GOVERNMENT OF ORMONDE, 1665-1668
[Sidenote: Ormonde and his Parliament.]
[Sidenote: Disputes between Lords and Commons.]
It was not surprising that there should be some difficulty about the
Acts of Settlement and Explanation, since the private fortune of every
member was concerned. But in other matters Ormonde had little to
complain of in the behaviour of the Commons. When he informed them that
France had joined hands with Holland, and that warlike preparations
were going on in Brittany which might be meant for Ireland, the House
made a solemn declaration of loyalty and promised eight subsidies
of 15,000_l._ each. Twenty subsidies in all appear to have been
granted by this Parliament. The royal assent to the money Bill and
to the Bill of Explanation was given on the same day, and Ormonde
made a speech in which he congratulated Parliament in having at last
'got into the prospect of a settlement.' He apologised for having
practically confirmed much of what had been done by the late usurping
Government, adding with grim humour that justice was sometimes done by
unjust men, 'Ireton at Limerick having caused some to be hanged that
deserved it almost as well as himself.' Of the later Acts passed by
this Parliament, the most important was that for religious uniformity.
Knight service and the Court of Wards had been already abolished, and
hearth-money permanently settled on the King in compensation. Ormonde
kept the Parliament in existence until August 1666, the time being
largely occupied in disputes between the two Houses. The Commons
claimed the right to sit at free conferences, but the Peers would not
allow it.
'Gentlemen,' said Lord Drogheda, 'you would all be lords.'
'Another rebellion,' replied Mr. Adam Molyneux, 'may make us so as
well as a former made your ancestors.' Both Houses having appealed to
the Lord Lieutenant, he reminded them that Strafford, who had long
parliamentary experience, had recorded in Ireland that the English
Commons stood uncovered at conferences. He dwelt on the danger of
breaking 'any ancient custom and practice,' but the Commons were
obdurate and declared that all the Irish precedents were in their
favour. Having secured the legislation he wanted, Ormonde then
decided to dissolve. Indeed the privileges of Parliament had become
an intolerable burden. Scarcely any debts could be recovered, and the
salaries of members, though all did not take them, came to nearly
100_l._ a day. An attempt was made to remedy these abuses by law, but
it came to nothing. A Bill of Indemnity on the English model had been
discussed at intervals since 1661, but without much enthusiasm, and the
Parliament came to an end without passing any such healing measure. On
August 6 the Lord Lieutenant proceeded in state to the House, sent for
the Commons, underwent a long speech from Speaker Mervyn, and gave the
royal assent to the subsidy and some other Bills. The Lord Chancellor
then thanked the Houses for their services in 'a most learned and
eloquent speech,' and dissolved them, to the great joy of thousands who
had suffered in pocket from their protections and privileges. No legal
Irish Parliament met again until 1692.[61]
[Sidenote: Financial difficulties.]
[Sidenote: Soldiers mutiny for their pay.]
Parliament had been liberal in granting subsidies, but it was hard to
collect the money, and not more than 60,000_l._ could be reckoned on
in any one year from this source: 164,000_l._ had been remitted from
England since the Restoration, but large arrears were still owing
to the army. The annual cost of Government was about 190,000_l._,
and there was a deficit of some 37,000_l._ a year. Even with the
greatest economy Ormonde did not see his way to do without 30,000_l._
a year from England. The restraint upon the cross-Channel trade in
fat cattle had made matters worse, for the usual cash return was not
made, and there was an actual scarcity of coin in Ireland, so that
it was almost impossible to make any payments in ready money. The
garrison of Carrickfergus exhausted their credit in the town, and
were irritated by stoppages for the insufficient clothing supplied to
them. The first outbreak, in January 1666, was easily suppressed; but
the officers, who knew the sufferings of their men, were not supposed
to have behaved very well. In May a large sum of subsidy-money was
brought into Carrickfergus for transmission to Dublin; but the soldiers
of four companies swore that it should not be removed until they had
received nine months' pay; and the townsmen, who saw some chance of
shop debts being settled, sympathised with them. The mutineers were
not above 200, many of whom surrendered to Lord Donegal, the governor;
but there were enough left to hold the town, as they threatened to
do, until they were paid. Of four captains, only Captain Butler was
on the spot, the others being on leave. The chief ringleader was
Corporal Dillon, but the non-commissioned officers were generally
staunch. The statement of grievances was drawn up by illiterate men,
and Lord Donegal's representative found them 'so drunk that no one
can make them understand any reason ... mighty hot in their ale.' As
soon as the news reached Dublin, Ormonde sent off ten troops of horse
by land and 400 men of the Guards under his son Arran. He himself
rode to Dundalk in one day, and to Hillsborough on the second. Before
he could reach Belfast, Arran had already landed, in spite of bad
weather, forced the wall, driven the mutineers into the castle, and
seen Dillon killed. He refused all terms, and six hours after his
landing, the garrison surrendered at discretion. One hundred and ten
men were tried by court-martial and found guilty, for there could be no
doubt of the facts. Ten were selected for execution, and nine actually
suffered. The rest were conveyed by sea to Dublin, and Ormonde at
first intended to send them to the West Indies, but they begged to be
allowed to redeem their offence, were formed into a separate company,
and afterwards did good service. Ormonde had many enemies at Court, but
Clarendon said that in his opinion, at least, the mutineers had not
been too severely treated.[62]
[Sidenote: Exclusion of Irish cattle.]
