WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730
This page intentionally left blank
WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730 ...
73 downloads
1493 Views
20MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730
This page intentionally left blank
WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730
J.G.SIMMS
EDITED BY D.W.HAYTON AND GERARD O'BRIEN
THE HAMBLEDON PRESS LONDON
AND
RONCEVERTE
Published by The Hambledon Press, 1986 35 Gloucester Avenue, London NW1 7AX (U.K.) 309 Greenbrier Avenue, Ronceverte West Virginia 24970 (U.S.A.)
ISBN 0 907628 72 9 ©The Estate of the late J.G. Simms 1986
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Simms, J.G. War and politics in Ireland, 1649-1730. 1. Ireland - History - 1649-1730. I. Title II. Hayton, David III. O'Brien, Gerard 941.506 DA940 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Simms, J.G (John Gerald), 1904-1979. War and politics in Ireland, 1649-1730. "Select bibliography of J.G. Simms": pp. xv-xxi Includes index. 1. Ireland - History - 1649-1775 - Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Simms, J.G. (John Gerald), 1904-1979. I. Hayton, David, 1949- II. O'Brien, Gerard. III. Title. DA944.4.S56 1986 941.506 85-31686
Printed and bound in Great Britain by WBC (Printers), Bristol and WBC (Bookbinders), Maesteg
CONTENTS Acknowledgements Introduction: The Historical Writings of J.G. Simms (1904-79) Select Bibliography of J.G. Simms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649 Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649 Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick, 1650-1651 John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic Dublin in 1685 The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 Schomberg at Dundalk Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne Marlborough's Siege of Cork, 1690 A Jacobite Colonel: Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91
12
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War, 1689-91
13 14 15 16 17
County Louth and the Jacobite War Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1 The Treaty of Limerick Irish Catholics and the Parliamentary Franchise, 16921728 The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (C. Will. Ill, c. I) The Case of Ireland Stated The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c.6), 1703-4 The Irish Parliament of 1713 Connacht in the Eighteenth Century County Sligo in the Eighteenth Century
18 19 20 21 22 23 Index
vii ix XV
1 11 21 31 49 65 91 105 117 129 135 149 161 169 181 203 225 235 251 263 277 289 307 317
This page intentionally left blank
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For permission to reprint the papers in this collection, encouragement in the task, and significant material help, we are very grateful to the family of the late Gerald Simms, and especially his daughter, Mrs Lisa Shields. For advice, assistance in procuring rare items, and support in the preparation of the volume, we should also like to thank Dr D. G. Cuinnea, Mr R. J. Hunter, Mr Harman Murtagh, Jim and Una O'Donovan, Brenda O'Hanrahan, Dr Carole Rawcliffe, Nick Sanquest and Dr W. E. Vaughan. The articles are reprinted by kind permission of the original publishers: the County Donegal Historical Society (11), the County Louth Historical and Archaeological Society (13), the Dublin Historical Association (6,16), Gill andMacmillanLtd. (19), the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences (21), the Irish Historical Society and Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies (4, 5,15,17,18, 20, 22), the Kilkenny Archaeological Society (12), the Military History Society of Ireland (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,10,14), and the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (23).
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORICAL WRITING OF J.G. SIMMS (1904-79) 'Irish history', wrote one of its foremost recent practitioners, 'has been revolutionized in the last generation.'* Indeed, it has become almost a commonplace among Irish historians to talk of a mid-twentieth century 'historiographical revolution', characterized by an efflorescence of learned societies and serial publications of one kind or another, and centred on Trinity College, Dublin and the figure of the late T. W. Moody, guiding hand behind many major projects, from the journal Irish Historical Studies, founded in 1938, to the multi-volume, cooperative New History of Ireland, which the Clarendon Press began publishing for the Royal Irish Academy in 1976.2 'A harvesting of the best contemporary scholarship', the New History stands as a landmark in the progress of the 'historiographical revolution', almost as a monument to the pioneers.3 One of their signal achievements, amply illustrated in the New History, was the removal of much of the emotionalism and partisanship from the study o{ Irish history, so that hitherto highly combustible issues could be dealt with dispassionately, and, as far as humanly possible, objectively. Nowhere are these virtues better demonstrated than in the writings of one of the most prolific of this generation, J. G. Simms. In a stream of books and papers from the early 1950s until his death in 1979, Simms tackled some of the most vexed and vexing questions in all Irish history, the wars, confiscations, persecutions and politics of the later seventeenth century. His was a peculiarly dangerous minefield: Cromwell's sieges, the 'Glorious Revolution' and its aftermath, the later passage of the infamous 'penal laws' against Catholics, all episodes close to the heart of modern mythmakers, and yet all described by Simms with fairness and exemplary clarity. 1
J. G. Simms, 'The Historical Work of T. W. Moody', Ireland under the Union:
Varieties of Tension. Essays in Honour ofT. W. Moody, eds. F. S. L. Lyons and R. A. J. Hawkins (Oxford, 1980), p. 321. 2 See, for example, F. S. L. Lyons, 'T.W.M.', Ireland under the Union, eds. Lyons and Hawkins, p. 4 et seq.; R. F. Foster, 'History and the Irish Question', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XXXIII (1983), 188. 3 A New History of Ireland, eds. T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, F. J. Byrne and W. E. Vaughan (9 vols., Oxford, 1976-), III, p. v.
Introduction
x
Gerald Simms was descended from Ulster Plantation stock, the eldest of three sons of a County Donegal solicitor (a brother, George, was to become Church of Ireland primate). Educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, where he secured a double first, he had the distinction of enjoying two quite separate careers, first in the Indian Civil Service, and then, after Indian independence, back in Ireland as an academic historian. A Ph.D. thesis at Trinity, withT. W. Moody as supervisor, was followed by election as a fellow of the college, where he stayed until his retirement. Simms became a pillar of the scholarly establishment in Ireland, a member of the Royal Irish Academy, Librarian of Archbishop Marsh's Library in Dublin, President of the Irish Historical Society, active in various other local and national societies and a collaborator with Moody in several ventures, not least as a substantial contributor to the New History. He wrote extensively, and always, it must be said, for Irish periodicals and series, or for Irish publishers. This reflected, perhaps, a kind of insularity, and to a certain degree deprived him of the reputation outside Ireland that his qualities as a historian merited. But his ancestry, English education and imperial experience were still an essential part of the historian, enabling him to treat the conflicting factions of his chosen period with unusual detachment, understanding in turn the points of view of Williamite and Jacobite, Irishman, Anglo-Irishman and Englishman. Simms's first book, published in 1956, was in effect his Ph.D. thesis, The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland 1690-1703, narrating the course of
the land settlement that followed the final defeat of the Stuart cause in Ireland and evaluating its results. He had prepared the way for this monograph with two papers in Irish Historical Studies, 'Land Owned by Catholics in 1688', setting out the status quo, and 'The Original Draft of the Civil Articles of Limerick, 1691', which helped to elucidate a crucial stage in the peace-making process. G. N. Clark, reviewing The Williamite Confiscation . . ., noted that until Simms had begun to publish his findings 'every aspect of the history of Irish landownership before and after the war of 1689-91 was very imperfectly known. Now that he has completed his work, all previous accounts of it are superseded'.4 Almost equally impressed was another English historian, J. P. Kenyon: 'an extremely satisfying piece of detailed research, whose sober conclusions must carry conviction. '5 These conclusions, about the scale of the redistribution of lands after 1690, presented as much smaller than in the Cromwellian and Restoration land settlements; and about the conduct of King William, his ministers and generals, whose honour was in some way rehabilitated, may not have been startling, but they were significant. What is particularly impressive about the book is the 4 5
Irish Historical Studies, XI (1958-9), 55-8. English Historical Review, LXXII (1957), 373-4.
Introduction xi skill with which the author, much in the manner of a senior civil servant drawing up a brief, masters complex historical processes and a mass of material to produce his pellucid and authoritative account. There was, too, something about the subject of landownership itself that fascinated Simms, and not just its traditional prominence in Irish history. He had in fact already produced an article on the Civil Survey of the 1650s, and later was to return to tackle land questions in Counties Louth and Meath, and to have a preliminary look at the Ulster Plantation in his own county, Donegal. A subject of even greater interest, to judge simply by the number of words Simms expended on it, was military history. An officer of the Military History Society of Ireland, in which he served as VicePresident and as a member of the editorial committee, he appeared frequently in the columns of the society's journal, the Irish Sword. Military matters, whether narratives of engagements or assessments of generals, gave him the chance to solve specific problems, and tell complicated stories clearly, for which he had a flair. Although there were occasional forays into the Cromwellian period, it soon became obvious that the thrust of his major offensive in the decade or so that followed the publication of The Williamite Confiscation . . . was towards a new history of the war between James II and William III, a natural development indeed from his earlier work. Pamphlets on the Treaty of Limerick (reprinted below, no. 16) and the siege of Derry pointed the way, as did a nost of other papers, five of which, important in their own rignt and not subsumed into publications of larger scope, are included in this collection: the story of the travails of the Williamite general Schomberg at Dundalk in 1689 (no. 7); an analysis of the evidence about the most famous Irish battle of them all, 'Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne' (no. 8); an account of one of the first major exploits of the great Duke of Marlborough, his siege of Cork in 1690 (no. 9); an examination of'Williamite Peace Tactics' (no. 15); and a vignette of the Jacobite officer Dominick Sarsfield (no. 10). The final push came in 1969 with the appearance of Jacobite Ireland 1685-91, the intention of which was to 'trace the course of events in Ireland from the accession of James II to the treaty of Limerick'.6 In this objective it succeeded triumphantly, earning the same plaudits for thoroughness, objectivity and clarity that had garlanded the first book. One reviewer praised Simms's 'unerring sureness of touch', and found in his narrative the cardinal virtues of the genre: it was 'well proportioned, comprehensive and dramatic'.7 There was more to the events of 1685-91 in Ireland, and more to Simms's rendition of them, than a catalogue of military preparations and engagements. Otherwise enthusiastic reviewers might, not 6J. G Simms, Jacobite Ireland 1685-91 (London, 1969), p. v. 7 J.L . McCracken, in Eng. Hist. Rev., LVI (1971), 848.
Introduction
xii
unjustly, carp at the brevity with which the religious background and the prevailing economic and social conditions in later seventeenthcentury Ireland were sketched in. But when it came to politics Jacobite Ireland did make a sustained attempt to encompass this vital extra dimension. The accounts of James II 's changing policies in Ireland prior to 1688, and of the proceedings of his Catholic Parliament there in 1689, already discussed oy Simms at some length in a pamphlet reprinted below (no. 6), display the same surefootedness as the military narratives. This was a sphere of interest that Simms was to explore further, most notably in his chapters of the New History, which taken together form an accurate and elegant account of events in Ireland from the Restoration to the Hanoverian Succession. The present volume includes three examples of papers narrating political developments: a study of the short-lived and turbulent Irish Parliament of 1713 (no. 21); and two investigations into the passage of individual penal laws, the Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (no. 18) and the Popery Act of 1704 (no. 20). Here Simms, as in other areas, was breaking new ground, particularly in his examination of the processes by which legislation against Catholics emerged and was modified in the course of a peculiarly complex and long-drawn-out drafting procedure. To those historians who are inclined to treat the imposition of the penal code in general terms, and too simplistically, happy to assume that Parliaments spoke with one voice, and that the final shape of a measure corresponded to the intentions of its makers, Simms's articles are a reminder that there were many parties involved, with different aims, and that legislation was and is nearly always the outcome of a series of manoeuvres and compromises. These political studies have their weaknesses: they are not profoundly versed in the sophisticated configurations o( late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century English politics, and do not always bring out to the full the reciprocal influence o£ factionalism in Dublin and at Westminster. But they are of considerable value as important investigations into what even now is still largely uncharted territory. Another major historiographical region into which Simms made some pioneering journeys was that of Irish local history. He had a particular pride in 'the petite patrie of his native county', writing frequently for the Donegal Annual and serving as President of the County Donegal Historical Society in its silver jubilee year.9 Questions of landownership naturally threw up interesting local case-studies, and his work on the Jacobite war of 1689-91 yielded a number of minor pieces on the impact of the conflict on the life of the provinces, four of which are reprinted here (nos. 11-14). Perhaps the most adventurous of these voyages into the localities were his efforts to describe a 8 Ibid. 9
Donegal Annual, X (1971), 1-2.
xn Introduction i particular city, county or province at a point or in a period of its history. His surveys or'Dublin in 1685' (no. 5) and of County Sligo and Connacht in the eighteenth century (nos. 22-3), summarize the characteristics of each in a typically lucid fashion. While a new generation of economic and social historians is digging deeper into the subsoil, so to speak, of Irish local history in his period,10 Simms's articles represent the vital early spadework, and have not yet been superseded for the localities that they cover. Simms's last book, published posthumously, was a life of the Dublin savant and political thinker William Molyneux, whose Case of Ireland . . . Stated (1698) exercised a major influence on the Protestant 'patriots' of the later eighteenth century, the architects of the protoHome Rule 'Constitution of 1782'. His interest in Molyneux, and in Jonathan Swift (reflected in several articles) led Simms to consider the curious phenomenon of Anglo-Irish political patriotism, and to make an important contribution to the debate about its nature. Were the representatives of the Protestant Ascendancy genuine nationalists, or hypocrites who played at patriotism until their supremacy was threatened by the Catholics they had excluded from political life, and who then scuttled back to England and Union for protection? The interpretation advanced by Simms in books and articles (one of which is printed below, no. 19) placed Molyneux and his disciples in a tradition of Anglophone colonial theorists whose patriotism, based primarily on a recognition of separate economic interests from those of the mother country, was contained 'within an imperial framework'. An eighteenth-century parallel, though not an exact one, was to be found in colonial America, and in a short monograph on the Case Simms demonstrated, amongst other things, Molyneux's impact on the Founding Fathers.11 In fact, the notion of 'Colonial Nationalism', as Simms termed it, was most closely applicable to the movements towards 'nationalism' in the British dominions in the later nineteenth century. The phrase had been coined by the Chamberlainite political journalist Richard Jebb in an article in the Empire Review in 1902, and developed in a number of books, no doubt familiar to a servant of the twentieth-century Raj.12 Its use to define the ideology or ideologies of eighteenth-century Irish Protestants has not met with universal
10
See for example, D. J. Dickson, 'An Economic History of the Cork Region in the Eighteenth Century' (Trinity College, Dublin, Ph.D. thesis, 1977); W. H. Crawford, 'Ulster Economy and Society in the Eighteenth Century' (Queen's University, Belfast, Ph.D. thesis, 1983). 11 Colonial Nationalism 1698-1776 . . . (Cork, 1976); see esp. p. 9. 12 See in particular, R. Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism (London, 1905); and in general, forjebb's 'imperialist-federalist'writings, J. D. B. Miller, Richardjebb and the Problem of Empire (University of London Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Commonwealth Papers, III, 1956).
xiv
Introduction
approval,13 but the idea has nevertheless proved fruitful: a recent doctoral thesis on Anglo-Irish political thought in the period from the Revolution to the mid-1720s incorporates 'Colonial Nationalism' into its title.14 In any discussion of Gerald Simms's historical writing two main themes stand out: first, that in many of the thorniest patches of Irish history he cut away the tangled undergrowth so that others, not least other historians, might see clearly; secondly, that he accomplished these tasks to the highest level of professional craftsmanship. In some areas, in his work on landownership or on military history, he established the definitive text; in others, in political narrative and in the study of Anglo-Irish political theory, he left foundations for others to build on. His lasting achievements were summarized by one reviewer: 'Historical fashions change, and more superficial or modish studies may be cried up, but as time passes the enduring virtues of a lucid style, logical exposition and secure documentation will again enjoy their proper recognition.'15
13 D. G. Boyce, Nationalism in Ireland (London, 1982), pp. 106-8, offers cogent criticism. 14 By Dr Isolde Victory (Trinity College, Dublin, Ph.D. thesis, 1985). « T. C. Barnard, in Ir. Hist. Stud., XXIV (1984), 104.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF J.G. SIMMS The following bibliography is based on that of Brenda O'Hanrahan, Donegal Authors: A Bibliography (Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 1982), pp. 242-6. Permission to make use of this work is gratefully acknowledged. We have excluded such items as book reviews and replies to queries. Papers and pamphlets reprinted in this volume are marked with an asterisk.
BOOKS Separate works: The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland 1690-1703. (Studies in Irish History,
VII.) London: Faber and Faber. 1956. (Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1976.) 207 pp. *The Treaty of Limerick. (Irish History Series, 2.) Dundalk: Dublin Historical Association. 1961. 24 pp. *The Jacobite Parliament of 1689. (Irish History Series, 6.) Dundalk: Dublin Historical Association. 1966. 28 pp. The Siege of Deny. Dublin: A.P.C.K. 1966. 33 pp. Jacobite Ireland 1685-91. (Studies in Irish History, 2nd series, V.) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1969. xii, 298 pp. Colonial Nationalism 1698-1776: Molyneux's 'The Case of Ireland . . .
Stated'. (Irish Life and Culture, Special Series.) Cork: Mercier Press for the Cultural Relations Committee of Ireland 1976. 77 pp.
Sandford Church, 1826-1976. Dublin: Sandford Parish Select Vestry. 1976. 12 pp.
xvi Select Bibliography of]. G. Simms William Molyneux of Dublin 1656-1698. [Edited by P. H. Kelly.]
Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. 1982. 176 pp. Editions: (With K. Danaher) The Danish Force in Ireland 1690-1691. Dublin: Irish
Manuscripts Commission. 1962. 169 pp. (With T. W. Moody) The Bishopric of Deny and the Irish Society of London,
1602-1705. 2 volumes. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission. Volume I: 1602-70. 1968, 430 pp. Volume II: 1670-1705. 1983. xix, 580 pp. Contributions:
'The Restoration and the Jacobite War (1660-91)'(pp. 204-16,347), in The Course of Irish History, eds. T. W. Moody and F. X. Martin (Cork, Mercier Press, 1967; revised edn. 1984). 'Introduction' (pp. v-xi) toj. T. Gilbert, A Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland 1688-91 (Shannon, Irish University Press, 1971; reprint of 1892 edn.). Contributions to A New History of Ireland, eds. T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, F. J. Byrne and W. E. Vaughan (9 vols. projected, Oxford, Clarendon Press for the Royal Irish Academy, 1976-): Volume III: Early Modern Ireland 1534-1691 (1976):
Chapter XVII, 'The Restoration, 1660-85' (pp. 420-53); Chapter XIX, 'The War of the Two Kings, 1685-91' (pp. 478-508); Bibliography (pp. 634-95).
Volume VIII: A Chronology of Irish History to 1976 (A Companion to Irish History, Part I) (1982):
(With D. MacFhionnbhair) '[Early Modern Ireland . . .] Chronology (A) 1534-1603' (pp. 196-221); (withT. W. Moody and C. J. Woods) '[Early Modern Ireland . . .] Chronology (B) 1603-91' (pp. 222-53); (with T. W. Moody and C. J. Woods) '[Eighteenth-Century Ireland 1691-1800:] Chronology' (pp. 254-92); (with T. W. Moody andC. J. Woods) '[Ireland 1921-76:] Chronology' (pp. 401-72). Volume IX: Maps, Genealogies, Lists (A Companion to Irish History, Part II)
(1984): Map, 'Land Owned by Catholics, 1641,1688,1703, by Counties' (p. 52); (withB. Bradshaw andC. J. Woods) 'Bishops of the Church of Ireland from 1534' (pp. 392-438); '[Principal Officers of the Central
Select Bibliography of]. G. Simms xvii Government in Ireland, 1172-1922:] Chief Governors (B) 1534-1800' (pp. 486-98); 'Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal, 1232-1922 (B): 1534-1922'(pp. 509-11). Volume IV: Eighteenth-Century Ireland 1691 -1800 (1986
Chapter I, 'The Establishment of Protestant Ascendancy 1691-1714' (pp. 1-30); Chapter XIX, 'The Irish on the Continent 1691 -1800' (pp. 629-56). 'Introduction' (pp. 7-14) to William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland Stated (Irish Writings from the Age of Swift, V, Dublin, Cadenus Press, 1977). 'The Historical Work of T. W. Moody' (pp. 321-8), in Ireland under the Union: Varieties of Tension. Essays in Honour of T. W. Moody, eds. F. S. L.
Lyons and R. A. J. Hawkins (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980).
ARTICLES AND PAPERS 1951 'Land Owned by Catholics in Ireland in 1688' (Historical Revision IX), Irish Historical Studies, VII, 180-90. 1952 'The Original Draft of the Civil Articles of Limerick, 1691' (Select Documents X), Irish Historical Studies, VIII, 37-44. 1953 *'Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1', Irish Historical Studies, VIII, 303-23. 1954 'The Surrender of Limerick, 1691', Irish Sword, II, 23-8. 1955 'The Civil Survey, 1654-6', Irish Historical Studies, IX, 253-63. *'A Jacobite Colonel: Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock', Irish Sword, II, 205-10. 'A Letter to Sarsfield', ibid., II, 109..
xviii
Select Bibliography off. G. Simms 1957
*'Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick, 1650-1651', IrishSword, III, 115-23. 'Lord Kilmallock's Letters to His Wife', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, LXXVII, 135-40. 1958 *'Connacht in the Eighteenth Century', Irish Historical Studies, XI, 116-33. 'James II and the Siege of Derry', Irish Sword, III, 286-7. 1959 *'County Louth and the Jacobite War', Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, XIV, 141-7.
1960 'County Donegal in 1739', Donegal Annual, IV, 203-8. *'Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649', Irish Sword, IV, 171-9.v *'Irish Catholics and the Parliamentary Franchise, 1692-1728' (Historical Revision X), Irish Historical Studies, XII, 28-37. 'Irish Jacobites: Lists from T.C.D., MS. N.I.13', Analecta Hibernica, XXII, 11-230. *'The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c.6), 1703-4', Irish Historical Studies, XII, 105-18. 'Paris Gets News from Ireland, 1642', Irish Sword, IV, 268-9. 'Report on the Compilation of a Bibliography of Source Material for the History of Ireland 1685-1702', Analecta Hibernica, XXII, 1-10. 1961 *'County Sligo in the Eighteenth Century', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XCI, 153-62. ""Kilkenny in the Jacobite War, 1689-91', Old Kilkenny Review, no. 13, pp. 10-20. 1962 'The Alleged Treaty Stone of Limerick', Irish Sword, V, 266-7. 'From General Ginkel's Accounts, 1691', ibid, V, 190.
Select Bibliography of J. G. Simms xi* 'Mantis O'Donnell, 21st Lord of Tir Conaill', Donegal Annual, V, 115-21. 'Meath Landowners in the Jacobite War', Riocht na Midhe, II, 55-8. 1963 *'Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne', Irish Sword, VI, 16-27. 'The Garrison at Carrickfergus, 1689', ibid., VI, 118-19.
*'The Irish Parliament of 1713', Historical Studies IV: Papers Read before the Fifth Irish Conference of Historians, ed. G. A. Hayes-McCoy (London,
Bowes and Bowes), pp. 82-92. 1964 'The Siege of Derry', Irish Sword, VI, 221-33. 'St. Ruth's Career', ibid., VI, 213. 1965 *'Dublin in 1685', Irish Historical Studies, XIV, 212-26. 'Mayo Landowners in the Seventeenth Century', Journal of the Royal
Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XCV, 237-47.
*'Sligo in the Jacobite War 1689-91', Irish Sword, VII, 124-35. 1966
'Donegal and the Ulster Volunteers', Donegal Annual, VII, 99-101. 1967 *'County Donegal in the Jacobite War (1689-91)', Donegal Annual, VII, 212-24. 'Ireland in the Age of SwifV, Jonathan Swift 1667-1967: A Dublin Tercentenary Tribute, eds. R. McHugh and P. Edwards (Dublin, Dolmen Press for the Swift Tercentenary Committee), pp. 157-75. 'The Siege of Limerick, 1690', North Munster Studies: Essays in Commemoration of Monsignor Michael Molony, ed. E. Rynne (Limerick,
Thomond Archaeological Society), pp. 308-14. '[Thirty Years' Work in Irish History:] Seventeenth-Century Ireland (1603-1702)', Irish Historical Studies, XV, 366-75. 1969 *'John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic', Irish Historical Studies, XVI, 304-20. *'Marlborough's Siege of Cork, 1690', Irish Sword, IX, 113-23.
xx
Select Bibliography ofJ. G. Simms
1970 ""The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (9 Will. Ill, c.l)', Irish Historical Studies, XVII, 185-99. 1971 'Dean Swift and County Armagh', Seanchas Ardmhacha, VI, 131-40. 'The Second Duke of Ormonde', Journal of the Butler Society, I, 170-3. *'Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689' , Irish Sword, X, 14-25. 'A Surveyor's Report on Some Townlands in County Louth', Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, XVII, 150-5.
'The Ulster Plantation in County Donegal', Donegal Annual, X, 3-14. 1972 'Donegal in the Ulster Plantation', Irish Geography, V, 386-93. 1973 *'The Case of Ireland Stated', The Irish Parliamentary Tradition, ed. B. Farrell (Dublin, Gill and Macmillan), pp. 128-38. 1974 ""Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649', Irish Sword, XI, 212-21. 'The Huguenot Contribution to Ireland, with Special Reference to
Portarlington', Huguenot Portarlington: Record of the Commemoration, 23
August 1972 (Portarlington, The Rectory). 'Remembering 1690', Studies, LXIII, 231-42. 1975
'Denis Sheridan and Some of His Descendants', Breifne, IV, 460-70. 1976 'G. A. Hayes-McCoy (1911-75)', Irish Historical Studies, XX, 51-2. 1977 'The Battle of Aughrim: History and Poetry', Irish University Review, VII, 36-51. 'Dublin in 1776', Dublin Historical Record, XXXI, 2-13.
Select Bibliography of J. G. Simms
xxi
1978 'Dean Swift and the Currency Problem', Numismatic Society of Ireland Occasional Papers Nos. 19-23, No. 20 (pp. 8-18). 1979 'The Williamite War in South Ulster', Clogher Record, X, 155-62.
This page intentionally left blank
1
CROMWELL AT DROGHEDA, 1649
C
ROMWELL'S treatment of Drogheda is one of the horror stories of Irish history, and there has been general condemnation of what he did to the garrison and townsfolk. But revulsion at the consequences of the siege need not prevent us from examining the operation in its historical context, or from appraising the rival techniques of the defending and attacking commanders and their forces.* Cromwell's campaign in Ireland was an extension of the English civil war. It took place after the execution of Charles I and was primarily a move against royalist support in Ireland for the young Charles II. This support was organised by the marquess of Ormond, who on 17 January 1649—less than a fortnight before Charles I*s death—had succeeded in making terms with the catholics of the Kilkenny confederation. This enabled him to get most of the confederate forces to join his own protestant royalist force and the Munster protestants led by Lord Inchiquin, who after various twists and turns was now on the royalist side. The execution of a Stuart king had outraged the Scots, and so the Scottish army in the north of Ireland also joined Ormond's coalition. Owen Roe O'Neill remained aloof at this stage, but Ormond hoped to win him over. There was thus the making of a formidable royalist movement in Ireland. On 22 January, while Charles fs trial was going on, Ormond invited the prince of Wales, the future Charles II, to come to Ireland with the prospect of leading an Irish in/ vasion force into England. Charles II preferred Scotland, but his cousin, Prince Rupert, brought a fleet to Munster where it remained for most of 1649, based on Kinsale. The parliamentary leaders in England took the threat from Ireland seriously, and they chose their most successful soldier, Oliver Cromwell, to be commander-' in/chief for an invasion of Ireland. Cromwell's own appreciation of the situation is given in a speech he made to the general council of the army. The following extracts show his line of thought : All the papists and the king's party . . . are in a very strong combination against you . . . The last letters that the council of state had from thence do plainly import that Preston has 8,000 foot and 800 horse, that Taaf has as many, that my Lord Clanrikard has the same proportion, and that my lord Inchiquin and my lord Ormond have a matter of 3,000 foot and 800 horse, that these are all agreed and ready in conjunction to root out the
•The main source for Cromwell's actions at Drogheda is The letters and speeches of Oliver Cromwell, edited by Thomas Carlyle. The best edition is that of S. C . Lomas (3 vols., London, 1904), referred to as Lomas. A more recent and complete documentation is The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell ed. W . C . Abbot (4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1937^47). For the defenders the main source is Ormond's correspondence in the Carte MSS, Bodleian Library, Oxford. A convenient collection of documents relating to both attackers and defenders is in J. T. Gilbert, ed., A contemporary history of affairs in Ireland, 1641*52 (3 vols., Dublin, 1879), referred to as Gilbert.
2
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 English interest in Ireland and to set up the prince of Wales his interest. . . If we do not endeavour to make good our interest there, and that timely, we shall not only have . . . our interest rooted out there, but they will in a very short time be able to land forces in England and put us to trouble here . . . If they shall be able to carry on their work, they will make this the most miserable people on the earth, for all the world knows their barbarism.1
Cromwell was not prepared to accept the Irish command unless he was assured that his army would be adequately financed and properly equipped. This was a sensible stipulation, as the parliamentary army was in arrears of pay, which had led to discontent, added to by the democratic ideas of the levellers, the left wing of the parliamentary side. There was doubt whether enough soldiers would be willing to go to Ireland. It was decided to draw lots to settle which regiments should go, and to offer the men the choice of complying or being dismissed. Levellers refused and were cashiered, but there were enough volunteers from other regiments to take their places. It took up to the end of June to raise ,£100,000 to finance the expedition. On 10 July, Cromwell set out for Milford Haven. Apparently he planned to make Munster his objective, hoping to win over the protestants there with the help of Lord Broghill, with whom he had done a deal. But when he got to Milford Haven, where he met General Monck, he changed his mind and decided to make for Dublin. This decision was confirmed by the news of the battle of Rath mines, in which Ormond had been routed by Jones, the parliamentary commander. This victory secured Dublin as a port of entry. When Cromwell heard the news he wrote: 'this is an astonishing mercy, so great and seasonable as indeed we are like them that dreamed.'2 On 13 August he set sail from Milford Haven, but only with part of the army, three regiments, about 3,000 men. He had a rough passage and, according to his chaplain 'was as sea/sick as ever I saw a man in my life'. He landed at Ring's End on 15 August. By a rather questionable decision he ordered Ireton, his second-in-command, with the greater part of the troops at Milford Haven to sail for Munster, but providence intervened. Weather made it impossible for Ireton to land in County Cork and he joined Cromwell in Dublin, landing on 23 August. With the parliamentary troops previously in Ireland and some regiments that crossed from Chester, Cromwell had 17,000 men at his disposal, a formidable army by Irish standards. He also had what was described as 'the best train of artillery that ever came on Irish ground'. It included four whole cannon and five demi/cannon.3 Although the royalists had lost the battle of Rathmines and had failed to take Dublin, they had in other ways improved their position during the summer of 1649. On 11 July Inchiquin succeeded in taking Drogheda (which up to then had been in parliamentary control), and most of the garrison went over to him. On 24 July Monck surrendered Dundalk to Inchiquin under pressure from his own men, most of whom went over to Inchiquin. This seems to have been 1 Abbott, Writings and speeches,n, 35/9. 2 Lomas, i, 451. 3 Perfect weekly account, $'12 Sept. 1649, cited in Ir. Eccles. Rff.,4th ser., xxx (1911). 53.
Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649
3
protestant reaction against Monck's attempt to use Owen Roe O'Neill against the Scots in Ulster. In the words of a contemporary account: 'the soldiers ran over the trenches to Inchiquin swearing deep oaths that they would not engage with Monck, who had entered into a confederacy with Owen Roe, the head of the native Irish'.4 There was thus a clear line of communication between Ormond's command in Leinster and the Scottish army under Sir George Monro in the north/east. Drogheda was a key position for both sides, and it was natural for Cromwell to make it his first objective to bar the arrival of support for Ormond from the north, whether from the Scots or from Owen Roe. According to Cromwell himself 'the design was to endeavour the regaining of Tredagh [Drogheda], or tempting the enemy upon his hazard of the loss of that place to fight'.5 He set out from Dublin on 31 August with eight regiments of foot and six of horse, some ten or twelve thousand men—both figures are given—described as 'stout, resolute men' picked from a larger force. The first night they camped in 'Lord Barnwell's field', which was probably at Turvey, just beyond Swords. Next day on his way past Gormanstown castle he tried to capture the infant heir of Lord Gormanstown, but did not succeed. On the other hand, he kept strict discipline, issued stern orders against looting, and is said to have ordered two of his men to be put to death in the face of the whole army for stealing a couple of hens from a poor Irishwoman. On 1 September he camped at Ballygarth, within five miles of Drogheda, and next day sent on some of his horse. On 1 September the commander at Drogheda had received orders from Ormond to destroy the castles on the Nanny Water (which flows parallel to, and south of, the Boyne), and next day, 2 September, he sent out parties for the purpose. But Cromwell was too quick for him; his cavalry seized the castles of Athcarne, Dardistown and Bellewstown before the royalists could reach them. Ballygarth had already been occupied the day before, so that all the crossings of the Nanny were in Cromwell's control. On 2 September his cavalry were also in the immediate neighbourhood of Drogheda on St. John's Hill to the south' west of the town. On 3 September, his 'lucky day', his main army was within musket shot of the town wall. His heavy guns were sent by sea and their arrival was delayed by contrary winds, so that it was nearly a week later before they were in position. Drogheda was, and is, divided into two halves by the Boyne. In early times the halves were distinct towns, each with its own defensive system. In Cromwell's time the medieval walls were still there, a semi/circle on the south, or Meath, side, and a larger semicircle on the north, or Louth, side. Between them the walls had a circuit of 11 miles. They were 20 feet high and 6 feet thick at the bottom, decreasing to 4 feet at the top to allow for a narrow walk on which there was standing/room for soldiers. There were 5 gates and 11 towers on the south side, and 7 gates and 19 towers on the north. Each half was on a steep slope down to the river. They were joined by a bridge, with a drawbridge, on the site of the present bridge. 4 D . Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, p. 16. 5 Lomas, i, 466.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
4
The commander of the garrison was Sir Arthur Aston, an English catholic who had experience of fighting in various parts of Europe as well as of the civil war in England. He had a wooden leg, the result of a fall from his horse. Ormond had put him in charge on 17 August, in place of Lord Drogheda who had had connections with the parliamentary side. At the end of August the garrison consisted of eight troops of horse (a total of 319 men) and four regiments of foot (a total of 2,221). The regiments were Ormond's own (commanded by Sir Edmond Verney, a protestant English royalist) and the regiments of Colonels Wall, Warren and Byrne. The three last are said to have taken no part in the battle of Rathmines, as they had been kept in reserve. So their morale is likely to have been higher than that of regiments routed in the battle. In fact, the Drogheda garrison was regarded as the flower of Ormond's army. Colonel Garret Wall of Coolnamuck, County Waterford, was the most senior of the regimental commanders. He had seen service in France and had been in command of a regiment since the confederate army was formed. Colonel William Warren of Warrenstown (now Dillonstown), County Louth, is men/ tioned as colonel of a regiment in 1646 and was taken prisoner at Dungan's Hill in 1647. Colonel Michael Byrne seems to have been the most junior, as he was only a captain when he was taken prisoner at Dungan's Hill. Curiously enough, his regiment is said to have consisted mostly of protestants, and it may have been formed from the men who came over to Inchiquin when he took Drogheda and Dundalk. One would have expected Ormond to have chosen an 'old English' colonel for such a regiment. Warren and Wall are said to have had catholic troops. Ormond's regiment is likely to have had a good proportion of protestants. All four regimental commanders lost their lives at Drogheda. Up to the last Ormond seems to have hoped that Drogheda could hold out long enough to be relieved by the army of Owen Roe, with whom he was negotiating through his nephew Daniel O'Neill. On 22 September—the day the town was stormed—Ormond wrote to Daniel: 'if Drogheda holds out till [your countrymen] come up it is possible Cromwell may receive an unexpected check to his fortune where he promised himself clear success'.6 According to Cromwell's doctor, Sir Arthur Aston hoped that the siege would drag on till Cromwell was worn down by bad weather, hunger and the harassment of Ormond's cavalry: 'but he flatters himself in vain, for Cromwell attacks not the place by opening of trenches, slow approaches and the other acts of a siege, but having forthwith caused a battery to be . . . planted with guns he so plied the place with continual shooting that he quickly made two breaches in the wall.'7 Ormond also put faith in 'Colonel Hunger and Major Sickness', but his main hope was Owen Roe, who was at Ballykelly to the east of Derry and had been playing for time by entering into an uneasy arrangement with the parlia/ mentarians. Daniel O'Neill proved to be a successful intermediary, and on 5 September he wrote from Ballykelly to let Ormond know that Owen Roe was ready to join him. Unfortunately Owen Roe was lame with a 'defluxion in his 6 Gilbert, ii, 261. 7 Ibid., ii, 274.
Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649
5
knee'. Daniel added : 'this day he has a litter made for him; if tomorrow he has any manner of ease he intends to march . . . the number of foot he hopes to bring your excellency will be near 6,ooo and about 500 horse . . . they are well horsed and armed to a very few'.8 Ormond was then at Ticroghan, a Fitzgerald castle about 35 miles south/west of Drogheda, superintending the operations by remote control. He later came rather nearer, to Portlester, where he was on 8 September. For several days after Cromwell reached the outskirts of Drogheda operations were limited to skirmishing on both sides. Cromwell's horse and some of his foot were on St. John's Hill to the south-west of the town; his main camp was to the south-east. The heavy guns were in the process of being mounted, partly on Cromwell's Mount, which is to the east of the Meath half of the town, and partly on a site to the south. Cromwell's Mount is separated from the town wall by a deep ravine, which was to prove a formidable obstacle in a storming operation ; on the other hand it had the advantage that the battery was on a level with the wall. The battery to the south was much lower, but access for storming was easier. Cromwell never invested the northern half of the town at all. He relied on his heavy guns to batter breaches that could then be stormed, a technique that he had developed in the English civil war. On 4 September Aston reported to Ormond that a party of Cromwell's men had crossed the Boyne at a ford near the town but had been driven back by a sally from the garrison, both horse and foot. He said there was no considerable force of the enemy north of the river, and this continued to be the case up to the time that the town was stormed. On 8 September Aston wrote that his men had been making sallies against the enemy on St. John's Hill. He observed that these sallies encouraged his own side and kept Cromwell's men on the qui viue : 'but indeed I have not been in a place worse situated for sallies than this town is'.9 This activity had the disadvantage of using up his ammunition. On 9 September he wrote that his stock was getting low: he had been using four barrels of powder daily for a week in his efforts to hinder the enemy's preparations. Provisions were also getting short, and he had no money at all. He asked Ormond to attack Cromwell's main camp; he himself would then beat up the enemy force on St. John's Hill. That night he got some reinforcements of foot from Ormond. Cavalry had also been sent, but they turned back before Aston could get to the gate to speak to them. Morale in the garrison seems to have been high. On 9 September Sir Edmond Verney wrote to Ormond that he had 'great hopes and expectations that the service I am at present engaged in will receive a happy issue, and the chief ground of this confidence is the unity, right understanding and indeed entire friendship between ourselves. Warren and Wall are my most intimate comrades, and indeed I have not in my life known more of diligence and circumspection than in these two gentlemen. Their men are all in heart and courage, having still had good success in our sallies, and we do little fear what the enemy can do presently against us.'10 8 Ibid., ii, 252. 9 Ibid., ii, 253. 10 Carte MSS, xxv, no. 312.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
6
But Cromwell was by this time (9 September) ready to begin his cannonade. His heaviest artillery were formidable weapons: two cannon of eight and two cannon of seven (guns of 8 and 7 inches bore, firing 48 and 42 pound shot respectively). Altogether he had eleven siege guns and twelve field pieces. Aston wrote to Ormond that day that three great pieces had been discharged against the town. He begged him to attack Cromwell's camp, but still there was no response. On the morning of 10 September Cromwell summonded Aston to surrender. Sir, Having brought the army belonging to the parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end effusion of blood may be prevented I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and rest, your servant, O. Cromwell.11 When Aston failed to comply with the demand, Cromwell hoisted the red flag and his batteries opened up in earnest. Aston wrote his last letter that evening and reported that a great breach had been made near St. Mary's church. He continued: I am confident their resolutions are to gain it immediately by an assault. The soldiers say well; pray God they do well. I will assure your excellency there shall be no want in me, but your excellency's speedy help is much desired. I refer all things unto your excellency's provident care. Living I am and dying I will end, my lord, your excellency's most faithful and obleeged humble servant. P.S. My ammunition decays apace and I cannot help it.12 Cromwell is said to have discharged 200 cannon balls at the wall that day. In the process the steeple of the church, on which the besieged had planted guns, and the high tower at the south/east corner of the wall were destroyed. The cannonade continued next day (11 September), and after 300 shot had been discharged there were breaches in both the east and south sections of the wall. The defenders meanwhile made retrenchments within the wall to contain the breaches. At 5 p.m. the Cromwellians began their assault, apparently on both breaches, though the eastern side in particular presented formidable difficulties. Cromwell described the scene in a letter to the speaker of the English house of commons: . . . about 5 p.m. we began the storm and after some hot dispute we entered about 700 or 800 men, the enemy disputing it very stiffly with us; and indeed through the advantages of the place and the courage God was pleased to give the defenders our men were forced to retreat quite out of the breach, not without some considerable l o s s . . . . There was a tenalia to flanker the south wall of the town between Duleek gate and the corner tower... which our men entered, wherein they found some 40 or 50 of the enemy, which they put to the sword, and this they held; but it being 11 Gilbert, ii, 260. 12 Ibid,, ii, 25SK60.
Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649
7
without the wall, and the sally port through the wall into that tenalia being choked up with some of the enemy that were killed in it, it proved no use for our entrance into the town that way. Although our men that stormed the breaches were forced to recoil, as before is expressed, yet being encouraged to recover their loss, they made a second attempt, wherein God was pleased to animate them that they got ground of the enemy and by the goodness of God forced him to quit his entrenchments; and after a very hot dispute, the enemy having both horse and foot and we only foot within the walls, the enemy gave ground and our men became masters both of their retrench/ ments and the church; which indeed, though they made our entrance the more difficult, yet they proved of excellent use to us, so that the enemy could not annoy us with their horse, but thereby we had advantage to make good the ground so that we might let in our own horse, which accordingly was done, though with much difficulty.13 From the memoirs of Edmond Ludlow, lieutenant/general of the horse in the Commonwealth army, it appears that Cromwell showed considerable modesty about his own contribution to the success of the operation. According to Ludlow the garrison defended the breach, probably on the south side, with an earthwork retrenchment, and had two or three troops of horse to support their foot. Cromwell well knowing the importance of this action resolved to put all upon it; and having commanded some guns to be loaded with bullets of half a pound and fired upon the enemy's horse . . . . himself with a reserve of foot marched up to the breach, which giving fresh courage to our men, they made a second attack with more vigour than before. Whereupon the enemy's foot being abandoned by their horse, whom our shot had forced to retire, began to break and shift for themselves; which ours perceiving followed them so close that they overtook them at the bridge that lay across the river.. . and preventing them from drawing up the bridge entered pell-mell with them into the place, having positive orders from the lieutenant/general [Cromwell] to give no quarter to any soldier.14 One account suggests that horse could not be used for the initial assault as the breaches were too high in the wall and had to be scrambled over by infantry. This may refer to the south part of the wall where the battery had to fire uphill. The east part would in any case be too steep for horse. The foot regiment that defended the breach against the final assault was Wall's, which fought well until their colonel was killed. Aston himself retreated to the highest point within the walls, the Millmount, a steep, strongly fortified mound in a corner of the wall. In his letter to the speaker, Cromwell described the attack on his position: The enemy retreated, divers of them, into the Millmount, a place very strong and of difficult access, being exceeding high, having a good graft and strongly palisadoed. The Governor, Sir Arthur Aston, and divers 13 Ibid., ii, 263/6. 14 Ibid., ii, 272/3.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
8
considerable officers being there, our men getting up to them were ordered by me to put them all to the sword.15 One account says that Aston was hewn in pieces and his brains beaten out of his head with his wooden leg. According to Ludlow there was a dispute among the soldiers for the leg, which was reported to be of gold: 'but it proved to be but of wood, his girdle being found to be the better booty, wherein two hundred pieces of gold were found quilted'.1' Cromwell ordered that no quarter should be given, and his treatment of Drogheda has been condemned both by his critics and by those who otherwise admired him. Even those who argued that it was legitimate by the strict rules of war have thought that it went too far. The rules of war, as then interpreted, permitted the refusal of quarter if a town was stormed after a summons to surrender had been rejected. In the case of Drogheda there is reason for believing that not only the garrison but many of the townsfolk were put to death. Cromwell maintained that his orders applied only to those in arms, though it is clear from his own account that catholic clergy were among the victims, and that he wished to exact retribution for what he regarded as the barbarous behaviour of the Irish in general in 1641. His version is contained in his letter to the speaker: being in the heat of action I forbade them to spare any that were in arms in the town and, I think, that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men, divers of the officers and soldiers being fled over the bridge into the other part of the town, where about one hundred of them possessed St. Peter's church steeple, some the west gate, and others a round strong tower next the gate called St. Sunday's. These being summoned to yield to mercy refused, whereupon I ordered the steeple of St. Peter's church to be fired, where one of them was heard to say in the midst of the flames 'God damn me, God confound me, I burn, I burn'. The next day the other two towers were summoned, in one of which was about six or seven score; but they refused to yield themselves, and we, knowing that hunger must compel them, set only good guards to secure them from running away until their stomachs were come down. From one of the said towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded some of our men. When they submitted their officers were knocked on the head, and every tenth man of the soldiers killed and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. There is some sense of uneasiness in his account, and he reinforces his apologia with the argument that the example of Drogheda will discourage further re/ sistance and so save lives in the long run: I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future ; which are the satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.17 15 Ibid., ii, 264. 16 Ibid., ii, 273. 17 Ibid., ii, 264^5.
Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649
9
Exaggerated accounts of the rising of 1641 had impressed themselves on Cronv well's mind, but it was a travesty to hold the garrison and citizens of Drogheda responsible for the actions of Ulster Gaels. It appears that Cromwell's subordinates had offered quarter and were sub/ sequently overruled by Cromwell himself. Ormond said that Cromwell's treatment of Drogheda was against the wishes of his own men, and it appears that some of them helped refugees to get away. Inchiquin wrote to Ormond: Many men and some officers have come in from Drogheda, amongst them Garret Dungan and Lieutenant/colonel Cavanagh. No quarter was given there with Cromwell's leave, but many were privately saved; the governor was killed after quarter given by the officer that took him. There never was seen so cruel a fight.18 One of those that escaped was Richard Talbot, the future Lord Tyrconnell. Inchiquin accused Cromwell's army of some very cold-blooded killing. In his letter to Ormond he wrote: ' Verney, Finglas, Warren and some other officers were alive in the hands of Cromwell's officers twenty-four hours after the business was done*. The story of Warren's fate is horrific; it is that in the defence of the breach both his feet were blown off by a cannon-ball, but he continued to fight on his stumps till he was overpowered. Another story is that his horse escaped and galloped riderless to his stable at Warrenstown.19 The casualty figures reported by Cromwell's chaplain were: '3,552 of the enemy slain and 64 of ours . . . Aston the governor killed, none spared*. In the official bulletin the casualty figures were followed by the words 'and many inhabitants'.20 The parliamentarian Ludlow called it 'extraordinary severity' and could only presume that the object was to discourage further resistance elsewhere. Ormond wrote to the young King Charles: 'Cromwell. . . exceeded himself, much more than anything I ever heard of, in breach of faith and bloody inhumanity'.21 There is a dreadful irony in Cromwell's own conclusion: 'I wish that all honest hearts may give the glory of this to God, to whom indeed the praise of this mercy belongs'.22 It was a shattering blow for the royalists. As Ormond reported to Charles: It is not to be imagined how great the terror is that those successes and the power of the rebels have struck into this people, who though they know themselves designed, at best, to the loss of all they have and to irrecoverable slavery, and have yet numbers enough and other competent means to oppose are yet so stupefied that it is with great difficulty I can persuade them to act anything like men towards their own preservation.23 18 Cal. Clarendon State Papers, ii, 22. 19 Louth Arch. Soc. Journal, iv, (1916), 26^7. 20 Gilbert, ii, 262, 269. 21 Carte, Collection of letters, ii, 412. 22 Gilbert, ii, 263. 23 Ibid., ii, 270.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
10
Arid yet neither Cromwell nor Ormond was right in believing that the drastic treatment of Drogheda would end resistance. Owen Roe O'Neill died that autumn, but he had already agreed to throw the Ulster army into the fight. That army under Lieutenant/general O'Farrell and Hugh Dubh O'Neill offered stubborn resistance at Waterford, Clonmel and Limerick, and there had to be much more 'effusion of blood' before the struggle was over. What are the military lessons to be learned from Drogheda ? Cromwell's tactics were clear: to make use of his control of the Irish Sea to transport his powerful artillery by water to Drogheda; to choose convenient sites for his batteries; and to go all out for breaking into the town, irrespective of the difficulty of the terrain, overcoming all obstacles by sheer determination. What of Ormond and Aston ? Why did they think that Drogheda could be held against such a powerful attacking force ? Why did Ormond fail to support Aston by pressure on Cromwell's forces in the field ? The author of the 'Aphorismical Discovery' has an ingrained prejudice against Ormond and has criticised him bitterly on this occasion: If he did but stand upon the hill of Tara the enemy would not venture an assault against so strong a garrison and in the sight of so great an army; or if he marched with his army to Dublin, now naked and deserted, he would easily divert the enemy; or else if he passed the north side of Drogheda, where was no enemy at all, he might relieve his party and defend the town in spite of all Cromwell's forces, for the very situation of the place was his bulwark But nothing was done; all the hurley/burley of armies mustered and brought to a body towards Ticroghan only were spectators of this bloody tragedy.24 But there was no hurley/burley of armies at Ticroghan. The various commands on the royalist side were widely dispersed, and Ormond seems to have had little under his direct control to use for the defence of Drogheda. He told Charles II that his numbers were daily diminishing by defections, and that the rest were so dejected and discontented that it was considered unsafe to bring them close to the enemy. But it was surely a mistake for him to have taken up a position as far away as Ticroghan. The uneasy coalition of protestant royalists, 'old English' catholics and Gaelic Irish would have presented a problem to a stronger leader than Ormond. The only force capable of matching Cromwell was the Ulster army, and if it could have been brought into action at an earlier date Drogheda might have been saved. According to Daniel O'Neill, Owen Roe would have been on the march south by 7 September if he had not fallen ill, but even so he could hardly have got his army to Drogheda in time to save it. The speed and efficiency of Cronv well's assault was too much for his opponents.
24 Ibid., ii, 49.
2 CROMWELL'S SIEGE OF WATERFORD, 1649
C
ROM WELL'S siege of Waterford is much less celebrated than his
sieges of Drogheda, Wexford and Clonmel, but there are several interesting things about it. For one thing, Waterford is the only town in Ireland that Cromwell tried and failed to take. Apart from that, the local geographical and political situation presented great difficulties to both the attackers and defenders. In the first half of the seventeenth century Waterford was the second city in Ireland, a thriving commercial port that ranked next to Dublin in size and wealth. Ships of 1,000 tons could come up the Suir and lie alongside a broad quay, " mainly fortified with stone and strong piles of timber." The town was protected by a double wall, with a number of gates and towers. Outside the west gate, on Thomas's hill, was the citadel, a strong fort with four bastions, mounted with great guns, and with a moat on three sides of it.1 On the north it was flanked by the Suir and on the east by the harbour, where the forts of Duncannon and Passage protected it from a naval attack. Waterford had a long civic tradition in which fidelity to church and crown had played a great part, though in recent years the church had counted for more than the crown in the sentiments of the inhabitants. Waterford had been Urbs intacta since the time of Henry VII, but its recent history was chiefly marked by a strong Catholic fervour and, in particular, by its support of the Nuncio and his robuster policy against the more temporizing attitudes of the Kilkenny confederacy. Father Luke Wadding was a celebrated Waterfordian who had much influence in determining the policy of the church in Irish affairs, and his cousin Patrick Comerford was bishop of Waterford during the siege and a stalwart upholder of the faith. In the middle of 1649 nearly all Ireland supported the young king Charles II against the parliament. Not only Ormond and the former Kilkenny confederates, but Inchiquin and his Munster followers, and Munro and his Scots in the north, were on the king's side. To fervent Catholics in Waterford some of these royalists seemed very dubious allies. The parliamentary forces were restricted to Dublin and a few such towns as Derry and Dundalk where they were hard pressed and had in desperation been induced to make a strange and temporary agreement with Owen Roe O'Neill. The royalist strength in Ireland provided such a threat to the parliamentary position as a whole that it was decided to send Cromwell himself to Ireland. His first objective was the Munster ports, of which Waterford was the largest, though Youghal, Cork and Kinsale were also important. One very urgent reason for dealing with Munster as a first priority was that it was the base of the royalist fleet under Charles I's nephew, Prince Rupert. This fleet had been 1 Gernon quoted in Falkiner, Illustrations of Irish History, p. 352; Smith, Waterford, p. 171.
12
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
equipped in Holland, and had sailed from there in the beginning of 1649 and made its headquarters at Kinsale. Rupert continued to make Kinsale his base until the late autumn of that year. Apart from that, Cromwell hoped to win over the Protestants in Munster from their support of Inchiquin in his royalist phase. He had already won over Lord Broghill, the most energetic of the seven sons of the great Earl of Cork, and Broghill's influence could be expected to count for a great deal with the Munster planters. As the Munster ports were his objective, Cromwell made for Milford Haven, which he reached early in August, 1649. While he was there and almost ready to sail, he got news of the battle of Rathmines, in which the parliamentarian Michael Jones defeated the royalist Ormond and saved Dublin for the parliamen/ tary cause: in Cromwell's words " an astonishing mercy, so great and seasonable that indeed we are like them that dreamed." This new development made Cromwell decide to go for Dublin instead of Munster. Dublin led on to Drogheda to secure the approach from the north and prevent Munro and his Scots coming down to join Ormond. As soon as he had finished with Drogheda —in every sense of the word—Cromwell reverted to what he called his southern design, the seizure of the Munster ports. In a letter to England he reported that he was on his way back to Dublin and " then shall, God willing, advance toward the southern design, you know what—only we think Wexford will be our first undertaking in order to the other."2 It appears then that Waterford was his first main objective even at that stage, and that the very irregular course of his route was due, first, to the need to guard against an attack from the north and, second, to the difficulties of approaching Waterford while a strong enemy force was still based on Kilkenny. Wexford surrendered on October 11 and New Ross on October 19. Cromwell's declaration at New Ross made it clear to Catholics that they could not expect tolerable terms from him in exchange for a negotiated surrender. When the governor of New Ross tried to stipulate for liberty of conscience for the inhabitants, Cromwell answered that " he meddled not with any man's conscience; but if by liberty of conscience was meant a liberty to exercize the mass, he judged it best to use plain dealing and to let him know, where the parliament of England had power, that would not be allowed."3 The moral of that would not have been lost on the citizens of Waterford. New Ross was a key point commanding the crossing of the Barrow, and Cromwell made its importance clear to Speaker Lenthall in England: " The rendition of the garrison was a seasonable mercy, as giving us an opportunity towards Munster." The approach to Munster was prepared by a great deal of diplomatic activity designed to win over the Protestants in Cork and Youghal to the parliamentary side. But Waterford was a strongly Catholic city and would have to be tackled with more direct means. A double threat to Waterford developed from New Ross. The building of a bridge of boats across the Barrow opened a passage on the Kilkenny side of the river. While the bridge was being 2 S. R. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, I, p, 126. 3 E. Borlase, History of the Irish rebellion (ed. 1743), p. 285.
Cromwell'sSiegeofWaterford,164913 built a determined attack was made on Duncannon on the Wexford side of Waterford harbour. If Duncannon and, opposite it, Passage could be captured by the parliamentary forces, Waterford could be attacked by a naval force going up the estuary. Also there would be no fear, once thosefortswere in the control of the parliament, of Prince Rupert's fleet coming to the rescue. That was a decided possibility. In the middle of October, while Cromwell was at New Ross, Rupert wrote from Kinsale to the governor of Duncannon giving elaborate instructions about the procedure to be followed if any of the royalistfleetentered Waterford harbour.4 Duncannon was held by a Catholic garrison commanded by Captain Roche. Roche took a defeatist view of the situation, and reported to Ormond that his men were deserting and that Duncannon could not be held. Ormond's reaction was to supersede Roche and put in his place a remarkable man named Edward Wogan, who belonged to the Rathcoffey family of Co. Kildare that later produced the celebrated Chevalier Wogan. Edward had been brought up in south Wales by a Protestant uncle and had played a prominent part in the Civil War on the parliamentary side. He had then deserted the parliament and gone over to the Scots. By this time he was supporting Ormond and the royalist cause in Ireland. Ormond sent in his own Life Guards with Wogan and they made a spirited and successful defence of Duncannon. The siege was conducted by Michael Jones, the victor of Rathmines, who was Cromwell's lieutenant/general. Cromwell himself came down to inspect the ground and give a personal summons to the garrison to surrender. He got a short and dusty answer, given in Roche's name, though Wogan was really in command: " I and those under my command are sensible of your cruel and tyrannical quarter; and this is therefore to let you understand that this place is kept for king and country and the preservation of the people."5 Duncannon was regarded by both sides as the key to Waterford, and both attack and defence were vigorously conducted. The parliamentary forces gained several important objectives, capturing Ballyhack, a castle about two miles upstream above Duncannon, and bringing boats from Wexford round Hook Head so as to block the sea approach to Duncannon.8 Further still upstream they occupied Great Island, which commanded the river between Waterford and Duncannon opposite Checkpoint, where the Barrow joins the Suir; it is, of course, no longer an island.7 On the royalist side, Ormond did his best to provide reinforcements, munitions and supplies for Duncannon, and kept up a constant correspondence on the subject with Lord Castlehaven, the English Catholic who had played an important part in the affairs of the Kilkenny Confederation; he was stationed at Crook, immediately opposite Duncannon. Wogan and his men made a series of sallies; in fact, they were so enterprising 4 Carte MSS, xxvi, 18. 5 Borlase, op. tit., app., pp. 3/4. For Wogan see the article " Colonel Edward Wogan" by Diarmuid Murtagh in THE IRISH SWORD, Vol. II, pp. 43 ff. For Duncannon see also the same volume, pp. 17 ff. 6 Carte MSS, xxvi, 4. 7 Ibii, pp. 54, 58.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
14
that they frightened Ormond, who wrote to Castlehaven: " I wish the gentlemen in the fort would be more circumspect in their sallies; they may lose more than they can get."8 Wogan's defence was successful and the siege was raised on November 5, after more than a fortnight of active attack. The parliamentary forces seem to have withdrawn in some disorder, as they left behind them two brass guns and a quantity of other material. They gave up Ballyhack at the same time.9 Although Wogan had covered himself with glory, the citizens of Waterford were very suspicious of his good faith and of the circumstances in which the Catholic Roche had been superseded. Ormond found that his orders had raised so much criticism that he thought it politic to send Roche back to Duncannon, on the distinct understanding that so long as the siege lasted Wogan should be in command. Catholic distrust of Ormond and the Protestant royalists was increased by what was happening elsewhere in Munster, where Cork and Youghal went over to the parliamentary side during October. These defections were clearly a threat to Waterford from the west, and the completion of the bridge at New Ross would enable Cromwell to approach Waterford from the north. It was therefore clearly desirable to strengthen Waterford's defences by providing it with an adequate garrison. Ormond's efforts to do so were frustrated by the determination of the citizens not to accept any troops whose devotion to the Catholic cause was suspect. Meanwhile the defences were manned only by the local militia. Much suspicious bargaining went on between Ormond and the mayor and corporation, and one suggestion of Ormond's after another was turned down. In particular, the citizens did not want Castle/ haven for their commander, as although he was a Catholic he was also an Englishman. Castlehaven reported that there were certain friars who were stirring up resistance and putting about a report that Inchiquin had come to terms with the parliament.10 The difficulties that Ormond had in persuading Waterford to accept a garrison raised Cromwell's hopes and seem to have played a considerable part in leading him to move on Waterford at so late a date as the latter part of November. Irish prisoners coming from New Ross on parole reported that it was common talk among Cromwell's men that Waterford would put up no resistance.11 This, and an unusually mild winter—better than any winter in living memory—12 were factors in favour of an attempt on Waterford. Against this Cromwell himself was sick at New Ross and there was a great deal of sickness in his army. Ormond had been told that before Cromwell's army had reached New Ross they had mutinied and demanded to go into winter quarters on the ground that they were so weakened by sickness and other hardships, which included a cut in their pay. Cromwell had succeeded in pacifying them by promising winter quarters after New Ross had fallen.13 8 9 10 11 12 13
Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., p . 71. Ibid., p . 143. Ibid., p . 145. Ibid., p . 181. Ibid., p. 16.
Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649
15
The first step to clear the way to Waterford was taken on November 20, when Colonel Reynolds with twelve troops of horse and three troops of dragoons attacked Carrick/on/Suir early in the morning. Carrick was defended by a considerable force of English royalist troops. Reynolds divided his party in two and " while the enemy were amused with the one " he forced an entry with the other at one of the gates; a hundred prisoners were taken and seven foot colours without the loss of a single parliamentary soldier. There is a curiouj account of how the Cromwellians forced their way into Carrick: the colonel sent a small party of Irish speakers ahead whose conversation was heard by the sentinels on the walls (presumably Irish'Speaking sentinels). When they were challenged they said in Irish that they had come from the Irish army with letters for the governor; they were let in through the gate and they then overpowered the guards so that the main body could get in. Most of the defenders ran into the great house—Ormond's castle—and held it till next day, when they surrendered.14 The capture of Carrick gave Cromwell a way across the Suir and the protection of Ormond's castle. The bridge was evidently out of action, but he could use boats. His own account shows how he appreciated the success: " we did look at it as a special good hand of providence to give us this place, inasmuch as it gives us a passage over the river Sewer to the city of Waterford . . . so sweet a mercy was the giving of this little place to us."15 The next day—November 21— Cromwell and the main army set out from New Ross on its way via Carrick to Waterford; the march took the best part of four days. On the first day a trumpeter delivered a letter from Cromwell to the mayor and aldermen of Waterford, in which he referred approvingly to the fact that they had so far refused to accept a garrison from Ormond; he suggested that it would be in their own interests to come to terms and to surrender the city.16 The mayor, John Lyvett, at once sent Ormond a copy of Cromwell's letter and asked for military support, but he stipulated that the soldiers to be despatched must be acceptable to the citizens. He also urged Ormond to do what he could to distract the Cromwellian army on its way to Waterford. Cromwell's trumpeter was kept waiting at Waterford for two days in the hope that news would come from Ormond. When the trumpeter's patience was exhausted Lyvett gave an answer, asking for 15 days cease/fire and demanding that Cromwell's army should stop advancing towards Waterford while negotiations were in progress. At the same time he wrote again to Ormond, saying that his reply to Cromwell was only to gain time and asking Ormond to send 300 " picked and choice men " out of the Ulster army commanded by Lieut./General Farrell. If they were sent he was sure that Waterford could be held until Ormond relieved it.17 This proposal to use Farrell's Ulstermen was the solution to Ormond's problem. 14 T.C.D. MS F.4.16; Carlylc, Cromwell's Utters and speeches (cd. S. C. Lomas), I, p. 509; Borlase, op. cit., app., p. 6. 15 Cromwell to Lenthall, 25 Nov., 1649 (Carlylc, op, cit., Ill, p. 509). 16 Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, p. 512. 17 Carte MSS, xxvi, 166, 169; Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, pp. 262^3.
16
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Richard Farrell was a seasoned soldier who had seen service in the Spanish army in the Low Countries with Owen Roe O'Neill, who treated him as a trusted friend and had made him second in command of his own Ulster army. When Owen Roe and Ormond came to terms in October, 1649, Owen Roe shortly before his death sent Farrell with a strong Ulster army to join Ormond. This force was now available for the defence of Waterford. The high opinion that the Nuncio had had of Owen Roe's army was shared by the citizens of Waterford and they had no fear of their backsliding, as might be the case with Inchiquin. Cromwell himself referred to them as " the eldest sons of the church of Rome, most cried up and confided in by the clergy."18 Ormond had a high opinion of them too and sent word to Charles II that they were a very considerable body of horse and foot and very cheerful in spite of the death of their general,
Owen Roe.19 Owen Roe's secretary says in The aphorismical discovery of treasonable
faction that Farrell had 2,000 of the Ulster army at Waterford, though other accounts give a figure of 1,500. There seem to have been two regiments, presumably the two that appeared in a muster held at Waterford on January 24, 1650, Farrell's own regiment and Colonel Turlough McArt Oge O'Neill's. They were far below strength when the muster was held; there were 430 in Farrell's and only 211 in O'Neill's. It appears that after Cromwell's withdrawal from Waterford many of the men returned to Ulster. Farrell's regiment looks very much as if it were Longford rather than true Ulster. But Longford was one of the counties that was under Owen Roe's control and was specifically included in the agreement between Owen Roe and Ormond's agents. Six of the company commanders were Farrells and none had an Ulster name. On the other hand, O'Neill's regiment was typically Ulster, with O'Neill, O'Hagan and McDonnell prominent among the names of company commanders. The force was referred to by both sides as Ulstermen, as was natural since both regiments formed part of Owen Roe's Ulster army.80 Cromwell and his army reached Waterford on November 24, before Farrell got there. Cromwell's headquarters was at Kilbarry, to the south of the city, where there was a good house occupied by a Protestant called Aston, the tenant of Thomas Wadding. His army found that the suburbs had been burned and the soldiers were greeted with gunfire from the walls. According to Ryland's history, Cromwell's forces were deterred by the fort on Thomas's Hill from occupying Bilberry Rock, a commanding position on the river bank some way from the city walls. When Cromwell summoned the city to surrender, the mayor, John Lyvett, sent him a copy of his former answer (the original of which had not reached Cromwell) and asked for a safe/conduct for negotiators and a cessation of hostilities for fifteen days. Cromwell replied that fifteen days was far too long but offered four or five, provided that he was assured that no troops not then in Waterford were admitted during the cessation. He also sent a safe/ conduct for negotiators. But by this time Farrell and his men had arrived at the 18 Ibil, III, p. 517. 19 Carte MSS, xxvi, 181. 20 Gilbert, Contemporary history of affairs in Ireland, II, pp. 57, 303, 505^7.
Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649
17
ferry on the north bank and crossed the river by boats into the city. This put a stop to the negotiations and the mayor sent an answer to Cromwell that he had been forbidden to negotiate. The author of The Aphorismkal discovery credits Farrell with giving Cromwell the stout reply that he had 2,000 Ulstermen with him and as long as any of them survived he would not yield the town. A letter of the time says that there was now such correspondency between Waterford and Ormond that they were all determined to die or defend the city.21 That day, November 24, Cromwell sent a detachment of horse and dragoons to Passage, which commanded the west side of Waterford harbour. After some fighting it surrendered on promise of quarter. The Cromwellians occupied it and also secured two guns which the Irish had on the shore to block shipping from coming up the harbour. With Passage and the western shore of the harbour in their possession the Cromwellians were able to bring ships of 300 tons up the river in spite of Duncannon being in enemy hands. They also hoped to interfere with supplies coming down the river to Duncannon.22 That same day, November 24, Inchiquin with a strong force of Munster and Ulster infantry tried to cut Cromwell's communications by taking Carrick. They invested it on both sides of the river and also tried to storm it. According to the Cromwellian account, "they managed the attack with a great deal of fierceness, storming it four or five times with ladders and other engines they had brought with them, and though these men were famous for courage and experience yet they were as often beaten back as they attempted the walls with a miraculous opposition, our men being mostly sick." Carrick was defended by Colonel Reynolds with his regiment of horse, a troop of dragoons and about 200 foot. He reported that the attack was beaten off with a loss to the enemy of about 500 and little loss to the defenders; the parliamentary officers paid tribute to the courage of the attackers, making particular mention of the Ulster foot, who " did their part very well, coming up five or six times to the town wall in spite of heavy losses." Cromwell sent Lieut./General Jones up from Waterford with a party to relieve Carrick. Jones marched all night and made all possible speed, but by the time he got there the Irish army had withdrawn to Clonmel.23 Cromwell himself gave a lively account to Speaker Lenthall of this engagement: " the enemy marched down with great fury towards Carrick with their whole army, resolving to swallow it up, and upon Saturday the 24th assault the place round, thinking to take it by storm; but God had otherwise determined. For the troopers and the rest of the soldiers with stones did so pelt them they were forced to draw off after having burned the gates, which our men barricaded up with stones, and likewise having digged under the walls and sprung a small mine, which flew in their own faces."24 But Cromwell found that these initial successes were counterbalanced by other factors. The weather, which had been remarkably good, now broke and he 21 22 23 24
Ryland, Carlyle, Borlase, Carlyle,
Waterford, p. 71; T.C.D. MS F.4.16; H.M.C., Ormonde MSS, ii, 105. op. cit., I, pp. 510/11. op. cit., app., p. 9. op. tit, I, pp. 509^10.
18
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
could not bring his heavy guns along the roads.25 His army was attacked by disease—the flux. After six days of the siege Ormond was in a reasonably optimistic mood and reported to Charles II that Cromwell's army was decaying incredibly; he had before Waterford at most 4,000 foot, 2,000 horse and 500 dragoons, and to make up these numbers he had drained the garrisons of almost all serviceable men. Ormond thought that if there was any courage in the citizens of Waterford and the garrison to correspond with the strength of the town and their means of defence Cromwell might be defied, particularly if the weather was its usual self. The effect of this would be to weaken Cromwell considerably as the result of an attempt which he had only made because he had heard that the Waterford citizens had refused to accept a garrison—as indeed they did until Cromwell was at their gates. Ormond was, however, still anxious lest the citizens' nerves and their fears for their property might mean the loss of the city.26 Some account of the day to day progress of the siege is available from notes made by Henry Jones, Bishop of Clogher, who was the brother of Cromwell's Lieutenant/General and himself later became Scoutmaster/General of the parliamentary army.27 On November 27; Cromwell posted a detachment halfway between Carrick and Waterford to secure his communications. On the next day news was received of another threat to Carrick from Ormond's army and Lieut.'General Michael Jones was sent to counter it with a party of horse and dragoons. That same day the main Cromwellian army was moved to the south/east of Waterford along the river, so that it could conveniently receive provisions coming up the river protected by the guns of Passage, and also take delivery of guns from the Great Island, which had at an earlier stage been fortified by the Cromwellians. Cromwell hoped that Farrell and his garrison would sally out and give an opportunity for an open fight. But they were not to be drawn and in very stormy weather there seemed little hope of a successful outcome to the siege. On December 1 the decision to raise the siege was taken. The main reason was sickness. Cromwell said that every night a company was on duty ten men fell sick and he was left with no more than 3,000 fit men to put into the field. The bad weather also interfered with the bringing up of supplies and they were running short of bread. The lie of the land made it very difficult to maintain supplies for an army attacking Waterford from the south bank of the Suir.28 Cromwell's army marched away on December 2, which he described as being '* so terrible a day as ever I marched in all my life."29 That night he had reached Kilmacthomas, fifteen miles from Waterford. There he got the good news that Dungarvan had just surrendered to Broghill. Waterford was now in a very isolated position. On December 13, Wogan and Farrell tried to relieve 25 26 27 28 29
Gardiner, op. cit, I, p. 142. Carte MSS, xxvi, 181. T.C.D., MS F.4.16. Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, p. 513. Ibid., p. 514,
Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649
19
the pressure by a joint attack on Passage, but met with a severe reverse. Wogan brought over two great battering guns from Duncannon and a mortar, and he and a strong force of Ulster foot were pressing the attack on Passage when a parliamentary force of horse and dragoons under Colonel Sankey fell on them. In Cromwell's words " the Ulsters, who bragged much of their pikes, made indeed for the time a good resistance, but the horse pressing sorely upon them broke them, killed near ioo upon the place and took 350 prisoners, among whom was the renegado Wogan." Wogan was condemned to death as a deserter from the parliamentary side, but he managed to escape from Cork and lived to perform more exploits in the royalist cause, including the rescue of Charles II from the battlefield of Worcester. Cromwell continued: " Lt./Gen. Farrell was come up very near with a great party to their relief, but our handful of men marching towards him he shamefully hasted away and recovered Waterford."30 This reverse at Passage discredited Farrell and the Ulster army. Even the violently prcUlster Aphorismical discovery rebukes Farrell for carelessness in not keeping a proper look/out for an enemy attack, although the writer contrives to put the greater part of the responsibility on Ormond. Ormond on the other hand claimed that if the citizens of Waterford had allowed him and his troops to march through the town he could have gone to Farrell's rescue.31 In spite of this setback, Waterford remained unconquered for that winter, and at the end of 1649 Waterford and Duncannon were the only places still holding out on the whole coastline from Derry round by Dublin to Cape Clear. Waterford continued to hold out during the spring and early summer of 1650, while things went from bad to worse for the royalist cause in Ireland. Not till the end of July did the city surrender to Ireton on terms which allowed the garrison to march three or four miles out of the city, deliver up their arms and equipment, undertake not to fight again against the Commonwealth, and go anywhere in Ireland (except a garrison town) or abroad that they pleased. A week later Duncannon surrendered on similar terms.32 30 Carlyle, op. cit., I, 515T6. 31 Gilbert, op. cit., II, p. 59; Carte, Ormonde, II, p. 103. 32 Ireton's correspondence with Waterford is in Borlase, op, cit., app., pp. 32^46.
