Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum, Vol. I (of 3), 1603-1642

The plot is frustrated

One of the ringleaders, and perhaps the originator of this hopeless plot, was Rory Oge O’Cahan, Sir Donnell’s eldest son, who hated Sir Thomas Phillips for apprehending his father and hoped to win Limavady from him. A witness swore that he had seen a written plan signed by all the conspirators, and that the undertaking was to this effect: that first they were to attack Coleraine, where Rory Oge and others would be drinking all day, and that he by a friend could ‘command the guard to betray the town, as by letting them in, and that then, being in, they would burn the town and only take Mr. Beresford and Mr. Rowley prisoners, and to burn and kill all the rest, and to take the spoil of the town, and so if they were able to put all the Derry to death by fire and sword.’ Lifford, where Sir Richard Hansard alone was to be saved, would come next, a like fate being intended for Massereene, Carrickfergus, Mountjoy and all other English settlements. They proposed to hold the three gentlemen as hostages for the restoration of Neil Garv and his son, of O’Cahan, and of Sir Cormac MacBaron. Help was to be expected from Spain and the Hebrides, until which they could hold out and ‘not do as O’Dogherty did.’ Rory O’Cahan drank freely and bragged of his intentions, and the whole affair is important mainly as showing that the Ulster Irish were anxious to do then what they actually did do in 1641, and what Carew foretold they would do much sooner. The evidence of informers is never satisfactory, but in this case there is a mass of evidence which cannot be resisted. Winwood’s correspondents Blundell and Jacob made light of the plot, and they may have known that the secretary thought Chichester had been viceroy long enough. Six or seven of those implicated were executed, including the friar Mullarkey and a priest named Laughlin O’Laverty, with Rory O’Cahan and Brian Crossagh O’Neill, who was an illegitimate son of Sir Cormac MacBaron; Alexander MacDonnell was acquitted.[133 - The evidence of witnesses is in the Irish Cal., 1615, April to June, pp. 29-82. Chichester’s report is No. 69, Blundell’s and Jacob’s 89 and 91, Teig O’Lennar’s examination, 71. No. 144 shows that torture was used in one case, being headed ‘The voluntary confession of Cowconnaght O’Kennan upon the rack … by virtue of the Lord Deputy’s commission.’ O’Kennan, whom Lodder MacDonnell calls Maguire’s rhymer, was a priest according to O’Sullivan Bere, who wrongly asserts that there was only one witness, whom he calls ‘lusor’ and ‘aleator.’ This may have been suggested by the fact that, according to Brian Crossagh (No. 143), a carrow, or professional gambler, was mixed up in the plot. O’Sullivan also says that the jury consisted of English and Scotch heretics, who had property in Ulster, and therefore desired the death of native gentlemen. —Hist. Cath. IV., iii. 2.]

Chichester recalled, and made Lord Treasurer

Jones and Denham, Lords Justices, 1616

There seems to be no evidence as to any special reason for recalling Chichester, and perhaps we may take the King’s words as the whole truth. He had been Lord Deputy for over eleven years, which was unprecedented, and James, declaring that he had no wish to wear out good subjects in such hard service, gave him leave to retire to his government at Carrickfergus or to go to court, whichever seemed best to him. And there were many expressions of gratitude and good will. The Lord Treasurership of Ireland was vacant by the death of the old Earl of Ormonde, and it was conferred as a mark of honour upon the retiring viceroy. Chichester might probably have been an earl had he been willing to pay court to Somerset, but he excused himself to Humphrey May on the ground that his estate would only support a barony. James admired his letters so much that he advised the favourite to model his style upon them. Somerset’s fall does not seem, however, to have had anything to do with Chichester’s recall. The Chancellor-Archbishop, Thomas Jones, and Chief Justice Sir John Denham were appointed Lords Justices, and were instructed to report either to Winwood or Lake, but matters directly concerning the King were to be referred to Winwood only, ‘because it is likely that he will more usually attend his person than his colleague.’ They had the customary powers of a viceroy, except that they were forbidden to meddle with wardships or intrusions, or to make knights without direct orders from his Majesty, ‘because former Deputies have taken to themselves such liberty as to confer that honour upon needy and unworthy persons, and thereby have done the King’s authority and that calling too much wrong.’ The interregnum lasted nearly six months without any incident of importance, but Bacon afterwards declared that Denham had done good service as Lord Justice. About six weeks after surrendering the sword, Chichester went to England and joined the King at Newmarket. Ellesmere had warned him that he had ill-wishers among the Council, and he had answered that he desired to be judged by his actions rather than by vague and malicious detractors.[134 - The King to Chichester, November 27-29, 1615; instructions to the Lords Justices, December 19; Chichester to Ellesmere, January 12, 1616; Winwood to the Lords Justices, March 1. Both Gardiner (ii. 302) and Spedding (Life of Bacon, v. 376) suggest that Chichester was superseded because he was disinclined to be hard on the Recusants, but of this there is no evidence.]

