WENTWORTH'S PLANS OF FORFEITURE AND SETTLEMENT
[Sidenote: Defective titles to land.]
[Sidenote: Raising the King's rents.]
It was natural, considering the history of the country, that very
few titles to Irish land should be absolutely without flaw. This
uncertainty affected all business transactions, and nothing was so
much longed for as a possessory title of sixty years, such as James
had granted by statute in England. But the opportunity of increasing
revenue was too good to be lost, and Charles, just before Wentworth's
arrival, issued to him and others a commission for defective titles
which gave almost unlimited power to compound with the owners of
property, and to give them fresh titles in consideration of such
payments as the Commissioners might think fair. Valid grants from the
Crown were not to be disturbed, and lands appropriated to certain
public uses were also excepted. Everything else was at the mercy of
the Commission, but a title once granted was to be confirmed by the
next Parliament. An Act did pass in 1634 confirming such grants as had
been already made, and prospectively ratifying those still to come. But
Wentworth contemplated new settlements like that of Ulster, and the
Commission gave him enormous power. He advised the King to give four
shillings in the pound to the Chief Justice and Chief Baron out of all
increase of revenue for the first twelve months, and so secure five
pounds a year for ever; and this he found to be 'the best advice that
ever was, for now they do intend it with a care and diligence such, as
if it were their own private.' A commission to the henwife has been
commonly found to increase the number of eggs, but the idea is scarcely
applicable to a Chief Justice. Wentworth was not corrupt himself, and
he condemned corruption in others, but in his zeal for the Crown he
advised Charles to do a far worse thing than any that had brought down
Bacon from his high estate.[215]
[Sidenote: Scope of Wentworth's plans.]
[Sidenote: Profit by wardships.]
[Sidenote: Protestant colonies.]
[Sidenote: Tipperary.]
[Sidenote: Clare.]
[Sidenote: Kilkenny.]
[Sidenote: Connaught.]
Among the twenty-six Acts passed in the second session of Wentworth's
obedient Parliament there were several relating to the tenure and
alienation of land. Secret leases for long terms and other fraudulent
conveyances were so common that titles to property were much obscured.
Feudal burdens were shirked, and private injustice was often done.
The general drift of Wentworth's legislation was to secure the public
registration of deeds and wills, and to make the actual possession of
land presumptive proof of its ownership. This reform, he wrote, 'will
without question gain the Crown six wardships for one, besides an
opportunity to breed the best houses up in religion as they fall, which
in reason of state is of infinite consequence, as we see experimentally
in my Lord of Ormonde, who, if he had been left to the education of his
own parents, had been as mere Irish and Papist as the best of them,
whereas now he is a very good Protestant, and consequently will make
not only a faithful, but a very affectionate servant to the Crown of
England.' The gain through the Court of Wards he afterwards reported
to be £4,000 a year. The gain to his great scheme of plantation was
obvious. Here again there was much immediate profit to the Crown and
more in prospect by the establishment of an English and Protestant
population. 'All the Protestants,' he said, 'are for plantations, all
the others against them.' If juries drawn from the Recusant majority
could be got to find the King's title to their lands, so much the
better. If not, there was a Protestant majority in the House of Commons
and the lands requisite for colonisation might be 'passed to the King
by immediate Act of Parliament.' One of the districts selected was
the north part of Tipperary called Ormond, where the Earl had grants
which would have been fatal to Wentworth's scheme, but that he at
once declared himself willing to co-operate. In Thomond or Clare Lord
Inchiquin prudently followed Ormonde's example, but in neither case was
time given to Wentworth for the establishment of his projected colony.
The sept of the O'Brennans had long been in practical possession of
Edough, the northern part of Kilkenny, which includes Castlecomer. The
King's title was found in the usual way, and the territory was granted
to Wandesford, who bought out certain other claimants and who even
made some attempts to compensate the O'Brennans. Many English tenants
were established, and Wandesford's representatives, after having been
ousted during the rebellion, held their own under the Commonwealth and
after the Restoration. Wentworth claimed the whole of Connaught for
the Crown. The general idea was that one-fourth of the land should
be given to settlers, and that the old owners should receive a valid
title for the remainder. Leitrim had been lately planted, and the other
four counties were now claimed. Galway was thought the most likely to
resist, and was left to the last, lest its example should corrupt the
others.[216]
[Sidenote: Submission of Roscommon, July 1635.]
[Sidenote: The King to have his way in any case.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth's charge to the jury.]
The Commissioners for the new plantation were the Lord Deputy himself,
Lord Dillon, acting-president of Connaught, Lord Ranelagh, Sir Gerard
Lowther, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Wentworth's friend
Wandesford, his secretaries Mainwaring and Radcliffe, and Sir Adam
Loftus of Rathfarnham, who always supported him. The Commissioners
arrived at Boyle on July 9, 1635, and went to work without delay.
