appointed speaker. From the beginning it was evident that in spite of
all his efforts the government party was likely to meet with serious
opposition. Sir Christopher Barnewall took strong exception to the
methods that had been adopted to pack the assembly, but though the
judges when appealed to upheld his objections on two counts they
decided against him on the vital question, namely, the selection of
English officials who had never seen the constituencies they were
supposed to represent. Backed by the decision of the judges, the Lord
Deputy and the Speaker bore down all opposition. An act was passed for
the attainder of Shane O'Neill, for the suppression of the title The
O'Neill, and for securing to her Majesty the County Tyrone and other
counties and territories in Ulster. The spiritual peers resisted
strongly a proposal for the erection of schools to be supported out of
the ecclesiastical property, but in the end the measure was passed. It
enacted that a free school should be established in each diocese at
the expense of the diocese, that the salary should be paid by the
bishops and clergy, that the schoolmasters should be Englishmen or at
least of English extraction, and that their appointment should be
vested in the Lord Deputy except in the Dioceses of Armagh, Dublin,
Meath, and Kildare, in which the nomination of the teachers should
rest in the hands of the archbishop or bishop. The exceptions clearly
indicate that only the royal bishops could be relied upon to carry out
the educational policy of the government, and this was brought out
even more explicitly by the act empowering the Deputy to appoint to
all ecclesiastical dignities in Munster and Connaught. A bill for the
repair of the churches at the public expense was thrown out in the
House of Commons.[74]
The gradual extension of English influence in both the North and the
South enabled Elizabeth and her advisers to throw off the mask of
toleration, and to take more active measures for enforcing the new
religion. Already Bishop Walsh of Meath had been thrown into prison
(1565), from which he escaped in 1572 and fled to Spain; Bishop
Leverous had been driven from his See in Kildare, though on account of
the influence of his patron, the Earl of Kildare, he was permitted to
end his days in his own diocese; Bishop Lacy of Limerick was reported
by the Lord Deputy (1562) as "a stubborn and disobedient man in causes
of religion" and as having committed offences whereby he had forfeited
his bishopric by the laws of the realm. For some time Limerick was
regarded as vacant, but the threatening attitude of the Geraldines
made it impossible to interfere with its bishop, and when the Lord
Deputy visited the city in 1567 he even allowed himself to be received
by the bishop with full Catholic ceremonial. When, however, the power
of the Southern confederation was broken Bishop Lacy was deprived of
his See as far as royal letters patent could do it, and William Casey,
the nominee of Edward VI. was placed in possession. The latter had
made his submission to the Pope and had declared his sorrow for his
crimes in the presence of David Wolf. Though apparently he had fallen
once again, he was distrusted by those who had appointed him as is
shown by the fact that a Scotchman named Campbell was set over him in
1585 to attend "to the spiritual functions of the bishopric."[75]
The Pope appointed Donat O'Teige Archbishop of Armagh in 1560, and on
his death Richard Creagh was designated as his successor. The latter
was a native of Limerick, who had graduated at Louvain, and at the
time he was nominated by David Wolf for an Irish archbishopric he kept
a school in his native diocese. Having been consecrated in Rome in
1564 he arrived in Ireland towards the end of that year only to be
arrested and thrown into prison, from which he managed to make his
escape at Easter (1565). He returned to his diocese, but he soon found
himself in conflict with Shane O'Neill. The archbishop was an Anglo-
Irishman, who stood for loyalty to the queen, and who regarded O'Neill
and his followers as both rebels, and, in a sense, savages. Instead of
encouraging O'Neill's men to maintain their struggle he preached on
the duty of obedience, whereat O'Neill was so enraged that he was at
first inclined to drive the Primate from Armagh. He burned the
cathedral of Armagh not, however, as is sometimes represented, in
hatred of the archbishop, but because it had been used as a fortress
by the English. The relations between the spiritual and temporal ruler
of Ulster improved, and Creagh addressed a petition to the Deputy to
be allowed to continue the Catholic services in the churches (1566).
He was captured once again early in 1567, and put upon his trial. The
jury having refused to find a verdict against him, both they and the
accused were committed to prison in Dublin Castle. The archbishop
eluded his guards once again, and it was only after the Earl of
Kildare had promised that his life should be spared that his
whereabouts were discovered. In December 1567 he was lodged in the
Tower of London, in which he was kept a close prisoner, though he
still contrived to communicate with Rome and with his diocese. Despite
the intercession of the Spanish ambassador, and notwithstanding the
fact that he suffered from grievous bodily infirmities, he remained a
prisoner till his death in October 1585. As a guarantee had been given
by the Earl of Kildare that his life would be spared, it was not
deemed prudent to execute him, but according to well authenticated
evidence his death was brought about by poison.[76]
Thomas O'Herlihy was appointed Bishop of Ross on the recommendation of
Father Wolf in 1561, and after having been consecrated he attended the
Council of Trent. On his return to Ireland he took an active part in
encouraging James Fitzmaurice, and was deputed to accompany the
Archbishop of Cashel to seek for aid from Philip II. of Spain. He was
captured in 1571 and sent to the Tower of London, where he was kept
prisoner for about three years and a half. He came back once again to
his diocese, and laboured strenuously, not merely in Ross, but in
various districts in the South till his death in 1579 or 1580.[77]
Maurice Fitzgibbon, Archbishop of Cashel, went to Spain as the
representative of the Southern Geraldines and their allies. Having
failed to get any help from Philip II., he endeavoured at various
times to interest the King of France, the Duke of Anjou, and the Duke
of Alva in Irish affairs. Though he was certainly in Scotland, where
he was arrested in 1572, it is doubtful if he ever returned to his
diocese. According to one authority he was captured in Munster and
kept a prisoner in Cork till his death in 1578, but it is more
probable that he died at Oporto.[78]
After the suppression of the Geraldine uprising and after the decree
of excommunication had been issued against Elizabeth still more
violent measures were taken against the bishops and clergy. The
Franciscan, Bishop O'Hely, was taken, together with another member of
his order, at Kilmallock, and both were put to death (1578 or 1579).