Chichester’s position in Irish history

In principle a persecutor, but tolerant in practice

Vacillation of the English Government

Chichester made few mistakes

Experience teaches most men, whether statesmen or not, the value of Walpole’s quieta non movere, and they learn to let sleeping dogs lie. There are always plenty of things which will not wait. One of Chichester’s first acts as Lord Deputy was to advise a proclamation to ‘cut off by martial law seminaries, Jesuits, and such hedge priests as have neither goods nor living, and do daily flock hither.’ He must therefore be taken as a consenting party to the famous proclamation issued less than four months later, in which James indignantly repudiated the idea that he could be guilty of toleration, and ordered the whole population of Ireland to attend church on Sundays and holidays according to the tenor and intent of the laws and statutes, upon the pains and penalties contained therein, which he will have from henceforth duly put in execution.’ As to the numerous ‘Jesuits, seminary priests, or other priests whatsoever made and ordained by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from the See of Rome’ who ranged about seducing the people, they were to leave Ireland before the end of the year on pain of incurring all statutory penalties, or to conform openly. It is just conceivable that this drastic treatment might have succeeded if it had been ruthlessly and consistently applied, but Chichester had neither the wish nor the power to do so, and in less than six months the English Government had veered completely round. Toleration, indeed, was not to be thought of, but admonition, persuasion, and instruction were to be tried before the law was enforced, and as to the priests the Lord Deputy was to ‘forbear to make a curious and particular search for them.’ After a decade of this vacillating policy Chichester may well have given up the enforcement of conformity as hopeless. He was succeeded by a money-making Archbishop, who would naturally magnify his office in a persecuting direction, and an English judge who was likely to care more for the letter of the law than for political considerations. After them came a new Deputy, who was a soldier like his predecessor, but with much less ability and without his long training in civil affairs. Chichester’s character may be estimated from his actions. He was not more tolerant in principle than other public men in his time, but in practice was as little of a persecutor as possible. His integrity is unquestionable. He has been blamed for acquiring Inishowen; but it was clearly forfeited, and might easily have been put into much worse hands. If his advice had been taken, O’Dogherty would never have risen, and perhaps the rebellion of 1641 would have been averted. On the whole he must be considered one of the greatest viceroys that Ireland has had, and if he was less brilliant than Strafford, at least his work lasted longer.[135 - Chichester to Cranbourne, March 12, 1605; Proclamation against toleration, July 4; Lords of Council (including Bancroft, Ellesmere, and Salisbury) to Chichester, January 24, 1606.]

