Ireland under the Tudors. Volume 3 (of 3)

He could only reiterate, what seems to have been the fact, that thousands of Scots had really landed, and had run away before he could reach them.[130 - Perrott to the Privy Council, Oct. 25, 1584; to Walsingham (enclosing that to the High Court of Parliament), Jan. 17, 1585; to the Queen, April 1; Walsingham to Perrott, Feb. 1; the Queen to Perrott, April 14. Perrott’s proposed towns were Athlone, Coleraine, Sligo, Mayo, Dingle, Lifford, and Newry; bridges at Coleraine, Lifford, Ballyshannon, Dundalk, the Munster Black Water, the Feale, and Kells in Clandeboye; castles at Ballyshannon, Meelick, Castle Martin in the Route, at Gallen in King’s County, Kilcommon in Wicklow, and on both the Blackwaters.]

CHAPTER XLI.

GOVERNMENT OF PERROTT, 1585-1588

The Scots invade Ulster in force

Colin Campbell, 6th Earl of Argyle, died in September, 1584, leaving his eldest son a minor, and this event added to the confusion generally prevalent in the Western Isles. Sorley Boy, as usual, contrived to take advantage of the situation, and persuaded an assembly of chiefs who met in the island of Bute to support his Irish claims. 1,300 Scots, under Angus MacDonnell, landed on Rathlin, a much greater number being ready to follow, and Sir Henry Bagenal hastily moved from Carrickfergus to meet them. The ships which should have co-operated failed to appear, and the Scots attacked him in his camp at Red Bay. In spite of the late negotiations Donnell Gorme was in command, and it is evident that the islanders were not really worsted, though the English officers put a good face on the matter. Sir William Stanley was hastily summoned from Munster to take charge of Coleraine, and Norris was also sent for. Stanley accompanied Bagenal as far as Glenarm, and then marched inland to Ballycastle. The Scots had threatened to burn Ballycastle, but a skirmish with Bagenal proved that they could not do this, and they then withdrew in a northerly direction.[131 - Perrott to Walsingham, Nov. 16 and 27, 1584 (with enclosures); to Burghley (with enclosures), Jan. 15, 1585. – Gregory’s Western Highlands, chap. iv., where Perrott’s siege of Dunluce, and other matters belonging to 1584, are placed under 1585.]

They are driven away

Stanley arrived at Ballycastle on New Year’s day, with two companies of foot, and joined Captain Carleile, whose troop of horse were already quartered in Bunamargey Abbey. Captain Bowen’s company held the fort of Dunanynie on a hill to the westward. At eleven o’clock that night the Scots made a sudden attack, set fire to the thatched roof of the church with brands fixed to the points of their spears, and fell upon the infantry encamped outside. Stanley rushed out in his shirt and succeeded in rallying the men, but many were hurt by arrows. He himself received one in the back, another pinned his arm to his side, and a third penetrated his thigh. Some horses were burned in the church, and none could be got out in time to pursue the Scots, whose enterprise failed in the main. But a fleet of galleys from Cantire passed in full view, and a very unusual calm prevented the Queen’s ships from following. Stanley sent for reinforcements, and Perrott laid all blame on the English Government for not sending the 600 men he had asked for. But the real difficulty was to feed the garrisons already established. There was no good harbour. Ballycastle Bay is rocky, and everything had to be landed upon rafts. Some provision vessels were driven back to Holyhead; others in great danger rode out the gales off Carrickfergus and Coleraine, ‘where the sea raiseth such a billow as can hardly be endured by the greatest ships. And scarce once in fourteen days those winter seas will suffer any small vessel to lay the ships aboard to unlade the victuals.’ Money, as usual, was wanting, and the supply service was none of the best. The captains were charged 42s. for corslets, which might be bought of better quality in any London shop for 25s. or less. Useless articles were sent, and whoever else might be to blame, Perrott was quite sure that the Master of the Ordnance in Ireland deserved hanging.[132 - Stanley to Walsingham, Jan. 5, 1585; George Peverley, victualler, to Walsingham, Jan. 5; to Burghley, Jan. 20; Perrott to Walsingham, Nov. 16, 1584; to Burghley, Jan 15, 1585. The Master of the Ordnance was the same Jacques Wingfield who so narrowly escaped professional ruin in 1561.]

