Preface

Preface.

In the Preface of the first volume of this Calendar, so much space was devoted to the sources from which the State Papers relating to Ireland under James I. are derived, that we have found it necessary to reserve for this place the consideration of the contents of the State Papers themselves, and of their historical import and value. We propose, therefore, to devote the space now available to a review, not alone of the papers calendared in the present volume, but of the entire series of State Papers from the beginning of the reign of James I.

It might seem that that monarch, at his accession to the crown, entered upon the government of Ireland with a sovereign authority entirely complete and unreserved. In the fall of Tyrone the last effort of rebellion had been crushed out. The title, Pacata Hibernia, which Stafford affixed to his history of the last war in Ireland under Elizabeth, was in this sense no exaggeration; and, as if to render James's title and possession the more absolute and unquestioned, Tyrone's consent to the surrender of his independent territorial jurisdiction, the final act of submission to the crown, although it was actually given during the first days of James's reign, was given by Tyrone in ignorance of the death of Elizabeth, and addressed to her and not to the monarch actually reigning; and it was in all respects, except the formal and public submission, an accomplished fact before the proclamation of the accession of the new sovereign in Ireland. By the public act of submission, made in virtue of this engagement, in presence of the Lord Deputy and Council at Dublin on the 8th of April, the Earl vowed himself a "loyal subject of the King's person, crown, prerogative, and laws;" utterly renounced and abjured the name and title of O'Neale;" and promised to be "conformable and assistant to the King's magistrates for the advancement of his service, and the peaceable government of the kingdom." (fn. 1)

Nevertheless, the jurisdiction in Ireland which devolved upon the new sovereign, was very far from presenting, whether as to the limits of territory, or as to the manner of its exercise, the conditions under which the royal authority has come to be recognised in later times; and very many of the papers calendared in these volumes would be in a great degree unintelligible if read in the light of modern notions. It will be necessary, therefore, to enter, as briefly as the nature of the subject will permit, into an explanation of the condition of Ireland at the close of the reign of Elizabeth.

Territorial Division.

So far as regards mere geographical boundaries, the territorial division of the kingdom had almost reached the form which it retains to the present day. The division into counties, which had been commenced by King John, and had remained in the provinces of Leinster and Munster undeveloped for more than 300 years, had been pursued at intervals under Henry VIII. and his immediate successors. Of the twelve original shires erected by John, viz., Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Uriel or Louth, Carlow, Wexford, and Kilkenny in Leinster, and Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, and Tipperary in Munster;—Meath had been divided in the 34th of Henry VIII. into two counties, East Meath and West Meath, with distinct sheriffs, coroners, and other officers. In the same year a proposal had been made to separate the O'Byrnes' Country, which had heretofore been included in the county of Dublin, and to constitute it as a distinct shire under the name of Wicklow, but no actual measure was taken for the purpose in this or either of the three succeeding reigns. In the third and fourth of Philip and Mary the territory of Leix, with the adjacent country on the south side of the Barrow, had been formed into a shire called the Queen's County, and Offaly with part of Glenmalira lying on the north side, into the King's County; and in the same Parliament power was given to the Lord Chancellor to authorise commissioners, who should be appointed by the chief governor for the time being, to pursue the work of division into counties;—a power which was renewed by the 11th Elizabeth, chap. 9. In 1565 the Lord Deputy, Sir Henry Sidney, completed the division of Leinster by erecting Annaly into a county under the name of Longford ; and the same Lord Deputy divided Connaught into the counties of Galway, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon, and Leitrim, together with Clare, although the last-named was afterwards annexed to Munster on the petition of the Earl of Thomond in 1602. The last of the provinces reduced to shire-ground was Ulster. There is much uncertainty as to the time at which the counties of Down and Antrim were established. Of the former, although its ancient boundaries seem unknown, some mention occurs before the 20th of Edward II. The barony of Ardes formed a separate jurisdiction with its own sheriffs; and the barony of Lecale was from the earliest time reputed as forming an outlying portion of the so-called "English Pale," its communication with the central Pale, from which it was separated by the Irish country of the M'Cartans, M'Gennises, and M'Gilmores, being chiefly maintained by sea. It is certain, however, that the final constitution of Down and Antrim as counties, and the consolidation of the ancient jurisdiction of each, had taken place previous to the general division of Ulster into shires in 1584. In that year the Lord Deputy, Sir John Perrot, reduced the Irish territory of Ulster into seven counties, viz., Armagh, Monaghan, Tyrone, Coleraine (afterwards called Londonderry), Donegal, Fermanagh, and Cavan.

Government and Administration of the Law.

With the exception, therefore, of Wicklow, which down to the death of Queen Elizabeth still remained included in the county of Dublin, the geographical division of shires may be said to have been completed throughout the four provinces at the accession of James I. But throughout a wide range of the kingdom, this division, so far as regarded local administration and the direct and immediate exercise of the royal jurisdiction, was little more than nominal. Four several times had the submission of the chief tribes of the Irish been formally made to the English crown since the Invasion;—first to Henry II., secondly to John, thirdly to Richard II., and lastly to Sir Anthony St. Leger in the 33rd year of Henry VIII. But notwithstanding these and the equally explicit submission of Tyrone which ushers in the Irish administration of James I., the practical authority of the English crown in great part of Ireland, might, at the accession of that monarch, be measured by the actual power possessed, in each instance, by the King or his officers, to enforce it by the sword.

In order to understand the nature of the relations of the central government, as well to the Pale as to the Irish territory, which, although nominally divided into shires, was still practically "unreformed," it will be necessary to review very briefly the various efforts towards the extension of the royal jurisdiction in Ireland which had been made by the predecessors of James I.

At the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII., what is called the English Pale comprised the four shires, Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Louth, in which alone judges, justices, and sheriffs carried on the regular administration of the law. The boundary line, starting from Dundalk on the eastern coast, extended towards the south and west to Ardee, thence by Kells, Castletown-Delvin, Athboy and Trim, to Maynooth; thence, still southward, by Clane and the bank of the Liffey, to Ballymore-Eustace; whence it returned, at the foot of the mountain range, to the sea, at Dalkey, about eight miles from Dublin. It is only within the narrow space enclosed by this line that the immediate exercise of the royal jurisdiction prevailed, that the royal writs were current, and the common law of England was in force. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, outside of this boundary line, with the exception of the cities and walled towns, whatever may have been the literal territorial denominations, all real, and especially all direct and immediate jurisdiction, was in the hands of a number of practically independent chiefs, native or of English descent, to whom the King's authority was formidable only when it was enforced by the sword, and who dispensed justice in their several territories; if they were English lords, according to the rules of their seigniories, and if Irish, according to the Brehon laws and usages of their septs.

The cities and walled towns were still considered fortresses of English power. The Burgher forces were those most feared by the Irish. (fn. 2) Yet in many towns English law was not administered under the King's writ. In 1468 it was enacted that proclamation should be made in Parliament for certain defendants possessed of lands, some in the county and some within the city of Kilkenny, claimed by one J. Fowling, to appear and surrender to the Marshal of the King's Bench at Michaelmas term, considering how "none of the said persons would answer at the Common Law;" and the Chief Justice was empowered to try the cause as if the plaintiff had commenced an action. (fn. 3) In 1472 Nicholas Athy was empowered by Parliament to have his claim to a remainder under a marriage settlement of messuages in Galway heard in the Common Pleas (as if commenced by writ), "forasmuch as the King's law is not used in the town of Galway, nor is there any fine to have remedy by the Common Law." (fn. 4) And on the petition of Germyn Lynch, who was sued in Galway "according to the Imperial law called the Civil law," and judgment given against him by the Sovereign of Galway, the Sovereign was required to appear in the King's Bench at Dublin with the record and all the proofs, and the court was empowered by special statute to hear and decide the appeal. (fn. 5) And, in like manner, the corporation of Limerick were empowered to hold sessions of jail delivery, inasmuch as no commissioners of the King cometh to do execution of the law." (fn. 6)

King's Subjects, English Rebels, and Irish Enemies.

An exceedingly interesting and valuable paper printed in the State Papers of Henry VIII. (fn. 7) contains a detailed account of the chieftains of either race with their respective territories, as they stood in the early part of that reign. It purports to show the state of "all the noble folke of Irelande, as well of the Kinge's subjectes and Englyshe rebelles as of Iryshe enemyes;" and a brief summary of it will contribute much to the understanding of the numberless references to them, their countries, and their septs and families, which occur in the correspondence of James I.'s reign.

This curious and interesting document divides the noble folke of the Kinge's lande of Irelande" into three distinctly marked classes, the "Kinge's subjectes," the "Englyshe rebelles," and the "Iryshe enymyes."

"The King's subjects" were not merely those dwelling in the Pale, but inhabitants of districts, such as the counties of Kilkenny, Tipperary, and others, governed by Lords of Liberties under powers originally derived from the Crown, though the King's name was little heard of, and there was no sheriff or justices. These were still considered as under the King, and were lands within the King's Peace, answering hostings against the Irish. The Marches or March lands were those parts of English territory where the Irish had regained their footing and dwelt intermixed with the descendants of the early English settlers, in such strength and numbers that the name of English law was unknown. The English here used March law, a mixture of English and Brehon law. (fn. 8) The western and southern parts of Dublin, since formed into the county of Wicklow, were called the Marches of the county of Dublin, which included Harold's Country. Sheriffs and collectors were exonerated from going into this country, a suburb of Dublin, by 10 Edward IV. c. 12. The western half of Louth, since become part of Monaghan, and the western half of Meath, since made West Meath, were likewise March countries.

Opposed to the "King's subjects" were the "English rebels" and the "Irish enemies."

The "English rebels" were English, like the Bourkes of Galway and Mayo, who for ages had obeyed no hostings or other commands of the King. The "Irish enemies" were all Irish who had not received charters of English liberty or letters of denization. The Irish were denied English law, and used Brehon law. The King's lieges were under the King's laws, either immediately, as subject to the authorities directly appointed by the Crown, or mediately, as obeying English Barons or Earls Palatine, like the Earls of Desmond or Ormond, or the Lords Barry, Roche, or Courcy. For at all times, even when the King's regular administration of the law was confined to the four counties adjacent to Dublin, the English Barons held their courts baron and courts leet, and the Palatines, their courts of high jurisdiction. In 1411 the Earl of Desmond levied the profits of his assizes held before William Fitzgerald, his seneschal, at Tralec, as regularly as did the King in his courts at Dublin. (fn. 9) And the Venetian ambassador in 1529, while he describes the Earl of Desmond as a "Prince," with "dominions," subjects," and "vassals," says "he keeps better justice throughout his dominions than any other chief in Ireland. Robbers and homicides find no mercy, and are executed out of hand. His people are in high order and discipline." (fn. 10)

The "King's lieges" under his own immediate and regular jurisdiction were in Henry VIII.'s reign contained within the English Pale; for there only, for a long course of time, did the King's judges and sheriffs administer the English law.

The origin of the English Pale, and even the name itself, is of a date long subsequent to the Conquest. Up to the end of Henry III.'s reign, English law seems to have been administered regularly to the King's English subjects throughout the greater part of Ireland. The justices in eyre, or justices itinerant, sat in his day in Gildhallâ de Cork" to deliver the jail and try recognitions" or assizes of land, for which ejectments became the substitute.

There was no "English Pale" heard of or thought of then. But insurrections of English, as well as Irish and civil wars, at length stopped the journeys of the judges over the bridge of the Barrow; and jail deliveries and assizes by the King's judges were restricted to the four counties of Dublin, Kildare, Louth, and Meath.

This district was therefore called by the name of "the Four Obedient Counties," and also "the English Pale." These names, though constantly used in State Papers, never have appeared in any legal document; and in State Papers the terms, it would seem, are not of a very ancient date.

The three classes being thus generally described, the return proceeds to name in detail the several families belonging to each.

Of the first class, the King's subjects, scarcely any detailed notice is taken. Of the other two the chiefs of Irish race formed the large majority, those enumerated in the document being in the proportion of 58 to 31 of English race.

The Irish chiefs are described as holding about 60 "countryes, called regyons, some as bygge as a shyre, and "some a lytyll less;" calling themselves by various titles, "lyving onely by the swerde;" "obeying to no other temporall person but only to himself that is strong;" and "making warre and peace for themselves." They were distributed in various proportions over the provinces, viz., nine in Ulster, 10 in Leinster, 21 in Munster (viz., nine in Desmond and 12 in Thomond), 15 in Connaught, and three in the western division of (then undivided) Meath.

The "Englyshe rebelles" are named to the number of 31; 16 in Munster, seven in Connaught, four in Ulster, and four in West Meath.

From this descriptive enumeration we learn that the district in which "the Kinge's lawes" were obeyed was narrowed at the period in question to half the county of Uryell (Louth) half Meath, half Dublin, half Kildare, and half Wexford, while the counties "Waterford, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick, and Kerry," "the countye of "Conaught, the countye of Wolster (Ulster)" (neither of these provinces having as yet been made shire-ground), "the countye of Charlagh" (Carlow) "and half the counties of Uryle, Meath, Dublyn, Kyldare, and Wexford" are stated not to "obey the Kinge's lawes" and to have "neyther justyce, neyther shyryffs, under the King.'

The broad outlines of the distribution of "Irish enemies" and "English rebels" over the four provinces are sufficiently familiar. The details regarding Ulster will more naturally find a place in the next volume. It is enough here to say that the suzerainty of that province, which had been assigned to John De Courcy, and, on his death without male issue, passed in succession to the De Lacies and the De Burgos, had been recovered by the great princes O'Neill and O'Donnell, and the minor chiefs, O'Cahan, O'Dogherty, Maguire, M'Mahon, and others, and was now entirely in their hands.

The other provinces presented a more varied aspect.

In Connaught, and in those western districts of Leinster which lay between the Shannon and the Pale, the Irish element was represented by a number of septs, of whom the O'Connors, O'Rourkes, O'Carrolls, O'Mores, O'Ferralls, O'Melaghlins, and O'Molloys were the principal. But in Connaught it was balanced, if not over-mastered, by the Anglo-Norman De Burghos, the two branches of which, M'William Eighter of Clanricard of the county of Galway and M'William Oughter of Mayo, still held possession of the seats in which they had been originally established.

Over the entire of Munster and the southern and southeastern districts of Leinster the great body of the common people were of Irish race; and, notwithstanding the wholesale territorial allotments to the first Anglo-Norman adventurers by whom the nominal conquest of Ireland had been effected, the native chiefs had retained or had recovered their ground against almost all;—the pre-eminent exceptions being the northern branch of the Geraldines of Kildare; the house of the Desmond Geraldines, who held sway in great part of Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; and the Butlers of Ormond. Side by side with the Geraldines of Desmond and all around them, were scattered, in Desmond the native chieftains M'Carthy, O'Sullivan, O'Donoghoe, O'Connor, and O'Driscoll, and in Thomond the O'Briens, O'Kennedys, O'Meaghers, and O'Loghlins. In a broad belt along the southern borders of the Pale counties, extending widely upon either side, lay the Kildare Geraldines; between whom and their southern kinsmen of Desmond were interposed their hereditary rivals, the Butlers of Ormond, with their multiplied alliances of blood and kindred. The Ormond Butlers, however, are omitted in this return in enumerating the "English rebels;"—the house of Ormond being preeminently the representative of the English interest in Ireland, and the head of the class designated in this State paper as "the Kinge's subjectes." Not so their kinsman Sir Piers Butler. He, with the allied branches of Butlers in the county of Kilkenny and Fethard, is ranked among the English great rebels of Leinster and Munster.

In the territory subject to the King's law, the common people for the most part were of Irish birth, of Irish habit, and of Irish language," while in the "unreformed" counties, even the English were of "Irish habit, Irish language, and Irish conditions, except the cities and walled towns." The English of these countries, it is alleged, would be right glad to obey the King's law, if the King would defend them from the Irish enemies;" but failing this defence, they, too, are driven "to live by the sword, after the manner of the Irish enemies."

And it is to the impossibility of the State's affording this protection to the loyal subjects who desired to obey the King's law, that we trace the origin of the well-known usage of "black mail," or black rent,—a yearly "trybute to the wylde Iryshe" as the price of immunity from molestation. From a curious table given by the writer of this paper, we learn not merely that such black mail was paid to the Irish chiefs by individual English subjects, but that it was a recognised item of State expenditure, paid by the King's officers and entered as a regular charge in the public account. The barony of Lecale in Down paid 40l. yearly, either to the captain of Claneboy or to O'Neill, "whether of them be the strongest." Oriel paid a similar amount to "the greate O'Neill;" Meath paid yearly 300l., and Kildare 20l. to O'Connor; Wexford paid 40l. to M'Murrough; Kilkenny and Tipperary 40l. to O'Carroll; Limerick the same sum to the great O'Brien, and an equal amount to O'Brien of Arra; and Cork paid a similar tribute to Cormac M'Teyge. There is even a formal entry in the name of "the Kinge's Excheker" of a payment of 80 marks to M'Murrough; and the total yearly amount of tribute thus paid from various public sources was 740l.

However wide, therefore, was the grasp of the King's law in Ireland, and however comprehensive the range within which it claimed obedience, the reality of its binding force was confined within the narrow limits described in this paper. It is true that Sir Edward Poynings had passed an Act declaring that every English statute was to be held as of force in Ireland; had directed that the summons to Parliament should go to all the shires of Ireland and not to the four shires only; and had actually declared null and void for this sole cause the Acts of a Parliament recently held by the Viscount Gormanston. But these and several similar enactments of Poynings remained a dead letter, except within the immediate jurisdiction of the Lord Deputy. A statute of the 13th Henry VIII. ch. 3. expressly recites that at that time the King's laws were obeyed and executed in the four shires only. (fn. 11) Sir John Davys quotes from the Council Book of Ireland of the 16th Henry VIII. the instructions to John Allen, Master of the Rolls, to the same effect. He recites an Irish proverb, that they "dwell by west the law which dwell beyond the river Barrow," (fn. 12) which is within 30 miles of Dublin; and the same is attested by Baron Finglas in his Discourse on the Decay of Ireland. (fn. 13)

The direct jurisdiction of the Crown in Ireland, moreover, had from the earliest times been much embarrassed by the independent palatine jurisdiction of the great English lords who had received grants of territory at the Invasion, or subsequently. There were at one time no fewer than eight counties palatine in Ireland, five in Leinster, one in Meath, one in Ulster, and one in Kerry and Desmond. All these dated as far back as the reign of John. The liberty of Tipperary which was enjoyed by the Earls of Ormond, was granted to the Butlers in the third year of Edward III. These great lords, in virtue of their palatine authority, claimed to create barons and knights, held courts in criminal, civil, and fiscal causes, and appointed their own sheriffs, coroners, judges, and other officers; so that throughout more than two-thirds of the strictly English country, the King's writs did not run, and the jurisdiction of the Crown was practically unrecognised.

To complicate still further the confusion of authority which resulted, we find that in each of these several counties palatine there were certain districts called Croceæ, or "cross-lands," being church or monastery lands which were exempt from the lord palatine's rule, and in which a double jurisdiction, each independent of him, prevailed— one of the bishop or abbot, the other of the Crown; so that in the cross lands were commonly found co-existent two sets of officers, sheriffs, coroners, &c., one appointed by the church and the other by the Crown. Such were the "cross" of Tipperary, of Kilkenny, of Ulster, of Ferns, of Navan, of Carlow, of Wexford, of Kerry, of Meath, and several others. (fn. 14)

Practically, however, most of these separate jurisdictions had been resumed by the Crown or had come into disuse. The only "Liberty" distinctly recognised at the accession of James I. was that of Tipperary, which was enjoyed by the Earls of Ormond. That powerful family still held palatine jurisdiction in Tipperary, and appointed their own officers; except in the "Cross," in which the sheriff and coroners were still named by the Crown.

The Courts of Presidency.

