either by the said Earl
of Strafford himself or by some other person' by his orders. Ormonde
spoke against this, but in vain. The London Committee worked in the
same direction, though Radcliffe, prisoner as he was and without
papers, made a good case against them. They told the King that they had
heard 'with terror and amazement' of Wandesford's tearing the leaves
out of the journals, and maintained that the subsidies, if raised
according to his plan, would be more than the country could bear,
while the ports were closed so as to prevent access to his gracious
Majesty. Radcliffe showed that the trade of Ireland had doubled during
Strafford's reign, and maintained that substantial justice had been
done. The late Remonstrance of the Irish House of Commons had been
rushed through and did not represent the facts. To this the Irish
Committee replied that Radcliffe was a member, and had not risen in his
place to object, that many illegal acts had been done, and that the
mild government which preceded Strafford's had allowed Ireland to grow
rich, while he had only reaped the harvest.[268]

[Sidenote: Roman Catholic majority.]

[Sidenote: The queries.]

Owing probably to the confusion among the official class and to the
absence of some officers with the new army in Ulster, the Roman
Catholics had a majority in Parliament during the early months of 1641.
There were able lawyers among them who drew up a paper of queries or
interrogatories which they sent up to the Lords for the opinion of
the judges. The first shows the line taken: 'Whether the subjects of
this kingdom be a free people, and to be governed only by the common
laws of England, and statutes of force in this kingdom?' This the
judges answered generally in the affirmative, pointing out that both
in England and Ireland there was necessarily a certain amount of
judge-made law to meet cases not covered by statute. The general drift
of the queries was to dispute the jurisdiction of the Council and the
Star Chamber. By what law, runs the sixteenth query, 'are jurors, that
give verdict according to their conscience and are the sole judges of
the fact, censured in the Castle-chamber in great fines, and sometimes
pilloried, with loss of ears, and bored through the tongue, and marked
sometimes in the forehead with an hot iron; and other like infamous
punishments?' The judges did not deny the facts, but maintained that
perjured jurors were properly censurable in the Castle-chamber, and
they made a not very successful attempt to derive this jurisdiction
from writs of attaint at common law. The House of Commons were not
satisfied with the judges' answers, and made a declaration disposing
of each query in their own sense.[269]

[Sidenote: Prorogation, March, 1640-1.]

[Sidenote: Impeachments.]

Parliament was prorogued from March 5 to May 11, having previously
appointed a committee to draw up articles of impeachment against
Lord Chancellor Bolton, Bishop Bramhall, Chief Justice Lowther, and
Sir George Radcliffe. Owing to the progress of events all these
impeachments were dropped, and the question as to the Irish House of
Lords' judicial powers was not decided. Before the Houses reassembled
the King had written to confirm all the graces and to suggest a Bill
for confirming sixty-year titles in Connaught, Clare, Limerick, and
Tipperary. But no legislation issued from the confused wrangling of
those days, during which Ormonde showed great capacity for obstructive
tactics. When Captain Audley Mervyn and others appeared as managers for
the Commons Bolton received them with great courtesy, then returned to
the Woolsack and declared himself impeached, protesting that he should
never dream of disputing their Lordships' jurisdiction. Thereupon
Ormonde raised a point of order. The Chancellor, he said, was accused
and therefore debarred from acting as speaker, and as there was no
power to appoint another nothing could be done. Bolton at last entered
into recognisances and the prorogation took place next day.[270]

[Sidenote: New session, May 11, 1641.]

When a fresh session began the Commons were more unmanageable than
ever. They asked the Lords Justices to let them search the Castle,
lest Strafford's servants should blow them all up in revenge for their
master's death. Borlase as Master of the Ordnance positively refused to
show 'the King's most precious jewels,' but assured them on his honour
that there was no powder under either House of Parliament, which was
no doubt the fact. The Lords Justices found that Strafford had died in
debt to the Crown, and proposed repayment out of the tobacco, while
the Commons urged that no tobacco seized after his attainder should
be confiscated. The weary chief governors were glad enough to have a
recess from July 14 to November 9. Before the latter date the rebellion
had broken out, but the Lords Justices were saved the trouble which
would have followed the return of the Irish Committee at the end of
August.[271]

[Sidenote: A rising in Ulster foretold.]

[Sidenote: The Irish in Flanders.]

[Sidenote: Vane's letter, March, 1640-1.]

[Sidenote: Sir W. Cole's letter, Oct. 11, 1641.]

[Sidenote: Meeting at Multifarnham.]

As early as 1611 Sir George Carew had foretold that the dispossessed
natives of Ulster would some day rebel, that there would be a war of
religion, and that the Protestant settlers would be surprised. The
Irish exiles in the Spanish service had ever since been a source of
apprehension, and abortive plots were laid from time to time both in
Spain and in the Netherlands. Communications by way of England were
always possible, and Clarendon thought much mischief was done by the
Committee from the Irish Parliament, 'consisting most of <DW7>s, and
since the most active in the rebellion.' In July 1640 a cipher code was
established between Sir Phelim O'Neill in Ulster and Owen Roe O'Neill
in Flanders, who received a visit from Hugh MacPhelim, afterwards one
of the leaders in Ireland. O'Byrne observed that they were risking
their lives daily to 'succour a scabbed town' for the Spanish king,
and that they would be no worse off fighting for their own country. It
was believed that Ulster and Munster would join together. Nor was the
English Government without suspicion, for Vane, by the King's orders,
warned the Lords Justices a little later that an unspeakable number of
'Irish Churchmen had passed from Spain to England and Ireland, and some
good old soldiers,' on pretence of recruiting, but that rumours of a
rebellion, especially in Connaught, circulated freely among the friars.
It was not, however, until about a fortnight before the insurrection
that anything particular was noticed in Ireland itself. It was reported
to Sir William Cole at Enniskillen that there was an extraordinary
resort of the Irish gentry to Sir Phelim O'Neill's house, Lord Maguire
being specially active in journeying to and fro. A few days later he
was informed by Hugh Maguire that many of his clansmen and neighbours
were recruiting actively for the King of Spain's service in Portugal.
In itself this did not mean much, but great secrecy was observed,
and Sir William reported what he had heard to the Lords Justices,
who advised him to be vigilant. In the meantime there had been a
great gathering of Roman Catholic clergy and laity at Multifarnham
in Westmeath, but this was not known until later, though the Irish
Council were aware that there was 'great underhand labouring among the
priests, friars, and Jesuits' to prevent Strafford's disbanded soldiers
from leaving the country. At the Multifarnham meeting it was debated
what should be done to the Protestants, and there was much difference
of opinion. The only extant account rests upon the statement of a
Franciscan guardian, who was present, as reported on oath by Dr. Henry
Jones. Some of those assembled, the Franciscan spokesman among them,
were for turning all the Protestants out of Ireland with some portion
of their goods. This had been the policy of the Spanish kings towards
the Moors. Others were for killing them all, and these maintained
that the mercy, such as it was, of the two Philips was misplaced,
and had caused all the misery which Christendom suffered from the
rovers of Sallee and Algiers. A third party were for killing some and
expelling the rest. The heretics once got rid of, no religion but
that of Rome was to be allowed in Ireland, the King was to be reduced
to his hereditary revenue, and the clergy to have representatives in
Parliament. Poynings' Law was to be repealed, and the kingdom entirely
separated from England, civil authority resting in the hands of the
ancient chiefs and nobility, each being absolute in his county or
barony, but responsible to a native Parliament. The Earl of Kildare,
who was an ardent Protestant, was to be removed, and all plantation
lands restored to the previous owners. An army was devised consisting
of contingents out of each chiefry, and a navy manned by an order like
the Knights of Malta.[272]

[Sidenote: The plot, Rory O'More.]

[Sidenote: Lord Maguire]

[Sidenote: Hugh MacMahon.]

[Sidenote: Military conspirators.]

[Sidenote: The plot discovered.]

On October 21 Cole received more precise information about a plot to
seize Dublin and other strong places, and he sent at once to the Lords
Justices with the news; but the letter never reached them, having
doubtless been intercepted by some of the conspirators. Early in 1641
it had occurred to Roger or Rory O'More that the King's difficulties in
Scotland might give an opportunity to Catholic Ireland. O'More belonged
to the remnant of the sept which had once ruled in Queen's County,
but was settled at Ballina near the northern extremity of Kildare. He
was an accomplished man and a persuasive speaker both in English and
Irish, and had a great reputation in the country. By his marriage with
a daughter of the noted Sir Patrick Barnewall he had many connections
in the Pale. Colonel Richard Plunket was married to his wife's first
cousin. The meeting of Parliament gave O'More an opportunity of
speaking to Lord Maguire, an extravagant young man of twenty-five,
who, having married a Fleming, had influence in the Pale as well as in
Ulster, and whose embarrassments disposed him to desperate courses. 'He
began,' said Maguire afterwards, 'to lay down the case that I was in,
overwhelmed in debt, the smallness of my estate, and the greatness of
the estate my ancestors had, and how I should be sure to get it again
or at least a good part thereof; and, moreover, how the welfare and
maintaining of the Catholic religion, which, he said, the Parliament
now in England will suppress, doth depend on it.' These were the
arguments used everywhere, and the miserable condition of the Irish
gentry in Ulster made them ready listeners. Hugh MacMahon, one of the
chief conspirators, complained bitterly of the 'proud and haughty
carriage of one Mr. Aldrige, that was his neighbour in the county of
Monaghan, who was a justice of the peace and but a vintner or tapster
few years before, that he gave him not the right hand of fellowship at
the assizes nor sessions, he being also in commission with him.' O'More
brought the Ulstermen together in Dublin, and visited the northern
province himself. Lord Mayo was also expected to join, and help was
confidently expected both from France and Spain. John O'Neill, calling
himself Earl of Tyrone, a colonel in the Spanish service, was killed in
Catalonia about this time, after which Owen Roe was looked to as the
real chief, and Sir Phelim as the principal man of his clan until the
other arrived. It was not till August that the plot to seize Dublin
Castle took definite shape, the idea originating with the soldiers of
fortune who were disappointed in their design for carrying Strafford's
army abroad. Parsons saw the danger of keeping these men in Ireland,
but the Irish Parliament was largely under clerical influence, and that
was exerted to prevent them going. Colonels Sir James Dillon, Hugh
MacPhelim O'Byrne, and Richard Plunket were most active, and October 5
was fixed for the attempt. Delays occurred causing a postponement to
the 23rd, and in the meantime a messenger came from Owen Roe, who said
he had positive promises from Richelieu, that he was ready to join the
insurgents as soon as possible. On October 15 Sir Phelim O'Neill, Lord
Maguire, O'More, Ever Macmahon and Captain Brian O'Neill, Owen Roe's
envoy, met to make final arrangements. One hundred picked men from
Leinster, under the guidance of O'More, were to take the little gate
of the Castle, the main entrance being left to Maguire and one hundred
Ulstermen. Sir Phelim was to go home and take Londonderry at the same
moment, which he signally failed to do. The afternoon of Saturday the
23rd was the chosen time, for it was market day, and the presence
of strangers would be less noticed. On the previous evening Maguire,
O'Byrne, Plunket, Fox and others met, but it was found that only eighty
men had been provided instead of two hundred, Sir Phelim and others
failing to send their contingents. They resolved to go on with what
force they had, and to meet again next morning; but late in the evening
O'More and Fox came to Lord Maguire's lodgings and told him that all
was discovered.'[273]

[Sidenote: Owen O'Connolly.]

[Sidenote: O'Connolly discloses the plot.]

Hugh Oge Macmahon, a grandson of the great Tyrone, who had been a
colonel in the Spanish service, lived on his property near Clones
in Monaghan. He had a relation named Owen O'Connolly, belonging to
the same county but employed by Sir John Clotworthy, married to an
Englishwoman, and apparently a sincere Protestant. Some six months
before the outbreak, when Macmahon complained to him of his neighbour
Aldrige's behaviour, O'Connolly replied that a conquered people must
submit; to which the other retorted that he hoped they would soon
be delivered from the slavery and bondage under which they groaned.
O'Connolly warned him against engaging in plots, and advised him to
report what he knew to the Lords Justices, 'which would redound to his
great honour.' He refused to have anything to do with the business, and
told several magistrates what he had heard, but they neglected it as
baseless gossip. Finding that he had gone too far, Macmahon promised to
move no more in the matter, and the kinsmen did not meet again until
October 22, on which day O'Connolly, who had been summoned by letter,
rode sixty miles and reached Dublin at seven in the evening. Macmahon
took him to Lord Maguire, who disclosed the whole plot. Strafford had
stored arms for 30,000 men in the Castle, with which the conspirators
expected to free the country easily. 'And whereas,' said Maguire, 'you
have of long time been a slave to that Puritan Sir John Clotworthy, I
hope you shall have as good a man to wait upon you.' They then went
with several others to the sign of the Lion in Wine Tavern Street,
where they turned the waiter out of the room and fell to drinking
health on their knees to the success of next day's work. In order to
make the others drink, O'Connolly had to swallow a good deal, and at
last, to use his own words, 'finding an opportunity, this examinate
leaped over a wall and two pales and so came to the Lord Justice
Parsons,' who lived near.[274]

[Sidenote: Action of the Irish Government.]

[Sidenote: Proclamation of Oct. 23, 1641.]

[Sidenote: News comes from Ulster.]

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Government.]

O'Connolly came to Parsons at his house on Merchants' Quay about
nine o'clock in the evening of Friday, October 22. He had not quite
recovered from the effects of his carouse, and the Lord Justice, who
only half believed his somewhat incoherent story, sent him back to get
more information from MacMahon, who lodged on the left bank of the
river. Parsons himself went to Borlase, who lived at Chichester House,
where the Bank of Ireland now stands, and summoned hastily such of
the Council as he thought within reach. The constable of the Castle
had already been warned, and the mayor had directions to apprehend
all strangers. O'Connolly, having with great difficulty escaped the
second time, fell into the hands of the watch, but was rescued by
Parsons' men. It was now very late, and only two Privy Councillors
could be found, but O'Connolly's information was sworn in proper form.
Borlase did not sign the deposition, though the sitting was in his
own house; and his son seems to suggest in his history that this was
owing to a difference with his colleague; but perhaps he could not keep
awake, for Strafford had long since pronounced him quite worn out.
The Council sat all night and all next day, Sir Francis Willoughby,
Sir John Temple, and the Vice-Treasurer Loftus being present. Before
separating, both Lords Justices and eight Privy Councillors signed
the first proclamation against 'the most disloyal and detestable
conspiracy intended by some evil-affected Irish <DW7>s.' The document
was quickly circulated through the country, but St. Leger, and no
doubt many others, thought the words last quoted unwise. Good subjects
were warned to stand on their guard and to keep the Government well
informed, 'and we require that great care be taken that no levies of
men be made for foreign service, nor any men suffered to march upon
any such pretence.' Willoughby was made governor of the Castle, with
a hundred men, well-armed, over and above the ordinary guard; and he
largely increased his force by re-engaging some of his old Carlisle
regiment who had come to Dublin after being disbanded. At midnight on
Saturday, the 23rd, Lord Blaney brought the first certain news from
Ulster. His family were prisoners, while Castleblaney, Carrickmacross,
and many other houses in Monaghan had been sacked or burned. The rebels
attacked Protestants only, 'leaving the English <DW7>s untouched, as
well as the Irish.' Three hours later came the news that Newry with its
store of arms and powder was in the hands of the Irish. Dublin itself
was a prey to panic, and for a moment even Willoughby thought that
there would be an attack on the Castle. He so improved the defences as
to make a surprise impossible. Next morning, being Sunday, the Council
met again, and the proclamation, which had by this time been printed,
was dispersed over the country. An express was sent to bring up Ormonde
from Carrick-on-Suir, with copies of the proclamation to leave at
every market town on the road. In all Ireland meanwhile there were but
2297 foot soldiers and 943 horse, and these were for the most part in
distant garrisons. As to money, Loftus briefly reported that there was
nothing in the Exchequer. The Castle contained great stores of arms and
ammunition, the remains of Strafford's preparations, but trustworthy
men were at first much wanted.[275]

[Sidenote: Willoughby's narrative.]

Willoughby's own graphic account shows how narrow the escape had been.
He found no soldiers in the city, the Castle having for defence only
eight old warders and forty halberdiers (to escort the Lords Justices
to church), though it contained thirty-five guns with their fittings,
1500 barrels of powder with match and bullets, and arms for 10,000
men. On the morning of October 23 Willoughby saw the Lords Justices at
Chichester House; they had been up all night, and gave him O'Connolly's
statement to read. They removed to the Castle by his advice, and he
had himself to sleep on the Council table. His first care was to break
down the staircase into Ship Street, lest there should be an attack
there. He then strengthened the gates and trailed cannon into position
commanding them. For fourteen days he dared not let down the drawbridge
unless all the halberdiers were present, by which time he had enlisted
200 of his old Carlisle regiment, who had returned to Ireland after
being disbanded. Plundered Protestants arrived daily with accounts of
murders and burnings.[276]

[Sidenote: Maguire and Macmahon taken.]

[Sidenote: O'More and others escape.]

[Sidenote: The Lords of the Pale.]

[Sidenote: They are supplied with arms.]

[Sidenote: Arms sent to the Ulster Scots.]

