Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. Vol. 3 (of 3)

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[187] Fitzwilliam to the Privy Council, Dec. 31, 1588; to Burghley, Aug. 20, 1590; Robert Legge to Burghley, Feb. 17, 1590; Four Masters, 1588; Fynes Moryson, 1589; compare Captain Lee’s account in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 129. Sir John O’Gallagher is called Sir Owen O’Toole in some English accounts, but this is wrong and misleading; the Christian name is Eoin not Eogan. Fynes Moryson was not in Ireland in 1588, and very probably copied Lee’s story.

[188] Fitzwilliam to the Privy Council, Dec. 31, 1588; Tyrone to Walsingham, Feb. 5, 1589; Patrick Foxe to Walsingham, Feb. 12.

[189] Book of the proceeding of Commissioners for ‘aryer’ claims in Munster, Sept. 3, 1588, of which there is a copy or rather a version (Aug. 29-Sept. 14) at Hatfield, with many details. Most of the facts in this and the two preceding paragraphs are from Mr. Hamilton’s Calendar 1588-1592. See also No. 128, 1591, in Carew. In 1597 Sir Nicholas Browne prophetically described the settlers as ‘fowls fatted in mews, to be spoiled at the pleasure of the country people’ (MS. Cotton, privately printed by Mr. Hussey.)

[190] Everything about Florence MacCarthy may be read in his Life and Letters by Daniel MacCarthy, a book of much research, but unfortunately even more chaotic than the common run of family histories.

[191] The documents are collected in Shirley’s History of Monaghan, pp. 80-91. The notes in O’Donovan’s Four Masters are very incorrect in this case, though they have often been copied. Essex was much pressed to surrender his patent for Farney, but steadily refused.

[192] Sir N. White to Burghley, April 7 and May 9, 1589; report by Bingham, April 10, and his answer to charges in November (No. 39).

[193] Among many papers concerning Browne, see his letter to Walsingham, June 10, 1585; Bingham to Perrott, July 30, 1586; Patrick Foxe to Walsingham, Feb. 26, 1589. The murder took place between the last date and Jan. 13, when Bingham’s commission to Browne was signed. For Walsingham’s views see Morrin’s Patent Rolls 26 Eliz. (No. 39). The Four Masters make out that Browne and Daly were killed in battle, but this was clearly not the case.

[194] Bingham to Burghley, April 6, 1589; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, April 9, with fourteen enclosures.

[195] Report of the Commissioners in Fitzwilliam’s letter to Burghley May 14, 1589.

[196] Bishop of Kilmore to Burghley, May 10, 1589; Bishop of Meath to same, May 13; Fitzwilliam to same, May 14, with enclosures; Bingham to Walsingham, May 23.

[197] Bingham to Burghley, Feb. 24, May 15 and 28, Aug. 26, 1588; Perrott to Walsingham, March 18, 1588; Gardiner, C.J., to Walsingham, Jan. 31, 1589; case of O’Connor Sligo, Feb. (No. 53); Walsingham to the Bishop of Meath, June 24; Kildare to Nottingham, May 31, 1590; and a paper dated Feb. 21, 1592; William Nugent’s Articles, Aug. 14, 1591.

[198] Fitzwilliam to Burghley, July 19, 1589; Bingham to Walsingham, July 24 and Sept. 4; the Articles are printed from a Cotton MS. in O’Flaherty’s Western Connaught, p. 396.

[199] Walsingham to Fitzwilliam, July 8, 1589; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Aug. 9, Sept. 2, Oct. 6, and Dec. 19; Summary of rebellion by John Merbury, Aug. 1. Fitzwilliam calls Bingham ‘atheist,’ but Bishop Jones (to Burghley, May 13) said he was ‘a gentleman of great value, and one that feareth God.’ The Bishop sums up the causes of his great unpopularity under four heads:—1. Hanging gentlemen by martial law. 2. Commissions to prosecute protected persons by fire and sword. 3. Dispossessing men from their land by ‘provincial orders’ without legal trial. 4. Oppression by the soldiers.

[200] Bingham to Walsingham, June 24, 1589; Bingham’s answer to charges, Nov.; Sir N. White to Burghley, Dec. 5; Bishop Jones to Burghley, Dec. 6, and to Walsingham, Dec. 8; Loftus to Walsingham, Dec. 8; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Dec. 13.