Before leaving Dublin Wentworth had directed the sheriff to enpanel
a jury 'of the best estates and understandings' in the county of
Roscommon. 'My reason,' he said, 'was that this being a leading case
for the whole province, it would set a great value in their estimation
upon the goodness of the King's title, being found by persons of their
qualities, and as much concerned in their own particulars as any other.
Again, finding the evidence so strong, as unless they went against it,
they must pass for the King, I resolved to have persons of such means
as might answer the King a round fine in the Castle-chamber in case
they should prevaricate, who in all seeming even out of that reason
would be more fearful to tread shamelessly and impudently aside from
the truth, than such as had less, or nothing to lose.' The threatened
landowners asked for an adjournment, but Wentworth said the chancery
proceedings begun twenty days before were notice enough. Counsel having
been heard on both sides, Wentworth told the jury that the King's great
object was to make them a civil people, that a plantation was the
readiest means to that end, and that his Majesty would not only take
from them nothing that was theirs, but would also give them something
that was his. In other words they were to be allowed to retain
three-fourths of what they, and everyone else, supposed to be their
own property. No legally valid grant should be questioned, 'but God
knows,' he told Coke, 'very few or none of their patents are good.' The
evidence, Wentworth told the jury, was clear, and if they acknowledged
it frankly they should have easy terms. But the King would have his
way anyhow, and perhaps it would be best for him that they should deny
his title, for in that case he would get all he wanted by a process in
the Exchequer, and they could then expect no mercy. With this threat
hanging over them, the Roscommon gentlemen thought it prudent to
submit, and found the King's title to the whole county.[217]
[Sidenote: Submission of Sligo and Mayo, July, 1635.]
[Sidenote: Resistance of Galway.]
[Sidenote: Opposition of Clanricarde.]
[Sidenote: Threats against all concerned.]
[Sidenote: Punishment of sheriffs and jurors.]
[Sidenote: Galway submits and the King approves of all.]
Sligo, on the 20th, and Mayo on the 31st, followed the example of
Roscommon, but at Portumna in Galway the Commissioners met with a very
different reception. The county, and especially the eastern part of it,
was much under the influence of the Earl of Clanricarde; it contained
hardly any Protestant freeholders, and the influence of the Roman
Catholic clergy was very great. Clanricarde was in England with his
son, but his nephew Lord Clanmorris attended to lead the opposition.
Another nephew was on the jury, and so was John Donnellan, the Earl's
agent or steward. The jury with two exceptions found against the King's
title, and it was observed that those who voted after Donnellan did so
with much greater decision than those who voted before him. Richard
Burke, Clanricarde's nephew, was fined 500_l._ for endeavouring to
influence a brother juror by pulling his sleeve while he was speaking
with the Commissioners. Wentworth was very angry, and resolved to carry
out his plan notwithstanding, but with the difference that half the
land in Galway was to be confiscated, instead of a quarter as in the
other three counties. The disobedient shire should be 'fully lined and
planted with English,' and bridles in the meantime with sufficient
garrisons. 'And for those counsellors at law,' the Commissioners
reported, 'who so laboured against the King's title, we conceive it
is fit that such of them as we shall find reason to proceed withal,
be put to take the oath of supremacy, which if they refuse, that then
they be silenced, and not admitted to practise as now they do; it being
unfit that they should take benefit by his Majesty's graces, that take
the boldness after such a manner to oppose his service.' Wentworth had
taken much credit to himself at Boyle for allowing counsel to appear
before the Commissioners, and this was how he understood freedom of
speech. The sheriff was fined 1,000_l._ and bound over to appear in the
Castle-chamber on a charge of packing the jury, who were also bound
over to be dealt with there. A proclamation was issued to give the
county generally an opportunity of disavowing the jury, and this was so
far successful that a verdict was obtained for the King at Galway in
April 1637. Charles thoroughly approved of the fines, the imprisonments
and the proclamations, and in particular held it 'just and reasonable'
that the Galway landowners should lose half their property instead of a
mere one-fourth.[218]
[Sidenote: Death of Richard Earl of Clanricarde,]
[Sidenote: for which Wentworth is blamed.]
[Sidenote: Ulick, Earl of Clanricarde, Governor of Galway.]
