Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum (Vol.1-3). Bagwell Richard

little effect.

Charles reached England in October, and early in 1624 a proclamation was printed and published, apparently by the King’s orders, banishing on pain of imprisonment all Roman Catholic priests of every kind and rank. They were to be gone within forty days, and to be arrested if they came back. The only way of escape was by submitting to the authorities and going to church. The reason set forth for this drastic treatment was that the country was overrun by great numbers of ‘titulary popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, abbots, priors, deans, Jesuits, friars, seminary priests, and others of that sect,’ in spite of proclamations still in force against them. But the King, or Buckingham, wavered, and not much was done towards getting rid of the recusant clergy. An informer who started the absurd rumour that Westmeath was to be king of Ireland, acknowledged that he had lied; but Falkland was not satisfied, because on Friday in Easter week there was a great gathering some miles from the Earl’s house, ‘made by two titulary bishops under the title of visiting a holy anchorite residing therabouts.’ In the end, Westmeath went to England, where he was able to clear himself completely, the prosecution of his detractors was ordered, and Falkland was persuaded that his chief fault was too great a love of popularity.[155]

      Alarmist rumours.

The tendency of the official mind in the days before the Long Parliament was to stretch the prerogative. Ministers were responsible only to the King. It was therefore natural for Irish viceroys to magnify their office and to claim within their sphere of action powers as great as those of the sovereign himself. Being of a querulous disposition, Falkland was even more than usually jealous of any restraint. During the early part of his government the Lord Treasurer Middlesex turned his attention to Irish finance, effecting economies which may or may not have been wise, but which were certainly distasteful to the Lord Deputy, who lost perquisites and patronage. Rumours that there was to be a general massacre of English were rife throughout Ireland, but Falkland admitted that there was never such universal tranquillity, though his pessimism led him to fear that this was only the lull before a storm. Not more than 750 effective men would be available in case of insurrection which might be encouraged from Spain after the marriage treaty was broken off. The English Government thought the danger real enough to order the execution of the late proclamation against Jesuits and others who ‘picked the purses of his Majesty’s subjects by indulgences, absolutions, and pardons from Rome.’ The number of horsemen was to be increased from 230 to 400, and of foot from 1,450 to 3,600; arrangements were made as to supplies, and the forts were to be put in better order. The scare continued until the end of the reign, but Olivares, though perhaps very willing to wound, had not the means for an attack on Ireland.[156]

      Falkland’s grievances.

The Lord Deputy complained that his letters were not answered, but the home Government were occupied with the English Parliament, which was prorogued May 29, 1624; and it was also thought desirable to hear what Sir Francis Annesley had to say. Falkland did not get on either with him or with Lord Chancellor Loftus, who were also Strafford’s chief opponents. He granted certain licences for tanning and for selling spirits, which required the Great Seal to make them valid, but Loftus hesitated to affix it, saying that one was void in law and the other in equity. If the judges decided against him he would submit. Falkland’s contention was that the Chancellor must seal anything he wished, but Loftus said his oath would in that case be broken and his office made superfluous. An angry correspondence ended by a reference to the King, and Loftus was called upon to explain. He was able to show that he also had suffered by Middlesex’s economies, and that his official income was much smaller than that of his archiepiscopal predecessor’s had been. A considerable increase was granted. And so the matter rested when James I. died.[157]

      Death of James I.

      Henry IV. is reported to have said that his brother of England was the wisest fool in Christendom. Macaulay thought him like the Emperor Claudius. Gardiner tried to be fair, but admitted that the popular estimate of James is based upon the ‘Fortunes of Nigel’; and therefore it is not likely to be soon altered. He has been more praised for his Irish policy than for anything else, and perhaps with truth; for there is such a thing as political long sight, clear for objects at a distance and clouded for those which are near at hand. The settlement has preserved one province to the English connection, and has thus done much to secure the rest; but it may be doubted whether the unfairness of it was not the chief cause of the outbreak in 1641, and so to a great degree of the bitterness which has permeated Irish life ever since.

      FOOTNOTES:

       Table of Contents

      [137] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616, in Court and Times; Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 1, 1616 (Spedding, v. 375). Installation of St. John in Liber Munerum, ii. 6. St. John to Winwood, August 1616 (No. 289); Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe (Camden Society) December.

[138] Bacon to Sir George Villiers, July 5, 1616, in Spedding, v. 378; Davies to Lake, December 20, 1615; St. John to Winwood, December 31, 1616, and October 11, 1617; Licence to send agents, May 18, 1618; return of the Commissioners, 1618, No. 431; surrender of charter announced, August 4, 1619. Histories of Waterford by Smith and Ryland. Bacon had recommended procedure by Quo warranto or Scire facias, and St. John, doubtless prompted by Chief Justice Jones, says the same in his letter to the Privy Council, April 1618, No. 406.

[139] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, August 4, 1619; St. John to the same, November 9; Corporation of Bristol to the same, January 31, 1620. There were no mayors or sheriffs of Waterford from 1618 to 1625, both inclusive.

[140] Chichester to Salisbury, June 27, 1610. Report of Commissioners, November 12, 1613, p. 449. The latter is more fully given in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, ii. 372. In Chichester’s project (Irish Cal., 1614, No. 859) the escheated territory is described as ‘the Kinsellaghs, and Bracknagh, and McDamore’s country, McVadock’s country, the Murrowes, Kilhobuck, Farrenhamon and Kilcooleneleyer, and a small part of Farren Neale,’ to which Rothe adds ‘Clanhanrick.’ In 1606 the judges had declared that ‘Les terres de nature de gavelkind ne fueront partible enter les procheins heires males del cesty que morust seisie, mais enter touts les males de son sept.’ Davies’s Reports, 1628.

[141] Report of Commissioners in 1613, ut sup.

[142] Report of Commissioners in 1613, ut sup. Sir Henry Docwra’s letters of December 23, 1617, and March 3, 1618. Chichester’s original project and the English Council’s criticisms are calendared under 1612, Nos. 600–602.

[143] Report of 1613 Commissioners ut sup.

[144] Walsh’s petition followed by certificate, December 5, 1611; the King to Chichester, January 21 and March 22 and 31, 1612; Chichester to Salisbury, March 5. As to the intruding patentees see State Papers calendared under 1613, p. 452 sqq. A petition of Redmond MacDamore and others calendared under 1616, No. 248, is substantially the same as Walsh’s, and probably belongs to 1611. The sheriff gave possession to the patentees on May 7, 1613, forcing the doors where necessary and turning out the inmates.