Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 3 (of 3), 1660-1690

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[48] Licence from the Irish Council to Peter Walsh, May 26, 1653, in O’Flaherty’s West Connaught, p. 423. Eighteenth article of peace, January 17, 1648-9, in Confederation and War, vii. 198. Walsh’s letter to Ormonde written in October 1660, but not published till after March 30, 1661, when the latter was made a Duke, and the answer published in 1662, before Ormonde’s arrival in Ireland, are both reprinted in Orrery State Letters, ii. 355.

[49] Macray’s Privy Council Notes, Roxburghe Club. Notes in Nicholas’s hand, State Papers, Ireland, under July 20, 1661. Evelyn’s Diary, October 17, 1664.

[50] Bellings to Ormonde, June 1, 1661, in Spicilegium Ossoriense ii. 189. It was inevitable that Ormonde’s friends and the Irish generally should blame him for not doing enough, see Foxcroft’s Supplement to Burnet, pp. 60-62. The Plunket author of A Light to the Blind talks like Bellings of the ‘Cromwellian scum of England,’ and calls Clotworthy, Broghill, Coote, and the rest ‘little fanatic scabs.’ According to him Ireland really belonged to the Anglo-Norman Conquerors, being royalist and Catholic; the native Irish, having intermarried with them and remained Catholic, were of course loyal like them.

[51] Walsh’s Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 4-6. O’Reilly wrote at this time that he was lurking ‘nelle spelonche,’ and McGeohegan ‘in cavernis’—Brady’s Episcopal Succession, i. 226, 239.

[52] Walsh’s Hist. of the Remonstrance, i.-xii. 47. Ormonde to Walsh, January 26, 1662-3, ib. 94.

[53] Letter of Armagh clergy, December 13, 1660, Spicilegium Ossoriense, ii. 201. Letters of Card. Barberini and De Vecchiis, July 8 and 21, 1662, Walsh’s Remonstrance, pp. 16-19. James Rospigliosi, internuncio in 1666, calls himself ‘ministrum apostolicum cui res Hiberniæ incumbunt,’ ib. p. 634. Louvain judgment, December 29, 1662, ib. p. 102.

[54] Peter Walsh to Essex, August 4, 1674, in his Four Letters, 1686, p. 3; Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 511-513, 530-533.

[55] Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 570-574, 602.

[56] O’Reilly’s letters of August 31, 1665, and April 13, 1666, in Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 611-613. Writing to the Propaganda in the late autumn of 1666 he expressly says that he attended the congregation in order to defeat its object—‘ad istam congregationem ... festinavi ut impedirem quominus noster clerus amplecteretur præfate Walchæi remonstrantiam, ut vocat, suæ fidelitatis erga Regem’—Spicilegium Ossoriense, i. 446.

[57] Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 618-625. Bishop French to the Pope, May 22, 1666, in Spicilegium Ossoriense, i. 449. French’s Latin is better than his English for he uses such expressions as ‘from them parts.’ His great attack on Ormonde, the ‘unkind deserter,’ was not till 1676.

[58] The transactions of the Congregation are in Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 641-743, the French and Latin texts of the Sorbonne decrees at p. 660. The account given by the Rev. W. Burgatt, a hostile member of the Congregation, does not materially differ from Walsh’s, Spicilegium Ossoriense, i. 440. Ormonde to Clarendon, June 9, 1666, and to Arlington, June 13, State Papers, Ireland. On July 7 Clarendon wrote: ‘If I were you I would expel all the priests out of Ireland who refuse to subscribe the declaration, and to my understanding if you consent to the least alteration, how insignificant soever, you overthrow the whole and absolve all who stand now obliged by the subscription.’—Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii.

[59] Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 744-749. O’Reilly to the Propaganda, Spicilegium Ossoriense, i. 448 (Latin). Sandwich left Portsmouth, March 3, 1665-6, and reached Madrid May 26, and these dates fit in with Walsh’s account. Ormonde to Clarendon, June 9, 1666, State Papers, Ireland.

[60] Ormonde to Arran, December 29, 1680, in Carte’s Ormonde, ii. appx. p. 101, and to Essex, December 9, 1673, in Essex Papers. Burnet’s Own Times, i. 194, 195. Evelyn’s Diary, January 6, 1685-6.

[CHAPTER XLIV]
GOVERNMENT OF ORMONDE, 1665-1668

Ormonde and his Parliament.

Disputes between Lords and Commons.