The proposal for the establishment of one or more local governments in the provinces appears to have been seriously entertained in the last years of Henry VIII.; but it is in the beginning of Edward VI.'s reign that it took the definite shape of a Presidentship. A letter of Matthew King to Sir George Wyse, September 5, 1548, among the Irish State Papers, mentions a report that Sir Francis Bryan was actually to be appointed President of Munster. (fn. 15) On the 15th of the following January Walter Cowley (fn. 16) proposes to the Lord Deputy Bellingham that Presidents should be appointed in all three provinces, Munster, Connaught, and Ulster; and although nothing was then done, the recommendation is repeated in almost every State paper on Ireland drawn up during this and the following reigns. Thomas Walsh, in a report on the state of Ireland, December 30, 1552, (fn. 17) urges the appointment of a president and council for Munster. Sir Thomas Cusake, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in his Book sent to the Duke of Northumberland on the state of Ireland," May 8, 1553, "points out the advantages of establishing presidents in Munster, Connaught, and Ulster as a means, by God's grace, of making all Ireland without great force be obedient." (fn. 18) But the proposal seemed for the time impracticable, and during the reign of Mary the only indication of a serious intention regarding it is found in one of the instructions to St. Leger in October 1553, to "think of a council for Munster." (fn. 19)

Very early, however, in Elizabeth's reign the proposal was resumed. In Sussex's project, "as well for the ordering of Ulster as the government of the whole realm, after Shane O'Neile shall be expulsed," (fn. 20) it holds a prominent place. "To levy the Queen's rights and to see all orders kept, it will be needful," he says, to build a strong tower at Armawghe, and to continue there a martial president of England birth, a justice and council, with 100 English horsemen, 300 English footmen, 200 gallowglasse, and 200 kerne on continual pay, that the President may be always the strongest man in Ulster. He must also have the ordering of all the other forces in Ulster, which belong by prerogative to the Crown, by inheritance to the Earldom of Ulster, or by usurpation to O'Nele." In a paper of Sir Henry Sidney, written September 15, 1565, the scheme of a president and council for Munster is referred to, and in the following year, February 1, 1565–6, we find a draft of instructions for the government, together with an estimate of the charges of the President and Council. (fn. 21)

The title recites the limits of the territory included within the jurisdiction of the Presidency Court, viz., the counties of Waterford, Tipperary, Limerick, Kerry, and Cork, and in the countries of Thomond, Desmond, and Ormond.

The following is a summary of this important paper, which has never been printed:—

"The Lord Deputy and Council, lamenting the misery suffered by the inhabitants of the countries above-written through the insolent acts and outrageous oppressions daily committed by the disordered men of force of those parts, and considering that the same can by no means so speedily be done by any other means, as by planting good justices with authority and force continually to reside in the said countries; and knowing the approved wisdom and experience of John Pollard, Sir Warham Sentleger, Knt., have appointed him to be Lord President of a Council to be placed in the parts above-written, with authority to call together such Council at all times when he shall think convenient, to do such things for the advancement of justice and repression and punishment of offenders and malefactors, as by the advice of such of the Council as shall be present with him he shall think meet.

"And the Lord Deputy and Council have elected the following persons to be her Grace's councillors joined in the said Council with the said Lord President in the province, counties, and countries above rehearsed, videlt., the most reverend Father in God [ (fn. 22) ], Archbishop of Cashel, the Right Hon. the Earl of Ormond and of Ossory, Lord Treasurer of Ireland, the Right Hon. Garrett Earl of Desmonde, the Right Hon. Connor Earl of Tomond, Donald Earl of Glancarre, the Right Reverend Fathers the Bishops of Waterford, Cork, and Limerick, and Robert Cusack and Nicholas White, Esquires;—Owen Moore, Gent., to execute the office of Clerk of the Signet and Council.

"The Lord Deputy and Council ordain that Robert Cusack, Nicholas White, and Owen Moore shall give their continual attendance at the Council, and shall not depart at any time without the special license of the Lord President, likewise A.B., who shall be the Clerk of the Council and the Signet, shall make the like attendance upon the Lord President.

"Moreover, with Her Majesty's assent, they have appointed that the Lord President shall have, in consideration for wages and entertainment, 13s. 4d. by the day for himself, and the choice, leading, and entertainment for 30 horsemen at 9d. per diem, 20 footmen at 8d. per diem, and 2s. per diem for a petty captain, 12d. per diem for a trumpeter, and 12d. per diem for a standard bearer, 12d. per diem for a surgeon, all to be taken out of the Queen's Majesty's ordinary garrison now resident in Ireland.

"Robert Cusack and Nicholas White and either of them, shall have yearly for their stipends 100l. the piece, and Owen Moore 20l., to be paid quarterly by the treasure-at-war or vice-treasurer of Ireland.

"Item, for the further reputation and honour of the office, the Lord President shall appoint some one discreet and comely personage who shall continually attend upon him as serjeant-atarms, and shall bear before him the mace of the Queen's Majesty's arms, in such manner as the serjeant-at-arms doth bear the mace before, or attend upon the Lord Chancellor in England and the Lord President in Wales; which serjeant may at all times be sent by the said Lord President and Council for the apprehending and and bringing in of any disobedient or contemptuous person, with suitable fees and allowances.

"The Lord President shall not, without the special license of the Lord Deputy and Council for the time being, remain out of the counties and countries abovesaid at any one time above the space of four days.

"The said Lord President and Council shall monthly advertise the Lord Deputy and Council here of the state of the country within their commission, or oftener if they shall see cause.

"The Lord Deputy and Council have thought good that the Lord President and Council aforesaid, or two of them at the least, whereof the Lord President to be one, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine by their discretions, all manner of complaints and petitions, as well within the supposed liberties of the counties of Tipperary and Kerry as within the liberties of any city or town corporate within the limits first above written, concerning as well the title of lands, as all personal real and mixed actions, causes, and matters, civil or criminal, exhibited unto them by any poor persons not able to sue or defend after the course of the common laws, or by any like to be oppressed by the power or affinity of the parties adversary; and to examine, hear, and determine the same actions, causes, and matters; as well by depositions and examinations of witnesses, as by all other kind of proofs and other good means by their discretions; and they shall take into their audience, rule, and determination by their discretions, all causes of suits and other variances and debates of what kind soever they be, depending or growing, in any of the counties and countries aforesaid, in case they shall consider that by occasion thereof the Queen's Majesty's peace may be disturbed, or that justice be omitted and not duly executed.

"The said Lord President and Council, together with such other commissioners as the Lord Deputy and Council shall appoint, shall, by letters patent under the great seal of this realm of Ireland, have commission, power, and authority, of oyer and determiner and gaol delivery, in as large and ample manner as any such commission or authority is granted to any commissioners for that purpose within the realms of England or Ireland; and to execute the martial law and to prosecute and repress any rebel or rebels with fire and sword. And if any castle, pile, or house be kept with force against them, to bring before it any of the Queen's ordnance and great artillery, and with the same to batter, mine, and overthrow the same, charging all Her Majesty's subjects to aid and assist the said Lord President and Council, according as they shall be by them commanded.

"And if any complain to the said Lord President and Council, and if they shall think their complaints worthy the hearing, the person so complained upon shall be sent for by a letter missive under the Queen's signet to appear at a day and place appointed; and for lack of appearance they shall send forth letters of allegiance, proclamations, or any other processes, to be directed by their discretions, to the sheriff, constable, or other minister, and in case of obstinacy to sequester his lands or goods. And further, if any person dwelling or having lands within the limits of the commission shall go out of the limits of the said commission, their letters missive signed under the Queen's signet shall be delivered at his house or lands, and the copies of the same shall be left there; and in default of appearance within a time to be limited, the Lord President and Council shall proceed to the hearing and determining of the matter in variance, according to the law or otherwise, at their discretions.

"And they may punish contempts of their process by fine or imprisonment; and, in case of resistance, may send such persons to the Lord Deputy in ward, together with certificate of the contempt and disobedience, or commit them to ward until the pleasure of the Lord Deputy and Council be known, or until they submit to the decree and determination of the said Lord President and Council.

"And it shall be lawful for the said Lord President and Council to conceive and make proclamations in Her Highness's name tending to the better order of Her Grace's subjects within the precinct of their commission, and the repressing of malefactors and misdoers in such form as they shall think fit, and to punish the offenders there by their discretions, so the same be not repugnant to the common laws and statutes of the realm. Also to compound for fines, and to cause all letters missive of the Lord Deputy and all process of the Queen's courts to be duly served and obeyed."

Authority to examine by torture in cases of "vehement suspicion and presumption of any great offence against the Queen's Majesty," is given by an express clause.

"Also, it shall be lawful for the said Lord President and Council, after examination and, in cases necessary, upon vehement suspicion and presumption of any great offence in any party committed against the Queen's Majesty, to put the same party so suspected to tortures, as they shall think convenient and as the cause shall require; and also to respite judgment of death upon any person convicted or attainted before him and that Council for any treason, murder, or any other felony, or after judgment given, to stay execution until such time as he shall certify the Lord Deputy and Council of his doings and consideration of the same, and receive answer thereof from them ; provided always, that the same certificate be made to the Lord Deputy and Council within the space of 20 days after any such attainder.

"And to punish perjury by fine, imprisonment, wearing of papers, or standing on the pillory, as by their discretion shall seem meet."

The "Instructions" are very urgent on the subject of religion.

"Also, in any great assembly to be made before them, the Lord President and Council are to persuade the people, by all good means and ways, and especially by their own examples, to embrace and follow the order and service of the Church established in the realm by Parliament or otherwise, and earnestly to call upon and admonish all bishops and ordinaries within the precinct of their commission diligently to do the same. Also, to call upon the bishops severely to proceed, according to the censure of the Church, against all notorious adulterers, and such as, without lawful divorce, have two wives or leave their wives, or whilst their lawful wife liveth, marry with another, and to execute the sentence pronounced by the bishop or ordinary upon such offender.

"The Lord President and Council shall also examine the decay of all parish churches, and proceed to the enforcing of such as ought to repair them, and to the severe punishment of any that shall spoil, rob, or deface any church, according to the laws or their discretions. They shall also assist and defend all archbishops and bishops and all other ecclesiastical ministers in the ministry of their function, and in the quiet possessing of their lands, rents, services, and hereditaments.

"Also, the said Lord President shall have and retain one preacher, chaplain, or minister, that shall or can preach and read the homilies, who shall be allowed his diets in the household of the said Lord President, and shall be accounted of the number of his horsemen, and receive entertainment accordingly.

"Also, the said Lord President and Council shall and may assess and tax costs and damages, as well to the plaintiff as to the defendant, and shall award executions for their doings, decrees, and orders, and shall punish the breakers of the same being parties thereunto, by their discretions.

"Also, the said Lord President and Council shall, immediately upon their repair to some convenient place, where they mean to reside, within the limits of their commission, appoint three or four honest and sufficient men to be clerks or attorneys to that Council for the making of bills, answers, and processes for all manner of suitors, and some trusty persons to examine witnesses between party and party; and shall take order that no excessive fees be taken, but that their fees be assessed by the Lord President and Council, and the same fairly written upon a table and fixed in some public place where the same may be seen and understood of all suitors. And the clerk of the said Council for the time being shall diligently execute the charge of register of the orders, decrees, and proceedings of the court, without any further expenses to be sustained by Her Majesty's subjects for entries of Acts and orders than shall be specially directed unto him by the said Lord President.

"Also there shall be appointed at the nomination of the Lord President, a clerk and receiver of the fines, who shall keep a book of all such fines as shall be taxed upon any person;—the fine to be always entered by the hand of the Lord President: and the Lord President and two of the Council with him, shall have full power to send out process for any person upon whom any fine shall be so cessed, and to receive all such fines; and in every Michaelmas term shall make a true and perfect account thereof before the barons and other officers of the Queen's Majesty's Exchequer. Provided always, that the said Lord President and Council may employ the said fines upon their necessary and reasonable riding charges, reward of messengers, and for repairing the Queen's castles and houses, and in building or re-edifying of gaols in each county within the precincts of the commission, and also furnishing of necessary utensils, only for the household.

"Also there shall be a signet graven with the Queen Majesty's arms under a crown imperial, which always shall remain in the custody of the clerk of the signet, who shall sign with the same all processes which shall be sent from the said Lord President and Council.

"Also there shall be a continual household kept within the precinct and limits of the commission in such place as shall seem most convenient to the Lord President; all servants necessary for which household shall be at the nomination of the said Lord President; in which house each Councillor bound to continual attendance and attending shall be allowed to have three servants, and the clerk of that Council one, and every other Councillor, being either sent for or coming for any needful business for the Queen or country, shall be allowed during his abode there one servant; and for the more honourable maintenance of the said household there shall be allowed unto the said Lord President and Council after the rate of 14l. by the week, only to be employed upon the table; the charges of the said household to be received half-yearly, at the hands of the Vice-Treasurer and general receiver of the Queen's Majesty's revenues of this realm. And the said Lord President shall nominate a steward or clerk of the household, who shall weekly write and sum the charges thereof, and shall present to the said Lord President and Council to be considered weekly, and at the year's end. The same, totally summed and signed, being allowed by the said Lord President and two of the Council, and shall be delivered to the officers of the Queen's Majesty's Exchequer to remain record thereof.

"The Lord President shall minister unto every Councillor in that commission, being not already sworn of Her Highness's Council in Ireland, as well the oath provided in the statute for the swearing of officers, as also this hereafter mentioned. (The oath of a Privy Councillor, with the necessary changes.)

"Item, (fn. 23) considering the Queen hath title and right to no small quantity of possessions within Mounster, as well of the ancient revenues of this Crown and of other seignories devolved to the Crown, as also of the dissolved monasteries and other houses of religion, which are not duly answered to Her Majesty, the said Lord President and Council shall from time to time employ their labours to procure that Her Majesty's officers or firmars appointed for that purpose may peaceably and fully from time to time possess and recover the profits of the same."

But notwithstanding the minuteness of these preparations for the measure, the history of the first steps actually taken in the matter is very obscure. On the one hand we find, by a letter of Sir N. Bagnall to Leicester, February 1666, that Sir Warhame Sentleger had been appointed President of Munster, (fn. 24) and an allowance for him is referred to in Cecil's letter to Sidney, March 27. (fn. 25) On the other hand the measure for a considerable time continues to be spoken of as a project only. The truth appears to be that Sentleger's appointment was but an experiment. In the original draft of the Instructions for the Government of Munster, designed for the new President, it is left doubtful whether his name or that of Sir John Pollard was to be inserted. The Queen in a letter to Sidney, March 28, 1566, expresses objections to him, (fn. 26) and the same objections are strongly reasserted in a Remembrance for Sir Francis Knollys, dated April 18. The trial ended in his recall after a few months, on December 12, 1566. (fn. 27)

Meanwhile, however, the Lord Deputy and Council in a letter to the Privy Council, April 13, 1566, had renewed the recommendation of a president and council for Connaught; (fn. 28) and the advance of the scheme as a whole towards maturity, is indicated by a proposal to establish presidency courts also in Connaught and Ulster, contained in a "Memorial for Ireland" drawn up by Cecil himself, (fn. 29) dated April 24, 1568, and in a "Remembrance of Lord Deputy Sydney," addressed to the Queen on the 27th of the following June. (fn. 30) Already we meet anticipations as to the good effects to be expected from the office. Sir Peter Carew, November 2, 1568, writes to the Privy Council that "the plan for president will greatly advance good government," and that Fynnye O'Driscon [Florence O'Driscol] and others, whose ancestors never came to any Deputy, are come in of their own accord, on report of a President's coming into the West. (fn. 31) On the 16th of the same month we find Sir John Pollard named by Carew in his letter to Cecil as President of Munster, with Mr. Peryam as a member of the Council; (fn. 32) and on the 28th February 1569, Cecil writes to Sidney that he is ready to despatch Sir John Pollard and Mr. Peryam for Munster, and Sir Edward Fytton and Mr. Rokeby for Connaught. (fn. 33) Sir John Pollard's appointment for Munster was even less satisfactory than that of Sir Warhame Sentleger. The amount of his entertainment had been fixed, and on 10th March we find it proposed to assign the revenues of the parsonage of Dungarvan for the support of his charge: (fn. 34) but he was in bad health, and after several delays in setting out for his government, he was finally discharged of office April 12, 1570.

Sir Edward Fitton's career as President of Connaught was more adventurous, but left hardly more trace behind. More fortunate than Pollard, he was able to repair to his government; but after a few months, during which he was obliged to exchange the judicial functions which he had hitherto exercised for those of a military commander, and in which he was driven almost to distraction by the want of money and of supplies, he wrote to the Privy Council, October 29, 1571, "praying to be relieved of an office, the duties of which were merely to have to speak the Queen's enemies fair, to give his friends leave to bribe the rebels for their own safety, and to see the people spoiled before his face."

With Sir John Perrot, who succeeded Pollard, the real history of the Presidency of Munster begins. The particulars of Perrot's government, in which chivalrous romance is strangely alternated with ruthless cruelty, would be out of place here. In a peaceful time he might have been an able governor and an energetic administrator; but his career as President of Munster lay in the field and not in the council-room, and its history is the history of a war and not of an administration. The same is true of his successor, Sir William Drury, who may almost be said to have died in arms. On his death, under Sir Nicholas Malby, and still more under the Earl of Ormond, the chief command in Munster ceased for a time to bear even the name of a civil government; and although Sir John Norreys held his office under the name of President from 1584 to 1597, and though his brother, Captain Thomas Norreys, had the title of Vice-President during the absence of Sir John in the wars of the Low Countries, the state of affairs under both was in truth very little different from that under their predecessors. On Sir John Norreys' death, in 1597, it was thought expedient to put the government in commission;—the commissioners being his brother Sir Thomas; the Bishops of Cork and Limerick; Saxey and Gould, the first and second justices of the province; George Thornton, the Provost Marshal; George Barclay, and Hugh Cuffe; nor was the office of President re-established till the memorable appointment, January 27, 1600, of Sir George Carew, who continued in office till the accession of James I: Just before Elizabeth's death he had, with great difficulty, obtained permission to come to England.

But Carew's successes in Munster had done much to establish the authority of the Crown in that province. The office of president became more of a reality under him; and although on his withdrawal to England Sir Charles Wilmot and Sir George Thornton were appointed commissioners for the government of Munster, their commission was only temporary. Sir Henry Brouncker was appointed to succeed Sir G. Carew. In his hands the presidency became but too active an institution for the peace of the province; and the early papers of this Calendar are filled with complaints of his arbitrary and injudicious intermeddling in affairs of religion.

The forms of government in Connaught during the same period were even more unsettled than in Munster. Sir Edward Fitton was followed in succession by Sir Nicholas Malby and Sir Richard Bingham. The former is designated in more than one of the State papers of the time by the significant title of "the Colonel;" Bingham, by that of "Governor;" as is also Sir Conyers Clifford, who was sworn into office in January 1597, And during all these years it may truly be said that the duties of the governor were purely those of a general in an enemy's country.

Authority of the Lord Lieutenant or Deputy, and of the Presidents.

In order to understand the bearing of the State Papers which relate to the reign of James I., it is necessary to bear in mind these particulars regarding the condition of the several provinces. In the midst of a population thus diversified the royal authority was represented, in the general government by the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy, and in those of the provinces by the Lord Presidents and Provincial Councils.

The Lord Lieutenant or Deputy was, in virtue of his commission, Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief of the Army in Ireland. He was to govern according to the laws of the kingdom the King's English and Irish lieges; to make orders for the better government of Ireland with the assent of the Council, and issue proclamations thereupon; to punish, with like assent, those that should contravene them, or to receive them into the King's peace; and to pardon those suing for the King's pardon; to levy war against traitors and rebels, and to seize their lands and to lease them at reasonable rents to others, who would serve the King; and to pardon convicted criminals.

He had likewise by his commission the appointment to all the offices of the kingdom to hold during pleasure, excepting, however, the offices of Chancellor, Treasurer, Sub-Treasurer, the Justices of both Benches, the Chief Baron, Master of the Rolls, Treasurer at Wars, Master of the Ordnance, Presidents of Munster and Connaught, Attorney and Solicitor General, and a few others. He had all appointments in the Church, those of Archbishops and Bishops only excepted.

It was a matter of special favour granted only to the highest and most trusted, to have the power of appointing a Deputy to be the King's Deputy in his absence.

Besides these powers, he was also President of the Court of Castle Chamber or Star Chamber, as it was indifferently called.

The President of Munster was assisted, and in some degree controlled, by his Council, which was appointed by the Crown. The Establishment of the Presidency as finally settled, consisted, besides the President and Council, of a Chief and Second Justice, an Attorney-General, Clerk of the Council, and Keeper of the Signet, Provost Marshal, Serjeant-at-Arms, Examiner, Collector of the Fines and Forfeitures, gentlemen porters to attend the President, and Commissaries of the Victuals.

The Presidency Court and Council for Connaught were established at the same time as those for Munster, and were in all respects similar.

The Councils of these presidencies were named by the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy, while the Lord Lieutenant's Council was named by the King.

Their courts could hear and determine pleas of land, debts, and other civil causes in a summary way. It is clear, from the Instructions of 1565–6, that the civil bill (fn. 35) jurisdiction arose from these courts. After their abolition, in the reign of Charles II., the judges on their circuits continued the practice, which was found so beneficial, that the courts of civil bill, presided over by the assistant barristers, were erected to perpetuate this jurisdiction.

The presidents of Munster and Connaught seem to have been little interfered with by the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy in matters within their provincial jurisdiction. When Sir Henry Brouncker proceeded to put the penal laws in force with a severity that was deemed inexpedient, it was the King's Privy Council and not Sir Arthur Chichester that interfered. (fn. 36)

The records of the proceedings of both these presidencies have been lost, and the history of Ireland has suffered much from the loss; for we are thus deprived of the knowledge of the course of government in Munster and Connaught in matters of daily life. The records of the Munster Presidency were destroyed during the rebellion of 1641. Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery, who, at the Restoration, was made President of Munster for life, as a reward for his aid in restoring the monarchy, writes as follows to the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor of England, on the 27th of April 1663.

