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

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[61] Irish Commons Journal, January to August, 1666. Irish Lords Journal, July 16, and August 3 and 7. Ormonde to Arlington, January 17 and April 4, State Papers, Ireland; Leigh to Williamson, ib. August 6. Writing to Ormonde, August 14, Arlington regrets that the Bill of Indemnity had not passed—‘the persecutions all parties, at least two considerable ones, are exposed to for want of it,’ were certain to give trouble.—Miscellanea Aulica, p. 413.

[62] Ormonde to Arlington, January 20, 1665-6, May 25 and 30, State Papers, Ireland; letters, May 25-29, ib.; G. Warburton to Williamson, June 27, ib.; a memorandum, July 17, ib.; Clarendon to Ormonde, July 7, Carte Transcripts, vol. xlvii.; Arran’s account, May 28, ib. vol. xxxiv.

[63] Statutes at Large, 15 Car. II. cap. 7. Petty’s Political Anatomy of Ireland, chap. x. On January 1, 1668, Pepys heard much about the almost miraculous cheapness of corn, ‘so as the farmers can pay no rent, but do fling up their lands,’ and he had noted the same thing at April 9, 1667. Shaftesbury to the King in Christie’s Life, vol. ii. appx. 1. His estimate of losses from plague is more than confirmed by Clarendon, Life, Cont., p. 821. Anglesey’s protest against the 1663 Act is in Rogers’ Protests of the Lords, i. 27.

[64] Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 610-630. Lister’s Life of Clarendon, ii. 424, iii. 530. Evelyn’s Diary, October 27, 1664. Pepys has frequent notices, particularly at October 8, 1666, and June 27, 1667. State Papers, Ireland, July 1665 to July 1668, particularly Ormonde to Arlington, July 25 and 27 and August 26, 1666.

[65] Ormonde to Arlington, September 12, 1666, State Papers, Ireland. Pepys’ Diary, October 8. Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 691, 955-964. Arlington to Ormonde, October 12, 1665, Miscellanea Aulica, p. 362, and to Temple, October 15, Letters, ed. Bebington. Writing in 1673, Temple said a higher standard of living and love for foreign commodities, and depopulation caused by war, had really caused the agricultural depression in England, and ‘not this transportation of Irish cattle, which would have been complained of in former times, if it had been found a prejudice to England. Besides, the rents have been far from increasing since.’—Works, iii. 20. See Andrew Marvell’s letters to his constituents, October 22 and November 2, 1665. On May 18, 1665, Sir Ralph Verney writes that the market was at a stand, owing to a report that the Lords would not pass the Bill ‘against bringing in foreign cattle.’ Cows were daily sold at from ten to fifteen shillings apiece which had formerly been well worth five times as much.—Verney Memoirs, iv. 117.

[66] Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 967, 969. Christie’s Life of Shaftesbury, chap. x. In his monograph, 1888, the late H. D. Traill thought Butler’s lighter lash more suitable to Shaftesbury’s tergiversations than ‘the resounding scourge of Dryden,’ but his conduct about the Cattle Bill and the Irish branch of the Popish Plot justify the heavier implement. Arlington to Ormonde, October 20 and November 20, 1666, Miscellanea Aulica, p. 427 sqq.

[67] Details as to the quarrel between Ossory and Buckingham are given by Clarendon, Life, Cont., p. 969 sqq., and in Arlington’s letter to Ormonde, October 20, 1666, Miscellanea Aulica, p. 424.

[68] Pepys’ Diary, January 7, 9, 14, and 18, 1666-7. Clarendon’s Life, Cont., p. 988. Rogers’ Protests of the Lords, i. 31. The protesting peers were the Earls of Cardigan, Bridgewater, Burlington, Anglesey, and Castlehaven, Lords De La Warr, Conway, and Berkeley of Stratton. See Marvell’s letters to his constituents on December 22, 1666, January 5, 15, and 19, 1666-7.

[69] Lord Lieutenant and Council to the King, August 15, 1666, February 9, 1666-7, State Papers, Ireland; Ormonde to Arlington, March 30, 1667, ib. Collinson’s Hist. of Cheshire, ii. 29. Information kindly supplied by the Rev. F. McD. Etherington, Vicar of Minehead. The author of a Letter from a Gentleman in Ireland to his Brother in England, 1677, says Irish corn was only fit for home use, ‘being by reason of the climate not so large, firm and dry a grain that it should be fit for transportation.’

[70] See the very clear account in Temple’s essay on Irish trade, Works, iii. 7-16. Rawdon’s letters at this time in State Papers, Ireland, show the effects of the prohibition on certain estates. Robert Leigh to Williamson, ib. March 19, 1666-7.

