CASES OF MOUNTNORRIS, LOFTUS, AND OTHERS
[Sidenote: Laud's warning to Wentworth.]
Towards the end of 1635 Laud warned Wentworth that he was making
enemies at Court, especially 'on the Queen's side.' They said that
he was 'over-full of personal prosecutions against men of quality,'
Clanricarde, Cork, and Wilmot being particularly mentioned. 'I know,'
wrote the Archbishop, 'a great part of this proceeds from your wise and
noble proceedings against the Romish party in that kingdom; yet that
shall never be made the cause in public,' though every advantage would
be taken underhand.
[Sidenote: Case of Lord Wilmot.]
Wilmot had used his position as president of Connaught to build at
Athlone, giving fee-farm grants of Crown land to the settlers. It does
not seem to have been alleged that he took fines for his own use; but
the main facts were not denied, and he thought it prudent to obtain
a pardon. He resented Wentworth's appointment as Deputy, and being
himself of a choleric disposition he soon came into collision with him.
The pardon was not held to cover the whole case, which was brought up
again by Wentworth. Wilmot made an ample submission and tried to soften
the Viceroy's animosity, while indignantly denying any corruption on
his own part. There can be no doubt that he exceeded his authority,
and the tenants at Athlone seem to have been willing to increase their
rents to the Crown; but the case dragged on, and was perhaps unsettled
when Wentworth's government came to an end. No doubt the law was
against Wilmot, but considering the pardon and the fact that he had
made improvements, his treatment might be described as persecution by
those who disliked Wentworth.[223]
[Sidenote: Case of Lord Mountnorris.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth wishes to get rid of Mountnorris.]
[Sidenote: Mountnorris accused of malversation.]
The Vice-Treasurer, Lord Mountnorris, was married to a near relation
of Wentworth's second and best-beloved wife. This had not saved him
from a rebuke for staying away from his work in August 1632; but
for some years afterwards things seem to have gone pretty smoothly.
Mountnorris supported the Lord Deputy effectively on his first arrival
in Ireland, and at his suggestion received the King's thanks. But he
was one of those who refuse nothing and resign nothing profitable,
and he declined to surrender a reversionary patent in order to make
room for an office-seeker favoured by Wentworth and by Secretary Coke.
In May 1634 the Lord Deputy made his first serious complaint of the
Vice-Treasurer for exacting sixpence in the pound as a fee out of all
payments made to the officers of the Admiralty. The English Privy
Council directed Mountnorris to forego these fees until the King's
further pleasure should be known; but the law of the case was probably
doubtful, and he ventured to disobey. He supported the Deputy in
other matters, and at the conference between the two Irish Houses of
Parliament, 'out of such scraps as he had gotten from the Parliaments
of England, very gallantly and magisterially told the House of Commons
that they had no power to administer an oath.' Wentworth nevertheless
became very anxious to get rid of him and to give his place to Sir
Adam Loftus, who could be always trusted to obey orders. In April 1635
he told Coke that he considered 'Lord Mountnorris to be an officer
of no great nor quick endeavour to his Majesty's service, a person
held by us all that hear him to be most impertinent and troublesome
in the debate of all business. And, indeed, so weary are we of him
that I daresay there is not one of us willing to join with him in any
private counsel. My Lord Chief Baron complains of him extremely in the
Exchequer, that he disorders the proceedings of the whole court through
his wilfulness and ignorance.' He was a loose liver, fond of high
play, winning often from young men and even lending money at interest
for them to stake again. Payments from the Exchequer were said to be
delayed until a bribe had been given to his brother-in-law, and one
case was proved; but Mountnorris denied all knowledge of the matter,
and made the recipient give back the money. Yet he continued to employ
the culprit, and so gave good cause for suspicion. Mountnorris was
evidently very unpopular, and doubtless with good reason; but he was
not unwilling to resign his office for a consideration, and left the
matter in Wentworth's hands. The latter was long unwilling to undertake
the negotiation from his knowledge of the other's uncertain temper,
and this caused so much delay that Mountnorris ultimately withdrew his
offer, and the final rupture seems to have taken place at about this
point.[224]
[Sidenote: Mountnorris is charged with mutiny, 1635,]
[Sidenote: for words spoken at dinner,]
[Sidenote: tried summarily by a court martial,]
[Sidenote: and condemned to death.]
Mountnorris had a relation of his own name who was a subaltern in
the Lord Deputy's troop of horse. He was checked by Wentworth at a
review for some irregularity, and replied by an insolent gesture or
grimace. Wentworth laid his cane against the young man's shoulders,
but without striking him, and threatened to 'lay him over the pate'
if he offended so again. Annesley doubtless deserved punishment, but
it was scarcely a Lord Deputy's business to chastise offenders with
his own hand. On April 18, 1635, Annesley, who was a gentleman-usher
at the Castle, dropped a stool upon Wentworth's gouty foot, and this
became the subject of conversation at a dinner at the Lord Chancellor's
some three or four days later. Mountnorris said: 'Perhaps it was done
in revenge of that public affront which my Lord Deputy had done him
formerly; but he has a brother that would not take such a revenge.'
Something of the kind was said, but the exact words must be very
doubtful, for it is not pretended that any one took them down at the
time, and they were not sworn to until nearly eight months later. In
any case Wentworth should have remembered his own _dictum_ that every
word must not rise up in judgment against a man. Annesley had a brother
in Mountnorris's company of foot, and it was suggested that this was a
hint to him from his superior officer 'to have taken up resolutions of
dangerous consequence.' It seems much more probable that Mountnorris
was praising his own subaltern at the expense of the Lord Deputy's
gentleman-usher. Late on the evening of December 11 he was warned by a
pursuivant to attend a council of war at eight o'clock next morning.
