GOVERNMENT OF ESSEX, 1672-1677
[Sidenote: The Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant.]
The corrupt administration of Berkeley and Leighton could not be called
a success, and much to his own surprise the Earl of Essex was named for
Lord Lieutenant quite early in 1672. He was made a Privy Councillor
along with Halifax in February, and some thought that the latter would
go to Ireland. Berkeley's letter of recall did not reach him till May,
and he was forbidden to make any appointment during the remainder of
his time, particularly in Dublin, where disorders had lately followed
on a change of officers. Some years later the viceroyalty was offered
to Halifax, but he said he did not like dining to the sound of the
trumpet and with thirty-six dishes of meat. It is not easy to see what
caused Essex to be selected, for he could never have been a party to
the policy of the treaty of Dover. But his firmness of character was
known, and Charles may have thought that by leaving Ireland in strong
hands he made it easier to get his own way in England.[100]
[Sidenote: State of the corporate towns.]
Essex reached Ireland early in August 1672, and was involved at once
in the business of the corporations, for the power to make rules under
the Act of Explanation expired at Michaelmas. Berkeley's temporary
regulations had been quite abortive, and one of his latest acts had
been to recommend Totty as Lord Mayor for another year. The policy of
the English Government since the Restoration had been vacillating. In
1661 the King gave orders that the Irish or Roman Catholic inhabitants
of towns should be restored to trading privileges, and this was
repealed in 1672. The first letter had, however, been followed by
another, which expressly declared that it had never been His Majesty's
pleasure to admit the Papists to any share in magistracy or government.
In 1670 it was ordered that no one should act as head or member of a
corporation without taking the oath of allegiance and such other oaths
as were of force in Ireland. Thus the first question that Essex had to
decide was whether the oath of supremacy should be enforced or not.
He thought that it should be, as otherwise every corporation would
be flooded with Roman Catholics. But he would allow the oath to be
dispensed with by special favour. He believed that otherwise wealthy
Protestant traders would withdraw themselves and their capital from
Ireland. This policy was approved of, and Charles ordered the oath
of supremacy to be enforced 'as a general rule,' and the dispensing
power to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant. This was in harmony with
the Declaration of Indulgence which Parliament had not yet had an
opportunity of condemning.[101]
[Sidenote: New rules made.]
Rules were made for Dublin accordingly. To be of any effect the
choice of Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Town Clerk, and Recorder had to be
ratified by the Lord Lieutenant. In the case of the Lord Mayor,
sheriffs, and treasurers the elective power was confined to the Lord
Mayor and not less than eight aldermen. All officers, aldermen,
common councillors, and members of guilds had to take the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy, the like obligations being imposed upon
foreign traders and artisans, who were encouraged to become denizens
with the same privileges as natives. Power was reserved to the Lord
Lieutenant to dispense with the oath of supremacy at his discretion
'by writing under his hand.' Similar rules were made for all the other
corporations in Ireland, which thus retained their Protestant character
until the viceroyalty of Tyrconnel. By the Act of Explanation, rules
made in conformity with it had full statutory force and could not be
abrogated without another Act, and no Parliament met in the meantime.
The dispensing power was at once exercised, and some Roman Catholics
were admitted as common councilmen with the King's full approval, who
nevertheless suspended the operation of the rules by letter until
they had been discussed in Council. Anglesey alone opposing, they
were approved in due course. The delay caused Essex much trouble and
annoyance, for copies of the royal missive were circulated with a view
of impairing his authority. The most notable malcontent was the learned
and eccentric Dudley Loftus, but the intrigues of Anglesey added fuel
to the flame. Loftus, who was a master in chancery, publicly declared
that the rules were illegal, which they certainly were not, and was
placed under arrest by the Lord Lieutenant. Complaints of the rules and
petitions against them continued for some time, but they had the force
of law and could not be interfered with. As the validity of the Acts of
Settlement seemed to be attacked, there was general consternation among
the holders of property, and the King was forced to declare that he had
not the slightest intention of interfering with their operation.[102]
[Sidenote: Agitators in Dublin.]
