ST. JOHN AND FALKLAND, 1616-1625
[Sidenote: St. John becomes viceroy,]
[Sidenote: with an empty treasury,]
[Sidenote: but tries to enforce uniformity.]
Sir Oliver St. John, who had been ten years Master of the Ordnance
in Ireland, owed his appointment in part to the rising influence of
Villiers; but the advice of Chichester is likely to have been in his
favour. His competence was not disputed, and Bacon was satisfied of
his 'great sufficiency,' but many people thought he was hardly a man
of sufficient eminence. He landed at Skerries on August 26, 1616, but
his Irish troubles began before he reached Chester. The soldiers who
were to accompany him ran away when they could, and a Welsh company
broke into open mutiny. He was sworn in on the 30th, after a learned
sermon by Ussher in St. Patrick's Cathedral, and then handed the Lord
Treasurer's white staff to Chichester, 'who with all humility upon
his knees received the same.' The new Lord Deputy found that there
were many pirates on the coast who had friends in remote harbours,
and that there was not money enough to pay the soldiers. Worse than
this was the case of the corporate towns, where no magistrates could
be found to take the obligatory oath of supremacy or the milder oath
of allegiance which was voluntary in Ireland. St. John proceeded to
carry out the law. Carew, who was not a violent man, and who was well
informed as to Irish affairs, reported that 'over eighty' of the best
sort of 'citizens' in Dublin and elsewhere were in prison. Jurors who
refused to present known and obstinate Recusants were treated in the
same way, and the prisons were filled to overflowing. Carew hoped that
this course might be persevered in and the towns reduced to villages
by revoking their charters. 'God,' he said, 'I hope will prosper these
good beginnings, which tend only to his praise and glory, and to the
assurance of obedience unto his Majesty.'[137]
[Sidenote: Bacon advises a wary policy,]
[Sidenote: but does not persuade St. John,]
[Sidenote: who tries to enforce the oath of supremacy.]
Bacon was of a different opinion from Carew. The late Lords Justices
had been mainly concerned with Limerick and Kilkenny, where they saw
the difficulty but suggested no remedy, 'rather warily for themselves
than agreeably to their duties and place.' Bacon himself was for
proceeding very warily. He was against tendering the oath of supremacy
to these town magistrates at all, and in favour of trusting to gradual
remedies. The plantation of Protestant settlers, he said, 'cannot but
mate the other party in time' if accompanied by the establishment
of good bishops and preachers, by improvement of the new college,
and by the education of wards. These were the natural means, and if
anything stronger was necessary it should be done by law and not by
force. And only one town should be taken in hand at a time so as not
to cause panic. St. John himself was in favour of a general attack on
the municipalities who refused to elect mayors or recorders, and of
carrying this policy out to its logical consequences, otherwise he
said the State would only spin and unspin. It was resolved to proceed
in the case of Waterford by legal process as Bacon had advised. Before
the end of 1615 a decree was obtained in Chancery for forfeiture of the
charter, unless the corporation surrendered under seal by a certain
day. In July 1616, over six months after the appointed time, Alexander
Cuffe refused to take the oath of supremacy as mayor, and at the end
of the year this matter was referred to the English Privy Council. In
the dearth of magistrates there was no regular gaol delivery and the
criminal law was at a standstill; but it was not till October 1617
that the Earl of Thomond and Chief Justice Jones, sitting as special
commissioners, obtained a verdict from a county of Waterford jury 'even
as the King's counsel drew it.' As late as May 1618 the forfeiture was
not complete, and the citizens were allowed to send agents to England.
The charter was surrendered in the following year, and Waterford, 'of
whose antiquity and fidelity,' in Docwra's language, 'the citizens were
wont to brag, reduced to be a mere disfranchised village.' And so it
remained until the end of the reign.[138]
[Sidenote: The Waterford charter is forfeited,]
[Sidenote: but a Protestant corporation is unobtainable.]
The citizens of Waterford valued their charter, but the oath of
supremacy was too high a price to pay, and they refused to make even a
show of conformity, 'preferring to sit still and attend whatever course
the King directs.' Local magistrates were therefore unobtainable,
and James suggested that fitting persons should be imported from
England. The Irish Government liked the idea, and suggested that thirty
families, worth at least 500_l._ each, should be induced to settle.