Shortly after the appointed hour Wentworth came in, said he had called
the court to do himself right and reparation against Lord Mountnorris,
read the alleged words from a paper which had been subscribed by Lord
Moore and by the Chancellor's eldest son, Sir Robert Loftus, and
called upon the Vice-Treasurer to confess or deny them. The accused
asked for counsel and to have the charge in writing, but he was told
that councils of war allowed neither. To aggravate the case, Wentworth
read the King's letter of July 31 in which he had ordered the sixpenny
fees to be stopped. Mountnorris said the letter was obtained 'by
misinformation.' Wentworth said it was not his habit to misrepresent
anyone, 'and rebuked me,' says Mountnorris, 'with worse language than
was fit to be used to a meaner man and not a peer.' Moore and Loftus
swore to the truth of what they had signed, and Wentworth then ordered
Moore to take his seat as a judge in a case where he had already given
evidence for the prosecution. The Lord Deputy took no actual part in
the sentence, but he was present during the whole proceedings, and all
men dreaded his frown. According to the account forwarded by Wentworth
at the time, Mountnorris submitted to the court, 'protesting that what
interpretation soever his words might have put upon them, he intended
no prejudice or hurt to the person of us the Deputy.' Mountnorris
himself, in his evidence given in 1641, says he offered to swear that
he had not uttered the words, and to bring witnesses to prove that
the part referring to the public affront was spoken by others. Among
the witnesses whom he says he asked to have produced were the Lord
Chancellor and Sir Adam Loftus's son. He was ordered to withdraw, and
after less than half an hour was called in again to hear his sentence
of death, to which the court had unanimously agreed. 'My Lord Deputy,'
he says, 'took occasion to make a speech, and told me invectively
enough there remained no more now, if he pleased, but to cause the
provost-marshal to do execution; but withal added that for matter of
life, he would supplicate his Majesty. And I think he said he would
rather lose his hand than I should lose my head; which I took to be the
highest scorn, to compare his the Lord Deputy's hand with my head.' The
expression about his hand and his victim's head occurs in Wentworth's
own letters. It was reported in London that Mountnorris had been
actually shot, the parts of his body where bullets took effect being
specified.[225]
[Sidenote: Mountnorris not a soldier.]
[Sidenote: Martial law in time of peace.]
[Sidenote: The King receives 6000_l._ for Mountnorris's place.]
Mountnorris had a company, as was then customary with great men in
Ireland, but he was not really a soldier, and knew nothing of military
discipline. The words charged against him were spoken, if spoken at
all, in private society, and it is not easy to see how they could
possibly affect the discipline of the army. Yet Wentworth and his
slavish council found that they constituted a breach of two articles
of war. That which involved the death sentence was the thirteenth: 'No
man shall offer any violence, or contemptuously disobey his commander,
or do any act or speak any words which are likely to breed any mutiny
in the army or garrison, or impeach the obeying of the general or
principal officer's directions, upon pain of death.' This article is
perhaps not too severe for its purpose, especially in time of war, but
does any lawyer, does any soldier, does any man of common intelligence
suppose that it was intended to be applied or could properly be applied
to conversation at a dinner-party? And Mountnorris swore that he had
never seen the articles at the time of his condemnation under them, and
did not see them until June 1636. It does not appear that they had been
acted on in time of peace. Besides all this, the court-martial was held
without any notice; no time was given to summon witnesses; Wentworth
himself, the prosecutor, presided in person, while the accused, who
was not allowed counsel, was turned out of court, and one of the
witnesses for the prosecution sat in judgment. At Court many wondered
'that a peer of the kingdom, a Privy Councillor, a treasurer at war,
though a captain, should be tried in a marshal's court for words spoken
six months before, no enemy in the field, nor the Lord Deputy in any
danger of his life by these words.' Wentworth's energetic and talkative
emissary, Captain Price, 'laid about with his tongue' as to this and
other matters, but it was the King that really silenced the voice of
criticism. It was his nature to approve harsh measures, and in this
case he actually made 6000_l._ by the transaction. Wentworth advised
Sir Adam Loftus to spend money freely to secure the succession; from
which we may infer that he intended it to be lucrative in the hands
of a friend. Loftus promised the money to Cottington, who promptly
'gave it to him that really could do the business, which was the King
himself.' Probably only part of the money was for Cottington, and he
was to give the rest to other officials, but he got the credit of
surrendering the whole sum. Before it was actually received Charles
assigned it in part payment of 22,000_l._ which he was spending on the
purchase of an estate in Scotland. We may assume that the King was
'roundly satisfied' without delay, for Loftus was made Vice-Treasurer
at the beginning of April. The fact that the money went to provide
an endowment for the Scotch archbishoprics does not greatly improve
matters. Clarendon says that Mountnorris was notoriously unloved,
otherwise his treatment would have been thought 'the most extravagant
piece of sovereignty that in a time of peace had been ever executed by
any subject.'[226]
[Sidenote: Mountnorris under restraint for several months, 1635-37.]
[Sidenote: Deprived of his office.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth's motives.]