[201] The composition with O’Rourke, and much else concerning Leitrim, may be read in Hardiman’s notes to O’Flaherty’s Western Connaught, pp. 346-352; Bingham’s Discourse, July 1587; Bingham to Burghley, May 15 and 28, 1588; John Crofton and others to Bingham, Oct. 19, 1588; Bingham to Fitzwilliam, March 6, 1589; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, with enclosures, April 30; John Merbury to Burghley, Sept. 27, 1589.

[202] Bingham to Burghley, April 6, 1589; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, April 9, 1589, and Oct. 31, 1591; John Ball’s declaration, April 1590 (No. 96); John Bingham to Burghley, Aug. 8, 1591.

[203] Captain Nicholas Mordaunt to Fitzwilliam, May 11, 1589; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Oct. 6; Account of O’Rourke’s country by Fenton and Burghley, Feb. 1592 (No. 43).

[204] Theobald Dillon to Burghley, Oct. 18, 1589; Edward Whyte to Sir N. White, Oct. 20; the Queen to Fitzwilliam, Nov. 19; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Dec. 19; to the Privy Council, Jan. 27 and March 2 and 24, 1590, with enclosures; Bingham to Burghley, April 7.

[205] Fitzwilliam to Burghley, March 24, 1590, with enclosures; Bingham to Burghley, April 23; Camden. Bruce’s Letters of Elizabeth and James VI., April 1591. The charges against O’Rourke are detailed in the Egerton Papers; O’Sullivan Bere, tom. iii. lib. ii. cap. 1; Four Masters, 1590 and 1591. It is stated in O’Donovan’s notes to the Annals, and in many other places, that O’Rourke begged to be hanged with a withe, and Bacon’s essays are given as an authority; but this is not what Bacon says. His words (No. 39, ‘Of Custom and Education’) are: ‘I remember in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s time of England, an Irish rebel condemned put up a petition to the Deputy that he might be hanged in a withe and not in a halter, because it had been so used with former rebels.’

[206] Relation by Carew, May 28, 1590, and his letters of May 31 and July 26 to Burghley, Raleigh, and Heneage, all in Carew. The Master of the Ordnance evidently sympathises with the poor soldiers. See also Loftus to Hatton and Burghley, May 31.

[207] Walsingham’s opinion and other papers in April 1587; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, March 31 and May 15, 1589; Kildare to Burghley, May 31, 1590; Tyrone’s answer to Articles, March 19, 1590. All Fitzwilliam’s letters during this period bear out the text; see the Four Masters, who say Hugh Gavelagh was greatly lamented, and O’Donovan’s notes under 1590.

[208] Archbishop Magrath’s report to the Queen, May 30, 1592; for Sir Arthur O’Neill see Tirlogh Luineach’s petition, July 1, 1587; for the MacShanes see Tyrone’s answer to Articles, March 19, 1590, and the opinion of Coke, S.G., Aug. 13, 1592.

[209] The O’Donnell tangle may be understood from Archbishop Magrath’s report, May 30, 1592, and from the Appendix to O’Donovan’s Four Masters See also Fitzwilliam, Loftus, and Fenton to the Privy Council, Dec. 31, 1588.

[210] Four Masters, 1587; Perrott’s Life, p. 278; Tyrone to Walsingham, Dec. 10, 1587.

[211] Four Masters, 1590; Note of pledges in Dublin Castle, Aug. 1588; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Nov. 29, 1589, and to Sir G. Carew in Carew, Jan. 15, 1591.

[212] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, Aug. 21, 1591; Sir H. Bagenal to Burghley, Aug. 13; Tyrone to the Privy Council, Oct. 31.

[213] The documents are collected in the Irish Arch. Journal, N. S. vol. i. pp. 298-314. One of Tyrone’s main grievances against Bagenal was that he would not pay him the 1,000l. reserved to his sister by her father’s will; and he continued to clamour for this money even after poor Mabel’s death.

[CHAPTER XLIV.]

ADMINISTRATION OF FITZWILLIAM, 1592-1594.

Second escape of Hugh O’Donnell, 1592.

His sufferings from exposure.

He reaches Donegal.