Sorley Boy offers to become a good subject

Sorley Boy found that the garrisons, notwithstanding all difficulties, were likely to become permanent in Ulster. He was growing old, there had been attempts to dispose of him by foul means, and on the whole he thought it would be better to make terms for himself. He therefore sought an interview with Captain Carleile, and professed willingness to live and die a faithful subject of Queen Elizabeth, on condition of being acknowledged as owner of at least a large part of the Bissett estate. He only asked, he said, for such terms as Sidney had been willing to grant some ten years before. But Perrott preferred strong measures. At first he wished to go himself, but the Council dissuaded him, and he even allowed Norris to return to his province. The Lord President was very angry at being brought to Dublin merely to suit the Council’s humour, and at having to spend 300l. in bringing up 40 horse and keeping them serviceable. Perrott, he said, had never really meant him to go to Ulster. Such honours as might be had there he wanted for himself, but he liked economising at other folks’ expense. The officers stationed in the North proved sufficient, and hunted Sorley from place to place till he was glad to escape to Scotland. Before April 26, no important Scot was left in Ulster, and Perrott was at leisure to meet his Parliament on that day.[133 - Composition of Lord Deputy and Council with Sorley Boy, Oct. 17, 1575; Sorley Boy to Perrott and to Captain Carleile, Feb. 5, 1585; Captain Barkley to Perrott, Feb. 26; Norris to the Privy Council and Fenton to Walsingham, March 7; Beverley to Burghley, April 1; Perrott to Walsingham, April 24.]

Perrott’s Parliament – the House of Lords

A list of this Parliament has been preserved, and it is interesting to compare its composition with that held by Sussex in 1560. The spiritual peers summoned were twenty-six in place of twenty, but in both cases it is doubtful how far the more distant bishops attended. The temporal peers had increased from twenty-three to twenty-six, but the earldom of Tyrone and the barony of Dungannon were both centred in the person of Hugh O’Neill, who petitioned the House for the higher title conferred by patent on his grandfather, and whose claim was allowed.[134 - Lists printed from the roll in Tracts relating to Ireland, vol. ii. p. 134. Kildare, who died in England this year, no doubt had his writ of summons, but does not seem to have attended. He was ill in London on Aug. 3.]

The House of Commons – counties; cities and boroughs

Twenty-seven counties are mentioned instead of twenty on the former occasion, Connaught being now divided into Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, and Sligo. Cavan, represented by two O’Reillys, and Longford represented by two O’Ferralls, appear for the first time as shires, and so do Longford and Wicklow. Wexford and Ferns are given as separate counties, and Tipperary, reverting to ancient custom, is divided into the County and the Cross. Ards disappears as a separate county. All the shires named appear to have made returns. Thirty-six cities and boroughs are enumerated instead of twenty-nine, only Carrickfergus and Downpatrick neglecting to make returns. Athy is omitted, and Cashel, Inistioge, Dingle, Callan, Philipstown, Maryborough, Swords, and Downpatrick are added. For some unexplained reason the counties of Cork and Sligo returned three knights each.[135 - Lists as above.]

Representation of the Irish race

Irish chiefs in Dublin

Besides the O’Reillys and O’Ferralls the house of Commons contained but few of the native race. An O’Brien and a Clancy sat for Clare. Sir Hugh Magennis divided Down with Sir Nicholas Bagenal, and Shane MacBrian O’Neill was returned, but did not attend, as Captain Barkley’s colleague for Antrim. Among the burgesses we find a Shee or O’Shea sitting for Kilkenny, a Gwire or Maguire for Trim, a Kearney for Cashel, a Hurley for Kilmallock, a Casey for Mullingar, and a Neill or O’Neill for Carlingford. John Ffrehan, who was returned for Philipstown, was most likely a Celt also. The bulk of the members were of old Anglo-Irish race, with a good sprinkling of more modern settlers, of officials, and of military officers. John and Thomas Norris sat for the counties of Cork and Limerick respectively, Sir Warham St. Leger for Queen’s County, Sir Richard Bingham for Roscommon, and Sir Henry Harrington for Wicklow. Nearly all the chieftains of Ireland, though not actually members of Parliament, obeyed the Lord Deputy’s summons, and he strictly insisted on English costume being worn. ‘Please your lordship,’ said old Tirlogh Luineach, ‘let my priest attend me in Irish apparel, and then they will wonder at him as they do now at me; so shall I pass more quickly and unpointed at.’[136 - Lists as above. Perrott’s Life, p. 199; see also a partial list of members calendared at May 11, 1586. The Four Masters, under 1585, give a sort of Homeric catalogue of the chiefs present.]