Essex reported that the population of Dublin had almost doubled since
the Restoration, and recommended that a citadel should be built to
secure order. Lives having been lost in the bridge riots, there was an
undercurrent of discontent which lasted for two or three years, and was
sedulously fostered by one Nevill. This man had several aliases, and
having been 'a prompter to plays was afterwards Sir Ellis Leighton's
broker to make his bargains.' The first thing was to decide as to the
legality of the late proceedings. This was tried before the Privy
Council, and Essex says he scarcely ever heard a clearer case. By a
unanimous vote Sir William Davis was restored to the recordership
and the excluded aldermen to their places. Sir John Totty lost his
position as clerk of the tholsel, but continued to stir up discontent,
in which he was supported by one Philpot, who had been under arrest
for contempt of the Council's decrees, and by three or four other
agitators. 'These have been observed never to be in their shops, but
all day long at taverns or coffee-houses, perpetually sending about for
several citizens, persuading them to further or promote these seditious
designs, which prime movers are men of small estates, and no doubt
their aim was to be employed as agents in England, thereby to have got
some collection of money from the city, as a little before my coming
one Nevill (an unworthy instrument of Sir Ellis Leighton's) did.'[103]
[Sidenote: Phoenix Park granted to the Duchess of Cleveland.]
[Sidenote: Essex saves the park.]
The success of Swift's attack upon Wood's halfpence was partly owing
to the fact that the Duchess of Kendal was intended to be a gainer.
A much worse injury to Ireland was projected by Charles II. when he
granted the Phoenix Park to the Duchess of Cleveland, who, if we are
to believe Marvell, had already made 10,000_l._ out of Berkeley as
the price of his office. Later on he was ready to bribe her successor
if she would get him reappointed. It was arranged that the grant of
the park should not take effect in Essex's time, and Arlington, whose
daughter was betrothed to the favourite's son, seemed to think that
his consent was a matter of course. But Essex declared that the honour
of his office was in his keeping and that the fact of his own immunity
only made him the more determined not to injure his successors. To
alienate the Phoenix Park would be to deprive every future viceroy
of the only place where he could ride or walk in comfort, for the
Castle was a house merely, and a very bad one. The venison was also
a consideration. With the recent additions made under Ormonde, which
had cost the King 10,000_l._, the area of the park was over 2000 acres
and its value was certainly more than double that sum. All this it was
proposed to settle on the Duchess and her natural sons by the King
successively in tail male. Shaftesbury was Lord Chancellor, and to him
Essex appealed as the proper person to prevent this monstrous job. He
reminded him that Charles II. had learned to appreciate a chancellor
who repeatedly refused to obey him in making grants which he knew were
against his interests. We have not Shaftesbury's answer, but the scheme
was abandoned, though Essex was fain to find other lands of equal value
for the rapacious Barbara. Ten years earlier he might have been unable
to save the park, but poor Alinda was growing old and her numerous
infidelities were well known to Charles. Nell Gwyn was and remained in
favour, and Louise de Keroualle was fairly installed as the official
mistress.[104]
[Sidenote: The provincial presidencies suppressed.]
Essex was ordered by his instructions to suppress the presidencies
of Munster and Connaught which had been established in 1569. Ireton
thought these provincial governments an unnecessary charge to the
country, and Ormonde was much of the same opinion. Sir George Rawdon,
who had found that Ulster did very well without a special governor,
said it was 'better for a son to have only a father than a grandfather
also.' Lord Berkeley, whose interest in the presidency of Connaught
was merely pecuniary, objected to its abolition unless an income was
secured to him; this was granted, and Lord Kingston, who was a local
magnate and had done the work, was also provided for. Orrery secured
royal favour by prompt resignation, and was very liberally treated as
to money. He remained in command of the troops in Munster, but was
refused leave to have six iron guns mounted at Castlemartyr, and his
licence to keep cannon at Charleville was also withdrawn. He was never
trusted by Essex, and long cherished the hope of superseding him.[105]
[Sidenote: Intolerance of the English Parliament.]
The Parliament which passed the Test Act was not likely to let Ireland
alone. On March 8 the King cancelled his Declaration of Indulgence one
month after he had publicly 'resolved to stick' to it. A week later the
House of Commons took Irish grievances into consideration. Some Roman
Catholics had been made Justices of the Peace and some admitted to
corporations, and disorders had taken place. At Clonmel in particular,
when the Protestant Mayor and corporation were returning on November
5 from the service commemorating the Gunpowder Plot, they were set
upon by the mob, but no great harm was done. Archbishop Peter Talbot
had been using his power to oppress loyal Papists, and the country
was swarming with priests and friars. Colonel Richard Talbot had a
troop of horse, and it was against him that the main debate turned,
since he was agent for the recusants and had obtained the commission
which was daily threatening the Revolution settlement. Henry Coventry
used his influence to calm the House, but on the following day it was
unanimously decided to address the King about Ireland.[106]
[Sidenote: Address of the Commons.]
