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

Tyrone

Having examined the officers of Chancery upon oath, the Commissioners found that writs had been duly issued to ‘all counties, ancient cities, and boroughs,’ and returns made. Where specific instances of wrongful election had been alleged, each case was gone into upon its merits. Nine of these were in counties and five in cities or boroughs. In Fermanagh it was alleged that Connor Roe Maguire and Donnell Maguire had been duly elected, notwithstanding which Sir Henry Ffolliot and Sir John Davies had been returned; and that Captain Gore had pulled out Brian Maguire’s beard because he had voted for his namesake. In this important case the defeated candidates were summoned before the Commissioners, who reported that one who spoke no English had declined to appear, and that the other, having been indicted for treason, had broken prison and betaken himself to the woods. As for Brian Maguire, he confessed that ‘Captain Gore did shake him by the beard, but pulled no part of it away, nor did him any other hurt.’ In Tyrone the question was between Sir Thomas Ridgeway, afterwards Earl of Londonderry, who was returned, and Tirlagh O’Neill, who spoke no English. It appeared that thirty-four British freeholders voted for the former and twenty-eight for the latter – such were county elections in those days. The result was that no knight of the shire was unseated; and in the worst cases the evidence was certainly conflicting.[107 - Schedule of returns in Irish Cal., May 31, 1613, with the Commissioners’ awards at November 12, also printed in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica. The other disputed county elections were in Armagh, Cavan, Down, King’s County, Limerick, and Roscommon.]

Contest in Dublin

The Commissioners find the facts

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

Contests in Boroughs

Cavan

Cavan members unseated

The Kildare case, and others

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

The delegates in London

Barnewall and Talbot

Non-residence of members

When the Irish Parliament was just about to meet the English Council had sent for Sir Patrick Barnewall. He was known to have written letters declaring that the assembly as constituted would reduce Ireland to slavery, and that the new boroughs were erected only to pass money votes. His abilities were known, and no doubt he was considered formidable since his victory in the matter of the mandates. Barnewall may have had influence with the delegates in London, but William Talbot was the chief legal adviser of the Opposition, and their petition to the King was drawn up under his guidance. Observers in London thought him the real head of the deputation. Talbot afterwards had a son Richard, who was destined as Earl and Duke of Tyrconnel to overthrow for a moment the fabric raised by Elizabeth, James and Cromwell, and grudgingly maintained by Charles II. Gormanston and his five companions petitioned as agents for twenty-one counties and twenty-eight ancient cities and boroughs, and a schedule was appended containing particulars of electoral irregularities. They laid special stress upon an English Act of Henry V. binding in Ireland by the operation of Poynings’s Law, which required that members of Parliament should be resident in the counties for which they sat, and that knights of shires should be natives of them. The statute as to residence has been long obsolete in England, where attempts to revive it had deservedly failed, and it had been disregarded in Ireland in Perrott’s time; but in point of strict law the petitioners were right, for the requirement of residence, which had been abolished or suspended in Ireland in the time of Edward IV., was clearly reaffirmed by St. Leger’s Parliament under Henry VIII. Boldly assuming that they were the majority, the petitioners asserted that their speaker lawfully elected was ejected by violence, and that they themselves were terrorised.[110 - The petition is in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 212, the names and constituencies in Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1613, No. 692. Irish Statutes, 18 Edw. IV. cap. 2, 33 Henry VIII. sess. 2, cap. 1. Hallam’s Constitutional History, chap. xiii.]

Case for the Irish Government

Distinction between native and Anglo-Irish Catholics

Thomond and his associates were instructed by Chichester to point out that many of the Irish candidates for parliamentary honours had been in actual rebellion, that some could speak no English, and that ‘all were elected by a general combination and practice of Jesuits and priests, who charged all the people, upon pain of excommunication, not to elect any of the King’s religion.’ They were to tell the Council in the petitioners’ presence that at a conference with Tyrone and his Irish allies when they thought they were going to conquer Ireland, ‘he and the rest of the Irish did solemnly declare and publish, that no person of what quality or degree soever being descended of English race, birth or blood, though they came in with the conquest, and were since degenerated and become Irish by alteration of name and customs, should inherit or possess a foot of land within the kingdom,’ and that Celtic owners could be found for all. When asked what was to happen to their Anglo-Irish allies, they answered that they might stay as vassals or labourers, ‘and if they liked not thereof they might depart the kingdom.’ Among those elected, or by the petitioners supposed to be elected, were a son-in-law of Tyrone’s and many other rebels, and among the candidates were another son-in-law and a half-brother of the arch-traitor, with many more of the same wicked crew, ‘for they would have Barabbas and exclude Jesus.’ Chichester saw clearly that the position and interests of those who were English in everything but religion differed fundamentally from those of the native Irish, and in the wars of the next generation the distinction became apparent to all.[111 - Instructions to Thomond, Denham and St. John, June 6, 1613 in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 208 (misprinted 280).]