Edmund Tanner, who had been appointed to Cork in 1574, and entrusted
with special faculties for the provinces of Dublin and Cashel, was
arrested shortly after his arrival in Ireland and was thrown into
prison. He succeeded, however, in escaping, and he continued his
labours in various parts of Munster and Leinster till his death in
1578 or 1579. Nicholas Skerrett, a graduate of the /Collegium
Germanicum/ in Rome, was appointed to Tuam in October 1580. He was
thrown into prison after his arrival in Ireland, and, having succeeded
in escaping from his captors, he made his way into Spain. He died at
Lisbon in 1583 or 1584. Maurice MacBrien was appointed to Emly in 1567
on the recommendation of Father Wolf. During the earlier stages of the
Desmond rebellion he took active steps to promote the Catholic
confederation. At this period it is not improbable that he went to
Spain to solicit the co-operation of Philip II., but he returned to
Ireland, was captured in 1584, and two years later he died in prison
in Dublin. Peter Power or de la Poer was provided to Ferns by the Pope
in 1582. He was arrested and while in prison was induced to make his
submission, but on his release, stricken with sorrow for the weakness
he had shown, he boldly confessed his error and was arrested once
more. How long he was detained is not certain, but it is clear from a
letter of the Bishop of Killaloe that he was treated with the utmost
severity. He died in Spain in 1587.[79]
In 1581 Dermot O'Hurley was appointed to the Archbishopric of Cashel.
He had been a distinguished student of Louvain, and was then a
professor of Canon Law at Rheims. Hardly had he reached Ireland when
the government spies were on his track. For some time he remained in
the vicinity of Drogheda, and then he withdrew to the castle of the
Baron of Slane, from which he proceeded through Cavan and Longford to
his diocese. Having learned, however, that the Baron of Slane was in
danger for having afforded him assistance he surrendered himself to
his persecutors. He was brought to Dublin, in the course of which he
admitted that he was an archbishop appointed by the Pope, but he
denied that he had come to Ireland to stir up strife or to encourage
treasonable conspiracies. On one occasion at least he was subjected to
horrible torture to extract from him some damaging admissions. At the
advice of Walsingham his feet and legs were encased in tin boots and
he was held over a fire. As he still refused to submit he was tried by
court-martial and condemned. In June 1584 he was hanged in Dublin.[80]
Edmund McGauran, who was translated from Ardagh to Armagh in 1587,
devoted himself earnestly to the task of inducing the Catholic princes
of Ulster to defend their religion and their territories. He was slain
during a battle between Maguire of Fermanagh and the English in
1593.[81] Redmond O'Gallagher, Bishop of Derry, was specially active
throughout the whole province of Ulster, and so powerful were his
protectors that for years the government agents were afraid to arrest
him, but in the end he was slain together with three of his priests by
soldiers from the Lough Foyle garrison (1601).[82]
In the early years of Elizabeth's reign the government from motives of
prudence abstained from adopting violent measures to promote the
change of religion. But after 1570 there was a decided change, and
particularly after 1580 the persecution was carried on with great
bitterness. Many of the clergy, both secular and regular, were put to
death. Amongst the latter the few Jesuits who had come into the
country to help to carry on the work begun by Father David Wolf, the
Franciscans, and the Dominicans, were pursued with relentless
severity. Sometimes they were put to death by the soldiers without any
form of trial, sometimes they were executed according to the
proclamations of martial law, and sometimes they were allowed a form
of trial. But the fact that they were priests was sufficient to secure
their conviction. Several laymen were put to death for refusing to
change their religion, for harbouring priests, or for having studied
in some of the Catholic colleges on the Continent. Although Henry
VIII. had succeeded in destroying many of the religious houses, still
in a great part of the North, West, and South of Ireland the law had
not been enforced, and even in the districts where the English held
sway several of the monasteries enjoyed a precarious existence, partly
owing to the kindness of certain noblemen, partly also to royal
exemptions. But with the gradual subjugation of the country during the
reign of Elizabeth more determined measures were taken for the
suppression of such institutions. According to a return presented to
the authorities in London (1578) "thirty-four abbeys and religious
houses with very good lands belonging to them, never surveyed before
1569," were seized, as were also "seventy-two abbeys and priories
concealed from her Majesty."[83] From a revenue return presented in
1593 it can be seen that the suppression of these houses and the
seizure of their property helped considerably to strengthen the royal
exchequer. From the possessions in Ireland that belonged formerly to
religious houses in England the queen received annually in round
numbers £538, from the lands belonging to St. John of Jerusalem £776,
from those of the monastery of Thomastown £551, from the possessions
of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin, £329, and from the monasteries and other
religious houses in Ireland £4,716.[84] The destruction of the
monasteries did not, however, mean the extinction of the Mendicant
Orders. They still continued to maintain themselves in the country, so
that during the worst days of the seventeenth century the Franciscans
and Dominicans were to be reckoned with as the most dangerous
opponents of the religious policy of the English government.
Only in case of one bishop, the notorious Miler Magrath, was Elizabeth
able to secure submission. He was a Franciscan friar, who, having been
sent to Rome to petition that the vacant See of Down and Connor should
be conferred on Shane O'Neill's brother, took steps to secure the
appointment for himself (1565). Finding on his return that he could
not hope to get any revenue from his diocese on account of the
opposition of O'Neill, he made his submission to the queen (1567) and
received as his reward the diocese of Clogher, and later on the
Archbishopric of Cashel (1570). For the greater part of his term of
office as archbishop he held the Sees of Waterford and Lismore, and
when he resigned them in 1607 he obtained a grant of Achonry and
Killala. While pretending to be scandalised by the toleration shown to
Catholics, and especially to Catholic officials, and to be anxious
that the laws should be enforced with the utmost rigour he took
measures to warn the clergy whenever there was danger of arrest. On
one occasion when he was in London, having learned that a raid was
contemplated against the priests, he wrote to his wife to warn Bishop
MacCragh of Cork to go into hiding at once, and to send away the
priests who had taken refuge in his own palace at Cashel lest he
should get into trouble. He was denounced by the officials in Dublin
as a traitor, a drunkard, and a despoiler of the goods of the Church.
He sold or leased the property of his dioceses, kept a large number of
benefices in his own hands solely for the sake of the revenue,
appointed his own sons, his daughter, and his daughter-in-law to
parishes to provide them with an income, built no schools, and allowed
the churches to go into ruins. His children made no secret of the fact
that they were Catholics, and the archbishop himself seemed to think
that though Protestantism had been useful to him in life, the old
religion would be preferable at death. In 1608 faculties had been
granted to Archbishop Kearney of Cashel for absolving Magrath from the
guilt of heresy and schism. Some years later he besought a Franciscan
friar to procure his reconciliation with Rome, promising that for his
part, if the Pope required it, he would make a public renunciation of
Protestantism. This request of his was recommended warmly to the Holy
See by Mgr. Bentivoglio, inter-nuncio at Brussels, but the love of the
archbishop for the revenues of Cashel and of his other bishoprics and
benefices seems to have proved stronger than his desire for pardon,
for he continued to enrich himself and his friends at the expense of
the State Church till his death in 1622. It was believed by his
contemporaries that on his death-bed he abjured his errors, and was
reconciled with the Church by one of his former religious
brethren.[85]
The destruction of the religious houses and collegiate churches during
the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth dealt a heavy
blow to Irish education. Here and there through the country, clergy
and laymen contrived to teach schools and to give their pupils a sound
knowledge of the classics as well as of the language, literature, and
history of their country. But the theological colleges were closed;
Oxford and Cambridge were no longer safe training-places for Irish
ecclesiastics, and unless something could be done at once there was
grave danger that when the bishops and clergy, who were then at work,
passed away, they would leave none behind them to take their places.