A week later the address was brought up and agreed to without a
division. The Commons demanded that the commission of enquiry into the
Acts of Settlement should be revoked, as tending to the overthrow
of those Acts and the disturbance of the kingdom. They required that
Papists should be disarmed and that none should be suffered to be or
to remain Judges, Justices of the Peace, Sheriffs, Coroners, Mayors,
Sovereigns, or Portreeves. Titular bishops and abbots, especially Peter
Talbot, were to be exiled as well as all regular clergy, 'Convents,
seminaries, and other public Popish schools' to be suppressed. English
Protestant settlers were to be encouraged, and it was specially desired
'that Colonel Richard Talbot, who has notoriously assumed to himself
the title of agent of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, be immediately
dismissed out of all command, either civil or military, and forbid an
access to Your Majesty's Court.' Such was the result of the treaty of
Dover and the second Dutch war.[107]
[Sidenote: The King's surrender.]
[Sidenote: Proclamation against titular bishops.]
[Sidenote: Proclamation against convents, &c.]
In a letter of the previous year Charles had directed that there
should be no further prosecution for things done during the Civil
War, thus carrying out the principle of the Act of Indemnity. He
hesitated about cancelling this wise letter, and took no notice of
the demand that Richard Talbot should be forbidden the Court. But on
every other point his surrender to the Commons' address was complete.
It was known that Talbot had talked about his intention to tear up
the Act of Settlement, but he was allowed to sell his troop and to go
abroad. The Rupert commission of enquiry was recalled in July, after a
debate in the English Privy Council, and the hopes of the dispossessed
Roman Catholics were deferred until the day when Talbot should return
in triumph to govern Ireland. In the meantime, Essex was ordered to
encourage the English planters and Protestant interest and to 'suppress
the insolency of Irish Papists.' A proclamation was accordingly issued
forbidding them to keep firearms without a licence, but it was not
very strictly executed, for the Lord Lieutenant discriminated between
arms kept for offence or defence, and he had no intention of depriving
gentlemen of their swords. By another proclamation titular bishops and
other dignitaries, and all regulars were ordered out of the country,
Peter Talbot being mentioned by name. Most of the bishops had to go,
but there was a difficulty about the friars, because some of them had
been useful, particularly the few remaining of Peter Walsh's party,
whose lives would hardly be safe abroad. On this point Essex wrote
direct to Ormonde, whose policy about dividing the Roman clergy he
exactly followed. John O'Molony of Killaloe, 'the most dangerous
because the wisest man of their clergy, made a composure of all the
differences among the men of their religion,' and the only chance of
profiting by their dissensions was to encourage a few friars 'who
always have their little wrangles with the secular clergy.' O'Molony,
who played an important part later, had private means, and Essex
thought him a pensioner of France, whither he now retired. Talbot
went to Paris. Oliver Plunket remained in Ireland, but he thought it
prudent to hide for a time and suffered considerable hardship, though
in his case Essex had certainly no wish to be strict. On the whole
the proclamation was very slackly executed, of which there were many
complaints, and the King enjoined increased severity. A second and
more stringent proclamation was accordingly issued with orders that
all 'convents, seminaries, friaries, nunneries, and Popish schools in
Ireland be forthwith utterly suppressed.' Ordinary secular priests were
not included in either proclamation and were not seriously interfered
with. The bishops and friars were a great source of expense to the
impoverished gentry, and the Lord Lieutenant thought their banishment
would not be unpopular, but, he added, should it be resolved to use
like measure with all the seculars, it must be remembered that there
were several hundred thousand Roman Catholics in Ireland and he would
not undertake to keep the peace without at least fifteen or twenty
thousand men regularly paid and available for duty.[108]
[Sidenote: Ormonde and Essex.]
