IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS
VOL. I.
PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON
IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS
WITH A SUCCINCT ACCOUNT OF THE
EARLIER HISTORY
BY
RICHARD BAGWELL, M.A.
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I.
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1885
_All rights reserved_
PREFACE.
'Irish policy,' said Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons, 'is Irish
history, and I have no faith in any statesman, who attempts to remedy the
evils of Ireland, who is either ignorant of the past or who will not take
lessons from it.' This is most true, and history, if it is to be of any
use, should be written for instruction, and not merely for the
confirmation of existing prejudices. This is especially so in the present
case, for, as Sir George Stanley told Cecil in 1565, 'the practises of
Ireland be great, and not understood to all men that seem to have
knowledge thereof.' The writer who enters the arena as an advocate may
produce an interesting party pamphlet, but he will hardly make the world
either wiser or better. The historian's true office is that of the judge,
whose duty it is to marshal all the material facts with just so much of
comment as may enable his hearers to give them their due weight. The
reading public is the jury.
Starting with this conception of the task before me, I have not attempted
to please any party or school. The history of Ireland is at the best a
sad one; but its study, if it be really studied for the truth's sake, can
hardly fail to make men more tolerant. In Ireland, as in other countries,
a purely Celtic population was unable to resist the impact of the
Teutonic race. First came the pagan Northmen, with power to ruin, but
without power to reconstruct. Then followed the Anglo-Normans, seeking
for lands and lordships, but seeking them under the patronage of the
Catholic Church. For a time it seemed as though the conquest would be
complete; but the colony proved too weak for its work, and the mail-clad
knights failed almost as completely as the Scandinavian corsairs.
The main cause of this second failure was the neglect or jealousy of the
kings. They feared the growth of an independent power within sight of the
English shore, and they had neither means nor inclination to do the work
of government themselves. Little gain and less glory were to be had in
Ireland, and Scotch, Welsh, or Continental politics engrossed their
attention in turn. They weakened the colony, partly of set purpose, and
partly by drawing men and supplies from thence. In short, they were
absentees; and, to use an expression which has gained currency in modern
times, they were generally content to look upon Ireland as a mere
drawfarm.
The Wars of the Roses almost completed the ruin of the work which Henry
II. had begun. For a moment it seemed as if the colony was about to
assert its independence. But this could not have been done without an
understanding with the native race, and it does not appear that any such
understanding was possible. The upshot was that Yorkist and Lancastrian
parties were formed in Ireland, that the colony was thus still further
weakened, and that the English language and power seemed on the point of
disappearing altogether.
The throne of Henry VIII. was erected on the ruins of mediæval feudalism,
and guarded by a nation which longed for rest, and which saw no hope but
in a strong monarchy. The King saw that he had duties in Ireland. Utterly
unscrupulous where his own passions were concerned, the idea of a patriot
King was not altogether strange to him. Irish chiefs were encouraged to
visit his court, and were allowed to bask in the sunshine of royal
favour; and it is conceivable that the 'Defender of the Faith,' had he
continued to defend it in the original sense, might have ended by
attaching the native Irish to the Crown. By respecting for a time their
tribal laws, by making one chief an earl and another a knight, by
mediating in their quarrels, and by attending to their physical and
spiritual wants, a Catholic Tudor might possibly have succeeded where
Anglican and Plantagenet had failed. The revolution in religion changed
everything, and out of it grew what many regard as the insoluble Irish
question.
Henry II. had found Ireland in the hands of a Celtic people, for the
intermixture of Scandinavian blood was slight and partial. Henry VIII.
found it inhabited by a mixed race. From the beginning there had been
rivalry and ill-feeling between men of English blood born in Ireland, and
those of English birth who were sent over as officials or who went over
as adventurers. During the fifteenth century England did nothing to
preserve the ties of kinship, and the Celtic reaction tended to swallow
up the interlopers. The degenerate English proverbially became more Irish
than the Irish themselves, but the distinction would scarcely have been
so nearly obliterated had it not been for the change in religion. The
nobles of the Pale, the burghers of the walled towns, and the lawyers in
Dublin were equally disinclined to accept the new model. Neither Irish
chieftains nor Anglo-Irish lords found much difficulty in acknowledging
Henry's supremacy both in Church and State; but further than that they
would not go. The people did not go so far, and, in the words of the
annalists, regarded the Reformation simply as a 'heresy and new error.'
Religion itself was at an extremely low ebb, and only the friars
preserved the memory of better days. Henry may have imagined that he
could lead the people through the bishops and other dignitaries: if so,
he was entirely mistaken. The friars defied his power, and the hearts of
the poor were with them. In Ireland, at least, it was Rome that
undertook the work of popular reformation. The Franciscans and Jesuits
endured cold and hunger, bonds and death, while courtly prelates
neglected their duties or were distinguished from lay magnates only by
the more systematic nature of their oppressions. And thus, as the hatred
of England daily deepened, the attachment of the Irish to Rome became
daily closer. Every effort of Henry to conciliate them was frustrated by
their spiritual guides, who urged with perfect truth that he was an
adulterer, a tyrant, and a man of blood. Holding such cards as these, the
friars could hardly lose the game, and they had little difficulty in
proving to willing ears that the King's ancestors received Ireland from
the Pope, and that his apostasy had placed him in the position of a
defaulting vassal.
Henry's vacillations and the early deaths of Edward and Mary for a time
obscured the true nature of the contest, but it became apparent in
Elizabeth's time. She was an excommunicated Queen. From a Catholic point
of view she was clearly illegitimate. Many English Catholics ignored all
this and served her well and truly, but those who carried dogmas to their
logical conclusions flocked to the enemy's camp. Spain, Belgium, and
Italy were filled with English refugees, who were willing enough that the
Queen should be hurt in Ireland, since England was beyond their reach.
But even here national antipathies were visible, and Irish suitors for
Spanish help came constantly into collision with Englishmen bent upon the
same errand.
Desmond, Shane O'Neill, and Hugh O'Neill seem to have cared very little
for religion themselves. The first was a tool of Rome; the two latter
rather made the Church subservient to their own ambition. But in these
cases, and in a hundred others of less importance, the religious feeling
of the people was always steadily opposed to the English Crown. Elizabeth
was by nature no persecutor, yet she persecuted. Her advisers always
maintained, and her apologists may still maintain, that in hanging a
Campion or torturing an O'Hurley she did not meddle with freedom of
conscience, but only punished those who were plotting against her crown.
The Catholics, on the other hand, could plead that they had done nothing
worthy of death or of bonds, nor against lawful authority, and that they
suffered for conscience' sake. And the Continental nations, who were
mainly Catholic, sided on the whole with the refugees. Ireland, it is
true, was only a pawn in their game, and Philip II. was probably wrong in
not making her much more. At Cork or Galway the Armada might have met
with scarcely any resistance, and a successful descent would have taxed
Elizabeth's resources to the utmost.
The poverty of the Crown is the key to many problems of the Elizabethan
age. The Queen had to keep Scotland quiet, to hold Spain at bay, and to
maintain tolerable relations with France. She saw what ought to be done
in Ireland, but very often could not afford to do it. The tendency to
temporise was perhaps constitutional, but it was certainly much increased
by want of money. Her vacillating policy did much harm, but it was caused
less by changes of opinion than by circumstances. When the pressure at
other points slackened she could attend to her troublesome kingdom; when
it increased she was often forced to postpone her Irish plans. Ireland
has always suffered, and still suffers sorely, from want of firmness. In
modern times party exigencies work mischief analogous to that formerly
caused by the sovereign's necessities.