[71] Petty’s Treatise on Taxes, 1662, xi. 17, and his Report of Council of Trade, 1676, affixed to Political Anatomy. Letter from a Gentleman in Ireland, 1667. The author of Reasons for a Limited Exportation of Wool, 1677, says the Dutch could have Irish beef at one penny per lb. Instructions to Lord Robartes, July 23, 1669, State Papers, Ireland. The Grand Concern of England explained, p. 5, 1673. Compare Miss Murray’s Hist. of Commercial Relations, pp. 42-48.

[72] Lord Lieutenant and Council to the King, February 9, 1666-7; State Papers, Ireland, Memorial of the three lords, ib.; the King’s answer, March 23, ib.; Proclamation of June 7 reciting that of April 1, ib.; Ormonde to Arlington, July 31, ib. Carte’s Ormonde, ii. 344.

[73] Orrery State Letters, March 2, 1665-6, to July 3. Ormonde’s letters for the same period in State Papers, Ireland. For Beaufort’s movements, see Corbett’s England in the Mediterranean, chap. xxi.

[74] Ormonde left Kilkenny August 30, 1666, and returned there September 15, State Papers, Ireland. Ormonde’s letter to Arlington, ib. September 4. Orrery to Ormonde, August 20, Orrery State Papers. Dr. Denton wrote in 1670, ‘if Ormonde do chance to come to you a byled leg of mutton is his beloved dish for dinner,’ Verney Memoirs, iv. 229. Gigery, now Jijelli, half-way between Algiers and Bona, was garrisoned by Beaufort in 1664, but disaster followed. Caulfield’s Kinsale Council Book, p. 97, where September 14 is wrongly given for 7.

[75] Orrery’s State Letters, ii. 51, and all his letters from July 3, 1667, to September, ib. pp. 203-285, and in State Papers, Ireland, July 12, 29, and 31. The treaty of Breda, ending the first Dutch War, was signed on July 21.

[76] Bishop French’s Narrative of the Earl of Clarendon’s Settlement and Sale of Ireland, Louvain, 1668. I have used the Dublin reprint of 1846. This tract is in the form of a letter ‘to a leading member in the House of Peers in England and much relied upon in the House of Commons,’ possibly to Buckingham. A MS. copy is calendared among State Papers, Ireland, under 1667, p. 543. French renewed his attack on Clarendon in the ‘Bleeding Iphigenia,’ 1674.

[77] Clarendon’s Life, Cont., pp. 81, 107, 277, 1197, 1324. His discourse by way of vindication, dated Montpelier, June 24, 1668, is in Miscellaneous Works, 2nd edition, 1751. The Life, written three or four years later, contains the same matter, but some expressions are softened: for instance, the ‘impudence’ of the Irish spokesmen in the former becomes ‘imprudence’ in the latter. The King to the Lords Justices, April 21, 1662, in State Papers, Ireland, is the warrant under which the 6000l. was paid, and Clarendon’s statements are supported by the letters printed in Lister’s Life of Clarendon, vol. iii. nos. 66, 109, 120. The money was levied under section 33 of the Act of Settlement.

[78] Ormonde to Arlington, September 3, 1667, as given in Carte’s Ormonde, ii. 352. Arlington’s answer, September 14, printed in Lister’s Life of Clarendon, iii. 470, and the King’s letter, September 15, printed in Ellis’s Original Letters, 2nd series, iv. 39.

[79] Letters from October 25, 1667, to September 24, 1668, in Carte’s Ormonde, ii. appx. pp. 41-64. Pepys’ Diary, May 3, 1668. Burnet, Own Times, i. 266.

[80] Ormonde to Ossory, May 19, 1668, to February 9, 1668-9, printed in appx. to Carte’s Ormonde, vol. ii. Pepys’ Diary, November 25 and December 5, 1668, and February 12, 1668-9. Ormonde to Archbishop Boyle, March 8, 1668-9, Carte MSS. vol. cxlvii.

[CHAPTER XLV]
ROBARTES AND BERKELEY, 1669-1672

Robartes Lord Lieutenant.