Tyrone and Tyrconnel in exile

Death of Tyrconnel, 1608

Death of Tyrone, 1616

Tyrone and Tyrconnel deserted Ireland in September 1607, and their return was for a long time hoped and feared. Chichester thought they might return and make trouble with very little foreign help. Tyrone himself was not quite so sanguine, but he thought he could drive all the English out of Ireland with 12,000 Spanish troops. But Philip III. remembered Kinsale too well, and even Paul V. sometimes tired of the expense of supporting the exiles, and was fain to believe, much to Parsons’ disgust, that James no longer persecuted the Catholics. Tyrconnel and others died within a year of leaving Ireland. It was said that they were poisoned, but the real cause of death was doubtless Roman fever contracted during a riotous excursion to Ostia in the hot season. The settlement of Ulster was for a time delayed by rumours of Tyrone’s return, but gradually they ceased to frighten tolerably well-informed people. A mysterious Italian proposed to poison the chief of the Irish exiles, and Wotton, though he gave him no encouragement, expressed no indignation, merely saying that his King was less given to such practices than other monarchs. Late in 1613 a Franciscan friar found his account in telling the Ulster Irish that Tyrconnel was about to return with 18,000 men from the King of Spain, and that there was a prophecy in a book at Rome that the English should rule Ireland for only two years more. Similar rumours about Tyrone were circulated in the summer of 1615, and he sometimes used to brag himself of what he would do. Except for a short visit to Naples he never left the papal territory; neither France, Spain, nor Flanders would receive him, and Cosmo II. of Florence, who wished to stand well with England, would not even allow him to come as far as Monte Pulciano. He died on July 20, 1616, and was buried near Tyrconnel in San Pietro in Montorio, but it is doubtful whether their bones still lie there.[136 - Chichester to Northampton, February 7, 1608 (printed in Ulster Journal of Archæology, i. 181); to Salisbury, April 15, 1609; to Winwood, June 15 and November 22, 1615; Wotton to Salisbury, July 11 and August 8, 1608; Wotton to James I., April 24 (calendared as No. 902), giving an account of the poisoning project. Examination of Shane O’Donnelly, October 22, 1613. See Mr. Dunlop’s article on Tyrone in Dict. of Nat. Biography.]

CHAPTER IX

ST. JOHN AND FALKLAND, 1616-1625

St. John becomes viceroy, with an empty treasury, but tries to enforce uniformity

Sir Oliver St. John, who had been ten years Master of the Ordnance in Ireland, owed his appointment in part to the rising influence of Villiers; but the advice of Chichester is likely to have been in his favour. His competence was not disputed, and Bacon was satisfied of his ‘great sufficiency,’ but many people thought he was hardly a man of sufficient eminence. He landed at Skerries on August 26, 1616, but his Irish troubles began before he reached Chester. The soldiers who were to accompany him ran away when they could, and a Welsh company broke into open mutiny. He was sworn in on the 30th, after a learned sermon by Ussher in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then handed the Lord Treasurer’s white staff to Chichester, ‘who with all humility upon his knees received the same.’ The new Lord Deputy found that there were many pirates on the coast who had friends in remote harbours, and that there was not money enough to pay the soldiers. Worse than this was the case of the corporate towns, where no magistrates could be found to take the obligatory oath of supremacy or the milder oath of allegiance which was voluntary in Ireland. St. John proceeded to carry out the law. Carew, who was not a violent man, and who was well informed as to Irish affairs, reported that ‘over eighty’ of the best sort of ‘citizens’ in Dublin and elsewhere were in prison. Jurors who refused to present known and obstinate Recusants were treated in the same way, and the prisons were filled to overflowing. Carew hoped that this course might be persevered in and the towns reduced to villages by revoking their charters. ‘God,’ he said, ‘I hope will prosper these good beginnings, which tend only to his praise and glory, and to the assurance of obedience unto his Majesty.’[137 - Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616, in Court and Times; Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 1, 1616 (Spedding, v. 375). Installation of St. John in Liber Munerum, ii. 6. St. John to Winwood, August 1616 (No. 289); Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe (Camden Society) December.]