The dissolution of the monasteries was followed by no proper provision
for education. In the total absence of universities and grammar-schools,
certain monks and nuns had striven nobly to keep the lamp of knowledge
burning, but they were ruthlessly driven from house and home. Elizabeth
was alive to all this, but she could not give Ireland her undivided
attention, and such remedies as were applied came too late. The
oppressed friars kept possession of the popular ear, and the Jesuits
found the crop ready for their sickle. Denied education at home, many
sons of good families sought it abroad, and the natural leaders of the
Irish acquired habits of thought very different from those of English
gentlemen. Archbishop Fitzgibbon, one of the most important champions of
Catholic Ireland, saw clearly that his country could not stand alone. He
would have preferred the sovereignty of England, but she had become
aggressively Protestant, and he turned to Spain, to France, to Rome,
anywhere rather than to the land whence his own ancestors had sprung. The
lineage of the United Irishmen and their numerous progeny may be easily
traced back to Tudor times.
A few words now to the critics whom every writer hopes to have. The
spelling both of Irish names and English documents has throughout been
modernised, from regard to the feelings of the public. Irish history is
already sufficiently repulsive to that great unknown quantity the general
reader, and it would be cruel to add to its horrors. Etymologists will
always go for their materials to originals, and not to modern
compositions. When, therefore, such names as Clandeboye or Roderic
O'Connor are met with in the text, it is not to be supposed that I have
never heard of Clann-Aedha-Buidhe or Ruaidhri O'Conchobair.
Of the first 123 pages of this book, I need only say that original
authorities have as much as possible been consulted. In the third and
four following chapters, much use has been made of Mr. Gilbert's
'Viceroys,' a debt which I desire to acknowledge once for all. In so
succinct a review of more than three centuries, it has not been thought
necessary to quote the authority for every fact.
For the reign of Henry VIII. I have chiefly relied on the second and
third volumes of the 'State Papers,' published in 1834. They are
sometimes cited as 'S. P.' or 'State Papers,' and when only the date of
a letter or report is given it must be understood that this collection is
referred to. The great calendar of letters and papers begun by Dr. Brewer
and continued by Mr. Gairdner contains some items not included in the
older publication; it is referred to as _Brewer_. Other sources of
information have not been neglected, and are indicated in the footnotes.
The account of the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth is chiefly
drawn from the 'State Papers, _Ireland_'--all documents preserved in the
Public Record Office and calendared by Mr. Hans Claude Hamilton. How
excellently the editor has done his work can only be appreciated by one
who has entered into his labours as closely as I have done. Except where
a document has already been printed, I have nearly always referred to the
original MS. All documents cited by date or number without further
description must be understood as being in this collection. The late Dr.
Brewer's calendar of the Carew MSS. at Lambeth often fills up gaps in the
greater series; it is referred to as _Carew_. Many papers, both in Fetter
Lane and at Lambeth, are copies; but their authenticity is not disputed.
The Carew calendar is on so full a plan that it has not been thought
necessary to consult the manuscripts; indeed, except for local purposes,
it is not likely that they will be much consulted in the future. Other
collections are referred to in their places, but it may be well to
mention specially the journal of the Irish (Kilkenny) Archæological
Society, whose editor, the Rev. James Graves, has done as much as any man
to lay a broad foundation for Irish history.
O'Donovan's splendid edition of the 'Four Masters' has generally been
consulted for the Irish version of every important fact. O'Clery and his
fellow-compilers wrote under Charles I., and are not therefore strictly
contemporary for the Tudor period. They appear to have faithfully
transcribed original annals, but to this one important exception must be
made. The old writers never hesitated to record facts disagreeable to the
Church; the later compilers were under the influence of the
counter-reformation which produced Jesuitism. Making some allowance for
this, the 'Four Masters' must be considered fair men. Michael O'Clery
spent much time at Louvain, but he wrote in Ireland, and had native
assistants. Philip O'Sullivan, on the other hand, was a Spanish officer,
and published his useful but untrustworthy 'Compendium' at Lisbon. The
'Annals of Lough Cé' are preferable in some ways to the 'Four Masters,'
but they do not cover so much ground. All the native annalists are jejune
to an exasperating degree. Genealogy seems to have been the really
important thing with them, and they throw extremely little light on the
condition of the people. We are forced therefore to rely on the accounts,
often prejudiced and nearly always ill-informed, of English travellers
and officials.
The Anglo-Irish chronicles in 'Holinshed' were written by Richard
Stanihurst, who dedicated his work to Sir Henry Sidney, for the reign of
Henry VIII., and after that by John Hooker. Stanihurst, a native of
Dublin, was not born till 1545. He has been thought an unpatriotic
writer, and excited the violent antipathy of O'Donovan; but he appears to
have been pretty well informed. The speeches which he puts into the
mouths of his characters must be considered apocryphal, but as much may
be said of like compositions in all ages. Hooker was an actor in many of
the events he describes. He was a Protestant and an Englishman,
prejudiced no doubt, but not untruthful, and his statements are often
borne out by independent documents. Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, wrote in
Ireland under Sidney's protection; his very interesting work is less a
history than a collection of notes.
Other books, ancient and modern, are referred to in the footnotes. Among
living scholars, I desire to thank Dr. W. K. Sullivan, of Cork, who had
the great kindness to correct the first chapter, and to furnish some
valuable notes. Hearty thanks are also due to the gentlemen at the Public
Record Office, and especially to Mr. W. D. Selby and Mr. J. M. Thompson.
In making the index a few errors were discovered in the text, and these
have been noted as errata. Some mistakes may still remain uncorrected,
but I am not without hope that they are neither many nor of much
importance.
MARLFIELD, CLONMEL:
_August 13, 1885_.
CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
Early notices of Ireland 1
The Celtic constitution 2
The tribal system 5
The Celtic land law 7
Common origin of Celtic and Teutonic institutions 11
The ancient Irish Church 12
Gradual introduction of Roman ecclesiastical polity 14
CHAPTER II.
THE SCANDINAVIAN ELEMENT.
First inroads of the Northmen 17
Turgesius 17
Danes and Norwegians 18
Danish power in Ireland 19
Its limits 21
Revival of the Celts 22
Brian Borumha 23
Battle of Clontarf 28
Conversion of the Danes 29
Superiority of their civilisation 30
Brian's monarchy not permanent 31
Danish Christianity in Ireland 32
Conflict between Canterbury and Armagh 33
Papal supremacy fully established 34
CHAPTER III.
THE REIGN OF HENRY II.
Ireland given to England by the Popes 37
First interference of Henry II. 39
An Anglo-Norman party in Ireland 40
Strongbow 41
Anglo-Norman invasion 42
Henry II. in Ireland 47
Difficulties of the invaders 49
Henry was unable to carry out his own policy 52
An Irish kingdom contemplated 54
Viceroyalty of John 55
No conquest of Ireland under Henry II. 56
CHAPTER IV.
