War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730

This page intentionally left blank

WAR AND POLITICS IN IRELAND 1649 - 1730

J.G.SIMMS

EDITED BY D.W.HAYTON AND GERARD O'BRIEN

THE HAMBLEDON PRESS LONDON

AND

RONCEVERTE

Published by The Hambledon Press, 1986 35 Gloucester Avenue, London NW1 7AX (U.K.) 309 Greenbrier Avenue, Ronceverte West Virginia 24970 (U.S.A.)

ISBN 0 907628 72 9 ©The Estate of the late J.G. Simms 1986

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Simms, J.G. War and politics in Ireland, 1649-1730. 1. Ireland - History - 1649-1730. I. Title II. Hayton, David III. O'Brien, Gerard 941.506 DA940 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Simms, J.G (John Gerald), 1904-1979. War and politics in Ireland, 1649-1730. "Select bibliography of J.G. Simms": pp. xv-xxi Includes index. 1. Ireland - History - 1649-1775 - Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Simms, J.G. (John Gerald), 1904-1979. I. Hayton, David, 1949- II. O'Brien, Gerard. III. Title. DA944.4.S56 1986 941.506 85-31686

Printed and bound in Great Britain by WBC (Printers), Bristol and WBC (Bookbinders), Maesteg

CONTENTS Acknowledgements Introduction: The Historical Writings of J.G. Simms (1904-79) Select Bibliography of J.G. Simms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649 Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649 Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick, 1650-1651 John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic Dublin in 1685 The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 Schomberg at Dundalk Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne Marlborough's Siege of Cork, 1690 A Jacobite Colonel: Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91

12

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War, 1689-91

13 14 15 16 17

County Louth and the Jacobite War Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1 The Treaty of Limerick Irish Catholics and the Parliamentary Franchise, 16921728 The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (C. Will. Ill, c. I) The Case of Ireland Stated The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c.6), 1703-4 The Irish Parliament of 1713 Connacht in the Eighteenth Century County Sligo in the Eighteenth Century

18 19 20 21 22 23 Index

vii ix XV

1 11 21 31 49 65 91 105 117 129 135 149 161 169 181 203 225 235 251 263 277 289 307 317

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For permission to reprint the papers in this collection, encouragement in the task, and significant material help, we are very grateful to the family of the late Gerald Simms, and especially his daughter, Mrs Lisa Shields. For advice, assistance in procuring rare items, and support in the preparation of the volume, we should also like to thank Dr D. G. Cuinnea, Mr R. J. Hunter, Mr Harman Murtagh, Jim and Una O'Donovan, Brenda O'Hanrahan, Dr Carole Rawcliffe, Nick Sanquest and Dr W. E. Vaughan. The articles are reprinted by kind permission of the original publishers: the County Donegal Historical Society (11), the County Louth Historical and Archaeological Society (13), the Dublin Historical Association (6,16), Gill andMacmillanLtd. (19), the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences (21), the Irish Historical Society and Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies (4, 5,15,17,18, 20, 22), the Kilkenny Archaeological Society (12), the Military History Society of Ireland (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,10,14), and the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (23).

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORICAL WRITING OF J.G. SIMMS (1904-79) 'Irish history', wrote one of its foremost recent practitioners, 'has been revolutionized in the last generation.'* Indeed, it has become almost a commonplace among Irish historians to talk of a mid-twentieth century 'historiographical revolution', characterized by an efflorescence of learned societies and serial publications of one kind or another, and centred on Trinity College, Dublin and the figure of the late T. W. Moody, guiding hand behind many major projects, from the journal Irish Historical Studies, founded in 1938, to the multi-volume, cooperative New History of Ireland, which the Clarendon Press began publishing for the Royal Irish Academy in 1976.2 'A harvesting of the best contemporary scholarship', the New History stands as a landmark in the progress of the 'historiographical revolution', almost as a monument to the pioneers.3 One of their signal achievements, amply illustrated in the New History, was the removal of much of the emotionalism and partisanship from the study o{ Irish history, so that hitherto highly combustible issues could be dealt with dispassionately, and, as far as humanly possible, objectively. Nowhere are these virtues better demonstrated than in the writings of one of the most prolific of this generation, J. G. Simms. In a stream of books and papers from the early 1950s until his death in 1979, Simms tackled some of the most vexed and vexing questions in all Irish history, the wars, confiscations, persecutions and politics of the later seventeenth century. His was a peculiarly dangerous minefield: Cromwell's sieges, the 'Glorious Revolution' and its aftermath, the later passage of the infamous 'penal laws' against Catholics, all episodes close to the heart of modern mythmakers, and yet all described by Simms with fairness and exemplary clarity. 1

J. G. Simms, 'The Historical Work of T. W. Moody', Ireland under the Union:

Varieties of Tension. Essays in Honour ofT. W. Moody, eds. F. S. L. Lyons and R. A. J. Hawkins (Oxford, 1980), p. 321. 2 See, for example, F. S. L. Lyons, 'T.W.M.', Ireland under the Union, eds. Lyons and Hawkins, p. 4 et seq.; R. F. Foster, 'History and the Irish Question', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XXXIII (1983), 188. 3 A New History of Ireland, eds. T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, F. J. Byrne and W. E. Vaughan (9 vols., Oxford, 1976-), III, p. v.

Introduction

x

Gerald Simms was descended from Ulster Plantation stock, the eldest of three sons of a County Donegal solicitor (a brother, George, was to become Church of Ireland primate). Educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, where he secured a double first, he had the distinction of enjoying two quite separate careers, first in the Indian Civil Service, and then, after Indian independence, back in Ireland as an academic historian. A Ph.D. thesis at Trinity, withT. W. Moody as supervisor, was followed by election as a fellow of the college, where he stayed until his retirement. Simms became a pillar of the scholarly establishment in Ireland, a member of the Royal Irish Academy, Librarian of Archbishop Marsh's Library in Dublin, President of the Irish Historical Society, active in various other local and national societies and a collaborator with Moody in several ventures, not least as a substantial contributor to the New History. He wrote extensively, and always, it must be said, for Irish periodicals and series, or for Irish publishers. This reflected, perhaps, a kind of insularity, and to a certain degree deprived him of the reputation outside Ireland that his qualities as a historian merited. But his ancestry, English education and imperial experience were still an essential part of the historian, enabling him to treat the conflicting factions of his chosen period with unusual detachment, understanding in turn the points of view of Williamite and Jacobite, Irishman, Anglo-Irishman and Englishman. Simms's first book, published in 1956, was in effect his Ph.D. thesis, The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland 1690-1703, narrating the course of

the land settlement that followed the final defeat of the Stuart cause in Ireland and evaluating its results. He had prepared the way for this monograph with two papers in Irish Historical Studies, 'Land Owned by Catholics in 1688', setting out the status quo, and 'The Original Draft of the Civil Articles of Limerick, 1691', which helped to elucidate a crucial stage in the peace-making process. G. N. Clark, reviewing The Williamite Confiscation . . ., noted that until Simms had begun to publish his findings 'every aspect of the history of Irish landownership before and after the war of 1689-91 was very imperfectly known. Now that he has completed his work, all previous accounts of it are superseded'.4 Almost equally impressed was another English historian, J. P. Kenyon: 'an extremely satisfying piece of detailed research, whose sober conclusions must carry conviction. '5 These conclusions, about the scale of the redistribution of lands after 1690, presented as much smaller than in the Cromwellian and Restoration land settlements; and about the conduct of King William, his ministers and generals, whose honour was in some way rehabilitated, may not have been startling, but they were significant. What is particularly impressive about the book is the 4 5

Irish Historical Studies, XI (1958-9), 55-8. English Historical Review, LXXII (1957), 373-4.

Introduction xi skill with which the author, much in the manner of a senior civil servant drawing up a brief, masters complex historical processes and a mass of material to produce his pellucid and authoritative account. There was, too, something about the subject of landownership itself that fascinated Simms, and not just its traditional prominence in Irish history. He had in fact already produced an article on the Civil Survey of the 1650s, and later was to return to tackle land questions in Counties Louth and Meath, and to have a preliminary look at the Ulster Plantation in his own county, Donegal. A subject of even greater interest, to judge simply by the number of words Simms expended on it, was military history. An officer of the Military History Society of Ireland, in which he served as VicePresident and as a member of the editorial committee, he appeared frequently in the columns of the society's journal, the Irish Sword. Military matters, whether narratives of engagements or assessments of generals, gave him the chance to solve specific problems, and tell complicated stories clearly, for which he had a flair. Although there were occasional forays into the Cromwellian period, it soon became obvious that the thrust of his major offensive in the decade or so that followed the publication of The Williamite Confiscation . . . was towards a new history of the war between James II and William III, a natural development indeed from his earlier work. Pamphlets on the Treaty of Limerick (reprinted below, no. 16) and the siege of Derry pointed the way, as did a nost of other papers, five of which, important in their own rignt and not subsumed into publications of larger scope, are included in this collection: the story of the travails of the Williamite general Schomberg at Dundalk in 1689 (no. 7); an analysis of the evidence about the most famous Irish battle of them all, 'Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne' (no. 8); an account of one of the first major exploits of the great Duke of Marlborough, his siege of Cork in 1690 (no. 9); an examination of'Williamite Peace Tactics' (no. 15); and a vignette of the Jacobite officer Dominick Sarsfield (no. 10). The final push came in 1969 with the appearance of Jacobite Ireland 1685-91, the intention of which was to 'trace the course of events in Ireland from the accession of James II to the treaty of Limerick'.6 In this objective it succeeded triumphantly, earning the same plaudits for thoroughness, objectivity and clarity that had garlanded the first book. One reviewer praised Simms's 'unerring sureness of touch', and found in his narrative the cardinal virtues of the genre: it was 'well proportioned, comprehensive and dramatic'.7 There was more to the events of 1685-91 in Ireland, and more to Simms's rendition of them, than a catalogue of military preparations and engagements. Otherwise enthusiastic reviewers might, not 6J. G Simms, Jacobite Ireland 1685-91 (London, 1969), p. v. 7 J.L . McCracken, in Eng. Hist. Rev., LVI (1971), 848.

Introduction

xii

unjustly, carp at the brevity with which the religious background and the prevailing economic and social conditions in later seventeenthcentury Ireland were sketched in. But when it came to politics Jacobite Ireland did make a sustained attempt to encompass this vital extra dimension. The accounts of James II 's changing policies in Ireland prior to 1688, and of the proceedings of his Catholic Parliament there in 1689, already discussed oy Simms at some length in a pamphlet reprinted below (no. 6), display the same surefootedness as the military narratives. This was a sphere of interest that Simms was to explore further, most notably in his chapters of the New History, which taken together form an accurate and elegant account of events in Ireland from the Restoration to the Hanoverian Succession. The present volume includes three examples of papers narrating political developments: a study of the short-lived and turbulent Irish Parliament of 1713 (no. 21); and two investigations into the passage of individual penal laws, the Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (no. 18) and the Popery Act of 1704 (no. 20). Here Simms, as in other areas, was breaking new ground, particularly in his examination of the processes by which legislation against Catholics emerged and was modified in the course of a peculiarly complex and long-drawn-out drafting procedure. To those historians who are inclined to treat the imposition of the penal code in general terms, and too simplistically, happy to assume that Parliaments spoke with one voice, and that the final shape of a measure corresponded to the intentions of its makers, Simms's articles are a reminder that there were many parties involved, with different aims, and that legislation was and is nearly always the outcome of a series of manoeuvres and compromises. These political studies have their weaknesses: they are not profoundly versed in the sophisticated configurations o( late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century English politics, and do not always bring out to the full the reciprocal influence o£ factionalism in Dublin and at Westminster. But they are of considerable value as important investigations into what even now is still largely uncharted territory. Another major historiographical region into which Simms made some pioneering journeys was that of Irish local history. He had a particular pride in 'the petite patrie of his native county', writing frequently for the Donegal Annual and serving as President of the County Donegal Historical Society in its silver jubilee year.9 Questions of landownership naturally threw up interesting local case-studies, and his work on the Jacobite war of 1689-91 yielded a number of minor pieces on the impact of the conflict on the life of the provinces, four of which are reprinted here (nos. 11-14). Perhaps the most adventurous of these voyages into the localities were his efforts to describe a 8 Ibid. 9

Donegal Annual, X (1971), 1-2.

