ROBARTES AND BERKELEY, 1669-1672
[Sidenote: Robartes Lord Lieutenant.]
Lord Robartes was again chosen for the post which he had scorned to
occupy eight years before. Perhaps the King's main object was to get
rid of him, for he must have been one of the most disagreeable men
in England--morose, overbearing, and impracticable. Upon this point
Clarendon, Burnet, and Anthony Hamilton are for once agreed, and,
according to the last two, he was also something of a hypocrite.
His knowledge of business, the popular opinion of his ability, and
the reputation which he enjoyed among the Presbyterians made him a
personage whom it was not safe to neglect. Charles announced the
appointment at Council, speaking without his usual hesitation, and
emphatically declaring his undiminished confidence in Ormonde.
Robartes, who was present, accepted with civil expressions to the
outgoing Viceroy, who answered in the same strain, acknowledging
the other's fitness and wishing him success. Pending the new Lord
Lieutenant's arrival in Ireland, Ossory was retained as the King's
Deputy by patent. 'My Lord of Orrery,' wrote the Duchess of Ormonde
with very pardonable malice, 'is as little satisfied with this change
that is made, and the Duke of Buckingham, as if my Lord had continued;
and I am of opinion that they will find cause, at the least I wish
it may fall out so, and so I am sure do many more.' Buckingham,
however, had the satisfaction a little later of driving Coventry from
office, and thus clearing the ground for what we still call the Cabal.
Ormonde charged his son to treat the new Viceroy with proper respect,
to silence the murmurs of his friends, and to take, if possible,
more trouble than ever; 'and if you can get the Tories suppressed,
that His Majesty's kingdom may be delivered up in as much peace and
order, as I found it in war and confusion when I was first Lord
Lieutenant.' Robartes lingered long in England after his nomination,
and his instructions were not settled for more than five months. The
King thought of reserving military appointments to himself--probably
Buckingham wished to have the jobbing in his own hands--but Ormonde
successfully objected on the ground that this would be unfair to
Robartes and derogatory to the great office which he himself had held
twice and might hold again. The instructions about revenue matters, in
which Ormonde's enemies hoped to find some means of attacking him, were
also modified at his suggestion.[81]
[Sidenote: The Tories.]
[Sidenote: Costigan.]
[Sidenote: Costello.]
[Sidenote: Nangle.]
Ossory was not destined to have the happiness of putting down the
Tories. There had always been many in Ireland who were willing to
fight, but not to work, and Chichester had much trouble with them. When
the Civil War came to an end Cromwell encouraged their emigration,
and at the Restoration the dispossessed Irish, many of whom had
followed the King's fortunes abroad, expected to be restored also.
Crowds of priests and friars came to Ireland, and their meetings
caused alarmist reports about an intended rising. Orrery generally
put the worst construction upon such facts as came to his knowledge,
and there were certainly some outrages, but Ormonde thought the
Cromwellian soldiers and sectaries much the most dangerous, and the
Castle plot showed that he was right. Later on, as it became evident
that Adventurers and soldiers would keep a good deal of what they had
got, the disappointed Irish gathered here and there in bands, and
leaders were not wanting. John Costigan, with several followers, long
haunted the woods and bogs on both sides of Slieve Bloom, but seems to
have been taken at last through an informer, who thus purchased his
own pardon. Many others were taken or slain by like means, but in the
case of Dudley Costello, Lord Kingston, the President of Connaught,
found it 'more difficult than he believed to make one Irishman betray
another.' Costello was the heir to estates in Mayo from which he was
driven during the Civil War. He distinguished himself in Flanders as
a captain in the Duke of York's Irish regiment, and was named in the
Act of Settlement as one of the 232 'Ensignmen' who were restorable,
but not until reprisal had been made to the Adventurers and soldiers
in possession. There was not land enough to satisfy both interests,
and Costello's hopes were destroyed by the Act of Explanation. In
the summer of 1666 he was joined by Cornet Edward Nangle, another
Connaught malcontent, and the two entered Ulster with a considerable
party. They spent much of their time drinking whisky and quarrelling
among themselves, but there were always plenty of sympathisers to
give the alarm, and the Governor of Charlemont had to be satisfied
with driving them back into their own province, where they wandered
about as proclaimed traitors. Englishmen's dwellings were burned,
while the Irish were spared. Nangle was soon killed in an attempt to
storm Lord Aungier's house at Longford, but the band was not broken
up. Thomas Viscount Dillon, who had been restored to his estate in the
same district, warned his tenants against sheltering Costello, who had
been his companion-in-arms, but offered to intercede for him if he
would come under his protection. Ormonde's rule was to give no pardon
for nothing, and if Costello expected mercy, he would have to bring
some fellow-outlaw to justice, 'especially one Hill and one Plunket,
who lately committed great outrages in the north and are come into
Connaught.' Costello preferred ordering all Lord Dillon's Mayo tenants
to leave their farms. This warning was given in August, and on a late
November night Costello with thirty men burned Mr. Ormsby's house at
Castlemore, 'having entered by means of a turf stack placed against
the outside of the bawn.' All the native population sympathised with
him, but the soldiers kept up a hot pursuit. Like the great Sicilian
brigand in our own times, he never slept within two miles of the spot
where he supped, nor lay two nights running in the same place. But
he could always get a party together when the soldiers' backs were
turned, and he burned seven or eight villages within three weeks of
the Castlemore exploit. Ormonde retaliated by quartering troops on
the Irish inhabitants and ordering the apprehension of the 'Popish