Bacon advises a wary policy, but does not persuade St. John, who tries to enforce the oath of supremacy

Bacon was of a different opinion from Carew. The late Lords Justices had been mainly concerned with Limerick and Kilkenny, where they saw the difficulty but suggested no remedy, ‘rather warily for themselves than agreeably to their duties and place.’ Bacon himself was for proceeding very warily. He was against tendering the oath of supremacy to these town magistrates at all, and in favour of trusting to gradual remedies. The plantation of Protestant settlers, he said, ‘cannot but mate the other party in time’ if accompanied by the establishment of good bishops and preachers, by improvement of the new college, and by the education of wards. These were the natural means, and if anything stronger was necessary it should be done by law and not by force. And only one town should be taken in hand at a time so as not to cause panic. St. John himself was in favour of a general attack on the municipalities who refused to elect mayors or recorders, and of carrying this policy out to its logical consequences, otherwise he said the State would only spin and unspin. It was resolved to proceed in the case of Waterford by legal process as Bacon had advised. Before the end of 1615 a decree was obtained in Chancery for forfeiture of the charter, unless the corporation surrendered under seal by a certain day. In July 1616, over six months after the appointed time, Alexander Cuffe refused to take the oath of supremacy as mayor, and at the end of the year this matter was referred to the English Privy Council. In the dearth of magistrates there was no regular gaol delivery and the criminal law was at a standstill; but it was not till October 1617 that the Earl of Thomond and Chief Justice Jones, sitting as special commissioners, obtained a verdict from a county of Waterford jury ‘even as the King’s counsel drew it.’ As late as May 1618 the forfeiture was not complete, and the citizens were allowed to send agents to England. The charter was surrendered in the following year, and Waterford, ‘of whose antiquity and fidelity,’ in Docwra’s language, ‘the citizens were wont to brag, reduced to be a mere disfranchised village.’ And so it remained until the end of the reign.[138 - Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 5, 1616, in Spedding, v. 378; Davies to Lake, December 20, 1615; St. John to Winwood, December 31, 1616, and October 11, 1617; Licence to send agents, May 18, 1618; return of the Commissioners, 1618, No. 431; surrender of charter announced, August 4, 1619. Histories of Waterford by Smith and Ryland. Bacon had recommended procedure by Quo warranto or Scire facias, and St. John, doubtless prompted by Chief Justice Jones, says the same in his letter to the Privy Council, April 1618, No. 406.]

The Waterford charter is forfeited, but a Protestant corporation is unobtainable

The citizens of Waterford valued their charter, but the oath of supremacy was too high a price to pay, and they refused to make even a show of conformity, ‘preferring to sit still and attend whatever course the King directs.’ Local magistrates were therefore unobtainable, and James suggested that fitting persons should be imported from England. The Irish Government liked the idea, and suggested that thirty families, worth at least 500l. each, should be induced to settle. They were not to be violent or turbulent folk but able to furnish magistrates, and two ruined abbeys near the river might be assigned for their reception. If the owners took advantage of the situation to exact high prices, the Government would reduce them to reason. The mayor and aldermen of Bristol were accordingly invited by the English Privy Council to fill the gap, but after a month’s inquiry they were unable to find anyone who was willing to inhabit Waterford upon the terms proposed.[139 - Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, August 4, 1619; St. John to the same, November 9; Corporation of Bristol to the same, January 31, 1620. There were no mayors or sheriffs of Waterford from 1618 to 1625, both inclusive.]