Theoretical claims of the English Parliament notwithstanding, internal
affairs were subject to the local legislature. In commercial matters,
however, the power of the larger kingdom was unquestioned. Whatever
benefit could be derived from Cromwell's Navigation Act was shared
by Ireland, and there was free trade between the two islands. But
after the Restoration Irish members came no more to Westminster, and
the usurper's enlightened policy was abandoned. In 1663, by the 'Act
for the encouragement of trade,' as it was absurdly called, Ireland
was excluded from the colonial trade, and the importation of Irish
cattle into England was forbidden between July 1 and December 20 in
each year. All depended on grass, for the days of turnips and feeding
cakes were still far off, and this was the season when stock were in
good condition. A fine of 20_s._ was imposed for every beast landed
notwithstanding, half to the King and half to the informer, for the
influx of Irish fat cattle was considered 'of infinite prejudice to
most counties in England.' Among the peers Anglesey only protested,
and he had a strong case, though his first reason was the amazing
one that the Act allowed free export of money and bullion which the
wisdom of our ancestors had always restrained. But he also maintained
the rights of people in Ireland 'they being by law native Englishmen
but debarred from the English markets,' thus giving a monopoly to
some of the King's subjects to aid ruining others. It was erroneously
supposed that English rents were depreciated by Irish cattle. Petty
showed how impossible it was for imported cattle, whose gross value
was 132,000_l._, to affect seriously a rental of 8,000,000_l._, which
had fallen by one-fifth. Pepys more truly attributed the depression of
agriculture to the low price of wheat. Shaftesbury, though he swelled
the partisan chorus against Irish cattle, told the King that the
mischief was really owing to depopulation, the plague and the Dutch war
having added at least a quarter of a million to the normal number of
deaths. There was also a constant stream of emigrants to the American
colonies, where they might 'enjoy the liberty of their mistaken
consciences.'[63]
[Sidenote: The Canary Company.]
In spite of remonstrances from the Irish Government, the Act for
excluding fat cattle came into force on July 1, 1664, and was to
continue till the end of the first session of the next Parliament,
which did not, in fact, meet for many years. Another question
affecting Irish trade then became prominent for a time. The trade with
the Canaries was entirely in the hands of the English, who had 'an
immoderate appetite' for the wine, and the islanders therefore obtained
very high prices. Certain London merchants represented that these
prices would be reduced by giving them a monopoly, and though there
was much opposition, a charter was granted in March 1665, followed by
a proclamation in May. Promoting the privileges of the Canary Company
was afterwards made an article of impeachment against Clarendon, and it
was said that he received a bribe of 4000_l._ He admits having favoured
the grant and received a present, but with the King's knowledge and
approval, and he says that every preceding Chancellor had done the
same in like case. One object of the monopolists was to prevent a
direct trade between Ireland and the islands carried on in part by
enterprising Jews who worked the business from Dublin. The question
had been discussed and the charter granted before Ormonde left England,
but when he was ordered to issue a proclamation as in England, the
Irish merchants at once protested. In those days cash payments for
foreign goods were considered a drain upon the national wealth, and
England had to balance her account with Canary by sending out specie,
whereas the meat, fish, butter, leather, pipe-staves, and frieze sent
from Ireland exceeded the value of the wine, the difference being paid
in pieces of eight. As to the liquor being dear, Ormonde said that 'if
men will drink canary they should pay for their delicacy, and whatever
they shall so pay is spent among us.' He was ready to obey the King's
positive commands, but on no other ground would he consent to deprive
Ireland of her most lucrative trade. In September 1666, he had to issue
the proclamation, but the plague, the fire, and the Dutch war were
all against the monopoly. The Spanish authorities gave every possible
opposition, interloping merchants were allowed to compete, and in the
end the company were fain to surrender their charter, which was much
disliked by the English House of Commons. Ireland imported some 2000
pipes of Canary wine annually, but it is not improbable that some of
this found its way to England, as the defeated monopolists asserted.[64]
[Sidenote: Question of prohibiting Irish cattle.]
The plague followed the Court to Salisbury and drove Charles to Oxford,
where Parliament sat for three weeks in October 1665. Clarendon says
that the members, for want of time and fear of contagion, 'rejected
all other businesses but what immediately related to the public,' one
of which was the atrocious Five-mile Act. Ormonde had hoped that the
restrictions on Irish cattle might be repealed, but quite a contrary
spirit prevailed, and a Bill for total prohibition passed the House
of Commons. The first Act had been freely evaded, and a much more
stringent one was called for. The King had no wish to be unjust
unless it was very inconvenient to be just, and the Lords, not being
subjected to Court pressure, held the Bill over until the prorogation.
When the Houses met for business at Westminster nearly a year later,
the question soon came up again. Pepys says the Prohibition Bill was
the work of the western members, 'wholly against the sense of most of
the rest of the House; who think if you do this, you give the Irish
again cause to rebel.' The event, however, showed that the majority
was the other way, and that it included the northern counties, but
others, particularly Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent, whose business it
was to feed, and not to breed, made the Irish cattle welcome. The
larger towns, whose interest it was to have cheap meat, had little
power, and both landlords and farmers were generally against Ireland,
the former because they thought low prices affected their revenue,
and the latter because their produce was subjected to competition.
Sir William Coventry, whose character was much better than that of
most contemporary public men, threw his weight into the scale against
Ireland, persuading the King that he would get no supply if the Commons
were thwarted, that their fury would soon burn itself out, and that
the rejection of the Bill could then easily be compassed in the House
of Lords. Coventry's judgment was certainly not infallible, for it
was his advice that made the Chatham disaster possible. But Clarendon
was strongly opposed to the Cattle Bill, and animosity towards him
may have affected the action of the younger statesman. Finch, the
Solicitor-General, eloquently opposed the Bill at every stage, and
Anglesey was sent to London to present the case of the Irish Government
against it.[65]
[Sidenote: Irish cattle worse than starvation.]