titulary clergy residing in those parts so infested by the Tories,' who
had already been warned by the Lord President that they would be held
responsible for their flocks. At last one evening at the beginning of
March, Costello, driven to desperation or made rash by impunity, met
Captain Theobald Dillon in the open field and was shot dead at the
first fire. He had about forty men with him, who all escaped in the
darkness. His head was sent to Dublin and stuck upon St. James's Gate
with the face towards Connaught. Nangle's had been mouldering there for
several months. But other Tories carried on the war in many different
districts, and informers were deterred from earning blood-money by
threats, which were sometimes acted on, of having their tongues cut
out. The banditti were no doubt a grievous burden to the people, and in
one case, as a noted outlaw stooped to enter a boat in Connaught, the
ferryman cut off his head with a hatchet. 'This honest Charon,' wrote
Williamson's correspondent, 'was an Irishman as well as the Tory,' and
refused the reward, saying that the honour of the action was enough.[82]
[Sidenote: Ossory and Robartes, 1669.]
Neither Orrery or Buckingham having been chosen to succeed him,
Ormonde had no real cause of complaint. He doubtless knew that Robartes
would never be popular, and charged his son not only to yield him the
respect due to his position, but to let it be known that he would not
be a friend to any who acted otherwise. These directions were strictly
followed. As the time drew near for the new Lord Lieutenant's arrival,
Ossory refused to enter on any fresh business, and made careful
arrangements for his reception by the Lord Mayor, the Guards, and the
Militia. The Duchess of Ormonde wrote on behalf of Lady Robartes, who
knew scarcely anybody in Ireland, and whom she found a very virtuous
and worthy person. The Lord Lieutenant landed at Howth on September
18, and was entertained by Lord Howth, many of the officials attending
him with a written programme of reception ceremonies. Robartes would
have none of it, and made his way without ceremony to the castle.
Three troops of cavalry met him on the road, and a miscellaneous
collection of people on horseback and in carriages attended him to
the bridge, where he was welcomed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen with
a congratulatory speech, to which he replied civilly but briefly. He
found Ossory in the Council Chamber, and received the sword from him,
the departing Deputy saying that he expected much good through his
successor's great abilities, and heartily wishing him a prosperous
reign. No one could have been more considerate, but the Dublin people
showed in their own way that they were not pleased at the change. Lord
and Lady Ossory were treated with rather more respect than ever, and
when they left on different days for Kilkenny, were escorted by seventy
or eighty coaches, most of them with six horses, carrying peers,
bishops, and Privy Councillors. It was rather hard on a plain man of
business like Robartes to have to follow this gracious and popular
couple.[83]
[Sidenote: Policy of Robartes.]
[Sidenote: Resignation of Robartes.]
It is generally admitted, even by his critics, that Robartes was a just
man and very clever about business. He favoured the Presbyterians,
and blamed Archbishop Boyle, the Chancellor, with very good reason,
for undertaking more than any man could do. He set his face against
pluralities generally, and of course made enemies in this way. His
instructions for the army were to see that the men mustered were
actually available for service, to allow no officers to be absent from
their quarters without his permission, and not to give more than three
months' leave in any year. This Robartes construed in the strictest
way and without respect of persons. Even the ordinary allowance for
servants was cut off. Lord O'Brien was ordered to Boyle, more than
a hundred miles both from Dublin and his own district, and in the
'devilishest Tory country in Ireland.' He stayed there for a few days,
but soon got leave direct from the King, and went to London with an
unfavourable account of the Lord Lieutenant's proceedings. Sir Nicholas
Armourer, who loved wine and company, complained bitterly to his friend
Williamson that the jolly parties in Dublin were ended, and that he
could not get leave to go to England on urgent private affairs. The
army in Ireland had seldom been regularly paid, and there were arrears
of long standing. Some officers mustered ineffective men in their
private employment. Others retained money which ought to have been
given to the men, and such robbery deserved the severest punishment,
but the captains of 1670 could not well be held responsible for the
defaults of 1662. Nevertheless a number of privates entered into
an agreement among themselves to demand all that was due for eight
years, and the Lord Lieutenant approved of this approach to mutiny,
even rebuking officers publicly in the presence of their men. Charles
wrote to say that this would not do, that persons of quality should
have due consideration, and that a spirit was being fostered which it
might be very difficult to suppress. It would be sufficient to see that
there were no frauds in the last muster. Care for the future was much
more important than the raking up of old grievances. 'Be confident,'
said the King, 'that I will protect and vindicate your authority
as long as you serve me there, notwithstanding this freedom that I
use to yourself.' Robartes had moreover claimed the right to hold no
correspondence with the Secretaries of State like all his predecessors,
and was told that any such pretension was quite inadmissible. Charles
concluded with an assurance that this was only 'a private admonition,'
and that the changes suggested might be carried out by the Lord
Lieutenant as of his own motion, 'and I shall protect you and your
authority.' When he received this letter, Robartes at once tendered his
resignation, and begged as his only suit not to be further employed. He
had no friends at court, and as the greedy crew there wanted his place,
he was taken at his word. Serious people were ready to believe that he
was recalled for his virtues, and not for any fault.[84]
[Sidenote: Berkeley succeeds Robartes.]
