Strafford in Ireland 1633-1641: A Study in Absolutism, Second Edition

STRAFFORD IN IRELAND 1633-41

STRAFFORD IN IRELAND 1633-41 A Study in Absolutism HUGH KEARNEY Amundson Professor of British History, University of Pittsburgh

The right of the University of Cambridge to print anil sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge New York Port Chester Melbourne Sydney

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY IOOII, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Hugh Kearney 1959, 1989 First published by Manchester University Press 1959 This edition first published by Cambridge University Press 1989 British Library cataloguing in publication data

Kearney, Hugh Strafford in Ireland 1633-41: a study in absolutism. 1. Ireland. Political events, 1603-1691 1. Title 941.506 Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data

Kearney, Hugh F. Strafford in Ireland, 1633-41: a study in absolutism / Hugh Kearney. p. cm. Bibliography Includes index. ISBN o 521 37189 9, ISBN o 521 37822 2 (pbk)

1. Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of, 1593-1641. 2. Ireland— 3. Despotism. 1. Title. —History—1625-1649. DA396.S8K4 1989 941.506'092'4-dc 19 88-34293 CIP ISBN o 521 37189 9 hardcovers ISBN o 521 37822 2 paperback

Transferred to digital printing 2003

GTS

To MY PARENTS

'Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this. What saves us is efficiency—the devotion to efficiency. But these chaps were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors and for that you want only brute force. . . . The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter nose than ourselves is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . .' Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness

CONTENTS PREFACE

(1989)

.

.

I N T R O D U C T I O N (1989) PREFACE

(1959)

. .

.

. .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

.

.

.

.

ix

.

.

.

.

.

xi

.

.

page

.

. .

.

.

.

.

xxxiii

.

.

.

xxxix

ABBREVIATIONS

xl

1. A N G L O - I R I S H

RELATIONS

1

(i) T h e S i x t e e n t h - C e n t u r y B a c k g r o u n d (ii) P o l i t i c s , 1 6 2 0 - 3 0 . . . . 2. T H E

OLD ENGLISH

I NIRELAND

3. T H E

APPOINTMENT

O FW E N T W O R T H

4.

FINANCIAL

T H E

5. P R O L O G U E

6. T H E P A R L I A M E N T O F 1 6 3 4 - 5 7.

T H E

POLITICS O FTHE

8. T H E

INSTRUMENTS

9.

PLANTATION

10.

T H E

CHURCH

AND

11. W E N T W O R T H ' S

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 12.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

1

. .

5 24

.

32

.

.

.

.

42

.

.

.

.

.

45

1634PARLIAMENT

O F'THOROUGH' . O FCONNACHT

.

.

.

. .

.

53

. .

STATE ECONOMIC

-

.

69 -

8

5

104 POLICY

The Economic Background T h e Irish W o o l Trade Irish Linen . . . T h e Irish Customs F a r m Summary . . .

PERSONAL

.

BACKGROUND

T OPARLIAMENT

.

1 7

.

.

.

. 1 3 0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 1 3 0 137 . 1 5 4 159 . 1 6 8 171

PROFIT

Vll

Viii

CONTENTS

page 13. THE DOWNFALL OF WENTWORTH'S ADMINISTRATION

(i) O p p o s i t i o n i n U l s t e r . (ii) O p p o s i t i o n i n P a r l i a m e n t (iii) T h e P a r t i e s i n P a r l i a m e n t .

.

.

.

.

.

. 1 8 5 189 . 1 9 2

.

.

-199

14.

T H E IMPEACHMENT OF W E N T W O R T H

15.

AFTERMATH IN IRELAND.

16. C O N C L U S I O N .

.

.

.

.

185

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

209

.

216

APPENDICES

223

I. T h e M e m b e r s h i p of t h e 1634 Parliament

.

.

223

II. List of M e m b e r s of t h e Parliament of 1640 .

.

260

.

264

III. Commission for Defective Titles 1636 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL N O T E

.

.

.

.

. .

.

269

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

INDEX

287

LIST

O F

FIGURES

1. F i n e s f o r L i v e r i e s o f L a n d , 1 6 2 2 - 4 1 .

.

.

.

76

2. P a r d o n s a n d L i c e n c e s o f A l i e n a t i o n , 1 6 2 2 - 4 1

.

.

3. E x p o r t s o f w o o l f r o m I r e l a n d , 1 6 3 2 - 4 0

.

.

- 1 5 2

4. E x p o r t s o f L i n e n Y a r n , 1 6 3 5 - 4 0

.

.

.

. 1 5 8

5. I r i s h C u s t o m s d u t i e s , 1 6 2 8 - 4 1

.

.

.

.

78

160

MAP Ireland under Strafford, 1633-41

.

.

.

xlii-xliii

P R E F A C E (1989) I am grateful to Janelle Greenberg, Anne Hileman, John Adamson, Hiram Morgan and William Davies, who helped me in various ways. Brian Wormald, who over thirty years ago first encouraged me to study Strafford's Irish deputyship, once again was a rich source of illumination. I am also much indebted to John Morrill (a former pupil of the great 'Straffordian' J. P. Cooper) for reading a draft of the Introduction and indicating where the argument needed to be focussed more sharply. On Ireland I owe a great debt to the work of Brendan Bradshaw, Nicholas Canny and Aidan Clarke. I have taken the opportunity to make some minor corrections, following suggestions made by Dr. Donal Cregan. I wish also to express my thanks for financial assistance to Dr. Alberta Sbragia and the West European Studies Unit (U.C.I.S.) of the University of Pittsburgh. Finally I wish to pay tribute to the memory of the late Dr. R. Dudley Edwards, friend, mentor and colleague.

IX

I N T R O D U C T I O N (1989) Thirty years is a long time in the history of a monograph and I am naturally pleased at the thought that Strafford in Ireland is being republished. I am also conscious of the fact that much excellent work has been done in this area since 1959 by both British, Irish and American historians which may affect my conclusions. When this book was written in the 1950s, the influence of Sir Lewis Namier was in the ascendant. Historians were directing their attention away from ideology and towards uncovering the links of self-interest, kinship and patronage in the structure of politics. Looking back I can see that this approach affected the way in which I perceived Stafford's deputyship. Today, after a period when Namier's influence declined, the wheel has come round full circle. Professor Conrad Russell and his associates may be seen as writing in the Namier tradition (Russell 1979). From this perspective, Strafford in Ireland has not dated as much as it might have done. However, as John Pocock, Quentin Skinner and others have shown, we cannot abandon ideas lightly. One criticism which might be made of Strafford in Ireland is that it neglected the ideological dimension or, to use a concept which has become familiar since the 1950s, it did not attempt to analyse the mentalitis of the various groups involved, in both Ireland and Britain. If I were writing Strafford in Ireland today I would no doubt draw upon John Pocock's book The Ancient Constitution and Feudal IMW in discussing the mentalite of the old English. I would also make use of the work of a younger generation of scholars, in the field of political and religious ideas. The three decades which have elapsed since the publication of this book have also seen the rise, and perhaps the fall, of a social interpretation of the period. I refer in particular to the work of Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone upon 'The English Revolution'. From this point of view, the period before 1640 was conceptualised as an 'Ancien Regime', with StrafFord as one of the key figures. Many have been tempted to follow this interpretation. To others however it has increasingly seemed to be a variation on XI

xii

INTRODUCTION (1989)

the Whig interpretation of English history in which the parliamentarians appear as the 'progressives' and the royalists as the 'reactionaries'. I find it difficult to be certain about how to classify Strafford. If we compare him with Coke, Pym, or Cromwell, can we be certain as to which is 'forward-looking', to use Christopher Hill's term? Coke and Pym believed in the existence of an 'ancient constitution' stretching back beyond 1066 to time immemorial. Strafford refers to being 'armed a la moderne', to 'reason of state', to 'Galileo's glass' and to 'seeing experimentally', which suggests a certain 'modernity' in his approach (Knowler i. pp. 195, 379). The career of Strafford, like that of Oliver Cromwell, also raises the perennial issue of the role of the 'great man' in history. It is clear that Strafford, whatever judgement we may make about the morality of his policies, was a man of exceptional ability. A study of his career should attempt a sketch of his character. Here Strafford in Ireland is open to criticism. Strafford himself still awaits a Carlyle, though he does have a Wedgwood. Strafford in fact still remains enmeshed in the political judgements of his own time, Whig or Tory. The Whig view of Strafford goes back to 1640 when John Pym declared on 7 November 1640 that 'a deliberate plan had been formed of changing the intire frame of government and subverting the ancient laws and liberties of the Kingdom' (Kenyon 1986, p. 189). Rushworth in his account of Strafford's trial stated that the matter of his charge had a reference to every Englishman and all their posterities: He was accused of designing to destroy the security of their estates, liberties and lives and to reduce them all to be subject of mere will and pleasure. (Rushworth, Collections^ vol. viii, Preface) At Strafford's trial Whitlock had argued that 'his Design against England was of the same Nature' as his plan for Ireland (ibid., p. 522). Looking back from 1649, Milton saw Strafford as a man whom all men look'd upon as one of the boldest and most impetuous instruments that the King had to advance any violent or illegal designe. He had rul'd Ireland, and som parts of England, in an arbitrary manner, had indeavour'd to subvert Fundamentale Lawes, to subvert Parlaments, and to incense the King against them; he had also indeavour'd to make Hostility between England and Scotland: He had counseld the King to call over that Irish Army of Papists, which he had cunningly rais'd, to reduce England, as appear'd by good Testimony.

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

xiii

(Milton, Eikonoklastes, Chap. 11, 'Upon the Earle of Stafford's [sic] Death'. Yale Collected Prose Works of John Milton, vol. 111 (1962), 1648-1649 368-82).

In recent years the cWhiggish' view of Strafford has received powerful endorsement from Dr (now Professor) Terence Ranger in his article 'Strafford in Ireland: a Revaluation' (1965), where it was argued that Strafford was 'the first to realise that Ireland could be made of central importance in English politics and that through the great power of the Crown in Ireland the desirable solution could be tried out there before it was applied in England . . . Strafford adopted methods which were objectionable not only to landlords with something to hide but to those who had respect for law and convention . . . violence and extraordinary means were extensively used'. At what may be termed the 'Tory' end of the spectrum, the recent revival of interest in the historical writing of David Hume (who was unmentioned in my 1959 preface) points to a more sympathetic assessment of Strafford. In his autobiographical sketch 'My own Life' Hume described how he began his history 'with the accession of the Stuarts, an epoch, when, I thought, the misrepresentations of faction began to take place'. I was, I own, sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work . . . But miserable was my disappointment. I was assailed by one cry of reproach disapprobation, and even detestation; English, Scotch, and Irish, Whig and Tory, Churchman and sectary, freethinker and religionist, patriot and courtier, united in their rage against the man who presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I and the Earl of Strafford. Hume referred to Strafford as a man of 'great and uncommon vigour and capacity [who] by a concurrence of accidents . . . laboured under severe hatred of all of the three nations which composed the British monarchy'. In 1988, more than three centuries after his execution, Strafford remains a figure of controversy. The difficulty of reaching a hard and fast judgement about him was again revealed in 1961 when Miss, later Dame, Veronica Wedgwood published a substantially revised version of her original biography, Strafford, which had first appeared in 1935. Her first sketch of Strafford was overwhelmingly favourable. She saw him as 'a simple and generous man, over resolute perhaps, impatient and unimaginative, but

xiv

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

fearless in the pursuit of what he believed to be right*. Twentyfive years later, this passage was cut and Miss Wedgwood's overall interpretation became more complex. It now appeared that Strafford had been 'led into the murky and devious by-ways where courtiers, great officers of state and business men jostled and exchanged tips', in the words of J. P. Cooper whom Miss Wedgwood quotes (Wedgwood, Strafford: A devaluation; p. 232). The uncompromisingly Tory biography of 193 5 had given way to one tinged with Whiggish elements. In Ireland contemporary historiography has been unanimous in its condemnation of Strafford. In 1923 a 'Tory' interpretation of his deputyship was put forward by Hugh O'Grady, whose views Miss Wedgwood adopted in the first edition of her biography. For O'Grady and other biographers writing under his influence, Strafford was an heroic reformer attempting to implement a policy of 'thorough' in a morass of self-seeking. In recent years, however, the pendulum has swung overwhelmingly in a 'Whiggish' direction, Strafford in Ireland itself being a factor in the process. It may well be that the time has come for Irish historians to attempt an assessment of Strafford's intentions in his own terms. What in fact were his aims? Did he seek merely to feather his own nest or did he have some larger objective in view? How in fact did Strafford see himself? An approach of this kind can be defended as part of the task of any historian irrespective of 'Whig' or 'Tory' sympathies. Among historians of England, twenty-five years after Wedgwood's devaluation', the Whig-Tory controversy persists. So far as Strafford's English background is concerned, it is still not clear whether we should regard his acceptance in 1628 of office within the royal administration as a 'Great Betrayal' or as a tactical move which most leaders of the 'Country party' would have been prepared to make. Professor Perez Zagorin inclines to the Whig view, and regards Wentworth as a man of great ambition who was prepared to toady to Buckingham in order to achieve office (Zagorin 1986). Professor Conrad Russell takes a view that a week is a long time in politics even in the seventeenth century and that Wentworth's so-called 'apostasy' was in fact typical of the politics of the day (Russell 1979; Salt 1981). For Zagorin, the CourtCountry divide was one of principle and Strafford's crossing of it