The fire of London was a calamity of such proportions as in modern
times would arouse the sympathy and perhaps excite the generosity of
the whole civilised world. Ninety years later England gave 100,000_l._
to the sufferers from the Lisbon earthquake. Even in 1666 it was
natural that Ireland should wish to help, and it was proposed to send
over 30,000 head of 'our proper and indeed our only coin.' Instead of
receiving the thanks of the House of Commons, this gift inflamed its
fury, and was looked upon as a trick. The houseless citizens begged
that they might be allowed to enjoy the supply, but the cavalier
squires reviled them for their selfishness, and the pressure upon
the reluctant Lords was increased. With much difficulty the Commons
were induced to allow the importation in the form of salt beef, but
under such restrictions that the city was not likely to profit much.
Buckingham, who had neither conscience nor shame, and whose own
rents had been reduced, saw that popularity was to be gained at the
expense of Ireland, and Ashley, who knew better, found his account in
fanning the flame. He excused himself in private by saying that he
was in favour of a legislative union under which neither island would
have power to hurt the other. In debate the Achitophel of Dryden's
great satire could find no better argument than that the rejection of
the Bill would cause Irish rents to rise as those of England fell,
and that the Duke of Ormonde would soon be richer than the Earl of
Northumberland. Ormonde's prosperity might indeed excite the envy of
many who did not choose to remember that his loyalty had endured exile
and penury while they lived at home at ease under the Protector. Some
thought that Ashley was anxious to be Lord Lieutenant himself, but
of this there does not seem to be much evidence. Ossory, whose temper
was hot, and who was enduring great provocation, reproached the future
Chancellor with having been one of Cromwell's counsellors, for which
he had to apologise in the House of Lords; but most readers of history
will nevertheless sympathise with him.[66]
The Duke of Buckingham hated the Chancellor, who stood in his way.
He also hated and envied Ormonde, whose fiery son resented his
insinuations, so that lookers on foretold a quarrel. At last Buckingham
said in debate that anyone who opposed the Cattle Bill must have an
Irish estate or an Irish understanding. Mindful of the mistake he had
made in Ashley's case, Ossory forebore to answer, but a conversation
outside led to a challenge, which Buckingham accepted, though he was
thought to have taken good care that there should be no meeting. Ossory
denied that he had intended to fight on account of words spoken in
the House; Arlington and the Duke of York, who were both interested
in Irish land, testified that the quarrel was of long standing. The
challenger was sent to the Tower and his adversary committed to Black
Rod's custody, but they were soon released. Buckingham's arrogance at
this time was such that he suffered detention a few days later for a
scuffle with the irascible Lord Dorchester in the House itself. Ormonde
admitted that the Lords had dealt fairly with his son, and thanked
Arlington for taking a friendly part in the matter.[67]
[Sidenote: Irish cattle voted a public nuisance.]
The Bill as introduced applied to Scotland as well as to Ireland,
but this was altered after much discussion, and the final struggle
was as to whether Irish cattle should be declared a nuisance. The
word was insisted on by the Commons because it was thought likely
to secure strict administration, since the King could not very well
favour what he had himself declared to be a public nuisance. There
were many conferences between the two Houses, but the Commons stood
stubbornly by the obnoxious term. The Lords were willing to join in a
petition to the King not to grant any licences, but the Lower House,
by 116 to 57, voted to adhere to their word. If Charles had remained
firm, he might have carried the peers with him, but he wanted money
too badly. Some advised a dissolution, but he could hardly hope for
a better House of Commons than one which contained nearly a hundred
placemen and pensioners, and which was still stirred by the loyal
tempest of 1660. Having been at first the strongest opponent of the
Bill, he became its most strenuous supporter. Sir George Carteret, the
King's Vice-Chamberlain, was thought to have been chiefly instrumental
in converting his master, who made it a personal matter with peers to
swallow the word Nuisance, his conduct, in Clarendon's words, 'giving
those who loved him not great argument of triumph, and those who loved
him very passionately, much matter of mortification.' Between fear and
favour the Lords yielded, and four days later the Bill became law. The
Poll Bill, which was the price of the King's surrender, received his
assent at the same time. Charles soon prorogued Parliament, telling the
Commons that their session had borne little fruit, and that it was high
time for them to be in the country. Eight peers protested against the
Irish Bill, chiefly on the ground that the importation of cattle was
no nuisance, and that the word was professedly introduced to limit the
dispensing power, 'a just, necessary, and ancient prerogative inherent
in the Crown,' as a means of dealing with unforeseen emergencies.[68]
[Sidenote: Irish cattle totally prohibited]
Ireland, said the Irish Government while there were still hopes of
stopping the dreaded Bill, 'is a country generally proper only for
breeding and grazing of cattle, which, with what commodities proceed
from them, are their chief merchandises.' Gookin, the friend of
Ireland, said the same thing many years before. So it had always been,
and so it is likely to remain, for there is no finer cattle country in
the world. The winters are so mild that the beasts need not be housed,
while the grass begins earlier and lasts longer than elsewhere, but
corn suffers from the abundance of rain and the want of sunshine.