This page intentionally left blank
3 HUGH DUBH O'NEILL'S DEFENCE OF LIMERICK, 1650-1651
O
LIVER CROMWELL'S campaign in Ireland lasted nine months— from August, 1649 to May, 1650. Although it was successful as well as ruthless, it was a long way from bringing the whole of Ireland under the control of the Parliament. The object of Cromwell's savagery at Drogheda and Wexford was declared to be the saving of life by intimidating the the Irish into a rapid surrender. But it seems to have had the opposite effect, and the war was to drag on for more than two years after Cromwell had left. Cromwell's stoutest opponent was Major/General Hugh Dubh O'Neill, who put up an enterprising defence of Clonmel, inflicted heavy losses on the Parliamentary army, and got his men away undetected before Cromwell's nose. Hugh Dubh was the nephew of Owen Roe; his father was Owen Roe's elder brother, Art Oge, and he was born in Brussels about 1611. He had considerable experience of active service in the Spanish army, including a spell as adjutant to Owen Roe, and he was a seasoned soldier when he came to Ireland, apparently in 1641.1 He seems to have been of a rather gruff disposition, as he is described as a surly old Spanish soldier. He was captured early on in the war, but was exchanged after Benburb. Ormonde, the Lord Lieutenant, selected him for the defence of Clonmel, where his handling of the situation made a great impression on Parliamentary opinion. They concluded that they had found in Clonmel the stoutest enemy they had met in Ireland, and that " there was never seen so hot a storm of so long continuance and so gallantly defended, neither in England nor in Ireland." When Cromwell got into Clonmel and found the birds flown, he asked the mayor who was this Duff O'Neill. The mayor said he was an oversea soldier born in Spain. Cromwell growled: " God damn you and your oversea. By God above I will follow that Hugh Duff O'Neill wherever he goes."2 But he didn't. He was urgently needed on the other side of the Irish Sea to meet a threat from Scotland. Ireland was left to his son/in/law, a very different type of commander. Henry Ireton was more distinguished for his piety and his gift for political philosophy than for his military ability. But Ireton and Cromwell got on well together; he had married Cromwell's daughter Bridget and had risen to the rank of Lieutenant/General. He was very conscientious and hard-working. One description of him ran thus: " Never a more able, painful, provident and industrious servant; if he erred in anything it lay in too much neglecting himself, 1 The Rev. Brendan Jennings, O.F.M. and Mrs. Micheline Walsh have kindly furnished information about Hugh Dubh's career in the Spanish service. z J. T. Gilbert, A contemporary history ofaffairs in Ireland from 1641 to 1652, II, p. 416. This book, which priters a number of contemporary documents, is the chief source for the siege. Ludlow's Memoirs��
has a valuable account of operations in the Limerick area in 1651.
22
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
for like a candle he wasted his light to give light to others, seldom thinking it time to eat till he had done the work of the day at nine or ten at night, and then would sit up as long as any man had business with him. Indeed he was every/ thing from a foot soldier to a general and thought nothing done when anything was undone."3 After Cromwell's departure the main Irish army was in the north under Bishop MacMahon. That was very soon defeated at Scarrifhollis, and the line of the Shannon was left as the front line of Irish defence, with Limerick and Athlone as the key points. Various forces under Ormonde, Clanricarde and others were available to protect Connacht and Clare. Limerick was of crucial importance. It was a large and well/defended city in a position of great natural strength. Its walls were in pretty good order and had been strengthened at various points during the course of the war. The Shannon divides at Limerick; a branch, called the Abbey river, makes an island which was called the King's Island. The main part of the city—the English town— was on the south/western part of this island. On the mainland to the south of the Abbey river was the smaller Irish town. Both were walled, and there were two bridges, the Thomond bridge over to Clare and Ballsbridge which crossed the Abbey river between English town and Irish town. The shape of the walls of Limerick has been compared to an hour/glass or a figure of eight or even a spider. A besieging army was concerned with how to cross the Shannon so as to invest the town on both sides, and then how to get on to King's Island so as to make an entry into the English town. The geographical situation thus presented great advantages to the defenders of Limerick. These were largely counter/balanced by the divided state of public opinion in the city. Throughout the war Limerick had been torn by factions. One side had wanted to make terms with Ormonde; the other had backed the Nuncio and would not have Ormonde's terms at any price. In 1650 Ormonde, as the Protestant governor of a royalist Ireland that was overwhelmingly Catholic, was in great difficulties. This was particularly so in Limerick, where the anti/ Ormonde side had shown itself to be the stronger party. His problem was to get the inhabitants to accept a military commander to defend the city against Ireton's forces. A great deal of haggling took place before it was eventually agreed that Hugh Dubh O'Neill, the defender of Clonmel, should be the military commander of Limerick. Further arguments took place about the regiments the citizens would let in to form the garrison. O'Neill was in a very difficult position, what with squabbling townsmen, no regular troops and the Parliamentary forces approaching. One of his letters to Ormonde is marked " Haste, haste, post/haste," and Ormonde endorsed it " From Major/general Hugh O'Neill concerning the distraction and irresolution of the citizens of Limerick concerning their receiving a garrison for their defence."4 Ireton was well aware of these squabbles and seems to have thought he would be able to exploit them so as to get the surrender of both Limerick and Athlone before winter set in. He divided his army. He himself made for Athlone, which 3 Quoted in R. W. Ramsey, Henry Ireton, p. 185. 4 Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, p. 182.
Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick
23
was held by Lord Dillon who skilfully played for time with long/drawn parleys ings. He sent Major/General Sir Hardress Waller to deal with Limerick. Waller must have known Limerick well, as twenty years before this he had married Miss Dowdall of Kilfinny and had become a big landlord in the county. Advantage was taken of the Parliament's seapower. A ship called the Hector was sent with ordnance, ammunition and provisions to the mouth of the Shannon.5 On 9 September, 1650 Waller sent a letter to O'Neill calling on him to surrender, failing which Limerick would be besieged. He got a stout answer from O'Neill: " No such threats are able to daunt my resolutions, seeing I am no stranger to the like. Sir, I am entrusted with this place from my lord lieutenant to maintain it for the use of his majesty King Charles, which I resolve by God's assistance to perform, notwithstanding any power shall offer against me, even to the effusion of the last drop of my blood. I thank you for the care you have to shun effusion of blood; I am as loth to it as you; but I conceive my honour no less concerned for the defence of my lawful king than yours is for the state of England."6 O'Neill was chiefly concerned that Waller would succeed in crossing the Shannon as the obvious preliminary to a siege. Shortly after his summons was refused Waller captured Carrigogunnel Castle, about six miles west of Limerick. The rumour was that he was aiming for Cratloe Castle on the opposite side of the river. But O'Neill and Ormonde between them managed to strengthen the Clare garrisons, and Waller had made little progress by the beginning of October, when he was joined by Ireton who had given up Athlone as a bad job. Ireton then sent a summons to Limerick, promising that the city should be protected if it would surrender and let his army through to the other side of the Shannon. The mayor answered, refusing Ireton's demand. Ireton stayed in front of Limerick for ten days. Then he held a council of war, which decided that it was too late in the season to start active siege operations and that all that could be done was " to block it up on this side the water by garrisons adjoining." Ireton accordingly withdrew the main part of his army and contented himself with keeping Limerick under watch from detachments posted at various points such as Kilmallock and Castleconnell. If Ireton had made a vigorous attack on Limerick in the summer of 1650, there seems no reason why he should not have taken it. Apart from the absence of a regular garrison, O'Neill told Ormonde in the middle of September that there was no ammunition in the city. During the winter Ireton made slow and thorough preparations for an active siege in the early summer of 1651. By February he was collecting tents, clothes and provisions, and arranging for ships to sail to the mouth of the Shannon with cannon and ammunition. In May Ireton once more advanced towards Limerick. For an effective siege he had to cross the Shannon and accordingly he made for Killaloe, which he reached on May 21. Lord Castlehaven was in command of two thousand Irish troops on the opposite side of the river and made 5 J. Nicholls, Original letters from Ireton, p. 15. 6 Gilbert, op, cit., Ill, p . 180.
24
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
some effort to fortify the banks to prevent a crossing. Ireton manoeuvred for a week in the neighbourhood. His troops took possession of an island—presumably Friars' Island—and collected boats and cots while Castlehaven's men plied them with small shot. But the water was too rough near Killaloe and, after setting apart a day for guidance from the Lord, Ireton decided to try lower down the river at O'Brien's Bridge, eight miles above Limerick. There was no bridge there at that time, but there was an island in midstream capable of holding two thousand men. The plan was to use this island as a halfway point for throwing a bridge across the river; the materials for the bridge had been collected and kept ready. On the opposite bank were the ruins of an old house in which was a detachment of Irish troops guarding the crossing. A stump of an old castle stood at the water's edge. If the crossing could be forced and these ruins captured, they could be made the basis of a bridgehead. Ladders were prepared for storming the castle stump and " palisadoes and turnpikes" as a rapid means of fortifying the bridgehead. The weather favoured the Parliamentary army and the river, which had been too deep to ford when Ireton first reached it, had fallen appreciably. The crossing was made at daybreak on June 2 by Captain Draper of Sadler's regiment with three files of firelocks, that is, flintlocks, which were a great improvement on the matchlock type of musket. The first party to land took possession of the ruined house and castle. They brought with them long cables which were fastened to the bank and used to tow boats across, so that within an hour five hundred men had crossed over to the Clare side of the river. The Irish forces, both horse and foot, at first offered some opposition, but the crossing was covered by great shot from Ireton's cannon on the Limerick bank. This, aided by shouts and the blowing of trumpets, intimidated the Irish into retreating. The news that the river had been crossed at O'Brien's Bridge made Castlehaven fall back hurriedly from Killaloe, leaving his tent, plate and other possessions as booty for the Parliamentary army. Ireton could now march down the Clare bank to a point opposite Limerick. By this time there was a flotilla of Parliamentary ships in the mouth of the Shannon which blocked the estuary and had captured Clonderalaw Castle on the Clare side. These ships kept the Parliamentary army supplied with provisions and also carried heavy guns which were put ashore for the siege operations. To secure his position Ireton ordered the construction of a large fort at the Clare end of Thomond bridge, capable of holding a thousand foot and a troop of horse. He also started the construction of two forts to the south and southwest of the Irish town, which were called Cromwell's fort and Ireton's fort, with an entrenchment linking them. On June 14 Ireton summoned Limerick to surrender and at the same time started a bombardment. A battery of twenty/eight guns and two mortars sited opposite Thomond bridge bombarded King John's Castle. A curious and horrific account records that in this bombardment a slate was dislodged which killed a child in a woman's arms. The child was buried and soon after another shot hit the grave and blew the child's body out of it. On the third day of the bombardment the defenders sent an answer that they were ready to bargain: commissioners should be appointed to arrange terms and there should be a cease-fire during the negotiations. Ireton refused the cease/fire but
Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick
25
agreed to appoint six commissioners. The Irish also appointed six commissioners, Major/General Purcell—O'Neill's second'in/command—and five others. The Parliamentary commissioners were headed by Lieutenant/General Edmund Ludlow, who has given an account of the siege in his Memoirs; he had come as second/nvcommand to Ireton in the early part of 1651. The talks went on for several days and the two sets of commissioners dined together during them. Ireton offered fairly good terms: the garrison would be given quarter and allowed to march out with their arms and with their colours flying. The citizens would be let off with the confiscation of a third of their property. But no security for the practice of the-Catholic religion was allowed and a firm refusal was given to the Irish request on this point. The negotiations broke down, and the Parliament/ arians thought that Limerick hoped for relief from the Irish forces still active in the neighbourhood. O'Neill was evidently aware that it was necessary to prepare for a long siege in which the town would face the ordeal of starvation. So he tried to get rid of as many useless mouths as possible at this stage. Ireton countered by sending them back with a letter to O'Neill, saying that any more persons sent out would be severely dealt with. O'Neill would not let them in and sent out some more to join them, so Ireton ordered four to be knocked on the head as a warning. By mistake forty were knocked on the head, which made Ireton very angry. The Parliamentarians made a successful attack on the fort which was on the Salmon weir—the Lax weir—on the west side of St. Thomas's Island. A great shot hit this fort, killed three of the defenders and wounded others. The rest took to their boats but came under heavy musket fire and surrendered to the Parliamentary forces, some on the Clare bank and some on the Limerick bank. They were offered quarter by the Parliamentary troops, but the commander on the Clare side, Colonel Tothill, repudiated the arrangement and put them all to the sword. Ireton was angry with Tothill, who was court>martialled and removed from his command. The fort on the weir was a valuable prize for the Parliamentary army and they made a floating bridge across the river just below it. This gave a more direct line of communication between the two parts of their force than the other bridge they had made at Castleconnell, several miles upstream. On the Thomond bridge between the second and third arches from the Clare side there was a two/storied gate/tower held by the defenders. The Parliamentary army attempted an assault on it on June 19. This was unsuccessful, as their ladders were too short. But after further bombardment they stormed it on June 2 1 ; the technique adopted was to select a leading man from each troop for the assault. These picked men were provided with back, breast and head pieces and supplied with hand grenades. They succeeded in capturing the tower and were given a gratuity as a reward. However, the Irish broke down some arches of the bridge nearer the city so that the Parliamentarians could not come across. The next point on which Ireton concentrated was the part of King's Island beyond the walls of the city. A landing here would have given the attackers their best chance of storming the English town, which was otherwise strongly
26
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
protected by its island situation. The Irish do not seem to have made any regular fortification on this part of the King's Island (as they did in 1691), but the troops who held it had thrown up breastworks along the shore. The crossing was to be made at midnight by boats and a floating bridge from the Clare side. But it was mismanaged; two of the boats with eighty men crossed before the rest and were overwhelmed by the Irish troops. Seventy/nine of the eighty were killed, which discouraged the Parliamentary side so much that they gave up the King's Island project altogether and set the next day aside as a day of humiliation, bewailing the sins of the army that had aroused the Lord's displeasure. Ireton now decided not to try any more assaults for the time being, but to starve the town out. The Parliamentary forces seem to have been inadequately supplied with siege engineers. In any case Limerick was a formidable proposition in view of the failure of Ireton's men to make a landing on the King's Island. But the town was completely invested and in time was bound to be starved if the Parliamentary army could maintain its position. Apart from the threat of starvation the defenders were chiefly troubled by plague, which had been brought to Ireland by a Spanish ship and was particularly severe in Limerick. The well/known doctor, Thomas Arthur, was in Limerick all through the siege and we have his case/book,7 written in Latin, which makes a number of references to " pestis " and one to " bubonis pestis "—bubonic plague. O'Neill's force was by no means passive. Taking advantage of Ireton's going into Clare with a considerable body, they made a sally with two thousand men which nearly surprised the Parliamentary troops. On another occasion after Ireton had returned and was inspecting his new fort he had a narrow escape when the garrison made another sally. O'Neill continued his attempts to rid the town of useless mouths, which alarmed the Parliamentarians because of the risk of plague infection. Ireton countered by putting up a gibbet in sight of the town walls and having a few hangings as a deterrent. Apart from plague and starvation Ireton relied on factions in the town. He was able to correspond with the peace party, and offered terms to them, but said he would have no mercy on the diehards—O'Neill himself, the bishops of Limerick and Emly, and other named persons. But the diehards proved too strong for the peace party, and the siege dragged on towards autumn. Ireton's artillery bombarded the town without much effect on the defenders. By the middle of September the Irish were hopeful that winter would set in and make the positon of the besiegers impossible. One of the Irish soldiers is said to have called out from the wall to the besiegers " You labour to beat us out with bomb/ shells but we will beat you away with snowballs." This is supposed to be the first recorded use of the word bombshell, mortar shot being the ordinary phrase. Dr. Arthur's Latin case/book has an entry of a patient whose arm was smashed " bomhnis impetu "—by the force of a bomb. By October 23 the peace party, led by Colonel Fennell, was gaining the upper hand. A new mayor in favour of surrender had come into office that month, and a joint meeting of the military and civil sides agreed to negotiate without 7 B.M., Add. MS. 31885.
Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick
27
stipulating that any particular individuals should have their lives spared. The bishops of Limerick and Emly (whose own lives were threatened) at once announced that they would excommunicate any negotiators who accepted the slaughter of Catholic prelates. Fennell and his fellow peacemakers then seized the Castle gate, getting the keys from the mayor. O'Neill challenged this and attempted to have Fennell tried before a council of war. Fennell refused to attend and trained the Castle guns on the city. Ireton's guns then started a heavy bombardment which made a breach in the walls at a point where there was no earth lining the inner side or counterscarp on the outside. This seems to have been in the east wall of the Irish town, which was rebuilt in the later part of the seventeenth century. The Irish now decided to send out commissioners with full powers to negotiate. Fennell took the opportunity to let two hundred redcoats into the gate/tower of King John's Castle. The commissioners agreed to considerably worse terms than had previously been offered. The garrison were allowed to march out, but without their arms. The townsfolk were not to be allowed to stay in Limerick. O'Neill, Purcell, the bishops and some of the most obstinate citizens such as Dominick Fanning were to lose their lives. Ireton entered Limerick by the east water/gate near Ballsbridge. O'Neill met him at the gate, presented him with the keys and ordered the garrison to march out. The regular troops had been reduced to twelve hundred from the original strength of two thousand. In addition, there were four thousand townsmen capable of bearing arms. The garrison had been ordered to lay down their arms at St. Mary's church. 3,770 small arms, 83 barrels of powder, 3$ tuns of match, 23 barrels of shot, and 34 guns—8 of brass including 2 demy cannons—were found in the city, besides pioneers' tools. O'Neill himself showed Ireton the stores of arms, ammunition and prc visions which the Parliamentarians calculated would have lasted another three months. He also showed Ireton the fortifications and told him where he could find some of those excluded from the terms who were throwing themselves on Ireton's mercy. Major^General Purcell, the two bishops and others who were excluded from the terms had escaped, but Purcell and one of the bishops were captured and hanged, the bishop showing considerably more resolution than the General. O'Neill's own fate was then considered. The Parliamentarians took the view that his letters and actions showed that his was the chief influence in the obstinate resistance that Limerick had shown. O'Neill maintained that he had only done his duty and that he had in fact been in favour of an earlier surrender. His letter is as follows: " Right honourable, the relation I have of your noble and generous disposition induceth me to presume pleading your favour in my present condition (which I presume to be innocent), being guilty of no base or dishonourable act, having only discharged the duty of a soldier as became a man subject to a superior power to which I must have been accountable. Neither in relation of this was I transported either with passion of my own or the violent strain of others who would not be directed with reason, and in the whole course of my proceedings since I came into this garrison I appeal to the judgement and censure of the men of best understanding within this city what my behaviour hath
28
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
been and with what difficulty and patience I endeavoured the surrender of this place, being satisfied in all humane reason and policy (even from the beginning) that it could not withstand your power. I shall therefore humbly entreat your honour to take my condition into your serious consideration that I be not other/ wise dealt withthan the justice or injustice of my case requireth, which I shall undoubtedly expect from a person of my Lord Deputy's honour and through the intercession of your lordship, which shall remain an undoubted obligation never to be unacknowledged by " Your Lordship's most humble servant " Hugo O'Neile " Limerick 30 Oct 1651."8 In the council of war Ireton spoke against sparing O'Neill's life, urging that his defence of Clonmel had been responsible for many English deaths. He carried the majority with him, but seeing that some of the council were dissatisfied with the verdict, he put the question again and this time the vote went in favour of O'Neill. On November 3 Ireton sent a long despatch to the speaker of the English Parliament. It is an extremely interesting document, and something of the skill of O'Neill's defence of Limerick can be read between the lines of it. Ireton made it clear that he had been very disappointed at the length of time it took to get Limerick to surrender. After it crossed the Shannon in the early summer the Parliamentary army achieved little for several months. In fact God had " exercised their faith and patience with divers small losses in the surprise of several garrisons and parties by the lurching enemy." Ireton said the siege had lasted four months longer than he had expected—chiefly on account of jhe failure of the attempt on King's Island. That would have been the most satis/ factory point from which to force an entrance, but the attempt had failed and the defenders had since protected the area by their " industrious working." A council of war had then decided not to attempt an assault, but to starve the city out. It was believed that this would not take more than two or three months, but as the season advanced and winter approached the Parliamentary army saw no prospect of the garrison being starved out. They therefore determined to bombard the city to induce the inhabitants to surrender before winter set in, which would involve many hardships and hazards for the sickly Parliamentary army. Some of their battering guns had been carelessly lost at Clare, but others were collected from various places and stationed at a favourable place which the Lord had up till then hidden from their eyes. The bombardment was effective in bringing an offer of surrender in the nick of time, as wintry weather had set in immediately after the terms were accepted. Up till then the season had been drier and milder than been known for many years. It is remarkable that the siege should have gone on right up to the end of October—that is well into November new style. It was much earlier in the year that William gave up his siege in 1690, and in 1691 Ginkel was just about to 8 Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, pp. 258/9.
Hugh Dubh O 'Neill's Defence of Limerick
29
give up when negotiations started at the end of September. The weather of 1651 was much more favourable to Ireton and less favourable to O'Neill than either of them could have expected. The Parliament ordered Ireton's despatch to be printed and fixed a day of thanksgiving to the Lord for his " great and seasonable mercy in the delivering up into the hands of the Parliamentary forces in Ireland the strong and populous city of Limerick with all the artillery, arms and ammunition therein." Jersey and the Isle of Man were thrown into the thanksgiving for good measure. His despatch to the speaker was almost the last act of Ireton's life. A few days later he caught a bad cold on a day of rain, snow and strong wind. He could not be persuaded to go to bed until he had heard the court-martial of an officer who was accused of treating the Irish with violence and had dismissed him from his command. Next day he was off riding in the stoniest part of Clare. His cold turned to fever, but he insisted in going on with his work. His constitution was run down with his exertions during the siege and on November 7 he was dead. O'Neill was sent to England in the same ship that carried the embalmed body of Ireton. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London, but released on the application of the Spanish ambassador on the understanding that he would take no part in fighting against English troops. He was therefore not employed in the Netherlands, but was sent to Spain where he served with distinction as a General of artillery in Catalonia. His health broke down and by 1660 he was convinced that he had not long to live. He said as much in a letter of that year to Charles II, in which he claimed that he had succeeded to the title of Earl of Tyrone.9 The date of his death is not known, but it cannot have been long after. 9 A facsimile of this letter is in Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, 392.
This page intentionally left blank
4 JOHN TOLAND (1670-1722), A DONEGAL HERETIC
J
ohn Toland was one of the most remarkable of Swift's Irish
contemporaries.1 He was a man of many parts and extraordinary versatility: a linguist with some claims to scholarship, a political propagandist and a speculative thinker. At the same time, he was brash and indiscreet, with the result that he fell out with one patron after another and was forced to make a precarious living as a Grub Street hack. But his writings influenced later generations, were translated into French and German, and gave him an international reputation as one of the forerunners of the age of reason. Contradictory accounts have been given of his origins and early life. But there seems no reason to doubt his own version that he was born in Inishowen, County Donegal, in 1670 and brought up as an Irish-speaking catholic.2 His family background is shadowy and there are hints that he was illegitimate. His schooling evidently gave him sufficient grounding to develop his remarkable talents; it also seems to have made him dissatisfied with the environment in which he was brought up. When he wras sixteen he abandoned his faith and his 1
This paper was originally delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, on 18 Apr. 1968, as a lecture in the O'Donnell series. I am grateful to Professor H. F. Nicholl for allowing me to make use of his unpublished thesis, ' The life and work of John Toland ', and to Mr W. Dieneman for allowing me to make use of his unpublished ' Bibliography of John Toland '. 2 Apology for Air Toland (1697), pp 16-17; self-composed epitaph in J. Toland, Collection of several pieces, pp lxxxviii-ix, edited by Pierre Desmaiseaux (1726), who prefixes a life of Toland. A less reliable biography is that of [E. Curll], Historical account of the life of John Toland (1722). The fullest contemporary biography is the introduction to J. Mosheim, Vindiciae antiquae Christianae disciplinae adversus celeberrimi viri Johannis Tolandi, Hiberni, Nazarenum (2nd ed., Hamburg, 1722). Local tradition makes his birth-place Ardagh in the parish of Clonmany (W. J. Doherty, Inis-Owen and Tirconnell, p. 150). Another version is that he was born in France of an Irish father and a French mother and did not come to Ireland till he was ten or twelve years old (Edmund Gibson to Dr Charlett, 21 June 1694, in Bodl, Ballard collection, v, 27).
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
32
native county, and went to study in Glasgow.3 It appears that the bishop of Derry, Dr Ezekiel Hopkins, helped him to go and that his first contacts were with the episcopal church in Scotland. But he soon quarrelled with the archbishop of Glasgow and his next patrons were the presbyterians, by whom he was supported during his course at the university, in which he was an alumnus academicus—educated free of charge. His standing with the presbyterians was apparently improved by his part in pope-burning and rabbling the episcopal clergy, and he obtained a certificate from the Glasgow magistrates, which he kept for the rest of his life, that he had behaved himself as ' ane trew protestant and loyal subject'.4 In 1690, the day before the battle of the Boyne, he obtained the Edinburgh M.A. degree, which was commonly granted to Glasgow students who were not ' ane trew protestant and loyal subject'.4 In 1690, the day before Glasgow there were violent disputes in the university, in which the students took an active part; many left the university and attended classes held by professors of their own choosing. It was an exciting training in controversy and independence of thought. 0 The violently protestant and anti-episcopal climate of Glasgow was in striking contrast to the conservative Catholicism of Inishowen, and Toland quickly developed the free-thinking and anti-authoritarian principles that he was to hold for the remainder of his life. He himself regarded this development as a conversion from what he called the grossest superstition: ' God was pleased to make my own reason and such Apology for Mr Toland, p. 16. He says that he went from Redcastle (which is on Lough Foyle); his biographers have assumed that he went to school there, but he may have meant that it was the point of embarkation. 4 Corr. quoted in F. H. Heinemann, ' John Toland and the age of reason ' and ' John Toland, France, Holland, and Dr Williams ' in Rev. Eng. Studies, xx (1944), pp 127-8; xxv (1949), pp 346-7. The certificate is in B.M., Add. MS 4465, f. 1. 3 Edinburgh university was under the control of the town council (A. Grant, Story of the university of Edinburgh, i, 183-4). 6 6J. Coutts, History of the university of Glasgow, pp 160-4. For Scottish interest in radical thought at this time see C. Robbins, The eighteenth-century commonwealthman, pp 177 ff. In 1722 the Glasgow students showed their addiction to free thought by electing as rector Toland's friend and patron, Lord Molesworth, who was active in supporting the rights of the students against the university authorities, possibly under Toland's influence (Coutts, p. 201; H.M.C. var. 8, PP 347-52). 3
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic
33
as made use of theirs the instruments of my conversion'. He disclaimed the suggestion that reaction from his catholic upbringing might have taken him unjustifiably far in the opposite direction.7 His next move was to London where he became an admirer of Dr Daniel Williams, a prominent dissenting minister who was accused of unitarianism. With characteristic forwardness Toland wrote to Jean Le Clerc, the Huguenot savant who had taken refuge in Holland, sending him a copy of Williams's book Gospel truth stated and vindicated', with it was a covering letter from himself as ' a student of divinity', explaining the controversy that had arisen over the book and suggesting that an abstract of it might be published in the Bibliotheque universelle, of which Le Clerc was editor. Le Clerc published the abstract together with Toland's letter.8 Williams and his friends were so impressed with Toland's zeal and piety that they collected money to send him to study at Leyden in 1692. He was much impressed by the free-thinking and tolerant atmosphere prevalent in Holland. Le Clerc in particular had a great influence on him. But he stayed there for only a year, and it appears that his departure was hastened by his own indiscretions. John Locke was later told that Toland was an indiscreet man, without shame and without religion.9 He had now abandoned the idea of becoming a dissenting minister. In the words of an acquaintance: ' having now cast off the yoke of spiritual authority, that great bugbear and bane of ingenuity, he could never be persuaded to bow his neck to that yoke again, by whomsoever claimed Y° This faced him with the problem of earning his living, which he never solved satisfactorily, though he managed to keep going by literary work and the support of patrons. His ambition was to make his mark as a man of learning, and he chose for his base Oxford which, with its high anglican traditions, was unlikely to prove congenial to his temperament. He had recommendations to several of the ' most ingenious' men in the university, including Dr Mill, the principal of St Edmund Hall, whose speciality was Anglo-Saxon. Toland hoped to be a match for ' their antiquaries and linguists who saluted me with peals of 7
Toland, Christianity not mysterious, pp ix, xiii. Collection, i, xi. For Williams see D.N.B. He had been a minister in Dublin, where his assistant was Gilbert Rule, who became rector of Edinburgh University shortly after Toland took his degree. 9 P. Coste to Locke, 23 June 1699, quoted by Heinemann in Review of English studies, xxv. 348-9. 10 Benjamin Furley to Locke, 19 Aug. 1693 (ibid.). 8
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
34
barbarous sounds and obsolete words, and I in return spent upon them all my Anglo-Saxon and old British etymologies, which I hope gave them abundant satisfaction; Hebrew and Irish I hope will bear me out for some weeks, and then I'll be pretty well furnished from the library, into which I was sworn and admitted yesterday V1 According to the antiquary and linguist, Edward Lhwyd, Toland had come to Oxford to write ' an Irish dictionary and dissertation to prove the Irish a colony of the Gauls \12 Among Toland's papers were comparative lists of Breton and Irish words which prove to be of considerable interest to Celtic scholars today, though Toland sometimes forced his parallels between the two languages. He can claim to have anticipated Lhwyd in the study of comparative Celtic linguistics.13 He stayed for a year at Oxford, making a name for himself as ' railing in coffee-houses against all communities in religion and monarchy \14 A friend told him that he had the Oxford reputation of being ' a man of fine parts, great learning and little religion \ 1 5 Toland to , Jan. 1694 [Collection, ii, 293). E. Lhwyd to J. Aubrey, 9 Jan. 1694 (R. T. Gunter, Early science at Oxford, xiv, 217). 13 Collection, i, 204-28. The Breton words were supplied by Dr Mill, and Toland himself gave what he thought to be the Irish equivalents. I am grateful to Professors R. Hemon and D. Greene of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies for examining the lists. Professor Hemon informs me that the first section (pp 205-11) consists of words taken from G. Quicquer, Dictionnaire et collogues frangois et breton, first published in 1626 and frequently reissued. The edition used must have been prior to 1671, as the form of the words is late middle Breton; from 1671 editions of Quicquer were in modern Breton. The rare Breton word ' tremenguae ', meaning field-path or stile, was wrongly rendered into French by Quicquer as ' escalier '; Toland made the same error in giving the Irish equivalent as ' dremire'. Toland's second section (pp 212-19) contains a mixture of Breton and Welsh words, in which the spelling is in the early modern form of Breton. The spelling corresponds almost exactly with Gregoire de Rostrenen, Dictionnaire frangois-celtique ou frangois-breton, 1732. Gregoire's dictionary contains a number of words marked ' alias ' (his term for ' obsolete '), which have long puzzled scholars. Several of these, both Breton and Welsh, occur in Toland's second section. As Gregoire died before the end of the seventeenth century, they cannot be derived from the Collection of Toland's pieces (published in 1726). Unless Mill got them from Gregoire himself, both must be derived from a common source. Toland's third section (pp 220-6) contains religious texts, numerals and a few colloquial sentences, all taken from Quicquer. His Irish equivalents are of interest. 14 Lhwyd to Lister, n.d. (Gunter, p. 2.78). 15 to Toland, 4 May 1694 (Collection, ii, 295). 11 12
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic 3 5 The Irish dictionary never materialised, but he continued to be interested in Celtic civilisation and towards the end of his life sketched out a ' specimen of the critical history of the Celtic religion and learning', which was largely concerned with Druidism.10 He drew on his boyhood memories for accounts of Inishowen landmarks associated with Druidism, a rocking stone at Clonmany, places where Mayday bonfires were lit, and a hill named after a whitelegged Druidess, Cnoc na Gealchosaighe.17 He was familiar with O'Flaherty's Ogygia, of which he possessed a copy. He refers to the book of Ballymote, saying that it is in the library of Trinity College, and cites other Irish manuscripts in the collections of the earl of Clanricarde and the duke of Chandos.18 He also quotes a number of Greek and Roman writers on various aspects of Celtic civilisation. His Irish background and wide reading give some value to a pioneering attempt to present a general picture of Celtic tradition. He left Oxford for London and attached himself to John Locke, to whom he had been given letters of recommendation from Holland. Locke was particularly interested in monetary questions at the time and gave Toland an Italian treatise on the subject to translate.19 But Toland's chief concern was religious speculation. He was clearly much influenced by Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity in writing his own first and best-known book Christianity not mysterious, which was published in 1696. He borrowed from Locke the concept that Christianity was a rational creed, comprehensible to an intelligent reader of the bible, without further assistance. But Toland's book aroused much more hostility than Locke's had done. It was shorter, blunter, more anti-clerical, and it had a more aggressive title. Toland argued that mystery in the New Testament referred to things that had previously been obscure, but had now been rendered intelligible: ' the gospel itself that was heretofore indeed a mystery and cannot now, after it is fully revealed, properly deserve that appellation \ 2 0 He complained that the churches had overlaid the original core of Collection, i, 1-203. It was published in 1,740 under the title A critical history of Celtic religion and reissued in 1814. 17 Ibid., pp 23, 104-5. 18 Ibid., pp 36-7, 51. The book of Ballymote disappeared from the college library some time before 1742 (T.C.D. MS D 1. 6, f. 1). 19 Bernardo Davanzati, A discourse of coins; translated from the Italian by John Toland (1696). Locke's copy of the book is in the Goldsmiths' Library, University of London. 20 Christianity not mysterious (1696), pp 102-3. 16
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
36
rational Christianity with unintelligible accretions that only served to puzzle simple folk: ' the uncorrupted doctrines of Christianity are not above their reach or comprehension, but the gibberish of your divinity schools they understand not'. Revelation for Toland was no more than a means of information, carrying conviction by its inherent reasonableness.21 In this book Toland wrote as a professed Christian, but he was attacked as a deist, and the later development of his thought showed a widening gulf between his philosophy and orthodox Christianity. Christianity not mysterious proved to be the most controversial book of the time and provoked a large number of replies, including one from Dr Peter Browne, fellow and later provost of Trinity College, who afterwards became bishop of Cork: a promotion for which Toland claimed the credit. Browne drew rather fine distinctions in his retort to Toland. ' That Christianity is not mysterious', he said, 'is very true; that there are no mysteries in Christianity is absolutely false '. He denounced Toland as ' an inveterate enemy to revealed religion ', and asserted that Toland's real design was ' no other than what he formerly declared and what he openly affects, to be the head of a sect'; he even wondered whether Toland was ambitious to become ' as famous an impostor as Mahomet \ 2 2 In the early part of 1697 Toland went over to Dublin. He is said to have gone there with the prospect of becoming secretary to the new lord chancellor—John Methuen, an English whig; but he failed to get the post. Toland is mentioned in a ballad of the time which attacked Methuen to the tune of ' Lilliburlero ' : To secure the church to be of his side, He has made Toland his spiritual guide.23 Dublin was notorious for quarrels between the church party and those who favoured toleration for dissent, and the church party was in a militant mood. Toland's book had preceded him and caused an uproar, which increased when he himself arrived. The unfortunate Locke found himself involved in the controversy, as Toland took care to proclaim that he was Locke's disciple and admirer. He introduced himself as such to William Molyneux, ' the man whom Locke was proud to call his friend '. Molyneux wrote of him to Locke: ' he was 21
Ibid., pp 37-8, 147. P. Browne, A letter in answer to a book intituled Christianity not mysterious, pp 9, 96, 148, 196. 23 P.R.O., S.P. 32/11, ff 76-7, quoted in A. D. Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, pp 356-8. 22
John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic
37
born in this country but . . . has been a great while abroad, and his education was for some time under the great Le Clerc. But that for which I can never honour him too much is his acquaintance and friendship to you and the respect which, on all occasions, he professes for you. I propose a great deal of satisfaction in his conversation. I take him to be a candid free-thinker and a good scholar. But there is a violent sort of spirit reigns here, which begins already to show itself against him, and I believe will increase daily, for I find the clergy alarmed to a mighty degree against him.324 Locke had reason to believe that Toland's book had aroused criticism of his own work. His reply to Molyneux gave a very cautious assessment of Toland: a man of parts and learning if his vanity did not impair his usefulness to the world. He asked Molyneux to be kind to Toland, but left it to his prudence how far to go.25 Molyneux soon found that there was need for caution in dealing with Toland. He wrote to Locke: ' he has raised against him the clamours of all parties; and this not so much by his difference in opinion as by his unseasonable way of discoursing, propagating and maintaining it. Coffee houses and public tables are not proper places for serious discourses relating to the most important truths. . . . Mr Toland also takes a great liberty on all occasions to vouch your patronage and friendship, which makes many that rail at him rail also at you. I believe you will not approve of this as far as I am able to judge by your shaking him off in your Letter to the bishop of Worcester. But after all this I look upon Mr Toland as a very ingenious man and I shall be very glad of any opportunity of doing him service.' Molyneux was evidently attracted and impressed by Toland in spite of his indiscretion. He was also puzzled as to what Toland was doing in Dublin and how he was financed : ' he is known to have no fortune or employ and yet is observed to have a subsistence, but from whence it comes no one can tell certainly \2fl Some of his critics believed Toland to be the paid emissary of a powerful antireligious group, but if this was the case his financial support was not generous. Molyneux was disturbed that condemnation of Toland's book should be accompanied by legal proceedings, and he blamed Dr 24
Molyneux to Locke, 6 Apr. 1697 (Locke, Familiar letters to his friends, p. 190). 25 Locke to Molyneux, 3 May 1697 (ibid., p. 206). 26 Molyneux to Locke, 27 May 1697 (Familiar letters, p. 216).