It was not surprising that there should be some difficulty about the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, since the private fortune of every member was concerned. But in other matters Ormonde had little to complain of in the behaviour of the Commons. When he informed them that France had joined hands with Holland, and that warlike preparations were going on in Brittany which might be meant for Ireland, the House made a solemn declaration of loyalty and promised eight subsidies of 15,000l. each. Twenty subsidies in all appear to have been granted by this Parliament. The royal assent to the money Bill and to the Bill of Explanation was given on the same day, and Ormonde made a speech in which he congratulated Parliament in having at last ‘got into the prospect of a settlement.’ He apologised for having practically confirmed much of what had been done by the late usurping Government, adding with grim humour that justice was sometimes done by unjust men, ‘Ireton at Limerick having caused some to be hanged that deserved it almost as well as himself.’ Of the later Acts passed by this Parliament, the most important was that for religious uniformity. Knight service and the Court of Wards had been already abolished, and hearth-money permanently settled on the King in compensation. Ormonde kept the Parliament in existence until August 1666, the time being largely occupied in disputes between the two Houses. The Commons claimed the right to sit at free conferences, but the Peers would not allow it.

‘Gentlemen,’ said Lord Drogheda, ‘you would all be lords.’

‘Another rebellion,’ replied Mr. Adam Molyneux, ‘may make us so as well as a former made your ancestors.’ Both Houses having appealed to the Lord Lieutenant, he reminded them that Strafford, who had long parliamentary experience, had recorded in Ireland that the English Commons stood uncovered at conferences. He dwelt on the danger of breaking ‘any ancient custom and practice,’ but the Commons were obdurate and declared that all the Irish precedents were in their favour. Having secured the legislation he wanted, Ormonde then decided to dissolve. Indeed the privileges of Parliament had become an intolerable burden. Scarcely any debts could be recovered, and the salaries of members, though all did not take them, came to nearly 100l. a day. An attempt was made to remedy these abuses by law, but it came to nothing. A Bill of Indemnity on the English model had been discussed at intervals since 1661, but without much enthusiasm, and the Parliament came to an end without passing any such healing measure. On August 6 the Lord Lieutenant proceeded in state to the House, sent for the Commons, underwent a long speech from Speaker Mervyn, and gave the royal assent to the subsidy and some other Bills. The Lord Chancellor then thanked the Houses for their services in ‘a most learned and eloquent speech,’ and dissolved them, to the great joy of thousands who had suffered in pocket from their protections and privileges. No legal Irish Parliament met again until 1692.[61]

Financial difficulties.

Soldiers mutiny for their pay.

Parliament had been liberal in granting subsidies, but it was hard to collect the money, and not more than 60,000l. could be reckoned on in any one year from this source: 164,000l. had been remitted from England since the Restoration, but large arrears were still owing to the army. The annual cost of Government was about 190,000l., and there was a deficit of some 37,000l. a year. Even with the greatest economy Ormonde did not see his way to do without 30,000l. a year from England. The restraint upon the cross-Channel trade in fat cattle had made matters worse, for the usual cash return was not made, and there was an actual scarcity of coin in Ireland, so that it was almost impossible to make any payments in ready money. The garrison of Carrickfergus exhausted their credit in the town, and were irritated by stoppages for the insufficient clothing supplied to them. The first outbreak, in January 1666, was easily suppressed; but the officers, who knew the sufferings of their men, were not supposed to have behaved very well. In May a large sum of subsidy-money was brought into Carrickfergus for transmission to Dublin; but the soldiers of four companies swore that it should not be removed until they had received nine months’ pay; and the townsmen, who saw some chance of shop debts being settled, sympathised with them. The mutineers were not above 200, many of whom surrendered to Lord Donegal, the governor; but there were enough left to hold the town, as they threatened to do, until they were paid. Of four captains, only Captain Butler was on the spot, the others being on leave. The chief ringleader was Corporal Dillon, but the non-commissioned officers were generally staunch. The statement of grievances was drawn up by illiterate men, and Lord Donegal’s representative found them ‘so drunk that no one can make them understand any reason ... mighty hot in their ale.’ As soon as the news reached Dublin, Ormonde sent off ten troops of horse by land and 400 men of the Guards under his son Arran. He himself rode to Dundalk in one day, and to Hillsborough on the second. Before he could reach Belfast, Arran had already landed, in spite of bad weather, forced the wall, driven the mutineers into the castle, and seen Dillon killed. He refused all terms, and six hours after his landing, the garrison surrendered at discretion. One hundred and ten men were tried by court-martial and found guilty, for there could be no doubt of the facts. Ten were selected for execution, and nine actually suffered. The rest were conveyed by sea to Dublin, and Ormonde at first intended to send them to the West Indies, but they begged to be allowed to redeem their offence, were formed into a separate company, and afterwards did good service. Ormonde had many enemies at Court, but Clarendon said that in his opinion, at least, the mutineers had not been too severely treated.[62]

Exclusion of Irish cattle.