Robartes was ready to go at once if he might appoint a Deputy, but he
was told to wait until he could deliver the sword to Lord Berkeley,
who did not arrive until April 21. The ceremony took place the same
day, the outgoing Lord Lieutenant making a speech of four lines. Next
morning he stole away quietly in his wife's coach, leaving her to
follow as she might. Besides his general dislike to formalities, it was
thought that he preferred no leave-taking to a paucity of leave-takers
which could only accentuate his unpopularity. When Lady Ossory came to
Dublin a few days later on her way to England, she was met by eighty
coaches, half of them with six horses. He sailed from Skerries, having
first been entertained by Mr. Cottington, who provided a very good
dinner. On reaching the boat he informed his host that his house was
on fire, which turned out to be true. Everything was burned to the
ground, and Lady Robartes hurried back to condole with the sufferers,
but her husband went straight on board ship and again sent word to her
to follow him.[85]
[Sidenote: Attempt to impeach Orrery.]
The obscure intrigues against Ormonde, while successful in depriving
him of the Irish government, had failed to get him impeached; and
Orrery's share in the attack did not save him from being assailed in
his turn. He had had much to do with the agrarian settlement, and had
maintained with vigour the system founded on it. While repressing the
Tories on one hand, he held the Cromwellians in check on the other, and
enlisted no one in the militia who refused the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy. The first steps towards the Dover treaty were taken at the
beginning of 1669, and Clifford is reported to have said that no good
could be done in Ireland as long as Orrery was President of Munster.
But he might hope to succeed Ormonde as Lord Lieutenant, and to that
end may have given Charles and James hopes of his co-operation. He had,
however, many enemies, and articles by way of petition were presented
to the House of Commons in the names of Sir Edward Fitzharris and
Philip Alden. Fitzharris was a Limerick landowner, a Roman Catholic,
who had been a minor and royal ward when the rebellion of 1641 broke
out, had afterwards adhered to Ormonde's peace, and had been reinstated
in his property when he returned from exile after the Restoration.
Alden was described by Orrery himself as a representative fanatic and
notorious villain. He had been concerned in the Castle plot of 1663,
and had broken prison, but gave useful information and received a full
pardon. Additional lands were assigned both to Fitzharris and Alden in
the summer of 1669.[86]
[Sidenote: Failure to show treason.]
The petition was presented to the House of Commons on November 25,
and a debate followed, the opinion of lawyers being divided as to
whether the charge amounted to treason. Maynard, who remembered his
part in the Strafford case, thought that it did, while Heneage Finch
inclined the other way, saying that he 'never knew much good done in
Parliaments where many impeachments were.' Edward Seymour, who had
brought in the impeachment of Clarendon, followed Maynard, observing
that no charge would have been brought against Orrery had not that
against Ormonde been abandoned. Sir Robert Howard throughout supported
his fellow-dramatist, but upon a division it was resolved by 182 to
144 that there was matter of treason, a copy of the articles was
sent to Orrery, and he was ordered to attend and answer them, the
serjeant-at-arms to leave a keeper with him until his gout allowed him
to move.[87]
[Sidenote: The impeachment abandoned.]
Seymour had made a rather cruel joke about a fit of gout being curable
by impeachment. This was only partially the case, but Orrery, who was
a member of the House of Commons, did manage to appear at the bar a
week later. To a friend who condoled with him as he painfully mounted
the stairs he is said to have replied that if his feet would but carry
him up he would promise that his head should bring him safe down again.
On Howard's motion he was allowed to speak sitting, and had little
difficulty in showing that no act of treason was charged against him.