During the time of Berkeley's viceroyalty and for long afterwards
Ormonde was more or less in disgrace and was carefully excluded from
consultations concerning Ireland. When Cary Dillon, afterwards Earl of
Roscommon, asked for his help, saying he had no friends but God and
his Grace, the Duke answered that no two persons had less interest
at Court. But he had influence in Parliament, and Essex sent him his
proxy early in 1674, hoped to see him soon in Ireland, and acknowledged
former friendly offices. In July he arrived at Kilkenny, and the Lord
Lieutenant again expressed a wish to see him and to have an opportunity
of consulting 'one of so much experience as your Grace in the business
of this country and of whose integrity there is so large testimony, as
it may seem a lessening to your Grace even to name it.' This was almost
an invitation to Dublin, but Ormonde's short visit to the capital was
not an unequivocal success. He was the first subject in Ireland, though
out of favour at Court, and his popularity was evident. Perhaps Essex
thought that he rather overshadowed him, or it may be that his visitor
did not care about a private position in a city where he had always
been the chief person. But the friendly attitude of the two men was
nevertheless steadily maintained, though courtiers tried to excite
mutual jealousy. Essex refused to build barracks at Clonmel without
the consent of Ormonde, who was chief owner of the place, and thanked
him in 1676 and 1677 for efficient parliamentary support. At this time
Ormonde was again summoned to the Council and was sometimes consulted,
though the King was as cold in his demeanour as ever. Buckingham's
influence was at an end, and Ormonde became Lord Lieutenant again. He
was as anxious for his predecessor's honour as if it had been his own,
and reminded him that great pains had been taken to make bad blood
between them, but that he had nevertheless been always his sincere
friend.[109]
[Sidenote: The Tories still troublesome,]
[Sidenote: especially in Ulster.]
During the whole time of Essex's government there was great trouble
with brigandage. Every here and there some leader appeared who had
suffered by the Settlement, and a band was soon formed. The Dutch
war, the legislation against cattle, and the poverty of the country
generally encouraged idleness, for there was no money to pay even those
who were willing to work. The gaols were often crowded, but little
justice was done, for the chief sufferers were the poor, and their
helplessness made them afraid to give evidence. Orrery and most of
the extreme English party wished for a strong Protestant militia, but
against this Essex set his face. He said the regular army was able to
keep order, and no doubt it would have been had it been regularly paid.
A good deal of republican feeling lingered among the survivors of the
Protectorate, and where the Scots were strong the militiamen would be
sure to sympathise with the Presbyterians of Scotland whenever they
made a move. Orrery would be over the militia, and would thus be able
to advertise his Protestant zeal and to show his importance to the Lord
Lieutenant's detriment. Essex said it would even be better to exercise
martial law, an illegal course but one which had always been taken in
Ireland when necessity required. He objected to giving a reward for
bringing in offenders dead or alive, since it would lead to people
wreaking private vengeance in the name of order. The worst outrages
were in Ulster, but the mountainous parts of Kerry, Cork, and Waterford
were seldom altogether free from predatory outlaws. In the winter of
1673-4 the Tyrone farmers had to seek refuge in the towns, and no one
dared keep any money at home. Before the end of January some thirty
offenders were taken and hanged, but the horses in Sir George Rawdon's
troop were worn out before the spring by bad quarters and 'jaunting
after tories.' Before midsummer Essex was fain to issue a proclamation
against giving protections to robbers and Tories, advantage having been
taken of them to commit murder and burglary with impunity. A month
later there was a further proclamation reciting an Act of Henry VI.,
which authorised all persons to kill any one found housebreaking by
day or night, a reward for so doing to be levied off the barony. But
in the following winter Armagh was again infested by highway robbers.
In the year before the proclamation communications between Cork and
Kerry were interrupted, and some parish priests in the latter county
declared their willingness to excommunicate all Tories, murderers,
thieves, and robbers with their aiders and abettors, and generally to
help the authorities provided they were not required to give evidence
themselves.[110]
[Sidenote: Essex goes to England.]
Before Essex had been three years in Ireland there were many schemes
for upsetting him and many rumours as to his successor. Orrery,
Halifax, Lauderdale, Ormonde, and Conway were all named, but there
seems to have been no real intention of recalling him. In the summer
of 1675 he went to England for what he meant to be a short visit. The
King said he wished to consult him on Irish affairs, and named the
Primate and Sir Arthur Forbes as Lords Justices. Essex had asked for
such an opportunity of explaining matters as had been twice allowed
to Strafford, of clearing up the remaining difficulties under the Act
of Settlement, of making arrangements for collecting the revenue,
and of discussing measures for an Irish Parliament in contemplation.