Of the conspirators, only two of any importance were taken--Macmahon
at his lodgings, and Lord Maguire in a cockloft where he had hidden
himself. Maguire denied everything, but he was confuted by Macmahon's
confession, and arms were discovered in his rooms. Macmahon, whose
information was mainly from Ulster, declared the conspiracy to be
universal, and believed, or professed to believe, that every garrison
in Ireland would be surprised on the same day. 'I am now in your
hands,' he said; 'use me as you will; I am sure I shall be shortly
revenged.' They were both hanged in London, Maguire being a commoner
in England. The point had been settled long ago in Lord Leonard Grey's
case, who was Viscount Grane in Ireland. Sir William Coles' letter
was now remembered, and there were other causes for alarm. The ease
with which O'More, Plunket, Fox, and O'Byrne escaped showed that they
had many confederates. Horsemen flocked into the suburbs, and Colonel
Barry's four hundred men in a ship on the river gave great uneasiness.
Barry had rather suspiciously disappeared on the night of the 22nd, and
the soldiers, who were not allowed to communicate with the shore, were
nearly starved, and when landed were not permitted to enter the town.
It was thought prudent to adjourn the Council from Chichester House to
the Castle, and when the number of suitors increased, to Cork House,
over the way. The Lords Justices could only hope that the Pale was not
so seriously tainted, and on Sunday and Monday they were visited by the
Earls of Kildare and Fingall, and by Lords Gormanston, Netterville,
Fitzwilliam, Howth, Dunsany, and Slane, all of whom professed loyalty
and declared that they now heard of the conspiracy for the first time.
Whether this was true in all cases may be doubted, but they agreed in
asking for arms. The Lords Justices hesitated about parting with their
weapons, but thought it better to give a certain number, 'lest they
should conceive we apprehended any jealousy of them.' Many of these
arms were used against the Government, and St. Leger thought they
ought not to have been given; while the Lords Justices were blamed by
others for not dealing them out more liberally. Enough were given for
seventeen hundred men in the counties of Dublin, Kildare, Louth, Meath,
and Westmeath, and, considering that they were entrusted to private
persons of doubtful loyalty, this seems to have been a fair allowance.
Arms for four hundred men were also sent to the Scots of Down and
Antrim, and these at least were not wasted. There was a great fleet of
Scotch fishing boats in the bay, and five hundred men volunteered to
land and be armed for the service of the State. The offer was accepted,
but never acted on, for the fishermen were seized with a panic, put
to sea, and never reappeared until the next year. The fugitives from
Ulster soon began to pour into Dublin. Temple is open to criticism for
his account of what happened in the northern province, but this is what
he saw himself:

[Sidenote: What Temple saw in Dublin.]

'Many persons of good rank and quality, covered over with old rags, and
some without any other covering than a little to hide their nakedness,
some reverend ministers and others that had escaped with their lives
sorely wounded. Wives came bitterly lamenting the murders of their
husbands; mothers of their children, barbarously destroyed before their
faces; poor infants ready to perish and pour out their souls in their
mothers' bosoms; some over-wearied with long travel, and so surbated,
as they came creeping on their knees; others frozen up with cold, ready
to give up the ghost in the streets; others overwhelmed with grief,
distracted with their losses, lost also their senses.... But those of
better quality, who could not frame themselves to be common beggars,
crept into private places; and some of them, that had not private
friends to relieve them, even wasted silently away, and so died without
noise.... The greatest part of the women and children thus barbarously
expelled out of their habitations perished in the city of Dublin; and
so great numbers of them were brought to their graves, as all the
churchyards within the whole town were of too narrow a compass to
contain them.' Two large additional burial grounds were set apart.[277]

[Sidenote: An amended proclamation, Oct. 29.]

[Sidenote: The Very Rev. Henry Jones.]

[Sidenote: The Protestants at Belturbet.]

[Sidenote: The Lords Justices mark time.]

On October 29 the Lords Justices issued a second proclamation. The
words 'Irish <DW7>s' in the first had been misunderstood, and they
now desired to confine it to the 'old mere Irish in the province of
Ulster'; and they straitly charged both <DW7>s and Protestants on
their allegiance to 'forbear upbraiding matters of religion one against
the other.' They soon had authentic evidence of how the old mere Irish
were behaving in one Ulster county. Dean Jones came to Dublin at the
beginning of November with the Remonstrance of the O'Reillys, which
Bedell had excused himself from carrying. 'I must confess,' says
Jones, 'the task was such as was in every respect improper for me to
undergo ... but chiefly considering that thereby I might gain the
opportunity of laying open to the Lords what I had observed ... which
by letters could not so safely be delivered, I did therefore accept.'
The O'Reillys declared that the outbreak was caused by oppression and
by the fear of worse oppression; that there was no intention to rebel
against the King; and that the people had attacked the English settlers
without their orders and against their will. To prevent greater
disorders they had seized strong places for the King's use, and they
demanded liberty of conscience and security for their property. Jones
saw clearly that the rising was general and that the native gentry had
no wish to restrain it, and he could tell what had happened to the
English inhabitants of Belturbet. Philip Mac Hugh O'Reilly and the
rest had promised these people a safe passage, and had allowed them to
carry away some of their property, which they were thus induced not to
hide. In the town of Cavan they were attacked, the guard given by the
O'Reillys joining in the treachery, and robbed of everything. 'Some
were killed, all stripped, some almost, others altogether naked, not
respecting women and sucking infants, the Lady Butler faring herein
as did others. Of these miserable creatures many perished by famine
and cold, travelling naked through frost and snow, the rest recovering
Dublin, where now many of them are among others, in the same distress
for bread and clothes.' After a week's hesitation, the Lords Justices
sent back an answer by Jones, whose wife and children remained as
hostages. This he describes as 'fair, but general and dilatory,
suitable to the weak condition of affairs in Dublin, the safety whereof
wholly depending upon the gain of time.' The Government yielded no
point of importance. They reminded the remonstrants that fortresses
could not be legally seized without orders from the King, and that
the rebels had falsely professed to have such orders. If, however,
the inhabitants of the county Cavan would peaceably return to their
own dwellings, restore every possible article to its plundered owner,
and abstain from all hostile acts in future, then the Lords Justices
would forward their petition to his Majesty and 'humbly seek his royal
pleasure therein.' The O'Reillys were in the meantime preparing to
attack Dublin in force.[278]

[Sidenote: State of the Pale.]

As regards the gentry of the Pale, Roman Catholics for the most part,
the Lords Justices were in a difficult position. By mistrusting them
they ran the risk of driving them into rebellion; by trusting them
they increased their power for mischief, should they be already
tainted. For the moment the first danger seemed the greater of the
two, and commissions as governors of counties with plenary powers were
accordingly issued to several of them, by which they were authorised
to proceed by martial law against the rebels, 'hanging them till they
be dead as hath been accustomed in time of open rebellion,' destroying
or sparing their houses and territories according to their discretion.
They were also empowered to grant protections.

[Sidenote: Lord Gormanston.]

[Sidenote: Sir N. Barnewall.]

[Sidenote: Sir T. Nugent.]

[Sidenote: Sir C. Bellew.]

[Sidenote: The Earl of Kildare.]

Viscount Gormanston was thus made governor of Meath, and arms were
given him for 500 men. He was in open rebellion a few weeks later. Sir
Nicholas Barnewall of Turvey, afterwards created Viscount Kingsland by
Charles I., became governor of the county of Dublin, and had arms for
300 men. Barnewall was a good deal involved in political intrigues,
but soon fled to England to avoid taking arms against the Government.
A commission as governor of Westmeath and arms for 300 men were given
to Sir Thomas Nugent, who afterwards tried to fill the difficult part
of neutral. Sir Christopher Bellew was governor of Louth, with arms
for 300, but he very soon joined the Irish. To George Earl of Kildare,
Cork's son-in-law, his own county was entrusted and arms for 300; but
he was a Protestant and suffered severely for his loyalty, while he
was quite unable to curb his neighbours. Finding after a time that the
arms given out would, if used at all, be used against them, the Lords
Justices endeavoured to get them back, but they recovered only 950 out
of 1700, and the enemy had the rest.[279]

[Sidenote: Ormonde made general.]

[Sidenote: Sir H. Tichborne.]

Ormonde was at his own house at Carrick-on-Suir when the rebellion
broke out. The Lords Justices sent for him at once, and the first
letter being delayed in transmission, a second was sent with a
commission to him and Mountgarret to govern the county of Kilkenny
and to take such other precautions as were possible. The gentry met
at Kilkenny and offered to raise 240 foot and 50 horse, while Callan
and other towns made similar promises. There were, however, no arms,
and the Lords Justices would give none out of the stores. Before
purchases could be made in England the situation was greatly changed.
Ormonde arrived at Dublin with his troop early at the end of the first
week in November, and on the 10th Sir Patrick Wemyss returned from
Edinburgh with his nomination as Lieutenant-General, to command the
army as he had done in Strafford's time. The Lords Justices made out
his commission next day, with warrant to execute martial law, but
without prejudice to Leicester's authority as Lord Lieutenant. It was
not till six months later that the King gave him power to appoint
subordinate officers according to the 'constant practice and custom
of former times,' it having by then become evident that Leicester
would not reside in Ireland. The defence of Drogheda had already been
provided for by Sir Henry Tichborne, who was living at Dunshaughly,
near Finglas, and who had brought his family into Dublin on the first
day, having already 'scattered a parcel of rogues' that threatened his
country house. Having received a commission from the Lords Justices,
he raised and armed 1000 men in nine days among the Protestants who
had left their homes, and with this regiment he entered Drogheda on
November 4. Three additional companies were sent to him a few days
later.[280]

[Sidenote: Ormonde disagrees with the Lords Justices.]

One of Ormonde's first acts as general was to commission Lord Lambert,
Sir Charles Coote, and Sir Piers Crosbie to raise regiments of 1000
men each, and thirteen others to raise independent companies of 100
each. The ranks were filled in a few days, for all business was at a
standstill, and Protestant fugitives poured in in great numbers. There
were 1500 disciplined men of the old army about Dublin. Strafford
had left a fine train of field artillery with arms, tents, and all
necessaries for 10,000 men. Under these circumstances Ormonde was for
pushing on, and putting down the northern rebellion at once. To this
the Lords Justices would not consent, and it may be that they were
jealous of their general; but it must be confessed that there was also
something to be said for a cautious policy. With the Pale evidently
disaffected Dublin could not be considered as very safe.[281]

[Sidenote: The Irish Parliament after the outbreak.]

[Sidenote: Both Houses protest against the rising.]

[Sidenote: Vain hopes of peace.]

[Sidenote: Prorogation, Nov. 17, 1641.]

When the rebellion broke out the Lords Justices by their own authority
prorogued Parliament till February 24, fearing a concourse of people
to Dublin, and also because the state of Ulster made it almost certain
that there would not be a Protestant majority. The gentry of the Pale,
and the Roman Catholic party generally, protested strongly, and there
were doubts about the legality of the prorogation. Some lawyers held
that Parliament would be dissolved by the mere fact of not meeting
on the appointed day. To get over the difficulty the Lords Justices
agreed that Parliament should meet as originally announced, but that
it should sit only for one day, and should then be prorogued to a date
earlier than February 24. Ormonde and some others were in favour of a
regular session, but they were overruled by the official members of
the Council. Parliament met accordingly on November 9, and immediately
adjourned till the 16th, so as to give time for private negotiations.
The attendance was thin in both Houses, partly on account of the state
of the country and partly because many thought that the prorogation
till February was still in force. Mr. Cadowgan significantly remarked
that 'many members of the House are traitors, and whether they come
or not it is not material.' There was a great military display about
the Castle gates, according to the precedent created by Strafford, and
offence was taken at this; but the two Houses agreed to a protestation
against those who, 'contrary to their duty and loyalty to his Majesty,
and against the laws of God, and the fundamental laws of the realm,
have traitorously and rebelliously raised arms, have seized on some of
his Majesty's forts and castles, and dispossessed many of his Majesty's
faithful subjects of their houses, lands, and goods, and have slain
many of them, and committed other cruel and inhumane outrages and acts
of hostility within the realm.' And the Lords and Commons pledged
themselves to 'take up arms and with their lives and fortunes suppress
them and their attempts.' There was some grumbling about the words
'traitorously and rebelliously' on the principle that birds are not
to be caught by throwing stones at them, but the majority thought the
Ulster rebels past praying for, and the protest was agreed to without
a division. There was also unanimity in appointing a joint committee,
fairly representing different sections, with power, subject to royal
or viceregal consent, to confer with the Ulster people. Two days were
occupied in these discussions, and on the evening of the 17th the Lords
Justices prorogued Parliament till January 11. When that day came
things had gone far beyond the parliamentary stage.[282]

[Sidenote: Leicester Lord Lieutenant.]

[Sidenote: He never came to Ireland.]

[Sidenote: The rebellion reported to the English Parliament.]

[Sidenote: The news reaches the King, Oct. 27.]

The Earl of Leicester was appointed Lord Lieutenant early in June 1641,
and the Lords Justices were directed by the King to furnish him with
copies of all their instructions. He remained in England, and to him
the Irish Government addressed their account of the outbreak. This
was brought over by Owen O'Connolly, received on or before October
31, and at once communicated to the Privy Council, who had a Sunday
sitting. On Monday, November 1, the Upper House did not sit in the
morning, 'for,' says Clarendon, 'it was All Saints' Day, which the
Lords yet kept holy, though the Commons had reformed it.' To the House
of Commons accordingly the Privy Council proceeded in a body, headed
by the Lord Keeper. There was no precedent for such a visitation, but
after a short discussion chairs were placed in the body of the House
and Leicester, with his hat off, read the Lords Justices' letter of
October 25. Clarendon testifies from personal knowledge that the
rebellion was odious to the King, and confidently asserts that none of
the parliamentary leaders 'originally and intentionally contributed
thereunto,' though he believes that their conduct afterwards added
fuel to the flame. When the Privy Councillors had withdrawn the House
went into committee, Mr. Whitelock in the chair, and drew up heads
for a conference with the Peers. As to money they resolved to borrow
50,000_l._, giving full security, and to pay O'Connolly 500_l._ down
with a pension of 200_l._ until an estate of greater value could be
provided. Resolutions were passed against <DW7>s, and particularly
for the banishment of the Queen's Capuchins. The Lords met in the
afternoon, and after this the two Houses acted together. Three days
later the estimate for Ireland was raised to 200,000_l._, and Leicester
was authorised to raise 3,500 foot and 600 horse, while arms were
provided for a further levy. News of the outbreak came to the King at
Edinburgh direct from Ulster four days before it reached the English
Parliament. Tradition says that he was playing golf, and that he
finished his game.[283]

[Sidenote: Letter from the O'Farrells.]

[Sidenote: Catholic grievances represented to the King.]

Lord Dillon of Costello, who was a professing Protestant, produced at
the Council on November 10 a letter signed by twenty-six O'Farrells
in county Longford. This paper is well written, and contains the usual
pleas for religious equality, which modern readers will readily admit,
though they were not according to the ideas of that day either at home
or abroad. The O'Farrells had taken an oath of allegiance, but their
sincerity is open to doubt, for they demanded 'an act of oblivion and
general pardon without restitution on account of goods taken in the
times of this commotion.' No government could possibly grant any such
amnesty, and the suggestion came at a time when Ulster was in a blaze
and when Dublin was crowded with Protestants who had escaped with their
bare lives. Dillon and Taaffe were commissioned by the Roman Catholic
lords to carry their grievances to the King. When returning with
instructions they were stopped at Ware and their papers overhauled, the
Lords Justices having warned their parliamentary friends.[284]

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Irish Government.]

[Sidenote: Relief comes but slowly.]

[Sidenote: Monck, Grenville and Harcourt.]

The influence of Carte has led historians generally to think that the
Lords Justices were either too desperately frightened to think of
anything but their own safety, or that they let the rebellion gather
head to suit the views of the English parliamentary party. There is not
much evidence for either supposition. Just at the moment when the Pale
was declaring against them they reported their destitute condition to
Leicester. The troops were unpaid. At Dublin they had but 3000 foot
and 200 horse, and the capital as well as Drogheda was surrounded by
armed bands who had already made food scarce, and who threatened to
cut off the water. A large extent had to be defended, and many of
the inhabitants were not to be trusted. A crusade was being preached
all over the country, and at Longford, notwithstanding the oath of
the O'Farrells, a priest was reported to have given the signal for a
massacre by ripping up the parson with his own hand. The mischief was
spreading daily, and agitators industriously declared that no help
would be sent from England. Ireland was not, however, forgotten, but
Parliament, to whom the King had specially entrusted it, had its own
business to do, and a popular assembly has no administrative energy. It
was not till the last day of December that Sir Simon Harcourt landed
with 1100 men. Three hundred more followed quickly, and George Monck
with Leicester's own regiment was not far behind. Grenville brought 400
horse about the same time. Harcourt had long military experience in the
Low Countries, and had lately commanded a regiment in Scotland. He had
a commission as Governor of Dublin, but Coote was in possession and was
not disturbed. Harcourt was very angry with the Lords Justices, but he
got on well with Ormonde and did good service until his death.[285]

[Sidenote: Sir Charles Coote.]

The number of troops available in Dublin was small, but they were much
better armed than the insurgents. It was thus a matter of policy to
act on the offensive and clear the surrounding country, demolishing
houses and castles where troublesome posts might be established.
This work, cruel in itself, was performed in a very ruthless manner,
and particular blame has always fallen upon Sir Charles Coote, whose
ferocity seems to have been as conspicuous as his courage. One story
told both by Bellings and Leyburn is that he called upon a countryman
to blow into the mouth of his pistol, that the simple fellow obeyed,
and that Coote shot him in that position. He never went to bed during
a campaign, but kept himself ready for any alarm, and lost his life in
a sally from Trim during a night attack at the head of only seventeen
men, the place being beset by thousands.[286]

FOOTNOTES:

[268] Alice Thornton's _Autobiography_; _Irish Lords Journals_,
February 22, 1640-1; Petition of the Irish Committee to the King, Cal.
State Papers, _Ireland_, 1640, addendum; Radcliffe's answer to the
Committee, _ib._ January 9, 1641, and their rejoinder, _ib._ February
12.

