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

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

The undertakers settle down on the land

By the time of Hadsor’s survey things had gone too far to be altered, and the undertakers had laid out large sums, though in many cases less than they were bound to do. St. John reported in 1621 that 130 strong castles had then been built. But Hadsor retained his opinion as to the injustice attendant on the Wexford plantation far into the next reign, and other able officials agreed with him. And so the grievance slumbered or rather smouldered until 1641.[147 - St. John to the Privy Council, September 29, 1619, on which Gardiner mistakenly states that 300 outlaws were slain in connection with the Wexford plantation only. Same to same, November 9. Grant of 100l. to Hugh MacPhelim O’Byrne, ib. No. 602, and St. John’s letter to him, June 18, 1620; Sir Francis Blundell to the Council (written in London) July 20, 1620; Lord Deputy and Council to the Council, December 6, 1620 and May 25, 1621; Sir Thomas Dutton to Charles I., December 20, 1629; and Hadsor’s opinion calendared under 1632, 2190, 7. Donnell Spaniagh of Clonmullen and thirty-five other Kavanaghs, with many Wexford neighbours, were pardoned in 1602. Morrin’s Patent Rolls, Eliz. p. 607. Hadsor in Sloane MS. 4756.]

Plantation in Longford and King’s County

The plan better than the execution

Persistence of tribal ideas

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

In the early part of 1615 James gave his deliberate decision that plantations of some kind offered the best chance for civilising Ireland. In this way only could the local tyranny of native chiefs be got rid of, and the people improved by an intermixture of British accustomed to keep order and qualified to show a good example. The turn of Longford came next to that of Wexford, and with it was joined Ely O’Carroll, comprising the baronies of Clonlisk and Ballybritt in King’s County not contiguous to the rest of the plantation. In Ely there were no chief-rents or other legal incumbrances, but 200l. a year were due to the heirs of Sir Nicholas Malby out of the whole county of Longford and 120 beeves to Sir Richard Shaen the grantee of Granard Castle. These rent-charges were irregularly paid, and were the source of constant bickerings. There were no similar incumbrances in Ely, and neither there nor in Longford was there any pre-eminent chief at the moment, which made the task somewhat easier. It was part of the plan that there should in future be no O’Ferrall or O’Carroll with claims to tribal sovereignty.[148 - The King to Chichester, April 12, 1615. Ely O’Carroll comprised the baronies of Clonlisk and Ballybritt, the southern portion of King’s County.]