A time came when Irish rents were raised by high protective duties
on grain, the mass of the people living on potatoes, and suffering
annually between the old crop and the new. There were many Irish
famines before 1846, but they are forgotten. When the potatoes failed
and the duties were abolished the area under corn gradually shrank,
and the production of meat again became the national and natural
industry. The evils foretold by Ormonde and his advisers followed
upon the restrictive legislation, and cattle became a drug on the
market. Efforts were, however, made to continue the trade, since the
Act which forbade importation into England had no force to prevent
exportation from Ireland, and the extreme cheapness of the stock was a
great temptation. By the Act such cattle might be seized unless they
were declared on oath to be of British origin, half the proceeds of
sale going to the informer and half to the poor of the parish. But the
speculators sometimes compounded with the churchwardens beforehand, and
the smuggling went on, though the risks attending the traffic were so
great that no perceptible relief was given to the Irish stockmasters.
An amending Act was passed next year which made the ships liable to
seizure and the sailors to the common gaol. Even then the possibility
of great profit tempted the blockade-runners. There had always been a
trade between Ireland and Minehead, and a struggle was made to maintain
it. 'So little,' says a local historian, 'were the wants of the poor
or so considerable were the forfeitures that in the year 1675 an
accumulated surplus sum of about 500_l._ was in hand, and then laid out
in the purchase of a freehold estate in the parish of Ottery St. Mary,
which estate still retains the name of the Cow-lands.' The proceeds
of this investment are even now applied on each New Year's Day to a
distribution of blankets, and this is always called the Cow Charity.[69]
[Sidenote: Evil effects of the exclusion policy.]
The trade with England in fat cattle having been destroyed by the Act
of 1663, Ireland was full of young stock which the Act of 1667 left
upon their owners' hands. They were excluded from Scotland as well
as from England. The immediate loss was of course very great. Many
tenants deserted their holdings, and rents were everywhere hard to
collect. The contraband business did not pay very well, but foreign
ports were open, and the great Dutch market seemed to offer the easiest
remedy. Very little hay was made in Ireland, and the young animals,
half starved in winter upon withered grass, were in no condition to
thrive on the spring herbage. The meat was too soft to salt well, the
curing was ill done, much of it was uneatable when landed and had to be
destroyed. Hides were sold by weight, which was increased by exporting
them dirty, so that the credit of the trade was low. Butter was badly
and dishonestly packed, making a good show at the ends of each firkin,
with inferior stuff in the middle, and even stones sometimes. But
the Irish stockholders were quick to learn. They kept their bullocks
until age made them fit for salting, and two years after the passing
of the prohibitory Act some of their beef reached Holland in as good
condition as English produce, while their butter was even better. The
second Dutch War interrupted the trade for a time, but it was resumed
later, and England by denying a market to Ireland had only succeeded in
creating a formidable competitor abroad.[70]
[Sidenote: The woollen trade.]
English rents were not raised by the interruption of the cattle trade;
for even the breeding counties lost more on their wool than they gained
on their calves, Irish landowners having turned their attention to
sheep. By English statutes passed since the Restoration it had been
made felony to transport wool from England or Ireland to Scotland or
to any country outside England. When Charles tried to repair the loss
to Ireland, it was not thought possible to make wool free. The King's
power to pardon a felony was not disputed, but even prerogative lawyers
doubted whether it could be done before the fact. The restrictions
were imposed in the manufacturers' panic caused by Dutch competition,
which was successful partly on account of cheap Irish provisions; but
Petty thought such exorbitantly 'fierce ways of prohibition' might do
twice as much harm as the trade was worth. England suffered by her
own legislation, which promoted a glut in the market, for Irish wool
was produced so cheaply that it could be sent over Channel in vast
quantities in spite of the heavy licence duty. English flockmasters
were injured, but the profit to Ireland was small. Irish wool was good,
and better prices were to be had from foreigners, so that smuggling was
found to pay well, and a trade was begun which reached vast proportions
in later days.
Ireland was thinly peopled, but there was so little employment that
labour was cheap, and there was plenty of available land. English
commercial jealousy was thus excited, and the House of Commons forgot
that they were really dealing with the Protestant settlers and showing
them how to seek support from other and perhaps hostile nations. The
Roman Catholic majority had always done so, and would do it again when
opportunity offered. Petty saw that a legislative union was the only
real solution of the problem, for without it the colony was starved,
while the natives were at the mercy of those who had supplanted them.
In the meantime he wrote in 1676: 'It is wonderful that men born
in England, who have lands granted to them by the King for service
done in Ireland to the Crown of England, when they have occasion to
reside or negotiate in England should by their countrymen, kindred,
and friends there, be debarred to bring with them out of Ireland food
whereupon to live, nor suffered to carry money out of Ireland, nor to
bring such commodities as they fetch from America directly home, but
round about by England with extreme hazard and loss, and be forced
to trade only with strangers and become unacquainted with their own
country; especially when England gaineth more than it loseth by a free
commerce.' The prohibition of cattle alone had destroyed a carrying
trade which employed one hundred English ships, and things became
much worse when the bulk of Irish wool was smuggled away in foreign
bottoms.[71]
[Sidenote: Ireland retaliates on Scotland.]
As soon as the Cattle Bill became law the Irish Government addressed
the King with a view to lessening its effects, Anglesey, Burlington,
and Conway, three of the protesting peers, being authorised to press
the case in London. They told the King that Ireland was ruined by the
exclusion of her stock from England and Scotland, that the people,
being deprived of their usual occupation, were driven into rebellion,
that the revenue would suffer, and that the means of repelling foreign
invasion would be taken away. They suggested as a remedy that Ireland
should be allowed to export freely to foreign countries, and to keep
out Scottish goods till such 'times as the restraint upon Irish cattle
and commodities in Scotland be taken off.' This would keep a little
money in the country, and repress 'the luxury and humour of the people
after outlandish commodities.' In the meantime it would be necessary
to send 50,000_l._ in specie from England to pay the army and defray
the expense of government. In a little more than a month after the
three lords presented their memorial Charles took steps to defeat by a
side-wind the law which he had insisted on making in its worst form.