FROM JOHN'S VISIT IN 1210 TO THE INVASION BY THE BRUCES IN 1315.
John Lord of Ireland 58
King John in Ireland 59
Leinster divided after Strongbow's death 61
The De Burgos in Connaught 61
The colony declines under Henry III. 62
Results of Edward I.'s policy 64
The Bruces invade Ireland 65
CHAPTER V.
FROM THE INVASION OF THE BRUCES TO THE YEAR 1346.
Why the Bruces failed 69
Decline of the colony 70
The colonists become _Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores_ 71
Creation of the great earldoms 71
Irish corporate towns 73
Anglo-Norman families 75
Further decline of the colony under Edward III. 76
Dissensions among the colonists 77
CHAPTER VI.
FROM THE YEAR 1346 TO THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VII.
Lionel, Duke of Clarence 80
The statute of Kilkenny 81
Its effect in dividing the rival races 83
Richard II.'s first visit 85
His second visit 86
His complete failure 87
Henry IV. and V. neglect Ireland 87
Foreign wars fatal to Ireland 89
Richard of York made Lord-Lieutenant 90
A Yorkist party in Ireland 91
The colony reduced to the utmost 93
CHAPTER VII.
THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
A close copy 94
Growth of representative institutions 95
The sphere of English law contracted under Edward III. 96
The Parliament of Kilkenny not representative of Ireland 97
The peerage 98
The clergy as an estate 99
The Viceroy 100
CHAPTER VIII.
THE REIGN OF HENRY VII.
The Fitzgeralds were Yorkists, the Butlers Lancastrians 102
Lambert Simnel crowned in Ireland 104
The Irish Yorkists cut to pieces at Stoke 105
Mission of Sir Richard Edgcombe 106
The Irish nobility in England 108
The Butlers and Geraldines 109
Perkin Warbeck 110
Sir Edward Poynings holds a Parliament at Drogheda 111
Poynings' Acts 112
Second visit of Perkin Warbeck 113
Weakness of the Government 114
Third visit of Perkin Warbeck 115
Power of the Kildare family 115, 117-120
Battle of Knocktoe 120
Henry VII. wished to separate the two races 122
CHAPTER IX.
FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VIII. TO THE YEAR 1534.
The Kildare family in power 124-128
The Ormonde family much reduced 125
Viceroyalty of Surrey 128-139
The Pale a very small district 129
Misery of the country 131
O'Donnell and O'Neill 132
Desmond and the MacCarthies 133
Policy of Henry VIII. 134
Unsteadiness of English policy 136
The Irish constantly at war 140
The Butlers and Geraldines were scarcely more peaceable 145
Wolsey's policy 148
A Viceroy captured by the Irish 150
The rivalry between Ormonde and Kildare 149-152
Skeffington Viceroy 152
Overshadowed by Kildare 154
Results of the Kildare power 154-158
Fall of Kildare 161
CHAPTER X.
THE GERALDINE REBELLION--SKEFFINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION, 1534-1535.
The Geraldine rebellion 163
Loyalty of the Butlers 164
Geraldine siege of Dublin 166
Failure of the rebellion 169
Surrender of Kildare 177
The Desmonds and MacCarthies 180
Desmond intrigues with France 181
The Butlers and the Desmond Geraldines 182
Desmond intrigues with Charles V. 184
State of the South of Ireland 189
Modern spirit of the Tudor monarchy shown by promoting new men 194
CHAPTER XI.
FROM THE YEAR 1536 TO THE YEAR 1540.
Administration of Lord Leonard Grey 195-220
The royal supremacy established by law 196
The Act of Absentees 197
The O'Neills 198
Poverty of the Crown 199
Grey in the West of Ireland 200
Want of money 204
Grey and the O'Connors 206
Vague good intentions of Henry VIII. 210
The O'Neills and O'Donnells 212
Grey and the O'Connors 213
Seizure of the five Geraldines 215
Eclipse of the Kildare family 216
CHAPTER XII.
END OF GREY'S ADMINISTRATION.
Ormonde proposes to reform his country 221
Grey almost constantly engaged in war 222
His quarrel with the Butlers 223
The O'Carrolls 223
The O'Mores 224
Rash expedition of Grey 226
His dispute with the Butlers 229
The revenue 233
Cromwell's Irish policy 234
The royal supremacy acquiesced in 236
A Catholic movement nevertheless makes itself felt 238
Grey routs the O'Neills 240
Fall and fate of Grey 243
CHAPTER XIII.
1540 AND 1541.
Confusion after Grey's recall 247
Sir Anthony St. Leger Lord Deputy 249-261
His policy 250
Case of the O'Tooles 251
The King will not allow a military brotherhood 254
Desmond abjures the Pope 255
Success of St. Leger with the Irish chiefs 256
Henry VIII. made King of Ireland by Act of Parliament 259
CHAPTER XIV.
1541 TO THE CLOSE OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII.
St. Leger Lord Deputy 262-287
O'Donnell abjures the Pope 262
O'Neill abjures the Pope 264
Other chiefs follow suit 266
The Munster nobles do likewise 267
O'Neill made Earl of Tyrone 268
O'Brien made Earl of Thomond 270
MacWilliam Burke made Earl of Clanricarde 271
The MacDonnells in Antrim 271
Financial dishonesty 274
An Irish contingent in Scotland 276
And in France 277
Dissensions between St. Leger and Ormonde 278
An English party in Scotland 279
The Lord of the Isles in Ireland 280
Abortive attempt to invade Scotland from Ireland 281
Intrigues of Irish officials--St. Leger and Ormonde 282
Ormonde is murdered in England 285
Permanent causes tending to weaken Irish Governments 286
CHAPTER XV.
THE IRISH CHURCH UNDER HENRY VIII.
Points at issue between King and Pope 288
See of Armagh 289
Dublin 290
Meath 290
Cashel 291
Tuam 292
Remoter sees 292
King and Pope in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught 293
Corrupt state of the Church 294
Miserable condition of four sees particularly described 295
General corruption of the clergy 296
Evils of Papal patronage 297
Many of the religious houses out of order 298
Excellent service rendered by others 299
Ecclesiastical legislation in 1536 300
The Crown could procure the passing of Acts, but the people
remained unaffected by them 301
Archbishop Browne 302
His quarrel with Bishop Staples 303
Lord Leonard Grey gave general offence 303
Images, relics, and pilgrimages 304
The Munster bishops conformed 305
But this does not prove any real conversion 306
Origin of a double succession 306
Wauchop made Primate by the Pope 306
First appearance of the Jesuits 307
The friars oppose the royal supremacy 310
The Reformation hateful to the Irish 311
Henry attacks the monasteries 312
Account of the different orders 313
Cistercian abbeys 314
Hospitallers 315
Pensions to monks 317
The monks were not really driven out 317
Property of the religious houses 318
The mendicant orders 319
Their suppression scarcely decreased the number of friars 320
The plunder of the monasteries shared by all classes 320
The educating monasteries not replaced 321
Early attempts at an Irish university 321
Archbishop Browne 322
Bishop Staples 323
CHAPTER XVI.
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI. TO THE YEAR 1551.