"During the late rebellion all the records and ancient orders and rules of the Presidency Court of this province have been lost or embezzled. It has cost the two justices, the council of this province, and your servant no small trouble to set down new rules and orders both for the chancery and common law proceedings, which yet we have this day effected and made exactly conformable to those in England and in the courts at Dublin." (fn. 37)

The records of this court during Orrery's presidency, until it was finally abolished about the year 1668, have likewise perished; as well as all those of the Presidency of Connaught both before and since the Restoration.

The Irish Establishment, 1603–1608.

Such was, in its main outline, the administrative and executive systems of the King's government in Ireland at the accession of the new Sovereign.

For the better understanding of the correspondence comprised in these volumes, and extending from March 24, 1603, to July 1608, we think it desirable to enumerate very briefly in this place, the holders of the most important of these offices during that period; especially those who appear most prominently, either as parties in the correspondence or as actors in the events recorded therein. For the present we must be content with a bare mention of the names. We hope on a future occasion to give some account of the lives and characters of the men of this critical period in the history of Ireland.

The General Government.

The head of the King's government in Ireland from the commencement of the reign of James I. was Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy. The proceedings relating to his first appointment as Lord Deputy and Lord Lieutenant, of his retirement to England in May 1603, and his advancement to the Earldom of Devonshire, have been already noticed; (fn. 38) as also the appointment of Sir George Carey as King's Deputy during the Lord Lieutenant's absence. Sir George held office till the 24th February 1605, when he handed over the sword to Sir Arthur Chichester. The latter, although like his predecessor, in name merely the King's Deputy during the life of the Earl of Devonshire, was virtually the head of the Government, by reason of Devonshire's constant residence at the Court in England, and he became so literally on the Earl's death in 1606.

Sir Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, was Lord Chancellor, but he had been already more than 30 years in office at the King's accession. He was probably nearly past work, and his name does not appear to any of the resolutions of the Council Board, though he and Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath, addressed a despatch early in his reign to the King, urging him not to tolerate any other religion than the established religion. On his death, on 5th April 1605, he was succeeded, both in his bishopric and chancellorship, by Jones, which posts Jones occupied till his death in 1619.

Sir Geoffrey Fenton and Sir Richard Cooke were jointSecretaries of State, with the keeping of the King's privy seal. Sir William Ussher was Clerk of the Council. These were almost ex-officio of the Council. Of the lawyers, Sir James Ley, made Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench shortly after the King's accession, and sent over from England, was almost constantly present at the Council Board until called back to England in 1608, when his successor, Sir Humphrey Wynche, sent over from England in 1606, was equally diligent. Sir Antony St. Leger, Master of the Rolls, long versed in the affairs of Ireland, was able to give his whole time to the affairs of State, the office not being yet a judicial one. Sir Nicholas Walshe, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, of Irish birth and extraction, formerly Chief Justice of Munster, was occasionally present.

The army (and all but the churchmen and lawyers were of the army) furnished the largest number of statesmen. The Earl of Thomond, Commander of the Forces in Thomond, was of great authority; but his duties kept him much in the Province of Munster. Sir Richard Wingfield, Marshal of the Army, an old soldier and commander of Queen Elizabeth's day, was of great consideration. Sir Thomas Ridgeway, Treasurer at Wars, was much regarded, and rendered himself eminent by the rapidity with which he followed Sir John O'Doherty and subdued his outbreak in 1609. He was afterwards made Earl of Londonderry in memory of his recovery of Derry, which had been surprised and burnt down by O'Doherty and his forces. Sir Oliver St. John, Master of the Ordnance, seems to have been Chichester's most trusted counsellor. He succeeded him many years later in the office of Lord Deputy.

The Provincial Presidencies.

The above were the principal statesmen at the chief seat of government, but Munster and Connaught were entrusted to the Presidents of those provinces and their Councils. Sir Henry Brouncker was appointed President of Munster in succession to Sir George Carew, called over to England by the King on his accession, and the proceedings of his government have supplied the chief subject of this preface. He died in 1607, and was succeeded by Henry, Lord Danvers. Sir Dominic Sarsfield, of Irish birth, was Chief Justice of Munster, and of the Council of that Province. Robert Marshall was made Second Justice, and was succeeded in 1607 by Henry Gosnold. Sir Richard Boyle was Clerk of the Council and keeper of the King's signet. These were the chief names in the Munster Presidency.

The Earl of Clanrickard was made President of Connaught in 1604; but he seems to have left the ungracious task of fining and imprisoning the recusants, for not obeying the mandates to attend the service of the Established Church, to Sir Robert Remington, the Vice-President. Thomas Dillon was Chief Justice. Geoffry Osbaldeston, Second Justice of the Common Pleas, succeeded him as Chief Justice of Connaught in 1607. Robert Dillon was Second Justice of that Province. Robert Pitcairne was made Clerk of the Council of Connaught in 1603. Captain Charles Coote was Provost Marshal. The Council books of both these Provinces having been lost, there remain but very few traces of their proceedings.

Military Commands.

Scarcely second in importance to the civil government in these troubled times was the military establishment of Ireland, and especially the staff connected with the forts, and garrisons, with which the country was thickly studded, and in whose hands the liberties, and, owing to the prevalence of martial law, the lives, of the people may be said to have been placed. It will be seen that a large proportion of the writers of the letters, reports, and other documents contained in these volumes are the military officers of the forts and garrisons.

The principal fortresses in the four provinces were— in Leinster, Maryborough, with Sir Henry Power for Constable, and 16 men to protect and form a head for the plantation of the Queen's county; Leighlin, on the Barrow, with Henry Fisher for Constable, to guard the bridge, for many ages the great passage into Munster;— whence came the proverb which Sir John Davys has made memorable, that "they that lived by west of the Barrow lived west of the law." Duncannon fort, built in Queen Elizabeth's day, with Sir Laurence Esmonde for Constable, was in the Waterford river, at the mouth of the Nore, the Barrow, and the Suir; it commanded the access to twelve towns from the sea. The forts of lesser importance in Leinster were those of Wicklow, Wexford, Carnew, and Kinshelagh. Of the forts of Munster, Limerick was in charge of Sir Francis Barkley. Among the plans of forts in the collection at Trinity College, derived through Samuel Molyneux from his ancestor, Samuel Molyneux, clerk of the works to Queen Elizabeth and James I., may be seen Sir Francis's pencil plans of improvement of the fort of Limerick. Haleboline, intended to guard the Cork river, was in charge of Sir Francis Slingsby as Constable; and Castle Park, which guarded the entrance to Kinsale, was commanded by Captain Skipwith. Dungarvan and Castlemaigne were the only other forts in Munster. In Connaught, Athlone and Sligo were the most important forts. The Earl of Clanricard was Constable of Athlone, and Sir James Fullerton of Sligo.

There were others of less importance, as Carrick-onShannon, Abbey Boyle, Borrishoole, and a fort in the Curlew mountains.

Ulster, as the last subdued province of Ireland, was full of forts in James I.'s day.

The outmost town of the English Pale, towards Ulster, was Dundalk. There all military expeditions assembled, and thence marched into Ulster.

They either proceeded through the level barony of Cooley to Carlingford, where lay a garrison, in the ancient Castle of King John (in King James I.'s day under the command of Sir Marmaduke Whitchurch, Constable of Carlingford), and thence along the southern shore of the Lough to Newry, called the Key of Ulster; or they marched through the Moyry pass (truly the Gate of Ulster) and Fews mountains, exactly the line of the present railroad.

This pass was encumbered with wood, and considered most dangerous. But Lord Mountjoy cut down the wood and built the Moyry Fort, which is still standing, and may be seen on a height a little to the west of the railroad. Captain Anthony Smith, with twelve men, was Constable of the Moyry Fort. Six or seven miles further north was Mount Norris, or Fort Norris, built in Queen Elizabeth's day, and named after Sir John Norris, of which Captain Henry Atherton, with ten men, was Constable.

Its purpose is at present scarcely perceptible, but it lay in that day on the west side of a great lake and bog, and was the road to the north. Loughgilly hill, a mile to the east, formed the opposite shore, but all the intervening space is now dry and is traversed by the railroad to Armagh. Around Loughgilly may be seen to this day the remains of Hugh O'Neil's earthworks, called Tyrone's Ditches. The forces, English and Irish, were here face to face.

Proceeding northward Lough Neagh is reached, surrounded by forts, of which Carrickfergus was the head.

The oldest fort in Ulster is Carrickfergus, built in the days of De Courcy, and never out of the possession of the English. Sir Arthur Chichester was Governor; Captain Faithful Fortescue was Constable of the Castle, and John Dalway, Constable of the Palace.

All the forts round Lough Neagh looked for support to Carrickfergus. These were;—in the north, the fort of Toom, which guarded the only passage across the lower Ban into Antrim, of which Sir Thomas Phillips was Constable; on the east of the lake near the town of Antrim, Fort Massareen, where a flotilla of boats was kept, under the command of Captain George Trevillian; on the west, Fort Mountjoy, built by Lord Mountjoy, to be an aid to Charlemont Fort, as supplies for the latter might be sent from Carrickfergus to Massareen, and thence carried across the lake to Mountjoy, easily reached from Charlemont. Charlemont, built also by Lord Mountjoy, to command the passage towards Tyrone and Donegal, was under the command of Sir Toby Caulfield.

As Charlemont opened the way to Dungannon, the chief seat of O'Neil, by the front, Derry and Ballyshannon were built in Queen Elizabeth's reign, to be at his back, to prevent his retreat into the wilds of Donegal. Derry, "which first opened a gap into the bowels of the north," was a mere fort before it became the site of the metropolis of the Ulster plantation. Sir Henry Docwra was Constable of Derry, but sold the post to Sir George Paulet, who lost his life and the place, to Sir John O'Doherty. Culmore was a dependent fort, under the command, after O'Doherty's suppression, of Sir Arthur Chichester. Sir Henry Folliott was Constable of Ballyshannon.

Another important post was Enniskillen. Of this Captain William Cole was Constable, with a flotilla of boats for service on Lough Erne. The other forts of Ulster were Cloughoughter and Ballinecargy, in Cavan; Omagh and Dungannon, in Tyrone; Donegal and Doe Castle, in Donegal; Inishlaughlin and Dungiven, in Derry; and Green Castle, in Down, on the northern shore of Lough Carlingford, corresponding with Carlingford on the south.

There were other posts and garrisons, as the different companies of foot and horse lay dispersed over the country, under the command of their several captains, the regimental system being not yet known; but the detail of these would be too tedious.

Having premised so much as to the actual condition of Ireland and its government, general and provincial, at the date at which our Calendar commences, we proceed to notice very briefly the principal transactions which are recorded in its pages. The story of the period, as told therein, will be found to clear up many things which heretofore were but imperfectly understood, and to fill up much that hitherto was known but in outline.

Submission of the Irish Chiefs to James I.

The first days of the new reign appeared sufficiently promising. The submission of O'Neill seemed to be the last step in the subjugation of the native race, and his example was speedily and generally followed. On the 10th of April, Bryan O'Rourke, protesting that he "had always sued for the late Queen's mercy to her officers, Sir William Fitz-Williams, Sir Richard Bingham, and others, who continually denied him thereof," prays Lord Mountjoy to "receive him into His [now] Majesty's mercy;" promising that "he will perform any oath he may be joined unto." (fn. 39) O'Sullivan Beare "prays the King to let him taste the sweetness of his gracious favour in pardoning his former misdemeanors." (fn. 40) The Lord Deputy, in his letter to Cecil, April 25, (fn. 41) writes that "Ulster, where at his first coming he found not one man in subjection, has not now one in rebellion." The "M'Gwires, MacMahownes, O'Rileys, and all the men of the Lords of the North, continue in obedience." In Connaught "all is quiet except O'Roorke's country, who is already reduced to fly, as a woodkerne, from place to place, with not above some three score men." His brother, the legitimate O'Roorke, ("this man being a bastard"), is with Mountjoy in Dublin. On the following day Mountjoy writes to the Privy Council that "the proclamation of His Majesty has been received with applause, even in the countries of the submittees, to which number almost all the late rebels are now received, except a few;" (fn. 42) that in Leinster, there "was not a Moore or a Connor to be heard of;" that "the Byrnes, the O'Tooles, the Kavanaughts, and all the rest, continued good subjects," and that "scarce in all Leinster was there as much as a rebel or a thief stirring." (fn. 43)

Rising of the Munster Towns.

But a drawback was soon found on this apparent tranquillity. On receiving news of Elizabeth's death, all or most of the towns in Munster, although faithful during the rebellion, "with some insolence, set up the public exercise of the Mass." (fn. 44) This episode of the history will be found related in the Calendar with several new details.

The plea put forward at a later time for this bold proceeding of the towns was, partly that a report had gone abroad in Ireland that the new King, in reverence for his mother's memory, meant to tolerate the exercise of the Catholic worship; partly, as it would appear, that the coercive measures of the late Queen in Ireland were held to have expired with her, so that it was now no longer unlawful to practise the Catholic religion, unless the prohibition should be renewed under the new sovereign.

Mountjoy's great fear was that the malcontents had been acting "under intelligence with Spain." Of the prevalence of this apprehension both in Ireland and in England during the crisis of James I.'s accession, these papers furnish abundant and curious evidence. Intelligences from the peninsula as to the numbers, movements, and favour at court of the Irish refugees in Spain; examinations of merchants and seamen from "the Groyne" [Corunna], from Bilbo," from "Gizion" (fn. 45) [Gijon] ; intercepted letters of friars and "seminaries;" and other similar sources of information, were curiously scanned, in order to discover the sentiments of the King of Spain and the Archduke, the expected strength of Irish troops or of Spanish auxiliaries, and the supplies in money, arms, and munitions, which might be reckoned on from Spain by an insurgent party in Ireland.

This movement "for setting up the Mass" seemed formidable at first; but it was quelled in person by Mountjoy, whose proceeding against the city of Waterford and conflict with Doctor White, the Jesuit, as recounted by himself and by his gentleman usher, Humphrey May, present a curious medley of polemics and strategy, of a tone not unlike that which pervades the Cromwellian State Papers and Despatches. (fn. 46)

From Waterford he proceeded to Cork, where he forced the mayor to receive within the city a garrison of 1,000 men. It is not easy to understand the special ground which the citizens of Cork put forward in justification of their resistance. It was something distinct from the common religious grievance, being in part founded upon a privilege which they claimed for the city as to the holding of the fort; and it is also plain that some questions were raised at Cork as to James's right of succession to the throne. It was only a shadow of an excuse to allege that they shut their gates "to restrain the recourse of the distrusted Irish," (fn. 47) or of Sir Charles Wilmot's soldiers, many of them mere Irish, "who had often threatened that they would ransack the city, and dispose of the townsmen's wives and goods according to their pleasure." (fn. 48) When Sir George Thornton claimed the custody of the fort of Halebowling for "the King's" forces, the Recorder at once demanded: "What King ?" And when Thornton replied: "the King of England that now is, which is James, King of Scotland;"—the Recorder answered that "they knew no King, but would hold it for the Crown of England;" adding that "if every one were of his mind, they would have it in their own hands." (fn. 49) What the objection to the King's title was does not appear; but it is significant also that the Recorder "absented himself from the proclamation of King James, both without and within the city, though he was the foremost man that followed the priest in going to hallow the churches." (fn. 50)

Indeed, this Recorder, William Meade, (fn. 51) was the chief actor in these proceedings at Cork, and his subsequent indictment and trial throw a curious light on the state of public feeling at the time. Lord Mountjoy, by whose order he was apprehended, left him in prison in the castle of Dublin at his departure for England. He was speedily indicted of sundry treasons;" but it appears from the Deputy and Council's report to the Privy Council that, although the facts of the case were plain and notorious, there was the utmost difficulty in getting a jury to find the indictment against him; and that it could not have been found at all, but for the industry of the Lords Commissioners of Munster and their friends in dealing with the jury.

From the report of these proceedings in the city given by Sir Nicholas Walshe, it was feared that the difficulty of convicting Meade would be more serious either at Youghal or in any other part of the county of Cork, "so great was his popularity there, and so contrary and backward were the affections of the people in a cause of this nature." So universal indeed was the interest of the people in the religion Meade professed, that no less difficulty would be found if he were put to trial in any county adjoining; by reason of the number of challenges he might make, "namely, thirty-five peremptory, without showing of cause, and as many more as he can show cause for." Considering, therefore, that he was a ringleader in all these late seditions of the towns, the Deputy and Council appealed (fn. 52) to England for advice whether they should venture his trial at home, or whether the Lords of the Council would have him sent into England to be tried there, according to former precedents. It was decided to try him at home, and the result fully justified the apprehensions of the Deputy and Council. The jurors who were empanelled in the county of Cork returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Every expedient was resorted to to shake their resolution. Precedents were hunted up, in 1578, in 1581, and in 1590, (fn. 53) in which refractory jurors had been punished with fine, with imprisonment, and with the pillory. But it was all in vain; and the tone in which this case is urged by Mr. Justice Saxey as an illustration of the standing causes of the failure of justice in Ireland, is highly significant. According to Saxey's view, there was not a sufficient number of English freeholders in Ireland "to pass in juries between His Highness and the Irish, or between the English subject and the Irish, in cases that concern His Majesty's rights, and touch the English subject in life and in goods, in consequence of the negligence of the undertakers in not observing the first establishment for peopling of their seigniories with English freeholders."

This defect, he shows, produced to His Majesty great prejudice, and to the English subject great danger, "through Irish trials, which cannot afford indifference between His Majesty and Irish, or between an English subject and an Irish;" and he illustrates this by "the unjust acquittal of a notable Irish traitor, the Recorder of Cork, lately put upon his trial before an Irish jury and Irish justices, to the disgrace of justice, and loss of the escheat to His Majesty; notwithstanding such violent and unlawful courses were taken, as well upon his indictment as upon his arraignment, as no precedent of former times can warrant; for the grand jury were severally dealt with, every man by himself; each giving his own verdict, not knowing the mind of his fellows. And upon the prisoner's arraignment the evidence against him was enforced to the jury by the deposition, viva voce, in open court, of them that were his judges upon his trial; wherein they were the more eager, as they had undertaken the conviction of the party. But all would not serve; for the same judges might know well enough (the quality of the party brought in question and the disposition of a Cork jury considered), that the traitor would be acquitted against all the evidence, which was very forcible; but therefore, as it is thought, the trial by an Irish jury was hastened, to prevent his trial in England, whither it was fit he should have been removed." (fn. 54)

We must transcribe, as one of the literary curiosities connected with the rising of Cork, a letter of Lady Joyce Carew, written to her husband, Sir George, from Shandon Castle, where she was shut up while the city remained in the hands of the insurgents. The language of this letter, as well as the orthography, may serve as an exercise for the reader's ingenuity:—

"Here is gret wares wyth Corke," she writes, "and I amnot a frade. I have yet lost notheng, nor I hope shalnot do, unles it be som provesen I had in Corke, but I donot here yet, that it is toched. Al the Engles youse me vere cyndle [use me very kindly], and the lordes and gentelmen of the contre do profer me ther houses, but I staye styl in Shandon, for ther I plese my selfe best. Capten Boyse and Capten Nuce ar my gard, and thaye ly in Shandon. I kuoue al the besenes and good procedenges wylbe sent you at large by those that can beter send it than I. But I do assure you that I donot yet live in fere of the Mare of Corkes forses, thoughe ther hathe ben gret shuting at the castel, but never ded ane harme to wale or cretur in it. I hope shortle to see them calme enough. I wyl were out tyme tyl I here what your fourtunes must be, and bere wyth al troubeles wyth pacence and wythout ane grefe, for I am nou here very much respected."—Shandon, 5 May.

Famine and Pestilence.