Parliamentary procedure

The Speaker

Rules were laid down for the conduct of business in the House of Commons. Members were not to wear arms in the House, they were to speak standing and uncovered, and only once on each reading of a Bill. Freedom of speech was granted, and freedom from arrest for members, their servants, and their goods. On the other hand no member was to disclose ‘the secrets either spoken or done in the House’ to any stranger, under such penalties as the Speaker, with the assent of the House, should think proper to inflict. One rule may seem strange to the present age, in which parliamentary debate has come to be so largely a matter of flouts and gibes and sneers. Every member was enjoined ‘to frame his speech after a quiet and courteous manner, without any taunts or words tending to the reproach of any person in the said House assembled.’ The first struggle was about the election of a Speaker. Nicholas Walshe, Chief Justice of Munster and member for the city of Waterford, was put forward by Perrott. Ormonde had a very good opinion of him, and Perrott, when President of Munster, must have learned his value. The opposition, though strong, was fruitless, and Walshe was duly chosen Speaker.[137 - Tracts relating to Ireland, vol. ii. p. 143. Ormonde to Burghley, Oct. 20, 1583; Sir N. White to Burghley, May 27, 1585.]

The Parliament is hard to manage

A prorogation

Perrott had not been easily induced to abandon his scheme for the dissolution of St. Patrick’s. He continued to attack Loftus, but nevertheless gave him the chief control over the drafting of Bills; and the Chancellor was accused of purposely drawing them so as to arouse opposition. By Poyning’s law, and the Acts explaining it, these Bills had to be sent to England and returned after passing the Privy Council. If disapproved in this form, they could not be amended without sending them to England again. Travelling was tedious, Parliaments were short, and thus there was a risk that all legislation would be stopped. One Bill was for extending to Ireland all the English laws against Popish recusants, and this was certain to arouse the fiercest animosity. Another contained provisions derogatory to the privileges of the peerage. Desmond’s Bill of Attainder as amended contained eight names instead of twenty times that number, and made so many reservations that it would have been almost useless to the Crown. Nearly all the other Bills went too far or not far enough, but the difficulty might have been avoided by suspending Poyning’s Act, as had been done in 1537 and 1569. The landowners and lawyers of the Pale said that they feared to make the Viceroy despotic, but Perrott said that they dreaded all legislation favourable to the Crown. The bill only passed the Lords by one vote, of which the validity was disputed, Lord Lixnaw having given his proxy first to Lord Slane, who opposed, and afterwards to Lord Dunboyne, who supported the bill. The Chancellor took it privately from Dunboyne, and counted the absent peer among the ‘contents.’ Upon this or some other pretext the Commons threw the Bill out on the third reading by a majority of thirty-five. Perrott looked upon this check as a disgrace to himself and a hindrance to the Queen, and prorogued Parliament for a few days. This enabled him to bring the Bill in again, but it was lost by a reduced majority, although Ormonde’s friends, who had at first opposed, now voted with the ‘ayes.’ Partly by his rudeness, and partly by his determination to prevent jobs, the Lord Deputy had made many enemies, and six Englishmen turned the scale against the Bill. ‘And thus,’ said Perrott, ‘they have not only overthrown the repeal of Poyning’s Act, that should have set them at liberty to treat of that and all other things necessary for this State, but also dashed most of the statutes that were penned in Ireland and sent back confirmed from England, as, namely, that for the safety of the Queen.’[138 - Sir N. White to Burghley, May 27, 1585; Perrott to Walsingham, May 30; the Poyning’s Suspension Bill is in Carew, June 1585, No. 578.]