The King gives frequent audiences

Talbot in the Tower

Luttrell in the Fleet

Suarez repudiated

The original deputation from the Irish Opposition consisted of six persons, but James had declared his willingness to see twelve, and the additional number who came was considerably greater, six peers and fourteen commoners, including Everard, Barnewall and Thomas Luttrell. The latter sat for the county of Dublin and had been prominent, or in official language turbulent and seditious, during the late short session. James heard the deputation in Council several times during the month of July, ‘while they did use daily to frequent their secret conventicles and private meetings, to consult and devise how to frame plaintive articles against the Lord Deputy.’ Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the King found it hard to come to a decision, and when he went on progress to the west towards the end of the month he reserved judgment. Before this, however, Talbot was sent to the Tower for not condemning with sufficient clearness the opinions of the Jesuit Suarez, as to the deposition and murder of kings. That murder was not lawful he had no doubt, but thought that deposition might be, and he said this in the King’s presence. Luttrell lay for nearly three months in the Fleet for the same reason, when he made submission in writing. Sir Patrick Barnewall, whose loyalty was undisputed, and who had had enough of the Tower, found no difficulty in repudiating the doctrines of Suarez and Parsons as ‘most profane, impious, wicked, and detestable … that His Majesty or any other sovereign prince, if he were excommunicated by the Pope, might be massacred or done away with by his subjects or any other.’ As for his own king he firmly held that all his Highness’s subjects should spend their lives and properties to defend him and his kingdoms, ‘notwithstanding any excommunication or any other act which is or may be pronounced or done by the Pope against him.’ Talbot’s submission was less complete, and he remained in the Tower for over a year.[112 - Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 231, 233; Barnewall’s letters, ib. 164; for Talbot, ib. 231, 234, 236, 321, and Irish Cal. 1614, Nos. 852 and 969.]

The rival Churches

Suggestions by the Commissioners

Military irregularities

Abuses by sheriffs

The first thing that struck the Commissioners was the general neglect of true religion, the ministers and preachers being insufficient both in number and quality, and the churches for the most part ruinous. There were, however ‘a multitude of Popish schoolmasters, priests, friars, Jesuits, seminaries of the adverse Church authorised by the Pope and his subordinates for every diocese, ecclesiastical dignity, and living of note,’ who were resident, and who lost no opportunity of execrating the reformed faith, being supported and countenanced by the native nobility. Of the magistrates, sheriffs, and other officials many were Roman Catholics, and the priesthood was constantly recruited from seminaries in Spain and Belgium. The Commissioners could only recommend the ruthless enforcement of ecclesiastical conformity. All should be driven to church or punished, Popish schools suppressed, and priests weeded out, able and religious schoolmasters being provided, while ‘idle and scandalous ministers’ gave place to well paid and conscientious successors. All this was neither very original nor very practical, and the report is more to the purpose where remediable evils are dealt with. Extortions by soldiers were loudly complained of, and not altogether denied by Chichester, though he declared that he had taken the greatest care to prevent them, and though he was ready to pay three times the value if it could be proved that he had taken ‘of the value of a hen’ wrongfully during his eight years’ government. The Commissioners found that billeted soldiers did exact money from the people at the rate of about three shillings a night for a footman besides meat and drink, and that they sometimes took cattle or goods in default of payment, ‘whereby breach of peace and affrays are occasioned.’ The viceregal warrant always required them to march straight from point to point, but they sometimes went round on purpose to gain more time at free quarters. There were many other similar disorders and oppressions, yet it did not appear that applications were often made to the Lord Deputy, ‘who upon their complaints hath given order for redress of such grievances as hath been manifested unto us.’ On the other hand aggrieved parties pleaded that they were afraid to provoke the enmity of the soldiers by complaining, and that remedies cost more than they were worth, though they admitted that Chichester was ‘swift of despatch and easy of access.’ The Lord Deputy said no sheriffs were made who had not property in their shires, ‘and if such who are of better estates are omitted it is for their recusancy,’ but the Commissioners found that many had none, either there or elsewhere, that they gathered crown rents and taxes in an irregular manner, and that they were guilty of other minor extortions, ‘the reason whereof being affirmed to be that in the civillest counties in the English Pale and in other counties there are found very few Protestants that are freeholders of quality fit to be sheriffs, and that will take the oath of supremacy as by the laws they ought to do, and by the Lord Deputy’s order no sheriff is admitted till he enter into sufficient bond for answering his accounts.’[113 - Complaints of Recusants with Chichester’s answer, 1613, No. 709.]