Lord Mountnorris, said Wentworth, 'was prisoner in the Castle some
two days, but upon his physician's certificate that the badness of
his lodging might prejudice his health, I sent him upon good bond
restrained only to his own house, where he is like to remain till I
receive his Majesty's further pleasure concerning him.' Mountnorris
makes the first confinement last six days, but the discrepancy is not
of much importance. Chief Justice Shirley gave his bond for 2000_l._,
and Mountnorris remained under restraint in his own house from the
middle of December 1635 until the second week of April following. In
February Lady Mountnorris petitioned for her husband's release on the
ground that his life was in danger, and reminded the Lord Deputy that
he and his prisoner were connected by marriage; but Wentworth seems to
have taken no notice of the lady's letter; and Clarendon endorsed his
copy as written by her to Wentworth 'when her husband was under the
sentence of death by martial law, and he was so hard-hearted that he
gave her no relief.' Lady Mountnorris went to London to try the King's
mercy, and Wentworth made this a reason for shutting his victim up
again in the Castle. After three weeks he was again released by the
doctors, in whose hands he remained for some time. In the meanwhile he
had been superseded, and the Vice-Treasurership conferred on Loftus.
Mountnorris was frequently brought before the Council on charges of
malversation, but it does not appear that any actual sentence was given
against him, and he refused to sue out his pardon in consequence.
He signed a submission to the King, but the Deputy's pride was not
satisfied, and he was again imprisoned during the whole of February
1637. In July Lady Mountnorris obtained the King's leave for her
husband's return to England, but this was not acted on for some months,
and perhaps Charles did not intend it to be taken too literally.
Writing from London to Wandesford, Wentworth directed that he should
not be allowed to leave Ireland, claiming that the case should be
decided in Dublin and by himself. It was not till the autumn of 1637
that Mountnorris got out of Ireland, 'wondrously humbled as much as
Chaucer's friar'; and in a letter to his friend Conway Wentworth
admitted his real motives. 'I told him I never wished ill to his
estate nor person further than to remove him thence where he was as
well a trouble as an offence unto me.' He had, in short, turned out an
opponent and given his place to an adherent, and that seemed to him a
sufficient explanation.[227]
[Sidenote: The story told by Mountnorris himself, 1640.]
Mountnorris's petition was presented to the House of Commons, November
7, 1640, along with the sentence of the Castle Chamber, pronounced
December 12, 1635. He says Strafford 'conceived a causeless distaste
against him, and thereupon endeavoured the revenge of some supposed
personal neglect' by ruining him. Being already secretary of the
Irish Council, King James gave him a patent of 200_l._ with other
emoluments in reversion after Sir Dudley Norton's death or retirement.
But Strafford falsely accused him of incivility to his brother Sir
George, obtained a surrender from Norton, and, 'contrary to all right
and justice, procured the said offices and fees to be conferred
upon Sir Philip Mainwaring,' and maintained him in possession by
his despotic authority. King Charles had made him Vice-Treasurer
and Receiver-General, and seven years later Treasurer at wars. He
refused when Strafford required him to make a 'dishonourable sale of
the said offices,' at which he was so enraged that he trumped up the
prosecution and 'in a time of public peace and serenity within that
realm, December 12, 1635, did call a council of war and did accuse
your petitioner of some words supposed to be spoken by your petitioner
many months before tending in his lordship's strained construction to
the disturbance of government, and without allowing your petitioner
liberty of clearing his innocence in a legal manner or so much as an
hour's time to make his just defence, proceeded to sentence at the
same time, and although the said supposed words were no ways criminal
sentenced a peer to death.' He respited the execution for the further
advancing of his 'own ends,' but used it to dispose of Mountnorris's
foot-company and kept him a prisoner in the Castle from December 12,
1635, until April 16, 1637. During that time all his effects and papers
were 'strictly searched by some of his greatest adversaries by his
lordship's direction.' Twenty days of close confinement threatening his
life obliged him to submit and accept a pardon. After this Strafford
took advantage of his imprisonment to issue a commission of his own
choice to inquire into his office, and made misrepresentations to the
King, who made Sir Adam Loftus, 'one of his accusers,' Receiver-General
and Treasurer at wars. Information was laid against him in the Castle
Chamber during his imprisonment and sickness as to his supposed
misdemeanour. He was conscious of no guilt, but finding he would be
tried by the same 'inquisitors,' all prejudiced, he was reduced 'to the
miserable choice' either to go on suffering even worse or to make a
submission as Strafford wished, 'whereupon your petitioner was enforced
in ignominious manner to make submission, hoping thereby to purchase
his liberty and go into England according to his Majesty's directions,'
but he was kept in prison all the same. No one ever maintained that
Star Chamber or Council, had any jurisdiction to try questions of title
between man and man, yet he had been deprived on a 'paper petition' of
a manor in Ireland after eighteen years' quiet possession, and turned
out by Strafford's own warrant, and he was deprived of his legal remedy
in other cases.[228]
The witnesses to the words about revenge were Lord Moore and Sir Robert
Loftus, who were present, but were not the original reporters of the
expression.
It is particularly stated that the sentence was unanimous, and that
there was a breach of the 41st and 13th articles of war--sentence for
the first, imprisonment, public disarming, and banishment from the
Army, and for ever disabled to bear arms; and for the 13th death.
The articles of war were printed and published on March 13, 1633, and
are the same as those used by Falkland, Wilmot, and others.
[Sidenote: Case of Lord Chancellor Loftus.]