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

XV

was betrayal. For Russell, all leaders of the Country party would have been prepared to serve the Court if the invitation came. Zagorin and Russell are of course concerned with Strafford's role in English politics. Strafford's Irish career raises different questions, one of the most important of which is the extent to which we may regard his policies as new. If his policies were anticipated by his predecessors this fact would seem to dispose of the charge that he was guilty of subverting the constitution, unless all earlier lords deputy were equally guilty. One important issue which I did not discuss in 1959 and which is still not clear to me now is the extent to which Wentworth's Irish policy originated with him and how far it was decided upon by the collective decision of the English Privy Council, following earlier precedents. In answering this question we may first ask how Wentworth prepared himself for governing Ireland during the two years between his appointment in July 1631 and his arrival in Dublin in July 1633. We may perhaps assume that he read Spenser's View of the Present State of Ireland^firstpublished in 1633 and dedicated to him. Sir John Davies' A Discovery of the True Causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued (London 1612) also

seems an essential choice of reading for a new lord deputy. It was possibly from reading Spenser or, Davies that Wentworth concluded that Ireland was in a state comparable to that of fifteenthcentury England. As he wrote to Christopher Wandesford Finally, the Irish being in a sort governed by another law, the same that we were governed under those furious troubles between the Houses of York and Lancaster . . . Now by the Laws enacted this last parliament I might truly say that Ireland was totally become English all the Flower and good laws past since Henry the seventh his time gathered without leaving one o u t . . . (Knowler, ii. 18). Another possible clue to Wentworth's outlook is provided by a letter from Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester (1595-1677) to the lord deputy, thanking him for restoring the monument erected to his grandfather, Sir Henry Sidney (Knowler, i. 224; ii. 9). Sidney was regarded as the most successful of Elizabeth's Irish deputies, and Wentworth may well have taken him as a model. If he did so this would place him among those deputies who stressed 'conquest' rather than 'conciliation', a group which included Edmund Spenser and Sir John Davies. He was taking up a position which implied that the Irish had no rights, 'for all is

XVI

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

to the conquerors as Tully to Brutus saith' (Spenser, View, p. 9). At his trial in 1641 Wentworth was accused of making a speech in 1633 * n which he was said to have declared that the Irish were 'a conquered nation'. Wentworth did not deny the charge that 'att Dublin in a publique Assembly 30 Sept 9 Caroli he declared that Ireland was a conquered nation and that the King might doe with them what he pleased'. His answer was that the Realme of Ireland is not nor hath at any tyme in all things beene governed by the same lawes as England, ruled by the common lawes, but there are many greate differences between the customes and the Statutes of the severall Kingdoms and in Martiall Lawe and the Lawes of the Councell board . . . but it might well bee that sundry occasions might be offered as that it might be fitt for him to putt them in mind of the Grace of the King and his Progenitors in suffering them, a conquered nation, to enjoy the same lawes as in England and that upon such occasion he might tell them of Dublyn that some of their charters were royal, and att the Kings pleasure, being so informed by the Kings learned Counsell here. (Rushworth, Collections, vol. viii, P- 2 3) As Dr Hans Pawlisch has shown (Pawlisch 1985), Sir John Davies, who was Attorney-General for Ireland in the period immediately before Strafford's deputyship (1606-19), stressed the significance of conquest as the legal basis for English rule. The theory of conquest, adumbrated by such medieval canon lawyers as Hostiensis, provided Davies with arguments to employ against the old English gentry and merchants. It was on the basis of 'conquest' that Davies defended the use of the Court of Castle Chamber (the Irish Star Chamber) against Irish recusants in 1605. His 'old English' opponent, Nicholas Barnewall, challenged the validity of 'the Mandates', 'wherein the Court of Castle Chamber never before used in a spiritual community was used to fine, imprison and deprive men of all offices and magistracies'. Davies' 'Quo warranto' proceedings against exemptions from customs duties enjoyed by most of the ports of Ireland formed part of the same pattern. Against the background provided by Davies, Strafford's view that Ireland was 'a conquered nation' seems much less original, and his policy of developing the Irish customs system at the expense of the ports seems to run clearly from Sidney via Davies. (Pawlisch 1985, p. 122). His use of Castle Chamber was clearly not without precedent. Another point which is relevant to a judgement upon the

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

originality of Wentworth's Irish policies relates to the extent to which these were influenced by the recent report of special commissioners sent to report upon the 'Plantation of Ireland' (BL Additional MS 4756). In 1622 Lionel Cranfield had sent commissioners to report on the state of Ireland. It seems highly probable that Wentworth who had been associated with Cranfield in the early 1620s, would have read the report produced by the commissioners. The recommendations of the 1622 commission are in any case of interest to those concerned with English policy in Ireland a decade later. What then was the report concerned with? Its recommendations were largely financial, with a view to reducing the burden of governing Ireland upon the English exchequer. It suggested that the Irish revenue could be increased by a new composition with the Ulster planters and a new settling of the Composition of Munster, Thomond and Connacht. It also felt that more financial benefit could be gained from wardships and from the confirmation of Defective Titles. The farming out of the customs was also considered. It seems clear that there was a considerable overlap between these recommendations and the financial policies of Wentworth's deputyship. He forced a new composition upon the undertakers of the Londonderry plantation. He increased the yield for the Court of Wards and the Commission of Defective Titles and he farmed out the customs at a greatly increased yield. We may suggest therefore that the financial policies of Wentworth were unoriginal. His achievement was perhaps to carry the 1622 'reforms' through successfully. One of Wentworth's primary aims during the early years of his deputyship was to reorganise the army. This also was one of the objectives of the 1622 committee. It complained of 'the miserable state of the poore army', and made suggestions about reducing the number of officers, the placing of garrisons, and raising the rates of pay. Here again it would seem that there was little that was original in Wentworth's army reforms (Knowler, i. p. 15 8). The 1622 committee had also been critical of the bargain which the Crown had struck in the Composition of Connacht. Recent research has demonstrated that the Composition of Connacht in 1585 formed part of a general policy of conciliation, a shift away from Sidney's 'hard line' policy to one of persuasion (Cunningham

xviii

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

1984). The long-term aim of anglicisation remained but by the use of indirect methods rather than colonisation ('plantation'). It has been shown that so far as Connacht was concerned, Sir John Perrot, who was lord deputy from 1584 to 1588, favoured the advice of the 'old English' Nicholas White and Thomas Dillon, and opposed the plantation policy of the 'new English'. But the Composition had not provided secure land titles. It was merely a financial arrangement whereby the government took over the role of defence of the chiefs, 'cess' being now relaced by composition. The need for more secure land titles became apparent as the land market became more active during the peaceful decades following 1603. In 1615 the landholders of Connacht pressed for secure land titles in return for a sum of £10,000. Wentworth's policy of 'plantation' in Connacht during the 1630s thus marked the continuation of the coercive policies of Sidney. The alternative policy of conciliation would have involved acceptance of 'the Graces' and a confirmation of land titles. Strafford's deputyship is also associated with the increasing use of the Court of Castle Chamber. Strafford did not invent this chamber (as some historians assume). In fact, the 1622 commission looked upon the Irish Star Chamber as an essential part of English government in Ireland. And concerning the Fynes in the Court of Star Chamber it will lend much to the quiet and good government of this country as we conceive that all enormous offences especiallie oppressions, extortions, perjuries, subordination of perjurie, riotts, maintenance of Champertie committed by any person what qualities, condition or degree soever be prosecuted by the council of the court. The Commission stressed however that the Council Table should not deal with cases which could be decided in the ordinary proceedings of the Courts of Justice but 'should containe itselfe within its proper bounds in handling matters of State and weight fit for that place'. As is well known, Strafford himself was critical of the role of the common lawyers. He wrote to John Coke in 1634, 'how well this suits with Monarchy, when they monopolise all to be governed by their Year Books, you have in England a costly experience' (Knowler, i. 201). Strafford's stress upon conciliar government at the expense of common law was not unique to himself. He could appeal to precedent in Ireland. What was novel was the use of Castle Chamber against the 'new English

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

xix

colonists, a classic example of the metropolitan country asserting its authority over colonists, not for the last time in English history. Strafford's policy here also seems to have been recommended by the 1622 commission (Canny 1987, p. 183). Perhaps the main difference between the recommendations of 1622 and Strafford's policy during the 1630s concerned ecclesiastical matters. In 1622 the rise to power of William Laud and the Arminian group of clergy lay in the future. Hence, though the commissioners pressed for reforms within the church, they were concerned with the recusants, not, as Strafford was to be, with the Puritans. The commissioners advocated the use of the Court of Wards in advancing the reformed faith. They also pressed for the removal of the Popish clergy, even using praemunire against them if it proved necessary. Strafford, in contrast, was prepared to tolerate the recusants. Though he judged it 'without all question far the greatest service that can be done unto your crowns on this side, to draw Ireland into conformity of Religion with England', yet he saw it as 'a work to be affected by Judgement and Degrees than giddy Zeal and Haste'. He was quite clear that 'his Majesty had power by this House to pass upon this People all the Laws of England concerning religion, which I say still, howbeit I judge it a point in no case to be stirred at this time' (Knowler, i, 367). Strafford's considered view about religion was that it was something 'which in Reason of State is of infinite consequence'. Hence he advocated caution. 'It were too much to distemper them by bringing in Plantations upon them and by disturbing them in the exercise of their religion' (Knowler, ii. 39). As he wrote to the Scottish priest, George Con, 'since I had the honour to be imployed in this place, the King has not been pleased that the Hair of any Man's head should be touched for the free exercise of his conscience' (Knowler, ii. 112). Strafford indeed saw the Puritans as a greater danger to the Crown than the recusants. He criticised the Scots as 'greater Puritans than any we have in England' (Knowler, ii. 129). He referred to 'the frenzy which possesseth the Vulgar nowadays'. He described John Hampden as 'a great brother' who should be punished. In contrast, he urged restraint upon Laud in dealing with the northern recusants (Knowler ii. 15 8). The story told in Strafford in Ireland is of a lord deputy, newly

XX

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

arrived in 1633, who found himself dealing with two political groupings, the Catholic 'old English' and the Puritan 'new English', the first strongly entrenched among the gentry of Leinster, Munster and Connacht, the second, dominant in the administration and benefiting from the recent plantations in Munster and Ulster. Though the interests of these two groups were mutually antagonistic, it was my argument that StrafFord by attacking both at the same time made possible a political alliance against him which led to his downfall. Wentworth declared at the beginning of his deputyship that his intention was to play the 'native' against the 'planter' and the 'planter' against the 'native'. However, a political account of Ireland which confined itself to dealing with two political groups would be misleading. A fuller analysis would need to take into account the attitudes of former Gaelic ruling families, dispossessed and exiled as a consequence of the Ulster plantation. StrafFord himself was well aware of the threat which they offered to the success of his policies, and his fears were to be borne out in 1642 when Owen Roe O'Neill returned to Ireland to assume leadership of the Ulster rebellion. A fourth group requiring mention are the Lowland Scots who provided the bulk of colonists in the 'unofficial' plantations of Antrim and Down. Their mentality which linked them with the Scottish Covenanters of 1638, deserves a fuller analysis than it has yet been given. Finally, we may mention the MacDonalds, whose interests spanned the narrow seas between Dunluce and KJntyre and with whom StrafFord found himself dealing during the crisis years of 1638-40. All these groups emerged into the full light of day during the Confederate period (1642-9). Evidence from those years needs to be drawn upon to provide details of their aims and attitudes during StrafFord's deputyship. Thanks largely to the work of a generation of younger scholars, we know a good deal more about the 'old English' than was the case thirty years ago. This was a political grouping, which was propelled into oblivion as a result of the Cromwellian plantation of the 165os but which a decade earlier had been socially and economically dominant in Ireland. Thanks to the work of Brendan Bradshaw, Aidan Clarke, and Nicholas Canny, together with that of their pupils, we now know far more about the mentalite of the old English. Looking back from the vantage point of the 1630s,