3
8
War
and
Politics
in
Ireland,
1649-1730
Browne for calling in the aid of the civil magistrate. The Dublin grand jury condemned the book—without reading a page of it—and it was also referred to the committee of religion in the Irish house of commons.27 Toland addressed an apologia to a member of the commons, protesting that his only desire was to defend Christianity against unjust imputations. There was some support for him among the more whiggish politicians, but the church party was too strong for them. On the recommendation of the committee of religion the commons resolved that the book should be burned by the common hangman twice over, in front of the parliament house and an hour later in front of the tholsel, and added that Toland himself should be arrested and prosecuted. He saved himself from this fate by a hasty departure for England, on borrowed money.28 One critic praised the parliament for making Ireland too hot for ' a Mahometan Christian, notorious for his blasphemous denial of the mysteries of our religion and his insupportable violence against the whole Christian priesthood ,'29 Bishop King thought that parliament was aiming not merely at Toland but ' against some greater persons that supported him '. He thought that there was a formal conspiracy and that agents and emissaries were employed ' to cry down the credit of religion '.80 When Toland got back to England, he was commissioned to write a life of Milton, a task that was greatly to his taste. He found Milton a man after his own heart, the champion of free speech and religious toleration, the opponent of hierarchy, who had engaged ' in contest with the famous Ussher (for he would not readily engage a meaner adversary) against prelatical episcopacy '. He noted that in later life Milton ' was not a professed member of any Christian sect, frequented none of their assemblies, nor made use of their peculiar rites '.S1 Toland did his work well; he consulted Milton's widow and nephew among other sources, and a modern critic has commended the book as one of the best early biographies of Milton.82 But Toland found 27
S a m e to same, 20 July 1697 (ibid., p p 227-8). Commons' jn. Ire. (1798), ii, 190 (9 Sept. 1697); Molyneux to Locke, 11 Sept. 1697 {Familiar letters, pp 236-7); Richard Cox to , 14 Sept. 1697 ( H . M . C . , Portland MSS, iii. 586). 29 Collection, i, xxvi. 30 W. King to archbishop of Canterbury, 13 Sept. 1697 (T.C.D. MS N 3. 1, p. 86); same to bishop of Waterford, Sept. 1697 (ibid., p. 91). 31 Toland, Life of John Milton (ed. of 1761), pp 22, 140. 32 Helen Darbishire, Early lives of Milton (1932), pp xxviii-ix. Toland's life is reproduced in full in the book. 28
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic
39
himself in serious trouble as a result of his demonstration that Eikon Basilike was not the work of Charles I, and of his comparison of that attribution to ' suppositious pieces under the name of Christ, his apostles and other great persons \ 33 This appeared to be a double attack on Charles the Martyr and on the canon of the New Testament. It was condemned in the next 30th of January sermon, preached before the English house of commons by the Rev. Offspring Blackhall. Toland was denounced as ' impudent enough publicly to affront our holy religion by declaring his doubt that several pieces under the name of Christ and his apostles (he must mean those now received by the whole Christian church, for I know of no other) are suppositious \ 34 Toland replied with a lengthy list of apocryphal works attributed to Christ and his apostles, thus showing up his adversary's ignorance and his own learning. Toland's strong views and love of argument naturally involved him in the political controversies connected with the future of the English crown and the relations between church and state. There was no doubt where Toland stood in these matters. He was for the Hanoverian succession and against all arbitrary authority; in politics a whig, and in matters of religion a tolerator of non-conformity. Defending himself against his critics he declared: ' I have always been, now am, and ever shall be persuaded that all sorts of magistrates are made for and by the people and not the people for or by the magistrates . . . and consequently that it is lawful to resist and punish tyrants of all sorts. . . . I am therefore and avowedly a commonwealth's man \35 With these views he found a congenial task in writing a biographical introduction to Oceana and other works of Harrington, whom he calls ' the greatest commonwealthman in the world'. Toland enjoyed the patronage of the whig aristocrats, the duke of Newcastle and the third earl of Shaftesbury.30 Anglia liber a was a defence of the act of settlement, which fixed the succession on the house of Hanover. It was dedicated to ' the most noble and mighty prince, John, duke of Newcastle '. In 1701 Toland was one of the party who went to Hanover to present the act of settlement and bring the order of the garter to the Life of Milton, p. 77. Ibid., p . 161. 35 Toland, Vindicius liberus (1702), pp 126-7. 86 For Harrington as a commonwealthman a n d for the relations between T o l a n d a n d Shaftesbury see C. Robbins, op. cit., p p 3 4 - 4 1 , 83
34
125-33-
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
40
future George I. In the following year he returned to Germany and visited Berlin. He recorded his impressions in the Account of the courts of Prussia and Hanover, which gave a highly favourable picture of both courts.37 He was a particular admirer of the Electress Sophia and was astonished at her ' incomparable knowledge in divinity, philosophy, history and the subjects of all sorts of books of which she has read a prodigious quantity. She speaks five languages so well that by her accent it might be in dispute which of them was her first . . . [English] she speaks as truly and easily as any native.' This may be exaggerated, to judge from what he says of the future George I : ' he understands English and in a little while will speak it readily'. The electress took a great interest in Toland and engaged in long discussions with him. But she asked him not to write about her, and was shocked to find that he had ignored her request. At Hanover he met Leibniz, with whom he engaged in arguments that continued for several years. High life was exciting: gold medals and royal portraits, burgundy and champagne in lavish quantities. What he particularly liked in both courts was the absence of sectarian divisiveness. Liberty of conscience was enjoyed by both Lutherans and Calvinists: ' the clergy seldom appear at court in either Hanover or Berlin '. There are hints that his conduct in Germany was indiscreet, but he denied that he was banished from both courts.88 As was to be expected, Toland was a strong supporter of Marlborough's war against Louis XIV. In 1705 he offered his services to Robert Harley, who was an influential figure in the coalition government that was conducting the war. He proposed to go to Germany on Harley's behalf ' neither as minister nor as spy', but as a private observer who would send a weekly letter of information. Harley did not agree to this, but employed him to write propaganda.89 Toland is thus one of the distinguished company that included Defoe, Prior and Swift. The Memorial of the state of England was a plea for protestant unity in defence of religion and liberty. It was dedicated 87
Published in 1705; the second and enlarged edition (1706) was translated into French and German; another edition was published in 1714. 38 Account of the courts (ed. of 1714), pp 55-78. Toland's correspondence with Leibniz is in Collection, ii. 383-402. See also F. H. Heinemann, 'Toland and Leibniz' in Philosophical Review, liv (1945), 439-5739 F. H. Heinemann, ' John Toland and the age of enlightenment' in Rev. Eng. Studies, xx, 135.
John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic 41 to Harley, who was described as having an unequalled knowledge of the people's liberty and the bounds of the prince's prerogative and therefore best fitted to ' encounter those who would confound all our rights and bring us under a slavish and barbarous subjection '. Harley found contemporary relevance in an anti-French declaration of the time of Henry VII, which Toland translated and published under the title A philippic oration to incite the English against the French, but especially to prevent the treaty of a peace with them too soon after they are beaten . . . by an uncertain author who was not for paring the nails but quite plucking out the claws of the French. Harley is said to have promised Toland to make him keeper of the paper office, a post worth £400 a year. The promise was not redeemed, but Toland acknowledged that Harley, the best friend he had on earth, supplied him for two years out of his own pocket ' in diet, clothes, lodging and all other expenses'. Among other things Harley set him up in a house at Epsom, where he was able to enjoy the scenery and the social amenities.40 When Harley changed his policy and formed the tory ministry of 1710, he had no further use for Toland. An interview showed that their attitudes to peace with France were completely at variance. Toland was firm for the house of Hanover and the whig line of ' no peace without Spain '. He told Harley that ' a clandestine negotiation with France sounds very ill to English ears '. He urged Harley to abandon the high-flying tories and form a coalition of whigs and moderate tories committed to the Hanoverian succession: ' instead then of your Priors and your Swifts you ought to despatch me privately this month to Hanover'. He told Harley that he was his true champion among the well-meaning whigs : ' two hundred pounds a year quarterly paid is the utmost I expect, for which I want nothing but your commands to do acceptable service \41 Harley was deaf to the plea and Toland had no further communication with him. The tory attempts to come to terms with the pretender gave Toland the opportunity for an effective piece of propaganda, The art of restoring, in which he drew a parallel between Harley and General Monk, who had abandoned the commonwealth and restored a Stuart king. The pamphlet was reprinted ten times in the crucial year of 40
Elisha Smith to Thomas Hearne, 23 June 1706 (Bodl., Rawl. MS C 146, f. 47); Toland to Harley, 16 May 1707 (H.M.C., Portland MSS, iv, 408-10); Toland, Description of Epsom (1711). 41 Toland to Harley, 7 Dec. 1711 and c. 1712 {Portland MSS, v, 126-7, 259-60).
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
42
1714, during which the succession was in the balance. Toland was much concerned about the effect of tory policy on Ireland, where political feeling ran high over the prospects of the pretender. He deplored the signs he saw there of a catholic revival ' to the inexpressible terror of the protestants who are in daily fear of a massacre \ 4 2 He wrote several pieces in support of the Hanoverian line, but does not seem to have got anything from the whig ministers of George I. In the last years of his life his chief patron was an Irish ' commonwealthman', Robert Molesworth, a Dublin graduate who had made a name for himself by attacking the autocratic monarchy of Denmark.43 Toland edited Shaftesbury's letters to Molesworth. He also took a hand in opposing the declaratory act, the sixth of George I, by which the English parliament asserted its legislative and judicial power in Irish affairs.44 Toland's political writings were interspersed with a number of pieces on speculative and religious subjects. Letters to Serena, published in 1704, might be described as ' the intelligent woman's guide to rationalism '. Serena was George I's sister, and herself queen of Prussia. Toland addressed three letters to her: on the rise of prejudice, pagan ideas of immortality, and the origins of idolatry. He confined his arguments to pagan thought and made no overt criticism of Christianity, but the trend of his argument was certainly rationalist. He had some hard things to say of university education : ' the university is the most fertile nursery of prejudices, whereof the greatest is that we think there to learn everything, when in reality we are taught nothing . . . but our comfort is that we know as much as our masters, who affect the speech and barbarous jargon which commonly has no signification; and the main art that fits their disciples to take their degrees is to treat of very ordinary matters in very extraordinary terms \ 4 5 His exposition was accompanied by a remarkable flood of quotations from Greek and Roman authors, and was made the occasion for a fine show of learning. The book also contains two letters addressed to others, in which Toland attacked the ideas of Descartes and Spinoza. He asserted that motion is an essential attribute of matter, and denied Descartes's view that matter is a dead The grand mystery laid open (1714), p . 4 . K. Danaher and J. G. Simms, The Danish force in Ireland, i6go-i, pp 6-11; Robbins, op. cit., pp 88-133. 44 Reasons most humbly offered to the honourable house of commons 42
43
(1720). 45
Letters to Serena, p. 7.
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic
43
lump until it is stirred into activity by a power external to itself. Toland's concept of the unity of mover and moved led him on to pantheism. In his next work, Socinianism truly stated, he declared himself a pantheist, a word that he seems to have been the first to use. Adeisidaemon—the man without superstition, which was written in Latin and published in Holland in 1709, purported to vindicate Livy from the charge of superstition and argued that superstition was as dangerous to the state as atheism, if not more so. It aroused much hostility on the continent and was banned by papal decree. He sent a copy of it to Leibniz, who replied with some caution: it was quite right to attack superstition as long as it was clearly distinguished from true religion, otherwise religion might be involved in the downfall of superstition; he hoped that Toland would do as much to proclaim the truth as he had done to reject what was false. Leibniz's own position was that God was over and apart from the natural world, and he was disturbed by Toland's frequent references to the pantheistic ideas of early philosophers. Toland thanked Leibniz for his candid remarks, but replied that he proposed to reprint his Adeisidaemon without alteration.40 The suspicions of Toland's critics were confirmed by the publication in 1718 of Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity. His admiration for Islam earned him the title of ' Mahomet's solicitor general \ 4 7 The ' Mahometan Christianity ' to which he referred in Nazarenus was ' the gospel of Barnabas', a manuscript shown to him in Holland, which was in fact a forgery of not earlier than the fifteenth century written in Italian by a convert to Islam. Toland brought it to the notice of Prince Eugene of Savoy, to whom the owner presented it.48 Nazarenus also contained an account of an Irish manuscript of the four gospels in Latin, which was one of the manuscripts included in a celebrated theft from the royal library in Paris. The thief brought it to Holland and allowed Toland to study it for several months. It had been thought to be in Anglo-Saxon characters, but Toland saw that the characters were Irish and that a colophon in Irish showed that the manuscript had been written at Armagh by a monk named Maolbrigte. He informed 46
Leibniz to Toland, 30 Apr. 1709; Toland to Leibniz, 14 Feb. 1710 {Collection, ii, 383-94). 47 Toland, Tetradymus (1720), p. xix. 48 L. L. Rigg, The gospel of Barnabas (1907). The manuscript is now in the Austrian National Library.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
44
Harley, who bought it for £20; it is now in the British Museum.49 Toland's account of the manuscript was accompanied by a ' summary of the ancient Irish Christianity before the papal corruptions and usurpations, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester'. The Culdees—ceili De, a term which Toland renders ' espoused to God '—were active in the reform movement of the Irish church in the eighth and ninth centuries. Toland was apparently justified in criticising Bishops Stillingfleet and Lloyd, who had called them ' a fiction ' and ' a monkish dream '.50 This was accompanied by a vigorous disquisition on the historiography of Scotland. He criticised a number of historians on the ground that they put the Irish settlement in Scotland as late as 503 A.D. Stanihurst, says Toland, ' hated the Scots for being protestants, and so would neither allow them an early beginning nor an early Christianity. The great Ussher took up the cudgels on behalf of his uncle Stanihurst, not on the score of religion . . . but of family. . . . O'Flaherty, out of complaisance perhaps to some of his patrons, is unquestionably in the wrong '. Toland thought there was more to be said for the Scottish historians, Buchanan and Mackenzie, though he was not blind to the patriotic prejudices that led them to exaggerate the antiquity of the Irish presence in Scotland. Modern historians are not on Toland's side in the controversy.51 Nazarenus evoked a number of replies and was later translated into French. Toland's most eccentric work was Pantheistic on, written in Latin and published in 1720, the author being styled Janus Junius Eoganesius—Janus Junius the man of Inishowen. He gives a peculiar explanation for the pen-name: ' Janus Junius is the name that was given me at the font, but which for brevity's sake was quickly 49
The manuscript is Harleian 1802 and was written in 1138, though Toland tried to make out that it was much older (B.M., Cat. Ir. MSS, ii, 428-32). 50 Nazarenus, pt ii, p. 51. For the Culdees see Kenney, Sources, pp 468-71. Modern scholars render the term * clients of God ', but Toland's interpretation was also that of Charles O'Conor of Belanagare, Dissertation on the . . . Scots in North-Britain (1766), p. 34. W. Nicolson, Irish historical library (1724), pp xxix-xxxii, criticised Toland's rendering. 51 Nazarenus, pt ii, pp 43-50. The controversy was continued in O'Conor's edition of O'Flaherty's Ogygia vindicated (1775), which makes no reference to Toland. According to the most recent opinion, ' history knows nothing of any settlement of Scots in Scotland earlier than about 500' (G. Donaldson, The early Scottish monarchy, p. io, 1967).
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic
45
converted into John . . . I was called, however, by this name at first in the school roll every morning till the other boys made such game about it (to use this boyish phrase) that the master himself ordered John to be called for the future. Eoganesius is formed . . . from the peninsula where I was born.'52 In Pantheistic on a reasoned statement of the pantheist position was followed by a scheme for Socratic clubs. There was a regular liturgy for secret meeetings. With rubrics and responses, it had all the signs of a parody of church services and gave great offence. It was also taken as a model for masonic movements, particularly in France, where manuscript copies of Pantheisticon were widely circulated.53 In his last years Toland's chief support was from Molesworth, whose letters are in a tone of affectionate solicitude. But this support gave Toland little more than a bare subsistence in a carpenter's house at Putney, where his library was stacked on chairs.54 He was a martyr to rheumatism and in the spring of 1722 was attacked by jaundice. He died a few days later, leaving an epitaph, which seems never to have been committed to stone: ' Here lieth John Toland who, born near Derry in Ireland, studied young in Scotland and Holland, which, growing riper, he did also at Oxford. And, having more than once seen Germany, spent his age of manhood in and about London. He was an assertor of liberty, a lover of all sorts of learning, a speaker of Irish, but no man's follower or dependent. Nor could frowns or fortune bend him to decline from the ways he had chosen. His spirit is joined with its ethereal father, from whom it originally proceeded. His body, yielding likewise to nature, is laid again in the lap of its mother. But he is frequently to rise himself again, yet never to be the same Toland again. If you would know more of him, search his works.'55 He was a man of great gifts and remarkable courage, whose vanity and indiscretion made him a ready target for those who were 52
Toland to Bamham Goode, 30 Oct. 1720 (B.M., Add. MS 4295, f- 39v). 53 See A. Lantoine, Un precurseur da la franc-maqonnerie: John Toland, suivi de la traduction du Pantheisticon (1927); I. O. Wade, The clandestine organisation and diffusion of philosophic ideas in France from 1700 to 1J50 (1938). 54 Molesworth's letters are in Collection, ii, 484-94. The list of Toland's books is given in B.M., Add. MS 4295, f. 41. 55 English version in B.M., A d d . M S 4295, f. 76. T h e r e is also a Latin version, in which h e claimed to know ten languages.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
46
offended by his ideas, and lost him the support of many who were attracted by his opinions. He never lost the sense of his Irish background, though he reacted strongly against it. But he was also the product of renaissance humanism, the reformation and the scientific revolution. He combed Greek and Roman writers for rationalist theories of ethics and metaphysics. Giordano Bruno, the most daring of the sixteenth-century speculators, had a particular appeal for him.56 In the great political controversy of the seventeenth century he was wholeheartedly a commonwealthman. He lived in an age of transition, when traditional beliefs were giving way to scepticism, and he himself made a significant contribution to the process. His mode of thought and style of controversy have a modern ring in contrast to the arguments of some of his critics. He is clearly on our side of the dividing line that separates modern from medieval. His name became a symbol for the movement away from orthodoxy and respect for authority. Swift called him ' the great oracle of the anti-Christians'." Much of Berkeley's writing was directed against Toland's position. He does not refer to Toland by name, but attacks many of his characteristic arguments and ideas. It is not hard to identify the ' witty gentleman of our sect who was a great admirer of the ancient Druids': words put into the mouth of Alciphron who plays the sceptic in Berkeley's dialogue.58 Toland's writings became quite widely known in western Europe as successive translations appeared in the course of the eighteenth century. Much of the comment was hostile, particularly in Holland and Germany, but he became something of a hero to the French intelligentsia. Voltaire spoke of him as ' a proud and independent soul: born in poverty, he could have risen to fortune had he been more moderate \ 59 Holbach, who represented the extreme degree of scepticism in pre-revolutionary France, based much of his thought on Toland. Holbach translated the Letters to Serena and the mattermotion concept to be found in them has been described as having a 50
See ' An account of Jordan Bruno's book of the infinite universe and innumerable worlds' {Collection, i, 316-49). 57 ' Argument against abolishing Christianity ' in Swift, Works, ed. Temple Scott, iii, 18.
Berkeley, Works, ed. A. A. Luce and T. E, Jessop, iii, 176; G. A. Johnston, The development of Berkeley's thought, pp 36-40. 59 Quoted in N. L. Torrey, Voltaire and the English deists (1930), P- 1558
John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic
47
tremendous influence on him.60 Several of Toland's ideas were borrowed and developed by Diderot. 01 Interest in Toland has continued in both France and Germany, where a series of translations of his works and comments on his ideas has stretched into the present century. In the French Biographie generate more space is given to Toland than to Berkeley. Some recollections of him survived in his native district. There were local traditions in Inishowen of the Toland who ' had left the country, given up his religion and written against i t ' . He was ' Owen of the books ', through whose mouth it was the devil himself that spoke. The prophet of rationalism was without honour in his own country.62
V. W. Topazio, D'Holbach's moral philosophy (1956), pp 39-41. L. G. Crocker, The embattled philosopher (1955), pp 317, 320, 322. 62 W. J. Doherty, Inis-Owen arid Tirconnell (1895), p. 150.
60
G1
This page intentionally left blank
5 DUBLIN IN 1685 critical year for Dublin was 1685."* It was the year that Charles II died and James II came to the throne. The twenty-five years of Charles IFs reign had brought stability, prosperity and expansion within a predominantly protestant framework. The death of Charles, the accession of his catholic brother James, and the recall of the great duke of Ormond appeared to mark the end of an era. It was a year of anxiety for protestants and of fluctuating hopes for catholics. It was a time of transition that was to be followed by the uninhibitedly partisan policy of Tyrconnell, by the Jacobite war, and by the protestant liberation after William's victory at the Boyne. By 1685 Dublin was no mean city. It was much the largest town in Ireland, and in these islands was second only to London. There was general agreement that its population had greatly increased since 1660, but the estimates varied considerably. Church returns were an inadequate guide in a multi-religious society, and hearth-tax returns were not much better. Sir William Petty came to put his trust in the bills of mortality, statistics of burials compiled by the corporation and supplied weekly to subscribers. The returns available between 1682 and 1687 show that the burials were consistently over 2,000 a year — a figure which Petty multiplied by thirty to give a population of more than 60,000 for the city and its suburbs. His estimate was thought too high by critics who preferred houses to funerals as a basis for statistics: the number of houses would give a population of a little over 50,000.T Even at the lower figure the population had almost trebled since 1660.2 The rise in population was accompanied by a rapid spread of buildings outside the old city limits — to the
A
* This paper was originally delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, on 13 Feb. 1964, as a lecture in the O'Donnell series. 1 Burials were as follows: 1682 : 2,263; 1683-4 : 2,154; 1686-7 : 2,284; (figures for two summer quarters). According to Petty there were 6,400 houses and 29,735 hearths in 1685; eight persons were reckoned to a house. Petty, Econ. writings, ii. 496, 534, 588; Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 610-12; Willoughby, Observations on the bills of mortality (N.L.I. MS 911). 2 In 1660 poll-tax returns were 8,780, representing a population twice that number {Census of Ireland, c. I6$Q, p. 373).
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
50
north along the left bank of the river and in the grounds of St Mary's Abbey; to the west in the earl of Meath's liberty in the neighbourhood of the Coombe. By the end of Charles IFs reign more of the city was outside the walls than inside them.8 The dispersal of population led to fears for the security of the city and two military engineers were commissioned to report on the provision of adequate defences. This resulted in the production of two maps, the first made in 1673 by Bernard de Gomme and the second in 1685 by Thomas Phillips.4 These maps give an excellent idea of how the built-up area expanded during Charles IPs reign. Gomme's map of 1673 shows that there had already been considerable development to the east and south. Trinity College was now joined to the city by plots laid out along College Green and Dame Street. To the north of the College there were some quite large houses on Lazy Hill and both sides of the road towards Ringsend were lined with smaller houses. Stephen's Green had been laid out, and there were some houses facing it on the north and west sides. Further to the west was Aungier Street. Development had also taken place along St Kevin's Street and to the south of St Patrick's Cathedral along New Street, which is still so called after three centuries. But the map shows that by 1673 there had been little development north of the river. The King's inns was near the modern Four Courts. It was a large building, capable of holding King James's parliament. Most of the lawyers were protestants, but there were some catholic barristers of distinction, among them Richard Nagle, Stephen Rice, Toby Butler and Denis Daly, all of whom came to the fore under the Jacobite regime. In front of the King's Inns was a quay 300 yards long, the only one on the north side of the river. Below that was a large creek called the Pill, and then came slob land, behind which were the park and green of St Mary's Abbey. The parish church was St Michan's, and there were a few streets and lanes to either side of it — extensions of the old settlement of Oxmantown. By the time Phillips made his map in 1685 there had been rapid development on the north side. Arran Quay (named after Ormond's son), Ormond Quay and Jervis Quay (the modern Bachelor's Walk) had transformed that bank of the river. Charles Street, Capel Street Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 202. Gomme's map is in the Dartmouth collection at Greenwich; N.L.I, has a photostat. Phillips's map is in the Ormond collection in N.L.I. (MS 3137). 3
4
Dublin in 1685
51
and Jervis Street now ran northwards from the quays and were crossed by Mary Street and Abbey Street. The Pill had been filled in and the Ormond market stood on the site. Much of the north bank was still unreclaimed, but the corporation had recently ordered a survey of the strand from Mabbot's mill to the Furlong of Clontarf. This area was to be divided into 152 lots to be drawn for out of a hat by members of the corporation; each lot was to be given out on a reclamation lease at a rent of a shilling a year.5 The records of the corporation at this period are full of payments for the right to reclaim land and develop waste ground. The new areas suffered from water-logging and cellars were often flooded in winter.0 The timbered buildings known as cage-work were giving way to brick and stone. The chapter of St Patrick's in leasing an orchard on St Bride's Street specified that the lessees should build handsome convenient houses of brick and stone, three stories high and of like form with balconies.7 An important development on the south side was in the land of Tib and Tom, to the west of Graf ton Street. This was developed by a brewer named William Williams, who laid out William Street and built the Clarendon Market. The old Thingmote near St Andrew's Church had recently been leased out for levelling.8 A good indication of the progress of the city is to be found in the building of bridges. Before 1670 there was only one bridge — the old bridge on the site of the modern Father Mathew bridge above the Four Courts. In that year a new bridge was built 600 yards upstream. This innovation was a point of dispute in city politics; the opposition apparently encouraged the apprentices to riot and break up the bridge, which was consequently known as Bloody Bridge.;) By 1685 there were three more bridges. The first to be built was Essex Bridge, leading to Capel Street and called after the viceroy, Arthur Capel, earl of Essex. Higher up the river came Arran Bridge at the end of Arran Quay and Ormond Bridge joining Fishamble Street to Ormond Quay. The new bridges improved communication with the developing north side, but they were an obstruction to boats coming up the river. For most of 1685 Essex Bridge was kept open for boats and closed Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 328. N.L.I., MS 911, p. 19. 7 R.S.A.I. Jn., lxv. 34. 8 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 87, 261, 305. 9 Ibid., iv. 53; Cal. S.P. dom., i6yi, pp. 383, 388, 400. 5
6
52
War and Politics in Ireland,
1649-1730
to road traffic as the drawbridge was out of order.10 Ormond Bridge began as a wooden affair without a drawbridge, high enough to let boats pass under it. To prevent people falling over the side the sheriff of 1682 provided railings at the cost to himself of £14; in return he was given the privilege of putting up apple stalls on either side of the bridge. But the railings were pulled down and stolen so often that it was decided to scrap the wooden bridge altogether and put up a stone one with a drawbridge. The apple stalls were to stay and their proprietor was to be responsible for working the drawbridge. One of Ormond's last acts before he left early in 1685 was to place a stone with his name and the date on the new bridge.11 Leading citizens lived in many parts of the city, often side by side with shops. Phillips's map shows the Ussher and Molyneux houses near the old bridge and Domvile's house on St Bride Street. Petty lived in St George's Lane and Dudley Loftus on the Blind Quay. The modern Eustace and Anglesea Streets are called after the houses of those families. Charlemont and Clancarty houses were on College Green, with booksellers' shops close by. Lawyers lived in Hoey's Court near St Werburgh's and Swift was born there. Private houses as well as shops were distinguished by signs, among them being the black spread eagle, the holy lamb and the frying pan.12 As new buildings spread on the outskirts rents fell at the centre in Skinner Row and Castle Street.13 The north strand — a pleasant place for driving or walking — become fashionable and one of the best new houses there was leased to Lord Chancellor Porter for £100 a year.14 An English comment on the Dublin of this period was that most of the houses and streets were very regular and modern and the people as fashionable as anywhere. Most of the houses had gardens and the standard of cultivation met with Viceroy Clarendon's approval: * the sallet are very good and the roots generally much better than ours in England; asparagus here are very good, large and green \ 1 5 Dudley Loftus complained that clothes, equipages and house furniture were five times as expensive as they had been before the war. But, judging from a decorator's bill of 1685, Dublin craftsmen seem to have been very moderate in their charges. Among the items are 10
Monday book, pp. 150-1 (Gilbert MSS, Pearse St). Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 351; Cal. S.P. dom., 1684-5, P- 3°5« 12 Gilbert, Hist, of Dublin, ii. 117, 310, 321; iii. 18, 184; Ch. Ch. MSS. 18 N.L.I., MS 911, p. 26. 14 Clarendon corr., i. 368; ii. 141, 150. 15 Ibid., i. 403; Story, Impartial history, p. 91. 11
Dublin in 1685
53
' colouring the door in the dining-room and the balcony door, 65.; colouring the cornice in the drawing-room and the two doors and the bottom board, 14J.; whitening the dining-room ceiling and the drawing-room and parlour ceilings and the stairs, 95.' 18. Immigration was responsible for much of the increase in population. An act of 1662 for the encouragement of protestant strangers had a life of eleven years, during which a limited number of French, Dutch and Germans came to Dublin, most of them merchants, though there were also some mariners and craftsmen.17 The new corporation rules, introduced in 1672, provided that foreigners, as well others as protestants, who were merchants, artificers, seamen or otherwise skilled could become freemen of the city.18 A fair number of foreigners took advantage of this and by the end of Charles II's reign there was, in particular, a considerable Huguenot community. Twenty years earlier a chapel in St Patrick's had been given to them as a French church, and its records show the community's progress. In 1685 there were 29 baptisms and 33 burials recorded in the French church, which suggests that there were several hundred Huguenots.19 But the greater part of the immigration from outside Ireland was from England. It was estimated in 1687 tnat at least 35,000 English had come to Ireland in the previous fifteen years. Many of these had come to Dublin, where the woollen industry7 in particular had attracted immigrants from the English west country. One of the arrivals was Anthony Sharp, a Gloucestershire quaker who was attracted by the cheapness of Irish wool, settled in the liberties, and became one of the most prominent figures in Dublin life.20 By 1685 there were several thousand workers in Dublin engaged in spinning and carding wool. There was also a linen industry at Chapelizod, which made tapestry as well, and we hear of the newly established manufacture of crimson velvet.21 Gomme's map shows a glass house near the site of Westland Row station. The city also had a considerable catholic population, which would be needed to supply the labour force for a busy seaport and thriving Tanner letters, p. 485; N.L.I. Sarsfield papers. B.M., Eg. MS 77. 18 Ir. stat., iii. 205-12. 19 J. D. La Touche, Register of French conformed churches in Dublin. 20 N.L.I., MS 7795; A letter from a gentleman in Ireland, 1677; O. Goodbody, 'Anthony Sharp' in Dublin Hist. Rec, xiv. 12-19. 21 Clarendon corr., i. 321, 528; A. K. Leask, 'History of tapestrymaking' in R.S.A.I. ]n., lviii. 91. 16
17
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
54
centre of trade and manufacture. Petty estimated that the catholic population had more than doubled between 1671 and 1682. At the beginning of 1689 Tyrconnell said that half the population of Dublin was catholic, but in 1685 the proportion would certainly have been lower, perhaps about a third.22 Why did this extraordinary increase in population take place during the quarter of a century following the restoration? Several reasons can be suggested. In the first place Dublin was the administrative and legal focus of a great deal of activity at a time when the ownership of most of Ireland was at stake and courts and offices were busy with rival claims of catholics and protestants. It is true that parliament had not met since 1666, but commissions of one kind or another were constantly occupied with the land settlement, and the viceroys were in residence for most of the time. Ormond kept a brilliant court and set a standard of expenditure that must have been good for trade. Many of the upper classes had town houses as well as country seats. A new and socially ambitious class of rising gentry looked to Dublin for skilled craftmanship and imported consumer goods. It was estimated that the amount of such goods ' must be prodigious to supply not only the necessities but the vanity and luxury of so opulent and populous a kingdom, the rate of whose expenses was in no way regulated by the instinct of thrift \ 2 3 Its position in the middle of the east coast and a network of roads gave Dublin an advantage over the southern ports as a distributing centre for the country. The general trade of Ireland had increased and Dublin had the largest share of it. Petty estimated that in 1685 Dublin was responsible for nearly forty per cent of the total customs revenue.24 It is remarkable that it should have established this position in spite of a very bad harbour. There was a bar at the mouth of the LifFey, and ships had to moor outside Ringsend in the Salmon Pool or even further out at Pool Beg. Passengers were landed at Ringsend and driven at a furious pace across the sands in low-backed cars known as Ringsend coaches. Cargoes were unloaded into gabbards or barges and brought up the LifTey at high tide. From Gomme's map it appears that the river was quite impassable at low water. He marks a low-water depth 22
23
Petty, o p . cit., ii. 4 9 8 ; B . M . , A d d . M S 28053, f. 386.
G. Phillips, The interest of England in the trade of Ireland, 1689,
p. 22. 24
Political arithmetic, 1685/6, by Sir W.P. (P.R.O., S.P. Ire. 63/351, ff. 319-20); this does not appear among Petty's published writings.