xn Introduction i particular city, county or province at a point or in a period of its history. His surveys or'Dublin in 1685' (no. 5) and of County Sligo and Connacht in the eighteenth century (nos. 22-3), summarize the characteristics of each in a typically lucid fashion. While a new generation of economic and social historians is digging deeper into the subsoil, so to speak, of Irish local history in his period,10 Simms's articles represent the vital early spadework, and have not yet been superseded for the localities that they cover. Simms's last book, published posthumously, was a life of the Dublin savant and political thinker William Molyneux, whose Case of Ireland . . . Stated (1698) exercised a major influence on the Protestant 'patriots' of the later eighteenth century, the architects of the protoHome Rule 'Constitution of 1782'. His interest in Molyneux, and in Jonathan Swift (reflected in several articles) led Simms to consider the curious phenomenon of Anglo-Irish political patriotism, and to make an important contribution to the debate about its nature. Were the representatives of the Protestant Ascendancy genuine nationalists, or hypocrites who played at patriotism until their supremacy was threatened by the Catholics they had excluded from political life, and who then scuttled back to England and Union for protection? The interpretation advanced by Simms in books and articles (one of which is printed below, no. 19) placed Molyneux and his disciples in a tradition of Anglophone colonial theorists whose patriotism, based primarily on a recognition of separate economic interests from those of the mother country, was contained 'within an imperial framework'. An eighteenth-century parallel, though not an exact one, was to be found in colonial America, and in a short monograph on the Case Simms demonstrated, amongst other things, Molyneux's impact on the Founding Fathers.11 In fact, the notion of 'Colonial Nationalism', as Simms termed it, was most closely applicable to the movements towards 'nationalism' in the British dominions in the later nineteenth century. The phrase had been coined by the Chamberlainite political journalist Richard Jebb in an article in the Empire Review in 1902, and developed in a number of books, no doubt familiar to a servant of the twentieth-century Raj.12 Its use to define the ideology or ideologies of eighteenth-century Irish Protestants has not met with universal

10

See for example, D. J. Dickson, 'An Economic History of the Cork Region in the Eighteenth Century' (Trinity College, Dublin, Ph.D. thesis, 1977); W. H. Crawford, 'Ulster Economy and Society in the Eighteenth Century' (Queen's University, Belfast, Ph.D. thesis, 1983). 11 Colonial Nationalism 1698-1776 . . . (Cork, 1976); see esp. p. 9. 12 See in particular, R. Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism (London, 1905); and in general, forjebb's 'imperialist-federalist'writings, J. D. B. Miller, Richardjebb and the Problem of Empire (University of London Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Commonwealth Papers, III, 1956).

xiv

Introduction

approval,13 but the idea has nevertheless proved fruitful: a recent doctoral thesis on Anglo-Irish political thought in the period from the Revolution to the mid-1720s incorporates 'Colonial Nationalism' into its title.14 In any discussion of Gerald Simms's historical writing two main themes stand out: first, that in many of the thorniest patches of Irish history he cut away the tangled undergrowth so that others, not least other historians, might see clearly; secondly, that he accomplished these tasks to the highest level of professional craftsmanship. In some areas, in his work on landownership or on military history, he established the definitive text; in others, in political narrative and in the study of Anglo-Irish political theory, he left foundations for others to build on. His lasting achievements were summarized by one reviewer: 'Historical fashions change, and more superficial or modish studies may be cried up, but as time passes the enduring virtues of a lucid style, logical exposition and secure documentation will again enjoy their proper recognition.'15

13 D. G. Boyce, Nationalism in Ireland (London, 1982), pp. 106-8, offers cogent criticism. 14 By Dr Isolde Victory (Trinity College, Dublin, Ph.D. thesis, 1985). « T. C. Barnard, in Ir. Hist. Stud., XXIV (1984), 104.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF J.G. SIMMS The following bibliography is based on that of Brenda O'Hanrahan, Donegal Authors: A Bibliography (Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 1982), pp. 242-6. Permission to make use of this work is gratefully acknowledged. We have excluded such items as book reviews and replies to queries. Papers and pamphlets reprinted in this volume are marked with an asterisk.

BOOKS Separate works: The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland 1690-1703. (Studies in Irish History,

VII.) London: Faber and Faber. 1956. (Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1976.) 207 pp. *The Treaty of Limerick. (Irish History Series, 2.) Dundalk: Dublin Historical Association. 1961. 24 pp. *The Jacobite Parliament of 1689. (Irish History Series, 6.) Dundalk: Dublin Historical Association. 1966. 28 pp. The Siege of Deny. Dublin: A.P.C.K. 1966. 33 pp. Jacobite Ireland 1685-91. (Studies in Irish History, 2nd series, V.) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1969. xii, 298 pp. Colonial Nationalism 1698-1776: Molyneux's 'The Case of Ireland . . .

Stated'. (Irish Life and Culture, Special Series.) Cork: Mercier Press for the Cultural Relations Committee of Ireland 1976. 77 pp.

Sandford Church, 1826-1976. Dublin: Sandford Parish Select Vestry. 1976. 12 pp.

xvi Select Bibliography of]. G. Simms William Molyneux of Dublin 1656-1698. [Edited by P. H. Kelly.]

Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. 1982. 176 pp. Editions: (With K. Danaher) The Danish Force in Ireland 1690-1691. Dublin: Irish

Manuscripts Commission. 1962. 169 pp. (With T. W. Moody) The Bishopric of Deny and the Irish Society of London,

1602-1705. 2 volumes. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission. Volume I: 1602-70. 1968, 430 pp. Volume II: 1670-1705. 1983. xix, 580 pp. Contributions:

'The Restoration and the Jacobite War (1660-91)'(pp. 204-16,347), in The Course of Irish History, eds. T. W. Moody and F. X. Martin (Cork, Mercier Press, 1967; revised edn. 1984). 'Introduction' (pp. v-xi) toj. T. Gilbert, A Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland 1688-91 (Shannon, Irish University Press, 1971; reprint of 1892 edn.). Contributions to A New History of Ireland, eds. T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, F. J. Byrne and W. E. Vaughan (9 vols. projected, Oxford, Clarendon Press for the Royal Irish Academy, 1976-): Volume III: Early Modern Ireland 1534-1691 (1976):

Chapter XVII, 'The Restoration, 1660-85' (pp. 420-53); Chapter XIX, 'The War of the Two Kings, 1685-91' (pp. 478-508); Bibliography (pp. 634-95).

Volume VIII: A Chronology of Irish History to 1976 (A Companion to Irish History, Part I) (1982):

(With D. MacFhionnbhair) '[Early Modern Ireland . . .] Chronology (A) 1534-1603' (pp. 196-221); (withT. W. Moody and C. J. Woods) '[Early Modern Ireland . . .] Chronology (B) 1603-91' (pp. 222-53); (with T. W. Moody and C. J. Woods) '[Eighteenth-Century Ireland 1691-1800:] Chronology' (pp. 254-92); (with T. W. Moody andC. J. Woods) '[Ireland 1921-76:] Chronology' (pp. 401-72). Volume IX: Maps, Genealogies, Lists (A Companion to Irish History, Part II)

(1984): Map, 'Land Owned by Catholics, 1641,1688,1703, by Counties' (p. 52); (withB. Bradshaw andC. J. Woods) 'Bishops of the Church of Ireland from 1534' (pp. 392-438); '[Principal Officers of the Central

Select Bibliography of]. G. Simms xvii Government in Ireland, 1172-1922:] Chief Governors (B) 1534-1800' (pp. 486-98); 'Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal, 1232-1922 (B): 1534-1922'(pp. 509-11). Volume IV: Eighteenth-Century Ireland 1691 -1800 (1986

Chapter I, 'The Establishment of Protestant Ascendancy 1691-1714' (pp. 1-30); Chapter XIX, 'The Irish on the Continent 1691 -1800' (pp. 629-56). 'Introduction' (pp. 7-14) to William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland Stated (Irish Writings from the Age of Swift, V, Dublin, Cadenus Press, 1977). 'The Historical Work of T. W. Moody' (pp. 321-8), in Ireland under the Union: Varieties of Tension. Essays in Honour of T. W. Moody, eds. F. S. L.

Lyons and R. A. J. Hawkins (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980).

ARTICLES AND PAPERS 1951 'Land Owned by Catholics in Ireland in 1688' (Historical Revision IX), Irish Historical Studies, VII, 180-90. 1952 'The Original Draft of the Civil Articles of Limerick, 1691' (Select Documents X), Irish Historical Studies, VIII, 37-44. 1953 *'Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1', Irish Historical Studies, VIII, 303-23. 1954 'The Surrender of Limerick, 1691', Irish Sword, II, 23-8. 1955 'The Civil Survey, 1654-6', Irish Historical Studies, IX, 253-63. *'A Jacobite Colonel: Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock', Irish Sword, II, 205-10. 'A Letter to Sarsfield', ibid., II, 109..

xviii

Select Bibliography off. G. Simms 1957

*'Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick, 1650-1651', IrishSword, III, 115-23. 'Lord Kilmallock's Letters to His Wife', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, LXXVII, 135-40. 1958 *'Connacht in the Eighteenth Century', Irish Historical Studies, XI, 116-33. 'James II and the Siege of Derry', Irish Sword, III, 286-7. 1959 *'County Louth and the Jacobite War', Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, XIV, 141-7.

1960 'County Donegal in 1739', Donegal Annual, IV, 203-8. *'Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649', Irish Sword, IV, 171-9.v *'Irish Catholics and the Parliamentary Franchise, 1692-1728' (Historical Revision X), Irish Historical Studies, XII, 28-37. 'Irish Jacobites: Lists from T.C.D., MS. N.I.13', Analecta Hibernica, XXII, 11-230. *'The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c.6), 1703-4', Irish Historical Studies, XII, 105-18. 'Paris Gets News from Ireland, 1642', Irish Sword, IV, 268-9. 'Report on the Compilation of a Bibliography of Source Material for the History of Ireland 1685-1702', Analecta Hibernica, XXII, 1-10. 1961 *'County Sligo in the Eighteenth Century', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XCI, 153-62. ""Kilkenny in the Jacobite War, 1689-91', Old Kilkenny Review, no. 13, pp. 10-20. 1962 'The Alleged Treaty Stone of Limerick', Irish Sword, V, 266-7. 'From General Ginkel's Accounts, 1691', ibid, V, 190.

Select Bibliography of J. G. Simms xi* 'Mantis O'Donnell, 21st Lord of Tir Conaill', Donegal Annual, V, 115-21. 'Meath Landowners in the Jacobite War', Riocht na Midhe, II, 55-8. 1963 *'Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne', Irish Sword, VI, 16-27. 'The Garrison at Carrickfergus, 1689', ibid., VI, 118-19.

*'The Irish Parliament of 1713', Historical Studies IV: Papers Read before the Fifth Irish Conference of Historians, ed. G. A. Hayes-McCoy (London,

Bowes and Bowes), pp. 82-92. 1964 'The Siege of Derry', Irish Sword, VI, 221-33. 'St. Ruth's Career', ibid., VI, 213. 1965 *'Dublin in 1685', Irish Historical Studies, XIV, 212-26. 'Mayo Landowners in the Seventeenth Century', Journal of the Royal

Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XCV, 237-47.

*'Sligo in the Jacobite War 1689-91', Irish Sword, VII, 124-35. 1966

'Donegal and the Ulster Volunteers', Donegal Annual, VII, 99-101. 1967 *'County Donegal in the Jacobite War (1689-91)', Donegal Annual, VII, 212-24. 'Ireland in the Age of SwifV, Jonathan Swift 1667-1967: A Dublin Tercentenary Tribute, eds. R. McHugh and P. Edwards (Dublin, Dolmen Press for the Swift Tercentenary Committee), pp. 157-75. 'The Siege of Limerick, 1690', North Munster Studies: Essays in Commemoration of Monsignor Michael Molony, ed. E. Rynne (Limerick,

Thomond Archaeological Society), pp. 308-14. '[Thirty Years' Work in Irish History:] Seventeenth-Century Ireland (1603-1702)', Irish Historical Studies, XV, 366-75. 1969 *'John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic', Irish Historical Studies, XVI, 304-20. *'Marlborough's Siege of Cork, 1690', Irish Sword, IX, 113-23.

xx

Select Bibliography ofJ. G. Simms

1970 ""The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 (9 Will. Ill, c.l)', Irish Historical Studies, XVII, 185-99. 1971 'Dean Swift and County Armagh', Seanchas Ardmhacha, VI, 131-40. 'The Second Duke of Ormonde', Journal of the Butler Society, I, 170-3. *'Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689' , Irish Sword, X, 14-25. 'A Surveyor's Report on Some Townlands in County Louth', Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, XVII, 150-5.

'The Ulster Plantation in County Donegal', Donegal Annual, X, 3-14. 1972 'Donegal in the Ulster Plantation', Irish Geography, V, 386-93. 1973 *'The Case of Ireland Stated', The Irish Parliamentary Tradition, ed. B. Farrell (Dublin, Gill and Macmillan), pp. 128-38. 1974 ""Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649', Irish Sword, XI, 212-21. 'The Huguenot Contribution to Ireland, with Special Reference to

Portarlington', Huguenot Portarlington: Record of the Commemoration, 23

August 1972 (Portarlington, The Rectory). 'Remembering 1690', Studies, LXIII, 231-42. 1975

'Denis Sheridan and Some of His Descendants', Breifne, IV, 460-70. 1976 'G. A. Hayes-McCoy (1911-75)', Irish Historical Studies, XX, 51-2. 1977 'The Battle of Aughrim: History and Poetry', Irish University Review, VII, 36-51. 'Dublin in 1776', Dublin Historical Record, XXXI, 2-13.