[269] _Irish Commons Journals_, February 16, 1640-1. The queries,
with the answers and declaration of the Commons, are in _Nalson_, ii.
572-589.

[270] _Irish Commons Journals_, 1641, p. 211; _Irish Lords Journals_,
February 27, March 4.

[271] _Irish Commons Journals_, June 7, July 10. The story about the
powder is from Borlase's _Rebellion_, ed. 1680, p. 12; he is not a very
good authority, but on this occasion is speaking of his father's action.

[272] Examination of Henry Macartan, quartermaster to Owen Roe
O'Neill, February 12, 1641-2, _Contemp. Hist._ i. 396; Vane to the
Lords Justices, March 16, 1640-1, Cox's _Hibernia Anglicana_, ii. 65;
Cole to the Lords Justices, October 11, 1641, printed in _Nalson_ and
elsewhere; Lords Justices and Council to Vane, June 30, 1641, State
Papers, _Ireland_; Deposition as to the Multifarnham meeting, May 3,
1642 (misprinted 1641), in Hickson's _Seventeenth Century_, ii. 355.
Temple produces evidence as to the rebellion being threatened long
before it actually happened, O'More himself having admitted as much,
p. 103. Patrick O'Bryan of Fermanagh swore on January 29, 1641-2 'that
he heard Colonel Plunket say that he knew of this plot eight years
ago, but within these three years hath been more fully acquainted
with it'--_Somers Tracts_, v. 586. Lieutenant Craven, who had been a
prisoner with the Ulster Irish, was prepared to swear that on March 3,
1641-2, he had heard Bishop Heber Macmahon tell his friends that he had
planned the rebellion years before, and knew from personal knowledge
that all Catholic nations would help; urging them to persevere and
extirpate heresy. Macmahon repeated this at Monaghan in January
1643-4--_Carte MSS._ vol. lxiii. f. 132.

[273] Lord Maguire's Relation, written by him in the Tower (after
August 1642) printed from the Carte Papers in _Contemp. Hist._ i. 501.
Parsons to Vane, August 3, State Papers, _Ireland_. Temple's History is
valuable here, for he was present in Dublin and signed the proclamation
on October 23, _Bellings_, i. 7-11.

[274] O'Connolly's Deposition, October 22, in Temple's _History_,
with the author's remarks, and his further Relation printed from a
manuscript in Trinity College in _Contemp. Hist._, i. 357.

[275] Chiefly from Temple's _History_, where O'Connolly's evidence,
and the proclamation of October 23, are given in full. There is an
independent account by Alice Thornton, Wandesford's daughter, who was
in Dublin at the time, aged fifteen. According to her O'Connolly swam
the Liffey. 'What shall I do for my wife?' he asked the conspirators,
and they answered 'Hang her, for she was but an English dog; he might
get better of his own country.'--_Autobiography_, Surtees Society, 1875.

[276] Sir F. Willoughby's narrative among the _Trinity College MSS._,
809-841, vol. xxxii. f. 178.

[277] _Temple_, pp. 93-4. Macmahon's Deposition, October 23, _Contemp.
Hist._ i. Appx. xix. Lords Justices and Council to Leicester, October
25, printed in Temple's _History_ and elsewhere. Macmahon's latter
evidence, 'taken at the rack' on March 22, 1641-2, gives further
details regarding the Ulster conspirators, but he knew nothing about
the Pale, and does not even mention O'More's name. Reports of Maguire's
trial have been often printed.

[278] Proclamation of October 29, 1641, in _Temple_ and elsewhere. Dean
Jones's 'Relation of the beginning and proceedings of the rebellion in
Cavan, &c.,' was printed in London by order of the House of Commons in
the spring of 1642, and reproduced in vol. v. of the _Somers Tracts_
as well as in Gilbert's _Contemporary History_, where the Cavan
Remonstrance, received November 6, and the Lords Justices' answer
dated November 10, are also printed. Rosetti at Cologne heard that
many Protestants had joined the rebels, which was certainly not true,
though some pretended to do so. _Roman Transcripts_, R.O., December
10, 1641. Another paper from Cologne speaks of the rebels 'quali
vanno decapitando et appiccando li Protestanti che non gli vogliono
assistere,' _ib._ December 22.

[279] Temple prints the commission to Gormanston as a specimen. Lords
Justices and Council to Leicester, December 14, in _Nalson_, ii. 911.

[280] Sir Henry Tichborne's letter to his wife, printed with Temple's
_History_, Cork, 1766. Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 193, and the King's
letters in vol. iii. Nos. 31 and 82.

[281] Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 192-5; Lords Justices to Ormonde, October
24, 1641, printed in _Confederation and War_, i. 227.

[282] Bellings gives the two documents referred to. He was a member
of this Parliament, and one of the Joint Committee. _Irish Commons
Journals._

[283] _Rushworth_, iv. 398-406; Nicholas to the King, November 1,
1641, in Evelyn's _Correspondence_; Macray's edition of Clarendon's
_History_, i. 408; May's _Long Parliament_, p. 127. May is a good
authority for what happened in London, but for events in Ireland
he depends chiefly on Temple. _Lords Journals_, November 1; Lang's
_Hist. of Scotland_, iii. 100; Vane to Nicholas, October 27, _Nicholas
Papers_, i. 58.

[284] _Nalson_, ii. 898; _Rushworth_, iv. 413; _Diurnal Occurrences_,
December 20-25, 1641.

[285] Despatch of December 14, in _Nalson_, _ut sup._ Monck's letter
from Chester, _ib._ 919, shows how little money Parliament had to
spare. In clerical circles abroad it was rumoured a little later that
Dublin would soon fall, and that five hundred Protestants who objected
to the cross in baptism had been marked with it on the forehead and
sent back to England--_Roman Transcripts_, R.O., February 2, 1642.
Four letters from Sir Simon Harcourt, January 3, 1641-42 to March 21,
in vol. i. of _Harcourt Papers_ (private circulation). As late as
September 16, 1642, Sir N. Loftus wrote from Dublin that the enfeebled
garrison could not hold out for six weeks if seriously attacked.
Food and ammunition were wanting, and the surviving soldiers sick or
starving--_Portland Papers_, i. 700.

[286] _Bellings_, i. xxxii. 35; George Leyburn's _Memoirs_, Preface;
Borlase's _Irish Rebellion_, p. 104, ed. 1743. Coote was killed May 7,
1642; when the name occurs later the reference is to his son, also Sir
Charles.




CHAPTER XX

PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION


[Sidenote: Outbreak in Ulster.]

[Sidenote: Savage character of the contest.]

[Sidenote: Contemporary accounts of the massacre.]

[Sidenote: Later estimates.]

[Sidenote: The number of victims cannot be ascertained.]

'There are,' says Hume, 'three events in our history which may be
regarded as touchstones of party men: an English Whig who asserts the
reality of the popish plot, an Irish Catholic who denies the massacre
in 1641, and a Scotch Jacobite who maintains the innocence of Queen
Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason,
and must be left to their prejudices.' The fact of a massacre cannot be
denied, but its extent is quite another matter. There is no evidence
of any general conspiracy of the Irish to destroy all the Protestants,
but so far as Ulster was concerned there was no doubt one to regain the
land and in so doing to expel the settlers. Rinuccini admitted that the
northern Irish, though good Catholics, were often great savages; and it
is not surprising that there should have been many murders, sometimes
of the most atrocious character, and that a much larger number of lives
should have been lost through starvation and exposure. It is also true
that many acts of kindness were done by the successful insurgents, and
that the retaliation of the English was cruel and indiscriminating. As
to the number killed during the early part of the rebellion and before
it assumed the dignity of civil war, it is impossible to form anything
like a satisfactory estimate. Temple, whose book was published in 1646,
says that in the first two years after the outbreak '300,000 British
and Protestants were cruelly murdered in cold blood, destroyed some
other way, or expelled out of their habitations according to the strict
conjecture and computation of those who seemed best to understand the
numbers of English planted in Ireland, besides those few that perished
in the heat of fight during the war.' The great exaggeration of this
has been dwelt on by writers who wish to disparage Temple's authority,
but these enormous figures were generally believed in at the time. May,
who depended partly on Temple, says 'the innocent Protestants were
upon a sudden disseized of their estates, and the persons of above
200,000 men, women, and children, murdered, many of them with exquisite
and unheard of tortures, within the space of one month.' Dr. Maxwell
learned from the Irish themselves that their priests counted 154,000
killed during the first five months. The Jesuit Cornelius O'Mahony,
writing in 1645, says it was admitted on all sides that 150,000
heretics had been killed up to that time; he exults in the fact,
and thinks the number was really greater. Clarendon says 40,000 or
50,000 English Protestants were murdered at the very beginning of the
rebellion. Petty was the first writer of repute who attempted anything
like a critical estimate. He had a genius for statistics and he knew
a great deal, but owing to the want of trustworthy data, even he can
do little more than guess that '37,000 were massacred in the first
year of tumults.' So much for those who lived at or near the time;
modern writers can scarcely be better informed, but may perhaps be
more impartial. Froude, who was not inclined to minimise, thinks even
Petty's estimate too high, and quotes the account of an eye-witness
who says 20,000 were killed or starved to death in about the first
two months. Warner, who wrote in 1767, was inclined to adopt Peter
Walsh's estimate of 8000. Reid rejected the higher figures, but without
venturing on any decided opinion, Lecky very truly said that certainty
was unattainable, but was inclined to agree with Warner. Miss Hickson,
who examined the depositions more closely than any other writer, said
the same, but thought the number killed in the first three or four
years of the war could hardly fall short of 25,000. The conclusion of
the whole matter is that several thousand Protestants were massacred,
that the murders were not confined to one province or county, but
occurred in almost every part of the island, that the retaliation was
very savage, innocent persons often suffering for the guilty, and
that great atrocities were committed on both sides. 'The cause of the
war,' says Petty, 'was a desire of the Romanists to recover the Church
revenue, worth about 110,000_l._ per annum and of the common Irish to
get all the Englishmen's estates, and of the ten or twelve grandees of
Ireland to get the empire of the whole.... But as for the bloodshed
in the contest, God best knows who did occasion it.' He thought the
population of Ireland in 1641 was about 1,400,000, out of which only
210,000 were British.[287]

[Sidenote: The massacre in Island Magee.]

One of the worst cases of retaliation was the massacre by Scots of
many Roman Catholic inhabitants of Island Magee in Antrim, but it is
necessary to point out that this took place in January 1642, because
it has been asserted that it was the first act of violence and the
real cause of the whole rebellion. Some of those who took part in the
outrage were alive in 1653, and were then prosecuted by the Cromwellian
Government.[288]

[Sidenote: The rising in Tyrone, Oct. 23, 1641.]

[Sidenote: English tenants plundered.]

[Sidenote: Murder of Protestants.]

Dublin was saved, but the rebellion broke out in Ulster upon the
appointed day. According to Captain John Creichton, his grandfather's
house near Caledon in Tyrone was the first attacked. The rebellion
certainly began upon Sir Phelim O'Neill's property at Caledon or Kinard
during the night of October 22, when O'Connolly was telling the Lords
Justices what he had heard. William Skelton, who lived as a servant
in Sir Phelim's house, was ploughing in the afternoon when an Irish
fellow servant came to him with about twenty companions and said that
they had risen about religion. Armed only with cudgels, they attacked
several of Sir Phelim's English tenants, who were well-to-do and
apparently well-beloved by their Irish neighbours, 'and differed not in
anything, save only that the Irish went to mass, and the English to the
Protestant church in Tinane, a mile from Kinard.' Taken by surprise,
the Protestants were easily disarmed, and robbed in the first instance
only of such horses as would make troopers. All the English and Scots
neighbours were thus plundered in detail, cattle, corn, furniture,
and clothes being taken in succession. In about a fortnight the Irish
began to murder the Protestants. Among those whom Skelton knew of his
own knowledge to be killed in cold blood before the end of the year
was 'one Edward Boswell, who was come over but a year before from
England, upon the invitation of the said Sir Phelim, his wife having
nursed a child of the said Sir Phelim's in London.' Boswell's wife and
child were murdered at the same time, and seventeen others in Kinard
itself, men, women, and children. Skelton and some others were saved
by the intercession of Daniel Bawn, whose wife was an Englishman's
daughter.[289]

[Sidenote: Sir Phelim O'Neill at Charlemont.]

[Sidenote: The Caulfield family.]

[Sidenote: Dungannon, Mountjoy, Tanderagee and Newry taken]

[Sidenote: Bishop Henry Leslie.]

While his English servant was ploughing at Kinard, Sir Phelim O'Neill
was on his way to Charlemont with an armed party. He had invited
himself to dinner and was hospitably received by Lady Caulfield and her
son, who had not long succeeded to the peerage. In after days there
was a family tradition that the butler, an old and trusty servant, was
alarmed by the attitude of Sir Phelim's followers and imparted his
fears to his mistress. His advice was neglected, and when the meal was
over he left the house and made the best of his way to Dublin. The
Caulfields and the unsuspecting men who ought to have defended the fort
were surprised and captured, and O'Neill occupied Dungannon the same
night. Next day the O'Quins took Mountjoy, the O'Hanlons Tanderagee,
and the Magennises Newry. All were surprised, and there was practically
no resistance. In the course of the day a fugitive trooper came to
Lisburn, where Henry Leslie, Bishop of Down, was living, with news of
the disasters at Charlemont and Dungannon, and four hours later another
runaway announced that Newry was taken. Leslie at once sent the news
on to Lord Montgomery, who was at or near Newtownards, and to Lord
Chichester at Belfast; and they both wrote to the King.

Chichester said only one man had been slain, which has been adduced as
a proof that there was no massacre, but he knew only what Leslie had
told him, and there were no tidings from any point beyond Dungannon.
Other districts could tell a very different tale.[290]

[Sidenote: Fermanagh. Rory Maguire.]

[Sidenote: Murders at Lisgoole and elsewhere.]

Lord Maguire was a prisoner, but his brother Rory raised Fermanagh
before any account of the doings in Dublin had come so far. The robbing
and murdering began on October 23, and very soon the whole county was
at the mercy of the rebels. Enniskillen was never taken, and it will be
seen that walled towns, if well defended, were generally maintained.
Alice Champion, whose husband was killed in her presence on the first
day, heard the murderers say that 'they had special orders from Lord
Maguire not to spare him or any of the Crosses that were his followers
and tenants.' About twenty-four others were murdered at the same time,
and Mrs. Champion afterwards heard them boast that they had 'killed so
many Englishmen that the grease or fat that remained on their swords
might have made an Irish candle,' ninety being despatched at Lisgoole
alone. The latter massacre is also sworn to by an eye-witness. Anne
Ogden's husband was murdered in the same way. She was allowed to fly
to Dublin with her two children, but all were stripped on the way, and
the children afterwards died 'through the torments of hunger and cold
they endured on that journey.'

[Sidenote: Treatment of the English Bible.]

Edward Flack, a clergyman, was plundered and wounded on the 23rd, and
his house burned. The rebels in this case vented some of their fury on
his Bible, which they stamped upon in a puddle, saying 'A plague on
this book, it has bred all this quarrel,' and hoping that all Bibles
would have this or worse treatment within three weeks. Much more of
the same kind might be said, and the events sworn to in Fermanagh
alone fully dispel the idea that there were no murders at the first
outbreak.[291]

[Sidenote: Cavan. The O'Reillys.]

[Sidenote: Pretended orders from the King.]

[Sidenote: Colonel Richard Plunkett.]

In Cavan, where the O'Reillys were supreme, there were no murders at
the very beginning. Here, as in other places, the first idea seems
to have been to spare the Scots and not to kill the English unless
they resisted their spoilers. On the night of October 23, the Rev.
George Crichton, vicar of Lurgan, who lived at Virginia, was roused
out of his first sleep by two neighbours, who told him of the rising
further north. Many of the Protestant inhabitants fled into the fields,
but Crichton thought it better to stand his ground, and very soon a
messenger came from Captain Tirlogh McShane McPhilip O'Reilly, to say
that the Irish would harm no Scot. Crichton perhaps profited also by
the fact that 'no man ever lost a penny by him in the Bishop's Court,
and none ever paid to him what he did owe,' which may have been a
result of Bedell's influence. He went out and met this chief at Parta
wood, about a mile to the east of the town. O'Reilly, who had some
twenty-four men with him, announced that Dublin and all other strong
places were taken, and that they 'had directions from his Majesty to
do all these things to curb the Parliament of England; for all the
Catholics in England should have been compelled to go to Church, or
else they should be all hanged before their own doors on Tuesday next.'
Crichton said he did not believe such a thing had been ever dreamed of,
whereupon O'Reilly declared his intention of seizing all Protestant
property and of killing anyone who resisted. Next morning Virginia
was sacked accordingly, but no lives were taken, for no one made any
defence. The canny Scots clergyman managed to keep the Irish in pretty
good humour, lodged nine families in his own house, and provided food
for the fugitives from Fermanagh who began to arrive in a few days.
Many thousands from Ballyhaise, Belturbet and Cavan passed through
Virginia on their way towards the Pale. Crichton obtained help from
Colonel Richard Plunkett, who wept and blamed Rory Maguire for all. On
being asked whether the Irish had made a covenant he said, 'Yea, the
Scots have taught us our A B C; in the meantime he so trembled that he
could scarce carry a cup of drink to his head.' Nevertheless he boasted
that Dublin was the only place not taken, that Geneva had fallen,
and that there was war in England. Many of the wretched Fermanagh
Protestants were wounded, and the state of their children was pitiable.
The wounded were tended and milk provided for the children, Crichton
telling his wife and family that it was their plain duty to stay, and
that 'in this trouble God had called them to do him that service.'
All this happened within the first week of the outbreak, and when the
long stream of refugees seemed to have passed, Crichton and his family
prepared to go; but they were detained, lest what they had to tell
might be inconvenient. Protestants from the north continued to drop in
for some time, and Crichton was allowed to relieve them until after
the overthrow at Julianstown at the end of November. The O'Reillys
took part in the affair, and their followers became bolder and less
lenient.[292]

[Sidenote: Cavan and Belturbet.]