It was no new thing that prisoners should escape from Dublin Castle, nor that they should be brought back again; and Hugh Roe did not despair. A year after his first attempt, and at the same evening hour, he knocked off his irons and lowered himself with a long rope into the ditch. His companions were Shane O’Neill’s sons, Henry and Art, and they were helped outside by Tyrone’s confidential servant, Tirlogh O’Hagan. The fugitives passed through the streets unnoticed, and reached the mountains that same night. Their sufferings from exposure were great, and Art O’Neill, who had grown fat in prison, and had besides received a blow from a falling stone when getting out of it, was forced to lie down under a rock at the foot of the mountains. Edward Eustace, who had been sent by Feagh MacHugh to act as guide, was now despatched to that chief, and food and beer were sent to their relief. The men who brought the provisions said that O’Neill was past help, and there he died. Hugh was badly frostbitten and the nails of his great toes afterwards fell off, but he was able to drink some beer, and they carried him to a solitary house in the woods of Glenmalure. In due course Tyrone sent a messenger, with whom he travelled northwards, though he had to be lifted into the saddle and out of it. Felim O’Toole was now eager to help, and accompanied him to the Liffey, which he forded unperceived just above Dublin. His guide spoke English, and led him through Meath to the neighbourhood of Drogheda. Avoiding the town, they diverged to Mellifont, which belonged to Sir Edward Moore, and here they were lodged and helped on their way. After resting until the evening of next day, they rode all night, and passed through Dundalk as soon as the gates were opened in the morning. The danger was now over, and Tirlogh MacHenry O’Neill, whose power lay in the south part of Armagh, forwarded them safely to Dungannon, whence Tyrone sent Hugh O’Donnell, under escort, to Lough Erne. Here he was met by Maguire, and brought in triumph to Ballyshannon. Henry MacShane O’Neill did not go to Glenmalure at all, but escaped northwards from the Dublin mountains, among which his brother had died, and thus fell into Tyrone’s hands. The Earl kept him long in captivity, and it is probable that in helping his son-in-law to escape, he also intended to prevent the Government from setting up the MacShanes against him.[214]

O’Donnell, Maguire,

and Tyrone.

Hugh Maguire said that he had given Fitzwilliam 300 cows to free his country from a sheriff, but that one had nevertheless been appointed, in the person of Captain Willis. This officer did not confine his attention to Fermanagh, and much of Tyrconnell was actually in his power. This company, who bore a very bad character in the country, were quartered in the monastery of Donegal, from which they expelled the friars, and Hugh Roe’s first care was to get rid of the intruders. The O’Donnells mustered in large numbers, and Willis and his men were glad to escape with their lives into Connaught. The friars then returned to their house. During March and April Hugh was in the hands of the doctors, who are said to have amputated both his great toes; but in May his father made way for him, and he was installed as O’Donnell with the usual ceremonies. Two expeditions against Tirlogh Luineach followed, and all the country about Strabane was laid waste. Nor was Tyrone quite idle, for he allowed his son Con to attack MacKenna, the chief of Trough, who had profited by Fitzwilliam’s settlement of the MacMahons’ country. The opportunity taken was while MacKenna was attending the sessions at Monaghan, and the commissioners were forced to adjourn. It suited neither O’Neills nor O’Donnells to have sheriffs and gibbets so near them.[215]

Tyrone induces O’Donnell to submit, 1592.

Fitzwilliam proceeded to Dundalk, intent upon making Tyrone give up the offenders, so that they might be hanged at Monaghan, but the outrage turned out to be much less grave than was reported. Anxious to gain a good character, which might be of use to him in arranging his law suits with Tirlogh Luineach, Tyrone went to Donegal, and brought Hugh Roe O’Donnell with him into the Lord Deputy’s presence. Hugh made public submission in the church at Dundalk, swearing to be loyal like his father, and to expel strangers from his country. The result was that all opposition to him ceased in Tyrconnell, since no pretender could hope to cope with a chief who enjoyed the help of the Government.[216]

Sir John Perrott is accused.

His enemies.