The tenth article did indeed accuse him of saying that if the King
did not confirm the estates of the soldiers' and adventurers' party,
he 'should be compelled to do it with 50,000 swords.' There was some
doubt as to whether the word was 'should,' which would be a threat,
or 'would,' which would be only a prophecy. Orrery denied having ever
said anything of the kind, and no time or place was mentioned. The
third article alleged that Orrery had used armed force to expel Edmund
Fitzgerald of Cloyne from Rostellan and to give it to Inchiquin, whose
son had married his daughter. To this Orrery replied that he had only
done his duty in helping the Sheriff to execute a legal process, adding
that Fitzgerald was attainted of murder, robbery, and treason, and a
notorious papist, and that Rostellan was 'a stronghold and near the
sea'--commanding the best harbour in Ireland at a time when a French
invasion was feared. Even Clifford thought the foundation too slight
for an impeachment, Maynard and Finch agreeing that the accusers should
be left to their remedy at law. This was carried, but only by 121 to
118. Ten days later there was another debate, but nothing came of it,
the King having directed the Duke of York to use his influence with
members in Orrery's favour. Robartes, moreover, threatened to supersede
officers with seats in Parliament if they left Ireland without leave,
and this seems to have been enough to stop all further proceedings.[88]
[Sidenote: Qualifications of Berkeley.]
John Lord Berkeley of Stratton had long been specially attached to
the Duke of York. Soon after the Restoration the King suggested that
he might be made Deputy of Ireland, if no better could be had. 'Do
you think,' said Clarendon, 'you shall be rid of him by it? for that
is all the good of it.' 'The truth of it is,' replied Charles, 'being
rid of him doth incline me something to it; but when you have thought
round, you will hardly find a fitter person.' He had generally failed
in all employment requiring tact or discretion, but his services as
a soldier were respectable, and when he was made a peer at James's
request he took a title from the battle he had helped to win in 1643,
for he did not possess an acre of his own. Being without fortune, his
great object was to gild the coronet and so to put money in his purse
by the most dishonest means. He thought himself fit for the highest
place and was a loud and boastful talker. When Mountrath died towards
the close of 1661, it had already been decided to make Ormonde Lord
Lieutenant, and Berkeley applied for the Presidency of Connaught,
with a view to making money of it. He had not the least intention of
doing the work or of living in exile at Athlone, and Ormonde complained
bitterly that the Presidency was a mere hindrance, and that he could
not be held responsible for the government of Ireland, when one quarter
of the island was in such hands. The duties were at least partially
performed, sometimes by Berkeley's nephew, Sir Maurice, and sometimes
by Lord Kingston, who became joint-president in 1665, the office being
granted to him and to Berkeley for life. The latter was content with
the profits and took no further interest in Ireland until he was sent
to govern it five years later.[89]
[Sidenote: Berkeley and his secretary.]
[Sidenote: Corruption of the latter.]
Andrew Marvell says, and we can well believe him, that Berkeley was
'a man unthought of' for the Lord Lieutenancy. His appointment was no
doubt part of the scheme for subjecting the British islands to French
and papal supremacy, but it is not at all likely that such a loose
talker would be allowed to know about the secret part of the treaty
of Dover. The Lord Lieutenant knew how the court wind blew, and was
ready enough to go with it, but his instructions, whatever private
hints or orders he may have had, were of the usual character. The
established Church was committed to his care, and since the labourer
is worthy of his hire, he was ordered to protect the property secured
to her by James I. in the plantation. Since the end of Ormonde's
Government the Remonstrants had been oppressed or threatened, and
Berkeley was commanded to execute the law against such titular prelates
or vicars-general as had offended in this way. Sir Ellis or Elisha
Leighton, a younger brother of the good Archbishop of Glasgow, went to
Ireland as the Lord Lieutenant's secretary. Roger North, in agreement
with other contemporaries, calls him 'the most corrupt man then or
since living,' who took all the bribes he could get. Pepys found him
good company at a meal, but he was not ashamed to be drunk even at the
viceregal table. He had been an adherent of Buckingham, and, without
making any pretence of religion had become a Roman Catholic and was
ready to carry out the policy of Clifford and the rest while laughing
at the doctrine of transubstantiation.[90]
[Sidenote: Indulgence of Recusants.]
[Sidenote: Oliver Plunket.]
[Sidenote: The Remonstrants thrown over.]
Six weeks after Berkeley received the sword all were reported as
pleased with the change except a few incorrigible fanatics. The Ulster
Presbyterians, indeed, feared oppression, but Sir Arthur Forbes was
able to protect them, and Primate Margetson, who was no persecutor,
restrained the zeal of some northern bishops. The Conventicle Act had
just been renewed in England, but the treaty of Dover was signed only a
month after Berkeley's arrival, and the Declaration of Indulgence was
impending. The Roman Catholics at once felt the benefit of the change.