[Sidenote: Philip MacHugh O'Reilly.]

[Sidenote: Horrors of a winter flight.]

Another clergyman, Henry Jones, Dean of Kilmore, was living at
Bellananagh Castle, near Cavan, at the time of the outbreak. Philip
MacHugh MacShane O'Reilly, member for the county, was the chosen leader
of the Irish. The actual chief of the clan was Edmund O'Reilly, but
the most active part was taken by his son, Miles O'Reilly, the high
sheriff, a desperate 'young man,' who at once assumed his native
name of Mulmore Mac Edmond. Under the pretence of raising the _posse
comitatus_ he sent bailiffs to the scattered houses of Protestants and
collected their arms. He himself seized the arms at Farnham Castle, and
took possession of Cloghoughter, with whose governor, Arthur Culme,
he had been on terms of friendship. Next day, October 24, the sheriff
proceeded to Belturbet, which was the principal English settlement and
contained some 1500 Protestants. Sir Stephen Butler was dead, but his
widow had married Mr. Edward Philpot and was living there with her
five children. Sir Francis Hamilton, who was at Keilagh Castle, tried
to organise some resistance, but Philip MacHugh O'Reilly took the
settlers under his protection, and they gave up their arms. Yet Captain
Ryves with some thirty horse had no difficulty in reaching the Pale by
O'Daly's Bridge on the Blackwater, and in occupying Ardbraccan for the
Lords Justices. Cavan surrendered, and on the 29th Bellananagh, which
was indefensible, surrendered to the sheriff's uncle, Philip MacMulmore
O'Reilly. It had been determined to clear all the English out of the
county, and though Lady Butler with 1500 others were escorted as far
as Cavan they were attacked just beyond the town, and stripped of
everything. Those who did not die of exposure reached Dublin, to starve
and shiver among the other fugitives there. Those who remained at
Belturbet had a still worse fate.[293]

[Sidenote: The O'Reillys were not unanimous.]

[Sidenote: Doctor Henry Jones.]

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Irish Government.]

[Sidenote: Divisions among the Irish.]

The O'Reillys had always been more civilised than other natives of
Ulster, and they almost seem to have felt that the Government must win
in the end. Rose O'Neill, the wife of Philip MacHugh, wished to kill
all the English and Scotch at Ballyhaise, but he would not allow it.
'The day,' he said, 'may come when thou mayest be beholding to the
poorest among them.' With a view no doubt to that distant day, they
resolved to petition the Lords Justices and to send an Englishman with
the message. Bedell refused to go on account of his age and because his
plundered flock could not spare him, but Jones, who in his time played
many parts, thought it safer to do as he was asked. He left his wife
and children as hostages and went to Dublin, with a memorial signed by
seven O'Reillys which spoke of former misgovernment, and rumours that
worse was to come. They protested their loyalty and desired the Lords
Justices 'to make remonstrance to his Majesty for us ... so that the
liberties of our conscience may be secured unto us, and we eased of our
other burdens in the civil government.' The Lords Justices and eight
Privy Councillors, of whom Ormonde was one, sent an answer, dealing in
generalities 'suitable to the weak condition of affairs in Dublin.'
The most they could promise was that if they would restore all the
Cavan Protestants to their homes and properties and cease from further
hostilities, that then their memorial should be forwarded to the King.
On his return Jones found the O'Reillys preparing to invade the Pale.
He managed to keep the Dublin Government well informed, at the same
time dissuading the Irish from attacking the capital, whose means of
defence he exaggerated. Drogheda, he said, was more assailable, and
to Drogheda they determined to go. They mustered first at Virginia,
where Mr. Crichton made friends with Philip MacHugh's mother on the
ground of common kinship with Argyle, 'of which house it seemeth that
she was well pleased that she was descended. This kindred stood me
in great stead afterwards, for although it was far off and old, yet
it bound the hands of the ruder sort from shedding my blood.' Many
lives, says Crichton, were also saved by the quarrels of the Irish
among themselves. Philip MacHugh not only shielded his far away
cousin, and others for his sake, but was evidently disinclined to the
task in hand, regretted that he had not kept the Protestants safe at
Belturbet, 'blamed Rory Maguire for threatening to kill and burn them,
and cursed those among the English that gave them counsel to leave
their habitations.' Crichton thought O'Reilly a deep dissembler, but he
should have the credit for comparative humanity. He and others seem to
have thought that the war was on the point of breaking out in England,
and that it would be impossible to send any troops to Ireland for years
to come.[294]

[Sidenote: Rising in Monaghan.]

[Sidenote: Murder of Richard Blayney.]

[Sidenote: A sham royal commission.]

In Monaghan there was a general rising on October 23, but a number of
murders were committed during the first few days, and the Macmahons
behaved worse than the O'Reillys. Richard Blayney, member for the
county, and commissioner of subsidies, was hanged by Sir Phelim
O'Neill's direct orders, and his dead body barbarously treated. At
Carrickmacross Essex's bailiff, Patrick McLoughlin Macmahon, took the
lead among the local rebels, and about 600_l._ of the great absentee's
rents came into their hands. In Monaghan, as elsewhere, the Irish
professed to do everything by the King's orders, but at Armagh Sir
Phelim O'Neill professed to show the actual commission with a broad
seal to it, adding that he would be a traitor if he acted of his own
accord. 'We are a sold people,' said an Englishman who witnessed the
scene. A number of Protestants took refuge in the cathedral, but they
had to surrender, and being stripped and robbed were sent to keep
the Caulfields company at Charlemont. A miscellaneous collection of
Protestants, including many children and poor people, from whom no
ransom could be expected, were driven to the bridge of Portadown and
there murdered.[295]

[Sidenote: The Portadown massacre, about Nov. 1, 1641.]

[Sidenote: The church at Blackwater.]

[Sidenote: Alleged apparitions.]

[Sidenote: Investigation by Owen Roe O'Neill.]

The Portadown massacre has been more discussed perhaps than any episode
in the Irish rebellion, and it has left behind it an ineffaceable
impression of horror. The victims were only a part of those murdered
in the county of Armagh, but more than 100--one account says 160--were
killed at one time--and the affair was carefully planned beforehand.
The chief actor was Captain Manus O'Cahan, but many of the sufferers
had received passes from Sir Phelim himself. O'Cahan and his men, Mrs.
Price deposed, forced and drove all those prisoners, and amongst them
the deponent's five children, by name Adam, John, Anne, Mary, and
Jane Price, off the bridge into the water. Those that could swim were
shot or forced back into the river. When Owen Roe O'Neill came to
the country he asked in Mrs. Price's hearing how many Protestants the
rebels had drowned at Portadown, and they said 400. If this is correct
the cruel work on the Bann must have continued for some time. They
also said that those drowned in the Blackwater were too many to count,
and that the number thrust into lakes and bog-holes could not even be
guessed at. On November 17 they burned the church at Blackwaterstown
with a crowd of Protestants in it, 'whose cries being exceeding loud
and fearful, the rebels used to delight much in a scornful manner to
imitate them, and brag of their acts.' Attempts have been made to
discredit the evidence on the ground that Mrs. Price and others refer
to apparitions at the scene of the Portadown massacre. Screams and
cries are easily explained, for wolves and dogs fed undisturbed upon
the unburied dead. But Mrs. Price says she actually saw a ghost when
she visited the spot where her five children had been slaughtered,
and that Owen Roe O'Neill, who came expressly to inform himself as
to the alleged apparitions, was present with his men, who saw it
also. It was twilight, and 'upon a sudden, there appeared unto them a
vision, or spirit assuming the shape of a woman, waist high, upright
in the water, naked, her hair dishevelled, very white, and her eyes
seeming to twinkle in her head, and her skin as white as snow; which
spirit or vision, seeming to stand upright in the water, divulged, and
often repeated the word "Revenge! Revenge! Revenge!"' O'Neill sent a
priest and a friar to question the figure both in English and Latin,
but it answered nothing. He afterwards sent a trumpet to the nearest
English force for a Protestant clergyman, by whom the same figure was
seen and the cries of 'Revenge!' heard, but Mrs. Price does not say
she was present on this occasion. The evidence of this lady shows no
marks of a wandering mind, and yet it is evident that she believed in
an apparition. It is quite possible that some crazed woman who had
lost all that was dear to her may have haunted the spot and cried for
vengeance, but in any case a belief in ghosts was still general in
those days, and especially in Ireland. The evidence as to the massacre
is overwhelming.[296]

[Sidenote: Bedell at Kilmore.]

[Sidenote: He is allowed to relieve many Protestants.]

[Sidenote: He refuses to leave his post.]

[Sidenote: He is imprisoned at Lough Oughter.]

[Sidenote: He is released.]

[Sidenote: Fate of his library.]

Bedell was at Kilmore when the rebellion broke out. The Protestants
were surprised, but it was remembered afterwards that there had been
an invasion or migration of rats, and that caterpillars had appeared
in unusual numbers. It was more to the purpose that a crack-brained
Irish scholar who wandered from house to house was heard frequently
to exclaim, 'Where is King Charles now?' and that he wrote in an old
almanac 'We doubt not of France and Spain in this action'--words which
he may have heard in some conventicle of the Irish. The fugitive
Protestants crowded to Kilmore, where they were all sheltered and
fed, the better sort in the palace and the rest in out-buildings. The
bishop's son, who was there, likens the stream of poor stripped people
to 'Job's messengers bringing one sad report after another without
intermission.' After a few days, Edmund O'Reilly, the sheriff's father,
ordered Bedell to dismiss his guests, who were about 200, chiefly
old people, women and children. On his refusal those in the detached
buildings were attacked at night and driven out almost naked into the
cold and darkness. The bishop's cattle were seized, but he had stored
some grain in the house, and was still able in an irregular way to
relieve many stray Protestants. On one occasion he sallied forth to
rescue some of them, and two muskets were placed against his breast.
He bade them fire, but they went away, and still for some time the
palace walls were allowed to shelter those within. One of these was
John Parker, afterwards Bishop of Elphin, who had fled from his living
at Belturbet. 'For the space of three weeks,' says Parker, 'we enjoyed
a heaven upon earth, much of our time spent in prayer, reading God's
word, and in good conference; inasmuch as I have since oft professed
my willingness to undergo (if my heart did not deceive me) another
Irish stripping to enjoy a conversation with so learned and holy a
man.' Church service was regularly continued, but the investment of
the house became closer, Bedell resolutely refusing to quit his post,
although the Irish urged him to leave the country and promised all his
company safe convoy to Dublin. His own children wished him to accept
this offer, and it is probable that the Bishop himself and possible
that his guests might have reached the capital in safety, but the
experience of others had not been encouraging. Some prisoners having
been taken by the Scottish garrisons at Keilagh and Croghan, and Eugene
Swiney, the rival Bishop of Kilmore, pressing for restoration to his
palace, Bedell and his family were at last expelled. 'I arrest you,'
said Edmund O'Reilly, laying his hand on the Bishop's shoulder, 'in the
King's name.' Having first arranged that the Church plate provided by
himself should be handed over to the other Bishop, Bedell was conveyed
to a castle upon an island in Lough Oughter. He was allowed to take
his money with him, and his two sons with their wives accompanied him.
They were well treated on the whole, but the castle had neither glass
nor shutters to the windows, and they spent a cold Christmas. Some of
the prisoners were in irons, and Bedell earnestly desired to share
their fate, but this was refused. The party were dependent on the Irish
for news, and at first they heard much of the disaster at Julianstown
and of the certain fall of Drogheda. But an English prisoner who knew
Irish listened one night through a chink in the floor, and heard a
soldier fresh from Drogheda tell the guard that the siege was raised.
'The bullets,' he said, 'poured down as thick from the walls as if
one should take a fire-pan full of coals and pour them down upon the
hearth, which he acted before them, sitting altogether at the fire. And
for his own part he said he would be hanged before he would go forth
again upon such a piece of service.' At last Bedell and his sons were
exchanged for some of those in the hands of the Scots, and released
from the castle. The Bishop's remaining days were spent in the houses
of Dennis Sheridan, a clergyman ordained and beneficed by him, whose
vicarage was near at hand. Sheridan, though a Protestant, was a Celt,
and respect for his clan secured him a certain toleration. He was
instrumental in saving some of Bedell's books, among them a Hebrew
Bible, now at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and the Irish version of
the Old Testament which had cost so much trouble, and which was not
destined to be printed for yet another generation. Most of the books
and manuscripts were taken away first by friars and afterwards by
English soldiers, who sold them. 'Certain of the Bishop's sermons,'
says his son, 'were preached in Dublin, and heard there by some of his
near relations, that had formerly heard them from his own mouth: some
even of the episcopal order were not innocent in this case.'

[Sidenote: Bedell's death, Feb. 9, 1641-2.]

[Sidenote: Respect shown him by the Irish.]

Bedell remained for some weeks with Sheridan, preaching often and
praying with those that were left to him. The house was crowded with
fugitives, and typhus fever broke out among them. Old and enfeebled
by his imprisonment, the Bishop insisted on ministering to the sick,
and was at last struck down himself. Philip MacMulmore O'Reilly came
to see him, offering money and necessaries, and cursing those who
had contrived the rebellion. Bedell, though very weak, rose from his
chair to thank him, 'desiring God to requite him for the same and
to restore peace to the nation; though hardly able to stand, he yet
beyond expectation thus expressed himself without any faltering in his
speech, which he had not done for a great while before.' The effort
exhausted him, and he spoke but little afterwards, answering, 'Well'
to those who asked him how he did and saying 'Amen' to their prayers.
His last words were, 'Be of good cheer; whether we live or die we are
the Lord's.' Bishop Swiney made some difficulty about burying his rival
in Kilmore churchyard, but was overruled by the O'Reillys. Many Irish
attended the funeral, and some of the Sheridans bore the coffin; Edmund
O'Reilly and his son the sheriff, with other gentlemen brought a party
of musketeers and a drum, which was beaten as at a soldier's burial.
'The sheriff told the Bishop's sons they might use what prayers or what
form of burial they pleased; none should interrupt them. And when all
was done, he commanded the musketeers to give a volley of shot, and so
the company departed.' Another account says that some priests present
ejaculated, 'Requiescat in pace ultimus Anglorum,' and that one of
them, Edmund Ferrely, added a fervent prayer that his own soul might
accompany the Protestant bishop's--'O sit anima mea cum Bedello.' The
general goodwill extended to those about him, and none of his family or
immediate friends appear to have been personally molested.[297]

[Sidenote: The English defeated at Julianstown, Nov. 29, 1641.]

[Sidenote: Importance of this affair.]

Good officers were scarce, but six hundred raw recruits were sent under
Major Roper, who was a young man, to reinforce Tichborne, and Sir
Patrick Wemyss accompanied them with fifty horse of Ormonde's troop.
They might easily have reached Drogheda early on the morrow, but the
new levies were mutinous, and refused to go further than Swords on the
first day or than Balrothery on the second. At seven on the morning
of November 29 they were at Lord Gormanston's gate, and Roper went in
to see him. He was informed that the Irish had crossed the Boyne to
intercept him, and that he had better be careful. Roper did not even
warn his officers, but marched on with little precaution. He crossed
the Nanny river by Julianstown bridge in a thick fog, and was there
attacked by a greatly superior force under Philip MacHugh O'Reilly,
Hugh O'Byrne, and O'More. Roper's men were better armed, but scarcely
knew how to use their weapons. The fog made their assailants seem
stronger than they really were, and the foot yielded to panic and
broke almost without striking a blow. Wemyss easily reached Drogheda,
and Roper with two captains and a hundred men followed him; but all,
or nearly all, the rest were killed, and the Irish, who did not lose a
man, were at once supplied with arms. 'The men,' says Ormonde, 'were
unexercised, but had as many arms, I think, within a few, as all the
rebels in the kingdom, and were as well trained as they.' But among the
insurgents were plenty of Strafford's disbanded soldiers, who knew how
to use muskets, and Protestant prisoners in Ulster remarked how much
the Julianstown affair added to the confidence of the Irish.[298]

[Sidenote: Belfast and Carrickfergus saved.]

[Sidenote: The Irish defeated at Lisburn.]

[Sidenote: Lord Conway's library burned.]