Mountjoy's entry into Cork, after his forces had taken possession of all the strong positions, was marked by a demonstration on the part of the citizens, which singularly illustrates the miserable condition to which the country had been reduced by the long Desmond and Tyrone wars, and by the ruthless devastation systematically pursued by the English soldiers. Powerless to oppose the Lord Deputy's entrance, the citizens "entertained him with a show of ploughiron on both sides of the street, from the port to his lodgings; intimating hereby that the soldiers by their exactions and rapines had wasted the country, making all the ploughs to be idle which should have maintained it." (fn. 55) The emblem was but too truthful a representation of the condition not of Cork alone, but of the entire kingdom. Sir Henry Docwra, writing to Cecil from Derry, April 5th, 1603, speaks of the country as "lying waste in all parts save where Her Majesty (fn. 56) is outwardly obeyed." (fn. 57) Tyrone himself, writing to Lord Mountjoy, April 30, complains "of the poverty of his people;" (fn. 58) and Mountjoy, describing the utter exhaustion of the country, characteristically declares that "not all the garrans in Ireland would be able to draw a single cannon." (fn. 59) Sir George Carey tells Cecil that the garrisons have not left to Neale Garvye, "either horse, cow, goods, or apparel;" (fn. 60) while on the other hand, they themselves, by reason of the expectation of the decrying of the base coin, are "undone and made stark beggars." (fn. 61) At the close of that year, Dec. 28, 1603, he again writes to Cecil that "they are in great distress for want of victuals. For three months there have been no victuals to maintain the soldiers of Leinster, being 2,000 foot and 300 horse, and all the other provinces will very speedily be in want. The kingdom is in famine and great scarcity, and victuals are not to be had here, but must be supplied from England." (fn. 62) Sir Arthur Chichester declares the same regarding the North, in a letter to Cecil, Nov. 23, 1603. (fn. 63) In the beginning of the following year we find Chichester in the North, "settling some business there, and appeasing a humorous discontent of the lords of countries in these parts, grounded upon their poverty, and the soldiers ranging from place to place for the want of provision in the standing garrison." The country, he adds, "is so corrupt and so far from happiness, that he may liken it to Pharaoh's lean oxen, which consumes the fat of His Majesty's other kingdoms, and is ever lean itself." (fn. 64)

What wonder that in 1607, after years of misery such as this, the country had fallen to such depths of exhaustion, that, as regards the North, we find Chichester avowing, that "the whole realm, and especially the fugitives' countries, are more utterly depopulated and poor than ever before for many hundred years," (fn. 65) and the Bishop of Cork, in turn, assuring Chichester, as regards Munster, that from Cork to Berehaven "the country is waste, those who had escaped the sword having died through famine!" (fn. 66)

To add to the horror of famine, the country was at the same time visited by a terrible pestilence. It began in the autumn of 1603. On December 28th, Sir George Carey "is sorry to write [to Cecil] the news that the plague increaseth in the city, and is much dispersed in the country;" (fn. 67) and it raged with such virulence in Dublin that the Privy Councillors fled from the city, and, as we learn from various letters, the public business was much interrupted during that year. The law courts were practically closed; (fn. 68) or as Sir John Davys, quoting a saying of the rebels, phrases it, "The plague put another thorn in the foot of the law." (fn. 69) So late as the 9th of the following September, Ellesmere, the Lord Chancellor, in replying to Sir John Davys, prays that "God may stay His hand from further afflicting the people, who have already felt the scourge of war and oppression, and now are under the grievous scourge of famine and pestilence." (fn. 70)

Financial Distress.

The financial embarrassments of the Irish government, too, were in the highest degree perplexing. In July 1603, the Lord Deputy and Council urged upon the Privy Council the necessity of prompt measures as to the coinage, alleging the scarcity of all things and the excessive prices of provisions. (fn. 71) In the next month Sir George Carey dwells upon this distress, especially as affecting the soldiery, and remonstrates against the King's giving bills of exchange on Ireland, declaring his inability to meet them. (fn. 72) The King's officers profess themselves compelled to "range upon the country, for want of victuals in the King's store." (fn. 73) As far on as February 25, 1604, (fn. 74) we find the Deputy compelled to eke out the pittances which were remitted from England for the public service, by dividing the amount at the Council table rateably among the public creditors, allotting to each a month's pay; and even obliged, in order to effect this poor measure of relief, to borrow 1,700l. from the city of Dublin. The same difficulty in providing for the periodical requirements of the debt to the public servants, appears again in the August of that year. (fn. 75) In February 1606 the Lord Deputy complains that up to that date they had not received one half of the sum required by the paymaster's estimate, although the half year had begun at the 1st of October; and they had borrowed 6,500l. more, which was not yet repaid. (fn. 76) In another letter (fn. 77) he repeats the complaint of want of money, and "sees no remedy but that their men must break, and fall upon the country next to them." All things are "worse than in time of war, and a greater scarcity of money;" and he protests "he never saw so miserable and poor commanders and state in all his life, (fn. 78) most men being disheartened to labour in the service, and wishing for any employment, in order to be discharged of this." In another paper, May 29, 1606, from the Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, it is nakedly declared that, if a supply of money be not forthcoming at once, "they will not be able to retain the companies beyond the end of the June following." (fn. 79) Finding all remonstrances unavailing, Chichester writes, July 29, 1606, to the Privy Council, that, on the faith of promised supplies, he "had engaged his own and his friends' credit for means to hold the companies together and furnish them for the intended journey, leaving directions with Mr. Secretary Fenton to repay what he (Chichester) had borrowed, and to impart a month's pay to the other servitors and companies, to serve them till his return. And now, as the money has been otherwise disposed of, his poor credit is broken." So harassed is he by the pressure of all these demands, that "he is driven to spend much time, besides the hazard of his poor estate, in achieving means to furnish them, leaving the meditation on matters more profitable and advantageous for His Majesty's service." (fn. 80) Fenton himself assures Salisbury, Aug. 3, 1606, that "since the twenty-six years he has served in Ireland, he has never seen so great misery for want of money." (fn. 81)

It is not a little remarkable to find among the names of those who, in July 1606, in the urgent necessities of the government at this time, came to the aid of the Lord Deputy by lending money for the public service, that of the Earl of Tyrone, so soon to be a fugitive from Ireland and a proclaimed traitor and outlaw. A curious paper, entitled "Docquet of borrowed money for the army since the first of July 1606," reveals a very painful degree of impoverishment. The whole sum acknowleged in this Docquet is but 3,704l., which is divided between no fewer than 13 creditors, for sums varying from 40l. up to 700l. Tyrone's contribution to the loan is 266l. 14s. 4d. (fn. 82) Nor is this Tyrone's only money transaction with the King. From a letter of Lord Deputy Carey to Cecil, it appears that the latter had ordered a bill of exchange for 600l. to be given to Tyrone. It is not said what was the consideration; but Carey pleads the necessities of the Exchequer as an excuse for not complying with the order. He had already been compelled by want of funds, he writes, to refuse the applications of the servitors for the amount of their various entertainments, to their grievous discontent; and they "would be still more discontented, if he gave bills of exchange to my Lord Tyrone and others, who have no entertainment from His Majesty." (fn. 83)

The Established Church.

Amid these manifold causes of public misery and discontent in Ireland, it need hardly be said that the element of religious bitterness was not wanting. As regards influence, spiritual, moral, or social, the picture of the Established Church presented by these Papers, even where the writers are most friendly, is altogether deplorable.

Sir John Davys enters very fully into the subject. He writes to Cecil that he is informed—

"That the churchmen for the most part throughout the kingdom were mere idols and ciphers, and such as could not read; and yet the most of them, whereof many were serving men and some horseboys, were not without two or three benefices apiece; Nevertheless, for all their pluralities they were most of them beggars; for the patron or ordinary, or some of their friends, took the greater part of their profits by a plain contract before their institution; so that many gentlemen, and some women, and some priests and Jesuits, have the greatest benefit of our benefices, though these poor unlettered clerks bear the name of incumbents. Nay, he adds, (that which is almost incredible, but I heard it of one that hath a place of special credit in this kingdom) the agent or nuncio for the Pope that lieth lurking here in this land, hath 40l. or 50l. a year out of the profits of a parsonage within the Pale.

"And what," he asks, "is the effect of these abuses? The churches are ruined and fallen down to the ground in all parts of the kingdom. There is no divine service, no christening of children, no receiving of the sacrament, no Christian meeting or assembly, no, not once a year; in a word, no more demonstration of religion than amongst Tartars or cannibals." (fn. 84)

In the report which he made of the state of Munster in May 1606, Sir John repeats the same opinion, declaring that "the extreme remissness and negligence of their clergy, which was the first cause of the general desertion and apostacy, is also now again the remora, or the impediment of reformation." (fn. 85)

In like manner, Justice Saxey describes the bishops as "priests of Jeroboam, taken out of the basest of the people, more fit to sacrifice to a calf than to intermeddle with the religion of God." (fn. 86) One of them, lately deceased, had been "a poor singing man void of knowledge of his grammar rules"; and his successor was "of like insufficiency." Another, who held three bishopricks, was "utterly unlearned." There was "not one able preacher in all the province (Munster), nor three sufficient bishops in all the kingdom." (fn. 87)

The same is repeated in a discourse of John Hudson, presented to the King, who adds that "the bishops had, for their private gains, made leases for many years of the spiritual lands for small or no rents, whereby there were few bishopricks in the realm sufficient to support the dignity of a bishop; and thereof it grew that some of them held three, and others two, bishopricks in commendam, for their better maintenance, to the great hindrance of the preferment of learned men, and decay of the State ecclesiastical." (fn. 88)

Perhaps this may furnish some explanation of a statement of Sir John Davys in his letter to Salisbury, Nov. 12, 1606, that "there are few churches void, but that the most part are full of the most miserable idols, so that one cannot think or speak of them but with grief or shame. (fn. 89)

As the remedy of this evil, the bishops and clergy urge the repression and forcible extermination of the popular religion. Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, and Jones, Bishop of Meath, addressed to the King, within two months of his accession, an elaborate statement, with the purpose of getting the Roman Catholic clergy banished. They attribute the late rebellion to the priests being suffered to lurk in the kingdom and to set on the people; and they pray the King to allow of no toleration, and to cut off the hopes of it by prompt and decisive action.

"Misled by their priests, some of the cities and towns of Munster, as His Majesty is already informed, have attempted, in violation of the laws of both kingdoms, to set up their idol and supremacy of Rome; some others in the Pale, in violent manner have committed a like offence; and the rest more wily, and therefore more dangerous, have of late met in public consultations, and are selecting solicitors to be sent to the King to lay before His Majesty some supposed wrongs. Their chiefest cause of repair, however, to the King is to obtain free liberty and exercise of their conscience and of the Romish religion."

They proceed to remind the King how—

"In the time of King Edward VI. of blessed memory, when the popes of Rome had in a manner given over to intermeddle in princes' affairs, and were rather corrected by Kings than obeyed by Kings, Charles V., by his letters and ambassadors, made intercession to the King that he would be pleased to grant license to his sister, the Princess Mary, that was afterwards Queen, to have mass celebrated by her own chaplains, privately in her house, without offence to the laws."

They add that when the matter was discussed in [the Council Chamber, Doctor Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Doctor Ridley, Bishop of London, were in favour of the indulgence; but that "the godly and zealous young Josias" himself, not only argued against these bishops from the Scriptures, but, in reply to their representation of the inconveniences which would follow from the refusal of the toleration, "vowed to God that he would rather hazard kingdom, life, and lose all he had, than suffer God to be dishonoured within his realm by the least exercise of idolatry." Placing this example of King Edward VI. before James, the bishops urge him at once, even in the morning of his reign, to give some signification in this miserable kingdom how unwelcome such suits and suitors shall be, and how ready His Majesty is to maintain the true worship and religion of Jesus Christ." And reminding him how ready these people are to take advantage of the least connivancy, they advise the King never to permit what in his godly zeal he so much abhors. They conclude by leaving it to His Majesty to devise some means to prevent the plots and aims of these priests, seminaries, and Jesuits, "which daily come from beyond seas, teaching that the King is not a lawful King. After order taken with these seditious priests and Jesuits, and some learned preachers sent over, and the people compelled to come and hear them, then would ensue the loyalty, peace, and all other blessings wherewith the kingdom of England was blessed." (fn. 90)

The Roman Catholic Church.

The correspondence, public and private, abounds with allusions to the Roman Catholic clergy and to "the secret intrigues and open defiances of the law" practised by themselves and encouraged by them among the people.

We shall endeavour hereafter to enable the reader to understand the exact position of the Catholic Church before the law in Ireland at this period. The lawyers of the time were divided in opinion regarding it; and Mr. Justice Saxey complains bitterly that the more indulgent opinion "had such allowance, that the Jesuits, seminary priests, and such others of that litter, had been ever since the more audacious to continue freely without reprehension their wonted seducing of the people. No better fruit," he concludes, "is to be expected from an Irish councillor of State."

Accordingly, the priests continued in numbers almost undiminished. Sir George Carey in a letter to Cecil, May 20, 1604, recommending a new bishop for the bishoprick of Kildare, dwells upon the "many superstitious priests and seminaries that haunt those parts." (fn. 91) The Bishop of Ossory, John Horsfall, (fn. 92) in the June of the same year, gives a return to the Deputy and Council of the names of the priests, thirty in number, then in the diocese of Ossory; and complains that "there is difficulty in carrying out their Lordship's order for the repairing of the bodies of churches by a tax to be raised on the parishes, for the people generally are so misled with superstitious idolatry that they altogether scorn their church censures; and, if he crave temporal assistance for the correction of the contumacious, there is neither sheriff nor other officer that will put those writs in execution; so that, without extraordinary commission, he will hardly prevail in executing those works. That they may the better imagine the truth of this report, he encloses a catalogue, which shows how many Romish caterpillars abiding in his diocese, prevent the hope of the Lord's harvest; for even on Sunday last they set their mass publicly on foot again in their late hallowed Abbey in Kilkenny; which they undertook to the Lord Lieutenant to alter to a sessions house, as it formerly was." He adds that he is informed "there is one Richard Folay in the Irish-town at Kilkenny, who keeps continual mass in his house; and whether the Bishop will or no, there resorteth to him divers priests and other people of the uptown, very dangerous for infecting that town, which, God be praised, is yet clear; and notwithstanding the bishop's admonitions, he obstinately persisteth in the same."

It was the same everywhere. Justice Saxey reports that the Jesuits, seminaries, and priests "swarm as locusts throughout the whole kingdom, and are harboured and maintained by the noblemen and chief gentry of the country, but especially by the cities and walled towns, massing and frequenting all the superstitions of the people in their obstinate errors, and their contempt of the religion of God and His Majesty's ecclesiastical law." (fn. 93)

Proclamation for Banishment of the Clergy.

But this passive attitude of the government came to an end. In a paper entitled "Memorials for the better Reformation of the Kingdom of Ireland," probably of the year 1604, one of the first suggestions is that "all titulary bishops, Jesuits, seminaries, friars, and Romish priests be banished the realm, except they will reform themselves; and that none do receive or succour them on great pain of imprisonment without bail and fines to be imposed upon them as shall be thought meet." (fn. 94)

At the same time Loftus and Jones renewed their protests against connivance at the presence of priests, and the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. (fn. 95) On the 4th of July 1605 a proclamation was issued accordingly, in which the King explains at length the reasons and motives of the repressive course which he has resolved to pursue.

He has been informed (he says) that his subjects in Ireland have, since the death of Queen Elizabeth, been much abused by a report that he purposes to give liberty of conscience or toleration of religion to his subjects in that kingdom, contrary to the statutes therein enacted, and to that uniformity of religion which is universally used in his other dominions. By this false report divers of his subjects are encouraged to continue their superstition and recusancy, and such Jesuits, seminary and other priests and bishops, as before secretly lurked in sundry parts, now more boldly and presumptuously shew and declare themselves in the exercise of their functions, and in contempt of the King, his laws and religion. "He has, therefore, thought meet" continues the proclamation,

"To declare and publish to all his loving subjects of Ireland his high displeasure with the report, and his resolve never to do any act that may confirm the hopes of any creature that they shall ever have from him any toleration to exercise any other religion than that which is agreeable to God's Word, and established by the laws of the realm. By this public act he desires to declare to all his subjects his resolution, and he straightly admonishes and commands them, from henceforth, duly to resort to their several parish churches, to hear divine service every Sunday and holyday, according to the tenor and intent of the laws and statutes, upon the pains and penalties contained therein, which he will have from henceforth put in execution.

"And being advertised that a great number of seminary priests, Jesuits, and other priests, made by foreign authority, range up and down in that kingdom, and not only seduce the people there to embrace their superstitious ceremonies, but maliciously endeavour to alienate the hearts of his subjects from himself by insinuating and breeding a distaste in them, both for his religion and his civil government, taking upon themselves the ordering and deciding of causes both before and after they have received judgments in the King's courts of record, he declares, publishes, and proclaims, that it is his will and commandment that all Jesuits, seminary priests, or other priests whatsoever, made and ordained by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from the See of Rome, shall, before the 10th day of December next, depart out of the kingdom of Ireland. And that no Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest ordained by foreign authority, shall from and after the 10th of December, repair or return into that kingdom, upon pain of his high displeasure, and upon such further pain and penalty as may justly be inflicted upon them by the laws and statutes of that realm. And upon the like pain, expressly forbids all his subjects within that kingdom, to receive or relieve any such Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest, who after the said 10th day of December, shall remain in that realm or return to the same or any part thereof." (fn. 96)

We shall see later the full import of this proclamation. It had but scant effect in abating the mischief. The Lord Deputy Chichester, it is true, reported that most of the priests in his government of Knockfergus had taken the oath of supremacy: Sir Foulk Conway repeated the assurance; (fn. 97) and forty priests in Connaught were alleged to have done the same; (fn. 98) but whatever partial conformity may have been obtained in this way, Sir John Davys in his "Observations after a Journey made by him in Munster, (May 4, 1606)," gives an account of the state of things which he found at Clonmel during his Munster journey:—

"This town," he says, "being in the liberty [of the county palatine of Tipperary] is more haunted with Jesuits and priests than any other town or city within this province, which is the cause we found the burgesses more obstinate here than elsewhere. For whereas my Lord President did gently offer to the principal inhabitants, that he would spare to proceed against them then, if they would yield to a conference for a time, and become bound in the meantime not to receive any Jesuit or priest into their houses, they peremptorily refused both. Whereupon, the chief of them were bound to appear at Cork before the Lord President and Council, presently after Easter, there to be censured with good round fines and imprisonment: of the multitude we caused two hundred to be indicted, but with much ado was the grand inquest drawn to find the bill, and yet for the most part they were gentlemen of the country. The Jesuits and priests of name that have lately frequented the town are, Nicholas Lennagh, Jesuit, Andrew Mulrony, Jesuit, Richard White, priest, Gerrard Miagh, priest. William Crokin, priest. Amongst these, Nicholas Lennagh hath special credit and authority; and, which is to be noted, before that horrible treason was to have been executed in England, he charged the people to say three Ave Maria's for the good success of a great matter, which what it was they should not know until it was effected and brought to pass." And as I got intelligence, of these priests and Jesuits that resort to Clonmel, so did I learn the names of such others as lurk in the other principal towns of Munster. In Limerick these three, Brien O'Cairn, a Jesuit, Richard Cadam, Richard Arthure, priests. In Cork these: Robert Miagh, Dominick Roche, James Miagh, priests. In Waterford: Dr. White, Jesuit, Lumbard, a priest. If our bishops and others that have cure of souls were but half as diligent in their several charges as these men are in the places where they haunt, the public would not receive and nourish them as now they do." (fn. 99)

This harbouring of priests was not confined to the Irish districts. They were equally numerous and equally sheltered in the English Pale:—

"Since the late commotions in the towns, happily stayed by the Lieutenant, a great swarm of Jesuits, seminaries, friars, and priests, notwithstanding their late danger, frequent the towns and other places in the English Pale and borders more openly and boldly than before. Few of the best houses in the Pale are free from relieving and receiving them. The Council find that they are under a strong and perilous impression, and so persuade the people, that there shall be a toleration of religion; and for the procuring of it, sundry of the better sort of the Pale and towns are sent as agents to the Court to solicit the same, and great contributions of money cut upon the country for their expenses and other charges of the suit. And being fallen upon this point, they urge the Lords of the Council to move the King to consider of some present settled course concerning religion, to bridle the boldness and backslidings of the Papists before matters grow to further danger. For though the Deputy and Council apply the authority of the State with as great discretion as they can (not knowing as yet what will be His Majesty's course on the point of religion), yet it avails little to stay the case, for they make a contempt of all their (the Council's) doings, reposing altogether upon their project of toleration." (fn. 100)

Nor did the clergy stand alone in their defiance of the attempt to compel submission to the state church, or in their hostility to the government from which this attempt emanated. The most active and intelligent class of the laity—the lawyers and legal officials—were warm in their support of the opposition. Sir John Davys states, that this insolency has its origin from the Jesuits, friars, and massing priests, but is strongly supported by some lawyers, practisers at the bar, and some of the King's officers in his several courts, and all chief leading men who countenance the contempt of the Gospel." To encounter this evil, the Council suggest a proclamation from His Majesty for "the expulsion of the Jesuits, friars, seminaries, and massing priests by a day, and punishing with severe penalties all their relievers and abetters, whatsoever they be. And for the lawyers, that are to be justly touched, that they be put from the bar, and all other practice of the law, and the other officers to be removed from their places until they shall enter into good bonds to come to the Church." (fn. 101)

The penalties to which the Catholic clergy were subject in England had had an effect which was by no means anticipated. Sir Arthur Chichester complains to Salisbury, on the 19th September of the same year, that, upon the proclamation of banishment of the Jesuits and seminary priests from out of England, many flock to Ireland, where they do much harm; and every house and hamlet being a sanctuary for them, they are seldom apprehended." (fn. 102) Strangely enough too, he adds, this transplantation of priests from England was done by public authority. The town officers of Liverpool had lately shipped two, one named Thomas Poole, the other James Lancaster, alias Foord, to Drogheda. Chichester had had them committed to the Castle of Dublin, and proposed to "ship them off to other countries with the first opportunity." (fn. 103) Meanwhile he begs that the practice may be prohibited.

