Skip to main content

Full text of "Strafford and Ireland; the history of his vice-royalty with an account of his trial"

See other formats 


.5- 

THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  593 

V,  1 

To  many  these  words  of  Strafford  may  seem  hard.  It  is  to  be 
feared  they  were  very  true.  Irish  scribes  have  obscured  this  aspect 
of  17th  century  Ireland,  believing  that  a  recognition  of  it 
blasphemes  the  national  reputation.  All  Europe  was  only  emerging 
from  a  similar  state  of  chaos,  due  to  the  collapse  of  the  feudal  and 
Eoman  system  in  a  general  catastrophy.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Tudor  period  England  was  worse.  Scotland  still  remained  outside 
the  pale  of  what  we  call  civilization.  Monogamy  among  the  Irish' 
aristocracy  was  quite  a  new  idea.  l  The  Bill  allowing  one  wife  and 
only  one  was  rejected  by  the  Irish  House  of  Commons,  recommitted 
and  passed,  and  was  only  carried  through  the  House  of  Lords  after 
considerable  opposition. 2  Nor  is  this  the  ex  parte  view  of  a  pre- 
judiced official.  The  regulations  devised  by  the  Synod  of  Eoman 
Catholic  Bishops  at  Drogheda  are  obviously  directed  at  a  similar 
state  of  affairs,  in  which  they  assert  that  certain  of  the  minor 
priests — this  is  the  charge  Strafford  makes  too — had  not  been  as 
severe  on  these  matters  as  their  successors  of  a  later  generation.  3 
Hugh  O'Eeilly,  subsequently  the  Eoman  Catholic  Primate,  num- 
bered amongst  his  achievements  the  abolition  of  "frequentia 
dlvortia",  from  which  had  arisen  "scandala  et  confusiones". 4  The 
absence  of  Canon  Law,  the  parlous  state  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Courts,,  and  the  confusions  and  a  barren  Statute  Book  were  not 
calculated  to  reform  these  scandals. 

Writs  were  accordingly  issued  for  Convocation  after  the 
English  model.  Its  first  Act  was  to  pass  -eight  subsidies,  where- 
with to  replenish  the  Eoyal  Exchequer,  which  resolution  was 
subsequently  ratified  by  the  Parliament.5  In  1640  it  added 
another  six  subsidies,  and  agreed  to  a  revaluation  of  all  livings  at 
one-sixth  of  the  market  value,  thus  doubling  the  value  of  a  subsidy.6 
These  were  the  only  two  occasions  on  which  Irish  Convocation 
exercised  a  taxing  power. 

The  reaction  from  Calvinism  and  its  peculiar  hostility  towards 
the  status  quo  had  undoubtedly  convinced  Usher  that  the  39  ar- 
ticles should  be  substituted  for  the  Irish  articles  of  1615.  Before 
Convocation  met  he  agreed  to  offer  no  opposition  to  the  enactment 
of  the  former. 7  Usher,  however,  was  not  a  man  on  whom  to  place 
much  reliance.  This  or  that  minute  point  in  the  English  Articles 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  L.  S.  1-350.  3)  C.  R.  1-428,  437.  4)  A.  H.  V-81. 
5)  Act.  10.  Charles  I.  Cap.  23.  6)  L.  S.  II  -  402.  7)  L.  L.  VII— 75. 

38j£(c 

II-     I 


594  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

might  at  any  moment  alarm  his  caste  of  thought,  especially  as  he 
was  the  receptacle  of  all  sorts  of  appeals  from  the  Puritans,  who, 
Strafford  charges,  used  to  "infuse  necessities  into  his  head".  On 
the.  ove  of  Convocation  Strafford  became  aware  that,  while,  at  first 
he  "seemed  to  disallow  these  Articles  of  Ireland,  when  it  comes  to 
the  upshot  I  cannot  find  he  doth  it  as  absolutely  as  I  expected. 
Some  little  trouble  there  hath  been  in  it,  and  we  are  bound  not  to 
advertise  it  over,  hoping  amongst  ourselves  to  reconcile  it". l  Usher 
finally  proposed  not  to  disown  the  Articles  of  -Ireland,  but  simply 
to  pass  those  of  England,  the  latter,  of  course,  repealing  the 
former. 2  The  advantage  of  this  method  was  that  it  evaded  two 
points.  (I)  Whether  the  previous  Synod  had  or  had  not  been  legal, 
(II)  whether  or  no  the  Articles  of  1615  were  or  were  not  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Ireland.  The  39  articles  included  the 
doctrines  of  those  of  1615,  but  they  did  not  commit  the  clergy  to 
them  and  them  alone.  What  is  loosely  called  "an  Arminian"  could 
not  adopt  those  of  1615,  but  a  Calvinist  and  an  Arminian  could 
adopt  those  now  proposed.  Bramhall  has  put  the  new  theory  aptly. 
"It  was  in  the  interests  of  the  Church  to  widen  her  bottom,  and 
make  her  Article®  as  charitable  and  comprehensive  as  she  could, 
that  nice  accuracies  should  give  no  occasion  to  one  party  to  excom- 
municate the  other."  Usher's  proposals  to  ignore  the  Articles  of 
1615  and  pass  those  of  a  broader  scope  evaded  the  denial  of  Cal- 
vinism, while  admitting  the  Arminian,  without  asserting  that  his 
view®  must  of  necessity  be  held.  As  Laud  wrote  "To  have  the 
Articles  of  England  received  in  ipsissimis  verbis  and  leave  the  other, 
as  in  no  way  concerned,  neither  affirmed  nor  denied,  you  are 
certainly  in  the  right  and  so  says  the  King.  Go,  hold  close,  and 
you  will  do  a  great  service  in  it."3 

The  Puritans  subsequently  charged  Laud  and  Strafford  with 
having  intimated  Usher.  Usher,  however,  though  vacillating  and 
meticulous,  was  an  ill  man  to  intimidate.  Strafford  makes  it  clear 
that  it  was  Usher  who  proposed  this  plan,  and  this  letter  shows  that 
Laud  had  never  been  consulted  till  then.  Usher  also,  writing  to  a 
friend,  speaks  of  the  whole  affair,  when  over,  as  a  good  day's 
work  well  done.4  Strafford  then  left  the  whole  business  to  Usher, 
and  turned  to  cope  with  Parliament. 


1)  L.  S.  1-298.     2)  L.  S.  1-342.     3)  L.  S.  1-329.     4)  U.  P.-477. 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  595 

Little  had  he  yet  realized  how  incapable  Usher  was  of  dealing 
with  large  bodies  of  men.  Usher  seems  to  have  expressed  doubts  as 
to  whether  he  could  carry  his  proposal.  He  first  allowed  a  party  in 
the  Convocation  to  take  the  initiative  out  of  his  hands,  and  finally 
shrank  from  going  to  Strafford,  and  telling  him  that  matters  were 
going  awry.  No  doubt  he  was  afraid  of  appearing  as  one  who 
reports  spiritual  matters  to  an  outside  force,  and  to  a  domineering 
Deputy.  "It  is  very  true",  wrote  Strafford,  "for  all  the  Primate's 
silence  it  was  not  possible  but  he  knew  how  near  they  were  to  have 
brought  in  the  Articles  of  Ireland.  He  is  so  learned  a  Primate 
and  so  good  a  man  as  I  do  beseech  your  Grace  it  may  never  be 
imputed  to  him." 

"Reposing  sure  on  the  Primate"  Strafford  wrangled  with 
Parliament,  and,  when  it  was  over,  he  turned  to  Convocation,  and 
got  a  shock.  In  the  Lower  House  the  Articles  had  been  proposed. 
Instead  of  passing  or  rejecting  them,  or  consulting  with  the 
Bishops,  they  had  vested  the  initiative  in  a  select  Committee  to 
inquire  into  the  Articles  and  report  to  the  House.  This  was  the 
era  when  the  Irish  Parliament  did  not  even  assume  a  right  to 
amend  a  Bill,  nor  even  to  propose  one,  the  initiative  in  legislation 
lying  with  the  Crown,  and  the  right  only  of  rejection  or  consent 
belonging  to  the  Parliament.  For  ordinary  clergy  to  consider  the 
alteration  of  a  measure,  which  was  proposed  by  the  Crown  and  by 
the  Bishops,  was  equivalent  to  the  House  of  Lords  altering  a  Money 
Bill  to-day,  or  a  private  member  of  the  Commons  proposing  to 
increase  an  estimate.  Calvinistic  parsons  were  claiming  a  right 
in  matters  spiritual,  which  the  Irish  Lords  disowned  in  matters 
temporal.  .When,  however,  Strafford  caught  sight  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Committee  "I  confess  I  never  was  so  much 
moved  since  I  came  into  Ireland".  This  small  body  of  "petty 
clerks",  influenced  by  "the  fraternities  and  conventicles  of  Amster- 
dam, -in  a  spirit  of  Brownism,  as  if  they  \ntended  to  take  away 
all  Government  from  .the  Church" — Stafford's  language  could  on 
occasions  be  pungent — had  decided,  "without  consultation  with 
State  or  Bishops",  to  recommend  Convocation  to  reject  a  series 
of  Articles,  to  amend  others,  and  to  reintroduce  the  Articles  of 
1615,  "under  pain  of  excommunication".  All  this  report  was  now 
drafted  into  a  Bill,  and  was  ready  for  enactment  that  night  in 
a  assemblage  of  country  clergy,  the  majority  of  whom  would  be 

38* 


596  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

bound  to  follow  whatever  this  Committee  of  bustling  and  energetic 
clergymen  proposed.  If  this  had  happened,  farewell  to  that  via 
media  in  Ireland,  to  any  reorganization  through  episcopal  autho- 
rity, to  any  hope  of  retaining  in  the  Church  that  large  body  of 
opinion,  that  did  not  like  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  its  rigidity, 
and  its  repudiation  of  tradition ! 

Straft'ord  flew  into  a  violent  temper,  rendered  all  the  worse 
because  he  felt  he  had  been  deceived.  Leaders  of  Convocation  had 
promised  to  recommend  the  39  articles,  and  timidity,  unwilling- 
ness to  make  enemies  and  vaccillation  had  produced  a  different 
state  of  affairs.  Dean  Andrews,  the  Chairman,  he  bluntly  com- 
pared to  "Ananias".  He  assembled  Usher,  four  Bishops,  the  Com- 
mittee, and  the  famous  Lesly,  and  there  and  then,  after  a  caustic 
discourse,  assumed  the  full  powers  of  the  Prerogative,  powers, 
which  vested  in  the  King  the  right  to  say  what  should  be  pro- 
posed, and  what  should  not,  reseving  for  Convocation  only  the 
right  of  rejection  or  acceptance.  He  forbade  the  Committee  to 
propose  their  report.  He  forbade  Dean  Leslie  to  allow  any  motion 
proposing  the  Articles  of  Ireland.  Drawing  Usher  aside  he  handed 
him  a  resolution  on  the  basis  of  his  original  plan,  accepting  the 
39  articles.  Usher,  who  seemed  overwhelmed  with  the  idea  that 
the  whole  Convocation  was  full  of  Puritans,  replied  that  no  Irish 
body  would  pass  such  a  resolution,  and  suggested  some  mild  ex- 
pression of  vague  opinion.  "But  I  confess,  having  taken  a  little 
jealously  that  his  proceedings  were  not  open,  it  was  too  late  now 
to  either  terrify  or  affright  me,  I  told  His  Lordship  I  was  resolved 
to  put  it  in  those  very  words,  and  was  most  confident  there  were 
not  six  in  the  House  that  would  refuse  them,  telling  him  we  should 
see  by  the  sequel  who  understood  best  their  minds  in  that  point." 
After  asking  Usher  to  propose  it  in  the  Upper  House,  whore  it 
woulds  certainly  be  passed,  and  where  the  moral  effect  would  in- 
fluence the  lower  Hduse,  he  dismissed  the  startled  and-  alarmed 
Committee,  amongst  whom  were  some  ""hot  spirits,  sons  of 
thunder,"  resolved  "to  petition  me  for  a  free  Synod,  but  they 
could  not  agree  who  would  bell  the  cat,  and  so  this  likewise 
vanished".  Leslie  was,  in  the  meantime,  put  in  possession  of 
written  instructions  to  put  the  resolution,  after  its  enactment 
among  the  Bishops,  "without  admitting  any  debate,  for  I  will 
not  suffer  the  Articles  of  England  to  be  disputed.  You  are  to 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  597 

take  only  the  voices  assenting  or  dissenting  and  give  me  a  par- 
ticular account  how  each  man  votes".1  The  resolution  passed  the 
Bishops  unanimously.  It  passed  the  Lower  House  with  only  one 
dissentient,  Mr.  Hamilton  of  Ballywalter.2  Thus  did  the  affair 
end  in  what  Bramhall  calls  "peace  and  amity".3 

Laud  says  he  "never  saw  the  King  better  satisfied".4  Straff ord, 
however,  was  none  too  happy.  To  hace  carried  the  Lambeth  Ar- 
ticles in  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  ha-d  been  a  great  triumph  for 
Puritanism.  Their  revocation  now  was  a  galling  defeat.  Straf- 
ford  for  the  first  time  in  his  career  had  been  forced  to  alienate  a 
theological  party.  All  his  life  he  had  aimed  in  forming  a  party 
of  "well  disposed"  subjects,  which  no  "illdisposed"  could  disperse 
by  representing  him  as  a  heretic.  Usher's  weakness  had  drawn 
him  out  into  the  open.  With  singular  prescience  he  extracted  from 
Laud  and  Coke  a  signet  letter,  applauding  what  he  had  done.  "If 
a  company  of  Puritans  in  England  may  chance  in  Parliament  to 
have  a  month's  mind  a  man's  ears  would  be  horns.  There  is  not 
anything  hath  passed  since  my  coming  to  the  Government  I  am 
liker  to  hear  of  than  this ;  and  therefore  I  would  fence  myself  as 
strongly  as  I  could  against  the  mouse-traps  and  other  smaller 
engines  of  Mr.  Prynne  and  his  associates."5  His  prophecy  was 
strangely  verified.  The  storm  of  popular  indignation  that  accom- 
panied his  trial  was  in  no  small  part  due  to  a  widespread  belief 
that  he  had  established  Roman  Catholicism  in  Ireland,  and  at- 
tempted by  an  army  of  Roman  Catholics  to  overthrow  England 
Protestantism.  The  18th  article  of  hin  indictment  accused  him 
of  "endeavouring  to  draw  dependancy  upon  himself  of  the  Papists" 
and  "did  raise  an  army  all  of  which,  except  one  or  there  abouts., 
were  Papists".6  This  Article  was  published  in  pamphlet  form,  and, 
save  those  who  were  at  the  trial,  few  knew  that  it  was  waived. 
The  Scotch,  who  for  many  reasons  were  more  bitter  against  him 
than  the  English  and  Irish,  and  who  made  his  execution  a  sine 
qua  non  for  their  peaceful  withdrawal  from  England,  announced 
to  all  and  sundry  that  the  head  and  fount  of  his  offending  was 
the  favour  shown  to  Bramhall,  "a  man  prompt  for  exalting  of 
Canterburian  Popery"  and  that  he  had  poisoned  the  fountain  "of 


1)  Wilkins.  Concilia.  1-498.     2)  H.  P.  C.  I— 172 ;  L.  S.  1—342- 34  \     3)  C,  I. 
XII-44.        4)  L.  L.  VII- 99.        5)  L.  S.  1-381.        6)  R.  P.  VIII-  69, 


598  .        THE  KELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

Trinity  College"  and  "corrupted  the  seminaries  of  the  Kirk".  They 
also  added  that  "when  the  Primate  of  Ireland  did  press  a  new 
ratification  of  the  articles  of  the  Kirk  in  Parliament,  for  barring 
innovations  in  religion,  he  boldly  menaced  him  with  burning  of 
the  hand  of  the  hangman  all  of  that  confession,  although  con- 
firmed in  former  Parliaments".1  The  Scotch  it  is  to  be  feared, 
knew  very  little  about  Ireland,  or  they  would  have  known  that 
the  articles  of  1615  were  never  referred  to  Parliament,  that  Irish 
Parliaments  never  dealt  with  purely  theological  matters,  and  that 
it  was  Usher  who  had  suggested  the  introduction  of  the  39  Articles, 
and  had  himself  proposed  them  in  ,the  Upper  House.  The  Puritan 
charges  at  Strafford's  trial  collapsed^  though  Pym  made  a  great 
flourish  of  trumpets  on  the  subject  in  his  opening  speech.  "That 
nothing"  wrote  the  younger  Coke  "concerning  religion  after  so 
great  a  clamour  should  be  so  much  as  objected  to  the  Earl  sticks 
somewhat  with  me".  That  young  man  solved  his  doubts  by  ab- 
senting himself  from  the  division  on  the  Bill  of  Attainder.2  The 
fury  that  raged  round  the  fallen  Deputy  can  be  assessed  from  Sir 
John  Clotworthy's  monster  petition  of  Ulster.  It  alleged  that 
he  and  the  Bishops  had  "made  canons",  which  "animated  Papists 
and  made  way  for  Popish  superstitions",  and  ascribed  to  Straf- 
ford's  favour  the  fact  that  there  were  Eoman  Catholics  in  Ire- 
land, as  if  it  was  he  who  was  responsible  for  the  theological  beliefs 
of  a  large  number  of  the  inhabitants.* 

Thus  ended  the  affair  of  the  Articles.  A  more  comical  in- 
cident was  the  subsequent  fate  of  the  chairman  of  the  unlucky 
Committee,  Dean  Andrews,  whom  Bramhall  describes  as  "a  man 
of  a  grave  Cathedral  manner".  Strafford  determined  to  recommend 
him  for  the  Bishopric  of  Ferns,  partly  because  Usher  was  anxious 
for  his  promotion,  partly  because  it  was  the  poorest  Bishopric  in 
Ireland,  being  much  plundered  in  the  "good  old  days.  It  took  some 
argument  on  Laud's  part  to  convince  the  King  of  the  advisability 
of  this  strategy,  propitiation  of  Usher,  and  punishment  of  An- 
drews. Bramhall  however,  seemed  to  regard  him  as  but  "the  in- 
strument of  others"  in  the  unlucky  affair  of  the  Convocation.  It 
is  noticeable  that  Strafford  put  the  same  charitable  construction 
on  his  differences  with  Usher.  The  deed  at  any  rate  was  done, 


1)  R.  P.  VIII  -770.     2)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11-280  -281.     3)  R.  I.  A.  P.  II— 8. 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  599 

and  Usher  was  much  pleased.  So  too  was  Andrews  "to  take  a 
Rochet  to  loss".  Before  departing  from  Limerick  however,  "he 
set  a  lease  very  charitably  to  himself,  contrary  to  the  Act  of  State", 
on  which  offence  Straff ord  joyfully  pounced,  so  as  "to  furnish  his 
Lordship  with  an  argument  to  move  those  that  do  the  like  to  him, 
that  usurp  the  rights  of  his  Bishopric".  Andrews  then  preached 
a  sermon  before  the  Vice-Roi  and  "commending  the  times  said 
"How  long,  how  long  have  we  expected  preferment  and  missed  of 
it?  But  now  God  be  praised  we  have  it"."j 

The  creation  of  Canons  was  a  less  exciting  affair.  Bramhall 
desired  to  pass  all  the  English  Canons  in  globo,  with  such  amend- 
ments as  local  conditions  might  require.  Usher,  however,  desired 
to  assert  the  independence  of  the  Irish  Church,  and  to  chose  such 
canons  as  were  deemed  feasible,  reject  others,  and  devise  others 
in  a  Hibernian  form.  Strafford  was  somewhat  ribald  on  Usher's 
ambition  in  this  direction.  "Needs  forsooth  we  must  be  a  church 
unto  ourselves,  which  is  utterly  lost  unless  the  canons  here  differ, 
not  in  substance  but  in  some  form  from  yours  in  England,  and 
this  crotchet  put  the  good  man  into  such  agony,  as  you  cannot 
believe  so  learned  a  man  can  be  troubled  withal."2  Strafford 
accordingly  suggested  to  Usher  that  he  should  consult  with  Laud. 
The  upshot  was  that  Bramhall  was  instructed  to  draft  a  series  of 
canons  which  were  subsequently  passed  by  Convocation  without 
any  controversy  whatsoever.  Usher  too  played  a  very  large  part 
in  their  arrangement  and  draf  tmanship. 3  Two  Canons  reveal  how 
very  little  hold  extreme  Puritanism  had  on  the  Irish  Clergy  of 
that  period.  One  placed  the  Communion  table  at  the  East  End, 
and  the  other  made  kneeling  at  the  Communion  service  com- 
pulsory. In  England  these  two  customs  were  a  source  of  great 
controversy,  and  subsequently  led  to  riots.  We  can  detect  in  some 
of  the  others  undoubted  concessions  to  a  Low  Church  Party,  and 
reticences  on  debatable  points,  but  the  very  fact  that  these  Canons 
were  passed  without  any  controversy,  and  the  Articles  with  only 
one  dissentient,  shows  how  Strafford  was  more  accurate  in  his 
estimate  of  the  temper  of  Convocation  than  Usher,  who  seemed 
frightened  at  a  prospect  of — if  not  rejection — at  least  scandalous 


1)  L.  S.  1—344,  378,  380;  L.  L.  VII.  99, 114;  C.  I.  XII-45.      2)  L.  S.  1—381 ; 
U.  P.— 43;  L.  L.  VII-  109.        3)  U.  E.  1—179. 


600  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

dissensions.  Laud  subsequently  congratulated  Usher  on  the  pacific 
end  of  what  threatened  to  be  a  storm,  but  candidly  repeated  his 
belief  that  it  whould  have  been  better  to  have  amended  the 
English  Canons  than  to  have  created  a  special  code.  Modern  critics 
are  all  unanimous  on  Laud's  wisdom.  The  draftmanship  of  the 
Irish  Canons  leaves  much  to  be  desired.  Nevertheless  it  was 
almost  a  miracle  as  Laud  put  it  that  "in  that  nice  and  pickled  age 
they  ended  all  things  canonically  and  yet  in  peace".  1  It  is  curious 
to  note  that,  so  far  from  Northern  Puritanism  displaying  anxiety 
on  the  matter  the  only  alarm  visible  is  among  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholics, who  probably  saw  in  the  creation  of  this  via  media  and 
this  public  organization,  something  to  which  they  had  indeed  not 
been  accustomed. 2 

To  a  modern  generation  all  this  may  seem  but  trivialities.  To 
the  generation  of  that  day  it  was  very  real.  Apart  completely 
from  the  anxieties,  hopes,  fears,  and  passions  of  the  ordinary 
subject,  the  political  leaders  of  that  period  always  concentrated 
on  religion  when  forming  a  combine.  The  danger  at  that  moment 
was  that  the  Church  of  Ireland  would  have  been  torn  to  pieces  by 
the  disruptions  of  the  advanced  Puritans.  These  disruptions  would 
have  been  used  by  the  less  seemly  of  the  local  politicans  for  a 
thousand  and  one  purposes.  The  inevitable  result  would  have 
been  the  disappearance  of  the  Church  into  a  multitude  of  sects, 
or  the  complete  triumph  of  the  Counter-Reformation.  As  it  was 
Presbyterianism  made  its  appearance  in  Ulster,  but  as  a  force  it 
does  not  really  count  till  the  reign  of  William  III.  Then  it  pro- 
foundly affected  the  mentality,  attitude  and  politics  of  a  large 
and  influential  part  of  the  inhabitants.  The  consolidation  of  the 
Church  of  Ireland,  however,  firstly  averted,  before  they  rose,  the 
fury  of  the  sects,  secondly  enabled  it  to  attract,  at  a  transition 
period,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  upper  classes  and  a  not 
insignificant  minority  of  the  commonality,  and  thirdly  reformed 
root  and  branch,  an  Institution  which,  despite  perennial  attacks 
and  confiscations,  plays  a  very  large,  though  silent,  part  in  affecting 
the  body  politic.  The  primary  cause  of  this,  is,  that  the  defeat 
of  the  effort  in  Strafford's  time  to  utilize  it  for  disrupting  the 
State,  and  the  basis  on  which  it  was  then  reorganized  prevented 


1)  U.  P.-477.          2)  P.  R.-22. 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  601 

any  of  the  stormy  political  parties — attempts  of  course  have  been 
made  but  only  with  partial  and  fleeting  success — from  capturing 
it  and  using  it  for  what  Straffor,d  used  to  call  "their  own  particular 
ends". 

These  Articles  and  Canons  now  gave  the  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ties full  power  to  cope  with  the  chaotic  state  of  affairs.  In  1636 
the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  were  ordered  by  signet  letter  to 
utilize  their  powers  in  the  case  of  non-residential  clergy.1  Of  more 
importance  was  the  resuscitation  of  the  Court  of  the  High  Com- 
mission rendered  possible,  partly  by  the  glamour  now  surrounding 
the  Prerogative,  partly  by  the  episcopal  authority,  consolidated  by 
the  Canons  and  the  Articles,  and  partly  by  the  moral  effect  of  a 
successful  Convocation  that  had  decided  on  reform  from  above  and 
not  from  below. 2  This  reform  was  long  overdue.  The  Ecclesiastical 
Courts  were  a  law  unto  themselves.  Part  of  the  weakness  of  their 
authority  was  due  to  their  chaotic  plight.  Their  fees  were  ex- 
orbitant and  they  were  sometimes  corrupt 3  There  was  no  appeal 
from  their  erratic  decisions,  and  their  functions  overlapped  those 
of  the  Civil  Courts  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  a  bewildering  task 
to  separate  their  jurisdiction  from  that  of  Chancery.  It  is  useless 
to  apply  English  precedents  to  those  Courts.  They  seem  to  have 
been  created  from  time  to  time  by  Orders  in  Council,  with  diffe- 
rent powers  in  each  Diocese,  and  now  lay  a  morasse  of  chaos, 
a  maze  of  local  peculiarities.  All  the  extant  letters  of  Bedell  speak 
of  this  as  the  great  grievance  of  the  subject,  oppressed  by  law 
that  was  neither  good  nor  cheap,  law  which  affected  that  most 
important  of  all  things  in  a  State, — Probate.  What  had  made  this 
tangle  worse  was  that  it  was  the  practice  of  litigants  to  carry  their 
cases  across  to  London,  as  if  the  Irish  Courts  did  not  exist.  "In 
some  emergent  occasion",  wrote  Straff ord,  "it  may  be  fit  such 
appeals  be  procured,  but  in  truth  it  is  too  strong  a  medicine  to 
be  applied  as  a  cure  to  all  diseases".4  Such  was  the  system  which 
Straff  ord  summarises  under  the  phrase  "extream  extortions". 
Bedell  describes  the  officers  as  "preying  on  the  subject",  and  Laud 
more  judiciously  laid  it  down  that  "some  of  the  Church  Officers, 
which  should  help  to  remedy  abuses,  do  both  let  them,  and  coun- 
tenance them".5 

1)  L.  S.  II-7.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1636-132.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  4)  L.  S. 
11—138.  5)  L.  S.  1-188;  L.  L.  VII-375;  U.  P.-421. 


602  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

The  consolidation  of  matters  ecclesiastical  converted  this 
reform  into  practical  politics.  The  fees  of  the  officials  were  ste- 
ryotyped  at  the  same  time  as  those  of  the  lay  courts.  Those  of 
Ireland  were  modelled  on  those  of  the  ecclesiastical  Courts  in 
England.1  The  calibre  of  the  officials  was  improved  by  an  Act 
of  State  making  legal  training  compulsory  on  all  the  Chancellors 
and  Registers.2  Stratford  was  given  full  power  to  exercise  dis- 
missal and  veto  appointments,  where  before  these  officials  de- 
pended on  local  influence  and  the  whim  of  Bishops.  Usher's  Judge 
of  the  Prerogative  Court,  for  instance,  was  but  a  mere  attorney, 
and  it  was  doubtful  if  his  patent  was  even  legal.3  This  was  the 
official  of  whom  Bedell  wrote  to  Usher.  "My  Lord  Primate  is 
a  good  man,  but  his  Court  is  as  corrupt  as  others."4  In  his  case, 
however,  reasons  of  State  held  Strafford's  hand.  This  official  was 
related  to  Usher,  and,  provided  no  definite  charge  of  incapacity 
was  made,  Straft'ord  let  sleeping  dogs  lie  and  shrank  from  an- 
noying Usher.5  Usher's  influence  was  vast.  During  the  Scotch 
emeute  a  line  from  his  pen  would  have  shaken  the  allegiance  of 
many  a  loyal  subject."  "He  were  ill  lost,  as  the  game  is  now 
playing"  wrote  Laud  to  Straff ord,  in  congratulation  at  the  news 
that  Usher  had  no  sympathies  with  the  Covenanters.6  A  curious 
example  of  how  far  popular  indignation  had  spread  in  1641  is 
that  Sir  John  Clotworthy's  Ulster  petition  denounced  Usher — 
— hithertoo  regarded  as  above  all  suspicion — for  the  "invictive 
terms"  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  Covenanters.  "Seemingly 
moderate"  is  the  phrase  applied  to  one,  whom  they  were  obviously 
loathe  to  denounce  too  bitterly  in  London.7  Once  when  he  retired 
to  his  country  seat  Strafford  traced  to  certain  belligerent  friars  an 
ill  disposed  tale  to  the  effect  that  he  had  fled  from  the  wrath  of 
the  Deputy,  so  anxious  were  men  to  separate  this  mild  but  power- 
ful figure  from  the  Crown.8 

The  appeals  to  England  were  abolished  in  1635.  The  leading 
case  which  made  these  things  a  thing  of  the  past  was  the  non- 
suiting of  the  appeal  of  a  certain  Dr.  Bruce,  whom  Branihall  had 
prosecuted  for  simony,  and  who  was  delaying  proceedings  by 
motions  in  London.  After  this  there  is  no  trace  of  that  method 

1)  L.  L.  V1I-163.  2)  L.  L.  VII— 142.  3)  L.  L.  VII— 121.  4)  U.  P.-42I. 
5)  L.  L.  VII-147, 160.  6)  L.  L.  VII-482,  425.  7)  R.  I.  A.  P.  V— 10.  8)  L.  L. 
VII-212,213,235,236. 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  603 

of  piling  up  costs  and  delaying  justice.  Bruce's  appeal  was  de- 
clared ultra  vires  by  Laud,  and  he  was  tried  before  the  Irish  High 
Commission  and  inhibited.1 

It  was  this  Court  of  High  Commission  that  reformed  and 
regulated  the  Diocesan  Courts,  and  furthermore  "rectified  ex- 
orbitancies  too  big  for  ordinary  jurisdiction".  Unlike  its  confrere 
in  England  it  never  fell  into  odium  as  a  religious  persecutor.  There 
is  no  case  on  record  of  anyone  being  fined  one  penny,  or  imprisoned 
for  one  day  on  account  of  Presbyterianism  or  Kecusancy.  In  Ire- 
land the  Strafford  regime  was  remarkable  for  a  tolerance  unknown 
in  those  days  and  at  the  same  moment — and  this  was  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  odium  into  which  he  fell — for  the  revival  and  re- 
organization of  the  Church  of  Ireland. 

Only  one  cause  celebre  came  before  this  body,  and  this  re- 
sulted in  the  deposition  of  a  Bishop.  A  clergyman  of  the  name 
of  Corbett  was  driven  out  of  Scotland  by  the  Covenanters,  and, 
landed  in  Dublin.  He  there  published  a  book  entitled  "Lysimachus 
Nicanor",  which  aroused  Caledonian  fury  to  such  a  pitch  that 
Strafford's  favour  towards  the  author  was  objected  to  him  by  the 
Scotch  among  their  "articles  of  Treason".2  '  Corbett  was  given  a 
Crown  living  in  Killala,  whose  Bishop  was  Dr.  Adair,  a  patriotia 
Scotchman.  Adair  made  himself  as  unpleasant  as  he  could  to  Cor- 
bert,  refused  him  certain  dues,  and,  in  an  evil  moment,  not  only 
called  him  "an  impure  corbie  thrust  out  from  God's  Ark",  and 
"an  ill  crow  that  defiled  its  own  nest",  but  added  "I  would  rather 
sign  the  covenant  than  leave  my  wife  and  children  in  Scotland. 
I  do  not  regard  the  Bishops  of  Scotland.  I  wish  they  had  been 
all  in  Hell,  when  they  did  raise  these  troubles".3  These  words  were 
held  by  lawyers  to  constitute  treason,  the  Scotch  being  in  rebellion, 
and  he  was  "convented"  before  the  High  Commission.  The  King 
was  "very  sensible  of  that  Bishop's  ill-affections,  as  unworthily  a® 
unseasonably  expressed,  more  especially  as  the  times  now  go".4 
There  with  only  one  dissentient  he  was  fined  and  deprived  of  his 
Bishopric.  Subsequently,  however  the  triumphant  Parliamenta- 
rians secured  his  pardon,  the  remission  of  the  fine,  and  another 
Bishopric.  Bedell  was  the  dissentient  voice.  He  held  that  Bishops 


1)  L.  L.  VII— 121, 122, 142;  Vesey.  Life  of  Bramhall.          2)  R.  P.  VIII— 770. 
3)  C.  S.  P.  1639—221.        4)  R.  C.— 182. 


604  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

could   only  be  deposed   for  heresey,   which   this  charge  did  not 


cover.1 


The  petition  of  the  revolting  Parliament  at  the  end  of  1640 
complained  of  "the  erection  of  the  High  Commission  Court  in 
these  necessitous  times",  "its  proceedings  without  legal  warrant", 
and  "its  excessive  fees",  to  which  Sir  George  Radcliffe  made  the 
caustic  reply  that  the  Court  had  been  "instituted  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament" and  craved  for  details  of  abuses  which  could  "easily  be 
redressed".  The  fees  had  been  reduced,  and  would  have  been  re- 
duced further,  if  Parliament  had  not  blocked  the  Bill  for  that 
purpose.  What  caused  the  greatest  indignation  in  regard  to  Rad- 
cliffe's  reply  was  his  resuscitation  of  a  speech  made  by  the  Chair- 
man of  the  protesting  Committee  of  ;the  Commons,  Sir  Roebuck 
Lynch,  to  the  effect  that  Straff ord  had  "administered  our  affairs 
tarn  caste  ut  alienas,  tarn  diligenter  ut  proprias,  tarn  religiose  ut 
publicas".  The  real  gist  however  of  the  complaint  was  that  the 
High  Court"  had  encroached  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  other  ec- 
clesiastical Courts".  This  complaint  was  reiterated  by  certain 
indignant  peers.  In  this  complaint  we  see  the  eternal  question 
of  local  versus  Imperial  Courts.  All  during  the  Plantagenet  era 
in  England,  there  was  constant  strife  between  the  King's  Courts 
and  those  which  were  dominated  by  local  interests  and  great  per- 
sonages, and  vain  is  all  pretence  but  that  the  Imperial  Courts  were 
less  liable  to  pressure  than  those  that  were  swayed  by  local  poten- 
tates and  parties.  A  probate  case  in  Connaught  where  one  of  the  liti- 
gants was  a  Burke,  a  French,  or  a  Browne,  stood  a  fairer  chance  of 
equity  under  the  aegis  of  the  High  Commission,  than  under  the  sole 
and  independent  jurisdiction  of  the  local  Chancellor  or  Registrar.  ~ 

From  Sir  John  Clotworthy's  petition  also  we  can  detect  how 
unpopular  this  reform  was  in  certain  quarters.  One  complaint 
was  that  "His  Majesty's  officers  are  required  to  yield  assistance 
unto  the  Bishop".  Another  was  that  Church  wardens  were  "charged 
with  articles  far  beyond  their  understanding",  and  lastly  that  they 
"take  cognizance  of  the  highest  and  smallest  matters,  and  usurp 
with  a  high  hand  the  judicature  of  civil  causes".  What,  however, 
made  this  petition  so  effective  in  England  was  its  reiteration  of 
the  fact  that  no  Roman  Catholic  was  summoned  before  these  Courts 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1640—237 ;  B.  J.— 52.  53,  54 ;  B.  C.— 129, 130.  2)  R.  P.  VIII— 12; 
C.  S.  P.  1641—261, 262;  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.  p.  190. 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM  605 

for  religious  matters,  while  Protestants  were  oftener  summoned 
for  civil  matters.  The  petition  is  careful  not  to  say  so,  but  it  is 
so  worded  as  to  leave  the  impression  that  Calvinists  were  per- 
secuted and  Roman  Catholics  exempt,  when  the  undoubted  fact 
emerges  that  the  only  religious  penalties  imposed  were  the  in- 
hibition of  certain  Ministers  for  not  taking  the  oath  of  conformity 
with  the  Canons. 1 

The  ninth  article  of  Strafford's  indictment  accused  him  of 
authorising  the  officials  of  the  ecclesiastical  Courts  to  arrest  those 
who  did  not  appear  on  summons.  This  warrant  was  given  to  the 
Bishop  of  Down,  and  the  witness  was  Sir  James  Montgomery,  who 
swore  that  those  who  were  arrested  were  "beaten"  by  the  Bishop's 
officials.  If  they  had  been  they  would  all  have  been  paraded  at 
Westminster,  exposing  their  sores.  Usher  appeared  to  give 
evidence  for  Strafford,  and  explained  how  warrants  of  this  nature 
had  been  frequently  issued  before.  Other  witnesses  testified  the 
same.  They  had  originated  on  a  petition  from  the  Roman  Catholics 
who  used,  in  the  reign  of  James,  be  sued  for  "Clandestine  burials". 
If  they  were  unable  to  pay  the  fine  or  defaulted  on  summons,  a 
series  of  writs  used  to  issue,  each  one  costing  money,  and  the  un- 
fortunate man,  when  arrested,  used  to  be  in  debt  to  the  Crown  for 
large  sums. 2  The  practice  of  Chichester,  Grandison  and  Falkland 
was  to  institute  this  summary  jurisdiction,  whereby  the  warrant 
for  arrest  followed  on  the  first  default,  and  not  after  the  mechanical, 
meaningness,  and  expensive  writs.  Strafford,  after  this  one  warrant 
had  operated,  was  advised  by  Radcliffe  that  it  was  dubious  in  law, 
though  justified  by  precedents,  and  withdrew  the  power  from  Dr. 
Leslie.  The  Parliamentarians  scored  a  small  point  on  this  article. 
"The  examination  of  my  Lord  Primate" — Usher's  appearance  on 
Strafford's  side  was  a  sore  point — "only  aggravates  the  offence.  The 
warrant  was  procured  by  the  Papists  and  Protestants  are  oppressed 
by  it."  It  also  enabled  Strafford  to  make  one  of  his  characteristic 
jibes  at  Pym  and  the  Common  Lawyers,  whom  he  loathed  with  a 
deadly  loathing.  "It  is  not  treason  to  mistake  the  law.  If  it  were 
there  would  be  more  actions  for  treason  in  Westminster  Hall  than 
there  are  actions  for  trespass.  Few  understood  the  law.  I  know 
I  do  not."5 


1)  R.  I.  A.  P.  V— 10.        2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.        3)  R.  P.  VIII— 236— 240. 


606  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

We  may  take  this  9th  article  as  a  typical  example  of  the  dif- 
ficulties of  ruling  a  country  with  a  critical  and  unscrupulous  op- 
position- on  the  war-path.  The  Irish  House  of  Commons,  Sir  John 
Clotworthy's  following,  and  the  English  Parliamentarians  made 
great  play  with  the  fees  and  costs  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts. 
When  Strafford  issued  this  writ  to  Dr.  Leslie  to  enable  these  Courts 
to  operate  at  less  cost  to  the  subject,  it  became  "treason",  oven 
though  these  writs  had  been  issued  by  three  previous  Deputies, 
without  any  complaint  of  illegality  or  injustice  being  made. 

The  great  importance  of  this  consolidation  of  the  ecclesiastical 
Courts  was  that  when,  at  a  later  period,  they  were  taken  over  by 
the  Civil  Power  the  transition  was  hardly  noticed.  They  were  in 
complete  working  order,  with,  defects  no  doubt,  but  containing 
rudiments  of  justice,  and  capable  of  enforcing  their  decisions.  The 
basis  on  which  they  were  organized  at  this  period  enabled  them 
to  develope,  and  they  form  now  no  mean  part  of  the  Civil  Power. 

All  this  trend  towards  the  control  and  development  of  the 
Spiritual  power  by  the  Civil  was  not  a  peculiarity  of  Ireland,  nor 
a  personal  whim  of  Strafford's.  Strafford  never  went  against  the 
tide.  He  was  the  personification  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  Ire- 
land at  that  time  yearned  for  arbitrary  government.  The  protests 
of  this  man  or  that,  the  clamour  in  this  region  or  the  opposition 
in  that,  are  no  more  than  the  personal  views  of  doctrinaires  on  the 
activities  of  minor  factions.  When  the  upheaval  came  in  1641 
Roman  Catholicism  and  Puritanism  only  rallied  insignificant 
flying  columns  to  their  .standard.  The  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  nation  declined  to  join  either  the  Catholic  Confederation  or 
Sir  John  Clotworthy's  levies.  As  Sir  George  Carew  one  time  said 
they  "stayed  neutral  or  went  with  the  Crown". 

When  the  Civil  Power,  personified  by  Cromwell,  forbade  the 
Church  of  Ireland,  the  Roman  Catholics,  or  the  Presbyterians  to 
hold  a  service,  the  country  quietly  submitted  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  the  law-abiding  subject  held  such  regulations  to  be 
necessary.  Strafford  was  only  doing  what  the  Tudors  did  in  Eng- 
land a  generation  before,  and  he  was  doing  it  in  Ireland  because 
Ireland — ever  later  in  its  development  than  England — had  now 
reached  the  same  frame  of  mind.  And  yet  this  intense  activity  on 
the  Deputy's  part  was  accompanied  by  no  interference  with  the 
private  conscience  of  the  well-disposed  subjects  Clarendon  sum- 


THE  DEFEAT  OF  PURITANISM 

marised  the  situation  well.  "It  cannot  be  denied  but  that  the  whole 
nation  enjoyed  an  undesturbed  exercise  of  their  religion,  and  even 
in  Dublin  went  as  publicly  and  uninterruptedly  to  their  devotions 
as  the  King  went  to  his.  The  Bishops  and  Priests  and  all  degrees 
and  orders  exercised  their  functions,  which  is  another  kind  of 
endulgence  than  subjects,  professing  a  faith  contrary  to  what  is 
established  by  the  law  of  the  land,  can  boast  of  in  any  other  king- 
dom in  the  world." l 

Nor  was  this  attitude  unreciprocated.  The  standing  army 
contained  many  Scotchmen. 2  It  was  a  Calvinistic  Stewart  to  whom 
Strafford  entrusted  his  one  enforcement  of  law  and  order  by  the 
army. 3  The  majority  of  the  soldiers  mobilized  in  1640  were  Roman 
Catholics.  4  They  were  attended  by  Roman  Catholic  Chaplains. 5 
The  complaint  that  frequently  appears  in  Clerical  documents  was 
that  large  numbers  of  the  priests  would  have  nought  to  say  to 
belligerency. 6  Behind  the  theological  excursions  the  fact  is  ap- 
parent— as  Strafford  used  to  boast — that  Ireland  was  "governed 
to  the  contentment  of  the  well-disposed  subject",  which  class  of 
person,  if  silent,  and  unobtrusive,  is  always  in  a  majority  in  every 
country.  The  religious  policy  of  the  Strafford  regime  was  to  leave 
the  ordinary  subject  to  pursue  his  own  religion  in  peace,  and  to 
develope,  as  far  as  the  resources  of  the  State  allowed,  that  via 
media  which  lay  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Puritanism, 
both  of  which,  in  moments  of  excitement,  were  capable  of  being 
utilised  by  political  parties  as  a  lever  for  rebellions.  "The  reducing 
of  this  Kingdom",  he  one  time  wrote  "to  a  conformity  in  religion 
with  the  Church  of  England  is  no  doubt  deeply  set  in  his  Majesty's 
heart.  But  to  attempt  it  before  the  decays  of  the  material  Churches 
be  repaired,  an  able  clergy  be  provided,  that  so  there  might  be 
where  to  receive,  instruct  and  keep  the  people,  were,  as  a  man 
going  to  warfare  without  munition  or  arms.  It  being  therefore 
most  certain  that  this  to  be  wished  for  Reformation  must  first 
work  from  ourselves  I  am  bold  to  transmit  over  to  your  Grace,  these 
few  propositions". 7 

1)  Clarendon.  History  of  the  Rebellion  p.  9.  2)  L.  S.  11—261,  296.  3)  'L.  S. 
11—201,313,  4)  R.  P.  II— 69.  5)8.0.1-237,238.  6)  Franciscann  M.  S.  S. 
-83,  83,  92, 105  -107.  7)  L.  S.  1-187. 


Chapter  VI 
THE  PKIESTS 

A  body  natural  is  compounded  of  many  dissimilar  parts,  yet  it  is 
moved  and  ruled  by  one  animating  soul.  So  the  politic  body  of  this 
republic,  plotted  and  compacted  of  divers  nations,  not  agreeing  in  all 
one  idea  and  form  of  religion,  may  stand  upon  one  frame  of  unfeigned 
civil  allegiance,  to  be  swayed  by  one  septre,  under  one  Imperial  diadem. 
Connivance  of  our  profession  tempers  and  mixes  in  one  mould  the  minds 
of  those  different  septs.  DAVID  EOTHE. 

The  early  Stuart  period  differs  from  all  its  predecessors  in 
the  evolution  of  a  force,  moral,  political,  and  social,  indigenous  to 
Ireland  alone.  On  the  collapse  of  the  Monarchy  Ireland  split  up 
into  half  a  dozen  embryo  States.  The  most  powerful  was  the 
Catholic  Confederation.  The  most  powerful  element  in  that  Con- 
federation was  the  priesthood.  So  dominant  was  its  influence  that 
at  one  period  it  gave  orders  to  the  Lords  of  the  Pale,  arrested  and 
imprisoned  those  who  would  not  obey  its  behests,  the  mutineers, 
according  to  Rinnucinni,  "toasting  the  ruin  of  religion  in  flowing 
bumpers  of  beer". 1  From  this  we  may  safely  deduce  that  the  priests 
were  possessed  of  wealth,  social  position,  political  power,  and  all 
those  elements  which  alone  could  make  this  possible. 

Of  that  wealth  all  contemporary  documents  speak.  Of  their 
political  power  all  writers  of  the  period  are  agreed.  One  has  only 
to  read  the  petition  of  the  Scotch  settlers  lodged  with  the  House 
of  Commons  to  realize  the  extent  to  which  priests  and  friars  had 
multiplied  since  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 2  Sir  Thomas  Button 
says  "where  there  were  only  two  or  three  Jesuits  or  schoolmen  in 
a  tpwn  there  are  now  forty  or  fifty". 3  Harris,  the  Dublin  friar, 
one  time  compared  the  Regulars  to  "a  swarm  of  locusts",  and  Sir 
Thomas  Philips  assessed  the  dues  of  those  of  Londonderry  at  over 

1)  M.  P. —219.         2)  R.  I.  A.  P.  V— 10.         3)  C.  S.  P.  1629—428. 


THE  PRIESTS  609 

the  rent  payable  to  the  King. l  Eecent  research  shows  that  the 
Carmelites  had  Monasteries  at  Athboy,  Drogheda,  Ard.ee,  Galway, 
Limerick,  Kinsale  and  Loughrea. 2  Nor  were  such  institutions  hid- 
den away  in  back  streets,  timidly  shrinking  from  the  gaze  of  In- 
quisitors. A  Convent  at  Drogheda  was  one  of  the  sights  of  the 
city.  It  had  "fourscore  windows  aside".  s  The  chapel  in  Dame 
street  was  "like  the  banquetting  hall  at  Whitehall,  with  ballasters, 
a  compass  roof,  and  a  cloister  with  many  chambers". 4 

Orthodox  history  has  wasted  many  tears  over  the  persecutions, 
poverty,  and  general  distress  of  the  priesthood  of  this  period,  but 
when  the  documents  of  contemporary  writers  confront  the  eye  a 
different  tale  is  told.  For  instance  the  inmates  of  one  of  the 
Dublin  convents  comprised  the  daughters  of  five  peers  and  "divers 
prime  gentlemen",  who  when,  for  reasons  of  State,  this  convent 
was  closed,  were  escorted  by  the  Council  to  their  carriages  amidst 
the  indignant  protests  of  the  Earl  of  Cork  who  had  closed  down 
the  convent.5  The  Monasteries  and  Convents  so  closed  were  "after 
a  few  months  leading  community  life  as  if  nothing  had  happened".6 
The  fathers  of  one  of  the  aforementioned  nuns  was  the  Earl  of 
Westmeath,  who  seemed  to  bear  no  more  ill  will  for  this  act  than 
a  rate-payer  to-day  does  against  the  local  Corporation  that  imposes 
on  him  burdens  that  men  of  that  period  would  have  regarded  as 
such  an  infringement  of  their  liberties  as  to  justify  an  instant 
resort  to  arms.  In  the  Stuart  period  all  our  modern  ideas  are 
reversed.  The  highest  in  the  land  submitted  to  things  the  meanest 
labourer  would  not  tolerate  to-day.  Strafford  himself  had  spent 
a  month  in  prison  without  trial  or  cause  alleged.  On  another 
occasion  Charles  arrested  half  the  peerage  and  their  wives,  and  no 
one  seemed  aggrieved  thereat. 7  This  incident  of  the  Convent  was 
ascribed  by  one  correspondent  to  the  desire  of  the  Earl  of  Cork 
"to  run  a  course  excentric  to  Lord  Falkland  for  he  suffered 
monasteries  and  nunneries  to  be  erected",  and  by  another  to  pro- 
voke a  riot  and  thus  justify  the  cessing  of  troops  on  the  city. 8  A 
previous  raid  a  few  months  before  elicited  the  following  letter 
from  Falkland.  "The  Jesuits  and  Franciscans  each  say  that  the 

1)  P.  L  -109;  C.  S.  P.  1632-643.  2)  Carmel  in  Ireland.  Rushe.  p.  60. 

3)  C  S.  P.  1641 -307.          4)  C.  S.  P.  1630— 510.  5)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  I— 399. 

6)  Carmel  in  Ireland.  Rushe.  p.  51 ;  C.  R.  p.  69.  7)  R.  P.  11—228.  8)  Montague 
M.  S.  S.— 112;  Franciscan  M.  S.  S.— 18. 

39 


610  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

others  were  deserving  of  repression,  but  that  they  themselves  were 
humble  poor  souls  who  might  have  been  excepted  from  the  Procla- 
mation. I  feel  sure  that  the  laity  and  moderate  men  are  in 
sympathy  with  our  action."  *  In  this  there  was  more  truth  than 
appears  on  the  surface. 

The  moment  we  probe  beneath  the  surface  of  the  meaningless 
alarms  and  excursions  we  became  aware  of  a  large  body  of  priests 
exercising  a  considerable  personal  influence,  personae  gratae  in 
high  quarters,  protected  by,  and  on  intimate  terms  with  those  who 
counted  in  actual  politics,  and  frequently  working  with,  and  not 
against  the  Irish  Government,  though  they  and  it  were  careful  in 
public  to  disown  any  connection.  If  the  priests  as  a  body  had  been 
hostile  to  the  Government  it  would  have  perished.  If  the  Govern- 
ment had  been  hostile  to  the  priests  it  could  have  arrested  everyone 
at  one  given  moment  by  means  of  its  military  power.  As  we  shall 
see,  however,  the  priests  knew  only  too  well  what  would  happen 
if  the  Government  disappeared.  The  Government  also  knew  what 
would  happen  if  it  deprived  certain  elements  of  their  priests. 

Strafford  arrived  in  Ireland  flushed  with  his  first  victory,  viz 
the  defeat  of  the  Earl  of  Cork  over  the  question  of  the  Eecusancy 
fines,  a  question  which  was  bound  to  make  him  appear  as  not  ill 
disposed  to  that  large  class,  or,  at  any  rate,  better  disposed  than 
the  previous  regime.  It  is  significant  that  he  was  accompanied  by 
the  Earl  of  Castlehaven,  the  largest  agrarian  proprietor  in  Ulster 
who  was  a  Eoman  Catholic.2  This  peer  was  subsequently  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  forces  of  the  Catholic  Confederation.  The 
second  peculiarity  of  Stratford's  regime  was  his  constant  associa- 
tion with  Sir  Toby  Matthew.3  This  extraordinary  personage  was 
one  of  these  restless  and  active  spirits,  who  flutter  backwards  and 
forwards  in  political  business,  friends  with  everyone,  and  enemies 
of  none,  transacting  serious  matters  of  State  with  an  air  of 
blandness  that  softens  disagreements  and  binds  alliances.  He  is 
thus  described  by  an  enemy.  "To  him  his  bed  was  never  so  dear, 
but  he  would  rest  his  head  thereon,  refreshing  his  body  with  sleep 
in  a  chair  for  an  hour  or  two,  a  most  impudent  man,  who  flies  to 
all  banquets  and  feasts,  thrusting  himself  into  all  conversations 
of  superiors."4  He  combined  the  twin  functions  of  a  Court 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1629-446.  2)  L.  P.  I.  s.  III-203.  3)  P.  L.-172.  4)  R.  P. 
VIII— 1322. 


THE  PRIESTS  611 

flaneur  and  a  semi-official  nuncio.  It  was  to  him  the  rescript  was 
addressed  forbidding  the  Roman  Catholics  to  volunteer  assistance 
to  the  Ki'ng  against  the  Scotch,  and  he  was  regarded  by  the  Re- 
gulars as  hostile  to  their  claim  to  be  independent  of  Bishops.1  In 
the  Straff ord  correspondence  he  appears  generally  in  a  jocose  light, 
writing  poems  on  the  Queen  or  Lady  Carlisle,  making  cocoa  in 
drawing  rooms  and  drinking  it  all  himself,  providing  Strafford 
with  pamphlets  and  the  latest  literary  sensations,  and  haled  by  the 
nick-name  of  "Dan  Tobiah".  In  fact  he  seems  a  merry  but  cultured 
ecclesiastic,  far  different  from  his  sire,  the  stern  Archbishop  of 
York. 2  Prynne  alleges  that  it  was  Matthew  who  assisted  Strafford 
to  mobilize  certain  Roman  Catholic  elements  when  the  crash  came. 
A  passage  in  one  of  Straff  ord's  letters  shows  that  in  1638  he  ex- 
pected him  to  call  in  person  at  the  Castle  to  receive  a  patent  for 
certain  Crown  lands  the  Deputy  had  leased  to  him.3  In  addition 
to  this  it  is  undeniable  but  that  Wandesforde  was  on  terms  of  con- 
siderable intimacy  with  Roche,  that  between  Ormonde  and  Rothe 
there  were  close  ties,  and  that  Radcliffe,  was  not  only  intimate 
with  the  Roman  Catholic  aristocracy — it  was  he  who  persuaded 
them  to  tender  the  contribution — but  that  he  was  the  patron  and 
protector  of  a  certain  Father  Harris,  who  defied  his  Bishop.4 

These  clues  explain  certain  curious  happenings.  It  is  un- 
deniable but  that  Strafford's  reputation  as  a  severe  man  had  pre- 
ceded him.  Comerford,  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Waterford, 
wrote.  "Every  day  we  expect  the  arrival  of  a  new  Deputy,  who, 
as  is  reported,  is  very  bitter  against  Catholics."5  .Roche  describes 
a  panic  amongst  his  flock  at  one  "de  cujus  severitate  in  Catholicos 
fama  percrebuit". fi  After  this  there  is  a  dead  silence  in  regard  to 
matters  of  State,  save  in  one  or  two  cases  where  trouble  arose. 
Roche  drew  the  attention  of  his  superiors  at  Rome  to  the  difference 
between  the  "fama"  mentioned  above  and  the  actions  of  the  Deputy. 
As  regards,  he  wrote  again,  "the  present  state  of  affairs  in  our 
Diocese  here  we  enjoy,  thanks  be  to  God,  great  peace  and  concord".7 
Rothe  used  exactly  the  same  phrase  in  1639.8 

The  reports  of  the  different  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  for  their 
dioceses  are  still  extant.  The  majority  deal  only  with  their  own 

1)  C.  C.P.I— 62.  2)  L.  S.  11—125,  12P,  145,  149;  C.  S.  P.  1637—100. 

3)  L.S.II— 207.  4)  R.C.-244, 242; S. 0.1-205.  5)8.0.1-183.  6)8.0.1-190. 
7)  S.  0.1-198.  8)  S.  0.1-236. 

39* 


612  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

internal  affairs.  They  seldom  make  any  complaint  of  interference 
with  their  episcopal  functions.  In  the  few  cases  where  complaints 
are  made  they  deal  with  matters  like  taxes,  recovery  of  Crown 
lands,  prosecutions  for  refusing  to  obey  writs,  and  other  mundane 
complaints,  which  subjects  of  all  denominations  made  in  the  three 
Kingdoms. 

The  importance  of  these  reports  is  that  one  can  detect  who 
were  and  who  were  not  the  "ill  disposed  Bishops",  by  noting  where 
an  exercise  of  the  ordinary  functions  of  Government  was  twisted 
into  a  complaint  of  a  special  and  religious  persecution.  Such  cases 
occur.  For  instance  all  the  Connaught  Bishops  constantly  assert 
that  the  Plantation  of  that  Province  was  levelled  at  Roman 
Catholics,  as  if  no  Plantation  would  have  occurred  if  Clanricarde 
had  been  a  Protestant,  and,  as  if  the  chief  beneficees  were  not 
Roman  Catholic  farmers.  It  is  noticeable  however  that  the 
majority  of  these  episcopal  reports  are  not  only  written  in  the  same 
tenour  as  they  would  be  penned  to-day,  but  relate  not  only  constant 
activity,  but  a  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of  priests  and 
monks.  Two  Bishops  actually  complain  of  the  increase  of  the 
latter,  one  of  whom  diplomatically  suggested  that  more  monks 
spelt  persecutions.  The  truth  was  there  was  very  little  love  lost 
between  the  Regulars  and  the  Seculars, *  When  Rinnucini  came 
to  Ireland  with  the  intention  of  creating  an  episcopal  state  this 
hostility  of  the  regulars  was  marked.  "They  have",  he  wrote  to 
Rome,  "a  great  share  in  the  ruin  of  the  Country",  the  country 
spelling  for  him  the  seculars.2 

In  Strafford's  first  Parliament  it  was  on  the  Roman  Catholic 
members  that  he  depended  to  carry  the  subsidies.3  In  the  elections 
for  that  Parliament  the  priests  were  very  active,  "calling  the 
people  to  their  masses  and  there  charging  them  on  pain  of  excom- 
munication to  give  their  voices  with  no  Protestant" A  Strafford 
announced  his  intention  of  prosecuting  them  for  undue  influence, 
but,  in  only  one  case,  does  he  seem  to  have  acted.  The  composition 
of  the  majority  of  the  House  was  Royalist,  and  he  seems  to  have 
let  sleeping  dogs  lie.  It  was  not  till  that  Parliament  was  prorogued 
that  it  was  visible  as  to  why  the  Roman  Catholic  members  were 
so  anxious  to  pass  the  subsidies.  Of  the  four  reforms  instantly 

1)  A.H.  V— 82— 114.       2)  R.  E.— 235.       3;  L.  S.  1-278.      4)  L  S.  1-270. 


THE  PRIESTS  613 

initiated  one  was  the  exemption  of  all  Roman  Catholics  from  the 
registration  fees  for  marriage,  christening,  and  burials,  which,  up 
to  this,  they  used  to  pay  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts. l  It  is  signi- 
ficant that  Roche  knew  of  these  identical  concession®  before  they 
were  published.  2 

There  is  evidence,  however,  that  things  had  not  gone  so 
smoothly  as  appears  on  the  surface.  True  it  was  that  Roman 
Catholic  Royalism  was  staunch.  It  disliked  intensely  that  consti- 
tutional Puritanism  winch — and  of  this  there  is  no  doubt — certain 
members  of  the  Council  had  aroused  in  the  hopes  of  balking  Straf- 
ford,  and  carrying  "their  own  particular  ends"  in  the  ensuing 
confusion.  It  was  the  fear  lest  this  group  might  dominate  the 
Parliament  that  made  Recusancy  so  loathe  to  demand  "redress  of 
grievances  before  supply".  It  was  on  this  fear,  lest  this  group, 
"under  the  guise  of  religion",  would  demand  a  revival  of  the  Re- 
cusancy fines,  and  so  embarrass  the  Deputy,  in  a  word  that  they 
would  be  his  masters  that  had  made — so  wrote  Captain  Plumleigh 
—"the  English  like  the  prospect  of  a  Parliament,  while  the  Popish 
Recusants  are  against  it".3  Straff ord  says  that  "this  emulation 
was  well  fomented  underneath".4 

Amongst  the  Recusants  however  there  were  men  very  anxious, 
under  the  guise  of  a  strong  Roman  Catholic  Party,  to  carry  certain 
proposals.  One  was  the  Statute  of  Limitations,  which  barred 
Plantations  for  ever.  True  it  was  the  priests  had  supported  that 
of  Ulster,  chiefly  because  the  Ulster  chiefs  were  in  exile  and  the 
Ulster  squirearchy  were  in  its  favour,  but  as  a  rule  they  detested 
Plantations.  Such  changes  in  tenures  meant  the  fall  of  the  political 
power  of  men  like  Lord  Clanricarde,  who  was  the  mainstay  of  the 
Western  priests,  the  creation  of  farmers,  independent  men,  owning 
their  own  land,  and  the  introduction  of  strange  Planters,  frequently 
Protestants,  on  whom  the  peasantry  "would  have  their  depen- 
dance".  De  Burgo — the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Clonfert— was 
very  active  in  trying  to  form  a  party  to  refuse  the  subsidies  till 
this  Bill  was  passed. 5  What  he  exactly  did  is  wrapt  in  mystery. 
He  may  have  been  one  of  those  who  delivered  the  zealous  speeches? 
at  election  time,  or  he  may  have  presided  at  a  caucus  meeting  of 


1)  L.  S.  1-293.      2)  S.  0. 1-199.      3)  C.  S.  P.  1634-51.      4)  L.  S.  1-274. 
5)  M.  F.-134. 


614  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

members  in  Dublin,  which  meetings,  it  may  be  added,  were  not 
regarded  as  consistent  with  Parliamentary  decorum.  There  is  no 
doubt,  however,  that,  wherever  he  operated  at  any  time,  he  made 
his  presence  felt.  Cardinal  Einnucini  in  1644  angrily  described 
him  as  being  "hot-headed  and  wishing  to  have  everything  his  own 
way".1  This  was  because  De  Burgo  had  preached  a  Holy  War 
against  what  Einnucini  used  to  call  "the  Pope's  troops".2  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Meehan  Strafford  immediately  served  him  with  a  writ 
for  exercising  "foreign  jurisdiction".  Several  times  Strafford 
asserted  that,  while  the  King  was  exercising  his  dispensing  power 
in  protecting  subjects  from  the  Common  Law  and  the  Common 
lawyers,  it  was  their  duty  to  support  him  against  possible  combina- 
tions, and,  if  ion  the  other  hand  they  stood  on  the  Common  Law 
and  asserted  their  rights,  so  too  should  the  King.  Meehan  says 
that  De  Burgo  went  into  temporary  retirement. 

It  is  just  possible  however  that  Meehan  has  mixed  up  De 
Burgo  with  Malachias  O'Queely,  the  Eoman  Catholic  Archbishop 
of  Tuam.  He  subsequently  emerged  as  a  very  bellicose  prelate, 
with  an  armed  force,  which  he  led  in  person.  It  was  on  his  dead- 
body — he  was  slain  in  a  skirmish  at  Sligo — that  there  was  found 
that  Glamorgan  treaty,  whose  publication  ruined  the  hopes  of 
Charles  and  dissolved  the  Catholic  Confederation. 3  One  of  his 
subordinate  clergy  describes  him  in  1634  as  in  hiding  at  the  threat 
of  the  issue  of  such  a  writ.4  It  was  however  but  a  flash  of  the 
sword,  as  a  year  later  he  was  writing — and  this  account  includes, 
of  course,  Clonfert — that  "all  parties  were  enjoying  the  peace 
and  quiet  for  which  they  longed".5 

What  exactly  it  was  occurred  has  never  come  to  light.  We  do 
know  however  that  a  body  of  priests  tried  to  create  a  party  in  the 
House,  and  "to  put  such  an  obligation  on  the  King  as  was  no  ways 
fit  for  His  Majesty  to  receive",  and  that  Strafford  stepped  in 
between  them  and  the  rest  of  the  members,  and  by  negotiations 
assured  himself  that  the  Eoman  Catholic  members  would  not  vote 
against  the  subsidies.6 

True  it  was  that  the  priests  always  had  the  ear  of  many 
members  of  the  House.  He  one  time  laid  it  down  as  a  maxim  of 


])  M.F.-138.          2)  M.F.— 141,142.          3)  M.  F.— 117  -  119;  C.  R.— 404. 
4)  S.  0. 1-194.        5)  S.  0. 1—203.        6)  L.  L.  VII-84. 


THE  PRIESTS 

State  that  "the  root  of  all  disorder  was  the  universal  dependance 
of  the  Popish  faction  upon  Jesuits  and  friars"  and  ascribed  the 
hostility  of  a  large  body  of  Eoman  Catholics  in  the  second  session 
of  this  Parliament  to  the  same  element  "fearing  that  these  laws" 
—the  Bill  they  rejected  was  one  against  bigamy — "would  conform 
them  to  the  manners  of  England  and  so  lead  to  a  conformity  in 
religion". *  There  was  however  a  serious  split  in  these  ranks.  The 
Lords  and  gentry  knew  that  the  priests  would  never  rest  satisfied 
till  they  disgorged  the  Abbey  and  the  Church  Lands.  The  Crown 
had  "passed"  the  former.  Where  it  had  "passed"  the  latter  it  re- 
cognised the  deed,  and,  in  many  cases  where  it  had  not,  it  gave 
compensation  for  desturbance.  This  question  was  always  beneath 
the  surface.  Once  at  a  critical  moment  in  the  history  of  the 
Catholic  Confederation  a  treaty  was  rejected.  "The  clergy"  wrote 
Einnucini  "seeing  that  no  express  mention  was  made  of  the 
Churches  or  their  property  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Catholic 
religion  was  in  danger."2  He  found  "an  aversion  for  the  clergy 
among  all  who  had  Church  property".3 

All  during  Stafford's  viceroyalty  the  efforts  of  belligerent 
friars,  acting  for  Clanricarde  or  O'Neill,  failed  to  raise  a  religious 
party  of  any  importance  against  the  Crown.  On  the  King  and  the 
King  alone  depended  the  validity  of  those  patents.  The  gentry 
did  not  scruple  to  say  so  to  Rinnucini  during  the  rebellion.4  This 
is  one  of  the  reasons  why,  in  certain  clerical  circles,  it  was  held 
that  "the  destruction  of  the  King  would  be  more  useful  to  the 
Irish". 5  In  a  cabal  like  this  there  was  no  common  bond  of  unity, 
but  one  great  and  disruptive  agrarian  question.  Strafford'  had 
very  little  difficulty  in  breaking  that  caucus  when  it  threatened  to 
interfere  with  his  subsidies. 

Ireland,  however,  was  a  very  difficult  country  in  which  to 
secure  a  consistent  uniformity.  The  Dispensing  Power  had  abolish- 
ed the  registration  fees  already  mentioned.  In  strict  law  however 
they  could  still  be  enforced.  During  Stafford's  absence  in  Eng- 
land some  of  the  Bishops  and  their  Chancellors  began  to  enforce 
these  fees.  Strafford  on  his  return  discovered  this  and  appealed 
to  the  King  with  a  historic  phrase.  "The  course  alone  will  never 


1),L.S.  1-351,  430.         2)  R.E.— 197.         3)R.E.-408.         4)  R.  E.— 322. 
5)  R.  E.— 146. 


616  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

bring  them  to  Church,  being  rather  an  engine  to  drain  mony  out 
of  their  pockets. than  to  raise  a  right  belief  and  faith  in  their 
hearts,  and  so  doth  not  tend  to  that  end  he  sets  forth."  He  added 
that  he  already  warned  the  officials  to  desist. l  The  breach  of  the 
Royal  Grace  was  checked.  It  does  not  appear  among  the  grievances 
of  the  Kingdom  on  Strafford's  fall. 2 

The  incident  however  shows  how  very  careful  historians 
should  be  in  quoting  the  despatches  of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops 
as  historical  evidence.  Some — not  all — are  couched  in  a  vein  of 
lacrimose  lamentation,  appealing  to  R-ome  or  Spain  to  protect  them 
from  ,a  sweeping  persecution,  which  despatches  when  closely 
examined  are  found  to  be  sweeping  exaggerations  of  a  grain  of 
truth.  For  instance  Laud  one  time  found  a  letter  being  passed 
round  at  Court  alleging  that  no  regulars  could  live  together. 3 
True  it  was  that,  in  the  reign  of  James,  a  Proclamation  to  that 
effect  had  been  published,  but  the  fact  remains  that,  in  every 
country  in  Ireland  there  were  at  least  half  a  dozen  Monasteries, 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  at  this  time  were  at  deadly  war 
with  these  regular  establishments,  that  the  number  of  these 
Monasteries  constituted  one  of  the  charges  flung  against  Strafford, 
and  that,  when  a  Priory  in  Kilkenny  held  something  like  a  public 
meeting,  Strafford  forbade  Wandesforde  to  take  any  notice  of  the 
breach  of  Proclamation.4  Another  example  of  this  type  of  mani- 
festo ad  misericordiam  is  a  despatch  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  of  Elphin,  who,  getting  hold  of  a  copy  of  the  Canons  of 
Convocation,  assured  the  Vatican  that  every  Irishman  was  forced 
"to  obey  them  under  terrible  penalties",  these  canons  being  only 
binding  on  members  of  the  Church  of  Ireland.5 

This  question  of  the  registration  fees  was  similar.  It  was 
abolished  by  an  Act  of  Grace  in  1634.  The  majority  of  the 
Episcopal  despatches  never  refer  to  it  again.  If  they  had 
been  revived,  their  revival  would  have  been  a  deadly  charge 
against  Strafford,  involving  not  only  a  breach  of  faith,  but, 
what  was  more,  the  denial  of  a  Royal  Grace  duly  published. 
The  act  however,  of  certain  Chancellors  in  1637  in  trying 


1)L.S.II— 38.      2)  C.S.  P.  1641— 317— 341.     3)  L.  L.  VII— 285.     4)  L.  S. 
II- 14.        5)  S.  0.1-25. 


THE  PRIESTS  617 

to  enforce  these  fees  provided  two  of  these  belligerent  clerics 
with  a  theme  for  foreign  appeals. 1  Strafford's  Intelligence  Depart- 
ment must  have  got  wind  of  the  latter  of  these  two  epistles,  because 
he  wrote  as  follows  to  Coke.  "Hereupon  the  priests  and  friars 
give  them  a  terrible  apprehension  of  an  instant  persecution,  so  as 
it  would  be  well  advised  upon,  it  being  well  known  to  you  on  that 
side  what  furious  outrages  and  sad  effects  such  rumours  and  fears 
have  produced  in  this  nation,  and  we,  that  are  upon  this  place,  do 
clearly  see,  that,  with  this  people,  quo  quid  crudelius  fictum  f  acilius 
creditur,  especially  in  anything  where  their  religion  is  rubbed 
upon,  or  the  English  Government  concerned."2  The  words  were 
prophetic.  In  1641  Phelim  O'Neill  let  loose  his  bludgeon  men 
amidst  a  panic  tale  that  a  few  Planters  and  a  Government,  which 
had  no  army,  had  the  intention  of  massacring  all  the  Roman 
Catholics  in  the  country,  to  avert  which  they  started  a  massacre  of 
their  own. 

Historical  efforts  to  analyse  that  loose  and  indefinable  body 
of  religious  thought  which  is  characterised  by  the  phrase  Roman 
Catholicism  are  vitiated  by  one  glaring  error.  All  men  are  not 
cast  in  the  same  mould.  Local  ties,  personal  ambition,  the  favour 
of  friends  and  the  hostility  to  enemies,  differences  of  opinion, 
objects,  and  methods  force  men  to  pursue  different  paths..  Histo- 
rians have  chosen  to  assume  that  all  Irish  Roman  Catholicism,  lay 
and  cleric,  were  welded  into  one  mass,  pursuing  one  general  aim 
viz  the  deposition  of  "a  heretical  government".  It  is  true  that 
Roman  Catholicism  on  its  theological  side  loathed  the  Stuarts  far 
more  than  Cromwell.  The  Puritans  almost  destroyed  the  Church 
of  Ireland  and  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  the  Stuarts  who 
raised  both  institutions  from  the  dust.  It  was  the  excesses  of 
Puritanism  that  increased  the  Counter-reformation.  It  was  the 
via  media  that  weened  the  Irish  aristocracy  from  Rome.  We  see 
this  frame  of  mind  running  all  through  Rinnucini's  despatches, 
through  the  Papal  rescript  in  favour  of  the  Covenanters,  and  the 
letters  of  Hugh  Burke  to  Rome  during  the  rebellion.  Despite 
this  however  Rinnucini's  instructions  from  Rome  when  he  came 
to  Ireland  during  the  Rebellion,  ran  as  follows  "Concerning  the 
Jesuits  carefully  guard  against  exciting  the  opposition  of  the 


1)  S.  0. 1—216.  230.        2)  L.  8. 11—39. 


618  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

Benedictines". l  When  the  Government  collapsed  not  only  did 
Roman  Catholic  Ireland  split  into  a  host  of  contending  factions, 
but  even  a  Cardinal  Nuncio  could  not  keep  the  priests  from 
assailing  each  other  with  singular  ferocity,  before  which  the  jehads 
of  the  Puritan  divines  were  singularly  mild.  One  has  only  to  read 
"The  Aphorisimical  Discovery"  'to  get  a  glimpse  of  the  passion 
with-which  Irish  Roman  Catholicism  tore  itself  into  shreds. 

It  is  not  till  one  examines  the  letters  of  the  different  Roman 
Catholic  Bishops  in  this  piping  time  of  Straffordian  peace  that 
the  first  rift  in  the  lute  is  clear.  It  is  plainly  apparent  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Bishops  of  Connaught  regarded  the  interests  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Lords  of  Connaught  a®  of  more  importance 
than  any  other  consideration.  These  Lords  were  not  the  only  in- 
habitants of  Connaught.  There  were  minor  men  intensely  anxious 
to  get  from  under  these  Lords  and  "hold  of  the  King".  There  was 
also  a  lower  substratum  as  anxious  for  the  introduction  of  the 
planters,  as  a  labourer  is  to-day  for  the  erection  of  a  factory  in  his 
town.2  This  question  of  the  Plantation  of  Connaught  aroused  the 
angriest  passions  and  the  greatest  hopes.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Bishops  of  that  :area  not  only  sided  with  the  Lords,  but  flung 
themselves  on  their  side,  and  used  every  weapon,  material  and  spiri- 
tual, to  further  this  ivery  material  end,  thus  turning  into  enemies 
men  and  minor  priests,  whose  aid  they  would  one  day  desire. s  It 
was  this  opposition  that  determined  Strafford  to  plant  on  the 
sequestered  fractions  of  this  Plantation  Planters  who  would  never 
be  amenable  to  these  influences.  "The  County  of  Gralway",  he 
wrote,  "must  be  thoroughly  lined  with  English  Protestants  as  the 
King  may  have  a  better  account  of  his  good  pleasures  in  that 
county  than  we  have  found  hithertoo.  They  have  had  their  op- 
portunity and  have  no  one  to  blame  but  themselves."4 

As  long  as  that  Plantation  was  looming  over  Connaught  there 
were  two  influential  parties  on  the  warpath,  the  Connaught  Lords 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  of  that  Province  with,  of  course, 
their  own  particular  followings.  It  is  certain  that  the  conduit 
through  which  their  intrigues  operated  at  Court  was  Windebanke, 
one  of  the  Secretaries  of  State.  The  Clarendon  Papers  are  cram- 
med; with  communications  between  him  and  the  Vatican,  the 

1)  R.  E.-XLYI.  2)  C.  P.  B.  XXX— 55.  3)  C.  P.  B.  1-151, 152;  L.  S. 
1-451,  473.  4)  C.  P.  B.  11—135-138. 


THE  PRIESTS  619 

French  Orders,  Spanish  friars,  and  English  Ultramontaines.  It 
was  he  who  was  the  recipient  of  the  letter  from  France  declaring 
that  Irish  Roman  Catholics  were  being  persecuted  by  Strafford, 
because  he  had  arrested  two  Connaught  landlords,  one  for  in- 
timidating a  jury,  and  the  other  for  making  a  false  return  of  the 
dimensions  of  his  estate. l  It  was  through  the  same  agency  that 
a  signet  letter  was  procured  for  Clanricarde  vesting  in  him  a  large 
area  in  G&lway,  despite  the  protests  of  the  Commissioners  for  the 
Plantations.2  The  local  fury  aroused  in  Connaught  can  be 
gathered  from  the  following  comment  of  Strafford's.  "These 
letters  will  carry  away  sundry  lands,  to  which  divers  of  His 
Majesty's  subjects  now  make  claim,  possess,  or  which  are  found 
for  them.  This  grant  to  the  Earl  will  conclude  their  right  and 
make  their  pretences  remediless,  though  never  so  just  or  equitable. 
They  will  pass  to  his  Lordship  lands  sold  for  valuable  considera- 
tions unto  divers  of  His  Majesty's  subjects,  which  they  now  possess 
and  enjoy."3  True  it  is  Strafford  stayed  this  letter,  but  on  his 
fall  it  became  valid.  One  of  the  causes  of  the  dead  set  made  on 
his  administration  was  the  desire  to  enroll  this  letter  as  a  patent, 
which  could  not  be  done  while  he  was  paramount.  The  names 
of  those  who  carried  the  Remonstrance  in  the  Irish  House  of 
Commons  are  on  record.  They  include  those  members  for  Con- 
naught  that  had  their  dependance  on  the  Earl,  and  the  Barnewalls 
and  Plunketts,  who  were  the  leaders  of  political  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism, associated  with,  of  all  persons,  the  leaders  of  seditious 
Puritanism.  4 

All  during  the  last  few  years  of  Strafford's  regime  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishops  of  Connaught  were  indicting  frantic  appeals  to 
Rome  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  Charles  to  avert  this  Plantation, 
representing  the  sequestration  of  a  fourth  of  each  man's  estate  as 
a  Roman  Catholic  persecution,  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  men  like 
the  Earl  of  Roscommon  and  Lord  Mayo  had  to  make  the  same 
^contribution.5  Just  as  some  of  the  Ulster  Bishops  became  instru- 
ments for  the  relics  of  feudalism,  so  three  of  those  in  Connaught 
flung  themselves  into  this  affair,  and,  oblivious  of  the  enemies 
they  were  making,  indicted  pastoral  after  pastoral  to  Rome  calling 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 285;  L.  S.  II-4r>2;  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1—106.  2)  C.  P.  11-37. 
3)  L.  S.  11—367.  4)  National  Manuscripts  of  Ireland.  Ed.  Gilbert.  Plate.  N«  41. 

5)  A.H.V-95;  S.  0. 1-216,  247. 


620  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

on  Wadding  to  nominate  a  brother  of  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe 
and  the  famous  De  Burgo  to  vacant  Sees,  giving  as  their  reasons 
the  wealth  of  these  two,  their  associations  with  Clanricarde  and 
Dillon,  and  the  need  for  having  powerful  men  to  counter  the 
"persecution".  Of  the  hostility  to  these  two  appointments  there 
is  plenty  of  evidence.  It  is  obvious  that  Bishops  outside  Connaught 
and  minor  priest  inside  it,  objected  strongly  to  being  attached  to 
the  chariot  wheels  of  certain  Connaught  Lords.  In  the  case  of 
Dillon  the  Bishops  failed.1 

The  alliance  with  Clanricarde  was  certainly  no.t  calculated  to 
rear  a  Roman  Catholic  state  in  Ireland.  Straff ord  one  time  sum- 
marized that  nobleman  thus.  "All  your  kindness  shall  not  better 
his  affections  to  your  service,  or  render  him  thankful  to  you  longer 
than  his  turn  is  in  service.  Remember,  Sir,  that  I  told  you  of  it."  * 
When  the  storm  burst  Clanricarde  played  for  his  own  hand,  and 
his  own  hand  alone,  securing  his  estates,  beating  down  mutinous 
tenantry,  driving  off  marauders,  and  showing  no  zeal  for  the 
erection  of  a  Government  of  Bishops,  or  the  preservation  of  the 
Throne,  or  for  Parliaments,  liberty  et  omne  hoc  genus.  "He 
stands",  wrote  an  angry  priest,  "against  his  own  conscience  and 
religion  for  the  Puritan  faction".  Father  Hugh  Bourke  put  his 
finger  on  the  flaw.  "By  reason  of  his  great  interests  in  England 
he  plays  the  part  of  a  neutral  mediator."3  The  climax  came  when 
he  declared  against  Cardinal  Rinnucini,  the  head  of  the  embryo 
Catholic  state,  and  brought  with  him  the  famous  De  Burgo  and 
a  large  number  of  priests,  who  bluntly  declared  that  they  cared 
not  one  jot  or  tittle  for  the  Interdicts  and  Excommunications  of 
an  Italian  Nuncio.4 

From  all  this  one  can  understand  why  it  was  that  in  the  Pro- 
vince where  Roman  Catholicism,  was  strongest  Cromwell  had  least 
fighting  to  do.  Men  would  not  risk  their  lives  and  liberties  for 
Clanricarde,  De  Burgo,  Rinnucini  or  any  of  the  contending 
factions,  who  had  no  recommendation  in  their  favour  save  their 
religious  proclamations,  and  had  done  much  to  make  many  men 
very  angry.  To  substitute  for  a  Government  de  jure  another  based 
on  nothing  but  de  facto,  the  latter  must  have  some  firmer  basis 
than  the  religious  professions  of  its  originators.  As  Rinnucini 

1)  S.  0. 1-234,  235, 1*47,  249,  250, 252,  253.  2)  L.  S.  11-408.  3)  Fran- 
ciscan M.  S.  S.-132, 162.  4)  M.  F.-369. 


THE  PRIESTS  621 

sailed  from.  Ireland  he  said.  "They  cannot  endure  the  authority 
of  a  Pope.  They  are  a  people  Catholic  only  in  name." 1  Clanricarde 
was  one  of  those  who  owned  Abbey  Lands.  Rinnucini  desired 
to  escheat  them.  Hinc  illae  lacrimae. 

We  may,  however,  take  it  for  granted  that  a  large  number  of 
the  priests  were  anxious  to  preserve  the  status  quo,  not  so  much 
from  any  love  for  Straff ord — the  religious  complexion  of  his  Go- 
vernment was  not  calculated  to  win  their  hearts — but  because  a 
change  spelt  disaster.  Who  was  to  take  the  place  of  a  King  with 
the  authority  tradition  gives  as  monarchy,  and  of  a  Deputy  who 
insisted  on  peace,  and  protected  the  law-abiding  subject?  Roche 
summarised  him  thus.  "He  is  a  stern  man,  desirous  of  maintaining 
the  peace,  not  through  any  affection  that  he  bears  ourselves,  but 
because  the  laity  are  always  more  or  less  agitated  by  our  dis- 
sensions."- We  may  take  it  for  granted  too  that  the  urban  priests 
were  as  a  rule  partial  to  this  regime.  Even  during  the  civil  wars 
they  remained  quietly  in  the  towns  ruled  by  Ormonde  and  In- 
chiquin,  when  there  was  every  temptation  to  intrigue  with  the 
belligerents.  Rinnucini  one  time  ordered  a  Dominican  to  leave 
Dublin,  where  dwelt  the  "heretical  Viceroy",  and  to  come  to  him, 
the  Papal  Nuncio  at  Kilkenny.  This  "proud  man,  arrogant  in 
doctrine"  refused  with  contumely. 3  The  Chaplains  of  the  Nobility 
too  were  undoubtedly  favourable  to  Royalism.  Rinnucini  spoke 
with  great  scorn  of  the  reluctance  to  extreme  measures  of  "the 
old  Bishops  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  suppressions  and  the 
stirs".4  The  Throne  was  at  this  period  regarded  as  the  protection 
of  the  subject  from  two  great  menaces,  Puritan  anarchy  and  bel- 
ligerent feudalism.  The  priests  all  detested  the  former,  and  those 
who  had  experience  of  the  latter  never  desired  to  see  it  dominant 
again. 

One  of  the  very  first  incidents  of  Strafford's  regime  was  a  visit 
paid  to  Radcliffe  by  Emer  MacMahon,  subsequently  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Clogher.  He  had  got  wind  of  one  of  those  in- 
trigues between  Richelieu  and  the  Spanish  chieftains.  Tyrone 
had  undoubtedly  applied  for  aid  to  Richelieu,  but  that  statesman 
had  asked  him  to  renew  his  application  at  the  end  of  the  year.5 
This  MacMahon  unfolded  to  Radcliffe,  and  due  precautions  were 

1)  R.E.— 436.  2)8.0.1—199.  3)  R.  E.— 234.  4)  R.  E.— 191. 

5)  Gil.  I— 507. 


622  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

taken. l  To  understand  the  motive  of  this  a  knowledge  is  requisite 
of  the  undercurrents  of  Ulster  agrarian  politics.  On  Strafford's 
fall,  however,  MacMahon  appeared  as  an  open  belligerent.  He 
was  one  of  the  conspirators,  who  under  the  guise  of  gathering 
Strafford's  unemployed  soldiers  for  foreign  service,  was  really 
mobilizing  them  for  a  revolt.2  On  Owen  Roe's  arrival  he  sided 
with  him  against  Phelim  O'Neill,  and  was  rewarded  with  the  title 
of  Bishop  of  Clogher,  Owen  Roe  having  great  influence  in  Papal 
circles.3  He  was  however  a  semi  feudal  swashbuckler  rather  than 
a  priest,  and  he  only  looms  on  the  horizon  in  forays.  At  one  time 
he  was  a  candidate  for  the  post  of  a  generalissimo  of  some  levies 
in  Ulster.  At  another  time  he  held  a  Commission  under  Ormonde. 
This  ended  disastrously  as  he  was  defeated  at  Letterkenny,  cap- 
tured at  Enniskillen,  and  hung  by  the  indignant  Parliamentarians.4 

In  Strafford's  time  however  there  was  no  scope  for  activities 
of  this  nature.  The  very  fact  that  McMahon  supported  the  Crown, 
when  the  Deputy  was  alive,  and  rushed  into  rebellion  when  he 
was  dethroned,  is,  in  itself,  sufficient  comment  on  the  relations 
between  the  Crown  and  the  growing  power  of  the  priests.  Under 
Strafford  there  was  neither  temptation  to,  nor  opportunity  of 
anyone  setting  the  heather  alight.  The  mobilization  at  Carrick- 
fergus  for  instance  could  never  have  been  achieved,  if  there  had 
been  any  widespread  hostility  to  the  Government  among  the 
priesthood. 

There  was  however  another  rift  in  the  lute  which  rendered 
it  very  difficult  for  any  one  to  mobilize  all  the  spiritual  powers 
of  the  priests  and  launch  them  on  the  Government.  At  this  period 
the  Regulars  and  the  Seculars  were  at  open  war.  In  England  the 
quarrell  had  begun  over  the  authority  of  a  Dr.  Smith,  called  the 
Bishop  of  Chalcedon.  The  Clarendon  Papers  are  fully  of  angry 
recriminations  as  regards  his  personality  and  power.  Here  is  a 
summary  by  an  impartial  witness.  "The  Jesuits  allege  that  the 
Bishop  was  a  very  passionate  and  turbulent  fellow,  fostering  broils 
between  religious  orders  and  priests,  that  he  employed  his  in- 
dustry to  infringe  the  privileges  of  the  religious  orders,  and 
.especially  the  Society  of  Jesus,  to  which  he  bore  a  great  spite. "* 

1)  Borlase.  History  of  the  Rebellion  p.  2.  2)  Gil.  1-504.  3)  M.  F.-248; 
Franciscan  M.  S.  S.— 238.  4)  M.  F.— 258-262.  5)  C.  P.  I— 139. 


THE  PRIESTS  623 

Prynne  says  that  it  was  the  influence  of  the  Jesuits  at  Court  that 
caused  his  expulsion. * 

This  commotion  spread  to  Ireland,  and  seems  to  have  caused 
great  exitement  amongst  those  interested  in  such  matters.  The 
secret  instructions  to  Einnucini  at  a  later  period  refer  to  this  as 
"a  shameful  rivalry".  He  was  undoubtedly  hostile  to  the  Eegulars.2 
To  appreciate  its  significance  one  must  realize  that  as  the  number, 
wealth  and  power  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Bishops  increased  so  too 
did  the  number  of  the  Monastic  establishments.  In  1613  the 
number  of  regulars  did  not  exceed  200. 3  In  Elphin  alone  by  1630 
there  were  over  fifteen  priories  of  different  kinds.4  In  the  Diocese 
of  Tuam  there  were  twenty  eight.5  In  Kildare  there  were  four- 
teen.6 In  Waterford  out  of  104  priests,  45  were  Eegulars.7  For 
a  country  of  not  great  wealth  and  of  spare  population  there  was 
no  room  for  such  a  clerical  population,  and  certainly  not  for  two 
contending  jurisdictions.  Suffice  is  to  say  that  the  Bishops  tried 
to  control  the  regulars,  and  the  regulars  defied  them. 

At  this  period  the  language  of  divines  is  strong.  Some  of  the 
sermons  delivered  in  England  necessitated  that  Eoyal  Proclama- 
tion against  "causeless  railing".  In  Ireland  the  letters  of  Bishops 
and  Abbots  certainly  denote  great  powers  of  expression.  "Tumidi 
titulis  abbatiorum",  "indecentes  viae",  "audacia",  "contemptus", 
"scandalosae  confusiones"  are  but  a  few  of  the  phrases  picked  out 
of  the  episcopal  despatches.  Father  Harris  in  Dublin  one  time 
compared  the  Eegulars  to  "a  plague  of  locusts",  "Armies  of 
Monks  and  begging  friars,  such  as  we  are  not  willing  to  speak 
of  what  condition."  8  Comerford,  the  Bishop  of  Waterford,  called 
them  "debauched  clergy".  Our  country  is  so  furnished  with 
clergymen  that,  ere  it  be  long  we  are  like  to  have  one  against 
every  house.  A  man  cannot  sit  down  to  a  raffe  of  tripe  but  one 
or  two  clergymen  will  come  in."9  Father  Stronge,  :the  Franciscan, 
entered  the  fray  with  the  following.  "These  Bishops  prefer  worldly 
policy  to  truth  and  justice.  The  prime  movers  are  Ossory,  Cork, 
and  Matthew  Eoche.  They  have  made  Patrick  Comerford  dance 
to  their  tune.  There  is  not  two  houses  in  the  whole  of  this  city 


1)  P.  L.  98-100.  2)  E.  E.-XLV.  3)  A.  H.  Ill— 301.  4)  A.  H.  V— 95. 
5)  A.  H.  V-99.  6)  A.  H.  V— 102.  7)  A.  H.V-109.  8)  P.  L.-107— 9. 
9)  Franciscan  M.  S.  S.— 52. 


624  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

where  he  is  sure  of  a  meal,  because  the  seculars  deplore  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  regulars." { 

What  had  embittered  the  situation  was  the  Abbey  Lands.  The 
stern  Roman  Catholic  held  that  to  possess  those  lands  by  patent, 
descent,  or  purchase  was  sacrilege.  The  Bishops  where  they  men- 
tioned the  subject  at  all  adjured  the  faithful  to  hand  them  over  to 
them.  The  Regulars  held  that  they  were  the  Church.  Rothe  tried 
to  influence  certain  impropriators  in  Ossory,  and  they  were  urged 
to  refuse  by  the  Regulars  2  Comerford  complained  bitterly  of  the 
hostility  of  the  impropriators  to  his  pleadings,  and  more  bitterly 
of  certain  Cistercians,  who,  having  procured  certain  of  these  Abbey 
Lands,  relied  on  the  old  charters  and  defied  his  authority. H  Father 
Stronge  wrote  to  Rome  complaining  that  certain  Bishops  "took 
action  against  the  regulars  in  favour  of  the  King",  they  asserting 
that  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.,  had  made  all  Monasteries  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Crown.  A  second  plea  they  advanced  was  that  the 
Pope  had  no  right  to  create  Monasteries,  that  right  being  a  Royal 
prerogative.4  Bedell  says  that  the  majority  of  the  Regulars  were 
younger  sons  of  gentry.5  As  such  they  would  certainly  not  be 
predisposed  to  the  escheat  of  their  relatives'  Abbey  Lands,  least 
of  all  by  their  enemies  the  seculars.  All  during  Rinnucini's  hege- 
mony he  was  beset  by  this  problem.  His  strict  injunctions  were 
not  to  allow  Monasteries  to  spread.6  When  he  happened  to  let 
drop  a  phrase  concerning  these  Abbey  Lands,  the  regulars  to  his 
horror,  preached  the  same  "seditious"  doctrine  as  Pym  aired  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  that  true  religion  consisted  not  in 
buildings  and  endowments  but  in  pure  hearts,  a  theme  which  we 
may  be  sure  was  applauded  quite  as  vigorously  by  the  Lords  of  the 
Catholic  Confederation  as  by  the  Puritan  gentry  of  England.7 
This  was  the  real  question  that  wrecked  the  Catholic  Confedera- 
tion. Rinnucini  had  secret  instructions  to  recover  those  lands. s 
The  peace  with  Ormonde  was  opposed  by  the  Bishops  because  there 
was  no  mention  therein  of  Church  lands.9  The  laity  were  different. 
"They  abhor  the  proposition  that  the  King  is  not  a  legitimate 
sovereign  because  this  would  bring  an  overwhelming  ruin  on  all 
who  hold  ecclesiastical  property,  as  they  infer  their  titles  also 

1)  Franciscan.  M.S. S.-47.  2)  A.H.V— 89.  3)8.0.1-167,168.  4)  Fran- 
ciscan M.  S.  S.— 13,  49.  5)  L.  S.  1—148.  6)  R.  E.-XLV.  7)  R.  E.— 142. 
8)  R.E.-LIV.;  XLIL  9)  R.  E.-147. 


THE  PRIESTS  625 

would  be  illegal.  ...  A  dispensation  from  me  they  regard  as 
a  fresh  indication  of  illegitimate  possession.  Though  I  speak  and 
promise  they  are  incredulous.  Though  I  speak,  promise  and  preach 
to  the  contrary,  not  one  of  them  believes  me  ....  Others  with 
shameful  malignity  insinuate  that  the  Roman  concessions  were 
not  to  be  depended  on."1  The  Vatican,  Bishops,  Eegulars,  and 
laity  were  all  at  loggerheads  on  this  question.  It  was  not  till  the 
Government  fell  that  they  were  able  to  contest  it,  and  they  did 
so  midst  splits,  dissensions,  and  uproar.  That  embryo  Roman 
Catholic  State  perishedstill  born  at  the  very  whisper  of  the  words 
Abbey  Lands  and  Church  Property.  It  was  a  stake  worth  fighting 
for.  It  meant  a  fifth  of  Ireland.  It  was  solved  by  the  Lords  of 
the  Catholic  Confederation  and  their  clerical  supporters  joining 
"the  Calvinist"  Inchiquin  and  "the  heretic"  Ormonde  on  the  terms 
that  all  existing  titles  to  these  lands  should  stand  good,  the  Church 
of  Ireland  should  retain  what  it  had,  and  the  Nuncio  should 
leave  the  country.  "The  Protestant  Bishops",  wrote  the  Nuncio, 
"are  preparing  to  take  possession  of  the  ecclesiastical  income".2 

During  Stratford's  time  this  furore  was  mild  and  confined 
itself  to  occasional  civil  proceedings.  He  was  only  once  compelled 
to  interfere.  In  Dublin  two  priests  of  the  name  of  Harris  and 
Caddell  conducted  a  school.  3  The  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  was 
a  Barnewall,  and  a  Franciscan.  Harris  and  Caddel  affirmed  that 
life  was  intolerable  under  the  rule  of  a  regular.  The  Bishop  re- 
torted by  excommunicating  them  both.  The  battle  was  long  drawn 
out,  but  the  climax  came  when  both  mutinous  clerics  took  an 
action  against  the  Bishop.4  To  this  the  Bishop  replied  by  an  order 
to  depart  from  Dublin  and  settle  in  Meath.  To  this  Harris  made 
the  following  reply.  "If  the  Bishop  of  Meath's  warrant  come  in 
the  name  of  King  Charles  it  will  be  obeyed.  If  it  comes  in  any 
other  man's  name  I  will  not  go.  If  all  the  fathers,  popes,  bishops, 
cardinals,  priests  and  a  general  council  shall  command,  not  a  foot 
will  I  remove  out  of  the  diocese  of  Dublin."5 

This  was  a  matter  of  State.  One  of  the  King's  subjects  had 
appealed  to  the  King's  Courts,  and  another  subject  had  forbidden 
him  to  sue,  threatened  him  with  spiritual  intimidation,  aye  and 
invoked  foreign  jurisdiction  to  deprive  a  subject  of  his  civil 

1)  R.  E.  p.  322,  487.  2)  R.  E.— 475.  3)  L.  S.  1—148.  4)  P.  L.— 107. 
5)  C.R.— 194. 

40 


626  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

rights.  Strafford  forebore  to  act  till  Parliament  was  prorogued.  * 
Roche,  however,  knew  what  was  coming.  "They  will  repent  it", 
he  wrote.  "We  will  see  an  exercise  of  authority  which  will  not 
be  pleasing  to  everyone."2  Strafford  had  forbidden  Harris  to 
leave  Dublin,  and  all  parties  were  only  too  well  aware  of  what 
was  coming.  Dease,  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Meath,  wisely 
refused  to  summon  Harris  into  Meath,  and  Roche  wrote  anxiously 
to  the  Vatican  to  withdraw  the  powers  they  had  given  Barne- 
wall.  He  poured  oil  on  the  troubled  waters  by  representing  Harris 
as  a  person  of  no  importance  with  no  following,  despite  the  fact 
that  he  always  called  himself  "Dean  of  the  Catholic  University".3 
In  the  end  the  excommunication  and  banishment  were  withdrawn, 
and  Harris  went  on  his  way  rejoicing.  Laud  viewed  the  affair 
from  afar  with  intense  gloom.  "Your  Lordship  may  see  by  this 
to  what  contempt  and;  scorn  the  rents  and  divisions  of  the  Church 
have  brought  many  of  all  parties."4  Bramhall  closed  a  me- 
lancholy essay  on  his  Irish  difficulties  with  the  words.  "It  is 
some  comfort  to  see  that  the  Romish  ecclesiastics  cannot  laught 
at  us,  for  their  disunions  and  scandals  are  second  to  none."' 
Strafford  called  it  "a  salad  of  menkshood".6  Roche  drew  con- 
solation from  the  fact  that  Rothe  was  still  alive,  "acting  as  a 
sentinel,  keeping  us  all  in  order,  telling  each  one  his  faults.  For 
this  reason  some  censure  him  as  over  zealous,  but,  in  truth,  we 
stand  in  need  of  such  a  watchful  monitor  in  these  regions  of 
license  and  liberty". 7  In  this  there  was  much  truth.  An  intel- 
ligence officer  captured  a  letter  from  a  regular  in  Paris  de- 
manding the  assassination  of  Harris.^ 

It  is  plain  to  any  observer  that  the  long  reign  of  peace  had 
made  Ireland  forget  the  evils  of  "stirs".  Throughout  all  the  Straf- 
ford correspondence  one  is  aware  of  an  approaching  cataclysm, 
and  none  knew  this  better  than  Straffo;rd.  The  country  teemed 
with  parties  willing  to  push  matters  to  any  extreme  to  get  their 
own  ends.  This  question  of  the  regulars  and  seculars  and  the 
Abbey  lands  is  but  one  of  the  countless  quarrels,  which  men  were 
determined  to  fight  at  all  costs  to  the  country.  It  lay  dormant 
during  Strafford's  time.  It  is  significant  that  a  month  after  his 
downfall,  in  Dublin  itself,  where  one  would  suppose  there  were 

1)  L.  S.  1-155.  2)  S.  0. 1-199.  3)  S.  0. 1-205.  4)  L.  L.  VI— 311. 
5)  C.  S.  P.— 1633— 17.  6)  L.  L.  VII-428.  7)  S.  0. 1-199.  8)  L.  S.  1—364. 


THE  PRIESTS  627 

some  relics  of  order  and  government  still  surviving,  a  riot  oc- 
curred in  a  chapel,  a  young  monk  assaulting  an  aged  Vicar 
apostolic.  "Ubi  est  deus  eorum?"  wrote  the  Archbishop.1 

On  paper  the  power  and  authority  of  the  priesthood  in  Ire- 
land reached  its  culminating  point  under  Strafford.  In  time  of 
peace  the  power  of  the  Keys  is  ever  strong.  In  moments  of  civil 
commotion  it  disappears  before  the  strident  roar  of  the  dema- 
gogue, and  the  rush  of  the  man  of  blood.  Furthermore  it  stands 
to  reason  that,  as  the  country  prospered,  the  priests  shared  in  the 
prosperity.  The  pious  donor  had  the  wherewithal  to  make  be- 
quests, and  the  devotee  to  pay  his  dues.  The  constant  references 
in  the  State  papers  to.  these  two  sources  of  wealth  are  amply  borne 
out  by  religious  records.  A  series  of  regulations  issued  by  a  Con- 
naught  synod  in  1631  were  obviously  devised,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  increasing  the  stipends  of  priests,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
restraining  them  from  exorbitant  demands.  They  forbid  lending 
of  money,  foreclosures  on  loan®,  receiving  dues  of  more  than  a 
certain  limit,  keeping  dogs,  and  more  than  one  horse  or  two  ser- 
vants. Lastly  they  impose  a  rigid  veto  on  begging,  the  enter- 
tainment or  the  recognition  of  begging  friars,  who,  Bedell  alleges, 
were  a  great  imposition  on  the  meaner  sort,  all  men  being  afraid 
to  refuse  their  demands.2  The  Eoman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Kil- 
laloe  has  left  on  record  an  indignant  protest  against  charges 
levelled  at  him  by  certain  mutinous  clerics — "noti  adversarii 
antiqui" — to  the  effect  that  he  wore  fashionable  and  expensive 
raiment,  and  toured  the  country  with  a  retinue,  expensive  to  his 
flock.5  The  very  fact  that  a  regulation  such  as  this  had  to  be 
made  by  certain  Bishops,  and  that  a  charge  such  as  this  could  be 
made  against  a  Bishop  by  certain  of  his  clergy,  shows  what  a 
change  had  come  over  Ireland  from  the  time  when  there  were 
only  a  few  priests  in  the  cities,  the  country  was  barren  of  ex- 
ponents of  religion,  and  in  Counties  like  Mayo  and  Limerick  the 
people  had  enough  to  do  to  support  themselves. 

It  stands  to  reason  that  an  institution  such  as  this  was  bound 
to  attract  the  eyes  of  those  on  the  warpath.  Every  political  party 
that  arises  in  Ireland  seeks  to  capture  every  institution,  which  has 
money,  authority  or  attracts  respect,  for  the  purpose  of  bending 


1)  A.H.V— 113.        2)  C.  R.  I— 488— 494.        3)  S.O.I— 202. 

40* 


628  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

it  to  its  will,  and  using  it  as  a  lever  to  capture  the  State,  or  impose 
itself  on  the  country.  We  have  already  seen  how  the  Connaught 
Lords  used  the  priests  of  their  own  area  to  consolidate  their  de- 
vastating stranglehold  on — despite  all  that  is  said  to  the  contrary 
—a  Province  far  richer  in  natural  resources  than  Ulster  is  to-day. 

The  Connaught  Lords  had  used  the  not  unwilling  Bishops 
to  perpetuate  their  hegemony,  but,  in  Ulster,  the  disbanded  relics 
of  feudalism,  and  the  restless  spirits  in  Spain  had  converted  the 
Bishops  of  that  Province  into  their  instruments.  Lombard  waged 
a  strenuous  combat  with  Tyrone  and  Tyreconnell  over  the  vexed 
question  as  to  whether  his  prelates  were  to  be  Churchmen,  or 
agrarian  reactionists.1  The  Bull,  empowering  Tyrone  to  nominate 
priests  over  a  large  area,  and  a  sequence  of  ecclesiastical  appoint- 
ments, made  at  Tyrone's  wish,  show  how  matters  were  drifting 
in  Ulster.2  The  refusal  of  the  Vatican  to  nominate  Eothe  as 
Lombard's  successor  was  the  culminating  point.  That  Lombard's 
.Vicar  General,  the  patriarch  of  the  Irish  priests,  their  greatest 
scholar,  and  by  far  their  ablest  man  of  .affairs  should  have  been 
passed  over  for  Hugh  O'Eeilly  shows  the  influence  the  Earls 
must  have  had  in  ecclesiastical  circles.  O'Reilly  was  the  nominee 
of  the  nuncio  in  Flanders  and  the  Infanta  Isabell,  a  strong  sup- 
porter of  the  Earls  and  the  pro-Spanish  Party.3  Tyrone  also  wrote 
to  Home  recommending  him.4  It  is  worthy,  however,  of  note  that 
among  the  names  sent  forward  by  the  Armagh  priests  his  does 
not  occur.5  As  Ulster  was  the  storm  centre  of  this  period  this 
appointment — and  there  were  others  similar  to  it — meant  that 
in  Ulster  and  in  Connaught  the  Bishops  were  playing  with  Re- 
volution in  the  hopes  that  an  upheaval  would  mean  a  change  for 
the  better.  In  1636  Roche  died.  Rothe  and  Dease  alone  of  the 
pacifist  school  remained.  Of  the  other  Bishops  some  were  marked 
belligerents.  Those  who  were  not  seem  to  have  been  men  not  of 
sufficient  firmness  to  hold  them  in  check.  They  followed  them 
like  sheep  into  the  Catholic  Confederation,  there  to  sit  among 
wrangles  and  wars. 

Of  all  this  Strafford  was  not  ignoranit.  None  knew  better 
than  he  that,  if  matters  came  to  a  head  in  England,  the  Con- 
naught  Lords  and  the  Ulster  feudalists  would  revolt,  and  use  the 

1)  A.H.III— 285— 299.  2)  A.  H.  1-33— 45.  3)  Franciscan  M.S. S.— 92,  80. 
4)  Franciscan  M.  S.  S.— 96.  5)  S.  0. 1—146. 


THE  PRIESTS  629 

influence  of  the  priests  to  strike  out  for  their  demands.  Even  the 
Scotch  Covenanters,  as  we  know,  were  not  above  intriguing  with 
this  force.1  "Rebels,  as  they  are  called",  is  a  phrase,  applied  to 
the  Scotch,  in  one  of  these  episcopal  despatches,  which,  shows  in 
what  direction  the  sympathy  of  the  writer  lay.2  Of  one  of  the 
threads  of  this  intrigue  Straff ord  had  learnt.3  "We  cannot  hold 
ourselves  secure  of  this  nation",  Strafford  wrote,  "which,  however 
peaceable  we  may  think  them,  are,  in  an  instant,  to  be  blown  up 
by  the  Romish  clergy  into  a  tempest,  not  only  to  the  disquiet, 
but  the  great  hazard  of  the  State,  especially  if  they  perceive  this 
Crown  embroiled  in  a  war,  and  be  emboldened  by  promise  of 
foreign  succours."4  The  religious  element  in  Connaught,  and  the 
communications  between  Galway  and  Spain  always  gave  him  great 
uneasiness,5  It  is  curious  to  note  that  it  was  in  Connaught  that 
Charles  expected  the  rebellion  would  break  out.  He  knew  from 
otlier  sources  of  the  steady  trickle  of  Spanish  friars  and  mercenary 
soldiers  into  that  Province,  while  Strafford's  trial  was  being  con- 
ducted.6 It  is  undeniable  that  some  of  the  conspirators  expected 
that  Connaught  would  rise,  but  the  abolition  of  the  Plantation 
and  the  passing  of  Clanricarde's  patent  deprived  the  Ulstermen 
of  the  succours  of  the  now  contented  Lords.7 

Of  the  Ulster  movements  Strafford  knew  quite  as  much. 
When  the  Scotch  storm  burst  he  knew  that  between  Ulster  and 
Flanders,  between  Ulster  and  the  Vatican,  and  between  Ulster 
and  Spain  "by  means  of  the  Pope's  clergy"  there  was  an  intrigue 
being  formed  to  land  men  and  munitions  between  Derry  and  Co- 
leraine.*  This  was  the  moment  that  Tyrone  sent  a  priest  to  Scot- 
land to  open  up  negotiations  with  the  Covenanters,  and  Argyle 
was  boasting  that  "he  would  kindle  such  a  fire  in  Ireland  as  would 
hardly  or  ever  be  quenched" — Maguire  subsequently  let  this  out 
—Tyrone  being  "powerful  with  the  redshanks".  Between  the 
O'Neills  and  Campbells  there  were  ancient  ties,  which  were  to 
be  renewed  by  a  marriage,  Cardinal  Richelieu  blessing  the 
match.9  Of  the  threads  of  this  conspiracy  the  Deputy  too  was  not 
ignorant.10  He  knew  however,  that,  as  long  as  matters  went  "on 
a  right  wheel",  these  alarms  and  excursions,  were  but  intrigues, 

1)  C.  C.  P.  I— 179;  C.  P.  II- 80.  2)  A.  H.  V— 105.  3)  L.L.II— 92.  4)  L. 
S.  11-63.  5)  L.  S.  11-366.  6)  C.  P.  II— 134.  7)  Gil.  1-501-503.  8)  L.  8. 
11-93,111.  9)  Gil.  I— 510.  10)  C.  C.  P.  1-187;  C.  P.  11-80. 


630  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

whispers,  -runnings  to  and  fro  of  excitable  persons.  "The  rumour 
concerning  the  Irishry  to  trouble  us  out  of  Spain  I  still  hold  a 
very  fancy.  Yet  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  hearken  after  it."J  The 
dead  quiet  of  Ireland,  even  after  the  Scotch  had  won  Newburn, 
he  had  fallen,  the  King  had  all  but  abdicated,  and  Government 
was  in  chaos,  the  quiet  for  nine  months  after  this  shows  how, 
from  the  very  impulse  he  had  given  the  wheels  of  State,  matters 
still  were  able  to  progress  "on  a  right  wheel".  His  Intelligence 
Department  must  have  been  a  miracle  of  organization.  The  truth- 
was  that  the  Crown  had  friends  in  every  camp,  and  the  con- 
spirators distrusted  each  other.  With  Inchiquin,  Dillon,  Or- 
monde, Thomond  and  Westmeath  attached  firmly  to  the  Govern- 
ment, very  little  could  occur  that  he  did  not  know,  and  very  little 
could  fail  to  be  done  that  he  wished. 

His  policy  towards  the  priests  was  to  give  them  a  free  hand. 
As  a  general  rule  they  were  bound  to  be  staunch  supporters  of 
the  Prerogative.  It  was  only  by  its  dispensing  power  they  exer- 
cised their  functions.  The  rising  forces  of  Parliamentarianism 
would  certainly  not  allow  a  priest  to  function,  the  law  being  the 
law.  Even  when  the  Catholic  Confederation  was  at  its  height, 
Rinnucini  noted  the  aftereffects  of  this.  His  strongest  enemies 
he  found  among  "the  old  Bishops  and  clergy  who  lived  at  the 
times  of  the  suppressions  and  the  sterns".  They  had  seen  one 
upheaval.  They  were  loathe  to  perpetuate  another.  His  despat- 
ches are  full  of  complaints  that  the  priests  would  not  wear  their 
robes  in  public,  so  accustomed  were  they  to  the  tradition  that 
it  embarrassed  the  frequently  assailed  Prerogative  by  flaunting 
themselves  before  Puritans.  He  was  flabbergasted  when  no  small 
number  of  the  Confederation  told  him  that  "it  is  sufficient  to 
perform  the  Catholic  service  in  secret,  provided  it  be  done  in  safety, 
and  that  to  expect  more  from  the  King  would  be  open  injustice, 
and  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  contend  with  him."3  In  the  North  of 
England,  where  a  stricter  rule  was  observed,  Strafford  laid  it 
down  as  a  maxim  that  "if  modestly  and  silently  they  exercise 
and  keep  their  consciences  to  themselves,  it  is  agreed)  they  should 
be  looked  at  through  the  fingers".4 

A  few  times  however  he  fell  foul  of  clerical  influence.  Once  when 


1)  R.  C.-188.         2)  R.  E.— 141.         3)  R.  E.-98.         4)  L.  S.  11-194. 


THE  PRIESTS  631 

trying  a  case  in  the  Castle  Chamber  a  barrister  tendered  an 
affidavit,  sworn  before  a  priest,  and  laid  stress  on  the  point  that 
euch  an  affidavit  outweighed  testimony  sworn  in  the  court.  On 
inquiry  Strafford  learnt  this  was  quite  a  common  practice.  He 
refused  to  admit  it  as  evidence  at  all.  "If  such  oaths  were  admitted 
thus,  the  priests  would  rule  the  decrees  as  they  list,  empty  the 
King's  Court,  and  make  them  trumpets  to  sound  forth  between 
party  and  party  such  orders  as  they  should  give  leave  to  make 
at,  after  they  had  by  these  testimonies  made  the  course  to  be  such 
as  themselves  pleased  to  represent  it  to  be.  Others  must  learn  that 
they  are  not  to  meddle  in  the  least  acts  ,or  paths  towards  Justice, 
without  good  and  proper  authority  derived  from  His  Majesty."  1 
An  information  was  lodged  against  the  priest,  but  what  subse- 
quently happened  does  not  transpire.2 

The  case  has  already  been  mentioned  of  the  arrest  of  Dr. 
Walsh,  the  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  on  a  charge  of 
"Spaniolising"  that  came  from  the  agent  in  Spain.  He  was,  however, 
released  in  three  days.  It  is  curious  to  note  that  his  companion  on  his 
journey  to  Dublin  was  a  son  of  Dr.  Archibald  Hamilton,  on 
whose  "sciatica"  Straff ord  once  made  caustic  remarks.  Walshe's 
biographer  relates  that  the  pair  whiled  away  the  tedium  of  the 
journey  by  "discussing  various  points  of  doctrine".3  The  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Kildare  relates  that  one  of  his  priests  lodged 
an  information  of  "foreign  jurisdiction"  against  him,  and  that 
he  had  to  go  into  hiding,  but  his  account  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
cause  of  his  flight  was  that  he  failed  to  appear  in  Court,  and  was 
therefore  liable  to  arrest-4  There  is  no  other  record  of  this  affair. 
He  seems  otherwise  to  have  officiated  in  peace,  and  died  of  a 
sudden  stroke  of  paralysis  in  1640,  while  preaching  in  a  local 
chapel.*5 

There  was  one  other  mysterious  affair  the  details  of  which 
are  lost.  It  is  only  referred  to  twice  by  Coke.  In  one  letter  he 
congratulates  Straff  ord  on  "settling  obedience  to  the  State"  among 
some  priests,  and  in  the  subsequent  letter  relates  that  the  King 
had  approved  of  the  "vindicating  of  the  Crown  against  foreign 
jurisdiction  by  the  sentence  passed  against  Brangan  and  others, 
and  such  insolences  hereafter  are  not  in  any  sort  to  be  connived 

1)  L.  S.  I— 204,  248.  2)  L.  S.  I— 281.  3)M.E.— 125.  4)  A.  H.  V— 103. 
5)  M.  F.— 403. 


632  THE  EELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

at".  *  What  occurred  must  have  been  something  outside  the 
ordinary,  as,  in  the  same  year,  Strafford  declined  to  prosecute  a 
priest  for  seizing  on  a  Church,  on  the  grounds  that  he  only  re- 
mained an  hour,  and  there  was  no  repetition  of  the  incident.  - 

The  period  of  Strafford's  Vice-Royalty  was  regarded  as  the 
halcyon  period  of  religious  tolerance.  Certainly  in  no  other 
country  in  Eunope,  and  least  of  all  in  England  and  Scotland,  could 
men  hold  and  express  their  own  religious  opinions  with  such  im- 
munity. One  has  only  to  contrast  Ireland  with  Spain  or  Sweden 
to  realize  what  this  meant.  Clarendon  has  put  it  aptly.  "It  cannot 
be  denied  but  that  the  whole  nation  enjoyed  an  undesturbed 
exercise  of  their  religion,  and,  even  in  Dublin,  they  went  as 
publicly  and  uninterruptedly  to  their  devotions  as  the  King  went 
to  his.  No  man  could  say  he  suffered  prejudice  or  disturbance 
for  his  religion,  which  is  another  kind  of  endulgence  than  subjects 
professing  a  faith  contrary  to  what  is  established  by  the  law  of 
the  land  can  boast  of  in  any  other  Kingdom  in  the  world."2  The 
Earl  of  Anglesea  thus  wrote  of  these  ten  years.  "There  never  was 
more  unity,  friendship  and  good  agreement  amongst  all  sorts  and 
degrees.  I  can  say,  being  that  time  there,  the  sheep  and  goats 
lived  quietly  together.  I  remember  well,  the  summer  before  the 
rebellion,  the  titular  Bishop  of  Ferns,  coming  his  visitation  into 
the  County  of  Wexford,  at  the  request  of  a  Popish  priest  I  sent 
most  of  my  silver  plate  to  entertain  the  said  Bishop  with,  and  had 
it  honestly  restored."4 

Why  then  did  this  furore  break  out?  Why  was  it  that  six 
months  after  Strafford's  death  thousands  were  lying  dead  in  Ulster, 
thousands  fleeing  along  the  roads  to  the  cities,  homesteads  blazing 
in  all  directions,  and  a  conflagration  of  rapine  sweeping  towards 
the  South,  driving  St.  Leger  back  on  Cork  as  he  fought  desperately 
to  maintain  the  last  rudiments  of  civil  government? 

Some  have  evaded  the  question  by  alleging  that  nothing  or 
almost  nothing  occurred,  and  the  tales  that  were  told  were  a 
Puritan  legend,  nay,  that  the  very  depositions  that  lie  in  Trinity 
College  are  a  tissue  of  lies.  One  can  deduct  from  the  value  of  this 
deposition  or  that,  but  one  cannot  ignore  them.  If  we  are  to 
neglect,  because  we  do  not  like  their  tenour,  the  sworn  depositions, 

1)  L.  S.  1—431,  432,  513.  2)  L.  S.  11—207.  3)  History  of  the  Rebellion. 
Clarendon  p.  9.  4)  Castlehaven  Memoirs.  1815.  p.  18. 


THE  PRIESTS  633 

taken  in  circumstances  when  men  are  not  excited,  depositions  of 
farmers,  shopkeepers,  and  squireens,  not  politicians  or  men  with 
great  ambitions,  English,  Irish  and  Scotch  Episcopalians,  Eoman 
Catholics,  and  Presbyterians,  soldiers,  parsons,  and  priests,  giving 
names,  places,  dates  and  accurate  details — not  vague  statements 
or  hearsay — if  we  are  to  sweep  these  aside  as  perjury,  we  may  as 
well  destroy  every  historical  document  ever  written  at  any  time, 
as  the  greater  part  of  historical  research  has  to  depend!  on  far 
thinner  evidence  than  this.  What  is  more  there  was  no  man, 
resident  in  those  districts  at  that  time,  who  ever  affirmed  that 
these  things  did  not  take  place.  Do  large  numbers  of  men  leave 
their  homesteads  and  flee  to  the  cities  for  a  few  trivial  riots?  Was 
it  for  a  mere  petty  outbreak  in  Ulster  that  the  Planters'  in  Cork 
flocked  round  St.  Leger?  One  has  only  to  read  in  the  Egmont 
papers  St.  Leger's  frantic  despatches  to  Dublin  from  Cork,  where 
things  were  but  a  feeble  simulacrum  of  Ulster,  to  realize  that 
civilization  had  collapsed.  All  contemporary  documents  tell  the 
same  tale.  One  writer,  whose  house  was  only  looted  because  the 
rebels  respected  his  wife  "for  some  former  charity"  wrote  to  a 
friend  thus.  "They  have  burnt  seven  or  eight  houses  that  were 
standing  near  me,  that  before  were  left  unburnt,  where  they  com- 
mitted many  and  barbarous  cruelties  in  killing  poor  women  and 
children.  As  many  as  I  co'uld  preserve  in  hiding  in  private  places 
I  did."1  "The  havoc  they  make  is  marvellous  to  see"  wrote  a  friar 
to  Rome.2  Four  years  later  the  Jesuit,  Corneleus  O'Mahony, 
boasted  that  150.000  were  killed.  The  number  was,  of  course,  an 
exaggeration,  but  it  reveals  the  effect  on  men's  minds  of  an 
emeute,  whose  occurrence  and  whose  dimensions  it  is  vain  to  deny. 
Subsequently  Rinnucini  employed  the  perpetrators  of  these 
outrages  as  soldiers,  and  thus  does  he  describe  their  conduct 
towards  their  own  co-religionists  and  the  noncombatants  in  regions 
friendly  to  them.  "The  damage  the  Ulstermen  have  done  is  not 
to  be  denied  .  .  .  The  harsh  proceedings  and  insolence  of  the 
soldiery  have  produced  an  indescribable  hatred  of  the  clergy  .  .  . 
O'Neill  calls  his  soldiers  the  army  of  the  Pope  and  the  Church. 
The  result  is  that  wherever  the  Ulster  soldiers,  barbarous  enough 
but  good  Catholics,  perform  any  act  of  cruelty  or  robbery,  the 


1)  P.  R.— 87.        2)  Franciscan  M.  S.  S.— 109. 


634  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

sufferers  execrate  His  Holiness  and  the  clergy."  "Howls  and  lamen- 
tations" too  is  his  description  of  the  women  of  Kilkenny  urging 
him  to  remove  these  irregular  levies,  which,  by  this  time,  be  it 
noted,  were  under  some  form  of  restraint.1  This  account  is  all 
the  more  significant  when  we  remember  that  these  levies  and 
Owen  Roe  O'Neill  constituted  the  only  force  in  Ireland  on  whom 
Rinnucini  relied. 

One  can  understand  what  occurred  in  Ulster  when  the  news 
went  round  that  Scotland  had  carried  a  successful  rebellion,  Eng- 
land was  in  revolt,  the  army  was  demobilised,  the  lands  and  goods 
of  the  planters  were  fair  game,  the  owners  were  heretics,  and  the 
time  had  come  when  every  man  should  do  right  in  his  own  eyes, 
there  being  no  one  to  interfere,  and  less  than  2.000  Crown  soldiers 
in  all  Ireland.  These  things  always  begin  with  an  attack  on  the 
lives  and  properties  of  a  weak  element,  against  whom,  some  at- 
tractive cry  can  be  raised  to  cover  the  deeds,  of  the  perpetrators 
with  a  halo  of  dignity.  Then  when  order  has  disappeared  the 
anarchs  turn  to  others,  who  have  been  afraid  to  interfere,  or 
whose  prejudices  have  made  them  stand  aside.  Then  they  turn  to 
rend  each  other.  One  has  only  to  give  the  Government  of  these 
islands  a  tiny  shock  and  withdraw  the  police  from  one  city  to  get 
a  repetition  'of  what  occurred  in  Ulster  in  1641. 

The  cause  of  all  this,  then,  since,  and  now  was  assumed  to 
be  religion.  The  theory  of  historians  is  that  Roman  Catholic  Ire- 
land was  exasperated  by  the  tyrannies  of  Straff  ord,  and  "saw  no 
hope  of  redress",  or,  animated  by  bigotry  and  lust  for  the  blood 
and  lands  of  Protestants,  rose  up  and  perpetrated  what  occured. 
It  is  already  been  made  clear  that  nothing  had  occurred  to 
"exasperate"  Roman  Catholics.  The  second  theory  is  even  more 
ludicrous.  'After  half  a  dozen  years  of  blood  and  murder  and 
outrage,  after  all  religious  parties  had  thorough  dabbled  their 
hands  in  gore,  when  one  would  have  assumed  that  the  cleavage 
between  the  two  religions  was  so  wide  that  eternity  could  never 
bridge  the  chasm,  this  is  Rinnucini's  account  of  how  it  ended. 
"The  Catholic  Confederation  is  under  the  power  of  a  heretic. 
Munster  is  in  possession  of  a  Calvinist.  The  Protestant  Bishops 
are  to  take  possession  of  the  ecclesiastical  income  .  .  .  Some 
among  the  Catholics  have  been  deceived  by  Cromwell's  artifices  .  . 

1)  E.  E.-284, 290,  238,  283. 


THE  PRIESTS  635 

The  Jesuits  have  shown  the  greatest  deference  to  Cromwell."' 
The  power  of  English  interference  will  not-  explain  this.  What 
will  explain  it  is,  however,  the  undoubted,  obvious,  and  glaring 
hostility  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  to 
the  rebels,  and  their  preference — at  any  rate  to  Preston,  Rinnucini, 
and  Owen  Roe  O'Neill — in  favour  of  Charles,  Ormonde,  Inchiquin 
and  Cromwell,  these  men  representing  law,  order,  and  civilization, 
and  the  others  plunder,  anarchy  and  exploitation  "under  the  guise 
of  religion".  The  moment  these  cabals  came  to  the  touch  of  ac- 
tualities, the  religious  camouflage  peeled  away,  and  men  went  this 
way  or  that  way  according  to  their  own  particular  ends. 

In  what  occurred  we  get  a  clear  insight  into  the  reasons  why 
Strafford,  while  assailed  by  belligerent  priests  on  one  side  and 
Puritans  on  the  other,  stuck  stolidly  to  a  religious  policy  of  "no 
contumacy"  and  laissez  faire.  The  rebellion  was  engineered  by 
priests.  They  appear  all  through  the  documents  of  the  period, 
intriguing  with  the  Parliament  that  disowned  Strafford,  intriguing 
in  London  with  the  committee  of  grievances,  intriguing  in  Edin- 
burgh with  "the  Queen's. side",  preventing  the  exportation  of  the 
demobilized  army,  assuring  the  soldiers  that  "a  war  was  coming", 
interviewing  this  conspirator  and  that,  talking  grandiloquently 
of  aid  from  abroad,  hanging  round  Richelieu's  antechambers,  and 
finally  on  the  war  path  crying  "death  to  the  heretics",  and 
playing  an  active  part  in  the  burnings,  lootings,  and  murders. 
They  are  everywhere,  in  every  document  one  encounters.  This  is 
what  has  deceived  the  facile  historians. 

When  Cromwell  came  why  did  he  not  exterminate  the 
priests?  There  were  3.500  priests  in  Ireland,  early  in  Straff ord's 
Vice-Royalty.  There  was  scarcely  a  diocese  with  less  than  a  100 
and  there  were  others  with  far  more.  In  1667  an  appeal  ad 
misericordiam  was  lodged  at  Rome.  It  may  be  regarded  as  some- 
what exaggerated,  but  it  estimates  the  total  number  killed  in  the 
stirs  at  300,  and  the  total  number  exiled  or  fled  on  Cromwell's 
coming  at  1.000.  2  What  happened  this  remainder1?  Of  the  di- 
mensions of  the  remainder  we  can.  only  make  a  rough  estimate, 
but  we  do  know  that  in  1662  there  were  in  Ireland  800  regulars 
and  over  1.000  seculars.  3 

1)  R.  E— 475,  546,  547.  2)  C.  R.— 419.  3)  WalsiuHistory  of  the  Remons- 
trance, pp.  575,  576. 


636  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

We  may  be  sure  that  if  any  had  taken  part  in  this  initial 
massacre  they  would  have  been  hounded  down  remorselessly.  No 
soldier  was  entitled  to  quarter  if  he  had  been  implicated,  no 
landowner  preserved  from  complete  escheat.  There  is  a  second 
consideration.  It  is  plain  that  few,  very  few  of  the  monasteries 
were  escheated.  They  simply  closed  their  doors  during  the  Crom- 
well regime,  and  opened  them  again  on  the  Kestoration.  The 
greater  part  of  the  regulars  remained  in  Ireland.1  That  reference 
of  Einnucini's  to  the  Jesuits  is  symptomatic.  Cromwell  used  to 
dine  and  play  chess  with  an  Irish  Jesuit.  "I  am  a  priest  and  the 
Lord  General  knows  it",  said  Father  Netterville  to  Captain 
Foulkes.  "I  will  say  mass  here  every  day." 2  It  is  plain,  very  plain, 
that  Cromwell  did  not  regard  a  very  large  body  of  the  priests  as 
ill-disposed  subjects.  The  Cromwell  tradition  dates  from  the  Resto- 
ration, from  the  Act  of  Settlement  when  men,  whose  lands  had 
been  escheated  to  pay  the  cost  of  their  wars,  asserted  urbi  et  orbi 
that  Cromwell  had  persecuted  their  religion.  The  whole  story 
depends  on  a  well-known  phrase  of  his  about  "tolerating  no  mass". 
This  veto  applied  to  the  Church  of  Ireland  and  the  Presbyterians 
as  well,  to  all  public  celebrations  of  services,  which  raised  passions 
at  the  moment.  It  was  relaxed  as  time  went  on,  and  things 
became  quieter. 

The  mutually  inconsistant  traditions  that  every  Roman 
Catholic  was  a  rebel  and  every  Roman  Catholic  was  penalized  only 
for  his  religion  have  no  foundation  in  fact.  Cromwell  is  presumed 
to  have  exercised  a  savage  persecution  against  the  priests  in 
revenge  for  the  militant  action  they  had  taken.  The  fact?  that  he 
left  many  alone  shows  that  many  abstained  from  acts  of  belli- 
gerency. Three  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Ireland  remained  in 
Ireland  under  his  regime  in  peace,  Leslie,  Jones,  and  Martin,  the 
last  of  whom  it  is  true  he  imprisoned,  but  for  "contumacy", 
holding  a  service  of  the  Church  of  Ireland  in  public,  contrary  to 
the  rigid  rule,  binding  on  all  denominations.  Four  Roman  Catholic 
Bishops  remained.  They  were  Hugh  O'Reilly,  his  nephew  and 
successor,  Rothe,  and  McSwiney,  the  Bishop  of  Kilmore.5  The 
only  deduction  to  draw  from  this  is  that  a  large  number  of  priests 

1)  OHeyne.  Irish  Dominicans;  Rushe.  Carmel.  2)  History  of  Dublin.  Gilbert 
1—56.  3)  C.  R.  p.  419;  "Walsh.  History  of  Remonstrance.  419,  608-611 ;  M.  F.  205. 
206,  418,  420. 


THE  PRIESTS  637 

took  no  part  in  this  upheaval,  or  at  any  rate  tried  to  restrain  it. 
The  Bishop  of  one  Diocese  flatly  declined  to  touch  even  the  Ca- 
tholic Confederation,  which  was  as  far  removed— as  regards  the  Ma- 
jority of  members  and  its  aims— from  this  initial  holocaust  and  i;ts 
perpetrators  as  the  Reform  club  is  from  a  soviet.  When  he  was 
approached  by  a  belligerent  friar  with  a  tale  of  foreign  aid  and 
great  hopes  he  replied  "The  condition  of  a  country  is  never  so 
hopeless  as  when  it  has  to  trust  to  foreign  troops  to  gain  its  end."1 
In  this  remark  of  Dease's  lies  the  kernel  of  the  question.  Roman 
Catholic  Ireland  was  hostile  underneath.  We  find  the  same 
phenomenon  appearing  again  when  Rinnucini  arrived.  He  sought 
to  mould  the  Catholic  Confederation  of  Bishops  and  Pale  Nobles 
to  purely  religious  ends,  to  create  a  Roman  Catholic  State,  an'd 
to  intimidate  them  with  the  Ulster  levies.  "The  Bishops",  he 
wrote,  "are  lukewarm.  The  Regulars  are  much  more  so  ...  How 
is  it  they  frame  the  political  treaty  so  carefully,  and  leave  the, 
affairs  of  the  Church  in  such  uncertainty."2 

Why,  this  being  so,  did  the  King  and  Strafford  keep  on  the 
Statute  book  those  penal  enactments  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign? 
For  this  there  were  two  reasons.  One  was  they  could  no  more 
be  repealed  than  Roman  Catholicism  could  be  established.  There 
were  some  very  lawless  gentlemen  among  the  Protestants  in  the 
three  Kingdoms.  There  were  the  Ulster  settlers.  Phelim  O'Neill 
was  a  Protestant.  So  was  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe.  The  con- 
spirators in  1641  asserted  that  Lord  Mayo  had  been  in  the  con- 
spiracy, but  backed  out  when  the  Plantation  of  Connaught  was 
dropped,  and  he  had  got  his  pound  of  flesh.  He  too  was  a  Pro- 
testant. Scotland  had  many  Roman  Catholics  who  became  Cal- 
vinists  in  order  to  "rise  out  for  the  Covenant",  aye  and  rose  out 
without  even  making  that  change.  All  these  men  had  followings 
who  "would  strike  where  they  bade  them"  without  any  qualms  of 
theological  niceties.  If  Strafford  had  proposed  to  repeal  those 
laws  in  three  Kingdoms  there  would  have  been  a  religious  upheaval 
on  the  other  side,  and  it  is  very  certain  that  he  would  never  have 
got  the  consent  of  the  Council  if  he  had  wished  to  do  this,  which 
he  did  not. 

There  was  a  second  reason.    The  country  had  by  no  means 
1)  M.F.p.177.        2)  R.E.— 142,96. 


638  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

recovered  from  .the  Elizabethean  upheaval.  In  the  rural  districts 
there  were  men  very  prone  to  violence.  Strafford  attributed  it 
to  the  fact  that,  living  in  but  huts,  grazing  for  their  lords,  without 
possessions,  employment,  or  hope  of  better  things  they  "have 
nothing  to  lose  that  with  reason  they  can  set  their  hearts  upon". 
This  is  the  reason  of  his  zeal  for  Plantations.1  These  were  the 
inflammable  elements.  It  was  amongst  t'hese  that  Spain,  Richelieu, 
and  "ill  disposed  subjects"  used  to  let  loose  the  belligerent  friars. 
He  regarded  them,  and  as  events  proved  rightly,  as  the  most 
dangerous  element  in  the  country,  intimidating  jurors,  stirring 
up  riot,  dragging  law  abiding  subjects  into  brawls  "pro  ari*", 
running  backwards  and  forwards  to  Spain,  and  .stirring  up  dis- 
content amongst  all  classes  of  subjects,  champions  of  Connaught 
Lords,  and  champions  of  landless  men  in  Ulster.  These  laws  gave 
the  Executive  drastic  powers  to  interfere  with  these  men,  the 
drastic  power  of  deportation.  They  did  more.  They  bound  the 
subject  to  the  Prerogative.  The  law-abiding  subject  knew  that 
the  Crown  would  not  enforce  them  save  on  "contumacious 
subjects",  and  that  constitutional  Parliamentarianism  would 
enforce  these  statutes  in  every  jot  and.  tittle. 

On  this  question  there  has  been  much  angry  writing  and  loose 
thinking.  Many  have  forgotten  that  much  that  is  normal  now 
was  only  coming  into  being  then.  The  crash  of  the  Norman  system 
on  the  invasion  of  Bruce  had  reduced  Irish  society  to  the  same 
level  as  Scotland  in  the  reign  of  James,  as  England  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  when  for  a  hundred  years  its  population  was  stationary. 
The  revival  of  civilization  was  in  full  blast,  but  the  relics  of 
violence,  coarseness,  .and  mediaeval  traditions  were  lurking  beneath 
the  surface.  The  priests  who  had  come  out  of  the  cities  at  the 
close  of  the  Elizabethean  wars  had  all  this  to  contend  with.  So 
had  Bedell  and  Bramhall. 

As  Roman  Catholicism  spread  from  the  cities  through  the  hinter- 
land it  waxed  powerful  and  rich,  just  at  the  moment  when  septdom 
fell  with  a  crash.  One  of  the  features  of  1'ancien  regime  was  the 
enormous  number  of  idle  clansmen  and  sons  of  minor  gentry, 
who  "coshiered"  themselves  on  the  industrious  section  of  the  com- 
munity. 2  The  close  of  the  Elizabethean  wars  saw  the  end.  of  this. 

1)  L.S.II— 89.        2)  T.C.D.F.3.16. 


THE  PRIESTS  639 

The  source  of  the  strength  of  the  Crown  was  that  it  was  as  eager 
to  abolish  this  as  the  commonality  themselves.  The  land  settle- 
ment meant  that  <all  these  exactions  were  compounded  into  a  fixed 
rent  payable  to  the  chief,  that  the  chief's  estate  was  confined  to 
his  demesne,  that  the  rent  was  sometimes  compounded  by  an  extra 
slice  of  land,  and  that  the  clansmen  were  converted  into  small 
holders  or  leaseholders.  This  meant  that  these  large  gatherings 
of  younger  sons  had  either  to  till  the  land  as  farmers  themselves, 
or  to  seek  another  means  of  sustenance.  Many  went  abroad  as 
soldiers.  A  very  large  number  entered  the  Churches,  where  they 
escaped  manual  toil,  and  had,  at  any  rate,  a  means  of  livelihood. 

The  Church  of  Ireland  got  a  fair  share  of  this  semi-barbaric 
incubus  of  ex-swordsmen,  horseboys,  and  "swaggering  young 
gentlemen",  men  with  undeniable  qualities  of  a  kind,  not  sui'ted 
to  orisons.  Davies  one  time  isaid  of  the  clergy  that  "many  be 
serving  men  and  horseboys",  i.  e.  retainers  of  the  chiefs  of  septs. 1 
These  are  the  type  against  which  the  Jacobean  Bishops,  Usher, 
Bedell,  Bramhall,  and  Strafford  waged  implacable  war.  By 
ecclesiastical  courts,  absorption  of  advowsons,  education,  un- 
frockings,  and  drastic  measures  by  1640  the  greater  part  of  this 
type  had  been  expelled,  softened,  tamed,  civilized,  or  had  altered 
with  the  times,  or  died. 

Irish  Eoman  Catholicism  on  the  other  hand  was  a  very  loose 
organization.  Each  diocese  was  a  law  unto  itself.  Each  Bishop 
was  associated  with  local  families,  liable  to  local  pressures,  subject 
to  very  little  outside  control,  and,  in  many  cases,  so  anxious  to 
make  converts  that  he  was  unwilling  to  make  enemies.  The  result 
was  that  by  1630  this  element,  had  made  great  inroads  on  the 
"civil"  organization  that  had  been  borne  in  the  cities.  By  that 
year  it  is  plain  that  the  Lombard,  Rothe,  and  Roche  type  were 
being  outweighed  and  submerged  by  the  inrush  of  "idle  gentle- 
men". Nothing  is  more  remarkable  during  the  subsequent  re- 
bellion than  the  number  of  Bishops  and  priests  who  were  swords- 
men, belligerents,  agitators,  and  plunderers.  Jones  is  the  only 
one  of  that  type  in  the  Church  of  Ireland.  There  is  no  record  of 
any  other. 

The  difficulties   that   confronted   Roman   Catholicism   were 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1603-143. 


640  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

internal  and  not  external.  The  letters  of  Koche  and  Comerford 
speak  of  intense  difficulties  in  restraining  the  exuberance  of  this 
class.  The  statutes  passed  by  the  Connaught  Bishops  are  aimed 
at  a  series  of  practices  which  we  now  associate  with  quite  a  dif- 
ferent calling,  with  a  lower  substratum  in  society.  Frequenting 
of  taverns,  drunkenness,  dice-playing,  begging  in  loose  company, 
and  wearing  the  hair  long  are  the  profane  habits  sternly  for- 
bidden. J  More  remarkable  are  the  decrees  against  "wandering 
priests",  attached  to  no  parish,  owing  allegiance  to  no  Bishop, 
frequently  setting  up  in  a  nominal  Monastery,  and  "coshiering" 
themselves  as  of  yore.  Father  Harris  one  time  referred  to  "beg- 
ging friars,  observing  no  regular  discipline,  who  labour  to  create 
a  monarchy  to  themselves  to  the  disruption  of  the  Church". 2 
"Very  few",  said  Comerford,  "spend  one  hour  in  a  twelve  month  to 
teach  the  Christian  Doctrine  or  instruct  children."3  Einnucini 
speaks  of  a  certain  type  that  "played  cards  or  drank  beer  on  the 
table  from  which  the  altar  cloth  had  just  been  removed".4  It  is 
with  these  relics  of  septdom  that  so  many  of  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Bishops  were  struggling  in  those  angry  epistles  denouncing  "in- 
decentes  viae",  "inobedientia"  and  "contumacia". 

It  is  from  this  type  that  the  storm  originated.  Predisposed 
to  "the  good  old  days",  active  instruments  for  foreign  Powers 
and  internal  agitators,  prone  to  violence,  disliking  the  reign  of 
peace,  hating  the  control  of  their  own  Bishops  quite  as  much  as 
the  edicts  of  the  State,  casually  ordained,  seldom  educated,  and 
.never  disciplined,  it  was  they  who  preached  the  jehad  that  set  the 
heather  alright.  One  can  assess  their  nature  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  some  of  these  who  plotted  Ithe  .assassination  of  Einnucini, 
and  some  of  these  who  plotted  the  assassination  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Catholic  Confederation.5 

During  the  earlier  days  of  James  it  looked  as  if  all  Ireland 
was  becoming  Eoman  Catholic.  By  the  close  of  Strafford's  re- 
gime it  was  clear  the  tide  had  turned.  What  had  accentuated  the 
swing  of  the  religious  pendulum  was  the  appearance  of  these 
clerics,  the  constant  broils  for  which  they  were  responsible,  and 
the  association  in  each  district  of  the  more  active  priests  with  the 


1)  C.R.— 491— 494.    2)P.L.— 109.    3)  Franciscan  M.S. S.- 53.    4)  R.E.— 143. 
5)  R.E.-411,303. 


THE  PRIESTS  641 

more  active  factions.  Where  the  Elizabethan  priests  made  friends, 
this  type  was  making  enemies  wounding  susceptibilities  and 
shocking  honest  men.  The  year  before  he  died  Roche  was  aware 
how  far  this  had  effected  'his  mission.  "Rarely  now  do  we  make 
converts,  either  because  Protestants  get  more  land  from  the  side 
on  which  they  are,  or  because  our  quarrels  are  making  us  despised, 
or  because  we  do  not  pray  as  we  ought  to  do.  A  few  of 
ours  have  left  -us."1  In  1641  Barnewall  was  s'aying  the  same 
in  Dublin.2 

For  Rinnucini  to  build  up  a  Roman  Catholic  state  on  this 
foundation  was  impossible.  He  had  to  rely  only  on  the  belligerent 
friars,  and  the  Ulster  swordsmen,  who  were  loathed  in  Ulster,  and 
hated  all  over  the  rest  of  Ireland.  Nothing  amazed  him  more 
than  the  fact  that  "the  Calvinist"  Inchiquin  could  raise  "100.000 
sciidi"  among  the  natives  of  Munster  to  fight  him,  and  that  he, 
with  all  the  panoply  of  Pale  Peers  and  Bishops,  could  not  raise 
a  tenth  of  that  sum  so  unpopular  were  he  and  his  associates. H  In 
the  end  the  majority  of  the  Confederation,  with  the  aged  Rothe 
at  their  head,  disowned  him  and  joined  Inchiquin. 

The  religious  history  of  Ireland  has  been  sorely  misunder- 
stood. Religion  has  never  had  anything  to  do  with  the  "stirs", 
and  yet  every  class  tl^at  "rises  out"  has  said  that  it  has  done  so 
"for  religion".  It  is  the  recognition  that  this  cry  is  false,  not 
justified  by  facts,  not  justified  by  intentions,  that  produces  that 
phenomenon  that  every  party  that  has  raised  a  religious  banner 
has  been  opposed  and  beaten  down  by  the  rest  of  Ireland,  by  the 
majority  of  the  religion  whose  banner  is  being  waved.  Contra- 
riwise at  all  times  those  penal  laws,  about  which  we  hear  so  much, 
and  of  whose  operation  we  know  so  little,  have  never  effected 
the  mass  of  the  people.  They  were  enacted  to  deal  with  the  re- 
ligious agitator  and  with  him  alone  they  dealt.  In  1705,  for  in- 
stance, when  in  theory  there  was  not  a  priest  in  Ireland,  in  fact 
— so  a  Government  census  declares,  noting  where  they  lived — 
there  were  1.080.4 

This  is  why  Strafford  in  those  disturbed  times,  when  three 
Kingdoms  were  rushing  towards  Revolution  guided  Ireland  so 

1)  A.  K.  V— 91.  2)  A.  H.  V-113.  3)  R.  E.-353.  4)  Ware  Annals, 
p.  195. 

41 


642  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

successfully  along  peaceful  paths.  He  strengthened  the  State 
with  the  affection  of  the  law-abiding  subject.  He  made  it  a  terror 
to  the  evil-doer.  His  fall  as  we  know  was  an  intrigue  between 
belligerent  Eoman  Catholics  and  belligerent  Puritans,  who  never, 
forgave  him  for  ruling  the  land  "to  the  contentment  of  the  sub- 
ject", for,  when  the  land  is  contented,  no  man  will  listen  to  the 
anarch,  and  it  fares  ill  with  him  who  has  "particular  aims  at  the 
expense  of  the  common  weal". 


Chapter  VII 
THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE 


Their  resistance  was  made  to  concession,  their  revolt  was  from 
protection,  their  blow  was  aimed  at  a  hand  holding  out  graces ,  favours 
and  immunities.  This  was  unnatural.  The  rest  is  in  order.  They  have 
found  their  punishment  in  their  success.  Laws  over  turned;  tribunals 
subverted;  industry  without  vigour;  commerce  expiring;  the  revenue 
unpaid;  a  church  pillaged  and  a  state  not  relieved.  BURKE. 


The  difficulty  however  lay  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  There 
a  lodgement  had  been  made  within  the  Irish  Church  by  the 
Puritan  missionaries,  who,  at  this  period  appear  as  strong  op- 
ponents of  any  form  of  authority  over  a  clergyman,  holding  .that 
each  parish  was  a  law  unto  itself.  When  Blair  was  presented 
before  the  Bishop's  Court  he  denied  that  an  Act  of  Parliament 
enabled  a  Bishop  to  inhibit  him.  He  denied  also  that  he  was 
bound  by  Canons  or  Articles,  if  in  his  opinion  such  institutions 
were  "contrary  to  the  Gospel".  When  the  Bishop  urged  him  to 
appeal  from  him,  he  declined  on  the  ground  that  appeals  to  the 
higher  authorities  were  only  successful  in  case  of  "whoredom  and 
bloodshed".1 

In  the  case  of  private  persons  these  views  were  a  matter  for 
private  conscience.  The  difficulty  however  was  that  rectors  were 
not  private  persons,  but  officers  of  State,  paid  by  the  State,  and 
wielding  an  authority  of  State,  in  this  case,  to  undermine  the 
State.  N<o  doubt  from  these  origins  sprang  much  that  was  good, 
liberty  of  the  subject  and  independence  of  character,  but  these 
qualities,  that  are  inherent  in  Presbyterianism  and  Nonconfor- 
mity, only  appear  after  Cromwell  had  tamed  this  wild  revolu- 
tionary movement,  which  plunged  three  kingdoms  into  Civil  war, 


1)  H. P.  C.I -185, 186. 


41= 


644  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

and  gave  the  greatest  shock  to  society  that  stolid  England  ever 
underwent.  Its  headquartes  were  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow.  It 
carried  on  surreptitious  communications  with  the  Parliamentarian 
leaders  in  London.  It  formed  an  alliance  with  belligerent  Roman 
Catholicism  in  Ireland.1  It  drew  into  its  net  great  feudal  Lords 
like  the  Earl  of  Argyle,  Ministers  of  the  Crown  like  the  Earl  of 
Holland  and  the  two  Vanes,  co-operated  with  the  Queen's  Party 
at  Court,  organized  mobs  in  London,  and  percolated  here  and 
there,  as  the  nodus  of  disaffection  and  the  Cave  of  Adullam, 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  all  minds  rushed  to  avail  themselves  of  this 
new  doctrine,  that,  if  one  took  shelter  behind  theological  for- 
mulae, one  could  denounce  the  magistrates,  and  remain  un- 
touched, and,  if  touched,  be  a  martyr.  Leslie,  after  paying  due 
meed  of  honour  to  the  large  multitudes  who  rushed  into  the  fray 
believing  all  religion  in  danger,  "drawn  to  dance  after  the  pipe, 
though  they  understood  not  the  spring,  carried  headlong  before 
they  knew  well  what  they  did",  noted  as  amongst  the  leaders 
"they  that  cannot  endure  to  be  subject  to  a  Bishop,  esteeming 
themselves  men  of  greater  gifts  and  perfections",  those  who 
"would  gladly  prey  upon  the  Bishoprics  as  their  fathers  did  on 
the  Abbeys",  great  Lords  seeking  "to  draw  away  the  King's  sub- 
jects" and  make  them  have  their  dependance  on  feudal  ministers 
rather  than  legal  Bishops,  and  lastly  that  eternal  phenomenon  in 
all  communities  "the  desire  of  the  people  to  hear  them  depraved 
that  are  in  authority.  It  doth  work  with  the  multitude  when 
they  see  men  go  into  the  streets  and  bow  down  their  heads  like 
a  bul-rush,  see  them  give  loud  groans,  and  cry  against  this  sin 
and  that  sin,  not  in  them  the  hearers  but  in  their  superiors",  in 
all  of  which  this  eloquent  and  caustic  prelate  foresaw — and  as 
events  proved  he  was  right, — "the  mother  of  all  faction,  con- 
fusion and  rebellion,  anabaptism  and  popularity,  the  overthrow 
of  the  State,  Crown,  and  Kingdom".  -  More  remarkable  is  the 
very  large  number  of  women  who  appeared  active  in  this  upheaval, 
it  being  a  peculiarity  of  revolutions  that  no  small  part  of  the 
driving  force  is  feminine.  Leslie,  on  another  occasion,  ascribed 
the  prevalence  of  what  Bramhall  used  to  call  "anabaptistical 
prophetesses  gadding  too  and  fro",  to  that  "natural  bent  of  the 


1)  B.  D.  1—206.        2)  R.  I.  A.  P.  VI-10. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  645 

daughters  of  Eve  to  desire  knowledge,  liberty,  and  freedom  from 
their  husbands,  that  doctrine  prevailing  most  where  husbands 
have  learnt  to  obey  their  wives".1  From  all  of  this  we  can  de- 
duce that  in  certain  parts  of  the  three  Kingdoms  prosperity  and 
a  long  peace  had  made  men  unwilling  to  submit  to  authority,  that 
individualism  was  nearing  its  culminating  point,  striving  to  assert 
itself  through  the  intangible  theories  of  advanced  theology,  and 
attacking  even  the  Crown  itself,  where  it  did  not  give  way  to 
each  man's  desire  on  what  should  be  done  in  the  local  Church. 
The  most  advanced  of  these  theorists  had  taken  refuge  in  Antrim 
and  Down,  and  were  there  in  the  Churches,  denouncing  the 
Bishops  and  the  liturgy  as  "Popish",  declaring  that  all  were 
damned  except  themselves,  and  gradually  absorbing  a  branch  of 
the  State. 

These  may  seem  hard  words  but  the  intolerance  and  pride 
of  these  harbingers  of  revolution  seems  ghastly  in  this  more 
casual  age.  Despotisms  are  seldom  tyrannical.  Popular  Soviets 
nearly  always  are.  When  the  storm  burst  the  number  of  cle.rgy 
in  Scotland  that  were  driven  out  is  beyond  count,  many  being 
stoned,  beaten,  and  wounded.2  In  England,  in  one  year,  they 
drove  out  of  their  benefices  five  times  as  many  clergy  as  all  the 
Tudors  in  sixty  years  of  religious  commotions.  Nor  did  it  stop 
only  at  the  clergy.  Very  strenuous  measures  were  enforced  on 
those  who  conformed  not  to  the  Covenant.3  One  of  Strafford's 
Dutch  soldiers  relates  how,  when  in  Church  in  Scotland,  "the  Mi- 
nister publicly  declared  all  men  to  forbear  communion  who  would 
not  subscribe  the  Covenant",  whereupon  he  rose  and  left,  and, 
being  tackled  by  a  local  Lord,  replied  "I  am  of  His  Majesty's  army 
in  Ireland.  It  stands  not  with  my  allegiance  to  swear  your  Co- 
venant". "We  will  give  you  a  command  here".  "I'd  rather  trail 
a  pike  in  the  King's  Army  than  take  a  command  from  you". 
After  which  colloquey,  the  truculent  swordsman  shook  the  dust 
of  Scotland  off  his  feet,  retired  to  Ireland  and  put  these  things 
on  record.4 

With  something  like  60.000  Scotchmen  in  Ireland  this  was 
a  possibility  Strafford  had  to  forestall.  The  great  importance  of 
the  enactment  of  those  Articles  and  Canons  was  that  it  laid  down 

1)  H.  P.  C.  1—191, 192.  2)  R.  I.  A.  P.  VI— 10.  p.  13.  3)  R.  I.  A.  P.  VI— 1 0 
p.  37.  4)  L.  S.  11-274. 


646  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

a  limit  beyond  which  the  Scotch  missionaries  could  not  go.  Up 
to  this  a  thousand  theological  considerations  had  been  in  nubibue, 
while  it  is  doubtful  what  the  powers  of  the  ecclesiastical  autho- 
rities were.  There  seem  to  have  been  even  unordained  "Dominees" 
in  full  swing  in  Churches,  over  whom  the  Bishops  had  no  power, 
and  there  is  every  evidence  that  the  orations  of  these  men  were 
not  of  a  pacific  nature,  being  rather  spicy  invectives  that  tickled 
the  ears  of  the  groundlings  to  such  an  extent  that  they  used  "to 
rush  into  Churches  at  sermon  time  like  folks  into  a  play-house". l 
All  this  was  now  at  an  end,  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  had 
power  to  inhibit  a  clergyman  for  passing  beyond  the  confines,  as 
laid  down  in  the  Articles  and  Canons,  which,  it  should  be  noted, 
were  broader  than  those  of  1615. 

After  Convocation  had  been  dissolved  the  position  of  certain 
of  these  Ministers  had  to  be  considered.  The  case  of  the  more 
extreme  was  first  entrusted  to  Echlin,  the  Bishop  of  Down.  -  Three 
of  these  were  those  whom  Strafford  had,  for  a  time,  left  alone  at 
the  request  of  Lord  Castlestewart.  One  can  understand  how  far 
advanced  they  were  for  that  period,  when  Blair  had  thrown  up 
his  Chair  at  Glasgow  owing  to  differences  with  the  Provost,  and 
had  told  ,Lord  Claneboye  that  he  "could  not  submit  to  the  use  of 
the  English  liturgy  nor  episcopal  Government",  when  Dunbar 
had  been  twice  imprisoned  in  Scotland,  and  when  Livingstone 
had  been  inhibited  by  the  famous  Dr.  Spottiswoode.*  Welch  also 
seems  to  have  fled  from  Scotland  for  religious  reasons.4  In  other 
words  the  casual  conditions  of  Ireland  were  converting  North 
East  Ulster  into  a  compound  for  the  reception  of  men,  no  doubt 
excellent  in  character,  but.  by  no  means  harbingers  of  peace. 
Blair,  and  Dunbar  were  summoned  before  Echlin,  and  asked  would 
they  or  would  they  not  take  the  oath  of  conformity  to  the  Church 
of  which  they  had  become  ministers.  They  declined,  challenging 
his  right  to  demand  such  an  oath,  and  denied  the  right  of  Con- 
vocation to  bind  them.  Sentence  of  deposition  was  accordingly 
passed.5  Echlin  shortly  afterwards  died,  and  Lady  Munro  put  it 
on  record  that  the  cause  of  his  death  was  that  "God  did  smite  him 
for  suppressing  the  Ministers". 

Echlin's  successor   was  Dr.  Leslie.    This   divine  was  one  of 

1)  R.  I.  A.  P.  VI-10.  p.  2.  2)  P.  R.-15.  3)  H.  P.  C.  I— 101, 114, 115. 
4)  H.  P  C.  1-112.  5)  H.  P.  C.  1—183, 185. 


the  ablest  orators  of  the  period.  His  writings  are  those  of  a  man 
who  conceals  an  extraordinary  scholarship  behind  a  fluent  and 
sarcastic  pen.  Few  men  of  that  period  had  such  a  gift  of  gro- 
tesque ridicule.  In  person  he  was  a  man  of  singular  courtesy 
and  moderation,  but  his  powers  of  sarcasm  must  have  made  him 
singularly  unpopular  with  his  theological  adversaries.  He  was  in- 
timately associated  with  the  Strafford  regime,  followed  Charles  I. 
in  many  of  his  wanderings,  was  a  strong  upholder  of  arbitrary 
government,  and  yet  seems  to  have  struggled  earnestly  to  prevent 
a  breach  between  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  the  Scotch 
divines.  It  is  through  his  writings  that  his  fame  is  best  known, 
and  it  may  safely  be  said  that  no  man  of  that  period  couched 
theological  disquisitions  so  lucidly,  so  passionately  and  in  so 
readable  a  manner.  Even  now  they  form  some  of  the  most  enter- 
taining of  the  tracts  of  the  period.  One  of  his  first  acts  was  to 
tender  the  oath  of  -conformity  to  Livingstone,  and  to  depose  him 
on  his  refusal.1 

This  was  the  beginning  of  a  serious  state  of  affairs  in  Ulster. 
Four  men,  with  powerful  patrons,  had  been  alienated,  and  alie- 
nated for  "a  matter  of  conscience".  Behind  them  stood  Lord 
Claneboye,  Lord  Montgomery,  and  Sir  John  <Clotworthy,  ,and 
what  was  even  of  more  importance,  Robert  Barr  of  Malone.  This 
man  is  one  of  the  most  mysterious  persons  in  Ulster.  He  appears 
as  the  manager  of  some  iron  works  owned  by  Lord  Wilmot  and 
as  custodian  of  the  Castle  of  Culmore.  He  had  a  standing  pass  to 
leave  Ireland  whenever  he  pleased.  He  was  the  agent  for  certain 
great  personages,  who  sought  to  charge  Strafford  with  embezzling 
the  Customs.  He  was  mixed  up  in  some  mysterious  fashion  with 
Sir  James  Galloway,  the  Master  of  the  Court  of  Requests.  He 
was  to  have  been  the  agent  for  a  Scotch  syndicate  that  aimed  at 
taking  over  the  Derry  Plantation,  and  Hamilton  and  the  Earl  of 
Antrim  were  in  that  syndicate.  With  all  these  powerful  friends 
it  is  remarkable  that  he  was  a  poor  man  of  "mean  quality".  It  is 
impossible  to  evade  the  suspicion  that  Barr  was  a  financial  and 
political  agent  for  certain  men,  financiers  and  politicians  opposed 
to  Strafford.  Sir  George  Wentwith  says  that  he  was  sent  to  Ire- 
land in  1640  to  arrange  the  intrigue  that  led  to  Stafford's  pro- 


1)  H.  P.  C.I— 187;  B.L.— 85. 


648  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

secution,  and  that  he  was  despatched  by  Hamilton  and  Vane. 
After  Livingstone  was  deposed  he  took  refuge  in  Barr's  house. 1 
Livingstone,  it  should  be  added,  was,  at  a  subsequent  date, 
according  to  his  own  confession,  employed  by  the  Covenanting 
Lords  as  a  spy  at  the  Court  of  Charles,  but  managed  to  escape 
'capture  through  his  intimacy  with  Hamilton,  who  gave  him 
warning  when  he  was  discovered. 2 

Next  year  Dr.  Leslie  held  his  primary  visitation  and  required 
from  his  clergy  their  subscription  to  the  Canons.  This  time  five 
refused.  These  five  are  in  a  different  catagory  completely  from 
Blair  and  Livingstone,  Dunbar  and  Welch,  who  were  really  Eevo- 
lutionary  Anabaptists,  «and  who  are  described  by  a  Scotch  historian 
as  "more  convenient  and  effective  instruments"  of  the  covenanting 
Lords  than  any  other  divines  in  Scotland.3  Of  these  five  only 
one,  James  Hamilton  of  Ballywalter,  played  any  part  in  the  Scotch 
Eebellion.  He,  with  Blair,  Livingstone  and  another  Down  Clergy- 
man of  the  name  of  McClelland,  sat  and  acted  in  the  Eevolu- 
tionary  Soviet  that  managed  the  rebellion. 4  He  was  a  nephew  of 
Lord  Claneboye's,  which  was  one  of  the  reasons  why  that  Peer 
could  not  be  trusted  implicitly  to  cope  with  a  rising  in  Ulster. 
Of  the  others  there  is  no  trace  of  what  State  Papers  call  "ill 
disposition".  Brice,  the  Eector  of  Broad  Island,  was  a  man  of  a 
very  retiring  nature.  Eidge  the  Eector  of  Antrim,  died  shortly 
afterwards,  and  little  is  known  of  his  career.  Cunningham  and 
Colvert  were  two  divines  patronized  by  Chichester, — the  former 
an  Englishman,  obviously  with  little  sympathy  with  "rising  out". 
It  is  obvious  that  for  them  all  Leslie  had  an  intense  respect  and 
strove  hard  to  convince  them  that  the  Articles  and  Canons  of  the 
Church  of  Ireland  were  not  devised  for  the  purpose  of  joining 
that  church  to  Eome. 

These  five  took  up  the  attitude  that  they  could  not  subscribe 
to  the  Canons  that  were  passed  by  Convocation.  It  is  plain  that 
Leslie  was  very  anxious  to  retain  these  clergymen.  It  is  plain  also 
that  their  principles — reared  in  the  strictest  schools  of  the  Low- 
lands or  of  London — would  not  allow  them  to  conform  to  the 
Church  of  Ireland.  That  Church  had  passed  certain  Canons,  and 
passed  them,  as  far  as  records  disclose,  in  a  unanimous  Convocation. 

1)  J.  L.— 10.  2)  J.  L.— 102.  3)  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Russell. 
11—145, 146.  4)  B.  H.— 41 ;  Stevenson.  11—578. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  649 

There  were  only  two  alternatives.  If  these  clergymen  were  to 
officiate  in  the  Irish  Church,  they  would  have  to  conform  to  such 
canons  as  it  imposed,  and,  if  they  would  not  conform,  they  would 
have  to  be  deposed.  The  question  is  not  one  of  the  propriety  or 
otherwise  of  the  questions  at  stake.  It  is  a  question  of  whether 
there  is  or  is  not  to  be  a  residuum  of  authority  somewhere,  a  basis 
of  dogma,  outside  of  which  a  clergyman  cannot  stray.  One  has 
only  to  read  the  rigid  and  meticulous  code  of  canons  drawn  up  by 
the  Glasgow  Assembly,  and  the  penalties  they  imposed  on  everyone 
who  would  not  testify  to  each  clause,  to  realise  that  the  difference 
between  Leslie  on  one  side,  and  the  Scotch  Calvinists  on  the  other 
was  not  prelatical  authority  versus  liberty  of  conscience,  but 
liberty  within  a  wide  scope  on  one  side,  and  insistence  on  certain 
rigid  formula  on  the  other,  insistence  not  only  to  entertain  them, 
but  to  force  them  on  others.  The  Scotch  Church  was  rigid  in  its 
regimen.  The  Irish  Church  had  a  broader  scope,  but  it  had  fixed 
the  limit — not  invented  a  narrower  boundary — beyond  which  it 
could  not  go.  The  dialogue  between  Leslie  and  these  Ministers 
is  on  record  and  closes  thus  "My  doctrine  land  life  for  20  years 
are  known.  I  appeal  to  all  present  if  they  can  say  anything  against 
me."  To  this  Leslie  replied.  "I  confess  your  life  and  doctrine 
have  both  been  good.  The  Eomans  however  said  "Non  opus  est 
Eeipublicae  eo  cive,  qui  parere  nescit."  The  Church  hath  no  need 
of  those  who  cannot  obey." 

All  five  were  accordingly  deposed.  One  died  before  deposi- 
tion. Colvert  and  James  Hamilton  retired  to  Scotland  where  they 
received  livings.  Of  Cunningham  and  Bruce  nothing  is  known  as 
to  their  subsequent  history.  No  other  Ministers  were  deposed, 
"banished",  or  interfered  with  in  any  way.  Nine  and  nine  only 
is  the  total  of  that  sweeping  persecution,  which,  according  to  the 
pamphlets  of  the  period,  closely  resembled  "the  Sicilian  Vespers", 
and  of  these  nine,  seven  retired  to  their  native  land  whence  they 
came  and  prospered  exceedingly. 

From  this  incident  sprang  the  Presbyterians.  As  a  separate 
sect  in  Ireland  at  this  time  there  is  no  trace.  The  subsequent  im- 
migration, however,  of  Scotchmen  brought  with  them  the 
Presbyterian  model  and  Ministers  of  kindred  views.  The  definite 
line  taken  by;  Leslie  on  conformity  to  Canons  made  it  impossible 
for  these  to  enter  the  Irish  Church,  and  from  this  situation  rose 


650  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

that  very  powerful  and  influential  Presbyterian  community,  that 
has  so  profoundly  affected  Irish  history. 

All  these  proceedings  may  seem  a  storm  in  a  tea-cup.  At 
the  time  Bramhall  regarded  the  matter  as  of  little  moment. *  Straf- 
ford  never  mentions  these  matters  in  his  correspondence.  All  the 
best  judges  of  the  time  seemed  to  regard  Northern  Calvinism,  as 
something  that  would  not  secede  from  Church  and  State,  and 
these  few  ejected  Ministers  as  but  persons  personally  disposed  to 
a  certain  school,  prevalent  enough  in  Scotland,  but  as  yet  not 
developed  in  Ireland.  Blair  and  Livingstone  settled  in  Barr's  iron- 
works, and  there  held  services  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Kirk.  This  fact  alone  shows  how  "loose  was  the  civil  government" 
of  Straff  or  d.  In  England  they  would  have  been  promptly  pro 
secuted  for  "holding  secret  conventicles".  The  Scotch  Covenanters 
in  their  ascendancy  were  as  rigid  as  iron  on  the  doctrine  that  none 
should  worship  but  according  to  the  tenets  of  the  Kirk.  The  Irish 
Government,  however,  did  not  want  to  "stir  religion"  against 
anyone,  and  matters  drifted  peacefully  on.  In  1637  Blair  and 
Livingstone  embarked  for  the  new  England  States,  but,  as  Bram- 
hall put  it,  "their  faith  not  being  answerable  to  their  zeal  they 
returned  back". 2  Later  they  returned  to  Ireland. 

Suddenly  the  storm  burst  in  Scotland.  Who  was  responsible 
if  not  clear.  It  passes  the  wit  of  man  to  conceive  that  anyone, 
knowing  how  anxious  the  Scotch  Lords  were  for  a  rebellion, 
knowing  the  temper  of  the  Scotch  cities  on  matters  theological, 
simply  by  the  exercise  of  the  prerogative,  should  have,  without 
considering  ways  and  means,  difficulties  and  prejudices,  suddenly 
ordered  an  Episcopalian  Prayerbook  to  be  read  in  the  Scotch 
churches,  without  even  a  police  force  in  Scotland  to  cope  with  ia 
possible  riot?  The  most  admirable  reasons  could  be  given  for  a 
conformity  of  worship  in  the  loose  and  chaotic  church  of  Scot- 
land, but  no  excuse  could  be  made  for  the  method  employed. 
Strafford  and  Laud  constantly  asserted  that  there  were  men  in 
high  places  who  had  deliberately  raised  what  it  was  the  former's 
aim  always  to  avert,  a  religious  war.  Strafford  was  never  con- 
sulted. When  consulted,  after  the  die  was  cast,  his  advice  was  to 
make  no  concessions  to  men  who  had  appealed  to  arms,  to  make 

1)  C.I.  XII- 61,  62.        2)  C.I.  XIJ— 47;  A.  B,— 107. 108. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  651 

no  attack  on  Scotland,  and  to  garrison  the  frontier  terms.  His 
policy  was  to  act  strictly  on  the  defensive,  to  leave  the  Scotch 
Lords  and  Burghers  alone  to  tear  each  other  to  pieces,  as  they  did 
in  the  end.  As  a  last  resort  the  fleet  could  blockade  their  ports. 
The  painful  fact  was  that  there  was  no  army  and  only  £  200  in 
the  Royal  Exchequer.1  There  was,  in  addition,  a  strong  revolu- 
tionary Party  in  England,  who,  as  subsequent  events  proved,  were 
in  constant  communications  with  the  Covenanters,  The  with- 
drawal of  the  unfortunate  Prayerbook  only  made  matters  worse. 
The  triumphant  Covenanters  demanded  a  Parliament  to  remodel 
everything  themselves.  What  affected  Strafford  however  far  more 
than  all  this  was  something  he  whispered  to  Laud  under  a  pledge 
of  secrecy.  "There  are  40.000  Scots  in  Ulster  able  to  bear  arms. 
We  have  the  crack  of  it  if  not  the  threat,  every  day  in  the  Street." 
Connaught,  he  added,  would  have  joined  in  this  upheaval  if  he 
had  not  broken  the  power  of  the  Connaught  Lords  the  year  before, 
and  refused  to  allow  any  Scotch  Planters  into  that  area.2  Many  of 
these  Ulster  Scotch  too  were  henchmen  of  the  Covenanting  Lords. 
The  first  act  of  the  Revolutionaries  was  to  take  a  military 
census  of  Ulster. 3  Their  second  was  to  open  up  negotiations  with 
the  exiled  chieftains  in  Spain,  via  a  Franciscan  friar  resident  in 
Edinburgh.  Four  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  sent  ;an  appeal  to 
Tyrone  to  sail  for  Ireland  and  take  advantage  of  the  confusion. 4 
Strafford's  intelligence  department  intercepted  letters  from  the 
Countess  of  Tyrconnel  to  her  ,son,  making  arrangements  for  such 
a  return.5  Even  amongst  the  Covenanting  Lords  were  stout 
Roman  Catholic  Lords,  not  averse  to  striking  a  blow  "against 
prelacy  and  Popery",  and  the  Castle  of  Dumbarton  was  handed 
over  to  the  Covenanters  by  the  Earl  of  Abercorn,  a  Hamilton, 
whose  estates  in  Ulster  were  strongholds  of  "Scotch  Papists".6 
A  Papal  rescript  arrived  calling  on  the  faithful  to  abstain  from 
giving  aid  to  the  King,  beyond  what  law  made  necessary,  and  they 
were  "to  desist  suddenly  from  these  offers  little  to  the  advantage 
of  their  discretion". 7  In  five  Irish  counties  there  was  an  epidemic 
of  house  burning.  A  band  of  forty  freebooters  suddenly  appeared, 
plundering,  burning  and  ravaging. 8l 

1)  L.S.  II— 190,191,186.  2)  L.S.  11-195.  3)  L.  S.  II— 185.  4)  C.P. 
11—69.  85.  5)  L.  S.  11—269.  6)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11—227;  L.  S.  II— 325.  7)  R.  P. 
11-821.  8)  CowDer  M.  S.  S.  11-230;  P.  R.-43. 


652  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

Nor  was  the  disease  only  internal.  The  Scotch  Lords  appealed 
to  France  for  aid. 1  Their  intermissary  was  Father  Chalmers, 
whom  a  revolting  Lord  in  Paris,  writing  to  Argyle,  describes  as 
"our  countryman,  who  is  the  Cardinal  Richelieu's  Secretary. 
Write  to  him  to  befriend  me  in  my  business  here.  He  has  great 
power  with  the  Cardinal  and  especially  in  what  concerns  Scotch 
affairs". 2  Chamber's  brother  once  wrote  to  him.  "By  your  favour 
with  the  Cardinal  you  have  obliged  the  nobility  of  Scotland, 
which  is  a  great  contentment  and  expectation  for  us  all."3  He  is 
described  by  the  Ambassador  at  Paris  as  the  Ambassador  for  the 
Scotch.  The  Royal  Puppet  on  the  French  throne  knew  nought  of 
this.  Richelieu  seldom  revealed  the  seamy  side  of  State  affairs  to 
his  Master.  Accordingly  when  Leicester  protested  against  the 
favour  shown  in  Paris  to  the  Scotch  agents,  the  King  indignantly 
disowned  them,  and  summarized  their  religious  fervour  in  a 
phrase  that  is  historic  "Religion !  Ah !  C'est  seulement  un 
pretexte  que  tous  les  rebelles  cherchent  pour  couvrir  les  mauvais 
disseins".4  On  this  subject  that  unfortunate  Monarch  spoke 
bitterly.  He  too  had  his  Puritans,  Covenanters,  and  belligerents 
save  that  in  France  they  went  by  the  name  of  Huguenots,  and 
could,  on  occasions,  consider  "a  crown  worth  a  mass"  to  the 
astonishment  of  their  sincerer  but  humbler  supporters.  Strafford 
used  to  regard  Marie  de  Rohan,  who  came  over  at  this  period,  as 
an  agent  for  Richelieu,  and  scoffed  at  her  tale  of  how  she  had 
been  expelled  from  France. 5  She  was  followed  by,  of  all  persons 
at  this  time,  Mary  de  Medici,  the  Queen  Mother.  "Her  charge", 
wrote  Laud,  "will  not  be  the  worst  of  evils  which  will  accompany 
her  coming  hither,  in  regard  of  the  seditious  practising  train  that 
attend  her.  This  is  but  a  new  beginning  of  evils."6  Even  the 
French  Ambassador  displayed  an  unnatural  interest  in  matters 
certainly  outside  his  sphere.  Windebanke  thus  wrote  to  Strafford. 
"The  French  Ambassador  had  an  intention  to  have  been  resident 
near  the  army,  and  to  that  end  was  removing  from  hence  towards 
the  North,  pretending  orders  for  that  purpose  from  His  Master. 
Indeed  it  hath  been  very  fit  ithat  the  Covenanters,  who  want  in- 
telligence both  at  home  and  abroad  should,  in  this  distress  of  their 
affairs,  have  such  a  friend  near  them  to  have  held  intelligence  with 

1)  R.  P.  111-1037.  2)  Dom.  1639-449.  3)  Dom.  1640—101.  4)  C.  L.  M. 
11-647.  5)  L.  L.  VII-453.  6)  L.  L.  VII-496. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  653 

them."  "This  spy" — as  Windebanke  calls  him — was  peremptorily 
ordered — hints  he  would  not  obey — to  remain  in  London. l 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Covenanters  were  well  equipped 
with  arms,  artillery,  and  professional  soldiers.  One  of  Strafford's 
officers  reported  that  they  had  two  men  of  war  with  six  cannons, 
drakes  of  a  nine  bore,  4.000  corselets,  and  1.800  muskets  "as  well 
as  he  ever  looked  upon". 2  An  intercepted  letter  speaks  volumes, 
"Cavalry  can  come  from  Bremen  and  Emden.  The  French  King 
offers  through  Cardinal  Richelieu  that  his  fleet  shall  make  an 
attack  on  Weymouth  and  'Southampton.  The  ancestors  of  our 
cousin  Stratherne  have  more  right  to  the  Crown  than  the  house 
of  Stuart.  Le  Hoi  est  resolu  de  mettre  garrisons  dans  les  places 
frontieres  et  Edinbourg,  et  nous  imposer  une  Vice  Monarchie 
Irelandaise".3  Leslie,  the  Scotch  General,  was  open  in  his  boasts. 
"The  King  had  better  fortify  his  Cinque  Ports,  for  if  the  King 
begin  with  us,  he  shall  find  enough  to  do  in  both  his  Kingdoms, 
especially  in  Ireland,  e'er  long."4  There  was  in  this  a  double 
policy.  Hopton,  at  Madrid,  was  certain  that  the  Covenanters  had 
opened  up  negotiations  with  the  exiled  chieftains.5  Between  the 
Campbells  and  the  O'Neills  there  were  many  ancient  ties.  As  late 
as  1603  this  sympathy  fluttered  official  devecots.fi  Secondly 
Argyle  laid  claim  to  Antrim.  It  was  his  feud  with  the  Mac 
Donalds,  whom  Charles  had  ostentatiously  and  foolishly  favoured, 
that  drove  Argyle  into  the  Covenanter  Camp,  despite  all  that 
Strafford  could  do.  In  fac  Antrim  and  Argyle  glared  across 
the  sea  at  each  other  like  tigers,  but,  added  Strafford,  "the  sea 
is  so  happily  set  betwixt  them,  as  perchance  may  so  allay  their 
warmth,  as  they  will  not  give  any  great  hurt  to  one  (another,  nor 
much  trouble  to  other  men".7  How  far  Argyle  had  committed 
himself  to  Tyrone  is  a  mystery.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
Richelieu  had  played  with  the  idea  of  embarrassing  England  by 
raising  a  rebellion  in  Ireland  as  well  as  in  Scotland.  He  had  been 
in  negotiation  with  Tyrone  a  few  years  before  Strafford  arrived. 8  He 
was  in  negotiation  again  with  the  foreign  O'Neills  early  in  1641.° 

All  this  sounded  terrifying  but  governments,  rightly  handled, 
easily  break  to  pieces  cabals  such  as  this.  The  average  citizen  has 

1)  L.S.I  [—322.  2)  L.S.II— 271.  3)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  II— 219.  4)  L.  S. 
11-274.  5)  C.  P.  1-324.  6)  Cecil  M.  S.  S.  XII-74.  7)  L.  S.  11-281.  8)  Gil. 
I_507.  9)  Gill— 501. 


654  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

very  little  love  for  anarchy,  and  revolutionary  parties  hate  each, 
other  more  than  the  government,  for  which  each  one  wishes  to 
substitute  his  own  nostrum  imperii.  What  sympathy  was  there 
between  the  four  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  and  the  Scotch  settlers, 
and  between  the  O'Neills  in  Ulster  and  the  esciled  chieftains  they 
had  expelled?  Large  numbers  of  the  O'Neills  and  O'Donnels  were 
minor  gentry  and  warm  farmers,  planted  on  O'Neill's  and 
O'Donnell's  demesnes1.  O'Donnel's  idea  of  returning  was  on 
condition  that  he  become  "a  prince  in  Ulster",  at  the  expense  of 
these  identical  planters  and  lease  holders,  on  whose  support  he  was 
relying. 1  What  sympathy  was  there  between  the  bog-trotting 
buccaneers  who  broke  out  in  Donegal  and  the  Scotch  Planters, 
between  the  Covenanting  Lords  and  the  Edinburgh  Divines,  nay 
even  between  the  Covenanting  Lords  themselves?  Strafford's 
policy  in  regard  to  these  gentry  was  "not  to  afford  them  the  honour 
of  striking  a  battle  with  the  Crown".  Such  a  course  involving 
"expense  of  treasure",  but  to  hem  them  in  with  garrisons,  blockade 
their  ports,  "starve  them  out  of  madness  into  their  right  wits", 
leaving  them  "to  dissolve  themselves  through  their  own  wants 
distrusts,  and  discontentments",  while  raising  in  the  meanwhile 
a  party  for  the  King  in  Scotland  itself."2  Nor  was  this  policy  but 
a  dream.  Argyle's  intense  desire  to  invade  Ireland,  while  leaving 
his  allies  to  fight  their  own  battles  is  one  symptom  of  the  rift  in 
the  lute.  The  gentleman  who  thought  his  kinsman  should  be  King 
raises  up  a  pretty  problem,  as  to  what  would  have  happened  if  the 
confederation  had  been  successful.  Lastly  on  the  eve  of  the  in- 
vasion of  England,  Loudon,  Argyle's  Fidus  Achates,  sent  ward 
across  the  border  to  the  effect  that  "the  Earl  of  Argyle  has  a  com- 
mission to  go  to  Ireland  a®  soon  as  the  Irish  Army  leaves  for 
England". 3  The  tangle  becomes  more  confused  when  we  find 
Argyle  asserting  that  the  cause  of  his  joining  the  Covenanters  was, 
not  because  they  were  on  good  terms  with  the  exiled  Earls,  but 
because  the  Earl  of  Antrim — the  King's  standard  bearer  in  Ulster 
—had  written  to  Spain  urging  the  exiled  Earls  to  come  back  to 
Ireland,  and  help  him  to  invade  Argyle's  territory. 4  Credence  is 
lent  to  this  charge  by  the  fact  that  the  Antrim  proposed  to  mobilize 
a  large  body  of  what  Strafford  called  "sons  of  habituated  rebels, 

1)  L.  S.  II— 269.      2)  L.  S.  11—192,  235 ;  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11-230.      3)  Dom. 
1640—611.        4)  L.S.  II— 187.  210,225. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  655 

a  a  many  O's  and  Macs  as  ever  startled  a  Council  Board",  amongst 
whom  was  Phelim  O'Neill,  subsequently  the  leader  of  that  mas- 
sacre in  Ulster,  though,  of  course,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
between  Phelim  and  the  Earl  of  Tyrone  there  was  a  feud,  ancestral, 
historic,  and,  of  course,  agrarian.  The  agrarian  feud  was  not  so 
visible  at  this  period,  as  neither  had  land  in  Ulster,  Phelim  having 
mortgaged  the  10.000  acres  with  which  James  had  endowed  him 
out  of  Tyrone's  estates.1  The  tangles,  confusions,  and  subterranean 
cabals  of  Ulster  and  Scotch  feudalism  are  many  and  unseemly. 
Orthodox  history  evades  this  disreputable  theme  by  assuming  that 
all  the  great  figures  coalesced  or  fought  on  some  national  or 
religious  basis,  which  method  -of  solving  historical  problems  has 
the  great  merit  of  evading  research,  while  assuming  an  air  of 
plausibility. 

Apart,  however,  from  these  rifts  in  the  lute  of  the  Cave  of 
Adullam  there  was  another  problem.  All1  Ireland  loathed  both  the 
Scotch  settlers  and  the  Northern  feudalists.  There  were  men  living 
in  Ireland  still  who  had  not  forgotten  those  Elizabethan  wars, 
when  Hugh  O'Neill  "brought  in  Spaniards",  and  burnt  the  houses 
of  honest  men.  When  Phelim  O'Neill  raised  the  -standard  of  revolt 
in  Ulster,  he  raised  more  enemies  than  Strafford  ever  had.  Owen 
Roe  O'Neill  never  had  more  than  two  counties  at  his  disposal,  and 
they  constituted  not  a  base,  but  a  ecene  for  guerilla  warfare.  All 
the  other  Provinces  defied  him,  and  into  Antrim,  Down,  Donegal 
and  a  large  part  of  Derry  he  could  not  enter.  So  much  for  that 
source  of  discontent,  when  there  was  no  Government  in  England 
or  Ireland.  The  Scotch  settlers  however  were  anathema.  Those 
in  Antrim  and  Down,  which  are  all  that  count  in  this  affair,  were 
aliens,  Puritans,  and  plebeians,  peasants,  and  cottiers,  with  which 
class  Irish  gentlemen  were  not  in  the  habit  of  conspiring.  A 
rebellion,  in  this  area,  and  rising  from  this  class,  was,  to  a  discerning 
man,  a  matter  of  small  moment.  Stnafford,  carefully  separating 
the  threads  of  the  tangled  -skene,  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
"in  this  exigent  no  suspicion  was  to  be  had  of  the  natives  at  all". 2 
The  only  difficulty  was  how  far  to  trust  individual  Lords\and 
gentry  with  arms.  "The  Irish",  he  wrote,  "may  do  very  good 
service,  being  a  people  removed  from  the  Scotch  as  well  in  affee- 

1)  L.  S.  11-297,  300, 304,  306.        2)  L.  S.  11-236. 


656  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

tions  .as  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  again — as  of  necessity  they  must — without  further  employ- 
ment or  provision,  than  what  they  had  of  their  own  before."1 

In  this  synopsis  he  was  strangely  justified  by  results.  His 
recruitment  in  Ireland  was  easy  and  enthusiastic.  From  one  end 
of  the  country  to  the  other  there  was  not  a  symptom  of  sympathy 
with  the  Scotch.  On  his  fall  howeVer  the  army  was  immobilized. 
Its  demobilization  was  conducted  without  forethought  of  the 
warning  he  had  given  when  alive.  Armed  men  in  the  quietest  of 
countries  are  a  danger  to  society.  How  much  more  so  in  a  country 
where  violence  is  traditional  and  at  a  moment,  when  every  con- 
tending class  was  scrambling  to  use  those  troops  for  its  own  ends? 
The  ghastly  slaughters  of  1641  were  the  result,  and  the  failure  of 
Charles,  either  to  demobilize  that  army  promptly,  or  to  do  so  by 
detachments  was  in  no  small  degree  responsible. 

The  intrigues  of  the  Ulster  feudalists  with  Argyle  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  exiled  chieftains  in  Spain  were  really  intrigues 
and  no  more.  In  Ulster  they  had  no  following.  In  1641  only  three 
men  of  lany  note  went  into  rebellion.  Two  of  them,  Lord  Maguire 
and  Sir  Phelim  O'Neill,  had  squandered  their  estates  and  the 
third  O'Keilly,  was  a  very  minor  man.  It  is  clear  that  all  the  great 
names  were  loyal  or  neutral.  No  man  with  anything  to  loose 
wanted  to  restore  ia  feudalism.  Secondly  both  Tyrone  and  Tircon- 
nel  were  weak  men.  Owen  Roe  O'Neill  was  in  the  service  of 
Spain.  Not  one  of  these  three  could  stir  without  Spanish  con^ 
nivance.  Strafford  had  forestalled  that  danger.  Northumberland, 
who  was  head  of  the  Pro-French  Party  at  Court,  one  time 
complained  that  "there  is  not  a  person  more  Spanish  in- his  ways 
than  my  Lord  Deputy".2  One  of  the  reasons  for  this  attitude 
towards  foreign  policy  was  that  Spain  could,  when  it  pleased,  unleash 
these  exiled  nobles,  equip  them  with  a  few  ships,  and  send1  them 
to  Ulster  with  the  Irish  officers  and  men  under  their  command.  * 
From  the  day  Strafford  landed  in  Ireland  he  set  himself  to  avert 
this  peril.  He  opened  up  trade  with  Spain.  He  protected  Spanish 

1)  L.  S.  11-188.        2)  C.  L.  M.  11-621.        3)  L.  S.  II— III. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  657 

interests  zealously.  He  secured  from  the  Conde  Duke  the  night 
to  nominate  officers  over  the  Irish  mercennaries  employed  by 
Spain.1  He  busied  himself  in  raking  levies  for  the  Spaniards, 
flung  his  influence  on  their  side  dn  the  disputes  with  the  Hol- 
landers, whose  rising  naval  power  he  feared,  was  bitterly  de- 
nounced by  the  French  Ambassador  to>  the  King,  and  attached 
strongly  to  his  person,  Colonel  Preston,  the  Colonel  of  one  of  the 
Spanish  regiments.2  The  greatest  service  however,  that  he  did 
Spain  was  to  persuade  the  King  not  to  go  to  war  with  that  Power 
over  the  Palatinate,  an  action  which  won  him  the  everlasting 
hostility  of  the  French  Party  at  Court,  "the  Queen's  side",  and 
the  Parliamentary  Puritans,  who  were  the  Jingoes  of  this  era.  3 
English  friendship  was  vitally  necessary  to  both  France  and  Spain 
at  this  period.  Neither  would  attack  her  for  fear  of  driving  her 
into  the  arms  of  the  other.  This  was  the  one  bright  gleam  in  the 
dark  political  horizon  that  the  Powers  were  "so  soundly  together 
by  the  ears  one  with  another  as  admits  them  no  leisure  to  move 
his  Majesty,  and,  without  assistance  from  abroad,  the  gallant 
gospellers" — such  was  the  Deputy's  nickname  for  the  Covenanters 
-"shall  not  be  able  to  bear  up  their  rebellious  humours  against 
the  King".  4  With  such  a  powerful  influence  as  Strafford.  on  her 
side,  Spain  was  assured  that  Charjes  would  not  side  wi'th  France. 
The  Ulster  chiefs  were  accordingly  quarantined  in  Madrid  by  the 
Spanish  authorities,  with  the  indefatigable  Hopton  watching 
their  every  action,  and  occasionally  tapping  their  correspondence. 
Strafford  brushed  aside  all  fears  from  that  quarter.5  The  fruits 
of  this  policy  were  seen  in  1642.  Owen  Roe  O'Neill,  then  in 
disgrace  for  a  capitulation  to  the  French,  sought  permission  to 
sail  for  Ireland.  The  Spanish  authorities  did  their  best  to  pre- 
vent him,  and  his  followers  complained  that  "the  Spaniards  are 
more  their  enemies  than  the  Irish". 6 

In  Stratford's  time  such  dangers  could  not  mature.  "There 
is  no  power  left  these  impostors",  he  'told  Monsignor  Conn,  "save 
to  draw  a  certain  and  speedy  ruin,  upon  themselves  and  as  many 
as  can  be  vitiated  by  their  allurements".  He  sarcastically  described 
certain  of  the  Irish  at  Madrid  as  "loudly  affected  people,  keeping 
themselves  in  countenance,  delighting  to  have  it  believed  and 

1)  L.  S.  1-94.  2)  L.  S.  1—118,  233, 3£4,  466, 470.  3)  L.  S.  H— 60, 64. 
4)  L.  S.  11—190.  5)  C.  P.  11—75.  6)  Gil.  1—521,  522,  523. 

42 


658  THE  KELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

themselves  pitied,  as  persecuted  forth  of  their  country  and  ravished 
of  their  means  for  their  {religion,  taking  upon  them  to  be  Grand 
Seigneurs,  and  boasting  and  entitleing  themselves  to  great  digni- 
ties and  territories,  whose  very  names  were  scarcely  heard  of  by 
their  indigent  parents."1  This  may  sound  severe  but  it  is  alas,  too 
true.  Madrid  was  the  happy  hunting  glround  of  the  adventurers 
of  that  period.  Nothing  is  more  amazing  than  the  number  of 
peers  with  Irish  titles  floating  about  Spain  at  the  beginning  of 
the  17th  century,  which  titles  neither  James,  or  Charles  had  ever 
created,  and  which  the  King  of  Spain  dare  not  create  without 
"committing  one  unfriendly  act".  Thackeray's  "Ba,Try  Lyndon" 
is  the  product  of  every  age. 

In  the  meantime  the  house-burners  were  pursued,  rounded  up, 
and  lodged  in  durance  vile.2  The  demeanour  of  the  ordinary  sub- 
ject was  undoubtedly  hostile  'to  fhe  Revolutionaries.  True  it  is 
that  in  Ireland  the  eternal  sympathy  with  revolt  against  any 
status  quo  should  have  caused  qualms  to  anyone  faced  with  this 
situation.  The  venerable  Miler  Magrafh,  paraphrasing  a  famous 
passage  in  Julius  Gaesar,  one  time  held  forth  on  the  fact  that 
"the  most  part  of  the  people  of  this  land  do  daily  practise 
change".3  Nevertheless  against  this  was  the  Royalism  of  the 
Squirearchy,  the  timidity  of  the  bourgeois,  and  the  religious 
flavour  the  Scotch  had  given  their  revolt.  The  Church  of  Ireland 
was  against  them.  Roman  Catholicism,  where  it  was  belligerent, 
could  scarcely  preach  a  jehad  in  its  favour.  Where  it  was  not — 
and  those  that  were  not  were  according  'to  Straff ord — "to  say 
truth  many",  a  very  hostile  demeanour  was  noticed.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Down  relates  with  glee  that  'the  "Chiefs  of 
our  Faith"  had  tendered  their  swords  to  Strafford,  and  Robert 
Nugent,  the  Superior  of  the  Irish  Jesuits,  despatched  three  chap- 
lains to  attend  Strafford's  expeditionary  force,  which  he  describes 
as  "just,  honourable,  and  useful".4  Even  the  mercenary  soldiers 
in  Madrid  had  their  own  views  on  the  situation.  "Go  to  Ireland 
and  raise  a  rebellion !  I  will  not",  said  Colonel  De  Burgh  to  the 
Inquisitor  General.  "The  country  would  not  rise  if  I  did.  They 
are  too  well  used.  It  would  be  vain  and  would  only  do  harm."8 
When  the  rising  did  come  a  year  after  Strafford's  downfall,  on 

1)  L.  S.  11—112.  2)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11-230.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1592-493. 
4)  S.  0. 1—236, 238.  5)  C.  P.  11—70. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  659 

the  heels  of  a  year  of  scandalous  misgovernment,  chaos,  timidity 
and  corruption  its  character  snows  how  novel  were  the  plans,  how 
few  and  'uninfluential  were  the  leaders.  "The  Northern  gentry", 
said  Bellinge,  "took  up  arms  blindfold  without  any  precaution, 
without  any  foundation  of  friendship  or  intelligence  abroad  or 
correspondence  at  home".  Eelying  on  assistance  from  Argyle  "a 
few  bankrupt  and  discontented'  gentry",  started  what  was  not 
so  much  a  war  as  a  plundering  foray,  dignified  only  by  the 
number  of  noncombatants  they  slew.  To  their  astonishment  the 
Scotch  settlers  refused  'to  join  them  and  ran  up  a  red  flag  of  their 
own.1  It  was  only  then  that  the  relics  of  feudalism  in  Ulster  and 
belligerent  Calvinism  became  aware  that  between  them  was  no 
•tie,  and  outside  was  an  angry  and  a  hostile  Ireland.  During  the 
Strafford  regime  all  Ireland  was  mobilized  behind  the  Crown. 
At  no  period  in  Irish  history  has  insurgency  ever  attracted  to 
its  standard  more  than  a  fraction  of  the  country.  Even  Bruce 
and  Hugh  O'Neill  never  mobilized  a  majority  of  the  Province  in 
which  they  operated.  "With  the  assistance  of  the  army" — a  mere 
2.000  men — "I  will  keep  this  Kingdom  going  on  a  right  wheel, 
and  that  nothing  shall  stir  against  his  Majesty  but  to  their  own 
ruin,  and  this  I  assume  at  the  peril  of  my  head."2  Straff ord  kept 
his  word  at  the  peril  of  his  head. 

Antrim  and  Down  however  were  'the  infected  areas.  True  it 
wae  that  the  McDonnells  of  Northern  Antrim,  the  O'Neills  and 
the  Magennis  would  gladly  have  devoured  the  settlers  if  em- 
powered, but  to  arm  them  was  only  'to  make  confusion  worse. 
Such  work  had  to  be  done  by  the  State.  The  Army  was  increased 
to  2.000.  One  of  the  new  Companies  was  entrusted  to  Lord  Con- 
way,  whose  estate  lay  on  the  borders  of  the  area.  No  Company 
was  given  to  the  Earl  of  Antrim.  "He  is  the  grandson  and  son 
of  your  Majesty  knows  whom.  He  profereth  services  to  your 
Majesty  but  attentively  watches  to  do  something  for  his  own 
fortune  and  power."3  Antrim,  alas,  had  not  fared  well  at  Court. 
He  was  bankrupt.  A  great  feudal  potentate  whose  resources  were 
diminished, — -alieni  appetens  sui  profusus — wae  a  dangerous 
enemy  of  State,  and  if  Charles  had  never'  heard  of  Antrim,  nor 
yielded  to  his  projects  he  would  have  died  a  natural  death.  The 

1)  G.  H.  C.— 17, 23.        2)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11-230.        3)  L.  S.  11—204. 

42* 


660  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

castle  of  Culmore  was  placed  by  Stratford  in  safe  hands.  Up  to 
this  its  custodian  was  the  mysterious  Barr.  Now  it  was  handed 
over  to  Colonel  Bobert  Stewart,  who,  for  reasons  Scotch,  loved 
not  the  Covenanting  Lords.1  Barr  seems  to  have  exercised  con- 
siderable influence  to  retain  this  important  position  in  his  power, 
but  it  was  of  no  avail.2  Five  hundred  men  were  put  in  Derry, 
Colraine  and  Carrickf  ergus.  3  One  Company,  "all  Scottish"  was 
recaste,  the  men  being  scattered  through  other  regiments.4  The 
fleet  was  sent  to  patrol  the  Channel.5  Twenty  Canons  and  8.000 
arms  were  laid  in  store  for  emergencies.6  Five  hundred  men 
were  despatched  to  Carlisle  to  garrison  the  borders.  Half  the 
remainder  of  the  army  was  mobilised  at  Carrickf  ergus. 7  The 
country  was  now  safeguarded  against  internal  commotion,  or  the 
greater  danger  of  invasion.  Nay  more  it  was  these  preparations 
that  threatened  the  flank  of  the  Covenanters.  To  understand  the 
importance  of  these  preparations  one  should  realise  that,  save 
for  the  Yeomen  of  the  Guard,  there  was  not  a  soldier  in  England. 
The  Tudor  and  Stuart  policy  of  governing  Great  Britain  without 
an  army  was  suddenly  brought  to  the  test  of  actualities.  The  Co- 
venanting Lords  by  billettings,  cess,  coigne,  livery,  conscription 
and  feudal  authority  were  quickly  in  possession  of  a  loose  and 
heterogenious  mass  of  tribesmen,  officered  by  Swedish  mercen- 
naries,  equipped  with  arms,  accoutrements  and  artillery,  which 
can  only  be  explained  by  subterranean  aid  from  Richelieu.  Save 
for  the  militia — and  a  hundred  years  of  peace  had  made  it  not 
only  a  farce  but  an  unpopular  farce — Straff ord?e  army  was  the 
only  force  on  which  the  King  could  rely.  Never  again  were  the 
Imperial  authorities  destined  to  make  such  an  error.  Cromwell 
kept  a  standing  army  of  30.000,  nay  bound  himself  to. this  func- 
tion by  a  clause  in  his  Protectorate  Constitution.  It  is  not  till 
one  compares  this  large  force  of  professional  soldiers  with  the 
tiny  body  guard  of  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  that  one  realises 
how  free  they  must  have  felt  from  the  danger  of  internal  com- 
motion, and  how  chaotic  and  disorgianized  must  have  been  the 
state  of  the  three  Kingdoms  to  compel  Cromwell  to  maintain 
such  a  large  and  expensive  force. 

So  much  for  the  military  precautions.     Ulster,  however,  was 

1)  L.  S.  11—79, 113.      2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—280—321.      3)  L.  S.  11—233. 
4)  L.  S.  11-296.        5)  L.  S.  11-314.        6)  L.  S.  11-328.        7)  L.  S.  11-338. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  661 

honeycombed  with  Scotchmen.  Straff ord  estimates  the  number 
capable  of  bearing  arms  at  40.000.  It  was  noticeable  that,  after 
the  desturbance  in  Scotland,  many  began  to  appear  in  public  with 
their  swords,  a  thing  they  had  never  done  before.1  That  all  were 
not  affected  by  the  contagion  we  know.  That  the  majority  were 
Str(afford  frequently  asserts.  Feudal  and  National  ties  were  the 
cause.  It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  the  average  Scotch  settler 
would  have  flung  everything  to  the  winds  and  rushed  to  the  hills 
on  a  religious  cry.  Men  do  not  do  these  things  unless  they  or 
their  friends  have  been  deeply  wounded  in  life,  limb,  liberty,  and 
property.  The  Irish  Government  had  done  none  of  these  things. 
No  man  had  been  fined  a  penny  or  imprisoned  for  a  minute,  or 
even  summoned  before  a  tribunal  from  one  end  of  Ulster  to  the 
other  for  anything,  bearing  the  faintest  resemblance  to  religion. 
England  was  at  this  period  in  the  throes  of  a  series  of  prose- 
cutions for  "secret  conventicles".  In  Ireland  no  such  prosecution 
had  ever  been  undertaken.  There  is  no  record  of  one.  On  Straf- 
ford's  fall  neither  the  Scotch,  nor  the  English  Puritans,  nor  the 
Irish  Parliament  even  alleged  that,  up  to  the  time  of  the  revolt 
in  Scotland,  any  man,  woman,  or  child  had  ever  been  indicted 
for  a  "secret  conventicle".  It  is  even  doubtful  if  the  Government 
had  the  power  to  do  so,  and  certainly  Strafford  could  never  have 
committed  such  a  blunder  as  to  exempt  Eoman  Catholics  from 
the  Recusancy  fines,  and  impose  them  on  the  Scotch  Oalvinists. 
Blair  when  deposed  "ordinary  preached  in  his  own  house,  and 
sometimes  in  other  houses,  and  sometimes  he  and  his  brethren 
did  go  into  their  churches".2  Livingstone  "preached  every  sabbath 
at  the  iron  furnace  at  Miloor",  of  which  Barr  was  manager.3  Nor 
were  these  services  unknown  to  the  authorities.4  A  regime  such 
as  this  was  scarcely  calculated  to  set  multitudes  agog  for  "red 
ruin  and  the  breaking  up  of  laws". 

That  however,  the  Scotch  were  profoundly  affected  by  the 
uproar  in  the  land  of  their  birth  is  undeniable.  Ancestral  ties, 
feudal  ties,  the  slogan  of  liberty,  the  little  they  had  to  lose  and 
the  plenty  they  had  to  gain,  undeniably  prejudiced  this  large 
multitude  of  labourers  and  cottiers  in  favour  of  new  things.  "The 
basest  sort  of  people  without  land  or  families"  are  all  that  emerge 

1)  L.S.II— 233.       2)  A.  B.— 83.       3)  J.  L.— 22— 23        4)  C.I.  XII— 5-'. 


662  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

as  rioters.1  Straff ord  aimed  one  of  his  enforcements  of  law  and 
order  at  the  "under  Scots"  alone  and  not  at  the  Squirearchy.  In 
fact  he  asserts  that  "few  landowners"  were  affected  by  the  com- 
motion.2 Bramhall  one  time  remarked  that  "they  have  neither 
Lords  to  encourage  them,  nor  Ministers  to  incite  them".3  This 
is  accordingly  the  one  case  in  Stuart  history  of  a  peasant  and 
labourer  revolt  and  was  very  much  akin  to  the  Whiteboy  move- 
ment of  a  later  generation.  What  had  embarrassed  the  situation 
was  that,  in  the  Plantation  area,  Strafford  was  unpopular.  He 
had  compelled  the  Planters  to  carry  out  their  Plantation  Cove- 
nants. The  one  class  therefore  in  Ulster  that  could  have  acted 
as  a  check  on  this  peasant  revolt  stood  aloof.  Strafford  dare  not 
call  out  their  musters.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  acted  with 
the  emigrants  in  Antrim  and  Down,  but  undoubtedly  they  sulked 
in  their  tents. 