Fresh plantations undertaken

The Wexford case

The people weary of Irish tenures

When Sir William Jones was made Chief Justice of Ireland in the spring of 1617, Lord Keeper Bacon advised him to ‘have special care of the three plantations, that of the North which is in part acted, that of Wexford which is now in distribution, and that of Longford and Leitrim which is now in survey. And take it from me that the bane of a plantation is, when the undertakers or planters make such haste to a little mechanical present profit, as disturbeth the whole frame and nobleness of the work for times to come. Therefore hold them to their covenants, and the strict ordinances of plantation.’ Seven years had then passed since the Wexford project had been first mooted, and many difficulties had arisen. The lands in question comprised the northern part of Wexford county, with a small strip in Carlow and Wicklow, partly inhabited by representatives of ancient settlers or modern grantees, but more largely by Kinsellaghs, Kavanaghs, Murroes, Macdamores, and Macvadocks, who, as Chichester said, ‘when the chief of the English retired themselves upon the discord of the houses of Lancaster and York crept into the woody and strong parts of the same.’ The most important person among the English was Sir Richard Masterson of Ferns, whose family had been long connected with the district, and who had an annuity of 90l. out of it by Queen Elizabeth’s grant. Walter Synnott had a similar charge of 20l., and both received some other chief rents. The Commissioners who visited Ireland in 1613 reported that the tract contained 66,800 acres in the baronies of Gorey, Ballaghkeen, and Scarawalsh stretching from the borders of Carlow to the sea and from Arklow to somewhere near Enniscorthy, along the left bank of the Slaney, besides much wood, bog, and mountain. Many of the inhabitants were tired of disorder, though they had been followers of ‘the Kavanaghs and other lewd persons in time of rebellion,’ and were willing to give up lands of which they had but an uncertain tenure, and to receive them back in more regular form. They claimed their lands by descent, and not by tanistry, but the descent was in Irish gavelkind and the subdivision had therefore been infinite. The investigation of their titles followed, during which it was discovered that the whole territory was legally vested in the King. Art MacMurrough Kavanagh and other chiefs surrendered their proprietary rights to Richard II. who undertook to employ them in his wars, and to give them an estate of inheritance in all lands they could conquer from rebels. Art himself was to receive an annuity of 80 marks, which was actually paid for some years. The chiefs did homage, and then the King granted the whole territory in question to Sir John Beaumont, excepting any property belonging to the Earl of Ormonde and certain other grantees, and to the Church. Beaumont’s interest became vested in Francis Lord Lovel, who disappeared at the battle of Stoke and whose attainder brought all his possessions to the Crown.[140 - Chichester to Salisbury, June 27, 1610. Report of Commissioners, November 12, 1613, p. 449. The latter is more fully given in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, ii. 372. In Chichester’s project (Irish Cal., 1614, No. 859) the escheated territory is described as ‘the Kinsellaghs, and Bracknagh, and McDamore’s country, McVadock’s country, the Murrowes, Kilhobuck, Farrenhamon and Kilcooleneleyer, and a small part of Farren Neale,’ to which Rothe adds ‘Clanhanrick.’ In 1606 the judges had declared that ‘Les terres de nature de gavelkind ne fueront partible enter les procheins heires males del cesty que morust seisie, mais enter touts les males de son sept.’ Davies’s Reports, 1628.]

Opposition of Wexford landowners

The dissatisfaction is general

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

The more the plan is known, the less it is liked

The scheme is revised

But few are satisfied

Chichester’s original project was not covetous on the part of the Crown, for it aimed at no greater revenue than 400l. instead of 279l. 3s. 4d. which had hitherto been the highest annual revenue. In consideration of being bound to build castles and to inhabit mountainous regions, the rent demanded from the undertakers, who were to be all Protestants, was somewhat less than that of the Irish freeholders. Whatever might be thought of the plan no one was satisfied with the way in which it worked out. Many such of the natives, say the Commissioners, as formerly ‘agreed to this new plantation now absolutely dislike thereof, and of their proportions assigned them in lieu of their other possessions taken from them, for that, as they affirm, their proportions assigned are not so many acres as they are rated to them, and because the acres taken from them are far more in number than they be surveyed at, which difference cannot be decided without a new survey, which some of the natives desire.’ If the case of the newly-made freeholder stood thus, what must have been the feelings of men who were made altogether landless? Most of the Irish had been concerned in Tyrone’s rebellion, but some had been always loyal, like the old English inhabitants. As for Walter Synnott and others in his position, they professed themselves willing to pay the King as much as the new undertakers, but not in any way to contribute to the expenses incurred by them. After receiving the report of the Commissioners, James agreed to a revised plan which was very favourable to the Irish, or at least to some of them. The new undertakers were to receive only 16,500 acres in all and those the least fertile, the rest, after satisfying Masterson, Synnott, and another, was to be divided among the Irish. When Chichester ceased to be Lord Deputy at the end of 1615, nothing had been finally settled, and recriminations continued for some time. On a fresh survey it was discovered that ‘half the country was before distributed under the name of a quarter only.’ Eighty Irish freeholders were then made in addition to the first fifty-seven, which still left 530 claimants unprovided for according to their own account, or 303 according to the official view. The fortunate ones were of course overjoyed, but by far the greater number were not fortunate. The patentees whose titles had been clearly made surrendered and received fresh grants on a somewhat reduced scale. Of the undertakers whose patents had not been fully perfected Blundell alone secured 500 acres by the King’s especial wish, and 1,000 were assigned to the Bishop of Waterford. The royal revenue was increased by about 300l. a year, and the expenses of the settlement were defrayed by the country.[142 - Report of Commissioners in 1613, ut sup. Sir Henry Docwra’s letters of December 23, 1617, and March 3, 1618. Chichester’s original project and the English Council’s criticisms are calendared under 1612, Nos. 600-602.]