It has been often said that Sir John Perrott was driven out of Ireland by intrigue, but the fact is that he had long clamoured for his own recall. In England he enjoyed considerable influence, sat as a Privy Councillor, and remained in communication with several men of position in Ireland. But he made enemies everywhere, and it is supposed that the real cause of his downfall was a quarrel with the Chancellor, whom he openly taunted with having danced himself on to the woolsack. ‘Sir John Perrott talked,’ says one biographer, ‘while Sir Christopher Hatton thought.’ He despised the usual and perhaps necessary arts of a courtier, and was too frequently absent from the centre of favour and intrigue. Burghley was certainly his friend, but, great as was the old minister’s power, he could not always prevail against combinations. In Dublin the official set were generally hostile to Perrott, and many had personal grudges against him. He himself attributed his misfortunes to Loftus, whom he had abused for not allowing St. Patrick’s Cathedral to be turned into a college, and Bishop Jones had also his grievances. Philip Williams, Perrott’s secretary, having been dismissed and imprisoned by him, offered to disclose matters affecting the Queen; and it was to the Archbishop of Dublin and Bishop of Meath that he applied for help. Sir Nicholas White, who in some degree represented the old English families of Ireland, as distinguished from the purely English and official element, was favourable to Perrott. His firmest ally was Richard Meredith, a Welshman, who had been his chaplain, and who held the deanery of St. Patrick’s and the bishopric of Leighlin together. Sir Richard Bingham, who had no cause to love Perrott, does not seem to have borne malice; but Fitzwilliam evidently leaned to the side of his accusers. The late Deputy’s language was not only violent, but had that unfortunate quality of picturesqueness which made people remember it. Thus Loftus could tell Burghley, with the certainty of getting corroborative evidence, how his enemy had boasted that he would send the Council out of Dublin Castle on cabbage-stalks, and how he had threatened to pull the Archbishop into small pieces, like grass between his fingers. Such speeches were not treasonable, but they show why so many men were anxious to prove that Sir John Perrott was a traitor.[217]

Charges against Perrott.

The witnesses.

Numerous accusations were brought against Perrott soon after his return to England, but he had little difficulty in meeting them. Matters became more serious when a letter purporting to be written by him was actually produced, in which he offered to make Philip II. king of England and Ireland, on condition of being made hereditary Prince of Wales. It seems clear that the paper was forged by Charles Trevor, an adventurer who had been employed by O’Rourke to manage his son’s escape from Oxford, and whom Perrott had formerly imprisoned. His companion in the Castle, and perhaps his accomplice in the forgery, was one Dennis O’Roughan or Roughan, who had originally been a Roman Catholic priest and had lived in Spain. Finding it convenient to return, Roughan professed himself a Protestant, and had several children by Margaret Leonard of New Ross, whom some called his wife and some did not. He was evidently a liar of the first magnitude, for he told Fitzwilliam that he had said mass to Perrott, who was no persecutor, but who was certainly a sincere Protestant and a hater of Spaniards. When Trevor escaped from prison the forged letter, or one like it, remained in his hands, and he seems to have been accused of several of the forgeries and found guilty of at least one. Roughan produced his false letter, and pretended to be in fear of his life from Perrott’s friends. With an evident desire to make the most of it all, the Deputy sent over his son, with orders to give the document to the Queen herself. Bishop Meredith observed that John Fitzwilliam would have to ride very fast if Perrott did not know all before her Majesty. Considering the abundant evidence as to Roughan’s bad character—and he was a perjurer by his own confession—it might be supposed that no credit would have been given to him. Probably much of the truth was kept from the Queen’s knowledge. An enquiry in Dublin had but doubtful results, and the commissioners, whom the Queen herself rebuked, were accused of partiality to Perrott. They examined Roughan, who soon showed his real colours, and they were probably disinclined to do anything on such evidence. When the man went to London, where nothing was known about him, he accused the commissioners of corrupt dealing, but he soon lost credit in England too. Fitzwilliam evidently leaned strongly against Perrott, and Sir N. White was placed under restraint by him. Whether anyone really believed Roughan may be doubted, but the information gained in connection with his story enabled Perrott’s enemies to draw their net round him.[218]

Trial of Perrott, 1592.

He is found guilty,

though probably innocent.

At the beginning of February, 1591, Sir John Perrott was in the custody of the Lord Treasurer; and of his friends we are told that the Bishop of Leighlin was merry in the Fleet, and Sir Nicholas White sad in the Marshalsea. Contrary to the expectation of many, Sir John was sent to the Tower on March 8; and there he was destined to end his days. His imprisonment was close, and he complained of impaired memory from the treatment he received. At last, in April 1592, he was brought to trial for treason, his indictment specifying that he had compassed the Queen’s death. On one side were Popham, Egerton, and Puckering, and on the other a rough old knight, conscious of many rash speeches, but strong in the confidence which innocence gives, and ‘renouncing the merits and mercy of his Saviour Jesus Christ’ if he was really guilty. The court did nothing to supply the want of counsel. Chief Justice Anderson behaved with his usual brutality, declaring that Perrott was worse than Babington or than any of the traitors, and they were many, at whose trials he had assisted. Hunsdon was one of the Commission, and he also interfered very often and very unfairly. The accused could do little but protest that he was innocent, and that Roughan and Williams were perjured scoundrels. He wished the devil might take him body and soul if he had uttered a certain coarse speech, which many thought the real cause of Elizabeth’s animosity. He appealed to Rokeby, master of requests, who was one of his judges, whether his experience in Ireland had not taught him that witnesses there had no respect for an oath and might be cheaply bribed to swear anything. God, he said, would plague his persecutors for their corrupt dealing. He was found guilty, but a great judge of our own time has described his trial as ‘the scandalous attempt of prerogative lawyers—of which Elizabeth herself was ashamed—to convert the peevish speeches against her, of that worthy old soldier, Sir John Perrott, into overt acts of high treason.’[219]