[Sidenote: The Chancellor is suspended, and placed under arrest, April,
1638.]
Wentworth had probably distrusted Mountnorris from the first. The Lord
Chancellor, on the contrary, had frequently earned his praise, and as
late as the summer of 1636 a special grant of 3000_l._ was made to
him on his recommendation. A few months afterwards the two men were
engaged in an acrimonious correspondence about the appointment of a
lawyer to do temporary duty on circuit. The explanation of this charge
is to be found in certain legal proceedings which had taken place in
the meantime. In the year 1621 the Chancellor's eldest son, Robert,
had married Eleanor, daughter of Sir Francis Rushe, whose sister long
afterwards became the wife of Wentworth's brother, Sir George. It was
alleged that the Chancellor had promised to settle Monasterevan and
1500_l._ a year in land upon the young couple, and that the bride had
paid over her dowry of 1750_l._ on this consideration. It was now
sought after all these years to enforce specific performance of the
Chancellor's verbal promise. The proceedings were taken by Eleanor's
half-brother, Sir John Gifford, as her next friend, her husband
refusing to be a party, though he had a solicitor to watch the case.
It is not clear that ordinary courts of law had no jurisdiction in
the case, but it was assumed to be matter of equity, and a King's
letter was obtained remitting it to the Council on the ground that
the Lord Chancellor was chief equity judge and that he could not
adjudicate in his own cause. Sir William Colley swore in a hesitating
and inconsistent way at the trial in 1638 to what the Chancellor had
said in 1621, who upon this ground was ordered to settle all the lands
to the value of 1200_l._ a year upon Sir Robert Loftus and his heirs
general, to the exclusion of the second son, Edward, who was to have an
annual rent-charge of 200_l._ The King professed himself anxious for
the maintenance of the peerage, but the judgment, had it been finally
confirmed, would have had the contrary effect, for Sir Robert's only
son died shortly afterwards, and the property would have gone to his
sister, whose uncle, as heir male, would have had the title with
nothing to support it. This judgment was given on February 1, 1638,
but the Chancellor was in no hurry to obey, having already appealed to
the King himself, and on April 20 he was suspended by the Lord Deputy
and Council, and ordered to give up the Great Seal next day. The seal
not being so produced, Loftus was thereupon committed, and remained
under restraint for sixteen months. It was afterwards pretended that
this extreme severity to an octogenarian public servant was caused by
evidence of judicial misconduct in another case, but Wentworth did not
say so at the time. Loftus may have been guilty of some irregularities,
but nothing like corruption was proved against him, and it is probable
that little would have been heard of these grave misdemeanours if his
daughter-in-law had not been Wentworth's friend and if her sister
had not lately been married to his brother. In one letter he calls
the Chancellor's wife 'a fury,' and in another he speaks of 'that
unclean-mouthed daughter of his, the Lord Moore's wife.'[229]
[Sidenote: Severe treatment of Loftus.]
[Sidenote: The King supports Wentworth.]
[Sidenote: Loftus submits,]
[Sidenote: but appeals to the Long Parliament.]
More than ten years before Loftus had obtained a royal licence to go
to England whenever he thought fit, and to put the Great Seal into
commission. He did not now rely upon this, but asked for special
leave, and Charles granted it at once. The King's letter probably
arrived before the suspension of the Chancellor, who sent over his
second son Edward. The latter had been made a party to the suit
against his father, and Wentworth considered that this aggravated his
contempt, though Edward does not seem to have held any office. When the
Chancellor was first summoned before the Council he was not required
to kneel 'considering his age and the eminency of his place,' but a
resolution was passed that neither he nor anyone else should be so
excused in future. On the second occasion he said he would rather die
than kneel, and on the following day maintained that no such compliance
had been required from one of his rank and quality for a hundred years,
and that 'the Great Seal ought not to creep on knees and elbows to
any subordinate person in the world.' He refused to give up the seal
or to bring it with him; having received it from the King he would
surrender it only to an order under the royal hand. After this he was
committed to the Castle until the King's pleasure should be known.
In his petition to Charles for release he stated that he was 'very
aged and the prison very close and pestered with many prisoners.' But
Wentworth and his subservient Council, fortified by a petition of Sir
John Gifford, magnified the Chancellor's refusal to kneel into a great
offence, and urged the King not to allow him over to England until
he had fully submitted to their decree as to Monasterevan and the
rest. The despatch was sent over by Sir George Radcliffe, so that no
means was neglected to prejudice Charles against the old Chancellor.
The leave was suspended accordingly, and in a later letter the King
even blamed the 'over-much forbearance and patience' of the Deputy
and Council, and ordered that the prisoner should not be allowed to
go without acknowledging his fault and suing for pardon. After about
eleven months' confinement the King ordered that the Chancellor
should be kept a close prisoner, whereupon Lady Loftus was forced to
leave her husband, 'though the small sustenance whereby he liveth is
ministered by her hands.' His chaplains were also refused access to
him. Afterwards just as much relaxation was allowed as to prevent the
prisoner actually dying, and he was under restraint in his own house
for a short time. A threat of further close confinement in the Castle
at last broke his spirit, and he made over his property to trustees
who were all Wentworth's close allies--Wandesford, Sir Adam Loftus,
Lord Dillon, and his secretary, Sir Philip Mainwaring. The Chancellor
had already made a submission to the Lord Deputy in terms sufficiently
humble. Lady Moore made great exertions, and in June 1639 she was seen
on her knees before Charles at Berwick 'very earnestly soliciting for
her father's coming over.' His appeal to the King was fruitless, for
Wentworth was in London before him and at the height of his power. In
November 1639 the decree of the Irish Council was confirmed, and Sir
Richard Bolton was appointed Chancellor a few days later. Less than
twelve months after the decision of the appeal the Long Parliament was
sitting, and Wentworth was in the custody of Black Rod. Sir Robert
Loftus and his wife both died before the Chancellor, who lived long
enough to see all the decrees against him reversed by the English House
of Lords, but the litigation arising out of the case extended far into
the reign of Charles II. During the civil war the Irish estates were
not of much use to anyone.[230]
[Sidenote: Judgement of contemporaries on this case.]