Report of Commissioners on the plantation

The Irish inhabitants willing to make some concessions, but are dissatisfied with the terms given

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

A Wexford jury will not find the King’s title, and strong measures are taken

These people, or many of them, had not been unwilling to see English gentlemen come among them, and even to give up some land in order to secure the remainder, but the wind changed when it was discovered that only something like one in ten would have any estate at all. The King’s title had been found by the lawyers, but it was necessary that there should be a verdict also, and in December 1611 a Wexford jury refused to find one. The case was removed into the Exchequer with the same jury, and after much argument eleven were ready to find for the King and five against him. The minority were sent to prison and fined in the Castle Chamber, and the case was remitted to Wexford, where the eleven obedient jurors were reinforced by Sir Thomas Colclough and John Murchoe or Murphy, ‘now a patentee in the new plantation,’ and therefore an interested party, and the King’s title by Lord Lovel’s attainder was thus found.[143 - Report of 1613 Commissioners ut sup.]

Indecision of the King

People who benefited by the settlement

The King is convinced by the complainants, but soon changes his mind

The King approves of the plantation

The tendency of James I. to give decisions upon one-sided evidence, and to veer round when he heard the other side, is well illustrated by his dealings with the Wexford settlement. The case for the Irish inhabitants, as matters stood at the end of 1611, may be taken as sufficiently stated in the petition presented by Henry Walsh on their behalf. Walsh seems to have been a lawyer, but he was in possession of 220 acres as a freeholder, which were reduced to 130 by the plan of settlement. He stated that he and his fellows had surrendered upon the faith of a regrant in common socage ‘reduced from gavelkind and other uncertain tenures’ in consideration of paying a head rent of 90l. to the Castle of Ferns and of 60l. into the Exchequer. The regrants were delayed, but on the King’s title being set up he was induced to grant patents to several undertakers, 1,500 acres apiece being assigned to Sir Laurence Esmond, ‘servitor, and a native of Wexford,’ and Sir Edward Fisher, also a servitor. It afterwards appeared that 19,900 acres were disposed of in this way, 500 to Nicholas Kenny the escheator, 1,000 to William Parsons the surveyor and future Lord Justice, 600 to Conway Brady, the Queen’s footman, 1,000 to Francis Blundell, afterwards Vice-Treasurer, 1,000 to Sir Robert Jacob the Solicitor-General, and so forth. Some of these were put into possession by the sheriff even before the issue of their patents, military force being employed. Walsh said a hundred thousand people were affected by these transactions, which was no doubt a great exaggeration, but he could state with some truth that the interests of Sir Richard Masterson and other old English settlers were threatened by the assertion of a title ‘dormant and not heard of time out of mind.’ The Commissioners for Irish causes in London so far supported the petition that they advised the revocation of all patents granted since the surrender of the native landowners, and that no advantage should be taken of them except to exact a moderate increase of the Crown rent. The King thereupon ordered Chichester to revoke the patents to Fisher and Esmond, to raise the rent from 45l. to 50l., and not to allow Henry Walsh to be molested. The petitioners, said the King, had been denied the benefit of the Commission of defective titles, and ‘advantage taken of their surrender to their own disherison.’ Chichester objected that the Commissioners for Irish causes had been misled by false statements, and that he would suspend all action until he had fresh orders. Whereupon the King, who had been having some talk with Sir John Davies, declared that Walsh’s petition was ‘full of false and cautelous surmises,’ and ordered him to be summoned before the Irish Council and punished in an exemplary manner if he failed to prove his statements. Chichester was directed to go on with the plantation, assured of his Majesty’s continued approbation, and encouraged to make the work his own by visiting the district in person.[144 - Walsh’s petition followed by certificate, December 5, 1611; the King to Chichester, January 21 and March 22 and 31, 1612; Chichester to Salisbury, March 5. As to the intruding patentees see State Papers calendared under 1613, p. 452 sqq. A petition of Redmond MacDamore and others calendared under 1616, No. 248, is substantially the same as Walsh’s, and probably belongs to 1611. The sheriff gave possession to the patentees on May 7, 1613, forcing the doors where necessary and turning out the inmates.]