If  Argyle  landed  a  few  shiploads  of  arms  in  the  infected  area 
anything  might  happen.  Strafford  simply  hemmed  them  in  with 
men  and  ships.  It  is  significant  that  he  placed  over  the  standing 
army  that  operated  in  Ulster — all  of  whom  were  Irish  Protestants 
— Sir  Eobert  Stewart,  a  Scotch  Oalvinist,  and  ;Sir  John  Borlase, 
an  English  Puritan.  No  one  at  this  stage  could  accuse  him  of 
"using  Papists  to  suppress  the  Kirk".  When  religious  storms  rise 
high  in  Ireland,  it  is  always  best  to  employ  officials  of  the  same 
religion  as  the  belligerents.  It  undoubtedly  deprives  the  jehad  of 
its  sting,  and  considerably  annoys  the  rebels.  Loyal  servants  of 
the  Crown  too  can  always  be  procured  in  large  numbers  from 
any  religious  denomination  required. 

It  is  at  this  period  that  the  Court  of  High  Commission  and 
the  Ecclesiastical  Courts  were  utilised.  Strafford's  strategy  was 
to  use  them  either  to  exact  from  the  principal  Scotch  a  repu- 
diation of  the  Covenanters,  or  "send  them  back  to  their  fellows 
in  Scotland,  placing  better  subjects  in  their  stead".4  His  instruc- 
tions from  London  were  to  do  nothing  till  Civil  War  was  a  cer- 
tainty in  Scotland.  &  At  the  close  of  1638  the  Scotch  went  into 
rebellion.  At  the  Scotch  Parliament  they  demanded  a  whole 
series  of  concessions  which  struck  at  the  root  of  all  Government. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—274.  2)  R.  C.-206.  3)  C.  I.  XII— 61.  4)  L.  8. 11-273. 
5)  L.  S.  11-231. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE 

Hamilton  dissolved  the  Assembly.  They  refused  to  dissolve.  They 
expelled  all  the  Bishops.  They  abolished  Episcopacy.  They  con- 
fiscated all  tithes  and  Church  Lands.  They  formed  a  confederation 
in  which  each  man  swore  to  resist  by  force  of  arms  any  infringe- 
ment of  the  principles  they  had  enunciated.  They  imposed  this 
oath  on  all  and  sundry  and  on  large  multitudes  "who  had  not 
so  much  knowledge  of  an  oath,  of  religion  or  of  the  confession 
of  faith  as  a  child  of  seven  years  old",  and  that  by  the  drastic 
method  of  a  black  list  of  all  who  would  not  swear- '  They  im- 
ported, arms,  artillery  and  mercennary  soldiers.  They  taxed  all 
their  tenants  at  the  rate  of  one  soldier  for  £  80  value  of  land. 2 
Wherever  there  was  any  hostility  they  let  loose  their  levies  of 
highlanders,  carrying  off  "corn,  butter  and  cheese  and  killing  all 
the  cattle".  For  this  insight  into  the  local  intimidations  of  the 
austere  Covenanters  we  are  indebted  to  Captain  Owen,  one  of 
Strafford's  naval  Captains,  who  caught  one  of  Argyle's  kinsmen 
returning  from  a  foray.  Captain  Owen  enticed  him  on  board  by 
a  tale  that  he  had  a  priest  there  as  his  Chaplain,  and  Colin 
Campbell,  who  saw  nothing  curious  in  fighting  the  battles  of 
Presbyterianism  w^hile  entertaining  strong  Roman  Catholic  opi- 
nions, fell  into  the  trap,  and  was  carried  away  to  Dublin,  where 
he  was  incarcerated  for  "barbarous  usage  of  the  inhabitants"  of 
the  Scotch  isles.3  Thus  did  what  began  as  a  protest  against 
matters  religious  develop  into  a  soviet,  legislating  on  matters 
temporal,  pass  to  the  confiscation  of  property,  the  banishment  of 
subjects,  chaos,  plunder  and  murder. 

This  development  necessitated  urgent  action.  Blair  was  in 
Scotland  playing  a  very  active  part  in  these  proceedings.4  Barr 
adjourned  to  Scotland,  swore  to  the  Covenant  and  then  returned 
to  Ireland  for  the  purpose  of  pushing  through  a  project  to  vest 
the  Derry  Plantation  in  the  Marquis  of  Hamilton.5  He  was  im- 
mediately arrested  on  a  charge  of  treason.  A  curious  episode  i» 
connection  with  him  is  that  he  was  in  possession  of  a  document 
exempting  him  from  arrest. 6  On  a  public  repudiation  of  the 
Covenant  he  was  released.7  Sir  John  Clotworthy  also  adjourned 


1)  R.  I.  A.  P.  VI-10.  pp.  29, 36.  2)  L.  S.  11—277.  3)  L.  S.  H-361,  362. 
4)  L.  L.  VII-465.  5)  L.  S.  11-229.  6)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11-197.  7)  L.  S. 
H-341. 


664  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

to  Scotland  "to  salute  the  Kirk".1  He  seems  however  to  have 
returned  to  Ireland  .and  lived  there  unmolested.  A  more  serious 
matter  was  the  prosecution  of  Eobert  Adair,  who  was  a  Ma- 
gistrate, a  small  landowner  in  Antrim  and  a  large  landowner  in 
Scotland.  He  not  only  took  the  Covenant,  but  played1  an  active 
part  in  besieging  one  of  the  King's  Castles.  Strafford  pounced 
on  him,  and  indicted  him  before  the  local  sessions  at  Carrick- 
fergus,  where  he  was  fined,  imprisoned  and  his  estate  escheated. 2 
This  drove  the  few  owners  of  property  who  were  in  this  move- 
ment to  flee  to  Scotland.  Leslie  seems  to  have  been  only  able  to 
trace  five,  none  of  whom  were  of  any  importance,  being  either 
small  farmers  or  shopkeepers.3  All  wisely  took  the  precaution  to 
sell  what  goods  and  lands  they  had  before  running.  "God  send 
honester  men  to  buy  them"  was  Laud's  comment.4 

So  much  for  the  open  belligerents.  The  next  step  was  to  get 
rid  of  those  who  were  suspect.  The  High  Cbmmission  and  Ec- 
clesiastical Courts  were  used  for  this  purpose.  Those  whose  sym- 
pathies with  the  rebellion  were  suspected,  were  served  with  writs 
to  appear  before  these  Courts  as  Nonconformists.  Where  con- 
formity was  immediately  shown  no  further  steps  could  be  taken. 
Their  conformity,  however,  where  it  occurred  had  a  most  de- 
moralizing -effect  on  their  hold  on  the  multitude.  The  average 
Covenanter,  h'owever,  served  with  such  a  writ  fled.  No  man  who 
had  been  implicated  in  the  conspiracy  dared  to  face  the  Court, 
not  knowing  what  evidence  was  about  to  be  produced.  Living- 
stone for  instance,  fled  rather  than  face  a  trial.  He  says  that  it 
was  one  of  Barr's  servants  who  warned  him  of  the  issue  of  the 
warrant.  It  is,  however  more  likely  that  this  servant  was  de- 
liberately told,  sto  as  to  frighten  Livingstone  out  of  the  King- 
dom.5 There  is  no  case  on  record,  nor  was  there  ever  one  alleged 
of  a  man  fined  for  Nonconformity,  as  a  careful  choice  was  made 
of  those  who  were  to  be  sued,  ,and  the  "ill  disposed"  simply  de- 
faulted. In  other  words  the  Government  reverted  to  the  Eliza- 
bethan method  of  using  religious  laws  to  strike  at  the  "ill  dis- 
posed", while  as  Elizabeth  one  time  put  it  "not  straining  in  con- 
science such  men  as  Luke  Netterville",  one  of  the  civil  gentlemen 

1)  L.  L.  VII-464.          2)  L.S.II-219;  C.S.P.1641-291,  292.  3)  L.  S. 

11-227.        4)  L.L.YII— 514.        5)  H.  P.  C.-204. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  665 

of  the  Pale.1  This  was  why  Straff ord  was  able  to  boast,  at  his 
trial,  that  his  Ecclesiastical  Courts  had  never  fined'  a  man  for 
Nonconformity.2  What  would  have  happened  if  the  Ulster  Co- 
venanters had  stood  their  ground  .and  appeared  at  the  Court,  sub- 
mitted to  a  fine,  and  then  stumped  Ulster  as  Martyrs  is  a  nice 
problem  for  speculation.  It  was  ,a  very  sore  point  with  the  Par- 
liamentarians at  Strafford's  trial  that  they  could  not  produce  one 
victim  from  Ireland  of  "prelatical  tyranny",  save  vague  reference 
to  those  "who  fled  to  Scotland".3  "There  was",  in  Bramhall's 
words,  "no  clamour  against  the  High  Commission,  but  an  opinion 
of  justice".4 

Those  who  had  sworn  the  Covenant,  and  those  who  were 
suspected  of  having  sworn  the  Covenant  were  now  gone.  They 
were  few  and  select,  but  there  remained  the  many  headed  multi- 
tude who  were  ablaze  with  excitement  over  the  great  deeds  being 
done  in  Scotland  and  the  prospect  of  Argyle's  arrival  and  "panem 
et  circenses".  To  understand  this  excitement  one  must  realize  that 
North  Down  and  South  Antrim  was  in  pretty  much  the  same 
state  of  development  as  Southern  Ireland  in  the  earlier  days  of 
Queen  Elizabeth.  The  Scotch  crofters  and  labourers  were  akin  to 
one  of  the  belligerent  tribes,  with  this  difference  only  that  they 
owed  allegiance  to  no  chief,  with  whom  one  could  deal. 5  If  they 
submitted  to  anyone  it  was  the  revolting  Lords  of  Western  Scot- 
land, from  which  area  they  all  came.6  Sir  Philip  Warwick  asserts 
that  till  Straff  ord  came  they  formed  "a  self  subsisting  Corpo- 
ration" and  had  "no  awe  for  the  Government".7  Leslie  says  that 
one  of  the  difficulties  in  dealing  with  them  was  that,  when  pro- 
secuted, they  used  to  retire  on  to  the  estates  of  some  .Scotchmen 
in  the  Plantation,  where  pursuivants  had  no  right  of  entry,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  many  undertakers  had,  in  their  patents,  Courts 
Leet  and  Baron. 8  It  might  be  added  that  one  of  the  sources  of 
Strafford's  undoubted  unpopularity  among  the  undertakers  was 
his  steady  reduction  of  these  liberties,  privileges,  and  immunities 
from  the  Common  Law,  which  had  perished  in  England  far  back 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  I. 


1)  L.  L.  VII— 464;  L.  S.  11-227,  231,  273.       2)  R.  P.  VIII-28.      3)  Cowper 
M.  S.  S.  II— 280.  4)  C.  I.  XII— 65.          5)  A.  B.— 66,  67.          6)  L.  S.II— 227. 

7)  S.  T.  IV-200.        8)  L.  S.  11-219. 


666  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

It  was  Dr.  Kobert  Maxwell,  the  Dean  of  Armagh,  who  first 
drew  Stafford's  attention  to  the  danger  of  this  large,  riotous, 
and  self  retained  mass  of  subjects.  He  discovered  a  constant 
traffic  between  the  Copeland  Isles  and  the  West  of  Scotland,  and 
pointed  out  the  danger  of  Argyle  making  a  midnight  mobilization 
on  those  Islands,  and  attacking  the  mainlands  at  dawn.1  Leslie 
had  already  pointed  out  the  absurdity  of  extending  the  High  Com- 
mission Warrants  from  the  principals  to  the  multitude.  The  in- 
fection had  spread  so  far  that  to  make  Conformity  the  test  would 
"fill  all  the  gaols  in  Ireland".  As  it  was,  not  even  the  Church 
wardens  were  reliable,  and  one  of  his  ecclesiastical  Courts  had 
been  rushed  by  a  mob.2  Strafford  now  determined  to  put  matters 
to  the  test,  and  to  beat  down  this  movement  with  a  strong 
hand. 

He  sent  for  all  the  leading  Scotch  gentry  of  the  infected 
area.  He  told  them  that  their  loyalty  was  suspect  throughout  the 
rest  of  Ireland,  that  it  behoved  them  to  rid  themselves  of  this 
suspicion:  that  the  only  way  it  could  be  done  was  to  petition  that 
the  oath  of  allegiance  be  imposed  on  all  Scotchmen  in  Down  and 
Antrim.  Sir  James  Montgomery  was  the  only  one  who  demurred. 
He  tried  to  evade  the  dilemma  by  pointing  out  that  the  rebellion 
only  affected  Scotland.  Of  it  they  in  Ireland  had  no  cognizance. 
"Sir  James",  retorted  Strafford,  "you  may  go  home,  but  if  you 
do  not  petition  it  will  be  worse  for  you."  So  Sir  James  after- 
wards pleaded,  alleging  intimidation  and  thus  trying  to  evade 
the  unpleasant  fact,  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  asked  that  the 
oath  of  allegiance  be  tendered.  Lord  Robert  Dillon,  Sir  Adam 
Loftus  and  Mainwaring  were  however  emphatic  on  the  point  that 
the  assemblage  cheerfully  assented  to  the  petition.  Strafford  says 
that  he  toned  down  the  wording  of  the  petition  they  tendered 
lest  "it  might  be  turned  too  strict  on  them".  It  is  more  than 
probable  that,  however  anxious  the  Scotch  gentry  might  have 
been  that  Strafford  should  take  the  responsibility  for  this  step 
on  his  own  shoulders,  they  had  very  little  sympathy  with  the 
riotous  multitude.  None  of  them  were  kinsmen  or  dependants 
of  the  revolting  Lords.  Three  of  them,  for  instance,  were  Stuarts. 
One  was  a  son  of  Dr.  Echlin.  Two  were  Roman  Catholic 


1)  L.  S.  11-355.        2)  L.  S.  11—227. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE  667 

Hamiltons,  and  another  was  Claneboye,  who,  whatever  his  reli- 
gious sympathies  were,  was  to  be  thoroughly  trusted  when  it 
came  to  riots  calculated  to  impaire  the  value  of  his  rents.  The 
remainder  were  Scotch  bourgeoisj  who  had  invested  money  in 
the  purchase  of  land,  and  were  therefore  unlikely  to  yearn  for 
a  revolution  to  be  worked  either  by  Argyle  or  their  labourers. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  all  signed  the  petition. l 

It  was  indeed  a  ticklish  moment.  Strafford  had  promised  the 
King  either  to  procure  this  petition,  or  to  enforce  the  oath  on 
his  own  responsibility.2  It  constituted1  the  19th  article  of  his 
Indictment.  The  prosecution  relied  on  the  obvious  fact  that  there 
was  no  power  in  law  to  impose  an  oath  of  allegiance  on  the  pri- 
vate subject.  At  this  time,  however,  the  power  always  lay  in  the 
Crown,  especially  in  Ireland,  of  filling  up  by  Proclamation  gaps 
in  Statute  law  where  necessary,  provided  these  Proclamations  did 
not  infringe  Common  or  Statute  Law.  The  petition  took  the  sting 
out  of  the  attack,  and  the  assent  of  the  Council  and  all  the  Irish 
Law  officers  undoubtedly  hampered  the  prosecution.  The  charge 
of  treason  became  futile,  when  it  was  revealed  that  the  same  thing 
was  done  in  England,  and  the  production  of  a  Royal  warrant  for 
what  he  did  hoist  the  Parliamentary  lawyers  with  their  own 
petard.  The  very  House  of  Commons  felt  that,  after  they  had 
embraced  the  Covenanters  and  their  oath  of  rebellion,  there  was 
something  beyond  all  reason  in  prosecuting  for  treason  a  Royal 
Minister  who  imposed  an  oath  of  loyalty.  The  19th  article  was 
not  one  of  those  enshrined  in  the  Bill  of  Attainder.  It  was  un- 
doubtedly, however,  this  act  of  Stafford's  which  made  him  the 
most  hated  man  in  Scotland. 

The  enforcement  of  that  oath  however  on  the  Scotch  was  a 
partial  failure.  At  that  time  there  was  none  of  that  local 
machinery  we  now,  possess.  It  had  to  be  done  through  local  Com- 
missioners, and  many  of  them  no  doubt  felt  qualms  as  regards 
their  future  safety.  During  Stafford's  trial,  for  instance,  a  cler- 
gyman who  was  one  of  these  Commissioners  was  driven  out  of 
his  Church  by  threats  and  menaced  with  knives.3  Only  four  re- 
fused to  take  the  oath.  They  were  tried,  imprisoned  and  fined.  4 


1)  L.  S.  11—344,  345 ;  R.  P.  VIII— 489-514.     2)  L.  L.  VII— 526.    3)  C.  S.  P. 
1641—274.     4)  R.  P.  VHI— 297. 


668  THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION 

In  another  case  a  clergyman  of  the  name  of  Bole  defied  Lord 
Claneboye,  who  was  the  Commissioner  for  Killelagh  and,  having 
secretly  advised1  many  not  to  take  it,  tried  to  evade  the  oath  by 
substituting  vague  expressions  of  loyalty.  In  the  end  he  sub- 
mitted, was  temporarily  arrested  and  then  released.1  Claneboye's 
activity  in  this  matter  is  worthy  of  note  as  he  was  the  patron  of 
Calvinism  in  Ulster.  Stratford  knew  that  he  had  asserted  that 
"the  Covenanters  would  be  glorious  to  posterity",  but,  provided 
he  fulfilled  his  duties  as  a  Magistrate,  the  Deputy  turned  a  blind 
eye  to  his  personal  views.2 

The  oath  had  a  most  demoralizing  effect  on  any  sedition  in 
Ulster.  By  no  strain  of  the  imagination  could  it  be  twisted  into 
a  religious  significance.  It  simply  denied  the  right  of  the  subject 
to  take  arms  against  the  State.  At  Strafford's  trial  the  prosecution 
failed  to  find  in  it  any  reflection  on  any  man's  religious  views, 
though  they  made  a  great  flourish  with  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
imposed  on  the  many  Scotch  Eoman  Catholics.  3  Churchwardens, 
householders  and  all  persons  of  means  and  position  were  at  one 
lull  swoop  forced  publicly  to  disown  the  conspiracy,  and  the  moral 
effect  undoubtedly  was  widespread.  Claneboye's  despatch,  however, 
shows  that  many  evaded  the  oath  by  hiding  on  the  day  the  Com- 
missioners came  round.4  Sir  John  Clotworthy  swore  that  "many 
fled  to  Scotland,  and  very  many  fled  up  and  down  the  country, 
and!  many  were  apprehended  and  censured".'5  Strafford  subse- 
quently wrote  "Many  thousands  in  the  North  never  took  the 
oath",  and  many  of  those  who  did,  after  the  battle  of  Newburn, 
"discovered  it  as  an  unlawful  oath". 6 

Nevertheless  "the  Black  Oath"  had  its  effect.  Nothing  demo- 
ralizes multitudes  so  much  as  the  fear  of  being  in  a  minority,  niul 
the  spectacle  of  parish  after  parish  repudiating  the  Covenanters, 
and  siding  with  the  King,  made  even  those,  who  escaped  the  Com- 
missioners, loathe  to  stir.  There  was  only  one  scare.  A  plot  to 
take  Carrickfergus  Castle  was  detected.  The  Conspirators 
numbered  about  twelve,  half  English,  half  Scotch.  They  were 
arrested  and  one  was  hung.7 

When  Strafford  left  Ireland  all  was  at  peace.    For  the  year 

1)  L.  S.  11-382,  384.  2)  L.  L.  VII— 509,  538.  3)  R.  P.  VIII— 494.  4)  L.  S. 
II- 382.  5)  R.  P.  VIII— 493.  6)  R.  P.-  209.  7)  R.  P.  VIII-511,  512. 


THE  ULSTER  EMEUTE 


6(59 


that  intervened  between  his  departure  and  his  fall,  despite  disaster 
after  disaster  that  fell  on  the  King's  party,  not  a  murmur  came 
from  the  North.  All  the  rest  of  Ireland  remaind  loyal.  It  was 
not  till  after  his  fall  that  the  elements  began  to  stir.  They  stirred 
because  every  detail  of  his  administration  was  reversed,  every 
maxim  of  his  statecraft  discarded,  every  concession  made  to  the 
"ill  disposed",  and  every  discouragement  given  to  the  law  abiding 
and  the  loyal,  without  whose  aid  Governments  are  mere  simulacra 
of  authority. 


PART.  V 

THE  LAND   QUESITON 


Chapter  I 
THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM 


The  people  almost  generally  have  been  taught  to  look  for  other 
resources  than  those  which  can  be  derived  from  order,  frugality,  and 
industry.  Nihil  non  arrogant  armis.  Besides  this  the  retrograde  order 
of  society  has  something  nattering  to  the  dispositions  of  mankind. 

BURKE. 


The  real  clue,  for  instance,  to  the  extraordinary  volume  of 
land.  Those  who  seek  to  solve  the  extraordinary  alliances,  curious 
rebellions,  and  spasms  of  peace  by  the  test  of  religious,  racial,  or 
political  formulae  soon  find  themselves  involved  in  a  morass  of 
bewildering  inconsistencies. 

The  real  clue,  for  instance,  to  the  extraordinary  volume  of 
support  the  Crown  attracted  from  the  bulk  of  the  nation  was  the 
eternal  desire  of  men  for  security  of  agrarian  tenure.  The  Crown, 
with  its  vast  reticulation  of  forces,  its  glamour,  percolating  in- 
fluences, Argus  eyes  and  traditional  authority  was  tne  only  force, 
that  could  guarantee  to  an  owner  of  land  anything  like  perpetuity 
of  possession.  The  mobs  might  evict  for  a  time,  but  an  estate 
depending  on  nothing  but  the  fickle  whims  of  a  local  cabal  fetched 
very  little  in  the  open  market.  Men  preferred  parchment,  with  a 
seal  attached,  and,  on  the  seal,  the  letters  "E.  R."  The  influence 
that  has  lands  at  its  disposal,  is  the  master  of  Ireland. 

The  Tudor  period1  is  the  struggle  of  the  autocracy  with  the 
"Great  ones",  with  men  who  knew  no  law,  save  their  own  wills, 
men  whom  all  Western  Europe  was  determined  to  destroy.  Feu- 
dalism was  fast  approaching  its  end.  How  came  this  Feudalism 
into  being?  Far  back  in  the  ages  Western  Europe  had  sought 
comfort  in  tribes  and  communes,  owning  their  little  areas  in  com- 
mon. From  this  sprang  the  right  of  each  member  of  the  commune 

43 


674  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

to  a  strip  of  the  common  land. *  In  the  17th  century  Sir  John 
Davies  found  in  Fermanagh  "an  exceeding  great  number  of  free- 
holders", each  one  calling  himself  "a  lord",  descendants  of  the 
dominant  clans,  and  still  retaining  certain  of  the  clan  customs. 2 
We  find  relics  of  the  same  intense  zeal  for  agrarian  possession  in 
the  remarkable  subdivision  of  holdings  in  the  backward  regions 
of  Connaught  and  Wicklow,  where  the  land  being  too  rocky  for 
the  barons  to  convert  into  demesne,  clans  bad  every  generation 
divided,  and  subdivided  below  the  economic  level.  In  1604  the 
Crown  escheated  in  Wicklow  70  "estates",  some  of  them  but 
2  acres  in  area. 3  The  Wexf ord  Commissioners  discovered  a 
gentleman  in  possession  of  60  acres  scattered  over  5  "villages", 
so  far  had  divisions  and  reapplotments  of  the  original  common, 
confused  the  once  simple  system.4  One  thing  however  emerges 
clearly  beyond  yea  or  nay.  Common  lands  had  vanished  by  the 
Tudor  period.  Saxon  tribalism  preserved  them  right  down 
through  the  ages.  Celtic  tribalism  "passed"  them  rapidly  into 
private  hands.  Every  effort  to  create  commons  met  with  the  same 
fate  through  what  Straff  ord  used  to  call  "that  wish  to  prefer  par- 
ticular ends  to  the  detriment  of  the  Commonweal".  The  commons 
of  the  Norman  cities  were  short  lived.  The  last  of  them  fell  to  the 
Nugents  in  1589. 5  Those  created  by  James  round  the  Jacobean 
cities  lasted  barely  20  years.  The  Down  survey  shows  that  the 
Jacobean  Commissioners  had  created  a  fair  number  in  1610.  One 
only,  that  of  Killelea,  survives  to-day.  So  perished  the  primitive 
democracies,  based  on  the  primitivie  conception  of  equal  rights 
for  all  to  the  common  land.  In  1613  in  North  Wexford  the  areas 
of  three  tribes  were  held  by  667  persons,  and  14.500  had  no  title 
by  Law,  Tanistry,  custom,  prescription  or  possession.6  When  the 
State  declared  war  on  the  feudal  Lords  and  the  Chiefs — by  no 
means  loved  by  those  landless  serfs — a  large  number  of  those 
without  land  went  with  the  Crown  in  the  hope  that  novae  res 
might  mean  estates  for  all-  At  any  rate  it  meant  exemption  from 
Feudal  dues,  which  were  many  and  manifold. 

The  clans  as  they  grew  had  developed  into  privileged  strip 
owners.  The  ©trip  owners  had  developed  into  something  more 
peculiar.  Primitive  clandon  undoubtedly  had  reserved  the  allo- 

1)  S.  C.— 68.  2)  D.  H.  T.  1—243,  244,  258.  3)  Erck  1—143, 175.  4)  C.  S. 
P.  1620—306.  5)  M.  P.  R.  Elizabeth  p.  189.  6)  H.  C.  1-372-376. 


THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  675 

cation  of  land  to  the  village  council,  and  this  custom  survived  in 
England  in  the  Saxon  period.  It  was  obvious  however  that  this 
could  not  last,  and  the  rise  of  the  princeps  was  inevitable.  He  had 
appeared  in  full  blast  in  Gaul  in  Eoman  times,  when  he  alloted 
the  strips.  The  locus  classicus  for  this  form  of  tenure  is  an  In- 
quisition held  at  Mallow  in  1596.  It  relates  that  certain 
O'Calla'ghans  had  the  right  to  a  strip  of  the  O'Callaghan  lands,  but 
that  O'Callaghan  could  allot  that  strip,  and  could  move  that  tenant 
from  one  strip  to  another.  *  It  was  this  power  the  growth  of  ages, 
the  outcome  of  necessity  and  tradition — two  very  potent 
elements  in  history — that  had  made  the  chiefs  the  great  power 
that  they  were.  One  can  of  course,  instance  cases  where  the  right 
had  fallen  into  desuetude.  One  can  instance,  however,  far  more 
where  it  had  even  extended  to  the  conversion  of  the  clan  area  into 
the  Lord's  demesne.  The  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  chiefs 
were  once  vitally  necessary.  They  emerged  during  that  terrible 
century  when  the  Lancastrian  kings  shivered  on  their  English 
thrones,  when  the  Feudal  barons  ruled  England  and  did  what 
they  listed,  when  Bruce  swept  over  Ulster  and  the  Norman  civili- 
zation perished,  when  every  man  had  to  seek  security  as  best  he 
could,  and  rural  Ireland  fell  back  on  principes,  minor  barons, 
greater  barons,  a  host  of  pashas  operating  under  the  direction  of 
about  a  dozen  great  feudal  Lords.  The  need  for  these  autocracies 
was  now  passing  away.  England  was  consolidated  under  the 
Tudors.  That  virile  dynasty,  assisted  by  many  friends,  was  slowly 
asserting  its  claims  to  the  Irish  throne.  It  rose  over  the  Irish 
horizon  bringing  with  it  law,  order,  patents,  trial  by  judges,  and 
the  common  law,  and  above  all  "freedom  from  their  Lords",  aboli- 
tion of  "tenancies  at  will",  and  "each  man  to  hold  of  the  King". 
Anyone  with  the  faintest  conception  of  the  mentality  of  the 
small  holder — above  all  of  the  Irish  small  holder — will  understand 
how  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Tudors  blossomed  into  Kings  and 
Queens  of  Ireland,  not  only  in  law,  but  in  fact,  Sovereigns  with 
none  above  them  save  the  Almighty,  for  whose  ordnances,  on 
occasions  of  State  policy,  the  Tudors  had  very  little  respect.  This 
however  did  not  mar  their  popularity  in  Ireland.  Land  and 
security  were  Royal  virtues  outweighing  all  other  considerations. 
This  policy,  however,  of  "making  men  hold  of  the  king"  was 

1)  M.P.  R.Elizabeth  p.  261. 

43* 


€76  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

but  subsidiary  to  one  far  greater  import,  but  the  corollary  of  the 
prime  necessity  of  the  moment,  on  which  Prince  and  people  were 
at  one,  madly,  ferociously  and  sincerely  at  one.  The  terrible 
history  of  the  Tudor  epoch,  the  ferocities,  executions,  assassina- 
tions, burnings,  devastations,  all  of  which  seem  dignified  and 
stately  compared  with  the  slime  and  stench  of  mediaevalism 
which  stains  every  page  of  the  State  papers,  had  their 
origin  and  justification  in  the  one  hope  of  civilization,  the 
disarmament  of  the  feudal  barons,  the  abolition  of  the  right 
of  one  subject  to  "make  war"  on  another.  Admit  that  prin- 
ciple and  we  perish  !  During  the  hundred  years  of  the  Lancastrian 
•epoch,  when  the  right  was  admitted,  the  population  of  virile  Eng- 
land actually  sank.  England  evolved  the  Tudors  to  remedy  that 
disease,  just  as  a  century  later  she  produced  Cromwell,  and  as,  in 
another  century,  France  fell  back  on  Napoleon.  He  who  cares  to 
read  the  County  histories  of  England  during  the  15th  century 
will  understand  why  a  race  that  loved  liberty  more  than  any  other 
in  Europe  hailed  with  joy  an  Oriental  despotism.  Ireland  a  genera- 
tion later  was  moved  by  the  same  emotion. 

It  stands  to  reason  that  a  King  is  no  King,  unles  he  has  a  body- 
guard. In  fact  the  reason  why  humanity  evolves  Kings  is  that  there 
must  be  some  one  to  rule  the  professional  soldiers,  who,  by  nature, 
pay  little  regard  to  senates,  even  if  composed  of  philosophers  and 
angels.  The  early  tribes  had  a  loose  system  called  Bonnaght, 
whereby  the  Chief,  then  more  a  headman  than  a  king,  could  tax 
the  strip  owners  to  maintain  an  army  of  protectors.1  Tacitus 
says  that  the  German  tribes  always  maintained  professional  sol- 
diers, and,  when  a  tribe  was  at  peace,  they  took  service  under  a 
neighbour.  During  the  Norman  regime  we  hear  little  of  this  in- 
stitution. Contrary  to  tradition  the  Norman  rule  of  Ireland  was 
singularly  peaceful.  Wars  there  were,  but^they  were  few  and  rare, 
compared  with  those  of  a  later  generation.  On  the  invasion  of 
Bruce  this  civilization  collapsed.  Ulster  disappears  ^nto  anarchy 
and  devastation.  Connaught  relapsed  into  a  curious  mixture  of 
semi-feudalism,  semi  tribalism.  Munster  and  Leinster  fell  back 
on  this  bonnacht  and  stemmed  the  tide  of  reaction  by  the  creation 
of  a  military  caste.  The  Earl  of  Desmond  placed  all  Munster 
under  Bonnaght  or  Coigne  and  Livery.  Every  land  owner  paid 

1)  D.  H.  T.  1-132. 


THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  677 

tribute  for  this  protection.  Desmond  in  one  short  year  raised  his- 
Palatinate  revenue  from  1.000  marks  to  £  10.000,  and  became  de 
facto  master  of  a  Province.1  With  the  revenue  so  obtained  he 
stemmed  the  tide  of  anarchy  and  invasion,  but  the  price  paid  was 
heavy.  The  infection  spread  all  over  Ireland.  Coigne  and  Livery 
became  the  great  feather  in  the  feudal  cap.  It  was  the  sinews  of 
war.  It  made  one  subject  into  a  Baronial  captain.  It  reduced  the 
rest  to  tenants  at  will.  A  baron  with  armed  men  at  his  disposal, 
and  no  Deputy  or  Sheriff  to  hold  him  in  check,  was  a  much  more 
aggressive  personality  than  a  modern  Landlord,  bound1  with  the 
fetters  of  the  common  law,  hampered  by  convention,  and  compelled 
to  act  only  through  the  magistrate  and  the  policeman.  Coigne 
and  Livery  too  were  indefinable.  The  other  feudal  incidents  were 
defined,  so  much  support  for  so  many  men  so  many  times  a  year. 
This,  however,  was  "horse  meat  and  man's)  meat  for  whatever 
company  the  Lord  pleases,  whenever  it  pleases  him  to  come".  Let 
a  tenant  or  a  tributary  offend  his  overlord,  and  this  weapon  was 
at  the  Lord's  command.  It  had  arisen  out  of  dire  necessity,  for 
great  purposes,  every  where  applauded.  It  had1  culminated  in  the 
worst  tyranny  (under  which  Ireland  ever  groaned.  The  State 
Papers  are  one  long  screed  of  lamentation  on  the  part  of  minor 
men,  imploring  the  Crown  to  enter  in  and  abolish  (these  "uncertain 
exactions".  Great  Lords  themselves  appear  urging  the  Deputy  to 
rid  them  of  the  supremacy  of  one  greater  than  them.  All  "the 
Captains  of  Ulster",  themselves  men  of  power,  one  time  petitioned 
Elizabeth  to  free  them  from  the  "Bonnaght  and  bordenous  im- 
positions" of  Tirlagh  Lynagh  O'Neill.2  Under  them  were  minor 
Chiefs  clamouring  for  a  like  relief.  The  whole  system  was  on  the 
verge  of  collapse,  and  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  is  the  revolt  of  the 
whole  country,  from  "the  uncertain  exactions"  of  feudalism. 

The  Tudors  were  not  humanitarians.  Of  the  modern  spirit 
of  social  uplift  for  the  lower  classes  they  had  none.  They  had 
however  an  outlook  on  life,  which  can  only  be  summed  up  in  one 
phrase  "L'Etat  c'est  Moi".  Elizabeth  was  the  State,  the  nation,  the 
people,  the  personification  of  the  multitude.  She  identified  herself 
with  the  many  headed  multitudes  of  these  Islands.  If  they  were 
prosperous  so  was  she.  Their  enemies  were  hers.  No  demagogue 
of  to-day  has  ever  captured  a  tithe  of  this  curious  spirit,  this 

1)  D.  H.  T.  1—143, 144.        2)  M.  P.  R.  Elizabeth  p.  66. 


THE  LAND  QUESTION 

mixture  of  benevolent  despotism  and  unerring  instinct  for  the 
whims  of  public  opinion.  What  was  more,  what  was  the  real  secret 
of  the  strength  of  this  dynasty  was  that  it  would  tolerate  no  great 
subject.  By  law,  by  force,  by  diplomacy,  by  intrigue,  by  execu- 
tions, assassinations,  and,  on  occasions  by  poison  the  Tudors 
pursued  this  aim  relentlessly,  and  with  all  the  determination  of  the 
Tudor  character.  In  doing  this  they  were  but  fulfillingthe  national 
desire.  Any  method  and  every  method  was  employed  by  suffering 
humanity  to  rear  some  residuum  of  authority,  some  form  of  State 
with  a  visible  and  active  head,  ableito  say  "this  shalt  thou  do,  and 
this  shalt  thou  not  do",  and  to  say  it  fearlessly  to  "men  of  power", 
and  to  punish  disobedience  with  death,  so  that  the  ordinary 
subject  could  live  in  peace. 

Now  Coigne  and  Livery  was  the  negation  of  this.  It  was  the 
war-tax  of  the  anarchs.  With  it  they  were  captains  of  seignories. 
Without  it  they  were  no  better  than  John  Doe  or  Richard  Roe. 
Against  this  practice  the  State  waged  a'  bitter  and  unceasing  war. 
The  Statutes  of  tthe  Irish  Parliament  on  this  subject  are  savage 
in  their  intensity.  It  was  treason  to  levy  Coigne  and'  Livery.  To 
pay  it  was  a  misdemeanure.  To  complain  of  it  elicited  a  reward. 
Patent  after  patent  is  studded  with  covenants  against  its  renewal. 
Every  Chief  "on  submission"  had  to  swear  never  to  enforce  it 
again. 

Never  was  there  such  a  popular  cry.  All  the  cities,  all  the 
Pale,  all  the  minor  men  throughout  Ireland,  all  the  rivals  of  the 
existing  chieftains  stampeded  madly  in  the  direction  of  the  Crown. 
Here  is  a  typical  indenture.  "Indenture  between  the  Lord  Deputy 
and  Council  and  Edmond  Duff  and  the  Freeholders  of  Kinsella. 
We  exonerate  Duff  and  the  freeholders  from  the  extortions  they 
have  sustained  from  the  Kavanaghs,  whereby  they  were  much 
oppressed  and  impoverished."  Then  follows  a  patent  for  their 
lands,  and  a  rent  .of  20  sheep  and  29  pecks  of  oats.  *  Here  is 
another  glimpse  of  the  Earl  of  Desmond's  hegemony,  the  Earl 
who  had  insisted  on  his  right  and  his  right  alone  to  rule  Munster. 
"The  Septs  of  McCarthy,  Sir  Owen  MacCarthy's  son,  McCarthy 
Reagh,  the  sept  called  the  O'Driscolls  and  the  sept  called  the 
O'Sullivans  in  the  last  troublesome  rebellion  and  before  showed 


1)  M.  P.  R.  Edward  VI-288. 


THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  679 

themselves  most  dutiful  and  loyal  subjects."1  Here  is  a  petition 
of  the  Macgheogans.  "We  cannot  endure  Brian's  Irish  exactions. 
Discharge  us  thereof." ' 

It  was  these  "exactions"  that  had  reduced  the  strip  owners 
to  the  level  of  serfs.   It  was  by  these  exactions  that  the  chiefs  had 
risen  to  their  mighty  eminence.    Apart  from  custom  which  sanc- 
tifies many  abuses,  their  military  power  had  enabled  them,  at  the 
close    of   the  Lancastrian   era,   to   extend  them   far  beyond   the 
originally  light  tribute  for  protection.    Here  is  ,an  example  of  a 
chieftain  extending  his  exactions  over  his  neighbour,  "O'Eourke 
to  the  Lord  of  Killeen.    "I  make  suit  unto  you  for  the  good  horse 
you  have.   For  the  same  I  will  bind  myself  yours  to  command  in 
everything,  not  ,doing  you  any  hurt.    If  you  do  not  send  me  the 
same  horse  I  will,  with  the  help  of  my  friends,  go  to  your  house 
where  I  will  not  in  the  way  of  courtesy  crave  anything  at  your 
hands"."3   In  two  centuries  this  process  of  blackmail  and  tribute 
had  turned  the  original  strips  of  the  freemen  into  plots,  to  which 
they  were  adscripti,  on  which  they  laboured  to  maintain  hordes 
of  philibusterers.    What  a  chasm  lay  between  the  overlord  with 
his  janissaries  and  the  clansmen,  is  revealed  by  a  description  of 
Fermanagh.    There  the  Crown  Commissioners  found  that  none 
of  the  clansmen  save  two,  had  been  in  rebellion,  and  that  the  chief 
had  held  his  realm  in  awe  by  professional  "men  of  action"  im- 
ported from  Connaught. 4    The  cost  of  this  imposition  must  have 
been  enormous.    In  the  Stuart  epoch  the  Crown  bad  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  collecting  taxes  for  a  modest  army  of  2.000  men,  and 
that  at  a  time  when  the  country  was  basking  in  prosperity.   The 
number  of  swords  men  retained  by  the  chiefs  must  have  exceeded 
20.000  and  this  does  not  include  their1  dogboys,  bards,  servants  and 
peaceful    retinue.     How  far  these  exactions  had  eaten  into  the 
economic  value  of  the  free  strips  is  revealed  in  the  pages  of  the 
Inquisitions.    If  a  freeholder  was  slain  in  rebellion  hisi  estate  was 
escheated.    The  commissioners  then  estimated  the  value  of  the 
escheat  accrueing  to  the  Exchequer.    They  had'  first  to  value  the 
plot,  and  then  deduct  the  value  of  all  the  different  dues  accrueing 
to   different   Lords,    the  Local   Chief,   the  Overlord,   the   March 
Captain,  the  great  one  of  the  Province,  and,  of  course,  the  Im- 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1592-12.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1592-63.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1595-478. 

4)  D.  H.  T.  1—255. 


680  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

propriator  of  the  tithes.  The  Locus  Classicus  for  this  state  of 
affairs  is  an  Inquisition  held  at  Newcastle  in  1604.  The  average 
value  of  the  land  "free  of  reprisals,  impositions  and  other  charges" 
is  Id  an  acre,  a  third1  of  the  abnormally  low  rental  placed  on  plan- 
ters in  the  plantations.  1  When  the  commissioners  were  dealing 
with  the  Desmond  estate  this  was  exactly  the  state  of  'affairs  they 
found.  They  related  that  the  innumerable  dues  were  "greater 
than  all  the  profit  of  the  land  could  then  or  now  can  answer". 2 

This  aspect  of  the  agrarian  question  is  of  vital  importance. 
It  was  the  development  of  these  dues  that  brought  feudalism 
down  with  a  crash.  It  was  their  abolition  by  the  Crown  that  drew 
the  teeth  of  the  fiery  dragons  of  Celtic  septom.  What  is  more  it 
explains  the  equanimity,  with  which  the  small  holders  regarded 
the  escheat  of  their  strips  in  the  plantations.  These  strips  were 
so  burdened  with  a  multitude  of  dues  that  they  were  worthless. 
WJhen  an  owner  surrendered  his  plot  and  got  in  lieu  a  60  years' 
lease  at  a  fixed  rent,  it  was,  as  it  were,  a  promotion  from  serfdom 
to  liberty. 

Feudalism  could  not  resist  the  revolt  of  the  minor  men  when 
supported  by  the  Crown.  Least  of  all  could  it  do  so  when,  in  each 
compound,  the  Lord  had  rivals  to  his  throne,  and  on  his  borders 
angry  enemies.  The  crash  came  when  Bingham  entered  Connaught 
and,  by  a  little  diplomacy,  compounded  all  Coigne  and  Livery 
for  Id  an  acre.  For  12  years  he  ruled  that  Province  without  asking 
the  exchequer  for  a  penny,  and  ruled  it  with  Irish  soldiers  and 
Irish  "risings  out".  On  the  fall  of  Desmond  all  the  impositions 
were  destroyed  as  in  Connaught,  and  a  composition  to  the  Crown 
paid  instead.  Wherever  the  movement  spread  this  was  the  Im- 
perial method,  a  tax  to  the  Crown  to  enable  it  to  abolish  Coigne 
and  Livery.  By  the  reign  of  James  it  was  dead.  It  was  a  crime 
to  revive  it,  or  to  extend  any  existing  feudal  incidents.  The  great 
Lords  were  now  but  as  ordinary  subjects — everywhere  except  in 
Connaught,  where  by  political  influence  in  Dublin,  they  procured 
patents,  perpetuating  all  the  feudal  incidents  to  themselves,  while 
exempting  themselves  from  feudal  incidents  to  the  Crown.3 

1)  Erke  1-142-151.  2)  C.  P.  S.  1592-4.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


Chapter  II 
THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES 

In  all  mutations  —  if  mutations  there  must  be  —  the  circumstances 
which  will  serve  most  to  blunt  the  edge  of  the  mischief,  and  to  pro- 
mote what  good  may  be  in  them,  is,  that  they  should  find  us  with  our 
minds  tenacious  of  justice,  and  tender  of  property.  BURKE. 

At  the  same  moment  as  the  country  was  seething  with  civil 
war  over  the  feudal  dues  and  incidences,  the  question  of  the 
tenures  rose  into  prominence.  These  dues  were  originally  tributes 
for  protection.  In  the  lapse  of  time  they  had  approximated  to 
rent,  and  from  that  the  transition  to  ownership  was  easy.  The 
State  was  now  arising  as  the  protector  of  the  subject.  The  eyes 
of  men  were  looking  to  the  Sovereign  'as  the  overlord.  The  justice 
and  expediency  of  the  dues  was  ceasing  to  be  apparent.  With  their 
lapse  the  minor  men  began  to  claim  their  plots  as  their  own,  and 
the  lords  to  insist  that  all  the  area  over  which  they  levied  black- 
mail was  theirs  in  demesne. 

It  is  useless  at  this  date  to  argue  the  pros  and  cons  of  this 
question.  Historians  who  are  eloquent  on  the  wrongs  of  the 
Lords,  or  the  rights  of  the  tenants,  forget  that,  in  every  parish, 
there  was  a  different  system.  He  who  wishes  can  find  clans  with  all 
their  independent  clan  rights,  areas  where  the  freeholders  were  free- 
holders, areas  where  the  Lords  had  .the  right  to  move  the  tenants, 
areas  where  they  had  not,  baronies  held  in  demesne  with  all  the 
tenants  as  serfs,  monocracies,  oligarchies,  confederations,  demo- 
cracies, communes,  devastations,  wastes,  'Congested  districts,  vast 
grazing  tracts,  and  densely  packed  uneconomic  strips.  One  can 
no  more  generalize  on  the  rural  problem  than  on  the  developement 
of  Christianity.  We  can,  however,  lay  it  down  as  a  general  rule, 
that  Ireland  had  developed  into  fifty  or  sixty  monocracies  under 


682  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

about  a  dozen  Palatinate  Lords,  with  -all  power  slowly  converging 
into  the  hand's  of  the  reigning  chiefs.  De  facto  this  was  the 
general  rule  though  there  are  many  exceptions.  The  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Munster  Plantation  received  orders  to  escheat  the 
Earl  of  Desmond's  demesne,  but  to  pass  to  the  minor  men  their 
freehold  strips  for  which  they  had  paid  tribute  and  not  rent.  The 
Commissioners  spent  years  over  the  problem.  Here  is  one  of  their 
reports.  "It  could  never  be  decided  whether  the  chargeable  lands 
were  the  traitor's  inheritance  that  had  the  rents  and  spending 
thereof,  or  whether  they  were  the  lawful  inheritance  of  such  the 
tenants,  whose  ancestors  had  enjoyed  the  possession  thereof  many 
descents.  It  is  probable  that,  in  the  beginning,  6ome  of  the 
tenants  were  freeholders,  and  others  but  tenants-at-will  to  Des- 
mond. How  to  distinguish  them  we  know  not."  In  this  case  the 
Commissioners'  solution  was  to  leave  the  minor  men  the  land, 
subject  to  "the  certain  rents"  they  used  to  pay  Desmond,  and  a 
composition  of  Id  an  acre  in  lieu  of  the  Coigne  and  Livery. 1  In 
this  Province  the  reallocation  of  an  area  of  something  like  4  mil- 
lion acres  took  aibout  eight  years.  The  claims  of  Desmond's  Cap- 
tains over  minor,  men,  of  minor  men  over  'clansmen,  of  clansmen 
over  serf's  involved  much  legal  ingenuity.  In  the  end  a  large  pro- 
prietary of  minor  men  were  created  in  East  Cork,  South  Tipperary 
and  Limerick,  of  clansmen  in  West  Cork,  and  of  seignoral  Lords 
in  North  West  Cork  and  'the  greater  part  of  Kerry.  The  Books 
of  Survey  and  Distribution  show  that  this  was  the  general  tenor 
of  the  tenures  on  the  eve  of  1641.  In  the  Jacobean  epoch  the 
greatest  territorial  proprietor  in  the  South  of  Ireland  was  Daniel 
McCarthy  Riogh  "a  man  of  great  dependency  on  the  sea  cost  in 
County  Cork",  and  Sir  Donogh  McCarthy,  subsequently  Lord 
Muskerry,  a  greater  owner  of  Church'  Lands  even  than  the  Earl 
of  Cork.  These  two  Lords  seem  to  have  retained  all  their  estates 
in  demesne,  but  the  O'Sullivan  area  was  subdivided  among  minor 
men.  In  this  we  see  the  general  tenor  of  the  whole  land  settle- 
ment. The  Crown  took  the  line  of  least  resistance  everywhere, 
when  state  policy  did  not  compel  it  to  do  otherwise.  When  the 
chiefs  were  in  possession,  and  when  a  subdivision  would  only 
provoke  upheaval  the  -chief  got  the  lands.  When  the  minor  men 
were  active  the  chief  was  cut  down  to  his  demesne.  All  were  liable 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1589—256. 


STATES  683 

'to  a  head  rent  and  a  composition  in  lieu  of  cess,  the  latter  of  which 
amounted  to  £  1.200  per  annum  in  Munster. x  The  Crown  seems 
to  have  "passed"  away  large  slices  of  the  Desmond  demesne  to 
satisfy  conflicting  claims,  as  all  it  retained  as  Crown  property  for 
division  among  undertakers  was  202,099 -acres.  When  we  remember 
the  vast  Desmond  hegemony  and  the  large  number  of  freeholders 
slain  in  rebellion,  it  is  impossible  to  regard:  this  as  the  maximum 
average  that  should  have  legally  come  to  the  Crown. 2  Suffice  it 
to  say  th'at,  for  half  a  century,  there  was  perfect  peace  in  Munster, 
thou!gh  the  Government  had  some  difficulty  in  collecting  its  rents 
and  compositions. 

Munster  was  an  easy  problem  with  which  to  deal.  The  defeat 
and  death  of  the  Earl  of  Desmond  had)  given  it  an  escheat  of  the 
whole  Province,  and  compulsory  powers  over  something  like  four 
million  acres,  though  these  pow,ers,  of  course,  were  severely 
restricted  by  the  difficulty  of  doing  what  the  authorities  wished. 
On  paper  the  Crown  had  similar  powers  elsewhere.  The  Earldom 
of  Ulster  had  come  to  the  Crown  through  the  Mortimers.  That 
great  Palatinate  involved1  all  Connaught  and1  Ithe  greater  part  of 
Ulster.  On  the  accession  of  the  Tudors  the  Imperial  authorities 
began  to  re-assert  all  the  Imperial  titles,  which  had  lapsed  during 
the  Lancastrian  regime.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  the  Irish 
Parliament  re-asserted  the  Royal  title  to  (these  hegemonies,  and, 
as  in  the  stirs,  the  records  in  the  castle  of  Trim  had  been  burnt, 
it  was  decreed  thaft  the  onus  of  proof  of  title  was  to  lie  on  the 
occupier,  and  not  on  the  Crown.  a  To  us  in  these  days  of  statutes 
of  Limitation,  such  a  title  may  seem  a  strain  of  legal  quibbles. 
In  those  days  it  was  not  so.  The  Earldom  of  Ulster  was  a  title 
wherewith  to  iconjure.  If  Henry  VII.  chose  to  assert  his  seignoral 
rights,  he  was  doing  what  was  in  the  eyes  of  all  men  right  and 
proper.  Those  'assertions  of  title  too  approximated  far  more  to 
seignoral  rights  than  ownership  in  fee,  and,  as  things  were  in 
that  'century,  as  a  rule,  men  preferred  to  have  the  King  as  their 
overlord  than  Clanricard  or  O'Neill.  Irish  chiefs  living  at  their 
doors  knew  how  to  ke,ep  them  in  order.  A  King  in  London  was 
a  much  more  facile  Landlord.  The  Statute  of  Absentees  was  even 
more  effective.  The  Palatinate  Lordships  of  about  half  a  dozen 
great  Norman  lords,  who  had  retired  to  England  in  the  stirs,  were 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1592—53.       2)  C.  S.  P.  1292—57.       3)  Act.  10.  H.  VII. 


684  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

resumed  by  the  authority  that  had  created  them. x  In  all  these 
areas,  where  patents,  or  feoffments,  or  Church  grants  had  not 
"passed  parcels  away"  the  Crown  was  legal  master,  and  could  say 
who  was  to  have  this  plot,  and  who  was  to  have  that.  When  we 
remember  that  for  200  years  wave  after  wave  of  invasion  and 
revolution  had  surged  over  these  territories,  that  the  conflicting 
claims  of  clans  and  dynasts  depended  on  nothing  but  the  sword, 
and  seldom  on  long  possession,  the  legal  fiction  whereby  the 
Sovereign  became  the  .actual  owner,  and  the  final  arbiter,  was  the 
only  method  whereby  this  vast  agricultural  embroilment  could  be 
lulled. 

On  the  defeat  of  the  Earl  of  Kildare  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  Ireland  became  aware  that  /a  new  force  had  arisen 
on  the  political  horizon.  Like  one  man  the  overlords  stampeded 
across  to  England  to  hail  the  rising  star.  O'Xeill,  Maguire, 
O'Donnell,  Fitzpatrick,  Burke,  O'Brien,  and  ia  host  of  minor  fry 
paid  homage,  received  gifts,  gowns,  money,  town  houses  and  above 
all  patents.  From  these  patents  sprang  much  trouble.  They  are 
extant.  Their  wording  is  careful.  That  of  Con  O'Neill's  is  "All 
the  manors  and'  lordships  which  he  formerly  possessed". 2  That 
of  Burkes  is  "the  castles  iand  miamors  which  he  holds  or  formerly 
held".  That  of  O'Brien's  is  "all  the  castles  and  manors  which  he 
at  any  time  possessed".  To  minor  chieftains,  subordinate  to  these 
overlords,  the  King  "granted  their  lands".31  The  clue  to  these 
patents  lies  in  the  words  "possessed".  The  Lord's  demesne  was 
all  that  he  "possessed".  It  is  as  clear  ias  noonday  that  all 
Henry  VIII.  ever  meant  to  grant  to  these  tenants  in  chief  were 
their  demesnes  and  chiefries,  the  lands  round1  their  castles  and 
the  feudal  incidents.  All  the  patents  carefully  rule  out  "cess" 
as  an  il  legal  exaction.  If  he  had  meant,  for  instance,  to  give 
O'Brien  the  Thomond  Palatinate  in  fee,  why  did  he  draft  a  letter 
for  the  MacNamaras  and  the  O'Gradys?  To  give  these  Palatinates 
away  would  have  reduced  the  Earldom  of  Ulster  to  a  nullity. 
Mr.  Butler  in  his  "Policy  of  Surrender  and  Regnant"  suggests 
that  Henry  VIII.  did  grant  the  Palatinates,  but,  on  the  under- 
standing that  the  Lords,  were  to  create  subtenures.  This  view  is 
nearer  the  truth  than  the  popular  theory  that  he  divided  up 

1)  Act.  28.  H.  VIII.  Cap.  3.  2)  M.  P.  R.  H.  VIII-85.  3)  M.  P.  R.  H. 

VilI-86, 87. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  685 

whole  coun'ties  among  one  or  two  men.  That  this  policy  of  passing 
areas  to  chiefs  "in  trust"  for  subdivision  was  once  or  twice 
essayed  with  minor  lords  by  J/ames  is  undoubted,  but  the  grant 
to  O'Briens  feudatories,  arid  to  minor  chieftains  under  Burke 
destroys  this  theory.  Davies  who  lived  nearer  to  those  times  than 
we  do  tore  to  shreds  Hugh  O'Neill's  claim  to  hold  all  his  tri- 
butaries as  tenants  at  will  by  means  of  his.  ancestor's  letter  from 
Henry  VIII.  "There  is  no  shadow  or  colour  of  doubt  in  this 
case,  "he  wrote.  "The  words  of  grant  are  general,  viz  "annes, 
terras,  tenementa,  hereditamenta,  quae  modo  habet  vel  dudum 
habuit  in  Tirone."  The  truth  is  that  in  those  parts  Con  O'Neill 
had  only  a  chief ry  of  15  cows,  a  rising  out  of  men,  &nd  was  not 
owner  of  the  land  in  demesne.  The  Earl  should  sue  for  his  chiefry 
only.  The  patents  to  O'Brien  and  McWilliam,  passed  at  the  same 
time,  have  the  same  general  words,  yet  neither  of  these  two  did 
ever  presume  to  dispossess  the  ancient  freeholders  of  their  several 
countries.  My  Lord  of  Thomond  was  granted  all  the  lands  which 
his  ancestors  had  on  the  West  of  the  Shannon,  yet  the  freeholders 
hold  without  contradiction  of  the  Earl,  whereas,  if  he  were  to 
make  them  tenants-at-will,  such  as  the  Earl  of  Tirone  would  make 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Tirone,  his  revenue  would!  be  increased 
seven  fold,  a  thing  which  this  Earl  (who  is  the  best  husband  of 
his  estate  that  ever  was  of  the  mere  Irish)  would  not  let  pass,  if 
it  stood  with  the  law  and  his  duty  to  bring  it  to  pass.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  Earl  of  Clanricard.  Both  being  obedient  to 
the  law  did  not  make  any  such  unlawful  and  unreasonable 
changes."1 

Sir  John  Davies'  view  was  subsequently  corroborated  by 
Thomond  himself.  That  nobleman  was  very  intimate  with  the 
State,  When  State  policy  in  the  Stuart  era  pressed  to  its  extreme 
the  creation  of  freeholders  all  over  Ireland*,  Thomond  reorganized 
all  his  Palatinate,  dividing  it  up  in  tenures  in  capite.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  he  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  Palatinate  Lords, 
who  had  great  official  powers  in  their  areas.  A  Eoyal  letter  of 
Charles  I.  reveals  the  fact  that  neither  Thomond  nor  the  Crown 
lawyers  regarded  the  Tudor  Patent,  or  any  subsequent  letters  or 
warrant  as  vesting  in  the  Earl  the  right  to  "pass"  estates  outside 
his  demesne,  and  yet  inside  his  Palatinate.2  Furthermore,  if  this 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1607—211, 212.         2)  M.  P.  R.  Ch.  1—220-230. 


686  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

patent  had  any  intention  of  passing  to  the  Earl  all  Clare,  Strat- 
ford could  never  have  been  able  to  procure  a  Royal  title  to  Tho- 
mond,  as  he  did  in  1636.  "A  clear  and  undoubted  title",  he  calls 
it,  passed  with  the  consent  of  the  Earl  of  Thomond.1  The  same 
consideration  applies  to  the  Earl  of  Clanricard's  patent.  When 
Straff ord  sought  a  Royal  title  to  Galway,  the  recalcitrant  jury  of 
Burkes  never  grounded'  their  opposition  on  the  Tudor  patent,  but 
on  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  claim  the  Mortimer  inheritance.'2 
The  subsequent  disputes  between  Strafford  and  Clanricarde  cent- 
red completely  round  the  question  of  how  much  of  Connaught 
was  Clanricarde's  demesne. 

Thus  we  get  the  first  germs  of  the  land  policy  of  the  Tudors 
and  Stuarts.  The  chiefs  were  to  be  given  their  demesnes  in  fee, 
Coigne  and  Livery  was  to  be  abolished,  and  the  minor  men  were 
"to  hold  of  the  King".  This  even  further  embroiled  the  situation. 
The  chiefs  were  not  hereditary.  They  were  chosen  from  a  mili- 
tary caste  of  one  or  two  families  in  the  area.  The  death  of  a 
Chief,  in  possession  of  a  patent,  let  loose  some  stormy  passions. 
There  was  his  heir  by  English  law.  There  was  a  rival  elected  by 
tanistry  by  a  general  election  of  the  free  clansmen.  There  was 
the  rival  of  the  strong  hand,  one  who  was  able  to  gather  a  band 
of  swordsmen.  Sometimes  too  there  was  a  rival  by  State  policy, 
one  who  assured  the  Government  he  would  "maintain  the  law 
and  hold  of  the  Queen",  if  supported  against  the  others.  Miler 
Magrath  has  left  on  record  a  careful  analysis  of  all  the  claimants 
among  half  a  dozen  Ulster  clans.  It  reveals  a  furious  internecine 
struggle  in  Ulster  feudalism,  each  candidate  obviously  anxious 
to  get  the  Crown  sanction,  and  to  prevent  his  rival  or  rivals  pro- 
curing it  in  advance.  This  analysis  of  the  internal  pandemonium 
of  waning  feudalism  reveals  why  it  was  that  central  and  imperial 
Governments  were  rising  all  over  Western  Europe.  Humanity 
would  not  and  could  not  tolerate  in  a  small  country  fifty  or  sixty 
independent  reguli,  beset  by  three  times  the  number  of  rivals.3 

All  the  later  days  of  the  Tudors  were  spent  in  pursueing 
this  policy.  Politics,  religion,  racial  dissensions,  all  those  questions 
which  superficial  historians  assume  to  be  the  motive  power 
of  a  country's  upheavals,  are,  in  this  case,  dominated  completely 

1)  L.  S.  11-93,  98.    2)  C.P.B.I— 139, 151, 152.    3)  C.  S.  P.  1592-497-500. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  687 

by  claims  to  land.  Sometimes  it  is  a  chief  demanding  a  patent 
for  all  his  hegemony.  Sometimes  it  is  his  rivals  demanding  their 
share.  Sometimes  it  is  the  minor  men  in  revolt  against  such 
patents.  Sometimes  it  is  chiefs  and  clans  claiming  the  lands  of 
other  chiefs  and  'dans.  The  grievances,  complaints,  and  demands 
are  always  in  regard  to  land,  and  every  "rising  out"  is  terminated 
by  a  distribution  of  land.  The  greatest  upheaval  of  the  century, 
"the  rising)  outh"  of  Hugh  O'Neill,  began  with  an  agrarian  dispute, 
and  the  terms  on  which  he  "came  in"  were  that  Henry  VIIFs 
patent  to  his  ancestor  was  to  stand  good.  Then  O'Cahane  declared 
he  was  not  a  tenant  of  O'Neill,  but  only  a  tributary.  The  Crown 
supported  O'Cahane  and  O'Neill  fled  the  country.  Then  O'Cahane 
demanded  all  his  area  in  fee,  and  the  Crown  refused,  and  he  dis- 
appears from  the  scene. 

The  reign  of  the  Stuarts  opens  with  the  collapse  of  the 
"Great  Ones"  and  -agrarian  confusion  everywhere,  a  welter  of 
contradictory  patents,  wrung  at  different  times  for  political  con- 
siderations, and  enormous  areas  to  which  many  laid  claim,  and 
to  which  no  one  had  a  legal  title.  The  reign  of  James  opens  with 
three  important  Acts  of  state.  The  first  was  a  Proclamation  that 
all  titles  by  tanistry  were  to  be  good  in  law  between  one  subject 
and  another.1  This  meant  that,  pending  legal  proceedings,  the 
Crown  would  support  the  possessor  of  each  strip.  It  meant  that 
the  chief  could  not  move  men  .from  one  strip  to  another.  It  meant 
that,  on  the  death  of  a  strip  owner,  his  strip  descended  to  his  heir, 
and  was  not  divided  between  his  family  or  the  members  of  the 
clan.  The  second  was  a  proclamation  forbidding  the  increase  of 
any  existing  dues,  rendering  illegal  all  dues  not  stipulated  in 
leases,  or  fixed  by  custom,  all  duee  "uncertain",  assessed  by  the 
"will  of  the  Lord".2  The  third  was  a  proclamation  setting  on 
foot  a  Commission  of  defective  Titles,  before  which  every  strip 
owner  and  Lord — one  could  appeal  without  the  other — was  en- 
titled to  appear,  bringing  .evidence  as  regards  the  dimension  of 
his  strip,  or  demesne,  or  dues,  and  the  Commission  had  power  to 
grant  a  full  legal  title. 3  Through  the  medium  of  this  latter  body 
the  Crown  set  to  work  to  decide  all  the  disputes  between  Chief 
.and  Chief,  Chief  and  rivals,  chief  and  clansmen,  in  regard  to 

1)  H.  M.  C.  XII— 315 ;  Davies.  Law  Reports.  2)  P.  R.  J.  p.  419.  3)  B.  L. 
—18, 19;  Case  of  Tenures,  Santry.  1639. 


688  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

boundaries,  title,  rent,  and  dues,  while  reserving  to  itself  in  each 
composition  some  rent  or  tenure  profitable  to  itself. 

Antrim  and  Down  alone  reveal  how  dangerous  it  is  to  ge- 
neralize on  the  Jacobean  land  settlement.  On  the  accession  of 
James  the  McDonnell  of  Antrim  adjourned  to  London.  There  he 
received  a  warrant  for  the  Northern  half  of  Antrim. l  James'  sign 
manual  urges  the  hksty  enactment  of  this  patent  to  "preserve  him 
from  the  violence  of  bad  kinsmen". 2  The  Dublin  Council  drafted 
a  patent,  studded  with  covenants,  in  which  we  can  detect  their 
determination  to  ,see  that  he  created  manors,  and  in  each  manor 
"for  his  life"  estates  to  his  tenants.3  Eandell  McDonnell  then 
approached  James  with  a  complaint  that  his  patent  contained  so 
many  covenants  that  he  was  in  peril  of  escheat  for  non-fulfil- 
ment. 4  He  surrendered  his  patent  and  piaissed  a  new  patent  with 
all  the  previous  grants,  liberties  and  powers,  .and  not  a  solitary 
covenant  or  mention  of  leases  or  subgrants.5  What  he  told  the 
King,  what  the  Dublin  Council  intended,  what  the  views  of  his 
tenants  were  are  all  wriapt  in  mystery.  All  we  do  know  is  that 
James  was  wrathful,  and  the  warrant  ordering  the  new  grant 
fulminated  threats  "against  all  persons  inclined  to  do  Sir  Eandell 
wrong".6  From  this  patent,  piassed  for  political,  racial,  and  per- 
sonal reasons  by  James  sprang  a  host  of  difficulties. 

A  patent  such  was  this  was  of  far  greater  import  than  the 
gift  of  a  constituency  to-day.  It  spelt  great  political  power.  What 
added  to  the  danger  was  that  this  area  lay  next  to  Scotland, 
Western  Scotland  wais  all  that  time  the  most  desturbed  area  in 
the  three  Kingdoms.  The  constant  migrations,  emigrations,  and 
remigrations  of  Scots  and  Ulstermen  between  Ulster  and  Western 
Scotland  made  both  areas  one  body  political.  The  O'Neill  who 
preceded  Hugh  O'Neill  was  married  to  a  Princesis  of  the  House 
of  Argyle.  The  Earl  of  Argyle  threatened  to  invade  Ulster  when 
Hugh  O'Neill  hung  one  of  Shane  O'Neill's  surviving  sons.  In 
fact  he  provided  the  Deputy  with  Scots  to  fight  Hugh  O'Neill, 
and  held  up  mercennaries  which  Hugh  O'Neill  had  employed.7 
Argyle  laid  claim  to  Antrim.  McDonnell  laid  claim  to  the 
Western  Isles.  McDonnell's  enemies  in  Ulster  were  the  Scots 
who  trickled  into  Clanneboye.  Argyle's  enemies  in  Scotland  were 

l)Erk.I— 8.  2)Erk.I— 52.  3)  Erk.  1-137.  4)  Erk.  I— 166.  5)  Erk. 
1-274.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1605-267.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1594-336;  1595-412. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  689 

the  McDonnells  of  the  West.  From  all  of  this  rose  much  history, 
camouflaged  by  historians  under  titles  of  Covenanters,  "Catho- 
lics", Whigs  and  Jacobites.  When  James  gave  such  a  patent  to  a 
chief,  who  hsad  only  just  "came  in  and  submitted",  we  must  re- 
member that,  in  feudal  diplomacy,  there  was  such  a  thing  as  the 
balance  of  power,  and  buffer  States.  The  Irish  council,  who  stud- 
ded McDonnells  patent  with  covenants,  thought  only  in  terms 
Irish  and  agrarian.  James  when  he  revoked  it  for  one  more 
elastic,  was  thinking  in  terms  regal  and  Scotch.  Thus  did  "reasons 
of  State"  embroil  themselves  with  matter®  agrarian. 

We  can  trace  (all  down  through  the  ages  the  effort  of  this 
patent.  A  minor  chief,  Cahil  O'Hara,  also  procured  a  patent  on 
the  borderland  for  about  2.000  acres.1  When  McDonnell  sur- 
rendered to  get  his  new  patent,  O'Hara  refused  to  surrender  his. 
McDonnell  claimed  thJat  his  surrender  involved1  certain  of 
O'Hara'is  territory,  which  O'Hara  stoutly  denied.  A  fiery  feud 
developed  between  them  both  as  to  whether  O'Hara  owned  four 
townlands  plus  an  outlying  district  or  the  four  townlands  alone. 
During  some  temporary  excitement  over  a  plot  against  liaw  and 
order,  O'Hara  accused  McDonnell  of  sheltering  rebels,  and 
denying  tenants  their  fair  allotments.  McDonnell  then  paid  an- 
other visit  to  the  Court,  and  procured  a  letter  warrianting  the 
prosecution  of  those  who  had  libelled  his  loyalty.2  For  over  thirty 
years  this  pair  were  at  loggerheads  desturbing  the  administration 
of  justice.  O'Hara's  son,  Cormack,  having  become  sheriff,  the 
agrarian  disputes  entered  into  the  administration  of  the  law,  and 
McDonnell  used  to  fine  in  his  manorial  Courts  those  who  appeal- 
led  to  the  Sheriff,  et  vice  versa.a  In  1629  a  Royal  letter  reached 
Dublin  ordering  the  Deputy  to  assume  O'Hara  had  made  his  sur- 
render and  to  vest  in  McDonnell  all  but  four  townlands  of 
O'Hara's.4  Nothing  seems  to  have  been  done. 

The  other  McDonnells  were  not  less  active.  McDonnell  had 
promised  Larne  to  his  nephew,  and  the  nephew  had  sold  his  pro- 
mise to  Sir  Awla  McNawa,  which  promise  he  now  -declined  to 
make  good.  The  Deputy  supported  him  in  this  on  the  grounds 
that  when  he  made  the  promise  he  had  no  title  to  the  land.  One 
gets  a  glimpse  of  the  confusions  of  the  land  Department  in  the 

1)  Erk.I— 284.  2)  C.S.  P.  1615— 60;  1628— 398.  3)  C.S.  P.  1627— 277,278. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1629—485. 

44 


690  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

following  despatch.  "There  is  a  nephew  of  his  gone  over  to 
complain.  What  his  complaint  is  we  do  not  know,  but  the  dispo- 
sition of  this  people  is  to  address  themselves  rather  to  you  than 
to  us,  where  their  causes  and  themselves  are  best  known.  If  Sir 
Randall  is  to  be  called  over  to  London  for  every  complaint,  he 
may  spend  more  in  one  year,  than  his  lands  would  yield  in  three 
and  his  tenants  will  pay  for  it.  It  would  be  better  to  refer  matters 
to  us  to  decide."1  Agrarian  claimants  always  preferred  London. 
The  King  ;and  Council  in  London  were  fairer  game  for  an  elo- 
quent litigant  than  the  knowledgeable  Council  in  Dublin. 

Another  nephew  demanded  four  townlands  and  wais  refused, 
because  he  had  entered  into  some  alliance  with  O'Hara.2  "Dis- 
contented that  his  uncle  had  his  land  and  not  himself",  he  gathered 
together  a  miscellaneous  multitude  of  O'Neills  and  O'Donnells 
and  "threatened  to  burn  and  spoil  his  tenants",  especially  those 
lands  that  McDonnell  had  sold  to  peaceful  planters.  To  add  zest 
to  the  conspiracy  this  rebellions  subject  tried  to  snatch  from  the 
Crown,  young  Con  O'Neill,  the  son  of  Hugh,  who  was  being  edu- 
cated by  the  authorities.  With  him  in  his  possession  he  had  hopes 
of  reviving  the  good  old  days.3  At  :a  later  period  Ever  McQuillin 
complained  to  Lord  Conway  that  this  same  Alexander  McDonald 
had  arrived  with  100  men  and  levelled  his  fences  and  driven  him 
out  of  possession.4  As  can  be  seen  this  loose  general  patent, 
drafted  in  London  for  high  reasons  of  State,  had  left  one  of 
the  most  dangerous  districts  in  Ulster  in  a  state  of  commotion. 
McDonald  sold  no  mean  portion  of  his  estate  to  Londoners,  Con- 
way,  Clotworthy,  and  others.  In  1641  McDonnells  of  "the  meaner 
sort"  burnt,  and  plundered  the  houses  of  these  unfortunate 
purchasers,  as  "strangers  who  had  no  right  to  be  there  on  our 
lands". 

In  the  meantime  Sir  Randall  McDonald,  having  become  Earl 
of  Antrim,  passed  away  and  was  succeeded  by  his  more  famous 
son.  Educated  in  Paris  he  had  been  summoned  to  London  by  the 
King  on  the  advice  of  Mountmorris,  and  there  had  blossomed  into 
a  great  Court  personage,  marrying  the  Duchess  of  Buckingham, 
who  was  old  enough  to  be  his  mother.  Being  a  man  of  consider- 
able personal  charm,  high  spirits,  and  gifted  with  a  remarkable 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1610—446.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1618-60.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1615-46,  52, 
53,97.  4)  C.  S.P.I  624— 491. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  691 

facility  for  high  politics  and  Court  intrigues,  he  became  one  of 
those  curious  personalities,  who  acheive  nothing  lasting  in  affairs 
of  State,  but  make  their  presence  felt  in  matters  effecting  them- 
selves. Laud  had!  ;a  great  personal  affection  for  him.  There  is 
nothing  more  curious  than  to  note  Laud's  petitions1  to  Strafford 
on  his  behalf,  and  Strafford' s  cold  refusals.  Strafford  did  not  like 
him.  He  regarded  him  as  a  man,  whose  every  action  aimed  at  his 
personal  advantage  and  personal  glorification  at  the  expense  of 
better  subject®,  and  on  several  occasions  he  commented  severely 
on  the  practice  of  converting  the  State  into  an  .appendage  to  a 
man,  w,ho  had  not  only  enemies  in  Ireland,  but  touchy  enemies, 
not  perhaps  so  active  at  court,  but  holding  themselves  to  be  better 
"in  quality  and  estate"  than  this  boisterous  and  boastful  in- 
triguer, who  was  destined  to  cause  many  troubles.  "It  is  com- 
mon with  the  Irish",  wrote  Strafford  apropos  of  one  of  this  noble- 
man's grotesque  proposals  "to  be  more  mighty,  abroad  than  they 
are  found  to  be  at  home.  His  miracles  are  less  believed,  least 
heard  of  in  his  own  country.  His  Lordships  debts  are  thought  to 
be  no  less  than  £  50.000.  He  was  not  able  this  term  to  borrow 
£  300  to  stay  a  seizure.  There  are  subjects  of  the  Crown  here 
able  to  raise  far  more  men  than  my  Lord'  of  Antrim".1  Thus  ended 
Antrim's  proposal  that  the  King  should  provide  him  with  money, 
arms,  and  martial  power  to  recover  his  ancestral  estates  in 
Western  Scotland.  Antrim  had  got  great  political  power  in  Lon- 
don and  had  made  many  friends,  but  they  had  cost  money.  A 
great  Irish  nobleman  with  political  influence,  on  the  verge  of 
bankruptcy,  was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  guardians  of  the  Ex- 
chequer. 

His  first  appearence  in  the  Strafford  'Correspondence  was  un- 
lucky. He  lodged  at  Court  a  petition  to  make  over  to  him  without 
inquiry  the  lands  in  controversy  between  him  and  O'Hara.  Coke 
despatched  this  petition  to  Strafford  before  a  decision  was  given.2 
Strafford  handed  it  over  to  the  Courts  to  decide  "in  a  legal  way".3 
When  Antrim  was  "passing"  a  new  patent  the  subject  cropped  up 
again — Laud  intervening  on  the  Earl's  behalf — but  Strafford 
seems  to  have  regarded  the  incident  as  closed.4 

This  was  followed  by  another  petition.     The  Earl  and  his 

1)  L.  S.  11-288,  304.  2)  L.  S.  I— 137.  3)  L.  S.  I— 153.  4)  L.  S.  II— 157; 
L.  L.  VII— 391. 

44* 


692  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

father  had  been  selling  their  lands  at  a  rapid  rate.  On  each  such 
sale  there  wa>s  -due  to  the  Crown  a  fine  for  alienation.  Those  fines 
amounted  to  close  on  £  5.000.  His  petition  was  that  these  be  re- 
mitted, and  what  was  more  than  this,  "power  to  create  tenures" 
be  expunged  from  his  new  patent,  in  which  they  had  been  inserted 
by  the  cautious  Stratford.  If  this  petition  was  granted,  farewell 
to  all  Strafford',s  hopes  of  taming  that  Lord  by  making  his  tenants 
"hold  of  the  King".  Straff ord  had  also  intended  to  convert  these 
subtenures  into  tenures  in  capite,  thus  making  them  liable  to 
feudal  dues.  "He  aims",  wrote  the  irate  Deputy,  "at  deriving  the 
dependency  of  that  people  entirely  to  himself,  and  trenching  deeply 
upon  the  revenue,  the  sinews  of  Government  and  the  preroga- 
tive".1 Balked  in  this  direction  the  Earl  recollected  that  his  father 
had  only  a  life  interest  in  the  estate,  and,  to  Strafford's  horror, 
he  broke  all  his  father's  leases.  If  Antrim  had  been  planted  this 
would  never  have  occured,  as  plantation  proprietors  by  law  had 
to  give  leases  for  41  years.  This  seriously  impaired  his  credit  as, 
at  this  time,  tenants  were  scarce,  and  could  pick  and  chose  their 
landlords.  "Let  him",  wrote  Straff ord  to  the  ever  forgiving  Laud, 
"be  believing  in  his  own  power  or  greatness  as  much  as  he  pleaseth, 
if  out  of  the  regard  to  your  recommendations,  there  hath  not  had 
countenance  been  given  to  his  proceedings,  and  a  slow  ear  lent 
to  his  tenants,  his  Lordship  might  perchance  have  found  himself 
farther  off  his  end  than  now  he  is".2 

North  Antrim  remained  a  very  troubled  area  for  a  long  time. 
True  it  was  that  the  constant  sale  of  the  McDonnell  parcels 
brought  in  a  type  of  proprietor  at  a  different  stage  of  civilization, 
and  more  concerned  with  industry  than  the  use  of  political  in- 
trigues to  restrain  it,  but  one  of  the  most  gloomy  features  of 
this  period  is  that  the  men  that  sold  their  lands-  were  not  above 
using  intimidation  to  recover  them.  No  small  part  of  the  outrages 
in  1641  were  due  to  this.  Phelim  O'Neill's  first  o'bject  of  attack 
was  Lord  Caulfield,  to  whom  he  had  sold  certain  of  his  lands, 
Lord  Antrim  had  sold  certain  "parcels"  to  the  London  Corpo- 
ration. When  that  estate  was  escheated,  certain  MacDonalds  drove 
off  the  new  proprietors,  beat  the  Sheriff,  rescued  his  prisoners,  and 
had  to  be  dealt  with  severely  by  Straff  ord.  "All  is  quiet  and  still 

1)  L.  S.  1-517,  518.  2)  L.  S.  11-120. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  693 

with  the  Earl"  wrote  the  Deputy  "all  so  fast  asleep  as  his  Lord- 
ship pays  neither  licences  of  alienation,  subsidies,  or  rent.  I  de- 
sire to  know  his  Majesty's  pleasure,  whether  we  must  waken  him 
or  no,  lest  otherwise  he  fall  into  the  case  of  those  seven  sleepers 
we  read  of  in  the  legend.  As  for  his  McDonalds  they  are  awake. 
They  pray  for  the  King,  but  will  not  obey  the  Deputy. " ' 

This  county  of  Antrim  affords  in  itself  a  most  curious  com- 
mentary on  the  traditional  view  that  the  close  of  the  Elizabethan 
wars  saw  a  widespread  confiscation  of  the  lands  of  the  Irish  in 
the  interests  of  English  settlers.  It  can  never  be  too  definitely 
made  clear  that  at  all  times  during  these  wars  the  power  of  the 
Crown  was  due  to  the  driving  force  of  the  Irish  people,  and  that, 
in  the  fruits  of  the  victory  over  feudalism,  it  was  the  Irish  people 
and  not  the  State  or  its  English  supporters  who  carried  off  the 
lion's  share.  This  patent  to  McDonald  is  but  one  'example.  Large 
as  the  scope  was  that  he  was  accorded,  it  was  nothing  to  the  area 
over  which  he  exercised  "cuttings  and  spendings"  a  few  years 
before.  He  exercised  full  power  over  seven  baronies,  held  North 
Claneboye  in  the  South  by  the  sword,  had  driven  the  McQuillins 
down  to  the  Bann,  and  had  reduced  to  the  level  of  tributaries  "the 
chief  ancient  followers  of  the  country,  the  O'Haras  and  the 
O'Quinns".2  In  1593  he  "had  forcibly  expelled  McQuillin  from 
his  position",  and  the  tenants  were  "thralled  in  misery  and  at 
the  lord's  pleasure". 3  Frightened  at  the  prospect  of  Hugh  O'Neill 
reducing  him  to  a  similar  level,  he  had  "come  in  and  submitted", 
and  had  recovered  but  a  fraction  of  the  territory  over  which  he 
had  held  a  precarious  empire.  How  shaky  was  that  Palatinate 
is  revealed  by  the  disclosure  that,  when  his  tributaries  mutinied, 
he  used  to  summon  the  Scotch  to  his  aid  "by  making  of  fires  on 
certain  steep  rocks".  O'Hara  was  now  "free  of  his  spendings". 
So  too  was  McQuillin.  Across  the  borders  in  modern  London- 
derry a  little  group  of  minor  gentry  held  estates  in  freehold  from 
the  London  Corporation.4  . 

South  of  this  area  was  the  Loweror  North  Claneboye.  This 
was  in  a  parlous  plight  over  the  contentions  between  two  branches 
of  the  House  of  O'Neill,  Shane  and  Neill  Ogue.  Both  had  appealed 
vigorously  to  the  Crown  for  aid,  and  Shane  was  excused  from  a 

1)  L.  S.  R— 426.  2)  Carew  M.  S.  S.  11-437, 438.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1593—145. 
4)  Survey  and  Redistribution.  Londonderry. 


694  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

subsidy  tax  as — so  ran  the  official  report — "he  hath  enough  to 
do  to  find  meat  and  drink  for  his  own  household". l  To  him  w,as 
allotted  8.500  acres  in  in  capite  tenure,  free  of  rent,  on  con- 
dition of  a  "rising  out"  of  200  men.2  The  patent  shows  that,  so 
waste  was  this  territory,  that  its  value  "free  of  reprisals"  was  £  9 
a  year.  His  son  was  Sir  Henry  O'Neill,  ,a  great  pillar  of  Church 
and  State,  a  former  pensioner  of  the  Queen"  for  "extraordinary 
merit  in  the  general  calamity  of  the  late  rebellion".  At  a  later 
period  he  is  reported  as  "a  person  fitted  to  be  employed  against 
Tyrone"  and  "an  active  Protestant".8  He  appears  occasionally 
as  a  spokesman  of  local  grievances,  a  Commissioner  for  subsidies, 
".a  stranger  to  London",  paying  but  one  visit  there,  and  never 
obtruding  in  politics.4  On  his  death  Wandesforde  became  the 
guardian  of  his  son,  and:  Radcliffe  reported  the  value  of  the  estate 
at  £  4.000  a  year.  This  son  fought  for  Charles  and  then  for  Or- 
monde when  but  a  boy,  compounded  with  Cromwell  for  £  1.400, 
and  re-blossomed  into  a  placid  squire  on  the  Restoration.5 

The  McDonnell  patent,  which  covered  an  area  of  30  miles 
in  length,  had  led  to  the  displacement  of  the  McQuillins,  whose 
original  freehold  had  been  passed  away  by  "the  mere  suggestion" 
of  the  McDonnell  on  his  visit  to  London.  Rorie  McQuillin  head 
of  the  sept  was  accordingly  allotted  over  2.000  acres.  "Other  an- 
cient gentlemen  and  inhabitants"  received  another  2.000  acres.6 
The  rival  of  Sir  Henry  O'Neill  was  Neile  McHugh  O'Neill,  who 
had  been  one  of  the  Queen's  Captains  and  had  died'  on  Active 
Service.  To  his  children  were  allotted  4.000  acres.  It  is  curious 
to  note  how  tangled  was  the  religious  question,  that  two  of  these 
children  were  Protestants  and  one  was  a  Roman  Catholic.7  A 
minor  scion  of  this  family,  Owen  McHugh,  was  placed  on  the 
pension  list,  he  being  "poor  in  estate".  *  The  remainder  of  North 
or  Lower  Claneboye,  reaching  from  Belfast  to  Knockfergus,  was 
reserved  to  the  Crown,  and  subsequently  leased  to  Sir  Arthur 
Chichester,  the  Deputy,  and  Governor  of  those  two  forts  "that 
his  tenants  in  the  said  lands  may  be  the  better  encouraged  to 
plant  «and  manure,  and  may  have  from  him  some  certain  estate".9 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1592—69.  2)  Erk.  1—282—4.  3)  Erk.  1—26;  C.  S.  P.  1618—226; 
C.  S.  P.  1625-73.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1628-254,  387, 449.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1666—69—263 ; 
1625—1660—201.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1605—321,  503.  7)  Erk.  1—285;  C.  S.  P.  1615—52. 
8)  C.  S.  P.  1626-96,  354,  371.  9)  Erk.  1—23, 109. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  695 

The  County  of  Down  was  like  Antrim  one  of  the  relics  of 
the  old  Earldom  of  Ulster,  still  to  a  large  extent  by  law  the 
possession  of  the  Crown.  After  Wexford  it  may  be  said  to  have 
been  the  most  Norman  county  in  Ireland,  but  the  invasion  of 
Bruce  had  only  left  mere  relics  of  the  old  regime.  One  of  the  last 
traces  was  the  Savage  hegemony  in  Lecale,  who  were  "often  har- 
rowed and  spoiled  by  them  of  Claneboye",  a  stronghold  of  Scots.1 
In  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  the  chief  thereof  paid  homage,  was 
recognized  as  "Captain  of  his  Nation"  and  promised  a  tribute  to 
the  Deputy.2  In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  a  deputation  waited  on  the 
Crown  and  sought  an  adjudication  as  to  the  chief ry  "reciting 
their  contentions,  losses  and  injuries",  and  Eoland  Savage  was 
duly  installed  "as  Captain  of  his  nation  and  freeholders".3  In 
1602  he  and  a  host  of  other  Savages  received  the  inevitable 
pardon.  4  By  an  Inquisition  held  at  the  begining  of  the  reign  of 
James  the  little  Ards  was  declared  Crown  Property,  but  this  seems 
only  to  have  affected  tithes  and  Church  Lands  in  the  possession 
of  the  Savages.5  Roland  Savage,  now  the  Lord  of  the  Little  Ards, 
was  a  loyal  and  law-abiding  subject.  At  an  earlier  stage  he  had 
warned  the  Government  of  a  threatened  invasion  of  Scots,  and, 
as  a  man  of  war,  he  was  not  only  in  receipt  of  a  Crown  pension, 
but  was  responsible  for  a  healthy  "rising  out"  at  the  beck  and  call 
of  the  authorities  in  "stirs".  One  of  this  family  was  Mayor  of 
Carickfergus,  and  another  a  great  State  Official,  Sir  Arthur 
Savage. B  In  1606  Roland  was  empowered  to  hold  a  Eair  in  Porta- 
ferry  and  Norden's  Map  of  Ireland  gives  that  area  as  possessed 
by  the  clan  in  1610. 7  Before  this,  however,  the  Chieftain's  family 
had  been  selling  certain  portions  of  the  chiefry  to  planters,  and 
we  know  as  >a  fact  that  there  was  at  least  one  other  Savage  holding 
in  that  area  by  Knights  tenure  from  the  Crown.  *  In  1617  an  In- 
quisition was  held  to  settle  tenures  and  Rowland  claimed  about 
10  townlands,  whether  in  chiefry  or  demesne  is  not  stated.  An- 
other Henry  Savage  also  claimed  a  large  freehold. 9  The  result  of 
this  Inquisition  was  that  Rowland  created  about  20  freeholds, 
and,  in  1625  he  held  in  demesne  3  townlands,  not  together  but 


1)  Carew  Papers  II— 437.  2)  M.  P.  R.  H.  VIII— 45.  3)  M.  P.  R.  Elizabeth 
—427.  4)  M.  P.  R.  Elizabeth- 628.  5)  1. 1.  Down.  J.  1.  2.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1595—364; 
1603—1606—128.  253,  423;  1618—226.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1606—483;  Cat.— 221.  8)  M. 
P.  R.  J.  1—251—254.  9)  1. 1.  Down.  J.  5. 


696  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

scattered  over  the  Ards  and  Lecale.1  By  the  reign  of  Charles  it- 
was  evident  more  freeholds  had  been  created — nearly  all  the 
names  are  those  of  local  tribesmen — but  one  of  Strafford's  In- 
quisitions held  to  recover  dues  for  alienations  without  license 
shows  that  the  Lord  of  Little  Ards  had  been  selling  more  patches 
of  his  demesne  to  strangers.  The  Books  of  Survey  and  Eedistri- 
bution  only  reveal  one  Savage  freeholder  in  the  Ardes — Henry 
Savage — but  a  great  mixture  of  Savages  and  other  tribes  in  Lecale.* 
From  all  this  we  can  deduce  a  large  number  of  minor  gentry,  a 
peaceful  region,  the  entry  of  planters,  a  mixture,  after  a  gene- 
ration, of  planters  and  natives,  and  the  sale  of  many  plots  to  these 
planters. 

On  the  other  side  of  the  Lough  lay  McCartan's  Country. 
McCartan  is  described  in  1593  as  a  bitter  opponent  of  leases  and 
freeholds  and  the  area  was  regarded  as  disorderly  and  waste.3 
His  swordsmen  numbered  60,  which  was  a  large  force  for  such 
a  small  area  to  support.4  This  area  was  really  the  possession  of 
the  Earl  of  Kildare,  but,  during  the  stirs,  the  MacCartans  had 
risen  up  and  dominated  the  district.  All  that  the  Earl  seemed  to 
possess  was  the  Customs  of  Strangford  and  certain  Church  Lands.5 
Towards  the  close  of  1605  MacCartan  and  certain  of  his  followers 
"came  in  and  submitted".6  Sir  Edward  Cromwell  was  Governor 
of  the  Country,  and  he  seems  to  have  acted,  partly  as  a  peace- 
maker between  Mac  Cartan  and  the  Government,  partly  as  a 
trustee  for  the  freeholders,  and  partly  as  a  purchaser  of  part  of 
MacCartan's  rights.7  The  patent  is  carefully  drafted  to  secure 
the  rights  of  those  "holding  by  tanistry  and  other  free  tenants", 
a  Commission  being  authorised  to  put  the  settlement  into  exe-  • 
cution.  8  Part  of  the  agreement  between  MacCartan  and  Crom- 
well was  that  the  latter  should  "educate  and  apparel  in  a  gentle- 
manlike sort"  the  son  of  the  former.9  In  1634  young  Phelim 
MacCartan  sold  500  acres  to  Lord  Mountmorris,  and,  in  the  same 
year,  the  Cromwell  estate  was  assessed  at  15.000  acres.10  The 
later  Survey  shows  that  in  1641  Patrick  MacCartan  had  4.300 
acres,  two  other  MacCartans  1.000,  and  Phelim  Magennis — certain 

1)  1. 1.  Down.  J.  9, 15.  2)  Survey  and  Redistribution.  Down  T.  I.  Down.  C.10, 
16.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1593-141, 145.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1589-279.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1605—327. 
6)  M.  P.  R.  J.  1-172.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1605-325.  8)  M.  P.  R.  J.  1-203.  9)  M.  P.  R,  J. 
1—191.  10)  I.  I.  C.  Down.  50,  6;'.. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  697 

of  the  Magennis'  bad  been  undertenants  to  the  MacCartans — 
possessed  500  acres,  all  these  in  freehold.  The  descendants  of 
some  of  these  freeholders  were  in  full  swing  at  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  The  Cromwell  Estate  was  partly  due  to  this 
MacCartan  bargain — he  had  purchased  a  third  from  MacCartan— 
and  partly  due  to  an  escheat.  Thaf  area,  which  was  neither 
MacCartan  nor  Savage  Land,  had  been  resumed  by  the  Crown, 
subject  to  a  headrent  to  the  Kildares,  and  had  been  leased  to 
Cromwell.  On  his  death  his  executors  said  that  it  was  "a  country 
desolate  of  inhabitants,  MacCartan  being  a  fellow  that  will  be 
proximus  sibi,  neighbour  to  himself".1  On  these  grounds  the 
wardship  of  young  Cromwell  was  not  given  to  the  Countess  of 
Kildare  but  to  his  mother.2  In  this  Lecale  and  Killenartan  area 
Oliver  Cromwell  escheated  about  a  dozen  native  freeholders  as 
either  Royalists  or  rebels.  Sir  Edward — now  Lord — Cromwell,  as 
well  as  MacCartan,  had  aliened  certain  parcels  by  1637. 3 

Here  again  we  find  the  creation  of  freeholds,  the  granting  of 
leases  and  a  long  peace  with  a  rise  in  prosperity.  The  Valuation 
of  Down  for  subsidies  in  1640  was  nearly  twice  that  of  the  County 
Waterford,  a  country  with  better  land  and  a  more  peaceful  past, 
and  was  three  times  that  of  the  far  richer  country  of  Berry.4  It 
is  very  hard  to  believe  that,  only  a  generation  before,  this  report 
had  been  sent  into  Dublin.  "It  is  very  slenderly  inhabited,  and 
its  good  and  fruitful  land  lies  waste  and  desolate.  The  reason  is 
there  are  no  freeholders,  neither  have  any  of  the  inhabitants  under 
their  chief  men  any  certain  estate."5 

Iveagh  which  lies  to  the  South  and  West  of  Down  was,  in  the 
middle  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  fast  revolting  from  the  old  system. 
Hugh  Magennis  and  Cormack  McNeill  of  Killulta  had  been  feu- 
datories to  the  O'Neills  of  Tyrone,  but  by  1586  had  taken  service 
under  the  Queen.  The  former  bad  abolished  tanistry  and  wore 
English  garments  on  holidays.  His  rival,  Ever  McRory  Magennis 
of  Kilwarlin  had  revolted  from  the  O'Neills  of  Claneboye  and 
done  likewise.6  One  of  this  clan  had  been  one  of  Henry  VIII's 
Bishops.7  In  1592  Sir  Hugh  held  by  English  tenure  and  actually 
paid  rent.8  It  was  Sir  Hugh  who  warned  the  authorities  of  Hugh 


1)  C.S.P.1608— 396.  2)  M.P.E.J.II— 502.  3)  (Survey  and  Redistribution. 
Down.  1. 1.  C.  2.  p.  69.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—231 .  5)  C.  S.  P.  1593—142. 
6)  CarewPapersII-437.  7)  M.P.R.K.VIII-91.  8)  C. S.P.I 59 2— 500;  1594-266. 


698  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

O'Neill's  coming  rebellion,  carried  a  victorious  lawsuit  against 
him,  and  one  of  his  henchmen  shouted  "traitor"  at  the  great  Earl 
in  the  streets  of  Dundalk,  which  led'  to  an  angry  debate  in  the 
Council.1  When  O'Neill  "flew  out"  that  great  man  tried  to 
"coshier"  soldiers  on  his  quondam  subject,  reft  him  of  1.500  cows, 
and,  on  his  death,  refused  to  recognize  Arthur  Magennis — his  own 
son-in-law  too — but  ran  Glasnery  MacCawley  Magennis  for  the 
tanistry  which  Sir  Hugh  had  disowned.2  Ever  McRory  of  Kil- 
warlin  suffered  worse.  Burghley  has  left  on  record  the  following 
note:  "The  thraldom  of  the  chiefs  under  Tirone.  Murder  of  Ever 
McRory  of  Kilwarlin  by  the  Earl  of  Tirone's  son-in-law."  ! 

Hugh  O'Neill  having  fallen,  young  Arthur,  now  free  from 
that  terror,  began  to  bethink  himself  of  his  rights  against  State 
and  subject.  The  State  also,  having  lopped  off  the  lofty  heads  of 
the  greatest,  began  to  turn  a  surly  eye  towards  the  next  great 
men  of  Sir  Arthur's  stamp.  The  freeholders  having  heard  Sir 
Arthur  talk  much  of  "liberty  from  Great  Ones"  began  to  act  on 
his  orations,  and  demand  their  place  in  the  sun.  As  far  back  as 
1593  the  State  had  been  nibbling  at  this  district,  Mr.  Solicitor 
Wilbraham  and  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  having  toured  the  district 
and  reported  to  Burghley.  "Sir  Hugh  Magennis  and  Ever  McRory 
both  have  large  territories  by  letters  patent,  but  they  will  not 
assign  any  portions  to  freeholders,  but  keep  their  tenants  as 
vassals."  When  Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty  "flew  out",  an  information  4 
was  lodged  against  Sir  Arthur.5  In  1610  more  information  of 
curious  company,  and  curious  letters  from  curious  sources,  cle- 
rical and  O'Neillite,  reached  the  Castle/  Sir  Henry  Dillon  got 
alarmed,  dubbed  him  "a  great  and  malicious  man",  likely  "to  deal 
with  Newry  as  the  Greeks  did  with  Troy",  and  suggested  the 
dubious  course  of  "countenancing"  that  Glasney  Magennis,  whom 
O'Neill  had  "countenanced"  against  Sir  Arthur.  "Glasney  is  in 
faction  against  him  and  Sir  Arthur  fears  him."7  It  was,  however, 
but  a  mere  flash  in  the  pan,  a  murmuring  in  high  and  low  places. 
When  the  State  called  the  freeholders  together  the  allotment  was 
peacefully  arranged.  Both  Iveagh  and'  Kilwarlin  were  parcelled 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1593—95, 149.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1594—301,  358,  457.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1594 
—279.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1593—145.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1608-518.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1610—464,  465. 
7)  C.  S.  P.  1608-486. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  699 

out.  A  demesne  was  given  to  the  two  lords,  a  large  number  of 
freeholders  being  created,  holding  by  Knight's  service  to  the 
Crown  1  "This  will  weaken  him"  is  the  phrase  that  rune  through 
all  the  despatches.  The  Books  of  Survey  and  Kedistribution  show 
Lord  Iveagh  in  possession  of  .about  25.000  acres,  the  Lord  of  Kil- 
warlin  with  about  2.000,  and  the  McGlasney  family  with  about 
1.500  acres.  A  very  large — an  exceptionally  large — number  of 
minor  freeholders  were  also  created,  none  of  which  had'  holdings 
of  less  than  120  acres.  This  seemed  to  have  been  regarded  by  the 
Commissioners  as  the  limit  of  an  economic  holding.  What  is  more 
curious  is  that  here  as  elsewhere  in  Down,  common  lands  were 
left  for  "inhabitants  of  the  village".  This  is  the  only  County  in 
Ireland  where  this  feature  of  primitive  tribalism  survived  the 
"stirs".  Whether  the  Commissioners  found  it  there  and  preserved 
it,  or  created  it  themselves,  we  have  no  opportunity  of  judging.2 

The  Mourne  was  in  a  different  category  completely.  In  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  Sir  Nicholas  Bagenall  had  purchased  a  large 
"scope"  from  Martin  O'Kyrone.  A  few  years  later  he  secured  a 
patent  for  the  Abbey  Lands. s  The  latter  patent  gives  us  an  idea 
of  the  scarcity  of  tenants  and  the  difficulties  that  beset  a  planter. 
It  relates  that  "many  of  the  townlands  be  unmanured  and  under 
pasture  for  cattle,  and  by  reason  of  war  clearly  waste,  and  in  those 
parts  they  cannot  procure  tenants  without  giving  great  rewards". 
Feudalism  in  its  wane  laid  a  dead  hand  on  Ireland.  Blackmail, 
serfdom,  "exactions",  standing  armies,  wars,  and  hostility  to 
strangers  who  might  allure  away  the  feudal  tenants,  as  the 
boroughs  did  the  feudal  serfs,  made  the  country  what  it  was,  and 
the  people  determined  to  be  rid  of  the  system  of  "a  multitude  of 
princes  in  a  fair  Kingdom,  carrying  from  the  Crown  both  the 
benefit  and  the  people's  obedience,  besides  the  loss  of  many  worthy 
subjects". 4  This  patent,  of  course,  excluded  this  area  from  the 
purview  of  any  Commissions,  but  wherever  these  Imperial  offi- 
cials operated  there  was  no  land  question.  Their  method  was 
usually  to  create  a  small  freehold,  and  to  lease  the  land  sur- 
rounding it  to  the  freeholder. 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1606—1610—193,  457,  469— 471, 487.  2)  Survey  and  Redis- 

tribution. Down.      3)  M.  P.  R.  Ed.  VI— 220,  228.      4)  C.  S.  P.  1608—620. 


700  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Upper  or  South  Claneboye  fell  into  quite  a  different  category 
from  all  these  settlements.  The  overlord  had  been  Neale  McBrien 
Fertagh  O'Neill,  who  had  been  at  deadly  war  with  Hugh  O'Neill, 
each  alleging  that  the  other  was  the  aggressor.1  Sir  Henry 
Bagenall  reported  him  as  being  "the  only  great  man  of  the  neigh- 
bourhood who  did  not  "fly  out"  with  the  Earl  in  1593.  "I  can 
trust  none  but  him"  wrote  the  Commander  of  the  local  garrison.2 
Neale  kept  50  soldiers  for  the  Queen  instead  of  paying  a  rent, 
and  lorded  it  over  "divers  septs  and  nations" — Kellys  and  Sluyte 
McO'Neales,  "who  challenge  to  be  petty  lords  and  would  expect 
to  be  made  freeholders".3  This  shows  that  the  hegemony  extended 
right  down  into  the  centre  of  Down,  as  Norden's  Map  locates  the 
country  of  "the  Sluyte  O'Neales"  just  North  of  McCartan's 
Country,  comprising  Kilenawley.  The  phrase  "septs  and  nations" 
however  is  deceptive.  One  of  the  Prestons  one  time  called  himself 
"capitanus  meae  nationis".  His  nation  comprised  eight  men.  The 
area,  however,  seems  to  have  been  very  thinly  populated.  Miler 
Magrath  said  "the  most  part  is  waste".4  Weston  on  another  oc- 
casion described  it  as  "very  slenderly  inhabited".5 

According  to  an  account  in  the  Montgomery  Papers  on  the 
establishment  of  peace,  Neale  went  into  rebellion,  but  saved  his 
person  and  his  lands  by  striking  a  bargain  with  Sir  James  Mont- 
gomery and  Sir  William  Hamilton.  They  used  what  Court  in- 
fluence they  possessed,  and  the  whole  area  was  divided  between 
the  three.  It  was  an  'excellent  bargain  for  Neale,  as  it  is  very 
doubtful  if  the  Irish  Council  would  have  sanctioned  such  a  large 
demesne,  if  the  matter  had  come  before  them.  The  patent  com- 
prised the  region  of  Kilultagh,  whose  lord,  Cormac,  a  tributary 
of  O'Neill's,  had  been  killed  in  rebellion.  This  was  subsequently 
leased,  whether  by  Neale,  Hamilton,  or  Montgomery,  does  not 
transpire,  to  Sir  Foulke  Conway,  from  whom  sprang  the  Conway 
Rawdon  family,  who  played  a  great  part  in  the  history  of  17th 
century  Ulster.6  The  Conway  Estate  is  an  example  of  the  popula- 
rity of  these  planters  as  landlords,  not  for  personal  reasons,  so 
much  as  because  they  belonged  to  a  different  civilization  from 
the  feudal  lords.  They  were  agriculturalists,  financiers,  business 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1593—146, 253.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1594-234,  239.    3)  C.  S.  P.  1592-69. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1592-490.      5)  C.  S.  P.  1593-141.      6)  Erke  197,  245,  594. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  701 

men,  ploughing,  ditching  and  paying  wages.  The  feudal  lords 
were  rather  potentates,  supporting  retinues  it  is  true,  but  not  in- 
creasing wealth  or  industry.  A  brief  in  a  lawsuit  in  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century  gives  the  names  of  the  families  who  were 
"the  true  inhabitants  and  undertenants".  They  are  few  compared 
with  the  larger  number  of  migrants  who  had  come  in  from  other 
parts  of  Ireland,  attracted  by  the  conditions,  on  an  estate,  which, 
we  know  from  the  Rawdon  Papers  was  "a  hive  of  civility".  Some 
of  the  names  are  those  of  Connaught  origin.  It  is  curious  to  no- 
tice that  some  of  the  original  inhabitants  only  paid  a  nominal 
rent.  The  number  of  names  mentioned  is  30,  but  this  does  not 
exhaust  the  families  as  "and  others"  and  "the  O'Mullcrewy  with 
their  strange  followers"  occurs  in  the  list.1  What  at  first  sight 
accordingly  looks  like  a  confiscation  of  Irish  lands  in  the  interests 
of  an  English  official  becomes  a  very  different  story  when  care- 
fully examined. 

O'Neill  seems  to  have  been  extravagant  and  thriftless.  Laud 
calls  him  "improvident"  and  says  he  "parted  with  his  estate  very 
fondly".2  Certainly  sale  after  sale  is  on  record  during  the  reign 
of  James.5  By  1635  he  had  only  £  160  a  year  allowed  him  by  the 
mortgagees.4  His  decline  was  accompanied  by  the  rise  of  Mont- 
gomery and  Hamilton.  Both  of  them  were  typical  examples  of 
the  thrifty  Scot.  The  latter  was  a  Northern  counterpart  of  the 
Earl  of  Cork.  It  was  over  the  estates  of  these  two  that  a  wave 
of  Scotch  immigration  surged  and  settled  there  to  make  history. 
The  historical  theory  that  it  wras  the  Ulster  Plantation  which 
brought  in  the  Scotch  is  a  hallucination.  The  Scotch  were  in  Ire- 
land long  before  the  Plantations.  They  were  professional  soldiers 
in  Clare.  Bingham's  tomb  in  St.  Patrick's  glorifies  him  for  having 
expelled  them  from  Connaught.  The  Scotch  Planters  of  the  Plan- 
tation were  few  and  far  between,  and  were  of  middle  class  origin. 
The  Scotch  of  the  Montgomery  and  Hamilton  Estates  were  cot- 
tiers, labourers,  casuals,  all  that  olla  podrida  that  goes  to  Colonies, 
attracted  in  this  case  by  vacant  tracts,  cheap  land,  and  much  better 
conditions  than  in  Argyleshire,  from  which  the  majority  came. 
For  some  reason  the  Government  did  not  like  them.  The  imperial 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1625— 1660-337.    2)  L.  L.  VII— 122.    3)  M.  P.  R.  J.  I— 230— 234. 
4)  L.  L.  VII— 227. 


702  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

idea  of  a  Planter  was  a  squire  with  yeomen  farmers,  and  not  this 
horde  of  very  independent,  assertive,  and  clannish  Scotchmen  "of 
the  meaner  sort".  Two  Proclamations  were  issued  to  keep  them 
out,  but  Proclamations  in  Ireland  are  more  honoured  in  the  breach 
then  the  observance.  A  Scotch  gentleman  was  one  time  ordered 
to  "chase  them  out  and  keep  them  off",  but  still  they  came.1  The 
law  hit  them  severely  too.  They  were  aliens,  and,  if  they  pur- 
chased Crown  or  Church  property,  they  were  liable  to  escheat, 
nor  could  they  inherit  land,  or  plead  in  Courts.  Strafford  freed 
them  from  this  disability.  Up  to  his  time  they  always  had  to  sue 
for  an  Act  of  Grace  to  protect  their  interests.  It  is  hard  to 
understand  why  the  State  was  so  hostile  to  them.  Scotch  politics 
no  doubt  had  much  to  do  with  it.  They  seem  to  have  been  some- 
what disorderly  also.  In  1616  County  Down  is  third  on  the  list 
of  fines. 2  Nor  were  they  respectful  to  the  Crown  as  Planters  and 
strangers  usually  were,  notions  of  liberty  not  developing  in  Ire- 
land till  about  the  second  or  third  generation.  In  the  general 
Election  of  1615  when  the  Government  proposed  Sir  Richard 
Wingfield,  subsequently  Lord'  Powerscourt,  as  Member  for  Down 
the  Scotch  sQouted  him  and  "carried  their  own  man",  not  only  in 
the  face  of  the  Government  but  in  the  teeth  of  the  native  gentry, 
who  were  running  Sir  Arthur  Magennis  and  Rowland  Savage.8 
In  1642  they  had  an  Army  and  a  State  of  their  own,  which  defied 
Charles,  the  Catholic  Confederation,  and  Cromwell,  all  in  turn, 
for  which  last  exploit  both  Montgomery  and  the  Hamiltons  had 
to  pay  a  composition  to  the  irate  Protector.  Suffice  it  to  say,  for 
the  present,  that  there  were  far  more  Scotchmen  in  North  Down 
and  South  Antrim  than  in  all  the  Plantation  Counties. 

The  great  difficulty  in  tracing  the  effects  of  the  Jacobean 
Settlement  is  the  habit  of  the  authorities  of  that  period  in  vesting 
lands  in  the  hands  of  one  person  "in  trust"  for  redistribution 
among  others.  In  nearly  every  county  in  Ireland  one  encounters 
large  grants  to  individuals,  and  it  is  only  casual  references  in  the 
State  Papers  or  the  Books  of  Survey  and  Redistribution  that 
reveal  a  large  number  of  small  estates  created  by  this  patentee. 
In  Antrim  and  Down  the  Crown  started  with  one  great  advantage. 
The  whole  area  was  Crown  Property,  save  for  certain  Church 


1)  M.  P.  E.  J.  1—181.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1616—127.        3)  H.  C.  1—338. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  703 

Lands,  Abbey  Parcels,  and  odd  applotments,  such  as  in  Mourne 
or  in  a  previous  settlement  in  the  Little  Ards,  or  in  the  small  Fitz- 
gerald hegemony.  To  facilitate  transfers  the  King  forwarded  to 
Dublin  a  signet  letter  to  a  man  of  straw,  John  Wakeman,  on 
whose  "book"  these  transfers  were  passed.1  Ware,  the  antiquarian, 
was  the  official  appointed  to  negotiate  transfers  by  the  use  of  this 
letter. 2  In  a  subsequent  signet  letter  Wakeman  is  described  as 
"the  King's  patentee",  and  the  circumstances  are  related  how  the 
lands  were  "passed"  through  this  letter  to  Sir  James  Hamilton, 
instructions  being  given  to  utilize  part  of  the  lands  so  passed  for 
the  erection  of  a  Corporation  and  town. '  Hamilton,  it  should  be 
remembered,  was  James7  personal  agent  in  Dublin  before  he 
ascended  the  English  throne.  Through  this  process  the  Deputy 
and  Council  were  able  to  settle  promptly  and  with  a  free  hand 
all  that  tangle  of  agrarian  tenures  in  Lower  Nbrth  Claneboye. 
A  letter  of  Chichester's  to  the  Privy  Council  explains  the  whole 
process.  After  reciting  a  long  list  of  native  gentry  whose  claims 
were  satisfied  or  partly  satisfied  he  says  "for  this  end  we  must  make 
use  of  Mr.  Hamilton's  grants,  with  his  assent,  for  the  better  settle- 
ment of  freeholders  in  this  part  thereafter,  which  we  could  not 
then  complete,  as  those  lands  are  not  yet  passed".  The  same  letter 
shows  that  it  had  already  been  decided  to  reserve  South  East 
Antrim  for  Colonists. 4  The  Chichester  Estate  round  Belfast  and 
Knockf ergus  was  awarded  to  Chichester  by  a  direct  letter,  before  he 
became  Deputy,  in  order  that  "his  tenants  might  have  a!  certain 
estate".  5  This  was  done  with  the  consent  of  the  King. fi  The 
Hamilton  Estate  in  the  Ards  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  "in  trust" 
letter,  being  a  special  patent  passed  direct,  after  agreement  with 
Montgomery  and  O'Neill,  and  depending  on  a  separate  Royal 
Warrant.  The  whole  arrangement  is  thus  described  by  Chichester. 
"He" — Hamilton — "is  to  be  favoured  for  his  willingness  to 
pleasure  some  English  gentlemen  in  passing  their  Estates  in  fee 
farm  in  Lower  Claneboye,  which  he  passed  upon  his  book" — the 
Wakeman  letter — "in  raising  a  .good  rent,  besides  a  clause  for 
building  of  Castles.  The  business  has  been  affected  without  grudge 
or  offence  to  any  of  the  Irish  Lords  or  gentlemen,  pretending  title 


1)  Erke— 28.  2)  Erke-281.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1607—134.  4)  C.  S. 

P.  1605—321.  5)  Erke-23.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1605—295. 


704  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

to  the  same  by  reason  they  had  passed  good  quantities  to  them- 
selves at  easy  rents  by  virtue  of  His  Majesty's  letters".1  In  this 
Chichester  spoke  the  truth.  Not  one  of  the  native  gentry  of  South 
Antrim  showed  the  slightest  partiality  towards  the  rebels  in  1641, 
which  they  would  have  done  if  there  had  been  any  sense  of 
grievance.  On  the  contrary  some  of  them  like  Sir  Henry  O'Neill 
were  the  bulwarks  of  the  State,  the  religious  clamour  not  affecting 
their  attitude  in  the  slightest.  They  intermarried  also  with 
planters.  A  civil  Planter  was  a  very  popular  personage  in  Ireland 
at  that  period.  One  of  them  wrote  a  panegyric  on  his  reception, 
urging  all  and  sundry  in  England  to  come  over  and  buy  land  in 
Ireland.  "The  better  sort  are  very  civil  and  honestly  given. 
Although  they  did  never  see  you  before  they  will  make  you  the 
best  cheer  their  country  yieldeth  for  two  or  three  days,  and  take 
not  anything  therefore.  They  speak  good  English  and  bring  up 
their  children  to  learning.  They  keep  their  promise  faithfully, 
and  are  more  desirous  of  peace  than  Englishmen,  for  that,  in  time 
of  war,  they  are  more  charged.  Nothing  is  more  pleasing  to  them 
than  to  have  good  justices  placed  amongst  them."2 

These  two  Counties  are  a  miniature  of  the  whole  Jacobean 
settlement,  which  was  based  on  no  real  common  system.  As  a  rule 
it  aimed  at  cutting  down  the  chief's  power,  creating  freeholders 
that  held  from  the  King,  and  installing  where  possible  planters  at 
a  higher  rent,  sometimes  with  building  Covenants.  Down  and 
Antrim  are  exceptional  in  this  sense  that  the  Crown  had  com- 
pulsory powers  over  the  whole  country  and,  for  that  reason,  it 
could  do  what  it  wished.  In  other  countries  it  had  to  wade  through 
old  patents  and  previous  grants,  and  sometimes  managed  to  achieve 
something  by  inducing  the  Chief  to  surrender  his  old  patent, 
giving  him  a  regrant  of  a  demesne  plus  another  grant  in  lieu  of 
exactions.3  Tenants  also  holding  by  tanistry,  could  npply  to  the 
Defective  Titles  Commission  for  a  patent  without  the  consent  of 
their  overlord.  This  method  seems  to  have  been  very  common. 4 
This  method  however  had  one  great  defect.  It  is  thus  described 
by  the  Earl  of  Cork.  "They  will  not  submit  but  upon  conditions 
which  will  abridge  His  Majesty's  profit,  and  not  allow  the  free- 


1)C.  S.  P.  1606—502.       2)  Irish  Archaeological  Society.  I— p.  3,  4.       3)  D.  T. 
1—205,  206.       4)  B.  L.— 19. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ESTATES  705 

dom  which  such  a  work  of  granting  and  dividing  of  lands  would 
require.  Neither  will  it  be  very  eafe  for  His  Majesty  or  for  the 
Patentees  to  ground  a  distribution  of  their  lands  upon  their  only 
surrenders  and  grants  to  his  Majesty,  there  being  no  title  para- 
mount of  record  to  check  their  secret  feoffments,  which,  in  this 
peaceable  time,  all  of  them  do  make  without  regard  of  conscience 
or  credit."  1  Such  a  vast  undertaking  could  only  be  achieved  by 
compulsory  powers.  These  were  obtained  by  finding  a  Eoyal  Title 
to  the  whole  area,  and  through  it  achieving  the  Plantations. 

1)L.  P.  ll.s.  IV— 128. 


Chapter  III 
THE  PLANTATIONS 

The  errors  and  defects  of  old  establishments  are  visible  and  palpable. 
It  calls  for  little  ability  to  point  them  out  ....  It  is  one  of  the  ex- 
cellencies of  a  method,  in  which  time  is  among  the  assistants,  that  its 
operation  is  slow,  and  in  some  cases  almost  imperceptible.  BURKE. 

The  phrase  "Plantation"  has  a  significence  now  which  is  totally 
distinct  from  that  employed  by  the  Stuart  statesman.  Wandesf ord 
and  Bramhall  both  apply  it  to  the  developement  of  a  backward 
area.  Suitors  asking  for  leases  of  Crown  lands  frequently  promise 
"to  make  a  plantation"  i.  e.  arrange  tenures  and  develop  the  lands. 
In1  State  jargon  it  is  applied  always  to  a  reorganization  of  chaotic 
tenures  through  the  medium  of  state  ownership,  in  which  the 
chiefries  were  abolished,  native  freeholders  created,  and  planters 
brought  in  under  certain  covenants  to  build. 

The  first  of  these  drafted  on  a  scientific  basis  with  a  careful 
attention  to  detail  was  that  of  Wexford.  In  the  reign  of  Eichard 
II.  the  Cavanaghs  had  surrendered  certain  estates  to  the  Crown, 
which  passed  the  ce  to  Sir  John  Beaumont.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  VI. 
his  heirs  were  undoubtedly  in  possession.  His  heir  at  law  Lord 
Lovell  went  into  rebellion,  was  defeated  and  attainted.  The  Crown 
had  accordingly  a  good  legal  title.  The  area  so  involved  covered 
the  two  baronies  of  Gorey  and  Ballakenny,  and  half  that  of  Sherry 
Walsh.  From  this  must  be  deducted  certain  plots.  The  Abbey 
and  Episcopal  lands  amounted  to  15.000  areas.  There  were  two 
"ancient"  pre  Lovel  titles  belonging  to  two  "Civil  Gentlemen", 
Synnott  and  Koche,  one  manor  leased,  in  bygone  days,  to  the  Earl 
of  Ormond,  and  a  title,  whose  origin  is  lost,  in  the  possession  of 
the  Wadding  family.  The  chiefry  was  owned  by  three  chiefs,  all 
of  whom  had  rents  and  exactions,  but  one,  Kavanagh  seems  to  have 


THE  PLANTATIONS  707 

mortgaged  his  head  rente  to  Synnott.  Sir  Eichard  Masterson  as 
"Captain  and  Marshall"  of  the  country,  also  had  certain  dues  and 
exactions  payable  out  of  the  area.  The  King  had  a  composition 
rent  in  lieu  of  cess,  which  was  farmed  out  to  Masterson  and  Syn- 
nott. All  these  constitute  those  exactions,  chiefries,  and  black- 
rents,  which  the  time  had  now  came  to  abolish  by  composition. 
The  area  at  the  King's  disposal,  after  deducting  the  titles  already 
named,  amounted  to  "66.800  acres  of  land,  and  certain  tracts  of 
wood,  boggy  land  and  mountain". * 

This  area  was  Crown  land.  It  was  the  personal  possession  of 
the  King.  To  it  he  had  as  good — nay  a  better  title — than  thousands 
of  the  Irish  gentry.  It  was  his  to  do  what  he  wished  with.  To 
modern  ideas,  at  a  moment  when  the  rights  of  the  subject  are 
presumed  to  dwarf  into  insignificence  the  rights  of  the  state  and 
the  commonwealth — at  any  rate  in  matters  agrarian,  one  is  apt  to 
forget  that  there  are  such  things  as  Crown  possessions.  Here  were 
lands  on  which  men  had  legally  and  actually  intruded  and  drawn 
from  them  rents,  dues,  and  exactions,  paying  no  dues  themselves 
to  the  State  and  a  rent  that  was  infinitesimal,  and  that  at  a  moment 
when  the  Irish  coffers  were  empty,  and  the  King  was  paying  for 
the  Irish  administration  out  of  his  privy  purse,  out  of  taxing  his 
English  subjects.  The  400  freeholders  in  this  lucky  position,  drew 
benefits  from  the  peace  maintained  by  the  State,  and  on  their  lands 
were  15.000  of  "the  meaner  sort",  living,  as  we  know  from  all  con- 
temporary accounts,  a  most  casual  and  nomadic  life,  partly  because 
the  land  was  barren  of  capital,  partly  because  the  agrarian  system 
was  so  confused  than  none  cared  to  risk  money  in  developing  their 
estates,  and  partly  by  the  absence  of  "civility",  those  commercial 
traditions  which  distinguish  a  yeoman  farmer  from  a  tribal  and 
military  chieftain.  It  was  in  this  plantation  that  James  laid  down 
the  principle  that  he  would  reserve  for  himself  one-fourth  of  his 
demesne,  that  he  would  redistribute  the  remainder  among  the 
original  inhabitants  on  certain  conditions,  and  that,  on  his  fourth, 
he  would  plant  planters,  bound  to  spend  money,  develope  the  land, 
and  introduce  colonists,  artizans  et  omne  hoc  genus.  When  this 
occured  the  surrender  of  one  fourth  by  the  original  stripowner 
was  amply  compensated  by  the  security  of  his  new  title  against 

1)  H.C.I— 372— 380;  C.  S.  P.  1611— 136. 

45* 


708  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

all  comers,  by  the  rise  in  the  local  standard  of  comfort  and 
purchasing  power,  by  the  abolition  of  chiefries,  and  by  the  advan- 
tage of  holding  direct  from  the  king.  When  the  O'Farrell  country 
was  being  planted,  the  freeholders  showed  no  objection  to  this 
arrangement. 1  In  Longford  the  201  freeholders  "readily  and 
freely"  embraced  the  plantation,  being  very  glad  "to  relinquish 
the  overgrown  title  of  O'Kourke  and  to  hold  wholly  of  the  King" 
i'or  a  surrender  of  one  acre  in  four. 2 

The  failure  of  the  policy  outlined  in  the  previous  chapter  was 
due  to  a  multitude  of  causes,  chiefly  lack  of  system,  and  widespread 
corruption.  The  vesting  of  land  in  officials  "in  trust"  for  subdivision 
amongst  favoured  persons  was  bound  to  lead  to  abuses.  A  writer  of 
the  period  commenting  on  the  policy  of  surrender  and  regrant 
to  the  freeholders  and  the  chiefs  says. 

"All  these  lands  His  Majesty,  out  of  his  gracious  bounty,  hath 
caused  to  be  bestowed  away  with  little  or  no  advantage  to  himself, 
because  he  was  not  truly  informed  of  the  value  of  the  things 
passed  from  him,  for  common  suggestion  was  made  that  it  was 
a  thing  of  little  or  no  value."  Lands  that  should  have  been  held 
by  tenures  in  capite  were  procured  in  common  soccage  by  this 
process  of  surrender,  the  King  "not  observing  the  revenue  he  was 
to  lose  thereby",  and  then,  when  the  State  was  bankrupt,  "the 
Great  Ones"  voted  a  Contribution  to  the  King  for  further  con- 
cessions, redounding  only  to  themselves,  but,  as  Strafford  put  it, 
"laid  the  burden  most  unequally  on  the  poor  and  bare  tenants". 
A  Commissioner  of  Defective  Titles  had  been  set  up  whereby  men 
might  renew  defective  patents,  and  under  cover  thereof  "many 
lands  of  great  value,  never  passed  before,  or  intended  to  be  passed" 
had  disappeared  for  title  or  no  rent.  The  great  Eecusant  leader. 
Sir  Frederic  Barnewall,  who  stalks  across  the  stage  as  a  stormy 
petrell,  and  a  man  much  persecuted  for  his  faith,  had  repassed  all 
his  Abbey  lands  in  free  and  common  soccage  at  a  less  rent  than 
they  had  been  leased  by  his  ancestors.  Chiefs — "many"  of  them 
the  report  narrates — used  to  get  a  letter  authorising  a  surrender 
and  a  regrant.  Then  they  would  surrender  lands  of  freeholders 
•of  the  same  name,  belonging  to  members  of  their  clans,  and  then 
pass  a  patent  for  the  plots  of  their  illiterate  tenantry.  Sometimes 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1619—266.         2)  C.  S.  P.  1620—310,  314. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  709 

they  actually  did'  this  in  the  case  of  "inhabitants  who  hold  of  His 
Majesty''.  All  these  operations  never  came  to  light  till  Strafford 
and  Radcliffe  made  enquiry  as  to  why  such  a  rich  kingdom  was 
bankrupt.  This  was  achieved  by  corruption  at  headquarters. 
These  patents  were  passed  for  good  consideration,  bribes  to  the 
officials  and  patents  to  the  "men  of  power".  The  tradition  in 
history  of  Irish  lands  confiscated'  by  Englishmen  is  true,  but  it  is 
but  a  fragment  of  the  truth.  The  chief  offenders,  and  the  greatest 
number  of  the  offenders  were  Irishmen  plundering  "Prince  and 
people",  and,  when  brought  to  book  by  Strafford,  they  lamented 
over  "tyrannies",  "the  persecutions  of  their  faith",  and  "we  the 
natives  shut  out  from  honorable  employment  and  office  in  the 
State".  When  these  scandals  came  to  light  the  uproar  created  by 
the  offenders  was  deafening.  Those  who  had  suffered — the  tax- 
payer, the  minor  men  "the  painful  people  of  the  nation"  are  barely 
heard  in  the  din.  1 

A  plantation  minimised  these  evils.  Once  the  Royal  title  was 
found,  the  management  of  this  estate  became  a  matter  for  the 
King  himself,  to  be  arranged  on  instructions  from  himself  by 
hie  own  rules,  by  officials  specially  appointed,  without  any  con- 
sideration for  the  Common-law,  and  with  no  regard  for  the  rights 
and  perquisites  of  officials,  or  the  menaces  and  cajolery  of  "the  man 
of  power."  In  Wexford  three  officials  were  sent  flown  to  sound  local 
opinion  and  they  found  50  of  the  400  freeholders  ready  to  support 
a  Plantation  "and  so  would  all  the  rest  have  done,  had  not  certain 
lawyers,  who  would  never  be  seen,  distracted  them  much  for  their 
private  interest"  with  tales  of  a  general  deportation  on  the  As- 
syrian model. |2  One  agent  went  over  to  London  with  a  demand  of 
only  a  regrant  to  the  freeholders  but  was  refused  on  the  grounds, 
that  the  time  had  come  for  "conciliating  the  affections'  of  the 
people  of  Ireland".  3  A  jury  was  impannelled  to  find  the  title,  but 
as  it  was  drawn,  of  course  from  the  relations  of  the  chiefs,  it  was 
very  reluctant  and  had  to  be  scolded  and  prosecuted  out  of  its 
verdict  of  "ignoramus".4  They  then  petitioned  London  to  be  allow- 
ed to  surrender  and  take  a  regrant  at  an  increased  rent,  and  the 
London  authorities  gave  way,  partly  because  of  te  rent,  partly 
because  the  policy  of  surrender  and  regrant  was  what  they  knew 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3.  16.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1611—136.  3)  Dom.  1611—80. 

4)  H.C.I— 378. 


710  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

best. *  A  strong  protest  from  the  Deputy  secured  a  revival  of  the 
Plantation  idea. 2  The  freeholders  then  refused  to  surrender  their 
estates. 3  They  had  a  certain  justification.  Defective  and  corrupt 
measuiements  had  made  the  sequestered  fourth  larger  than  it 
should  have  been.4  Hadsor,  the  Secretary  in  London,  later  on 
remarked  that  "the  Irish  gentlemen  appointed  to  distribute  the 
laud,  helped  themselves  to  the  lands  belonging  to  others."5  Be 
that  as  it  may,  Chichester  received  orders  from  London  to  hand 
over  the  whole  area  to  Undertakers.  He  flatly  refused  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  provoke  a  rebellion,  and  for  this  he  was 
officially  reprimanded. 6  In  the  end,  after  many  confusions,  quar- 
rel! s  between  this  man  and  that,  charges  and  countercharges,  public 
meetings,  and  a  public  petition  that  savoured'  of  riot,  a  general 
agreement  was  patched  up.  The  cause  of  the  uproar  was  the 
intense  anger  of  the  larger  freeholders  at  not  being  allowed  to 
surrender  and  get  a  regrant,  free  from  surveys,  leases,  requisitions 
etc.,  and  the  undeniable  hostility  of  certain  of  the  officials. 
St.  John,  subsequently  Deputy,  "countenanced"  the  protesters  at 
the  Council  Board,  and  did  his  best  to  prevent  the  Plantation 
maturing. 7 

The  area  divided  among  the  original  inhabitants  was  49.500 
acres,  and  that  allotted  to  planters  was  16.500.  In  this  plantation 
this  only  refers  to  arable  land,  woods,  marsh,  and  mountain,  being 
allocated  "in  general  words  "in  the  patents.  The  natives  who 
dwelt  inland  on  the  mountain  districts  were,  in  some  cases,  trans- 
ported to  the  richer  lands  on  the  plain  and  sea  coast.  This  was 
done  partly  to  make  the  leaders  more  anxious  to  accept  the  new 
model,  and  partly  to  reserve  strategical  positions  for  the  incoming 
planters,  who  had  to  build  forts.  The  native  freeholders  chose 
themselves  those  to  whom  the  lands  were  to  be  alloted.  Fifty  seven 
prime  gentlemen  were  appointed  to  "hold  in  trust"  for  the  rest. 
All  chiefries  were  wiped  out,  and  compounded  for  in  land.  The 
old  King's  rent  was  also  abolished,  and  the  farmer's  lease  thereof 
was  redeemed  by  a  grant  of  land.  This  gave  rise  to  some  criticism 
later  as  the  redemption  was  much  in  excess  of  the  real  value  of 


1)  C.S.P.  1612—175,  234.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1612-252,258.  3)  C.S.P. 
1614-531.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1618— 187.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1632-681.  6)  C.  M.  S. 
—333  7)  C.  M.S.— 330. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  711 

their  lease  of  this  farm. *  In  lieu  of  this  cess,  the  natives  paid  a 
rent  of  £  6 — 6 — 8.  per  1.000  acres  and  the  planters  £  6.  per  1.500 
acres.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  planters  had 
heavy  building  covenants  to  undergo,  under  duress  of  a  bond  and 
an  escheat.  This  is  the  only  plantation  in  which  they  held  under 
soccage.  All  freeholders,  planters,  as  well  as  natives,  had  to  create 
leases  of  41  years  on  3  lives.  This  was  the  real  secret  of  the  po- 
pularity of  plantations.  That  14.000  "meaner  sort"  were  up  to 
this  tenants  at  will  of  the  freeholders. 2  This  was  performed,  if 
not  universally,  at  least  sufficiently  to  avoid  any  public  scandal. 
The  inquisitions  dealing  with  this  area  show  that  the  two  over- 
lords Daniel  Kavanagh  and  Sir  Richard  Masterson  created  a  large 
number  of  freeholds  and  leaseholds.  3 

The  planters  were  ordered  to  grant  leases  for  a  similar  period, 
but  they  were  forbidden  to  sell  outright  to  the  native  population,  to 
keep  more  than  500  acres  in  demesne,  and  on  that  demesne 
Colonists  only  could  be  planted.  For  this  clause  there  were  many 
good  justifications.  One  reason  was  fear  lest  "the  old  lords  should 
grow  great  again".  4  The  great  danger  of  these  plantations  was 
that  the  planter  would  simply  sell  his  allotment  and  retire  to 
London  on  the  proceeds,  and  it  was  ill  work  trying  to  force  one 
of  the  feudal  lords  to  carry  out  the  Covenants.  "The  bane  of  a 
plantation",  wrote  the  Privy  Council  "is  when  the  undertakers  or 
planters  make  such  haste  to  a  little  mechanical  profit,  and  disturb 
the  whole  frame  and  nobleness  of  the  work  for  all  time  to  come". 5 
This  was  the  fault  which  rendered  the  Ulster  plantation  null  and 
void.  If  once  the  planters  were  allowed  to  alien,  they  would  alien 
to  local  "men  of  power"  with  a  remarkable  penchant  for  tenancies 
at  will  and  grazing.  What  was  more  if  they  could  they  would  be 
forced  to  alien.  One  of  the  great  difficulties  of  this  period  was 
that  "civil"  purchasers  of  land  were  frequently  driven  by  bands 
of  kern  out  of  their  holdings,  and  this  clause  was  necessary  to 
prevent  such  unsavoury  persons  procuring  a  legal  title  to  their 
conquests,  the  civil  purchaser  being  frequently  forced  by  intimi- 
dation to  part  with  his  farm  for  a  few  pounds.  As  it  was  certain 
ex-swordsmen  burnt  Sir  James  Carroll's  house.  The  Deputy  paid 
some  local  gentry  to  pursue  them  and  rout  them  out,  which  they 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1612—313—314;  1614—494,  496.  3)  1. 1. 
Ch.I— 53,  84.  4)  C.S.  P.  1618— 231.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1617— 167. 


712  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

did  with  zest.  Hugh  McPhelim  O'Byrne  drew  £  100  for  "cutting 
them  off". 1  The  second  reason  was  the  protection  of  the  planter, 
so  that  he  might  have  near  him  "freeholders  for  indifferency  of 
trial  on  juries",  persons  to  protect  him  "or  else  there  will  be  cut- 
tings of  throats".  The  third  was  the  vital  necessity  of  colonists. 
The  state  was  as  anxious  to  allure  into  Ireland,  "Cloth  workers, 
artizans  and  painful  people"  as  our  colonies  have  been  during  the 
last  half  century.  Wexf ord  was  fairly  well  populated  for  an  Irish 
country  at  that  time,  but  the  collapse  of  Wexford  and  Gorey  as 
boroughs  shows  to  what  a  level  the  country  had  sunk  by  wars, 
chief  ries,  grazing,  "creachting",  and  all  the  mediaeval  slough  of 
incivility.  The  customs  of  both  these  towns  rose  rapidly  in  the 
ensueing  20  years. 

The  next  feature  is  the  abolition  of  the  small  strip  owners. 
The  rule  laid  down  was  that  only  in  exceptional  cases  was  an 
owner  of  less  than  100  acres  to  be  regarded  as  a  freeholder.  A 
report  on  the  district  reveals  a  series  of  strip  owners,  with  tiny 
plots,  scattered  here  and  there.  The  same  feature  remained  in  the 
West  of  Ireland'  down  to  the  present  day,  when  tenants  held  one 
ridge  in  one  field,  and  one  ridge  in  another,  their  holdings 
being  scattered  over  several  fields.  In  the  case  of  Wexford 
it  was  undoubtedly  due  to  excessive  gavelling,  and  the 
State  was  faced  with  same  problem  as  beset  the  English 
people  at  the  period  of  the  enclosures.2  In  this  case  they 
decided  to  wipe  out  all  such  petty  holdings  on  the  ground  that 
"a  multitude  of  freeholders  beggars  a  country.8  All  modern 
experience  shows  that  they  were  correct.  The  uneconomic  holder 
is  always  worse  off  than  the  landless  labourer,  being  adscriptus 
glebae.  A  Stuart  official  one  time  declared  that  "freeholders  of 
less  than  80  or  100  acres  are  not  good  for  themselves  (the  holders).4 
No  small  part  of  the  tribulations  of  the  Famine  of  1847  were  due 
to  landlords  allowing  this  subdivision  of  tenures,  with  the  result 
that  large  areas  had  to  support  an  excessive  population  on  the 
scanty  food  supplies  such  tenures  afford.  Small  holdings  always 
mean  bad  agriculture.  They  develop  a  proprietary  of  very  low 
morale.  They  yield  neither  revenue  to  the  State,  nor  employment 
or  food  for  the  landless  population.  These  petty  freeholders  were 

1)  C.S. P.  16 19— 263— 269.  2)  C. S.P.I 620— 305,  306.  3)  C. S.P.I 611— 581. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1620— 303. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  713 

I 

therefore  ranked  among  "the  residue  to  be  settled  upon  terms  of 
years  or  lives  at  reasonable  rents".  The  orthodox  view  that  a 
plantation  was  a  confiscation,  does  nor  bear  scrutiny.  Those  who 
surrendered  the  fourth  found  ample  compensation  in  security  of 
title  and  freedom  from  their  overlords.  The  aim  of  a  plantation 
was  to  "pass  the  lands  that  all  the  inferiors  of  the  Septs  may  hold 
directly  from  the  king  without  any  dependancy  of  those  who  have 
hithertoo  and  would  ever  rule  and  tyrannise  over  them".1  This 
was  the  secret  of  the  hostility  of  the  chiefs  to  Plantations.  St.  John 
when  Lord  Deputy  pointed  out  that,  if  the  Lord  happened  to  be 
a  minor  or  absent,  there  was  no  hostility  to  a  plantation.  Wexford, 
for  instance  was  a  very  troublesome  affair,  three  chiefs  being  on 
the  spot.  "When  they  are  not  there  the  people  freely  submit."' 
When  the  overlords  lost,  was  in  political  power.  When  the  over- 
lords gained,  was  a  grant  of  land  in  lieu  of  rents.  A  large  pro- 
portion of  the  multitude  were  given  leases  where  they  had  none 
before,  and  we  can  safely  assume  that  the  lowest  substrata  shared 
in  the  rise  in  values. 

The  Plantation  areas  were  the  most  prosperous  districts 
during  the  17th  century.  This  is  not  due,  as  some  assume,  to  the 
introduction  of  planters  alone,  though  this  had  a  considerable 
effect.  It  was  due  rather  to  a  more  systematic  organization  of 
tenures  than  prevailed  where  estates  were  simply  patented.  Before 
the  Plantations  operated  "the  people  had  no  title,  and  much  of 
the  land  was  divided  into  very  petty  tenancies".3  A  good  title, 
freeholds,  leaseholds,  building,  tillings,  and  rich  'strangers  altered 
much.  The  surrender  policy  on  the  contrary,  only  took  into 
account  the  Lord  and  the  freeholders.  It  was  vitiated  by  the  fact 
that  there  were  no  Commissioners  to  inquire  into  boundaries,  and 
was  a  matter  simply  between  the  larger  freeholders  and  the  Crown 
Officials.  The  Plantations  involved  surveys,  titles,  inquisitions, 
and  general  supervision.  They  also  safeguarded  to  some  degree 
the  rights  of  a  lower  element  than  the  freeholders.  In  one  Plan- 
tation there  was  a  special  sub-committee  of  the  Commissioners  "to 
see  them  as  tenants  under  the  principal  natives  or  undertakers".  4 
In  some  of  these  Plantations  leaseholds  established  then  have  gone 
down  from  father  to  son  to  the  present  day.  One  other  feature  is 

1)  C.  P.P.  1008— 438.  2)  C.S.  P.  1621— 311.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660— 151. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1620—280. 


714  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

worthy  of  note.  The  expenses  connected  with  a  plantation  were 
born  by  the  area  itself,  'expenses  such  as  survey,  map-making,  in- 
quiry into  title  and  salaries  of  officials.  These  expenses  were 
recovered  by  an  escheat  of  an  equivalent  portion  of  land  to  bear 
the  cost.  This  land  was  then  sold  or  leased  to  pay  the  expenses. 
At  this  period  it  was  held  that  those  who  benefitted  by  a  Planta- 
tion should  pay  the  cost  and  not  the  taxpayer  in  other  parts  of 
the  country. 

Another  mistake  that  has  been  made  in  regard  to  the  Planta- 
tions is  the  theory  that  only  Protestants  and  Englishmen  secured 
grants  from  the  escheated  fourth.  In  the  Ulster  Plantation  a 
covenant  was  inserted  ordering  Planters  only  to  sublet  to  those 
who  took  the  oath  of  Supremacy.  It  appears  as  a  recommendation 
in  the  original  draft  of  the  Wexford  Plantation,  but  not  in  its 
final  form,  and  in  no  other  Plantation.  Between  1610  and  1615 
the  question  had  arisen  as  to  whether  or  no  the  oath  of  supremacy 
was  a  test  of  a  law-abiding  subject.  All  the  previous  generation 
of  the  Irish  chiefs  held  that  it  was  the  test,  but  in  the  Jacobean 
period  large  numbers  of  them  turned  Roman  Catholic,  and  by  the 
middle  of  the  reign  of  James  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  was  regarded 
as1  a  matter  not  to  be  raised,  save  in  the  case  of  members  of  the 
Council,  who  had  partial  controll  of  the  Church  of  Ireland.  One 
has  to  be  very  careful  in  this  period  not  to  assume  that  the  reli- 
gious sentiments  of  the  18th  century  were  those  of  the  17th,  when 
everything  was  in  a  state  of  flux.  One  has  also  to  be  very  careful, 
during  this  period,  not  to  assume  that  political  declarations  on 
matters  religious  by  political  parties  represented  either  prevailing 
opinion  or  the  real  feelings  of  the  protesters.  Cardinal  Rinnucini 
after  presiding  for  some  time  over  the  Catholic  Confederation, 
thus  analysed  the  views  of  that  body  on  the  vexed  question  of 
papal  and  regal  supremacy.  "They  have  neither  reverence  nor 
affection  for  the  Church  of  Home,  and  hold  the  same  opinions 
as  Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth.  They  have  shown  in  every  action 
they  cannot  endure  the  authority  of  a  Pope.  It  may  be,  therefore, 
by  the  will  of  God  that  they  are  a  people  Catholic  only  in  name."1 
This  alone  should  make  us  cautious  in  assuming  that  a  Covenant 
in  the  Ulster  Plantation,  ordering  incoming  Planters,  and  them 

1)  R.  E.— 436. 


only,  to  take  the  oath  of  Supremacy  from  their  tenants  only, 
is  or  was  la  sufficient  reason  to  regard  all  the  rest  of  that  Plan- 
tation, and  all  the  other  Plantations,  in  which  this  Covenant  was 
not  inserted,  as  a  form  of  religious  persecution  through  misuse 
of  agrarian  tenures.  Not  too,  were  the  Planters  all  Englishmen. 
Out  of  the  19  original  undertakers  in  Wexford — the  number  was 
subsequently  reduced — four  were  born  in  Ireland.  In  addition  to 
these  four,  one  was  of  the  very  ancient  Wexford  family  of  Es- 
mond, another  was  Sir  James  Carroll,  Lord  Mayor  of  Dublin,  and 
the  names  of  two  others  were  Kenny  and  Brady.  Plantation 
allotments  were  as  a  rule  questions  of  finance  "power  to  under- 
take", through  official  or  court  influence  had  some  effect,  and 
that  influence  was  used  by  Irishmen  very  effectively.1 

Accordingly  the  basic  idea  of  a  Plantation  was  the  reorga- 
nization of  tenures  on  the  basis  of  compulsory  powers.  The  State, 
in  the  person  of  the  Sovereign,  resumed  its  ownership  where  it 
had  a  title  in  law,  reserved  a  fourth  of  the  area  for  itself,  wiped 
out  the  uneconomic  holdings,  abolished  chiefries  in  toto,  distri- 
buted the  lands  by  Committees,  partly  local  and  partly  State, 
fixed  a  head  rent,  placed  the  larger  estates  under  tenures  in  capite, 
and  enforced  leases  for  a  lower  substrata  than  the  freeholders, 
who  had  been  the  chief  beneficees  of  the  policy  of  surrender  and 
regrant.  The  minor  men  were  now  rising  to  the  old  predominance 
of  the  waning  chiefs,  and  the  State  was  instinctively  bidding  for 
the  support  of  the  farmer  and  non-free  element.  In  all  the  Ja- 
cobean Plantations  the  leaseholders  are  the  chief  care  of  the  Com- 
missioners. The  Planters,  drawn  from  the  middle  urban  classes, 
Irish  as  well  as  the  English,  were  an  additional  safeguard.  It  was 
expected  that  they  would  employ  "the  meaner  sort"  and  wean 
them  from  their  dependance  on  the  freeman. 

This  is  the  real  secret  of  the  extraordinary  energy  with  which 
the  Stuart  Statesmen  harrassed  their  Planters.  The  Covenants 
under  which  land  was  let  to  them  were  burdensome  in  the  ex- 
treme. They  had  to  build  a  country  house,  and  sometimes  a  fort. 
They  had  to  till  a  certain  proportion  of  their  acreage.  They  had 
to  arm  and  equip  so  many  men  for  a  muster.  In  a  word  they 
had  to  spend  money  and  give  employment.  The  tradition  that  all 

1)  H.  C.  1—382.        » 


716  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

this  was  to  be  done  for  colonists  is  based  on  the  Covenants  of 
the  Ulster  Plantation  and  it  alone.  In  all  the  other  Plantations 
the  object  with  which  the  Planters  were  placed,  was  a  make 
weight  against  the  rising  freemen,  as  a  force  "to  employ  the 
meaner  sort",  and  to  utilise  them  to  hold  the  freemen  in  awe. 

This  strategy  came  into  play  in  the  Stuart  epoch.  The  chiefs 
were  gone.  The  minor  men,  freemen,  and  civil  gentlemen,  were 
the  rising  political  force.  They  had  been  loyal  under  the  Tudors, 
who  protected  them  from  the  chiefs.  They  were  now  demanding 
their  rights,  exemption  from  "cess",  taxes,  compositions,  and  above 
all  feudal  dues,  heriots,  wardships,  fines  on  alienation  &c.  The 
real  motive  power  of  the  "rising  out"  of  the  Catholic  Confede- 
ration was  the  desire  to  abolish  feudal  dues.  In  all  their  appeals 
to  Charles,  this  is  their  insistant  demand.  One  of  the  terms  of 
the  Restoration  was  the  complete  abolition  of  this  ancient  code 
of  agrarian  taxation.  Instead  the  Hearth  tax  was  substituted,  a 
tax,  the  bulk  of  whose  yield  came  from  cottiers,  labourers  and 
cities.1 

It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  beside  the  chiefs  and  the 
freeholders,  there  was  a  heterogenious  mass  of  persons,  varying 
from  the  serf  pure  and  simple  to  submerged  clansmen,  whose 
holdings  were  uneconomic,  whose  tenancies  were  really  tenancies 
at  will,  crushed  beneath  a  heavy  burden  of  dues.  We  get  several 
glimpses  of  this  class.  A  writer  in  the  Elizabethean  epoch  says 
"I  found  Antrim  and  Down  very  slenderly  inhabited  and  a  great 
part  waste.  The  reason  is  there  is  no  freeholders.  They  only  hold 
at  the  will  of  their  Lords,  and  these  chief  men  take  what  they 
list  and  when  they  list.  Therefore  the  tenants  do  often  change 
their  dwellings,  sometimes  being  tenant  to  one,  and  within  half 
a  year,  tenant  to  another,  and  many  times  wandering  into  other 
countries,  whereby  great  looseness  and  idleness  is  maintained".2 
Bingham  had  the  same  complaint  and  the  same  remedy  in  Con- 
naught.  "The  freeholders  must  lease  their  lands  to  the  tenants 
and  this  yearly  flitting  be  stopped."  He  attributed  one  desturb- 
ance  to  three  minor  chieftains  with  no  lands,  but  in  possession 
of  cattle  and  a  nomad  clan.3  The  only  money  rents  that  came  to 
Hugh  O'Neill  were  drawn  from  this  source  of  revenue.  All  cows, 

1)  Acts  14  &  15.  C.  II.  Cap.  18.  Cap.  19.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1503—142, 143.  3)  C.  S. 
P.  1592—482,  593. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  717 

grazing  in  this  territory,  paid  12d  a  quarter  "no  portion  of  lands 
being  let  to  any  tenant".  The  head  men  of  these  "creaghtes",  retained 
3d  as  their  commission,  and  were  responsible  for  prompt  payment. 
The  tenants  had  the  right  to  remove  every  six  months.1  Davies 
speaks  of  the  backward  areas. as  teeming  with  these  "creaghtes"  at 
an  earlier  era.  "In  the  fast  places  they  dwelt  and  kept  their 
creaghtes  and  herds  of  cattle,  living  by  the  milk  of  the  cow, 
without  husbandry  or  tillage."2  In  connection  with  this  subject 
it  is  worthy  of  note  that  there  survived  down  to  the  beginning 
of  the  reign  of  James,  traces  of  the  earliest  known  form  of  pri- 
mitive society.  Men  owning  no  land,  and  possessing  cattle,  and 
cattle  alone,  rose  by  the  mere  possession  of  cows,  to  the  rank  of 
chief,  the  possession  of  many  cows  being,  at  all  times,  regarded 
as  a  passport  to  eminence,  social  as  well  as  commercial,  a  large 
cow-owner  being  always  more  important  in  the  eyes  of  the  multi- 
tude than  an  employer  of  "many  painful  people".  In  fact  the 
latter  always  has  a  lower  social  status  in  the  eyes  of  the  bucolics. 
These  men  of  many  cows  sublet  to  minor  men,  non-owners  of 
cows,  in  return  for  services  duly  renderd.  These  were  those  col- 
lectors, who  deducted  3d  from  Tyrone's  rents,  as  part  of  their 
chief ry  over  the  men  to  whom  they  had  leased  cows.  A  Eoyal 
Commission  sat  at  the  beginning  of  the  Ulster  Plantation  to 
enquire  into  these  "comyns",  and  discover  who  were  the  real 
owners  of  the  cows,  what  was  the  Lord's  interest  and  the  extent 
of  the  tenant  right.8  When  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahane  was  in  prison, 
his  tenants  and  creaghtes  forsook  his  land  "leaving  him  without 
rents,  and  the  Deputy  was"  constrained  in  respect  of  his  quality 
to  lay  out  money  for  meat  and  apparel."4  When  O'Neill  and 
O'Donnell  threatened  trouble  in  1608  all  "the  owners  of  Creaghtes 
and  labourers"  fled  before  the  storm,  and,  on  peace  "being  restored, 
Chichester  noted  that  they  "were  not  unwilling  to  condescend"  to 
the  rebuilding  of  the  fort  "rather  than  be  abandoned  out  of  their 
native  country,  as  by  this  they  were."5  Lords  on  the  warpath,  it 
should  be  remembered,  escheated  "creaghtes"  wherever  they 
marched.  When  the  Catholic  Confederation  was  at  its  height,  the 
creaghtes  folded  their  tents,  and  stole  away  to  a  province  not 
under  its  controll.6  Chichester  noticed  that  these  roving  cattle 

1)  C.S.  P.  1610 -532-533.      2)  D.  H.  T.  1— 123.     3)  C.  M.  S.— 59.     4)  C.  S. 
P.  1609—145.        5)  C.  S.  P.  1608-27.        6)  C.  S.  P.  1641-670. 


718  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

owners  "inclined  rather  to  be  followers  to  others  than  Lords",  and 
seeme"d  to  have  no  desire  to  be  freeholders.  It  was  they  who 
rendered  the  Plantations  null  and  void.  A  freeholder  or  lease- 
holder was  a  far  less  profitable  tenant  to  an  undertaker  than  a 
cow-owner,  who  would  pay  double  and  treble  the  rent  for  a  six 
months  grazing,  a  painful  tenant,  willing  to  till  and  build,  always 
bidding  less.  "Undertakers  live  in  England",  complained  a  scribe 
"and  sublet  to  the  meaner  sort  and  not  the  industrious,  which  is 
a  discouragement  to  industry."1  One  of  the  aims  of  the  Plan- 
tations was  to  fix  these  bands  in  localities,  to  "draw  them  from 
their  course  of  running  up  and  down  the  country,  and  to  settle 
them  in  towns  and  villages".2  During  the  upheaval  after  Straf- 
ford's  downfall,  however,  they  went  where  they  listed,  paying  no 
rents.  Seven  thousand  cows  appeared  in  Tinnahinch,  in  Queen's 
County,  "destroying  and  eating  up  the  grass  and  corn,  and'  driving 
the  gentry  from  their  habitations".8 

Besides  these,  there  were  the  serfs,  adscripti  glebae.  The 
servile  tenure  accepted  for  protection,  is  regarded  by  Maine,  as 
the  basis  of  serfdom  in  Western  Europe.  It  is  undoubtedly  the 
basis  of  serfdom  in  England.  In  fact  we  may  regard  serfdom  as 
the  outcome  of  conquest  as  very  rare:  It  was  the  tribute  paid  by 
weakness  to  strength  for  services  rendered.  Accordingly  wherever 
there  was  a  demesne  there  were  adscripti  glebae,  and1,  as  the  de- 
mesnes extended  during  the  later  Plantagenet  era  of  civil  wars 
there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  those  who  accepted1  servile 
tenures  with  security  instead  of  strips  with  no  patron  as  protector. 
What,  of  course,  had  complicated  this,  was  the  manorial  system, 
from  which  this  was  the  outcome.  That  system  spread  all  over  Ire- 
land during  the  heyday  of  feudalism,  and  feudalism  in  Ireland, 
up  till  the  invasion  of  Bruce  was  a  strong,  virile,  prosperous  and 
pacific  institution. 

The  basis  of  this  system  was  services  and  dues  for  rents.  No 
student  of  the  Elizabethan  patents  can  fail  to  notice  the  im- 
portance attached  to  water-mills,  courts  leet,  courts  baron,  and  the 
other  incidents  of  the  manorial  rights.  During  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, when  the  country  was  revolting  against  1'ancien  regime  a 
special  commission  sat  to  make  peace  between  a  manorial  Lord 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1608-65.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1647—673. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  719 

nnd  his  tenants,  the  latter  of  whom  demanded  free  milling  rights. 
It  was  deposed  that  "the  tenants  when  aggrieved,  would1  go  and 
break  the  mill  pound,  in  respect,  that  the  water  was  their  own, 
saying  they  would  not  suffer  the  water  to  run  through  their  land".1 
Manorialism  when  coupled  with  tribalism  developed  a  servile  class 
very  rapidly.  This  is  the  real  significence  of  Sir  John  Davies* 
explanation  of  the  development  of  the  demesnes,  and  the  ex- 
tension of  "the  exactions".  "The  extortion  was  originally  Irish, 
for  they  used  to  lay  Bonnaught  (i.  e.  upkeep  of  soldiers)  upon 
their  people.  But  when  the  English  had  learnt  it,  they  used  it 
with  more  insolence,  and  made  it  more  intolerable."2  The  Pipe 
Eoll  of  Cloyne  thus  describes  the  tenants  on  the  demesne  in  the 
heyday  of  manorialism.  "All  these  persons  are  bound  to  guard 
the  gaol  for  the  Lord,  and  to  labour  in  the  Lord's  meadow  and 

park,  because  they  hold  by  service  at  the  Lord's  will All 

these  are  fishermen,  and  owe  service  to  the  Lord  in  fish.  They  shall 
make  the  Lord's  meadow,  shall  turn  and  gather,  and  shall  weed 
the  Lord's  corn,  and  shall  make  the  Lord's  turbaries.  ....  The 
Lord  can  in  all  places  take  all  these,  and  their  sons,  and  their 
daughters,  and  seize  their  goods  and  sell  themselves,  and  in  like 
manner,  cause  them  to  stand,  and  bear  his  land  in  whatever  place 
he  wishes."3  This  code  developed  with  extraordinary  rapidity  in 
the  later  Plantagenet  era,  the  dues  rapidly  increasing,  and  the 
minor  clans,  one  after  the  other,  sinking  to  the  level  of  villeins. 
When  the  Earl  of  Thomond  surrendered  his  Carlow  Estate  in 
1604  he  received  a  regrant  fixing  the  dues  and  services  of  the  non- 
free  cottagers.  The  grant  is  still  on  record,  and  contains  the  most 
varied  number  of  ploughings,  reapings,  death,  duties,  escheats, 
rents  and  services  it  is  possible  to  devise.4  The  last  case  on  record 
of  the  Crown  recognising  a  feudal  controll  over  the  bodies  of  the 
non-free  occurs  in  a  grant  to  Florence  Fitzpatrick,  Lord  of  Upper 
Ossory,  who  received  "waifs,  strays,  natives  et  nativas"  which 
latter  phrase  is  the  vox  propria  for  serfs.'5 

From  the  14th  to  the  17th,  centuries  the  creation  of  these 
villeins  was  rapid.  True  it  is  that  many  were  clansmen,  strip- 
owners,  originally  free,  and  still  regarding  themselves  as  superior 
to  the  demesne  tenants.  Nevertheless,  the  devastating  extension 

1)  M.  P.  K.  Elizabeth.— 13.  2)  D.  H.  T.  1—132.  3)  Cork  Historical  Journal. 
1914—160—167.  4)  Erk.  1—139, 140.  5)  M.  P.  R.  Elizabeth.— 599. 


720  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

of  Coigne  and  Livery  and  other  "uncertain  exactions",  had  re- 
duced many  to  a  servile  tenure  in  everything  except  name,  while 
the  violent  extension  of  the  demesnes  had  converted  an  enormous 
number  of  clansmen  into  tenants  at  will.  To  casual  observers  it 
i?  amazing  how  calmly  the  escheat  of  the  strips  was  regarded  by 
the  owners  during  the  Plantations.  They  forget  that  in  nine  cases 
out  of  ten  the  uneconomic  strip  was  burdened  with  a  crushing 
load  of  taxation,  that  the  strip  owner  was  a  labourer  and  nothing 
more,  and  that,  in  a  Plantation,  there  was  always  the  probability 
of  a  lease  of  a  larger  holding,  either  from  the  Lord  or  from  the 
Planter,  the  certainty  of  employment,  and  a  rigid  veto  on  any  of 
these  "ploughing  in  the  Lord's  demesne",  "one  cow  in  two  on  the 
death  of  a  tenant",  Coigne,  Livery,  "Horsemeat  and  man's  meat 
at  the  Lord's  pleasure".  These  are  as  dead  as  human  sacrifice  in 
the  Plantation  era. 

The  Elizabethan  era  marks  the  dissolution  of  the  service 
nexus,  which  had  been  created  for  very  good  reasons,  and  Was 
being  now  dissolved  for  better.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Lan- 
castrian era  in  England  the  same  symptons  were  visible.  An  in- 
tense unrest  was  noticeable  all  over  England.  It  was  accompanied 
by  a  remarkable  pugnacity  on  the  part  of  the  feudal  Lords,  who, 
in  their  broils  with  the  Crown,  or  with  one  another,  reduced  Eng- 
land to  the  lowest  depths  of  degradation  to  which  it  has  ever 
sunk.  The  movement  closed  with  an  autocracy,  the  collapse  of 
feudalism,  the  rise  of  the  cities,  the  abolition  of  serfdom,  the 
substitution  of  a  cash  for  a  service  nexus,  the  inclosures,  the  rise 
of  the  squirearchy,  and  the  right  of  the  labourer  to  go  where  he 
listed  and  sell  his  services  for  cash.  This  movement  had  spread  to 
Ireland.  A  modern  generation  is  very  apt  to  regard  Imperial 
autocracies  as  the  negation  of  liberty,  but,  compared  with  feudal, 
manorial,  and  tribal  regimes,  the  Imperial  rule  was  casual,  in- 
different, and  easy  going.  When,  however,  Elizabeth  set  herself 
to  break  the  power  of  the  "great  ones"  at  the  moment  when  "the 
meaner  sort"  were  revolting  against  exactly  the  same  "Great  ones", 
a  situation  arose  in  Ireland  which  spelt  the  end  of  the  autocracies. 
When  the  Earl  of  Desmond  fell,  .a  slice  of  his  estate  was  granted 
to  Sir  William  Herbert,  an  English  undertaker.  At  the  same  time 
the  McCarthy  wrung  from  the  Crown  a  letter  that  his  tenants 
should  return.  So  far  from  the  tenants  expressing  any  desire  to 


THE  PLANTATIONS  721 

return,  they  appealed  to  Sir  William  Herbert  to  fight  their  battles 
for  them,  and  thus  we  have  the  spectacle  of  the  English  Under- 
taker bombarding  the  Crown  with  epistles,  demanding  that  the 
tenants  should  live  where  they  pleased,  with  him,  with  others,  or 
with  minor  chieftains  who  had  no  such  manorial  privileges,  with 
anyone  save  the  great  McCarthy  with  hie  seignoral  rights  and 
claims. *  Herbert  was  successful.  Again  in  the  reign  of  James, 
when  all  this  system  had  crashed  to  the  ground,  we  find  its 
shattered  relics  a  bone  of  contention  between  Hugh  O'Neill  and 
Sir  John  Da  vies.  "The  Earl",  wrote  Sir  John,  "seeks  to  secure 
that,  by  order  of  the  State,  all  the  tenants  who  formerly  dwelt  in 
this  country,  but  are  now  fled  into  the  Pale  and  other  places  to 
avoid  his  extreme  cutting  and  extortion,  should  be  returned  unto 
him  by  compulsion,  albeit  those  tenants  had  rather  be  strangled, 
than  returned  unto  him,  for  he  will  be  master  both  of  their  bodies, 
and  their  goods.  These  tenants  are  not  bondsmen  and  villeins,  but 
the  King's  free  subjects.  This  is  not  agreeable  with  the  law  of 
England,  neither  standeth  it  with  reason  of  state  or  policy,  for  it 
was  his.  usurpation  upon  the  bodies  and  subjects  of  men  that 
enabled  him  to  make  war  upon  the  state  of  England."2 

The  interests  of  Elizabeth  and  James  and  the  small  free- 
holders, the  bondsmen  and  the  villeins  were  at  one.  The  support 
given  to  great  Lords  by  their  meaner  followers,  and  the  patents 
sanctifying  villeinage  wrung  from  the  Crown,  are  the  exceptions, 
not  the  rule.  With  the  fall  of  the  Lords  went  Coigne,  Livery,  cut- 
tings, spendings,  exactions  and  dues  by  service.  True  is  it  that  in 
some  patents  the  dues  by  service  remain,  but  they  were  fixed,  no 
longer  "uncertain",  to  be  increased'  "at  the  Lords  will".  In  the 
majority  of  cases  they  were  compound  el  for  a  monetary  rent.  In 
the  plantations  they  were  exchanged  for  a  few  acres.  The  climax 
came  on  the  accession  of  James.  Chichester  issued  a  proclamation 
which  definitely  abolished  villeinage.  All  "uncertain  exactions" 
definitely  disappeared.  "The  meaner  sort  were  taken  equally  under 
his  Majesty's  protection."  The  subject  was  commanded  to  report 
any  infringement  of  this  proclamation.  In  Cork  the  hand  of  Sir 
John  Davles  fell  heavily  upon  certain  gentlemen  who  disdeigned 
the  Proclamation.3 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1589-211.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1604—160.  3)  P.  R.  J.-419;  C.  S.  P. 
1606-409. 

46 


722  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

The  villein  was  now  a  citizen.  He  could  sue  in  a  court.  If 
he  made  money  it  was  his  own.  If  his  overlord  was  not  a  persona 
grata  with  the  Government,  his  own  little  rights  were  the  special 
care  of  the  sheriff.  If  there  was  an  undertaker  in  the  neighbour- 
hood or  a  "civil"  lessee  of  Crown  lands,  he  could  migrate  to  his 
estate,  and  receive  cash  for  a  day's  work,  sixpence  a  day,  at  a  time 
when  eggs  were  thirty  a  penny,  and  a  pound'  of  butter  sold  for  a 
penny,  1  The  new  era  of  liberty  had  opened,  and  all  men  expected 
great  things,  the  millenium,  peace,  prosperity,  and  all  the  other 
abracadabra  multitudes  associate,  with  a  change  from  the  existing 
order.  One  side  of  the  agrarian  revolution,  however,  was  thoroughly 
black.  The  lords  had  gone.  The  chiefs  were  tamed'.  These  Lords 
and  chiefs  were  the  only  persons  with  the  means  and  authority  to 
cope  with  the  serfs.  Chichester  had  foreseen  this.  Once  he  warned 
the  King  of  the  danger  of  summoning  chieftains  to  London,  "as 
inconveniences  arise  among  these  loose  people,  when  their  heads 
are  removed".2  There  was  a  second  aspect  of  the  situation.  The 
chiefs  may  have  taxed  the  tenantry  very  heavily,  but  they  spent 
their  rents  right  royally.  The  meanest  of  them  kept  Oriental 
State.  Harpers,  dogboys,  runners,  hangers-on  and  what  not  else 
loafed  around  these  feudal  menages,  taking  their  modest  share  of 
those  "uncivil  exactions".  The  exactions  were  now  gone,  and  this 
welter  of  "idle  boys"  had  no  means  of  support.  Lastly,  if  serfdom 
was  to  be  abolished,  so  too  was  the  other  side  of  serfdom,  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Lord  for  his  serfs.  If  the  State  decreed  that  these 
dues  were  "uncivil",  if  the  serfs  lifted  up  their  voices  and  cheered 
the  sheriff,  the  Lord  was  under  no  obligation  to  them  any  longer. 
It  was  more  profitable  to  turn  his  demesne  into  a  sheep  ranch,  and 
let  them  depart  and  get  what  they  could  from  their  friend's,  the 
Government.  It  was  the  same  in  England  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Tudors.  When  the  English  aristocracy  were  tamed,  the  highway 
men  doubled. 

The  servile  element  lay  at  the  bottom  of  Irish  society,  free 
from  the  control  of  their  lords.  This  servile  element  at  all  times 
numbers  about  a  sixth  of  the  population,  the  remnants  of 
some  early  Celtic  wave,  that  submitted  to  the  rest.  Weak  in 
physique,  defective  in  courage,  useless  in  war,  helpless  in  peace, 

1)  Irish  Archaeological  Society.  1—6.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1607—220. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  723 

and,  like  all  servile  elements,  savagely  cruel  towards  whatever 
man,  woman,  or  beast,  falls  under  the  power  of  some  camarilla, 
which  is  the  only  form  of  society  it  can  evolve.  The  narrow  face, 
sloping  shoulders,  puny  chest,  and  weak  mouth  of  this  type  is  as  well 
known  in  Ireland,  as  the  Armenian  in  the  Balkans  and  the  Bengali 
in  India.  Davies  attributed  its  existence  to  Coigne  and  Livery. 
''That  exaction  made  the  land  waste,  and  the  people  idle,  and  so 
crafty  for  such  as  are  oppressed,  are  always  put  to  their  shifts. 
Besides  all  the  common  people  have  a  whining  tone  or  accent  in 
their  speech,  as  if  they  did  suffer  some  oppression."  *  It  is  to  be 
feared  the  disease  was  older  than  that,  and  survived  long  after 
Coigne  and  Livery  were  gone. 

It  was  not  till  the  middle  of  the  reign  of  James,  that  the 
authorities  began  to  realize  what  a  hornet's  nest  they  had  let  loose 
by  abolishing  the  landlord,  and  his  sharp  and  drastic  methods. 
Here  are  a  few  of  the  extracts  from  the  State  papers.  "The  gaols 
are  full  and  there  is  much  thieving."  ...  A  gang  of  14  rebels, 
ranging  through  Galway  and  Roscommon,  have  committed  many 
murders.  .  .  .  Feagh  McTybbott  walks  abroad  daily  in  Mayo,  and 
robs  daily  with  five  other  men.  .  .  .  Robbers  are  at  large  in  the 
barony  of  Ornery.  .  .  .  Rebels  have  broken  into  Mrs.  Johnson's 
house,  Strabane,  and  taken  away  £  80.  worth  of  goods.  The  savings 
of  years  have  been  taken  in  a  single  night.  .  .  .  Twenty  robberies 
have  been  committed  since  Christmas,  within  a  dozen  miles  of 
my  home  in  Tipperary,  yet  none  of  us  dare  challenge  the  people 
whom  we  suspect.  .  .  .  They  burnt  the  fair  at  Pallas,  looting  the 
houses  while  the  people  were  trying  to  escape.  .  .  .  Martial  Law 
is  declared  in  Tyrone.  Many  of  the  heads  of  the  rebels  have  been 
brought  in  by  their  former  supporters."2 

With  such  a  situation  in  front  of  them,  the  Crown  authorities 
were  forced  by  circumstances  to  strain  every  nerve  to  find  some 
form  of  sustenance  for  the  large — the  very  large  idle  population. 
One  of  the  first  things  that  strikes  the  student  of  the  State  Papers, 
is  the  difference  in  tone  between  the  jargon  of  State  employed  by 
the  Tudor,  and  by  the  Stuart  Statesmen.  The  Tudor  officials  talk 
of  nothing  but  the  pacification  of  the  realm  and  the  allocation  of 
patents.  The  Stuart  officials  are  always  harping  on  ways  and  means 

1)  D.  H.T.I— 110,  133.  2)  C.  S.P.I  628- 1629....  355,  375,  396,  431, 

433,  436,  450. 

46* 


724  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

"to  set  to  work  the  excessive  number  of  idle  young  men".  A  Stuart 
suitor  anxious  for  a  concession,  boasts  that  he  had  built  a  bridge, 
or  made  a  road,  or  intends  to  do  so.  A  Stuart  official  who  wishes 
to  pat  himself  on  the  back,  dilates  on  the  number  of  "painful 
persons"  for  whom  he  has  found  employment.  The  despatches  of 
James  and  Charles  harp  incessantly  on  the  creation  of  towns,  the 
building  of  walls,  the  abolition  of  grazing,  and  display  a  royal 
scorn  for  sheep  farming.  The  age  was  one  of  paternal  and 
benevolent  despotism.  To  James  and  Charles,  Ireland  was  an 
Estate  to  be  managed  well,  and  not  a  country  in  which  people  had 
what  we  moderns  call  rights.  Grazing  was  bad  economy.  Grazing 
must  give  way  to  tillage.  According,  lessees  of  the  Royal  Planta- 
tions were  ordered  to  till,  and  their  leases  had  a  covenant  to  that 
effect  inserted. 

We  thus  get  at  the  reason  why  the  Planters  were  not  mas- 
sacred on  their  arrival.  In  a  country  wracked  with  agrarian  dis- 
sensions it  seems  amazing  that  city  bourgeois,  Crown  officials,  and 
English  financiers  could  quietly  enter  in,  sit  down  in  a  desturbed 
area,  and  their  thrive  in  safety.  They  were  always  men  of  means. 
The  desolation  of  Ireland  after  the  Elizabethan  wars  stares  us  on 
every  page  of  the  State  Papers.  The  numbers  cast  adrift  and 
without  sustenance  were  a  danger  to  the  public  peace.  The  entry 
of  a  capitalist,  building  and  tilling,  was,  to  many,  like  manna  from 
Heaven.  Add  to  this  that  on  three-fourth  of  the  Plantation  areas 
native  freeholders  were  springing  up  where  there  were  none 
before,  leaseholders  were  arising,  where  before  there  where 
tenancies  at  will,  and  we  understand  why  the  Plantation  areas 
were  the  most  peaceful  and  prosperous  in  Ireland.  Leitrim,  Long- 
ford, King's  County,  Westmeath,  Queens  County,  North  Tip- 
perary,  Cork  and  Carlow,  were  all  re-organized  on  this  basis. 

The  second  feature  of  these  Plantations  was  the  Royal  de- 
velopment of  the  small  boroughs.  They  rise  quietly  and  myste- 
riously between  1600  and  1640.  Some  were  the  work  of  Palatinate 
Lords.  Thomond,  for  instance,  was  largely  responsible  for  the 
development  of  Ennis  and  Carlow.  Others  were  the  work  of 
officials,  who  got  grants  on  the  understanding  that  they  nourished 
the  boroughs.  Belfast,  Carrickfergus,  Bandon,  Clonakilty  and 
Baltimore,  are  examples  of  this.  Others  were  the  work  of  syn- 
dicates like  Londonderry  and  Tullamore.  Whenever  there  was  a 


THE  PLANTATIONS  725 

Plantation,  however,  a  borough  was  incorporated,  and  incorpora- 
tion meant  self-government.  The  standing  instruction  in  all 
Plantations  was  that  "the  natives  were  to  be  drawn  into  town 
reeds".  The  roving  creaghtes,  the  wattle  huts  and  yearly  tenancies, 
the  nomads  of  the  mediaeval  period,  all  begin  to  vanish  before 
security  of  tenure  and  the  inrush  of  capital,  because  capital  got  a 
far  higher  dividend  in  Ireland  than  it  did  in  the  richer  country  of 
England.  An  essay,  obviously  written  by  the  Earl  of  Cork,  gives 
us  a  clue  as  to  why  these  towns  sprang  up  in  the  Plantation  areas. 
''The  natives  may  be  estated  in  convenient  quantities.  They  will 
then  build  or  plant,  whereas  now  having  no  title  and  much  of  the 
land  divided  into  petty  tenancies,  the  people  have  no  comfort  to 
build  or  settle."  After  dilating  on  the  military  and  political  im- 
portance of  placing  Englishmen  at  intervals  on  the  escheated' 
fourth,  he  adds,  that  three  towns  should  be  developed.  "These 
towns  may  receive  charters  from  the  king,  the  English  being 
burgesses,  and  the  petty  Irish  tenants  for  life  of  small  proportions, 
and  to  dwell  about  the  towns,  and  so  their  children  learnt  in  trades. 
Such  as  are  not  of  quantities  to  be  made  freeholders  abroad  may 
be  here  sustained,  governed,  and  trained,  and  dwell  in  visible 
towns -already.  The  towns  to  have  fairs,  markets,  and  other  pri- 
vileges. If  the  King  would  allow  the  rents  of  the  Plantation  to 
be  allocated  for  a  few  years  to  wall  the  towns,  that  side  of  the 
kingdom  would  be  more  secured."1  These  were  the  motives  that 
inspired  men  in  high  places,  motives  all  the  more  alluring  because 
they  coincided  perfectly- with  the  State  policy  of '"breaking  the 
dependance  of  the  meaner  sort  on  their  chiefs",  destroying  the 
clan  system,  and  "setting  the  idle  boys  to  work".  Whatever  defects 
the  Stuarts  may  have  had,  they  had  a  genius  for  combining  the 
arts  of  a  Machiavelli  with  those  of  a  demagogue.  If  "the  idle 
boys"  were  satisfied  the  Throne  was  safe. 

Popular  histories  have  poured  on  the  Planters  much  scorn, 
partly  because  they  were  law-abiding,  partly  because  they  were 
Protestants,  and  partly  because  many  were  English.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  industry  is  always  law-abiding,  that  industry  in 
Ireland  is  generally  Protestant,  and  that,  at  this  period,  capital 
was  only  found  in  England.  The  fact  remains  that  the  Planters 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660—451. 


726  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

were  very  popular.  The  Earl  of  Cork,  with  all  his  peculiarities, 
financed  an  enormous  number  of  undertakings  in  Munster.  Gookin, 
who  operated  round  Baltimore  and  was  denounced  unanimously 
by  the  Irish  Parliament,  paid  £  1.000  a  year  in  wages. *  We  get 
another  glimpse  of  the  actualities  of  the  situation  when  we  find 
Phelim  O'Byrne,  the  Lord  of  South  Wicklow,  indignantly  de- 
nouncing a  mooted  Plantation,  because  tenants,  whom  he  did  not 
like,  fled  from  his  wrath  and  were  "entertained"  by  Parsons,  a 
lessee  of  a  neighbouring  estate. 2  The  influence,  power  and  po- 
pularity of  the  Planter  families  was  most  visible  in  the  emeute  of 
1641.  Thousands  were  massacred,  but  thousands  had  a  sufficient 
local  following  to  ride  the  waves  of  anarchy  and  emerge 
triumphant  in  the  end.  Gookin,  for  instance,  was  able  to  raise  a 
troop  in  West  Cork. 3 

The  Plantation  policy  had  been  much  misinterpreted.  We 
must  remember  that,  before  it  came  into  vogue,  the  freeholders 
had  no  title,  and  had  to  pay  heavy  chiefries,  and  never  knew  when 
.an  emeute  might  expell  them.  To  secure  for  the  surrender  of  a 
fourth  of  their  lands,  a  clear  good  title  to  the  remaining  three 
quarters  was  an  excellent  bargain,  because  in  a  few  years  the  rise 
in  the  value  of  land  was  an  ample  compensation.  The  change  of 
tenancies  at  will  to  leases  for  three  lives  was  another  boon  of  im- 
mense value  at  that  period.  It  was  really  however  the  introduction 
of  the  moneyed  men  on  to  the  escheated  fourth  that  made  these 
areas  what  they  were.  Mines,  mills,  fisheries,  and  small  industries 
slowly  emerge  between  1610  and  1640.  The  appearance  of 
Wandesf orde  in  South  Carlow,  for  instance,  created  almost  a  re- 
volution in  the  life  of  the  countryside.  The  fact  was  that  feudal 
Ireland  had  weighed  very  heavily  on  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  It  is 
hard  to  say  whether  the  wars  or  the  exactions  had  been  the  worst. 
The  ordinary  change  in  tenures  by  the  policy  of  surrender  and 
regrant  had  benefited  the  free  clansmen,  but  they  were  only  a  tiny 
minority  of  the  country.  The  creation  of  the  minor  gentry  as  free- 
hold squires  took  nearly  a  century  to  produce  beneficial  results. 
They  had  neither  the  capital  to  develope  their  estates,  nor  the 
experience,  the  tradition,  or  the  desire.  A  class  just  emerging  from 
mediaevalism,  and  from  wars  in  a  country  that  always  lives  on  the 

1)  C.S.  P.  1695-1660-186.  2)  T.  C.  I).  F.  3. 17.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660 
—624. 


THE  PLANTATIONS  727 

brink  of  civil  war,  was  undoubtedly  unwilling  to  employ  many 
men,  and  to  build  and  till  for  future  profit.  Over  and  over  again 
the  statement  is  made  that  sheep  farming  and  "creachting"  were 
the  chief  occupations  of  the  new  owners.  Connaught,  for  instance, 
into  wrhich  Planters  never  entered  remained,  and  remains  still  a 
Province  of  ranches.  Exceptions  of  course  there  were  like  Tho- 
mond,  the  Antrim  O'Neills,  the  Earl  of  Eoscommon,  theEsmondes, 
St.  Leger,  and  Ormonde,  but,  as  a  rule,  this  was  the  reason  why 
Plantations  were  made  and  Planters  were  popular.  "The  remote 
parts  of  Connaught  are  occupied  by  a  poor  and  indigent  people, 
as  barbarous  as  the  Moors.  They  pay  their  Lords  public  and  private 
chiefries,  though  the  same  are  abolished.  The  British  and  natives 
being  mixed,  the  natives  may  become  laborious,  who  are  apt  to 
labour  by  the  good  example  of  others,  when  they  may  have  hire 
and  reward.  The  Irish  Lords  and  gentry  do  never  give  the  poor 
people  anything  for  their  labour,  which  doth  dispose  them  to 
idleness.  The  Plantation  will  procure  men  (i.  e.  Crown  lessees)  to 
set  upon  fishings,  to  build  ships,  and  set  upon  iron  works  and  the 
making  of  baize."1 

In  1625  Parsons  uttered  a  paean  of  triumph.  "The  King's 
authority  has  superseded  all  local  potentates.  Now  we  have  only 
to  deal  with  a  few  Irish  youths,  whereas  formerly  there  were 
combinations  of  three  or  four  Irish  Lords.  About  200  Castles  have 
been  built,  one  walled  town  finished,  and  two  others  begun.  The 
freeing  of  them  from  their  Lords  has  been  a  great  step.  They 
now  stretch  their  limbs  in  their  neV  lands,  and  find  themselves 
free." '  It  was  a  great  paean,  but  one  can  detect  an  uneasy  note 
running  through  it.  All  would  be  perfect  if  "only  means  were 
devised  to  set  the  universal  idle  hands  of  Ireland  to  work",  if  only 
"the  course  of  religion  were  not  troubling",  if  only  "officers  were 
not  sent  over",,  if  only  everything  had  not  to  be  referred  to  Lon- 
don— a  veritable  series  of  ifs  which  make  one  suspect  all  was  not 
well.  Underneath  it  all.  there  was  a  seething  chaos  of  furies, 
rascalities,  passions,  hopes,  fears,  intimidations,  and  wrath, 
destined  to  sweep  everything  into  anarchy. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-129.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—58, 


Chapter  IV 
DEFECTIVE  TITLES 

The  strong  struggle  in  every  individual  to  preserve  possession  of 
what  he  has  found  to  belong  to  him,  and  to  distinguish  him,  is  one 
of  the  securities  against  injustice  and  despotism  implanted  in  our  nature. 
It  operates  as  an  instinct  to  preserve  communities  in  a  settled  state. 

BURKE. 

The  two  administrations  that  had  preceded  Strafford's  had 
been  the  weakest  that  ever  mismanaged  Ireland.  Falkland  was 
a  well  meaning  and  impetuous  man,  without  a  ghost  of  an  idea  of 
the  undercurrents  of  Irish  politics,  and  with  none  of  that  authority 
over  the  officials  and  political  leaders,  which  was  the  first  requisite 
of  an  Irish  Viceroy.  Cork  and  Loftus  were  only  a  stop-gap,  an 
interregnum,  immeshed  in  mutual  dissensions.  During  the  Vice- 
Eoyalty  of  Falkland  the  English  Council  had  been  so  troubled 
with  other  affairs  that  they  could  pay  little  heed  to  Ireland.  For- 
eign politics  developed  into  a  war,  and  were  constantly  disturbed 
by  panics.  Scotland  was,  to  the  most  superficial  eye,  on  the  eve  of 
rebellion.  In  England  the  Revolutionary  Party  was  fast  rising  in 
popular  esteem.  Matters  drifted  in  Ireland  from  bad  to  worse. 
Inefficient  administration  allowed  rents  to  go  by  default,  and  the 
Customs  to  sink  into  the  maw  of  a  host  of  vested  interests.  The 
expenses  of  Government  were  fast  increasing,  as  this  function  after 
that  devolved  on  the  Government.  A  deficit  on  the  annual  account 
and  a  floating  debt  of  £  80.000  was  the  legacy  these  administra- 
tions left  to  Strafford. 

To  tide  over  these  lean  years  the  authorities  hit  on  the  plan 
of  extracting  a  benevolence  from  the  squirearchy.  Benevolences 
survived  in  Ireland  down  to  the  time  of  Strafford,  and  were  re- 
garded with  as  much  equanimity  as  a  Parliamentary  vote  of  sup- 
plies is  to-day.  The  squirearchy  assembled  in  Dublin  and  there 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  729 

demanded  that  the  Corporations  be  admitted  to  the  conclave. 
When  this  was  done  the  general  assembly  demanded  a  redress  of 
grievances.  Falkland  foolishly  pleaded  that  he  had  no  power  to 
redress  grievances,  whereupon  the  whole  conclave  with  one  voice 
demanded  the  right  to  petition  the  King. 

Anyone  with  the  most  rudimentary  conception  of  political 
conditions  could;  have  f orseen  what  would  have  eventuated.  Straf- 
ford  never  allowed  anyone  to  approach  the  King,  without  first 
knowing  what  was  his  request,  and  having  first  tendered  his  own 
view  of  the  matter  in  discussion,  so  that  the  King  should,  at  any 
rate,  have  some  expert  comment  on  the  grievance.  The  practice 
at  this  period  was  for  the  King,  if  he  wished  to  refuse,  to  say  he 
did  so  on  the  advice  of  the  Minister,  and  if  he  wished  to  accede  to 
do  so  "of  our  Koyal  Grace  and  Bounty".  Kings  were  not  supposed 
to  "take  the'  negative".  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  whole  conclave 
trooped  over  to  London.  There — behind  the  backs  of  the  Irish 
Council  who  were  never  even  consulted — from  a  smiling  King  and 
an  ignorant  body  of  English  Councillors  they  received  a  whole 
series  of  Graces,  cutting  down  the  revenue,  hampering  the  Army, 
passing  away  Koyal  farms,  manors,  and  lands,  and  lastly  awarding 
to  themselves  the  lands  of  other  subjects,  who  were  either  "mean 
in  quality",  or  too  industrious  to  worry  themselves  over  political 
intrigues.  The  greatest  and  the  most  sweeping  of  all  the  Graces 
was  the  following:  "For  the  better  settling  of  our  subjects' 
Estates  we  are  pleased  that  an  Act  of  Grace  shall  pass  in  the  next 
Parliament  touching  the  Limitation  of  our  titles,  not  to  extend 
above  three  score  years  as  did  pass  here  (England)  21  Jacobi."3 
The  deputation  then  agreed  to  a  Benevolence  of  £  40.000  for  three 
years,  which  was  indeed  not  much  after  what  had  been  "passed 
away".  The  feudal  dues  were  reduced.  The  general  hosting 
suspended.  The  Composition  rents  of  Elizabeth  were  temporary 
withdrawn. 2  "These  Graces",  wrote  a  scribe,  "far  exceed  in  value 
what  is  asked  of  the  Country  in  exchange."5  Then  all  returned 
homewards  cheering  with  joy.  The  Contribution  or  Benevolence 
was  less  successful.  It  had  .to  be  extended  over  four  years.  Its 
collection  was  defective,  grudging,  and  a  failure.4  One  gentleman: 
in  high  places  exempted  all  his  own  estates. 5  The  majority  calmly 

1)  L.S.I— 320.       2)  C.  S.P.I  628— 156,330— 338.       3)  C.  S.  P.  1626— 158. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1632-659.        5)  R.  P.  VIII.  p.  26. 


730  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

extracted  the  money  from  their  tenants,  debtors,  or  "meaner" 
persons,  "most  unequally  freeing  themselves"  as  Straff ord  later 
remarked.  l  When  Stafford's  first  Parliament  was  on  the  eve  of 
assembling,  Charles,  who  was  now  aware  of  what  he  had  done, 
remarked:  "I  fear  that  they  will  have  some  ground  to  demand 
more  than  it  is  fit  for  me  to  give."  So  pessimistic  was  he  over  the 
task  of  ruling  a  bankrupt  country  with  a  depleted  Exchequer, 
through  a  Parliament  clamouring  loudly  for  the  Statute  of  Limi- 
tations, that  he  suggested  to  Strafford  the  advisability  of  dis- 
solving that  body,  and  ruling  through  the  latent  powers  of  the 
Prerogative.  "It  is  true  your  grounds  are  well  laid,  yet  my  opinion 
is  that  it  will  not  be  the  worse  for  my  service  though  their 
obstinacy  make  you  break  them.  Take  good  heed  of  that  Hydra."  : 

The  clamour  for  this  Statute  of  Limitations  exposes  the  great 
defect  of  the  Jacobean  Settlement.  The  number  of  patents  that 
had  been  paissed  since  Elizabeth  began  her  operations  was  legion. 
Those  of  the  reign  of  James  are  innumerable.  An  abbreviated 
summary  of  those  of  the  first  eight  years  fills  an  enormous  tome. 
A  modern  Government,  working  on  Survey  Maps,  bound  by  re- 
gulations, watched  by  the  Argus  eyes  of  a  critical  multitude  could 
not  achieve  this  transformation  with  efficiency.  The  Government 
of  James  was  the  Irish  Council,  dealing  with  a  country  in  which 
there  was  neither  law,  public  opinion,  or  even  knowledge  of  many 
counties.  That  they  did  what  they  did  without  an  explosion  is  a 
testimony  to  the  efficiency  of  their  loose  methods.  Nevertheless 
there  were  ghastly  chasms  of  chaos,  due  to  contradictory  instruc- 
tions from  London,  political  influences,  unnecessary  haste,  and 
two  eternal  defects,  that  personal  equation  whereby  a  man  with 
influence  in  Dublin,  or  likely  to  create  trouble  in  the  Country, 
or  gifted  with  skill  in  intrigue,  or  powers  of  cajolery  can  carry 
measures  contrary  to  equity,  and  secondly  the  widespread  belief 
that  the  lands  and  funds  of  the  State  and  the  Common  Weal  are 
legitimate  prey. 

Lords  had  passed  to  themselves  the  lands  of  their  tenants. 
Chiefs  on  submission  had  passed  patents  of  the  lands  of  Crown 
tenants.  A  Royal  letter  would  arrive  ordering  a  Chief  to  receive 
"his  estate".  Then  lands  to  which  "the  patentee  had  not  title 

1)L.S.  1-407.  2)  L.  S.  1-233.: 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  731 

formerly"  would  be  inserted  in  his  patent.  A  letter  would  arrive 
awarding  a  soldier,  official,  or  contractor,  lands  to  the  value  of 
£  20.  On  the  strength  of  this  letter  lands  would  pass  for  £  1.000 
or  £  2.000.  These  letters  used  to  be  bought  up  by  capitalists  and 
turned  to  advantage.  "For  here",  wrote  Bramhall,  as  he  looked 
around  his  plundered  Diocese,  "it  hath  been  usual  to  pass  an  aliud 
et  aliud  with  an  alias,  upon  a  letter  for  £  20  to  pass  £  30  or  £  40, 
to  pass  that  for  nothing  in  time  of  peace,  which  was  found  to  have 
been  worth  little  or  nothing  in  time  of  war,  and  to  take  up  appro- 
priations as  gentleman  do  waifs  in  England".1  Headlands, 
fisheries,  harbours,  valuable  rivers  and  forests  had  gone  into 
private  hands  by  this  process,  generally  by  the  introduction  of 
"general  words"  in  the  patents.  Tenures  had  been  shamefully 
abused.  Men  holding  by  Knights  Tenure  in  Capita  used  to  sur- 
render and  get  a  new  patent  in  soccage,  making  no  mention  of  the 
surrender,  "to  preclude  His  Majesty  from  all  inquiry  into  former 
titles  and  advantages,  as  being  an  absolute  grant".  Connaught 
involved  the  greatest  of  all  these  scoops.  Some  of  the  Gal  way 
Merchants  and  Chiefs  had  "at  the  instance  of  Lord  Wilmot"  got 
from  the  King  "a  general  surrender  to  grant  back  to  all  the  in- 
habitants their  land  to  be -held  in  soccage  tenure  in  chiefry",  i.  e. 
exempt  from  feudal  dues  to  the  King  and  yet  legalizing  the  feudal 
dues  over  the  tenants. 2  Lord  Wilmot,  the  President  of  Connaught, 
had  passed  the  Castle  Lands  of  Athlone  to  himself,  and  then  sold 
them  to  a  large  number  of  unsuspecting  farmers. 3 

Here  we  have  a  vast  vested  interest,  zealous  for  a  ratification 
of  all  such  bargains.  True  it  is  that  the  majority  of  these  were 
passed  after  1570,  and  therefore  would  not  come  under  a  Statute 
of  Limitations,  but,  if  the  Statute  was  passed,  where  was  the  Royal 
Title  to  challenge  these  patents?  The  greater  part  of  these  patents 
were  passed  on  the  assumption  that  the  land  was  the  King's  to 
give,  and  it  could  only  be  the  Kings  by  ancient  feudal  titles,  and 
the  Act  of  resumption,  passed  a  century  before.  What  was  more 
the  earlier  Tudor  patents  teemed  with  the  same  defects,  and  the 
encroachments  on  Church  lands  had  peached  their  highest  point 
over  70  years  before  this  Grace.  When  read  in  conjunction  with 
certain  other  Graces,  especially  two,  one  forbidding  enquiry  into 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1638-182.       2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1615—1625—437. 


732  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

the  same  scandal  in  regard  to  the  Plantations,  and  another 
establishing  in  possession  every  de  facto  owner  in  Connaught  and 
Thomond,  the  real  gist  of  this  Grace  was  a  complete  pardon  and 
oblivion  to  all  who  by  undue  influence  had  seized  on  the  lands  of 
the  State,  the  Church,  and  those  of  other  subjects. 

The  effect  of  this  Grace  even  went  further.  It  was  a  barrier 
in  the  path,  of  all  Plantations.  The  only  method  by  which  com- 
pulsory powers  could  be  obtained  was  by  a  Royal  and  seignoral 
title  of  two  or  three  centuries  old.  This  vanished  with  a  Statute 
of  Limitations.  In  Connaught,  Thomond,  Carlow.  and  Wicklow 
a  man  who  had  seized  a  plot  in  the  "Stirs"  became  the  owner,  free 
of  rent,  free  of  feudal  tenures,  free  of  the  necessity  of  granting 
leases,  while,  in  other  parts  of  Ireland,  men,  who  had  pulled  no 
such  strings,  and  told  no  lies  at  Whitehall,  had  submitted  to  these 
duties.  What  view  did  the  meaner  sort  of  those  areas  take  of  this 
transaction?  What  view  did  heavily  burdened  taxpayers  take  of 
this  exemption  of  a  fiftli  of  Ireland?  The  story  the  Connaught 
Lords  had  told  Charles  was  that  James  had  promised  that  they 
would  be  exempt  from  a  Plantation.  James  had  never  done 
anything  of  the  sort. 1  "In  regard  to  Connaught",  wrote  an 
anonymous  Scotchman  to  the  King,  "your  Majesty  hath  looseth 
more  than  you  had  gotten  by  the  subsidies  if  they  were  fourfold". 2 
Nor  was  the  Revenue  the  only  loser.  Sixty  years  possession 
established  something  more  than  titles  to  land.  It  legalised  every 
"exaction"  in  existence.  The  Royal  Proclamation  had  only  abol- 
ished the  "uncertain  exactions",  like  coigne  and  livery,  blackmail 
and  black  rent,  but  it  had  not  wiped  out  those  innumerable  dues, 
which  were  the  growth  of  time.  Anyone  of  these  that  had  been  in 
existence  for  sixty  years  immediately  became  as  legal  as  the  rent 
stipulated  in  a  bond,  without  any  hope  of  composition  by  a  Plan- 
tation. Exactly  the  same  consideration  applies  to  that  heavy  load 
of  taxation  the  Corporations  used  to  impose  on  merchants  and 
manufacturers. 3  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  plaint  of  a  Connaught 
clergyman,  which  ran  as  follows:  "The  landlords  in  most  places 
pay  nothing,  yet  increase  their  rent  yearly.  The  poor  tenant 
alloweth  one  workman  every  week  in  the  year  to  the  landlord 
called  blackwork,  that  is  to  say  having  neither  meat  nor  wages. 

1)  L.  S.  1—320,  321,  457,  458;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—213—215;  C.  S.  P.  1641 
^275—278.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660—137.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1641-266. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  733 

The  tenant  reapeth  his  landlord's  corn,  maketh  his  hay,  his  turf, 
tilleth  his  ground,  bringeth  home  corn,  hay,  and  turf,  and  all 
without  wages.  If  it  be  a  rainy  harvest,  poor  tenant  loseth  his  own 
corn  and  hay.  The  landlord  coshiereth  with  the  tenant  at  Christ- 
mas, which  is  very  chargeable.  He  hath  at  Easter  half  hogs,  hens, 
custom  hog,  mutton  and  goose.  Good  King  redress  the  defects  and 
faults  of  Ireland.  Henry  Bell,  Preacher."1  Falkland  had  com- 
plained of  this  before,  and  had  strongly  urged  a  Plantation,  of 
Connaught,  but  the  fatal  visit  of  the  agents  for  the  Benevolence 
had  "dashed  it"  behind  his  back. 2 

There  was  even  another  incentive  to  this  agitation,  because 
it  was  an  agitation  in  every  possible  sense  of  the  word.  Stratford 
refers  to  "the  ravenous  .appetites  they  have  here  after  the  Statute 
of  the  three  score  years",  and  "a  sore  which  we  are  sure  will  be 
rubbed  on  in  Parliament  at  every  turn". 3  There  were  first  the 
tona  fide  purchasers  of  these  improper  patents,  which  could  always 
be  challenged  on  the  grounds  that  the  patent  did  not  agree  with 
the  signet  letter.  There  were  the  purchasers  of  lands  secretely 
feoffed,  a  most  pernicious  practice  at  that  period,  the  Statute  of 
Uses  not  applying  to  Ireland. 4  There  were  men  in  whose  patents 
there  was  a  flaw.  We  must  remember  that  patents  had  been  poured 
out  at  the  rate  of  a  dozen  or  so  a  day,  by  an  Executive  which  did 
not  contain  lawyers  of  the  first  rank.  A  flaw  in  a  patent  rendered 
it  null,  and  made  the  owner  liable  to  escheat.  The  number  of  such 
patents  was  legion.  All  during  the  chaos  and  the  confusion  of  the 
Tudor  times  the  Land  Department  had  not  only  worked  at  full 
pressure,  but  without  proper  supervision.  Sir  John  Davies,  in  the 
reign  of  James,  was  the  first  to  introduce  anything  like  organized 
scrivenry.  Here  was  a  large  body  of  law  abiding  and  honest 
subjects,  threatened  daily  with  escheat  for  their  bona  fide  posses- 
sions, and  seeing  in  a  Statute  of  Limitations  something  that  gave 
some  of  them  something  like  security  of  tenure.  What  had  added 
to  their  peril  was  what  Straff ord  used  to  call  "the  beagles".  The 
Crown,  in  order  to  detect  certain  of  the  scandals  alluded  to  above, 
had  given  men  warrants  to  detect  flaws,  warrants  whereby  the 
major  part  of  the  escheat  went  into  the  "beagle's"  possession.  As 
may  be  well  imagined  the  "beagles"  were  cautious  of  attacking 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—277.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625— 1660— 128— 129.  3)  L.  S. 
—280, 191.  4)  L.  S.  II— 18. 


734  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

those  with  official  influence  or  mobs  at  their  command,  and  con- 
centrated rather  on  the  ordinary  subject,  the  bona  fide  purchaser. 
These  "beagles"  were  a  regular  plague  in  the  country.  Straff ord 
attributed  much  disloyalty  and  disaffection  to  the  King's  Eoyal 
Patents  being  thus  denied  by  men,  acting  as  Eoyal  agents  "pro- 
jectors of  suits,  wherein  that  Nation  abounds  as  much  as  in  any 
other  cattle".1  On  paper  these  warrants  were  given  to  respectable 
persons,  but  they  usually  employed  rural  agents,  obsessed,  so  said  the 
Deputy,  with  "the  importunity  of  greedy  minds",  who  turned  what 
was  meant  as  a  check  on  defective  patents  and  a  means  of  recovering 
revenue  into  blackmail,  pure  and  simple,  "carrying  the  best  part, 
of  the  profit  from  your  Majesty",  and  the  original  official.2  The 
method  was  to  approach  the  patentee,  and  draw  doles  for  "saying 
nothing".  There  were  men  who,  having  paid  blackmail  to  one  of 
these  creatures,  were  then  confronted  by  another,  and  sometimes 
paid  half  their  rentals  in  protecting  their  properties.3  This  is 
Stafford's  view  of  two  attorneys  employed  by  Arundel  on  this 
errand,  Arundel  who  never  forgave  him  for  this  scorching  tirade. 
"It  is  not  comely  for  your  Lordship  to  permit  such  a  pair  of 
beagles  to  hunt  over  Leinster,  prying  for  legal  advantages,  turning 
out  the  ancient  owners,  no  way  privy  to  the  supposed  frauds,  and 
separating  the  subjects  from  the  promised  protection  of  His 
Majesty.  One  is  a  person  infamous,  the  other  not  of  sound  repute. 
Five  Marks  handsomely  converged  from  the  persons  concerned 
into  their  pockets  will  still  any  pretences  intrusted  them  by  your 
Lordship."4  James  one  time  issued  a  warrant  to  inquire  into 
concealed  feudal  tenures  in  Connaught.  We  know  for  a  fact  that 
beagles  hunted  well  over  that  Province.  The  report  from  the  Ex- 
chequer runs  as  follows:  "We  do  not  find  that  anything  has  come 
into  the  King's  coffers  under  this  head."5 

How  Strafford  succeeded  in  inducing  the  House  of  Commons 
If  grant  the  Supplies,  without  according  the  Statute  of  Limita- 
tions, is  described  elsewhere.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  his  strategy 
was  to  promise  a  legal  inquiry  into  every  Defective  Patent, 
followed  by  a  good  and  Parliamentary  Title.  This  was  made  a 
grave  charge  against  him  on  his  downfall,  "denying  to  the  sub- 
ject the  King's  Graces",  and  historians  have  gone  further  instating 

1)  L.S.  K— 18.  2)  L.S.  1-92.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 17.  4)  L.  S.  II— 30. 
5)  C.  S.  P.  1641—276. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  735 

that,  by  adopting  this  method,  first  of  throwing  the  onus  of  refusal 
on  Straff ord,  and  secondly  by  substituting  a  Commission  of 
Defective  Titles  for  a  Statute  of  Limitations  Charles  broke  his 
Eoyal  word.  It  is  clear,  very  clear,  that  when  Charles  promised 
a  Statute  of  Limitations  he  was  not  promising  to  perpetuate  the 
series  of  scandals  and  injustices  already  outlined.  He  had  been 
told  that  James  had  already  promised  to  forego  the  Eoyal  Title 
to  Connaught.  He  was  told,  which  was  a  fact,  that  save  for  a  few 
applotments  there  were  no  more  Koyal  compounds.  Then  the 
serious  and  real  grievance  of  the  holders  of  Defective  Patents  was 
outlined,  and  there  was  nothing  more  natural  than  to  remedy  this 
grievance  by  this  method.  Where  Charles  blundered—and  he  fre- 
quently blundered  through  this  defect — was  that  he  listened  to 
the  eloquent  spokesmen  of  the  Irish  Deputation,  and  did  not 
consult  his  Irish  servants.  This  habit  of  preferring  the  advice  of 
unofficial  subjects  to  his  Ministers  was  the  secret  of  Charles'  down- 
fall. The  reason  was  obvious.  He  had  seen  enough  of  the  Court 
to  distrust  all  his  Ministers.  To  Straf?ord  for  instance  he  was  an 
'jnigma,  whose  confidence  wras  never  won,  whose  next  move  was 
a  mystery. 

A  Commission  of  Defective  Titles  remedied  the  just  grievance 
which  Charles  had  intended  to  redress,  on  which  the  agents  had 
been  most  vociferous.  It  did  not  fulfil  the  letter  of  the  promise, 
but  it  amply  fulfilled  the  spirit.  A  Statute  of  Limitations  only 
strengthened  titles  sixty  years  old,  but  the  Commission  of  Defective 
Titles  was  able  to  cope  with  those  patents  of  the  year  before.  A 
Statute  of  Limitations  would  make  60  years  possession  a  good  title, 
and  debarred  claimants  with  just  and  honorable  claims,  and  left 
those  with  pretensions,  labouring  under  an  intolerable  sense  of 
grievance.  The  young  Earl  of  Kildare  told  the  House  of  Lords 
that  the  Civil  Wars,  a  long  minority,  and  the  law's  delays  had 
prevented  him  or  his  father  sueing  an  ejectment,  and,  if  that  Bill 
had  passed,  gone  were  his  hopes  of  an  ancestral  estate. *  The 
disturbances  of  the  16th  century  had  left  a  host  of  claimants  to 
land,  of  men  in  possession,  and  men  dispossessed  by  violence.  The 
organization  of  the  Law  only  began  to  operate  fully  in  1610. 
Even  then  it  was  as  tortuous  as  Chancery  at  a  later  date.  The  Coun- 

1)  T.  C  D.  F.  1— G. 