But the most curious evidence at once of the efforts made by the Irish Government to displace the Catholic hierarchy and of the success with which their repressive measures were evaded, is found in a letter of Sir John Davys to Salisbury a few months later, November 12, 1606. Having spoken of the wretched condition and still more hopeless prospects of the Protestant church in Ireland in terms to which we have already referred, he continues:— (fn. 104)

"And yet we want not bishops or archbishops to oversee the churches; for there is not a bishop's see that is not supplied double, one being placed by the King and another by the Pope. Being in the north this summer, I met with an Irish scholar, who had been bred in France and Spain, among the fugitives of this nation, and of him I learnt the names and quality of the Pope's titulary bishops of Ireland, and who were present in the kingdom, and who were absent, and where they resided.

"In Ulster.—Dr. Peter Lumbard [Lombard], born at Waterford, beareth the title of primate of Ardmagh; he is now at the Court of Rome, where he hath a pension from the Pope of 200 ducats by the month. He hath also the dignity of a provost in the cathedral church of Cambray.

"One O'Boyle hath the title of Bishop of Rapo [Raphoe] in Tirconnell; he was born in that country, and resideth there, being countenanced by the Earl of Tirconnell.

"Connor O'Dovenny [O'Duvany] hath the name of Bishop of Downe and Connor; he liveth in Tyrone; we saw him in our last journey when we were near Ulster, for he was brought into the camp in the habit of a Franciscan. Cormock M'Baron, the Earl of Tyrone's brother, is his chief reliever and receiver.

"Richard Brady is the titulary Bishop of Kilmore; he is very aged, and lurketh for the most in Westmeath.

"Jo. Gawne [McGauran] is called Bishop of Ardagh; his abode is uncertain, but he resorteth often to a place called Granard, in the county of Longford.

"Owen M'Ivor M'Mahon, one of the sons of Ivor M'Collo, [M'Mahon], who is farmer to my Lord of Essex, in the Ferney [Farney], is designed Bishop of Clogher, but is now in Germany.

"These are the Pope's bishops in Ulster.

"In Leinster.—One Matthias [Matthew de Oviedo], a Spanish friar, hath the title of Archbishop of Dublin; he now liveth in a monastery in Spain, not far from Madrid; he hath a poor pension of three ducats per diem.

"Franciscus di Rivera is the supposed Bishop of Leighlin; he is now resident at Antwarp (sic).

"Robert Lalor, the priest who is now in the Castle of Dublin, and was a follower of the house of Kildare, is nominated Bishop of Kildare.

"In Mounster.—David O'Kerny is made by the Pope Archbishop of Cashell; he liveth in the liberty of Tipperary.

"Thomas White, born in Waterford, and nephew to Dr. Lumbard, the pretended primate of Armagh, hath the title of Bishop of Waterford. He hath a benefice in the Low Countries, but liveth with his uncle at Rome.

"Dr. James White is called Bishop of Limerick, but resideth at Clonmel in the liberty of Tipperary.

"In Conaght.—Florence O'Mulconner [Conroy], hath the name of Archbishop of Tuame, but liveth in the Court of Spain.

"One O'Mulrian, a native of the county of Limerick, is stiled Bishop of Kilaloe; he liveth in Lisbon, and hath a pension of the King of Spain."

This list, however, is not complete, for Sir John Davys adds that there are some other sees for which the Pope has provided bishops, of whom he has no certain intelligence. (fn. 105)

A still more formidable picture of the number and influence of the priests, and of the entire devotedness of the people to their religion, is found in a letter of the Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, towards the end of the year 1607 (October 27, 1607). The flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell had completely unsettled the public mind, and prepared the whole population to look forward to some great and decisive change. The Lord Deputy and Council report that since the departure of the Earls, priests and Jesuits had flocked into the kingdom in greater numbers than at any previous time, so that it was now a common taunt of the Irish that they "had more priests in the country than the King had soldiers;" and how serious the crisis was judged, and how grave the alarm of the Government, may be inferred from the excited and acrimonious language of these letters. "These men," the Deputy and Council write, "well knowing that this nation is obnoxious to superstition, imposture, and credulity, take advantage of the fugitives' departure to ravish the whole realm with goodly hopes and promises,"—

"As if all this preparation in Spain were altogether for their sakes and in their devotion, to be undoubtedly converted hither, or some other part of the kingdom, for the advancement of their Catholic cause and the abolishing of the religion and government here established.

"They land here secretly" the letter proceeds, "in every port and creek of the realm (a dozen together sometimes, as they (the Deputy and Council) are informed), and afterwards disperse themselves into several quarters, in such sort that every town and country is full of them, and most men's minds are infected with their doctrine and seditious persuasions.

"They have so gained the women that they are in a manner all of them absolute recusants. Children and servants are wholly taught and catechised by them, esteeming the same (as in truth it is) a sound and sure foundation of their synagogue. They withdraw many from the Church that formerly had conformed themselves; and others, of whom good hope had been conceived, they have made altogether obstinate, disobedient, and contemptuous. Most of the mayors and principal officers of cities and corporate towns, and justices of the peace of this country birth refuse to take the oath of supremacy, as is requisite by the statute. And, for an instance, the party that should this year have been mayor of Dublin, avoided it to his very great charges, only because he would not take the oath. The towns neglect to renew their charters, and some inhabitants of the same, formerly called in question for their recusancy, still lie in prison for their contempt, because they will not enter into bonds (as required by usage) not wittingly and willingly to converse with or relieve seminary priests and Jesuits. Most gentlemen and others that should sue forth their liveries leave the same undone because of the oath. The people in many places resort to mass now in greater multitudes, both in town and country, than for many years past; and if it chance that any priest known to be factious and working be apprehended, both men and women will not stick to rescue the party. In no less multitudes do these priests hold general councils and conventicles together many times about their affairs; and, to be short, they have so far withdrawn the people from all reverence and fear of the laws and loyalty towards His Majesty, and brought their business already to this pass, that such as are conformed and go to church are everywhere derided, scorned, and oppressed by the multitude, to their great discouragement and to the scandal of all good men; and they have combined the chief persons in sundry parts of the kingdom in an engagement to declare themselves for their cause immediately upon the arrival of any foreign succours in their behalf. Many men have sworn to it, and many more have signed it in writing under their hands, and sent the same into Spain, as is affirmed. The party that revealed this likewise confessed that he himself had set his hand to that list, among a number of others therein contained." (fn. 106)

The only glimpse which we have of the actual condition of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of the social and domestic relations between them and their flocks at this time, is found in a letter of the Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, dated from Rosscarbery, to the Lord Deputy, and conveying a report of the state of the dioceses under his charge. (fn. 107) He describes the material as well as the religious ruin of his diocese to be complete. The country, he says, is waste, especially those parts where His Majesty's army, the Spanish forces, and "the rebellious rout" lay during the siege of Kinsale. "They that escaped the sword," he says, "died of famine; and out of those parts of the diocese, by credible report, 4,000 or 5,000 are departed, some to France, some to Spain. So that the country is without inhabitants from Cork to the west as far as Berehaven."

But if the material aspect was bad, the religious aspect was worse. They had the face of a church, but it was overwhelmed with the darkness of idolatry; and as for the very few qualified incumbents, set down in his certificate, they cannot execute their functions so long as those seditious priests are suffered to walk at liberty, with no law to restrain them.

"In Cork, Kinsale, Youghall, and all the country over within his charge, no marriages, christenings, &c. are done but by Popish priests this seven years, only Roscarbry excepted, where he remains and may command, for he suffers none to inhabit, unless they conform themselves and obey the laws in that point; so that the Romish priests have all but the tithe corn, wherein they are resisted; otherwise both priest and people would easily agree to thrust them (the English ministers) out of all. Prays his Lordship therefore, and the Lords of the Council, that the ministers of the word may be assisted in execution of their functions, to take care of the whole mass committed to their charge.

"In the Lord Barrie's country, and Sir John FitzEdmunds' territory at Imokelly, the livings either belong to the college of Youghal or appropriate to abbeys, and are possessed by Sir John FitzEdmunds, or else holden by him. The Lord Roche's country is well provided [with ministers]. Orory [Orrery] and Dowally [Duhallow] somewhat. Has procured some preachers from England. Five or six livings must be united till the country shall be inhabited better. An English minister must needs be beholden to the Irishry; his neighbours love him not, especially his profession and doctrine, they being compelled to hear him; moreover, the spiritual livings in these parts are precarious." (fn. 108)

But what most grieved the Bishop was the encouragement given by the conforming lords and gentlemen to priests and friars.

"There is an abbey at Buttevant under the Lord Barry," says the Bishop, "where divers friars in their habits go up and down the country, to the grief of the godly, in a kingdom where so godly a King as His Majesty is, reigneth."

He mentions the names of several who live under the protection of Lord Barry of Buttevant, adding:—

"These Sir John countenances openly at his own table, especially the said Rory, (head of Buttevant convent), commending them to the world and applauding their profession and manner of life. They be sturdy fellows, well fed and warm. In these abbeys are continual and daily masses and assemblies and conventicles, little for the good of the King and the State.

"Besides these friars, every gentleman and lord of country hath his priests, and at these abbeys they usually meet. Every friar and priest is called Father; yea, talk with the Lord Barry, the Lord Roche, or any man, no other name but Father; Father such an one; Father such an one. So are they bewitched and blinded. The Lord President here proceeding against the priests of Cork and Limerick, a number of them fled; but now since this plague, which much hindereth my Lord's godly proceedings, others are come in their place. The chiefest are not yet returned, but are expected by reason of the common talk, and nothing is now in their mouths but liberty of conscience. Knows not what they would have more. Massing is in every place; idolatry is publicly maintained; God's word and his truth is trodden down under foot, despised, railed at, and contemned of all; the ministers not esteemed—no, not with them that should reverence and countenance them. The professors of the Gospel may learn of these idolators to regard their pastors." (fn. 109)

But to revert to the Proclamation of 4th July 1605, which was intended to drive the clergy out of Ireland, and force their flocks into the fold of the Established Church.

The Proclamation, it will be observed, had a double aspect. It deals in its first part with the Roman Catholic laity, in the second part with the clergy; and in this twofold aspect it will be necessary to deal with it, but in a reversed order, viz., with the treatment and condition of the clergy first, and then with the treatment of the laity.

Penal Proceedings Against the Catholic Clergy.

Justice Saxey advised the Privy Council (fn. 110) that the Statute of 27 Elizabeth, for banishing the Roman Catholic clergy from the Queen's dominions, and rendering any of them found there after the end of that session of Parliament guilty of high treason and death, extended to Ireland. This was a novel view. It had never yet been contended that any statute of the Parliament of England bound Ireland, unless expressly named. Even afterwards, so late as 1620, in the Parliament of England, when it was moved to acquaint the King with the grievances of Ireland, considering how much blood and treasure it had cost this kingdom, Sir John Davys said, "It is expressly in the Law Books set down that Ireland is a member of the Crown of England; yet this kingdom here cannot make laws to bind that kingdom; for they have there a Parliament of their own." (fn. 111) It is true that this stretch of power was essayed in the revolutionary times of 1642, when an English statute assigned the land to be forfeited in Ireland to the English Adventurers; but even this statute, such as it was, was not acted upon, being superseded at the Restoration by the Act passed by the Parliament of Ireland in 1662, called the Act of Settlement, for re-settling the lands set out by Cromwell.

The Catholic lawyers contended on the contrary, (fn. 112) that the Statute 27 Elizabeth did not extend to Ireland, or empower the King and the Government to exercise the jurisdiction they assumed, of ordering the priests to abjure their native country under pain of lifelong imprisonment or death, as was implied in the proclamation of the 4th of July 1605.

Yet the priests and clergy are represented by Sir John Davys, in the beginning of this year, as not only expecting banishment (which was not surprising), but as desiring it. If His Majesty's pleasure were published that they should depart the realm, many of them, said he, would begone very willingly, that they might have good colour to beg and seek preferment in the richer parts of Christendom, whereas in Ireland they live but in "sluttish beggary." And he said they were only waiting for the publishing of it. "For" (says he) "within these few weeks one of the friars of Mulfernon (Multifarnham) in Westmeath came to the castle of Dublin to visit his fellows imprisoned by the Lord Deputy for erecting a monastery and college of friars, although it was within the Pale; and being stayed by the constable, and asked, 'How he dare come to the King's castle?' his answer was, 'That he presumed he might come to any place within the kingdom until the proclamation of their banishment were made, which they expected shortly, and then they would willingly depart the realm.' If, however," adds Sir John, they should not depart upon the proclamation, the Government doubts not (as he formerly wrote) but they should make their persons liable to the penal laws of England, and all other the King's dominions, and make them traitors, if they return into England or any other of the King's dominions." (fn. 113) Now, though the Lord Deputy and Council might legally compel the laity to church conformity under 2 Elizabeth (Irish) by fines of 12 pence for absence every Sunday and holyday, there was no law enabling them by proclamation to banish the clergy. The 27 Elizabeth was an English Act. And though Mr. Justice Saxey suggested that "the Queen's dominions" included Ireland, (fn. 114) which might be true in the common acceptation of the words, and though Sir John Davys, then new to Ireland, seemed to be of the same opinion, yet it was a mis-interpretation of the language of the statute. For the Parliament of England (as already mentioned) (fn. 115) had no power to pass laws for Ireland. Even Poyning's Act for making all past statutes made in England for the public weal of England to be deemed good in Ireland (fn. 116) was an Act of the Parliament of Ireland, and all subsequent English statutes were of no force unless adopted by the Parliament of Ireland. Indeed, Sir John Davys himself was of the same opinion. For in his former letter which he refers to, he admits there were not such laws against the Roman Catholic clergy as in England, yet if a proclamation, he said, were made by the King for their banishment they would probably fly, "or, if they could be apprehended, they might be imprisoned in Ireland (fn. 117) or else sent into England where the penal laws will take hold of their persons." (fn. 118)

Whether it was any doubt of this kind that restrained the Lord Deputy and Council for a time, or whether they thought it better to make trial of this assumed jurisdiction at a distance from the chief seat of government, does not appear; but the first proclamation of the kind was put forth in Munster. On 14th August 1604 (nearly a year before the King's proclamation) Sir Henry Brouncker, Lord President, with the Council of Munster, issued a proclamation banishing all Jesuits, seminaries, and massing priests out of all the corporate towns in the province by the 30th September following; and offered a reward of 40l. for every Jesuit, 6l. 8s. 4d. for every seminary, and 5l. for every massing priest that should be brought to him." (fn. 119) There was little doubt, said the proclamation, that "the peace which the province had been lately reduced to, would continue, if those stirrers of sedition were taken away, especially now that teachers of God's most holy word were plentifully placed in the province." The President and Council well knew, they say, that these deceiving instruments swarmed in all the corporate towns, and that, whilst they were resident amongst them, the quiet of the country would be uncertain, "and that those that would otherwise yield obedience were kept back by the devilish enforcements of these practisers." (fn. 120)

In order to understand what followed, it is necessary to remember that there were no laws of this penal character in force in Ireland, to support the proclamation of the President and Council of Munster, and the subsequent proclamation of the King, in so far as it regarded the banishment of the clergy.

Henry VIII. passed no such law in Ireland. Edward VI. held no Parliament whatever in Ireland. Philip and Mary were Catholics, and the Parliament they held in Ireland passed no penal laws. The Parliament called by Queen Elizabeth in Ireland in the second year of her reign passed no Act except the Act of Uniformity. There was no special enactment in that Act against priests.

Sir John Davys makes a great merit, at the trial of Robert Lalor, for indicting him under the Statute of Premunire, passed in King Richard II.'s time, by a "Papist" Parliament, and expounded by old Papist judges, and not under legislation since the time of Henry VIII. But the truth is, that there was no recent legislation for Ireland bearing on the case; and the construction put by Sir John Davys and the judges in this case on the Statute of Premunire of Richard II. and the earlier ones of Edward I. and Edward III., which he cited in support of his argument, was resisted on Lalor's part, as a forced and unjust construction. Could it be be supposed, they asked, that under a Roman Catholic King, a Parliament, whether in England or in Ireland, of Roman Catholic bishops, peers, and commons would have passed an Act, the direct effect of which must have been the extinction of the Roman Catholic religion? Now such would be the effect of these ancient acts, if Lalor were to be condemned under them for assuming, in virtue of the Pope's bull, the office of Vicar-General of Dublin, Kildare, and Ferns, and issuing dispensations, and exercising that office. Every Roman Catholic bishop (for they must all act under the Pope's bull) was equally guilty of Premunire. And as the whole administration of the Catholic Church was derived from the Pope, and was carried on by bishops appointed and empowered by bulls from Rome, the whole organization was struck with illegality at its source; and the religion must, as the consequences of the judgment in Lalor's case, be extinguished.

This assuredly, they urged, was not the design of the Statute of Premunire, and of similar acts, as passed by the old Catholic Parliaments. All, they contended, that these various statutes were designed to effect, was to leave the appointments to bishoprics, priories, and rectories to the King, or to patrons of rectories in England, and not to the Pope, and to forbid appeals to the courts of Rome instead of to the ecclesiastical courts in England. It was a contest between the rival jurisdictions of the King and the Pope, each asserting a right to appoint to Roman Catholic offices; and the Statutes of Premunire maintained for the King the right to appoint and translate Roman Catholic bishops to offices in the Roman Catholic Church.

But when the Roman Catholic Church was extinguished by law in England and Ireland, all the reason of the law ceased; and as Lalor truly said, his office, his decrees, his processes, were thenceforward, in the eye of the law, merely titular, and of force only in foro conscientiæ, not in foro judicii. There was no officer of the King's, in fact, to be interfered with; for Lalor's acts only concerned Catholics, and the King no longer claimed, as at the time of the Statutes of Premunire, to appoint a Vicargeneral for them.

Nevertheless Sir John Davys, on the other hand, vehemently urged his own construction.

"Now, Master Lalor," he triumphantly asked, "What think you of these things? Did you believe that such laws as these had been made against the Pope 200, 250, 300 years since? .... Of what religion think you were the propounders and enacters of these laws? Were they good Catholics? Or good subjects? Or what were they? You will not say they were Protestants, for you will not admit the reformed religion to be so ancient as those times . . . . They were Papists as well as you, but they . . . thought it a good point of religion to be good subjects, to honour their King, to love their country, and to maintain the laws and liberties thereof, howsoever in other points they did err, and were misled by the Church of Rome. So now (Master Lalor) you have no excuse, no evasion; but your conscience must condemn you as well as the law; since the lawmakers and all religious Papists and Protestants do condemn you. Unless you think yourself wiser than all the bishops that were then in England, or all the judges who were learned in the Civil and Canon Laws, as well as in the Common Law of England;" with much more of the same sort. To these instances he added the laws made by the Parliament of Ireland in Edward I., Edward III., and Henry VI.'s days, concluding with the statute passed in the 16th year of Edward IV. in Ireland, condemning such as purchased any bulls of provision in the Court of Rome, as soon as they had published them to the hurt of any incumbent, to be adjudged traitors; which act (he added in conclusion), "if it be not repealed by the statutes of Queen Mary, may terrify Master Lalor more than all the acts which are before remembered." (fn. 121)

Penal Proceedings Against the Catholic Laity.

Such were the proceedings upon that branch of the King's proclamation of 4th July 1605 against any further connivance at the presence of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and his determination for the banishment of the whole of them by the 10th December in that year. It is time now to turn to the other branch of the same proclamation, declaring to all his loving subjects of Ireland his resolve that they never should have from him any toleration to exercise any other religion than that established by law, and requiring them all to attend divine service in the parish churches according to the intent of the statute, and on the penalties contained therein, which he would have from henceforth put in execution, and to consider the state of the law as regarded the lay Catholics of Ireland.

At the accession of King James I. the only penal law in force directly affecting the Irish Catholic laity was the Statute of 2 Elizabeth, imposing a fine of 12 pence for every breach of the injunction in that statute, requiring every one to attend the Protestant service in his parish church every Sunday and holyday. Small as this fine may appear, it ordinarily amounted, with the costs of the levy, to ten shillings, through the practices of the under officers.