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

Xxi

the old English could see themselves as having been involved in the implementation of crown policy in Ireland, or major aspects of it, for a century. Research since 1959 has made it clear that the 'old English' were responsible for urging a policy of 'conciliation' upon the Tudor monarchy. It was thanks to the cold English' that the policy of 'Surrender and Regrant' was introduced, according to which the ruling chiefs of the various 'countries' of Ireland were to be persuaded, or pressed hard, to accept the introduction of English common law into their territories. The 'old English' had thus committed themselves to the progressive 'anglicisation' of Irish society. The impact of the Reformation, however, gave 'anglicisation' a new meaning. Political loyalty, as such, was not enough. It was now linked to religious conformity and as a consequence the 'old English' found themselves on the defensive against a hostile Protestant administration. In 15 81 it was necessary for the 'old English' Sir Nicholas White to stress 'what a strong garrison without pay the seed of English blood hath made to her crown since their first planting'. He advised the queen to avoid 'the rooting out of ancient nobility' and harsh court decisions by 'judges that be bloody' (Canny 1987, p. 167). In the early seventeenth century, 'the old English' were understandably resentful about their exclusion from political power despite their loyalty during the 'Nine Years War' with Hugh O'Neill (1595-1603). It is clear that Strafford alienated the 'old English' by refusing to grant them the secure land titles which he had promised. In June 1640 'native' joined 'planter' in active opposition to Strafford's administration. It was not land alone, however, which fuelled resentment. If we raise the question of mentality I think it is possible to see a shift of attitude among the 'old English' as a consequence of their experience during Strafford's deputyship. In 1626 they had attempted to bring pressure to bear upon the crown by demanding redress of grievances, the socalled 'Graces', in return for subsidies. In 1640 we find them appealing to an Ancient Constitution. This would seem to be a direct reaction to Strafford's stress upon conquest theory, his use of Castle Chamber and his attempt to disenfranchise certain parliamentary boroughs. They now referred to him as 'a Basha of Buda'. In Patrick Darcy's Argument (1641) we find an attempt to base the liberties of Ireland upon the Ancient Constitution of England.

XXii

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

Darcy was a Catholic lawyer, trained at the Inns of Court, who had been associated with the earl of Clanricarde's resistance to the Connacht plantation. For him the key question raised in an attempt to thwart Strafford's Irish policies, was 'whether the subjects of this Kingdom be a free people . . . to be governed onely by the common lawes and statues of Force in this Kingdom'. John Pocock, in his study The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal IMW (1957), has analysed the way in which the parliamentary opposition to the crown believed in the existence of an ancient English constitution which stretched back beyond 1066 to time immemorial. It was this 'myth' which sustained them in their opposition to the crown. Magna Carta was not a 'feudal' document (as modern historians tend to see it), but a confirmation of English liberties which were enshrined in the Laws of Edward the Confessor. Darcy took over these arguments, lock, stock and barrel, in his Argument, 'William the Conqueror', he declared 'did call to the Judges to declare and compile Edgar's laws and S. Edwards's laws, which were buried and forgotten by the Danish government.' Parliament was the highest tribunal of the Realm, 'as appears copiously by the Great Charter and by constant practise of all Parliaments since that time'. Darcy adopted the view of Coke that 'the law of England' is 'the best humane law' and argued, like Coke, that 'the supreme and governing law are the commonlaw; common-customs and the statutes of the Realm and the rest are but ministers and servants unto it'. English law provided Darcy with his refutation of what he saw as Strafford's arbitrary rule: 'The government of England being the best in the world, was not only Royal but also politicke—not to do death to the subject, like Cain, Nemrod, Esau and like hunters of men'. Darcy also mentioned the coronation oath as another integral element of the Ancient Constitution which symbolised the threefold trust between king and people, 'between Soveraine and subject, Father and Children, Husband and wife'. 'The lately introduced course of the Castle Chamber and Council Table' was contrasted with.the way of the common law. Darcy referred repeatedly to the Great Charter, quoting it for example against excessive fines 'in terrorem' made by the Court of Castle Chamber. Another aspect of the Ancient Constitution was the right of boroughs to send representatives to Parliament. Darcy regarded this as resting upon traditions stretching back to the earliest times

INTRODUCTION (1989) —'all Cities were Boroughs in the beginning and from them came Burgesses to the Parliament*. Sheriffs who applied 'quo warranto* proceedings were in a position to 'overthrow Parliaments, the best Constitutions in the world'. 'The Court of Parliament is the supream Court, nay, the Primitive of all other Courts.' For Darcy, in short, 'Ireland was annexed to the Crown of England, and governed by the laws of England'. This Nation ought to be governed by the Common-laws of England . . . the Great Charter and many other beneficial statutes of England are here by force of reason or argumentation to change which were to alter foundation layed 460 yeares past, and to shake a stately building thereon erected by the providence and industrie of all the ensuing times and ages. This is so unanswerable a truth and a principle so cleere that it proveth all, it nedeth not to be proved or reasoned. Darcy's Argument was not the only treatise which appeared during these years. Geoffrey Keating's History of Ireland (Foras Feasa ar Eirinn—The Foundation of Knowledge of the Men of Ireland)

also provides evidence of an appeal to an Ancient Constitution which, unlike Darcy's, emerged from a distant Irish past. Keating criticised historians who never comprehended that Ireland was a region apart, a little world of its own as it were and that the nobles and men of learning who dwelt there long ago instituted systems of jurisprudence, medicine, poetry and music which were governed by special rules applicable only in Ireland. In his History Keating argued that even before the coming of Christianity there was an Irish 'parliamentary' assembly as well as an Irish High Kingship. According to Keating the Irish high kings regularly summoned the 'Feast of Tara' (Feis Teamrha), 'when the entire assembly sat for the purpose of determining and completing the laws and customs of the country'. In our own day, Professor Daniel Binchy has demonstrated that the 'Feast of Tara' was a primitive fertility rite associated with the sacred kingship of the Ui Neill and last celebrated in the mid-sixth century (Binchy 1958). For Keating and his many readers, however, the Feast of Tara provided the equivalent of an Ancient Constitution, an Irish parallel to the English Laws of Edward the Confessor. (In modified form Keating's views of the ancient Irish polity survived into the school textbooks of contemporary Ireland, a fact upon which Professor Binchy has commented ironically (Binchy 1982). ) Keating, though himself of 'old English' background, wrote in

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

Irish, itself an indication that for some at least of the old English at this date there was no linguistic gap between themselves and Gaelic elements in society. Keating's History indeed has been seen as an attempt to provide the 'old English' with a Gaelic past by regarding them as the latest in a long series of invasions, of which the most recent hitherto had been that of the Sons of Mil (Cunningham 1986). Perhaps the main question raised by the "Ancient Constitution' views of Darcy and Keating is the extent to which Strafford's deputyship may be regarded as a ccause' of the Irish rebellion of 1641. Professor Aidan Clarke has argued that there was 'continuity' between the constitutional protest movement of 1640-1 and the rebellion (Clarke 1970). If this was the case it would indicate that Strafford, by arousing bitter opposition, helped directly to precipitate the rebellion. In an important recent article, Dr Raymond Gillespie has stressed the importance of economic unrest and of ideological conflict in Ulster (Brady and Gillespie 1986). I agree with Dr Gillespie in the sense that I regard Ulster as the 'flashpoint' where potentiality for revolt existed. What led the 'old English' constitutionalists into joining the Ulster rebels was not their experience of Strafford, who had been executed in May 1641, but the attitude of the Puritan majority in the English parliament. The 'new English', with their belief that the Pope was the Anti-Christ, were now in the ascendant. The rebellion with its accompanying massacres (as it was believed) came as no surprise to them. It did come, I believe, as a surprise to the 'old English'. Their belief in an Ancient Constitution did not prepare them for armed rebellion, but for constitutional conflict. It was this to which they returned in the Confederation of Kilkenny. For the 'old English' during their negotiations with Charles I during the 1640s the shadow of Strafford loomed larger than the plantation of Ulster. For Owen Roe and the Ulster Irish the reverse was true. In rejecting Strafford's policies, however, his critics were also rejecting a 'conquest theory' tradition which went back to Sir Henry Sidney. Since I wrote in 1959 there has also been a good deal of work on the protestant 'new English' interest. During the 1950s, Terence Ranger in his study of Richard Boyle, earl of Cork, and of William Parsons' role in the plantation of the 'Birne's Country' (today's

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

XXV

Co. Wicklow) stressed the importance of the economic selfseeking in the outlook of the 'new English' (Ranger 1961). Today the religious and ideological concerns of the new settlers are given greater attention. 'The Reformation' rather than 'the Rise of Capitalism' is the subject of debate. Brendan Bradshaw has identified two basic religious attitudes among the 'new English' during Elizabeth's reign (Bradshaw 1978). The first of these, which he associates with Sir HenrySidney, emphasised the primary importance of 'thorough' conquest before headway could be made towards the reformation of the Irish. The second attitude, held by such figures as Sir John Perrot, was more conciliatory. The establishment of Trinity College, Dublin, as an institution reaching out to the Irish, represented a victory for the forces of conciliation within the administration, after a delay of thirty years, during which the rigorists had opposed the foundation of an Irish university. The policy of 'conquest' was associated with a hostile assessment of Irish potentialities. In 15 8 5, Andrew Trollope, an advocate of 'conquest' wrote to Walsingham, declaring that the Irish were 'not thrifty or civil and human creatures, but heathen or rather savage and brute beasts' (Canny 1987, p. 168). Another advocate of conquest was John Mercury, for whom 'rigour hath its times in all government'. The justification of this policy was seen to rest on God's will. Trollope was in 'no doubt' that God had been offended by the failure of the monarchy in Ireland to restore it 'to order and thus to prosperity' (Canny 1987, p. 173). In the early seventeenth century this view was represented by such figures as Sir William Parsons, who advocated further plantation on the grounds that 'that course seems to be pointed unto us by the finger of God . . .' (Canny 1987, p. 190). Ministers who were associated with the plantation of Munster appealed to the old Testament in an attempt to maintain the morale of their charges. As God's anger had punished the Israelites, so, William Hull, an English minister settled in Cork, declared, 'will it out English Irish [sc. the new English] if they do not speedily repent: neither Covenant nor marriage must be made with idol worshippers' (Brady and Gillespie 1986, p. 70). George Andrews, bishop of Ferns and Leighlin (1635-48), quoted Deuteronomy to the same effect on the dangers of inter-marriage. Popery was not to be tolerated.