On reaching London he found that he had enemies at Court, but that
they had made no impression on the King. Revenue matters detained
him unexpectedly for several months, during which he frequently met
Ormonde at the Privy Council, and for a long time after this there was
no further misunderstanding between them.[111]
[Sidenote: Financial irregularities, Lord Ranelagh.]
[Sidenote: Hearth-money.]
Richard Jones, Viscount Ranelagh, Orrery's nephew and grandson of
the prelate who had married Tyrone to Mabel Bagenal, had been much
befriended by Ormonde, who procured his appointment as Chancellor of
the Exchequer in 1668. The insight thus obtained into Irish finance
no doubt caused him to conceive the idea of getting the whole revenue
into his hands. The opportunity was afforded by Lord Aungier the
Vice-Treasurer, who produced a paper showing the state of the finances
for the five years ending with Christmas 1670. Ranelagh offered to
collect all the taxes and to pay all the expenses of government.
The revenue at this time amounted to about 200,000_l._, consisting
of quit-rents and other land taxes, and of imposts settled upon the
Crown by the late Parliament independent of anything that subsidies
might produce. These were the customs and excise leviable according
to rates fixed by law, ale-house duties, and the hearth-money granted
as compensation for the abolition of knight-service and of the Court
of Wards. Two shillings upon every fireplace or stove does not seem
a very heavy charge, but it was leviable by distress and involved
domiciliary visits, and it was manifestly unfair as between rich and
poor. It was abolished in England by William III., but continued long
afterwards in Ireland. 'It still remains,' wrote Howard in 1776, 'a
most oppressive burden on the occupiers of the wretched hovels in many
parts of this kingdom.' In the hands of farmers it was capable of great
abuse. Ranelagh and his partners were given complete control of the
finances from Christmas 1670 to Christmas 1675, and the Vice-Treasurer
was forbidden to interfere with them. The farmers behaved after their
kind. Poor men were often charged twice over, but the establishment
expenses were nevertheless badly paid. In the summer of 1676 nine
months' arrears, amounting to 139,000_l._, were due to the army alone,
and an unpaid army, Essex truly said, was like tinder. He could not
rest well until he saw these poor creatures righted. He believed that
if the Lords Justices had had 10,000_l._ they might have nipped the
rebellion of 1641 in the bud, but the Exchequer was empty and they had
no credit. He himself was in much the same position, and there were
small mutinies at Drogheda and Kinsale. Everything connected with the
army was out of order. There were scarcely 300 barrels of good powder
in the country, nor 500 good muskets. 'There is not one company in the
whole army completely armed, their muskets being many of them out of
order and of different bores and the pikes half of them broken, all
guns and fieldpieces in the several garrisons generally unmounted.'
Ranelagh was himself made Vice-Treasurer in June 1674, so that there
was no supervision whatever.[112]
[Sidenote: Essex, Ranelagh, and Ormonde.]
Though deprived of effective control Essex tried to keep the farmers
in order, but they appointed numerous private collectors, and it was
almost impossible to say who had a right to demand money. Moreover,
the King and the Lord Treasurer did what they could to thwart him, and
a letter signed by the one and countersigned by the other blamed him
obliquely for 'encroaching on the office of our said Vice-Treasurer.'
Many allowances were made for Ranelagh and much extra time was given
him, but he could not be brought to account. The real reason of the
extraordinary favour he enjoyed at Court doubtless was that he gave
Charles ready money behind the Lord Lieutenant's back, and if it be
true that one of his daughters became the King's mistress, as Henry
Sidney reports, that might be an additional argument. Both Cleveland
and Portsmouth made money out of Ireland. The King cared more about
putting cash into his Privy Purse than about the public service. His
state policy was influenced by this, as Louis XIV. well knew, and
smaller people could play the same game. In March 1677, Ranelagh at
last handed in an account up to the end of 1675, but declared that it
was not final and that the items were liable to reconsideration. As it
was confessedly imperfect, Essex refused to pass it. In the meantime,
Ranelagh had fallen foul of Ormonde, attributing his own troubles
to the mismanagement of Irish finance in the ten years preceding
1671, during the greater part of which the Duke was Lord Lieutenant.