Even without any other addition it was ruinous to peasants, churls, and poor tradesmen. (fn. 122) To the wealthier Catholics it was less afflictive. But as the King and his counsellors had resolved no longer to connive at the private exercise of their religion by the Catholics of Ireland, which Queen Elizabeth had so long acquiesced in, they determined to find some means of compelling the attendance of the wealthier Catholics at the services of the Established Church; and as they deemed the penalties of the Statute of 2 Elizabeth too light to effect this object, they had recourse to the King's prerogative and the invention of royal "Mandates." These were letters under the Privy or Broad Seal addressed to any of his subjects by name, by the King, commanding his particular attendance at church in the presence of the Deputy, or of the President of the Provinces of Munster and Connaught, or of their respective councils. Disobedience in such cases was to be construed into a contempt of the King's Majesty, to be punished by the censure or decree of the Court of Star or Castle Chamber, with a heavy fine and imprisonment during pleasure. The jurisdiction in such cases was completely novel and unheard of. It was intended against the wealthier Catholics, and was to be first tried in cities and boroughs, as it was thought that if the necks of the chief men of these places were bowed, the rest of the country and the poorer Catholics would submit. The practices, therefore, against the Irish Catholics were twofold, i.e., against the common people and the wealthier townsmen, a distinction which should be kept in mind. The proceedings also were taken by two different jurisdictions, by the Deputy and Council at Dublin and by the Presidents and Councils in Munster and Connaught. We shall consider the courses taken at the capital and in the provinces.

Beginning with Dublin, it appears that on the putting forth of the King's proclamation of 4th July 1605, the nobility and gentry of the English Pale prepared a petition most numerously signed, praying for a suspension of the order for the banishment of the priests. They deplored, they said, the sinister information, given, as it would seem to them, against the honour, loyalty, and duty of His Majesty's faithful subjects of Ireland, as though they were or might, by the inducement of priests (a matter they protested never used by any of them) be alienated in their affections; which information had induced this proclamation, forbidding them the private use of their religion, and exposing them to the penalties enacted against it by the Statute. (fn. 123) They therefore prayed the Deputy to suspend it till they might have recourse to the King himself. Meantime, however, Sir Arthur Chichester and the Council, instead of suspending the King's proclamation, were preparing another edition of it, which they put forth on 16th October with a new and more fatal clause. For whilst that of the 5th July 1605 threatened the penalties of the Statute of 2 Elizabeth against offenders, the new proclamation was in these words, "not only on the penalties therein contained [in the statute of 2 Eliz.], but also upon pain of His Majesty's high displeasure, and of such further punishments as may be lawfully inflicted upon the wilful contemners of His Majesty's royal commands, proclamations, and prerogatives." (fn. 124)

The purpose of this fresh proclamation with its new clause was to bring the recusants within the grasp of the Court of Castle Chamber. Upon this proclamation, therefore, there were issued mandates in the King's name to sixteen of the chief aldermen and citizens of Dublin to attend the Mayor to Christ Church to hear divine service, and to present themselves there before the Lord Deputy and Council. (fn. 125)

As the aldermen failed to attend, they were summoned before the Court of Castle Chamber, and on the first day nine were fined, six in 100l. each, the others in 50l.; and "the last part of the sentence," writes Sir Arthur Chichester, "was that they should all remain prisoners in this castle during the Lord Deputy's and "this Court's pleasure. (fn. 126) And he adds that the Court directed part of the fines to be laid out on repairing the churches in Dublin that remained ruinous since the blast of gunpowder, part to the relief of the poor scholars in the college, and in other necessary and charitable uses; that they might perceive it was not their goods but their conformity that was sought. (fn. 127)

In the beginning of 1606 the rest were fined in like manner and imprisoned during pleasure. (fn. 128)

The imprisoned aldermen, in order to defeat the censure or decree, made over all their goods to their children, prentices, and friends; and when these gifts were impeached by the Attorney-General as fraudulent, the jury would not find them so; whereupon he proceeded in the Castle Chamber, all the judges being called to assist, and the deeds were condemned as void to bar the King's execution. The best precedent and example," says Sir John Davys in his report to Salisbury, "that had been made in that kingdom for many years." (fn. 129)

Petition of the Gentry of the English Pale.

These unwonted proceedings raised universal indignation among the Catholics.

Lord Gormanston and Lord Trimleston, Lord Killeen and Lord Howth, complained temperately to Salisbury with regard to the proclamation, that greater severity was used in the execution of it than the law appointed or His Majesty intended; as the King's proclamation (of 5th July 1605) expressed that the penalties should be referred to what was contained in the Statutes of this realm; yet (under the other of 16th October 1605), for not going to church, men were bound over (as if it had been some outrageous contempt or heinous riot) to appear in the Castle Chamber, "which never before had been used as a Spiritual Consistory," and were there fined and imprisoned; "and for levying those fines (at this present) their houses and doors are broken up, their wives and poor children distressed and terrified, with divers other extremities too long to relate." (fn. 130)

Meantime the subscribers of the petition, represented by Lord Gormanston and Sir Patrick Barnewall, being very pressing for an answer to it, Chichester thereupon summoned them, together with Richard Netterville, old Henry Burnell, and Christopher Flatsbury, the chief contrivers of the multitudinous petition, and committed them to the Castle prison. (fn. 131)

Sir Patrick Barnewall, though he declared he was not the contriver of the petition, signed and defended it in what Sir Arthur Chichester and the Council describe as the most obstinate and indecent manner. (fn. 132) They state that on the Deputy's insinuating that considering the late treason in England (alluding to the Gunpowder Plot), he saw reasons for thinking there might be concert between the petitioners and the traitors, Sir Patrick Barnewall said, "that the Deputy's speech was wire-drawing, and without probability or likelihood." And soon after, being pressed by the Chancellor about his religion, which was contrasted with the established religion, and which the Chancellor, the Lord Bishop of Meath, happened (they add) to call "the King's religion," he forthwith interposed, "That is a profane speech." Whereupon the Chief Justice laid open to him his transgression in defending the petition, and how he had incurred the penalty of a contempt by his remarks without any regard to the place; upon which he bade the Chief Justice "leave his carping," and therewith struck the cushion before the Deputy sitting in Council, and held his hand thereon till he was reproved for it. (fn. 133)

But, as usual, Sir John Davys gives one of the most graphic accounts of this scene in a postscript to his letters to Salisbury.

In the earlier part of his letter he recounts the proceedings against the aldermen, and their committal to prison; upon which he remarks, that they, the StarChamber, "would prove a good School-House to teach that people obedience." He then adds:—

"P.S.—I had almost forgotten one circumstance. When Sir Patrick Barnewall was committed from the Council table, 'Well,' said he, 'we must endure as we 'have endured many other things.' 'What mean you 'by that?' said the Deputy. 'We have endured,' said Barnewall, 'the late war, and other calamities besides." 'You endured the misery of the late war?' said the Deputy. 'No, Sir. We have endured the misery of the 'war; we have lost our blood and our friends, and have 'indeed endured extreme miseries to suppress the late 'rebellion, whereof your priests, for whom you make 'petition, and your wicked religion, was the principal 'cause.' And so without any reply (he says in conclusion) he was committed to the constable." (fn. 134)

Sir Patrick Barnewall, who had suffered so severely, comments, in his defence to the Earl of Salisbury, on these proceedings and the proceedings in regard to himself. He protests that he scanned the petition of the Pale when presented to him (being then in the remotest parts of the Pale, and not the author of it), and conceived it to be dutifully framed and void of offence. He represents to Salisbury that sending Mandates under the Broad Seal to the aldermen and chief citizens, and fining and imprisoning them by the Star Chamber, was affirmed by all the learned to be contrary to the law which appoints the proceedings and the penalty in the case of offence, and absolutely forbids all other. "The invention of the Mandates," (fn. 135) he proceeds, "is solely ascribed by general opinion to Sir James Ley, the now Lord Chief Justice, a man generally behated throughout this kingdom, who in the court where he sitteth, to the great scandal of justice, denieth men the copy of their indictments. . . . . . . The execution of these judgments in the Star Chamber is thought (he says in conclusion) preposterous, men's houses and doors being broken up by the serjeant-at-arms in search of their goods; and by this unlawful course of proceeding he greatly fears that even now are laid down the foundations of some future rebellion, to which, though twenty years be gone, the memory of these extremities may give pretence." (fn. 136)

Whilst the aldermen and wealthier citizens were thus dealt with as for a contempt of the King's Mandate in the Castle Chamber, the lower burgesses were indicted in the King's Bench on presentments of the grand juries, finding them recusant, under the 2 Elizabeth, in not attending the Protestant service in their parish churches. These presentments were founded on lists, brought in by the churchwardens, of all the Papists in the parish who had neglected to come to church.

Sir John Davys, in the year 1607, vaunts the effect of it to Salisbury:—"For the matter of religion," he says, the constant execution of the penal law of twelve pence for every Sunday and holyday prevails so much, that in Meath all the inhabitants of the town of Trim, in Westmeath the greatest part of Mullingar, conform themselves; in the King's and Queen's Counties, where there are colonies of English, many entire parishes are reformed, namely and specially, the towns of Philipstown and Maryborough come to church. The reformation wrought in this kind through the kingdom is principally effected through the civil magistrate; for the churches which are yet in ruin everywhere, and whereof the greatest number want curates to perform Christian duties in them, accuse the clergy of extreme negligence." (fn. 137)

And again, in a letter to Salisbury of 30th of March 1607, "This being a time which was wont to be dedicated to devotion and the service of God, his Lordship (Sir Arthur Chichester, Lord Deputy) had used his best endeavour to bring the people to church, wherein being assisted by some of the Council and bishops, he has prevailed so far with the richer inhabitants of this town, that out of twelve or thirteen aldermen ten had conformed themselves, and twenty other of the chief burgesses. To reduce the commoners of this town a commission of oyer and terminer was granted unto him (Sir John Davys) and some others. They had indicated the greatest number of the householders, together with their wives and children and servants, upon the penal Statute of 2 Elizabeth, which imposeth a forfeiture of twelve pence for not coming to church every Sunday and holyday. This little penalty, with some extraordinary diligence in calling them in by the poll to plead to the indictment, hath brought to conformity 200 of the commons; and they hope, before the Feast of Easter be passed, a greater number will be added.— Drogheda, 30 March 1607." (fn. 138)

And Sir John, judging of the Irish national character, from what had taken place in England, was under the persuasion that these penal courses would turn the Irish into Protestants.

"Touching this work of reformation" (meaning, he adds, the bringing of the people to church) "the State is engaged in it, and it must be constantly pursued or else they must ever thereafter despair to do anything in it. It may seem to have 'difficiles aditus;' but he was strongly persuaded that it would have a general good success, for the Irishry, priests, people, and all, will (he confidently adds) come to church. The Lord Deputy told him the priests within his government of Knockfergus had for the most part taken the oath of supremacy, and Sir Foulk Conway, the Deputy Governor there, told him that since the proclamation published they came to him and offered to conform themselves. The like is to be presumed of the multitude in general throughout the kingdom; for so it happened in King Edward VI.'s days, when more than half the kingdom were Papists; and again in the time of Queen Mary, when more than half the kingdom were Protestants; and again in Queen Elizabeth's time, when they were turned Papists again.

"The multitude was ever made conformable by edicts and proclamations, and though the corporations in that realm and certain of the principal gentlemen stood out, and the multitude only by their example, yet if this one corporation of Dublin were reformed, the rest would follow; and if these gentlemen now in the Castle were reduced, the whole Pale would be brought to conformity; therefore he beseeches Salisbury not to despair of the success of this business, though there were some opposition at the first." (fn. 139)

The Catholic Clergy in Munster.

We must turn now from Leinster and the capital to the provinces, and especially to Munster, as there remain better memorials of the proceedings there than in Connaught. We shall observe the same order as in the foregoing part, and deal with the treatment, first, of the clergy; secondly, of the burgesses and wealthier Catholics; and thirdly, of the common sort.

And firstly, as regards priests. Sir Henry Brouncker, the President of that province, has set forth in a remarkable paper (fn. 140) his "reasons why religion should be enforced, especially in the cities of Munster, seeing that they will not by persuasion and fair means be brought to church."

"Religion," it is there said, "must be planted in Ireland first in the cities; for if cities be reformed, the country will follow, they being lanterns to the country round about.

"The flame of true religion breaking out in the towns, the sparks will fly abroad and kindle a fire in the country that will burn up all the weeds of barbarism in time. Religion in Germany, France, and the Low Countries took the beginning and seed of reformation from the cities.

"Religion may be planted," it continues, "without the supposed difficulties.

"First, the Irish generally make no great conscience of any religion. For proof hereof, as the Lords stand affected, so goeth religion current with the tenants. The Lord Bishop of Cork brings all his tenants with him to church at Rosse, where he resides, and hath an Irishman that expounds to them, to whom they are wonderfully attentive. Sir John Dowdall did the like with his tenants until they were chided, as they say themselves, by their neighbours of Youghall, and durst come no more. Sir Francis Barkly assumes the like conformity with his tenants.

"Secondly, many expect and long to be enforced that they may have an excuse for their coming to church. For this only point of disfavour and discountenancing by their kinsfolk and neighbours in their private affairs, keeps many back that would fain come to church, if it were not for that lion that lies in their way; and those that live in the country do daily see that they are all maligned and deadly hated as devils and hell-hounds if they come once to church, and their Catholic wives will neither eat nor lie with their husbands if they be excommunicated for heretics, as presently they are by the priests if they come to the Protestant service. The priests prevail mightily throughout all Ireland with the women, and they with their husbands. This general disgrace that they receive upon their conformity, is a main reason that some who go not to mass, dare not come to church and communicate with Protestants.

"If Popery be suffered to nestle in Ireland (as yet it doth), seeing that the laws here are not so strict against recusants, both English priests and Papists will come over into Ireland and make their dens there, as they have done already, to the exceeding danger of both kingdoms.

"There is great likelihood," he continues, "that religion might be planted in Ireland without any tumult. This is to be considered, that there was never yet any Irish martyr.

"And it may be the more easily planted because the country is yet poor, and they have few or no good horses, and the plantations in the north and our union with Scotland are snaffles in their jaws to restrain them from excursions or rebellions as yet; for without foreign aid their force is as nothing.

"Lastly, the safe and secure laws against all Romish treason made in England, and an uniform government in the church of Scotland, so much enforced, may make them worthily fear and speedily expect that religion shall not be neglected, much less forgotten, in Ireland. Therefore, to conclude with one heating to make two nails, it shall rivet the State of Ireland, plant religion, and kill rebellion."

Impelled by such motives, Sir Henry Brouncker proceeded to those severe measures against the people of the towns and cities within his province and presidency. He was the first, as already mentioned, to proclaim the banishment of the clergy of his province. (fn. 141) How little effect it had appears from the account given by the Earl of Thomond, who was appointed, jointly with Sir Richard Moryson, on Brouncker's death, to govern the province till a new president should be appointed. On 6th September 1607, he writes to Salisbury that he found the province swarming with priests, and had placed some horse at Clonmel and Cashel under good officers, hoping to take some of them, those towns being their chief resort, but all in vain. They were so befriended that none of them could be caught. (fn. 142)

The Catholic Laity in Munster.

To pass from the priests to the Catholic laity of the province of Munster. On 12th November 1606, Sir John Davys describes the course he took as Commissioner of Assize and Gaol Delivery in the counties of Wicklow, Wexford, and Waterford.

"When we came to Waterford, where we sat first," says Sir John Davys, "we found there the Lord President of Munster (Brouncker) with others of the Council of that province. The principal business we had to do, and which drew my Lord President to meet us here, was to inflict some punishment upon the obstinate recusants of that city, which hitherto had not been performed. The course we took against them was of two kinds: Against the principal aldermen we proceeded by way of censure at the council table of the province for their several contempts against the King's proclamations and the special commandments of the Lord President under the council seal of Munster. Against the multitude we proceeded by way of indictment upon the Statute of 2 Elizabeth, which giveth only twelve pence for absence from church every Sunday and holyday. The fines imposed at the table were not heavy, being upon some, 50l. apiece, upon others 40l., so that the total sum came but to 400l.; but there were so many of the commoners indicted that the penalty given by the Statutes came to 240l., or thereabouts." (fn. 143) The Lords of the Privy Council returned thanks to Sir Henry Brouncker for these proceedings, and informed him that they had since written to the magistrates of Waterford that they might find, besides their offence towards God himself, what hazard they ran of their estates and fortunes, by His Majesty's displeasure, if they continued to provoke him in this manner by their contumacy. (fn. 144)

From Waterford they proceeded to New Ross to indict the recusants of that place and of the town of Wexford, and, finding that the Wexford jury declined to present their fellow townsmen as recusants, "we were fain," says Sir John Davys, "to threaten them with the Star Chamber before they would return any presentment to us." (fn. 145)

At Clonmel, at Cashel, at Youghal, at Limerick, at Cork, and in every town throughout Munster, similar proceedings were taken and fines imposed. In order to the levy of these fines through the officers of the Exchequer, the Presidents were obliged to return thither estreats (or extracts) from their records of the fines with their causes. The following is Sir Henry Brouncker's return of the fines laid on in the summer of 1606, when Sir John Davys accompanied him:—

"Court of Exchequer, Trinity Term, 4th of James I., Munster.—Certain Fines imposed by the Lord President and Council there, estreated hither, together with the causes thereof, and here inrolled.

"Whereas at the first entrance of me, the Lord President, into the government of this province, I did particularly acquaint the magistrates, chief aldermen, and burgesses of every city and corporate town here, with His Majesty's express pleasure, so that they might not longer forbear to perform the outward duty His Highness expected from them, for their orderly repair from time to time to the Holy Temple and church of God, there to hear divine service and sermons read and preached as become true Christians and good subjects to His Majesty; and so often continued the remembrance thereof unto them as I did well conceive they would have bethought themselves of the long neglect they had used, and so now have called themselves home to the shew of their meet duty; but finding in them an apparent neglect not to be removed by such easy and gentle admonition, upon my advertisement thereof first into England, and soon after unto the Lord Deputy, I received a special commandment from His Majesty under his own signature, and direction from the Lord Deputy, with instructions to proceed with them in a more strict manner; and withal his Lordship sending unto me an exemplification of the statute in the second year of Queen Elizabeth, under the broad seal of this realm, bearing date at Dublin the last day of November last entitled, ' An Act for 'the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church, and the Administration of the Sacraments,' I caused an assembly of the Council then present, with the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of Cork, to attend me, and published the same, whereby they took precise notice of the contents of the said statute and of His Majesty's royal prerogative in case they should rest themselves upon the pains recited in the body thereof. But this moving no conformity, they being resolved wilfully to contemn and disobey it, I proceeded immediately, according to the Lord Deputy's instructions, to send forth Mandates in His Majesty's own name under the teste of His Highness's privy signet of the province, which only required that they should, according to the statute, repair orderly upon every Sunday and holyday to their parish church or chapel, or some such like place where divine service and sermons were read and preached, and there to continue soberly and decently during that exercise, otherwise to incur the pain and danger of His Majesty's high indignation, and to feel the infliction of His Highness's prerogative power. And besides these Mandates thus severally sent and delivered unto them, some five times, unto some four times, and to the least three times,—I, with such of the Council as assisted me from time to time, have often sent for them before us, and as well laboured their conformities to the performance of their duties according to the tenor of the said Mandates, and also laid open to them the damages they would run into by contemning the same. But notwithstanding all these good endeavours used by us unto them, which at many times I ceased not to work, as also by other privy means that they might have avoided further troubles and hindrances, yet would they not yield any shew of obedience to the command of His Majesty's Mandates set forth by His Majesty's prerogative. We then, considering the weight of the cause in hand, which was not to be neglected by us, however they, through lack of grace to discern what was fit to have been done, or of good understanding to direct their hearts in the obedience and duty required, convented the persons under-named before us to see if they could give any reason for their contemptuous recusancy; who upon conference could allege nothing else but that their forefathers had continued as they were in the Popish religion, and that their consciences tied them to the same, not one of them being able to define what conscience was. Yet to win them if it might be, or at least to labour the same, and to leave no means unattempted that might carry any semblance of effect in this godly service, we offered unto them respite to advise, so as they would confer with such learned preachers of ours as we should assign to work with them; which motion or anything else that might be said or made unto them was of no acceptation, they being wholly bent obstinately and undutifully to persist in their contumacious recusancy against His Majesty's Royal prerogative commanded them in the said Mandates; insomuch that after many and long delays in this remiss manner used unto them from the 14th of November last, at which time the proclamation before remembered was published, besides my frequent exhortations and admonitions preceding the same until the 26th day of February last, we then at the last time convented them again before us to understand their resolute answers, and what they or any of them could allege for themselves in defence of such undutiful contempts as they had expressed tending to great disloyalty if advantage were taken thereof, as they had informed; who being nothing penitent of any contempt, but resolved to maintain the same as a matter of conscience, we proceeded to the censuring of them as for contempts against His Majesty's commandments, expressed in the Mandates, and imposed upon each the fines annexed unto their names, with imprisonment during pleasure, the one half of which fines by the judgment of the court were assigned for the erecting of an hospital in or near the city of Cork, and such other like pious uses, and the other half to the use of His Majesty; the estreats whereof followeth hereunder. Given at Cork under His Majesty's Privy Signet of Munster, the 15th of June 1606.