Agitators

The chief opposition to Perrott’s measures came from the Pale, and among the leaders were Sidney’s old antagonists Richard Netterville and Henry Burnell. ‘These popular fellows,’ said Perrott, ‘or good countrymen, as they would be gloriously termed, have been ever of this humour against all governors, and some of them, namely Netterville and Burnell, have been in the Tower of London for causes of far less moment than this is.’

A fair system of taxation rejected

One great cause of opposition was a Bill proposing to equalise ploughlands, and to impose a tax of 13s. 4d. in lieu of cess on each ploughland throughout the whole country. The Pale had hitherto paid when Irish countries were not charged, and the native chiefs were now willing to come to an arrangement. But even in the counties which had always contributed there were many permanent exemptions, and still more fraudulent evasions. A new survey had thus many terrors, and, as is so often the case, threatened interests were more powerful than arguments founded on considerations of public policy. The Pale offered a lump sum of 1,200l. in lieu of all cess; but this was far less than had always been paid, and Perrott indignantly refused it. The chance of making the whole country voluntarily contribute to the expenses of government was thus unhappily lost. The Irish chiefs, who had come prepared to agree with the Lord Deputy, now left Dublin in far worse humour than they had reached it, and the plan of making them English subjects was indefinitely postponed. Religion was at the bottom of the whole difficulty, and one of the Pale patriots said, in open Parliament, that ‘things did prosper in Henry V.’s and former kings’ times when the mass was up.’ Perrott was willing and anxious to punish his parliamentary opponents, but required orders from home first, ‘because these kind of people by the mild dealing of England have ever found more favour there than hath been for the good of this State.’[139 - Perrott to Walsingham, May 30 and June 18, 1585. He believed that the opposition would collapse if firmly handled, and that firmness would save the Queen’s pocket. ‘If they escape,’ he said, ‘farewell to my reputation both with Irish and English.’]

Small results of the session

A stranger in the gallery

Parliament was a second time prorogued on May 25, and it did not meet again for eleven months. The only legislative results of the first session – or, more properly speaking, of the first two sessions – were an Act for the attainder of Baltinglas and his brothers, and an Act for the restoration in blood of Laurence, the son of the old Geraldine rebel James Delahide. A German nobleman who was in Dublin during the session is said to have been much struck by Perrott’s stately appearance at the opening of Parliament. He had, he said, travelled through Germany, Italy, France, and England, but had never seen anyone so majestic, and he asked for his portrait to carry home with him. And this presence, coupled with substantial fair-dealing, no doubt made Perrott popular with the masses and with the Irish chiefs. With officials and members of council it was different, for they felt the weight of his hand. Had he been as courteous as he was anxious for the Queen’s service, his fate might have been very different. A reformer can never hope to be really liked by those who desire the maintenance of abuses; but a soft hand is no less necessary than a stout heart.[140 - Irish Statutes, 27 Eliz.; Perrott’s Life.]

Eloquence of Sir John Norris

The oratorical honours of the session were carried off by John Norris. Fenton said he would deserve the Queen’s special thanks had he done her no other service, and Loftus, himself a great preacher, pronounced him to be the best speaker in the House, both for force of reasoning and eloquence of delivery. But Norris himself had no wish ‘to be drowned in this forgetful corner,’ as he called Ireland, almost in the very words of a still more remarkable man nearly a century and a half later. He longed to be again in the Netherlands, and thought that he could save Antwerp with 20,000l. Once lost, it would never be regained. Had his advice been taken, Ghent and Bruges might have been retained; but the Walloon provinces were now past hope, and the Dutch would have to yield unless they received foreign help. His prayer was heard, and a commission to his brother Thomas to execute the office of Lord President in his absence was signed on the day before the Irish Parliament met. Immediately after the prorogation he left Dublin, and was in Flanders a few weeks later.[141 - Norris to Walsingham, March 3; Fenton to Walsingham, May 24; Loftus to Burghley, May 31. ‘I am forced to play at small game to set the beasts here a-madding, merely for want of better game… You think, as I ought to think, that it is time for me to have done with the world; and so I would, if I could get into a better, before I was called into the best, and not die here in a rage, like a poisoned rat in a hole.’ – Swift to Bolingbroke, from Dublin, March 21, 1729.]