Select Bibliography of J. G. Simms

xxi

1978 'Dean Swift and the Currency Problem', Numismatic Society of Ireland Occasional Papers Nos. 19-23, No. 20 (pp. 8-18). 1979 'The Williamite War in South Ulster', Clogher Record, X, 155-62.

This page intentionally left blank

1

CROMWELL AT DROGHEDA, 1649

C

ROMWELL'S treatment of Drogheda is one of the horror stories of Irish history, and there has been general condemnation of what he did to the garrison and townsfolk. But revulsion at the consequences of the siege need not prevent us from examining the operation in its historical context, or from appraising the rival techniques of the defending and attacking commanders and their forces.* Cromwell's campaign in Ireland was an extension of the English civil war. It took place after the execution of Charles I and was primarily a move against royalist support in Ireland for the young Charles II. This support was organised by the marquess of Ormond, who on 17 January 1649—less than a fortnight before Charles I*s death—had succeeded in making terms with the catholics of the Kilkenny confederation. This enabled him to get most of the confederate forces to join his own protestant royalist force and the Munster protestants led by Lord Inchiquin, who after various twists and turns was now on the royalist side. The execution of a Stuart king had outraged the Scots, and so the Scottish army in the north of Ireland also joined Ormond's coalition. Owen Roe O'Neill remained aloof at this stage, but Ormond hoped to win him over. There was thus the making of a formidable royalist movement in Ireland. On 22 January, while Charles fs trial was going on, Ormond invited the prince of Wales, the future Charles II, to come to Ireland with the prospect of leading an Irish in/ vasion force into England. Charles II preferred Scotland, but his cousin, Prince Rupert, brought a fleet to Munster where it remained for most of 1649, based on Kinsale. The parliamentary leaders in England took the threat from Ireland seriously, and they chose their most successful soldier, Oliver Cromwell, to be commander-' in/chief for an invasion of Ireland. Cromwell's own appreciation of the situation is given in a speech he made to the general council of the army. The following extracts show his line of thought : All the papists and the king's party . . . are in a very strong combination against you . . . The last letters that the council of state had from thence do plainly import that Preston has 8,000 foot and 800 horse, that Taaf has as many, that my Lord Clanrikard has the same proportion, and that my lord Inchiquin and my lord Ormond have a matter of 3,000 foot and 800 horse, that these are all agreed and ready in conjunction to root out the

•The main source for Cromwell's actions at Drogheda is The letters and speeches of Oliver Cromwell, edited by Thomas Carlyle. The best edition is that of S. C . Lomas (3 vols., London, 1904), referred to as Lomas. A more recent and complete documentation is The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell ed. W . C . Abbot (4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1937^47). For the defenders the main source is Ormond's correspondence in the Carte MSS, Bodleian Library, Oxford. A convenient collection of documents relating to both attackers and defenders is in J. T. Gilbert, ed., A contemporary history of affairs in Ireland, 1641*52 (3 vols., Dublin, 1879), referred to as Gilbert.

2

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 English interest in Ireland and to set up the prince of Wales his interest. . . If we do not endeavour to make good our interest there, and that timely, we shall not only have . . . our interest rooted out there, but they will in a very short time be able to land forces in England and put us to trouble here . . . If they shall be able to carry on their work, they will make this the most miserable people on the earth, for all the world knows their barbarism.1

Cromwell was not prepared to accept the Irish command unless he was assured that his army would be adequately financed and properly equipped. This was a sensible stipulation, as the parliamentary army was in arrears of pay, which had led to discontent, added to by the democratic ideas of the levellers, the left wing of the parliamentary side. There was doubt whether enough soldiers would be willing to go to Ireland. It was decided to draw lots to settle which regiments should go, and to offer the men the choice of complying or being dismissed. Levellers refused and were cashiered, but there were enough volunteers from other regiments to take their places. It took up to the end of June to raise ,£100,000 to finance the expedition. On 10 July, Cromwell set out for Milford Haven. Apparently he planned to make Munster his objective, hoping to win over the protestants there with the help of Lord Broghill, with whom he had done a deal. But when he got to Milford Haven, where he met General Monck, he changed his mind and decided to make for Dublin. This decision was confirmed by the news of the battle of Rath mines, in which Ormond had been routed by Jones, the parliamentary commander. This victory secured Dublin as a port of entry. When Cromwell heard the news he wrote: 'this is an astonishing mercy, so great and seasonable as indeed we are like them that dreamed.'2 On 13 August he set sail from Milford Haven, but only with part of the army, three regiments, about 3,000 men. He had a rough passage and, according to his chaplain 'was as sea/sick as ever I saw a man in my life'. He landed at Ring's End on 15 August. By a rather questionable decision he ordered Ireton, his second-in-command, with the greater part of the troops at Milford Haven to sail for Munster, but providence intervened. Weather made it impossible for Ireton to land in County Cork and he joined Cromwell in Dublin, landing on 23 August. With the parliamentary troops previously in Ireland and some regiments that crossed from Chester, Cromwell had 17,000 men at his disposal, a formidable army by Irish standards. He also had what was described as 'the best train of artillery that ever came on Irish ground'. It included four whole cannon and five demi/cannon.3 Although the royalists had lost the battle of Rathmines and had failed to take Dublin, they had in other ways improved their position during the summer of 1649. On 11 July Inchiquin succeeded in taking Drogheda (which up to then had been in parliamentary control), and most of the garrison went over to him. On 24 July Monck surrendered Dundalk to Inchiquin under pressure from his own men, most of whom went over to Inchiquin. This seems to have been 1 Abbott, Writings and speeches,n, 35/9. 2 Lomas, i, 451. 3 Perfect weekly account, $'12 Sept. 1649, cited in Ir. Eccles. Rff.,4th ser., xxx (1911). 53.

Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649

3

protestant reaction against Monck's attempt to use Owen Roe O'Neill against the Scots in Ulster. In the words of a contemporary account: 'the soldiers ran over the trenches to Inchiquin swearing deep oaths that they would not engage with Monck, who had entered into a confederacy with Owen Roe, the head of the native Irish'.4 There was thus a clear line of communication between Ormond's command in Leinster and the Scottish army under Sir George Monro in the north/east. Drogheda was a key position for both sides, and it was natural for Cromwell to make it his first objective to bar the arrival of support for Ormond from the north, whether from the Scots or from Owen Roe. According to Cromwell himself 'the design was to endeavour the regaining of Tredagh [Drogheda], or tempting the enemy upon his hazard of the loss of that place to fight'.5 He set out from Dublin on 31 August with eight regiments of foot and six of horse, some ten or twelve thousand men—both figures are given—described as 'stout, resolute men' picked from a larger force. The first night they camped in 'Lord Barnwell's field', which was probably at Turvey, just beyond Swords. Next day on his way past Gormanstown castle he tried to capture the infant heir of Lord Gormanstown, but did not succeed. On the other hand, he kept strict discipline, issued stern orders against looting, and is said to have ordered two of his men to be put to death in the face of the whole army for stealing a couple of hens from a poor Irishwoman. On 1 September he camped at Ballygarth, within five miles of Drogheda, and next day sent on some of his horse. On 1 September the commander at Drogheda had received orders from Ormond to destroy the castles on the Nanny Water (which flows parallel to, and south of, the Boyne), and next day, 2 September, he sent out parties for the purpose. But Cromwell was too quick for him; his cavalry seized the castles of Athcarne, Dardistown and Bellewstown before the royalists could reach them. Ballygarth had already been occupied the day before, so that all the crossings of the Nanny were in Cromwell's control. On 2 September his cavalry were also in the immediate neighbourhood of Drogheda on St. John's Hill to the south' west of the town. On 3 September, his 'lucky day', his main army was within musket shot of the town wall. His heavy guns were sent by sea and their arrival was delayed by contrary winds, so that it was nearly a week later before they were in position. Drogheda was, and is, divided into two halves by the Boyne. In early times the halves were distinct towns, each with its own defensive system. In Cromwell's time the medieval walls were still there, a semi/circle on the south, or Meath, side, and a larger semicircle on the north, or Louth, side. Between them the walls had a circuit of 11 miles. They were 20 feet high and 6 feet thick at the bottom, decreasing to 4 feet at the top to allow for a narrow walk on which there was standing/room for soldiers. There were 5 gates and 11 towers on the south side, and 7 gates and 19 towers on the north. Each half was on a steep slope down to the river. They were joined by a bridge, with a drawbridge, on the site of the present bridge. 4 D . Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, p. 16. 5 Lomas, i, 466.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

4

The commander of the garrison was Sir Arthur Aston, an English catholic who had experience of fighting in various parts of Europe as well as of the civil war in England. He had a wooden leg, the result of a fall from his horse. Ormond had put him in charge on 17 August, in place of Lord Drogheda who had had connections with the parliamentary side. At the end of August the garrison consisted of eight troops of horse (a total of 319 men) and four regiments of foot (a total of 2,221). The regiments were Ormond's own (commanded by Sir Edmond Verney, a protestant English royalist) and the regiments of Colonels Wall, Warren and Byrne. The three last are said to have taken no part in the battle of Rathmines, as they had been kept in reserve. So their morale is likely to have been higher than that of regiments routed in the battle. In fact, the Drogheda garrison was regarded as the flower of Ormond's army. Colonel Garret Wall of Coolnamuck, County Waterford, was the most senior of the regimental commanders. He had seen service in France and had been in command of a regiment since the confederate army was formed. Colonel William Warren of Warrenstown (now Dillonstown), County Louth, is men/ tioned as colonel of a regiment in 1646 and was taken prisoner at Dungan's Hill in 1647. Colonel Michael Byrne seems to have been the most junior, as he was only a captain when he was taken prisoner at Dungan's Hill. Curiously enough, his regiment is said to have consisted mostly of protestants, and it may have been formed from the men who came over to Inchiquin when he took Drogheda and Dundalk. One would have expected Ormond to have chosen an 'old English' colonel for such a regiment. Warren and Wall are said to have had catholic troops. Ormond's regiment is likely to have had a good proportion of protestants. All four regimental commanders lost their lives at Drogheda. Up to the last Ormond seems to have hoped that Drogheda could hold out long enough to be relieved by the army of Owen Roe, with whom he was negotiating through his nephew Daniel O'Neill. On 22 September—the day the town was stormed—Ormond wrote to Daniel: 'if Drogheda holds out till [your countrymen] come up it is possible Cromwell may receive an unexpected check to his fortune where he promised himself clear success'.6 According to Cromwell's doctor, Sir Arthur Aston hoped that the siege would drag on till Cromwell was worn down by bad weather, hunger and the harassment of Ormond's cavalry: 'but he flatters himself in vain, for Cromwell attacks not the place by opening of trenches, slow approaches and the other acts of a siege, but having forthwith caused a battery to be . . . planted with guns he so plied the place with continual shooting that he quickly made two breaches in the wall.'7 Ormond also put faith in 'Colonel Hunger and Major Sickness', but his main hope was Owen Roe, who was at Ballykelly to the east of Derry and had been playing for time by entering into an uneasy arrangement with the parlia/ mentarians. Daniel O'Neill proved to be a successful intermediary, and on 5 September he wrote from Ballykelly to let Ormond know that Owen Roe was ready to join him. Unfortunately Owen Roe was lame with a 'defluxion in his 6 Gilbert, ii, 261. 7 Ibid., ii, 274.

Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649

5

knee'. Daniel added : 'this day he has a litter made for him; if tomorrow he has any manner of ease he intends to march . . . the number of foot he hopes to bring your excellency will be near 6,ooo and about 500 horse . . . they are well horsed and armed to a very few'.8 Ormond was then at Ticroghan, a Fitzgerald castle about 35 miles south/west of Drogheda, superintending the operations by remote control. He later came rather nearer, to Portlester, where he was on 8 September. For several days after Cromwell reached the outskirts of Drogheda operations were limited to skirmishing on both sides. Cromwell's horse and some of his foot were on St. John's Hill to the south-west of the town; his main camp was to the south-east. The heavy guns were in the process of being mounted, partly on Cromwell's Mount, which is to the east of the Meath half of the town, and partly on a site to the south. Cromwell's Mount is separated from the town wall by a deep ravine, which was to prove a formidable obstacle in a storming operation ; on the other hand it had the advantage that the battery was on a level with the wall. The battery to the south was much lower, but access for storming was easier. Cromwell never invested the northern half of the town at all. He relied on his heavy guns to batter breaches that could then be stormed, a technique that he had developed in the English civil war. On 4 September Aston reported to Ormond that a party of Cromwell's men had crossed the Boyne at a ford near the town but had been driven back by a sally from the garrison, both horse and foot. He said there was no considerable force of the enemy north of the river, and this continued to be the case up to the time that the town was stormed. On 8 September Aston wrote that his men had been making sallies against the enemy on St. John's Hill. He observed that these sallies encouraged his own side and kept Cromwell's men on the qui viue : 'but indeed I have not been in a place worse situated for sallies than this town is'.9 This activity had the disadvantage of using up his ammunition. On 9 September he wrote that his stock was getting low: he had been using four barrels of powder daily for a week in his efforts to hinder the enemy's preparations. Provisions were also getting short, and he had no money at all. He asked Ormond to attack Cromwell's main camp; he himself would then beat up the enemy force on St. John's Hill. That night he got some reinforcements of foot from Ormond. Cavalry had also been sent, but they turned back before Aston could get to the gate to speak to them. Morale in the garrison seems to have been high. On 9 September Sir Edmond Verney wrote to Ormond that he had 'great hopes and expectations that the service I am at present engaged in will receive a happy issue, and the chief ground of this confidence is the unity, right understanding and indeed entire friendship between ourselves. Warren and Wall are my most intimate comrades, and indeed I have not in my life known more of diligence and circumspection than in these two gentlemen. Their men are all in heart and courage, having still had good success in our sallies, and we do little fear what the enemy can do presently against us.'10 8 Ibid., ii, 252. 9 Ibid., ii, 253. 10 Carte MSS, xxv, no. 312.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

6

But Cromwell was by this time (9 September) ready to begin his cannonade. His heaviest artillery were formidable weapons: two cannon of eight and two cannon of seven (guns of 8 and 7 inches bore, firing 48 and 42 pound shot respectively). Altogether he had eleven siege guns and twelve field pieces. Aston wrote to Ormond that day that three great pieces had been discharged against the town. He begged him to attack Cromwell's camp, but still there was no response. On the morning of 10 September Cromwell summonded Aston to surrender. Sir, Having brought the army belonging to the parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end effusion of blood may be prevented I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and rest, your servant, O. Cromwell.11 When Aston failed to comply with the demand, Cromwell hoisted the red flag and his batteries opened up in earnest. Aston wrote his last letter that evening and reported that a great breach had been made near St. Mary's church. He continued: I am confident their resolutions are to gain it immediately by an assault. The soldiers say well; pray God they do well. I will assure your excellency there shall be no want in me, but your excellency's speedy help is much desired. I refer all things unto your excellency's provident care. Living I am and dying I will end, my lord, your excellency's most faithful and obleeged humble servant. P.S. My ammunition decays apace and I cannot help it.12 Cromwell is said to have discharged 200 cannon balls at the wall that day. In the process the steeple of the church, on which the besieged had planted guns, and the high tower at the south/east corner of the wall were destroyed. The cannonade continued next day (11 September), and after 300 shot had been discharged there were breaches in both the east and south sections of the wall. The defenders meanwhile made retrenchments within the wall to contain the breaches. At 5 p.m. the Cromwellians began their assault, apparently on both breaches, though the eastern side in particular presented formidable difficulties. Cromwell described the scene in a letter to the speaker of the English house of commons: . . . about 5 p.m. we began the storm and after some hot dispute we entered about 700 or 800 men, the enemy disputing it very stiffly with us; and indeed through the advantages of the place and the courage God was pleased to give the defenders our men were forced to retreat quite out of the breach, not without some considerable l o s s . . . . There was a tenalia to flanker the south wall of the town between Duleek gate and the corner tower... which our men entered, wherein they found some 40 or 50 of the enemy, which they put to the sword, and this they held; but it being 11 Gilbert, ii, 260. 12 Ibid,, ii, 25SK60.

Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649

7

without the wall, and the sally port through the wall into that tenalia being choked up with some of the enemy that were killed in it, it proved no use for our entrance into the town that way. Although our men that stormed the breaches were forced to recoil, as before is expressed, yet being encouraged to recover their loss, they made a second attempt, wherein God was pleased to animate them that they got ground of the enemy and by the goodness of God forced him to quit his entrenchments; and after a very hot dispute, the enemy having both horse and foot and we only foot within the walls, the enemy gave ground and our men became masters both of their retrench/ ments and the church; which indeed, though they made our entrance the more difficult, yet they proved of excellent use to us, so that the enemy could not annoy us with their horse, but thereby we had advantage to make good the ground so that we might let in our own horse, which accordingly was done, though with much difficulty.13 From the memoirs of Edmond Ludlow, lieutenant/general of the horse in the Commonwealth army, it appears that Cromwell showed considerable modesty about his own contribution to the success of the operation. According to Ludlow the garrison defended the breach, probably on the south side, with an earthwork retrenchment, and had two or three troops of horse to support their foot. Cromwell well knowing the importance of this action resolved to put all upon it; and having commanded some guns to be loaded with bullets of half a pound and fired upon the enemy's horse . . . . himself with a reserve of foot marched up to the breach, which giving fresh courage to our men, they made a second attack with more vigour than before. Whereupon the enemy's foot being abandoned by their horse, whom our shot had forced to retire, began to break and shift for themselves; which ours perceiving followed them so close that they overtook them at the bridge that lay across the river.. . and preventing them from drawing up the bridge entered pell-mell with them into the place, having positive orders from the lieutenant/general [Cromwell] to give no quarter to any soldier.14 One account suggests that horse could not be used for the initial assault as the breaches were too high in the wall and had to be scrambled over by infantry. This may refer to the south part of the wall where the battery had to fire uphill. The east part would in any case be too steep for horse. The foot regiment that defended the breach against the final assault was Wall's, which fought well until their colonel was killed. Aston himself retreated to the highest point within the walls, the Millmount, a steep, strongly fortified mound in a corner of the wall. In his letter to the speaker, Cromwell described the attack on his position: The enemy retreated, divers of them, into the Millmount, a place very strong and of difficult access, being exceeding high, having a good graft and strongly palisadoed. The Governor, Sir Arthur Aston, and divers 13 Ibid., ii, 263/6. 14 Ibid., ii, 272/3.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

8

considerable officers being there, our men getting up to them were ordered by me to put them all to the sword.15 One account says that Aston was hewn in pieces and his brains beaten out of his head with his wooden leg. According to Ludlow there was a dispute among the soldiers for the leg, which was reported to be of gold: 'but it proved to be but of wood, his girdle being found to be the better booty, wherein two hundred pieces of gold were found quilted'.1' Cromwell ordered that no quarter should be given, and his treatment of Drogheda has been condemned both by his critics and by those who otherwise admired him. Even those who argued that it was legitimate by the strict rules of war have thought that it went too far. The rules of war, as then interpreted, permitted the refusal of quarter if a town was stormed after a summons to surrender had been rejected. In the case of Drogheda there is reason for believing that not only the garrison but many of the townsfolk were put to death. Cromwell maintained that his orders applied only to those in arms, though it is clear from his own account that catholic clergy were among the victims, and that he wished to exact retribution for what he regarded as the barbarous behaviour of the Irish in general in 1641. His version is contained in his letter to the speaker: being in the heat of action I forbade them to spare any that were in arms in the town and, I think, that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men, divers of the officers and soldiers being fled over the bridge into the other part of the town, where about one hundred of them possessed St. Peter's church steeple, some the west gate, and others a round strong tower next the gate called St. Sunday's. These being summoned to yield to mercy refused, whereupon I ordered the steeple of St. Peter's church to be fired, where one of them was heard to say in the midst of the flames 'God damn me, God confound me, I burn, I burn'. The next day the other two towers were summoned, in one of which was about six or seven score; but they refused to yield themselves, and we, knowing that hunger must compel them, set only good guards to secure them from running away until their stomachs were come down. From one of the said towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded some of our men. When they submitted their officers were knocked on the head, and every tenth man of the soldiers killed and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. There is some sense of uneasiness in his account, and he reinforces his apologia with the argument that the example of Drogheda will discourage further re/ sistance and so save lives in the long run: I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future ; which are the satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.17 15 Ibid., ii, 264. 16 Ibid., ii, 273. 17 Ibid., ii, 264^5.

Cromwell at Drogheda, 1649

9

Exaggerated accounts of the rising of 1641 had impressed themselves on Cronv well's mind, but it was a travesty to hold the garrison and citizens of Drogheda responsible for the actions of Ulster Gaels. It appears that Cromwell's subordinates had offered quarter and were sub/ sequently overruled by Cromwell himself. Ormond said that Cromwell's treatment of Drogheda was against the wishes of his own men, and it appears that some of them helped refugees to get away. Inchiquin wrote to Ormond: Many men and some officers have come in from Drogheda, amongst them Garret Dungan and Lieutenant/colonel Cavanagh. No quarter was given there with Cromwell's leave, but many were privately saved; the governor was killed after quarter given by the officer that took him. There never was seen so cruel a fight.18 One of those that escaped was Richard Talbot, the future Lord Tyrconnell. Inchiquin accused Cromwell's army of some very cold-blooded killing. In his letter to Ormond he wrote: ' Verney, Finglas, Warren and some other officers were alive in the hands of Cromwell's officers twenty-four hours after the business was done*. The story of Warren's fate is horrific; it is that in the defence of the breach both his feet were blown off by a cannon-ball, but he continued to fight on his stumps till he was overpowered. Another story is that his horse escaped and galloped riderless to his stable at Warrenstown.19 The casualty figures reported by Cromwell's chaplain were: '3,552 of the enemy slain and 64 of ours . . . Aston the governor killed, none spared*. In the official bulletin the casualty figures were followed by the words 'and many inhabitants'.20 The parliamentarian Ludlow called it 'extraordinary severity' and could only presume that the object was to discourage further resistance elsewhere. Ormond wrote to the young King Charles: 'Cromwell. . . exceeded himself, much more than anything I ever heard of, in breach of faith and bloody inhumanity'.21 There is a dreadful irony in Cromwell's own conclusion: 'I wish that all honest hearts may give the glory of this to God, to whom indeed the praise of this mercy belongs'.22 It was a shattering blow for the royalists. As Ormond reported to Charles: It is not to be imagined how great the terror is that those successes and the power of the rebels have struck into this people, who though they know themselves designed, at best, to the loss of all they have and to irrecoverable slavery, and have yet numbers enough and other competent means to oppose are yet so stupefied that it is with great difficulty I can persuade them to act anything like men towards their own preservation.23 18 Cal. Clarendon State Papers, ii, 22. 19 Louth Arch. Soc. Journal, iv, (1916), 26^7. 20 Gilbert, ii, 262, 269. 21 Carte, Collection of letters, ii, 412. 22 Gilbert, ii, 263. 23 Ibid., ii, 270.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

10

Arid yet neither Cromwell nor Ormond was right in believing that the drastic treatment of Drogheda would end resistance. Owen Roe O'Neill died that autumn, but he had already agreed to throw the Ulster army into the fight. That army under Lieutenant/general O'Farrell and Hugh Dubh O'Neill offered stubborn resistance at Waterford, Clonmel and Limerick, and there had to be much more 'effusion of blood' before the struggle was over. What are the military lessons to be learned from Drogheda ? Cromwell's tactics were clear: to make use of his control of the Irish Sea to transport his powerful artillery by water to Drogheda; to choose convenient sites for his batteries; and to go all out for breaking into the town, irrespective of the difficulty of the terrain, overcoming all obstacles by sheer determination. What of Ormond and Aston ? Why did they think that Drogheda could be held against such a powerful attacking force ? Why did Ormond fail to support Aston by pressure on Cromwell's forces in the field ? The author of the 'Aphorismical Discovery' has an ingrained prejudice against Ormond and has criticised him bitterly on this occasion: If he did but stand upon the hill of Tara the enemy would not venture an assault against so strong a garrison and in the sight of so great an army; or if he marched with his army to Dublin, now naked and deserted, he would easily divert the enemy; or else if he passed the north side of Drogheda, where was no enemy at all, he might relieve his party and defend the town in spite of all Cromwell's forces, for the very situation of the place was his bulwark But nothing was done; all the hurley/burley of armies mustered and brought to a body towards Ticroghan only were spectators of this bloody tragedy.24 But there was no hurley/burley of armies at Ticroghan. The various commands on the royalist side were widely dispersed, and Ormond seems to have had little under his direct control to use for the defence of Drogheda. He told Charles II that his numbers were daily diminishing by defections, and that the rest were so dejected and discontented that it was considered unsafe to bring them close to the enemy. But it was surely a mistake for him to have taken up a position as far away as Ticroghan. The uneasy coalition of protestant royalists, 'old English' catholics and Gaelic Irish would have presented a problem to a stronger leader than Ormond. The only force capable of matching Cromwell was the Ulster army, and if it could have been brought into action at an earlier date Drogheda might have been saved. According to Daniel O'Neill, Owen Roe would have been on the march south by 7 September if he had not fallen ill, but even so he could hardly have got his army to Drogheda in time to save it. The speed and efficiency of Cronv well's assault was too much for his opponents.