Ploughing by the tail

Prevalence of the practice

Its cruelty and long continuance

One grievance there was which deserves special mention, because its history shows how even the most obvious and reasonable reform may be resented when it involves a change in the habits of country people. It had long been the custom, especially in Ulster, to till rough ground by attaching a very short plough, which might be lifted over an obstacle, to the tails of ponies walking abreast. This was prohibited by Order in Council in 1606, the penalty being the forfeiture of one animal for the first year, two for the second, and for the third the whole team. No attempt was made to enforce this until 1611, when Captain Paul Gore, to whose company arrears were due since O’Dogherty’s rebellion, obtained leave to pay himself by realising the penalty for a year in one or two counties. Chichester consented, but limited the fine to ten shillings for each plough. The fine, smaller or greater, was often paid, but did not have the desired effect. Gore no doubt made a good bargain, for in the following year Chichester ordered the ten shillings to be levied all over Ulster, spending most of the money so raised upon roads, bridges, and the repairs of churches. James, with his usual improvidence, granted this to Sir William Uvedale for £100 Irish, and it was admitted that he made £800, while much more was really collected from the people. Collections unauthorised by Chichester had also been made in Connaught and even in the Pale. It was not the short ploughs that had been prohibited but the ploughing by the tail, and it had been particularly provided that no penalty attached if traces of any kind were used. Perhaps the collectors stretched a point, and the petitioners were at all events justified in pointing out that there was no law to support the prohibition, and that the peasants concerned had neither skill nor means to use better ploughs. The English settlers who saw these ploughs at work thought them both ‘uncivil’ and unprofitable; and the cruelty was obvious, Chichester stating that many hundred of beasts were killed or spoiled yearly. The horses stopped when they felt the jar of a stump or boulder, and no doubt the resulting tillage was of the poorest kind. In modern times spade labour was used in rough places, and was much more efficient. It was the intention of Chichester to pass an Act of Parliament against ploughing by the tail, but this was not actually done until Strafford’s time. The statute sets forth that ‘besides the cruelty used to the beasts the breed of horses is much impaired in this kingdom to the great prejudice thereof.’ The repeal of this measure was actually made a condition of peace between Charles I. and the Irish Confederates in 1646. The practice gradually ceased to be general after it had been forbidden by law, but even near the end of Charles II.’s reign it still prevailed in the rocky barony of Burren in Clare, where it was found necessary to tolerate it. Arthur Young found the barbarous custom still strong in Cavan, and in Connaught it was not quite extinct even in Queen Victoria’s reign. Its cheapness really recommended the practice, which was even defended on the ground of humanity, because it shortened the draught.[114 - Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 369; Irish Statutes, 10 and 11 Car. I. cap. 15; Dineley’s Voyage in 1681, p. 162; Confederation and War, v. 299. Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613, as to ‘what great sums of money have been drawn out of the supposed commiseration of the hinder parts of these poor Irish garrans.’ Ulster Journal of Archæology, vi. 212. Uvedale ultimately surrendered his grant for 1,250l., Cal., March 15, 1625. Cæsar Otway’s Erris and Tyrawly (1841), p. 358.]