Ulster again invaded by Scots, who surprise Dunluce, to Perrott’s great disgust

Norris was gone, and Stanley had returned to Munster, when the Scots again invaded Antrim in some force. 170 English soldiers encountered 1,200 Scots and Irish, near Carrickfergus, and Perrott again moved to Ulster. He approved and confirmed a deed by which Tirlogh Luineach handed over the southern half of Tyrone to the newly-acknowledged Earl, reserving the northern half to himself, with such tribute as he might be able to collect from Maguire and O’Cahan. Wallop and Loftus, who were left in charge of the Pale, saw it was quite impossible for the Lord Deputy to keep the Scots at bay without garrisons and fortresses more permanent than the Queen was inclined to pay for. Perrott was really of the same opinion, but he persevered in the hopeless task. There were, he said, more than 2,000 Scots in Ulster, combined to set up Shane O’Neill’s sons. Journeys to the North had always been allowed, and he could not see why he, of all Deputies, was to be kept in enforced idleness. He did, however, return to Dublin after a short absence, for the orders to save money were peremptory. The army was almost literally naked, and many soldiers for sheer want took service with the Irish. The natural result was not long delayed. Perrott had returned to Dublin early in September, and on the 1st of November, Dunluce – about the capture of which so much fuss had been made – was once more in the hands of the Scots. Peter Cary, the constable, a man of English blood and Ulster birth, had but fourteen soldiers, of which several were Irish; and, what was perhaps more important, he had a Scotch mistress. Ropes, which are said to have been made of withes, were let down at night by two of the Irish warders, and fifty Scots climbed over the battlements. Cary, whose orders not to keep Irishmen in the fort were strict, refused quarter, and he and his English soldiers were killed after a desperate resistance. ‘I do not,’ said Perrott, ‘weigh the loss, but can hardly endure the discredit. As things are purposed now any man is fitter for the place than I am.’ James VI. had promised Perrott to punish his subjects as rebels should they again invade Ireland; but he had not the power, nor perhaps the will, to keep his promise. Queen Elizabeth’s thoughts were now concentrated on foreign politics, and economy was her one object in Ireland. It was even proposed to disband companies lately raised, and necessarily composed of natives, since Englishmen could not be found to serve without pay or clothes. ‘Thus,’ said Wallop, ‘have we trained and furnished Irishmen to serve the enemy’s turn.’ Walsingham could only say that Perrott might have lived in better season under Henry VIII., when princes were resolute in honourable attempts. ‘Our age has been given to other manner of proceedings, whereto the Lord Deputy must be content to conform himself as other men do.’[142 - Perrott’s Life; James VI. to Perrott, Aug. 8, in Carew; Perrott to Walsingham, Aug. 10 and Nov. 11; to Burghley, Sept. 8 and 24; Sir H. Bagenal to Perrott, Sept. 3; Wallop to Burghley and Walsingham, Nov. 18; Walsingham to Archbishop Long, Dec.]