The matter, he said, had been several times discussed at the Privy
Council, with whose advice he granted much of what Ormonde and his
friends asked for; believing that Ireland, exhausted as she was by
long wars, could not do without trade, and that her loyalty deserved
all the tenderness and care that he could show. But the people were
to be encouraged to avoid the consumption of luxuries that could not
be produced at home. The restraints upon exportation from Ireland
to foreign parts were therefore taken off, saving the rights of the
Canary, Turkey, and East India Companies, and subject to the existing
law about trade with the Plantations. The Lord Lieutenant was empowered
to grant licences accordingly, and the Duke of York, as Lord High
Admiral, was directed to grant the necessary passports. Ormonde lost no
time in issuing a proclamation giving effect to the King's orders, and
excluding all the commodities of Scotland as a measure of retaliation.
Anglesey as vice-treasurer would carry over the necessary 50,000_l._
Proclamations were made and licences issued without much delay, but the
money was long in coming.[72]
[Sidenote: First Dutch War. A descent feared.]
When England came to be at war with both France and Holland at the
beginning of 1666, it was natural to suppose that there might be danger
of a descent on Ireland. Orrery, who was an alarmist, thought there
would be a rebellion; and he dreaded the sectaries and Presbyterians
almost as much as the more numerous natives. Ormonde, who always kept
cool, had little fear. There were indeed plenty of disaffected people,
but they were not united, and he thought that the Government would
always be too strong for any discontented party. As the spring came on,
the Duke of Beaufort's fleet was thought to be dangerous, and there
were signs that Ireland was not forgotten by the French. In April one
of their men-of-war entered Kenmare Bay, took soundings, and explored
it thoroughly while three others lay outside. A little later on an
Irish vessel from Galicia came into the Shannon with the usual cargo
of fruit and soap, but twelve pieces of heavy ordnance were found in
her hold. In June thirty-nine vessels came into Kinsale together; they
had been reported long before they reached the coast and were generally
believed to be French, but proved to be the Virginia fleet. Orrery
did not believe in the landing of a great French army, for the game
would not be worth the candle, and the country could not support it.
A small force might, however, be sent as a nucleus round which Irish
disaffection could gather. Cork harbour and many smaller havens lay
practically open. The Tories were always available to keep the small
army in Ireland busy, and a Dutch cruiser plying between Waterford
and Youghal carried off a cargo of cattle to France, which showed how
imperfect were the naval preparations of England. Irish gunsmiths were
at work in many places, and it was not to be supposed that this was for
any good purpose. Most of the Protestants had been disarmed after the
plot in 1663, and indeed many of them were hardly to be trusted, but
Orrery did not believe that any except a few really damnable fanatics
would join a foreign invader and so play into the hands of Irish
papists. But the uneasiness was general, and whenever a few sail were
descried they were declared to be part of Beaufort's fleet.[73]
[Sidenote: Ormonde's military precautions.]
While thinking an invasion improbable, Ormonde nevertheless considered
it necessary to be prepared, and the most obvious precaution was a
militia. About 16,000 foot and 4000 horse would be enough, but there
was no statute available as for the trained bands in England and
therefore no means of defraying the expense. Something was got by the
sale of prizes taken by King's ships in the Irish seas, and some money
was afterwards sent from England; but it was not intended to keep the
militia embodied when the immediate crisis had passed. Orrery, who had
been urgent in recommending a militia, took care that in his province
no man should be enrolled without taking the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy. The old soldiers of the Parliament were available in
large numbers. When this work of armament was well advanced, Ormonde
determined to visit Munster himself, since that was the quarter most
open to attack. In inviting him to his new house at Charleville,
Orrery, who knew his tastes, promised him a boiled leg of mutton daily.
Mallow was then the only bridge over the Blackwater, that at Cappoquin
not having been repaired since the war. At Limerick, whence he had
been so obstinately excluded in 1650, the Lord Lieutenant was welcomed
with all possible honour, the satisfaction of the citizens being
expressed by the recorder in an eloquent speech. At Cork his reception
was equally good, Bishop Synge providing comfortable quarters, and at
Kinsale he was entertained by Robert Southwell, and saluted by forts
and shipping, including the Mediterranean merchant fleet, which had
just arrived with cargoes of currants and oil for England. They had not
seen a ship since leaving the Straits of Gibraltar except one hostile
cruiser off Cape Clear which fired forty shots without disabling any
vessel. After giving orders to the sovereign of Kinsale as to keeping
the channel open, Ormonde returned to Cork, whence he went by Youghal
and Clonmel to his own house at Carrick. He believed that unless the
enemy got command of the sea an attempt to invade Ireland would be 'as
fatal to them as once Ireland was to the Spaniards or Gigery to the
French. All the countries I have passed through have appeared with
good numbers of serviceable horse with old soldiers on their backs and
good officers in the head of them, and if the proportion holds, as I
doubt not it will, in other countries, I presume we may be at least
5000 good horse when it shall be needful to draw them together.'[74]
[Sidenote: Fortifications at Kinsale.]