Alleged legal extortion

Excessive fees

Chichester is absolved

It had been complained – and in what age or country has there been no such complaint? – that clerks in the law courts exacted excessive fees, the fear of which prevented men from taking legal remedy. Chichester was able to answer that all scales of charges had been twice carefully overhauled, that they were now much less than in Queen Elizabeth’s time, and that those who had reason to complain well knew that he would give them redress if required. The Commissioners found it very hard to get the exact truth because both judges and officers were so frequently changed, but they found abuse ‘in some particular cases.’ Chichester had greatly increased the revenue, and, as he believed, without adding to the burden of the people; but some new offices had been created in the Exchequer, and it was not clear that this was always to the advantage of either King or subject. Many clerks of courts sought ‘to make their fees equal both in number and value with the fees paid to like officers in England, which seemeth heavy to the subjects of this kingdom, being generally of much less ability.’ The Commissioners made arrangement for the preparation of accurate lists of fees, and they unanimously exonerated Chichester from any malpractice. ‘We found the Deputy upright,’ wrote one Commissioner in his diary. Another in a letter, after hearing voluminous evidence, thought too much time was taken up with trivialities. ‘Whole heaps’ of cases of oppression by soldiers had nevertheless, he said, been established, and he seems to have thought the military element in the Government much too strong. It had been said by a man of good understanding, Cornwallis reported, that ‘these Irish are a scurvy nation, and are as scurvily used,’ and he supposed that when he had heard the Commissioners on their return his noble correspondent would be of the same opinion.[115 - Report of Commissioners in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 359. Roger Wilbraham’s Diary (Camden Society’s Miscellany, vol. x.). Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613; Sir Robert Jacob to same, November 30. Both letters show that Cornwallis was closely in Northampton’s confidence.]

Royal proclamation, Feb. 7, 1613-1614

Chichester is sent for

Having received the report of the Commissioners, the King sent Sir Richard Boyle to Ireland with 1,000 copies of a proclamation for distribution all over the country. In it James announced that he had vouchsafed in person to debate with the malcontents on several occasions, that they had not met him in a proper spirit, and that there was evidently a conspiracy among them to bring Chichester into disfavour, whose conduct he had nevertheless found ‘full of respect to our honour, zeal to justice, and sufficiency in the execution of the great charge committed unto him.’ Inferior officers remained liable to punishment for proved demerits. Boyle, who was sworn of the Privy Council as soon as he reached Dublin, also carried a letter from the King to Chichester expressing fuller confidence in him, and directing him to come over and make arrangements for another session, while so many Irish peers and members of Parliament were in London. He was not, however, to leave Ireland if he thought that reasons of state required his continued presence there. He started just a month after Boyle’s arrival, leaving the Government in the hands of Archbishop Jones and Sir R. Wingfield as Lords Justices, narrowly escaped drowning near Conway, and reached London in due course. Among those who accompanied him were Sir John Davies and Sir Josiah Bodley.[116 - Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 291-301. Chichester left Chester March 21, but a letter calendared at March 27, shows that the Council were not then aware that he had left Ireland (he did not get it till the following December).]

The King verbally promises toleration

to all who disavow Suarez

Sir James Gough publishes the royal message, but is not believed

While the Commissioners were still sitting in Dublin, Lords Gormanston and Roche, Sir James Gough, and Mr. Patrick Hussy, member for Meath and titular baron of Galtrim, took leave of the King at Royston. James made a speech, which according to Gough’s report contained the words: ‘As for your religion, howbeit that the religion I profess be the religion I will make the established religion among you, and that the exercise of the religion which you use (which is no religion, indeed, but a superstition) might be left off; yet will I not ensue or extort any man’s conscience, and do grant that all my subjects there (which likewise upon your return thither I require you to make known) do acknowledge and believe that it is not lawful to offer violence unto my person, or to deprive me of my crown, or to take from me my kingdoms, or that you harbour or receive any priest or seminary that would allow such a doctrine. I do likewise require that none of your youth be bred at Douai. Kings have long ears, and be assured that I will be inquisitive of your behaviour therein.’ There were plenty of witnesses, and James was not able to deny the substantial correctness of Gough’s version, who took care to repeat it to Sir Francis Kingsmill, a fellow-passenger across the channel. On landing Gough betook himself to Munster, where he published the King’s words at Youghal, Clonmel and Dungarvan. Having given the report a fortnight’s start in the part of Ireland where he was best known, Sir James repaired to Dublin Castle and delivered the royal message to numerous audiences in the Lord Deputy’s presence ‘in the action and tone of an orator.’ He was called into a more private place, where he maintained his faithful rendering of ‘the most great and true King’s words,’ which he was ready at his command to proclaim ‘at Hercules’ Posts.’ He threw himself upon the royal protection, professing that the Jesuit doctrine was a new thing to him, and repudiating it for himself and his colleagues. They would, he said, refuse the ministration of priests who held it, and also discover them to the authorities. Chichester, who must have cursed the garrulous monarch, declared his disbelief, and Gough was kept under restraint in the Castle.[117 - Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, November 24, 1613; Sir James Gough’s Discourse written and subscribed before the Lord Deputy, Chancellor and others, No. 973; Report to the King of Spain, ib. No. 969. ‘Hercules’ Posts’ was a tavern in Fleet Street.]