Death and character of Perrott.

‘Sir John Perrott,’ says Swift, ‘was the first man of quality whom I find upon the record to have sworn by God’s wounds. He lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and was supposed to be a natural son of Henry VIII. who might also probably have been his instructor.’ According to Naunton, who is not a bad authority on such a point, Perrott was aware of his royal parentage. ‘What,’ he asked the lieutenant of the Tower, with oaths and fury, ‘will the Queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to my skipping adversaries?’ Naunton shows that circumstances make the fact not improbable, and adds that Perrott’s manners, appearance, and voice were like those which the Elizabethan tradition ascribed to Henry. Hatton, the chief of Sir John’s skipping adversaries, was now dead; and the Queen was urged by Burghley and others to spare a faithful, though rash, servant. At all events she refused to sign his death-warrant, and when his speech to Hopton was reported to her, she swore by God’s death that they were all knaves. It was thought that she intended to pardon him, and she was often heard to applaud a rescript of Honorius, ‘that if any person speak ill of the Emperor through a foolish rashness and inadvertency, it is to be despised; if out of madness, it deserves pity; if from malice and aversion, it calls for mercy.’ Perrott died in the Tower in the following September; but his chief request was granted, and his son was allowed to inherit. The fact of that son being married to Essex’s sister may have had something to do with this.[220]

Tirlogh Luineach O’Neill resigns the chiefry

in Tyrone’s favour, 1593.

The disputes between Tyrone and Tirlogh Luineach were hard to settle, for the several grants were not easily reconcilable with one another. But Coke’s opinion was taken, and that great lawyer laid down that, by virtue of an indenture made in 1587, the Earl might be forced to leave Tirlogh and his son in quiet possession of such lands as should be awarded to them by inquisition. This had been practically a condition of reviving the earldom in Hugh’s person, and the older grant of all Tyrone by Henry VIII. was so far modified by it. As to the lands, Fitzwilliam effected an arrangement nearly in accordance with Coke’s opinion; but Tirlogh was now old, and finding himself unable to resist both Tyrone and O’Donnell, he thought it wiser to resign his chiefry in his rival’s favour. ‘Hugh O’Neill, namely the Earl,’ say the Four Masters, ‘was then styled the O’Neill, and Tirlogh Luineach, having made peace with O’Neill and O’Donnell, sent away the English whom he had with him. This was done in May 1593. Ulster was then under the peaceable government of these two; and they had hostages of the inhabitants in their power, so that they were subject to them.’[221]

The Four Masters’ notions of peace.

A titular archbishop.

Tyrone’s object for the movement was to keep things quiet and to gain credit for loyalty; but neither he nor O’Donnell ever enjoyed much of the peaceable power described by the annalists. Brian Oge O’Rourke had a dispute with the Binghams about his composition rent, and plundered the country about Ballymote. Maguire’s emulation was aroused, and, in spite of a promise to Tyrone, he also invaded Connaught, leaving Lough Allen to his left, and penetrating to Tulsk in Roscommon, where Sir Richard Bingham was encamped. The English party were outnumbered, and Maguire drove off many cattle, but, in the running fight which followed, Edmund MacGauran, titular primate of all Ireland, was killed. According to Bingham, MacGauran was constantly occupied in stirring up sedition, which he fostered by assurances of Spanish aid. ‘He was, he says, ‘a champion of the Pope’s, like Dr. Allen, the notable traitor; but, God be thanked, he hath left his dead carcase on the Maugherie, only the said rebels carried his head away with them that they might universally bemoan him at home.’ O’Sullivan said that the Archbishop had special orders from Philip II. to stir up war against the Protestants, and to hold out hopes of Spanish succours, and that Maguire was sorry for his loss rather than pleased at the spoil which he was able to secure.[222]

Maguire attacks Monaghan,

but is defeated by Tyrone,

who soon changes sides.