24 Ibid., ii, 49.

2 CROMWELL'S SIEGE OF WATERFORD, 1649

C

ROM WELL'S siege of Waterford is much less celebrated than his

sieges of Drogheda, Wexford and Clonmel, but there are several interesting things about it. For one thing, Waterford is the only town in Ireland that Cromwell tried and failed to take. Apart from that, the local geographical and political situation presented great difficulties to both the attackers and defenders. In the first half of the seventeenth century Waterford was the second city in Ireland, a thriving commercial port that ranked next to Dublin in size and wealth. Ships of 1,000 tons could come up the Suir and lie alongside a broad quay, " mainly fortified with stone and strong piles of timber." The town was protected by a double wall, with a number of gates and towers. Outside the west gate, on Thomas's hill, was the citadel, a strong fort with four bastions, mounted with great guns, and with a moat on three sides of it.1 On the north it was flanked by the Suir and on the east by the harbour, where the forts of Duncannon and Passage protected it from a naval attack. Waterford had a long civic tradition in which fidelity to church and crown had played a great part, though in recent years the church had counted for more than the crown in the sentiments of the inhabitants. Waterford had been Urbs intacta since the time of Henry VII, but its recent history was chiefly marked by a strong Catholic fervour and, in particular, by its support of the Nuncio and his robuster policy against the more temporizing attitudes of the Kilkenny confederacy. Father Luke Wadding was a celebrated Waterfordian who had much influence in determining the policy of the church in Irish affairs, and his cousin Patrick Comerford was bishop of Waterford during the siege and a stalwart upholder of the faith. In the middle of 1649 nearly all Ireland supported the young king Charles II against the parliament. Not only Ormond and the former Kilkenny confederates, but Inchiquin and his Munster followers, and Munro and his Scots in the north, were on the king's side. To fervent Catholics in Waterford some of these royalists seemed very dubious allies. The parliamentary forces were restricted to Dublin and a few such towns as Derry and Dundalk where they were hard pressed and had in desperation been induced to make a strange and temporary agreement with Owen Roe O'Neill. The royalist strength in Ireland provided such a threat to the parliamentary position as a whole that it was decided to send Cromwell himself to Ireland. His first objective was the Munster ports, of which Waterford was the largest, though Youghal, Cork and Kinsale were also important. One very urgent reason for dealing with Munster as a first priority was that it was the base of the royalist fleet under Charles I's nephew, Prince Rupert. This fleet had been 1 Gernon quoted in Falkiner, Illustrations of Irish History, p. 352; Smith, Waterford, p. 171.

12

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

equipped in Holland, and had sailed from there in the beginning of 1649 and made its headquarters at Kinsale. Rupert continued to make Kinsale his base until the late autumn of that year. Apart from that, Cromwell hoped to win over the Protestants in Munster from their support of Inchiquin in his royalist phase. He had already won over Lord Broghill, the most energetic of the seven sons of the great Earl of Cork, and Broghill's influence could be expected to count for a great deal with the Munster planters. As the Munster ports were his objective, Cromwell made for Milford Haven, which he reached early in August, 1649. While he was there and almost ready to sail, he got news of the battle of Rathmines, in which the parliamentarian Michael Jones defeated the royalist Ormond and saved Dublin for the parliamen/ tary cause: in Cromwell's words " an astonishing mercy, so great and seasonable that indeed we are like them that dreamed." This new development made Cromwell decide to go for Dublin instead of Munster. Dublin led on to Drogheda to secure the approach from the north and prevent Munro and his Scots coming down to join Ormond. As soon as he had finished with Drogheda —in every sense of the word—Cromwell reverted to what he called his southern design, the seizure of the Munster ports. In a letter to England he reported that he was on his way back to Dublin and " then shall, God willing, advance toward the southern design, you know what—only we think Wexford will be our first undertaking in order to the other."2 It appears then that Waterford was his first main objective even at that stage, and that the very irregular course of his route was due, first, to the need to guard against an attack from the north and, second, to the difficulties of approaching Waterford while a strong enemy force was still based on Kilkenny. Wexford surrendered on October 11 and New Ross on October 19. Cromwell's declaration at New Ross made it clear to Catholics that they could not expect tolerable terms from him in exchange for a negotiated surrender. When the governor of New Ross tried to stipulate for liberty of conscience for the inhabitants, Cromwell answered that " he meddled not with any man's conscience; but if by liberty of conscience was meant a liberty to exercize the mass, he judged it best to use plain dealing and to let him know, where the parliament of England had power, that would not be allowed."3 The moral of that would not have been lost on the citizens of Waterford. New Ross was a key point commanding the crossing of the Barrow, and Cromwell made its importance clear to Speaker Lenthall in England: " The rendition of the garrison was a seasonable mercy, as giving us an opportunity towards Munster." The approach to Munster was prepared by a great deal of diplomatic activity designed to win over the Protestants in Cork and Youghal to the parliamentary side. But Waterford was a strongly Catholic city and would have to be tackled with more direct means. A double threat to Waterford developed from New Ross. The building of a bridge of boats across the Barrow opened a passage on the Kilkenny side of the river. While the bridge was being 2 S. R. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, I, p, 126. 3 E. Borlase, History of the Irish rebellion (ed. 1743), p. 285.

Cromwell'sSiegeofWaterford,164913 built a determined attack was made on Duncannon on the Wexford side of Waterford harbour. If Duncannon and, opposite it, Passage could be captured by the parliamentary forces, Waterford could be attacked by a naval force going up the estuary. Also there would be no fear, once thosefortswere in the control of the parliament, of Prince Rupert's fleet coming to the rescue. That was a decided possibility. In the middle of October, while Cromwell was at New Ross, Rupert wrote from Kinsale to the governor of Duncannon giving elaborate instructions about the procedure to be followed if any of the royalistfleetentered Waterford harbour.4 Duncannon was held by a Catholic garrison commanded by Captain Roche. Roche took a defeatist view of the situation, and reported to Ormond that his men were deserting and that Duncannon could not be held. Ormond's reaction was to supersede Roche and put in his place a remarkable man named Edward Wogan, who belonged to the Rathcoffey family of Co. Kildare that later produced the celebrated Chevalier Wogan. Edward had been brought up in south Wales by a Protestant uncle and had played a prominent part in the Civil War on the parliamentary side. He had then deserted the parliament and gone over to the Scots. By this time he was supporting Ormond and the royalist cause in Ireland. Ormond sent in his own Life Guards with Wogan and they made a spirited and successful defence of Duncannon. The siege was conducted by Michael Jones, the victor of Rathmines, who was Cromwell's lieutenant/general. Cromwell himself came down to inspect the ground and give a personal summons to the garrison to surrender. He got a short and dusty answer, given in Roche's name, though Wogan was really in command: " I and those under my command are sensible of your cruel and tyrannical quarter; and this is therefore to let you understand that this place is kept for king and country and the preservation of the people."5 Duncannon was regarded by both sides as the key to Waterford, and both attack and defence were vigorously conducted. The parliamentary forces gained several important objectives, capturing Ballyhack, a castle about two miles upstream above Duncannon, and bringing boats from Wexford round Hook Head so as to block the sea approach to Duncannon.8 Further still upstream they occupied Great Island, which commanded the river between Waterford and Duncannon opposite Checkpoint, where the Barrow joins the Suir; it is, of course, no longer an island.7 On the royalist side, Ormond did his best to provide reinforcements, munitions and supplies for Duncannon, and kept up a constant correspondence on the subject with Lord Castlehaven, the English Catholic who had played an important part in the affairs of the Kilkenny Confederation; he was stationed at Crook, immediately opposite Duncannon. Wogan and his men made a series of sallies; in fact, they were so enterprising 4 Carte MSS, xxvi, 18. 5 Borlase, op. tit., app., pp. 3/4. For Wogan see the article " Colonel Edward Wogan" by Diarmuid Murtagh in THE IRISH SWORD, Vol. II, pp. 43 ff. For Duncannon see also the same volume, pp. 17 ff. 6 Carte MSS, xxvi, 4. 7 Ibii, pp. 54, 58.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

14

that they frightened Ormond, who wrote to Castlehaven: " I wish the gentlemen in the fort would be more circumspect in their sallies; they may lose more than they can get."8 Wogan's defence was successful and the siege was raised on November 5, after more than a fortnight of active attack. The parliamentary forces seem to have withdrawn in some disorder, as they left behind them two brass guns and a quantity of other material. They gave up Ballyhack at the same time.9 Although Wogan had covered himself with glory, the citizens of Waterford were very suspicious of his good faith and of the circumstances in which the Catholic Roche had been superseded. Ormond found that his orders had raised so much criticism that he thought it politic to send Roche back to Duncannon, on the distinct understanding that so long as the siege lasted Wogan should be in command. Catholic distrust of Ormond and the Protestant royalists was increased by what was happening elsewhere in Munster, where Cork and Youghal went over to the parliamentary side during October. These defections were clearly a threat to Waterford from the west, and the completion of the bridge at New Ross would enable Cromwell to approach Waterford from the north. It was therefore clearly desirable to strengthen Waterford's defences by providing it with an adequate garrison. Ormond's efforts to do so were frustrated by the determination of the citizens not to accept any troops whose devotion to the Catholic cause was suspect. Meanwhile the defences were manned only by the local militia. Much suspicious bargaining went on between Ormond and the mayor and corporation, and one suggestion of Ormond's after another was turned down. In particular, the citizens did not want Castle/ haven for their commander, as although he was a Catholic he was also an Englishman. Castlehaven reported that there were certain friars who were stirring up resistance and putting about a report that Inchiquin had come to terms with the parliament.10 The difficulties that Ormond had in persuading Waterford to accept a garrison raised Cromwell's hopes and seem to have played a considerable part in leading him to move on Waterford at so late a date as the latter part of November. Irish prisoners coming from New Ross on parole reported that it was common talk among Cromwell's men that Waterford would put up no resistance.11 This, and an unusually mild winter—better than any winter in living memory—12 were factors in favour of an attempt on Waterford. Against this Cromwell himself was sick at New Ross and there was a great deal of sickness in his army. Ormond had been told that before Cromwell's army had reached New Ross they had mutinied and demanded to go into winter quarters on the ground that they were so weakened by sickness and other hardships, which included a cut in their pay. Cromwell had succeeded in pacifying them by promising winter quarters after New Ross had fallen.13 8 9 10 11 12 13

Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., p . 71. Ibid., p . 143. Ibid., p . 145. Ibid., p . 181. Ibid., p. 16.

Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649

15

The first step to clear the way to Waterford was taken on November 20, when Colonel Reynolds with twelve troops of horse and three troops of dragoons attacked Carrick/on/Suir early in the morning. Carrick was defended by a considerable force of English royalist troops. Reynolds divided his party in two and " while the enemy were amused with the one " he forced an entry with the other at one of the gates; a hundred prisoners were taken and seven foot colours without the loss of a single parliamentary soldier. There is a curiouj account of how the Cromwellians forced their way into Carrick: the colonel sent a small party of Irish speakers ahead whose conversation was heard by the sentinels on the walls (presumably Irish'Speaking sentinels). When they were challenged they said in Irish that they had come from the Irish army with letters for the governor; they were let in through the gate and they then overpowered the guards so that the main body could get in. Most of the defenders ran into the great house—Ormond's castle—and held it till next day, when they surrendered.14 The capture of Carrick gave Cromwell a way across the Suir and the protection of Ormond's castle. The bridge was evidently out of action, but he could use boats. His own account shows how he appreciated the success: " we did look at it as a special good hand of providence to give us this place, inasmuch as it gives us a passage over the river Sewer to the city of Waterford . . . so sweet a mercy was the giving of this little place to us."15 The next day—November 21— Cromwell and the main army set out from New Ross on its way via Carrick to Waterford; the march took the best part of four days. On the first day a trumpeter delivered a letter from Cromwell to the mayor and aldermen of Waterford, in which he referred approvingly to the fact that they had so far refused to accept a garrison from Ormond; he suggested that it would be in their own interests to come to terms and to surrender the city.16 The mayor, John Lyvett, at once sent Ormond a copy of Cromwell's letter and asked for military support, but he stipulated that the soldiers to be despatched must be acceptable to the citizens. He also urged Ormond to do what he could to distract the Cromwellian army on its way to Waterford. Cromwell's trumpeter was kept waiting at Waterford for two days in the hope that news would come from Ormond. When the trumpeter's patience was exhausted Lyvett gave an answer, asking for 15 days cease/fire and demanding that Cromwell's army should stop advancing towards Waterford while negotiations were in progress. At the same time he wrote again to Ormond, saying that his reply to Cromwell was only to gain time and asking Ormond to send 300 " picked and choice men " out of the Ulster army commanded by Lieut./General Farrell. If they were sent he was sure that Waterford could be held until Ormond relieved it.17 This proposal to use Farrell's Ulstermen was the solution to Ormond's problem. 14 T.C.D. MS F.4.16; Carlylc, Cromwell's Utters and speeches (cd. S. C. Lomas), I, p. 509; Borlase, op. cit., app., p. 6. 15 Cromwell to Lenthall, 25 Nov., 1649 (Carlylc, op, cit., Ill, p. 509). 16 Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, p. 512. 17 Carte MSS, xxvi, 166, 169; Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, pp. 262^3.