Attempt to apply the Wexford lesson

The O’Ferralls

A careful survey

Ely O’Carroll

Cases of hardship

Troubles from landless men

It was not till towards the end of 1618 that the conditions of the plantation were at last settled. The correspondence and notes of the survey were submitted to a committee of the Privy Council consisting of Archbishop Abbot, Sir George Carew, the Earl of Arundel, and Secretary Naunton, and their report was acted upon; but a commission to carry out the scheme was not appointed until the following autumn. Chichester as well as St. John were members, and the great care which was taken seems to have made the plantation less unpopular than that of Wexford. Many objections indeed were made to acting upon such an old title as the King had to Longford, and to ignoring grants made in the late reign; though perhaps the lawyers could show that they had for the most part been nullified by the non-performance of conditions. The O’Ferralls had on the whole been loyal, and promises had been made to them. Whatever the arrangements were, it was evident that many natives would have no land, and it was urged that they would be better subjects it if was all given to them. Having no other means of living they would be driven to desperation and commit all manner of villanies, as the tribesmen of Ulster were ready to do if they got the chance. The King, however, was determined to carry out his plan, and the O’Ferralls yielded with a tolerably good grace, objecting not so much to giving up one-fourth of the country to settlers as to having to redeem Shaen’s and Malby’s rents out of the remainder. The Wexford misunderstanding was avoided by having a careful survey taken from actual measurements, and it was found that in Longford 57,803 acres of arable and pasture were available for the purposes of the plantation, the remainder, amounting to over 72,000 acres, being occupied by old grantees or by bogs and woods. Ely was better, 32,000 acres out of 54,000 being described as arable and pasture. The general order was that no freeholder should have less than 100 acres, and those who had less were to have leases for three lives or forty-one years under a planter or some more fortunate native. The unlucky ones generally and naturally complained that the measurements were inaccurate, and that they were thus unfairly reduced to ‘fractions.’ The undertakers, whether English or Irish, were to keep 300 acres in demesne about their houses. There seem to have been some cases of hardship even in the opinion of the Irish Government. Of these the most important was that of Sir John MacCoghlan in King’s County, who had fought bravely on the side of Government, but who, nevertheless, lost part of his property. As late as 1632 he was noted as a discontented man who ought to be watched, and his clansmen generally joined in the rebellion of 1641. As in the case of Wexford trouble came from those who were excluded from freehold grants. They were to have taken up the position of tenants, but could get no land at reasonable rates, and in 1622, after St. John had left Ireland, the Lords Justices reported that they were preparing to come to Dublin in multitudes. The discontent never died out, and Longford was infested with rebels or outlaws so that a rising was feared in 1827 and in 1832. Hadsor, who knew all about the matter, attributed the failure of the plantation to the way in which the natives had been treated, the ideas of King James not having been carried out in practice. Strafford’s strong hand kept things quiet for a time, but in 1641 Longford was the first county in Leinster to take part in the great rebellion.[149 - Certificate of survey, November 20, 1618; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, November 8, 1619; Commissions for settling the plantation, September 30, 1619 and April 10, 1620; Lords Justices and Council to the Privy Council, June 22, 1622; Lord Wilmot’s discourse, 1627, No. 534; Richard Hadsor’s propositions, 1632, No. 2190; Lords Justices to Vane, November 13, 1641.]

The undertakers non-resident

The natives not attracted by short leases, with stringent covenants

A survey of the plantations hitherto made was taken in 1622, and the Commissioners reported that some of the undertakers in Wexford were sometimes resident, and that they had built strongly, though not within the specified time. Their colleague, Sir Francis Annesley, had his demesne stocked and servants on the spot; and it was suggested that he should be enjoined to reside. Some natives complained that they had been cheated, but the patentees had been long in quiet possession, and the Commissioners prudently refused to meddle. In Longford and Ely no undertakers were resident, ‘Henry Haynes and the widow Medhope only excepted.’ In Ely there was no actual provision for town, fort, or free school, though lands had been assigned; but Longford was better off in these respects. Twenty-acre glebes were assigned by the articles to sixteen parishes in Ely, but these had not been properly secured to the incumbents. In Longford the King made large grants to Lord Aungier and Sir George Calvert, which were satisfied out of the three-quarters supposed to be reserved for the natives. Those of the old inhabitants whose interest was too small for a freehold were expected to take leases from the undertakers, ‘but we do not find that they have any desire to settle in that kind.’ They were not attracted by the maximum term of three lives or twenty-one years, at a rent fixed by agreement or arbitration, distrainable within fifteen days, and with a right of re-entry after forty days; nor by covenants to build and enclose within four years.[150 - Brief return of survey in Sloane MS. 4756.]