Lord Robartes was again chosen for the post which he had scorned to occupy eight years before. Perhaps the King’s main object was to get rid of him, for he must have been one of the most disagreeable men in England—morose, overbearing, and impracticable. Upon this point Clarendon, Burnet, and Anthony Hamilton are for once agreed, and, according to the last two, he was also something of a hypocrite. His knowledge of business, the popular opinion of his ability, and the reputation which he enjoyed among the Presbyterians made him a personage whom it was not safe to neglect. Charles announced the appointment at Council, speaking without his usual hesitation, and emphatically declaring his undiminished confidence in Ormonde. Robartes, who was present, accepted with civil expressions to the outgoing Viceroy, who answered in the same strain, acknowledging the other’s fitness and wishing him success. Pending the new Lord Lieutenant’s arrival in Ireland, Ossory was retained as the King’s Deputy by patent. ‘My Lord of Orrery,’ wrote the Duchess of Ormonde with very pardonable malice, ‘is as little satisfied with this change that is made, and the Duke of Buckingham, as if my Lord had continued; and I am of opinion that they will find cause, at the least I wish it may fall out so, and so I am sure do many more.’ Buckingham, however, had the satisfaction a little later of driving Coventry from office, and thus clearing the ground for what we still call the Cabal. Ormonde charged his son to treat the new Viceroy with proper respect, to silence the murmurs of his friends, and to take, if possible, more trouble than ever; ‘and if you can get the Tories suppressed, that His Majesty’s kingdom may be delivered up in as much peace and order, as I found it in war and confusion when I was first Lord Lieutenant.’ Robartes lingered long in England after his nomination, and his instructions were not settled for more than five months. The King thought of reserving military appointments to himself—probably Buckingham wished to have the jobbing in his own hands—but Ormonde successfully objected on the ground that this would be unfair to Robartes and derogatory to the great office which he himself had held twice and might hold again. The instructions about revenue matters, in which Ormonde’s enemies hoped to find some means of attacking him, were also modified at his suggestion.[81]

The Tories.

Costigan.

Costello.

Nangle.

Ossory was not destined to have the happiness of putting down the Tories. There had always been many in Ireland who were willing to fight, but not to work, and Chichester had much trouble with them. When the Civil War came to an end Cromwell encouraged their emigration, and at the Restoration the dispossessed Irish, many of whom had followed the King’s fortunes abroad, expected to be restored also. Crowds of priests and friars came to Ireland, and their meetings caused alarmist reports about an intended rising. Orrery generally put the worst construction upon such facts as came to his knowledge, and there were certainly some outrages, but Ormonde thought the Cromwellian soldiers and sectaries much the most dangerous, and the Castle plot showed that he was right. Later on, as it became evident that Adventurers and soldiers would keep a good deal of what they had got, the disappointed Irish gathered here and there in bands, and leaders were not wanting. John Costigan, with several followers, long haunted the woods and bogs on both sides of Slieve Bloom, but seems to have been taken at last through an informer, who thus purchased his own pardon. Many others were taken or slain by like means, but in the case of Dudley Costello, Lord Kingston, the President of Connaught, found it ‘more difficult than he believed to make one Irishman betray another.’ Costello was the heir to estates in Mayo from which he was driven during the Civil War. He distinguished himself in Flanders as a captain in the Duke of York’s Irish regiment, and was named in the Act of Settlement as one of the 232 ‘Ensignmen’ who were restorable, but not until reprisal had been made to the Adventurers and soldiers in possession. There was not land enough to satisfy both interests, and Costello’s hopes were destroyed by the Act of Explanation. In the summer of 1666 he was joined by Cornet Edward Nangle, another Connaught malcontent, and the two entered Ulster with a considerable party. They spent much of their time drinking whisky and quarrelling among themselves, but there were always plenty of sympathisers to give the alarm, and the Governor of Charlemont had to be satisfied with driving them back into their own province, where they wandered about as proclaimed traitors. Englishmen’s dwellings were burned, while the Irish were spared. Nangle was soon killed in an attempt to storm Lord Aungier’s house at Longford, but the band was not broken up. Thomas Viscount Dillon, who had been restored to his estate in the same district, warned his tenants against sheltering Costello, who had been his companion-in-arms, but offered to intercede for him if he would come under his protection. Ormonde’s rule was to give no pardon for nothing, and if Costello expected mercy, he would have to bring some fellow-outlaw to justice, ‘especially one Hill and one Plunket, who lately committed great outrages in the north and are come into Connaught.’ Costello preferred ordering all Lord Dillon’s Mayo tenants to leave their farms. This warning was given in August, and on a late November night Costello with thirty men burned Mr. Ormsby’s house at Castlemore, ‘having entered by means of a turf stack placed against the outside of the bawn.’ All the native population sympathised with him, but the soldiers kept up a hot pursuit. Like the great Sicilian brigand in our own times, he never slept within two miles of the spot where he supped, nor lay two nights running in the same place. But he could always get a party together when the soldiers’ backs were turned, and he burned seven or eight villages within three weeks of the Castlemore exploit. Ormonde retaliated by quartering troops on the Irish inhabitants and ordering the apprehension of the ‘Popish titulary clergy residing in those parts so infested by the Tories,’ who had already been warned by the Lord President that they would be held responsible for their flocks. At last one evening at the beginning of March, Costello, driven to desperation or made rash by impunity, met Captain Theobald Dillon in the open field and was shot dead at the first fire. He had about forty men with him, who all escaped in the darkness. His head was sent to Dublin and stuck upon St. James’s Gate with the face towards Connaught. Nangle’s had been mouldering there for several months. But other Tories carried on the war in many different districts, and informers were deterred from earning blood-money by threats, which were sometimes acted on, of having their tongues cut out. The banditti were no doubt a grievous burden to the people, and in one case, as a noted outlaw stooped to enter a boat in Connaught, the ferryman cut off his head with a hatchet. ‘This honest Charon,’ wrote Williamson’s correspondent, ‘was an Irishman as well as the Tory,’ and refused the reward, saying that the honour of the action was enough.[82]

Ossory and Robartes, 1669.

Neither Orrery or Buckingham having been chosen to succeed him, Ormonde had no real cause of complaint. He doubtless knew that Robartes would never be popular, and charged his son not only to yield him the respect due to his position, but to let it be known that he would not be a friend to any who acted otherwise. These directions were strictly followed. As the time drew near for the new Lord Lieutenant’s arrival, Ossory refused to enter on any fresh business, and made careful arrangements for his reception by the Lord Mayor, the Guards, and the Militia. The Duchess of Ormonde wrote on behalf of Lady Robartes, who knew scarcely anybody in Ireland, and whom she found a very virtuous and worthy person. The Lord Lieutenant landed at Howth on September 18, and was entertained by Lord Howth, many of the officials attending him with a written programme of reception ceremonies. Robartes would have none of it, and made his way without ceremony to the castle. Three troops of cavalry met him on the road, and a miscellaneous collection of people on horseback and in carriages attended him to the bridge, where he was welcomed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen with a congratulatory speech, to which he replied civilly but briefly. He found Ossory in the Council Chamber, and received the sword from him, the departing Deputy saying that he expected much good through his successor’s great abilities, and heartily wishing him a prosperous reign. No one could have been more considerate, but the Dublin people showed in their own way that they were not pleased at the change. Lord and Lady Ossory were treated with rather more respect than ever, and when they left on different days for Kilkenny, were escorted by seventy or eighty coaches, most of them with six horses, carrying peers, bishops, and Privy Councillors. It was rather hard on a plain man of business like Robartes to have to follow this gracious and popular couple.[83]

Policy of Robartes.

Resignation of Robartes.

It is generally admitted, even by his critics, that Robartes was a just man and very clever about business. He favoured the Presbyterians, and blamed Archbishop Boyle, the Chancellor, with very good reason, for undertaking more than any man could do. He set his face against pluralities generally, and of course made enemies in this way. His instructions for the army were to see that the men mustered were actually available for service, to allow no officers to be absent from their quarters without his permission, and not to give more than three months’ leave in any year. This Robartes construed in the strictest way and without respect of persons. Even the ordinary allowance for servants was cut off. Lord O’Brien was ordered to Boyle, more than a hundred miles both from Dublin and his own district, and in the ‘devilishest Tory country in Ireland.’ He stayed there for a few days, but soon got leave direct from the King, and went to London with an unfavourable account of the Lord Lieutenant’s proceedings. Sir Nicholas Armourer, who loved wine and company, complained bitterly to his friend Williamson that the jolly parties in Dublin were ended, and that he could not get leave to go to England on urgent private affairs. The army in Ireland had seldom been regularly paid, and there were arrears of long standing. Some officers mustered ineffective men in their private employment. Others retained money which ought to have been given to the men, and such robbery deserved the severest punishment, but the captains of 1670 could not well be held responsible for the defaults of 1662. Nevertheless a number of privates entered into an agreement among themselves to demand all that was due for eight years, and the Lord Lieutenant approved of this approach to mutiny, even rebuking officers publicly in the presence of their men. Charles wrote to say that this would not do, that persons of quality should have due consideration, and that a spirit was being fostered which it might be very difficult to suppress. It would be sufficient to see that there were no frauds in the last muster. Care for the future was much more important than the raking up of old grievances. ‘Be confident,’ said the King, ‘that I will protect and vindicate your authority as long as you serve me there, notwithstanding this freedom that I use to yourself.’ Robartes had moreover claimed the right to hold no correspondence with the Secretaries of State like all his predecessors, and was told that any such pretension was quite inadmissible. Charles concluded with an assurance that this was only ‘a private admonition,’ and that the changes suggested might be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant as of his own motion, ‘and I shall protect you and your authority.’ When he received this letter, Robartes at once tendered his resignation, and begged as his only suit not to be further employed. He had no friends at court, and as the greedy crew there wanted his place, he was taken at his word. Serious people were ready to believe that he was recalled for his virtues, and not for any fault.[84]

Berkeley succeeds Robartes.

Robartes was ready to go at once if he might appoint a Deputy, but he was told to wait until he could deliver the sword to Lord Berkeley, who did not arrive until April 21. The ceremony took place the same day, the outgoing Lord Lieutenant making a speech of four lines. Next morning he stole away quietly in his wife’s coach, leaving her to follow as she might. Besides his general dislike to formalities, it was thought that he preferred no leave-taking to a paucity of leave-takers which could only accentuate his unpopularity. When Lady Ossory came to Dublin a few days later on her way to England, she was met by eighty coaches, half of them with six horses. He sailed from Skerries, having first been entertained by Mr. Cottington, who provided a very good dinner. On reaching the boat he informed his host that his house was on fire, which turned out to be true. Everything was burned to the ground, and Lady Robartes hurried back to condole with the sufferers, but her husband went straight on board ship and again sent word to her to follow him.[85]

Attempt to impeach Orrery.

The obscure intrigues against Ormonde, while successful in depriving him of the Irish government, had failed to get him impeached; and Orrery’s share in the attack did not save him from being assailed in his turn. He had had much to do with the agrarian settlement, and had maintained with vigour the system founded on it. While repressing the Tories on one hand, he held the Cromwellians in check on the other, and enlisted no one in the militia who refused the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. The first steps towards the Dover treaty were taken at the beginning of 1669, and Clifford is reported to have said that no good could be done in Ireland as long as Orrery was President of Munster. But he might hope to succeed Ormonde as Lord Lieutenant, and to that end may have given Charles and James hopes of his co-operation. He had, however, many enemies, and articles by way of petition were presented to the House of Commons in the names of Sir Edward Fitzharris and Philip Alden. Fitzharris was a Limerick landowner, a Roman Catholic, who had been a minor and royal ward when the rebellion of 1641 broke out, had afterwards adhered to Ormonde’s peace, and had been reinstated in his property when he returned from exile after the Restoration. Alden was described by Orrery himself as a representative fanatic and notorious villain. He had been concerned in the Castle plot of 1663, and had broken prison, but gave useful information and received a full pardon. Additional lands were assigned both to Fitzharris and Alden in the summer of 1669.[86]

Failure to show treason.

The petition was presented to the House of Commons on November 25, and a debate followed, the opinion of lawyers being divided as to whether the charge amounted to treason. Maynard, who remembered his part in the Strafford case, thought that it did, while Heneage Finch inclined the other way, saying that he ‘never knew much good done in Parliaments where many impeachments were.’ Edward Seymour, who had brought in the impeachment of Clarendon, followed Maynard, observing that no charge would have been brought against Orrery had not that against Ormonde been abandoned. Sir Robert Howard throughout supported his fellow-dramatist, but upon a division it was resolved by 182 to 144 that there was matter of treason, a copy of the articles was sent to Orrery, and he was ordered to attend and answer them, the serjeant-at-arms to leave a keeper with him until his gout allowed him to move.[87]

The impeachment abandoned.

Seymour had made a rather cruel joke about a fit of gout being curable by impeachment. This was only partially the case, but Orrery, who was a member of the House of Commons, did manage to appear at the bar a week later. To a friend who condoled with him as he painfully mounted the stairs he is said to have replied that if his feet would but carry him up he would promise that his head should bring him safe down again. On Howard’s motion he was allowed to speak sitting, and had little difficulty in showing that no act of treason was charged against him. The tenth article did indeed accuse him of saying that if the King did not confirm the estates of the soldiers’ and adventurers’ party, he ‘should be compelled to do it with 50,000 swords.’ There was some doubt as to whether the word was ‘should,’ which would be a threat, or ‘would,’ which would be only a prophecy. Orrery denied having ever said anything of the kind, and no time or place was mentioned. The third article alleged that Orrery had used armed force to expel Edmund Fitzgerald of Cloyne from Rostellan and to give it to Inchiquin, whose son had married his daughter. To this Orrery replied that he had only done his duty in helping the Sheriff to execute a legal process, adding that Fitzgerald was attainted of murder, robbery, and treason, and a notorious papist, and that Rostellan was ‘a stronghold and near the sea’—commanding the best harbour in Ireland at a time when a French invasion was feared. Even Clifford thought the foundation too slight for an impeachment, Maynard and Finch agreeing that the accusers should be left to their remedy at law. This was carried, but only by 121 to 118. Ten days later there was another debate, but nothing came of it, the King having directed the Duke of York to use his influence with members in Orrery’s favour. Robartes, moreover, threatened to supersede officers with seats in Parliament if they left Ireland without leave, and this seems to have been enough to stop all further proceedings.[88]

Qualifications of Berkeley.

John Lord Berkeley of Stratton had long been specially attached to the Duke of York. Soon after the Restoration the King suggested that he might be made Deputy of Ireland, if no better could be had. ‘Do you think,’ said Clarendon, ‘you shall be rid of him by it? for that is all the good of it.’ ‘The truth of it is,’ replied Charles, ‘being rid of him doth incline me something to it; but when you have thought round, you will hardly find a fitter person.’ He had generally failed in all employment requiring tact or discretion, but his services as a soldier were respectable, and when he was made a peer at James’s request he took a title from the battle he had helped to win in 1643, for he did not possess an acre of his own. Being without fortune, his great object was to gild the coronet and so to put money in his purse by the most dishonest means. He thought himself fit for the highest place and was a loud and boastful talker. When Mountrath died towards the close of 1661, it had already been decided to make Ormonde Lord Lieutenant, and Berkeley applied for the Presidency of Connaught, with a view to making money of it. He had not the least intention of doing the work or of living in exile at Athlone, and Ormonde complained bitterly that the Presidency was a mere hindrance, and that he could not be held responsible for the government of Ireland, when one quarter of the island was in such hands. The duties were at least partially performed, sometimes by Berkeley’s nephew, Sir Maurice, and sometimes by Lord Kingston, who became joint-president in 1665, the office being granted to him and to Berkeley for life. The latter was content with the profits and took no further interest in Ireland until he was sent to govern it five years later.[89]

Berkeley and his secretary.

Corruption of the latter.

Andrew Marvell says, and we can well believe him, that Berkeley was ‘a man unthought of’ for the Lord Lieutenancy. His appointment was no doubt part of the scheme for subjecting the British islands to French and papal supremacy, but it is not at all likely that such a loose talker would be allowed to know about the secret part of the treaty of Dover. The Lord Lieutenant knew how the court wind blew, and was ready enough to go with it, but his instructions, whatever private hints or orders he may have had, were of the usual character. The established Church was committed to his care, and since the labourer is worthy of his hire, he was ordered to protect the property secured to her by James I. in the plantation. Since the end of Ormonde’s Government the Remonstrants had been oppressed or threatened, and Berkeley was commanded to execute the law against such titular prelates or vicars-general as had offended in this way. Sir Ellis or Elisha Leighton, a younger brother of the good Archbishop of Glasgow, went to Ireland as the Lord Lieutenant’s secretary. Roger North, in agreement with other contemporaries, calls him ‘the most corrupt man then or since living,’ who took all the bribes he could get. Pepys found him good company at a meal, but he was not ashamed to be drunk even at the viceregal table. He had been an adherent of Buckingham, and, without making any pretence of religion had become a Roman Catholic and was ready to carry out the policy of Clifford and the rest while laughing at the doctrine of transubstantiation.[90]

Indulgence of Recusants.

Oliver Plunket.

The Remonstrants thrown over.

Six weeks after Berkeley received the sword all were reported as pleased with the change except a few incorrigible fanatics. The Ulster Presbyterians, indeed, feared oppression, but Sir Arthur Forbes was able to protect them, and Primate Margetson, who was no persecutor, restrained the zeal of some northern bishops. The Conventicle Act had just been renewed in England, but the treaty of Dover was signed only a month after Berkeley’s arrival, and the Declaration of Indulgence was impending. The Roman Catholics at once felt the benefit of the change. Oliver Plunket, whom Clement IX. had just made Primate of Ireland, reached Ireland a few weeks before Berkeley. Writing from London, where he was received by the Queen, Plunket noted that Peter Walsh was there, ‘hated by all.’ Peter Talbot, made papal Archbishop of Dublin a little earlier, reached his see about the same time as Plunket, and both were present at a national synod convened by the latter in June. During the latter days of Robartes’ government Plunket found it necessary to assume the character of Captain Brown, with sword, pistols, and a wig. Berkeley, on the contrary, received him often, though secretly, assuring him and other priests that they had nothing to fear if they behaved themselves, exercising their office quietly, but eschewing politics. Before the end of the year Plunket was able to report that he had driven all the Remonstrants out of Ulster. In the following May he added that Walsh’s adherents were prostrate, and that they could not raise their heads during the existing administration, Lord Chancellor Boyle being unfavourable to them. Berkeley, though bound by his instructions to protect them, did nothing and would not allow Margetson to say a word on their behalf. Plunket was blamed by some for accepting too many invitations to the Castle, but he said that he could hardly refuse, since Lady Berkeley and the chief secretary were secretly Catholics. He even thought he could see some sparks of religion in the Lord Lieutenant. Peter Talbot, now Archbishop of Dublin, was also a frequent visitor to Berkeley, who lent him hangings for a church ceremony, and is said to have expressed a hope of seeing high mass at Christ Church in a few months. Both archbishops had a grant of 200l. a year from the King, but it seems that very little of this was paid.[91]

Blood’s attack on Ormonde.

Though no longer Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Ormonde had still much influence in London. He was Lord Steward of the household, and his immense popularity was an offence to such men as Buckingham. It occurred to Blood, the author of the plot in 1663, that it might be possible to seize his enemy and to hang him at Tyburn. Clarendon House, the expense and the ostentation of which had been so fatal to its builder and owner, had been lent to him by the Chancellor’s son, and on the night of the 16th he had nearly reached it after an entertainment in the city given to William of Orange, when he was pulled out of his coach by Blood and others. The ruffians mounted him on horseback behind one of the gang, who carried him down Piccadilly past his own door and past the other great house built by Lord Berkeley, where Devonshire House now stands. Ormonde managed to get his foot under that of the rider, and the two fell to the ground together. Help came, and the Duke, who was sixty, was carried home in an exhausted condition. Two of the gang fired their pistols at him, but missed, and he escaped with some bruises. Blood had ridden on to fix a rope on the gallows, not much more than the length of Park Lane distant, and met his discomfited followers on his way back. It was generally believed that Blood was the tool of Buckingham and the Duchess of Cleveland. He was not brought to justice, and a few months later distinguished himself by his attack on the Crown jewels. In that case he was arrested but pardoned by Charles, who had, however, the decency to ask Ormonde’s leave. When Arlington brought the message, Ormonde told him that if the King could forgive him for stealing his crown, he could easily forgive him for attempting his life; ‘since it was His Majesty’s pleasure, that was a reason sufficient for him, and his lordship might spare the rest.’ Guesses are vain as to what cause or which favourite procured the royal clemency. The cases of Sir John Coventry and Tom Thynne show what might be done in connection with that corrupt Court. Blood was in frequent communication both with Arlington and Williamson.[92]

The Act of Settlement attacked.

Finch deprecates fresh agitation.

Prince Rupert’s Commission.

All who held themselves aggrieved and all who hoped to gain by a fresh agitation, now thought the time propitious for an attack on the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. A commission signed by six peers and fifty-two others was given to Richard Talbot, who had been all along engaged in similar business, as their plenary agent, with power to call in two or more assistants and to promote petitions to King and Parliament. They set forth that, contrary to the royal declaration and intention, they had been ‘exposed to extreme exigencies, groaning these many years past under the insupportable burden of misery and poverty for want of subsistence and having no refuge left but to prostrate at His Majesty’s feet for justice and compassion.’ A few weeks later, Talbot accordingly petitioned the King in Council, and a committee, which included Ormonde, was appointed to consider the question. Talbot and the Irish barrister whom he was allowed to employ enlarged upon the great services of the Irish generally instead of relying on cases of individual hardship. They ignored the rebellion, represented Ormonde as having been driven from Ireland by the Cromwellians alone, objected to the constitution of the Irish Parliament, and demanded an Act of Indemnity. They desired an impartial enquiry, and that in the meantime no undisposed land should be granted away. Ormonde was thus driven to recall the facts of the war, the broken peaces, and the excommunication launched against himself. Before proceeding further a report was called for from Finch, now Attorney-General, who had drawn the Act of Explanation, and in a few days he made a very able statement, which was afterwards committed to writing. In this document a clear account is given of all the proceedings connected with the settlement. Finch does not deny that there were cases of hardship, but he altogether objected to upset in the English Parliament what had already been done after the greatest deliberation in Ireland, ‘for the consequence of this would be that Ireland should be always settling, but never settled.’ He strongly asserted the power of the English Parliament to make laws for Ireland, subject, however, to nullification by the legislature there. As to an Act of Indemnity, certainly it would be a good thing for Ireland, provided it was not used to upset the arrangements as to land. But the Irish rebellion was specially excepted from the English Act of Oblivion, and it was doubtful whether Parliament would change that. Probably Talbot and his friends would care very little for any relief that did not alter the title to land, ‘for few Irish rebels are less than fifty years old now, and no man goes about to trouble them for that crime.’ Finch’s opinion, coinciding as it did with Ormonde’s, made it evident that nothing could be expected from the first committee. It was therefore superseded by another, from which Ormonde was excluded, but of which Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale formed part. This was afterwards turned into a royal commission, with Prince Rupert at its head, and very full powers of inquiry were given as to the settlement of Ireland.[93]

Lady Clanbrassil.

Lord Berkeley was much under the influence of the beautiful and witty but most unscrupulous Countess of Clanbrassil. He had her worthless and foolish husband made a Privy Councillor. Whether she favoured the Roman Catholics or not, she was certainly hostile to the Presbyterians, having had one of their meeting-houses pulled down. She occupied rooms in the Castle, and was much in favour with Lady Berkeley, as well as with the Lord Lieutenant, who was by no means young. Patrick Adair records with evident pleasure that she was hurt by the fall of the gallery when present with the viceregal party in the Smock Alley Theatre on St. Stephen’s Day. Adair says the play was called ‘The Nonconformist,’ wherein ‘the poor shadow of a nonconformist minister is mocked and upbraided.’ It was Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, which Pepys thought an admirable play, ‘but too much profane and abusive.’ Robartes had suppressed the players ‘as well as other vicious persons,’ but that did not last long. The theatre had been built by subscription in 1662, and Adair says the bishops contributed largely, ‘though they refused at the time to give countenance or assistance for building a church at Dame Street, where there was great need.’ The house was repaired and continued to be used as a theatre until near the end of the eighteenth century.[94]

Inefficiency of the Government.

Berkeley went to England in June 1671, was well received, and had the honour of entertaining the King and Queen at his house at Twickenham. Lady Clanbrassil went with him. ‘She thinks,’ says Lord Conway, ‘to trip up Nell Gwyn’s heels, and you cannot imagine how highly my Lord Arran and many others do value themselves upon the account of managing Lady Clanbrassil in this affair.’ Whether Charles admired her or not does not appear, but she certainly did not get the better of Nell Gwyn. Pending promotion she amused herself with Harry Killigrew, and her intimacy with the Berkeleys continued as long as they stayed in Ireland, whither she returned with them in September. Sir Nicholas Armourer, the jovial governor of Duncannon, thought her beautiful and dangerous, but did not admire the administration of which she was so bright an ornament. ‘An army fifteen months in arrear, the Treasury locked up, and a mutinous city, a country in apprehensions for their Act of Settlement. What shall we say unto these things?’[95]

The dispensing power exercised.

During the Commonwealth and Protectorate the corporate towns had lost many of their inhabitants and much of their trade. It had not been found possible to replace the ancient inhabitants by a sufficient number of English Protestants, and in May 1661, barely one year after the Restoration, Charles II. directed the Irish Government to allow facilities for trade ‘without making any national distinction between our subjects of that our kingdom, or giving any interruption upon pretence of difference of judgment or opinions in matters of religion.’ But by the Act of Settlement houses in corporations were assigned as security to officers serving before June 5, 1649, and by the Act of Explanation no one was to be allowed to purchase such houses without taking the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, except by the Lord Lieutenant’s licence first obtained. The loop-hole left was not wide enough to admit any very large number of recusants, and a further step was taken early in 1671. The Lord Lieutenant was directed to give a general licence to all persons, irrespective of race and religion, to buy or hire houses in towns, and so restore trade to its former flourishing state, as intended by the King’s letter in 1661. Papists were to be restored to all the privileges they enjoyed under Charles I. on taking the usual oath of allegiance without that of supremacy. A proclamation to this effect was issued a few days later, but the results were inconsiderable, for Berkeley’s government came to an end very soon afterwards and a different policy prevailed at Court.[96]

Riots in Dublin.

How far religious differences were concerned does not appear, but Berkeley was involved in difficulties with the citizens of Dublin during his whole term of office. He promoted the building of a wooden bridge over the Liffey at the west end of Ussher’s Island. Whether the citizens disliked the expense or whether those interested in the ferry objected is uncertain, but in July 1671, when the Lord Lieutenant was absent in England, a large mob of apprentices attacked the unfinished structure. Soldiers quickly appeared, and about thirty of the rioters were arrested. A few days later, when the prisoners were being escorted to a more permanent place of confinement, another mob of apprentices with swords and staves effected a rescue on Merchants’ Quay, but the guard fired and three men were killed. After this there was a strong inclination towards further disturbances. More than a year later Essex reported that these riots had left an uneasy feeling. The bridge was, however, finished, and afterwards replaced by a stone one, which was called the Bloody Bridge even in our own times.[97]

Berkeley discredited.

Corruption of Leighton.

Whether the affair of the bridge was cause or effect, it soon appeared that there were two parties in Dublin. Sir John Totty, the Lord Mayor, and the majority of the common councillors, took one side and were favoured by the Lord Lieutenant. Sir William Davis, the Recorder, with most of the aldermen, joined the other party. Enraged by opposition, and finding the disorder likely to increase, Berkeley called upon Davis to frame rules for the conduct of the city business which would have had the effect of making the corporation very close. Knowing that this would be unpopular, the Recorder exacted a promise that his name should not be mentioned, but this promise was not kept. The rules were declared temporary, and really came to nothing. Essex thought the main object of them was to enable a party in the corporation to job the water-rate. Davis was married to the Chancellor-archbishop’s daughter, and he consulted his father-in-law, whom the Lord Lieutenant treated with great rudeness. In the end Totty, who had been knighted by Berkeley in church, called an irregular meeting at which Davis was removed from his place along with seven aldermen. Sir Ellis Leighton was then appointed to the lucrative office of Recorder, and Totty made himself clerk of the tholsel, where fees were, of course, to be had. Totty was a needy man, and Leighton is described by one whom he had robbed as ‘worse than any Jew—pity he should be suffered to compound so palpably for his bribes.’ Davis went to London as soon as he could, and found that it had already been decided to supersede Berkeley, who received strict orders to make no more appointments, particularly in Dublin, where disorders had followed upon his changes.[98]

Fire at the Castle.

Besides the riots and the theatre accident, Berkeley’s short reign was distinguished by a fire at the Castle during a calm night in May 1671. Some thought it was malicious, others that it was the result of carelessness. Fortunately there were but two or three barrels of powder, one of which was used to blow up an adjacent building, having been carried through the fire by Ormonde’s younger son John and Anthony Hamilton, author of the famous Grammont memoirs.[99]