Theoretical claims of the English Parliament notwithstanding, internal affairs were subject to the local legislature. In commercial matters, however, the power of the larger kingdom was unquestioned. Whatever benefit could be derived from Cromwell’s Navigation Act was shared by Ireland, and there was free trade between the two islands. But after the Restoration Irish members came no more to Westminster, and the usurper’s enlightened policy was abandoned. In 1663, by the ‘Act for the encouragement of trade,’ as it was absurdly called, Ireland was excluded from the colonial trade, and the importation of Irish cattle into England was forbidden between July 1 and December 20 in each year. All depended on grass, for the days of turnips and feeding cakes were still far off, and this was the season when stock were in good condition. A fine of 20s. was imposed for every beast landed notwithstanding, half to the King and half to the informer, for the influx of Irish fat cattle was considered ‘of infinite prejudice to most counties in England.’ Among the peers Anglesey only protested, and he had a strong case, though his first reason was the amazing one that the Act allowed free export of money and bullion which the wisdom of our ancestors had always restrained. But he also maintained the rights of people in Ireland ‘they being by law native Englishmen but debarred from the English markets,’ thus giving a monopoly to some of the King’s subjects to aid ruining others. It was erroneously supposed that English rents were depreciated by Irish cattle. Petty showed how impossible it was for imported cattle, whose gross value was 132,000l., to affect seriously a rental of 8,000,000l., which had fallen by one-fifth. Pepys more truly attributed the depression of agriculture to the low price of wheat. Shaftesbury, though he swelled the partisan chorus against Irish cattle, told the King that the mischief was really owing to depopulation, the plague and the Dutch war having added at least a quarter of a million to the normal number of deaths. There was also a constant stream of emigrants to the American colonies, where they might ‘enjoy the liberty of their mistaken consciences.’[63]

The Canary Company.

In spite of remonstrances from the Irish Government, the Act for excluding fat cattle came into force on July 1, 1664, and was to continue till the end of the first session of the next Parliament, which did not, in fact, meet for many years. Another question affecting Irish trade then became prominent for a time. The trade with the Canaries was entirely in the hands of the English, who had ‘an immoderate appetite’ for the wine, and the islanders therefore obtained very high prices. Certain London merchants represented that these prices would be reduced by giving them a monopoly, and though there was much opposition, a charter was granted in March 1665, followed by a proclamation in May. Promoting the privileges of the Canary Company was afterwards made an article of impeachment against Clarendon, and it was said that he received a bribe of 4000l. He admits having favoured the grant and received a present, but with the King’s knowledge and approval, and he says that every preceding Chancellor had done the same in like case. One object of the monopolists was to prevent a direct trade between Ireland and the islands carried on in part by enterprising Jews who worked the business from Dublin. The question had been discussed and the charter granted before Ormonde left England, but when he was ordered to issue a proclamation as in England, the Irish merchants at once protested. In those days cash payments for foreign goods were considered a drain upon the national wealth, and England had to balance her account with Canary by sending out specie, whereas the meat, fish, butter, leather, pipe-staves, and frieze sent from Ireland exceeded the value of the wine, the difference being paid in pieces of eight. As to the liquor being dear, Ormonde said that ‘if men will drink canary they should pay for their delicacy, and whatever they shall so pay is spent among us.’ He was ready to obey the King’s positive commands, but on no other ground would he consent to deprive Ireland of her most lucrative trade. In September 1666, he had to issue the proclamation, but the plague, the fire, and the Dutch war were all against the monopoly. The Spanish authorities gave every possible opposition, interloping merchants were allowed to compete, and in the end the company were fain to surrender their charter, which was much disliked by the English House of Commons. Ireland imported some 2000 pipes of Canary wine annually, but it is not improbable that some of this found its way to England, as the defeated monopolists asserted.[64]

Question of prohibiting Irish cattle.

The plague followed the Court to Salisbury and drove Charles to Oxford, where Parliament sat for three weeks in October 1665. Clarendon says that the members, for want of time and fear of contagion, ‘rejected all other businesses but what immediately related to the public,’ one of which was the atrocious Five-mile Act. Ormonde had hoped that the restrictions on Irish cattle might be repealed, but quite a contrary spirit prevailed, and a Bill for total prohibition passed the House of Commons. The first Act had been freely evaded, and a much more stringent one was called for. The King had no wish to be unjust unless it was very inconvenient to be just, and the Lords, not being subjected to Court pressure, held the Bill over until the prorogation. When the Houses met for business at Westminster nearly a year later, the question soon came up again. Pepys says the Prohibition Bill was the work of the western members, ‘wholly against the sense of most of the rest of the House; who think if you do this, you give the Irish again cause to rebel.’ The event, however, showed that the majority was the other way, and that it included the northern counties, but others, particularly Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent, whose business it was to feed, and not to breed, made the Irish cattle welcome. The larger towns, whose interest it was to have cheap meat, had little power, and both landlords and farmers were generally against Ireland, the former because they thought low prices affected their revenue, and the latter because their produce was subjected to competition. Sir William Coventry, whose character was much better than that of most contemporary public men, threw his weight into the scale against Ireland, persuading the King that he would get no supply if the Commons were thwarted, that their fury would soon burn itself out, and that the rejection of the Bill could then easily be compassed in the House of Lords. Coventry’s judgment was certainly not infallible, for it was his advice that made the Chatham disaster possible. But Clarendon was strongly opposed to the Cattle Bill, and animosity towards him may have affected the action of the younger statesman. Finch, the Solicitor-General, eloquently opposed the Bill at every stage, and Anglesey was sent to London to present the case of the Irish Government against it.[65]