The disaster at Chatham in June 1667 revived the panic in Ireland, and
Ormonde gave orders for strengthening the defences of Kinsale so as to
make it a safe retreat for British shipping. 'The greatest prejudice
we can probably expect this year from without is the forcing of our
harbours.' Orrery showed much diligence in carrying out the work, and
the port was soon safe from attack. Mr. Chidley or Chudleigh, who was
employed about this business, was apparently the same as he who built
the boats which enabled Ludlow to take Ross Castle in 1652. There
does not seem to have been any serious plan of invasion either by the
French or Dutch, but the latter had cruisers or privateers which took
many prizes. On the other hand, there were a good many Dutch prisoners
taken, and their treatment was not creditable to the governing powers.
They were detained at Cork and Bandon in a state almost of starvation,
Captain Crispin, who was in charge of them, complaining that no money
was provided. Orrery protested, 'for though they are now enemies, yet
they are Christians, and they may be our friends again.' This was in
July 1666, but things were no better fourteen months later. The English
inhabitants were charitable, but the prisoners were so miserable that
they rose against their guards and twice tried to burn Bandon. When
Orrery visited them, 'they all on their knees weeping begged to be
hanged.' He gave them some relief from his own pocket. Captain Crispin
could do nothing, and dared not throw up his appointment for fear of
losing all arrears due to him. And so it continued to the end of the
war.[75]
[Sidenote: Fall of Clarendon.]
The fall of Clarendon had only an indirect effect upon Ireland. He was
driven from office and into exile by such people as Lady Castlemaine
and the Duke of Buckingham, and by the base ingratitude of a sovereign
who would not have been restored without him. The fifteenth article of
his abortive impeachment was 'that he procured the Bills of Settlement
for Ireland, and received great sums of money for the same in most
corrupt and unlawful manner.' That the first minister was more or less
responsible for those Acts is true, and it is no less true that much
injustice was done, but that Clarendon was actuated by corrupt motives
is a charge resting on no evidence at all. His enemies in the House of
Commons were unable to formulate an indictment, while Bishop French,
writing on behalf of the dispossessed proprietors, is equally vague,
and can only gloat over the misery of the fallen statesman. 'This
proud Haman,' he says, 'who jointly with some few others, to get money
for themselves, and estates for their children, contrived the general
extirpation of the whole Irish race ... was forced, for his own safety,
and the preservation of his life, to quit his fine house, forsake his
family, and bid his country farewell, and to travel in his old age, in
the dead of winter, through so many dangers at sea and incommodities by
land, to seek for some shelter abroad, seeing he could not be secure at
home.'[76]
[Sidenote: Clarendon's defence.]
That Clarendon frequently 'swore with a great oath that the Irish
should all be extirpated root and branch' is contradicted by
innumerable documents, and as his accusers give no particulars of
corrupt dealing, his own statement is entitled to belief. The King
called him a fool for his slowness to enrich himself when so many
deserving cavaliers were in distress, adding characteristically that
it was better to be envied than pitied. The adventurers and soldiers
left in possession at the Restoration gave half a year's rent to his
Majesty to repair the losses 'of such as we shall judge have most
eminently acted for and suffered with us'; and of these Clarendon was
surely one. Charles ordered that what was due in Meath, Westmeath,
Kilkenny, and Wexford should be collected by Massereene and Orrery and
paid over to the Chancellor, who was not to be told anything about
it until the money was ready. In due course he was informed that his
share would amount to about 25,000_l._, half of which he was to receive
immediately. He did get 6000_l._, and never another penny, for the
Irish Government seldom had any ready cash. In the belief that at least
12,000_l._ would be sent at once, Clarendon embarrassed himself by
buying some property in Wiltshire which he had not the money to pay
for. As for being the author of the Irish Settlement, Clarendon had
begged to have no share in it, and his responsibility was no greater
than that of any other Privy Councillor or of the King himself.[77]
[Sidenote: Ormonde and Clarendon.]
By the death of Southampton and the exile of Clarendon Ormonde was left
with but little support at court. His old friend's dismissal was quite
unexpected by him, and at first he did not think his own position would
be much affected. The King's main argument was that the Chancellor's
unpopularity, faithfully reflected in the House of Commons, made
it impossible to carry on the government, and against this Ormonde
protested. No prominent statesman, he said, could escape popular
clamour, and the advantage of yielding to it was very uncertain, and
'should never be brought in competition with honour and justice, which
are the only lasting supports to greatness.' Charles replied that his
old servant's humour had become unsupportable to him and to all the
world; but, he added, 'I assure you that your former friendship to the
Chancellor shall not do you any prejudice with me, and that I have not
in the least degree diminished that value and kindness I ever had for
you, which I thought fit to say to you upon this occasion, because it
is very possible malicious people may suggest the contrary to you.'[78]
[Sidenote: Ormonde and Orrery.]
Clarendon left England at the end of November 1667, and in the
following February the King sent for Ormonde, directing him to make
Ossory his deputy and to give him such instructions as he thought fit,
but not to start if his health would be likely to suffer, nor until
the state of business was such that he could be spared. He had long
hesitated about the policy of going to confront his enemies or staying
to look after his own interests, and he shrank also from the expense
of moving. The return of Ossory to Ireland early in March turned the
scale. He left Ireland in the middle of April, and Orrery, who had been
detained by illness, followed him in June. Ormonde had been warned
by his son some time before that the Lord President of Munster was
intriguing against him, but was very unwilling to believe it in view
of the latter's constant expressions of goodwill. Perhaps, indeed,
he protested rather too much, but Ormonde trusted him so far as to
send a copy of the anonymous articles of impeachment secretly devised
against himself: 'I desire your lordship that no copy may be taken of
them, lest it may thereby come to be suspected how I came by them.'