Dublin in 1685
55
of only one foot at a point opposite Trinity College. Cargoes had to be brought up to the custom house just below Essex Bridge. Most of the trade was with England, coal, drapery, hops and tobacco being among the largest imports. Much of the coal came from Whitehaven, whose colliery masters kept a fleet of sixty ships to supply the Dublin market. In all, over 30,000 tons of coal was imported in 1685. Dublin itself seems to have been the biggest consumer, and Petty used this as a gauge of the increasing prosperity of the city. The largest items of export to England were wool and friezes, which were sent to west country ports such as Bideford and Barnstaple. Chester was at this time chiefly used for the passenger ?.«nd packet trade, and Liverpool had eclipsed it for general commercial traffic. There was a considerable export of friezes to France and the Low Countries, but the legitimate export of wool was restricted to England. Instructions of 1685 renewed a ' strict and severe prohibition ' on the transport of wool to foreign parts and deplored the frequent evasion of the rule. Direct imports from foreign countries included timber from the Baltic, and spices, wine and oranges from Spain. Brandy, wine and salt were the chief imports from France.25 In 1681 the act had lapsed that imposed restrictions on direct Irish imports from the plantations, and in the following years large quantities of tobacco were imported directly from America. After the renewal of the act in the summer of 1685 this trade was drastically reduced. But the merchants seem to have been forewarned, as the Dublin figures for direct tobacco imports reached a peak in that year. The next year they had dropped to nothing.26 One of the restoration viceroys observed that much of Dublin's trade was carried in Dutch ships. They were more suited to the choppy Irish Sea than English ships, and this was given as the reason for using two Dutch-built ships as mail boats.27 Dublin Bay was considered highly dangerous and ships were often wrecked. There were two lighthouses on Howth Head for which dues were at first collected 25
J. U. Nef, Rise of the English coal industry, i. 71, 392; Cal. S.P. dom., 1685, p. 112. Detailed figures for exports and imports of the chief Irish ports for 1683-6 are in B.M., Add. MS 4759. I am grateful to Dr L. M. Cullen for drawing my attention to this MS and for supplying further information on the trade of Dublin. 26 L. A. Harper, The English navigation laws, p. 397; the acts were 22 and 23 Charles II, c. 26 and 1 James II, c. 17. 27 Essex letters, i. 294; V. Barbour, 'Dutch and English merchant shipping in the seventeenth century' in Econ. Hist. Rev., ii. 276.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
56
from all shipping, foreign vessels being charged double. The contractors were then given £500 a year to compensate them for letting English ships off the charge.28 Gomme called the southern Howth lighthouse the Candlestick. He also showed on his map a perch or warning pole near the tip of the South Bull. Another hazard was the indiscriminate excavation for ballast. A proposal of 1685 for the establishment of a ballast office referred to the great damage done in this way to the harbour ' which occasions the driving and rolling of great quantities of loose sand into the main channel to the spoil of the harbour and the hazard of many tall ships running aground \ 2 9 The centre of government administration was the castle, which was also the ordinary residence of the viceroy. With its four towers enclosing a clutter of residential and administrative buildings and a forest of chimneys—125 in all — the castle was the subject of constant criticisms. There were two serious fires there in Charles II's reign. Even after the damage had been repaired, James's first viceroy complained that it was ' the worst lodging a gentleman ever lay in: never comes a shower of rain but it breaks into the house, so there is perpetual tiling and glazing \ 3 0 The privy council met in the council chamber in Essex Street next to the Custom House. The Four Courts, now in the last stages of decay, were in Christ Church yard. The only government building of distinction was the new hospital for old soldiers at Kilmainham, which was almost ready at the beginning of 1685, though the chapel was still unfinished and there was no tower. The pride of the corporation was the new Tholsel, or municipal building, which stood opposite the Four Courts at the corner of Skinner's Row. It appears in Malton's views of Dublin as a somewhat baroque building; it was 100 feet high, with a cupola, a clock, and, set in niches in the front wall, oversize statues of Charles I and Charles II. The statues still survive and can be seen at forbiddingly close quarters in Christ Church crypt. No expense was spared on the embellishment and furnishing of the interior. The walls were panelled in Danzig oak and the chairs upholstered with Turkey work.31 Two separate chambers were provided, one for the senior members — the lord mayor, aldermen and those who had held office as sheriffs — Cal. S.P. dom., I6JI, p. 479; ibid., 1676-j, pp. 58-9. Ibid., 1685, pp. 364-5. 80 Petty, op. cit., i. 143; Clarendon corr., ii. 47. 31 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. xxxiii. 28
29
Dublin in 1685
57
and the other for the ninety-six members of the common council. By a system of election peculiar to Dublin the common councillors were chosen every three years by the guilds. The corporation had a keen sense of its own importance as representing the second city in his majesty's dominions. Since the restoration the mayor had become lord mayor and the ceremonial was closely modelled on that of London. The inauguration of the new lord mayor was a colourful affair, with gowns of violet and scarlet and suitable renderings from the city musicians.32 In 1685 the lord mayor was Sir Abel Ram, who was both a city financier and also a member of the new landed gentry. He had succeeded to the Wexford estates acquired by his grandfather, who was bishop of Ferns. At the same time he was a banker with premises in Castle Street and had for several years been master of the goldsmiths' guild. The municipal records show a constant, but rather ineffective, concern for the sanitary and other public needs of the growing city. The time-honoured system of water supply from the Dodder had to be extended in Charles IPs reign. A large cistern was set up at St James's gate, from which leaden pipes were laid along Thomas Street; when the money ran short pipes of elm wood were used instead. There was a marble conduit in the corn market with the arms of the city and an inscription in letters of gold ' John Smith, lord mayor, 1678 '. The needs of the north bank were met by laying a pipe over the old bridge. In spite of these efforts there were complaints of scarcity, and strict orders were passed against mill races, the diversion of supply, and private selling of water. Municipal water rates were fixed, but the collection was farmed out to a contractor.33 Municipal fire-engines were provided in 1670 and orders for hooks, ladders and buckets in every parish. There were many chimney fires; orders were passed in 1685 for the regular sweeping of chimneys, and a fine of twenty shillings was prescribed whenever a chimney went on fire. There was no system of public lighting; every fifth householder was supposed to hang out a lantern between six and nine on dark nights in the winter. The paving of the streets was the subject of bitter complaint; bad workmanship was blamed for their condition and there were proposals for a paviers' corporation on the London model. 82 P.R.O.I., 33
MS M2549. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iv. 413, 461-2; v. 345, 490; Observations of Thomas Dingley (N.L.I., MS 392); H. F. Berry, 'The water supply of indent Dublin' in R.S.A.I. Jn., xxi. 557-73.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
58
One of the troubles was brewers' drays —- slide-cars with iron runners in place of wheels — which broke up the pavement. The corporation licensed hackney coaches, fifty being considered enough to serve the needs of the city and liberties. The licence fees were earmarked for the provision of a workhouse. Beadles were appointed ' for the prevention of the many idle beggars wherewith all parts of the city have been filled'. There were two pest houses on the island of Clontarf to deal with infectious diseases.34 There was what was called a hospital in Back Lane, but it seems to have been a mere repository for the old and feeble, and there was no regular provision for the care of the sick. The practice of medicine in Dublin and for seven miles round it was controlled by the College of Physicians, the chief begetter of which had been Dr John Stearne, the first professor of medicine in Trinity College. In 1685 Patrick Dun was its president for the fifth year in succession. The charter of the College of Physicians imposed no religious bar and several catholics had been elected to fellowships during Charles IFs reign. Surgeons were less highly esteemed and were grouped with barbers in the Fraternity of Barbers and Chirurgeons of the guild of St Mary Magdalene. James II was soon to give them a new charter, which added periwig makers to the mixture.35 The guild system was still an important feature of the city's life. The guild of the Holy Trinity, or merchants' guild, tried with qualified success to maintain a monopoly of trade. By the end of Charles IPs reign this guild had more than 400 brethren. They kept a common cellar and warehouse in Winetavern Street to facilitate their dealings with the outside world. Oaths were prescribed that restricted membership to protestants, but catholics could become quarter brothers and this gave them some of the advantages of guild membership. There were many craft guilds with similar rules. Among them were the goldsmiths, the tallow chandlers, and St Luke's guild of cutlers, painter-stainers and stationers. The latest addition was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guild of saddlers, coach and coach-harness makers, bridle makers and wheelwrights.36 The leisure of Dubliners was well provided for. There were tennis courts in Winetavern Street and St John's Lane; the remains of the Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iv. 493, 504; v. 32, 205, 207, 252-3, 357. J. D . H . Widdess, History of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, pp. 1-32. 86 J. J. Webbe, Guilds of Dublin; Cal S,P. dom., i6jJ-8, p. 451. 84
85
Dublin in 1685
59
latter are still to be seen. There was a magnificent bowling green north of the river to the west of Queen Street and a bowling alley near the Blind Quay on the south side. Plays were performed in the theatre in Smock Alley, which was the responsibility of the master of the revels, who was at pains to point out how much at a loss he was from maintaining a company of excellent actors. Stephen's Green was laid out with trees and the corporation had just ordered sixty-nine trees to be planted in Oxmantown Green. For thirsty citizens there were i,180 alehouses supplied by ninety-one brewers.37 Dublin University had made a good recovery from its troubles in the middle of the century. It had increased its income as a result of the restoration land-settlement and the general prosperity of the country. The fellows of the college included some able men. The provost, whose post was worth almost £400 a year, was Dr Robert Huntingdon, who had recently replaced his better-known predecessor, Narcissus Marsh.38 Marsh and Huntingdon were both oriental scholars of distinction. Swift's tutor, St George Ashe, and Edward Smith were both prominent members of the Dublin Philosophical Society and both later became bishops. A new fellow elected in 1685 was John Hall, a Kerryman who championed the Irish language and was commended as having ' no equal for protecting the Gaels and improving their ways \ 39 The term after his election Hall was made keeper of the library. The growing numbers had already made both the chapel and the dining hall inadequate in Marsh's time. By the end of 1684 a new chapel had been built and consecrated: the painted and gilded organ had cost £120. The student body must have numbered nearly 400. Marsh had earlier put it at 340 and said it was increasing rapidly each year. The academic ye?tr 1684-5 was a peak year with 101 matriculations. Among them was a future provost, Benjamin Pratt. Swift was in his junior sophister year.40 Protestant schooling was quite well provided for by the two cathedral schools, the new foundation of King's Hospital and a number of private teachers. St Patrick's School seems to have been flourishing. No less than twelve of those who matriculated in 1684-5 were educated under the rod of Mr Torway, its headmaster. King's Hospital "Gilbert, op. cit., i. 53, 157; Cal. S.P. dom., 1682, p. 621; Cal. anc. rec.38Dublin, v. 212, 321; Petty, op. cit., i. 146. Clarendon corr., i. 256. G. Quin, 'MS ... for John Hall', in Hermathena, liii. 127. 40 Stubbs, History of the University of Dublin, p. 114; T.C.D., Muniment Room MSS and Registers, 39
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
60
in Oxmantown, which had absorbed the old city free school, seems to have been primarily designed for poor boys, nominated by benefactors. The most successful of the private teachers was William Birkbeck, eight of whose pupils matriculated in that year. George Toilet, a member of the Philosophical Society, had a high reputation as a mathematical teacher.41 Much less is known of catholic education, but we hear a little later on of Patrick Bourke, teacher of mathematics, who asked the Jacobite corporation to establish a free school for teaching that subject on a vocational basis.42 The centre of intellectual life in the city was the Philosophical Society, which in 1685 had Sir William Petty as president and William Molyneux as secretary. Meetings were held in the Crow's Nest off Dame Street, where a surprising variety of subjects was discussed. The items for 1685 ranged from the dissection of a ' monstrous double cat' to the testing of pulvis fulminans, a kind of gunpowder plus. Most of the members were of settler stock, but the names of Foley, Keogh and Houlaghan are racier of the soil. At leasi one member, Mark Bagot, was a catholic. The society had international links. It corresponded with the Oxford Society and the London Royal Society, which published Dublin papers in its proceedings. One of the members was a Dutch doctor named Jacob Sylvius who had settled in Dublin and received the M.D. degree from the university. His magnum opus, Novissima idea de febribus, was published in Dublin in 1686. Sylvius was a friend of the celebrated Peter Bayle, with whom the society exchanged greetings. At the same time the society took an active interest in Ireland and things Irish. Among the proceedings of 1685 was an account by St George Ashe of a ' strange flowing back of the river Shannon', a report from Edward Smith on the petrifying qualities of Lough Neagh, and a communication about the discovery of cremation urns in county Cork.48 The intellectual curiosity of the society was matched by the number of booksellers and publishers. The oddest of the books published in 1685 were the rival almanacs of Bourke and Dr Whalley. In this year also appeared the short-lived Dublin Newsletter, printed by J. Ray on College Green for Robert Thornton at the Leather 41
Lawlor, Fasti of St Patrick's, p. 254; F. R. Falkiner, Foundation ... of Charles II, p. 70; C. McNeill, Tanner letters, p. 496. 42 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 462. 43 Minutes and register of the Philosophical Society (B.M., Add. MS 4811).
Dublin in 1685
61
Bottle in Skinner Row.44 Robert Boyle sent over from London the sheets of the Irish bible to be bound and issued in Dublin, where printers had no means of printing the Irish language.45 Religion played an important part in the life of the city. The church of Ireland was recovering from the wars and the effects of Cromwell's iconoclasm. During Charles IPs reign St Patrick's cathedral was reroofed and provided with a new altar resplendent in paint and gilt; a new organ was completed in 1685. In the same year a contract was made to restore the choir pews and the archbishop's throne with Danzig oak and to floor the choir with black and white marble.46 Christ Church also spent heavily on improvements to the choir and had recently invested in a four-faced chiming clock. The two cathedrals joined in raising money for new sets of bells, six for Christ Church and eight for St Patrick's. Both were cast by the same founder from obsolete canon presented by Charles II. The Christ Church tenor bell tolled curfew each night, with the result that by 1685 it was badly cracked and had to be replaced in the following year. Cooperation between the cathedrals extended to sharing a choir.47 There was one new parish church, St Andrew's, which was called the round church, though in Gomme's map it looks more like a turnip. When Lord Clarendon arrived as viceroy he was able to assure the archbishop of Canterbury that the Dublin churches were in very good order and for the most part very well served and ' infinitely crowded' with worshippers.48 The catholic church had its ups and downs in Charles II's reign. Even during the popish plot agitation there were protestant complaints that the mass houses which before were kept in private ' are now as publicly frequented as our churches'. This was followed by a drive to prohibit masses and expel Jesuits and dignitaries of the catholic church.49 In 1685 the catholic archbishop was Patrick Russell, who. had succeeded Peter Talbot. Russell had often had to go underground for self-protection. Another of the Dublin catholic clergy was singled out for his courage in remaining continually in the heart of the 41
N.L.I, has many of the issues for 1685. R. E. Maddison, ' Robert Boyle and the Irish bible' in John Rylands Library Bull, xli. 80-101 (1958). *QR.S.A.I. Jn., xl. 229; lxv. 49-72; Mason, History of St Patrick's, 45
p. 202. 47
48 49
Ch. Ch. MSS; R.S.A.I. ]n., xl. 155-9; Petty> °P- cit., i. 164. Clarendon corr., i. 407. Cal, S.P. dom.y 1679-80, pp. 18, 113.
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
62
city.50 The principal catholic church was in Francis Street; it had been rebuilt by the Franciscans on the site of an old convent, but in the circumstances of the popish plot agitation had been handed over to the secular clergy. 1685 transformed the situation for catholics. During that summer Archbishop Russell held a meeting in Dublin of the bishops of his province, and they requested the king to establish the earl of Tyrconnell in such authority as might secure them in the exercise of their functions. But the catholic church was still not fully emancipated. Throughout that year the clergy refrained from wearing clerical dress in public. In the following year King James authorised the bishops to wear long black cassocks and cloaks, but they were still not to wear pectoral crosses in public.51 Up to the time of Charles II's death the official attitude to catholic churches was that they were not allowed, and that at most their existence might be winked at. A priest who preached publicly in a surplice was sent for by the protestant Archbishop Marsh and warned not to repeat his misdemeanour.52 Archbishop Marsh had an equally intolerant attitude to protestant dissenters and warned them not to use their public meeting houses.53 There were several of these and the protestant dissenters of Dublin seem to have formed a large community. The New Row and Wood Street meeting houses had two ministers each. They, and their congregations, seem to have been of the English puritan tradition. The Capel Street meeting house belonged to the synod of Ulster and evidently catered for the Scottish variety of presbyterian.54 There were about 200 quaker families in Dublin, divided into three meetings; one near Wormwood (or Ormond) gate, one in Bride Street, and one in Meath Street, where a new meeting house had just been completed. Quakers also fell under the disapproval of Archbishop Marsh, who had recently committed Anthony Sharp and others to the Marshalsea prison. Of all the protestant groups the quakers were to enjoy most favour under James II. 55 Renehan's collections on Ir. church hist., i. 229-30; Moran, Spicil. Oss., ii. 270. 51 N. Donnelly, Short hist, of Dublin parishes, ii. 32; Renehan, i. 231; Clarendon corr.y i. 395. 52 #. M. C. Ormonde MSS, N.S., vii. 314. 53 Ibid., p. 315. 54 T. Witherow, Historical and literary memorials of presbyterians in Ireland, i. 60, 81, 127; Records of presbyterian church. 35 J. Rutty, Rise . . . of quakers, pp. 149-50; information supplied by Mrs. O. Goodbody 50
Dublin in 1685
63
The unexpected death of Charles II in February 1685 came as a shock to the protestants of Dublin. They grieved over Ormond's recall and feared the worst — that Richard Talbot would be his successor. The following months were ominous, but not disastrous. Two reliable protestants, the archbishop of Armagh and Lord Granard, held the government while the names of various Englishmen were canvassed for the lord lieutenancy. But Talbot soon came over with his new Tyrconnell title and a roving commission to meddle with the army. Catholic commissions were given and protestant militiamen disarmed. Nerves were fraying, and in October 1685 there were riots in the Dublin streets; the constables were overpowered and strong action by the military was resorted to before order was restored.50 The year ended more cheerfully with the arrival of the new viceroy, Clarendon, the king's protestant brother-in-law. But the relief was short-lived and the situation for protestants deteriorated rapidly. The Dublin of 1685 was a prosperous, and in some ways a civilised, city. But its prosperity was founded on too narrow a basis and was too greatly dependent on the support of an English government. It was the capital of a predominantly catholic country, but its administration was exclusively protestant, and catholics were a small minority among its merchant and professional classes. Its strength had lain in the close links between its leading elements and the ruling classes of Ireland and England. When those links were broken and when the government of Charles and Ormonde was replaced by the unsympathetic policy of James and the active hostility of Tyrconnell, a time of trouble began for Dublin. Flight and fear were to be the experience of many of its protestant citizens until deliverance came and they were able to resume, with an added intolerance, their former predominance in the life of the city.
36
Cal. S.P. dom., 1685, P- 375-
This page intentionally left blank
6 THE JACOBITE PARLIAMENT OF 1689 I.
INTRODUCTORY
For most of its long life the Irish parliament was a body that met intermittently and exercised little influence. For nearly three centuries its legislative power was limited by Poynings' law, which required that every bill should have been approved in advance by the king and his English council. During the middle ages the parliament represented only the Anglo-Norman colony; in the eighteenth century it represented only the Protestants. In the twenty-five years of Charles II's reign there was only a single parliament and, though there was no legal bar to Catholic membership, in fact no Catholic sat in the house of commons during this parliament; for the last eighteen years of the reign it did not meet at all. James II's parliament of 1689 aroused much more interest than preceding parliaments had done. It was predominantly Catholic in composition and included both Gaelic and ' old English ' elements; it was in this way more representative of the majority of the nation than any other Irish parliament, though it was no more democratic than were English parliaments of the period. Its house of commons represented counties and cities or boroughs—two members for each county and two for each city or borough, irrespective of size. The electorate for the counties were the holders of freehold land worth forty shillings a year. The electorate for cities and boroughs depended on the terms of particular charters. In the largest group the mayor and council were the electoral body, but in a number of boroughs the freemen were also included, and occasionally the inhabitants as a whole. From Charles II's time onwards there were 150 two-member constituencies—thirty-two counties, 117 cities or boroughs (some of them very small indeed) and the University of Dublin. A remarkable diversity of opinion has been expressed about the Irish parliament of 1689. Particularly during the nineteenth century it was the subject of much controversial writing. Thomas Davis praised it highly in articles that were later republished by Gavan Duffy under the title of The patriot parliament of 1689. It was fiercely attacked by Macaulay as ' deficient in all the qualities a legislature ought to possess.' Froude condemned it as unconstitutional and ill-timed. Lecky rallied to its defence; some of its proceedings he found regrettable but understandable, others he praised as liberal and enlightened. In its own day the parliament was criticised from all points of view. Williamite writers naturally challenged its authority and castigated its proceedings. To them it was the ' pretended parlia-
66
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
ment,' an unconstitutional gathering of the rebellious supporters of a fallen king. But contemporary Jacobite accounts were hardly less unfavourable; they criticised it as ill-timed, as prejudicial to King James's prospects, and as failing to meet the demands of Irish Catholics. We have, unfortunately, very incomplete material to help us to decide between these different opinions. The Williamite parliament of 1695 ordered the proceedings of the Jacobite parliament to be destroyed. We are therefore dependent for our information on the Williamite accounts that were published while the parliament was in session or soon after; on the memoirs compiled by King James's secretaries; on the correspondence of the French ambassador, M. d'Avaux; and on the opinions of the Irish chroniclers, Plunkett and O'Kelly. The fullest version of the proceedings is given by William King, later Protestant archbishop of Dublin. He is a hostile witness, but he was in Dublin at the time and some of his evidence is corroborated by other accounts. The most objective of the Williamite material is that which gives the names of the members and the text of many of the acts.1 II.
THE SUMMONING OF PARLIAMENT
The parliament was closely linked to the events of the English revolution of 1688. James II, betrayed by his English army and unable to resist the invading forces of William of Orange, fled to France in December of that year. The greater part of Ireland remained loyal to him. Tyrconnell, the Catholic viceroy, showed much energy in organising an army and suppressing dissident Protestants. He assured his king that he would find a welcome in Ireland, and James after some hesitation accepted the invitation and reached Kinsale on 12 March 1689. On 24 March he arrived in Dublin and next day issued a proclamation summoning parliament for 7 May. The promptness of this decision calls for some comment. Ever since the accession of James II in 1685 there had been a demand on the part of Catholics for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation which had been passed by an all-Protestant parliament in 1662 and 1665. The declared object of these acts was to carry out Charles II's promises and to combine the reinstatement of Catholics with the preservation of Cromwellian interests. In practice they produced a settlement heavily weighted on the Protestant side and regarded by Catholics as highly unsatisfactory. While he was still on the throne of England James had given a number of assurances that the settlement would not be altered, but the demand continued and with it a call for a parliament to alter the settlement and pass other measures of Catholic relief. Tyrconnell had paved the way for such a parliament by remodelling the borough corporations which 1. The first three items in the list of sources on p. 82.
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 67 would return most of the members. This was done by the quo warranto procedure (of which Charles II had made effective use in England); the crown demanded the surrender of town and city charters and issued fresh ones, appointing new members of the corporations by name. Previously the corporations had been wholly Protestant; now they all had Catholic majorities, although in a number of them, notably Belfast, there were a substantial number of Protestants. Members of corporations were, of course, not necessarily resident in the towns. Further preparations for holding a parliament in 1688 included the drafting of bills, among them one for the modification (not the repeal) of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. James's English advisers were opposed to upsetting an arrangement which was regarded as safeguarding the English interest in Ireland, and no parliament had been sanctioned by the time of William's invasion. The English revolution and the backing it found among Protestants in Ireland lent force to the Catholic demand for a radical change of the land-settlement. It could be argued that such a change would strengthen support for the crown as well as meeting the claims of dispossessed Catholic landowners. In his book The state of the Protestants William King states that when parliament was summoned and the election writs sent out Tyrconnell sent letters with them recommending the persons whom he favoured, and that in most cases these persons were returned by the compliance of the mayors and sheriffs in boroughs and counties. Such methods of packing a parliament were by no means unprecedented, and King's account is probable enough. Such references as remain in corporation books to the return of members to this parliament say nothing of any alternative candidates. There is in fact no mention of any contest except in Dublin city, where King says that Gerard Dillon, ' a most furious Papist,' failed to be elected because he had purchased an estate under the Act of Settlement and was therefore presumed likely to oppose the repeal of the act. The list of the commons is set out in full in Thomas Davis's The patriot parliament from a reprint of a contemporary pamphlet and is of considerable interest. It shows that 230 members were returned out of the full quota of 300; there were no county representatives for Donegal, Fermanagh and Londonderry, and a number of boroughs, mainly in Ulster, failed to make returns.1 King says that there were six Protestants in the house. The two of whom he approved were the representatives of the University of Dublin, Sir John Meade and Joseph Coghlan, who had been with difficulty prevailed upon to stand:' the university must choose and it could not stand with their honour to choose Papists'—a reflection which suggests that Tyrconnell allowed the university some liberty of election. Davis quotes King's estimate of the Protestant representation and regrets that he did not give the 1. box the list of members see Appendix A.
68
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
other names. A contemporary pamphlet says there were only five Protestants in the commons: Sir John Meade, Joseph Coghlan, Sir Thomas Crosby, Arthur [Brownlow], and Jeremy Donovan. Sir Thomas Crosby belonged to a well-known Kerry family and sat for that county; subsequently he had some difficulty in explaining away his action to the Wilhamite authorities. Arthur Brownlow was returned for Armagh county, but withdrew before the end of the session. He had an unusual background. His real name was Chamberlain, and on his father's side he belonged to an ' old English ' family of county Louth. He inherited the estate and name of his mother's father, Sir William Brownlow of Lurgan, who had married an O'Doherty lady from Inishowen. Arthur Brownlow had been one of the few sheriffs approved of by Tyrconnell out of those selected by the previous viceroy, Lord Clarendon. He had a good knowledge of Irish and was a collector of manuscripts, his principal treasure being the Book of Armagh. Jeremy Donovan sat for the borough of Baltimore, county Cork. He was the head of one of the branches of a well-known Gaelic family, but had become a Protestant; the Williamite government, after starting proceedings against him, decided to spare him on this ground. The sixth Protestant was Sir William Ellis, an Englishman who was Tyrconnell's secretary. He was one of four remarkable brothers who were, respectively, a Protestant bishop, a Catholic bishop, a Williamite official, and a Jacobite official. He sat for the borough of St. Johnstown, county Longford. Of the Catholic members, more than two-thirds bore English names, and the house was much more representative of the ' old English ' than of the Gaelic Irish. Most of the well-known ' Pale ' families—such as Fitzgerald, Dillon and Nugent—were represented. The Gaelic members included Charles O'Kelly, who sat for county Roscommon and later wrote a history of the war under the curious title of the Destruction of Cyprus. Two O'Reillys sat for county Cavan; an O'Brien and a MacNamara represented county Clare. One of the Tyrone members was Gordon O'Neill, Sir Phelim's son. Other famous Gaelic names are scattered through the lists. The house contained some able lawyers, including Sir Richard Nagle (who was elected speaker), Terence MacDonagh and Sir Toby Butler; but a generation excluded from public life was naturally lacking in parliamentary experience. Two leading soldiers, Patrick Sarsfield and Justin MacCarthy, were also among the members. Dr. Alexis Stafford, who sat for a Wexford borough, was a remarkable priest whom James made dean of Christ Church and a Master in Chancery; he died on the field of Aughrim. The composition of the house of lords is variously estimated by contemporary accounts, some of which include peers who were summoned but did not attend. The most noticeable feature of the house was that the bishops were those of the Church of Ireland and not of the Catholic Church. This was severely criticised by Charles
The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 69 0'Kelly, who attributed James's decision to a determination to do nothing for the restoration of the Catholic Church that would offend English Protestant opinion. Four Protestant bishops—Meath, Ossory, Limerick and Cork—took their seats; three others were still in Ireland, including the archbishop of Armagh, but were excused for age or infirmity; the rest had fled to England. The ablest of those who attended was Anthony Dopping, bishop of Meath, who in effect acted as leader of the opposition. The ' Exact list,' published in London in the autumn of 1689, contains the names of thirty-one lay lords; most of them belonged t o ' old English ' families, but Gaelic Ireland was represented by Lords Iveagh, Clanmaliere, Clancarty and others. There were five Protestant lay lords— Granard, Longford, Barrymore, Howth and Rosse; the last of these was married to Lady TyrconnelTs daughter. By the time that parliament met on 7 May it was known that James's forces were faced with strong resistance from Protestants in Deny and Enniskillen. Much of the criticism directed against the parliament was to the effect that it was highly imprudent to to allow parliamentary debates to divert attention from the pressing need to gain control of these intransigent Ulster towns. The session was held in the King's Inns, a former Dominican convent near the present Four Courts. It is not known why it was not held in Chichester House on College Green, where other parliaments of the period met; it may have been because it was in a poor state of repair. James himself attended, wearing his robes and a crown newly made in Dublin. The personal appearance of an English king at the opening of an Irish parliament was without a parallel, and remained so until 1921 when George V opened the parliament in Belfast. James's speech is quoted in full by Davis. Its chief theme was liberty of conscience, which James declared himself determined to establish by law. The good of the nation, the improvement of trade and the relief of those injured by the Act of Settlement were also included in the programme. The speech in general, and in particular the failure to promise actual repeal of the Act of Settlement, must have disappointed his hearers, although there was no note of criticism in their reply. III.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
The legality of the parliament has been hotly disputed. The Williamite view was that James was no longer king of England and consequently no longer king of Ireland, the latter being ' united and inseparably annexed to the imperial crown of England.' The Jacobite view was that William was a usurper and that James continued to be king of both England and Ireland. The parliament has also been criticised on the ground that it did not comply with the provisions of Poynings' law, which required the proposed legislation to be certified into England and returned under the great seal of
70
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
England; James's seal had gone to the bottom of the Thames. This objection may be regarded as technical. Poynings' law was not designed for a situation in which the king was in Ireland and could give his personal sanction on the spot for the holding of an Irish parliament. The parliament which James summoned in Dublin had a better theoretical claim to be considered legitimate than had the Williamite parliament in London. Which was the pretended parliament and who were the rebels would depend on the outcome of the war. The spirit of Poynings' law was observed to the extent that the legislative programme was scrutinised in advance by James and his council; the latter (curiously enough) included the French ambassador, M. d'Avaux, whose despatches refer to these preliminary consultations. The first bill to be approved by the council was, naturally, an acknowledgment of James as rightful king and a condemnation of all opposition to him. The act of which Davis approved most highly was that declaring that the parliament of England did not bind Ireland and prohibiting appeals in Irish cases being brought before English courts.1 It had long been argued whether English laws were enforceable in Ireland. The subject had been raised in the negotiations between the confederate Catholics and Charles I, and the question had become more acute during the reign of Charles II, in which restrictions were imposed on Irish trade by English acts. The Declaratory Act of James's parliament in 1689 was the forerunner of the long argument begun by Molyneux and continued by Swift and Grattan for the right of Ireland to be independent of English laws and courts. Molyneux and Swift ignored the expression that the parliament of 1689 had given to this claim. Grattan did not overlook it, though he put his own interpretation on it: the Irish Catholics, he said, should not be reproached for fighting under King James's banner, ' when we recollect that before they entered the field they extorted from him a Magna Carta, a British constitution.' The act declared that Ireland had always been a kingdom distinct from that of England; its people had never sent representatives to a parliament held in England, but had their laws made in their own parliament. No English acts were ever binding in Ireland unless they had been passed into law by an Irish parliament: ' yet of late times (especially in times of distraction) some have pretended that acts of parliament passed in England, mentioning Ireland, were binding in Ireland.' This idea was declared to be against justice and natural equity, oppressive to the people and destructive of the fundamental constitution. It was therefore prescribed that no English act, even though it mentioned Ireland, should be binding unless it was made into law by the Irish parliament. The act also prohibited the practice of preferring appeals from the court of king's 1. For the text of this act see Appendix B.
The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 71 bench in Ireland to the corresponding court in England, and substituted an Irish court of appeal. Appeals from the high court of chancery in Ireland to the English house of lords were also prohibited. James is said to have regarded the Declaratory Act as reflecting on his own prerogative and only to have assented to it because of the pressure exerted by his Irish subjects. He refused to agree to the repeal of Poynings' law, which had evoked different responses in its chequered career, but since Charles I's reign had been resented by Irish Catholics. D'Avaux's correspondence suggests that before the parliament met James had been persuaded to agree to a modification of Poynings' law by which proposed legislation should be scrutinised by the viceroy but not sent over in advance to England. According to the English pamphlets a bill for the repeal of Poynings' law was introduced into the commons on 15 May but did not reach the report stage till 21 June, when a spokesman for the court stated that the king insisted on royal approval being given in advance before legislation was passed by the house of commons. This would nullify the object of the bill. The account continues: ' it is ordered to be recommitted, and the house inclined to be as free as the parliament in England.' No further reference is made to the progress of the bill, and it seems clear that James's opposition had been effective in blocking a measure which would have detracted from the king's prerogative much more directly than the declaratory act had done. King says that because James signified his dissatisfaction the bill was dropped, ' though the Irish had talked much and earnestly desired the repeal of Poynings' law, it being the greatest sign and means of their subjection to England.' IV.
THE REPEAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
To many of James's supporters the repeal of the restoration landsettlement was the primary object of the parliament. But this proved to be a highly controversial piece of legislation and much of the session was taken up in acrimonious wrangling about it. James had previously committed himself on many occasions to the maintenance of the settlement, which was regarded as an essential security for English control of Ireland. He himself had been granted an enormous estate, spread over sixteen counties, by the provision of the Act of Settlement that vested in him the lands that had been held by the regicides under the Commonwealth. He found support in the ' new interest,' those Catholics who had bought lands from those who had received grants under the settlement. Several of the Jacobite judges were in this position and they formed an active pressure group against the repeal. Tyrconnell had himself amassed a large estate (mostly in counties Dublin, Kildare and Meath) in the course of his activities during Charles II's reign as agent for the Irish Catholics. Arguments were also put forth on behalf of the few Protestants who had remained loyal to James and would be adversely affected by the repeal of the settlement.
72
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
The controversy can be followed in d'Avaux's correspondence and the English pamphlets, which are in general agreement. The bill was introduced in the commons on io May and received with a huzza and supplementary motions that nothing could be more advantageous to the king and the country than to destroy the horrid and barbarous Act of Settlement, which should be burned by the common hangman. A rival and much more limited bill was introduced in the house of lords on 13 May, which is said to have provided for the restoration of only half the lands to the dispossessed proprietors. This attempt at a compromise was defeated in the lords, but the opponents of repeal succeeded in delaying the commons bill for nearly a fortnight. When that bill reached the lords, further delay was caused by hearing objections and listening to individual applications for special treatment, while the commons grew more and more impatient. The lords made a number of amendments, and on James's suggestion a more moderate preamble was substituted for the exercise in historical polemics that the commons had approved. Davis gives both versions of the preamble. When the bill as amended was put to the vote in the house of lords, it was opposed in a vigorous speech by the bishop of Meath, who condemned it as unjust, contrary to the interest of both king and country and, above all, ill-timed: ' is it now a time for men to seek for vineyards and olive yards when a civil war is raging in the nation and we are under apprehension of invasions from abroad ? ' He said it was like trying to dispose of the skin before the beast was caught. In spite of this episcopal eloquence the bill was approved by the lords. The bishops and four of the Protestant lay lords wished to register their protest, but James objected to the term on the ground that it had rebellious overtones; they might register their dissent without specifying their reasons. But James seems to have been pleased that objections had been raised to a measure to which he himself was reluctant to agree. Charles Leslie of Glaslough, a Protestant clergyman who remained loyal to James, says that it was well known that James encouraged the Protestant lords to oppose the bill and that he had complained to Lord Granard that ' he was fallen into the hands of a people who rammed many hard things down his throat.' The amended bill was then sent back to the commons, who objected to the changes. Further delay was caused by a series of conferences between the two houses, and tempers in the commons grew frayed. Particular offence was caused by the remarks of one of the ' new interest' judges, Denis Daly, who had referred to the commons as a ' Masanello's assembly,' and had said that men from whom King James took estates could not be expected to fight for him. Masanello was a Naples fisherman who had headed a proletarian rising, and the odious comparison led the commons to start proceedings for Daly's impeachment. One of his friends saved him by spreading a rumour that Deny had been taken, and in the atmosphere of good humour
The
Jacobite
Parliament
of
1689
73
created by this news the impeachment proceedings were dropped. The two houses continued to disagree, and d'Avaux reported that ames was supporting the opposition. The commons threatened to withhold supplies, and this proved effective in securing agreement to the bill, which received the royal assent on 22 June, six weeks after its introduction. The full text of the act is given by Davis. It repealed the Acts of Settlement and Explanation and annulled all titles derived from them (with the exception of a few specific cases). The landholders of 1641 or their heirs were authorised to take steps for the recovery of their property, and all outlawries arising from the insurrection were cancelled. A court of claims consisting of three or more commissioners was to be set up to determine the rights of individuals to the recoverable property. The ' new interest'—those who had bought land from Charles IPs grantees—were to be compensated with the lands of William's supporters, which the act declared to be forfeited. The act went beyond mere repeal of the settlement and was made to apply to all who rebelled against James or even corresponded with the rebels, even if their land was not held under the settlement. King remarks that this affected almost every Protestant who could write. A special clause cancelled the grant, dating from James I's time, of Deny city and county to the London companies. The right of Deny corporation to its property would remain, but the rest of the property would go to form part of the stock available for compensating Jacobites. James himself was to be compensated for the loss of his Irish estate by a grant of Lord Kingston's lands in Cork and Roscommon. He was also to keep the Phoenix park and the royal lands at Chapelizod. Other clauses provided for the interests of influential individuals. One of these was the Catholic lawyer and entrepreneur John Browne of Westport (ancestor of the Marquesses of Sligo), whose ironworks at Knappagh, county Mayo, were declared to be of national importance and excluded from the operation of the Act of Repeal. He had bought the land from Lord Mayo under the Act of Settlement. In 1641 Catholics still held the greater part of the land in Leinster, Munster and Connacht. The Act of Repeal made provision—if James should win the war—for the recovery of what they had since lost. Those who had already been dispossessed before 1641, notably the Ulster Gaels, were not specifically provided for. But the future ownership of Irish land would depend on the outcome of the war; a Jacobite victory was essential if the repeal of the settlement was to have any meaning. In the event, the procedure laid down in the act does not seem to have been put into operation. Shortly after the adjournment of the parliament James issued a proclamation that there would be no court of claims for the time being ' because some may neglect the public safety of the kingdom upon pretence of attending their private concerns.' We hear nothing more of the court of claims, and the Jacobite defeat at the Boyne made the Act of Repeal a dead letter.