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them . . . For they will turn away thy sons from following me, that they may serve other Gods. (Brady and Gillespie 1986, p. 70) Hugh Trevor-Roper's recent study of James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, demonstrated that Ussher, far from being a moderate, was very much part of this 'No Popery' tradition (Trevor-Roper 1987). Some "moderates' existed. The earl of Ormond, though a Protestant, had numerous Catholic relatives. William Bedell, the bishop of Kilmore, argued that the 'new English' themselves were 'the chiefest impediments of the work that we pretend to set forward. Even allowing for the relative moderation of Bedell and Ormond, it seems indisputable that the outlook for the 'new English' colonists, at the leadership level, was marked by strong feelings of 'No Popery', comparable to those held by those in the English parliament who supported Eliot's 'Three Resolutions' in 1629. The Irish administration between the departure of Falkland in 1629 and the coming of Wentworth in 1633 was strongly Puritan. The arrival of a lord deputy strongly committed to the enforcement in Ireland of the Arminian policies of Laud thus came as all the more of a shock. While it is no doubt helpful for the historian to examine the economic grievances of the 'new English', religious fears were probably dominant. As Professor Hibbard has demonstrated (Hibbard 1983), the threat of a Popish Plot during the 1630s appeared ever more menacing, and when Strafford was impeached in 1641 it was not the least of the charges to be brought against him that: For effecting his traitorous and wicked designes he did endeavour to draw dependence upon himself of Papists in England and Ireland and to that end during his government in Ireland restored frieries and Masshouses which had bin formerly suppresst by precedent deputies. Two of them in the city of Dublin and had been assigned to the use of the University to the pretended recusants who have implored them to the exercise of the popish Religion and in May and June last, did raise an Army in Ireland of 8000 foote all (except 1000) papist which 1000 were drawn out of the old Army and in their places put 1000 papists. (Rushworth, Collections viii. 69-70) Of course religion was not the only factor influencing the mentalite of the 'new English'. As Terence Ranger and John Cooper

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

XXVU

have shown (Ranger 1961; Cooper 1966) the planters worked hard at the acquisition of the Irish land by legal, or quasi-legal, means. Strafford found himself in conflict with them over precisely this issue. It is still unclear, however, as the controversy between Ranger and Cooper over the 'Birne's Country' demonstrated, whether Strafford was a reformer in the crown interest or a newcomer who became rapidly expert at beating the planters at their own game. StrafFord undoubtedly made money out of Ireland, but his personal profits may not have been exorbitant by the standards of his predecessors (such as Chichester) or of his critics, such as Cork or Parsons. It remains to ask how far the conclusions which I reached in 1959 still seem to be valid today. In 19591 concentrated my attention upon the political and economic spects of StrafFord's deputyship. Today I would be tempted to say much more about his religious views, and about religious tensions generally. As Professor Hibbard has demonstrated (Hibbard 1983), there was a widespread belief in England and Scotland during the late 1630s in the existence of a Popish Plot throughout the Three Kingdoms. As we have seen, StrafFord's toleration of Irish recusants was based upon reason of state. It nevertheless left him open to the charge of favouring 'Popery'. His raising of an Irish army in 1639 a ^ so s e e m to many to be part of a 'Plot', though StrafFord's reluctance to provide arms for a Catholic earl of Antrim indicates that such an interpretation of his actions was without foundation. StrafFord's political links with Laud also left him open to the charge of Arminianism, though he was, I believe, a 'politique' in religious matters. Emotional considerations seemed to have played a great part in arousing hostility to policies which StrafFord defended on economic grounds. It was the 'No Popery' card which John Pym played against StrafFord at the opening of parliament in November 1640, when he declared about StrafFord's Irish deputyship: If this treason had taken effect our souls had been enthralled to the spiritual tyranny of Satan, our consciences to the ecclesiastical tyranny of the Pope, our lives, our persons and estates to the civil tyranny of an arbitrary, unlimited confused government. (Pym's speech on StrafFord's impeachment, 25 November 1640: Kenyon 1986, p. 192) In 1959 I also seem to have exaggerated the strength of Strafford's position in the English Privy Council. His alliance with

XXviii

INTRODUCTION ( 1 9 8 9 )

Laud, which turned out to be a source of weakness, may well have been forced upon him by the hostility of the king. Strafford's own requests for an earldom were repeatedly ignored. Indeed throughout his deputyship he was conscious of the ease with which it was possible for his critics in Ireland to make their influence felt at court. It was probably this which drove him to make an example of such figures as Mountnorris. I also tended to assume that Strafford's failure was inevitable because of his lack of political skills. His policy of plantation in Connacht led him into bitter conflict with the 'old English' gentry while at the same time his Laudian religious policies involved him in a clash with the Puritans among the 'new English'. It can nevertheless be argued that it was not his policies in Ireland which brought about his downfall so much as the Scottish rebellion, the causes of which lay beyond his control and which spread inevitably among covenanting settlers in Ulster. I do not believe that Strafford intended to use Ireland as a model for policies which he intended to use in England. On the contrary he saw himself, I believe, as completing the 'modernisation' of Ireland as a whole in the manner of Sidney. The plantation of Connacht, a key element in his own policies, had been advocated by Spenser and Davies. Strafford wished, in the person of my lord Clanrickard to make an end of all Irish Dependencies being now the only considerable left amongst them which undoubtedly hath been in the Ages before us a strong and forcible means of many great Disservices to the Crown of England and of many grievous oppressions upon this people. (Knowler i. 450) In making this judgement Strafford appears as a latter-day Elizabethan. His predicament arose from the fact that there were now 'Three Kingdoms' instead of two, as there had been in the Queen's reign. Three futures seemed possible for Ireland in the early seventeenth century. The first was a 'Royalist' future in which the lord deputy backed by the Privy Council would hold the reins of power. The second was an 'old English' future which became a practicable possibility with the Confederation of Kilkenny in the 1640s. The third was a 'Puritan' future decided by the class of'new English' planters. It was this last future which, after the Battle of the Boyne (1690) set the tone of Irish government and society for the next two centuries.

REFERENCES MANUSCRIPTS

BL Additional MS 4756: 'Report of the 1622 Irish Commission*. PRINTED SOURCES

A. Clarke, ed., 'A discourse between two councillors of state', Analecta Hibernica (Irish Manuscript Commission, Dublin, 26). PUBLISHED WORKS

Binchy, D. A. 1958. 'The Fair of Tailtu and the Feast of Tara', Eriu 18, II3-381982. 'A pre-Christian survival in medieval Irish historiography', in D. Whitelock, R. McKitterick and D. Dumville, eds., Ireland in early medieval Europe, Cambridge, pp. 165-78. Bradshaw, B. 1977. 'The Elizabethans and the Irish', Studies 66, 38-50. 1978. 'Sword, word and strategy in the Reformation in Ireland', Historical Journal, 21, 475-502. 1988. 'Robe and sword in the conquest of Ireland', in C. Cross, D. Loades and J. J. Scarisbrick, eds., Law andgovernment under the Tudors, Cambridge, pp. 137-62. Brady, C. 1986. 'Spenser's Irish crisis: humanism and experience in the 1590', Vast and Vresent i n , 17-49. Brady, C , and R. Gillespie, 1986. Natives and newcomers: Essays on the making of Irish colonial society 1/34-1641, Dublin. Canny, N. 1976. The Elizabethan conquest of Ireland: A pattern established, Hassocks, Sussex. 1982a. The upstart earl: A study of the social and mental world of Richard Boyle, first Earl of Cork 1J66-1643, Cambridge. 1982b. 'The formation of the Irish mind: religion, politics and Gaelic Irish literature', Vast and Vresent 95, 91-116. 1983. 'Edmund Spenser and the development of an Anglo-Irish identity', The Yearbook of English Studies: Colonial and Imperial Themes, Special Number 13, 1-19. 1987a. Reformation to Restoration: Ireland IJ34-1660, Dublin. 1987b. 'Identity formation in Ireland: the emergence of the Anglo-Irish', in A. Pagden and N. Canny, eds., Colonial identity in the Atlantic world, Princeton, pp. 15 9-212. Clarke, A. 1963. 'The earl of Antrim and the first Bishops' War', Irish Sword 6, 108-14.

1970. 'Ireland and the general crisis', Past and Present 48, 79-99. 1978. 'Colonial identity in early seventeenth century Ireland', in T. W. Moody, ed., Nationality and the pursuit of national independence, Belfast,

pp. 57-71. xxix

XXX

REFERENCES

1981. 'The genesis of the Ulster rising of 1641', in P. J. Roebuck, ed., Plantation to partition, Balfast, pp. 29-45. Cooper, J. 1966. 'Strafford and the Birne's country', Irish HistoricalStudies 15, 1-20.

1983. 'Strafford: a revaluation', in G. E. Aylmer and J. S. Morrill, eds., Land, men and beliefs: Studies in early modern history, London, pp. 192-200. ed., 1973. Wentworth Papers 1/97-1628. Camden Soc. 4th series 12, London. Cregan, D . F. 1979. 'The social and cultural background of the CounterReformation episcopate 1618-60', in A. Cosgrove and D . McCartney, eds., Studies in Irish history presented to R. Dudley Edwards, Dublin, pp. 85-117. Cunningham, B. 1984. 'The composition of Connacht in the lordships of Clanricard and Thomond 1577-1641', Irish Historical Studies 24, 1-14. 1986. 'Seventeenth-century interpretations of the past: the case of Geoffrey Keating', Irish Historical Studies 25, 116-20. Ellis, S. G. 1986. Reform and Revival: English government in Ireland 1470-1/34, London. Ford, A. 1985. The Protestant Reformation in Ireland 1/91-1641, Frankfurt. Greenberg, J. forthcoming. 'The radical face of the Ancient Constitution', English Historical Review. Hibbard, C. M. 1983. Charles I and the Popish Plot, Chapel Hill, NC. Kenyon, J. P., ed. 1986. The Stuart constitution 1603-1688, Cambridge. Knowler, W., ed. 1739. Letters and dispatches of the earl of Straff ord, 2 vols., London. Lennon, C. 1978-9. 'Richard Stanihurst (1547-1618) and old English identity', Irish Historical Studies 21, 121-43. Lindley, K. J. 1972. 'The impact of the 1641 rebellion upon England and Wales 1641-1645', Irish Historical Studies 18, 199-222. Moody, T. W., F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne, eds. 1976. A new history of Ireland, vol. 3, Oxford. Milton, J. 1962 (1648-9). Eikonoklastes, Chap. II, 'Upon the Earle of Straffords Death', in Yale collected prose works of John Milton, vol. 3, pp. 368-82. Nicholls, K. W. 1972. Gaelic and gaelicised Ireland in the later Middle Ages, Dublin. Pawlisch, H. 1985. Sir John Davies and the conquest of Ireland: A study in legal imperialism, Cambridge. Perceval-Maxwell, M. 1982. 'Protestant faction, the impeachment of Strafford and the origins of the Irish Civil War', Canadian Journal of History 16, 235-55Pocock, J. G. A. 1987. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A study in English historical thought in the seventeenth century, Cambridge (first edn 1957). Ranger, T. 1965. 'Strafford in Ireland: a revaluation', Past and Present 19, 26-45 (reprinted in T. Aston, ed., Crisis in Europe 16j0-1660, London, pp. 271-94). Rushworth, J. 1659-1701. Historical Collections, London. Russell, C. 1965. 'The theory of treason in the trial of Stratford', English Historical Review 80, 30-50.

REFERENCES 1979. Parliaments and English politics 1621-1629,

XXXI Oxford.

Salt, S. P. 1980. 'Sir Thomas Wentworth and the parliamentary representation of Yorkshire 1614-1628', Northern History 16, 130-68. Spenser, E. 1970 (1633). A

View of the Present State of Ireland, ed. W. L.

Renwick, Oxford. Trevor-Roper, H. R. 1987. Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans: seventeenthcentury essays, London. Wedgwood, C. V. 1961. Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford, 1/93-1641; A revaluation, London.

Zagorin, P. 1964. 'Sir Edward Stanhope's advice to Thomas Wentworth, Viscount Wentworth, concerning the deputyship of Ireland: an unpublished letter of 1631', Historical Journal 7, 316-17. 1986. 'Did Strafford change sides?' English Historical Review IOI, 149-63.