O’Rourke kept Bingham pretty busy during the summer, and Maguire turned his attention to Monaghan. It was not difficult to raise a party among the MacMahons, and Monaghan was vigorously attacked early in September. The garrison repulsed the assailants, but not without considerable loss, and Fitzwilliam found it necessary to make a great display of force. Bagenal and Tyrone commanded the troops, which were collected at Clones, and Maguire drove off his flocks and herds into Tyrconnell. The fords over the Erne near Belleek were found indefensible against so strong a force, but Tyrone was severely wounded in the thigh. This victory of the brothers-in-law only increased their mutual hatred, for the Marshal claimed most of the credit, which the Earl thought belonged to him. The O’Neills were engaged in large numbers, and the tactics which afterwards proved so fatal to Bagenal had been employed on his side. ‘Maguire’s assailants,’ says O’Sullivan Bere, ‘had 700 horse against 100, and musketeers against archers, and the leaden bullets went further than the arrows. The musketeers in the woods bordering on the river shot down with impunity the Catholics who stood in the open, while the archers could take no aim at men protected by thick clumps of trees.’ The same writer says that Bagenal asked Tyrone to write in praise of his valour both to the Queen and to the Deputy, and that the Earl replied that he would tell the truth when he came into their presence. It was one of Tyrone’s grievances that Bagenal got more than his due share of credit, but it is probable that this was mainly an excuse for the course upon which he had already determined. According to O’Sullivan, O’Donnell was on his way to help Maguire, but was delayed by a messenger from Tyrone, who begged him not to compromise him while in the power of the Protestants, whose party he was about to desert. Tyrone believed, or pretended to believe, that the Marshal had orders from Fitzwilliam to arrest him; and, wounded as he was, he withdrew to Dungannon, out of harm’s way. This was his last service to the Crown during Elizabeth’s life, and the annalists believed that it was rendered unwillingly.[223]

Bingham takes Enniskillen, 1594.

Bingham pressed Maguire from the Connaught side, and boats were launched upon Lough Erne, so that the defeated chief was hunted from island to island, during a great part of the winter. To find his cattle was to take them, for no resistance could be made; but Enniskillen Castle held out for a long time against the fire of field-pieces. ‘To present her Majesty’s forces,’ said Fenton, ‘before a castle in Ireland and not to carry it were highly dishonourable to the State, and a dangerous preparation to all the Irish to think less of her Majesty’s strength.’ But the soldiers worked while the Secretary criticised, and early in February Enniskillen was taken by assault, on the ninth day of the actual siege. Boats, protected with hides and hurdles, kept the garrison occupied, while the trenches were advanced, and ladders were used for the final storm. But O’Sullivan declared that the place would never have been taken had not Bingham bribed one of the warders, known from his hideous countenance as ‘the pig’s son.’ The traitor, he says, made a feigned resistance only, and was spared, while the rest, including some women, were put to the sword. Maguire was driven into Tyrone with a few followers, but Bingham maintained that nothing had really been done until Bundrowes, Ballyshannon, and Belleek were taken from O’Donnell. The Lord Deputy did not like Bingham nor his advice, but the event proved that the latter was right.[224]

Recall of Fitzwilliam.

Negotiations with Tyrone.