74
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
The act has been criticised as retrospective and confiscatory legislation. But the demand for it was very natural. The restoration settlement had from the first been bitterly attacked by Catholics on the ground that it was weighted in favour of Cromwellians. Their attitude was later summed up by Swift: ' the Catholics of Ireland lost their estates for fighting in defence of their king, while those who cut off the father's head and forced the son to fly for his life got the very estates which the Catholics lost.' Pressure for the alteration of the settlement had been going on all through Charles II's reign, and the demand increased after the accession of James II. After the English revolution it was the hope of getting back their lands that chiefly led the Catholics to support James. They made it clear to him that their support was conditional upon his giving them what they wanted, and their demand was strengthened by the fact that most of their supplanters were in open opposition to James. The ownership of the land was a major issue in the war. Outright victory for either side would result in large transfers of land to the victors. Protestants were no less insistent on this point than Catholics were. Each regarded the others as rebels, and the confiscation of the lands of defeated rebels was a commonplace of Irish history. Retrospective interference with vested interests was not a novelty in Ireland, where the crown recognised no time limit in asserting its title to land. Protestant propaganda made much of the repeal of the settlement, but the repeal was not responsible for William's policy, which he had already declared to be the forfeiture of the estates of those who refused to acknowledge him. The real argument against the act was that it distracted attention from the military effort at a critical stage of the war. Prolonged and acrimonious parliamentary debates should not have been allowed to coincide with the siege of Deny. The provisions of the act itself involved complicated investigations which threatened to conflict with the energetic prosecution of the war. V.
THE ACT OF ATTAINDER
A measure that aroused even more Protestant indignation was the Act of Attainder, directed against those who were said to have joined William either in England or in the north of Ireland. King describes it as without parallel since the days of ancient Rome and as a Papist design to bring about the utter extirpation of the heretics. Davis regarded it as the great mistake of the parliament: it could not, he thought, be made effective without a Jacobite victory, which would make it unnecessary and vindictive. Lecky called it an act of sweeping and violent injustice, the great blot on the reputation of the parliament; but he found some extenuating circumstances. It was a conditional attainder (or outlawry), launched in the middle of a civil war; religion was not the criterion, but refusal to acknowledge James. Lecky regarded its real aim as confiscation of property and not the taking of life. He pointed out
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 75 that at the same time the English parliament was debating a bill for the attainder of Jacobites in Ireland. That bill, however, was not passed, and involved a much smaller number of individuals. The act referred to the ' most horrid invasion of the king's unnatural enemy, the Prince of Orange, assisted by many of his majesty's rebellious and traitorous subjects.' It contained the names of over 2,000 individuals, divided into different categories. There are discrepancies in the numbers shown in various accounts, and there is some duplication of names. The summary given in King's State of the Protestants does not tally with the text of the act, which he gives in an appendix as an authentic copy of the document found by the Williamite authorities in the rolls office after the battle of the Boyne. According to this, the first category, consisting of those who had notoriously joined in the rebellion, contained 1,340 names headed by the Duke of Ormond and the Protestant archbishop of Dublin. They were to be declared traitors and suffer the usual penalties of death and confiscation, unless by 10 August they surrendered to a judge and then, after due trial, were acquitted. The second category—840 names headed by the Protestant archbishop of Tuam and Arthur Chichester, Earl of Donegall—consisted of those who had left Ireland since the date of William's invasion of England or shortly before that; their absence in spite of proclamations calling them home would be construed as treason unless they returned by 1 September and presented themselves to a judge. The third category—200 in number—consisted of those who had gone at an earlier stage to live in England, Scotland or the Isle of Man. They were given till 1 October to return to Ireland; if James had by that date reached Britain (an optimistic touch), he would offer pardon to those who were bona fide resident there. The final category— 90 names—consisted of those whose absence was due to sickness, old age or other disability. They were not to be attainted; but, as it would impoverish the country to send them their rents, their lands were in the meantime to be vested in the crown. If they later returned and behaved as loyal subjects, they might claim them back. Little time was given for repentance, and we do not hear of any persons returning to the Jacobite allegiance. King maintains that the names were deliberately kept secret so as to deny any opportunity to those who might have been inclined to return. But there were enough Protestants in both houses to prevent the names from being altogether concealed, and frequent reports of Dublin proceedings were taken over to England. The first list of the names in the act was published in London in the spring of 1690. It is evidently a garbled version, which muddles the categories and contains considerably fewer names than King has in his appendix. It did not appear till after the specified dates had passed, and it is certainly true that it would not have been easy for anybody in England to have returned within the time limit to Jacobite Ireland. But the great majority of those mentioned were clearly supporters of
76
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
William, and it is difficult to take the view that the act was any more outrageous than the very summary judicial proceedings for treason which took place after the rising of 1641 and which were to be repeated by the Williamite authorities after the battle of the Boyne.1 The lists are of great interest as providing an extensive series of names and addresses of Irish Protestants of the late seventeenth century. They are mostly landowners, but there are a number of yeomen and shopkeepers included in the lists, which cover the whole country. King was particularly scathing about a clause of the act which barred James from granting pardons after 1 November. He says that it made James so angry that he developed a fit of nose-bleeding, a weakness to which he was subject. The memoirs of James's life refer ruefully to this provision as a case in which he sacrificed his own interest to the wishes of his subjects. The Protestant parliament of 1697 made a similar restriction of William's prerogative of mercy. Each parliament was suspicious of the excessive leniency of its sovereign. VI.MATTERSOFRELIGION
Catholics naturally hoped for legislation that would restore their church to the position it had held before the reformation. A Williamite pamphlet gives what is stated to be an address presented to James by the Catholic bishops and clergy, copies of which are said to have been found in Dublin after the battle of the Boyne. The address asked for the repeal of the Act of Uniformity (which gave recognition to the Protestant established church alone) and of the penal laws, and also asked for the restoration of the Catholic bishops and clergy to their livings, churches and authority. It was argued that there was no need to humour English Protestants, who were more likely to be upset by James's secular measures than by the restoration of the Catholic Church in Ireland. If this address was made it was to meet with little success. The summoning of Protestant, and not Catholic, bishops to the house of lords was an indication of James's determination to preserve the position of the established church. In his opening speech to parliament he made no reference to either church, but confined himself to expressing support for liberty of conscience. The bill for liberty of conscience as first sent up by the commons appears to have included a provision for the repeal of the Act of Uniformity. A contemporary Protestant pamphlet says that it took away the ' king's supremacy in ecclesiastics and abrogated all laws against Papists.' Another pamphlet says that James told the bishop of Meath that he did not like the commons bill, that it diminished his prerogative and was designed to make him break his word to the established church; he did not intend to do away with the Act of Uniformity nor destroy the Protestant religion, but only to take away penalties that were against liberty. This account 1. For the Jacobites outlawed after the Boyne see Analecta Hibernica, xxii.
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689
11
attributed his stand to the advice of the English Chief Justice Herbert, who told James that he would otherwise lose all his English friends. It goes on to say:' but the work is done effectively by other bills and the Act of Uniformity will stand like the edict of Nantes, till there be no occasion for it.' The version given in this pamphlet is corroborated from the Jacobite side by O'Kelly, who says that James could not be persuaded to rescind the impious laws enacted by Queen Elizabeth against the Roman church and restore the jurisdiction of the Pope lest it might alienate from him the hearts of his Protestant subjects whom he always courted. We have not the text of the act for liberty of conscience as finally passed; it seems to have assured to persons of every denomination the right to worship as they pleased. It certainly undermined the Act of Uniformity, but left it on the statute book and did not substitute a Catholic for a Protestant establishment. There is a reference to the act for liberty of conscience in a proclamation issued later in 1689, in which it is cited as the ground for allowing Protestants the free right of worship and forbidding the seizure of their churches, of which there had been a number of instances. James's memoirs state that he was particularly glad to assent to the act in spite of the provocation he had received from his Protestant subjects. An act that had the object of removing a major Catholic grievance related to tithes.1 It stated that Catholics maintained their own clergy and in addition were burdened by the payment of tithes to the Protestant clergy who performed no spiritual duties for them. It was therefore provided that Catholics should in future be required to pay tithes to their own clergy and to no others. An act regulating tithes in Ulster (of which we have not the text) presumably provided similar relief to Ulster Presbyterians. These arrangements would leave the clergy of the Church of Ireland with the tithes of other Protestants. But King, from the standpoint of a clergyman, claimed that their apparent equity was mere hypocrisy: Protestants had been so harried that few had anything titheable left, and the priests would be sure to take possession of the glebes without being given them by parliament. A further point was raised about ' appropriate tithes,' payable to bishops and other church dignitaries. This was dealt with in a supplementary act, which declared that Catholics should pay such tithes to the bishops and dignitaries of their own church, and that those only were to be considered Catholic bishops and deans who were named such by the king—a marked step towards the official recognition of the Catholic Church. But this measure fell short of what Catholics wanted. Plunkett called it irreligious on the ground that it left the church lands in the possession of Protestant bishops and only restored the Catholic bishops to such tithes as were annexed to their station: ' they mended the matter in parochial priests, for they gave possession unto them of all the tithes 1. For the text of the act see Appendix C.
78
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
of Catholic people, leaving to the ministers the tithes of their own.' D'Avaux reported to Louis XIV that two members of the commons had complained to him that James was unwilling to remove the Protestant bishops and clergy and put Catholics in their place or to restore church property. VII. FINANCE AND ECONOMICS
Finance was a pressing problem and from the government's point of view the supply bill was an important part of the legislative programme. The nature of the proposed taxation was discussed in advance by James and his advisers, the alternatives being a personal tax or a tax on property. The latter was preferred, and James asked for £15,000 a month for thirteen months, which both houses resolved to increase to £20,000. But the commons delayed the passage of the bill, as they thought that once James had his money he would pay little attention to the demand for the repeal of the Act of Settlement. Resentment at James's obstructive attitude to the repeal led to a proposal to postpone the date from which the subsidy would be payable, but James's capitulation on the land question made further threats unnecessary. We have no contemporary text of the act, but Davis discovered a copy in a collection of statutes in the library of the King's Inns. He commented that the levy was fairly distributed between different areas, and that the rebellious counties of Donegal and Fermanagh were no more heavily taxed than the rest. The act sets out the names of the commissioners in each county who were to be responsible for collecting the revenue. They consisted of the principal local families, who either owned land or had done so and hoped to recover it. Most of them were Catholics, but a few Protestants appear here and there in the lists.1 Davis particularly commended the act for its treatment of tenants. They were made responsible for the payment of the tax in the first instance, but were allowed to deduct the whole tax from their rent unless the land had been let for half its value or less, in which case they could deduct part of the tax: ' where since has a parliament of landlords in England or Ireland acted with equal liberality ? ' In fact, the tax must have been unwelcome to many who were enjoying rent-free occupation as a result of the flight of the landlords. How much was actually collected is not known, but it was not nearly enough to meet James's needs, even though they were helped out by a separate act which vested in the crown the goods of those who had left the country. TyrconnelTs interests were looked after by an act awarding him lands worth £15,000 a year. The parliament also showed a zealous, but not immediately relevant, concern for the economic progress of the country. An act prohibiting the import of English, Scottish or Welsh coal fore1. For the names see C. Preston, ' Commissioners under the patriot parliament ' in Irish Ecclesiastical Record, lxxiv, 141-57 (1950).
thejacobiteprarliamentof16898989898999999999999999999999999
79
shadiwed the protectionist attitude of the saying quoted by swift: ' burn everything English except their coal.' Coal imports were condemned as causing local unemployment and loss of currency. To prevent the act being exploited by the mineowners of Kilkenny and other Irish collieries, the price at the pithead was fixed at ninepence a barrel. An elaborate act for the advance and improvement of trade and for the encouragement of shipping and navigation set aside the restrictions imposed by the English navigation laws and permitted direct trading with the colonies. Shipbuilding was encouraged by a rebate of part of the duties on cargoes for the first three or four voyages of ships built in Ireland. Tax exemptions and other privileges were offered to seamen, shipwrights and other experts. An interesting provision was for the establishment of free schools in Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway to teach mathematics and navigation. The inclusion of Belfast among the major ports was an intelligent piece of forecasting, or a bid for Presbyterian support. The French were anxious for legislation which would give France the favoured economic position in relation to Ireland that was previously enjoyed by England. In particular, they wanted the export of raw wool, hitherto confined to England, to become a French monopoly. D'Avaux says that the commons passed bills banning the export of wool to England and facilitating the export of wool and other articles to France. Neither of these passed in the house of lords, and d'Avaux put this down to James's opposition: ' he has a heart too English to take any step that could vex the English, and that holds up the woollen business.' A bill for the naturalisation of French subjects also passed the commons, but was blocked in the lords by James's intervention. After a month of disagreement between the two houses it was redrafted to apply to all countries, as James did not wish there to be any special relationship between the French and the Irish. This seems to be the ' act for the encouragement of strangers and others to inhabit and plant in Ireland,' of which we have only the title. The dispute shows James as doggedly English in outlook. VIII. CONCLUSION What was achieved by the parliament ? James got a subsidy that was quite inadequate for his war expenses and must have been very difficult to collect. The heirs of the 1641 landowners had the satisfaction of seeing the repeal of the settlement put on the statute book, but this result was gained at the expense of much friction during the session, and was qualified by James's subsequent refusal to appoint a court to hear the cases of those who claimed title to the lands. The Catholic Church got much less than it wanted. Liberty of conscience was not the same as the reinstatement of the church, and in fact was invoked in the interest of harried Protestant clergy whose churches had been forcibly seized. The Declaratory Act denied the
80
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
authority in Ireland of the English parliament and courts, but James's refusal to abolish Poynings' law maintained the subordination of the Irish parliament to English control. The commercial and economic legislation was of little practical importance while the war lasted, and James's refusal to replace English privileges by French showed that a Jacobite victory was unlikely to have removed English commercial domination. The parliamentary session did much to disillusion James's Irish supporters. It was made clear to them that he regarded Ireland as a stepping-stone to the recovery of England and was reluctant to do anything that would alienate English opinion; the Irish had a king ' with one shoe English.' The legislation and proceedings are significant as illustrations of what Catholics wanted and of the limits to which they could press an unwilling king. The repeal of the Act of Settlement was clearly the primary object of most members; but self-government and the status of the church were also important objects, and the acts relating to them fell far short of Catholic aspirations. The economic legislation was a partial attempt to show how an independent Irish parliament could foster Irish industry and technical education. Had James won the war, the legislation of the parliament would have produced significant changes in Ireland. But those changes would not have undone the English conquest or restored Gaelic rule; and they would in some ways have restricted the freedom of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The parliament predominantly represented the ' old English ' landlord interest; its measures would have replaced a Protestant by a Catholic oligarchy, whose privileged position would have been based on crown grants and on a legal and constitutional system derived from that of England. The Irish parliament would be able to assert its independence of the English parliament, but Poynings' law would still ensure its subordination to the crown. Such legislation as conflicted with the economic interests of England would not have been likely to survive long. In Ireland, no less than in continental Europe, a Catholic dynasty would certainly have sought to influence the policy and personnel of the Catholic Church, which would thus be deprived of that freedom which was an unintended by-product of the penal laws. The reputation of the parliament has to a great extent been based on the fact that in the Declaratory Act it gave formal expression to a demand for independence of the English parliament and courts: a demand that long continued to be a major constitutional controversy. Irish Catholics of the eighteenth century were reluctant to discuss the proceedings of an assembly that had been declared illegal. But Wolfe Tone praised it highly. ' The last Catholic assembly,' he wrote, ' which Ireland had seen was the parliament, summoned by James II in 1689, a body of men whose wisdom, spirit and patriotism reflect no discredit on their country or their s e c t . . . an assembly to whosemeritssnohistorianhasyetnohistorianhassyhasyetventuredtodojustice,butwhose
The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 81
81
memory, when passions and prejudices are no more, will be perpetuated in the hearts of their grateful countrymen.' In the nineteenth century a series of Irish writers, beginning with Matthew O'Conor, commended it as a patriotic and public-spirited body. Davis's articles, published in the Dublin Magazine (January-April, 1843), were a detailed and thorough study, which put the parliament of 1689 in line with the movement of 1782 and the aspirations of Young Ireland. Fifty years later, in 1893, Gavan Duffy gave wide publicity and an emotive title to Davis's work. The patriot parliament of i68g was a well-timed publication, and it was not difficult to present the Jacobites of 1689 as the forerunners of the Home Rulers of the post-Parnell era.
82
War and Po litics in Ireland,
1649-1730
LIST OF SOURCES A. c CONTEMPORARY
An exact list of the lords spiritual and temporal who sat in the pretended parliament at Dublin, London, 1689. A true account of the whole proceedings of the parliament in Ireland, London, 1689. A list of such of the names . . . attainted, together with . . . the acts, London, 1690. An account of the transactions of the late King James in Ireland, London, 1690. J. T. GILBERT,
ed.
A Jacobite narrative of the war in Ireland, i68g-gi (Plunkett MS.), Dublin, 1892.
J. HOGAN,
ed.
Negociations de M. le Comte d'Avaux en Irlande, i68g-go (Irish MSS. Commission), Dublin, 1934.
W.
KING
The state of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's government, London, 1691.
C. O ' K E L L Y
Macariae excidium, or the destruction of Cyprus, ed. J. C. O'Callaghan, Dublin, 1850. B. lllater . LATER WORKS
J. S. CLARKE
The life of James III [based on contemporary Jacobite memoirs], London, 1816.
T. DAVIS
The patriot parliament of i68g, ed. C. Gavan Duffy, London, 1893.
J. A. FROUDE
The English in Ireland, London, 1874.
W.
E. H.
LECKY
History of Ireland in the eighteenth century, London, 1892.
T. B. MACAULAY
History of England, London, 1848-61.
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689
83
APPENDIX A An exact list of the knights, citizens and burgesses, who were returned and sat in the parliament held in Dublin under the late King James in 1689. NOTE—Those wanting are for Londonderry, Inniskellin and such places as were in the Protestants' hands. County of ANTRIM Cormac O'Neill Esq Randal MacDonnell Esq
Borough of Belturbet Sir Edward Tyrrel Bart Philip Tuite of Newcastle Esq
Borough of Belfast Marcus Talbot Esq Daniell O'Neill Esq
County of CLARE Daniel O'Brien Esq John Macnamara of Crattlagh Esq
County of ARDMAGH Arthur Brownlow Esq Walter Hovenden Esq Borough of Ardmagh Francis Stafford Esq Constantine O'Neill Esq County of CATHERLAGH Dudley Bagnal Esq Henry Lutterell Esq Borough of Catherlagh Marcus Baggot Esq John Warren Esq Borough of Old Leighlin Darby Long Esq Daniel Doran Esq
Borough of Ennis Florence Macnamara of Dromad Esq Theobald Butler of Strathnagaloon Esq County of CORK Justin MacCarthy Esq Sir Richard Nagle Kt City of Cork Sir James Cotter Kt John Galloway Esq Town of Youghal Thomas Uniack Alderman Edward Gough Alderman
Town of Kinsale County of CAVAN Philip Reilly of Aghnecrevy Esq Andrew Murrogh Esq John Reilly of Garirobuck Esq Miles de Courcy Esq Borough of Cavan Philip Og O'ReiUy Esq Hugh Reilly of Lara Esq
Town of Bandonbridge Charles MacCarthy of Ballea Esq Daniel MacCarthy Reagh Esq
84
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Town of Mallow Christopher Peppard Fitzgeorge Alderman John Barret of Castlemore Esq David Nagle of Carragowne Esq County of DUBLIN Borough of Baltimore Simon Lutterelof Lutterelstown Daniel O'Donovan Esq Esq Jeremy Donovan Esq Patrick Sarsfield Jun of Lucan Esq Borough of Cloghnakilty Lt-Col Owen MacCarthy City of Dublin Daniel Fion MacCarthy Esq Sir Michael Creagh Kt Lord Mayor Borough of Charlevile Terence Dermot Sen Alderman John Baggot Sen of Baggotstown Esq University of Dublin John Power of Killballane Esq Sir John Meade Kt Joseph Coghlan Esq Borough of Middleton Dermot Long Esq Borough of s Swords John Long Esq Francis Barnewell of Woodpark, county Meath esq Borough of Rathcormac Robert Russel of Drynham Esq James Barry Esq Edward Powel Esq Borough of Newcastle Thomas Arthur of Colganstown Borough of Doneraile Esq Daniel O'Donovan Esq John Talbot of Belgard Esq John Baggot Jun of Baggotstown Esq County of GALWAY Sir Ulick Bourk Bart County of DOWN Sir Walter Blake Bart Murtagh MacGennis of Greencastle Esq Town of Galway Ever MacGennis of Castlewelan Oliver Martin Esq Esq John Kirwan Esq Borough of Killeleagh Bernard MacGennis of Bally- Town of Athenry James Talbot of Mounttalbot Esq gorianbege es Esq Toole O'Neill of Drummekelly Charles Daly of Dunsandal Esq Gent Borough of Tuam James Lally of Tullendaly Borough of Newry William Bourk of Carrowfrila Rowland White Esq Rowland Savage Esq County of KERRY County and town of DROGHEDA Nicholas Brown Esq Henry Dowdall Esq Recorder Sir Thomas Crosby Kt
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 Borough of Thomastown Borough of Dingle-Icouch Robert Grace Sen Esq Edward Rice FitzJames of Ballinelig, county Limerick Esq Robert Grace Jun Esq John Hussey of Culmullin Esq Borough of Inistioge Edward Fitzgerald Esq Borough of Tralee James Fitzgerald Esq Maurice Hussey of Kerry Esq John Brown of Ardagh Esq Borough of Callan Walter Butler Esq Borough of Ardfert Thady Meagher Esq Col Roger MacElligot Cornelius MacGillicuddy Esq Borough of Knocktopher Harvey Morres Esq County of KILDARE Henry Meagh Esq John Wogan Esq George Aylmer Esq KING'S COUNTY Hewer Oxburgh Esq Borough of Kildare Owen Carroll Esq Francis Leigh Esq Robert Porter Esq Borough of Banagher Terence Coghlan Esq Borough of n Naas Terence Coghlan Gent Walter Lord Dungan Charles White Esq Borough of Philiftstown John Connor Esq Hewer Oxburgh Esq Borough of A thy William Fitzgerald Esq County of LEITRIM William Archbold Esq Edmond Reynells Esq Iriel Farrell Esq Borough of Harrystown James Nihel Esq Borough of Jamestown Edmond Fitzgerald Esq Alexander MacDonnel Esq William Shanley Esq County of KILKENNY James Grace of Courstown Esq County of LIMERICK Robert Walsh of Cloneassy Esq Sir James Pltzgerald Bart Gerald Fitzgerald Knight of City of Kilkenny the Glyn John Rooth Mayor James Bryan Alderman City of Limerick Nicholas Arthur Alderman Borough of Gowran Thomas Harrold Alderman Richard Butler Col Robert Fielding by a new Borough of Kilmallock election Sir William Hurley Bart Walter Kelly Dr of Physic John Lacy Esq
85
86
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
BoroughofAskeytonBoroughofAthboy borough of a thoybor John Bourk of Cahirmoyhill Esq John Trynder Esq Edward Rice Esq Robert Longfield Esq County of LONGFORD Roger Farrell Esq Robert Farrell Esq Borough of Lanesborough Oliver Fitzgerald Esq Roger Farrell Esq Borough of St. Johnstown Sir William Ellis Kt Lt Col James Nugent County of LOUTH Thomas Bellew Esq William Talbot Esq Borough of Atherdee Hugh Gernon Esq John Babe Esq Borough of Dundalk Robert Dermot Esq John Dowdgall Esq Borough of Carlingford Christopher Peppard Fitzlgnatius Esq Bryan Dermot Esq County of MAYO Gerald Moore Esq Walter Bourk Esq
Borough of Navan Christopher Cusacke of Corballis Esq Christopher Cusacke of Ratholeran Esq Borough of Kells Patrick Everard Esq John Delamare Esq Borough of Ratoath John Hussey Esq James Fitzgerald Esq County of MONAGHAN Bryan MacMahon Esq Hugh MacMahon Esq QUEEN'S COUNTY
Sir Patrick Trant Kt Edmond Morres Esq Borough of Maryborough Pierce Bryan Esq Thady Fitzpatrick Esq Borough of Ballynakill Sir Gregory Byrne Bart Oliver Grace Esq Borough of Portarlington Sir Henry Bond Kt Sir Thomas Hacket Kt
countmonony BoroughofCaseltbarCounytofROSCOMMON John Bermingham Esq Portreeve Charles Kelly Esq Thomas Bourk Esq John Bourk Esq County of MEATH Sir William Talbot Bart Sir Patrick Barnewall Bart
Borough of Roscommon John Dillon Esq John Kelly Esq
Borough of Trim Captain Nicholas Cusack Walter Nangle Esq
Borough of Boyle Captain John King Terence MacDermot Alderman
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 County of SLIGO Henry Crofton Esq Oliver O'Gara Esq
Borough of Dungarvan John Hore Esq Martin Hore Esq
Borough of Sligo Terence MacDonogh Esq James French Esq
County of WESTMEATH The Hon Col William Nugent The Hon Col Henry Dillon
87
Borough of Athlone County of TIPPERARY Nicholas Purcel of Loghmore Edmond Malone of Ballynahoune es Esq Esq James Butler of Grangebeg Esq Edmond Malone Counsellor at law Borough of Kilbeggan Borough of Clonmel Bryan Geoghegan of Donore Esq Nicholas White Alderman Charles Geoghegan of Lyonane John Bray Alderman [Syonane] Esq City of Cashel Manor of Mullingar Dennis Kearney Alderman Gerard Dillon Esq Prime James Hacket Alderman Sergeant Edmond Nugent of Carlanstown Borough of Feathard Esq Sir John Everard Bart James Tobin of Feathard Esq Borough of Fore John Nugent of Donore Esq County of TYRONE Christopher Nugent of Col Gordon O'Neill Dardystown Esq Lewis Doe of Dungannon Esq County of WEXFORD Borough of Dungannon Walter Butler of Munfine Esq Arthur O'Neill of Ballygawley Patrick Colclough of Mochury Esq Esq Peter Donnelly of Dungannon Town of Wexford Esq William Talbot Esq Francis Rooth Merchant Borough of Strabane Christopher Nugent of Dublin Town of New Ross Esq Daniel Donnelly of the same Gent Luke Dormer Esq Richard Butler Esq County of WATERFORD John Power Esq Matthew Hore Esq City of Waterford John Porter Esq Nicholas Fitzgerald Esq
Borough of Enniscorthy James Devereux of Carrigmenan Esq Dudley Colclough of Moughery Esq Arthur Waddington Esq Portreeve by b by a new election
88
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Borough of Fethard The Rt Hon Col James Porter Capt Nicholas Stafford
County of WICKLOW Richard Butler Esq William Talbot Esq
Borough of Newborough alias Gorey Abraham Strange of Toberduff Esq Richard Doyle of Kilorky Esq
Borough of Wicklow Francis Toole Esq Thomas Byrne Esq
Borough of Bannow Francis Plowden Esq Commissioner o of of the revenue Dr Alexis Stafford Borough of Clomines Edward Sherlock of Dublin Esq Nicholas White of New Ross Merchant Borough of Taghmon George Hore of Polehore Esq Walter Hore of Harperstown Esq
Borough of Carysfort Hugh Byrne Esq Pierce Archbold Esq upon whose default of appearance Bartholomew Polewheele Esq Borough of Blessington James Eustace Esq Maurice Eustace Gent The commons chose Sir Richard Nagle their Speaker, and Mr. John Kerney was Clerk of that house
The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 89
89
APPENDIX B An act declaring that the parliament of England cannot bind Ireland, and against writs of error and appeals to be brought for removing judgments, decrees and sentences, given in Ireland, into England. Whereas his majesty's realm of Ireland is and hath been always a distinct kingdom from that of his majesty's realm of England, always governed by his majesty and his predecessors according to the ancient customs, laws and statutes thereof: so no acts passed in any parliament held in England were ever binding here, except such of them as by acts of parliament passed in this kingdom were made into laws here; yet of late times (especially in times of distractions) some have pretended that acts of parliament passed in England, mentioning Ireland, were binding in Ireland; and as these late opinions are against justice and natural equity, so they tend to the great oppression of the people here, and to the overthrow of the fundamental constitutions of this realm. And to the end that by these modern and late opinions no person may be further deluded, be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in this present parliament here assembled, and by the authority of the same: and it is hereby declared that no act of parliament passed, or to be passed, in the parliament of England, though Ireland should be therein mentioned, can be, or shall be any way binding in Ireland, excepting such acts passed, or to be passed in England, as are or shall be made into law by the parliament of Ireland. [The remainder of the act, dealing with appeals, is omitted.]
APPENDIX C An act concerning tithes and other ecclesiastical duties Whereas tithes, oblations, obventions, offerings and other ecclesiastical duties and profits growing and arising within all and every the respective parish and parishes of this kingdom (impropriate tithes excepted) have by the law of the land, and constitution of Holy Church ever since the Council of Lateran, been due and payable to the respective pastors, curates and vicars of the said respective parishes, having cure of souls therein, as a provision and maintenance
90
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
for them for serving the said cure, by celebrating divine service, administering of sacraments, preaching and instructing the parishioners thereof in the true faith, and performing other pastoral duties belonging to their functions: And forasmuch as the Roman Catholic subjects of this kingdom for some time past have maintained their own priests, pastors, curates and vicars, and thereby have been very much impoverished by being obliged to pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical dues to the Protestant clergy, who have not laboured in the administration of any of the said spiritual offices for any of the said Roman Catholics: Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted by your most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in this present parliament assembled and by authority of the same, that your majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of this kingdom shall and may set out and pay all their tithes, oblations and other ecclesiastical duties (which of right are due and payable) from henceforth to their respective Roman Catholic priests, pastors, curates and vicars, and to no other person or persons of whatsoever religion or persuasion (impropriate tithes excepted), any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons of the Roman Catholic clergy, who shall be entitled to any tithes or payments in lieu of tithes by virtue of this act or otherwise, and their proctors and fanners, shall and may sue for the same or the value thereof by writ, bill, petition or action of debt, or such other action for substraction or not setting forth the said tithes, in any of your majesty's courts within this kingdom as he or they might have done for detaining or not paying any temporal duty, and shall and may recover their costs in such suits: And all incapacities heretofore devised by any temporal law for disabling any of the said Roman Catholic clergy from enjoying any benefices or tithes, or making any collations or benefices to them conferred void, are hereby discharged and made void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
7 SCHOMBERG AT DUNDALK, 1689
T
HE Duke of Schomberg was one of the most famous soldiers in Europe,
but his last independent command was marked by failure and the devas/ tation of his army, caused not by the enemy but by a combination of inefficient administration and Irish weather. He was half'German and, on his mother's side, half/English. He had served for many years in the French army and had won a high reputation, becoming a marshal of France in 1677. But he was a protestant, and when the Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 he left France and entered the service of the Elector of Brandenburg, who in 1688 put him at the disposal of William of Orange. He came to England with William and took part in the successful invasion that resulted in the flight of James II and the "glorious revolution". This gave William control of England, but Ireland (where the Earl of Tyr/ connell was gathering an army for James) and Scotland (where Viscount Dundee was raising the Highlands) were still to be dealt with. William had not much faith in the regular English army, which had ratted once and might rat again. His main faith was in his own Dutch troops and in the Huguenot regiments that had been formed from French protestant refugees. Holland was hard pressed by Louis XIV, and the Dutch government demanded substitutes for the troops they had sent to England. So Marlborough was sent with a large part of the English army to Holland for the summer campaign of 1689. Schomberg was given the task of building up a new army for the conquest of Ireland. This was to be as far as possible raised by protestant nobility and gentry who had escaped from Tyrconnell's regime in Ireland, and it would employ a number of officers who had been dismissed by Tyrconnell from the Irish army. But most of the other ranks would have to be levied in England. This raw army would be stiffened by Dutch and Huguenot regiments. Of all William's continental commanders Schomberg seemed to be the best qualified for this operation. He spoke English well (besides French and German). He had had experience of the same sort before when he built up a Portuguese army that enabled Portugal to hold out against Spain. But he was now in his seventyfourth year, and his temperament was cautious, professional and fussy. Orders for the raising and equipping of 18 regiments of infantry and 5 of horse and dragoons were given in March 1689 (the month that James went to Ireland with French support). But it was not till July that the expedition began to assemble at Chester. From this point on Schomberg's complaints are almost continuous. The regiments were not ready, supplies and equipment were short, the admiralty was slow in providing ships. The intention was that the expe/ ditionary force should bring Ireland under William's control and expel James during the campaigning season of 1689. But the prospects did not look bright. James was in control of all Ireland, except for Derry and Enniskillen. The attempt to relieve Derry had so far been frustrated by a boom across the river,
92
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
and the city seemed on the point of being starved into surrender. In Scotland Dundee had control of the Highlands and was a formidable threat to Mackay and his Williamite army. Schomberg had intended to go to the relief of Derry, but his expedition was not ready when, at the end of July, the whole situation dramatically changed in William's favour. Derry was relieved, the Enniskilleners routed a Jacobite army at Newtownbutler, and Dundee was killed at Killiecrankle. In Jacobite Ireland there was panic. A large part of the army disintegrated; some regiments were down to quarter strength. The greater part of Ulster was abandoned, with Carrickfergus and Charlemont the only strong points retained, besides a small mobile force under Brigadier Maxwell near Belfast. It was estimated that at the end of July James could not put more than 7,000 men in the field. This was the opportunity for Schomberg to strike hard with good prospects of success, in conjunction with the triumphant Enniskilleners and with Kirke*s three regiments who had relieved Derry. But Schomberg had much to contend with at Chester. When he got there in the third week of July he found no ships and no provisions. About ten days later 50 ships appeared, which were to carry munitions and troops, but the provision ships had not yet arrived. A major obstacle was John Shales, the supply officer. Schomberg's letters to William are full of complaints against Shales. He had not sent the promised provisions, he was particularly short on beer. Quantities of muskets were out of order because they were so badly made. Schomberg suspected Shales's son Henry, who inspected them, of taking bribes to pass defective weapons. Shales himself had generally mismanaged things; his bona fides was very suspect; he was said to have been 1 aA PPIST papist not long before. (In fact, Shales had been the contractor for James II's A NOT LONG BEFORE PAPIST NOT LONGHBEFORE IN SHALES BEEN ATHECONTJAMESO unpopular army camp at Hounslow Heath). UNPOPULAR RA,UCP T HOUNSLOW HEAHS William wanted the expedition to land as near Dublin as possible. Schomberg first thought of landing at Carlingford, but the pilots reported that the harbour was not good and that the best landing/place would be Belfast Lough. Schomberg accepted this plan, which would make for easier linking/up with forces from Derry and Enniskillen. When he set sail on 12 August there were not enough ships available. He could take only 12 regiments of infantry, leaving the rest of the infantry and all the horse to follow. He had some cannon and mortars, which are supposed to have cracked the long bridge over the Lagan at Belfast. To begin with, all went well. A following wind brought the expedition next day into Bangor Bay, where they landed with nothing more than token resistance from Maxwell's dragoons. Patrols found the neighbourhood of Belfast clear of Jacobites and a rousing welcome from the local protestants. Schomberg was cautious, and it was not till 17 August, four days after landing, that he entered Belfast. It was 17 August by the old calendar; by the more accurate new calendar it was 27 August, getting on for autumn. If anything worth while was to be done that campaigning season he would clearly have to move south without delay. But his cavalry had not arrived and would not come till near the end of August, and he thought it safer to dispose of Carrickfergus, which was held by two Jacobite regiments. A sevens-day siege, in which the r Cal. S.P. iom., i68ygo, pp. 188/220.
Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689
93
Williamites attacked both by land and by sea, was needed before Carrickfergus surrendered. By the end of August further units had arrived from England. By then the total force that had arrived from England was as follows: Infantry—18 battalions (i Dutch, 3 Huguenot, 13 newly raised in England). Cavalry—4 regiments (1 Huguenot, 3 English). Dragoons—1 English regiment.2 The approximate strength of the expeditionary force at this date was 13,000 foot and 1,500 horse. In addition, Schomberg had been joined at Carrickfergus by 500 horse from Enniskillen. They were apparently poorly armed and mounted, but were to prove very useful. A Williamite account described them as "some without boots and pistols, others with pistols but without carabines, some with one pistol and a carabine without a sword, others without all, with only a fowling/piece or firelock, most of their horses small and poor; yet such have been the courage and actions of these men as is scarce credible, especially the routing 3,000 men under MacCarthy, taking him prisoner and killing double their own number. These brave men the general made welcome and will soon be better armed and accoutred."3 Schomberg now seemed in a strong enough position to justify a move south, particularly as he could expect further reinforcements from Enniskillen and Derry and more cavalry regiments were to come from Britain. His chief shortage was in transport/horses, waggons and provisions, which had not yet arrived. He decided to start for Dundalk and rely on transport and supplies being sent by sea to meet him at Carlingford. He set out on 2 September, marching south through Lisburn, Hillsborough and Loughbrickland. At Newry, ten miles on from Loughbrickland, there was a Jacobite force of cavalry under the Duke of Berwick. The Inniskillings were all agog to engage this force, but were ordered not to advance, which upset them. They said they "should never thrive so long as they were under orders". However, Berwick retreated after burning Newry, and Schcmberg met no opposition as far as Dundalk, which the Jacobites abandoned without burning it. But Schomberg's army was already in trouble during the five days it took him to march the fifty miles from Belfast to Dundalk. The weather was wet and the wind made it difficult to pitch tents. Provisions were scarce because there were not enough horses to carry such supplies as he could have got in Belfast. The country had been devastated by Berwick and all the cattle had been removed. The best account of the operation is by the Rev. George Story, who was a chaplain to one of Schomberg's regiments and wrote what, with some justification, he called "An impartial history" of the war. In addition, we have, on the Williamite side, Schomberg's own dispatches and several diaries and memoirs of those who, like Colonel Bellingham, took part in the expedition. On the Jacobite side we have King James's own account, as well as some journals, 2 G. Story, Impartial history, p. 11. 3 A journal of what has passed in the north of Ireland, 1689.
94
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
notably the journal of Captain John Stevens, an English Jacobite. The move/ ments of both sides are well documented. George Story was himself a victim of the supply/shortage. He says that by the time Schomberg's army got to Newry he "was forced to go and dig potatoes which made the greatest part of a dinner to better men than myself, and if it was so with us it may easily be remarked that the poor soldiers had harder times of it."4 The men were already falling sick on the march; some of them were left by the roadside and had to be picked up later by rescue parties. Schomberg was worried by the shortage of bread; he gave orders that whatever bread there was should be for the men and not for the officers (because he judged that the officers could shift better). He insisted on sending the artillery horses back to Belfast to fetch bread. When the transport officer protested that artillery horses were never used for anything but artillery work Schomberg said he would rather break rules than let his men starve. Whether or not he should have allowed the situation to arise, there is something attractive about his humane concern for his men. When the army reached Dundalk the ships had not yet turned up at Carting' ford and the supply position was getting precarious. The Jacobites had overlooked 2,000 of Lord Bellew's sheep, and the starving soldiers of Schomberg's army devoured them greedily, which "cast a great many into fluxes".5 One of those who fell sick was a Swiss soldier in one of the Huguenot regiments, Jean/Francois Morsier, who kept a journal from which I quote: "The prevailing sickness was the bloody flux, caused by the bad food, which was almost entirely limited to oat'cakes, which are small cakes of the thickness of your little finger made from oat/flour dried in front of the fire, and the drink of fresh beer and water from a stagnant bog, in some places well-water which the soldiers brought to sell in the camp at half a sou the bottle. My sickness got so bad that I could not bear it any longer, being tormented by a burning fever from which I could get relief only by putting my head and forehead against the wet tent, for it rained continually. So I was sent to a castle named Karlinfort, where the sick were. All the places were taken; I had to go into a pigeon/loft at the top of the house; two or three cadets and soldiers did their best to clean it up and we slept on the floor." They were given two bowls of gruel a day, and gradually he got better. Later on he found a peasant nearby who grew cabbages, which he had cooked and well seasoned, and eventually he recovered his strength, more fortunate than many.6 Sending horses back to Belfast did not help Schomberg's prospects for an advance southwards. In fact, Dundalk was the farthest point he reached, and for the next two months he remained encamped there. George Story, who had plenty of time to examine the camp site, has provided in his history a detailed map of the lay/out. He shows the main camp on lowlying ground at the foot of the hills, straddling the Newry road about a mile short of Dundalk. It was in two 4 Story, Impartial history, p. 42. 5 B. M., Add. MS 5540. 6 J. Morsier in Soldats suisses an service etranger, vi, 90.
Schombergat Dundalk, 1689
95
lines, of which the front one was the longer, stretching on to the modern race course. Story describes the terrain as "low, moist ground". Nowadays it is mostly solid enough, but it is very flat and the drainage has certainly been improved since Schomberg's time. Even so, there are a good many areas with rushes on them, and the name of the townland at the rear of the camp is Annies, which means marshes. Dundalk had been abandoned by the Jacobites, and Schomberg might have been expected to use the town as his rear/base and to have put his camp on the high ground to the south of it. The reason why he did not do so is probably that he was anxious to keep a firm grip on his communications with Carlingford and with the land/link through the Moyry Pass to Newry and Belfast. Story's map gives a good impression of the area, with hills in the rear and a plain threaded with streams in the centre. A prominent feature was the Castletown river, with a single bridge linking the camp to Dundalk town. When the Jacobite army was approaching, Schomberg established advanced posts outside the town, running in a line from south to north on the inland side. The town itself was walled. The posts were protected with retrenchments or earthworks at strategic points. A Dutch regiment was stationed at the most advanced post, behind it were English dragoons and then the Inniskilling foot. The Inniskilling dragoons had a position to themselves near the hilly ground to the west. The artillery was well back, between the main camp and the Castletown river. Schomberg himself had his quarters in Castletown, a magnificent four/storey fortress on the south side of the river. At that time it belonged to the Bellew family; now it holds the dormitories school. Schomberg's whole position was evidently laid DORMOES of OFaAgirl's GIRLSCHOOLE.OMBERGWHOLEPOSITIOWAS EVIDENTIL out with an eye to defence rather than to attack or advance. Meanwhile the Jacobite army had been recovering from the near panic it was in at the end of July. The French had advised James that Dublin could not be defended against Schomberg's army, and that the proper course was to burn it, retire to Athlone, and hold the line of the Shannon. James showed unusual spirit and rejected this advice. Tyrconnell backed him up, new levies were raised to fill the gaps in the army, and it was decided to march north and face Schomberg, in spite of a serious shortage of weapons. James himself led the way with a small advance guard, and he was at Drogheda on 26 August, while Schomberg was still besieging Carrickfergus. The duke of Berwick was sent north as far as Newry to conduct a delaying action with a force of cavalry while the rest of the Jacobite army was assembling. It was a great relief to the Jacobites that Schomberg had not marched south and attacked them before they were ready. By 10 September most of the Jacobite army was at Drogheda and ready to hold the south bank of the Boyne against Schomberg, whose advance was daily expected. The French ambassador, who was with James at Drogheda, thought there was no reason why Schomberg should not advance that far. James had forbidden any scorched/earth tactics south of Newry, and the plain of Louth was full of grass, wheat and oats. The ambassador wondered whether Schomberg had been waiting for his cavalry—which was, in fact, the case— or why he had wasted his time besieging Carrickfergus. The protestants of County Louth also expected Schomberg to advance towards Drogheda and had collected a quantity of ale, bread and other provisions for him. When he did not
96
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
come the Irish army seized these supplies. Schomberg was under strong pressure to advance from the Irish protestants in his own force. On n September he wrote to William: "My Irish lords are constantly for giving battle; they are eager to get back to their own estates". On 15 September he wrote again to William: "Some of the colonels wish to go to Ardee and talk about giving battle as if it were only a trifle. I do not think it will be to your majesty's service to quit this position"—'that is, his Dundalk camp—'"where we can always maintain com/ munication with Belfast".7 Encouraged by Schomberg's failure to advance, James moved forward to meet him. On 14 September he went from Drogheda to Ardee, where deserters brought the news that Schomberg was very short of supplies, particularly bread. So the bold James pushed on further with his cavalry and crossed the river Fane, making his headquarters at Knockbridge, about five miles from Dundalk. A contemporary account says that James's quarters were in "some very mean cottages where his bedchamber was a poor Irish cabin (hard to creep into), without door, window or chimney; the French ambassador and the duke of Tyrconnell had suitable apartments in his majesty's quarters".8 The first night at Knockbridge was spent in fear and trembling: no one went to bed, and very few went to sleep, except for the advanced guards and the sentries; the French general, making a midnight inspection, found them all asleep except one.9 GENTRLMAKINGA MIDNIGHT CTION,FOOUDTEMALLASLLEEPONE9 But Schomberg gave them no cause for anxiety. The French ambassador could not understand it: Schomberg must be far weaker than they thought; or else he must be planning a rising in Dublin and be trying to entice James's army away from Dublin to steal a march on it and cut off its retreat to the city; or perhaps he was going to send help by sea to the protestant rebels in Dublin while he kept James engaged near Dundalk. In fact, something of the last kind was tried, though there was no deliberate plan to lure James up to Dundalk. Captain George Rooke of the English navy brought a squadron of twelve ships down the coast of County Dublin, a clear threat to James's communications. Rooke's ships came into Dublin bay and there was great excitement on the part of the protestant fifth column. But the Jacobite militia under Colonel Simon Luttrell drew up on the shore to such good effect that Rooke withdrew. The fact was that Schomberg was so worried by the lack of supplies and by the deficiencies of his army that he decided to take up a purely defensive position. The area he chose for his camp was certainly defensible against enemy attack, but it suffered from a number of disadvantages. It was lowlying and, as it was under the lee of the mountains, it was particularly liable to rainfall, which it got in abundance during that very wet autumn. A diary kept by one of Schonv berg's staff describes the conditions: "The already spongy ground was so softened by the rainy season, which set in earlier than usual, that one could not pitch a tent that the rain did not throw down".10 The fact that the camp was penned in 7 Cal. S.P. dom., i68$' ites held Sligo under the command of Sir Teague O'Regan, an eccentric veteran who had distinguished himself by a gallant defence of Charlemont. The Williamite advance on Sligo in 1691 was based on Ballyshannon and Belleek, where there were bridges over the Erne. The commander was Colonel John Michelburne, one of the heroes of the siege of Derry. His operations began unluckily. A party of dragoons, sent to patrol the Bundrowes, were tempted by the idea of fishing for salmon. While they were happily engaged in this way they were attacked by an Irish party and ten of them were taken prisoner18. However, after Aughrim Michelburne was able to advance in strength on Sligo and started to negotiate with Sir Teague O'Regan for the surrender of this isolated Jacobite outpost. O'Regan agreed that, unless he was relieved within ten days, he would hand
146
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
over Sligo on August 15 and march out with all the honours of war. When they day came he refused to surrender, and Michelburne's hopes were disappointed. The reason was that Baldearg O'Donnell had decided to do his last service to King James, and at the same time show King William's general that he was a force to be reckoned with. He marched with his Ulstermen to the relief of Sligo, and Sir Teague accordingly refused to hand over the town. Baldearg O'Donnells hand was strengthened by this show of force and he proceded to bargain with General Ginkel, who promised him the command of a Williamite brigade in Flanders and to recommend him for the title and estates possessed by his ancestors. In return O'Donnell undertook to help the Williamites against Sligo. In these operations he co-operated with Sir Albert Conyngham, Gael and Gall from the same county. O'Donnell's men did not like this change of front; many of them refused to follow him in his transfer of allegiance, though others were brought round by a generous distribution of Williamite guineas. Conyngham and O'Donnell were attacked by the Sligo garrison one foggy morning at Collooney. They were taken by surprise. Conyngham hurriedly mounted his horse, which shied and carried him into the Sligo ranks, where he was quickly put to death. The grim story is told that an Irish sergeant greeted him with the words: 'Sir Halbert you are, and by this halbert you shall die'. The Williamite account continues: 'O'Donnell escaped the nearest ever man did from being taken, and if they had got him he had been presently hanged'19. O'Donnell survived the war and lived to draw a Williamite pension and later returned to the Spanish army, where he became a major-general. He had failed to fulfil a prophecy and must have been a sad disappointment to the people of Donegal. The war ended with the treaty of Limerick, but it was in fact a Williamite victory. Catholic hopes for land and Church collapsed. There was exile for the Wild Geese; poverty and humiliation for those who stayed at home. Thf Protestant colonists had been badly frightened by the Catholic challenge. They tried to make sure that then1 should never be another one and that Protestant ascendancy should continue to the end of time. NOTES 1. S. Pender (ed.), Census of Ireland, c. 1659. 2. G. Walker, True account of the siege of Londonderry, p. 48,
County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 147 3. Berwick, Memoirs, i. 44; J. T. Gilbert (ed.), A Jacobite narrative, P- 454. Analecta Hibernica, xxi. 87-9. 5. Dublin Peimy Journal, iv. 240 (1836). 6. Hist. MSS Comm., rep. 12, app. vi., p. 142. 7. An exact relation of the glorious victory . . . , 1689 (Thorpe coll., Nat. Lib. Ire.). 8. Berwick, Memoirs, i. 53. 9. London Gazette, 8 Aug. 1689. 10. Memoirs, i. 54. 11. An. Hib., xxi. 196. 12. London Gazette, 5 Aug. 1689. 13. An Hib., xxi. 196. 14. Ir. Sword, ii. 109. 15. A Letter from Liperpool, 1689 (Thorpe coll.). 16. T.C.D., MS K. 5. 1, no. 122, quoted by D. Verschoyle in 'Background to a hidden age', Don. Ann., vi. 119 (1965). 17. See J. O'Donovan 'The O'Donnells in exile' in Duffy's Hibernian Magazine, i. 50-6 (i860). 18. Account of the transactions in the north of Ireland, 1691 (Joly coilNat. Lib. Ire.). 19. T.C.D., MS K. 5. 11, no. 1097; W. G. Wood-Martin, History, of Sligo, ii. 133.
This page intentionally left blank
12 KILKENNY IN THE JACOBITE WAR 1689-91
K ILKENNY,
which figured so largely in the Confederate War, has been almost entirely neglected by historians of the Jacobite War. But its share in the events of 1689-91 was by no means insignificant. It was visited more than once by both King James and King William, and for a considerable time it was the Williamite general headquarters. When William of Orange landed in England in the autumn of 1688, King James set out for London to confront him, and one of his attendants was the second Duke of Ormonde. When the twTo rivals were in short range of one another, Ormonde after having supper with James went out and joined William, following the example of Churchill and many others. Ormonde had strong reasons for this; not only was he an Irish Protestant who saw the rival religion becoming more and more dominant as a result of James's ideas, but he had a Dutch mother and his Dutch uncle Overkirk was with William as one of his principal officers. Ormonde's defection to William's side naturally affected his position in Kilkenny which, like most of Ireland, inclined to James's side. Kilkenny was a mainly Catholic town and the Protestant mayor and corporation had been replaced by a Catholic mayor—John Roth—and a corporation wThich was mostly Catholic, although the town apothecary, Josias Haydock, who had been on the old corporation, was on the new one too. It was an awkward position for Ormonde and the Protestants of Kilkenny. It was thought discreet for one of the duke's Protestant agents—Captain John Baxter—to stay outside the town at Dunmore Castle. Ormonde's affairs were looked after by James Bryan and Valentine Smyth, who were Catholics. Smyth reported that Lord Galmoy—one of the Catholic Butlers who was James's lord lieutenant for Kilkenny—had insisted on using the round tower beside the castle for storing arms and ammunition. Galmoy was very
150
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
inquisitive about what cash there was in the castle and Smyth was afraid he was going to confiscate it. Ormonde sent directions that if it was not too late "his papers and all other his goods, pictures, hangings, beds etc. should be shipped off to England." But apparently it was too late, as nothing was done to remove the contents of the castle. A letter from John Baxter to Ormonde's secretary shows how things at Kilkenny looked from the Protestant point of view. He is writing from Dunmore: "I and my wife and small family . . . have been at this place these six weeks according to his grace's order to Mr. Valentine Smyth on my behalf . . . My lord's servants here are most of them in arms. Mr. James Bryan of Jenkinstowne hath by commission raised a troop of horse. Mr. Valentine Smyth's eldest son, who acts in the office under his father, is the cornet to it. Mr. James Shee, one of his grace's collectors, is quartermaster and his brother, Patrick Shea, who is clerk and receiver under Mr. Smyth, is in arms, and Michael Langton, who supplies that place which last I had at Kilkenny Castle, is likewise a trooper under the said Bryan." In March, 1689, King James arrived at Kinsale and on his way to Dublin passed through Kilkenny where he stayed the night of April ,9. There is evidence of the welcome he got in the account book of Capt. George Gaffney who commanded a company in Col. Edward Butler's infantry regiment: "Gave the men a barrel of beer to drink the king's health the night he came to Kilkenny—16s.; powder for to give a volley—2s." In May, 1689, the Patriot Parliament met in Dublin—a parliament whose members were nearly all Catholics who insisted on repealing the Act of Settlement, by which many Protestants held lands that they had got since 1641, and also on declaring the supporters of William of Orange guilty of treason, which would involve the older stratum of Protestant landowners (including Ormonde) in the loss of their estates, which would then be available for distribution to Catholics. In this parliament Kilkenny City was represented by the mayor, John Roth, and by Alderman James Bryan. The county was represented by James Grace of Courtstown and Robert Walsh
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War
151
of Clonassy. Five other boroughs in the county were represented by two members each. An act of the Patriot Parliament that had a special interest for Kilkenny was the act prohibiting the importation of English, Scotch or Welsh coal; it had a clause to prevent profiteering by the owners of the Kilkenny coalpits by fixing the pithead price at 9d. a barrel. But most of this legislation was in effect a paper transaction; the Jacobite regime did not last long enough to obtain any substantial results from it and land-hungry Catholics were sorely disappointed. Several Kilkenny regiments took part in the siege of Derry: Galmoy's horse and the foot regiments of John Grace and Edward Butler. Galmoy took a prominent part in the early stages of the siege of Enniskilen, and there is a curious story of his attempt to take Crom Castle on Lough Erne without having any guns. He seems to have been a man of ingenuity, as he made two dummies out of tin bound round with whipcoard and covered with buckram, so as to look like real guns. He had them dragged towards the castle with a great deal of noise and appearance of effort, and then summoned the castle to surrender under threat of immediate bombardment. But his bluff was called and his troops were vigorously repulsed by the garrison. After the sieges of Derry and Enniskillen were over James's troops retired from the north and left it open for a Williamite army under the veteran Marshal Schomberg who advanced as far as Dundalk to meet the Jacobite army in the autumn of 1689. The French ambassador did not think much of the Jacobite army, but he singled out Lord Galmoy's as one of the two good cavalry regiments. King James also expressed particular satisfaction with Galmoy's cavalry when he reviewed his army at Drogheda. The meeting between James's army and Schomberg's was an anti-climax; both were on the defensive, the autumn was very wet and there was a lot of sickness in both camps. They called it a Hay; Schomberg retired to Belfast and James to Dublin. There is a tradition that Schomberg tried to get Colonel Jbhn Grace to bring his men over to the Williamite side and that Grace sent back a firm refusal written on a playing
152
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
card—the six of hearts, which was afterwards locally known as Grace's card. In Dublin so many of James's soldiers were sick that the city was described as "almost turned into a hospital." James seems to have thought Dublin too unhealthy and to have spent most of the winter in Kilkenny, which had a high reputation for climate: Water without mud and air without fog, Fire without smoke and land without bog. There are references to James being at Kilkenny in November, 1689, and for a great part of January, 1690. It wras also a military centre of some importance; Colonel John Grace's and Colonel James Purcell's infantry regiments were stationed there; Lord Galmoy's cavalry regiment was divided between Kilkenny and Maryborough. It was also reported that gunsmiths were busy in Kilkenny making weapons with the help of a plentiful supply of coal. The militia was reorganised under the new mayor, John Archdeacon, who had the rank of major. Protestants were not allowed to be members, but had to pay taxes for the expenses. A number of Protestants remained in Kilkenny during the Jacobite regime and seem to have come through without great suffering; there are not the same atrocity stories about Kilkenny that were published in broadsheets about other places at the time. One troublesome affair was reported in September, 1689, when a Jacobite grenadier is said to have come into church—the cathedral presumably —during service and "committed several rudenesses" when he was turned out by force he went and raised the people, crying out that the Protestants had murdered a grenadier in church and buried him in a vault; upon which there was an assault made on the church, and seats were pulled up and the people abused and "worse would have followed, had not the governor come in and prevented it." One result of King James's stay seems to have been the foundation of the Royal College or University of St. Canice's, Kilkenny, with a rector and eight Drofessors. The Protestant headmaster of Kilkenny College, Dr. Hinton, had fled with his pupils and Dr. Phelan, the Catholic bishop of Ossory,
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War
153
took the opportunity of using the premises as an educational institution for his own faith; it got its royal charter in February, 1690. As it came to an end that summer after the Battle of the Boyne, it had a short life; but it must have been a merry one, as among the goods seized by the Williamites in the house of Walter Lawless at Talbot's Inch were "a hundred barrels of beer from the Irish college." On its way from the Boyne to Limerick the Irish army passed»through Kilkenny in what seems to have been rather a disorderly way. There is an account written by an English Jacobite called John Stevens. He was at the Boyne on the first of July, by the old calendar, and about midday on the fourth he reached Kilkenny. This is how he describes the scene: "All the shops and public houses in the town were shut and neither meat nor drink to be had, though many were fainting through want and weariness So, hearing the stores at the castle were broken up and much bread and drink given out, I resolved to try my fortune there and found drink carried out in pails and many of ihe rabble drunk writh what they had got. Yet upon my approach I perceived some officers whom want had carried thither as well as me but were somewhat more forward, so ill-treated by Brigadier Wauchope first and next by the Duke of Tyrconnell, who gave a lieutenant a thrust in the breast with his cane, that I went away resolved rather to perish than run the hazard of being ill used. As soon as we were drove away the town and stores v/ere sold for £300, which a great officer of ours put in his own pocket when good men were perishing with hunger and weariness and what was left to the en/.'my mi^ht have plentifully relieved their wants." The townsfolk, in fact paid protection money to save the town and castle from being looted by the Irish army. Tyrconnell and the French general, the Comte de Lauzun, stayed the night in the castle, and one of the last official acts of the Catholic mayor, John Archdeacon, was to authorise eight shillings worth of candles to be bought to light the rooms for them during their stay; there are some Other interesting items in the mayor's accounts ;
154
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
"5s. paid to Patrick McMoran for shoeing Col. Sheldon's horses, he helping to keep the city from plunder after the route; £1 14s.: paid for iron for shoeing Lord Tyrconnell's horses; £3 0 1 paid to Nicholas Murphy for seven carcases of mutton given to the guards that came with Lord Tyrconnell; 3s. paid to men and women for carrying corn to the mill for want of horses to get some ground to make bread for the running army after the rout; £1 16s. for iron delivered to Thomas Barry for mending the locks of the city gate after the rout of the Boyne; £25 14 3 paid to the board of ordnance for mounting seven iron sakers (cannon) three mounted on field carriages and four on truckles— four placed on half-moons of the city walls and three about the castle of Kilkenny." There was about a fortnight's gap before the Williamite army took over Kilkenny. On July 16 that army reached Carlow on its march south from Dublin. Ormonde, who had fought at the Boyne and had led the Williamite force into Dublin, was detached to secure Kilkenny, while the main army marched on to Bennettsbridge. Kilkenny surrendered without resistance and the Jacobite historians lamented that a strongly fortified town, which had put up some resistance to Cromwell, should have been abandoned by the Irish army without a fight. Ormonde was delighted to find so little damage done to his castle and its contents. A note was lying on the table; it was from the Comte de Lauzun to say that he had given particular directions that the castle should not be damaged. George Story, the chaplain who wrote the Williamite history, says that the castle was preserved with all its goods and furniture, not without the cellars well furnished with what the Jacobite army had not had time to drink. Three days later Ormonde was able to entertain William and his retinue to dinner in the castle. William was reported to be very pleased with the beauty and situation of the place. The silver fork he used at dinner was long treasured as an heirloom by the Ormonde family. The Kilkenny Corporation has an order with King William's autograph sent from his camp at Bennettsbridge superseding the Jacobite
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War
155
mayor and corporation and substituting a new, allProtestant body with Capt. John Baxter as mayor. William's main army did not go through Kilkenny City; it went across the south-east of the county from Bennettsbridge towards Carrick. There William got bad news from England, where there was a near-panic after the English and Dutch navies had been beaten by the French ofr Beachy Head. William accordingly decided to go back to England, but when he got to Dublin he was relieved to hear the French had not followed up their victory and things in England had settled down. So he changed his mind and rejoined his army on their march to Limerick; on the way he visited Kilkenny again, and he and his whole retinue spent the night of August 2 in the castle. The first reverse that William's army met after the Boyne was administered by a Kilkenny veteran, Col. Richard Grace, who held Athlone. William sent Lt.-Gen. Douglas to take it, Grace's answer to Douglas's summons was that he would eat his old boots first. Douglas bombarded him for a week, shot away all his ammunition and then withdrew. This set-back was soon followed by Sarsfield's raid at Ballyneety, at which young John Grace was said to have been present as Sarsfield's A.D.C. Soon after that William abandoned the siege of Limerick and went back to England. His army in Ireland remained more or less inactive during the winter of 1690-'91 under a Dutch general, Ginkel, who made his headquarters at Kilkenny. He was there for most of the time from October, 1690, to May, 16.91. There are several records of payments made by the new mayor, John Baxter, for military requirements : Soldiers were employed laying sods to strengthen the fortifications; locks were provided for the barrier gates; St. Mary's Church was used as a magazine. A military hospital was set up and Ginkel wrote to the mayor asking for equipment for it : "the necessaries required for the hospital here being not yet arrived . . . . I do hereby require you in the meantime to cause the inhabitants to furnish the said hospital with twenty beds for
156 War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 the use of the sick and wounded soldiers." he also asked for "necessaries for dressing their food as two or three kettles, wooden vessels or earthen chamber pots, wooden platters and wooden cups for their drink or broth." During the winter the militia was reorganised and restricted to Protestants. There were two companies under Captains Josias Haydock and Joshua Helsham. The men were quartered on Catholics as a form of retaliation for the previous Jacobite arrangement by which Protestants were taxed to pay for the Catholic militia. The Williamite militia was not very effectively armed and this became important when the bulk of the regular army moved to the front for the summer campaign of 1691. Haydock wrote to the lieutenant-governor of Kilkenny, Col. Coote, asking for a supply of arms. He got this rather dusty answer : " as for arms there are none to be had, except the army here have some to spare . . . . Ammunition is ordered for you and you must make the best shift you can till arms may be had. 50 of the army will be left in the town to assist you, which is all I could get or that the general could spare." In the spring of 1691, just before the campaign opened, the Williamites had a series of legal proceedings and sentences of outlawry for high treason were passed against the leading supporters of King James. Long lists of names were returned for different areas. The Kilkenny city lists included Shees, St. Legers, Lawlesses. The county lists had Graces, Fitzgeralds, Butlers, Comerfords, Walshes, Bryans and many others. Unless the sentences were reversed these outlaws stood to lose all their property : most of them were not landowners, but many of them were—some such as Galmoy and the Graces on a very large scale; others were substantial merchants. The threat of confiscation was an important factor in William's negotiations for putting an end to the war. It was one of the points for settlement at the treaty of Limerick and the treaty largely turned on it. The battle of Aughrim on 12th July, 1691, was a major disaster for the Irish army and really decided the war. Kilkenny men did not take a specially prominent part in it, but there is a reference to Lord Galmoy doing good
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War
157
work after the battle in covering the retreat with his regiment "as prosperously as so small a body could do." One of the prisoners taken was Patrick Lawless, the son of Walter Lawless of Talbot's Inch. Patrick Lawless later had a distinguished career on the Continent and ended up by becoming Spanish ambassador in London and Paris. The end of the war came with the treaty of Limerick, in which Galmoy took a prominent part and was one of the signatories. The scheme of the treaty was that those of the Irish army who wished to go to France should be allowed to do so; but in that case they would forfeit their property. Those who wished to stay in Ireland as subjects of King William would be pardoned and allowed to keep their property if they were still in arms at the end of the war. Those who had been killed or had been taken prisoner or had already surrendered unconditionally would not be pardoned and their estates, if they had any, would be forfeited. Most of the Irish army had no landed property, but some had and the majority of them decided to stay in Ireland and take advantage of the treaty. Lord Galmoy was one of the most prominent of the great estate-owners who decided to go to France and forfeit his Irish estate. He fought with distinction in the armies of France and Spain and reached the rank of lieutenant-general. His son, Edward, also went to France and was killed at Malplaquet. Another Kilkenny man who went to France and distinguished himself was Michael Roth—nephew of the Jacobite mayor, John Roth—who also reached the rank of lieutenant-general and became a count. On the Williamite side Ginkel was the hero of the day and returned in triumph to Kilkenny, where he stayed for about a fortnight in the latter part of October before going on to Dublin and London. After the battle came the pay-ofT, and the leading Jacobites v/ere divided into the sheep and the goats—from the Williamite point of view. Those who claimed the benefit of the treaty of Limerick had their cases heard, and nearly all the claims were admitted. Among the successful
158
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
claimants were Col. Edmond Butler of Ballyragget, Lord Mountgarrett, Captain James Bryan, Major Pierce Butler of Mustard Garden, Foulks and Henry Comerford, Theobald Den of Polestown, Capt. George Gaffney, Vincent Nash of Newhouse near Gowran, Richard Shee, Walter Tobin, Michael St. Leger, and several Purcells and Pays. One claim was disallowed after a long and heated argument: that was the claim of Edmund Blanchfield, who was held to have broken the rules by taking protection from the Williamites and then going back again to the Jacobite side. His property was confiscated and sold by auction at Chichester House in College Green, Dublin, where most of it was bought by a London company, the Corporation for making Hollow Sword-Blades. Galmoy's estate was sold in the same way; so also were the estates of Walter Lawless of Talbot's Inch, Robert Walsh of Clonassy, Walter Bryan of Bawnmore and several others. The estates were bought either by the Hollow Blades Company or by individual Protestants. No Catholic was allowed to bid. There was much discussion about the case of John Grace. The old Col. John had died in 1690. His son, Robert, was wounded and taken prisoner at Aughrim and died before the war ended. The estate was settled on his two sons, Oliver and John. Oliver was in France and died nine days after his father, John was at Limerick and claimed the benefit of the treaty. It was argued that as Oliver had succeeded to the property while he was in France it should be forfeited. The Graces had an influential relation in England—the Duke of Buckingham—and John went over to enlist his help. Unluckily he engaged in a surreptitious love-affair while he was staying in the Duke's house; the Duke found out, was furious and refused to help. So the Grace estate came under the hammer at Chichester House. That was how the eighteenth century began. The estates of Jacobites who were not protected by the treaty of Limerick were sold to Protestants. Those Jacobites whose estates were protected by the treaty, such as Butler of Ballyragget or Lord Mountgarrett, faced a century of penal
Kilkenny in the Jacobite War
159
laws and political and social eclipse—the direct result of Protestant victory and Catholic defeat in the Jacobite war.
This page intentionally left blank
13 COUNTY LOUTH AND THE JACOBITE WAR From one aspect the Jacobite war was the concluding phase in a century-long struggle for the land between Catholic and Protestant. The Cromwellian confiscation had dispossessed Catholics east of the Shannon; after the restoration of Charles II Catholics had recovered a fraction of their losses, but much less than they had hoped for. Protestants resented the fact that Catholics had made any recoveries at all. The Restoration Act of Settlement became the centre of controversy. Catholics hoped for its repeal; most Protestants looked on the Act as the guarantee of their title deeds. The Jacobite war brought things to a head. Virtually all Catholics were on the side of James II and virtually all Protestants on the side of William. Both sides had come to the conclusion that the complete suppression of their opponents was essential to their owTn security. Each regarded the other as rebels, and the penalties for unsuccessful rebellion included the confiscation of land. Louth had, of course, been one of the counties of the Pale, and most of the land was owned by colonists of Norman or English stock. Before Cromwell over two-thirds of the county was owned by the older strata of colonists, who had remained Catholic. At the Restoration Catholics had recovered about a third of their former holding. But it was to a few of the more influential families that most of the restitution was made, and most of the smaller owners failed to recover their lands. The Restoration settlement gave back the broadest acres in the county to Sir John Bellew of Castletown—later Lord Bellew of Duleek; to Lord Carlingford, head of the Taafe family; to Lord Louth of the Plunkett family. The first two had nearly 6,000 plantation acres each, and Lord Louth had over 4,000 plantation acres; the figures would have to be nearly doubled to get the equivalent in statute acres. Smaller, but quite substantial, estates were recovered by Patrick Bellew of Barmeath, Thomas Clinton of Clintonstown and Nicholas Gernon of Milltown among others. Altogether there were about twenty Catholic landowners, great and small, shown in the record at the end of the Restoration settlement. In the place of dispossessed landowners new owners had come in, such as Sir William Tichborne, who got Beauly in place of a
162
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Plunkett and built himself the very fine house we can still admire; Henry Bellingham, who got Gernonstown, later named Castlebellingham; Erasmus Smith, who endowed Protestant schools; Henry Townley, whose family name is commemorated in Townley Hall, among others. The largest Protestant landowner, however, was one whose titles went back long before Oliver Cromwell to the sixteenth century and the dissolution of the monasteries; he was Henry Moore, Earl of Drogheda. When James II came to Ireland in March, 16S9 he was enthusiastically welcomed by Catholics, not so much for his own sake as because he represented the chief hope they had of recovering and holding their lost lands and political and religious privileges. Only in Derry and Enniskillen—the Protestant cities of refuge in the north—was James resisted and William acknowledged. The first demand of Catholics was for a Parliament and a new law to drive a " coach and six " through the Restoration Act of Settlement. The Parliament met in May, 1689 and the Louth representatives in the House of Commons were now all Catholics. The county was represented by Thomas Bellew of Dundalk and William Talbot of Haggardstown, who was Lord Tyrconnell's nephew. Hugh Gernon and John Babe sat for Ardee; Robert Dermot and John Dowdall for Dundalk; Christopher Fitzlgnatius Peppard and Bryan Dermot for Carlingford; and Henry Dowdall and Christopher FitzGeorge Peppard for Drogheda. Lords Bellew and Louth sat in the House of Lords. The Act of Settlement was repealed, and all those who had lost land since 1641 could now hope to get it back. An Act of Attainder was also passed, which attainted or outlawed some thousands of Protestants unless they acknowledged allegiance to King James by a certain date. If they failed to do so, their lands would be confiscated and available for distribution to Catholics. The list included the Earl of Drogheda, Sir William Titchburn, Thomas Bellingham and about sixty others from County Louth, most of whom were in England preparing to help William to conquer Ireland. But the members of this Patriot Parliament were counting their chickens too soon. The Acts passed by the Patriot Parliament could be effective only in the event of a Jacobite victory. Catholic hopes were dashed, first by the successful resistance of Derry and Enniskillen, and in the following year by the arrival of William and by his victory at the Boyne. That victory went to the heads of William's Protestant supporters and they confidently expected that all the land still in Catholic ownership would now be available for distribution. William at first thought the war was won. When he reached Finglas, just north of Dublin, he issued a declaration calling on the Jacobites to surrender unconditionally ; he made no promises about their lands. There were plenty of deserving supporters whom William wished to reward with confiscated Irish land, and it was natural for him to see the advantage of taking away the estates of Jacobites whose support of James had forced William himself to take the appalling risk of coming over to Ireland at a time when Holland was threatened by Louis XIV's army and his position in England was threatened by the French navy. William's Protestant followers also
County Louth and the Jacobite
War
163
saw no advantage in making any concession to Irish Catholics who had just repealed the Act of Settlement and passed the Act of Attainder. But the demand for unconditional surrender was a mistake. It made the Irish Catholics desperate and they determined to hold out for better terms. They found a leader in Patrick Sarsfield. William met with a serious reverse at Limerick, which he had to abandon in the late summer of 1690. The war went on for more than a year longer and Ginkel, William's Dutch general, was left in charge of operations. Ginkel's instructions were to repair the damage done by the demand for unconditional surrender; he was to try to bring the Jacobites to terms in time to avoid an Irish campaign in 1691. Negotiations went on and Catholic intermediaries were used in the bargaining; the terms offered wrere some form of toleration for the Catholic religion and the restoration of, at any rate, most of the lands owned by Catholics when the war began. One of the intermediaries was John Bellew, the eldest son of Sir Patrick Bellew of Barmeath. The father was with the Jacobite forces, but the son had remained in Dublin, acknowledged William and put his services at the disposal of the Williamite government in an effort to get a settlement. To allay suspicion the Williamite authorities declared him an outlaw when he left for the Irish quarters. This stratagem was not successful, as the Jacobite authorities arrested John Bellew and kept him in prison till after the battle of Aughrim.1 After the war he got a royal pardon from William. The negotiations did not succeed, partly because Sarsfield took a tough line with the negotiators, and partly because the terms offered were too vague and because Catholics were not convinced of the good faith of William's supporters, though they were readier to believe in W7illiam himself. Meanwhile the Williamites were taking action against the Jacobites and their property in the parts of Ireland under William's control. Estates were taken over by special commissioners; law courts were set up, assizes held, and juries returned long lists of Catholic supporters of King James who were to be outlawed. Most of the Louth outlawries seem to have been pronounced in April, 1691, shortly before military operations began again. The list for County Louth contained ninety-nine names and there were fifty for Drogheda, which was treated as a separate unit.2 The lists were compiled by Protestant juries in the absence of many of the Jacobites, and there are some surprising omissions. For instance, they do not include Oliver, who became the eighth Lord Louth in 1689 after his father's death, though they do include his brother Thomas, who was in France for his education. There is no mention of Sir Patrick Bellew, but his second and third sons, Richard and Christopher, are listed; the eldest son, John, who was doing cloak and dagger work for the Williamites, is not there. The list begins with the names of Richard, Earl of Tyrconnell, Stickillin, and John, Lord Bellew of Duleek, Castletown, and his second son, Richard; Walter, his eldest son, who was also with the Jacobite army, is not included. There are a 1. Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 133. 2. Analecta Hibernica, No. 22.