P R E F A C E (1959) rnpiHE name of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, is among X the best known in modern English history, and the outline of his career is almost as familiar to students as that of his contemporary, Oliver Cromwell. For sheer ability and force of character, as well as a certain ruthlessness, his name may be coupled with Cromwell's, although he has never attracted a biographer of the capacity of Sir Charles Firth. Strafford stood out head and shoulders above the English politicians of the early Stuart period, but paradoxically he spent his most mature years in Ireland, and like Cromwell himself his name is bound up with the history of that country during the seventeenth century. Hence a study of the middle years of Strafford's career will be of necessity something of an excursion into Anglo-Irish history in which the historian attempts to maintain a slippery foothold on both sides of the Irish Sea. Thomas Wentworth was born in 15 93, eldest son of Sir William Wentworth, a leading member of the Yorkshire gentry, and his early career was typical of his fellows in almost every respect. He went up to Cambridge in 1608, he obtained a smattering of law in the Inner Temple, he married the Clifford heiress, he went on the Grand Tour, and in 1614 he was elected to parliament as a knight of the shire. The auguries could hardly have been more excellent. However, the paths to political power proved more difficult for Wentworth than they did for one who was almost the same age, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham. In 1627 his political future was unpromising; he, along with many others, was imprisoned for refusal to pay the Forced loan and he had lost the minor post of Custos Rotulorum for Yorkshire. However, in 1628 events moved more swiftly than he could have foreseen. Charles I was compelled to compromise over the Petition of Right in the agitation for which Wentworth played a leading role, and Buckingham's death in August 1628 created a new set of political circumstances, from which Wentworth was one of those who benefited. Late in 1628 he was appointed to the Presidency of the North, a key post in

XXXIV

PREFACE

the administration of the Northern counties of England. Here Wentworth learned the practice of prerogative government of Tudor origins, which he was later to use in Ireland. This was indeed an English copy of the best continental model, arbitrary government in the interests of the monarchy, cutting right through any local opposition. In 1632, he was appointed to the most difficult post in the three kingdoms, the lord deputyship of Ireland, for which he was perhaps of all men the most unsuited. This period of office lasted until 1640. Late in 1640 he was impeached. When this failed a bill of attainder was brought against him and in May 1641, with the consent of a parliamentary majority, he was executed. The Irish deputyship of Wentworth1 has attracted far more attention, particularly from English historians, than any comparable period of Irish history before the Act of Union. We are normally asked to regard his period of office as the classical example of English administration in Ireland. At least, it is said, a lord deputy was appointed who was both efficient and incorruptible and who was determined to maintain the highest possible ideal of government, no matter how high the price. His economic policies have been compared by responsible historians like Unwin, Cunningham and Heckscher to those of Colbert and Frederick the Great; and so far as religion is concerned his attempt to restore the revenues of the Church has been described recently as a policy of 'heroic reaction'. Finally, 'nothing in his life became him like the leaving it'. His attainder and execution turned his life into a tragedy in which the Irish episode was the penultimate act before the final peripatoiea. The heroism with which he met his death made criticism appear ungracious and even petty. Thus English historians have on the whole been favourable to Strafford's Irish policies; even those who criticised his abandoning the opposition to Buckingham in 1628 are nevertheless to be found to support him where Ireland is concerned. From the very beginning indeed there has existed a tradition of defending Strafford, going back to Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, who in his Short View of the State and Condition of Ireland

(1719) wrote in adulatory terms of Stafford's deputyship.

1 He became earl of Strafford in 1640, taking the title from the name of the hundred in which Wentworth Woodhouse was situated.

PREFACE

XXXV

Clarendon rebuked the Irish rebels of 1641 for their part in Strafford's overthrow, in the following terms: 'They have now leisure enough, and I hope spirits better prepared to revolve the wonderful plenty, peace and security they enjoyed till the year 1641, when they wantonly and disdainfully flung those blessings from them; the increase of traffic, the improvement of land, the erection of buildings, and whatsoever else might be profitable and pleasant to a people.' . . . Taxes, tallages and contributions, Clarendon wrote, weretilingshardly known to them by their names: whatever their land, labour or industry produced was their own; being not only free from the fear of having it taken from them by the king, upon any pretence whatsoever, without their own consent but also secured against thieves and robbers . . . 'And yet', he went on, 'they childishly concurred with the greatest enemies their nation or religion had, in the conspiracy against the life of the earl of Strafford, lord lieutenant of that kingdom, by whose wisdom and government that Kingdom had reaped great advantages.' To the influence of the greatest English historian of the seventeenth century was added that of one of the greatest of the eighteenth, Thomas Carte, who in his"Lifeof the Duke of Ormonde (1735-6) took Strafford's side, as Ormonde himself had done. Four years after Carte's Ormonde appeared William Knowler's edition of Strafford's letters (1739). ^n both of these works a mass of original material was made available relating to Strafford's own version of his period of office. Knowler can be criticised for an occasional distortion and on the grounds of selection, but generally speaking historians have had little to complain of in Knowler's editorship. No other source of equal value existed for the history of the English administration in Ireland during these years. But the almost inevitable result was that Strafford's personal assessment of his deputyship came to be accepted at its face value. It is true that Rushworth's account of Strafford's trial, in which details of the charges against him are given, had been published in 1680, but on the whole the result of the publication of Knowler's two great volumes was that Strafford's case was heard and that of his critics and opponents went by default. When the main lines of the history of the early Stuart period came to be laid down at the end of the nineteenth century, a further factor came into being which affected historians' view of Strafford —unrest in Ireland. During the Irish Land War, the figure of Strafford and his policy of repression took on a more immediate

XXXVI

PREFACE

significance. Thus we find Samuel Rawson Gardiner writing in the years before 1884 taking a more favourable attitude towards Strafford's policy in Ireland than one would have expected from a Whig historian so critical of despotism in England. Gardiner wrote 1 that 'the choice for Ireland in the seventeenth century did not lie between absolutism and parliamentary control, but between absolutism and anarchy*. He criticised Strafford's methods of coercion, but his verdict was, on the whole, favourable—'[even] if [StrafFord] be taken at his worst, it is hardly possible to doubt that Ireland would have been better off, if his sway had been prolonged for twenty years longer than it was*. The pendulum of English historical opinion was to swing no further against Strafford. Gardiner, in fact, represented English historians at their most critical, and from now on they were to be increasingly favourable towards him. G. M. Trevelyan, for example, whose father had been appointed chief secretary for Ireland immediately after the Phoenix Park murders, came down strongly on the side of Strafford in the few lines which he devoted to his administration in England under the Stuarts (1904). In this, he wrote (pp. 188-9):2 In Ireland, though Pym never understood it, there was indeed some use for the policy of 'thorough'. A society so backward and so distracted could be best ruled as India was afterwards ruled by its English governors. Wentworth cleared his way through the opposition of selfseeking officials such as Mountnorris and Loftus, crushing them by methods akin to those used by Hastings against Nuncomar and Francis. He saw the impracticability of a free jury system, where the English never did justice to the natives and where the natives, in terror of their chieftains' vendettas, would never do justice to each other. He often made light of the law, where the law was an organised chicanery to help the powerful in schemes of spoliation. At Council Board and in Parliament he overrode all opposition by sheer force of his character and will. The attitude expressed in England under the Stuarts received support from a remarkable source in 1923, when Hugh O'Grady's Strafford and Ireland provided chapter and verse for Trevelyan's generalisations. O'Grady threw himself whole-heartedly into the defence of Strafford, in a book which is a strange mixture of confused information, weird prejudice and chronological anarchy. It nevertheless was accepted as an authoritative treatment of the 1 History of England, 1603-42, viii. 197. 2 See M. Mourman, George Macauley Trevelyan (1980); D . A. Hamer, John Morley, p. 351.

PREFACE

XXXV11

subject, and provided the basis upon which Lady Burghclere (1931) and Miss C. V. Wedgwood (1935) relied for their treatment of the Irish episodes in their lives of Strafford. In her recent volume, The King's Peace (1955), Miss Wedgwood showed herself as favourably disposed towards Strafford as she had been twenty years earlier and, using Knowler and O'Grady as her main sources, she has described Strafford's administration in an idealised form. The paternal monarchy, which Strafford was taken as representing, was also admired elsewhere. R. H. Tawney, in his Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, implied that Strafford and Laud stood for a nobler, medieval ideal of society than their capitalistic opponents, while from more right-wing sources, such as Hilaire Belloc or David Mathew, Strafford received equally favourable treatment. Thus from many quarters of the English historical compass, Strafford's record in Ireland was viewed in a favourable light. There was, however, another standpoint to the whole question. In particular, Irish historians have, on the whole, been critical of Strafford. In Ireland the typical view is that Strafford was despotic, unimaginative and crude in his treatment of the Irish problem. Lecky, for example, who wrote his great History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, partly as an answer to Froude, referred in it to Wentworth's refusal to grant the t r a c e s ' in 1634 as 'one of the most shameful passages in the history of the English government of Ireland'.1 In Lecky's view 'the object of this great and wicked man was to establish a despotism in Ireland as a step towards despotism in England'. The English historian R. Dunlop, who contributed the chapters on modern Irish history to the Cambridge Modern History, wrote in 19132 that 'in our admiration of his strength of character and of his simple devotion to his sovereign and in pity at his untoward fate we are only too ready to forget that he was really a curse to Ireland . . . there was nothing connected with the government of Ireland which he had not the misfortune to bungle. The fact is that he was not only disdainful of advice, but profoundly ignorant of the history of the country he had undertaken to rule.' 3 1

Lecky, History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century•, i. 31. R. Dunlop, Ireland under the Commonwealth, p. liii. See also P. Wilson's essay o n Strafford in Studies in Irish History ed. R. Barry O'Brien. 2

3

1603-49,

XXXV111

PREFACE

Though this anti-Strafford tradition had no Clarendon or Carte, its roots were nevertheless well established in contemporary writers. In 1643, for example, a pamphlet was printed at Kilkenny entitled 'A Discourse between two Counsellors of State the one of England and the other of Ireland',1 in which the Irish counsellor gave a resume of Irish grievances during the first decades of the seventeenth century, before Strafford's arrival. These injustices of Strafford's predecessors, he said, even if 'all summed up together, would be but a peccadillo compared with the huge masse of oppressions and personal indignities layd upon the Nobility, Gentry and people by that Vizier Bashaw the Earle of Strafford who after the first yeare guided them with a rod of iron'. Strafford's journey into Connacht and his imprisonment of the Galway jury who did not find a title for the king were mentioned in particular as 'done like a Bashaw indeede'. This was a criticism made from the 'old English' side. Similar critical remarks were made by the 'new English' Richard Boyle, earl of Cork, in his Diary. 2 Such conflicting interpretations are a commonplace of historical writing but once their existence is recognised the historian is no longer free to adopt the simplicity of one point of view alone. So far as Strafford's Irish deputyship is concerned, the historian must attempt to do justice to the attitudes of all the parties concerned, not merely that of the lord deputy. Thus the opening of the Wentworth Woodhouse archives in 1949, which presented a fresh opportunity to reassess Strafford's Irish deputyship, was a mixed blessing. Strafford's own version of events was now available in full, but this increased the temptation to ignore the other side of the picture. The value of the new material in the Strafford Papers is considerable, but since it expresses only the official outlook, it suffers from grave limitations. This study is an attempt to rewrite this episode in Anglo-Irish relations from a point of view which is not official, nor strictly English or Irish. The same historical problems, arising from a clash of sympathies, appear in the history of any colonial administration which attempts to go further than official history. The student of Spanish America, of British India, and of other empires will recognise the difficulties involved. Perhaps there is no answer to them. 1 2

B. M. Egerton, MS. 917. A. B. Grosart (ed.)> Ltsmore Papers, 1st series.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

M

Y thanks are due to the trustees of the Wentworth Woodhouse estate for permission to quote from the Strafford papers. I am also very grateful to the staffs of the various libraries in which I have had occasion to work, especially Sheffield City Library, the National Library of Ireland, the libraries of Trinity College and University College, Dublin and particularly that of the Royal Irish Academy. The National University of Ireland made a very generous grant towards the cost of publishing this book and I wish to express my thanks to the authorities concerned. The President and Governing Body of University College, Dublin also assisted in its publication and I am grateful for their interest. Among those who helped me in various ways, I owe most to John Cooper, District Justice Liam Price, Brian Wormald, William O'Sullivan, Terence Ranger and Gerald* Simms. Ann 6 Cleirigh and Gerald Simms very kindly helped me with the proofs. The maps and text figures were drawn by Mrs. Mary Davies. My greatest debt, however, is to my friend and colleague, R. Dudley Edwards, whose advice was given without stint on countless occasions. My friend, Terence Jones, secretary to Manchester University Press, has been very kind, patient and hospitable, not to say efficient. H. F. KEARNEY