736  THE  LATO  QUESTION 

cil  could  veto  a  suit.  The  King  could  veto  a  suit.  Letters  to  delay 
proceedings  are  scattered  all  through  the  State  Papers.  Add  to  this 
what  the  House  of  Commons  called  "the  manifold  inconveniences 
caused  by  the  embezzling,  burning,  and  defacing  of  records  "and 
we  understand  why  there  were  so  many  agrarian  disputes  in  Ire- 
land.1 "This  Commission",  wrote  Stafford,  "will  resettle  all  men's 
minds  after  the  distempers  and  disturbances,  which  they  have 
endured  by  the  late  rebellion  here."  When  controversies  between 
subject  and  subject,  and  Crown  and  subject  had  been  settled  on 
some  general  basis,  when  Ireland  was  "brought  nearer  to  the  con- 
dition of  England  than  it  now  stands",  then  it  would  be  possible 
to  pass  a  Statute  of  Limitations.2  It  is  significant  that  the  English 
Statute  of  Limitations  was  not  passed  till  130  years  after  the  Wars 
of  the  Eoses. 

The  legal  principles  on  which  this  Commission  worked  he 
procured  from  three  judges  in  England,  "all  the  judges  and 
lawyers  here,  being  in  one  case  or  other  parties  by  reason  of  their 
own  estates,  and  so  deliver  the  law  to  be  such,  as  may  amongst 
others,  save  their  own  stakes  for  Company".3  In  the  initial  stages 
of  Irish  law,  when  judges  were  paid  by  patents  in  lieu  of  cash, 
it  was  almost  impossible  to  procure  a  judge  who  could  not  help 
being  biassed  one  way  or  the  other.  It  was  probably  this  defect 
that  had  made  earlier  Commissions  for  Defective  Titles  into  distri- 
butors of  Crown  and  Church  Lands  in  soccage  to  all  and  sundry, 
and  estates  of  some  men  who  deserved  them  to  others  who  did  not. 4 

It  was  by  the  offer  of  this  Commission  that  Strafford  induced 
the  Irish  Parliament  to  pass  the  subsidies.  Dealing  as  it  did  with 
a  just  and  widespread  grievance,  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
popular  Act  of  his  career.  The  preamble  to  the  Subsidy  Bill  in 
his  second  Parliament  runs  as  follows:  "And  we  thank  His  Majesty 
particulary  for  the  large  and  ample  benefits,  which  we  have  re- 
ceived and  hope  to  receive  by  His  Majesty's  Commission  of  Grace 
for  Kemedy  of  Defective  Titles."5 

The  importance  of  this  reform  has  never  been  sufficiently 
estimated.  In  eight  years  it  established  a  very  large  number  of 
titles.  In  the  Elizabethan  and  Jacobean  period  disputes  for  posses- 
sion of  land  were  the  pest  of  the  Country.  The  State  Papers  are 

1)  L.  S.  1—310.  2)  L.  S.  1-320.  3)  L.  S.  11-192.  4)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 
5)  C.S.P.  1641— 265. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  737 

littered  with  violent  controversies,  in  which,  it  passes  the  wit  of 
man  to  decide  who  was  the  real  owner  of  an  area.  Tanistry, 
gavelkind,  contradictory  patents,  custom,  ancestral  rights,  and  a 
host  of  other  considerations  perplex  the  most  conscientious  in- 
quirer. From  the  date  of  the  Commission  of  Defective  Titles  all 
these  questions  were  brought  within  a  compass  with  which  a 
lawyer  could  deal.  We  no  longer  have  O'Donnels  in  Donegal 
"flying  out"  because  the  Crown  favoured  O'Connors  in  Sligo.  The 
question  from  that  date  is  the  patents  of  Strafford's  Commission, 
&nd  whether  the  Crown  had  the  force  to  defend  them  against  subse- 
quent upheavals  of  those  who,  without  such  patents,  demanded 
the  land  because  they  were  strong  and  the  owner  weak.  In  such 
cases  the  "stirs"  are  mild  compared  with  those  of  the  Tudor  period 
which  always  began  with  a  conflagration  of  at  least  a  dozen 
"villages". 

The  House  of  Commons  saw  in  this  reform  a  chance  of  "im- 
proving, planting,  and  building  in  this  land,  for  the  inhabitants 
either  through  carelessness  of  that  whereof  they  fear  they  are  not 
secured  are  disheartened  from  making  their  possessions  beautiful 
or  profitable". *  The  Eoyal  Warrant  establishing  the  Commission 
based  it  on  "defective  titles  that  impede  husbandry". 2  The  very 
Statute  against  fraudulent  conveyances  and  secret  feoffments, 
according  to  Strafford,  added  four  years'  purchase  to  Irish  land. 3 
Strafford  himself  declared  that  "the  taking  off  of  all  questions 
between  them  and  the  Crown  not  only  contented  them,  but  en- 
couraged them  in  industry,  now  that  they  find  they  are  to  enjoy 
the  fruits  of  their  own  labours".  4  In  the  years  that  followed  this 
measure  "the  considerable  improvement  in  the  values  of  land" 
doubled  the  value  of  every  acre. 5  Security  of  title  more  than 
anything  else  had  achieved  this  transformation.  The  movement 
that  had  begun  with  the  Tudors  was  now  reaching  fruition. 

The  Warrant  empowering  this  Commission  to  act  gives  us 
some  idea  of  the  vast  powers  it  possessed.  On  petition  from  a 
landlord  or  a  tenant,  or  on  its  own  initiative  it  could  act.  It  could 
compound  for  a  Crown  Title,  for  all  rent,  dues,  and  taxes  that 
were  in  arrears.  It  could  create  a  new  rent,  or  alter  the  tenure, 
but  it  could  not  grant  a  feudal  right  over  subtenants  above  a 

i)L.S.  1-311.  2)  C.  8.  P.  1634— 56.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1636-134.  4)  L.S.II— 18. 
5)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15;  L.  S.  11—434. 

47 


738  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

certain  limit.  If  a  title  was  defective  and  the  owner  did  not 
appear  to  compound,  it  could  put  the  land  up  for  auction.  It 
could  appoint  sub-committees  to  deal  with  any  matter  it  pleased. 
What  was  of  more  importance,  however,  was  that  any  two  mem- 
bers and  the  Lord  Chancellor  could  pass  a  grant.  This  swept 
away  the  old  difficulty  of  a  Royal  letter  from  London,  and  abol- 
ished another  scandal,  the  liability  to  escheat  if  a  legal  wiseacre 
could  find  any  discrepancy  between  the  patent  and  the  letter. 
Furthermore  no  patents  of  any  kind  could  be  granted  in  London 
or  Dublin  without  the  consent  of  this  Commission.  With  this 
power  in  his  hands  Strafford  was  able  to  block,  by  an  appeal  to 
the  Commission,  many  a  letter  "wrung  on  false  considerations" 
from  the  London.  Finally  an  Act  was  passed  giving  a  Parlia- 
mentary sanction  to  all  such  titles.  With  such  a  patent  in  his 
possession  a  landowner  was  safe  for  all  time.  No  discovery  of 
concealments,  Eoyal  Titles,  hidden  patents,  or  fraudulent  convey- 
ances could  nullify  a  patent  based  on  this  Act.  Lord  Chancellor 
Bolton  not  inaptly  dubbed  it  "The  Golden  Act  worth  to  the 
subject  many  millions  of  money". *  Pending  the  passing  of  this 
Act  estate-owners  did  not  pay  the  fine  or  increased  rent,  for  which 
they  had  compounded,  and  the  Act  itself  was  word  for  word  the 
same  as  that  passed  in  the  reign  of  King  James  in  England  "for 
the  confirmation  of  copyhold  estates  on  like  composition."- 

Of  the  operations  of  this  Commission  we  unfortunately  know 
very  little,  except  what  can  be  picked  out  of  odd  Charters  and  odd 
passages.  The  secret  of  its  success  was  the  personnel  of  the 
Commission.  Strafford  always  presided.  Except  for  Wandes- 
forde,  Radcliffe,  Bolton  and  Lowther,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  all 
the  Members  were  not  only  Irishmen  intimately  acquainted  with 
Ireland,  but  Irishmen  of  exceptional  ability.  Ormonde  was  the 
greatest  of  the  Irish  Viceroys  after  Strafford.  Ware  was  the 
founder  of  Irish  archaeology.  Coote  was  a  soldier  of  no  mean 
repute.  According  to  Strafford  the  ablest  of  his  retinue  was 
Dillon.  The  night  before  he  was  executed,  he  recommended  all 
these  men  to  the  King,  but  opposite  Dillon  he  wrote  "ability  above 
all  the  natives."5  One  incident  alone  reveals  this.  On  Wandes- 
forde's  death  the  King  suggested  Dillon  as  Lord  Justice.  Instantly 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1634—56;  T.  C.  D.  F.  1.  4.  p.  21.  2)  L.  S.  1—191,  240.  3)  L.  S. 
11-418. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  739 

every  section  of  the  Irish  Committee  for  grievances  violently 
protested.  A  man  feared  and  hated  by  a  whole  revolutionary  cabal 
could  by  no  means  have  been  a  figure  head,  but  on  the  contrary 
one  with  the  wit  to  perceive  and  the  strength  to  resist  "the 
particular  aims"  of  the  members  of  that  body.1  To  the  arid  and 
official  Parsons  and  the  aged  and  inoffensive  Borlase  the  Committee 
of  Grievances  expressed  no  such  hostility,  and  the  result  of  their 
helpless  regime  was  the  rebellion  of  1641. 

The  result  of  the  Commission's  operations  was  that  the 
Eevenue  was  increased  by  £  3.000  a  year. 2  This  was  due 
to  one  reformation  Strafford  made.  He  complained  several 
times  that  the  judges  by  relationships,  personal  tie®  unwill- 
ingness to  give  offence,  and  sometimes  personal  interests  were 
so  tied  and  prejudiced  that  they  would  not  or  could  not  give 
the  Commission  the  law  and  nothing  but  the  law  in  deciphering 
the  patents  before  the  Commission.  We  get  one  glimpse  of  this 
undercurrent  in  the  Egmont  Papers.  When  the  Court  of  Wards 
was  dealing  with  the  Estate  of  Sir  Edward  Denny,  hi&  Counsell 
moved  for  the  discharge  of  the  Estate  from  the  control  of  the 
assignees.  Over  a  portion  there  was  some  controversy.  The 
Court  asked  the  head  Clerk,  Sir  Philip  Percival,  to  produce  all 
previous  documents.  Sir  Philip  produced  a  record  of  a  date  when 
the  case  was  set  for  hearing  and  Sir  Edward  Denny  had  allowed 
judgment  to  go  by  default.  With  this  record  before  them  the 
Court  refused  to  give  him  a  title  to  that  parcel.  For  this  conduct 
Sir  Philip  Percival  received  a  threatening  and  indignant  letter, 
with  an  underlying  challenge  to  a  duel.3  These  werfe  some  of  the 
influences  which  made  judges  loathe  to  "give  the  law"  openly. 
Strafford  to  overcome  this  judical  bashfulness  and  "prejudice  in 
favour  of  particular  persons",  arranged  that  the  two  legal  mem- 
bers of  this  Commission,  who  were  supposed  to  detect  flaws  in 
patents  and  make  those  issued  watertight  --  the  other  members 
being  men  of  affairs  rather  than  of  law  --  these  two  were  to 
receive  a  Commission  of  4s.  in  the  pound  on  all  increase  in  rents 
made  during  a  current  year',  arising  from  their  discoveries. 
"Now  they  do  intend  it  with  a  care  and  diligence  as  if  it  were 
their  own  private." 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-233.  234.  2)  L.  S.  1-90;  C.  S.  P.  1641-299. 

3)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—109, 110. 

47* 


740  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

"Reward  well  applied",  he  added,  "advantages  the  services 
of  Kings  extremely  much,  it  being  most  certain  that  not  one  man 
of  very  many  serve  their  Masters  for  love,  but  for  their  own  ends 
and  preferments,  and  that  he  is  in  the  rank  of  the  best  servants 
that  can  be  content  to  serve  his  Majesty  together  with  himself".  * 
One  thing  we  may  be  certain.  No  patent  passing  1.000  acres  "in 
general  words"  ran  the  gauntlet  successfully  of  that  Commission 
with  the  two  legal  members  drawing  a  profit  on  what  they  could 
detect. 

Sir  Philip  Percival  in  a  letter  to  a  kinsman,  whose  patent 
was  defective,  wrote  "the  aim  of  the  Lord  Deputy  is*  to  confirm 
the  estate  of  the  possessors,  and  resolves,  with  all  these  cases,  to 
have  .an  increase  of  rent  and  a  capite  tenure  of  part  of  the  land." ' 
A  subsequent  patent  shows  that  the  rent  was  £  14  for  about  3.000 
acres,  with  about  800  held  in  capite  by  Knights  service.3  This 
may  be  regarded  as  typical  of  the  new  patents  in  which  the  Crown 
surrendered  its  right  to  an  escheat.  When  the  Chichester  estate 
came  before  the  Commission  the  area  under  Knight's  tenure  is 
smaller,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Crown  escheated  the  advow- 
sons  and  tithes  of  the  Church  of  Ireland  which  had  been  in  Chi- 
chester's  possession.4  In  the  case  of  the  Ulster  Planters,  where 
patents  passed  for  1.000  acres  covered  four  or  five  times  that  area, 
and  where  the  in  capite  tenures  had  been  evaded,  Straff  or  d  doubled 
the  rent,  put  two-thirds  under  Knight's  tenure  in  capite,  and 
escheated  tithes,  advowsons,  and  manorial  rights.5  This  was  of 
course  an  extreme  case,  but  as  a  rule,  as  Radcliffe  put  it,  "a  great 
many  people  have  got  Parliamentary  titles  at  low  rents."6 

Carte,  the  historian,  has  suggested  that  the  Commission  of 
Defective  Titles  was  simply  a  weapon  for  revenue,  bearing  heavily 
on  those  who  had  a  petty  flaw  in  their  patents.  The  few  patents 
that  survive  reveal  a  studied  moderation  upon  the  part  of  the 
officers  of  the  Crown,  and  an  unwillingness  to  sacrifice  moral 
equity  to  legal  prerogatives.  For  instance  there  is  only  one  case 
on  record  of  an  escheat,  and  for  that  there  was  compensation,  not 
one  in  which  the  whole  estate  was  placed  under  Knights  Tenure 
in  capite,  or  one  in  which  the  rent  equalled  half  that  of  the  rent 
charged  to  Planters  in  the  original  Plantations,  save  of  course, 

1)  L.  S.  11-41.  2)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1-98.  3)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1-99. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1638—199.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1641—277,  298.  6)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 1 5. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  741 

the  new  patents  to  Ulster  Planters.  The  very  fact  that,  for  five 
years,  this  Commission  only  brought  in  £  3.000  a  year,  and  that 
Strafford  regarded  £  4.500  a  year  as  its  maximum  possible  yield 
argues  —  as  he  used  to  put  it  "no  prodigious  getting  or  covetous- 
ness".1  When  we  remember  the  gloomy  shadow  of  escheat  that 
lurked  over  hundreds  of  estates,  its  removal  and  banishment  for 
£  3.000  a  year,  when  the  Crown  had  the  power  to  multiply  this 
sevenfold,  we  can  only  regard  Carte's  sweeping  assertion,  for 
which  his  papers  give  no  justification,  as  a  generalization  based 
on  the  inevitable  grumblings  of  those,  who  were  not  completely 
satisfied  with  everything  in  this  world,  men  who,  as  King  James 
once  put  it,  "seemed  to  regard  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  as  if  it 
should  be  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."2 

There  was  however  another  side  to  the  question,  or  to  be  more 
accurate  several  other  rather  murky  aspects,  of  what  at  first  sight 
seems  a  reasonable  solution  of  the  vexed  claims  of  Crown  and 
subject  to  certain  applotments.  One  must  always  remember  that, 
in  dealing  with  affairs  of  State,  there  is  one  eternal  and  everlasting 
struggle  between  the  Guardians  of  the  Exchequer  and  those  with 
"particular  aims  at  the  expense  of  the  common  weal",  and  the  most 
active  spirits  in  affairs  of  State  are  always  those  with  "the  parti- 
cular aims."  The  ordinary  subject  never  troubles  himself  about 
politics.  When  Strafford  by  diplomacy,  bargaining,  and  iron 
determination  broke  the  agitation  for  a  Statute  of  Limitations, 
and  substituted  an  inquiry  and  composition  on  the  merits  or  de- 
merits of  each  man's  patent,  he  amply  satisfied  a  great  popular 
grievance,  but  he  made  some  very  angry  enemies.  Two  members 
of  the  Council — Mountmorris  and  Ranelagh — actually  tried 
to  balk  him  in  the  House  of  Lords.3  The  prime  cause  of  this 
secret  undercurrent  of  hostility  lay  in  the  widespread  encroach- 
ments on  the  Church  lands,  by  violence,  influence  and  illegal 
leases,  encroachments  without  charter,  patent,  or  warrant  which 
this  Statute  of  Limitations  would  have  legalized.  True  it  is  that 
Strafford  devised  a  special  code  of  compositions  and  compensations 
in  regard  to  these  titles,  whereby  a  purchaser  got  his  money 
refunded  and  a  21  years  lease  in  addition,  but  between  this  and 
the  ownership  in  fee  that  had  been  expected,  there  was  a  vast 
hiatus.  4  At  a  moment  when  in  the  three  Kingdoms  a  strong 

1)  L.  S.  II— 8.        2)  H.  C.  1—304.        3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  1.  6.        4)  L.  S.  11—171. 


742  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

agitation  was  rising,  masked  by  religious  warcries,  to  pass  the  lands 
of  the  Church  into  private  hands,  after  the  example  of  the 
monasteries,  there  were  men  in  every  Country,  and  of  every  class 
firmly  convinced  that  such  an  agitation  should  come  to  a  head 
before  their  estates,  at  any  rate,  came  before  that  Commission. 
Strafford's  very  first  act  for  instance  was  to  "call  in  question" 
Lord  Cork  and  Lord  Clanricarde  for  tenures  of  this  description. 1 
It  is  one  of  the  most  curious  symptoms  of  the  time  that,  whenever 
a  measure  was  proposed,  having  a  remote  bearing  on  the  question 
of  Church  Lands,  Strafford  encountered  opposition  in  the  most 
curious  quarters.  One  of  the  great  difficulties  with  which  the 
Commission  had  to  contend  was  the  non-registration  of  documents.2 
At  its  Sessions  it  never  knew  what  new  patent  would  not  be  pro- 
duced, with  the  result  that  adjournments  and  confusions  were  fre- 
quent. Strafford  asked  for  permission  to  issue  an  order  in  Council 
that  all  patents  should  be  enrolled.  The  result  of  this  would  have 
been  that  the  Crown  lawyers  would  have  very  soon  detected  where 
men  had  not  patents  to  these  Church  lands,  and  where  they' had 
only  illegal  leases.  The  Council  in  London  refused  on  the  grounds 
that,  if  a  patent  were  enrolled,  its  legality  was  recognized.  It 
required  lengthy  arguments  to  prove  that  this  was  not  sound  law, 
arid,  in  the  end,  all  patents  were  enrolled  for  all  men  to  inspect,  a 
reform  much  needed  in  a  land,  where  purchasers  had  the  utmost 
difficulty  in  searching  for  title.3 

A  Commission  thus  equipped  was  not  popular  in  certain 
circles.  To  the  average  man  anxious  to  strengthen  his  title  on 
composition  it  was  a  boon  and  a  blessing.  The  House  of  Lords 
urged  Strafford  to  cause  it  to  act  with  speed.  The  Commons  con- 
gratulated him  on  its  efficiency.4  It  lit  however  on  some  scandals 
and  one  was  that  of  the  passing  of  the  lands  round  Athlone  Castle. 

The  President  of  Connaught  and  the  Commander  in  Chief  of 
the  Irish  forces,  in  the  previous  adminstration,  had  been  Lord 
Wilmot.  Such  was  his  influence,  popularity,  and  pliability  that  it 
was  on  his  advice  that  certain  Connaught  Lords  had  been  allowed 
to  surrender  their  estates,  and  receive  them  back  in  soccage 
tenures,  and  what  was  more  receive  them  in  fee,  without  any  con- 
ditions as  regards  the  undertenants.  The  manor  of  Athlone  had  been 

1)  H.  V.  C.  VIII-292.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  3)  L.  8. 1—346.  4)  T.  C.  D. 
F.  1. 6.;  H.  C.  J.  1-126. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  743 

once  reserved  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  President,  his  Court,  retinue, 
and  clerks.  Wilmot  procured  a  Royal  letter  authorizing  him  to 
"make  a  Plantation"  on  these  lands,  never  informing  the  authori- 
ties that  these  were  Crown  lands,  charged  with  certain  State 
expenses.  On  the  plea  of  "making  a  Plantation"  he  sold  these  lands' 
to  certain  local  farmers,  and,  having  placed  the  money  in  his 
pocket,  retired  to  England,  the  authorities  having  but  a  vague  idea 
that  "estates  in  fee  farm  had  been  granted  to  the  inhabitants". * 
Before  retiring  he  favoured  Strafford  with  an  essay  on  the  im- 
portance of  keeping  up  a  large  army,  and  urged  him  to  lose  no 
time  in  "devising  how  to  have  that  cost  made  up  and  supplied". 2 
The  Athlone  affair  had  cost  the  Exchequer  £  700  a  year.  Wilmot 
must  have  got  wind  of  Strafford's  queries,  as  regards  this  contract, 
because,  as  early  as  1634,  he  said  to  the  Master  of  Charterhouse 
"I  hope  the  Lord  Deputy  will  not  conceive  ill  of  me,  who  never 
offended  him".3  The  probability  is  that  the  appointment  of  Sir 
Charles  Coote  to  be  one  of  the  Commissioners  for  Defective  Titles 
-alsfrmed  him.  Coote,  who  was  Provost  Marshall  for  Connaught, 
had  raised  this  very  question  about  Athlone  ten  years  before,  but 
had  been  severely  snubbed.  A  few  months  later  Strafford  reported 
the  affair  to  the  King.4  Wilmot  appealed  to  Cottingdom  for  aid, 
and  that  Statesman  gave  him  the  advice,  which  all  Strafford's 
friends  gave  officials  who  had  been  caught  napping,  "Write  to 
him  yourself".5  Wilmot  foolishly  despatched  Barr,  the  Manager 
of  his  Ulster  iron  works,  to  Court  to  accuse  Strafford  of  embez- 
zeling  the  Customs,  an  intrigue,  every  inch  and  ell  of  which  Straf- 
ford knew  by  means  of  the  agents  he  kept  at  Whitehall.6  Pending 
the  development  of  this  plot,  Wilmot  announced  to  all  and  sundry 
that  he  had  succeeded  in  getting  the  inquiry  transferred  to  London 
where  "I  am  better  regarded  than  to  be  abandoned  to  the  Deputy 
in  Dublin".7  Then  he  wrote  to  Strafford  indignantly  protesting 
his  innocence,  and  denouncing  Coote  as  "a  venomous  fountain,  a 
malicious  enemy,  ungrateful,  for  he  hath  eaten  of  my  bread". 8 
This  was  scarcely  discreet,  as  Coote  was  one  of  Strafford's  most 
trusted  officials,  being  one  of  that  little  gathering  of  native  gentry 
— he  was  of  the  Dublin  bourgeois  families — who  had  assisted  him 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1622—351,  352.  409,  436,  437 ;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—323.  2)  L.  S. 
1—61.  3)  L.  S.  1-338.  4)  L.  S.  1-341.  5)  L.  S.  1-369.  6)  L.  S.  1-381. 
7)  L.  S.  1—399.  8)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  S.  11-75. 


744  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

valiantly  and  well  in  much  of  his  political  business.  In  the  mean- 
while Wilmot  made  valiant  efforts,  by  tending  submissions  and 
compositions  in  London,  to  escape  the  full  force  of  a  fine,  and, 
this  failing,  he  wrote  to  Strafford,  accusing  him  of  unfair  dealing, 
and  threatening  him  with  the  King's  displeasure. l  Wilmot,  it 
should  be  recollected,  had  held  his  head  very  high  in  Ireland.  The 
President  of  Connaught  and  the  General  of  the  Irish  Army  was 
in  those  days  no  mean  person,  and  the  probable  explanation  of  his 
extraordinary  truculence  was  irascible  old  age,  and  long  service  in 
the  Army.  Strafford  took  these  humours  calmly.  "Neither  his 
great  looks  nor  his<great  words  shall  frighten  me  out  of  my  duty". 
He  suggested  that  Wilmot  should  surrender  what  lands  he  had 
kept  for  himself,  the  tenants  should  surrender  and  take  out  new 
leases,  and  Wilmot  should  give  them  back  their  £4.500.  If  he  did 
not  do  this  he  should  face  the  Castle  Chamber.  "He  will  not  be 
displeased  to  pay  for  his  peace  in  this  business,  so  he  be  not 
questioned  concerning  the  surrenders  of  Connaught,  or  the 
Company  he  cessed  on  the  Province,  putting  the  pay  in  his  own 
purse."  Strafford  has  been  condemned  by  Clarendon  for  his 
"overhot"  proceedings  against  "men  of  quality".  If  he  erred  at  all, 
it  seems  to  have  been  in  regard  to  letting  old  scandals  lie,  when 
their  resurrection  only  meant  trouble  and  no  profit.  Like  a  famous 
Indian  proconsul,  he  could  be  astounded  at  his  own  moderation. 2 
This  course  was  approved  by  the  King. 3  As  Strafford  had 
foreseen.  Wilmot  tendered  his  submission,  cried  "peccavi",  and 
promised  to  make  good  all  depredations.  4  "Wilmot  has  visited 
me",  wrote  the  Deputy,  "and  now  that  he  is  able  to  do  me  no  more 
mischief  makes  great  professions.  I  do  him  all  civilities,  and  wait 
upon  him  to  his  coach.  I  have  no  desire  to  hurt  him,  but  the  King 
must  have  his  land.  For  the  love  of  God  forget  not  the  Bill  in  the 
Exchequer  Court".5  Strafford  refused  to  stay  civil  proceedings, 
till  the  land  was  made  over,  and  the  tenants  repaid.  "It  standeth 
with  all  honesty  his  Lordship  should  restore  unto  them  the  monies. 
This  I  hold  more  necessary  than  any  other."6  There  were  some 
difficulties  in  the  negotiations;  Wilmot  seems  to  have  been  most 
unlucky  in  his  agents.  Barr  is  thus  described  by  Strafford  "A 


1)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11—83, 85,  91.     2)  L.  S.  1—402.    3)  L.  S.  1—423.    4)  L.  S. 
1-477 ;  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-217.       5)  L.  S.  11-22.       6)  L.  S.  1—496. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  745 

broken  pedlar,  a  man  of  no  parts,  who  defrauds  your  Majesty's 
Customs  and  helps  contumacious  persons  to  escape"  l  With 
another,  Skinner,  whom  Wilmot  employed  in  this  case,  Strafford 
refused  to  deal,  and  only  interviewed  him  once,  and  then  in  the 
presence  of  witnesses.  "I  hold  it  not  safe  to  have  any  private 
speech  with  him.  He  hath  dealt  most  lewdly  and  wickedly  with 
me."  The  only  other  trace  of  a  Skinner  at  this  period  is  one  who, 
on  the  Eestoration,  tried  to  raise  .a  mutiny  among  the  troops, 
declaring  he  would  "be  true  to  no  King  or  House  of  Peers,  but 
would  adhere  to  the  good  old  cause". 2 

In  the  end  the  lands  were  made  over.  A  passage  in  one  of 
Straff  ord's  letters  shows  that  the  £  4.500  was  made  a  debt  to  the 
Crown  who  recompensed  the  tenants  by  special  agrarian  privileges,3 
The  last  court  intrigue  of  Wilmot's  was  an  effort  on  his  part  to 
be  made  Governor  of  Newcastle,  which  lay  in  Straff ord's  Presidency 
of  the  North.  "Let  your  Lordship  have  an  eye  thereto",  Strafford 
wrote  to  Northumberland.  "Through  his  age  and  infirmity  he 
drowses  four  parts  of  his  life  between  sleeping  and  waking."  This 
aged  General — he  was  nearly  80 — a  party  at  Court  sought  to  place 
at  Newcastle  on  the  eve  of  invasion  for  no  other  reason  than,  as 
Strafford  put  it,  "to  displease  me  in  my  Lieutenancy".  Military 
commands  in  time  of  war,  like  Providence,  "move  in  a  mysterious 
way". 4 

Be  that  as  it  may  the  Defective  Titles  Commission  had  made 
a  very  bitter  enemy  for  Strafford.  Wilmot  flung  in  his  lot  with 
that  rapidly  growing  cabal  at  Court,  which,  in  the  end,  flung 
Strafford  to  the  wolves  of  Revolution  as  the  scapegoat  for  all  the 
inefficiency,  corruption,  and  rascality  of  Whitehall.  It  was  Wilmot 
who  sent  Barr  to  Court  to  accuse  Strafford  of  embezzling  the 
Customs,  and  Barr  was  assisted  by  Mountmorris,  Windebanke, 
Holland,  and  D'Arcy  who  was  Clanricarde's  agent  during  the 
furore  over  the  Plantation  of  Connaught.  When  Pierce  Crosby 
and  Lord  Esmonde  accused  Strafford  of  murdering  a  man  in 
Dublin  Castle,  Holland  and  Wilmot  were  implicated  in  that  in- 
trigue. 5  "It  is  not  to  be  believed"  wrote  Strafford  on  the  eve  of 
his  departure  to  London,  there  to  face  the  music  after  Newburn 
"how  great  the  malice  is,  and  how  intent  they  are  about  it.  Little 

1)  L.S.  11-107,  229.  2)  C. S.P.I 625-1660-717.  3)  L.S.  II— 9,  22,  81,  89. 
4)  L.  S.  11-280.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1638-204. 


746  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

less  care  there  is  taken  to  ruin  me  than  to  save  their  own-souls. 
Nay  for  themselves  I  wish  their  attention  to  the  latter  were  equal 
to  that  they  wish  me  in  the  former". * 

When  the  crash  came  the  Defective  Titles  Commission  cease  1 
to  operate.  No  one  would  appeal  to  it  for  a  patent,  not  knowing 
what  the  morrow  would  bring  forth.  Certainly  no  one  cared  to 
-it  upon  it,  and  sue  men  like  Wilmot,  who  had  sold  bad  titles  for 
good  money  to  unsuspecting  citizens.  "The  Defective  Titles  Com- 
mission" wrote  the  Lords  Justices  "which  used  to  bring  in  £  3.000 
a  year  is  now  at  a  standstill."2  The  Revolutionary  elements  had 
discovered  a  new  method  of  dealing  with  agrarian  problems,  peti- 
tions to  the  English  House  of  Commons,  sonorous  judgments  by 
Pym  and  Prynne,  and  what  Straff ord  used  to  call  "all  the  other 
odd  names  and  natures",  sonorous  ukases  in  favour  of  those  who 
"had  suffered  for  liberty",  and  then  pandemonium  on  the  Irish 
hillsides.  "Mr.  McDonough's  son  says  he  has  direction  from  the 
Parliament  of  England  to  get  all  back.  The  tenants  dare  not  graze 
the  lands  and  all  will  be  waste."  So  wrote  Mr.  O'Callaghan  to  Sir 
James  Craig. 3  Teig  O'Connor  Sligo  sold  his  Manor  to  Strafford, 
and  then,  without  even  petitioning  the  Parliament,  gathered  a 
•crowd  and  seized  on  it. 4 

To  allay  all  these  disputes  the  King  promised  the  old  Statute 
of  Limitations,  and  there  was  joy  among  the  Connaught  Lords 
.and  all  the  men  in  dubious  possession.5  Instantly  all  that  tangle 
of  ancient  tribal  and  personal  dissensions  over  mutual,  feudal,  and 
•customary  rights,  which  could  only  have  been  settled  one  at  a  time 
by  the  Commission,  or  by  a  Plantation,  became  acute  and  urgent, 
when  it  was  known  all  over  Ireland  that  seignoral  rights  of 
60  years  became  ownership  in  fee,  and  possession  was  an  effective 
barrier  to  tanistry,  custom,  or  law.  The  intriguers  however  forgot 
something.  To  procure  a  Crown  patent  for  their  dubious  titles, 
they  had  disrupted  the  reticulation  of  forces  that  gave  the  Crown 
the  strength  to  protect  its  patents.  They  had  coquetted  with  rebel- 
lion in  Scotland,  riot  in  London,  and  sedition  in  Ireland.  They 
had  torn  away  bulwark  after  bulwark  of  the  State,  reared  by 
centuries  of  experience  and  trial,  and,  when  they  procured  their 
Statute  of  Limitations,  there  was  no  State,  no  Army,  no  Revenue, 

1)  R.  C.— 218.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1641  -299.      3)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—142.     4)  C.  S. 
P.  1641-312.     5)  C.  S.  P.  1641-269. 


DEFECTIVE  TITLES  747 

no  law,  nothing  to  give  their  new  patents  validity.  Within  six 
months  of  this  Proclamation  all  Ireland  was  in  some  form  of 
rebellion. 

In  a  year  there  were  six  armies  and  much  confusion.  "Par- 
ticular aims  had  destroyed  the  Commonweal",  and,  with  it  gone, 
there  was  neither  wealth  nor  honour  for  successful  greed  to  enjoy. 
This  state  of  affairs  continued  till  the  arrival  of  Cromwell,  whose 
escheats  were  by  no  means  confined  to  £  3.000  a  year,  and  "Parlia- 
mentary titles  at  low  rents".  The  financial  manoevres  of  military 
dictators,  while  smothering  anarchy,  are  less  moderate  and  more 
effective  than  those  of  sober  statesmen,  moulding  a  realm  in  peace 
by  the  aid  of  popular  consent. 

Wilmot  appeared  once  again  demanding  justice.  He  had  pro- 
mised to  pay  his  £  4.000  in  instalments,  and  part  of  the  security 
was  his  pension.  "My  Lord  of  Strafford,  who  alive  nor  dead  doth 
not  let  me  rest,  hath  left  his  warrant  in  Ireland  to  stop  my  entertain- 
ments in  regard  to  that  business  of  Athlone.  I  ask  his  Majesty  to 
release  this  command,  and  let  me  submit  myself  to  a  trial  at  law. 
My  Lord  Lieutenant  and  I  mean  to  go  to  the  King  about  it."1 

"My  Lord  Lieutenant"  was  Leicester,  of  the  Northumberland 
party,  who,  at  the  crucial  moment,  flung  in  their  lot  with  the  new 
gods,  "You  were  for  the  Parliament  all  the  way"  said  the  King 
to  Northumberland. 2  Lady  Carlisle,  who  had  strained  every  nerve, 
to  make  her  kinsman  Leicester  a  power  in  the  land,  "had  changed 
her  gallant  from  Strafford  to  Pym  and  was  become  such  a  saint 
that  she  frequented  their  sermons  and  took  notes". 3  Wilmot  had 
found  more  pliable  friends  than  the  iron  Strafford,  whose  last 
reference  to  that  ancient  warrior  ran  as  follows: —  "He  doth 
nothing.  He  will  do  nothing  till  he  be  roundly  proceedeth  with. 
Stop  all  his  entertainments  and  that  will  bring  the  business  to  an 
end,  and  the  King  and  the  poor  tenants  to  their  right.  All  till 
then  is  but  sport  for  him  to  laugh  at."  ' 


1)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11—287.        2)  Spalding.  History  of  the  Troubles.  1-189. 
3)  Memoirs.  Warwick.— 204.        4)  L.S.II-205. 


Chapter  V 
CONNATJGHT 

By  suffering  the  several  districts  and  several  of  the  individuals  in 
each  district  to  judge  of  what  part  of  the  old  revenue 'they  might 
withhold ,  instead  of  better  principles  of  equality ,  a  new  inequality  was 
produced  of  the  most  oppressive  kind.  Payments  were  regulated  by 
dispositions.  The  parts  of  the  Kingdom  which  were  most  orderly  bore 
the  whole  burden  of  the  State.  Nothing  turns  out  to  be  so  oppressive 
and  unjust  as  a  feeble  Government.  BURKE. 

If  an  inhabitant  of  Ireland,  at  the  end  of  the  16th  century, 
had  been  asked  to  foretell  what  part  of  Ireland  was  destined  to  be 
the  most  prosperous  and  peaceful,  he  would  have  instantly  put 
his  finger  on  Connaught.  On  no  part  of  Ireland  had  the  gods 
smiled  with  such  indulgence.  It  was  governed  by  a  President  and 
a  Council,  always  on  the  spot,  able  to  deal  promptly  with  every 
crisis  as  it  arose.  It  had  been  ruled  for  12  years  by  Bingham  with 
astounding  success.  Its  administration  cost  the  central  Govern- 
ment not  one  farthing,  when  thousands'  were  being  poured  out  on 
the  pacification  of  Ulster  and  Munster.  "The  Province",  said 
Bingham  "has  totally  defrayed  itself  since  my  coming  to  that 
Government."1  The  Army  of  500  men,  with  which  he  policed  a 
Province,  in  which  the  Lords  could  bring  out  4.000  swordsmen, 
contained  very  few  that  were  not  natives,  so  firmly  ensconced  was 
the  local  Government. 2  Disturbances  there  were,  it  is  true,  violent 
raids  for  cattle,  "cuttings  off  of  good  subjects",  incursions  and 
excursions,  but  the  State  held  Connaught  in  as  firm  a  grip  as  a 
modern  Government  holds  a  City,  despite  the  appearances  of  the 
foot  pad  and  the  burglar.  The  Army  which  repelled  the  Spaniards 
at  Kinsale  was  largely  composed  of  Connaught  levies. 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1592-35;  1595-471.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1595-355,  363, 452,  503. 


CONNAUGHT  749 

It  was  a  Province  with  great  natural  advantages,  a  sea  board 
on  the  North  and  West,  dotted  with  harbours,  and  a  navigable 
river  flowing  down  the  East  and  South.  Its  arable  land  was  three 
times  as  extensive  as  Ulster.  It  possessed  a  seaport  City,  second 
only  to  Dublin,  whose  Norman  inhabitants  had  built  up  no  mean 
trade.  In  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  in  one  year,  Connaught  shared 
with  Munster  the  pride  of  exporting  no  less  than  £  100.000  worth 
of  woollen  yarn  to  Norwich. 1  Southwards  in  Clare  the  Earl  of 
Thomond  had  incorporated  Ennis,  which  had  been  made  into  a 
staple  town. 2  What  had  added  to  the  tranquility  was  the  associa- 
tion of  both  Thomond  and  Clanricarde  with  the  Crown.  The  two 
Palatinate  Lords,  the  men  who,  in  other  Provinces,  would  have 
been  in  revolt,  were,  in  this  Province,  Ministers  of  the  Law.  One 
was  President  of  Clare  and  the  other  of  Galway.  Connaught  was 
before  the  other  Provinces  in  turning  away  from  bellicose 
feudalism,  and  a  chapter  of  accidents  left  her  the  most  backward, 
barren,  expensive  and  useless  area  in  Ireland,  to  which  no  one 
dreams  of  migrating,  either  for  business  or  for  pleasure. 

Wliat  had  made  Connaught  thus  leap  forward  into  prominence 
was  the  abolition  of  cess  from  one  end  of  the  Province  to  the  other 
in  1575  by  Sir  Henry  Sidney.  This  reform  was  perfected  by  1585 
through  the  exertions  of  Perrott  and  Bingham.  By  this  Compo- 
sition the  Crown  surrendered  all  its  powers  of  cess,  and  those 
vague  but  none  the  less  real  powers  of  "coshiering"  on  the  subject. 
In  return  the  Lords  guaranteed  to  pay  a  rent  of  Id  an  acre,  and 
to  provide,  in  time  of  war,  a  "rising  out",  fixed  as  regards  numbers 
and  duties.  The  third  consideration  was  that  the  Lords  were  to 
exact  no  blackmail,  coigne,  livery  and  cess  from  the  subjects,  save 
this  penny  an  acre.  The  intention  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  signa- 
tories to  the  treaty  was  that,  at  a  later  stage,  all  the  other  agrarian 
questions  were  to  be  settled,  viz. :  division  of  boundaries,  demesnes, 
chiefries,  and  tenant  right.  In  certain  of  the  indentures,  like  that 
of  MacNamara  of  Clare,  the  demesne  was  stipulated,  and,  in  a  few 
cases,  patents  were  granted,  but  otherwise  the  Composition  agree- 
ment stipulated  only  freedom  from  cess  and  payment  of  rent. 3 
This  Composition  at  one  blow  broke  the  power  of  the  Connaught 
Chiefs.  On  Bingham' s  fall — due  to  a  scratch  alliance  between  the 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  T.  C.  D.  I.  5.  27.  3)  M.  P.  B,  Elizabeth.— 136,  137, 
138, 141, 142, 145—150;  L.  S.  1—456. 


750  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Connaught  Chiefs  and  a  Cabal  on  the  Council — nearly  all  the 
Lords  went  into  rebellion,  refused  to  pay  the  rent,  tried  to  exact 
bonnaght,  and  endeavoured  to  restore  the  old  regime,  but  the 
tide  of  affairs  had  flown  too  far.  Some  were  slain  in  rebellion. 
Others  were  executed.  Some  "came  in  and  submitted".  When 
James  came  to  the  throne  the  situation  was  this.  The  Abbey  Lands 
had  all  been  "passed  away".  The  greater  part  of  the  Church  Lands 
were  "passed"  either  by  patent  or  by  lease.  A  certain  number  of 
demesnes  had  been  "passed"  to  chiefs,  and  here  and  there  were 
estates,  manors,  and  castles  passed  to  this  chief  or  that  chief,  either 
by  the  Composition  or  by  individual  patents.  The  greater  part  of 
Connaught  and  Thomond,  however,  was  Crown  property  by  the 
Act  of  Eesumption,  passed  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.,  and  whole 
baronies  were  without  a  legal  owner* 

Other  matters  claimed  the  attention  of  the  Crown  for  the 
first  30  years  of  the  17th  century.  In  fact  one  has  a  suspicion  that 
the  Royal  title  and,  what  it  meant,  had  been  completely  forgotten 
in  London.  It  was  no  part  of  the  business  of  the  Council  to  remind 
the  King  of  this  lapse.  A  large  part  of  the  misapprehensions  of 
Irish  history  are  due  to  an  assumption  that  the  Council  consisted 
of  a  body  of  English  supermen,  watching  every  flaw  in  a  title, 
either  to  increase  taxation,  or  to  confiscate  the  lands  of  Irishmen. 
On  the  contrary  the  majority  of  the  Council  were  Irishmen,  very 
human  Irishmen,  with  friends  and  connections  and  interests  in 
every  corner  of  Ireland.  Who  were  they  to  bring  a  storm  round 
their  ears  by  telling  the  Council  in  London  that  rents  could  be 
trebled  in  Connaught?  Who  were  they  that  they  should,  by  a  stern 
sense  of  duty,  bring  a  cataclysm  down  in  the  heads  of  men,  with 
whom  they  wined  and  dined,  with  the  certainty  that  any  profits 
would  go  into  the  hands  of  courtiers  and  London  contractors1? 
Lastly  the  London  authorities  had  a  most  disagreeable  knack  of 
applauding  the  Dublin  Council,  when  it  was  stern  and  did  its  duty, 
and  then,  when  the  storm  was  at  its  highest,  it  used  to  turn  and 
sympathize  with  "oppressed  subjects",  disowning  the  Dublin 
officials,  and  flinging  them  with  scorn  to  those  who  were  de- 
nouncing their  "oppressions".  None  of  the  old  hands  who  had 
weathered  the  Elizabethan  storms  told  a  Deputy,  where  there 
were  sources  of  revenue,  or  abuses  that  should  be  remedied.  They 
had  been  to  often  "discouraged  before  your  subjects  here".  Straf- 


CONNAUGHT  751 

ford  says  that  they  concealed  everything  they  could  from  him, 
and  displayed  a  profound  gloom  when  he  talked  of  collecting 
arrears  of  rent,  or  asking  "men  of  power"  how  they  came  by  their 
curious  patents.  "I  see  it  is  a  maxim  here  to  keep  the  Deputy  as 
ignorant  as  they  possibly  can,  yet  so  albeit  not  in  peace,,  yet  he 
may  be  subordinate  to  them  in  knowledge,  which  I  take  to  be  the 
reason  that  not  any  of  them  hitherto  hath  made  me  any  proposition 
for  the  bettering  of  the  service.  I  am  purposed  to  keep  my  eyes 
open."1  Once  he  suggested  that  the  squirearchy  should  tender  a 
benevolence,  and  treated  the  Council  to  a  magnificent  burst  of 
oratory  that  one  would  have  thought  should  have  moved  even  old 
Lord  Chancellor  Loftus.  "There  followed  a  great  silence  .  .  . 
Parsons  was  the  driest  of  all  the  Company" 2  It  was  not  till  after 
about  a  year  that  he  solved  part  of  the  mystery.  "They  have 
swallowed  this  maxim  that  the  revenue  must  be  rather  over  than 
undercharged,  because,  if  there  once  be  a  surplus,  it  will  be 
carried  over  to  England."3  He  assuaged  their  feelings  on  this  by 
refusing  to  despatch  a  copper  across  the  water,  after  which  these 
"great  silences"  were  not  so  usual.  This  is  one  of  the  explanations 
why  the  Eoyal  Title  to  Connaught  was  never  mentioned. 

It  was  much  easier  and  far  more  popular  to  pass  patents  with 
the  minimum  of  inquiry.  Connaught  was  a  vast  horn  of  plenty, 
rich  in  large  savannahs  of  grazing  land,  with  a  tiny  population, 
and  that  chiefly  on  the  bad  and  rocky  land  that  "men  of  power" 
did  not  ambition.  One  understands  how  the  Venetian  Ambassador 
put  the  population  of  Ireland  at  500.000  when  in  all  Clare  there 
were  only  2.087  males.4  The  wars  had  swept  out  a  large  number 
of  the  rival  claimants.  O'Donnell  no  longer  harrassed  Sligo.  The 
O'Reillies  and  the  O'Rorkes  claimed  no  land  across  the  Shannon. 
A  vast  depopulated  and  naturally  wealthy  Province  lay  at  the 
disposal  of  whosoever  could  get  a  patent  through.  Bingham  put 
the  wastes  in  Connaught  at  over  900  quarters. 3  In  1606  the 
Council  referred  to  its  lack  of  population  as  one  of  the  causes  of 
a  defective  revenue. G  In  1611  the  poor  yield  of  the  Composition 
rent  is  ascribed  to  "wastes",  and  "wastes",  are  defined  as  "lands 
yielding  neither  corn  nor  horn". 7  In  1637  the  Eoman  Catholic- 
Bishop  of  Tuam  wrote,  "Ruri  spnrsim  per  totam  diocesim  mixtim 

1)  C.  M.  VIII— 5.  2)  L.  S.  1—99.  3)  L.  S.  1—223.  4)  T.  C.  D.  I.  5.  26. 
5)  C.  S.  P.  1592-32.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1606-478.  7)  C.  S  P.  1611—192. 


752  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

vivunt  Catholic!  et  haeretici". l  In  other  words  there  was  no  land 
hunger  in  Connaught.  The  Inquisitions  show  that  where  there 
was  anything  like  a  series  of  small  holders,  it  was  on  the  rocks  and 
among  the  hills,  where  feudal  and  tribal  broils  had  let  the  owners 
live  in  peace.  The  great  belligerents  had  fought  rather  for 
seignoral  rights  and  scope  of  territory  than  acreage  for  commer- 
cial purposes.  The  feudal  Lords  that  remained,  Clanricarde. 
Mayo,  Roscommon,  O'Connor-Sligo  and  Dillon,  and  some  dozen 
chieftains  found  themselves  with  their  hegemonies  intact,  and 
ambitioned  not  "waste  and  uninhabited  quarters"  beyond  their 
own  realms.  O'Connor  Sligo,  for  instance,  who  held  in  demesne 
something  like  20.000  acres  of  arable  land  in  the  barony  of 
Carbery,  never  raised  the  slightest  objection  to  Sir  Win.  Taaffe 
and  the  Earl  of  Cork  passing  numerous  parcels  in  the  name 
of  the  former  in  the  Southern  parts  of  the  country. 2  The 
fact  was  the  speculator  was  rising  in  the  land.  Anyone 
with  commercial  traditions'  could  detect  a  rapid  rise  in  the 
value  of  land.  Anyone  with  commercial  connections  in 
Galway  could  see  what  a  gold  mine  lay  in  procuring  these  spare 
tracts  and  covering  them  with  sheep.  The  names  of  the  men  who 
emerge  in  public  affairs  in  Connaught  at  this  period  are  the 
bourgeois  families  of  the  City  of  Galway.  The  ancient  territorial 
propietors — save  Clanricarde's  special  coterie — seem  to  play  hardly 
any  part  in  agrarian  politics.  The  Lords  and  Chiefs  and  minor 
gentry  of  the  septs  simply  remain  on  their  ancestral  estates.  They 
appear  neither  in  Parliament,  nor  in  petitions,  nor  in  the  Crom- 
wellian  wars,  and,  when  the  storm  subsided  after  the  Eestoration, 
emerge  placidly,  indifferent  upon  all  these  "matters  of  State  and 
conscience." 

All  through  the  reign  of  James  these  Connaught  patents  keep 
trickling  on  to  the  Patent  Eolls.  They  are  remarkable  for  their 
nominal  rents  and  soccage  tenures.  By  a  singularly  accurate  but 
anonymous  writer  the  statement  is  made  that  the  Galway  shop- 
keepers and  men  of  finance  used  to  buy  out  petty  holders  and 
then  pass  a  "scope"  by  devious  methods,  a  visit  to  London, 
a  signet  letter,  a  visit  to  Dublin,  and  so  home.  Some  went 
further.  They  toured  the  Country  alarming  honest  men  at 

1)  A.  H.  V— 93.         2)  Redistribution  and  Survey.  Sligo. 


CONN  AUGHT  753 

what  would  happen  if  the  Royal  Title  were  found.  Then 
they  presuaded  the  simple  yokels  to  feoff  their  parcels  to  them, 
their  good  friends.  Then  a  patent  would  be  passed  to  the  alarmist, 
who  would  conveniently  forget  to  re-transfer  the  "parcels".  The 
names  he  gives  are  three  great  patrons  of  Carolan  sedition, 
Theobald  Dillon,  subsequently  made  Lord  Costelloe,  Wm.  Taaffe, 
one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Catholic  Confederation,  and  Arthur 
Jones,  a  kinsman  of  Lord  Eanelagh.  Theobald  Dillon  was  a 
descendant  of  a  former  President  of  Connaught,  and  was  himself 
collector  of  Crown  rente  in  Galway.  He  was  a  few  years  later 
made  a  peer  of  the  realm.  He  was  the  father  of  the  Lord  Dillon 
of  Costelloe,  who  achieved  some  fame  and  notoriety  first  during 
the  Plantation  of  Connaught,  then  during  the  prosecution  of 
Straff ord,  and  finally  as  the  intriguer  between  "the  Queen's  Party" 
and  the  f  omenters  of  the  Ulster  rebellion. * 

The  patent  of  old  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe  is  a  study  in  what 
a  patent  should  not  be,  especially  a  patent  of  a  Royal  farm.  The 
patent  mentions  no  surrender  of  existing  lands,  which  was  a 
method  of  evading  research  into  previous  tenures.  It  covers  an 
area  of  over  10.000  acres  in  Roscommon  and  Mayo.  It  reduces 
feudal  dues  to  "common  soccage,  and  a  knights  fee".  The 
only  rent  is  the  old  composition  rent,  which  was  a  discharge  of 
cess  and  not  a  payment  for  ownership.2  Such  were  the  terms  on 
which  whole  estates  were  vanishing,  estates  that  should  have  been 
passed  for  rent,  dues,  and  conditions  of  development. 

Is  it  any  wonder  the  Crown  could  not  get  Undertakers  from 
Galway  to  take  up  the  onerous  duties  of  <an  Ulster  Planter?  "There 
is  such  a  store  of  waste  land  in  Connaught",  wrote Chichester,  "to  be 
had  for  little  money,  as  they  loo*k  not  into  Ulster  as  they  would".3 
T^ie  wily  Earl  of  Cork  too  had  a  finger  in  this  pie,  Taaffe's  lands 
were  passed  to  him  as  his  own.  A  large  portion,  however,  was 
feoffed  to  the  Earl  of  Cork.  We  thus  have  the  situation  of  large 
scopes  being  passed  to  a  local  merchant  on  the  vague  idea  that  it 
was  his  local  estate,  and  a  high  official  in  Dublin  sharing  in  the 
transaction.4  Nothing  is  more  curious  than  to  notice  the  number 
of  mortgages  Taaffe  had  on  small  estates  in  the  baronies  of 


1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 1.  6.      2)  Erk.  11-451.      3)  C.  S.  P.  1609—193.      4)  C.  S.  P. 
1610-397. 

48 


754  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Tirravill  and  Corran.  If  matters  had  continued  these  too  would 
have  been  surrendered,  and  passed  in  soccage  to  Taaffe  and  Cork, 
free  of  rent  and  dues,  and  endowed  with  reliefs,  heriots,  mineral, 
wood  and  fishing  rights.  The  Earl  of  Cork  always  operated  in 
conjunction  with  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  who  found  his 
assistance  as  profitable  as  he  found  theirs.  In  the  meantime  the 
debt  in  the  Exchequer  was  approaching  £  80.000. 

These  patents  keep  recurring  at  stated  intervals,  and  the  only 
sign  of  alarm  was  an  anonymous  information  despatched  to 
London.  It  stated  that  there  was  actually  a  danger  of  the  Com- 
position being  expunged  in  these  patents  like  the  feudal  dues.  The 
Deputy  wrote  back  that  he  had  given  instructions  that  was  not 
to  be.1  Perhaps  he  had,  but  one  might  as  well  stem  the  flowing 
tide.  In  1612  the  Treasurer  reported  a  large  number  of  exemptions 
from  Composition  by  patent,  amongst  whom  was  the  indefatig- 
able Taaffe,  who  subsequently  went  into  rebellion  on  the  grounds 
that  "the  natives  of  this  Kingdom  are  shut  out  from  all  preferment 
in  the  State,  ruined  by  heavy  taxes,  and  see  no  relief  from  the 
destruction  of  their  religion  but  by  a  recourse  to  arms". 2  Thus 
did  another  leakage  in  the  revenue  grow  wider  and  wider. 

In  the  meanwhile  whispers  began  to  circulate  that  all  over 
Ireland  "there  were  lands  and  hereditaments,  holden  of  the  Crown 
in  Chief"  and  that  there  were  men  on  these  lands  who  held  them 
without  paying  any  feudal  dues.  Three  men,  Sexton,  Dixon,  and 
Waldron,  obviously  from  Dublin,  procured  a  letter  entitling  them 
to  escheats  where  they  found  such  evasions  of  the  Revenue.  Some 
chance  led  them  to  Connaught  and  they  escheated  the  estate  of 
Sir  Morough  O'Flaherty  of  Galway. 3  Instantly  there  was  an 
appeal  to  London,  and  James  dispatched  a  letter  authorizing  all 
who  held  by  tanistry  and  gavelkind  to  surrender  and  receive  a 
regrant  of  their  estates,  reserving  all  rent,  composition,  and  dues."4 
The  only  explanation  of  this  letter  is  that,  as  yet,  the  authorities 
in  London  had  not  realised  the  collapse  of  the  policy  of  surrender 
and  regrant.  Pliable,  weak,  and  sometimes  corrupt)  officials; 
apportionment  of  an  estate  from  an  office  in  Dublin ;  dual  control 
of  the  ukases  of  the  Council,  and  sudden  signet  letters  from 
London,  lack  of  uniformity,  courage,  and  system  had  all  produced 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1606—289,  291.  2)  C.  M.  S.— 192.  3)  Erk.  1—485.  4)  C.  S.  P. 
1609—154. 


CONNAUGHT  755 

the  most  extraordinary  chaos  in  enrolling  estates,  dividing  them 
between  chief  and  clansmen,  ,and  fixing  rent  and  dues.  There  is 
no  clearer  evidence  of  the  chaos  everywhere  than  the  despatch  of 
this  letter  to  deal  with  a  Province,  of  which  the  King  was  owner 
and  landlord,  and  was  in  a  position  to  send  down  a  Commission 
with  full  compulsory  powers.  O'Flaherty  was  one  of  the  first 
to  appear  before  the  Commission.  He  received  a  demesne  in  fee 
of  3.500  acres  and  a  rent  of  a  penny  an  acre  out  of  6.000  acres. 
Out  of  one  plot  of  500  acres  his  rent  was  3d  an  acre.  The  gist  of 
this  was  that  a  third  of  his  seignory  was  counted  as  demesne,  and 
hie  composition  rent  made  perpetual  over  the  rest  of  the  seignory. 
The  remainder  still  remained  in  nubibus.  What  however  is 
remarkable  is  the  "general  words"  at  the  end  of  the  patent.  Not 
only  were  fishing  and  mineral  rights  passed  away — rights  that 
should  have  been  reserved — but  a  whole  host  of  old  dues  main- 
tained, and  left  in  an  indefinable  state  to  warrant  future  litigation. 
The  rent  was  30s.  the  composition  rent  not  mentioned,  and 
the  feudal  dues  negligable,  while  O'Flaherty's  annuities,  knights 
fees,  wards,  marriages,  escheats,  reliefs  and  heriots"  over  his 
tenants  were  all  carefully  inserted.  If  ever  there  was  a  patent 
in  flat  defiance  of  State  policy  and  Eoyal  instructions  it  was  this. 1 
Nor  was  this  the  only  case.  An  angry  letter  in  the  State  Papers 
runs  as  follows: —  "McNamara  has  brought  letters  about  the  old 
chiefries  the  Composition  abolished.  Lord  Clanricarde  on  a  letter 
for  surrenders  has  found  divers  due  to  him.  They  are  now  raised 
by  my  Lord's  greatness.  They  are  passing  them  as  a  rent  charge 
to  tie  all  Connaught."2  Amidst  an  official  panic  all  further  pro- 
ceedings were  stayed.  The  Eoyal  letter  was  withdrawn. 

It  was  indeed  a  case  of  shutting  the  stable,  door  after  the  horse 
was  stolen.  In  Clanricarde's  patent  had  been  inserted  a  host  of 
parsonages  and  vicarages  worth  at  least  £  400  a  year. 3  His  rental 
was  £  6.500.  The  total  rent  the  King — the  seignory  overlord — 
drew  from  all  Connaught  was  but  £  4.000.  Lastly  out  of  all 
Clanricarde' s  hegemony  only  four  townlands  were  held  by  Knights 
Tenure  in  Capite.  What  made  this  so  extraordinary  was  that,  in 
the  letters  patent  passed  to  Clanricarde  by  Henry  VIII.  for  his 
demesne,  an  in  capite  tenure  was  specially  stipulated  for  the  whole 

1)  Erk.  11-731.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1610—397.        3)  L.  S.  1-299. 

48* 


756  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

demesne.  Over  60.000  acres  were  passed  in  demesne,  and  108.000 
in  rents  and  services.  Truly  "my  Lord's  Greatness"  had  somewhat 
exceeded  the  purport  of  "Our  Royal  favour".1 

This  letter  was  issued  with  open  eyes.  It  was  obviously  writ- 
ten to  enable  certain  chiefs  to  secure  their  estates.  The  second 
letter  was  ,a  far  more  serious  affair,  one  for  which  Strafford  held 
Wilmot  should  have  been  prosecuted.  A  second  letter  had  been 
issued  authorizing  Arthur  Basset  and  Francis  Blundell,  one 
Chichester's  nephew  and  the  other  an  official  on  the  Connaught 
Council,  to  search  for  concealed  feudal  tenures,  and  where  they 
were  found  to  take  two-thirds  of  the  debt  as  a  reward.2  This 
caused  some  excitement  in  Connaught,  and  a  deputation  waited  on 
James.  Wilmot,  the  President  of  Connaught,  laid  certain  con- 
siderations before  James  and,  on  the  strength  of  those  con- 
siderations another  Royal  letter  arrived.  From  its  wording  and 
preamble,  and  recitation  of  considerations  and  conditions  we  can 
detect  what  occurred. 3 

The  petitioners  informed  the  King  that  many  years  before 
Perrott  and  Bingham  had  made  a  Composition  with  their  an- 
cestors, whereby  they  were  to  pay  a  penny  an  acre,  and  be  granted 
their  estates.  Anyone  with  the  most  superficial  knowledge  of 
Elizabethean  history  will  detect  the  absurdity  of  this  assertion. 
There  was  hardly  a  County  in  Ireland  that  did  not  pay  Composi- 
tion rent,  and  there  was  not  a  man  in  Ireland,  up  to  this,  who  had 
alleged  that  a  penny  an  acre  wiped  out  hostings,  feudal  dues,  and 
Royal  rent.  The  inhabitants  of  Munster,  for  instance,  paid  both 
Composition  and  Quit  Rents  and  feudal  dues.  The  Composition 
was  for  cess  and  nothing  more.  Where  there  was  a  glimmer  of 
truth  in  the  assertion  was  a  promise  that  the  next  reform  would 
be  a  re-organization  of  tenures. 

Inquisitions  were  held.  Patents  were  promised  to  some. 
Patents  were  given  to  others.  Here  one  thing  was  done  and  there 
another,  but  on  the  bond  itself  all  that  was  written  and  all  the 
Commissioners  had  power  to  do,  was  to  surrender  cess  for  a  pay- 
ment of  a  penny  an  acre.  Perrott  and  Bingham  had  promised  to 
"give  every  man  his  estate",  and  "every  man  was  to  hold  of  the 
King",  but  this  did  not  mean  that  every  man  was  simply  to  journey 

1)  L.  S.  11—367—368.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1641—276.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1615—84; 

L.S.I— 457,  458;  C.  S.  P.  1641-275—278;  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660— 213— 215. 


CONN  AUGHT  757 

to  Dublin,  claim  vicarages  and  chiefries,  and  then  return  with  a 
patent  for  the  same.  It  might  have  been  excellent  policy  to  give 
every  man  his  estate  by  grants  in  1585.  In  1615  it  was  as  clear  as 
noonday  that  a  Plantation  was  the  only  method  of  dealing  with 
tenures  like  this.  Lastly  Perrot  could  not  have  granted  one  of 
those  patents  without  consulting  the  Queen.  All  he  could  do  was 
promise  to  lay  the  Inquisitions  in  each  scope  before  her.  All  his 
powers  were  confined  to  compounding  for  cess,  and  dilating  on 
the  general  State  policy  of  making  every  man  hold  of  the  Queen. 

The  preamble  of  James'  letter  goes  even  further  in  error.  It 
refers  to  "the  great  yearly  revenue"  the  Province  paid  the  Ex- 
chequer. The  only  revenue  paid  was  a  penny  an  acre  for  cess.  All 
the  other  Provinces  paid  this,  in  addition  to  their  other  charges. 
It  is  clear  that  the  petitioners  had  represented  their  cess  as  rent, 
and  once  it  was  assumed  to  be  rent,  it  was  easy  to  go  further  and 
say  that  the  acreage  for  which  each  man  paid  composition  was  his, 
and  no  one  else's-  As  was  said  at  a  later  date  "In  other  parts  of 
the  Kingdom  where  like  compositions  were  paid  in  lieu  of  cess, 
never  any  freeholders  claimed  any  engagement  on  the  Crown  for 
any  interest  in  their  lands. "  ISTeedless  to  say  this  precedent  was 
not  unobserved.  In  Longford  the  larger  freeholders,  who  had  just 
surrendered  a  quarter  of  their  estates,  taken  out  tenures  in  capite, 
agreed  to  a  rent,  and  arranged  to  give  long  leases  to  their  tenants, 
woke  up  and  asked  stridently  why  they  should  do  these  things, 
while  men  across  the  Shannon  were  granted  large  demesnes  in  fee, 
for  no  rent,  no  feudal  dues,  no  leases  to  tenants,  and  no  surrendered 
fourth.  Being,  however,  persons  of  no  political  importance  no 
heed  was  paid  to  their  tirades,  which  were  officially  rebuked  by 
a  Council,  on  which  Lord  Wilmot  was  a  leading  light. * 

What  was  more,  if  all  these  considerations  were  granted, 
there  was  scarcely  an  estate  in  Connaught  which  could  not  be 
escheated  by  the  Composition  indentures,  escheated  and  put  up 
for  auction.  Was  there  a  man  in  Connaught  who,  since  1585,  had 
paid  his  cess  money  annually,  exacted  no  bonnaght,  discarded 
feudal  and  tribal  war-cries  and  nomenclature,  abolished  gavelkind 
and  let  his  land  descend  by  the  common  law.  Alas !  Straff ord's 
words  ring  too  true:  "The  most  part  of  them  went  into  rebellion, 
manned  and  fortified  their  Castles,  practised  with  a  Foreign 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1615-109. 


758  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Power  for  invasion  and  continued  in  rebellion.  The  Composition, 
being  for  the  benefit  of  the  subject  and  loss  to  the  Crown,  ought 
to  have  been  performed  by  the  subject."  There  is  something  gro- 
tesque in  men  straining  the  language  of  the  Composition,  and 
pleading  the  Composition  as  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  after  they 
had  themselves  broken  every  clause  in  the  indentures.  The  very 
fact  that  after  the  Composition,  they  did  not  sue  for  their  patents, 
when  every  loyal  .subject  could  get  one,  shows  that  at  the  moment 
the  overlords  scorned  Eoyal  patents  as  involving  rent,  feudal  dues, 
and  'homage.  They  seem  to  have  only  woken  up  to  the  merits  of 
a  patent  when  the  State  had  been  established  by  the  minor  gentry. 
The  whole  tale  becomes  ludicrous,  when  one  is  aware  that  this 
consideration  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  Composition  with  chieftains 
long  since  deceased,  was  being  used  to  mask  the  very  modern  land 
speculators  of  the  cities,  who  had  their  eyes  fixed  firmly  on  the 
prospect  of  sheep  ranches,  procured  from  the  Crown  lands,  at  a 
nominal  rent,  free  of  the  taxes,  which  others  paid  without  a  mur- 
mur. Because  Perrot  promised  in  1585  that  "every  man  was  to 
have  his  own  and  hold  of  the  Queen",  Dillon,  Taaffe,  Jones  and 
Cork,  and  others,  who  had  come  on  the  scene  30  years  later,  were 
to  have  all  their  very  dubious  agrarian  tenures  sanctioned. 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  this  letter  very  quickly  operated.  A 
series  of  Inquisitions  were  held  in  different  parts  of  Connaught. 
The  number  of  these  Inquisitions  is  small,  which  shows  that  only 
a  limited  number  of  owners  were  involved  in  this  affair.  In  fact 
there  was  nothing  like  a  stampede  to  avail  of  the  surrender  and 
re-grant.  These  Inquisitions  are  valuable  for  one  reason.  They 
reveal  what  the  Books  of  Survey  and  Redistribution  disclosed  at 
a  later  period,  enormous  demesnes,  a  small  number  of  petty  gentry, 
and  an  enormous  number  of  uneconomic  holdings.  The  Chairman 
of  the  Commission  however  was  Coote,  a  hard  faced  and  experienced 
member  of  the  Dublin  Corporation.  He  detected  that  if  these  men 
were  the  legitimate-  heirs  of  those  who  held  from  the  original  Earl 
of  Ulster  their  lands  were  held  under  Knights  Tenures  in  Capite. 
He  reported  so. l  The  patents  passed  in  Dublin — Coote  gpent  the 
greater  part  of  his  time  in  Connaught — paid  no  regard  to  this 
finding.  From  this  arose  some  trouble.  The  original  Dillon  patent 


1)  T.  C.  D.  E.  3,  7. 


CONN  AUGHT  759 

from  De  Burgh  was  an  in  capite  tenure.1  The  Jacobean  patent 
to  Dillon  was  one  of  ordinary  Knights  Tenure.  This  is  what  Straf- 
ford  meant  by  his  frequent  references  to  "abuse  of  the  King's 
tenures  in  Connaught". 

A  certain  number  of  surrenders  were  made  and  a  similar 
number  of  patents  granted.  To  adjudicate  their  justice  at  this  date 
is  impossible.  They  seem  to  reiterate  the  prevailing  tendency  of 
very  large  demesnes  to  chiefs  or  the  chief  surrenderors,  the  creation 
of  four  or  five  freeholds  of  from  150  to  200  acres,  and  a  large  host 
of  petty  freeholds.  In  some  cases  it  is  clear  that  to  the  chief  was 
left  the  task  of  allocation.  In  one  case,  that  of  O'Shaughnessy, 
the  Chief  received  and  retained  the  whole  demesne  in  fee.  Whether 
these  were  or  were  not  just  allocations  we  cannot  judge,  but  our 
previous  experience  of  the  policy  of  surrender  and  re-grant  is  not 
calculated  to  predispose  us  in  its  favour.  Certain  considerations 
however  are  worthy  of  note. 

The  demesnes  are  enormous.  Those  of  Theobald  Burke, 
O'Shaughnessy,  and  the  surrender  of  Clanricarde  are  Pala- 
tinates. After  making  all  allowances  for  the  rapid  conver- 
sion of  Clan  areas  into  demesnes  and  the  conquests  of  do- 
minant -chiefs,  one  is  forced  to  only  one  conclusion  and  that  is 
that  wastes  "to  which  no  man  laid  claim",  "no  man's  lands"  between1 
lord  and  lord,  on  which  there  were  no  proprietors,  or  perchance 
only  nomad  graziers  paying  a  chiefry,  were  claimed'  by  neigh- 
bouring men  of  power,  and,  there  being  no  .other  claimant  of 
eminence  to  dispute,  were  "passed  on  the  book".  We  must  re- 
member that  this  was  a  very  common  feature  of  Connaught. 
Bingham  refers  frequently  to  "creaghts"  moving  from  district  to 
district  and  paying  blackmail  for  the  time  being  to  the  nearest 
lord.  St.  John  says  that  lands  grazed  one  month  would  be  empty 
the  next.  The  explanation  of  these  enormous  demesnes  is  that  those 
who  surrendered,  handed  in  every  possible  acre  to  which  no  one 
else  put  in  a  claim,  and  then  drew  a  patent  for  "the  scope".  Suffice 
it  to  say  that,  in  scope  of  arable  territory,  the  Palatinates  of  about 
a  dozen  men  in  Connaught  were  larger  than  all  the  arable  land 
and  mountain  possessed  by  men  such  as  Thomond,  Ormond, 
Maguire,  Westmeath,  and  Magennis.  The  nearest  approach  to 
these  scopes  is  the  estate  of  the  Earl  of  Antrim.  These  considera- 

1)  Burke's  Peerage.  Dillon. 


760  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

tions  are  amply  borne  out  by  the  report  of  the  Defective  Titles' 
Commission  under  Strafford.  After  commenting  on  the  unparalleled 
size  of  the  demesnes  passed  in  these  patents  they  said  "The  Crown 
was  much  abused  by  pretending  lands  they  sought  for  were  their  own, 
or  concealed  lands,  or  lands  escheated  by  attainders,  and  by  them 
discovered.  So  concealing  his  Majesty's  rights  they  obtained  those 
grants".  "Frauds"  was  the  word  used  by  Strafford. 1 

What  however  was  the  real  defect  in  these  patents  was  the 
tenures.  In  not  one  is  there  a  cutting  off  of  chiefries.  In  everyone 
there  is  "a  right  to  create  tenures",  in  other  words  to  take  feudal 
tenures  from  tenants  on  these  scopes.  Fairs,  markets,  manorial 
rights,  fisheries  and  mineral  rights  are  scattered  through  them. 
In  all  other  patents  these  are  granted  sparingly  and  within  careful 
limits.  Other  subjects  petitioned  for  one  manor  or  one  fair,  and 
were  proud  if  they  received  the  gift.  Here  they  are  "passed  away", 
sometimes  in  detail,  sometimes  in  general  words.  This  was  equi- 
valent to  creating  once  again  all  those  powers  the  State  had  taken 
100  years  to  destroy.  It  is  the  meaning  of  that  complaint  by 
"Richard  Bell  Preacher"  of  the  "coshierings  and  very  chargeable 
exactions"  maintained  in  Connaught,  of  the  complaint  already 
quoted  of  the  chiefries  of  O'Shaughnessy  and  Clanricarde,  and 
the  sarcastic  rhyme  hurled  at  Cromwell  by  a  Connaught  Royalist: 
"As  St.  Patrick  checked  the  cattle  plague 
For  the  children  of  Adam  in  Ireland 
So  you  have  checked  for  us  the  week-day"  (work). 

So  runs  "The  thanksgiving  of  the  jovial  churl  when  he  had 
Oliver  Cromwell  as  his  Protector". 2 

It  was  this  affair  of  the  tenures  that  cheked  any  further 
issTie  of  patents.  The  passing  of  these  estates  in  "mean 
tenures"  soon  came  to  light.  The  Commissioners  for  the  Court  of 
Wards  sent  a  stinging  report  across  to  London.  They  pointed  out 
that  the  gist  of  this  arrangement  was  that  all  previous  feudal  debts, 
fines  for  alienation,  fines  for  wardships  and  intrusions,  and  fines 
payable  on  accession  to  an  estate  were  regarded  as  null  and  void. 3 
The  report  synchronized  with  the  departure  of  Coote  to  London, 
where  he  laid  before  the  Government  Wil mot's  mismanagement 

1)  L.S.II— 139.  •  2)  See  "Confiscations  in  Ireland".  Butler.  3)  C.  S.  P. 
1617—171. 


CONN  AUGHT  761 

of  the  Castle  of  Athlone.  There  was  a  sudden  check  to  the  enrol- 
ment of  surrenders.  A  petition  was  sent  to  London  demanding 
reasons  for  the  non  enrolment.  The  Committee  for  Irish  causes 
returned  a  vague  answer.  "The  inconvenience  is  by  the  fault  of 
the  parties  themselves  in  neglecting  the  enrolling  of  their  own 
surrenders".  This  was  to  a  certain  extent  true,  as  only  a  portion 
of  Connaught  had  availed  themselves  of  the  letter.  An  account 
written  30  years  later  corroborates  this- *  The  report  went  on  in 
more  ominous  strains  "If  his  Majesty  vouchsafe  new  letters  patent 
then  the  same  should  be  perused  by  His  Majesty's  learned  Counsel!, 
and  special  care  taken  that  His  Majesty's  tenures  be  preserved.  2 

The  non-enrolment  of  the  surrenders  raised  an  instant  barrier 
to  further  patents.  It  did  not,  as  is  usually  supposed,  nullify 
patents  already  passed.  This  idea  is  current  in  some  documents  of 
the  period,  but,  if  it  did,  Strafford  would  never  have  been  obliged 
to  disown  those  patents  purely  on  the  question  of  tenures.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  he  encouraged  the  enrolling  of  surrenders  for  other 
reasons.  "A  surrender"  he  said  "could  not  hurt  the  Crown.  A  new 
grant  back  to  the  subject  might."3  The  disappointed  patentees 
always  blamed  Coote.  As  a  member  of  the  Connaught  Council 
he  had  it  in  his  power  to  enrol  or  "stay",  and  he  "stayed"  pending 
instructions  from  London.4 

From  1618  to  1628  nothing  was  done.  James  was  dead.  The 
initial  stages  of  the  reign  of  Charles  were  spent  in  coping  with 
Parliament  and  warring  with  France.  Falkland  strongly  urged 
Charles  to  make  a  Plantation,  but  no 'heed  was  paid  to  his  advice.  5 
In  1628  the  Graces  were  accorded,  and  Graces  24  and  25  showed 
what  could  occur  when  the  King  showered  benefits  on  petitioners 
without  consulting  the  Deputy.  Grace  24  disclaimed  all  Eoyal 
titles  60  years  old.  Grace  25  ordered  the  surrenders  to  be  enrolled 
and  patents  to  be  granted  at  half  fees  to  those  who  had  already 
paid  their  fees  of  enrolment.  The  Grace  went  even  further  than 
this.  Coote's  Inquisitions  had  found  some  parcels  held  by  Knights 
Tenure  in  Capite.  The  Court  of  Wards  had  discovered  more. 
The  Grace  stipulated  that  both  these  findings  were  to  be  ignored, 
that  no  tenures  in  capite  were  to  be  inserted  in  the  patents,  save 


1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1624-508.         3)  L.  S.  1-346.        4)  C.  S. 
P.  1625-1660—214.        5)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—129. 


762  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

where  they  were  found  in  patents  passed  since  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  This  wiped  out  all  the  old  pre-Tudor  feudal  tenures, 
and  substituted  a  concession  of  "ordinary  Knights  tenure  of  the 
Castle  of  Athlone".  Strafford  subsequently  asserted  that  what 
the  petitioners  called  "the  fees  formerly  paid  for  enrolment" 
were  compositions  paid  to  Blundel  and  Bassett  for  old  debts  of 
feudal  dues,  "given  for  fines  then  past  and  due  to  your  Majesty, 
without  ground  or  intention  to  conclude  the  rights  of  the 
Crown". 1  The  Eoyal  letter  had  lapsed  or  been  stayed.  The 
enrolments  had  been  refused.  On  the  strength  however  of  a 
Eoyal  promise  still  dormant  Charles  signed  the  Grace,  e.  g.  "In 
the  Province  of  Connaught",  wrote  one  to  him,  "Your  Majesty 
hath  lost  more  than  all  you  have  gotten  by  the  subsidies  if  they 
were  fourfold."2 

It  is  clear  that,  even  before  Strafford  arrived,  this  series  of 
blunders  and  confusions  had  been  detected.  There  are  several 
references  in  the  State  Papers  to  a  mooted  Plantation  of  the 
whole  area,  from  which  we  can  detect  that  certain  men  in  high 
places  were  at  last  aware  that  the  policy  of  surrender  and  re- 
grant  had  broken  down,  that  there  were  scopes  in  Connaught 
which  in  law  and  equity  belonged  to  the  King,  and  could  be  used 
by  him  to  supplement  the  revenue  and  to  develop  the  territory.  3 
One  suggestion  was  to  give  a  largess  of  patents  for  those  with 
tenures  60  years  old,  doubling  the  composition  rent,  and  in  case 
of  new  titles  to  impose  a  fine  and  an  in  capite  tenure.  The 
authorities  however  were  not  to  be  caught  napping  a  second 
time.  Coke  blandly  replied  that  this  would  be  "but  a  partial  and 
not  a  general  reformation",  and  that  the  Commissioners  were 
liable  to  be  influenced.4 

The  motive,  apart  from  anything  else,  that  impelled  Straf- 
ford  to  deal  with  this  Province  by  a  Plantation  was  "to  improve 
His  Majesty's  Eevenue  and  establish  the  power  of  his  Sovereignty". 
Five  thousand  a  year  he  anticipated  from  the  immediate  rents, 
but  Ormonde  and  Connaught  together  he  anticipated  "will  raise 
£  20.000  a  year  rent  more,  by  bringing  in  people,  trades  and 
commerce  increase  the  Customs  £  4.000  a  year,  and  both  settle 
this  Kingdom  in  such  a  condition,  as  that  the  Crown  shall  be  here 

1)  L.  S.  1-321.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660—137.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1631—612, 
631.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1631—639  640,  665,  C66. 


CONNAUGHT  763 

as  securely  and  universally  served  and  obeyed,  as  it  is  in  Eng- 
land".1  "We  intend  not",  he  added,  "to  exercise  His  Majesty's 
justice  further" — even  in  cases  where  lands  had  been  "passed" 
improperly — "than  in  taking  from  them  a  fourth  part.  Those 
three  parts  remaining  will  be  more  profitable  than  the  former  four, 
as  well  as  in  regard  the  benefit  they  shall  of  the  Plantation,  as 
well  as  in  the  security  and  settlement  of  their  estates". 2  The  final 
idea  was  the  changing  of  the  tenures  of  "the  lower  sort  of  Irish 
from  their  oppressing  Lords  to  their  gracious  King,  the  true 
foundation  of  wealth  and  peace,  and  the  only  hope  of  introducing 
civility  and  religion".3 

The  news  of  a  Plantation  was  soon  public  property  in  Lon- 
don. 4  The  very  word  Plantation  aroused  the  hopes  of  that 
particular  class,  which  had  blighted  that  of  Ulster,  the  land 
speculator.  This  type  of  adventurer  used  to  put  in  a  tender  for 
parcels  of  the  sequestrated  fourth  that  accrued  to  the  King,  and 
then  would  let  the  lands  on  long  lease  to  graziers,  trusting  to 
political  influence,  or  official  laxity  to  allow  his  Covenants  to  go 
by  default.  Strafford  suddenly  discovered  that  Portland,  the  Lord 
Treasurer,  was  treating  with  "adventurers"  in  London,  before  the 
Irish  Government  had  even  found  a  title  to  Connaught  or  Or- 
monde. Clarendon  says  that  Portland's  financial  venturers  brought 
the  King  into  more  ill  repute  in  London,  than  any  other  branch 
of  the  administration.  On  one  occasion  he  forbade  goods  to  be 
landed  at  any  quay  except  one  owned  by  himself  and  Abraham 
Dawes,  the  identical  Dawes,  who  tried  to  increase  the  Irish 
Customs  duties,  and  was  routed  with  rude  words  by  Strafford. 5 
Other  incidents  in  Portland's  career,  especially  the  soap  monopoly, 
show  that  he  extracted  a  commission  on  Crown  contracts.  Laud 
and  Strafford  were  always  on  tenderhooks  when  Portland's  name 
was  mentioned.  If  once  the  rumour  of  this  reached  Connaught, 
farewell  to  all  hopes  of  getting  a  Eoyal  title  to  that  Province. 
"A  great  prejudice",  Strafford  complained  to  the  King,  "such 
pretences  will  bring  upon  the  business." 6  An  angry  correspon- 
dence ensued  between  Strafford  and  Portland.  "For  encourage- 
ments to  any  from  hence,  to  make  suits  on  the  Plantations", 
fiercely  wrote  the  Deputy  "I  profess  once  for  all,  not  any  alive 

1)  L.  S.  1—132,  145;  11-90.  2)  L.  S.  11—139.  3)  L.  S.  Ill- 103. 

4)  L.  S.  1—265.        5)  Clarendon  Memoirs  1-23,  25.          6)  L.  S.  1—258. 


764  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

shall  have  any  bargain  of  those  lands  to  the  hindrance  and  loss 
of  his  Majesty."1  Portland  sulkily  began  to  throw  obstacles  in 
Strafford's  path,  failing  to  forward  documents,  and  not  replying 
to  letters.  It  was  this  faculty  that  made  Laud  give  him  the 
nickname  of  "the  Lady  Mora".  Portland  in  the  end  gave  way, 
but  only  after 'consider  able  pressure  and  after  a  complaint  had  been 
made  to  the  King. 2  "His  letters  to  me  are  dry  ever  since" 
remarked  Straff ord,3  "Aye",  wrote  Laud,  "Such  ladies  can  spin 
long  threads.  When  they  can  do  little  themselves  they  are  most 
unwilling  any  thing  should  be  done  by  others".  4 

Of  the  preliminaries  to  Stratford's  Connaught  tour  we  know 
nothing.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to  assume  that  he  neglected 
the  habitual  canvassings  and  negotiations.  It  was  usual,  on  the 
eve  of  a  Plantation,  to  despatch  agents  to  the  Province  to  outline 
the  Crown  policy,  to  see  what  chiefs  were  in  favour,  what  were 
suspicious,  and  generally  to  find  out  what  local  grievances  might 
prejudice  the  sympathies  of  men  towards  entrusting  an  executive 
with  full  powers. 5  Suffice  it  to  say  that  Strafford  knew  that  all 
Connaught  "would  submit",  all  except  Galway.  Clanricarde,  with 
his  personal,  feudal,  and  family  influence,  was  an  insuperable 
obstacle,  especially  when  supported  by  a  large  number  of  the 
Priests,  headed  by  their  local  Bishop.  The  local  Sheriff  too,  who 
empannelled  the  jury,  was  his  kinsmen  and  servant.  6  It  was  an 
open  secret  that  a  large  number  of  Galway  freeholders  would 
submit.  Suddenly  a  messenger  arrived  from  Lord  Clanricarde, 
and  another  from  Lord  Clanmorris.  Many  of  these  freeholders, 
immediately  notified  Strafford's  agents  that  they  were  no  longer 
of  their  previous  opinion.  Donnellan,  Clanricarde's  agent  in- 
stantly despatched  a  messenger  to  Dublin  to  remove  his  master's 
patent  from  thei  Eecord  Office,  saying  "We  are  undone  if  we  don't 
get  it  back".  Clanmorris  subsequently  remarked  "I  would  have 
given  much  that  the  Deputy  had  begun  with  us,  that  the  other 
counties  might  have  an  example  to  do  the  like". 7 

Strafford,  however,  wisely  began  with  the  favourable  Counties. 
The  first  trial  was  held  at  Boyle,  in  Eoscommon.  It  was  the  first 
of  these  proceedings,  in  which  every  freeholder  had  the  right  to 
appear  and  state  a  case.  In  all  previous  Plantation  proceedings, 

1)  L.S.  1-135,  145,  296.  2)  L.  S.  1—333,  339,  342.  3)  L.  S.  1-380. 
4)  L.  L.  VII— 162.  5)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—65.  6)  L  S.  1—444.  7)  L.  S.  1—451. 


CONN  AUGHT  765 

Crown  Counsell  alone  were  heard.  All  that  was  required  to  prove, 
was  the  original  patent  of  Henry  III.  to  Richard  De  Burgo,  the 
fact  that  De  Burgo  was  in  possession  of  the  Province,  the  lineal 
descent  of  the  King  from  the  De  Burghs  through  Edmund  Mor- 
timer, Earl  of  March,  and  the  Acts  of  Resumption  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  This  entitled  the  King  to  all  lands  not  passed  away 
by  the  De  Burghs,  or  by  Royal  patents  after  the  act  of  Resumption, 
or  Abbey  and  Church  lands,  duly  leased.  After  these  facts  were 
laid  before  the  jury  and  counsell  had  been  heard,  Straff ord  ex- 
plained to  them  his  presence.  "It  was  his  Majesty's  gracious 
resolution  to  question  no  man's  patent  that  had  been  granted 
formerly  upon  good  considerations,  and  was  of  itself  valid  in  the 
law."  The  two  reservations  are  worthy  of  note.  "His  great  seal 
was  his  public  faith,  and  should  be  kept  sacred  in  all  things." 
The  King  came  not  to  sue.  His  legal  right  could  be  asserted  any 
day  in  the  Exchequer  Court,  by  a  simple  suit  of  "Intrusion".  "But 
his  Majesty  being  desirous  in  these  public  services  to  take  his 
people  along  with  him,  was  pleased  they  should  have  a  part  with 
him  in  the  honour,  as  in  the  profit  of  a  work,  so  glorious  and 
excellent  for  the  Common  weal."  For  the  King  it  was  best  that 
they  should  refuse  the  title.  Then  he  would  be  free  to  do  what 
he  wished  with  his  own,  "but  yet,  as  one  that  wished  prosperity 
to  their  nation,  I  desired  them  not  to  slip  any  means  to  weave 
themselves  into  the  Royal  thoughts  by  a  cheerful  admission  of  his 
right.  There  I  left  them  to  chant — as  they  call  it — over  the 
evidence.  The  next  day  they  found  the  title  without  scruple  or 
hesitation."  Three  bargains  were  then  struck.  All  patents  good 
in  law  were  to  stand,  and  to  be  liable  to  no  escheatment  of  a  fourth. 
This,  however,  was  a  dubious  matter.  Very  few  of  the  Jacobean 
patents  were  good  owing  to  misuse  of  the  tenure  clauses.  Secondly 
all  Abbey  patents  were  to  stand,  whether  good  in  law  or  not.  This 
reservation  was  made,  because  it  was  clear  that  Henry  VIII.  knew 
the  Abbey  lands  were  his,  and  had  "passed"  them  with  open  eyes. 
No  advantage  was  to  be  taken  in  those  patents  of  "letters  wrung 
on  false  considerations"  or  "abuse  of  tenures".  Thirdly  all  pos- 
sessions of  Bishops,  Deans,  and  Parsons  were  to  be  also  exempt. 
These  bargains  were  enrolled  in  an  Act  of  State,  published  and 
despatched  to  the  other  three  countries.  "It  will"  wrote  Strafford 
"settle  and  quieten  men's  minds  throughout  the  whole  Province. 


766  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

I  must  not  forget  Sir  Lucas  Dillon,  the  foreman  of  the  jury,  who 
expressed  all  along  so  good  affections.  I  beseech  his  Majesty  he 
may  be  remembered,  when  the  dividing  of  his  lands  comes  in 
question.  You  will  have  a  good  store  of  pretenders  on  that  side. 
I  crave  leave  to  ask  Ms  Majesty  not  to  engage  to  any."1  Sligo 
and  Mayo  did  the  same.  If  Galway  also  came  in,  the  Crown  would 
have  for  its  disposal  for  planters  120.000  acres.  Such  was  Straf- 
f  ord's  estimate,  and  his  estimates  were  singularly  accurate. 2 

This  figure  is  of  some  importance  as  many  historians,  who 
have  overlooked  this  estimate,  have  assumed  that  the  King,  by  the 
exercise  of  his  seignoral  rights,  was  about  to  resume  some  enormous 
area  in  Connaught.  The  area  the  king  was  about  to  hold,  as  it 
were  in  demesne,  was  a  sixth  of  that  reserved  in  the  .six  Ulster 
Counties,  and  two  thirds  of  that  of  the  Munster  Plantation  that 
followed  on  the  attainder  of  Desmond.  It  was  only  twice  the  area 
Clanricarde  claimed  in  fee  simple.  For  a  seignoral  Lord,  the 
Eoyal  claims  truly  were  modest,  at  any  rate  compared  with  those 
of.  which  the  country  had  hithertoo  had  experience,  and  what  was 
more,  the  rent  of  this  seignory  was  destined  to  go  into  the  Irish 
Exchequer,  either  to  alleviate  taxation,  or  to  support  public 
services.  The  whole  history  of  the  Irish  Plantations  has  been  so 
misunderstood  by  subsequent  generations,  that  these  considera- 
tions have  first  to  be  grasped,  before  we  understand  why,  in  Mayo, 
Eoscommon,  Sligo,  Clare,  Limerick  and  Tipperary,  juries  of  men, 
by  no  means  easily  controlled,  "found  the  Eoyal  titles  cheerfully 
and  without  stint". 

Stratford  then  wended  his  way  to  Portumna  to  face  Clanri- 
carde's  jury.  When  the  Governor  General  of  Galway,  related  to 
every  reigning  family  in  the  county,  owner  in  fee  of  a  third  of  the 
county,  and  feudal  lord  of  two-thirds,  was  supported  by  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Priests,  then  at  the  height  of  their  power,  and  also  controlled 
the  sheriff,  the  result  of  the  jury's  finding  was  a  foregone  conclusion. 
Their  finding  was  obvious  drafted  by  a  cunning  hand,  but  was 
certainly  not  in  accordance  with  facts.  Their  line  of  reasoning 
was  this.  The  King  and  people  of  Connaught  had  submitted  to 
Henry  II.  His  rights  accordingly  were  only  those  of  an  overlord, 
and  not  a  possessor.  These  rights  he  passed  to  Eoderick,  and  the 


1)  L.  S.  1—442,  444.  2)  L.  S.  1—421. 


CONNAUGHT  767 

subsequent  forfeiture  passed  them,  and  them  only  to  De  Burgh 
The  jury  omitted,  however,  the  real,  foundation  of  the  De  Burgh 
Title.  John  was  conquerer  and  possessor  in  fact  of  Connaught. 
His  successor  Henry  III.  passed  a  good  title  to  De  Burgh,  so  good 
and  effective,  that  it  operated  for  200  years.  Secondly.  They  next 
alleged  that  no  proof  had  been  given  that  Lionel,  Duke  of  Clarence, 
who  married  the  last  of  De  Burghs,  was  in  possession  of  Connaught. 
This  was  not  required.  Thirdly,  they  pleaded  that  the  Act  of 
Resumption  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  only  applied  to  tenures 
and  not  to  lands.  The  Act  distinctly  states  "Castles,  tenements, 
meadows,  and  all  other  things  pertaining  to  the  Lordship",  adding 
tenures  as  something  distinct.  Finally  when  the  jury  were  asked, 
to  whom  then  did  Galway  belong,  they  were  silent,  as  all  existing 
patents  were  based  on  the  assumption  of  a  Eoyal  Title. * 

Even  despite  the  great  influences  employed,  there  were  signs 
that  it  was  a  forced  verdict.  The  first  jurors  hesitated,  and  contra- 
dicted themselves  as  they  were  questioned.  Then  Donnellan  gave 
his  verdict.  The  very  fact  that  he  was  on  the  jury  was  significant. 
The  jurors  who  spoke  after  him  "did  positively  and  uniformly 
agree  with  him".  Two  jurors  stood  out,  and  returned  a  verdict  for 
the  King.  When  one  was  speaking,  Richard  Bourk,  the  Earls 
nephew,  nudged  him  with  a  scowl,  and  tried,  to  divert  him  "in 
open  Court,  in  our  view  to  the  outfacing  of  all  justice".-  Bourk 
was  arrested  and  fined  £  500  for  contempt  of  Court.  These  were 
the  only  two  jurors  who  were  not  relatives  of  Clanricarde's. 

Straff  ord  saw  that  the  matter  had  now  become  a  question  of  who 
was  to  rule  Connaught,  the  Deputy  or  Clanricarde.  He  himself 
ascribed  half  the  trouble  to  the  fact  that  Clanricarde  had  Presi- 
dential power  in  the  county,  making  him  "little  less;  than  a  Count 
Palatine".  He  used  every  weapon  in  the  Royal  Prerogative  to 
deal  with:  this  rebuff.  The  Sheriff  was  fined  £  1.000  for  packing 
the  jury.  The  Jury  were  bound  over  to  appear  before  the  Castle 
Chamber.  A  Proclamation  was  issued,  informing  the  residents  of 
Galway,  that,  as  they  had  refused  to  recognize  a  plain  Royal  title, 
none  of  the  Graces  accorded  to  the  other  Counties  would  be  given 
to  them,  and  half  their  estates  and  not  a  quarter  would  be 
sequestrated,  'by  this  means  taking  from -them,  all  pretence  the 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—213;  C.  P.  B.  1—130,  151,  152. 


768  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

fault  was  only  the  jurors",  and  also  "breaking  the  combination". 
The  lawyers  who  had  advised  Clanricarde,  and  were  "overbusy 
even  to  faction"  were  deprived  of  their  practice.  By  law  no 
recusant  lawyer  could  practice.  The  King  had  suspended  this  law 
by  Act  of  Grace.  Straff  or  d  withdrew  the  Act  in  their  case  "it  being 
unfit  that  they  should  take  benefit  by  His  Majesty's  Grace  that 
take  boldness,  after  such  a  manner,  to  oppose  his  .service".  One 
of  them,  Mr.  Martin,  who  was  a  land  owner  in  Thomond,  subse- 
quently assisted  the  Clare  jury  to  find  a  Royal  title,  and  his  dis- 
qualification was  removed.  The  leading  Council,  Mr.  Patrick 
Darcy,  a  near  relative  of  the  Sheriff,  Strafford  regarded  as  the 
brains-carrier  of  the  whole  affair.  All  Laud's  appeals  could  not 
get  him  back  to  the  bar.  "I  will  not  restore  him  till  the  Planta- 
tions are  accomplished"  said  the  Deputy.  "He  was  the  principal 
Boutefeu  in  that  business",  Martin  being  only  a  legal  advocate 
fulfilling  his  legal  duties,  and  showing  "good  disposition"  when 
it  was  an  affair  of  his  own  property. *  Clanricarde's  troop  of  horse 
was  despatched  to  another  part  of  Ireland.  General  Willoughby 
was  hurried  down  to  garrison  and  fortify  Galway.  The  King  was 
strongly  advised  to  withdraw  Clanricarde's  patent  of  President  of 
Galway.  Above  all  Strafford  recommended  him  to  allow  no  sub- 
missions or  appeals  ad  misericordiam  to  effect  him.  Those  who  had 
found  the  Royal  title  in  the  other  Counties  should  be  made  to 
feel  that  they  were  treated  better  than  those  who  did  not.  Those 
of  Galway  should  be  made  to  feel  they  were  outside  the  Royal 
favour.  By  an  Exchequer  proceeding  all  Galway  could  be  declared 
a  Royal  farm.  With  half  in  the  King's  possession  they  could 
"line  it  and  plant  it  with  English  and  Protestants",  and  be  thus 
secured  from  any  fear  of  "the  cry  of  religion  being  stirred,  in  the 
case  of  a  foreign  invasion,  no  part  being  more  open  to  let  in  a 
foreign  enemy". 2 

The  result  was  instantaneous.  From  this  time  on,  all  the 
efforts  of  Clanricarde,  his  clerical  agents,  and  the  other  Land- 
owners were  directed  towards  winning  for  Galway  the  same  pri- 
vileges as  the  other  Counties,  professing  loudly  at  the  same  time 
that  there  was  nothing  they  desired  more  than  a  Royal  title,  and 
"Royal  justice  and  mercy". 3 

1)  L.S.  11-98;  L.L.  VII-407,  445.  469.  492.  2)  L.  S.  1-450,  454. 

3)  L.  L.  VII-284. 


CONN  AUGHT  769 

The  re-organization  of  the  Connaught  tenures  then  began. 
It  was  destined  to  be  a  long  and  wearisome  business.  Every  acre 
had  to  be  surveyed  and  mapped,  every  patent  examined,  all  the 
chiefries  estimated  and  valued.  The  Inquisitions  into  many  of 
the  estates  still  lie  in  the  Record  Office,  but  the  maps,  documents 
and  correspondence  have  perished  by  fire.  The  surveying  was 
supervised  by  a  clergyman  with  a  genius  for  this  kind  of  work, 
whom  Ormonde  had  unearthed  in  some  country  parsonage. 

The  work  was  much  complicated  by  certain  vested  interests 
that  Strafford  had  decided  to  preserve.  Mortgages  for  instance 
had  to  be  carefully  protected.  All  improvements  in  land  and 
buildings  had  to  be  noted.  To  escheat  in  the  sequestered  fourth 
a  field,  whose  owner  had  made  it  what  it  was,  was  no  part  of  State 
policy.  All  purchases  since  the  accession  of  Charles  I.  were  also 
exempt  from  sequestration.  To  take  a  fourth  of  an  estate,  for 
which  money  had  just  been  paid,  was  also  not  to  be  considered. 1 
Abbey  and  Church  lands  had  to  be  carefully  separated  from  the 
rest,  the  former  because  they  were  exempt  from  Plantation,  the 
latter  because,  if  held  by  the  Church  they  were  exempt,  if  held  by 
patent  they  were  liable,  and  if  held  by  a  Bishop's  lease,  they  came 
under  a  special  code  of  compensation. 2  The  head-rent  to  be  charged 
for  all  estates  was  to  be  2V2<1  an  acre>  a  rent,  it  might  be  noted, 
far  less  than  the  average  payment  to  an  overlord. 3  Lastly,  all 
holdings  under  130  acres  were  escheated,  the  owners  receiving 
either  leases  in  or  near  towns,  .or  leases  under  their  chiefs. 

This  latter  clause  raised  a  difficulty  in  Galway.  Strafford  had 
intended  to  escheat  a  half  of  every  Galway  freehold.  It  soon — very 
soon — became  apparent  that  the  bulk  of  the  freeholders  were  not 
prepared  to  stand  out. 4  Stafford's  stern  measures  had  produced 
a  host  of  repudiations.  These  did  not  deceive  him.  None  knew 
better  than  he  that,  if  he  had  not  acted  as  he  did,  it  was  he  and 
not  Clanricarde,  who  would  have  been  repudiated  by  the  vaccil- 
lating  multitude.  "You  come  too  late  Sir  !  You  come  too  late !" 
Such  was  his  ironical  comment  on  their  loud  professions  that  it 
was  all  a  mistake,  due  to  ignorance  of  Law.5  Falkland  had  one 
time  said  "The  nature  of  this  people  is  to  fear  where  they  can 
make  afraid,  and  to  be  afraid  where  they  cannot  make  to  fear".  8 

1)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1-105.  2)  L.  S.  11-139;  1—171.  3)  C.  T.  1—263. 
4)  L.  S.  11—35;  C.  S.  P.  1637—149.  5)  C.  P.  B.  1-139.  6)  C.  P.  B.  XXX— 122. 

49 


770  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

This  was  why  Strafford  was  determined  to  encourage  no  more 
juries  to  prefer  the  favour  of  Palatinate  Lords  to  that  of  the  King. 
It  was  another  difficulty,  however,  that  made  him  alter  this  plan. 
If  a  man  held  250  acres,  and  half  was  escheated,  he  was  left  with 
only  125,  and  therefore  was  the  possessor  of  an  uneconomic  hold- 
ing. This  would  have  meant,  what  with  defective  patents,  se- 
questered halves,  and  sequestered  holdings  of  less  than  130  acres, 
that  four-fifths  of  Galway  would  have  fallen  into  the  Royal 
demesne,  and  a  very  large  number  of  freeholders  would  have 
become  leaseholders. i  This  was  certainly  far  beyond  the  original 
plan.  It  was  too  severe  on  men  with  economic  estates.  It  verged 
on  confiscation.  He  was  nevertheless  determined  to  bring  into 
Galway  a  class  of  subject  who  would  counterbalance  Clanricarde 
and  the  priests,  and  he  was  yet  more  determined  that  the  free- 
holders of  Sligo,  Eoscommon,  and  Mayo,  should  be  able 
to  .say  that  they  received  more  Eoyal  favour  than  Gal- 
way. Accordingly  when  all  the  Galway  freeholders  ack- 
nowledged the  King's  title,  and  the  jurors  had  cried 
"peccavi",  he  relaxed  the  code. 2  The  policy  resolved  on  was  "a 
difference  between  the  jurymen  and  the  rest  of  Galway,  and  a 
difference,  too,  between  the  rest  of  Galway  and  them  of  the  other 
three  counties". s  What  the  new  arrangement  was,  does  not 
transpire.  It  was  certainly  not,  however,  a  mere  sequestration  of  a 
fourth.  Strafford  was  firmly  convinced  that  the  power  of  Clanri- 
carde and  his  relatives  should  be  broken  in  Galway.  A  rebellion 
or  an  invasion  would  mean  his  instant  revolt.  Holland  and  Pierce 
Crosby  told  the  king  that  Strafford' s  "severity  would  distract  the 
people  and  dispose  them  to  call  the  Irish  regiments  forth  of 
Flanders", .thus,  as  he  put  it,  "promoting  their  own  interests  and 
passions.  All  I  can  answer  is,  if  the  taking  of  a  half  move  them 
to  enter  into  a  rebellion,  the  taking  of  a  third  or  fourth  should 
hardly  secure  the  Crown  of  their  alliance".  His  final  jibe  was 
caustic.  If  Crosby  was  so  anxious  to  avert  this,  let  him  "persuade 
those  regiments  into  the  pay  of  the  French,  and  so  shut  the  door". 
The  meaning  of  this  jeer  was  that  Crosby  had  been  assuring  all 
and  sundry  at  Court,  that  the  Irish  mercennaries  abroad  were  his 
faithful  henchmen,  they  probably  having  never  heard  of  his 

1)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1—105,  106.  2)  L.  L.  VII— 283;  L.  S.  11—350. 

3)  L.  L.  VII-284. 


CONN  AUGHT  771 

existence.  *  Thus  Strafford  was  determined  to  make  some  arrange- 
ment to  "weaken  those  whom  it  is  granted  are  so  unsound  and 
rotten  at  heart",  but  the  sequestration  of  a  half  was  not  be  universal 
over  the  whole  county.  Rossingham's  Court  Budget  declared 
that  "Galway  is  to  have  some  favour,  though  not  in  the  measure 
with  those  of  the  other  three  counties". 2 

The  patents  had  then  to  be  considered.  In  former  Planta- 
tions there  was  no  meticulous  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  Patents, 
and  the  Patentees  were  exempt  from  surrendering  a  fourth.  In 
those  cases,  however,  they  did  not  "involve  any  great  or  consider- 
able proportions  of  lands".  In  Connaught  it  was  different.  The 
Plantation  Commissioners  reported  that  "so  diligent  have  these 
people  been  to  anticipate  the  rights  of  the  Crown",  that,  if  they 
did  not  lay  hold  on  "the  defects  and  infirmities  of  some",  the 
Revenue  would  be  scarcely  improved,  chief ries  would  stand,  feudal 
dues  remain  everywhere  in  soccage,  and  that  host  of  leases, 
contracts,  fishing  and  mineral  rights,  coupled  with  the  introduction 
of  Planters,  would  go  by  the  board.  These  patents  had  not  only, 
in  many  cases,  been  passed  on  the  assumption  that  the  land  was 
that  of  the  Patentees  by  Gavelkind,  but  had  been  notoriously  abused 
in  the  scopes  they  covered,  and  the  privileges  they  granted.  The 
Commissioners  determined  therefore,  that,  where  a  patent  was 
legally  void,  they  would  take  advantage  of  the  illegality,  and  take 
a  fourth  from  the  Patentee.  To  submit  every  patent  to  a  trial  by 
law  was  "burdensome  to  the  subject"  and  expensive.  It  was  tried 
for  a  few  days  and  raised  a  considerable  outcry. 3  Strafford 
accordingly  issued  a  Proclamation  that  every  patentee  should 
despatch  his  patent  to  the  Council  Board,  and,  if  he  wished,  send 
a  lawyer  to  represent  his  interests.4  There  the  judges  attended 
and  gave  their  decision.  The  Council  Board,  which  was  a  Court 
of  Record,  then  gave  it  legal  effect. 

This  was  made  a  serious  charge  against  Strafford.  The  Irish 
Parliament  accused  him  of  "extra  judicial  avoiding  of  letters  patent, 
by  private  opinions,  contrary  to  law,  and  without  precedent".5 
The  7th  Article  of  his  indictment  accused  him  of  "putting  many 
subjects  out  of  their  freeholds  without  legal  proceedings,  and  pro- 
curing the  judges  to  deliver  their  opinions,  whereby  many 

1)  L.  S.  11—33,  34.  2)  C.  T.  1—263.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.3. 15.  4)  B.  L.— 37. 
5)  R.  P.  VIII— 12. 

49* 


772  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

hundreds  of  subjects  were  undone,  and  their  families  utterly 
ruinated". *  The  propounders  of  these  resolutions  forgot  that  this 
process,  whose  intentions  were  obvious,  was  but  an  arbitration, 
and  that  whosoever  was  aggrieved  could,  by  paying  fees  and 
hiring  lawyers,  have  the  case  tried  again  by  the  same  judges  in 
another  room,  and  have  them  repeat  their  former  decision  in 
ermine,  surrounded  by  legal  paraphernalia.  Needless  to  say,  at 
Strafford's  trial,  this  article  was  discretely  "waived". 2 

The  leading  case  decided  at  this  Court  was  that  of  the  Patent 
of  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe.  The  Eoyal  letter,  on  which  the  sur- 
renders of  Connaught  had  been  based,  instructed  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Defective  titles  to  reserve  Tenures  in  Capite  where  they 
existed.  The  Commissioners,  however,  acted  on  the  warrant  of 
1604  which  had  called  them  into  existence.  For  obvious  reasons  it 
was  drafted  so  broadly  that  every  power  was  left  to  them,  save 
that  which  the  King  had  no  power  to  grant,  of  infringing  the  Com- 
mon Law.  In  Dillon's  patent  the  Commissioners  reserved  common 
Knights  tenures,  a  much  easier  tenure  than  that  of  in  capite.  Had 
they  this  power?  Were  Dillon's  lawyers  justified  in  accepting 
such  a  patent?  The  judges  unanimously  decided  that,  "where  there 
is  no  direction  for  the  tenure,  the  law  implies  a  tenure  in  capite". 
The  standing  rule  was  that  in  silentio,  the  utmost  advantage  accrues 
to  the  King  and  the  State.  What  the  lawyers  on  both  sides  should 
have  done  was  either  "grant  the  lands  and  reserve  a  tenure  in 
capite",  or  "leave*  the  reservation  to  the  law".  They  should  have 
stipulated  an  in  capite  tenure,  or  left  the  matter  open  for  an  in- 
quisition and  a  trial  in  the  Court  of  Wards.  What  they  had  done 
was  to  preclude  for  ever  the  King  from  ever  getting  an  in  capite 
tenure,  even  if  warranted  by  the  previous  history  of  the  estate. 
Was  then  the  patent  void,  only  as  regards  the  tenure,  or  was  it 
totally  void?  On  this  there  wae  a  difference  of  opinion.  Two 
judges,  Mayart  and  Cressy,  held  that  only  the  tenures  were  void. 
The  majority,  and  the  majority  included  Lord  Santry,  Bolton, 
Lowther,  and  Rives,  reported  that  a  patent  was  void,  if  "the  Com- 
missioners had  executed  their  authority  in  another  manner"  from 
their  instructions,  their  instructions  being  based  on  the  principal 
of  an  in  capite  tenure,  or  silence  as  regards  the  tenures.  "Their 


1)  R.  P.  VIII— 64.          2)  R.  P.  VIII— 24,  220;  C.  S.  P.  1641—253. 


CONNAUGHT  773 

authority  is  a  nude  authority,  and  therefore  it  ought  to  be  pursued 
strictly  in  manner  and  matter."  As  for  the  grievance  to  the  subject 
and  the  denial  of  a  Eoyal  patent,  the  principal  was  this.  Was  the 
King  to  lose  his  just  tenures,  or  the  subject  to  lose  his  patent? 
"If  they  neglect  to  have  their  patents  drawn,  persuant  to  the  Com- 
mission they  cannot  transfer  the  blame  to  the  Kingl  The  subject 
obtains  letters  patent  in  fraud  and  deceit  of  the  Crown,  to  defeat 
the  King  of  his  tenures  in  capite,  a  principal  flower  of  the  Crown. 
If  these  letters  be  void,  whose  is  the  fault?  Patents  obtained  in 
fraud  and  deceit  of  the  King,  are  altogether  void."3 

The  closing  sentences  may  seem  strong,  but  anyone  who  studies 
these  patents,  especially  those  of  Dillon  and  Clanricarde,  patents  of 
estates,  large  parts  of  which  had  always  been  under  in  capite 
tenures,  can  only  come  to  the  conclusion,  that,  Jacobean  patents, 
regranting  these  in  ordinary  Knights'  Tenure,  were  "fraud  and 
deceit  of  the  king",  that  the  Commissioners  were  either  deceived, 
incompetent,  or  corrupt,  and,  that  to  give  the  benefit  to  those  who 
had  benefited  out  of  the  transaction,  and  cast  the  loss  on  the  King, 
the  State,  the  Revenue,  and  the  people  was  contrary,  not  only  to 
law,  but  to  equity.  Nearly  all  the  patents  of  1615  were  "dashed" 
by  this  case.  Those  which  had  been  passed  without  this  obvious 
attempt  "to  preclude  the  King  of  his  tenures  where  due"  were 
recognized,  and  the  owners  did  not  surrender  a  fourth.  Radcliffe 
says  "some  were  passed".  A  Cromwellian  writer,  detailing  the 
whole  incident,  puts  it  at  "many". 2 

The  Plantation  of  the  120.000  acres,  accrueing  from  these 
sequestered  fourths  and  escheated  small  holdings,  was  the  most 
serious  part,  of  the  business.  If  these  were  leased  to  bona  fide 
agriculturalists,  men  who  would  spend  money  on  building  and 
tillage,  it  would  have  transformed  many  parts  of  Connaught. 
Modern  Colonial  Governments  have  strained  every  nerve  to  import 
similar  men  into  the  lands  at  their  disposal.  In  this  case  the  failure 
of  the  experiment  is  all  the  more  regrettable  as,  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  Plantations,  there  was  a  Government  strong 
and  sincere  enough  to  chose  able  planters,  and  to  see  that  they 
fulfilled  their  Covenants. 


1)  The  Case  of  Tenures.  Lord  Santiy.  Dublin.  1639.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1641—253; 
T.  C.  D.  F.3.  15. 


774  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Stratford's  intention  was  to  raise  £  20.000  a  year  out  of  Con- 
naught,  Ormonde,  Thomond,  and  a  part  of  Wicklow,  by  fines  or 
rents. 1  It  is  more  than  probable  that  he  would  have  raised  more, 
because  the  small  area  in  Wicklow,  that  accrued  to  the  Crown, 
brought  in  £  2.000  a  year. 2  This  meant  that  Plantation  allotments 
were  not  to  be  distributed  broad  cast  for  nothing.  Hamilton 
applied  for  one,  and  Strafford  frankly  told  him  that  the  profit 
would  be  nothing  like  what  it  used  to  be.  The  Covenants  alone, 
the  building  and  breaking  of  the  ground,  would  be  equivalent  to 
10  years7  purchase  of  the  estate.  As  land'  was  14  years'  purchase  at 
this  period,  it  still  stood  as  a  good  bargain,  but  "it  will  not  be  so 
profitable  as  in  other  cases  of  this  nature  it  hath  been".3  One 
Covenant  cast  on  the  Planters  was  to  be  the  arming  of  6. 000  men.  The 
arms  were  to  be  stored  in  the  Castle,  and  the  men  attached  to  the  local 
garrison  as  a  special  reserve.  "Where  then  will  be",  he  wrote,  "the 
enemy  that  can  or  shall  dare  to  interrupt  the  peace  and  prosperity 
of  the  King's  subjects  or  affairs  in  Ireland."4  Every  planter  was 
to  be  tied  to  residence,  and  "industriously  attend  his  under- 
taking". 5  No  allotment  was  to  be  larger  than  1.000  acres,  "for 
I  find  where  more  are  granted  the  Covenants  are  never  performed". 
The  rent  was  to  be  half  the  maximum  possible  value.  6  By  the 
introduction  of  men,  rich  enough  to  develop  plots  here  and  there, 
desirous  to  employ,  to  raise  the  standard  of  comfort,  and  to  in- 
troduce new  methods  and  new  breeds  of  cattle,  he  "hoped  the 
Plantations  would  take  their  full  effects,  and  that  the  natures  of 
the  people  be  wrought  to  delight  themselves  under  the  sweet  and 
moderate  Government  of  the  Crown,  and  so  by  degrees  to  study 
the  good  husbanding  their  grounds,  the  beautifying  their  seats,  and 
the  procuring  to  themselves  those  accomodations  and  comforts  of 
life,  which  might  be  so  many  living  pledges  of  their  obedience  and 
future  fidelity,  whereas  yet  they  have  nothing  to  lose,  that  with 
reason  they  can  set  their  hearts  on". 7  This,  coupled  with  a 
complete  re-organization  of  the  old  manorial,  feudal,  and  tribal 
tenures,  was  what  Wandesford  meant  by  describing  the  Plantation 
of  Connaught  as  "an  advantage  to  the  Crown  without  the  curses 
of  the  subject".8 

1)  L.  S.  II— 8.  2)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1—222.  3)  L.  S.  It— 4.  4)  L.  S. 
II— 200.  5)  L.  S.  1-258.  6)  L.  S.  1—341 .  7)  L.  S.  11-89.  8)  H.  V. 
C.  VIII— 411. 


CONN  AUGHT  775 

The  apportionment  however,  of  these  applotments  made  him 
as  many  enemies  as  anything  else  he  ever  did.  All  through  his 
correspondence  one  finds  his  anxious  prayers  to  the  King  not  to 
bind  himself  to  any  man.  It  was  his  intention  to  leave  to  the  King, 
the  choice  of  a  certain  number  of  Planters,  men  he  specially  desired 
to  reward,  but  he  was  determined  that  no  one  else  should  have  a 
say  in  this  matter,  drawing  commissions  from  those  for  whom 
they  got  plots.  In  the  State  Papers  of  both  England  and  Ireland, 
in  the  correspondence  of  Strafford,  Eadcliffe,  Coke,  and  Percival, 
one  encounters  application  after  application,  every  possible  form 
of  influence,  feminine,  political,  financial  and  personal,  being 
brought  to  bear  to  secure  an  estate,  the  applicants  being  firmly 
convinced  that  a  Plantation  undertaking  was  but  a  matter  of  an 
application,  a  grant,  and  then  a  fortune  for  life.  All  these  had  to 
be  refused,  and  it  is  idle  to  assume  other  than  that,  in  the  man- 
oeuvres that  led  to  his  downfall,  a  chief  part  was  played  by  dis- 
appointed applicants  for  land. *  Here  is  but  one  example  of  how 
a  disappointed  applicant  went  over  to  the  opposition.  The  letter 
is  dated  from  Youghal.  "Be  quick  for  many  gape  after  these  Con- 
naught  Lands.  My  Lord  Clanricarde  or  his  son,  or  Lord  Wilmot 
can  best  instruct  you.  I  have  little  hope  of  the  sour  Deputy". 2  A 
Government  with  land  at  its  disposal,  and  only  one  man  standing 
between  an  applicant  and  his  grant,  is  anathema  to  the  applicant 
till  that  man  is  removed.  "I  have  here,  at  the  Committee  of 
Revenue,  good  assistance,  but  it  goes  no  further  than  the  private. 
As  for  the  public  envy  and  malice  from  persons  pretending  and 
interested,  that  I  must  take  to  myself,  and  tread  that  crooked 
and  thorny  path  alone."  He  told  Laud,  that,  if  it  was  not  for  his 
assistance  in  London,  "I  had  long  since  sunk  under  the  burden,  so 
much  is  it  against  my  nature  continually  to  dwell  at  contestation 
with  all  men".  3  "That  is-  no  news  to  me",  replied  that  much 
badgered  Bishop.  "I  am  forced  to  do  the  like  here.  Scarce  a  man 
appears  where  the  way  is  rough."4 

To  get  planters  of  the  requisite  calibre  was  difficult,  but  the 
confusions  in  England  made  it  worse-  Ireland,  it  was  true,  remained 
in  perfect  peace  till  the  impeachment  of  Strafford,  but  England 
was  all  alarms  and  excursions.  Men  will  not  risk  their  money  and 


1)  R.  C-23L       2)  E.  M.  C.  VII-435.      3)  L.  S.  11-157.      4)  L.  S.  11—169. 


776  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

venture  their  substance  when  the  scare-monger  is  in  the  ascendant, 
and!  the  anarch  is  abroad  in  the  land.  The  first  evil  was  the  drift 
of  the  nation  towards  a  war.  There  was  always  a  war-party  at 
Court,  believing  that  a  successful  war  would  revive  the  Royal 
popularity.  At  the  same  time  the  Parliamentarian  Puritans  were 
enthusiastic  jingoes.  The  religion  of  the  Palatinate  Elector,  the 
popular  antipathy  to  Spain,  on  which  they  always  played,  and,  above 
all,  the  knowledge  that  a  war  meant  a  Parliament,  the  voting  of 
supplies,  and  a  helpless  King  struggling  in  bankruptcy,  all  impelled 
the  Revolutionary  party  towards  Imperial  ventures,  rather  than 
the  domestic  reforms  on  which  Straff ord  had  set  his  heart.  "Those 
men",  he  said,  "that  have  ever  seemed  to  wed  the  cause  of  the 
Elector  most,  were  never  observed  to  signal  themselves  by  acts 
of  charity.  The  Lord  deliver  me  from  seeking  alms  at  the  hands 
of  a  Puritan.  It  is  a  generation  of  men  more  apt  to  begin 
business  than  obstinately  to  pursue.  The  part  they  delight  in  is 
to  discourse  rather  than  to  suffer."1  The  news  that  the  King  was 
on  the  verge  of  war  with  Spain  came  like  a  thunderbolt,  and  what 
made  it  more  irritating  was,  that  the  war  was  to  be  waged  in  con- 
junction with  France,  France,  which  kept  her  harbours  open  to 
the  Turkish  pirates,  who  carried  off  Irish  Subjects  by  the  score, 
landed  them  at  Calais,  drove  them  across  France,  and  shipped  them 
at  Marseilles  for  the  slave  markets,  while  Spain  had  always  given 
Straff ord  every  assistance  in  dealing  with  these  corsairs.  "This 
great  change  comes  unseasonable  to  our  business  here",  he  told 
Northumberland. 2  To  the  King  he  was  more  candid.  'The  Plan- 
tations will  be  a  ne  plus  ultra,  as  not  to  be  gone  into,  but  in  time 
of  peace."  The  Planters  were  all  withdrawing  their  offers,  and 
the  only  hope  he  had  of  bringing  them  back  was  by  telling  them 
there  would  be  no  war  or  a  short  one.  "Neither  can  I  blame  them 
where  they  are  to  plant  among  people  beside  part  of  their  pretended 
inheritance,  and  in  a  country  the  likeliest  to  an  invasion. "*  As  it 
was  the  Intelligence  Department  reported  that  friars  had  ap- 
proached both  the  Vatican  and  the  Spanish  Government  with  a 
request  for  money  and  arms.  "The  landing  place  is  to  be  Coleraine 
or  Derry."4 

This  panic  was  lulled,  but  it  gave  rise  to  something  worse. 


1)  L.  S.  II— 54.         2)  L.  S.  11-53.         3)  L.  S.  11-63.         4)  L.  S.  11—111. 


CONNAUGHT 

The  judges  had  told  the  King  that,  in  case  of  public  danger,  he 
could  impose  Ship  money  on  inland  towns.  The  Eevolutionary  Party 
had  challenged  the  Eoyal  right,  and  gained  what  was  really  a 
moral  victory  in  the  Courts.  Laud  reported  that  the  lack  of  con- 
fidence in  the  Government  was  marked.  The  Eevolutionary  Party 
were  openly  triumphant.  The  revenue  was  coming  in  very  badly. 
Public  confidence  was  shaken,  badly  shaken.  l  It  was  noticed  that 
Adventurers  were  seeking  the  foreign  Plantations  instead  of  Ire- 
land. "When  men",  wrote  Laud,  "think  nothing  is  their  advantage 
they  run  from  Government".  '2 

Another  obstacle  was  the  escheat  of  the  Plantation  of  London- 
derry. It  spread  a  belief  that  the  Crown  let  lands  to  undertakers 
and  then  escheated  the  lease.  Men  did  not  consider  that  the  London 
Corporation  had  broken  every  Covenant  in  the  lease.  Suddenly  a 
rumour  reached  the  ears  of  the  multitude,  that  Charles  intended 
to  sublet  Londonderry  to  a  Hamiltonian  syndicate,  without  paying 
any  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  Corporation's  tenants,  who  were 
"no  way  privy  to  the  frauds".  "Magnanimous  Princes"  wrote  Straf- 
ford  to  the  King,  "esteem  more  their  honour  in  their  profits  than 
the  profits  themselves.  This  offer  comes  from  a  mean-minded 
person.  It  will  extremely  discountenance  and  dishearten  Planters, 
and  will  lose  us  far  more  in  future  Plantations,  than  we  will  gain 
in  this"3  The  offer  was  rejected.  The  climax,  however,  came  with 
the  rebellion  in  Scotland,  a  rebellion  which  caused  civil  commotion 
in  London,  a  cessation  of  business  all  over  England,  an  intense 
unrest  amongst  the  Scotch  of  Ulster,  "and  might  they  have  had 
Connaught  too,  and  that  they  have  it  not,  the  whole  Kingdom 
bears  me  the  ill  will  of  it".4 

In  the  meantime  the  Galway  Lords  and  Jurors  were  on  the 
war-path.  They  were  aghast  at  Strafford's  iron  attitude.  They  had 
the  idea  floating  in  their  heads  that  all  they  had  to  do  was  to 
refuse  a  Eoyal  Title,  and  the  Crown  would  immediately  shrink 
from  the  challenge.  The  arrest  of  Eichard  Burke,  Clanricarde's 
nephew,  for  trying  to  intimidate  the  juror,  was  the  first  taste  they 
got  of  the  latent  powers  of  the  Prerogative.  He  was  fined  £  500. 
A  charge  of  riot  was  hanging  over  him  before  the  fiasco  of  Por- 
tumna.  The  case  had  been  heard,  and  he  was  awaiting  sentence. 

1)  L.  S.  11-170.        2)  L.  S.  11-169.        3)  L.  S.  II-  65.       4)  L.  S.  11-195. 


778  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Part  of  the  sentence  was,  that  he  was  to  remain  out  of  Connaught. 
"This  will  pare  his  nails  for  scratching  to  any  great  purpose"  was 
Strafford's  comment. *  The  Jury  were  then  fined  £  1.000  each.2 
Proceedings  were  begun  in  the  Exchequer  Court  to  find  the 
title  by  a  judicial  decision,  and  it  gradually  dawned  on  Clanricarde's 
henchmen  that  the  game  was  up.  Even  the  last  card  of  riot  and 
civil  commotion  was  out  of  the  question  with  Clanricarde,  his  son, 
and  his  nephew  in  the  power  of  the  Government,  the  Sheriff  and 
jurors  bound  by  heavy  recognizances,  and  Willoughby  and  Lord 
Robert  Dillon  on  the  spot  with  their  cohort  of  Imperial  janis- 
saries. 

Clanricarde  and  his  friends  accordingly  determined  to  see 
what  they  could  do  in  England,  where  they  were  bound  to  get  the 
support  of  a  powerful  party.  It  should  be  remarked  that,  in  all 
these  proceedings,  Clanricarde  pere  had  hardly  appeared  at  all. 
This  feudal  potentate  was  now  a  very  old  man,  and,  during  the 
furore,  he  was  really  non  compos.  He  died  a  few  months  after  the 
finding  of  the  Royal  title,  and  it  was  his  more  active  son,  Viscount 
Tonbridge,  now  Viscount  St.  Albans  and  Earl  of  Clanricarde,  who 
had  been  the  moving  spirit.  The  death  of  the  famous  father,  the 
real  victor  of  the  battle  of  Kinsale,  is  thus  chronicled  by  Garrard, 
Strafford's  budgeteer.  "I  knew  since  last  summer  he  hath  a  much 
wasted  body,  and  drank  an  extraordinary  quantity  of  hot  waters 
daily,  which  would  quickly  bring  him  to  his  grave."5  The  son, 
however,  was  a  very  active  and  a  pertinacious  man.  He  was  on 
very  intimate  terms  with  Cottingdon.  His  half  brother  was  the  Earl 
of  Essex,  son  of  the  great  Earl,  second  in  command  of  the  King's 
forces  against  Scotland,  and  the  darling  of  the  Puritans,  like  his 
father  before  him.  Clanricarde  found  at  Court  Arundel,  the  Lord 
Marshal,  blazing  over  Strafford's  refusal  to  pass  him  a  patent  for 
South  Carlow,  Wilmot  raging  over  the  affair  of  Athlone,  Pierce 
Crosby,  who  had  decamped,  without  licence,  to  London  when  this 
affair  came  on  the  political  tapis,  and  lastly,  the  ever  active  Holland, 
himself  "the  secret  head  of  the  Puritans",  supported  on  this  occasion 
by  the  political  friars,  Monsignor  Conn,  Eossetti  and  others.  All 
this  comprised  "The  Queen's  side".  What  was  more  effective, 
however,  was  the  intervention  of  Windebanke,  the  King's  secre- 

1)  L.  S..  11-13.          2)  L.  S.  1-468;  C.  T.  1-263.          3)  L.  S.  1-509. 


CONNAUGHT  779 

tary,  and,  at  a  later  stage,  the  elder  Vane,  who  was  supplanting  the 
failing  and  aged  Coke. 

What  brought  Windebanke  into  this  affair  is  a  mystery.  It 
is  true  he  was  on  very  bad  terms  with  Laud.  It  is  true  that  Straf- 
ford  reported  him  to  the  King  for  passing  signet  letters  "in  breach 
of  the  establishment",  but  that  was  after  he  had  become  Clanri- 
carde's  solicitor.  The  most  probable  reason  was  his  intimacy  with 
the  leaders  of  Eoman  Catholicism.  The  Clarendon  Correspondence 
contains  letter  after  letter  to  Windebanke,  detailing  the  grievances 
and  expounding  the  schemes  of  Friars  and  Priests  in  the  three 
Kingdoms,  France,  Spain  and  Borne.  Some  of  these  fell  into 
Prynne's  hands,  and  did  Charles  incalculable  damage  during  the 
Eevolution.  We  know  from  the  documents  published  by  the 
Maynooth  Archaeological  Society  and  Cardinal  Moran's  Spice- 
ligium  Ossoriense  that  the  Eoman  Catholic  Bishops  of  the  West 
of  Ireland  had  made  Clanricarde's  cause  their  own,  and  were 
bombarding  Borne  with  dissertations  on  the  persecution  of  the 
faithful  all  over  Ireland,  especially  in  Galway.  It  is  an  absolute 
certainty  that  it  was  this  agency  that  made  Windebanke  so 
active  in  this  affair.  Laud  was  assured  of  it.  "Notwithstanding 
your  great  services  you  want  them  not  that  whisper  against  your 
proceedings,  as  being  over-ful  of  personal  prosecutions  against 
men  of  quality,  Clanricarde,  Wilmot  and  Mountmorris.  This  is 
somewhat  loudly  spoken  by  some  on  the  Queen's  side.  I  know 
a  great  part  of  this  proceeds  from  your  proceedings  against  the 
Bomish  Party,  yet  that  shall  never  be  made  the  cause  in  public."1 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  Laud  found  Windebanke  holding  forth  from 
a  letter  detailing  a  host  of  alleged  persecutions  of  Boman  Catholics 
in  Galway.  It  was  written  by  the  head  of  one  of  the  French 
seminaries. 2 

This  cabal  had  one  great  advantage.  They  had  the  ear  of  the 
Queen.  Holland  actually  set  himself  to  manipulate  State  policy 
through  her.  This  brilliant,  clever,  and  versatile  woman  was  the 
only  person,  after  Buckingham,  who  had  any  influence  with  the 
King.  She  had  a  genius  for  intrigue.  She  loved  those  tiny  moves 
and  countermoves  of  high  politics,  which,  in  the  Courts  of  the 
Tudors  and  Stuarts,  bore  such  a  remarkable  resemblance  to  move- 


])  L.  S.  1—479.  2)  L.  S.  VII-275. 


780  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

ments  in  the  harems  of  Eastern  potentates.  Clarendon  says  of  her 
and  the  King  "Though  they  were  the  true  ideal  of  conjugal 
affection,  he  desired  that  all  men  should  know  that  he  was  swayed 
by  her,  which  was  not  good  for  either  of  them  .  .  .  She  took 
pleasure  in  nothing  but  knowing  all  things  and  disposing  all 
things.  N'o thing  could  be  done  without  her  privity  ...  It  was 
her  Majesty's  misfortune  that  she  had  not  any  person  about  her, 
who  had  either  ability  or  affection  to  inform  her  of  the  temper 
of  the  Kingdom,  or  the  humour  of  the  people."1  It  was,  for 
instance,  her  reliance  on  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe  that  led  the 
King  into  that  morasse  of  tragedies,  when,  calculating  on  raising 
armed  forces  in  Ireland  to  cope  with  the  Parliament,  he  created 
a  situation  in  which  philibusterers  burnt,  murdered,  and  ravaged, 
calling  themselves  the  King's  troops.  At  this  period,  Holland  was 
the  man  on  whom  she  placed  most  reliance,  and  Holland,  for 
reasons  of  his  own,  was  determined  to  make  Strafford's  ad- 
ministration a  failure.  For  Connaught,  she  and  the  cabal  cared 
nothing,  and  of  it  they  knew  less,  but  the  delight  of  defeating  one 
man,  and  exalting  the  other,  the  sense  of  power  that  followed  some 
minute  success,  the  excitement  of  being,  as  it  were,  "in  the  swim", 
all  this — not  to  speak  of  "particular  ends"  and  personal  ani- 
mosities,— brought  buzzing  into  this  affair  of  arranging  farms  in 
Connemara,  a  host  of  political  animaculae,  bound  by  no  common 
purpose,  aiming  at  no  State  policy,  but  making  a  great  dust,  and 
emitting  a  volume  of  vain  and  malicious  whispers.  "There  is", 
complained  Straff ord,  "a  nation  of  people  or  rather  vermin,  which 
are  ever  to  be  found  at  the  Courts  of  Great  Princes,  which  intend 
nothing  so  much  as  by  false  reports  to  wound  the  credits  of  honest 
men,  and  to  breed  jealousies  between  persons  better  than  them- 
selves." They  even  laid  to  his  charge  the  death  of  Clanricarde 
pere,  "they  reporting  me",  he  told  the  King,  "to  all  the  world, 
worse  than  a  Basha  of  Buda,  rather  than  the  Minister  of  a  pious 
and  Christian  King".  In  fact,  within  two  months  they  accused 
him  of  murdering  a  man  in  the  Castle,  causing  the  death  of 
Clanricarde,  plotting  the  execution  of  Mountmorris,  and  em- 
bezzling the  Customs. 3  "I  send  you  a  rule"  replied  the  King  "that 
may  serve  for  a  statesman,  a  courtier,  and  a  lover.  ISTever  make 

1)  Clarendon.  Memoirs.  I— 156.  2)  L.  S.  II  — 121.  3)  L.  S.  II— 27. 


CONNAUGHT  781 

a  defence  or  an  apology  before  you  are  accused".  1  In  the 
meantime,  Windebanke  wrote  a  hasty  letter  to  Clanricarde,  urging 
Lim  to  send  any  grievance  he  might  have  on  any  possible  point. 
"You  do  not  want  friends  at  Court.  Amongst  them  is  Mr.  Comp- 
troller (Vane),  who  expresses  his  desire  for  your  welfare  to  the 
King.  I  shall  be  glad  to  help  you."2 

One  can  get  some  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  appeals  for 
aid  that  were  made  in  England  by  a  letter  despatched  by  Clanri- 
carde fils  to  the  cynical  Cottingdon.  The  gist  was  that  his  father 
had  been  a  loyal  subject  of  the  king,  and,  as  a  reward  for  his 
leyalty,  an  information  had  been  lodged  against  "his  kinsmen,  his 
Stewart  and  others  that  manage  his  estate  of  opposing  His  Majesty's 
service  in  factious  way."  What  was  more,  so  spiteful  was  the 
Deputy  against  such  a  tried  and  true  nobleman,  that  he  had  "fined 
and  bound  to  good  behaviour  for  life,  and  sent  away  a  prisoner 
to  Dublin,  Richard  Burke,  his  kinsman,  for  only  jogging  with 
his  elbow,  one  of  the  fellow  jurors.  Is  confident  if  his  Majesty 
were  fully  informed,  he  would  not  deny  the  request  of  his  old 
faithful  servant."3  Cottingdom,  however,  was  too  wily  to  be 
drawn  into  this  affair,  and  politely  sympathised  with  Clanricarde's 
misfortunes.  Clanricarde  then  procured  an  interview  with  the 
King.  Charles  coldly  told  him  that  his  servants  and  jurors  "had 
put  a  great  affront"  upon  the  Royal  claims.  Clanricarde  said  that 
if  he  got  his  estate  in  full,  he  would  get  the  jurors  to  repeal  their 
verdict.  "How  do  I  know  that  they  will  not  put  a  similar  affront 
on  you?  How  can  you.  engage  yourself  for  them?"  was  Charles7 
reply.  He  went  on  to  point  out  that  it  was  clear  that  it.  was 
Clanricarde's  servants  who  had  stirred  up  this  embroilment,  and 
who  packed  the  jury,  formed  the  jury,  and  intimidated  the  juror. 
Clanricarde  withdrew,  leaving  Charles  seriously  annoyed.  "He 
surprised  me  with  his  paper"  (i.  e.  petition),  Charles  complained 
to  Strafford.  Clanricarde  had  undoubtedly  made  a  faux  pas  in 
trying  to  procure  a  Royal  decision  before  the  king  had  consulted 
his  advisers.4 

Windebanke  then  made  a  gallant  effort  to  stay  all  proceedings 
either  with  the  jury,  or  in  the  Exchequer  Court.  He,  like  Pierce 
Crosby,  told  the  King  that  the  Deputy's  severity  might  cause  a 

1)  L.S.II— 32.  2)  C.S.  P.  1625 -1660 -360.  3)  Dom.  1635-452. 

4)  L.  S.  1—476,  508;  L.  L.  VII— 283. 


782  TIIK  LAND  QUESTION 

f< -bellion  in  Comiaught.  Chariots'  apostle  was  characteristic,  "I 
nrn  willing  to  hear  the  business,  but  to  stay  proceedings  on  a  bare 

information,  I  think  not  Ill,  since  ihere  is  no  question  of  life,  I 
being  able  to  repay,  what  justice  else  is  inflicted  on  them". 1  When 
'  harlc  was  ;ihme,  IK-  could  he  singu l;irl y  shrewd.  His  abilities 
never  found  their  full  vent  till  the  last  few  years  of  his  life, 
\\hen  lie  h:id  near  him  not  ;i  si  ;i  I  esma  n,  nor  a  peei',  nor  a  courtier 
of  sufficient  eminence  to  be  worth  consulting. 

After  I  his  rcbuir,  three  "airents"  arrived  from  Gal  way.  They 
were  Sir  Eoger  O'Shaugnessy  of  the  dubious  patent  for  South 
West  (Jalway,  ;ind  M:irl.in  ;ind  Darcy,  (Jliinricarde's  lawyers. 
Stnilloixl,  needless  l<>  say,  did  not  regard  with  pleasure  the  reception 

accunlrd     !<>     these    g<-n  I  Irmrii     at,     t,he    Court.        A])])eals    from    the 

<  i'.veninient,     in     dm  nnein  I  ion     of     the     ( loverninent,     were    not 
calculated    to   ease    its   path,    especially   when    accompanied    by 
IVrocioiiH   liMMslinn-s   in  Jrelnnd  of  how  they  would  "bring  him  to 
his  knees"  in  London  by  appeals  there  ad  misericordiam.     "This. 
.course  of  public  agency,  "he  said",  is  most  indecent  and  uncomely, 
:md  lintli  been  in  all  times  of  mighty  disservice  to  the  Crown,  and 
of  excessive  prejudice  ;in<l  disquiet  to  the  State."     Why  should  a 

<  MSC    pending    in    llu»    Kxrhetpier   Court    bo   a    theme     for     political 
:.!'jl:ih"ii    in    Lou-don?      \\'hy  should   ;i  jury  sentenecMl  for  perjury. 
have   ilnMi-  ruses   tried  all   over  again,  not  by  a  Court  of  appeal, 
luil    by    pidiiii'iil   inlluenec's  iu    London,  wliile  an  ordinary  subject, 
who  lied   in  a  witness  bo\.  paid  his  fine    without    any    of    these 
commotions?-'     -SiralVord   was   most   sarcastic  on    Pierce  Crosby,  a 
discharged   and   disgruntled    Member  of  the  Council,  famous  for 
the   Mately   airs   of  self   importance,    with   which    he    approached 
I  he    mraneM    political    brawl.      "1    was   told    lie  was    o;oing   over  T<> 
I'rani-o   to    achieve   some   great    matter^    in    foreign   ]virt>.      I   hear 
\\ith   his  composed  looks  he  gives  the  (lalwny  agents  countenance 
and   courtship    bet\Mv  the  eyes  of  all   the  good  people  that  look 
upon   them,  gracing  and  ushering  thorn  to  and  fro. 

"A  busier  than  he  none  v 

and  yet   he  setMued  more  busy  than  he  v 

Crosby,    however,  had  got  a   bit  of  business  to  do,  Holland, 
Moxmtworris.  and  the  bulky,  red-faced  Lord  Esmonde  giving  him 

1)  C,  P.  1-353,  2)  L,  S.  1-493. 


CONN  AUGHT  783 

aid.  It  was  not  only  to  aid  the  Galway  agents  that  he  had  hastened 
to  London.  l 

The  agents  at  first  adopted  a  very  high  tone.  They  were 
careful  to  explain  they  were  not  agents  by  any  means.  They 
were  only  well-wishers,  anxious  to  end  an  unfortunate  dispute. 
Their  solution  was  that  every  patent  was  to  stand  as  it  stood,  and 
they  would  double  the  existing  rents.  This  simply  meant  that 
all  those  curious  agrarian  transactions  were  to  be  pardoned  for 
a  bribe  to  the  Crown,  which  bribe  they  would  pay  by  raising  the 
rents  of  their  tenants.  As  for  the  proceedings  at  Portumna  they 
regarded  them  as  a  farce.  In  their  eyes  the  Crown  should  wipe 
them  out.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  Royal  Title  to  Connaught. 
They  were  assured  there  were  records  in  the  Tower  that  disproved 
it.  If  proceedings  were  taken  in  the  Exchequer  Court  in  Dublin 
they  were  entitled  to  a  writ  of  error  to  appeal  to  the  Courts  in 
London.  As  for  the  jurors  they  had  only  done  their  duty.  Who 
were  they  to  find  a  Royal  Title  on  the  few  papers  the  Crown 
Lawyers  had  produced,  "but  three  or  four  records"?  Everything 
should  be  regarded  as  a  mistake  on  Stafford's  part.  Let  it  all  be 
begun  de  novo  m  thd  Courts  in  London,  but,  as  this  took  time  and 
would  take  trouble,  why  not  simplify  matters  by  regarding  all 
patents  as  valid,  giving  every  man  the  estate  he  claimed,  and 
doubling  the  rents?2  It  was  a  pretty  and  plausible  plea,  but 
plausibilities  of  this  kind  no  longer  carried  weight.  "Lean  ob- 
jections, buffeted  at  every  enquiry,  nothing  left  to  nang  upon  them 
but  skin  and  bone",  as  Straff  ord  said.3  They  were  despatched  back 
to  Ireland,  re  infecta,  but,  wrote  Charles  "I  have  retained  one  of 
them  here  to  deal  with  other  things  that  concern  my  service". 4 

This  man,  Darcy,  we  are  informed  by  a  writer  who  hated 
Straff  ord,  was  "a  lawyer,  a  stout  man  and  bold,  and  no  servant 
of  the  Deputy".5  He  and  Windebank  had  together  concocted  a 
document,  involving  great  "proposals  about  the  Customs"  and 
revenue  in  general,  chief  of  which  was  an  accusation  that  Strafford 
had  "cozened"  the  Customs,  and  a  suggestion  that  the  Connaught 
Lords  should  receive  their  estates  for  a  doubled  rent.6  It  was 
Holland,  Wilmot,  and  Sir  James  Galloway  who  had  suggested  this 
to  the  King. 7  This  synchronized  with  a  similar  proposal  that 

1)  L.S.  I— 497.  2)  C.  P.  I  — 362  — 364.  3)  L.  S.  I— 493.  4)  L.  S. 
1—508.  5)  C.  T.  11—247.  6)  C.  P.  1—440—444,  446.  7)  C.  P.  1—542. 


784  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

emanated  from  Mountmorris.  i  It  was  followed  by  the 
appearance  of  Barr,  Wilmot's  servant,  and  Galloway's  financial 
agent.  He  accused  Straff ord  of  embezzling  £  40.000  a  year  out  of 
the  revenue,  and  arrived  in  Ireland  with  a  roving  Commission 
procured  by  "great  persons"  to  cross-examine  officials,  examine 
accounts,  and,  as  Strafford  said,  to  disobey  Viceregal  warrants.'2 

Hardly  was  this  sinister  attack  rebuffed,  when  Crosby  and 
Esmonde  accused  Strafford  of  murdering  a  man  in  the  Castle,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  but  that  Mountmorris  had  interviewed  the  dead 
man's  wife  with  the  intention  of  getting  her  to  support  the 
accusation.3  Wilmot  and  Holland  manifested  the  utmost  re- 
luctance to  give  evidence  in  the  subsequent  proceedings  for 
criminal  libel.4  The  unfortunate  man,  over  whose  corpse  this 
intrigue  developed,  had  been  imprisoned  for  contempt  of  Court, 
and,  six  months  after  his  release,  caught  a  chill  and  died  of  pneu- 
monia. 

The  sudden  combination  of  all  these  attacks,  and  the  un- 
doubted connection  of  the  assailants  in  one  intrigue  with  those 
in  another,  cast  a  lurid  glare  on  the  undercurrents  of  that  period. 
The  Court  of  Charles  was,  in  moral  tone,  infinitely  superior  to 
that  of  James  and  to  that  of  Charles  II,  but  he  and  his  age  were 
the  heir  to  the  traditions  of  the  Tudors.  All  through  the  State 
Papers  of  the  Tudors  runs  the  tinge  of  an  Oriental  Despotism,  and 
the  atmosphere  of  ruthless  barbarism.  Great  nobles  were  struck 
down  by  hands  they  never  saw.  Officials  mined  and  countermined 
by  the  methods  of  savages.  On  suspicion  men  were  imprisoned 
and  never  seen  again.  Cecil's  methods,  for  instance,  could  never 
stand  public  scrutiny.  Charles  succeeded  to  a  Throne,  reared  on 
such  methods,  surrounded  by  such  janissaries,  who  did  as  their 
fathers  did,  as  others  did,  justifying  themselves  by  example,  by 
self-protection.  The  Stuart  epoch  is  softer  and  less  savage  than 
that  of  the  Tudors,  but  the  elements  were  there  rotting  away  the 
foundations  of  the  Throne,  and,  what  was  worse,  stories  of  these 
doings  had  reached  the  ears  of  the  multitude,  who  never  suspected 
them  before.  In  this  wild  effort  to  destroy  Strafford  by  lies,  aiming 
at  his  honour  and  his  very  life,  directed  by  English  Statesmen 

1)  C.P.I— 361.  2)  L.  S.  11—27.  34,  107,  137,  229;  L.  L.  VII— 396,  410, 
419.  420,  441 ;  Dom.  1639—11.  3)  K.  P.  Ill— 895— 902;  L.  S.  11—145.  4)  L.  S. 
11—277,  282-284,  286,  397. 


CONNAUGHT  785 

with  Irish  weapons,  we  understand  the  difficulties  with  which  he 
was  daily  faced  in  the  pursuit  of  his  eternal  policy  to  "restore  a 
good  understanding  between  the  King  and  his  subjects".  The 
cabal  was  routed,  horse,  foot,  and  artillery  by  the  confidence  of 
the  King  and  the  courage  of  Strafford.  It  never  reared  its  head 
again  till  the  battle  of  Newburn. 

Darcy's  intrigue  was  a  fiasco.  Charles  was  caustic  in  his 
comments.  Windebanke  disowned  him  in  panic.  *  He  vanishes 
from  the  scene  with  the  following  screed  iof  woe  "I  see  a  prison 
before  me,  because  of  some  propositions  I  showed  Lord  Holland 
and  Mr.  Windebank.  I  pray  for  protection  against  the  Deputy". 2 
No  prison  awaited  him,  however.  A  few  months  later  he  had  Laud 
petitioning  Strafford  to  procure  for  him  an  Act  of  Grace,  whereby 
he  could  resume  his  practice  at  the  Bar. 3  Subsequently  he 
emerged  as  a  patriotic  member  of  Parliament  in  the  prosecution 
of  Radcliffe,  Bolton,  Lowther  and  Bramhall  for  treason,  and  then 
went  forth  into  rebellion  with  the  Catholic  Confederation,  loudly 
protesting  that,  as  the  Puritans  had  gone  into  rebellion,  so  too 
should  he  and  his  colleagues  strike  a  blow  for  "the  liberties  of  the 
subject  and  the  Catholics  of  Ireland".4  Straff  ord's  comment  is 
worthy  of  reproduction.  "I  find  there  is  already  jealousies  among 
the  agents  themselves,  so  hard  it  is  for  the  Irish  to  continue  any 
time  in  the  same  purposes  and  the  same  affections  in  themselves 
or  towards  others.  We  will  speed  and  settle  the  work  now  be- 
fore us."'5 

The  defeat  of  Darcy's  financial  reform,  based  on  annulling 
the  Plantation,  showed  the  cabal  that  the  tide  was  too  strong 
against  them.  True  it  was  that  the  remaining  members  of  the 
Jury  waxed  very  contumacious  when  news  arrived  that  Donnellan 
had  been  summoned  to  London.  They  defied  Wandesforde  in  the 
Castle  Chamber  to  the  delight  of  those  who  "daily  practice 
change",  as  Miler  Magrath  used  to  put  it.  Strafford,  then  in  Lon- 
don, wrote  to  withdraw  Donnellan's  licence,  and  the  enthusiasm 
waned. 6  Clanricarde  then  threw  up  the  sponge.  He  came  to  the 
King  with  a  letter  signed  by  all  the  Galway  land  owners, 
recognizing  his  title,  and  asking  for  the  same  treatment  as  the 
other  three  counties.  "That  is  something",  replied  Charles,  "but 

1)  C.  P.  1—446,  542.  2)  Dom.  1636-405.  3)  L.  L.  VII— 455,  469,  492. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1641—309,  374.  5)  L.  S.  1-521.  6)  L  S.  11—23. 

50 


786  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

a  public  acknowledgment  must  come  from  the  jury.  There  is  no 
need  for  them  to  confess  themselves  knaves.  They  may  say  they 
were  mistaken  in  their  evidence,  but  they  must  be  made  to  know 
themselves,  and  be  differenced  from  others.  You  may  write  to 
the  Deputy."1 

Clanricarde's  letter  is  still  on  record,  but  Straff  ord's  reply 
is  not  extant.  In  it  Clanricarde  pointed  out  that  "the  free  and 
voluntary  surrender  of  the  country"  was  even  a  better  tribute 
than  a  jury's  finding,  that  the  jury  "humbly  acknowledged  your 
justice  and  their  error",  that  he  would  be  at  Strafford's  disposal 
in  perfecting  the  Plantation,  and  all  he  asked  was  that  Strafford 
should  "intercede  with  the  King  for  the  county  and  the  jury".  2 
The  result  was  that  the  jury  were  summoned  again  and  a  title  duly 
found. 3  The  County  of  Galway  was  to  contribute  more  than  the 
usual  quarter,  but  not  the  half  originally  determined.  The  fines  of 
the  jury  which  were  originally  £  1.000  a  pice,  were  cut  down  to 
£  8.000  for  the  whole,  and  that  to  be  divided  according  to  the 
wealth  of  each,  some  of  whom  were  men  of  "great  scopes".  "The 
Deputy",  said  Eossingham,  "is  generally  conceived  to  have  pro- 
ceeded with  justice".4 

Eossingham  was  the  nearest  approach  to  a  newspaper  at  that 
time,  and  he  did  not  love  Strafford.  His  budgets  for  disposal  in 
the  Provinces  certainly  recite  all  the  rumours  of  "hard  dealings 
with  men  of  quality".  The  little  tribute  paid  above  was  not  a 
sudden  repentance.  In  a  previous  letter  he  attributed  the  delay  in 
Strafford's  arrival  in  London  to  fear  of  approaching  the  peerage 
after  sentencing  Mountmorris.  He  had  been  summoned  to  the 
Council,  and  there  scolded  till  he  trembled  with  fear. 5  The  little 
tribute  to  the  Deputy  was  an  amende,  a  kind  of  modern  "We 
regret  that  owing  to  a  printer's  error,  etc." 

There  was  comparative  peace  after  this.  The  sudden  death 
of  the  Sheriff  who  had  packed  the  jury  caused  murmurings  that 
Strafford  was  responsible.''  In  Connaught  the  chief  Burkes  tried 
to  boycot  the  Commissioners,  and  induce  the  "meaner  sort"  not  to 
lodge  their  patents.  This  having  failed  they  appeared,  but  some 
were  detected  in  putting  in  other  men's  lands  as  their  own.  One 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 284.  2)  L.  S.  11-35.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.  4)  C.  T.  11-263. 
5)  C.  S.  P.  1636—131.  6)  L.  S.  11-13. 


CONNAUGHT  787 

was  the  Earl's  step-brother.  Another  was  the  heir-apparent  to  the 
Palatinate.  "Divers  other  gentlemen  of  good  quality  did  the 
same."  Willoughby's  function  was  to  have  a  Corporal's  guard  at 
the  door,  which  used  to  enter  and  seize  "the  gentleman  of  good 
quality",  and  incarcerate  him  in  the  guardroom.  The  Earl's  step- 
brother did  ten  days  in  this  restraint.  They  were  all  released  with 
a  caution  when  the  Commission  had  closed  its  books.  This  was 
done  "for  the  better  example  to  others",  and  the  Commissioners 
reported  that,  after  the  first  few  arrests,  "the  business  succeeded 
the  better"  and  there  were  less  fraudulent  entries. l  It  was  the 
incarceration  of  these  gentry  that  provoked  the  letter  from  the 
French  friar,  detailing  "a  Catholic  persecution  in  Galway.  All  the 
nobility  and  gentry  are  committed  to  prison."  Windebanke 
received  this  missive  from  Rome. 2  At  the  same  time  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Elphin  wrote  to  the  Pope  asking  him  to  send 
a  letter  to  the  Queen  to  induce  her  to  stay  the  Plantation,  "ne 
tota  gens  semper  Catholicae  religionis  tenacissima  pereat".  3 
History  does  not  relate  whether  the  Earl  of  Roscommon  petitioned 
Laud,  or  whether  Mayo  implored  Usher  to  intervene  on  the 
grounds  that  the  surrender  of  a  quarter  of  their  estates  spelt  the 
destruction  of  the  Reformation. 

The  position  of  Clanricarde  was  a  curious  one.  He  was  at  the 
same  moment  suspect  by  the  Imperial  authorities,  and  also  their 
special  protegee.  For  nigh  on  200  years  the  Monarchy  had  pursued 
one  policy  relentlessly,  the  reduction  of  the  great  Lords  of  the 
three  Kingdoms  to  the  level  of  ordinary  subjects.  Antrim,  Clan- 
ricarde, Thomond,  and  Ormond  were  the  last  four  of  these  great 
feudal  and  semi-independent  potentates.  Personal  qualifications, 
politics,  and  religion  made  no  difference  to  this  policy.  When 
Thomond  died,  Straff ord  recommended  that  his  Palatinate  Lordship 
be  abolished,  and  that  his  son,  one  of  Stafford's  most  faithful 
supporters,  be  not  made  Governor  of  Clare.  The  day  for  these  great 
powers  in  the  hands  of  great  subjects  was  gone. 4  The  same  thing 
applied  to  Clanricarde  "It  hath  been  the  constant  endeavour  of  the 
State",  wrote  Straff  ord,  "to  break  the  dependences  which  great 
Lords  draw  to  themselves  of  followers,  tenants,  and  neighbours. 


1)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-106.       2)  L.  L.  VII-285.      3)  A.  H.  V— 95.     4)  L.  S. 
K-332. 

50* 


788  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

His  Commission  of  Presidency  makes  him  little  less  than  a  Count 
Palatine  .  .  .  This  State  hath  found  little  obedience  in  Connaught 
in  any  thing  where  the  Earl  and  Clergy  hath  not  been  pleased  to 
concur/'1  In  writing  this  Strafford  was  talking  in  a  jargon  per- 
fectly understood  by  the  Council  in  England.  After  Portumna  he 
reccommended  that  Clanricarde  be  dismissed  from  his  Presidency  of 
Galway,  and  that  the  Country  be  placed  under  Eanelagh,  President 
of  Connaught,  an  ordinary  servant  of  the  Crown.2  Coke  wrote 
back  that  the  King  thoroughly  approved,  but  "it  was  not 
reasonable  to  do  it  at  once". 8  The  death  of  Clanricarde  pere  gave 
the  Crown  the  opportunity.  True  it  was  that  Clanricarde  fils  had 
the  Presidency  in  reversion,  but  patents  for  two  lives  were  illegal. 
Strafford  seized  the  opportunity.  Galway  was  placed  under  Ranelagh. 
Clanricarde's  company  passed  to  Lord  Caulfield.  The  Governor  of  the 
City,  who  held  only  from  Clanricarde  pere,  was  replaced  by  Willough- 
by.  "There  is  secret  work  against  me  in  England.  Letters  much  to  my 
disadvantage  are  about  to  be  passed.  I  have  not  deserved  ill  of 
His  Majesty."  So  Clanricarde  wrote,  bewailing  the  age  in  which 
he  lived. 4  When  Strafford  left  Ireland  there  was  not  a  Palatinate 
Lord  left,  save  Ormonde.  No  private  subject  save  him  had  legal 
powers  to  command  another,  to  stand  on  his  patent  and  defy  the 
officers  of  the  Crown.  Those  good  old  days  were  gone. 

There  was,  however,  another  consideration.  The  Crown  owed 
much  to  the  Be  Burghs.  When  the  Ulster  Chiefs  invaded  Munster, 
and  the  Spaniards  landed  at  Kinsale,  and  half  Ireland  stood  neutral, 
watching  who  would  win,  it  was  Clanricarde  pere  who  by  prompt 
action  turned  the  scale.  This  was  but  one  of  the  services  the  De 
Burghs  had  rendered  the  dynasty,  and  the  Dynasty  could  not 
forget  it.  An  appeal  on  those  grounds  could  not  be  ignored. 
Clanricarde  brought  a  small  levy  from  London  to  help  Charles 
when  he  marched  to  Berwick,  and  no  reason  of  State  could  outweigli 
these  long  services.  The  prestige  of  the  Crown  could  not  be 
tarnished  with  the  stigma  of  ingratitude.  There  was  yet  another 
aspect.  Clanricarde  was  in  debt,  heavily  in  debt.  A  great  Irish 
Chieftain  could  not  pay  the  calls  made  on  him  at  home,  and  dwell 
in  London,  married  to  Sir  Philip  Sydney's  widow,  on  the  waning 
revenues  of  the  old  estate.  The  abolition  of  coigne  and  livery 

1)  L.  S.  11—368.  2)  L.  S.  1—454.  3)  L.  S.  1—465.  4)  C.  S.  P. 

1636-122;  L.  S.  1-492,  512. 


CONNAUGHT  789 

alone  had  hit  the  Irish  aristocracy  very  severely,  and  Court  life 
swept  out  in  bankruptcy  and  dissipation  no  email  number  of  the 
old  families.  To  these  debts  young  Clanricarde  was  heir.  In  ad- 
dition there  were  the  feudal  dues  on  succession.  He  attempted  to 
revive  some  old  claim  and  procured,  by  Windebanke  and  Arundel, 
a  signet  letter  ordering  Strafford  to  pay  them  out  of  the  establish- 
ment. It  was  an  unjustifiable  debt.  It  was  contrary  to  all  decorum 
to  use  the  standing  revenue  for  this  purpose.  Strafford  put  his  foot 
down  and  complained  to  the  King.  The  King  rebuked  Windebanke, 
who  conveniently  laid  the  blame  on  Arundel. *  This  alone  shows 
how  real  were  Clanricarde's  financial  straits.  In  addition  to  this 
his  patent  had  been  declared  void.  A  fourth  or  more  of  his  estate 
was  destined  to  disappear.  His  chiefries  were  on  the  verge  of  aboli- 
tion. The  composition  would  be  land  requiring  capital  to  develop, 
and  none  knew  what  Church  lands  and  Crown  concealments  would 
be  discovered,  when  his  title  deeds  were  examined.  In  other  words 
he  had  no  credit. 

It  was  no  part  of  Crown  policy  to  reduce  the  Irish  nobility 
to  poverty.  The  old  families  were  the  special  care  of  the  Sovereign. 
All  the  correspondence  of  the  Tudors  and  the  Stuarts  shows  that 
these  men  had  claims  on  the  Sovereign  and  the  Sovereign  regarded 
them  in  the  same  light  as  a  Squire  does  his  labourers.  Throughout 
all  the  arrests,  scoldings  and  confinements  which  it  was  the  duty 
of  Charles  to  mete  out  to  the  aristocracy  of  the  three  Kingdoms 
—there  was  seldom  a  week  in  which  one  of  them  was  not  brought 
before  the  Eoyal  presence  for  some  ludicrous  offence,  maltreating 
a  wife,  quarrelling  with  a  father,  or  brawling  in  the  City, — there 
runs  the  prevalent  notion  that  the  King  was  bound  to  see  that  they 
and  their  families  were  preserved  according  to  their  position.  The 
feminine  relatives  of  three  Irish  Chieftains,  killed  in  rebellion  or 
banished,  Desmond,  O'Donnell,  and  O'Cahane  were  given  special 
grants  and  placed  on  the  pension  list.  The  heads  of  the  Kavanaghs, 
O'Byrnes,  O'Korkes,  O'Donnels,  and  Maguires  were  all  drawing 
their  yearly  pension  from  the  King.  Here  is  but  one  example  of 
the  function  of  the  Crown,  as  described  by  Strafford. 

"Young  Lord  De  Burgh  is  a  well-disposed  child.  By  my 
advice  he  hath  been  settled  in  the  College  here,  under  my  son's 

1)  L.  S.  11—83, 110;  C.  S.  P.  1637—101, 156;  Dom.  1637—374, 379,  380. 


790  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

tutor.  His  house  hath  not  been  tainted  with  any  disloyalty  in  the 
last  rebellion.  I  will  keep  some  watch  upon  his  education  and 
estate,  and  then  will  become  a  humble  suitor  to  His  Majesty  to 
restore  the  broken  and  weak  condition  of  his  noble  family.  The 
House  is  become  small,  and  there  is  nothing  left  to  support  the 
honour  with."1 

In  these  circumstances  Clanricarde  deserved  care,  but  the 
difficulty  was  how  to  do  it.  After  his  undoubted  tampering  with 
the  Connaught  jury,  to  exempt  him  from  the  Plantation  was  to 
discourage  those  who  had  gone  with  the  Crown  in  the  other 
counties.  Thomond,  Inchiquin,  and  Ormonde  were  allowed  to 
become  undertakers  under  covenants  of  their  escheated  fourths, 
but  these  three  had  gone  a  long  way  to  ease  the  path  of  the  Crown 
in  planting  Ormonde  and  Clare.  Strafford  had  a  solution  of  this 
problem  but  it  is  lost.  The  King  thanked  him  for  his  suggestion. 
"You  have  shown  me  a  fit  way  to  favour  him",  he  said.  On  another 
occasion  the  Committee  of  Revenue  referred  to  this  alternative. 2 

Clanricarde  accordingly  first  approached  Straff ord.  He  dilated 
on  the  poverty  of  his  estate,  the  nullification  of  his  patents,  and 
his  lack  of  credit.  He  asked  Strafford  to  recommend  his  case  to 
the  King. 3  This  was  impossible.  It  was  no  part  of  the  Straffordian 
regime  to  interfere  in  Acts  of  Grace.  How  far  this  was  carried  is 
shown  in  the  case  of  Lady  Button.  Her  husband,  the  Admiral  for 
the  Irish  coast,  was  owed  money  by  the  Crown.  On  his  death  there 
was  considerable  controversy  over  the  legality  and  propriety  of  the 
debt.  She  petitioned  Strafford.  He  coldly  told  her  that  all  he 
could  do  was  forward  her  petition  to  the  King.  Privately  he 
strongly  urged  the  King  to  pay  her,  and  succeeded  in  getting  her 
paid,  but  outwardly  the  Act  was  the  King's,  and  a  semblance  of  "the 
negative"  was  attributed  to  Strafford.  In  the  code  of  the  Royalist, 
Ministers  of  the  Crown  were  not  supposed  to  seek  for  popularity, 
but  only  to  "take  the  negative  on  our  shoulders",  as  Strafford 
used  to  put  it.4  Stafford's  reply  was  accordingly  cautious.  He 
told  him  to  petition  the  King,  but  as  for  interfering  in  an  Act  of 
Grace,  to  urge  it  on  the  Sovereign,  he  could  not  do  so. 5 

Clanricarde  accordingly  petitioned  the  King  for  the  reinstate- 

1)  L.  S.  11-342.  2)  L.  S.  1-508;  11-363.  3)  L.  S.  11—155.  4)  L.  S. 
1-309;  C.  S.  P.  1634-81.  5)  L.  S.  11-173. 


CONNAUGHT  791 

ment  of  King  James'  patent,  for  the  recovery  of  all  his  lands  and 
Chiefries  as  they  stood  before  the  Eoyal  title  was  found.  The 
letter  was  dated  Feb.  14,  1638,  or  Feb.  14,  1639  in  modern 
reckoning.1  It  was  forwarded  to  Straff ord  for  comment.  It  came 
at  a  most  awkward  moment.  The  Irish  Executive  was  working  at 
full  pressure.  The  measurements  of  Connaught,  Ormonde,  and 
Clare  had  not  been  perfected.  The  quarrel  with  Lord  Loftus  had 
produced  chaos  in  everything  connected  with  the  Seal.  The  State 
control  of  tobacco  had  just  been  undertaken.  Two  new  Companies 
and  a  troop  had  been  added  to  the  Army.  Five  hundred  men  were 
being  specially  equipped  for  dispatch  to  Carlisle.  Down  and  South 
Antrim  were  in  a  state  of  unrest.  The  rebellion  in  Scotland  had 
produced  a  state  of  affairs  in  Ulster,  requiring  the  utmost  vigilance, 
and  ceaseless  supervision.  All  Straff ord  could  reply  was  that  public 
business  was  such  "as  burdens  me  as  well  as  my  thoughts"  and 
that  he  required  time.  All  he  would  commit  himself  to  was  that 
the  Grant  was  excessive,  and  he  did  not  believe  the  King  had  been 
properly  informed.  "It  imports  me  to  understand  whether  his 
Majesty  intends  a  bounty  of  £  30.000"  of  land  which  belonged  to 
the  Crown.  2 

Windebanke  should  never  have  allowed  such  a  letter  to  be  laid 
before  the  King  without  first  telling  him  or  at  any  rate  privately 
consulting  Strafford.  Strafford  had  very  good  reasons  for  complain- 
ing that  the  royal  secretaries  put  too  much  of  "the  negative"  on 
the  Deputy. 

There  was  yet  another  reason  for  delay.  If  Strafford  was 
overworked  so  too  was  the  King.  A  student  of  the  State  Papers 
and  the  Clarendon  papers  cannot  but  wonder  at  the  mass  of 
business  with  which  the  King  had  to  deal.  Foreign  policy  was  a 
maze  of  complications.  The  raising  of  money  was  a  task  that  would 
stagger  a  giant.  The  mobilization  of  the  militias,  their  transport 
to  Berwick,  their  internal  economy,  the  dissensions  of  the  generals, 
the  Scotch  mobilization,  the  intrigues  with  friendly  Lords,  all  this, 
with  the  ordinary  affairs  of  State,  was  transacted  daily  by  the 
King.  The  collapse  of  the  Monarchy  was  really  due  to  the  rapid 
growth  of  pulic  business.  It  is  amazing  how  Charles  transacted  the 
business  he  did.  The  calmness  and  shrewdness  of  his  apostles  are 

1)  C  S.  P.  1639—209.        2)  L.  S.  11—292. 


792  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

a  miracle  of  Statecraft,  but  he  had  to  devolutionize,  and  it  was 
some  of  the  questions  he  devolved  on  subordinates  that  suddenly 
developed  and  overwhelmed  the  Throne.  Windebanke,  for  instance, 
was  really  a  Prime  Minister.  Every  despatch  is  a  mass  of  sug- 
gestions and  advice,  and  Windebanke  was  not  of  the  calibre  of  a 
premier.  It  was  this  burden  of  business  flung  on  Strafford,  and 
his  reluctance  to  trouble  the  King  at  York  and  Berwick,  with 
bankruptcy  behind  him,  the  Scotch  in  front,  and  Eichelieu  on  the 
flank — this,  coupled  with  Windebank's  hostile  interference,  that 
really  destroyed  his  Irish  Government. 

On  March  2,  the  letter  arrived.  On  March  21,  Straff ord  pleaded 
for  more  time,  discounting  the  letter. 1  On  April  22  he  again 
condemned  the  Clanricarde  grant,  but  gave  no  reasons. 2  On 
May  16  Kadcliffe  saw  the  King,  explained  the  delay,  and  said  it 
was  impossible  to  pass  the  Grant. 3  On  May  18  Straff  ord  informed 
Coke  that  the  matter  had  now  been  thoroughly  sifted,  the  Commit- 
tee of  Eevenue  had  reported  adversely,  but,  as  he  had  been  away, 
and  had  not  read  the  report,  he  would  send  it  shortly.  4  Long 
before  this,  on  April  13,  Windebanke  had  written  to  the  King 
lamenting  Strafford's  long  silence.  He  had  not  heard  from  him 
since  March  2,  and  then  he  had  noted  that  Strafford  was  hostile. 
"It  is  most  evident  that  the  Deputy  will  everlastingly  hold  the 
grant  in  suspense,  unless  your  Majesty  please,  in  commiseration 
and  princely  compassion  to  the  Earl,  to  save  the  Earl  from  utter 
ruin.  Command  him  (the  Deputy)  to  pass  it."  The  King  apostled: 
"It  is  true",  but  added  he  would  wait  for  Straff ord's  answer. 5  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  only  members  of  the  Council  who  were 
with  the  King  at  this  time  were  Arundel,  Essex,  and  Vane.  Clan- 
ricarde was  also  in  the  Eoyal  camp.  Any  comments  the  King 
required  on  the  matter  were  of  the  same  tenour  >as  Windebanke's, 
and  we  have  Clarendon's  authority  for  stating  that  Charles  was  so 
dubious  about  his  own  judgment  on  matters  that  he  had  not  care- 
fully studied,  that  he  listened  to  and  acted  on  the  advice  of 
whosoever  was  nearest  him  at  the  moment.  Nor  had  they  been 
inactive.  Clanricarde  interviewed  the  King,  and  made  word  for 
word  the  same  plea  as  Windebanke,  that  Strafford  was  deliberately 
delaying  an  answer  to  increase  his  financial  difficulties.  This  he 

1)  L,  S.  11—306.  2)  L.  S.  11—332.  3)  L.  S.  11—349,  365.  4)  L.  S.  11—340 
5)  C.  P.  11-37. 


CONN  AUGHT  793 

communicated  to  Windebanke. *  He  had  also  left  a  letter  for  Vane, 
and  had  been  in  communication  with  Essex  on  the  "earnest 
business". 2 

This  pressure  soon  told  on  Monarch,  who  was  goodnatured  to 
a  fault.  After  all  Connaught  was  his,  and  the  loss,  if  there  was  any, 
fell  on  his  Privy  Purse.  Why  not  be  generous  and  reward  this 
nobleman,  in  whose  favour  his  Generals,  hie  Secretary,  and  his 
Controller  spoke  so  highly?  The  Scotch  Lords  had  been  rebellious, 
but  Clanricarde  had  done  his  duty,  and  it  was  ill  work  at  this  time 
grudging  his  ancestral  estates  to  a  nobleman,  who  could  do  both 
harm  and  good.  Lastly  James  had  given  him  these  lands,  and  who 
was  he  to  deny  his  father's  patents,  and  repudiate  his  father's  seal? 
We  may  be  sure  too  the  Queen  did  not  speak  against  Clanricarde. 
On  June  20,  the  following  letter  left  the  Camp  at  Berwick,  ac- 
companied by  an  official  mandamus  from  Vane. 

Wentworth, 

Though  public  affairs  be  of  importance  I  leave  them  to  the 
relation  of  others,  I  wish  that  rather  that  will  get  me  thanks,  at 
which  I  will  not  repine,  being  that  particular  concerning  the  Earl 
of  St.  Albans,  for  whom  I  writ  you  a  legal  letter,  the  execution  of 
which  you  stopped,  as  conceiving  it  against  my  service,  promising 
to  send  me  a  true  state  of  the  business,  which,  being  longer  delayed 
than  that  nobleman's  estate  could  well  suffer,  I  thought  it  better 
to  do  him  a  timely  favour  by  another,  than  to  want  so  much  of  my 
thanks  as  coming  too  late" — (this  obviously  refers  to  the  alternative 
method  of  compensation) — "so  that,  if  through  ignorance,  my 
bounty  be  too  large,  your  slow  advertising  of  the  case  is  the  cause. 
Wherefore  I  would  have  you  give  this  letter  his  free  course,  only 
that  you  may  see  his  acknowledgment  of  my  title  be  full,  which 
certainly  will  take  away  the  objection  of  any  ill  precedent,  or 
harming  my  service  in  the  like  case. 

I  rest 

Your  assured  friend, 
CHAELES  E,"3 

Even  against  this  last  proviso  Clanricarde  objected.  He  raised 
legal  difficulties. 4 

1)  Dom.  1639—30.  2)  Dom.  1639-39.  3)  L.  S.  11—360,  361.  4)  C.  S.  F. 
1625—1660—222,  223. 


794  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Strafford  was  aghast  when  he  read  these  documents.  He 
described  it  as  likely  "to  be  the  greatest  disadvantage  which  hath 
befallen  these  affairs  since  my  coming  to  this  Government",  and 
made  a  prophecy  that  was  strangely  verified,  that  one  day  the  King 
would  realise  to  his  loss  what  he  had  done. 1 

At  one  fell  swoop  the  Crown  had  passed  to  Clanricarde,  not 
only  five  out  of  the  thirteen  Galway  baronies,  but  the  best  five. 
Where  were  they  to  put  the  planters?  Where  were  they  to  get  the 
large  leaseholds  for  dispossessed  small  holders,  if  this  was  passed 
in  fee  simple?  In  all  Connaught  he  was  granted  60.000  acres  in 
fee  simple,  and  chiefries  over  another  48.000.  With  what  face  could 
they  cut  and  escheat  the  chiefries  of  other  lords  with  this  letter 
public  all  over  the  Province?  How  could  they  boast  of  their  pro- 
mised "justice",  whereby  "every  man  was  to  hold  of  the  King", 
with  Clanricarde,  drawing  these  dues  and  rents  from  no  small 
part  of  the  population?  What  was  more,  this  grant  actually  gave 
him  lands  to  which  he  laid  no  claim  in  the  old  patent,  and,  what 
was  worse,  lands  belonging,  or  at  any  rate  claimed  by  other  men? 
Were  men  to  be  denied  their  right  to  trial  of  title  because  he  whom 
they  sued  had  in  London  Puritans,  friars,  politicians  and  women 
at  his  beck  and  call  ?  The  thing  became  a  negation  of  decency  when 
the  patent  passed  to  Clanricarde  lands  he  had  sold  to  others. 
Rectories,  Vicarages,  and  advowsons  were  handed  over  to  his 
Lordship  as  if  the  Church  was  some  felon,  whose  goods  had  been 
escheated,  and,  on  every  rectory,  vicarage,  chapel  and  prebend  in 
Galway,  Clanricarde  was  now  endowed  with  a  third  of  the  first 
fruits.  All  this  was  to  be  free  of  rent,  while,  outside  his  hegemony, 
others — better  subjects  but  less  intriguing — were  to  pay  2Y2d  an 
acre.  Finally  all  was  to  be  passed  in  soccage,  save  four  townlands. 
Did  ancestral  rights,  Elizabeth's  composition,  or  James'  patent 
warrant  such  a  wild  swoop  as  this,  at  the  expense  of  both  Crown 
and  subject?  Strafford  says  himself  that  the  additions  to  what 
Clanricarde  legally  claimed  was  worth  £  30.000.  One  can  com- 
prehend why  men  grudged  the  subsidies  two  years  later.  They 
were  to  pay  3%  on  land  and  2°/0  on  goods  partly  to  make  good 
these  ravages  at  the  expense  of  the  Treasury. 

There  was  however  something  more  serious.   How  could  they 

1)  L.S.II— 425. 


CONNAUGHT  795 

take  away  a  quarter  of  every  man's  estate  after  this?  How  could 
the  Dublin  Government  refuse  claims  and  grants  to  men,  angrily 
asking  were  they  not  as  good  as  Clanricarde,  who  had  packed  the 
jury  and  flouted  the  Royal  Title?  All  over  Connaught  those  who 
"daily  practised  change"  were  pointing  the  moral.  The  Govern- 
ment had  broken  its  word  and  eaten  its  brave  words,  not  because 
it  repented,  but  because  it  was  afraid  of  Clanricarde.  Therefore 
let  those  who  wished  for  justice  do  as  Clanricarde  did,  and  make 
the  Government  afraid  of  them! 

In  desperation  Stratford  despatched  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mission of  Revenue.  He  implored  the  King  to  give  Clanricarde 
any  bounty  but  this.  He  had  received  his  instructions  and  would 
obey.  The  passing  of  a  patent  such  as  this  however,  took  time. 
When  he  came  over  to  London  he  would  have  more  to  say.  As  it 
was  there  was  a  stampede  to  London  of  every  Connaught  landlord 
of  any  importance,  where  before  "if  that  way  had  not  been  given 
to  the  Earl  every  man  would  have  rested  himself  content  under 
the  sight  of  being  used  equally  with  other  men,  where  now  they 
stomach  that  his  Lordship,  who  deserved  of  all  others  the  worst, 
should  be  most  regarded". 1 

This  was  the  real  sting  in  the  Plantation.  All  the  escheats, 
concealments,  dues,  surrenders,  rents  and  covenants  became  far 
more  irksome  than  they  otherwise  would  have  been  at  the  news 
of  this  letter.  What  was  before  an  arrangement  of  tenures  and 
a  contribution  to  the  revenue  suddenly  appeared  in  a  very  un- 
pleasant light.  It  was  in  or  about  this  period  that  the  intrigues 
began  which  culminated  in  1641.  They  were  assisted  it  is  true  by 
the  war  in  Scotland  and  the  unrest  in  Ulster,  but  it  is  significant 
that  Charles  believed  that  the  Irish  rebellion  would  break  out  in 
Connaught  and  not  in  Ulster.  In  the  spring  of  1641  it  was  on 
that  Province  he  put  his  finger  as  the  next  zone  of  danger. 2  Lord 
Dillon  of  Costelloe,  at  this  period,  went  abroad  to  Rome  and  Spain, 
and  great  efforts  were  made  to  make  his  belligerent  brother  a 
Bishop  in  Connaught. 3  Headed  by  Malachi  O'Queeley,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Archbishop  of  Tuam,  four  Bishops  wrote  to  Tyrone  to  come 
back.  There  was  some  excitement  amongst  the  Irish  condotterin  in 
Spain,  and  two  friars  were  despatched  to  Ireland.4  All  through  the 

1)  L.  S.  11-366,  367,  425,  381.  2)  C.  P.  11-134.  3)  S.  0. 1-234,  247, 
250,  252,  253.  4)  C.  P.  11-69. 


796  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

Clarendon  correspondence  these  intrigues  are  duly  noted,  but  Straf- 
ford  regarded  them  as  intrigues  and  nothingmore.  His  agents  in  Spa  in 
kept  him  very  well  informed,  and  he  always  ascribed  them  largely 
to  the  self-importance  of  the  couriers,  unknown  men  arriving  in 
Spain  and  boasting  of  their  importance  in  Ireland,  and  obscure 
persons  arriving  in  Ireland  detailing  how  they  had  the  ear  of  the 
King  of  Spain.  Given  normal  efficiency  this  situation  could  easily 
be  handled.  The  tide  of  rebellion  and  civil  commotion  swept  all 
over  Great  'Britain,  and  yet  Ireland  remained  peace.  It  was  not 
till  the  political  groups  began  to  tear  up  all  the  foundations  of 
the  State  in  Ireland  that  the  storm  burst.  It  requires  something 
more  than  the  anger  of  a  tiny  minority  in  four  counties  out  of 
thirty  two  to  set  the  heather  alight,  though  it  was  true  the  op- 
ponents of  the  Plantation  could  make  a  great  noise,  and  keep 
fanning  the  embers  in  the  hopes  that  others  would  provide  the  fuel. 

At  any  rate  Strafford  left  Ireland  in  triumph.  The  threat  of 
a  Scotch  invasion  and  the  glamour  that  hung  round  the  King  gave 
no  scope  for  "particular  ends"  to  work  their  will.  Clanricarde 
might  storm  over  a  further  delay  in  his  patent.  Men  might 
grumble  over  surrendering  their  fourths  when  he  did  not.  After 
all,  the  rest  of  Connaught  could  be  planted,  distributed,  and 
alloted,  and  every  man  could  "hold  of  the<King",  with  a  good  title 
for  2a/2d  an  acre,  free  of  reliefs  and  dues  and  other  abominations 
of  the  old  regime. 

A  whole  year  passed  by,  pregnant  with  much  disaster.  The 
rumour  of  Strafford's  death,  coupled  with  the  disturbances  in 
England  and  Scotland,  encouraged  a  party  in  the  House  of 
Commons  to  essay  the  task  of  mangling  the  subsidies  the  House 
had  already  voted.  Kadcliffe  ascribed  no  small  part  of  this  oppo- 
sition to  certain  of  the  Connaught  members  who,  being  in  touch 
with  the  Eevolutionary  Party  in  England,  had  hopes  of  defeating 
the  Bill  to  legalise  the  Plantation  in  the  chaos  that  would  follow 
a  withdrawal  of  supplies. *  Newburn  was  then  fought  in  Strafford's 
absence,  and  the  King  called  a  Council  of  the  Lords  to  decide  how 
best  to  cope  with  the  situation.  At  that  Council  some  of  the  peers 
flung  the  whole  odium  of  the  disaster,  the  war  with  Scotland,  the 
dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament,  and  the  debacle  of  Newburn 

1)  R.C.-210. 


CONN  AUGHT  797 

on  Strafford  and  Strafford  alone.  The  hostility  of  Essex,  Holland, 
and  Arundel  was  marked. '  The  King  then  agreed  to  call  a  Parlia- 
ment. Clanricarde  gleefully  informed  Windebanke  of  the  wonder- 
ful "remedies  to  these  distempered  times"  he  now  saw  pending, 
"but  I  have  some  small  comments  of  my  own  in  my  private 
thoughts  that  somewhat  abate  the  discontent".2  A  few  weeks 
later  he  refused  an  invitation  of  Stafford's  to  dinner,  writing  to 
Windebanke  with  joy  "and  when  the  Parliament  sits  the  day  will 
come  that  shall  pay  for  all". 8  On  Strafford's  arrival  in  London 
the  matter  was  debated  in  the  presence  of  the  King. 

Matters  however  had  gone  so  far  now  that  the  King  could 
not  go  back.  He  had  given  the  promise.  He  was  in  no  position 
to  alienate  the  ally  and  step-brother  of  Essex.  The  final  terms 
were  that  the  Irish  Government  were  to  have  the  power  of  inter- 
changing other  applotments  with  Clanricarde's.  Otherwise  the 
patent  stood,  planricarde  boasted  to  Windebanke  that  in  time 
he  would  even  get  this  concession  withdrawn. 4  A  few  days  later 
the  snap  resolution  condemning  Strafford's  Vice-Royalty  was 
passed  in  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  and  Strafford  was  arrested 
by  its  English  confrere. 

It  was  at  this  stage  that  Strafford's  warning  came  true. 
Clanricarde's  patent  appeared  as  the  great  grievance  of  the  Con- 
naught  subject.  If  a  surrender  and  a  re-grant  was  accorded  to 
Clanricarde,  why  not  to  Dillon,  Blake,  Brown,  O'Shaughnessy, 
and  a  host  of  others.  Whitehall  was  beset  with  the  .clamour  of  the 
Connaught  Lords.  Their  clamour  brought  in  another  party.  If 
they  were  to  get  their  Estates,  and  the  Eoyal  title  was  to  be  de- 
nied, why  should  not  this  apply  elsewhere.  Why  should  other 
men's  titles  be  called  in  question?  In  one  week  the  Statute  of 
Limitations  became  the  great  desideratum,  and  all  the  Lords  of 
the  Pale  appeared  before  the  Council  demanding  its  enactment. 5 
To  this  great  clamour  the  King  gave  way,  and  in  one  short  hour 
the  revenue  lost  £  20.000  a  year  by  the  surrender  of  the  Plantations, 
and  £  3.000  a  year  by  the  collapse  of  the  Defective  Titles  Com- 
mission. To  appreciate  the  seriousness  of  this  one  must  realize 
that  the  House  of  Commons  had  already  "bangled"  the  subsidies, 


1)  T.  P.— 195 ;  R.  C.— 217;  Clarendon  Memoirs  1-76.          2)  Dom.  1640—92. 
3)  Dom.  1640-152.        4)  Dom.  1640—197;  R.  C.— 140.         5)  C.  S.  P.  1641—279. 


798  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

on  the  strength  of  which  £  140.000  had  been  borrowed. 1  Where 
was  the  money  to  come  from  for  the  soldiers,  12.000  armed  men? 
In  despair  they  started  looting.  Ormonde  was  helpless.  The 
apostles  of  liberty  held  that  Generals  should  not  be  allowed  to 
courtmartial  looters  and  mutineers. 2  The  question  of  the  Army 
suddenly  became  vital.  Charles  proposed  to  disband  10.000  men, 
and  to  find  them  employment  in  France  and  Spain.  In  the  mean- 
while riots  and  disorder  were  the  order  of  the  day.  The  dominant 
Party  in  the  House  of  Commons,  arrested  the  judges,  arrested 
officials,  encouraged  civil  commotion  by  pious  resolution,  and  the 
terrified  Council  cowered  before  the  storm.8  "Eescues  and 
forcible  entries"  wailed  a  much  plundered  clergyman,  "are  so 
common,  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  security  be  in  law  or 
outrage".  4  Poor  Parsons,  now  Lord  Justice,  indicted  screed  after 
screed  of  lamentation  to  London,  denouncing  every  concession, 
clamouring  for  money,  appealing  for  this,  and  abusing  that,  Par- 
sons who  had  been  behind  half  the  intrigues*  that  overthrew 
Strafford,  and  had  drafted  one  of  the  deadliest  articles  in  his 
indictment.5  He  was  now  "the  man  on  the  horse",  and  the  horse 
was  exceptionally  restive,  as  Parsons  had  broken  the  curb.  The 
shade  of  the  "sour  Deputy",  must  have  smiled  grimly. 

Any  help  from  the  Parliament  was  out  of  the  question.  It 
was  split  into  two  raging  factions.  The  original  combine  that  had 
prosecuted  Strafford  was  made  up  of  the  Clanricarde  group, 
assisted  by  such  members  as  the  Priests  could  rope  in,  and  that 
body  of  persons  whom  Sir  George  Wentworth  described  as  "want- 
ing shares"  in  the  Plantation. 6  The  Irish  Committee  of  Grievances 
in  Whitehall  was  evenly  divided  between  both  groups,  but  one  of 
the  Burkes  and  Plunkett,  Clanricarde's  man  of  law  in  the  case 
on  Defective  Titles,  got  "private  access  to  His  Majesty  by  means 
of  the  Catholic  Party",  and  the  whole  Committee  returned  raging 
with  each  other.7  The  Irish  House  of  Commons  was  rather  a 
beargarden  of  factions,  manoeuvring  for  position,  than  a  respon- 
sible assembly.  Each  faction  tried  to  outbid  the  other  for  popular 
favour,  by  destroying  revenue,  or  hampering  the  free  passage  of 
law.  On  one  thing  were  they  united.  They  would  not  vote  a 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—299.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1641—271,  272, 275, 289.  3)  C.  S.  P. 
1641—280—300.  4)  English  Histoiical  Re  view.  IX -549.  5)  R.  C.— 231. 

6)  R.  C.-232.        7)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-129, 130. 


CONNAUGHT  799 

penny  to  carry  on  a  Government,  already  close  on  £  200.000  in 
debt. x  To  >expect  assistance  from  such  a  body  was  out  of  the: 
question.  Here  is  but  one  glimpse  of  the  confusion.  "The  army 
has  nothing  to  live  on  save  robbery.  We  cannot  put  the  ships  to 
sea-  We  have  not  a  penny.  The  judges  report  the  authority  of 
the  State  is  quite  lost."2  The  very  rumour  that  the  Plantations 
were  gone  and  that  all  Defective  Patents  stood  good,  caused  the 
bitterest  indignation.  What  were  the  feelings  of  those  men  who 
had  bought  lands  from  Clanricarde,  and  found  that  the  State  had 
passed  them  back  again?  What  was  the  feeling  of  those  who  now 
saw  themselves  back  again  in  "the  one  day's  work  in  the  week  to 
the  Lord",  and  "the  dependency  on  the  Lord",  and  "the  capis"  at 
Christmas  time,  and  "the  coshering  on  the  tenants  which  is  very 
chargeable".  These  things  had  been  endured  for  many  a  year,  but 
the  King  had  promised  to  abolish  them,  and  the  King  had  broken 
his  word,  and  broken  it  at  a  time  when  "there  was  less  .security  in 
law,  than  in  outrage".  To  make  confusion  worse,  there  was  an 
instant  cry  that  the  Wicklow  Plantation  be  tome  up  by  the  roots. 
This  area  had  been  in  a  state  of  civil  war  when  Strafford  came  to 
Ireland,  raids  of  the  Byrnes  on  their  tenants,  and  the  tenants  on 
the  Byrnes.'3  He  had  planted  and  pacified  it,  and  it  yielded 
£  2.000  a  year. 4  The  Byrnes  rushed  to  London  to  have  all  these 
titles  and  allotments  called  in.  They  were  refused  and  returned 
muttering  many  things. 5  Were  not  they  as  good  as1  Clanricarde 
and  the  freeholders  of  Connaught?  This  was  very  serious.  "In 
former  commotions"  wrote  a  scribe  of  the  period,  "it  was  always 
observed  that  the  Rannelagh  was  as  the  echo  of  Ulster,  and  at 
all  times  followed  the  noise  of  any  commotion  in  the  North".  e 
The  North  was  at  this  moment  on  the  verge  of  .an  upheaval.  The 
O'Neills  in  Spain  had  for  months  been  in  communication  with 
Argyle,  through  a  friar  called  Hegarty. 7  A  Campbell,  invasion 
of  the  North  to  destroy,  once  and  for  all,  the  MacDonalds  was 
only  a  question  of  time,  and  these  Campbells  had  a  clear  under- 
standing with  the  exiled  condottieri. s 

It  was  the  question  of  the  army  that  brought  matters  to  a 

1)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-219;  C.  S.  P.  1641-285,  288,  295,  298, 302;  L.  P.  2.  s. 
I V-208, 209.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1641—279.  3)  Cowper  1—425.  4)  Egmont  M.  S.  S. 
1—223.  5)  C.S. P.  1641-285.  6)  G.H.C.  1-24.  7)  Gil.  1—399;  C. P.  11-80,  86. 
S)  Pom.  1639—553;  R.  C.— 206— 209;  L.  S.  II— 281, 289;  G.  H.  C.  1—18. 


800  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

head.  At  first  10.000  men  were  to  be  disbanded,  and  sent  abroad 
for  enlistment.  This  decision  was  taken  before  the  revocation  of 
the  Plantations.  Plunkett  and  Burke  at  that  interview  with  the 
King  suggested  an  alternative.  The  Connaught  Lords  would  take 
it  under  their  wing  for  emergencies.  Sir  Adam  Loftus  saw  the 
danger,  but  no  one  would  listen  to  his  pleadings. 1  The  King 
was  on  the  eve  of  his  tour  to  Scotland.  There  he  intended  to 
rally  a  party  that  would  face  the  Revolutionaries',  whom  he  knew 
intended  first  to  seize  the  Royal  forts  and  armouries,  and  then  to 
do  what  they  wished  with  the  Kingdom.  This  offer  opened  up  a 
wonderful  prospect.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  Charles  flung  the 
Plantation  to  the  winds.  The  departure  of  the  levies  was  instantly 
cancelled.  The  anti  Plantation  group  carried  an  angry  resolution 
in  the  House,  that  not  a  soldier  leave  Ireland.  The  Priests  beset 
the  one  departing  regiment  with  fiery  jehads  urging  them  to 
remain  behind  as  they  "would  be  wanted  soon".  Lord  Dillon  of 
Costelloe  accompanied  the  King  to  Edinburgh,  profuse  in  declara- 
tions of  what  he  and  his  friends  would  do.  On  October  18th  he 
landed  in  Ireland  with  a  letter,  placing  him  on  the  Council.  2 
Antrim  was  all  agog  with  excitement,  enrolling  MacDonald  levies, 
and,  if  the  truth  be  told,  not  preserving  the  silence  necessary  in  such 
a  matter.  Suddenly  Phelim  O'Neill,  a  man  of  "bankrupt  estate 
and  great  ambitions"  appeared  as  leader  of  a  wild  emeute  of  wood- 
kern,  levies,  and  ex-members  of  the  new  army.  He  bore  a  Patent 
with  a  Scotch  seal.  It  was  dated  for  the  day  on  which  the  seal  was 
passing  from  Hamilton,  Argyle's  new  ally  but  secret  enemy,  to 
London,  Argyle's1  nominee  to  the  Chancellorship.  On  this  date  no 
man  could  say  who  was  Guardian  of  the  Seal,  and  to  what  pur- 
poses it  had  been  put.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  Phelim  O'Neill,  the 
head  of  the  party,  that  had  been  intriguing  with  Argyle  via 
Madrid,  Paris,  and  Brussels,  butchered  ruthlessly  the  little  planters, 
the  one  force  in  Ulster  on  which  the  King  could  consistently  rely, 
and  spared  all  those  Scotch  settlers,  who  had  manifested  such  open 
and  seditious  sympathy  with  the  Covenanters.  He  and  his  hench- 
men complained  bitterly  that  the  Scotch  would  not  rise  with  them, 
as-  had  been  promised,  and  would  not  hand  over  the  forts,  as  "a 
great  nobleman"  had  sworn. 3 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—279.        2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  11—46.        3)  Gil.  1—371,  373 ; 
G.  H.  C.  1—23. 


CONN  AUGHT  801 

Antrim  was  aghast.  He  had  been  outmanoeuvred  and  antici- 
pated. Cooped  up  in  North  Antrim,  with  his  MacDonalds,  helpless 
to  make  headway,  he  vanished  for  a  time  from  the  scene.  Then 
Argyle^for  the  Scotch  Parliament  was  Argyle  and  no  one  else, 
despatched  levies  to  Antrim  and  Down,  ran  up  a  flag  of  their  own, 
and  appeared  as  an  Independent  State,  forming  alliances,  some- 
times with  Parliament,  sometimes  with  Ormonde,  sometimes  with 
the  O'Neills,  at  any  rate  a  law  unto  themselves  where  they  could 
make  their  power  felt,  till  Cromwell  swept  over  Ireland,  reduced 
them  to  subjection,  escheated  some  of  the  leaders,  and  fined  many. 
It  was  not  till  four  months  after  the  outbreak  that  the  O'Neills 
realised  that  they  had  fulfilled'  the  function  of  a  catspaw,  by  which 
date  they  laid  down  as  one  of  the  planks  in  their  platform  "that 
the  Scotch  be  removed  out'  of  the  North  of  Ireland". * 

Such  was  the  logic  of  events  that  followed  from  the  Plan- 
tation of  Connaught.  Orthodox  history  assumes  that  the  rebellion 
was  due  to  Strafford's  action.  It  was  due  to  the  revocation  of  all 
his  Connaught  policy,  beginning  from  the  day  that  Clanricarde 
passed  his  patent.  From  that  action  Charles  never  shook  himself 
free.  It  led  him  from  one  disastrous  concession  to  another,  and 
finally  to  that  wild-cat  scheme  of  handing  over  the  new  army  to 
"ill  disposed1"  subjects,  not  having  dependence  on  him,  subjects 
who  could  neither  control  their  men,  nor  confine  them  to  the  task 
of  rebuilding  the  State. 

Nor  did  the  concession  make  Clanricarde  a  faithful  Subject 
of  the  King.  The  first  whisper  St.  Leger  caught  of  the  seriousness 
of  the  rebellion  is  thus  described.  "I  was  told  under  the  rose 
that,  after  twice  sending  for,  the  Earl  of  Clanricarde  did  not 
appear."-'  In  other  words  when  the  storm  burst,  Clanricarde  had 
no  intention  of  unduly  exerting  himself  on  the  King's  behalf. 
Ormonde,  who  owed  the  king  little,  in  fact  the  debt  was  all  on 
the  other  side  of  the  account,  rushed  to  the  aid  of  the  beleaguered 
State  to  be  bitterly  denounced  by  the  Lords  of  the  Pale,  as  one 
who  went  not  with  the  Soviet  they  erected,  and  to  be  more  bitterly 
abused  by  the  officials,  as  one  whose  kinsmen  were  Eoman 
Catholics,  and  therefore  suspect.  What  always  used  to  make  him 
most  indignant  was  the  suggestion  that  he  had  "anything  like 

1)  Gil.  1-382.        2)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-144. 

51 


802  THE  LAND  QUESTION 

intelligence  with  any  rebel  or  Pale  Lord",  with  those  "who  would 
erect  instead  of  the  King's  Government,  one  of  rapine,  barbarism, 
and  murder",  that  he  was  anything  but  "a  stranger  to  Lord  Dillon's 
instructions,  whose  embassy  was  not  from  any  gracious  persons  to 
King  or  Parliament",  in  other  words  Connaught  and  Pale  Lords, 
belligerent  friars,  and  the  Queens  side. l  Inchiquin  gathered  what 
troops  he  could  and  fell  back  on  the  Southern  cities.  Between  him 
however,  and  Dublin,  there  lay  the  Catholic  Confederation,  whose 
rule  of  billettings  and  extortions  made  the  Papal  ambassador, 
Kennucini,  lift  up  his  voice  in  lamentation. 2  With  this  waste 
dominated  by  a  Confederation  of  Lords  and  their  condottieri, 
Inchiquin  did  what  he  could  for  a  time.  Rinnucini  says  that  it 
was  remarkable  how  he  drew  tribute  from  Munster  easily  and 
without  protest,  while  the  Confederation  had  to  take  everything 
by  force. 3  The  Parliamentary  control  of  the  sea,  however,  forced 
Inchiquin  in  the  end  to  fall  back  on  the  Parliamentarions  for  aid, 
a  course  not  at  all  unpopular  in  the  Southern  Cities,  where 
commerce  as  a  rule  was  very  friendly  to  the  Parliament. 

Clanricarde's  inertia,  however,  was  marked.  It  is  just 
probable  that  if  he  had  joined  Ormonde  promptly  at  the  beginning, 
before  the  contagion  had  spread  outside  three  Ulster  Counties, 
there  might  have  been  another  story  to  tell.  There  is  no  doubt 
but  that  he  sat  on  the  fence.  The  belligerent  Bishops,  his  enemies 
in  Connaught  who  were  many,  his  connection  with  the  Parlia- 
mentary leaders,  his  estates  in  England  all  forced  him  to  wait,  and 
confine  his  operations  to  protecting  his  own  estates,  which  certainly 
was  an  arduous  task.  From  all  his  vaccillations,  policies,  and 
difficulties,  however,  one  thing  emerges,  and  that  was  that  he 
was  no  use  to  the  King  when  the  crisis  came. 

If  one  looks  back  over  the  Strafford  regime,  one  cannot  but 
notice  his  extraordinary  judgement  of  men  and  motives.  St.  Leger, 
Inchiquin,  Ormonde,  and  Coote,  were  the  men  whose  praises  he 
was  ever  singing,  and  those  four  emerge  during  the  subsequent 
confusion  as  courageous  and  efficient  men,  creating  round  them, 
in  the  teeth  of  terrible  difficulties,  something  that  gave  protection 
to  "weak  and  painful  people"  against  "hobblers,  kern,  and  hooded 
men".  Of  Antrim  he  said  "If  it  came  to  blows,  Argyle  is  the 


1)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—165, 166.        2)  R.  E.— 238,  284,  354.        3)  R.  E.-353. 


CONNAUGHT  803 

likelier  of  the  two  to  begin  the  sport  with  Antrim  on  this  side, 
than  to  wait  my  Lord's  coming  over  to  him  ...  I  am  utterly 
persuaded  that  I  will  not  allow  him  to  draw  together  a  great 
body  of  Irish  under  the  command  of  the  only  septs  that  remain 
of  the  Ulster  rebels  .  .  .  What  will  happen  if  Argyle  pursue  him 
into  this  Kingdom,  and  the  Scotch  here  arm  and  declare  themselves 
for  him  .  .  .  He  hath  already  sent  to  as  many  Os  and  Macs,  as 
would  startle  a  whole  Council  Board,  so  as  this  business  of  your 
Majesty's" — to  use  Antrim's  levies  to  attack  the  Covenanters — 
"is  now  become  no  secret,  but  the  common  discourse,  both  of  his 
Lordship  and  the  Kingdom." '  These  lines  were  written  in  1638. 
One  would  imagine  Strafford  was  writing  in  1641.  In  1637  he 
prophesied  that  any  levies  Antrim  would  collect  for  the  King 
would  strike  for  their  own  aims  with  furious  outrage.  This  is 
Antrim's  rueful  comment  on  his  plan.  "But  the  fools  well  liking 
the  business,  would  not  expect  our  manner  for  ordering  the  work, 
but  fell  upon  it  without  us."2 

Of  Clanricarde  he  was  even  more  prophetic  "All  your  kind- 
ness shall  not  better  his  affections  to  the  service  of  the  Crown,  or 
render  him  thankful  to  yourselves,  longer  than  his  turn  in  his 
serving.  Kemember  Sir,  that  I  told  you  of  it." 3 


1)  L.S.II-289,300,301,305.    2)  C.  A. H.  Appendix  XLIX.    3)  L.S.  11-408. 


51 


PART.  VI 

PLUTOCRACY 
AND  REVOLUTION 


Chapter  I 
THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION 

The  evils  latent  in  the   most  promising  contrivances  are  provided 
for  as  they  arise.    From  hence  arises,  not  an  excellence  in  simplicity, 

but  one  far  superior,  an  excellence  in  composition By  listening 

only  to  the  buffooneries  of  satirists  you  regard  all  these  things  only 
on  the  side  of  those  vices  and  faults,  under  every  colour  of  exag- 
geration. BURKE. 

Ulster  was  the  last  stronghold  of  Celtic  feudalism.  What  was 
more  it  had  developed  into  something  that  bore  the  germs  of  a 
single  despotism.  Shane  O'Neill,  for  a  short  while,  held  Down, 
Cavan,  Fermanagh,  Armagh  and  Derry  under  tribute,  and  all 
Tyrone  in  demesne.  The  "flying  out"  of  Hugh  was  an  effort  to 
cement  this  loose  hegemony  into  an  autocracy,  and  to  extend  it 
wherever  he  could.  Hie  failure  is  the  crowning  proof  that  the  day 
of  the  feudalists  was  gone.  No  man  was  better  equipped'  for  the 
task.  Educated  at  Oxford,  reared  at  the  Court,  trained  in  circles 
of  which  the  Irish  aristocracy  knew  nothing,  he  brought  into  this 
struggle  a  mentality  as  far  removed  from  the  O'Rorkes,  Macguires, 
and  O'Byrnes  as  a  Metternich  or  a  Talleyrand  was  from  an  Albanian 
Pasha. 