Ormonde had not much difficulty in defending himself, and retorted
by showing how oppressive had been the system of collection under
Ranelagh. The inferior tax-gatherers did not hesitate to remedy their
own deficiencies by squeezing those whom they thought unable to defend
themselves. On the Ormonde estate alone 13,000_l._ were demanded from
tenants who were able to show that they owed only 657_l._, and where
less powerful landlords were involved it was easy to imagine that the
irregularities would be still worse. The King, after a full enquiry,
exonerated Ormonde from all blame, but continued to heap favours on
Ranelagh, who received an Earl's coronet at the end of 1677. In 1681 a
very large sum was still due, which Charles freely forgave. At a later
date Ranelagh was Paymaster-General for many years, and was expelled
from Parliament in 1702 for defalcations amounting to 72,000_l._[113]
[Sidenote: Scheme to make Monmouth Viceroy.]
[Sidenote: Charles sups with Ormonde.]
Essex returned to Ireland in May 1676, but it did not seem likely that
his future stay would be long. The King was inclined to think that he
had been viceroy long enough, and there were plenty of candidates
for the succession. Ormonde wished to be back in the Government, but
in the meantime he supported Essex. He has, wrote Aungier, now Earl
of Longford, 'stuck to your Excellency with the zeal and courage of a
true friend.' Danby, who was not particular in money matters, supported
Ranelagh, but the King refused to order Essex to pass an unsatisfactory
account. Early in 1677 Ranelagh and Danby, with the help of the Duchess
of Portsmouth, devised a scheme for making Monmouth Lord Lieutenant.
He was to remain in England while Conway governed Ireland as Deputy
with part of the salary and allowances, paying a round sum down and
defraying many expenses himself. Ormonde said he would never visit
Ireland while Conway governed it, and sought the help of the Duke of
York, which was readily given. At the beginning of April Charles, who
had not spoken to Ormonde, sent him word that he would come and sup
with him. A splendid repast was provided at a cost of 2000_l._, and
before leaving the King announced his intention of making his host
Lord Lieutenant. Yonder, he said next day, 'comes Ormonde; I have done
all I can to disoblige that man, and to make him as discontented as
others, but he will not be out of humour with me, he will be loyal
in spite of my teeth, I must even take him in again, and he is the
fittest person to govern Ireland.' Long before, to judge by their
demeanour, Buckingham had remarked that it was hard to say whether the
Duke of Ormonde was in disgrace with the King or the King with the
Duke of Ormonde. Essex was recalled with many handsome expressions,
his successor stipulating that the same complimentary words should be
used as in his own case. The letter had been signed, but Charles made
the desired addition on the margin in Coventry's presence. The new
appointment was made without consulting Danby, and Essex was told that
he might appoint Lords Justices and come away or wait for Ormonde's
arrival, just as he pleased.[114]
[Sidenote: Ireland terrorised by outlaws.]
With all his diligence Essex had not succeeded in getting rid of the
Tories and other disturbers of the peace. Orrery was an alarmist, but
he found it hard to get even murder punished. One very bad offender
had his bonds cut by an Irish constable, and many local magistrates
'living in lone houses, fearing their activity might cause revenge, are
remiss.' Lord Massereene reported that the southern part of Londonderry
county was full of idle people 'supporting themselves and their clans
by the spoil of others.' In Connaught Dr. Thomas Otway, Bishop of
Killala, was particularly active, and had an equally low opinion of the
justices, but approved the conduct of some Scottish iron-workers who
cut off the heads of such Tories as they could catch. 'This chopping
of their heads doth much more terrify others from running out than
hanging, though that doth pretty well when they come to it, but it
is a long time first, they have so many friends not only Irish but
English and some of them sitting on the bench ... all our justices
are tantum non Presbyterians and I wish they were but tantum nons.'
The Presbyterians, said Otway, were nearly as subtle proselytisers as
the Jesuits, and many scandalous papers against episcopacy were in
circulation. Even the gentle Margetson reported that there were great
meetings for no good, though they were professedly only to 'hear the
word.' Considering the state of Scotland at the time there was some
cause for alarm.[115]
[Sidenote: Ormonde returns to the Government.]
[Sidenote: Irish doctors at Oxford.]