Carrickfergus was the ancient seat of English power in Ulster, and
thither the Protestants of Down and Antrim fled in great numbers. The
rising settlement of Belfast was near being abandoned, but Captain
Robert Lawson heard of the outbreak at Newry, gave up his journey to
Dublin, and hurried back to the Lagan. Lord Chichester was actually on
board ship, but Lawson bought a drum and perambulated the town, seized
all the arms he could find, and soon got nearly 200 men together.
Before Sir Phelim O'Neill could hope to attack Carrickfergus it was
necessary to take both Belfast and Lisburn, and the latter place
was attacked by Sir Con Magennis with several thousand men the day
before the disaster at Julianstown. The Ulster Irish had by this time
collected a good many arms, including two field pieces, and they had
taken plenty of powder at Newry. The garrison consisted only of Lord
Conway's troop and of a few newly raised men, but they were skilfully
commanded by Sir Arthur Tyringham, the late governor of Newry, and Sir
George Rawdon, whom all trusted, arrived from Scotland on the evening
before the town was attacked. Taking advantage of the ground, Tyringham
held the streets all day, his cavalry slaughtering the assailants in
great numbers. There had been snow the day before, followed by a thaw,
and then by frost, so that the ground was covered with ice. 'All the
smiths,' says one of the besieged, 'had been employed that whole night
to frost our horses, so that they stood firm when the brogues slipped
and fell down under their feet.' Communication with Belfast was kept
up, and Chichester sent many horse-loads of powder in bags, so that the
ammunition held out. At nightfall the Irish set fire to the town, which
was entirely consumed, and a confused fight went on till near midnight.
After the fire began Chichester's troop of horse arrived with a company
of foot, and the assailants were finally discomfited. 'Every corner was
filled with carcases, and the slain were found to be more than thrice
the number of those that fought against them.' The field pieces appear
to have been thrown into the river. Next day the retreating Irish
burned Rawdon's house at Brookhill containing Lord Conway's library,
and property worth five or six thousand pounds, but they never gained
military possession of the Belfast district, though many Protestants
were driven out of the open country.[299]

[Sidenote: The gentry of the Pale combine with the Irish.]

[Sidenote: Speech of O'More.]

There have been many occasions in Irish history when the Government
has lacked power either to put down its enemies or to protect its
friends. The gentry of the Pale would hardly have joined the rebels
on account of such an affair as Julianstown, but they had grievances,
and the Irish managers pressed them both with arguments and threats.
As governor of Meath, Lord Gormanston called upon the sheriff to
summon a county meeting, which was held upon Crofty Hill, about three
miles to the south of Drogheda. It had been previously arranged that a
deputation from the Ulster Irish should appear there, and in due time
O'More with Philip MacHugh O'Reilly, Hugh O'Byrne and others rode up
'in the head of a guard of musketeers, whom the defeat at the bridge
of Julianstown had furnished with arms of that kind.' Gormanston, who
was supported by the Earl of Fingall and five other peers, acted as
spokesman and asked the newcomers why they came armed into the Pale.
In a prepared speech O'More answered that they had been goaded into
action by penal laws which excluded them from the public service, and
from educational advantages. 'There can,' he said, 'be no greater
mark of servitude than that our children cannot come to speak Latin
without renouncing their spiritual dependence on the Roman Church,
nor ourselves be preferred to any advantageous employment, without
forfeiting our souls.' The Lords Justices, he added, had refused
parliamentary redress, lest they should be prevented from extirpating
Catholicism with the help of a Scotch army. To crown all, they had
branded the Ulster chiefs as rebels, whereas one of their greatest
motives had been to vindicate the royal prerogative from encroachment
'by the malignant party of the Parliament of England.' In conclusion,
he called upon the gentry of the Pale to join the party whose interest
and sufferings were the same as their own. When the applause subsided,
Gormanston asked the Ulstermen whether their loyalty was genuine. The
answer was of course affirmative, and he then invited those around
him to make common cause with the Irish. 'And thus,' philosophises
Bellings, 'distrust, aversion, force, and fear united the two parties
which since the conquest had at all times been most opposite, and it
being first publicly declared that they would repute all such enemies
as did not assist them in their ways, they appointed a second meeting
of the country at the hill of Tara.'[300]

[Sidenote: Meeting at Tara, Dec. 7, 1641.]

[Sidenote: The lords of the Pale refuse to go to Dublin.]

[Sidenote: Sir Phelim O'Neill's manoeuvres.]

The die was now cast, and a summons from the Lords Justices calling
the chief men of the Pale to a conference at Dublin came too late.
The meeting at Tara took place on December 7, and an answer was then
returned signed by seven peers to the effect that they were afraid to
put themselves into the power of the Government, and thought it safer
to stand on their guard. They had, they said, been informed that Sir
Charles Coote had spoken words at the Council table, 'tending to a
purpose and resolution to execute upon those of our religion a general
massacre.' The Lords Justices answered that they had never heard Coote
say anything of the kind, and that anyone who made any such suggestion
should be severely punished; and they again summoned the lords of the
Pale to be at Dublin on the 17th. Ormonde personally gave his word of
honour that they should return safely, and urged them not to lose this
last opportunity of showing their loyalty. But they had gone too far
to draw back, their tenants and dependents had gone still further, and
Sir Phelim O'Neill persuaded them, as they were ready to believe, that
he had great resources. He arranged a sham powder factory, and so acted
his part as to make them think he could turn out an unlimited supply.
The story reads like fiction, but Bellings records it in sober earnest,
and he must have known. O'Neill had no military experience or capacity,
but his confidence imposed upon the hesitating men of the Pale, who not
only gave him chief command in the attack on Drogheda, but also a sort
of commission as governor of Meath.[301]

[Sidenote: The despoiled Protestants flock into Drogheda.]

[Sidenote: Wretched state of the refugees.]

[Sidenote: Sir Faithful Fortescue leaves Drogheda in the lurch. Lord
Moore.]

[Sidenote: Tichborne reaches Drogheda, Nov. 4.]

Lord Moore heard of the Ulster rising on October 23, and of his sister
Lady Blaney's imprisonment. He was then at home at Mellifont, but came
into Drogheda at midnight and roused the mayor and aldermen, who cursed
the rebels 'foully,' but were very slow to make any preparations for
resistance. Not forty men answered the call to arms, and they were
armed with pitchforks and fowling pieces. On the 26th he brought in
his wife and family and his own troop of horse. There were two half
standing companies under Netterville and Rockley, but the former's
loyalty was suspected, and the men could scarcely be trusted. Moore
posted to Dublin, but could only obtain a commission for Captain
Seafowl Gibson to raise a company. Gibson brought down arms and
ammunition and got a hundred Protestant recruits in two hours. Some
of these watched for ten nights running. In the meantime the Irish
had taken Dundalk and were plundering all Protestants not five miles
from Drogheda. 'Miserable spectacles of wealthy men and women,' says
Bernard, 'utterly spoiled and undone, nay, stripped stark naked, with
doleful cries, came flocking in to us by multitudes, upon whom our
bowels could not but yearn.' The majority of the townsmen only smiled,
but took care to ring alarm bells when the Protestants were at church.
Sir Faithful Fortescue, who was married to Lord Moore's sister, had
been lately appointed governor of the town, and he also went to Dublin
for help. Finding none, he resigned his commission in disgust and went
to England. 'By his disheartening letters,' says Bernard, 'he gave us
over, being willing to hazard his life for us, yet loth to lose his
reputation also.' Moore assumed the command, but he had only about 300
men including Gibson's recruits, and the Roman Catholic population was
all but openly hostile. Bernard summoned all the Protestants privately
man by man to meet in the church, and the whole congregation solemnly
vowed that if God would defend them they would endeavour to serve Him
better in future. Three days later there was a solemn fast. Half of
Moore's troop patrolled the streets every night, while the other half
scoured the country, to guard against surprise and to collect cows
and other provisions for the garrison. Two hundred of the enemy were
killed during these raids and eighty brought in alive. 'Such was our
mercy,' says Bernard, 'we only hanged six,' the remaining prisoners
being so well fed by the townsmen that they did not care to escape. A
well-written copy of Sir Phelim O'Neill's proclamation was picked up
in the streets, and a general rising of the inhabitants was feared.
Then came news that the Scots had retaken Newry. The report proved
false, but it strengthened Moore's hands, and Bernard was reminded
of the trampling of horse heard by the Syrians before Samaria. Sir
John Netterville fell foul of the acting governor, declaring that the
Irish should not be called rebels, and he was suspected of having the
guns stuffed so as to render them unserviceable. Many well-to-do
Protestants escaped by sea, but Bernard refused to desert his poorer
flock. He was also unwilling to part from Ussher's library, which was
in his charge, and which might easily have shared the fate of Lord
Conway's and the Bishop of Meath's. On November 4 Sir Henry Tichborne
appeared with his forces, and after that the townsmen could do nothing;
but they showed their discontent by keeping him waiting from two
o'clock in the afternoon until nine at night before they would provide
him with quarters.[302]

[Sidenote: Drogheda besieged, 1641-2.]

[Sidenote: A successful sally.]

[Sidenote: Provisions introduced by sea.]

[Sidenote: A night attack repulsed.]

[Sidenote: Sir Phelim gains the chief command.]

Tichborne found that the Julianstown disaster had virtually decided the
whole wavering population of the Pale. He saw that he would have to
maintain himself for some time without much help, and that food would
soon be scarce. He strengthened the fortifications of the Millmount
on the southern bank of the Boyne, and mounted four guns there. The
rebels had destroyed most of the provisions in the neighbourhood, but
there was still a quantity of unthreshed wheat at Greenhills, near
the eastern or St. Lawrence's gate on the south side of the Boyne.
On December 3 he sent a body of cavalry round by a gate further to
the north, and leaving other men under arms in the town, he himself
marched straight to his point. The advanced guard was driven in
panic-stricken, and for a moment it seemed as if there would be another
Julianstown. But Tichborne managed to rally his men, dismounting to
show that he would share their fate, and shouting, 'They run!' while
the first volleys hid the field. 'It appeared somewhat otherwise,'
says Tichborne, 'upon the clearing up of the smoke,' but his courage
inspired his followers and they gained a complete victory, pursuing
the enemy for nearly a mile. Of the besiegers two hundred were killed,
while Tichborne had only four men wounded. After this success the
garrison were always ready to fight, while the besiegers were always
beaten in the open field. An attempt to carry the town by assault
during the long night of December 20 failed, and several successful
sallies were made during the following three weeks. Tichborne sent a
pinnace to Dublin for help. At first no one could be got to steer her,
but he placed some of the aldermen on board in situations exposed to
the fire of the besiegers. The result was that pilots were quickly
found. In answer to this appeal six vessels were sent with provisions
and ammunition for the garrison, and on January 11 they came from
Skerries to the Boyne in one tide. Clumsy efforts had been made to
block the channel with a chain and with a sunken ship, but the bar
was nevertheless passed and the stores safely landed. The garrison,
who had been half-starved, feasted that night, and the officers,
though specially cautioned, could not keep as strict discipline as
usual. Tichborne was writing despatches all night, and about four in
the morning he heard a muttering noise which differed from the sounds
caused by wind and rain. He ran out with his pistols and found that
five hundred of the enemy had entered an orchard between St. James's
Gate and the right bank of the river. A weak spot in the wall had been
opened with pickaxes, and the Irish had crept in two or three at a
time. Tichborne turned out the nearest guard, bade them fire across the
river, and ran towards the bridge, where he found his own company under
arms. Leaving these trusty men to maintain the passage, he ran to the
main guard, where he found a good deal of confusion, but many followed
him, and he regained the bridge just in time to reinforce those who
were holding it against great odds. Tichborne's horse was led out by
a groom, but broke away from him and galloped madly about the paved
streets. Believing that cavalry would soon be upon them, the assailants
broke. Nearly half escaped by the gate at which they had entered; the
rest were killed or hidden by friendly townsmen. The whole attack had
been planned by a friar, and shots were fired at Tichborne's men out of
a convent, but the assailants were so badly led that they never thought
of seizing St. James's Gate, though they might easily have done so from
the inside. A strong body was drawn up outside, expecting to be let
in. A bagpiper was among those who had been taken, and some officers
made him play while they opened the gate. Those who entered were at
once overpowered. The result of this failure was to show the lords of
the Pale that divided counsels were dangerous, and they gave Sir Phelim
O'Neill command over all the forces about Drogheda.[303]

[Sidenote: Tichborne at Drogheda.]

[Sidenote: Mellifont destroyed.]

'After Tichborne's arrival,' says Bernard, 'we took heart to call
the enemy rebels instead of "discontented gentlemen."' The garrison
consisted of 1500 foot and 160 horse, so that the malcontents within
the walls were afraid. One Stanley, a town councillor, who had been an
officer in the enemy's army, came in on protection accompanied by the
sheriff of Louth, who was a member of Parliament. These two advised
Moore to go to Mellifont, reminding him that his father had lived there
safely all through Tyrone's rebellion, and suggesting that he might be
general if he pleased. Moore knew better, and being now released from
the cares of command, went in the middle of November to Dublin, where
Parliament was about to meet. He offered to raise six hundred men, and
to pay and clothe them himself until money came from England, provided
he should be their colonel, with the addition of about four hundred men
at Drogheda, who were not part of Tichborne's own regiment. As soon as
the Irish heard of this offer they destroyed Mellifont. The garrison
of twenty-four musketeers with fifteen horsemen and some servants
refused Macmahon's first offer of quarter, and were overwhelmed by
numbers after their powder was spent. The mounted men escaped to
Drogheda, but all the others were killed. The women were stripped stark
naked. The scum of the country were allowed to plunder at will, and
they carried away the doors and windows and smashed all the glass and
crockery. The chapel was selected as a proper place to consume the
contents of the cellar, the bell was broken, and a large Bible thrown
into the millpond. Finding some tulips and other bulbs, they ate them
with butter, but this food disagreed with them, and they cursed the
heretics as poisoners.[304]

[Sidenote: Drogheda was not closely invested.]

[Sidenote: Narrow escape of Sir Phelim,]

[Sidenote: who retires from Drogheda.]

[Sidenote: Ormonde relieves the town, March 11.]

During the first three weeks of February several successful sallies
were made by the garrison. They were, however, at one time reduced
to small rations of herrings, malt, and rye, and it seemed doubtful
whether they could hold out. Many horses died for lack of provender.
At four o'clock on the morning of Sunday, February 21, Sir Phelim
attempted an escalade at a quiet spot near St. Lawrence's Gate, but the
sentries were on the alert, and the assailants fled, leaving thirteen
ladders behind them. On the 27th there was another sally, and three
hundred of the Irish were killed on the fatal field of Julianstown. On
March 1 Tichborne sent out four companies of foot and a troop of horse
to forage on the south side of the Boyne. There was some resistance,
and in the afternoon the governor went out himself. The Irish advanced
from the little village of Stameen, but fled at the approach of horse.
The redoubtable Sir Phelim only escaped capture by crouching like a
hare in a furze-bush, and the Meath side was thenceforth safe. 'The
noise of vast preparations for besieging the town,' says Bellings,
'which at first was frightful, grew contemptible.' Food supplies were
now secure, and Tichborne assumed the offensive more boldly than
before. On March 5 Lord Moore led out five hundred men to Tullyallen,
near Mellifont, Tichborne following him with a reserve force. Moore
engaged the Irish and defeated them with a loss of four hundred men and
many officers. Among the prisoners was Art Roe Macmahon, for whose head
a reward of 400_l._ had been promised by Government. The soldiers were
going to cut it off when he cried out that Lady Blaney and her children
should be saved if his life was spared. Macmahon kept his word, though
the result was long doubtful. After this disaster the rebels abandoned
their headquarters at Bewley, and Sir Phelim was seen before Drogheda
no more. On March 11 Ormonde arrived with 3000 foot and 500 horse, and
the so-called siege came to an end. Plattin and Slane were soon in
Tichborne's hands. The Irish army had at one time numbered at least
16,000, but they had neither the skill nor the means for reducing a
strong place.[305]

[Sidenote: Fire and sword in the Pale.]

[Sidenote: Ormonde hampered by the Lords Justices.]

Ormonde had orders from the Irish Government, who would have preferred
to send Sir Simon Harcourt, to 'prosecute with fire and sword all
rebels and traitors, and their adherents and abettors in the counties
of Dublin and Meath,' and to destroy their houses. He was not to go
beyond the Boyne, not to do any mischief within five miles of Dublin,
and not to be absent more than eight days. He carried out these
orders, and reached Drogheda without opposition, after devastating
a great part of Meath. There, after consultation with Harcourt, Sir
Thomas Lucas, Sir Robert Farrar, Tichborne, and Moore, he asked to
be allowed more time and to have leave to advance as far as Newry.
This was peremptorily refused, and Temple wrote privately to say that
the proposal was 'absolutely disliked' by all the Council, and 'more
sharply resented by some.' The question of proclaiming the lords of
the Pale traitors had been referred to England, and Ormonde suggested
that it might be well to wait for an answer before burning their
houses. He was told that it was no business of his, and that he was to
burn. He did so, merely remarking that he had never supposed there was
'any difference between a rebel lord and a rebel commoner.' Tichborne
had certain information that an attack on Dundalk was feasible, and
Ormonde was allowed to give him 500 men and one or two guns. A large
force might have been provisioned from Drogheda, but as it turned out
Tichborne was strong enough to do the work. Newry fell to the share of
the Scots.[306]

[Sidenote: Tichborne takes Ardee and Dundalk.]

[Sidenote: English prisoners released.]

[Sidenote: Harsh warfare.]