St. Leger still Deputy 325
Education of Irish nobles at Court 326
Sir Edward Bellingham Lord Deputy 327-345
His efforts to protect the Pale 328
Pirates on the Irish coast 329
Bellingham puts down the O'Mores 331
And the O'Connors 332
He bridles Connaught 333
A remarkable adventure 334
The Irish mint 335
Bellingham's haughty bearing towards great men 337
He offends his own council 339
He tames Desmond 339
Ireland quiet 340
The Reformation--Browne and Staples 341
Bellingham and Dowdall 342
The royal supremacy 343
Death and character of Bellingham 344
Lord Justice Bryan 345
Lord Justice Brabazon 346
Foreign intrigues 347
St. Leger Lord Deputy 348-353
His conciliatory policy 349
The Reformation hangs fire 349
Causes of this 350
Want of money 351
The French discourage the Irish refugees 352
English settlers not always a civilising influence 353
CHAPTER XVII.
FROM THE YEAR 1551 TO THE DEATH OF EDWARD VI.
St. Leger Lord Deputy 354-359
Protestantism officially promulgated 354
Doctrinal conference 355
Browne and Dowdall 356
Tolerant views of St. Leger 357
Sir James Croft Lord Deputy 359-383
Colonisation projects 360
The Ulster Scots 361
The O'Neills 362
Shane O'Neill and his competitors 363
Another doctrinal conference 365
The primacy removed to Dublin 367
Church patronage 368
The coinage 370
Sufferings from a debased currency 371
Attempts at mining 372
French and Scotch intrigues 373
Connaught 374
Leinster 375
Ulster 376
Protestant bishops 379
Bale 381
Catholic reaction after Edward's death 382
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE REIGN OF MARY.
St. Leger is again Lord Deputy 384-396
The succession 384
The Queen and the Pope 386
Bishop Bale at Kilkenny 386
The Primacy is restored to Armagh 391
Restoration of Kildare 392
The Pope and the kingdom of Ireland 393
Mary's notions of prerogative 394
Recall of St. Leger--his accusers 396
Sussex (then Lord Fitzwalter) made Lord Deputy 396
Ulster 397
The King's and Queen's Counties 399
The monastic lands not restored 401
Catholicism re-established 401
Military operations of Sussex 402
O'Neills and O'Donnells 404
Sir Henry Sidney Lord Justice 405
General disaffection 406
Mary's ideas on Irish policy 407
Sussex in Munster 408
And in Thomond and Connaught 410
Abortive expedition to the Hebrides 411
State of the Protestants under Mary 413
INDEX 415
_Errata._
Page 140, _for_ Bishop of Kildare _read_ Bishop of Killaloe.
" 305-6, _for_ Michael Comyn _read_ Nicholas Comyn.
" 317, _for_ Nicholas Walsh _read_ Nicholas Fagan.
_MAPS._
IRELAND IN 1172 _To face page_ 37
" ABOUT 1300 " 69
" " 1500 " 124
IRELAND, ECCLESIASTICAL " 288
IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
[Sidenote: Scope of the work.]
The main object of this book is to describe in some detail, and as
impartially as possible, the dealings of England with Ireland during the
reigns of Henry VIII. and his three children. As an introduction to the
study of that period, it seemed desirable to give some account of the
course of government during those 340 years which had elapsed since the
first Anglo-Norman set foot upon the Irish shore. And, seeing that
Teutonic invaders had effected a lodgment about three centuries and a
half before Henry II.'s accession, it was hardly possible to avoid saying
something about the men who built the towns which enabled his subjects to
keep a firm grip upon the island. Lastly, it seemed well at the very
outset to touch lightly upon the peculiarities of that Celtic system with
which the King of England found himself suddenly confronted.
[Sidenote: The Roman period.]
Agricola took military possession of south-western Scotland partly in the
hope of being able to invade Ireland. He had heard that the climate and
people did not differ much from those of Britain, and he knew that the
harbours were much frequented by merchants. He believed that annexation
would tend to consolidate the Roman power in Britain, Gaul, and Spain,
and kept by him for some time a petty Irish king who had been expelled by
his own tribe, and to whom he professed friendship on the chance of
turning him to account. Agricola thought there would be no great
difficulty in conquering the island, which he rightly conjectured to be
smaller than Britain and larger than Sicily or Sardinia.
'I have often,' says Tacitus, 'heard him say that Ireland could be
conquered and occupied with a single legion and a few auxiliaries, and
that the work in Britain would be easier if the Roman arms could be made
visible on all sides, and liberty, as it were, removed out of sight.'
Agricola, like many great men after him, might have found the task harder
than his barbarous guest had led him to suppose; and in any case fate had
not ordained that Ireland should ever know the Roman Peace. It was
reserved for another petty king, after the lapse of nearly 1,100 years,
to introduce an organised foreign power into Ireland, and to attach the
island to an empire whose possessions were destined to be far greater
than those of Imperial Rome.
[Sidenote: The Celtic polity.]
Setting aside all ethnological speculations as foreign to the scope of
this work, it may be sufficient to say that the inhabitants of Ireland at
the dawn of authentic history were Celts, of the same grand division as
the bulk of the Scots Highlanders, but differing considerably from the
people of Wales. Their organisation in the twelfth century had not passed
beyond the tribal stage.[1]
[Sidenote: The Irish Monarchy or Pentarchy.]
There was a monarch of all Ireland, who had Meath--the Middle--as his
official appanage, and who reigned originally at Tara. There were
provincial kings of Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught. A primacy
was given to the race of Niall, who lived presumably in the fourth and
fifth centuries, and from whom the O'Neills, O'Donnells, and others trace
their descent. The theory is thought to have been pretty closely adhered
to until the desertion of Tara in the sixth century of our era. After
that the over-king lived in his own territory; but his authority was
often disputed, especially by Munster, the revolt of which province
finally broke up the old order.[2]
[Sidenote: Weakness of the Brehon law.]
Wars were frequent, and Irish Brehons, who were rather legal experts than
judges, exerted themselves to define rights and liabilities, and to
establish a peaceful polity. Perhaps in laying down the law they
sometimes rather stated their own conception of what it ought to be than
described the actual state of things; much as Brahminical writers
propounded a theory of caste which cannot be reconciled with historical
truth. Neither the Church nor the Law had always original power
sufficient to enforce steady obedience. The Law might be clear enough,
but the central government was often too weak to secure respect for the
opinion of experts. Portia might have argued like a very Daniel, but she
could have done nothing without the Duke behind her. In the absence of
such an overpowering authority, the decisions of the Brehons were little
more than arbitrations which might be, and probably often were, accepted
as final, but on which neither party could be compelled to act.[3]
[Sidenote: Ireland was outside the imperial system.]
In the treatise called the 'Senchus Mór' there is a passage which may be
as old as the fourteenth century, in which it is allowed that the nature
of Irish royalty varied considerably from time to time. 'The King of Erin
without opposition,' says the writer or interpolator, 'received stock
from the King of the Romans; or it was by the successor of Patrick the
stock is given to the King of Erin, that is, when the seaports of Dublin,
and Waterford, and Limerick, and the seaports in general, are subject to
him.' There is here an attempt at once to bring Ireland within the pale
of the Empire, and to show that the Irish Church was independent. It was
natural that the Brehons should seek to introduce their country into the
circle of nations, but we know as a matter of fact that the Empire never
had anything to do with Ireland. The passage quoted may have been
inspired by a wish to deny English supremacy by attorning, as it were, to
the superior lord. It is a tribute to the greatness of the Empire more
than anything else, and it was not thought of until the Brehon law
schools had fallen from their high estate.