Composition in Connaught

Unsuccessful with his parliament, with his council, and with the great men of the Pale, Perrott found the chieftains of Connaught still amenable to reason. Ten years before, Sidney had found them willing to hold their lands of the Queen and to pay rent, but the completion of the contract was Perrott’s work. The commissioners named were Bingham as governor, the Earls of Thomond and Clanricarde, the Baron of Athenry, Sir Tirlogh O’Brien, Sir Richard Burke of Mayo, O’Connor Sligo, O’Rourke, O’Flaherty, and others, and they proposed that the Queen should have a quit rent of 10s. a quarter out of all arable and pasture land in Connaught and Clare. There were to be no other exactions except certain days’ labour for fortifications or other public buildings. Contributions of horse and foot on warlike occasions were to be matter of special agreement. Anxious for peace among themselves and convinced that they could not make head against the State, the chiefs agreed to these terms, in the hopes of obtaining a firm and just government. To make things pleasant, some special privileges were granted to a few important people, and it was calculated that a revenue of rather less than 4,000l. a year would be secured to the Crown. Less than one-third of the whole soil was really included in this settlement; waste lands, water, and fraudulent concealments will account for the rest. The plan of the composition was good, but the result did not fulfil Perrott’s expectation. In so extensive an area many were dissatisfied with their lot, and the Government was neither strong enough nor steady enough to enforce order among a rude people.[143 - Composition Book of Connaught and Thomond, Oct. 3. Details may be studied in the appendix to Hardiman’s edition of O’Flaherty’s West Connaught. As to the measurement it may be observed that Clare, to take one county as an example, is estimated at 1,260 quarters. Making allowance for the difference between Irish and English measure, this gives rather less than 250,000 statute acres for all Clare. The real area is about 828,000 acres. The gross acreage of all Connaught and Clare is about five millions and a quarter, and a rental of 4,000l. gives much less than a farthing per acre.]

Perrott’s personal troubles

His traducers

Perrott claimed to be a careful husband of the Queen’s resources, and rather ostentatiously professed his contempt for the interested criticism of others. But Elizabeth’s parsimony increased with her years, and she was only too ready to listen to those who told her she was being robbed. She directed a stringent inquiry into the revenue, suggesting that arrears had been allowed to accumulate, that improper concessions had been granted, that crown leases had been given without due inquiry, that personal allowances had been made without exacting service in return, and in short that everyone’s interests had been regarded but her own. ‘It is not meant,’ she said, ‘that the possession of lands and chattels lately escheated by rebellion should be in the power and authority of the Lord Deputy, but to be stayed at her Majesty’s will and pleasure.’ This and other similar hints cut Perrott to the quick. No doubt his despotic temper sometimes induced him to overstep the bounds of strict law, and his enemies were always on the watch. He was accused of making money unfairly out of household and table allowances. It was said that his accounts showed annual liveries, whereas they were in reality biennial; he allowed no fires even in bitter February weather, and there was no good cheer in the Castle. ‘I had little thought,’ he indignantly exclaimed, ‘that any part of her Highness’s honour had depended on my supper. I am sorry that men’s eyes are so narrowly bent on my diet, and I doubt will watch my uprising and downlying too.’ He had always provided supper for those who could enjoy it; as for himself the doctors had forbidden him that insidious meal for nearly a quarter of a century. And yet, he said, he would rather die of indigestion than incur the imputation of niggardly conduct. ‘I pray you,’ he wrote to Burghley, ‘help to rid me hence, that I may avoid all these spiteful occasions of grief and unkindness.’[144 - Perrott to Burghley, Sept. 8 and 24, 1585. The ‘Articles’ referred to were sent to Ireland by Fenton in the following spring, and are printed in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 63.]

Rumours of invasion

Miserable state of the army

Preparations for the settlement of Munster, and speculations as to the coming of the Armada, occupied the early days of 1586. A rover, who put into Cork Harbour, declared that 20,000 Spaniards were intended for Ireland. Redmond O’Gallagher, whom the Pope had provided to the See of Derry, and whom the Queen had not sought to displace, was once more on his travels in search of aid from France or Spain, and Munster lay open to attack. There was no garrison even at Limerick, which was called the strongest place in the province, and the guns had fallen to the ground from their rotten carriages. The muskets were useless from rust, and the feathers had damped off the arrows. Cork, Waterford, and the rest were in no better case. Wallop had to pledge his plate for 100l., and the captains were in debt through vain attempts to clothe their shivering men, who ran off to the Irish chiefs to look for brogues and frieze mantles. The Vice-Treasurer anxiously begged for 20,000l.; if the Spaniards landed it would cost 300,000l. to get rid of them. But Elizabeth’s thoughts were all given to the Continent, and better than any man in Ireland she probably understood the real impotence of Spain.[145 - Perrott to Walsingham, Jan. 27, 1586; Sir G. Carew to Walsingham Feb. 27; to Burghley, Aug. 2, 1588, in Carew; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, Jan. 28, 1586; description of Munster, 1588, p. 530; Wallop to Burghley, Oct. 1585 (No. 19) and Nov. 18; to Walsingham, March 7, 1586; Vice-President Norris to the Privy Council, Oct. 18, 1586.]