8 October 19 j 8

ABBREVIATIONS Bagwell, Stuarts = R. Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts (3 vols., London, 1909-16). B.M. = British Museum. Burke, Peerage = Dictionary of the peerage and baronetage, ed. Sir Bernard Burke, (London, 1878). Butler, Confiscation = W. F. T. Butler, Confiscation in Irish history (Dublin, 1917). Cal. Carew MSS. = Calendar of the Carew manuscripts preserved in the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth (London, 1867-73). Cal. S.P. dom. = Calendar of State papers, domestic series (London, 1856). Cal. S.P. Ire. = Calendar of the State papers relating to Ireland (London, 1860-1911). Cal. rot. pat. Hib. = Rotulorum patentium et clausorum cancellariae Hiberniae calendarium (Dublin, 1828). Civil Survey = The civil survey, A.D. 16J4-6, ed. R. C. Simington (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 1931-54). Commons jn. = Journals of the house of commons. Commons jn. Ire. = Journals of the house of commons of the Kingdom of Ireland (Dublin, 1796-1800). D.N.B. = Dictionary of national biography. E.H.R. = English historical review. G.E.C., Peerage, ed. Gibbs = G. E . Cokayne, Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (ed. Vicary Gibbs and others, London, 1910- ). Gilbert, Ire. confed. = J. T. Gilbert (ed.), History of the Irish confederation and the war in Ireland, 1641-9 (7 vols., Dublin, 1882-91). H.M.C. = Historical Manuscripts Commission. IMS. = Irish Historical Studies (Dublin, 1938- ). Liber mun. pub. Hib. = Rowley Lascelles, Liber munerum publicorum Hiberniae (2 vols., London, 1852). Lords9 jn. Ire. = Journals of the house of lords of Ireland (Dublin, 17791800). Louth Arch. Soc. Jn. = Journal of the County Louth Archaeological Society (Dundalk, 1904- ). N.L.I. = National Library of Ireland. PP. List — Return of members of parliament, ordered by the house of commons, to be printed. 1878 (part ii. 'Parliaments of Ireland* p p . 603-91). P.R.O. = Public Record Office of England. P.R.O.I. = Public Record Office of Ireland. R.I. A. Proc. = Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (Dublin, 1836- ) . B xl

ABBREVIATIONS R.S.I.A.

xli

Jn. = Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (Dublin, 1892- ). Rushworth, Trial — J. Rushworth, The trial of Thomas, earl of Strafford . . . (1680). Steele, Tudor , -.^QUEENS COC°ATHY( - ^

/Homt

CMARYBOROUGH'"WICKLOW

-f

.---•:•.•/••

BALLINAKILL

'.

^ ' f TIPPERARY -"bLIMERICKx, QASKEATON I

7 ed. Council book of the corporation of Kinsale (Guildford, Surrey,

1879). Caulfield (R.). The Council book of the corporation of Youghal (Guildford, Surrey,

1878).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

Chart (D. A.). 'The break-up of the estate of Con O'NeuT. R.I.A. Proc, xlviii, sect. C (1942). Clark (G. N.). Guide to English commercial statistics 1696-1782 (London, 1938). Corish (P. J.)« 'Two contemporary historians of the confederation of Kilkenny: John Lynch and Richard O'FerralP. I.H.S., viii (1953). Cox (R.). Hibernia Anglicana (2 vols., London, 1689). Dictionary of National Biography. Dietz (F. C ) . English publicfinance,1jjS-1641 (Philadelphia, 1932). Dunlop (R.). 'The plantation of Leix and Offaly*. E.H.R., vi (1891). Dunlop (R.)» 'A note on the export trade of Ireland in 1641, 1665 and 1669*. E.H.R., xxii (1907). Dunlop (R.). Ireland under the commonwealth introduction (Manchester, 1913). Edwards (R. Dudley). 'Church and state in the Ireland of Michel O Clerigh' in Fr. Sylvester O'Brien (ed.), Miscellany . . . in honour of Michael O Clerigh (Dublin, 1944). Edwards (R. D.), and Moody (T. W.). 'The history of Poynings' Law; part I, 1494-1615'. I.H.S., ii (1941). Evans (E. Estyn). Mourne country (Dundalk, 1951). Evans (F. M. G.). The principal secretary of state (Manchester, 1923). Fisher (F. J.). 'London's export trade in the early seventeenth century*. Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., iii (1950). Friis (A.). Alderman Cockayne's project and the cloth trade: the commercial policy of England, 160J-2J (Copenhagen and London, 1927). Gardiner (S. R.). History of England, 1603-42 (London, 1883-4). Gill (W. C ) . The Irish linen industry (Oxford, 1925). Gogarty (T), ed. 'County Louth depositions, 1641'. Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., iii (1913). Gras (N. S. B.). 'The Tudor Book of Rates'. Quar. Journ. Econ., xxvi (1912).

Green (E. R. R.). The Lagan valley (London, 1949). Gwynn (A). 'The Irish in the west Indies'. Analecta Hibernica, iv (Dublin, 1932).

Hall (H.). History of the customs revenue (2 vols., London, 1885). Harvey (M.). Life of Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, (Cambridge, 1921). Healy (W.). History and antiquities of Kilkenny (Kilkenny, 1893). Heaton (H.). The Yorkshire woollen industry (Oxford, 1920). Heckscher (Eli. F.). Mercantilism (2 vols., London, 1934). Hexter (J. H.). Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941). Hickson (M. A.). Old Kerry records (2 vols., London, 1872-4). Hill (G.). The plantation in Ulster (Belfast, 1877). Hore (P. H.). History of the county of Wexford (6 vols., 1900-11). Hoskins (W. G.). Trade, industry and people in Exeter 1688-1800 (Manchester, 1936). Hoskins (W. G.). Devon (London, 1954). Hughes (J.). 'The fall of the clan Kavanagh'. J.R.S.A.L, 4th ser. ii (1873). Hurstfield (J.). 'The revival of feudalism in early Tudor England'. History, xxxvii (June, 1952). Hutchinson, (W. R.). Tyrone precinct (Belfast, 1952).

284

STRAFFORD IN IRELAND

Judges (A. V.). 'The idea of a mercantile state*. Trans. R. Hist. Soc, 4th ser., xxi(i93 9 ). Kearney (H. R). 'Richard Boyle, Ironmaster'. J.R.S.A.I., lxxxiii (1953). Kearney (H. F.). 'The Court of Wards and Liveries in Ireland'. R.I. A. Proc, lvii, sect. C, no. 2. Kearney (H. F.), ed. 'The Irish Wine Trade 1614-15*. I.H.S., ix, (1955). Keeler (Mary Frear). The Long Parliament (Philadelphia, 1954). Keith (T.). Commercial relations ofEngland and Scotland 1603-ijo7

(Cambridge,

1910). Kiernan (T. J.). History of the financial administration ofIreland (London, 1930). Lipson (E.). History of the woollen and worsted industries (London, 1921). Longfield (A.). Anglo-Irish trade in the sixteenth century (London, 1929).

MacCormack (J. R.). 'TheIrish adventurers and the English civil war'. I.H.S., x (1956). Mahaffy (J. P.). An epoch in Irish history (London, 1903). Malcolmson (R.). The Carlowparliamentary roll (Dublin, 1872). Mant (R.). History of the Church of Ireland (London, 1840).

McGrath (P. V.). 'The merchant venturers and Bristol shipping*. {Mariners" Mirror, xxxvi. (1950). McGrath (P.). Merchants and merchandise in seventeenth century Bristol (Bristol

Record Society, vol. xix, 1955). Moody (T. W.). The Londonderry plantation (Belfast, 1939). Moody (T. W.). 'The treatment of the native population under the scheme for the plantation in Ulster'. I.H.S., ii (1938-9). Moody (T. W.). 'The Irish parliament under Elizabeth and James F. R.I.A. Proc, xlv, sect. C, no. 6. Morris (W. A., and Strayer (J. R.). The English government at work 1327-36.

ii. Fiscal administration (Cambridge, Mass., 1947). Murray, (A. E.). A history of the commercial and financial relations between England and Ireland from the period of the Restoration (London, 1907).

Newton (A. P.). 'The establishment of the Great Farm of the English customs'. Trans. R. Hist. Soc. 4th ser., i (1918). Notestein (W.) and Relf (F.). Commons debates for 1629 (Minneapolis, 1921). O'Brien (G.). Economic history of Ireland in the seventeenth century (Dublin, 1919).

O'Brien (R. Barry). Studies in Irish history, 1603-29 (Dublin, 1906). O'Donovan (J.). Economic history of live stock in Ireland (Cork, 1940).

O'Hanlon (J.) and O'Leary (E.). History of Queen*s County (Dublin, 1907). O'Grady (H.). Strafford and Ireland (2. vols., Dublin, 1923). O'Sullivan (M. D.). Old Galway (Cambridge, 1942). O'Sullivan (W.). Economic history of Cork city (Cork, 1937). Parkinson (C. N.). Rise of the port of Liverpool (London, 1952). Parry (R.). 'The Gloucestershire woollen industry 1100-1690'. Trans. Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Soc. lxvi (1945).

Phillips (W. A.), ed. History of the church of Ireland (3 vols., London, 1933). Pilgrim (J. E.). 'The cloth industry in Essex and Suffolk'. Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xvii (1949). Posthumus (N. W.). Bronnon tot de Geschiedenis van de Leidsche Textielnykerheid

1611-jo, iv.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

Quinn (D. B.). 'The Irish parliamentary subsidy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries*. R.I.A., Proc. sect. C , xlii, no. 11 (1935). Reid (J. S.). History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (3 vols. Belfast, 1834). Ramsay (G. D.). The Wiltshire cloth industry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Oxford, 1943). Ranger (T. O.) 'Richard Boyle and the making of an Irish fortune', I.H.S., x (1957). Ranke (L. von). History of England chiefly in the seventeenth century (Oxford,

1859-69). Rowe (V. A.). 'Influence of the earls of Pembroke on parliamentary elections'. E.H.R., I.(i935). Sadleir (T. U.). Kildare members of parliament ijjp-1800 (Kildare Arch. Jn., vi-x, 1909-28). Scott (W. R.) The constitution and finance of English, Scottish and Irish joint

stock companies to 1720 (3 vols., Cambridge, 1910-12). Smith (J.). Chronicon rusticum-commerciale or Memoirs of wool (London, 1747). Stubbs (J. W.). History of the university of Dublin (Dublin, 1889). Supple (B. E.). 'Thomas Mun and the commercial crisis, 1623/ Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xxvii (1954). Tawney (R. H.). 'Rise of the Gentry'. Econ. Hist. Rev. xi (1941). Tawney (R. H.). 'The rise of the Gentry: a postcript'. Econ. Hist. Rev., vii (i954). Trevor-Roper (H). Archbishop Laud IJ73-16'4/ (London, 1940). Trevor-Roper (H). 'The Gentry 1540-1640'. Econ. Hist. Rev., supplement no. 1 (Cambridge, 1953). Unwin (G.). Industrial organisation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

(Oxford, 1904). Wads worth (A. P.) and Mann (Julia de Lacy). The cotton trade and industrial Lancashire (Manchester, 1931). Wedgwood (C. V.). Strafford (London, 1935). Wedgwood (C. V.). The Kings peace (London, 1955). Whitaker (T. D.). Life and original correspondence of Sir George Radcliffe (London,

1810). Willson (D. H.). The privy councillors in the house of commons 1604-29 (Minnesota,

1940). Wood (H.). 'The Court of Castle Chamber'. R.I. A. Proc, 32, c. Wood-Martin (W. G.). History of Sligo from the accession of James I to the revolution of 1688 (Dublin, 1889). Young (R. M.), ed. Town book of Belfast 1613-1816 (Belfast, 1892).

INDEX Note.

This index does not include the lists of names given in Appendices II and III.