[Sidenote: The tribal system. The chief.]
It was by giving stock that an Irish chief showed his power and added to
his wealth. There were lands attached to his office, but his capital
consisted of kine, and he extracted a sort of rent by obliging his
inferiors to give them pasture. The number of cattle which he 'grazed
without loss' upon other people's ground was the measure of his power and
popularity. There were free tribesmen the amount of whose obligation to
their chief was strictly laid down, though a greater quantity of stock
might be voluntarily taken under certain restrictions. But there were
also servile or semi-servile classes whose comparatively unprotected
condition placed them more or less in the power of the chief to whose
sept they were attached. An ambitious chief would always have
opportunities of aggrandisement, and his wealth enabled him to support a
mercenary force, and to grow strong at the expense of his own and other
tribes. Broken men who had lost their own tribal position would always
flock to an ambitious chief, and the disturbing influence of such
retainers was often too strong for Brehons or priests. But the growth of
power by means of mercenaries was not peculiar to Ireland, and was
perhaps less frequent than is commonly supposed.[4]
[Sidenote: Frequency of war.]
Whatever the advantages of a pure Celtic system, it did not secure
general peace. There is no period of which Celtic Ireland may be more
justly proud than that between the death of St. Columba in 597 and the
death of St. Gall about 640. It was the age in which the Irish saint
Columbanus bearded Thierri and Brunehaut, in which Ireland herself was a
noted seat of learning, and in which the monasteries of Luxueil, of St.
Gall, and of Bobbio were founded by Irishmen. Yet, under thirty years out
of forty-four either battle or murder is recorded in the _Chronicon
Scotorum_. In some years there were several battles and several murders.
In 628 Leinster was devastated. Quarrels between near relations were
frequent, and often ended in murder. When we consider that the deaths of
important people only are recorded, we cannot pronounce the Ireland which
sent forth Aidan, and Adamnan, and Columbanus to have been at all a
peaceful country. Christianity was then established, and no Scandinavian
irruption had yet hindered the development of purely native ideas. But
Irish chroniclers, perhaps owing to their genealogical turn, give a
disproportionate space to deaths; and it may be admitted that the number
of homicides was not greater in Ireland than in some parts of Germany in
feudal times.[5]
[Sidenote: Celtic law of succession.]
Primogeniture, which is practically incompatible with the tribal stage of
political organisation, was perhaps formally acknowledged at a very
remote period, but was unknown as a rule of succession to Irish chiefries
in the ages with which this book chiefly deals. In those comparatively
modern times a vacancy was filled from the same family, but the person
chosen was generally a brother or a cousin of the deceased. It seldom
happened, perhaps, that an Irish chief, who was necessarily a warrior,
attained threescore and ten years, and on an average a son would be less
likely to make an able leader than one of an older generation. To avoid
disputed successions, an heir-apparent, called the tanist, was chosen
before a vacancy actually occurred, and sometimes probably against the
wish of the reigning chief. Very often the sons refused to accept the
tanist, and bloody quarrels followed. This system stank in the nostrils
of the Tudor lawyers; but in the twelfth century the true principle of
hereditary succession was not fully understood. It was, perhaps, a
suspicion that his eldest son might not succeed him quietly that induced
Henry II. to crown him in his lifetime. A later and much stronger analogy
may be found in the history of the Empire. Charles V. procured the
election of his brother Ferdinand as king of the Romans, and he was
actually crowned. Many years later Charles wished to substitute his son
Philip; but Ferdinand refused to yield, and he was sustained by the
electors, who had no mind to see the Empire become an appendage of the
Spanish monarchy. The influence of the Irish Brehons probably tended to
prevent chiefries from becoming hereditary. In such cases as the earldom
of Desmond we have a mixture of the two systems; the earls were chiefs as
regarded the Irish; but their succession to the honour, and through it to
the quasi-chiefry, was regulated by feudal rules.
[Sidenote: Tudor view of the Celtic land law.]
As the chief was elected by his tribe from among a limited number, so was
the land distributed among the tribesmen within certain fixed limits. As
it is with England's treatment of Ireland that we have to do, it may be
as well to let Sir John Davies himself say how the matter appeared to the
Tudor lawyers:--
[Sidenote: Septs.]
'First be it known that the lands possessed by the mere Irish in this
realm were divided into several territories or countries; and the
inhabitants of each Irish country were divided into several septs or
lineages.'
[Sidenote: Lord and tanist.]
'Secondly, in every Irish territory there was a lord or chieftain, and a
tanist who was his successor apparent. And of every Irish sept or lineage
there was also a chief, who was called Canfinny, or head of a
"cognatio."'
[Sidenote: Tanistry and gavelkind.]
'Thirdly, all possessions in these Irish territories (before the common
law of England was established through all the realm as it now is) ran at
all times[6] in course of tanistry, or in course of gavelkind. Every
lordship or chiefry, with the portion of land that passed with it, went
without partition to the tanist, who always came in by election, or by
the strong hand, and never by descent.[7] But all the inferior tenancies
were partible among the males in gavelkind.'[8]
[Sidenote: No estate of inheritance.]
'Again, the estate which the lord had in the chiefry, or that the
inferior tenants had in gavelkind, was no estate of inheritance, but a
temporary or transitory possession. For just as the next heir of the
lord or chieftain would not inherit the chiefry, but the eldest and
worthiest of the sept (as was before shown in the case of tanistry), who
was often removed and expelled by another who was more active or stronger
than he: so lands in the nature of gavelkind were not partible among the
next heirs male of him who died seised, but among all the males of his
sept, in this manner:--
[Sidenote: Partitions of tribal land.]
'The Canfinny, or chief of a sept (who was commonly the most ancient of
the sept) made all the partitions at his discretion. This Canfinny, after
the death of each tenant holding a competent portion of land, assembled
all the sept, placed all their possessions in hotchpotch, and made a new
partition of the whole; in which partition he did not assign to the sons
of the deceased the portion which their father held, but allotted the
better or larger part to each one of the sept according to his
antiquity.'[9]
[Sidenote: Effect of frequent partitions.]
'These portions being thus allotted and assigned were possessed and
enjoyed accordingly until the next partition, which, at the discretion or
will of the Canfinny, might be made at the death of each inferior tenant.
And thus by these frequent partitions and the removals or translations of
the tenants of one portion or another, all the possessions were
uncertain, and the uncertainty of possession was the very cause that no
civil habitations were erected, and no enclosure or improvement of lands
made, in the Irish countries where that custom of gavelkind was in use;
especially in Ulster, which seemed everywhere a wilderness before this
new plantation made there by the English undertakers. And this was the
fruit of this Irish gavelkind.'
[Sidenote: Position of daughters and of bastard sons.]
'Also by this Irish custom of gavelkind bastards took their shares with
the legitimate, and wives, on the other hand, were quite excluded from
dower, and daughters took nothing, even if their father died without
issue male. So that this custom differed from Kentish gavelkind in four
points.'[10]
[Sidenote: Four points peculiar to Irish gavelkind.]