Fortunately the close and direct communication between Ireland and the
Catholic nations of the Continent suggested a possible method of
preventing such a calamity, by the establishment, namely, of Irish
colleges in Rome, France, Spain, and the Netherlands. These
institutions owed their existence to the efforts of Irish bishops and
priests, and to the generous assistance of the Popes, and the
sovereigns of Spain and France. They were supported by the donations
of individual benefactors, by grants from the papal treasury or the
royal treasuries of Spain and France, and by the fees paid by
students, some of whom were wealthy enough to bear their own expenses,
while others of them were ordained priests before they left Ireland so
that they might be able to maintain themselves from their /honoraria/
for Masses.
In Spain Irish colleges were established at Salamanca, Seville,
Alcalá, Santiago de Compostella, and Madrid. The college at Salamanca
was founded by Father Thomas White, S.J., a native of Clonmel, with
the approval of Philip II., in 1592 under the title of /El Real
Colegio de Nobles Irlandeses/. The King of Spain provided a generous
endowment, and the control of the college was entrusted to the
Jesuits. Shortly after its foundation complaints were made in the
names of O'Neill and O'Donnell that the administrators of the college
showed but scanty attention to the claims of students from Ulster and
Connaught (1602), a complaint which seems to be justified by the rolls
of matriculation, on which the names of very few students from these
provinces are to be found. Those who presented themselves at Salamanca
took an oath to return to labour in the Irish mission after the
completion of their studies, and to enable them to do this a certain
sum of money was granted to them from the royal treasury of Spain to
cover the expenses of the journey to Ireland. Many of the most
distinguished of the Irish bishops and priests during the seventeenth
century were men who had graduated at Salamanca.[86] The college at
Compostella was founded in 1605, was endowed partly by Philip III.,
and was placed in charge of the Jesuits. It served as an auxiliary to
Salamanca, and its students were sent there for their theological
training. The College of the Immaculate Conception at Seville owed its
origin (1612) to some of the Irish secular clergy. It was endowed very
generously by Philip III. who placed the Jesuits in control of it in
1619. To help to provide for the support of the students the Irish
merchants, who carried on a brisk trade with Seville and Cadiz at this
period, bound themselves to bestow on the college a certain percentage
on every cask of wine they shipped, while Paul V. granted permission
to the fishermen of the province of Andalusia to fish on six Sundays
or holidays on condition that they devoted the results of their
labours to the support of the Irish College. The college at Madrid was
founded by Father Theobold Stapleton (1629), and was used principally
as a hospice for the reception of Irish priests who had completed
their studies, and who came to the Spanish capital to receive the
money guaranteed by the king to enable them to return to Ireland. In
1657 George de Paz y Silveira, who was related on his mother's side to
the MacDonnells of Antrim, founded a college at Alcalá principally for
students from the North of Ireland. According to the directions of the
founder the election of the rector was vested in the hands of the
student body, a regulation that led to grave disorders, and finally to
the closing of the college. The Irish college at Lisbon owed its
existence to the activity of the Jesuits, notably of Father John
Holing. It was opened in 1593, but it was only two years later that
owing to the kindness of a Spanish nobleman a permanent residence was
acquired, over which Father White, S.J., was placed as rector. A
community of Irish Dominican Fathers was opened at Lisbon, as was also
a convent of Dominican Nuns.
Irish students received a friendly welcome not merely in Spain, but
also in the Spanish Netherlands. From the middle of the sixteenth
century several ecclesiastical students from Ireland fled to Louvain
for their education, but it was only in 1623 that Archbishop MacMahon
of Dublin succeeded in founding a separate institution, the celebrated
/Collegium Pastorale/ for the training of secular priests for the
Irish mission. Out of his own private resources he founded six burses
in the college, and at his earnest request six others were endowed by
the Propaganda. The college was formally approved by Urban VIII. in
1624, and Nicholas Aylmer was placed over it as its first rector.
Though many of the ablest of the Irish bishops and priests of the
penal times were educated in the Pastoral College, still Ireland is
even more indebted to another Irish establishment at Louvain, the
Irish Franciscan College of St. Anthony of Padua. At the petition of
Florence Conry, Archbishop of Tuam, himself a Franciscan and a devoted
supporter of the Northern Chiefs, Philip III. recommended the project
of an Irish Franciscan College to his representative in the
Netherlands, and conferred on the institution a generous endowment.
With the blessing and approval of Paul V. the college was opened
formally in 1609, and so great was its success that it soon became the
leading centre of Irish missionary activity. Here Irish scholars like
John Colgan, Hugh Ward, Father Mooney, Bonaventure O'Hussey, Hugh
MacCaghwell, etc., found a home, and from the Louvain Irish printing-
press were issued a large number of catechisms, religious treatises,
and historical works, that did incalculable service for religion and
for Ireland. Another very important institution at Louvain was the
Irish Dominican Priory known as the Holy Cross founded in 1608. A
seminary for the education of secular priests was opened at Antwerp in
1629 as a result of the exertions and generosity of Father Laurence
Sedgrave and his nephew Father James Talbot. It was supported from the
revenues bestowed upon it by its founders, from the grants of the
papal nuncio at Brussels, and from the donations of Irishmen, laymen
as well as clerics. At Tournai a seminary for Irish priests was
founded by Father Christopher Cusack, and its students attended
lectures in the college belonging to the Jesuits. Nearly all the Irish
establishments in the Netherlands continued their work until they were
destroyed during the troubled period that followed on the outbreak of
the French Revolution.