The Earl of Clanricarde had distinguished himself by his courage and
fidelity at Kinsale, and had enjoyed the especial favour of Queen
Elizabeth. He had afterwards married Walsingham's daughter, the widow
of Sidney and Essex. His services thus entitled him to consideration,
and his connections secured him friends at Court. In 1616 James I.,
after a full inquiry by two secretaries of state, had made him governor
of the county and town of Galway in such a manner as to make him
independent of the president of Connaught. This patent expired with
James, but it was amply renewed by his successor for the life of the
Earl and his eldest son. These facts were perfectly well known to
Wentworth, but he advised the King to break his word and revoke the
patent on the purely technical ground that a judicial office could
not be granted in reversion. Clanricarde died within the year, and it
was reported by Wentworth's enemies that hard usage had broken his
heart. 'They might as well,' said the Lord Deputy, 'have imputed unto
me for a crime his being threescore and ten years old.' There was more
reason for imputing to him the death in prison of Martin Darcy, the
unfortunate sheriff of Galway. 'My arrows,' he said on this point,
'are cruel that wound so mortally; but I should be more sorry by much
the King should lose his fine.' The King did not revoke the patent for
the government of Galway, and the young Earl of Clanricarde, who was
to play so important a part in the civil war, seems from the first to
have enjoyed much influence at Court. The Galway jurors were tried
in the Castle-chamber in May 1636, and sentenced to pay £4,000 each
as a fine, to be imprisoned until payment, and to acknowledge their
fault at the assizes upon their knees and in open court. The fine was
afterwards reduced at Clanricarde's request, and the difficulties with
Scotland began before any real progress could be made with the new
settlement.[219]
[Sidenote: Nature of Wentworth's policy.]
[Sidenote: There was a substantial breach of faith.]
Wentworth maintained the King's title to Connaught on purely legal
grounds, not seeming to realise that mere legality was an inadequate
foundation for what was virtually wholesale forfeiture. Some modern
writers who admire or excuse his policy have stated that he set up a
title which would satisfy lawyers; but no one had a greater contempt
for the letter of the law when it stood in his way, and it is the
substantial justice of his action that is really in question. The
Elizabethan lawyers knew perfectly well that the feudal ownership of
Connaught was vested in Edward IV. and his successors, but they did
not, therefore, consider that the land was at the Queen's mercy. The
chiefs and landowners of the province had been acknowledged over and
over again, and had always yielded something to the Crown by way of
cess. Sidney and Perrott reduced this uncertain impost to a small but
fixed rent, and by so doing confirmed the tenure of those who paid
it. It is very true that the exact terms of the contract had seldom
been fulfilled by the Irish, and that most of them had been engaged
in rebellious actions after the composition. That might have been a
reason for forfeiting their land at the time, and demands for arrears
of rent might have been made much later; but this is a very different
thing from confiscation after a generation of peace. Nor was this
all: on July 21, 1615, James I. had written to Chichester directing
that the Connaught landowners should have patents granted them, in
consideration of the composition made by Queen Elizabeth, and reserving
the same rent in future. To this Wentworth answered that the recitals
in the letter as to the fulfilment of the composition covenants were
grounded on false information; that 'the inhabitants were intruders and
had no such estates as could either be surrendered or confirmed.' The
patents actually issued were therefore void, as having been obtained
under false pretences, and for some technical flaws also. The monstrous
result is that the whole population of Connaught were squatters, and
had no rights whatever. It is no wonder that the Irish Parliament had
clamoured for a sixty years' possessory title against the Crown.[220]
[Sidenote: The Londoners' plantation.]
[Sidenote: Destruction of the forests.]
Whatever other objects he may have had in view, profit to the Exchequer
was always sought by Wentworth. In the case of the Londoners'
plantation the mere money consideration was greater, and the political
advantage much less, than in the case of the Connaught proprietors.
Sir Thomas Phillips had almost ruined himself in his contest with the
great corporation, who had certainly done much, but who could easily
be shown not to have done all that they promised. Londonderry and
Coleraine had been secured against attack, but the number of houses was
less than at first agreed upon, and in the country it was found much
easier to take rent from the native occupiers than to bring over the
full number of English settlers. Commercial corporations who become
possessed of political power are always tempted to pay too much regard
to present profit, and the Irish Society of London acted to some extent
as the East India Company did in later times. In the Bann alone more
than sixty tons of salmon were sometimes taken in one day, and this was
much more lucrative than the slow process of settling English farmers
upon the land. It was also much more convenient to convert the vast
woods into ready money than to preserve them for local use, and their
destruction was rapid. In 1803 the county of Londonderry, which had
once contained the great forest of Glenconkein, was officially reported
to be 'perhaps the worst wooded in the King's dominions.' Wentworth saw
his opportunity, and determined to exact his pound of flesh from the
Londoners in Ulster, since they were unwilling to pay arbitrary taxes
at home. A side blow might be dealt to Presbyterianism at the same
time. Proceedings in the Star Chamber against the Corporation of London
had resulted in the summer of 1631 in a Royal Commission to collect
evidence in Ireland, and special attention was ordered to be given to
the representations of Phillips. The cause dragged on for three years,
and early in 1634 Wentworth wrote to Coke to advise that in any case
the grant of the customs of Londonderry and Coleraine, for which the
grantees paid no rent, should be resumed by the Crown, as unfit to
be held by any subject, and especially by a body which owed the King
1,800_l._ 'It is,' he said, 'my humble suit, that at least you take
that feather from them again, as not fit to be worn in the round cap of
a citizen of London.'[221]
[Sidenote: A fine of 30,000_l._ refused,]
[Sidenote: and one of 70,000_l._ imposed.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth wished to confiscate the London plantation.]