Irish cattle worse than starvation.

The fire of London was a calamity of such proportions as in modern times would arouse the sympathy and perhaps excite the generosity of the whole civilised world. Ninety years later England gave 100,000l. to the sufferers from the Lisbon earthquake. Even in 1666 it was natural that Ireland should wish to help, and it was proposed to send over 30,000 head of ‘our proper and indeed our only coin.’ Instead of receiving the thanks of the House of Commons, this gift inflamed its fury, and was looked upon as a trick. The houseless citizens begged that they might be allowed to enjoy the supply, but the cavalier squires reviled them for their selfishness, and the pressure upon the reluctant Lords was increased. With much difficulty the Commons were induced to allow the importation in the form of salt beef, but under such restrictions that the city was not likely to profit much. Buckingham, who had neither conscience nor shame, and whose own rents had been reduced, saw that popularity was to be gained at the expense of Ireland, and Ashley, who knew better, found his account in fanning the flame. He excused himself in private by saying that he was in favour of a legislative union under which neither island would have power to hurt the other. In debate the Achitophel of Dryden’s great satire could find no better argument than that the rejection of the Bill would cause Irish rents to rise as those of England fell, and that the Duke of Ormonde would soon be richer than the Earl of Northumberland. Ormonde’s prosperity might indeed excite the envy of many who did not choose to remember that his loyalty had endured exile and penury while they lived at home at ease under the Protector. Some thought that Ashley was anxious to be Lord Lieutenant himself, but of this there does not seem to be much evidence. Ossory, whose temper was hot, and who was enduring great provocation, reproached the future Chancellor with having been one of Cromwell’s counsellors, for which he had to apologise in the House of Lords; but most readers of history will nevertheless sympathise with him.[66]

The Duke of Buckingham hated the Chancellor, who stood in his way. He also hated and envied Ormonde, whose fiery son resented his insinuations, so that lookers on foretold a quarrel. At last Buckingham said in debate that anyone who opposed the Cattle Bill must have an Irish estate or an Irish understanding. Mindful of the mistake he had made in Ashley’s case, Ossory forebore to answer, but a conversation outside led to a challenge, which Buckingham accepted, though he was thought to have taken good care that there should be no meeting. Ossory denied that he had intended to fight on account of words spoken in the House; Arlington and the Duke of York, who were both interested in Irish land, testified that the quarrel was of long standing. The challenger was sent to the Tower and his adversary committed to Black Rod’s custody, but they were soon released. Buckingham’s arrogance at this time was such that he suffered detention a few days later for a scuffle with the irascible Lord Dorchester in the House itself. Ormonde admitted that the Lords had dealt fairly with his son, and thanked Arlington for taking a friendly part in the matter.[67]

Irish cattle voted a public nuisance.

The Bill as introduced applied to Scotland as well as to Ireland, but this was altered after much discussion, and the final struggle was as to whether Irish cattle should be declared a nuisance. The word was insisted on by the Commons because it was thought likely to secure strict administration, since the King could not very well favour what he had himself declared to be a public nuisance. There were many conferences between the two Houses, but the Commons stood stubbornly by the obnoxious term. The Lords were willing to join in a petition to the King not to grant any licences, but the Lower House, by 116 to 57, voted to adhere to their word. If Charles had remained firm, he might have carried the peers with him, but he wanted money too badly. Some advised a dissolution, but he could hardly hope for a better House of Commons than one which contained nearly a hundred placemen and pensioners, and which was still stirred by the loyal tempest of 1660. Having been at first the strongest opponent of the Bill, he became its most strenuous supporter. Sir George Carteret, the King’s Vice-Chamberlain, was thought to have been chiefly instrumental in converting his master, who made it a personal matter with peers to swallow the word Nuisance, his conduct, in Clarendon’s words, ‘giving those who loved him not great argument of triumph, and those who loved him very passionately, much matter of mortification.’ Between fear and favour the Lords yielded, and four days later the Bill became law. The Poll Bill, which was the price of the King’s surrender, received his assent at the same time. Charles soon prorogued Parliament, telling the Commons that their session had borne little fruit, and that it was high time for them to be in the country. Eight peers protested against the Irish Bill, chiefly on the ground that the importation of cattle was no nuisance, and that the word was professedly introduced to limit the dispensing power, ‘a just, necessary, and ancient prerogative inherent in the Crown,’ as a means of dealing with unforeseen emergencies.[68]

