Financial irregularities, Lord Ranelagh.
Hearth-money.
Richard Jones, Viscount Ranelagh, Orrery’s nephew and grandson of the prelate who had married Tyrone to Mabel Bagenal, had been much befriended by Ormonde, who procured his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1668. The insight thus obtained into Irish finance no doubt caused him to conceive the idea of getting the whole revenue into his hands. The opportunity was afforded by Lord Aungier the Vice-Treasurer, who produced a paper showing the state of the finances for the five years ending with Christmas 1670. Ranelagh offered to collect all the taxes and to pay all the expenses of government. The revenue at this time amounted to about 200,000l., consisting of quit-rents and other land taxes, and of imposts settled upon the Crown by the late Parliament independent of anything that subsidies might produce. These were the customs and excise leviable according to rates fixed by law, ale-house duties, and the hearth-money granted as compensation for the abolition of knight-service and of the Court of Wards. Two shillings upon every fireplace or stove does not seem a very heavy charge, but it was leviable by distress and involved domiciliary visits, and it was manifestly unfair as between rich and poor. It was abolished in England by William III., but continued long afterwards in Ireland. ‘It still remains,’ wrote Howard in 1776, ‘a most oppressive burden on the occupiers of the wretched hovels in many parts of this kingdom.’ In the hands of farmers it was capable of great abuse. Ranelagh and his partners were given complete control of the finances from Christmas 1670 to Christmas 1675, and the Vice-Treasurer was forbidden to interfere with them. The farmers behaved after their kind. Poor men were often charged twice over, but the establishment expenses were nevertheless badly paid. In the summer of 1676 nine months’ arrears, amounting to 139,000l., were due to the army alone, and an unpaid army, Essex truly said, was like tinder. He could not rest well until he saw these poor creatures righted. He believed that if the Lords Justices had had 10,000l. they might have nipped the rebellion of 1641 in the bud, but the Exchequer was empty and they had no credit. He himself was in much the same position, and there were small mutinies at Drogheda and Kinsale. Everything connected with the army was out of order. There were scarcely 300 barrels of good powder in the country, nor 500 good muskets. ‘There is not one company in the whole army completely armed, their muskets being many of them out of order and of different bores and the pikes half of them broken, all guns and fieldpieces in the several garrisons generally unmounted.’ Ranelagh was himself made Vice-Treasurer in June 1674, so that there was no supervision whatever.[112]
Essex, Ranelagh, and Ormonde.
Though deprived of effective control Essex tried to keep the farmers in order, but they appointed numerous private collectors, and it was almost impossible to say who had a right to demand money. Moreover, the King and the Lord Treasurer did what they could to thwart him, and a letter signed by the one and countersigned by the other blamed him obliquely for ‘encroaching on the office of our said Vice-Treasurer.’ Many allowances were made for Ranelagh and much extra time was given him, but he could not be brought to account. The real reason of the extraordinary favour he enjoyed at Court doubtless was that he gave Charles ready money behind the Lord Lieutenant’s back, and if it be true that one of his daughters became the King’s mistress, as Henry Sidney reports, that might be an additional argument. Both Cleveland and Portsmouth made money out of Ireland. The King cared more about putting cash into his Privy Purse than about the public service. His state policy was influenced by this, as Louis XIV. well knew, and smaller people could play the same game. In March 1677, Ranelagh at last handed in an account up to the end of 1675, but declared that it was not final and that the items were liable to reconsideration. As it was confessedly imperfect, Essex refused to pass it. In the meantime, Ranelagh had fallen foul of Ormonde, attributing his own troubles to the mismanagement of Irish finance in the ten years preceding 1671, during the greater part of which the Duke was Lord Lieutenant. Ormonde had not much difficulty in defending himself, and retorted by showing how oppressive had been the system of collection under Ranelagh. The inferior tax-gatherers did not hesitate to remedy their own deficiencies by squeezing those whom they thought unable to defend themselves. On the Ormonde estate alone 13,000l. were demanded from tenants who were able to show that they owed only 657l., and where less powerful landlords were involved it was easy to imagine that the irregularities would be still worse. The King, after a full enquiry, exonerated Ormonde from all blame, but continued to heap favours on Ranelagh, who received an Earl’s coronet at the end of 1677. In 1681 a very large sum was still due, which Charles freely forgave. At a later date Ranelagh was Paymaster-General for many years, and was expelled from Parliament in 1702 for defalcations amounting to 72,000l.[113]
Scheme to make Monmouth Viceroy.
Charles sups with Ormonde.
Essex returned to Ireland in May 1676, but it did not seem likely that his future stay would be long. The King was inclined to think that he had been viceroy long enough, and there were plenty of candidates for the succession. Ormonde wished to be back in the Government, but in the meantime he supported Essex. He has, wrote Aungier, now Earl of Longford, ‘stuck to your Excellency with the zeal and courage of a true friend.’ Danby, who was not particular in money matters, supported Ranelagh, but the King refused to order Essex to pass an unsatisfactory account. Early in 1677 Ranelagh and Danby, with the help of the Duchess of Portsmouth, devised a scheme for making Monmouth Lord Lieutenant. He was to remain in England while Conway governed Ireland as Deputy with part of the salary and allowances, paying a round sum down and defraying many expenses himself. Ormonde said he would never visit Ireland while Conway governed it, and sought the help of the Duke of York, which was readily given. At the beginning of April Charles, who had not spoken to Ormonde, sent him word that he would come and sup with him. A splendid repast was provided at a cost of 2000l., and before leaving the King announced his intention of making his host Lord Lieutenant. Yonder, he said next day, ‘comes Ormonde; I have done all I can to disoblige that man, and to make him as discontented as others, but he will not be out of humour with me, he will be loyal in spite of my teeth, I must even take him in again, and he is the fittest person to govern Ireland.’ Long before, to judge by their demeanour, Buckingham had remarked that it was hard to say whether the Duke of Ormonde was in disgrace with the King or the King with the Duke of Ormonde. Essex was recalled with many handsome expressions, his successor stipulating that the same complimentary words should be used as in his own case. The letter had been signed, but Charles made the desired addition on the margin in Coventry’s presence. The new appointment was made without consulting Danby, and Essex was told that he might appoint Lords Justices and come away or wait for Ormonde’s arrival, just as he pleased.[114]
Ireland terrorised by outlaws.