In France, too, Irish students found a welcome and a home. Colleges
set apart entirely for their use were opened in Paris, Douay, Lille,
Bordeaux, Toulouse, and Nantes. The Irish College in Paris may be said
to date from the year 1578, when Father John Lee and a few companions
from Ireland took up their residence in the Collège Montaigu. Later on
a friendly nobleman, John de l'Escalopier, placed a special house at
their disposal, and Father Lee became the first rector of the new
seminary, which was recognised officially by the University of Paris
in 1624. Later on the Collège des Lombards was acquired, as was also
the present house in the Rue des Irlandais. The college in Paris was
favoured specially by the Irish bishops, as is evident from the fact
that in the year 1795 more than one-third of the Irish clerical
students on the Continent were receiving their training in the French
capital. The seminary in Douay was founded by Father Ralph Cusack in
1577. At that time Douay belonged to the Spanish Netherlands, and the
Irish seminary participated in the boundless generosity of the Kings
of Spain. The Irish seminary at Lille was founded also by Father
Cusack, and was placed under the control of the Capuchins. Though it
was intended principally for the use of students from the province of
Leinster, special attention was devoted to the Irish language, without
a knowledge of which no person could be appointed rector. The seminary
at Bordeaux was founded (1603) by Father Diarmuid MacCarthy, a priest
of the diocese of Cork, and later on it received special grants and
privileges from the queen-regent, Anne of Austria. The same kind
benefactress provided a home for the Irish students at Toulouse
(1659), while a few years later a seminary for Irish students was
established at Nantes.
Very early in Elizabeth's reign the question of providing priests for
the Irish mission engaged the earnest attention of the Roman
authorities. Gregory XIII. had arranged for the establishment of an
Irish college in Rome, and had provided the means for its support, but
as an expedition was then being prepared to aid James Fitzmaurice in
his struggle in Ireland, the project was postponed, and the money was
devoted to the purposes of the war. In 1625 the Irish bishops
addressed a petition to the Holy See praying for the establishment of
an Irish college in Rome. Cardinal Ludovisi, then Cardinal Protector
of Ireland, supported strongly this petition. He secured a house for
the accommodation of a few students, and in 1628 the college was
opened. In his will the Cardinal provided generously for the endowment
of the college, and he also expressed a wish that it should be
entrusted to the care of the Jesuits. They entered into control in
1635, and directed the affairs of the college till a short time before
the suppression of the Society.[87]
Elizabeth and her advisers were not slow to see the danger of allowing
Irish youths to be educated in Rome, France, or in the territories of
the King of Spain. For years the English government had been advised
to take measures for the establishment of a good system of English
schools as the best means of conquering the country. It was suggested
that with the suppression of the monasteries and the wholesale
confiscation of their possessions something might be done by Henry
VIII. or Edward VI. for the cause of education.[88] But these hopes
were doomed to speedy disappointment. The revenues of the religious
houses, which had provided centres of learning for the boys and girls
of the country, found their way into the royal treasury or into the
pockets of the dishonest commissioners, and no educational
establishments were erected in their place. The Deputy did, indeed,
inform the canons of St. Patrick's, Dublin, that their church should
be converted to a better use, namely, a university, but the promise
was made only to induce them to surrender without a struggle. The
valuable church plate, crosses, etc., were melted down and handed over
to the mint.[89]
At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth a proposal was made to
carry out the promise of Henry VIII. by converting St. Patrick's into
a university. Archbishop Curwen objected strongly to such a
suggestion, nominally on the ground that a university would only serve
as an excuse for the Irish rebels to send their sons to the capital to
learn the secrets of the Pale, but in reality because he feared that
the project would interfere with his own income. At various times and
in various forms the plan was brought forward once more. Sir John
Perrott was anxious to signalise his term of office as Lord Deputy by
the establishment of a university in Dublin, but Archbishop Loftus,
who as Archbishop of Armagh had supported the conversion of St.
Patrick's into a university, having changed his mind once he had
secured his own transference to Dublin, opposed warmly the project of
the Deputy. When, however, he had succeeded in saving St. Patrick's
for his relatives and dependents he brought forward another proposal,
namely, that the Corporation of Dublin should hand over the site of
the old monastery of All Hallows for the establishment of a
university. The corporation agreed to this proposal, and in 1592 a
charter was granted by Elizabeth. An appeal was then issued for
subscriptions, and in a short time about £2,000 was collected, many of
the Anglo-Irish Catholics being amongst the subscribers. In 1593
Trinity College was opened for the reception of students. Though care
had been taken by the archbishop when discussing the subject with the
Corporation of Dublin, most of the members of which were still
Catholic, and by the Deputy when appealing for funds for the erection
of the buildings, not to raise the question of religion, yet Trinity
College was intended from the beginning to be a bulwark of
Protestantism as well as of English power in Ireland. Elizabeth had
already done much to forward the cause of the new religion by getting
possession of the children of the Anglo-Irish or Irish nobles and
bringing them to England to be reared up as Protestants and as
Englishmen,[90] and it was hoped that Trinity College, supported by
the diocesan schools, would do for the better class of the nation what
Oxford and Cambridge were doing for the unfortunate children of the
chiefs who were kidnapped in the name of religion and statesmanship.
The new college set itself to carry out exactly the wishes of its
founders, and in return from its compliancy it received large
endowments from the English crown mainly by grants of confiscated
territories in different parts of Ireland.[91]
Yet in spite of all the measures that were taken, commissions, fines,
executions, bestowal of honours and appointments, diocesan schools,
and kidnapping of children, the Reformation made but little progress.
The truth is that Elizabeth's representatives in Ireland had not the
power to enforce her wishes in regard to religion, nor did Elizabeth
herself desire to stir up a general insurrection by attempting to
punish the lay nobles for their flagrant disregard of her ordinances.
Thus in 1585 Walsingham sent over express instructions to the
Protestant Archbishop of Armagh (Long) that the gentlemen of the Pale
were to be excused from taking the oath of allegiance,[92] and in 1591
Sir George Carew informed Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam that the queen was
displeased with him because "she feared that he was too forward in
dealing with matters of religion," and that he (Carew) had attempted
to excuse the Deputy by pointing out that on account of the
forbearance of the government, "they of the Pale were grown insolent."