On March 21 Tichborne marched with 1200 foot, four troops of horse,
and provisions for two days to Ardee, where on the 23rd he found more
than 2000 Irish pretty strongly posted on the right bank of the Dee.
He drove them over the bridge into the town, with a loss of 600 men,
turned their position by fording the river with his horse, and pursued
them with further slaughter far into the open country. After consulting
Lord Moore and the other officers Tichborne then decided to make a dash
at Dundalk, before which he arrived about nine in the morning of April
26. Sir Phelim showed himself with his horse, but made no fight until
the English came up to the first gate, which they forced open under
a heavy fire. The suburbs were then occupied, but a castle annoyed
them there, an officer and some men were killed, and many wished to
retire. But the wind was in their favour, and Tichborne ordered some
houses to be fired, and came up to the gate of the inner town under
cover of the smoke. The Irish in the castle were driven out by heaping
fuel against the door, and from the walls Tichborne's musketeers could
fire right into the market place. Sir Phelim and his men then began
to pour out at the north gate over the bridge, and the whole town was
soon in English hands. Dean Bernard, who was present, remarks on the
amount of plunder which the Irish had collected in Dundalk. The victors
found plentiful dinners ready dressed in many cases, and consumed 4000
turkeys and other fowls in a week. A hundred and twenty Protestants
had been imprisoned by O'Neill under threat that they would be killed
if the town were in danger. There had been no time to hurt them, if,
indeed, that was intended, and they were released. Ardee and Dundalk
were both plundered by their captors, the former in a tumultuary way,
and the latter more systematically. 'The number of the slain,' says
Tichborne, 'I looked not after, but there was little mercy shown in
those times.'[307]

FOOTNOTES:

[287] Hume's _Hist. of England_, note N to chap. xxxix., ed. 1854;
Hickson's _Ireland in the Seventeenth Century_, i. 163, 336;
_Exhortatio_ appended to O'Mahony's _Disputatio Apologetica_, 1645, p.
125, para. 20; Clarendon's _Hist._ iv. 24; Petty's _Economic Writings_,
i. 149-154, ii. 610; Warner's _Rebellion and Civil War_, 2nd ed.
p. 297; Froude's _English in Ireland_, i. 111. Lecky's _Eighteenth
Century_, ii. 154; Reid's _Presbyterian Church_, chap. vii. Bishop
Henry Jones, who knew as much as any one, says that within twenty years
of the Restoration there were people who 'openly proclaimed, contrary
to all evidence, that there was then no such rebellion of the Irish,
neither such massacres of the British and Protestants in Ireland,'
letter of May 27, 1679, printed in the preface to Borlase's _History_,
1680. In _Special News from Ireland_, from a gentleman in Dublin,
London, March 1, 1642-3, it is stated that 144,000 Ulster Protestants
were killed, wounded, or missing. There would be a tendency to say that
all who escaped from Ireland had been murdered.

[288] In the list of murders committed on the Irish, affixed to
Clarendon's volume on Ireland, it is said that 'this was the first
massacre committed in Ireland of either side,' and that the number of
innocent men, women, and children killed was over 3000. Miss Hickson
has conclusively shown that the number of victims was about sixty, and
that the date was January 8--_Ireland in the Seventeenth Century_, i.
151, 255.

[289] _Hickson_, Deposition, p. 22; Creichton's Memoirs in Swift's
_Works_, xiii. 13.

[290] Lodge's _Peerage_, by Archdall, iii. 140, for Charlemont.
Leslie's and Montgomery's letters in _Contemp. Hist._ i. 362;
Chichester to the King, October 24, in Benn's _Hist. of Belfast_,
p. 97; _Rushworth_, part iii. chap. i. Reports received at Rome
describe the progress of the rising 'con sacheggiar le case dei
Calvinisti, havendo anche fatto prigione il giovine principe milort
Cafild in contracambio del duca di Macquera (Maguire) sequestrato in
Dublin.'--_Roman Transcripts_, R.O., December 18, 1641.

[291] _Hickson_, Depositions, pp. 1-9 and 26.

[292] Crichton's deposition in _Contemp. Hist._ i. 525.

[293] Jones's _Relation_, 1642, reprinted in _Contemp. Hist._ i. 476.
This is confirmed by the depositions of Philpot and Ryves, _Hickson_,
i. 308.

[294] Jones's _Relation_; Crichton's deposition in _Contemp. Hist._, i.
531, 545; Remonstrance from Cavan, November 6, and answer, November 10,
_ib._ i. 364.

[295] _Hickson_, i. 298.

[296] Depositions of Mrs. Rose Price and four others, _Hickson_, i.
176-188. Writing after the Restoration with a view of minimising the
massacre, Ormonde says the greatest number murdered in any one place
was at Portadown, 'and they not above 200'--_Carte MSS._ vol. lxiii. f.
126. As to curious instances of modern ghost-seers see Sir A. Lyall's
_Asiatic Studies_, 2nd series, chap. 5. Lady Fanshawe saw and heard an
apparition in Clare in 1650, _Memoirs_, p. 58, ed. 1907.

[297] The best authority for Bedell is the Life by his son William,
edited by T. Wharton Jones for the Camden Society, 1872. The narrative
of his younger son Ambrose is printed by Miss Hickson, i. 218. Burnet
had the materials of his biography from the Rev. Alexander Clogie,
Bedell's son-in-law, who was also with him when he died. Burnet
admitted that he had written everything down as Clogie imparted it,
and without exercising any critical discretion. Clogie's own account
was printed from the Harl. MSS. in 1862, ed. W. W. Wilkins, but its
authority is inferior to that of Bedell's two sons. The narratives of
William Bedell and Clogie are reprinted with much additional matter in
_Two Biographies_, ed. Shuckburgh, Cambridge, 1902. Bishop Parker's
account, written for Ormonde in 1682, is in _Hickson_, i. 308.

[298] _Bellings_; _Aphorismical Discovery_; Tichborne's letter;
Ormonde's letters of November 30 in Carte's _Ormonde_, vol. iii., and
another of December 1 in _Confederation and War_, i. 232; Bernard's
_Whole Proceedings_.

[299] Lawson's narrative in Benn's _Hist. of Belfast_, p. 99. Brief
Relation of the miraculous victory, &c. in _Ulster Journal of
Archæology_, i. 242. Letter of Throgmorton Totesbury, December 4, 1641,
_Rawdon Papers_, p. 86.

[300] Bellings' account corresponds closely with the deposition of
Nicholas Dowdall, sheriff of Meath, printed in _Confederation and War
in Ireland_, i. 278. Dowdall was present at the hill of Crofty, and
Bellings probably was.

[301] Summonses were sent on December 3 to the Earls of Kildare
(printed in _Nalson_, ii. 906), Antrim, and Fingall, Viscounts
Gormanston, Netterville, and Fitzwilliam, Lords Trimleston, Dunsany,
Slane, Howth, Louth, and Lambert. Fingall, Gormanston, Slane, Dunsany,
Netterville, Louth, and Trimleston signed the answer.

[302] From October 23 to November 4 we are dependent on Dr. Nicholas
Bernard's _Whole Proceedings of the Siege of Drogheda_. After the
latter date we have also Tichborne's own account.

[303] Sir Henry Tichborne's _Letter_; _Bellings_. The date of Sir
Phelim's accession to the chief command is fixed by Henry Aylmer's
examination in _Contemp. Hist._ i. 403. Bernard's _Whole Proceedings_.

[304] Bernard's _Whole Proceedings_; Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 239.

[305] Tichborne's _Letter_; Bernard's _Whole Proceedings_; _Bellings_;
Sir Simon Harcourt to his wife, February 12, in _Harcourt Papers_, vol.
i.

[306] Letters from March 3 to 12 printed in Carte's _Ormonde_, vol.
iii. _Bellings_.

[307] Tichborne and Bernard, _ut sup._




INDEX TO THE FIRST VOLUME


  Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, 129, 164, 192, 273

  Abercorn, Earl of, 111

  Adair, Robert, 237

  -- Archibald, Bishop of Killala and Waterford successively, 233, 234, 237

  -- Patrick, 231

  Albert, Archduke, 37, 40, 41, 46

  Aldrige, Mr., 318, 319

  Algerines, 101-107, 198, 207-210, 316

  Allen, Thomas, 118, 119

  Amadis de Gaul, 67

  Amiens, 39

  Andrews, George, Dean of Limerick, afterwards Bishop of Ferns, 229

  Ankers, John, 170

  Annagh, 342

  Annaly, 162

  Annesley, Francis: _see_ Mountnorris.

  Antrim, Randal MacDonnell, 1st Earl of, 141-144

  -- Randal, 2nd Earl and 1st Marquis of, 188, 235-236, 285, 294

  Apsley, Allan, 12

  Archer, James, Jesuit, 19, 30

  Archibald, Mr., 307

  Ardbraccan, 340

  Ardee, 357

  Ardmore, 269

  Argyle, Archibald Campbell, 8th Earl and 1st Marquis of (in command of
      the clan as Lord Lorne, from 1619 to 1638, when he succeeded), 39,
      235-236, 244, 285, 341

  Arius, 130

  Armagh, 38, 58, 342

  Arran Island, Co. Donegal, 60

  Arras, 39

  Arundel, Earl of, 164

  Assisi, 49

  Athlone, 92, 170, 255

  Audley, Lord: _see_ Castlehaven.

  Augustinians, 187

  Aumale, Duke of, 40

  Aungier, Lord, 166

  Aylmer, Alexander, 45

  Aylward, Sir Richard, 5, 6


  Babington, sheriff of Derry or Coleraine, 54

  Bacon, Francis, 1;
    his ideas on toleration, 26-27;
    on the Ulster settlement, 66, 67;
    on recusant claims, 129-131;
    on Irish policy, 147, 151-153, 160, 169, 246

  Bagenal, Mabel, 25

  Baillie, Robert, 235, 241, 304

  Baker, Lieutenant, 54, 55

  Balfour, Sir James, 302

  Ballina, Co. Kildare, 317

  Ballycastle, Co. Antrim, 144

  Ballyhaise, 339-340

  Ballymena, 237

  Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal, 34, 60

  Baltimore, 103, 198;
    sacked by Algerines, 208

  -- Lord: _see_ Calvert

  Bann, River, 31, 35, 141, 252, 343

  Barbary, 103

  Barberini: _see_ Urban VIII.

  Barcelona, 13

  Barkeley, a surveyor, 75

  Barlow, Randolph, Dean of Christ Church, afterwards Archbishop of
      Tuam, 228

  Barnewall, Sir Patrick, his successful struggle against the mandates,
      25-29, 110;
    at Court, 119-122, 317, 326

  Barnstaple, 101

  Baron or Barron, Geoffrey, 223

  Barrett, a pirate, 102

  Barry, Edmund, Jesuit, 3, 4

  -- Alderman Richard, 118-119

  -- Colonels John and Garret, 292-293

  Barrymore, Lord, 92, 111, 294-295

  Basel, 49

  Bath, John, 37, 39

  Bawn, Daniel, 336

  Beaumont, Sir John, 154

  Bedell, William, Bishop of Kilmore, 234;
    Provost of Trinity College, 273-274, 324, 338, 340;
    last days and death, 344-347

  Belfast, 232, 337, 348-349

  Bellananagh, 339

  Bellew, Sir Christopher, 326

  Bellings, Sir Henry, 178

  -- Christopher, 292-293

  -- Richard, 332, 350-351

  Bellinzona, 49

  Belturbet, 339-340, 344

  Bernard, Nicholas, D.D., 352, 355, 358

  Bewley, 356

  Binche, 40

  Blacksod Bay, 106

  Blackwater River in Meath, 340
    in Ulster, 343

  Blackwaterstown, 343

  Blair, Robert, 231-232

  Blayney, Lord, and family, 321, 342, 351, 356

  Blenerhasset, Thomas, 82-83

  Blundell, Sir Francis, Vice-Treasurer, 134-135, 146, 159, 162

  Blunt, Sir Edward, 76

  Bodley, Sir Josiah, 55, 84-85, 127

  Bole, John, 240

  Bologna, 49

  Bolton, Sir Richard, Chief Baron, afterwards Lord Chancellor, 119,
      218, 267, 314

  Borlase, Sir John, Master of the Ordnance, 199, 204-205;
    Lord Justice, 243, 312, 314, 320, chaps. xix. and xx. _passim_

  Boroughs, Parliamentary, in 1613 and 1634, 109, 214

  Boswell, Edward, 336

  Bourke, Burke or De Burgo, 93, 94;
    _see_ Clanricarde, Mayo, Castle Connell.

  Bowler, William, 13

  Boyle, Michael, Bishop of Waterford, 269

  -- Richard, Clerk of the Munster Council, 8, 126-127;
    afterwards Earl of Cork, _q.v._

  Boyle, Co. Roscommon, 247

  Boyne River, 354

  Bradley, William, 108

  Brady, George, Thomas, and Walter, 119

  -- Conway, 158

  Braidstane, 68

  Bramhall, John, Bishop of Derry, afterwards Primate, 205-206, 228-229,
      232-234, 243, 253, 303, 314

  Bramston, Sir Thomas, 218

  Brehon, 63, 93

  Brett, merchant of Drogheda, 14

  Brice, Edward, 232

  Bristol, 101, 152

  Broad, Mr., 78

  Brooke, Captain, 57

  Brookhill, 349

  Brouncker, Sir Henry, President of Munster, 23-25, 103

  Buckingham, George, 1st Duke of, 150, 168-171, 172, 176-177, 191, 285,
      309

  Bulkeley, Lancelot, Archbishop of Dublin, 186, 207, 239, 274

  Buncrana, 53

  Burghley, Lord, 111, 220

  Burndennet, 38

  Burnell, Henry, 25-26

  Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 228

  Burren, 125

  Burt, 52, 56-58, 60

  Butler: _see_ Ormonde and Mountgarret

  -- Sir Walter, 113

  -- Captain James, 167

  -- Colonel John, 292

  -- Sir Stephen and Lady, 325, 340

  Byrne, Edmond, 307, and _see_ O'Byrne.


  Cadame, Dr., 24

  Cadowgan, Mr., 329

  Cæsar's Commentaries, 67

  Caledon, 335

  Callan, 327

  Calvert, George, afterwards Lord Baltimore, 117, 166, 190

  Campbell: _see_ Argyle

  -- Denis, Dean of Limerick, 68

  -- Sir John, of Calder, 142-144

  Cantire, 142-144, 287

  Carew, Sir George, afterwards Earl of Totnes, 8, 10, 11, 23;
    his mission to Ulster and prophecy, 80-82, 91, 108, 110, 135, 146,
        150, 164, 315

  Carey, Sir George, Vice-Treasurer and Lord Deputy, 13-16, 31, 34, 55

  Carey, Sir Robert, afterwards Earl of Monmouth, 1, 3

  Carleton, Sir Dudley, afterwards Viscount Dorchester, 36

  Carlisle, Irish regiment at, 288-290, 308, 322

  -- James Hay, 1st Earl of, 179

  -- Lucy Percy, Countess of, 179, 203, 278, 281, 290, 310

  Carrick-on-Shannon (Carrigdrumrusk), 166

  Carrick-on-Suir, 4, 8, 24, 95, 166, 279, 321, 327

  Carrickfergus (Knockfergus), 16, 20, 82, 107, 145-146, 235, 289-290,
      308, 348

  Carrickmacross, 191, 321, 342

  Carrol, Sir James, Mayor of Dublin, 118, 162

  Carte, Thomas, 291, 331

  Cary, Lucius, afterwards 2nd Viscount Falkland, 185

  -- Lorenzo, 203-204

  Cashel, 7, 8, 94, 214, 274

  Castleblayney, 321

  Castlecomer, 247

  Castle Connell, Lord (Burke), 111

  Castlehaven, George Touchet, 1st Earl of, 75, 76, 199

  Castlemartin, 178

  Catelin, Sergeant Nathaniel, Mr. Speaker, 215, 217

  Catesby, Robert, 26

  Caulfield, Sir Toby, 1st Lord, 36, 82, 145

  -- family, 336

  Cavan, county and borough, 45, 65, 96, 109, 171, 325, 339, 340

  Cecil, Robert: _see_ Salisbury

  Chamberlain, John, 90

  Champion, Alice, 337

  Chappell, William, Bishop of Cork and Provost of Trinity College, 274,
      275

  Charlemont, 337, 342

  Charlestown, 167

  Chedzoy, 68

  Chichester, Sir Arthur, afterwards Lord, Lord Deputy, chaps. ii.-viii.
      _passim_, 16, 111, 162, 204, 337, 348

  Christ Church, Dublin, 15;
    shaken by the Amens, 181;
    its condition in 1633, 205

  -- -- Cork, 10

  Christian, Edward, 68

  Clandeboye, James Hamilton, 1st Viscount, 239

  Clanricarde, Richard De Burgh, 4th Earl of, 25, 80, 92, 94, 249-252

  -- Ulick, 5th Earl, afterwards Marquis of, 300

  Clare, 94, 247

  Clarendon, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of, 169, 235, 261, 267, 282, 308, 330

  Clement VIII. (Aldobrandini), 9

  Clogher, 68

  Clogie, Alexander, 347

  Clones, 62, 319

  Clonmel, 94, 223

  Clotworthy, Sir John, 319

  Cloughoughter, 45, 340

  Coke, Sir Edward, 192, 310

  -- -- John, Secretary of State, 196, 210, 227, 248, 253, 256, 282, 296

  Colclough, Thomas, 158

  Cole, Sir William, 214, 315-317, 322

  Coleraine, 31, 76 _sqq._, 106, 233, 254, 264, 284

  Como, 49

  Connello, a pirate, 101

  Conry, Florence, titular Archbishop of Tuam, 40, 42, 46

  Convocation, 227

  Conway, 127

  -- Edward, 2nd Viscount, 84, 208, 241, 262, 272, 309, 348-349, 353

  Cook, Sir Francis, 196, 199

  Coote, Sir Charles, the elder, 167, 185, 214, 292, 328;
    governor of Dublin, 332, 350-351

  Corbet, Ensign, 54;
    Rev. John, 233-235

  Cork, disturbance at, 2, 7-13, 187

  -- Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of, 176;
    Lord Justice, 185-187, 202;
    his tomb in St. Patrick's, 206;
    his parliamentary boroughs, 214, 222, 224;
    his treatment by Strafford, 268-271;
    at Strafford's trial, 304-305