Oliver Plunket, whom Clement IX. had just made Primate of Ireland,
reached Ireland a few weeks before Berkeley. Writing from London, where
he was received by the Queen, Plunket noted that Peter Walsh was there,
'hated by all.' Peter Talbot, made papal Archbishop of Dublin a little
earlier, reached his see about the same time as Plunket, and both were
present at a national synod convened by the latter in June. During
the latter days of Robartes' government Plunket found it necessary
to assume the character of Captain Brown, with sword, pistols, and a
wig. Berkeley, on the contrary, received him often, though secretly,
assuring him and other priests that they had nothing to fear if they
behaved themselves, exercising their office quietly, but eschewing
politics. Before the end of the year Plunket was able to report that he
had driven all the Remonstrants out of Ulster. In the following May he
added that Walsh's adherents were prostrate, and that they could not
raise their heads during the existing administration, Lord Chancellor
Boyle being unfavourable to them. Berkeley, though bound by his
instructions to protect them, did nothing and would not allow Margetson
to say a word on their behalf. Plunket was blamed by some for accepting
too many invitations to the Castle, but he said that he could hardly
refuse, since Lady Berkeley and the chief secretary were secretly
Catholics. He even thought he could see some sparks of religion in
the Lord Lieutenant. Peter Talbot, now Archbishop of Dublin, was also
a frequent visitor to Berkeley, who lent him hangings for a church
ceremony, and is said to have expressed a hope of seeing high mass
at Christ Church in a few months. Both archbishops had a grant of
200_l._ a year from the King, but it seems that very little of this was
paid.[91]
[Sidenote: Blood's attack on Ormonde.]
Though no longer Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Ormonde had still
much influence in London. He was Lord Steward of the household, and
his immense popularity was an offence to such men as Buckingham. It
occurred to Blood, the author of the plot in 1663, that it might be
possible to seize his enemy and to hang him at Tyburn. Clarendon House,
the expense and the ostentation of which had been so fatal to its
builder and owner, had been lent to him by the Chancellor's son, and on
the night of the 16th he had nearly reached it after an entertainment
in the city given to William of Orange, when he was pulled out of his
coach by Blood and others. The ruffians mounted him on horseback behind
one of the gang, who carried him down Piccadilly past his own door and
past the other great house built by Lord Berkeley, where Devonshire
House now stands. Ormonde managed to get his foot under that of the
rider, and the two fell to the ground together. Help came, and the
Duke, who was sixty, was carried home in an exhausted condition. Two of
the gang fired their pistols at him, but missed, and he escaped with
some bruises. Blood had ridden on to fix a rope on the gallows, not
much more than the length of Park Lane distant, and met his discomfited
followers on his way back. It was generally believed that Blood was the
tool of Buckingham and the Duchess of Cleveland. He was not brought to
justice, and a few months later distinguished himself by his attack
on the Crown jewels. In that case he was arrested but pardoned by
Charles, who had, however, the decency to ask Ormonde's leave. When
Arlington brought the message, Ormonde told him that if the King could
forgive him for stealing his crown, he could easily forgive him for
attempting his life; 'since it was His Majesty's pleasure, that was
a reason sufficient for him, and his lordship might spare the rest.'
Guesses are vain as to what cause or which favourite procured the royal
clemency. The cases of Sir John Coventry and Tom Thynne show what might
be done in connection with that corrupt Court. Blood was in frequent
communication both with Arlington and Williamson.[92]
[Sidenote: The Act of Settlement attacked.]
[Sidenote: Finch deprecates fresh agitation.]
[Sidenote: Prince Rupert's Commission.]
All who held themselves aggrieved and all who hoped to gain by a fresh
agitation, now thought the time propitious for an attack on the Acts
of Settlement and Explanation. A commission signed by six peers and
fifty-two others was given to Richard Talbot, who had been all along
engaged in similar business, as their plenary agent, with power to
call in two or more assistants and to promote petitions to King and
Parliament. They set forth that, contrary to the royal declaration and
intention, they had been 'exposed to extreme exigencies, groaning these
many years past under the insupportable burden of misery and poverty
for want of subsistence and having no refuge left but to prostrate
at His Majesty's feet for justice and compassion.' A few weeks later,
Talbot accordingly petitioned the King in Council, and a committee,
which included Ormonde, was appointed to consider the question. Talbot
and the Irish barrister whom he was allowed to employ enlarged upon the
great services of the Irish generally instead of relying on cases of
individual hardship. They ignored the rebellion, represented Ormonde
as having been driven from Ireland by the Cromwellians alone, objected
to the constitution of the Irish Parliament, and demanded an Act of
Indemnity. They desired an impartial enquiry, and that in the meantime
no undisposed land should be granted away. Ormonde was thus driven to
recall the facts of the war, the broken peaces, and the excommunication
launched against himself. Before proceeding further a report was
called for from Finch, now Attorney-General, who had drawn the Act of
Explanation, and in a few days he made a very able statement, which was
afterwards committed to writing. In this document a clear account is
given of all the proceedings connected with the settlement. Finch does
not deny that there were cases of hardship, but he altogether objected
to upset in the English Parliament what had already been done after
the greatest deliberation in Ireland, 'for the consequence of this
would be that Ireland should be always settling, but never settled.' He
strongly asserted the power of the English Parliament to make laws for
Ireland, subject, however, to nullification by the legislature there.