[Sidenote: Clarendon.]
[Sidenote: Warwick.]
[Sidenote: Lady Loftus.]
Loftus was no doubt a difficult man to work with for he had been
on bad terms with both Falkland and Cork. He was stiff-necked, and
Wentworth demanded subserviency, as he showed in the cases both of
Wilmot and Mountnorris. Having been acting viceroy for four years,
Loftus was not inclined to step down too far, and he considered that
a Chancellor's rights and position were quite independent of the
viceroy. That, no doubt, was the unpardonable sin. 'Most men,' says
Clarendon, who had good opportunities of judging, 'that weighed the
whole matter, believed it to be a high act of oppression, and not to
be without a mixture of that policy which was spoken of before in the
case of the Lord Mountnorris; for the Chancellor, being a person of
great experience, subtlety, and prudence, had been always very severe
to departed deputies; and not over agreeable or in any degree submiss
to their full power; and taking himself to be the second person of the
kingdom during his life, thought himself little less than equal to the
first, who could naturally hope but for a term of six years in that
superiority; neither had he ever before met with the least check,
that might make him suspect a diminution of his authority, dexterity,
or interest.' 'The lofty humour of this great man,' says Sir Philip
Warwick, 'engaged him too often and against too many. And particularly
one dispute with the old Chancellor Loftus, which was sullied by an
amour, as was supposed, betwixt him and his daughter-in-law.' Clarendon
has some ambiguous expressions to which the same meaning has been
given, and the fact that Sir Robert Loftus refused to join in the suit
against his father is capable of being construed in the same way. Such
charges, however, are much easier to make than to disprove, and we
are not called upon to believe that there was any intrigue. Writing
to his friend Conway in August 1639, he announces young Lady Loftus'
death as that of 'one of the noblest persons I ever had the happiness
to be acquainted with; and as I had received greater obligations from
her ladyship than from all Ireland besides, so with her are gone the
greatest part of my affections to the country, and all that is left of
them shall be thankfully and religiously paid to her excellent memory
and lasting goodness.'[231]
[Sidenote: The great Earl of Cork.]
[Sidenote: Raleigh's successor. Church property.]
[Sidenote: Cork and Wentworth.]
Richard Earl of Cork was certainly the most important man in Ireland,
and was generally considered the King's richest subject. He had made
his great fortune himself, and it would be hard to show that it was
not made honestly. There were many opportunities for speculation
after the Desmond wars, and he used them to the utmost, buying in the
cheapest market, and selling, if he sold at all, in the dearest. After
Grandison's death he was made Lord Treasurer, and he was a royalist
to the backbone. If Wentworth had been a constitutional statesman,
rather than a despotic viceroy, he would have made a friend of Cork;
but he preferred to humiliate him, caring nothing for his hostility,
provided some of his money could be diverted to the King's coffers.
Like most public men in Ireland, Lord Cork was in possession of some
land which had belonged to the Church, and of some livings also.
He purchased Raleigh's vast possessions for 1500_l._, after their
nascent prosperity had been destroyed in the last Desmond rebellion,
and it was no fault of his if the Church had been badly treated at
the time of forfeiture. Lismore Cathedral had been burned down by
the White Knight and his crew, but even in this case Cork made some
attempt at restoration, and might have done more if his title had not
been disputed by Laud and Wentworth, who made Bishop Michael Boyle of
Waterford their stalking horse in the attack on his great kinsman. 'I
knew the bishop well,' said Laud, 'and when he lived in the college
(St. John's) he would have done anything or sold anyone for sixpence
profit.' The see-lands at Lismore and Ardmore were leased to Raleigh by
two bishops, and the blame should fall on him rather than upon Boyle,
who purchased the property as it stood. Wentworth was right in trying
to recover Church property which had been wrongly alienated, but not
in making the holder personally responsible. In the end Ardmore was
restored to the see, and Lismore was confirmed to the Earl of Cork.
After the breaking up of the third Parliament in 1629, Cork was pressed
to lend the King 15,000_l._ on the security of the Irish customs, and
had some difficulty in getting his money back. Wentworth took care
that he should pay his full share of the subsidy. 'I do believe,' he
wrote in 1640, 'there is no man living hath suffered so much by his
(Strafford's) oppressions and injustice as myself, who with truth
affirm that I am the worse by 40,000_l._ for him in my personal estate,
and 1200_l._ a year in my revenue; and all is taken from me by his
power without any suit in law. He hath enforced me to pay 4200_l._
within this five years for subsidies, which might have ransomed me if I
had been prisoner with the Turks, and was more than himself and all the
lords of the Council paid, for the last subsidy in England.[232]
[Sidenote: The case of Youghal College.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth demands a fine of 30,000_l._,]
[Sidenote: and takes 15,000_l._]
[Sidenote: Real reason of Wentworth's hostility.]