Bassett, Sir Arthur, 251 Bath, Sir John, 21 Acts of Parliament (Ireland), con- Bathe, James, 214 firming defective titles, 54; against Bedell, William, bp. of Kilmore, 105 unnatural vice, 54; of uses, 58; for Bellew, Christopher, 193, 212, 225 church reform, 65; setting up Bellew, John, 214 houses of correction, 65; voting Bellings, Richard, 176, 214 subsidies, 54, 65, 189 Beresford, Tristram, 186, 203, 258 Alexander, Jerome, 255-6 Betsworth, Thomas, 239-40 Allen, Hugh, bp. of Ferns, 121 Billingsley, William, 173, 251-2 Anderson, Sir William, 247 Bingham, Sir Henry, 247-9 Andrews, George, bp. of Ferns, 114, Birley, Robert, 230 Birne's Country, see O'Byrne's Coun"? Antrim, Randal MacDonnell, 1st try earl of, 49; 2nd earl of, 188-9 Blacknall, Richard, 233 Archbold, William, 229-30 Blaghan, Edward, 233 Argyll, Archibald Campbell, 8th Blake, Richard, 193, 210, 212 earl of, 187-8 Blake, Sir Valentine, 247 Armagh, abps. of, see Hamp- Blayney, Arthur, 252-3 ton, Lombard, MacCaughwell, Blayney, Richard, 252-3 Blennerhasset, Robert, 245-6 O'Reilly, Ussher Army, Irish: under Falkland, 33; Blount, Edward, 229-30 Stratford's army, 187; the 'new' Blount, George, 258 Blundell, Sir Arthur, 257-8 army, 188-9 Articles of 1634, see Church of Ire- Bolton, Sir Richard, political associates, 11, 39; and Castle Chamber, land 72; and the Commission for Arundel, Thomas Howard, 14th Defective Titles, 81-3; impeached, earl of, 29-31 197, 211 Atherton, John, bp. of Waterford, Borlase, Captain John, 195, 253 114 Borlase, Sir John, and Wentworth, Bagshawe, Sir Edward, 163, 232-3 195; lord justice, 197-8, 204 Baltimore, George Calvert, 1st Bourke, David, 247, 249 baron, 27, 49 Bourke of Brittas, Theobald Bourke, Bannister, Archibald, 212 1st baron, 49 Barnewall, Nicholas, 193, 204-6, Bourke, Sir Thomas, 193, 214, 247, 214, 229 249 Barnewall, Richard, 193, 197, 212, Boyle, Michael, abp, of Armagh, 129 214, 229 Boyle, Michael, bp. of Waterford, 114, 121, 126 Barron, Geoffrey, 59, 242-3 Boyle, Richard, bp. of Cork, 126 Barry, James, 244-5 Boyle, Richard, earl of Cork, see Barry, John, 189, 204 Cork Barry, Richard, 46, 229

Abbot, George, abp. of Canterbury,

287

288

INDEX Brabazon, Edward Brabazon, lord Cheevers, Marcus, 234-5

Cheevers, Richard, 234-5 Chichester, Arthur Chichester, 1st baron, 140-1, 153, 161, 163, 171 Christabel, James, 230-1 Church of Ireland, condition of, 104-5; endowments of, 107-8; alienation of church lands in, 121, 126-9; doctrine of, 105-6; changes of episcopate, in, 113-14; Laudian policy in, 113-26; raising church revenues in 119-29; Puritanism in, 105-6; articles of, 115-16 Clancy, Boethius, 246-7 Claneboye, James Hamilton, 1st viscount, 50, 108, 163 Clanmalier, Terence O'Dempsey, 1st viscount, 49 Clanrickarde, Richard Burke, 4th 104 earl of, 1, 15, 21, 49, 52, 68, 107; Butler, Edward, 228 resistance to Connacht plantation, Butler, James, 236-8 87-93 Butler, Sir Stephen, 257-8 Clanrickarde, Ulick Burke, 5 th earl Butler, Sir Thomas, 236-7 of, 97, 101, 185 Bysse, John, 190 «., 256-7 Clifford, Henry Clifford, lord, 35 Clinton, Peter, 47 «., 225-6 Cahir, James Butler, 5 th baron, 16 Clot worthy, Sir Hugh, 145 Carlingford, 132 Clotworthy, Sir John, 159, 187, 194, Carlisle, James Hay, 1st earl of, 166, 196, 199, 203, 205, 206 176-7 Cockayne, Alderman, 142-4 Carlisle, Lady, 167, 178 Cogan, Robert, 37, 161-3 Carpenter, Joshua, 173, 181, 196, Coghlan, Terence, 232 225-6 Coke, John, secretary of state, his Carr, George, 247-8 correspondence with Wentworth, Carrickfergus, trade of, 134-5, 144, passim 157 Colbert, 137, 184 Cary, George, 258-9 Cole, Sir William, 40, 193, 203, 253 Cashell, Oliver, 47 «., 225 Coleraine, trade of, 13 2,13 5 -6,15 7-8 Castle Chamber, Court of, 69-74 Colley, Sir William, 232 Castlehaven, James Touchet, 3rd Coman, James, 230 earl of, 49, 194 Comerford, Edward, 228 Catelin, Nathaniel, 46, 229 Comerford, Patrick, bp. of WaterCatholicism, see Counter-Reformford, n o , 122 ation Commons, house of (Ireland), elecCaulfield, Sir Toby, 163 tions to, 45-8; officeholders in, 45; Cave, Thomas, 247-8 committees in, 58,193-4; memberCavenagh, Daniel, bp. of Leighlin, ship in 1634, 223-59; agents of in 121 1640, 203; membership in 1640, Chappell, William, bp. of Cork, and 260-3 Trinity College, 114-15, 118 Connacht, plantation of, see PlantaCharles I, 35, 76, 96, 185, 205, and tions passim Conry, Florence, abp. of Tuam, i n Cheevers, Garrett, 193, 212 Cook, Allen, 257-8 230-1

Brabazon, Matthew, 251-2 Bramhall, John, bp. of Derry, his religious policy, 113-26, 183, 187; impeached, 211 Brereton, Robert, 197 Brereton, Sir William, 47 Brian, James, 234 Brice, Richard, 225-6 Bristol, John Digby, 1st earl of, 194 Brown, Sir Valentine, 245 Browne, Dominick, 247 Browne, Geoffrey, 190 n.y 193, 207 Browne, Richard, 227 Buckingham, George Villiers, 1st duke of, 8, 27-9, 162-3 Buckingham, duchess of, 163-7, 180 Bulkeley, Lancelot, abp. of Dublin,

INDEX Coote, Sir Charles, 10, 12, 39, 83, 88, 94, 247-8 Coppinger, Sir Dominick, 239 Cork, Richard Boyle, 1st earl of, 8, 9, 14, 45, 62, 73, 171, 173; his political associates, 10-11; lord justice, 13-14, 24-6, 34-41; and the 1634 elections, 47; opposition to Wentworth, 70; economic activities, 134; compared with Wentworth, 171, 173, 184-5; a n d t n e Connacht plantation, 87, 90; and the Church of Ireland, 107-8, 118-19, 121, 126-8; and Wentworth's impeachment, 200, 206 Cork, trade of, 131, 134, 137, 152 Cottington, Francis Cottington, 1st baron, 26-31, 35, 40, 186, 204 Counter-Reformation in Ireland, 15, 17, 108-12, 122; religious orders in, 109-10; politics of, 110-11; spread of, 111 Crofton, Edward, 101 Crofton, Henry, 247-8 Crofton, Richard, 101 Crofton, William, 255-6 Crosby, David, 245-6 Crosby, Sir Piers, 62, 185, 194, 233 Crosby, Sir Walter, 233 Crowe, Stephen, 244-5 Crown, expanding power of, 2 Croxton, James, 115 Cullen, John, 234 Cusack, James, 190 «., 214, 236-7 Cusacke, Adam, 227 Customs Farm, 37, 71,159-68,180-1 Danby, Henry Danvers, earl of, 26, 93 Darcy, Nicholas, 214 Darcy, Patrick, 63, 92-4, 127, 193, 212, 214, 227 Davis, Paul, 253 Deane, Edward, 247-8 Defective Titles, Commission for, 54, 56, 81-4, 201 Derenzi Matthew, 83, 212 Digby, George, 194 Digby, Simon, 193-4, 207, 212 Dillon, Sir James, 88-9, 189 Dillon, Sir James, the elder, 230-1 Dillon, Sir Lucas, 88, 90, 195, 247-8 Dillon, Lucas, 257-8

289

Dillon of Costello-Gallen, Thomas Dillon, 4th viscount, 50 Dobbins, William, 244 Docwra, Sir Henry, 11 Domvill, Gilbert, 255-6 Dongan, Sir John, 193, 212, 229 Donnellan, James, 46, 229 Donnellan, John, 97 Dormer, Nicholas, 234-5 Dowdall, Christopher, 225 Dowdall, John, 225-6 Dowdall, Lawrence, 227 Down, William Pope, earl of, 49 Downing, George, 258-9 Drogheda, trade of, 134, 135-7, 152, 157-8 Dublin, trade of, 131, 136, 152, 157 Dulan, James, 228 Dundalk, trade of, 154, 157-9 Dungarvan, Richard Boyle, 2nd viscount, 35, 127 Dunsany, Patrick Plunkett, 9th baron, 214 Edmonds, Thomas, 247 Elwall, Thomas, 244-5 Erie, Sir Walter, 205 Erskine, Sir James, 254 Erskine Richard, 254 Esmond, William, 234 Eustace, Maurice, 229-30 Everard, Sir John, 18, 58 Everard, Thomas, 242-3 Evers, Walter, 227 Falkland, Henry Cary, 1st viscount, 11, 21, 24-7, 35, 70, 88-9,116, 153, 163, 171, 179 Farrell, Faigney, 233 Farrell, Roger, 233 Fenton, Sir William, 47, 244 Fermoy, David Roche, 7th viscount 16, 49 Fermoy, Maurice Roche, 8th viscount, 206 Ferries, Robert, 258 Finance, 32-41; see also Customs Farm; Court of Wards and Liveries; Commission for Defective Titles; Subsidies; Licences; Taxation Fingall, Luke Plunkett, 1st earl of, 15-16, 21, 44, 49, 52, 55-6, 121

290

INDEX

Fingall, Christopher, 2nd earl of, 210, 214 FitzGerald, John, 245-6 FitzGerald, Sir Lucas, 230-1 FitzGerald, Maurice, 193, 212, 229 FitzGerald, Richard, 159,193, 203-4, 254-5 FitzHarris, Sir Edward, 16, 58, 201, 241 FitzMaurke, James, 1, 108 FitzWilliam of Merrion, Thomas FitzWilliam, 1st viscount, 49 Fortescue, Chichester, 256-7 Fortescue, Sir Faithful, 47 Fox, John, 241 Fullerton, James, 106 Furlong, Walter, 234 Galbreth, James, 255 Galway, Sir Geoffrey, 241 Galway, jury, 90, 95, 202; trade of, 131, 132-3 Galway, William, 239 Gilbert, Sir William, 233 Goodwin, Robert, 258-9 Gookin, Vincent, 65, 73 Gormanston, Nicholas Preston, 6th viscount, 15, 21, 38, 49, 210, 214 Gough, Edward, 239-40 Gough, Patrick, 206 Gough, Sir Thomas, 242 Grace, Robert, 228 Graces, The, 20-3, 33, 44,53-64,146 Graham, Sir Richard, 175 Graham, William, 175-6 Grandison, Oliver St. John, 1st viscount, 25, 33, 153, 171-2 Hadsor, Richard, 144 Haley, John, 242 Haley, Simon, 241 Hamilton, Archibald, 212 Hamilton, James, 106, 251 Hampton, Christopher, abp. Armagh, 112 Harrington, Sir Henry, 176 Haynes, Thomas, 242-3

of

Henry VIII, and Ireland, 3 High Commission, Court of, 69, 116-17, 207

Hilton, William, 256-7 Hore, David, 234 Hore, John FitzMahowgue, 244

Hop wood, Michael, 38 Howth, Nicholas St. Lawrence, 1st lord, 214 Hoye, John, 237-8 Huckett, John, 228 Hume, Sir John, 253 Hussey, Patrick, 227 Ikerrin, Pierce Butler, 1st viscount, 49 Ingersoll, John, 233 Ingram, Sir Arthur, 27,37,161-5,180 Jackson, John, 247-8 Jephson, Sir John, 107 Jigginstown House, 172-3, 178-9 Jones, Arthur, 247-8 Jones, Oliver, 194, 212 Jones, Sir Roger, 101, 148, 247 Juxon, William, bp. of London, 91 Kavanagh, Morgan, 236-7 Keating, Edward, 230, 232 Keely, James, 228 Kildare, George FitzGerald, 1st earl of, 49, 52 Kilkenny West, Robert Dillon, lord of, later earl of Roscommon, 72, 88, 195, 204, 207, 227 Kinaston, Edward, 252-3 King, Sir Robert, 101, 206, 247-8 Kingsmill, William, 239-40 Kippoke, Thomas, 225-6 Knox, Andrew, bp. of Raphoe, 105-6 Lambart, Charles Lambart, 2nd baron, 211 Lancaster, John, bp. of Lismore, 126 Laud, William, abp. of Canterbury, 2 9-3I> 93> II2 > IJ5> 118-19, 185, 186 Leake, Thomas, 255-6 Leicester, Robert, 232 Leslie, Henry, bp. of Down, 114, 116-17