Plantation of Leitrim

General ill-success of the smaller plantations

The land unfairly divided

The whole county of Leitrim was declared escheated, and in this case there were no settlers either from England or from the Pale. Mac Glannathy or Mac Clancy, head of the clan among whom Captain Cuellar suffered so much in the Armada year, was independent in the northern district, represented by the modern barony of Rossclogher. The rest of the county was dependent on the O’Rourkes. Some two hundred landholders declared themselves anxious to become the King’s tenants and submit to a settlement. Lord Gormanston claimed to hold large estates as representative of the Nangle family, who had been grantees in former days; but this title had been too long in abeyance. Leitrim was not a very inviting country, and the undertakers were very slow to settle; so that the business was not done until far into the new reign, and was never done thoroughly at all. Carrigdrumrusk, now Carrick-on-Shannon, had been made a borough for the Parliament of 1613, and the castle there was held for the King, but was of little use in preventing outlaws and cattle-drivers from passing between Leitrim and Roscommon. A more vigorous attempt was made at Tullagh, a little lower down the Shannon, where a corporation was founded and called Jamestown. The buildings were erected by Sir Charles Coote at his own expense, and he undertook to wall the place as an assize town for Leitrim. It was further arranged that the assizes for Roscommon should be held on the opposite bank, and the spot was christened Charlestown. But as a whole the settlement of Leitrim was not successful. At the end of 1629 Sir Thomas Dutton, the Scoutmaster-General, who had ample opportunities for forming an opinion, declared that the Ulster settlement only had prospered, and that the rest of Ireland was more addicted to Popery than in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The Jesuits and other propagandists had increased twentyfold. In Wexford, King’s County, Longford, and Leitrim corruption among the officials had vitiated the whole scheme of plantation and made it worse than nothing. Hadsor, who thoroughly understood the subject, said much injustice had been done to the natives, and that the Irish gentlemen appointed to distribute the lands had helped themselves to what they ought to have divided among others. Carrick and Jamestown returned Protestant members to Strafford’s Parliaments, but the large grant to Sir Frederick Hamilton was the most important gain to the English interest. When the hour of trial came, Manor Hamilton was able to take care of itself.[151 - St. John’s description of Connaught, 1614, in Carew, p. 295. St. John to Lords of Council, December 31, 1620, in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland; Sir Thomas Dutton to the King, December 20, 1629, ib.; Hadsor’s propositions, ib., 1632, p. 681. The final grant to Sir Frederick Hamilton is in Morrin’s Patent Rolls, Car. I. p. 541. In a letter to Wentworth of February 12, 1634-5, Viscount Wilmot suggests that Coote should be asked ‘what became of the 5,000l. allotted to be disbursed upon the town and wall of Jamestown,’ Melbourne Hall Papers, ii. 175.]

Irish soldiers in Poland

Chichester’s policy of sending Irishmen to serve in Sweden had been only partially successful, many of them finding their way home or into the service of the Archdukes. St. John reported in 1619 that the country was full of ‘the younger sons of gentlemen, who have no means of living and will not work,’ and he favoured the recruiting enterprise of Captain James Butler, who was already in the Polish service. Protestantism was repressed to the utmost by Sigismund, but it was possible to represent him as a bulwark of Europe against the Turks. Later on, when the Prince of Wales and Buckingham had returned in dudgeon from Madrid, Poland was at peace with the infidel and allied with Spain against Sweden, and it was considered doubtful policy to encourage the formation of Irish regiments who would be used to crush Protestant interests on the Continent.[152 - St. John to the Privy Council, September 29, 1619; Privy Council to St. John, August 1621; extract of a letter calendared at June 17, 1624.]

Unpopularity of St. John

He is praised by the King, and by Bacon, but is nevertheless recalled, leaving a starving army in Ireland