The four points were the certainty of estate in each share, the exclusion
of bastards, the admission of a widow to one moiety, and the admission of
females in default of issue male. For which reasons, says Sir John, the
Kentish custom was always held good and lawful by the law of England. He
admits, however, that the Irish custom had a counterpart in North Wales,
which had been totally abolished by Henry VIII., along with other usages
resembling those of Ireland. Edward I. had only ventured to exclude
bastards, and to give widows their dowry.[11]
[Sidenote: Sir John Davies did not exhaust the subject.]
Notwithstanding the above decision, it is probable that a description of
tanistry and gavelkind does not exhaust the subject. The theoretical
division among all the males of a sept is not at all likely to have been
carried out, except in very early times. Human nature was against it.
From the twelfth century the example of the Anglo-Normans, which cannot
have been altogether without weight, was against it. The interest of the
chief was everywhere against it, because it would deprive him of the
means of rewarding his friends, and because he was always tempted to
seize lands to his own use. The tendency to private property would be
always asserting itself, but the exact historical truth can never be
known. Before the close of the mediæval period, a great part of Ireland
had been reconquered by the tribes from Anglo-Norman hands. Is it
possible that the Irish land system can have been anywhere restored in
its integrity? On the whole, it is at least probable that English
statesmen in the sixteenth century made as many mistakes about tenures in
Ireland as their representatives in the eighteenth and part of the
nineteenth made about tenures in India. Good faith may be generally
granted in both cases, but the blunders made were no less disastrous. It
is at all events clear that primogeniture was no Celtic usage, that it is
no part of the law of nature, and that the Tudor lawyers treated it as an
end in itself, and almost as a necessary element in the eternal fitness
of things. In the twelfth century Irish practice may have come much
nearer to theory than in the sixteenth; at all events, Henry II.'s grants
to individuals were absolutely opposed to Celtic notions of justice.
[Sidenote: Composition for murder.]
[Sidenote: Celtic usages part of the common Aryan stock.]
[Sidenote: The conflict of laws is the key to Anglo-Irish history.]
The Irish admitted composition for murder. This blood-fine, called an
_eric_, was an utter abomination to the English of the sixteenth century,
who had quite forgotten the laws and customs of their own Teutonic
ancestors. To men long used to a strong central government such a custom
seemed impious. It was nevertheless part of the common heritage of the
Aryan race, and had been in vogue among the peoples from whom the later
English sprung. The Njal Saga illustrates its use among the Icelanders by
many famous cases strictly in point. The feudal system and the canon law
had caused the Teutonic nations to abandon a usage which they once had in
common with the Irish. Celtic Ireland had never had a very strong central
government, and such as it was it had sustained serious damage. Homicide
was still considered a personal injury. The rule was not a life for a
life, but adequate damages for the loss sustained. The idea of public
justice, irrespective of private interests, was far in advance of the
stage which had been reached by the Irish Celts. Irish history cannot be
understood unless the fact is clearly grasped, that the development of
the tribal system was violently interrupted by a feudal half-conquest.
The Angevin and Plantagenet kings were strong enough to shake and
discredit the native polity; but they had neither the power nor the
inclination to feudalise a people which had never gone through the
preliminary stages. When the Tudors brought a more steadfast purpose and
better machinery to the task, they found how hard it was to evolve order
out of the shattered remnants of two systems which had the same origin,
but which had been so brought together as to make complete fusion
impossible. From the first the subjects of England and the natives of
Ireland had been on entirely different planes. Even for us it is
extremely difficult to avoid confusion by applying modern terms to
ancient things. The Tudor lawyers and statesmen could hardly even attempt
to look at jarring systems from the outside. They saw that the common law
was more advanced than that of the Brehons, but they could not see that
they were really the same thing at different stages. In fact, plain
Englishmen in the sixteenth century could not do what only the most
enlightened Anglo-Indians can do in the nineteenth. They were more
civilised than the Irish, but they were not educated enough to recognise
the common ancestor. That there was a common ancestor, and that neither
party could recognise him, is the key to Anglo-Irish history both before
and after the Tudor times.
[Sidenote: Origin of the Irish Church. Patrick and Columba.]
[Sidenote: Exile of Columba.]
[Sidenote: Saint Bridget.]
The early history of the native Irish Church is shrouded in much
obscurity. The best authorities are disposed to accept St. Patrick as the
apostle of Ireland, the fifth century as the period of his labours, and
Armagh as his chief seat. He was not a native of Ireland; so much seems
certain. A more interesting, because a more clearly defined figure, is
that of Columba or Columkille, who was born in Donegal in 521. The
churches of Derry, Durrow, Kells, Swords, Raphoe, Tory Island, and
Drumcliff, claim him as their founder; but it is as the apostle of North
Britain that he is best known. He was religious from his youth, but a
peculiarly serious tinge was given to his mind by a feeling of remorse
for bloodshed which he had partly caused. He had surreptitiously
transcribed a psalter belonging to another saint, who complained of this
primitive infringement of copyright. A royal decision that 'to every cow
belongs her calf' was given, and was followed by an appeal to arms. Exile
was then imposed as a penance on Columba, whose act had been the
original cause of offence. Such was long the received legend, but perhaps
the exile was voluntary.[12] Whether his departure was a penance or the
result of a vow, tradition says that he was bound never to see Ireland
again, that he landed first on Oronsay, but found that Erin was visible
from thence, and refused to rest until he had reached Iona. His supposed
feelings are recorded in a very ancient poem:--
'My vision o'er the brine I stretch
From the ample oaken planks;
Large is the tear of my soft grey eye
When I look back upon Erin.
Upon Erin my attention is fixed.'
Columba was the Paul of Celtic Christianity. By him and his disciples a
great part of Scotland was evangelised, and it was to him that the
British Church looked as a founder when the time came to decide between
the relative pretensions of the Celtic and the Norman type of religion.
St. Bridget or Bride, who died four years after Columba's birth, is
scarcely less celebrated. She was born near Dundalk, and her chief seat
was at Kildare. She was the mother of Irish female monachism, and in
popular estimation is not less famous than Patrick, and perhaps more so
than Columba.[13]
[Sidenote: The Irish Church was originally monastic.]
Irish Christianity was at first monastic. A saint obtained a grant of
land from a chief. A church was built, and a settlement sprung up round
it. The family, as it was called, consisted partly of monks and partly of
dependents, and the abbot ruled over all as chief of a pseudo-tribe. Like
a lay chiefry the abbacy was elective, and the abbots wielded
considerable power. These ecclesiastical clans even made war with each
other. Thus, it is recorded that in 763 the family of St. Ciaran of
Clonmacnoise fought with the family of St. Columba of Durrow, and that
200 of the Columbides fell. The head of such a confraternity was called
coarb, or successor of the founder, and Irish writers sometimes called
the Pope 'coarb of Peter.' In course of time the coarb of Patrick
crystallised into the Archbishop of Armagh, and the coarb of Columba into
the Bishop of Derry. Other saints were revered as the founders of other
sees. Very often at least the abbot was chosen from among the founder's
kin.
[Sidenote: The early Church was episcopal, but not territorially so.]