Ley, Sir James, 28, 144 Licences, 62-3; for wool, 140, 146, 148-9; for tobacco, 182-3 Little, Thomas, 47, 196, 242-3 Livingston, John, 105-6 Loftus, Adam Loftus, 1st viscount, 44, 70; his political associates, 1114; links with Wentworth, 27, 42^

INDEX 50; fall from power, 72; and the Church of Ireland, 108, 121; acquisition of land, 174, 236; and Wentworth's impeachment, 200 Loftus, Sir Adam, 136, 150, 157; links with Wentworth, 42, 195; rise to power, 71-2; and the Commission for Defective Titles, 81; and the Customs Farm, 164; and the tobacco monopoly, 182; political influence, 234-6 Loftus, Sir Arthur, 234, 236 Loftus, Nicholas, 234, 236 Loftus, Sir Robert, 251-2 Lombard, Peter, abp. of Armagh, IIO-II

Long John, abp. of Armagh, 121 Lords, House of (Ireland), composition of, in 1634, 48-52; nonresident peers in, 51 Lort, Roger, 234 Lowther, Sir Gerald, 71-2, 197; and the Commission for Defective Titles, 81-3; impeached, 211 Luttrell, Sir Thomas, 229 Lynch, Sir Henry, 87, 247 Lynch, Sir Nicholas, 247 Lynch, Sir Roebuck, 193, 206 MacCarty, Sir Donough, 193, 206, 239 MacCaughwell, Hugh, abp. of Armagh, i n MacDonnell, see Antrim MacMahon, Art Oge, 252 MacMahon, Coll Brian, 252 Maguire, Rory, 189, 194 Mainwaring, Philip, 47, 195, 239-40 Mainwaring, Roger, 47, 195, 255-6 Maltravers, Lord Henry, 228 Mansell, Thomas, 247 Martin, Richard, 92-4, 127, 247 Maude, Robert, 196 Maxwell, John, bp. of Killala, 114 Meath, William Brabazon, 1st earl of, 176 Melville, Andrew, 106 Meredith, Sir Robert, 73, 83, 254255 Meredith, Sir Thomas, 251 Mervin, Audley, 194, 197, 211-12 Middlesex, Lionel Cranfield, earl of, 27, 141, 145, 163

291

Mockler, Geoffrey, 242-3 Monck, Charles, 165-6, 254-5 Montgomery, Hugh, 251 Montgomery, Hugh Montgomery, 1st viscount, 50 Montgomery, Sir James, 193, 203 Moore, Arthur, 256-7 Moore, Thomas, 232 Mountgarret, Richard Butler, 3rd viscount, 16, 49 Mountnorris, Francis Annesley, 1st baron, 8, 9, 27, 42, 49, 90, 93, 159, 180, 185; his rise to power, 11-14; alliance with Wentworth, 35-41; and the Customs Farm, 163-5; his fall from power, 70-2; and Wentworth's impeachment, 200, 206 Mun, Thomas, 138 Murphy, Griffin, 228 Muskerry, Charles MacCarthy, 1st viscount, 16, 49 Netterville, Lucas, 229 Netterville, Nicholas Netterville, 1st viscount, 38, 49, 107, 121, 214 Nevill, Pierce, 234-5 Newcomen, Arthur, 258 Newcomen, Sir Beverley, 245-6 Newcomen, Thomas, 234, 236 Nugent, Francis, 17, n o Nugent, Sir Thomas, 101 Nugent, Thomas, 230-1 O'Brien, Sir Barnaby, 236-7, 247 O'Brien, Sir Daniel, 246-7 O'Byrne, Feagh MacHugh, 175 O'Byrne, Phelim MacFeagh, 175 O'Byrne's Country, plantation of, 173-8 O'Connor, Tadgh, 247, 249 O'Donnell, Hugh, 3-6, 85 O'Gara, Farrell, 247, 249 'Old English' interest, 15-23; leaders, 15-17; economic power, 17, 137; excluded from political power, 17-18; and the agitation for the Graces, 20-3; and Poynings' Law, 22; role in parliament in 1634,5 3 ff; in the 1640 parliament, 192-3, 197, 210-13; and Wentworth's impeachment, 200-8; and the rising of 1641, 214 O'Neale, Brian, 193, 212

292

INDEX

O'Neill, Hugh, earl of Tyrone, 1,3-6, 85, 108, 175 O'Neill, Sir Phelim, 188, 198 O'Reilly, Hugh, abp. of Armagh, 111 Ormonde, James Butler, 12th earl of, 3 8 , 49, 52> IO5> 2 " O'Shaghness, Sir Robert, 247 O'Shaghnessy, Sir Roger, 92-4 Parkhurst, Alderman Robert, 101 Parliament (Ireland), in sixteenth century, 2, 22; in 1615, 19, 33; see also Commons and Lords Parsons, Richard, 234, 236 Parsons, Sir William, political associates, 10, 11, 39, 55; and the Court of Wards, 71,75,81; and the Commission for Defective Titles, 81-4; stays in power under Wentworth, 72, 195; and the Wicklow plantation, 174, 175-6; estates elsewhere, 256-7; as lord justice, 212

Peere, Lott, 239-40 Peppard, Thomas, 225-6 Percival, Philip, 100, 176, 204 Percival, Richard, 75 Pesely, Bartholomew, 47, 173 Petition of Remonstrance (1640), 201-6 Pettit, Edward, 230-1 Pierce, Pierce Fitz James, 245-6 Pigott, John, 233 Pigott, Richard, 232 Pilsworth, Philip, 229-30 Plantations of Leitrim, 86-7; of Longford, 86-7; of Ulster, 3, 33; of Connacht, 55-6, 80, 85-103; reversal of 190-1, 201, 202, 205,

207; of Wicklow, 174-8 Plunkett, Sir Christopher, 145 Plunkett, Nicholas, 190 «., 193, 204206, 214, 227

Porter, Endymion, 166 Portland, Richard Weston, 1st earl of, 13, 25, 29-31, 88-90, 95, 118, 130, 148, 163, 169 Power, John, 244 Powerscourt, Richard Wingfield, 1st viscount, 49 Poynings' Law, 22, 55-7, 206, 211 Privy Council (England), 7, 33, 39 Privy Council (Ireland), 8, 45; poli-

tical groups in 8-14, 25-6; opposition to Wentworth in, 42, 45, 48 Purcell, Theobald, 242 Puritanism, 105-6 Pym, John, 192, 201, 205 Queries, The, 210-13 RadclifFe, Sir George, 36, 83, 101, 135, 163, 165, 173-4, 180, 195, 256-7; impeached, 211 RadclirTe, Thomas, 195 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 126 Ranelagh, Roger Jones, 1st viscount, political associates, 11; alliance with Fingall, 52, 55-6; and the plantation of Connacht, 94; and Wentworth's impeachment, 159, 195-6, 206; and the Wicklow plantation, 174; and the Customs Farm, 163 Recusancy fines, 39 Reformation in Ireland, 3, 104-8 Religion, 80; see also Church of Ireland; Counter-Reformation; Puritanism; Reformation Revenue, rise in, 169-70; see also Finance Reynolds, Charles, 247-8 Reynolds, Paul, 251-2 Rice, Dominick, 245-6 Richelieu, 74 Rinuccini, Jean Baptist, abp. of Fermo, 109 Roche, Jacob, 239 Rochfort, Hugh, 197, 214 Rockingham, Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd marquis of, 171 Ronane, Theobald, 239-40 Rooth, David, 228 Rooth, Peter, 234-5 Rothe, David, bp. of Ossory, 112 Rothe, Thomas, 234 Rotherham, Sir Thomas, 247-9 Rowley, Edward, 193, 203, 258-9 Ryves, Sir William, 257-8 St. Leger, Sir William, 46, 197, 239 St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, 118 Sambach, William, 190, 196 Sandys, Sir Edward, 145 Sarsfield, Sir William, 239 Scott, Richard, 247

INDEX Shee, Robert, 228 Sherlock, Christopher, 229-30 Sherlock, Patrick, 228 Sibthorp, Robert, bp. of Kilfenora, 114 Skip with, Edward, 239-40 Slane, William Fleming, 14th lord, 210

Slingsby, Gerard, 237-8 Smith, Sir Pierce, 244 Southwell, Sir Richard, 246-7 Spottiswood, Sir Henry, 254 Spottiswood, James, abp. of St. Andrews, 105 Stanhope, Sir Edward, 30, 37 Stanhope, Michael, 255-6 Staple towns, 149-53 Stewart, Sir William, 253 Strabane, James Hamilton, 1st baron of, 49 Straflford, Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of, personality, 6, 32; policy towards the Catholics, 23, 43-4; appointment as lord deputy, 2731; views on foreign policy, 27-8, 100; financial policy, 33-41; and the Irish Privy Council, 42-3; and the elections of 1634, 45-8; and the Irish House of Lords, 50; his parliamentary policy, 53-68; and the Graces, 57-64; struggle with Mountnorris, 70-2; and Castle Chamber, 69-74; and the Court of Wards, 74-81; and the Commission for Defective Titles, 81-4; and the Connacht plantation, 88-103; his religious policy, 109, 113-29; and the tobacco monopoly, 137; and the Irish wool trade, 147-53; and the Irish linen trade, 154-9; and the Customs Farm, 159-68; personal gains in Ireland, 171-84; expenditure, 179; income, 179-83 Strange, Richard, 244 Subsidies, 33-4, 42-3 Taaffe, John Taaffe, 1st viscount, 49 Taaffe, Theobald, 189, 214 Talbot, Sir Robert, 237-8 Talles, Thomas, 255-6 Taxation, 33-4, 42-3 Taylor, Brockhall, 257-8 Taylor, John, 193, 212

293

Terringham, Sir Arthur, 47, 251-2

Thomond, Henry O'Brien, 5 th earl

of, 49, 52, 105, 107 Tichbourne, Sir Henry, 254 Tilson, Henry, bp. of Elphin, 114 Trade, Irish, with Europe, 131-4; with Scotland, 135; with England, 135-7; old English share in, 137; improvement of 167-8; in linen, 135, 154-6; in wool, 135-6, 137153; in wine, 131-2, in cattle, 136; in tobacco, 137, 182-3 Travers, John, 225 Travers, Sir Robert, 239-40 Trevor, Sir Edward, 251-2 Trinity College, Dublin, 46-7, 114115, 118

Tristeene, Sir John, 145 Turner, Patrick, 234-5 Tyrrell, Peter, 227 Ulster, plantation of see Plantations Ulster Irish, 1,3-6 Unwin, George, 137 Usher, William, 237-8 Ussher, James, abp. of Armagh, 105106, 108, 112, 114, 117-19, 124; see also Chapter 10 passim

Ussher, Robert, bp. of Kildare, 115 Vaughan, Sir John, 255 Wadding, Luke, 16, 110-11 Waller, Sir Hardress, 193, 201, 241 Walsh, Jacob, 1, 244 Walsh, James, 228 Walsh, John, 193, 206 Wandesford, Sir Christopher, Master of the Rolls, 71; lord deputy, 189192, 201; in 1634 parliament, 229 Wards and Liveries, Commission for, Wards and Liveries, Court of ('England), 75 Wards and Liveries, Court of (Ireland), 69, 74-81 Ware, Sir James, 46, 83, 197, 229 Ware, John, 233-4 Waterford, trade of, 131, 136 Weasley, Valerian, 227 Webb, George, bp. of Limerick, 114 Wentworth, George, 47, 148, 239-40 West, John, 166-7

294

INDEX

Westmeath, Richard Nugent, ist earl of, leader of the 'old English' party 15-16; and the Graces, 21; and Wentworth, 38-41; a newpeerage, 49; and the Connacht plantation, 89,101; and the Church of Ireland, 107, 123; opposition to Wentworth, 185, 214 Wharton, Sir Thomas, 195 White, Dominick, 241 White, Sir Nicholas, 229 White, Henry, 242

White, Walter, 251-2 Williams, John, bp. of Lincoln, 27-8 Williams, Maurice, 47, 196, 241 Wilmot, Charles Wilmot, ist viscount, 11, 73, 206 Windebank, Francis, 188 Wingfield, Edward, 176 Wiseman, William, 239-40 Wolverston, John, 176 Youghal, trade of, 136, 152-3