[Sidenote: Cork presents 1000_l._ to the King.]
Of the many disputes between the Lord Deputy and the Lord Treasurer
one must be noticed particularly. In 1464 Thomas Earl of Desmond
founded at Youghal a college for a warden, eight fellows, and eight
singing men, who were to serve the church hard by and perhaps others
in the neighbourhood. The institution slipped through the net which
swept away ordinary monasteries, but the celibate life in common came
to an end after the Reformation, and Wetheread, Bishop of Waterford
and Lismore, became warden. He died in 1592, having let the house
to Sir Thomas Norris, and this lease was afterwards renewed to
Raleigh's trustees, whose interest Boyle purchased. That he was thus
in possession of Church property was evident, but it was in lay hands
before he acquired it, and he had bought out those concerned without
any secrecy. The original title was not very good, and Cork took every
means possible to strengthen his position. His cousin, Richard Boyle,
Bishop of Cork, was warden many years before Wentworth's arrival,
and in 1627 agreed with the three then surviving fellows to release
their claims in consideration of life annuities, amounting altogether
to 86_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ a year. Both parties swore to fulfil their
contract. Wentworth determined to prosecute Cork in the Castle-chamber
for being privy to a fabricated bond and for taking or imposing an
illegal oath. Something would be recovered for the Church, but the main
object was to extract enough money from the Earl to pay off or reduce
the existing Crown debts in Ireland. Wentworth demanded 30,000_l._ as
a voluntary fine to avoid exposure. The charge of forgery was found to
be false, and as to the oath Cork, who throughout maintained that he
had done nothing wrong, could show that it was voluntary on both sides,
and of a character not uncommon in Ireland. His friends, including
his eldest son, knew perfectly well what the result of a trial would
be, and induced the Earl to pay 15,000_l._, Wentworth pleasantly
representing this as a saving of that sum to the accused. The day
of trial was actually fixed, and Cork found his old antagonist, the
Chancellor, sitting on a form in the gallery, who said he had read all
the pleadings and that there was nothing in them. 'Then,' says Cork,
'I told his lordship that I hoped he would deliver his vote for my
clearing. "Nay, by my faith (quoth he) I will not promise you that."
I replied again that if he were in my case I would clear him if my
conscience did assure me he were not guilty. His lordship answered
that it was very necessary for me to be exceeding careful of myself;
for that it was not my cause, but my judges, I was to fear.' In the
end Cork had the property confirmed to him by the King, abandoning
certain tithes and presentations worth about 700_l._ a year, which
were recovered for the Church, but which were in lay hands when Cork
acquired them. 'God's wounds, sir,' said Wentworth to the Earl, 'when
the last Parliament in England broke up you lent the King 15,000_l._
And afterwards in a very uncivil unmannerly manner you pressed his
Majesty to restore it you. Whereupon I resolved before I came out of
England to fetch it back again from you, by one means or other. And
now I have gotten what I desired you and I will be friends hereafter.'
The money was duly paid within two years. Laud congratulated himself
on having kept the King steady throughout; but Charles seems to have
had some misgivings, for he excused Cork from subscribing towards the
Scotch campaign, and afterwards graciously accepted a thousand pounds
in gold, which were sent down to the North after him.[233]
[Sidenote: Sir Piers Crosbie's case.]
[Sidenote: Wentworth falsely accused of killing Esmond.]
[Sidenote: Crosbie fined and imprisoned.]
Sir Piers Crosbie had been excluded from the Irish Council for opposing
Wentworth in the Parliament of 1634. This action was sustained in
England and might easily be defended, for the distinction between
executive and legislative functions was not fully observed in those
days. Privy Councillors were then the real advisers of the Crown, and
Wentworth might fairly object to one who was an open opponent. In
modern times the Cabinet has usurped the powers of the Council, but no
one could long remain a member without submitting to the Prime Minister
in his parliamentary capacity. By withholding his confidence from all
except some half-dozen Englishmen, who owed their advancement to
him, Wentworth made enemies or very lukewarm supporters of the Irish
officials and their friends. Crosbie had commanded an Irish regiment
at Rhé, but Wentworth wrote of him as 'a gentleman of so fine and
tender parts as qualifies him much better for a lady's chamber. Was
there ever man such an Adonis, think you?' These words, or others to
the like effect, were probably in circulation, and Crosbie was in a
position to give some trouble. Lord Esmond spoke openly against the
Lord Deputy, and the death of a relation of his in prison furnished
the pretext for a false charge. Robert Esmond was a ship-owner, and
he refused in November 1634 to take some timber of Wentworth's on
board. His own defence was that the pieces were too long to be stored
on board his vessel, which was already laden with wood belonging to
the Chief Justice. Perhaps the Lord Deputy did not believe him: at all
events he shook his cane at him and sent him to gaol, and as he died of
consumption soon after being released, it is possible that confinement
may have hastened his death. It was generally given out that he died of
the beating he had received, and Esmond, Mountnorris, and others appear
to have combined with Crosbie to propagate the story. 'There is,'
Wentworth wrote, 'an impudent and false conspiracy against me. And,
verily, my lord, on this Friday (a day on which it pleased God to bring
me forth into the world) I renounce all the blessings of this passion
if ever I did or had it in my thoughts to strike Esmond, and when the
poor wand shall be shown in court wherewith I must have beaten the
man to death, the impudent untruth will further appear to you.' Lord
Esmond himself seems to have ceased to believe the story, for he told
Wentworth of the report early in 1636. It was not till 1639 that the
Star Chamber in England decided the case in Wentworth's favour. Crosbie
was fined and imprisoned for a short time. According to his own account
he was released on paying the fine, but Wentworth alleged that he broke
out of the Fleet prison. From the charge of killing Esmond, Strafford
may be fully exonerated; but it can never in any age have been right
for the Chief Governor of Ireland to shake his stick at offenders,
either in his judicial or in his military capacity.[234]
[Sidenote: Case of Trinity College, Dublin.]