The  traditional  view  of  this  great  feudal  baron,  that  he  was 
the  exponent  of  Roman  Catholic  and  Celtic  septdom,  has  no  basis 
whatsoever  in  history.  Of  religion  he  had  none.  For  tribal  rights  he 
had  overweening  contempt.  He  was  an  aristocrat  of  that  Irish  feudal 
type  which  Straff ord  describes  as  "being  as  sharp  set  on  their  own 
wills  as  any  people  on  earth",  and  which  Chichester — he  was  re- 
ferring to  Neill  Garve  O'Donnell — summarised  as  "of  an  honest 
but  an  insatiable  mind,  full  of  vast  desires".  Faced  with  a  Govern- 
ment which  was  wracked  with  dissensions,  and  which  was  marred 
with  men  of  the  most  curious  calibre,  which  was  denied  money 


808  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

and  men  by  a  Sovereign,  who  always  suspected  the  loyalty  of  her 
Deputies — "penny  wise  and  pound  foolish"  so  wrote  one  of  her 
Ministers — faced  as  he  was  with  this — at  a  moment  when  the 
Crown  was  threatened  by  Spain  and  Scotland,  and  was  shaky,  very 
shaky  in  Ireland,  this  great  nobleman  failed,  and  failed  hopelessly. 
At  no  period  had  he  ever  a  fifth  of  Ireland  on  his  side  for  a  month. 
He  passed  from  the  stormy  stage  of  Irish  History  with  dignity, 
but  certainly  not  with  applause.  Juries  of  his  own  ten  ante  cheer- 
fully dubbed  him  traitor.  The  Bill  of  his  Attainder  and  the  Con- 
fiscation of  his  Estates  was  passed  unanimously  in  a  Parliament  of 
the  Lords,  gentry,  and  burgesses  of  Ireland,  "not  one  'No'  being 
heard",  at  the  advice  and  request  of  what  Philip  O'Sullivan  calls 
"the  worser  part  of  the  priests".  "Of  this"  wrote  Davies,  "let 
foreign  states  take  notice,  because  it  has  been  given  out  that 
Tyrone  has  left  many  friends  behind  him,  and  that  only  the  Pro- 
testants wished  his  utter  ruin". * 

Outside  of  Ulster  the  explanation  of  this  collapse  is  obvious. 
Philip  O'Sullivan  ruefully  gives  the  following  account,  "Most  of 
the  families,  clans,  and  towns  were  divided  into  different  factions, 
each  having  different  leaders,  who  were  fighting  for  estates  and 
chieftaincies.  The  less  powerful  joined  the  English.  On  the  same 
side  were  the  municipalities,  because  merchants  are  not  easily 
induced  to  take  up  arms  .  .  .  Many  chiefs  feared  that,  if  these 
(O'Neill  and  his  allies)  conquered,  themselves  would  be  deprived 
of  their  properties".  Lastly,  the  pious  Philip  alleges  a  cruel 
stratagem  employed  by  the  Government.  Eebellious  chieftains 
were  always  accorded  a  pardon  by  the  Government,  "even  if  they 
deserted  a  thousand  times".  From  this  last  we  can  deduce  that  the 
slovenly  and  easy-going  methods  of  the  Imperial  Government  were 
preferable  to  the  drastic  activities  of  the  rebellious  Hugh,  who 
would  certainly  not,  if  victorious,  "forgive  and  readily  reward" 
those  who  had  stood  in  his  path. 2  One  has  only  to  run  down  the 
list  of  the  Generals  and  Colonels  in  Mount  joy's  Army  to  realize 
that  the  State  was  able  to  mobilize  the  rest  of  feudal  Ireland  against 
the  Earl  of  Tyrone,3  Clanricarde,  Thomond,  Dillon,  Kildare,  Barry, 
the  White  Knight,  Magennis,  Ormonde — no  Ulster  Confederation 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1614-516;  C.  A.  H.  p.  21,  p.  21.  James  1.  2)  Cat.  50—57. 

3)  Fynes  Morrison  11—85, 146, 211. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  809 

could  stand   against  this,   especially  when   supported  by  all  the 
rivals  of  every  Ulster  chief. 

Inside  Ulster  these  considerations  of  course  prevailed.  Between 
1590  and  1603  there  was  not  a  chief  who  did  not,  at  some  time, 
come  in  with  "humble  submission",  and  take  the  oaths  of  Alle- 
giance and  Supremacy,  not  one.  It  has  been  asserted  that  Hugh 
O'Donnell  was  an  exception.  But  even  he,  the  most  consistent 
of  the  re-actionaries,  "came  in"  in  1592  with  "a  humble  submisu 
sion,  making  a  great  show  of  sorrow  for  his  misdemeanours,  ana 
protesting  hereafter  to  hold  a  more  dutiful  life". 1  In  1596  he 
"came  in  again"  upon  like  conditions.  2 

One  of  the  aforesaid  misdemeanours  consisted  in  "preying 
Tirlagh  Lynagh  O'Neill's  country",  that  irate  chief  calling  in 
Crown  forces,  who  "rescued  the  prey  and  killed  some  of 
O'Donnell's  followers".  Tirlagh  was  the  O'Neill,  and  Hugh 
O'Neill  was,  at  that  moment  only  a  minor  man,  but  both  for  three 
years  waged  incessant  war,  though  at  peace,  of  a  kind,  with  the 
Crown,  Hugh  O'Donnell  supporting  Hugh  O'Neill.  Tirlagh's  ap- 
proaching death  set  all  Ulster  in  commotion. 

Tirlagh  was  the  O'Neill.  By  indenture,  the  Crown  had  re- 
cognized his  hegemony,  not  only  over  Tyrone  and  Armagh,  but 
Derry  and  Fermanagh.  It  had  also  passed  to  Hugh  that  old  patent 
of  Henry  VIII  to  Conn,  his  ancestor,  by  which  he  held  all  lands 
of  which  Conn  was  "possessed" — a  patent  full  of  much  controversy. 
Tirlagh's  death  would  break  this  indenture,  and  what  then? 

The  Crown. policy  was  obvious,  and  the  secret  instructions 
to  Dublin  were  explicit.  Derry  and  Fermanagh  were  to  be  freed 
from  the  O'Neill  Chiefries.  The  old  patent  was  to  be  interpreted 
in  its  literal  .sense.  "All  Conn  ever  had  was  a  little  in  demesne, 
though  his  power  was  by  bonnaght".  Hugh  was  to  get  this  little 
demesne.  Arthur  O'Neill,  Tirlagh's  son,  was  to  get  Strabane. 
"Freeholders  were  to  be  created  to  hold  by  certain  rents."  Hugh 
heard  of  this,  through  his  spies  on  the  Council,  and  went  straight 
into  rebellion. 3 

Here,  right  at  his  headquarters  was  an  incessant  rumbling  of 

1)  C.  S.P.  1592— 569.  2)  Fynes  Morrison  Part  11— 17.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1592 
-488,  553,  573. 


810  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

discontent.  Men  might  join  the  rebels  because  they  had  to.  Men 
might  join  them  in  the  hopes  that  Novae  Res  migh  mean  Novae 
Tabulae.  Men  who  "dailly  practised  change"  might  give  them  a 
kind  of  vacillating  support,  but,  all  the  while,  this  offer  stood 
good  from  the  Crown,  who  "forgave  and  richly  rewarded"  men 
who  left  the  side  of  Hugh.  How  long  would  O'Cahane  of  Derry 
and  the  Maguire  of  Fermanagh  support  his  bonnaght  of  2.000 
men,  and  swordsmen  were  no  light  imposition  on  a  respectable 
household?  '  How  long  would  they  support  him  when  the  Crown, 
every  time  he  "came  in"  imposed  the  condition  of  "not  interfering 
with  the  Urriaght"  i.  e.  these  identical  tributaries.  At  one  moment 
he  had  a  miscellaneous  force  of  14.000  swordsmen,  kern,  and 
horseboys,  whom  others  had  to  feed'  and  lodge.-  Some  of  these 
tributaries,  too,  were  men  who  held  themselves  to  be  as  good  as  he. 
That  sapient  prelate,  Miler  Magrath,  after  a  cynical  survey  of  the 
whole  Province,  laid  it  down  as  a  maxim  of  State  that  "the  divers 
competitors  will  be  glad  to  have  the  Prince's  countenance  to  root 
out  the  principal  of  the  country,  if  good  means  be  sought  dis- 
cretely". 3 

If  there  had  been  no  other  complication,  this  alone  would 
have  smashed  the  loose  Confederation.  Every  member  of  that 
Confederation  appears  at  some  time  or  other  in  the  State  Papers 
asking  for  terms.  If  a  member  was  "out"  hie  rivals  appear  asking 
for  aid.  Modern  critics  have  condemned  them  for  not  being  more 
altruistic,  but  modern  critics  live  well  fed  and  warm,  with  a  police- 
man close  at  hand,  and  no  man  to  do  them  harm,  save  an  occasional 
burglar  and  rapparee.  Life  w.as  more  serious  among  the  aristo- 
cracy of  that  period.  To  be  a  probable  candidate  for  a  chiefry 
meant  either  possessions  and  glory,  or  death  at  the  hands  of  a  rival, 
who  would  always  plead  self-protection.  Feudalism  in  Western 
Europe  towards  the  close  was  a  very  nasty  business.  Richard 
Crookback  was  no  worse  than  twenty  of  hie  rivals. 

It  was  the  anarchy  of  feudalism  that  made  the  Tudors  masters 
of  England,  and  Ireland  the  last  hope  of  "Arbitrary  Government", 
the  citadel  of  the  Stuart  cause.  While  the  sordid  and  bloody  tradi- 
tions of  the  "Great  Ones"  were  still  in  the  minds  of  the  Irish 
gentry,  they  turned  a  deaf — a  very  deaf — ear,  to  the  rising  cry  of 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1594-278.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1595—349.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1592-500. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION 

"Old  Parliamentary  Ways",  Liberty,  Fraternity  and  Equality, 
with  their  dread  accompaniment  of  "Pallida  Mors".  "What  danger 
it  is  before  God"  wrote  an  Irish  priest  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII 
"for  the  King  to  suffer  his  law,  whereof  he  hath  charge  under  Grod 
and  the  See  Apostolic,  to  allow  of  these  disorders  so  long  without 
remedy,  to  suffer  his  poor  subjects  thus  to  be  oppressed,  and  the 
noble  folk  of  the  land  to  be  at  war  with  the  shedding  of  Christian 
blood?"1  The  Divine  Eight  of  Kings  was  not  the  invention  of 
romanticists  and  divines.  It  was  the  one  weapon  that  humanity 
could  evolve  to  wear  down  "the  man  of  insatiable  ambition",  thehigh- 
wayman,  the  murderer,  the  houseburner,  and  the  other  pests  of 
society.  The  title  "Protector  of  the  Poor"  was  inserted  in  the 
Imperial  regalia  at  this  epoch  by  the  commonality  of  three  King- 
doms, who  wished  simply  to  live  at  peace,  a  lowly,  but  not  un- 
Christian  ambition. 

Tyrone  contained  at  least  a  dozen  great  men  with  ardent 
friends,  which  men  appear  over  and  over  again  in  the  State  Papers 
as  fighting  on  the  side  of  the  Crown,  or  intriguing  behind  the 
Earl's  back  to  get  rid  of  him,  and  substitute  their  own  "thraldom w- 
their  description  of  hie  rule.  This  disruption  in  Tyrone  shows  why  it 
was  that  men  supported  a  Plantation,  in  which  every  one  of  the 
aristocracy  had  "a  fixed  estate".  If  we  remember  that  not  one  of 
Tyrone's  rivals  had  "a  certain  estate",  but  were  subject  to  his 
"cuttings  and  spendings",  and  martial  law,  we  can  understand  why 
the  majority  haled  with  joy  freeholds  of  a  thousand  acres,  though, 
of  course,  there  were  some — those  with  hopes  and  ambitions — who 
could  never  quite  be  reconciled  to  a  new  order,  in  which  the 
chances  of  each  one  of  being  Lord  of  all  Tyrone,  Derry,  Fermanagh 
and  Armagh,  were  destroyed. 

The  reigning  O'Neill  dynasty  was  descended  from  Owen 
O'Neale  who  nourished  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  From  him 
sprang  five  branches,  each  one  of  whom  challenged  the  supremacy. 
The  first  was  Owen  McHugh  Neale  Moor.  This  branch  settled  in 
Antrim  and  Down.  There  were  four  sons,  two  of  whom  became 
proprietors  across  the  Bann  in  the  reign  of  James.  Neale  "offered 
to  serve"  against  the  Earl,  and  was  "the  first  gentleman  of  account 


1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3.  16.  p.  46. 


812  PLUTOCRACY  AND  EE VOLUTION 

that  came  in  from  the  traitors".  He  commanded  a  troop  of 
100  horse  in  the  State  standing  Army. l 

The  second  branch  was  Turlough  McHenry,  Lord  of  the  Fews. 
He  "flew  out"  at  first  with  the  Earl.  2  In  1600  he  "came  in,  without 
any  conditions". b  He  was  a  tributary  of  the  Earl's,  reigning  over 
a  large  portion  of  the  Archbishop  of  Armagh's  lands,  in  addition 
to  the  Fews.  King  James  granted  him  full  rights  over  the  Fews 
at  a  rent  of  40s.  This  comprised  9.900  acres.4  As  compensation 
for  the  loss  of  his  rights  over  the  Church  Lands  his  two  sons  re- 
ceived 240  acres  plantation  measure  in  the  Plantation.5  He  was 
a  candidate  for  the  representation  of  the  County  in  1613.  In  1628 
he  was  allowed  to  create  a  Manor. 6  He  is  described  in  Mount- 
morris'  secret  service  report  as  "powerful  in  Tirone  and  Armagh, 
and  should  be  looked  after". 7  He  died  in  1639. 8' 

The  next  branch  in  seniority  was  that  of  Turlough  Brasilogh. 
Turlough  had  six  sons,  every  one  of  whom  were  in  the  Eoyal1 
Army. 9  "This  Turlough",  wrote  the  discerning  Miler,  being 
"uncle  to  the  late  Shane  O'Neill,  has  many  sons,  and  thinks  he  has 
the  best  right,  being  eldest  of  the  House.  The  Earl  is  thought  by 
the  Irish  to  have  his  nomination  rather  by  the  Government  than 
by  right  after  the  manner  of  the  country". 10  Two  of  these  sons 
received  respectively  125  and  60  acres  in  the  Plantation. 11  The 
others  seem  to  have  vanished  in  the  wars. 

The  next  branch  was  the  numerous  progeny  of  Shane  O'Neill, 
the  Earl's  deadliest  enemies,  all  countenanced  by  the  Court.  One 
Hugh  captured  and  hung  as  a  terror  to  all  who  intrigued  against 
him. 12  Two  were  taken  by  the  Deputy,  and  locked  up  for  future 
use,  and  for  their  own  good.  Foolishly  they  escaped  and  fell  into 
the  Earl's  hands,  who  also  locked  them  up.  They  escaped  from 
him  and  allied  themselves  to  Mount  joy,  who  planted  them  for  a 
while  on  the  south  of  the  Blackwater  with  all  their  numerous 
following  who  had  rushed  to  their  banners.  tt  Chichester  said  that 
the  eldest  "had  many  depending  on  him",  and  gave  them  each  a 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1604—186;  1595—412;  Fynes  Morison  11-7.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1594 
—236.  3)  Fynes  Morison  II— 91.  4)  P.  R.  J.— 198.  5)  Erke  I— 171; 

C..M.  S.— 236.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1613-361 ;  1628-412.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1632—689. 

8)  L  I.  Armagh  No.  36.  9)  Fynes  Morison  H— 7.  10)  C.  S.  P.  1592—497. 

11)  C.S.  P.  1611— 206.  12)  Fynes  Morison  II— 9.  13)  Fynes  Morison 

II— 237. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  813 

pension  of  4s  a  day,  strongly  recommending  them  for  a  grant. 1 
On  the  collapse  of  the  Earl  these  two  wrote  to  Cecil  "Your  noble 
father  was  our  chiefest  patron  under  God  and  Her  Majesty. 
Much  we  would  have  done  but  for  our  restraints.  We  think  we 
have  right  unto  much  lands". 2  For  some  time  they  were  settled 
on  Maguire's  land  with  their  cattle,  and,  on  the  escheat  of  that 
county,  they  procured  a  rebate  of  rent  "owing  to  their  quality".8 
Conn,  the  eldest,  received  1.500  acres  in  fee  simple  in  that  country, 
built  a  large  house,  and  made  three  of  his  tenants  leaseholders.  * 
Sir  Toby  Caulfield,  with  whom  they  were  on  considerable  terms 
of  intimacy,  gave  him  and  his  brother  each  a  freehold  of  960  acres 
in  Derry,  where  he  farmed  a  large  area.5  Henry,  who  was 
specially  recommended  by  Chichester  received  1.500  acres,  Planta- 
tion measure,  in  Armagh. 6  He  died  shortly  afterwards  and  left 
his  estate  to  Sir  Toby. 7  Before  his  death,  however,  he  contested 
County  Armagh,  along  with  Sir  Tirlagh  McHenry  against  Sir 
Toby  Caulfield  and  Sir  John  Bourchier. 8  After  their  arduous  and 
tragic  lives,  the  two  sons  of  Shane  seem  to  have  fallen  on  good 
and  peaceful  times. 

The  next  line  was  the  Earl's.  His  eldest  brother  was  slain  by 
Shane  O'Neill.  His  youngest  Cormac  was  saved'  by  the  Crown 
from  the  wrath  of  that  great  Lord. 9  If  Cormac  is  to  be  believed, 
his  brother  was  jealous  of  him,  "lest  he  should  grow  to  be  greater 
than  him  and  had  therefore  suppressed  him  and  his  tenants",  which 
plight  he  described  as  "slavery,  continual  wrong,  and  indignities".10 
The  Government,  however,  refused  to  trust  him,  not  knowing  what 
subterranean  intrigue  there  was  between  him  and  his1  brother,  and 
he  was  despatched  to  London  where  he  remained.  What  made  them 
suspicious  was  that  his  son  had  fled  with  the  Earl,  and  that  he, 
though  he  knew  the  Earl  was  going,  did  not  report  it  in  sufficient 
time  to  stay  his  departure.  His  wife  received  a  life  interest  in  a 
plantation  allotment.  "  Another  brother  Art  McBaron  had  left  the 
Earl  and  joined  the  Crown  at  a  very  early  stage.  He  received 
2.000  acres  for  himself  and  his  wife  during  their  lifetime  in 
Armagh. 12 

1)  0.  S.  P.  1603—384,  255.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1603-18,  3)  C.  S.  P.  1611-57,  539. 
4)  C.S.P.1619— 219;  C.  M.S.— 401.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1612— 273.  6)  C.  M.  S.-54,  235. 
7)  C.  M.  S.-418.  8)  C.  S.  P.  1615-438.  9)  Fynes  Morison  II— 7.  10)  C.  S.  P. 
1607-315.  11)  C.  S.  P.  1610—53.  12)  C.  S.  P.  1611-205. 


814  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

The  last  branch  was  Tirlough  Lynagh's.  His  eon  was  Sir 
Arthur.  Sir  Arthur  was  on  the  side  of  the  Crown  all  during  the 
rebellion  with  three  of  his  sons.  He  was  slain  in  the  wars.  Tirlagh 
his  eldest  son,  who  was  a  captain  in  the  Queens  Army,  drew  a 
pension  of  3s  4d  a  day,  and,  when  the  Earl  came  in,  the  Crown 
stipulated  that  he  should  have  at  least  1.000  acres. 1  He,  however, 
had  some  of  his  father's  indentures,  and  was  sueing  the  Earl  for  a 
further  estate  of  11/000  acres,  when  the  Earl  fled  and  a  state  of 
Civil  War  arose  again. 2  Chichester  placed  him  and  his  brother 
in  possession  of  a  fort  and  3.000  acres.13  When  Sir  Caher 
O'Dougherty  "flew  out",  they  rendered  exceptional  service,  and, 
on  the  plantation  being  perfected.  Tirlough  received  3.000  acres, 
and  his  three  brothers  500  acres  each. 4 

Another  member  of  this  branch  was  Sir  Henry  Ogue  O'Neill 
who  from  the  very  day  the  rebellion  broke  out,  flung  in  his  lot 
with  the  Crown.  All  the  "Ogues"  hated  the  Earl  with  a  deadly 
hatred.  Their  feud  with,  him  was  a  recognised  feature  of  Ulster 
politics.  They,  "the  Quins,  the  Sluyte  O'Neiles,  and  the  O'Neiles- 
of  Cloghan  ever  did,  and  still,  as  much  as  in  them  lieth,  oppose 
Tyrone  and  his  sept". 5  Before  the  Plantation  Sir  Henry  received 
3.000  acres  in  the  County  of  Armagh,  and  another  2.500  in  County 
Tyrone. 6  Hugh  O'Neill  complained  bitterly  of  this  patent  and 
of  certain  "intrusions"  Henry  Ogue  had  made. 7  Sir  Henry  and 
his  eldest  son  were  killed  in  trying  to  quell  the  "rising  out"  of 
Sir  Cahir  O'Dougherty,  a  disaster  which  Chichester  deeply 
lamented,  as  Sir  Henry  Ogue  was  the  greatest  pillar  the  State  had 
in  Ulster,  save  perhaps  Henry  O'Neill  of  Antrim.  "Sir  Henry 
Ogue"  wrote  Chichester,  "was  a  loyal  subject  and  orderly  lord."8 
Immediately  a  minor  O'Neill  gathered  a  multitude  and  claimed 
the  whole  estate  by  tanistry.  The  Crown  suppressed  him  and  in- 
stalled the  heir  at  law,  then  a  boy,  by  name  Phelim,  of  unhappy 
memory.  The  authorities,  however,  were  so  alarmed  at  the  pro- 
spect of  a  boy  keeping  that  area  in  order,  that  they  decided  to  dis- 
tribute the  estate  among  the  relatives.  Katherine  Mary  Neale,  the 
mother  of  the  heir,  was  given  the  use  of  1.500  acres  for  ten  years 


1)  C.S.P.  1605-319,493, 186.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1607— 281;  1610-560,439. 

3)  C.  S.  P.  1608— 61.  4)  C.S.P.  1611— 237.  5)  C.  M.  S.— 30.  6)  C.  S.  P. 
1610—553,  564;  1608-16;  Erke  1-204.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1608-377.  8)  C.  S.  P. 
1608—564. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  815 

with  remainder  to  the  boy.  She  was  also  given  a  life  interest  in 
320  acres  with  remainder  to  the  son.  She  subsequently  married 
a  swordsman  of  the  name  of  Hovenden,  who  was  a  minor  pro- 
prietor in  the  Plantation.  This  meant  that  Phelim  had  no  mean 
estate  when  he  came  of  age.  A  court  baron,  a  yearly  fair,  a  weekly 
market,  and  all  tolls  were  inserted  in  the  patent  for  a  rent  of 
£  5.  The  remainder  of  the  estate  was  split  up  between  all  the 
uncles  and  cousins,  legitimate  and  illegitimate.  The  total  area — 
and  this  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Plantation — amounts  to 
5.400  acres.1 

Warner,  however,  says  that,  on  petition  to  Charles,  this  ar- 
rangement was  upset,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  based  on  the  will 
of  a  minor.  Be  that  as  it  may,  in  1634  about  2.000  acres,  obviously 
held  by  trustees,  was  passed  to  Bryan  O'Neill,  whether  in  trust 
or  not  for  the  others  does  not  transpire.2  In  Armagh  Phelim 
retained  600  acres  out  of  which  he  paid  his  mother  a  jointure.  3 
He  also  passed  to  his  stepfather  another  600  acres. 4  The  Tyrone 
Estate,  however,  must  have  been  very  large.  Overmeasurements  in 
the  reign  of  James  no  doubt  accounted  for  the  fact  that,  what  was 
on  paper,  about  3.000  acres,  could  be  mortgaged  to  Londonderry 
and  Dublin  Aldermen  for  £11. 700. 5  The  Inquisition  states  that 
this  estate  covered  31  townlands.  This  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Plantation,  and  is  not  included  in  its  return.  At  a  later  date  when 
the  dynasty  was  falling,  and  the  State  in  peril,  Phelim  might  have 
remembered  to  whom  he  owed  the  estate,  which  he  had  so 
"bangled"  with  mortgages. 

All  this  reveals  something  usually  not  understood  in  the  dust 
of  politics.  Hugh  O'Neill  in  his  own  territory  was  faced  by  a 
persistent  and  steady  opposition.  There  was  a  large  minority 
bitterly  and  fanatically  loyal  to  the  Crown,  who  sacrificed  life, 
liberty,  and  property  for  reasons  clear  and  obvious.  In  the  same 
circle  there  was  another  and  larger  body  of  men  who  rushed  into 
the  fray  for  "particular  ends",  hope  of  novae  res,  fear  of  the 
Earl,  and  a  desire  "to  practise  change".  At  the  first  touch  of 
actuality,  the  dangers,  discomforts,  and,  above  all,  the  fear,  that 
he,  and  not  they,  would  be  the  new  masters,  the  cabal  melted 

1)  P.  R.  J.— 262;  C.  S.  P.  1607-559,  560,  589,  590;  1612  -  44,  260.  2)  1. 1. 
Car.  I.  Armagh  No.  39.  3)  1. 1.  Car.  II.  Armagh  No.  39.  4)  1. 1.  Car.  II  Armagh 
No.  39.  5)  1. 1.  Tyrone,  Car.  IT.  No.  3. 


816  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

like  enow.  The  Earl's  personal  following  was  negligible.  Repeat 
this  in  the  four  confederate  Counties,  place  against  it  the 
hostility  of  the  Lords,  burgesses,  commons  of  the  rest  of  Ireland, 
and  we  understand  why  the  cabal  collapsed. 

It  shows  us  something  more.  It  explains  the  succes  of  the 
Ulster  Plantation.  All  the  great  men  in  Tyrone  and  Armagh 
became  independent  country  squires.  Something  like  230  became 
freeholders  in  the  Plantation,  and  some  others  received  ordinary 
patents,  like  Connor  Eoe  Maguire,  the  O'Cahans,  Magrath  and 
others  mentioned  later  on.  No  longer  was  there  war.  No  longer 
were  they  "in  the  thraldom"  of  O'Neill.  No  longer  were  they  in 
incessant  troubles  with  those  above  them,  around  them,  or 
beneath  them. 

The  clansmen  too  had  their  complaints.  The  close  of  the 
16th  Century  witnessed  the  great  uprising  of  the  minor  men.  Ir» 
the  Stuart  State  Papers  the  names  of  the  Ulster  gentry  are  never 
mentioned,  except  when  country  business  has  to  be  done,  levying 
of  subsidies,  or  contributions,  or  acting  as  sheriff,  or  supervising 
"risings  out".  They  either  suffered  the  fate  of  all  aristocracies, 
slow  decay  before  more  virile  classes,  or  married  into  the  Planter 
families,  and  appear  a  century  later  as  "the  Ascendancy  Party," 
throwing  forth  remarkably  active  branches,  held  in  great  odium 
by  the  churls.  In  1610  in  Ely  O'Carroll  we  catch  the  last  rumb- 
lings of  their  great  revolt  in  the  point  blank  refusal  of  these 
native  gentry  to  pay  a  most  modest  chiefry  to  young  John 
O'Carroll,  which  agitation,  as  we  know,  culminated  in  the 
Plantation  of  that  county. ±  In  Ulster  the  incentives  to  this 
uprising  were  far  more  violent  than  elsewhere.  The  feudal 
aristocracy  were  at  war  one  with  another.  The  minor  men  could 
always  expect  and  receive  the  support  of  rivals  to  the  feudal 
throne,  ready  to  promise  any  alleviation  in  their  gambles'  for  rural 
power.  We  know  also  to  what  extent  chiefries  had  developed 
elsewhere  in  Ireland  amongst  men  who  were  petty  compared  with 
the  Ultonian  giants.  That  of  McCarthy  More  over  a  very  potent 
person,  O'Sullivan,  is  a  study  in  feudal  rights. 

(1)  To  aid  him  with  all  his  force  when  required. 

(2)  To  pay  five  gallowglasses,  or  6s  8d  or  a  beef  for  every 
arable  acre  on  the  election  of  a  McCarthy. 

1)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  I— 9. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  817 

(3)  To  pay  2s  6d  for  every  boat  fishing  in  O'Sullivan's  bays. 

(4)  To  give  horsemeat  for  his  saddle  hors;es. 

(5)  To  pay  Is  8d  out  of  every  ploughland  to  his  huntsman. 

(6)  To  entertain   him   and   whatever    company   he   brought 
whenever  he  wished1 

What  were  the  rents  of  minor  men  if  these  were  those 
payable  by  chiefs?  What  were  the  rents  of  the  Ulster  Lords,  if 
these  were  those  of  the  weaker  Lords  of  Munster.  The  very  fact 
that  Hugh  O'Neill  paid  £  2.000  a  year  to  James  as  head  rent, 
gives  us  some  idea  of  what  must  have  been  his  taxes  on  his 
Uriaghts  and  those  of  the  Uriaghts  on  the  minor  gentry. 2  We 
know  for  a  fact  that,  all  over  Tyrone  and  Armagh,  he  drew  4s 
from  every  cow,  totalling  £  1.200  a  year,  and  this  was  but  one  of 
his  rights13.  Feudalism  had  grown  and  grown,  taxes  and  rights 
swelling  to  an  extant  that  human  nature  could  no  longer  bear 
the  burden. 

What  brought  matters  to  a  climax  was  the  devastating  extent 
to  which  "cess"  had  been  developed.  Without  this  chiefs  were 
men  of  ordinary  wealth.  With  it  they  created  a  situation  that 
turned  Prince  and  People  against  them.  A  spy  in  the  camp  of 
the  Confederation  gives  a  detailed  report  of  their  armies.  The 
force  thus  supported  was  9.562  men,  of  which  all  but  1340  kern 
were  professional  soldiers4  These  were  supported  by  the  tenants. 
They  were  "cessed"  on  the  minor  men.  In  the  field  it  was  the 
cows,  butter,  eggs,  and  cows  of  the  tenants,  that  kept  this  force 
mobile.  A  "butter  soldier"  was  a  stock  term  at  that  period  for 
a  solider  who  got  keep  but  no  pay.  The  pay  of  a  Scotch  mer- 
cenary—and the  Earl's  Scotch  forces  varied  from  1.000  to 
1.500  men — was  £2  a  year  for  a  halbert  man  and  £4  a  year  for 
a  "shot",  along  with  his  keep. 5  What  the  Irish  swordsmen 
charged  does  not  transpire,  but  the  pay  could  not  have  been 
insignificant  as,  if  the  Earl  did  not  .hire  them,  the  Crown  with 
its  long  purse,  was  in  the  market.  Bingham  in  Connaught  always 
employed  these  condottieri.  These  gentlemen  also  had  to  be 
supported  by  the  tenants.  Add  to  this  the  kern,  .  horseboys, 
peaceful  retinue,  munitions,  and  bribes  to  other  chieftains  or  State 

1)  C.A.H.— 320.  2)  D.  H.T.— 283.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1610— 532.^  .  4)  Gilbert. 
National  Manuscripts  IV— 3  Appendix  XVI.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1595-412. 

52 


818  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

officials,  and  one  begins  to  comprehend  what  it  meant  to  be  a 
tenant  to  a  feudal  lord  who  was  in  rebellion.  This  is  the  meaning 
of  the  constantly  recurring  assertion  that,  when  a  Lord  "flew 
out",  he  made  "all  his  tenants  mere  tenants  at  will."  All  previous 
agreements  and  customs  vanished  before  "horsemeat  and  man's 
meat  at  the  Lord's  pleasure  for  what  company  he  pleases 
whenever  he  comes",  which  feudal  right  came  into  full  operation 
when  the  Lord  was  threatened  by  an  outside  force.  In  Fermanagh, 
for  instance,  Maguire  had  only  a  small  demesne  "tilled  by  his 
churls"  and  a  "certain"  chief ry  of  240  beeves,  but  "marry  in  time 
of  war  he  made  himself  owner  of  all,  cutting  what  he  listed  and 
imposing  as  many  hired  soldiers  as  he  had  occasion  to  use. * 

Thoss  who  assume  that,  before  the  Ulster  Plantation,  every 
man  had  a  freehold,  and  lived  like  a  modern  Irish  farmer,  can 
easily  do  so  by  pointing  to  this  tribe  in  perpetual  occupation,  this 
indenture  or  that,  or  delve  back  into  the  Brehon  Laws  as  ex- 
pounded by  bards  in  the  prehistoric  era,  sweeping  away  all  the 
petitions  of  the  minor  men,  and  all  the  assertions  of  the  State 
officials  as  mere  bias.  This  assumption  of  a  halcyon  period  of 
Celtic  happiness  neglects  "Bonnagh't",  "cess",  coigne  and  livery. 
This  oppressive  burden,  founded  for  excellent  reasons,  and  main- 
tained in  default  of  a  better,  met  its  doom  when  converted  into 
a  tax  for  personal  ambitions,  and  when  it  was  outbid  by  the  offer 
of  Elizabeth  to  wipe  it  out  once  and  for  all,  and  to  protect  the 
subject  by  a  rent  of  a  few  pence  an  acre. 

This  "cess"  had  been  increasing  and  increasing  ever  since  the 
days  of  Shane  O'Neill.  As  one  turns  over  the  State  Papers,  one 
is  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  was  scarce  a  year  in  which  an 
Ulster  Chieftain  could  not  legitimately  say  that  he  was  at  war, 
internal  or  external,  with  a  rival,  with  the  Crown,  or  along  with 
the  Crown  "preserving  the  peace".  Men  holding  under  tenures 
like  this  were  villeins.  Quite  apart  from  the  right  of  a  Lord  to 
escheat  a  tenant,  to  move  his  holding,  to  alter  it,  to  gavell  it  for 
good  reasons,  quite  apart  from  all  this,  which  gave  rise  to  that 
"uncertainty  of  estates"  of  which  we  hear  so  much,  a  Lord  with 
the  right  to  cry  "War",  and  to  fix  his  tenants'  contribution  at  what 
he  pleased  was  an  owner  in  demesne,  and  men,  living  in  such 

1)  D.  H.  T.— 255. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  819 

conditions  for  three  generations,  were  villeins,  "tenants  at  will", 
subject  "to  the  Lord's  pleasure".  War  taxes  of  such  an  extent 
fixed  by  an  individual  and  collected  by  duress  could  not  last. 
What  would  the  English  people  have  said  if  Elizabeth  had  pleaded 
the  Armada  as  an  excuse  for  trebling  their  taxation,  without  so 
much  as  calling  her  "faithful  Commons"?  We  know  how  that 
placid  race  regarded  Charles'  very  modest  extension  of  ship- 
money,  for  which  the  judges  said  he  had  good  justification,  and 
were  Irishmen  more  fond  of  their  comfort,  less  conscious  of  their 
rights,  and  more  obedient  to  the  Earl,  than  the  English  were  to 
the  Queen?  The  secret  intrigues,  the  petitions,  mutinies,  deser- 
tions, and  general  pandemonium  in  Ulster  tell  a  very  different 
tale  to  one  who  turns  over  the  .secret  dossiers  in  the  State  Papers. 
The  forces  of  the  Crown  contained  many  an  Ulster  clansman, 
and  every  rival  to  the  Earl  and  his  allies  brought  no  mean  follow- 
ing of  those — the  phrase  is  frequent — who  "scorned  to  be 
thralled  in  his  tyrannies." 

From  all  this  we  can  understand  how  it  was  that  a  jury  in 
Donegal  and  another  in  Strabane,  the  majority  of  whom  were  the 
tenants  of  the  Confederation,  not  only  passed  a  verdict  of 
outlawry  on  the  departed  chieftains,  but  improved  on  the  Crown 
case  by  presenting  a  long  list  of  crimes  they  laid  to  the  Earl's 
charge. 1  Candidly  they  related  how  they  gave  him  great  titles 
in  his  presence,  as  "we  durst  not  give  him  any  other  title",  but 
now  that  he  was  fallen,  and  James  was  Master  of  Ulster,  they  were 
freemen,  disowning  the  fallen  dynast,  and  haling  with  joy  the 
new  order. 

During  all  the  "stirs",  at  all  times,  a  careful  student  will 
note  the  constantly  recurring  phenomenon  of  men  cheering 
around  a  revolutionary  cabal,  moving  heaven  and  earth  in  secret 
to  mar  its  success,  and  then,  on  its  failure,;  pleading  as  an  excuse 
for  their  former  ovations  that  we  "durst  not"  do  otherwise.  The 
seeming  popularity  of  all  the  Irish  "stirs"  is  superficial.  A  little 
diplomacy,  scope  for  ebullitions,  concessions  here  and  concessions 
there,  dissolve  what  at  first  sight  seems  a  national  upheaval, 
provided — and  this  proviso  is  vital — that  whosoever  "comes  in" 
gets  his  pardon,  no  matter  how  many  "painful  people  and  good 
subjects  he  may  have  cut  off." 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1608—390—392. 

52* 


820  PLUTOCRACY  AOT  REVOLUTION 

The  final  collapse  of  the  confederate  chieftains  left  tho 
authorities  face  to  face  with  a  most  serious  problem.  The  cluss 
that  had  ruled  western  Ulster  for  centuries  was  extinct.  Save  for 
Conor  Eoe  Maguire  in  Fermanagh,  there  was  not  a  man  really 
capable  of  administering  any  territory.  The  whole  area  was 
disturbed,  seriously  disturbed.  Three  generations  of  civil  war 
are  not  .the  best  training  for  good  citizens,  and  there  were,  in  the 
western  counties,  at  least  8.000  swordsmen,  unfitted  for  labour, 
•and  very  fitted  for  highway  robbery.  It  took  a  complete  generation 
to  rid  that  part  of  the  country  of  bandits,  loose  gangs  of  churls 
under  the  leadership  of  some  swordsman,  who  used  to  prowl  about 
the  hills  raiding  "cattle,  burning  houses,  and  holding  up  peaceful 
citizens.  How  were  these  to  be  controlled  by  a  State  that  could 
never  afford  to  keep  more  than  500  policemen  in  the  whole 
Province? 

There  was  .another  aspect  of  the  situation.  If,  at  any  moment, 
a  Foreign  Power  went  to  war  with  England,  all  it  had  to  do  was 
to  despatch  back  to  these  counties  the  exiled  earls  with  sufficient 
money  to  hire  swordsmen,  and  the  whole  business  would  start 
over  again,  because,  unpopular  and  hated  as  the  Earls  were,  every 
man,  dissatisfied  with  the  status  quo.  and  all  those  with  nothing 
to  lose  and  hopes  of  loot  would  rush  to  their  standards. 

Lastly  there  wae  the  eternal  question  of  the  churls,  the 
servile  population.  To  divide  Ulster  between  all  the  gentry  of 
the  septs,  giving  each  a  scope,  and,  it  is  very  doubtful,  if  there 
were  500  of  this  class  left,  was  only  to  postpone  for  a  few  years 
another  outbreak.  There  were  very  few  in  the  position  to  settle 
down  as  large  farmers,  employing  the  churls,  and  creating  a  stand- 
ard of  civility  such  as  prevailed  in  Munster.  True  it  is  that  of 
cattle  there  were  plenty.  Of  tillage  here  and  there,  but  only  here 
and  there  we  catch  glimpses.  These  Ulster  wars  also  had  devast- 
ated the  country.  Page  after  page  of  the  State  Papers  report 
burnings  and  devastations  for  20  years,  committed  either  by 
chieftains  on  each  other,  or  by  the  Crown  forces  on  them  and  their 
tenants.  Fynes  Morrison's  tour  in  Ulster  is  one  long  screed  of 
woe,  famine,  and  pestilence.  "Depopulated  Ulster",  wrote  Blenner- 
hassett,  "has  been  delivered  from  a  usurping  tyranny  and  a  lament- 
able captivity.  Despoiled.,  she  presents  herself  in  a  ragged, 
sad,  sable  robe.  There  remaineth  nothing  but  ruins  and  deso- 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  821 

lation,  with  a  very  little  show  of  any  humanity.  Goodly  Ulster, 
for  want  •  of  people,  unmanured,  her  pleasant  fields  and  rich 
grounds,  they  remain,  if  not  desolate,  worse."1 

What  future  was  there  in  store  for  a  country  such  as  this,  if 
the  Crown  simply  distributed  huge  scopes  among  the  relics  of  the 
reigning  families,  whose  rule  had  ended  in  this?  They  had  neither 
capital  nor  traditional  industry  to  raise  the  devastated  area  to  a 
higher  level.  The  utmost  they  could  do  was  to  leave  their  estates 
to  the  churls  for  grazing,  drawing  so  much  a  cow  per  annum  for 
rental,  nurturing  a  population  of  cowherds,  ripe  for  any  mischief, 
and  of  other  churls,  non-owners  of  cows,  sometimes  unemployable 
and  certainly  unemployed.  The  State  adopted,  this  policy  in 
Monaghan.  Every  clansman  received  a  scope.  Save  for  the  estates 
of  the  Earl  of  Essex  and  Lord  Blayney,  there  was  not  a  Planter  in 
the  whole  county.  What  was  more,  lands  were  given  to  tho.se  of 
"mean  quality",  i.  e.  non-clansmen,  churls,  villeins,  and  "nativi". 
The  result  was  disastrous.  No  borough  rose  to  absorb  the  in- 
dustrious population.  It  is  described  in  1641  as  "the  most  bar- 
barous, poor,  and  despicable  county  in  the  Kingdom". 2  Its  valua- 
tion for  subsidies  is  50  °/0  lower  than  those  of  Cavan,  Fermanagh, 
Tyrone,  and  Armagh,  Londonderry,  the  worst  county  in  Ireland, 
being  alone,  in  Ulster,  below  Monaghan.3  So  far  too  from  this 
policy  of  giving  every  man  a  scope  producing  peace  and  content- 
ment, in  1641  Monaghan,  in  which  there  was  no  Plantation,  and 
a  multitude  of  native  freeholds  had  the  proud,  record  of  producing 
some  of  the  ghastliest  depositions  in  the  emeute  of  that  year. 4 
Those  who  are  apt  to  ascribe  the  rising  in  1641  to  "dispossessed 
natives  recovering  their  own",  would  do  well  to  realize  that  the 
churls  in  Carrickmacross  slit  the  throats  of  40  respectable  citizens 
in  one  night,  citizens  who  had  come  in  and  purchased  lands  from 
the  natives.  A  policy  of  small  native  holdings,  without  the  intro- 
duction of  capital  and  civility,  resulted  in  nothing  but  grazing 
tracts  and  nomad  cowherds,  ready  to  fly  out  because  they  had 
nothing  of  importance  to  lose.  Any  "discontented  gentleman"  had 
thus  always  at  his  doors  an  unsavoury  weapon  with  which  to  vent 
his  wrath  on  the  State,  or  "the  painful  people". 

The  policy  on  which  James  at  last  decided  was  the  creation 

])  R.  I.  A.  P.  1-13.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1641-278.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660 

-231.        4)  H.  I.  M.  1-188, 189, 190, 191, 207-214. 


822  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

of  a  large  native  squirearchy  out  of  "fit  freeholders",  the  intro 
duction  of  a  large  number  of  servitors — men  who  were  experienced 
in  the  district — who  would  employ  the  churls,  if  the  native  gentry 
declined,  and  finally,  the  planting  of  Planters,  bound  by  rigid 
tenures  to  develop  their  estates  and  to  bring  in  colonists.  The 
plan  was  partly  a  success  and  partly  a  failure.  It  was  a  success 
where  the  original  plan  was  fully  carried  .out.  It  was  a  failure, 
where  official  laxity  allowed  abuses  to  develop.  The  Ulster  Plan- 
tation has  been  so  obscured  in  religious  and  political  polemics'  that 
few  have  ever  noticed  the  ease  with  which  it  was  adopted.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that,  if  it  had  been  based1  on  injustice  and  confiscation,  it 
would  not  have  lasted  24  hours.  All  Ulster  would  have  blazed  up 
in  rebellion.  Why  is  it  that  Ulster  lapsed  into  dead:  quiet  till  1641 
— till  that  generation  had  died  away — and  that  then  the  rebellion, 
which  synchronized  with  a  wave  of  revolution  in  Scotland  and 
England,  broke  out  with  even  worse  ferocity  in  Counties  like 
Monaghan,  Mayo,  and  Down,  in  which  no  Plantation  had  occured? 
In  order  to  comprehend  the  politics  of  1630  to  1641,  it  is  necessary 
first  to  understand  where  the  Plantation  had  made  men  contented, 
and  where  it  had1  made  men  dissatisfied. 

Six  counties  came  under  the  new  compulsory  powers.  The 
old  Earldom  of  Ulster  and  the  original  attainder,  of  Shane  O'Neill 
gave  the  Crown  legal  powers  over  certain  large  tracts.  The  attain- 
der of  the  Earl  of  Tyrcomiell,  the  Earl  of  Tyrone,  and  Sir  Cahir 
O'Doherty  brought  in  those  areas  passed  to  those  men  by  patent. 
The  demise  and  attainder  of  successive  O'Reillies  brought  in  Cavan, 
and  the  surrender  by  Connor  Roe  Maguire  of  his  patent  for  all 
Fermanagh  gave  the  authorities  full  legal  power  to  pass  patents  in 
that  Country.  The  result  was  that  the  Crown  could  now  pass 
patents  on  conditions  to  Donegal,  Derry,  Armagh,  Tyrone,  Cavan, 
and  Fermanagh.  Antrim,  Down,  and  Monaghan  were  passed  on  a 
policy  of  surrender  and  regrant.  What  is  called  the  Ulster  Plan- 
tation only  applies  to  this  first  six. 

Loose  criticism  has  called  the  escheat  of  these  six  Counties 
"confiscation  of  native  freeholds".  It  can  never  be  too  clearly 
emphasized  that  these  Royal  Titles  to  whole  Counties  were  really 
a  vesting  in  the  Crown  of  Compulsory  Powers  for  good  reasons. 
The  juries  that  passed  the  titles  were  the  leading  men  of  the 
County,  anxious  once  and  for  all  to  have  titles  made  secure,  by 


THE  ULSTEK  PLANTATION  823 

vesting  in  the  King  the  dormant  over  lordship,  just  as,  during 
the  19th  century,  Parliament  escheated  four  fifths  of  Ireland  for 
a  similar  purpose.  The  names  of  the  Jurors,  their  rank,  quality, 
findings  and  subsequent  treatment  are  all  on  record,  and  whosoever 
enacted  the  Plantation  of  these  counties,  it  certainly  was  not  a 
military  despotism  of  English  officials,  but  Irish  Clansmen,  many 
of  whom  had  been  in  rebellion. 

The  second  consideration  worthy  of  note  is  that  till  these 
titles  were  found,  native  freeholds  were  few  and  far  between.  The 
raison  d'etre  of  the  new  order  was  fixed  estates  descending  from 
father  to  son  at  a  few  pence  an  acre  for  the  major  gentry,  leases 
beneath  them,  or  beneath  the  Servitors  for  the  minor  gentry, 
leases  either  from  them  or  on  the  Church  Lands  for  lower 
substrata,  leases  also  under  those  who  received  patents  without 
Plantation  Covenants,  and  finally  an  end  to  "cess",  Coigne,  Livery, 
and  the  Arbitrary  Government  of  the  Chiefs,  serfdom  being 
definitely  abolished,  "custom",  corvee,  and  "uncertain  exactions" 
being  illegal,  and  finally  civil  rights  guaranteed  to  all  subjects  in 
His  Majesty's  Courts.  This  is  why  it  was  Irish  Juries  that  found 
these  titles  and  surveyed  the  Crown  demesne,  why  it  was  the 
Irish  Parliament  that  legalized  all  patents  so  created,  and  why  the 
Ulster  Plantation  was  regarded  as  a  new  Heaven  and  a  new  Earth 
by  the  generation  of  that  day. 

This  is  clearly  the  correct  solution  of  the  difficulties  of  this 
period.  There  is  not  a  complaint  on  record  of  confiscation.  Ireland 
was  singularly  prolific  in  complaints  at  that  period.  The  Eecusant 
Gentry  in!  1614  never  mention  it.  The  "complaints  of  the  Kingdom" 
in  1622  only  complain  of  the  "passing"  of  the  mountain  tracts 
from. the  Planters  to  patentees.  The  "Graces"  agitation  only  asked 
that  the  natives  could  be  tenants  to  the  undertakers.  Finally  the 
Manifestoes  of  the  rebels  in  1641  never  ascribe  their  "flying  out" 
to  the  Plantation  or  to  confiscation.  All  they  complained  of  was — 
and  this  was  a  minor  complaint — that,  in  the  Plantations,  natives 
were  not  allowed  to  "buy  land"  from  the  undertakers. 1  There  is 
not  a  complaint  of  unfair  treatment  made  in  a  single  petition  by 
the  generation  of  that  time,  and  this  is  all  the  more  significant  as 
Ireland  is  described  at  that  time  by  an  Irishman  as  "most  trouble- 

1)  C.S.P.  1641— 345;  C..A.  H.  App.lII-5. 


824  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

some  and  chargeable  to  the  King  in  infinite  suits  and  complaints", 
not  one  of  these  being  "confiscations"  in  the  Ulster  Plantation.  l 
On  this  large  demesne  accrueing  to  the  Crown  a  survey  was 
made  and  a  vague  and  inaccurate  estimate  of  what  might  be  done 
was  despatched  to  London.  A  subsequent  survey  by  an  Inspector 
of  the  name  of  Pynnar  gives  a  smaller  area,  but  the  discrepancy 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  Pynnar  only  inspected1  the  largest  holdings, 
to  see  if  the  larger  proprietors  had  carried  out  their  Covenants. 
The  estimate  runs  as  follows. 

Acres. 

British 162.000 

London   Corporation     .     .     .     .     .     .       47.300 

Episcopal  Lands 76.113 

Trinity   College 9.600 

Schools 2.700 

Church  Lands 21.641 

Servitors  and  Natives 116-330 

Abbey  Lands  Leased 21.552 

Patentees  and  Forts 38.214 

Corporate  Towns      .......  888 

Connor  Eoe  Maguire    .     .     .  .  .     .     .         5.980 

Certain  Irish  Patentees     .....         1.468. 

The  total — it  is  inaccurate — is  511.465  acres.2 

The  very  first  thing  one  notices  is  that  this  area  is  but  a 
seventh  of  the  six  counties.  The  first  explanation  is  that  this  is  but 
Plantation  measure.  Every  estimate  has  to  be  doubled.  Even  then 
something  like  three  million  acres  are  missing.  The  explanation 
of  this  too  is  obvious.  The  Commissioners,  at  the  beginning,  had 
no  desire  to  parcel!  out  every  acre,  accurately  jostling  one  man 
against  the  other.  They  simply  took  the  arable  and  good  lands, 
and  pasised  a  pile  of  patents  amongst  the  applicants,  for  one  man 
here  and  another  there,  with  gaps  in  between.  It  is  not  till  we 
examine  the  Patent  Rolls  that  we  find  a  vaet  discrepancy  between 
the  Plantation  returns,  and  the  patents  as  poured  out  to  all  comers. 
The  native  patentees  alone  are  worthy  of  study.  Connor  Roe 
Maguire  received  a  pension  of  £200  a  year,  a  market  and  fair, 
coupled  with  other  manorial  rights,  and  an  area  which  on  paper 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  C.  M.  S  -235. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  825 

amounted  to  6.480  acres.  In  fact,  however,  so  loose  was  the 
"general  wording  of  his  patent",  and  so  vague  the  phraseology 
that  it  must  have  covered  over  20.000  acres.1 

The  following  patents,  which  were  really  recognitions  of  old  in- 
dentures in  Londonderry,  aleo  show  how  dangerous  is  the  assumption 
that  the  original  Plantation  estimate  covered  the  whole  area.  These 
patents  are  of  the  more  importance  because  it  is  generally  assumed 
the  London  Corporation  were  granted  all  Londonderry.  We  know 
that  the  Bishop,  Castlehaven,  Docwra,  and  Philips  all  had  scopes. 
We  find  too  that  the  following  had  estates,  and  the  following  are 
not  mentioned  in  the  Plantation  Surveys. 

Acres. 

Earl  of  Antrim .     .     8.000 

Eichard  O'Cahan .     2.600 

Daniel  O'Cahan 1.000 

Gorry  McHenry  O'Cahane 540 

James  McHenry  O'Cahane 60 

Minor  O'Cahans 3.600.  - 

The  maps  of  that  country  also  show  that,  so  far  from  all  London- 
derry being  passed  to  the  London  Corporation,  a  long  semicircular 
strip  at  the  South  was  never  patented.  "It  was  well  fitted"  said 
the  Commissioners  "that  a  good  Plantation  were  made  at  the  foot 
of  Sleoghgallen."3 

In  Armagh  the  following  non-Plantation  grants  emerge. 

Acres. 

Sir  Tirlagh  McHenry  O'Neill  ....     9.900 
Sir  Henry  Ogue  and  Children  ....     5.6004       ; 
(This  was  Phelim's  estate  which  we  know  really  covered  31  town- 
lands  in  Tyrone  and  about  2.000  acres  in  Armagh.) 

Patrick   O'Hanlon .  1.440 5 

Eedmond  O'Hanlon'    .  .  .     . 900 6 

Patrick  McKerney 500 7 

John   Dillon   .  3008 


1)  P.  R.  J.-232;  C.  P.  B.  LXIV-478.  2)  Survey  and  Redistribution. 

Londonderry;  1. 1.  Car.  I.  Londonderry.  Nos.  2  and  3.     3)  Gilbert.  Irish  Manuscripts. 
LXXXVIII.  vol.  IV.  pt.  4;   vol.  IV.  pt.  2.  plate  XLIL  4)  Erk.  1—204,  171. 

5)  P.  R.  J.— 156.       6)  C.  S.  P.  1610—555.       7)  P.  R.  J.— 197.       8)  P.  R.  J.— 324. 


826  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

These  are  but  some  of  the  patents  that  sweep  away  all  the  old 
theory  that  the  natives  were  confined  to  100.000  acres  and  all  the 
rest  of  Ulster  divided  up  amongst  the  swaggering  Englishmen. 
On  the  borders  of  Tyrone  and  Fermanagh,  for  instance,  James 
Magrath  passed  at  least  15.000  acres  with  "license  to  divide  the 
premises  into  precinte  of  1.000  acres,  that  each  may  become  a 
manor  with  a  demesne  of  300  acres  or  thereabouts".1  This  looks 
like  one  of  the  "in  trust"  patents  for  subdivision  among  others. 

As  one  turns  over  the  patent  rolls  one  can  encounter  grant 
after  grant  to  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  persons,  over  and  above 
the  special  patents  of  the  Plantation. 

Another  circumstance  which  seems  indigenous  to  all  Irish 
administration  is  the  over  measurements.  The  patents  were  passed 
in  a  hurry.  The  Executive  was  going  through  one  of  its  perennial 
spasms  of  trying  to  satisfy  everyone.  In  fact  the  letters  of  all 
men  in  authority  are  those  of  people  basking  in  popularity,  lashing 
around  estates  to  all  and  sundry.  In  such  an  atmosphere  of 
geniality  and  generosity,  wine  and  conversation,  conversation  and 
wine,  "endearing  the  King  to  his  subjects",  it  was  considered  the 
acme  of  bad  taste  to  raise  legal  punctilios  over  phrases  of  "general 
words".  An  honest  gentleman  would  apply  to  have  an  Island 
added  to  his  500  acres,  he  being  addicted  to  trout  fishing.  The 
words  "and  the  adjacent  island  of  Bally  bough  with  the  fishing 
thereof"  would  be  genially  added,  amidst  mutual  compliments, 
there  being  no  other  claimant,  and  hey  presto,  for  no  additional 
rent,  the  good  man  could  get  a  handsome  little  grazing  tract  with 
a  valuable  fishery  attached.  The  prime  gentlemen  of  the  Septs 
would  be  much  amazed,  if  they  heard  that  two  centuries  later  their 
sufferings  and  confiscations  were  a  theme  for  dirges,  lamentations, 
and  angry  speeches.  Everyone  did  very  well  out  of  these  over 
measurements.  Connor  Roe  Maguire's  patent  is  a  miracle  of 
ingenuity.  Phelim  O'Neill's  patent  must  have  been  very  loosely 
drafted.  An  anonymous  screed  of  woe  in  the  Trinity  College 
library  gives  a  ludicrous  account  of  certain  of  these  transactions. 2 
At  the  prosecution  of  the  London  Corporation  before  the  Star 
Chamber  the  horrified  judges  were  treated  to  the  following  ex- 
posure. "The  surveyor,  Sir  Wm.  Parsons,  cast  up  the  particulars 

1)  P.  R.  J.— 187.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  827 

of  44.000  acres  by  balliboes  (i.  e.  120  acres)  but  these,  rising  from 
60  to  160  acres,  he  took  them  at  the  lowest  rate.  They  passed  the 
Country  by  balliboes.  The  balliboes  were  estimated  at  60  acres, 
whereas  some  were  160,  some  500  and1  some  1.000  acres,  and,  so 
by  true  computation,  they  came  to  250,  276  acres,  as  Raven,  their 
own  Surveyor,  offers  to  make  good  upon  his  life.  The  King  shall 
get  £  5.  6.  8  for  every  1.000  acres.  Of  150.000  acres — excluding 
bog  and  mountain — he  should  have  £800  a  year.  He  gets  only 
£  200,  so  that  in  24  years  he  has  been  defrauded  £  14.280."  *  On 
this  area,  which  is  usually  assumed  to  be  forbidden  ground  to  the 
natives  it  was*  specially  stipulated  that  "the  better  sort"  should 
get  freeholds  as;  Servitors,  and  the  Commoners  plots  at  rents  fixed 
by  the  Deputy.  2 

The  Dublin  Officials  had  but  the  haziest  notion  of  the 
vagaries  of  rural  balliboes.  He  who  cares  to  examine  the  Planta- 
tion patents  will  notice  that  they  are  all  based  on  balliboes.  Straf- 
ford  put  thie  widespread  performance — everyone  was  in  it — in 
scornful  and  irate  language.  "In  the  over  measurements  of  their 
proportions  and  in  the  tenures,  the  Crown  hath  sustained  shameful 
injury  by  passing  in  truth  ten  times  the  quantity  of  land  expressed 
in  the  patents,  and  reserving  throughout  base  tenures  in  soccage."  : 
And  yet  Sir  Wm.  Parsons  from  his  Survey  Office  in  Dublin  was 
quite  confident  that  "the  Plantation  was  despatched  with  a  great 
deal  of  pains,  and — though  I  say  it — with  dexterity.  There  are 
but  few  errors".4  So  far  too  from  these  over  measurements  not 
effecting  native  freeholders,  as  is  supposed,  not  only  were  the 
native  freeholders  the  chief  beneficees,  but  the  worst  sufferer  was 
the  Church,  whose  rectories  and  advowsons  vanished  into  thin  air, 
when  the  Plantation  was  perfected.  This  was  a  confiscation, 
however,  of  which  no  one  cared  to  speak,  and  it  was  one,  which 
made  Charles  and  Strafford  regard  officials  like  Parsons,  syndicates 
Ivke  the  Northern  Corporations,  and  certain  of  the  undertakers 
with  a  contempt  bordering  on  contumely,  when  they  lifted  up  their 
voices  over  "the  endowment  of  prelacy",  and  the  need  for  a  simple 
Church  as  poor  as  the  early  Apostles.5  On  Straff ord's  downfall 
a  ferocious  diatribe  was  presented  to  the  King  "on  behalf  of  the 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—196.    2)  C.  M.  S.-50,  53.    3)  L.  S.  1—132.     4)  L.  P. 
2.  s.  1—161.        5)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


828  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Lords  and  Commons  of  Ireland"  relating  how  by  "tyrannies  and 
intimidations"  he  increased  the  rent  of  honest  men  in  Ulster,  and 
actually  caused  "the  rents  of  many  of  the  natives  to  be  raised", 
whereby  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  suffered  much  injustice,  and 
demanded  as  a  recompense  lees  rent  and  Straff  ord's1  head.1 

The  discrepancy  between  the  500.000  acres  alloted  for  the 
Plantation,  and  the  4.000.000  acres  of  the  six  escheated  Bounties 
is  thus  explained  by  previous  patents,  subsequent  patents  which 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Plantation,  the  fact  that  the  acreag^ 
wae  Plantation  measure,  and  not  Statute  acres,  and  finally  the 
grotesque  overmeasnrement  of  the  proportions,  whereby  balliboes 
of  500  acres  were  estimated  in  calculations  at  but  50-  A  certain 
school  has  evaded  all  these  considerations  by  assuming  that  the 
Plantation  patents  only  envolved  arable  lands,  and  that  mountains 
and  bogs  were  thrown  in  gratis  et  sub  silentio.  This  theory  is 
based  on  the  assumption  that  the  scrivenry  of  patents  enabled  such 
a  thing  to  be  done.  There  is  no  such  thing  in  patent  lore  ae  a 
patent  for  one  thing  covering  another  by  inference. 

The  real  facts  of  the  bog  and  mountain  land  are  as  follows: — 
After  all  the  estates  had  been  parcelled  out  James  ordered  the 
Council  to  report  what  "mountains,  mountain  lands,  bogs  and 
woods"  were  not  passed  to  Bishops,  Undertakers,  Servitors,  natives 
or  others.  In  all  the  six  Counties,  except  the  Derry,  Inquisitions 
were  held.  One  or  two  Undertakers  or  officials  sat  on  each. 
Otherwise  they  were  manned  by  the  native  gentry.  The  tracts 
so  reported  as  escheated,  but  not  passed,  were  enormous.  They 
seems  to  cover  not  only  all  the  waste  land  in  the  six  Counties, 
but  some  large  slices  that  we  regard  as  arable.  The  one  ex- 
ception is  Cavan.  Here  only  one  mountain  was  unpa tented. 2 
In  or  about  the  same  time  Captain  Sandford  was  granted 
a  letter  passing  the  mountain  tracts  to  him,  as  a  reward  for 
having  gathered  together  the  swordsmen  and  led  them  to  Sweden 
and  the  service  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. 8  In  the  same  year, 
1614,  a  patent  was  passed  to  Sandford  for  all  "the  unpassed 
Mountain  bogs  and  woods"  in  the  six  counties,  except  London- 
derry, but  with  Monaghan,  at  a  rent  of  £23. 4  In  1621  "the 
Grievances  of  Ireland"  were  transmitted  to  London.  They  were 

1)  0.  S.  P.  1641-272.  2)  1. 1.  Ulster  Appendix.  3)  C.  P.  B.  VII— 270. 
4)  P.  R.  J.— 257. 


THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  829 

the  outcome  of  a  "Parliament",  one  of  those  general  conclaves  of 
rural  potentates,  the  Government  used  to  summon  for,  general 
business.  Among  the  complaints  is  one  of  'the  freeholders  of  the 
champion  of  Ulster".  They  complained  that  the  mountains  which 
by  custom  and  not  by  patent,  they  "had  always  enjoyed"  were  now 
in  the  hands  of  other  persons. l  Sandf  ord's  patent  was  "passed" 
then  to  -3ir  Toby  Caulfield,  on  the  Commission  of  Concealments, 
which  meant  that  he  was  to  compound  with  'intruders".  -  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  the  name  Sandf ord  seldom  occurs  again.  All 
we  do  know  is  that  his  children  held  a  few  hundred  acres  in 
Donegal. 3  Bramhall  compounded  with  them  for  a  Eectory  which 
was  on  their  estate.4  At  a  later  date,  1623,  another  Inquisition 
reported  that  all  the  Donegal  mountains,  bogs,  and  woods,  anr1 
some  arable  tracts  had,  up  to  that  date,  never  been  passed. 5  This 
last  Inquisition  makes  it  more  than  probable  that  the  Sandford 
and  Caulfield  patent  did  not  operate  in  at  least  one  county  as  regards 
concealments.  It  is  sufficient,  however,  for  our  purposes  to  notice 
firstly  that  the  Plantation  patents  did  not  cover  the  wastes,  and 
secondly  that  there  were  large  tracts1  in  Ulster  unpassed  and  un- 
patented  in  1623. 

The  importance  of  this  disclosure  is  that  it  reveals  straight 
away  what  had  occured.  For  an  enormous  area  there  were  only 
a  limited  number  of  claimants.  The  best  lands  were  parcelled  out 
first.  Then  there  was  a  cessation  of  the  rush.  Whole  districts  like 
South  Derry  lay  on  the  Commissioners'  hands.  A  quarter  of  a 
million  acres  in  County  Derry  could  never  have  been  passed  by 
such  methods,  if  there  was  anything  like  a  land  hunger.  Up  to 
this  time  the  wars  had  been  between  great  feudal  personalities 
for  "coshering  rights".  When  they  disappeared  the  ferocity  for 
territory  vanished.  Minor  gentry  were  amply  satisfied  with  600 
or  1.000  acres  free  of  "cess".  It  was  certainly  as  much  as  they 
could  handle.  When  we  pass  from  them  to  farmers  who,  for  the 
first  time  in  their  lives,  got  long  leases  of  Church,  Abbey,  Servitor, 
and  patentee  estates,  one  understand  why  it  was  that  men  passed 
whole  baronies  of  waste  territory  without  anyone  complaining. 
We  must  remember  too,  that  these  patentee  estates,  haying  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Plantation  proper,  we're  very  many.  Sir  Thomas 

1)  L.  P.  II.  s.  Ill— 140.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  3)  1. I.  Car.  I.  Donegal;  No.  27. 
4)  C.  I.  vol.  XII.  5)  1. 1.  Jac.  I.  Donegal.  1623.  No.  14. 


830  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Philips  had  a  large  estate  round  Limavady.1  The  Bagnalls  had  an 
ancestral  estate  of  8.000  acres  in  South  Armagh.2  One  of  the  Wa- 
terf ord  Dowdalls  had  an  estate  in  Cavan  before  the  Plantation  was 
ever  heard  of.  So  too  had  Lords  Slane  and  Fingall.  The  former's 
estate  covered  a  whole  barony. 3  Two  swordsmen,  Fleming  and 
Tyrrell,  had  purchased  large  tracts  before  the  Plantation  era.4 

In  fact  what  with  abbey  leases,  feoffments,  and  mortgages 
the  chieftains  and  freeholders  of  the  Tudor  Period  had  created  a 
large  number  of  freeholders  whose  titles  stood  good,  and  were- 
either  recognized  by  Inquisitions,  or  came  under  a  surrender  or 
regrant.  For  instance,  Hugh  O'Neill  had  made  four  long  leases 
of  certain  of  the  Abbey  lands  in  Derry. 5  Rory  O'Donnell's  con- 
veyances before  the  Plantation  to  Dublin  money  lenders  left  no 
small  tract  outside  the  power  of  the  Crown.  He  had  "blistered" 
his  huge  estate  so  badly  that  his  revenue  was  only  £  300  a  year. 6 
These,  though  "void  in  law"  could  not  be  escheated  nor  re-alloted 
on  the  grounds  of  public  policy. 7  The  Bill  of  Attainder  against 
Hugh  O'Neill  was  accompanied  by  a  special  Act  of  State  guaran- 
teeing all  these  previous  sales,  mortgages  and  f  eoffments. 8'  A 
striking  example  of  this  is  a  mortgage,  held  by  Alexander  McAulee 
on  Tyrconnel,  being  regarded  as  a  good  title  to  the  land.  9 

This  is  the  explanation  of  the  large  number  of  owners  who 
never  figure  in  the  Plantation  patents,  but  who  appear  in  the  In- 
quisitions as  "possessed"  before  the  flight  of  the  Earls,  and  yet 
remaining  "seised"  in  the  reign  of  Charles.  In  fact,  all  the  old 
traditional  stories  of  the  Plantation  vanish  when  the  system  is 
probed.  There  was  no  system.  The  "prime  gentlemen"  got  hand- 
some estates,  and  they  vanish  from  the  scene.  A  large  amount  of 
old  titles  were  also  recognized.  A  flood  of  patents  and  compen- 
sations are  poured  over  the  Province.  A  large  number  of  minor 
gentry  become  freeholders  or  leaseholders  under  patentees,  and 
native  Ulster  relapses  into  quiet  for  a  generation.  The  beautiful 
plans  of  James  were  much  contorted  in  Ireland  by  laxity,  rule  of 
thumb  methods,  and  a  certain  casual  policy  of  taking  the  line  of 
least  resistance. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—211.  2)  1. 1.  Armagh.  3)  1. 1.  Cavan.  Jac.  1. 1625; 
P.  R.  J;— 145, 238.  4)  S.  P.  1606—565;  P.  R.  J.— 10, 134.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1610—565. 
6)  C.  S.  P.  1604-469;  1. 1.  Appendix.  Donegal.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1610-571.  8)  C.  S.  P. 
1614—508,  522.  9)  M.  P.  R.  Charles.— 147. 


Chapter  II 
THE  UNDERTAKERS 

With  them  it  is  a  sufficient  motive  to  destroy  an  old  scheme  of 
things  because  it  is  old.  They  always  speak  as  if  they  were  of  opinion 
that  there  is  a  singular  species  of  compact  between  them  and  their 
magistrates,  which  binds  the  Magistrate  but  has  nothing  reciprocal  in 
it,  but  that  the  Majesty  of  the  people  has  a  right  to  dissolve  it  without 
any  reason  but  its  will.  Their  attachment  to  their  country  is  only  so 
far  as  it  agrees  with  some  of  their  fleeting  projects.  BURKE. 

We  now  turn  to  the  Undertakers.  This  unfortunate  class 
have  been  regarded  in  orthodox  history  as  beetle  browed  tyrants, 
Protestant  prototypes  of  the  Inquisition,  who  drove  all  the  Irish 
to  the  hills,  seized  on  their  lands,  and  thirty  years  afterwards 
met  the  fate  they  deserved.  I  have  yet  to  meet  in  all  the  docu- 
ments of  the  period  a  single  man  whose  estate  was  taken  away 
and  presented  to  a  planter,  he  getting  no  estate  elsewhere,  or  no 
adequate  compensation.  The  generation  of  that  day  regarded  the 
Plantation  as  a  modern  generation  regards  a  largesse  from  the 
taxes.  No  cess !  No  feudal  rents !  Estates  for  2d  an  acre !  Long 
leases  going  a  begging!  What  more  could  man  want? 

To  understand  how  room  was  found  for  these  Undertakers 
\ve  must  realize  that,  in  fact,  as  well  as  in  theory,  the  King  was 
now  the  Overlord  of  Ulster.  Men  regarded  him  quite  as  much 
as  a  head  Landlord,  as  do  the  tenants  on  an  estate  to-day.  This 
being  so,  was  he  not  entitled  to  a  demesne?  Hugh  O'Neill  seems 
to  have  held  all  Tyrone  in  demesne.  Was  not  the  King  entitled 
TO  a  portion?  Davies  put  it  not  inaptly.  "Twenty  years  since  Sir 
John  O'Eeilly,  being  then  chief  of  Cavan,  the  inhabitants  agreed 
that  he  should  have  two  entire  baronies  in  demesne,  and  10s  out 
of  every  poll  in  the  other  five,  which  is  more  than  His  Majesty, 
who  hath  a  title  to  all  the  land  in  demesne,  as  well  ae  to  a  chief  ry. 


832  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

had  now  given  to  Undertakers  or  reserved  to  himself."1  Tyr- 
connell  in  1608  had  made  all  the  inferior  Lords  tenants-at-will 
in  law  and  in  fact. 2  Tyrone,  who  by  indenture  had  only  a 
chief ry  of  cows  and  a  "rising  out"  from  all  Londonderry,  actually 
sought  to  make  all  that  County  demesne,  with  full  right  to 
charge  whatever  rent  he  pleased.  This  rent  he  tried  to  collect 
both  by  force  and  petition  to  the  Council.3  If  these  Lords  could 
assert  such  claims,  seriously,  in  the  face  of  the  whole  Kingdom, 
could  not  the  Sovereign  overlord,  whom  the  whole  area  had 
acclaimed  as  owner  in  fee  and  demesne,  reserve  part  of  the 
country  as  demesne  for  himself,  charging  the  outlying  tenants 
but  a  few  pence  an  acre,  and  no  Coigne,  Livery,  or  Ghiefry?  When 
this  was  achieved,  without  taking  from  any  man  his  own,  it 
became  clear  equity.  If  James  had  put  the  tracts  he  claimed  for 
demesne  up  for  auction,  or  mortgaged  them  to  money  lenders, 
he  would  have  been  doing  what  Tyrconnell  did.  When,  however, 
he  let  them  at  specially  low  rents  to  men  who  developed  the 
estate,  out  of  whose  activities  the  neighbouring  tenants  benefited, 
his  action  was  regarded  with  as  much  equanimity  as  that  of  a 
modern  landlord,  who  presents  a  waste  tract  to  a  factory  owner 
in  the  hope  of  developing  the  area. 

It  has  been  assumed  that  the  six  counties  were  thronged  with 
small  holders  who  were  displaced.  The  population  of  Ireland 
in  1618  was  only  500. 000. 4  This  may  appear  a  startling  estimate, 
but  it  is  borne  out  by  all  other  estimates.  Blennerhasset  in  1610 
put  it  at  very  much  the  same  figure.5  Irish  counties  at  that  time 
were  very  thinly  populated.  Peaceful  Clare  in  1640  contained 
only  440  English  and  1647  Irish.6  In  1652  the  total  population 
was  but  850.000. 7  This  was^  of  course,  after  a  devasting  war  and 
another  colonization,  but  if  we  allow  for  a  large  immigration 
between  1620  and  1640  it  is  doubtful  if  the  population  of  Ireland 
was  a  million  in  1640.  Every  document  of  the  period  bears  out 
the  sparse  population.  Perrott  says  that  in  his  time  "scarce  one 
fourth  of  Ireland  is  at  this  hour  manured". 8  Cavan  was  the  only 
populous  County  of  the  six,  and  even  there  "the  natives  were 


1)  D.  H.  T.  1—283.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1610—570.  8)  C.  S.  P.  1607—156.  4)  Ven. 
1618—557.  5)  R.  I.  A.  P.  I— 13.  6)  T.  C.  D.  1.  5.  27.  7)  P.  P.  S.— 154.  8)  R.  I. 
A.  P.lV-3a. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS 

not  able  in  people  or  worth  to  manure  the  half".  This  was  the 
county,  in  which  most  natives  got  freeholds  or  patentee  estates, 
only  one  barony  being  reserved  for  undertakers.1  The  "most  part" 
of  that  country  was  retained  by  native  freeholders  or  mortgagees. 2 
Davies  says  that  Sir  John  O'Beilly  had  kept  two  baronies  in 
demesne,  but  Chichester  states  that  he  had  really  retained  four, 
so  that  the  Crown  escheat  of  one  was  not  so  drastic  as  at  first 
appears.  3  In  Donegal  Chichester  states  that  the  freeholds  given 
to  the  heads  of  the  McSwineys — and  they  were  large  freeholds — 
were  more  "than  they  and  their  septs  will  be  able  to  manure  in 
forty  years".4  In  Tyrone  and  Londonderry  there  were  only  5.000 
"men  able".5  Eleven  years  later,  after  a  long  peace,  a  census  of 
the  county  and  the  two  cities  gives  the  native  tenants  at  2.324:, 
the  woodkern  at  300,  and  the  servants  and  "young  men  living 
with  their  parents"  at  1.400. 6  All  this  reveals  a  very  small  popula- 
tion in  Ireland,  especially  in  Ulster,  "depopulated  Ulster  that  for 
want  of  people  remains,  if  not  desolate,  worse".7 

It  is  very  difficult  to  get  any  explicit  information  as  regards 
numbers  of  freeholders  by  tanistry,  save  in  the  case  of  Cavan, 
which  Chichester  regarded  as  the  one  County  in  wiiich  freeholders 
bad  survived  feudalism,  but  a  resume  of  the  Inquisitions'  of  Leitrim 
gives  us  some  idea  how  freeholders  had  either  been  suppressed 
during  the  centuries  by  the  Lords,  or  had  been  destroyed  in 
the  stirs.  "The  present  wasteness  of  that  country  proveth  both  the 
facility  and  the  necessity  of  a  Plantation." — So  wrote  an  official 
to  the  King. — "For  when  it  was  given  in  charge  to  the  inhabitants 
of  O'Rorke's  country  to  present  how  many  persons  they  could 
find  there  were  fit  to  be  freeholders,  they  presented  no  more 
than  42  persons,  which  is  about  8  persons  a  barony,  and, 
therefore,  since  the  country  people  are  not  able  to  inhabit 
the  tenth  part,  it  were  miserable  to  leave  unto  them  the  other 
nine  parts  in  an  age  so  flourishing  of  people  and  so  scarce 
of  land."8  On  the  other  hand  County  Monaghan  in  1585  con- 
tained 200  freeholders.  It,  as  we  know,  was  not  planted.  Fer- 
managh in  1605  contained  only  41  freeholders.  The  importance 


1)  C.  S.  P.— 1608— 55.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1606—565.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1606—561. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1608—57.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1609—159.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1622—377.  7)  R.  I. 
A.  P.  1—13.  8)  Buccleugh  M.  S.  S.  Montague  House.— 76. 

53 


834  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

of  these  two  inquisitions  is  that  they  show  that  where  the  chief 
was  a  "great  one"  there  were  few  freeholders,  and  where  there 
were  only  several  minor  chiefs,  the  freeholder®  were  many. l  When 
the  "prime  gentlemen"  of  the  septs  were  given  portions  "accord- 
ing to  their  quality",  portions  which  were  as  much  as  they  could 
"manure"  and  which  .seemed  like  opulence  when  free  of  "cess", 
there  were  left  the  large  demesnes  of  the  extinct  feudal  houses, 
the  large  grazing  tracts  over  which  no  one  had  a  fixed  estate,  and 
on  which  creaghts  roamed  for  a  tribute  to  the  chief,  and  dotted 
about  these  were  scattered  colonies  of  serfs, — "nativi" — who  could 
be  bought  and  sold  as  chattels  by  their  betters,  and  had  not  even 
those  "transitory  and  scrambling  possessions"  of  the  clansmen. 
"Some  men  of  civility"  said  Chichester  "should  be  seated  among 
them  to  instruct  and  defend  them.  It  is  death  to  the  great  Lords 
that  their  tenants  should:  know  more  than  brute  beasts,  by  reason 
their  greatest  advantage  of  profit  in  time  of  peace,  and  opposition 
in  days  of  rebellion  ariseth  from  the  ignorance  of  the  meaner 
sort."2  A  discerning  stranger  one  time  noted  that  "the  wiser  sort 
think  the  churls  best  for  the  public  good,  making  them  peaceable, 
as  nothing  sooner  makes  them  kick  against  authority  than  riches"/ 
The  Irish  .Lords  held  firmly  by  this  theory  and,  in  the  Stuart 
times,  frequently  warned  the  Government  that  the  policy  of  uplift 
for  the  churls  would  cause  many  misfortunes.  An  Englishman, 
however,  reforming  the  world  seldom  pays  head  to  such  warnings, 
and  goes  blundering  on  his  way  to  the  confusion  of  others  who 
suffer  for  his  abracadabra. 

It  is  accordingly  doubtful  if  there  were  500  clansmen  in  the 
escheated  counties  outside  Cavan.  Certainly,  accordingly  to  the 
depositions,  only  about  30  took  part  in  "the  rising  out"  of  1641, 
whom  the  deponents  of  the  depositions  marked,  with  the  epithet 
"gent".  All  the  others  are  "labourer"  and  occasionally  "farmer". 
Davies,  contrasting  the  mentality  of  the  Cavan  freeholders  with 
the  inhabitants  of  ^Fermanagh  and  Donegal  says  that  the  former 
"had  learned  to  talk  of  a  freehold,  which  the  poor  natives  of  the 
other  counties  could  not  speak  of".4 

The  whole  idea  of  Planters  wasj  that  where  planters  came 
their  neighbours  prospered.  Their  capital,  their  methods,  the  sense 

1)  1. 1.  Surveys  of  Monaghan  and  Fermanagh.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1606—562.  3)  Fynes 
Morison  III-160.  4)  D.  H.  T.-277. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  835 

of  security  they  introduced,  produced  what  modern  economists 
called  "site  value".  Modern  Colonial  Governments  spent  millions 
on  alluring  a  similar  class  of  men  into  their  wastes.  "Half  your 
land"  said  Davies  "lies  waste  because  that  which  is  habited  is  not 
improved  to  half  its  value,  but  when  the  undertakers  come — there 
being  place  and  scope  enough  both  for  them  .and  you — 500  acres 
will  be  of  better  value  than  5.000  now."1  These  undertakers  had 
no  light  task.  Half  the  confusion  as  regards  their  position  is  due 
to  a  belief  that  they  took  over  a  modern  tract  of  Irish  country- 
land,  with  roads,  railways,  markets,  ditches,  tilth  and  population 
as  it  is  at  present,  opened  a  rent  office,  and  relapsed  into  a  sub- 
urban villa.  There  is  not  a  mention  of  a  road  in  Ulster.  "In  Fer- 
managh we  found  no  manner  of  town  or  other  civil  habitation".2 

The  conditions  under  which  these  undertakers  entered  were 
onerous.  They  had  to  pay  a  rent  of  Id  an  acre.  A  holding  of  over 
2.000  acres  was  held  under  in  Capite  tenures.  Such  a  tenant  had 
to  build  a  Castle  witn  a  court  and  a  moate.  If  he  held  1.500  acres 
he  had  to  build  a  stone  house.  This  house  had  to  be  two  stories 
high.3  He  had  to  purchase  arms  and  equip  his  tenants.  He  was 
tied  either  to  residence  for  five  years,  or  had  to  employ  a  suitable 
agent.  For  five  years  he  was  forbidden  to  alien  a  third  of  the 
estate,  and  the  other  two  thirds  could  only  be  aliened  by  sale  or 
a  lease  of  40  years.  Connacre  leases  were  absolutely  forbidden. 
No  such  thing  as  a  tenant  at  will  or  a  short  lease  was  allowed, 
nor  any  "uncertain  rent".  Lastly  they  had  to  imp.ort  ten  families 
from  England  or  the  civilized  parts  of  Scotland.  The  type  of 
settlers  who  came  into  Down  were  debarred.  These  were  regarded 
"as  more  trouble  and  less  profit"  than  the  worst  of  the  kern.4  All 
this  had  to  be  done  under  a  bond  for  £  400  and  a  clause  of  for- 
feiture.5  The  servitors  had  lesser  covenants,  and  the  native  pro- 
prietors were  only  ordered  to  build  a  house,  grant  leases,  and 
abstain  from  "uncertain  exactions".  All  parties  were  exempt 
from  rent  for  four  years.6 

Two  clauses  have  been  the  origin  of  much  polemies.  The  first 
was  that  the  undertakers — and  they  only — should  not  sublet  save 
to  those  wTho  took  the  Oath  of  Supremacy.  This  was  by  no  means 

1)  D.  H.  T.— 282.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1606—562.  3)  C.  8.  P.  1609—183.  4)  C.  S. 
P.  1608—85.  5)  C.  M.  S.— 154,  270.  6)  C.  M.  S.  61—64;  R.  I.  A.  P.  I— 10. 

53* 


836  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

such  a  sweeping  clause  of  religious  exclusion  as  may  at  first  seem. 
In  the  first  place  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  had  not  yet  become  tin* 
mark  of  religious  cleavage  that  it  now  is.  One  has  only  to  read 
in  the  Ulster  Inquisitions  the  scornful  words  used  by  the  native 
juries  as  regards  Church  lands,  sold  by  "Bishops  appointed  by 
Bulls  from  the  Pope  of  Home",  to  realize  that  the  mentality  of 
men,  whom  one  cannot  call  Protestants,  inclined  far  more  towards 
Eoyal  than  Papal  Supremacy.  The  oath  was,  however,  fast  be- 
coming a  religious  and  not  a  purely  political  question,  and  by  the 
reign  of  Charles  it  was  the  mark  of  religious  cleavage,  but  we  are 
still  at  the  tail  end  of  the  era,  when  it  was  a  question  as  to 
whether  the  Pope  or  the  King  was  to  rule  Ireland.  There  was  not 
an  Irishman  of  any  eminence  who  had  not  taken  the  oath  as  a 
mark  of  a  law-abiding  subject.  In  the  era  of  peace,  however, 
which  was  just  beginning,  it  was  fast  becoming  a  religious  badge 
and  not  the  test  of  "a  bringer  in  of  Spaniards".  As  we  know  the 
Stuarts  seldom  tendered  it  to  an  official  or  a  barrister.  Never- 
theless there  was  one  great  specious  justification  for  it  in  the  eyes 
of  those  who  drafted  the  Plantation.  Elizabeth's  life  had  fre- 
quently been  attempted  by  the  Vatican.  The  Pope  had  issued  a 
Bull  giving  great  spiritual  favours  to  those  who  supported  the 
Earl  of  Desmond.  He  financed  two  Invasions  of  Ireland.  The 
Colleges  of  Salamanca  and  Valladrohid  had  issued  a  canonical 
rescript  stating  the  no  Eoman  Catholic  should  remain  quiescent 
under  "a  heretical  prince".  A  party  of  the  Priests  had  put  them- 
selves at  the  head  of  the  riots  in  the  Southern  Cities,  refusing* 
to  proclaim  James  as  King.  The  Priests  in  Donegal  had  haled 
Cahir  O'Dogherty  as  "a  martyr",  though  the  houses  he  burnt  and 
the  lives  he  took  were  those  of  respectable  Eoman  Catholics.  On 
the  flight  of  the  Earls  the  Papal  Internuncio  in  Brussels  was  ne- 
gotiating a  plot  for  the  invasion  of  Ireland.1  The  Eoman  Catholic 
Bishop  of  Down  had  just  been  detected  in  a  seditious  plot  and  had 
been  executed.  Eight  on  the  heels  of  this  affair  the  Vatican 
appointed  as  Archbishop  of  Tuam,  Hugh  O'Neill's  Secretary,  and 
as  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  Oviedo,  who  had  taken  part  in  the 
Spanish  invasion  of  Munster.  "This",  wrote  Lombard  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Primate,  "will  impede  the  reconciliation  of  Ireland.  It 

1)  A.  H.  IV— 268-272. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  837 

will  disturb  the  minds  of  Catholics.  The  appointment  of  one 
known  to  the  Government  to  be  too  zealous  in  stirring  up  wars 
has  resulted  in  the  bringing  in  of  many  Scotch  and  English  into 
the  territory  of  the  Earl,  Scotch  and  English  who  are  heretics. 
Even  in  Dublin  we  have  been  accustomed  to  being  treated  with 
sufficient  liberty.  Now  there  will  be  a  change."1 

If,  in  an  area  long  dominated  by  O'Neill's  friars  and  peopled 
with  serfs,  who,  if  not  Roman  Catholics,  were,  at  any  rate,  hostile 
to  the  Reformation,  the  Government  decided  to  import  Under- 
takers and  Colonists,  it  stood  to  reason,  in  the  temper  of  the  times, 
that  a  clause  compelling  these  to  let  only  to  Protestants  was  not 
an  exhibition  of  bigotry.  It  was  protection.  As  Strafford  one  time 
said  "If  the  Crown  is  embroiled  in  War  and  they  are  emboldened 
by  promise  of  foreign  successors,  they  may,  in  an  instant,  be  blown 
up  by  the  Priests  into  a  tempest",  and  in  Ulster  this  applied  with 
treble  effect.  Hugh  O'Neill  was  allowed  by  the  Vatican  to  no- 
minate the  Parish  Priests  in  Armagh  and  Derry. 2  We  know,  from 
all  subsequent  events  that  those  Priests  were  belligerent  politicians, 
agents  for  O'Neill,  for  Spain,  and  the  ever  hostile  Vatican.  One 
of  the  Magistrates  in  Donegal,  Everdeen  McSweeney,  complained 
bitterly  of  these  agents — viz.  "Instigators  of  the  disturbances". 
"The  greatest  politican  and  traveller  in  Ireland"  he  calls  another.3 

Apart  from  the  fact  that  this  only  applied  to  the  Undertakers' 
estates,  and  not  to  the  Servitors,  natives,  Episcopal,  or  ordinary 
Patentee  lands — by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  six.  counties — the 
policy  was  not  pursued.  The  great  bulk  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  were  law-abiding  subjects,  more  anxious  to  live  peace- 
ably, than  to  resuscitate  wans.  We  know  too,  for  a  fact  that  the 
majority  of  the  Priests  ambitioned  a  very  quiet  life.  Cardinal 
Rinnucinni  regarded  them  as  "traitors  and  almost  heretics"  be- 
cause they  did  not  see  eye  to  eye  with  his  policy  of  revolution  and 
blood.  His  bete  noir  were  "the  old  Bishops  and  Priests  who  lived 
at  the  time  of  the  Suppressions  and  the  Stirs.  The  Bishops  are 
hike  warm.  The  regulars  are  much  more  so".4  The  native  gentry, 
basking  comfortably  on  their  freeholds,  also  cast  a  very  surly  eye 
on  the  efforts  of  fiery  friars  from  Salamanca  to  restore  Hugh 
O'Neill  and  his  "cess"  by — of  all  actions — stirring  up  the  churls 

1)  A.  H  III-296,  297.  2)  L.  S.  11—63;  A.  H.  1-39— 45.          3)  C.  S.  P. 

1641—344.        4)  R.  E.— Ul.  142. 


838  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

to  attack  men  with  whom  they  dined  and  wined,  into  whose  families 
they  intermarried,  and'  from  whom  they  borrowed  money,  ploughs 
and  horses.  The  Irish  upper  classes  were  by  no  means  such  ardent 
eiithusiastics  for  religion  or  national  distinctions  as  the  demagogic 
historians  of  a  later  date  assumed.  "The  nature  of  the  Irish", 
wrote  an  official  to  the  King,  "his  never  to  suffer  the  bringing  in  of 
British  if  they  can  keep  them  out,  but  once  they  are  amongst 
them  they  bargain,  chop,  and  sell  to  them."1  The  Depositions 
absolutely  bear  this  out-  Phelim  O'Neill,  for  instance,  had  over 
fifty  English  tenants,  whom  he  brought  in  before  vanity  and  bank- 
ruptcy drove  him  along  the  path  of  Revolution,  Novae  res  et 
Novae  tabulae,  in  which  these  unfortunates  were  massacred  "though 
they  were  well  beloved  by  their  neighbours  the  Irish,  and  differed 
not  in  anything,  save  the  Irish  went  to  Mass  and  they  to  the 
Protestant  Church".  So  swore  one  of  "the  Irish,  of  whom  this 
deponent  is  one". 2 

In  this  piping  time  of  peace,  however,  this  atmosphere  soon 
rendered  this  veto  of  no  import.  Like  the  proclamation  ordering 
all  Priests  to  leave  the  Kingdom,  or  all  barristers  to  take  the  Oath 
of  Supremacy,  it  was  a  measure  like  martial  law,  aimed  only  at 
.the  ill  disposed  subject.  Lord  Castlehaven,  the  greatest  of  the 
Undertakers,  was  a  Roman  Catholic.  So  too,  were  the  Hamiltons, 
and  Sir  Robert  Stewart.  3  On  the  estate  of  the  Derry  Corporation 
there  were  24  Priests.  4  In  circumstances  such  as  these,  the  clause 
insisting  on  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  was  but  a  farce.  In  fact  so 
far  from  the  Plantation  suppressing  Roman  Catholicism,  it  was 
on  the  Undertakers'  estates  that  it  flourished  most,  more  than  in 
any  other  part  of  Ireland.  The  Undertakers  were  men  of  commerce 
and  peace,  and  where  they  ruled  the  Priests  throve.  What  was 
more  they  encouraged  and  worked  with  the  Priests,  as  with  persons 
who  could  manage  the  churls,  while  the  relics  of  feudalism  were 
far  from  encouraging  "intermediaries  between  them  and  their 
people".  The  agents  of  the  London  Corporation  made  clerical  dues 
legal  debts  in  their  manorial  Courts.  They  "entertained"  Priests 
as  privileged  tenants,  servants,  and  agents.  They  supported  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Catholic  ecclesiastical 
Courts,  where  "many  were  divorced  for  not  being  married  by  the 

1)  Buccleugh  M.  S.  S.  1—77.         2)  H.  I.  M.  1—203.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1614-483. 
4)  A.H.Y— 3. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  839 

Popish  Priests,  et  propter  odia  as  they  called  it".  Till  1627  there 
was  scarcely  a  Church  of  Ireland  Glebe  allowed  in  the  whole  Derry 
Plantation,  the  Church  Lands  being  retained  by  the  Corporation. 
In  no  other  part  of  Ireland  did  Roman  Catholicism  receive  such 
privileges  and  official  assistance  as  it  did  in  Derry,  on  the  Hamilton 
Estates,  and  on  "many"  of  the  other  Undertakers  estates.  "Many" 
adventurers  found  it  excellent  business  to  frown  on  the  Church 
of  Ireland,  to  "discourage  Protestantism  and  to  countenance 
Papists". 1  Accordingly  we  read  that  they  encouraged  the  missions 
of  the  Priests,  whom  they  "countenanced  with  their  usual  famili- 
-arity  at  their  tables,  making  use  of  them  to  let  their  lands  at 
dearer  rates  than  otherwise  they  could". 2  This,  coupled  with  the 
fact  that  in  Derry  and  Armagh,  the  exiled  Earl®  nominated  the 
Priests,  is  why,  in  the  Ulster  Plantation  belligerent  Roman 
Catholicism  flourished  more  than  in  any  other  part  of  Ireland. 
The  standard  of  the  Priests  so  nominated,  so  encouraged,  and  so 
utilised  was  far  lower  than  that  of  the  South.  If  the  comments 
of  the  Priests  of  Leinster  and  Munster  are  any  test,  it  is  very 
-clear  that  very  many  of  the  Ulster  Priests  were  of  the  servile  class, 
peasants  with  no  education.  The  extraordinary  powers  they  were 
-accorded,  agrarian  and  official,  by  the  Undertakers,  made  many 
of  them  believe  that  they  had  only  to  preach  a  Holy  War,  and  all 
Ireland  became  their  possession.  In  other  parts  of  Ireland,  being 
ordinary  subjects,  the  Priests  were  not  so  anxious  "de  bellis 
renovandis". 

What,  however,  is  of  more  importance  was  the  clause  that  the 
Undertakers  should  have  no  Irish  tenants.  This  clause  was  the 
-corner  stone  of  the  Plantation,  as  far  as  "the  introduction  of 
civility"  was  concerned.  The  great  need  in  Ireland  at  that  moment 
was  bona  fide  farmers  and  artizans,  in  fact  population.  The 
scarcity  of  this  class  in  many  parts  of  Ireland  was  the  outstanding 
evil  of  the  period.  Hugh  O'Neill's  demand  that  his  tenants  be 
sent  back  to  him  was  one  symptom  of  the  difficulty  of  "manuring 
the  ground". 3  Neill  Garve  O'Donnell,  in  the  absence  of  Rory 
O'Donnell  from  Donegal,  "possessed  himself  of  the  latter's 
tenants",  leaving  Rory  financially  embarrassed.4  The  bordering 
Lords  used  to  bribe  Tyrone's  cow-agents  "to  procure  the  tenants 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1630—509.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-199,  207.  3)  C.  S.  P. 

1604—160.        4)  C.  S.  P.  1604— 161. 


840  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

to  live  under  them".1  If  there  was  this  scarcity  of  creaghts  over 
the  area,  what  must  have  been  the  scarcity  of  the  bona  fide  farmers? 
"Creaghting"  may  have  been  said  to  have  been  the  national 
industry.  Davies  ascribed  it  to  the  wars  of  the  chiefs,  the  depre- 
dations of  "cess",  and  the  absence  of  "fixed  estates"  under  gavel- 
kind.  "For  who",  he  said  "would  plant  or  improve  or  build  upon 
that  land  which  a  stranger  whom  he  knew  not  would  possess  after 
his  death?  That,  as  Solomon  notes,  is  one  of  the  strangest  vanities 
under  the  sun.  This  is  the  true  reason  why  Ulster  is  so  waste  and 
desolate  at  thi©  day".2  "Most  of  the  nation  embrace  grazing", 
wrote  another  scribe,  "as  it  reapeth  more  profit  than  tillage  and 
requires  less  labours.  That  is  why  there  is  no  buildings,  though 
there  is  plenty  of  wood."3 

This  scarcity  of  tenants  was  such,  that,  while  the  natives  re- 
mained as  ^cottiers  and  labourers  on  the  Undertakers'  estates,  the 
servitors  had  no  one  to  whom  'they  could  let  their  lands,  and,  even 
twenty  years  later,  with  the  population  doubled,  and  the  creaght 
owners  still  offering  their  large  rents,  Phelim  O'Neill  had1  to  intro- 
duce fifty-five  Englishmen  to  people  his  lands,  and  "manure  the 
soil".4 

Scarcity  of  tenants,  and  what  there  were,  far  more  devoted  to 
connacre  grazing  than  tillage,  made  it  absolutely  necessary  to  in- 
troduce a  large  number  of  yeomen  farmers,  if  Ulster  was  to  be 
a  paying  proposition.  One  of  the  fulcra  of  the  Plantation  was  "to 
diaw  the  natives  from  running  up  and  down  the  Country  with 
cattle,  and  to  settle  them  in  towns  and  villages".5  The  first  re- 
quisite for  this  was  the  Plantation  of  farmers  and  the  introduction 
of  artizans,  and  no  Undertaker  would  go  to  the  expense  of  im- 
porting this  class  of  settler,  if  he  was  once  allowed  to  let  to  the 
creaght  owners,  who  could,  and  did  offer  five  times  as  much  rent 
for  permission  to  graze  cattle,  as  a  farmer  who  wished  to  build 
and  till,  and  "to  spend  money  for  future  profit".  What  was  more> 
what  profit  was  there  in  passing  land  to  an  undertaker  at  a  low 
rent  in  order  that  he  might  introduce  Colonists,  if  he  simply  sold 
the  land  to  one  of  the  inhabitants,  and  retired  to  London  with  the 
purchase  money? 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1610—533.  2)  D.  H.  T.-129  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  4)  C.  S.  P. 
1611.  p.  131;  H.  I.  M.  1—203,  205.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1608—65. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  841 

This  clause,  depriving  an  Undertaker  of  the  power  of  cap- 
turing the  grazing  rents,  has  appeared  in  many  histories  as  the 
banishment  of  the  natives.  There  was  ample  room  in  Ulster  for 
ten  times  as  many  settlers  as  the  Undertakers  were  bound  to  im- 
port, and  for  three  times  as  many  natives  as  were  there.  The 
patentee  estates,  the  native  and  servitor  estates,  the  Abbey  leases, 
Church,  mensal,  College,  and  Crown  Lands  formed  a  very  large 
area  for  the  creaght  owners  and  labourers  to  monopolize.  Straf- 
ford  found  the  mensal,  Church  and  College  Lands  so  waste  and 
depopulated,  that  he  passed  a  special  Act  enabling  trustees  to  grant 
special  terms  to  tenants,  which  in  no  other  part  of  Ireland  were 
Bishops  allowed  to  grant.  * 

There  was  yet  another  need  for  this  importation.  Manu- 
factures were  confined  solely  to  the  South  and  East.  Before  the 
Plantation  the  Customs  of  Derry  were  only  £  35  a  year. 2  In  all 
Fermanagh  there  was  not  a  solitary  town. 3  Londonderry  had 
just  been  badly  damaged  by  Cahir  O'Doherty.  The  town  of 
Monaghan  only  consisted  of  a  few  cottages.  4  Armagh  was  in  a 
very  lowly  condition.  So  too,  was  Strabane. 5  The  first  Act,  on 
the  restoration  of  law,  in  1603,  was  the  creation,  wherever  there 
were  embryo  towns  or  forts,  of  a  borough  with  full  charter  of 
self-government. 6  The  Plantation  perfected'  this  system  by  adding 
300  acres  to  each  borough.  In  Londonderry  and  Coleraine,  the 
liberties  were  very  large.  The  former  got  4.000  acres,  and  the 
latter  3.000.  We  are,  at  the  era  in  which  one  of  the  special  features 
of  State  policy,  was  the  development  of  these  boroughs  in  order 
to  find  employment  for  those  without  cattle,  the  State  having 
found  by  long  experience  that  "the  painful  people"  were  never 
"ill  disposed  subjects",  no  City  having  ever  joined  with  the  great 
Lords.  The  jargon  of  Stuart  State  policy  was  "poor  Commons  and 
poor  King,  rich  Commons  a  rich  King",  and  part  of  the  solution 
was  the  "bringing  over  of  tradesmen  to  every  town,  so  that  the 
country  men  might  send  their  children  as  apprentices". 7  "I  have 
done  the  best",  boasted  Chichesfter  to  the  King,  "for  the  reforma- 
tion of  religion  and  manners,  to  alter  their  habits  and  induce  them 
to  dwell  in  villages  and  hamlets  for  common  defence  against  male- 

1)  L.  S.  1—374;  Act.  10.  Ch.  I.  III.  Cap.  1  and  5;  L.  L.  VII— 108.  2)  C.  A.  H. 
James  I  p.  17.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1608—57.  4)  D.  H.  T.— 227.  5)  R.  I.  A.  P.  I- 13. 
6)  C.  S.  P.  1603—323—327.  7)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


842  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

factors".  l  One  of  the  motives  of  the  Ormonde  Plantation  was  to 
develope  two  embryo  boroughs,  round  which  labourers  and  cot- 
tiers could  cluster,  "be  sustained,  governed  and  trained  and  their 
children  be  trained  in  trades".  *  All  Irish  sedition  in  the  17th 
century  hated  these  boroughs  with  a  deadly  hatred,  as,  where  the 
Irish  Churl  became  "a  painful  and  industrious  person",  there  was 
no  more  law  abiding  subject  in  the  three  Kingdoms,  "he  having", 
as  Strafford  put  it,  "something  to  lose  which  with  reason  he  could 
set  his  heart  on". 

And  from  whence  were  those  small  shopkeepers  and  artizans 
to  emerge  if  they  were  not  imported1?  What  English  man  of  the 
artisan  class  would  come  over  on  sheer  speculation,  if  not  assured 
of  protection  by  an  undertaker,  or  a  lease  of  some  plot  on  a  neigh- 
bouring estate?  The  rise  of  all  these  boroughs  was  due  to  small 
plot  holders  clustering  in  a  walled  village,  which  grew  and  grew 
till  it  developed  into  a  town,  as  serfs  and  villeins  trickled  into  to 
Its  freer  life.  "I  observe",  said  the  Earl  of  Cork,  "that  wherever 
there  were  walled'  towns  the  country  about  them  was  kept  by  the 
towns,  and  the  English  families  encouraged  to  keep  upon  their 
lands,  having  so  sure  a  retreat."3  No  undertaker  would  bring 
over  these  men,  if  he  was  allowed  to  let  to  the  creaght  owners,  and, 
wherever  an  undertaker  did  import  them,  the  servile  population 
prospered  largely,  because,  despite  the  traditional  view,  there  never 
was  an  embargo  on  the  natives  manning  these  towns.  In  fact 
Chichester,  Davies,  Cork  and  Parsons  frequently  boast  of  the 
large  number  of  natives  they  had  allured  into  these  hamlets,  for 
srch  was  their  beginning.  In  Derry,  for  instance,  the  Corporation 
were  specially  ordered  to  make  a  certain  number  of  natives:  free- 
men, while  the  liberties  were  specially  reserved  for  the  "meaner 
sort",  to  whom  the  hinterland  was  forbidden.4  The  system  under 
which  the  Northern  boroughs  were  reared  was  curious.  The  Under- 
taker imported  yeomen  who  were  the  customers  of  the  .market 
town.  He  was  responsible  for  the  protection  of  artizans  who  came 
ID  to  the  town,  and  was  supposed  to  lease  them  small  holdings.  He 
lived  in  the  summer  in  the  country  and  in  the  winter  in  the  town. 
In  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  it  was  specially  stipulated  that  Irish 
artizans  in  these  boroughs  were  to  be  regarded  as  Colonists,  per- 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1614—480.    2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—151.     3)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660 
—151.    4)  C.  M.  S.— 50,  57. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  843 

sons  to  whom  the  Undertaker  could  let  or  alien  lands  in  any  part 
of  his  estate.  Whether  this  last  arrangement  prevailed  before  then 
by  custom,  which  was  then  sanctioned,  or  was  instituted  by  an 
Act  of  State — Plantation  indentures  were  frequently  altered  by 
that  method — does  not  transpire.1 

In  a  year  after  the  Plantation,  Liffer  had  built  58  houses,  and 
contained  "English,  Scotch  and  Irish",  Donegal  town  contained 
"many  families  of  English,  Scotch,  and  Irish  who  built  good 
houses  of  copied  stone".  Mountjoy  had  "many  inhabitants  both 
English  and  Irish",  and  Charlemont  "is  replenished  with  many 
inhabitants,  who  have  built  good  houses  after  the  best  English 
manner".  In  all  these  cases,  however,  the  cause  of  this  sudden 
rise  of  the  hamlets  was  the  activity  of  an  exceptional  Undertaker, 
who  imported  stone-masons  and  carpenters,  native  .skill  in  building- 
being  confined1  to  wattles  and  sheds. 2  One  has  only  to  read 
Pynnar's  survey  of  the  Plantation  to  notice  that  not  more  than 
half  a  dozen  of  the1  native  gentry  soared  above  the  simplest  habita- 
tions. This  form  of  "civility"  depended  completely  on  bringing 
into  Ulster  men  with  traditional  skill,  and  of  bourgeois  habits, 
from  those  parts  of  the  three  Kingdoms  that  had  enjoyed  a  settled 
peace. 

This  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  most  important  clause  in 
the  Plantation,  and  likewise  the  fruit  of  many  evils.  From  the 
very  beginning  there  was  trouble.  The  Freeholders,  creaght 
owners,  and  churls  on  the  lands  made  over  to  the  Undertakers  had 
to  be  removed  to  their  new  freeholds  elsewhere.  Many  men  are 
singularly  attached  to  the  regions  in  which  they  live.  Even  the 
certainty  of  better  things  does  not  allure  away  the  less  adven- 
turous. In  many  cases  the  alteration  was  undoubtedly  for  the 
better.  The  areas  alloted  to  the  natives  are  the  best  in  Ulster. 
Chichester  insisted  that  the  native  allotments  should  be  "on  the 
plains  where  they  shall  be  invited  or  constrained  to  labour,  whereas 
in  the  woods  and  places  of  strength  they  will  be  more  given  to 
creaghting". 3  Davies  relates  that  "the  Irish  were  in  some  places 
transported  from  the  woods  and  mountains  into  the  plains  and 
open  countries,  that,  like  wild  fruit  trees,  they  might  bear  the 
sweeter  fruit". 4  At  the  very  beginning  Sir  Toby  Caulfield  said 

1)  R.  I.  A.  P.  I— 13;  C.S.  P.  1641-351.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1611— 122-126.  3)  C. 
S.  R  1608-68,  4)  D.  H.  T.  1—209. 


844  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

some  of  the  natives  would  not  be  removed'  "from  the  worse  to 
the  better  land  without  trouble".  l  This  was  due  rather  to  the 
vague  reports  of  a  vast  Assyrian  deportation,  of  which  certain  of 
the  native  gentry,  just  back  from  London,  had  heard  the  wildest 
rumours.  After  a  time  the  excitement  died  down,  but  the  dif- 
ficulty was  still  there.  2  Chichester  and  Davies  were  seriously 
alarmed  at  first.  All  manner  of  rumours,  threats,  petitions  and 
arguments  ensued.  At  first  it  looked  as  if  none  of  those,  who  had 
to  be  moved,  would  budge  an  inch.  Suddenly  Art  McBaron 
O'Neill  packed  up  his  goods,  took  out  his  patent  for  2.000  acres, 
settled  thereon,  smilingly  and  contented,  and,  before  the  Executive 
knew  where  they  were,  all  those  who  had  been  allotted  freeholds 
did  likewise.  The  volte  face  was  so  sudden  that  the  Undertakers, 
who  did  not  expect  the  natives  to  go  for  another  year,  were  left 
without  "victuals  and  necessaries  for  their  money".  Chichester 
was  at  his  wits'7  end  to  know  what  to  do.  "To  compell  them  to  stay 
was  contrary  to  the  Plantation.  To  suffer  them  to  depart  will  be 
the  ruin  of  the  undertakers",  who  had  neither  cattle,  seed,  nor 
ploughs,  nothing  but  money,  save  certain  Scotch  gentlemen  who 
arrived  in  great  pomp  with  no  money,  and  resorted  to  borrowing 
from  the  creaght  owners,  promising  them,  in  return,  that  they 
would  lease  them  the  grazing  of  their  estates.  The  despatches  on 
this  development  are  agitated  and  excited,  the  officials  wringing 
their  hands  over  "the  crisis".  Their  bewilderment  was  all  the 
more  intense  when  the  O'Quillins  and  the  O'Hagans,  the  largest 
graziers  in  Ulster,  flatly  refused  to  become  freeholders.  Like  the 
Indians  in  the  Canadian  Reservations,  who  petitioned  the  King 
against  a  proposal  to  give  them  votes,  they  angrily  rejected  the 
liberty  thrust  on  them  by  the  Government.  They  explained  that, 
if  they  were  freeholders  they  would  have  to  serve  on  juries,  "and 
spend  double  the  value  of  their  freeholds  at  Assizes".  All  they 
demanded  was  six  months  grazing  leases  from  other  men,  under 
the  protection  of  some  great  person.  The  Government  solved  the 
difficulty  by  passing  them  on  to  the  Bishops,  and  we  hear  of  them 
no  more.* 

The  freeholders  were  a  fairly  easy  matter.    The  churls  and 
creaght    owners,    however,    were    a    more  complicated    business. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1610-473.      2)  C.  S.  P.  1610—474.      3)  C.  S.  P.  1610-472-530. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  845 

This  class  preferred  to  be  under  Englishmen  than  to  be  under  the 
Irish  Upper  classes.  The  latter  knew  how  to  rule  them.  The 
former  did  not.  A  gentleman  of  a  sept  had  a  very  clear  idea  of 
his  position,  of  the  peculiarities  of  individual  churls,  of  how  to 
distinguish  between  "a  painful"  churl  and  a  woodkern,  and  of  how 
to  quell  the  emeutes  of  the  less  desirable.  An  English  Under- 
taker, however,  was  a  much  milder  person,  who  regarded  them 
all  as  of  the  same  ilk,  was  easily  influenced  by  good  or  bad  methods, 
and  what  was  more  to  the  point  was  willing  and  able  to  pay  higher 
wages.  At  all  times  the  .servile  population  in  Ireland  prefer 
Englishmen  to  Irishmen,  and  in  their  revolts — because  as  Davies 
said  "they  prefer  to  be  under  some  master" — they  always  chose 
disgruntled  Englishmen  to  make  their  complaints  against  their 
betters,  and  to  negotiate  with  the  Government  for  doles  or  par- 
dons. Once  three  "notorious"  kern  were  released  in  one  of  the 
waves  of  Vice-Eegal  benevolence,  and  instantly  started  "pilfering 
victuals".  Their  emissaries  to  the  Castle  were  Lord  Conway  and 
Sir  Alexander  Spicer,  who  "recommended  they  be  forgiven  for 
the  sake  of  peace  and  quiet",  as  they  put  it. 1 

Chichester  had  compromised  on  this  question  of  covenants  by 
giving  estates  to  servitors,  officials  and  soldiers,  some  English,  and 
some  from  the  Pale,  who  had  experience  of  the  country,  and  "knew 
how  to  rule  the  natives",  ae  the  planters  "knew  neither  the  country, 
nor  the  wars,  nor  the  qualities  of  the  people". 2  This  was  the 
reason  that  the  servitors  got  what  James  called  "the  privilege  that 
they  may  have  the  natives",  a  privilege  much  grudged  by  the 
Undertakers.  "Because  they  have  that  privilege  they  ought  to 
keep  them  from  being  offensive  to  the  Undertakers  by  stealths 
and  robberies.  Why  is  this  not  done?  It  is  rumoured  that  the 
servitors  are  willing  to  see  the  Undertakers  discouraged."  So 
wrote  James.  Chichester  ruefully  admitted  that  the  undertakers 
kept  the  churls  on  their  estates,  and  the  servitors  had  no  control 
over  them  when  not  their  tenants. s 

The  fact  was  the  labourers,  cottiers,  kern,  and  small  creaght 
owners  had  no  desire  to  be  "ruled"  by  the  servitors.  Nor  would 
they  take  service  under  the  native  gentry.  Parsons  says  they  were 
"so  bitten  with  the  tyranny  of  their  landlords",  that  they  always 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1627—202.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1609—212.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1612—254. 


846  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

preferred'  English  masters. l  Pynnar's  survey  of  the  Plantation 
reveals  the  naked  fact  that,  even  the  largest  of  the  Servitor  and 
native  land  owners,  had  very  few  tenants  and  labourers,  while  the 
Undertaker  estates  seemed  to  monopolize  all  the  farmers  and  serfs. 
The  fact  was  that  the  Irish  gentry  had  not  quite  got  over  the  old 
practice  of  "uncertain  exactions",  "customs",  and  the  corvee,  all 
of  which  were  unknown  to  the  Undertakers.  Con  McShane 
O'Neale,  Sir  Mulmorie  McSweeney,  and  Brian  Maguire  seems  to 
have  been  the  only  native  proprietors  that  gave  leases.2  True  it 
is  that  the  undertakers  gave  no  leases  to  the  Irish  either,  but  they 
were  in  a  financial  position  to  give  them  far  better  terms  in  the 
shape  of  rent,  they  never  endulged  in  uncertain  exactions,  and 
they  gave  far  more  employment  and  were  able  to  pay  wages. 

Another  factor  was  the  unwillingness  of  the  undertakers  to 
bring  in  English  tenants.  "The  bringing  in  of  such  families  was 
chargeable  and  the  natives  were  not."  Secondly  English  tenants 
would  demand  long  leases  at  low  rents.  The  connacre  lettinge 
quite  satisfied  an  Irish  tenant,  if  there  was  some  security  of  tenure 
and  there  was  no  uncertain  exaction.  As  a  grazier  too  or,  at  any 
rate,  one  who  did  not  feel  disposed  to  build  and  d'rain,  he  could 
offer  more  than  the  English  farmer.  What  was  more,  an  English 
tenant  who  did  come  in,  used  to  get  a  lease  from  an  undertaker  at 
a  low  rent,  based  on  the  plea  that  he  had  to  sink  capital,  and  then 
he  used  to  sublet  to  the  creaght  owners  at  a  profit.  Pynnar  says 
distinctly  that  very  few  of  the  Irish  used  tillage,  which  made  this 
situation  possible.  Finally  "the  Irish  were  more  servile  than  the 
English".  After  their  experiences  under  the  feudal  lords  very 
little  contented  them,  while  the  English  farmers  and  labourers, 
coming  from  the  more  stable  civilization  of  England,  regarded 
themselves  as  freemen,  quite  as  good  as  the  undertaker,  clamoured 
for  rights  and  abatements  as  compensation  for  coming  to  a 
barbaric  country,  and  were  generally  a  nuisance  in  the  land, 
complaining  bitterly  if  everything  was  not  as  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  find  it  in  the  English  Midlands.  Pynnar  gives  them  a 
very  bad  character.  "Were  it  not  for  the  Scotch"  he  says  "who 
plough  in  many  places,  the  rest  of  the  country  might  starve."5 
All  modern  development  bears  this  synopsis  of  Parsons  and 

1)  G.  P.  B.  XXX-  55.  2)  C.  M.  S.— 392— 423.  3)  C.  P.  B.  XXX-55 ; 
C.  M.  S.— 423. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  847 

Pynnar  out  in  every  detail.  No  colonial  farmer  employs  an 
Englishman  if  he  can  help  it.  That  race  only  shines  as  Colonists, 
when  the  rough  work  has  been  done,  the  forests  cleared,  roads 
built,  and  villages  created.  Then  he  appears  with  his  law,  order, 
system,  and  general  comfort,  and1  gloat©  over  Empires,  whose 
foundations  were  laid  by  Scotchmen  and  Irishmen.  In  Ulster  this 
is  exactly  what  occurred.  Where  the  undertaker  could  not  procure 
Scotchmen,  he  employed  the  natives.  A  writer  of  that  time  speaks 
very  highly  of  the  serfs,  when  well  treated  and  instructed.  "A 
painful  and  industrious  man,  when  not  ground  down  by  Coigne 
and  Livery." 

The  Undertakers  fought  very  hard  to  retain  the  natives. 
Cheap  labour,  grazing  contracts,  and  the  expense  of  bringing  over 
Englishmen  were  the  chief  motives.  From  1610  to  1630  the 
authorities  waged  an  implacable  war  with  these  men  over  this 
point.  In  1619  Pynnar  said  that  the  male  British  population  of 
the  six  counties  was  but  8.000.  How  vitally  necessary  colonists 
were  is  shown  by  his  additional  comment  that  "the  fourth  part  of 
the  lands  is  not  fully  inhabited".  In  the  whole  area  were  less  than 
2.000  houses. *  The  Muster  master  reported  "Down  and'  Antrim 
to  be  better  planted  with  English  and  Scotch  than  some  of  the 
escheated  counties  of  Ulster". 2  From  subsequent  events  also  we 
know  that  the  county  Cork  was  for  more  populous,  civil,  and 
wealthy  that  the  whole  Plantation  area,  despite  all  the  great 
schemes  for  developing  Ulster.  The  proof  of  the  general  failure 
of  the  Plantation  is  first  the  savage  outbreak  in  1641,  and  the  very 
poor  fight  put  up  by  the  Undertakers,  all  of  which  is  a  sure  proof 
that  the  industrious  population  was  small  and  weak.  The  second 
is  that  Stafford's  valuation  for  subsidies  put  these  six  counties 
as  but  one-seventh  of  all  Ireland,  Londonderry  being  the  lowest 
in  the  whole  Island. 3  Lastly  when  Cromwell  was  selling  the 
escheated  lands,  those  of  Ulster  were  sold  at  by  far  the  lowe-st 
rate,  4s  an  acre. 

The  cause  of  this  was  that  large,  very  large  areas,  had  been 
passed  away  to  men  who,  if  anything,  discouraged  immigration, 
and  put  a  premium  on  creaghting. 4  In  Londonderry  250.000 
acres  had  been  passed  to  a  Corporation,  which  sublet  to  the  com- 

1)  C.  M.  S,— 422.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1618-228.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-232. 
4)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 1C. 


848  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

panics,  who  in  turn  sublet  to  agents,  who  must  have  made  fortunes 
by  leasing  lands  for  grazing.  At  this  period  the  creaghts  were 
doubling  and  trebling,  as  they  always  did  in  time  of  peace. 
Accordingly  the  London  Corporation,  which  to  James  had  orated 
grandiloquently  on  letting  land  at  4d  an  acre  to  colonists,  frowned 
on  settlers  who  approached  them  for  parcels,  and  rackrented  the 
natives  to  the  tune  of  four  times  that  sum.  Sir  Thomas  Philips 
prophecied  that  their  rack  rentings,  usury,  truck  Act  infringe- 
ments, and  general  exploitation  were  such  that  one  day  there  would 
be  a  rebellion.1  Nothing  in  Ireland  was  more  conducive  to  a 
"rising  out",  than  "discouragement  of  the  civil",  wastes  and  creaght- 
ing,  coupled  with  exploitation  of  the  serfs.  If  "civility"  did 
not  flourish,  and  money  did  not  circulate,  there  was  an  increase  in 
the  number  of  "idle  men"  and  "beggars",  and  such  were  their 
growing  numbers  in  Ulster — the  population  increasing  while 
industry  was  stationary — that  an  Irishman  bluntly  told  James 
that  "so  great  a  number  of  beggars  will  break  forth  into  some 
sudden  mischief". 2  At  the  end  of  the  Falkland  regime  this  warning 
is  frequently  sent  over  to  London,  as  the  great  "danger  to  the 
Kingdom". 

In  the  case  of  the  London  Corporation,  this  exploitation  was 
possible  because  of  their  vast  powers.  They  ruled  the  two  cities 
and  all  the  markets.  They  controlled  the  Customs  and  "cozened" 
the  King  by  illegal  deductions,  and  the  subject  by  taxing  others, 
and  exempting  themselves.  They  held  a  firm  grip  over  250.000 
acres,  thus  constituting  a  great  land  monopoly.  To  keep  the  serfs 
and  exploit  them  was  to  store  up  trouble  in  a  inflammable  country. 
Few  men  knew  that  they  were  only  entitled  to  a  sixth  of  the  land 
they  possessed,  paying  £200  for  land  worth  £800.  If  they  had 
fulfilled  their  other  Covenants  it  would  have  been  something,  but 
their  building  and  their  fortification  contracts  they  evaded.  The 
loyal  native  gentry,  to  whom  they  were  bound  to  give  estates, 
they  put  off  with  small  parcels  of  bog,  while  to  belligerent  friars, 
semi  seditions  gombeen  men,  and  but  partly  civilized  woodkern, 
they  gave  their  best  plots,  in  their  great  desire  to  be  popular  with 
the  worst  sections  of  the  community.  This  was  a  little  way  of 
many  of  the  undertakers.  A  singular  accurate  scribe  says  that 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—209.        2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  849 

in  many  of  the  Plantations  they  discouraged  the  industrious,  Irish 
and  English,  and  gave  every  favour  to  the  "idle  and  ill  disposed".1 

Vain  was  it  for  James  to  say  "I  will  not  be  cozened  by  Alder- 
men. I  charge  you,  my  Lord  Deputy,  that  you  spare  no  flesh  in 
this  matter,  for  no  man's  private  worth  is  able  to  counterbalance 
the  safety  of  the  Kingdom."  He  might  as  well  have  orated  to 
blank  walls.  The  Corporation  had  friends  at  Court,  friends  on 
his  Council,  friends  in  Dublin,  Parsons,  for  instance,  Clotworthy 
who  was  one  of  their  agents,  and  Cork  who  held  a  mortgage  over 
the  whole  estate  of  one  of  the  Companies.  They  also  had  friends 
among  the  leading  lights  in  Ulster,  honest  gentlemen  who  got 
special  leases  of  part  of  their  scopes.  Lastly  belligerent  Roman 
Catholicism  regarded  the  Corporation  estates  as  a  kind  of  Utopia. 
No  Roman  Catholic  Peer  in  the  South  ever  gave  them  such  power, 
as  did  the  Puritan  agents.  In  fact  there  were  very  few  Roman 
Catholic  gentry  in  Derry,  the  O'Cahan  clan  being  very  small,  and 
not  a  few  of  them  being  Protestants.  The  only  men  of  eminence 
were  the  agents,  the  Londonderry  shopkeepers,  and  beneath  lay 
the  serfs.  The  commissions  of  the  agents  and  the  dues  of  the 
Priests  were  something  of  which  the  South  of  Ireland  knew 
nothing,  and  the  Priests  of  Derry  were  nearly  all  belligerents, 
nominated  by  the  O'Neills,  and  not  men  of  piety,  chosen  by  their 
bishops.  "Over  ninety  per  cent  of  the  natives'  cattle  are  gone. 
Those  who  were  children  at  our  first  coming  are  now  men.  My 
fear  is  they  will  rise  and  cut  the  throats  of  the  poor  dispersed 
British."  So  wailed  the  Governor  of  Londonderry,  as  he  gazed 
round  a  County  of  what  he  calls  "wastes,  wood-kern,  extortions 
and  usury".  For  the  exactions  of  O'Neill  and  O'Cahane  the 
distracted  County  had  substituted  a  sordid  hegemony  of  London 
shopkeepers,  native  usurers,  and  truculent  priests.  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  Derry  subsidies  were  the  lowest  in  all  Ireland, 
but  a  third  of  wild  and  rocky  Clare,  where  Thomond  and  In- 
chiquin  had  reared  by  painful  steeps  and  slow  some  germs  of 
prosperity,  without  acts  of  Parliament,  officials,  sedition — mon- 
gering,  or  eloquence.2 

This  shows  on  a  very  large  scale  how  defective  was  the  Plan- 
tation. Nevertheless,  in  one  way  it  had  been  a  success.  Ulster 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  C.S.  P.  1625-1660— 190— 200,  1641—290,291; 
C.S.P.  1622— 366— 387;  1624-526—530;  1627—219—220;  1632-643,644. 

54 


850  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

was  very  quiet.  If  one  contrast®  the  period  1610 — 1641  with  any 
period  of  5  years  in  the  16th  century  one  is  -struck  with  its  general 
air  of  peace,  and  to  a  certain  extent  of  prosperity.  There  was  no 
such  thing  as  a  "rising  out"  in  all  that  time.  This  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  because  the  area  was  fresh  from  the  tradition  of 
violence,  contained  a  larger  number  of  semi — Spanish  semi — O'Neill 
friars  than  any  other  county,  and  what  was  more,  was  still  re- 
dolent with  the  traditions  of  the  O'Neills  and  the  O'Donnells,  now 
in  Spain,  ever  restless,  intriguing,  and  active.  If  there  was 
anything  like  a  small  discontented  minority  it  certainly  had  scope 
to  operate.  Plots,  of  course  there  were,  but  none  of  any  impor- 
tance. Sometimes  a  letter  from  Spain  would  find  its  way  to 
Dublin,  and  cause  a  panic.  Sometimes  a  discontented  gentleman 
would  remember  old  associations,  and  be  indiscreet  in  his  talk, 
and  the  officials  in  Dublin  would  prophesy  the  end  of  all  things. 
Once  four  or  five  freeholders  discontented  with  "their  small  par- 
cels" formed  a  plot  to  seize  on  the  son  of  Hugh  O'Neill,  and  de- 
clare a  new  State,  but  it  was  detected,  and  the  boy  was  hurried 
over  to  Eton.1 

These  quivers  of  apprehension,  were  but  the  last  tremors  of 
the  great  upheaval,  slowly  dying  down.  They  always  synchronized 
with  strained  relations  with  Spain,  when  self  important  persons 
of  no  importance  would  arrive  in  Ulster,  proclaiming  urbi  et  orbi 
that  they  had  only  to  wave  their  hands,  and  a  great  European 
Power  obeyed  their  behests,  the  great  European  Power  being  like- 
wise assured  by  emissaries  of  no  importance  that  they  too  had  only 
to  wave  their  hands,  and  every  man  in  Ireland  rushed  to  arms. 
All  these  harbingers  of  revolution  forgot  that  all  the  upper  classes 
in  Ulster  had  done  very  well  out  of  the  Plantation,  and,  as  the 
emissary  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Primate  told  -Sir  Ealph  Win- 
wood,  "if  Tyrone  should  succeed  the  condition  of  all  the  other 
Provinces  to  be  subject  to  the  tyranny  of  those  Ulster  Lords  would 
be  most  miserable".2  The  native  freeholders  in  Ulster  were  yet 
more  determined  for  peace,  .there  being  a  great  difference  between 
a  few  pence  an  acre,  and  "horse  meat  and  man's  meat  at  the  Lord's 
pleasure".  During  the  Spanish  scares  one  is  aware  of  the  full 
determination  of  the  Ulster  Aristocracy  to  have  no  Earl  of  Tyrone 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1615-29-34,  54,  62,  78,  79.     2)  Buccleugh  M.  S.  S.— 153. 


THE  UNDERTAKEKS  851 

and  no  Spanni&h  troops.  Rory  Ogue  O'Quilly  and  Con  O'Neale 
superintended  the  fortifications  in  that  panic.1  This  Con  had  been 
abroad,  and  when  the  Intelligence  Department  heard  he  was 
coming  home  they  warned  the  Government  to  give  him  a  com- 
mand, as  he  was  "a  mortal  enemy  of  Tyrone".2  Phelim,  the  son 
of  Henry  McShane,  when  he  heard  of  the  rumour  of  war  flung 
up  his  commission  in  the  Spanish  Army,  and  returned  to  take  ser- 
vice in  the  Deputy's  household  cavalry,  surviving  an  accusation 
that  he  was  a  "traitor",  made  by  one  of  Hugh  O'Neill's  agents.  s 
In  fact  the  Government  were  able  to  report  that  they  could  raise 
in  Ireland  for  an  army  against  Spain  "1.000  or  1.500  well-affected 
natives".4  In  1627,  as  we  know,  they  raised  1.000  swordsmen  to 
fight  with  France,  who  sallied  forth  amidst  the  benediction®  of  a 
Roman  Catholic  Bishop,  whom  the  Deputy  familiarly  called 
"Matthew  Roche".5  "Loyal  servants  of  the  Crown"  is  what  Falk- 
land described  half  a  dozen  leading  members  of  the  Ulster  clans, 
such  as  Sir  Arthur  O'Neill,  Groome  and  Patrick  O'Hanlon.6  "The 
persons  fittest  to  be  employed  against  Tyrone  and  other  Irish 
rebels"  were 

Tirlagh  McArt  O'Neale, 

Sir  Henry  O'Neale  of  Antrim, 

Sons  of  Sir  Henry  O'Gue  O'Neill, 

Sir  Connor  Roe  Maguire, 

Sir  Mulmurry  McSwiney, 

Art  O'G  MacMahon  of  Monaghan, 

William  O'Cahane. 

Brian  Maguire  and  Neale  O'Neale  complete  the  list,  while  of  Con 
McCaffery  O'Donnell,  the  real  head  of  the  O'Donnells,  and  Hugh 
O'Rourke,  brother  of  the  chief  of  that  clan,  Falkland  wrote  "The 
former  has  -always  been  a  Protestant  and  is  loyal.  Of  the  other 
his  demeanour  is  fair.  I  hope  the  loyalty  of  both  these  gentlemen 
and  their  good  affection  may  be  an  example  to  others".7  In  the 
list  of  "persons  dangerous"  there  is  not  a  single  Ulsterman,  save 
Lord  Antrim,  who  was  simply  excitable.8  This  list  exhausts  all 
the  great  names  in  Ulster.  Wherever  the  Crown  was  threatened 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—81.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660—69.  3)  C.  S.  P. 
1625—1660—102;  1628—382;  1630—584.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1625— 1660-69.  5)  C.  S. 
P.  1628— 304.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1625— 96.  7)  C.  S.  P.  1626— 132.  8)  C.S.P.1625— 75; 
1632—689. 

54* 


852  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

it  was  remarkably  safe  in  that  corner  of  the  three  Kingdoms.  One 
understands  what  Strafford  meant  when  he  described  self-im- 
portant plenipotentiaries  to  Madrid  as  "criminous  and  lewdly 
affected  people  that  wander  abroad  and  delight  to  have  it  believed 
that  they  were  ravished  of  their  means  for  their  religion,  keeping 
themselves  in  countenance  by  boasting  of  their  titles  and  terri- 
tories, whose  very  names  were  scarcely  heard  of  by  their  indigent 
parents". * 

The  Northern  Gentry,  fresh  from  the  thraldom  of  feudalism, 
were  the  greatest  bulwark  the  King  had  in  the  three  Kingdoms, 
with  no  love  for  the  rising  notions  of  liberty  of  Parliaments,  like 
the  Undertakers.  As  for  their  religion  about  two-thirds  of  them 
were  Roman  Catholics — half  of  the  list  just  mentioned  were  of 
that  persuasion — and  they  usually  kept  Chaplains  by  no  means 
(Sympathetic  with  the  belligerent  friars.  The  Loyal  Roman  Ca- 
tholics, who  were  the  greater  part  of  the  squireardy,  were  hostile 
to  the  friars  and  thought  they  should  be  put  down,  they  being, 
as  one  of  the  McSweenys  said,  "politicians  and  travellers".2 

Trouble  there  was,  of  course,  with  the  woodkern.  At  this 
period  this  class  was  the  plague  of  Ireland.  A  theory  has  arisen 
that  they  were  "dispossessed  natives",  but  there  is  no  document 
extant  to  bear  this  out.  On  the  contrary  they  were  a  mixture  of 
swordsmen,  unemployed  horseboys,  highway-men,  and  what  are 
generally  called  "iddle  boys"?  Every  period  of  civil  commotion 
brings  them  up  from  the  vasty  deep,  hiding  in  bogs  and  mountains, 
and  known  in  different  ages  by  different  names,  Tories,  Rapparees, 
Whiteboys,  &c.  It  stood  to  reason  that  there  would  be  many  after 
the  Elizabethan  wars,  and  it  was  really  not  till  the  time  of  Straf- 
ford  that  they  were  suppressed.  They  flourished  quite  as  much  in 
the  non-Plantation  Counties  as  in  Ulster,  or  rather  in  those 
counties  before  they  were  planted,  because  a  Plantation  always 
spelt  a  complete  reorganization  of  the  social  system,  save  in  Ulster 
where  the  abuses  were  such  as  to  perpetuate  the  old  regime.  In 
Wexford  in  1605  there  was  a  roving  band  of  100  men  who  preyed 
severely  on  the  farmers.  Davies  attributed  their  immunity  to  the 
largesses  of  pardons,  which  made  the  life  of  a  highway-man  as  safe 
as  that  of  a  good  citizen.3  Wicklow  also  suffered  from  this  plague 

1)  L.  S.  11-112.       2)  C.  S.  P.  1630-509.       3)  C.  S.  P.  1604-146. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  853 

down  to  the  time  of  Stratford's  Plantation.1  In  1610  in  Ely 
O'Carroll  there  were  half  a  dozen  euch  burning  houses  and  driving 
off  cattle. 2  In  the  same  year  the  dwellers  in  the  suburbs  of  Dublin 
"were  driven  to  lay  up  all  their  cattle  in  ward  every  night"  for 
the  kern  used  to  "survey  the  field's  to  the  very  wall®  of  Dublin, 
and  whatsoever  is  left  abroad  is  in  danger  to  be  lost". 3  Tipperary 
and  Limerick  complained  very  bitterly  of  "burglary  and  in- 
cendiarism".4 Antrim  and  Down,  where  the  wildest  stretch  of 
the  imagination  cannot  detect  "dispossession  of  natives",  suffered 
from  an  outbreak,  which  the  Council  dignified  by  the  title  of  a 
"rebellion".5  Mountmorris  one  time  drew  attention  to  30  men 
operating  in  two  bands  in  Tyrone  and  Londonderry,  adding  "I 
know  well  this  is  a  trifle  to  speak  of  in  this1  country,  and  there  are 
many  others  in  several  counties  on  their  keeping,  as  we  call  it".6 
Part  of  the  evil  had  been  the  disbanded  swordsmen  of  the 
feudal  Lords,  drawn  from  a  class  above  the  farmers,  and  absolutely 
unsuited  to  peaceful  pursuits.  In  Ulster  alone  there  were  4.000 
of  these.  In  Leinster  there  were  3.000.7  The  Government  equipped 
and  paid  the  passage  of  1.000  of  them  to  Sweden,  where  they 
entered  the  Army  of  Gustavus  Adolphus.  Their  leaders  were  the 
most  curious  mixum  gatherum  it  is  possible  to  devise.  Of  the 
seven  mentioned  by  Chichester,  one  was  a  near  relative  of  Tyrone. 
Another  was  convicted  of  treason  for  joining  in  O'Doherty's  re- 
bellion. Another  had  deserted  the  Earl  and  thrown  in  his  lot 
with  the  loyal  Ogue  O'Neills.  Neale  Ogue  O'Neill,  .was  an  officer 
in  the  army.  So  too  was  Donogh  O'Cahane.  The  two  McKennas 
in  time  of  rebellion  served  the  Crown,  and  in  time  of  peace  plun- 
dered the  country.8  These  and  all  their  followers,  enlisted  under 
the  standards  of  Captain  Sandford,  the  mountain  patentee,  and 
Sir  Eichard  Bingley,  who  subsequently  raised  a  regiment  of 
O'Moores — "beautiful  men"  he  calls  them — to  serve  the  King  at 
Rochelle.  The  Government  gave  a  large  grant  for  their  equipment, 
rations,  and  passage,  and  they  disappear  from  the  unhappy  land 
that  refused  to  support  them  'any  longer  by  becoming  peaceful. 
By  1614  over  6.000  such  had  migrated  to  Sweden,  and,  all  during 
the  reign  of  Charlee,  drafts  used  to  migrate  to  France  and  Spain. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1638—199.  2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—8.  3)  R.  I.  A.  P.  1—13. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1629-432.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1627—217.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1624-474.  7)  C.  S. 
P.  1609—299.  8)  C.  S.  P.  1609—305,  306. 


854  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Strafford  took  special  pains  to  see  that  those  that  went  to  Spain 
were  not  drafted  into  the  regiments  commanded  by  Tyrone  and 
Tyrconnell,  arranging  that  Preston,  a  civil  gentleman  of  the  Pale, 
and  subsequently  the  Commander  of  the  Catholic  Confederation's 
Army,  should  have  first  claim  on  these  drafts.1  Some,  of  course, 
like  Tyrrell,  Fleming,  and  Crawford  settled  down  as  patentees  in 
Ulster.  The  first  of  these  three  was  one  in  whom  Tyrone  "had 
great  trust".  He  kept  Falkland  informed  of  possibilities  of  stirs, 
fomented  from  Spain.2  He  and  a  very  large  number  of  others 
were  on  the  pension  list,  having  rendered  the  Crown,  when  on  its 
side,  invaluable  military  services.3  This  class,  however,  very  ra- 
pidly disappears  as,  in  another  generation,  the  younger  sons  of  the 
sept  gentry  turned  their  eyes  rather  to  the  Bar,  which  was  be- 
coming .respectable,  or  to  the  Church  on  the  spread  of  religion. 

The  Woodkern  were  usually  of  the  servile  class.  They  too 
were  relics  of  the  civil  commotions.  The  abolition  of  serfdom  and 
the  disappearance  of  the  great  feudal  retinues  contributed  also 
largely  to  their  ranks.  They  were  not  numerous,  but  they  were 
very  unpleasant,  lurking  in  the  woods,  and  blackmailing  or  plun- 
dering the  farmers.  It  was  a  very  dangerous  thing  for  a  citizen 
to  complain  of  their  depredations,  or  to  sit  on  a  jury  which  con- 
victed them.  Case  after  case  of  savage  vengeance  on  their  part 
is  recorded.  Philips  puts  the  total  native  population  of  the  County 
of  Derry  at  4.000  men.  Of  these  300  were  "idle  men".  In  modern 
days  this  would  be  a  small  percentage  of  unemployed.  Of  these 
"idle  men"  about  30  were  woodkern  of  bad  characters.  The 
damage  they  did  was  considerable,  as  it  was  almost  impossible  to 
catch  them.  They  were  frequently  reinforced  by  odd  discontented 
persons,  and  relieved  by  the  terrified  peasantry. 4  The  usual  method 
was  to  employ  ex-swordsmen  or  native  gentry  to  "cut  them  off", 
as  the  Planters  and  the  troops  were  useless  for  this  purpose. 5  One 
of  these  officials,  called  Dermot  Ogue  McDonne,  relates  how  a 
friar  tried  to  draw  him  into  a  seditious  plot  with  the  melancholy 
reminder  that  "though  thou  has  been  a  servitor  to  the  King  and 
cut  off  many,  what  hast  thou  got  by  it !  In  the  end  thou  wouldst 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1608-1610-272,  299,  422;  1613-479;  L.S.  1-395,  440,466,  471. 
2)  C.  S.  P.  1624-495.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1623—448.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1622-364-380; 
1623-428;  1624—474.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1606— 481;  1610—385;  1619—262,269,270. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  855 

be  hanged  for  thy  labour". 1  One  of  these  outbreaks,  St.  John  de- 
scribed ais  caused  by  "idle  fellows  of  no  ability,  having  no  chief 
men  to  lead  them",  who  "flew  out"  on  a  rumour  of  a  Spanish 
Invasion,  on  which  certain  friars  "wrought  strongly",  but  "I  set 
the  principal  local  gentlemen  to  destroy  them.  Twenty  are  slain, 
and  the  gaols  are  full  for  the  Justices  of  Assize".  Thus  ended  that 
effort  "to  provoke  the  State  in  this  time  of  general  peace".2 

The  difference  between  the  Plantation  of  Ulster  and  those 
of  the  other  Counties  is  that,  in  the  former  Province,  the  kern 
survived  the  Plantation,  and,  in  the  latter,  the  Plantation  abolished 
the  kern.  One  reason  for  their  abolition  was  the  growth  of  the 
cities,  and  the  increase  in  building  and  tillage,  which  always  fol- 
lowed security  of  tenure  and  the  introduction  of  capital.  A  large 
part  of  the  woodkern  problem  was  due  to  unemployment.  Lon- 
donderry may  be  said  to  have  been  the  worst  County  in  Ireland 
for  woodkern.  If  the  Corporation  agents  had  fulfilled  their  con- 
tract to  rebuild  and  fortify  Derry  and  Coleraine,  they  would  have 
very  soon  absorbed  in  industry  all  those  without  cows.  What  was 
more  if,  in  the  hinterland,  planters  had  been  introduced,  in  ten 
years  the  mere  circulation  of  capital  would  have  so  affected  the 
Patentee  and  native  estates  in  the  Country  that  unemployment 
would  have  been  negligable.  It  was  a  maxim  of  State  at  this 
period  that  efficient  Planters  doubled  in  a  generation  the  value 
of  the  native  estates  beside  them.  When  the  Corporation  declined 
to  fulfil  their  Covenants  by  letting  their  grazing  tracts  to  the 
native  cow  owners,  or  patches  to  serfs  without  a  penny,  they  pro- 
duced just  that  state  of  affairs  which,  if  anything,  increased  "the 
idle  population".  This  applied  quite  as  much  to  many  of  the 
Undertakers.  St.  John  complained  that  their  "scopes  were  too 
large",  "a  sufficient  number  of  buildings  had  not  been  made,  nor 
freeholders  enough,  and  such  as  have  been  made  are  poor  and 
weak  by  reason  of  the  high  rents",  rents  easily  paid  by  the  creaght 
owners,  but  impossible  for  a  bona  fide  farmer.3  How  widespread 
was  this  creaghting  is  revealed  in  a  letter  of  one  of  the  Corpora- 
tion's agents.  He  says  that  for  six  months  in  the  year  the  graziers 
grazed  the  Proportion  of  his  Company.  The  land  then  lay  .waste 
for  another  six  months  while  they  grazed  on  the  Bishop's  lands. 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1615-31.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1619—250.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1618-230. 


856  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Truly  a  profitable  business  for  the  Corporation  and  the  graziers, 
but  scarcely  the  conditions  on  which  250.000  acres  had  been 
passed  for  £  200  a  year ! * 

In  the  meantime  the  wail  of  the  industrious  colonists  fluc- 
tuates through  the  State  Papers.  Their  rents  were  raised  to  the 
grazing  level.  Their  improvements  were  sometimes  seized  on  ex- 
piration of  their  short  leases.  They  were  the  special  prey  of  the 
kern,  being  English,  strangers,  Protestants,  and  possessed  of 
goods.2  Truly  Sir  Thomas  Philips  on  his  neighbouring  estate 
might  rage  with  saeva  indignatio  at  this  eyesore  in  a  County,  for 
whose  peace  the  King  held  him  responsible.  Nothing,  however, 
could  be  done.  Half  a  dozen  Commissions  solemnly  reported'.  A 
plethora  of  Imperial  rescripts  adorn  the  State  Papers.  The  per- 
colating influences  of  corrupt  officials,  high  finance,  native  usurers, 
belligerent  friars,  and  the  grazing  interest  laid  on  everything  the 
dead  hand  of  incivility. 

One  more  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  Undertakers  had 
imperilled  the  Plantation.  Not  only  were  they  bound  to  bring 
over  Colonists  to  protect  each  other  in  case  of  an  emeute, 
but  to  arm  these  men,  and  to  supervise  their  mustere  or  militias. 
If  this  had  been  done  these  woodkern  would  have  been  very 
cautious  whom  they  touched,  as,  on  the  few  occasions  that  they 
plundered  the  native  gentry,  they  met  with  such  a  warm  reception 
that  the  Government  shook  its  head  over  the  "tyrannies  and  exor- 
tions"  of  these  chiefs.  Phelim  McPheagh  O'Byrne  one  time  was 
annoyed  by  a  kern,  who  broke  into  his  house  and  stole  a  keg  of 
whiskey.  It  being  "civil"  times  he  did  not  hang  him.  He  re- 
membered he  was  a  magistrate.  He  prosecuted'  him  himself  before 
himself,  found  him  guilty,  and  gave  him  a  good  round  sentence, 
amidst  much  lamentation  of  the  kern's  gang  and  shakings  of 
heads  at  the  Castle.  When  the  term  of  imprisonment  was  over  he 
chased  him  and  the  rest  of  the  gang  up  to  the  hills,  and  retired 
triumphant,  hurling  seditious  remarks  at  the  humanitarian  protests 
of  the  Government  officials,  who  wrote  to  London  about  Phelim's 
"tyrannies  over  the  poor  people".  Then,  to  make  matters  worse, 
he  "relieved"  in  his  kitchen  other  kern,  who  used  to  confine  their 
depredations  to  his  local  enemies,  of  whom  he  had  many.  3 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1623—413.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1627—219,  220.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 17 ; 
C.  S.  P.  1630—580. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  857 

The  Undertakers  generally  evaded  this  covenant.1  Only  one- 
third  of  the  stipulated  force  was  capable  of  being  mobilized,  and 
only  a  fraction  of  that  was  armed.  For  this  the  Undertakers  were 
destined  to  pay  very  dearly.  Avarice  and  slackness  and  a  belief 
they  were  living  in  a  land  of  peace  had  left  them  without  reliable 
friends,  without  arms,  without  dependants,  i.  e.,  men  who  would 
suffer  if  they  disappeared.  What  would  happen  if  the  Spaniards 
landed?  What  would  happen  if  a  "discontented  gentleman" 
stirred  up  the  serfs  with  a  cry  of  panem  et  circenses,  to  be  pro- 
vided in  the  houses  of  the  Undertakers?  Who  was  there  to  keep 
the  less  reputable  of  the  churls  in  awe,  they  owing  nothing  to 
some  of  these  Undertakers  but  their  rents?  The  native  gentry  had 
surrendered  their  feudal  powers  over  the  serfs  to  the  Government. 
The  Government  had  devolved  them  on  the  Undertakers,  at  any 
rate  in  the  shape  of  importing  loyal  subjects  and  keeping  a  muster. 
What  was  more  the  Undertakers  with  some  vague  idea  of  po- 
pularity and  a  certain  idea  of  large  rents,  had  kept  the  churls  on 
their  lands,  instead  of  despatching  them  to  the  Servitors  and 
Chiefs,  who  "knew  how  to  rule  them",  and  were  by  no  means 
prone  to  come  to  the  aid  of  men  who  called  them  "tyrants",  and 
"enemies  of  English  liberty  for  the  poor  people".  Many  of  the 
Undertakers1  seem  to  have  fallen  back  on  the  policy  of  keeping  in 
with  the  priests,  who,  as  there  were  no  native  gentry  in  the  Under- 
taker compounds,  became  the  leaders  of  the  churls,  their  masters, 
spokesmen,  benefactors,  and  rulers ;  in  a  word,  the  headmen  of 
their  kraal  compounds.  This,  ae  we  know,  was  the  silent  policy  of 
Elizabeth,  but  she  was  dealing  with  the  priests  of  the  cities  and 
the  Pale,  at  an  era  when  religion  was  dormant  in  Ireland.  The 
Undertakers  were  utilizing  in  many  cases  the  emissaries  of 
O'Neill,  educated — if  educated  at  all — at  Valladrohid  and 
Salamanca,  at  a  period  when  the  religious  question  had  spread  to 
Ireland,  when  in  every  household  the  Pros  and  Cons  of  the  Ee- 
formation  were  a  theme  of  discussion,  and,  that,  at  a  moment 
when  clerical  influence  had  reached  such  a  pitch,  that  no  small 
number  of  the  priests  believed  that  they  could  overthrow  the 
Government,  and  rule  Ireland  by  the  awe  paid  to  a  cassock.  Truly 
these  were  an  unstable  protection  for  Englishmen,  Protestants 
who  had  never  used  a  sword  in  their  lives,  in  possession  of  lands 

1)  C.S.  P.  1618— 221— 230. 


858  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

for  which,  for  centuries,  native  blood  had  been  shed,  and  would 
yet  be  shed'. 

We  thus  come  to  the  weakness  of  the  Plantation,  and  its 
danger.  The  Ulster  Chiefs,  squires,  upper  classes,  freeholders,  and 
farmers  were  as  contented  and  loyal  as  men  could  be.  From  1620 
to  1641  they  never  appear  in  politics  or  the  State  records.  The 
argumentum  e  eilentio  is  in  Ireland  is  an  argumentum  pro  fide  et 
pace.  Strafford's  correspondence  opens  before  our  eyes  all  the 
activities  of  those  who  gave  the  State  trouble.  The  only  references 
to  the  Ulster  gentry  are  their  visits  to  the  Castle,  their  names  in 
the  Army  list,  the  Commission  of  the  Peace,  and  the  Commissions 
for  levying  of  subsidies.  The  Undertakers,  on  the  contrary,  gave 
him  the  utmost  trouble,  especially  when  Scotland  went  into  re- 
bellion. As  Scotchmen  they  were  affected  by  national  sympathy, 
ties  of  kin,  and  religion.  As  Englishmen  they  were  all  drawn  from 
the  Middle  Classes,  who  were  actually  meditating  a  Revolution. 
As  Planters  they  were  in  possession  of  lands  their  patents  did  not 
cover,  and  the  Crown  was  alive  to  the  fact.  They  had  broken  the 
conditions  on  which  they  leased  those  lands.  They  were  thus  liable 
to  escheat.  Of  this  too  the  Crown  was  aware. 

From  1617  to  1641  the  most  troublesome  and  disloyal  sub- 
jects the  King  had  in  Ireland  were  the  Ulster  Undertakers. 
Wealthy,  possessed  of  vast  tracts,  lords  of  the  servile  element,  and 
not  unpopular  with  the  priests,  they  began  very  rapidly  to  develop 
what  a  modern  generation  calls  "swelled  head".  When  the  Govern- 
ment asked  them  to  support  the  Army,  for  which  one  would  have 
thought  they  would  have  been  glad,  they  raised  a  louder  outcry 
than  any  other  part  of  Ireland,  shrieking  loudly  over  their 
"poverty"  and  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  British  subject,  no 
taxation  without  representation,  a  doctrine  of  which  the  Irish 
Chiefs  had  never  heard.  The  agent  for  the  London  Corporation 
went  so  far  as  to  call  the  Benevolence  "a  breach  of  the  King's 
Charter",  which  was  Satan  rebuking  Sin  with  a  vengeance. *  The 
Undertakers  of  Cavan,  when  asked  by  Philip  O'Reilly,  the  Sheriff 
for  that  year,  to  behave  like  loyal  gentlemen,  and  do  what  he  and 
his  ancestors  had  always  done,  "refused  absolutely"  and  were  quite 
lyrical  in  their  lamentations,  talking  of  such  a  crushing  burden 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1627—206—208. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS    .  859 

—it  was  exactly  £  900 — causing  "the  dead  to  bury  their  dead,  and 
a  look  of  death  in  the  face  of  every  man".  The  Deputy  petitioned 
the  Plantation  Counties  in  the  most  humble  strains,  but  they  only 
replied  by  crying  for  a  Parliament.  "Any  taxes  it  imposes  we 
will  cheerfully  pay"  sang  a  mixed  coterie  of  Hamiltons,  Stewarts, 
John  Meeke  and  "nine  other  gentlemen"  from  Tyrone.  It  is  very 
curious  that,  save  from  Kilkenny  and  the  larger  Cities,  none  of 
these  complaints  came  from  non-Plantation  Counties,  and  there  is 
not  an  Irish  name  among  the  petitioners,  save  in  Wexford.  The 
fact  was  that  the  Planters  were  becoming  mutinous,  fresh  as  they 
were  from  England  with  notions  of  Liberty,  and  we  detect  in  the 
petition  of  Kilkenny — "This  tax  is  not  imposed  in  the  old  Par- 
liamentary way" — how  rapidly  the  new  ideas  were  nourishing  in 
a  land  that,  up  to  this,  assessed  taxes  by  bargainings  between  the 
Sheriff  and  the  freeholders,  as  to  "what  contribution  was  just  in 
regard  to  the  benefits  enjoyed  by  His  Majesty's  favour".  1 

The  cause  of  all  this  was  that  the  Undertakers  wished  to  be 
released  from  their  Covenants  and  the  Government  flatly  refused 
to  do  so.  For  the  first  five  or  six  years  they  had  confined  their 
activities  to  pleading  "next  year  when  the  Colonists  came  over". 
Then  they  assured  the  Government  that  cities  would  rise  on  the 
plains,  all  the  churls  would  retire  to  their  Lords,  and  the  land 
would  be  "manured".  James  had  given  orders  that  they  were  "to 
be  punished".  They  also  asked  to  be  exempt  from  rent,  but  the 
King's  reply  was  tart  and  no  more  was  heard  on  this  point. 2  By 
1616  their  evasions  had  become  such  a  scandal  that  James  actually 
wrote  with  his  own  sprawling  hand  "to  spare  no  flesh,  English  or 
Scotch".  He  gave  them  one  year  and  then  woe  betide  them ! 3  In 
1622  matters  were  still  as  bad,  and,  in  a  burst  of  generosity,  they 
offered  to  double  their  paltry  rents,  if  James  would  only  release 
them  from  their  covenants  to  import  colonists,  grant  leases,  build 
houses,  and  support  musters.4  In  or  about  the  same  time  they 
wrung  a  concession  to  keep  the  natives  on  the  fourth  of  their 
estates  on  condition  that  they  brought  over  the  requisite  number 
of  Colonists.  A  more  serious  concession  was  that  they  were  to  get 
new  patents  with  no  proviso  of  forfeiture  in  case  of  breach  of 
contract. 5  This  was  drafted  in  London,  but,  when  it  reached 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1629-467—469.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1611—65.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1616—26. 
4)  1622-357.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1621-323. 


860  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Dublin,  it  was  promptly  "stayed".  The  next  step  was  the  inevitable 
lament  over  "the  perversion  and  distraction  of  His  Majesty's 
pleasure"  by  the  Deputy  and  Council,  and  a  demand  that  the  writ 
run.  This  was  signed  by  three  men,  whom  Strafford  used  to  regard 
with  more  indignation  than  the  most  belligerent  of  the  kern,  Lord 
Balfour,  Lord  Mountmorris  and  Sir  Archibald  Acheson.  *  James 
however  had  now  been  informed1  of  what  hie  Council  in  London 
had  done,  and  he  turned  a  very  cold  ear  to  this  screed  of  woe.  The 
Undertakers,  however,  lay  low  and  bided  their  time. 

The  accession  of  Charles  boded  no  good  to  the  Undertakers. 
Philips,  who  had  been  raging  for  years  over  the  state  of  Derry, 
at  last  got  a  hearing  in  London.  Lord  Conway  with  Bolton  and 
Cattelin,  two  of  the  Irish  Law  Officers,  were  on  his  side.  Suffice  it 
to  say  that  Charles  was!  determined  at  all  costs  to  inquire  into  that 
county.  Matters  reached  a  serious  stage  when  the  rents  of  Derry 
were  sequestered  by  Royal  Warrant.  Needless  to  add  this  warrant 
was  withdrawn.  Suffice  is  to  say  four  warrants  were  issued,  each 
one  being  withdrawn  either  by  pressure  or  on  promise  of  amend- 
ment. The  King  attributed  the  delays  and  gyrations  to  "some 
secret  opposition"  the  nature  of  which  he  was  very  anxious  to 
discover.  2  Old  Lord  Chancellor  Loftus  was  part  of  this  "opposi- 
tion".3  In  the  meantime  Bingley,  the  swordsman,  had  raised  the 
question  of  the  over  measurements,  and  was  probing  into  some 
curious  titles  in  Donegal.4  The  climax  came  when  Charles  issued 
instructions  that  those  who  did  not  fulfill  their  Covenants  should 
be  escheated.  In  Armagh  the  lands  of  William  Stanhowe  were 
confiscated1  for  "demising  to  mere  Irishmen"  or  for  allowing  "nullo 
edificia  lapida  fact  fuier  sup  p  miss". 5  In  Cavan  Sir  Hugh 
Wirrall  suffered  the  same  fate.  In  several  cases  selling  estates 
outright,  non  residency,  and  no  buildings  were  additional  charges. 
The  most  glaring  case  was  that  of  a  Northern  money  lender,  Sir 
Alexander  McAula,  on  whose  estate  there  was  not  a  stone,  a  ditch, 
or  a  bona  fide  tenant,  nothing  but  grass  and  cows  on  yearly  tenancies. 
Nothing  is  more  remarkable  in  these  escheats  than  the  yearly  tenancy 
and  the  absence  of  buildings. 6  In  every  county  two  or  three  owners 
were  escheated  pour  encourager  les  autres.  What  is  more  remarkable 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1624-518-520.  2)  1625-34;  1628-372,  380, 427.  3)  C.  S.  P. 
1631—635.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1626—131.  5)  1. 1.  Car.  I.  Armagh.  4,  6)  1. 1.  Car.  I.  Six 
Plantation  Counties.  1628. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  861 

is,  that,  in  each  county,  an  Inquisition  was  held  into  the  collection 
of  the  rents,  and  from  them  it  is  clear  that  the  loosest  system 
prevailed.  In  several  cases  also  over  measurements  were  detected. 

This  caused  a  veritable  panic.  It  synchronized  with  the 
departure  of  a  deputation  from  Ireland  to  tender  a  Benevolence. 
They  brought  with  them  a  letter  from  Parsons,  in  which  he 
candidly  confessed  that  Ulster  "was  no  other  than  a  wilderness", 
and  that  the  only  flourishing  persons  were  the  creaght  owners, 
who  wandered  with  their  followers  from  estate  to  estate  on  the 
six  months'  system.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  state  that  by  now  they 
were  wealthier  and  more  powerful  than  the  residential  gentry, 
who,  having  no  capital  and  no  tenants,  were  gradually  disappearing 
under  the  weight  of  mortgages.  He  stated  bluntly — and  Strafford 
acted  on  this — that  to  force  the  churls  to  leave  the  rich  and  in  some 
cases  energetic  Undertakers,  and  to  place  them  perforce  under 
the  waning  gentry,  whom  they  did  not  like,  would  only  produce 
"contention,  clamour  and  great  grievances  from  the  Undertakers 
and  the  Irish".  His  suggestion  was  that  Bishops,  Undertakers, 
and  natives  be  compelled  to  give  the  lesser  natives  "fixed  estates", 
at  6s  Sd  a  poll.  In  the  case  of  the  Bishops  and  the  natives  their 
"lands  were  given  to  them  for  that  purpose  and  would,  if  not 
altogether,  yet  within  very  little  requite  those  natives.  The  Under- 
takers would  be  very  glad  to  keep  such  natives  as  they  had,  and 
in  the  end  fixed  estates  would  make  the  natives-  love  their  English 
landlords".1 

The  special  pleading  was  excellent,  but  it  reveals  why  Straf- 
ford  had  such  reservations  on  the  subject  of  Parsons.  The  crux  of 
the  whole  matter  was  not  where  the  creaght  owners  were  to  go  or 
the  Churls  were  to  labour.  There  was  plenty  of  room  for  them  in 
Ulster  outside  the  undertakers'  estates.  The  real  cause  of  the 
"wilderness"  was  that  the  undertakers  would  not  bring  in  colonists, 
would  not  build,  would  not  spend  money  or  assist  the  preservation 
of  the  peace,  but  had  turned  their  estates  into  grazing  ranches, 
and  had  robbed  the  native  gentry  of  the  tenants  they  were  very 
anxious  to  get.  If  the  creaghts  had  been  confined  to  the  native 
estates  their  rents  would  have  enabled  the  native  gentry  to  improve 
their  estates,  and  to  share  in  the  general  prosperity  that  the  Under- 


1)  C.  P.  B.  XXX— 53-58. 


862  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

takers  would  have  created  by  bringing  in  the  colonists  they  had 
promised  to  import,  and  could  afford  to  import.  All  this  Parsone 
had  kept  locked  in  his  bosom. 

On  the  arrival  in  London  of  the  Deputation  of  all  the  different 
forms  of  discontent,  it,  was  a  very  easy  matter  to  put  a  facile 
complexion  on  the  Plantation.  Each  of  the  different  elements 
that  made  up  the  Deputation  supported  each  other's  demands,  and 
all  were  eloquent  on  the  theme  that,  as  they  had  in  the  end  voted 
a  benevolence,  a  quid  pro  quo  was  only  fair.  Laud  one  time,  in 
regard  to  the  multitude  of  requests  made  to  Charles  said  that 
"many  things  are  cunningly  put  upon  his  Majesty,  quite  contrary 
to  the  fair  face  that  is  put  upon  them". 1  In  this  case  Parson's 
letter  was  an  'admirable  essay  on  that  old  request  of  Balfour, 
Acheson,  and  Mountmorris,  which  James  had  sternly  refused. 
These  arguments  were  now  resurrected — the  great  difficulties  the 
Planters  had  in  procuring  tenants  and  labourers  from  England; 
the  great  desire  of  the  natives  to  be  under  English  landlords ;  the 
impossibility  of  forcing  the  native  gentry  to  give  them  "fixed 
estates" ;  the  readiness  of  the  undertakers  to  do  so ;  and  lastly  the 
offer  of  the  undertakers  to  pay  £  30 — it  is  £  40  in  some  documents 
— and  to  double  their  rents,  in  return  for  a  new  patent,  as  the  old 
was  liable  to  escheat  for  a  breach  of  conditions. 

What  favoured  their  case  was  that  the  Crown  had  long  ago 
dropped  the  idea  of  placing  all  the  natives  under  the  native  land- 
lords, and  all  the  colonists  under  Undertakers.  In  Londonderry, 
for  instance,  a  large  amount  of  exceptions  to  this  rule  had  been 
made  in  the  original  Plantation  Charter.  In  all  the  other  Plan- 
tations all  the  Undertakers  had  been  required  to  do,  was  to  import 
a  fixed  number  of  farmers  and  artizans.  It  was  easy  for  the  Ulster 
Undertakers  to  represent  they  had  done  this.  A  passage  in  one  of 
Sir  Thomas  Philips'  letters  reads  as-  if  they  had  stated  that  30.000 
Colonists  had  entered  Ulster,  when  the  exact  number  was  only 
Y.OOO.2  The  whole  plea  was  then  followed  by  an  oration  on  the 
"wastes",  the  impossibility  of  manuring  the  land,  the  abolition  of 
"slavish  tenancies  at  will",  the  "reformation  in  religion"  by  "people 
being  gathered  into  townships  whereby  the  minister  may  know 
his  parishioners",  and  finally  "His  Majesty  shall  by  this  means 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 488.        2)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.-I-416. 


THE  UNDERTAKERS  863 

be  the  author  of  that  great  work  of  uniting  English  and  Irish 
together  as  landlord  and  tenant,  an  assured  means  of  peace, 
religion,  civility  and  obedience".  Parsons,  it  must  be  confessed, 
could  draft  a  case  well. 

Charles  was  much  moved  by  this  manifesto.  He  agreed  to 
wipe  out  all  previous  breaches  of  Covenant,  be  they  retaining 
natives,  discouragement  of  colonists,  absence  of  buildings,  or  neg- 
lect of  musters.  To  make  this  clear,  and  to  safe  guard  their  hold- 
ings, he  issued  instructions  that  every  man  was  to  get  a  new 
patent.  The  natives  were  to  be  planted  on  a'  fourth  of  each  Under- 
taker's estate.  They  were  not  to  roam  over  the  other  three-quarters 
for  "pasturing  or  agistment",  but  to  "dwell  in  townlands  and  not 
dispersedly".  They  were  also  to  get  long  leases  for  three  lives  or 
61  years,  and  on  no  condition  were  they  to  be  subjected  to 
"customs"  or  "uncertain  rents",  or  yearly  tenancies,  or  tenancies 
at  will.  No  mention  was  made  of  the  over  measurements,  nor  did 
anyone  notice  that  the  fines  in  the  Irish  documents  are  put  at 
£  40,  and  in  the  documents  sent  over  to  England  at  £  30.  Charles 
then  dismissed  the  Deputation  full  of  smiles  and  protestations  of 
loyalty,  and  turned  to  his  English  affairs  with  a  hope  that  they 
could  be  settled  as  easily.1 

There  was  great  excitement  in  Ulster.  An  Inquisition  toured 
the  whole  Province,  marking  out  boundaries,  allocating  the  quarters 
to  be  reserved  for  natives,  and  noting  where  breaches  of  Covenant 
had  transpired.  About  50  of  the  native  gentry,  not  to  be  outdone 
had  their  "boundaries  stepped",  rents  and  tenures  noted,  and  having 
procured  a  copy  of  the  findings  retired  into  placidity.  They  too, 
could  take  advantage  of  a  situation  such  as  this.  They  were  not 
liable  to  escheat,  of  course,  having  no  Covenants  to  break,  but 
boundaries  were  worth  defining  in  a  Province  where  there  were 
large  tracts  never  "passed",  no  claimants,  and  no  experts  on  the 
Commission,  but,  on  the  contrary,  benign  officials  with  instruc- 
tions to  please  everybody.2 

Then  followed  the  patents-  About  a  quarter  of  the  Undertakers 
took  this  valuable  opportunity  to  pass  patents  of  the  most  varied 
nature,  on  which  Strafford  at  a  subsequent  date  had  much  to  say.  3 

1)  M.  P.  R.  Charles  I.  pp.  75,  101,  102,  119;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—259;  1627 
—263,  264;  1628—349—353.  2)  1. 1.  Car.  I.  Six  Plantation  Counties,  1629.  3)  M. 
P.  R.  Charles  I.  pp.  453—455,  458,  474, 476, 477. 


864  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Something  suddenly  occurred  and  the  issue  of  patents  came  to  a 
stop.  Thomas  Wentworth,  Earl  of  Strafford,  then  arrived  on  the 
scene  to  find  some  of  the  Undertakers  raging  furiously  together. 
His  instructions  were  "The  Plantations  are  recommended  as  one 
of  the  chief  cares  entrusted  to  you.  This  further  comfort  Hie 
Majesty  is  pleased  to  give  you  that  whatsoever  complaints  be 
raised  against  you,  he  will  always  do  you  right".1 

All  this  explains  a  despatch  of  the  Council's.  "Touching  the 
Plantation  of  Ulster,  though  it  be  well  settled — God  be  thanked— 
and  free  from  the  complaints  of  the  natives,  yet  it  hath  not  been 
performed  as  was  first  conditioned  by  the  Undertakers."2  The 
chiefs  and  clansmen  of  the  Septs  were  quiet,  contented  and  loyal. 
Their  attitude — for  they  had  been  sorely  tried  in  the  Elizabethan 
wars — was  roughly  that  of  Father  Florence  McCarthy,  Superior 
of  the  Munster  Franciscans.  "I  will  do  Hie  Majesty  any  service, 
becoming  my  profession.  I  prefer  the  Commonwealth  with  the 
tranquillity  of  my  country  before  the  temerity  of  any  private 
malevolent  desturbers,  who  may  kindle  a  fire,  caring  not  how  it  may 
be  quenched.  You  may  peruse  the  enclosed  letter,  but  I  pray  no 
one  know  of  it."3  On  the  other  hand  the  Undertakers,  fresh  from 
England,  that  land  of  liberty  and  placidity,  saw  no  reason  why 
they  should  truckle  to  a  miserable  Deputy  and  Council,  who  asked 
them — free  Englishmen — to  build  houses,  forsooth,  and  "restrained 
them" — as  Pym  used  to  put  it — "from  doing  what  they  wished 
with  their  own".  Ireland  was  now  about  experience  the  English 
Radical. 


1)  L.  S.  1—159.        2)  C.  S.  P.  1622—357.        3)  C.  S.  P.  1624-536,  537. 


Chapter  III 
THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS 

In  the  times  of  our  civil  troubles  several  persons  helped  to  subvert 
the  Throne  to  which  they  owed  their  existence.  If  any  bounds  are  set 
to  the  repacious  demands  of  that  sort  of  people  revenge  and  envy  soon 
fill  up  the  craving  void  that  is  left  in  their  avarice.  Confounded  by 
the  complications  of  distempered  passions  their  reason  is  desturbed,  their 
views  become  vast  and  perplexed,  to  others  inexplicable,  to  themselves 
uncertain.  They  find  on  all  sides  bounds  to  their  unprincipled  ambition 
in  any  fixed  order  of  things.  BURKE. 

Even  before  Strafford  sailed  for  Ireland  he  got  a  taste  of  the 
actualities  of  Ulster  politics.  The  "Lords  and  Chief  Gentry"  of 
Ireland  tendered  a  Benevolence  of  "£  20.000  for  finding  the  Army 
for  a  year". *  Certain  of  the  Undertakers  of  Fermanagh — those 
of  Cavan  were  not  quite  so  ferocious — issued  a  manifesto,  calling 
on  all  and  sundry  not  to  pay.  For  three  or  four  yeans  they  had 
been  agitating  against  the  Army  as  a  "burden  on  the  subject",  but 
this  time  they  conceived  the  idea  of  demanding  that  it  be  paid  by 
reviving  the  extinct  fines  upon  Recusancy. 2  The  Leadens  of  the 
agitation  were  Sir  Wm.  Cole  and  Lord  Balfour.  In  the  Tudor 
times  "heads  would  have  fallen  for  this".  To  refuse  a  Benevolence, 
thus  publicly  voted,  was  dangerous,  but  to  call  on  others  to  refuse 
was  what  Straff ord  called  "mutiny".  The  very  fact  that  both 
leaders  were  Government  Officials1  brought  them  well  within  the 
reach  of  the  Prerogative,  those  special  rules  under  which  the 
King's  servants  worked.  They  were  promptly  arrested,  and  the 
agitation  disappeared. 3  On  Strafford's  arrival  they  were  "con- 
vented",  scolded,  sent  home  in  disgrace,  and'  warned  never  again 
to  be  guilty  of  such  "wanton  and  saucy  boldness  ae  to  mutiny  a 
country  against  the  King's  business".  Thus  was  "the  peccant 
humour  corrected  in  the  first  beginning".  4 

1)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1-25.  2)  L.  S.  1—74,  75.  3)  L.  P.  I.  s.  Ill— 19L 
4)  L.S.I— 88;  C.  S.  1633— 11;  H.  V.  C.  VIII— 37. 

55 


866  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Sir  William  Cole  is  a  study  in  that  mixture  of  vaccillation, 
whims,  "particulars  ends",  and  "formality  ever  set  the  wrong  way", 
which  Strafford  used  to  say  was  the  real  poison  in  the  body  politic. 
He  had  been  given  a  very  large  tract  by  the  King  on  certain  con- 
ditions. The  very  fact  that  he  took  out  a  new  patent  in  1639, 
shows  that  he  had  broken  those  conditions,  and  the  charge  was 
made  that  his  new  patent  covered  lands  that  belonged  to  others.  * 
The  report  of  the  Muster  Master  shows  that  he  had  only  6  muskets 
present  on  his  parade. 2  The  fort  of  which  he  was  Governor,  had 
been  turned  into  a  private  house  where  he  dwelt  with  his  family. 
"Charge  needless"  was  the  report  of  the  Military  authorities. 3  On 
this  man  it  never  seemed  to  dawn  what  would  happen  if  "a  discon- 
tented gentleman  flew  out",  or  if  the  Spaniards  landed,  and  yet, 
in  this  situation,  while  drawing  too  the  King's  pay,  he  lifted  up 
his  voice,  denouncing  the  Army,  calling  on  all  men  not  to  give  it 
aid,  and  suggesting  as  an  alternative  a  penal  imposition  on  the 
Roman  Catholics,  who  were  the  majority  of  his  County,  an  im- 
position which  he  was  not  to  pay,  though  one  of  the  wealthiest 
men  in  the  County.  Into  such  a  maze  of  dangers  did  the  Abra- 
cadabra of  liberty  and  "old  Parliamentary  ways"  lead  this  un- 
fortunate wight.  Years  later  he  played  a  prominent  part  in  cutting 
down  the  supplies  voted  to  the  Government,  and  in  prosecuting 
Strafford,  and  in  the  October  of  1641,  we  discover  him  clamouring 
violently  for  money,  men,  arms,  and  powder  from  a  bankrupt  and 
demoralized  Executive,  of  his  own  making,  to  resist  the  uprising 
of  the  churls,  who  were  carrying  out  to  its  logical  conclusion,  the 
morals,  doctrines,  and  methods  which  the  Covenanters  and  the 
Parliamentarians  had  advocated.  4 

Lord  Balfour  was  even  in  a  worse  plight.  He  could  only  pro- 
duce for  the  Muster  Master  six  muskets,  though  his  estate  was 
twice  as  large  as  that  of  Cole's. 5  He,  however,  eeems  to  have 
sadly  misused  his  functions  of  Governor  of  Fermanagh.  There 
suddenly  appeared  in  the  County  a  projector  of  the  name  of  Poe, 
with  a  letter  authorizing  him  to  probe  into  men's  titles.  He 
preceded  to  harrass  by  suits  some  small  owners,  petty  Colonists, 
and  two  Irishmen  of  the  name  of  Stephens  and  Brian  MacDonnell. 
"Barratry"  was  quite  a  common  offence  at  this  period,  sueing 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1632-650,  651.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1618—223.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660 
—83.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1642—371.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1618—223. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  867 

men  in  the  Courts  and  then  not  appearing.  The  law  as  it  then 
stood  cast  all  the  costs  on  the  unfortunante  defendant,  who 
usually  found  it  easier  to  pay  the  Plaintiff  some  blackmail  in 
advance,  rather  than  face  a  pile  of  costs.  This  is  what  was  described 
as  "compounding  with  delinquents  without  licence  of  the  Court", 
and  was  the  very  thing  which  the  Star  Chamber  and  the  Castle 
Chamber  were  supposed  to  suppress,  it  being  not  an  offence  against 
Statute  Law. 1 

For  some  time  this  went  gaily  on  in  County  Fermanagh,  till 
rumours  began  to  circulate  that  Poe  had  no  such  power,  that  his 
letter  was  a  forgery.  He  was  prosecuted  by  Stephens,  who  was 
Crown  Solicitor,  bound  over  by  the  Magistrates,  and  indicted  by 
the  Grand  Jury  as  "a  barrator  and  disturber  of  the  Peace".  He 
failed  to  appear.  At  the  next  assizes  he  did  appear  with  a  letter 
forbidding  the  escheat  of  his  recognizances.  The  Jury  acquitted 
him,  Balfour  producing  a  petition  signed  by  many  great  Under- 
takers to  the  effect  that  he  was  a  most  respectable  man.  The  un- 
fortunate petitioners  were  then  sued  by  Poe,  arrested  by  Balfour, 
and  refused  bail  till  they  petitioned  the  Lords  Justices.  In  the 
meantime  the  original  letter  was  being  examined.  No  one 
exactly  saw  it  being  sealed.  It  was  not  in  proper  form.  The  seal 
had  a  very  suspicious  look,  as  if  torn  off  some  other  document. 
Charges  and  countercharges  were  made.  A  host  of  draft  letters 
and  "stayed"  letters  adorn  the  case,  which  is  complicated  and 
obscure.  One  thing,  however,  strikes  the  casual  observer.  Why 
is  it  that  Poe  never  used  this  letter  to  attack  any  of  the  great 
Undertakers,  on  wrhose  over  measurements  and  concealments 
Straff ord  and  Bramhall  used  to  wax  so  eloquent?  Why  did  he 
confine  his  operations  to  tiny  freeholders  of  no  "worth  or  quality"? 
What  was  the  reason  that  this  obscure  man  should  get  such 
support  from  such  influential  undertakers?  One  has  a  very  hazy 
suspicion  that,  if  he  was  not  blackmailing  the  undertakers,  at  any 
rate  they  were  glad  to  support  one  who  had  the  good  taste  to  use 
his  letter  at  the  expense  of  people  of  no  importance.  The  last  we 
hear  of  him  is  in  1637,  when  Straff  ord  hailed  him  before  the 
Castle  Chamber  for  "misdemeanours  and  forgeries".  The  crime 
of  counterfeiting  the  King's  Seal,  was  too  serious  even  for  the 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—172;  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


868  PLUTOCEACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Deputy  to  try,  and  Poe,  with  an  accomplice  of  the  name  of 
Coleman,  vanishes  from  the  scene  under  escort  in  the  packet  to 
London.  Nor  was  this  the  only  case  of  this  kind.  Strafford  at 
a  later  date  fined  a  man  in  the  Castle  Chamber  £  200  for  black- 
mailing unfortunate  owners  with  Defective  Titles.1 

When  the  Judges  toured  Fermanagh,  they  very  soon  were 
informed  of  these  things,  and  they  made  a  report  to  Strafford  on 
Balfour's  general  conduct.  What  their  report  was,  does  not 
transpire,  but  Strafford's  indignation  knew  no  bounds.  "There 
is  not  in  all  Ireland",  said  he,  "a  greater  tyrant  than  he,  who  utterly 
drunk  with  the  vice  of  violence,  hath,  with  unequal  and  staggering 
paces,  trod  down  His  Majesty's  people  on  every  side,  Cacus  in  his 
den  never  fuller  of  rapine". 2  Balfour  was  now  in  England,  and 
Strafford  demanded  his  instant  despatch,  so  that  he  might  make 
an  example  of  what  he  used  to  call  "the  pressures  of  the  great  men, 
under  which  the  meaner  sort  live  here".3  This  "nimble  Lord" 
however — it  being  Parliament  time — was  hard  at  work  in  London, 
procuring  what  Straff ord  called  a  "pardon  for  all  the  outrages  of 
his  life  past".  4  The  last  we  hear  of  him  is  the  Deputy's  gleeful  joy 
at  the  news  that  he  was  being  sent  back  for  trial,  "for  believe  me, 
a  worse  man  lives  not,  I  trust  in  Ireland.  God  forbid  there 
should  be  many  such"-5  He  died  about  1635,  but  whether  or  no 
Strafford's  mooted  fine  of  £  2.000  was  imposed  does  not  transpire. 
The  whole  incident  is  a  revelation  of  what  abuses  of  the  law  and 
oppressions  on  the  subject  were  possible  when  large  areas  with 
Manorial  and  Official  rights,  were  vested  in  men,  who  had  no  one 
to  hold  them  in  check  from,  at  any  rate,  tolerating — though 
Strafford  accused  him  of  committing — extortions,  intimidations, 
barratry,  and  blackmail,  on  "poor  and  weak  colonists",  or  those 
"poor  freeholders  with  small  parcels",  with  which  Fermanagh 
teemed,  the  creations  of  either  "in  trust"  patents,  or  illegal 
alienations  on  the  part  of  the  Undertakers. 

When  Strafford's  Vice-Royalty  came  to  a  close,  "barratry" 
was  impossible.  The  Statutes  he  placed  on  the  Irish  Statute  Book, 
are  a  marvel  of  draftmanship,  directed  at  the  total  annihilation 
of  this  practice.  A  whole  series  of  clauses  of  limitation  for  all 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1623—1632-464,  480,  533,  579,  583,  598,  602,  612,  619, 679;  C.  S. 
P.  1625-1660—133, 142;  C.  S.  P.  1637—158, 159.  2)  L.  S.  1-245.  3)  L.  S. 
1—186.  4)  L.  S.  1—170.  5)  L.  S.  1-282. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  869 

forms  of  property,  and  every  form  of  offence  cut  down  the  scope, 
in  which  a  litigious  plaintiff  could  operate,  to  suits  in  which,  at 
any  rate,  the  facts  were  in  the  memory  of  man.  Executions  and 
distresses  were  regulated,  and  the  powers  of  manorial  lords  to 
direct  or  compound  for  them  were  reduced  within  reasonable 
limits.  Finally  in  a  non-suit,  the  costs  were  imposed  on  the 
Plaintiff,  and,  if  he  sued  in  forma  pauperis,  the  judges  were  given 
power  to  punish  for  a  frivolous  or  malicious  prosecution.  It  is 
not  till  one  reads  these  measures  that  the  barrenness  of  the  Statute 
Books  and  the  difficulties  under  which  justice  was  administered 
become  apparent. * 

The  aftermath  of  this  agitation  of  the  Planters  still,  however, 
percolated  through  politics.  The  first  Parliament  Strafford  called, 
is  remarkable  for  the  fact  that  the  chief  opposition  to  the  subsidies 
came  from  what  Strafford  loosely  called  "The  Protestant  Party", 
and  the  support  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  This  generalization 
is  not  quite  accurate.  The  opposition  in  the  House  of  Lords  was 
led  by  Westmeath  and  Fingall,  two  Roman  Catholic  peers. 2  Some 
of  the  Ulster  Boroughs  too  returned  Blundell,  Rives,  Borlase,  Paul 
Davis,  Meredith,  and  Fortesque,  who  formed  a  sort  of  opposition 
to  the  Undertakers  and  the  pro-Undertaker  Members  from  the 
other  Boroughs-.3  Nevertheless,  the  majority  of  the  Ulster 
Members  were  discontented  over  "the  warrant  staying  their  lands 
till  the  coming  of  the  Deputy,  "and  his  refusal  to  issue  fresh 
patents  "without  a  warrant  from  the  King".4  That  agitation  for 
no  Benevolence  and  Recusancy  fines  had  left  this  partly  religious, 
partly  political  cleavage.  What  strengthened  it  was,  that  the 
Ulster  Undertakers  had  inserted  in  the  great  log  rolling  exposition 
of  popular  grievances,  usually  called  "The  Graces",  a  demand  that 
the  issue  of  fresh  patents  according  to  the  new  terms  be  continued 
as  before.  Throughout  the  countless  intrigues  that  heralded  the 
introduction  of  the  subsidies,  we  can  detect  the  figures  of  the 
traditional  spokesmen  of  the  Planter  Class.  Ranelagh  and  Parsons 
tried  to  postpone  the  introduction  of  the  Subsidies.  In  the  Lords 
Mountmorris  and  Ranelagh  tried  to  stay  the  subsidies  till  grievan- 
ces were  first  redressed.5  Bellicose  Protestantism  formed  a  stout 

1)  Acts.  10.  Car.  I.  Sess.  2.  Cap.  5,  6,  7, 11, 16, 17, 25;  sess.  3;  Cap.  8,  9, 11, 12 
15, 19;  sess.  4;  Cap.  7,  8.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  1.  6.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1634—62-66.  4)  C.  S. 
P.  1625—1660—286.  5)  T.  C.  D.  F.  1.  5 ;  F.  I.  6. 


870  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

cabal  on  the  new  doctrine  of  "Redress  of  Grievances  first,  and 
Supply  afterwards",  and,  in  the  cabal,  figured  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Lords  of  the  Pale  and  Clanricarde's  nominees  from  Connaught, 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Tuam  giving  it  his  benediction  from 
afar.1  A  series  of  yet  more  tortuous  intrigues  routed  the  cabal  at 
the  critical  moment,  carried  the  subsidies  unanimously,  and,  when 
the  Graces  were  presented,  Strafford  coldly  replied  that  every 
Undertaker  who  had  broken  his  Covenants,  was  to  be  escheated, 
but,  under  the  shadow  of  escheat,  he  could  appeal  to  the  Defective 
Titles  Commission,  and  take  out  a  new  patent  at  a  reasonable 
composition. 2  An  act  was  then  passed — in  the  second  session  when 
all  was  quiet — legalizing  the  Royal  Right  to  the  Plantations.  This 
strengthened  the  Crown  Title  to  all  lands  whose  owners  had  broken 
their  Covenants.  It  did,  however,  something  more.  The  patents 
passed  in  1629  had  no  clause  of  forfeiture  for  breach  of  conditions. 
If,  after  that  date,  the  patentees  again  broke  their  conditions,  this 
Act  resurrected  an  escheat.  Finally  the  measure  legalized  in 
advance  all  such  new  patents  as  the  Commission  of  Defective 
Titles  might  pass,  and  made  such  new  grants  water  tight  against 
beagles  of  the  Poe  type.3 

What  first  drew  Strafford's  attention  to  the  Ulster  Plantation 
was  the  discrepancy  between  the  £40  fine  guaranteed  by  Under- 
takers seeking  new  patents,  and  the  entry  in  the  accounts  of  only 
£  30  a  patent.  Careful  inquiry  elicited  the  painful  fact  that  the 
Officials,  who  "trod  the  bounds"  and  passed  the  new  patents 
received  this  £  10  as  commission.  Commissions  were  quiet 
legitimate  at  this  period,  but  secret  commissions  were  not.  Men 
were  not  supposed  to  take  to  themselves  a  bonus  on  a  Royal  Grace. 
One  can  thus  understand  what  was  the  real  secret  of  all  those 
evasions  in  the  Plantation,  why  it  was  that  certain  of  the  officials 
strongly  recommended  this  Grace,  a  Grace  never  submitted  to  the 
Council,  who  would  very  quickly  have  "stayed"  such  a  proposal. 
Coke  bluntly  called  it  "corruption".4  Strafford,  however,  who 
was  more  tolerant  of  the  ways  of  high  politics,  referred  to  these 
"frauds  due  to  the  negligence — at  the  best — of  the  Officials"  and 
added  "how  the  ten  pounds  was  divided  amongst  them  I  know  not, 

1)  L.  S.  1—246;  M.  F.— 134.  2)  L.  S.  1—277—279, 322.  3)  Act.  10.  Car.  I. 
Sess.  3.  Cap.  3.  4)  L.  S.  1—159. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  871 

nor  am  I  curious  to  enquire".1  He  used  to  regard  these 
performances  as  indispensable  in  affairs  of  State,  and  only 
bestirred  himself  when  they  reached  unnatural  proportions,  or 
savoured  of  "oppressions".  He  one  time  excused'  himself  from  a 
suggestion  that  he  should  make  a  sweeping  alteration  by  saying 
to  Charles  "I  heard  a  rule  from  your  blessed  Father.  Quod 
dubitas  ne  feceris".2 

This  explains  also  the  grim  silence  with  which  Strafford 
regarded  Parsons,  "the  driest  of  all  the  company",  and  so  "sharp" 
that  "praise  and  commendation"  only  worked  "some  operation" 
on  him. 3  He  put  his  Court  of  Wards  under  the  strictest  daily 
inspection,  "so  that  the  officers  might  be  more  circumspect,  and 
myself  better  able  to  judge  whether  His  Majesty  be  profitably 
served".  4  Wandesforde  and  Ormonde  also  seemed  to  entertain  the 
same  opinion.  The  latter  complained  of  the  unnecessary 
Inquisitions  which  the  Court  of  Wards  sent  down  to  his  County, 
even  after  a  Plantation  had  been  drafted.  "You  are  in  the  right", 
said  Wandesforde.  "It  is  the  gain  of  the  officers  that  promotes 
these  Inquisitions.  The  gentleman  whom  you  see  at  the  head  of 
that  business  doth  not  a  little  promote  that  business."5  Parsons' 
comments  are  not  on  record.  He  kept  his  mouth  shut,  and  bided 
his  opportunity,  which  came  in  the  end. 

When,  however,  Strafford  inquired  into  the  Plantation,  he 
found  the  state  of  affairs  already  outlined.  Here  were  over 
measurements  running  into  ten  times  the  area  mentioned, 
defalcations  in  rent  running  back  for  years,  breaches  of  Covenant 
which  were  glaring  in  their  iniquity.  Plantation  forts  were 
dismantled,  or  used  as  private  houses.  The  Inspectors  of  the 
forts  had  not  been  paid  for  8  years.  Musters  were  more  honoured 
in  the  breach,  than  the  observance.  In  all  Ulster,  including 
Antrim,  Down,  and  Monaghan,  only  13.000  men  could  be  paraded, 
and  amongst  these  there  were  only  7.000  swords  and  700  muskets. 
The  trained  bands  of  the  boroughs  accounted  for  2.000  of  these, 
and  their  arms  were  altogether  unserviceable.  The  best  musters 
were  provided  by  landlords  outside  the  Plantation.  The  native 
hostings,  as  we  know,  were  by  now  a  dead  letter.  A  rebellion 

1)  L.  S.  1—132,  405.  2)  L.  S.  1—368.  3)  L.  S.  1-99,  298.  4)  L.  S. 
1-191.  5)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—41. 


872  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

or  an  Invasion  would  find  Ulster,  but  "a  company  of  naked  men".1 
Ad-d  to  this  the  scanty  population,  the  absence  of  tilth  and  houses, 
and  finally,  the  huge  "unmanured"  grazing  tracts,  o'er  which  the 
creaghts  roamed  like  Indians  or  Cossacks,  and  one  understands 
what  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  meant  when  it  ascribed  to  "the 
lack  of  manufactures  and  trades"  the  existence  of  "a  large  number 
of  vagabonds  and  beggars,  sound  of  limb  and  strong  of  body  that 
swarm  among  us".2 

The  patents  passed  in  1629,  however,  were  a  yet  more  curious 
study.  First  there  was  the  complete  pardon  for  all  previous 
breaches,  in  return  for  nothing  but  a  contribution,  which  Strafford 
always  insisted  was  paid,  not  by  "the  Great  Monied  Men" 
themselves,  but  by  their  "poor  and  bare  tenants",  violent  "takings 
and  ravishments  of  the  poor,  instead  of  the  quiet  levies  of  a 
Christian  King".3  This  pardon  for  breaches  of  their  charter  was 
all  the  more  inexcusable,  when  we  remember  one  out  of  the  great 
privileges  they  had  been  accorded.  For  seven  years  they  had  been 
allowed  to  export  whatever  they  grew  on  their  own  lands,  corn  or 
wooll,  woollen  or  linen  yarn,  "without  paying  any  customs  or 
in/positions  for  the  same",  a  privilege  no  one  else,  and  no  other 
part  of  Ireland  possessed.4  "If  that  business  were  in  my  hands 
again",  wrote  Strafford,  "I  would  make  it  six  times  as  beneficial 
.  to  the  Crown,  aiid  yet  use  the  Planters  honourably  and  well".  The 
drafting  of  those  patents  was  yet  worse.  The  old  patents  that 
covered  overmeasurements  were  defective,  in  as  far  as  they  com- 
prised more  territory  than  should  have  been  granted.  The  new 
patents  passed  over  this,  and  gave  an  absolute  title  to  the  whole. 
A  man  who  farmed  2.000  acres  was  supposed  to  hold  by  an  In 
Capite  tenure.  These  over  measurements  gave  men,  who  really 
held  six  or  seven  thousand  acres,  the  privilege  of  the  less  onerous 
feudal  tenure.  What  was  more  some  patents  that  were  originally 
In  Capite,  had  been  altered  to  soccage,  thus  abolishing  all  the 
Eoyal  Beliefs.  Of  course,  where  these  new  patents  were  based 
on  a  surrender  of  the  old,  they  were  illegal,  as  not  coinciding  with 
the  old.  Several  proprietors  accordingly  suppressed  in  the  pre 
amble  of  the  new  patents,  the  fact,  that  they  were  second  editions 

1)L.S.  1-199.     2)L.S.I-311.    3)  L.  S.  I— 238,"401.  407;  11-19.    4)  R.  I. 
A.  P.  I— 10. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  873 

of  the  first,  and  drafted  the  new  as  an  absolute,  free,  and  new 
grant  of  some  Royal  lands.  Other  patents  made  no  mention  what- 
ever of  Covenants,  so  that  lands  held  for  a  certain  purpose  to  do 
certain  things,  had  become  tenures  in  fee  simple,  like  inheritance 
or  purchase.  Lastly  there  were  new  over  measurements  created. 
Wastes  to  which  no  one  laid  claim,  rectories  whose  advowsons  had 
been  let  lapse,  Church  leases  whose  grantees  had  died,  Fort,  Com- 
mon and  School  lands — in  a  word  public  lands  which  had  no 
present  and  vigilant  guardian, — had  been  swept  into  the  net  on 
this  largess  of  grants'  by  officials  who  drew  £'  10  a  patent. x 

It  was  a  signet  letter  on  behalf  of  the  Earl  of  Annandale  that 
drove  Stratford  to  expose  this  scandal  in  its  entirety.  The  letter 
itself  gives  a  clue  to  the  process  by  which  these  grants  were  ob- 
tained. It  relates  that  the  Earl  had  purchased  lands  from  others, 
and  had  been  given  an  estate  by  James.  Desiring  to  incorporate 
all  his  parcels  together,  he  prayed  for  a  patent,  and  would  be 
pleased  if  likewise,  some  tracts  no  one  owned  and  no  one  claimed, 
and  which  he  had  been  promised,  should  also  be  inserted.  Coke 
"stayed"  this  letter,  suspecting  that  it  aimed  at  the  passing  of 
large  scopes  at  "base  rates",  but  even  he  had  no  idea  what  lay 
behind  it.  Nevertheless,  by  some  means  or  other,  it  was  initialled, 
and  reached  Stratford  as  a  warrant.  Already  Annandale  had  passed 
in  1629,  no  less  than  10.000  acres  of  Plantation  land  without 
Covenants,  in  soccage,  and  as  an  ordinary  grant.  This,  of  course, 
might  have  included  purchases  of  native  estates,  which,  being  free 
of  Covenants,  if  surrendered,  would  in  a  new  patent  be  regranted 
free  of  conditions,  but  in  the  patent  there  is  no  mention  whatsoever 
of  a  surrender.  It  is  this  absence  of  mention  of  a  surrender  which 
makes  it  so  very  difficult  to  discover,  whether  the  land  had  ever 
been  held  under  covenants.  Two  casual  references  also  show  that 
what  he  was  really  doing  was,  buying  up  the  estates  of  absentee 
Undertakers  and  waning  gentry.  The  process  then,  was  to  pass 
the  former  free  of  covenants,  and  in  the  same  category  as  the 
latter,  dragging  in  at  the  same  time  the  spare  and  unpassed  tracts. 
Land  was  doubling  and  trebling  in  value  in  Ireland,  during  the 
reign  of  peace,  and  the  mortgagee  and  land  speculator  in  "real 
estate"  was  looming  very  large  on  the  horizon.  Stratford  was,  at 

1)  L.  S.  1—132, 158;  11—405;  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16;  M.  P.  R.- 453-455,  458,  474, 
476-479. 


874  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

any  rate,  determined  that  this  excrescence  on  the  body  politic  was 
to  operate  elsewhere  than  in  the  Plantations.  He  "stayed"  the 
letter.  One  of  the  Statutes  he  also  carried  in  the  Irish  Parliament, 
was  one  fixing  interest  at  ten  per  cent — it  was  thirty  in  the  earlier 
days  of  King  James — and  imposing  a  penalty  of  three  times  the 
loan.  A  second  clause  fixed  the  Commission  of  money  changers, 
brokers,  and  "drivers  of  bargains",1 

The  Act  entitling  the  King  to  all  the  Plantations,  escheated 
every  owner  who  had  broken  his  Covenants,  even  if  in  1629  he 
had  "passed"  a  patent  with  no  clause  of  forfeiture.  Every  owner, 
so  situated,  had  thus  a  Defective  Title.  His  case,  therefore,  came 
before  the  Defective  Titles'  Commission.  There  are  only  two  cases 
on  record  of  an  escheat,  pure  and  simple,  in  the  whole  of  Staf- 
ford's Vice-Koyalty.  In  one  case,  however,  the  owner,  Luke 
O'Toole  of  Castlekevin,  was  in  an  exceptional  position.  The  estate 
was  so  "bangled"  that  he  barely  kept  afloat  by  selling  the  timber, 
and  he  told  Dr.  Alan  Cooke,  Bedell's  opponent  in  Cavan,  that  he 
was  "well  content  to  part  with  the  land".  The  territory  was  leased 
to  Coke,  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  planting  purposes,  and  Straf- 
ford  made  arrangements  that  O'Toole  should  be  given  a  freehold 
elsewhere,  free  of  all  the  incumbrances  with  which  the  old  estate 
was  laden,  while  his  mother's  charge  on  the  estate  was  bought  out. 
"He  extolleth",  said  Coke  to  Stafford,  "your  Lordship's  justice 
and  confesseth  it  to  be  equal  to  the  poor  as  to  the  rich".  The  other 
case  was  the  escheat  of  an  estate  of  Sir  James  Young  for  "alleged 
breaches  of  the  Plantation  of  Longford".  In  this  case,  however, 
the  only  evidence  on  record  is  a  Eoyal  letter  ordering  Stafford  to 
inquire  into  the  "breaches",  to  escheat,  and  make  over  to  a  new 
lessee,  but  whether  the  letter  was  "stayed"  or  put  into  execution, 
does  not  transpire.2 

How  careful  Stafford  was  to  safeguard  those  who  were — as 
he  put  it — "no  way  privy  to  the  frauds,  but  came  in  by  inheritance 
or  mean  conveyance",  is  shown  in  the  case  of  a  Mr.  Wise,  on  whose 
behalf  Cottingdon  had  written.  An  ancestor  of  his,  Sir  William 
Wise,  had  been  granted  certain  lands  by  Henry  VIII,  but  only 
on  condition  that,  if  direct  heirs  failed,  the  lease  was  to  lapse  to 

1)  M.  P.  R.  454,  458;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1632—202,  436,  452,  509,  661 ;  C.  S.  P. 
1625—1660-60, 177, 228;  Act  10.  Car.  I.  Sess.  2.  Cap.  22.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1636-136; 
Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11—114, 133, 156, 157, 180,  253. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  875 

)rown.  On  the  direct  line  expiring  a  grand  nephew  of  his — 
so  says  Straff ord — "by  practice  with  one  Dillon,  then  Baron  of  the 
Exchequer  got  himself  found  heir  male  of  the  body  of  Sir  William, 
and  so  hath  wiped  the  Crown,  and  thus  wrongfully  enjoyed  the 
lands  ever  since".  Strafford  issued  strict  injunctions  to  Cotting- 
don  not  to  breathe  a  word  of  this,  lest  some  Courtier  procure  a 
patent  before  the  Commission  had  compounded  with  the  owner, 
for  then  "the  poor  gentleman  would  be  undone,  and  the  Crown 
not  much  the  better". 1  These  compositions  varied  considerably,  a 
fine,  or  an  increased  rent,  or  a  third  in  In  Capite  tenure,  or  the 
surrender  of  manorial  rights  or  advowsons,  or  the  insertion  of 
covenants  to  plant  or  to  build,  or  to  sow  with  flax,  or  to  keep  a 
muster,  varying  accordingly  to  the  size  of  the  estate,  or  the  nature 
of  the  defect. 

In  Ulster  all  these  seem  to  have  operated  with  full  effect. 
The  only  documents  we  possess  on  the  subject,  are  the  petitions  of 
the  Undertakers  on  Strafford's  downfall,  and,  as  they  made  the 
most  of  the  compositions  into  which  they  were  "terrified",  we 
have  a  pretty  full  exposure  of  the  general  effect.  Eents  of  those 
who  had  broken  the  Covenants  were  raised  another  50  °/0.  Many 
tenures  were  altered  to  two-thirds  in  In  Capite.  Advowsons  to 
livings  were  escheated,  and  no  greater  reform  was  needed.  The 
malhandling  of  those  advowsons  by  letting  rectories  lapse,  or  by 
giving  a  portion  of  the  income  to  a  curate,  the  owner  retaining 
the  rest,  was  one  of  the  scandals  of  the  century.  It  prevailed  all 
over  Ireland,  and  the  vesting  in  the  hands  of  one  religion,  the 
right  to  nominate  or  veto  the  minister  of  another,  or  to  let  the 
Church  and  rectory  fall  into  ruins,  had  been  the  great  penal  op- 
pression with  which  the  Church  of  Ireland  had  had  to  contend, 
because — not  to  speak  of  the  rest  of  Ireland — the  greater  number 
of  the  owners  of  advowsons  were  either  Roman  Catholics  or 
Puritans. 

The  next  escheat  was  the  manors.  This  was  not  exactly  an 
escheat,  but  the  grants  were  so  worded  as  to  enable  the  Crown  to 
interfere  with  this  independent  administration  of  justice.  In 
nearly  all  the  grievances  and  administration  of  Ireland  at  this 
period,  we  have  to  go  right  back  to  Plantagenet  times  to  get  a 

1)  L.  S.  1-162. 


876  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

parallel  in  England,  Ireland  being,  as  Strafford  one  time  said, 
"governed  by  another  law,  the  same  that  we  we  were  governed 
under  in  the  Wars  of  the  Koses".1  Sir  John  Davies  actually  found 
districts  in  which  the  Eric  or  old  Saxon  "Wer"  operated  quite 
naturally.  The  statute  of  Gloucester  in  1278,  is  the  closest  parallel 
to  this  situation.  By  this  Act  where  a  patent  was  defective  the 
Crown  assumed  the  right  to  enter  in  and  whittle  down  those 
manorial  rights  of  a  judicial  character,  which,  in  many  cases,  had 
been  shockingly  abused.2  During  the  later  days  of  Elizabeth,  and 
all  through  the  reign  of  James,  these  manorial  rights,  Courts  leet, 
and  Courts  Baron,  frankpledge  &c.  had  been  distributed  to  every 
estate  owner  of  any  eminence  in  Ireland.  The  Earl  of  Antrim, 
Sir  Tirlagh  McHenry,  and  Sir  Phelim  O'Neill,  for  instance,  in 
Ulster  all  had  such  prerogatives.  The  Government  of  the  Country 
up  to  this  had  been  really  a  feudalism  controlled  by  a  Council  in 
Dublin.  These  manorial  rights  had  been  distributed  broadcast 
among  the  Planters.  As  can  easily  be  imagined,  they  could  be, 
and  they  were  abused.  Even  where  no  evil  intent  lay,  they  led 
to  the  greatest  confusion  of  justice.  In  1627  Antrim  claimed  the 
right  of  veto  on  all  warrants  issued  in  his  area,  defied1  O'Hara  the 
High  Sheriff,  and  arrested  his  bailiffs  under  this  manorial  charter. 
He  defended  himself  by  saying  that  O'Hara's  bailiffs  were  "not 
bailiffs  but  kern". 3  The  Scotch  in  Down  always  repudiated  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  "in  regard  of  the  liberty 
their  Lords  have  of  excluding  all  Sheriffs".4  The  Patentees  of 
Abbey  Lands  ipso  facto  had  these  rights,  which  "made  them  inde- 
pendent of  Sessions",  and  out  of  these  rights  some  used  to  turn 
an  honest  penny  by  protecting  "rogues"  from  the  Sheriff  for  a 
consideration.5  Suffice  it  to  say  that,  in  the  Straffordian  patents, 
the  right  of  entry  was  accorded  to  the  writs  and  servants  of  the 
judges,  magistrates  and  sheriffs.  Thus  had  "the  painful  subjects" 
a  right  to  appeal  to  the  Courts  of  Justice. 