Irish cattle totally prohibited

Ireland, said the Irish Government while there were still hopes of stopping the dreaded Bill, ‘is a country generally proper only for breeding and grazing of cattle, which, with what commodities proceed from them, are their chief merchandises.’ Gookin, the friend of Ireland, said the same thing many years before. So it had always been, and so it is likely to remain, for there is no finer cattle country in the world. The winters are so mild that the beasts need not be housed, while the grass begins earlier and lasts longer than elsewhere, but corn suffers from the abundance of rain and the want of sunshine. A time came when Irish rents were raised by high protective duties on grain, the mass of the people living on potatoes, and suffering annually between the old crop and the new. There were many Irish famines before 1846, but they are forgotten. When the potatoes failed and the duties were abolished the area under corn gradually shrank, and the production of meat again became the national and natural industry. The evils foretold by Ormonde and his advisers followed upon the restrictive legislation, and cattle became a drug on the market. Efforts were, however, made to continue the trade, since the Act which forbade importation into England had no force to prevent exportation from Ireland, and the extreme cheapness of the stock was a great temptation. By the Act such cattle might be seized unless they were declared on oath to be of British origin, half the proceeds of sale going to the informer and half to the poor of the parish. But the speculators sometimes compounded with the churchwardens beforehand, and the smuggling went on, though the risks attending the traffic were so great that no perceptible relief was given to the Irish stockmasters. An amending Act was passed next year which made the ships liable to seizure and the sailors to the common gaol. Even then the possibility of great profit tempted the blockade-runners. There had always been a trade between Ireland and Minehead, and a struggle was made to maintain it. ‘So little,’ says a local historian, ‘were the wants of the poor or so considerable were the forfeitures that in the year 1675 an accumulated surplus sum of about 500l. was in hand, and then laid out in the purchase of a freehold estate in the parish of Ottery St. Mary, which estate still retains the name of the Cow-lands.’ The proceeds of this investment are even now applied on each New Year’s Day to a distribution of blankets, and this is always called the Cow Charity.[69]

Evil effects of the exclusion policy.

The trade with England in fat cattle having been destroyed by the Act of 1663, Ireland was full of young stock which the Act of 1667 left upon their owners’ hands. They were excluded from Scotland as well as from England. The immediate loss was of course very great. Many tenants deserted their holdings, and rents were everywhere hard to collect. The contraband business did not pay very well, but foreign ports were open, and the great Dutch market seemed to offer the easiest remedy. Very little hay was made in Ireland, and the young animals, half starved in winter upon withered grass, were in no condition to thrive on the spring herbage. The meat was too soft to salt well, the curing was ill done, much of it was uneatable when landed and had to be destroyed. Hides were sold by weight, which was increased by exporting them dirty, so that the credit of the trade was low. Butter was badly and dishonestly packed, making a good show at the ends of each firkin, with inferior stuff in the middle, and even stones sometimes. But the Irish stockholders were quick to learn. They kept their bullocks until age made them fit for salting, and two years after the passing of the prohibitory Act some of their beef reached Holland in as good condition as English produce, while their butter was even better. The second Dutch War interrupted the trade for a time, but it was resumed later, and England by denying a market to Ireland had only succeeded in creating a formidable competitor abroad.[70]

The woollen trade.

English rents were not raised by the interruption of the cattle trade; for even the breeding counties lost more on their wool than they gained on their calves, Irish landowners having turned their attention to sheep. By English statutes passed since the Restoration it had been made felony to transport wool from England or Ireland to Scotland or to any country outside England. When Charles tried to repair the loss to Ireland, it was not thought possible to make wool free. The King’s power to pardon a felony was not disputed, but even prerogative lawyers doubted whether it could be done before the fact. The restrictions were imposed in the manufacturers’ panic caused by Dutch competition, which was successful partly on account of cheap Irish provisions; but Petty thought such exorbitantly ‘fierce ways of prohibition’ might do twice as much harm as the trade was worth. England suffered by her own legislation, which promoted a glut in the market, for Irish wool was produced so cheaply that it could be sent over Channel in vast quantities in spite of the heavy licence duty. English flockmasters were injured, but the profit to Ireland was small. Irish wool was good, and better prices were to be had from foreigners, so that smuggling was found to pay well, and a trade was begun which reached vast proportions in later days.