At one time Elizabeth wrote to the Deputy and council blaming them for
neglecting to push forward the interests of the new religion (1599),
while the very next year she instructed Lord Mountjoy not to interfere
by any severity or violence in matters of religion, until the power of
England was established so firmly that such interference could be
effective. The reason for this wavering attitude is not difficult to
understand. Elizabeth feared that a general attack upon religion as
such would be the best means of inducing all the Catholic noblemen to
forget their personal rivalries and unite in one great national
confederation. Such a turn of events might have proved disastrous to
English interests in Ireland, and hence care was taken to allow a
certain measure of toleration to the noblemen, and to explain away the
punishments inflicted on the clergy as having been imposed not on
account of religion, but on account of their traitorous designs. This
is brought out very clearly in a letter of Sir George Carew to the
privy council in 1600. The citizens of Waterford had been reported for
their complete and open disregard of the new religion, and Carew was
charged with the work of punishing such disobedience. He wrote that he
would "handle the matter of religion as nicely as he could," and that
he would endeavour to convict the leaders of the movement of treason
because, he added, "if it do appear in the least that any part of
their punishment proceeds for matter of religion, it will kindle a
great fire in this kingdom."[93]
In 1576 Hugh Brady, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, reported to the
Lord Deputy that the condition of the Established Church was
lamentable, that the priests, though deprived of their livings,
continued to maintain themselves on the voluntary offerings of the
people, that the churches had fallen into a state of decay, that no
ministers were at hand who could address the people in their own
language, and that to remedy this state of affairs Englishmen should
be sent over as bishops to organise the new religious body, and
Scotchmen should be requested to act as preachers.[94] When such a
state of affairs existed in the Pale districts it is easy to see that
Protestantism had as yet made little progress among the Irish people.
Two years later Lord Justice Drury and Sir Edward Fyton, Treasurer,
announced to the privy council that on their arrival in Kilkenny the
Protestant Bishop of Ossory reported to them "that not only the
chiefest men of that town (as for the most part they are bent to
Popery) refused obstinately to come to the church, and that they could
by no means be brought to hear the divine service there with their
wives and families (as by her Majesty's injunctions they are bound to
do), but that almost all the churches and chapels or chancels within
his diocese were utterly ruined and decayed, and that neither the
parishioners nor others that are bound to repair them and set them up
could by any means be won or induced to do so." The Lord Justice and
his companion called the chief men of Kilkenny before them, and bound
them in recognisances of £40 each "that they and their wives should
duly every Sunday and holiday frequent the church, and hear the divine
service."[95]
Waterford was equally bad. In 1579 Sir William Pelham reported that
Marmaduke Middleton, who had been appointed bishop by Elizabeth, had
met with a bad reception in Waterford, "partly through the
contemptuous and obstinate behaviour of the mayor and his brethren of
that city, and partly by the clergy of that church." The Dean of
Waterford had made himself particularly disagreeable, and on account
of his behaviour Pelham recommended that he ought to be deprived of
his dignity as an example to the citizens who were "the most arrogant
Papists that live within this state." Bishop Middleton was most
anxious to get himself removed from Waterford, where he feared that
his life was in danger. He reported that Waterford was given over to
"Rome-runners and friars," that clergy and people were united to
prevent her Majesty's most godly proceedings, that "Rome itself held
no more superstition" than the city over which he ruled, and that most
of the Protestant incumbents were little better than "wood-kerne."[96]
Even towards the end of Elizabeth's reign Waterford was still, as it
had been when she ascended the throne, strongly Catholic. The privy
council in England warned Sir George Carew that though "the evil
disposition of the Irish people in most places of that kingdom, and
especially of the inhabitants of Waterford, in matters of religion"
was perfectly well known, and though great toleration had been shown
them lest they should have an excuse to rise in rebellion, "yet
something must be done to repress the presumption and insolency of the
people." For it had been announced by the Archbishop of Cashel
(Magrath) "that in Waterford there are certain buildings, erected
under colour and pretence of almshouses or hospitals, but that the
same are in very deed intended and publicly professed to be used for
monasteries and such like houses of religion, and that friars and
popish priests are openly received and maintained in them . . . and
exercise their service of the Mass openly and usually in many places,
as if they were in no awe or fear of any exception to be taken
thereunto." It is noteworthy, however, as indicating the extent of
English influence at that time in Ireland, that the members of the
privy council warned the President of Munster that they "do not think
it convenient that any extraordinary course should be taken or any
disturbance made to inquire after or to punish them for their Masses
or any other popish superstitions, unless they show thereby openly to
the world an insolent contempt for her Majesty's authority."[97]
In 1597, when Lord Borough was sent over as Lord Deputy, Elizabeth
instructed him to discreetly inquire of the state of religion, whereof
we are informed," she wrote, "there hath been notorious negligence, in
that the orders of religion are in few parts of our realm there
observed; and that which is to be lamented, even in our very English
Pale multitudes of parishes are destitute of incumbents and teachers,
and in the very great towns of assembly, numbers not only forbear to
come to the church or divine service, but [are] even willingly winked
at to use all manner of popish ceremonies." She ordered him to examine
into the causes of "this general defection," to see what have the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners been doing all these years, and to
forward his views as to how "this general defection might be reformed,
in some convenient sort, and not thus carelessly suffered as though
she had granted toleration of Popery."[98] Three years later (1600)
Sir George Carew furnished a very gloomy report on the progress of the
new religion. "If the Spaniards do come hither," he wrote, "I know no
part of the kingdom that will hold for the queen, and the cities
themselves will revolt with the first. For it is incredible to see how
our nation and religion is maligned, and the awful obedience that all
the kingdom stands in unto the Romish priests, whose excommunications
are of greater terror unto them than any earthly horror whatsoever.