Episcopal orders were acknowledged from the first, but it was long before
the notion of a territorial bishop prevailed. In early days there were
many bishops, wanderers sometimes, and at other times retained by the
abbot as a necessary appendage to his monastery. The bishop was treated
with great respect, but was manifestly inferior to the head of a
religious house. St. Patrick was said to have consecrated 350 bishops,
founded 700 churches, and ordained 5,000 priests; a mere legend, but
perhaps tending to show that the episcopal order was very numerous in
Ireland. Travelling bishops without definite duties, and with orders of
doubtful validity, became a scandal to more regularly organised churches,
and drew down a rebuke from Anselm as late as the beginning of the
twelfth century. At an earlier period impostors pretending to be Irish
bishops were not uncommon.[14]
[Sidenote: Ireland gradually conformed to Roman usage.]
The Irish Church long continued to keep Easter on a different day from
that sanctioned by Rome, and to use a different form of tonsure. But the
inconvenience of such dissidence from the general body of Western
Christendom was soon felt. About 630 Pope Honorius I. addressed a letter
to the Irish Church, in which he reminded the clergy that they were a
scanty company inhabiting a remote region, and that it could not be for
their interest to remain isolated. Cummian, afterwards seventh abbot of
Iona, warmly espoused the papal cause. 'Rome errs,' he said with great
scorn, 'Jerusalem errs, Alexandria errs, Antioch errs, the whole world
errs--the Britons and Irish are the only right-minded people.' The
southern Irish followed Cummian, but the northern rejected his advice,
and some even called him a heretic; yet this did not prevent his being
elected to fill Columba's chair. Adamnan, ninth abbot of Iona, and
biographer of the great founder, was no less earnest on the Roman side
than Cummian had been. At the Synod of Whitby in 664 Wilfred discomfited
Colman of Lindisfarne, and settled the question so far as England was
concerned. Adamnan lived till 704, and succeeded in converting nearly all
the Irish churches, except those subject to his own monastery.
[Sidenote: Close of the Paschal controversy, 716.]
In 716, under Duncadh, the eleventh abbot, Iona conformed, and the
Paschal controversy came to an end, after lasting 150 years. The coronal
tonsure was adopted three years later. The supremacy of Rome was thus
acknowledged, but circumstances long prevented the Irish from adopting
the Roman plan of Church organisation.
[Sidenote: Influence of the Scandinavian invasions on the Church.]
[Sidenote: The Eugenian Constitution, 1151.]
The Scandinavian inroads began towards the close of the century which
witnessed the submission of Iona. It is probable that the influx of pagan
Northmen kept Ireland apart from the rest of Christendom. The ninth
century produced Erigena and other eminent Irishmen, but a country in
which Christianity was fighting for bare life was not a promising field
for Church reformers or systematisers. It was not until Clontarf had
finally decided the cause in favour of Christianity that Ireland had
again leisure to think of ecclesiastical polity. Gillebert of Limerick,
an Ostman, was the first papal legate, and as such presided at the synod
of Rathbreasil in or about 1118, where the first serious attempt was made
to divide all Ireland into dioceses. The great influence of Malachi of
Armagh was exerted in the same direction. He was the friend of Bernard of
Clairvaux, and he introduced the Cistercian order into Ireland. Pope
Eugenius III., himself a Cistercian, finished the work, and in 1151
Ireland accepted four archiepiscopal palls from Rome. From that date the
Irish Church must be held to have fully accepted not only papal supremacy
but Roman organisation. That she had not done so long before seems due to
accident more than anything else. From mere remoteness of position
Ireland had escaped the dominion of Imperial Rome. From the same
remoteness she was comparatively slow to feel the influence of Papal
Rome. Still, it can scarcely be doubted that had it not been for the
Scandinavian intrusion, the Ireland which adopted the Roman Easter and
the Roman tonsure before the middle of the eighth century, would have
gladly accepted the palls long before the middle of the twelfth.[15]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] As to the divisions and sub-divisions of the ancient Irish people, I
prefer to give the following statement of Dr. Sullivan:--'The unit
territory was the _Tuath_, each of which had a _Ri_, or chief. Three,
four, or even more _Tuatha_ were connected together for military and
other purposes as a _Mór Tuath_; the king or chief of the confederacy,
who acted as Commander-in-Chief, was the _Ri Mór Tuatha_, or great chief.
This group corresponded to the Gothic _Thiuda_, old Norse _Thjoth_. The
Irish unit _Tuath_ corresponded to the Norse _Fylk_, the Teutonic _Gavi_
or _Gau_, the Greek _Phyle_, and the old Latin _Tribus_; it was at first
genealogical, but acquired a geographical and political signification.
The tribe or _Tuath_ consisted in some cases of a _Clann_, the progeny or
descendants of a chief. Sometimes a _Clann_ embraced several _Tuatha_.
_Clann_ was strictly genealogical, _Tuath_ both genealogical and
geographical. The _Clann_ consisted of families or houses called _Fine_,
equivalent to _Cognatio_--the Anglo-Saxon _Maegth_. The head of a _Fine_
was the _Cendfinne_ or chieftain. The _Fine_ was a sept. The _Clann_
therefore consisted of several septs, and the land of the tribe or
_Tuath_ was divided between the septs or _Fine_ composing it. The _Fine_
or sept is one of the most important parts of the Irish organisation, but
the word is used in several senses: thus, the relatives of a chief or
other tribesman to the fifth degree constituted the true _Cognatio_ or
_Geilfine_, i.e. Hand-_fine_. The _Fine_ or sept was in fact an
independent unit, which paid _Erics_ for all its members, and received
_Erics_ or fines for the killing of one of its own members, and also took
possession of the _Dibad_ or property of its deceased members. But when
the sept did not fulfil its obligations, the _Ri_ of the _Tuath_ was
bound to enforce justice. So when the _Tuath_ itself failed in its
obligations and duties, the _Ri Mór Tuatha_ or superior chief was bound
to enforce justice in the recalcitrant tribe. The _Ri Mór Tuatha_, or _Ri
buiden_, or king of companies, corresponded to the Anglo-Saxon _Heretoga_
or Dux. The King of the Great Tribe received hostages from the sub-reguli
of his territory for their _Ceílsine_ or fealty, and he might call upon
them to support him with a levy of their tribes.'
[2] 'The existence of the Irish Pentarchy,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'was as
real as that of any similar confederacy among nations in a tribal stage,
and the means of enforcing the orders of the over-king were not very
different or less effective than in many federal states--ancient,
mediæval, and modern.'
[3] 'It is quite true,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'that the central power was
not always strong enough to enforce rights, and in many instances was
defeated in its attempt to do so. But in what does this differ from other
federal states, ancient and modern? The Emperors of Germany were not
always able to subdue and to enforce their decrees against the princes
and nobles of the Empire, and in numerous instances the decisions of the
imperial chancery might be regarded in precisely the same light--as mere
arbitrations. To say there was no law, properly speaking, seems to me
wholly irreconcilable with actual facts, and _especially with the
existence of a rich and elaborate nomenclature of native terms not
borrowed from Roman law_. This nomenclature implies an equally elaborate
machinery. It was the existence of this legal system which kept out the
canon law, which never, for instance, succeeded in suppressing or even
modifying the marriage customs. In discussing the laws and institutions
of early nations we are liable to go to one or other of two
extremes:--(1) We represent the laws, &c., in terms of modern law, by
which we make inchoate institutions full-grown, while the germs of a
legal system are represented as a fully developed code; or (2) we deny
the existence of all law and legislation. You are right I think as
regards the Church; for owing to the organisation of the old Celtic
Church it was perfectly acephalous. Whatever influence it did exert was
individual and never official, and, therefore, not continuous--it might
be described in fact as sporadic influence.'