The  next  general  escheat  was  the  markets.  It  stood  to  reason 
that  a  Lord  or  a  Planter  who  protected  and  developed  a  market 
should  have  some  control  over  its  management.  To  the  generation 
of  that  day  it  was  a  normal  feature  of  the  body  politic.  Corpora- 

1)  L.  S.  11—18.  2)  S.  S.  C.-449.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1627—278.  4)  L.  S.  11-219. 
5)  T.  C.  D.  P.  3. 16. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  877 

tions,  manorial  Lords  and  boroughs  all  had  the  right  to  say  who 
was  to  sell  in  the  market,  and  at  what  price,  the  Clerk  of  the 
Market  being  the  official  to  prevent  "regrating  and  forestalling", 
an  offence  regarded  by  the  Tudors  as  grave,  "plundering  our  people 
and  making  a  profit  out  of  our  realm".  This  system,  however,  of 
private  control  of  markets  was  fast  collapsing,  reared  as  it  was  in 
time  of  commotion,  when  no  one  grudged  a  baronial  Lord  or  a 
City  Council  the  right  to  control  a  market  that  they  protected  with 
their  own  swordsmen.  In  England  it  had  disappeared.  The  re- 
bellion of  Wat  Tyler,  and  then  the  intense  civil  commotion  of  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI  had  vested  all  this  power  in  the  sovereign. 
In  Ireland  the  grumblings  at  the  extortions  of  the  Clerk  of  the 
Market  were  growing  louder  and  louder.  Dublin  rioted  to  get  rid 
of  his  control.  The  House  of  Commons  petitioned  against  his 
fees.1  Chichester  intended  to  pass  an  act  abolishing  his  extortions2 
Complaints  against  local  control  of  markets  trickle  frequently  over 
to  London.3  Strafford  himself  regarded  it  as  an  agency  for  much 
that  was  evil.  "I  never  knew  any  benefit  the  Commonwealth 
reaped  by  it"  was  his  comment.4  His  attitude  on  all  control  of  prices 
was  that  "where  the  generality  is  concerned  in  their  livelihood 
there  the  less  you  meddle  the  better". 5  These  market  rights  were 
whittled  down  to  fixed  tolls  and  a  moderate  supervision.  Sir  Wil- 
liam Cole,  for  instance,  had  a  patent  which  made  him  the  Clerk 
of  the  local  market,  and  gave  him  the  right  to  say  who  was  to 
sell  within  its  precincts.  Straff  ord's  Commission  of  Defective 
Titles  reduced  this  to  a  nullity.6 

The  increase  in  rentals  or  fines  are  hard  to  discover.  The 
petition  of  the  Planters  relates  that,  in  addition  to  a  two-thirds 
tenure  of  Knights  service  in  Capite,  these  increases  averaged  a 
30  °/0  increase  on  the  old  rent  which  latter,  we  know,  did  not  pay 
any  attention  to  the  over  measurements.7  A  few  patents  however, 
survive,  and  from  these  we  can  get  some  conception  of  how  the 
rents  were  raised. 

Sir  William  Cole.    Fine  £  73.    Kent  increased  from  £  12 
to  £  53. 


1)  L.S.I— 314.  2)  C.  M.S.— 161.  3)  T.  C.D.  F.  3. 16;  C.  S.  P.  1625— 1660 
—276, 277.  4)  L.  S.  1-307.  5)  L.  S.  1-308.  6)  Lodge's  Peerage  VI— 44. 
7)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660-259. 


878  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Sir  Frederick  Hamilton.     Kent  increased  from  £  64  to 

£  129. 

Lord  Caulfield.    Fine  of  £  119. 
Lord  Chichester.    Fine  of  £  467. l 

The  position  of  the  natives  on  the  Undertaker  estates  was 
more  complicated.  The  original  plan  of  James  to  compel  the  Under- 
takers to  people  their  estates  with  none  but  English  and  Scotch 
had  broken  down.  The  Planters  had  found  it  impossible.  The 
natives  always  flocked  to  the  estates  of  the  Planters.  No  other 
Plantation  was  drafted  on  that  basis.  The  other  Plantations  only 
insisted  that  the  Planters  should  bring  in  a  certain  number  of 
immigrants.  Strafford  adopted  this  plan  in  all  the  Plantations. 
The  covenant  was  renewed,  insisting  on  the  planting  of  a  certain 
fixed  number  of  English  or  Scotch. 2  This  being  accomplished,  the 
remainder  of  the  Estate  could  be  let  to  the  natives.  The  conditions, 
however,  on  which  they  were  let,  rendered  it  impossible  for  an 
undertaker  to  sell  it  to  a  creaght  owner  or  a  usurer.  The  "parcels" 
were  limited  to  60  acres,  so  that,  if  he  wished  to  alien  to  natives, 
it  could  be  only  to  occupying  peasants.  Not  could  he  exploit  them 
by  "uncertain  exactions",  or  keep  these  parcels  only  for  the 
Creaghts.  They  could  only  be  let  for  leases  of  21  years  or  three 
lives.  3  An  additional  covenant  was  inserted  that  a  certain  area  be 
sown  yearly  with  flax.  4  In  other  words,  the  Undertaker  could  not 
live  in  London,  drawing  rents  from  the  Creaght-owners.  Nor  could 
he  sell  his  estate  in  the  rising  market  to  native  gentry  or  usurers. 
If  he  sold,  he  had!  to  sell  it  to  another  Undertaker,  bound1  by 
similar  covenants,  to  import  a  certain  number  of  settlers,  and  to 
make  the  native  tenants  virtually  peasant  proprietors,  and  not 
serfs  or  flitting  cowherds.  The  Strafford  regime  was  remarkable 
for  a  strict  enforcement  of  State  contracts.  We  may  safely  assume 
that  this  time  the  Plantation  Covenants  were  enforced,  and  these 
considerations  apply  to  all  the  Plantation  Counties,  and  all  those 
who  held  in  other  counties  under  Covenants.  This  is  why  in  the 
subsidy  valuations  the  Plantation  Counties  are  responsible  for 
more  than  a  quarter  of  the  assessment  of  all  Ireland,  and  this 
calculation  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  Antrim,  Down  and 

1)  Lodge  Peerage  VI— 43,  44;  V— 173;  III— 136;  1—329.  2)  Egmont.  M.  S. 
S.  1—99.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660-236.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1636-136. 


879 

Cork,  much  of  which  was  held  under  Covenants,  are  non  Planta- 
tion, and  likewise  Wicklow  and  Carlow  part  of  which  were  only 
planted  about  1638. 1 

The  Londonderry  Plantation,  however,  was  in  another  cate- 
gory. The  long  agitation  of  Sir  Thomas  Philips  was  at  last  bearing 
fruit.  Seldom  did  a  man  ever  in  Ireland  waged  a  more  pertinacious 
battle  than  did  this  lame  old  soldier  against  official  indifference. 
In  Londonderry  all  the  agents  used  all  their  local  powers  to  combat 
his  efforts  for  reform.  In  Dublin  the  officials  suppressed  his  re- 
ports, or  stayed  Royal  warrants  in  his  favour.  In- London  matters 
were  not  much  better.  All  the  documents  connected  with  his  ea-e 
disappeared  one  afternoon,  and  could  never  be  traced.  The  friars 
in  Londonderry  waged  a  ceaseless  campaign  against  his  effort  to 
collect  evidence,  and  he  retorted  by  gathering  from  the  serfs  some 
very  spicy  informations  of  clerical  intimidation.  "People  com- 
municating with  me",  he  said,  "are  treated  as  they  would  be  by 
the  Inquisition."  The  creaght  owners  were  against  him  to  a  man. 
The  peasants  themselves,  some  frightened  at  the  idea  they  might 
loose  their  leases,  others  agog  with  the  notion  that  Philips  was  a 
Puritan  trying  to  persecute  their  priests,  and  others,  in  debt  to 
the  usurers  or  servile  to  the  agents,  all  formed  a  solid  combination 
against  which  Philips  fretted  vainly  for  many  a  long  day,  till  he 
had  landed'  himself  in  bankruptcy  in  his  ceaseless  endeavours  to 
reform  this  welter  of  wastes,  exploitation,  and  incivility.2 

Two  items  alone  show  how  matters  were  transacted.  The 
Corporation  was  supposed  to  set  aside  three  townlands  for  a 
school.  Instead  it  "passed"  this  area  to  others,  and  gave  the 
schoolmaster  but  20  marks  a  year.  The  ferry  was  let  out  to  what 
Bramhall  called  "The  Charon"  for  £  34  a  year.  Of  this  £  28  went 
in  perquisites  to  the  different  agents.3 

This  time  Philips  was  not  beset  by  the  old  difficulties 
"Howsoever  this  service  hath  been  coldly  followed  hithertoo" — as 
Coke  put  it — a  request  that  all  documents  were  to  be  despatched 
to  London  to  be  ready  for  legal  proceedings  was  promptly  and 
readily  executed.4  This  letter  was  despatched  in  December  1634, 
and,  in  the  following  March,  the  trial  in  the  Star  Chamber  began. 
It  was  an  overwhelming  case.  Bluntly  stated,  the  case  was  that 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660-232.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1632—83-88, 187,  357,  379. 
638,  643,  644.  3)  P.  E.— 18 ;  C.  I.  XII-53,  75.  4)  L.  S.  1-340. 


880  '  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

the  Corporation  had  sublet  to  agents,  and  the  agents  had  not  only 
neglected  every  Covenant,  but  had  cozened  the  Customs,  levied 
exactions  ,and  usury,  practiced  forestalling  and  regrating,  rack- 
rented  the  petty  Planters  to  the  level  of  the  grazing  rents,  and 
handed  over  the  serfs  to  the  priests,  whom  they  utilized  as  rent 
collecting  agencies.  The  forts  were  derelict,  the  cities  but  a  few 
shops  and  cabins,  and  the  common  lands  in  the  hands  of  the 
graziers,  and  not  the  serfs.  The  forest  of  Glenkonkein,  reserved 
for  the  use  of  planters,  building  of  houses  and  manufacturers,  had 
been  ruthlessly  -levelled,  cut  up  into  staves  and  transported  abroad 
for  "the  building  of  foreign  navies,  for  the  native  Merchants  never 
build  any  navigable  ships  for  their  own  use". 1  The  School  Lands 
were  gone  and  the  Glebe  lands  private  property.  The  lands  of  the 
loyal  O'Cahans  were  grazed  by  Creaghts  of  by  no  means  loyal 
persons,  and  these  men,  who  as  Bramhall  says  had  "risked  life  and 
property"  for  the  Crown  were  fobbed  off  with  leases  of  bog  and 
mountain,  to  the  great  jubilation  of  the  belligerent  friars,  native 
usurers,  and  kerne.  The  only  case,  in  all  Ulster,  of  natives  being 
"driven  to  the  hills"  is  this,  and  it  was  done  by  the  greatest  patrons 
of  sedition  that  ever  dwelt  in  Ulster.  The  witnesses  to  all  this 
were  both  Irish  and  English,  men  of  both  high  and  mean  quality.2 

The  Corporation  really  made  no  defence.  One  point  there  was 
in  their  favour,  as  Strafford  subsequently  urged,  viz.  before  the 
area  had  lapsed  under  the  control  of  the  agents  certain  sums  of 
solid  cash,  had  been  expended.  Otherwise  their  case  was  that  they 
were  not  responsible  for  the  acts  of  each  of  the  Companies.  The 
Companies  pleaded  that  on  one  side  they  were  not  responsible  for 
the  Covenants  undertaken  by  the  Corporation,  and  on  the  other 
for  the  misdeeds  of  their  agents.  The  result  was  a  foregone  con- 
clusion. One  has  only  to  read  the  complaints  of  the  tenants  to 
realize  how  hostile  this  London  regime  had  been  to  "painful" 
immigrants.3  This  alone  would  have  justified  an  escheat.  After 
a  trial  of  14  days  the  Corporation  was  fined  £  70.000  and  "their 
patent  damned.  All  sat  in  council,  the  two  judges  and  others, 
learned  in  the  law,  and  none  were  dissenting".4 

Philips  was  now  triumphant,  if  bankrupt.    The  greater  part 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660-210;  1631—637,  638.  3)  C.  S. 
P.  1625^1660—142,  207;  1627—219,  220.  4)  L.  S.  1—374;  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660 
—193,  201. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS   •  881 

of  the  initial  expenditure  in  this  case  had  fallen  upon  him,  after 
the  manner  of  the  time,  when  the  official  first  paid  the  expenses 
of  his  office,  and  then  petitioned  the  King  for  a  re-fund.  So  "weak 
in  estate"  was  he  now  that  he  compounded  his  pension  of  £  120  a 
year  for  £  500,  which  was  a  good  bargain  for  the  Irish  Exchequer.  l 
The  King,  however,  decided  to  reward  him  with  £  5.000,  payable 
out  of  the  escheat  or  the  fine.  Straff  ord,  knowing  well  the  Law's 
delays  and  "the  ways  of  Courts",  advanced  him  the  sum  from  his 
private  purse,  "fearful  that  the  want  of  money  might  distress  him 
the  whilst,  and  I  told  him  that,  if  any  of  his  creditors  did  press 
above  moderation,  I  will  give  them  good  content.  This  I  did  in 
regard  to  the  Gentleman's  age,  poverty,  and  former  services",  he 
having  lost  a  leg  on  active  service  against  the  Scotch  Islanders. 2 
Thanks  to  his  patron,  Lord  Coventry,  Strafford  was1  duly  paid,  and 
Sir  Thomas  Philips  vanishes  from  the  scene,  wending  his  way 
North  in  triumph,  peace,  and  his  customary  sedan  chair.3  His 
descendants  are  the  Parsons  family  of  Birr.4 

This  escheat  may  have  added  to  the  revenues  of  the  Crown, 
but  it  certainly  added  to  the  Deputy's  troubles.  His  urgent  advice 
to  Charles  was,  that  whatever  he  did  with  the  Estate,  he  should 
reserve  to  himself  the  Customs,  fishings,  and  advowsons,  but  above 
all  the  Customs,  as  being  "not  fit  to  be  worn  in  the  cap  of  a  citizen 
of  London".5  Those  of  Londonderry  and  Coleraine  were  among 
the  last  of  the  Customs  that  were  in  private  hands,  and  this  farm 
cost  the  Crown  £  1.800  a  year.  "The  trade  of  Londonderry",  he 
one  time  wrote,  "hath  been  hitherto  managed  with  more  art  and 
inward  respects  to  themselves  than  with  a  desire  to  deal  faithfully 
to  the  Crown  in  their  trading".6  The  disease  of  all  Customs'  ad- 
ministration at  this  period  was  smuggling. 7  The  North  of  Ireland 
was  the  last  stronghold  of  the  smuggler.  8  Its  proximity  to  Scot- 
land, the  very  loose  Government  of  that  country,  and  the  private 
control  of  the  Customs  of  Londonderry,  Coleraine,  Carrickfergus, 
and  Strangford  all  made  this  possible.  Straft'ord's  sarcastic  com- 
ments on  the  conduct  of  the  London  Customs'  Officials  in  the 
North  are  amply  proven  by  a  disclosure  made  at  his  trial.  It  was 
then  sworn  that  the  rates  of  valuation  for  tonnage  and  poundage  in 

1)  L.S.I— 137, 153.  2)  L.S.I— 497.  3)  L.  S.  I— 517.  4)  Lodge.  Peerage. 
VII— 252.  5)  L.  S.  1—200.  6)  L.  S.  1—494.  7)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16;  L.  S.  1—402, 
423,  424.  8)  L.  S.  1—382;  L.  L.  YII— 173;  R.  C.— 197. 

56 


882  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Londonderry  and  Coleraine  were  half  those  that  the  Lord  Treasurer 
had  previously  fixed  for  the  other  ports  in  Ireland. L 

The  escheat  and  supervision  of  these  Customs  first  introduced 
Strafford  to  "that  Scotch  chapman"  Barr,  Lord  Wilmot's  iron- 
manager,  Lord  Mountmorris'  "man  of  straw"  at  Court,  the  agent 
for  a  Scotch  syndicate  who  aimed  at  taking  over  the  Derry  Planta- 
tion, the  entertainer  of  the  Scotch  revolutionary  preachers,  himself 
an  enthusiast  on  the  Covenant,  who  was  subsequently  utilised  by 
the  Long  Parliament  as  their  agent  in  the  Scotch  Camp  to  deal 
with  matters  affecting  Stafford's  trial.  He  was  the  Corporation's 
lessee  of  Culmore  Castle,  which  was  partly  a  fort,  partly  a 
coastguard  station.  As  a  fort  it  was  nearly  derelict.2  Beresford, 
the  Corporation's  agent,  had  been  the  nominal  guardian,  but  Barr 
had  a  lien  upon  it  of  some  mysterious  kind,  where  he  used  to  see 
"what  goods  come  from  Derry".  8  Strafford,  however,  always  had 
his  reservations  on  Barr,  who,  possessed  of  some  extraordinary 
signet  letter,  "applies  it  to  deterring  your  Majestys  Officers  from 
doing  their  duties,  defrauding  your  Majesty's  Customs,  and  assist- 
ing at  the  escape  of  contumacious  persons,  as  a  person  exempt  from 
any  coercive  power  on  this  side".4  Once  the  Deputy  sent  a 
pursuivant  to  arrest  this  "busy  but  broken  pedlar",  whereupon 
he  produced  one  of  his  signet  letters,  and  the  pursuivant  retired 
abashed.  Barr  was  a  financial  and  political  tout  for  a  very  curious 
combination  of  persons.5  At  any  rate,  determined  to  put  Culmore 
in  safe  hands,  Strafford  delegated  it  to  Colonel  Eobert  Stewart, 
who,  for  ancestral  reasons,  would  hold  that  fort  against  anyone 
connected  with  a  Campbell  or  a  Hamilton. 

The  fisheries  were  also  reserved.  They  must  have  been  of 
considerable  value.  They  were  leased  by  Bramhall  to  some  local 
men  for  £  1.000  a  year,  but  the  "practices"  of  some  local  merchants, 
who  exaggerated  the  rumour  of  war  with  Spain,  caused1  the 
lessee  to  throw  up  the  lease.  Strafford  then  made  it  a  State 
service,  collected  240  tons  of  salmon,  sold  it  at  £  15  a  ton,  and, 
after  paying  wages,  "getting,  salting,  and  packing",  lodged  £  1.400 
in  the  Exchequer.6 

As  regards  the  estate  itself,  Strafford's  advice  was  to  retain 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 244,  246.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660-197,  211.  3)  C.  S.  P. 
1625-1660-280,  321.  4)  L.  S.  11—229.  5)  L.  S.  1-381.  6)  P.  K.— 30,  33; 
L.S.II-91;  1-393,475. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  883 

the  Customs,  Fishings  and  Woods  for  the  revenue,  to  reorganize 
thoroughly  the  tenures,  and  to  keep  it  as  Palatinate  for  the  young 
Duke  of  York.1  Strafford  knew  that,  in  the  Kepublican  temper 
of  the  times,  Charles  could  never  ask  Parliament  for  supplies  in 
aid  of  the  Royal  family.  "They  will  at  some  time",  he  said,  "fall 
weightily  -and  with  pressure  on  the  Crown". 2  In  the  meantime 
he  ordered  all  rents  to  be  paid  into  the  Exchequer,  and  forbade  any 
further  destruction  of  timber.3  This  timber  was  now  reserved  for 
the  Navy,  and  special  arrangements  were  made  for  its  dispatch. 
It  should  be  remembered  that,  in  the  year  1636,  the  Naval  strength 
was  doubled,  and  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  that  this  com- 
modity should  not  be  shipped  to  France.4  Dr.  Bramhall  was  ap- 
pointed sequestrator. 5 

At  first  the  King  was  disposed  to  accept  Strafford's  advice.  6 
A  series  of  considerations,  however,  rendered  an  alternative  policy 
not  unadvisable,  and  Strafford  was  not  opposed  to  it.  It  was  no 
time  to  stand  on  legal  rights  or  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  with 
the  London  Corporation.  "It  were  very  considerable",  said  Straf- 
ford "the  too  much  discouraging  of  the  city  in  a  time  thus  con- 
ditioned, and  when  they  are  still  to  be  called  on  for  those  great 
payments  towards  the  Shipping  business". 7  Laud  too  held  them 
comparatively  guiltless,  compared  with  those  "great  delinquents, 
those  greater  tenants  that  took  it  immediately  from  the  city".  8 
The  King  was  not  averse,  as  he  put  it  "to  the  use  of  a  little  present 
money",  and  there  was  no  hope  whatsoever  of  getting  even  a 
portion  of  the  fine  from  the  Corporation,except  by  suave  methods. 9 
They  had  already  pleaded  complete  inability  to  raise  such  a  sum  in 
cash,  and  had  been  ordered  to  "make  such  an  offer  as  should  be  fit 
for  his  Majesty  to  receive".10 

On  receipt  of  the  Corporation  tender  for  a  pard'on  and  a  new 
lease,  Strafford  told  Bramhall  to  cease  all  alterations  in  Derry.11 
He  told  the  King  that  in  his  view  £  5.000  a  year  was  a  reasonable 
rent  to  charge  the  Londoners  for  the  estate,  minus  Customs, 
Fishing,  and  woods.  This,  of  course,  threw  on  them  the  duty  of 
raising  the  rents  of  the  "Great  Tenants"  to!  the  market  level.  Straf- 
ford and  Bramhall  both  held  that  £  8.000  a  vear  was  the  maximum 


1)  L.  S.  1—137,  399,  494.  2)  L.  S.  11-65.  3)  L.  S.  1-406.  4)  L.  8.  1-475, 
495.  5)  L.  S.  1—496.  6)  L.  S.  1—390.  7)  L.  S.  11—25.  8)  L.  L.  VII— 465. 
9)  L.  S.  11-78.  10)  L.  S.  1—463, 467.  11)  P.  R.-30. 

56* 


884  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

rental  the  estate  could  yield.  His  advice  to  the  King  was  to  take 
the  Londoners'  offer  of  £5.000  a  year.  This  coupled  with  the 
Customs,  Woods  and  Fishings,  meant  a  capital  sum  of  £  150.000. 
On  the  other  hand,  by  altering  the  tenures  himself,  he  could 
produce  a  standing  revenue  of  £  8.000,  which  could  be  mortgaged 
for  £112.000.  Charles  was  amazed.  He  assumed  that 'the  Derry 
Estate  was  a  gold  mine.  Such  it  was  we  know  to  the  "Great' 
Tenants"  and  the  agents,  but  Straff ord  did  not  calculate  on  that 
basis.  He  based  his  estimate  not  on  market  rents  or  the  dues  of 
creaght  owners,  but  on  low  rentals  for  long  periods  to  encourage 
development,  and  on  carefully  safeguarding  the  legitimate  rights 
of  "undertenants,  who  came  in  by  purchase  and  were  no  means 
privy  to  the  frauds".  The  King  was  amazed  that  he  "put  his  assent 
to  so  mean  an  offer".  Strafford  was  adamant.  Five  thousand  was 
all  one  could  charge  an  Undertaker,  and  £  8.000  was  all  one  could 
fairly  take  from  the  tenants.  "If  that  business  comes  well  to  an 
issue",  wrote  Laud,  "I  will  handsomely  infuse  it  into  the  City,  how 
much  they  are  beholding  to  you,  not  that  I  think  you  greatly 
value  any  opinion  of  theirs,  but  because  the  time  was  not  long 
since,  that  the  Court  malignity  was  most  maliciously  spread  thither 
concerning  you."1  As  we  know  the  London  Corporation  displayed 
the  utmost  hostility  to  Strafford  on  his  downfall,  being  firmly 
convinced  that  Londonderry  would  never  have  been  escheated  but 
for  him,  or,  if  escheated,  would  have  been  returned.  Suffice  it  to  say 
the  King  decided  to  keep  the  Estate,  and  takei  the  £  8.000  a  year.2 
The  very  moment  it  became  known  that  "a  good  store  of  land" 
was  in  the  King's  gift,  the  petitions  arrived.  Charles  sent  all 
these  to  Strafford  for  comment.  The  Deputy  was  on  tenterhooks  all 
the  while.  He  never  knew  from  day  to  day  to  what  decision  financial 
embarrassments  in  London  might  not  force  the  King,  or  what 
sudden  intrigue  might  not  vest  the  whole  area  in  some  undesirable 
hands.  The  seriousness  of  the  situation  was  that  every  acre, 
originally  passed  to  the  Corporation,  was  escheated,  and  the  decision 
of  the  Star  Chamber  was  so  phrased  that  the  Church,  the  native 
freeholders,  and  the  planters  were  all  now  tenants  at  will,  thoir 
parchments  being  but  waste  paper.  As  a  rule,  these  tenders  offered 
enormous  rents,  based  on  the  theory  that  all  rents  could  be  doubied 

1)  L.  L.  VII-273.          2)  L.  S.  II-8, 25, 41,  65,  78;  L.  L.  VII— 342;  C.  S.  P. 
1625-1660-206. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  885 

and  all  plots  escheated.  "A  mighty  bargain",  Straff ord  called 
one  of  them.  "The  tenants  are  to  be  turned  out  without  any 
consideration  of  their  monies  expended,  for  fault  of  the  Corpora- 
tion, wihout  having  being  so  much  as  privy  to  the  crimes.  It 
comes  from  an  inferior  meanminded  person,  whose  heart  is  not  able 
to  consider  how  princes  esteem  more  the  honour  of  their  gatherings 
than  the  profits  themselves,  and  how  far  dissonant  it  is  to  your 
princely  thoughts  to  touch  an  advantage  thus  conditioned  with 
rigour."1 

They  had  a  very  Scotch  flavour,  some  of  these  tenders,  all 
the  more  ominous  as  they  came  on  the  eve  of  the  Scotch  rebellion. 
Two  of  them,  he  said,  would,  result  in  the  banishment  of  every 
Englishman,  and  "leave  the  Province  in  a  manner  all  Scottish, 
which  I  think  were  not  so  provident  at  any  time.  How  much  less 
then,  in  one  conditioned  as  ours?"-  The  climax,  however,  came 
when  Barr  arrived,  announcing  to  all,  and  sundry,  that  he  was  the 
new  agent  for  a  Scotch  syndicate,  who  were  just  waiting  to  sign 
their  names  to  the  contract.  Bramhall  was  furious.  No  one  would 
make  a  bargain,  or  sign  a  lease  with  this  danger  of  total  escheat 
staring  them  in  the  face.  Barr,  it  should  be  remembered,  had 
signed  the  Covenant  to  go  into  rebellion,  if  all  was  not  as  he  wished 
it,  and  what  would  happen  the  Church  and  School  lands  if  he  had 
their  disposition?  "Save  me,  my  Lord",  wrote  Bramhall  to  Laud, 
"from  the  insolent  madness  of  this  lay  elder.  Thus  as  a  bishop.  As 
a  sequestrator,  however,  I  tell  you  that  the  natives  who  hazarded 
their  blood  in  the  -service  of  the  Crown  against  treacherous  kindred 
will  be  cast  out  of  doors.  The  houses  which  the  English  built  will 
be  inhabited  by  strangers.  The  Irish  have  a  proverb  they  will  yet 
weep  over  English  graves,  and  I  believe  it  is  already  fulfilled.  It 
makes  my  heart  bleed  to  think  if  this  should  be  but  known  here." 
Finally  he  flatly  prophesied  that  if  this  syndicate  of  "blind  Scotch 
undertakers"  tried  to  raise  £  12.000  a  year  out  of  the  country  they 
would  fail,  and  the  King  would  not  get  his  headrent,  but  only 
"more  dishonour  than  I  ever  hope  befall  him".3  As  Laud  put  it 
"the  bare  proposal  of  gain  is  so  welcome,  that  some  do  neither 
consider  the  impossibility  of  raising  the  gain,  nor  the  mischiefs 
that  must  follow."4  Whether  it  was  Sir  James  Galloway  or  "that 


1)  L.  S.  11-65.     2)  L.  S.  11-224.     3)  C.  I.  XII-53,  55.    4)  L.  L.  VII— 444. 


886  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

insolent  fellow  Murray"  that  were  Barr's  masters  in  this  does  not 
transpire,  but  Strafford  heard,  and  Laud  corroborated  the  rumour 
that  the  Earl  of  Antrim  and  the  Marquis  of  Hamilton  were  in  the 
business. 1 

At  this  moment  this  pair  of  semi-feudal  noblemen  were  united. 
One  was  the  greatest  landowner  in  Ulster.  The  other  was  Argyle's 
great  rival.  Antrim  always  claimed  the  Western  Isles.  Hamilton 
procured  him  a  Royal  warrant  to  exercise  Martial  Law  in  Ulster, 
to  procure  munitions  from  the  Castle,  and  to  invade  Argyle's  ter- 
ritory, before  that  nobleman  had  even  joined  the  Covenanter-. 
The  arrangement  was,  that,  if  the  expedition  was  successful,  both 
were  to  share  Argyle's  estates,  while  Ireland  paid  the  *cost  of  the 
expedition  and  ran  the  certain  risk  of  civil  war  in  Ulster  by  giving 
palatinate  jurisdiction  and  martial  powers  in  Antrim  to  one  whom 
Strafford  called  "the  grandson  of  Tyrone,  and'  the  grandson  of 
old  Randy  McDonnell,  in  command  of  as  many  Os  and  Macs,  a* 
ever  startled  a  Council  Board".2  Antrim  was  not  exactly  danger- 
ous by  design.  No  doubt  he  really  intended  to  attack  Argyle,  but, 
nevertheless.,  a  scatten-brained  and  bankrupt  nobleman,  at  the  head 
of  armed  Roman  Catholic  Swordsmen,  whom  he  had  no  money  to 
feed,  would  certainly  not  exercise  restraint  in  a  province,  where 
there  were  at  least  40.000  Calvinistic  Scotchmen,  possessed  of 
money  and  goods,  many  of  whom  were  sympathisers,  if  not  with 
Argyle,  at  least  with  the  Covenant.3 

Antrim  was  rather  a  nuisance  than  a  danger  to  the  realm.  In  fact 
he  added  quite  as  much  to  its  gaieties  as  to  its  difficulties.  In  this 
affair,  as  Laud  put  it,  he  "was  led  into  the  undertaking  by  Hamil- 
ton".4 Strafford  dubbed  him  "a  man  of  mean  compass  with  a  large 
estate",  and  seems  to  have  agreed  with  Laud  that  the  function  of 
the  State  was  not  to  regard  Antrim  as  ill  disposed — "an  old  Hugh 
Tyrone  sprung  from  the  loins  of  O'Neale" — but  simply  to  "look  upon 
things  to  come"  and  see  that  the  mooted  patent  and  mobilization 
were  balked  for  reasons  of  State.  "Men  of  brains  and  courage  and 
malice  with  great  means  and  great  alliances"  might  turn  such 
powers  to  very  dangerous  ends,  and  "supplement  the  other  defects" 
of  Antrim,  who  certainly  "was  not  able  to  go  on  with  a  business 
where  Hugh  Tyrone  left  it".5  When  Laud  penned  these  lines  ho 

1)  L.  L.  VII-484.  2)  L.  S.  11—325.  3)  L.  S.  11-296,  297,  300-305. 
4)  L.  L.  VII— 571.  5)  L.  L.  VII-484,  508. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  887 

was  re-echoing  a  despatch  of  Stratford's.  At  the  moment  he  did 
not  see  Stratford's  meaning.  Stratford  was  referring  to  Hamilton.  [ 

Stratford's  intelligence  department  was  a  marvel  of  acumen. 
He  seems  to  have  held  in  his  hands  all  the  threads  of  all  the  in- 
trigues in  the  hinterlands  of  Ireland,  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  Court. 
His  Agent  in  London  was  Railton.  His  Agent  in  Scotland  was 
Webb,  the  Secretary  of  the  Earl  of  Lenox.  In  Ireland  his  informa- 
tion came  from  the  most  varied  sources — a  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop,  a  Church  of  Ireland  Dean,  a  Scotch  Colonel,  a  Dutch 
Captain,  the  mate  of  a  coasting  steamer  and  the  Ambassador  in 
Spain,  not  to  speak  of  the  intercepted  letters  of  the  Countess  of 
Tirconnell — all  kept  him  informed  of  the  countless  intrigues 
between  the  relics  of  Ulster  feudalism,  the  friars,  the  Scotch 
Covenanters,  and  the  Scotch  nobility,  who'  were  all  for  a  few 
months  in  an  alliance,  as  Chichester  used  to  put  it,  "in  odium 
tertii"  2 

It  was  this  ubiquity  of  his  servants  and  friends,  and  the  un- 
doubted accuracy  of  his  other  comments  on  men  and  things  that 
make  his  cautious  comments  on  Hamilton  so  significant,  though 
Laud  for  a  long  time  would  never  agree  with  him.  He  attributed 
the  whole  disturbances  in  Scotland  to  the  fact  that  Hamilton  was 
"not  right  set".3  It  was  for  that  reason  that  he  flatly  refused  to 
entertain  any  relations  with  him  whatsoever  and  the  Marquis  held 
him  in  "deep  displeasure".4  The  evidence  against  that  nobleman 
is  certainly  overwhelming,  but  his  procedure  was  so  tortuous  and 
he  acted  so  consistently  through  others  and  in  the  dark,  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  get  at  any  evidence  that  would  stand  in  a 
Court  of  Law.  His  mother  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Coven- 
anter patrons. 5  His  kinsman,  the  Earl  of  Abercorn,  betrayed 
Dumbarton  Castle  to  the  Covenanters.6  The  foreign  agent  of  the 
Covenanters  and  the  forger  of  their  Cannon  were  both  servants 
of  the  Marquis.7  The  business  of  the  Scotch  Prayer-Book  is  even 
more  mysterious.  Ever  since  1629  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion 
that  some  alteration  would  have  to  be  made  in  the  loose  and  casual 
episcopal  regime  of  that  country,  but  what  had  embroiled  the 
situation  was  the  means  by  which  the  reform  was  initiated,  a 

1)  L.  L.  VII-575.  2)  C.  A.  H.  Charles  I.  p.  57;  L.  S.  11-355,  274,  361,  376, 
269;  C.  C.  P.  1-179, 140, 183.  3)  L.  L.  VII— 565.  4)  L.  S.  11—250.  5)  L.  L. 
YII-514.  6)  L.  S.  11-325.  7)  L.  S.  11-276. 


888  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

curious  mixture  of  truculence  and  timidity,  which  left  the  King 
without  a  single  supporter  on  the  Scotch  Council.  In  this  Straf- 
ford  was  never  consulted.1  To  the  Privy  Council  the  matter  was; 
never  mentioned.2 

Every  step  taken  was  against  the  pleadings  and  advice  of 
Laud,  who,  with  Strafford,  and  contrary  to  what  tradition  asserts, 
never  hid  from  himself  for  a  moment  that  a  rebellion  was  im- 
minent and  that  it  would  bring  the  King  "to  h'is  knees".3  "My 
life  is  nothing",  he  said,  "but  inward  prophecies  of  evil".4  "This 
business",  wrote  Straff ord,  "gathers  fearfully  and  apace  and  sits 
wondrous  dark  upon  the  public  peace.  May  God  be  pleased  in  His 
mercy  to  disperse  and  clear  up  all  again !  The  skirts  of  the  rain, 
if  not  part  of  the  lightening  is  probable  will  fall  upon  this  King- 
dom. For  the  love  of  Christ  let  me  have  early  instructions  what 
I  am  to  do,  and  then  I  trust  to  hold  ourselves  here  by  the  stayes  by 
one  means  or  another."5  Both  the  men  whose  lives  this  storm 
swept  away  were  certainly  guiltless  of  its  beginnings,  Strafford 
totally,  and  Laud,  who  was  in  favour  of  the  new  Prayer  Book, 
being  a  vehement  protestor  against  the  methods  employed  to  bring 
it  in. 

Hamilton,  however,  flung  himself  into  the  matter.  In  a 
savage  despatch,  every  word  of  which  was  aimed  at  Hamilton, 
Strafford  attributed  the  whole  debacle  to  doing  this  thing 
at  the  secret  advice  of  Scotchmen.  "Treachery  by  those  who 
were  trusted"  is  the  reiterated  refrain  of  his  letters.  What  makes 
the  whole  conduct  of  Hamilton  so  dubious  is  that  he  made  "the 
deepest  protestations"  to  the  King  and  Laud  that  there  was  no 
fear  whatsoever  of  an  emeute  in  Scotland,  at  the  very  moment 
when,  not  only  Scotland  but  Eastern  Ulster,  was  seething  with 
excitement. 6  The  nearest  clue  we  can  get  to  Hamilton's  policy 
was  that  he  was  determined  to  allow  matters  to  drift  to  the  verge 
of  an  explosion,  and  then  to  appear  as  the  great  protector  of  the 
excited  Scotch  against  "innovations  in  religion",  as  their  spokes- 
man to  the  King,  in  which  situation  much  power  would  accrue  to 
his  party  in  Scotland,  power  that  he  could  utilize  against  Argyle. 
"I  have  no  quarrel  with  the  Scotch",  once  wrote  Bramhall,  "nor 
they  with  me.  I  only  hope  they  love  me  better  than  one  another."  7 

1)  L.  S.  11-190.        2)  L.  S.  IT— 325.         3)  L.  L.  VII— 373:  490.        4)  L.  L. 
VII— 485.        5)  L.  S.  11-202.        6)  L.  L.  V1I-485.        7)  C.  I.  XII-72. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  889 

This  is  exactly  what  did  occur  in  1640  when  Hamilton  announced 
to  the  Scotch  that  he  was  "seeing  that  His  Majesty  was  not 
diverted"  by  others  from  giving  them  their  just  demands. l  By 
then,  however,  he  was  helpless.  His  action  in  conspiring  with 
Antrim  to  attack  and  seize  on  the  estates  of  Argyle,  had  driven 
that  one-eyed  buccaneer  into  the  Covenanter  Party,  which  he 
captured  and  used  for  his  own  purposes  very  effectively.  His  speech 
to  the  General  Assembly,  when  he  first  stalked  into  their  presence, 
is  a  masterpiece.  "He  entreated  all  present  not  to  misconstrue  his 
late  parting  and  killing  for  them,  protesting  that  he  went  always 
their  way,  but  delayed  to  profess  it,  so  long  as  he  found  this1  close 
carriage  might  be  advantageous  to  their  cause,  but  that  now  of 
late  matters  were  come  to  such  a  shock,  that  he  found  he  behoved 
to  adjoin  himself  openly  to  their  society,  except  he  should  prove 
himself  a  knave."2  Then  he  took  what  Strafford  used  to  refer  to 
as  "their  Covenant  with  God",  incarcerated  every  MacDonnell, 
placed  Hamilton's  estates  under  coigne  and  livery,  and  led  his 
Roman  Catholic  clansmen  to  fight  the  good  fight  against  Popery, 
and  to  make,  as  Clanneboy  used  to  say, — "the  Covenanters 
glorious  to  Posterity". 

Accordingly  these  tenders — all  Scottish — to  take  over  and 
plant  "the  Derry"  are  not  only  financial  and  economic.  They  are 
political.  Already  Down  was  the  appendage  of  Argyle  and  half 
Antrim  belonged  to  the  MacDonnell.  Scattered  throughout 
Armagh  and  Tyrone  were  Antrim's  O'Neill  kinsmen,  and  his 
O'Neill  enemies  also.  Seven  thousand  acres  of  his  lay  in  County 
Londonderry.  The  Hamilton  influence  also  was  very  strong  in 
Ulster,  and  had  the  merit  of  embracing  all  religious  parties,  while 
it  was  opposed  very  strenuously  by'  the  Stewarts.  From  the  dawn 
of  history  to  the  present  day  Ulster  politics  are  Scotch  politics, 
and  full  control  over  Londonderry,  over  its  forts  and  inhabitants, 
was  a  prize  well  worth  straining  every  nerve  to  secure  on  the  eve 
of  an  explosion,  in  which  every  English,  Irish,  and  Scotch  family 
was  destined  to  fight  for  bare  life. 

Laud  was  aghast  when  Strafford  revealed  all  this  to  him.  "If 
the  King  give  way  to  a  magazine  of  arms  and  furnish  Lord  Antrim 
with  it,  the  world  will  wonder  and  I  despair.  If  they  grant  the 

1)  R.C.-181.        2)  L.L.VII-517. 


890  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

lands,  independent  on  the  State  there,  and  that  198  (Hamilton) 
be  able  to  prevail  therein,  so  as  you  may  not  intromit  there,  the 
example  will  go  on  like  a  cancer  and  your  Government  be  lost."  1 
Fortunately  "the  idle  expressions"  of  Antrim  and  "the  lavish 
tongues  of  the  propounders  or  projectors"  had  given  both  Strafford 
and  Bramhall  warning  of  what  was  brewing.  Laud  was  thus 
enabled  to  forestall  them  with  the  King. 2  Charles  said  he  would 
take  very  good  care  that  the  undertenants  were  protected,  but 
Laud  was  still  dubious.  "Many  things  are  cunningly  put  to  his 
Majesty,  quite  contrary  to  their  fair  face."3  In  the  meanwhile  the 
absence  of  any  system  or  manager  had  lost  the  revenue  £  16.000. 4 
In  the  meantime  another  tender  had  arrived,  this  making  the 
third.  It  was  tendered,  of  behalf  of  the  undertenants  by  Sir  John 
Clotworthy.  They  offered  to  pay  £  9.000  a  year  for  ever  if  all 
existing  leases  were  secured  for  ever.5  Sir  John  Clotworthy  was 
one  of  the  most  popular  and  active  figures  in  the  North  of  Ireland. 
The  son  of  one  of  the  agents  to  the  Plantation  by  purchase, 
mortgages,  and  long  leases  he  had  become  a  landed  proprietor  of 
no  mean  status.  He  was  also  regarded  as  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Presbyterian  party,  and  of  Parliamentary  doctrines,  and  was  held 
in  high  honour  by  the  London  Corporation. 6  It  is  nearly  impos- 
sible to  say  with  whom  he  was  not  connected'  by  ties  of  kin.  His 
mother  was  a  Loftus,  daughter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin.  This 
united  him  to  the  Parsons  and  Eanelagh  party.  He  was 
related  to  Tristam  Beresford,  agent  for  the  Plantation,  Edward 
Roly,  agent  for  Coleraine,  and  Eoger  Langford,  one  of  the  Down 
Planters.  Lastly  his  son-in-law  was  Major  Owen  O'Connolly,  the 
gossip  of  Lord  Maguire,  whom  that  Peer  tried  allure  into  his  plot 
to  seize  the  Castle. 7  If  ever  a  man  had  friends  in  all  parties  and 
on  all  sides  it  was  this  gigantic,  jovial,  and  singularly  eloquent 
exponent  of  raw  revolution.  His  politics  were  rather  English  than 
Scotch,  but  this,  in  the  excitement  of  the  times,  did  not  prevent 
him  from  adjourning  to  Edinburgh  to  sign  the  Covenant,  after 
which  he  returned  calmly  to  Ulster,  and  continued  the  even  tenour 
of  his  way.  Strafford  simply  called  him  "Ananias"  and  left  him 
unmolested,  regarding  him  rather  as  an  English  Radical,  for  whom 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 484.  2)  L.  L.  VII— 504;  C.  I.  XII— 53.  3)  L.  L.  VII— 488. 
4)  L.  L.  VII-540,  5)  C.  S.  P.  1638-195;  L.  S.  11-224.  6)  J.  L.-27.  7)  Lodge 
Peerage II— 377— 380;  V— 296,297;  VII— 252, 157. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  891 

allowances  had  to  be  made  in  moments  of  excitement.,  it  being  a 
peculiarity  of  that  tribe  that,  while  singularly  law-abiding  in 
those  districts  where  there  own  houses  are  situated,  they  always 
lend  the  light  of  their  countenances  to  the  most  blood  thirsty 
cabals  in  countries  not  their  own.  What  made  this  performance 
all  the  more  curious  was  that  Clotworthy  was,  at  that  moment, 
an  official  of  the  Crown.1  On  the  rumour,  however,  that  Argyle 
was  threatening  Ireland  and  the  Antrim  and  Derry  landowners, 
Sir  John  recollected  himself,  and  was  one  of  those  who  administer- 
ed to  all  the  Scotch  in  Ulster  a  repudiation  of  the  oath,  to  which 
he  had  subscribed  only  a  few  months  before.2  When,  however, 
the  elements  of  revolution  began  to  stir,  he  departed  to  London, 
and  there  placed  himself  among  the  leading  lights  of  extreme 
Revolution,  prosecuting  Strafford  and  Laud.3  The  latter  was  so 
badgered  by  him  on  the  Scaffold  with  theological  queries  that  he 
"applied  himself  to  the  Executioner  as  to  the  milder  person". 4 
Cromwell  then  expelled  him  from  the  House  as  a  public  nuisance, 
and  he  retired  to  Ireland  when  he  acquitted  himself  well  on  the 
field  as  an  Officer  among  the  Covenanters.  He  then  became  a 
Parliamentarian  official,  survived  a  prosecution  for  paying  his 
soldiers  in  paper  money,  while  exporting  the  gold1  Cromwell  had 
sent  him,  and  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  Restoration,  after 
which  he  became  a  Peer  and  a  stalworth  upholder  of  "Arbitrary 
Government".5 

To  this  tender  of  Clotworthy's  Straff ord  was  not  averse.  It 
had  one  great  merit.  "It  settles  all  the  now  occupants  where  they 
are  in  quietness  and  moderate  contentment",  while  the  two 
former  made  liable  to  eviction  "purchasers  bona  fide,  who  had 
incredibly  improved  their  estates.  The  former  will  not  only  leave 
the  people  discontented,  but  that  Province  in  a  manner  all  Scotch". 
What  was  more  the  former  tenders  made  tenants  at  will  of  the 
following  gentry  of  the  Clans,  who  had  passed  their  lands  in  the 
Londoners'  patent,  Phelim  Groome  O'Neill,  Manus  O'Cahan, 
George  O'Cahan,  Manus  MacGilligan,  Shane  and  Daniel  O'Mullane, 
not  to  speak  of  the  innumerable  freeholders  in  the  liberties  of 
Coleraine  and  Londonderry,  and  the  leaseholders  elsewhere.6  The 
tender,  however,  stood  very  little  chance  of  acceptance.  Depending 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 464.  2)  R.  P.  VIII-495.  3)  R.  P.  VII— 1, 14, 110.  4)  L.  L. 
IV— 438.  5)  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  6)  I.  L.  G.— 301. 


892  PLUTOCRACY  AND  KEVOLUTION 

as  it  did  on  neither  escheats  or  rent-raising,  its  capital  value 
£  15.000  less  than  either  of  the  two  other  offers.  If  the  King  was 
determined  to  lease  "the  Derry"  Strafford  recommended  him  to 
accept  this,  even  if  it  was  financially  the  worse,  and  had  the 
demerit  of  being  a  fee  farm  grant,  instead  of  a  21  and  a  41  years 
lease  as  the  others  were.  To  make  doubly  sure,  however,  of 
averting  the  other  two  offers  Strafford  tendered  himself.  He 
offered,  if  allowed  to  take  the  fishing,  to  surrender  the  estate  at 
the  end  of  21  years.  He  would  pay  a  rent  of  £  8.000  for  five  years 
and  an  extra  four  thousand  at  the  end  of  that  period.  This  he 
estimated  to  be  10  °/0  better  than  the  two  offers  and  25  °/0  better 
than  Clotworthy's,  while  retaining  Clotworthy's  great  merit  of 
preserving  the  tenants.  Hie  final  advice  to  the  King  was  that 
"such  a  power  and  command  should  not  be  passed  in  fee  farm  to 
any  meaner  subject  than  the  son  of  a  King"  viz.  the  Duke  of  York, 
who  would,  at  the  end  of  the  21  years,  "accomplish  his  full  age".1 
One  of  the  most  curious  things  in  that  enigmatic  character 
of  Charles  was  that  he  never  followed  the  advice  of  a  Minister  in 
toto.  It  is  just  possible  that  the  real  cause  of  all  his  troubles  was 
that  he  took  a  portion  of  each  Minister's  advice,  and  formed 
policies  out  of  the  divergent  views.  Clarendon  points  out  with 
considerable  acumen,  that  Charles  was  always  asking  for  advice 
from  men  he  thought  were  experts,  and  was  always  in  difficulties 
till  the  time  when  all  his  Ministers  deserted  him.  It  was  only 
then,  when  the  debacle  was  complete,  that  he  suddenly  took  to 
evolving  his  own  policies  himself,  with  results,  that  very  nearly 
reversed  the  situation,  his  failure  in  the  end  being  due  to  his 
previous  mistakes,  and  not  to  any  defects  in  his  later  statesmanship. 
Charles  compromised  "by  settling  it",  as  he  told  Strafford,  "for 
my  best  advantage,  both  in  honour  and  profit".  He  kept  "the 
Derry  Estate"  as  Crown  Property.  Instead  of  vesting  its  control 
in  Strafford  or  the  Irish  Executive,  he  appointed  a  Commission 
of  Bramhall,  Parsons,  and  two  Englishmen  who  had  never  been 
in  the  Country.  We  can  but  guess  at  the  reason.  Perhaps  it  was 
his  very  suspicious  mind,  and  perhaps  it  was  the  suggestion  of 
others,  but  he  knew  that  Strafford  would  not  raise  the  rents  above 
a  certain  economic  level,  and  money  was  not  only  scarce,  but 

1)  L.  S.  11—222—225. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  893 

there  were  men  on  the  Council  to  whom  the  King  was  in  debt, 
clamouring  daily  for  their  arrears.  The  English  members  came 
over  to  Ireland  with  the  intention  of  raising  the  rents  as  high  as 
they  could.  Strafford  dispatched  Parsons  elsewhere.  He  knew, 
if  the  Commission  did  not,  that  it  was  Parsons  who  was  respon- 
sible for  the  original  over  measurements,  that  he  was  a  kinsman 
of  Clotworthy,  and  that  Clotworthy,  was  not  only  related  to  the 
two  chief  agents  of  the  old  regime,  but  was  the  mortgagee,  and 
thus  the  real  owner  of  a  twelfth  of  the  Londonderry  estate. 
Parsons  was  not  corrupt,  as  corrruption  went,  but  how  could  he 
be  an  impartial  judge  in  these  matters?1  "He  cannot  be  spared", 
wrote  Strafford. 

These  financial  difficulties  in  London  became,  towards  the  end 
of  Strafford's  reign,  the  greatest  danger  to  the  realm.  Charles- 
could  not  raise  money  without  a  Parliament.  Every  Parliament 
summoned  was  "embroiled"  at  the  very  outset  by  discussions  on 
the  number  of  Priests  in  Ireland,  the  sermons  of  indiscreet 
Bishops,  or  "the  endowment  of  innovations  and  prelacy",  one  of 
those  phrases  which  masked  the  disendowment  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  on  that  Charles  would  never  give  way.  The 
inevitable  result  of  Straff  ord's  handling  of  the  Irish  finances  was 
that  every  Minister,  official,  and  courtier,  with  claims,  just  or 
unjust  on  Charles,  always  pleaded  first  dire  poverty,  and  then  a 
letter  to  the  Lord  Deputy,  to  pay  him  out  of  the  Irish  account. 
The  letters  so  "stayed"  by  Strafford  are  innumerable.  One  cause 
of  the  hatred  he  aroused  in  the  Court — and  there  is  every  evidence 
that  "the  precise  party"  in  the  Long  Parliament  were  urged  on  to 
their  task  by  great  officials  at  the  Court — was  this  reiterated 
"taking  of  the  negative"  by  a  Deputy,  who  one  time  flatly  declined 
to  allow  the  Irish  Eevenue  "to  pay  a  company  of  people  that  have 
contracted  debts  to  themselves  from  unjust  pressure  upon  the 
present  necessities,  a  company  of  rotten  debts,  raised  upon  jewels, 
forsooth,  and  other  wares".2 

The  rents  of  "the  Derry"  constituted  a  great  bait  for  this  large 
gathering.  This  was  why  one  of  his  maxims  was  that  "all  grants 
in  Londonderry  should  first'  pass  the  Great  Seal  here,  to  prevent 


1)  L.  S.  11-232,  245,  252;  L.  P.  I.  s.  III-215.  2)  L.  S.  1—518. 


894  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

the  slipping  in  of  vast  royalties  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Crown".1 
It  was  no  part  of  the  then  policy  to  reserve  all  Irish  revenue  for 
the  internal  affairs  of  Ireland,  but  Straff ord  held,  that  till  the  debt 
was  paid  off,  all  farms  and  monopolies  compounded,  and  a  standing 
balance  placed  in  the  Exchequer  for  use  in  case  of  war,  no  money 
should  be  diverted  to  the  other  side,  and  then  only  if  economic 
conditions  could  stand  it.  It  was  on  this  condition  Parliament 
had  voted  the  subsidies,  and  this  condition  had  to  be  honourably 
maintained. 2  The  rents  of  Derry  were  in  another  category.  They 
were  the  King's  personal  estate.  Strafford  was  ordered  to  transmit 
them  to  London.  His  reasons  against  the  course  were  as  follows: — 

(1)  Transportation  of  bullion   would  ruin  the  Irish   money 
market  and  set  all  prices  soaring  upwards. 

(2)  If  goods  were  exported  instead,  the  Customs  duties  on 
them  would  yield  10  °/0,  which  would  be  lost  if  the  rents  were  sent 
in1  cash. 

(3)  If  sent  in  specie  they  were  in  danger  of  ship  wreck,  piracy, 
and  highway  robbery. 

(4)  If   sent   by   letters   of   exchange   the   brokers   exacted  a 
shilling  in  every  pound. 

(5)  It  will  "abate  their  cheerfulness  in  supplying  the  Crown 
and  give  a  great  scandal  to  the  people  if  they  once  find  their  money 
drained  from  them  in  specie".     It  was  the  fear  of  this  that  had 
made  the  country  so  unwilling  before  to  vote  the  Benevolence, 
and  "I  assure  you   I  had  so   much  ado  to  bring  them  off  that 
principle,  that  I  should  be  sorry  to  see  them  by  this  means  brought 
upon  it  again". 3    The  result  of  this  appeal  to  honour,  finance,  and 
statesmanship  was  that  the  rents  of  Londonderry  were  earmarked 
for  the  Irish  army.4 

The  Commission  then  toured  Londonderry.  Bramhall  seems 
to  have  had  no  objection  to  their  general  arrangements,  nor  too 
did  Strafford  ever  write  a  word  criticising  their  alteration  of 
tenures.  Wandesforde  says  they  did  "their  parts  well".  The 
probability  is  that  the  re-arrangement  of  boundaries,  divisions  of 
grazing  tracts,  reductions  of  the  huge  areas  held  for  "creaghting" 
by  the  "great  tenants",  and  abolition  of  tenancies  at  will  was 


1)  L.  S.  11-225.          2)  L.  S.  11—17,  20.          3)  L.  S.  11—96.         4)  C.  S.  P. 
1640—244. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  895 

really  done  by  Bramhall,   the  other  two  outvoting  him  on  the 
financial  question. 1 

Subsequent  events  showed  that  they  fell  foul  of  the  greater 
tenants  and  of  the  agents.  This  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  The 
original  idea  of  the  whole  plantation  had  been  a  large  number  of 
small  estate  owners,  those  petty  planters  who  were  the  real  and 
secret  success  of  the  Plantations.  Even  in  Londonderry  whatever 
prosperity  there  existed  was  really  due  to  the  four  or  five  hundred 
such,  who  had  come  over  with  some  small  capital  as  farmers  or 
petty  merchants.2  Straff ord  says  they  had  "expended  great  sums 
whereby  their  lands  incredibly  improved". H  The  agents  and  major 
tenants  were  those  large  proprietors  of  great  tracts  on  easy  terms, 
wrhich  they  sublet  either  to  graziers,  or  from  which  they  drew 
"customs"  and  "rack  rents"  from  serfs,  creating — and  this  was 
proved  in  the  Star  Chamber — "no  civility".  They,  more  than  the 
Companies,  and  far  more  than  the  Corporation,  had  been  the  real 
"villains  of  the  piece".  In  one  case — that  of  Tristam  Beresforde, 
who  had  really  been  responsible  for  the  sale  of  the  Glenkonkein 
timber  to  the  French  Admiralty — the  Commissioners  "had 
instructions"  to  cut  down  his  titles  to  a  normal  Plantation 
allotment,  and  others,  "answerable  in  law  and  equity  to  His 
Majesty",  were  not  discharged  from  the  Star  Chamber,  when  the 
Corporation  compounded  the  fine  -for  £  12.000,  but  were  left  to 
the  Commissioners'  mercy,  who  had  orders,  at  any  rate,  to  pass 
back  to  the  two  cities  their  Liberties  and  Commons,  now  in  the 
possession  of  such  persons.4  Beresforde  and  three  others  owned 
the  greater  part  of  the  Haberdashers'  allotment.  In  1622  there 
were  only  five  freeholders  here,  of  which  four  lived  in  Scotland. 
Pynnar  could  not  find  a  single  tenant  with  a  scrap  of  paper  to 
show  that  he  had  a  lease.  The  bulk  of  the  houses  were  wattle 
sheds,  and  the  Church  was  in  pre-Reformation  ruins.  This  plot 
the  Commissioners  escheated,  and  sublet  for  21  years  to  the 
tenants.  Lady  Cooke  farmed  the  Skinners'  proportion  on  a  long 
lease  of  61  years.  This  was  in  a  better  condition,  there  being 
7  freeholders,  8  leaseholders,  and  12  cottagers  on  the  3.210  acres. 
In  this  case  the  Commissioners  cut  down  her  unexpired  period  of 
34  years  at  £  125  rent  to  one  of  21  years  for  £  40  rent,  throwing 

1)  C.I. XII— 74,75;  P.  R.— 62.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1624-471 ;  1638—195.  3)  L.  S. 
II— 224.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—218,  240. 


896  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

in  the  tithes  as  compensation.  These  are  the  only  cases  against 
which  the  agents  subsequently  complained.  The  Commissioners 
defended  themselves  with  considerable  force.  "The  leases  in  Co- 
leraine  had  all  expired  before  we  came,  so  no  injustice  was  done. 
Where  we  broke  long  leases,  these  had  been  made  by  Beresforde 
without  authority  ....  These  people  (Beresforde  and  Lady 
Cooke,  and  other  great  tenants)  have  not  'spent  much  money  on 
the  Plantation  and  do  not  deserve  pity".  What  strengthened  their 
case  was  that,  when  examined  before  the  Committee  of  the  Long 
Parliament,  they  were  "cleared".1 

Where  the  Commission  blundered,  and  blundered  badly,  was 
in  raising  the  rents  of  leases  that  had  expired,  in  putting  excessive 
rents  on  the  freeholders  they  created.  They  could,  of  course, 
allege  the  rapid  rise  in  the  value  of  land.  They  could  dwell  on 
the  large  rentals  the  greater  tenants  took  from  the  under-tenants. 
If  even  all  this  is  conceded,  the  fact  remains  that,  despite  the 
protests  of  Bramhall  and  Straff ord,  they  allowed  the  financial 
exigencies  of  the  King — this  was  before  the  rents  were  earmarked 
for  the  Irish  Army — to  outweigh  expert  advice  on  what  was  a  fair 
rent.  "If  they  had  stopped  short",  said  Bramhall,  "at  the  Deputy's 
proposition,  it  had  sorted  with  His  Majesty's  honour  and  profit. 
The  racking  of  it  for  the  odd  £  1.000  or  £  1.500,  raiseth  a  great 
clamour,  hinders  plantation,  and  will,  I  fear,  be  as  troublesome 
in  the  reduction  as  it  was  in  the  composition.  I  am  sure  it  will 
make  no  good  Exchequer  rent".2  Straff ord  was  more  blunt.  "Give 
me  leave  plainly  to  tell  you  what  I  hear.  The  rents  will  not  hold. 
All  your  grave  Serjeant  hath  done  will  not  prove  worth  a  straw. 
You  on  that  side  (in  England)  believe  us  to  be  either  so  foolish, 
or  something  that  is  worse,  that  you  must  still  be  thinking  that 
you  are  better  able  to  serve  His  Majesty  there,  than  we  are  on 
this  side,  where  in  good  faith,  if  the  Deputy  be  worth  his  ears, 
you  shall  still  find  yourselves  woefully  mistaken."3  This  was 
written  the  week  before  he  sailed  for  England,  with  the  cheers 
of  the  House  of  Commons  still  ringing  in  his  ears.  Strafford  never 
disguised  from  himself  the  seething  indignation  that  he  left  behind 
him  in  Ireland — or  in  certain  quarters  in  Ireland. 

This  was  a  serious  blunder,  in  the  most  disturbed  Province  in 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—290, 291 ;  C.  S.  P.  1628-1660—239,  241.     2)  C.  I.  XI1-74. 
3  X.  S.  11-402. 


THE  PLANTATION  COVENANTS  897 

Ireland,  committed  at  the  expense  of  the  one  class  in  that  Pro- 
vince, on  which  he  could  consistently  rely,  the  small  estate  owner, 
the  petty  leaseholder,  the  cottager,  "the  painful  people".  The  per- 
colating influence  of  the  London  Corporation  among  the  Northern 
merchants,  the  Dublin  bourgeois,  the  Castle  officials,  and  the 
financial  classes  was  already  making  its  influence  felt.  The  bel- 
ligerent friars  of  Londonderry  and  their  allies  elsewhere  were  a 
hostile  influence  ever  on  his  flank.  The  agents  and  the  "great 
tenants"  were  deliberately  provoked,  as  "bad  subjects",  men  who 
had  "plundered  Prince  and  people".  These  were  of  no  import  if 
the  many  headed  multitude  were  content.  They  were  not  content. 
The  Customs  of  Londonderry  had  been  tightened,  and  the  rates 
raised  to  those  of  the  rest  of  Ireland.  The  subsidies  were  levied 
at  the  beginning  of  1640.  Suddenly  on  top  of  these  burdens  came 
the  "racking  of  the  rents".  It  is  little  wonder  that  they  were  now 
grumbling  and  growling  in  private  corners,  whispering  that  the 
Scotch  "had  much  right  on  their  side",  that  "the  subject  was 
oppressed  with  taxes",  and  that  the  Church — here  was  a  bond  of 
union  with  the  friars  and  the  serfs  they  controlled — was  "trampling 
on  the  subject",  the  Church  in  Londonderry  being  Bramhall,  the 
only  Commissioner  that  was  resident.  "If  this  project", — Bram- 
hall had  prophesied — "shall  take  place  it  will  be  ascribed  in  part 
to  me,  but  especially  to  my  Lord  Deputy,  howsoever  we  are  both 
innocent."1 

Ascribed  to  them  both  it  was.  Rowley  the  Member  for  Lon- 
donderry, the  chief  tenants,  and  the  multitude  played  each  in 
turn  a  great  part  in  the  imprisonment  and  impeachment  of  Bram- 
hall, and  in  the  monster  petitions  against  him  and  all  his  ways. 
As  for  Strafford,  two  of  the  most  influential  members  of  the  com- 
bine that  manoevered  before  his  collapse  came  from  that  county. 
The  omnibus  resolution  of  condemnation  that  was  rushed  through 
a  thin  House  of  Commons,  protesting  against  his  "tyrannies",  urged 
as  one  of  his  greatest  offences  the  wracking  of  the  rents  of  London- 
derry. Rowley,  the  sub-agent,  was  one  of  the  dozen  members  who 
sat  in  the  Long  Parliament  to  supervise  his  prosecution.  Clot- 
worthy,  who  had  been  "returned  by  the  influence  of  some  great 
persons"  for  two  English  constituencies,  seconded  the  motion  for 

1)  C.I. XII— 55. 

57 


898  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

his  impeachment,  appeared  as  a  witness,  and  played  a  prominent 
part  in  the  debates.  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  not  one 
of  the  other  members  for  the  County  and  boroughs  of  London- 
derry voted  for  the  Remonstrance. 

When  the  "wise"  Commissioners  wracked  those  rents  they 
were  indeed  "woefully  mistaken",  and  it  was  "the  sour  Deputy" 
who  "paid  for  it",  not  only  "with  his  ears",  but  with  his  head. 


Chapter  IV 
THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES 

Formerly  few,  except  the  ambitious  great,  were  to  be  feared  as 
instruments  of  revolution.  As  money  increases  the  persons  who  diffuse 
this  money  become  more  important.  Their  eyes  become  dazzled  with 
a  new  prospect.  They  are  electrified,  and  made  to  lose  the  natural 
spirit  of  their  situation.  A  bribe  is  held  out  to  them  —  the  whole 
Government  of  a  Kingdom.  Envy  and  ambition  may  be  as  much  ex- 
cited among  these  men,  and  they  are  just  as  capable  of  acting  a  part 
in  any  great  change.  BURKE. 

There  was  no  love  lost  between  the  Great  Undertakers  and 
Strafford.  They  were  at  opposite  ends  of  the  political  Poles.  The 
former  were  men  of  commerce,  men  of  education,  reared  in  Eng- 
land or  Southern  Scotland,  impregnated  with  the  idea  that  they 
were  free  men,  who,  provided  that  they  broke  no  law,  were  entitled 
to  do  what  they  pleased,  and  to  say  what  should  be  done  in  the 
Commonwealth.  To  them  the  remedium  malorum  Reipublicae 
was  a  Parliament,  in  which  they,  for  the  time  being,  had  the 
loudest  voice,  or,  at  any  rate,  thought  they  would  have!  the  loudest 
voice.  This  cry  surges  aloft  in  all  their  "Grievances  of  oppressed 
subjects",  and  is  couched  in  the  phrase  "old  Parliamentary  ways", 
so  called  -because  they  were  novel.  To  them  Parliament  had  the 
right  to  repeal  these  Covenants.  If  the  King  and  Strafford'  refused 
to  accede  to  the  demands  of  the  People's  Chamber,  had  not  the 
People's  representatives  the  right  to  refuse  supplies;?  This  was  the 
standing  rule  in  England.  Because  they  had  come  to  Ireland  were 
they  to  doff  their  liberties?  Perish  the  thought!  Here  they  were, 
applauded  by  the  serfs,  personae  gratae  with  the  priests,  hail  fellow 
well  met  with  the  bourgeois  of  the  Pale  and  the  Sons  and  Grand- 
sons of  the  Tudor  officials,  by  no  means  an  insignificenti  gathering 
of  "civil"  persons,  who  too  were  beginning  to  learn  the  mystery 
of  "old  Parliamentary  ways",  the  Magna  Charta,  and  other  new 

57* 


900  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

doctrines  that  trickled  over  from  London.  Could  not  two  such 
powerful  parties  form  a  majority  in  the  Commons,  and  rule  the  land 
much  better  than  "a  sour  Deputy"?  Had  they  not  both  grievances, 
aye  and  "oppressions".  By  what  Act  of  Parliament  had  "those  in 
corporations"  been  deprived  of  their  right  to  fix  prices  and  impose 
"town  bargains"?  By  what  Act  of  Parliament  were  "civil" 
gentlemen  of  the  Pale  compelled  to  pay  feudal  dues,  ancient, 
mediaeval,  and  "barbarous  customs",  sanctioned  only  by  phrases 
in  their  patents?  By  what  Act  of  Parliament  were  undertakers 
forced'  to  take  out  new  patents,  studded  with  covenants  and  barren 
of  manors?  All  these  things  were  done  by  the  Prerogative.  Who 
was  this  Deputy  that  he  should  take  some  musty  document,  and, 
on  the  strength  thereof,  "intimidate  the  subject  to  forego  his 
rights",  by  threats  of  escheat  in  a  Court  of  Law?  Were  not 
"ancient  aldermen",  "civil  and  loyal  men  of  the  Pale",  and 
"Undertakers  introduced  for  civility"  quite  as  good  as  this  Deputy 
and  his  Council,  and  was  not  a  Parliament  the  proper  place  in 
which  to  do  these  things,  a  Parliament  "representative  of  this 
Kingdom",  in  which  these  elements  were  the  most  active,  the  most 
eloquent,  and  the  most  powerful  at  chat  particular  moment. 

Opposed  to  them  was  a  Deputy,  whose  views  on  that  subject 
were  as  follows.  "These  Landlords  and  great  money  men  ease 
themselves  of  the  levies,  and  lay  them  upon  the  poor  and  bare 
tenants.  These  Lords  of  the  Pale  are  the  least  sensible  of  the 
dignity  of  the  State  that  ever  I  knew.  The  reason  is  plain.  They 
would  have  nothing  more  great  or  magnificent  than  themselves, 
that  so  they  might  lord  it  more  bravely  and  take  from  the  poor 
churl  what  and  as  they  pleased.  I  will  join  four  Commissioners 
of  my  own  to  those  of  theirs  (the  Parliament)  to  see  that  all  things 
be  carried  to  His  Majesty's  princely  regard  of  his  people,  that  the 
burden  may  lie  on  the  wealthier  sort,  which,  God  knows,  is  not 
the  custom  in  Ireland."  "The  longer  he  lived",  wrote  Eadcliffe, 
"his  experience  taught  him  it  was  safer  that  the  King  should  in- 
crease in  power  than  the  people.  That  may  turn  to  the  prejudice* 
of  some  particular  persons.  This  draws  with  it  the  ruin  of  the 
whole."1 

The  Civil  gentry  of  the  Pale  were,  in  a  way,  very  like  the 

1)  L.  S.  1—238.  348,  401;  11—434. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  901 

Undertakers.  They  were  either  the  sons  of  the  bourgeois  or  the 
sons  of  the  officials.  All  Saxon  and  Norman  history  in  England 
shows  that  the  mainsprings  of  revolt  were  these  two  classes,  who 
having  consolidated  themselves  in  the  body  politic,  now  aimed  at 
its  domination.  The  thegns  of  the  Saxon  Kings,  the  barons  of 
John,  and  no  small  part  of  the  Lancastrian  nobility  were  drawn 
from  the  classes  that  had  just  "arrived"  and  had  yet  to  learn  that 
they  were  not  almighty  gods.  The  distinction  between  them  and 
the  Undertakers  is  that  the  former  only  agitated  for  "old  Par- 
liamentary ways"  as  a  means  to  an  end.  In  1642,  when  the  "civil 
gentry"  found  that  they  could  not  control  the  Irish  Parliament 
they  seceded,  and  erected  a  soviet  of  their  own,  called  the  Catholic 
Confederation.  When  they  found  that  the  priests  controlled  it 
they  became  Royalists.  On  the  other  hand  the  Undertakers,  being 
Englishmen — a  race  remarkable  for  its  pathetic  belief  in  Liberty- 
clung  desperately  to  the  idea  of  a  single  Chamber  Government, 
and:  it  took  nine  years  of  bloody  wars  and  Cromwell  to  convince 
them  of  the  error  of  their  ways. 

What,  however,  to  a  certain  extent  facilitated  this  alliance 
was  that  many  of  the  Pale  gentry  were  Undertakers.  Lord  Delvin, 
Westmeath,  Taaffe,  Sir  James  O'Carroll,  Lord  Esmonde,  Sir 
Patrick  Barnewell,  Richard  Sutton,  Robert  Cheevers,  and  other 
leading  lights  in  the  politics  of  that  period  had  exactly  the  same 
grievance  as  the  great  Undertakers  against  Strafford,  in  regard 
to  his  enforcement  of  the  Covenants,  and  his  fines  on  over  measure- 
ments. Leland — on  what  authority  I  do  not  know — says  that  the 
Plantation  of  Longford  was  more  reorganized  and  reshuffled  than 
any  other.  If  that  was  so,  and  a  complaint  of  "the  inhabitants 
of  the  County  of  Longford"  is  correct,  Robert  Dillon  of  Kaners- 
town,  Hubert  Dillon  of  Killireninen,  Sir  Christopher  Nugent  and 
Thomas  Nugent — all  pillars  of  the  Catholic  Confederation — must 
have  been  hailed  before  the  Defective  Titles  Commission,  and 
there  suffered  "oppressions"  for  passing  "One  thousand  acres  in 
the  name  of  a  cartron". *  Hadsor,  the  clerk  of  the  Irish  Committee 
of  the  Imperial  Council,  held  strongly  that,  in  Leitrim,  Wexford, 
and  Longford  "Irish  gentlemen  appointed  to  distribute  the  lands 
helped  themselves  to  the  lands  they  were  set  to  distribute  among 

1)  H.  I.  M.  IT— 294. 


'902  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

others".1  His  charge  is  corroborated  by  other  documents.2  Cer- 
tainly Longford  was  a  Plantation  whose  Covenants  had  been  far 
more  honoured  in  the  breach  than  the  observance.8  Accordingly, 
as  many  of  the  Catholic  Confederation  potentates  were  Under- 
takers in  the  slovenly  administration -of  the  earlier  Plantations, 
they  were  therefore  bound  to  pick  a  quarrell  with  Strafford,  when 
he  tried  to  re-organize  these  Plantations  on  a  scientific  basis. 

The  controversies  over  these  Plantation  overmeasurements  and 
patents  spread  right  through  the  body  politic.  The  quarrell  with 
the  Earl  of  Cork  began  with  a  Plantation  advowson,  which  the 
Earl  alleged  was  passed  impropriate  and  therefore  defunct,  and 
Strafford  asserted  was  a  bona  fide  Church  living. 4  Sir  Edward 
Denny,  one  of  the  Munster  Undertakers,  was  fined  £  500,  and 
compelled  to  bring  in  eight  colonists.'5  By  his  Elizabethan  in- 
dentures he  was  bound  to  people  all  his  6.000  acres  with  colonists, 
but  preferred  instead  to  leave  it  entirely  to  natives,  thus  drawing 
close  on  £  400  rent  for  a  headrent  of  £  100,  which  he  seldom  paid, 
the  land  being  according  to  him  "depopulate".6  The  reason  Straf- 
ford, however,  forced  him  to  compound,  was  that,  without  warrant 
of  any  kind,  he  had  inserted  in  his  patent  old  native  chiefries  the 
Crown  had  meant  to  abolish,  and,  under  cover  of  6.000  acres,  had 
passed  an  area  30  miles  in  length  and  18  miles  in  breadth.  7  Is  it 
any  wonder  that,  when  the  news  of  Strafford's  arrival  reached 
Kerry,  Denny  wrote  in  his  diary  "23  July  1633.  The  Lord 
Viscount  Wentworth  came  to  Ireland  to  govern  ye  Kingdom.  Manie 
men  feare".8  One  understands  therefore  why  he  voted  with 
enthusiasm  for  the  Eemonstrance,  which  declared  that  "the  gentry 
of  this  Kingdom  are  of  late  by  grievances  and  pressures'  brought 
very  near  to  ruin  and  destruction".9  His  Borough  was  Tralee, 
whose  control  he  shared  with  the  Earl  of  Cork.10  One  of  its 
members  Henry  Osborne  also,  voted  for  the  Eemonstrance. 

The  same  question  undoubtedly  caused  that  coldness  between 
Strafford  and  Sir  William  Parsons,  the  latter  of  whom  had  been 
responsible  for  all  these  overmeasurements.  "I  will  endeavour", 
Strafford  wrote  in  S1635,  "to  discover  as  far  as  I  can  into  these 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1632—681.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.  4)  R.  P. 
VHI— 175.  5)  H. I.  M.  I— 55.  6)  C.S. P.  1592— 57,  59.  7)  EgmontM.S.S.  I— 109; 
C.  S.  P.  1589—193.  8)  H.  I.  M.  1-52.  9)  R.  P.  VIII— 13.  10)  C.6.  P.  1611 
—223,  303. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  903 

abuses  and  the  authors  of  them.  If  we  are  once  able  to  set  the 
saddle  on  the  right  horse,  there  are  some  that  will  be  deeply 
answerable  for  it."1  At  one  time  there  was  a  rumour  of  Parsons' 
dismissal,  but  nothing  came  of  It. 2  It  is>  more  than  likely  that 
Strafford  did  not  wish  to  wash  the  dirty  linen  of  State  in  open 
public,  when  there  was  no  apparent  gain.  He  says  himself  that  he 
forebore  to  inquire  how  the  officials  shared  among  themselves  the 
percentage  they  had  deducted  from  the  fine  to  the  King  on  new 
patents.  3  The  effect  of  this  feud  was  that!  William  Parsons,  Junior, 
voted  for  the  Remonstrance,  the  wily  Master  of  the  Wards  not 
showing  his  hand  on  that  occasion.  One  of  the  articles  of  Straf- 
ford's  indictment,  however,  was  drafted  by  him,  and  despatched 
to  his  kinsman,  Richard  Fitzgerald,  one  of  the  .Committee  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  Deputy.4 

One  must  not  assume,  however,  that  Strafford' s  enforcement 
of  the  Plantation  Covenants  turned  every  Undertaker  against  him. 
Far  from  it !  Many  had  amply  fulfilled  their  Covenants.  Sir 
George  Hamilton  is  one  example. 5  His  management  of  the 
Munster  Silver  mines  was  one  of  the  bright  spots  in  the  murky 
history  of  that  .period,  and  the  fate  of  his  unfortunate  workingmen 
at  the  hands  of  the  rebels  one  of  the  most  notorious  incidents  of 
the  rebellion. 6  Strafford  was  anxious  that  he  should  also  become 
one  of  the  Connaught  Planters. 7  Lord  Robert  Dillon,  St.  Leger, 
Lord  Cromwell,  and  Lord  Caulfield  were  other  Undertakers,  who 
had  either  not  broken  their  Covenants,  or,  where  there  was  a  defect, 
compounded  and  thought  no  more  about  it.  One  must  remember 
that,  glaring  as  were  the  scandals  of  the  Plantations,  there  were 
very  many  who  had  done  their  best  to  carry  out  their  contracts 
honorably  and  well.  As  the  Council  one  time  reported  "the  defects 
of  a  few  have  brought  disgrace  on  the  whole,  which  defects  have 
caused  much  murmur  and  slander  among  the  natives",  who,  not 
unjustly,  pointed  out,  that  they  could  have  farmed  these  territories 
quite  as  ably  as  those,  who  simply  sublet  them  to  the  creaghts  and 
lived  in  London.8  Besides  those  who  had  not  .broken  their 
Covenants  were  those  who  had  found  them  impossible  to  perform. 
Sometimes  colonists  were  hard  to  procure.  Sometimes  their  capital 

1)  L.  S.  1—406.  2)  L.  S.  1—217.  3)  L.  S.  1—132.  4)  R.  C.— 232. 
5)  C.  M.S.— 409.  6)  L.S.n— 95;  H.I.M.H— 37,39.  7)  L.  S.  I— 494.  8)  C.  S. 
P.  1621—325—326. 


904  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

was  not  sufficient.  To  many  therefore  the  new  departure  was 
welcome.  In  one  way  the  Strafford  indentures  were  easier  than  the 
old.  They  did  not  compell  the  Undertaker  to  people  all  his  Estate 
with  colonists.  The  new  patents  also  freed  an  undertaker  com- 
pounding from  the  dread  of  escheat  which  menaced  him  through 
all  his  previous  failures. 

Besides  the  Undertakers  there  were  also  the  petty  Colonists, 
pouring  into  Ireland  all  during  this  period.  The  native  Gentry 
were  very  glad  to  get  them,  .as  they  were  good  tenants,  never  in- 
volved in  "combustions",  and  they  undoubtedly  developed  an 
estate,  being  usually  small  capitalists  of  industrious  Jiabits.  On 
Phelim  O'NeilFs  estate  there  were  "about  five  and  fifty  persons 
of  English  and  Scotch,  tenants  to  the  said  Phelim,  who  had  great  stock 
of  lands  and  ploughs  going  and  lived  plentifully  and  peacefully, 
and  were,  to  the  examt's  apprehension,  well .  beloved  by  their 
neighbours  the  Irish". *  The  depositions  of  the  Mayo  Massacres 
show  some  four  or  five  hundred  English  tenants  and  labourers,  in 
a  quarter  where  there  was  only  one  English  Landlord,  who  could 
scarcely  have  been  the  patron  of  them  all. 2  Sir  Edward  Butler 
had  about  a  dozen  such  in  County  Kilkenny. 3  A  deponent, 
Barnaby  Dunne  of  Brittas  in  Queen's  County,  said  he  had  English 
tenants  to  the  number  of  "twenty  and  upwards".  4 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  tradition  that  the  Jacobean  and 
Carolean  settlers  were  imported  by  the  Government  on  to  Planta- 
tion lands  is  not  .correct.  The  largest  immigration  in  Ireland  was 
in  Down  which  was  not  a  Plantation  area.  No  student  of  the 
depositions  on  the  massacres  can  help  noticing  the  long  lists  of 
English  names  and  descriptions  of  English  settlers  in  districts 
where  there  had  never  been  an  escheat,  where  ;they  had  simply  come 
as  settlers,  attracted  by  cheap  land,  which  they  purchased  or  rented 
from  the  freeholders.  In  Clare,  for  instance,  quite  a  large  number 
of  Dutch  and  English  had  settled  on  the  Earl  of  Thomond's 
demesne,  some  of  whom  were  responsible  for  the  foundation  of 
Ennis,  and  many  of  whose  names,  like  Vandeleur  and  Hickman, 
survive  to  the  present  day. 5  These  constituted  a  small  but  effective 
ballast  in  the  body  politic,  by  no  means  anxious  for  great  ventures 
on  constitutional  changes.  One  thing  however,  ,is  worthy  of  note. 

1)  H.  I.  M.  T-203.  205.  2)  H.  I.  M.  II— 1-9;  1—390-399.  3)  H.  I.  M. 
1—56.  4)  H.I.  M.  II— 81.  5)  T.  C. D.  I— 5— 27. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  905 

A  very  large  number  of  the  borough  members  voted  for  the 
Remonstrance  against  Strafford.  Some,  of  course,  were  mere 
mominees  of  the  great  Undertaker  or  the  Pale  Lord.  Others  were 
very  much  the  choice  of  the  local  Roman  Catholic  Bishop,  with 
whom  honest  bourgeoism  was  always  very  anxious  to  keep  on  good 
terms.1  Of  the  little  Boroughs  30  members  voted  for  the 
Remonstrance,  and  24  went  into  Rebellion  before  the  spring  of 
1642. 

Apart,  however,  from  these  two  considerations  there  is  a  third 
element  to  be  considered.  Some  of  these  Boroughs  were  pro- 
foundly affected  by  Parliamentarianism,  the  burgesses  being  men 
wrho  read  and  traded  and  had  minds  receptive  ,of  new  ideas.  Great 
movers  of  revolution  emerged  from  these  Boroughs.  Hardress 
Waller  sat  for  Askeaton  before  he  sat  for  Limerick  City.  Gough, 
Cromwell's  escheater-general,  sat  for  Youghal,  where  his  ancestors 
had  been  very  conservative  bourgeois  since  the  foundation  of  that 
town.  A  Monke  sat  for  Strabane,  and  later  for  Limavady.  Audley 
Mervin,  who  really  led  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  year  1641 
in  their  attack  on  the  Prerogative,  emerged  from  a  Northern 
Borough.  The  Ulster  Boroughs  also  returned  Phelim  O'Neill  and 
his  uncle  Bryan,  not  from  any  zeal  for  "the  old  Septs",  but  to  mark 
their  intense  hostility  to  the  Stuarts  by  throwing  in  their  lot  with 
men  who  were  openly  at  that  moment  preaching  sedition.  The 
"names  of  those  who  claimed  as  or  in  right  of  soldiers  serving  the 
Commonwealth"  show  very  clearly  how  strong  the  Parliamen- 
tarians were  in  the  Irish  Cities.  A,ll  the  bourgeois  names  of  the 
( ireat  Corporations,  the  new  and  the  old.  Boroughs,  Bysse,  Barrett, 
Byrne,  Codd,  Dillon,  Fenton,  Foley,  Jephson,  Jones,  Loftus, 
Moore,  Oliver,  and  many  more  adorn  the  list  of  Broghill's,  Coote's, 
Jones',  and  Cromwell's  levies.2 

All  this  meant  that,  while  the  bulk  of  the  Planters  were 
pacific,  their  leaders  were  very  restless.  All  Straff  ord's  career  was 
one  long  wrangle  with  the  great  Undertakers,  while,  if  we  except 
about  eight  or  nine  men,  he  seldom  had  difficulties  with  the  Irish 
aristocracy.  With  the  Lords  of  the  Pale  it  is  true  Strafford  had  on 
occasions  some  sharp  tussells,  especially  in  Parliament.  All  Port- 
land's testimonials  could  not  make  him  regard  Lord  Netterville 

1)  L.  S.  1—432.        2)  I.  L.  G.— 411— 425. 


906  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

as  other  than  "well  replenished  with  insolence  in  himself  and  ill 
affections  towards  the  State".1  Fingall  he  described  as  stingy 
agitator  of  others  at  the  expence  of  others. 3  He  ascribed,  however, 
the  greater  part  of  the  Pale  hostility  against  his  administration  to 
the  agitations  of  the  priests,  who  knew  he  was  no  friend  of  theirs, 
and  were,  at  this  period,  anxiously  seeking  to  pick  a  quarrell  with 
the  Government.  "The  friars  and  Jesuits  are  afraid  that  laws 
which  conform  them  to  the  manners  of  England  will  lead  on  to  a 
conformity  in  religion.  If  they  (the  Pale  Party)  were  not  distem- 
pered by  the  infusions  of  these  friars  and  Jesuits  they  would  still 
be  as  good  and  loyal  to  their  King  as  any  other  subjects."2 

Apart,  however,  from  these  particular  cases  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  majority  of  his  enemies  were  Undertakers,  and  it 
was  from  Undertakers  that  his  greatest  difficulties  arose.  Cork, 
Mountmorris,  Eanelagh,  Clotworthy,  Balfour,  and  Cole,  all  of 
whom  engineered  the  Eemonstrance,  or  took  part  in  his  indictment 
were  Undertakers,  who  fell  foul  of  the  Deputy  on  the  question  of 
tenures,  covenants,  over  measurements  or  absorption  of  Church 
lands.  Neither  Sir  James  Montgomery  of  Down,  or  Lord  Clane- 
boye  of  Ards  could  be  trusted  in  the  Scotch  Eebellion  to  do  their 
utmost  to  preserve  the  Peace  and  the  Commonweal.3  Both  were 
already  at  loggerheads  with  the  Government  over  the  undesirable 
kind  of  Scotchmen  they  "entertained1"  on  their  estates.  In  1619 
official  dovecots  had  been  much  fluttered  over  the  intrigues  of 
O'Neillite  priests,  "the  harkenmg  after  the  Duke  of  Argyle",  and 
that  "the  red  shanks,  by  the  ports  under  Sir  Hugh  Montgomery 
and  Sir  James  Hamilton  more  frequently  convey  themselves  to 
and  fro".  4  All  this  meant  constant  vigilance  in  Down,  and  Clane- 
boye  and  Montgomery  were  sulking  in  their  tents  over  the  escheat 
of  a  large  area  of  Church  lands  that  had  been  discovered  as 
"usurped"  in  their  patents. 5  Claneboye  confined  himself  to  mut- 
tering that  "the  Covenanters  would  be  glorious  to  posterity",  but 
Stratford,  "laid  the  words  aside  in  Lethe",  holding  the  time  not 
ripe  to  descend  on  that  astute  Scotchman. 6  True  it  was  that  Clane- 
boye was  one  of  those  whom  Strafford  cajoled  into  a  public  peti- 
tion that  the  oath  of  allegiance  be  tendered  to  every  Scotchman.  7 

1)  L.  S.  1—340.  2)  L.  S.  1—351.  3)  L.  S.  II— 254.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1619 
—243.  5)  L.L.VII— 368;  L.S.II— 343.  6)  L.  L.  VII—  509,  538.  7)  R.  P. 
VIII— 344. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  907 

StrafFord  made  him  one  of  the  Commissioners  also  to  tender  the 
oath  to  his  tenants  and  dependants.  According  to  his  own  account 
he  took  drastic  action  with  a  Rev.  John  Bole,  who  refused  to  swear 
that  he  would  not  enter  any  illegal  association. 1  The  fact  remains, 
however,  not  only  by  his  own  letters,  but  according  to  Strafford 
that  large  numbers  of  the  Scotch  did  not  take  the  oath.  -  It  subse- 
quently leaked  out  that  he  had  kept  at  his  house  some  of  the  most 
active  of  the  Covenanter  agents,  and  that  the  splash  that  he  made 
over  the  arrest  of  John  Bole  originated  in  an  agrarian  dispute. 3 
Neither  of  his  two  relatives,  however,  who  sat  for  Co.  Down 
Boroughs  voted  for  the  Remonstrance,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
signature  of  another  kinsman,  Archibald  Hamilton,  who  sat  for 
an  Armagh  Borough,  appears  in  the  Remonstrance.  The  Down 
Hamiltons  obviously  hedged. 

The  Montgomerys  however,  were  far  more  active.  The 
original  Lord  died  in  1636,  "universally  revered,  loved  and  obeyed 
by  the  Irish",  like  many  more  of  these  great  lessees  of  Crown 
Lands. 4  His  son,  the  next  Peer,  was  an  invalid,  but  Sir  James 
Montgomery  the  uncle  was  a  very  stirring  personage.  Lofd 
Coventry,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  said  that  Claneboye  was  "a  wise 
and  discreet  man,  and  much  better  tempered  than  the  other",  which 
explains  why  of  these  two  leaders  of  Northern  Nonconformity, 
one  was  so  reticent,  and  the  other  so  remarkably  active.  There  was 
also  much  bad  blood  between  them.5  Sir  James  and  his  brother 
were  the  only  two  of  the  Scotch  Landowners  who  would,  at  first, 
not  sign  the  petition  to  impose  the  oath  of  allegiance  on  Scotch- 
men.6 "Sir  James,  "said  the  Deputy"  you  may  petition  or  not 
petition  as  you  will,  but,  if  you  do  not,  you  will  fare  worse."1 
Then  "seeing  the  Deputy  had  resolved  so"  he  gave  way,  and  subse- 
quently complamed  to  the  Long  Parliament  that  he  was  inti- 
midated. 7  He  and  the  brother  were  the  only  two  members  from 
County  Down  that  voted  for  the  Remonstrance. 

Wherever  one  turns  one  encounters  an  Undertaker  demanding 
his  rights  loudly  and;  clearly,  and  lifting  up  his  voice  in  popular 
conclaves  as  befits  a  free  Englishman  in  a  strange  land,  to  whose 
mediaeval  ordinances,  restrictions,  and  customs  he  will  not  submit. 

1)  L.  S.  H— 382— 385.  2)  E.  C.— 208.  3)  M.  M.— 35.  4)  Montgom- 
ery Genealogy.  Mrs.  Reilly— 41— 42.  5)  L.  S.  11-94.  6)  R.  P.  VIII— 500. 
7)  E.  P.  Vni— 492. 


908  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Hardress  Waller  of  Limerick — one  of  the  Earl's  of  Cork's 
henchmen  in  matters  financial — emerged  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Plantation  of  Ormonde.  Strafford  had  traversed  Tipperary, 
Limerick  and  Clare  midst  much  oratory,  pageantry,  and  blowing 
of  trumpets.  Royal  titles  had  been  found  in  every  'County.  This 
was  the  hey-dey  of  the  Deputy,  because,  when  three  such  large 
Countries  as  these  vested  compulsory  powers  of  division  and  re- 
allotment  and  Plantation  in  the  hands  of  the  Government,  it  meant 
that  confidence  in  the  Deputy  ran  high.  "I  could  never  have 
believed",  he  wrote  to  Conway,  "to  have  found  men  with  such 
alacrity  divesting  themselves  of  all  property  in  their  estates,  and 
waiting  to  see  what  the  King  will  do  for  them.  I,  that  am  of 
gentle  heart,  am  much  taken  with  their  proceeding  and  the  skill 
and  breeding  of  their  great  expressions  of  affection  and  esteem."  ] 
There  were,  however,  lurking  elements  of  discontent.  There 
was,  for  instance,  scarcely  a  Corporation  that  was  not  in  illegal 
possession  of  College  and  School  Lands,  which  things  always  came 
to  light,  when  the  Commissioners  demanded  a  discovery  of  docu- 
ments. 2  Limerick  Corporation  was  very  surly,  though  Strafford 
had  knighted  its  mayor  and  given  it  a  Cup,  value  £  60.  One  of  ite 
leading  lights  perpetrated  the  following  epigramm. 
"THOMAS-VVAENT  VOORTH 
HOMO  TORVETOS  SlATHAN", 

which  was  scarcely  complimentary  to  the  countenance  of  "the  sour 
Deputy".  3  Add  to  this  that  the  greater  landed  proprietors  always 
preferred  a  simple  surrender  and  regrant  to  the  more  complicated 
consolidation  of  tenures  through  a  Plantation,  and  one  can  under- 
stand why  Sir  Edward  Fitzharris,  the  leader  of  Limerick  re- 
cusancy, Alderman  Dominick  White  and  Alderman  John  Creagh 
all  signed  the  Remonstrance. 

The  greatest  of  the  four  members  from  Limerick,  however, 
was  Sir  Hardress  Waller,  the  Puritan  leader.  He  was  a  man  of 
considerable  wealth  and  great  popularity,  who  like  others  "had  had 
losses".  One  of  the  notorious  facts  about  Limerick  was  that  the 
sea  had  receded  some  distance,  leaving  some  lands  of  no  little 
value,  and  on  these  divers  persons,  including  Sir  Hardress,  had 
a  kind  of  mysterious  lien.  Anyone  with  a  knowledge  of  public 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1637—168.        2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.        3)  T.  C.  D.  1.  5.  27. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  909 

parks  and  lands  in  Ireland  will  understand  the  slow  process  by 
which  they  become  private  property.  These  lands  were  Crown 
Lands,  and  it  was  one  of  Strafford's  maxims  that  revenue  should 
be  paid,  not  by  taxes  on  the  industrious,  but  by  compositions  with 
"usurpers"  of  sources  of  revenue. 

At  this  period  many  public  functions  were  fulfilled  by  private 
contract.  It  was  customary  for  one  who  had  some  means  of  im- 
proving the  Commonweal,  or  the  Revenue  to  first  do  the  deed  at 
his  own  expense,  and  then  to  petition  for  recompense  and  a  reward. 
Several  persons  had  been  nibbling  at  these  marsh  lands.  Endymion 
Porter,  the  Court  'Projector,  reinforced  by  Jas  Cusacke,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Defective  Titles  Commission,  and  one  Cornelius 
Cronin,  a  retired  soldier,  had  all  mooted  the  subject  but  with  no 
success.  One  has  a  faint  suspicion  that  Porter  and  Cusack,  who 
had  a  Royal  warrant  on  the  subject,  compounded  privately  with 
the  owners  or  squatters. J  Lord  Robert  Dillon  and  his  son  Sir 
James  then  undertook  to  prove  a  title  in  this*  case.  They  paid  the 
legal  expenses  of  proving  before  a  Commission  that  these  were  Crown 
lands.  The  matter  then  came  before  the  Defective  Titles  Commis- 
sion, who  fixed  a  rent  and  a  fine  upon  these  tenures.  'Certain  of 
the  squatters  did  not  pay  either  fine  or  rent.  The  Crown  was 
accordingly  without  its  rent,  and  the  Dillons  without  their  re- 
compense. The  whole  marsh  lands  were  accordingly  passed  to  the 
Dillons  to  remedy  this.  Those  who  had  compounded  were  to  get 
their  tenures.  With  those  who  had  not  paid,  the  Dillons  were 
allowed  to  make  what  arrangement  they  pleased,  eviction  or  com- 
position, but  they  were  to  pay  a  State  creditor  £  1.500  out  of  rents 
and  fine.  The  whole  incident  shows  the  Carolan  method  of  ad- 
ministration before  the  creation  of  Government  Departments. 

Hardress  Waller  was  deeply  interested  in  these  lands.  In  the 
Summer  of  1640  Straff ord  wrote  to  Wandesforde  ordering  him  to 
safeguard  any  legitimate  interest  of  this  owner,  who  should  be 
"remembered  at  leisure".2  Wandesf orde's  reply  was  significent. 
"He  hath  some  vogue  in  the  House  of  Commons  where  he  com- 
pliments with  the  King,  but  votes  against  us."8  Waller,  as  we 
know,  was  a  very  astute  Parliamentarian.  He  was  subsequently 
a  soldier  of  no  mean  repute.'  Like  Clotworthy  also  he  seems  to 

1)  C.S.P.1625— 1660— 226;  1633—11;  1639—208.  2)  E.  C.-206.  3)  E. 
C.— 212. 


910  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

have  had  friends  in  every  camp.  The  other  Limerick  Members, 
with  whom  he  worked  on  this  occasion,  were  by  no  means  of  the 
same  opinion  on  matters  of  Church  and  State.  He  next  appears 
as  one  of  those  who  signed  the  Eemonstrance.  He  then  adjourned 
to  England  as  one  of  the  prosecuting  Committee.  That  Committee, 
as  we  know,  subsequently  split  on  the  question  of  the  Plantations, 
and  split  right  along  religious  lines.  Hardress  Waller  was  the 
only  Protestant  member  of  the  section  that  petitioned  the  King 
to  take  a  surrender  and  regrant  of  Ormonde  and  Connaught  in 
lieu  of  a  Koyal  Title  and  a  Plantation.  The  wording  of  their 
petition  was  specially  devised  to  cover  Waller's  case.  "On  behalf 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Limerick  and  Tipperary,  whereof  offices  have 
been  found  for  the  King,  we  offer  to  the  King  a  continuance  of 
the  present  rents."1  The  King,  assuming  this  to  be  a  matter  only 
affecting  Plantations,  granted  the  Grace.  At  one  fell  swoop  the 
State  lost  its  £  1.500,  the  Dillons  lost  their  expenses,  and  the 
freeholders  who  had  compounded  saw  those,  who  had  not,  get  quite 
as  good  a  title  as  themselves,  amongst  whom  was  Hardress 
Waller. 2 

Other  Undertakers  appear  in  wrath  and  fury,  and  the  wrath 
and  fury  of  some  of  these  Undertakers  was  very  unlovely.  Sir 
John  Clotworthy  badgered  poor  old  Laud  almost  to  madness  as 
he  stood  on  the  Scaffold  waiting  for  the  execution.3  The  Irish 
House  of  Commons — and  they  were  led  in  this  matter  by  Mervyn, 
Montgomery,  Gore,  Champion,  and  half  a  dozen  other  Under- 
takers,— would  have  tried  Bolton,  Lowther,  and  Bramhall,  and 
sentenced  them  to  death  for  nothing  at  all,  if  Poyning's  law  had 
not  stood  in  their  path.  In  the  very  same  breath  as  they  passed 
a  bill  of  Pardon  exempting  from  all  prosecution  men  guilty  of 
burglary,  libel,  theft,  and  highway  robbery,  they  added  a  proviso 
that  the  two  judges  and  the  Bishop  should  be  exempt  from  any 
pardon  for  alleged  peccadilloes,  which  they  described  as  "treason", 
and  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  the  Ulster  Undertakers  or  the  Pale 
lawyers  and  bourgeois  were  more  bitter  on  the  subject.4  At  this 
period — in  fact  at  all  periods  when  the  bonds  of  society  are  loose, 
or  not  firmly  welded,  passions  get  very  fierce. 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—270.    2)  C.  S.  P.  1641-282.    3)  L.  L.  IV— 438.    4)  C.  S.  P. 
1641-288, 289, 297,  308—310. 


THE  EEVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  911 

Most  historians  forget  that  England  had  enjoyed  internal 
peace — and  that  of  a  very  superficial  character — for  only  two  or 
three  generations.  The  reigns  of  Edward  VI  and  the  earlier  days 
of  Mary  were  pandemonium  and  anarchy.  Scotland  had  been  in 
chaos  up  till  the  middle  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  had  undergone 
some  very  serious  shocks  since  then.  Ireland  was  the  latest  to 
come  under  what  we  call  the  Pax  Brittanica  and  the  veneer  was 
very  thin.  The  Undertakers  as  a  rule  were  more  peaceful  men 
than  the  Irish  Lords  and  gentry,  but  the  latter  had  known  what 
civil  war  was,  and  the  former  had  only  heard  of  it  from  their 
fathers.  An  Irish  Lord  might  beat  a  Sheriff  and  an  Irish  gentleman 
might  "take  to  the  woods"  to  avoid  a  process,  but,  when  it  came 
to  altering  the  basis  of  the  State  and  building  Society  anew — they 
shrank  from  that.  The  Elizabethan  wars  had  taught  them  much. 
The  great  Undertakers,  on  the  contrary,  had  lived  all  their  lives 
behind  the  protection  of  the  Crown,  and  did  not  realize  what 
would  happen  if  it  fell.  Accordingly  Straff  or  d  found  that  his 
greatest  difficulties  proceeded  from  the  Undertakers,  who  had  yet 
to  learn  that  Ireland  was  not  England,  that,  whereas  in  the  latter 
country  it  is  often  a  mark  of  manhood  to  trip  up  a  Government, 
in  Ireland  it  is  a  mark  of  "an  ill  disposed  subject".  So  firmly 
fixed  is  the  tradition  that  the  Undertakers  were  pillars  of  consti- 
tutional pacificism  that  it  is  necessary  to  quote  some  extracts  to 
show  the  reason  for  that  sharpshooting  that  went  on  between 
Strafford  and  a  large  body  of  wealthy  and  seemingly  civilised 
landowners. 

"Sir  Edward  Herbert  has  been  appointed  sheriff  for  seven 
years  and  his  extortions  and  violence  have  put  the  inhabitants  in 
fear  of  their  lives".1 

"Particulars  of  injuries  done  to  the  Lord  Roche  by  Edniond 
Spenser,  George  Browne,  Hugh  Cuffe,  Justice  Smyths  and  Arthur 
Hyde." 

"Ealsely  pretending  title  they  have  taken  16  plow  lands.  By 
threatening  and  menacing  Lord  Roche's  tenants  and  seizing  his 
cattle  and  beating  his  servants  they  have  wasted  6  plough  lands"."  ~ 

Sir  Edward  Herbert  accused  Sir  Edward  Denny — and  with  a 
fair  amount  of  truth  too — of  levying  Coigne  and  Livery  in  true 

1)  Answer  of  Lord  Deputy  Russell.  C.  S.  P.  1596—523.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1589—247. 


912  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

baronial  fashion,  of  threatening  with  divers  penalties  anyone  of 
his  tenants  who  dared  to  "recognize"  the  local  quarter-sessions, 
and  of  "entertaining"  pirates. l 

In  the  reign  of  James  two  eminently  respectable  planters 
"rushed"  an  Inquisition  with  a  large  multitude,  "beat  and  bat- 
tered a  witness",  and  used  threatening  and  abusive  language 
towards  the  Court — "garron  stealers  and  rebels", — for  which  they 
were  duly  fined  and  imprisoned.2 

Great  Britain  was  by  no  means  such  a  land  of  peace  as  many 
assume,  nor  did  its  denizens  love  the  law  with  such  fervour  as 
rhapsodists  sing.  The  Governor  of  the  Isle  of  Man  "entertained" 
the  pirates  who  ravaged  Dublin  Bay.3  At  the  very  Council  Table 
in  London  two  great  noblemen  rushed  at  each  other's  throats  and 
had  to  be  separated  by  their  colleagues.4  Lord  Morly  appeared  at 
Court  in  "a  high  distemper  of  wine",  and  created  considerable 
pandemonium,  "punching"  a  gentleman  in  the  chest,  "and  catching 
him  by  the  throat".5  Lord  Digby,  when  summoned  for  smiting 
a  foe  in  the  face  "in  the  King's  Garden",  was  acquitted  on  the 
grounds  that  he  did  not  know  it  was  the  King's  garden,  but 
thought  it  was  a  public  place.6  Sir  John  Suckling — "famous  for 
nothing  but  that  he  was  a  great  gamester" — beat  with  a  cudgel 
"almost  to  a  handful"  a  rival  to  his  lady  love. 7  Page  after  page  of 
the  Domestic  Papers  of  England  is  adorned  with  riot,  assault  and 
battery.  The  English  were  quieter  than  the  Scotch,  and  much 
quieter  than  the  Irish,  but  they  were  not  the  paragons  of  consti- 
tutional pacificism  that  their  friends  and  their  enemies  assume. 
There  is  a  very  savage  element  on  the  Anglo-Saxon  character,  and 
there  were  men  still  alive  whose  fathers  had  played  a  part  in  the 
rebellions  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 

Bagehot  is  the  only  modern  historian  with  either  the  per- 
spicacity or  the  honesty  to  point  out  that  the  'civilization  of  these 
Islands  is  but  a  veneer.  "The  condition  of  an  elective  Government 
is  a  calm  national  mind,  staple  to  bear  the  excitement  of  revo- 
lutions. No  barbarous,  no  semi-civilized  nation  has  ever  possessed 
this.  The  mass  of  uneducated  men  could  not  now  in  England  be 
told  "to  go  choose  their  rulers".  They  would  go  wild.  Their 
imagination  would  fancy  unreal  dangers,  and  the  attempt  at 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1589—189, 191.  2)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1—41.  3)  L.  S.  1—127. 
4)  L.  S.  1—177, 178.  5)  L.  S.  1—225,  335.  6)  L.  S.  1—262.  7)  L.  S.  1—337. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  913 

election  would  result  in  forcible  usurpation.  August  institutions 
in  this  free  State  prevent  this  collapse.  The  excitement  is  pre- 
vented by  the  apparent  existence  of  an  unchosen  ruler 

One  of  the  most  curious  peculiarities  of  the  English  people  is  its 
dislike  of  Executive  Government.  We  are  not  in  this  respect  like 
the  Americans.  They  conceive  the  executive  to  be  their  agent. 
....  Our  freedom  is  the  result  of  centuries  of  resistance,  more  or 
less  legal,  more  or  less  illegal,  more  or  less  audacious,  or  more 
or  less  timid  to  Executive  Government The  natural  im- 
pulse of  the  English  people  is  to  resist  authority.  The  introduction 
of  policemen  was  not  liked.  I  know  old  people,  who,  to  this  day, 
consider  them  an  infringement  of  freedom.  If  the  original 
policemen  had  been  started  with  the  present  helmets,  the  result 
might  have  been  dubious,  the  inbred  insubordination  of  the 
English  people  might  have  prevailed  over  the  very  modern  love 
of  perfect  peace  and  order."1 

All  these  things  have  to  be  considered  in  dealing  with  the 
Planters  of  the  17th  century.  "The  servile  Planter  Parliaments" 
of  orthodox  history  are  a  fiction.  In  Strafford's  Parliaments  the 
Planters  by  themselves  were  in  a  minority,  and  it  was  the  native 
element  that  supported  the  Prerogative  and  the  Planters  who 
stood  out  for  "the  old  Parliamentary  ways".  If  there  was  any 
"servility"  in  those  conclaves  it  lay  in  the  native  aristocracy. 
Bitter  experience  had  taught  them  that  a  bad  Government  is  better 
than  none.  The  Undertakers,  however,  held  the  modern  doctrine 
that  no  Government  is  better  than  good  Government. 

To  realize  clearly  how  thin  the  veneer  of  civilization  and  how 
weak  the  authority  of  the  law  was,  one  should  note  that,  for  no 
breach  of  any  known  law,  the  Long  Parliament  executed  both 
Strafford  and  Laud,  and  then,  because  they  could  not  establish  a 
single  Chamber  Government  and  get  all  they  wanted  in  12  months, 
they  rushed  violently  to  arms,  and  actually  utilised  for  their 
political  aims,  the  money  that  had  been  subscribed  by  ordinary 
citizens  to  restore  law  and  order  in  Ireland,  and  to  feed  and  clothe 
the  shivering,  stripped,  and  starving  Protestants. 2  This  is 
what  Strafford  said  of  one  Great  Undertaker  that  he  was  as 
"guilty  of  as  many  outrages  as  ever  Yisier  Pasha  did  under  the 

1)  Bagehot.  The  English  Constitution— 256,  257,  286, 187.  2)  Clarendon 

Memoirs.  11—113, 114. 

58 


914  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Grand  Seignior";  of  another  "his  violence  and  assurance  in  his 
own  particular  appetites  are,  on  this  side,  understood  for  such  as 
show  their  metal  equally,  be  the  cause  good  or  bad",  and  of  a  third 
"such  are  his  troop  that  I  should  rather  look  to  have  one  of  them 
teem  a  pistol  unto  my  back  than  that  any  amongst  them  could 
hurt  a  Covenanter",  which  was  the  first  occasion  on  record  that  an 
Irish  Deputy  ever  doubted  the  loyalty  of  one  of  the  officers  or 
the  men  in  the  Irish  Army. l 

Of  course  no  small  part  of  the  strained  relations  between 
Strafford  and  the  Great  Undertakers  was  due  to  the  fact,  that, 
till  he  came  on  the  scene,  they  really  ruled  Ireland.  The  Irish 
aristocracy  and  gentry  seldom  interfered  in  matters  of  State. 
They  were  there  of  course,  a  huge  solid  and  conservative  ballast, 
living  on  their  estates,  and  worrying  no  man,  if  left  alone.  In 
Ireland  there  were  twice  as  many  tenants-in-chief  as  in  England.  2 
In  County  Cork  Cromwell's  Survey  or  General  said  that  it  might 
be  possible  to  escheat  900  estate  owners  for  complicity  with 
Royalism  or  rebellion,  and  this  makes  no  mention  of  those  who 
were  Parliamentarian,  or  took  no  part  in  the  wars.3  In  Wexford 
— a  Plantation  County — the  same  worthy  cast  the  shadow  of 
probable  escheat  over  600  such,  all  Irishmen.4  In  County 
Monaghan  the  Elizabethan  Government  had  established  over 
300  freeholders.  5  South  Down  was  a  hive  of  Royalist  Magennis. 
No  less  than  nine  of  them  received  special  letters  from  Charles  II 
for  special  services  tendered  to  his  father  in  his  misfortunes.  6 
Of  the  O'Neills  of  Ulster,  Con  of  Ardgonel,  Hugh  "of  the 
Province",  and  John  who  had  settled  in  Tipperary,  were  likewise 
given  the  Stuart  "order  of  merit",  while  Daniel  of  Down,  Henry 
of  Killeleagh,  snd  Sir  Henry  of  Antrim,  all  appear  among  the 
chief  of  the  Eestorees.7  This  huge  class  were  led  by  men  like 
Thomond,  Ormonde,  Kerry,  Lixnawe,  Merrion,  Westmeath,  and 
Roscommon.  Not  more  than  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  Native  Irish 
Peerage  even  touched  the  semi-Royalist  Catholic  Confederation. 
This  class  very  seldom  touched  politics.  The  State  Papers  never 
mention  them.  Occasionally  one  would  ride  up  to  Dublin  with 
a  petition.  Sir  Henry  O'Neill  of  Antrim,  for  instance,  one  time 

1)  L.  S.  1—245 ;  11—285, 272.  2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  3)  I.  L.  G.— 273, 286. 
4)  I.  L.  G.  265, 273.  5)  1. 1.  Ulster  XXII— XL.  6)  P.  R.  J.  190—191 ;  I.  L.  G. 
427, 429.  7)  I.  L.  G.  427,  449. 


OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  915 

paid  one  of  these  State  calls,  with  a  letter  of  introduction  from 
Conway,  who  genially  described  him  as  one  who  did  "like  a  Papist 
think  it  sauciness  to  come  to  the  supreme  power  without  an  inter- 
cessor,, an  honest  man,  an  Israelite  in  whom  there  is  no  guile". l 
When  Strafford  went  on  progress  in  Munster  they  crowded  round 
him,  paid  their  respects,  and  then  went  home.  In  their  eyes 
polities  were  a  matter  for  the  King,  and  those  to  whom  he  en- 
trused  them.  Was  it  not  his  Kingdom?  Was  it  not  he  who 
had  conquered  it  with  his  troops?  Had  not  he  and  his  predecessors 
freed  them  from  the  old  thraldoms,  tyrannies,  coshierings,  and 
a  state  of  Society  in  which  "Great  Ones"  kept  a  gallows  on  their 
lawns,  and  declared  war  when  and  on  whom  they  pleased?  What 
business  was  it  of  theirs  what  the  King  did  with  his  own?  Such 
was  the  simple  creed  of  the  ballast.  Pale  Lawyers  and  Undertakers 
regarded  them  as  poor  spirited  persons,  and  got  a  rude  awakening 
when  Ormonde  and  Inchiquin  brought  them  out  in  the  debacle. 
The  civil  wars  had  one  merit.  It  taught  both  the  Undertakers 
and  the  "Civil  gentry"  that  they  could  neither  conquer  nor  control 
Ireland. 

With  this  spirit  permeating  the  bucolic  squires,  the  great 
Undertakers  had  matters  very  much  their  own  way.  They  were 
all  related  to  each  other,  and  the  Officials  in  the  Castle.  Clot- 
worthy,  Eanelagh,  Parsons,  Cork,  Moore  of  Drogheda,  Lof tus, 
Claneboyel  and  Montgomery,  were  all  connected  by  some  tie  or 
other.  On  the  Council  Board  they  were  supreme.  ,  In  Parliament 
they  controlled  many  seats.  Their  only  rivals  were  the  previous 
generation  of  officials  and  thegns,  the  Pale  Nobility,  squirearchy, 
and  bourgeois.  They  also  were  becoming  "tumultuous".  Nearly 
all  the  leaders  of  the  Pale  Party  were  owners  of  Abbey  Lands, 
and  the  most  unpopular  Act  of  Stafford's  Vice-Royalty  was  the 
act  of  Parliament  by  which  an  owner  of  an  advowson  had  to  induct 
a  vicar,  and  could  not  escheat  the  Glebe,  thus  abolishing  the  good 
old  days  when  it  was  "quite  common  for  an  owner  of  an  Abbey 
benefice  to  give  his  curate  £  5  and  enjoy  £  500". 2 

Accordingly  when  Strafford  broke  up  the  political  ring,  and 
set  himself  to  make  the  King  and  no  one  else  the  Master  of  the 
Kingdom,  he  challenged  the  only  two  political  parties  in  the  State. 

1)  L.  S.  1—414.         2)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 

58* 


916  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

"I  will  have  no  intermediaries  between  the  King  and  his  subjects" 
he  told  Lord  Fin  gall. *  "I  have  dispensed  justice",  he  told  the 
King  "without  acceptance  of  persons,  so  that  the  poor  know 
where  to  seek  and  have  his  relief,  without  being  afraid  to  appeal 
to  His  Majesty's  Catholic  Justice,  and  the  Ministers  of  Justice 
cannot  serve  other  men's  unwarrantable  purposes". 2  The  policy 
had  its  merits,  but  it  was  anathema  to  those  who  had  before,  or 
hoped  yet  to  loom  large  in  the  public  eye,  as  those  who — the  phrase 
is  Stafford's — "like  to  have  it  believed  that  the  vulgar,  forsooth, 
depend  on  them".  The  Great  Undertaker  with  his  large  retinue 
"all  servants,  tenants,  and  followers  Irish",  and  these,  alas,  often 
"not  the  industrious  tenants",  but  creaght  owners  and  hangers 
on — this  great  Undertaker  looming  very  large  on  the  horizon,  could 
not  but  turn  a  surly  eye  towards  the  new  regime,  in  which  he, 
forsooth,  was  told  he  was  a  subject.  Stafford's  Viceroyalty  ac- 
cordingly markes  a  temporary  rapprochment  with  the  gentry  of 
the  Pale.  If  the  Undertakers  had  altered  their  Plantation  estates 
into  soccage  tenures,  so  too,  had  gentry  of  the  Pale^  Sir  Patrick 
Barnewall,  more  than  any  one  else.3  One  of  Stafford's  perpetual 
activities  was  to  recover  "the  King's  tenures",  the  terms  on  which 
the  estates  were  originally  granted.  If  honest  gentry  of  the  Pale 
were  hit  by  the  advowsons'  legislation,  so  too,  were  the  Ulster 
Undertakers  beyond  any  in  the  country.  As  we  know,  in  the  end, 
they  both  combined  to  "remonstrate"  against  Stafford's  Govern- 
ment, and  the  Committee  that  prosecuted  him  was  made  up  equally 
of  both  parties,  the  formula  on  which  they  united  being  "the 
tyrannies  of  prelates  and  the  barbarous  customs  of  the  Church". 
This  Laud  had  once  prophesied  "I  have  often  seen  by  experience 
in  England  that  Protestants  and  Popishly  affected  do  for  factious 
ends  join  against  the  State".4  The  formula  was  successful,  and  the 
"factious  ends",  reductions  of  feudal  dues,  abolition  of  Covenants, 
and  "Moderation  of  Arbitrary  Government"  were  all  achieved. 
Then  both  parties  fell  out  over  the  offices  of  State,  the  Planta- 
tions, the  question  of  religion  and  a  hundred  other  points,  and, 
there  being  now  no  Government,  resorted  to  slitting  of  throats. 

Pending  this  rapprochment,  however,  there  was  a  multitude 
of  little  skirmishes  on  every  available  subject.     A  Pamphlet  ap- 

1)  L.  S.  1-240.      2)  L.  S.  11—18.      3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.      4)  L.  L.  VII— 100. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  917 

peared  in  the  North  accusing  Laud  of  a  multitude  of  clerical 
misdemeanours  as  early  as  1636.1  Strafford  refused  to  take  any 
notice,  as  it  might  "make  the  men  that  write  the  cartel  take  them- 
selves to  be  more  considerable  than  they  are".2  A  man  called 
Archibald  Bole  had  to  be  haled  before  the  Castle  Chamber  for 
libelling  the  Queen,  whose  religious  and  political  activities  were 
a  positive  temptation  to  that  large  body  of  persons  who  seek  to 
add  to  their  own  importance  by  pointing  out,  that  others  are  worse 
than  themselves.3  Then  one  Robert  Smith  of  Kilkenny,  a  protegee 
of  the  Earl  of  Cork,  got  involved  in  a  libel  action.4  The  details 
are  rather  vague,  but  Strafford  says  that  it  was  part  of  "a  most 
abominable  and  malicious  conspiracy  to  ravish  Sir  Arthur  Blundell 
of  his  estate,  life,  and  good  name".  Blundell,  a  Kilkenny  land 
owner  who  was  one  of  Strafford' s  Colonels,  had  enemies  in  high 
places.  It  was  on  his  complaint  that  Lord  Mountmorris  had  been 
convicted  of  "extortion".5  Smith  was  fined  £  1.000,  his  partner  in 
the  affair,  a  Northern  Planter  of  the  name  of  L'Estrange,  being 
not  only  fined  ten  times  the  sum,  but  ordered  to  stand  in  the 
pillory.6  These  fines  were  reduced,  but,  despite  this,  influence  in 
London  procured  a  signet  letter  ordering  his  pardon.7 

This  was  one  of  Windebanke's  creations,  as  Coke  would  never 
let  a  signet  letter  through,  till  Strafford' s  opinion  had  first  been 
heard.  Laud  distrusted  Windebanke.  Strafford  regarded  him  as 
one  of  the  causes  of  the  King's  downfall.  The  following  letter 
of  Laud's  shows  "the  ways  of  Courts".  "I  am  sorry  for  what  you 
say  of  Windebanke,  to  not  only  gather  but  catch  money  on.  all 
sides.  I  see  the  proposition  is  true  in  Divinity — he  that  by  God's 
goodness  hath  power  to  resolve,  hath  not  the  power  to  refuse  the 
gold  that  offers  itself.  You  seem  to  notice  these  things  more  than 
I."8  Probably  it  was  but  a  gift,  and  not  a  bribe.  The  line  between 
them  was  very  hard  to  draw.  Strafford  solved  the  gift  difficulty 
by  taking  no  gifts  whatsoever.9 

Needless  to  say,  this  signet  letter  caused  an  uproar.  That  a 
Court  of  Law  should  be  upset  by  influence  at  Court  was  in  Straf- 
ford's  view  "scandalous  to  public  justice,  discouraging  the  judges, 
making  the  sentences  of  the  Court  bruta  fulmina,  and  blunting 

1)  L.  L.  VII— 301.  2)  L.  S.  11—14.  3)  L.  S.  H— 207.  4)  C.  S.  P. 
1632— 610,677;  1638-183.  5)  L.  S.  1-402.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1638-183.  7)C.S.P. 
1639—209.  8)  L.L.VII— 491.  9)  L.  S.  I— 161. 


918  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

that  great  weapon  in  the  hand  of  the  King — the  Castle  Chamber 
— whereby  we  contain  this  people  in  sobriety  and  duty".  The 
letter  was  "stayed",  but  the  fact  that  a  signet  letter  could  be  pro- 
cured by  men  like  Robert  Smith  gave  hopes  to  others.1 

No  small  number  of  Undertakers  got  letters  from  Court  re- 
commending that  they  should  pass  their  estates  with  a  complete 
pardon  for  former  breaches  of  Covenant.  Sometimes  they  were 
but  petitions  forwarded  to  him  from  London  for  reply. 2  Twice 
they  were  warrants,  procured  absolutely  without  Coke's  know- 
ledge. 3  Strafford' s  refusal  sank  deep  in  one  of  these  cases,  that  of 
Lord  Annandale,who,  in  the  Vice-Regal  presence,  in  broad  Scotch 
announced  that  the  Covenanters  were  a  "very  gudely  parsons  of 
men.  A  gudely  sihte  it  was,  as  in  gude  fath  liken  me  inteel  my 
vary  hert.4 

The  other  case  was  Sir  Archibald  Acheson.  He  was  refused. 
He,  however,  returned  to  the  charge  with  a  proposal  that  all  the 
financial  rules  of  the  Irish  Treasury  should  be  dispensed  with  in 
his  favour.  Strafford's  standing  rule  was  that  no  Crown  debts 
should  be  paid  till  Parliament  voted  the  subsidies,  and,  only  then, 
after  Parliament  itself  had  gone  through  those  debts,  disowned 
some,  compounded  others,  and  paid  others  in  full.  Pending  this, 
Strafford  only  paid  current  accounts,  and  declined  to  run  the  risk 
of  "the  infinite  disorder  such  letters  as  Sir  Archibald  Achesons 
will  procure.  And  what  about  the  importunity  it  will  kindle  in 
others,  now  quiet?  No  sooner  will  they  see  Sir  Archibald  prevail, 
but  you  shall  have  them  by  the  dozen  and  I  will  never  see  the 
debts  of  the  Crown  struck  off".5  Acheson  still  persisted,  and  again 
Strafford  declined  to  have  "the  rule  broken  for  him  to  turn  loose 
on  us  all  manner  of  importunity",  the  total  State  debt  being 
£  80.000,  with  a  deficit  on  the  yearly  account.  "I  wish  this  earnest 
pretender  were  persuaded  to  understand  himself."6  A  third  re- 
commendation brought  forth  very  little  fruit.7  Parliament  then 
met  and  passed  the  subsidies.  It  went  through  all  the  debts,  and 
decreed  that  only  the  following  arrears  should  be  paid  in  full. 
Those  of  two  Bishops  and  a  Dean ;  those  of  "ladies  by  the  attainder 
of  whose  husbands  the  revenue  hath  been  advanced";  "poor  ser- 


1)  L.  S.  II— 292. 293.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—286.     3)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660 
—177.       4)  L.  S.  11—196.       5)  L.  S.  1-133.      6)  L.  S.  1—249.      7)  L.  S.  1—270. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MEDDLE  CLASSES  919 

vitors  -who  have  not  come  into  estates";  "almsmen  and  maimed 
soldiers";  and  "pensions  granted  for  surrender  of  letters  patent". 
Finally  no  debts  incurred  outside  Ireland  were  to  be  honoured.1 
Acheson's  debt  came  under  none  of  the  previous  heads  and  was 
in  flat  contradiction  of  the  last.  Strafford  had  promised  the  Irish 
Parliament  that  the  subsidies  would  be  used  only  to  pay  the  Irish 
debt  and  to  redeem  Irish  farms.  "The  debts  of  the  Irish  Crown 
taken  off,  we  may  govern  as  we  please."2  Accordingly  Sir  Archi- 
bald went  empty  away,  it  being  not  advisable  that  "the  conside- 
ration of  any  one  man  should  overthrow  so  excellent  a  work".3 

The  constant  appearance  and  re-appearance  of  the  Great 
Undertakers  with  suits,  grievances,  lamentations,  and  objurgations 
is  proof  positive,  not  only  of  their  political  power  in  Ireland,  but 
of  the  fact  that,  till  Strafford  came,  they  had  matters  very  much 
their  own  way.  They  seem  to  have  taken  the  place  in  high  politics 
of  the  Elizabethan  chiefs,  whose  uproar  has  led  many  to  believe 
that  there  was  no  else  in  Ireland  then  but  Chiefs.  Acheson  had 
hardly  been  routed  when  a  very  truculent  planter,  Sir  Frederick 
Hamilton  appeared  on  the  scene. 

He  must  not  be  confused  with  Sir  George  Hamilton,  the 
Royalist,  and  the  ancestor  of  the  Abercorns,  of  whom  Strafford 
always  spoke  calmly,  and  to  whom  Ormonde  was  greatly  indebted 
during  his  campaigns.  Sir  George  was  the  only  Planter,  whom 
Charles  II  inserted  in  the  list  of  those  to  be  specially  recompensed 
for  services  to  his  father.4  This  constant  association  of  Sir  George 
Hamilton  with  Strafford's  Government — he  held  a  farm  of  the 
Munster  mines,  and  commanded  a  company — is  all  the  more  worthy 
of  note  as  he  was  a  strong  Eoman  Catholic,  like  all  the  Hamiltons, 
and  had  been  sued  by  Bramhall  for  a  rectory,  "usurped"  not  by 
him  personally,  but  the  previous  tenant  of  the  estate.5  In  con- 
nection, however,  with  this  religious  question  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  great  as  Straff ord's  services  were  to  the  Church  of, 
Ireland — services  which  never  went  outside  the  law  of  the  land — 
he  never  imposed  a  pecuniary  mulct  on  a  Roman  Catholic,  and 
never  interfered  directly  or  indirectly  with  the  free  exercise  of 
religion.  Ireland  was  accordingly  the  only  country  in  Europe, 

1)  L.  S.  1—408,  409.  2)  L.  L.  VH— 60.  3)  L.  S.  1—494.  4)  I.  L.  G.— 427. 
5)  L.  S.  H— 95;  C.  S.  P.  1630-499,  512,  595;  P.  R.— 19,  20. 


920  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

where  a  State  associated  with  one  religion  interfered  not  one  whit 
with  the  subject  of  another.  This  was  why  men  like  Hamilton, 
Westmeath,  and  Fitzwilliam  of  Merrion  supported  the  Deputy 
with  as  much  tranquility  as  if  there  was  no  religious  question. 

Sir  Frederick  Hamilton,  however,  was  of  a  more  assertive 
type.  He  had  seen  much  service  under  Gustavus  Adolphus,  and 
had  brought!  with  him  to  Ireland  certain  of  the  mannerisms  of  the 
camp.  "To  leave  him",  wrote  Straff  or  d  "without  cause  of  excep- 
tion is  a  great  work,  the  condition  of  the  gentleman  being  con- 
sidered. Here  are  many  complaints  against  him,  which  might  pass 
in  a  Swedish  Army,  but  in  no  civil  commonwealth.  I  will  quiet 
them  in  the  hope  of  his  better  temper  amongst  his  neighbours." 
He  too,  as  an  officer  in  the  Army  had  arrears  due.  Like  Acheson 
he  demanded  them.  Strafford  refused.  He  pleaded  poverty.  Straf- 
ford  offered  to  lend  him  the  money  privately.  When,  however,  he 
asked  Sir  Frederick  to  give  him  security,  and  to  make  arrange- 
ments for  repayment,  the  Swedish  officer  blandly  told  Strafford 
to  pay  himself  out  of  the  arrears.  In  other  words  the  Deputy  was 
"to  break  the  rule"  in  order  to  get  money  due  to  himself.  This  he 
declined  to  do,  but  he  went  one  better.  He  wrote  to  the  King,  and 
got  from  him  a  warrant  to  repay  himself  out  of  Sir  Frederick's 
monthly  payments  as  a  Captain. 1  Sir  Frederick  was  furious.  He 
made  frequent  appeals  to  come  over  to  London  to  demand  justice. 2 
Strafford,  however,  refused.  He  was  an  Army  Officer  and  could 
not  be  spared.  Also  "the  expense  of  such  a  journey  will  turn  much 
to  the  weakening  of  his  fortune,  besides  the  extreme  trouble  of 
having  him  near  you,  being  a  gentleman  of  a  strange  extravagant 
humour". 3  In  1639  there  was  another  quarrell.  "Only  two  com- 
panies" in  the  Army  were  found  defective  on  inspection.  One  was 
Sir  William  Stewart'^  and  the  other  Sir  Frederick  Hamilton's. 
"For  their  punishment  and  the  example  of  others  I  staid  them  a 
fortnight's  time  longer  than  the  rest,  at  the  charge  of  the  Captains, 
till  I  saw  them  perfect  like  the  others.  I  shall  be  sure  to  have  Sir 
Frederick  bawling  after  me,  as  doing  it  out  of  disfavour  to  him. 
I  am  a  poor  man  that  have  the  misfortune  to  be  continually 
questioned."  This  was  written  in  reply  to  a  Eoyal  query  as  to 
why  Sir  Frederick  was  thus  treated — "to  be  more  often  questioned 


1)  L.  S.  T— 281.  2)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11—78, 101.  3)  L.  S.  1—407. 


921 

for  things  I  do  well,  than  hithertoo  I  have  been  for  anything  I 
have  done  ill  (Praise  God !).  His  Majesty's  Ministers  are  not  like 
to  be  at  much  ease  in  this  time  of  liberty.  God  Almighty  grant 
that  the  excess  go  no  higher  than  servants". 1  The  last  sentence  is 
strangely  prophetic. 

There  was  yet,  however,  another  battle  to  be  fought.  The 
loose  measurements  of  the  Ulster  Plantation  were  a  constant 
source  of  law  suits.  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton  was  involved  in  one  of 
these  suits  with  one  Sarah  Hansard.  This  was  the  case  to  which 
Strafford  refered,  when  he  spoke  of  his  "conduct  befitting  a 
Swedish  Government",  there  being  "barretry"  involved  in  the  pro- 
ceedings.2  At  this  period,  where  "men  of  quality"  were  involved 
in  law  the  King  was  the  judge,  and  one  of  the  reasons  of  the 
existence  of  the  Council  Board  as  a  Court  of  Law  was  to 
"avoid  the  wasting  of  their  estates".  The  personal  jurisdiction 
of  the  Deputy,  however,  only  extended  to  cases  of  arbitration 
with  the  consent  of  both  parties.  Strafford  had  only  just  come 
to  Ireland  when  this  case  was  submitted  to  him,  and  he  passed  it 
on  to  Lowther  and  Bolton  to  decide.  They  decided  against 
Hamilton.  Four  years  passed  by  in  peace  and  quietness,  when 
suddenly,  in  1368,  Hamilton  resurrected  a  distaste  for  the  decision, 
and  appealed  to  the  King  "to  review  the  Lord  Deputy's  decree". 
The  reason  he  advanced  was  that  Bolton  and  Lowther  were 
"practisers  with  the  opposite  party".  s 

Of  appeals  from  his  jurisdiction  to  the  King  Strafford  never 
complained.  It  was  only  decisions  made  in  London  without  re- 
ference to  him  that  were  his  bete  noir.  He  once  told  Coke  that  he 
would  never  put  a  barrier  in  the  path  of  those  that  "complain  that 
the  judges  here  deny  them  justice,  and  that,  upon  complaint  to  the 
Deputy,  they  cannot  get  relief".  4  Accordingly  "as  soon  as  Sir 
Frederic  said  he  would  complain  of  me,  I  made  suit  to  the  King 
that  he  might  go  over".5  Sir  Frederic's  co-defendant  was  instructed 
to  "put  in  security  to  perform  the  decree,  in  case  the  King  found 
no  cause  to  alter".  It  is  clear,  however,  that  Sir  Frederic,  in  some 
document  not  to  be  found,  must  have  charged  Strafford,  as  well 
as  the  judges,  with  partiality.  The  King  at  first  refused  to  hear, 
him,  till  he  struck  certain  phrases  out  of  his  petition.6  Strafford 

1)  L.  S.  11—427.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1638—197.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1638—198.  4)  L.  S. 
1—153.  5)  R.  P.  Vni— 27.  6)  L.  L.  VH— 535. 


922  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

retorted  on  Hamilton  by  charging  him,  in  the  case  of  Hansard, 
with  "maintenance,  oaths,  and  confederacies  to  pervert  and  oppose 
justice,  and  barretry.  If  I  make  this  not  good  against  him  I  desire 
to  find  no  credit  with  my  master.  Besides  there  is  a  certain  paper 
he  shews  up  and  down  ad  faciendum  populum  to  raise  a  cry  upon 
me,  little  better  than  a  libel,  which  is  the  ordinary  accident  of  my 
life.  How  should  it  be  otherwise  when  I  have  noble  friends  at 
Court  who  give  credit  to  the  authors  and  countenance  their 
scandals.  I  wish  some  of  their  actions  were  sifted  as  thoroughly 
as  mine",- — an  oblique  reference  to  the  Earls  of  Holland  and 
Bristol. 1  Finch,  Lyttleton,  and  Bramston  tried  the  appeal,  and 
rejected  it.  2  What  happened  the  countercharge  is  unknown. 

It  is  significent  of  the  times,  the  Radical  feelings  of  the  Under- 
takers, and  their  hostility  to  the  normal  course  of  justice  that  two 
of  them — Balfour  and  Hamilton — were  accused  by  Straff  or  d  of 
using  their  rural  influence  to  defeat  justice  by  "maintenance,  con- 
federacies, and  barretry".  This  is  always  a  sign  of  political  power 
and  political  ambition  in  Ireland.  A  class^  party,  or  confederation, 
seeking  to  dominate  the  country,  always  strikes  first  at  the  Courts 
of  Justice,  the  great  protection  of  the  subject. 3 

This  sniping  from  the  Planters  recurred  every  year.  Str  af- 
ford's  comments  were  caustic  and  angry.  There  was  an  angry  con- 
troversy with  a  Cavan  Planter  of  the  name  of  Clements,  subse- 
quently a  Parliamentary  Captain  under  Sir  John  Clotworthy. 4 
Strafford  was  ordered  to  inquire  if  there  was  any  marble  in  Ire- 
land, suitable  for  the  repair  of  St.  Pauls,  and  the  new  palace  of  the 
Queen  at  Greenwich. 5  He  was  in  a  position  to  provide  it.  He  had 
just  spent  £  100  on  securing  a  Crown  Title-  to  a  Northern  marble 
quarry.  It  had  been  let  to  a  Captain  Button,  on  condition  that  he 
gave  Strafford  permission  to  recoup  his  expenditure  by  £  100  worth 
of  marble  for  the  house  he  was  building  at  Naas.  On  receipt  of 
this  letter  he  inserted  another  clause  in  the  lease  that  the  King  was 
to  have  60  ton  of  stone. 6  He  then  received  a  letter  informing  him 
that  the  matter  was  now  in  the  hands  of  Arundel. 7  Arundel 
employed  this  Northern  Planter  who,  without  a  word  to  Dutton, 
or  Strafford,  or  Bramhall,  the  manager  of  Crown  farms  in  Ulster, 


1)  L.  S.  11—285,  386.     2)  C.  S.  P.  1640—235.     3)  R.  P.  VIII— 125.     4)  C.  S. 
P.  1646-444;  1647-616.       5)  L.  S.  H— 51.       6)  P.  R.— 32,  33.       7)  L.  S.  1—88. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  923 

entered  the  quarry,  and  proceeded  to  remove  what  marble  Straff ord 
had  cut  for  his  own  use,  and  to  use  the  very  tools  he  had  sent  down. 
"Seignior  Clements — methinks  they  call  him — comes  from  the 
Lord  .Marshall  and  has  the  benefit  of  mine  from  me.  The  least 
word  from  the  Earl  Marshall  and  everything  is  his.  But  that 
Seignior  Clements1  should  out  of  hie  plenipotecy  lavish  my 
interest  and  my  money  is  a  proceeding  with  which  I  am  not 
acquainted."1  To  Bramhall  he  was  calmer.  "Let  him  go  on.  He 
can  do  no  great  harm.  He  will  quickly  leave  off  as  they'll  send 
him  no  money.  Only  let  him  work  with  his  own  tools  and  not 
mine." 2  Strafford  was  right.  Arundel  had  no  money,  as  there  was 
none  in  the  Treasury,  and  "Seignior  Clements"  after  a  while  found 
that-  toiling  in  a  Vice-regal  quarry  was  unprofitable  and  desisted. 
It  is  indeed  a  curious  commentary  on  the  traditional  view  of  Staf- 
ford's Oriental  despotism  in  Ireland,  that  a  subject  could  walk 
into  his  quarry,  and  seize  his  tools,  and  do  so  without  the  Deputy 
having  the  slightest  power  to  interfere. 

Other  Planters  flit  across  the  Vice-regal  path  from  time  to 
time  amidst  objurgations  and  wrath.  Lord  Lambert  of  Cavan, 
though  a  very  great  Undertaker,  never  seems  to  have  set  foot  in 
Ireland  all  during  the  earlier  part  of  Stafford's  Vive-Royalty. 

This  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  Straffordian 
circle.  Strafford  himself  intended  to  tie  every  Ormonde  and 
Connaught  Planter  to  residence.3  This  policy  gave  great  offences 
On  his  downfall  the  combined  forces  of  the  Pale  and  the  Under- 
takers ascribed  to  him  "the  ruin  and  destruction  of  the  gentry  and 
merchants".4  "There  has  been  no  oppression",  retorted  Eadcliffe, 
"of  the  gentry  and  merchants.  There  is,  'however,  a  scarcity  of 
coin.  The  reason  is"— it  was  a  savage  stroke,  especially  at  the 
Pale  gentry — "that  certain  great  Lords  and  others  have  estates  in 
Ireland  and  live  in  England,  and  thereby  draw  rents  and  profits 
out  of  Ireland  to  the  impoverishing  of  the  Kingdom."5  Lord 
Mountg'arrett,  for  instance,  three  of  whose  dependants  voted  for 
this  Remonstrance,  spent  all  his  time  in  England,  where  he  was 
frequently  mulcted  in  Recusancy  fines. 6  This,  however,  did  not 
deter  him  at  a  later  stage  from  flying  out  because  "the  subject  of 
Ireland  hath  not  the  same  liberties  as  the  subject  of  England". 

1)  L.  S.  11—111.  2)  P.  E.— 34.  3)  L.  S.  1—258.  4)  R.  P.  VIII— 13. 
5)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.  6)  C.  S.  P.  1625—1660—302. 


924  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  Lord  Lambert  was  intimately  connected 
with  the  advanced  party  of  Parliamentarianism.  His  mother  was 
one  of  the  Fleetwoods.  His  wife  was  a  Robartes,  and  both  these 
families  were  destined  to  be  famous  in  Liberal  circles.  He  himself 
sat  in  the  English  Parliament  for  Bossiney,  exactly  the  same 
borough  as  was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  Sir  John  Clotworthy  by 
the  leaders  of  the  Revolutionary  Party,  so  that  they  might  have  in 
the  House  a  man  from  Ireland  to  denounce  Strafford. l  His  father 
had  died  in  possession  of  considerable  landed  property,  but,  when 
the  second  Lord  Lambert  flashes  across  our  view,  he  was  in  very 
low  water,  and  involved  in  constant  litigation  with  the  trustees 
of  his  mother  and  his  wife  over  cross-accounts  and  mortgages.  2 
A  Mrs.  Wakefield,  the  widow  of  a  London  goldsmith,  sent  an 
appeal  to  Strafford,  who  adopted  the  drastic  course  of  paying  her 
out  of  Lord  Lambert's  pay  as  an  officer.  "This  Lord",  he  said,  "was 
never  in  the  Kingdom  since  my  coming,  and  now,  if  he  were  sent 
over,  perchance  his  creditors  would  get  paid,  and  the  duties  he 
owes  His  Majesty  might  be  attended  better  than  by  being  in  Eng- 
land."3 One  can  understand  the  meaning  of  this  comment,  when 
it  transpires  that  Sir  Miles  Fleetwood  was  clamouring  for  Lambert's 
despatch  to  Ireland  to  clear  up  certain  financial  complications,  and 
Lambert  was  quite  as  earnest  that  he  should  remain  in  England. 
He  complained  that,  by  Stafford's  interference  in  his  law  suits, 
"my  whole  estate  now  lies  bleeding,  and  I  emplore  your  honour 
to  get  me  a  dispensation  of  absence  from  my  regiment".4  The  end 
was  that  Lord  Lambert  was  sent  back  to  Ireland,  where  he  no 
doubt  ruminated  much  on  that  extraordinary  Hibernian  code, 
whereby  "men  of  quality"  had  to  procure  licenses  to  remain  out 
of  Ireland.5  That  code  formed  the  16th  article  of  Straff ord's  in- 
dictment. 

Lambert  was  not  in  Parliament  when  the  Remonstrance  was 
passed,  but  he  subsequently  played  a  great  part  in  those  protes- 
tations against  all  Strafford's  government,  the  infection  having 
swept  into  the  Upper  House,  Peers  jostling  each  other  in  haste  to 
repudiate  1'ancien  regime,  and  to  get  what  they  could  out  of  the 
new  order.  Lodge  describes  him  as  "a  leading  man  and  a  great 
speaker",  though  he  errs  in  attributing  his  energies  of  1641  to 

1)  Lodge  1—352—354;  C.  H.  1—98.  2)  Dom.  1638—235;  C.  S.  P.  1635—95. 
3)  L.  S.  H— 95.  4)  Cowper  MSS.  11—57,  58,  92.  5)  L.  S.  11—113. 


THE  EEVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  925 

the  year  1635. 1  In  fact  such  was  his  zeal  for  popular  opinions  that, 
"by  siding  with  the  Papist  Party  he  gained'  strength",  and  carried 
a  resolution  in  both  Houses  repealing  a  decision  of  the  Council 
Board's  that  certain  lands  in  Castle  Belleek  belonged  to  the  Earl 
of  Cork. 2  In  the  Eebellion  he  lost  considerable  property,  a  rental 
of  £  2.000  a  year,  innumerable  sheep  and  oxen,  and  the  inevitable 
Church,  which  his  mother  had  built  and  the  rebels  destroyed. 
This  warped  his  enthusiasm  for  popular  causes,  and  for  a  long 
time  he  remained  a  consistent  supporter  of  Ormonde. 

The  Stratford  correspondence  makes  it  very  plain  that  many 
of  the  class  usually  associated  by  historians  with  the  maintenance 
of  law,  order,  and  the  State  were  at  this  period  in  a  state  of 
smothered  revolt.  Cusacke,  the  Solicitor  to  the  Defective  Titles 
Commission  was  Stafford's  bete  noir.  His  estimates  were  wrong. 
His  legal  opinions  were  defective.3  If  an  estate  was  found  to  be 
Crown  Property,  he  had  an  understanding  with  Endymion  Porter 
by  which  that  worthy  was  instantly  notified,  and  "begged  it  at 
Court"  before  the  owner  could  compound.4  Is  it  any  wonder  he 
subsequently  flew  out  with  the  Catholic  Confederation,  because 
"natives  were  not  honoured  in  the  Kingdom"?  One  of  the  Pro- 
clamations he  signed  for  the  Catholic  Confederation  was  to  the 
effect  that  on  the  "Case  of  Tenures  many  estates  were  illegally 
voided  at  the  Council  Board",  a  declaration  which  drew  ribald 
comments  from  the  Koyalists,  who  pointed  out  that  the  warrants 
on  that  occasion  were  issued  by  Cusack  himself. 5  Dungarvan  also, 
the  son  of  the  Earl  of  Cork,  was  one  "who  takes  it  ill  the  service 
of  the  public  is  looked  on  before  his  private",  the  cause  being 
that  Strafford  would  not  lend  him  a  naval  pinnace  to  carry  him 
over  to  England.6 

Strafford's  prosecutions  of  this  class  were  many  and  manifold. 
His  prosecuted  four  Fermanagh  Planters  for  "mutinying"  against 
a  Benevolence. 7  He  prosecuted  Balfour  and  Sir  Frederick  Ha- 
milton for  barretery  and  intimidation.  He  prosecuted  and  de- 
posed Dr.  Adair,  the  Bishop  of  Killala,  for  incitement  to  rebellion. 8 
He  prosecuted  four  of  the  Earl  of  Cork's  pet  tenants  for  barratry, 


1)  Lodge  Peerage  1—354.       2)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IY— 109,  208.         3)  L.  S.  1—191. 
4)  L.  S.  1—162;  C.  S.  P.  1533—19.          5)  C.  A  H.  Appendix  YI— 23.  6)  L.  S. 

H— 16.  7)  L.  P.  2.  s.  m— 188,  191.  8)  C.  S.  P.  1641—300,  R,  C.— 252. 


926  PU'T'M'KM'Y    \M> 


junl  a  most  dignified  Planter  Knight  for  assault  and  battery.1  !!•• 
prosecute*!  Monutmorris  for  extortion,  corruption,  and  inciting  to 
mutiny,  and  the  Earl  of  Cork  for  extracting  "unlawful  oath-" 
from  trustees.  He  was  forced  to  prosecute  five  middle-class  Scotch 
planters  for  refusing  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  for  refusing 
to  promise  not  to  engage  in  acts  of  violence  against  King,  State. 
Church,  and  Commonweal.  '  The  only  act  of  rebellion  committed 
in  the  whole  of  hi*  regime  was  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  a  mixed 
body  of  English  and  Scotch  settlors  to  take  one  of  the  Kiiiii"- 
Castles,  and  hold  it  for  the  Marl  of  Argyle.:{  How  far  this  in- 
fection of  anarchy,  violence,  and  mutiny  had  percolated  through 
the  Planter  class  can  be  assessed  from  the  fact  that  one  of  the 
largest  Planters  in  County  Londonderry,  while  holding  a  Corn- 

ion  in  the  Army,  signed  the  Cov-enant  1o  resist  by  force  any 
alteration-  in  the  Scotch  liturgy,  of  which  he  did  not  approve,  and 
then  had  the  audacity  to  appear  before  Strafford  with  a  Royal 
warrant  making  him  Colonel  of  his  Regiment.1  Truly  mat- 
were  it)  a  pretty  plight  when,  an  officer  in  the  King's  Irish  Army 
could  sign  a  bond  of  offensive  confederation  with  some  rebel*  in 
Scotland,  and  openly  air  himself  as  an  officer  of  law  and  order 
in  Ireland. 

These  ebullitions  have  been  usually  passed  over  by  loo-e 
historians  with  vague  phrases  of  religious  justification.  natural 
demands  f,,r  liberty,  and  national  sympathies  with  the  national 
aims  of  Scotland.  To  explain  a  religion  <  upheaval  one  most  first 
produce  a  religious  suppression.  What  ('alvini^t  from  one  end 
of  Ireland  to  the  other  had  been  lined  a  penny,  or  imprisoned  for 
a  day  for  hi*  religious  conviction-?  The  very  Primate,  Dr.  Usher. 
was  regarded  as  the  greatest  figure  of  17th  century  Calvinism,  and 
all  he  found  to  say  in  regard  to  the-e  stirs  wa<  to  preach  an  angry 
•MOD  with  the  text  "I  counsel  thee  to  keep  the  King'*  Command- 
ments and  that  in  regard  of  the  oath  of  <l<>d".ri  It  is  to  he  feared 
<  'alviuUl  ambition^  and  apprehensions  had  very  little  to  do  with 
this  affair  at  all.  The  name,  of  those  who  repudiated  the  Covenant 
in  Ulster  contain  the  leader  of  Northern  (  'al  vin  i<m.':  The  DA] 
of  some  of  th.xe  who  lead  the  rebellion  in  Scotland  were  ardent 


1)  L.P.  l.i,  V     85,  38;  IY-190.  L>)  L.  S.  1      120:    If.  I'.  VIII     l'.». 

3)  R.P.  Yin— 502,  r,l  1  ;  I,  s.  11—342.  4)  1,  9,  II      '.  '.  878, 

H-343.  8)  L.8.H     344. 


THE  REVOLT  oF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  927 

Roman  Catholics.  So  were  the  names  of  some  of  their  open 
sympathisers  in  Ireland.1  "This",  wrote  Strafford,  ais  not  a  war 
of  piety  for  Christ's  sake,  but  a  war  of  liberty  for  their  own  un- 
bridled lusts,  with  Popish  Lords  in  their  party  to  show  what  their 
religion  is.  The  way  they  seize  the  civil  as  well  as  the  ecclesiastical 
power  shows  that  it  is  not  a  helium  episcopate,  but  a  war  for  the 
Crown  itself.*  Subsequent  events  showed  he  was  correct.  Even 
when  the  Scotch  clerics  were  accorded  all  their  demands,  the 
Scotch  nobility  persisted  in  rebellion.  If  this  applied  to  Scot- 
land, how  much  more  did  it  apply  to  Ireland,  where  there  was 
no  Laudian  Prayer  book,  and  no  episcopal  interference  or  domi- 
nation, save  that  just  warranted  by  an  Irish  Convocation  or  Synod, 
which  was  the  Calvinist  ideal  of  a  Church  Government. 

Xational  sympathies  are  but  a  weaker  argument.  The  idea 
of  nationality  dates  only  from  the  French  Revolution.  It  was  un- 
known at  that  period.  The  Stewarts  hated  the  Hamilton*.  The 
McDonalds  would  have  plunged  their  knives  with  joy  into  the 
body  of  a  Campbell.  It  was  an  Army  half  Scotch  and  half  Irish 
that  the  Earl  of  Antrim  offered  to  lead  across  to  Scotland.  Xorth 
Antrim  was  thronged  with  Scotch  refugees  fleeing  from  the 
Campbells.  *  At  least  a  third  of  the  Scotch  peerage  were  on  the 
side  of  the  King,  and  one  of  Stratford's  spies  reported  that  Argyle's 
tenants  were  in  a  state  of  smothered  mutiny  so  heavy  was  the 
coigne  and  livery  he  exacted,  so  fierce  the  "plunderings  and  bar- 
barous usages"  on  his  private  enemies,  now  that  there  was  no 
Sheriff.4  The  Stewarts,  Hamiltons,  and  McDonalds  in  the  North 
of  Ireland  were  Royalist.  The  only  danger  zone  was  County 
Down,  and  the  reason  was  that  all  the  inhabitants  were  Argyle's 
dependants,  or  sympathisers  with  his  faction.  "They  only  resort", 
wrote  Leslie,  "to  the  Western  parts  of  Scotland."5  Strafford,  who 
never  disguised  from  himself  the  strength  of  this  Scotch  cabaL 
as  strong  as  that  of  Hugh  O'Neill'e  in  the  16th  century,  said  at 
the  height  of  this  upheaval:  "I  have  great  experience  of  the  Scotch 
nation,  of  their  loyalty  and  their  faith  to  the  Sovereign,  but  there 
is  a  faction  among  them  which  I  shall  endeavour,  as  near  as  I  can, 
to  bring  to  that  loyalty  that  subjects  ought  to  bear".*  In  this  he 
was  borne  out  by  others  who  were  by  no  means  friendly  to  hi* 

1)  H.  L  M.  1—326;  B.  D.  1—206.  2)  Gowper  1L8.S.  D— 227;  L.  &.  II— 382. 
3)  LuS.  H— 354.  4)  L.S.  11-362.  5)  L.S.  U— 227.  6)  RP.  VHI— 507. 


928  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

policy.  On  the  first  invasion  of  Scotland  Dungarvan  noticed  the 
strength  of  the  King's  Party,  "the  loyalty  of  the  common  people", 
and  their  "awe  of  the  great  ones".1  Digby  who  was  in  open 
sympathy  with  the  Scotch  said  that,  "whatever  their  lords  are, 
their  common  people  are  weary  of  war".  Even  the  petty  victory 
at  Newcastle  was  followed  by  the  desertion  of  4.000  Covenanters- 2 
It  was  the  partial  sympathy  of  part  of  the  English  peerage,  and 
the  English  Revolutionary  Party  that  gave  the  Covenanting  Lords 
their  temporary  success,  and  that  sympathy  would  never  have 
reared  its  head,  if  the  Covenanting  Lords  had  been  dealt  with  from 
the  very  beginning.  Strafford  always  foretold  that  conferences, 
and  concessions,  and  "acts  of  grace"  to  subjects  with  arms  in  their 
hands  only  encouraged  others  to  take  up  arms. 

It  took  ten  years  of  Civil  War  and  Cromwell  to  burst  the 
bubble  of  a  feudal  cabal  lighting  the  fires  of  commotion  with 
clerical  bellows.  Then  what  Strafford  had  detected  at  the  very 
beginning — though  its  power  for  evil  he  never  denied — became 
apparent  even  to  Clarendon.  "The  Power  of  the  Nobility  was  so 
extinguished  that  their  persons  found  no  respect  from  the  common 
people.  The  Presbytery  was  become  a  term  of  reproach  and 
ridiculous  .  .  .  All  this  transformation  was  submitted  to  with 
the  same  resignation,  as  if  the  same  had  been  transmitted  from 
King  Fergus.  It  might  well  be  a  question  whether  the  generality 
was  not  better  contented  with  it,  than  to  return  unto  the  old  rule 
of  subjection  with  the  Restoration."3  Cromwell,  however,  was 
a  military  Dictator,  and  could  deal  with  this  disease  without  any 
regard  for  the  British  Constitution  and  Statute  Law.  Strafford 
was  a  constitutional  Minister  of  the  Crown,  working  in  a  maze 
of  packthread,  constitutional  checks,  civil  rights,  and  what  not 
else.  The  one  succeeded  and  the  other  failed.  He  who  succeeded 
is  regarded  as  one  of  founders  of  English  Liberty,  and  has 
numerous  Statutes  erected  to  his  fame  by  enthusiasts  of  the 
Manchester  School.  Strafford,  on  the  other  hand,  is  relegated  to 
obscurity  as  a  black  spot  on  the  fair  fame  of  these  islands,  a  sour 
janissary  of  some  Oriental  despotism. 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  national  sympathies  would  not  account 
for  the  large  number  of  Scotch  who  supported  Strafford  openly 

1)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 41.  2)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 140.  3)  Clarendon  Memoirs. 
11-92,  93. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  929 

and  loudly,  nor  for  the  countenance  and  support  the  Covenanters 
received  from  men  like  Clotworthy — English  of  the  English — 
or  Phelim  O'Neill,  who  was  by  no  means  a  Scotchman  or  a 
Puritan.  When,  however,  we  get  to  the  word  Liberty  we  im- 
mediately solve  all  the  causes  of  the  unrest  among  the  Under- 
takers, the  gentry  of  the  Pale,  and  "those  in  Corporations".  The 
great  feudal  houses  of  England  and  Ireland  had  become  civilised. 
What  Straff ord  used  to  call  "the  duty  of  subjects"  was  now  part 
of  their  creed.  A  man  like  Thomond,  or  Kerry,  or  Magennis, 
if  he  felt  aggrieved,  if  he  did  not  immediately  get  everything  he 
wanted,  did  not,  in  this  the  17th  century,  burn  houses  and  slit 
throats.  At  the  end  of  the  15th  century  this  was  the  custom  of 
the  English  nobility.  Till  the  end  of  the  16th  it  was  that  of  the 
Irish  nobility.  The  State  papers  of  both  countries  give  an  amazing 
account  of  the  murders,  thefts,  <and  riots  of  the  feudal  houses  in 
their  struggle  with  the  Crown.  "Civility"  was  now  their 
distinguishing  mark,  with  occasional  outbreaks  on  the  part  of 
men  like  Lord  Eoche  or  Tibbot  Burke.  The  middle  classes  had 
yet  to  be  civilised.  In  the  previous  regime  they  were  quiet  through 
fear  of  the  Great  Lords.  Now  they  had  emerged  and  became  great 
men  themselves,  and  had  yet  to  learn  that  there  were  some  things 
they  could  not  get,  and  certain  practices  humanity  would  not 
tolerate.  The  Earl  of  Cork  exempted  his  income  of  £  20.000  a 
year  from  taxation,  and  yet,  when  a  tenant  committed  suicide,  he 
exercised  to  the  hilt  his  manorial  rights,  and  escheated  the  cows 
of  the  poor  widow. l  Kilmallock  and  Sir  Henry  Belling — two  of 
the  "civil  gentry  of  the  Pale" — trumped  up  a  charge  against  a 
rather  disreputable  sqire,  tried  him  themselves,  had  him  hung, 
and  seized  his  property. 2  Lord  Esmonde,  Pierce  Crosby,  and 
Marcus  Cheevers, — all  typical  of  the  Pale  Squire  class — tried  to 
trump  up  a  charge  of  murder  against  Straff  or  d,  because  he  did  not 
see  eye  to  eye  with  them  on  matters  of  State.3  Sir  Thomas 
Standish  had  an  agrarian  dispute  with  Walter  Browne.  He 
arrested  him,  tried  him,  sentenced  him  and  "committed  him  to 
the  stocks  in  the  open  street,  he  being  a  gent  of  good  estate  and 
reputation".4  Sir  Christopher  Bedley  was  "censured  to  pay 
£  500  and  was  now  in  the  Castle  for  striking  Mr.  Trevor".  5  Three 

1)  L.  P.  1.  s.  IV— 129;  2.  s.  IV— 176— 180,  259.       2)  P.  R— 406.       3)  R.  P. 
in— 897— 900.        4)  L.  P.  2.  s.  HI— 131— 134.        5)  L.  P.  1.  s.  IV— 190. 

59 


930  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Galway  merchants  employed,  entertained  and  protected  a  Spanish 
pirate  who  ravaged  the  Irish  sea,  plundering  vessels  and  torturing 
his  captives,  and  they  did  so  because  he  smuggled  their  goods 
through  the  Customs. l  The  assassination  of  Buckingham  was 
received  with  applause  by  the  English  Middle  classes,  because 
they  held  him  to  be  "the  cause  of  all  the  evils",  though  he  was 
certainly  guiltless  of  any  man's  blood.2  The  triumphant  Parlia- 
mentarians simply  executed  Strafford  and  Laud  on  the  grounds 
of  "vae  victis".  The  performances  of  the  Catholic  Confederation 
—whose  members  were  not  like  the  perpetrators  of  the  Ulster 
massacres,  ignorant  peasants  led  by  bad  characters — but  half  a 
dozen  peers,  some  eighty  or  ninety  squires,  and  a  host  of  lawyers, 
shopkeepers,  aldermen  and  priests  of  the  Pale,  drawn  not  from 
the  peasantry  but  the  bourgeois — what  with  their  coshieringa, 
tyrannies,  backbitings  and  treacheries,  seem  to  us,  in  these  days, 
like  a  soviet  of  savages.  Rinucini  says  that  they— "my  State" 
he  used  to  call  them — were  so  hated,  that,  despite  all  their 
political  programme  of  liberty  of  conscience  and  redistribution  of 
properties,  no  one  would  willingly  give  them  a  penny.  "The  bad 
government  of  the  Catholics  is  the  real  cause  why  no  money  i°. 
to  be  found."  He  describes  "the  howls  and  lamentations"  of  the 
country  women,  as  they  lamented  the  thraldom  under  wfrich  they 
lived,  all  of  which  the  Confederation  shifted  on  to  the  shoulders 
of  the  priests,  who  had  to  endure  an  "indescribable  hatred".3 

The  fact  was  that  the  Middle  classes  had  just  "arrived". 
Under  the  Tudors  they  had  fared  very  well.  Escheats  of  fallen 
nobles,  the  huge  Abbey  Lands,  the  innumerable  Church  Impro- 
priations,  the  high  offices  of  State,  and  the  wealth  that  flows 
towards  political  power  had  all  tended  to  lift  this  class  high  and 
aloft  above  the  rest  of  the  community,  and  it  had  grown  dizzy 
in  the  rarefied  atmosphere  of  political  ascendancy.  Traditional 
history  forgets  that  what  is  loosely  called  in  this  volume  the 
Planter  Class  was  not  far  removed  in  the  real  actualities  of  life 
from  the  Civil  gentry  of  the  Pale.  They  formed  all  one  so'lid 
compact  middle  class,  divided  it  is  true,  but  at  the  same  time 
united  by  a  hundred  bonds.  The  Li&more  Papers  of  the  Earl  of 
Cork  are  a  mine  of  information  on  the  matrimonial,  political,  and 

1)  Dom.  1634—300;  C.  S.  P.  1634—73—75.  2)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  1—131. 
3)  R.  E.  290,  353. 


THE  EEVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  931 

financial  ties,  which  united  the  Planters  to  the  Civil  gentry  and 
the  bourgeois.  The  lawyers  employed  by  the  Earl,  the  business 
men  who  handled  his  mortgages  and  exchanges,  his  creditors, 
debtors,  guests,  hosts  and  kinsmen  comprised  not  only  Ulster  Re- 
volutionaries of  the  Covenant  like  Clotworthy  and  Southern 
Puritans  like  Hardress  Waller,  but  leading  lights  of  the  Catholic 
Confederation  like  Donough  McCarthy,  John  Walsh,  James 
Cusack,  i-nd  Henry  Ashe,  and  Royalists  like  George  Hamilton, 
the  Earl  of  Westmeath,  and  Lord  Barrymore.  We  are  now  in  the 
era  of  commerce,  which  strikes  right  across  religious  views  and 
political  theories,  and,  though  the  Civil  gentry,  as  a  rule,  inclined 
to  Royalism  and  the  Planters  to  Parliamentarianism,  they  could 
combine  when  Strafford  took  the  assessment  of  subsidies  out  of 
their  hands,  and  made  it  a  State  service. 

The  subsidies  themselves  were  a  bagatelle.  In  four  years  the 
Earl  of  Cork's  income  was  £  80  000.  His  subsidies  during  that 
period  were  £  3.600,  which  exactly  bears  out  Radcliffe's  conten- 
tion, that  they  were  an  income  tax  of  4  °/0. 1  The  sting,  however, 
in  this  great  reform  was  that  no  more  could  this  great  middle  class 
of  moneyed  men  vote  subsidies  and  benevolences,  the  credit  of 
which  came  to  themselves,  in  return  for  Graces  that  benefited  only 
themselves,  while  laying  the  burden  on  industry,  "the  meaner 
sort",  and  "poor  and  bare  tenants". 2  Nor  was  this  only  Strafford's 
view.  Innumerable  petitions  said  the  same. 3  "This  is  practised", 
we  are  assured,  "by  the  principal  men  that  the  King  might  not 
know  the  estates  of  the  better  sort."4  "It  was  a  payment",  said 
Straff ord,  "not  worth  speaking  of  if  set. on  the  wealthy  alone." E 
Even  if  there  had  been  no  such  question  as  feudal  dues,  Church 
Lands,  Plantation  Covenants,  and  "exactions  in  Corporations", 
this  alone  was  sufficient  to  make  the  Civil  gentry  of  the  Pale  clasp 
to  their  bosoms  the  rising  generation  of  Planters,  both  lifting  up 
their  voices  over  "Liberty  and  religion  than  which  no  two  things 
are  dearer  to  the  heart  of  man". 

All  Revolutions  it  should  be  remembered  are  the  work  of  the 
middle  classes.  Their  jealousy  of  those  above  them,  their  over 
weening  sense  of  importance  at  having  "arrived",  their  ensuing 

1)L.P.2.  s.IV— 259;  1.  s.  Y— 51  ;'Dom.  1635— 385;  T.  C.D.  F.  3. 15.  2)L.S. 
I_401,  407;  11—19.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1629—467,  469.  4)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16.  5)  L.  S. 
1—238. 

59* 


932  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

belief  that  conventions  they  d'o  not  like  are  not  binding  on  them, 
their  ignorance  of  State  craft,  in  which  everything  that  is  un- 
pleasant immediately  becomes  something  to  be  destroyed,  their 
great  desire  to  exempt  their  investments  from  taxation,  their  firm 
belief  that  taxes  should  be  paid  out  oi;  industry  and  wages,  and  not 
out  of  usury  and  investments,  and  the  ensuing  desire  to  place  the 
burdens  of  the  State  either  on  the  landed  aristocracy  they  hate, 
or  on  the  rising  elements  of  industry  who  are  trading  on  their 
heels,  all  this  makes  the  middle  class,  who  have  just  won  wealth, 
the  most  restless  element  in  the  community.  An  Irish  official  one 
time  noted  that  all  stirs  followed  great  prosperity.  "Those  that 
have  been  rewarded  by  Her  Majesty's  bounty  swell  in  pride,  and 
say  the  Governor  standeth  in  awe  of  them,  and,  if  he  be  severe  with 
justice,  they  say  he  is  a  tyrant  and  desire  to  have  him  removed."  l 
Strange  as  it  may  appear  Midas  has  been  known  actually  to  call 
out  the  Apaches  to  get  his  own  way,  tripping  up  at  the  same  time 
the  officers  of  State  who  try  to  maintain  peace,  in  the  hope  that, 
in  the  confusion,  "justice  may  be  obtained  in  the  interests  of 
peace".  The  Gracchan  Kevolutions  in  Eome,  the  Parliamentary 
movement  in  England,  the  French  Eevolution,  the  intense  unrest 
in  England  between  1790  and  1800,  were  all  fanned  and  stirred 
by  the  bourgeois  who  had  arrived,  Equites,  "the  Country  Party", 
Parisian  Intellectuals  and  Country  avocats,  "Nabobs"  and  the  war 
contractors  of  the  Georgian  period,  all  in  their  different  ages  sang 
£a  Ira,  and  sniggered  at  the  violence  of  mobs,  who  never,  be  it 
•noted,  were  drawn  from  the  artizans,  working  men,  or  "painful 
people",  but  from  the  lower  substrata  of  idle  and  lawless 
elements.  The  time  had  now  arrived  for  the  great  Undertakers, 
the  lessees  of  Abbey  Lands,  the  Church  Impropriators,  the  alder- 
men of  the  Corporations,  and  the  large  class  of  native  usurers  who 
had  leapt  into  prominence  when  interest  was  30  °/0,  the  time  had 
now  arrived  for  these  to  demand  justice.  An  Irish  Deputy  one 
time  analysed  carefully  all  the  elements  of  peace  and  revolt.  "The 
most  part  are  very  peaceable,  industrious  to  manure  their  land, 
ready  to  receive  all  lawful  commandments,  the  government  con- 
tinuing tolerable."  Underneath  was  a  primitive  substratum, 
"prone  to  ignorance  and  base  leisure,  full  of  envy  for  those  who 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1595-486. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  933 

strive  as  much  as  they  can  to  live  honourably  and  worthily".  These 
are  entertained,  excused,  and  used  by  those  "who  have  been  made 
something  by  the  favour  of  the  State  and  begin  to  please  them- 
selves with  the  opinion  of  greatness  and  popularity,  which  is  easily 
gotten  among  a  poor  people  who  see  nothing  but  themselves". 1  As 
an  analysis  of  Irish  discontent  this  is  remarkable  for  its  eternal 
recurrence. 

The  Irish  Parliament  of  1640  contained  an  abnormal  pro- 
portion of  lawyers.  The  number  is  remarkable.  Every  old  city  had 
its  sharp  and  voluble  representative.  The  little  boroughs  sent  up 
quite  a  respectable  number  of  these-  They  came  trickling  in 
actually  as  Country  Members.  Nicholas  Plunkett,  Clanricarde's 
lawyer,  the  younger  Bysse  who  sat  for  a  Connaught  constituency, 
John  Walsh,  who  was  the  member  for  Waterford'  City  and  was 
the  son  of  a  "civil"  Tipperary  Squire,  Somers  who  was  Ranelagh's 
Secretary,  and  a  host  of  others  suddenly  appear  as  the  spokesmen 
of  this  small  but  influential  class.  One  of  them,  Walter  Archer  of 
Kilkenny,  was  of  such  rank  that  he  was  a  possible  Lord  Chief 
Justice,  before  Strafford  came  to  Ireland. 2 

These  were  the  hungry  demagogues  who  could  be  trusted  to 
say  what  should  be  said,  to  do  what  should  be  done  and,  above  all, 
not  to  say  what  should  not  be  said.  No  one  reading  the  Resolu- 
tions of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  in  1641  would  dream  for  a 
second  that  it  consisted  of  a  dominating  bloc  of  about  95  votes, 
determined  to  alter  the  basis  of  subsidy  taxation,  to  repeal  the 
Plantation  Covenants,  to  submit  cases  of  Church  Lands  only  to 
juries,  and  to  restore  the  right  of  Corporations  to  fix  taxes  and 
rates  as  they  pleased. 

The  subsidies  for  the  war  with  Scotland  were  passed  un- 
animously in  a  wave  of  national  enthusiasm.  The  recruitment  for 
the  Irish  Army  was  rapid  and  zealous.  The  greater  part  of  the 
House  of  Commons  took  commissions  and  went  off  to  Carrick- 
fergus,  leaving  behind  a  Eump  to  debate,  amend,  or  pass  the  series 
of  Statutes  that  had  been  proposed. 3  It  was  this  remaining  portion 
that  created  the  cataclysm,  Strafford  and  Eadcliffe  being  both  in 
England,  and  the  former  nigh  unto  death.  How  concealed  was 
the  discontent  is  revealed  by  the  fact  that  as  late  as  June  8,  when 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1611—46.        2)  L.  P.  2.  s.  HI- 74.        3)  C.  A.  H.  Charles  1  p.  59. 


934  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Eadcliffe  was  leaving  for  England,  the  House  sent  a  message  of 
sympathy  to  Strafford,  and  Sir  Eoebuck  Lynch,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  that  subsequently  prosecuted  him,  said  that  he  "ad- 
ministered the  affairs  of  the  realm  tarn  diligentes  ut  proprias,  tarn 
caste  ut  alienas,  tarn  religiose  ut  publicas". x 

The  manoeuvrings  then  began.  With  considerable  skill  the 
leaders  of  the  party  of  revolt  concentrated  on  two  issues,  the 
demand  of  the  House  that  it  should  assess  the  subsidies,  and  an 
attack  on  the  Established  Church.  The  two  issues  welded  into  one 
solid  bloc,  Clanricarde's  group,  the  members  for  the  Port  towns, 
the  Northern  Undertakers,  the  Scotch  members,  and  the  Ultra- 
montane members  for  the  Pale.  After  a  long  series  of  embroilings, 
resolutions,  amendments,  demands,  and  agitations  the  party  cut 
down  the  subsidies  to  a  minimum,  and,  on  a  snap  division,  carried 
the  Eemonstrance,  which  was  quoted  with  such  deadly  effect  at 
Strafford's  trial. 

The  Composition  of  this  Party  can  be  easily  detected  by  the 
signatures  to  that  Eemonstrance.  Scotch  nonconformity  was  re- 
presented by  the  two  Montgomerys,  Archibald  Hamilton,  the 
nephew  of  Lord  Claneboye,  and  Thomas  Hill.  All  the  Port  Towns 
and  great  Corporations  were  fully  represented,  save  that  one 
member  for  Cork  and  one  member  for  Dublin  did  not  sign.  The 
two  members  for  Mayo  and  the  two  for  Galway,  and  the  two  for 
Athenry,  represented  Clanricarde. 

The  Undertakers  included  one  member  from  each  of  the 
following  Counties: —  Londonderry,  Longford,  Leitrim,  Donegal, 
Queen's  County,  Armagh,  Fermanagh,  and  Kerry.  Their  names 
were  Eowley,  Edgeworth,  Eeynolds,  Gore,  Parsons,  Bromloe,  Sir 
William  Cole,  and  Denny.  Lord  Cork  seems  to  havei  been  a  patron 
of  Eeynolds. 2 

The  Boroughs  are  far  more  complicated  as  here  we  get  into 
a  tissue  of  cross  currents.  Belturbet  returned  Eichard  Ashe,  who 
was  a  bill  discounter  for  the  Earl  of  Cork,  and  flew  out  with  the 
Catholic  Confederation.  Strabane  had  returned  Eichard  Fitzgerald, 
who  was  born  in  Tipperary,  was  related  to  Sir  William  Percival, 
the  Clerk 'of  the  Court  of  Wards,  was  himself  Head  Clerk  of  the 
Court  of  Chancery,  and  acted  as  the  agent  for  Parsons  in  the  pro- 

1)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 15.          2)  L.  P.  1.  s.  V— 73. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  935 

secution  of  Strafford.  Enniskillen  returned  Arthur  Champion,  a 
very  important  Dublin  Bill  discounter,  who  frequently  appears  in 
the  Earl  of  Cork's  ledgers. J  Philipstown,  which  was  a  Plantation 
Borough,  seems  to  have  been  influenced  by  the  Loftus  family,  its 
two  members  being  Digby  and  Moore,  both  connected  with  Lord 
Drogheda,  the  son-in-law  of  the  Lord  Chancellor.  The  Munster 
Boroughs  sent  up  a  little  coterie  intimately  connected  with  the 
Earl  of  Cork  and  Denny,  both  of  whom  had  good  reasons  for 
discontent.  Osborne  and  Hore  from  Dungarvan,  Travers  from 
Clonakilty,  and  Henry  Osborne  from  Tralee  were  the  four,  the  last 
of  which  was  a  Denny  Borough.  Three  other  important  personages 
signed  the  Eemonstrance,  Wingfield,  an  Ulster  Undertaker,  who 
sat  for  Boyle,  Bysse,  the  son  of 'the  Recorder  of  the  Dublin  Cor- 
poration who  sat  for  Roscommon  town,  and  Somers,  who  sat  for 
Athlone  and  was  the  Secretary  of  Ranelagh.  Another  great 
personage  was  Sir  Hardress  Waller,  who  sat  for  Limerick  County, 
and  was  the  chief  of  the  Earl  of  Cork's  financial  managers.  As  can 
be  seen  the  influence  of  the  Undertakers,  "the  monied  men",  and 
the  Parsons,  Ranelagh,  and  Cork  group  was  pretty  effective  in 
the  passage  of  this  Remonstrance.  These  were  the  brains-carriers 
of  the  intrigue. 

The  numbers  were  provided  by  the  Port  Towns  and  the 
"Civil"  gentry.  When  we  exclude  Clanricarde's  coterie  we  only 
encounter  four  of  the  old  families  mixed  up  in  this  affair,  Rory 
Maguire,  the  brother  of  that  very  discontented  and  ruined  Peer, 
Lord  Maguire,  Sir  Donogh  MacCarthy  of  West  Cork  who  had 
been  much  harried  over  impropriations,  Sir  Donat  O'Brien  who 
had  suffered  the  same  fate,  and  Terence  Coghlan,  who  was  one  of 
the  Loftus  Party.  These  were  the  only  four  of  .the  County 
families,  outside  the  Pale  -group,  who  were  implicated  in  this 
affair.  Even  Philip  O'Reilly,  the  member  for  Cavan,  who  was  one 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Rebellion  of  1641  took  no  part  in  this  intrigue. 

The  Pale  gentry,  however,  formed  a  very  solid  bloc.  Barne- 
walls,  Fitzgeralds,  Butlers,  Plunketts,  Cusacks  and  Bellewes,  with 
their  innumerable  ramifications  produced  nearly  half  the  cabal. 
They  were  nearly  all  Roman  Catholics.  In  the  ensuing  stirs  at 
least  half  of  them  joined  the  Catholic  Confederation.  They 

1)  L.  P.  1.  s.  IV— 105.  199. 


936  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

numbered  about  half  the  members  for  Leinster,  with  four  from 
Tipperary,  and  three  from  Limerick.  * 

It  was  this  Eemonstrance  that  at  one  swoop  reft  Strafford  of 
his  plea  that  he  had  governed  Ireland  "to  the  contentment  of  the 
subject".  It  was  useless  to  plead  that  the  signatories  were  only  a 
fraction  of  Ireland,  that  it  was  passed  on  a  snap  division,  and  that 
in  a  thin  house.  It!  was  a  fact.  A  majority  is  worth  a  dozen  argu- 
ments, and  it  served  its  purpose.  The  Committee  sent  over  to 
London  were  hailed  by  the  Long  Parliament  as  gods.  They  were 
entertained  to  dinner  by  the  Earl  of  Cork,  and,  when  they  had 
spent  their  all  in  the  delights  of  London,  his  purse  was  at  their 
disposal. 2  Nor  were  they  unprovided  with  cash.  Having  torn 
Strafford's  subsidy  valuations  to  pieces,  and  reduced  the  subsidy 
to  a  nullity,  they  imposed  on  Ireland  a  poll-tax  of  £  5.000  to  pay 
the  cost  of  their  tour  to  London. 3 

After  Strafford  was  arrested  events  followed  each  other  in 
rapid  succession.  A  huge  revolutionary  cabal  dominated  the  three 
realms.  Scotland  was  held  in  awe  by  the  Scotch  Lords.  The  North 
of  England  was  placed  under  tribute,  coigne,  livery,  billetings  and 
forced  supplies  by  their  levies. 4  The  Royal  Army  had  to  lie  athwart 
the  South  of  Yorkshire  to  hold  them  back  from  sweeping  over 
England.  That  was  all  it  could  do  with  a  revolution  in  its  rear. 
"Rebels  !"  said  Lord  Bristo.  "They  may  be  -such  but  your  Majesty 
cannot  punish  them."5  The  pay  and  rations  of  the  Army  were  the 
daily  anxiety  of  the  King.  How  to  get  the  Scotch  out  of  England, 
how  to  prevent  the  Royal  force  from  dissolving  by  starvation  was 
his  one  thought  day  and  night.  He  could  not  force  tribute,  billets, 
and  supplies  like  the  Scotch,  whose  extortions — and  they  were 
pretty  heavy — were  regarded  with  silent  approval  by  the  House 
of  Commons.6  They  "had  a  strong  party  among  the  discontented 
citizens"  who  would  not  even  be  averse  to  an  invasion  of  the  South-7 
The  only  remedy  was  a  subsidy  and  to  wring  this  from  the  Com- 
mons was  the  only  hope  of  preserving  the  realm  from  destruction. 
Already  there  were  riots  in  Ulster,  outbreaks  of  the  woodkern  all 
over  Ireland,  so  that  it  was  "questionable  whether  security  be  in 
law  or  outrage" — uprisings  of  "clubmen"  throughout  rural  Eng- 

1)  Gilbert.  National  M.  S.  S.  of  Ireland,  IV— 1.  2)  L.  P.  1.  s.  V— 183, 184. 
3)  H.  C.  J.  1—185.  4)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 136, 137.  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—119.  5)  L.  P. 
2.  s.  IV— 127.  6)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  1—265.  7)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  1—278. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  937 

land,  over  commons  and  enclosures,  and  serious — very  serious — 
unrest  among  the  lower  elements  in  London. 1  Gaily  and  with  light 
hearts,  the  middle  classes  of  England  rode  and  directed  this  storm, 
firmly  believing  that  it  would  guide  them  to  some  Ultima  Thule 
of  Liberty,  no  taxes,  and  a  realm  in  awe — no  longer  of  monarchs 
—but  of  patriots. 

Into  this  loose  confederation  of  Scotch  Lords,  Calvinist 
divines,  discontented  courtiers,  Percys,  Montagues,  and  Devereux, 
Puritan  zealots,  bucolic  squires,  and  city  aldermen,  the  middle 
classes  of  Ireland  entered  with  great  hopes,  oblivious  of  the 
sinister  fact  that  all  business  was  at  a  standstill,  so  widespread  was 
the  panic.2  The  mobilization  at  Carrickfergus  still  kept  a  large 
number  of  members  out  of  the  House.  By  declaring  these  seats 
vacant,  by  arresting  some  members,  like  Radcliffe,  Little,  and 
others  connected  with  the  administration,  by  expelling  others  like 
Dr.  Lake,  by  releasing  from  gaol  or  acquitting  from  sentences  their 
own  friends,  they  soon  overawed  whatever  disunited  and  disorgan- 
ized elements  might  have  withstood  their  claims. H  Even  members 
of  the  Council  quaked  in  their  shoes,  and  the  judges  were  mute 
with  fear  on  the  bench.  4  Two  of  the  latter  had  been  simply  in- 
carcerated by  the  House  of  Commons,  pour  encourager  les  autres.  5 
Drastic  measures  were  adopted,  both  in  England  and  in  Ireland, 
against  all  who,  by  word  or  deed,  breathed  criticism  of  the  new 
regime.  It  was  quite  a  common  practice,  in  both  Houses  of  Com- 
mons, to  summon  a  Member  or  a  subject  to  the  Bar  for  "seditious 
words  against  the  authority  of  this  House"  and  to  commit  him 
to  the  Sergeant  or  to  extract  "a  submission".6  In  Ireland,  however, 
the  most  effective  weapon  was  a  resolution  transferring  one  sub- 
ject's property  to  another.  Nothing  was  more  fruitful  of  unrest, 
disorder,  panic  and  passion  than  these  orders  emanating  from 
Dublin  or  Westminister,  and  it  is  hard  to  .say1  which  were  the  most 
unjust,  and  which  the  hardest  to  be  borne,  or  the  hardest  to  put 
into  force  peaceably. 7  One  of  the  very  last  acts  of  the  Irish  House 


1)  C.S.-R1641— 271,  274,  280,  312;    English  Historical  Keview  IX— 553; 
Egmont  M,S.S.  1—134,  137.    Cowper  M.S.  S.I— 262,  280,  282.  2)  Egmont 

M.  S.  S.  1—121, 139.  3)  H.  C.  J.  189—195;  C.  S.  P.  1641—268,  308,  313.  4)  C.  S. 
P.  1641—279.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1641—260.  6)  Clarendon  Memoirs  1—114,  115. 
7)  C.S.  P.  1641-298,  331;  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 208;  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-142;  C.  S.  P. 
1633—47—763. 


938  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

of  Commons  before  its  crash,  was  to  declare  that  the  property  of 
Sir  Henry  O'Neill,  the  Royalist,  should  be  transferred  to  certain 
followers  of  Phelim  and  his  uncle  Brian,  who  had  just  entered  the 
House,  and  were  leading  spirits  in  these  stirs. 

Faced  with  this  situation  the  King  could  only  lavish  conces- 
sions here  and  there  in  the  hope  of  allaying  the  storm.  All  Planta- 
tion Covenants  were  abolished.  All  Plantation  tenures  in  capite 
were  altered  to  common  soccage.  All  manorial  powers,  market 
rights,  and  advowsons  were  restored  to  the  Undertakers. 1  The 
clause  forbidding  the  letting  of  Plantation  Lands  to  Natives  on 
yearly  leases,  or  the  sale  of  such  lands  to  Natives  was  under  dicus- 
sion  when  the  rebellion  broke  out. 2  Thus  ended  the  Stuart  policy 
of  letting  lands  at  cheap  rates  to  favoured  subjects  in  return  for 
certain  duties.  The  duties  perished.  The  cheap  rates  were 
preserved. 

The  subsidies  disappeared  into  limbo.3  Straff ord's  policy  of 
raising  extra  taxes  by  a  4°/o  income  tax  on  "estates  and  goods" 
perished  within  ten  years.  All  revenue  from  this  time  forward  was 
paid  by  taxes  on  commodities  or  on  industry.  Never  again  did  any 
statesman  ever  dare  to  raise  Irish  revenue  from  owners  of  Irish 
land.  Since  then  it  has  been  a  fixed  tradition  in  affairs  of  Irish 
State  that  whatever  rates  may  be  placed  on  other  forms  of  property, 
income,  or  goods,  Irish  land  is  to  be  exempt  or  to  enjoy  a  lower 
rate.  In  England  the  same  revolution  was  rapidly  achieved  by  the 
Parliament  who  raised  their  taxes  by  the  confiscation  of  Church 
Lands,  compositions  with  Royalists,  heavy  duties  on  Customs  and 
Excise,  and  poll-taxes.  Gone/  was/  the  Stuart  code  thus  described1  by 
Finch  "No  man  is  to  be  assessed  unless  he  be  known  to  have  estates 
and  money  or  other  means  to  live  by,  over  and  above  their  daily 
labour,  and,  where  you  find  such  persons  to  be  taxed,  you  are  to 
take  it  off  such  poor  cottagers  who  have  nothing  to  live  on  but 
their  daily  work,  and  you  are  to  lay  it  upon  those  that  are  better 
able  to  bear  it."4  These  are  the  Chancellor's  instructions  re  Ship 
money,  which  the  apostles  of  Liberty  abolished,  substituting 
instead  a  poll-tax. 

This  great  reform  was  accompanied  by  others.  The  Corpora- 
tions recovered  many  of  their  great  powers. 5  Trial  by  Jury  was 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—272,  298.  2)  C.  S.  P,  1641—292.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1641—270. 
4)  R.  P.  n-261.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1641-285. 


THE  EEYOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  939 

made  the  ideal  form  of  judicature.1  The  qualification  of  a  magistrate 
was  fixed  at  £  100,  so  that,  in  a  district  dominated  by  one  or  two 
patriotic  potentates,  the  Government  could  not  place  petty  Planters 
on  the  Bench,  the  only  class  that  could  be  trusted  to  hold  a  balance 
between  the  "Lords  and  gentry"  the  "commonality"  and  the  State. 
"Some  baronies  will  have  but  two  justices",  wrote  a  scribe  at  that 
time  "and  then  we  know  what  will  happen." 2  The  embargo  on  the 
export  of  corn  was  removed  despite  the  undoubted  and  "great 
scarcity". 3  The  State  farm  of  tobacco  w,as  abolished,  and  the 
tobacco  trade  went  back  again  into  the  hands  of  the  old  ring.  4  In 
fact  the  cabal  did  very  well  for  themselves. 

The  split  came  over  the  question  of  Plantations.  The  great 
Undertakers  and  the  officials  wished  to  pursue  the  Plantations, 
whose  allocation  would  be  in  their  own  hands.  £W  this  they  gave 
high  reasons  of  State,  "making  the  commonality  depend  on  the 
King",  "breaking  the  power  of  the  Lords",  introduction  of  "fit 
freeholders  to  serve  on  juries",  and  "the  spread  of  religion  and 
civility".  The  -Civil  gentry  objected  to  such.  Many  of  them  had 
plots  and  mortgages  in  Connaught  and  Ormonde.  To  surrender  a 
fourth  of  these  for  the  other  wing  of  the  cabal  to  divide  between 
themselves  was  not  the  ideal  for  which  they  had  gone  into  this 
business. 5  Their  aim  too  was  to  "weaken  the  State",  to  keep  large 
tracts  out  of  the  grip  of  "the  fit  freeholders",  to  rule  them  through 
themselves,  their  friends  and  their  allies,  like  Clanricarde's  coterie. 
Let  but  a  series  of  small  farmers  be  created  over  Connaught  and 
Ormonde,  and  farewell  to  "popular"  movements  in  pursuit  of 
Religion  and  Liberty.  Naturally  they  were  strongly  led  by  the 
priests  on  this  matter,  and,  owing  to  the  influence  of  Clanricarde 
both  with  the  Queen  and  the  Parliamentary  leaders,  they  triumphed. 
This  question  split  the  middle  classes  into  their  old  divisions. 

The  Undertakers  were  a  later  generation  than  the  civil  gentry. 
The  latter  were  consolidated.  The  former  had  just  arrived.  The 
Undertakers  were  as  a  rule  Puritans,  Colonists,  and  attached  to 
the  Executive,  having  many  friends  therein.  The  Civil  gentry 
were  Roman  Catholics,  Irish  or  Norman  Irish,  and,  somewhat 
hostile  to  the  Executive  in  which  they  had  few  friends.  The  feud 
between  these  two  classes  was  perpetually  breaking  out.  In 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—284.  2)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—138.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1641—269. 
4)  C.  S.  P.  1641—263.  5)  C.  S.  P.  1641—269,  275—279,  282,  302. 


940  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

Chichester's  Parliament  it  led  to  stormy  scenes.  On  Strafford's 
arrival  he  found  the  Pale  Party  enthusiastic  for  the  King,  and 
the  Planters  in  revolt.  In  his  first  Parliament  it  was  the  former 
who  voted  his  subsidies.  In  the  second  session  it  was  the  latter 
who  carried  his  reforming  Bills,  the  priests  having  "blown  upon" 
the  Pale  gentry  lest  "a  conformity  in  laws  lead  to  a  conformity 
in  religion".  There  was  much  in  common  between  both  parties, 
but  there  was  also  much  between  them.  The  cabal  split  right 
along  religious  lines,  and,  as  the  Eoman  Catholics  had  a  majority 
in  the  Parliament,  thanks  to  their  careful  handling  of  the  elec- 
tions, the  Protestants  fell  back  on  the  State,  the  Executive,  and 
Royalism,  keeping  at  the  same  time  a  not  unfriendly  eye  on  West- 
minster. * 

While  both  were  wrangling  furiously  matters  moved  swiftly 
in  Ulster.  The  invasion  of  Argyle  was  daily  expected.2  The 
relics  of  feudalism  were  in  a  profound  state  of  unrest. 3  Phelim 
O'Neill  and  his  relatives  displayed  the  greatest  disappointment 
when  they  learnt  that  the  Scotch  had  been  held  in  Yorkshire.  4 
Out  of  all  these  doles  they  got  nothing.  Nothing  stands  out 
clearer  in  the  documents  at  our  disposal  than  the  poverty  of  the 
moving  spirits  in  Ulster.  Granted  by  the  Plantation  large  estates 
they  had  failed  to  hold  their  own  in  the  modern  conditions  of 
purchases,  sales,  mortgages,  and  industry.5 

It  was  very  hard  for  the  descendants  of  ruling  Maguires  and 
O'Neills  to  watch  their  estates  slowly  disappearing  into  the  hands 
of  usurers,  while  "men  of  mean  quality  added  field  to  field",  waxed 
fat  and  prosper ous.  At  this  period  an  impecunious  aristocrat  was 
a  great  danger  to  the  peace  of  the  realm.  Lord  Antrim — £  50.000 
in  debt — kept  Stratford  on  tenterhooks,  with  his  schemes  of  con- 
quest and  his  violent  seizures  of  other  men's  lands.6  The  Earl  of 
Rothes  was  the  glaring  example  among  the  Scotch  Covenanters. 7 
There  was  always  a  certain  element  among  these  relics  of  the 
feudal  system,  who  believed  that  they  were  entitled  to  take  what 
they  coveted,  ,and  that  a  Realm  out  of  which  they  did  not  profit 
was  not  entitled  to  their  support.  In  modern  days  the  hungry  mul- 
titude is  the  peril  of  States.  In  the  early  17th  century  it  was  the 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—303,  308.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1641—275;  R,  C.— 207;  B.  D.  1—206. 
3)  C.  P.  n— 134.  4)  H.  I.  M.  1-326.  5)  H.  I.  M.  1—327.  H— 342.  6)  L.  S. 
n-297,  426.  7)  L.  L.  VII— 521. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  941 

faded  aristocrat,  and  Lord  Maguire  and  Phelim  O'Neill  had 
mortgaged  nearly  every  acre  they  possessed.  One  indignant  de- 
ponent relates  how  for  two  years  before  the  outbreak  the  leaders 
were  borrowing  from  all  sides,  with,  as  he  thought,  evil  intent- 
"The  aforesaid  gentlemen  and  others  of  the  same  stamp  borrowed 
what  sums  of  money  they  possibly  could  from  the  British,  and 
often  without  apparent  necessity.  Neither  did  it  afterwards  appear 
what  they  did  with  the  money."1  What  is  far  more  likely  is  that 
their  borrowings  and  mortgages  were  but  the  natural  habit  of  all 
fading  aristocracies,  when  men  of  commerce  and  wealth  enter  their 
midst,  and  that  the  outbreak  was  but  an  effort  to  restore  their 
shattered  fortunes  by  conquest  in  an  era  of  chaos.  Certainly  there 
is  no  evidence  whatsoever  that  the  borrowings  were  to  finance  a 
rebellion,  as  the  rebellion  was  a  wild,  disorganized  uprising  of  the 
multitude,  unarmed,  undrilled,  unorganized,  "doubtful  and  tumul- 
tuous". 2 

The  locus  classicus  for  the  leaders  of  the  revolt  is  a  Proclama- 
tion placing  a  price  on  their  heads.3  This  Proclamation  was 
published  in  1642  when  the  Catholic  Confederation  had  also  "gone 
on  their  keeping".  It  therefore  contains  the  names  of  men  who 
were  involved  in  the  confusion,  men  who  were,  as  it  were,  engulfed 
in  a  later  tidal  wave.  Even  so  the  first  thing  that  strikes  the 
observer  is  how  very  few  of  the  old  families  were  in  the  emeute. 
The  personal  following  of  Phelimj  O'Neill,  one  of  the  McCartans, 
two  unimportant  McDonalds,  two  of  the  powerful  McGennis  fac- 
tion and  about  a  dozen  O'Beillies  and  McMahons  compose  the 
list.  When  we  exclude  one  O'Reilly,  two  McMahons,  Lord 
Maguire,  and  two  O'Neills,  the  remaining  25  are  very  minor  men, 
men  who  forty  years  before  would  have  been  pigmies  in  feudal 
Ireland. 

A  second  .consideration  is  worthy  of  note.  The  important  men 
were  very  large  Plantation  owners.  The  unimportant  came  from 
those  identical  districts  where  there  had  either  been  no  Plantation 
or,  as  in  Cavan,  where  the  native  proprietors  had  received  many 
and  comfortable  freeholds.  The  theory  of  "dispossessed  natives1" 
does  not  accordingly  hold.  Nor  did'  they  in  their  manifestoes 
allege  dispossession  by  Plantations.  That  plea  was  not  advanced 

1)  H.  I.  M.  1—327.          2)  R.  E.  p.  XXXV.          3)  L.  P.  II.  s.  IV— 277, 278. 


942  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

till  much  later,  till  the  arrival  of  Owen  Eoe  O'Neill,  who  fought 
hard  to  secure  a  redistribution  of  estates. 

The  second  proof  of  the  absence  of  the  native  gentry  from 
this  emeute  is  that,  in  all  the  depositions  of  the  Ulster  massacres, 
the  word  "gent"  is  only  applied  to  less  than  60  names,  and  in 
Monaghan  alone  it  could  be  applied  to  300  native  proprietors. 
In  Wicklow,  where  nearly  all  the  Byrnes  flew  out,  there  are  no  less 
than  45  men  to  whom  the  deponents  applied  this  title. 

Lastly,  there  is  the  question  of  the  Cromwellian  Escheats. 
Cromwell  only  escheated  in  Ulster  1.153.000  acres,  about  one- 
third  of  its  /area.  In  Leinster  he  escheated  half,  in  Munster  three- 
fifths,  and  in  Connaught  four-fifths.1  From  the  Ulster  Escheat 
there  must  first  be  deducted  the  estates  of  the  great  Eoyalists, 
who,  by  special  Proclamation  were  escheated,  because  they  were 
Eoyalists.  These  were  the  Earl  of  Antrim,  Lord  Iveagh,  Lord 
Castlehaven,  and  Sir  William  Stewart.  Their  estates  must  have 
covered  nearly  100.000  acres.  Then  followed  the  escheats  of  Lord 
Maguire  and  Phelim  O'Neill  which  covered  40.000  acres. 2  This 
leaves  only  a  million  acres  to  account  for  Eoyalist  Undertakers 
who  were  transplanted,  native  proprietors  who  suffered  a  similar 
fate  for  Eoyalism  alone,  and  natives  who  were  in  the  rebellion. 
Usually  it  is  assumed  there  were  very  few  native  proprietors  to 
be  escheated.  On  the  contrary  three-fourths  of  Antrim,  half  of 
Down,  and  nearly  all  Monaghan  were  compounds  of  native  free- 
holders, and  all  throughout  the  Plantations  they  were  as  plentiful 
then  as  they  are  do-day.  The  only  conclusion  is  that  very  few 
entered  the  rebellion,  and  very  many  took  no  part  in  the  "stirs" 
at  all.  In  time  of  Civil  War  the  average  subject  bolts  his  door, 
and  lies  very  low,  praying  only  that  the  Government  survives. 
Even  in  Monaghan,  where  there  were  not  fifty  English  freeholders, 
and  where  these  were  small,  save  for  the  Earl  of  Essex  and  Sir 
Henry  Blaney,  Cromwell,  for  all  forms  of  belligerency,  could  only 
escheat  118.000  acres  out  of  300.000. 

How  then  did  this  wild  upheaval  cause  such  destruction? 
Firstly  it  came  at  a  moment  when  two  Kingdoms  were  in  Ee- 
volution  and  the  third  was  without  a  Government.  Secondly  it 

1)  R.  I.  A.  Translations.  XXTV— 104.  2)  Redistribution  and  Survey.  Tyrone, 
Armagh,  Fermanagh. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASSES  943 

was  led  by  men  just  of  sufficient  rank  to  give  it  momentum, 
coming  from  separate  districts  so  as  to  spread  it  over  a  large  area, 
and  with  the  feudal  tradition  of  violence  in  their  veins.  Was  it 
likely  that  such  men  as  these,  whose  ancestors  had  ruled  whole 
territories,  were  going,  at  a  moment  like  this  of  panem  et  .circenses, 
to  sit  down  among  their  shattered  fortunes  and  mortgaged  deeds, 
and  watch  Undertakers  and  Pale  Lawyers  parcelling  out  the 
realm  between  themselves? 

What  lent  fuel  to  the  fire  was  the  religious  question.  At  last 
it  had  come  to  Ireland  in  all  its  fury.  The  Calvinist  campaign 
in  Scotland,  the  Puritan  propaganda  in  England,  the  unanimous 
attack  on  the  Established  Church  in  Ireland  had  all  raised  such  a 
din  that  it  reached  the  ears  of  the  serfs  and  the  creaght  herds, 
who  lent  no  dull  cold  ear  to  the  cry  that  the  Planters — men  with 
goods — were  persons  anathema  to  the  Almighty.  Any  cry  is  good 
enough  to  tickle  the  ears  of  covetous  groundlings,  and  it  served. 

The  flames  were  fanned  by  those  friars,  who  were  always 
agents  for  the  O'Neills,  and  by  those  priests  who  believed  that  the 
time  had  now  come  "to  reconcile  Ireland"  by  fire  and  sword,  to 
overthrow  the  Established  Church  and  to  erect  a  Roman  Catholic 
State  in  its  stead.  They  were  very  active  on  the  eve  of  the  out- 
burst.1 Religious  frenzy  rose  to  boiling  point.  "And  may  we 
not  fight  for  religion  like  the  Scotch",  said  an  angry  rebel  when 
asked  the  cause  of  all  these  acts  of  violence.2 

A  cry  of  redistribution  of  goods  will  affect  the  mildest  of 
races  if  there  is  no  police  force,  no  Army  in  the  country.  Here 
were  the  little  planters,  weak,  scattered,  strangers',  with  herds, 
and  flocks,  and  money  in  a  land  where  violence  was  traditional. 
On  the  other  side  lay  these  roving  creaghts,  and  serfs,  and  kern 
just  emerging  from  the  dark  ages,  thronging  the  Undertaker 
Estates  with  no  natural  leaders  save  the  Ulster  priests,  who  were 
either  serfs  themselves  or  belligerents,  separated  by  a  gulf  of  three 
or  four  generations  of  "civility"  from  the  priests  of  Munster  and 
Leinster.  It  was  not  a  war.  It  was  not  a  rebellion.  It  was  a 
jacquerie,  led  by  "a  few  bankrupt  and  discontented  gentlemen", 
and  by  what  one  of  the  McSwineys  called  "friars  that  were  tra- 
vellers and  great  politicians". 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1641—307,  309 ;  H.  I.  M.  1—327.  361 ;  11—344,  355,  358.  2)  H.  I. 
M.  1—329. 


944  PLUTOCRACY  AND  REVOLUTION 

The  wave  swept  through  Ireland  like  a  tide,  engulfing  county 
after  county.  He  who  turns  over  the  pages  of  that  period  can 
watch  the  ripple  of  chaos  crawling  slowly  all  over  Connaught, 
down  through  the  Midlands,  and  lapping  round  the  walls  of  Cork 
and  Dublin.  Sometimes  &  figure  rises  in  a  district  and  beats  it 
off,  and  it  crawls  on  leaving  his  little  area  high  and  dry.  All 
kinds  of  actions  emerge:  men  in  high  places  applauding  to  get 
popularity:  men  of  similar  rank  rushing  in  and  rescuing  shivering 
planters ;  others  "passing  by  on  the  other  side",  and  others  doing 
good  by  stealth  at  night.  Sometimes  it  is  an  angry  priest  hurling 
clerical  maledictions  on  a  local  gang.  "I  took  Buchanan's  son  in 
my  arms",  said  a  Franciscan  friat, — "sworn  dlily  on  the  Holy 
Evangelist" — "and  twice  and  thrice  they  snatched  him  from  me 
and  murdered  him.  We  sheltered  Mr.  Gilbert,  his  wife  and 
children  under  the  beds.  "You  will  draw  no  blood".  I  said  to 
McDonagh,  and  they  wrestled  with  me  and  the  firelock  went  off 
and  grazed  my  arm.  Then  they  stripped  Mr.  Gilbert  of  his 
clothes".1  Sometimes  a  friar  raises  his  voice  aloud  in  praise  and 
cheers  them  on  to  their  work,  and  ever  and  anon  the  Irish  servant 
appears  standing  at  the  door  with  a  bludgeon  protecting  those 
within.  Depositions,  letters,  Proclamations,  Manifestoes  all  give 
one  the  impression  of  nothing  but  wild  and  hideous  confusion. 
The  first  blow  fell  on  the  little  Planters,  the  small  and  defenceless 
farmers,  Colonists,  whose  Protestantism  was  the  excuse  for  their 
fate.  Then  it  swept  on  to  the  Undertakers.  Then  it  struck  at 
Irishmen  who  were  attached  to  the  Executive. 

Then  the  more  extreme  of  the  anarchs  turned  to  assail  those 
who  were  more  moderate,  and  those  who  had  despoiled  others  of 
their  lands  were  despoiled  themselves  by  some  new  coalition  of 
factions.  For  eight  years  the  historian  can  see  nothing  but  wild 
rapine,  fury,  and  destruction,  homesteads  blazing,  towns  crumbling 
into  ashes,  and  desperate  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  painful  people 
to  but  reach  the  ports,  and  go  forth  as  wanderers.  Liberty  had 
come,  a  Dea  certa  with  the  temper  of  a  Moloch,  and  "every  man 
did  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes". 

1)  H  I.  M.  II— 2. 


PART  VII 

THE  DOWNFALL 


60 


Chapter  I 
"THE  SIMULTATES" 

When  leaders  chose  to  make  themselves  bidders  at  an  auction  of 
popularity,  their  talents  in  the  construction  of  the  State  will  be  of  no 
service.  They  will  become  flatterers  instead  of  legislators Mode- 
ration is  stigmatized  as  the  virtue  of  cowards,  and  compromise  as  the 
prudence  of  traitors.  BURKE. 