Until of late, although the townsmen have ever been obstinate Papists,
yet /pro forma/ the mayors and aldermen would go to the church. But
now not so much as the mayors will show any such external obedience,
and by that means the queen's sword is a recusant, which in my
judgment is intolerable. Nevertheless I do not think it good to insist
much upon it in this troublesome time. As for Masses and such slight
errants here, they are of no great estimation. I am not over-curious
to understand them, so as they be not used contemptuously and publicly
in derogation of the queen's laws. But the mayors of the cities and
corporate towns to be let run in so manifest contempts I do not
wish."[99]
Nor is it strange that the new religion had made such little progress
in Ireland. Apart from the fact that the Irish people were thoroughly
Catholic at heart, the means adopted to bring about their apostasy was
not of such a kind as to ensure success. The English sovereigns, their
officials in Dublin, and a section of the Anglo-Irish nobles aimed at
getting possession of the ecclesiastical property and patronage, and
once they had attained their object they had but scant regard for the
claims of religion. Englishmen were sent over as archbishops or
bishops, who could not preach in a language that the people could
understand, and who had no other desire than to enrich themselves,
their children, and their relatives. Archbishop Browne had set an
example in this direction, which example was not lost on his
successor, Adam Loftus, who was so greedy in petitioning for
appointments that his chapter was forced to demand from him a pledge
that he would look for nothing more. Archbishop Long of Armagh (1584-
89) wasted the property of the diocese to such an extent that his
successor had barely an income of £120 a year and not a house to give
him shelter. Miler Magrath enriched himself out of Cashel, Emly,
Waterford and Lismore, Killala, and Achonry. Twenty of the parishes of
Emly were held by himself; twenty-six by his sons, daughters, and near
relations; nineteen were left vacant; men "fitter to keep hogs than to
serve in church" were appointed to some livings, and "in the two
dioceses (Cashel and Emly) there was not one preacher or good minister
to teach the subjects their duties to God and His Majesty." Craik of
Kildare, Cavenagh of Ossory, and Allen of Ferns were accused of
alienating the diocesan property of their respective Sees. With the
single exception of Brady, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, against
whom Loftus declared he could bring such charges as he would be loath
to utter, hardly one of the men appointed by Elizabeth to Irish
bishoprics was worthy of his position. Loftus was an impecunious
courtier; Magrath had no religion except to make money and indulge his
passion for strong drink; Knight the Scotchman, who was sent to Cashel
to watch him, was removed on account of public drunkenness; Devereux
was appointed to Ferns, although, according to Loftus, he had been
deprived of his deanship on account of confessed immorality; Richard
Dixon was deprived of his See within one year after his appointment by
the queen for manifest adultery, and Marmaduke Middleton of Waterford
having been translated to St. David's was accused of "grave
misdemeanours," the most serious of which was the publication of a
forged will, and was degraded by the High Commission Court. With such
men in charge of the work of "reforming" the clergy and people of
Ireland, it is no wonder that the Reformation made so little
progress.[100]
The men into whose hands the property and patronage of the Church had
passed took no steps to look after the repair of the church buildings
or to provide clergy to preach the new religion. In some cases their
neglect was due to the fact that they themselves were Catholic in
their sympathies, and in other cases because they did not want to
incur any expenses. As a consequence, the churches were in ruins and
roofless, and no religious service of any kind was provided. Few
English ministers of good standing in their own country cared to come
to Ireland except possibly in the hope of securing a bishopric in the
Pale districts, and as a consequence, the men who came were "of some
bad note," on account of which they were obliged to leave their own
country. Hence, in order to provide ministers to spread the new gospel
it was necessary to ordain those who were willing to receive orders as
a means of making their living. It is no wonder, therefore, that
Edmund Spenser described the Irish Protestant clergy of the period as
"bad, licentious, and most disordered." "Whatever disorders," he
writes, "you see in the Church of England, you may find in Ireland,
and many more, namely, gross simony, greedy covetousness,
incontinence, careless sloth, and generally all disordered life in the
common clergyman. And, besides all these, they have their particular
enormities; for all Irish ministers that now enjoy church livings are
in a manner mere laymen, saving that they have taken holy orders, but
otherwise they go and live like laymen, follow all kinds of husbandry,
and other worldly affairs as other Irishmen do. They neither read the
Scriptures, nor preach to the people, nor administer the communion." A
good account of the motley crowd who had been enlisted to carry out
the work of reform is given by Andrew Trollope, himself an English
lawyer and a Protestant. Although he referred particularly to Munster
his account may be taken as substantially correct for the rest of
Ireland. "In truth," he wrote, "such they [the clergy] are as deserve
not living or to live. For they will not be accounted ministers but
priests. They will have no wives. If they would stay there it were
well; but they will have harlots . . . And with long experience and
some extraordinary trail of those fellows, I cannot find whether the
most of them love lewd women, cards, dice, or drink best. And when
they must of necessity go to church, they carry with them a book of
Latin of the Common Prayer set forth and allowed by her Majesty. But
they read little or nothing of it, or can well read it, but they tell
the people a tale of Our Lady or St. Patrick, or some other saint,
horrible to be spoken or heard, and intolerable to be suffered, and do
all they may to allure the people from God and their prince, and their
due obedience to them both, and persuade them to the devil and the
Pope." The Lord Deputy sent a report to England in 1576 "on the
lamentable state of the Church" in Ireland. "There are," he wrote,
"within this diocese [Meath] two hundred and twenty-four parish
churches, of which number one hundred and five are impropriated to
sundry possessions; no parson or vicar resident upon any of them, and
a very simple or sorry curate for the most part appointed to serve
them; among which number of curates only eighteen were found able to
speak English, the rest being Irish ministers, or rather Irish rogues,
having very little Latin, and less learning and civility. . . . In
many places the very walls of the churches are thrown down; very few
chancels covered; windows or doors ruined or spoiled. . . . If this be
the state of the church in the best-peopled diocese, and best governed
country of this your realm, as in truth it is, easy is it for your
Majesty to conjecture in what case the rest is, where little or no
reformation either of religion or manners hath yet been planted and
continued among them. . . . If I should write unto your Majesty what
spoil hath been, and is of the archbishoprics, of which there are
four, and of the bishoprics, whereof there are above thirty, partly by
the prelates themselves, partly by the potentates, their noisome
neighbours, I should make too long a libel of this my letter. But your
Majesty may believe it, upon the face of the earth where Christ is
professed, there is not a Church in so miserable a case."
Spenser drew a sharp contrast between the Catholic clergy and the
ministers of the new gospel. "It is great wonder," he wrote, "to see
the odds which are between the zeal of the Popish priests and the
ministers of the gospel. For they spare not to come out of Spain, from
Rome, and from Rheims, by long toil and dangerous travelling hither,
where they know peril of death awaiteth them, and no reward or riches
are to be found, only to draw the people unto the Church of Rome;
whereas some of our idle ministers, having a way for credit and
estimation thereby opened unto them, and having the livings of the
country offered unto them without pains and without peril, will
neither for the same, nor any love of God, nor zeal of religion, nor
for all the good they may do by winning souls to God, be drawn forth
from their warm nests to look out into God's harvest."[101]
But though the attempts to seduce Ireland from the Catholic faith had
failed to produce any substantial results, yet there could be no
denying the fact that Elizabeth had gone further to reduce the country
to subjection than had any of her predecessors. The overthrow of the
Geraldines and their allies in the South, the plantation of English
Undertakers in the lands of the Earl of Desmond, the seizure of
MacMahon's country, and the attempted plantation of Clandeboy, the
appointments of presidents of Munster and Connaught, the reduction of
several counties to shire-lands, the nomination of sheriffs to enforce
English law, and the establishment of garrisons in several parts of
the country, made it clear to any thoughtful Irishman that unless some
steps were taken at once, the complete reduction of their country was
only a matter of a few years. In the North Hugh O'Neill, son of
Matthew O'Neill, was looked upon as the most powerful nobleman of the
province. Like his father he had been in his youth an English O'Neill,
and for that reason he was created Earl of Tyrone (1585), and was
granted most of the territories of Shane the Proud. But he distrusted
the English, as he was distrusted by them. The treacherous seizure of
Hugh O'Donnell, the planting of an English garrison at Portmore along
the Blackwater, and the warlike preparations begun by Sir Henry
Bagenal made it evident to him that the government aimed at the
complete overthrow of the Irish chieftains.