As to an Act of Indemnity, certainly it would be a good thing for
Ireland, provided it was not used to upset the arrangements as to land.
But the Irish rebellion was specially excepted from the English Act of
Oblivion, and it was doubtful whether Parliament would change that.
Probably Talbot and his friends would care very little for any relief
that did not alter the title to land, 'for few Irish rebels are less
than fifty years old now, and no man goes about to trouble them for
that crime.' Finch's opinion, coinciding as it did with Ormonde's, made
it evident that nothing could be expected from the first committee. It
was therefore superseded by another, from which Ormonde was excluded,
but of which Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale formed part. This was
afterwards turned into a royal commission, with Prince Rupert at its
head, and very full powers of inquiry were given as to the settlement
of Ireland.[93]
[Sidenote: Lady Clanbrassil.]
Lord Berkeley was much under the influence of the beautiful and witty
but most unscrupulous Countess of Clanbrassil. He had her worthless
and foolish husband made a Privy Councillor. Whether she favoured the
Roman Catholics or not, she was certainly hostile to the Presbyterians,
having had one of their meeting-houses pulled down. She occupied
rooms in the Castle, and was much in favour with Lady Berkeley, as
well as with the Lord Lieutenant, who was by no means young. Patrick
Adair records with evident pleasure that she was hurt by the fall of
the gallery when present with the viceregal party in the Smock Alley
Theatre on St. Stephen's Day. Adair says the play was called 'The
Nonconformist,' wherein 'the poor shadow of a nonconformist minister is
mocked and upbraided.' It was Ben Jonson's _Bartholomew Fair_, which
Pepys thought an admirable play, 'but too much profane and abusive.'
Robartes had suppressed the players 'as well as other vicious persons,'
but that did not last long. The theatre had been built by subscription
in 1662, and Adair says the bishops contributed largely, 'though they
refused at the time to give countenance or assistance for building
a church at Dame Street, where there was great need.' The house was
repaired and continued to be used as a theatre until near the end of
the eighteenth century.[94]
[Sidenote: Inefficiency of the Government.]
Berkeley went to England in June 1671, was well received, and had the
honour of entertaining the King and Queen at his house at Twickenham.
Lady Clanbrassil went with him. 'She thinks,' says Lord Conway, 'to
trip up Nell Gwyn's heels, and you cannot imagine how highly my Lord
Arran and many others do value themselves upon the account of managing
Lady Clanbrassil in this affair.' Whether Charles admired her or not
does not appear, but she certainly did not get the better of Nell
Gwyn. Pending promotion she amused herself with Harry Killigrew, and
her intimacy with the Berkeleys continued as long as they stayed in
Ireland, whither she returned with them in September. Sir Nicholas
Armourer, the jovial governor of Duncannon, thought her beautiful and
dangerous, but did not admire the administration of which she was so
bright an ornament. 'An army fifteen months in arrear, the Treasury
locked up, and a mutinous city, a country in apprehensions for their
Act of Settlement. What shall we say unto these things?'[95]
[Sidenote: The dispensing power exercised.]
During the Commonwealth and Protectorate the corporate towns had lost
many of their inhabitants and much of their trade. It had not been
found possible to replace the ancient inhabitants by a sufficient
number of English Protestants, and in May 1661, barely one year after
the Restoration, Charles II. directed the Irish Government to allow
facilities for trade 'without making any national distinction between
our subjects of that our kingdom, or giving any interruption upon
pretence of difference of judgment or opinions in matters of religion.'
But by the Act of Settlement houses in corporations were assigned as
security to officers serving before June 5, 1649, and by the Act of
Explanation no one was to be allowed to purchase such houses without
taking the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, except by the Lord
Lieutenant's licence first obtained. The loop-hole left was not wide
enough to admit any very large number of recusants, and a further
step was taken early in 1671. The Lord Lieutenant was directed to give
a general licence to all persons, irrespective of race and religion,
to buy or hire houses in towns, and so restore trade to its former
flourishing state, as intended by the King's letter in 1661. Papists
were to be restored to all the privileges they enjoyed under Charles
I. on taking the usual oath of allegiance without that of supremacy.
A proclamation to this effect was issued a few days later, but the
results were inconsiderable, for Berkeley's government came to an end
very soon afterwards and a different policy prevailed at Court.[96]
[Sidenote: Riots in Dublin.]