The Spanish match affected all public transactions during the later years of James’s reign. Before his departure for Madrid in 1617 Digby warned Buckingham that all the Irish towns were watching the Waterford case in hopes of getting better terms for the Recusants, and that Spain ‘relied upon no advantage against England but by Ireland.’ At this period he himself wished that the King would proceed roundly and dash all such expectations. St. John was willing enough so to proceed, but was constantly checked by diplomatic considerations; while the priests gave out that a Spanish invasion might be expected at any time. The Lord Deputy seems always to have satisfied the King, but he was evidently unpopular with the official class, and it was perhaps more to opposition of this kind that he owed his recall than to his too great Protestant zeal, as Cox and many other writers have assumed. He told Buckingham that there was a strong combination against him in the Irish Council, and that Sir Roger Jones, the late Chancellor’s son, openly flouted him. Jones was ordered to apologise and forbidden to attend the Council until he had done so; but the opposition were not silenced, and the Privy Council in England sided with them. It was reported that he had disarmed the Irish Protestants, for which there can have been no foundation. The pay of the army was heavily in arrear, but that was not his fault, though it must certainly have contributed to make his government unpopular. He had forwarded the plantation system largely, making more enemies than friends thereby, but James thought colonisation the only plan for Ireland, and appreciated his exertions in that way. In August 1621 the King declared that it was a glory to have such a servant, who had done nothing wrong so far as he could see. He had already created him Viscount Grandison with remainder to the issue of his niece, who had married Buckingham’s brother. It is possible that the support of the favourite may have been less determined when that honour had been secured to one of his family. The fall of Bacon, who thought St. John ‘a man ordained of God to do great good to that kingdom,’ may have lessened his credit. By the end of the year it had been decided to send a Commission to Ireland with large powers, and the Privy Council maintained that their inquiries could be better conducted in the Deputy’s absence. James said he had never been in the habit of disgracing any absent minister before he were heard; but in the end it was decided to recall Grandison. He left Ireland on May 4, 1622, and the Commissioners arrived about the same time. He had never ceased to call attention to the miserable state of the army and to the ‘tottered carcasses, lean cheeks, and broken hearts’ of the soldiers, whose pay was two years and a half in arrear and who had nevertheless retained their discipline and harmed no one. They were almost starving, ‘and I know,’ he said ‘that I shall be followed with a thousand curses and leave behind me an opinion that my unworthiness or want of credit has been the cause of leaving the army in worse estate than ever any of my predecessors before have done.’[153 - Sir John Digby to Buckingham, June 4, 1617, in Fortescue Papers (Camden Society); St. John to Buckingham, ib., November 24, 1618 and August 17, 1620; the King to St. John, concerning Sir Roger Jones, October 6, 1620. For the report as to disarming Protestants see Court and Times, ii. 304; communications between King and Privy Council calendared January 28 to February 3, 1622; St. John to the Privy Council, October 13, 1621 and April 8, 1622.]

Lord Falkland made Viceroy, Feb. 1621-2

Sermon by Bishop Ussher, who wished to enforce the Act of Supremacy, but is rebuked by the Primate

The King’s, or Buckingham’s, choice fell upon Henry Cary, lately created Viscount Falkland in Scotland and best known as the father of Clarendon’s hero. Falkland was Controller of the Household, and sold his place to Sir John Suckling, the poet’s father, who paid a high price. The money may not all have gone to the new Lord Deputy, but his departure was delayed for seven months by the long haggling about it, Sir Adam Loftus and Lord Powerscourt acting as Lords Justices. He was sworn in on September 8, 1622, after hearing Bishop Ussher preach a learned sermon in Christchurch on the text, ‘He beareth not the sword in vain.’ This sermon, which is not extant, was looked upon by some as a signal for persecution; and no doubt the reports of it were much exaggerated. Ussher found it necessary to write an explanatory letter to Grandison summarising the argument he had used. It rested, he had said, with the King to have the recusancy laws executed more or less mildly, but the Established Church had a right to protection from open insult. He had alluded, without giving names, to the case of ‘Mr. John Ankers, preacher, of Athlone, a man well known unto your lordship,’ who had found the church at Kilkenny in Westmeath occupied by a congregation of forty, headed by an old priest, who bade him begone ‘until he had done his business.’ The Franciscans who were driven out of Multifernham by Grandison had retaken it, and were collecting subscriptions to build another house ‘for the entertaining of another swarm of locusts.’ He asked that the recusancy laws should be strictly executed against all who left the Establishment for the Church of Rome, but deprecated violence and ‘wished that effusion of blood might be held rather the badge of the whore of Babylon than of the Church of God,’ which is a little too like the common form of the Inquisition. On the day after this letter was penned, Primate Hampton wrote a mild rebuke from Drogheda. He thought it very unwise to trouble the waters, and suggested that Ussher should explain away what he had said about the sword, for his proper weapons were not carnal but spiritual. He also advised the Bishop of Meath to leave Dublin and spend more time in his own diocese, of which the condition, by his own showing, was unsatisfactory, and to make himself loved and respected there even if his doctrine was disliked. According to Cox, Ussher preached such a sermon as the Primate advised; but there seems to be no trace of it anywhere else.[154 - Court and Times, ii. 327; Ussher to Grandison, October 16, 1622, Works, xv. 180 and Hampton to Ussher, ib. 183; Cox’s Hibernia Anglicana, ii. 39.]