16

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Richard Farrell was a seasoned soldier who had seen service in the Spanish army in the Low Countries with Owen Roe O'Neill, who treated him as a trusted friend and had made him second in command of his own Ulster army. When Owen Roe and Ormond came to terms in October, 1649, Owen Roe shortly before his death sent Farrell with a strong Ulster army to join Ormond. This force was now available for the defence of Waterford. The high opinion that the Nuncio had had of Owen Roe's army was shared by the citizens of Waterford and they had no fear of their backsliding, as might be the case with Inchiquin. Cromwell himself referred to them as " the eldest sons of the church of Rome, most cried up and confided in by the clergy."18 Ormond had a high opinion of them too and sent word to Charles II that they were a very considerable body of horse and foot and very cheerful in spite of the death of their general,

Owen Roe.19 Owen Roe's secretary says in The aphorismical discovery of treasonable

faction that Farrell had 2,000 of the Ulster army at Waterford, though other accounts give a figure of 1,500. There seem to have been two regiments, presumably the two that appeared in a muster held at Waterford on January 24, 1650, Farrell's own regiment and Colonel Turlough McArt Oge O'Neill's. They were far below strength when the muster was held; there were 430 in Farrell's and only 211 in O'Neill's. It appears that after Cromwell's withdrawal from Waterford many of the men returned to Ulster. Farrell's regiment looks very much as if it were Longford rather than true Ulster. But Longford was one of the counties that was under Owen Roe's control and was specifically included in the agreement between Owen Roe and Ormond's agents. Six of the company commanders were Farrells and none had an Ulster name. On the other hand, O'Neill's regiment was typically Ulster, with O'Neill, O'Hagan and McDonnell prominent among the names of company commanders. The force was referred to by both sides as Ulstermen, as was natural since both regiments formed part of Owen Roe's Ulster army.80 Cromwell and his army reached Waterford on November 24, before Farrell got there. Cromwell's headquarters was at Kilbarry, to the south of the city, where there was a good house occupied by a Protestant called Aston, the tenant of Thomas Wadding. His army found that the suburbs had been burned and the soldiers were greeted with gunfire from the walls. According to Ryland's history, Cromwell's forces were deterred by the fort on Thomas's Hill from occupying Bilberry Rock, a commanding position on the river bank some way from the city walls. When Cromwell summoned the city to surrender, the mayor, John Lyvett, sent him a copy of his former answer (the original of which had not reached Cromwell) and asked for a safe/conduct for negotiators and a cessation of hostilities for fifteen days. Cromwell replied that fifteen days was far too long but offered four or five, provided that he was assured that no troops not then in Waterford were admitted during the cessation. He also sent a safe/ conduct for negotiators. But by this time Farrell and his men had arrived at the 18 Ibil, III, p. 517. 19 Carte MSS, xxvi, 181. 20 Gilbert, Contemporary history of affairs in Ireland, II, pp. 57, 303, 505^7.

Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649

17

ferry on the north bank and crossed the river by boats into the city. This put a stop to the negotiations and the mayor sent an answer to Cromwell that he had been forbidden to negotiate. The author of The Aphorismkal discovery credits Farrell with giving Cromwell the stout reply that he had 2,000 Ulstermen with him and as long as any of them survived he would not yield the town. A letter of the time says that there was now such correspondency between Waterford and Ormond that they were all determined to die or defend the city.21 That day, November 24, Cromwell sent a detachment of horse and dragoons to Passage, which commanded the west side of Waterford harbour. After some fighting it surrendered on promise of quarter. The Cromwellians occupied it and also secured two guns which the Irish had on the shore to block shipping from coming up the harbour. With Passage and the western shore of the harbour in their possession the Cromwellians were able to bring ships of 300 tons up the river in spite of Duncannon being in enemy hands. They also hoped to interfere with supplies coming down the river to Duncannon.22 That same day, November 24, Inchiquin with a strong force of Munster and Ulster infantry tried to cut Cromwell's communications by taking Carrick. They invested it on both sides of the river and also tried to storm it. According to the Cromwellian account, "they managed the attack with a great deal of fierceness, storming it four or five times with ladders and other engines they had brought with them, and though these men were famous for courage and experience yet they were as often beaten back as they attempted the walls with a miraculous opposition, our men being mostly sick." Carrick was defended by Colonel Reynolds with his regiment of horse, a troop of dragoons and about 200 foot. He reported that the attack was beaten off with a loss to the enemy of about 500 and little loss to the defenders; the parliamentary officers paid tribute to the courage of the attackers, making particular mention of the Ulster foot, who " did their part very well, coming up five or six times to the town wall in spite of heavy losses." Cromwell sent Lieut./General Jones up from Waterford with a party to relieve Carrick. Jones marched all night and made all possible speed, but by the time he got there the Irish army had withdrawn to Clonmel.23 Cromwell himself gave a lively account to Speaker Lenthall of this engagement: " the enemy marched down with great fury towards Carrick with their whole army, resolving to swallow it up, and upon Saturday the 24th assault the place round, thinking to take it by storm; but God had otherwise determined. For the troopers and the rest of the soldiers with stones did so pelt them they were forced to draw off after having burned the gates, which our men barricaded up with stones, and likewise having digged under the walls and sprung a small mine, which flew in their own faces."24 But Cromwell found that these initial successes were counterbalanced by other factors. The weather, which had been remarkably good, now broke and he 21 22 23 24

Ryland, Carlyle, Borlase, Carlyle,

Waterford, p. 71; T.C.D. MS F.4.16; H.M.C., Ormonde MSS, ii, 105. op. cit., I, pp. 510/11. op. cit., app., p. 9. op. tit, I, pp. 509^10.

18

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

could not bring his heavy guns along the roads.25 His army was attacked by disease—the flux. After six days of the siege Ormond was in a reasonably optimistic mood and reported to Charles II that Cromwell's army was decaying incredibly; he had before Waterford at most 4,000 foot, 2,000 horse and 500 dragoons, and to make up these numbers he had drained the garrisons of almost all serviceable men. Ormond thought that if there was any courage in the citizens of Waterford and the garrison to correspond with the strength of the town and their means of defence Cromwell might be defied, particularly if the weather was its usual self. The effect of this would be to weaken Cromwell considerably as the result of an attempt which he had only made because he had heard that the Waterford citizens had refused to accept a garrison—as indeed they did until Cromwell was at their gates. Ormond was, however, still anxious lest the citizens' nerves and their fears for their property might mean the loss of the city.26 Some account of the day to day progress of the siege is available from notes made by Henry Jones, Bishop of Clogher, who was the brother of Cromwell's Lieutenant/General and himself later became Scoutmaster/General of the parliamentary army.27 On November 27; Cromwell posted a detachment halfway between Carrick and Waterford to secure his communications. On the next day news was received of another threat to Carrick from Ormond's army and Lieut.'General Michael Jones was sent to counter it with a party of horse and dragoons. That same day the main Cromwellian army was moved to the south/east of Waterford along the river, so that it could conveniently receive provisions coming up the river protected by the guns of Passage, and also take delivery of guns from the Great Island, which had at an earlier stage been fortified by the Cromwellians. Cromwell hoped that Farrell and his garrison would sally out and give an opportunity for an open fight. But they were not to be drawn and in very stormy weather there seemed little hope of a successful outcome to the siege. On December 1 the decision to raise the siege was taken. The main reason was sickness. Cromwell said that every night a company was on duty ten men fell sick and he was left with no more than 3,000 fit men to put into the field. The bad weather also interfered with the bringing up of supplies and they were running short of bread. The lie of the land made it very difficult to maintain supplies for an army attacking Waterford from the south bank of the Suir.28 Cromwell's army marched away on December 2, which he described as being '* so terrible a day as ever I marched in all my life."29 That night he had reached Kilmacthomas, fifteen miles from Waterford. There he got the good news that Dungarvan had just surrendered to Broghill. Waterford was now in a very isolated position. On December 13, Wogan and Farrell tried to relieve 25 26 27 28 29

Gardiner, op. cit, I, p. 142. Carte MSS, xxvi, 181. T.C.D., MS F.4.16. Carlyle, op. cit., Ill, p. 513. Ibid., p. 514,

Cromwell's Siege of Waterford, 1649

19

the pressure by a joint attack on Passage, but met with a severe reverse. Wogan brought over two great battering guns from Duncannon and a mortar, and he and a strong force of Ulster foot were pressing the attack on Passage when a parliamentary force of horse and dragoons under Colonel Sankey fell on them. In Cromwell's words " the Ulsters, who bragged much of their pikes, made indeed for the time a good resistance, but the horse pressing sorely upon them broke them, killed near ioo upon the place and took 350 prisoners, among whom was the renegado Wogan." Wogan was condemned to death as a deserter from the parliamentary side, but he managed to escape from Cork and lived to perform more exploits in the royalist cause, including the rescue of Charles II from the battlefield of Worcester. Cromwell continued: " Lt./Gen. Farrell was come up very near with a great party to their relief, but our handful of men marching towards him he shamefully hasted away and recovered Waterford."30 This reverse at Passage discredited Farrell and the Ulster army. Even the violently prcUlster Aphorismical discovery rebukes Farrell for carelessness in not keeping a proper look/out for an enemy attack, although the writer contrives to put the greater part of the responsibility on Ormond. Ormond on the other hand claimed that if the citizens of Waterford had allowed him and his troops to march through the town he could have gone to Farrell's rescue.31 In spite of this setback, Waterford remained unconquered for that winter, and at the end of 1649 Waterford and Duncannon were the only places still holding out on the whole coastline from Derry round by Dublin to Cape Clear. Waterford continued to hold out during the spring and early summer of 1650, while things went from bad to worse for the royalist cause in Ireland. Not till the end of July did the city surrender to Ireton on terms which allowed the garrison to march three or four miles out of the city, deliver up their arms and equipment, undertake not to fight again against the Commonwealth, and go anywhere in Ireland (except a garrison town) or abroad that they pleased. A week later Duncannon surrendered on similar terms.32 30 Carlyle, op. cit., I, 515T6. 31 Gilbert, op. cit., II, p. 59; Carte, Ormonde, II, p. 103. 32 Ireton's correspondence with Waterford is in Borlase, op, cit., app., pp. 32^46.

This page intentionally left blank

3 HUGH DUBH O'NEILL'S DEFENCE OF LIMERICK, 1650-1651

O

LIVER CROMWELL'S campaign in Ireland lasted nine months— from August, 1649 to May, 1650. Although it was successful as well as ruthless, it was a long way from bringing the whole of Ireland under the control of the Parliament. The object of Cromwell's savagery at Drogheda and Wexford was declared to be the saving of life by intimidating the the Irish into a rapid surrender. But it seems to have had the opposite effect, and the war was to drag on for more than two years after Cromwell had left. Cromwell's stoutest opponent was Major/General Hugh Dubh O'Neill, who put up an enterprising defence of Clonmel, inflicted heavy losses on the Parliamentary army, and got his men away undetected before Cromwell's nose. Hugh Dubh was the nephew of Owen Roe; his father was Owen Roe's elder brother, Art Oge, and he was born in Brussels about 1611. He had considerable experience of active service in the Spanish army, including a spell as adjutant to Owen Roe, and he was a seasoned soldier when he came to Ireland, apparently in 1641.1 He seems to have been of a rather gruff disposition, as he is described as a surly old Spanish soldier. He was captured early on in the war, but was exchanged after Benburb. Ormonde, the Lord Lieutenant, selected him for the defence of Clonmel, where his handling of the situation made a great impression on Parliamentary opinion. They concluded that they had found in Clonmel the stoutest enemy they had met in Ireland, and that " there was never seen so hot a storm of so long continuance and so gallantly defended, neither in England nor in Ireland." When Cromwell got into Clonmel and found the birds flown, he asked the mayor who was this Duff O'Neill. The mayor said he was an oversea soldier born in Spain. Cromwell growled: " God damn you and your oversea. By God above I will follow that Hugh Duff O'Neill wherever he goes."2 But he didn't. He was urgently needed on the other side of the Irish Sea to meet a threat from Scotland. Ireland was left to his son/in/law, a very different type of commander. Henry Ireton was more distinguished for his piety and his gift for political philosophy than for his military ability. But Ireton and Cromwell got on well together; he had married Cromwell's daughter Bridget and had risen to the rank of Lieutenant/General. He was very conscientious and hard-working. One description of him ran thus: " Never a more able, painful, provident and industrious servant; if he erred in anything it lay in too much neglecting himself, 1 The Rev. Brendan Jennings, O.F.M. and Mrs. Micheline Walsh have kindly furnished information about Hugh Dubh's career in the Spanish service. z J. T. Gilbert, A contemporary history ofaffairs in Ireland from 1641 to 1652, II, p. 416. This book, which priters a number of contemporary documents, is the chief source for the siege. Ludlow's Memoirs��

has a valuable account of operations in the Limerick area in 1651.