Having strengthened himself by alliances with Hugh O'Donnell, Maguire,
and the principal nobles of the North, he rose in arms, seized the
fortress of Portmore, laid siege to Monaghan, and inflicted a very
severe defeat on the English forces at Clontibret (1595). Whatever
might have been his ulterior object, O'Neill put the question of
religion in the forefront. Already it had been noted by the English
officials that O'Neill, though brought up in England, was attached to
the "Romish Church." In their negotiations with the government after
the defeat of the English forces at Clontibret, both O'Neill and
O'Donnell demanded that "all persons have free liberty of conscience."
Similar demands were made by the other chieftains of Ulster, and later
on by all the Irish nobles in Connaught, Leinster, and Munster. In
reply to these demands the commissioners announced that in the past
the queen had tolerated the practice of the Catholic religion, and "so
in likelihood she will continue the same." When the report of these
negotiations reached England Elizabeth was displeased. The request for
liberty of conscience was characterised as "disloyal." O'Neill was to
be informed that "this had been a later disloyal compact made betwixt
him and the other rebels without any reasonable ground or cause to
move them thereunto, especially considering there hath been no
proceeding against any of them to move so unreasonable and disloyal a
request as to have liberty to break laws, which her Majesty will never
grant to any subject."[102]
Though the negotiations were continued for some time neither side was
anxious for peace. Elizabeth and her officials strove to secure the
support of the Anglo-Irish of the Pale and of a certain section of the
Irish nobles. Unfortunately she was only too successful. Most of the
Anglo-Irish nobles, though still devoted to the Catholic faith,
preferred to accept toleration at the hands of Elizabeth rather than
to fight side by side with O'Neill for the complete restoration of
their religion.[103] O'Neill and O'Donnell turned to Spain and Rome
for support. From Spain they asked for arms, soldiers, and money to
enable them to continue the struggle. From the Pope they asked also
for material assistance, but in addition they demanded that he should
re-publish the Bull of excommunication and deposition issued against
Elizabeth by Gregory XIII., that he should declare their war to be a
religious war in which all Catholics should take the side of the Irish
chiefs, that he should excommunicate the Catholic noblemen who had
taken up arms in defence of the queen, that he should grant them the
full rights of patronage enjoyed in Ulster by their predecessors, and
that he should appoint no ecclesiastics to vacant Sees without their
approval.[104]
These requests were supported strongly at Rome by Peter Lombard
(1601), who was appointed later on Archbishop of Armagh, and as a
result Clement VIII. determined to send a nuncio to Ireland in the
person of Ludovico Mansoni (1601). Philip III. of Spain at last
consented to dispatch a force into Ireland, but instead of landing in
the North where O'Neill and O'Donnell were all-powerful, the Spanish
exhibition under command of Don Juan del Aquila arrived off Kinsale,
and took possession of the town (Sept. 1601). For the three years
preceding the arrival of the Spaniards the Northern chiefs had been
wonderfully successful. They had defeated Marshal Bagenal at the
Yellow Ford (1598), had overthrown the forces of Sir Conyers Clifford
at the Curlieu Mountains (1599), and had upset all the plans of the
Earl of Essex, who was sent over specially by Elizabeth to reduce them
to subjection. Hardly, however, had the Spaniards occupied Kinsale
when they were besieged by the new Deputy, Lord Mountjoy, and by
Carew, the President of Munster. An urgent message was dispatched by
them requesting O'Neill and O'Donnell to march to their assistance,
and against their own better judgment they determined to march South
to the relief of their allies. Even still, had they been satisfied
with hemming in the English forces, as O'Neill advised, they might
have succeeded, but instead of adopting a waiting policy, they
determined to make an attack in conjunction with the Spanish force. As
a result they suffered a complete defeat (1602). O'Neill conducted the
remnant of his army towards Ulster; O'Donnell was dispatched to seek
for further help to Spain from which he never returned, and Aquila
surrendered Kinsale and other fortresses garrisoned by Spaniards.
Carew laid waste the entire province of Connaught, while Mountjoy
marched to Ulster to subdue the Northern rebels. The news of the death
of O'Donnell in Spain, the desertion of many of his companions in
arms, and the total destruction of the cattle and crops by Mountjoy
forced O'Neill to make overtures for peace. An offer of terms was made
to him, and good care was taken to conceal from him the death of Queen
Elizabeth. He decided to meet Mountjoy and to make his submission
(1603).
----------
[1] /Calendar of Patent Rolls/, i., 304.
[2] Id., i., 315.
[3] Moran, /History of the Archbishops of Dublin/, 52-54. Brady,
/Episcopal Succession/, ii., 133 sqq.
[4] /Calendar of Patent Rolls/, i., 327-335.
[5] Lynch-Kelly, /Cambrensis Eversus/, ii., 780 sqq.
[6] /Calendar of Carew Papers/, i., 252-53.
[7] Id., 258.
[8] /Calendar of Patent Rolls/, i., 169-70.
[9] /Irish Statutes/, vol. i., 239-74.
[10] /Lib. Munerum/, i., 38.
[11] Cox, /Hib. Anglicana/, 308-9.
[12] Bridgett, /Blunders and Forgeries/, 217-21.
[13] /Calendar of Documents, Ireland/, i., 140.
[14] /Calendar of Documents, Ireland/, i., 151-52.
[15] /Calendar of Carew Papers/, i., 279-80.
[16] Shirley, op. cit., 90-1.
[17] Bagwell, /Ireland under the Tudors/, ii., 354.
[18] Bridgett, /Blunders and Forgeries/, 229-36.
[19] Shirley, op. cit., 91.
[20] Cox, /Hib. Angl./, 313.
[21] The return is printed in /Tracts Relating to Ireland/, ii.,
134-38.
[22] /State Papers/, iii., 306-7.
[23] Id., 305.
[24] Litton Falkiner, /Essays Relating to Ireland/, 236.
[25] Kelly, /Dissertations on Irish Church History/, 363.
[26] /Lib. Mun./, ii., pt. 6, 10.
[27] Brady, /Irish Reformation/, 32, 33.
[28] /Irish Statutes/, i., 275-320.
[29] Cf. Lynch-Kelly, /Cambrensis Eversus/, ii., 19-23. Rothe,
/Analecta/ (ed. Moran, 1884), 235-7.
[30] /Calendar of Patent Rolls/, i., 303-4.
[31] Shirley, op. cit., 140, 234, 265.