  Cornwallis, Sir Charles, 49, 125-126

  Corunna, 39

  Cosmo II., 149

  Cottington, Francis Lord, 194, 213, 218, 220, 260, 278-279

  Coventry, 290, 297

  -- Lord Keeper, 225

  Coward, a pirate, 102, 106

  Cranfield: _see_ Middlesex

  Crawford, Captain, 143

  Creichton, Captain John, 335

  Crichton, George, 338, 341

  Croagh, Patrick, 39

  Crofty hill, 349

  Croghan, 345

  Croisic, Le, 39

  Cromwell, Oliver, 1, 89, 310

  -- Lord, 199

  Crooke, Thomas, 102-103

  Crookhaven, 105

  Crosbie, Sir Piers, 223, 271-274, 294, 328

  Cross family, 337

  Cuellar, Captain, 166

  Culme, Captain, 119

  -- Arthur, 340

  -- Benjamin, Dean of St. Patrick's, 206

  Culmore, 52-54, 88

  Cumberland, 290

  Cunningham, Robert, 233

  Cusack, a priest, 41


  Dalkley, 106

  Danvers, Henry, afterwards Earl of Danby, President of Munster, 1,
      105, 185

  Darcy, Martin, sheriff of Galway, 250

  Davies, Sir John, chaps. ii.-viii. _passim_;
    Attorney-General 1606-1619, 31, 32, 34-36, 39, 60, 67, 70, 74;
    his circuits described, 91-97, 108, 110;
    Mr. Speaker, 112-115, 130;
    his optimism, 135

  Decies, 93

  Dee river, in Louth, 357

  Delvin, Richard Nugent, 10th Baron of: _see_ Westmeath

  Denham, Chief Justice Sir John, Lord Justice, 147

  Denmark, 100

  Derby, Lord, 209

  Derg, Lough, in Donegal, 188-189

  Derry: _see_ Londonderry, chaps. iv. and v. _passim_, 60, 68-70,
      76-78, 106, 145

  Derry, Patrick, 243

  Desmond, Geraldine, Earls of, 139, 181, 270

  -- Richard Preston, Earl of, 139-141, 226

  Devenish, 96

  Devonshire, Charles Blount, Earl of, Lord Lieutenant: _see_ Mountjoy,
      13, 16, 33, 35, 51, 282

  Dido, 79

  Dillon:

  -- Thomas, Viscount, 247, 303

  -- Sir James, 26

  -- Colonel James, 292

  Dingwall (Preston): _see_ Desmond

  Docwra, Sir Henry, afterwards Lord, 31, 32, 34, 51, 62, 152

  Doe castle, 55, 57, 58

  Dominicans, 4, 187

  Donato, Doge, 49, 50

  Donegal, 34, 53, chaps. iii. and iv. _passim_

  Dongan, Sir John, 225

  Donnellan, John, 249

  Douai, 39, 127

  Dover, 39

  Down, 84, 337

  Downham, George, Bishop of Derry, 181, 232

  Drogheda, 2, 31, 37, 95, 170, 292, 327-328, 331, 341, 345, 348-349;
    first siege of, 353-358

  Dublin, contested election, 118;
    attempt to surprise, 317-322

  Dunaff, 56

  Dunalong, 55

  Dundalk, 58, 358

  Dungannon, 38, 48, 90, 337

  Dungarvan, 93, 128, 208

  Dunkine, Mr., 233

  Dunluce, 141

  Dunsany, Lord (Plunkett), 110, 323

  Dunshaughly, 327

  Duntroon, 142

  Dunyveg, 142-144

  Dutton, Sir Thomas, 167


  Easton, a pirate, 104

  Eccleston, constable of Dublin Castle, 45

  Echlin, Robert, Bishop of Down, 231, 232

  Edmondes, Sir Thomas, 37, 40

  Eliot, Sir John, 196, 282

  Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, 230

  Ellagh Castle, 56

  Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor, 147

  Ellis, Fulk, 241

  Ely O'Carroll, 163-166

  Enniskillen, 90, 96, 337

  Escobar, 24

  Esmond, Sir Laurence, afterwards Lord, 158-159, 178, 272

  Essex, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of, 5, 25, 41, 93, 250

  Essex, Robert, 3rd Earl of, 199, 307, 342

  Eustace, William, 178

  -- Sir Maurice, Mr. Speaker, 283

  Everard, Sir John, 21;
    chosen Speaker, 112-114, 121, 132, 133

  Evers, a servant, 45


  Faido, 49

  Falkland, Henry Cary, 1st Viscount, Lord Deputy, 87, 169-174, 177-186,
      201, 215

  -- Lucius, 2nd Viscount, 185;
    his opinion of Strafford, 308

  Farmer, William, surgeon and chronicler, 2, 10

  Farrar, Sir Robert, 357

  Fawlett, a sea-captain, 208

  Fenton, Sir Geoffrey, Chief Secretary, 66, 206

  Fermanagh, 35, 37, 65, 95, 112, 118, 145, 337

  Ferns, 153

  Ferrelly, Edmond, 347

  Ffolliott, Sir Henry, 59, 118

  Fingall, Luke Plunkett, 1st Earl of, 45, 213, 214, 219, 323, 349

  Finglas, 327

  Fisher, Sir Edward, 158, 159

  Fitzgerald: _see_ Kildare, Earls of.

  -- Lady Bridget, 46

  -- Sir James, 178

  Fitzsimon, Henry, Jesuit, 18, 19

  Fitzwilliam, Sir Thomas, afterwards Viscount, of Merrion, 52, 323

  Flack, Edward, 338

  Flanders, 99

  Fleming, a pirate, 105

  -- Thomas, titular Archbishop of Dublin, 186

  Florence, Duke of, 105

  Flower, Lieutenant, 292

  Forbes, Captain Arthur, 171

  Fortescue, Sir Faithful, 352

  Four Masters, 34, 53

  Fox, Arthur, 292, 319

  Foyle, Lough, 31, 51-53

  Franciscans, 42, 170, 186-187, 316

  French, called 'most Christian Turks,' 208;
    recruiters in Ireland, 294-296

  Fuentes, Count, 49

  Fuller, Thomas, 304

  Fullerton, Sir James, 71


  Galtrim, P. Hussy, titular baron of, 127

  Galway, 25, 39

  Galway county, treatment of, by Strafford, 248-253

  Garrard, George, Strafford's correspondent, 253

  Geneva, 339

  Gibson, Captain Seafowl, 351-2

  Gifford, Sir John, 264, 266

  Gilbert, merchant of London, 14, 15

  Glenconkein, 252

  Glenveagh, 56, 59, 60

  Gondomar, Count, 184

  Gookin, Sir Vincent, 223-225

  Gordon, Lieutenant, 54

  Gore, Captain Paul, 118, 124

  Gormanston, Viscount (Preston), 25, 52, 116, 127, 166, 303, 323, 349,
      350

  Gough, Sir James, 113, 116, 127-129

  Gracedieu, 4

  Graham, William, 178

  Granard, 171

  Grandison, Oliver St. John, 1st Viscount, Lord Deputy, 44, 66, 87, 113,
      150, 169, 170, 176, 201, 268

  Gray, James, 242

  -- Lord Leonard, 322

  Greenhills, 353

  Grenville, Sir Richard, 332

  Grey de Wilton, Lord, 41


  Hackett, John, 208-209

  Hadsor, Richard, 87, 162, 165

  Hallam, Henry, 120, 307

  Hamilton: _see_ Abercorn and Clandeboye.

  -- Sir Frederick, 167

  -- Sir James, 231-233

  -- Marquis, 235, 290

  Hampton, Christopher, Archbishop of Armagh, 102, 170

  -- Court, 30

  Hansard, Sir Richard, 52, 145

  Harcourt, Sir Simon, 332, 357

  Harding, John, 275

  Harrington, Sir John, 30

  Hart, Captain and Mrs., 52-54

  Hatton, Sir Christopher, 13

  Haulbowline, 11

  Haynes, Henry, 166

  Henrietta Maria, Queen, 188, 278, 282, 304

  Henry IV., King of France, 26, 39, 174

  Hoare, Thomas, 190

  Hobart, Sir Henry, Attorney-General, 129

  Hobbes, Thomas, of Malmesbury, 191

  Hook, Captain, 208

  Howell, James, 253

  Howth, Christopher St. Lawrence, 22nd Baron of, 41, 44-46, 133

  -- Nicholas, 24th Baron of, 323

  Hugh, Mr., 323

  Hussy, Patrick, 127

  Hyde, Edward: _see_ Clarendon.


  Inchiquin, Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of, 247

  Inishowen, chap. iv. _passim_, 34, 99, 148

  Isla, 142-144


  Jacob, Sir Robert, Solicitor-General, 100, 146, 159

  James, Captain, 210

  -- Duke of York, afterwards James II., 254

  Jamestown, 167

  Jennings, John, a pirate, 105-106

  Jesuits, 7, 8, 17-20, 49, 92, 97, 129, 132, 136, 147-149, 167,
      172-173, 182, 184, 187, 214

  Jones, Thomas, successively Bishop of Meath and Archbishop of Dublin,
      Lord Chancellor, 23, 127-128, 133, 142;
    Lord Justice, 147-148, 220

  -- Sir William, Chief Justice, 151-152

  Jones, Sir Roger, 168

  -- Henry, Dean of Kilmore, successively Bishop of Clogher and of
      Meath, 316, 324-325, 339-341

  Jonson, Ben, 90

  Julianstown, battle, 339, 345, 347-349, 353, 356

  Jura island, 144

  Juxon, William, Bishop of London, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,
      281


  Kavanagh, Donnel Spaniagh, 92, 96-97

  Kavanagh clan, 99, 153-160

  Keilagh Castle, 340, 345

  Kells, in Meath, 171

  Kenny, Nicholas, 158

  Kildare, borough, 119

  Kildare, Earls of (Fitzgerald), 22, 31, 46

  Kildare, George Fitzgerald, 16th Earl of, 316, 323, 326-327

  Kilkenny, City and County, 2, 3, 170, 247, 279, 327

  -- statute of, 138

  -- in Westmeath, 170

  Killala, 234, 237

  Killen, Lord, 110;
    _see_ Fingall

  -- Lady, 171

  Kilmacrenan, 57

  Kilmallock, 94

  -- Lord (Sarsfield), 303;
    _see_ Sarsfield

  Kilmore, 74, 344-347

  Kinard, 335

  King, Sir Robert, 214

  King's County, 92, 97;
    plantation in, 163-166, 180

  Kingsland, Lord (Barnewall), 47

  Kingsmill, Sir Francis, 128

  Kinsale, 2, 5, 10, 12, 149, 294-295

  Knox, Andrew, Bishop of the Isles and of Raphoe, 97-98, 142, 231-232


  Lagan river, 348

  Lalor, Robert, 21

  Lambert, Sir Oliver, 55, 80-81, 119, 143-144

  -- Lord, 328

  Larne, 141

  Laud, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, his alliance with Wentworth,
      192, 194, 199;
    his interference with the Irish Church, 205-207, 213;
    the Queen of Bohemia's opinion of him, 229;
    his alliance with Bramhall, 232-235;
    his warning to Wentworth, 255;
    Chancellor of Dublin University, 273-275;
    one of the 'little junto' 290;
    his unpopularity, 297, 309-310

  Lawson, Captain Robert, saves Belfast, 348

  Leamcon, 105

  Lee, river, 11

  Leicester, Robert Sidney, 2nd Earl of, 278;
    Lord Lieutenant, 327, 329-332

  Leighlin, 3

  Leitrim, plantation of, 152, 166-167, 247

  Lepanto, 103

  Leslie, Alexander, afterwards Earl of Leven, 238

  -- Henry, Bishop of Down and Connor, 228, 232-233, 237, 239, 337

  -- John, successively Bishop of Raphoe and Clogher, 215, 239

  Ley, James, Chief Justice, afterwards Earl of Marlborough, 22, 28, 71

  Lifford, 34, 39, 55, 82-83, 134, 145

  Limavady, 78, 145

  Limerick, 2, 8, 87, 94, 151

  Lisbon, 53

  Lisburn, 337, 348-349

  Lisgoole, 337

  Lismore, 269

  Little, Mr. Strafford's secretary, 214

  Livingston, John, 231, 233

  Lodoms, 143

  Loftus, Adam, 1st Viscount of Ely, Lord Chancellor, Lord Justice,
      173-178, 194, 200-203, 222, 257-261;
    his treatment by Strafford, 264-268, 281;
    his daughter Lady Moore, 265, 267

  Loftus, Sir Adam of Rathfarnham, Wentworth's supporter, 194, 202, 214,
      247;
    Vice-Treasurer, 260-263, 320-321

  -- Sir Robert, 262-264, 267-268

  -- 'young Lady Loftus,' Eleanor Rushe, 262-264, 267-268, 310

  Lombard, Peter, titular Primate, 8, 49

  Londonderry and the London planters, 31, 76, 118;
    Strafford's treatment of, 252-254, 289, 290;
    the bulwark of the North, 318

  Longford, 97;
    plantation in, 152, 164-166, 331

  Lorne: _see_ Argyle

  Lorraine, 40, 48

  Loughmoe, 94

  Louth, Lord (Plunket), 110

  Louvain, 40, 48

  Lovel, Lord, 154, 158, 160

  Lowther, Sir Gerard, Chief Justice, 247, 314

  Lucas, Sir Thomas, 357

  Lucerne, 49

  Lurgan, 338

  Lyon, William, Bishop of Cork, 24, 103


  Macaulay, Lord, 174

  MacCarthy, Florence, 141

  MacCoghlan, Sir John, 165, 180

  MacDavitt, Phelim Reagh, chap. iv. _passim_, 51, 56-59

  Macdonald, Sir James, 142-144

  -- Coll Keitach MacGillespie, 143

  Macdonnells in Antrim: _see_ Antrim; 140-144, 285

  MacGibbon, Maurice, 94

  MacGlannathy or MacClancy, 166

  Macmahon or MacMahon, Art MacRory, 41

  -- -- Art Roe, 356

  -- -- Hugh Oge, 318-320, 322

  -- -- Ever, Emer, or Heber, titular bishop of Clogher, 318

  Macmahon clan, rebellion of, 342

  MacMurrough, Art, 153

  MacRedmond, Owen, 13

  MacSwiney clan, 56, 59

  Magee Island, 335

  Magennis, Catherine, 4th wife of Tyrone, 35

  -- Sir Con, 348

  -- clan, 337

  Magrath, James and Meiler, 188

  -- Owen, 46-47

  Maguire, Hugh (ob. 1600), 37;
    another Hugh, 316

  -- Cuconnaught, 37, 42

  -- Connor Roe, 37, 39

  -- Brian, 65, 118

  -- Cormac, 144

  -- Connor, 2nd Baron of Enniskillen, leader in the rebellion, 216,
      315, 317-320;
    executed, 322, 337

  -- Rory, 292, 339, 341

  Mahomet, 130

  Mainwaring, Sir Philip, Strafford's secretary, 119, 202, 214, 218, 262

  -- William, 214

  Malin Head, 56

  Mallow, 94

  Man, Isle of, 198, 209

  Manor Hamilton, 167

  Marwood, Mr., 162

  Massereene, 145

  Masterson, Sir Richard, 153-155

  Matthew, Sir Toby, 310

  Maxwell, John, Bishop of Killala, 234, 334

  -- James, Black Rod, 301

  May, Sir Humphrey, 146

  Mayo, 106

  -- Miles Bourke, 2nd Viscount, 318

  Meade, William, 8, 9

  Meath, 97, 349

  Medhope, the widow, 166

  Mellifont, 37, 351

  Mervyn, Audley, 314

  Middlesex, Lionel Cranfield, Earl of, 172-173, 220

  Milan, 49

  Milton, John, 274

  Monaghan, 69, 95, 321, 342

  Monasterevan, 264

  Monck, George, 332

  Montgomery, George, Bishop of Derry, and his wife Susan, 52-57, 68-71

  -- of Ardes, Lord, 238-240, 337

  -- Sir James, 239

  Moore, Charles, 2nd Viscount of Drogheda, 258, 263, 265, 352-358

  -- Sir Garrett, 1st Viscount, 37

  -- Roger, _see_ O'More

  Morgan, Captain, 8, 9

  Moryson, Fynes, 30

  Mountgarret, Richard Butler, 3rd Viscount, 92, 140, 327

  Mountjoy, Charles Blunt, afterwards Earl of Devonshire, _q.v._, Lord
      Deputy, 1-5, 12, 13, 30-32, 41, 145

  Mountnorris, Francis Annesley, Lord, 58, 90, 185, 200-203, 224;
    his treatment by Strafford, 256-264, 267, 306

  Mullarkey, Edmund, 145

  Multifarnham, 316

  Murphy, John, 158

  Murrough, Lieutenant Christopher, 9, 11, 13

  Muskerry, Lord, 303


  Naas, 6, 279, 281

  Nancy, 49

  Nangle family, 166

  Nanny river, 347

  Nantes, 26

  Naples, 13

  Narni, 49

  Naunton, Sir Robert, 164

  Neagh, Lough, 56

  Netherlands, 295-296

  Netterville, Richard, 25-26

  -- Sir John, 2nd Viscount, 292, 323, 352

  Newburn, 241, 299-300

  Newcastle-on-Tyne, 99

  Newcomen, Sir Beverley, 214

  New Ross, 96

  Newry, 321, 337, 348, 352

  Newtownards, 337

  Nicolalde, Señor, 209

  Noble, Mr., 233

  Normandy, 39

  Norris, Lady, 94

  -- Sir Thomas, 270

  Northumberland, Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of, 236, 299

  Norton, Sir Dudley, Chief Secretary, 200, 262

  Nott, a pirate, 36

  Nottingham, Charles Howard, 1st Earl of, 101

  Nugent: _see_ Delvin, 42-46

  -- Sir Christopher, 113

  -- Sir Thomas, 326

  Nutt, a pirate, 198


  O'Boyle, 37

  O'Brennan, 247

  O'Brien, Henry, 111

  -- Sir Daniel, 113

  O'Byrne, Feagh MacHugh, 92, 97, 161, 176

  -- Phelim MacFeagh, 92, 97

  -- Hugh MacPhelim, 315, 319, 347, 349

  -- clan, 99;
    case of the, 176-179

  O'Cahan, Donnell, 31-33, 58, 62, 145

  -- Shane Carragh, 58

  -- Rory Oge, 62, 145

  -- Manus, 342

  Ochiltree, Lord, 111

  O'Coffie, called bishop, 106

  O'Connolly, Owen, discoverer of the 1641 plot, 319-321, 330, 336

  O'Connor clan, 92

  O'Daly's bridge, 340

  O'Dempsey, 92

  O'Devany, Cornelius, titular bishop of Down, executed, 98

  O'Dogherty, Sir Cahir, 34;
    rebellion and death of, 51, 61, 88, 99, 124, 133, 145, 148