Ormonde left London early in August 1677, and paid his first visit to
Oxford as Chancellor by the way. He entered the town from the east
with at least fourteen coaches and accompanied by the Duchess and
several ladies. Anglesey was one of those who travelled with him. It
was market day and the High Street was crowded with butchers' stalls,
but the Chancellor halted at St. Mary's and heard a speech from South,
who had long been public orator. From Carfax to Christ Church the
street was lined by the undergraduates, more speeches being delivered
at various points, and there was a dinner at Magdalen. The next day
being Sunday the Lord Lieutenant heard two sermons at St. Mary's and
dined with Bishop Fell at Christ Church. Next day twenty-two degrees
were conferred at the Chancellor's request. Fell had begged him to be
merciful, as plenty of unworthy persons might take advantage of such an
opportunity, but Ormonde said he would be responsible for his men. They
were nearly all more or less connected with Ireland, among them being
Lord Longford, Sir Robert Southwell, and Robert Fitzgerald, who played
a distinguished part in 1690. Then there was another speech from South,
and Ormonde set out at once for Holyhead by the Banbury road. He had to
time the journey so that all his coaches could pass by the beach round
Penmaenmawr, over which there was no road. At Dublin he was received
with great honour. To show his sense of the Duke's friendly behaviour,
Essex had not applied for Lords Justices as he had leave to do, but
handed over the sword himself. There was not to be another change as
long as Charles II. lived.[116]
FOOTNOTES:
[100] Arlington to Essex, January 6, 1671-2, _Stowe MSS._, vol. cc.
Orrery to Essex, February 3, _ib._ Burnet's _Own Times_, i. 396, 476.
The King to Berkeley, April 30, 1672, State Papers, _Domestic_.
[101] Essex to Arlington, August 24, 1672, _Essex Papers_. The King to
Essex, August 31, _ib._
[102] The rules under the 82nd clause of the Act of Explanation are
printed in _Irish Statutes_, iii. 205 _sqq._, under 25 Car. II. The
slight difference in the case of Drogheda seems to arise from the fact
that rules had been made for that town by Ossory in 1668, see Essex's
letter of August 17 and D'Alton's _Hist. of Drogheda_, i. 191. Essex to
Arlington, January 20, 1672-3, and July 19, _Essex Papers_. Proceedings
in the English Privy Council reported by Southwell, _ib._ July 26. The
King to Essex, November 5, 1672, and January 14, 1672-3, State Papers,
_Domestic_.
[103] Essex and Boyle to Arlington, September 21, 1672, State Papers,
_Domestic_. Essex to Arlington and to the King, July 22, 1673, _Essex
Papers_ to W. Harbord, _ib._ March 21, 1673-4; to Danby, February 10,
1674-5, _ib._ Totty carried his grievances to London, and on June 15,
1675, Essex described him to Coventry as the 'principal incendiary in
Dublin, a trooper many years in Cromwell's army, wretchedly poor and
has patched himself up by presents and otherwise out of collections
from several corporations of the city, to encourage and promote these
broils.'--_Essex Letters_, p. 345.
[104] Andrew Marvell's letter of August 9, 1667, _Works_, ii. 392. In
his _Last Instructions to a Painter_, 1667, he says Castlemaine was
growing old, but she was then only twenty-six. Essex's three letters to
Shaftesbury, March 8, April 12, and May 3, 1673, are printed in full
in Christie's _Life_, appx. iv. Warrant for the grant, February 26,
1672-3, State Papers, _Domestic_. Godolphin to Essex, July 16, 1674,
_Essex Papers_, vol. i. H. Coventry cautiously resisted a grant to Nell
Gwyn, _Essex Papers_, ed. Pike, 145.
[105] Essex to Arlington, September 17, 1672, State Papers, _Domestic_.
Berkeley to Arlington, July 10, 1673, _ib._ The King to Essex, January
13, 1674-5, _ib._ Orrery to Essex, August 16, 1672, _Essex Papers_;
Essex to Arlington, August 27, _ib._ And for Orrery's case, see _Liber
Munerum Publicorum_, Part ii. 185. He tried to keep an annual allowance
of 66_l._ for house-hire after the Munster Presidency was abolished,
but Essex had it stopped, State Papers, _Domestic_, 1675, pp. 502, 558.
[106] Grey's _Debates_, ii. 118-129, 132, March 17 and 18, 1672-3. For
the Clonmel riot see Ford to Arlington, November 25, 1672, and Essex to
same, February 18, 1672-3, State Papers, _Domestic_.
[107] The text of the address is in Grey's _Debates_, ii. 159, March
29, 1673.