Parliament – the Desmond attainder

Parliament dissolved

In the second session of Perrott’s Parliament the chief business was the Desmond attainder, and there was so much opposition that some of the judges were sent for to assure the House of Commons that Ormonde’s rights should be saved. In the bill which then passed, Desmond and his brothers John and James, James Fitzmaurice, and thirty-four others were named, their lands being vested in the Crown without inquisition, but without prejudice to innocent parties. Eighty-two others were attainted by name in another Act, which contained the same reservations. Some of the late Opposition had apologised, but an Opposition still remained, and Perrott was not allowed to punish it as he wished. The Commons rejected a bill vesting the lands of persons thereafter attainted in the Crown without the usual formalities, and they finally refused to grant a subsidy of 13s. 4d. upon every ploughland. The session lasted less than three weeks. At the dissolution Speaker Walshe addressed the Lord Deputy at length, praising the constitution, lamenting that the Queen was an absentee, and hinting pretty plainly that the subject was overburdened. ‘Lamps,’ he said, ‘cannot give light that are not maintained with oil.’ Perrott’s answer, if he gave one, is not recorded; but Elizabeth was so little pleased with her Parliament of Ireland, that she summoned no other during the remaining sixteen years of her reign.[146 - Printed statutes, 28 Eliz. caps. 7 and 8; Perrott to Walsingham, June 18, 1585; Lords Gormanston, Slane, Howth, and Trimleston to the Queen, Dec. 10, 1585. Parliament was dissolved May 14, 1586; and see Speaker Walshe’s speech on that day.]

The MacDonnells in Antrim

Sorley Boy becomes a subject, and a great landowner

Perrott’s last invasion of Ulster, and his correspondence with the King of Scotland, had done little good. Dunluce was now in Sorley Boy’s hands, and the English Government inclined to make friends with him. Sorley hesitated to go to Dublin, and in the meantime his eldest son Alaster was killed in Tyrconnell. After being wounded in a skirmish he swam across a river, but we found him, says Captain Price, ‘by great chance in a deep grave, strewn over with rushes, and on every side six old calliox weeping… but a quick corse therein, and in memory of Dunluce we cried quittance with him, and sent his head to be set on Dublin Castle.’ Perrott was inclined to make the most of success, and to break off the negotiations, ‘as though,’ said Fenton, ‘by this blow hydra’s head were seared up.’ But his loss made the old chief readier to treat, and he came to Dublin on protection, after writing a humble letter. It is said that an official brutally showed him his son’s head over the Castle gate, and that he proudly answered, as if to justify Fenton’s simile, ‘my son has many heads.’ He made a formal submission, prostrating himself before a portrait of Queen Elizabeth, admitting that he had no legal right in Ulster, and particularly condemning his own folly ‘in leaving such men in the Castle of Dunluce, within this her Highness’s land, as should say they kept it in the name, or to the use of, the King of Scots, a Prince that honoureth her Majesty and embraceth her favour.’ The land he held had been taken by force, and he was willing to keep it on such terms as the Queen might be pleased to grant. Upon this basis a treaty was concluded, by which Sorley had a grant by knight service of all the land between the Bann and the Bush, and of much to the eastward, and he was made Constable of Dunluce, while resigning his claim to property in it. He became a denizen, and having got all that he had fought for, gave Perrott no further trouble. A great part of the Glynns, comprising the coast between Larne and Ballycastle, had already been granted to his nephew Angus. Thus were the MacDonnells confirmed in the possessions for which they had struggled so long.[147 - Perrott’s Life, p. 216; Hill’s MacDonnells of Antrim, pp. 171-187; the Queen to the Lord Chancellor and Council, Feb. 26, 1586; Captain Price to Walsingham, March 31; to Burghley, April 15; Fenton to Burghley, April 19 and June 14, 1586; Submission of Sorley Boy, June 14. The Indentures are in Carew ii. 427.]