How far religious differences were concerned does not appear, but
Berkeley was involved in difficulties with the citizens of Dublin
during his whole term of office. He promoted the building of a wooden
bridge over the Liffey at the west end of Ussher's Island. Whether the
citizens disliked the expense or whether those interested in the ferry
objected is uncertain, but in July 1671, when the Lord Lieutenant was
absent in England, a large mob of apprentices attacked the unfinished
structure. Soldiers quickly appeared, and about thirty of the rioters
were arrested. A few days later, when the prisoners were being escorted
to a more permanent place of confinement, another mob of apprentices
with swords and staves effected a rescue on Merchants' Quay, but the
guard fired and three men were killed. After this there was a strong
inclination towards further disturbances. More than a year later Essex
reported that these riots had left an uneasy feeling. The bridge was,
however, finished, and afterwards replaced by a stone one, which was
called the Bloody Bridge even in our own times.[97]
[Sidenote: Berkeley discredited.]
[Sidenote: Corruption of Leighton.]
Whether the affair of the bridge was cause or effect, it soon appeared
that there were two parties in Dublin. Sir John Totty, the Lord Mayor,
and the majority of the common councillors, took one side and were
favoured by the Lord Lieutenant. Sir William Davis, the Recorder, with
most of the aldermen, joined the other party. Enraged by opposition,
and finding the disorder likely to increase, Berkeley called upon
Davis to frame rules for the conduct of the city business which would
have had the effect of making the corporation very close. Knowing that
this would be unpopular, the Recorder exacted a promise that his name
should not be mentioned, but this promise was not kept. The rules
were declared temporary, and really came to nothing. Essex thought
the main object of them was to enable a party in the corporation to
job the water-rate. Davis was married to the Chancellor-archbishop's
daughter, and he consulted his father-in-law, whom the Lord Lieutenant
treated with great rudeness. In the end Totty, who had been knighted
by Berkeley in church, called an irregular meeting at which Davis was
removed from his place along with seven aldermen. Sir Ellis Leighton
was then appointed to the lucrative office of Recorder, and Totty made
himself clerk of the tholsel, where fees were, of course, to be had.
Totty was a needy man, and Leighton is described by one whom he had
robbed as 'worse than any Jew--pity he should be suffered to compound
so palpably for his bribes.' Davis went to London as soon as he could,
and found that it had already been decided to supersede Berkeley, who
received strict orders to make no more appointments, particularly in
Dublin, where disorders had followed upon his changes.[98]
[Sidenote: Fire at the Castle.]
Besides the riots and the theatre accident, Berkeley's short reign
was distinguished by a fire at the Castle during a calm night in May
1671. Some thought it was malicious, others that it was the result
of carelessness. Fortunately there were but two or three barrels of
powder, one of which was used to blow up an adjacent building, having
been carried through the fire by Ormonde's younger son John and Anthony
Hamilton, author of the famous Grammont memoirs.[99]
FOOTNOTES:
[81] As to the character of Robartes, see Clarendon's _Life_, Cont.,
p. 198; 'vicious under the appearances of virtue,' Burnet's _Own
Times_, i. 98; 'vieux sacripante, &c.,' _Mem. de Grammont_, chap.
viii. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 378 _sqq._, Ormonde to Ossory, February
16, 1668-9, _ib._ appx. On the other hand, Lord Herbert of Cherbury
thought his conversation most pleasing. The instructions to Robartes
are in State Papers, _Ireland_, calendared at July 29, 1669, and drafts
of them in the same vol. pp. 740-746. Duchess of Ormonde to George
Mathew, February 1668-9, _Ormonde Papers_, new series, iii. 442. The
Presbyterian Patrick Adair, while praising Robartes, does not deny that
he was 'somewhat morose in his temper and carriage,' _True Narrative_,
chap. xviii.
[82] As to the Tories from 1664 to 1667, see 32nd _Report_ of the
Deputy Keeper of Public Records, pp. 92-97; as to Nangle, State Papers,
_Ireland_, July 17, 18, 1666; as to Costello, _ib._ March 11, 16,
1666-7. There is much about Tories and highwaymen in Orrery's _State
Letters_, particularly those to Ormonde in March 1666-7. Proclamation,
June 3, 1668, State Papers, _Ireland_. Sir Peter Pett to Williamson,
May 23, _ib._
[83] Ormonde to Ossory, February 16, 1668-9, in appx. to Carte's
_Ormonde_, vol. ii. Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, pp. 1-6. There is
a good deal about Lady Robartes in _Mem. de Grammont_, chap. viii.,
but the scandalous chronicler cannot say much against her. Duchess of
Ormonde to George Mathew, March 6, 1668-9, _Ormonde Papers_, iii. 442.