The Londoners offered to compromise their case by paying a fine
of 30,000_l._, but this was refused. After a hearing which lasted
seventeen days, judgment was given in the Star Chamber at the end
of February 1635, when a fine of 70,000_l._ was imposed and the
charter declared forfeited. The actual sum levied seems to have been
12,000_l._, which was handed over to the Queen. 'The King,' said
Wentworth's correspondent Garrard, 'now hath good store of land in
Ireland.' 'The Londoners,' said another gossip, the letter-writer
Howell, 'have not been so forward in collecting the ship-money, since
they have been taught to sing heigh-down derry, and many of them will
not pay till after imprisonment, that it may stand upon record they
were forced to it. The assessments have been wonderfully unequal and
unproportionable, which is very ill taken, it being conceived they did
it on purpose to raise clamour through the city.' In the following May
an order was given in the Star Chamber to levy the fine in London, and
to sequester the estates in Ireland. Bramhall, who had a dispute of
his own about some of the lands, was appointed chief receiver, and the
appointment was not likely to be a sinecure in his hands. Wentworth
declared himself ready to carry out the forfeiture in the most drastic
way. 'Would your Majesty,' he wrote, 'be pleased to reserve it entire
to yourself, it might prove a fit part of an appanage for our young
master the Duke of York. It may be made a seigniory not altogether
unworthy his Highness; and for so good purpose I should labour night
and day, and think all I could do little.' James's experiences in
connection with Londonderry were fated to be of a much less agreeable
kind. The hostility of the Londoners had much to say to both Charles
and Wentworth losing their heads.[222]
FOOTNOTES:
[215] A faulty commission was issued in April 1633, but the corrected
version which was acted upon is calendared at June 29, 1634. The
commissioners besides Wentworth were Lord Chancellor Loftus, Cork,
Parsons, Chief Justice Lowther, Wandesford, Radcliffe, and the Barons
of the Exchequer; Sir C. Coote and Mainwaring were added later. A fresh
commission, dated September 1, 1638, is in Rymer's _Foedera_, xx. 263.
_Irish Statutes_, 10 Car. I. cap. 3. Wentworth to the King, December 9,
1636, _Strafford Letters_, ii. 41. In February 1640-1 the Irish House
of Lords asked 'whether it stood with the integrity of the judge to
take 4_s._ per £ out of all increases to His Majesty upon compositions
of defective bills, by avoiding such patents as the same judge condemns
in an extra-judicial way' (_Nalson_, ii. 575).
[216] Wentworth to Coke, December 16, 1634; to Laud, March 10, 1634-5;
Commissioners of plantation to Coke, August 25, 1635; Wentworth's notes
on the Irish revenue, July 6, 1636, _Strafford Letters_. Details as
to Edough are in Prendergast's _Ireland from the Restoration to the
Revolution_, part iii. chap. i.
[217] Wentworth to Coke, July 14, 1635, _Strafford Letters_.
[218] Lord Deputy and Commissioners to Coke, August 25, 1635, and
Coke's answer, September 30, _Strafford Letters_. Hardiman's _Hist. of
Galway_, p. 105.
[219] Wentworth to the King, December 5, 1635. Carte's _Ormonde_ i.
82. Clarendon says that Essex, who already disliked Wentworth, 'openly
professed revenge against him for his treatment of Clanricarde,
_History of Rebellion_, ii. 101.
[220] Abstract of the King's title to Connaught, 1635, _Strafford
Letters_, i. 454. King James's letter of July 21, 1622, is in _Carew_.
See Hardiman's _Hist. of Galway_, 104.
[221] Coke to Wentworth, October 24, 1633; Wentworth to Coke, January
31, 1633-4. J. C. Beresford's _Concise View of the Irish Society_, pp.
51-56.
[222] Garrard to Wentworth, March 1, 1634-5; Howell to same, March 5;
Coke to same, May 25, 1635; Wentworth to the King, April 7, _Strafford
Letters_. Carte's _Ormonde_, i. 83. Among the _Cowper MSS._, November
8, 1633, is a letter from the King ordering 5,000_l._ to Phillips out
of the 70,000_l._