Ireland was thinly peopled, but there was so little employment that labour was cheap, and there was plenty of available land. English commercial jealousy was thus excited, and the House of Commons forgot that they were really dealing with the Protestant settlers and showing them how to seek support from other and perhaps hostile nations. The Roman Catholic majority had always done so, and would do it again when opportunity offered. Petty saw that a legislative union was the only real solution of the problem, for without it the colony was starved, while the natives were at the mercy of those who had supplanted them. In the meantime he wrote in 1676: ‘It is wonderful that men born in England, who have lands granted to them by the King for service done in Ireland to the Crown of England, when they have occasion to reside or negotiate in England should by their countrymen, kindred, and friends there, be debarred to bring with them out of Ireland food whereupon to live, nor suffered to carry money out of Ireland, nor to bring such commodities as they fetch from America directly home, but round about by England with extreme hazard and loss, and be forced to trade only with strangers and become unacquainted with their own country; especially when England gaineth more than it loseth by a free commerce.’ The prohibition of cattle alone had destroyed a carrying trade which employed one hundred English ships, and things became much worse when the bulk of Irish wool was smuggled away in foreign bottoms.[71]

Ireland retaliates on Scotland.

As soon as the Cattle Bill became law the Irish Government addressed the King with a view to lessening its effects, Anglesey, Burlington, and Conway, three of the protesting peers, being authorised to press the case in London. They told the King that Ireland was ruined by the exclusion of her stock from England and Scotland, that the people, being deprived of their usual occupation, were driven into rebellion, that the revenue would suffer, and that the means of repelling foreign invasion would be taken away. They suggested as a remedy that Ireland should be allowed to export freely to foreign countries, and to keep out Scottish goods till such ‘times as the restraint upon Irish cattle and commodities in Scotland be taken off.’ This would keep a little money in the country, and repress ‘the luxury and humour of the people after outlandish commodities.’ In the meantime it would be necessary to send 50,000l. in specie from England to pay the army and defray the expense of government. In a little more than a month after the three lords presented their memorial Charles took steps to defeat by a side-wind the law which he had insisted on making in its worst form. The matter, he said, had been several times discussed at the Privy Council, with whose advice he granted much of what Ormonde and his friends asked for; believing that Ireland, exhausted as she was by long wars, could not do without trade, and that her loyalty deserved all the tenderness and care that he could show. But the people were to be encouraged to avoid the consumption of luxuries that could not be produced at home. The restraints upon exportation from Ireland to foreign parts were therefore taken off, saving the rights of the Canary, Turkey, and East India Companies, and subject to the existing law about trade with the Plantations. The Lord Lieutenant was empowered to grant licences accordingly, and the Duke of York, as Lord High Admiral, was directed to grant the necessary passports. Ormonde lost no time in issuing a proclamation giving effect to the King’s orders, and excluding all the commodities of Scotland as a measure of retaliation. Anglesey as vice-treasurer would carry over the necessary 50,000l. Proclamations were made and licences issued without much delay, but the money was long in coming.[72]

First Dutch War. A descent feared.

When England came to be at war with both France and Holland at the beginning of 1666, it was natural to suppose that there might be danger of a descent on Ireland. Orrery, who was an alarmist, thought there would be a rebellion; and he dreaded the sectaries and Presbyterians almost as much as the more numerous natives. Ormonde, who always kept cool, had little fear. There were indeed plenty of disaffected people, but they were not united, and he thought that the Government would always be too strong for any discontented party. As the spring came on, the Duke of Beaufort’s fleet was thought to be dangerous, and there were signs that Ireland was not forgotten by the French. In April one of their men-of-war entered Kenmare Bay, took soundings, and explored it thoroughly while three others lay outside. A little later on an Irish vessel from Galicia came into the Shannon with the usual cargo of fruit and soap, but twelve pieces of heavy ordnance were found in her hold. In June thirty-nine vessels came into Kinsale together; they had been reported long before they reached the coast and were generally believed to be French, but proved to be the Virginia fleet. Orrery did not believe in the landing of a great French army, for the game would not be worth the candle, and the country could not support it. A small force might, however, be sent as a nucleus round which Irish disaffection could gather. Cork harbour and many smaller havens lay practically open. The Tories were always available to keep the small army in Ireland busy, and a Dutch cruiser plying between Waterford and Youghal carried off a cargo of cattle to France, which showed how imperfect were the naval preparations of England. Irish gunsmiths were at work in many places, and it was not to be supposed that this was for any good purpose. Most of the Protestants had been disarmed after the plot in 1663, and indeed many of them were hardly to be trusted, but Orrery did not believe that any except a few really damnable fanatics would join a foreign invader and so play into the hands of Irish papists. But the uneasiness was general, and whenever a few sail were descried they were declared to be part of Beaufort’s fleet.[73]

Ormonde’s military precautions.