The  character  of  Thomas  Wentworth,  Earl  of  Strafford,  was 
by  no  means  an  enigma.  Of  shrewdness  there  was  much  in  his 
composition.  His  letters  to  London  show  that  he  could  often 
leave  unsaid  what  it  was  not  necessary  to  say.  His  Irish  ad- 
ministration consisted  chiefly  in  closing  his  eyes  to  abuses, 
declining  to  tilt  at  windmills,  .and  working  with  men  that  he 
knew  were  his  enemies.  Despite  all  this  his  character  was  very 
simple  and  his  creed  transparent.  Nevertheless  round  his  re- 
putation has  gathered  a  host  of  legends,  as  if  he  were  some  ogre 
of  despotism  in  a  land  of  freedom.  The  explanation  is  simple. 
The  popular  party  at  his  trial  flooded  England  with  pamphlets, 
and  made  the  rafters  of  Westminister  ring  with  grotesque  tales 
of  his  persecutions,  culled  from  second-hand  phrases  he  might 
have  uttered,  and  the1  complaints  of  men,  themselves  not  blameless. 
These  fictions  have  passed  into  history  for  one  reason.  The 
history  of  Carolan  England  is  so  complicated  and  extensive  that 
no  historian  of  any  rank  has  had  time  to  sift  the  Irish  charges, 
some  of  which  have  actually  been  taken  as  proven. 

One  of  these  is  worthy  of  note,  as  revealing  how  Strafford 
made  a  deadly  enemy  by  protecting  the  legitimate  interests  of 
certain  Irishmen. 

The  most  famous  of  the  Irish  aristocracy  that  were  attached 
to  his  person  and  his  Government  was  the  young  Earl  of  Ormonde. 

60* 


948  THE  DOWNFALL 

Strafford  h'ad  received  instructions  to  procure  a  Eoyal  Title  to 
Ormonde,  and  to  plant  his  large  Palatinate.  At  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  Vice-Koyalty  he  succeeded  in  winning  the  confidence 
of  this  young  nobleman,  and,  what  is  more,  of  impressing  on  the 
King  that  here  was  one  who  might  some  day  prove  a  tower  of 
strength  to  the  trembling,  vacillating,  and  doomed  dynasty. * 
"He  is  young,  but  take  it  from  me  'he  has  a  very  staid  head."' 
The  prophecy  was  no  vain  one.  He  proved  one  of  the  ablest 
Viceroys  that  Ireland  ever  had  during  her  worst  cataclysm. 

To  win  the  confidence  of  a  Palatinate  Lord  was  better  than 
the  capture  of  a  dozen  constituencies  to-day,  especially  "one  whom 
I  hold  to  be  a  person  of  consequence".  The  previous  regime  had 
nibbled  at  the  Plantation  of  Ormonde.  As  was  the  custom. they 
first  canvassed  the  minor  gentry.  They  found  a  general  desire 
for  a  Plantation,  but  a  certain  timidity  in  trusting  compulsory 
powers  to  the  Lords  Justices.  Man  after  man  said  he  would  "put 
his  hand  to  a  submission  to  be  free  of  the  Earl's  black  rent", 
but,  when  it  came  to  the  test,  they  shrank.  St.  Leger  flatly 
declined  to  trust  Parsons,  and  hinted1  at  "Scotchmen",  in  the 
distance,  eager  for  grants.  Ormonde  said  he  would  sign  nothing 
till  he  was  forced,  and  would  do  nothing  till  his  lawyer  told  him 
he  had  to.  In  the  end  the  Earl  of  Cork  had  to  advise  the  King 
that  the  only  solution  was  "a  knowing1  Deputy  in  whom  the  people 
would  have  affiance,  and  yield  themselves  to,  for  they  put  all  they 
have  into  the  highest  hazard". 3 

On  the  advice  of  Sir  Wm.  Ryves,  who  was  his  family  lawyer, 
and  through  the  mediation  of  Wandesforde  who  had  been  a  friend 
of  his  uncle's,  Ormonde  told  Strafford  that  he  "would  be  ready 
to  give  his  best  help  and  furtherance  to  make  a  Plantation".  4 
This  was  another  triumph  for  Strafford.  Portland  had  tried  to 
procure  a  title  by  the  dubious  method  of  reviving  some  old 
Norman  claims,  held  by  English  families.  The  claim  was  bad  in 
law.  Also  the  course  had  the  great  demerit  of  ignoring  those 
bargainings  with  the  freeholders  which  were  the  first  requisite. 5 
"It  will  be  impossible",  said  Straff  ord,  "without  the  Earl  to  find 
a  title  for  the  Crown  to  Ormonde". c  The  fact  was  that  the 

1)  L.  S.  1—99, 260;  C.  P.  B.  VTH— 594.  2)  L.  S.  1—352.  3)  L.  P.  II.  s. 
IV— 164— 169 ;  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—65-68.  4)  L.  S.  1—99 ;  C.  P.  B.  VIII-531 ; 
Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—25.  5)  L.  S.  1—135, 160, 191, 295.  6)  L.  S.  1—352. 


949 

document  on  which  the  Crown  title  depended  was  in  Ormonde's 
possession.1  "The  Lords  Pretenders"  being  discarded, . bargains 
were  made  with  Ormonde  and  the  freeholders,  and  the  title  was 
duly  found. 

Ormonde,  however,  iwas  heavily  burdened  with  debt.  He 
had  succeeded  to  an  estate  heavily  mortgaged,  assailed  on  all  sides 
by  law-suits  and  agrarian  disputes,  and,  what  was  worse,  hampered 
by  a  mutinous  tenantry,  who  paid  no  rent  and  ignored  processes, 
being  encouraged  theretoo  by  those!  with  whom  he  was  at  law. 2 

Strafford  and  Wandesford  were  remarkable  for  nothing  more 
than  their  skill  in  business  and  law.  Both,  had  succeeded  to  bank- 
rupt estates,  and  both  were  now  comparatively  wealthy  men.  All 
throughout  the  Strafford  correspondence,  one  can  find  letters  from 
the  Deputy  dealing  with  the  financial  difficulties  of  his  brothers, 
cousins,  and  nephews,  not  one  of  whom  he  ever  attempted1  to 
quarter  on  the  revenue.  Even  his  favourite  brother,  who  was 
unjustly  taxed  in  Yorkshire  by  a  local  collector,  he  declined  to 
assist  by  political  influence,  as  it  was  "of  too  small  consequence 
to  trouble  his  Majesty  withal.  I  will  repair  any  prejudice  that 
can  befall  you."3 

The  advice  of  this  pair  to  Ormonde  was  to  sell  outlying 
portions  of  his  estate,  and  thus  "make  a  stroke  at  his  debts". 
Ormonde  offered'  to  sell  Abbeyleix  to  Strafford  who  refused,  but 
acted  as  broker,  and  bought  it  for  the  Crown  at  ten  years' 
purchase,  which,  at  that  period,  was  a  good  bargain,  land  having 
risen  to  close  on  16  years  purchase.  The  ensueing  Crown  rents 
were  £2.500  a  year.4 

In  thus  doing  what  he  could  to  alleviate  the  financial  diffi- 
culties of  the  Earl,  the  Deputy  was  but  performing  one  of  the 
first  duties  of  his  office.  All  during  the  Tudor  and  the  Stuart 
times  every  Lord,  Chief,  or  "man  of  quality",  being  props  of 
State,  were  the  special  care  of  the'  Viceroy.  If  'State  Policy  broke 
their  power,  it  never  shattered  their  fortunes.  If  grants  of  land 
were  not  available  the  Pension  list  was  a  horn  of  plenty.  Who- 
soever starved  in  Ireland  it  was  never  the  Irish  Chiefs,  and,  no 
matter  how  many  times  they!  had  been  in  rebellion,  their  petitions 
were  treated  by  the  Sovereign  "as  worthy  of  respect  in  the  hope 

1)  L.  P.  II.  s.  IV— 164.  2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—25.  3)  L.  S.  11—218.  219. 
4)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—30;  L.  S.  11—90, 103 ;  R.  P.  VIII— 120. 


950  THE  DOWNFALL 

of  better  .conformity  in  the  future".  If  Kavanaghs,  O'Rorkes, 
Maguires,  and  O'Neills  were  thus  fostered — they  were  all  on  the 
pension  list  of  James  and  Charles — how  much  more  a  young 
scion  of  a  House,  that  for  a  century  "had  discarded  Irish  exactions 
and  never  drawn  the  sword  against  his  Majesty  and  his  pro- 
genitors, thanks  be  to  God". 

In  South  Carlo w  and  North  Kilkenny  lay  a  region  in  much 
confusion.  Seignoral  rights,  defective  surrenders,  loose  patents, 
squatters  without  title,  and  agrarian  disputes  rendered  it  one  of 
those  territories  which  the  Defective  Titles  Commission  was  called 
into  being  to  settle.  It  lay  in  the  Ormonde  Palatinate,  but  that 
once  potent  power  was  fast  dissolving.  The  reign  of  James  is 
notorious  for  the  quarrelb  between  the  different  scions  of  the 
Butler  family,  their  retainers  and  dependants.  Law  suits,  forcible 
entries,  arrests,  and  general  pandemonium  were  tearing  to  pieces 
what  was  once  really  an  independent  Kingdom.  Among  these 
causes  of  unrest  was  the  fact  that  Ormonde  was  but  a  boy,  and 
the  next  heir  was  Mountgarrett,  "married  to  a  daughter  of  Tyrone, 
long  out  in  the  late  rebellion,  now  poor,  arid  fit  therefore  to  be 
called  into  England  during  these  doubtful  times".1  He  actually 
once  conceived  the  idea  of  abducting  the)  Dowager  Lady  Ormonde, 
so  as  to  marry  her  to  one  of  his  kinsmen,  and  thus  strengthen  his 
position.  2  Mountgarrett  was  the  rival  to  the  Butler  dynasty,  and 
as  Ormonde  lent  towards  the  Crown,  Mountgarrett  sought  aid 
from  other  sources.  Much  of  the  history  of  the  Midlands  between 
1041  and  1650  depended  on  this  cleavage  among  the  Butlers.  It 
explains  why  Mountgarrett,  an  ardent  Royalist,  joined  the  Catholic 
Confederation,  Ormonde  being  the  King's  Viceroy. 

To  part  of  this  territory — namely  such  as  lay  in  Carlow — 
a  Royal  Title  had  been  found  in  the  reign  of  James.  The  influence 
of  the  Bagenals,  however,  had  kept  the  report  of  the  Inquisition 
off  the  file.3  In  the  lower  part  that  lay  in  Kilkenny  patents  had 
been  issued  to  Ormonde,  Mountgarrett,  Lord  Londonderry,  and 
others.  If  the  territory  was  Crown  Property — as  it  undoubtedly 
was  through  the  Statute  of  Absentees — patents  based  on  a  sur- 
render were  dubious.  Surrender  Patents  were  only  water-tight 
in  counties  where  the  Crown  had  no  lien.  It  soon  became  very 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1624-478.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1621—117.  3)  C.  S.  P.  1635—107 ;  Laing. 
M.  S.  S.— 166. 


THE  SIMULTATES  951 

clear  that,  if  Ormonde  was  to  sell  his  interest,  lie  must  be  able 
to  produce  a  good  title. 

The  Defective  Titles  Commission  was  empannelled  to  rectify 
this.  What  compositions  were  made  with  all  parties  does  not 
transpire.  In  Mountgarrett's  case  the  decision  was,  that  he  was 
to  pay  £  300i  fine,  £  60  rent,  and  to  exchange  certain  of  his  parcels 
with  Ormonde.  Of  the  others  we  know  nothing,  except  that  they 
compounded.1  One  thing  we  do  know  for  a  fact  is  that,  where 
the  interests  of  the  Crown  were  concerned,  Straffordl  allowed  no 
personal  or  political  considerations  to  way  with  him.  On  one 
occasion  he  dismissed  a  relative  of  his  own  from  office  for  cor- 
ruption. 2  In  Lodge's  peerage  one  cannot  but  notice  that  his  com- 
positions with  men  like  St.  Leger  were  not  lighter  than  those 
with  the  more  hostile  Undertakers.  "Great  Ones",  he  wrote  once, 
"report  me  everywhere  to  be  the  most  severe  and  pressing  Deputy 
that  ever  lived.  I  know  it  comes  only  from  my  single  heart  to 
your  Majesty.  My  inclinations  are  more  tender  than  the  smooth 
looks  they  find  in  their  own  bosoms,  while  they  heighten  the  cry 
on  me,  as  if  I  were  the  most  outrageous  tyrant  that  ever  lived/3 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  "conditions  were  agreed  on  with  a  large 
number  of  parties.  These  in  honesty  I  will  not  depart  from.  It 
were  a  ford  transgression  that  I  should  lead  them  to  surrender 
their  patents,  to  give  up  their  weapons  for  promises,  and  then 
convey  away  their  lands  to  others". 4 

When  all  the  patents  were  surrendered  an  Inquisition  was 
held,  and  the  territory  of  Idough  was  duly  found  for  the  King'5 
In  these  arrangements  a  parcel — usually  a  fourth — was  reserved 
for  the  Crown  to  plant  under  Covenants.  The  manor  of  Castle- 
comber  was  accordingly  passed  to  Wandesforde  "upon  a  valuable 
rent  reserved  to  the  Crown,  and  upon  Covenants  as  in  such  cases 
of  Plantation  are  occasioned".  The  rent  was  £  40  a  year,  which 
would  correspond  to  £  280  to-day.6  Wandesforde  then  bought  out 
the  other  proprietors  till  the  whole  barony  of  Idough  was  in  his 
hands.  The  cost  was  £  20.000,  ten  years'  purchase  of  the  rack 
rent.7 

1)  C.  S.P.  1625—1660—254.  2)  History  of  Richmondshire,  Whittaker.il— 159. 
3)  L.  S.  11—332.  4)  L.  S.  11—29.  5)  1. 1.  Kilkenny.  Car.  I.  No.  64.  6)  L.  P.  2. 
s.  IV— 181 ;  Egraont  M.  S.  S.  1—222.  7)  History  of  Richmondshire ,  Whittaker. 

11—160. 


952  THE  DOWNFALL 

He  thus  set  up  as  Planter,  and  his  estate  was  regarded  as  the 
ideal  of  an  Undertaker.  He  built  houses,  imported  colonists, 
managed  an  iron  works  "different  from  all  the  former",  and  a 
coal  mine  "at  9d  a  cartload,  the  charges  being  3d  to  the  digger 
and  6d  to  tihe  owner".  He  gave  61  year  leases  to  the  natives, 
and  "to  encourage  improvements"  collected  no  rents  for  the  first 
three  years.  Whatever  were  the  previous  conditions  in  Idough, 
we  may  take  it  safely  for  granted  that  the  commonality  welcomed 
the  change.1 

At  this  stage  a  new  character  intervened.  It  was  Thos. 
Howard,  Earl  of  Arundel  and  Surrey,  the  Earl  Marshall.  He  was 
a  nobleman  of  great  eminence  in  that  period,  sombre,  sedate,  and 
placid,  with  the  placidity  of  one  who  need's  little  for  which  it  is 
necessary  to  strive.  Clarendon  gives  this  little  thumb-nail  sketch 
of  this  great  personage.  "He  did  not  love  the  Scotch.  He  did 
not  love  the  Puritan®.  He  did  not  love  anybody  but  himself."5 
With  him  Strafford  had  been  on  terms  of  some  intimacy.  In  an 
arbitration  suit  he  had  been  his  energetic  agent.3  In  or  about  this 
time  Charles  promised  him  that,  if  he  could  find  of  the  extinct 
Howard  Estates,  any  parcel  not  patented  it  was  to  be  his,  "holding 
it  good  to  draw  persons  of  so  eminent  a  quality  to  be  engaged  in 
some  Irish  interest  for  the  conservation  of  that  Kingdom".4  Such 
discovery,  however,  was  to  be  made  at  ArundeTs  own  expense,  and 
he  was  not  to  claim  parcels  found  for  the  Crown  by  the  Deputy/' 
Strafford  had  no  love  for  such  transactions.  "Business  of  this 
nature",  he  bluntly  told  Arundel,  "should  not  be  carried  for  private 
benefit.  They  should  be  reserved  for  the  Ministers  of  State,  who 
may  either  starken  or  loosen  the  proceedings,  as  the  circumstances 
of  the  causes  and  persons,  or  the  consideration  of  His  Majesty's 
honour  may  permit".6  The  King,  however,  was  anxious  to  reward 
Arundel,  and  there  was  an  end  of  the  matter.7  All  Strafford  could 
do  was  persuade  Arundel  to  delay  his  searchings  after  defective 
titles  till  Parliament  had  voted  the  subsidies. 8 

Arundel  was  descended  from  the  Norfolks  and  the  Surreys. 


1)  Life  of  Wandesforde,  Comber.  100—105;  L.  P.H.  s.  IV— 181.  Tracts  and 
Treatises.  Published  hy  Thorn  &  Co.  Dublin  1860.  pp.  109, 123.  2)  C.  H.  1—201. 
3)  L.  S.  n— 456.  4)  C.  S.  P.  1633—11.  5)  L.  S.  11-365.  6)  L.  S.  11-30. 
7)  L.  S.  1-140, 233.  8)  L.  S.  1—232. 


THE  SIMULTATES  953 

Eoger  Bigott,  Earl  of  Norfolk,  had  married  Maud,  the  daughter 
of  Strongbow  and  Eva  MacMorrogh.  Her  Dowry  was-  Wexford, 
Warren  de  Mountchensey,  Earl  of  Surrey,  had  married  the  other 
daughter,  Joan,  whose  dowry  was  Carlow.  These  facts  were  un- 
earthed by  one  of  Arundel's  agents,  and  to  these  two  counties 
was  Arundel  confined.1  He  first  claimed  a  Wexford  parcel  in 
Fort  Inoland.  This  also  was  one  of  Ormonde's  compositions,  he 
surrendering  part  of  his  rights  for  a  good  title  to  the  remainder.  s 
This,  however,  had  not  been  "found"  by  Arundel,  and  thus 
Strafford,  according  to  orders,  left  its  disposition  to  the  King, 
who  intended  it  for  Portland. 3  His  son,  Lord  Maltravers,  then 
approached  Ormonde.  In  a  series  of  letters  he  asked1  him  to  pro- 
vide him  with  the  requisite  information,  but  seems  to  have  drawn 
a  blank. 4  Then  the  Howards  entrusted  their  business  to  two  agents, 
whom  Strafford  regarded  as  dishonest  and  corrupt,  and  who  set 
to  work,  not  to  find  unpatented  lands,  or  lands  "usurped"  by 
squatters,  but  to  tour  the  country  trying  to  detect  quibbles  in  the 
patents  of  honest  men.5  In  an  unhappy  moment  they  lighted  on 
Idough,  just  after  the  compositions  had  been  arranged,  and  before 
the  patents  had  been  passed.  A  signet  letter  duly  reached  Strafford, 
ordering  him  to  pass  a  whole  barony,  the  property  of  other  men, 
to  the  Lord  Marshall,  the  greater  part  of  which  estate  lay  in  Kil- 
kenny, "not  being",  as  he  reminded  Arundel,  "part  of  your  an- 
cestors' estates.6  "A  suit  indeed  pernicious  and  striking  at  the 
foundations  of  State",  was  Laud's  comment.7 

Straff ord  stayed  the  letter.  Arundel  wrote  complaining. 8  On 
his  arrival  Strafford  found  "Arundel  much  discontented  and  his 
son  very  grave".9  He  laid  the  whole  case  before  the  King,  who 
decided  that  the  grant  could  not  pass,  that  the  compositions  with 
the  original  owners  must  stand.  Charles  decided  that  the  best 
way  of  redeeming  his  promise  to  Arundel  was  to  give  him  a  portion 
at  least  of  Fort  Inoland,  Portland!  having  recently  died.  Strafford 
then  wrote  to  Arundel,  urging  him  to  apply  for  Fort  Inoland,  and 
warning  him  off  Idough,  but  "without  in  any  way  easing  myself 


1)  C.  S.  P.  1625-1660-270.  2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1-27.  3)  L.  S.  1—258, 
296,341,365,492.  4)  Ormonde M.  S.S.  I— 26.  27,  28,  29.  5)  L.S.H— 30.  6)  C.  S. 
P.  1635—107.  7)  L.  L.  VII— 251 .  8)  L.  S.  II— 3.  9)  L.  S.  11—22. 


954  THE  DOWNFALL 

upon  your  Majesty's  commands",  as  if  he  alone  was  the  arbiter. 
It  was  a  scorching  letter,  and  Arundel  never  forgave  him.1 

All  these  things  did  not  escape  the  notice  of  interested  parties 
in  Ireland.  Wandesforde  had  taken  over,  partly  through  the 
leasing  of  Castlecomer,  and  partly  through  his  purchases,  some  of 
that  very  mutinous  tenantry,  of  whom  the  previous  Earl  of  Or- 
monde used  to  complain.  He  also  had  taken  over  some  of  the 
applotments  of  those  in  Idough,  who  had  been  squatters  for  some 
generations,  freeholders  in  name,  through  paying  chiefry  to  ad- 
joining Lords.  Was  it  likely  that  these  men  would  take  leases  from 
a  stranger?  Lastly  Mountgarrett  was  not  at  all  satisfied  with  his 
composition.  No  man  likes  to  compound  for  what  he  always  held 
to  be  his  own,  least  of  all  one  whose  "greatness"  was  such,  that  the 
illegality  of  his  previous  tenure  did  not  trouble  him  one  whit. 
When  Ormonde  wrote  to  him  asking  him  to  arrange  details  as 
regards  the  exchange  of  lands  with  Wandesforde,  he  refused  "to 
submit  himself  to  the  King's  title",  and,  through  one  of  his  hench- 
men, "threatened'  with  imprisonment  any  that  should  show  the 
surveyor  the  bounds",  he  being  a  manorial  lord.  The  poor  hench- 
man was  arrested  "to  show  the  power  of  the  State",  but  Wandes- 
forde bailed  him  out,  regarding  him  but  as  a  tool,  and  wrote 
direct  to  Mountgarrett  to  affirm  or  deny  the  threat.  Mountgarrett 
shrank!  from  the  challenge,  and  bided  better  times. 2 

The  leader  of  local  discontent  was  one  Eichard  Butler,  a 
kinsman  of  Mountgarrett.  The  inquisition  reported  him  as  "in 
possession"  of  certain  parcels  in  Idough.  It  is  obvious  that  he 
was  a  tributary  of  Mountgarrett,  who  asserted  that  he  was  the  real 
owner  of  the  whole  barony.3  When  the  head  landlords  were 
compounding  with  the  Defective  Titles'"  Commission,  Butler  put 
in  a  claim  as  a  freeholder.  This  the  Commission  rejected,  leaving 
him  to  a  trial  by  law  which  also  proved  abortive.4  There  were 
other  tributaries  either  of  Ormonde,  Mountgarrett  or  London- 
derry, to  the  number  of  about  11,  whom  the  Inquisition  reported 
to  have  no  title.  Their  names  were  Brennan,  whom  an  indignant 
manifesto  of  a  later  period  describes  as  "a  eet  of  thieves  without 
any  right  or  title,  who  were  a  perpetual  desturbance  to  the  peace 

1)  L.  S.  11-27,  29,  30.  2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1-37.  38.  3)  1. 1.  Kilkenny. 
Ch.  T.  No.  64;  C.S.  R  1625-1660-254.  4)  T.  C.  D.  I.  5.  26. 


THE  SIMULTATES  955 

of  the  country".1  The  fact  was  that  their  methods  of  agrarian 
agitation  paid  no  heed  to  the  laws  of  meum  and  tuum.  When  the 
Commission  escheated  part  of  the  estates  of  the  old  landlords,  sold 
it  to  Wandesforde,  and  he  purchased  the  rest,  these  undertenants 
claimed  as  independent  freeholders.  Wandesforde  set  to  work  as 
he  put  it  "to  break  their  combination",  by  offers  of  recognizing 
vested  interests  and  by  special  terms.  He  and  Ormonde  agreed 
to  "win  them  by  fair  terms,  than  to  foment  their  obstinacy  by  any 
violent  course".2  What  kind  his  terms  were  are  revealed  in  his 
will.  Every  inhabitant  of  Idough  who  was  reported  by  that  In- 
quisition to  be  a  terr-tenant  or  a  man  "in  possession"  was  to  get 
"so  much  money  as  a  lease  of  21  years  of  the  moiety  of  his  land" 
was  worth.  This  was  exclusive  of  any  leases  he  might  have  been 
already  granted. 

Tempers,  however,  were  up.  Not  only  were  ,they  fomented 
by  Mountgarrett,  who  was  ablaze  at  the  idea  of  parting  with  some 
of  his  claims  to  Ormonde,  but  "that  rascal  Jones",  as  Wandes- 
forde called  him,  was  fanning  the  flames.  Jones  was  the  "beagle" 
employed  by  Arundel  to  prove  the  whole  of  Idough  was  his  an- 
cestral estate.  He  informed  Butler  and  the  Brennans  that,  if  they 
only  kept  matters  in  confusion,  the  King  would  pass  the  whole 
territory  to  Arundel,  and  then  they  would  all  receive  vast  scopes, 
free  of  rent,  and  free  of  chiefry.  He  also  told  Arundel  that  the 
estate  was  really  his,  that  the  King  had  no  title,  and  that  Wandes- 
forde had  persuaded  Ormonde  to  agree  to  the  composition  on  the 
promise  that  the  manor  of  Castlecomer  was  intended  for  Arundel, 
an  assertion  which  drew  Wandesforde  to  procur  witnesses  and  do- 
cuments to  prove  the  contrary.  "A  person  infamous"  was  Straff ord's 
description  of  this  worthy.3  Fully  confidant  now  that,  with 
Arundel  on  their  side,  there  was  no  need  to  recognize  Wandes- 
forde as  their  seignory  lord  or  landlord,  the  Brennans  rejected  all 
profers,  and,  with  what  forces  they  could  gather,  burnt  houses, 
levelled  ditches,  and  destroyed  crops,  after  the  usual  manner  of 
those  who  enter  an  agrarian  dispute.  Eichard  Butler  was  despatched 
to  London  to  frequent  Arundel  House  and  demand  Justice.  4 

Strange  as   it  may  appear,   this  was  not  the  first  time  the 


1)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1-222.         2)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1-32.         3)  L.  S.  H-30. 
4)  Ormonde  M.  S.  S.  1—32,  39;  L.  P.  II.  s.  IV— 182. 


956  THE  DOWNFALL 

parties  in  an  agrarian  dispute  asked  a  Court  personage  to  take 
over  the  territory  for  their  benefit.  The  glaring  case  of  this  is 
Phelim  O'Neill  of  South  Wicklow.  He  had  passed  in  his  patent 
the  lands  of  others  on  a  royal  letter  that  only  warranteed  "his 
country".  The  patent  was  challenged  by  his  irate  tenantry  and 
opponents,  and  by  his  own  brother  Eedmond.  Beset  on  all  sides 
by  an  angry  .agitation  he  adjourned  to  Lndon,  surrendered  his 
patent,  and  got  the  whole  territory  passed  to  the  Earl  of  Carlisle, 
by  a  letter,  which,  at  first  sight,  looks  like  a  warrant  to  escheat 
those  lands  that  were  not  held  under  proper  feudal  tenures. 1  The 
Earl  then  appointed  Phelim  to  be  his  agent  or  middleman. 
Wicklow  instantly  became  a  somewhat  disorderly  area.2  Strafford 
solved  that  difficulty  by  purchasing  the  Earl  of  Carlisle's  patent 
into  the  Crown  for  £  15.000  He  then  took  over  the  area  him- 
self as  Undertaker  for  a  headrent  of  £  2000  a  year,  and  proceded 
himself  to  solve  all  the  local  quarrells,  which  were  indeed  many. 3 

Arundel,  Jones,  Butler,  and  Mountgarrett  were  only  stirring 
up  the  tenantry  for  their  own  ends.  They  seem  to  have  lavished 
wild  promises.  Arundel  was  really  angry,  and  Wandesforde 
ascribed  his  anger  to  the  tales  that  Jones  told  him.  All  parties, 
however,  were  ignorant  that  the  King  had  given  his  decision.  He 
would  not  go  back  on  the  compositions  that  had  been  made  with 
the  different  seignory  Lords.  The  agents  presumed  they  were  only 
dealing  with  Strafford,  who  never  told  them  that  the  King  had 
decided.  "I  take  the  negative  to  myself"  was  the  reiterated  refrain 
of  his  despatches.  The  agents  in  the  end  came  home  with  nothing 
but  empty  promises,  and  had  perforce  to  take  leases,  from  Wandes- 
forde, though  reserving  the  right  to  be  "loud  in  words".  An 
officer  and  twelve  soldiers  had  been  sent  down  to  keep  the  peace. 
They  arrested  some  offenders,  who  afterwards  were  released  in  the 
inevitable  largesse  of  pardons. 4 

From  this  time  on  relations  with  Arundel  became  more  and 
more  strained.  On  his  return  from  the  Embassy  to  the  Palatinate 
he  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  French  Party,  and  declared 

1)  C.  S.  P.  1617— 149.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1619— 238.239;   1623-410,432.    T.  ('. 

D.  F.  3. 17.    C.  P.  B.  XXX— 113, 116,  186,  211.  3)  L.  S.  IT— 60. 10,6, 1 75,  407. 

EgmontM.S.S.T-222;  E.G.— 191.  4)  Ormonde  M.S.  S.I— 41,43;  L.  P.  II.  s. 

IV— 182;  Comber.  Life  of  Wandesforde.  102—129.  History  of  Riohmondshiiv.  "VVhitt- 
aker.  11—160—174. 


THE  SIMULTATES  957 

strongly  for  a  war  with  Spain.  This  was  equivalent  to  leading 
the  opposition  to  Strafford.1  In  the  struggle  with  Loftus,  Arundel 
did  everything  he  could  to  support  the  Lord  Chancellor.2  In  the 
earlier  days  of  the  Long  Parliament  he  procured  "himself  much 
favour  by  his  declared  aversion  and  prejudice  to  the  Earl  of 
Straff  ord". 3 

The  whole  thing  was  resurrected  at  Strafford's  trial.  The 
XVth  article  of  his  indictment  magnified  the  officer  and  twelve 
soldiers  into  "certain  troops  of  horse  and  foot,  armed  in  war-like 
manner,  and  in  war-like  array",  who  "expelled  divers  of  His 
Majesties  subjects  from  their  houses,  families,  and  possessions", 
and  "took  and  imprisoned  one  hundred  families  till  they  sur- 
rendered their  estates".4  The  charge  looked  well  on  paper.  When 
it  came  to  the  point,  however,  the  Prosecution  wisely  "waived" 
that  article.  No  man  had  been  "put  out  of  his  possession".  No 
man  had  been  arrested,  save  for  breaches  of  the  criminal  law,  and 
even  the  number  was  exaggerated.  Nothing  would  have  been 
heard  of  it  at  all,  if  Strafford  had  not  stuck  to  this  point  that  "in 
honesty  I  could  not  depart  from  conditions  agreed  on  with  my 
Lord  Ormonde  and  others,  nay  the  not  performing  of  them  were 
a  foul  transgression,  first  to  lead  them  on  to  surrender  their 
patents,  and  then  to  carry  it  away  from  them".5 

Nor  was  that  the  last  heard  of  the  affair.  Richard  Butler 
turned  up  again  with  a  resolution  of  the  Long  Parliament,  ordering 
Richard  Bagenall  to  make  over  his  estate  to  him,  which  Bagenall 
declining,  he  appeared  before  Parliament  again  demanding  justice.* 
N'or  was  Arundel  content.  Strafford  strongly  recommended  the 
King  to  make  Ormonde  Viceroy.  "My  humble  advice  was  to 
have  you  Lord  Deputy,  but  it  was  opposed  by  your  countrymen, 
and  seconded  with  some  ernestness  by  my  Lord  Marshall.  He  hath 
not  yet  got  Idough  off  his  stomach."7 

If  Ormonde  had  been  Viceroy  in  1641,  the  history  of  Ire- 
land might  have  been  different.  If  there  had  been  one  man  of 
any  eminence  in  the  Irish  Executive  during  that  year,  the  Irish 
Parliament  could  never  have  so  disturbed  titles  and  encouraged 
violence  to  sicken  the  hearts  of  every  honest  subject.  The  conces- 

1)L.L.VII    319.  2)  L.  L.  Vn-433.  3)  Clarendon  Memoirs  1-76. 

4)E.P.Vni— 68.     5)L.S.n— 29.     6)  C.S. P.  1633— 1647— 762.    7)  C. P. B.  1-294. 


958  THE  DOWNFALL 

sions  lavished  on  all  the  worst  elements  would  certainly  not  have 
passed  the  Seal.  The  scheme  of  retaining  the  disbanded  army 
under  ill-disposed  subjects  would  have  been  nipped  in  the  bud, 
and  the  Ulster  Jacquerie  would  not  have  lasted  a  week.  "If", 
said  the  furious  St.  Leger,  "they  had  been  pursued  with  only  the 
King's  standing  army,  they  had  by,  this  time  been  utterly  routed", 
whereas,  by  the  first  week  in  December,  "there  is  not  left  in  the 
country  of  Kilkenny  an  Englishman  or  ,a  Protestant  worth  a 
groat".1  The  fatal  policy  of  leaving  Ireland  to  two  incompetent 
Lords  Justices  and  a  panic-stricken  Council  at  a  moment  such  as 
this,  with  Great  Britain  wracked  with  revolution,  produced  the 
ghastliest  upheaval  in  Irish  History. 

It  is  incidents  such  as  this  that  have  given  currency  to  the 
Straff ord  legend.  "It  was  his  foible",  <said  Sir  Philip  Warwick, 
"to  be  too  often  embroiled  in  those  ungrateful  and  entangling 
disputes  which  the  Latins  call  simultates,  and  which  lie  cold  and 
heavy  on  the  stomach,  and  which  break  forth  only  when  one  party 
hath  the  advantage  over  the  other."2  Those  who  fell  foul  of  his 
policy  all  appeared  at  his  trial,  each  with  his  particular  complaint. 
In  appealing  to  a  Revolutionary  assembly  and  to  the  multitude 
there  is  only  one  road  to  success,  the  appeal  ad  misericordiam.  The 
Prosecution  accordingly  was  conducted  on  the  lines  of  sweeping 
tyrannies  and  gross  intimidation,  and  it  succeeded  before  an 
audience  intolerant  of  a  'reasoned  statement  of  logic,  precedents, 
laws,  promises,  customs,  necessities,  and  benefits. 

To  a  great  extent  his  appearance  and  manner  lent  colour  to 
the  tradition.  He  had  a  violent  temper,  partly  due  to  disease,  a 
temper  which  he  did  his  best  to  control.  "His  friends  admonished 
him  of  it7',  and,  wrote  Radcliffe,  "he  took  such  admonitions  in  good 
part".3  Coke  warned  him  once.  "Experience  and  a  watch  will 
cool  it,"  he  replied,  "It  is  yet  pardonable.  My  ernestness  is  for 
the  honour  of  my  Master,  and  it  is  not  anger  that  is  so  blameable 
but  the  misapplying  of  it."4  He  could  indeed  break  forth  on 
occasions.  Once  he  roared  at  an  officer  on  parade,  and,  catching 
a  snigger  on  his  face  and  a  whispered  jeer,  he  galloped  up  to  him, 
brandishing  a  >stick.  "Do  that  a  gain  and  I'll  give  you  one  on  the 
pate",  was  the  Vice-Regal  rebuke.5  He  told  the  King  and  the 

l)EgmontM.S.  S.I— 148, 153.  2)  Memoirs. Warwick.— 117.  3)  L.S.II— 435. 
4)  L.  S.  1—87.  5)  L.  S.  11—500. 


THE  SIMULTATES  959 

Council  that  this  gruffness  was  necessary  for  reasons  of  State. 
"When  I  found  a  Crown,  a  Church,  and1  a  People  spoiled,  I  could 
not  imagine  to  redeem  them  by  gracious  smiles  and  gentle  looks. 
It  would  cost  warmer  water.  The  nature  of  man  easily  slides 
into  uncontrolled  liberty.  It  cannot  be  brought  back  without 
strength."1 

Apart,  however,  from  these  outbursts,  his  manner  in  public 
was  unprepossessing.  A  hostile  critic  talks  of  "his  natural 
roughness". 2  Warwick  says  that  there  was  "a  roughness  in  his 
nature  which  a  man  no  more  obliged  to  him  than  I  was  would 
call  on  injustice,  though  many  of  his  confidents  would  say  that  he 
endeavoured  to  be  just  to  all,  but  was  resolved  to  be  gracious  to 
none,  but1  to  those  to  whom  he  thought  inwardly  affected  to  him."2 
This  roughness,  however,  did  not  prevent  him  gaining  the  affection 
and  support  of  singularly  touchy  men,  of  men  by  no  means  apt  to 
be  overawed.  Laud,  for  instance,  was  a  very  irascible  prelate. 
The  gentle  Usher  could  display  great  firmness  when  he  wished, 
and  he  said  of  the  Deputy  after  his  last  interview  "I  never  saw  a 
whiter  soul  depart  this  life".  He  attached  to  the  wheels  of  Irish 
State  three  Palatinate  Lords,  two  men  of  exceptional  ability,  and 
one  who  held  himself  very  high  in  Ireland,  Ormonde,  Inchiquin, 
and  Thomond.  His  retinue  was  by  no  means  composed  of  figure- 
heads. .  .  .  Wandesforde  said  of  Dillon  that  his  grip  on  the 
Irish  House  of  Commons  was  the  only  thing  that  preserved 
the  status  quo  in  the  uproarious  sessions  of  1640.  4  St.  Leger 
was  a  man  of  great  experience,  singular  activity  in  peace  and 
war,  the  equivalent  of  a  Palatinate  Lord,  and  yet,  after  the 
crash,  he  stuck  faithfully  by  his  family,  whose  very  house  was 
sequestered  by  the  indignant  Parliament,  they  being  left  penniless. 
Coote  was  one  of  Cromwell's  generals,  one  of  the  few  Irish  officials 
that  astute  judge  of  men  retained  in  office.  Bolton  and  Barry 
were  Law  Officers  of  considerable  reputation.  Bramhall  and 
Eadcliffe  were  among  the  leaders  of  the  exiled'  Eoyalists  that 
gathered  round  Charless  II,  and  both  were  regarded  as  men  of 
considerable  integrity  and  efficiency.  Wandesforde  had  been  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  that  impeached  Buckingham.  One 


1)  L.  S.  H— 20.  2)  H.  M.  C.  IV— 291.  3)  Memoirs.  Wai-wick,  p.  110. 

4)  E.  C.  254. 


960  THE  DOWNFALL 

cannot  reconcile  the  lasting  attachment  of  these  men  to  Strafford 
with  the  tradition  that  he  browbeat  every  body,  with  the  nickname 
of  "Black  Tom"  and  "the  tigers  teeth  and  claws  with  which  they 
delight  to  paint  me".  It  becomes  but  a  fiction  when  we  remember 
that  he  had  to  control  also  that  extraordinary  body,  the  Council, 
which  was  a  kind  of  miniature  Parliament,  and  that  he  could  not 
have  had  the  success  he  achieved  with  the  Irish  Lords  and  Com- 
mons, if  he  had  been  personally  unpopular.  The  Earl  of  Cork's 
diary — before  he  quarrelled  with  him — is  full  of  this  "affability" 
and  "neighbourlines's",  and  Wandesforde's  nephew — an  obscure 
curate — lifts  his  voice  high  in  praise  of  how — '"he  pulled  me  by 
the  cloak  privately  and  caused  me  to  follow  him  into  his  room, 
where  he  takes  tobacco,  'having  dismissed  all  his  Captains,  and 
singled  me  out  alone,  and  was  likewise  pleased  for  three  hours  to 
discourse  pleasantly,  and  to  draw  from  me  of  my  poor  opinion 
by  the  gentle  openness  of  his  countenance  towards  me."  All  this 
Wandesforde  did  not  forget,  and,  long  after  his  execution,  he 
remained  a  voluble  champion  of  the  dead  Deputy. l  Badcliffe 
too,  reveals  the  other  side  of  the  picture.  "When  he  had  company 
which  suited  him — honest  cheerful  men — he  would  retire  into  an 
inner  room,  and  sit  two  or  three  hours  taking  tobacco,  and  telling 
stories  with  great  pleasantness  and  freedom."2  One  of  his  naval 
Captains,  too,  said  the  same.  Warwick,  who  only  saw  him  on 
ceremonial  occasions,  said  that  when  he  talked  his  "cloudy 
countenance  had  a  light  and  very  pleasing  air,  and  indeed,  what- 
ever he  then  did,  he  performed  very  gracefully."3  Kushworth 
said  that  while  "his  forehead  expressed  more  severity  than 
affability  he  was  yet  a  very  courteous  person",  and  the  Queen  put 
on  record  that  he  "was  ugly,  but  agreeable  enough  in  person,  and 
had  the  finest  hands  in  the  world".  4 

It  is  hard  to  .say  whether  he  was  more  facile  with  the  pen 
or  in  speech.  His  despatches  on  the  most  vexed  questions,  leave 
one  at  the  end  wondering  if  there  could  be  such  a  thing  as  the 
other  side  of  the  question.  His  love  of  the  grotesque,  his  keen 
sense  of  ridicule,  and  his  constant  resort  to  irony,  make  some  of 
his  essays  on  State  Policy  like  the  discourse  of  a  cynical  sage  on 


1)  Historical  Review.  IX— 550— 553.       2)  L.  S.  II— 433.       3)  Warwick.  Me- 
moirs—112.          4)  R.  P.  VIII— 772.  Memoirs  of  Madame  de  Motterville  p.  25. 


THE  SIMULTATES  961 

the  pranks  of  children.  Once  the  House  of  Commons  waxed 
mutinous  over  a  punctilio  of  procedure,  and  the  following  was  his 
comment.  "Knowing  the  nature  of  these  people  to  have  faith  in 
nothing  so  much  as  what  they  conceit  themselves,  how  weak  so 
ever,  I  did  what  they  wished."1  In  Yorkshire  the  recusancy  fines 
could  never  be  collected  without  much  commotion,  so  he  devised 
a  policy,  whereby  each  Eoman  Catholic  compounded  for  a  per- 
centage of  the  fines,  paid  in  advance.  For  this  he  was  roundly 
denounced  by  a  Bishop  for  favouring  the  Eoman  Catholics,  so 
that  their  numbers  increased.  "I  say  they  are  fewer.  As  the 
Scottish  Minister  said  "Bellarmine  says  he  is  the  true  Church, 
and  I  say  mine  is  and  I  hope  to  be  believed  as  well  as  he".  If  the 
Bishop  desires  to  convert  any  who  have  not  compounded,  hell 
find  plenty,  but  he  is  one  of  those  people — as  geldings  which  are 
moonblind — that  start  and  boggle  at  every  straw."2  "I  left  them, 
he  said  of  the  Council,"  so  that  they  might  deliver  themselves 
more  freely,  and  thus  I  might  discover,  through  Sir  George,  how 
their  pulses  beat."3  Of  the  revolutionary  zeal  for  reforming  the 
world  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  he  was  eloquently  contemptuous. 
"I  did  never  know  a  Puritan  capable  of  this  Christian  wisdom  to 
choose  fit  times  and  opportunities,  their  zeal  ever  eating  up  all 
human  judgement  and  providence  with  a  "Deus  providebit"  or 
eome  such  misapply ed  text  of  Holy  Writ."4  Of  Ireland  generally 
he  said,  "With  this  people  Quo  quid  crudelius1  fictum  facilius  cre- 
ditur,  especially  where  their  religion  or  the  English  Government 
is  concerned."  When  the  Earl  of  Antrim  proposed  that  he  be 
granted  a  store  of  arms  to  defend  the  Crown,  Strafford  genially 
wrote,  "And  the  Scotch  settlers  may  borrow  those  weapons  off  his 
Lordship,  and  use  them  for  a  longer  time  and  another  purpose  than 
his  Lordship  would  find  cause  to  thank  them  for.  They  are  a 
shrewd  children,  not  to  be  won  by  a  Eoman  Catholic."  On  a 
suggested  Soap  Monopoly  he  was  ribald,  "This  Kingdom  is  not  so 
cleanly  given  ae  to  make  it  of  any  consideration.  A  patent  for 
years  that  none  shall  use  Mr.  Porter's  secret  will  not  be  denied 
him,  which  will  be  tantamount  if  his  commodity  is  the  better." 
He  hated  monopolies1.  Of  them  generally  he  remarked  "Animalia 
solivaga  sunt  semper  nociva."5 

1)  L.  S.  1—405.         2)  L.  S.  1—174.         3)  L.  S.  1—237.         4)  L.  S.  1—267. 
5)  L.S.  11-39, 187, 202. 

61 


962  THE  DOWNFALL 

On  the  other  hand  there  was  a  very  curious  vein  of  sombre 
piety  underlying  hie  character.  He  had  a  host  of  nephews  and 
wards  to  whom  he  used  to  write  epistles  of  paternal  advice,  which 
are  the  exact  antithesis  of  Chesterfield's  letters  to  his  ©on,  all  based 
on  the  eternal  text  that,  if  they  were  engulfed  by  the  seductions 
of  the  revolutionary  propaganda,  they  were  ruined  men.  Nor  did 
he  confine  himself  to  advice.  The  financial  affairs  of  others  seem 
to  have  taken  a  great  part  of  his  time.  He  had  a  host  of  friends 
and  relatives  whose  leases,  mortgages,  rents,  and  debts  he  was 
constantly  seeking  to  bring  to  some  form  of  order.  This  activity 
on  behalf  of  othens  percolates  right  through  his  despatches.  He 
was  constantly  at  work  protecting  the  interests  of  subordinates, 
and  of  those  Councillors  whom  he  held  to  be  "of  good  affections 
to  the  King."  Some  of  his  most  vitriolic  despatches  are  written 
on  behalf  of  obscure  subalterns,  whose  promotion  was  barred  by 
a  Court  letter  in  favour  of  some  Court  flaneur.  "He  was  never 
weary,"  said  Radcliffe,  "to  take  pains  for  his  friend's.  No  fear, 
trouble,  or  expense  deterred  him  from  speaking  or  doing  anything 
which  the  occasion  of  his  friends  required",  and  it  is  apparent  that 
under  the  heading  of  friends,  he  included  all  who  were  "not 
tumultuous  and  contentious,"  who,  as  he  once  put  it,  "were  born 
creatures  of  the  King  and  watched  lest  they  be  creatures  of  any 
other  man."  "Nephew  you  are  young,"  he  once  wrote  to  a 
"tumultuous"  relative,  "and  it  will  not  hurt  you  to  hear  the  counsel 
of  your  elder  friends,  for  I  am  but  discharging  the  trust  your 
father  reposed  in  me.  There  is  a  time  of  learning  before  there  can 
be  a  time  of  guiding.  Tumultuous  carriage  towards  those  which 
are  set  above  us  are  carried  along  by  such  as  love  us  not.  Let  not 
sudden  passion  to  third  persons  carry  you  to  the  party  of  strangers. 
To  neglect  the  friendship  of  your  true  friends  shall  not  obtain  you 
the  respect  of  any  other  person  of  virtue.  If  you  must  oppose 
choose  some  other  than  me  to  rush  upon.  I  am  so  confidently  set 
upon  the  justice  of  my  Master  that  I  shall  pass  through  all  the 
factions  of  Court  and  the  heat  of  my  ill-willers."1 

There  was  much  of  the  dictator  in  his  character,  but  it  was 
accompanied1  by  a  great  respect  for  "ways,  means,  times,  and 
seasons,"  especially  in  what  he  used  to  call  "these  distempered 

1)  L.S.II— 311 


THE  S1MULTATES  963 

times."  In  one  way  his  Irish  rule  was  as  slovenly  as  those  of  his 
predeceeeors.  The  fines  he  imposed  were  often  not  collected  or 
remitted  in  part.  He  closed  his  eyes  to  many  a  performance  he 
could  not  check.  The  dispensing  power  of  the  Crown  was  con- 
stantly at  work  exempting  men  from  penalties.  The  very  compo- 
sitions of  the  Defective  Titles  Commission  are  an  outstanding 
case.  In  strict  law  at  least  a  third  of  Ireland  was  Crown  property, 
so  widespread  were  these  defective  patents.  A  Dictator  or  a  rash 
and  covetous  Minister  would  have  demanded  the  full  pound  of 
flesh.  The  compositions  that  have  come  to  light  are  almost 
ludicrous  in  their  gentleness.  This  was  the  greatest  reform 
he  achieved1.  From  that  time  on  Irieh  titles  were  clear,  concise, 
and  settled4. 

The  only  record  we  possess  of  his  Vice-Regal  State  is  the 
Lismore  Papers.  They  reveal  much  junketting.  His  own  papers 
show  that  he  was  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  men,  despite  their  religion,  at  a  moment  when  religion  was  the 
great  cleavage.  Westmeath,  George  Hamilton,  Lucas  Dillon, 
Father  Harris  and  Toby  Matthew  are  examples  of  Roman 
Catholics,  and  Usher,  Sir  William  Stewart,  and  Lord  Claneboye 
stand  out  as  typical  examples  of  the  Calvinist  trend  of  thought. 
Add  to  this  his  great  personal  popularity  among  the  Irish  Lords, 
and  the  tradition  of  a  sombre  dictator,  invented  by  the  Re- 
volutionaries, becomes  a  mere  figment  of  political  propaganda. 
It  is  more  than  probable  that  his  great  hold  over  the  touchy, 
proud,  and  independent  scions  of  the  Irish  Aristocracy  was  due 
to  his  ultra  Royalism,  his  state,  his  hospitality,  and  hie  intense 
devotion  to  military  affairs  and  field  sports.  Add  to  this  that  he 
was  a  man  of  abrupt  speech,  who,  having  said  what  he  meant, 
stuck  to  his  opinion,  and  one  understands  why  men  like  Thomond 
gave  him  hie  support,  Morrogh  O'Brien  of  Inchiquin  took  service 
beneath  him,  and  Westmeath — a  man  "busy  and  ambitious  and 
in  ways  very  popular,  a  minion  of  the  Jesuits  and1  Priests,  who 
rivet  him  as  leader  of  the  Popish  Party" — used  to  seat  himself  at 
the  Vice-Regal  supper  table  without  the  Deputy  inviting  him,  or 
regarding  it  as  anything  but  natural. 1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that 
the  successful  Viceroys  of  Ireland  have  been  blunt  men  with  a 

1)  C.S.P.  1624— 475;  L.  S.  I— 128. 

61* 


964  THE  DOWNFALL 

sense  of  humour.  The  cautious  and  heavy  Statesman,  with  that 
oriental  love  of  intrigue  and  double-entendre,  who  fares  so  well 
in  English  popular  politics,  soon  finds  hie  match  in  the  tortuous 
and  subterranean  cabals  of  Ireland.  A  liar  may  get  applause  in 
Ireland,  but  that  is  all.  It  must  be  conceded,  however,  that  all 
through  tJhe  ages  many  have  been  content  with  that.  To  some 
minds  the  cheers  of  a  minute  are  a  recompence  for  the  curses  of 
a  generation.  "I  shall  not  neglect",  wrote  Straff  ord  "to  preserve 
myself  in  good  opinion  with  this  people  in  regard  I  become  there- 
fore, better  able  to  do  my  Master's  service.  Longer  than  it  works 
to  that  purpose  I  am  indifferent  what  they  think  or  say  of  me.  I 
wish,  however,  extreme  prosperity  to  them,  and  I  should  lay  it  up 
as  a  mighty!  honour  to  become  an  instrument  of  it.  I  preserve  that 
intention  second  after  the  powers  and  profit  of  the  Crown." 
Nor  were  these  but  vain  platitudes.  They  were  written  in 
reference  to  a  proposal,  which  had  the  King's  sanction,  to  put 
an  export  duty  of  18d  on  every  Irish  cow,  heiferi  or  ox.2  He  held 
it  to  be  bad  economy,  hampering  trade,  and  therefore  hampering 
the  Eevenue,  and1  he  secured  its  withdrawal.3 

These  "siimiltates"  however,  were  his  greatest  difficulty,  and 
were,  in  the  end,  the  cause  of  his  prosecution.  He  was  not  the 
first  Viceroy  so  embroiled.  Every  Viceroy  of  the  Tudor  and  the 
Stuart  period  owed  his  recall  to  intrigues  or  complaints  from 
Members  of  the  Council.  One  must  remember  that,  quite  apart 
from  the  baekbitings  and  intrigues  of  the  minions  of  a  monarchy, 
and  the  vanities  and  peculiarities  of  great  political  personages, 
the  Council  was  composed  of  representatives  of  every  interest  in 
Ireland.  Accordingly  the  furies  of  our  modern  popular  politics 
were  concentrated  at  that  period  "round  the  table".  Some  of  these 
men,  with  whom  Strafford  fought,  regarded  themselves  in  pretty 
much  the  same  light  as  our  modern  demagogues,  who  excuse  their 
lies,  intrigues,  corruptions,  and  those  fantastic  performances  that 
delight  the  public,  by  the  plea  that  they  are  serving  great 
popular  ends. 

After  the  quarrel  with  Loftus  and  Cork,  the  feud  with 
Mountmorris  was  the  most  notorious  of  his  regime.  Mountmorris 
is  described  by  Clarendon  as  the  terror  of  the  Irish  Deputies. 4 

1)  L.  S.  H— 122.       2)  C.  T.  1—246.      3)  R.  P.  VIII— 250.      4)  C.  H.  1-197. 


THE  SIMULTATES  9(55 

He  was  a  mine  of  information  on  the  seamy  side  of  Irish  politics, 
and  managed  its  secret  service.  Already  mention  has  been  made 
of  the  enmity  that  developed  between  this  official  and  Strafford 
over  illegal  perquisites  and  arbitrary  commissions.  Mountmorris 
threw  himself  on  the  Royal  mercy  and  a  Commission  was 
appointed  to  inquire  into  tihese  transactions.  On  their  report, 
Mountmorris,  by  advice  of  his  counsell,  "subscribed  the  bill, 
whereby  he  hath  avoided  against  him  for  exactions1  and  extortions 
of  fees",  and  surrendered  the  office  of  Vice-Treasurer. l 

Just  before  the  dismissal  was  sanctioned,  an  accident  occured 
which  dwarfed  the  other  into  insignificance.  It  was  connected 
with  the  discipline  of  the  Army.  This  force  had  become  de- 
moralized during  the  long  peace.  It  was  cumbered  with  dead 
pays  and  absentee  officers.  The  pay  of  the  unfortunate  soldiers 
was  frequently  in  arrears.  The  inevitable  result  was  that  they 
supplemented  their  pay  by  "preying"  on  the  people.  From  1620 
to  1630  the  Army  was  rather  a  nuisance  than  a  protection.  The 
only  conclusion  to  which  one  can  come  after  a  perusal  of 
the  State  Papers  during  that  period,  is  that  the  morale  of 
the  men  must  have  been  of  a  singularly  high  order  that  they  did 
not  go  into  open  mutiny  and  plunder  the  cities.  No  modern  army 
would  have  stood  this  state  of  affairs  for  one  month.  "These  poor 
discontented  soldiers"  said  one  writer,  "gape  for  a  rebellion,  for 
then  will  be  gain  and  hope  of  preferment".2  It  is  worthy  of  note 
too,  that  despite  all  the  ukases  to  the  effect  that  only  Englishmen 
should  be  employed  in  the  task  of  maintaining  law  and  order, 
there  was  scarcely  ,an  Englishman  in  a  solitary  regiment.  "The 
younger  sons  of  gentry"  were  found  by  experience  to  be  better 
disciplined  and  more  effective  than  the  offscourings  of  the  gaols, 
which  constituted  the  traditional  English  conception  of  what  was 
good'  enough  to  be  a  soldier.3 

To  bring  some  form  of  order  into  this  chaos  was  one  of  the 
first  tasks  Strafford  set  himself.  With  the  assistance  of  St.  Ledger 
and  an  old  soldier  by  name  Sir  Francis  Willoughby,  he  managed 
to  create  a  general  discipline.  It  took  nearly  five  years  of  annual 
inspections,  ruthless  cashier  ings,  and  bitter  wrangles  with  mono- 
polists, Court  proteges,  and  vested  interests  to  create  an  army 

1)  L.  S.  1—497,  505;  C.  T.  1—263.  2)  C.  S.  P.  1615-1625;  C.  S.  P.  1625 

—1633 ;  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  I-  456 ;  L.  S.  1—96. 195.         3)  T.  C.  D.  F.  3. 16. 


966  THE  DOWNFALL 

that  was  paid  punctually,  whose  officers  dwelt  in  garrison,  and 
whose  men  "were  content  with  their  wages".  It  was  not  till  1638 
that  he  was  able  to  report  progress.  "The  officers  are  not  only 
gallant  gentlemen — as  they  were  before — but  they  know  how  to 
command.  We  may  now  spare  out  of  this  body  officers1  and  ex- 
perienced soldiers  to  lead  twice  as  many  men.  They  marched 
hither  forth  of  their  garrisons  without  offering  the  least  violence 
to  the  meanest  soul.  They  continued  here  with  such  quietness  you 
could  not  have  almost  taken  notice  any  such  man  were  in  town."1 
Nor  were  these  boasts  but  vain.  It  was  this  army  of  1.500  men 
that  disciplined  the  8.000  levies  at  Carrickfergus.  Of  the  results 
St.  Ledger  after  3  months  said,  "Their  clothes  are  better,  their 
persons  better,  and  their  mettle  better.  They  take  the  greatest 
delight  and  pride  in  their  arms.  There  is  not  one  of  them  that 
can  be  hired  to  go  out  and  play  kern,  except  perhaps  myself."  ' 
All  this  was  done  with  only  one  case  of  a  death  sentence,  that  of 
a  man  who  deserted  from  a  draft,  despatched  to  fight  the  Scotch 
in  the  North  of  England.3 

The  importance  of  this  alteration  was  that  this  force  consti- 
tuted all  the  police  force  of  the  period.  The  Tudor  method  of 
March  Captains  and  their  retainers,  or  Sheriffs  with  a  loose  and 
disorderly  posse  comitatus,  may  have  served  in  the  wild  confusion 
of  the  16th  century,  but  it  had  been  discarded,  not  only  for  reasons 
of  high  State  Policy,  but  because  it  was  impossible,  dangerous, 
and  a  nuisance  in  "a  civil  commonwealth".  In  these  times  of  piping 
peace  the  function  of  the  army  was  to  arrest  and  pursue  disorderly 
persons,  highway  men,  returned  swordsmen,  woodkern,  and  those 
eternal  bands  of  "idle  boys"  who  used  to  exact  contributions  under 
threat  of  burning  the  houses. 

"In  cases",  said  Strafford  "where  outlaws  and  rebels  have 
lain  in  the  woods,  and  in  the  night  rob  and  burn  houses,  and 
commit  burglaries,  which  are  begun  commonly  by  three  or  four, 
and  increase  quickly  to  a  great  number,  if  they  be  not  prevented, 
the  present  means  is  to  lay  soldiers  upon  their  kindred,  by  which 
means  they  are  speedily  brought  in  by  their  own  kindred."  • 
"Rebels",  he  defined  at  his  trial,  as  "a  company  of  petty  loose 
fellows  that  would  here  be  apprehended  by  a  constable".5  So  lax 

1)  L.  S.  H— 198.  2)  C.  P.  B.  1-224.  3)  E.  P.  VHI— 201.  4)  L.  P.  2.  s. 
TV— 180.  5)  R.  P.  VIH— 442. 


THE  SIMULTATKS  967 

were  the  Magistrates  and  such  was  the  contempt  with  which  they 
were  regarded  by  the  people,  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to 
keep  in  every  Province  a  Provost  Marshal  with  a  troop,  who  used 
to  "pursue  and  apprehend  all  loose  persons  before  they  could 
gather  to  a  head". 1 

Mountmorris  was  a  Captain  in  this  Army  and,  as  such,  was 
under  martial  law,  with  power  of  martial  law  over  his  subordinates. 
The  Army  in  Ireland,  at  all  times  operated  under  those  clauses  of 
the  modern  Army  Act,  which  deal  with  active  service.  Offences 
against  discipline  were  tried  by  Court  Martial.  Even  Provost 
Marshals  had  the  right  to  try  civilians  by  this  code,  if  caught 
red  handed  with  arms  in  their  hands.  In  Falkland's  time,  this  latter 
power  was  confined  to  periods  of  civil  commotion. 

Lord  Wilmot's  evidence  on  this  point  shows'  the  extraordinary 
tangle  of  Statute  and  Martial  Law  at  that  period.  "The  articles 
of  War  I  drafted  were  those  of  the  four  previous  Deputies.  This 
martial  law  is  so  frequent  in  Ireland  that  the  common  law  takes 
no  exception.  I  have  lived  to  see  four  Parliaments1  there,  and 
none  of  them  took  exception  to  it.  To  govern  an  army  without 
martial  law  is  impossible.  Occasions  in  an  army  rise  on  a  sudden, 
and  something  must  be  done  on  a  sudden  for  example  sake  to 
others."  2 

Mountmorris  forgot,  or  chose  to  forget,  that  he  dwelt  under 
this  code,  at  any  rate  in  matters  military.  One  night  at  a  dinner 
party  at  the  Lord  Chancellor's  house,  some  humourist  related  a 
tale  of  how  a  younger  Annesley,  a  cousin  of  Mountmorris,  had 
moved  Stafford's  stool  in  the  Parliament,  so  that  the  Deputy, 
then  suffering  from  gout,  stumbled  with  disastrous  results.  The 
offender  was  the  identical  officer  whose  "pate"  Straff ord  had 
threatened  to  crack.  Someone  suggested  it  was  done  for  revenge. 
"Perhaps  it  was  done  in  revenge",  sneered1  Mountmorris  "of  that 
public  affront  and  disgrace  which  the  Lord  Deputy  did  him,  but 
I  have  a  brother  who  will  not  take  such  a  revenge".3 

For  an  officer  in  the  Army  to  utter  such  words  of  a  superior 
officer,  whether  in  public  or  in  private,  brings  him  well  within 
the  military  criminal  code.  Any  subaltern  uttering  them  to-day 
in  regard  to  his  Colonel  would  be  promptly  placed  under  arrest, 

1)  L.  S.  n— 107.        2,  R.  P.  VHI-198.        3)  L.  S.  1-500. 


968  THE  DOWNFALL 

and  be  inevitably  cashiered.  As  it  w,as,  Mountmorris  had  broken 
two  of  the  standing  articles  of  war.  He  had  first  represented  a 
parade  ground  rebuke — which  rebukes  are  famous  for  their 
eccentricities  and  pungency — as  "an  affront  and1  a  disgrace", 
despite  the  fact  that  it  was  undoubtedly  merited.  He  had  secondly 
uttered  something  very  like  an  incitement  to  his  brother — another 
officer — to  "offer  violence  to  his  commander",  and  "had  spoken 
words  likely  to  breed  a  mutiny,  or  impeach  the  obeying  of  the 
general".  The  penalty  for  thef  first  offence  was  loss  of  commission, 
and  for  the  second  death. 1 

Such  utterances  could  not  be  endured.  In  civil  life  no  one 
would  pay  them  heed.  From  an  officer  of  a  superior  officer  in 
relation  to  military  affairs,  before  an  audience,  comprising  officers, 
at  a  moment  when  a  large  part  of  the  ,army  were  gathered  in 
Dublin,  the  utterance  became  something  serious.  Strafford1  wrote 
to  the  King,  and  received  permission  to  prosecute  him  before  a 
Court  Martial. 

The  Court  consisted  of  the  senior  officers  of  thei  army.  All 
asserted,  and  this  Mountmorris  confessed,  that  Strafford  spoke 
to*  not  one  of  them  before  the  trial.  Nor  did  he  take  part  in  their 
deliberations.  His  own  brother,  who  should  have  sat  at  the  trial, 
stood1  aside.  Strafford  accused  Mountmorris  of  having  broken 
the  two  articles.  Mountmorris  first  stood  on  his  privilege  as  a 
Peer.  Then  he  claimed  a  trial  before  a  Civil  Court.  Then  he 
asked  for  a  delay,  or  to  be  represented1  by  Counsel.  The  Court 
ruled  that  this  was  not  the  standing  procedure.  At  first  he  would 
not  even  answer  as  to  whether  he  *spoke  the  words.  The  two  wit- 
nesses, Sir  Robert  Loftus  and  Lord  Moore,  then  related  what  he 
said.  Finally  Mountmorris  stood  his  trial.  The  breach  of  the  first 
article  he  did  not  deny.  As  regards  the  second  part  he  asserted 
that  what  he  meant  was  that  "his  brother  would  rather  die  than 
take  such  a  revenge".  The  Court  then  closed  and  found  him  guilty 
on  both  charges.  They  were  however  in  a  quandary.  The  Articles 
of  War  allowed  them  to  impose  only  a  death  sentence  for  the 
second  breach.  Modern  military  jurisprudence  gets  over  this  diffi- 
culty by  adding  the  words  "or  such  less  penalty  as  is  mentioned  in 
this  Act".  Even  so,  it  is  quite  a  common  practice  to  impose  the 

1)  L.S.  1-501. 


THE  SIMULTATES  969 

extreme  penalty  pour  encourager  les  autres,  and  to  leave  the  re- 
mission to  the  General  Commanding.  This  they  decided  to.  do. 
Strafford  promised1  that  he  "would  rather  cut  off  his  right  hand 
than  have  a  hair  of  his  Lordship's  head  injured".  At  Strafford's 
trial,  Mountmorris  related  this  as  an  additional  grievance,  "to  com- 
pare his  hand  as  of  more  importance  than  my  head".  Accordingly 
Mountmorris  was  cashiered,  and  the  death  sentence  recited,  ac- 
companied by  a  strong  recommendation  for  its  remission.  Needless 
to  say  the  recommendation  was  adopted,  and  after  a  week  he  was 
released.1 

This  affair  caused  the  greatest  excitement  in  London.  A 
member  of  the  Council  ;and  a  Peer  of  the  Kealm  had  been  sen- 
tenced to  death  for  but  a  few  words.  The  hubbub  was  increased 
by  the  appearance  of  Lady  Mountmorris  at  Court  with  a  doleful 
petition  to  save  her  husband's  life,  but  wiser  heads  hustled  her 
outside,  and  induced  her  to  desist  from  this  needless  display  of 
stage  craft.2  Finally  the  King  quenched  all  the  excitement  by 
publicly  approving  the  sentence,  and  remitting  the  extreme 
penalty.3  It  was  only  then  the  gossips  became  aware  that  they 
had  been  discussing  the  mere  dismissal  of  an  officer  for  words 
he  should  not  have  uttered,  and,  as  Cottington  put  it,  "It  made 
a  great  noise  among  the  ignorant  and  the  ill-affected,  but  it  stuck 
little  among  the  wiser,  and  begins  to  'blow  away."4 

This  constituted  the  5th  article  of  Strafford's  indictment,  and 
was  a  dead  failure.  It  was  not  Strafford  that  had  sentenced  him, 
but  a  Council  of  War  which  included  Eanelagh,  then  in  high 
favour  with  the  Parliamentarians.  The  sentence  had  been  ratified 
by  the  King  as  Commander-in-chief.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  legal  aspect  in  England,  Court  Martials  were  the  recognized 
process  in  Ireland  for  dealing  with  insubordinate  officers.  The 
severity  of  the  sentence  was  excused  by  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
only  one  the  Court  had  power  to  give,  and  the  appeal  for  its 
remission  had  been  signed  by  Strafford.  The  effort  of  the  prose- 
cuting counsel  to  arouse  the  susceptibilities  of  the  Peers  by  dilat- 
ing on  the  rank  of  Mountmorris  was  swept  away  by  Strafford  in 
one  biting  sentence.  "In  the  Army  we  consider  men  not  as  peers, 
but  as  officers."5  The  King  never  forgave  Mountmorris  for 

1)  L.  S.  1—497—501 ;  E,  P.  VIII— 186— 204.  2)  L.  S.  1—508,  510;  L.  L. 

VH— 220;  C.  P.  1-449.      3)  L.  S.  1-523.      4)  L.  S.  1-511.      5)  E.  P.  YIU-648. 


970  THE  DOWNFALL 

appearing  at  the  trial  as  a  man  whose  life  had  been  placed  in 
jeopardy,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Strafford  had  deliberately  re- 
fused to  exact  his  legal  pound  of  flesh.  Nol  Parliamentary  pressure 
would  make  him  restore  Mountmorris.  "I  will  not"  said  Charles, 
and  Charles,  despite  all  his  vacillations,  could  be  remarkably  ob- 
stinate when  his  temper  was  aroused.1 

It  was  these  "simultates"  that  caused  the  furore  on  his  down- 
fall. It  is  very  hard  to  say  how  he  could  have  .avoided  them.  Every 
Deputy  had  encountered  them.  Some  had  survived.  Others  had 
been  recalled.  A  few  had  been  executed.  Stafford's  position, 
however,  was  exceptionally  weak.  On  one  side  he  made  enemies 
by  sweeping  away  abuses.  At  the  same  time  he  had  behind  him 
two  Kingdoms  verging,  towards  Revolution.  When  the  crash  came 
there,  what  was  there  to  save  him  in  Ireland?  There  was  nothing 
but  the  Army,  and  the  mild  assent  of  the  "painful  subject"  in  a 
land  sething  with  blind,  contradictory,  and  elemental  forces  that 
could  not  unite  to  create,  but  could  unite  to  destroy.  If  he  had 
come  on  the  scene  ten  years  earlier  things  might  have  been  different. 
In  Ireland  he  "created  a  good  understanding  between  Prince  and 
people".  He  had  intended  by  this  example  to  wean  the  English 
people  from  "the  fantastic  apparitions  of  popularity".  One  can 
detect  towards  the  end  grave  doubts  if  it  were  not  too'  late.  When 
he  sailed  for  England  he  wrote  to  Kadcliffe,  "I  find  a  great  ex- 
pectation 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".2 

It  was  not1  till  about  1636  that  the  King  began  to  consult  him 
in  his  difficulties.  He  had  carefully  kept  out  of  the  Scotch  under- 
taking. His  advice  when  asked  had  been  to  spend  no  money.  It 
was  not  in  the  Exchequer.  To  call  a  Parliament  without  great 
provocation  would  only  result  in  a  refusal.  To  raise  it  by  levies 
would  only  add  to  the  regal  unpopularity.  His  advice  was  to  leave 
the  Scotch  alone  to  fight  among  themselves,  to  blockade  their  ports 
so  as  to  make  their  sedition  unprofitable,  but,  above  all,  to  fortify 
the  frontier  towns  and  train  the  militia  behind  them.  "By  that 
means  you  may  give  them  leisure  to  recollect  themselves  better, 
to  frame  supplications  as  may  be  granted  without  diminution  to 

1)  Egmont  M.  S.  S.  1—121, 122.    •  2)  E.  C.— 180, 181. 


THE  SIMULTATES  971 

the  Royal  Estate."  The  strong  Royalist  elements  that  existed  in 
Scotland,  MacDonalds,  Maxwells,  and  Stewarts  would  undoubtedly 
outweigh  "the  Lords  of  the  Covenant",  as  soon  as  the  evils  of 
internal  dissension  became  apparent.  "There  is  some  good  in  the 
evil",  he  added.  "Our  neighbours  are  soundly  by  the  ears.  With- 
out assistance  from  abroad  the  gallant  gospellers  shall  not  be  able 
to  bear  up  arms  against  the  King."] 

This  advice  was  neglected.  On  the  urgent  recommendations 
of  Hamilton  and  Holland  the  King  essayed  the  task  of  invading 
Scotland,  while  Hamilton  carried  on  some  tortuous  negotiations 
with  the  Scotch.  To  this  Strafford  was  strongly  opposed.  The 
expense,  the  bankruptcy,  and  the  inevitable  plunderings  of  the 
ill-paid  soldiery  "were  a  remedy  worse  than  the  disease".  Worse 
even  than  these  "great  Armies"  were  Hamilton's  prophecies  of 
what  he  would  achieve  by  shady  conferences.  "By  that  means  we 
shall  be  fearfully  cast  behind  in  the  way  to  our  preservation.  Good 
my  Lord,  press  the  King  home  to  secure  Carlisle,  Berwick,  and 
Newcastle." 2 

On  the  failure,  first  of  the  disastrous  expedition,  and  then  of 
the  yet  more  disastrous  "accommodation",  Straff ord  was  summoned 
to  cope  this  time  with  a  threatened  invasion  of  England.  He  failed 
to  get  the  supplies  from  Parliament.  His  advice  then  was  to 
mobilise  every  man,  to  commandeer  provisions,  money,  and  every- 
thing that  goes  to  make  an  army,  and  to  march  straight  for  the 
Scotch  mobilization,  and  to  scatter  it.  "If  anyone  can  show  you 
a  better  way  let  him  do  it."3 

Nor  was  this  advice  so  vainglorious  as  was  thought.  The 
Scotch  Lords  were  wracked  with  dissensions.  London,  who  took 
part  in  the  invasion,  was  intriguing  all  the  while  with  the  Govern- 
ment.4 Even  the  Earl  of  Argyle  confined  himself  to  plundering 
the  MacDonalds  and  took  no  part  in  the  expedition.  He  only 
appeared  on  the  scene  after  the  debacle.5  The  fidelity  of  their  men 
was  so  dubious  that  4.000  deserted  on  entering  England/  Their 
cavalry  was  small  and  useless.7  After  they  had  won  the  skirmish 
of  Newburn  they  came  to  a  dead  halt,  and  confined  themselves  to 
plundering  the  country.  As  a  military  danger  they  were  a  fantasm. 

1)  L.  S.  11-190-193.  2)  C.  M.  IX— 10, 11.  3)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11-254. 
4)  Dom.  1640—610,  611.  5)  Dom.  1640-148.  6)  Dom.  1640—136;  L.  P.  2.  s. 
IV— 140.  7)  Dom.  1640-47. 


972  THE  DOWNFALL 

All  subsequent  experience  showed  that  the  Scotch  "risings  out'' 
could  not  hold  the  field  for  more  than  a  month. 

Strafford's  intention  was  to  bring  over  the  Irish  Army.  Ten 
thousand  fully  equipped  and  perfectly  trained  swordsmen  were  no 
mean  nucleus,  when  supported  by  a  balance  of  £  100.000  in  the 
Irish  Exchequer.  Radcliffe's  estimate  of  the  cost  of  transporting 
this  Army  and  keeping  it  in  the  field  for  a  year  was  £  270.000. 
As  nearly  £  200.000  was  due  on  the  Irish  subsidies,  this  part  of 
the  transaction  was  well  within  the  limits  of  practical  politics.1 
His  intention  was  to  rush  this  force  to  Ayr  in  flat-bottomed  boats, 
having  first  led  the  enemy  to  expect  their  despatch  to  the  North 
of  England,  and,  having  fortified  his  base  there,  to  place  all  the 
surrounding  country  under  tribute,  and  to  threaten  Edinburgh 
itself. 2  He  was  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  Ireland  to  perfect 
this  when  first  a  second  attack  of  dysentery,  and  then  a  Royal 
order  to  take  over  the  English  Army  altered  his  plans.3 

It  was  only  then  that  he  became  aware  that,  during  the  four 
months,  when  he  was  lying  on  the  verge  of  death,  nothing  had 
been  done  by  the  English  Executive.  None  of  the  ships  that  were 
to  supplement  these  flat-bottomed  boats  had  been  provided.4  This 
reduced  him  to  the  necessity  of  repelling  the  Scotch  with  the 
English  Army  alone.  It  lay  sprawling  across  the  Midlands.  Con- 
way  however  was  in  front  of  Newcastle,  with  the  Tyne  between 
him  and  the  enemy.  Strafford  assumed  that  his  injunctions  had 
been  obeyed,  and  that  Newcastle  was  well  fortified.  He  assumed 
too  that  the  mobilization  had  been  efficiently  accomplished,  and 
that  Conway  had,  not  only  artillery,  but  about  3.000  cavalry  and 
8.000  infantry.  In  cavalry  accordingly  Conway  was  far  superior 
to  the  enemy.  It  is  significant  however  that  Charles  believed  that 
Newcastle  would/1  fall.  "No  man  will  guarantee  to  hold  it"  he  said.5 

Strafford's  long  illness  however  had  kept  him  out  of  touch 
with  actualities.  His  Irish  Executive  had  moved  with  such  pre- 
cision that  he  assumed  that  the  English  Ministers  had  taken  all 
reasonable  precautions.  Little  did  he  know  that'  Conway's  artil- 
lery was  negligible  and  his  gunners  untrained,  that  his  soldiers 
were  but  raw  recruits,  that  all  his  force  was  about  1.000  horse 
and  2.000  foot,  and  worst  blow  of  all — not  a  trench  had  been  dug 

1)  R.  P.  Vm— 538.  2)  R.  P.  VIII-554-556.  3)  Dom.  1640-306, 447; 
E.  C.  201.  4)  Abergavenny  M.  S.  S.— 187.  5)  H.  S.  II— 149. 


THE  SIMULTATES  973 

round  Newcastle.  So  difficult  was  it  to  wring  the  truth  out  of 
anyone  that,  only  a  week  before  the  debacle,  one  of  the  officers 
told  him  that  "Newcastle  is  fortified  and  we  are  beasts  if  we  lose 
it".1  On  Newcastle  he  had  depended  to  hold  them  back  till  the 
main  body  arrived.2  All  subsequent  letters  show  that  one  short, 
sharp  and  decisive  struggle  in  such  circumstances,  would  have  pro- 
duced a  different  result. 

The  result  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  The  Scotch  drove 
Conway's  force  before  them.  They  marched  into  Newcastle.  They 
placed  all  the  surrounding  country  under  contribution,  and  sat 
down  to  live  a  life  of  ease,  with  no  river  or  forts  in  front,  nothing 
but  broad  plains. 

Strafford  lying  on  hisl  sick  bed  heard  the  news  with  horror. 
"Why  didn't  you  leave  2.000  foot  in  Newcastle",  he  said  aghast 
"make  forts  at  the  ford:  of  Newburn,  and  hold  them  there  with 
your  horse,  foot  and  artillery"?  The  messenger  then  revealed  the 
worst.  No  forts  had  been  made.  There  was  little  artillery.  The 
reinforcements  had  not  arrived.3  When  Strafford  arrived  at  the 
main  body  the  truth  was  laid  before  his  eyes.  The  soldiers  were 
unshod,  unfed,  unpaid,  undrilled  and  undisciplined.  The  officers 
had  scarcely  any  conception  of  their  duties.  As  always  happens 
when  reservists,  conscripts,  or  recruits  are  badly  handled  there  was 
rampant  disaffection  and  mutiny  in  the  ranks.4  "Pity  me",  he 
wrote  to  Eadcliffe.  "Never  came  man  to  such  a  lost  business. 
The  Army  altogether  unexercised  and  unprovided  of  all  necessities. 
That  part  which  I  bring  now  with  me  from  Durham  the  worst  I 
ever  saw.  Our  horse  all  cowardly.  A  universal  fright  in  all.  A 
general  disaffection  to  the  King's  service,  none  sensible  of  his  dis- 
honour. In  one  word  here  alone  to  fight  with  all  these  evils, 
without  anyone  to  help.  God  of  his  goodness  deliver  me  out  of 
this  the  greatest  evil  of  my  life !  Fare  you  well  !"5 

Such  he  might  write  in  private.  In  public  he  kept  a  bold 
face,  a  very  bold  face.  He  afterwards  confessed  that,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  men,  he  talked  of  nothing  but  instant  battle  and 
"bringing  home  Leslie's  head"  in  order  to  give  them  courage.6  To 
Conway  he  sent  rapid  instructions  how  to  evacuate  his  dangerous 

1)  R.  P.  VHI-31 ;  H.  S.  11—161 ;  C.  P.  11-99, 107, 108;  Dom.  1640-353, 365, 
366,  634.  2)  Dom.  1646—627.  3)  Dom.  1640—647.  4)  Dom.  1640—335—340, 
440, 448, 475,  493.  5)  R.  C.— 204.  6)  H.  S.  II— 290. 


974  THE  DOWNFALL 

position.  A  hasty  messenger  was  despatched  to  London  to  bring 
up  £  8.000.  Every  mill  round  the  base  was  set  to  work,  and  every 
bakery  commandeered.  "Put  as  much  life  into  your  men  as  you 
can",  he  said,  "We  can  do  nothing  with  a  frightened  army."1 
Money  however  was  the  urgent  need,  because  without  money  he 
could  not  even  bake  the  bread. 

He  sent  a  whip  to  the  Yorkshire  gentry  for  a  benevolence. 
Their  leaders  returned  an  evasive  answer.  Promptly  he  summoned 
all  the  gentry  of  Yorkshire  to  a  large  public  meeting,  and  then 
and  there  harangued  them  on  their  loyalty,  their  honour,  and  the- 
danger  to  their  estates  if  the  Scotch  broke  through.  By  an 
overwhelming  majority — 200  to  10 — a  tender  of  a  month's  pay 
for  the  trained  bands  was  provided.  He  then  recommended  the- 
King  to  release  the  subscribers  from  several  feudal  dues,  and  thus 
money  and  popularity  were  gained1  at  a  perilous  moment.  * 

He  then  turned1  to  the  reorganization  of  the  Army.  It  was 
quartered  in  his  own  County,  over  which  ihe  had  presided  for  five 
years.  He  was  thus  able  to  make  contracts,  procure  volunteers,  and 
select  subordinates  more  easily  than  he  would  have  done  otherwise. 
The  State  Papers  suddenly  become  silent  on  the  question  of  this 
mobilization.  The  "tumults"  die  down.  The  demand®,  complaints, 
charges,  and  counter-charges  of  the  officers  disappear.  It  is  as 
it!  were  as  'if  it  did  not  exist.  Simple  warrants  for  shovels,  powder, 
loaves  and  other  mundane  matters  are  all  that  are  to  be  found. 
Once  a  Sergeant  Major  Nolan  with  about  70  Irish  officers-  and 
swordsmen  arrives  from  abroad,  draws  ration  money,  swords, 
muskets  and  powder,  and  vanishes  post  haste  to  York,  on  "recom- 
mendation from  the  Lord  Lieutenant",  pursued  by  queries  from 
Windebanke  as  to  who  he'  was  and  what  was  his  business.3  The 
machine  was  obviously  working  at  full  pressure.  In  private 
documents  we  get  glimpses  of  cas<hierings,  objurgations,  a  gallows 
at  the  head  of  every  regiment,  and  full  rations  and  punctual  pay-4 

He  had  only  one  method  which  he  used  to  summarize  as 
"rewards  and  punishments  properly  applied,  whereby  the  good 
are  encouraged,  and  those  others  perchance  discontented,  which 
grieves  me  not".  Of  the  Army  itself  he  had  no  doubts.  Historians 

1)  C.  P.  11—109,  110.  2)   R.  P.  VIII— 600— 628;    Dom.  1640—57. 

3)  Dom.  1640—51,  56,  71,  78.  4)  L.  P.  II.  s.  IV— 146;  T.  P.  111—194;  Egmont 

M.  S.  S.  1-119, 120;  Leeds  M.  S.  S.-99. 


THE  SIMULTATES  975 

have  assumed  that  their  "tumults  and  mutinies"  before  this  were 
due  to  zeal  for  politics.  "Tumults  and  mutinies",  however,  are 
inseparable  from  an  Army  that  has  no  food.  The  fact  remains  that 
once  they  were  paid  and  fed  they  became  a  very  steady  force,  never 
getting  excited  when  the  Long  Parliament  was  inciting  all  Eng- 
land to  Republicanism.  "There  is  no  want"  said  Straff  ord  "in  the 
persons  of  these  men.  They  are  simply  unexercised.  Theirs  are 
quite  as  bad  and  we  are  more  than  they.  I  will  undertake  to  train 
them.  If  money  is  not  wanting  we  may  yet  give  the  Scotch  the 
law.  If  there  is  no  money  we  must  disband."1 

Charles  recollected  that  in  the  Short  Parliament  the  Peers 
had  been  willing  to  vote  supplies.  It  was  just  possible  that  from 
them  he  might  procure  a  benevolence.  He  determined  accordingly 
to  summon  them  to  York,  or  perhaps  extract  a  loan  from  London. 
"If  it  produce  projection  from  the  London  alembic",  was  his  pithy 
comment,  "it  will  do1  well.  Else  the  rebels  are  like  to  set  the  dice 
on  us".2  In  the  meanwhile,  however,  the  nucleus  of  the  revolu- 
tionary party  was  stirring  in  London.  They  openly  assembled, 
drafted  a  list  of  religious  grievances,  and  tendered  them  to  the 
Council  with  a  demand  that  the  Council  should  "put  their  hands" 
to  the  documents,  and  advise  Charles  to  call  a  Parliament.3  The 
"Citizens  of  London"  signed  a  similar  document,  but  the  Alder- 
men subsequently  disowned  it.4  Influence  was  also  brought  to  bear 
on  the  Queen  to  recommend  the  instant  summoning  of  a  Parlia- 
ment. One  point  there  was  in  favour  of  the  course.  If  the  Council 
of  Peers  refused  the  Benevolence,  a  Parliament  would  have  to  be 
called.  It  was  better  to  do  it  as  "an  Act  of  Grace"  than  as  the 
outcome  of  necessity.  Charles  consented.5  In  other  words  a  year 
after  the  Short  Parliament,  he  was  compelled  to  do  what  Strafford 
had  advised  him  a  year  before,  "to  put  himself  on  the  affection  of 
his  subjects".  Was  it,  however,  now  too  late?  Had  ministerial 
incapacity  and  Vane's  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament  brought 
the  Government  into  such  odium  that  the  subject  would  risk  a 
revolution  for  any  alteration  in  the  hope  of  better  things? 

This  was  one  of  the  occasions  on  which  Charles  displayed  his 
best  qualities.  Seated  on  the  throne  before  this  Council,  beset  by 

1)  H.  S.  11-240-298.  2)  C.  P.  11—125.  3)  Dom.  1640-640;  C.  P.  11—115. 
4)  Dom.  1640—68.  5)  Dom.  1640—67. 


976  THE  DOWNFALL 

overwhelming  difficulties,  he  gave  every  day  a  brilliant  exhibition 
of  that  penetrating  shrewdness  that  he  had  inherited  from  his 
father.  If  he  only  had  possessed  also  his  father's  self-reliance  on 
his  own  judgement,  or  his  father's  skill  in  discerning  the  characters 
of  those  who  tendered  him  advice,  he  might  have  died  comfortably 
in  his  bed.  On  this  occasion  he  had  to  make  up  his  mind  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment  by  himself  as  each  new  difficulty  arose,  and 
he  succeeded,  at  any  rate,  in  postponing  the  Eevolution  for  another 
year,  keeping  the  Scotch  out  of  the  Midlands,  and  creating,  out 
of  a  welter  of  disaffection  among  the  Peers,  the  nucleus  of  the 
Boyalist  Barty. 

Strafford  kept  himself  very  much  in  the  background.  He  was 
surrounded  by  personal  enemies,  by  men  anxious  to  throw  the 
odium  of  their  mistakes  on  his  shoulders,  and  that  large  body  of 
opinion  which  would  have  applauded  him  if  the  war  had  been 
successful,  and.  now  held  that  he  deserved  censure  for  causing  this 
debacle. 

The  Earl  of  Bristol  promptly  took  the  lead,  seconded  by  Lord 
Mandeville.  They  demanded  a  full  inquiry  into  all  that  had  oc- 
cured,  but  were  driven  off  that  point  by  the  King.  To  one  Beer's 
suggestion  that  they  should  see  how  money  could  be  raised,  Bristol 
replied  that  such  a  course  of  action  would  prejudice!  them  with  the 
Commons,  whose  right  it  was  to  supervise  such  matters.  Few  men 
are  willing  to  be  taxed,  least  of  all  to  tax  themselves,  and  the 
conclave  gave  a  murmur  of  assent.  The  Beers  that  lived  in  the 
South  of  England  were  not  at  all  alarmed  at  the  situation.  Their 
estates  were  safe — at  any  rate  for  the  present — while  those  over 
whom  the  Scotch'  Army  hung  like  a  sword  of  Damocles  sat  glumly 
listening,  angry  with  the  King  for  having  caused  this  disaster, 
and  wondering  whither  they  were  drifting,  while  about  half  a 
dozen  voluble  Southern  Beers  talked  glibly  of  the  coming  Bar- 
liament,  and  how  it  would  make  all  things  right.  Bristol  then 
proposed  negotiations  with  the  Scotch  to  find  on  what  terms  they 
would  release  the  North  of  England  from  their  grip.  Strafford 
was  on  his  feet  instantly  to  protest  against  treating  with  rebels. 
Bristol  retorted  "You  are  not  on  terms  to  measure  pikes  with 
them.  Here  are  two  armies  and  we  must  either  fight  or  treat. 
If  you  fight  will  you  win?"  All  through  the  debates  this  query 


THE  SIMULTATE8  977 

was  put  to  Strafford,  but  lie  refused  to  pin  his  faith  again  on  the 
chaos,  with  which  he  was  surrounded.  He  knew  only  too  well  that, 
if  he  rushed  into  war  again,  and  either  scanty  supplies,  ministerial 
incompetence,  or  treachery  caused  another  debacle  all  was  over. 
"I  am  no  prophet  or  the  son  of  a  prophet  to  foretell  the  chances 
of  war.  I  am  not  of  the  Almighty's  Privy  Council.  Some  things, 
however,  I  can  tell  you,  and  these  I  leave  to  your  great  wisdom. 
We  were  not  able  to  beat  them.  We  may  be  yet.  We  are  more 
than  they.  We  are  not  less  skilled  than  they.  There  is  no  want 
in  the  persons  of  the  men,  but  they  are  unskilled  and  I  am  training 
them.  If  there  is  no  money  we  must'  disband,  and  then  your  estates 
will  pay  for  it.  At  present  we  can  hold  them.  They  cannot  ad- 
vance till  after  the  winter." 

Over  and  over  again  his  enemies,  Bristol,  Mandeville  and 
Holland,  tried  to  pin  him  to  a  promise  of  victory,  and  with  charac- 
teristic coolness  he  refused  to  be  taunted  into  such  a  perilous  boast. 
To  a  sneer  at  his1  Irish  Army  he  flashed  back,  "Give  me  ships  and  it 
will  be  here  in  two  days  and  then  you  may  judge  it". 

The  Northern  Lords,  however,  were  quite  as  anxious  for  an 
accomodation  with  the  Scotch  as  Bristol  and  his  friends.  It  freed 
them  from  the  peril  of  their  houses  being  burnt.  StrafFord's  caution 
in  his  military  prognostications  turned  the  rest  of  the  assembly 
against  him,  and  the  negotiations  began. 

Once,  however,  the  Peers  began  these  negotiations  they  slid 
gradually  down  the  slope  of  disaster.  They  were  as  it  were  in  a 
cleft  stick.  How  could  they  go  back  and;  declare  a  holy  war 
against  "rebels  and  traitors",  when  they  (had  lifted  them  to  the 
level  of  belligerents,  and  when  they  knew  that,  in  their  midst, 
were  a  coterie  of  their  sympathizers?  One  concession  led  to  an- 
other. If  they  would  not  fight  on  one  punctilio  how  could  they 
fight  on  the  next,  or  the  next?  A  multitude  of  "punctilios"  rapidly 
extends  to  a  large  blot.  Bristol  found  himself  pushed  on  from 
concession  to  concession,  driven  by  Mandeville,  Saye,  and  the  rest 
of  the  revolutionaries,  and,  at  least,  the  demoralized  and  wrangling 
delegates  signed  a  pacification,  which  a  fortnight  before  they  would 
have  repudiated  with  scorn. 

The  Scotch  were  to  receive  £  850  a  day.     It  was  to  be  levied 

62 


978  THE  DOWNFALL 

by  contributions  on  the  Northern  Counties.  In  other  words  they 
had  given  the  Scotch  the  right  and  power  to  exact  by  duress  that 
coigne,  livery,  cess,  billetings  and  forced  levies,  which  two  ge- 
nerations of  Englishmen  had  rigidly  refused  to  the  King.  For  men 
who  were  precise  on  "the  rights  of  the  subject"  and  "the  liberties 
of  the  Commons" — as  against  the  King — it  was  as  curious  a  bargain 
as  the  wit  of  man  could  devise.  Straff  or  d's  sneer  was  cruel.  "If 
we  for  our  King  had  exacted  this  sum  from  the  people  without 
consulting  Parliament,  we  would  have  heard  of  it.  You  do  it  for 
the  Scotch." 

It  was  this  blunder  that  lost  the  revolutionary  Party  all  hope 
of  ever  making  headway  in  the  North  of  England.  Those  who  had 
to  live  these  six  months  under  the  martial  law  and  exactions  of 
the  Scotch  were  only  too  well  aware  of  whom  they  had  to  blame 
for  it.  When  the  Civil  Wars  broke  out  the  North  of  England  was 
solid  for  Charles.  Amongst  the  Peerage  too  tihe  pacification  caused 
a  bitter  cleavage.  Bristol,  for  instance,  was  determined  from  now 
on  "to  be  stiff  and  rigid  for  the  King's  authority",  and  his  circle 
began  to  talk  of  "easily  and  securely  beating  the  Scotch".1  In  a 
speech  to  a  Parliament  he  subsequently  denounced  the  whole  trans- 
action as  "a  strange  motion",  one  of  "hard  digestion  to  His  Ma- 
jesty, the  Lords  and  the  whole  Kingdom".2  An  effort  was  made  to 
throw  the  onus  of  the  collection  of  the  contribution  on  Strafford. 
He  refused.  "I  that  am  their  common  enemy  desire  to  be  excused. 
It  is  the  King's  Army  that  I  must  maintain  and  not  theirs." 

It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  the  Lords  procured  a  loan 
from  the  City  to  keep  the  Army  on  foot,  a  loan  paid  out  by  driblets. 
It  was  a  disastrous  and  humiliating  situation.  Endymion  Porter 
put  it  not  inaptly,  "Our  particular  malices  one  to  another  make  no 
man  look  after  the  Common  safety,  so  that  a  general  ruin  is  to  be 
feared".3 

In  all  this  embroglio  the  King  and  Stratford  had  been 
helpless.  Their  fear  all  the  while  was  that  some  rift  in  the  lute 
might  dissolve  the  Assembly,  and  then  they  would  have  to  disband 
the  Army.  If  this  occured  the  Scotch  would  sweep  through  Eng- 
land, and  the  Kingdom  would  perish  in  the  anarchies)  of  feudalism. 


1)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 139.      2)  R.  P.  IV-49.      3)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 144. 


THE  SIMULTATES  979 

Northumberland  was  under  no  hallucination  as  to  the  danger. 
"Those  that  complain  will  give  as  great  causes  of  complaint — if 
they  have  the  power — as  those  against  whom  they  complain.  I 
never  can  believe  that  the  Scots  love  us,  nor  that  they  take  these 
pains  for  our  sakes,  or  that  they  intend  us  any  good  at  all,  whatever 
they  pretend.  It  is  unlikely  that  they  really  intend  to  reform 
those  abuses,  of  which  they  have  been  partly  the  cause.  There  is 
some  mystery  in  their  business.  They  are  too1  well  acquainted  with 
our  councils.  They  are  very  lucky  men  to  have  thus  come  in  the 
nick,  or  some  amongst  us  are  not  as  honest  as  they  should  be."1 

One  thing,  at  any  rate,  Charles  and  Strafford  had  done.  They 
has  kept  the  Army  intact.  They  had  spun  out  matters  till  the 
winter.  This  gave  them  a  few  months'  breathing  space  before  the 
Scots  could  advance.  They  had  extracted  a  fluctuating  series  of 
instalments  of  money  from  the  city.  If  these  things  had  not  been 
done,  England  in  1640  would  have  been  like  Ireland  in  1642.  They 
had  been  granted  a  temporary  reprieve,  but  that  was  all.  "The 
uttermost  of  the  Scotch  demands"  wrote  Stafford"  are  still  veiled 
from  us,  and  certainly  by  the  design  of  some  among  ourselves. 
The  minds  and  the  opinions  of  the  subjects  are  thus  infinitely 
distracted.  The  Scotch  army  is  by  this  means  kept  as  a  rod  over 
the  King  to  force  him  to  any  thing  the  Puritan  and  popular 
humour  hath  a  mind  into.  The  army  which  is  our  bulwark  depends 
upon  a  loan  of  the  City.  If  that  fail  we  disband.  It  they  will  en- 
large or  straighten  as  the  King  shall  please  the  Parliament  more 
or  less". 2 

Strafford  was  under  no  hallucination  of  the  dangers  that 
threatened  him.  He  always  foresaw  that,  if  ever  the  King  had  to 
face  an  angry  Parliament  as  a  suppliant,  his  enemies  in  the  Court 
would  stir  up  popular  opinion  against  him.  "A  war",  he  one  time 
prophesied,  "will  put  the  King  into  all  manner  of  high  ways,  or 
else  he  will  noti  be  able  to  subsist.  If  these  fail  the  next  will  be  the 
sacrificing  those  that  have  been  the  Minister  therein.  It  would 
trouble  me  indeed  to  find  those  that  drew  him  into  these  mischiefs, 
busy  in  slipping  the  halter  round  my  neck,  as  if  they  were  the 


1)  C.L.M.n— 660.  2)  E.G.  214— 219;  L.  P.  2.  s.  IV— 120— 148;  R.P. 

vol.  IE;  Dom.  1640-94— 210;  C.  P.  11-127-133;  H.  S.  II— 208— 298. 

62* 


980  THE  DOWNFALL 

persons    the    most    innocent,    howbeit  in   truth  as  black   as  hell 
itself."  ' 

He  knew  too  that  in  similar  circumstances  the  Puritan  Party 
would  be  hot  on  his  track  for  his  action  in  persuading  the  Irish 
Convocation  to  withdraw  the  articles  of  1615. 2  Apart,  for  instance, 
from  the  intense  hostility  with  which  his  Royalist  creed  was  re- 
garded by  the  Scotch  nobility,  the  commonalty  of  that  country 
had  been  soundly  lectured  for  many  a  day  on  his  "Arminian"  atro- 
cities, by  certain  of  the  Ulster  Ministers.3  Already  a  petition  had 
been  despatched  to  the  King  demanding  his  dismissal  from  the 
army  as  a  preliminary  to  peace,  and  the  Scotch  were  the  real 
masters  of  t'he  situation. 4 

The  third  party  was  the  Revolutionary  nucleus  lead  by  Saye, 
Manchester,  Bedford,  Hertford,  Pym  and  Hampden.  When  Straff ord 
first  appeared  in  the  House  of  Commons  he  appeared  as  the  spokes- 
man of  those  from  whom  forced  loans  had  been  exacted  under 
threats  of  conscription  and  cess,  to  support  a  fantastic  foreign 
policy  of  military  activity,  that  Buckingham  had  devised  to  please 
those  to  whom  such  activities  are  dear.  The  energy  with1  which 
he  attached  this  policy  led  this  coterie  to  believe  that  he  was'  one 
of  themselves.  He  said  himself  that  he  was  never  in  one  of  their 
caucus  meetings.5  Be  that  as  it  may,  he  suddenly  found  that, 
where  he  was  agitating  for  the  remedy  of  an  abuse,  they  were 
striving  to  pass  a  measure  forbidding  the  King,  even  in  case  of 
dire  necessity,  such  a©  civil  commotion  or  foreign  invasion,  to 
commandeer  goods  or  to  billet  soldiers.  Where  he  desired  a  reform, 
they  aimed  at  crippling  the  Prerogative.  After  a  violent  scene 
with  Eliot  in  the  House,  he  openly  allied  himself  with  the 
Ministry,  and  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  as  the  Champion  of 
the  Prerogative  against  all  encroachments.  The  popular  Party 
never  had  forgiven  what  they  called  a  desertion. 6  What  made  this 
party  now  so  powerful  was  the  impetus  given  to  the  religions 
question  by  the  Scotch  revolt  and  their  demands  for  the  dis- 
establishment and  disendowment  of  the  Church.  Behind  the 
Revolutionaries  lay  that  solid  mass  of  opinion  that  wished  to  do 
with  the  Church  Lands  what  Henry  VIII  had  done  with  the 

1)  L.  S.  11—66.       2)  L.  S.  1—344,  381.       3)  H.  S.  II— 107.       4)  Dom.  1640 
—157.    5)  L.  S.  I— 300.    6)  Dictionary  of  National  Biography ;  Strafford ;  Wentworth . 


THE  SIMULTATES  981 

monastries.  Lord  Saye  and  Sele,  for  instance,  had  an  ancestral 
estate  of  but  £  200  a  year.  His  wealth'  and.1  territorial  influence 
came  from  illegal  leases  of  Church  lands. 1  To  men  such  as  Saye 
— and  they  existed  in  every  English  parish,  they  or  their  would 
be  imitators — a  man  of  Strafford's  iron  views  on  this  subject  was 
a  man  to  be  removed  by  any  means  that  human  ingenuity  could 
devise. 

What  added  to  his  unpopularity  was  the  stampede  on  all  sides 
to  throw  the  blame  on  his  shoulders.  When  the  cry  in  London 
against  "exactions  contrary  to  law"  was  at  its  height,  he  pleaded 
that  the  contributions  he  had  levied  in  Yorkshire  had  not  only  been 
sanctioned  by  the  Yorkshire  gentry,  but  by  the  Council  of  Peers 
at  York.  Like  one  man  the  House  of  Lords  gave  him  the  lie  direct, 
and  sheltered  them  selves  behind  the  fact  that  no  formal  resolution 
had  been  taken  or  no  record  kept,  though  in  a  record  of  "the  treaty 
of  Bippon"  Strafford's  account  of  the  transaction  is  corroborated.2 
One  onlooker  summarized  the  situation  thus,  "Somebody  must 
be  sacrificed  to  appease  the  people."3 

Public  opinion  was  undoubtedly  hostile  to  him,  though  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  resolution  in  the  House  of  Commons  to 
inquire  into  his  administration  of  Ireland  was  carried  only  by  a 
majority  of  13. 4  Nevertheless  as  Northumberland  put  it,  "A 
greater  and  more  universal  hatred  was  never  contracted  by  any 
person  than  he  hath  drawn  upon  himself."5  The  originator  of  a 
disastrous  war  must  always  face  a  storm,  but  in  this  case  he  had 
nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  the  beginning  of  this  war.6  The 
public,  seeing  in  him  the  existing  confident  of  the  King,  traced 
the  national  calamity  to  his  advice.  One  can  trace  the  mixture 
of  motives  which  animated  his  unpopularity  in  the  bewildering 
variety  of  the  articles  of  impeachment.  "I  do  much  wonder,"  lie 
said  "how  I,  who  was  an  incendiary  in  the  23rd  article  against 
the  Scots,  am  become  their  confederate  in  the  27th,  or  how  could! 
I  be  charged  at  one  time  for  betraying  Newcastle  to  the  Scots,  and 
at  the  same  time  with  fighting  the  Scots  at  Newburn?"7 

When  a  message  came  from  the  King  that  he  was  to  repair 


1)  Fleming  M.  S.  8.- 18.  2)  R,  P.  VIII— 31,  37,  38.  3)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S. 
1—129.  4)  R.P.Yin-1.  5)  C.L.M.H—  663.  6)  L.  S.  I— 190.  7)  Dom. 
1641—543. 


982  THE  DOWNFALL 

to  London  lie  knew  what  he  meant.  The  Council  had  recommended 
his  despatch  for  a  variety  of  reasons  that  did  not  deceive  him. 
His  enemies  obviously  shrank  from  impeaching  him  when  in  the 
midst  of  the  army.  "I  am  to-morrow  to'  London,  with  more  dangers 
beset,  I  believe,  than  ever  man  went  with  out  of  Yorkshire. 
Yet  my  heart  is  good,  and  I  find  nothing  cold  within  me.  If 
they  come  to  the  charge  I  will  send  for  you  to  have  your  help  in 
my  defence. . . .  The  Queen  is  infinitely  gracious  towards  me  above 
all  that  you  can  imagine,  and  doth  declare  it  in  a  very  public  and 
strange  manner,  so  as'  nothing?  can  hurt  me,  by  God's  help,  but  the 
iniquity  and  necessity  of  these  times."1 


1)  R.  C.— 218. 


PAET  VIII 

THE  CLOSING  SCENES 


Chapter  I 
THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION 

I  know  how  easy  it  is  to  dwell  on  the  faults  of  departed  greatness. 
By  a  Revolution  the  fawning  sycophant  of  yesterday  is  the  austere 
critic  of  the  present  hour.  Steady  and  independent  minds  judge  of 
human  institutions  as  they  do  of  human  characters.  They  sort  out  the 
good  from  the  evil.  BURKK. 

The  scene  of  the  trial  was  Westminister  Hall.  For  days  the 
carpenters  had  been  at  work  erecting  platforms,  tiers,  and  boxes, 
for  legislators,  judges,  and  the  audience.  The  throne  was  there 
for  the  King,  but  he  did  not  appear  in  state.  On  advice,  he  sat 
apart  in  one  of  the  boxes,  so  that  he  mi^ht  hear,  and  yet  be,  as  it 
were,  incognito.1  The  lattice-work,  drawn  across  the  front  to 
make  this  fiction  more  real,  he  pulled  down  with  his>  own  hands 
that  he  might  have  a  clearer  view.  With  him  were  the  Queen  and 
the  Prince  of  the  Palatinate.  In  the  twin  box  that  lay  behind 
the  throne  sat  a  group  of  French  nobles.  The  French  authorities 
watched  this  trial  with  interest.  The  leader  of  the  Spanish  Party 
wag  in  peril.  The  English  Richelieu  was  being  bearded.  The 
great  Cardinal  bore  him  no  malice.  "The  English  are  so  foolish", 
he  said,  "that  they  will  not  let  the  wisest  head  stand  on  its  own 
shoulders."  2  In  front  of  the  throne  sat  the  Lord  High  Stewart, 
Arundel.  Beneath  him  were  the  judges  in  their  ermine,  and  the 
clerks  in  their  black  gowns.  On  the  forms  around  were  the  Peers, 
the  final  arbiters,  with  their  white  ermine  robes  and  coronets, 
amongst  whom  was  Hamilton,  in  right  of  his-  English  earldom. 
Hamilton,  who,  more  than  anyone  else,  had  been  responsible  for 
all  this  debacle — for  the  worst  monopolies  and  the  beginning  of 
the  Scotch  business, — surveyed  the  scene  serenely.  He  had  hedged 

1)  R.  P.  Vm— 41.        2)  S.  T.  IV-275. 


986  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

in  some  mysterious  fashion.  The  "precise  party"  were  righteously 
indignant  some  months  later  when  Hyde  suggested  that  he  be 
denounced  as  "an  evil  counsellor"1  No  Bishops  were  present  or 
voted,  it  being  "a  cause  of  blood",  an  act  of  abnegation,  all  the 
more  necessary  in  these  stirring  times,  when,  to  be  a  Bishop,  was, 
in  the  eyes  of  many,  to  be  a  potential  felon,  with  broad  lands, 
capable  of  escheat. 2  Nor  did  it  save  them.  Three  weeks  later  the 
Commons  fined  them  £  85.000. 3 

Running  up  from  the  floor  to  each  side  wall  were  tiers, 
occupied  by  the  Commons  who  sat  there  in  Committee  as  prose- 
cutors. Behind  them  were  little  nooks  and  boxes  rented  for  large 
sums  by  curious  ladies  of  fashion,  anxious  to  see  the  spectacle,  and, 
no  doubt,  to  be  seen. 

In  the  centre  at  a  little  table  sat  the  prosecuting  Committee, 
led  by  the  cold  and  stately  Pym,  logic  chopping  interminably, 
in  orations  which  leave  the  heart  cold  and  starve  the  intellect  with 
a  very  meagre  dish  of  facts.  One  has  a  very  hazy  suspicion  that 
poor  Pym  was  a  theme  rather  of  mirth  than  veneration  among1  the 
revolutionaries.  His  orations  smelt  of  the  midnight  oil.  Even 
Scotch  Baillie  felt  a  thrill  of  satisfaction  once,  when  the  orator 
suddenly  fumbled,  hemmed  and  hawed  through  a  dead  silence, 
and  at  last  was  obliged  to  produce  a  well-worn  manuscript  to 
continue  an  oration  which,  up  to  this,  he  had  pretended  was  ex- 
tempore. The  pious  Baillie,  after  a  sardonic  contrast  with 
KJtrafford's  natural  rhetoric,  attributed  this  debacle  to  divine 
intervention  "to  teach  the  man  humility."4  Nevertheless,  Pym 
served  the  great  purpose  of  exhaling  a  sober  atmosphere  of  sombre 
respectability,  without  which  no  Englishman  feels  quite  at  ease  in 
matters  political.  The  real  driving  force,  however,  was  his  rasping 
lieutenant  St.  John, — "a  naturalson  of  the  House  of  Boling- 
broke" — determined  to  avenge  a  bygone  feud  with  the  Court. 
He  was  a  silent  man  in  private,  who  held  himself  aloof  from  the 
Revolutionaries,  but  was  the  life  and  soul  of  the  Prosecution,  and 
the  inspirer  of  their  political  tactics.  His  final  oration  contained 
only  one  plea,  but  it  sufficed.  It  was  one  of  Strafford's  inver- 
ted,—salus  populi  suprema  lex, — their  own  destruction  or  Straf- 
f ord's  head.  "Unto  wolves  and  beasts  of  prey",  was  one  of  his  argu- 

1)  C.  H.  1—87,  88.  2)  R.  P.  VHI-41.  3)  R.  P.  IV— 235.  4)  B.  D.  1-348 ; 
Brief  and  Perfect  Relation  p.  39. 


[E  PROSECUTION  987 

ments,  "no  law  is  given."1  His  oration  on  the  Bill  of  Attainder 
we  are  assured  "gave  universal  satisfaction,"  Clarendon  quotes 
with  wonder  his  daring  remark  to  the  House  of  Lords,  "Vote,  not 
according  to  the  evidence,  but  according  to  your  consciences". 

In  a  prominent  place,  within  reach  of  these,  sat  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  Irish  Parliament,  a  very  curious  coterie  of  persons. 
Some  of  them  were  slightly  out  of  their  element,  and  must  have 
squirmed  at  the  references  to  "favours  shown  towards  Irish 
Papists,"  but  they  bore  it  manfully  for  the  good  of  the  cause. 
The  Scotch  too,  had  their  vigilant  guardians,  somewhat  impatient 
of  these  delays.2  Their  instructions  were  that  the  Scotch  Army 
would  not  leave  England  till  Strafford's  head  fell.  There  were 
about  a  dozen  Scotch  Lords,  who  knew,  that,  as  long  as  he  lived, 
the  block  was  their  possible  destiny.  He  had  however,  to  be  tried 
by  English  methods,  and  the  Englishman  likes  to  do  everything 
by  form  and  precedent,  as  it  were  to  slow  music.  "Most  are  of 
opinion",  wrote  one  at  this  moment  "that  when  he  hath  shown 
all  his  skill,  his  head  must  be  a  satisfactory  sacrifice."  3  The  Scotch 
accordingly  had  to  wait  till  the  skill  was  shown.  One  has  only  to 
read  Baillie's  despatches  to  realize  the  Scotch  indignation  at  every 
delay.  Anyone,  who  suggested  s^ich  a  thing  as  time  for  Strafford 
to  reply  to  the  Articles,  is  instantly  branded  as  an  enemy  of  the 
cause.  "We  have  sent  in  the  Articles,"  was  one  gem,  "We  will 
give  him  two'  or  three  days  to  reply,  and  tnen  execute."4 

At  a  little  table  at  the  lower  end1  Strafford  used  daily  to  take 
his  place.  He  had  four  secretaries  and  five  lawyers.  The  latter, 
however,  were  not  allowed  to  speak,  save  on  matters  of  law.5  In 
Lord  Bristol's  case  the  accused  was  allowed  full  use  of  Counsel, 
but  Strafford  was  unable  to  procure  the  ruling  made  on  that 
occasion.6  Stroud  went  so  far  as  to  propose  the  impeachment 
of  any  lawyer  or  witness,  who  might  appear  for  the  defence,  but 
this  was  considered  an  indelicate  motion,  and  was  duly  rejected. T 
One  of  the  Lawyers  who  did  plead,  afterwards  said,  that  nearly 
all  the  legal  precedents  that  Strafford  quoted  were  of  his  own 
discovery.  , 

Apart  from  these,  wherever  there  was  room  surged  the  mul- 
titude. "It  was  a  glorious  assembly,"  said  Baillie  "but  the 

1)L.S.1I— 431.  2)  R..P.VIII— 18.  3)  H.  V.  C.  II— 261.  4)  B.D.I— 239 
-243.  5)  R.  P.  Y1II— 21.  6)  L.  S.  II  -  431.  7)  B.  D.  1-252. 


988  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

gravity  not  such  as  I  expected."  There  were  frequent  clamours 
at  the  doors.  Once  Strafford  had  to  appeal  to  the  crowd  to  stand 
back.  1  In  the  intervals,  between  the  close  of  the  prosecution  and 
the  beginning  of  the  defence,  there  was  much  walking  about  and 
animated  conversation.  Towards  midday  wise  ones  produced 
their  edibles  and  refreshed  their  wearied  frames.  Bottles  of  beer 
and  wine  were  passed  from  man  to  man  "without  cups."  N!o  one 
was  allowed  out,  nor  was  there  any  place  of  retirement,  and, 
accordingly,  to  Bail-lie's  horror,  many  were  reduced  to  uncivil 
extremities,  coram  publico  et  rege.2 

Strafford's  difficulties  were  very  great.  The  Articles  of 
impeachment  had  been  published  broad;  cast,  and  public  opinion 
held  him  to  be  the  great  delinquent.  Many  -of  these  Articles  were 
mere  window-dressing.  "A  great  many  thousa-nd'  eyes",  he  said, 
"have  seen  my  accusations  whose  ears  shall  never  hear  that,  when 
it  came  to  the  upshot,  I  was  never  accused  of  the  same."3  Kush- 
worth,  however,  asserts — and  he  was  an  impartial  reporter — that, 
till  the  end,  the  London  crowd  were  "neither  great  nor  trouble- 
some^ and  all  saluted  him,  and  he  them  with  great  humility  and 
courtesy.  More  is  thrust  upon  the  vulgar  than  they  deserve."4 
Baillie,  however,  contradicts  this  frequently,  and  relates,  how,  at 
the  close  of  one  day's  abortive  proceedings,  he  "slipped  away  with 
his  keeper  lest  he  might  be  torn  away  in  pieces."  The  general 
correspondence  of  the  period,  however,  notes  no  popular  display 
till  the!  end  of  the  trial.  Baillie  somehow  gives  one  the  impression 
that  he  regarded  all  the  world  as  agog1  for  "the  kirk",  and  assumed 
that  everyone  was  as  zealous  and  as  angry  as  himself. 

The  second  difficulty  under  which  he  laboured,  was  the 
impeachment  and  restraint  of  Eadcliffe,  Bramhall,  Bolton,  and 
Lowther.  At  one  blow  he  was  deprived  of  his  most  valuable 
witnesses.  In  addition  to  this  very  short  notice  was  given  to  him 
of  the  details  of  the  charge.  For  three  months  the  State  dossiers 
and  his  private  correspondence  were  ransacked  for  charges.  The 
Articles  were  only  delivered  on  January  30th.  His  answer  had  to 
be  returned  in  three  weeks,  and,  if  the  winds  were  contrary,  a 
letter  sometimes  took  that  time  to  reach  Dublin.  The  shortest 
period  for  delivery  was  eight  days.  The  trial  began  on  March 

1)  E.  P.  Yin— 156.  2)  B.  D.  1—257 ;  May.  History  of  Long  Parliament,  p.  91 . 
3)  Dom.  1640—542.  4)  R.  P.  VIII-42. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  989 

22nd.  On  the  25th  of  February  the  Irish  House  of  Commons 
issued  an  order  to  seize  all  letters  and  documents  addressed  to  him 
011  any  vessels  leaving  Dublin.1  He  only  received  the  warrants 
for  his  witnesses  four  days  before  the  trial.  Fortunately  Usher, 
Dillon,  Adam  Loftus,  Coote,  King,  his  secretaries,  and  a  minor 
official  of  the  name  of  O'Reilly  were  in  London,  and  with  these 
he  had  to  do  what  he  could. 2  Nevertheless  the  absence  of  wit- 
nesses and  documents  proved  a  very  serious  matter  on  several 
occasions. 3  As  it  was,  one  of  the  deadliest  charges — levying  war 
011  the  subject — was  sprung  on  him  at  half  an  hour's  notice.  The 
Article  had  ended  with  the  words  "divers  other  cases",  and,  under 
cover  of  this,  a>  witness  was1  produced  to  swear  that  soldiers,  having 
been  cessed  upon  him,  plundered  his  goods,  contrary  to  all  law. 
Strafford  had  no  rebutting  evidence  to  this  charge,  and  had  to 
answer  it  by  disproving  their  plea  of  agency,  and'  by  relying  on  the 
Statute  that  demanded  two  witnesses  for  treason.4  Lastly  his 
frame  was  broken  with  constant  gout,  stone  and  dysentry.  Once 
during  the  trial  it  seemed  as  if  he  would  be  unable  to  appear. 5 

Despite  these  advantages,  however,  the  prosecution  col- 
lapsed. Article  after  Article  was  produced  and  proved  but  vain 
and  unprofitable.  Baillie  quotes  him  as  describing  it  as  "flim 
flams,  table-talk,  and  fearie  faeries."6  On  the  first  view  of 
the  Articles  he  wrote,  "I  see  no  capital  matter,  nor  any  mis- 
demeanour, which  I  am  not,  I  trust,  able  to  clear,  if  I  might  have 
as  much  time  to  answer,  as  they  to  gather  the  accusation."7  When 
the  19th  article  closed  he  was  confident.  "We  gain  much  rather 
than  lose.  I  trust  God  will  preserve  us,  and  as,  of  all  other 
passions,  I  am  free  of  fear,  the  Articles  that  are  coming  I  appre- 
hend not.  The  Irish  business  is  past,  and  better  than  I  expected, 
their  proofs  being  very  scant.  God's  hand  is  with  us."  8 

The  impeachment  was  a  series  of  disasters  for  the  prosecution. 
The  fact  was  that  Strafford  was  a  match  for  the  Parliamentary 
lawyers.  He  adopted  an  attitude  almost  of  humility  where  they 
scolded  and  stormed.  One  of  their  supporters  said  that  they  only 
"begot  pity  for  him  among  the  onlookers."  Master  as  he  was  of 
the  art  of  pathetic  speaking,  this  line  of  tactics  gradually  lulled 

1)  E.  P.  VIH-178.  2)  L.  S.  H— 434.  3)  E.  P.  VIII— 212,  219, 239, 412, 446. 
4)  E.  P.  Vm-426-460;  L.  S.  11-432.  5)  E.  P.  YHI-45.  6)  B.  D.  1-285. 
7)  L.  S.  1-415.  8)  E.  C.  p.  222. 


990  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

the  passions,  which  fierce  revolutionary  propaganda  had  arousal. 
What  added  to  this  was  that  he  never  turned  and  rent  those  who 
testified  against  him,  "especially  in  business  where  he  can  make 
good  clear  work  for  himself.  There  never  was  any  man  of  so 
umnoveable  a  temper."1  An  undoubted  revulsion  of  feeling  also 
set  in  on  the  collapse  of  the  religious  charges,  after  all  the  pre- 
vious assertations  that  he  was  a  Papal  emissary  in  disguise.  2 
Another  point  in  his  favour  was  that  nearly  everyone  was  getting 
sick,  tired,  and  disgusted  at  this  personal  vendetta,  monopolizing 
all  the  energies  of  the  State,  at  a  moment  when  a  Scotch  Army 
was  encamped  on  English  .soil,  and  supported  by  English  cash.3 

That  Strafford  had  t^ie  gift  of  eloquence  was  plain  even  before 
this.  At  his  trial,  however,  his  brilliancy  scintillated.  Some  of 
the  purpurei  panni  are  masterpieces  of  English  prose.  He 
handled  Acts  of  Parliament  and  legal  precedents  as  if  he  had  spent 
all  his  life  at  pleading.  Slowly  but  surely  he  gained  ground.  On 
all  sides  his  eloquence  was  gaining  applause.  Whitelocke,  the 
Chairman  of  the  prosecuting  Committee  said,  "Certainly  never 
any  man  acted  such  a  part  with  more  wisdom,  constancy,  and  elo- 
quence, with  greater  judgement,  reason,  and  temper,  with  a 
better  grace  in  all  his  words  and  gestures,  and  he  moved  the  hearts 
of  all  his  auditors — some  few  excepted — to  remorse  and  pity.""1 
May  said  that  towards  the  end  "people  began  to  be  divided  in 
opinions.  Of  the  misdemeanours  laid  upon  him,  some  he  denied. 
Others  he  excused  with  great  subtlety."  The  feminine  portion 
of  the  audience  was  openly  in  his  favour. 5  Even  Baillie  said,  "He 
made  such  a  pathetical  oration  as  ever  comedian  did  on  a  stage. 
If  he  had  grace  and  goodness,  he  is  a  most  eloquent  man."6 

The  23rd  article  was  approaching.  It  accused  him  of  pro- 
curing the  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament.  In  his  written 
reply  he  had  revealed  the  singularly  startling  fact  that  he  had 
tried  to  maintain  that  Parliament,  and  it  was  Vane's  conduct  that 
had  led  to  its  premature  dissolution. 7  During  the  trial  there  were 
hopes  that  Strafford  would,  to  save  his  life,  reveal  certain  mal- 
practices of  other  officials.8  The  hopes  were  falsified,  but  in  the 
case  of  Vane,  he  lifted  a  part  of  the  curtain,  and  what  he  revealed 

1)  H.  V.  C.  H— 261.  2)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  11-280.  3)  May.  History  of  Long 
Parliament,  p.  86.  4)  W.  M.— 43.  5)  May.  History  of  Long  Parliament,  p.  92. 
6)  B.  D.  T— 291.  7)  R.  P.  VIII— 29.  8)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  II— 274. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  991 

was  not  lost  upon  the  Parliamentarians. 1  "Now  he  impeaches 
Great  Ones  of  treason",  wrote  one  gleefully.  "Shortly  no  doubt, 
we  shall  have  great  news."2  This  exposure  of  Vane,  Straff ord 
was  able  to  make,  because  the  King  had  given  way  to  the  request 
of  the  Parliamentary  Counsel,  that  Counsellors  could  reveal  what 
had  occurred  "at  the  table".  3 

Vane  was  in  a  very  delicate  position.  Firstly  he  was  an 
official  of  State.  No  small  part  of  the  secret  support  accorded 
to  "the  precise  party",  came  not  only  from  Peers1,  who  had  no 
sympathy  with  their  views,  but  from  Court  personages,  who 
regarded  the  Parliament  with  contempt.  The  Fons  et  Origo  of 
this  under-current  came  from  a  desire  to  create  vacancies  in  the 
administration,  to  supplant  existing  officials.  At  one  moment, 
some  of  the  most  influential  members  of  the  Opposition  opened 
up  negotiations  with  the  King  via  the  Queen,  not  only  to  drop 
the  prosecution  of  Strafford,  but  to  leave  him  in  full  possession 
of  his  office,  if  a  series  of  high  posts  were  accorded  to  Saye,  Hollis, 
Pym,  Hampden,  St.  John  and  some  nameless  person  who  was  to 
be  Treasurer.  Juxon  and  Cottington  resigned  to  facilitate  this, 
but,  according  to  Whitelocke,  Charles  drew  back,  whereupon  "the 
great  men  became  the  more  incensed  against  Strafford".4  This 
occurred  at  a  very  early  stage.  The  feud  with  Cottington  was 
undoubtedly  due  to  Saye's  determination  to  be  Master  of  the 
Wards. 5  Northumberland  was  by  no  means  averse  to  a  threatened 
indictment  of  Hamilton.6  Windebanke  and  Finch  had  been 
driven  out  of  the  country.  The  "precise  party"  had  carried  a  series 
of  resolutions  by  which  they  had  the  whip  hand  of  every  official, 
who  had  sat  in  the  Star  Chamber,  issued  a  Ship  money  writ,  or 
written  a  letter  for  compo,sition  with  a  recusant. 7  How  long 
would  Vane  last  in  this  embroglio  of  "private  practice  for  private 
men  to  work  out  their  own  ends  and  preferments"?8 

Vane  was  also  worse  than  an  official.  He  was  a  monopolist, 
and  the  House  was  expelling  all  monopolists  who  did  not  belong 
to  "the  precise  party".9  About  a  fortnight  after  Straff ord's  trial 
they  picked  out  14  such  as  "delinquents",  men  to  be  prosecuted.10 
About  the  same  time,  a  secular,  anxious  to  score  off  the  Orders, 

1)  B.  D.  1—260.  2)  Kenyon.  M.  S.  S.— 61.  3)  P.  L.— 23.  4)  W.  M.— 41. 
5)  C.  H.  1—92.  6)  C.  L.  M.  1—664.  7)  C.  H.  1—71.  8)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11-280. 
9)  Dom.  1640.  p.  263.  10)  May.  History  of  Long  Parliament,  p.  85 ;  Yerney.  Notes 
on  the  Long  Parliament,  p.  79. 


992  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

appeared  before  the  House  and  announced  that  the  monopolies 
were  the  work  of  the  Jesuits.1 

Vane's  monopoly  was  powder,  and  it  was  one  of  the  worst.  2 
Strafford  hadi  raged  furiously  against  it.  He  was  obliged  once  to 
return  69  barrels,  partly  because  the  powder  was  unserviceable, 
partly  because  the  barrels  were  only  half  full.8  Strafford  had 
tried  to  set  on  foot  a  scheme  for  making  powder  in  Ireland,  but 
had  received  a  peremptory  order  to  cease,  which  he  obeyed  with 
great  reluctance,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  have  another  simultas  at 
the  moment.4  This  monopoly,  however,  had  caused  bitter  heart- 
burnings in  Yorkshire.  Loyal  squires  and  farmers',  who  trained 
with  the  militias,  had  to  purchase  powder  at  Vane's  price,  and 
were  once  on  the  verge  of  mutiny.  '  They  saw  no  reason  why  their 
voluntary  services  should  be  exploited  by  one  of  the  Ministers. 
Strafford  roundly  rebuked  them  for  raising  these  points  at  such 
a  moment,  but  urgently  advised  the  Council  to  let  them  have  the 
powder  at  a  fair  price.  "I  wish  with  all  my  heart",  he  said,  "so 
contemptible  a  sum  had  neither  been  denied  the  Country,  nor  stood 
upon  by  them".  His  advice,  however,  fell  on  deaf  ears.5 

This  monopoly  was  a  serious  charge,  if  the  Parliamentarians 
chose  to  press  it.  There  was  another  looming  in  the  distance. 
Vane  had  issued  the  warrants  to  search  the  houses  of  "the  precise 
party"  on  the  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament. ti  The  official 
who  executed  it  was  now  in  gaol.  True  it  was  that  Vane  had 
great  protectors.  Northumberland  and  Hamilton  were  both  his 
patrons. 7  His  son  was  high  in  the  favour  of  the  most  advanced 
of  "the  precise  party".  Would,  however,  all  this  avail  him  in  a 
situation  like  this,  when  every  official  was  like  a  "suspect"  in  the 
French  Revolution,  when  even  Hamilton  had  much  ado  to  save 
his  own  skin?  On  December  3  Vane  thought  himself  'Secure.  By 
December  10 — a  few  days  after  Charles  allowed  the  Council  to 
be  examined — he  was  meditating  resignation. 8  Vane  indeed  was 
in  a  quandary.  On  one  side  was  certain  disaster.  On  the  other 
were  new  Powers  asking,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  if  Vane 
had  ever  heard  Strafford  threaten  to  commandeer  the  property  of 
the  subject,  and  to  use  Irish  troops  for  the  purpose. 

1)  Dom.  1641—564.  2)  L.  S.  11—47, 125, 145.  3)  L.  S.  1—306.  4)  L.  S. 
H— 87,  102, 289.  5)  L.  S.  H— 125,  282,  288,  307  6)  C.  H.  1-72 ;  W.  M.  p.  38. 
7)  Warwick.  Memoirs,  p.  141.  8)  C.  L.  M.  II— 664;  P.  L.  p.  23. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  993 

Where  did  they  get  the  story  of  the  Irish  troops?  It  was 
undoubtedly  current  gossip  in  Ireland.  An  Irish  letter  of  the 
previous  summer,  addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Cork,  asserts  that  the 
raising  of  Irish  troops  was  for  the  purpose  of  "reducing  the 
English  to  the  King's  will"-1  What  partially  added  to  the  circu- 
lation of  this  story  was  a  petition  of  certain  Peers  laid'  before  the 
King  at  York.2  They  asserted  that  "the  bringing  in  of  Irish  and 
foreign  troops  is  credibly  reported".3 

We  can  easily  trace  the  origin  of  this.  In  1639  Windebanke 
had  conceived  tiie  fantastic  policy  of  coping  with  the  Scotch  by 
borrowing  10.000  mercenaries  from  Spain,  mercenaries  of  whom 
many  were  Irish.  Charles  had  allowed  him  to  correspond  with  the 
resident  at  Brussels-  and  the  resident  at  Madrid  on  this  subject. 
Windebanke  then  tried  to  tack  on  to  this  policy  a  proposal  that 
Charles  should  recognize  the  Vatican  for  the  sake  of  procuring 
the  right  of  being  consulted  in  the  nomination  of  Irish  Eoman 
Catholic  Bishops,  and  s'hould,  by  proclamation,  declare  openly  that 
all  Boman  Catholics  were  entitled  to  freedom  of  worship.  Needless 
to  say  this  did  not  materialize.  The  whole  incident  was  the  work 
of  that  Ultramontane  nucleus  at  the  Court,  who  used  Windebanke 
as  their  tool.  All  of  them,  Windebanke,  Monsignor  Conn,  Wat 
Montague, — the  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Manchester, — and  Gage, 
the  Brussels  Resident,  were  notorious  for  their  indiscretions.  This 
very  soon  became  common  gossip,  and,  in  1640,  every  one  naturally 
assumed  that  the  incident  would  be  repeated,  especially,  as,  on  the 
eve  of  the  campaign,  Strafford  had  been  closeted  with  the  Spanish 
Ambassador,  seeking  to  establish  an  alliance  with  Spain  on  a  pe- 
cuniary basis.4 

At  the  time  Strafford  had  no  objection  to  any  rumour  as 
regards  the  despatch  of  his  Irish  troops  to  England.  Nay  he  de- 
liberately encouraged  it  "to  mask  other  designs".  5  What  no  doubt 
lent  it  credence  was  the  fact  that  there  were  already  Irish  troops 
in  England,  and  that  vociferous  Irish  gentlemen  were  asserting 
that  more  would  come.  Lord  Barrymore  had  1.000  foot  and 
Dungarvan  had  a  troop  operating  in  Yorkshire. 6  Men  like  the 
Earl  of  Kildare  were  loudly  proclaiming  their  intention  of  "raising 

1)  L.  P.  2.  s.  IY— 122.  2)  E.  P.  VIII— 555.  3)  H.  M.  C.  Ill— 3.  4)  C.  P. 
11-19— 32,  51,  Appendix  XXYI— XXXIV.  5)  R.  P.  VHI-29,  555.  6)  L.  P.  2.  s. 
IV— 14, 15. 

63 


994  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

thousands  of  Irish"  and  dealing  drastically  with  all  w<ho  said  "nay" 
to  the  King.1  Apart  from  these  two  origins  of  the  story  there 
wa<s  also  an  undoubted  leakage  of  information  from  the  Council, 
which  was,  no  doubt,  distorted  before  it  filtered  through  the  Court. 
One  can  assess  the  popular  excitement  on  the  subject,  when  we 
find,  in  Sept  1640,  it  distinctly  stated  that  the  troops  had  actually 
landed  in  Lancashire,  and  there  were  many  who  had  actually 
seen  them. 2  In  war  and  civil  commotion  such  persons  are  always 
found,  convincing  not  only  others,  but  themselves. 

The  Prosecution  were  undoubtedly  in  possession  of  this  story 
that  Strafford  intended  to  "fall  upon  the  English  Lords  who  are 
the  countryway",  with  Irish  troops,  and  they  had  some  basis  for 
this  story  in  December.3  That  they  had  no  evidence  of  any  value 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  after  the  Articles  were  drafted  and 
presented,  they  were  convinced  that  they  were  wrong  in  the  port 
of  disembarkation,  and  that  it  was  Wales  the  troops  were  to 
land.4  The  origin  of  that  tale  was  that  the  Privy  Council  had 
ordered  Bridgewater,  Pembroke,  and  Worcester  to  raise  men  in 
Wales,  and,  as  Worcester  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  they  deduced 
mysterious  plots.5  Before  that,  their  basis  were  a  vague  con- 
versation Radcliffe  had  with  Sir  Eobert  King,  in  the  hearing  of 
Ranelagh,  who  was  obviously  their  informant,  and  who — it  is 
quite  likely — started  them  off  after  this  hare. 6  For  this  reason 
their  very  first  action  was  to  arrest  Sir  Robert  King,  in  the  hope 
of  extracting  something  from  him.  "A  material  witness"  they 
called  him. 7  Other  information  we  may  assume  they  had,  but  not 
such  as  cooild  be  produced  in  public.  Some  of  their  informants 
were  remarkably  shy  of  .committing!  themselves  to  their  side.  They 
were  therefore  reduced  to  accusing  Strafford  first,  and  hunting  for 
charges  and  evidence  afterwards,  as  if — so  Sir  Philip  Warwick 
put  it — "trailing  for  a  hare".8 

Be  the  origin  what  it  may,  the  Commons  had  this  story,  and 
twice  tried  to  extract  corroboration  from  Vane.  The  first  time — 
at  the  beginning  of  December — he  knew  nothing.  "I  cannot 
charge  him  with  that",  were  his  words.  The  second  time  he  had 
something  to  tell  of  how  Strafford  had  advised  the  King  that  he 

1)  L.P.2.S.III-48.  2)  H.  V.  C.  H— 258.  3)  B.D.I-218.  4)  B  D.I- 246. 
5)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation,  p.  39 ;  B.  D.  1—246.  6)  B.  D.  1—226 ;  R.  P.  V  III 

—537,  538.        7)  R.  P.  VIII— 4.        8)  Warwick  Memoirs,  p.  155. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  995 

"wae  now  absolved  from  all  rules  of  Government".  That  disclosure 
had  first  come  from  Northumberland,  and  Vane  agreed  it  was 
true,  when  interrogated.  Being  "pressed  to  that  part  concerning 
the  Irish  Army"  he  said  again,  "I  can  say  nothing  to  that".  "Divers 
weeks"  then  elapsed.  Vane  was  tackled  again.  This  time  he  elec- 
trified the  Committee  by  declaring  that  Strafford  had  uttered  some 
words  in  the  Council  that  .suggested  the  sinister  design  to  crush 
England  with  Irish  troops.  The  rest  of  the  Council  had  been 
already  examined.  They  all  denied  that  there  ever  was  any  such 
intention. x  Recent  documents  have  fixed  the  date  of  Vane's  third 
examination.  It  was  about  five  or  six  days  before  March  13. 2 

This  date  had  a  deadly  and  sinister  significance.  On  March  4. 
the  Monopoly  of  Gunpowder  was  voted  illegal.3  The  patent  had 
been  passed  in  the  name  of  Cordwell,  a  manager  and  man  of  straw 
for  Vane  and  his  partner  Newport.4  Let  but  some  one  rise  now 
to  point  a  finger  at  Vane,  and  he  might  be  where  Strafford  was ! 

A  few  days  after  that  resolution,  Vane  tendered  his  reve- 
lation. It  put  the  prosecution  in  a  quandary.  The  Articles  were 
drafted  without  this  knowledge.  The  evidence  could  not  be  used 
with  ease.  Part  of  Vane's  evidence  and  accusation  was  in  one 
article,  part  in  another,  and  part  in  a  third.  The  Prosecution 
accordingly  had  to  beg  for  leave  to  take  five  articles'  in  global 
Vane  had  now  burnt  his  boats.  He  was  in  high  disfavour  with 
both  the  King  and  the  Queen.  Would  the  Parliament,  however, 
take  him  to  their  bosom  for  evidence  thus  uncorroborated? 

In  the  meantime  a  series  of  desperate  intrigues  convulsed  the 
Koyalist  Circles.  Anyone  with  even  a  superficial  knowledge  of 
politics  is  aware  that,  when  statesmen  are  falling,  and  great  offices 
of  State  are  vacant,  not  only  do  the  most  curious  influences  come 
into  play,  but  men  form  the  most  unnatural  cabals  to  lift  them- 
selves into  power.  The  placehunter  has  no  politics.  His  moral 
code  even  is  dubious,  because  he  frequently  assumes  that  he  is 
publicum  bonum,  and  his  promotion  means  the  welfare  of  the 
State.  The  movements  of  popular  parties,  as  well  as  the  intrigues 
of  Courts,  depend  often  on  the  allocation  of  high  offices.  The 
greatest  vested  interest  in  affairs  of  State  is  not  land,  clergy, 
capital,  or  popular  covetousness.  It  is  the  brotherhood  of  the 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 51,  52 ;  Lord  Digby's  Speech.  London.  1641.  2)  Cowper.  M. 
S.S.  11-274.  3)  E.  P.  IV— 203.  4)  C.  P.  11-112.  5)  R.  P.  VIII— 521. 

63* 


996  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Placemen.  A  Demagogue,  who  can  allure  them  to  his  standard, 
is  a  power  in  the  land.  A  Statesman,  who  either  rebuffs  their 
demands,  or  seeks  to  curtail  the  spoils  of  office,  inevitably  falls 
like  Lucifer,  amidst  the  plaudits  of  the  populace,  never  to  rise 
again,  as*  being  inimicus  homini. 

By  the  time  the  trial  had  begun,  four  great  offices  of  State 
were  vacant,  the  Keeper  of  the  Seal,  the  Lord  Treasurer,  the  Master 
of  the  Wards,  and  the  King's  second  Secretary.  The  post  of 
Solicitor  General  was  also  vacant,  and  fell  to  St.  John.  Pressure 
also  might  produce  other  vacancies.  A  desperate  effort,  for  in- 
stance, was  made  to  depose  Hamilton,  and  all  sorts  of  personage* 
opened  up  negotiations  with  the  Parliamentarians  for  that  pur- 
pose. Hamilton,  however,  was  too  astute.  In  every  faction  he  had 
his  ally,  and,  accordingly  survived.1  If  Straff ord  was  disgraced  the 
post  of  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland  would  be  open  for  competition. 
For  this  last  post  the  rivals  were  Danby,  Leicester,  Ormonde, 
Holland,  and,  if  the  post  was  devolved  on  Lords  Justices,  Parsons, 
Dillon,  Borlase,  Cork,  Wilmot,  Mountmorris,  and  iMr.  Speaker 
Eustace  were  all  in  the  field.  When  Charles,  at  a  later  stage, 
promised  never  to  employ  Strafford  again,  he  did  so  with  the 
astute  intention  of  easing  the  animosity  against  that  statesman. 

Northumberland  was  very  active  in  these  intrigues.  If  we 
except  Arundel  and  Pembroke,  he  was  the  only  one  of  the  great 
feudal  noblemen  who  had1  survived  the  Tudor  period  without  di- 
minution of  honour,  power,  or  territory.  He  was  in  England  what 
Argyle  and  Hamilton  were  in  Scotland,  what!  Clanricarde,  Antrim, 
Thomound,  and  Ormonde  were  in  Ireland.  He  was  "a  great  sub- 
ject", and  these  "Great  Ones"  did  not  owe  allegiance  to  the 
Sovereign.  For  generations  they  had  been  in  rebellion.  The  Tudors1 
and  Stuarts  owed  their  popularity  to  the  fact  that  they  stood 
between  them  and  the  subject.  If  one  of  them  served  the  King, 
it  was  a  matter  of  personal  taste,  almost  a  personal  alliance,  to 
be  broken  if  circumstances  altered.  In  Northumberland's  case — 
as  in  Hamilton's — matters  were  further  complicated  by  the  fact 
that  Northumberland'vs  mother  was  a  possible  claimant  to  the 
throne.  If  Hamilton  and  Argyle  in  Scotland,  and  Clanricarde  in 
Ireland,  were  using  the  King's  difficulties  to  recover  certain  of 

1)  B.D.  1-253. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  997 

their  lost  prerogatives,  was  Northumberland  in  England  to  remain 
quiescent  and  not  utilize  the  situation? 

Relations  had  been  friendly  between  him  and  Strafford, 
chiefly  through  the  mediation  of  Lady  Carlisle.1  Strafford  had  en- 
couraged him  to  take  service  under  the  King,  as  Commander  of 
the  Fleet,  but  Northumberland  had  soon  tired  of  the  task.  It  was 
not  in  his  nature  to  wrangle  with  Admiralty  officials,  or  to  suffer 
members  of  the  Council  gladly.  He  had  the  brains  to  detect  the 
dangers  that  beset  the  King,  but  neither  the  thick  skin  nor  the 
originality  to  devise  any  remedy,  save  "giving  the  Scots  what 
they  want  for  the  present",  oblivious  of  the  fact  that,  while  their 
Ministers  were  demanding  a  "Free  Kirk",  their  Lords  were  on 
the  warpath  for  feudal  rights  and  Church  Lands,  and  these  Charles 
would  never  grant.  This  is  what  Strafford  meant  when  he  said1, 
"Their  demands  are  not  matters  of  religion,  but  such  as  strike  at 
the  root  of  Government".2  Accordingly  Northumberland  trimmed. 
It  was  true  he  still  sat  on  the  Council,  sat  in  "the  Junto  for  Scotch 
affairs",  and  was  appointed  Commander  of  the  Forces.  Nevertheless, 
his  heart  was  not  in  the  matter.  The  financial  difficulties,  the 
confusions,  the  wrangles,  and  all  the  rough  and  tumble  of  high 
politics  chilled  his  energies,  and,  when  the  Scotch  invaded  Eng- 
land, he  resigned  his  command  to  Strafford  on  the  plea  of  illness.3 

After  Newburn  his  one  aim  and  object  seems  to  have  been 
to  bring  back  his  kinsman  Leicester  from  Paris,  and  to  procure  for 
him  some  high  post  at  Court. '  For  this  purpose  he  formed  an  open 
alliance  with  Vane.  He  approached  the  King  with  the  astounding 
proposal  that  the  King  should  make  Leicester  his  Private  Secre- 
tary. Neither  Northumberland  or  Vane  were  fools1  in  matters 
political,  and  both  knew,  or  should  have  known,  that  this  post 
was  reserved  only  for  commoners,  men  whom  the  King  could 
"unmake"  by  a  mere  breath.  A  year  before  Northumberland  had 
sounded  Strafford  on  the  proposal  to  put  Leicester  into  the  place 
of  Coke,  the  other  Secretary.  Straffordj  was  amicable  and  friendly, 
but  he  told  Northumberland  it  could  not  be  done.4  Charles  gave 
his  refusal  bluntly,  coldly,  and  rudely,  and  displayed  ever  after 
a  coldness  towards  Northumberland  that  was  unmistakeable. 


1)  L.  S.  H— 43,  54.  2)  E.  P.  VIII- 531.         3)  AVarwick  Memoirs,  p.  147. 

4)  C.L.M.II-620. 


998  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Northumberland's  cipher  despatches  at  this  period  are  worthy  of 

reproduction  as  revealing  a  glimpse  of  the  -seething  under-currents. 

"Nov.  13.    The  King  must  give  way  to  the  remove  of  divers 

persons* If  these  designs  of  reformation  succeed,  we  shall 

see  many  changes.  That  which  I  wish  for  you  is  the  office  of 
Treasurer,  Lord  Lieutenant,  Secretary,  or  Master  of  the  Wards. 
If  by  my  watchfulness  or  credit  anything  can.  be  done,  it  will  be 
done. 

Nov.  26.    All  these  (Ministers)  are  ruined.  .  .  You  are  in  no 

less  danger If,  in  all  these  changes,  some  good  advantage 

fall  ,not  to  you,  your  kick  is  desperately  ill.  . 

Dec.  3.  The  Parliament  is  unsatisfied  with  Bedford.  He  will 
not  be  Treasurer.  Vane  has  no  thought  of  going,  but,  if  you  desire 

to  be  Lord  Lieutenant,  I  believe  he  will  assist I  will  make 

preparations.  The  Parliament  knows  Hamilton's  conditions1  so 
well  that  I  hope  they  will  not  leave  him1  where  he  is,  though  "our 
court"  do  much  labour  and  desire  it. 

Dec.  10.  Vane  is  thinking  of  changing.  I  asked  the  King 
what  he  thought  of  making  you  Secretary.  He  said  yon  were  too 
great  for  that  place,  and  he  intended  not  to  have  any  of  that 
quality  near  him.  When  I  came  to  debate  the  point  with  him  he 
said  it  was  ihis  rule.  I  replied  perhaps  another  place  would,  be 
shortly  vacant,  which  he  might  grant.  He  made  a  cold  return.  He 
is  not  well  satisfied  with  me,  because  I  will  not  perjure  myself  for 
the  Earl  of  Strafford.  I  am  resolved  to  see  what  I  can  do  by  Par- 
liament, if  I  see  a  likeliness  of  sailing  the  other  way,  and,  by  one 
of  these,  you  will  be  either  Secretary  or  Lord  Lieutenant. 

Dec.  17.  The  King  is  unsatisfied  with  me.  The  motion  made 
by  me  for  you  was  less  grateful  to  the  King  because  it  was  made 

by  me.   No  displeasure  shall  hinder  me  from  using  all)  means 

Bedford  is  in  so  good  estimation  with  Parliament  that  he  will  be 
Treasurer.  Holland  will  not  go  to  Ireland..  He  had  vanity1  to  hope 
for  it,  but  no  one  held  him  fit.  No  creature  has  named  Danby. 

Dec.  31.  Vane  'has  promised  his  assistance,  and  I  cannot 
mistrust  that  he  will  readily  perform  it.  I  employed  some  to 
sound  Hamilton.  He  is  favourable,  but  the  King  hath  the  same 
coldness  towards  you.  ...  In  some  months,  however,  he  will 
have  to  make  changes,  and  I  am  persuaded1  I  will  be  able  to  get 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  999 

you  recommended  by  Parliament,  if  by  other  means  it  cannot  be 
obtained."1 

This  correspondence  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  the  undercurrents 
at  the  Court,  the  mutual  friendships  and  alliances,  and  how  men 
like  the  Lord  High  Admiral  were  coquetting  with  the  Revo- 
lutionaries in  the  hope  of  capturing  Stratford's  post — if  vacant. 
Leicester — it  might  be  added — was  a  patron  of  the  Puritans.  His 
theological  cast  of  mind  gravitated  in  that  direction. 2  Before  the 
crash,  however,  he  strenuously  denied  this  insinuation.3  The  rival 
and  ".secret  head  of  the  Puritans  at  Court"  was  the  Earl  of  Hol- 
land. "Our  good  friend"  he  was  called  by  Baillie.4  By  February 
Leicester  was  almost  in  despair.  His  Secretary  was  negotiating 
with  the  Parliament  via  Hyde.5  He  was  also  making  all  manner 
of  overtures,  political  and  Puritanical,  to  Mandeville,  even  going 
so  far  as  to  denounce  Bishops.6 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  Vane  and  Northumberland  were  in  De- 
cember on  excellent  terms,  that  Hamilton — whom  Northumber- 
land had  tried  to  depose,  as  being  "the  most  dangerous1  man  in 
England", — was  not  unfriendly  to  the  cabal,  and  that  its  object 
was  to  make  Leicester  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  by  any  means, 
honourable,  or  dishonourable,  even  to  the  tendering  of  evidence 
destructive  to  Stratford,  which  Northumberland  possessed.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  before  this,  Vane  had  the  confidence 
of  both  Hamilton  and  Northumberland,  who  found  him  useful 
in  much  of  their  business.  7  Another  great  advantage  Northumber- 
land possessed  at  this  moment  was  that  young  Sir  Harry  Vane 
owed  his  important  and  lucrative  post  in  the  Admirality  to  his 
good  offices. 8  The  trio  therefore  had,  right  in  the  headquarters  of 
the  Revolutionary  party,  a  capable,  industrious,  and  active  agent 
who  could  smoothe  over  acerbities,  give  them  warning  what  was 
coming,  and  advise  them  on  what  terms  "the  precise  party"  would 
be  content  to  leave  them  alone.  Futhermore,  in  trying  to  grapple 
with  Vane's  character  in  all  this  embroglio  we  must  not  forget 
something  else.  In  January  the  Queen,  and  probably  the  King, 
had  been  willing  to  make  a  clean  sweep  of  the  offices  of  State  to 
save  Stratford.  As  long  as  there  was  a  possibility  of  his  being  pre- 

1)  C.L.M.n-662— 667.  2)  L.  L.  VII— 568.  3)  0.  L.  M.  11-632,  636. 
4)  B.D.I— 248.  5)  C.C.P.I-218.  6)  H.  M.  C.  VIII— 57.  7)  Warwick  Memoirs. 
p.  141.  8)  C.H.I— 75.  - 


1000  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

served  there  was  a  possibility  of  Vane's  being  dismissed  to  please 
"Parliament  men".  If  Vane  had  information  in  his  possession,  why 
should)  he  keep  it  for  an  employer  who  could  do  this,  when  "the 
precise  party"  wo<uld  forbear  their  pursuit  if  it  were  tendered  to 
them?  Hamilton  had  made  terms.  Northumberland  had  made 
terms.  Why  should  Vane  not  go  and  do  likewise  by  revealing  a 
remark,  on  which  others  could  put  the  interpretation,  he  declining 
to  commit  himself? 

Before  February  1 — the  date  when  the  Articles  were  drafted 
— Pym — the  author  of  the  Articles1 — had  heard  something  about 
the  Irish  Army.  After  the  Articles  were  drafted,  and  before  the 
trial  began,  Vane  testified  that  these  words,  viz.  "reducing  this 
Kingdom  by  an  Irish  Army" — or  some  words  like  them — had  been 
uttered  by  Strafford  in  his  presence.  Pym,  after  this,  assured1  Lord 
Digby  that  "his  testimony  would  be  made  convincing  by  some 
notes,  which  I  ever  understood  to  be  of  some  other  counsellor". 
Pym  at  the  time  produced  no  notes.1 

Digby's  assertions  must  be  taken  cum  grano  salis.  He  was, 
at  the  moment,  defending  himself  before  a  hostile  House.  He  was 
explaining  why  he,  a  member  of  the  prosecuting  Committee,  was 
about  to  support  Strafford.  A  reason  had  to  be  given  to  conceal 
the  fact  that  it  was  due  to  his  father's!  change  of  policy,  his  father 
being  Lord'  Bristol.  If,  however,  he  had'  made  any  glaring  misstate- 
ment  of  fact,  Pym  would  have  very  soon  called  him  to  account, 
and  that  lapse  would  have  been  published  as  frequently  a®  were 
the  editions  of  his  speech. 

Every  effort  was  made  to  upset  Digby.  First  he  was1  called 
to  account  for  his  indiscreet  phrases.  Then  he  was  badgered 
for  four  hours  by  a  special  committee,  and  they  were  not — as  he 
subsequently  boasted — -"able  to  expose  me  upon  the  main  matter 
or  the  bye  unto  the  least  reprehension".2  The  Committee  issued 
a  report  declaring  his  speech  "scandalous  and  untrue",  and  ordered 
the  copies  he  had  circulated — in  defiance  of  privilege — to  be  burnt 
by  the  common  hangman.  They  took  very  good  care,  however,  not 
to  impeach  any  particular  statement.3  A  very  subtle  pamphlet  was 
issued  to  refute  his  general  argument,  but  over  this  passage  it 
glided  delicately  with  the  argument  that  the  corroboration,  sub- 

1)  B.  P.  vm— 51.  2)  E.  I.  A.  P.  XXT-8.  3)  Sir  John  Evelyn.  Beport 
from  Committee.  London  1641. 


THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION 


1001 


sequently  produced  in  the  shape  of  Vane's  notes,  was  quite  as 
valid  as  the  corroboration  of  that  "other  Counsellor"  who,  Digby 
was  informed,  would  be  forthcoming.1  Another  very  subtle  and 
deadly  attack  on  all  Lord  Digby's  career  skipped  with  care  over 
this  remark  in  his  speech,  as  something  out  of  which  no  effective 
capital  would  be  made.2  We  may  therefore,  safely  assume  that 
Digby,  at  any  rate, — an  important  member  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee — was  never  told  who  the  "other  Counsellor"  was.,  or 
if  he  was  told,  had  excellent  reasons  for  concealing  his  name. 

Who  was  this  "other  Counsellor",  whom  Digby  expected  to 
appear,  whom  Pym  led  Digby  to  expect  would  appear?  If  no  "other 
Counsellor"  was  expected,  why  did  no  other  member  of  the  prose- 
outing  Committee  rise  to  testify  that  Pym  had  never  so  misled 
him  as  he  had  misled  Digby?  Who  was  this  "other  Counsellor"  at 
whom  Pym  was  hinting?  Suspicion  points  very  strongly  to  North- 
umberland. .It  must  be  remembered  that,  within  a  week  of 
Strafford's  death,  Leicester  was  made  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland. 
The  date  of  the  warrant  is  May  17. 3  Had  Northumberland  "per- 
jured himself  for  the  Earl  of  Straff ord"?  Had  he  got  what  he 
wished  by  "the  other  way",  without  "sailing  in  the  direction  of 
the  Parliament"?  Had  the  Vanes  led  Pym  on  with  promises  of 
"another  counsellor",  who,  at  the  last  moment,  was  not  forth- 
coming? 

1)  Reply  to  Lord  Digby.  Londoiil641.  2)  Reply  to  Lord  Digby's  Apology.  By 
Deems.  London  1643.  3)  TV.  M.— 44. 


Chapter  II 
THE  YANES 

The  office  of  Ministers  is  of  the  highest  dignity.  It  is  now  full  of 
peril  and  incapable  of  glory.  Rivals,  however,  they  will  have  in  their 
nothingness,  whilst  shallow  ambition  exists  in  the  world,  or  the  desire 
of  a  miserable  salary  is  an  incentive  te  short-sighted  avarice.  The 
competitors  of  a  Minister  are  enabled  by  this  Constitution  to  attack  them 
in  their  vital  parts,  whilst  they  have  not  the  means  of  repelling  their 
charges,  in  any  other  than  the  degrading  character  of  culprits. 

BURKE. 


On  April  5  the  prosecution  moved  the  20th  article.  As  has 
been  stated,  they  moved  and  carried,  after  much  wrangling,  a 
motion  to  takei  five  articles  in  globo.  That  part  of  the  23rd  article 
which  dealt  with  dissolving  the  Short  Parliament  they  "reserved 
until  to-morrow".1  That  "to-morrow"  never  came.  Clarendon 
attributed  the  subsequent  "waiving"  of  the  charge  "to  some  extra- 
ordinary service  of  Sir  Henry  Vane's  which  was  not  then  ackn- 
owledged". 2 

The  20th  article  accused  Strafford  of  provoking  the  Scotch 
war.  The  21st  accused  him  of  advising  the  King  to  raise  money 
by  force,  if  Parliament  failed  him,  saying  that  he  would  serve  the 
King  "in  any  other  way".  The  22nd  accused  him  of  raising  an 
Irish  Army  to  invade  England,  and  of  saying  that  "the  King 
might  use  his  Prerogative  as  he  pleased"  and  that  he  "would  be 
acquitted  of  God  and  Man"  if  he  did  so;  the  23rd  first  accused 
him  of  dissolving  the  Short  Parliament,  and  then  saying,  "You 
have  tried  the  affections  of  your  people.  You  are  loosed  and  ab- 
solved from  all  rules  of  Government.  You  have  tried  all  ways 
and  are  refused.  I  have  an  army  in  Ireland  I  may  employ  to 


1)  R.  P.  Vin-562.  2)  C.  H.  1—105. 


THE  VANES  1003 

reduce  this  Kingdom".  The  24th  quoted  some  hard  words  Strafford 
had  uttered  at  the  expence  of  the  Short  Parliament,  and  his  advice 
to  raise  money  "by  other  ways".1 

These  Articles  are  a  marvel  of  bad  draftsmanship.  If  Pym 
was  aware  that  Straff ord,  in  a  speech  at  the  Junto,  had  recom- 
mended the  King  to  use  Irish  soldiers  to  commandeer  the  property 
of  the  subject,  it  is  hard  to  understand  why  the  Prosecution 
scattered  portions  of  this  sentiment  over  three  separate  Articles, 
and  why  they  tacked  the  most  important  sentences  on  to  a  totally 
distinct  charge,  viz.  the  unnecessary  dissolution  of  the  Short  Par- 
liament, and  then  repeated  this  last  charge  in  a  meaningless 
Article,  in  which;  it  is  hard  to  see  what  they  were  trying  to  prove. 
It  is  not  till  we  examine  the  evidence  that  the  mystery  is  revealed. 
A  series  of  separate  testimonies  were  made  by  separate  counsellors. 
They  were  attributed  to  different  dates,  or  not  the  same  date,  when 
different  policies  and  incidents  were  uppermost.  The  Prosecution 
had  only  a  faint  idea  as  to  where  they  all  led,  and  they  scattered 
them  over  a  series  of  Articles',  with  what  they  thought  appropriate 
preambles.  When  Vane's  evidence  arrived  in  March  they  began 
to  evolve  a  theory  connecting  them  all,  and  they  moved  to  take 
all  in  globo.  This  is  the  only  explanation  of  their  involved  drafts- 
manship, in  which  Pym  played  the  chief  part. 

Even  .still  they  were  somewhat  confused.  Whitelocke's  opening 
speech  just  mention's  the  use  of  the  Irish  Army  as  one  of  the 
details  of  the  charge.  In  the  closing  speech,  comment  on  this 
phrase  occupies  only  one  out  of  nine  pages.  Nor  were  any  oratorical 
fireworks  exploded  to  magnify  its  significance-  The  fact  was  that 
the  Prosecution  were  so  eager  to  prove  the  charge  of  seizing  the 
subjects'  goods,  and  so  convinced  that  they  kad  a  clear  case,  that, 
it  was  not  till  afterwards,  that  the  trivial  phrase  of  "reducing  this 
Kingdom  by  an  Irish  Army"  became  the  one  weapon  by  which 
they  cooild  snatch  victory  'out  of  defeat. 

One  thing  emerges  very  clearly.  The  members  of  the  Coun- 
cil, especially  those  of  the  Scotch  sub-committee — the  Junto — 
concealed  nothing,  made  no  evasions,  and  did  their  best  to  tell  the 
truth.  They  were  dealing  with  words  uttered  a  year  before,  and 
probably  on  different  occasions.  As  will  occur,  some  remembered 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 71— 73. 


1004  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

one  phrase,  and  other®  another.  Some  put  one  interpretation  on 
the  words.  Others  thought  their  gist  quite  different.  Juxon  bluntly 
contradicted  Jermyn.  The  former  said  the  words  were  Parliament 
has  "refused"  the  King.  The  latter  was  vaguely  reminiscent  of 
"deserted".  Cottington  thought  it  was  "denied".  Cottington  also 
denied  having  ever  heard  words  to  which  others  testified,  and 
which  Strafford  acknowledged,  simply  because  he  paid  more  heed 
to  the  context,  which  toned  them  down,  and1  therefore  remembered 
the  general  gist  of  the  discourse,  and  not  certain  particular  phrases. 
Juxon  on  these  words  cautiously  "reserved  himself",  and  neither 
Strafford  nor  the  Parliamentarians  could  extract  a  definite  answer. 

All  this  shows  the  danger  of  making  any  historical  deduction 
from  exact  words,  without  their  context,  or  at  least  the  corrobora- 
tion  of  two  or  three  witnesses.  It  reveals  something  more.  The 
witnesses  were  truthful  men.  The  most  suspicious  evidence  is  that 
of  half  a  dozen  men  who  agree  in  every  little  detail.  Errare  est 
humanum,  and  perfect  relation  of  facts  by  witnesses,  a  year  after- 
wards, points  to  collusion,  coaching,  and  prejudice.  The  alibi 
witnesses  in  a  low  class  murder  trial  are  always  marvels  of  con- 
sistency. When,  however,  one  witness,  after  hearing  the  other, 
bluntly  contradicts  him,  and  volunteers  evidence,  not  exactly 
beneficial  to  the  party  for  whom  he  is  appearing,  the  value  of  such 
witnesses  is  enormously  enhanced.  When  such  witnesses  un- 
animously, and,  with  one  accord,  swear  that  never,  at  any  time, 
did  they  hear  a  certain  phrase,  or  anything  like  it,  we  can  safely 
deduce  that  nothing  like  that  phrase  was  uttered  in  their  presence. 

The  witnesses  produced  gave  the  most  varied  accounts  as  to 
when  all  these  many  phrases  were  said,  and  whether  they  were 
uttered  at  the  Council  or  at  the  Junto.  Nor  was1  it  such!  a  difficult 
matter  to  fix  the  date  if  they  were  spoken — as  was  subsequently 
alleged — on  the  5th  of  May.  That  was  the  day  the  Short  Parlia- 
ment was  dissolved,  a  day  when  it  was  known  definitely  that  the 
King  was  without  money.  Two  went  so  far  as  to  say  "on  or  after" 
or  "after"  Parliament  was1  dissolved,  but  not  one  pinned  himself 
to  that  day,  not  even  Vane.  The  phrases  repeated  were  typically 
Straffordian,  some  uttered  long  before  the  Short  Parliament,  some 
just  before,  and  some  after,  some  at  the  Junto,  some  at  the  Coun- 
cil, and  some  in  private  conversation.  They  were  variations  on 
the  following  theme:  "As  the  Parliament  has  not  supplied  you, 


THE  VANES  1005 

you  may  take  other  courses".  "I  will  help  you  by  other  ways." 
"The  King  is  not  to  be  mastered  by  fro  ward  subjects."  "The  Par- 
liament denying,  the  King  is  absolved  from  all  rules  of  Govern- 
ment." "As  you  are  refused  you  are  acquitted  before  God  and  man 
if  you  help  yourself."  "Salus  populi  euprema  lex." 

It  is  very  clear  that  there  were  discussions  at  different  times 
as  to  the  practicality  of  using  the  Prerogative  to  commandeer 
supplies.  It  is  very  clear  also  that  Strafford  was  in  favour  of  such 
a  course,  and  uttered  certain  characteristic  phrases  in  its  recom- 
mendation. Usher,  Conway,  and  Bristol  heard  him  utter  some  of 
these  phrases  in  private.  Jermyn,  Goring,  Newburgh,  and  Holland 
heard  them,  or  some  of  them,  at  the  Council  Table.  The  others 
were  not  sure  when  they  heard  them,  whether  at  the  Council  or 
at  the  Junto,  or  at  which  of  their  many  meetings.  Northumber- 
land for  instance  put  "go  vigorously  on"  at  "after  the  last  Par- 
liament", but  did  not  give  the  place.  He  put  "absolved  from  rules 
of  Government"  at  the  Junto,  but  gave  no  date.  He  gave  neither 
time  nor  place  to  "candide  et  caste",  but  put  it  as  "often".  It  is 
•quite  possible  that  Strafford  collected  together  all  his  previous 
utterances,  and  hurled  them  forth,  in  one  burst,  at  that  one 
meeting  of  the  Junto.  It  is,  however,  not  probable. 

When  the  Prosecution  closed  their  case  they  iseem  to  have 
been  of  the  same  vague  opinion,  at  any  rate  as  regards  the  date. 
According  to  Whitelocke  the  Junto  met  often  in  or  about  the  time 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament.1  So  far  had  the  Pro- 
secution failed  to  fix  the  meeting  at  which  the  serious>  words  were 
uttered,  that  they  got  a  severe  shock  when  Strafford  said,  "It  falls 
out  in  time  to  be,  as  I  conceive,  about  the  5th  of  May  last,  not 
many  days  sooner  or  later".2  He  was  obviously  dating  the  words 
from  Vane's  remark  that  it  "was  clearly  after  the  dissolution  of 
the  last  Parliament,  when  it  was  in  debate  whether  an  offensive 
war".3  The  notes  on  the  trial  put  "probably  May  5"  after  Vane's 
evidence,  and  it  was  from  that  note  that  probably  Strafford  made 
this  speech.4  Strafford  made  this  remark  the  day  after  young  Vane 
had  been  allowed  to  produce  a  paper  fixing  the  date  at  May  5,  but 
that  paper  had  been  produced  in  a  secret  Session  of  the  Commons, 


1)  W.  M— 33.        2)  R.  P.  VIII-638.      3)  E.  P.  VIII— 544.       4)  Depositions 
and  Articles,  London.    Baker.  1715. 


1006  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

and  Strafford  was  supposed  not  to  have  seen  it.  Whitelocke  jumped 
to  the  conclusion  that  Lord  Digby  had  betrayed  this  secret  to 
Strafford.1  "How  does  my  Lord  remember  this  day  as  the  witness 
did  not  speak  of  it"?  replied  Glyn  the  Parliamentary  Lawyer.  "I 
wonder  how  he  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  day,  unless  he  like- 
wise remembers  the  words."2  It  is  clear  that,  up  to  that  time, 
the  prosecution  had  not  pinned  themselves  to  a  meeting  of  the 
Junto  on  the  afternoon  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament, 
on  which  day,  we  know  for  a  fact,  there  was  also  a  meeting  of 
the  Council.  They  had  obviously  been  picking  these  phrases  from 
a  series  of  meetings,  and,  even  if  they  assumed  they  had  been 
uttered  at  one  meeting,  they  had  been  careful  not  toj  say  which. 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Prosecution  produced  a  series  of 
witnesses,  who  testified  that  Strafford  had  advised  the  King  to 
use  his  Prerogative  to  supplement  the  Eoyal  Exchequer.  The 
evidence  was  scanty  till  Northumberland's  deposition  was  read, 
he  not  appearing  at  all  in  the  trial.  The  words  to  which  he  testi- 
fied by  affidavit  were  as  follows: —  "In  case  of  necessity  and 
for  the  defence  and  safety  of  the  Kingdom,  if  the  people*  do  refuse 
to  supply  the  King,  the  King  is  absolved  from  rules  of  Govern- 
ment. Everything  is  to  be  done  for  the  preservation  of  the;  King 
and  his  people.  His  Majesty  is  acquitted  before  God  and  Man." 
To  these  exact  words  he  testified,  the  scene  of  utterance  being 
the;  Junto. 

Vane  then  appeared.  He  first  made  a  speech  explaining  that 
he  was  about  to  tell  the  truth.  He  explained,  however,  that  much 
time  had  elapsed.  He  would  speak  "as  near  as-  I  can,  ever  reserv- 
ing to  myself  "or  words  to  this  effect"."  The  place  of  utterance 
was  the  Junto.  The  time — after  the  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parlia- 
ment,— when  they  were  deciding  for  an  offensive  war  or  no.  He 
corroborated  Northumberland.  He  then  gave  the  famous  tit-bit 
of  the  trial.  First  he  said  the  words  were,  "You  have  an  Army 
in  Ireland  you  may  employ  there."3  Kushworth  reports  him  as 
saying,  "You  have  an  Army  in  England",  but  this  is  obviously  a 
misprint. 4  Then  he  altered  it  to,  "You  have  an  Army  in  Ireland 
which  you  may  employ  here  to  reduce  this  Kingdom."  The  words, 


1)  W.  M.— 42.      2)  R.  P.  VIII-711.       3)  R,  P.  VIH-563 ;  R.  I.  A.  P.  XI— 8 
p.  6;  Lord  Digby's  Speech.     London.  1641.  p.  6.        4)  R.  P.  VIII— 545. 


THE  YANES  1007 

"this    Kingdom",    were    added    on    a    second    attempt    to    quote 
the  words. 

An  account  of  the  trial  which  purports  to  consist  of  Strafford's 
notes,  or  those  of  his  Secretary,  adds  the  words,  "which  I  think 
meant  Scotland".1  The  words  added,  however,  might  be  Straf- 
ford'si  comment,  and,  in  any  case,  this  authority  is  dubious,  though 
it  bears  every  stamp  of  being  written  by  an  onlooker,  and  not  by 
someone  at  a  later  date. 

Unfortunately  the  original  deposition  Vane  lodged  with  the 
Parliamentarians  is  lost,  but  a  few  weeks  later  there  was  a  copy 
extant  which  ran  as  follows: —  "His  Majesty  might  by  the  Irish 
Army  reduce  the  Kingdom  there",  which  may  apply  to  a  disturb- 
ance in  Ulster  or  to  Scotland.  This,  however,  was  stated  to  have 
been  tampered  witli  by  the  addition  of  a  T  to  "here".2 

Rushworth's  account  of  Whitelo>cke's  opening  speech  shows 
that  that  lawyer  was  relying  hitherto  completely  on  a  casual  re- 
mark of  Radcliffe's. 3  Another  report  of  Whitelocke  shows  that 
he  guaranteed  to  prove  these  words,  "If  his  Majesty  is  pleased 
to  employ  forces,  he  had  some  in  Ireland  that  might  serve  to 
reduce  this  Kingdom",  which  might  mean  Scotland  or  England, 
according  to  what  was  the  context.4 

Saville  and  Bristol  immediately  intervened  to  request  an 
interpretation  of  the  words  "there"  and  "this  Kingdom". 

The  following  dialogue  then  occurred: — 

Lord  Saville  --  Did  he  say  "there"?  Did  he  say  "this  Kingdom", 
or  "that  Kingdom"?  When  he  said  "the  Army  might  be 
there  employed",  did  he  mean  in  England  or  in  Ireland? 
Vane  --  I  do  not  think  he  used  "then"  or  "there",  but  "you  have 
an  Army  in  Ireland  you  may  employ  to  reduce  this  King- 
dom." I  cannot  interpret  it. 

Southampton  --  Do  you  sw^ear  those  words  positively? 
Vane  -  -  Them  or  the  like. 
Arundel  -  -  Repeat  them  again. 

Vane  -     "You  have  an  Army  in  Ireland.     You  may  employ  it 
to  reduce  this  Kingdom, 


1)  Depositions  and  Articles  of  Strafford's  Trial,  London.  Baker.  1715.  p.. 69. 
2)  Dom.  1641—559.  3)  R.  P.  VIII— 522,  523.  4)  Brief  and  Perfect  Rela- 
tion p.  37. 


1008  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Lord  Clare  -  Was  it  Scotland  that  was  in  debate?  Were  the 
words  relative  to  it?  How  could  it  mean  England  when 
it  was  not  on  rebellious  courses? 

Vane  -  -  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  followed1  the  other 
words.  We  know  how  the  subjects  of  England  were 
affected  to  the  War.  The  breach  of  Parliament  also 
produced  an  ill  effect. * 

Whatever  Vane  meant  to  say  when  he  came  into  the  box,  he 
stepped  out  having  gone  further  than  he  intended.  The  follow- 
ing changes  had  occured: — 

(1)  He  first  refused  to  commit  himself  to  definite  words,  and 
ended  by  swearing  positively  to  exact  words  and  their  order. 

(2)  He  began    with    a    word    "there",    and    then    altered    the 
meaning  of  the  sentence  by  leaving  it  out. 

(3)  He  began  by  refusing  to  "interpret"  the  meaning  of  the 
cryptic  utterance,    and    ended    by    saying    it    referred    to 
England. 

It  is  very  clear  that  Vane — for  a  multitude  of  motives — had 
offered  to  supply  the  Parliament  with  a  phrase  which  might  have 
a  sinister  meaning.  Flustered  and  badgered  by  the  Peers,  and 
terrified  at  the  thought  that,  if  he  definitely  put  a  mild  con- 
struction on  the  words,  the  "precise  party"  would  exact  their  pound 
of  flesh,  he  twisted,  and  turned,  and  floundered,  and,  having  first 
altered  the  words,  he  then  swore  to  the  exactness  of  the  second 
edition,  and  finished  by  swearing  that  Straff ord  meant  "in  Eng- 
land", using  an  imagined  context  and  political  conditions  to  help 
him,  oblivious  of  the  fact  that,  a  second  before,  he  refused  to  put 
any  interpretation  on  the  words. 

"  .  .  .  .  Facilis  descensus  Averni. 
Sed  revocare  gradum  .... 
Hoc  opus,  hie  labor  est." 

The  Prosecution  then  closed  the  case  and  waited  events.  Their 
witness  had  not  been  very  successful  in  gaining  credence,  but  un- 
doubtedly his  insinuations  had  produced  an  effect. 

They  reckoned  however  without  Strafford.  They  forgot  that 
they  had  pinned  themselves  to  the  Committee  for  Scotch  affairs, 
which  was  composed  of  only  eight  men.  They  also  forgot  Nor- 
thumberland. 

1)  R.P.Vm— 544— 546;  Brief  and  Perfect  Eelation  pp.  38,  39). 


THE  VANES  •  1009 

When  Strafford  rose  he  had  one  great  advantage.  They  had 
not  proven  a  single  deed,  nothing  but  words.  "Shall  words 
spoken,  by  way  of  argument,  in  common  discourse  between  man 
and  man,  be  charged1  on  me  as  High  Treason?  Is  there  anything 
more  ordinary  than  for  men  in  discourse  to  seem  to  be  of  a 
contrary  opinion  to  what  they  are,  to  invite  another  to  give  his? 
By  this  means  we  shall  be  debarred  of  speaking.  If  converse  be 
strained  to  take  away  life,  it  will  be  a  silent  world,  and  every 
City  will  be  a  hermitage.  No  Statute  makes  words  treason.  If 
it  did,  actions  for  treason  would  be  as>  common  as  actions  for  tres- 
pass .  .  .  For  those  words  spoken  in  the  Council,  they  were 
spoken  under  oath  to  speak  according  to  my  conscience.  If  I  did 
not  speak  them  I  am  perjured  towards  God,  and  now  it  seems,  if 
I  do  speak  them,  I  am  a  traitor  to  man.  I  stand  not  in  fear  of 
him  that  can  kill  the  body.  I  stand  in  fear  of  him  that  can  cast 
body  and  soul  into  eternal  pain.  If  I  must  be  a  traitor  to  man 
or  perjured  to  God,  I  will  be  faithful  to  my  Creator  .  .  .  Opinions 
may  make  a  heretic.  I  never  heard  before  that  an  opinion  made 
a  traitor  ...  If  a  Counsellor,  delivering  his  opinion  at  the 
Council  Table,  be  brought  in  question  for  every  word,  to  the 
attainting  of  himself,  his  wife,  and  his  children,  I  know  no  wise 
and  noble  person  who  will  be  a  counsellor  to  the  King.  I  beseech 
your  Lordships  to  look  on  me  so  that  my  misfortune  may  not 
bring  inconvenience  upon  you."1 

The  charge  of  being  "an  incendiary"  of  the  war  with  Scot- 
land was  easily  brushed  aside.  He  was  only  one  out  of  all  the 
Council  which  had  voted  unanimously  for  a  breach.  The  re- 
commendation of  "an  offensive  war"  was  but  an  opinion  on  mili- 
tary tactics.  Vane,  for  instance,  had  voted  for  a  defensive  war. 
Was  that  treason  also?  The  serious  charge  was  his  advice  to  the 
King  "to  use  his  prerogative  as  he  pleased,  free  from  all  forms 
of  Government." 

At  this  stage  he  produced  another  deposition  of  Northum- 
berland's. It  had  been  taken  but  two  days  before.  In  this1  depo- 
sition Northumberland  added  the  context  to  the  words  to  which 
he  had  previously  sworn,  and  this  context  altered  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  words.  It  was  that  the  King  could  use  his  pre- 

1)  R.  P.  Vin-565,  566,  571,  572. 

64 


1010-  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

rogative  "in  danger  or  unavoidable  necessity",  that  this  power 
should  be  used  "caste  et  candide",  that,  after  the  danger  wa?  over, 
"account  should  be  given  to  a  Parliament  that  they  might  see  it 
was  only  employed  to  this  use",  and,  finally,  that!  a  Parliament  was 
vital  in  the  near  future  to  heal  the  differences  between  the  King 
and  the  people.1  Hamilton  testified  to  the  general  accuracy  of 
this  evidence,  and  recollected  distinctly  the  words  "caste  et  can- 
dide". Cottington,  Jermyn,  and  G-oring  also  remembered  these 
Latin  words.2  Cottington  also  corroborated  Northumberland  in 
swearing  that  Strafford  said,  "The  necessity  being  passed,  and  the 
work  done,  the  King  ought  to  repair  it  and  not  leave  any  prece- 
dent to  the  prejudice  of  his  people."  Juxon — whose  evidence 
is  of  great  value, — as  a  man  with  no  political  leanings  and  of 
singular  integrity — too  recollected  the  words  "caste  and  candide", 
as  uttered  more  than  once  in  this  context,  and  with  the  signifi- 
cance to  which  Northumberland  and  Hamilton  had  testified. 3 
None  of  the  witnesses  however  were  able  to  fix  dates.  All  placed 
the  utterances  as  "at  the  Council  Table",  and  several  added  "be- 
fore and  after  the  dissolution  of  Parliament." 

This  evidence  puts  quite  a  different  complexion  on  what  at 
first  seems  a  reaction  to  a  monocracy.  The  principle  Strafford 
enunciated  is  as  old  as  the  hills,  and  as  modern  as  the  latest 
doctrines  of  the  exponents  of  change.  In  these  islands  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  the  Continental  Declaration  of  a  State  of  War 
or  a  State  of  Siege,  those  legal  proclamations  which  destroy  the 
rights  of  the  subject  to  overcome  a  danger.  The  mere  existence 
of  a  state  of  war  enables  the  Prerogative  to  operate.  If  to- 
morrow a  foreign  Army  were  to  land  in  England,  the  military 
and  civil  authorities  would  be  entitled  to  seize  property,  imprison 
or  kill  whom  they  wish,  destroy,  commandeer,  and  generally  act 
as  an  autocracy.  This  power  depends  on  no  Statute  Law.  It  is 
inherent  in  the  Prerogative.  It  is  inherent  also  in  the  duties  of  a 
citizen,  and  Ministers,  officials  and  soldiers  never  divest  themselves 
of  those  duties.  One  of  the  duties  of  a  British  subject  is  to 
maintain  the  King's  peace,  and,  "in  case  of  necessity"  he  can 
break  any  law,  and  use  any  violence  to  achieve  this  end,  provided 
he  uses  no  more  force  than  necessary,  and  exercises  this  function 


1)  R.  P.  Vm— 566,  567.        2)  R.  P.  VIII— 564,  565.        3)  R.  P.  VIII— 569. 


THE  VANES  1011 

"candide  et  caste".  Otherwise  a  policeman  would  be  open  to 
action  for  assault,  if  lie  used  his  baton  in  a  riot.  The  Prerogative 
of  the  Crown  and  the  duty  of  the  citizen  extend  to  illimitable 
rights  "in  cases  of  necessity".  There  is  no  one  who  will  deny  that 
the  appearance  in  England  of  30.000  armed  Scotchmen  with 
artillery  is  a  "case  of  necessity". 

As  regards  the  Prerogative  of  the  Crown,  however,  to  seize 
goods  and  imprison  subjects,  there  is  no  judge  who  will  grant  an 
injunction  to  restrain  the  authorities,  if  once  a  State  of  War  is 
apparent.  When  the  cloud  passes  away,  the  rights  of  the  indivi- 
dual subject  then  become  operative.  During  the  N'apoleonic  Wars 
Pitt  utilised  this  power  to  the  hilt  to  deal  with  English  revolu- 
tionaries and  defeatists.  He  used  it  for  civil  commotion  where 
Strafford  confined  it  to  an  invasion  only.  Nor  was  Strafford 
wrong  in  urging  that,  at  the  close  of  the  operations,  an  account 
should  be  given  to  Parliament  to  avoid  prejudice,  to  show  that 
the  power  had  not  been  used  for  personal  vendettas.  The  modern 
practice  is  to  appear  before  Parliament  at  the  end,  and  to  procure 
an  Act  of  Indemnity  for  all  officials  so  engaged,  confining  that  act 
only  to  cases  of  military  necessity,  and  excluding  acts  of  unnecess- 
ary violence.  Pitt's  Bill  of  Indemnity  was  carefully  drafted'  so  as 
to  indemnify  only  those  acts,  which  had  been  committed  through 
"necessity",  and  "candide  et  caste".  Strafford  went  further  than 
Pitt-  He  proposed  compensation  for  those  who  had  suffered. 

The  parallel  between  the  two  Statesmen  is  all  the  more 
striking  when  we  remember  the  eras  in  which  they  lived.  Pitt 
used  this  latent  power  in  the  Prerogative  to  deal  with  a  nuisance, 
but  Strafford  with  a  peril.  Pitt  acted1  at  a  time  when  the  rights 
of  the  individual  were  sacrosanct,  and  those  of  the  Prerogative 
under  a  cloud.  Strafford  gave  his  advice  under  the  glamour  of 
the  Stuarts,  long  before  the  head  of  that  procession  of  emancipat- 
ing Statutes  had  but  reached  the  Statute  book,  when  the  doctrines 
of  Habeas  Corpus,  Independence  of  Judges,  and  Immunity  of 
Juries  were  but  doctrines,  and  no  more.  The  Stuart  statesman 
seems  to  have  been  the  less  revolutionary,  and  the  more  orthodox 
of  the  two. 

It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  it  was  Strafford  who 
originated,  maintained,  carried  and  perpetuated  the  doctrine  that 
"the  Ministers -of  the  King  should  act  only  according  to  the  law". 

64* 


1012  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

They  might  utilize  the  dispensing  power  within  reason,  to  avoid 
vexatious  prosecutions  of  others,  but  they  could  not  break  the 
criminal  law.  English  liberty,  in  its  purest  sense,  began  when 
Strafford  placed  that  maxim  on  the  Statute  book.1  In  this  case 
he  swept  his1  opponents  off  their  feet  with  the  defence  that  all  his 
actions  and  words  were  based  on  the  "law  of  England.  I  said 
nothing  which  was  not  lawful". 

If  Charles  had  taken  his  advice  and  done  what  his  son  did, 
seized'  the  deposits  in  the  banks,  it  would  have  paid  the  bankers. 
Apart  from  the  chaos  in  the  North  of  England,  the  taxpayer  was 
now  supporting  for  nine  months,  not  one  Army  but  two,  not 
20,000  men,  but  50.000.  With  a  Scotch  Army  encamped  in  Eng- 
land, and  an  Exchequer  without  the  wherewithal  to  maintain  the 
State,  what  could  one  expect  but  a  devastating  civil  war,  in  which 
the  Parliament  alone  spent  more  money  in  one  year,  than  all  the 
Plantagened  Kings  had  spent  in  three  centuries?  Judged  by  State 
policy,  subsequent  results,  and  the  most  rigid  view  of  English  law, 
Strafford  was  on  safe,  very  safe  ground. 

This  doctrine  was  his  defence.  His  whole  plea  was  that,  in 
these  circumstances,  this  use  of  the  Prerogative  was  "lawful", 
that  he  recommended  nothing  but  what  was  lawful,  and  that  he 
confined  the  use  of  the  weapon  to  "the  protection  and  not  the 
prejudice  of  the  subject.  In  absolute  necessity  and  upon  a  foreign 
invasion,  when  all  ordinary  means  fail,  there  is  a  trust  left  by 
Almighty  God  in  the  King  to  employ  the  best  and  uttermost  of 
his  means  to  preserve  himself  and  his  people.  There  are  divers 
restrictions  to  this.  It  must  be  done  on  no  other  pretext  but  the 
preservation  of  the  Commonwealth.  It  must  be  done  candide  et 
caste.  Otherwise  it  would  be  oppressive  and  injurious.  Then  in 
a  time,  fit  and  proper,  the  King  is  obliged'  to  vindicate  the  property 
and  liberty  of  the  subject  from  any  ill  prejudice  that  might  fall 
from  such  a  precedent".2 

The  charge  of  bringing  over  the  Irish  Army  for  this  purpose 
lurked  somewhere  behind  this,  but  did  not  emerge  to  any  impor- 
tance. The  prosecuting  Counsel  simply  played  with  it,  and 
confined  all  their  eloquence  to  attacking  Strafford's  view  of  the 

1)  Lord  Digby.  Speech  on  Triennial  Parliaments.  London.  1641-^-19. 
2)  R.  P.  Vm— 566. 


THE  VANES  1013 

Prerogative.  It  depended  only  on  Vane.  His  evidence  is  dubious. 
He  began  by  doubts  as  to  his  recollection,  and  ended  by  swearing 
that  he  remembered  every  word  accurately.  "When  my  words", 
said  Strafford,  "are  remembered  more  particularly  and  specially 
by  another  man  than  by  myself,  I  must  commend  that  memory 
that  gives  a  better  account  than  I,  who  spoke  them,  or  than  any 
other  man  who  was  there". l  This  was  the  real  difficulty  of  the 
situation.  When  Vane  pinned  himself  to  the  Committee  of  Eight 
for  Scotch  affairs,  the  least  that  could  be  done  was  the  production 
of  another  one  of  the  eight  ,to  corroborate.  All  were  examined 
except  Laud  and  Windebanke.  All  not  only  -swore  they  never 
heard  the  words  then,  but  never  heard  them  at  any  other  time. 
Windebanke  wrote  from  Paris  to  contradict  Vane,  and  what  was 
more  to  add  that  "the  employing  of  the  Irish  Army  did  ever  bend 
wholly  the  other  way".2  This  testimony  is  of  some  value  as  it 
is  given  in  a  private  letter.  Charles  also,  at  a  later  date,  made  a 
sweeping  denial  of  the  charge,  in  which  he  not  only  acquitted 
Strafford  of  saying  the  words  at  the  Council  Board  and  the 
Committee,  but  also  in  private,  and  added  that  there  never  was  a 
discussion  on  dealing  with  an  emeute  in  England;3 

Apart  from  this  we  have  an  overwhelming  weight  of  evidence 
against  Vane.  His  character,  his  prejudices,  and'  his  motives  are 
against  the  validity!  of  his  words.  The  lapse  of  time,  his  vagueness 
on  other  points,  his  preliminary  doubt  on  this,  and  then  his  sudden 
display  of  remarkable  accuracy  are  all  against  him. 

Four  considerations,  however,  are  worthy  of  note:  - 
(1)  The  first  is.  that  Strafford  was  given  a  patent  which 
undoubtedly  covers  this  possibility.  He  was  to  be  "Captain 
General  of  all  troops  in  Ireland,  and)  such  in  England  as  the  King 
by  sign  manual  may  grant  him  to  resist  all  invasions,  seditions, 
and  attempts  in  England,  Ireland,  or  Wales,  and  to  be  led  into 
Scotland  to  invade,  kill,  and  slay  .  .  .  Power  to  exercise,  dis- 
tribute, lead,  and  conduct  by  sea  or  land  into  any  of  His  Majesty's 
dominions  ...  To  use  the  law  martial  to  kill  or  save  at  his 
discretion,  enemies,  rebels,  or  traitors,  to  suppress  rebellions  or 
commotions  within  any  of  the  three  Kingdoms  or  Wales."4  This 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 565.  2)  Dom.  1641—548.  3)  R.  P.  VIII— 734,  4)  C.  P. 
B.  1-220,  221. 


1014  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

commission  was  given  him  by  Northumberland,  who  was  acting 
as  commander  in  chief.  At  first  sight  it  looks  like  a  warrant  to 
deal  with  civil  commotion  in  England.  On  the  other  hand  it 
absolutely  bears  out  Stratford's  evidence  that  his  intention  was 
to  invade  Scotland  with  his  Irish  Army,  supported  by  certain 
English  auxiliaries,  then  at  St.  Bees,  and  certain  Welsh  auxiliaries 
Worcester  was  to  levy.  All  of  these  were  set  aside  for  his  com- 
mand. To  enable  him  to  control  these  he  had  to  have  martial 
power  over  them,  their  camps,  and  their  routes.  The  different 
phrases  in  regard  to  suppressing  "commotions"  were  part  of  a 
martial  warrant.  They  were  those  of  "other  generals"*1  They 
were  lifted  bodily  from  a  similar  warrant  given  to  Arundel  in 
1639,  with  the  simple  addition  of  the  words,  "and  in  Ireland". 
They  obviously  applied  to  the  inevitable  difficulties  soldiers  en- 
counter with  magistrates  and  the  civilian  population  "in  their 
removes".2 

(2)  The  second  consideration  is  how  it  comes  that  Vane  heard 
these  dubious  words,  and  that  all  the  others  did  not,  or,  at  least, 
did  not  recollect  them.  The  veracity  of  Strafford's  witnesses  is 
patently  obvious.  On  the  Prerogative  phrases  they  made  damaging 
assertions  at  his  expense.  The  character  of  two  testimonies  is 
above  reproach.  Charles  asserted  that  never  in  public  Council, 
or  in  the  Junto,  or  in  private  was  there  ever  a  hint  from  Strafforcl 
of,  at  any  time,  bringing  troops  to  England  for  such  a  purpose. 
Charles  could  be  subtle  and  evasive,  but  he  was  not  a  liar. 3  Juxon 
was  not  a  personal  friend  of  Straff  ord's.  He  had  never  taken  part 
in  political  or  Court  intrigues.  He  was  simply  an  official,  re- 
spected1 by  everyone.  His  testimony  is  the  crowning  proof  that 
never  at  the  Junto  did  Strafford  say,  "I  have  an  Army  in  Ireland 
that  you  may  employ  to  reduce  Engand".  Maynard1,  the  Parlia- 
mentary lawyer,  however,  made  a  point  of  some  importance. 
"Divers  witnesses  were  by,  and  heard  not  the  words  deposed  by 
Sir  Henry  Vane.  What  argument  is  this?  That  when  divers  are 
by,  that  which  divers  remember  not  is  not  true?  What  Lord 
Northumberland  remembers  others  do  not."4  It  is  quite  true 
that  some  members  had  no  recollection  of  certain  Prerogative 
phrases,  to  which  others  testified.  All,  however,  remembered  that 

1)  Depositions  and  Articles.    London.  1715—2.  2)  Brief  and  Perfect 

Relation— 53;  W.M.— 42.        3)  R.  P.  VIII— 734.        4)  E.  P.  VIII— 578. 


THE  VANES 

Strafford  had  advised  the  King  to  use  his  Prerogative  to  com- 
mandeer. Some  remembered  one  phrase,  and  others  another.  The 
same  would  have  occurred  if  he  had  advised  the  use  of  Irish  troops. 
Vane's  particular  phrase  might  have  been  forgotten,  but  the  advice 
would  have  been  remembered.  It  was  such  an  innovation,  and 
such  a  daring  proposal  that  no  member  of  the  Junto  would  have 
forgotten  it.  The  utmost  therefore  that  we  can  concede  to  Vane 
is,  that  Strafford  did  use  some  words  about  "reducing  this  King- 
dom with  the  Irish  Army",  but  that  he  was  referring  to  Scotland, 
and,  it  being  such  an  obvious  remark,  no  one — except  Vane  and, 
possibly,  Northumberland — thought  of  treasuring  it  for  a  sinister 
purpose. 

(3)  A  third  consideration  is,  whether  Strafford  ever  entertain  ed 
such  an  idea.  To  a  man  of  his  character,  firmly  convinced  that  Pym 
and  "the  pious  brethren"  would  destroy  England  with  anarchy, 
there  would  be  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  garrisoning  every 
English  City  with  Irish  swordsmen.  Salus  populi  supremo,  lex  was 
his  eternal  motto.  Cromwell  saved  these  islands  from  degenerating 
into  a  hosts  of  warring  mins  by  creating  a  standing  army  of  30.000 
men.  The  same  idea  was  undoubtedly  lying  at  the  back  of  Straf- 
ford's  brain.  Here  is  but  one!  little  hint  of  this  germinating  policy. 
"Considering  it  necessary  that  His  Majesty  breed  up  and  have  a 
seminary  of  soldiers  in  some  part  or  other  of  his  dominions — a 
truth  which  perchance  the  present  time  shows  but  over  plainly  to 
every  eye — without  doubt  it  cannot  be  settled  in  any  other  part 
with  greater  effects  to  the  honour  of  the  Crown,  with  so  little 
change,  with  more  safety  removed,  or  transported  with  greater  con- 
venience to  answer  the  several  occasions  of  the  three  Kingdoms."1 

The  advantages  of  this  policy  are  patent.  Between,  however, 
creating  a  large  Army  in  Ireland  for  the  protection  of  the  King, 
and  using  Irish  Roman  Catholic  soldiers  to  seize  the  goods  of 
English  Protestants  there  was  a  deep  gulf.  No  man  was  more 
careful  of  "ways  and  means,  and  times  and  seasons"  than  Straf- 
ford, and  none  knew  better  than  he  that  this  was  not  a  time  to 
use  that  desperate  remedy.  He  was  always  emphatic  on  the  point 
that  the  mass  of  the  English  people  were  with  the  King.  The 
very  fact  that  Charles  got  20.000  men  to  march  to  York  is  the 

1)  L.S.  11-198. 


1016  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

proof  thereof.  Could  not  these  men  be  trusted  to  commandeer 
supplies  for  their  own  rations?  If  they  could  not,  there  was  very 
little  use  in  bringing  over  10.000  Irishmen,  because  those  English 
soldiers,  if  they  would  not  do  that,  would  not  face  the  enemy. 

Historians  and  politicians  who  invented  the  theory  that  the 
English  soldiers  were  such  ardent  Kepublicans,  that  they  would 
not  commandeer  their  supplies,  wrote  and  talked  as  it  were  in  the 
clouds.  The  difficulty  with  Charles'  Army  was  that  it  was  too 
fond  of  commandeering.  It  was  Straft'ord  himself  who  restrained 
them  from  ravishing  women  and  plundering  houses.  If  one-tenth 
of  the  complaints  made  against  them  in  the  State  Papers  are  true, 
they  would  have  far  rather  looted  the  goldsmiths  than  faced  the 
enemy.  The  theory  that  they  were  righteous  Puritans  with  a  great 
respect  for  the  property  of  the  subject  is,  alas,  a  political  figment. 

Furthermore,  as  a  military  proposition,  the  policy  was  absurd. 
To  bring  troops  from  Carrickfergus  to  London,  at  that  time,  would 
take  about  3  weeks,  and  would  consume  more  money  than  they 
would  ever  commandeer.  They  would  be  marching  away  from  the 
Scotch,  to  ravish  from  the  English  supplies  for  the  upkeep  of  an 
inferior  army  that  could  not  be  trusted.  Things  would  have  to 
be  far  worse  than  they  were,  before  Strafford  would  spend  his 
Irish  subsidies  on  such  a  policy.  The  attack  on  the  Scotch  rear  at 
'Ayr  is  far  more  characteristic  of  Strafford.  It  was  short,  sharp, 
decisive,  practical,  and,  above  all,  cost  little,  as  his  intention  was 
to  support  the  troops,  when  landed,  by  "living  on  the  Scotch". 

Lastly,  Strafford  believed  firmly  that  there  was  only  one 
remedy  for  the  evils  of  theState,  "a  good  understanding  between  the 
King  and  his  people".  There  is  not  a  passage  in  all  his  letters  in 
which  he  spoke  ill  of  the  multitude.  On  the  contrary  this  is  the 
tenor  of  his  policy,  especially  in  regard  to  those  who  sought  to 
save  the  Prerogative  by  a  war. 

"I  beseech  you  what  piety  towards  the  Elector  is  there  that 
should  divert  a  King  forth  of  a  path  which  leads  so  manifestly  to 
the  establishing  his  own  throne,  but  that  he  should  be  exact  in 
his  care  for  a  just  and  moderate  government  of  the  people,  which 
might  minister  back  the  plenties  of  life,  that  he  should  be  most 
searching  and  severe  in  punishing  the  oppressions  and  wrongs  of 
his  subjects,  as  well  in  the  case  of  the  public  magistrate  as  of  the 
private  person,  and  lastly  to  be  utterly  resolved  to  use  only  this 


THE  VANES  1017 

power  (the  levies  for  ship  money)  for  public  and  necessary  pur- 
poses, to  spare  them  as  much  ais  possible,  and  that  they  never  be 
appropriated  to  any  private  person  ...  If  the  chastity  of  these 
levies  be  so  preserved  they  will  never  grudge  parting  with  their 
monies."  :  On  another  occasion  he  wrote,  "In  the  name  of  God, 
let  His  Majesty  speedily  dispose  his  affairs  to  the  best,  and  then 
put  his  cause  before  his  English  subjects.  It  is  not  possible  but 
they  will  acquit  themselves  as  a  worthy  and  faithful  people  ought 
to  do.  They  that  raise  and  stir  apprehensions  to  the  contrary 
are  either  fearful  above  reason,  ignorant,  or  something  that  is 
worse  than  either."2 

To  save  the  Kingdom  from  destruction  he  would  .undoubtedly 
have  flooded  England  with  swordsmen,  and'  hung  the  Re- 
volutionaries with  as  much  zest  as  Cromwell  hung  the  Levellers. 
Things,  however,  had  not  gone  as  far  as  that.  If  the  goods  of 
"a  worthy  and  faithful  people"  had  to  be  commandeered  for  their 
own  protection,  a  man  of  Stafford's  perspicacity  would  un- 
doubtedly not  have  employed,  in  "the  civil  commonwealth"  of 
1640,  the  men  his  adversaries  sought  to  prove  that  he  meant  to 
employ.  To  use  them  to  crush  rebels'  was  one  thing.  To  use  them 
as  bailiffs  in  London  was  a  very  different  proposition.  Was  not 
the  commandeering  of  private  property  an  act  unpopular  enough, 
without  adding  the  sting  of  doing  it  with  Irish  troops,  when 
English  troops  were  at  hand? 

(4)  The  fourt  consideration  is  where  the  Prosecution  did 
get  the  following  words,  to  which  Vane  refused  to  testify  till 
March,  and  which  they  had  already  inserted  in  the  Articles  in 
January.  "That  he  had  an  Army  in  Ireland  which  he  might 
employ  to  reduce  this  Kingdom."3  Tradition  says  that  they  had 
a  secret  dossier  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Junto.  How  then  did 
they  draft  the  articles  as  they  did?  Why  were  they  so  confused 
as  to  the  date,  when  the  dossier,  subsequently  produced,  gave  the 
date?  Why  were  they  so  cautious  about  using  the  words  "this 
Kingdom",  when  the  dossier  proved  that  "this  Kingdom"  was. 
England?  Why  did  they  not  insert  in  the  Articles,  next  these 
words,  some  spicy  item  of  the  "concurrent"  proof,  such  as,  "The 
town  is  full  of  nobility.  They  will  talk  of  it.  I  will  make  them 

1)  L.  S.  ir— 62.  2)  L.  S.  11—297.  3)  R.  P.  VIII— 73. 


1018  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

smart  for  it !"     These  were  in  the  dossier.     Why  were  they  not 
put  into  the  Article? 

Why  was  Digby  allowed  to  state — without  contradiction— 
that  the  Prosecuting  Comniittee  were  told  by  Pym  that  this  Article 
would  be  proven  by  words  "concurrent"  with  "this  Kingdom", 
to  show  which  Kingdom  was  meant,  and  that  he  was  justified  in 
resigning  because  the  dossier,  produced  in  April,  contained  words 
that  were  not  properly  "concurrent"?  How  can  we  isquare  this 
with  the  tale  that  all  the  while  they  alone  had  ;a  copy  of  the  secret 
dossier  in  which  Digby  could  have  read  the  "concurrent"  words, 
and  seen  they  were  not  part  of  the  context.  It  is  clear  that  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  had  extracted  these  word's  from  some 
other  source  than  the  historic  dossier. 

The  rival  theory  of  Clarendon's  is  that  it  was  Vane!  alone  who 
gave  them  the  fatal  words  in  secret  before  February.  Tortuous 
as  Vane  was,  it  is  impossible  to  assume  that  Vane  told  Pym  of 
the  words  "reducing  this  Kingdom",  and  then  denied  them  before 
the  Committee,  and  then  denied  them  again,  and  then  the  Pro- 
secution enrolled  them  in  an  article,  and  then  Vane  withdrew  his 
previous  denials,  and  corroborated  the  words.  This  solution  is 
too  weak  and  improbable.  Clarendon,  who  surmized  it,  was.  very 
near  the  truth,  but  he  never  scented  "the  other  counsellor". 

No  matter  how  much  we  sift  probabilities,  we  can  only  come 
back  to  Digby's  statement  that  Pym  was  assured  that  such  words 
would  be  sworn  to,  or  corroborated,  in  some  shape  or  form,  by 
" another  counsellor",  and  that  this  "other  counsellor"  would 
produce  words  "concurrent"  with  "this  Kingdom"  to  show  that 
it  was  England  that  was  threatened.  Who  was  this  "other 
counsellor"  who  was  in  communication  with  Pym,  and  who1  was 
of  such  import,  that  Pym  was  able  to  induce  the  Committee  to 
insert  these  words  in  the  indictment  without  them  insisting  on 
his  name,  or  that,  if  they  knew  his  name,  all  parties  in  'April 
—even  Digby— were  determined  to  keep  it  quiet? 

Northumberland's  cryptic  hint  at  "the  King  being  angry 
because  I  will  not  perjure  myself  for  the  Earl  of  Straff ord"  is 
undoubtedly  the  clue.  Was  the  King  "angry"  with  him  for 
revealing  those  Straffordian  phrases  on  the  Prerogative?  Were 
they  not  true?  Had  not  the  King  given  Northumberland  per- 
mission to  reveal  everything?  If  the  King  was  "angry"  with 


THE  VANES  1019 

Northumberland,  he  would  have  to  be  angry  with  every  other 
member  of  the  Junto,  and  with  Jermyn  .and'  Usher  also. 
Northumberland  must  have  said  something  which  these  did  not 
say,  and  which  was  n<ot  quite  true,  evidence  that  was  prejudiced, 
or  something  that  was  a  double  entendre.  Four  things  are  worthy 
of  note. 

(a)  Northumberland  was  the  only   witness  except  Vane  who 
displayed  neither  reluctance  nor  uncertainty,   as  if  he,  as 
well  as  Vane,  had  treasured  the  words. 

(b)  Northumberland's  evidence  like  Vane's  was  marked  in  its 
hostility.     Both  were  clearly  witnesses  for  the  prosecution, 
and  not  impartial  bystanders. 

(c)  Northumberland's  collection  of  phrases  was  singularly  like 
Vane's,  with  the  exception  of  "the  Army  in  Ireland". 