22

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

for like a candle he wasted his light to give light to others, seldom thinking it time to eat till he had done the work of the day at nine or ten at night, and then would sit up as long as any man had business with him. Indeed he was every/ thing from a foot soldier to a general and thought nothing done when anything was undone."3 After Cromwell's departure the main Irish army was in the north under Bishop MacMahon. That was very soon defeated at Scarrifhollis, and the line of the Shannon was left as the front line of Irish defence, with Limerick and Athlone as the key points. Various forces under Ormonde, Clanricarde and others were available to protect Connacht and Clare. Limerick was of crucial importance. It was a large and well/defended city in a position of great natural strength. Its walls were in pretty good order and had been strengthened at various points during the course of the war. The Shannon divides at Limerick; a branch, called the Abbey river, makes an island which was called the King's Island. The main part of the city—the English town— was on the south/western part of this island. On the mainland to the south of the Abbey river was the smaller Irish town. Both were walled, and there were two bridges, the Thomond bridge over to Clare and Ballsbridge which crossed the Abbey river between English town and Irish town. The shape of the walls of Limerick has been compared to an hour/glass or a figure of eight or even a spider. A besieging army was concerned with how to cross the Shannon so as to invest the town on both sides, and then how to get on to King's Island so as to make an entry into the English town. The geographical situation thus presented great advantages to the defenders of Limerick. These were largely counter/balanced by the divided state of public opinion in the city. Throughout the war Limerick had been torn by factions. One side had wanted to make terms with Ormonde; the other had backed the Nuncio and would not have Ormonde's terms at any price. In 1650 Ormonde, as the Protestant governor of a royalist Ireland that was overwhelmingly Catholic, was in great difficulties. This was particularly so in Limerick, where the anti/ Ormonde side had shown itself to be the stronger party. His problem was to get the inhabitants to accept a military commander to defend the city against Ireton's forces. A great deal of haggling took place before it was eventually agreed that Hugh Dubh O'Neill, the defender of Clonmel, should be the military commander of Limerick. Further arguments took place about the regiments the citizens would let in to form the garrison. O'Neill was in a very difficult position, what with squabbling townsmen, no regular troops and the Parliamentary forces approaching. One of his letters to Ormonde is marked " Haste, haste, post/haste," and Ormonde endorsed it " From Major/general Hugh O'Neill concerning the distraction and irresolution of the citizens of Limerick concerning their receiving a garrison for their defence."4 Ireton was well aware of these squabbles and seems to have thought he would be able to exploit them so as to get the surrender of both Limerick and Athlone before winter set in. He divided his army. He himself made for Athlone, which 3 Quoted in R. W. Ramsey, Henry Ireton, p. 185. 4 Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, p. 182.

Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick

23

was held by Lord Dillon who skilfully played for time with long/drawn parleys ings. He sent Major/General Sir Hardress Waller to deal with Limerick. Waller must have known Limerick well, as twenty years before this he had married Miss Dowdall of Kilfinny and had become a big landlord in the county. Advantage was taken of the Parliament's seapower. A ship called the Hector was sent with ordnance, ammunition and provisions to the mouth of the Shannon.5 On 9 September, 1650 Waller sent a letter to O'Neill calling on him to surrender, failing which Limerick would be besieged. He got a stout answer from O'Neill: " No such threats are able to daunt my resolutions, seeing I am no stranger to the like. Sir, I am entrusted with this place from my lord lieutenant to maintain it for the use of his majesty King Charles, which I resolve by God's assistance to perform, notwithstanding any power shall offer against me, even to the effusion of the last drop of my blood. I thank you for the care you have to shun effusion of blood; I am as loth to it as you; but I conceive my honour no less concerned for the defence of my lawful king than yours is for the state of England."6 O'Neill was chiefly concerned that Waller would succeed in crossing the Shannon as the obvious preliminary to a siege. Shortly after his summons was refused Waller captured Carrigogunnel Castle, about six miles west of Limerick. The rumour was that he was aiming for Cratloe Castle on the opposite side of the river. But O'Neill and Ormonde between them managed to strengthen the Clare garrisons, and Waller had made little progress by the beginning of October, when he was joined by Ireton who had given up Athlone as a bad job. Ireton then sent a summons to Limerick, promising that the city should be protected if it would surrender and let his army through to the other side of the Shannon. The mayor answered, refusing Ireton's demand. Ireton stayed in front of Limerick for ten days. Then he held a council of war, which decided that it was too late in the season to start active siege operations and that all that could be done was " to block it up on this side the water by garrisons adjoining." Ireton accordingly withdrew the main part of his army and contented himself with keeping Limerick under watch from detachments posted at various points such as Kilmallock and Castleconnell. If Ireton had made a vigorous attack on Limerick in the summer of 1650, there seems no reason why he should not have taken it. Apart from the absence of a regular garrison, O'Neill told Ormonde in the middle of September that there was no ammunition in the city. During the winter Ireton made slow and thorough preparations for an active siege in the early summer of 1651. By February he was collecting tents, clothes and provisions, and arranging for ships to sail to the mouth of the Shannon with cannon and ammunition. In May Ireton once more advanced towards Limerick. For an effective siege he had to cross the Shannon and accordingly he made for Killaloe, which he reached on May 21. Lord Castlehaven was in command of two thousand Irish troops on the opposite side of the river and made 5 J. Nicholls, Original letters from Ireton, p. 15. 6 Gilbert, op, cit., Ill, p . 180.

24

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

some effort to fortify the banks to prevent a crossing. Ireton manoeuvred for a week in the neighbourhood. His troops took possession of an island—presumably Friars' Island—and collected boats and cots while Castlehaven's men plied them with small shot. But the water was too rough near Killaloe and, after setting apart a day for guidance from the Lord, Ireton decided to try lower down the river at O'Brien's Bridge, eight miles above Limerick. There was no bridge there at that time, but there was an island in midstream capable of holding two thousand men. The plan was to use this island as a halfway point for throwing a bridge across the river; the materials for the bridge had been collected and kept ready. On the opposite bank were the ruins of an old house in which was a detachment of Irish troops guarding the crossing. A stump of an old castle stood at the water's edge. If the crossing could be forced and these ruins captured, they could be made the basis of a bridgehead. Ladders were prepared for storming the castle stump and " palisadoes and turnpikes" as a rapid means of fortifying the bridgehead. The weather favoured the Parliamentary army and the river, which had been too deep to ford when Ireton first reached it, had fallen appreciably. The crossing was made at daybreak on June 2 by Captain Draper of Sadler's regiment with three files of firelocks, that is, flintlocks, which were a great improvement on the matchlock type of musket. The first party to land took possession of the ruined house and castle. They brought with them long cables which were fastened to the bank and used to tow boats across, so that within an hour five hundred men had crossed over to the Clare side of the river. The Irish forces, both horse and foot, at first offered some opposition, but the crossing was covered by great shot from Ireton's cannon on the Limerick bank. This, aided by shouts and the blowing of trumpets, intimidated the Irish into retreating. The news that the river had been crossed at O'Brien's Bridge made Castlehaven fall back hurriedly from Killaloe, leaving his tent, plate and other possessions as booty for the Parliamentary army. Ireton could now march down the Clare bank to a point opposite Limerick. By this time there was a flotilla of Parliamentary ships in the mouth of the Shannon which blocked the estuary and had captured Clonderalaw Castle on the Clare side. These ships kept the Parliamentary army supplied with provisions and also carried heavy guns which were put ashore for the siege operations. To secure his position Ireton ordered the construction of a large fort at the Clare end of Thomond bridge, capable of holding a thousand foot and a troop of horse. He also started the construction of two forts to the south and southwest of the Irish town, which were called Cromwell's fort and Ireton's fort, with an entrenchment linking them. On June 14 Ireton summoned Limerick to surrender and at the same time started a bombardment. A battery of twenty/eight guns and two mortars sited opposite Thomond bridge bombarded King John's Castle. A curious and horrific account records that in this bombardment a slate was dislodged which killed a child in a woman's arms. The child was buried and soon after another shot hit the grave and blew the child's body out of it. On the third day of the bombardment the defenders sent an answer that they were ready to bargain: commissioners should be appointed to arrange terms and there should be a cease-fire during the negotiations. Ireton refused the cease/fire but

Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick

25

agreed to appoint six commissioners. The Irish also appointed six commissioners, Major/General Purcell—O'Neill's second'in/command—and five others. The Parliamentary commissioners were headed by Lieutenant/General Edmund Ludlow, who has given an account of the siege in his Memoirs; he had come as second/nvcommand to Ireton in the early part of 1651. The talks went on for several days and the two sets of commissioners dined together during them. Ireton offered fairly good terms: the garrison would be given quarter and allowed to march out with their arms and with their colours flying. The citizens would be let off with the confiscation of a third of their property. But no security for the practice of the-Catholic religion was allowed and a firm refusal was given to the Irish request on this point. The negotiations broke down, and the Parliament/ arians thought that Limerick hoped for relief from the Irish forces still active in the neighbourhood. O'Neill was evidently aware that it was necessary to prepare for a long siege in which the town would face the ordeal of starvation. So he tried to get rid of as many useless mouths as possible at this stage. Ireton countered by sending them back with a letter to O'Neill, saying that any more persons sent out would be severely dealt with. O'Neill would not let them in and sent out some more to join them, so Ireton ordered four to be knocked on the head as a warning. By mistake forty were knocked on the head, which made Ireton very angry. The Parliamentarians made a successful attack on the fort which was on the Salmon weir—the Lax weir—on the west side of St. Thomas's Island. A great shot hit this fort, killed three of the defenders and wounded others. The rest took to their boats but came under heavy musket fire and surrendered to the Parliamentary forces, some on the Clare bank and some on the Limerick bank. They were offered quarter by the Parliamentary troops, but the commander on the Clare side, Colonel Tothill, repudiated the arrangement and put them all to the sword. Ireton was angry with Tothill, who was court>martialled and removed from his command. The fort on the weir was a valuable prize for the Parliamentary army and they made a floating bridge across the river just below it. This gave a more direct line of communication between the two parts of their force than the other bridge they had made at Castleconnell, several miles upstream. On the Thomond bridge between the second and third arches from the Clare side there was a two/storied gate/tower held by the defenders. The Parliamentary army attempted an assault on it on June 19. This was unsuccessful, as their ladders were too short. But after further bombardment they stormed it on June 2 1 ; the technique adopted was to select a leading man from each troop for the assault. These picked men were provided with back, breast and head pieces and supplied with hand grenades. They succeeded in capturing the tower and were given a gratuity as a reward. However, the Irish broke down some arches of the bridge nearer the city so that the Parliamentarians could not come across. The next point on which Ireton concentrated was the part of King's Island beyond the walls of the city. A landing here would have given the attackers their best chance of storming the English town, which was otherwise strongly

26

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

protected by its island situation. The Irish do not seem to have made any regular fortification on this part of the King's Island (as they did in 1691), but the troops who held it had thrown up breastworks along the shore. The crossing was to be made at midnight by boats and a floating bridge from the Clare side. But it was mismanaged; two of the boats with eighty men crossed before the rest and were overwhelmed by the Irish troops. Seventy/nine of the eighty were killed, which discouraged the Parliamentary side so much that they gave up the King's Island project altogether and set the next day aside as a day of humiliation, bewailing the sins of the army that had aroused the Lord's displeasure. Ireton now decided not to try any more assaults for the time being, but to starve the town out. The Parliamentary forces seem to have been inadequately supplied with siege engineers. In any case Limerick was a formidable proposition in view of the failure of Ireton's men to make a landing on the King's Island. But the town was completely invested and in time was bound to be starved if the Parliamentary army could maintain its position. Apart from the threat of starvation the defenders were chiefly troubled by plague, which had been brought to Ireland by a Spanish ship and was particularly severe in Limerick. The well/known doctor, Thomas Arthur, was in Limerick all through the siege and we have his case/book,7 written in Latin, which makes a number of references to " pestis " and one to " bubonis pestis "—bubonic plague. O'Neill's force was by no means passive. Taking advantage of Ireton's going into Clare with a considerable body, they made a sally with two thousand men which nearly surprised the Parliamentary troops. On another occasion after Ireton had returned and was inspecting his new fort he had a narrow escape when the garrison made another sally. O'Neill continued his attempts to rid the town of useless mouths, which alarmed the Parliamentarians because of the risk of plague infection. Ireton countered by putting up a gibbet in sight of the town walls and having a few hangings as a deterrent. Apart from plague and starvation Ireton relied on factions in the town. He was able to correspond with the peace party, and offered terms to them, but said he would have no mercy on the diehards—O'Neill himself, the bishops of Limerick and Emly, and other named persons. But the diehards proved too strong for the peace party, and the siege dragged on towards autumn. Ireton's artillery bombarded the town without much effect on the defenders. By the middle of September the Irish were hopeful that winter would set in and make the positon of the besiegers impossible. One of the Irish soldiers is said to have called out from the wall to the besiegers " You labour to beat us out with bomb/ shells but we will beat you away with snowballs." This is supposed to be the first recorded use of the word bombshell, mortar shot being the ordinary phrase. Dr. Arthur's Latin case/book has an entry of a patient whose arm was smashed " bomhnis impetu "—by the force of a bomb. By October 23 the peace party, led by Colonel Fennell, was gaining the upper hand. A new mayor in favour of surrender had come into office that month, and a joint meeting of the military and civil sides agreed to negotiate without 7 B.M., Add. MS. 31885.