While thinking an invasion improbable, Ormonde nevertheless considered it necessary to be prepared, and the most obvious precaution was a militia. About 16,000 foot and 4000 horse would be enough, but there was no statute available as for the trained bands in England and therefore no means of defraying the expense. Something was got by the sale of prizes taken by King’s ships in the Irish seas, and some money was afterwards sent from England; but it was not intended to keep the militia embodied when the immediate crisis had passed. Orrery, who had been urgent in recommending a militia, took care that in his province no man should be enrolled without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. The old soldiers of the Parliament were available in large numbers. When this work of armament was well advanced, Ormonde determined to visit Munster himself, since that was the quarter most open to attack. In inviting him to his new house at Charleville, Orrery, who knew his tastes, promised him a boiled leg of mutton daily. Mallow was then the only bridge over the Blackwater, that at Cappoquin not having been repaired since the war. At Limerick, whence he had been so obstinately excluded in 1650, the Lord Lieutenant was welcomed with all possible honour, the satisfaction of the citizens being expressed by the recorder in an eloquent speech. At Cork his reception was equally good, Bishop Synge providing comfortable quarters, and at Kinsale he was entertained by Robert Southwell, and saluted by forts and shipping, including the Mediterranean merchant fleet, which had just arrived with cargoes of currants and oil for England. They had not seen a ship since leaving the Straits of Gibraltar except one hostile cruiser off Cape Clear which fired forty shots without disabling any vessel. After giving orders to the sovereign of Kinsale as to keeping the channel open, Ormonde returned to Cork, whence he went by Youghal and Clonmel to his own house at Carrick. He believed that unless the enemy got command of the sea an attempt to invade Ireland would be ‘as fatal to them as once Ireland was to the Spaniards or Gigery to the French. All the countries I have passed through have appeared with good numbers of serviceable horse with old soldiers on their backs and good officers in the head of them, and if the proportion holds, as I doubt not it will, in other countries, I presume we may be at least 5000 good horse when it shall be needful to draw them together.’[74]

Fortifications at Kinsale.

The disaster at Chatham in June 1667 revived the panic in Ireland, and Ormonde gave orders for strengthening the defences of Kinsale so as to make it a safe retreat for British shipping. ‘The greatest prejudice we can probably expect this year from without is the forcing of our harbours.’ Orrery showed much diligence in carrying out the work, and the port was soon safe from attack. Mr. Chidley or Chudleigh, who was employed about this business, was apparently the same as he who built the boats which enabled Ludlow to take Ross Castle in 1652. There does not seem to have been any serious plan of invasion either by the French or Dutch, but the latter had cruisers or privateers which took many prizes. On the other hand, there were a good many Dutch prisoners taken, and their treatment was not creditable to the governing powers. They were detained at Cork and Bandon in a state almost of starvation, Captain Crispin, who was in charge of them, complaining that no money was provided. Orrery protested, ‘for though they are now enemies, yet they are Christians, and they may be our friends again.’ This was in July 1666, but things were no better fourteen months later. The English inhabitants were charitable, but the prisoners were so miserable that they rose against their guards and twice tried to burn Bandon. When Orrery visited them, ‘they all on their knees weeping begged to be hanged.’ He gave them some relief from his own pocket. Captain Crispin could do nothing, and dared not throw up his appointment for fear of losing all arrears due to him. And so it continued to the end of the war.[75]

Fall of Clarendon.

The fall of Clarendon had only an indirect effect upon Ireland. He was driven from office and into exile by such people as Lady Castlemaine and the Duke of Buckingham, and by the base ingratitude of a sovereign who would not have been restored without him. The fifteenth article of his abortive impeachment was ‘that he procured the Bills of Settlement for Ireland, and received great sums of money for the same in most corrupt and unlawful manner.’ That the first minister was more or less responsible for those Acts is true, and it is no less true that much injustice was done, but that Clarendon was actuated by corrupt motives is a charge resting on no evidence at all. His enemies in the House of Commons were unable to formulate an indictment, while Bishop French, writing on behalf of the dispossessed proprietors, is equally vague, and can only gloat over the misery of the fallen statesman. ‘This proud Haman,’ he says, ‘who jointly with some few others, to get money for themselves, and estates for their children, contrived the general extirpation of the whole Irish race ... was forced, for his own safety, and the preservation of his life, to quit his fine house, forsake his family, and bid his country farewell, and to travel in his old age, in the dead of winter, through so many dangers at sea and incommodities by land, to seek for some shelter abroad, seeing he could not be secure at home.’[76]

Clarendon’s defence.