[108] _Letters to Williamson_, ed. Christie, July 4, 1673. Letter
from the Privy Council ordering compliance with the Commons' address,
September 26, 1673, State Papers, _Domestic_. Essex to Capel, October
13, _Essex Papers_; to Arlington, October 28, _ib._; to Ormonde,
November 14, _ib._; to W. Harbord, January 25, 1673-4, _ib._ Ormonde to
Essex, December 9, _ib._ The proclamations of October 27 and November
8, 1673, and April 27, 1674, are in State Papers, _Domestic_, with the
King's letter of March 31. Brady's _Episcopal Succession_, ii. 120.
[109] Essex to Ormonde, February 3, March 10, July 8, September 3,
1673-4, _Stowe MSS._, vol. ccxiv.; September 12, _ib._ vol. ccxvi.;
March 6, 1676-7, _ib._ vol. ccxvii. Ormonde to Essex, April 20, 1677,
_ib._ vol. ccxi. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 443, 446. Writing to Ranelagh
on June 1, 1675, Essex notes 'what an interest remains of a great man
who commanded here many years, by reason of the absolute power he had
of gratifying multitudes of people.'--_Essex Letters_, p. 299.
[110] Sir George Rawdon's letters from 1673 to 1675 in State Papers,
_Domestic_. Sir Henry Ingoldsby to Lord O'Brien, _ib._, January 26,
1673-4 Proclamation of March 2 and December 14, 1674, June 10 and July
7, 1675, _ib._ Letters during the same period in _Essex Papers_, pp.
117, 148, 177, 264; proposals from Kerry priests, _ib._, p. 306.
[111] Essex to the King, to Danby, and to Coventry, May 22, 1675,
_Essex Letters_.
[112] Ranelagh's patent was dated August 4, 1671. Essex to Danby,
March 11, 1676; to the King, September 8; and to Ormonde and Orrery,
September 12, _Stowe MSS._, vol. ccxvi.; to Orrery, January 30, _ib._
vol. ccxvii. Howard's _Hist. of the Exchequer_, i. 89. Macaulay's
_History_, chaps. iii. and xi. Petty's _Treatise on Taxes_, chap. xv.
11.
[113] W. Harbord to Essex, April 4, 1674, _Essex Papers_. Conway
to Essex, _ib._ p. 221. Essex to H. Coventry, May 22, 1675, _Essex
Letters_, much more outspoken than those of the same date to Charles
and Danby. Lord Lieutenant and Council to Williamson, March 2, 1676-7,
_Stowe MSS._, vol. ccxvii. The contest between Ormonde and Ranelagh is
given in Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 451-463, including the scene at the
Privy Council in November 1675, and Ormonde's written defence after
Ranelagh had given particulars on March 1, 1675-6, also his memoir
for the King in 1675, _ib._ appx. no. 92. After reading Ormonde's
statement Essex wrote to him on May 23, 1676, that he was right, _Stowe
MSS._, vol. ccxvi. Ormonde to Essex, July 2, _ib._, vol. ccx. Burnet's
_Own Times_, i. 398, and Airy's note. See the article on Ranelagh in
_Dictionary of National Biography_. Henry Sidney's _Diary_.
[114] Longford to Essex, August 26, 1676, _Stowe MSS._, vol. ccx. H.
Coventry to Essex, July 5, 1676, _ib._, January 9 and April 20, 1677,
_ib._ vol. ccxi. Sir H. Capel to Essex, April 16, 1677, _ib._ Clarke's
_Life of James II._, i. 507. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 463-466. Writing
to Essex at the moment of his recall Ormonde says, there have been and
will be great pains taken to stir up bad blood between them, but that
he will always be truly his friend, April 20, 1677, _Stowe MSS._, vol.
ccxi.
[115] Orrery to Essex, December 15 and 29, 1676, _Stowe MSS._, vol.
ccx. Bishop of Killala to Essex, January 22, February 14, March 28,
1677, _ib._ vol. ccxi. Primate Margetson to Essex, August 26, 1676,
_ib._ vol. ccx. Massereene to same, October 31, _ib._
[116] A. Wood's _Life and Times_, ed. Clark, ii. 385. Carte's
_Ormonde_, ii. 465-469. Essex to Ormonde, April 28, 1677, _Stowe MSS._,
vol. ccxvii. Ormonde to Fell, June 16, and to Essex, August 4, _Ormonde
Papers_, N.S.