Sir Henry Brouncker, well satisfied, justified his measures in the following letter:—

"Sir Henry Brouncker to the Lords of the Privy Council.

"Finding by experience and by the loss of his extreme labours that his gentleness was abused, he was forced to forget his own nature and to deal more severely with the wilful, knowing that application brought understanding, and that it is good for offenders to be humbled. Thus far he had prevailed, that many of the towns are almost wholly reclaimed, and even this city of Cork, however stubborn soever not many weeks past, is now so well conformed that the mayor, having been brought up amongst the Spaniards, and for a long time extremely wilful, has by a little correction been brought to church, and so in love with the Word preached, and so well satisfied in conscience, that he offered to 'communicate' with him (Brouncker). Many of his brethren and the commons (he continues) follow his example, and the assembly so increases daily that he has no doubt all or the most part will conform themselves, excepting some ignorant and vain-glorious persons, of whose conversion notwithstanding he is not altogether hopeless. The good bishop of this diocese has so well provided learned preachers that he that cometh to church most unwillingly goeth home both comforted and contented, and thankful to him (Brouncker) for compelling this obedience." (fn. 147)

Upon Sir Henry Brouncker's death, Sir Richard Moryson, a commissioner for the government of Munster ad interim, affirms in his first report on the state of religion in the province where the late Lord President worthily laboured to bring it to some perfection, that "almost all the principal men of the towns are either prisoners or upon bonds and other contempts, and but little yet levied. They find and hear of many now relapsed, who in his (Brouncker's) time were conformable;" (fn. 148) but he and the Earl of Thomond, his fellow commissioner, he adds, were determined to make the reducing of these the first part of their work; and they had taken a view of all the fines of the province yet unlevied, which amount to 7,000l.

Petitions against Brouncker's severity had reached the Lords of the Privy Council before his death.

"Many of the merchants and other inhabitants of corporate towns, terrified, (says Sir Arthur Chichester) as they pretended, with his proceedings, gave over their trades and betook themselves into the country, openly professing that they would abandon their traffic beyond the seas, rather than the President should be benefited by the impost on wines; and that they would rather incur any infliction of the law than that he should gain any glory or commendation in the work which he intended." (fn. 149)

The Lords upon this (or rather upon the intelligence of the troubles brewing) directed that some relaxation should be made, as they were apprehensive that the loyalty of the towns, which had always been the mainstay of English power, and had been built and inhabited by English, and faithful to the English interest, should be alienated. "Their loyalty continued steadfast," they write to Sir Arthur Chichester, "in the time of the [late] rebellion assisted by the Spanish forces, which makes them fit to be the better cherished, and therefore a special care should be taken for preserving their good affection." (fn. 150)

These proceedings against the chief merchants and aldermen by way of punishment, as for contempt of the King's Mandate, was always accompanied, as against the lower orders, by the levy of fines under the Act of 2 Elizabeth. Another account by Sir John Davys of what was done in this respect on the Munster circuit during the Lent Assizes of 1606, will well repay attention. (fn. 151)

The Catholics of Connaught.

From Munster we pass to Connaught.

Of the proceedings in Connaught there is no mention in the Calendar; but there is abundant evidence in the Records of the Exchequer, whither the fines were estreated for collection by the sheriffs, that the same activity prevailed there as in Leinster and Munster, in compelling the attendance of the Irish Catholics at the divine services in the Established Church. These are full of entries of fines in short form; but we give only the return by the Vice-President and Council of that province, corresponding to that of the President of Munster.

"Munster. (fn. 152) —Certain Fines imposed by the Vice-President and Council there, and sent hither for collection.

"Mem.—That Robert Remington, Knight, Vice-President of the province of Connaught, and others of the Council of the said province, have sent hither in this term, subscribed with their hands, certain fines by them and others of the Council aforesaid lately imposed upon certain persons of the said province for their contempt and contumacy, together with the cause of the same, to be levied for the King; the tenor of which follows in these words:—

"At Galway, the 23rd of March 1605.

"Memorandum.—Whereas information was given unto us, the Vice-President and Council of Connaught, at the Council table, against William Lynch Fitz Peter, Oliver Browne, James Lynch Fitz Martin, Thomas Browne, and Marcus Lynch Fitz William, to this effect: That whereas the King's most Excellent Majesty, by a late public proclamation signed with his hand, in His Majesty's palace of Westminster, the 4th day of July in the third year of his reign, following, in these words: 'Whereas we are informed that, &c.'" (and then follows the proclamation as in the Calendar).

"By which said proclamation His Highness did admonish and straightly command all his subjects in this realm that they and every of them should thenceforth daily resort and come to their several parish churches and chapels to hear divine service and sermons every Sunday and holyday according to the laws and statutes of this kingdom.

"Notwithstanding this, the several persons above named, having notice of the said proclamation being published in the market place within the said town of Galway, did, after the publication thereof, contemptuously disobey His Majesty's commandments set forth in the said proclamation, utterly refusing to repair to their parish churches or to any cathedral church in the said town according to the tenor and effect of the said proclamation and the laws and statutes in that behalf made. Whereupon they the said several persons were called before us, the Vice-President and Council of this province, and there by us, in mild and temperate manner, required eftsoon to yield their obedience to His Majesty's said proclamation, or to render some good reason to the contrary; they the said several persons before named would not yield any other reason of their disobedience but that their conscience would not permit them to obey the said proclamation, and certified the same under their hands before the said Vice-President and Council. And whereas in regard of some material variance found between the printed copies of the statutes and the original record or roll made in the second year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, whereby it is enacted, that all His Majesty's subjects in this realm shall endeavour themselves to repair to their several parish churches or chapels accustomed; it was thought meet to publish a true transcript of the same original record under the Great Seal of this realm. Whereupon the said record or roll, being transcripted and exemplified under the Great Seal of this realm, was publicly proclaimed in the said town of Galway; in the perclose whereof was contained, 'This have the 'Lord Deputy and Council, in His Majesty's name, declared and 'published to be the true transcript or copy of the very original 'record of the said Act, word for word, as it is to be found and 'seen in the Rolls of the Chancery as aforesaid, and therefore have, 'in the name of the King's most Excellent Majesty, straightly 'charged and commanded all and every of His Majesty's subjects 'within this realm, upon every Sunday and other days ordeyned 'and used to be kept as holydays, to resort and repair to their 'parish churches or chapels, and then and there to abide soberly and orderly during the time of common prayer, preaching, or other service of God. And further, to observe and obey all and every the clauses and articles of the said Act according to the tenor and true meaning of the same, not only upon the penalties therein contained, but also upon the pain of His Majesty's high displeasure and indignation, and of such further punishment as may be lawfully inflicted upon the contemners of His Majesty's royal commandments, proclamations, and prerogative. Given at His Majesty's Castle of Dublin, the 24th day of October in the 3d year of His Highness's reign of Great Britain and Ireland.'

"Which second proclamation the said several persons did also disobey and contemn by the like obstinate recusancy as aforesaid. And whereas also we, the Vice-President and Council, have directed several processes under His Majesty's signet of this province and our own hands to the persons above named, charging and commanding them and every of them, on the faithful allegiance by which they and every of them were bound unto His Highness's authority and prerogative royal, all excuses and delays set apart, upon the next Sunday after sight thereof, and so upon every Sunday and other day ordained and used to be kept as holydays, that they and every of them should resort and repair unto their parish churches within the said town, and then and there to abide soberly and orderly during the time of common prayer, preaching, or other service of God, there to be used, according to the laws and statutes of this His Highness's kingdom of Ireland, and then and there to attend upon the mayor of the said town during such service and sermon; whereof each and every of them were required not to fail upon pain of His Majesty's high displeasure and indignation, and of such further punishments as might be inflicted upon the contemners of His Highness's laws, proclamations, and royal prerogative.

"Which several processes or commandments were delivered unto the said several persons above named; and yet they and every of them, in contempt of His Majesty's said commandments and prerogative, did utterly refuse and forbear to repair to any church or chapel upon the Sunday next following the receipt thereof, according to the terms of the said several processes or commandments; upon all which matters they the said several persons aforesaid, being bound to appear before us at the Council table, upon a day's warning given unto them at their houses, after many godly exhortations and persuasions used towards them by the Lord Archbishop of Tuam, the Lord Bishop of Kilmackeogh [Kilmacduagh], and other godly and learned ministers and preachers of God's word, and by us also and the rest of His Majesty's Council of this province, which were then in place, to withdraw them from their perverse and disloyal opinions to the due obedience to His Majesty's laws and royal prerogative, and after divers offers made unto them of conference with learned divines for their better satisfaction, they persisting still in their obstinacy, affirmed that they would not repair to any divine service or summons ordained according to the laws of this realm, and utterly refused all further conference, alleging that they have been bred in the Romish religion, and that it is against their consciences to go to the church to hear service or sermons.

"Upon which their own confession and wilful obstinacy, the Court proceeding to sentence and judgment;—it is therefore this day ordered, adjudged, and decreed by us, the said Vice-President and Council, that for their said contempt and wilful obstinacy and disobedience, the said William Lych Fitz Peter, Oliver Browne, and James Lynch Fitz Martin shall pay every of them for a fine the sum of 40l. sterling, and the said Marcus Lynch Fitz William the sum of 30l. sterling, and the said Thomas Browne 20l. sterling, to be levied upon their bodies, lands, goods, and cattle; the moiety whereof to be converted to the repairing of decayed churches, and to other charitable uses, at the discretion of the Lord Deputy and Council; the other moiety to be paid into His Majesty's coffers and that all and every of the said persons shall be committed prisoners to the serjeant-at-arms's deputy of this Council during the Lord Deputy's pleasure, and to be put from all magistracy or office whatsoever within this town or elsewhere in this kingdom, until they and every of them shall conform themselves and take the oath of supremacy.

(Signed) "Robt. Remington.

"Thomas Dillon.

"Thomas Rotheram

In the margin of the Roll, besides the names of the last four,—.

"Memd.—Iste quatuor Oliver Browne, Jacobus Lynch, Marcus Lynch, et Thos. Browne remittuntur per concordatum datum 29° die Novembris 1610, et inter recorda de Termino Michaelis eodem anno hic irrotulatum, ad 23l. 15s. sterling faciens, Irish, 31l. 13s. 4d. quas solverunt per unam talliam levatam ultimo die Novembris 1610. Unde habent le quietus est. Et ideo exoneratus hic.

( ) Cesset processus.

"Pro Marwood, Dep." (fn. 153)

Legality of The Mandates.

It remains to state summarily the arguments used in justification of this procedure by Mandate, first by Sir John Davys, and next by the judges, who were probably called upon to furnish precedents in support of the Court of Castle Chamber.

Sir John Davys grounds his argument on the King's ecclesiastical jurisdiction; but the only precedents he cites are the dealings of the early kings with bishops and abbots, (fn. 154) none of which appear to have any bearing on the present case, or to justify the summoning of any of the King's subjects, lay or ecclesiastical, before the Star Chamber for such a contempt as that in question. And indeed the weakness of the argument and precedents appears to be acknowledged in the elaborate defence of them which is found at the close of the volume. (fn. 155) If there are no precedents, says this paper, it is because it cannot be found that in either of the two kingdoms any like cause was given before at any time since the Conquest; never was found a whole people opposed to the law. And the paper proceeds to allege such precedents as can be found. In William Rufus's time Archbishop Anselm, against the King's Mandate, went abroad, and all his goods were forfeit. In the time of Edward I. Nicholas Sagrove went abroad without license, during a state of war, and it was declared, in the opinion of the judges, treason. In Edward II.'s time, John of Brittany, being sent on a message abroad, refused to obey the King's Mandate to return, and it was deemed treason. The Abbot Oswald refused to obey the King's Mandate to repair to Parliament, and was imprisoned.

"Queen Elizabeth granted license to one Tothill to print all law books, with an express mandate in the patent whereby all others were forbidden to print the like; whereupon one Bellew, an Irishman, caused another printer to print an abridgment of the reports of King Richard II., and departed into Ireland; but the printer being called into the Star Chamber, was there ore tenus fined and imprisoned for disobeying the Mandate; of which course of proceeding in the like Mandates, the precedents are infinite."

Turning then from precedent to argument, the paper deals with the objection that, if refusing to repair to church be so penal under the prerogative, then there needed no statute against recusants in England. To this it answers that perjury, riot, forgery, taking away of maidens, engrossing of victuals, &c., are punishable by statutes, and yet are punishable in the Star Chamber, and the objection would apply to the greatest part of their proceedings there. Again, the punishments there are not to be extended to all, but are to be exercised upon eminent persons and in causes most notorious. Thirdly, when the Common Law and Statutes inflict such easy punishments that thereby the people are not sufficiently terrified, then the Star Chamber is to be used to stay the increase of offences till more severe laws be enacted. And when, through a general defection or by a general alienation of people's hearts, the laws are not executed, then the Star Chamber must take hold of the ringleaders.

"Both which reasons concur in this cause of repair to the church, for though the Statute 2 Elizabeth inflicts punishment upon recusants, yet the same is so mean, being but 12 pence in the week, that the richer sort rather despise than obey the same; and likewise by the negligence of the clergy, and permission which the wars hath occasioned, and the universal defection of the subjects in the course of religion, there is no help but that the King's power and prerogative must begin and make way for his laws, which being once placed need no longer any or other assistance but itself." (fn. 156)

We have thought it not uninteresting to enter into these particulars regarding this curious and little known episode in legal procedure in Ireland. In England this device of the Mandates was never tried; in Ireland it ended with the determined resistance of Sir Patrick Barnewall.

The Oath of Royal Supremacy.

This view of the state of the kingdom during the period embraced by the two first volumes of this Calendar would be imperfect without some notice of the proceedings, as well of the Deputy and Council of Ireland, as of the Presidency Courts of Munster and Connaught, in enforcing the oath of supremacy, by which all Catholics were to renounce the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, under pain, if elected to office, of forfeiture of the office, and of being rendered incapable of office for the time to come; or if they claimed estates as heirs (the lands being held of the Crown), they were not to be put in possession till they took the oath.

A despatch of the Lord Deputy (Sir Arthur Chichester) and Council represents the state of affairs on the 29th of October 1607, as follows:—After charging the general disaffection on the priests, and stating that by their persuasions they withdrew many from the church that had conformed, and others of whom good hope had been conceived they had made altogether obstinate, disobedient, and contemptuous, they add, "Most of the mayors and principal officers of cities and corporate towns, and justices of peace, of this country's birth, refuse to take the oath of supremacy as is requisite by the statute. And for an instance, the party that should this year have been mayor of Dublin, avoided it, to his very great charges, only because he would not take the oath. The towns neglect to renew their charters, and . . . . . . . . most gentlemen and others that should sue forth their liveries, leave the same undone because of the oath." (fn. 157)

The taking of this oath was first imposed in 1537 by King Henry VIII. (28 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Irish), but was repealed in the third and fourth years of Philip and Mary. It was re-enacted, however, by the Parliament of Ireland in the second year of Queen Elizabeth (in 1560), notwithstanding the doubt entertained by some that an Act so afflictive to Roman Catholics could have been passed in a Parliament of which the greater part were of that religion.

During Queen Elizabeth's reign, however, the taking of the oath does not seem to have been enforced. (fn. 158) It began first to be generally exacted shortly after the accession of James I.

It seems to have been contended by the recusant corporations that, the mayor not being appointed by the King, his office was not within the statute, and that there was no obligation on him to take the oath. The following opinion of Chancellor Ellesmere and Sir Francis Bacon was given to solve that doubt:—

"A Direction or advice unto His Majesty's Attorney-Generall of Ireland, touching certain doubts in lawe, which may arise in the proceeding against the recusant corporations in Ireland.

"1. Are of opinion that it is a contempt if a mayor take office without first taking the oath, for which he is punishable in the Castle Chamber, and in this they have resolved two doubts which had been moved to them.

"First, that any one promoted by the Queen to any temporal or lay office, before he shall take the office upon him, shall take the oath of supremacy, &c.; this extends to a mayor, for that he cometh in by the King's authority, mediately, though not immediately; and in a former clause concerning persons already possessed of dignities and offices, a mayor is expressly named.

"Secondly. Though no oath be tendered, yet if he exercise his office before he take it, he is punishable, for the word (shall) is compulsory, and he is to take it at his peril, and he shonld procure a commission, if no person is authorised to tender the oath.

"Notwithstanding, they advise that for the time to come, commissions to administer the oath he directed to the presidents in the provinces, and to the bishops and other chief officers there; and in the Pale to the bishops and some of the Privy Council, to remain dormant with them and to be executed from time to time.

"2. Where the corporations by their charters are to choose their mayors, de probioribus, discretioribus, vel idoneis viris, if they choose notorious recusants, they (Chancellor Ellesmere and Francis Bacon) were of opinion they were not warranted in choosing such persons.

"3. When mayors or recorders have exclusive jurisdiction, and being themselves recusants, have made no inquiry or conviction of recusants for years past, they were of opinion that their charter might be questioned upon that point.

"Recommend for the time to come, that pursuant to the statute 2 Eliz., the bishop associate himself to the mayor and recorder upon sessions of oyer and terminer, and call upon them to inquire of recusants; and that a letter be written to the corporations, reproving their former neglect, and to give the points of the statute in charge, and cause it to be executed in their franchises."

Signed: "T. Ellesmere, Canc., F. Bacon." (fn. 159)

Endd.: "Instruc&ctilde;ons to Mr Attorney touching recusant corporations."

Sir Henry Brouncker was as rigorous in enforcing this branch of the statute of 2 Elizabeth as in compelling the Irish Catholics to attend at the Protestant places of worship. The Rolls of the Exchequer again furnish a record of his proceedings in this respect, many instances of which would be forthcoming but for the loss of all the records, as well of his presidency of Munster as of those of Connaught.

"Munster.—Of certain Fines imposed by the Lord President there, returned into the Exchequer by the King's Writ of Certiorari, here enrolled.

"Cork to wit: Proceedings at the Council table in the province of Munster, with the under-named persons, citizens of Cork, by and before the Lord President and Council there, in manner as followeth:—

"13° die Julii 1606.

"William Sarsfield, late mayor of the city of Cork, being by the Lord President deposed from his office of magistracy for denying to take the oath of supremacy, and the town and corporation having made a new choice and presented their new chosen mayor unto his Lordship, who took the said oath without scruple when by his Lordship he was required so to do, he, the said William Sarsfield, after all this done, made flat denial to deliver up to the said new elected mayor the cap of maintenance, the sword, and other the ensigns belonging to the said office; which being complained of unto the said Lord President by the said mayor, his Lordship first sent unto the said William Sarsfield one Henry Toakefield, Esq., requiring him to render up the said ensigns, to whom the said Sarsfield gave answer he would not, and for reason delivered that he stood doubtful whether he were lawfully deposed or not; upon return of which answer, his Lordship the next morning after, being the 12th of July 1606, sent the gentleman porter requiring the said Sarsfield to come before his Lordship to answer his contempts, to whom he gave light answer that he was not well, and that if he were better in the afternoon he would then attend, with which answer, his Lordship not resting satisfied, understanding that he was not sick at all, sent a second command unto him, under his hand, for to repair unto him; which command the said Sarsfield also contemptuously neglected and disobeyed; upon which several obstinate contempts his Lordship then employed the serjeant-atarms to bring him to his Lordship, who having, upon his duty of allegiance, arrested and attached him in that behalf, he, notwithstanding, continued his former obstinacy and refused to come with him.

"To all which contempts of his, his Lordship gave way for that night, and the next morning his Lordship sent the gentleman porter and warned the mayor at one o'clock in the afternoon, together with all his brethren, to attend upon his Lordship, and withal sent a fresh command unto Sarsfield, together with the rest of the prisoners (sic) to wait upon the mayor thither; which command the said mayor duly observed, bringing with him few or none of his brethren, for that it seemed they denied to attend upon him; but the said William Sarsfield, coming some distance of time after the said mayor, he brought with him, and attending upon him, the best and chiefest of the city, in manifestation of his inward affection and in open opposition to what he was required and commanded. Unto all which several misdemeanours and contempts of his, he, being then required by his Lordship to make direct answer, and first, why upon his Lordship's command he delivered not the ensigns to the new elected mayor, he, to that point, answered that he knew not where they were; and it being presently then proved before him that they were in his house and at his command, he then answered, as formerly to Mr. Toakefield, that he stood doubtful of his lawful deposing, and that upon the Lord Deputy coming to town, they use and are accustomed to deliver up unto his Lordship both their ensigns and keys, but at no other governor's command whatsoever. And being then by his Lordship required to make answer to- his other several contempts in not appearing, being so often sent for and commanded, and in not attending the mayor as he was required, he was thereto, in a manner, silent, and could make no reasonable answer at all in justification or defence of himself.