Effects of the Spanish marriage negotiations

The King of Spain treated as sovereign

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

Proclamation against the priests, Jan. 1624, which takes little effect

Charles reached England in October, and early in 1624 a proclamation was printed and published, apparently by the King’s orders, banishing on pain of imprisonment all Roman Catholic priests of every kind and rank. They were to be gone within forty days, and to be arrested if they came back. The only way of escape was by submitting to the authorities and going to church. The reason set forth for this drastic treatment was that the country was overrun by great numbers of ‘titulary popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, abbots, priors, deans, Jesuits, friars, seminary priests, and others of that sect,’ in spite of proclamations still in force against them. But the King, or Buckingham, wavered, and not much was done towards getting rid of the recusant clergy. An informer who started the absurd rumour that Westmeath was to be king of Ireland, acknowledged that he had lied; but Falkland was not satisfied, because on Friday in Easter week there was a great gathering some miles from the Earl’s house, ‘made by two titulary bishops under the title of visiting a holy anchorite residing therabouts.’ In the end, Westmeath went to England, where he was able to clear himself completely, the prosecution of his detractors was ordered, and Falkland was persuaded that his chief fault was too great a love of popularity.[155 - Proclamation of January 21, 1623-4, Carew; Falkland to Calvert (with enclosures), October 20, 1623; to Conway (sent with Westmeath), April 27, 1624; Archbishop Abbot to Conway, September 10, 1623, Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, June 4, 1625.]

Alarmist rumours

The tendency of the official mind in the days before the Long Parliament was to stretch the prerogative. Ministers were responsible only to the King. It was therefore natural for Irish viceroys to magnify their office and to claim within their sphere of action powers as great as those of the sovereign himself. Being of a querulous disposition, Falkland was even more than usually jealous of any restraint. During the early part of his government the Lord Treasurer Middlesex turned his attention to Irish finance, effecting economies which may or may not have been wise, but which were certainly distasteful to the Lord Deputy, who lost perquisites and patronage. Rumours that there was to be a general massacre of English were rife throughout Ireland, but Falkland admitted that there was never such universal tranquillity, though his pessimism led him to fear that this was only the lull before a storm. Not more than 750 effective men would be available in case of insurrection which might be encouraged from Spain after the marriage treaty was broken off. The English Government thought the danger real enough to order the execution of the late proclamation against Jesuits and others who ‘picked the purses of his Majesty’s subjects by indulgences, absolutions, and pardons from Rome.’ The number of horsemen was to be increased from 230 to 400, and of foot from 1,450 to 3,600; arrangements were made as to supplies, and the forts were to be put in better order. The scare continued until the end of the reign, but Olivares, though perhaps very willing to wound, had not the means for an attack on Ireland.[156 - Falkland to Conway, April 24, 1624; to Privy Council, March 16, 1625; Council of War for Ireland (Grandison, Carew, Chichester, etc.) to the Privy Council, July 6, 1624.]

Falkland’s grievances

The Lord Deputy complained that his letters were not answered, but the home Government were occupied with the English Parliament, which was prorogued May 29, 1624; and it was also thought desirable to hear what Sir Francis Annesley had to say. Falkland did not get on either with him or with Lord Chancellor Loftus, who were also Strafford’s chief opponents. He granted certain licences for tanning and for selling spirits, which required the Great Seal to make them valid, but Loftus hesitated to affix it, saying that one was void in law and the other in equity. If the judges decided against him he would submit. Falkland’s contention was that the Chancellor must seal anything he wished, but Loftus said his oath would in that case be broken and his office made superfluous. An angry correspondence ended by a reference to the King, and Loftus was called upon to explain. He was able to show that he also had suffered by Middlesex’s economies, and that his official income was much smaller than that of his archiepiscopal predecessor’s had been. A considerable increase was granted. And so the matter rested when James I. died.[157 - Lord Deputy to Lord Chancellor, October 22 and 28, 1624, and Loftus’s answer to the first; Conway to Grandison and others, November 24; Loftus to the Privy Council, January 10, 1625; Privy Council to the King, March 21.]