They were not to be violent or turbulent folk but able to furnish
magistrates, and two ruined abbeys near the river might be assigned for
their reception. If the owners took advantage of the situation to exact
high prices, the Government would reduce them to reason. The mayor
and aldermen of Bristol were accordingly invited by the English Privy
Council to fill the gap, but after a month's inquiry they were unable
to find anyone who was willing to inhabit Waterford upon the terms
proposed.[139]
[Sidenote: Fresh plantations undertaken.]
[Sidenote: The Wexford case.]
[Sidenote: The people weary of Irish tenures.]
When Sir William Jones was made Chief Justice of Ireland in the spring
of 1617, Lord Keeper Bacon advised him to 'have special care of the
three plantations, that of the North which is in part acted, that
of Wexford which is now in distribution, and that of Longford and
Leitrim which is now in survey. And take it from me that the bane
of a plantation is, when the undertakers or planters make such haste
to a little mechanical present profit, as disturbeth the whole frame
and nobleness of the work for times to come. Therefore hold them to
their covenants, and the strict ordinances of plantation.' Seven years
had then passed since the Wexford project had been first mooted, and
many difficulties had arisen. The lands in question comprised the
northern part of Wexford county, with a small strip in Carlow and
Wicklow, partly inhabited by representatives of ancient settlers or
modern grantees, but more largely by Kinsellaghs, Kavanaghs, Murroes,
Macdamores, and Macvadocks, who, as Chichester said, 'when the chief
of the English retired themselves upon the discord of the houses of
Lancaster and York crept into the woody and strong parts of the same.'
The most important person among the English was Sir Richard Masterson
of Ferns, whose family had been long connected with the district, and
who had an annuity of 90_l._ out of it by Queen Elizabeth's grant.
Walter Synnott had a similar charge of 20_l._, and both received
some other chief rents. The Commissioners who visited Ireland in
1613 reported that the tract contained 66,800 acres in the baronies
of Gorey, Ballaghkeen, and Scarawalsh stretching from the borders of
Carlow to the sea and from Arklow to somewhere near Enniscorthy, along
the left bank of the Slaney, besides much wood, bog, and mountain.
Many of the inhabitants were tired of disorder, though they had
been followers of 'the Kavanaghs and other lewd persons in time of
rebellion,' and were willing to give up lands of which they had but
an uncertain tenure, and to receive them back in more regular form.
They claimed their lands by descent, and not by tanistry, but the
descent was in Irish gavelkind and the subdivision had therefore been
infinite. The investigation of their titles followed, during which it
was discovered that the whole territory was legally vested in the King.
Art MacMurrough Kavanagh and other chiefs surrendered their proprietary
rights to Richard II. who undertook to employ them in his wars, and to
give them an estate of inheritance in all lands they could conquer
from rebels. Art himself was to receive an annuity of 80 marks, which
was actually paid for some years. The chiefs did homage, and then the
King granted the whole territory in question to Sir John Beaumont,
excepting any property belonging to the Earl of Ormonde and certain
other grantees, and to the Church. Beaumont's interest became vested in
Francis Lord Lovel, who disappeared at the battle of Stoke and whose
attainder brought all his possessions to the Crown.[140]
[Sidenote: Opposition of Wexford landowners.]
[Sidenote: The dissatisfaction is general.]
The lively proceedings in Parliament during the spring of 1613 drew
attention to Ireland and to the Wexford plantation, among other things
there. Walter Synnott took the lead among the petitioners who visited
London, and the result was a particular reference of the Wexford case
to the Commissioners sent over to inquire into Irish grievances. Even
with their report before us it is not easy to understand all the
details. The Commissioners say that 35,210 acres, or more than half of
the whole territory, were assigned to Sir Richard Masterson, but in
the schedule the figure is only 16,529. The general result was that
12,000 acres were declared without owners, and these it was intended
to divide among certain military officers. Fifty-seven natives became
freeholders under the scheme, of which only twenty-one retained their
'ancient houses and habitations, some of the remoter lands being given
to new undertakers, and in exchange they are to have others nearer to
their dwellings, at which they are discontented, saying that they are
not sufficiently recompensed.' Even the lucky ones had to give up part
of their land, while 390, who claimed small freeholds, got nothing,
and all the other inhabitants, amounting to 14,500 men, women, and
children, were left at the will of the patentees, 'though few are yet
removed.' The new undertakers declared that they would disturb no one
except in so far as was necessary to make demesnes about the castles
which they were bound to build, Masterson, Synnott and others being
ready to let lands to them at rates merely sufficient to satisfy the
crown rents.[141]
[Sidenote: The more the plan is known,]
[Sidenote: the less it is liked.]
[Sidenote: The scheme is revised.]
[Sidenote: But few are satisfied.]
Chichester's original project was not covetous on the part of the
Crown, for it aimed at no greater revenue than 400_l._ instead of
279_l._ 3_s._ 4_d._ which had hitherto been the highest annual revenue.
In consideration of being bound to build castles and to inhabit
mountainous regions, the rent demanded from the undertakers, who
were to be all Protestants, was somewhat less than that of the Irish
freeholders. Whatever might be thought of the plan no one was satisfied
with the way in which it worked out. Many such of the natives, say
the Commissioners, as formerly 'agreed to this new plantation now
absolutely dislike thereof, and of their proportions assigned them in
lieu of their other possessions taken from them, for that, as they
affirm, their proportions assigned are not so many acres as they are
rated to them, and because the acres taken from them are far more in
number than they be surveyed at, which difference cannot be decided
without a new survey, which some of the natives desire.' If the case of
the newly-made freeholder stood thus, what must have been the feelings
of men who were made altogether landless? Most of the Irish had been
concerned in Tyrone's rebellion, but some had been always loyal, like
the old English inhabitants. As for Walter Synnott and others in his
position, they professed themselves willing to pay the King as much as
the new undertakers, but not in any way to contribute to the expenses
incurred by them. After receiving the report of the Commissioners,
James agreed to a revised plan which was very favourable to the Irish,
or at least to some of them. The new undertakers were to receive only
16,500 acres in all and those the least fertile, the rest, after
satisfying Masterson, Synnott, and another, was to be divided among
the Irish. When Chichester ceased to be Lord Deputy at the end of 1615,
nothing had been finally settled, and recriminations continued for
some time. On a fresh survey it was discovered that 'half the country
was before distributed under the name of a quarter only.' Eighty Irish
freeholders were then made in addition to the first fifty-seven, which
still left 530 claimants unprovided for according to their own account,
or 303 according to the official view. The fortunate ones were of
course overjoyed, but by far the greater number were not fortunate. The
patentees whose titles had been clearly made surrendered and received
fresh grants on a somewhat reduced scale. Of the undertakers whose
patents had not been fully perfected Blundell alone secured 500 acres
by the King's especial wish, and 1,000 were assigned to the Bishop of
Waterford. The royal revenue was increased by about 300_l._ a year, and
the expenses of the settlement were defrayed by the country.[142]
[Sidenote: Report of Commissioners on the plantation.]
[Sidenote: The Irish inhabitants willing to make some concessions,]
[Sidenote: but are dissatisfied with the terms given.]
The Commissioners above mentioned were instructed to inform themselves
minutely as to the proceedings in the proposed plantation, which at
the time of their inquiry had been going on for more than three years;
they were to find out how many families were to be displaced, of what
condition they were, whether they had been good subjects or not, and
whether they held by descent or by tanistry. Similar particulars were
to be given about the undertakers or settlers who were to take their
places and 'whether any of them be of the Irish and namely of the
Kavanaghs.' The Commissioners were ordered to discover whether the
evictions had been so managed as to deprive the people of their growing
crops, and as to the houses available for them on ejectment; and also
whether they were capable of making the same improvements as the
undertakers were bound to, and of paying the same rents. As Chichester
was himself a member of the Commission, the report may be taken as a
fair or perhaps as a favourable account of what was actually done.
Most of the Irish inhabitants realised that their position as tenants
in gavelkind was weak, and they were ready in 1609 to surrender on
condition of getting an indefeasible title to three-fourths of their
land, leaving the remainder for English settlers. They said there
were 667 of them in this position, but the official record only
mentioned 440: probably the discrepancy was owing to many of them
not having put in their claims by the appointed day. Fourteen out of
the whole number had patents from the Crown to show. Before anything
was actually done the discovery of the King's title was made, but at
first this seemed to make little difference, and the Irish people were
almost persuaded that nothing was intended but their good. They were
told that the King would be satisfied with a small increase in his
revenue, 'and that the civilising of the country was the chief thing
aimed at'; but that those who thwarted his Majesty's excellent plans
'should have justice, which is the benefit of subjects, but were to
look for no favour.' The general idea was that freeholds should not be
less than 100 acres, or sixty in some rare cases, and that the rest
of the peasants should become leasehold tenants to them or to English
undertakers. The freeholders alone would have to serve on juries, and
it was desirable not to have too large a panel, as the difficulty of
getting verdicts would be increased thereby. Fifty-seven freeholders
were accordingly made, of whom twenty-one were not disturbed, the
others were shifted about and were not content, declaring that the land
given in compensation was insufficient. 'To the residue,' the report
continues, 'which claim to be freeholders, being for the most part
possessed of but small portions, no allowance of land or recompense is
assigned or given.' There were 390 of these and 14,500 persons besides
remained in the country 'at the will of the patentees.' It was not
proposed actually to remove them from their houses or holdings unless
they interfered with a demesne, but for this forbearance there was no
adequate security.
[Sidenote: A Wexford jury will not find the King's title,]
[Sidenote: and strong measures are taken.]
These people, or many of them, had not been unwilling to see English
gentlemen come among them, and even to give up some land in order to
secure the remainder, but the wind changed when it was discovered
that only something like one in ten would have any estate at all. The
King's title had been found by the lawyers, but it was necessary that
there should be a verdict also, and in December 1611 a Wexford jury
refused to find one. The case was removed into the Exchequer with the
same jury, and after much argument eleven were ready to find for the
King and five against him. The minority were sent to prison and fined
in the Castle Chamber, and the case was remitted to Wexford, where the
eleven obedient jurors were reinforced by Sir Thomas Colclough and
John Murchoe or Murphy, 'now a patentee in the new plantation,' and
therefore an interested party, and the King's title by Lord Lovel's
attainder was thus found.[143]
[Sidenote: Indecision of the King.]
[Sidenote: People who benefited by the settlement.]
[Sidenote: The King is convinced by the complainants,]
[Sidenote: but soon changes his mind.]
[Sidenote: The King approves of the plantation.]
The tendency of James I. to give decisions upon one-sided evidence,
and to veer round when he heard the other side, is well illustrated
by his dealings with the Wexford settlement. The case for the Irish
inhabitants, as matters stood at the end of 1611, may be taken as
sufficiently stated in the petition presented by Henry Walsh on their
behalf. Walsh seems to have been a lawyer, but he was in possession of
220 acres as a freeholder, which were reduced to 130 by the plan of
settlement. He stated that he and his fellows had surrendered upon the
faith of a regrant in common socage 'reduced from gavelkind and other
uncertain tenures' in consideration of paying a head rent of 90_l._
to the Castle of Ferns and of 60_l._ into the Exchequer. The regrants
were delayed, but on the King's title being set up he was induced
to grant patents to several undertakers, 1,500 acres apiece being
assigned to Sir Laurence Esmond, 'servitor, and a native of Wexford,'
and Sir Edward Fisher, also a servitor. It afterwards appeared that
19,900 acres were disposed of in this way, 500 to Nicholas Kenny the
escheator, 1,000 to William Parsons the surveyor and future Lord
Justice, 600 to Conway Brady, the Queen's footman, 1,000 to Francis
Blundell, afterwards Vice-Treasurer, 1,000 to Sir Robert Jacob the
Solicitor-General, and so forth. Some of these were put into possession
by the sheriff even before the issue of their patents, military force
being employed. Walsh said a hundred thousand people were affected by
these transactions, which was no doubt a great exaggeration, but he
could state with some truth that the interests of Sir Richard Masterson
and other old English settlers were threatened by the assertion of a
title 'dormant and not heard of time out of mind.' The Commissioners
for Irish causes in London so far supported the petition that they
advised the revocation of all patents granted since the surrender
of the native landowners, and that no advantage should be taken of
them except to exact a moderate increase of the Crown rent. The King
thereupon ordered Chichester to revoke the patents to Fisher and
Esmond, to raise the rent from 45_l._ to 50_l._, and not to allow Henry
Walsh to be molested. The petitioners, said the King, had been denied
the benefit of the Commission of defective titles, and 'advantage
taken of their surrender to their own disherison.' Chichester objected
that the Commissioners for Irish causes had been misled by false
statements, and that he would suspend all action until he had fresh
orders. Whereupon the King, who had been having some talk with Sir John
Davies, declared that Walsh's petition was 'full of false and cautelous
surmises,' and ordered him to be summoned before the Irish Council and
punished in an exemplary manner if he failed to prove his statements.
Chichester was directed to go on with the plantation, assured of his
Majesty's continued approbation, and encouraged to make the work his
own by visiting the district in person.[144]
[Sidenote: The critics to be punished.]
The preparations for holding a Parliament may have hindered
Chichester's activity, but the King's vacillations would have caused
delay in any case. At the end of 1612 James revoked all former letters
on the subject except that of May 7, 1611, by which the Lord Deputy had
been authorised to receive the surrender of the natives and to make
'regrants to such of them as he should think fit such quantities of
land and at such rent and upon such conditions as he should think fit.'
There might then be made such an intermixture of English settlers as
would civilise the country and 'annoy the mountain neighbours if they
should thereafter stir.' Henry Walsh and Thomas Hoare, who had held
public indignation meetings and 'endeavoured seditiously to stir up
the inhabitants' against the King's title and against his good work of
plantation, were ordered to be duly punished for their 'inordinate and
contemptuous behaviour.'[145]
[Sidenote: Nullum Tempus occurrit Regi.]
[Sidenote: Bishop Rothe's view of the plantation.]
[Sidenote: He foretells future trouble.]
It is a well-known maxim of our law that the Crown cannot lose its
rights through lapse of time. In modern practice this doctrine has been
somewhat modified by statute and by the decisions of judges; but in the
time of James I. it was accepted literally, and no lawyer or official
seems to have thought that there was anything extraordinary in setting
up a title for the King which had not been heard of for generations.
Those who suffered by the transaction pleaded that Art MacMurrough had
no right to the country in the feudal sense, and could not therefore
surrender it; and even if the effect of Lord Lovel's attainder were
admitted, there had been no attempt to act upon it for 120 years. The
official correspondence has hitherto been followed here, but it is
fair to append the criticism of a thoroughly competent observer who
lived not far off and who understood the subject. The learned David
Rothe, who was a very honest and by no means extreme man, appealed
like Bacon to foreign countries and the next age, and published the
story of the Wexford settlement in Latin. He showed how little chance
rude and illiterate peasants had against lawyers, and he foresaw the
consequences of driving them to desperation. 'The Viceroy,' he wrote,
'ought to have looked closer before he suggested an imperfect and shaky
title to the King, as a solid foundation for his new right, and before
he drove from their well established and ancient possession harmless
poor natives encumbered with many children and with no powerful
friends. They have no wealth but flocks and herds, they know no trade
but agriculture or pasture, they are unlearned men without human help
or protection. Yet though unarmed they are so active in mind and body
that it is dangerous to drive them from their ancestral seats, to
forbid them fire and water; thus driving the desperate to revenge and
even the more moderate to think of taking arms. They have been deprived
of weapons, but are in a temper to fight with nails and heels and to
tear their oppressors with their teeth. Necessity gives the greatest
strength and courage, nor is there any sharper spur than that of
despair. Since these Leinster men, and others like them, see themselves
excluded from all hopes of restitution or compensation, and are so
constituted that they would rather starve upon husks at home than fare
sumptuously elsewhere, they will fight for their altars and hearths,
and rather seek a bloody death near the sepulchres of their fathers
than be buried as exiles in unknown earth or inhospitable sand.'[146]
[Sidenote: Outlaws about the plantations.]
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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Plantation in Longford and King's County.]
[Sidenote: The plan better than the execution]
[Sidenote: 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 200_l._ 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]
[Sidenote: Attempt to apply the Wexford lesson.]
[Sidenote: The O'Ferralls.]
[Sidenote: A careful survey.]
[Sidenote: Ely O'Carroll]
[Sidenote: Cases of hardship.]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: The undertakers non-resident.]
[Sidenote: The natives not attracted by short leases,]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Plantation of Leitrim.]
[Sidenote: General ill-success of the smaller plantations.]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Unpopularity of St. John.]
[Sidenote: He is praised by the King,]
[Sidenote: and by Bacon,]
[Sidenote: but is nevertheless recalled,]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Lord Falkland made Viceroy, Feb. 1621-2.]
[Sidenote: Sermon by Bishop Ussher,]
[Sidenote: who wished to enforce the Act of Supremacy,]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Effects of the Spanish marriage negotiations.]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Proclamation against the priests, Jan. 1624,]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[137] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616, in _Court and Times_;
Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 1, 1616 (_Spedding_, v. 375).
Installation of St. John in _Liber Munerum_, ii. 6. St. John to
Winwood, August 1616 (No. 289); Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe (Camden
Society) December.
[138] Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 5, 1616, in _Spedding_, v.
378; Davies to Lake, December 20, 1615; St. John to Winwood, December
31, 1616, and October 11, 1617; Licence to send agents, May 18, 1618;
return of the Commissioners, 1618, No. 431; surrender of charter
announced, August 4, 1619. Histories of Waterford by Smith and Ryland.
Bacon had recommended procedure by _Quo warranto_ or _Scire facias_,
and St. John, doubtless prompted by Chief Justice Jones, says the same
in his letter to the Privy Council, April 1618, No. 406.
[139] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, August 4, 1619;
St. John to the same, November 9; Corporation of Bristol to the same,
January 31, 1620. There were no mayors or sheriffs of Waterford from
1618 to 1625, both inclusive.
[140] Chichester to Salisbury, June 27, 1610. Report of Commissioners,
November 12, 1613, p. 449. The latter is more fully given in
_Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, ii. 372. In Chichester's project
(_Irish Cal._, 1614, No. 859) the escheated territory is described as
'the Kinsellaghs, and Bracknagh, and McDamore's country, McVadock's
country, the Murrowes, Kilhobuck, Farrenhamon and Kilcooleneleyer, and
a small part of Farren Neale,' to which Rothe adds 'Clanhanrick.' In
1606 the judges had declared that 'Les terres de nature de gavelkind ne
fueront partible enter les procheins heires males del cesty que morust
seisie, mais enter touts les males de son sept.' Davies's _Reports_,
1628.
[141] Report of Commissioners in 1613, _ut sup._
[142] Report of Commissioners in 1613, _ut sup._ Sir Henry Docwra's
letters of December 23, 1617, and March 3, 1618. Chichester's original
project and the English Council's criticisms are calendared under 1612,
Nos. 600-602.
[143] Report of 1613 Commissioners _ut sup._
[144] Walsh's petition followed by certificate, December 5, 1611; the
King to Chichester, January 21 and March 22 and 31, 1612; Chichester
to Salisbury, March 5. As to the intruding patentees see State Papers
calendared under 1613, p. 452 _sqq._ A petition of Redmond MacDamore
and others calendared under 1616, No. 248, is substantially the same
as Walsh's, and probably belongs to 1611. The sheriff gave possession
to the patentees on May 7, 1613, forcing the doors where necessary and
turning out the inmates.
[145] The King to Chichester, April 16, 1613.
[146] Rothe's _Analecta Sacra_, iii. art. 19, Cologne, 1617. The text
was evidently composed before Chichester had ceased to be viceroy, and
therefore before the work of the Wexford settlement was quite finished.
[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
100_l._ 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.
[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.
[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.
[150] Brief return of survey in _Sloane MS._ 4756.
[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 5,000_l._
allotted to be disbursed upon the town and wall of Jamestown,'
_Melbourne Hall Papers_, ii. 175.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.