That Clarendon frequently ‘swore with a great oath that the Irish should all be extirpated root and branch’ is contradicted by innumerable documents, and as his accusers give no particulars of corrupt dealing, his own statement is entitled to belief. The King called him a fool for his slowness to enrich himself when so many deserving cavaliers were in distress, adding characteristically that it was better to be envied than pitied. The adventurers and soldiers left in possession at the Restoration gave half a year’s rent to his Majesty to repair the losses ‘of such as we shall judge have most eminently acted for and suffered with us’; and of these Clarendon was surely one. Charles ordered that what was due in Meath, Westmeath, Kilkenny, and Wexford should be collected by Massereene and Orrery and paid over to the Chancellor, who was not to be told anything about it until the money was ready. In due course he was informed that his share would amount to about 25,000l., half of which he was to receive immediately. He did get 6000l., and never another penny, for the Irish Government seldom had any ready cash. In the belief that at least 12,000l. would be sent at once, Clarendon embarrassed himself by buying some property in Wiltshire which he had not the money to pay for. As for being the author of the Irish Settlement, Clarendon had begged to have no share in it, and his responsibility was no greater than that of any other Privy Councillor or of the King himself.[77]

Ormonde and Clarendon.

By the death of Southampton and the exile of Clarendon Ormonde was left with but little support at court. His old friend’s dismissal was quite unexpected by him, and at first he did not think his own position would be much affected. The King’s main argument was that the Chancellor’s unpopularity, faithfully reflected in the House of Commons, made it impossible to carry on the government, and against this Ormonde protested. No prominent statesman, he said, could escape popular clamour, and the advantage of yielding to it was very uncertain, and ‘should never be brought in competition with honour and justice, which are the only lasting supports to greatness.’ Charles replied that his old servant’s humour had become unsupportable to him and to all the world; but, he added, ‘I assure you that your former friendship to the Chancellor shall not do you any prejudice with me, and that I have not in the least degree diminished that value and kindness I ever had for you, which I thought fit to say to you upon this occasion, because it is very possible malicious people may suggest the contrary to you.’[78]

Ormonde and Orrery.

Clarendon left England at the end of November 1667, and in the following February the King sent for Ormonde, directing him to make Ossory his deputy and to give him such instructions as he thought fit, but not to start if his health would be likely to suffer, nor until the state of business was such that he could be spared. He had long hesitated about the policy of going to confront his enemies or staying to look after his own interests, and he shrank also from the expense of moving. The return of Ossory to Ireland early in March turned the scale. He left Ireland in the middle of April, and Orrery, who had been detained by illness, followed him in June. Ormonde had been warned by his son some time before that the Lord President of Munster was intriguing against him, but was very unwilling to believe it in view of the latter’s constant expressions of goodwill. Perhaps, indeed, he protested rather too much, but Ormonde trusted him so far as to send a copy of the anonymous articles of impeachment secretly devised against himself: ‘I desire your lordship that no copy may be taken of them, lest it may thereby come to be suspected how I came by them.’ But before Orrery got to London it was well known that he was working against the Lord Lieutenant, though the latter was anxious for his presence as likely to be useful to the service. After three months’ experience he was telling everyone that Orrery was no friend of his.[79]

Ormonde recalled.

Of all the bad men in a bad time Buckingham was perhaps the worst, without shame, honour, or decency. He amused Charles and those about him, and his career is disposed of in a single line of Dryden—he had his jest and they had his estate. Ormonde was an offence unto him both for his high character and for the universal respect in which he was held. Nevertheless he made some approaches to Ossory, who refused to be reconciled to him unless he would act a friendly part to his father. In fact he intrigued incessantly against him, trying first to capture his position as Lord Steward, and when that failed, hoping to succeed him as Lord Lieutenant, going so far as to make nominations to offices in Ireland. Arlington, whose wife was Lady Ossory’s sister, did not openly oppose Ormonde, though he gave him little help. He had to hold his own against Buckingham, and did in fact secure the weight of business while his rival made a show in public. An attempt was made to prove financial mismanagement in Ireland, and this involved Anglesey, who had lately resigned the Vice-treasurership. The attack failed, and the idea of an impeachment was soon dropped. Ormonde seldom used strong language, but in writing to his son he said that Buckingham was a vile man, that Orrery’s gout was the least of his infirmities, and that Lord Meath, upon whose articles it was hoped to found an impeachment, had lost more than he could spare of the sense God gave him. Meath’s name was struck off the Irish Privy Council, and Charles repeatedly affirmed his confidence in the Lord Lieutenant. Towards the end of 1668 well-informed people still thought that he would not be removed, and even in February he wrote himself to that effect. Four days later his supersession was finally decided on, which, says Pepys, ‘is a great stroke to show the power of Buckingham and the poor spirit of the King; and little hold that any man can have of him.’ But to the end Charles continued to speak well of Ormonde, who told the Irish Chancellor that he was much more surprised at the praise than at the recall.[80]