Death of James I

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

CHAPTER X

EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I., 1625-1632

Accession of Charles I., March, 1625

The death of James I. made little immediate difference to Ireland. King Charles was proclaimed in Dublin, and a new commission was issued to Falkland as Lord Deputy. An attack from Spain was thought likely, and the Irish Government were in no condition to resist it, for the pay of the troops was in arrear – nine months in the case of old soldiers and seven in the case of recent levies. Being hungry they sometimes mutinied, and were more dangerous to the country than to foreign invaders. The fortifications of the seaports were decayed, and ships of war were unable to sail for want of provisions. Pirates continued to infest the coast, and this evil was aggravated by constant friction between the Irish Government and the Admiralty of England. Falkland continued viceroy for more than six years after the accession of Charles I., constantly complaining that he was neglected and that his official powers and privileges were unfairly curtailed. With Lord Chancellor Loftus he continued to be on the worst of terms, and the King was at last driven to place the Great Seal in commission. Loftus was sent for to England.[158 - For the wretched state of the army see State Papers, Ireland, passim, particularly the letters of Sir Richard Aldworth, October 17, 1626, and February 16, 1626.]

Quarrel between Falkland and Loftus

The suspended Chancellor was accused of seeking popularity for himself and intriguing against the King, especially with regard to the expenses of recruiting and maintaining soldiers. There were charges, all denied, of hearing cases in private and making money by extortion; and Loftus openly claimed the right to eke out his salary of 360l. by exacting certain fees. After a long inquiry by King and Council, Loftus, who could keep his temper, was completely exonerated, and was granted the unusual privilege of quitting Ireland whenever he pleased without forfeiting his place. Prosecutions in the Castle Chambers were ordered against those who had accused him falsely. Loftus was at war with Lord Cork as well as with the Deputy, and Cork sustained the charges against him before the King and Council.[159 - Court and Times, of Charles I., July 11, 1628, i. 377. The King to Falkland, August 4 and 16, 1628.]

The case of the O’Byrnes

The English Government tired of plantations

Like his two predecessors, Falkland believed that plantations were the best things for Ireland, and he had not been many months in the country before he proposed to settle the lower part of Wicklow and some strips of the adjoining counties. In the days of Feagh MacHugh O’Byrne the district had been constantly disturbed, and his son Phelim trod for a time in his footsteps; but he made his peace with Queen Elizabeth and held a considerable part of the tribal territory, though by a rather uncertain tenure. The Queen perhaps intended to secure him by patent, but this was not done during her lifetime, and James issued letters to the same effect, which Grandison managed to avoid acting on. The reason given for delay was that much of the land in question had been granted to individuals by patent, and that the whole territory belonged in fact to the King. Middlesex, for some reason not now evident, opposed Falkland’s scheme of a plantation, and the London Commissioners for Irish causes did the same. Plantations, said the latter, were very good things in themselves; but they were the cause of much exasperation in those concerned, and in several cases but little progress had been made, so that it was unreasonable to break fresh ground. Falkland would do well if he could break off the dependence of the people on their chiefs, and induce them to hold their lands by some civilised tenure and at reasonable rents. From this we may perhaps infer that some of the O’Byrne clansmen were not at all anxious to submit to Phelim’s yoke. Falkland, however, endeavoured to get Buckingham’s support for a plantation. If the matter were taken out of his hand he would apply for 6,000 acres, but if the arrangements were left to him he would ask for nothing.[160 - Falkland to the Privy Council, May 3, 1623; Commissioners for Irish causes to same, July (No. 1058 in Cal.); Falkland to Buckingham, printed in Miss Hickson’s Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, i. 45. The latter is undated, but must be earlier than Middlesex’s fall in May 1624.]