The critics to be punished

The preparations for holding a Parliament may have hindered Chichester’s activity, but the King’s vacillations would have caused delay in any case. At the end of 1612 James revoked all former letters on the subject except that of May 7, 1611, by which the Lord Deputy had been authorised to receive the surrender of the natives and to make ‘regrants to such of them as he should think fit such quantities of land and at such rent and upon such conditions as he should think fit.’ There might then be made such an intermixture of English settlers as would civilise the country and ‘annoy the mountain neighbours if they should thereafter stir.’ Henry Walsh and Thomas Hoare, who had held public indignation meetings and ‘endeavoured seditiously to stir up the inhabitants’ against the King’s title and against his good work of plantation, were ordered to be duly punished for their ‘inordinate and contemptuous behaviour.’[145 - The King to Chichester, April 16, 1613.]

Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi

Bishop Rothe’s view of the plantation

He foretells future trouble

It is a well-known maxim of our law that the Crown cannot lose its rights through lapse of time. In modern practice this doctrine has been somewhat modified by statute and by the decisions of judges; but in the time of James I. it was accepted literally, and no lawyer or official seems to have thought that there was anything extraordinary in setting up a title for the King which had not been heard of for generations. Those who suffered by the transaction pleaded that Art MacMurrough had no right to the country in the feudal sense, and could not therefore surrender it; and even if the effect of Lord Lovel’s attainder were admitted, there had been no attempt to act upon it for 120 years. The official correspondence has hitherto been followed here, but it is fair to append the criticism of a thoroughly competent observer who lived not far off and who understood the subject. The learned David Rothe, who was a very honest and by no means extreme man, appealed like Bacon to foreign countries and the next age, and published the story of the Wexford settlement in Latin. He showed how little chance rude and illiterate peasants had against lawyers, and he foresaw the consequences of driving them to desperation. ‘The Viceroy,’ he wrote, ‘ought to have looked closer before he suggested an imperfect and shaky title to the King, as a solid foundation for his new right, and before he drove from their well established and ancient possession harmless poor natives encumbered with many children and with no powerful friends. They have no wealth but flocks and herds, they know no trade but agriculture or pasture, they are unlearned men without human help or protection. Yet though unarmed they are so active in mind and body that it is dangerous to drive them from their ancestral seats, to forbid them fire and water; thus driving the desperate to revenge and even the more moderate to think of taking arms. They have been deprived of weapons, but are in a temper to fight with nails and heels and to tear their oppressors with their teeth. Necessity gives the greatest strength and courage, nor is there any sharper spur than that of despair. Since these Leinster men, and others like them, see themselves excluded from all hopes of restitution or compensation, and are so constituted that they would rather starve upon husks at home than fare sumptuously elsewhere, they will fight for their altars and hearths, and rather seek a bloody death near the sepulchres of their fathers than be buried as exiles in unknown earth or inhospitable sand.’[146 - Rothe’s Analecta Sacra, iii. art. 19, Cologne, 1617. The text was evidently composed before Chichester had ceased to be viceroy, and therefore before the work of the Wexford settlement was quite finished.]

Outlaws about the plantations