[32] Brady, /The Irish Reformation/, 169-73.
[33] /Fiants of Elizabeth/, no. 199.
[34] Mason, /History of St. Patrick's/, 162.
[35] Moran's, /Spicil. Ossor./, i., 83.
[36] Shirley, op. cit., 220.
[37] /Fiants of Elizabeth/, no. 666.
[38] Shirley, op. cit., 101.
[39] Id., 207.
[40] Cf. Letter of J. A. Froude in Brady's /Irish Reformation/,
173-80.
[41] /Fiants of Elizabeth/, nos. 198, 221, 223, 363.
[42] Shirley, op. cit., 94.
[43] Id., 125.
[44] Shirley, op. cit., 162.
[45] Id., 201, 226.
[46] Id., 249-250.
[47] Cf. Shirley, op. cit., 98-9, 120, 184, 214, 239, 242, 272, 278,
295.
[48] Shirley, op. cit., 130, 135, 180, 189, 271, 313 sqq.
[49] Ware's /Works/, vol. i., p. 391.
[50] Shirley, op. cit., 96, 104, 106, 122.
[51] Id., 271.
[52] Id., 95.
[53] /Calendar of State Papers/ (Ireland), i., 171.
[54] Shirley, op. cit., 117 sqq.
[55] Shirley, op. cit., 139.
[56] Id., 233 sqq.
[57] Shirley, op. cit., 160-3, 135-6, 220, 279, 95.
[58] Shirley, op. cit., 195-96.
[59] Cf. Hogan /Hibernia Ignatiana/, 10-24. Moran, /Archbishops of
Dublin/, 77-83. /Cal. State Papers/ (Ireland), i., 255, 472, 524.
[60] /Spicil. Ossor./, i., 32-8.
[61] Cf. Theiner, /Acta genuina S. Concil. Trid./, 4 vols., 1875.
Bellesheim, op. cit., ii., 142-44.
[62] Renehan, /Archbishops/, 435 sqq. Moran, /Archbishops of Dublin/,
441 sqq.
[63] /Cal. of Carew Papers/, i., 297, 301 sqq.
[64] Id., 292, 297, 310 sqq. /Cal. of State Papers/ (Ireland), 188.
[65] /Cal. of State Papers/, i., 179.
[66] Id., 233.
[67] Renehan-MacCarthy, op. cit., i., 241 sqq.
[68] /Spicil. Ossor./, i., 59-62.
[69] /Calendar of Carew Papers/, i., 397-400.
[70] Gillow, /Bib. Dict. Eng. Catholics/, v., 476.
[71] /Spicil. Ossor./, i., 94.
[72] /Hooker's Diary/ (printed in Litton Falkiner's /Essays Relating
to Ireland/, 237 sqq.).
[73] Id., 235-6.
[74] Cf. /Irish Statutes/, i., 312 sqq. /Calendar of Carew Papers/,
ii., 334 sqq.
[75] Cf. /Calendar of Carew Papers/, i., 347. Shirley, op. cit.,
206-7. Brady, /Ep. Succession/, ii., 43. Ware's /Works/, i., 511.
[76] Cf. /Spicil. Ossor./, i., 38, sqq. Shirley, op. cit., 164, 171,
176, 287, 306, 324. /The Analects of David Rothe/ (ed. Moran),
1884, xlvi.
[77] O'Sullevan, /Compendium Hist. Cath. Iber./ (ed. by Kelly), 1850,
108-111.
[78] Renehan's /Archbishops/, 241 sqq. Brady, op. cit., ii., 5 sqq.
/Spicil. Ossor./, i., 83.
[79] Cf. Brady, op. cit., Rothe's /Analecta/ (ut supra), 381 sqq.
/Spicil. Ossor./, i., 82 sqq.; iii., 35 sqq. /Ir. Ecc. Record/,
i., ii.
[80] Cf. Rothe's /Analecta/ (Introduction), xiii. sqq.
[81] Brady, op. cit., 221-3.
[82] /Annals F. M./, ann. 1601.
[83] /Cal. Carew Papers/, ii., 137.
[84] Id., iii., 494.
[85] Cf. /I. E. Record/, (1884). Bagwell, op. cit., iii., 462-69.
/Archiv. Hib./, i., 277-311.
[86] O'Doherty, /Students of the Irish College, Salamanca, 1595-1700/,
(/Archiv. Hib./, ii., iii.).
[87] On the Irish Colleges on the Continent, cf. Boyle, /The Irish
College in Paris (1578-1901)/. Murphy, /College of the Irish
Franciscans, at Louvain/, (/Journal R.S.A., I./, 1898). Proost,
/Les réfugiés anglais et irlandais en Belgique/, etc. (/Messager
des Sciences historiques/, 1865), Daumet, /Notices sur les
établissements religieux anglais, écossais et Irlandais/, etc.,
1912. /Irish Eccl. Record/, vii., viii., ix., x. Hogan, /Irish
Worthies of the Sixteenth Century/, 1886. /Catholic Encyclopedia/
(art. Irish College, Rome--Mgr. O'Riordan).
[88] /State Papers/ (Ireland), iii., 30.
[89] Shirley, op. cit., 13, 31.
[90] Green, /The Making of Ireland and its Undoing/, 401-439.
[91] Stubbs, /The History of the University of Dublin/, 1889. Heron,
/The Constitutional History of the University of Dublin/, 1847.
/Trinity College Calendar/, 1833.
[92] /Cal. State Papers/ (Ireland), ii., 588.
[93] /Cal. Carew Papers/, iii., 58, 316, 356, 469.
[94] /Cal. State Papers/, ii., 92-93.
[95] /Carew Papers/, ii., 144.
[96] /Cal. State Papers/, ii., 229, 235, 245.
[97] /Carew Papers/, iii., 457-8.
[98] /Carew Papers/, iii., 213.
[99] Id., 387-8.
[100] Cf. Shirley, op. cit., 95, 271. Ware, /Works/, i. (under the
dioceses mentioned). Bagwell, op. cit., iii., 459 sqq. Moran,
/Archbishops of Dublin/, 163 sqq.
[101] Cf. Spenser, op. cit. (ed. Morley, 1890), 123-28, 202 sqq. /Cal.
State Papers/ (Ireland), iii., 424, 427, 428. Bagwell, op. cit.,
iii., 459 sqq.
[102] /Cal. Carew Papers/, iii., 105, 133, 151-3.
[103] O'Sullevan, op. cit., 140 sqq.
[104] Cf. Hagan, /Some Papers Relating to the Nine Years' War/ (/Arch.
Hib./, ii., 274 sqq.).