But before Orrery got to London it was well known that he was working
against the Lord Lieutenant, though the latter was anxious for his
presence as likely to be useful to the service. After three months'
experience he was telling everyone that Orrery was no friend of his.[79]
[Sidenote: Ormonde recalled.]
Of all the bad men in a bad time Buckingham was perhaps the worst,
without shame, honour, or decency. He amused Charles and those about
him, and his career is disposed of in a single line of Dryden--he had
his jest and they had his estate. Ormonde was an offence unto him both
for his high character and for the universal respect in which he was
held. Nevertheless he made some approaches to Ossory, who refused to be
reconciled to him unless he would act a friendly part to his father. In
fact he intrigued incessantly against him, trying first to capture his
position as Lord Steward, and when that failed, hoping to succeed him
as Lord Lieutenant, going so far as to make nominations to offices in
Ireland. Arlington, whose wife was Lady Ossory's sister, did not openly
oppose Ormonde, though he gave him little help. He had to hold his
own against Buckingham, and did in fact secure the weight of business
while his rival made a show in public. An attempt was made to prove
financial mismanagement in Ireland, and this involved Anglesey, who
had lately resigned the Vice-treasurership. The attack failed, and the
idea of an impeachment was soon dropped. Ormonde seldom used strong
language, but in writing to his son he said that Buckingham was a vile
man, that Orrery's gout was the least of his infirmities, and that
Lord Meath, upon whose articles it was hoped to found an impeachment,
had lost more than he could spare of the sense God gave him. Meath's
name was struck off the Irish Privy Council, and Charles repeatedly
affirmed his confidence in the Lord Lieutenant. Towards the end of 1668
well-informed people still thought that he would not be removed, and
even in February he wrote himself to that effect. Four days later his
supersession was finally decided on, which, says Pepys, 'is a great
stroke to show the power of Buckingham and the poor spirit of the King;
and little hold that any man can have of him.' But to the end Charles
continued to speak well of Ormonde, who told the Irish Chancellor that
he was much more surprised at the praise than at the recall.[80]
FOOTNOTES:
[61] _Irish Commons Journal_, January to August, 1666. _Irish Lords
Journal_, July 16, and August 3 and 7. Ormonde to Arlington, January 17
and April 4, State Papers, _Ireland_; Leigh to Williamson, _ib._ August
6. Writing to Ormonde, August 14, Arlington regrets that the Bill of
Indemnity had not passed--'the persecutions all parties, at least two
considerable ones, are exposed to for want of it,' were certain to give
trouble.--_Miscellanea Aulica_, p. 413.
[62] Ormonde to Arlington, January 20, 1665-6, May 25 and 30, State
Papers, _Ireland_; letters, May 25-29, _ib._; G. Warburton to
Williamson, June 27, _ib._; a memorandum, July 17, _ib._; Clarendon to
Ormonde, July 7, _Carte Transcripts_, vol. xlvii.; Arran's account, May
28, _ib._ vol. xxxiv.
[63] _Statutes at Large_, 15 Car. II. cap. 7. Petty's _Political
Anatomy of Ireland_, chap. x. On January 1, 1668, Pepys heard much
about the almost miraculous cheapness of corn, 'so as the farmers
can pay no rent, but do fling up their lands,' and he had noted the
same thing at April 9, 1667. Shaftesbury to the King in Christie's
_Life_, vol. ii. appx. 1. His estimate of losses from plague is more
than confirmed by Clarendon, _Life_, Cont., p. 821. Anglesey's protest
against the 1663 Act is in Rogers' _Protests of the Lords_, i. 27.
[64] Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., pp. 610-630. Lister's _Life of
Clarendon_, ii. 424, iii. 530. Evelyn's _Diary_, October 27, 1664.
Pepys has frequent notices, particularly at October 8, 1666, and June
27, 1667. State Papers, _Ireland_, July 1665 to July 1668, particularly
Ormonde to Arlington, July 25 and 27 and August 26, 1666.
[65] Ormonde to Arlington, September 12, 1666, State Papers, _Ireland_.
Pepys' _Diary_, October 8. Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., pp. 691, 955-964.
Arlington to Ormonde, October 12, 1665, _Miscellanea Aulica_, p.
362, and to Temple, October 15, _Letters_, ed. Bebington. Writing in
1673, Temple said a higher standard of living and love for foreign
commodities, and depopulation caused by war, had really caused the
agricultural depression in England, and 'not this transportation of
Irish cattle, which would have been complained of in former times, if
it had been found a prejudice to England. Besides, the rents have been
far from increasing since.'--_Works_, iii. 20. See Andrew Marvell's
letters to his constituents, October 22 and November 2, 1665. On May
18, 1665, Sir Ralph Verney writes that the market was at a stand, owing
to a report that the Lords would not pass the Bill 'against bringing in
foreign cattle.' Cows were daily sold at from ten to fifteen shillings
apiece which had formerly been well worth five times as much.--_Verney
Memoirs_, iv. 117.
[66] Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., pp. 967, 969. Christie's _Life
of Shaftesbury_, chap. x. In his monograph, 1888, the late H. D.
Traill thought Butler's lighter lash more suitable to Shaftesbury's
tergiversations than 'the resounding scourge of Dryden,' but his
conduct about the Cattle Bill and the Irish branch of the Popish Plot
justify the heavier implement. Arlington to Ormonde, October 20 and
November 20, 1666, _Miscellanea Aulica_, p. 427 _sqq._
[67] Details as to the quarrel between Ossory and Buckingham are given
by Clarendon, _Life_, Cont., p. 969 _sqq._, and in Arlington's letter
to Ormonde, October 20, 1666, _Miscellanea Aulica_, p. 424.