Bingham in Connaught

The Mayo Burkes rebel, and are harried by Bingham, who strikes terror into all

Bingham soon tried how real was the submission of western Connaught, for he held sessions at Galway, and hanged seventy persons, of whom some were gentlemen. This he modestly called the cutting off of a few bad members. He then, after a three weeks’ siege, took Clonloan Castle from the O’Briens and killed all the garrison. He went next against the Hag’s Castle in Lough Mask, which was held by some Burkes, who had risen rather than attend Galway sessions. An attack in boats failed, but the garrison slipped away by water, and resolved, according to the annalists, to defend no more castles against the Queen of England. Resistance was vain, and most of the chiefs came in to Bingham, among them being Richard Burke, a noted partisan, who was called the Hedge or Pale of Ireland. It was proved that he had been intriguing with the Scots, and he was promptly hanged, by the sentence of a court-martial. Peremptory orders then came from Perrott to give the rest protection, and the Burkes immediately broke out again, saying that they would have a MacWilliam, though they fetched him out of Spain. They would have no sheriff, and attend no sessions, nor serve a heretic hag, but would transfer their allegiance to the Pope or the Catholic king. They were near 800 strong, and Bingham would not attack them without Perrott’s orders, who gave them as soon as he saw clearly that conciliation had done no good. After three months’ delay, Bingham again took the field, with Clanricarde and others, and had a parley with the rebels at Ballinrobe. They stood out for their old terms, whereupon Bingham proclaimed them all traitors and hanged the hostages in his hands. Three thousand cows were driven from the mountains between Mayo and Galway; but the annalists assert that the guilty escaped, and that only the innocent were plundered. The soldiers, they say, killed old men, women, and boys, ‘and hanged Theobald O’Toole, supporter of the destitute and keeper of a house of hospitality.’ The proclamation had, however, the effect of making Bingham’s enemies distrust each other. The Joyces, a tribe of Welsh origin, very long settled in Galway, the Clandonnells, or gallowglasses of Scottish descent, and the various septs of Burkes, kept separate; while the O’Flaherties, who had lately been in rebellion, were now glad to attack their neighbours at the Governor’s instance. Sir Murrogh of the Battleaxes, chief of the O’Flaherties, plundered the Joyces, while his kinsman Roger, with a flotilla, prevented them from escaping into the islands. The corn was not yet ripe, but Bingham meant to burn it when the time came, and thought that his subjects would then be in no case to make dangerous alliance with the Scots. The bad spirit showed signs of spreading, and a messenger from Munster reported that Leicester was dead in Holland, and that his army was destroyed. Two great Spanish armies, he gave out, had landed in England, there was a Spanish fleet at Baltimore, James of Scotland was preparing for war, and, to crown all, Queen Elizabeth was at the point of death. Bingham managed to catch the tale-bearer, and hanged him as a spy, and finding that they had little chance against this pitiless soldier, most of the rebels came in; ‘so pined away for want of food, and so ghasted with fear within seven or eight weeks, by reason they were so roundly followed without any interim of rest, that they looked rather like to ghosts than men.’ Except a small body of the Burkes, who remained in arms at Castlebar, no one was left to greet the Scots when they at last appeared.[148 - Docwra’s Relation; Four Masters, 1586; Bingham to Walsingham, Feb. 5, 1586; to Perrott, July 30 and Aug. 16 and 26; to Loftus, Aug. 30; Wallop to Walsingham, Aug. 23. The execution of Richard Oge Burke, called Fal fo Erinn, was made a principal charge against Bingham in 1595 and 1596, when his accusers seemed to have driven him finally from Ireland. Bingham justified this execution, since most of the Burkes (including the Blind Abbot, afterwards MacWilliam) declared, under their hands and under the sanction of an oath, that Richard Oge had persuaded them to resist the Governor, to bring in Scots, and to hold the Hag’s Castle against him. Seven members of the Council of Connaught were present at the execution, ‘Sir Richard having no other means of ordinary trial at that time by reason of the great troubles.’ – Discourse of the late rebellion of the Burkes, with all the signatures, Nov. 17, 1586; O’Flaherty’s West Connaught, p. 186.]