"Upon all which matters his Lordship and the rest of the Council there assisting him, having duly considered and found all and whatsoever past has proceeded out of a most obstinate and wilful mind of his, and altogether in contempt of the State and authority of the table there, they have therefore proceeded with him, and for his said wilful misdemeanours and contempts have imposed upon him for a fine the sum of 500l. sterling, with a further censure of imprisonment during His Majesty's pleasure." (fn. 160)

Date of Shakespeare's King Henry VIII.

In the discourse of "John Hudson on the State of Ireland," already cited, there is an allusion which may deserve a passing notice on account of its possible bearing on the discussions regarding the order and chronology of Shakespeare's plays.

In referring to the "nobility and gentry of English race in Ireland," Hudson alludes to the fate of Gerald, the ninth Earl of Kildare, and of that of his son, the socalled "Silken Thomas," and the Earl's brothers, and ascribes their downfall to the "sinister practices of Cardinal Wolsey."

"The Earl of Kildare (grandfather to the now Earl of Kildare)," he writes, probably in 1604 or early in 1605, "who married the Marquis Dorset Gray's daughter, being Lord Deputy of that realm in King Henry the Eighth's time, was called into England, disgraced, and attainted in Ireland. After, he died in prison in England, where he lived a long time, and his brothers and eldest son were deprived of their lives by the sinister practices of Cardinal Wolsey, set forth at large in the Irish Chronicle, and of late acted publicly upon the stage in London, in the tragedy of the life and death of the said Wolsey, too tedious to be reported to Your Majesty. By which attainder, the House of Kildare lost lands of good value in England and Ireland." (fn. 161)

This allusion to a recent representation on the stage of the tragic story of the Earl of Kildare and his kindred, might at first sight very naturally be explained by the passage in the first scene of the second Act of Shakespeare's Henry VIII., in the conversation of the "two gentlemen" on occasion of the attainder of "the Great "Duke of Buckingham;" in which, as in the above passage, the ruin of the Kildares is distinctly traced to the machinations of Wolsey.

2 Gent.

"Certainly,

The Cardinal is the end of this."

1 Gent.

" 'Tis likely,

By all conjectures; first, Kildare's attainder,

Then Deputy of Ireland; who removed,

Earl Surrey was sent thither, and in haste too,

Lest he should help his father."

2 Gent.

"That trick of state

Was a deep envious one."

1 Gent.

"At his return

No doubt he will requite it. This is noted,

And generally; whoever the King favours,

The Cardinal instantly will find employment,

And far enough from Court too."

If it were certain that Hudson's allusion is really to Shakespeare's Henry VIII., the passage would be of great interest as determining the well-known controversy as to the date of that play. That controversy is in part founded upon the address of Cranmer at the baptism of the infant Elizabeth, part of which (although all professes to be prophetical) appears to imply that the Queen was still living, while another part equally plainly seems to suppose her successor already seated upon the throne. On the one hand Cranmer foretells—

"She shall be, to the happiness of England,

An aged princess; many days shall see her,

And yet no day without a deed to crown it.

Would I had known no more ! but she must die;

She must—the saints must have her; yet a virgin,

A most unspotted lily, shall she pass

To the ground, and all the world shall mourn her."

On the other hand, the following prophetical panegyric upon James would hardly have been produced upon the stage during the lifetime of his jealous predecessor.

"Nor shall this peace sleep with her; but as when

The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phœnix,

Her ashes new create another heir,

As great in admiration as herself;

So shall she leave her blessedness to one

(When Heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness),

Who, from the sacred ashes of her honour,

Shall starlike rise, as great in fame as they,

And so stand fixed."

Henry VIII., Act v. scene 4.

It will be remembered that Johnson and Steevens are of opinion that the play of Henry VIII. was written before the death of Queen Elizabeth, 24th March 1602–3; while Mr. Collier, on the contrary, is satisfied both by internal and external evidence, that "it came from the poet's pen after James I. had ascended the throne," (fn. 162) with which opinion Mr. Dyce (fn. 163) agrees. Both views turn in a great degree upon the passage just quoted.

If, therefore, it were certain that the play to which Hudson refers, is really Shakespeare's drama, now known as "King Henry VIII.," the allusion to its having been "lately acted publicly on the stage in London" would be a strong confirmation of Mr. Collier's opinion as to the date of its composition. But it must be confessed that this is by no means clear. Hudson not only does not speak of this play to which he refers, as Shakespeare's, but even names it by an entirely different title—"The "Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey." Now none of the early commentators, so far as we are aware, has ever spoken of Shakespeare's play "King Henry the Eighth," as known under the title of "Cardinal Wolsey;" and on the other hand there was a piece by another author, not only written but produced on the stage with this very name, in the first years of the seventeenth century. Henslowe, in his Diary, refers in numberless entries of the year 1601, (fn. 164) to a play which he calls "The Booke of Carnalle Woolseye's Lyfe." It was written by "Harye Chettell;" and Henslowe's Diary is replete with memoranda of charges incurred in the preparation of it for the stage. So far, therefore, as the title is concerned, it would be more natural to suppose that Hudson alludes to "Harye Chettell's" play.

In itself, therefore, the passage from Hudson, although of great interest, can hardly be considered as decisive. And as Chettell's piece is no longer extant, and as nothing is known of its contents, it is impossible to argue from intrinsic evidence whether Hudson really alludes to it in the passage which we have cited.

Nevertheless, as Chettell's piece was produced on the stage in 1601, while Hudson's Discourse is certainly not earlier than 1604, and probably belongs rather to 1605, perhaps it may be argued that Chettell's "Carnalle Wolseye" (fn. 165) would hardly, at that date, be spoken of as "of late acted publicly on the stage in London." Whereas, on the other hand, there is an entry in the Register of the Stationers' Company, under 12th February 1604 [1604–5] of the "enterlude" of "King Henry VIII.," which Mr. Collier holds to be no other than Shakespeare's play. And it is not too much to say that, as far as regards the date merely, the passage in Hudson's Discourse appears on the whole to be a confirmation of the opinion of Mr. Collier and the later commentators as to the year in which Shakespeare's King Henry VIII. was first produced upon the stage.

The Hatfield MSS.

In enumerating the various repositories of State Papers relating to Ireland under James I., we expressed (fn. 166) a confident opinion that the Cecil Papers in the collection of the Marquis of Salisbury at Hatfield, would be found to supply no mean part of the materials still wanting to a complete series of the Irish State Papers of that important reign.

Mr. Brewer's Report on the Cecil Papers at Hatfield, recently presented to the Historical Manuscripts Commission, has justified this expectation in a very remarkable manner. It is true that, of the enormous mass of British and Foreign correspondence comprised in this magnificent collection, the letters to and from Ireland form scarcely a twentieth part; nor have we any clue to their nature or contents, beyond what is deducible from the names of the writers, and the dates as presented in the chronological catalogue. But even a cursory comparison of the list of the Irish letters which appear at intervals in the Cecil Collection, from 1603 to 1608, with the general Irish correspondence from whatever source derived, which is embodied in this Calendar during the same period, will suffice to show the importance of the Cecil Papers, the curious felicity with which they fill up breaks in the received narrative or supply missing links in the chain of events, and their exceeding value for the completion of the historical picture of Ireland under James I. Many of the letters catalogued by Mr. Brewer are shown by their very date and the names of the correspondents, to be the counterparts of letters existing in other collections, which had left their story but half told, suggesting questions only that they should remain unanswered, and thus barely serving to stimulate, without satisfying curiosity.

The Irish papers at Hatfield do not form any special or distinct class. They are not the papers of a particular minister, like the Carew manuscripts, or of a particular office, like the Philadelphia volumes, or of a miscellaneous collection, like the Cotton or Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum. They manifestly consist of the general correspondence on affairs of state which came into Cecil's hands in the regular routine of his office; nor do they differ in any way from the great body of the Irish Papers in the Public Record Office, which form the staple of this Calendar. There is hardly a personage of note whose correspondence forms part of the materials of these volumes, that is not represented in the Irish papers of Mr. Brewer's catalogue; and the different writers appear for the most part in the same proportions in the catalogue and in the Calendar, as to the frequency of their correspondence—the only point in which a mere catalogue of names will admit of comparison. Not alone the letters of the Chief Governors—Mountjoy, Sir George Carey, and Chichester; of the great functionaries of state, Sir John Davys, the Chancellor Archbishop, the Presidents of Munster and Connaught— Sir Henry Brouncker, Lord Clanricarde, and Lord Danvers —the two successive Treasurers, Sir George Carey and Sir Thomas Ridgeway, and the secretaries, Fenton and Cooke; but the reports of captains, constables, and other inferior officers, writing from remote and obscure localities; suits of individuals in their private concerns; complaints and petitions of the native Irish; projects and suggestions regarding public affairs; even estimates of projected works, and returns or accounts of moneys expended;—are found interwoven with the general series of the papers of this great minister, in a way which shows them to have formed part of his official correspondence as Secretary of State. It would be impossible, indeed, judging at least from the mere catalogue of titles, to distinguish them in any intelligible way from the general body of State Papers of the same period preserved in the Public Record Office.

It is to be observed, however, that the distribution of the Hatfield Papers over the several years of the reign of James I. is very unequal. In the latter years of that reign,—indeed, from the death of Cecil in 1612—the number is quite inconsiderable. The correspondence may thenceforward be said to lose the character of a state collection; and even during the life of the great minister there is a very marked difference, as regards Ireland, between the years before 1608 and the last four years of Cecil's life. In the latter period the correspondence is much more scanty and of a less miscellaneous character. The difference, indeed, in this respect is so striking as to suggest the notion of some change in the principle by which the custody of the official documents was regulated, consequent on Cecil's assuming, as he did in 1608, the office of Lord High Treasurer;—as though, while the Lord High Treasurer's papers were retained as Public Records, the papers which came to his hands as Secretary, were regarded more in the light of a personal possession, over which, like Fitzwilliam and Carew, and at a later period, the Duke of Ormonde, Clarendon, and other public men, he exercised almost the same right as over the papers regarding his private affairs. It is gratifying, nevertheless, to find that in this, as in other collections enumerated in our first volume, the unequal distribution of the documents in the several years of the reign of James I., is balanced by a corresponding disproportion in the general series of Irish State Papers in the Public Record Office;—the latter being almost invariably more or less numerous in proportion to the scantiness or the abundance of the papers in the Public Record Office during the same period. Thus the three years, 1603, 1604, and 1605, the Irish documents of which in the Public Records barely fill three volumes of the reign, are especially rich in Irish State Papers in the Hatfield Collection; while the three years after 1608, when the supply at Hatfield falls off very remarkably, occupy in the Public Record series nearly three times the amount of space, extending to no fewer than eight volumes of equal size with those of the earlier years.

The historical student will learn with much satisfaction that through the liberality of the noble owner of the Hatfield Manuscripts, a complete Calendar of the papers of the reign of James I. is already in a forward state of preparation, to be edited by Mr. Gunton, the Marquis of Salisbury's librarian and secretary. This Calendar will, of course, embody all papers relating to Ireland. But, although the Irish documents at Hatfield will thus be rendered accessible to students among the general mass of the Cecil Papers, we should have much desired, for the completeness of this Calendar, as a repertory of materials for the history of Ireland during the reign of James I., to have incorporated these valuable papers in chronological sequence with the other documents included in our series. Many of the Cecil Papers indeed must lose half their interest and significance by the separation. We have been particularly attracted by the correspondence from Munster, both under the presidency of Sir Henry Brouncker and under that of his successor, Lord Danvers. The papers upon this subject in the present, as well as in the first volume of this Calendar, exhibit gaps which, so far as mere names and dates enable us to judge, will be found to be in a great degree supplied in the Cecil Collection; and we have no doubt that the same will be found to hold for several other episodes of the history.

We have thought it desirable therefore to select from Mr. Brewer's general catalogue of the Hatfield MSS. relating to the reign of James I., and insert in the Appendix of this volume, a list of the titles of all letters and other papers, which appear to relate to Ireland or Irish affairs. A comparison of this List of Irish papers at Hatfield, arranged in chronological order, which will be found at p. 671, with the contents of this Calendar, will not only serve as an index of that additional information on Irish history which may be expected from the Hatfield Collection, but will also enable students to read both calendars with more advantage, by filling up in detail or pursuing to the end, in each, the story which the other had left interrupted or incomplete.

Foreign Ambassadors' Papers.

The frequent allusions to Irish affairs, and notices of Irish fugitives in Spain and Flanders, which are found in the Cornwallis and Winwood despatches in the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum, or in the printed documents in Sawyer's Memorials of Affairs of State, suggested to us the expediency of a general examination of the Reports of English ambassadors abroad during the years 1607 and 1608, as likely to furnish information regarding the flight of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell from Ireland, and their subsequent history. The result of this examination has proved so interesting, and supplies so natural and necessary a supplement to the home records of the events of the period, that we have thought it advisable to collect into an appendix the various notices of Irish fugitives which occur in the foreign despatches of these years. Landing at Quillebœuf, in Normandy, Tyronc and Tyrconnell proceeded to Flanders, and thence, after a short delay, by way of Lorraine and Switzerland, to Rome, with the intention of ultimately seeking refuge and assistance in Spain. Throughout this whole journey they appear to have been under the unceasing surveillance of the agents and spies of the indefatigable Secretary of State, to whom all their movements, and those of their followers, their visitors, and their correspondents, were regularly reported.

The collection from which these notices are gathered, is a voluminous series in the Public Record Office, of exceeding interest for general European history, and rich in incidental illustrations of domestic history, and especially of the policy of England in relation to foreign affairs. The place which M. Bergenroth's Simancas Papers, or the Venetian Papers calendared by Mr. Rawdon Brown, hold for the contemporary history of Spain or Venice, is the same which the foreign series in our Public Record Office holds for the history of the various European states with which England anciently maintained diplomatic relations. From a very early period, the importance of keeping a careful watch upon the progress of events abroad, appears to have been felt by the Kings of England and their advisers; and the foreign division of our public records contains the fruit of this surveillance, in the form of a series of letters, reports, and advertisements from English ambassadors and agents in the various states of Europe, stretching back in some countries as far as the early part of the 14th century.

Our only concern, of course, is with the reports from the countries which afforded a temporary refuge to the fugitives or their confederates and followers, and especially Flanders, Italy, and Spain; but it happens fortunately for the interest of the story, that the representatives of the court of England in those countries at that time were men remarkable among all their contemporaries for energy, intelligence, and ability.

In the whole series of Flemish papers in the Public Record Office, which extends back to the year 1340, up to 1688, and fills a hundred and twenty-six volumes and bundles, there is no correspondence more interesting than that of Sir Thomas Edmonds, who was English representative at the court of the Archduke Albert at Brussels, when the fugitive Earls reached the Low Countries in the autumn of 1608. Edmonds was born in 1563, and through the influence of his kinsman, Sir Thomas Edmonds, who was Comptroller of the Queen's Household, was introduced into the public service at a very early age. He was initiated in diplomacy under the auspices of Sir Francis Walsingham; and, while still extremely young, is found employed, in various capacities, as foreign envoy in several missions of importance. In 1592, before he had completed his thirtieth year, he was appointed English Resident at the Court of France, where he remained, with some interruptions, till 1599; and between that year and the death of Queen Elizabeth he was engaged in a succession of important negotiations. On the accession of James I., he received the honour of knighthood, and in August 1604, he was sent as ambassador to the Archduke at Brussels, where he remained till 1609. It is plain from numerous indications, (fn. 167) that he possessed the full confidence both of the King and of Lord Salisbury; and accordingly, upon the very first intelligence of the flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, we find the watchful secretary at once communicating to his friend an event, the bearing of which on the foreign relations of England was hardly less momentous than its influence on the course of public affairs in Ireland. Salisbury was prompt to instruct Edmonds as to the light in which it would be desirable to represent the event in the court of the Archduke; and at the same time directed him on his own part to "observe carefully how the matter is there apprehended, and especially by the Irish in that service," and to lose no time in reporting this "by the first despatch." On the other hand it is instructive to observe that the foreign representative of English interests was equally on the alert. Even before Salisbury's instructions reached him, Sir Thomas Edmonds was upon the watch. On the 7th of October 1607, he writes that "a report had come of the flight into Spain of Tyrone and other northern lords of Ireland;" adding that the Irish agent of Spain, Father Florence O'Mulconnor, had long before left Brussels, and for the purpose, it was thought, of forwarding this design.

Another of Salisbury's foreign correspondents at this juncture, Sir Henry Wotton, is better known in literature. After a distinguished academical career and some years of foreign travel, Wotton entered into political life as a secretary of the Earl of Essex. On the fall of that nobleman, he again left England; and his consequent lengthened residence in Italy during the latter years of Queen Elizabeth, prepared him for the post of English Ambassador to the Republic of Venice, to which he was named by James I., the year after his accession, and which he held until 1610. The correspondence from which our extracts regarding Tyrone and Tyrconnell are taken, is found in the series of Venetian Papers in the Public Record Office, which commences in 1487, and which, in the period anterior to the Revolution, occupies seventyfive volumes and bundles. From the moment of the 'fugitives' arrival beyond the Alps, Wotton takes up, as a part of his official duty, the surveillance of all their proceedings, and promises the King (4th April 1608), that, as had already been done by the King's servants at the other courts, he will not fail, "now that they are on Italian ground, to give an account of them." As the first fruit of his zeal, he informs Salisbury by letter (partly in cipher) of the same date, that "he has sent one to Milan who will accompany Tyrone and his 'ging' [gang] over all Italy." And it is worthy of note, as illustrating the usages of the diplomatic department at the time, that Wotton arranges on his own responsibility a provision for the cost of this extraordinary service. Nor can it be doubted that he was well served by the agent whom he employed. His reports to Salisbury track the movements of the Irish fugitives throughout their entire journey, and enter into the most minute, and sometimes the most private particulars as to their proceedings in Rome up to the death of Tyrconnell. One of Wotton's communications addressed to the King himself, p. 657, contains a suggestion as to the assassination of Tyrone, cautiously disguised, but hardly less direct than Sussex's well-known proposal to Elizabeth, for taking off Shane O'Neil.

The advertisements from Spain are concerned rather with the Irish emigrants generally than with the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell themselves, or their immediate adherents. We have incorporated with the regular series of our Calendar, a number of extracts relating to Ireland or to the Irish in Spain from the correspondence of the ambassador, Sir Charles Cornwallis, which is found in the Cotton manuscripts in the British Museum, and has been printed in Sawyer's Memorials of Affairs of State. The Spanish despatches interwoven with the other papers of our Appendix, are taken from the Spanish Pre-Revolution series in the Public Record Office, consisting of 125 volumes and bundles, and reaching back to the year 1502. They comprise, besides despatches of the ambassador himself forwarded from Madrid, letters and advertisements from agents and intelligencers in other parts of Spain, and particularly in the north-western parts and other centres of communication with Ireland; in which it was considered especially desirable to observe the movements of the Irish exiles, and the various indications of preparation upon their part, or of intention on the part of Spain to afford them assistance, in furtherance of the design for an armed landing on the Irish coast. The letters, for the most part, whether from the ambassadors or the agents, are addressed to Salisbury. A few, and especially one very secret letter from Sir Henry Wotton, already alluded to, are addressed to the King, and others to Thomas Wilson, Salisbury's secretary; and it is curious to note the devices which were employed, not merely to ensure the privacy and the safe transmission of the correspondence, but also to provide against the betrayal of its existence, or at least of its real character in case of its falling into other hands. In some instances, the communication was so framed as to make it appear to be the genuine letter of a Catholic or an Irishman, and written in Catholic or Irish interest. There is one especially at p. 655, which it might seem impossible to suspect. All the topics to which it alludes are topics in which it would appear that no one but a strict and religious Catholic could be interested. The writer describes with enthusiastic admiration the splendid ceremonies of a canonization; enters into the minutiæ of a Corpus Christi procession; and reports the election of new generals of religious orders. He even sends (enclosed) a picture of the canonized saint; announces that he has entrusted a packet of Agnus Dei's to the care of Father Midford; and concludes by conveying Father Parsons's commendations. And yet we gather from the endorsement, evidently in Salisbury's hand, on the original letter, which is still in the Public Record Office, that all these details were but intended to deceive as to the true origin and character of the communication, and that the advertisement, although sent by an agent of Salisbury, was designedly "written with some clauses to disguise the affection of the intelligencer!"

We take this opportunity of gratefully acknowledging the kind assistance of Mr. W. M. Hennessy, M.R.I.A., of the Public Record Office, Ireland, in revising the text and translation of the papers in the Irish language printed in this and the first volume of our Calendar.