[Sidenote: Cambridge influences.]
[Sidenote: Provost Temple, 1609.]
[Sidenote: Bedell provost, 1627.]
[Sidenote: Laud chosen chancellor, 1633.]
It was originally intended that the University of Dublin should
include several colleges, as at Oxford and Cambridge, and unsuccessful
attempts were made to carry out the idea. But in fact the University
and Trinity College remained one. Some short-lived halls were founded
for the increase of accommodation. All the early provosts except Robert
Ussher, who was educated in the college itself, were Cambridge men,
and a Puritan or, as we might say, a Low Church tone was generally
maintained. Sir William Temple, who was provost from 1609 to 1627, made
the distinction between senior and junior fellows, and it was soon
decided that the right of election lay in the seniors only. Temple, who
was not in orders, objected to wear a surplice as directed by Abbot,
who was chancellor of the University. Bedell, who succeeded Temple, had
a comparatively short tenure of office, but he signalised his reign by
promulgating revised statutes and by taking steps for the teaching of
Irish, with a view to approach the natives through their own language.
When Abbot died in 1633 the fellows, at the instance of Primate Ussher,
chose Laud for their chancellor. Laud would have preferred that the
lot had fallen upon Wentworth himself, but Ussher urged him not to
refuse.[235]
[Sidenote: Robert Ussher provost, 1629.]
[Sidenote: Chappell provost, 1634.]
[Sidenote: Chappell's troubles.]
The Primate realised that his cousin Robert, who had succeeded Bedell
in 1629, was not an efficient provost. His legal powers were too
limited to control the senior fellows, who were always caballing
against him, and he was of 'too soft and gentle a disposition to rule
so heady a company.' He was weary of his work and would readily take
an easier place and make room for 'one of a more rigid temper and
stouter disposition.' Both Laud and Wentworth were of the same opinion,
and the provost was glad to accept the archdeaconry of Meath, and
later the bishopric of Kildare along with it. William Chappell, Dean
of Cashel, was chosen provost in his place, though he had positively
refused to be named when Bedell resigned. Perhaps he thought anything
better than residence at Cashel. 'God knows,' he exclaimed, 'what I
suffered there!' He wrote his own life, or part of it, in Latin iambics
which are not very good for the head of a college; but he is perhaps
best known as the fellow and tutor of Christ's who is supposed to have
flogged John Milton. Wentworth went to the college himself and ordered
the fellows to elect Chappell, which they readily did; in any case the
King had determined that he should be the man. Laud re-edited Bedell's
revised statutes, and reduced the number of visitors from seven, among
whom Ussher had a preponderating influence, to three--namely, himself,
the Primate, and the Archbishop of Dublin, who was an Englishman and
certain not to oppose the Crown. Chappell was found to be a useful
instrument, though he did not work at all smoothly, and Wentworth
insisted on his accepting the bishopric of Cork and holding it along
with the provostship. This he was unwilling to do, having sworn that
he would not seek such a plurality of office either directly or
indirectly; but he was overruled by Wentworth and Radcliffe. Both
Ussher and Bramhall objected, and Laud evidently had misgivings, though
he yielded to the Lord Deputy. The distance of Cork from Dublin seemed
to him a real obstacle, though he considered that the appointment
was not illegal, since the provost had not in any way solicited his
bishopric. 'So here I stick,' cries Chappell, 'distracted between
remote places, both full of quarrels, which my soul abhors as my body
does the journeys.'[236]
[Sidenote: The Irish lecture abandoned.]
[Sidenote: English fellows imported.]
Chappell suppressed the Irish lecture, abandoning all idea of reaching
the natives through their own language; and this was in accordance
with Wentworth's policy. Above all things, wrote the latter to Laud,
'I would recommend that we might have half a dozen good scholars to
be sent over to us to be made fellows; there will be room for so many
once in a year, and this encouragement I will give them, _cæteris
paribus_ I will prefer them before any but my own chaplains, which, I
assure you, are not many.' Some were brought over accordingly, and one
of them, named Harding, became tutor to Wentworth's son; but at the
age of eleven he could hardly be considered a specimen undergraduate.
Falkland had also placed his eldest son in the college, where he took
his degree at fifteen. Wentworth's plan was to put Englishmen into
every position of power or influence in Ireland and to depress all of
native birth. Even Primate Ussher, though the Lord Deputy respected and
admired him, had much less influence than Bramhall. The King was to be
absolute in both islands and State being reduced to uniformity. That
was Thorough.[237]
FOOTNOTES:
[223] The pardon, November 7, 1625, is in Morrin's _Patent Rolls_;
Wilmot's submission, October 3, 1635, in _Strafford Letters_, i. 477,
and his letter to Wentworth, _ib._ ii. 41; Laud to Wentworth, _ib._ i.
479; Wilmot to Windebank May 28, 1636, Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_.