Fitzwilliam’s health had been failing since the summer of 1592, and latterly he had been very anxious to leave Ireland. The Queen had been ready to recall him at Michaelmas, but Burghley said he should have the honour of finishing Maguire’s affair, and he could only beg that he should not be expected to catch a runagate rogue. ‘I am,’ he said, ‘upon the pitch of sixty-nine years old, my body is weak, my stomach weaker, the stone doth oft torment me, and now the gout hath utterly lamed me in my leg. My sight and memory do both fail me, so that I am less than half a man, and not much more than a dead man.’ Had the Queen adhered to her original intention he might have been spared these pains. He was now directed to appoint Lords Justices if he felt too ill to carry on the routine business of government, but if possible to retain office until the arrival of his successor. The new viceroy was Sir William Russell, fourth son of Francis, Earl of Bedford, who had served with credit in Holland, who was by Sidney’s side when he received his death-wound, and who succeeded him as governor of Flushing. Fitzwilliam did not find it necessary to appoint Lords Justices, but he was unable to leave Dublin, and negotiations with Tyrone were referred to commissioners. The Earl maintained that he was quite loyal, but that the Lord Deputy and the Marshal were in league against him. Bagenal had orders to treat with O’Donnell, and sent one Darby Newman, from Newry, to make a beginning. Tyrone received Newman at Dungannon, and refused to send him on to Strabane. Bagenal’s emissary, he said, was not sufficiently important to risk his credit for; he had already done too much, and was determined that Tyrconnell should not be treated as Fermanagh had been. The Marshal, he added, raising his voice for all to hear, might do it by himself if he could. Maguire was now again at the head of 200 or 300 men, and would not leave a head on anyone’s shoulders who wore hat or cloak, or who spoke a word of English. With Bagenal he would have no dealings, nor would he let O’Donnell have any; but any other commissioner should be welcome to his country. Archbishop Loftus, Chief Justice Gardiner, and Sir Anthony St. Leger, the Master of the Rolls, were chosen, and they proceeded to Dundalk early in March. In the meantime, Tyrone tried to enlist the great influence of Ormonde on his side, and his letters were so startling that the latter thought it right to send them straight to the Queen.[225]

Tyrone’s grievance

Tyrone kept the commissioners waiting for some days, professing to be afraid of Bagenal’s treachery; but he appeared at last on protection, and gave in a long list of grievances. Hatred of the Marshal, whom he accused of bribing Fitzwilliam with money extorted from the people under him, seems indeed to have been the mainspring of his movements at this time. As to the settlement of Monaghan, for instance, he says that ‘every peddling merchant and other men of no account had a share of the land; and the Marshal (who never took pains in bringing of that country to subjection) had a great part of it.’ Besides the general statement of his grievances given to the commissioners, Tyrone sent a secret article to Sir Henry Wallop, whom he thought inclined to favour him. In this he alleged specific acts of corruption against Fitzwilliam and Bagenal, saying that he did not mention these to the commissioners only because they were in such haste to be gone. But before Loftus and his colleagues left Dundalk he promised to keep the peace until his cause could be heard impartially, and swore that if O’Donnell or any other broke out in the meantime, he would be the first to cut his throat. This did not prevent some of the O’Neills from immediately harrying the Marshal’s country, nor from burning houses with women and children in them. Indeed there can be little doubt that it was a main object with Tyrone, as it had been with Shane O’Neill, to get rid of the settlement at Newry. It was planted on purpose to bridle Ulster, and it had proved effective. And English laws or English officers are unpopular in Ireland exactly in proportion to their efficiency.[226]

Fitzwilliam’s opinion of Tyrone

and of Captain Thomas Lee.

Lee’s opinion of Irish chiefs

and of Sir Henry Bagenal.

Fitzwilliam emphatically denied all charges of corruption against himself, and said he had always treated Tyrone with the consideration due to a useful instrument. Appearances were now very much against him, and the Chief Justice had shown scandalous partiality in separating from his fellow-commissioners and remaining for two or three days quite alone with the Earl. Captain Thomas Lee too, who was a needy man and suspiciously intimate with Tyrone, had stolen away to him and was not likely to exercise a good influence. Lee, who was afterwards hanged at Tyburn for his share in the Essex conspiracy, distinguished himself in the Wicklow district, and he has left a curious paper in which he cautioned the Queen against the probable cost and trouble of an Ulster war. According to him the North could only be governed with Tyrone’s help. The chief authority there should be in his hands, and, that being granted, there would be no difficulty in getting him to accept a sheriff and to have regular assizes at Dungannon. ‘Being often his bedfellow,’ says Lee, ‘he hath divers times bemoaned himself, with tears in his eyes, saying if he knew any way in the world to behave himself (otherwise than he hath done) to procure your Majesty’s assured good opinion of him, he would not spare (if it pleased you to command him) to offer himself to serve your highness in any part of the world against your enemies, though he were sure to lose his life... which tears have neither proceeded from dissimulation, or of a childish disposition, (for all who know him will acquit him thereof) but of mere zeal unto your highness, &c.’ Of a childish disposition, indeed, he may well be acquitted; but dissimulation was his strong point. And Lee’s proposed system of government involved arrangements with other chiefs also; yet he averred O’Donnell, Maguire, Brian Oge MacMahon, and Brian Oge O’Rourke to be traitors and villains and obstinate against the Queen. O’Donnell was married to one of Tyrone’s daughters, and Maguire was soon to wed another. Again he says, ‘all the friends to your highness in those countries are but two, O’Hanlon and Magennis.... O’Hanlon is married to the Earl of Tyrone’s sister, and merely enriched by the Earl; Magennis’s eldest son is to marry the Earl’s daughter. And if this affinity were [not], the manner of the Irish is always to the part they see strongest; and when your Majesty (as there is no doubt) shall prevail, they will then seek favour and make offer of much service, but seldom or never perform any; whereof myself have been too often a witness.’ This testimony is remarkable because it exactly coincides with that of Bagenal, who said his neighbours, O’Hanlon and Magennis, were combined with Tyrone, not because they liked him, but because he seemed, for the moment, to be the strongest. In Tyrone’s interest Lee stigmatises Bagenal as a slanderer and a coward, but he agrees with him where his hero’s interests are not specially concerned, praising Bingham to the skies and losing no opportunity of calling Feagh MacHugh a traitor.[227]