164
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
number of priests mentioned, including Andrew Matthews, Abbot of Mellifont. There is an interesting row of Drogheda shopkeepers—John Owens, tailor; Thomas Nugent, baker; Martin Handcock, cooper; Patrick Mahan, bookseller; and James Bellew, skinner. Very few of these outlaws were landowners, but they stood to lose any other property they had, such as houses, stock or leaseholds. When the summer of 1691 set in nothing had come of the negotiations between William and the Catholics, and another campaign became inevitable. Athlone fell at the end of June, and on July 12 William's general, Ginkel, won a decisive military victory at Aughrim. That was a far more bloodthirsty affair than the Boyne, and the Irish losses were very heavy. Among those wounded and taken prisoner were Lord Bellew and his eldest son, Walter. Limerick was soon the last hope of the Irish, and a very forlorn hope at that. Their spirits were dejected, there was friction with the French commanders and much talk of a negotiated settlement. On 23rd September, 1691, treaty talks began, in which Sarsfield was the moving spirit on the Jacobite side. The Irish had not much to bargain with: one city with very little area to provide supplies or maintain cavalry. On the other hand, William was most unwilling to keep his army for another winter in Ireland; he wanted to move it to Flanders, where his position was almost desperate. Ginkel was authorized to go a good way to meet the wishes of the Catholics, but he could not go so far as to offer them a complete indemnity or to promise official recognition for their church. There was hard bargaining before the Treaty of Limerick was signed on 3rd October, 1691. One of the hostages exchanged as a guarantee of good faith during the negotiations was Lord Louth. Part of the treaty provided that those of the Irish army who wished to accompany Sarsfield to France should be allowed to do so, and that King William should supply ships for their transport. That part of the treaty was carried through without much trouble, and those who went formed the nucleus of the celebrated Irish brigades in the service of France. They were allowed to go, but were treated as outlaws so far as any property they had in Ireland was concerned. Foreign treason lists were later drawn up, but they had comparatively few names from Louth—twenty in the county list and nineteen in the Drogheda list. Not all of these were soldiers; there were several priests, including Dominick Maguire, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, whose Irish address was given as Ardee; many of the Drogheda names were those of merchants. The county list included Thomas Plunkett, a brother of Lord Louth, who transferred from France to Austria and became a captain of cuirassiers in the service of the Holy Roman Emperor; he was later allowed to come back to Ireland and spent his declining years at Louth Hall. 1 The list also has several Dermots of Kilcurly and a couple of Taafes of Drumleck. For those who wished to stay in Ireland, pardon and restoration of their estates, if they had any, were offered to those who were still holding out at the end of the war. 1. Louth MSS. N.L.I.
County Louth and the Jacobite War
165
Those who had been killed or captured or had surrendered unconditionally at an earlier stage were to have their estates confiscated, and so were those who went to France. Most of the Irish at Limerick who had landed estates decided to stay in Ireland, take the benefit of the articles of the treaty and get back their estates. Tribunals were set up to hear their claims, of which over 1,200 altogether were heard and nearly all allowed. Twenty-one claims from Louth were admitted. These did not correspond to twenty-one separate estates. The names included several from the same family, and others who were leaseholders or merchants. Among landed proprietors were Sir Patrick Bellew of Barmeath, Lord Louth, Capt. Thomas Cashell of Cashellstown and John Babe of Darver, all of whom seem to have recovered their property without much trouble. Capt. Roger Bellew of Thomastown had more difficulty in getting his property back; he was involved in long legal proceedings with William Barton, who had got hold of it in the meantime and tried to intimidate Bellew into giving him a long lease of it at a low rent. However, the Bellews seem to have persisted, and they still had rights in the property in 1736 when they conveyed it to Thomas Tenison.1 In addition to the pardons that automatically went with a successful claim to the articles of Limerick, a number of special royal pardons were granted by King William at his discretion. The estates of Lord Bellew and Lord Carlingford were saved in this way. The Bellew case was particularly complicated. After the first Lord Bellew and his eldest son had been wounded at Aughrim, they were taken to England as prisoners and died there. Richard, the second son, was at Limerick, and so could either stay in Ireland and be pardoned or go to France with Sarsfield and be treated as an outlaw. Actually, he went to France but claimed that he did so for the sake of his health, and not to fight, and that General Ginkel had told him that it would be all right. After his father and brother had died he claimed to be heir to the estate which had, in the meantime, been given to Lord Sydney, while Richard Bellew himself was liable to the penalties of being an outlaw. So he got a pass for himself and his footman to travel to Holland where he met General Ginkel who promised to intercede for him. He also enlisted the powerful help of the Duke of Shrewsbury. But .he King was very reluctant to give him a pardon; it seemed that Lord Sydney was afraid of his claiming £3,000 back profits from the estate and he had to promise to let Sydney keep the money before his pardon went through. To mal 0 assurance doubly sure, he got his father's outlawry reversed by special warrant and ended up by getting his own claim to the articles of Limerick recognized just before the lists closed. It appears that he succeeded in doing all this while he was still a Catholic. Early in Anne's reign he was to the fore in protesting against the Popery Bill on behalf of himself and other Catholics.2 His protest failed, and by 1707 he had conformed to the Established Church and had taken his seat in the Irish House of Lords. 1. Louth ArchcBological Journal, V, 196. 2. Cal. S.P., dom., i6gy, p. 61; B.M. Add. MS. 37, 673, f. 3.
166
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Nicholas Taafe, the second Earl of Carlingford, was killed at the Boyne; but his brother and heir, Francis, was high in the favour of the Holy Roman Emperor, William's chief ally. Francis was already a Count of the Holy Roman Empire and a lieutenant-general; soon after he became a field marshal. William gave special instructions that no attempt should be made to outlaw the dead brother Nicholas, or to interfere with the Taafe estate.1 Francis died in 1704 and the estate went to his nephew; when the nephew died in 1738 without children the earldom died out and the lands were divided, two-thirds to a Protestant relative and one-third to the Catholic Viscount, who sold his share to the Fitzmaurices. The ten years after the war were filled with disputes about confiscated lands. Protestants were openly hostile to the Treaty of Limerick, which was not confirmed by the Irish Parliament till 1697 and then in a truncated form. William and his English Parliament quarrelled bitterly about the right to dispose of confiscated lands in Ireland. The English Parliament wanted them to be sold to help to pay for the war and relieve the harassed tax-payer. William wanted to give them out as rewards to his friends and supporters. At first William seemed to be getting his way, and a number of royal grants were made. In some parts of Ireland these were on a fantastic scale—100,000 plantation acres to William's lady friend, the Countess of Orkney; about as much to his young Dutch favourite, Keppel; 150,000 to Bentinck, Earl of Portland, another Dutchman. There were loud complaints about what were called " the exorbitant grants " of the King. In County Louth the royal grants were more modest. General Ginkel was given Lord Slane's estate, 40,000 acres in all, but most of it was in Meath, and the Louth portion was relatively small. Lord Sydney, one of the few Englishmen whom William liked, was first given Lord Bellew's estate, but when that seemed likely to be recovered by the heir he was given some other estates, including Stickillin, which had belonged to Lord Tyrconnell. John Baker, whose father had been Governor of Derry during the siege, was given the estate of Nicholas Gernon—Milltown and other lands. In 1699 the English Commons forced William to agree to an inquiry into the way in which the confiscated lands in Ireland had been allotted. In the following year they forced him to agree to an Act of Resumption which cancelled all his grants with a few exceptions, one of which was John Baker's. The rest of the confiscated land was vested in a body of trustees to be sold towards the expenses of the war. The Act of Resumption was a humiliating demonstration of the power of the English Commons over the Crown. It was also a humiliating treatment of an Irish question without any consultation with the Irish Parliament—Protestant though it was. That offended the pride of Irish Protestants; their pockets were also affected, as Sydney and some others had sold out when they saw how the political wind was blowing, and Irish Protestants had bought their grants at v/hat seemed very cheap 3. Annesley MSS., XX, 101.
County Louth and the Jacobite War
167
rates. The Act made some provision for the " Protestant purchasers," but they were still to be considerably out of pocket as the result of the resumption proceedings. One of those affected in this way was Sir Richard Levinge, who had bought Tyrconnell's estate of Stickillin, which had been granted to Sydney.1 The trustees took three years over their work, from 1700 to 1703. Most of their time was taken up with hearing claims based on settlements made before the war began. Two of the Louth claims were successful: Patrick Gernon was able to save the estate of Killincoole, which would otherwise have been forfeited because of the outlawry of his father, Hugh; in the same way Nicholas Taafe saved the Stephenstown estate which had been held by his outlawed father, Christopher. But the trustees rejected the claim of Thomas Clinton, junior, to ClintonstowTn. When all the inquirie were complete and allowance had been made for all the exemptions—under the articles of Limerick special pardons and successful claims—the balance was put up to auction at Chichester House on College Green, the site of the present Bank of Ireland. Bidding was limited to Protestants. Only five estates in County Louth were auctioned: William Talbot's at Haggardstown, bought for Thomas Keightley, one of the Revenue Commissioners; Lord Slane's, bought by John Graham, William Barton and i^nthony Bury; Christopher Cheevers's at Carnantown, bought by John Newton; Thomas Clinton's, bought by Sir William Robinson, John Asgill and Thomas Bellingham; and Nicholas D'Arcy's. Bidding at the auction was not keen. War had just broken out again with France and there was talk of a Jacobite restoration, when everything would be in the melting-pot again. A large number of estates remained unsold at the end of the auction; an omnibus bid for them was offered by an English finance company with the peculiar name of the Corporation for making Hollow Sword Blades. The D'Arcy estate of Stonetown was one of the estates knocked down to the Corporation. However, its Irish land speculation was not a success and a few years later it sold out; Stonetown—over 1,000 plantation acres—was sold for £360 to Richard Tisdall, a lawyer and politician. The Hollow Sword Blades company then plunged even more disastrously into South Sea finance and burst in the famous bubble. The Chichester House auction of 1703 concluded the complicated series of transactions known as the Williamite confiscation. In County Louth it did not amount to very much—far less than in some other counties. The big estates, those of Lords Bellew, Carlingford and Louth, were protected by the articles or by special pardons. Several other estates were also protected in these ways or by the admission of legal settlements. The proportion of lands held by Catholics, which had been less than a quarter when the Jacobite war began, was still about a fifth when the auction finished. But the period of the Penal Laws was to follow, and life was to be very hard for landowning Catholics. A number of them changed their faith under the pressure. At the end of the penal period only one substantial estate in the county—Barmeath— seems to have been held by a Catholic. The Williamite confiscation of land was only part of the price paid by Catholics for their defeat in the Jacobite war; the shadow of that defeat spread over most of the eighteenth century. 1. An abstract of the conveyances is given in Irish Records Commissioners' Reports, 1821-$ pp. 348-96.
A. The Town of Sligo. B. The Stone Fort, which is altogether commanded by the Earth Fort. C. The Earth Fort, on a high ground, and newly fortified with a good Chemien, Court, and Glacies, well palisaded. D. The entrance into the Fort. E. A Sally-port to relieve the Outworks. F. A Well, which is continually full of water. G. The Retrenchments of the Town. H. A Bastion, which is made on a commanding ground. I. The High-way that leads from Collooney to Sligo. K. The way that leads from Sligo to Ballyshannon. L. The Sea, being a strand at low water. M. The Abbey. N. The Church. O. A Redoubt, which commands the two ways at the> bottom of the hill.
Sligo in 1689 following retrenching by Colonel Henry Luttrell. Additional fortification to the Earth Fort was by R. Burton, his Majesty's Engineer.
14 SLIGO IN THE JACOBITE WAR, 1689-91
S
LIGO played an important part in the Jacobite war. It changed hands several times, and there was sharp fighting in and around the town. It was not a large place or very strongly fortified, but it was of strategic importance as the key to Connacht, commanding the road from Ulster, where the Williamites were particularly powerful. When the troubles began, Sligo was the most Protestant part of Connacht. Cromwell had reserved the county for his soldiers, and it was not earmarked for the Irish like Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. In 1688 ninety per cent of the land in the county was owned by Protestants— such families as Coote and Cooper, Gore and Ormsby. Besides the big Protestant landowners with their substantial houses, there were a good many Protestant tenants; but the greater part of the population was Catholic. The accession of the Catholic King James II in 1685 had caused anxiety to Protestants and had raised in Catholics the hope of recovering lost land. But no great changes had taken place up to the time of the English revolution at the end of 1688, when James was driven off his throne by William of Orange. Tyrconnell, the Catholic viceroy, did not accept the English revolution and did what he could to provide James with a strong base in Ireland from which he might be able to work his way back to England. Tyrconnell regarded Protestants as fifth columnists, and had a good deal of justification for doing so. Many of the leading Protestants had already left for England and had offered their services to William; many of the Ulster Protestants congregated in Derry and Enniskillen and prepared to oppose Tyrconnell. Outside Ulster there were sporadic attempts to set up Protestant resistance movements, and Sligo was a conspicuous example. We have an interesting contemporary account of the situation written by a Sligo Protestant, Richard Wood of Castle Lacken.1 He describes the growing anxiety of the Protestants in the county. Orders to disarm them were issued from Dublin Castle; more and more of their cows were stolen; their Protestant tenants were forcibly evicted. The last straw was the talk of a Catholic garrison being sent to occupy the town of Sligo. At the beginning of January 1689 the Protestants decided to take positive action. They formed an association under Lord Kingston and the Hon. Chidley Coote and issued a declaration that they were determined to unite themselves with England and hold to the lawful government thereof and a free parliament. They went on to declare that they had taken up arms as a purely defensive measure without any aggressive intention, unless they were provoked. They formed troops of both horse and foot and occupied Sligo and a large number of strong points round it, such as Grange, which would secure the road to Ballyshannon and Derry; Newtown on Lough Gill; Manorhamilton; 1 Included in 'Three seventeenth/century Connacht documents', edited by M. O Duigeannain, and published in Galway Arch, and Hist. Journal, xvii, 154/61 (1936).
170
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
Collooney; Markree, the home of the Coopers; and Ballintogher, the home of a redoubtable and militant clergyman named Dr. John Leslie. Sligo itself was not a walled town. It had a comparatively modern fort beside the river (close to where the Town Hall now stands) called the Stone Fort, which had been built in Cromwell's time and was armed with seventeen miscellaneous guns, none of them very large. It is shown at B on the accompanying map. On the hill to the north of the river was a derelict earth fort which was to become of great importance during the course of the war, under the name of the Green Fort (C on the map). The Protestant association took energetic action against any Catholic centres in the neighbourhood, claiming that they were being used as hostile bases. A patrol of troopers under Captain Arthur Cooper of Markree reconnoitred the position at Ballymote, the Taafe castle, which had a Catholic garrison under Counsellor Terence MacDonagh. MacDonagh's men were drawn up across the road. Cooper's party fired a blunderbuss which killed one man and wounded five others and drove the rest back into the castle. More vigorous fighting took place at Longford Castle which belonged to Henry Crofton. He was of planter stock, but his mother was an O'Conor and he had been brought up a Catholic. The Protestants asserted that Longford Castle was a base for rapparees. So a patrol party under the command of William Ormsby and Francis Gore made a night attack on it, burning the entrance gate which was stoutly defended by the garrison till they were nearly suffocated by the smoke. The castle was stormed and a number of arms—pikes, skeeans, swords and a few muskets— commandeered. Two months after this resistance centre had been set up in Sligo letters came in from Col. Lundy, the Protestant commander at Derry, urging Lord Kingston and his Sligo men to join the Derry forces, as otherwise he was afraid they would not be able to hold out against the troops Tyrconnell was sending from Dublin. A council of war was held and the ' reverend and judicious' Dr. Leslie carried a resolution not to leave Sligo till the last extremity. Chidley Coote was deputed to go to Derry to explain to Lundy and ask for arms and ammunition. But Lundy wrote again, begging Lord Kingston to consider whether if Derry fell Sligo could hold out. So another council of war was held, this time without benefit of the advice of the ' grave and worthy' Dr. Leslie. It was decided to leave Sligo and burn the stores they could not take. The Protestant exodus took place on March 24 in bad weather. Some went in a ship then in the harbour, others in open boats, one of which was wrecked near Donegal; most took the Ballyshannon road. Wood gives a graphic description of the journey: ' God knows the hardships poor gentlewomen with their children suffered that night at Grange and what they endured next day in their march by the extreme hardness of the weather and the difficulties in passing over rivers, especially Bundrowes, which did sweep the loads off the horses' backs very often '. When they reached Ballyshannon they found that Lundy had double-crossed them; a letter from him said that forage was very scarce at Derry and that Lord Kingston should stop where he was till further orders. On April 7 orders came to march to Ballybofey en route for Derry, but by the time they got there King James's forces had crossed
Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91
171
the Finn at Clady and cut off the approach to Derry. Sligo had meanwhile been occupied by the Jacobites, so Lord Kingston, by now thoroughly disgusted, left for Scotland to join King William; most of his followers made their way to Enniskillen and took an active part in its defence. The governor appointed for Sligo by King James was Henry Luttrell, who later earned a bad name as a traitor at Aughrim and Limerick. During the siege of Enniskillen Sligo was an important Jacobite base. It was the centre of operations for Patrick Sarsfield, who was one of the leading commanders in the north/west region. But in spite of Sarsfield's talents the Enniskilleners got the better of the fighting. They found a good amateur leader in Thomas Lloyd of Croghan near Boyle, who was admiringly referred to by his men as the ' little Cromwell'. He routed the Jacobites near Belleek on the Erne and captured Terence MacDonagh on Fish Island. The main Jacobite force, however, got away and fell back on Sligo. The worst defeat the Jacobites suffered was at Newtownbutler, where the Enniskilleners routed Justin MacCarthy, Lord Mountcashel, and took him prisoner. That broke up the siege of Enniskillen about the same time as the siege of Derry was raised and threatened the whole Jacobite position in the north/west. Sarsfield got the news near the Bundrowes and fell back rapidly on Sligo, followed by Col. Francis Gore with three troops of horse and 150 foot. This was early in August 1689. There is a story of an ingenious stratagem thought up by Gore with the object of recovering Sligo for the Protestants. When Gore's party were within six or seven miles of Sligo they took an Irish prisoner and brought him to the colonel, who found that he was a foster-brother of his own—his nurse's son. Gore threatened to hang the man but finally pretended to be overcome by his appeals for mercy and offered to spare him if he would carry a message to Sarsfield's camp and warn half a dozen of Sarsfield's officers, who were his particular friends, that the whole Williamite force from Derry and Enniskillen were on the march to Sligo: 20,000 men who would be there the next day in overwhelming strength. This was to be a friendly warning to them and the foster/brother was not on any account to tell anyone else. The foster/brother, of course, told every one he met on the way to Sligo and started a panic retreat in the direction of Athlone. Sarsfield asked the reason for the panic and the foster-brother was brought to him and told his story. The officers named by Gore happened to be there and it was well known that Gore had in fact been friendly with them; so the story was readily accepted and Sarsfield and his men abandoned Sligo in the face of what they thought was a greatly superior force. Soon afterwards Gore and his small party came into Sligo and found the guns intact and a quantity of stores left behind by the Jacobites. Whether this story is true or not, Sarsfield did retire and the Protestants for the second time took possession of Sligo.2 Gore was soon reinforced by Sir Albert Conyngham of Mountcharles with his dragoon regiment from south/west Donegal. A month later Col. Thomas Lloyd, the ' little Cromwell', took command of Sligo bringing with him three troops of horse. He has given his own account in a letter to Marshal Schomberg, the veteran who had arrived in the north with a 2 A . Hamilton, A true relation of the actions of the Inniskilling men, London, 169
172
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
considerable Williamite army.3 Lloyd said he was very anxious about the Sligo position, as enemy forces were threatening it. He thought attack the best means of defence and sallied out in the direction of Boyle. He got as far as Ballinafad by night and sent out an advance party which surprised the Jacobite sentinels on top of the Curlews, killing one and taking three prisoner. The main Jacobite force then moved out of Boyle and their infantry then lined the wall of Lord Kingston's deer park on the southern slope of the Curlews to the east of the road from Sligo. The Jacobite horse,' which consisted most of the Irish gentry', were drawn up in a lane at the foot of the mountain. Lloyd reconnoitred the situation about sunrise and found his opponents very strongly posted. However, he ordered Sir Albert Conyngham and his dragoons to get inside the wall of the deer park and drive out the enemy sheltering behind it. Lloyd himself and Captain George Cooper then attacked the Jacobite infantry who ran to a nearby bog and then dispersed. The Jacobites' horses were very fresh and galloped through Boyle and out the other side, unsuccessfully pursued by Lloyd's troopers whose horses were tired and could not keep up the pace. Lloyd's despatch made the most of a rather minor engagement and was published in full to keep up Williamite spirits. He was left in possession of Boyle and captured the port/ manteau of Col. Charles O'Kelly, the Jacobite commander. But Lloyd's success was only temporary and he did not keep Boyle for long. Superior enemy forces were concentrating and Sligo was soon to be attacked by the Jacobites under Sarsfield. The story is told in a couple of Williamite broad/ sheets published at the time. They give a lively account of the fighting, though the topographical details are not easy to make out. One of the broadsheets is 'A full and impartial relation of the brave and great actions that happened between the Iniskilling men and the French Protestants on the one side and the Irish rebels commanded by Sarsfield on the other, near Sligo \4 The French Protestant in the story was a Huguenot captain called St. Sauveur, who behaved with great gallantry. The action started at Jamestown, county Leitrim, which had been held as a Protestant outpost. Sarsfield with 5,000 ' choice men' of the Irish army was joined by a local Connacht force of 2,000 and had no difficulty in driving the Jamestown garrison back towards Sligo. The town was defended by Col. Lloyd with Iniskilling foot, helped by the Huguenot St. Sauveur, most of whose men were grenadiers. The Williamite cavalry had retired towards Ballyshannon and their commander, Russell, had advised Lloyd and St. Sauveur to abandon Sligo, but' they bravely stood to it, defying the enemy'. St. Sauveur occupied a pass not far from the town—apparently Ballysadare—which he maintained against Sarsfield's force till his ammunition was used up, ' the monsieur himself an excellent marksman often firing at the head of his men, after which they retreated to the town with no great loss and defended themselves with their baggonets in their muskets till they took possession of two of the forts beyond the town, the French captain . . . the lower fort and Lloyd with the Iniskilling 3 An exact account of the royal army under the Duke of Scbomberg, with particulars of the defeat of the Irish army near Boyle, London, 1689. 4 London, 1689.
Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91
173
men . . . the upper fort \ That presumably means that St. Sauveur occupied the Stone Fort and Lloyd the Green Fort on the top of the hill. There is another broadsheet which carries the story further, and adds more details.5 This was a report by Captain Richard Smith who came with reinforcements in an attempt to relieve Sligo. He describes a sally by Lloyd's men which forced the enemy to retire till they were reinforced and drove Lloyd and his Iniskillingers back into the town. The report goes on: 'in the meantime our foot got into the castle and the enemies' foot drew up in the market/place . . . The castle being crasie and not thought tenable our men quitted it and got into the fort which they held five days, so long as they had any ammunition left'. This reference to the crazy castle and the market/place presumably means that the old Fitzgerald castle in the middle of the town was first occupied and then abandoned for the Stone Fort. The account goes on: * one remarkable stratagem made use of by the Irish for the storming of the fort was: they built a box of timber as high as the wall with stairs, through which they might ascend to the top of the wall without danger '. The defenders countered this move by tumbling out a parcel of shavings round the base of the contraption and sending down a man in a basket to set the shavings alight. When the rope was being pulled up it was cut by a shot and ' let the poor adventurer fall'. However, another rope was let down and pulled him up to safety. George Story, the chief Williamite historian of the war, describes the Huguenot captain's defence of the fort.6 He says that the captain was afraid that the enemy might assault the fort under cover of darkness so ' he got a great many fir deals and dipping the ends of them in tar they made such a light when set on fire that he discovered the enemy coming with an engine they called a sow; but having killed the engineer and two or three more, the rest retreated and he burned the engine'. Sow is a technical term for a siege engine designed to provide cover for an assaulting party. This sow was described as of very strong whole timber bound with iron and covered with two rows of hides and as many of sheepskins, which rendered * her' proof against musket ball or steel arrows.7 M. St. Sauveur put up a gallant fight but his provisions ran out and there was a shortage of water in the fort; so he surrendered to Sarsfield on honourable terms that allowed the garrison to march out with their arms and baggage. Captain Smith paid a tribute to Sarsfield, saying that he faithfully kept the terms agreed and entertained the officers the day they were signed. George Story says that when the garrison were marching over the bridge Sarsfield stood there with a purse of guineas and offered anyone who would fight for King James a horse and arms and five guineas advance pay, but they all answered they would never fight for the Papishes (as they called them), except one who took the horse and arms and guineas and deserted the next day.8 5 A full and true account of all the remarkable actions and things that have happened in the north of Ireland, London, 1689. 6 G. Story, Impartial history of the affairs of Ireland, pp. 33 7 W . Harris, Life of William HI, pp. 246x7. 8 Story, op. tit., p. 34.
174
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
So by the end of October 1689 the Jacobites were again in Sligo and were to hold it for almost two years, nearly as long as the war lasted. It was strongly garrisoned, with a regiment of horse under Col. Henry Luttrell, a regiment of dragoons under Sir Neale O'Neill (which later distinguished itself at the Boyne) and 3,000 foot. Luttrell seems to have been an energetic commander, and it was reported that he repaired two forts and built a third. The accompanying map, reproduced from W. G. Wood/Martin's History of Sligo, is styled * The plan of the town and forts of Sligo as it is retrenched by the Hon. Col. Henry Luttrell with the additional fortification done to the earth fort by R. Burton, H.M's engineer, 1689 \9 The map shows retrenchments round the town from the Stone Fort running outside St. John's church and round by the Abbey and further retrenchments from the river up to the Green Fort on both sides. It also shows a redoubt commanding the two roads at the bottom of the hill, north/west of the town. This may be the third fort that Luttrell is said to have made. By the summer of 1690 things were looking black for the Jacobites. William's forces in Ireland were building up, and he himself was getting ready to come over. In May came the surrender of Charlemont, the last Jacobite stronghold in Ulster, after a gallant defence by Teague O'Regan, an eccentric veteran. James was delighted with O'Regan's prowess, made him a knight and sent him to command in Sligo. So for the next fifteen months Sligo was in charge of this old warrior. O'Regan came from Ballynecloghy, co. Cork. He had seen service in France in Charles II's reign and was a good soldier, though he did not look like one. He was a hunchback and is described as wearing an old weather' beaten wig, a cravat all on one side and boots with a thousand wrinkles in them.10 Sir Teague decided that the Stone Fort was indefensible as it was too low down, and that the proper place for the defence was the old earth fort on the top of the hill. So he had the guns brought up to the Green Fort, or Sod Fort as it was often called, and made that his main position. The remains of it are still quite impressive and it dominates the country in every direction. The battle of the Boyne was a severe blow to the Jacobites, and the Williamite advance towards the Shannon promised to make things very difficult for the Sligo garrison. But Richard Grace stoutly defended Athlone against the Scots general Douglas and Sarsfield at Limerick administered a severe rebuff to King William himself. William went back to England and left his Dutch general Ginkel in charge of his troops in Ireland. When winter set in, conditions for fighting became very difficult. But William was most anxious to keep up the pressure on the Irish and not to let them recuperate too easily in the west. Orders from England came for a two/prong attack on the Irish positions—a southern thrust into Kerry and a simultaneous northern thrust towards Sligo, for which General Douglas was detailed. General Ginkel's correspondence, which is in the ancestral castle of Amerongen in Holland, has some exchanges between him and Douglas about this winter expedition against Sligo.11 Douglas objected that he was not strong enough to 9 W. G. WoocUMartin, History of Sligo, ii, 13 10 Story, op. cit., p. 62; Cork Hist, and Arch. Jn., xii, nu$ (1906) 11 Ginkel papers, Amerongen (Nat. Lib. Ire., microfilm N 4050).
Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91
175
deal with Sligo that winter and Ginkel tried to overrule him. He urged Douglas to march with all his forces towards Sligo and do his best to take it; if that was beyond him he should at least penetrate into north Connacht to draw enemy strength away from the south where a thrust into Kerry was the other part of the Williamite strategy. The Jew in charge of the commissariat was to see that enough bread for Douglas's force was available at Belturbet. Douglas, who was up in Armagh, retorted that if Sligo was to be taken he must have cannon, spades and shovels, engineers, battery masters and other requisites for a siege. ' I have,' he wrote, * neither engineer, battery master, instruments or other necessaries and thus I do not incline to make another Athlone siege; and suppose you had all the necessaries for a siege I do not see it possible that cannon or waggons can be brought to Sligo from this province, but if there be any gentleman more knowing than I in the country let him undertake the matter of conveying the cannon and waggons to Sligo and I shall give all the assistance I can, but I am sure the thing cannot be performed.' William himself wrote to Douglas to say how anxious he was to have Sligo besieged. Douglas again wrote to Ginkel that it could not be done. * I'm as willing as any mortal, but ... it is not possible to carry cannon or waggons any way from Ulster to Connacht in the winter*. Douglas said it would be better to wait for the spring when the roads would be in a fitter state for transporting cannon. Douglas's protests were effective and the idea of attacking Sligo in the winter was given up. In the meantime the bridge over the Erne at Belleek was repaired and made fit to carry heavy cannon. In March 1691 the Iniskilling foot— ancestors of the Iniskilling Fusiliers—were getting ready at Ballyshannon for the campaign. Their colonel said he was seeing to arms and tents and exercising the regiment twice a week.12 The exercises included raids in the Sligo direction which claimed successes in the shape of captured cattle or rapparees killed or taken prisoner. The main summer campaign opened in June and was directed at Athlone. Sligo was a subsidiary objective. The Williamite commander who was to deal with it was Col. John Michelburne who had made a reputation for himself at the siege of Derry. He held the Erne front with headquarters at Ballyshannon. His force consisted of one and a half infantry regiments, a troop each of Sir Albert Conyngham's and Col. Wynne's dragoons, and a considerable body of militia.13 Michelburne's operations began unluckily. About the middle of June a party of dragoons sent to patrol the Bundrowes were tempted by the idea offishingfor salmon and while they were happily engaged in this way they were attacked by an Irish party under Captain MacSharry and ten of them were taken prisoner and brought to Sligo. This started a correspondence between Michelburne and Sir Teague O'Regan who had been old comrades in arms in France in Charles II's time. Another of these comrades was Col. Edward Scott, deputy governor of Sligo, who had actually served in the same regiment as Michelburne. Scott 12 Col. Zachariah Tiffin to Ginkel ( T . C . D . MS, K.5.5., no. 533 ; Clarke letters). 13 Michelburne's operations are described in An account of the transactions in the north of Ireland, A.D. 1691, London, 1692. The same source contains his letters to O'Regan.
176
War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730
came from Easky, county Sligo. His brother Francis was a lieutenant who had been taken prisoner by the Williamites and lodged in Derry. So Michelburne's idea was to trade one lieutenant for ten dragoons. The resulting correspondence introduces a human note that relieves the rigours of war. Michelburne's first letter was as follows: ' Sir, 'Tis no small satisfaction to me to know that my old acquaintance Sir Teague O'Regan, the happiness of whose company I have so often enjoyed in the French campaign, should be in a garrison so near me, as also Col. Scott. I have sent you a pacquet of letters by my drum from the prisoners in Londonderry, one whereof is to Col. Scott from his brother to whom I have been civil on the colonel's account, which he does kindly acknowledge. My service to Col. Scott. I am, sir, your most humble servant, John Michelburne.' After several letters the prisoners were exchanged and O'Regan threw in some forty Protestants, men, women and children, who wanted to leave Sligo for Ballyshannon. Meanwhile Aughrim was fought and things looked gloomy for the Jacobites. The Williamites kept up the pressure on Sligo and had a decided success at Ballysadare bridge on July 23 when a party of horse and dragoons from Enniskillen beat back O'Regan and an advanced post. The Enniskilleners claimed to have beaten the Irish back under the guns of Sligo fort and to have nearly captured Sir Teague himself, if he had not looked so unimpressive that they failed to identify him. King William was anxious to finish off the war in Ireland and had authorised the offer of good terms to any commander on the Irish side who would surrender. Michelburne hoped to get O'Regan to accept the terms and wrote him another letter on July 26, a fortnight after Aughrim:— * Sir, You must needs be very sensible of your own weakness by the news you have of your army being totally beaten, how that they are not able to stand before us. So pray seriously consider it. I presume you have not yet seen the lords justices' proclamation which I enclosed send you. You have an opportunity to do yourself and your friends a kindness if you do but lay hold of this opportunity in treating with me as to the surrender of Sligo. I am, Sir, your humble servant, John Michelburne. I thank you for your present of the cask of claret you sent me. Be pleased to accept of a bottle of usquebaugh and some good London snuff.' Michelburne followed up his letter with a close blockade of Sligo, and negotiations started for the surrender of the town. All seemed to go smoothly; terms were drawn up by which the garrison were to hand Sligo over and march out with the honours of war. Sarsfield, now Lord Lucan, was asked for his approval and gave it. August 15 was fixed for the hand over. When the day
Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 177
177
came Sir Teague refused to surrender and Michelburne's hopes were badly disappointed. What had gone wrong ? Had O'Regan double/crossed the Williamites or had he some justification for his refusal ? The Williamites put it down to ' some treacherous inconstancy natural to the mere Irish'. Ginkel claimed to have intercepted a letter from the deputy governor of Sligo, Col. Scott, to Sarsfield to the effect that the talk of surrender was a stratagem to deceive the enemy.14 Another version gives the Irish side of the story and introduces a remarkable character. This was Hugh Baldearg O'Donnell, a direct descendant of the chieftains of Tir Conaill, who had been a soldier of some distinction in the Spanish service and had arrived in Ireland four days after the battle of the Boyne.15 He claimed to be the rightful earl of Tyrconnell and obviously disliked the title being taken by Richard Talbot, who was of an old English family. He felt that his lineage and his military experience were not appreciated, and he became thoroughly dissatisfied. The same offer of terms that the Williamites held out to Sir Teague O'Regan in July 1691 tempted O'Donnell to see what conditions he could get from King William, and he sent an agent to bargain with General Ginkel. What O'Donnell wanted was an opportunity to serve with his Ulster division on William's side in the European war and to be made earl of Tyrconnell. While the bargaining was going on, Sir Teague O'Regan from Sligo sent O'Donnell a letter to say that he had agreed to surrender unless he could be relieved within ten days. O'Donnell had no objection to showing the Williamites that he and his Ulstermen were a force to be reckoned with. So he moved to the neighbourhood of Sligo with the result that Michelburne's men retired and O'Regan regarded himself as freed from the undertaking to surrender. This version seems to have been the true one and O'Regan later saw to it that it was incorporated in the final terms of surrender.16 Michelburne was severely criticised for the Sligo fiasco and disputes arose between him and the militia under his command. King William was informed that' the foolishness of Col. Michelburne before Sligo has encouraged that place to defend itself and O'Donnell to play one of his Irish tricks instead of submitting as he intended'. Queen Mary ordered an inquiry into Michelburne's conduct to be held and the chief command on the Sligo front was given to the earl of Granard, to whom Michelburne was now subordinate.17 Bargaining went on between the Williamites and O'Donnell, which caused a split among the Ulstermen, many of whom had no liking for the idea of going over to William's side. But O'Donnell himself became more and more convinced that the Jacobite cause was lost. He came to an agreement with Ginkel that he should be promised the command of two regiments in Flanders and be reconv mended for the title and estates formerly possessed by his ancestors. In return 14 De Ros MSS, 12/102 (P.R.O.N.L). 15 J. O'Donovan, ' The O'Donnells in exile' in Duffy's Hibernian Magazine (i860), pp. $o