The King cannot explain away his words,

but Gough has to submit

James admitted that he had used the language imputed to him, but without intending thereby to claim a dispensing power or to promise full toleration, and he sent over a proclamation to that effect for circulation. Against Sir James Gough he made four points, that his turbulent conduct to the Deputy must be taken as directed against the King, that he had no warrant at all to make any report to his Lordship, that he wilfully misrepresented the royal meaning, and that he had cunningly reported only so much as suited him, which was a very small part of what had been said. Gough was to be detained until he made submission, and when he had made it the Deputy might release him as an act of his own favour. In less than a month after the date of the King’s letter Gough made an ample apology. He now understood that his Majesty intended the laws against recusancy to be enforced, ‘but that his subjects should be compelled by violence or other unlawful means to resort to the Protestant churches I think it not his pleasure.’ Their consciences were to be left free. As this pretty nearly represented Chichester’s own ideas, the submission was accepted and Sir James Gough released.[118 - The King to Chichester, January 4, 1614. The submission, dated January 31, 1614, is in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 287.]

Talbot before the Star-chamber

The law officers discourage severity

Bacon nevertheless magnifies Talbot’s offence, but he is ultimately released

Talbot was brought before the Star-chamber in London on the same day that Gough made his submission in Dublin. At a previous hearing before the Council the English oath of allegiance was tendered to him, and extracts from Suarez and Parsons were read, of which he was given a copy to meditate upon during his imprisonment. Though the oath of allegiance had no statutory force in Ireland the law officers, Hobart and Bacon, had given a cautious opinion that it might be administered to Irishmen in England, ‘but whether it be convenient to minister it unto them, not being persons commorant or settled there, but only employed for the present business, we must leave it unto his Majesty’s and your Lordships’ better judgments.’ This is a plain hint that they did not think it convenient, but they were overruled, and Bacon, who had since become Attorney-General, had to conduct Talbot’s prosecution. The prisoner not unnaturally vacillated a good deal, but at last, having studied Abbot’s excerpts from the two Jesuits, he declared that they involved matters of faith and must be submitted to the judgment of the catholic Roman church, but, he added, ‘for matter concerning my loyalty, I do acknowledge my sovereign liege lord King James to be lawful and undoubted King of all the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Highness during my life.’ The practical politician who was in Bacon along with the lawyer, the theologian, and the philosopher would no doubt have been satisfied with this; but officially he was bound to accuse Talbot of maintaining a power in the Pope to depose and murder kings. He had not merely refused the oath of allegiance, but had affirmed the power of the Church over civil matters. ‘It would astonish a man,’ said Bacon, ‘to see the gulf of this implied belief. Is nothing exempted from it? If a man should ask Mr. Talbot whether he do condemn murder, or adultery, or rape, or the doctrine of Mahomet, or of Arius instead of Zuarius; must the answer be with this exception, that if the question concern matter of faith (as no question it does, for the moral law is matter of faith) that therein he will submit himself to what the Church will determine.’ Talbot was fined £10,000, but there does not seem to have been any intention to make him pay, and he was allowed to return to Ireland after spending several more months in the Tower. This was euphemistically described by the Privy Council as ‘attendance on his Majesty’s pleasure,’ but they took care that his property should not suffer in his absence. Clemency was shown, but a theoretical gulf had been dug which made it more difficult than ever to reconcile the discordant elements of Irish life.[119 - Opinion of law officers in Spedding, iv. 388; Bacon’s Speech, January 31, 1614, ib. v. 5; Privy Council to Chichester, calendared No. 798 under January 27, 1614, but perhaps of earlier date; same to same, July 25, 1614. Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 321, 393.]

The King on the constitution of Parliaments, on Irish grievances, and on toleration