The first sign of royal estrangement appears in a Letter of the 25th March, 1615, which complains of slackness in forwarding the Plantation. To it the King added a postscript in his own hand, requiring “zeal and uprightness” from the Deputy. Accompanying this querulous dispatch came a request for a subsidy, and his Majesty promised that, if it were voted, the sittings of Parliament would be prolonged. Chichester meekly bore the rebuke in order to get the Bills he wanted passed, and asked Parliament to grant the money. Both Houses obsequiously agreed, but no sooner had the subsidy been sanctioned than James, in spite of his promise, dissolved the assembly before the Bills could even be brought in.
This blow fell on the 22nd August, 1615; and deadlier thunderbolts were to descend. The King’s excuse for breaking faith was the expense to the public of “Members’ wages.” It was a hollow plea, for the total cost only came to £223. Chichester dispatched a protest against the Dissolution, and sent Davies to London to represent how important, in the interests of a distracted people, were the measures he needed. He hurried to Ulster himself, and from there sent a cunning letter to the King describing the hardships of the Planters and his zeal in their regard.
James was not moved, and even displayed a temper which the “subsidy” had not sweetened. The crestfallen Attorney-General brought back word from Court that “heavy imputations” had been laid against the authors of the mis-government and maladministration of the country. The alarmed Deputy tremblingly penned an elaborate defence, but a week later (22nd November, 1615) a royal missive dismissing him was signed. The packed Parliament had been dispersed without doing anything to validate his grants.
The want of “zeal and uprightness” in forwarding the Plantation, of which James I. accused the Government, is probably the smallest fault that can be laid at the ex-Deputy’s door. The character of the Planters affords some clue to this lack of enthusiasm. Chichester had no wish to stimulate the import of undesirables, whereas the King knew nothing of their calibre. The best justification of the slackness alleged in encouraging such migrants is to be found in the description of them by their own clergymen. Who and what they were is told by the Rev. Mr. Stewart:—
“From Scotland came many, and from England not a few, yet all of them generally the scum of both nations; who, from debt or breaking and fleeing from justice, or seeking shelter, came hither, hoping to be without fear of man’s justice, in a land where there was nothing, or but little as yet, of the fear of God. And in a few years there flocked such a multitude of people from Scotland that these northern counties of Down, Antrim, Londonderry, etc., were in a good measure planted, which had been waste before. Yet most of the people were all void of godliness, who seemed rather to flee from God to this enterprise than to follow their own mercy.... Thus on all hands atheism increased, and disregard of God; iniquity abounded, with contention, fighting, murder, adultery, etc., as among people who, as they had nothing within them to overawe them, so their ministers’ example was worse than nothing.... For their carriage made them to be abhorred at home in their native land, insomuch that going for Ireland was looked on as a miserable mark of a deplorable person. Yea, it was turned into a proverb; and one of the worst expressions of disdain that could be invented was to tell a man that Ireland would be his hinder end.”
Professor Reid, the historian of the Irish Presbyterian Church, paints the same picture:—“Ulster was now occupied by settlers, who were willing enough to receive and respect ministers when sent, but who were far from being generally characterised by a desire for enjoying religious ordinances. On the contrary, a great number of those who accompanied the original proprietors, and who occupied their lands, were openly profane and immoral in their conduct, and were generally inattentive to the sacred institutions of the Gospel.”
A third minister, the Reverend Mr. Blair, writes:—“The most part were such as either poverty, scandalous lives, or, at the best, adventurous seeking of better accommodation, had forced thither, so that the security and thriving of religion was little seen to by those adventurers; and the preachers were generally of the same complexion with the people.”
The Londoners sent a respectable contingent to County Derry; and Chichester’s antipathy to them can only be connected with his designs on the fisheries and his hope to break down the Plantation. Constant complaint of his henchman, Captain Phillips, was made by the Corporation, who, doubtless, represented their grievances to the King. They left on record a protest against the antagonism of Phillips, who was but a stirring-stick of mischief for the Deputy.
Commentators on the sudden “disburthenment” of that powerful satrap have groped in the dark for an explanation. There can now be little doubt that it was provoked by the remonstrances of the Corporation. His lordship’s hostility to them sprang from the wish to upset their enterprise in order to fasten a hold on Lough Neagh and the Bann.