(d)  The  Prosecution  in  their  private  examination  of  Nor- 
thumberland had  asked  him  seven  questions.  Three  of  the 
answers  they  did  not  read  out  in  Court,  for  the  obvious 
reason  they  were  no  value  to  them.  These  answers  were, 
of  course,  concealed  from!  the  defence,  as  in  a  High  Treason 
prosecution  the  Crown  has  the  privilege  of  secrecy,  which 
is  denied  to  the  defence. 

There  is  just  the  possibility  that  "the  Irish  Army"  phrase 
lurked  here,  and  that  they  dare  not  ask  Northumberland  his 
interpretation. 

Northumberland's  performance  during  the  last  days  of  Hhe 
trial  is  most  mysterious,  and  the  attitude  of  the  Prosecution 
towards  him  even  yet  more  curious.  They  had  in  their  possession 
a  deposition  dated'  December  5,  just  five  days  before  he  "refused 
to  perjure  himself  for  the  Earl". *  We  know  that  by  the  10th 
he  "was  determined  to  ,see  what  he  could  do  by  Parliament".  In 
that  deposition  he  "had  not  heard — so  far  as  his  remembrance 
went — that  these  forces  were  to  be  employed  to  awe  the  subject 
to  yield  taxes.  He  hath  heard  my  Lord  Lieutenant  make  some 
discourses  that  some  course  was  intended  to  raise  money  by 
extraordinary  means".  This  second  sentence  toned  down  the 
cautious  negative  of  the  first.  He  added  that  it  was  "intended 
to  send  the  Irish  Armv  to  Scotland". 2  This  evidence  is  no  real 


1)  R.  P.  VIII-533.  2)  R.  P.  Vin-544. 


1020  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

denial  of  Vane's  evidence.  Vane  had  simply  said  that  Strafford's 
words  were  "I  have  an  army  that  you  may  employ",  and  he 
emphasized  "may"  twice.  Northumberland  certainly  was  careful 
not  to  go  too  far.  On  April  2,  the  Commons  notified  Northumber- 
land that  on  the  5th  they  would  put  him  into  the  witness  box.1 
On  April  3  Strafford  extracted  his  affidavit  from  Northumber- 
land.2' On  the  morning  of  April  5,  the  Prosecution  stayed  its 
production,  because  they  had  not  crossr-examined  Northumberland 
in  private.  3  Its  gist  however  they  knew.  Accordingly  they  did 
not  enforce  their  subpoena.  Unfortunately  for  tnemselve>s,  they 
were  compelled',  at  the  beginning  of  the  Articles,  to  use  an 
affidavit  of  Lord  Morton's  in  circumstances  which  admitted 
Northumberland's'  affidavit.4  Strafford  absolutely  upset  all  their 
case  when  he  produced  it.  It  gave  the  context  of  the  speeches 
in  regard  to  the  Prerogative,  all  those  reservations  of  "candide 
et  caste".  It  first  explicitly  denied  bringing  the  Irish  Army  to 
England,  "or  any  part  of  them".  Then  it  denied  that  he  had  ever 
heard  Strafford  speak  of  reducing  the  subjects  of  England  by  the 
said  Army  in  Ireland — before,  he  had  only  denied  an  intention 
of  doing  so — and  it  finally  added  that  the  invasion  of  Scotland 
by  that  Army  was  the  definitely  fixed  policy,  and  there  was  no 
other  alternative. 

Vane  had  a  phrase  which  bore  a  sinister  interpretation.  Had 
Northumberland  a  similar  phrase?  Vane  had  his  phrase,  altered 
it,  extended  it,  and  then  explained  his  extension.  Would 
Northumberland  be  so  pliable?  On  the  strength  of  Northumber- 
land's first  affidavit  they  intended  to  call  him.  When  they  saw 
his  second  they  wisely  forgot  their  subpoena.  Their  case  was 
shaky  enough  without  producing  a  witness  who  certainly  might 
remember  the  "concurrent"  words  too  accurately,  and  had  a  most 
unfortunate  memory  for  the  context.  Even  if  the  words  uttered 
were  a  double  entendre,  after  this  second  affidavit  would  not 
Northumberland  undoubtedly  say  that  "this  Kingdom"  was 
Scotland? 

We  know  that  the  Prosecution  in  their  preliminary  interro- 
gatories three  times  asked  Vane  about  "this  Kingdom".  We 
cannot  assume  that  they  did  not  ask  Northumberland.  After 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 44.  2)  R.  P.  VIII— 520.  3)  R.  P.  VIII— 521.  4)  R.  P. 
VIII— 530. 


THE  VANES  1021 

rane  had  given  them  the  particular  words  with  their  double 
meaning,  these  sharp,  able,  and  zealous  lawyer®  must  have  sounded 
Northumberland,  on  whether  he  heard  words  like  those,  and  there 
is  all  the  more  reason  for  this  after  his  favourable  deposition. 
Had  he,  like  Vane,  heard  the  words,  and  like  Vane,  "refused  to 
interpret"?  All  we  know  is  that  they  intended  to  put  him  in  the 
witness  box.  •  This  shows  that  he  was  worth  calling  for  the 
Prosecution.  At  this  time  "the  precise  Party"  were  "averring 
and  promising"  that  the  phrase  of  "the  Army  in  Ireland"  would 
"be  proved  by  several  witnesses".1 

After  Northumberland  had  given  his  affidavit  to  Strafford, 
what  lawyer  worth  a  petty  brief,  would  call  such  a  doubtful  wit- 
ness on  such  a  doubtful  point,  a  witness  who  now  swore  he  had 
never  heard  Strafford  "ispeak  of  reducing  the  subject®  of  Eng- 
land"? If  he  could  remember  "caste  et  candide"  he  would  cer- 
tainly recollect  that  "this  Kingdom"  was  Scotland.  Digby's 
"other  Councillor"  and  "the  several  witnesses"  of  which  all  had 
heard  so  much  had  to  be  dropped,  like  a  stinging  nettle,  for  fear 
their  production  might  upset  Vane's  timid  evidence. 

This  is  the  only  possible  explanation  as  to  why  the  Prosecu- 
tion served  a  subpoena  on  Northumberland  on  the  first,  and  did 
not  call  him — their  star  witness  on  the  Prerogative  phrases — on 
the  fifth.  This  is  the  only  explanation  as  to  why  they  never  read 
out  an  answer  to  the  query  if  he  had  ever  heard  Strafford  use  words 
such  as  Vane  reported,  and  why,  at  the  same  moment,  they  sup- 
pressed the  answers  to  three  interrogatories.  It  also  explains  why 
Strafford  did  not  call  Northumberland  in  person.  Why  should  he 
complicate  the  whole  issue  by  resurrecting  a  harmless  phrase  his 
own  witnesses  never  heard,  or  never  recollected,  by  the  testimony 
of  one  who  had  indulged  in  this  intrigue,  and  might  yet  indulge 
in  another?  It  also  explains  Digby's  silence  on  "the  other  Counsel- 
lor". Was  Digby — now  in  the  Royal  Camp — to  reveal  that 
Northumberland  had  been — to  use  a  vulgarism — squared,  and  that 
Charles,  by  the  Grace  of  God  and  Divine  Right  Monarch  of  these 
islands,  had  been  blackmailed  by  his  Lord  High  Admiral?  Digby 
— it  must  be  remembered — was  a  brilliant  controversialist,  both 
with  pen  and  tongue.  When  explaining  how  he  came  to  defend 


1)  C.  H.  1-129. 


1022  THE  CLOSING  SCENES. 

Strafford,  after  essaying  to  prosecute  him,  he  related  that  he  had 
understood  from  Pym  that  Vane  would  be  corroborated  by  "some 
notes  which  I  ever  understood  to  be  of  some  other  counsellor". 1  It 
was  the  word  "notes"  that  led  everyone  to  believe  that  there  had 
been  some-  misunderstanding  between  Pym  and  Digby,  that  both 
knew  of  a  dossier,  and  both  differed  as  to  the  author.  No  one  knew 
that  Pym  had  never  seen  any  "notes",  and  could  not  therefore  have 
promised  them.  The  misunderstanding  was  not  on  the  question 
of  "notes",  but  whether  "another  counsellor"  would  be  forthcoming 
to  put  the  desired  interpretation  on  "this  Kingdom",  or — as  Digby 
put  it — "what  passed  at  the  Junto  concurrent  with  the  words  "this 
Kingdom"  ". 

It  was  Digby's  subtle  introduction  of  the  word  "notes"  that 
threw  the  curious  off  the  scent,  and  it  was  to  no  one's  advantage 
to  resurrect  the  "promises  of  several  witnesses",  or  to  ask  who 
"the  other  Counsellor"  was. 

Northumberland  had  played  his  cards  with  skill.  He  had 
never  revealed  his  hand.  It  was  his  unfortunate  partner,  however, 
who  was  left  in  danger,  ruined  at  Court  and  discredited  in  Parlia- 
ment. It  was  undoubtedly  Vane  and  his  son  who  had  been  the  go- 
betweens,  the  agents  in  this  affair.  That  night  the  interview 
between  them  and  Pym  must  have  been  worth  recording. 

The  great  difficulty  that  faced  the  Prosecution  now  was,  that 
Vane  was  but  a  single  witness.  To  prove  treason  two  were  re- 
quired, and,  even  if  this  remark  was  but  a  misdemeanour,  some 
corroborati'On  was  required  to  rebut  the  point  blank  denials  of  the 
rest  of  the  Junto.  Sir  Robert  King  was  accordingly  produced  to 
testify  that  Radcliffe  once  said,  "The  King  cannot  want  money. 
He  has  30.000  men  and  £  400.000'  in  hie  purse.  If  he  want  money 
who  can  pity  him  ?"  Ranelagh  then  deposed  to  the  same  words',  and 
added  that  he  interpreted  them  to  mean  that  "some  danger  was 
intended  by  the  transportation  of  the  Irish  Army  to  England". 
Sir  Thomas  Barrington  then  related  that  Sir  George  Wentworth 
said,  "The  Commonwealth  is  sick  of  peace  and  will  not  be  well  till 
it  be  conquered  again."2  These  words  have  to<  be  taken  cum  grano 
salis.  The  Prosecution  refused  to  allow  Radcliffe  or  Sir  George 
Wentworth  to  be  examined.  Even  if  the  words  were  true,  the 


1)  R.  I.  A.  P.  XI-8.  p.  6.  2)  R.  P.  VIE— 537— 539 


THE  VANES  1023 

deductions  were  only  illogical  surmises,  and  one  of  the  authors 
(Sir  George  Wentworth)  knew  nothing  about  the  Military  plans.  l 
When  Strafford  produced  his  own  Secretary,  the  General  of  the 
Irish  Horse,  and1  a  Yorkshire  officer  to  detail  all  the  Military 
plans,  and  show  that  the  destination  of  the  Army  was  Scotland, 
that  part  of  the  charge  was  obviously  exploded,  especially  after 
Northumberland,  the  Commander-in-Chief,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Junto  corroborated  their  evidence. 

The  Prosecution,  when  they  summed  up,  barely  referred  to 
this  part  of  the  four  Articles,  and  made  no  rhetorical  displays 
whatsoever,  on  the  deadly  significance  that  was1  subsequently 
attached  to  this  phrase. 

Vane's  bombshell  had  failed  to  explode.  The  use  of  the 
Prerogative  to  commandeer  had  been  brilliantly  defended.  The 
despatch  of  the  Irish  Army  had  not  been  proved.  The  Articles 
were  now  coming  to  a  close.  It  was  apparent,  painfully  apparent, 
that  by  no  strain  of  the  imagination,  could  anything  done  by  this 
statesman  be  brought  within  the  Treason  Statutes. 

Legal  ingenuity  might  invent  constructive  treason,  that  a 
series  of  acts  added  together  might  be  treason,  that,  .as  Strafford 
put  it,  "a  hundred  misdemeanours  should  make  a  felony,  and  a 
hundred  felonies  should  niake  a  treason.  A  man  may  threaten  to 
kill  his  neighbour.  He  may  have  a  bloody  knife  in  his  hand,  but 
— the  man  must  be  killed  before  there  is  a  murder.  .  .  My  Lords 
in  the  primitive  time,  on  the  sound  and  plain  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles,  they  brought  in  their  books  of  curious  art,  and  burnt 
them.  It  were  wisdom  and  prudence  in  your  Lordships,  for 
yourselves  and  posterities,  for  the  whole  Kingdom,  to  cast  from 
you  into  t'he  fire  those  bloody  and  mysterious  volumes  of  con- 
structive and  arbitrary  treasons.  Betake  yourselves  to  the  plain 
letter  of  the  Statute  that  tells  you  where  the  crime  is,"2 

For  centuries  the  Peerage  of  England  had  waged  incessant 
war  with  the  monarchy  on  the  interpretation  of  treason.  The  Plan- 
tagenet  and  the  Tudor  Monarch^  had  sought  to  extend  it  to  any 
act  calculated  to  embarrass  the  Sovereign.  In  Ireland  Coigne  and 
Livery  became  treason.  So  did  waging  war  on  the  Deputy. 
Henry  VIII  carried  it  so  far  in  a  series  of  Statutes  that  the  Peerage 


1)  R.  P.  VIII-557.        2)  R.P.VIII-634,  635,  659. 


1024  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

cowered  beneath  the  throne,  and  were  even  afraid  to  whisper  to 
each  other.  His  Treason  Statute  was  that  of  an  Oriental  Pasha.  In 
the  minority  of  Edward  VI  the  first  act  of  the  emancipated  Peers 
was  to  rush  on  to  the  Statute  book  a  code  repealing  all  the  Statutes 
of  the  deceased  Monocrat.  Mary  and  Elizabeth  managed  to  hold 
their  own  by  utilizing  the  religious  statutes,  or  those  statutes  which 
placed  on  a  denial  of  their  title  a  death  penalty.  Essex,  for 
instance,  was  executed  for  "putting  himself  into  a  posture", 
whereby  Elizabeth's  title  was  endangered.  The  only  effective 
Treason  Statute  now  was  that  of  Edward  III.  It  confined  treason  to 
"levying  war  against  the  King,  or  adhering  to  his  enemies".  And 
wherein  had  Straff  ord  broken  this  Statute?  Vain  were  all  pleas 
that  he  had  erred,  or  had  committed  unpopular  acts,  or  pursued 
a  policy  detrimental  to  the  Commonweal.  There  was  not  a  peer 
who  did  not  feel  that,  if  that  were  treason,  isome  day  the  same 
might  be  said  of  him.  Finch — the  most  popular  man  in  the  House 
of  Lords — had  been  obliged  to  flee  the  country  to  escape!  a  prosecu- 
tion for  this  new  form  of  treason.  The  unfortunate  Bishops  and 
some  of  the  judges  were  on  bail,  waiting  a  similar  charge.  Where 
wa-s  this  going  to  end?  Imagine  the  effect  on  an  audience  thus 
composed,  with  such  traditions  in  their  blood,  of  language  such  as 
this,  uttered  by  a  Peer  of  the  Realm,  who  was  baited  coram  publico 
by — of  all  persons  anathema  to  the  Peerage — the  common  lawyers, 
who  for  a  whole  -century,  had  been  used  by  the  Tudors  to  bring 
"Great  Ones"  to  the  block. 

"From  the  beginning  of  Government,  neither  Statute,  com- 
mon law,  or  practice  hath  mentioned  such  a  thing  as  constructive 
treason.  Beware  you  do  not  wake  these  sleeping  lions  by  raking 
up  some  neglected  moth-eaten  records.  They  may  some  day  tear 
you  to  pieces.  You,  your  estates,  your  posterities  lie  at  stake  if 
these  learned  gentlemen,  whose  lungs  are  well  acquainted  with 
such  proceedings,  shall  be  started  out  against  you.  They  say  they 
speak  in  defence  of  the  Commonweal  against  my  arbitrary  laws. 
I  speak  in  defence  of  the  Commonweal  against  their  arbitrary 
treason.  Let  me  be  a  Pharez  to  keep  you  from  .shipwreck,  and  do 
not  put  such  rocks  in  your  own  way,  which'  no  prudence  or  circum- 
spection can  satisfy  but  by  utter  ruin."1 


1)  Dom.  1641—544,  545. 


THE  VANES 


1025 


To  counteract  this,  something  more  was  required  than  the 
plaints  of  Cork,  the  indignation  of  Mountmorris,  the  surmises  of 
Ranelagh,  and  the  dubious  recollections  of  Vane.  Vane  too  must 
have  been  ill  at  ease.  He  had  put  the  revolutionaries  .under  no 
obligation  to  him.  Why  should  they  spare  him?  He  was  a  Minister, 
an  "incendiary",  a  monopolist,  an  author  of  warrants  to  search 
the  houses  of  patriots,  and  they  could  yet  revive  that  23rd  article. 
His  position  was  worse  than  Strafford's.  That  nobleman  had  the 
King,  the  Queen,  and  now  the  Peers,  on  his  side.  Who  would 
bestir  himself  for  Vane?  Whosoever  came  well  out  of  the  in  globo 
articles,  it  was  not  Vane.  From  early  morn  till  dewy  eve,  Straff ord 
battled  with  the  Parliamentary  lawyers,  and  all  the  honours  of 
the  contest  were  his.  Vauepere  et  Vane  fits  could  boast  of  no  such 
achievement. 


Chapter  III 
THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO 

The  most  wonderful  things  are  brought  about  in  many  instances  by 
means  the  most  absurd  and  ridiculous,  in  the  most  ridiculous  modes, 
and,  apparently,  by  the  most  contemptible  instruments.  Everything 
seems  out  of  nature  in  this  strange  jumble  of  levity  and  ferocity,  and 
of  all  sorts  of  crimes ,  jumbled  together  with  all  sorts  of  follies.  BURKE. 

On  Wednesday  April  7,  the  Prosecution  finished  the  27th 
Article.  The  28th  yet  remained,  and  also,  of  course,  that  large 
number  of  articles  they  had  "waived  for  the  present".  Suffice  it 
to  say  that,  for  the  present,  they  moved1  for  an  adjournment,  as 
they  "had  something  more  to  .say". 1  On  the  next  day,  Thursday 
the  8th,  instead  of  proceeding  with  the  remaining  Article,  they 
harked  back  to  the  famous  in  globo  series.  During  the  hearing  <>f 
the  27th,  Straff ord  had  produced  his  Commission  to  exercise  mar- 
tial law  in  England,  and  some  of  the  Committee  thought  a  point 
could  be  made  out  of  this. 2  The  very  fact  that  it  was  he  who  pro- 
duced this  patent  shows  that  it  had  no  incriminating  significance. 
The  24th  article  had  never  been  touched.  Earle,  one  of  the  Parlia- 
mentary Counsel,  therefore  proposed  to  put  forward  and  utilize 
this  patent,  as  evidence  of  Strafford's  intentions  to  reduce  England. 
Whitelocke  withstood  him.  He  was  very  unwilling  to  put  ^rane 
in  the  box  again.  By  itself  the  patent  was  a  mere  petty  point. 
Earle,  however,  persisted,  and  made  a  speech  dwelling  on  the 
patent,  the  premature  dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament,  and  a 
series  of  other  misdemeanours.  It  was  a  complete  failure.  Straf- 
ford  barely  troubled  to  reply,  and  Lord  Digby  had  to  step  in  and 
relieve  the  gloom  by  describing  Earle's  speech  as  "a  superf  octal  ion 
of  the  charge". 3 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 632.  2)  E.  P.  VIII-626.  3)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation. 
—53;  W.M.-42. 


IOTES  OP  THE  JUNTO  1027 

By  itself  the  incident  is  unimportant,  except  as  showing  how 
•desperate  the  Prosecution  were  at  this  stage,  and  how  little  reliance 
Whitelocke  had  on  Vane.  It  is  worth  noting,  however,  that  the 
production  of  this  Article  raised  again  the  question  of  that  pre- 
mature dissolution  of  the  Short  Parliament.  It  showed  that  the 
Prosecution — or  to  be  more  accurate  those  who  gave  orders  to  the 
lawyers — had  not  completely  dropped  that  deadly  question,  on 
which  VSLHQ  dare  not  face  Stratford.  That  night,  according  to 
Vane,  he  had  a  conversation  with  his  son  on  the  .subject  of  pro- 
ducing the  secret  dossier. * 

Whether  this  was  or  was  not  the  cause  of  the  subsequent 
denouement,  Grlyn,  the  Parliamentary  lawyer,  made  a  motion  that 
wais  most  significant  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events.  He  pro- 
posed that,  on  the  next  day,  the  case  should  end.  Straff  ord'  was  to 
reply.  The  Prosecution  was  to  reply  to  him,  and  "so  close  the 
process,  so  far  as  concerned  the  matter  of  fact". 2  At  that  time, 
accordingly,  the  Prosecution  had  no  further!  evidence,  nor  did  they 
anticipate  any  further  evidence.  This  ruling  then  was  made,  and 
the  assembly  dissolved'. 

On  Friday  the  9th,  news  arrived  that  Strafford  was  seriously 
ill.  The  "precise  party"  were  alarmed.  The  tide  was  flowing  fast 
against  them.  The  indignation  that  had  been  roused  against  Straf- 
ford was  fast  evaporating.  The  Lords  were  becoming  more  and 
more  hostile  to  all  these  proceedings.  Rifts  in  the  lute  of  the 
Parliamentary  Party  were  widening  every  day,  and1  everyone  was 
asking  when  the  Kingdom  was  to  be  rid  of  the  Scotch,  ever 
clamouring  for  money  and  Stratford's  head.  In  alarm  at  this  delay, 
which,  for  all  they  knew,  might  continue  for  weeks,  they  moved, 
through  Pym,  to  finish  the  proceedings  in  his  absence-  The  Lords 
were  immediately  up  in  arms,  and1  despatched  instead  four  of  their 
number  to  see  the  sick  man.  They  reported  that  he  was  very  ill, 
but  the  doctors  said  he  would  be  able  to  attend  next  day.  After 
some  more  wrangling  the  following  order  contented  the  Prosecu- 
tion. "That,  if  the  Earl  come  to-morrow,  he  may  proceed  according 
to  the  former  order,  if  he  comes  not,  then  this  House  may  proceed 
to  sum  up  the  evidence  as  to  matter  of  fact,  and  the)  Earl  of  Straf- 
ford to  be  concluded  as  to  matter  of  fact."  Accordingly  on  Friday 

1)  D'Ewes'  Diary,  see.  Gardiner  IX— 326.     2)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 54. 

65* 


1028  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

April  9th  the  Prosecution  were  quite  content  to  close  the  whole 
case,  and  this  order  was  passed  on  the  proposal  of,  and  with  the 
consent  of  Pym.1 

On  the  morning  of  the  10th  all  assembled  to  hear  the  closing 
speeches.  Glyn,  however,  rose  to  announce  that  fresh  evidence  was 
at  hand.  He  asked  permission  to  put  it  forward.  To  this  Straff  ore  I 
made  no  objection.  He  pointed  out,  however,  that,  if  one  side  was 
allowed  to  produce  new  matter,  the  same  privilege  should  be 
accorded  ito  the  other.  The  Peers  then  withdrew  and  a  heated  dis- 
cussion ensued.  They  appealed  to  the  Judges.  They  gave  it,  as 
their  opinion,  that,  even  if  the  case  were  closed,  provided  the 
prisoner  was  at  the  bar,  and  the  jury  not  sent  away,  "either  side 
may  give  their  evidence".2  After  two  hours'  of  wrangling  the 
Lords  filed  back  into  the  Chamber,  and  ruled  that,  if  the  Prosecu- 
tion produced  new  evidence,  Straff ord  had  a  similar  right:  if  they 
did  not,  he  could  not.  The  Prosecution  immediately  announced 
their  intention  of  resurrecting  the  23rd  article.  Str afford'  saw  his 
opportunity.  His  witnesses  had  at  last  arrived  from  Ireland.  He 
claimed  the  right  to  put  them  in  the  box,  and  reopen  the  whole 
trial.  Vain  was  it  for  the  Parliamentary  Counsel  to  plead  that  this 
was  absurd,  but  he  stuck  to  his  point.  If  they  could  reopen  Articles 
with  fresh  witnesses,  so  could  he.  Amidst  considerable  excitement 
the  Lords  withdrew  again,  and  deliberated.  Back  again  they  filed 
with  the  ominous  decision  that,  if  the  Prosecution  persisted  in 
their  course,  Strafford  could  re-open  what  Article  he  pleased.  It 
was  most  significant  that  only  one  Peer  was  opposed  to  this.3  At 
this  stage  there  was  considerable  disorder,  irate  members  of  "the 
precise  party"  openly  expressing  dissatisfaction.  The  Parliamentary 
Counsel  and  Strafford  wrangled  heatedly  for  a  few  minutes,  and, 
at  last,  they  demanded  what  articles  he  intended  to  re-open.  He 
recited  four,  and  one  of  them  was  the  one  feather  in  their  cap,  the 
billeting  of  the  four  soldiers  on  a  Wicklow  O'Byrne.  The  rebut- 
ting witnesses  to  that  charge  had  obviously  arrived. 

The  storm  then  burst.  The  growing  disaffection  between  the 
Peers)  and  the  "precise  party"  at  last  flared  forth  in  a  storm  of  pas- 
sion. Loud  cries  of  "Withdraw,  withdraw",  came  from  all  sides  of 
Westminster.  Kay,  Commoners  "cocked  their  hats"  in  the  presence 

I"  K.P.VIII-44,45;  Brief  and  Perfect  Eelation.— 54;  W.M.— 41.  2)  Dom. 
1640—537.  3)  B.  D.  1—289. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1029 

of  the  King  at  the  Peers,  who  were  shouting  "Adjourn,  Adjourn". 
Some  members  were  loudly  wrangling  with  each  other.  Others 
showed  unmistakeable  alarm.  Anger,  fear,  panic,  confusion,  and 
every  known  passion  were  visible  on  all  sides,  as  the  meeting  dis- 
solved, no  one  knowing  what  was  to  happen  now.  Behind  his 
broken  lattice  Charles  smiled  cynically  and  slowly,  and,  as  Straf- 
ford  strode  off  in  the  midst  of  his-  guard,  he  had  nrach  ado  to 
preserve  the  iron  mask,  which  he  always  assumed1  in  public. * 

The  Commons  then  assembled  in  their  special  precinct.  Glyn 
informed  them  that  the  Committee  for  the  Prosecution  had  a 
serious'  matter  to  divulge.  The  doors  were  locked.  The  keys,  were 
placed  on  the  table.  Pym  and  Sir  Harry  Vane  then  made  their 
disclosure.  They  were  in  possession  of  a  report  of  the  secret 
meeting  of  the  Junto,  held  on  May  5.  Strafford's  words  were  on 
record.  Surrounded  by  phrases  glorifying  the  Prerogative,  and 
pouring  vitriol  on  the  Parliament,  lay  the  words,  "I  have  an 
army  in  Ireland  you  may  employ  here  to  reduce  this  Kingdom." 

The  tale  they  told  was  startling  and  complicated.  Young  Sir 
Harry  had  been  despatched'  home  by  his  sire,  in  the  previous 
September,  to  procure  certain  business  documents,  lying  in  a 
paternal  cabinet.  On  opening  the  cabinet  he  found  a  bundle  of 
notes  labelled  "Proceedings  of  the  Junto".  He  read  them,  and 
took  a  copy.  Subsequently  Pym  came  to  see  him.  To  him  he  un- 
folded this  discovery.  The  austere  patriot  overcame  the  qualms 
of  filial  duty  by  the  usual  plea  that  these  notes  were  "of  extreme 
consequence  to  the  Kingdom,  and  that  a  time  might  probably  come, 
when  the  discovery  of  this  might  be  a  sovereign  means  to  preserve 
Church  and  State". 2  The  original  document  was  then  produced, 
and  Pym  either  certified  that  Sir  Harry's  copy  was  correct,  or  took 
one  in  his  own  hand. 3  They  then  resolved  "to  make  no  use  of  this 
in  public  except  in  case  of  necessity",  and  returned  the  father's 
notes  to  the  cabinet. 4  Months  elapsed,  young  Sir  Harry  sitting 
by  the  paternal  hearth  with  this  secret  locked  in  his  bosom,  and 
Pym,  no  doubt,  saluting  the  sire  in  stately  fashion,  whene'er  they 
met.  Then  came  the  crash.  Pym  had  "kept  the  copy  without  com- 
municating! the  same  to  anybody,  till  the  beginning  of  this  Parlia- 
ment, which  was  the  time  he  considered  fit  to  make  use  of  it.  Then 

1)  Dom.  1641—539,  540;  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation— 56,  57;  B.  D.  1—289; 
W,M.— 43.  2)  C.H.I— 130.  3)  Reply  to  Lord  Digby.  London.  1641.  4)  B.D.I— 289. 


1030  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

it  satisfied  him  to  move  whatsoever  he  had  moved".  After  this 
recital,  he  blandly  informed  the  House  that  all  was  now  well  with 
the  State,  as  they  had  procured  the  corroboration  of  the  evidence 
of  Vane  pere,  thus  making  the  two  witnesses  required  by  Statute. 

Pym  is  a  remarkable  character  study.  He.  was  the  paragon  of 
Parliamentary  rectitude.  Men  might  shudder  at  St.  John's  sava- 
gery, or  feel  suspicious  of  Hampden's  mental  agility,  but  all  felt, 
when  they  heard  the  sonorous  platitudes .  of  religious  and  legal 
oratory,  pouring  forth  from  the  lips  of  this  calm  and  stately  figure, 
that  here  was  one,  who  lent  dignity  to  what  might  otherwise  be 
a  vulgar  brawl,  one  who  "had  no  nonsense  about  him",  one  who 
could  be  followed  without  misgivings,  as  to  the  respectability  of 
revolution.  And  yet  he  could  rise  and  announce  that  he  had 
purloined  a  confidential  document,  that  he  had  persuaded  a  son  to 
publish  his  father's  private  correspondence,  that  he  had  assisted 
one  minister  of  the  King  to  copy  the  official  documents  of  another, 
documents  dealing  with  a  Cabinet  Meeting,  which  both,  from  the 
point  of  honour,  were  bound  to  keep  secret !  The  incident  has  such 
a  ugly  look,  that  we  are  bound  to  regard  the  perpetrators  as  men 
capable  of  telling  lies.  One  cannot  regard  Pym  as  on  the  same  level 
as  Straff ord,  Laud,  Juxon,  Ormonde,  and  Cromwell.  Despite  all 
the  glamour  that  has  been  thrown  over  his  name,  this  alone 
relegates  him  to  the  unholy  tribe  of  political  opportunists,  who 
think  it  honourable  to  be  dishonourable  for  a  multitude.  Nor  is 
the  type  uncommon.  The  path  of  progress  is  flanked  with  the 
statues  of  voluble  and  pious  statesmen,  whose  names  are  household 
words,  because  by  texts  they  proved  vox  populi  was  vox  dei,  and 
were  able  to  excuse  the  peculiarity  of  their  deeds  by  the  number 
they  benefited,  and  by  the  support  of  the  Almighty.  Pym  was  the 
first  of  this  noble  band.  He  was  the  first  Statesman  in  England 
who  thought  that  Mobocracy  covered  a  multitude  of  sins. 

When  this  pair  had  resumed  their  seats  old  Sir  Henry  rose. 
He  expressed  astonishment.  Now  was  the  secret  revealed  as  to 
where  the  Prosecution  had  procured  those  phrases  they  had  flung  at 
him  three  times  in  the  examinations.  It  was  true  he  had  sent  Sir 
Harry  to  his  study  in  September.  It  was  true  he  there  had  some 
notes.1  They  had!  been  taken  at  the  Junto.  On  the  eve  of  the  Long 
Parliament  he  had  asked  the  King  if  he  would  burn  them.  The  King 
had  ordered  him  to  do  so,  amongst  other  documents.  To  the 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1031 

detailed  phrases  lie  would  say  no  more,  but  never  would  lie  forgive 
his  son. 

The  House  was  profoundly  affected  by  the  scene.  Honest 
men  tried  to  effect  a  reconciliation.  For  a  long  time,  however, 
Vane  pere  scowled  at  Vane  fils  to  the  sorrow  of  all  beholders,  who 
believed  that  the  latter  had  "deserved  well  of  the  Kepublic",  and 
that  the  former  should  forego  his  paternal  wrath  in  favour  of 
patriotic  pride.  Clarendon  did  not  know  what  to  make  of  it. 
Warwick  regarded  it  all  as  playacting.  Whitelock  contented 
himself  with  a  recital  of  the  bare  outline  of  the  tale.  May — the 
Puritan  chronologist — was  frankly  dubious. * 

At  the  close  of  this1  performance — the  House  sat  till  7  o'clock 
that  evening — Sir  Arthur  Haselrig  drew  from  his  pocket  a  Bill 
of  Attainder  against  Strafford,  a  Bill  already  drafted!  to  declare 
that  what  Strafford  had  done  was  treason,  as  it  was  notorious  that 
he  could  be  sentenced  under  no  existing  law.  In  the  heat  of  the 
feud  with  the  Peers,  and  in  the  confusion  that  followed  the  recital 
of  these  notes  of  Vane's,  the  Bill  was  actually  read  twice.  Tempers 
must  have  run  very  high,  as  it  was  only  after  "much  ado"  that 
another  reading  was  prevented.  Then  the  Commons  adjourned  for 
Sabbath  meditations  to  reassemble  on  next  Monday. 2 

The  feeling  between  the  Peers  and  the  Commons,  however, 
was  very  acute  at  this  stage.  The  latter  were  actually  threatening 
to  assume  the  judicial  Prerogative  to  themselves,  to  which  the 
Lords  hotly  retorted  that  "the  blood  of  our  ancestors  rums  still  in 
our  veins,  and  we  will  be  governed  by  no  popular  faction".  When 
the  copy  of  Vane's  notes  was  despatched  to  them,  they  regarded  the 
missive  as  a  form  of  contempt  of  Court.  After  a  series  of  con- 
ferences and  negotiations,  however,  a  compromise  was  arranged. 
The  Commons  were  to  tender  no  more  evidence,  Strafford  was  to 
reply  to  the  general  charge,  and  they  to  him,  and,  in  the  meanwhile, 
they  -could  take  what  course  they  pleased  with  the  Bill  of  Attainder.3 

It  was  this  disclosure  of  Vane's  that  roused  the  indignation 
of  the  populace  to  boiling  pitch.  The  idea  that  the  Puritan 
bourgeois  should  be  despoiled  of  their  goods  by  hordes  of  Irish 

1)  May.  History  of.  Long  Parliament.— 93;  W.  M.— 41;  "Warwick.  Memoirs 
—142;  Diurnal  Occurrences  in  Parliament.— 77;  B.  D.  1—289;  C.  H.  I— 129— 131. 
2)  Dom.  1641—540;  R.  P.  VIII— 45;  Commons  Journals.  11—118.  3)  Brief  and 
Perfect  Relation.— 55— 58;  C.  H.  1—129. 


1032  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Roman  Catholic  rapparees  was  one  that  drove  London  almost  mad 
with  fury.  That  Strafford  never  meditated  anything  of  the  kind 
is  plain.  That  Vane's  notes  are  open  to  the  gravest  suspicion  is 
obvious.  The  concurrent  events,  the  time,  the  motives,  the  men 
behind  the  disclosure,  and  the  authors  render  the  whole  incident  at 
least  peculiar.  The  story  told  by  the  two  Vanes  and  Pym  is  in- 
genious. It  all  hangs  together.  If  we  detach,  however,  one  incident 
from  the  rest,  it  falls  like  a  house  of  cards. 

The  weakest  link  in  the  story  is  the  delay  in  production  till 
the  llth  hour.  It  was  explained  by  the  desire  to  shield  Vane  fils, 
till  "necessity"  ruled  otherwise.  All  this  time  Pym  and  Vane  had 
these  notes,  and  all  this  time  they  held  them  back.  It  is  very  clear 
that  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  as  a  body,  never  saw  the  notes. * 
Pym,  therefore,  was  not  quite  accurate  when  he  hinted  that,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Long  Parliament,  he  had  revealed  them  to 
kindred  patriots.  "I  carefully  kept  the  copy  by  me  without 
communicating  the  same  to  anybody  till  the  beginning  of  this 
Parliament."2 

Had,  however,  Pym  himself  those  notes  in  his  own  possession 
before  April  the  10th?  He  was  one  of  the  leading  lights  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee.  He  was  its  greatest  Parliamentary 
personage.  We  must  assume  that  he  was  seldom  overruled.  The 
acts  of  that  Committee  were,  in  a  great  part,  the  acts  of  Pym. 
This  being  so,  certain  considerations  arise,  which  do  not  square  with 
the  story  that  he  directed  the  Prosecution  with  these  notes  in 
reserve. 

(1)  The  Articles  were  clearly  drafted  by  one  who  had  never 
seen  them.  They  are  an  extraordinary  hotch  potch  of  odd  phrases 
clearly  culled  in  the  examinations  of  certain  known  witnesses, 
arranged  in  the  most  confusing  manner.  The  most  stinging  phrases 
came  clearly  from  Northumberland,  who  had  been  examined  in  De- 
cember.3 All  the  phrases  in  that  23rd  article  are  known  as  his, 
except  one,  "the  army  in  Ireland  which  I  may  employ  to  reduce 
this  Kingdom".  Up  to  the  time  these  articles  were  drafted,  Vane 
had  not  revealed  this  phrase.  It  came  therefore  from  the  notes  or 
"some  other  Counsellor".  It  -is  the  only  phrase  in  the  five  Articles, 
which  was  not  proved  by  a  witness  who  had  been  examined  in 

1)  Speech  of  Lord  Digby.  London.  1641.  2)  C.  H.  1-130.  3)  E.  P.  VIII 
—518,  543,  544. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1033 

member.  The  theory  put  forward  by  Pym  is  that  it  was  procured 
from  the  notes.  If,  however,  it  was  taken  out  of  the  notes,  why 
did  he  not  take  other  gems  out  of  that  document?  Here  is  one  gem. 
"The  Commission  of  Array  to  be  put  into  execution."  This  was 
just  one  of  those  .shadowy  powers  of  the  Prerogative  that  the  Par- 
liamentarians ever  denied.  They  challenged  the  martial  law  of 
generals,  but  general  conscription  was  anathema.  It  was  warranted 
by  no  statute.  This  would  have  made  ai  far  better  Article  than  that 
grotesque  one  accusing  him  of  treason,  because  he  made  impor- 
ters swear  to  the  accuracy  of  their  Bills  of  Lading.  There  was 
another  damning  phrase,  which,  if  inserted,  would  have  roused 
the  fury  of  the  touchy  Peerage,  his  judges.  "The  town  is  full  of 
nobility.  They  may  talk  of  it.  I  will  make  them  smart  for  it." 

There  is  a  yet  more  curious  incident.  In  the  dossier  occurs 
this  phrase.  "The  shipping  money  to  be  put  vigorously  on  col- 
lection."1 This  was  an  ideal  charge.  The  Commons  had  declared 
it  illegal.  The  King  had  offered  to  forego  the  collection.  It  was 
an  unpopular  tax  in  the  city.  If  the  Prosecution  knew  that,  on 
May  5th,  a  few  days  after  the  King  had  offered  to  forego  the  tax, 
Strafford  had  advised  him  to  renew  it,  they  would  have  un- 
doubtedly got  several  of  the  Junto  to  testify  to  the  fact,  and  they 
would  have  inserted  it  in  an  Article  by  itself. 

From  Juxon  they  got  this  phrase.  "They  should  go  on  vig- 
orously in  levying  the  Ship  money."  This  was  the  phrase  they 
inserted  in  the  Article.  Juxon  swore  that  it  was  uttered  at  a  much 
later  date,  long  after  the  Ship  money  had  been  revived.  Strafford 
was  thus  only  recommending  a  "vigorous"  as  opposed  to  a  slack 
collection.  Accordingly  the  Prosecution  had  to  insert  in  the  Article, 
"in  the  months  of  May  and  June",  so  vague  were  they  as  to  the 
date.  The  phrase  in  these  circumstances  was  harmless.  They  never 
attempted  to  prove  that  it  was  on  Strafford's  advice  that  the  King 
had  revived  Ship  money.  They  only  used  the  phrase  to  show  that 
he  favoured  "vigorous"  methods,  in  order  to  lead  up  to  another 
charge  that  he  had  recommended  the  incarceration  of  backward 
aldermen.  It  was  not  till  that  part  of  the  Article  collapsed  that 
they  tried,  in  their  closing  speeches,  to  twist  Juxon' s  solitary 
evidence  into  a  sense  which  the  evidence  did  not  justify,  and  which 
they  had  not  set  out  to  prove. 

1)  Dom.  1640—113. 


1034  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

This  reveals  clearly  that  they  had  not  the  slightest  idea  that 
on  May  5th  Strafford  had  recommended  Charles  to  withdraw  the 
concession  he  had  made  to  the  Short  Parliament,  and  had  advised1 
him  to  levy  a  tax  that  was  now  declared  illegal.  If  the  dossier  had 
been  in  their  possession,  they  would  never  have  confined  themselves 
to  the  "vigorously",  but  would  have  concentrated  on  the  "put 
upon  collection". 1 

All  these  phrases  were  far  more  valuable  than  the  "table  talk, 
flim  flams,  and  feary  faeries"  which  constituted  the  Articles  of 
Indictment.  If  Pym  had  culled  that  phrase  of  "the  Irish  Army 
to  reduce  this  Kingdom"  from  this  mysterious  dossier,  why  did 
he  not  cull  these  phrases,  every  one  of  which  were  so  concrete)  and 
striking  that  some  members  of  the  Junto  would)  have  remembered 
their  utterance?  It  is  plain  that  "the  Irish  Army"  was  inserted  in 
the  Articles  in  1640  from  a  source  independent  of  this  dossier. 
That  fatal  phrase  stands  in  an  Article  which  was  entirely  based  on 
Northumberland's  evidence.  It  is  the  only  phrase  in  that  Article 
to  which  he  did  not 'testify  in  Court.  Had  he,  however,  testified 
to  it  in  the  preliminary  examination,  or  to  words  like  it,  which, 
when  the  moment  arrived,  he  was  reluctant  to  "interpret"  in  a 
sense  favourable  to  patriotism? 

(2)  The  story  of  Pym  and  the  Vanes  throws  a  curious  light 
on  the  relations  of  Vane  pere  and  Vane  fils.  Vane  was  an  official 
and  thus  in  peril.  Some  officials  had  already  been  impeached.  Vane 
for  instance,  had  been  on  the  Star  Chamber  when  it  fined  Burton 
for  libel — Burton,  released  from:  Gaol  with  as  much  processional 
pomp  as  Barabbas  was  haled  by  the  Jews! — and  not  only  had  the 
House  repealed  this  verdict,  but  it  had  mulcted  the  Judges — and 
one  was  Vane — in  heavy  damages.2  He  had  also  issued  composi- 
tions with  recusants,  warrants  for  the  arrest  of  patriots,  and  writs 
to  search  the  houses  of  members  of  Parliament.  His  monopoly 
was  equivalent  to  blue  blood  in  the  French  Kevolution.  So  hot 
was  the  temper  on  this  theme  that,  in  one  day,  50  Members  of  the 
House  of  Commons  were  expelled  for  having  shares  in  such 
ventures.3  Nevertheless  Vane,  till  March,  strenuously  denied  all 
knowledge  of  "the  Irish  Army",  while  the  leader  of  the  Parlia- 
mentarians had,  in  his  pocket,  a  paper  tending  to  prove  that  Vane 

1)  R.  P.  VET— 582-588.      2)  R.  P.  IV— 207.      3)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 33. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1035 

a  most  inconvenient  memory.  During  all  this  while,  did1  Vane 
//'/,•?  sit  by,  and  watch  his  father  rousing  Pym's  ire  with  these 
denials?  Did  he  never  think  of  what  his  father's  fate  would'  be, 
if  Pym  raised  his  little  finger?  Would  not  an  ordinary  man  of 
flesh  and  blood  have  at  least  given  his  sire  a  hint?  Vane  pere 
distinctly  says  that,  till  April,  he  never  dreamt  that  Pym  had  this 
knowledge  in  his  possession. 1  What  is  more,  is  it  likely  that  Pym 
would,  and  could  preserve  impenetrable  silence  on  this  document, 
during  all  these  three  months  of  constant  rebuffs?  From  December 
to  March  he  tad  to  sit  and  listen  to  Vane's  denials  that  he  had 
ever  heard  these  words,  with  that  document  in  his  possession.  From 
March  till  April  10th  he  had  to  watch  his  great  case  fainting  for 
lack  of  evidence,  when  he  had,  under1  hisj  hand,  the  document  that 
would  have  made  victory  certain.  It  is  very  difficult  to  believe 
that,  during  all  this  time,  he  never  conveyed  a  hint  to  Vane  pere 
that  his  memory  should  be  sharper,  and  his  evident  more  precise. 
As  we  know  Vane's  timid  suggestion  of  the  double  -  entendre 
synchronized  with  the  explosion  on  the  powder  monopoly.  If  he, 
his  son,  and  Pym  are  to  be  believed,  those  notes  were  never  used 
to  galvanize  his  memory  till  April.  We  are  'therefore,  driven  again 
to  the  conclusion  that  up  till  April  Pym  had  not  got  these  notes 
in  his  possession. 

(3)  There  is  a  third  consideration.  The  first  interrogatory  put 
by  a  lawyer,  if  he  is  trying  to  extract  some  disclosure  of  events 
that  occurred  on  May  5,  is,  "Do  you  remember  a  meeting  of  the 
Junto  on  May  5"?  The  second  would  undoubtedly  be,  "Do  you 
remember  on  that  occasion"  etc.?  It  is  very  patent  that  the  Pro- 
secution were  fishing  all  during  the  interrogatories  and  the  trial 
for  any  damaging  utterance  on  any  date  that  the  witnesses  could 
remember.  This  is  why  the  in  globv  articles  were  all  drafted  and 
segregated  according  to  odd  phrases  that  each  witness  remembered, 
according  to  witnesses,  and  not  on  the  basis:  of  a  sequence  of 
sentences  uttered  at  one  meeting  to  advocate  one  policy.  The 
Prosecution  had  no  proof  that  they  were  all  culled  from  one 
speech.  This  is  partly  the  cause  of  the  great  mental  confusion 
of  the  witnesses.  If  the  Prosecution  had,  after  failing  with]  Juxon, 
pinned  him  to  a  meeting  of  the  Junto  on  May  5,  and  given  him 

1)  Gardiner. IX— 326;  C.H.I— 131. 


1036  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

time  to  recollect  himself,  they  would  have,  undoubtedly,  appeared 
at  the  trial  with  a  fuller  deposition  from  him.  The  Articles,  de- 
positions, and  evidence  show  they  had  no  fixed  meeting  of  the 
Junto,  or  date  of  any  kind  in  their  minds.  If  Pym  had'  the  notes  in 
his  possession  he  could  have  fixed  the  date.  It  was  at  the  top,  in 
either  his  own  writing,  or  that  of  the  younger  Vane. 

The  story  of  young  Vane  giving  a  copy  to  Pym  in  September, 
and  that  worthy  preserving  it  in  secret  till  April,  is  undoubtedly 
a  figment  devised  for  a  very  obvious  purpose.  One  reason,  of 
course,  was  to  get  over  the  intense  suspicion  that  would  arise,  if 
this  evidence  was  not  produced  till  the  case  had  collapsed  and 
closed.  The  long  wait  to  save  the  honour  of  the  younger  Vane, 
the  "necessity"  that  arose  at  the  end  of  the  trial,  and  all  these 
tortuous  reasons  smothered  the  suspicion  that  would  arise,  if 
Vane  fils  discovered  these  notes  only  on  the  collapse  of  the  case. 
It  also  concealed  the  very  awkward  fact,  which  for  a  multitude 
of  reasons  they  did  not  wish  exposed,  that  the  corroboration  of 
Vane,  on  which  they  had  been  relying,  wasi  Northumberland.  The 
notes  drew  a  red'  herring  across  that  awkward'  trail.  Northumber- 
land was  their  most  powerful  ally.  There  was,  however,  another 
powerful  motive.  Vane  pere  had  to  be  preserved. 

As  joint  Secretary  of  the  Junto  the  elder  Vane  took  notes  for 
the  King's  use.  He  was  strongly  condemned  by  Royalists  for 
having  taken  these  notes  at  all. *  It  is  clear,  however,  that  he  did 
so  with  the  King's  tappr  oval.  In  September,  he  received  an  order 
from  the  King  to  burn  these  notes,  or,  as  Baillie  put  it,  "the  prin- 
cipal and  all  other  papers-,  concerning  the  dissolution  of  the  last 
Parliament,  at  the  sitting  down  of  the  new  were  burnt". 2 

Mr.  Gardiner  points  out,  with  his  customary  perspicacity,  that 
this  clears  Vane  of  the  Royalist  charge  of  taking  notes:  of  a  Cabinet 
Meeting  for  an  evil  purpose.  The  King  knew  he  had  done  so.  It 
also  clears  him  of  the  charge  of  contorting  Strafford's  remarks  in 
his  notes.  If  these  notes  had  to  go  before  the  King, .  who  might 
show  them  to  Stratford,  Vane  would  have  been  too  astute  to  have 
doiie  such  a  deed.  I  cannot,  however,  follow  Mr.  Gardiner  when 
he  suggests — or  perhaps  surmizes — that  this  proves  the  accuracy 
of  the  notes  displayed  before  the  House.  They  were  "truly  copied" 

1)  Warwick.  Memoirs.— 142.  2)  B.  D.  1—289 ;  Verney.  Notes  on  the  Long 
Parliament. — 37. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1037 

by  Vane  fits,  according  to  himself.  Vane  pere  said  they  were  a 
"true"  copy.  Pym  said  they  were  a  "true"  copy.  They  could  have 
beeiu  all  telling  the  truth,  and  yet,  it  might  have  been  a  gross 
misrepresentation.  Each  phrase  by  itself  might  have  been  true. 
It  is,  however,  the  phrase  that  proceeded  "the  Irish  Army  to 
reduce  this  Kingdom",  that  interprets  its  meaning.  Even  if  the 
speeches  of  the  'Vanes  and  Pym  are  true,  were  they  the  kind;  of 
men  to  be  trusted  to  summarize  a  document  such  as  this,  inserting 
carefully  every  word  and  sentence  that  told  against  them,  on  the 
eve  of  a  political  crisis,  and  in  regard  to  a  man  whom  they  hated 
or  regarded  as  a  devil?  This  consideration  is  of  all  the  more 
weight,  when  none  of  them  stated  that  it  was  either  a  full  report, 
or  that  the  copy  was  "the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth".  They  simply  -said  it  was  "true".  It  is  not  extracts  from 
notes  of  extracts  of  a  speech,  but  the  whole  notes  that  we  require 
to  make  a  definite  assertion.  Digby  was  undoubtedly  right  when 
he  described1  what  was  read  to  the  House,  as  "disjointed  fragments 
of  the  venomous  parts  of  discourses"  -1 

It  is  sufficient,  however,  to  notice  that  Vane  pere  had  a  fairly 
accurate  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Junto,  and  had  been 
ordered  to  burn  them  before  November.  We  thus  get  the  motive 
for  dating  their  theft  long  before  the  summoning  of  the  Long 
Parliament.  This  cleared  Vane  pere  with  the  King.  He  had  burnt 
the  notes,  but,  before  they  were  burnt,  a  surreptitious  copy  had 
been  taken  by  his  son.  This  story  saved  Vane_pere.  The  only  cor- 
roborative evidence  the  Vanes  and  Pym  were  able  to  produce  was 
that  of  Vane's  steward,  who  testified,  that,  at  a  certain  time,  young 
Vane  came  to  his  father's  house,  demanded  a  certain  cabinet,  and 
the  steward  produced  it.  He  and  young  Vane  flatly  contradicted 
each  other  on  one  trivial  point,  which  shows  that  the  steward  had 
not  been  coached,  and  was  telling  the  truth.12  Could  the  Vanes 
in  their  desperation  have  hatched  the  whole  tale,  and  used  this  visit 
of  Vane  fits,  which  could  be  corroborated,  a®  the  .starting  point  for 
this  tortuous  method  of  saving  Vane  pere  at  Court,  and  making 
Vane  fils  the  daring  darling  of  the  Kevolutionaries  ?  Neither  were 
men  of  much  honesty,  and  both  were  in  a  ticklish  position.  One 
instructively  remembers  Cromwell's  phrase,  "Sir  Harry  Vane ! 
Sir  Harry  Vane!  God  deliver  me  from  thee,  Sir  Harry  Vane!" 

1)  E.  P.  VIII— 51.        2)  \7erney.  Notes  on  the  Long  Parliament.— 37. 


1038  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

(4)  There  is  not  one  incident  connected  with  the  trial  to  .show 
that  Pym  had  those  notes  before  April  10.  The  flabby  and  con- 
fused Articles,  the  omission  to  use  certain  phrased,  and  the  bewilder- 
ment asi  to  the  date  of  the  Junto  all  point  the  other  way.  The 
failure  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  the  elder  Vane  may  be  explained 
by  the  hope  that  Northumberland  would  be  useful,  but,  when  he 
failed  the  Prosecution,  the  moment  of  "necessity"  had  come.  The 
events  of  the  last  few  days  of  the  trial  are  inexplicable  on  the 
theory  that  Pym  had  these  notes.  On  the  close  of  the  in  gloho 
Articles  on  April  5,  it  was  clear  that  Strafford  was  triumphant. 
What  was  called  "the  necessity"  to  use  those  notes  had  now  arisen. 
There  was  one  possibility  of  using  them.  The  24th  article  which 
involved  this  charge  had  not  been  touched.  The  Prosecution  put 
it  aside  and  passed  on.  On  Thursday  it  was  patent  that  the  case 
was  over.  Treason  had  not  been  proved.  No  stigma  of  any  impor- 
tance had  been  attached  to  Strafford.  Pym's  last  opportunity  had 
come,  and  Pym  knew  how  to  take  legal  and  political  opportunities. 
The  24th  Article  was  revived.1  Pym  did  not  rise  to  the  occasion. 
This  was  the  last  opportunity  he  had.  So  far  from  using  the  notes, 
he  eat  by  and  allowed  the  whole  case  to  be  closed.  The  Parlia- 
mentary lawyers  moved  "to  close  the  process  so  far  as  concerned 
the  matter  of  fact".2  Would  any  lawyer — and  Pym's  conduct  of 
the  case  showed  marked  legal  ingenuity— allow  his  junior  to  make 
such  a  motion,  if  he  had  any  evidence^  that  might  yet  be  produce*  1? 
If  the  evidence  was  of  such  enormous  value  as  Vane's  notes,  Pym's 
acquiescence  in  the  closing  of  the  case  can  only  be  justified  on  the 
assumption  that  he  had  not  the  notes.  Vane  pere  subsequently  said 
that,  on  that  night — after  the  process  was  closed — he  heard  that 
his  son  had  copied  the  notes.3  This  shows  that,  on  that  evening, 
conversations  of  some  kind  were  opened  with  the  Vanes.  On  the 
next  morning  Strafford  was  sick.  .So  far  from  Pym  seizing  the 
opportunity  to  undo  the  mischief  that  had  been  done  before,  he 
moved  to  close  the  whole  trial  there  and1  then.  In  the  end  he  suh- 
mitted  to  a  ruling  of  the  judges  that,  on  the  next  morning,  the 
trial  was  to  end  in  closing  speeches.4  It  was  not  till  the  following 
day,  Saturday  April  10,  that  Pym  used1  the  notes.  He  had  now  got 
himself  into  such  a  tangle  that  the  only  way  by  which  he  could 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 53 ;  W.  M.— 42.  2)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation. 
—54.  3)  Gardiner  IX— 326.  4)  R.  P.  VIII- 45. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1039 

produce  them  was  by  allowing  Strafford  to  re-open  the  whole  case. 
So  hopeless  were  he  and  his  colleagues  of  being  able  to  proceed  at 
all,  that  they  arrived  wit  hi  a  Bill  of  Attainder,  drafted  and  ready, 
as  an  alternative  method,  to  evade  the  difficulties  that  had  arisen 
from  allowing  the  24th  Article  to  close,  and  from  "closing  the 
process". *  Is  this  the  conduct  of  a  great  lawyer,  who  had  those 
notes  all  the  while  in  his  possession,  notes  which  he  had  taken, 
because  their  "discovery  might  be  a  sovereign  means  to  preserve 
both  Church  and  State",  notes,  which,  so  he  related,  constituted 
the  prime  reason  why  he  had  undertaken  the  prosecution?2  His 
gross  incapacity  in  the  matter  is  in  strange  contradiction  to  the 
skill,  with  which  he  had  utilized  every  little  point  up  to  this 
moment. 

It  is  clear  that  Pym  never  saw  these  notes  till  the  last  moment. 
So  thin  and  dangerous  was  all  this  tortuous  tale,  designed  to  re- 
place Northumberland's  defalcation  by  Vane's  notes,  without 
discrediting  Vane  at  court,  while  explaining  their  secret  source  of 
information  before  Vane  came  to  their  rescue,  so  involved  was  the 
whole  fiction,  that  Clarendon  wondered;  why  "there  was  never  after 
any  mention  of  it  in  public".  In  the  stormy  scenes  that  ensued, 
all  discussion  on  the  matter  was  easily  burked,  while  the  effect 
set  the  populace  ablaze.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  part  of  the  story 
on  which  the  whole  thing  hinges  iisi  as  untrue  as  the  other  lies  the 
Revolutionaries  scattered  broadcast  during  all  this  period.  The 
art  of  demagogue  consists  in  such  things.  Socrates  called  it 
"making  the  worse  appear  the  better  cause".  Populus  vult  decipi. 
Decipiatur. 

The  one  flaw  in  this  theory  is  the  traditional  view  of  Pym. 
Round  his  name  have  gathered  a  host  of  laurels,  deposited  by 
historians  of  the  Macaulay  school..  Mr.  Gardiner,  however,  who 
has — with  some  considerable  reservations — carried  on  the  tradi- 
tion, failed  to  reconcile  that  view  with  Pym's  attitude  at  Straf- 
ford's  trial.  He  explained  it  by  saying  that  "Pym  could  not  under- 
stand Strafford".  That  phrase  hits  off  the  situation  perfectly.  A 
man  with  a  theory  in  politics,  above  all  a  democratic  theory,  very 
soon  looses  his  gift  of  perspective.  The  theory  becomes  the  one 
thing  needful  for  salvation.  Its  opponents  are  vermin  to  be 

1)  Dom.  1641—540.        2)  C.  H.  1—130. 


,1040  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

stamped  out.  When  the  man  is  also  one  of  considerable  piety,  his 
political  fanaticism  is  enflamed  to  boiling  point  by  religious  zeal. 
The  opponent  is  now,  not  only  an  enemy  of  the  state,  but  a 
blasphemer  of  God.  After  the  case  was  closed  we  find  Pym  speaking 
thus,  "He  hath  used  the  King's  name  for  injustice  and  oppression. 
He  hath  used  his  name  to  patronize  horrid  crimes.  The  wealth  of 
Ireland  hath  been  half  consumed  by  horrible  exactions  and 
burdens.  .  .  .  Under  his  Government  the  Irish  'had  as  little 
security  of  their  persons  and  estates,  as  if  the  Kingdom  had  been 
under  the  rage  and  fury  of  war.  .  .  .  He  hath  frequently  used 
the  whip  and  the  pillory  and  such  servile  engines.  .  .  .  He  hath 
broken  the  King's  oath  in  the  whole  of  hisl  Irish  Government.  He 
hath  taught  that  the  King  is  not  bound  by  an  oath  to  observe  the 
laws  of  the  Kingdom.  .  .  .  The  Earl  of  Stratford  had  the  first 
rise  of  his  greatness  in  the  increase  of  Popery,  and  favour  shown 
to  Papists.  .  .  . 1 

In  these  sentences  there  is  not  one  grain  of  truth.  They  are 
not  even  exaggerations  of  peccadilloes.  They  are  simply  inven- 
tions. If,  at  the  close  of  the  trial,  when  there  was  no  further 
excuse  for  misapprehension,  Pym  could  get  up  and  utter  these 
sentences — not  in  a  flight  of  passion,  it  being  a  carefully  prepared 
speech — to  what  depths  would  not  his  sullen  revolutionary  ferocity 
bring  him  in  a  moment  of  desperation?  Nor  is  this  the  special 
pleading  of  an  advocate  making  the  best  case  for  a  client.  Pym 
had  no  client.  He  was  the  director  and  originator  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, seeking  the  death  of  a  man  who  had  done  'him  no  harm.  At 
the  very  moment  too,  when  political  fury  drove  him  to  invent 
these  charges  of  national  destruction  against  an  opponent,  this  is 
what  he  was  seeking  to  perpetuate  in  the  North  of  England,  by 
blocking  every  proposal  to  get  rid  of  the  Scotch,  on  whose  arms 
he  depended.  "Northumberland,  Newcastle  and  the  Bishopric  will 
not  recover  their  former  state  these  twenty  years.  We  have  heard 
it  said  -here  that  the  coal  mines  will  not  beset  right  for  £  100.000." ; 
The  ordinary  morality  of  the  ordinary  citizen  would  regard  con- 
duct like  this  in  private  life  as  worthy  of  penal  servitude. 

Politics,  Eeligion,  and  Egotism  lead  men  down  many  a  slippery 
slope.  Learning,  enthusiasm,  and  a  rectitude  in  private  life  have 

1)  R.  P.  Vin— 663— 666.  2)  Speeches  in  This  Great  and  Happy  Parliament. 
London.  1641—111. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1041 

been  used,  since  Pym's  time,  to  excuse  astounding  immorality  and1 
unblushing  mendacity  in  politics.  The  stately  figure,  the  obvious 
piety,  the  sonorous  speechs  on  the  moral  aspect  of  political 
questions  are  all  no  guarantee  of  veracity,  integrity,  or  a  sense  of 
honour.  When  accompanied  by  egotism,  and  a  passion  for  applause, 
this  type  of  statesman  has  been  known  to  be  singularly  dishonour- 
able. He  will,  however,  always  flourish  in  time  of  tumult.  He 
attracts  attention,  allures  recruits,  and  lends  an  air  of  dignity  to 
undignified  proceedings,  like  a  brass  band  at  the  head  of  a  dingy 
procession.  i 

How  much  truth  there  was  in  this  story  no  man  can  discover 
at  this  time.  Did  "the  precise  party"  blackmail  the  elder  Vane 
by  means  of.  some  leakage  of  information  that  came  from1  the 
younger?  Did  the  two  Vanes  put  their  heads  together  at  the  last 
moment  and  procure  a  kind  of  pardon  from  "the  precise  party" 
by  the  production  of  these  notes?  Did1  Pym,  at  some  early  stage, 
get  a  sight  of  some  document  in  young  Vane's  possession,  and 
demand  that  document  in  the  end,  when  all  was  over,  and  Straf- 
ford  on  the  verge  of  victory?  All  we  know  is  that  Pym  did  not 
have  these  notes  till  Thursday,  that  on  that  day  the  elder  Vane 
was  approached,  that  on  Friday  morning  nothing  had  been  pro- 
cured, and  that  on  Saturday  morning  they  were  in  possession  of 
the  notes. 

The  notes  themselves  are  yet  more  mysterious.  They  undoubt- 
edly reek  of  Strafford.  Every  phrase  could  have  been  uttered  by 
no  otfier  than  him.  Nevertheless  they  are  singularly  suspicious. 
They  purported'  to  be  Pym's  copy  of  the  elder  Vane's  honest  and 
conscientious  report  of  the  proceedingsi  of  the  Junto.  None  but 
the  damaging  utterances  of  Strafford  are  reported.  None  but  the 
dubiously  unconstitutional  remarks  of  Laud  are  treasured.  Cot- 
tington  appears  only  uttering  advice  by  no  means  palatable  to  a 
friend  of  liberty,  calculated  to  enrage  an  average  middle  class 
Englishman.  Northumberland,  however,  appears  with  a  series  of 
sonorous  platitudes  and  cautious  warnings,  eminently  calculated 
to  endear  him  to  the  popular  party.  We  all  know  these  were  the 
views  of  these  four  men.  Did  they  not  at  that  meeting  utter 
anything  but  remarks  of  this  tenor1?  We  know  that  Northumber- 
land hated  the  Scotch.  Did  that  hatred1  not  show  itself  in  some 
advice*  as  to  how  the  King  was  to  keep  them  out  of  his — Nor- 

66 


1042  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

thumberland's — demesne?  Where  are  Straff ord's  "candide  et  caste" 
phrases?  Where  are  his  methods  of  "endearing  the  King  to  his 
subjects",  such  as  remittance  of  feudal  dues  to  those  who  were 
"forward",  or  possible  compensations  to  outweigh  the  unpopularity 
of  commandeering,  or  exemptions  of  wardships  to  the  heirs  of 
gentlemen  slain  in  the  fight,  or  the  promise  of  a  Parliament,  when 
the  fight  was  over?  We  know  that  these  ideas  dominated  him, 
quite  as  much  as  "making  the  nobility  smart  for  it",  and  it  is 
impossible  to  believe  that,  when  he  urged  an  offensive  war  by 
forced  loans  and  conscription,  he  did  not  urge  these  quite  as  in- 
sistently, to  outweigh  the  doubts  and  fears  of  a  revolution  put 
forward  by  Vane  and  Northumberland.  Accordingly  these  notes 
are  not  a  fair  report.  Were  they  even  a  fair  copy  of  the  notes  made 
for  the  King? 

What  adds  to  this  suspicion  is  that  no  notes  were  taken  of 
the  speeches  of  others.  Windebanke  spoke.  So  did  Vane. 1  No 
record  was  produced  of  what  they  said.  Juxon  said  that  "every 
man  there"  said  his  say. 2  We  know  that  the  rule  at  such  meetings 
was  for  every  man  in  turn  to  give  his  opinion.  Was  Juxon's 
opinion  not  worth  recording  for  the  King  to  meditate  upon? 
Lastly  there  was  Hamilton,  who  knew  more  about  Scotland  than 
any  man  there.  Vane  did  not  think  of  recording  him.  On  this,  how- 
ever, there  is  some  doubt.  Clarendon  says  that  the  notes  read  in 
the  House  did  contain  Hamilton's  name,  but  the  remarks  were  of 
no  importance. 3  If  this  be  so,  the  Prosecution  must  have  expur- 
gated the  copy  they  subsequently  published.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  notes  of  a  Council,  at  which  everyone  gave  advice,  omitted 
Vane,  which  was  natural,  Windebanke  who  had  fled,  Juxon  who 
had  no  enemy,  and  barely  mentioned  Hamilton,  who  had  made 
terms  with  the  Opposition,  and  was  not  averse  to  Vane.  They  also 
contained  only  the  spicy  and  damaging  utterances  of  that  Royalist 
trio,  for  whose  blood  the  Opposition  were  thirsting,  and  only  the 
decorous  sentiments  of  Northumberland,  Vane's  patron,  destined 
yet  to  be  the  greatest  ally  the  Parliamentarians  procured.  Were 
these  the  kind  of  notes  that  Vane  was  in  the  habit  of  making  for 
the  King?  It  is  patent  that  they, were  an  expurgated  edition  of 
the  real  notes. 

The  question  then  arises  as  to  who  made  these  choice  selec- 

1)  R.  P.  VIII— 532.        2)  R.  P.  VIII  -  534.        3)  C.  H.  1—130. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1043 

tions,  picked  out,  perhaps  from  the  reports  of  a  dozen  meetings, 
certainly  from  a  long  discussion,  in  which,  at  least,  seven  speeches 
were  made.  If  we  were  to  believe  Pym  and  Vane,  it  was  they  who 
made  "the  true  copy".  Unfortunately  the  elder  Vane  made  one 
slip.  He  was  asked  in  the  House  if  the  copy  produced  were  a  fair 
copy  of  the  notes  he  destroyed  six  months  before.  He  replied  that 
it  was.  Recollecting,  no  doubt,  that  he  had  given  a  rather  poor 
exhibition  of  his  memory  a  few  days  before,  he  added  that,  before 
the  notes  were  destroyed  he  made  a  copy,  and  from  his  recollection 
of  that  copy  he  could  certify  to  this.  In  other  words  Vane  pere 
was,  at  the  moment,  in  possession  of  a  true  copy  of  the  notes,  if 
not  of  the  original  that  had  not  been  burnt.  It  is  clear  that  this 
copy,  still  extant,  wasi  the  origin  of  those  "venomous  extracts"  pro- 
duced on  April  10,  which  were  never  in  Pym's1  possession  till  then.1 

We  thus  arrive  at  a  series  of  conclusions: — • 

(1)  Pym  drafted  the  Articles  on  the  basis  of  a   double  entendre 
provided  by  Northumberland. 

(2)  After  they  were  drafted,  Vane  produced  a  similar   double 
entendre. 

(3)  The  Prosecution  learnt  that  Northumberland  would  put 
a  harmless  interpretation  on  the   double  entendre,    and  therefore 
did  not  call  him. 

(4)  Vane  in  the  box  tried  to  avoid  putting  any  interpretation 
on  the   double  entendre,    but  was  badgered  into  giving  a  sinister 
interpretation. 

(5)  The  Prosecution  collapsed  and.  the  case  was  closed. 

(6)  Vane  was,  in  possession  still  of  his  notes^  or  of  a  copy  he 
had  made  of  them.   His  son  and  Pym,  after  an  interview  with  him 
on  Thursday,  appear  on  Saturday,  with  an  expurgated  copy  of  the 
same,  and  a  Bill  of  Attainder  to  get  over  the  legal  difficulties,  due 
to  this  late  production.   The  story  of  the  son's  breach  of  confidence 
was  only  devised  that  the  exposure  "might  be  rather  imputed  to 
the  conscience  and  curioisity  of  the  son  than  the  malice  of  the 
father".    So  wrote  Clarendon,  who  was  nearer  the  truth  than  he 
thought. 

For  our  purposes,  therefore,  we  may  regard  the  charge  that 
Stratford   intended  to  "reduce"  England  by  Irish  swordsmen  as 

1)  Gardiner  IX— 328.  See  D'Ewes' Diary. 

66* 


1044  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

untrue.  There  is  no  evidence  to  support  it.  All  the  evidence  on 
the  subject  is  the  other  way. 

Nevertheless  the  production  of  these  notes  caused  a  great 
revulsion  of  feeling.  True  it  was  that  "the  precise  party"  held  up 
every  motion  to  make  an  accomodation  with  the  Scotch,  and  thus 
kept  a  sixth  of  England  under  an  arbitrary  Scotch  tyranny  of 
billetings  and  confiscations.  True  it  was  that  their  agents  flung 
in  their  lot  with  all  the  destructive  elements  of  Irish  sedition, 
imprisoning  the  Irish  Judges,  paralysing  the  Irish  executive,  and 
issueing  ukases  to  make  the  estates  of  "painful  people"  over  to  the 
worst  subjects  in  Ireland.  True  it  was  that  the  Scotch,  whose 
Calvinistic  and  Badical  propaganda  made  them  the  partners  and 
the  heroes  of  the  Parliamentarian  clubs,  had  been  forming 
alliances  with  the  relics*  of  Ulster  feudalism  and  serfdom  to  spread 
fire  and  destruction  throughout  the  Plantations.  These  things 
were  conveniently  forgotten.  They  did  not  affect  the  bourgeois 
of  the  Southern  cities.  The  lamentations  of  the  North  of  England, 
and  the  soon-to-be-realized  apprehensions  of  the  Irish  subject  fell 
upon  ears  deaf  to  everything,  except  the  catch-cries  that  suited 
their  own  political  prejudices.  One  has  only  to  read  the  monster 
petitions  of  the  Southern  cities,  to  realize  that  England  was  mad 
with  fury  and  panic  at  the  thought  that  Strafford  had  plotted  to 
ravage  their  homes  with  Irish  janissaries. 

In  this  atmosphere  the  decision  of  the  Commons  was  a 
foregone  conclusion.  It  is  curious,  however,  to  note  the  pertina- 
city, with  which  a  solid  little  block  of  members  exhausted  every 
Parliamentary  ingenuity  to  stay  the  passage  of  that  Bill  of  At- 
tainder. The  younger  Coke  says  that  they  numbered  no  less  than 
100.  *  Digby,  Selden,  Hyde,  and  Godolphin  stuck  stolidly  to  the 
great  point  that  Strafford  had  broken  no  law,  and  that  it  was  the 
height  of  "arbitrary  Government"  to  declare  that  a  man's  deeds 
were  a  crime,  and  then  to  hang  him'  for  what  he  had  done  before 
it  was  declared  criminal.  "A  law  a  posteriore"  was  Digby's  descrip- 
tion of  this  process.  Falkland  summarized  the  attitude  of  the 
Parliamentarians  by  an  ingenius  process  of  reasoning.  "How 
many  hairs'  breadth  makes  a  tall  man  we  do  not  know,  but  we 
know  one  when  we  see  him.  How  many  illegal  acts  make  a  treason 

1)  Cowper.  M.  S.  8.  II— 278. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1045 

is  not  well  known,  but  we  know  it  when  we  see  it."1    The  size  of 
the  majority  was  all  that  was  in  question. 

The  active  "precise  party"  had,  however,  from  the  very 
beginning  carried  on  a  savage  vendetta  against  that  particular 
class  of  man,  who  refuses  to  go  the  full  length  in  these  movements. 
The  Election  Committees  had1  got  rid  of  some.  Shares  in  mono- 
polies resulted  in  the  expulsion  of  many.  A  few  were  sequestered 
for  incautious  phrases.  How  far  this  process  of  intimidation  could  be 
carried  is  shown  by  one  incident.  A  member  suggested  that  a  certain 
ukase  of  arrest  was  illegal.  Pym  instantly  "conceived  this  did 
detract  from  the  power  of  the  House,  and  was  an  impediment  to  the 
reformation,  and  did  conceive  that  the  gentleman  be  imprisoned. 
Others  conceived  farther".  The  "gentleman"  escaped  on  that 
occasion,  but  the  incident  shows  how  dangerous  it  wa®  to  be 
outside  the  "precise  party". 2  One  member  was  expelled  and  im- 
prisoned for  saying,  "We  have  committed  murder  with  the  sword 
of  justice",  and  those  who  voted  against  the  Attainder  complained 
subsequently  that  they  "went  in  fear  of  their  lives,  great  abuses 
being  offered  to  them"-3  The  tide  of  popular  feeling  must  have 
been  singularly!  terrifying,  as  old  Coke,  one  of  Strafford's  warmest 
supporters,  wrote  up  in  terror  and  indignation  to  his  son,  scolding 
him,  because  he  abstained  on  the  division,  and  did  not  vote  for 
the  Bill.4  One  should  remember  that  to  oppose  it  was  to  be  liable 
to  the  charge  of  supporting  "arbitrary  government,"  "incen- 
diarism," "illegal  exactions,"  "papal  innovations,"  "undermining 
the  Protestant  religion",  and,  as  one  petition  put  it,  "the1  plunder- 
ing of  this  city  and  the  putting  it  to  fine  and  ransom  by  an  Irish 
Popish  Army."5  When  a  multitude,  led  by  skilful  agitators,  once 
get  these  sweeping  half  truths  into  their  heads,  it  is  ai  brave  man 
who  will  stand  up,  and  cast  his  vote  against,  "the  just  demands  of 
all  classes  in  this  realm."  When  a  man  has  but  one  vote  out  of 
400,  but  a  fraction  of  the  responsibility  and  all  the  odium,  he 
never  withstands  the  multitude.  A  sentry,  who  refuses  to  desert 
his  solitary  post  in  the  face  of  great  danger,  is  quite  capable  of 
joining  in  a  mutiny  that  he  hates.  We  get  one  glimpse  of  this 
perennial  disease  of  popular  assemblies  in  the  unfortunate  wight, 
who  sent  a  message  to  Straff ord  asking  for  forgiveness.  "I  did  it 

1)  Verney.  Notes  on  the  Long  Parliament.— 49.  2)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11—294. 
3)  Diurnal.  Occurrences.— Ill,  115.  4)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11—283.  5)  R.  P. IV-  224. 


1046  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

against  my  opinion.  I  knew  you  were  not  guilty.  I  desired 
simply  to  preserve  my  credit  in  the  House,  being  confident  the 
King  and  Lords  would  reject  the  Bill,  and  my  vote  would  thus  do 
you  no  harm."1  Suffice  it  to  say  that  of  the  152  who  opposed  the 
initial  impeachment  of  Strafford  only  59  voted  against  the  Bill 
of  Attainder,  204  being  the  number  of  its  supporters.  2  A  large 
number,  about  200,  took  the  line  of  least  resistance,  and  walked 
out  of  the  House,  which,  as  one  of  them  said,  was  "a  symptom  of 
no  great  satisfaction."3 

Shortly  afterwards  the  division  lists  were  published.  At  this 
period  this  was  a  serious  breach!  of  privilege.  Digby,  for  instance, 
got  into  serious  trouble  for  publishing  his  speech  on  the  Bill  of 
Attainder.  The  list  was  taken  by  a  member  of  the  name  of 
Elsing,  and  posted  "in  the  old  Palace  Yard"  by  Mr.  Wheeler  of 
Westbury.  One  unfortunate  member,  who  had  not  voted  at  all, 
protested  vehemently  against  being  thus  unjustly  exposed  to  the 
rage  of  the  multitude,  but  that  was  all  that  was  heard  on  the 
matter.  John  Crewe  of  Northumberland  also  abstained,  "where- 
upon letters  were  isent  into  ye  country  with  these  expressions, 
"Crewe  is  a  Straff ordian",  "Crewe  is  a  Papist",  all  of  which  -were 
unpleasant;  to  the  Crewe  family,  who  were  strong  Puritans.4  The 
superscription  on  the  published  division  list  was  "  Straff  ordians, 
who,  to  save  a  traitor,  would  betray  their  country."5 

This  was  destined  to  react  considerably  on  the  doubts  of  the 
Peers.  Strafford  himself  said  of  it,  "This  affrighted  and  took 
from  men  the  free  delivery  of  their  own  opinions,  which  to  en- 
deavour is,  in  itself,  the  greatest  breach  of  Parliamentary  Privilege, 
and  the  most  dangerous  subverting  of  Fundamental  Laws  that 
can  be,  thus  endeavouring  to  corrupt  the  fountains,  whence  we 
receive,  and  where  all  laws  are  preserved." (  The  Act,  passed  on 
the  Restoration  to  reverse  the  Attainder,  inserted  in  the  preamble 
this  breach  of  Privilege  as  the  chief  cause  of  the  undue  influence, 
that  subsequently  affected  the  Peers,  by  "causing  the  names  of 
those  resolute  gentlemen,  who,  in  a  case  of  innocent  blood,  had 
freely  discharged  their  consciences,  to  be  posted  up  as  "enemies 

1)  L.  S.  11—432.  2)  R.  P.  Vm-54.  3)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  11-279.  4)  C.  M. 
IX.  Memoirs  of  Lord  Crewe. — I.  5)  May.  History  Long  Parliament. — 95 ;  Commons 
Journals.  11—119;  R.  P.  VIH— 59;  Verney.  Notes  on  Long  Parliament.— 57,  58. 
6)  C.M.IX— 24. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1017 

of  their  country,"  hoping  to  deliver  them  to  the  fury  of  the 
people,  whom  they  had  endeavoured  to  incense  against  them." ] 
As  for  the  gallant  59,  "We  went  in  fear  of  our  lives,  and  great 
abuses  were  offered  to  us."2 

The  Lords,  however,  were  a  far  more  independent  body.  It 
is  true  they  had  no  love  for  Strafford.  At  York  they  had  been 
very  bitter  against  him.  At  this  era  the  friction  between  the 
King  and  the  nobility  was  far  more  acute  than  that  between  the 
King  and  the  Commons.  He  was  the  check  on  their  territorial 
and  manorial  privileges.  They  were  the  check  on  the  Prerogative. 
It  was  from  them  that  all  the  opposition  came  to  Royal 
plans.  This  friction  made  the  position  of  a  Minister  at  times 
intolerable.  It  was  on  his  advice  that  a  manor  was  curtailed, 
a  forest  encroachment  checked,  a  Church  Impropriation  recovered, 
and,  at  times,  a  warrant  for  arrest  put  into  execution.  When 
President  of  the  Council  of  the  North  Strafford'  had  seriously 
alienated  the  Peerage.  That  part  of  England  was  the  last  strong- 
hold of  feudalism,  and  Strafford — more  than  anyone  else — had 
reduced  it  to  a  state  of  modern  civilization,  where  magistrates  were 
respected,  and  juries  gave  their  verdicts  fearlessly.  There,  we  are 
told,  he  took  "great  delight  to  free  a  poor  man  from  a  powerful 
oppressor,  or  to  punish  bold  wickedness.  This  lost  him  some 
men's  good  will,  which'  he  thought  to  be  better  lost  than  kept  upon 
those  terms."  Nevertheless  one  of  the  Peers,  whom  he  had  harried 
very  severely,  "did  him  all  justice  and  favour  in  his  troubles,  who 
deserves  to  be  honoured" — so  wrote  the  sorrowful  Radcliffe — 
"especially  by  us  that  had  relation  to  him."3  Suffice  it  to  say 
that,  at  the  beginning,  the  Peers  were  very  active  in  his  Pro- 
secution. 

Things  had  changed  since  then.  He  was  fallen  and  disgraced, 
an  object  rather  of  pity  than  vengeance.  A  handful  of  Olympian 
Peers  were  less  likely  to  be  swept  along  in  the  tide  of  prejudice 
than  the  tumultuous  and  helpless  commoners.  The  personal  in- 
fluence of  the  Court,  especially  that  of  the  Queen,  was  able  to 
lull  many  an  old  vendetta.  Bristol,  Saye,  and  Holland  were  now 
satisfied  with  his  fall,  and  thirsted  no  longer  after  his  'blood.  Also 
he  was  a  Peer,  of  good  family  too,  with  whose  relatives  they  had 

1)  E.  P.  VIH— 777,  778.       2)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 115.      3)  L.  S.  11—434. 


1048  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

wined,  and  dined,  and  hunted,  and  this  personal  equation  slowly 
«laked  their  wrath.  What  man  too,  with  any  respect  for  himself 
and  his  order,  could  fling  a  man  such  as  this  to  the  rabid  fury  of 
the  demagogues?  The  tumultuous  processions  of  shop  assistants 
to  welcome  the  release  of  libellers  like  Prynne  and  Bastwicke,  the 
angry  petitions!  over  imaginary  grievances  which  those  that  signed 
had  certainly  not  suffered,  the  tricks  of  the  mob  men  in  the 
Commons,  glozing  their  confiscations,  truculently  arresting  honest 
men,  and  whining  dolefully  over  tyrannies  of  their  own  con- 
ception, the  badgering  of  Strafford  by  the  lawyers,  their  refusal 
to  allow  him  Counsel,  their  threats  to  his  witnesses,  their  inter- 
ception of  the  documents  for  his  defence — whatever  may  have 
been  the  sins  of  the  Peerage  of  England,  this  was  not  their  method 
of  procedure.  Their  code  of  honour  was  curious.  They  were 
capable  of  much  that  was  not  creditable,  but  they  had  a  dim 
conception  of  fair  play,  which  the  revolutionaries  certainly  had 
not.  When,  however,  it  came  to  extending  the  law  of  treason,  to 
making  it  treason  to  advise  what  Pym  and  the  London  Corporation 
did  not  like — the  Peers  as  a  body  drew  back.  One  has  a  hazy  su- 
spicion that,  if  Straff ord  had  "held  the  city  to  fine  and  ransom," 
there  would  have  been  dry  eyes  among  the  Peerage  of  England. 
Hitherto,  their  objection  to  the  Monarchy  had  been  that  it  pre- 
vented them  from  doing  the  same. 

This  hostility  was  growing  and  growing.  It  began  when  the 
Peers  gave  Straff ord  three  weeks  to  reply,  instead  of  Baillie's  "few 
days  and  then  execute."  It  became  more  noticeable  when  they 
insisted  he  should  have  legal  advice,  and  when  they  pro- 
tected one  of  his  witnesses  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
threatened.  The  climax  came  when  they  decreed  that,  if  the 
Prosecution  wished  to  re-open  the  case,  Strafford  should  be  per- 
mitted to  do  likewise.  This  was  compromised,  after  a  few  days-  of 
"hard  words",  by  an  arrangement  that  the  case  was  to  be  regarded 
as  closed,  and  both  sides  were  to  make  their  speeches.  * 

This  was  the  occasion  of  Strafford's  swan  song.  The  speech 
is  still  on  record.  What  strikes  one  most  is  the  flow  of  the  lan- 
guage. It'  was  probably  delivered  from  a  few  "heads  of  dis- 
courses." It  begins  with  a  simple  analysis  ofi  the  evidence.  There 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 69,  70;  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 77. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1049 

is  not  an  unnecessary  word,  nothing  but  pungency  and  clarity. 
Maynard's  reply — and  it  is  singularly  able — suffers  badly  in  the 
contrast.  The  one  is  the  speech  of  a  blunt  man,  clear  in  his  inno- 
cence, telling  how  everything  occurred,  why  he  did  this  and  omitted 
to  do  that,  and  assured  that  his  hearers,  being  honest  men  like 
himself,  will  understand  it  all.  Maynard's  speech  is  that  of  the 
advocate,  very  ingenious,  but  it  lacks  that  ring  of  truth.  It  is 
too  clever. 

It  was  towards  the  end  that  he  cast  his  notes,  order,  and 
arrangement  aside,  and  spoke  to  the  Peers  as  a  Peer  to  protect  the 
realm  from  this  terrible  proposal  that  a  mistake  or  unpopularity 
should  be  made  a  cause  of  death.  The  hoarse  voice  began  to  soar 
into  what  Macauley  calls  melting  eloquence.  His  own  destiny 
seems  to  disappear  as  he  pleads  with  them  for  the  subject,  the 
realm,  for  "your  estates,  your  children  yet  unborn,  your  very 
selves."  For  close  on  an  hour  the  audience  sat  spell  bound  and 
his  opponents  aghast,  as.  he  touched  every  string  of  the  human 
passions  with  an  eloquence  that  was  all  the  more  effective  because 
it  was  artless,  and  all  the  more  powerful  because  it  was  nothing 
but  the  words,  of  "no  orator,  saying  but  what  he  himself  did 
know,"  pleading  but  what  all  his  judges  felt.  Once  he  broke  down 
and  wept,  so  near  the  surface  were  his  passions.  In  fact  at  this 
age  when  civilization  was  but  new,  nearly  all  the  men  of  any 
eminence  were  Homeric  in  their  lack  of  restraint.  One  of  the 
Eoyalists  when  he  brought  the  news  to  young  Charles  of  his  father's 
execution,  "clapped  his  hands  together,  and  clasped'  the  Prince's 
knees,  kneeling  before  him,  and  making  piteous  moan."  Straff ord 
wept  awhile  and  then  concluded  on  the  minor  key  of  the  classic 
orators.  "You  will  please  to  pardon  my  infirmity.  Something 
I  should  have  said,  but  I  see  I  will  not  be  able,  and  therefore  I 
will  leave  it.  And  now  my  Lords,  for  myself  I  thank  God,  I  have 
been,  by  His  good  blessing  taught,  that  the  afflictions  of  this 
present  life  are  not  to  be  compared  with  that  eternal  weight  of 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed  for  us  hereafter.  And  so,  my  Lords, 
even  so,  with  all  humility  and  all  tranquillity  of  mind,  I  do  submit 
myself  clearly  and  freely  to  your  judgements,  and,  whether  that 
righteous  judgement  be  to  life  or  death, 

"Te  Deum  Laudamus,  Te  Dominium  confitemur"1" 

1)  R.  P.  Vni-660. 


1050  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

"Give  the  devil  his  due/'  wrote  an  opponent,  "he  hath  per- 
fections, amongst  which  his  oratory  was  not  the  least."1  The 
result  was  patent.  "The  Lords,"  wrote  young  Coke,  "excepting 
some  few,  are  supposed  to  be  his  sure  friends."" 

Drastic  measures  would  have  to  be  employed  to  make  the 
Peers  discard  their  dislike  of  the  new  definition  of  treason.  The 
measures  are  thus  outlined.  "To  balance  the  Lords  there  is  a. 
petition  preparing  in  the  city  with  20.000  or  30.000  hands  to  it, 
to  complain  of  the  decay  of  trade,  and  to  demand  justice  against 
the  Earl  of  Stafford.  The  loan  of  £  120.000  promised  for  tin- 
payment  of  the  armies  is  stopped  to  boot.  The  Scotch  lie  near  to 
Berwick,  and  have  that  town  in  their  power,  and  their  design  is 
thought  that,  being  provided  with  vessels,  they  are  ready  to  trans- 
port their  forces  to  London  where  they  have  a  very  strong  party 
amongst  the  discontented1  citizens."8  In  other  words,  if  the  Lords 
and  the  King  did  not  accord  "justice  against  Strafford,"  patriotism 
would  cause  the  army  to  be  disbanded,  would  raise  riot,  anarchy, 
tumult,  and  civil  commotion  in  the  slums,  and,  to  make  doubly 
sure,  would  bring  their  good  friends  the  Scotch  Southwards,  to 
do  on  the  properties  and  persons  of  the  King's  law-abiding  sub- 
jects what  they  had  already  done  with  the  MacDonalds  and  the 
Stewarts  in  Scotland.  The  King  was  but  ,one  man.  The  Peers 
were  but  100  men.  Accidents  might  happen,  of  course,  if  the 
people  were  provoked,  but  on  whom  would  lie  the  blame,  but  on 
those  that  provoked  them?  The  King  and  the  Peers  would  there- 
fore do  well  to  consider  the  just  demands  of  the  English  nation, 
and  to  remember  that,  in  London,  there  were  no  police,  and  not- 
a  solitary  soldier.  On  one  side  was  what  everyone  had'  a  right  to 
expect,  Justice.  And  on  the  other — Argyle's  levies  burning  the 
country  houses.  O  Liberty,  what  deeds  are  done  in  thy  name ! 

It  was  very  plain  that  intimidation  alone  would  move  the 
Lords.  Erom  Saturday  April  10,  to  Monday,  they  used  "hard 
words"  about  "the  blood  of  our  ancestors"  and  the  dictation  of 
"popular  factions".  On  the  evening  of  that  day  they  decided  to  persist 
with  the  trial,  leaving  the  Commons1  to  proceed  with  the  Bill  of  At- 
tainder.4 On  Tuesday  Strafford  made  his  defence  before  them.  On 
Thursday  the  Peers  declared  they  would  hear  Strafford's  Counsel  on 

1)  Dom.  1641— 591.  2)  Cowper.  M.S.S.  II— 278.  3)  CowperM.S.S.  II— 278. 
4)  R.  P.  VIII— 46;  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 77 ;  'Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 57,  58. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1051 

the  legal  points  involved.  The  Commons  were  up  in  arms  at  once, 
denying  his  right  to  counsel,  and  asserting  that  the  Bill  was  the 
only  question  at  stake,  in  whose  passage  he  and  his  counsel  had 
no  locus  standi.1  Whistler  said  it  was  "against  law  to  hear  his 
counsel."  St.  John  said  that  the  Commons  were  now  the  judges, 
and  it  was  "a  dishonour  to  hear  Counsel  anywhere  than  at  their 
own  bar."  Hampden  however  counselled  surrender,  and  the 
Commons  decided  to  attend  and  listen,  but  not  to  reply.  - 

Accordingly  on  Saturday  17th,  the  Attorney  to  the  Prince 
of  Wales  argued  on  the  legal  definition  of  treason  before  the 
Peers.  Lane's  case  was  unanswerable.  An  Act  of  the  reign  of 
Queen  Mary  had  distinctly  stated  that  no  one  should  be  executed 
for  treason,  save  for  breach  of  the  Statute  of  Edward  III.  This 
Act  ruled  out  once  and  for  all  that  doctrine  of  constructive 
treason,  that  a  series  of  minor  misdemeanours  could  amount  to  a 
felony,  that  deductions  from  previous  decisions,  and  the  cumu- 
lative effect  of  what  Lane  called  "consequences  or  illations,"  could 
magnify  errors  of  judgement,  words  spoken,  and  mooted  policies 
into  "levying  war  against  the  King  or  adhering  to  his  enemies."  ! 
Gardiner,  the  Eecorder,  who  followed,,  went  further.  He  said  that 
the  Peers  should  first  rule  what  offences  he  had  committed,  and 
then  state  a  case.  The  lawyers  would  then  be  able  to  argue 
whether  each  of  these  acts  or  all  of  these  acts  were  treason.  Till 
that  was  done,  they  were  but  beating  the  air.4 

On  Wednesday  April  21st  the  Bill  of-  Attainder  passed  the 
Lower  House,  and  Pym  carried  it  to  the  Upper,  with  the  decla- 
ration that  this  time  they  would  attend  the  Peers  to  "justify  the 
legality  of  the  Bill."  He  also  urged  haste.5  So  far  from  the*  Peers 
bestirring  themselves  they  allowed  the  Bill  to  lie  on  the  table,  and 
a  series  of  wrangles  as  regards  procedure  held  up  all  progress  for 
more  than  , a  week.  It  was  simply  read  a  first  time,  and  "a  great 
part  of  the  Lords  seemed  much  to  oppose  it."6 

St.  John  was  entrusted  with  the  legal  argument.  His  general 
plea  was,  "et  si  non  prosunt  singula,  cuncta  juvant."  Trespasses, 
illegal  judgements,  words  calculated  to  cause  a  breach  of  the 

1)  R.  P.  Yin— 47,  48 ;  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 70;  Diurnal  Occurrences 
—81,  82.  2)  R.  P.  VIII— 49;  Yerney.  Notes  on  Long  Parliament.— 49,  50. 

3)  R.  P.  YHI-671-674.  4)  Nal.  II— 156.  5)  R.  P.  YIII-54.  6)  R.  P. 
VIII— 54,  55,  57,  58;  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 85, 86;  Dom.  1641—559. 


1052  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

peace,  devices  to  alter  the  status  quo,  if  directed  against  the 
Commonwealth  were  directed  against  the  King  who  was  the 
Commonwealth,  and,  if  each  of  them  was  illegal,  the  total  was  a 
war,  and  hence  a  war  against  the  King.  As  proof  thereof,  he  in- 
stanced the  riots  of  Tyler  and  Ket,  which  were  not  directed 
against  the  King,  and  yet  were  Treason.  This  was  ingenious,  but 
where  he  was  undoubtedly  on  safer  ground  was  in  the  billeting 
of  the  soldiers  on  a  defaulting  litigant.  Cess  was  treason  in  Ire- 
land. Against  this,  however,  Bridgeman  in  the  Commons  had 
given  very  pungent  reasons.  The  English  Statute  of  Treasons  had 
distinctly  defined  this  as  trespass  only,  and  that  was  the  only 
statute  of  which  the  English  Parliament  had  cognizance.  In 
England  and  Scotland  the  Court  of  Requests  always  enforced  its 
decrees  by  this  method,  and  the  Castle  Chamber  was  but  its  Irish 
name.  The  Irish  Statute  of  "cess"  only  made  it  treason  in  the 
case  of  "Lords  and  others,"  and  this  did  not  include  the  King,  the 
Deputy,  the  Courts  of  Law,  or  the  Crown,  generally  acting  as  the 
Crown.  *  St.  John  obviously  felt  the  strength  of  this,  as  he  sought 
to  bring  this  warrant  to  the  Bailiffs  under  the  head  of  "levying 
war  against  the  King,"  which  was  straining  language  with  a 
vengeance.  What  he  chiefly  relied  on  was  the  plea  that  Strafford 
was  a  danger  to  the  realm,  that  men  who  put  themselves  into  such 
a  position  were  traitors,  and  that  traitors  should  be  executed. 
L^ndoubtedly  St.  John's  speech  was  a  marvel  of  close  reasoning 
and  legal  innuendo,  but  it  could1  not  get  over  the  fact  that  Straf- 
ford had  broken  no  statute,  and  to  make  a  law  a  posteriore  was 
really  a  coup  d'etat.2 

The  next  morning  Charles  wrote  to  Strafford.  It  was  clear 
that  the  days  of  his  political  life  were  over,  owing  to  "the  mis- 
fortune that  is  fallen  on  you  by  the  strange  mistakes  and  con- 
juncture of  these  times.  Yet  I  cannot  satisfy  myself  in  honour 
or  conscience  without  assuring  you  that,  upon  the  word  of  a 
King,  you  shall  not  suffer  in  life,  honour,  or  fortune.  This  is  but 
justice,  and  therefore  a  very  mean  reward  from  a  master  to  so 
faithful  and  able  a  servant,  as  you  have  shown  yourself  to  be. 
Yet  it  is  as  much  as  I  conceive  the  present  times  will  permit. ": 
From  this  time  onwards  all  the  energies  of  Charles  and  Strafford's 

1)  Verney.  Notes  on  Long  Parliament.— 56.  2)  R.  P.  VIII—  675 -705. 

3)  L.S.II— 416. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1053 

friends  were  directed  towards  procuring  this  compromise.  The 
efforts  of  the  "precise  party"  were  bent  on  preventing  it  being 
consummated. 

Accordingly  the  Parliamentary  leaders  became  instinctively 
aware  that  they  were  confronted  by  an  impasse.  Twenty  Peers 
were  all  that  they  could  hope  to  vote  for  this  extension  of  the  Law 
of  Treason.  The  Bishops,  who  had  no  voice  at  the  trial,  had  a  vote 
on  the  Bill  of  Attainder.  All  save  one  were  Straffordians,  To 
obviate  this  a  Bill  drifted  through  the  Commons  to  deprive  the 
Bishops)  of  their  votes.  The  temper  of  the  Peers,  however,  was  up 
at  this  stage.  They  tartly  retorted  that  the  Commons  should  mind 
their  own  business,  and  not  interfere  with  "our  House".  St.  John 
and  Haselrig  then  conceived  the  idea  of  making  a  general 
onslaught  on  the  Bishops,  and  they  put  up  a  private  member  to 
propose  their  complete  abolition.  To  their  amazement  the 
Commons  revolted.  A  storm  of  criticism  assailed  this  sweeping 
proposal.  The  "precise  party"  suddenly  realized  that  though  there 
was  hostility  to  "prelatical  tyranny,"  the  majority  of  the  House 
were  by  no  means  disposed  to  presbyterianize  England.  After  an 
angry  debate  the  Bill  was  laid  aside,  and  other  methods  had  to  be 
devised  to  overcome  the  prelatical  vote  in  the  Upper  Chamber.  ^ 

A  storm  was  brewing  outside  the  House.  Coke's  hint  of 
"petitions  to  counterbalance  the  Lords"  shows  what  was  coming. 
These  petitions  were  trickling  in,  and  it  required  very  little  to 
convert  them  into  a  popular  outburst.  Vane's-  story  of  "the  Irish 
Army"  was  one  source  of  popular  suspicion.  Worcester's  levy  of 
1.500  men  in  Wales,  "all  papists  that  went  to  Mass  to  the  sound 
of  a  drum,"  had  already  been  a  subject  for  protestation. ?  In 
Yorkshire  lay  the  Royal  Army,  scantily  paid  by  driblets,  while 
the  Scotch  received  their  weekly  pay  in  full  and  ample  manner. 
The  danger  also  of  the  Scotch  taking  Berwick,  which  they  had 
actually  blockaded,  was  something  that  made  it  vital  that  Charles 
should  "put  the  army  in  a  posture,"  by  improving  the  discipline, 
and  providing  it  with  money. 3 

At  this  stage  the  "Army  plot"  came  on  the  scene.  The  details 
have  been  thoroughly  sifted  and  sorted  by  Mr.  Gardiner,  and  are 
already  well  known.  Roughly  stated  they  are  as  follows.  Some 

1)  C.H.I— 134— 136.  2)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 36.  3)  Egmont M.  S.  S. 
T— 133. 


1054  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Army  officers  petitioned  the  King  for  pay.  "The  Queen's  side  s 
in  their  dissatisfaction  a  dim  hope  of  a  coup  d'etat.  Mysterious 
oaths,  plots,  and  runnings  to  and  fro  ensued,  all  of  which  were 
known  to  the  "precise  party"  by  the  beginning  of  April.  The 
King  favoured  the  petition  for  obvious  reasons.  He  listened  to 
the  conspirators,  and,  after  meditation,  bluntly  told  them  that 
their  designs  were  "vain  counsels."  This  was  obvious.  A  coup 
d'etat  would  not  pay  the  Army.  What  cash  would  result  from 
a  forcible  dissolution  of  Parliament?  What  would  the  Scotch 
Army  be  doing  in  the  meanwhile?  They  too  wanted  cash,  and  it 
could  be  provided  by  Parliament  alone.  The  very  fact  that,  at 
the  end  of  April,  Holland  was  made  commander-in-chief  of  the 
forces  shows  what  Charles  thought  of  these  vain  counsel's  of  the 
Queen,  her  foolish  retinue,  and  the  indefatigable  Father  Philips, 
who  knew  so  little  of  Charles  as  to  suggest  to  Eossetti  that  the 
Pope  should  provide  the  cash,  and  Charles  should  become  a  secret 
Eoman  Catholic.  It  was  almost  on  a  par  with  the  'Queen's  boast 
in  February  that  20.000  foreign  troops  were  coming.  It  was  a 
question  not  of  troops,  coups  d'etat,  oaths,  and  intrigues,  but 
where  the  money  was  to  arise  for  the  pay  of  the  troops,  the 
food  of  the  troops,  and  the  ordinary  incidents  of  Govern- 
ment. Xone  knewT  this  better  than  Charles.  Hence  his 
remark  on  "vain  counsels",  and  his  appointment  of  Holland  to 
please  moderate  Parliamentarians.  None  thought  of  this  less  than 
Henrietta  Maria,  and  her  coterie  of  inexperienced  politicians,  idle 
young  men,  and  poets,  the  most  terrible  combination  that  can  be 
let  loose  in  affairs  of  State,  especially  when  influenced  by  intri- 
guing women.  Is  it  any  wonder  they  quarrelled  among  them- 
selves and  revealed  the  worst  side  of  the  story  to  Pym?  Is  it  any 
wonder  the  Parliamentarians  were  fully  informed  of  all  this  going 
to  and  fro  in  the  earlier  part  of  April?  At  the  time,  however, 
they  treated  it  as  but  the  inevitable  intrigues  of  the  "Queen's  side", 
corresponding  to  a  lobby  intrigue  on  the  part  of  those  below  the 
gangway  in  our  modern  system  of  Government,  or  to  the  move- 
ments of  political  clubs  and  "able  editors,"  voces  et  praeterea 
nihil.  Neither  Charles  or  a  single  responsible  counsellor  had  lent 
it  the  light  of  their  countenances.  Where  they  were  involved  at 
all  was  their  intense  desire  to  "favour"  the  Army,  to  "put  it  in  a 
posture,"  to  soothe  its  mutinies,  and  to  extract  its  supplies  by  daily 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1055 

appeals  to  Parliament  and  speeches  on  its  mutinous  condition.  The 
complaint  of  the  officers,  for  instance,  was  sent  by  Charles  to  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  the  petition  was  initialled  by  him  and  sent 
back  to  the  Army  for  further  'signatures,  which  open  method  of 
action  shows  his  bona  fides  in  the  matter.  With  this  every  honest 
subject  could  sympathize.  It  requires  a  very  violent  partizan  to 
leave  soldiers  six  weeks  in  arrears  of  their  pay,  and  on  half  rations 
the  while. 

Where  Charles,  however,  did  take  a  hint1  from  the  conspirators 
was  in  one  detail.  Their  idea  of  "marching  on  London"  contained 
one  germ  of  sense.  A  child  could  foresee  trouble  brewing  in 
London.  The  only  armed  force  in  that  city  was  the  train  bands, 
revolutionaries  to  a  man.  Imagine  a  coal  strike  pending  in  Wales 
to-day,  and  the  only  available  Crown  force  consisting  of  the  local 
Territorials !  Any  Government,  worth  its  salt,  would  despatch 
thither  a  regiment  of  the  Regulars  as  an  elementary  precaution. 
In  the  case  of  London,  subsequent  results  completely  justified 
Charles.  As  it  was,  towards  the  end  of  April,  he  ordered  Captain 
Billingsley  to  levy  a  hundred  of  the  discharged  mercenaries, 
who  were  in  the  city,  and  to  place  them  in  the  Tower  as  a  garrison. 

It  was  this  that  frightened  the  "precise  party."  Apart  from 
the  appearance  of  soldiers  in  the  Metropolis — popular  leaders 
always  shudder  at  such  a  move — it  meant  that  Strafford  passed 
from  their  power  .into  the  grip  of  Charles.  What  use  were  Bills 
of  Attainder  if  the  Monarch  rejected  them, — as  he  had  a  right  to 
do, — and  then  quietly  sent  the  unconvicted  Strafford  out  of  the 
Kingdom?  Furthermore,  every  Revolutionary  Party,  no  matter 
how  pacific  in  words,  has,  at  the  back  of  its  mind,  the  'idea  of  riot. 
Every  Liberal  is  opposed  to  a  strong  Army.  Every  politician, 
seeking  to  alter  the  status  quo,  and  depending  on  popular 
excitement,  keeps  in  reserve,  as  his  great  weapon,  the  threat 
of  civil  commotion  at  the  expense  of  the  ordinary  citizen. 
Every  demagogue  regards  the  appearance  of  a  policeman  as  a 
threat  to  himself,  or,  at  any  rate,  as  an  obstacle  of  some  kind. 
Here  was  a  party  stirring  up  passions  in  London  to  "counter- 
balance the  peers,"  and,  as  we  know,  to  intimidate  them  by  force. 
What  must  their  feelings  have  been,  when  they  learnt  that  100 
soldiers,  who  could  scatter  5.000  uproarious  citizens,  were  about 
to  take  up  their  quarters  in  the  Tower,  and  to  hold  the  person  of 


1056  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

"the  Arch-Incendiarist,"  not  for  them  and  patriotism,  but  for  tin- 
King?  1 

True  it  was  that  the  Tower  was  the  King's  property.  True 
it  was  that  the  prisoner  was  accused'  of  treason  to  the  King,  who 
could  do  what  he  wished  with  those  who  offended  against  him. 
These,  however,  were  legal  pimetilioes.  This  was  not  a  time  for 
law.  Law  was  only  valuable  when  on  the  side  of  patriotism. 
Accordingly  the  "precise  party"  carried  a  resolution  that,  as  "the 
Earl  of  Strafford  may  have  a  design  to  escape,"  the  guard  be 
strengthened,  "the  guard,"  being  the  train  bands,  "men  that  we 
know."  Captain  Billingsley  will  now  find  himself  outnumbered.2  A 
few  hours  after  this  occurred,  another  denouement  caused  another 
commotion. 

While  all  this  was  in  process,  while  it  was  even  clear  to  the 
Parliamentary  leaders  that  the  Bill  would  "hardly  pass  the  House 
of  Lords,"  Lord  Saye  intervened  with  damaging  effect.  Bedford's 
sudden  death  had'  made  Saye  the  chief  counsellor  on  whom  Charles 
had  to  depend  for  knowledge  of  the  temper  and  attitude  of  the 
Peers.  Saye  had  persistently  assured  him  that  he  would  be  able 
to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  Bill,  if  Charles  only  followed  his 
strategy.  At  the  critical  moment  he  came  to  Charles  with  the 
culminating  point  of  his  strategy.  He  advised  Charles*  to  go  down 
to  the  House,  and  inform  Parliament  generally,  that  he  was  dis- 
satisfied' with'  much  that  Strafford  had  done,  that  he  would  dismiss 
him  from  all  honour  and  offices,  but,  the  point  of  treason  not 
being  clear,  he  could  not  consent  to  a  death  sentence.  The  policy 
had  one  merit.  It  took  the  onus  off  the  Peers.  They  could  sub- 
sequently defend  their  rejection  by  the  certainty  the  King  would 
veto  the  Bill,  and  dismissal  and  disgrace  were  of  some  value,  on 
the  principle  that  half  a  loaf  is  better  than  no  bread.  To  a  Poor, 
timid  of  public  opinion,  this  was  something. 

The  moment  Strafford  heard  of  this,  he  was  aghast.  It  struck 
right  at  his  traditions.  It  shifted  the  unpopularity  of  the  re- 
jection from  the  Peers  on  to  the  King.  It  made  the  King  step 
forward  to  defend'  an  unpopular  servant.  It  did  something  worse 
even  than  that.  It  provided  the  Peers  with  a  reason  why  they 
should1  pass  the  Bill.  Left  to  nimself,  many  a  Peer  would  face  the 

1)  Gardiner  vol.  IX;  K.  P.  IV— 253,  254,  257 ;  C.  H.  1-1  39-144.  2)  K.I '. 
Vni— 238. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1057 

shouts  of  the  rabble  rather  than  execute  a  brother  Peer,  who  was 
innocent.  With  the  certainty,  however,  that  the  King-  would 
reject  the  measure,  the  timid  Peers,  with  a  love  of  popularity, 
would  undoubtedly  pass  the  measure,  on  the  assumption  that  it 
would  go  no  further.  Strafford  immediately  despatched  his 
brother  to  advise  the  King  to  "depend  upon  the  honour  and  the 
conscience  of  the  Lords,"  and  upon  that  and  that  alone. 

The  next  day  Saye  arrived,  and  argued  vehemently  with 
Charles.  He  told  him  bluntly  that,  without  this  intervention, 
success  was  dubious.  He  went  further.  He  washed  his  hands  of 
the  whole  business  unless  his  advice  was  taken.  It  was  a  serious 
moment.  Saye  was  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  "popular" 
Peers.  With  his  aid.  it  looked  as  if  all  would  be  well.  He  was 
in  the  House.  Charles  knew  nothing  of  its  temper,  save  through 
intermediaries  like  this.  He  decided  to  trust  Saye,  and  went  forth 
to  make  a  declaration,  which,  as  Straff ord  said,  he  "might  well 
have  spared."  Both  Clarendon  and  the  Author  of  the  "Brief  and 
Perfect  Relation"  held  that  Saye  was  not  honest  in  the  matter,  as 
at  that  time  Straff ord  had  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords. * 
But  a  week  before,  Baillie  had  written,  "It  kythed  Straff ord's 
friends  were  strongest  in  the  Upper  House."2 

Both  Houses  were  summoned  and  the  King  made  his  de- 
claration. Bluntly  stated,  it  was  to  the  effect  that  his  conscience 
would  not  permit  him  to  execute  Strafford,  especially  when  he 
had  never  advised  him  to  bring  over  the  Irish  Army.  The  words 
were  hardly  out  of  his'  mouth,  when  it  was  apparent  that  Strafford 
had  been  right.  Relief  was  obvious  on  the  faces  of  the  silent 
Lords.  A  barely  perceptible  hum  of  indignation  rose  from  the 
gathered  Commons.  Charles  slowly  left  the  Chamber  with  the 
feeling  that  he  had  not  improved  matters. 3  Thei  Commons  retired 
to  their  precincts,  and,  after  loudly  expressing  their  indignation, 
adjourned  over  Sunday  till  Monday,  May  3rd.  During  the  inter- 
val the  Puritan  Ministers  lifted  up  their  voices  in  the  pulpits,  and 
harangued  their  hearers  on  the  need  for  justice  on  "the  great 
delinquent."4 

On  Monday  the  Commons  reassembled,  full  of  what  a  Royalist 
would  call  "contumacy."  Pym  rose  to  draw  a  red  herring  across 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 82.  2)  B.  D.  1—289.  3)  C.  H.  1—146;  R.  P. 
Till— 734,  735 ;  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 79— 83.  4)  W.  M.— 45. 

67 


1058  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

the  track.  Grave  stories  had  reached  his  ears  of  highly,  uncon- 
stitutional practices.  A  coup  d'etat  was  on  the  verge  of  execution. 
The  People's  Chamber  was  in  peril.  The  Army  was  mobilizing. 
Officers-  had  been  ordered  to  repair  to  their  quarters.  Manifestoes 
glorifying  the  Prerogative  were  circulating  among  the  troops.  If 
good  patriots  did  not  take  heed  in  due  time,  armed  men  would 
appear  in  London,  "menacing"  the  Parliament,  incarcerating  the 
friends  of  liberty,  and  no  doubt  filling  the  deplenished  Exchequer 
of  the  Crown  by  those  methods  Strafford  had  advised.  Nay  more, 
what  religion  were  many  of  these  soldiers?  Did  not  they  go  to 
mass  "to  the  sound  of  the  drum."?  What  was  the  religion  of  the 
Queen?  Why  was  she  meditating  a  journey  to  Portsmouth?  What 
wasl  the  Queen's  mother  doing  in  England  at  this  time?  Certainly 
she  had  not  arrived  to  suppress  Prelatical  and  Papal  Innovations. 
Twice  had  they  petitioned  the  King  to  demobilize  that  Irish1  Army. 
Twice  had  he  refused.  They  knew  well  for  what  reason  that  force 
had  been  called  into  being,  viz.  "to  reduce  this  Kingdom".  Now 
it  was  clear,  very  clear,  that  the  English  and  Irish  Armies  were 
to  be  "joined,"  and  the  "bringing  in  of  a  French  Army"  was  a 
certainty.1  This  excursion  into  a  plot  of  a  French  landing  at 
Portsmouth,  arose  partly  from  the  Queen's  boasts  of  "foreign 
troops,"  and  partly  from  the  ostentatious  visits  of  some  self-im- 
portant priests  to  the  French  embassy.  Pym  forgot  for  the 
moment  that  the  only  available  French  battalions  were  in  the 
east  of  Picardy,  and  that  it  would  take  two  months  to  mobilize 
the  French  Navy. 2  There  was  even  worse  to  come.  Evil  advisers 
—"unfriends,  men  and  devils,"  honest  Baillie  called  them — had 
been  negotiating  with  the  Scotch,  asking  them  on  what  terms 
they  would  leave  England,  -seeking  to  split  the  forces  of  liberty, 
so  that  this  Army  might  be  free  to  wreak  its  wrath — visible 
enough  in  these  military  petitions — upon  those  who  stood  by  the 
Reformed  Religion  and  against  Papal  Innovations.3 

Bad  as  this  was,  there  was  worse  to  come,  and  here  Pym  was 
on  safer  ground.  The  House  had  declared  the  Arch  Tyrant  a 
traitor.  He  lay  now  in  the  Tower  with  none  to  give  him 
sympathy,  but  Jesuits,  friars,  and  the  retinue  of  the  Queen,  all  of 
whom  were  very  active  of  late,  including  those  who  buzzed  around 

1)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 94.  2)  Dom.  1641—585.  3)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S. 
11—280;  B.D.  1-294. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1059 

the  French  Embassy,  and  Father  Philips,  whose  tirade  on  the 
Parliament  was  subsequently  intercepted,  and  read  to  the  horror 
of  all  friends  of  liberty.  Orders  had  come  to  the  Governor  of  the 
Tower  to  dismiss  the  respectable  train  bands  of  honest  citizens 
-"men  that  we  know" — and  to  substitute  a  guard  of  100  men 
under  a  notorious  partizan  of  the  Arch  Incendiarist  himself,  nay 
even  "a  page  of  the  traitor".1  The  coup  d'etat,  the  rescue  of 
Strafford,  the  arrival  of  mercenaries,  the  overawing  of  the 
Parliament,  this,  and  a  host  of  other  circumstances  rendered  it 
vital  that  honest  men  should  bestir  themselves,  and  "caveant  ne 
quid  detrimenti  respublica  subeat."  2 

Then  the  long  pent  up  storm  burst.  The  whole  plot  was  no 
more  than  men  expected.  Its  publication  just  suited  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  moment.  It  came  when  long  irritation,  a  series  of 
rebuffs,  hope,  despair,  and  anger  all  alike  combined  to  give  the 
emotions  of  the  moment  a  volcanic  potency. 

Instantly  a  series  of  excitable  resolutions  were  passed  at  rapid 
speed  through  a  confused,  bewildered,  and  excited  assembly.  A 
Committee  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  despatch  of  gun- 
powder to  Portsmouth,  to  note  what  priests  had  been  unduly 
active,  and  to  prepare  a  resolution  for  "the  defence  of  religion, 
the  King's  person,  and  the  liberty  of  the  subject."3  A  message 
was  sent  to  the  Army  promising  pay  and  rations,  and  assuring 
them  that  the  Parliament  were  their  friends.4  The  Peers  were 
notified  of  what  was  being  done,  and  a  Committee  of  that  House 
went  with  a  Committee  of  the  Commons  to  inquire  into  that 
affair  of  the  Tower.  After  much  wrangling  they  procured  an 
assurance  that  the  old  garrison  would  remain,  and  the  new  be  not 
admitted.  What  was  more  to  the  point — and  here  the  "precise 
party"  scored — one  of  these  "popular"  Peers,  Lord  Newport, 
remained  behind  in  the  tower  as  patron  of  the  "men  we  know," 
as  the  real  gaoler  of  Strafford.5 

Before  this  storm  Charles  could  do  nothing  and  he  let  him 
remain.  All  shipping  too  was  stopped  to  prevent  egress  of 
suspects,  with  the  result  that  over  1.000  sailors  were  unemployed, 
and  hung  about  the  streets,  ripe  for  mischief,  and  by  no  means 

1)  B.D.I— 295.  2)   CowperM.S.S.  II— 278,279,280;  R.P.  VIII-735; 

IV— 240;  C.H.I— 143.  3)  Commons  Journals.  II— 67.  4)  Verney.  Notes 

on  the  Long  Parliament.— 67 ;  R.  P.  IV— 252.         5)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 92. 

67* 


1060  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

enthusiastic  on  the  "incendiarist"  who  had  produced  this  situation.1 
Excited  delegates  were  despatched  to  supervise  the  Ports,  and  stay 
emissaries  that  Henrietta  Maria  might  send  to  "friends  of  Popery 
in  France."2  It  is  to  be  feared  that  Kichelieu  and  other  "foreign 
Papists"  were  far  more  sympathetic  to  Pym  and  the  "precise 
party/'  than  to  poor  Henrietta  Maria,  she  being  the  consort  of  the 
monarch  who  owned  the  greatest  navy  in  Europe.  One  somehow 
cannot  visualize  Eichelieu  intervening  in  England  to  save  Straf- 
ford.  His  Majesty  was  then  "moved"  to  give  orders  that  none  of 
his  servants  leave  London,  as  the  House  had  discovered  "sinister 
designs,"  derogative  to  peace,  order,  and  religion.3 

Outside  the  London  multitude  had  gathered  in  large  numbers 
demanding  blood  "with  a  loud  and  hideous  voice."4  "For  these 
two  days,"  wrote  an  onlooker,  "the  town  has  been  in  uproar,  tumul- 
tuously  seeking  justice  and  speedy  execution."5  Whitelock  put 
the  number  at  6.000  armed  with  "swords,  cudgels,  and  staves". 
Many  of  them  were  men  of  good  fashion.6  It  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  trade  was  paralysed,  and  large  numbers  were  in 
a  state  of  great  destitution.  It  was  an  easy  matter  in  such  circum- 
stances to  gather  a  crowd.  It  was  easy  too  for  them  to  ascribe 
their  misfortunes  to  Straff  or  dian  policy.  Nor  did  they  hesitate 
to  do  so.  7  How  much  was  due  to  organization  during  the  week 
end  is  a  matter  of  controversy,  but,  by  now,  things  had  reached 
such  a  pass  that  any  spark  caused  a  popular  conflagration.  But  a 
few  days  before,  an  effort  had  been  made  to  rush  the  Spanish 
embassy,  the  indignant  ambassador  not  scrupling  thereafter  to 
describe  the  nation  to  which  he  was  accredited  as  "a  race  of 
savages."8  This  time  the  multitude  were  thoroughly  alarmed. 
Loud  cries  reached  the  assembled  Commons  of  "Justice,"  "Justice 
on  Straff  ord".  There  were  about  5.000  in  the  crowd — some  put 
it  at  10.000 — and  staid  Aldermen  threatened  to  reinforce  it  next 
day  with  their  employees.9  Some  boasted  that  next  day  they'd 
come  with  swords,  and  cries  were  raised  of  "We'll  have  either 
Strafford  or  the  King."10 

The  Peers  on  their  way  to  the  Upper  House  were  greeted 


1)  E.  P.  IT— 242, 250, 258,  259.  2)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 92.  3)  Diurnal 
Occurrences.— 93.  4)  B.  D.  I— 295.  5)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  I— 134.  6)  Diurnal 
Occurrences.— 90.  7)  W.  M.— 45 ;  May.  History  of  Long  Parliament.— 93.  8)  Brief 
and  Perfect  Eelation.— 84.  9)  Dom.  1641—569.  10)  Brave's  M.  S.  S.— 141. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1061 

with  language  they  were  not  accustomed  to  hear  from  such 
plebeian  lips.  Arundel,  as  he  threaded  his  way  through  the 
narrow  lane  of  roaring  humanity,  tried  to  pacify  them  with  the 
stately  remark,  "You  will  have  justice,  if  you  will  have  but 
patience,"  which  was  greeted  with  jeers  at  the  procrastination  of 
the  Peers,  and  shouts  of  "We  have  waited  long  enough."  Bristol 
came  in  for  the  full  blast  of  the  popular  fury,  "We'll  have  justice 
on  you,"  "Your  son  will  get  justice  from  us,"  "Apostate  to  Christ," 
and  other  remarks,  indigenous  to  tumultuous  assemblages  when 
excited  over  vague  theories.  The  majority  of  the  Lords  slunk 
home  by  boat,  not  daring  to  enter  their  carriages.  When  the 
crowd  spied  a  Lord  in  the  street  they  used  to  pursue  him  with 
roars  of  anger.1  Montgomery  escaped  their  wrath  by  jovial 
orations. 2  Holland  bravely  entered  his  carriage  and  departed 
amidst  considerable  uproar.3 

The  Commons  then  proceeded  to  add  fuel  to  the  fire,  led  by 
Maynard.  The  Reformed  Religion  was  undoubtedly  in  danger. 
Papal  Armies  were  about  to  be  "introduced  into  our  bowels".  Men 
should  declare  themselves.  Let  all  the  House  spurn  and  denounce 
these  and  like  designs,  and  swear  to  uphold,  to  the  point  of  death, 
the  standard  of  resistance  to  Papal  Innovations.  Those  who  re- 
fused— let  them  beware  ! 

A  Protestation  of  a  most  inflammable  type  was  then  drafted. 
It  was  one  of  those  resolutions,  so  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  old 
Parliamentary  hand,  which  are  based  on  principles  the  average 
man  affirms,  and  include,  by  innuendo,  principles  held  only  by 
the  fanatic.  To  object  made  a  man  liable  to  the  charge  of  con- 
spiring by  force  of  arms  to  suppress  the  Protestant  Religion.  To 
submit  meant  a  repudiation  of  the  via  media  in  matters  religious. 
The  Protestation  also  conveyed  the  suggestion  that  the  King  had 
been  guilty  of  undesirable  practices.  Amidst  great  excitement 
this  Protestation  was  affirmed  and  despatched  to  the  Lords.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Peers  to  the  number  of  eight  disappeared,  and 
never  voted  on  the  Bill  of  Attainder.4  Two  Lords  flatly  refused 
to  be  dictated  to,  and  snapped  their  fingers  at  this  method  of 


1)  R.  P.  IV— 257.  2)  W.  H.— 45.  3)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 90,  91 ; 

Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 84, 85.  4)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 91 ;  Brief  and 

Perfect  Relation.— 89. 


1062  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

procedure.  The  rest  tamely  submitted  and  affixed  their  sig- 
natures.1 

The  pious  Baillie  waxes  almost  lyrical  at  this  denouement.  He 
who  saw  everything-  in  its  relation  to  the  Covenant,  thus  addressed 
the  Presbytery  of  Irvine.  "Blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord!  We 
have,  I  hope,  the  substance  of  the  Covenant.  Grod  maketh  our 
enemies  the  instruments  of  our  good.  We  see  now  that  it  hath 
been  in  happy  time,  so  much  time  hath  been  spent  on  Strafford's 
head."2  Nevertheless  the  comic  element  was  not  entirely  absent. 
In  the  midst  of  these  upliftings  of  hands  and  outbursts  of 
emotion,  the  House  was  compelled  to  arrest,  try,  and  imprison 
a  contumacious  Straff ordian.  He  had  spoken  thus.  "It's  the 
Commons  should  be  hung,  and  not  the  Earl,  and  if  I  find  one 
of  their  Protestations  anywhere,  I'll  tear  it  down  and  wipe  my 
breeches  with  it."3 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  City  was  now  in  uproar.  Monster 
petitions  were  carried  round  the  City,  and  presented  to  the  Com- 
mons amidst  cheers  and  tumult.  The  fact  was  that  real  fear  in- 
spired the  commotion.  The  multitude  firmly  believed  that  the 
Army  were  coming  to  "hold  our  city  to  fine  and  ransom".  One 
incident  alone  shows  how  far  the  god  Pan  was  in  the  ascendent. 
A  board  cracked  beneath  the  weight  of  a  stout  member.  The  Com- 
mons sprang  to  their  feet  in  alarm.  The  infection  spread  outside, 
and  fearful  recollections  of  Guy  Fawkes  added  to  the  confusion. 
"In  a  clap  all  the  city  was  an  alarm,  shops  closed,  a  world  of 
people  in  arms  running  to  Westminster."4  It  only  remained  for 
an  excitable  man  to  stab  a  magistrate  "for  persecuting  poor  Ca- 
tholics," to  convince  many  that  the  end  of  all  things  had  arrived. 5 
With  a  cry  of  "To  your  tents  O  Israel",  the  crowd  threatened  a 
general  strike  if  the  Lords  would  not  give  them  Strafford's  head. 
"They  would  shut  up  all  shops  and  never  rest  from  petitioning."* 
Charles  called  on  the  Parliament  to  assist  in  assuaging  the  con- 
flagration. The  Lords  -sent  the  message  down  to  the  Commons. 
They,  however,  sat  tight.  Why  should  they  stir?  It  was  they 
who  were  riding  this  whirlwind.  They  listened  to  the  message 
being  read,  and  then  turned  to  further  exposures  and  comments 

1)  R.  P.  IV— 242— 247;  Verney.  Notes  on  the  Long  Parliament.— 67— 71;  C.H. 
1—144, 145.  2)  B.  D.  1—195.  3)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 92.  4)  B.  D.  1—296. 
5)  C.H.I— 142.  6)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 87. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1063 

on  "plots  against  the  safety  of  this  realm". 1  The  Peers  remained 
sitting  in  their  Olympian  aloofness,  painfully  conscious  of  the 
probability,  that,  if  they  did  not  yield,  "their  brains  would  be 
beaten  out".2 

The  final  day  of  the  drama  arrived.  Only  an  attenuated 
remnant  of  the  Lords  put  in  an  appearance.  The  Eoman  Catholic 
Peers  had  left  London.  The  Bishops  wisely  withdrew.3  Holland, 
Hertford,  and  Bristol  who  had  intended  to  vote  against  the  Bill, 
stayed  at  home.4  Of  the  60  Peers  who  had  sat  at  the  trial,  and 
the  90  qualified  to  vote,  only  45  gathered  on  the  eventful  day, 
"the  good  people  still  crying  at  the  doors  for  justice". 

The  Bill  as  it  stood  was  a  marvel  of  draftsmanship.  It  recited 
three  charges: 

(1)  Assumption  of  arbitrary  power  to  deprive  men  of  their 
estates. 

(2)  Levying  cess  by  armed  men  in  warlike  array. 

(3)  Attempting  to  'reduce  England  by  Irish  troops. 5 

The  first  charge  depended  on  whether  or  no  the  judicial 
powers  of  the  Irish  Council,  that  had  been  exercised  for  three 
centuries,  were  legal.  If  statute  law  was  the  basis  of  things,  there 
was  no  law  in  favour  of  Council  Board  decisions.  If  the  Prero- 
gative and  custom  were  the  source  of  development — as  they  un- 
doubtedly were  in  Ireland — Strafford  was  a  perfectly  constitu- 
tional Viceroy.  The  third  hung  on  the  slender  thread  of  Vane's 
evidence.  The  second  was  a  ghastly  example  of  legal  misrepre- 
sentation. Crown  bailiffs  are  not'  the  cess  of  a  feudal  baron,  and, 
in  this  case,  the  Lords  had  already  quashed  the  proof  of  agency. 
Nevertheless  as  the  Bill  stood  it  was  very  like  treason.  The  second 
charge  was  undoubtedly  treason  in  Ireland.  The  third  was  very 
like  "levying  war"  on  the  King,  if  he  and  the  Commonwealth  were 
one.6  The  judges  were  summoned.  They  advised  the  Lords'  that, 
as  the  facts  were  stated,  Strafford  had  committed  treason. 7  On 
the  charge  before  them  they  could  say  nothing  else.  Where  the 
injustice  of  the  Bill  lay  was  in  the  draftsmanship.  The  phraseology 
of  the  Bill  had  no  relation  to  the  actualities,  of  the  case. 

The  decision  of  the  Peers  was  now  a  foregone  conclusion. 

1)  R.  P.  IV— 249,250.  2)C.H.  I— 147.  3)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 92. 
4)  R.  P.  VIII-751.  5)  R.  P.  Vm— 756,  757.  6)  Braye's  H.  S.  S.— 141, 142. 
7)  Dom.  1641—571. 


1064  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

A<  Stratford  said  subsequently,  "A  great  prejudice  was  set  upon 
the  Bill,  because  the  Lords  had  been,  in  a  tumultuary  way,  pressed 
upon,  sundry  of  them  very  uncivilly  treated,  others  by  those 
means  absenting  themselves  to  avoid  the  danger,  and  others,  as 
may  be  thought,  less  at  liberty  to  give  their  votes,  than  otherwise 
they  would  have  been". 1  Only  26— one  quarter  of  the  Peerage — 
voted  for  the  Bill,  but  it  sufficed.  No  more  than  19  voted  against.2 
It  is  most  curious,  to  note  that  only  a  tiny  majority  of  the  Com- 
mons gave  it  their  support,  and  an  insignificant  minority  of  the 
Lords. 

All  that  was  left  in  the  path  of  the  Bill  now  was  the  King. 
A  few  days  before  its  passage  in  the  Lords,  Stratford  had  thus 
written  to  Charles.  "Sire  to  set  Your  Majesty's  conscience  at 
liberty,  I  do  most  humbly  beseech  your  Majesty,  for  the  prevention 
of  evils  which  may  happen,  to  pass  this  Bill.  My  consent  shall 
acquit  you  more  herein  to  God,  than  all  the  world  can  do  beside. 
To  a  willing  man  there  is  no  injury  done."3 

This  letter  has  been  impeached  by  Carte,  who  did  not  scruple 
to  say  that  it  was  forged  by  Dr.  Williams,  Laud's  great  adversary, 
in  order  to  influence  Charles.  The  basis  of  this1  story  was  that  a 
friend  of  Carte's  had  heard  Stratford's  son  say  so.  Against  this 
there  are  certain  overwhelming  reasons. 

(1)  The  family  tradition  was  that  the  letter  was  written  by 
Stratford. 4 

(2)  Eadcliffe  distinctly  states  that  Stratford:  wrote  the  letter. 5 

(3)  Clarendon — and  the   argumentum  e  silentio  is  a  powerful 
one  in  his  case  and  on  that  subject — never  heard  this  story.    On 
the  contrary  he  believed  the  letter  to  be  Stratford's.   He  initialled 
his  copy  of  it  thus,  "My  Lord  Stratford's  last  letter  to  the  King."0 

(4)  It  was  impossible,   in  the  circumstances,   for  anyone  to 
forge  a  letter  in  Stratford's  name  to  the  King,  without  Stratford 
very  soon  learning  that  it  had  been  done.    Carte  evades  this  point 
by  assuming  that  Stratford  was  in  complete  seclusion,  by  order 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  Ussher,  Slingsley,  Sir  Dudley  Carleton, 
the  Reverend  George  Carr,  and  possibly  Sir  George  Wentworth 
had  permission  to  visit  him. 

1)  C.  M.  JX-24.  2)  "W.  H.— 45.  3)  R.  P.  VII1-744.  4)  C.  M.  IX ; 
Papers  Relating  to  Thomas  Wentworth.— 6.  5)  L.  S.  IT— 432.  6)  C.  C.  P.  1—219. 


THE  NOTES  OF  THE  JUNTO  1065 

(5)  In  a  letter,  undoubtedly  written  by  Straff  ord,  lie  refers 
to  his  own  "letter  of  the  fourth  of  May",  which  the  context  shows 
is  this  identical  letter  that  Carte  impeaches.1 

Carte  sometimes  let  his  Jacobite  and  anti-Puritan  zeal  run 
away  with  his  undoubted  merits  as  a  historian.  In  the  case  of 
Lord  Falkland,  Parsons,  and  the  Wicklow  O'Byrnes,  he  used  the 
very  dubious  affidavits  of  the  last  to  impeach  the  first  two  of 
conspiracy  to  murder.  In  this  case  he  used  the  coffee  house  gossip 
of  the  time  to  accuse  Dr.  Williams  of  forgery. 

The  fact  was  that  Strafford  suddenly  found  himself  in  the 
position  he  had  always  striven  to  avoid.  All  his  life  he  had  in- 
sisted that  Ministers  should  not  shelter  behind  the  King.  Every 
act  of  his  career  was  directed  toward®  one  object,  to  keep  the 
Monarch  out  of  the  differences  of  the  subjects,  to  make  him  an 
Olympian  deity,  who  never  "took  the  negative",  never  did  anything 
unpopular,  and  only  appeared  to  lavish  Acts  of  Grace.  "I  am  a 
freeman",  he  one  time  said,  "but  I  live  under  a  monarch."  To  him 
the  nodus  of  the  State,  the  part  on  which  all  rights  and1  duties 
hinged,  personified  as  it  was  in  a  King,  free,  singularly  free  from 
the  vices  that  monarchy  developes,  was  something  that  should 
never  appear  in  an  ungracious  light,  something  which  should  not 
be  used  to  aid  "the  particular  ends:  of  particular  persons",  if  the 
Commonweal  demanded  their  sacrifice.  Was  he,  at  the  end  of  his 
career,  to  prefer  his  own  life  to  "the  good  affections  between  the 
Prince  and  his  subjects",  to  plunge  the  King,  the  State  and  the 
nation  into  Revolution — because  this  is  what  it  had  now  come  to, 
"red  ruin  and  the  breaking  up  of  laws" — to  save  himself,  and 
only  himself? 

"To  say  Sire  that  there  hath  not  been  a  strife  in  me  were  to 
make  me  less  a  man  than — God  knows — my  infirmities  make  me. 
But  with  much  sadness  I  am  come  to  a  resolution  of  that,  which 
I  take  to  be  best  becoming  me,  and  to  look  upon  it,  asi  that  which 
is  most  principal  in  itself,  which  doubtless  is  the  prosperity  of 
your  sacred  person  and  the  Commonwealth,  things  infinitely  be- 
fore any  man's  private  interest." 

This  letter  having  been  written,  little  more  remained  to  be 
done.  He  told  Slingsley  to  come  no  more  to  the  Tower,  but  only 

1)  C.  M.  IX-23. 


1066  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

to  keep  in  touch  with  him  through  a  servant.  "If  I  live  there  will 
be  no  danger  for  you  to  stay,  but  otherwise  keep  out  of  the  way 
till  I  be  forgotten."  Part  of  the  letter  is  melancholy  in  its  for- 
bodings.  "I  am  lost.  My  body  is  theirs,  but  my  soul  is  God's. 
There  is  little  trust  in  man."  Nevertheless  something  might  yet 
be  essayed.  One  resource  was  still  open.  It  was  a  poor  one,  but 
it  might  serve.  "The  person  you  were  last  withal  at  Court,  sent 
to  move  that  business  we  resolved  upon,  which  if  rightly  handled, 
might  perchance  do  something.  But  you  know  my  opinion  in  all, 
and  what  my  belief  is  in  all  these  things."1 


1)  R.  P.  VIII— 774. 


Chapter  IV. 
THE  DEATH  SENTENCE 

Whoever  opposes  any  of  their  proceedings,  or  is  suspected  for  a 
design  to  oppose  them,  is  to  answer  it  with  his  life.  This  practice  of 
assassination  they  have  the  impudence  to  call  merciful.  They  boast  that 
they  operated  their  usurpation  rather  by  terror  than  by  force ,  and  that 
a  few  seasonable  murders  have  prevented  the  bloodshed  of  many  battles. 
There  is,  no  doubt,  they  will  extend  these  acts  of  mercy,  whenever 
they  see  an  occasion.  Dreadful ,  'however,  will  be  the  consequences  of 
their  attempt  to  avoid  the  evils  of  war  by  the  merciful  policy  of 
murder  .  .  .  Such  is  the  approaching  golden  age.  BURKE. 

Long  before  this  debacle  had  occurred,  Strafford,  in  his  cell, 
had  been  cautiously  preparing  the  way  for  his  reprieve.  On  the 
24th  of  April — three  days  after  the  Bill  of  Attainder  had  passed 
the  Commons — he  wrote  to  Hamilton.  Knowing  well  that  "the 
Lords  are  inclinable  to  preserve  my  life  and  family",  he  suggested 
the  compromise  that  was  floating  in  the  air  all  this  while.  It  was 
to  the  effect  that  he  should  be  excluded  from  all  public  employ- 
ment. The  guarantee  that  he  would  never  return  was  that  his 
"mind  was  hastening  fast  to  quiet,  and  my  body  broken  with 
afflictions  and  infirmities".  Any  student  of  his  correspondence 
cannot  but  help  noticing  this  from  1638  onwards.  High  politics 
had  undoubtedly  disillusioned  him  of  his  earlier  ambitions  to  set 
the  world  right,  and,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  outbreak  in  Scot- 
land, he  would  certainly  have  retired  to  rural  ease  and  simple 
pleasures.  The  letter  closes  with  a  characteristic  phrase.  "Should 
I  die  upon  this  evidence  I  had  much  rather  be  the  sufferer  than 
the  jud'ge."1  It  is  clear  that  Straff ord  was  negotiating  behind  the 
scenes  with  the  Peers,  and  pointing  out  the  easy  path  of  least 
resistance. 


1)  B.  H.-182, 183. 


1068  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

The  evening  before  this  letter  was  written,  Hyde  was 
employed  on  a  similar  errand.  We  can  trace  the  date,  as  he  states 
it  was  "in  the  afternoon  of  the  day  when  the  conference  had  been 
upon  the  Court  of  York".  That  day  was  April  22.  *  Bedford — who 
was  a  Straff ordian  as  regards  the  Bill  of  Attainder — approached 
him  to  use  his  influence  with  Essex.  Bedford  was  obviously  acting 
for  the  King,  and  employed  Hyde  as  a  moderate  Parliamentarian, 
and  a  persona  grata  to  the  great  Puritan  leader.  It  is  clear  too 
that  Essex  had  been  approached  before  by  others,  and  with  no 
result.  He  gave  Hyde  a  blunt  refusal.  "Stone  dead  hath  no 
fellow,"  was  his  comment.  2 

From  all  this  we  can  deduce,  that  Strafford  was  in  communi- 
cation with  the  King,  and  that  both  were  straining  every  nerve 
to  make  the  rejection  of  the  Bill  unanimous.    At  that  stage  the 
rejection  was  only  a  question  of  the  size  of  the  majority.    One  can 
accordingly  understand  Strafford's  horror  at  Saye's  proposal  that, 
the  King  should  order  the  Peers  to  reject  the  Bill.     That  fatal; 
error,   coupled  with  the  "Army  Plot",  the  popular  outburst,  the 
subsequent  exclusion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Peers  and  the  Bishops, 
and  the  panic  among  those  on  the  crossbenches  undoubtedly  con- 
verted that  majority  into  a  minority. 

Strafford,  however,  had  a  second  string.  One  of  the  most 
curious  features  of  Strafford's  political  manoeuvres  wras  that  every 
detail  of  his  policy  fitted  perfectly  together,  each  one  helping  the 
rest.  What  would  happen  if  the  Commons  refused  to  submit  to 
the  Lordly  rejection?  They  had  already  "deserted  the  judicature 
of  the  Lords".  They  had  declared  themselves  judges.  They  had 
made  an  effort  to  dictate  what  Peers  were  to  vote,  and  who  were 
to  be  excluded  from  the  Upper  Chamber.  If  the  People's  Chamber 
were  to  declare  that  its  own  verdict  was  sufficient,  what  was  to 
prevent  the  "precise  party"  from  putting  that  claim  into  opera- 
tion? Laud's  execution,  for  instance,  was  really  a;  case  of  a  popular 
coup  d'etat,  .  "banishing  to  the  planet  Saturn"  all  conception  of 
Common,  Statute,  or  Constitutional  law,  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons alone  declaring  him  worthy  of  death.  Strafford,  it  should 
}>e  remembered,  was  in  their  hands,  guarded1  by  the  train  bands 
of  the  Corporation.  The  very  day  Strafford  wrote  to  Hamilton, 


1)  H.r.IV— 230.  2)  C.  H.  I— 137— 139. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1069 

the  first  of  the  monster  petitions  arrived. 1  When  we  remember 
the  character  of  some  of  the  members  of  the  "precise  party",  and 
the  'Corporation's  hatred  of  Strafford,  anything  might  happen  from 
"an  accident"  to  a  warrant  from  the  Speaker  for  his  instant  exe- 
cution. If  the  Commons  could  try,  imprison,  and  fine  citizens  for 
not  agreeing  with  them,  could  they  not  execute  "traitors"?  The 
Puritan  fervour  was  ablaze,  and  would  rejoice  at  such  a  coup  d'etat. 
Even  before  Vane's  revelation,  this  is  what  an  honest  and  re- 
spectable citizen  was  writing  in  his  diary.  "God  goes  on  very 
graciously  with  his  Parliament.  ...  O,  blessed  be  the  name  of 
the  Lord !  This  day  the  Holy  Martyr,  Mr.  Prynne,  was  released. 
My  heart  rejoiceth  in  the  Lord  this  day.  .  .  .  The  Lord  prosper 
the  Parliament.  The  Lord  hath  done  great  things  to-day.  Strafford 
is  in  the  Tower.  Laud  is  under  the  Black  Eod.  Finch  has  run 
away,  and  Bishop  Wren  and  six  Judges  are  bound  under  bail  to 
appear."2  Magnify  this  to  the  nth.  degree  in  May,  and  scatter  it 
over  thousands  of  honest  households,  and  we  are  aware  that  the 
Eevolutionary  nucleus  would  have  behind  them  a  very  strong- 
element  of  public  opinion,  if  they  essayed  in  1641  what  they  did 
—under  great  disadvantages,  and  without  half  that  popular 
enthusiasm — in  the  autumn  of  1642,  viz.  declared  themselves  a 
sovereign  assembly  with  power  of  life  and  death.  This  was  the 
reason  why  it  was  from  Strafford  that  the  advice  came  to  lodge 
Billingsley  and  100  mercenaries  in  the  Tower.  It  is  clear  that 
Strafford  was  to  be  removed  from  London  to  Portsmouth.  Whether 
the  rejection  came  from  the  Peers  or  the  King,  his  person  was  to 
be  safe  from  a  violent  onslaught  by  the  Londoners,  or  a  coup  d'etat 
by  the  Commons.  This  he  discussed  with  Balfour,  the  Lieutenant 
of  the  Tower.3 

There  was  a  third  danger  to  be  faced.  When  the  Bill  went 
up  to  the  Lords,  the  Commons  did  what  Strafford  foresaw  they 
would  do  six  months  before.  They  stopped  the  city  loan  for  the 
payment  of  the  troops,  and  began  to  play  with  the  idea  of  inciting 
the  Scotch  to  break  through  the  Army,  now  on  the  verge  of  de- 
mobilization through  hunger.4  At  this  stage  Charles  began  to  act 
in  a  manner  which  was  so  typically  Straffordian,  as  to  make  it 
almost  certain  that  Strafford  was  still  acting  as  his  adviser,  Sir 

1)  R.  P.  VIII-55,  56.  2)  H.  M.  C.  IX-499.  3)  Husband.  Exact  Collec- 
tion—233;  R.P.  IV— 253;  VIII— 748.  4)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  II— 278,  281. 


1070  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

George  Wentworth  being  clearly  his  go-between.  Terms  had  to 
bo  made)  with  the  Scotch.  If  Parliament  had  to  make  those  terms, 
Heaven  only  knew  when  a  treaty  would  be  signed.  Baillie's 
correspondence  shows  that  some  of  the  Scotch  and  some  of  the 
Commons  intended  to  utilize  the  situation,  and  to  insert  in  that 
treaty  clauses  disestablishing  the  English  Church,  and  vesting  the 
control  of  the  militia  in  the  Lower  House.  That  Charles  would 
never  consent  to  this  is  patent.  That,  in  doing  so,  he  was  right  as 
a  Statesman  and  as  a  Monarch,  speaking  for  the  real  wishes  of 
the  nation,  is  proven  by  the  fact  that,  after  three  centuries,  the 
Church  still  remains  established,  and  the  Common's  control  of  the 
Army  is  more  nominal  than  real.  The  line  of  least  resistance  un- 
doubtedly in  this  situation,  was  to  see  on  what  terms  the  Scotch 
would  evacuate  England.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  Charles  opened  up 
negotiations  with  the  Scotch  nobility.  They,  by  themselves,  had 
no  real  enthusiasm  for  Calvinising  the  Church  of  England,  or  for 
substituting  Pym  in  the  place  of  Charles,  as  Defender  of  the 
Realm.  Their  aim  and  object  was  something  quite  different.  They 
were  really  in  the  same  state  of  civilization  as  the  Irish  nobility 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  They  wished  to  control  their  own 
areas  themselves.  They  wished  for  a  Parliament,  which  they  would 
over-awe,  either  by  nominating  the  members,  or  by  the  other 
practices,  which  Poyning's  Law  was  devised  to  restrain  in  Ireland. 
Strafford  put  his  finger1  aptly  on  the  cause  of  this  Scotch  outbreak, 
when  he  described  it  as  "a  war  not  for  piety  but  for  their  own 
unbridled  lusts  and  ambitions",  "a  war  not  for  religion,  but  for  a 
Crown",  "striking  at  the  root  of  all  Government".  Their  Calvinist 
chaplains — like  Baillie — might  rage  at  these  negotiations,  but, 
for  the  moment,  they  were  brushed  aside  as  men  of  words,  and  not 
men  of  weight,  acres,  and  armies. 

The  negotiations  were  rapid,  and,  up  to  a  certain  point, 
successful.  Charles  granted  them  a  Parliament,  but  on  one  vital 
condition,  and  that  was  that  he<  was  to  be  on  the  spot.  His  presence 
would  be  some  guarantee  that  things  would  not  go  too  far.  When 
the  Scotch  Lords  demanded  also  the  right  to  impeach  about 
20  Royalists,  he  fought  hard  till  he  had  reduced  the  number  to 
five,  and,  even  then,  the  impeachment  was  to  be  subject  to  his 
Prerogative  of  sentence  or  pard'on.  "I  will  not  desert  my  friends 
to  this  strange  conjuncture,"  were  his  words.  What  was  more  to 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1071 

the  point,  he  procured  a  personal  pledge  from  the  Scotch  leaders 
that,  if  the  English  Parliament  ever  demanded  for  England  those 
concessions,  which,  it  was  clear,  he  would  have  to  yield  in  Scotland, 
the  Scotch  would  side  with  him,  and  give  him  aid. * 

If  this  was  consummated,  the  "precise  party"  were  doomed. 
The  need  for  the  Army  and  instant  supplies  vanished.  The  threat 
of  a  Scotch  march  through  the  Midlands,  the  terrible  plight  of 
the  Northern  Counties,'  the  fear  of  Argyle  invading  Ireland,  all 
those  things  which  bound  the  King  captive  vanished  in  one  moment, 
and  he  became,  instead,  the  master  of  the  situation. 

As  the  Bill  of  Attainder  left  the  Commons,  Colville,  the 
Scotch  agent,  reported  this  to  the  "precise  party".  The  Parlia- 
mentarians were  aghast.  If  they  were  to  win  now,  they  had  to 
strike  before  the  Scotch  left  England.  "If  the  Scotch  find  us  not 
capable  to  be  complied  withal",  wrote  the  younger  Coke,  "I  dare  not 
conjecture  what  may  be  our  success.  Holland  has  commanded  all 
the  officers  to  go  down  to  the  Army.  The  tumult  of  this  incensed 
city  is  the  only  balance  I  see  left,  which  how  vsoon  it  may  abate 
when  the  citizens  find  their  goods  in  jeopardy  is,  I  fear,  not  under- 
stood by  those  that  grasp  at  all  with  more  eagerness  than 
discretion."2 

This  was  the  situation  that  led  to  the  divulgation  of  the  "Army 
Plot"  a  few  days  later.  It  is  plain  the  Parliamentarians  were  in 
a  desperate  situation.  Some  cry  had  to  be  raised  to  make  the  re- 
quisite "tumult"  and  to  procure  a  final  decision  on  V affaire  Straf- 
ford,  before  this  situation  of  popular  impotence  developed.  The 
plot,  as  expounded  by  Pym,  was  so  absurd  that  we  may  lay  it 
down  as  certain,  that  it  had  never  been  sanctioned  by  Charles. 
The  French  Army  was  in  eastern  Picardy.  The  French  fleet  was 
scattered  all  over  the  seas.  Richelieu  was  more  friendly  to  the 
Parliament  than  to  the  King.  The  Irish  Army  was  in  winter 
quarters.  It  was  in  arrears  of  pay.  Ormonde  had  been  denied  a 
martial  warrant  to  give  it  discipline.  The  Irish  subsidies  were 
exhausted.  Stratford,  a  year  before,  could  not  get  the  ships  to 
bring  it  to  Scotland.  How  then  could  it  be  brought  to  Chester, 
and  how  could  it  be  fed  on  the  march  to  London?  The  English 
Army  was  in  exactly  the  same  plight.  It  could  not  be  marched 
south  till  the  Scotch  had  gone,  and,  even  then,  how  was  it  to  be 

1)  B.  H.— 182.  2)  Cowper.  H.  S.  S.  11-280. 


J.072  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

•supported,  if  the  Parliament  held  back  the  loan  for  another  three 
<l:iys?    The  fact  that  Holland  was  general  is  proof  that  the  recall 
(.£  the  officers  was  a  purely  disciplinary  measure,  which  was  sadly 
needed,  and  for  which  the  Army  had  petitioned.    It  certainly  was 
not  part  of  a  coup  d'etat,  though  the  order  served  to  fan  suspicion. 
Mr.  Gardiner  has  to  a  certain  extent  taken  the  view  of  Pym, 
that  there  was  an  Army  Plot.    He  however,  with  his  well-known 
perspicacity,  points  out,  that  it  was  never  arranged  in  detail,  or 
completely  sanctioned  by  Charles.   He  takes  the  view  that  Charles 
played  with  the  idea  and  procrastinated.    For  this  he  relies  on  the 
letters  of  Rossetti,  the  Papal  legate.   It  is  with  some  temerity  that 
I  venture  the  suggestion  that  Rossetti  is  not  to  be  believed.    His 
letters  give  one  the  impression   of  a  man  who  loved  to  have  it 
believed  that  he  was,  as  it  were,  in  the  thick  of  everything.   In  one 
way  he  was.      He  was  in  the  centre  of  that  nucleus  of  bustling 
gossips  that  hung  round  the  Queen's  antechamber,  but  they  knew 
as  much  about  Charles  and  his  decisions,  as  they  did  about  Straf- 
ford  in  Dublin   Castle.       Phrases  dropped  from  the  Queen,  her 
delight  in  their  webs,  her  introduction  of  Goring  to  the  King,  her 
cordial  reception  of  men  like  Sir  John  Suckling  and  his  vague 
Napoleonic  conceptions,   her  feminine  delight  in  directing — in  a 
drawing  room — vast  military  movements  through  well  mannered 
cavaliers,  all  attention  to  her  wishes, — all  this,  we  may  be  sure, 
impressed  this  Italian  Priest,  who,  after  the  tradition  of  Continen- 
tal Courts,  believed  that  he  was  in  the  seat  of  Government.    He 
forgot  that  matters  of  this  moment  were  debated  by  Charles  with 
Hamilton,  Northumberland,  Juxon,  and  certain  other  councillors 
— and  not  with  Goring  and  Suckling,  the  Queen' scourtiers, — and  that 
Charles  could  not  move  a  company  except  by  an  order  to  Holland, 
not  a  ship  save  by  a  warrant  to  Northumberland.    This  is  why 
Billingsley's  hundred  men  for  the  Tower  were  a  private  levy  of 
unemployed    condottieri,    having    no    connection    whatever   with 
Holland's  command.     In  the  great  "march  on  London"  there  is 
not  a  trace  of  any  man  of  weight.    Elizabeth,  James  and  Charles 
never  acted  in  matters  of  moment,  save  with  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  Council.    They  kept  the  Council  for  that  purpose, 
just  as  a  modern  citizen  keeps  a  solicitor  or  a  doctor.    Such  men 
could  tell  the  Sovereign  how  many  miles  infantry  march  a  day, 
and  how  many  men  a  ship  could  transport.   They  were  the  experts, 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1073 

who  had  to  be  consulted,  and  of  whose  unostentatious  existence 
Rossetti  was  ignorant,  and  whom  the  Queen,  in  her  conversations, 
ignored.  England  was  really  a  monarchy  tempered  by  an  olig- 
archy, like  the  Council  of  Venice.  Rossetti  did  not  understand  this. 
He  thought  that  Goring  and  Suckling  and  Father  Philips  were 
the  powers  behind  the  throne.  In  one  of  his  despatches  he 
solemnly  assures  his  reader  that  all  these  military  mobilizations 
and  marches  were  arranged,  but  dissolved  before  a  speech  of 
Pym. r  It  was  quite  easy  for  a  man  in  this  position  to  imagine 
what  he  would  like  to  occur.  When  the  army  petitioned  Charles 
for  money,  and  Charles  sent  their  petition  to  the  Lords,  and  the 
Lords  replied  that  the  petitioners  should  be  hung, 2  and  Charles 
then  tried  to  raise  money  privately  to  pay  the  soldiers,  there  was 
nothing  easier  for  the  Queen,  Goring,  Suckling,  and  Rossetti,  than 
to  talk  of  a  coup  d'etat.  It  is  the  ease,  however,  with  which  Ros- 
setti shifts  armies  from  Carrickfergus  to  London,  Picardy  to 
Portsmouth,  and  York  to  Westminster,  that  stamps  him  as  one 
who  was  totally  ignorant  of  the  rudiments  of  Government.  Hyde 
is  a  far  more  reliable — even  if  prejudiced — authority.  He  re- 
pudiates completely  the  Army  Plot,  as  part  of  the  plans  of  Charles. 
So  too  did  the  Earl  of  Manchester,  another  very  reliable  authority.3 
Both,  however,  are  significantly  silent,  for  obvious  reasons,  on 
two  things,  the  negotiations  with  the  Scotch,  and  Billingsley's 
hundred  men.  It  is1  most  significant  that,  after  Stratford's  execu- 
tion, young  Coke  cast  doubts  on  the  whole  story,  but  said  it  waf* 
the  prevailing  opinion  that  the  real  origin  of  the  furore  was  the 
attempt  to  put  mercenaries  into  the  Tower.4 

It  is  most  significant  that  the  basis  on  which  the  Opposition 
built  to  connect  a  series  of  incidents — harmless  in  themselves — 
into  a  plot  to  "overawe  Parliament",  was  the  evidence  of  Lord 
Goring,  the  son-in-law  of  the  Earl  of  Cork,  perhaps  the  deadliest 
enemy  that  Straft'ord  ever  had.  Cork's  comment  on  that  States- 
man's execution  runs  as  follows: —  "On  the  llth  of  this  month,  he 
was  beheaded  on  the  Tower  Hill  of  London,  as1  he  well  deserved."" 
It  is  very  hard,  however,  to  say  why  Lord  Goring  went  to  the 
Parliamentarians1  with  the  story  of  "a  plot".  There  are  traces;  in 
his  story  of  a  feud  with  Sir  John  Suckling.  There  is  also  a  trace 

1)  English  Historical  Review  XII— 115, 116.  2)  Husband.  Exact  Collection. 
—220.  8)  Nal.  II— 272— 274.  4)  Cowper.  M.  S.  S.  II— 283.  5)  L.P.  1.  s.  V— 176. 


1074  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

<>£  considerable  anger  at  the  idea  that  he  should  vacate  the 
( rovernorship  of  Portsmouth  in  favour  of  Jermyn.  The  idea  that 
Jermyn  was  using  the  coup  for  the  preservation  of  Strafford  to 
oust  him  from  his  post  in  Portsmouth  appears  very  clearly  in  his 
angry  deposition.  We  know  also  that  he  was  a  strong  Eoyalist, 
and  was  also  a  protege  of  Straff ord's,  who  had  once  "undertaken 
to  solicit  for  him  the  best  I  can,  with  .all  the  power  and  care  my 
credit  and  wish  shall  any  way  suggest"  in  a  pecuniary  difficulty 
between  him  and  his  father-in-law,  "Old  Eichard".1  The  "precise 
party"  had  some  vague  information  of  a  plot  to  rescue  Strafford 
from  the  Tower  before  Goring  assisted  them  with  a  description 
of  the  Queen's  intrigues.  It  is  just  possible  that  Lord  Cork  was 
the  source  of  their  information,  and  that  Goring  got  frightened. 
Fear  of  what  would  happen  him  in  case  of  a  disclosure,  jealousy 
of  Suckling,  indignation  at  his  deposition  from  Portsmouth  in 
favour  of — of  all  persons — Jermyn,  led  to  what  Manchester 
•described  as  a  disclosure  "tending  to  his  advantage  and  preserva- 
tion".2 The  fact  that  he  had  taken  an  oath  never  to  divulge  what 
the  others  had  said  to  him,  is  enough  to  make  his  very  vague 
disclosure  somewhat  dubious.  This  was  how  Newport  got  to  learn 
of  a  series  of  incidents  which  looked  like  "a  design  to  overawe 
Parliament". 

One  of  Goring's  tit-bits  of  information  ran  as  follows: —  "I 
offered  to  undertake  with  a  crew  of  officers  and  good  fellows  to 
rescue  the  Earl  from  the  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower,  as  he  was 
bringing  him  to  the  trial." 3  The  offer  was  characteristic  of  the 
slap-dashery  of  Goring,  but  it  shows  how  ignorant  he  was  of  the 
actualities  of  the  day.  At  the  moment  Strafford.  was  on  the  crest 
of  the  wave,  down  facing  the  Parliamentary  lawyers  with  the 
Peers  still  in  reserve.  At  the  moment  there  was  no  need  for  such 
a  crude  coup.  The  disclosure,  however,  sufficed.  The  very  fact 
that  there  was  talk  of  rescuing  Strafford,  talk  of  French  and  Irish 
troops,  and  talk  of  "inarching  on  London",  was  sufficient  to  raise 
the  storm,  and  result,  not  only  in  the  exclusion  of  Eoyalist  troops 
from  the  Tower,  but  also  in  the  appointment  of  Newport  as  Straf- 
ford's  Custodian. 

The  night  before  the  Bill  passed  the  Lords,  Strafford  realized 

1)  L.  8.1— 85.        2)  Nail!— 273.        3)  C.  H.  T— 142. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1075 

his  danger.  He  knew  what  the  vote  would  be  next  morning.  He 
knew  too  that  the  King  was  impotent.  What  was  more,  he  realized 
that,  even  if  the  King  rejected  the  Bill,  his  doom  was  sealed. 
"My  body  is  theirs"  was  his  comment.  That  night  he  again  sounded 
Sir  William  Balfour,  the  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower.  Sir  William 
was  a  kinsman  of  Lord  Balfour,  that  "Cacus  in  his  den",  whom 
Strafford  had  fined  for  "trampling  on  Your  Majesty's  people".  In 
that  little  affair  Strafford  had  rendered  Sir  William  some  service, 
forcing  Lord  Balfour  to  carry  out  a  family  settlement  he  had 
hitherto  evaded  by  methods  possible  at  the  time.1  A  Royal 
message  shows  that  Balfour  told  the  King  that  the  Tower  was  not 
.safe  with  the  existing  garrison. 2  Strafford  too  would  not  have 
approached  him,  save  with  reasonable  hopes  of  success.  Be  that  as 
it  may,  Strafford  proposed  that  Balfour  should  connive  at  his 
escape.  Y.or  this  he  was  to  receive  £  20.000  and  "a  good  marriage 
for  your  son".3  Balfour  must  have,  at  first,  entertained  the  idea. 

According  to  his  own  deposition  of  the  subsequent  June,  he 
acknowledged  having,  on  the  day  before  the  exposure  of  the  Army 
.Plot,  had  another  conversation  with  Strafford,  in  which  the  Earl 
talked  of  being  removed  to  another  Castle,  and  being  quietly  sent 
out  of  England.  That  conversation  occurred  when  the  Lords  were 
partial  to  Strafford,  but  as  Balfour  never  revealed  it  till  a  month 
later,  it  shows-  that  Balfour  had  been  very  sympathetic  to  Strafford. 

Beside  this  however  there  is  another  clue  to  this  extraordinary 
manoeuvre.  There  is  extant  a  letter  "written  to  a  great  lady  at 
Court".  It  runs  as  follows: —  "Although  there  be  some  discovery 
made  known,  yet  what  is  intended  is  made  secure,  wherefore  you 
may  procure  £  2.000  speedily,  for  no  danger  lets  difficulties  to 
compass  it,  if  you  keep  secret.  Remember  your  oath,  for  we  shall 
slay  the  beast  with  many  heads,  and  destroy  the  devil's  brood, 
before  they  dream  or  mistrust.  Burn  the  letter  you'  have  received. 
Your  reward  shall  be  in  heaven."4  The  letter  is  unsigned,  but 
certain  of  the  phrases  are  undoubtedly  Stafford's,  as  is  also  the 
involved  grammar.  The  dropping  of  the  "o",  or  perhaps  its  addi- 
tion in  Sir  William  Balfour's  deposition,  is  quite  a  common  misprint 
in  the  documents  of  that  period.  Another  version  of  the  letter 
gives  the  figure  of  £  20.000.  The  lady  to  whom  the  letter  was 

1)  L.  S.  1—97, 133, 165.  2)  Nal.  11—190.  3)  Husband.  Exact  Collection. 
—233.  4)  S.  T.  IV— 258. 


1076  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

directed  was  Lady  Shelley.  She  never  received  it.  It  miscarried, 
and  a  few  days  later  was  read  in  the  House  of  Commons.  A  war- 
rant was  issued  for  Lady  Shelley's  arrest.  She  fled. 1 

Whether  it  was  the  fear  of  Newport  and  his  "hamlet  men", 
or  the  interception  of  the  letter,  and!  the  non-arrival  of  the  money, 
what  was  "made  secure"  one  day  was  as  nothing  the  next.  Balfour 
drew  back,  and  Strafford  had  to  adopt  another  policy. 

This  time  he  harked  back  to  the  old  idea  of  a  compromise. 
He  drafted  a  memorial  to  the  King,  showing  him  the  best  course 
to  adopt  when  the  Bill  arrived  from  the  Lords.  The  advice  was 
a  curious  mixture  of  subtlety  and  daring.  The  King  should  first 
"move  one  by  one"  the  different  Peers,  St.  John,  Pym — the  order 
in  which  Strafford  put  this  pair  is  significant — "and  some  of  the 
principal  lower  House  men".  He  was  to  lay  before  them  two 
courses.  One  was  that  he  should  assent  to  the  Bill,  so  as  to  avoid 
giving  the  suggestion  that  they  had  erred  in  putting  it  forward, 
but  this  consent  was  to  be  conditional  on  his  subsequently 
exercising  the  Prerogative  of  Mercy,  and  "pardoning  the  Earl  his 
life".  The  second  was  to  refuse  assent,  but  on  the  understanding 
that  he  would  assent  to  another  Bill,  declaring  Strafford  guilty  of 
High  Treason,  disenabling  him  from  all  office,  and  imposing  the 
death  penalty,  if  he  ever  dared  to  obtrude  himself  in  politics  again. 
"Thus",  wrote  Strafford,  "every  man's  conscience  and  fears  may 
be  provided  for".  All  honest  opinions  on  his  guilt  would  be  satis- 
fied. All  fears  as  to  his  being  a  danger  to  the  State  would  be 
allayed.  The  Prince  and  the  people  would  again  be  at  one.  the 
conscience  of  the  former  and  the  indignation  of  the  latter. being 
amply  satisfied. 

This  course,  however,  depended  upon  straight  blunt  talk  to 
those  whom  he  met.  "The  King  must  speak  resolutely."  He  should 
give  the  opinion  that  he,  as  well  as  they?  had  a  conscience,  and 
that,  as  he  did  not  coerce  them  in  passing  what  they  could  pass, 
they  should  not,  and  could  not  coerce  him  in  rejecting  what  he 
was  entitled  to  reject.  "His  Majesty  has  a  latitude,  with  the  same 
freedom  to  discharge  his  conscience,  as  others  in  either  House,  and 
the  more  especially  in  regard  it  is  immediately  the  King  that 
owes  an  account  to  God  of  the  very  meanest  of  his  subjects." 

1)  Diurnal  Occurrences. — 100. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1077 

The  fatal  position  was  this.  The  King  had  already  revealed 
what  his  opinion  was.  If  ho  was  coerced  to  change  it,  the  reins 
of  government  would  slip  from  his  hands.  Strafford  accordingly 
provided  him  with  a  series  of  arguments  to  prove  that  it  was  not 
his  prejudices  and  his  feelings  that  had  stirred  his  conscience,  bat 
a  series  of  incidents  which  made  assent  undesirable. 

(1)  The  King  had  heard  the  evidence,  and  he  "must  have  the 
liberty  allowed  him  to  direct  his  actions   according  to   what  he 
finds  in  his  own  heart". 

(2)  "A  considerable  party  in  the  Commons"  were  of  his  own 
opinion,  and  "amongst  them  most  of  the  ablest  and  best  learned 
lawyers  in  the  House." 

(3)  "A  very  considerable  party  of  the  Lords"  held  the  same 
view. 

(4)  Intimidation  had  been  exercised  on  the  Commons. 

(5)  Such  was  the  intimidation  in  the  case  of  the  Lords  that 
their  decision  was  not  such  a  one  as  to  influence  his. 

(6)  The  chief  item  in  the  Attainder  Bill,  "the  reduction  of 
England"  by  an  Irish  Army,  he  knew  to  be  untrue. 

The  whole  thing  depended  on  the  King  speaking  "resolutely". 
It  is  clear  tha.t  Strafford  was  of  the  belief  that  both  majorities 
in  both  Houses  were  fictitious,  and  did  not  represent  their  real 
opinions,  and  that  there  was  an  undercurrent  of  milder  opinion 
which  might  be  induced  by  "resolute"  speaking  to  assert  itself. * 

Having  indicted  this  sage  counsel,  Strafford  bided  his  time. 
He  had  not  much  hopes  of  its  success.  Man  proposes  but  God 
disposes,  and  "there  is  no  trust  in  man"J2  As  was  his  wont,  he 
wandered  slowly  round  the  Tower  gardens,  "singing  of  psalms".3 
On  the  fatal  Sunday  morning  he  wrote  to  Radcliffe,  "Stay  where 
you  are  and  let  us  see  the  iesue  of  to-morrow."4 

On  Saturday  May  8th  the  Bill  passed  the  Lords.  The  Commons 
requested  them  to  "join  with  us  to  attend  his  Majesty  to  appoint 
a  time  when  he  would  be  pleased  to  set  concerning  his  assent  to 
the  Bill  of  Attainder".  The  King  fixed  four  o'clock  in  the 
Banqueting  Hall."  The  Lords  and  Commons  assembled  thither, 
accompanied  by  a  vast  crowd  who  waited  outside.  "It  seemed", 
said  an  onlooker,  "as  if  all  the  city  had  come  to  petition."  After 

1)  C.  M.  IX— 23— 25.  2)  R.  P.  YLlI—  774.  3)  Cowper  M.  S.  S.  II—  279. 
4)  K,  C.— 224  5)  R.  P.  VI  IT— 60. 


1078  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

a  lengthy  delay  the  King  arrived.  He  told  them  he  would  give 
them  his  reply  on  Monday.1  Slowly  the  unwilling  crowd  dissolved, 
muttering  many  things. 

On  Sunday  another  burst  of  popular  feeling  made  it  plain 
what  would  happen  if  the  Bill  were  rejected.  All  day  long  the 
crowd  raged  round  the  royal  palace,  blowing  bugles  and  crying 
aloud  for  "Justice".  The  scenes  far  exceeded  those  which  had  upset 
the  decision  of  the  Peers.  It  looked  several  times  as  if  the  palace 
would  be  stormed.  It  is  certain  that  all  inside  were  stricken  with 
panic.  Some!  sought  spiritual  consolation  from  priests  and  parsons. 
Others  hid  their  jewels.  At  one  time  there  was  a  danger  of  the 
Queen  Mother's  residence  being  stormed,  and  on  her  application 
for  protection  to  the  train  bands,  they  refused  to  come.  At  another 
time  1.000  sailors  tried  to  rush  the  Tower,  and,  in  the  ensuing 
riot,  three  were  killed.  One  curious  feature  of  the  disturbances 
was  that  the  crowd  "pulled  down  divers  houses". 2  It  was  very 
clear  what  would  happen  on  Monday. 

All  the  day  Charles  wrestled  with  his  advisers.  He  summoned 
the  Council.  One  after  the  other  they  rose  to  give  their  opinion. 
They1  seemed  like  men  bewildered.  ~No  one  had  a  solution.  Charles 
put  the  query  to  them  as  to  what  means  and  methods  were  possible 
to  avert  disaster.  The  unanimous  answer  was  to  pass  the  Bill.  "In 
no  other  way  can  you  preserve  yourself.  You  ought  to  be  more 
tender  of  the  Kingdom  than  of  any  one  person."3  Charles  then 
summoned  the  judges,  and  put  to  them  ,a  straight  question.  As  an 
ordinary  man,  judging  by  facts,  he  knew  what  StrafFord  had  done 
and  what  he  had  not  done.  They  were  bound  to  tell  him  the  truth 
by  oath.  He  knew  he  had  billeted  soldiers.  He  knew  he  had 
made  the  Scotch  take  an  oath  of  allegiance.  He  knew  he  had 
forbidden  subjects  to  leave  Ireland.  He  knew  that  he  had  fined 
men  in  the  Castle  Chamber  and  at  the  Council  Board.  Was  this 
Treason?  The  judges  replied  that  it  was.  Charles  demanded  which 
of  these  acts  was  treasonable.  The  unfortunate  men  replied  that 
not  one  was  treason  by  itself,  but  that  the  whole  was  treason. 
Charles  complained  afterwards  bitterly  of  the  illegal  advice  that 
his  judges  had  tendered. 4  They  were,  however,  not  to  be  blamed. 
They  were  only  free  because  they  were  on  bail.  A  few  months 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 90,  91.         2)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 93,  99, 
100;  R.  P.  VIII— 266,  267;  C.  H.  1—147.         3)  C.  H.  1—147.         4)  U.  P.-45, 46. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1079 

later  they  were  impeached,  and  what  was  worse,  on  the  bad  opinion 
they  had  given.  "The  high  treason  in  the  first  Article",  said  the 
propounder,  "is  in  endeavours  to  subvert  the  fundamental  laws 
of  the  realm,  and  to  introduce  an  arbitrary  Government,  which 
has  been  lately  adjudged  treason  in  the  cause  of  the  Earl  of  Straf- 
ford". l  Strafl'ord  was1  destined  to  be  not  the  only  subject  to  suffer 
at  that  period,  for,  while  acting  within  the  law,  saying  or  doing 
what  did  not  please  all. 

Charles  then  dismissed  the  judges,  and  turned  to  the  last 
problem.  Was  he  as  a  Sovereign,  an  Englishman,  nay  even  a 
human  being,  justified  in  preferring  his  own  opinion  to  this  stag- 
gering unanimity?  His  Lords  and  Commons  had  declared  Straf- 
ford  guilty  of  a  crime.  His  Councillors  had  advised  him  to  sign 
the  Bill  on  the  grounds,  firstly  that  he  should  not  oppose  his  will 
to  "the  sense  of  both  Houses",2  and  secondly  because  he  was  bound 
to  protect  his  realm  from  anarchy.  "The  consequences  of  a  furious 
multitude  would  be  terrible". 8  The  decision  of  the  judges  was  the 
worst  blow  of  all.  He  was  bound  to  preserve  the  law.  Their  ruling 
that  Strafford  had  broken  the  law  created  a  problem  difficult  to 
solve.  Was  he  justified  in  declaring  Strafl'ord  innocent  of  treason, 
when  the  legal  advisers  said  that  he  was  guilty?  Charles  deter- 
mined to  summon  the  Bishops,  and  put  before  them  this  point  of 
•conscience.  This  development  nearly  turned  the  scale. 

The  Bishops  so  summoned  were  those  of  Durham,  Lincoln, 
Carlisle,  London,  and  also  Ussher,  the  Archbishop  of  Armagh. 
The  last  named  was,  at  the  moment,  preaching  in  Covent  Garden. 
The  Royal  messenger  arrived,  and  standing  at  the  foot  of  the 
pulpit,  made  signs  to  him  to  descend.  Ussher  did  so  and  listened 
to  his  message. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  whether  Ussher  is  to  be  the  more  admired 
for  the  gigantic  resources  of  his  almost  uncanny  intellect,  or  for 
the  grotesque  simplicity  with  which  he  timidly  regarded  matters 
mundane,  sometimes  rushing  into  the  most  delicate  problems, 
where  Strafford  used  to  shrink,  and,  on  other  occasions,  hiding  his 
light  under  a  bushel,  when  other  ecclesiastical  lions  deafened  the 
world  with  their  roaring. 

On  this  occasion  he  fixed  a  stern  eye  on  the  Courtier,  and 


1)  R.  P.  IV- 325.        2)  C.H.I— 147.        3)W.M.— 45. 


1080  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

with  the  words,  "I  am  employed  about  God's  business,  and  will 
attend  the  King's  when  I  am  done".,  turned,  ascended  the  stairs, 
and  resumed  the  thread  of  his  discourse.  What  the  courtier  said 
to  the  King,  and  the  King  to  the  courtier,  history  does  not  relate.1 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  world  had  to  go  on  without  Ussher,  or 
wait  till  he  had  done. 

The  other  prelates  assembled.  Durham  and  Carlisle  gave  it 
as-  their  opinion  that  "in  conscience  he  might  prefer  the  opinion 
of  the  Judges  before  his  own".2  Williams,  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln, 
was,  however,  more  outspoken.  He  said  that  conscience  did  not 
enter  affairs  of  State,  and  morality  was  only  a  quality  to  be  pre- 
served at  the  hearth,  or  in  the  market  place.  "There  is  a  private 
and  a  public  conscience,  and  your  public  conscience  as  a  King 
may  oblige  you  to  that  which  is  against  your  conscience  as  a 
private  man."0  Charles  was  always  very  reticent  on  this  incident. 
This  unprelatical  theory  was  soon  noised  abroad,  but,  when 
questioned  as  to  which  of  the  Bishops  spoke  thus,  Charles  always 
avoided  a  direct  reply.4 

Juxon,  the  Bishop  of  London,  alone  stood  out.3  He  told 
Charles  that,  if  he  regarded  Strafford  as  innocent,  he  should  refuse 
his  assent  to  the  Bill.  Hence  the  following  passage  in  the  Eikon 
Basilike.  "I  have  observed  that  those  who  counselled  me  to  sign 
the  Bill  have  been  so  far  from  receiving  the  rewards  of  such 
ingratiating  with  the  people,  that  no  men  hath  been  harassed 
and  crushed  more  than  they.  He  only  hath  been  least  vexed  by 
them,  who  counselled  me  not  to  consent  against  the  vote  of  my 
own  conscience."  Juxon  alone  of  the  Bishops  was  untouched  by 
the  Puritan  furore,  and  remained  in  England  to  attend  Charles  to 
the  scaffold. 

Charles  was  still  unsatisfied.  He  dismissed  the  Bishops,  and  turn- 
ed again  to  the  Counsellors  to  seek  some  remedy  for  this  situation. 
They  seemed  petrified  with  terror.  To  every  proposal  they  had 
only  one  answer,  that  Strafford's  head  alone  would  save  the  King- 
dom. The  Army  was  a  week's  march  away,  undisciplined,  on  the 
verge  of  mutiny,  and  now  without  rations  for  the  coming  week. 
Tho  Scotch  army  was  still  on  English  soil,  ready  to  move,  with 
the  Parliamentary  bait  of  a  financial  indemnity  dangling  before 

1)  U.P.— 45.  2)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.-92.  3)  C.  II.  1-147.  4)  U.E. 
1-213;  U.P.— 61.  5)  Warwick.  Memoirs.— 162. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1081 

their  eyes.  Outside  the  Palace  the  crowd  surged  and  screamed. 
"Apprentices,  cobblers,  and  fruiterers  presented  themselves  as  al- 
ready running  into  the  King's  bed-chamber."1  It  was  an  open  secret, 
too,  that  if  the  Bill  were  not  signed,  Lord  Newport  would  see 
that  Strafford  would  not  live  till  morning.  All  he  had  to  do  was 
to  raise  the  portcullis  and  admit  the  angry  multitude.  ~ 

The  Counsellors  are  hardly  to  be  blamed.  When  Charles, — in 
order  to  clear  Strafford  of  tendering  unconstitutional  advice — 
allowed  the  Council  to  be  examined  on  oath,  he  cast  aside  the 
tradition  that  advice  given  to  him  was  confidential.  Every  coun- 
sellor felt  that,  if  he  now  denied  the  people  their  demands,  the 
day  might  come  when  he  might  be  impeached,  as  Strafford  was, 
for  an  indiscreet  phrase,  or  "for  advice  tending  to  arbitrary  go- 
vernment.". Every  counsellor  felt  that  what  he  said  that  day  was 
as  dangerous  as  if  it  were  uttered  from  the  windows  of  Whitehall 
to  the  crowd  outside.  The  sentiments  expressed  were  as  unreal  as 
those  that  would  be  uttered  at  a  Cabinet  meeting  to-day,  if  re- 
porters were  present.  In  the  circumstances  what  could  they  do 
but  give  "popular"  advice,  and  leave  Charles  to  undergo  the 
dangers  of  an  unpopular  decision?  Lord  Pembroke  actually 
brought  a  Bible  to  the  King,  and  quoted  the  words  of  Joab  to 
David.  "Arise  go  and  speak  comfortably  unto  thy  servants,  for 
1  iswear  by  the  Lord  if  thou  will  not  go  forth,  there  wilt  not  tarry 
<>ne  with  thee  this  night,  and  that  will  be  worse  unto  thee  than 
all  the  evil  that  befell  thee  from  thy  youth."3  He  and  Arundel 
had  been  the  leaders  of  the  Attainder  Party  in  the  House  of 
Lords.4  Hamilton  seems  to  have  evaded  all  responsibility  in  the 
matter.  He  said  on  the  scaffold,  "Neither  did  I  at  all  deal  with 
His  Majesty  for  the  taking  away  the  life  of  the  Earl".  He  did 
not,  however,  advise  him  to  refuse,  nor  did  he  tender  his  aid  to 
quell  the  inevitable  emeute.5  The  fact  remains,  that  the  Council 
remained  adamant.  Clarendon  says,  "Not  one  counsellor  interposed 
his  opinion  to  support  his  Master's  magnanimity". 

Again  Charles  sent  for  the  Bishops.  This  time  Juxon  had  an 
ally.  Ussher  had  arrived.  He  was  one  of  those  men  who  would 
mildly  go  to  the  stake  for  any  opinion,  popular  or  unpopular,  and 
opposition  of  any  kind  only  hardened  his  Irish  temperament.  The 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation.— 93.  2)  C.  H.  I  - 14  7.  3)  Diurnal  Occurrences. 
—92.  4)  Cowper.M.S.S  11-281.  5)  H.B.-H99.  6)  C.  H.  1-147. 


1082  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

very  fact  that  the  first  fruits  of  the  commotion  that  would  follow 
the  rejection  of  the  Bill,  would  undoubtedly  be  a  physical  on- 
slaught on  the  Bishops,  seemed  to  have  quite  a  different  effect  on 
him  than  on  the  others.  "Your  Majesty",  he  said,  "if  you  are 
satisfied  at  what  you  have  heard  at  his  trial,  that  the  Earl  was  not 
guilty  of  Treason,  you  ought  not  in  conscience  to  consent  to  his 
condemnation".1  Juxon  said  nothing  on  this  occasion.  His  view 
was  known,  and  Ussher  had  phrased  it  sufficiently.  Williams  made 
a  speech — which  Ussher  declined  to  report — and  then  handed  the 
King  a  paper  at  parting.2  It  consisted  of  a  recommendation  to 
utilise  the  popularity  that  would  follow  Straff  ord's  execution,  by 
a  refusal  of  the  Bill  forbidding  a  dissolution  of  Parliament,  save 
by  its  own  consent. 3 

The  colloquies  and  advices  continued  well  on  till  nightfall. 
At  one  stage  Charles  was  seeking  to  remit  the  Bill  for  <a  second 
consideration  to  both  Houses,  to  "have  it  voiced  again",  in  circum- 
stances when  there  might  be  a  hope  that  intimidation  would  not 
prevail.  This,  however,  found  no  support.4  It  is  just  possible  that 
this  proposal — which  depends  on  a  rumour — was  really  Straf- 
ford's  idea  of  another  Bill,  disqualifying  him  from  office.  One 
naturally  asks  what  ihad  been  done  in  regard  to  Strafford's  advice. 
Of  this  we  have  no  definite  information.  It  is  just  possible  Straf- 
ford's  letter  arrived  too  late.  It  is  also  possible  that  all  efforts  in 
that  direction  failed.  To  "move  the  Lords  one  by  one",  to  urge 
"the  principal  Parliament  ,mcn"  to  accept  a  compromise,  required 
"resolute"  driving  force,  and  reliable  and  active  intermediaries. 
Charles  had  no  driving  force.  He  was  surrounded  by  dubious  and 
indiscreet  courtiers.  His  Council  had  made  up  their  minds  only 
to  one  course,  and  all  other  policies  seemed  vain  and  unprofitable. 
Charles  too,  had 'only  a  week  end  in  which  to  carry  such  a  motion. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  that  there  was  some  discussion  with  some 
Peers  on  the  policy  of  passing  the  JBill,  and  then  remitting  the 
death  sentence,  but  it  was  vague,  and  only  adopted  by  a  few  of 
the  Lords.5 

The  powerful  influence  of  the  Queen  proved  the  last  strr.v. 
She  was  now  really  frightened.  For  the  first  time  in  her  life  she 
got  a  glimpse  of  the  actualities  of  politics,  which  she  found  very 

1)  IT.  p._61.  2)  TL  P.— 46.  3)  Hacket.  Life  of  Dr.  Williams.  4)  Brief  and 
Perfect  Relation.— 92.  5)  W.M.— 46. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1083 

terrifying,  when  contrasted  with  the  manoeuvres,  ideals,  intrigues, 
and  vague  conceptions  so  dear  to  the  intellectual  or  the  feminine 
politician.  There  w,as,  for  a  long  time,  a  tradition  that  her  inter- 
vention arose  from  the  notorious  differences  between  her  aud 
Strafford.  It  was  true  that  her  Imperial  Bourbon  policy,  and  the 
conceptions  of  Royalty  that  she  had  inherited  from  the  Medici 
were  something  so  alien  to  England,  that  they  could  never  appeal 
to  a  statesman  who  saw  in  the  Crown  the  only  bulwark  against 
anarchy,  and  the  most  useful  and  practical  instrument  to  reform 
the  social  injustices,  of  which  he  was  so  deeply  aware,  to  which 
he  was  such  an  consistent  enemy.  At  the  very  beginning  of  his 
Vice-Royalty,  her  hostility  to  him  and  his  friends  was  common 
gossip  at  the  Court.1  It  showed  itself  in  little  incidents,  the 
•appointment  of  an  Irish  officer  without  consulting  him,  patronage 
to  Holland  in  ;his  jostles  with  Stratford,  and  the  fatal  patent  to 
Lord  Clanricarde.  Nor — we  may  be  sure — were  these  relations 
improved  by  Strafford' s  point  blank  refusal  to  her  request  that 
"St.  Patrick's  Purgatory "  be  reopened  with  Vice-Regal  patronage, 
on.  the  eve  of  the  Scotch  rebellion.  The  real  fact  was  that  she  was 
but  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  that  remarkable  cabal  of 
Puritan  leaders  and  Roman  Catholic  friars,  usually  known  as  "the 
Queen's  side",  which  was  undermining  the  "arbitrary  government" 
of  the  Stuarts.  Clever  as  she  was,  she  was  not  clever  enough  to 
realize  that  Essex,  Holland,  Father  Philips,  Monsignor  Conn,  and 
George  Gage  did  not  ask  her  to  enter  some  clever  intrigue  for  the 
purpose  of  strengthening  her  husband,  or  "making  two  blades  of 
grass  grow  where  one  grew  before".  It  stood  to  reason,  accordingly, 
that  she  regarded  Strafford  with  suspicion,  and  that  he  was 
singularly  reticent  when  her  name  was  mentioned.  It  was  she,  for 
instance,  who  was  really  responsible  for  the  disastrous  appoint- 
ment of  Vane  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  it  was  her  subsequent 
intrigues  with  Lord  Dillon  of  Costelloe  and  the  Irish  section  of 
belligerent  recusancy  that  led  to  the  popular  belief  that  Charles 
had  inspired  the  Ulster  massacres.  Medici  ancestry  and  a  Bourbon 
upbringing  are  not  a  good  training  for  the  more  direct  politics 
of  these  islands.  Charles  once  spoke  to  Strafford  on  this  delicate 
matter,  and  warned  him  "to  carry  himself  with  all  duty  and 
respect  to  her  Majesty".  A  year  later  Strafford  was  in  a  position 

1)  L.  S.  1—85. 


1084  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

to  assist  the  Queen  in  "the  Koyal  Building  she  hath  undertaken".1 
( 'harles  was  delighted,  and  Strafford  had  hopes  of  the  favour  of 
a  "Lady,  against  whom  I  protest  I  never  had  the  least  exception 
for  any  private  interest  of  my  own".2  A  few  months  later  the 
differences  were  as  acute  as  ever.  She  protested  against  Strafford 
serving  a,  subpoena  on  Holland  in  the  libel  action  against  Crosbie. 
She  tried  to  procure  a  commission  for  Jermyn,  whom  Strafford 
roundly  denounced  as  "desperate  in  fortune,  mean  in  judgement, 
vain  and  nighty",  as  the  Queen  was  destined  to  realize  in  "the 
Army  Plot",  finally  she  used  her  influence  to  make  "a  young  in- 
experienced nobleman"  an  officer  in  the  Irish  Army,  and  Strafford 
politely  but  firmly  protested.3 

On  his  arrival  in  England,  however,  it  began  to  dawn  on  her 
that  he  was  a  valuable  servant.  A  complete  change  in  her  attitude 
occurred.  When  he  came  up  to  London  "to  face  the  music",  he 
wrote,  "The  Queen  is  infinitely  gracious  towards  me,  above  all 
that  you  can  imagine,  and  doth  declare  it  in  a  very  public  and 
strange  manner,  so  as  nothing  can  hurt  me,  by  God's  help,  but  the 
iniquity  and  necessity  of  these  times".4  The  day  too,  that  the  Bill 
of  Attainder  passed  the  Lords,  "the  Queen  was  very  angry".5  At 
the  end  of  May  the  Prince  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  wrote,  "My 
Lord  Lieutenant's  death  liath  put  the  Queen  in  an  ill  humour".6 
It  was  no  personal  feelings  towards  the  Deputy  that  inspired  her. 
It  was  sheer  terror.7 

The  unhappy  woman  was  not  to  be  blamed.  Every  one  knew 
that  the  germs  of  "the  Army  Plot"  were  hers.  "These  rumours", 
wrote  young  Coke,  "came  from  those  that  bore  no  good  will  to 
the  Lord  Strafford,  and  served  well  to  keep  this  city  in  alarm".8 
If  there  was  an  outbreak  due  to  the  terror  and  fury  inspired  by 
this  panic  of  a  military  emip  d'rtnt  depending  on  French  troops, 
what  would  happen  the  Queen?  Was  not  she  "the  villainess  of  the 
piece"?  The  temper  towards  her  was  very  nigh  to  that  of  the 
Paris  mob  towards  Marie  Antoinette.  A  few  days  before,  Father 
Philips  had  written,  "She  is  much  afflicted,  and  the  Puritans,  if 
they  durst,  would  tear  her  in  pieces".0  Already  popular  opinion 

1)  L.S.I  I— 255,256.  2)  L.  S  IT— 278.  3)  L.  S.  11-328,  329.  4)  R  .0. 
—218.  :>)  Egmont.  M.  S.  S.  I— 134.  6)  Forster.  Lives  of  British  Statesmen. 
VI— 7.1.  7)  Warwick.  Memoirs.— 163.  8)  Cowper.M.  S.  S.  II— 283.  9)  R.  P. 
V1II-751. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1085 

was  venting  itself  very  strongly  in  loud  threats  against  the  Queen 
Mother,  who  had  applied  for  protection  to  the  Corporation,  and 
had  been  refused.1  One  can  imagine  the  frantic  messages  of  Mary 
d!e  Medici  to  her  daughter,  a*d  the  Queen's  alarm  over  the  possible 
fate  of  the  children,  of  the  dynasty.  A  year  later  the  revolutionaries 
made  a  desperate  effort  to  get  control  of  the  person  of  the  Prince 
of  Wales,  and  were  only  balked  by  the  diplomacy  of  Charles  and 
Hyde.2  There  was  even  in  the  time  of  James — and  observed  with 
"great  uneasiness"  by  James — a  party  of  men  who  would  not  have 
wept  at  the  disappearance  of  the  dynasty,  and  the  substitution  of 
a  weak  Palatinate  Monarchy.3  At  that  very  moment  the  Prince 
Elector  was  in  London,  playing  the  part  of  a  Philip  Egalite".  To 
Henrietta  Maria  the  situation  was  terrifying,  and  there  were  not 
wanting  those  to  magnify  it,  if  it  could  be  magnified. 

The  atmosphere  of  alarm  that  clouds  all  this;  <Straft'ord  episode 
is  unmistakable.  Everyone  seemed  afraid  of  his  neighbour.  Even 
Lord  Capel,  one  of  the  leading  Parliamentarians,  subsequently 
confessed  that  all  the  while  he  was  a  secret  Straffordian.  "I  had 
not  the  least  degree  of  malice  in  the  doing  of  it,  but  I  must  confess 
it  was  a  frailty  of  my  nature  and  a  truly  unworthy  cowardice  not 
to  resist  so  great  a  torrent  as  carried  that  business."4  All  the  sins 
of  the  Tudor  and  the  Stuart  statesmen,  every  peccadillo  that  had 
caused  an  injustice,  had  to  be  expiated  by  someone,  and  every  man 
was  determined  that  the  sacrificial  scapegoat  was  not  to  be  himself, 
all  except  LTssher  and  Juxon,  probably  the  mildest  pair  in  the 
Kingdom. 

When  the  Queen  intervened,  the  long  struggle  of  Charles  with 
his  Council,  his  Judges  and  his  Bishops  was  at  an  end.  There  was 
no  way  out.  If  he  rejected  the  Bill,  he  was  faced  with  a  social 
cataclysm,  and  the  obvious  fact  that  his  rejection  would  not  save 
Strafford.  Whitelocke  says  that  one  phrase  in  Strafford's  letter 
alone  reconciled  Charles  to  the  step  he  bitterly  regretted.  "My 
consent  shall  more  acquit  you  herein  to  God  than  all  the  world 
can  do  beside."5 

At  about  nine  o'clock  the  fatal  decision  was  taken.  "I  would 
gladly  venture  my  own  life",  he  told  the  Council,  "to  save  Lord 

1)  Diurnal  Occurrences.— 99.  2)  Clarendon  Memoirs.  1—104—106.  3)  Yen. 
1622—144.  4)  Speeches  of  Hamilton,  Capel  and  Others,  p.  39.  London.  1649. 

5)  W.  M.— 45. 


1086  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

Stratford's,  but  seeing  my  wife,  children,  and  all  my  Kingdom  are 
in  it,  I  am  forced  to  give  way  unto  it."1  "My  Lord  Stratford's  con- 
dition'7, he  added,  "is  happier  than  mine."2  Ussher  on  the  following 
day  was  instructed  to  confide  to  Stratford  that  "if  the  King's  life 
were  only  hazarded  thereby,  he  would  never  have  given  passage 
unto  his  death".3 

The  Eikon  Basilike  is  almost  lyrical  in  its  comment.  "I 
preferred  the  outward  peace  of  my  Kingdoms  with  men  before 

that  inward  exactness  of  conscience  before  God I  never 

did  bear  any  touch  of  conscience  with  greater  regret.  ...  It  was 
mi  act  of  so  sinful  frailty  that  it  discovered  more  a  fear  of  man 
than  of  God.  ...  I  see  it  a  bad  exchange  to  wound  a  man's  own 
conscience,  thereby  to  salve  State  forces,  to  calm  the  storms  of 
popular  discontents  by  stirring .  up  a  tempest  in  a  man's  own 
bosom.  Nor  hath  God's  justice  failed  in  the  event  and  sad  conse- 
quences to  show  the  world  the  fallacy  of  that  maxim,  "Better  one 
man  perish — though  unjustly — than  the  people  be  displeased  or 
destroyed"." 

Charles  declined  to  go  down  to  Parliament,  and  tell  them  the 
good  news.  The  Royal  assent  was  devolved  011  a  Commission,  of 
whom  Arundel  was  chief.4  Thus  falls  the  curtain  on  that  act  of 
the  drama,  with  Ussher  on  his  knees  before  Charles.  "Sire!  Sire! 
What  have  you  done?  I  pray  God  your  Majesty  may  never  suffer 
for  thisi  trouble  to  your  conscience."5  Pym  as  a  politician  regarded 
it  from  a  different  and  more  complacent  standpoint.  "Have  we 
got  him  to  part  with  Stratford?  Then  he  can  deny  us  nothing. "* 
One  instinctively  recalls  Stratford's  remark,  "Lord,  how  we  are 
cast  in  many  different  moulds !" 

Stratford  never  expected  a  decision  that  night.  In  the 
morning  he  had  written  to  Radclitfe  "to  wait  the  issue  of  to- 
morrow". 7  He  assumed  that  all  the  day  would  be  consumed  in 
negotiations  with  the  Peers,  and  "the  principal  men  of  the  Lower 
House".  His  hopes  were  not  high,  but  they  were  more  cheerful  than 
when  he  wrote  to  Slingsley  that  all  was  over.  It  was  after  ten 
when  the  door  opened,  and  Sir  Dudley  Carleton,  the  Clerk  of  the 
Council,  entered.  In  a  few  words  he  announced  the  worst.  Straf- 
ford  was  aghast.  He  did  not  at  first  believe  him.  It  was  impossible 

1)  Forster.  Lives  of  Eminent  Statesmen.  VI— 71.  2)  L.  S.  11—432.  3)  L.  S. 
U— 418.  4)  R.  P.  VIII— 755.  5)  U.  P.— 61.  6)  Nal.  II— 210.  7)  B,  C.—  224. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1087 

to  conceive  that,  in  that  short  lapse  of  time,  every  Peer  had  been 
canvassed,  and  each  alternative  been  thoroughly  and  "resolutely" 
essayed.  He  asked  him  to  repeat  himself.  Carleton  did  so.  Then 
lie  "arose  from  the  chair  and  standing-  up  lifted  his;  eyes  to  Heaven, 
clapt  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  and  said,  "Put  not  your  trust  in 
Princes  nor  in  the  sons  of  men,  for  in  them  there  is  no  salvation"/' 

This  historic  remark  has  been  usually  held  to  be  a  reference 
to  Charles'  promise  to  protect  his  life.  This  theory  ignores  the 
famous  letter,  releasing  Charles  from  that  promise.  It  was  not 
till  Profession  Firth  discovered  the  document  containing  the 
alternative  method  which  Strafford  had  advised1  Charles  to  essay, 
that  the  pertinency  of  the  quotation  becomes  apparent.  It  was  but 
a  repetition  of  what  he  had  written  to  Slingsley.  "There  is  little 
trust  in  man.  .  .  .  You  know  my  opinion  in  all,  and  what  my 
belief  is  in  all  these  things."  The  story  first  appears  in  Dr. 
Saunderson's  History,  published  in  1658,  and  was  then  copied 
verbatim  into  the  more  popular  Memoirs  of  Whiteloeke.  Mr. 
Gardiner,  who  was,  at  the  time,  unaware  of  the  real  significance  of 
the  remark,  accepts  the  utterance  as  true. 

On  Monday  the  Royal  Assent  was  read  to  both  Houses  in 
dead  silence.  On  Tuesday  a  development  occurred,  which  makes 
one  almost  suspect  that  Strafford's  precis  of  policy  had  only 
reached  the  King,  after  he  had  signed  the  warrant.  The  young 
Prince  of  Wales  entered  the  House  of  Lords,  and  handed  a  letter 
to  the  Lord  Keeper.  It  was  from  Charles.  It  wasi  an  appeal  to  the 
Lords  to  use  their  influence  with  the  Commons  to  "comply  with 
me  in  mercy,  being  as  inherent  and  inseparable  to  a  King  as 
justice".  The  suggestion  of  Charles  was  that  imprisonment  for 
life  should  be  substituted  for  the  sentence  of  death.  "I  by  this 
letter  do  earnestly  entreat  your  approbation,  and  to  endear  it  more 
have  chosen  him  to  carry  it  that,  of  all  your  House,  is  most  dear 
to  me,  .  .  .  but  if  no  less  than  hia  life  can  satisfy  my  people,  I 
must  say,  fiatjustitia."  Whether  there  was,  or  was  not  a  hope  of 
carrying  this  compromise  it  is  hard  at  this  time  to  say,  but  what 
undoubtedly  balked  it,  was  the  final  postscript,  "If  he  must  die,  it 
were  charity  to  reprieve  him  till  Saturday".1  It  looked  as  if  the  King 
did  not  expect  them  to  grant  the  concession.  The  original  letter 

])  R.  P.  VJII— 757.  758. 


1088  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

is  still  extant.  The  writing  shows  that  the  postscript  was  added 
some  time  after  the  letter  was  written,  as  an  afterthought. 1  The 
reason  for  its  insertion  is  plain.  Strafford's  estate  was  in  chaos. 
Some  of  his  servants  had1  been  arrested  by  the  Irish  House  of  Com- 
mons. It  is  very  doubtful  if  the  rents  of  his  Wicklow  estate  had 
been  collected,  while  his  head  rent  had  undoubtedly  been  paid.  His 
tobacco  farm  had  been  escheated,  and  the  tobacco  seized  by  the 
Commons,  and  sold  at  cheap  rates  to  whom  they  pleased.  As,  in 
these,  as  well  as  in  the  farm  of  the  Customs  and  the  English 
Alums,  he  had  sunk  considerable  sums  for  rent,  fine,  or  capital 
expenditure,  the  position  of  his  wife  and  family  was  precarious. 
At  the  moment  they  were  being  supported  by  St.  Leger,  to  whom 
the  King,  on  Strafford's  death,  sent  a  letter  of  thanks.  The  post- 
script was  added  to  secure — as  Charles  said  later — -"a  few  days' 
respite  for  the  settlement  of  his  distracted  estate".  It  seems  too  to 
have  been  written  at  Strafford's  request,  that  some  arrangement 
be  made  to  have  "the  execution  deferred".2 

The  letter  was  read  twice.  A  short  debate  ensued.  Some  Lords 
pointed  out  that  Charles  had  signed  the  Bill,  only  because  it  was 
said  that  the  Lords  would  subsequently  grant  this  concession.3  Never- 
theless things  had  gone  too  far  by  now.  The  deed  was  done.  The 
Lord&  did  not  even  go  through  the  farce — as  it  would  have  been — 
of  consulting  the  Commons.  They  despatched  a  deputation  of 
twelve  to  tell  the  King  that,  for  his  safety  and  that  of  the  dynasty, 
"it  could  not  possibly  be  advised",  neither  the  compromise,  nor 
the  postponing  of  the  execution.  They  added,  however,  that  they 
had  no  intention  of  escheating  Strafford's  estate.  When  they 
handed  the  King  back  his  letter,  he  refused  it.  "What  I  have 
written  do  you  register  in  your  own  House.  In  it  you  see  my  mind. 
I  hope  you  will  use  it  to  my  honour."4 

That  night  Ussher  came  to  Strafford  from  the  King.  To  him  he 
unfolded  why  these  things  had  to  be.  Everything,  however,  that 
Strafford  had  asked  would  be  done,  especially  the  preferment  and 
protection  of  Ormonde,  subsequently  Viceroy,  and  Radcliffe  who 
was  attached  to  the  Eoyal  Household  till  his  death  on  the  eve  of 
the  Eestoration. 5  Strafford's  son  would  be  "employed  and  prefer- 
red if  capable",  but  this  was  to  be  kept  secret.  Lowther  and 

1)  H.  M.  C.  1—2.  2)  L.  S.  11—418.  3)  W.  M.— 46.  4)  R.  P.  VIII— 757,  758. 
5)  T,  S.  II -432. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1089 

Bramhall  were  to  be  protected  from  the  fury  of  the  Irish  House 
•  4\  Commons,  who  held  them  both  under  arrest,  pending  impeach- 
ment. His  steward  was  to  be  released  from  prison,  and  one  of  his 
Secretaries  was  to  become  "groom  to  the  Prince".  Bolton  and 
St.  Leger  were  too  "remembered".  Ormonde  was  to  receive  the 
vacant  Garter,  Lord  Robert  Dillon  was  to  be  especially  noted  for 
^ability  above  all  the  natives". 1  Ussher  then  retired. 

Strafford  then  wrote  to  his  son  certain  words  of  advice  as 
regards  discreet  conduct  in  the  dangerous  future.  Above  all  he 
warned  him  not  to  "suffer  thoughts  of  revenge,  but  to  be  careful 
to  be  informed  who  were  my  friends  in  the  prosecution,  and  to 
them  apply  yourself  to  make  them  your  friends  also".2 

Then  he  sent  for  Balfour.  To  him  he  proffered  one  last  request 
—to  see  Laud.  "Master  Lieutenant  you  shall  hear  what  passes 
between  us.  It  is  not  a  time  for  him  to  plot  heresy  or  me  treason." 
Half  our  replied  that  orders  were  orders.  Let  him  ask  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  then  it  might  be  done.  "No",  he  replied,  "I  have 
gotten  my  despatch  from  them.  I  will  trouble  them  no  more.  I 
"%o  to  petition  a  Higher  Court,  where  neither  partiality  can  be 
expected,  or  error  feared.  Tell  him  to  give  me  his  prayers  to-night, 
and  his  blessing  as  I  go  forth  to-morrow. 