[84] Lord O'Brien's letters to Williamson in October 1669, State
Papers, _Ireland_; Armourer to same, October 31, _ib._; Lord Herbert
of Cherbury to same, October 4, _ib._; the King to Robartes, December,
n.d.; Robartes to the King, December 7, _ib._ Marvell's letter of
March 21, 1670. Airy's edition of Burnet with the notes, i. 482. 'I
am,' said Locke, 'more a friend to the clergy and their calling than
those amongst them who show their forwardness to leave the word of God
to serve other employments. The office of a minister of the Gospel
requires the whole man,' _Third Letter for Toleration_.
[85] Arlington to Robartes, February 19, 1669-70, State Papers,
_Ireland_; Frowde to Williamson, April 23, May 14, _ib._; Leigh to
Williamson, June 11, _ib._
[86] State Papers, _Ireland_, February 20 and March 23, 1661, for
Fitzharris. Orrery to Arlington, _ib._ November 8, 1665. Warrant for
Colonel Edward Vernon and others, _ib._ July 1669. Vernon had received
Alden's confidences in 1663, Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 262.
[87] Grey's _Debates_, November 25, 1669; Marvell's _Letters_, nos. 128
and 129, but the latter is dated November 4 in Grosart's edition, which
cannot be right, probably a mistake for December.
[88] Grey's _Debates_, November 25, December 1 and 10, 1669. Articles
of impeachment and answers in Orrery's _State Letters_, i. 109.
Macpherson's _Original Letters_, i. 56, wrongly placed under 1670.
Marvell's letter, no. 129, _ut sup._
[89] Macray's _Notes_ of conversations between Clarendon and Charles
II. in July 1660, Roxburghe Club. Character in _Clarendon's State
Papers_, iii., supplement, lxxiv. Burnet's character is to the same
effect, adding 'corrupt, without shame or decency,' _Own Times_, i.
266. 'The greatest vapourer in the world,' Pepys' _Diary_, December 3,
1665, and very dishonest, 'guilty of one of the basest things that ever
was heard of a man,' _ib._ September 27, 1668. Marvell says he gave
10,000_l._ for his place to the Duchess of Cleveland, letter of August
9, 1671.
[90] Marvell's letter of March 21, 1670. Berkeley's instructions are
in Cox's _Hibernia Anglicana_, Charles II., ii. 9. As to Leighton, see
Burnet's _Own Times_, i. 137, and Foxcroft's _Supplement_, p. 13. In
a note to his edition of Burnet, Mr. Airy says he is 'not aware of a
single word extant in his favour.' North's _Examen_, iii. chap. vi.
89--'being secretary in Ireland he extorted most outrageously and being
expostulated with for it, answered, "What a pox, d'ye think I come here
to learn your language?"'
[91] Cardinal Moran's _Life of Plunket_, particularly chaps. vi.
and xvii. Brady's _Episcopal Succession_, i. 227. Alderman Matthew
Anderton to Perrott (Williamson's clerk), April 20, 1670, State Papers,
_Domestic_. Patrick Adair's _Narrative_, p. 300.
[92] Carte's _Ormonde_. Remarks on the _Life and Death of Mr. Blood_,
1680. _Verney Memoirs_, iv. 228. _Letters to Williamson_, ed. Christie,
i. 14, ii. 120. Sir Walter Scott made good use of Blood in _Peveril of
the Peak_.
[93] Copy of the petition of November 28, 1670, appointing Talbot
agent, _Trinity College MSS._ 844-849. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 426
_sqq._, and Finch's Report of February 1, 1670-1, _ib._ appx. 91. State
Papers, _Domestic_, July 2 and August 1, 1671, and also at p. 595 in
Cal.
[94] Patrick Adair's _Narrative_, pp. 290, 303. Pepys' _Diary_, June
8, 1661. For details concerning Lady Clanbrassil (Lady Alice Moore),
see Lowry's _Hamilton MSS._ Dorset's verses 'On an antiquated coquette'
have been thought to refer to her.
[95] Dr. Lancelot Bolton to Conway, May 13, 1671, State Papers,
_Domestic_. Armourer to Williamson, June 6, July 27, _ib._ Conway to
Rawdon, June 20, _Rawdon Papers_.
[96] King to Lords Justices, May 22, 1661, State Papers, _Ireland_.
King to Lord Lieutenant, February 26, 1671-2, State Papers, _Domestic_.
Proclamation, _ib._ March 8.
[97] Rawdon to Conway, July 13, 1671, State Papers, _Domestic_. Leigh
to Williamson, July 18, _ib._ Essex to Arlington, September 14, 1672,
_Essex Papers_.
[98] Letter to Williamson, March 30, 1672, State Papers, _Domestic_,
Phelim O'Neill to Conway, May 23, 1671, _ib._ The King to Berkeley,
April 30, 1672, _ib._
[99] Leigh to Williamson, May 19, 1671, State Papers, _Domestic_.