[224] _Strafford Letters_, i. 73, 99, 107, 250, 259, 306, 349, 403.
Mountnorris held his office during pleasure.
[225] Wentworth to Coke, December 14, 1635, enclosing the sentence of
the court-martial, in Strafford's letters; this is preferable, so far
as it goes, to the account in Rushworth's _Trial of Strafford_, where
the abstract contains inaccuracies. Lord Chancellor Loftus had no son
Adam, Sir Adam was his cousin. The Annesley whom Wentworth had rebuked
and who dropped the stool, and the Annesley who was Mountnorris's
lieutenant were brothers, but neither was the Vice-Treasurer's brother,
as is so often stated. Garrard to Wentworth, January 8, 1635-6.
[226] Lord Keeper Coventry to Wentworth, December 24, 1635; James
Howell to Wentworth, January 1; Garrard to Wentworth, January 8 and 25,
1635-6; Cottington to Wentworth, January 27; Coke to Wentworth, January
31, _Strafford Letters_; Wentworth to Price, February 14 in State
Papers, _Ireland_. See also Gardiner's _Hist. of England_, chap. 81.
For further details about the 6,000_l._ see Laud to Wentworth, February
4, 1635-6, in Laud's _Works_, vii. 240. Howell says Mountnorris's
discomfiture was popular at Court, but Garrard thought differently.
Clarendon's _Hist. of the Rebellion_, ii. 101.
[227] Rushworth's Trial of Strafford, _Court and Times_, ii. 271,
Wentworth to Coke, January 3, 1635-6; to Wandesford, July 25, 1636;
to Conway, January 6, 1637-8. Cal. of Clarendon Papers, February 13,
1635-6, July 18, 1636. Conway to Wentworth, October 23, 1637.
[228] A true copy of the sentence of war pronounced against Sir Francis
Annesley, Knight and Baron Mountnorris, etc., together with his
Lordship's petition, etc. London; printed for J. B., 1641.
[229] A good view of the Loftus case may be obtained from Arthur Earl
of Essex's report in the _Drogheda Papers_ in the Ninth Report of the
Hist. MSS. Comm., Appx. ii., and in the _House of Lords Papers_ in the
4th and 5th Reports. See also _Strafford Letters_, ii. 160-164, 257,
and _Rawdon Papers_, pp. 26, 54, and the _Barrett-Lennard Papers_ in
the third vol. of the Report of the Royal Hist. Commission on 'various
collections,' 1904.
[230] Besides the authorities quoted above there is the affidavit of
Henry Parry, sworn November 16, 1652, wherein it is stated that Loftus'
chaplain was not allowed to see him with a view to administering
the sacrament in his extreme illness. Parry thinks his treatment by
Strafford cost him 24,000_l._, and that he lost 80,000_l._ more by the
rebellion.--Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, 1647-1660, p. 576.
[231] Clarendon's _History_, iii. 115-117; Warwick's _Memoirs_, 116;
_Strafford Letters_, ii. 381.
[232] _Lismore Papers_, 2nd series, iv. 187. The case for Cork as
against Strafford is contained in both series of these papers, and is
summed up in Smith's _Hist. of Cork_, vol. i. chap. 3, and in Mrs.
Townshend's _Great Earl of Cork_. If these documents had been known to
Gardiner, he might have judged Lord Cork very differently.
[233] The Earl of Cork's Remembrances, April 22 to June 2, 1636, in
_Lismore Papers_, 2nd series, iii. 247, and his Diary, _ib._ 1st
series, iv. 175, 179. Report on the Youghal case calendared at May 3,
1634, in State Papers, _Ireland_, Laud to Wentworth, October 4, 1635,
in his _Works_, vii. 171. Mrs. Townshend's _Great Earl of Cork_, chap.
16, may be consulted with advantage.
[234] Wentworth to Conway, Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, March 12,
1635; Notes of the Star Chamber trial, _ib._ May 10, 1639; _Rushworth_,
iii. 888 and viii. 109; Wentworth to Sir John Bramston, C.J., April 12,
1639, in Browning's (really Forster's) _Life of Strafford_, 1892. And
see the note to Gardiner's _Hist. of England_, ix. 71.
[235] Ussher to Laud, in his _Works_, xv. 572-575; Laud to Wentworth,
March 11, 1633-34, in his _Works_, vi. 255; Wentworth to Laud, August
23, 1634, in _Strafford Letters_.
[236] Ussher to Dr. Ward, 1633 (before September); to Laud, July
9, 1638, in his _Works_; Laud to Bramhall, August 11, 1638, in his
_Works_, vi. 532--'the motion of the Provost's keeping the College,
though he was a Bishop, proceeded originally from the Lord Deputy, and
not from me'; to Wentworth, July 30, _ib._ vii. 43; to same, September
10, 1638, _ib._ vi. 535--'Methinks you might speak privately with the
Primate, and so do what you would with him. As for the Bishop of Derry,
I presume you can rule him; if not, you were better send the Provost
fairly with honour to his bishopric, and think of as good a successor
as you can for the college'; to same, December 29, 1638, _ib._ vi. 551.
Chappell's metrical autobiography is in Peck's _Desiderata Curiosa_,
Lib. xi.
[237] Wentworth to Laud, August 23, 1634, _Strafford Letters._ Further
details may be found in Stubbs's _Hist. of the Univ. of Dublin_, and in
Dr. Mahaffy's _Epoch in Irish Hist._