At  early  morning  the  guard  awoke  him,  and  he  set  forth  on 
his  last  procession.  As  he  passed  Laud's  cell,  that  prelate  was 
waiting  at  his  barred  window.  "My  Lord,  your  prayers  and  your 
Messing",  said  the  Earl,  bowing  to  the  ground,  but  Laud  was  silent, 
overcome  by  this,  their  last  meeting.  "Farewell,  my  Lord,  God 
protect  your  innocency !",  and  the  Earl  passed  down  the  stairs. 

At  the  gate  he  was  met  by  Balfour  in  a  state  of  agitation. 
London  was  thronged  with  a  vast  multitude,  who  had  come  in  from 
all  sides  to  see  the  last  struggles  of  tyranny,  and  there  was  every 
prospect  of  the  prisoner  being  torn  limb  from  limb,  instead  of 
being  executed  decently  and  in  order.  Would  he  enter  a  carriage? 
*'N'o,  Master  Lieutenant,  I  dare  look  death  in  the  face.  I  care  not 
how  I  die,  whether  by  the  hand  of  the  Executioner,  or  the  fury  of 
the  people.  If  that  give  them  better  content  it  is  all  one  to  me. 
Do  you  only  have  a  care  I  do  not  escape."3 

The  procession  then  formed  up.    First  came  the  train  bands 

1)  L.  S.  11—418.  2)  L.  S.  11—417.  3)  R.  P.  YIII— 7® ;  Brief  and  Per- 
fect Relation— 98, 99 ;  Diurnal  Proceedings— 90— 100. 


1090  THE  CLOSING  SCENES 

of  the  Corporation,  commanded  by  the  Marshal  for  the  City. 
Behind  were  the  warders  of  the  Tower,  followed  by  Stratford's 
gentleman  usher,  all  in  black.  Between  Ussher  and  his  Chaplain, 
George  Carr,  came  "the  Great  Delinquent".  "His  countenance 
was  in  a  middle  posture,  betwixt  dejection  and  boldness.  Never 
man  looked  death  more  stately  in  the  face."1  The  onlookers  eaid 
that  his  mien  and  gait  were  those  "of  a  general  at  the  head  of  an 
Army,  marching  to  victory". 2  Then  followed  his  friends  and 
servants,  clad  in  black  with  white  gloves. 

When  he  mounted  the  scaffold  there  were  over  200.000 
present.  After  the  manner  of  the  time  he  addressed  them  in  a 
short  speech:  "I  come,  my  Lords,  to  pay  my  last  debt  to  sin,  which 
is  death.  I  do  freely  forgive  all  the  world,  a  forgiveness  not  from 
the  teeth  outwards,  but  from  the  heart.  I  am  not  the  first  man  that 
hath  suffered  in  this  kind.  Here  on  earth  we  are  subject  to  error 
and  misjudging  one  another." 

He  denied  that  he  had  ever  been  against  Parliaments.  He 
thought  them  the  best  means  of  "making  a  King  and  people  happy". 
One  comfort  he  had,  and  that  was  that  the  King  "conceives  me  not 
meriting  so  severe  a  punishment". 

One  warning  he  gave  which  was  destined  to  prove  too  true: 
"I  fear  the  beginning  of  the  people's  happiness  when  it  is  written 
in  letters  of  blood,  I  fear  you  are  in  a  wrong  way". 

For  his  religion  he  declared  he  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England,  "nor  had  ever  any  the  boldness  to  suggest  me  to  the 
contrary  ....  and  so  God  bless  this  Kingdom,  and  Jesus  have 
mercy  on  my  soul". 

Then  he  knelt  with  his  Chaplain.  After  a  quarter  of  an  hour 
he  r'ose  and  took  leave  of  his  friends.  To  Sir  George  Wentworth 
he  gave  a  message  for  his  son:  "Let  him  content  himself  to  be  a 
servant  in  his  country  as  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  not  aiming  at 
higher  preferments,  and,  as  the  revenue  of  the  Church  was  like 
to  be  shared  amongst  the  Nobility  and  gentry",  he  "bid  him  to 
beware  of  Church  livings,  lest  they  prove  a  moth  and  a  canker  to 
his  estate". 

Then  he  interchanged  a  few  words  with  the  Executioner,  to 
whom  he  professed  no  malice.  As  he  put  off  his  doublet  he  said, 

1)  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation— 97.         2)  R.  P.  VITI— 762. 


THE  DEATH  SENTENCE  1091 

"I  do  as  cheerfully  put  off  my  doublet  at  this  time  as  ever  I  did 
when  I  went  to  bed".  After  a  few  last  words  with  Ussher  he  knelt 
at  the  block.  The  signal  was  to  be  the  raising  of  his  hand.  After 
he  had  fitted  his  neck  carefully  the  hand  slowly  rose.  At  one  blow 
the  deed  was  done,  and  the  Executioner  took  the  head  up  and  said, 
"God  savei  the  King".1 

A  great  shout  of  acclamation  rose  from  the  vast  throng.  Loud 
and  prolonged  cheering  made  the  welkin  ring  at  the  sight  of  Jordan 
crossed,  and  the  Promised  Land  achieved.  From  the  outskirts  of 
the  crowd  cavaliers  galloped  in  all  directions,  "waving  their  hats", 
to  spread  the  evangel  throughout  a  suffering  land.  In  every  little 
hamlet  where'er  they  came  they  shouted,  "His  head  is  off:  his  head 
is  off",  and  they  were  received  with  as  much  jubilation  as  the 
couriers  of  Nelson's  victories.  That  night  bonfires  blazed 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Southern  England.  Where- 
soever, too,  some  sullen  reactionary  left  his  windows  dark,  in- 
dignant protests,  and  occasionally  a  stone,  instantly  let  him  know 
that  this  was  not  agreeable  to  the  people,  and  that  he  must 
illuminate  lest  worse  befall  him. 2 

The  people  had  at  last  come  into  their  own,  and!  everyone  was 
now  free. 


1)  R.  P.  VIII— 760— 763 ;  Brief  and  Perfect  Relation— 100— 107.    2)  "Warwick 
Memoirs — 163. 


Appendix  I 

Sir  Thomas   Wentworih  Bart,  to  Mr.  Michael   Wentworth 

My  Dear  Brother, 

I  am,  right  glad  to  hear  of  your  good  health.  I  have  taken  the 
best  order  I  can  for  returning  your  monies;  but  if  you  appoint 
them  to  be  received  in  one  place,  and  then  remove  before  they  can 
be  returned,  if  you  want  them,  you  can  blame  no  body  but 
yourself ;  for  we  can  do  no  more  here  than  isend  them  to  such 
places  as  you  appoint.  I  doubt  not  but  you  will  be  vigilant  to  make 
good  use  of  your  time,  and  observe  such  things  as  may  enable  you 
in  the  profession  you  have  betaken  yourself  unto ;  and  if  you  com- 
mit to  paper  such  remarkable  accidents  as  fall  forth,  it  will  fasten 
them  better  in  your  memory,  and  be  much  more  fresh  and  ready 
in  your  mind,  if  ever  you  should  have  occasion  to  use  them. 
Methinks  it  were  good  to  keep  a  Journal-Book  of  all  that  passeth 
during  your  being  in  the  Army,  as  of  your  Removes,  your 
Skirmishes,  your  Incampings,  the  Order  of  your  Marches,  of  your 
Approaches,  of  your  Retreats,  of  your  Fortifications,  of  your  Bat- 
teries, and  such  like ;  in  the  well  and  sound  disposal  whereof,  as  I 
conceive,  consists  the  chief  skill  and  judgement  of  a  Soldier.  But 
I  am  out  of  my  own  vocation  (ae  I  may  so  say,  living  in  this 
peaceable  Country)  and  so  not  well  able  to  advise  wherein  I  have 
no  experimental  light  myself;  and  therefore  I  must  leave  you 
wholly  to  God's  good  guidance  and  your  own  circumspection  and 
judgement.  Only  let  me  add  this  one  Counsel,  that  if  you  come  in 
person  to  be  brought  on  in  any  service,  I  conceive  you  shall  do 
well  to  go  on  with  the  sober  and  stayed  courage  of  an  understanding 
man,  rather  than  with  the  rash  and  ill-tempered  heat  of  an  un- 
advised youth.  In  which  course  too,  I  conceive,  you  may  sufficiently 
vindicate  yourself  from  the  opinion  of  fear  and  baseness,  and  gain 
a  good  esteem  among  the  wiser  sort.  And  indeed,  a  Man  that 


APPENDIX  I  --  APPENDIX  II  1093 

ventures  himself  desperately  beyond  reason  (besides  that  hereby 
he  too  much  undervalues  himself)  shall  by  men  of  sure  and  sad 
brains  be  deemed,  without  doubt,  unfit  for  Government  and  Com- 
mand, that  exerciseth  none  of  it  first  over  his  own  unruly  and 
misleading  passions.  You  will  present  my  service  to  your  noble 
Captain,  together  with  my  thankful  acknowledgement  of  my  obliga- 
tion unto  himself  for  you,  and  that  I  do  much  desire  to  receive 
some  of  his  commands  on  this  side,  that  I  may  give  him  some 
good  testimony  how  diligent  and  careful  I  should  be  in  the 
observing  and  effecting  thereof.  We  are  all  here,  God  be  praised, 
in  as  good  health  as  when  you  left  us,  and  myself  much  better, 
having  once  again  gotten  my  former  strength.  God  have  you  in 
His  Blessed  keeping,  which  I  wish  you  as  heartily  as  to 

Wentworth-Woodhouse,          Your  ever  truly  affectionate  Brother, 
(V-t.  3,  1623.  Th.  Wentworth. 


Appendix  II 

The  Lord  Deputy  to  the  Lord   Viscount  Fairfax 

My  very  good  Lord, 

My  Cousin  your  brother  hath  taken  the  pains  to  bring  me 
hither  a  copy  of  the  last  will  of  my  Lord,  your  Father,  wherein  it 
hath  pleased  his  Lordship  to  leave  me  a  pledge  of  his  love 
and  trust,  agreeable  to  those  affections,  and  respects1,  he  always 
professed  unto  me  living;  indeed  such  a  testimony  as  common 
humanity  doth  require  a  cheerful  readiness  to  communicate  my 
best  help  to  the  common  frailty  we  are  all  subject  unto,  where  the 
condition  is  so  universal  as  no  man  is  able  to  resolve  himself  whose 
turn  it  may  be  next  to  make  the  like  request,  and  leave  it  behind 
him  as  a  legacy  to  the  friend  he  esteems  most ;  how  much  more 
then  will  it  become  me  to  offer  myself  a  ready  instrument  in  the 
care  of  the  education  of  the  Heir  of  that  House  to  which  I  arn  allied 
in  blood,  and  of  that  Person  that  ever  was  esteemed  and  beloved 
in.  my  Family  (and  in  truth  deservedly)  as  one  of  the  noblest 
Kinsmen  and  Friends  we  had!  So  then  in  conformitv  to  these 


1094  APPENDIX  H  —  APPENDIX  III 

desires,  I  am  willing,  if  it  may  seem  so  good  to  your  Lordship  and 
my  Lady,  to  take  the  charge  and.  care  of  your  son's  education  into 
my  House  and  thought,  and  acquit  myself  towards  the  duty 
imposed  upon  me  by  my  Lord  that  is  now  with  God,  even  with  the 
selfsame  respect  and  attention,  as  if  it  were  for  a  child  of  my  own ; 
only  by  reason  of  the  tender  years  of  my  young  Cousin,  I  desire  he 
may  be  put  to  School  in  some  fit  place  by  the  care  of  my  Cousin, 
his  Uncle,  and  not  brought  hither  to  me  before  this  time  twelve 
months,  if  your  Lordship  assent  hereunto.  I  desire  to  hear  from  you 
within  these  six  months,  and  then,  God  willing,  I  shall  provide 
lodgings  for  himself  and  Servants  here,  within  my  House.  As  for 
the  twelve  hundred  Pounds  appointed  for  his  education,  I  am 
willing  to  become  answerable  for  paying  eight  in  the  Hundred  half 
yearly,  which  may  be  laid  forth  for  his  present  Maintenance,  and 
the  Principal  at  least  not  impaired;  the  Bonds  I  give  is  myself, 
Sir  George  Radcliffe,  and  my  Brother,  Sir  George  Wentworth ; 
the  Interest  shall  be  duly  paid,  and  both  it  and  the  Principal 
always  ready  to  be  paid  in  upon  three  months  warning.  And  this 
being  in  present  all  that  I  have  whereby  to  express  the  good  affec- 
tions I  shall  preserve  for  your  Lordship  and  your  House,  I  shall 
not  fail  to  expect  and  seek  some  better  means,  which  may  further 
assure  you  of  my  being 

Dublin,  this  25th  of  Your  Lordship's 

April,  1637.  very  faithful  affectionate  Cousin 

and  humble  Servant, 
Went  worth. 


Appendix  III 

The  Lord  Deputy  to  the  Countess  Dowager  of  Clare 

May  it  please  your  Ladyship, 

My  Lord  of  Clare  having  writ  unto  me,  your  Ladyship  desired 
to  have  my  Daughter  Ann  with  you  for  a  time  in  England  to 
recover  her  health,  I  have  at  last  been  able  to  yield  so  much  from 
my  own  comfort,  as  to  send  both  her  and  .her  Sister  to  wait  your 
grave,  wise  and  tender  instructions.  They  are  both,  I  praise  God, 


APPENDIX  III  1095 

in  good  health,  and  bring  with  them  hence  from  me  no  other 
advice,  but  entirely  and  cheerfully  to  obey  and  do  all  you  shall 
be  pleased  to  command  them,  so  far  forth  as  their  years  and  under- 
standing may  administer  unto  them. 

I  was  unwilling  to  part  them,  in  regard  those  that  must  be  a 
stay  one  to  another,  when  by  course  of  Nature  I  am  gone  before 
them,  I  would  not  have  them  grow  Strangers  whilst  I  am  living, 
besides  the  younger  gladly  imitates  the  elder,  in  disposition  so 
like  her  blessed  Mother,  that  it  pleases  me  very  much  to  see  her 
steps  followed  and  observed  by  the  other. 

Madam,  I  must  confess,  it  was  not  without  difficulty  before 
I  could  persuade  myself  thus  to  be  deprived  the  looking  upon 
them,  who  with  their  Brother  are  the  pledges  of  all  the  comfort, 
the  greatest  at  least  of  my  old  age,  if  it  shall  please  God  I  attain 
thereunto.  But  I  have  been  brought  up  in  affections  of  this  kind, 
so,  as  I  still  fear  to  have  that  taken  first,  that  is  dearest  unto  me ; 
and  have  in  this  been  content  willingly  to  overcome  my  own  affec- 
tions, in  order  to  their  good,  acknowledging  your  Ladyship 
capable  of  doing  them  more  good  in  their  breeding  than  I  am ; 
otherways  in  truth  I  should  never  have  parted  with  them,  as  I 
profess  it  a  grief  unto  me  not  to  be  as'  well  able  as  any  to  serve 
the  Memory  of  that  noble  Lady  in  these  little  harmless  infants. 

Well,  to  God's  Blessing  and  your  Ladyship's  Goodness  I  com- 
mit them;  wliere-ever  they  are,  my  prayers  shall  attend  them,  and 
have  of  sorrow  in  my  heart  till  I  see  them  again  I  must,  which 
1  trust  will  not  be  long  neither;  that  they  shall  be  acceptable  to 
you,  I  know  it  right  well,  and  I  believe  them  so  graciously  minded 
to  render  themselves  so  the  more  you  see  of  their  attention  to 
do  as  you  shall  be  pleased  to  direct  them,  which  will  be  of  much 
contentment  unto  me;  for  whatever  your  Ladyship's  opinion  may 
be  of  me,  I  desire,  and  have  given  it  them  in  charge  (so  far  as 
their  tender  years  are  capable  of)  to  honour  and  observe  your 
Ladyship  above  all  the  women  in  the  World,  as  well  knowing  that, 
in  so  doing,  they  shall  fulfil  that  duty,  whereby  of  all  others  they 
could  have  delighted  their  Mother  the  most,  and  do  infinitely  wish 
they  may  want  nothing  in  their  breeding  my  power  or  cost  might 
procure  them,  or  their  condition  of  Life  hereafter  may  require: 
for,  Madam,  if  I  die  to-morrow,  I  will,  by  God's  Help,  leave  them 
ten  thousand  Pounds  apiece,  which  I  trust,  by  God's  Blessing, 


1096  APPENDIX  III 

shall  bestow  them  to  the  comfort -of  themselves  and  friends,  nor  at 
all  considerably  prejudice  their  Brother,  whose  estate  shall  never 
ho  much  burdened  by  a  second  Venture  I  assure  you. 

Xan,  they  tell  me,  danceth  prettily,  which  I  wish  (if  v^ith 
convenience  it  might  be)  were  not  lost,  more  to  give  her  a  comely 
grace  in  the  carriage  of  her  body,  than  that  I  wish  they  should 
much  delight  or  practise  it  when  they  are  women.  Arabella  is  u 
small  Practitioner  that  way  also,  and  they  are  both  very  apt  to 
learn  that  or  anything  they  are  taught. 

Nan,  I  think  speaks  French  prettily,  which  yet  I  might  have 
been  better  able  to  judge  had  her  mother  lived;  the  other  also 
speaks,  but  her  Maid  being  of  Guernsey,  the  accent  is  not  good ; 
but  your  Ladyship  is  in  this  excellent,  as  that,  as  indeed  all  things 
else  which  may  befit,  they  may,  nay,  and  I  hope  will,  learn  better 
with  your  Ladyship  than  they  can  with  their  poor  Father,  ignorant 
in  what  belongs  women,  and  otherways,  God  knows,  distracted; 
and  so  a  wanting  unto  them  in  all,  save  in  loving 'them,  and  therein,, 
in  truth,  I  shall  never  be  less  than  the  dearest  Parent  in  the  World. 

Their  Brother  is  just  now  sitting  at  my  elbow,  in  good  Health, 
God  be  praised;  and  I  am  in  the  best  sort  I  may  accommodating 
this  Place  for  him,  which  in  the  kind  I  take  to  be  the  noblest  one 
of  them  in  the  King's  Dominions,  and  where  a  Grasstime  may  be 
passed  with  most  pleasure  of  that  kind ;  I  will  build  'him  a  good 
House,  and  by  God's  Help  leave  him,  I  think,  near  three  thousand 
Pounds  a  year,  and  Wood  on  the  Grounds  as  much,  I  dare  say,  if 
near  London,  as  would  yield  fifty  thousand  Pounds,  besides  a 
House  within  twelve  miles  of  Dublin,  the  best  in  Ireland,  and 
Land  to  it,  which,  I  hope,  will  be  two  thousand  pounds  a  year;  all 
which  he  shall  have  to  the  rest,  had  I  twenty  Brothers  of  his  to 
set  besides  me.  This  I  write  not  to  your  Ladyship  in  Vanity,  or 
to  have  it  spoken  of,  but  privately  to  let  your  Ladyship  see,  I  do 
not  forget  the  children  of  my  deamst  Wife,  nor  altogether  bestow 
my  time  fruitlessly  for  them.  It  is  true,  I  am  in  Debt,  but  there 
will  be  besides  sufficient  to  discharge  all  I  owe,  by  God's  Grace, 
whether  I  live  or  die.  And  next  to  these  Children  there  are  not 
any  other  persons  I  wish  more  Happiness  than  to  the  House  of 
their  Grandfather,  and  shall  be  always  most  ready  to  serve  them, 
what  Opinion  soever  he  had  for  me ;  for  no  other's  usage  can  ab- 
solve me  of  what  I  owe,  not  onlv  to  the  mernorv  but  to  the  last 


APPENDIX  III  —  APPENDIX  I\r  1097 

Legacy  that  noblest  Creature  left  with  me,  when  God  took  her  to 
Himself.  I  am  afraid  to  turn  over  the  leaf,  lest  your  Ladyship 
might  think  I  could  never  come  to  a  conclusion ;  and  shall  there- 
fore add  to  all  the  rest  this  one  truth  more,  that  .  .  .  there  is  not 
any  more. 

Your  Ladyship's 

Fairwood-Park,  the  10th  obedient  and  most  humble 

of  August,  1639.  Son  and  Servant, 

Wentworth. 


Appendix  IV 

Speech  at  the  Trial 

May  it  please  your  Lordships,  it  falls  to  my  turn  to  presume 
to  put  you  in  mind,  and  to  represent  to  you  the  proofs  as  they 
have  been  offered,  which  I  shall  do,  to  the  best  of  my  memory, 
with  a  great  deal  of  clearness.  1  shall  desire  to  represent  them 
neither  better  nor  worse  than  they  are  in  themselves,  and'  I  wish 
the  like  rule  may  be  observed  on  the  other  side. 

My  Lords  my  memory  is  weak.  My  health  hath  been  much 
impaired,  and  I  have  not  had  such  quiet  thoughts,  as  1  desired  to 
have  had,  in  a  business  of  so  great  and  weighty  importance  to  me. 
Therefore  I  shall  most  humbly  beseech  you  that  by  your  wisdom, 
your  justice,  and  goodness  I  may  be  so  bound  to  you,  as  to  have 
my  infirmities  supplied  by  your  better  abilities,  better  judgements, 
and  better  memories. 

I  stand  before  you  charged  with  High  Treason.  The  burden 
is  heavy,  but  far  the  more  that  it  hath  borrowed  the  name,  the 
patrociny  of  the  House  of  Commons.  If  this  were  not  interested 
I  might  shortly  expect  a  no  less  easy,  than  I  do  a  safe,  issue,  and 
success  to  the  business.  But,  let  not  my  weakness  plead  innocency. 
nor  their  power  my  guilt.  If  your  Lordships  conceive  of  my  de- 
fence, as  they  are  in  themselves,  without  reference  to  either — and 
I  shall  endeavour  so  to  present  them — I  hope  to  go  hence  as  clearly 
justified  by  you,  as  I  am  now  in  the  testimony  of  a1  good  conscience 
by  myself. 


1098  APPENDIX  IV 

These  gentlemen  were  pleased  to  say  that  these  articles  were 
no  treason  in  themselves,  but  conducing  to  the  proof  of  treason. 
Hence,  my  Lords,  I  have  all  along  watched  the  charge  to  see  that 
poisoned  arrow  of  treason  that  some  would  have  to  be  feathered 
in  my  breast,  and  that  deadly  cup  of  wine  that  hath  so  intoxicated 
some  petty  misalleged  errors  as  to  put  them  in  the  elevation  of 
High  Treason.  In  truth,  however,  it  hath  not  been  my  quickness 
to  discern  any  such  monster  yet  within  my  breast,  though  perhaps 
now,  by  a,  sinister  imputation,  sticking  to  my  clothes. 

It  seems  strange  to  me,  there  being  a  difference  between 
misdemeanours  and  felonies,  how  it  can  be  possible  that  mis- 
demeanours should  ever  make  a  felony,  or  a  hundred  felonies 
make  a  treason.  They  say  well  that,  if  a  man  be  taken  threatening 
of  a  man  to  kill  him,  conspiring  his  death,  and  with  a  bloody  knife 
in  his  hand,  these  be  great  arguments  to  convince  a  man  of  murder. 
But  the  man  must  be  killed.  If  the  man  is  not  killed  the  murder 
is  nothing.  Thus  all  these  things  that  they  would  make  conduce 
to  treason,  unless  something  be  treasonable,  they  cannot  be  applied 
to  treason. 

They  tell  me  of  a  twofold  treason,  one  against  the  Statute, 
another  against  the  Common  Law,  this  direct,  that  constructive, 
this  individual,  that  accumulative,  this  in  itself,  that  by  way  of 
construction. 

My  Lords  these  constructive  treasons  have  been  strangers  to 
your  Commonwealth  a  great  while,  and,  I  trust,  shall  be  still  by 
your  Lordship's  wisdom  and  justice.  But,  as  for  the  Treasons  in 
Statute,  your  Lordships  are  my  judges.  No  Commoner  can  be 
judge  in  case  of  life  and  death.  No  Commoner  is  my  peer.  I  shall 
ever  celebrate  the  providence  and  wisdom  of  your  noble  ancestors 
that  have  put  the  keys  of  life  and  death,  so  far  as  concerns  you 
and  your  posterity,  in  your  own  hands.  None  but  you  know  the 
rate  of  your  noble  blood.  None  but  you  must  hold  the  balance  in 
dispensing  the  same.  God  be  praised  that  it  is  so ! 

But  my  Lords,  give  me  leave  here  to  pour  forth  the  grief  of 
my  soul  before  you ;  these  proceedings  against  me  seem  extremely 
rigorous,  and  to  have  more  of  prejudice  than  equity,  that  by  a 
supposed  charge  of  my  hypocrisy  or  errors  in  religion  I  should 
be  made  so  monstrously  odious  in  three  kingdoms.  A  great  many 
thousand  eves  have  seen  mv  accusations  whose  ears  shall  never 


APPENDIX  IV  1099 

hear  that,  when  it  came  to  the  upshot,  I  was  never  accused  of  the 
same.  But  I  have  lost  nothing;  popular  applause  was  ever  nothing 
in  my  conceit ;  the  uprightness,  the  integrity  of  a  good  conscience 
was,  and  ever  shall  be,  my  perpetual  feast.  And  if  I  can  be  justified 
in-  your  Lordships'  judgements  from  this  grand  imputation — as  I 
hope  now  I  am,  seeing  these  gentlemen  have  thrown  down  the 
bucklers — I  shall  account  myself  justified  by  the  whole  kingdom, 
because  by  you,  who  are  the  compendium,  the  better  part,  yea,  the 
very  soul  and  life  of  the  same. 

As  to  my  designs  about  the  State,  I  dare  plead  as  much  in- 
nocency  here  as  in  the  matter  of  my  religion.  I  have  ever  admired 
the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  who  have  so  fixed  the  pillars  of  this 
Monarchy  that  each  of  them  keeps  due  measure  and  proportion 
with  other,  and  have  so  handsomely  tied  up  the  nerves  and  sinews 
of  the  State  that  the  straining  of  one  may  bring  damage  and  sorrow 
to  the  whole  economy.  The  prerogative  of  the  Crown  and  the 
propriety  of  the  subject  have  such  mutual  relations  that  this  took 
protection  from  that,  that  foundation  and  nourishment  from  this ; 
and,  as  on  the  lute,  if  anything  be  too  high  or  too  low  wound  up, 
you  have  lost  the  harmony,  so  here  the  excess  of  a  prerogative  is 
oppression,  of  a  pretended  liberty  in  the  subject  disorder  and 
anarchy.  The  prerogative  must  be  used,  as  God  doth  His  omni- 
potency,  at  extraordinary  occasions ;  the  laws  answerable  to  that 
u  potent  ia  lifjata  in  creaturis"  must  have  place  at  all  other  times, 
and  yet  there  must  be  a  prerogative,  if  there  must  be  extraordinary 
occasions.  The  propriety  of  the  subject  is  ever  to  be  maintained, 
•if  it  go  in  equal  pace  with  this;  they  are  fellows  and  companions 
that  have  been  and  ever  must  be  inseparable  in  a  well-governed 
kingdom ;  and  no  way  so  fitting,  so  natural  to  nourish  and  intertex 
both  as  the  frequent  use  of  Parliaments.  By  this  a  commerce  and 
acquaintance  is  kept  between  the  King  and  the  subject;  this 
thought  hath  gone  along  with  me  these  14  years  of  my  public 
employments,  and  shall,  God  willing,  to  my  grave.  God,  his 
Majesty,  and  my  own  conscience,  yea,  all  who  have  been  accessory 
to  my  most  inward  thoughts  and  opinions,  can  bear  me  witness  I 
ever  did  inculcate  this:-  The  happiness  of  a  kingdom  consists  in  a 
just  poise  of  the  King's  prerogative  and  the  subject's  liberty,  and 
that  things  should  never  be  well  till  these  went  hand  in  hand 
together.  I  thank  God  for  it,  by  my  Master's  favour  and  the 


11 00  APPENDIX  IV 

prudence  of  my  ancestors  I  have  an  estate  which  so  interests  me 
in  the  Commonwealth  that  I  have  no  great  mind  to  'be  a  slave, 
but  a  subject.  Nor  could  I  wish  the  cards  to  be  shuffled!  over  agaiii 
upon  hope  to  fall  on  a  better  set;  neither  did  I  ever  keep  such 
base  mercenary  thoughts  as  to  become  a  pander  to  the  tyranny, 
the  ambition  of  the  greatest  man  living.  No,  I  have  and  shall  ever 
aim  at  a  fair  but  bounded  liberty,  remembering  always  that  I  am 
a  freeman,  but  a  subject ;  that  I  have  a  right,  but  under  a  Monarch. 
But  it  hath  been  my  misfortune  now  under  my  grey  hairs  to  be 
charged  with  the  mistakes  of  the  times,  which  are  now  so  high 
bent  that  all  -appears  to  them  to  be  in  the  extremes  for  Monarchy, 
which  is  not  for  themselves:  hence  it  is  that  designs,  words, 
yea,  intentions  are  brought  out  for  demonstrations  of  my  mis- 
demeanours— such  a  multiplying  glass  is  a  prejudicated  mind. 

This  is  not  constructive  treason.  It  is  destructive  treason.  It 
is  not  agreeable  to  the  fundamental  grounds  of  reason,  for  how 
can  there  be  Treason  in  the  whole  which  is  not  in  any  of  the  parts? 
It  is  not  agreeable  to  the  fundamental  grounds  of  law.  Neither 
Statute  Law,  or  Common  Law,  or  Practice  hath  from  the  beginning 
of  Government  ever  mentioned  such  a  thing.  It  is  hard  that  I 
should  be  questioned  for  my  life  and  honour  upon  a  law  that  is 
not  extant,  that  cannot  be  shown. 

Jesu !  My  Lords,  where  hath  this  fire  lay'n  all  this  while,  so 
many  hundred  years  together,  that  no  smoke  should  appear  till  it 
burst  out  now  to  consume  me  and  my  children,  to  destroy  me  and 
my  posterity  from  the  earth?  Hard  it  is  that  a  punishment  should 
precede  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  that  I  should  be  punished 
by  a  law  subsequent  to  the  act  done.  No  man  will  be  safe  if  this 
be  admitted.  Far  better  it  were  to  live  by  no  law  at  all,  but  be 
governed  by  those  characters  of  discretion  and  virtue  stamped  in 
us,  than  to  put  this  necessity  of  a!  divination  in  man,  and  to  accuse 
him  of  a  breach  of  the  law,  ere  it  be  a  law  at  all. 

There  is  no  token  set  upon  this  offence,  by  which  we  may 
know  it,  no  admonition  by  which  we  may  be  aware  of  it.  If  I  pass 
down  the  Thames  in  a  boat,  and  run  upon  an  anchor,  and  there  be 
no  buoy  to  give  me  warning,  the  party  shall  give  me  damages,  but, 
if  it  be  marked  out,  it  is  at  my  own  peril.  Where  is  the  mark  set 
upon  this  crime?  Where  is  the  token  by  which  I  should  disvocer  it? 
Ff  it  be  not  marked,  but  lie  under  water,  there  is  no  human  pru- 


APPENDIX  IV  1101 

dence.can  prevent  the  destruction  of  man.  Let  us  then  lay  aside 
all  that  is  human  wisdom.  Let  us  rely  only  upon  divine<  revelation. 
Nothing  else  can  preserve  us  if  you  condemn  us  before  you  tell  us 
where  -the  fault  is  that  we  may  avoid  it.  Have  regard  to  the 
Peerage  of  England,  and  never  suffer  yourselves  to  be  put  upon 
these  moot  points,  the  constructions,  interpretations,  and  strictness 
:of  law.  If  there  must  be  a  trial  of  wits,  consider  that  the  subject 
may  be  of  something  else  than  of  your  lives  and  your  honours. 
•  .'  In  the  primitive  times,  on  the  sound  and  plain  doctrines  of 
the  Apostles  they  brought  in  their  books  of  curious  art  and  burnt 
them.  It  would  be  wisdom  and  prudence  for  yourselves,  your 
posterity,  and  for  the  whole  Kingdom,  to  cast  from  you  into  the 
.lire  those  bloody  and  mysterious  volumes  of  constructive  and 
..arbitrary  treason,  and  to  betake  yourselves  to  the  plain  letter  of 
the  Statute  that  tells  you  where  the  Crime  is.  We  have  lived 
happily  at  home.  We  have  lived  gloriously  abroad.  Let  us  be 
content  with  that  which  our  fathers  left  us.  Beware  you  do  not 
wake  sleeping  lions  by  the  raking  up  of  some  neglected  moth-eaten 
records.  They  may  tear  you  and  your  posterity  to  pieces.  Your 
ancestors  chained  them  within  the  barrier  of  a  statute.  Be  not 
ambitious  to  be  more  skilful  than  your  ancestors,  more  curious 
than  your  fathers  were  in  the  art  of  killing.  It  is  not  the  crime 
of  treason,  but  my  other  sins  that  have  presented  me  to  your  bar, 
and  it  is  now  my  misfortune  that,  unless  your  Lordships'  wisdom 
provide  for  it,  the  shedding  of  my  blood  may  make  a  way  for  the 
tracing  of  yours.  You,  your  estates,  your  posterities  lie  at  stake 
if  such  learned  gentlemen  as  these,  whose  lungs  are  well  acquainted 
with  such  proceedings,  be  started  out  against  you.  If  your  friends 
and  your  counsel  were  denied  access  to  you,  if  your  professed 
enemies  admitted  to  be  witnesses  against  you,  if  every  word,  in- 
tention, circumstance  of  yours  were  alleged  treasonable,  not  be- 
cause of  a  Statute,  but  because  of  a  consequence,  a  construction 
of  law  heaved  up  in  a  high  rhetorical  strain,  and  a  number  of 
supposed  probabilities,  I  leave  it  to  your  Lordships'  consideration 
to  foresee  what  may  be  the  issue  of  so  dangerous,  so  recent 
precedencies. 

These  gentlemen  say  they  speak  in  defence  of  the  Common- 
wealth against  my  arbitrary  laws.  I  speak  in  defence  of  the 
Commonwealth  against  their  arbitrary  treason.  If  this  latitude  be 


1102  APPENDIX  IV  —  APPENDIX  V 

admitted  who  will  serve  the  King  and  the  State?  If  you  will 
examine  Ministers  of  every  little  grain,  or  every  little  weight,  it 
will  be  so  heavy  that  the  public  affairs  of  the  Kingdom  will  be 
left  waste,  and  no  man  will  meddle  with  them  that  hath  wisdom 
and  honour  and  fortune  to  lose. 

If  it  were  not  for  your  Lordships'  interest  and  the  interest 
of  those  pledges  a  saint  in  Heaven  hath  left  me  ....  you  will 
please  to  pardon  my  infirmity.  ...  I  should  not  have  taken  such 
pains  to  keep  up  this  ruinous  cottage  of  mine.  It  is  laden  with 
.such  infirmities  that  I  have  no  great  pleasure  to  carry  it  longer 
about  with  me. 

Yet  I  thank  God  I  account  not  the  afflictions  of  this  present 
life  as  comparable  with  that  eternal  weight  of  glory  that  shall  be 
revealed  for  us  hereafter.  Only  with  all  humility  and  tranquillity 
of  mind  I  do  submit  myself  clearly  and  freely  to  your  judgements. 
Let  me  be  a  Pharez  to  keep  you  from  shipwreck.  Do  not  put  such 
rocks  in  your  own  way  which  no  prudence  or  circumspection  can. 
eschew  or  satisfy  but  by  utter  ruin. 

And  so,  my  Lords,  whether  your  judgement  be  to  life  or 
death,  it  shall  be  righteous  in  my  eyes,  and  received  with  a 
Te  Deum  Laudamus,  Te  Dominum  Confitemur 


Appendix  V 

The  Lord  Lieutenant  to  Charles  I. 

May  it  please   Your  Sacred  Majesty; 

It  hath  been  my  greatest  grief  in  all  these  troubles,  to  be 
taken  as  a  person  which  should  endeavour  to  represent  and  set 
things  amiss  between  Your  Majesty  and  Your  People,  and  to  give 
counsels  tending  to  the  disquiet  of  the  Three  Kingdoms. 

Most  true  it  is,  (that  this  mine  own  private  condition  con- 
sidered) it  had  been  a  great  madness,  (since  through  your  gracious 
favour1 1  was  so  provided)  as  not  to  expect  in  any  kind  to  mend  my 
fortune,  or  please  my  mind  more,  than  by  resting  where  your 
bounteous  hands  had  placed  me. 

K"ay,  it  is  most  mightily  mistaken ;  for  unto  your  Majesty  it  is 


APPENDIX  V  1103 

well  known,  my  poor  and  humble  advices  concluded  still  in  this,  that 
Your  Majesty  and  Your  People  could  never  be  happy,  'till  there 
were  a  right  understanding  betwixt  you  and  them;  and  that  no 
other  means  were  left  to  effect  and  settle  this  happiness,  but  by 
the  counsel  and  assent  of  your  Parliament,  or  to  prevent  the 
growing  evils  of  this  State,  but  by  entirely  putting  yourself  in 
this  last  resort,  upon  the  loyalty  and  good  affections  of  your  English 
Subjects. 

Yet  such  is  my  misfortune,  that  this  truth  findeth  little  credit ; 
yea,  the  contrary  seemeth  generally  to  be  believed,  and  my  self 
reputed  as  one  who  endeavoured  to  make  a  separation  between 
you  and  your  People:  under  a  heavier  censure  than  this,  I  am 
persuaded  no  gentleman  can  suffer. 

Now  I  understand  the  minds  of  men  are  more  and  more  in- 
censed against  me,  notwithstanding  your  Majesty  hath  declared, 
that  in  your  Princely  opinion  I  am  not  guilty  of  Treason,  and  that 
you  are  not  satisfied  in  your  conscience  to  pass  the  Bill. 

This  bringeth  me  in  a  very  great  streight.  There  is  before  me 
the  ruin  of  my  children  and  Family,  hitherto  untouch'd  in  all  the 
branches  of  it  with  any  foul  crime.  Here  are  before  me  the  many 
ills,  which  may  befall  your  Sacred  Person  and  the  whole  Kingdom, 
should  Your  Self  and  Parliament  part  less  satisfied  one  with  the 
other,  than  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  both  of  King  and 
People.  Here  are  before  me  the  things  most  valued,  most  feared 
by  mortal  men,  Life  or  Death. 

To  say,  Sir,  that  there  hath  not  been  a  strife  in  me,  were  to 
make  me  less  man,  than  God  knoweth,  my  infirmities  make  me; 
and  to  call  a  destruction  upon  myself  and  young  children,  (where 
the  intentions  of  my  heart,  at  least,  have  been  innocent  of  this 
great  offence)  may  be  believed,  will  find  no>  easy  consent  from 
flesh  and  blood. 

But  with  much  sadness  I  am  come  to  a  resolution  of  that, 
which  I  take  to  be  best  becoming  me,  and  to  look  upon  it,  as  that 
which  is  most  principal  in  itself,  which  doubtless  is  the  Prosperity 
of  Your  Sacred  Person,  and  the  Commonwealth,  things  infinitely 
before  any  Private  Man's  Interest. 

And  therefore  in  few  words,  as  I  put  myself  wholly  upon  the 
Honour  and  Justice  of  my  Peers,  so  clearly,  as  to  wish  Your  Ma- 
jesty might  please  to  have  spared  that  Declaration  of  Yours  on 


1104  APPENDIX  V 

Saturday  last,  and  entirely  to  have  left  me  to  their  Lordships ;  so 
now,  to  set  Your  Majestie's  Conscience  at  liberty,  I  do  most  humbly 
beseech  Your  Majesty,  for  prevention  of  evils  which  may  happen 
by  Your  refusal,  to  pass  this  Bill,  and  by  this  means  to  remove 
(praised  be  God)  I  cannot  say  this  accursed,  (but  I  confess)  this 
unfortunate  thing,  forth  of  the  way  towards  that  blessed  agree- 
ment, which  God,  I  trust,  shall  ever  establish  between  you  and 
your  Subjects. 

Sir,  my  consent  shall  more  acquit  you  herein  to  God,  than 
all  the  World  can  do  besides;  to  a  willing  man  there  is  no  injury 
done:  and  as,  by  God's  Grace,  I  forgive  all  the  World,  with;;a 
calmness  and  meekness  of  infinite  contentment  to  my  dislodging 
soul ;  so.  Sir,  to  you  I  can  give  the  Life  of  this  World,  with  all 
the  cheerfulness  imaginable,  in  the  just  acknowledgement  of 
your  exceeding  favours;  and  only  beg,  that  in  your  Goodness,  you 
would  vouchsafe  to  cast  your  gracious  regard  upon  my  poor  Son, 
and  his  three  sisters,  less  or  more,  and  no  otherwise,  than  as  their 
(in  present)  unfortunate  Father  may  hereafter  appear  more  or  less 
guilty  of  this  Death.  God  long  preserve  Your  Majesty. 

Your  Majesty's  most  Faithful; 

Tower,  May.  4.  1641.  And  Humble  Subject, 

And  Servant, 
Strafford. 


i    N    D 


x 


N  M.  S.=StrHlToi<i 


Abbey  Lands,  see  Church  Lands 
Abbeyleix,  sale  to  Crown,  949 
Abercorn,    James    Hamilton,    2nd.    Earl, 

552,  583,  651,   887 
Absence,  Licence  of,  42,  44 
Absentee  Landlords,  42,  923 
Absentees,  Statute  of,  683;  950 
Acheson,  Sir  Archibald,  860,  862,  918,  919 
Adair,  Archibald,  Bp.  of  Killala,  603,  925 
— ,  Patrick,  581 
— ,  Robert,  664 
Admiralty,    the,    49,    53,    279,   280,   334, 

342,  343,  389.   See  also  Navy;  Pirates 
Advowsons,   misuse,   434,  459,  461,   470, 

471,  474,  475;  abuse  by  Earl  of  Cork, 

472,  473,  498,  502,  519,  520,  532,  533; 
S's.     reforms,     521 — 526;     difficulties, 
528,  529,  875;  recovery,  530,  534 

Aghadoe,  See  of,  471,  472 
Aldersie,   suitor  in  Chancery,  55 
Aldworth,    Sir   Richard,  260,   425 
Ale-houses,  264,  307,  308,  310—313,  315 
Allegiance,    Oath     of,     see     Supremacy, 

Oath  of 
Alnager,  327 
Alvey,  F.  T.  C.  D.,  558 
Andrews,    George,     dean    of    Limerick, 

later  Bp.  of  Ferns,  596,  598,  599 
Anglesey,    Arthur   Annesley,    1st.    Earl, 

632 

Annandale,  Earl  of,  873,  918 
Annesley,    Arthur,    see    Anglesey,    1st. 

Earl 

— ,  cousin  of  Mountmorris,  967 
— ,  Sir  Francis,  see  Mountmorris 


Antrim,  County,  155,  198,  693,  694,  927. 
See  also  Antrim,  Earl  of;  McDon- 
nells; Scotch  Settlers;  "Surrender 
and  Regrant" 

Antrim,  Randal  McDonnell,  1st.  Earl, 
412,  552,  688,  689,  690,  693,  759,  876 

— ,  —  — ,  2nd.  Earl,  feudal  position,  76, 
659,  996;  various  intrigues,  233,  355, 
424,  647,  654,  886,  890,  961;  hostility 
to  Argyle,  653,  800—802,  889,  927; 
relations  with  S.  over  patent,  etc., 
690—692,  803,  851,  940;  escheat  of 
estates,  942 

Apostolical  Succession,  408 

Aqua  Vitae,  see  Spirits 

Archer,  Luke,  431 

— ,  Walter  932,  933 

Ardagh,  parish  of,  511 

Ardfert,  Bp.  of,  see  Crosby,  John 

— ,  See   of,  457,  471,  472,  500 

Ardfynnan,  rectory  of,   522 

Ards,  the,  695,  696,  703 

Argyle,  Earls  of,   158 

— ,  Archibald  Campbell,  7th.  Earl,  153, 
155,  440,  454,  455 

— ,  —  — ,  8th.  Earl,  intrigues  with 
Ulster,  158,  160,  209,  210,  232,  454, 
581—583,  629,  653,  654,  659,  666, 
799—803,  886,  888,  889,  891,  906,  926, 
927,  940,  1073;  intrigues  with  France, 
652;  plunder  of  McDonalds,  971; 
feudal  position,  997;  intrigues  in  Eng- 
land, 1050 

Argyleshire,  576.  See  also  Argyle,  Earl 
of;  and  Scotch  Settlers 

Aristocracy  of  England,  see  Feudalism 
70 


1106 


INDEX 


Arklow,  48,  366 

Armada,   Spanish,  432 

Armagh,  Archbps.  of,  398,  403,  448,  457, 
470.  See  also  Crooner;  Dowdall;  Good- 
acre;  Hampton;  Malachy  O'Morgair; 
Usher,  James 

— .  Borough  of,  95 

— ,  Cathedral    of,    398,    401 

—  County  of,  333,  435,  437,  812—816, 
821,  822,  825.  See  also  Ulster, 
Plantation  of 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Archbp.  of,  see 
Creagh,  Richard;  Lombard;  and 
O'Reilly,  Hugh 

Army,  English,  936,  972—975,  978,  979, 
1016,  1053,  1054,  1069,  1071—1073, 
1080.  See  also  "Army  Plot" 

— ,  Irish,  67,  148,  166,  223,  260,  261,  485, 
656/659,  660,  679,  748,  791,  798,  801, 
858,  865,  871,  872,  894,  914,  920,  926, 
933,  958,  965,  966,  970,  977,  1071 

— ,  — ,  for  supposed  use  in  England, 
992—995,  1000—1003,  1006—1008, 
1012—1023,  1029,  1032,  1034,  1037, 
1044,  1045,  1058,  1063,  1077 

— ,  — ,  for  use  in  Scotland,  1007,  1008, 
1014,  1019—1021,  1023 

"Army  Plot",  1053—1056,  1058—1063, 
1068,  1071—1074,  1084 

Articles  of  Irish  Church  of  1566,  589 

-  1615,  446,  448,  587—590, 
592—595,   597,   598,  980 

— ,  Thirty  nine,  see  Thirty-nine  Ar- 
ticles 

Arundel,  Thomas  Howard,  2nd.  Earl, 
intrigues,  15,  63,  140,  490,  778,  789, 
792;  quarrels  with  S.,  117,  143,  164, 
189,  734,  797,  952— 957;  part  at  S.'s 
trial  and  attainder,  985,  1007,  1014, 
1061,  1081,  1086 

Ashe,  Henry,  931 

— ,  Richard,  934 

Assize  of  Bread,  see  Ale-houses 

Atherton,  John,  Bp.  of  Waterford, 
526—528 

Athlone,  16,  336.  See  also  Wilmot, 
Lord 


Attainder,  Bill  of,  1st.  production,  1031, 
1039,  1043;  .passage  through  Com- 
mons and  intimidation,  1044 — 1046, 
1050,  1051;  introduction  to  Lords, 
1051 — 1053;  intervention  of  King  and 
Lord  Saye,  1056,  1057 ;  effect  of 
"Protestation",  1061,  1062;  passage 
through  Lords,  1063,  1064,  1077; 
possibility  of  compromise  by  King, 
1076,  1077;  royal  assent,  1085—1087. 

Aungier,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  15,  75,  263, 
441,  569 


B 

Babington,     Bruice    or    Bruite,     Bp.    of 

Derry,  825 

Bagehot,  Walter,  historian,  912 
Bagenall  or  Bagnall,  Sir  Henry,  47,  700 

,    Nicholas,  699 

— ,  Richard,   957 

Bagenalls  or  Bagnalls,  98,  99,  830,  950 

Baillie,  Robert,  221,  986—990,  999,  1036, 

1048,   1057,   1058,   1062,   1070 
Baldwin,  Captain,  20 
Bale,  John,  Bp.  of  Ossory,  417 
Balfour,   Lord,    23,    24,    496,    860,    862, 

865—868,  906,  922,  925,   1075 
— ,  Sir  William,   1069,   1075,   1076,   1089 
Balliboes,   see   Ulster,   Plantation 
Ballybrack,  82 

Baltimore,  6,   93,  98,  350,  497 
Baltinglas,  497,  500 
Baltinglass,  3rd.  Yet.,  8,  9,  48,  53 
— ,  4th.  Vet.,  135,  310,  311 
Bandon,   93,   95,   97,   235,   313,   332,   350, 

377,  389,  473,  497 
Bann,  371 
Bannowe,  214 

Barnewall,  Sir  Frederick,  433,  708 
— ,  Nicholas,  238 

— ,  Sir  Patrick,  417,  901,  916,  935 
— ,  Roman  Catholic  Archbp.  of  Dublin, 

625,  626,  641 
Barnewalls,  15,  47,  473 
Baron,  Geoffrey,  137 


INDEX 


1107 


Barr,      Robert,     298,      379,     380,      382, 

386— 388;     647,     650,     660,     661,    663, 

743—745,  784,  882,  885 
Barrells,   "project"   of,  290,   291 
Barrett,  Richard,  67 
Barretry,    20,    866—869,    921,    922,    925. 

See  also  Feudalism,  Irish 
Barrington,   Sir  Thomas,   1022 
Barry,  Col.,  209,  211,  227,  359 
— ,  Mr.  Justice,  see  Santry,  Lord 
Barrymore,  Barony  of,  134 
— ,  Lord,  15,  420,  497,  547,  931,  993 
Basset,  Arthur,  756,  762 
Bastwick,  John,  524,    1048 
Bathe,  Sir  John,  350,  537. 
"Beagles",  117,  733,  734,  870,  955.    See 

also  Defective  Titles 
Beaumont,  Sir  John,  706 
Beck,  Rev.  George,  500,  522 
Bedell,   William,     Bp.    of    Kilmore,     23, 

446,  480,  489,  491,  492,  506,  528,  540, 

556,  557,  560,  569,  570,  601—603,  624, 

627 

Bedford,  Earl  of,  980,  998,  1056,   1068 
Bedley,  Sir  Christopher,  929 
Belfast,  97 
Bell,   Henry,    732,   733.     See   also   Bell, 

Richard 
Bell,  Richard,  288,  289,  312,  760.     See 

also  Bell,  Henry 
Bellew,  Sir  John,  20 
Bellewes,  Pale  family,  935 
Belling,  Sir  Henry,  25—27,  929 
.    Benedictines,  433 

Benevolences,  7,  9,  23,  24,  79,  260,  261, 

265,  480,  481,  485,  487—490,  728,  729, 

865,  869,  894,  925,  931 
— ,    English,  974,  975 
Bentivoglio,  Cardinal,  411 
Berehaven,  160 

Beresford,   Tristram,   882,   890,  895,   896 
Berkshire,  Earl  of,   187 
Bernard,  Nicholas,  590 
Beza,  574 

Bigamy,  bill  against,   136 
Billingsley,    Captain,     1055,    1056,    1069, 
1073 


Bingham,    Sir    Richard,    680,    701,    716, 

748,  749,  751,  756,  759,  817 
Bingley,  Sir   Richard,  853,  860 
Bird,  Richard,  254 

Bishops,   at   Reformation,   403,   457,  458 
— ,  Carolan,  529,  530,  540,  541 
— ,  English,  part  in  attainder  of  S.,  986, 

1053,  1063,  1079,   1080 
— ,  Jacobean,  459,  528,  529 
— ,  Norman,   395,   396 
— ,  Primitive,  393,  394 
— ,  Roman  Catholic,  612,  616,  618—620, 

623,  624,  627,  628,  636,  640,  641,   651, 

779,  795,  836 
— ,  Scotch,  152,  430 
"Black  Oath",  668.  See  also  Supremacy, 

Oath  of 
Blair,    Robert,   448 — 454,   577,   578,   582, 

586,  643,  646—648,  650,  661,  663 
Blagnall,  iron-worker,  16,  296,  297.    See 

also  Iron  works 
Blake,  Sir  Richard,  471 
Blaney,  Sir  Henry,  942 
Blennerhasset,  Thomas,  820,  832 
Blundell,  Sir  Arthur,  362,  917 
— ,  Francis,  756,   762,  869 
Blunts,  the,  47 
Bole,  Archibald,  917 
— ,  Rev.  John,  668,  907 
Bolton,    Sir    Richard,    Lord    Chancellor, 

72,   258,   263,   361,   570,  738,    772,   860, 

910,  921,  959,  988,  1089 
Bonnacht,  676,   719,   750,   757,   809,   818. 

See    also    Clan    System;     Feudalism, 

Irish  ' 

Bonny-clabber,  315 
Books  of  Survey  and  Distribution,  682, 

693,  696,  697,  699,  702,  752,  758.    See 

also     Inquisitions;      Land     Tenures; 

Plantations 
Borlase,  Sir  John,  3,  220,  234.  490,  662, 

739,  862,  869,  996 
Boroughs,     92—94,     96—98.     113,     115, 

213—215,  724,  725,  841—843,  859,  905, 

933—935 

Borr,  John,  261  , 
Both  well,  Earl  of,  454 

70* 


1108 


INDEX 


Bourehier,  Sir  John,  813 

Bourke,  Father  Hugh,  200,   617,  620 
-.  Lord  of  Brittas,  141,  356,  520,  547 

__, Cahir,  135,  356,  520 

_,  Sir  Thomas,  222,  227 

Bourkes,  see  also  Burkes,  Clanricai-de, 
Mayo 

Boyle,  315 

— ,  Michael,  Bp.  of  Waterford  and  Lis- 
more,  508,  510,  526 

— ,  Richard,  Bp.  of  Cork  and  Archbp. 
of  Tuam,  458,  509,  510,  518 

— ,  Richard,  see   Cork,   1st.  Earl 

— ,  Robert,  572 

Brabazons,  the,  47 

Brady,  Hugh,  Bp.  of  Meath,  411,  457, 
458,  463,  581 

Bramhall,  John,  Bp.  of  Derry,  miscel- 
laneous views  and  references,  53,  131, 
206,  504,  513,  525,  534,  538 — 540,  581, 
597,  626,  910,  988,  1089,;  on  Puri- 
tanism-, etc.,  447,  476,  542,  580,  581, 
(502,  644,  650,  662,  665;  on  reorganiza- 
tion and  difficulties  of  Church  of  Ire- 
land, 477,  518,  521,  523,  530,  533—536, 
577,  589,  590,  594,  598,  599;  valuations, 
500,  501,  510,  517,  526;  character,  523, 
524,  959;  on  diocese  of  Derry,  523, 
524,  575;  on  patents,  731,  829,  867; 
part  as  Commissioner  of  Derry  Planta- 
tion, 879,  880,  882,  885,  888,  890, 
894—897 

Bramston,  Judge,  922 

Brangan,  sentence  against,  631 

Bray,  48 

Bread,  price  of,  see  Ale-houses;  Corn 

Brennans  of  Idough,  954,  955 

Breweries,  312. 

Brice,  rector   of  Broad  Island,   648,  649 

Bridgeman,  English  M.  P.,  1052 

Bridges,  repair  of,  277 

Bridgewater,  Lord,  994. 

"Brief   and   Perfect    Relation",    Author 

of,  1057 
Bristol,    Lord,    922,    936,    976—978,    987, 

1000,    1005,   1007,   1047,   1061,    1063 
Broghill,  Baron,  237,  413,  415,  550 


Bromloe,  M.  P.  for  Armagh,  934 

Brooke,  Sir  Richard,  376,  377 

Browne,   George,  911 

— ,  Sir  Jeffrey,  222. 

Browne,  Walter,  929. 

Bruce,  Dr.,  602,   603 

— ,  Robert,  invasion  of,  676,  695 

— ,  see  Brice 

Bryan,  Sir  Daniel,  103. 

Buckingham,  Duchess   of,   383,  458,   690 

— ,  Duke  of,  312,  367,  930,  980 

Buckworth,  Theophilus,  Bp.  of  Dromore, 

575 
Bulkeley,  Launcelot,  Archbp.  of  Dublin, 

483,  506,  507,  564 
Burgh,  see  De  Burgh 
Burghley,  Lord,  248,  366,  445,  698 
Burgo,  see  De  Bur  go 
Burke,  Hugh,  see  Bourke 
— ,  Richard,  767,  777,   781 
— ,  Theobald,  759 
— ,  Sir  Thomas,   103 
— ,  Sir   Tibbot,  28,   929 
— ,  Sir  William,    103 
— ,  Wm.,  432 
— ,  see   also   Bourke;    Clanricarde;    De 

Burgh 
Burkes,  473,  684,  685,  765,  767,  788,  789, 

798 

Burlamaci,  money-lender,  497,  498,  503 
Burton,  Henry,  1034 
Bushin,  Philip,  25,  26,  358 
Butler,  Edmund,  244 
— ,  Sir  Edward,  904,  935 
— ,  James,   see   Ormonde,   12th.  Earl 
— ,  Lord,  552 

— ,  Richard,  see  Mountgarrett,  3rd.  Vet. 
Butlers,  950 

Butter,  291,  293,  294,  340,  341 
Byrnes,  see  O'Byrnes 
Bysse,  Irish  M.  P.,  933,  935 

C 

Caddell,  Father,  625 
Caddowes,  see  Wool. 
Calkers,   142 


INDEX 


1109 


Calvert,   Sir  George,  415. 
Calvin,    John,    574.     See    also    Presby- 
terians, Puritanism 
Camden,  William,  554 
Campbell,  Archibald,  see  Argyle,  Earls  of 
— ,  Colin,  663 

Campbell,  John,  see   Loudon,   1st.  Earl 
Campbells,  927 

Canterbury,  See  of,  394,  395 
Capel,  Lord,   1085 
Capuchins,  432 
Carbury,  416 
Carew,  Sir   George,    103,    160,    161,   236, 

248,  606 
— ,  Lord,  494 
— ,  Sir  Peter,  100 

Carleton,  Sir  Dudley,  1064,  1086,  1087 
Carlisle,  Earl  of,  117,  314,  956 
— ,  Lady,  52,   173,  314,  747,  997 
Carlow,  Borough  of,  96,  97 
— ,  County,  76 
— ,  Plantation  of,  950.    See  also  Arundel, 

and  Idough 
Carmelites,  609 
Carpenter,  Mr.,  372,  373 
Carr,  Rev.  George,  1064,  1090 
Carroll,  Sir  James,  711,  715 
Carte,  Thomas,  517,  527,  740,  741,  1064, 

1065 

Cartright,  Thomas,  Puritan,  476 
Carrickfergus,    160,    166,    245,    345,    426. 

See  also  Army,  Irish 
Carrigaline,  472,  513 
Gary,  Henry,  see  Falkland,  1st.  Lord 
— ,  Lucius,  see  Falkland,  2nd.  Lord 
Casey,  Ward,  553 
Cashel,  395,  398,  416 
— ,  Archbp.  of,  see  Hamilton,  Archibald; 

Magrath 
— ,    Roman    Catholic    Archbp.    of,    432, 

465,  524,  536,  556.     See   also  Walsh, 

Thomas 
Castelnovo,  member  of  "Queen's  side", 

140 
Castle  Chamber,  24,  26,  31,  32,  270,  271, 

273,  276,  277,  315,  474,  475,  631,  744, 

767,  867,  917,  918,  1052 


Castlecomer,  80,  951,  954,  955.  See  also 
Wandesforde 

Castlehaven,  James  Touchet,  3rd.  Earl, 
3,  138,  414,  548,  610,  825,  838,  942 

Castlestewart,   Lord,   580,   583,   584,   646 

Catelin,  Serjeant,  108,  127,  258,  271,  360. 
See  also  Speaker,  Irish  House  of 
Commons 

Catholic  Confederation,  236,  475,  476, 
535,  550,  606,  608,  614,  624,  625,  628, 
630,  634,  637,  640,  641,'  714,  716,  717, 
785,  802,  854,  901,  914,  925,  930,  935, 
941 

Cattle,   embargo  on,   351,   352 

Caulfield,  Lord,  15,  361,  692,  788,  878,  903 

— ,  Sir  Toby,  813,  829,  843 

Cavan,  County,  23,  91,  100,  425,  426, 
489,  540 

— ,  Plantation  of,  828,  832,  839 

Cavanagh,  Daniel,  711 

Cavanaghs,  706,  789,  950 

Cave,  Thomas,  263,   341,  569 

Cecil,   Sir  Robert,   813 

— ,  William,  see  Burghley,  Lord 

Cess,  78—82,  273,  274,  683,  684,  742,  751, 
754,  756—758,  817—819,  823,  828,  1052, 
1063.  See  also  Clan  System;  Coigne 
and  Livery ;  Connaught ;  Corporations ; 
and  Feudalism,  Irish. 

Chalmers  or  Chambers,  Father,  156,  652. 

Champion,  Arthur,  910,  935 

Chappel,  William,  Provost  T.  C.  D.,  and 
Bp.  of  Cork,  540,  560,  562—567 

Charles  I.,  miscellaneousi  views  and  re- 
ferences, 110,  195,  204,  227,  233,  337, 
452,  496,  505,  513,  515,  516,  783, 
936,  952,  953;  relations  with  North- 
umberland, 174,  997;  relations  with 
Short  Parliament,  180,  183,  189,  190, 
191;  character,  189,  791,  792,  975;  re- 
ligious attitude,  199,  200,  427,  437, 
450,  478,  479,  540;  question  of 
"Graces",  729—731,  735,  761,  762; 
relations  with  Queen,  779,  780,  1082— 
1084;  treatment  of  Clanricarde,  781, 
782,  793,  794;  difficulties  over  Derry 
Plantation,  883—885,  890,  892,  893; 


1110 


INDEX 


treatment  of  Mountmorris,  969,  970; 
part  in  trial  of  S.,  985,  1014,  1021, 
1029,  1030,  1030;  efforts  to  save  S., 
1052,  1056,  1057,  1069—1071,  1078; 
consultation  with  Council,  Judges,  and 
Bps.,  1079 — 1082;  assent  to  Bill  of 
Attainder,  1084—1086;  failure  to 
obtain  compromise,  1087,  1088 

Charles  II.,  381,  547,  1085,  1087 

Cheevers,  Marcus,  929 

— ,  Kobert,  901 

Chester,  254 

Chevreux,  Madame  de,  156 

Chiehester,  Arthur,  1st.  Lord,  miscel- 
laneous references,  44,  75,  91,  101,  102, 
430;  commercial  policy,  289,  291,  298, 
314,  319,  378,  877;  views  on  Church 
affairs,  460,  587—590,  605,  648;  land 
settlements,  694,  703,  704;  part  in 
Plantations,  710,  717,  721,  722,  740, 
753;  part  in  Ulster  Plantation,  807, 
812—814,  833,  878;  relations  with 
Undertakers,  841—845,  853 

Chichester,  2nd.  Lord,  577 

Chiefries,  sec  Clan  System;  Feudalism, 
Irish 

Christ  Churoh  Cathedral,  497,  506 

Church  lands,  Irish,  31,  131,  577,  615, 
624,  625,  695,  699,  702,  703,  706,  708, 
731,  741,  742,  750,  765,  769,  789,  794, 
823,  827,  829,  830,  841,  873,  876,  906, 
915,  931,  932,  933,  980 

,  Scotch,   150—152. 

Church  of  England,  980 

Ireland,  unpopularity  and  attacks 

on,  207,  208,  468,  470,  474,  475,  541— 
545,  897,  934,  943;  primitive  conditions 
and  first  Roman  control,  393 — 396; 
wealth  and  internal  decay,  397 — 400; 
transition  stage,  401,  408,  418,  426, 
456^-459,  546,  547,  553;  adherents  in 
Stuart  period,  409,  410,  412,  413,  416, 
417,  617,  919;  hampering  State  control, 
426,  427,  434,  458,  464,  465,  588,  589; 
various  abuses  and  internal  disorder, 
434,  457,^  458,  461—464,  477,  478,  518, 
533,  586,  587,  592,  639,  875;  tolerance, 


446,  524,  525;  Jacobean  reforms,  459, 
463,  464,  471;  Calvinistic  trend,  506, 
575,  580,  581,  589,  643,  645,  646,  648, 
649;  improvement  in  wealth,  power 
and  numbers,  534,  537 — 539,  546,  547; 
Articles  of  1615,  589—591;  introduc- 
tion of  39  Articles,  593 — 597;  canons, 
599—601,  616,  645,  646,  648,  649;  re- 
form of  Courts,  600—606;  prohibition 
by  Cromwell,  636 

Church  of  Ireland,  see  also  Advowsons, 
Articles  of  1615,  Bishops,  Church 
lands,  Commendams,  Convocation, 
Mortmain,  Tithes 

Churls,  see  Servile  Population,  Wood- 
kern. 

Cistercians,  624 

Clandonald,  16,  154.  See  also 
McDonnell. 

Claneboye,  O'Neills  of,  412,  701.  Sec 
also  O'Neills. 

Claneboye,  James  Hamilton,  1st.  Earl, 
territorial  influence,  98,  99,  133,  472, 
556,  667,  703,  915;  Puritan  leanings, 
155,  158,  449,  477,  558,  577,  646—648, 
668,  889,  906,  907,  934,  963 

Claneboye,  North,  or  Lower,  693,  694, 
703 

Claneboye,  South,  or  Upper,  700,  701 

Clanmorris,  Lord,  764 

Clanower,  470 

Clanricarde,  Richard  de  Burgh,  4th.  Earl, 
political  power,  91,  361,  414,  533,  613, 
742;  religious  position,  443,  472,  612, 
615,  620;  opposition  to  Plantation  of 
Connaught,  146,  749,  752,  755,  759, 
760,  764,  766—770,  773,  776,  777,  778 

— ,  Ulick  de  Burgh,  5tih.  Earl,  feudal 
position,  237,  420,  787—790,  996;  op- 
position to  Plantation  of  Connaught, 
155,  202,  203,  229,  544,  619,  686,  779, 
786;  Court  intrigues  with  Vane,  and 
"Queen's  side",  175  176,  337,  778 — 
783,  785,  791—795,  1083;  religious 
attitude,  621,  779;  patent  »and  its 
results,  629,  686,  796,  797;  doubtful 


INDEX 


1111 


loyalty,  801 — 803;  representation  in 
Irish  Parliament,  934,  939 

Clanricarde,  Earls  of,  28,  76 

Clan  system,  638,  639,  674—687,  693, 
695,  697—699,  712,  713,  716,  717, 
726,  727,  746,  816—818,  832,  949,  950. 
See  also  Barretry;  Cess;  Coigne  and 
Livery;  Feudalism,  Irish. 

Clare,  477,  749 

Clare,   Lord,   1008 

Clarendon,  Ediward  Hyde,  1st.  Earl,  views 
on  Short  Parliament,  179,  183,  184, 
188,  189,  193;  on  Radcliffe,  339;  on 
Mountmorris,  358,  359,  964;  on  T.  C. 
D.,  557;  on  S.'s  religious  policy,  606, 
607,  632,  763;  on  Clanricarde,  792;  on 
Covenanters,  928;  on  Arundel,  952; 
on  Hamilton,  986,  1081;  on  St.  John, 
987;  agent  for  Leicester,  999;  on 
impeachment  of  S-,  1002,  1018;  on 
notes  of  Junto,  1031,  1039,  1042,  1043; 
action  against  Bill  of  Attainder,  1044; 
on  Saye,  1057;  agent  in  efforts  to 
obtain  reprieve  of  S.,  1068;  on  "Army 
Plot",  1073;  care  of  Prince  of  Wales, 
1085 

Clements,  Captain,  922,  923 

Clifford,  Elizabeth,   513 

— ,  Francis,  513 

— ,  Lady,  513.  See  also  Cumberland, 
Earl  of 

— ,  Lord,  497,  498,  502,  503,  513,  514, 
518 

Clogher,  98 

— ,  Bp.  of,  see  Jones,  Henry;  Spottis- 
woode 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  McMahon, 
Emer 

Clonakilty,  95,  97,  333,  497 

Clonerkin,   500 

Clonfert,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see 
De  Burgo,  John 

— ,  See  of,  403,  424,  471,  536 

Clonmel,  416 

Clonroine,  214 

Clonpriest,  511 

Clontarf,  257 


Clotworthy,  Sir  Hugh,  449,  578 
— ,  Sir  John,  intrigues  against  S.,  218, 
606,  897,  906,  909,  910,  915,  922,  924, 
929,  931;  monster  petition,  232,  541, 
578,  598,  602,  604;  evidence  at  trial 
of  S.,  238,  336,  337,  374,  544;  patronage 
of  Nonconformity,  449,  477,  496,  520, 

577,  578,   647,  664,  668,  690;   history, 

578,  579;  part  in  Londonderry  Planta- 
tion, 578,   849,  890—893 

Cloyne,   See  of,    131,  461,  471,  538,  540 

Coal,  270,  271,  298—301 

Cogan,  manager  of  Customs,  341,  345, 
359,  360 

Coghlan,  juror,  20 

— ,  Terence,  935 

Coigne  and  Livery,  7,  22,  78,  81,  82,  100, 
107,  329,  470,  676,  677,  678,  680,  682, 
720—723,  732,  749,  788,  818,  911,  1023. 
See  also  Clan  System;  Feudalism, 
Irish 

Coke,  John,  the  elder,  relations  with  S., 
139,  160,  326,  355,  617,  691,  792,  874, 
917,  921,  958;  resignation,  174,  779, 
997,  1045;  correspondence  with  Cork, 
350;  Puritan  leanings,  452;  corres- 
pondence with  Dublin  Council,  486; 
views  on  Church  of  Ireland,  597;  on 
Plantation  of  Connaught,  762,  775;  On 
Plantation  abuses,  870,  873,  918 

— ,  John,  the  younger,  598,  1044,  1050, 
1071,  1073,  1084 

Cokeley,  Thos.,  48 

Cole,  Sir  William,  23,  24,  222,  480,  490, 
865,  866,  877,  906,  934 

Coleraine,  245 

Colourers,  see  Customs 

Colvert,  Ulster  divine,  648,  649 

Colville,  Scotch  agent,  1071 

Comerford,  Patrick,  Roman  Catholic 
Bp.  of  Waterford,  6,  237,  247,  312, 
439,  466,  467,  611,  623,  624,  640 

Commendams,   539,    540 

Committee  of  Grievances,  222,  223,  739, 
798,  916,  936.  See  also  Parliament, 
Irish 


1112 


INDEX 


Commission  of  Defective  Titles,  see 
Defective  Titles 

Common  Lands,   674,  699 

Commons,  English  House  of,  at  S.'s 
trial,  1044—1046,  1048,  1050—1053, 
1056,  1057,  1059,  1061,  1062,  1068, 
1069,  1076,  1077.  See  also  Parliament, 
Long;  Scotch  Rebellion;  Strafford 

Composition  of  Connaught,  756 — 758. 
See  also  Connaught;  Cess 

Conde,  Duke  of,  657 

"Condors",   142,  378 

Conn,  Monsignor,  199,  200,  657,  778,  993, 
1083. 

Connaught,  Composition  of,  see  Com- 
position 

-  Feudalism,  22,  110,  118,  131,  132,  137, 
680,  727,  731,  746,  749,  750,  787—789 

— ,  wastes  in,  286;  trade,  331,  332,  748, 
749;  unrest  in,  618,  620,  628,  629; 
gracing,  751 

— ,  Governor  of,  see  Ranelagh;  Wilmot 

— ,  Plantation  of,  royal  title  to,  10,  146, 
147,  750,  751,  754,  755,  762—768,  783, 
786,  787;  opposition  by  Clanricarde 
faction,  175,  176,  202,  203,  612,  618, 
619,  764,  766 — 770;  question  of  patents, 
751,  752,  755—758,  760,  761,  765,  771, 
772,  783;  advantages,  757,  761—763; 
good  reception  in  Roscommon,  764, 
765;  reorganization,  769 — 771,  774 — 
777;  absence  of  able  planters,  773; 
disorganizing  effect  of  Clanricarde's 
patent,  794—797,  799,  800;  result,  801 

Conry,  Florence,  568 

Contested  Elections,  see  Elections, 
contested 

Contributions,  349—351 

Convents,  609,  616,  623.  See  also 
Monasteries 

Conveyances,  fraudulent,  136.  See  also 
Wills  and  Uses 

Convocation,  English,   178,  588,  589 

— ,  Irish,  589,  590,  593—606.  See  also 
Articles  of  1615;  Church  of  Ireland, 
canons;  Synod  of  1615 

—  of  1615,  see  Synod  of  1615 


Conway,  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  565, 
566 

— ,  Lord,  52,  187,  380,  570,  659,  690,  845, 
860,  914,  972,  973,  1005 

— ,  Sir  Foulke,  700 

Cooke,  Dr.  Alan,  874 

— ,  Sir  Francis,  3 

— ,  Lady,  895,  896 

— ,  Stephen,  55 

Coote,  Sir  Charles,  51,  55,  258,  263,  738, 
743,  744,  758,  760,  761,  802,  959,  989 

— ,  Dr.,   542 

Cope,  Mr.,  222 

Coppinger,  Sir  Doniinick,  95 

Coppingers,  274 

Coquet  duties,  28,  245,  250.  See  also 
Dublin 

Corbett,  Mr.,  603 

Cordwell,  Vane's  agent,  995 

Cork,  Bp.  of,  see  Boyle,  Richard; 
Chappel;  Lyons 

— ,  City,  7,  24,  95,  97,  345,  416,  495 

,  Corporation  of,  244,  253,  254,  260, 

273,  274 

— ,  County,  20,  24,  331,  342,  349,  410, 
423,  427,  435,  914 

— ,  Richard!  Boyle,  1st.  Earl,  relations 
with,  and  intrigues  against  S.,  3,  12, 
202,  218,  2^0,  266.  296,  356,  503,  902, 
906,  915,  925,  929—931,  960,  964,  993, 
1025,  1073,  1074;  miscellaneous  views 
and  references,  9,  51,  136,  142,  378, 
419,  423,  728,  742,  996;  relations  with 
Lord  Loftus,  11,  12,  14,  38,  52,  78, 
498;  characteristics,  17—19,  60,  493, 
494,  497;  encoachments  on  Church 
lands  and  property,  33,  452,  498 — 500, 
522,  523,  525,  526;  various  feuds  and 
intrigues,  39,  40,  230,  294,  452,  527, 
528;  relations  with  Mountmorris,  53, 
358,  359,  361;  financial  and  commercial 
interests  and  enterprises,  95,  134,  286, 
296,  311,  313,  332,  335,  367,  370,  377, 
496,  497,  726;  representation  in  Irish 
Parliament,  110,  115,  934—936;  part 
in  and  views  on  various  Plantations, 
146,  228,  578,  704,  705,  725,  842,  849, 


INDEX 


1113 


948;  action  re  subsidies,  204,  205,  265, 
350,  351,  544,  931;  feud  with  Dublin 
Corporation,  261 — 263;  question  of 
recusancy  fines,  479,  484,  486 — 488, 
490,  609,  610;  patents  in  Connaught, 
752 — 754.  See  also  Saint  Patrick's 
Cathedral 

— ,  See  of,  410,  457,  463 

Corn,  embargo  on  export,  126,  284 — 288; 
policy  of  S.  and  results,  289 — 293; 
abolition  of  embargo  and  results,  223, 
293,  294,  939 

Corporations,  franchise  in,  92 — 94; 
charters  of,  97,  249—253,  270,  270; 
financial  rights  and  exactions,  201, 
245,  269,  270,  276,  277,  280,  308,  310, 
322,  482,  732;  musters,  242;  growth 
of  sedition  out  of  early  loyalty,  242 — 
249,  258,  259,  270;  religious  tendencies, 
247,  248,  259,  415—417,  421,  547—550; 
dissensions  and  decay,  250,  251,  263, 
264,  274—276,  370;  relations  with 
Guilds,  253,  255;  attack  on  cess  duty, 
260,  261;  quo  warranto  proceedings, 
279,  280;  effect  of  Statute  of  Limi- 
tations, 281 ;  hostility  to  S.  in  Parlia- 
ment and  middle  class  revolt,  282, 
349,  929,  931—934,  938;  dislike  of 
feudalism,  808.  See  also  Cork  City; 
Dublin;  Limerick 

Cosha  Area,  9 

Cottingdon  or  Cottington,  Francis,  1st. 
Lord,  12,  59,  120,  121,  147,  187,  219, 
303,  352,  488,  529,  743,  778,  781,  874, 
875,  969,  991,  1004,  1010,  1041 

Council,  English,  1006,  1009,  1014,  1072, 
1078—1082,  1085 

— ,  Irish,  judicial  powers,  11,  19,  20,  30, 
38,  40,  73,  74,  262,  309,  730,  771,  876, 
921,  1063;  enforced  unanimity,  23,  24, 
137,  138,  265;  internal  intrigues,  111, 
115,  116,  124,  125,  915,  960,  961,  964; 
religious  standpoint,  429,  714;  rela- 
tions with  King,  688—690,  729,  750, 
751,  754;  weakness  in  revolution,  937, 
958. 


Council   of   Peers   at   York,    see    Peers, 

York  Council  of 
Courcy,  see  De  Courcy 
Court  Abbey,  500 
Court  of  High  Commission,  524,  587,  604. 

See   also   Courts,   ecclesiastical 

—  Record,  771,  772.   See  also  Courts 
Wards,    142,   143,   405,    550—553, 

760,  761,  772,  871.     See  also  Courts; 

Parsons,  William 
Courts,  ecclesiastical,  577,  584,  585,  587, 

601—606,   662,   664—666,  876. 
— ,   intimidation     of,     11,     19,    20,    22; 

appeals   to    England,    41,    42,  45,   514, 

515;    fees,    71,    72,    922,    939;    native 

ignorance  of,  273,  288,  289;   effect  of 

reforms   of  S.,  329.    See   also  Castle 

Chamber;    Council,    Irish;    Court    of 

Wards;    and   Loftus,   Lord  Chancellor 
Covenanters,  see  Presbyterians;  Scotch 

Rebellion 

Coventry,  Lord,   881,  907 
Cowley,   George,  47 
Cox,   Sir  Richard,  historian,  412,   589 
Craig,  Sir  James,  746 
Crawford,  swordsman,  854 
Creagh,    Alderman  John,    908 
— ,  Richard,  Roman  Catholic  Archbp.  of 

Armagh,  401,  405,  431 
— ,  parish  of,  511 
Creaghting,  717,  718,  727,  759,  834,  840, 

841,  844—848,  855,  861,  872,  878—880, 

894,  895.    See  also  Grazing 
Cre&sy,  Judge,  772 
Crewe,  John,  1046 
Cromer,  George,  Archbp.  of  Armagh,  400, 

403,  407 

Cromwell,  Sir  Edward,  696,  697 
— ,  Lord,  903 
— ,  Oliver,  451,  455,  496,  519,  520,  547, 

550,  559,  565,  574,  579,  635,  636,  643, 

697,  702,  747,  760,  801,  891,  914,  928, 

942,  1015,  1017 
Cromwells,  family  of,  98,  99 
Cronin,  Cornelius,  909 
Crosby,  John,  Bp.  of  Ardfert,  457 


1114 


INDEX 


Crosby,  Pierce,  intrigues,  15,  41,  109,  133, 
137—140,  160,  268,  745,  770,  778,  781, 
782,  784,  929,  1084 

Cuffe,   Hugh,   911 

Ctillen,  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  562 — 
565 

Culmore  Castle,   172,  583,  882 

Culpepper,  Sir  John,  363,  364,  377 

Cumberland,  Earl  of,  516 

Cunningham,  Ulster  divine,  648,  649 

Currency,  scarcity  of,  370,  371,  389,  390 

Cusack,   Christopher,  555 

— ,  James  909,  925,  931,  935 

Cusacks,  47,  555 

Customs  Duties,  reduced,  223;  project 
of  Custom  House,  277,  389;  proposal 
to  increase  rates,  299,  352,  388; 
history,  328;  various  abuses,  258,  269, 
270,  341,  343,  345,  349,  350,  376; 
reforms,  249,  344—348,  350,  372;  sup- 
posed embezzlement  by  S.  and  other 
charges,  348,  780,  783,  784;  connec- 
tion with  cattle  trade,  351;  farm  of, 
295,  341,  346,  347,  359,  360,  379,  382— 
389,  1088.  See  also  Corporations; 
Londonderry,  Plantation  of ;  Revenue; 
S.,  Financial  and  Trade  Policy 


D 

D'Aguila,   Don  Juan,  432 

Dalways,  Mr.,  319 

Dame   Street,  Dublin,  20 

Danby,   1st.  Earl  of,  996,  998 

Daniel,  William,  Archbp.  of  Tuam,  569 

Darcy,  Patrick,  381,  384,  385;  745,  768, 
782,  783,  785 

Darcies,  47 

Da  vies,  Sir  John,  land  policy,  91,  733 
835,  843,  844;  encouragement  of 
towns,  94,  842;  relations  with  Irish 
Parliament,  101,  102,  103,  108; 
Clarendon's  opinion  of,  300;  financial 
scheme,  352,  353,  388;  comments  on 
religious  affairs,  413,  415,  416,  429, 
430,  435,  436,  442,  460,  463,  546,  550, 
639;  on  Irish  feudalism,  685,719,  721, 


723,  808,  831,  834,  876;  on  creaght'tig, 

717,  840 

Davies,  Paul,  869 
Dawes,  Abraham,  352,  353,  763 
— ,  Sir  William,  299 
Pease,  Thomas,  R.  C.  Bp.  of  Meath,  2Tt, 

406,  439,  487,  625,  626,  628,  637 
De  Burgh,  Col.,  658 

— Richard,  see  Clanricarde,  4th  Earl 

Ulick,  see  Clanricarde,  5th  Earl 

De  Burgo,  John,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of 

Clonfert  (later  of  Tuam),  613,  614,620 
De  Courcy  Lord,  473 
Defective   Titles   Commission,    22,     117, 

118,   126,   142,  276,  277,  532,  533,  687, 

704,  708,  734—746,  760,  772,  797,  870, 

874,  877,  901,  909,  950,  951,  954,  963 
Deficit,  Irish,  14,  109,  110,  389,  480 
Depopulation,  318,  325,  832,  833 
Delvin,  Lord,  901 
Denny,   Sir  Edward,   739,  902,  911,  934, 

935 

"Depositions",    see   Rebellion  of    1641 
Derby,  Lord,  329,  342 
Derry,  Bp.  of,  see  Babington,  Bramhall, 

Downham 

—  ,  See  of,  471,  540 
— ,  see  also  Londonderry 
Desmond,   Earls  of,   247,   405,  469,  470, 

547,  676—678,  680—683,  720,  789 
— ,  Lady,  146 
Devereux,   Robert,   2nd.   Earl  of  Essex, 

see  Essex 

— ,  — ,  3rd  Earl  of  Essex,  see  Essex 
Digby,  George  Digby,  Lord,  39,  40,  490, 

497,  912,  928,  1000,    1001,   1006,   1018, 

1021,   1022,   1026,   1037,   1044 
Dillon,  Sir  Henry,  698 
— ,  Sir  James,  909 
— ,  Lucas,  963 
— ,  Lord   Robert,    ability,    71,   572,    738, 

959,    1089;    remark    on    Gookin,    135; 

action   on  Council,     149,     206,      361; 

appointment    as    Lord    Justice,    220, 

996;     part    at   trial   of   S.,    268,   989; 

remarks  on  Ulster  unrest,  666;  work 


INDEX 


1115 


in  Connaught,  778;  part  in  plant- 
ations, 903,  909,  910 

Dillon  of  Costelloe,  Theobald,  1st.  Lord, 
752,  753,  759 

,  2nd.  Lord,  547,  620,  753,  772, 

773,  780,  795,  797,  800,  802,  1083 

Dillons  of  Longford,  901 

Roacommon,  547 

Dingle,  93,  96,  97 

Docwra,  Lord,  3,  825 

Dogherty,  family  of,  448 

Dominicans,  433,  621 

Donegal,  77,  155,  548,  580 

Donnellan,  Nehemiah,  Archbp.  of  Tuam, 
557,  569 

— ,  Clanricarde's  Agent,  764,  767,  785 

Dorset,  Earl  of,  300 

Douai,  44,  555.  561 

Dowdall.  George,  Arehbp.  of  Armagh, 
403 

— ,  Sir  John,  245,  247,  417,  546 

— ,  Lady,  37 

Dowdalls   of  Waterford,   830 

Down,  Bp.  of,  see  Echlin;  Leslie,  Henry 

— ,  description  of,  98,  115,  198;  effect 
of  Scotch  rebellion,  158,  159; 'loyalty, 
914.  See  also  Ards,  Claneboye, 
Hamiltons,  Iveagh,  Lecale,  Savages, 
Scotch  Rebellion,  Scotch  Settlers, 
Surrender  and  Regrant 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  438 

Downham,  George,  Bp.  of  Derry,  569, 
575 

Downing,  Eananuel,  6 

Downpatrick,  98 

Draycott,  Christopher,  309 

Drogiheda,  441,  506,  538,  556 

— ,  Lord,  see  Moore  of  Drogheda 

Droit  Administratif,  73,  74 

Dromore,  Bp.  of,  398.  See  also  Buck- 
worth 

Dublin,  Arehbp.  of,  394,  398.  See  also 
Bulkeley;  Jones,  Thomas;  Loftus, 
Adam 

—  City,  general  references,  28,  96, 
122,  123,  259,  332,  394,  399,  429,  431; 
housing  conditions,  48,  49,  278,  312; 


demoralized  condition,  307 — 309; 
Protestants  in,  410,  416;  chapels  and 
convents  in,  425,  443,  444,  609;  riot, 
443 

Dublin  Corporation,  general  references, 
28,  96,  122,  123,  259,  556;  contested 
elections  in,  100,  101,  119,  122;  con- 
stitution, 251;  various  duties,  rates, 
and  restrictions,  250 — 258,  261,  262, 
272,  273,  277,  280;  description  of, 
256 — 258;  relations  with  executive, 
258,  259,  263;  religious  composition, 
260;  quarrel  with  S.  over  cess  duties, 
and  results,  260,  261,  265—267,  282; 
financial  difficulties,  263;  demoraliza- 
tion, 264;  leasing  of  public  lands, 
276,  277;  various  reforms,  277 — 280; 

.  demand  for  restraint  on  exports,  282, 
283,  317;  attitude  towards  Oath  of 
Supremacy,  414,  416 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Arehbp.  of;  see 
BarnewaJl ;  Oviedo 

—  University,     see     Trinity     College, 
Dublin 

Duff,  Edmond,  678 

Dumbarton,   583,  887 

Dunbar,  646,  648 

Dundalk,  350 

Dungannon,  15 

Dungarvan,  93,  98,  332 

— ,  Lord,  218,   502,   503,    507,    508,   513, 

517,  925,  928,  993 
Dungeynon   vicarage,  522 
Dunkeld,  Earl  of,  see  Galloway 
Dunkin,  clergyman,  524 
Dunkirkers,  pirates,  343 
Dunne,  Barnaby,  904 
Dutch  merchants,  28,  280,  291,  342,  446 

—  settlers,  904 
Dutton,  Captain,  922 
— ,  Lady,  790 

— ,  Sir  Thomas,  608 

£ 

Earle,  Sir  Walter,  221,  1026 
Ecclesiastical    Courts,    see    Courts,    Ec- 
clesiastical 


1116 


INDEX 


Eehlm,  Robert,  Bp.  of  Down  and  Connor, 

449,  451,  528,  582,  646 
Edge  worth,  M.   P.   for  Longford,   934 
Edward  II.,  470 

—  III.,   1024 

—  IV.,   509 

-  VI.,  403,  404,  414,  417,  1024 
"Eikon  Basilike",   1080,  1086 
Elections,   contested,   98,   99 
Eliot,  Sir  Thomas,  980 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  6,  7,  36,  43,  357,  401, 
404,  405,  407,  417—419,  427,  429,  434, 
437,  531,  587,  589,  590,  677,  757,  758, 
808,  818,  819,  857,  1024 

— ,  —  of  Bohemia,  529 

Ellesmere,  Sir  John,  494 

Elphin,   Bishop  of,  see   Lynch,  John 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bps.  of,  616,  787. 
See  also  O'Huyghin 

— ,  See  of,  471,  472 

Elsing,  English  M.  P.,  1046 

Elrington,  Dr.  Charles  Richard,  565,  566, 
590 

Ely,  Bp.  of,  see  Wren 

-  O'Carroll,    Plantation    of,    333;    un- 
rest in,  853 

Emly,  See  of,  460 

England,  disorder  in,  911,  912 

Ennis,  95,  724,  904 

Enniscorthy,  244 

Escheats    of   Cromwell,   942 

Esmonde,  Laurence  Esmonde,  1st.  Lord, 

5,  51,  115,  133,  472,  745,  782,  784,  901, 

929 

Esmondes,  715,  727 
Essex,   Robert    Devereux,   2nd.   Earl,   4, 

417,   1024 
— , ,  3rd.   Earl,   97,   778,    792,   793, 

797,  942,  1068,   1083 
Eustace,  Mr.,  of  Wicklow,  9 
— ,  Serjeant,    108,    162,    996.      See    also 

Speaker,  Irish  House  of  Commons 
Everard,  Sir  James,  102,  108,  109,  454 
Exchange,  Bills  of,  264.   See  also  Usury 
Executive,   Irish,   internal  quarrels  and 

corruption,    7,    14,    200;    views    of    S. 


on,    14,   358;    dismissed    officials,   266, 
336,  362,  363.    See  also  Council. 


Falkland,  Henry  Cary,  1st.  Lord,  re- 
lations with  Loftus,  5,  8,  9,  11,  50, 
51,  123;  treatment  of  O'Byrnes,  8,  9, 
41,  50,  51,  122,  1065;  relations  with 
Mountmorris,  47,  358;  various  in- 
cidents of  vieeroyalty,  55,  75,  78,  138, 
474,  605,  769,  848;  commercial  policy, 
275,  351,  378;  the  "Graces",  129,  728, 
729;  religious  attitude,  442,  479,  609; 
views  re  Plantations  and  Ulster,  733, 
761,  851,  854 

— ,  Lucius  Cary,  2nd.  Lord,  557,  1044 

Farnham,    Mr.,    109 

Farthings,  495 

Feasant,  or  Pheasant,  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  563—565 

Fenton,  Sir  Geoffrey,  504 

Feoffments,  429.  See  also  Conveyances, 
fraudulent;  Defective  Titles;  Feudal 
Dues;  Wills  and  Uses 

Fermanagh,  20,  23,  101,  489,  490,  679, 
833,  865—868 

Fermoy,    500 

Ferns,  Bp.  of,  see  Andrews;  Ram 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  Roche 

— ,  See  of,  523,  529,  536 

Feudal  Dues,  142,  143,  178,  185,  186, 
551,  552,  674,  675,  679,  681,  687,  692, 
716,  718—721,  732,  754,  816,  817,  931. 

Feudalism,  171,  172,  673,  676,  720,  929, 
996,  1023,  1024,  1047,  1070,  1071 

— ,  Irish,  7,  15,  16,  20,  22,  23,  30,  37, 
44,  75,  76,  91,  93,  400,  406,  619,  628, 
655,  656,  673—687,  693,  695,  699,  708, 
711,  718—722,  726,  727,  746,  749,  750, 
788,  789,  807—811,  816—818,  832,853, 
875,  876,  929.  See  also  Cess,  Clan 
System,  Coigne  and  Livery,  Manori- 
alism 

Fews,  the,  812 

Finance,  Irish,  deficits,  109 — 112;  pro- 
posals of  S.,  Ill;  earmarking  of 
funds  for  Ireland,  116,  117,  353; 


INDEX 


1117 


successful   management    and   reforms, 

147,    148,   165,   170;    effect  of  dissolu- 
tion   of    Long   Parliament,    198,    210. 

See  also  Benevolences,  Revenue. 
Finch,  Sir  John,  26,   170,  176 — 178,  318, 

922,  938,  991,   1024,   1069 
Fingall,  Christopher  Plunkett,  2nd.  Earl, 

20,  114,  115,  127,  488,  830,869,906,916 
Firth,  Professor,   1087 
Fisheries,   141,  142,  273,  371,  372,  375 — 

378,  882,  883 

Fitzgarrett,   Richard,  226 
FitzGerald,   George,    see    Kildare,    16th. 

Earl 

— ,  Gerald,  see  Kildare,  8th.  Earl 
— ,  John,  60,  61 
— ,  Sir  John,  131,  500 
— ,  Pierce,    273 
— ,  Richard,   222,   934 
— ,  Robert,    903,    935 
Fitzgeralds   of  Wicklow,  9 
Fitzharris,   Sir   Edward,   90S 
FitzOliver,  Tirrie,  273 
Fitzpatrick,    Florence,    Lord    of    Upper 

Ossory,   719 
Fitzsymonds,   98,   99 
Fitzwilliam,  Sir  William,  Lord  Deputy, 

47,  285 

— ,  William,  20 
Fleetwood,   Sir  Miles,   924 
Fleming,  swordsman,  830,  854 
Foley,  Richard,  297 
Forestalling    and    Regrating,    287 — 289, 

495,  877,  880.     See  also  Markets 
Forrester,  Lord,  171 
Fort  Inoland,  953 
Fortesque,   Ulster   M.  P.,   869 
Forth,  Mr.,  20 
Foster,  Mr.,  232 
Foulis,  Sir  David,  35,  36 
Foulkes,  Captain,  636 
Four   Masters,   Annals   of,   570 
Fower,   214 
France,  intrigues  with  Covenanters,  652, 

653,    657,    776,    956,   985,    1058,    1059, 

1071,  1072 
Franchise  qualifications,  90,  98 


Franciscans,  15,  433,  441,  460,  479,  609, 
623,  625,  864,  944 

Freeholders,  681,  682,  684—687,  695— 
699,  701,  704,  707—713,  715,  716,  724, 
764,  769,  770,  809,  816,  820—823,  830, 
832—834,  843,  844,  895,  942,  948,  954, 
955.  See  also  Land  Tenures,  Lease- 
holders, Strip-holders 

Friars,  quarrels  with  seculars,  611,  622 — 
626;  increased  numbers,  612,  616; 
belligerency,  615,  617;  treatment  by 
Cromwell,  636;  intrigues  in  Ulster, 
835—839,  849,  852,  879,  880,  897;  in- 
trigues in  Pale,  906 ;  part  in  Rebellion 
of  1641,  943,  944.  See  also  Convents, 
Priests,  Regulars,  Roman  Catholics 

Frieze,  see  Wool 

Fuller's  Earth,  324,  327 


Gage,  George,   305,   993,    1083 
Galloway,     Sir    James,    later    Earl    of 

Dunkeld,  380,  383,  386,  647,   783,   885 
Galwmy    City,    96,    <275,    320,    342,    370, 

417,  930 

—  Corporation,  244,  245,  255,  256,  264, 
274,   275,  287,   556,   752,   753 

—  County,  337,  472 

—  Plantation,   618,   764,   766 — 771,   777, 
778,  782 — 787.    See   also  Clanricarde, 
Galway    Corporation 

Gaols,  erection  of,  136,  141,  275 
Gardiner,  Robert,  Chief  Justice,  316,  317 
— ,  Professor  S.  R.,  179,  1036,  1039,  1053, 

1072 

— ,  Sir  Thomas,  Recorder  of  London,  1051 
Garrard,   Master   of  Charterhouse,   359, 

390,  508,  743,  778 
Garry voe,   511 
Gaveston,  Piers,  4 
Gentry,  Irish,  rude  demeanour,  309,  310; 

loyalty  of,   914,   915,   929.    See   also 

Pale 

Gerrard,  see  Garrard 
Gifford    versus   Loftus,   46,    56 — 68 
Gifts  to   statesmen,  294,  295 


1118 


INDEX 


Gil  Abbey,  500 

Glanville,   Serjeant,   177,   184 

Glascarrick,  500 

Glasgow,   380 

Glendalough,   49,  472,  473,  539 

Glenkonkein   Forest,   295,  296,   880,   895 

Gloucester,   Duke  of,    175 

_,  Statute  of,  876 

Glovers,  255 

Glyn,    Sir   John,    374,    1006,    1027,    1028, 

1029 

Goodacre,  Hugh,  Archbp.  of  Armagh,  403 
Godolphin,  Sidney,   1044 
Gookin,  Sir  Vincent,  133—136,  726 
Gore,  English  M.  P.,  910,  934 
Goring,  George  Goring,  Lord,  367,  498, 

1005,    1010,    1072—1075 
Gormanstown,    Lord,    20,    27,    206,    215, 

268,   488 

Gougih,    Sir   James,    102 
— ,  William,    905 
-  family,  274 
Gowran,   95 
Grace,    Acts    of,    616,    790.        See    also 

"Graces",   the;    Prerogative 
"Graces",  the,  9—11,  78,  79,  105,  129— 

133,  286,  301,  311,  323,  349,  483,  491, 

551,  729,  731,  732,  734,  761,  823,  869, 

931 
Grandison,  Oliver  St.  John,  1st.  Lord,  47, 

75,    102,    109,  285,   320,   322,   605,   710, 

759 
Grazing,  287,  291,   318,   351,  495.       See 

also  Creaghting 
Greame,  Sir  Richard,   11 
— ,  Sir  Thomas,    11 
"Great  Ones",  see  Feudalism;  Palatinate 

Lords ;    Pale    Nobility 
Grimstone,  Harbottle,   178 
"Guides",  142 
Guilds,  253,  255 
Gunpowder  monopoly,  992,  995 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  853 
Gwynn,  Rev.  Arthur,  522,  523,  541 


H 

Hadsor,  clerk  to  Irish  Council,  296,  323, 

333,  493,   710,  901 
Hamilton,   Archibald,   907,    934 
— ,  — ,  Archbp.  of  Cashel,  528,  529 
— ,  Sir  Frederick,  20,  45,  678,  919— 922, 

925 
— ,  Sir   George,   95,   365,   903,   919,   920, 

931,  963 

— ,  James,  of  Ballywalter,  597,  648,  649 
— ,  — ,  1st.  Earl  of  Abercorn,  see  Aber- 

corn 

— ,  — ,  Viet.  Claneboye,  see  Claneboye 
— ,  —  Hamilton,  1st.  Duke,  hostility  to 
S.,  140,  164,  198;  intrigues  with 
Scotch,  153,  154,  172,  173,  533,  800, 
887,  888,  971,  985;  intrigues  with  Lord 
Antrim  and  in  Ulster,  154,  886,  889, 
890;  character  and  astuteness,  172, 
380,  381,  996,  998,  1000;  monopolies, 
193,  352;  relations  with  Barr,  298,380, 
647,  648,  663;  relations  with  Living- 
stone, 454;  feud  with  Stewarts,  583 — 
585 ;  application  for  land  in  Connaught, 
774;  part  in  trial  and  attainder  of  S., 
991,  992,  1010,  1042,  1067,  1072,  1081 
— ,  Sir  William,  700—702 
Hamiltons,  414,  423,  425,  443,  485,  548, 

667,  838,  889,  907,  927 
Hampden,  John,  184,  980,  991,  1030,  1051 
Hampton,      Christopher,      Archbp.      of 

Armagh,  540,  589,  590 
Hansard,  Sarah,  921,  922 
Harris,  Father,  friar,  487,  608,  611,  623, 

625,  626,   640,   963 
Haselrig,  Sir  Arthur,  1031,  1053 
Haulbowline,   345 
Hawkins,   John,    300 
Hearth  tax,  143 
Hegarty,    friar,    799 
Helyn,    591 

Hemp,  trade  in,  331,  333,  335 
Henrietta  Maria,  537,  779,  780,  793,  960, 
975,    982,    985,    995,    999,    1047,    1054, 
1058,  1060,  1072,  1082—1085.   See  also 
"Queen's  Side" 


INDEX 


1119 


Henry   I,   394 

—  II,   395,  588 

—  Ill,  767 

—  VII,  399,  457,  683,  767,  811,  1070 

—  VIII,    396,    399,    400,    414,    470,    531, 
588,  589,  684,  755,  756,  809,   1023 

Herbert,    Sir    Edward,    190,    911 

— ,  Sir  William,   720,  721 

Heron,  Mr.,  531 

Hertford,   Lord,   980,    1063 

Heygate,  James,  Bp.  of  Kilfenora,  23, 
24,  480,  490 

Hides,  trade  in,  257,  284 

High  Commission  Court,  see  Court  of 
High  Commission 

Hill,  Thomas,  934 

Hills,    family    of,    98.    99 

Holland,  Henry  Rich.,  1st.  Earl,  intrigues 
as  member  of  "Queen's  Side",  5,  173, 
189,  505,  778—780,  783—785,  1083, 1084; 
alliance  with  Pierce  Crosby,  15,  138, 
140;  relations  with  Loftus,  62,  63,  65, 
155;  Puritan  leanings,  157,  187,  196, 
295,  999;  hostility  to  S-,  326,  797,  922, 
977;  connection  with  farms  and 
Darcy's  finance,  300,  381—384;  im- 
prisonment, 490;  advice  on  Scotch 
war,  971;  candidature  for  Lord 
Lieutenancy  of  Ireland,  996,  998; 
part  in  trial  and  attainder  of  S.,  1005, 
1061,  1063;  command  of  the  Army, 
1054,  1071,  1072 

Hollis,    Denzil,    991 

Holmpatrick,  Congress   at,  395 

Holyhead,   118 

Hooker,   John,    100 

Hopton,  Sir  Charles,   158,  653,  657 

Hore,   M.   P.   for  Dungarvan,  935 

Horses,  352 

Hovendten,  Katherine  Mary  Neale,  814, 
815. 

Hospitals,  471,  501 

Howard,  Thomas,  see  Arundel 

Hoyle,  Dr.  Joseph,  558,  559,  563—565 

Hugh,  Rev.  Mr.,  524 

Huguenots,    652 

Hull,  Mr.,   362 


Huxley,  Josias,  473 

Hyde,  Arthur,  911 

— ,  Edward,  see  Clarendon 

I 

Idough,   Plantation  of,  950 — 955 

Immorality  in  Ireland,  592,  593 

Inchiquin,  Morrogh  O'Brien,  1st.  Earl, 
influence,  76;  support  of  plantation, 
228,  790,  849;  part  in  Civil  Wars,  237, 
413,  415,  621,  625,  635,  641,  802,  915; 
Protestantism,  413,  415,  547,  549,  625, 
641;  escheat,  549;  support  of  S., 
630,  959,  963;  character,  802,  959 

Ingram,  Sir  Arthur,  294,  301,  360,  378, 
383,  490 

Ingram,  the   younger,  295 

Inns,  see  Alehouses 

Inquisitions,  695,  696,  761,  912 

—  of  Connaught,   752,   756 — 758 
Leitrim,   839 

Mallow,   675 

Newcastle,    680 

Ormonde,    951,   954,   955 

Ulster,  815,  828 — 830,  861,  863 

Ireland,   condition  on  arrival   of  S.,   15, 

16.  See  also  Clan  System;  Feudalism; 

Priests;  Roman  Catholics;  Trade 
Irish,   Johannes,  473 
— ,  Old  and  New,  controversy,  559 — 562 

—  Sea  declared  mare  clausum,  342,  ?43 
Iron  works,  296,  297.     See  also  Barr 
Irreligion  of  Natives,  407,  411,  412,  422, 

423,   427,  457,   576,   580 
Iveagh,  Co.  Down,  697—699 
Iveagh,  Lord,  see  Magennis 


James  I,  proclamations,  33,  43,  44; 
speech  on  boroughs,  93;  unpopularity 
in  cities,  248,  249;  trade  policy,  295, 
296,  320,  325;  patronage  of  West,  334; 
religious  attitude,  424,  429,  451,  476, 
590,  591;  educational  policy,  531,  555; 
land  policy,  685,  687—689,  702—705, 
707,  730,  732,  754,  755,  757,  761,  793; 


1120 


INDEX 


Ulster  policy,  821,  822,  845,  849,  859, 

800:    use    of    English    Council,    1072; 

anxiety   about  dynasty,   1085 
James  II,  547,  556 
— ,  Sir,  priest,  429 
Jermyn,  Henry,   1004,   1005,   1010,   1019, 

1074,   1084 
Jesuits,  433,  479,  609,  617,  622,  633,  636, 

658,  906.   See  also  Wolf 
John,  King,   767 
Jones,  Arthur,   753,   758 
— ,  Elizabeth,  315 
— ,  Henry,  Bp.  of  Clogher,  636,  639 
— ,  Lewis,  Bp.  of  Killaloe,  528 
— ,  Thomas,  Archbp.  of  Dublin,  417,  418, 

458.    See  also  Ranelagh 
— ,  "beagle",  955,  956 
Judges,  weakness  of,  26,  72.    See  also 

Castle    Chamber ;    Courts 
"Junto  for   Scotch  Affairs",     172,    997, 

1003—1006,     1008,     1013—1015,     1019, 

1022,     1023,     1029,     1033—1036,     1038, 

1041,    1042 
— ,  Notes    of,    1017,    1018,    1022,    1027, 

1029—1033,   1035—1039,    1041—1043 
Juries,  weakness  of,   18,  22.    See  also 

Castle  Chamber;  Clanricard'e ;  Courts; 

Feudalism 
Juxon,    William,    Bp.    of    London,    991, 

1004,  1010,  1014,  1030,  1033,  1034, 1042, 

1072,   1080—1082,  1085 

K 

Kavanagh,  Daniel,  Bp.  of  Leighlin,  457 

— ,  see   also  Cavanagh 

Keating,  Mr.,  81 

Kennedy,  Treasury  Remembrancer,  266, 

362 

Kerry,   371,  410,   432,   509,  556 
— ,  Lord,   914,   929 
Kilbolane  rectory,  517 
Kildare,    Bp.    of,    see    Usher,    Robert; 

Wellesley 

— ,  Borough  of,  95 
— ,  County  of,  203 
— ,  George  Fitzgerald,  16th.  Earl,  15,  39, 


41,  98,  99,  131,  345,  497,  501,  547.  696, 

697,  993 
Kildare,    Gerald  FitzGerald,    8th.  Earl, 

398,  400 

Kildare,   Roman  Catholic  Bp.   of,  631 
Kilenawley,    700 
Kilfenora,  Bp.  of,  see  Heygate 
Kilkenny,   119,  323,  417,  859 
— ,  Plantation,   950.    See   also  Idough; 

Wandesforde 

Killala,  Bp.  of,  see   Adair,  Archibald 
— ,  See  of,  398 

Killaloe,  Bp.  of,  see  Jones,  Lewis;  Ryder 
— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  627 
— ,  See  of,  472 
Killeagh,  473,  511 
Killeesh,  500 
Killelea  Commons,  674 
Killybegs,   155 
Kilmacdonagh,   500,  511 
Kilmainham,  483,  486,  489 
Kilmallock,     Dominick     Sarsfield,     1st. 

Lord,  15,  24—28,  47,  69,  95,  215,  226, 

268,  329,  929 
Kilmiacke,  335 
Kilmoe,  511 

Kilmore,  Bp.  of,  see  Bedell 
— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  MoSwiney 
Kiloredon,   parish  of,  511 
Kilultagh,   700 
Kilwarlin,  697—699 
King,  George,  257 
King,  Rev.  John,  570 
— ,  Sir  Robert,  268,  530,  989,  994,  1022 
King's   County,   76 
Kinsale,  97,  273,  343,  369,  370,  372,  378, 

389,   416,   522,   609 
— ,  Battle  of,  248,  438,  788 
Kirke,  Mr.,  290 
Knights'  Service,  143.    See  also  Feudal 

Dues 
Knockfergus,    166.     See    also    Carrick- 

fergus 

Knocktopher,  98 
Knox,  Andrew,  Bp.  of  Raphoe,  16,  449, 

575,   580 


INDEX 


1121 


Lake,  Dr.,  937 

Lambart  or  Lambert,  Charles  Lambert, 
1st.  Lord,  230,  361,  923—925 

,  of  Cavan,  Oliver  Lambert,  1st. 

Baron,  101,  924 

Lambeth  Conference,  447,  589,  590 

Land  Tenures,  72,  673—675,  680,  681, 
684—687,  692,  695—699,  701—704, 
707,  710—713,  715,  730,  731,  737, 
754—761,  763,  772—774,  872,  873, 
875,  877,  894,  908,  916,  925.  See  also 
Connaught  Plantation;  Freeholders; 
Leaseholders;  Plantations;  Strip- 
Owners;  Ulster  Plantation 

— ,  price  of,  205,  293,  390 

— ,  speculation  in,  752,  763,  873,  874, 
878 

Lane,  Attorney  to  Prince  of  Wales,  1051 

Langford,  Roger,  890 

Langton,  Stephen,  588 

Lascelles,  Edmund,  376 

Laud,  William,  Archbp.  of  Canterbury, 
support  of  Bedell,  24;  views  of  Loftus, 
46,  53,  498;  correspondence  with  S., 
120,  189,  204,  304,  584,  585,  651,  664, 
764,  775,  785;  attitude  to  Parliament, 
147;  views  on  Hamilton,  153;  part  in 
Short  Parliament,  172,  187,  188,  192, 
193;  views  on  commercial  affairs, 
299,  347,  352,  382,  386;  on  Mount- 
morris,  359;  work  in  Church  of  Ire- 
land, 478,  538,  539,  594,  597—603,  885; 
relations  with  Earl  of  Cork,  498,  502, 
505—508,  513,  515;  with  Bp.  of  Cork, 
509,  526;  with  Dr.  Hamilton  of  Cashel, 
529;  with  Wynn,  537;  work  in 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  560,  561; 
viewa  on  Usher,  563,  565 ;  on  Puritans, 
563,  916;  on  Roman  Catholics,  616, 
626,  652;  part  in  Scotch  affairs,  650, 
887;  relations  with  Lord  Antrim,  691, 
692,  886,  888—890;  views  on  O'Neill 
of  Claneboye,  701;  on  revolutionary 
movement,  777 ;  relations  wii/h  Winde- 
banke,  779,  917;  views  on  Court  in- 


trigues, 862;  on  London  Corporation, 
883;  persecution  by  Clotworthy,  891, 
910;  character,  959,  1030;  non-ex- 
amination at  trial  of  S.,  1013,  1041; 
enmity  of  Dr.  Williams,  1064;  un- 
popularity, 1069;  last  farewell  of  S., 
1089. 

Lawyers,  S.  on,  71,  74,  75.  See  also 
S.,  Judicial  Administration 

Leaseholders,  710,  711,  713,  715,  716, 
724,  823,  846.  See  also  Plantations 

Lecale,  556,  695,  696 

Leicester,  Robert  Sidney,  2nd  Earl,  174, 
220,  652,  747,  996—999,  1001. 

Leighlin,  Bp.  of,  see  Kavanagh,  Daniel 

— ,  See  of,  523 

Leitrim,  91,  93.    See   also   Inquisitions 

Leland,  Thomas,  historian,  901 

Lennox,  James  Stuart,  4th.  Duke,  327, 
328,  583,  887 

Le  Poers  of  Waterford,  549 

Leslie,  Alexander,  see  Leven,  1st.  Earl 

— ,  Charles,  540 

— ,  Dean,  596 

— ,  George,  see  Leslie,  John,  Bp.  of 
Raphoe 

— ,  Henry,  Bp.  of  Down,  views  on 
Church  abuses,  77,  471;  opinion  of 
Echlin,  449;  views  on  Puritanism,  452, 
540,  542,  559,  574;  586;  work  in 
Church  of  Ireland,  459,  596;  relations 
with  Earl  of  Cork,  504,  505;  ability, 
540,  557,  569;  use  of  Church  courts, 
605,  606;  treatment  of  Calvinists  and 
Puritans  in  Ulster,  644,  646—649, 
664—666,  927 

Leslie,  John,  Bp.  of  Raphoe,  540,  636 

Lesly,  see  Leslie 

L'Estrange,  Northern  Planter,  917 

Leven,  Alexander  Leslie,  1st.  Earl,  171, 
653 

Lewis,  Sir  William,  369 

Liffey,  342 

Lilburn,  John,  185,  196,  197 

Limerick,  Bp.  of,  see  O'Brien,  Maurice; 
Webb,  George 

71 


1122 


INDEX 


Limerick.  City,  7,  97,  248,  250,  260,  343, 
394,  416,  477,  609 

— ,  Corporation,  908 

— ,  marshes,  909,  910 

—,  See  of,  410,  471 

Limitations,  Statute  of,  10,  118,  179, 
224,  281,  475,  613,  729—736,  741,  746, 
797 

Lincoln,  Bp.  of,  see  Williams 

Linen,  private  enterprise  by.  S.,  16,  333, 
334,  389;  question  of  export  of  yarn, 
and  existence  of  cloth,  330—333; 
statistics,  333,  334;  proclamation  re 
trade  and  results,  335 — 337;  question 
at  trial  of  S.,  335 — 337;  export  to 
Spain,  371,  372 

Lislee,  134 

Lismore  Papers,  297,  930,  963 

— ,  See  of,  98,  223,  460,  471,  501,  502, 
511,  526—528,  540.  See  also  Water- 
ford 

Little,  financial  agent  of  S.,  372,  373, 
937 

Livingstone,  Rev.  John,  173,  449,  452, 
454,  582,  646—648,  650,  651,  664 

Lixnawe,  Lord,   547,  914 

Lodge,  John,  archivist,  924,  951 

Loftus,  Adam,  Archbp.  of  Dublin,  47, 
105,  246,  357,  445,  446,  458,  547,  890 

— ,  —  Loftus,  1st.  Lord,  Lord  Chancel- 
lor, relations  with  Falkland,  5,  8,  11, 

50,  51,  122;  ties  with  O'Byrnes,  8,  48, 

51,  53,  122;  relations  with  Lord  Cork, 
1.1,  12,  14,  52,  498,  728;   early  friend- 
ship amd  subsequent  quarrel  with  S., 
12,  44—68,  155,  200,  329,  544,  751,  791, 
935,  957;  relations  with  Ranelagh,  14, 
55;   with  the  Barnewalls,  15;   various 
intrigues,  24,  25,  36,  860,  915;    treat- 
ment    of     Kildare,     40;     ties     with 
O'Tooles,  48,   53;    action   in   Metcalfe 
case,    54 — 56;    Wandesforde's    opinion 
on,  56,  57,  125;  trade  policy,  336,  378; 
connection     with     Glendalough,     472, 
473,  491,  539;   attitude  to  recusants, 
483,    486,    488;    treatment    of    Dublin 
University,   564 


Loftus,   Sir  Adam,  Vice  Treasurer,  58, 

149,  210,  227,  231,  268,  330,  361,  386, 

666,  800,  989 
— ,  Alice,  47 
— ,  Beale,  48 
— ,  Dudley,  47,  557,  589 
— ,  Sir  Edward,  54,  59,  60 
— ,  Margaret,  47 
— ,  Matthew,  47 
— ,  Lady  Robert,  52 
— ,  Sir  Robert,  53,  56,  968 
— ,  family  of,  47,  48 
— ,  MSS.,  396 

Lombard,  Peter,   of  Waterford,  554 
— ,  — ,     Roman     Catholic     Archbp.     of 

Armagh.  410,  438,  439,  568,  569,  628, 

836,  850 

— ,  nephew  of  above,  439 
London,  Bp.  of,  see  Juxon 
-  City  Loan,  978,  979,  1069 

—  Corporation,  692,  693,   777,  825,  826, 
838,   848,  849,  858,  879,  880,  883,  884, 
890,  895,  897,  1048,  1068,  1069,  1085 

— ,  Revolutionarjr  sympathies  in,  976, 
1031,  1032,  1044,  1045,  1050,  1053, 
1055,  1059,  1060—1063,  1069,  1077,  1078, 
1081,  1089,  1090,  1091 

Londonderry,  City  of,  260,  350,  458 

—  Company,  295,  296,  389,  425,  465,  530, 
539,  838,  847,  855,  856,  880,  ,895.    See 
also    London     Corporation;     London- 
derry Plantation 

— ,  County  of,  332,  380,  435,  437,  472, 
548,  575,  576.  See  also  Londonderry 
Plantation 

— ,  Customs  and)  Merchants  of,  222,  245, 
319,  345,  841,  881—883,  897 

— ,  Lord,  950,  954 

— ,  Plantation  of,  389,  528,  578,  579, 
777,  825,  829,  841,  842,  847—849,  855, 
856,  862,  879,  883—885,  889—895,  926 

Longford,  County  of,  78,  425,  757 

— ,  Plantation  of,  333,  901,  902  ,  .:  :> 

Lord  Chancellor,  check  on  Deputy,  46. 
See  also  Bolton,  Loftus. 

Long  Parliament,  see   Parliament 


INDEX 


1123 


Lords,  English  House  of,  attitude  to.S. 
during  trial,  985,  1023, 1024,  1047, 1048, 
1056,  1057,  1067,  1088;  hostility  to 
Commons,  1027—1029,  1031,  1048,  1053, 
1059,  1068;  intimidation  practised  on, 
1046,  1050,  1051,  1053,  1061—1064,  1077; 
passage  of  Bill  of  Attainder,  1064, 
1077 

— ,  Irish  House  of,  27,  127,  924 

Loudon  or  Loudoun,  John  Campbell,  1st. 
Earl,  171,  209,  654,  800,  971 

Loughrea,    609 

Louis  XIII  of  France,  160,  462,  652 

Lousie  Hill,   3 

Lovell,  Lord,  706 

Lowther,  Sir  Gerard,  Chief  Justice,  72, 
361,  738,  772,  910,  921,  988,  1088. 

Luther,  Martin,  588 

Lutterrell,  Mr,  109 

Lynch,  John,  Bp.  of  El  phi  n,  457 

— ,  Marcus,  287 

— ,  Sir  Robert  or  Roebuck,  222,  226,  472, 
544,  604,  934 

Lyttleton,  Judge,  922 

Lyons,  William,  Bp.  of  Cork,  416,  457, 
463,  526 


McAula  or  McAulee,  Alexander,  830,  860 

MacCartan,  Patrick,  696 

— ,  Phelim,  696 

MacCartans,  696,  697,  700,   941 

McCarthy,  Charles,  440 

— ,  Dermot,  43,  44 

— ,  Sir  Donogh,  222,  500,  544,  931,  935 

— ,  Father  Florence,  864 

-  More,  405 

-  Reagh,  Florence,   720,  721,  816 
McCarthys,  473,  678,  682 
McClelland,  clergyman,   648 
McCrab  of  Mayo,  432 

MacDonalds,     971,     1050.         See     also 

McDonnells;  Scotch  Settlers 
McDonne,  Dermot  Ogue,  854 
McDonnell,  Alexander,  690 
— ,  Brian,  866 


McDonnell,  Randal,  see  Antrim,  1st.  and 

2nd.  Earls 
McDonnells,  160,  548,  552,  659,  690,  692, 

693,    799,    889,    927,    941.     See    also 

McDonalds 
McDonough,  83,  746 
Macgheogans,  679 
MacGilligan,  Manus,  891 
MacGuinness,  see  Magennis 
McHenry,  Sir  Tirlagh,  876 
McLoghlin  of  Mayo,  432 
McMahon,  Emer,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of 

Clogher,  621,  622 
McMahons,  440,  941 
MacMorrogh,  Eva,  953 
— ,  Joan,  953 
— ,  Maud,  953 

MacNamara  of  Clare,  749,  755 
McNawa,   Sir   Awla,   689 
— ,  Gerald,  488 
McNeill,  Cormack,  697 
McQuillin,  Ever,  690,  693 
MacQuillins,  693,  694 
McSweeny,  see  McSwiney 
McSwiney,  Everdeen,  837 
— ,  Sir  Mulmory,  412,  846,  851 
— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of  Kilmore,  636 
McSwineys,  244,  412,  440,  470,  548,  839, 

852,  943 

McTybbott,  Feagh,  723 
Magennis,   Sir  Arthur,  Lord   of  Iveagh, 

548,  552,  698,  699,  702,  929,  942 
— ,  Ever  McRory,  697,  698 
— ,  Glasney  MacCawley,  698,  699 
— ,  Sir  Hugh,  697,  698 
— ,  Phelim,  696 
— ,  family  of,  98,  99,  401,  547,  556,  659; 

914,  941 

Magrath,  James,  826 
— ,  Meiler  or  Miler,  Archbp.  of  Cas.hel, 

78,   285,   287,   415,   421,  457,   459,   460, 

529,  536,  546,  658,  686,  700,  785,  810 
— ,  Terence,  233 
Maguinness,  see  Magennis 
Maguire,  Brian  or  Bryan,  412,  846,  851 
— ,  Connor  Roe,  Lord)  Maguire,  26,  157, 

401,  412,  473,  629,   656,  789,   810,  816: 
71* 


1124 


INDEX 


818..  820,  822,  824,   826,  851,  890,  935, 

1)41,  942,  950 
Maguire,   Rory,   935 
Maguires,  440 
Mainwaring,  Sir  PhiMp,  58,  95,  113,  271, 

666 
Malachy  O'Morgair,  Archbp.  of  Armagh, 

395 

Malaga,   366 
Malicious  injuries,  141 
Mallow,  98,  511 
Maltravers,  Lord,  953 
Man,  Isle  of,  342,  912 
Manchester,  Lord,  980,  993,  1073,  1074 
Mandeville,  Lord,  976,  977,  999 
Manorial  System,  22,  310—313,  343,  552, 

553,   578,  718—720,  875,  876 
Mantles,  see  Wool 

Manufactures,  841 — 843.   See  also  Trade 
Mar,   Earl  of,   171 
Marble  works,  389,  922,  923 
March,  Edmund  Mortimer,  Earl  of,  765 
Marie  de  Medici,  652,  1058,  1078,  1085 
Markets,    clerk    of,    257,    264,   271,    272, 

290 
— ,  control  of,  224,  876,  877.     See  also 

Forestalling  and  Regrating 
Marlborough,  Earl  of,  55 
Marriages,  fees  for,  126 
Marsh  lands,  see  Limerick  marshes 
Martelstown,  522 

Martial  Law,  966—969,  1013,  1014,  1026 
Martin,  Anthony,  Bp.  of  Meath,  559,  562, 

564,  565,  636 
— ,  Geoffrey,  274 

— ,  lawyer  to  Clanricarde,  768,  782 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  416,  419 
—  Tudor,  Queen,  398,  403,  404,  407,  417, 

911,  1024 
"Mary  of  Brata",  346 

Wexford",  346 

Masterson,  Sir  Richard,  707,  711 
Matthew,  Sir  Toby,  487,  610,  611,  963 
Maunsell,  Sir, Richard,  221,  288,  289,  366 
Maxwell,  Dr.  Robert,  666 
May,  Thomas,  179,  184,  188,  990,  1031 
Mayart,  Judge,  772 


Maynard,  Sir  John,  1014,  1049,  1061 

Maynooth,  501 

—  Archaeological  Society',  779 

Mayo,  County,  432,  472,  766 

— ,  Lord,  28,  133,  419,  547,  619,  637,  752. 
See  also  Bis'hops,  Roman  Catholic; 
Connaught 

Meat,  price  of,  351 

Meath,  Bp.  of,  see  Brady,  Hugh;  Jones, 
Henry;  Martin,  Anthony 

— ,  Lord,  47,  547 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  Dease 

— ,  See  of,  457 

Medina,  Duke  of,  371 

Meeke,  John,  859 

Meredith,  Sir  George,  52,  58,  869 

Merrion,   Lord,   914 

Mervin  or  Mervyn,  Captain  Audley,  229, 
905,  910 

Metcalfe,  Rev.   R.,  54,  59,  60 

Middle  Classes,  715,  858,  898—944.  See 
also  Boroughs,  Corporations,  Trade 

Middlesex,  Lord,  366,  372 

Milford,  342 

Mines,   16,  298,  299,  364 

Mint,  proposed  erection  in  Dublin,  277 

MittOn,  Henry,  296 

Mohun,  Lord,  38 

Molane,  500 

Monaghan,  County,  435,  821,  839,  914, 
942 

Monasteries,  262,  263,  400—404,  428,  435, 
469,  476,  479,  517.  See  also  Convents 

Monke,  Ulster  M.  P.,  905 

Monopolies,  raising  of  question  in  Short 
Parliament,  178,  193 — 196;  opinion  of 
S.,  194,  195;  treatment  in  Long  Parlia- 
ment, 295;  coal,  300;  tallow,  301 — 304; 
arguments  for  and  against,  363,  367; 
Culpepper's  attack  on,  363,  364;  soap, 
961,  991;  gunpowder  (Vane's),  991, 
992,  995,  1036;  See  also  "Projectors"; 
Soap;  Timber;  Tobacco;  Wool 

Montague,  Wat,  993 

Montgomery,  Sir  Hugh,  906,  934 

— ,  Sir  James,  position  in  Ulster,  98,  99, 
578,  700 — 703;  part  in  Remonstrance, 


INDEX 


1125 


2221,  544,  910,  915,  934;  usurpation  of 
Church  lands  and  courts,  473,  477,  577 ; 
intrigues  with  Scotch  andi  Puritans, 
605,  666,  906,  907 

— ,  Lord,  English  peer,  1061 

— ,  — ,  Irish  peer,  133,  155,  647,  907 

— ,  — ,  Scotch  peer,  171 

Montrose,  Earl  of,  171 

Moore,  Lady,  64,  65 
—  of  Drogheda,  Lord,  135,  915,  935,  968 
968 

Moran,   Cardinal,   779 

Morley,  Mr.,  309,  310 

Morly,  Lord,  912 

Morrison,  Fynes,  307,  308,  820 

Mortimer,  Edmund,  see  March,  Earl  of 

Mortmain,  33,  399,  463,  465,  535,  536 

Morton,  Lord,  1020 

Moryson,  see  Morrison 

Moulder,  Johannes,  449 

Mountchensey,   Warren   de,   see    Surrey 

Mountgarrett,  Richard  Butler,  3rd.  Vet., 
16,  80,  923,  950,  951,  954—957 

Mount  joy,  Lord,  299,  808,  812 

Mountmorris,  Lady,  969 

— ,  Francis  Annesley,  Lord,  relations 
with  Falkland,  5,  358,  359;  with  Lords 
Justices,  12,  13,  361,  488;  with 
Ranelagh,  13;  financial  mismanage- 
ment, 12,  13,  360 — 363 ;  relations  with 
and  various  intrigues  against  S.,  13, 
53,  295,  356,  359,  389,  745,  779,  780, 
782,  784,  786,  869,  1025;  Clarendon's 
views  on,  47,  358,  359;  disgrace  for 
corruption,  52,  200,  362,  384,  917,  926, 
964,  965;  demand  for  Statute  of 
Limitations,  127,  741 ;  views  on 
Gookin,  135;  libel  action  against, 
139,  140;  desire  to  be  Deputy  or  Lord 
Justice,  220,  996;  relations  with  Lord 
Cork,  358,  359;  Laud's  opinion  of,  359; 
reduction  of  fees,  360;  connection 
with  Customs  farm,  378,  379,  384,  388; 
views  on  recusancy  fines,  487;  visitor 
of  Dublin  University,  564;  relations 
with  Ulster,  690,  853,  860,  862,  882, 


906;    court    martial    of,    and    results, 

967—969 

Mourne,  699,  703 
Mullingar,  97,  98,  246 
Multifarnham,  425 

Munro,  Colonel  Robert,  413,  415,  550 
— ,  Lady,   646 

Munster,  Plantation  of,  682,  683 
Murano  glasses,   366 
Murford,  projector,  376,  377 
Murray,  William,  352,  365,  380,  381,  538, 

886 

Murrough,  William,  346 
Muskerry,  Lord,  222,  420,  440 
Musters,  242,  856,  857,  871,  872 
Myross,  514 

X 

Nangle,  clergyman,  570 

Navy,  S.'s  reforms  in,  342,  343 

Negillack,  500 

Netterville,   Father,  636 

— ,  Lord,  905 

Newburgh,   Lord,   55,    1005 

Newburn,  battle  of,   210,  233,  337,  630, 

745,   785,   796,   973,   981.        See   also 

(Scotch  Rebellion 

Newcastle,  capture  by  Scotch,  972,  973 
Newmarket,  425 
Newport,  Lord,   180,   193,  196,  197,  995, 

1059,  1074,  1076,  1081 
Newry,  98 

Nicholaldie,  Senor,  343 
Noble,  Rev.  Mr.,  524 
Nolan,  Sergeant  Major,  974 
Norden's  map,  700 
Norfolk,  Earl  of,  401 
— ,  Roger  Bigott,  Earl  of,  953 
Norreys,   Sir  John,   109,   355 
Norse   settlements,   394 
Northumberland,  Algernon  Percy,  10th. 

Earl,  opinion  of  Loftus,  65;  dislike  of 

S.,    166,   174,  175,  981;  intrigues  with 

Scotch,  172—174;  character,  173,  997; 

action    as  'Secretary    of  State,    174; 

intrigues  for   offices,   174,   996 — 1001; 

Parliamentary  intrigues  and  Puritan 


.1120 


INDEX 


sympathies,  175,  177,  180,  187,  188, 
196,  656,  745,  747;  court  intrigues, 
220:  correspondence  with  S.,  776; 
opinion  of  Scotch  Rebellion,  979; 
dislike  of  Hamilton,  991 ;  patronage  of 
Vane,  992;  command  of  army,  997; 
evidence  at  trial  of  S.,  1005,  1006, 
1008—1010,  1014,  1018—1023,  1032, 
1034,  1036,  1038,  1039,  1043;  advice 
on  Junto  for  Scotch  affairs,  1041, 1042 

Noy,  William,  170,  306 

Nuncios,  Papal,  395,  399,  404,  407,  410, 
417,  432,  439,  461,  555,  561.  See  also 
Bishops,  Roman  Catholic;  Catholic 
Confederation;  Priests;  Rinuccini; 
Roman  Catholics 

Nugent,  Sir  Christopher,  109 

— ,  Richard,    see   Westmeath,   1st.   Earl 

— ,  Robert,  658 

N agents  of  Longford,  901 


Oath     of    Allegiance,     see     Supremacy, 

Oath  of 
O'Brien,    Barnabas,    see    Thomond,   6tih. 

Earl 

— ,  Sir   Daniel,   528 
— ,  —  Donat,  935 
— .  Lady  Donogh,  36 
— ,  Donough,  see  Thomond,  4th.  Earl 
— ,  Henry,  see  Thomond,  5th.  Earl 
— ,  Maurice,  Bp.  of  Limerick,  457 
— ,  Morrogh,  see  Inchiquin,  1st.  Earl 
— ,  — ,  see  Thomond.  1st.  Earl 
O'Brien,  family  of,  97 
O'Byrne,  Feagh,  see  O'Byrne,  Pheagh 
— ,  Hugh  McPhelim,  712,  726 
— ,  Pheagh  McHugh,   48,   357,  445 
— ,  Phelim  McPheagh,  8,  10,   11,  856 
O'Byrnes,  case  of  claim,  to  lands,  5,  8 — 11, 

41,  53,  1065;  supposed  levy  of  cess  on, 

80—83,  989,  1028;  anger  with  S.,  232, 

799;  unrest  of,  234,  246,  942;  quarrel 

with  O'Toole,  349 
O'Cahan     or     O'Cahane,      Sir     Donnell 

Ballagh,  687,  717,  789,  810 


O'Cahan -or  O'Cahane,  Donogh,  853 
O'Cahans,   415,    440,   448,   550,   816,   849, 

880,  891 

O'Callaghan,   Cnogher,  83,  746 
O'Callaghans,  675 
O'Carroll,  Ely,  see  Ely  O'Carroll. 
— ,  Sir   James,   270,   271,   556,   901 
— ,  John,   816 
— ,  William,   552 
O'Connolly,  Major  Owen,  890 
O'Connor,  Don,  37 
— ,  The,   401 
—  Sligo,  Teig,  746,  752 
O'Dogherty,    Sir    Cahir,    698,    814,    822, 

836,  841,  853 
— ,  Lady,   146 
O'Donnell,    Conn    McCaffery,    851.     See 

also  McDonnell 

— ,  Hugh,   357,    445,   469,  568,   809 
— ,  Neill  Garve,  807,  839 
— ,  Rory,  see  Tyrconnell 
O'Donnells,  155,  401,  412,  548,  751,  789. 
O'Dri'scolls,  678 
O'Dwyer,   Connor,  552 
O'Farrell,  708 

O'Flaherty,  Sir  Morough,  754,  755 
O'Frehier,  Arthur,  Archbp.  of  Tuam,  398 
O'Gara,  Fergus,   557,   570 
O'Hagans,  844 
O'Hanlon,  Patrick,  851 
O'Hara,   Cahil,  355,   689,  691 
— ,  Cormac,   689,    876 
O'Huyghin,  Bernard,  Bp.  of  Elphin,  398 
O'Kyrone,  Martin,  699 
O'Mahoney,  Cornelius,  633 
O'Moores,  15,   138,  853 
O'Mullanes,  891 
O'Mullcrewey,  701 
O'Neale,  see  O'Neill 
O'Neill,  Art  McBaron,  813,  844 
— ,  Sir  Arthur,   809,  814,   851 
,  —  Brian  or  Bryan,  98,  99,  815,  905, 

938 

— ,  Conn,  684,  685,  809 
— ,  —  Ogue,  98,  99,  577 
— ,  —  of  Ardgonel,  914 


INDEX 


1127 


O'Neill,  Conn   (son  of  Hugh),  690 

_,  _   (_    _  Shane),  813,   846,   851 

— ,  Cormac,  813 

— ,  Daniel,  914 

— ,  Sir  Henry  Ogue,  98,  09,  412,  440, 
548,  694,  704,  814,  851,  914,  938 

— ,  Henry,   of  Killeleagh,   914 

— }  —  (Son  of  Shane),   813,  814,  851 

— ,  Hugh,   "of  the  Province",  914 

— ,  — ,  see  Tyrone,  2nd.  Earl 

— ,  John,  914 

— ,  — ,  see  Tyrone,  3rd.  Earl 

— ,  —  Shane,  398 

— ,  Katherine  Mary  Neale,  see  Hovenden 

— ,  .Neale  McBrien  Fertagh,  700,  701,  703 

— ,  Neile  McHugh,  694 

— ,  Neill   Ogue,    693,   851,   853 

— ,  Owen  McHugh,  694 

_,  _      _  Neale  Moor,   811,  812 

__,  _  O'Neale,   811 

— ,  —  Roe,  part  in  wars  of  Catholic 
Confederation,  237,  496,  550;  relations 
with  Rinuccini,  466,  634,  635;  with 
Richelieu,  621;  witih- MoMahon,  622; 
with  Lombard,  628;  with  Spain,  629; 
intrigues  in  Ulster  and  Scotland,  629, 
651,  653,  655 — 657;  in  Connaught,  795; 
part  in  Rebellion  of  1641,  942 

— ,  Sir  Phelim,  early  alliance  with  State, 
15,  412;  growing  discontent  due  to 
poverty,  157,  232,  656,  940,  941;  part 
in  Rebellion  of  1641,  233,  617,  655, 
692,  800;  opposition  to  Owen  Roe, 
622;  position  after  Plantation  of 
Ulster,  814,  815,  825,  826,  838,  840,- 
876,  904;  appearance  as  member  of 
Parliament,  905,  938;  escheat  of 
estates,  942 
— ,  Phelim  (son  of  Henry  McShane), 

851 

__,  __,  of  Wicklow,  956 
— }  —  Groome,   891 
— ,  Redmond,  956 
— ,  Shane,   405,  418,   422,  457,  693,   807, 

812,   813 

— ,  Tirlagh  or  Tirlough,  814 
— , Bra&ilogh,  812 


O  Ne.ll,  Tirlagh  or  Tirlough  Lynagh,  677, 
809,  814 

-  McHenry,  812,  813 

— ,  Sir  Tirlough,  158,  405,  431,  556 

— ,  Tirlough  McArt,  440 

O'Neills,  relations  with  Argyle,  209, 
653,  654,  688,  799,  801;  submission  to 
Henry  VIII,  401;  religious  position, 
412,  849,  943;  Spanish  intrigues,  654; 
unrest,  690  697,  700,  814,  889,  941; 
part  in  Plantation,  727;  loyalty,  851, 
914;  treatment  by  crown,  950 

— ,  Sluyte,  700,   814 

O'Queely,  Malachias,  Roman  Catholic 
Archbp.  of  Tuam,  439,  614,  751,  795, 
836,  870. 

O'Quillins,  844 

O'Quinns,   693 

O'Reillies,  554,  656,  751,  822,  941 

O'Reilly,  Hugh,  Roman  Catholic  Archbp. 
of  Armagh,  593,  628,  636 

— ,  John,  831,  839 

— ,  Lady,   146 

— ,  Philip,  858,  935 

— ,  servant  to  S.,  989 

Ormonde,   Dowager   Lady,  950 

— ,  James  Butler,  12th.  Earl,  feudal 
power  and  influence,  76,  115,  149,  473, 
788,  959;  ability,  167,  571,  738,  802, 
948,  957,  996,  1030;  attitude  to  Planta- 
tion of  Ormonde,  228,  530,  727,  790, 
871,  948 — 951,  953 — 955;  support  of 
S.,  149,  268,  947,  957,  959,  1088,  1089; 
protest  against  speech  of  S.,  269; 
difficulty  over  linen  trade,  335;  reli- 
gious attitude,  419,  485,  544,  547,  611, 
801;  later  career  during  civil  wars, 
621,  624,  625,  635,  801,  915,  925; 
difficulties  over  surrendered  patent, 
953 — 955;  command  of  army,  167,  1071 

Ormonde,  Plantation  of,  10,  146,  201, 
228,  229,  948—956 

O'Rorkes,  91,  751,  789,  839,  950 

O'Rourke,  Hugh,  679,  708,  851 

O'Rourkes,  see  O'Rorkes 

Osborne,  Henry,  of  Tralee,  902,  935 

Osborne,  M.  P.  for  Dungarvan,  935 


1128 


INDEX 


O'Shaughnessy,  Sir  Roger,  759,  760,  782, 
797 

Ossory,  Bp.  of,  see  Bale;  Walsh,  Nicholas 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  Rothe 

— ,  See  of,  410 

O'Sullivan  (or  O'Sullivan  Beare),  Donall, 
816 

— .  Owen,  160,  235 

-  (or    O'Sullivan    Beare),    Philip,    406, 
428,  432,  433,  554,  569,  808 

— .  Thady,  500 

O'Sullivans,   15,  678,  682 

O'Toole,  Barnaby,  48,  53,  54.    See  also 
Loftus,   Lord   Chancellor 

— ,  Luke,  48,  349,  350,  874 

Outlawry,  writs  of,  49,  50,  77,  79 

Over  Measurements,  see  Ulster  Planta- 
tion 

Oviedo,      Matthew,      Roman      Catholic 
Archbp.  of  Dublin,  432,  438,  836 

Owen,  Captain,  663 


Pacificism,  S.  on,  165 

Page,  Mr.  335 

Palatinate  Lords,  683—685,  693,  724,  759, 
767,  770,  787,  788,  948,  950,  959 

— ,  Elector  or  Prince  of,  776,  985,  1084, 
1085 

Pale,  gentry  of,  413,  414,  420,  915,  916, 
923,  929,  935,  936,  940 

— ,  peers  of,  114,  115,  236,  420,  519,  520, 
900,  901,  915 

Palmer,  John,  529 

Papal  Rescript,  405 

Pardons,  115 

Parliament,  Irish,   early   Tudor,  400 

— ,  — ,    Elizabethian,   100 

— t  — t  Jacobean,  101 — 103 

— ,  — ,  disorders  in,  30,  31;  early  history, 
89—93,  103—107;  privilege,  107;  elo- 
quence in,  108,  109;  difficulty  of 
managing,  110;  system  of  proxies,  111, 
112;  Crown  control  of  boroughs,  113, 
114;  religious  composition,  113,  11,4; 
treatment  by  S.,  238,  239,  268;  attitude 
to  corporations,  276;  to  woollen  trade, 


319,  324;  statutes  against  coigne  and 
livery,  678 

— ,  — ,  1st.  Straffordian,  opening  scenes, 
119,  120;  opposition  of  Lords  and 
Commons,  123,  124,  869 ;  religious  com- 
position, 123,  124,  612,  613,  869; 
passage  of  subsidies,  125,  612,  613,  736, 
869,  918,  919,  940;  assembling  of 
Lords,  127;  prorogation,  127,  128; 
treatment  of  Gookin  case,  135,  136; 
condemnation  of  sheep-grazing,  318, 
872;  attitude  to  wool  trade,  325; 
opinion  of  Charles  on,  730;  question 
of  Statute  of  Limitations  and  Defective 
Titles,  734—737,  870.  See  also 
"Graces,  the". 

^-,  2nd.  Straffordian,  composition,  162, 
619,  901,  902,  934,  939,  940;  re- 
lations with  S.,  163,  164,  896;  abate- 
ment of  subsidies,  203 — 207,  210,  796, 
938;  attack  on  Church,  207—209,  542, 
543,  897,  937;  passage  of  Remon- 
strance, 212,  215,  619,  797,  897, 
902,  905,  933—936;  protest  re  dis- 
franchisement,  213 — 215;  abdication 
of  powers,  215 — 217;  action  re 
tobacco,  229,  369,  373,  939;  impeach- 
ment of  Irish  executive  and  judges, 

229,  230,  524,  798,  910,  937,  988,  1089; 
interference  with  Dublin  University, 

230,  562,  565—567;  attempt  at  judicial 
power,  230;  Sir  Adam  Loftus'  opinion 
on,  231 ;  weakness,  232,  237—239,  939, 
940;   abolition  of  corn  embargo,  293; 
of  Castle  Chamber,   315;    attitude   to 
woollen    trade,    330;    to    linen   trade, 
336,  337;  treatment  of  smugglers,  348; 
attitude  to  monopolies,  365,  366,  369; 
treatment  of  Dr.  Atherton,  527,  528; 
attack  on  judicial  system  of  S.,  771; 
question  of  Plantations,  899 — 902,  938, 
939,  957;  peculiar  character,  899,  913, 
933;  action  at  trial  of  S.,  936,  987,  989 

Parliament,  Long,  221,  222,  364,  519, 
520,  913,  936—938,  975,  981.  See  also 
Attainder,  Bill  of;  Lords,  English 
House  of 


INDEX 


1129 


Parliament,  Short,  character,  168 — 170, 
177, 179;  concessions  to,  170;  part  of  S. 
in,  172,  183,  187,  188,  191,  796,  990, 
1002;  loyalty,  179—181,  184,  185; 
debate  on  supplies,  182 — 184,  191; 
Scotch  intrigues,  186,  191—193; 
question  of  dissolution,  187 — 192,  796, 
975,  990,  992,  1002—1006,  1026;  in- 
fluence of  monopolists  in,  193 — 198. 
See  also  Vane,  Sir  Henry,  the  elder 

Parliamentarians,  163,  165,  166,  367,  776, 

980,  991,  992,  1044,  1045,  1048,  1055— 
1057,  1068,  1069.    See  also  Attainder, 
Bill  of;   Straff ord,  Trial  of 

Parr,  Richard,  569 

Parsons,  Sir  Laurence,  260 

— ,  Sir  William,  opinion  of  S.  on,  13, 
520;  official  career  as  Master  of 
Wards,  13,  44,  361,  517,  520,  871, 
948;  hostility  to  S.,  80,  124,  133,  166, 
222,  934;  alliance  with  Planter  class 
and  consequent  part  in  Plantations, 
124,  144,  202,  227,  726,  727,  826,  827, 
842,  845,  846,  849,  861,  862,  869,  893, 
902,  903,  915,  1065;  discretion,  162, 
751;  failure  in  post  of  Lord  Justice, 
220,  231,  234—237,  490,  739,  798,  996; 
commercial  enterprises,  263,  287; 
Church  property,  473;  views  bn  re- 
cusancy fines,  479,  480,  483;  relations 
with  Lord  Cork,  496,  517,  526 

— ,  William,  junior,  903,  934 

— ,  family  of,  881 

Patents,  see  Projects 

Patents  in  Land,  615,  688—705,  730— 
733,  738—742,  824—826,  828 — 830,  872, 
873,  950—955.  See  also  "Beagles"; 
Ohurch  lands;  Clanricarde;  Con- 
naught;  Surrender  and  Regrant; 
Ulster;  Undertakers 

Peers,    Council    of,    at    York,    975 — 978, 

981,  982.    See   also  Lords,  House  of 
— ,  Irish,  exemption  from  liquor  duties, 

127 
Pembroke,   Earl  of,   513,   514,   994,   996, 

1081 
Penal  codes,  637,  638,  641 


Pensions,  reform  of,    144 — 146 

Perceval  or  Percival,  Sir  Philip,  226, 
228,  261,  263,  323,  739,  740,  775 

— ,  Sir  William,  934 

Percy,  Algernon,  10th.  Earl  of  Northum- 
berland, see  Northumberland 

Perrot  or  Perrott,  Sir  John,  4,  Is),  47, 
105,  749,  756—758,  832 

Peterborough,  529 

Petty,  Sir  William,  46,  293,  307,  324, 
329 

Pheasant,  see   Peasant 

Philips  or  Phillips,  Father,  1054,  1059, 
1073,  1083,  1084 

— ,  Sir  Thomas,  608,  825,  829,  830,  848, 
854,  856,  860,  862,  879—881 

Pilchard  Tithes,   134 

Pirates,  6,  329,  341—344,  388 

Pitt,  William,  comparison  with  S.,  1011 

Plantation  Covenants,  291,  855 — 860, 
866,  870—875,  877—880,  901—903,  918, 
931,  933,  938,  951.  See  also  Under- 
takers 

Plantations,  general  references,  10,  94, 
95,  201,  202,  225—229,  232,  425,  426, 
613,  706—727,  732,  733,  771—777,  799, 
841,  842,  870,  874,  878,  879,  901—903, 
908,  939 — 942,  948.  See  also  Con- 
naught  ;  Londonderry ;  Longford ; 
Ormonde;  Supremacy,  Oath  of; 
Thomond;  Ulster;  Undertakers;  Wex- 
ford;  Wicklow 

Planters,  violence  and  disloyalty,  20, 
200,  201,  495,  496,  926;  religious  atti- 
tude, 414,  415,  425,  426,  618,  926; 
cause  of  rise,  495;  popularity  with 
natives,  700,  701,  704;  ideal  of  Crown, 
702;  special  arrangements  in  Wex- 
ford,  710—712;  general  character,  715, 
913;  encouragement  of  towns  and  in- 
dustry, 724—727;  defective  titles  in 
Ulster,  740,  741;  special  requirements 
in  Connaught,  773 — 777;  absenteeism, 
923;  relations,  with  gentry  of  Pale, 
930,  931,  940 ;  fate  in  Rebellion  of  1641, 
943,  944.  See  also  Parsons,  Sir  Wil- 
liam ;  Undertakers 


1130 


INDEX 


Plays  in  churches,  417,  418 

Plumleigh,  Sir  Richard,  342,  343,  613 

Plnnkett,  Christopher,  see  Fingall,  2nd. 
Earl 

— .  Sir  Nicholas,  222,  227.  798,J933 

Plunketts,  the,  47,  549 

Poe.  William,  20,  866—808 

Pole,  Cardinal,  404,  476.  See  also 
Monasteries 

Pont,  Mr.,  584,  585 

Population,  English,  318 

— ,  Irish,  effect  of  Cromwell's  Planta- 
tions, 547 — 549 

Porter,  Endymion,  124,  290,  305,  341, 
364,  365,  538,  909,  925,  961,  978 

Portland,  Richard  Weston,  1st.  Earl, 
hostility  of  Queen  to,  140;  quarrels 
with  S.,  147,  303,  326,  763,  764; 
Clarendon  on,  200;  relations  with 
Lord  Cork,  294,  505,  506;  soap  mono- 
poly, 303,  304;  salt  monopoly,  376; 
question  of  customs,  379;  interference 
with  Ormonde,  948,  953 

Porto-Puro,   536 

Portumna,  514,  766,  777,   788 

Potwalloping  Boroughs,  98 

Powell,  Rev.  Samuel,  54 

Powerscourt,  Sir  Richard  Wingfield, 
Vet.,  702,  935 

Poynings'  Law,  103—107,  132,  133,  524, 
910,  1070 

'"Precise  Party",  see  Parliamentarians 

Prayer  Book,  Scotch,  650,  887,  888.  See 
also  Presbyterians,  Scotch 

Prerogative,  Royal,  104,  170,  171,  367, 
495,  590.  592,  615,  630,  638,  777,  864, 
900,  905,  913,  980,  1002,  1005,  1006, 
1009—1016,  1024,  1029,  1033,  1047 

Presbyterians,  Irish,  449,  477,  600,  602, 
606,  607,  649—651,  653,  660—668.  See 
also  Church  of  Ireland;  Puritanism, 
Irish 

— ,  Scotch,  hostility  to  S.,  597,  598,  1062; 
exile  of  Dr.  Corbett,  603;  intrigues 
with  Irish  Roman  Catholics,  629,  644; 
intrigues  in  England,  644 ;  intolerance, 
*U5;  intrigues  in  Ulster,  648,  649,  651, 


654,  658,  660—663,  791,  882,  885—887, 
927,  928,  940,  1044;  (hostility  to  Prayer 
Book,  650,  887;  intrigues  with  Spain, 
651;  intrigues  in  France,  652,  653; 
relations  with  Hamilton,  887.  See 
also  Scotch  Invasion  of  England 

Preston,  Col.  Thomas  (later  1st.  Vet. 
Tara),  657,  854 

Priests,  various  intrigues,  5,  153,  158, 
159,  337,  455,  614,  779,  787,  836—839, 
849,  857;  part  in  elections,  117,  124; 
pre-Reformation  standard,  398,  399; 
loyalty  to  Government,  405,  406,  421, 
428,  429,  453,  554,  568,  569,  621,  622; 
numbers,  410,  612;  State  connivance 
at,  410,  427,  428,  430,  .433,  437,  442, 
610,  635;  power,  wealth,  and  influence, 
424,  465—467,  536,  608,  627;  vacilla- 
tions and  internal  dissensions,  426, 
435,  436,  438,  439,  622—626;  attitude 
to  Plantations,  428,  438,  613;  character 
of  early  missionaries,  431 — 435;  of 
rural  clergy,  435,  436;  disloyalty  and 
violence,  437,  440,  466,  640,  641;  con- 
trol of  O'Neills  over,  437,  438,  460, 
461,  467;  Government  action  against, 
438,  441— 443;  attitude  to  Church  pro- 
perty, 473,  475,  476;  synods  of,  554; 
intrigues  in  Irish  Parliament,  614,  939 ; 
treatment  by  S.,  630 — 632;  part  in 
Rebellion  of  1641,  635,  943,  944;  loose 
organization,  638,  640;  intrigues  for 
Clanricarde,  779,  787;  intrigues  in 
Ulster,  836—839,  849,  857;  questions 
in  English  Parliament,  893.  See  also 
Convents;  Friars;  Monasteries; 
Recusancy ;  Regulars ;  Roman 

Catholics 

Proclamations,  opinion  of  S.  on,  139;  re 
roads,  141;  against  Scotch  settlers, 
141,  702;  re  coals,  270,  271;  re  usury, 
288;  against  forestalling  and  regrat- 
ing,  288,  495;  re  export  of  corn  and 
butter,  291;  .re  tallow,  301;  re  Book 
of  Sports,  311;  re  spirits,  ale,  etc., 
312—315;  re  wool,  322,  328;  re  linen, 
335—337;  re  export  of  cattle,  351: 


INDEX 


1131 


against  priests,  441,  442,  478;  re 
Church,  leases,  495;  re  farthings,  495; 
re  absenteeism,  495;  re  Continental 
universities,  555.  See  also  James  1 

Proctors  in  Irish  Church,  588 

"Projectors",  disreputable  character, 
117,  124,  289,  290,  302,  305;  alienation 
by  S.,  290,  301,  364;  persons  involved, 
302,  305;  petition  re  cloth,  324 

"Projects",  re  barrels,  salt,  and  tobacco, 
290;  re  butter,  294;  re  timber,  296; 
reasons  for  and  effects,  302 — 304;  un- 
popularity, 305,  306;  re  ale  and  spirit 
licences,  311 — 314;  re  horses,  352;  re 
glass,  365,  366;  re  soap,  365 

"Protestation"  of  English  House  of 
Commons,  1061,  1062 

Provosts  of  Trinity  College,  see  Bedell; 
Chappel;  Travers,  Walter;  Usher, 
Robert 

Prynne,  William,  219,  262,  524,  565,  597, 
746,  779,  1048,  1069 

Publicans,  see  Ale-Houses 

Puritanism,  English,  -see  Parliamenta- 
rians 

— ,  Irish,  first  appearance,  445,  446;  co- 
operation with  Roman  Catholicism, 
447,  468,  469;  political  and  social 
dangers  of,  450—455,  581,  582,  586, 
645—648,  650,  926,  943;  anti-royal 
tendency,  454,  580;  attitude  to  Church 
lands,  476,  477;  characteristics,  558, 
559,  574,  580,  581,  591,  592,  649,  926; 
failure  to  establish  itself  in  Church  of 
Ireland,  574 — 607;  distrust  of,  by 
Roman  Catholic  royalism,  613;  mea- 
sures against  political  dangers  of,  664, 
665,  926;  influence  in  Irish  Parlia- 
ment, 905.  See  also  Church  of  Ire- 
land; Presbyterians,  Irish 

Pym,  John,  views  on  administration  of 
justice,  29;  action  in  opening  attack 
on  S.,  and  in  impeachment,  52,  218, 
980,  986;  part  in  Short  Parliament, 
177,  185,  186,  188,  191,  192,  196; 
attitude  to  monopolists,  194;  charac- 
ter, 196,  986,  1030,  1039—1041;  speech 


on  prerogative,  318,  495;  attack  on 
Church  policy  of  S.,  523,  524;  views 
on  building  of  churches,  541;  jibes'  of 
S.  at.  605,  746;  bid  for  office,  991; 
action  over  Irish  Army  articles,  1000, 
1001,  1003,  1015,  1018,  1022;  motion 
to  close  case,  1027,  1028;  production 
of  dossier  of  Junto,  1029  —  1043;  con- 
duct during  passage  of  Bill  of  At- 
tainder and  "Army  Plot"  scare,  1045, 
1051,  1054,  1057,  1058,  1071,  1076,  1086 
Pynnar,  Nicholas,  824,  825,  843,  846,  847, 
895 


Queen,  see   Henrietta  Maria 

Queen's  County,  76,  440 

"Queens    Side",    the.    4,   5,    9,    138,    140, 

173,  190,  505,  537.  538,  778,  779,  1054, 

1072—1074,    1083 
Quins,  814 

R 

Rack-rents,  see  Rents 

Rad  cliff  e,  Sir  George,  part  in  Irish  Parlia- 
ment, 95,  115,  123,  203,  933,  934,  937; 
descriptions  of  characteristics  of  S., 
120,  308,  958,  960,  962;  electioneering 
policy,  168;  character  and  ability,  171, 
338  —  341,  959;  correspondence  with  S., 
198,  211,  970,  1077,  1086;  part  in 
question  of  customs  and  smuggling, 
201,  255,  270,  346,  348,  360,  372,  379, 
383,  386;  views  of  Ulster  unrest,  209; 
impeachment,  220,  229,  785,  988; 
connection  with  Defective  Titles  Com- 
mission, 281,  738,  740;  opinion  of  rise 
in  value  of  land,  293;  of  monopolies, 
302,  373;  ecclesiastical  policy,  487,488, 
604,  605,  611;  relations  with  McMaJion, 
621;  report  on  Henry  McNeill's 
estate,  694;  views  on  Connaught 
patents,  773,  775,  792,  796;  on  Lords 
of  Pale,  900,  923;  on  Lord  Cork's 
subsidies,  931;  estimiate  of  cost  of 
Irish  army,  972  ;  conversation  re  army 
with  King,  994,  1007,  1022;  evidence 


1132 


INDEX 


before  Peers,  1047;  views  on  letter  of 
8.  to  Charles,   1064;    recommendation 
of,  by  S.  to  Charles,  1088. 
Radeliffe,  Thomas,  see  Sussex,  3rd.  Earl 
Kailton,  see  Raylton 
Raleigh.  Sir   Walter,  493 
E.am,  Thomas,   Bp.   of  Ferns,  424 
Ranelagh,  .Lord,    early    support    of    S., 

13,  14,    162,    268;    interests   in    Con- 
naught,     13,    14,    124,    788;    intrigues 
against  S.,  and  part  in  impeachment, 

14,  80,    133,    166,    176,   202,    206,    218, 
222,    336,    544,    906,    994,    1022,    1025; 
quarnel  with  Lord  Loftus,  14,  51,  55; 
own    impeachment,    14,    225,    226;    in- 
fluence    and     connections,     115,    915, 
933,    935;    part    in    passage    of    Irish 
subsidies,   124,   125,  127,  869;   farm  of 
customs,    378;     relations    with    Lord 
Cork,   496,    517;    interests   in   Church 
lands,    520,   538,    741;    part  in   court- 
martial  of  Mountmorris,  969 

— ,  the,  9 

Raphoe,  Bp.  of,  see  Knox;  Leslie,  John 

— ,  Dean  of,  398 

— ,  See  of,  470,  471 

Rathranon,  522 

Raylton,  London  agent  of  S.,  384,  513, 
515,  887 

Rebellion  of  1641,  character  and  course 
of,  233—237,  655,  656,  658,  659,  739, 
795,  866,  941,  942,  958;  effect  on 
prices,  293,  352;  religious  aspect  of, 
544,  545,  606,  617,  641;  part  of  priests 
in,  632—635,  943,  944;  effect  of 
plantations  and  planters,  704,  726,  800, 
821—823,  838,  847,  904,  941;  part  of 
Lambert  in,  924 

Recusancy,  laws  against,  7,  23,  74,  75, 
126,  246,  412,  413,  415,  417,  426,  427, 
637,  923 ;  form  of  opposition  to  Govern- 
ment, 247,  259,  405,  418,  419,  424,  442, 
443,  551;  non-enforcement  of  laws, 
427,  428,  480,  488,  489;  enforcements, 

429,  483,  484,  838;  position  in  Dublin, 

430,  431,  433;  mooted  revival  of,  479, 
480,  482,  483,  489,  613,  865,  866,  869; 


dangers  of  revival,  484,  485;  policy  of 
S.  towards,  486,  488,  610,  631,  635, 
637.  See  also  Roman  Catholics 

Redistribution  of  estates,  702,  703 

Registration  fees,  exemption  of  Recusants 
from,  613,  615,  616.  See  also  S., 
Ecclesiastical  Policy 

Regrating,  see  Forestalling  and  Re- 
grating 

Regulars,  feud  with  Seculars,  410,  469, 
479,  491,  611,  622—626.  See  also 
Friars 

Reid, f  Dr.  James  Seaton,  558,  585 

Religion  in  Ireland,  580.  See  also 
Ir  religion 

Remonstrance,  Irish,  212—217,  619,  898, 
902,  903,  905—908,  916,  923,  924,934— 
936 

Rents,  888,  892 — 898.  See  also  Free- 
holders; Leaseholders;  Plantations; 
Undertakers 

Resumption,  Act  of,  750,  767 

Revenue,  Irish,  338,  346,  354,  389,  881— 
883,  893,  894,  931,  938,  964.  See  also 
Benevolences;  Contributions;  Customs; 
Finance ;  Subsidies 

Reynolds,  M.  P.  for  Leitrim,  934 

Rhe,  expedition  to,   138,  441 

Rices  of  Dingle,  96;  97 

Rich,  Henry,  see  Holland,  1st.  Earl 

Richelieu,  Cardinal,  156,  158,  171,  621, 
629,  635,  638,  652,  653,  985,  106D,  1071 

Ridge,  rector  of  Antrim,  648 

Ridolphi   or   Rudolphi,    Roberto   di,   419 

Rinnuccini  or  Rinuccini,  Cardinal,  views 
on  ecclesiastical  abuses,  435,  640;  on 
royalist  sympathies  of  priests  and 
people,  443,  621,  630,  637,  641,  802, 
837;  relations)  with  Owen  Roe  O'Neill 
and  Ulster  rebels,  466,  633,  634,  641; 
difficulty  over  Church  lands,  476,  535, 
615,  621,  624,  625,  634,  930;  opinion  of 
priests,  608;  hostility  to  regulars,  612, 
617,  621,  623,  635,  636;  opinion  of  De 
Burgo,  614;  relations  with  Clanricarde, 
620,  621;  views  on  Irish  Roman 
Catholicism,  714,  837 


INDEX 


1133 


Ripon,  Treaty  of,  981 

Rives,  Ulster  M.  P.,  869 

— ,  see  also  Ryves 

Roads,  maintenance  of,  141 

Roche,  Lord,  35,  36,  43,  230,  420,  911, 
929 

— ,  Matthew,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of 
Ferns,  126,  319,  439,  440,  460,  461, 
467,  536,  611,  613,  623,  626,  628,  640, 
641,  851 

—  of  Wexford,  706 

Rochelle,  375 

Roe,  Sir  Francis,  309 

— ,  Lady,  309 

Rohan,  Marie  de,  652 

Roley,  see  Rowley 

Rolleston,  Rev.  Richard,  32,  34,  35 

Roman  Catholics,  hostility  to  Parlia- 
ments, 104 — 106;  relations  with 
Puritanism,  156,  158,  468,  469,  629,  651, 
939,  940;  Stuart  policy  towards,  and 
its  return,  199,  200,  430;  attitude  to 
Rebellion  of  1641,  233,  606,  634,  637, 
943;  influence  at  Court,  305,  337; 
numbers  of,  410--415,  418—422,  546; 
small  influence  among  many  native 
gentry,  and  city  bourgeoisie,  412,  413, 
415 — 417,  421;  influence,  wealth,  and 
power,  413,  415,  419,  420,  423,  424, 
429,  466;  wideispread  loyalty,  440, 
453,  607,  612—615,  658,  659,  851,  852, 
914,  915;  decline  of,  467,  546,  547, 
550,  553 — 555,  572,  573;  connection 
with  agrarian  question,  475,  476; 
reasons  for  State  hostility,  478,  479; 
relations  with,  Church  of  Ireland,  533, 
600;  internal  disorder,  593,  617,  618, 
624—626,  637—639;  supposed  en- 
couragement by  S.,  597,  598,  604,  605; 
attitude  to  Plantation  of  Ulster, 
836 — 839,  849,  850;  treatment  by  S., 
919,  920.  See  also  Friars;  Priests; 
Rebellion  of  1641;  Recusancy 
Roman  Catholic  Synod  at  Drogheda,  593 

in  Connaught,  627 

Ronaynes  of  Youghal,  274 


Roscommon,   County   of,   472,   753,   764, 

766 

— ,  Earl  of,  619,  727,  752,  914 
Ross,  Co.  Cork,  416 
__,  _  Wexford,  82,  346 
Rossetti,  priest,  778,  1054,  1072,  1073 
Rossingham's    Court    Budget,    182,    186, 

771,  786 
Rossirk,  500 
Rothe,    David,   Roman   Catholic   Bp.   of 

Ossory,    ties    with   Butlers,    16,    611; 

action   over    Church   lands,  404,   469; 

hostility  to  rebels,  406,  439,  568,  641; 

correspondence  with  Rome,  410,  466; 

blessing  for   expedition  to   Rhe,  441; 

publication  of   "Analecta",   569;    con- 
flict with  regulars,  624,  626;  failure  to 

become    primate,    628;    treatment    by 

Cromwell,  636 
Rothes,  Earl  of,   171,  940 
Rowley,  Edward,  222,  890,  897,  934 
Rushworth,   John,    182,    960,   988,    1006, 

1007 

Ryder,  Henry,  Bp.  of  Killaloe,  459,  569 
Ryves,  Doctor,  459 
— ,  Sir    Thomas,    Master    in    Chancery, 

569,  772 
— ,  Sir  William,  Attorney-General,  511, 

513,  514,   948 


St.  Andrew's  Church,  539 

—  Christopher,   344 

—  James,  Abbey  of,  398 

St.  John,  Oliver,  see  Grandison 

St.  John,    Oliver,    Parliamentarian,    179, 

196,  986,  991,  996,  1030,  1051—1053, 

1076 

—  Leger,  Sir  William,  able  and'  upright 
rule  in  Munster,  37,  232,  273,  341,  349, 
495,  632,  633,  727,  903,  951,  965,  966; 
complaints  re  Loftus,  51;  despatches 
during  Rebellion  of  1641,  83,  235,  236, 
633,   801,   958;    character   and'  ability, 
124,  149,  167,  802,  859;  opposition  to 
S.  in  1st.  Parliament,  124,  125;  accu- 
sations of  Gookin  against,   134;   sup- 


1134 


INDEX 


port   of   S.,    149,    162,    168,    959,    1088, 
1089;     proclamation     on     beer,     312; 
relations  with  Lord  Cork,  517;  distrust 
of  Parsons,   948 
St.  Omer,  44 

-  Patrick's  Cathedral,  398,   399,   504— 
507 

-  Sebastian,   343 

—  Stephen's  Green,  Dublin,  48,  277 
Salamanca,  428,  434,  453,  463,  554,  555, 

857 

Salisbury,    Lord,   513,    514 
Salt,  import  of,  364,  374—377 
Sandtford,  Captain,  828,  829,  853 
Santry,  James  Barry,  1st.  Lord,  72,  73, 

122,  772,  959.    See  also  Connaught 
Sar&field,  Sir  Dominick,  see  Kihhallock 
— ,  Patrick,  24 
Saunderson,  Dr.,  1087 
Savage,  Sir  Arthur,  548,  695 
— ,  Henry,  695,  696 
— ,  Roland,  695,  702 
Savages,  the,  98,  99 
Saville,  Thomas,  1st.  Lord,  1007 
— ,  Sir   William,    185 
Saye  and  Sele,  Lord,  179,  977,  981,  991, 

1047,  1056,  1057,  1068 
Scotch  Rebellion,  causes  and  aims,  150 — 

152,  173,  476,  519,  651,  662,  663,  1070; 
advice   of   S.   on,    150,    153,    156,    161, 

162,  209,  211,  650,  970—972,  981,  1016; 
participation    of  Roman   Catholics   in, 

153,  156—158,  583,  629,  644,  651,  663; 
intrigues  with  France,   156,   171,   175, 
176,  652,  653;    relations'  with  Ulster, 
157,  158,  209,  210,  583,  648,  651,  653,  663, 
664,  777,  926 — 928,  1044;  intrigues  With 
Short   Parliament,    186,    190,   191;   in- 
trigues    with     Spain     and      Spanish 
O'Neills,   581,  582,  651,  653;   invasion 
of  England  and  results,  936,  971,  973, 
997,  1011,  1012,  1027,  1040—1042,  1053, 
1080;      understanding     with     Parlia- 
mentarians, 936,  979,  1040,  1044,  1050, 
1054,    1069—1071,    1080;    negotiations 
with  King,  976—978,  1058,  1070,  1071, 
1073.       See    also    Argyle,    Duke    of; 


Hamilton,  Duke  of;  Presbyterians; 
Scotdh 

Scotch  Settlers  in  Ireland,  admittance  to 
citizenship,  141,  585,  586,  702;  rela- 
tions with  Covenanters,  199,  209,  234, 
454,  455,  581,  583,  645,  651,  653,  661— 
666,  886,  889,  906,  926—929;  discontent 
with  Irish  Parliament,  232;  attitude 
to  rebels  of  1641,  234,  237,  654,  655, 
659,  800;  characteristics,  447 — 454, 
576,  577,  581,  582,  665,  688,  876,  906, 
926,  927;  Puritan  leanings,  448 — 451, 
454,  477,  577,  580,  582,  645,  926; 
immigration  before  Plantations,  548, 
701,  702,  843,  904;  (subscription  to 
Oath  of  Allegiance,  666—668,  891, 
906,  907,  926;  excellence  as  colonists, 
846,  847.  See  also  Antrim,  Earl  of; 
Claneboye,  Earl  of;  Hamiltons; 
McDonnells;  Montgomery;  Presby- 
terians, Irish;  Ulster;  Undertakers 

Schools,  443,  472,  530— 532,  576 

Sohull,  511 

Scutage,   143 

Secretary  of  State,  see  Coke;  Leicester; 
Northumberland ;  Vane 

Selden,  John,  1044 

Septdom,  see  Clan  System 

Serfs,  see   Servile  Population. 

Servile  Population,  718,  719,  721—723, 
820,  821,  834,  837,  842,  844—848,  852, 
853,  861,  932,  943.  See  also  Woodkern 

"Servitors"',  845,  846,  857.  See  also 
Plantations;  Ulster;  Undertakers 

Settlement,  Act  of,  636 

(Sexton,  esc'heat  official,  754 

Sheep,  351.    See  also  Grazing 

Shelley,  Lady,  1076 

Sheridan,  Rev.  Michael,  570 

Sheriffs,  abuses'  of,  78 

Sherry  Walsh,  barony  of,  706 

Ship  money,  170,  176,  178,  181—185,  187, 
189,  191,  777,  938,  991,  1033,  1034 

Shipping,  148,  348,  390 

Shirley,   Irish  official,  263 

Shoe  makers,  253,  255 

Shorthand,  121 


INDEX 


1135 


Sibbs,  Dr.  Robert,  558 

Sidney,  Sir  Henry,  589 

— ,  Robert,  see  Leicester,  2nd  Earl 

Silver  mines,  365,  903 

Simony,  473,  499,  501,  523,  533 

"Simulates",  958,  964,  970,  992 

Skinner,  agent  of  Wilmot,  745 

Slane,  Lord,  215,  830 

Slievelogher,  412 

Sligo,  472,   751,   766 

Slingsby  or  Slingsley,  Guilford,  267, 
1064,  1065,  1086,  1087 

Sluyte  O'Neills,  see   O'Neills,  Shiyte 

Small  Holders,  see  Strip-Owners 

Smith,  Dr.,  Bp.  of  Ohalcedon,  622 

— ,  Robert,   of   Kilkenny,   917 

Smuggling,  881,  930.  See  also  Customs; 
Straff ord,  Financial  and  Trade  Policy 

Smyths,  Justice,  911 

Soap,  301—306,  365,  961.  See  also  Pro- 
jects 

Somersi,  secretary  to  Ranelagh,  933, 
935 

Somerset   of  Casihel,  Lord,   36 

Southampton,    Lord,    1007 

Spain,  understanding  of  S.  with,  291, 
332,  343,  366,  371,  372,  374,  389,  656, 
657,  776,  796,  853,  854,  957,  985;  coin 
engrossed,  370;  relations  with  Irish 
unrest,  440,  454,  455,  467,  628,  629, 
638,  655,  656,  658,  776,  795,  796,  850,  851, 
857;  relations  with  Covenanters,  581, 
582,  651,  653;  scheme  of  Windebanke, 
993;  attack  on  embassy  by  London 
mob,  1060 

Speaker  of  Irish:  House  of  Commons, 
108,  122.  See  also  Catelinj  Davies; 
Eustace,  Serjeant 

Spenser,  Edmund,  911 

Spicer,  Sir  Alexander,  845 

"Spicilegium  Ossoriense",  779 

Spirits,  312 — 315.  See  also  Customs; 
S.,  Financial  and  Trade  Policy 

Sports,   Book  of,  311 

Spottiswoode,  James,  Bjp.  of  Cloglher, 
540,  646 

Staple  Towns,  see  Wool 


Standish,  Sir  Thomas,  929 

Stanihowe,    William,    860 

Star    Chamber,    25—28,   31,    33—35,    42, 

43,    70,    297,    309,    358,    807,   879,    884, 

991 
Statute  Law,  absence  of  in  Ireland,  31 

—  of  Absentees,,  see  Absentees,  Statute 
of 

—  —  Gloucester,   see   Gloucester,   Sta- 
tute of 

Stephens,  Crown  Solicitor,   866,   867 

Stewart,  Alexander,  Presbyterian  divine, 
449,  452,  576,  577,  581 

— ,  Sir  Frederick,  584,  585 

— ,  Sir  John,  see  Traquair,   1st.  Earl 

— ,  Robert,  henchman  to  Lennox,  583 

— ,  Sir  Robert,  172,  583,  660,  662,  838. 
883 

_,  _  William,  920,  942,  963 

Stewarts,  583—585,  927,  1050.  See  also 
Stuarts 

Stonehurst,  Richard,  569 

Strafford,  Thomas  Wentworth,  1st. 
Earl,  Administration,  General; 
theories  re  use  of  Prerogative,  70,  73, 
74,  238,  239,  267,  1014—1017;  use  of 
Army,  76,  77,  79—82,  265;  establish- 
ment of  Defective  Titles  Commission, 
117,  734 — 742;  establishment  of,  Court 
of  Wards,  142 — 143;  preservation  of 
order  in  Ulster,  155,  158,  159,  161, 

651 660,  662;  attitude  to  demand  for 

Statute  of  Limitations,  730 — 732; 
dislike  of  "Beagles",  733,  734;  pre- 
servation of  order  among  gentry  of 
Pale  and  Undertakers,  899—926 

— „  Ecclesiastical  Policy;  action  against 
impropriation  of  Church  property, 
33,  498,  512—518,  520—526,  528— 
530;  532—537,  545,  577;  non-enforce- 
ment of  recusancy  fines,  481 — 492; 
educational  policy,  530 — 532,  572;  ser- 
vices to  Church  of  Ireland,  541,  545, 
592—597,  599,  600,  638;  treatment  of 
question  of  tithes,  542,  543;  reorgani- 
sation .of  Dublin  University,  560 — 
567;  restraint  of  militant  Puritanism, 


1136 


INDEX 


580—586,  662,  664—669,  928;  treat- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  courts,  585, 
001 — 606;  tolerance,  606,  607,  635, 
C61,  702;  treatment  of  loyal  Roman 
Catholicism,  610—612,  615—617,  621, 
622;  treatment  of  religious  orders, 
625,  626;  attitude  towards  belligerent 
Roman  Catholicism,  628—632,  635, 
637,  638 

Straff ord,  Financial  and  Trade  Policy; 
passage  of  subsidies  in  1st.  Parliament, 
13,  109,  115,  117,  118,  121,125,126,389, 
931 ;  obtaining  of  benevolence  and 
contribution,  23,  111,  481,  489,  491; 
procuring  of  subsidies  from  2nd.  Par- 
liament, 164,  165,  198;  policy  towards 
monopolies  and  projects,  194,  195, 
289,  290,  301—305,  364—377;  treat- 
ment of  dues,  market  rights,  etc.,  of 
corporations,  254,  255,  261,  265—267, 
269 — 281,  289;  regulation  of  exports, 
291,  292,  294,  297 — 301;  policy  re  beer 
and  spirit  licences,  311 — 315;  treat- 
ment of  Irish  wool  trade,  323,  324, 
326 — 329;  encouragement  of  linen 
trade,  330—337 ;  collection  of  revenue, 
338— 341 ;  suppression  of  piracy  and 
smuggling,  342— 348,  371,  372,  377, 
776;  q'uestion  of  customs,  350 — 353, 
378';;  379,  382—388;  miscellaneous 
financial  reforms,  350 — 356,  358, 
360— 362,  370,  371,  389,  390,  496 

• — ,  General  References;  arrival  in 
Ireland,  3;  reasons  for  appoint- 
ment, 3,  4,  5;  relations  with  official 
cabal,  3,  4,  12— 14,  17,  49,  52,  53,  144, 
155;  relations  with  Lord  Cork,  3, 
12—14,  17,  33,  34,  38,  39,  80,  350,  474, 
488,  489,  493,  498,  502—509,  512—518; 
aims  and  poHcy,  17,  55,  163,  265,  502, 
6061,  607,  642,  661 ;  management  of 
1st.  Parliament,  111— 114,  117—128, 
136,  140—146,  148;  relations  with 
Council,  115 — 117;  treatment  of 
question  of  Graces,  132,  133,  136,  137; 
quarrel  with  Crosby,  137—140; 
passage  of  code  of  law,  140 — 142; 


^support    from   law-abiding    majority, 

149,  161;  part  in  war  witih  Scotland, 

150,  153,  156,  161,  162,  209,  211,  650, 
970—972,    976i— 978;      relations    with 
Hamilton,    153,   887—889;      relations 
with  2nd.  Parliament,  162—165;  part 

in  Short  Parliament,  168,   170,  172 

174,  176,  177,  179,  182— 185,  187,  188, 
190—192;      unpopularity,     201,     310, 
979 — 982;     excellence    of    intelligence 
department,   209,    583,   617,   630,    651, 
776,   887;    refusal   of  gifts,   294;    per- 
sonal  characteristics,    308,    315,    570, 
571,  802,  803,  947,  958—964,  989,  990, 
1009—1013,       1023—1025;       relations 
with     Mountmorris,     358—362,     382, 
383,  966—970;   relations  with  Queen, 
537,   982,    1083,   1084;    foreign  policy, 
652,    656,    657,    776;    relations    with 
Lord   Antrim,   691—693;    affair    with 
Wilmot,     743 — 747;     enormous    pres- 
sure of  work,   791;    attacks    of  2nd. 
Parliament     on,     933—936;      difficul- 
ties   and    ability   in   conduct    of  own 
defence  at  trial,  988— 990,  1009— 1013, 
1023 — 1025;  illness  during  trial,  1027, 
1028;  last  speech  to  Lords,  1048,  1049; 
attitude    towards  Bill  of   Attainder, 
1056,    1057,    1064—1066,    1086,    1087; 
plans  for  reprieve  and  escape,   1067, 
1068,   1075— 1077;    last  hours^   1088— 
1091 

Strafford,  Judicial  Administration;  re- 
straint of  barretry,  20,  866— ^69,  921, 
922,  925;  use' of  CouncilBoard,  21,  31, 
69,  70,  73,  83;  impartiality;  21— 23,  31, 
32,  66 — 70;  use  of  Castle  Chamber, 
26—28,  31,  32,  34,  35,  69,' '70,  73,' 83; 
treatment  of  '  Lord  Roche;  '  35,  36 ; 
treatment  of  Earl  of  Kildare,  40,  4l; 
policy  re  appeals  to  England,  41—45, 
62—64,  84,  85 ;  treatment  of  Loftus 
case,  46,  49,  51,  52,  54—67;  restraint 
of  common  lawyers,  70,  fl,  74;  im- 
provement of  calibre  of  judiciary,  72, 
73;  legislation,  140—142 

— ,   Military   Policy ;     opinion    of   Irish 


[INDEX 


113.? 


.''Army,  6;  recruitment  from  lesser 
Irish  nobility,  38;  discipline  and  re- 
organizations, 76,  065;  use  of  Army 
in  administration,  76 — 80,  265;  aboli- 
ttioa  of  improper  Army  pensions, 
144 — 146;  mobilization  in  Ulster,  161, 
166,  656,  660;  advocation  of  use  of 
Irish  Army,  972;  reform  of  English 
Army,  973,  974.  See  also  Army, 
English  and  Irish 

Straff ord,  Plantations  Policy;  plans  for 
that  of  Connaught,  146,  147,  762—765, 
774—778;  difficulties  with  Clanri- 
carde,  176,  176,  786 — 792;  unpopularity 
with  greater  planters  and  under- 
takers, 200—203,  662;  difficulties  with 
Derry,  533,  579,  880—898;  religious 
question,  612,  618—620;  difficulties 
.with  Connaught,  766—768,  780,  782, 
793 — 797;  re-organization  of  tenures, 
769—771;  treatment  of  patents,  771— 
773;, difficulty  of  enforcing  covenants 
of  Ulster  planters,  864—879,  899—926; 
Plantation  of  Idough,  948—958 

—,.  Trial  of ;  appearance  of  "cess"  in 
articles  of  indictment,  38,  SO— 82,  957, 
981,  1052,  1063;  summons  to  London, 
211,  215,  217 — 219;  question  of  speech 
re  "conquered  nation",  266 — 269; 
commercial  and  financial  articles  of 
indictment,  348,  365,  366,  369,  388; 
Church  questions  in  indictment,  523, 
597,  598 ;  confused  character  of  articles, 
957,  981,  988;  989,  1002,  1003,  1026; 
preparations  for  trial,  985—988;  able 
defence,  989,  996,  1009—1013,  1024, 
1025;  question  of  Irish  Army,  994, 
995,  1000,  1001';  evidence  of  Junto, 
1004—1006;  evidence  of  Vane,  1007, 
1008,  1017—1023;  delay  owing  to 
illness,  1027,  1028;  production  of  notes 
of  Junto,  1028—1043;  motion  for  Bill 
of  Attainder,  1044—1049;  attempt  of 
Lords  to  proceed  with  trial,  1050, 1051. 
See  also  Attainder,  Bin  of 

— ,  William  Went  worth,  2nd,  Earl, 
1088—1090 


Straw,  Jack,  36 

Strip-Owners,  674,  675,  679,  680,  712,  720. 
See  also  Freeholders 

Strode  or  Stroud,  William,  987 

Strong  or  Stronge,  Father,  137,  441, 
569,  623,  624 

— ,  Katherine,  257 

Strongbow,  497,  953 

Stroud,  324 

— ,  William,  see  Strode 

Stuart,  Lady  Arabella,   173,   313 

— ,  James,   see   Lennox,   4th.   Duke 

Stuarts,  615,  616,  686,  687,  938.  See  also 
Charles  1;  James  1;  Stewarts 

Stukely,  Thomas,  432,  469 

Subsidies,  165,  203—207,  210,  35a,  544, 
931,  934,  938.  See  also  Benevolences; 
Contributions;  S.,  Financial  Policy 

Suckling,  Sir  John,  912,  1072.,  1073 

Suits,  legal,  rule  of  S.  concerning,  355, 
356 

Supremacy,  Oath  of,  enforcement  in 
plantations,  34,  414,  415,  425,  714,  715, 
835 — 839;  purely  political  character, 
247,  248,  531,  532,  547,  548;  treatment 
by  towns  and  corporations,  255,  259, 
260,  414,  416,  443;  -initial  popularity, 
400 — 403;  changes  by  Mary  and 
Elizabeth,  404,  408,  426;  first  applica- 
tion to  Puritanism,  446;  connection 
with  Court  of  Wards,  551;  applica- 
tion to  Scotch  settlers.,  666—668,  891, 
906,  907,  926 

Surrender  and  Regrant,  land  policy  of, 
91,  684,  704,  708,  709,  726,  731,  754, 
758,  759,  762,  797,  821,  822,  830,  873> 
908,  910 

Surrey,  Warren  de  Mountchensey,  Earl 
of,  953 

Sussex,  Thomas  Radcliffe,  3rd.  Earl,  31, 
589 

Sutton,  -Richard,   901 

Swine,   export  of,   351 

Swords,  borough  of,  98 

Swordsmen,  Irish,  109,  159,  -160,  441. 
See  also  Army,  Iristh;  S.,  Military- 
Policy 

72 


1138 


INDEX 


Sydney,  see  Sidney 

Synod  of  Caslhel,  395 

_1  _  Dublin,    under    Edward    VI,    403, 

589 

_,  _   Elizabeth,   589 

Holmpatrick,   395 

1615,  446,  447,  587—595.  See  also 

Articles  of   1615;    Church  of  Ireland; 

Convocation,   Irish 
Synods  in  Ireland,  58-8—591 
Synnott,   of  Wexford,  706,  707 


Taafe,  Sir  William,  752— 754,  901 

Taghmon,  214 

Talbot,   W.,   102,  319 

Talbots,  the,  47 

Tallow,    trade    in,    126,    284,    300—304. 

See  also  "Projects";  Soap. 
Tanistry,   687,   696,  698,   704,   746.    See 

also   Clan   System 
Tara,  Lord,  see  Preston 
Taylor,  Jeremy,  534 
— ,  John,  trade  agent  of  S.,  366,  374 
Tenures,  see  Land  Tenures 
Termon  Lands,  470 
Theobald,  Sir  George,  309,  310 
Thirty  Years'  War,  657,  776 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  593,  594,  596—598. 

See  also  Church  of  Ireland 
Thomond,  Barnabas  O'Brien,  6th.   Earl, 

547,  549,  787,  914,  996 
— ,  Donougih  O'Brien,  4th.  Earl,  96,  472, 

719;  749 
— ,  Henry  O'Brien,   5th.  Earl,  268,  419, 

473,  685,  686,  724,  787,  790,  849,  904, 

929,  95£,  963 

— ,  Morrogh  O'Brien,  1st.  Earl,  684,  685 
.^.Plantation  of,  908 — 910 
Tillage,  lack  of,  in  Ireland,  285,  286 
Timber   trade,    126,   223,   284,   296—298, 

495,  883 

Tipperary,  16,  364,  410,  548 
Tithes,  134,  207;  542—544 
-Tobacco  monopoly,   366 — 374,   791>  939, 

1088 


Tonbridge,  Viscount,  see  Olanricatfde, 
5th.  Earl 

Tonnage  and  Poundage,  170,  176>  344, 
345 

Touchet,  James,  see  Castlehaven,  3rd. 
Earl 

Towells,.  335 

Town  Bargains,  254,   255,  264 

Towns,  growth  of,  93—95,  724,  725,  904. 
See  also  Corporations 

Tracton  Abbey,  500 

Trade,  absence  of  skilled  tradesmen^  16, 
17;  restraint  on  export  of  raw  mate- 
rial, 283,  316,  330;  general  Tudor 
policy,  283,  284,  316;  effect  of  regime 
of  S.,  329,  390 ;  schemes  for  encourage- 
ment in  Plantations,  724,  725.  See  also 
Customs;  Monopolies;  "Projects" 

Traquair,  John  Stewart,  1st.  Earl,  172, 
173 

Travers,  M.  P.   for  Clonakilty,  113,  935 

— ,  Walter,  Provost  of  Trinity  College, 
558 

Treason,  definitions  of,  1009,  1023, 1024, 
1044,  1050—1053,  1056,  1063,  1078, 
1079,  1081 

Treasury,  Irish,  918,  919.  See  also 
Finance;  Revenue 

Trevor,  family  of,  98,  99 

— ,  Mr.,  929 

Tribalism,  see  Clan  System 

Trinity  College,  Dublin,  attack  by  House 
of  Commons  on,  230;  jestraints  on 
students,  315;  early  Mstory,  433,  434, 
555 — 557;  -distinguished  graduates, 
442,  557,  570.;  enforcement  of  Oath  of 
Supremacy,  443,  531,  532;  Puritan 
Provosts,  446,  558,  562,  563,  575 ; 
poverty,  472,  556;  effect  in  checking 
Counter  Reformation^  552,  554,  555, 
557,  567;  various  disorders  in,  557 — 
565;  reforms  in  organisation  and  dis- 
cipline by  S.,  560— 562,  ,564-^567. ; 

Tuam,  398,  470 

A-,'  Arohbp.  .of,  see  Boyle,  Richard; 
Daniel;  Donnellan;  O'Frehier  .'•• 


INDEX 


1139 


Tiiam,  Roman  Catholic  Archbp.  of,  see 
O'Queely 

Tudors,  91,  673,  675,  676,  678,  683,  686, 
722,  723,  810,  811.  See  also  under 
monarchs'  names 

Tullow,  313,  332,  350,  497,  514 

Turks,  343 

Tyler,  Wat,  rebellion  of,  36,  166,  877 

Tyrconnell,  Countess  of,  472,  530,  651, 
887 

— ,  Rory  O'Donnell,  1st.  Earl,  628,  651, 
654,  656,  717,  789,  822,  830,  832,  839, 
854 

Tyrone,  County  of,  425,  811,  814 

— ,  Hugh  O'Neill,  2nd.  Earl,  relations 
with  Argyle,  158,  455,  688;  intrigues 
abroad,  158;  character  of  rebellion, 
173,  248,  807,  809,  927;  religious 
policy,  247,  405,  418,  431,  469;  feudal 
position,  259;  friends  in  Government, 
357,  445;  securing  of  Papal  advowsons, 

437,  837 ;  nomination  of  Papal  bishops, 

438,  460,  461,  467,  836;  Irish  hostility 
to,   440,   453,   808,   810,   811,   815,   816, 
819,   851,  854;   various  relatives,   487, 
850,  853 ;  relations  with  Lombard,  568, 
569;  relations  with,  tenants,  685,  687, 
700,    721,     810,    811,    817,    831,    839; 
hostility  of  McDonnell,  693;  of  Magen- 
nis,  697,  698;  source  of  revenue,  716; 
character,  807;  feudal  tyranny,  807 — 
817;  enmity  of  Sir  Henry  Ogue,  814; 

>    attainder,  822,  830 

— ,  John  O'Neill,  3rd.  Earl,  5,  155 

Tyrrell,  swordsman,  830,  854 

TJ 

Ulster,  Earldom  of,  683,  695 

— ,  Plantation  of,  enforcement  of 
covenants,  10,  130,  200,  662,  855—864, 
870 — 879;  character  of  planters,  110, 
831 — 840;  sanction  by  Parliament, 
224;  application  of  Oath  of  Supremacy, 
414,  714;  attitude  of  Lombard,  438; 
fate  of  Church  lands,  471,  472,  521; 
character,  scope,  and  difficulties,  521, 
816,  822—824;  priests'  support  of,  613; 


connection  of  S.  with  carrying  out  of, 
662,  665,  870,  871;  Scotch  connection, 
701;  mistakes  in,  711;  survey  and 
"  over-measurements",  824 — 828,  870, 
871;  treatment  of  bog  and  mountain, 
828—830;  royal  title  to,  831,  832,  870; 
encouragement  of  industry,  841 — 844; 
treatment  of  "servitors"  and  churls 
in,  845 — 849;  order  and  loyalty,  850, 
851.  See  also  Covenants;  London- 
derry Plantation;  Undertakers 

Ulster,  relations  with  Scotland,  157,  158, 
209,  210,  346,  629,  645,  646,  651,  653— 
656,  661—668,  791,  926—929.  See 
also  Presbyterians;  Scotch  Settlers 

— ,  unrest  in,  629,  642—669,  791,  799, 
807—821,  852—856,  926—929,  936,  940. 
See  also  O'Neills;  Rebellion  of  1641; 
Scotch  Rebellion 

—  King  at  Arms,  119,  120 

Undertakers,  general  character,  831, 
834;  covenants  and  their  enforcement, 
835,  855—858,  871—884,  951;  attitude 
to  Oath  of  Supremacy,  835—839; 
settlement  of  tenants,  839—841;  en- 
couragement of  industry,  841 — 844; 
difficulties  with  churls,  845 — 849; 
disloyalty  and  intrigues,  858—864, 
869,  870,  899—901,  905,  907—933;  re- 
presentation in  2nd.  Parliament  of  S., 
934,  935,  938,  939;  part  in  Rebellion 
of  1641,  941,  944 

Uniformity,  Act  of,  403,  404,  421,  589 

Universities,  Continental,  43,  44,  389, 
433,  434,  462,  463,  554,  555 

University  of  Dublin,  see  Trinity  Col- 
lege 

Uses,  Statute  of  Wills  and,  see  Wills 
and  Uses,  Statute  of 

Usury,  264,  288,  370—372,  495,  932,  940, 
941 

Usher,  Ambrose,  Fellow  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, 557,  569 

— ,  James,  Archbp.  of  Armagh,  dela- 
tions with  Lord  Chancellor  Loftus, 
53,  55 ;  testimony  to  behaviour  of-  S. 
on  Council  Board;  58;  testimony'  to 
72* 


1140 


INDEX 


real  character  of  "Graces",  129; 
protest  against  farm  of  ale  licenses, 
311:  relations  with  Father  Stronge, 
441,.  569;  Calvinistic  leanings,  451, 
452,  506,  562,  563;  575,  589,  591,  594, 
926,  963 ;  character  and  gifts,  459,  562, 
563,  570,  571,  594,  595,  600,  959,  1079, 
1081 ;  account  of  Ulster  Church  lands, 
470;  attitude  to  recusancy  fines,  480, 
483,  489;  description  of  desolation  in 
Ireland,  494;  relations  with  Lord 
€ork,  506,  507,  517;  relations  with 
Provost  Chappel,  560 — 566;  ojpinion 
of  S.  on,  563—565;  of  Laud  on,  563, 
565;  part  in  Articles  of  1615,  589 — 
591 ;  introduction  'of  39  Articles, 
593 — 598;  drafting  of  Canons,  599, 
600;  support  of  S.  as  witness  at  trial, 
605,  989,  1005,  1019;  attendance  on 
8.  in  Tower  and  at  execution,  959, 
1064,  1088—1091;  advice  to  Charles 
re  Bill  of  Attainder,  1079—1082,  1085, 

•    1086 

Usher,  Eobert,  Provost  of  Trinity  College 
and  later  Bp.  of  Kildare,  540,  558,  560 

— ,  William,    8,   48 

—  Articles,  see  Articles  of  1615 


Valladrohid,  857 

Vane,  Sir  Henry,  the  elder,  position  on 
"Queen's  side",  140,  175,  1083;  feud 
with  S.,  164,  175,  176,  190,  191;  part 
in  Short  Parliament,  172,  177,  181— 
186,  188,  190— 193V,  197;  patronage  by 
Hamilton,  174,  197,  198,  992;  rela- 
tions with  Northumberland,  174,  992, 
997—1001 ;  intrigues  with  Clanricarde, 
175,  176,  779,  781,  792,  793;  influence 
in  dissolution  of  Short  Parliament, 
186,  187,  190—193,  196—198,  975,  990, 
992;  possession  of  gunpowder  mono- 
poly, 193,  197,  991,  992,  995;  Lilburn's 
account  of,  197 ;  difficulties  at  trial 
of  S.,  991,  992;  evidence  on  subject  of 

'.    Irish  Army,  992,  994,  995,  1002—1008: 


attitude  to  Scotch  War,  1009; 
character  of  evidence  1013 — 1015, 
1017—1023,  1025,  1026;  part  in  pro- 
duction  of  notes  of  Junto,  and  .their 
effect,  1027,  1029—1043,  1053,  1063, 
1069 

Vane,  Sir  Henry,  the  younger,  992,  999, 
1022,  1025,  1027,  1029—1038,  1041, 
1043 

Vartry,  the,  48 
Venetian    Ambassador,    109,     140,    440, 

442,  454,  751 

Viceroys,   successful  Irish,  963,  964 
Villeins,  see  Servile  Population 
Voters,  registration  of,  90r— 98 

W 

Wadding,  Father  Luke,  439,  441,  569, 
620 

Wakefield,  Mrs.,  924 

Wakeman,  John,  703 

Waldron,  escheat  official,  754      '  ,V.f 

Wales,  342,  994 

— ,  Prince  of,  see  Charles  II. 

Waller,  Hardress,  226,  477,  550,  905, 
908—910,  931,  935 

Wallop,  Sir  Henry,  82 

Walsh,  John,  222,  226,  931,  933 

— ,  Nicholas,  Bp.  of  Ossory,   560 

— ,  Thomas,  Roman  Catholic  Arehbp.  of 
Cashel,  631 

— ,  family  of,  97 

Wandesforde,  Christopher,  indictment 
of  Lord  Roche,  36;  relations  with 
Lord  Chancellor  Loftus,1  56,  57,  125; 
reform  in  procedure  as  Master  of  the 
Rolls,  71;  seat  for  Kildare,  95;  ability 
and  uprightness,  171,  219,  220,  949, 
959;  difficulties  with  Irish  Parliament 
after  recall  of  S.,  199,  206,  -208,v  210, 
'  211,  213,  215;  devotion  to  S,-  219, 
960;  success  as  planter  in  Kilkenny 
and  Carlow,  219,  726,  871,  048,  949, 
951,  952,  954—956;  working  of  coal 
mine,  298,  299;  erection  of  1st.  hotel, 
308;  treatment  of  Trinity  College, 
564;  writings,  571;  intimacy  with 


INDEX 


Father  Roche,  611,  616;  guardianship 
of  Sir  Henry  O'Neill's  son,  694;  seat 
on  Defective  Titles .  Commission,  738; 
part  in  Connaught  Plantation,  774, 
785;  opinion  of  Parsons,  871;  of  Deny 
Commission,  894;  of  Waller,  909;  of 
Lord  Robert  Dillon,  959 

Wandesforde,  Michael,  83 

— ,  Rev.  Mr.,  960 

Wards,  Court  of,  see  Court  of  Wards 

Ware,  Sir  James,  441,  528,  533,  563,  564, 
569,  570,  703,  738 

— ,  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  563—565 

Warner,  Ferdinando,  815 

Warren,  Henry,  47 

Warwick,  Sir  Philip,  173,  184,  186,  188, 
390,  570,  665,  958—960,  994,  1031 

Waterford,  beer  in,  312 

— ,  Bp.  of,  see  At'herton;  Boy le? Michael 

— ,  City  of,  7,  97,  331,  346,  394,  395,  416, 
417,  427,  438 

— ,  Corporation  of,  244,  245,  259,  260, 
331 

— ,  Roman  Catholic  Bp.  of,  see  Comer- 
ford 

— ,  See  of,  410,  460,  472 

Wauchope,  Papal  nominee  for  arch- 
bishopric of  Armagh,  403 

Webb,  George,  Bp.  of  Limerick,  540 

— ,  William,  364 

— ,  Scotch  agent  of  S.,  887 

Welch  or  Welsh,  Josiah,  646,  648 

Wellesley,   Walter,  Bp.  of  Kildare,  401 

Wentworth,  Sir  George,  95,  172,  176, 
197,  198,  202,  647,  798,  1022,  1023, 
1064,  1070,  1090 

— >  Thomas,  see  Straff ord,  1st.  Earl 

— ,  William,  see  Strafford,  2nd.  Earl 

West,  Mr.,  333,  334 

Westmeatih,  Richard  Nugent,  1st.  Earl, 
127,  129,  487,  488,  609,  869,  901,  914, 
931,  963 

Westminster  Hall,  preparations  for  trial 
of  S.,  985— 988 

Weston,  Sir  Richard,  504,  505 

— r  Richard,  see  Portland,  1st  Earl. 

— ,  Sir  W.,  700 


West  India  Company,  370 

Wexford,  Borough,  81,  96,  244,  254,  255, 
260,  346,  376 

— ,  County  of,  48,  77,  914,  953 

— ,  Plantation  of,   414,  706—715 

Wheeler  of  Westbury,  1046 

Whiskey,  see  Spirits 

Whistler,  Mr.,  221,    1051 

White,  Alderman  Dominiek,  908 

—  or  Whyte,  Nicholas,  321,  322,  329 

— ,  family,  97,  258 

Whitelocke,  Bulstrode,  373,  990,  991, 
1003,  1005—1007,  1026,  1027,  1031, 
1060,  1085,  1087. 

Wicklow,  County,  9,  53,  76,  80,  390. 
See  also  O'Byrnes,  O'Tooles 

— ,  Plantation  of,  53,  238,  799,  956 

Wilbraham,  Mr.  Solicitor,  698 

William  III.,  328 

Williams,  Joihn,  Bp.  of  Lincoln,  537, 
1064,  1065,  1080,  1082 

Willoughby,  Sir  Francis,  275,  768,  778. 
787,  788,  965 

Wills  and  Uses,  Statute  of ,  142,  163,  551 

Wilmot  of  Athlone,  Charles  Wilmot, 
1st.  Lord,  complaint  of  official  dis- 
putes, 13;  encouragement  of  trade  at 
Athlone,  17;  attack  on  Catelin,  122, 
123;  financial  mismanagement  of 
lands  at  Athlone  and  disgrace,  200. 
380,  382,  488,  731,  742—744,  746,  760, 
778;  desire  to  be  Deputy  or  Lord 
Justice,  220,  996;  feud  with  Dublin 
Corporation,  262,  263;  connection  with 
Barr,  379,  382,  647,  743,  745,  784,  882; 
feud  with  S.,  380,  382,  743—745,  747, 
756,  775,  778,  779,  783,  784;  letter  to 
James  I.  re  Composition  of  Connaught. 
756,  757 ;  evidence  at  court-martial  of 
Mountmorris,  967 

Windebanke,  Sir  Francis,  Secretary  of 
State,  connection  with  Loftu^  case, 
55;  report  re  subsidies  from  S.  to, 
164;  advice  as  member  of  Junto,  172, 
187,  1042;  intrigues  with  Clanricarde, 
175,  176,  778,  779,  781—783,  785,  289, 
791,  792,  797;  friendly  relations  with 


INDEX 


Roman  Catholics,  337,  568,  618,  619, 
779,  993;  attitude  to  enquiries  over 
Customs  farm,  384—386,  783;  opinion 
of  French  intrigues,  652;  interference 
with  Irish  courts,  917;  enquiries  re 
Army,  974;  flight  to  Continent,  991; 
plans  for  Scotch  war,  993,  1042; 
contradiction  of  Vane's  evidence  at 
trial  of  S.,  1013 

Windebanke,  the  younger,  95 

Wines,  trade  in,   313—315 

Wingfield,  Sir  Richard,  see  Powers- 
court 

Winwood,  Sir  Ralph,  850 

Wirrall,   Sir    Hugh,    860 

Wise,  Mr.,  874 

— ,  Sir  William,  874,  875 

Wolf   or   Wolfe,    Father,    398,    405,    406 

Woodkern,  854—856,  857,  861,  936.  See 
also  Creaghting;  Servile  Population 

Wool,  restraint  on  export  of  yarn,  282; 
on  export  of  raw  wool,  316;  diffi- 
culties and  vested  interests,  316 — 318; 


Jacobean  policy  and  creation  of 
Staple  .towns  and  results,.  3 19-— 322; 
suggestion  of  fresh  schemes,  322,  323; 
character  of  trade,  .323,  324;  diffi- 
culties and  policy  of  S.,  325—328; 
beneficial  results,  328,  329;  statistics, 
328 — 330;  trade  in  Connaught,  742 

Worcester,  Lord,  994,  1014,  1053 

Wray,  Sir  John,  221 

Wren,   Matthew,  Bp.   of  Ely,   1069    • 

Wynnes  Sir  Richard,  537 


Yarn,   see  Linen;    Wool 

York,  Richard,  Duke  of,  4,   104 

Yorkshire  gentry,  and  benevolence,  974, 

981 
Youghal,  College  of,  396,  472,  473.  50.1, 

503,  509—518 
— ,,  Corporation    of,    92,    97.,    345,    253, 

259,   260,  274,   321,   322,  331,   332 
Young,  Sir  James,  874 


Printed  in  Saxony  by  Karras,  Kroeber  &  Nietschmann. 


DA 
941 
.5 
047 
v.2 


O'Grady,  Hugh 

Strafford  and  Ireland 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY