EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I., 1625-1632
[Sidenote: Accession of Charles I., March, 1625.]
The death of James I. made little immediate difference to Ireland.
King Charles was proclaimed in Dublin, and a new commission was
issued to Falkland as Lord Deputy. An attack from Spain was thought
likely, and the Irish Government were in no condition to resist it,
for the pay of the troops was in arrear--nine months in the case of
old soldiers and seven in the case of recent levies. Being hungry
they sometimes mutinied, and were more dangerous to the country than
to foreign invaders. The fortifications of the seaports were decayed,
and ships of war were unable to sail for want of provisions. Pirates
continued to infest the coast, and this evil was aggravated by constant
friction between the Irish Government and the Admiralty of England.
Falkland continued viceroy for more than six years after the accession
of Charles I., constantly complaining that he was neglected and that
his official powers and privileges were unfairly curtailed. With Lord
Chancellor Loftus he continued to be on the worst of terms, and the
King was at last driven to place the Great Seal in commission. Loftus
was sent for to England.[158]
[Sidenote: Quarrel between Falkland and Loftus.]
The suspended Chancellor was accused of seeking popularity for himself
and intriguing against the King, especially with regard to the expenses
of recruiting and maintaining soldiers. There were charges, all denied,
of hearing cases in private and making money by extortion; and Loftus
openly claimed the right to eke out his salary of 360_l._ by exacting
certain fees. After a long inquiry by King and Council, Loftus, who
could keep his temper, was completely exonerated, and was granted the
unusual privilege of quitting Ireland whenever he pleased without
forfeiting his place. Prosecutions in the Castle Chambers were ordered
against those who had accused him falsely. Loftus was at war with Lord
Cork as well as with the Deputy, and Cork sustained the charges against
him before the King and Council.[159]
[Sidenote: The case of the O'Byrnes.]
[Sidenote: The English Government tired of plantations.]
Like his two predecessors, Falkland believed that plantations were the
best things for Ireland, and he had not been many months in the country
before he proposed to settle the lower part of Wicklow and some strips
of the adjoining counties. In the days of Feagh MacHugh O'Byrne the
district had been constantly disturbed, and his son Phelim trod for a
time in his footsteps; but he made his peace with Queen Elizabeth and
held a considerable part of the tribal territory, though by a rather
uncertain tenure. The Queen perhaps intended to secure him by patent,
but this was not done during her lifetime, and James issued letters to
the same effect, which Grandison managed to avoid acting on. The reason
given for delay was that much of the land in question had been granted
to individuals by patent, and that the whole territory belonged in
fact to the King. Middlesex, for some reason not now evident, opposed
Falkland's scheme of a plantation, and the London Commissioners for
Irish causes did the same. Plantations, said the latter, were very good
things in themselves; but they were the cause of much exasperation in
those concerned, and in several cases but little progress had been
made, so that it was unreasonable to break fresh ground. Falkland would
do well if he could break off the dependence of the people on their
chiefs, and induce them to hold their lands by some civilised tenure
and at reasonable rents. From this we may perhaps infer that some of
the O'Byrne clansmen were not at all anxious to submit to Phelim's
yoke. Falkland, however, endeavoured to get Buckingham's support for a
plantation. If the matter were taken out of his hand he would apply
for 6,000 acres, but if the arrangements were left to him he would ask
for nothing.[160]
[Sidenote: Falkland wishes to colonise Wicklow,]
[Sidenote: but the plan is disliked in London.]
[Sidenote: Arrest of Phelim O'Byrne.]
[Sidenote: A royal commission on the Wicklow case,]
[Sidenote: whose report is unfavourable to Falkland.]
Falkland soon returned to the charge. He found, or thought he found,
a widespread conspiracy in that part of Leinster which contained
O'Byrne's country, and he reiterated his opinion that a plantation
commanded by a strong fort was the only way to break up the dependency
of the clansmen on their chief. Two of Phelim's sons were arrested
and shut up in the Castle. All official delays, said Falkland, were
attributed to fear; but there would be no cause for it if money were
provided to pay the soldiers. The London Commissioners were, however,
still bent upon making Phelim a great man with a court leet, court
baron, fairs and markets, provided he would make his sons freeholders
with 200 acres of good land apiece. Nothing decisive was done, but
after three years' watching Falkland announced that he had really got
the threads of the conspiracy. Phelim O'Byrne and five of his sons
were arrested, Butlers, Kavanaghs and O'Tooles being also implicated
as well as some in Munster. By this time Buckingham was dead, and
this may have turned the scale against Falkland. Bills of indictment
were found against Phelim and his sons, and at that stage proceedings
were stopped by peremptory orders from England. The King declared
his intention of appointing a special commission to inquire into the
whole matter, and the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, the Lord
Chancellor, Chief Justice Shirley, Lord Wilmot, Sir Francis Annesley
and Sir Arthur Savage were named for the purpose. Falkland bitterly
complained that Loftus, Annesley and Savage were his personal enemies;
with Ussher and Shirley he declared himself thoroughly satisfied.
Wilmot and Annesley do not seem to have acted, but the others took
their share of the work. The Commissioners proposed to examine some
Irish-speaking prisoners, but Falkland refused to allow this unless
he might name the interpreter. It was stated by some witnesses that
he had previously used the services of Sir Henry Bellings and William
Graham, both of whom were interested in the O'Byrne lands. Under these
circumstances the inquiry was not satisfactory, but the Commissioners
examined thirty-six witnesses and sent over the whole mass of evidence
without any comments of their own. There was no cross-examination, and
the facts were not properly sifted; but the whole story can scarcely
be false. Some witnesses declared that their evidence before the grand
jury was extorted by threats and others that they had been tortured.
They were not witnesses of the best sort, for one said that he would
do service against his father to save his own life, and another that
after being chained in a dungeon for five weeks without fire or candle,
he was ready to swear anything, 'and he thinketh there is no man but
would do so.' A witness of a higher class was William Eustace of
Castlemartin in Kildare, who testified that the foreman of the grand
jury had been Sir James Fitzgerald, whose father Sir Piers, with his
wife and daughter, had been burned to death in cold blood by a party
which included Phelim MacFeagh. He swore that the majority of the grand
jurors had not the legal freehold qualification, and that the sheriff
appointed through Lord Esmond's influence was likewise unqualified.
Esmond had an interest in the lands, and so had Sir Henry Bellings,
who was also a grand juror. As a result of the inquiry, the O'Byrnes
were released, and no doubt this contributed to Falkland's recall,
though Ussher was most anxious to shield him. Phelim McFeagh and his
sons retained some of the territory in question, but it would seem that
Esmond, Graham, and others got shares, as well as Sir William Parsons
and Lord Chancellor Loftus.[161]
[Sidenote: Remarks on the O'Byrne case.]
[Sidenote: Falkland's defence.]
Carte's account of the O'Byrne affair has been generally accepted,
but it is not impartial. He suppresses facts unfavourable to Phelim
MacFeagh, and he exaggerates the part taken by Sir William Parsons,
whose later proceedings after Strafford's death were distasteful to
him. Moreover, he gives his reader to understand that the O'Byrnes
were deprived of all their property, which was certainly not the case.
Phelim died early in 1631 and his sons retained the land which they
held by patent; what was considered to be in the King's hands being
granted to the Earl of Carlisle. The Irish Council were on the whole
favourable to Falkland, whom they knew to have no personal interest
in the matter. Phelim they declared to be a notorious rebel, whose
intrigues had engaged the attention of three deputies; and he had
compassed the death of a magistrate named Pont. Falkland had only
taken part in the trial because the witnesses were so overawed by
their priests that they refused to give evidence before any inferior
minister. Lord Cork, who seems to have had no interest in the Wicklow
lands, had the worst opinion of Phelim. Falkland himself was very
indignant at having his conduct questioned by Commissioners who
were subordinate to him as long as he was Deputy. They did not, he
complained, hear both sides, and their behaviour, always excepting
Ussher and Shirley, was partial and spiteful. For himself he was 'a
gentleman born of such descent as the blood of most of your honourable
lordships who sit at the Council table runs in my veins,' and he ought
to be believed 'in spite of the malicious backbitings of scandals
by men of no generation or kindred, whose beginning has been either
mercenary or sordid, though perchance advanced by fortune above their
merit, and not understanding more of honour than the title they have
obtained (I will not say how).' This was directed against Loftus, and
there is much more to the same effect.[162]
[Sidenote: Charge against Lord Thurles,]
Falkland believed that the plots in Leinster originated with Lord
Thurles, Ormonde's eldest son, whose proceedings were suspected in
1619. This young man, who was the great Duke of Ormonde's father, was
drowned at the end of that year near the Skerries during his passage
to England. Nine years later an adherent of his house gave particulars
as to Lord Thurles's intentions not long before his death. Feeling
that his family were likely to be ruined, he proposed to raise a force
of 1,500 men, and he was in correspondence with Spain. He went from
house to house swearing people to follow him, and one of his adherents
was Sir John McCoghlan, who was discontented about the King's County
plantation. Suspicion having been aroused, Lord Thurles was summoned
to England and was lost on his way over. The whole story is of very
doubtful credibility, but there was enough to justify measures upon
Falkland's part.[163]
[Sidenote: Financial difficulties.]
[Sidenote: An assembly of Notables. The 'graces.']
[Sidenote: Toleration a grievous sin.]
From the very beginning of his reign Charles I. was in want of money,
and he longed to make Ireland self-supporting. Some popularity was
gained by restoring the charter of Waterford early in 1626, but the
King's quarrels both with France and Spain made it necessary to
increase the army in Ireland at the expense of the country. It was
decided to have 5,000 foot and 500 horse, but in the meantime the small
existing force was unpaid and worse than useless. Falkland was directed
to convene an assembly of Irish notables, and induce them to provide
funds by the promise of certain privileges or 'graces.' The peers and
bishops accordingly met in the middle of November 1626, and sat in the
same room with the Council, who occupied a long table in the middle.
Some delegates from the Commons were afterwards added, but neither
with them nor without them could the assembly come to any decision.
The negotiations went on for nine months, and ended in the appointment
of agents for the different provinces who were to go to England and
state their case before the King. Westmeath took an active part
against the Government. The eighth of the original graces offered by
Charles provided that the shilling fine for non-attendance at church on
Sundays and holidays should not be exacted except in special cases. A
limited toleration would thus be the consideration for a grant towards
the payment of the army. Twelve bishops, with Ussher at their head,
met and declared that 'the religion of the Papists is superstitious
and heretical,' and its toleration a grievous sin. 'To grant them
toleration in respect of any money to be given or contribution to be
made by them is to set religion to sale and with it the souls of the
people.'
[Sidenote: Ussher on the things that are Cæsar's.]
This was not published for some time, but while the negotiations were
still in progress George Downham, bishop of Derry, a Cambridge man and
a strong Calvinist, preached at Christ Church before the Lord Deputy
and Council. Having read the judgment of the twelve prelates, he called
upon the congregation to say Amen, and 'suddenly the whole church
almost shaked with the great sound their loud Amens made.' Ussher
himself preached next Sunday to the same effect, saying much of Judas
and the thirty pieces of silver. He was, however, strongly in favour
of a grant being made for the army, and his speech to the assembled
notables a few days later urged the duty of contributing to the public
defence. 'We are,' he said, 'now at odds with two of the most potent
princes in Christendom; to both which in former times the discontented
persons in Ireland have had recourse heretofore, proffering the kingdom
itself unto them, if they would undertake the conquest of it.' Desmond
had offered the island to France in Henry VIII.'s time, and after that
the Spaniards had never ceased to give trouble. Nor were matters much
improved by the late plantations; for while other colonising states had
'removed the ancient inhabitants to other dwellings, we have brought
new planters into the land, and have left the old inhabitants to shift
for themselves,' who would undoubtedly give trouble as soon as they had
the chance. The burden of the public defence lay on the King, and it
was the business of subjects to render Cæsar his due.[164]
[Sidenote: Irish soldiers in England.]
[Sidenote: The Act of Supremacy defied.]
[Sidenote: Bargain between the King and the Irish agents.]
The Irish agents did not leave Dublin until very near the end of
1627, and on reaching London found that toleration was by no means
popular. Considerable bodies of Irish troops were billeted in England,
sometimes coming into collision with the people and causing universal
irritation. The famous third Parliament of Charles I. met on March
17, and one of their first proceedings was to petition the King for
a stricter administration of the recusancy laws. A little later the
Commons in their remonstrance against Buckingham complained of the
miserable condition of Ireland, where Popery was openly professed and
practised. Superstitious houses had been repaired or newly erected, and
'replenished with men and women of several orders' in Dublin and all
large towns. A few months later a committee reported that Ireland was
swarming with friars, priests, and Jesuits who devoted themselves to
undermining the allegiance of the people. Formerly very few had refused
to attend church in Dublin; but that was now given up, and there were
thirteen mass houses, more in number than the parish churches. Papists
were trusted with the command of soldiers of their own creed, and the
Irish generally were being trained to arms, 'which heretofore hath
not been permitted, even in times of greatest security.' The agents
no doubt found that they had a better chance with the King than with
anyone else, and they consented to waive the promise not to enforce the
shilling fine for non-attendance at church, being perhaps privately
satisfied that such enforcement would not take place. The agents were
of course all landowners or lawyers nearly related to them, and they
procured the much more important undertaking that a sixty years' title
should be good against the Crown. They agreed to pay 120,000_l._ in
three years for the support of the army, but there were complaints that
this was too burdensome, and the time for completing the payment was
afterwards extended to four years.[165]
[Sidenote: A Parliament is promised,]
[Sidenote: but not held.]
[Sidenote: Proclamation against regular clergy, April 1, 1629.]
[Sidenote: Recall of Falkland, Aug. 1629.]
It was provided by the graces that the limitation of the King's title
to land and other important concessions should be secured by law, and
the opening of Parliament was fixed for November 1. Roman Catholics who
had formerly practised in Ireland or who had spent five years at the
English inns of court were to be admitted to practise as barristers
on taking a simple oath of allegiance, without any abjuration of the
papal authority, and this was a considerable step towards toleration.
A Parliament had been promised by the original graces in 1626 and
clamoured for by the assembly of notables in 1627, but it soon appeared
that it would be impossible to hold it by the beginning of November
1628, and people in Ireland were sceptical as to there being any
real intention to hold one at all. Falkland issued writs, however,
and it appears that some elections actually took place, when it was
discovered in London that the provisions of Poynings' Act had not been
complied with. The measures proposed to be passed should have been
first sent from the Irish Government, and an answer returned under
the Great Seal of England authorising or amending them. The objection
proved fatal, and no Parliament was held, while the Irish nobility
and gentry complained that even the purely administrative part of
the Graces had not been acted upon. The Government required that the
120,000_l._ already granted should be paid into the Exchequer, but
there would then be no security for the troops being paid, and the
Irish gentry, with good reason, feared that they might pay their money
without escaping the extortion and disorder of the soldiers. In the
meantime the English Government suggested that more activity might be
shown against the religious orders in Ireland, and Falkland gladly
issued a proclamation forbidding the exercise of all ecclesiastical
jurisdiction derived from Rome, and ordering all monasteries and
colleges to dissolve themselves. It was not intended to interfere
with the secular clergy nor with the laity. According to Falkland the
immediate effect of this proclamation was very great. The Jesuits and
Franciscans blamed each other, and there was no resistance in Dublin.
But at Drogheda, the residence of Ussher, who was a party to the
proclamation, it was treated with contempt, 'a drunken soldier being
first set up to read it, and then a drunken serjeant of the town, both
being made, by too much drink, incapable of that task, and perhaps
purposely put to it, made the same seem like a May game,' and mass was
celebrated as regularly, if not quite so openly, as before. It was at
this moment that Falkland's recall was decided on, though he did not
actually surrender the government for six months, the King declaring
his unabated confidence and his wish to employ him about his person. No
money was, however, allowed him for travelling expenses, and he had to
sell plate and furniture, while a troop of horse and company of foot,
which he held by patent for life with reversion to his second son,
were cashiered. Gondomar, he observed, 'did term patents the common
faith.' Yet he claimed to have governed more cheaply than any of his
predecessors, no money having been remitted from England during his
whole term of office, and he had increased the revenue by 14,000_l._
He had acquired no land for himself, and we may probably dismiss as
mere scandal the statement that he had a share in the nefarious profits
of certain pirates. He cannot, however, be considered a successful
viceroy, and the querulous tone of his letters has prejudiced
historians against him.[166]
[Sidenote: Falkland falsely accused, 1631.]
Falkland was an unpopular man, and many objections were made to him. He
was accused of conspiring with Sir Dominic Sarsfield, Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, to procure the condemnation of one Bushell, a man of
eighty, for the murder of his wife with intent to divide his property
between them. Falkland brought this case before the Star Chamber, Lord
Mountnorris being one of the defendants. He had said that the Lord
Deputy 'would not suffer the King's servants to enjoy their places.'
Falkland succeeded completely after a trial which lasted several days.
Wentworth, who gave judgment in his favour, exonerated Mountnorris,
who was only proved to have said that the Deputy's government was
tyrannical and that he prevented the King's servants from enjoying
their places. 'My Lord Mountnorris,' said Wentworth, 'I acquit: every
word must not rise up in judgment against a man.'[167]
[Sidenote: Youthful escapade of Lucius Cary.]
One of Falkland's later acts was to give a company to his eldest son
Lucius, who was under twenty, and the Lords Justices who succeeded him
transferred the command to Sir F. Willoughby, who was an excellent
soldier. Young Cary admitted this, but added 'I know no reason why
therefore you should have my company any more than why therefore you
should have my breeches,' and so challenged him to fight. Willoughby
said he had specified that he had rather not have this particular
company or that of Sir Charles Coote. The duel did not take place, but
Cary spent ten days in the Fleet, whence he was released on his father
petitioning the King.[168]
[Sidenote: Cork and Loftus Lords Justices, 1629-1633.]
Lord Danby, who as Sir Henry Danvers had been President of Munster, was
named for the viceroyalty, but at his age he was unwilling to undertake
such an arduous task. Lord Chancellor Loftus and Lord Cork were then
appointed Lords Justices, the army being placed in Wilmot's hands. The
Lords Justices were on very bad terms, but Secretary Lake urged them to
make friends, and a solemn reconciliation took place in Lord Wilmot's
presence, 'which I beseech God,' Cork wrote, 'his lordship observe as
religiously as I resolve to do, if new provocations enforce me not to
alter my resolutions.' Wilmot was sanguine enough to think that they
would not quarrel again. Their instructions were to suppress all Popish
religious houses and all foreign jurisdictions, and to persuade the
army and people to attend divine service. Trinity College, Dublin, was
to receive every encouragement and care was to be taken in the exercise
of ecclesiastical patronage and to rescue benefices from lay hands.
The King's intention to call a Parliament was reiterated and a large
discretion was left to the Lords Justices, but judicial appointments,
nominations to the Privy Council, and commissions in the army were
reserved to the Crown.[169]
[Sidenote: Raid on religious houses in Dublin,]
[Sidenote: and Cork.]
So little effect had Falkland's last proclamation against the regular
orders, that Wilmot reported the establishment of seventeen additional
houses within four months after its publication. 'The Archbishop of
Dublin,' Lord Cork notes in his diary, 'and the mayor of Dublin,
by the direction of us the Lords Justices, ransacked the house of
friars in Cook Street.' Thomas Fleming, a Franciscan, was titular
archbishop of Dublin, and his order had been much strengthened by his
appointment. On St. Stephen's Day, the day after Christmas, 1629,
Archbishop Bulkeley, accompanied by the mayor and a file of musketeers,
visited the Franciscan church during high mass, cleared the building,
and arrested some of the friars, who were promptly rescued by a mob
3,000 strong. Showers of stones were thrown, and Bulkeley was glad to
take refuge in a house. The Lords Justices appeared with their guard,
but there were not soldiers enough available to act with effect, and
Wilmot reported that there was not one pound of powder in the Castle.
The friary was razed to the ground in the presence of the Recusant
aldermen. A month later the English Privy Council approved strongly of
what had been done, and ordered the demolition of the convents, which
should be turned into 'houses of correction, and to set the people on
work or to other public uses, for the advancement of justice, good
arts, or trades.' The regulars had increased in every considerable
town, and at Cork Sir William St. Leger by the Lords Justices' order
seized four houses; but all the inmates had warning, and escaped. There
was room for forty Franciscans and twenty Dominicans, the Jesuits
and Augustinians also being suitably accommodated. The Jesuit church
and college in Back Lane, Dublin, were, however, annexed to Trinity
College, and the former was for some time used as a lecture-room.[170]
[Sidenote: Weakness of the Government, 1630.]
The attitude of the Lords Justices to each other was little better than
an armed neutrality, and not much could be expected from a Government
so constituted. At the beginning of 1631 even Wilmot thought there
would be an open rupture, and the Lords Justices had differences as
long as they were in office; but they agreed so far as to reduce
the army, and something like a proper relation between income and
expenditure was thus arrived at. In May 1630 about 200 notables met the
Council, and with the exception of Lord Gormanston they all demanded
a Parliament, which was fixed for November, but which never met. Cork
said he had known Ireland for forty-three years and had never known it
so quiet, but he thought it impossible for any public man really to
understand the country because the priests kept governors and governed
permanently estranged. Spanish attempts on Ireland had always failed,
and he did not fear them, but there was a constant source of danger
in a population of hardy young men with nothing to do. The English
settlers were indeed numerous, but comfortable farmers with wives and
children would not easily be induced to come out and fight; and the
Irish understood this perfectly. Even in Dublin and Meath large armed
bands had broken into houses by night and taken what they wanted. The
Government were just strong enough to hang or disperse such banditti,
but the last of the voluntary subsidy would be paid at the end of
1632, and at the beginning of that year Wentworth had been appointed
Deputy.[171]
[Sidenote: St. Patrick's Purgatory demolished.]
[Sidenote: The Queen desires its restoration.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth's opinion.]
The Ulster settlement had not put an end to St. Patrick's Purgatory on
Lough Derg, in Donegal, in the territory of Termon-Magrath, which the
wicked old Archbishop of Cashel had held by patent and transmitted to
his son. The Lords Justices found no difficulty in agreeing on this
subject, and they bound James Magrath in a penalty of £1,000 'to pull
down and utterly demolish that monster of fame called St. Patrick's
Purgatory, with St. Patrick's bed, and all the vaults, cells, and all
other houses and buildings, and to have all the other superstitious
stones and materials cast into the lough, and that he should suffer the
superstitious chapel in the island to be pulled down to the ground,
and no boat to be there, nor pilgrimage used or frequented during
James Magrath's life willingly or wittingly.' The work seems to have
been thoroughly done, to the great grief of some people; and Henrietta
Maria, with her own hand and in her own tongue, begged Wentworth to
restore a place to which the people of the country had always been so
devoted. It was, she said, the greatest favour that he could do her,
and the liberty granted should be used very modestly. This letter
was sent by Lord Antrim, who had probably suggested it, and he was
commissioned to press the matter on the viceroy. Without granting the
Queen's request, Wentworth was able to say truly that the thing was
done before his time, but that it would be hard to undo it; and he
advised her to wait till a more suitable opportunity. In the meantime
he was most anxious to serve her Majesty without the intervention of
Antrim or any one else. The Purgatory was 'in the midst of the great
Scottish plantations,' and the Scots were only too anxious for an
excuse to find fault with the King's Government. Pilgrimages to Lough
Derg were resumed in course of time, and it was estimated that as
many as 13,000 devotees went there annually in the early part of the
nineteenth century.[172]
FOOTNOTES:
[158] For the wretched state of the army see State Papers, _Ireland_,
_passim_, particularly the letters of Sir Richard Aldworth, October 17,
1626, and February 16, 1626.
[159] _Court and Times_, of Charles I., July 11, 1628, i. 377. The King
to Falkland, August 4 and 16, 1628.
[160] Falkland to the Privy Council, May 3, 1623; Commissioners for
Irish causes to same, July (No. 1058 in Cal.); Falkland to Buckingham,
printed in Miss Hickson's _Ireland in the Seventeenth Century_, i. 45.
The latter is undated, but must be earlier than Middlesex's fall in May
1624.
[161] The evidence taken by Falkland is calendared at January 20,
1629. The evidence taken before the special commission is printed in
Gilbert's _Confederation and War_, i. 187. Particulars as to the lands
may be found in Morrin's _Cal. of Patent Rolls_, Car. I. pp. 356, 366,
399, 496. Accounts from various points of view are given in Gardiner's
_History_, viii. 20, in Miss Hickson's _Seventeenth Century_, i. 38,
and in Carte's _Ormonde_, book i. Ussher admitted that the special
commission had made more haste than good speed, see his letter of
January 22, 1628-9, _Works_, xv. 421.
[162] Irish Council to the King, calendared at April 28, 1629; the King
to the Lords Justices for the Earl of Carlisle, March 29, 1631; Lord
Esmond to Dorchester, September 18; Lord Cork to Dorchester, January
1630 (No. 1591). Falkland's Apology, December 8, 1628, is printed in
Gilbert's _Confederation and War_, i. 210.
[163] Falkland to Lord Conway, September 3, 1628, enclosing two letters
from Captain James Tobin; Captain Tobin's information given in England,
September 29, 1629, and January 13, 1630.
[164] The King to the Lord Deputy and Council, with the first version
of the Graces, September 22, 1626. The declaration of the bishops,
November 26, 1626, and Ussher's speech, April 30, 1627, are in
Elrington's 'Life of Ussher,' prefixed to his _Works_, i. 72-88. As
to Downham's sermon, April 22, 1627, see the paper calendared No.
693. Diary of the proceedings of the Great Assembly concerning the
maintenance of 5,000 foot and 500 horse, October 14, 1626, to June 26,
1627, No. 713 in Calendar. The new charter of Waterford, May 26, 1626,
is in Morrin's _Patent Rolls_, Car. I., 169.
[165] _Rushworth_, i. 514, 622. Report of Commons committee, February
24, 1628-9, in Gardiner's _Constitutional Documents_, No. 14. For the
billeting of Irish soldiers in England see _Court and Times_, i. 316,
331. It was reported in London that the Irish Recusants were giving
120,000_l._ for a 'kind of public toleration' with power to erect
monasteries, _ib._ 375.
[166] Captain Bardsey's note of abuses, 1625, No. 1417 in Russell and
Prendergast's _Calendar_; proclamation against the monasteries etc.,
April 1, 1629, with Falkland's letters of April 5 and May 2; Falkland
to Ussher, April 14 and May 15, 1629, in Ussher's _Works_, xv. 438,
442; Falkland to Dorchester, April 17 and September 29, 1629; King's
letter of recall, August 10. The Report of the Commissioners for Irish
affairs concerning Poynings' Act is calendared at September 9, 1628,
and the story is told in _Rushworth_, ii. 16-22. It appears from Ware's
Diary, quoted by Gardiner, viii. 18, that the election for Dublin was
actually held. The graces in their complete form are in Cox's _Hibernia
Anglicana_, ii. 45, and in Strafford's Letters, i. 312.
[167] Star Chamber cases, ed. Gardiner, _Camden Society_, 1886.
[168] The petition is in _Cabala_, 221, other documents are in Lady
Theresa Lewis's _Friends of Clarendon_, i. Appx. B-E. The imprisonment
was from January 17 to 27, 1629-30.
[169] Lord Cork's Diary in _Lismore Papers_, 1st series, iii. 2. Wilmot
to Dorchester, October 22, 1629. The instructions to the Lords Justices
are calendared under July, No. 1443.
[170] Lord Cork's Diary in _Lismore Papers_, 1st series, iii. 13.
Wilmot to Dorchester, January 6, 1630; Cork to same, January, No.
1591, with enclosures; Privy Council to the Lords Justices, January
31, printed in _Foxes and Firebrands_, ii. 74, 2nd ed., Dublin, 1682;
Gilbert's _History of Dublin_, i. 242, 300; Cork to Dorchester, March
2, 1630.
[171] Wilmot to Dorchester, February 1, 1631; Lord Cork's letters of
December 8, 1630, and January 12, 1631; Ware's Diary in Gardiner, viii.
28; Lord Cork's Diary, November 26, 1632, in _Lismore Papers_, iii. 167.
[172] Todd's _St. Patrick_, vii.; Hill's _Plantation in Ulster_, 184;
Henrietta Maria to Wentworth, and his answer, October 10, 1638, in
_Strafford Letters_; Lord Cork's Diary, September 8, 1632 in _Lismore
Papers_, iii. 159; Cæsar Otway's _Sketches_, 1827.