Ormonde and Tyrone.

Burghley urged Ormonde, for his own honour and the State’s safety, to make some arrangement with Tyrone, and Sir George Carew, whose advice was taken about this time, believed that the new Irish trouble might thus be nipped in the bud. Ormonde, he said, ‘has that credit with the Earl as at his will he can lead him to do what he list, for upon his wisdom and friendship he only dependeth.’ A correspondence took place accordingly, in which Ormonde entreated Tyrone to bear himself loyally in the sight of all, and never to forget the Queen’s benefits. He had promised the commissioners to behave himself, and it was dishonourable for gentlemen to break their words. By presenting himself frankly to the Viceroy, as became a nobleman and a good subject, he would show that he had nothing to fear, and he might be sure of justice if he harboured no traitors in the meantime. Tyrone thanked his adviser heartily, promised to come to Dublin like the Queen’s loyal subject as he was, and declared that he feared nothing but the spite of Fitzwilliam and Bagenal, who sought his life. As to harbouring rebels, there were two or three thousand proclaimed traitors in Ireland, and it would be strange if some were not sheltered near him.[228]

Florence MacCarthy in Munster, 1593-1594.

Owing in great measure to Ormonde’s intercession, who gave a bond in 1,000l. for his good behaviour, Florence MacCarthy had been released from the Tower early in 1591 and left at liberty, provided he did not go more than three miles from London. He was a persistent and skilful suitor, and his constant pleas of poverty were not without their effect on the Queen. First she granted him a warrant of protection against arrest for debt, and then she devised a means of enriching him without expense to herself. David Lord Barry had been implicated in the Desmond treasons, and had been fined 500l., which he was not asked to pay. He looked upon this as in the nature of a mere recognizance, and he had done nothing whatever to forfeit it. The Queen had nothing new to complain of, but she gave Florence MacCarthy leave to recover the fine if he could. This was a poor reward for Barry’s loyalty; especially as he had been the first to warn the Government of the danger to be apprehended from Florence’s marriage, and was even now cautioning them against letting Florence return to his own country. To Ireland, nevertheless, he was allowed to go, and Fitzwilliam ordered Barry to pay the 500l. in four quarterly instalments. It does not however, seem to have been paid, and Florence spent more than the whole amount in costs. Lord Barry, who remained staunchly loyal, put in one dilatory plea after another, and in due course Florence was himself involved in treasonable plots. His brother-in-law Donell—if the term can be used of a bastard—continued to maintain himself in the character of Robin Hood, and the undertakers had their difficulties with both.[229]

Remarks on Fitzwilliam’s government.

Fitzwilliam’s long public career was now at an end, though he lived until 1599. Years before he had expected to be buried in Ireland and slandered in England; and slandered he seems to have been, though he was allowed to sleep in his own country. He was not a brilliant man, and he was never given the means of doing very great things; but he steadily advanced the power of the Crown in Ireland. Not being a professional soldier he gained no remarkable victories; but of his courage there could be no doubt, as the Dublin mutiny well proved. The charge of corruption has been commonly repeated against him, but this old-world gossip wants confirmation. It was the general practice to make accusations of covetousness against Irish officials, and especially against chief governors. Russell did not escape, and it is clear that many things capable of an ill interpretation would be done in a country where enough money was never forthcoming for the public service. It is evident that neither Elizabeth nor Burghley believed the stories against Fitzwilliam, and if an official satisfies those who employ him he can afford to despise unpopularity. He was not a great man, but he was eminently serviceable, and, if he gained no striking successes, his reign was free from crushing disasters.