[4] 'All through the laws,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'there is ample evidence
to prove that the tribesmen, or _Aires_, were bound to take stock from
the _Ri_, or chief, only. The amount of this stock, called _Saer_, or
free-stock, is strictly laid down, and the amount of the tribute payable
for this stock, called _Bestigi_, or house-refection, or tribute, is also
strictly laid down. But if the _Ri_ were wealthy he might offer more
stock to his _Ceiles_, clients or vassals, on condition of paying him
certain dues, called _Biatad_. The stock so given was called _Daer_, or
base-stock; and its acceptance by a tribesman made a _Daer-ceilé_ of him,
and placed him very much in the power of the _Ri_, or chief. No tribesman
could accept _Daer-stock_ without the consent of his _Fine_, or sept,
which would be bound by the acts of its members. A tribesman, with the
consent of his _Fine_, might accept _Daer-stock_ from any _Flath_, or
lord, in his own _Tuath_, or tribe. All the above applies to the
tribesmen, or _Aires_, who alone constituted the free class. But besides
the _Ceiles_, or clients, or free tribesmen, or _Aires_, there was
another class, called _Fuidirs_. The markland of the tribe and the land
held in severalty of the _Ri_, and the similar land of the _Cendfinne_,
or chieftain (or captain, as he is called in the Scottish Highlands) of a
sept was let out to various classes of _Fuidirs_. Some were _Saer_, or
free _Fuidirs_, and others _Daer_, or base Fuidirs. The _Saer-fuidirs_,
again, were of two sorts--broken tribesmen who went into another _Tuath_
and got stock as well as land from a _Ri_, or _Flath_, and _Saer-fuidirs_
who possessed some stock of their own which they grazed on land of a
chief or of a _Flath_. Some of these free _Fuidirs_ entered into _daer_,
or servitude, by accepting stock under certain conditions. The _Fuidir_
classes were the true tenants at will. The _Aires_ were of the clan, the
_Fuidirs_, _Bottachs_, or cottiers, and other servile classes, _belonged_
to the clan. The giving and taking of _Daer-stock_ depended upon the
impoverishment of a sept through cattle murrain, the levying of
blood-fines on account of the misconduct of some of its members, &c. But
the whole thing was voluntary, and depended on the poverty of a sept and
the wealth and ability of the _Ri_, or _Flath_.'
[5] Dr. Sullivan does not think Christianity was fully established by the
middle of the seventh century. 'The Irish Church organisation,' he says,
'was ill calculated to influence the social habits and the political life
of the people; unlike the diocesan and centralised system of the Latin
Church. Hence a high spiritual life and intellectual cultivation within
the numerous coenobiums was quite compatible with practical paganism and
disorder outside.'
[6] 'At all times' must be understood to refer only to those
comparatively modern ages above mentioned.
[7] 'The election,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'was always from the _Geilfine_,
or relatives within the fifth degree. Should the _Geilfine_ fail, or be
all killed in battle, the _Derbfine_, or relatives from the fifth to the
ninth degree, came in.'
[8] 'This,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'is not right. There was the "joint
undivided family" formed by the _Bo-aire_ class, or freemen possessed of
cattle. The poorer _Flaths_, or heads of septs, did not gavel their
possessions, but either elected a tanist or formed a "joint undivided
family." When the property of an _Aire_ was not sufficient to gavel, so
as to qualify one or more _Aires_, the division of the inheritance did
not take place, but the parties agreed to form a "_joint_ undivided
family." In such a family one was head, and as such was an _Aire_.
_Bo-aires_ of this class, to avoid the gavelling of their property,
elected a _Tanist_--the _Tanaise Bo-aire_. Poor and broken tribesmen, not
having sufficient wealth to qualify them as _Aires_, formed a
"joint-family," or _Congilda_. Every _Flath_, or head of a sept, had a
tanist also. The Irish "joint-family" was an institution of great
importance and of surpassing interest in the comparative history of the
Aryan family.'
[9] 'This account of Davies,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'is entirely wrong. The
law of the distribution of the property of a deceased tribesman was most
carefully laid down. No doubt then as now, and naturally more frequently
then than now, a chief, or head of a sept, or of a _Treb_ (homestead)
might usurp power he did not possess, and do wrong.'
[10] 'Marriages in Ireland,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'were not regulated by
canon law. The Irish marriage customs were in full force long after the
Norman conquest. According to these customs, which appear to have been
wholly uninfluenced by the canon law, bastardy was entirely different
from what that term implied in countries under canon law, and in modern
times. The Irish marriage customs should consequently be taken into
account here, as they sanctioned a kind of polygamy, divorce, &c. See
also the excommunication in 1282, by the Archbishop of Canterbury against
Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, at the request of Edward I., in which the
marriage customs of the Welsh, identical with those of the Irish,
constitute one of the charges.'
[11] _Le Résolution des justices touchant le Irish custome de gavelkind._
Reported by Sir John Davies, A.G., 3 Jac. i.
[12] Dr. Sullivan believes the story of the decision against Columba to
be a mere myth.
[13] 'The Irish Church,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'had undoubtedly two distinct
phases of monasticism: one that of the Patrician period--an obscure but
highly important and interesting phase; the other, that of the sixth and
subsequent centuries, to which the Irish missionaries belonged.'
[14] 'Besides,' says Dr. Sullivan, 'the monastic bishop proper, who
furnished the wandering Scotic bishops of the Middle Ages, there is a
later development of a higher church organisation in the tribal bishop,
who was a close approximation to a diocesan bishop. The tribal bishop was
a bishop who had jurisdiction over the whole of a _Tuath_, and sometimes
even a _Mór Tuath_. The growth of territorial jurisdiction is well marked
by the prestige attached to the office--the bishop ranked in fact almost
on a level with the chief, and was entitled to the same legal retinue.
Many of the ancient dioceses, and some of the existing ones, _e.g._ Ross,
Kilmacduagh, Kilfenora, represent ancient _Tuaths_, or tribe territories.
Several deaneries were former dioceses, and are co-extensive with ancient
_Tuatha_.
[15] Dr. Sullivan warns me not to attribute too much influence to the
Danish Church. 'The tribe-bishop,' he says, 'was a much earlier
development, and proves the growth of diocesan jurisdiction and the
consequent merging of the Irish Church in the Latin Church. The
acceptance of the Roman time for celebrating Easter by the Irish Church
and the constant intercourse between Ireland and the Continent had
brought the Irish Church fully under Roman supremacy three and a half
centuries earlier. What really took place in the early part of the
twelfth century was the more complete adoption of the organisation of the
Western Church, and of the principles of the canon law; and especially
the granting of lands and charters to the Church in the same way as in
feudal lands. The marriage of Irish princes with Saxon and other foreign
princesses, and the growth of towns which helped to relax its rigid
tribal system, did more than the Danish Church.' The chief towns were,
however, of Danish origin.