  -- Lady (Mary Preston), 52, 57, 226

  -- Rose, 38

  O'Donnell, Rory, Earl of Tyrconnel, _q.v._, chap. iii. _passim_

  -- Hugh Roe, 42

  -- Neill Garv, 34-35, 59-62, 145

  -- Shane MacManus, 59-60

  O'Doyne, 92

  O'Driscoll, 209

  O'Farrell or O'Ferrall, 44, 162-164, 331

  O'Gallagher, 58

  Ogden, Anne, 337

  O'Hanlon, 58, 337

  O'Keenan, Teig, 39

  O'Laverty, Laughlin, 146

  Olivares, 173

  O'Mahony, Cornelius, Jesuit, 334

  O'More clan, 92

  -- Roger or Rory, originator of the 1641 outbreak, 317-319, 347-349

  O'Neill clan: _see_ Tyrone, chap. iii. _passim_, 38, 144-146, 295,
      315, 318-320

  -- Con Bacagh, 33

  -- Sir Cormac MacBaron, 39

  -- Henry, 39, 40

  -- Hugh Boy, 99

  -- Owen Roe MacArt, 37, 40, 89, 343

  -- Sir Phelim, 335-337, 355-356

  -- Tirlagh, 65, 118

  O'Quin clan, 337

  O'Reilly clan in 1641, 324-326, 338-347

  O'Reilly, Shane MacPhilip, 41

  -- Mulmory Oge, 65

  -- Lady Mary, 226

  -- Philip MacHugh, M.P. for Cavan, 325, 339-341, 347, 349

  -- Tirlagh MacShane MacPhilip, 338

  -- Miles, sheriff of Cavan, 339, 340, 344, 346

  -- Philip MacMulmore, 340, 346

  -- Edmund, 344-346

  Ormonde, two baronies in Tipperary, 247

  -- Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of, called Black Thomas, 3, 4, 8, 95, 139,
      146

  -- Walter, 11th Earl of, 140

  -- James, 12th Earl of, afterwards Marquis and Duke, 141, 180, 203;
    his relations with Wentworth, 216, 234, 246-247, 279, 299, 309-310;
    a parliamentary tactician, 312-314;
    commander of the forces, 327-328, 332, 348, 351;
    relieves Drogheda, 356;
    on rebel Lords and Commoners, 358

  Osbaldeston, Attorney-General, 342-343

  Ossory, 3, 19

  Ossuna, Duke of, 40

  Ostend, 40

  O'Sullivan Bere, Philip, historian, 53-55, 98

  -- a recruiting officer, 294

  O'Toole clan, 99, 177

  Oughter, Lough, 45, 354;
    and _see_ Cloughoughter


  Palatine, the elector, and his country, 100, 230

  Parker, John, Bishop of Elphin, 344

  Parliament of Ireland, in 1613, chap. vii.;
    in 1634, chap. xii.;
    in 1640, chaps. xvi. and xix.

  Parliament of England, receives the news of the Irish rebellion, 330

  Parma, 49

  Parry, Edward, Bishop of Killaloe, 235

  Parsons or Persons, Robert, Jesuit, 49, 129, 149

  -- Sir William, 158, 178-179, 195-196;
    Wentworth finds him very 'dry,' 203, 214, 222, 243;
    Lord Justice, 312, 319-320, chap. xix. _passim_

  -- Fenton, 65

  Passage, near Cork, 10

  Patrick's Purgatory, Saint, 188

  Paul V. (Borghese), 49, 149

  Paulet, Sir George, 51-55, 59

  Percy: _see_ Carlisle and Northumberland.

  Perrott, Sir John, 108, 120, 251

  Perse, Henry, Chichester's secretary, 67

  Philip III. and IV., Kings of Spain, 149, 171, 316

  Phillips, Sir Thomas, 77-78, 87, 145, 252-253

  Philpot, Edward, 340

  Pilsworth, Mr., 6

  Pirates, 101-107, 207-210

  Plattin, 356

  Plumleigh, Captain Richard, 198, 209

  Plunket or Plunkett: _see_ Fingall, Dunsany, and Louth

  -- Sir Christopher, 116

  -- Colonel Richard, one of the leading rebels, 292, 317-318, 399

  Poland and the Poles, 100, 167-168

  Pont, Mr., a magistrate, 179

  -- Worthy Mrs., 242

  Portadown, massacre at, 342-344

  Porter, George, 292-293

  Portland, Lord Treasurer, 207

  Portrush, 141

  Portumna, 249

  Power, Lord, 5

  Powers, bastard imps of the, 93

  Powerscourt, Lord, 170;
    _see_ Wingfield

  Poynings's Law, 10 Henry VII., 111, 120, 220, 224, 316

  Preston, Richard: _see_ Desmond

  Preston, Thomas, afterwards Viscount Tarah, 40, 295

  Price, Captain Charles, 214, 225, 260, 341-343

  Purcell family in Tipperary, 94

  Pym, John, 1, 191

  Pynnar, Nicholas, his survey, 65, 76, 83-85


  Queen's County, 92, 97

  Quilleboeuf, 39


  Raby, Strafford's second title, 282

  Radcliffe, Sir George, Strafford's confidential secretary, 193-194;
    precedes him to Ireland, 198, 202, 214, 216-218;
    sometimes wiser than his master, 243-244, 266, 274, 281, 298-299;
    impeached in England, 302, 310-313;
    impeached in Ireland, 314

  Rainsborough, Captain William, 208

  Raleigh, Sir Walter, 81;
    sells his estate to Boyle, 268-270

  Randolph, Colonel Edward, 76

  Ranelagh, Roger Jones, 1st Viscount, 219, 234, 247

  Raphoe, 68, 106, 239

  Rathlin, 141

  Rathmullen, 38, 90

  Raven, Thomas, 87

  Rawdon, Sir George, 240, 348

  Reggio, 49

  Remington, Sir Robert, Vice-President of Connaught, 25

  -- knighted by Wentworth, 201

  Rhodes, Sir Godfrey, 201

  Rice, a pirate, 207-208

  Rich, Barnaby, 79

  Richard II., King, 153

  Richardot, President of Artois, 40

  Richelieu, Cardinal, 292

  Ridge, Mr., 233

  Ridgeway, Sir Thomas, afterwards Earl of Londonderry, Vice-Treasurer,
      55-58, 70, 81, 112-113, 134-135

  Rinuccini, Bishop of Fermo and nuncio, 333

  Ripon, treaty of, 292, 294, 300

  Roche, Lord, 9, 127

  Rockley, Captain, 351

  Roe, Sir Thomas, 229

  Rome, 7, 49, 337

  Roper, Major, 347-348

  Roscommon borough, 113;
    county, 167

  Rossclogher, 166

  Rothe, David, titular Bishop of, 160-161

  Rowley, Mr., 145

  Rudyard, Sir Benjamin, 293

  Rushe, Frances, Lady Wentworth, 194, 264

  -- Eleanor: _see_ Loftus

  Ryves, Captain, 340


  St. John, Sir Oliver: _see_ Grandison

  -- -- Oliver, Cromwell's Chief Justice, 307

  -- Leger, Sir Anthony, Lord Deputy temp. Henry VIII., 120

  -- -- Sir Anthony, Master of the Rolls, 71

  -- -- Sir William, President of Munster, 187, 218, 291-293, 321

  Salisbury, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of, 1, 23, 41, 43, 49, 66, 141

  Salkeld, a pirate, 105

  Sarsfield, Thomas, Mayor of Cork, 8, 9, 24

  -- Chief Justice Sir Dominick, 22, 185, 303

  Savage, Sir Arthur, 177

  Saxey, Chief Justice, 9, 17

  Schull, 105

  Scott, William, 241

  Sexton, George, Chichester's secretary, 119

  Shaen, Sir Richard, 163-164

  Shandon, 11

  Sheep Haven, 55

  Sheridan, Dennis, 346

  Shirley, Chief Justice, 177, 179, 261

  Shrule, 235

  Sicilian Vespers, 82

  Sidney, Sir Henry, 251;
    Sir Philip, 250

  Sigginstown, 280

  Sion House, 299

  Skelton, John, Mayor of Dublin, 17, 23

  -- William, 336

  Skerries, Co. Dublin, 150, 354

  -- off Holyhead, 30, 180

  Skiddy's Castle, 11

  Slane, 39, 356

  Slane, Lord (Fleming), 110, 216, 323

  Somerset, Carr, Earl of, 90, 146

  -- Sir Thomas, 140

  Sotherne, Mr., 6, 7

  Spain, Spaniards, 10, 11, 13, 26, 37-43, 81, 103, 105, 168, 171, 294-296

  Spencer, Mr., 240

  Spinola, Marquis, 40, 42

  Spottiswood, John, Archbishop of St. Andrews, 231, 240

  -- John, Bishop of Clogher, 239

  Springham, Matthias, 88

  Stameen, 356

  Standen, Sir Anthony, 41

  Stanihurst, Richard, 41

  Stewart, Henry, 242-243

  Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 30

  Stoke, battle of, 154

  Strabane, 38, 55

  Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of, chaps. xi. to xviii.
      _passim_, 89, 107, 125, 130, 138, 148, 165, 173, 179, 185-188;
    his antecedents, 190;
    'thorough' with Laud, 192;
    his friends, 193;
    Lord Deputy, 194;
    lands in Ireland, 199;
    the Boyle monument, 206;
    puts down piracy, 207-210;
    his first Parliament, chap. xii.;
    tames Convocation, 227;
    proposes to drive out the Scots, 243;
    his colonising schemes, chap. xiv.;
    Mountnorris case, 256;
    Loftus case, 264;
    treatment of Lord Cork, 268;
    Trinity College case, 273;
    his Irish estate, 278;
    his second Parliament, 283;
    his army, chap. xvii.;
    his trial, 304;
    character, 309

  Strongbow, 15

  Suarez the Jesuit, 24, 122, 129-131

  Suckling, Sir John, 169

  Suir river, 4

  Sweden, Irish in, 99, 100

  Swilly, Lough, 37, 39, 51-52, 56, 107

  Swiney, Eugene, titular bishop of Kilmore, 345-346

  Switzerland, 40

  Synnott, Walter, 154-155


  Taaffe, Theobald, afterwards Viscount, 293, 331

  Talbot, William, 113, 117, 129, 130, 132, 170

  -- Peter, Jesuit, afterwards archbishop, 215

  Tanderagee, 337

  Tara, 350

  Taylor, Francis, 118-119

  Temple, Sir John, Master of the Rolls and historian, 193, 320, 334, 357

  Temple, Sir William, Provost of Trinity College, 273

  Termon lands, 35, 69-71

  -- Magrath, 188

  Thomastown, 2-4

  Thomond, Henry O'Brien, 5th Earl of, 80, 94, 106, 151

  Thornton, Sir George, 8, 9

  -- Alice, Wandesford's daughter, 312, 321

  Thurles, Thomas Butler, Viscount, 180

  Tichborne, Sir Henry, 347, 353-358

  Tinahely, 280

  Tinane, 336

  Tipperary, the cross, 92;
    the Palatinate, 139;
    the county, 279

  Toome, 78

  Tory island, 52, 59

  Trim, 332

  Trinity College, Dublin, 186-187, 273

  Tuam, 205

  Tullagh: _see_ Jamestown, 166

  Tullophelim, 139

  Tullyallen, 356

  Turvey, 25

  Tyrconnel, Rory O'Donnell, Earl of 34, 35, 58, 97, 149

  Tyringham, Sir Arthur, 348

  Tyrone, Hugh O'Neill, Earl of, chap. iii. _passim_, 1, 2, 18, 25;
    reaches Rome, 49, 57, 65-66, 71, 92, 97, 113, 121, 133;
    his death, 149, 236


  Urban VIII. (Barberini), 49

  Ussher, James, successively Bishop of Meath and Primate, 150, 170-171,
      177-179, 200, 215, 228, 239, 242, 273-275, 308, 353

  -- Robert, Provost of Trinity College, 273

  Uvedale, Sir William, 15


  Vane, Sir Henry, 282, 308, 315

  Vaughan, Captain Henry, 55;
    Captain John, 77

  Venice, 10, 36

  Virgil, 79

  Virginia, 67

  -- Co. Cavan, 90, 338, 341


  Wafer, Mr., 7

  Walpole, Sir Robert, 147, 191

  Walsh or Walshe, Sir Nicholas, 5;
    Chief Justice, 8, 93

  -- Henry, 158-160

  Walsingham, Sir Francis, 92, 250

  Wandesford, Sir Christopher, Master of the Rolls, 193-194, 216,
      218-219, 266, 276;
    Lord Justice, 281;
    Lord Deputy, 297-300, 302;
    his death, 303-304, 312

  Wanstead, 30

  Warbeck, Perkin, 8

  Warwick, Sir Philip, 268, 310

  Waterford, 2, 3, 7, 24, 29;
    assizes at, 93, 96-97;
    charter forfeited, 151;
    restored, 180

  Welwood, Dr. James, 190-191

  Wemyss, Sir Patrick, 327, 348

  Wentworth, Thomas: _see_ Strafford

  -- Sir George, 211, 214, 262

  -- Woodhouse, 301

  Westmeath, Richard Nugent, Lord Delvin, 1st Earl of, 42-46, 97, 171-172

  Weston, Lord Chancellor, 206

  -- Earl of Portland, 207, 220

  Wetheread, Bishop of Waterford, 270

  White, James, Jesuit, 3-6

  Whitehaven, 289

  White Knight (Fitzgerald), 94

  Whitelock, Bulstrode, 242, 330

  Wicklow, 96

  Wilbraham, Sir Roger, 117, 126

  Willoughby, Sir Francis, 185;
    takes Irish troops to Carlisle, 288, 308;
    governor of Dublin Castle, 320-322

  -- Ensign, 238

  Wilmot, Sir Charles, afterwards Viscount, 8, 177, 185-186, 203, 218,
      255-256, 267

  Winch, Sir Humphrey, Chief Baron, etc., 117

  Windebank, Sir Francis, Secretary of State, 220, 290

  Wingfield, Sir Richard, created Viscount Powerscourt, 55, 57, 81;
    Lord Justice, 127

  Winwood, Sir Ralph, Secretary of State, 134

  Wotton, Sir Henry, 49, 149

  Wright, Bishop of Chester, 297


  Zuarius or Suarez, 130


END OF THE FIRST VOLUME

  PRINTED BY
  SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. LTD., LONDON
  COLCHESTER AND ETON




TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES


General: Corrections to punctuation have not been individually noted
General: Variable capitalisation, particularly of names beginning Mac or
    Mc as in the original
Page xv: Page for Monck, Grenville, etc. corrected from 322 to 332.
Page 6, 367: Variable spelling of Pilsworth/Pillsworth as in the original
Page 15 (Footnote): 'and' following Chichester originally printed upside
    down and followed by (
Page 17 (Sidenote): against Recusant as in the original
Page 47: Tyrconnell corrected to Tyrconnel; "they would should" as in the
    original
Page 59: Tyrconnell's as in the original - left as part of a quotation.
Page 78: Philips standardised to Phillips
Page 92, 366: Variable spelling of O'Doyne/O'Doyn as in the original
Page 94: strnctures corrected to structures; Kinght corrected to Knight
Page 94, 364: Variable spelling of McGibbon/MacGibbon as in the original
Page 100: agains as in the original
Page 101: strategems as in the original
Page 102: Cowards' corrected to Coward's (second instance)
Page 106, 362: Variable spelling of Dalkey/Dalkley as in the original
Page 108 (Sidenote): constituences corrected to constituencies
Page 110, 364: Variable spelling of Killen/Killeen as in the original
Page 119 (Sidenote): duplicate the removed
Page 137: conpensation corrected to compensation
Page 143, 365: Variable spelling of McGillespie/MacGillespie as in the
    original
Page 164, 166: Discrepancy in term of forty-one or twenty-one years as in
    the original
Page 172: therabouts as in the original text
Page 193 (Sidenote): Wandsford corrected to Wandesford
Page 194: wellknown standardised to well-known
Page 197: accommomodated corrected to accommodated
Page 214: representd corrected to represented
Page 234: delared corrected to declared
Page 238: even in the phrase "as strong a royalist as even Scotland has
    produced" as in the original text
Page 321, 361: Variable spelling of Castleblayney/Castleblaney as in the
    original
Page 337 (Sidenote): Bihsop corrected to Bishop
Page 347, 363: Variable spelling of Ferrely/Ferrelly as in the original
Page 359: Annagh as in the original
Page 361: Entry for Carlisle, Lady - page 209 corrected to 290





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Ireland under the Stuarts and during
the Interregnum, Vol. I (of 3), 1603-1642, by Richard Bagwell

*** 