[68] Pepys' _Diary_, January 7, 9, 14, and 18, 1666-7. Clarendon's
_Life_, Cont., p. 988. Rogers' _Protests of the Lords_, i. 31. The
protesting peers were the Earls of Cardigan, Bridgewater, Burlington,
Anglesey, and Castlehaven, Lords De La Warr, Conway, and Berkeley of
Stratton. See Marvell's letters to his constituents on December 22,
1666, January 5, 15, and 19, 1666-7.
[69] Lord Lieutenant and Council to the King, August 15, 1666, February
9, 1666-7, State Papers, _Ireland_; Ormonde to Arlington, March 30,
1667, _ib._ Collinson's _Hist. of Cheshire_, ii. 29. Information kindly
supplied by the Rev. F. McD. Etherington, Vicar of Minehead. The author
of a _Letter from a Gentleman in Ireland to his Brother in England_,
1677, says Irish corn was only fit for home use, 'being by reason of
the climate not so large, firm and dry a grain that it should be fit
for transportation.'
[70] See the very clear account in Temple's essay on Irish trade,
_Works_, iii. 7-16. Rawdon's letters at this time in State Papers,
_Ireland_, show the effects of the prohibition on certain estates.
Robert Leigh to Williamson, _ib._ March 19, 1666-7.
[71] Petty's _Treatise on Taxes_, 1662, xi. 17, and his Report of
Council of Trade, 1676, affixed to _Political Anatomy_. _Letter from
a Gentleman in Ireland_, 1667. The author of _Reasons for a Limited
Exportation of Wool_, 1677, says the Dutch could have Irish beef at
one penny per lb. Instructions to Lord Robartes, July 23, 1669, State
Papers, _Ireland_. _The Grand Concern of England explained_, p. 5,
1673. Compare Miss Murray's _Hist. of Commercial Relations_, pp. 42-48.
[72] Lord Lieutenant and Council to the King, February 9, 1666-7; State
Papers, _Ireland_, Memorial of the three lords, _ib._; the King's
answer, March 23, ib.; Proclamation of June 7 reciting that of April 1,
_ib._; Ormonde to Arlington, July 31, _ib._ Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 344.
[73] _Orrery State Letters_, March 2, 1665-6, to July 3. Ormonde's
letters for the same period in State Papers, _Ireland_. For Beaufort's
movements, see Corbett's _England in the Mediterranean_, chap. xxi.
[74] Ormonde left Kilkenny August 30, 1666, and returned there
September 15, State Papers, _Ireland_. Ormonde's letter to Arlington,
_ib._ September 4. Orrery to Ormonde, August 20, _Orrery State Papers_.
Dr. Denton wrote in 1670, 'if Ormonde do chance to come to you a byled
leg of mutton is his beloved dish for dinner,' _Verney Memoirs_, iv.
229. Gigery, now Jijelli, half-way between Algiers and Bona, was
garrisoned by Beaufort in 1664, but disaster followed. Caulfield's
_Kinsale Council Book_, p. 97, where September 14 is wrongly given for
7.
[75] _Orrery's State Letters_, ii. 51, and all his letters from July 3,
1667, to September, _ib._ pp. 203-285, and in State Papers, _Ireland_,
July 12, 29, and 31. The treaty of Breda, ending the first Dutch War,
was signed on July 21.
[76] Bishop French's _Narrative of the Earl of Clarendon's Settlement
and Sale of Ireland_, Louvain, 1668. I have used the Dublin reprint
of 1846. This tract is in the form of a letter 'to a leading member
in the House of Peers in England and much relied upon in the House of
Commons,' possibly to Buckingham. A MS. copy is calendared among State
Papers, _Ireland_, under 1667, p. 543. French renewed his attack on
Clarendon in the 'Bleeding Iphigenia,' 1674.
[77] Clarendon's _Life_, Cont., pp. 81, 107, 277, 1197, 1324. His
discourse by way of vindication, dated Montpelier, June 24, 1668, is
in _Miscellaneous Works_, 2nd edition, 1751. The _Life_, written three
or four years later, contains the same matter, but some expressions
are softened: for instance, the 'impudence' of the Irish spokesmen in
the former becomes 'imprudence' in the latter. The King to the Lords
Justices, April 21, 1662, in State Papers, _Ireland_, is the warrant
under which the 6000_l._ was paid, and Clarendon's statements are
supported by the letters printed in Lister's _Life of Clarendon_, vol.
iii. nos. 66, 109, 120. The money was levied under section 33 of the
Act of Settlement.
[78] Ormonde to Arlington, September 3, 1667, as given in Carte's
_Ormonde_, ii. 352. Arlington's answer, September 14, printed in
Lister's _Life of Clarendon_, iii. 470, and the King's letter,
September 15, printed in Ellis's _Original Letters_, 2nd series, iv. 39.
[79] Letters from October 25, 1667, to September 24, 1668, in Carte's
_Ormonde_, ii. appx. pp. 41-64. Pepys' Diary, May 3, 1668. Burnet, _Own
Times_, i. 266.
[80] Ormonde to Ossory, May 19, 1668, to February 9, 1668-9, printed in
appx. to Carte's _Ormonde_, vol. ii. Pepys' _Diary_, November 25 and
December 5, 1668, and February 12, 1668-9. Ormonde to Archbishop Boyle,
March 8, 1668-9, _Carte MSS._ vol. cxlvii.