Hugh Dubh O'Neill's Defence of Limerick

27

stipulating that any particular individuals should have their lives spared. The bishops of Limerick and Emly (whose own lives were threatened) at once announced that they would excommunicate any negotiators who accepted the slaughter of Catholic prelates. Fennell and his fellow peacemakers then seized the Castle gate, getting the keys from the mayor. O'Neill challenged this and attempted to have Fennell tried before a council of war. Fennell refused to attend and trained the Castle guns on the city. Ireton's guns then started a heavy bombardment which made a breach in the walls at a point where there was no earth lining the inner side or counterscarp on the outside. This seems to have been in the east wall of the Irish town, which was rebuilt in the later part of the seventeenth century. The Irish now decided to send out commissioners with full powers to negotiate. Fennell took the opportunity to let two hundred redcoats into the gate/tower of King John's Castle. The commissioners agreed to considerably worse terms than had previously been offered. The garrison were allowed to march out, but without their arms. The townsfolk were not to be allowed to stay in Limerick. O'Neill, Purcell, the bishops and some of the most obstinate citizens such as Dominick Fanning were to lose their lives. Ireton entered Limerick by the east water/gate near Ballsbridge. O'Neill met him at the gate, presented him with the keys and ordered the garrison to march out. The regular troops had been reduced to twelve hundred from the original strength of two thousand. In addition, there were four thousand townsmen capable of bearing arms. The garrison had been ordered to lay down their arms at St. Mary's church. 3,770 small arms, 83 barrels of powder, 3$ tuns of match, 23 barrels of shot, and 34 guns—8 of brass including 2 demy cannons—were found in the city, besides pioneers' tools. O'Neill himself showed Ireton the stores of arms, ammunition and prc visions which the Parliamentarians calculated would have lasted another three months. He also showed Ireton the fortifications and told him where he could find some of those excluded from the terms who were throwing themselves on Ireton's mercy. Major^General Purcell, the two bishops and others who were excluded from the terms had escaped, but Purcell and one of the bishops were captured and hanged, the bishop showing considerably more resolution than the General. O'Neill's own fate was then considered. The Parliamentarians took the view that his letters and actions showed that his was the chief influence in the obstinate resistance that Limerick had shown. O'Neill maintained that he had only done his duty and that he had in fact been in favour of an earlier surrender. His letter is as follows: " Right honourable, the relation I have of your noble and generous disposition induceth me to presume pleading your favour in my present condition (which I presume to be innocent), being guilty of no base or dishonourable act, having only discharged the duty of a soldier as became a man subject to a superior power to which I must have been accountable. Neither in relation of this was I transported either with passion of my own or the violent strain of others who would not be directed with reason, and in the whole course of my proceedings since I came into this garrison I appeal to the judgement and censure of the men of best understanding within this city what my behaviour hath

28

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

been and with what difficulty and patience I endeavoured the surrender of this place, being satisfied in all humane reason and policy (even from the beginning) that it could not withstand your power. I shall therefore humbly entreat your honour to take my condition into your serious consideration that I be not other/ wise dealt withthan the justice or injustice of my case requireth, which I shall undoubtedly expect from a person of my Lord Deputy's honour and through the intercession of your lordship, which shall remain an undoubted obligation never to be unacknowledged by " Your Lordship's most humble servant " Hugo O'Neile " Limerick 30 Oct 1651."8 In the council of war Ireton spoke against sparing O'Neill's life, urging that his defence of Clonmel had been responsible for many English deaths. He carried the majority with him, but seeing that some of the council were dissatisfied with the verdict, he put the question again and this time the vote went in favour of O'Neill. On November 3 Ireton sent a long despatch to the speaker of the English Parliament. It is an extremely interesting document, and something of the skill of O'Neill's defence of Limerick can be read between the lines of it. Ireton made it clear that he had been very disappointed at the length of time it took to get Limerick to surrender. After it crossed the Shannon in the early summer the Parliamentary army achieved little for several months. In fact God had " exercised their faith and patience with divers small losses in the surprise of several garrisons and parties by the lurching enemy." Ireton said the siege had lasted four months longer than he had expected—chiefly on account of jhe failure of the attempt on King's Island. That would have been the most satis/ factory point from which to force an entrance, but the attempt had failed and the defenders had since protected the area by their " industrious working." A council of war had then decided not to attempt an assault, but to starve the city out. It was believed that this would not take more than two or three months, but as the season advanced and winter approached the Parliamentary army saw no prospect of the garrison being starved out. They therefore determined to bombard the city to induce the inhabitants to surrender before winter set in, which would involve many hardships and hazards for the sickly Parliamentary army. Some of their battering guns had been carelessly lost at Clare, but others were collected from various places and stationed at a favourable place which the Lord had up till then hidden from their eyes. The bombardment was effective in bringing an offer of surrender in the nick of time, as wintry weather had set in immediately after the terms were accepted. Up till then the season had been drier and milder than been known for many years. It is remarkable that the siege should have gone on right up to the end of October—that is well into November new style. It was much earlier in the year that William gave up his siege in 1690, and in 1691 Ginkel was just about to 8 Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, pp. 258/9.

Hugh Dubh O 'Neill's Defence of Limerick

29

give up when negotiations started at the end of September. The weather of 1651 was much more favourable to Ireton and less favourable to O'Neill than either of them could have expected. The Parliament ordered Ireton's despatch to be printed and fixed a day of thanksgiving to the Lord for his " great and seasonable mercy in the delivering up into the hands of the Parliamentary forces in Ireland the strong and populous city of Limerick with all the artillery, arms and ammunition therein." Jersey and the Isle of Man were thrown into the thanksgiving for good measure. His despatch to the speaker was almost the last act of Ireton's life. A few days later he caught a bad cold on a day of rain, snow and strong wind. He could not be persuaded to go to bed until he had heard the court-martial of an officer who was accused of treating the Irish with violence and had dismissed him from his command. Next day he was off riding in the stoniest part of Clare. His cold turned to fever, but he insisted in going on with his work. His constitution was run down with his exertions during the siege and on November 7 he was dead. O'Neill was sent to England in the same ship that carried the embalmed body of Ireton. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London, but released on the application of the Spanish ambassador on the understanding that he would take no part in fighting against English troops. He was therefore not employed in the Netherlands, but was sent to Spain where he served with distinction as a General of artillery in Catalonia. His health broke down and by 1660 he was convinced that he had not long to live. He said as much in a letter of that year to Charles II, in which he claimed that he had succeeded to the title of Earl of Tyrone.9 The date of his death is not known, but it cannot have been long after. 9 A facsimile of this letter is in Gilbert, op. cit., Ill, 392.

This page intentionally left blank

4 JOHN TOLAND (1670-1722), A DONEGAL HERETIC

J

ohn Toland was one of the most remarkable of Swift's Irish

contemporaries.1 He was a man of many parts and extraordinary versatility: a linguist with some claims to scholarship, a political propagandist and a speculative thinker. At the same time, he was brash and indiscreet, with the result that he fell out with one patron after another and was forced to make a precarious living as a Grub Street hack. But his writings influenced later generations, were translated into French and German, and gave him an international reputation as one of the forerunners of the age of reason. Contradictory accounts have been given of his origins and early life. But there seems no reason to doubt his own version that he was born in Inishowen, County Donegal, in 1670 and brought up as an Irish-speaking catholic.2 His family background is shadowy and there are hints that he was illegitimate. His schooling evidently gave him sufficient grounding to develop his remarkable talents; it also seems to have made him dissatisfied with the environment in which he was brought up. When he wras sixteen he abandoned his faith and his 1

This paper was originally delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, on 18 Apr. 1968, as a lecture in the O'Donnell series. I am grateful to Professor H. F. Nicholl for allowing me to make use of his unpublished thesis, ' The life and work of John Toland ', and to Mr W. Dieneman for allowing me to make use of his unpublished ' Bibliography of John Toland '. 2 Apology for Air Toland (1697), pp 16-17; self-composed epitaph in J. Toland, Collection of several pieces, pp lxxxviii-ix, edited by Pierre Desmaiseaux (1726), who prefixes a life of Toland. A less reliable biography is that of [E. Curll], Historical account of the life of John Toland (1722). The fullest contemporary biography is the introduction to J. Mosheim, Vindiciae antiquae Christianae disciplinae adversus celeberrimi viri Johannis Tolandi, Hiberni, Nazarenum (2nd ed., Hamburg, 1722). Local tradition makes his birth-place Ardagh in the parish of Clonmany (W. J. Doherty, Inis-Owen and Tirconnell, p. 150). Another version is that he was born in France of an Irish father and a French mother and did not come to Ireland till he was ten or twelve years old (Edmund Gibson to Dr Charlett, 21 June 1694, in Bodl, Ballard collection, v, 27).

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

32

native county, and went to study in Glasgow.3 It appears that the bishop of Derry, Dr Ezekiel Hopkins, helped him to go and that his first contacts were with the episcopal church in Scotland. But he soon quarrelled with the archbishop of Glasgow and his next patrons were the presbyterians, by whom he was supported during his course at the university, in which he was an alumnus academicus—educated free of charge. His standing with the presbyterians was apparently improved by his part in pope-burning and rabbling the episcopal clergy, and he obtained a certificate from the Glasgow magistrates, which he kept for the rest of his life, that he had behaved himself as ' ane trew protestant and loyal subject'.4 In 1690, the day before the battle of the Boyne, he obtained the Edinburgh M.A. degree, which was commonly granted to Glasgow students who were not ' ane trew protestant and loyal subject'.4 In 1690, the day before Glasgow there were violent disputes in the university, in which the students took an active part; many left the university and attended classes held by professors of their own choosing. It was an exciting training in controversy and independence of thought. 0 The violently protestant and anti-episcopal climate of Glasgow was in striking contrast to the conservative Catholicism of Inishowen, and Toland quickly developed the free-thinking and anti-authoritarian principles that he was to hold for the remainder of his life. He himself regarded this development as a conversion from what he called the grossest superstition: ' God was pleased to make my own reason and such Apology for Mr Toland, p. 16. He says that he went from Redcastle (which is on Lough Foyle); his biographers have assumed that he went to school there, but he may have meant that it was the point of embarkation. 4 Corr. quoted in F. H. Heinemann, ' John Toland and the age of reason ' and ' John Toland, France, Holland, and Dr Williams ' in Rev. Eng. Studies, xx (1944), pp 127-8; xxv (1949), pp 346-7. The certificate is in B.M., Add. MS 4465, f. 1. 3 Edinburgh university was under the control of the town council (A. Grant, Story of the university of Edinburgh, i, 183-4). 6 6J. Coutts, History of the university of Glasgow, pp 160-4. For Scottish interest in radical thought at this time see C. Robbins, The eighteenth-century commonwealthman, pp 177 ff. In 1722 the Glasgow students showed their addiction to free thought by electing as rector Toland's friend and patron, Lord Molesworth, who was active in supporting the rights of the students against the university authorities, possibly under Toland's influence (Coutts, p. 201; H.M.C. var. 8, PP 347-52). 3

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic

33

as made use of theirs the instruments of my conversion'. He disclaimed the suggestion that reaction from his catholic upbringing might have taken him unjustifiably far in the opposite direction.7 His next move was to London where he became an admirer of Dr Daniel Williams, a prominent dissenting minister who was accused of unitarianism. With characteristic forwardness Toland wrote to Jean Le Clerc, the Huguenot savant who had taken refuge in Holland, sending him a copy of Williams's book Gospel truth stated and vindicated', with it was a covering letter from himself as ' a student of divinity', explaining the controversy that had arisen over the book and suggesting that an abstract of it might be published in the Bibliotheque universelle, of which Le Clerc was editor. Le Clerc published the abstract together with Toland's letter.8 Williams and his friends were so impressed with Toland's zeal and piety that they collected money to send him to study at Leyden in 1692. He was much impressed by the free-thinking and tolerant atmosphere prevalent in Holland. Le Clerc in particular had a great influence on him. But he stayed there for only a year, and it appears that his departure was hastened by his own indiscretions. John Locke was later told that Toland was an indiscreet man, without shame and without religion.9 He had now abandoned the idea of becoming a dissenting minister. In the words of an acquaintance: ' having now cast off the yoke of spiritual authority, that great bugbear and bane of ingenuity, he could never be persuaded to bow his neck to that yoke again, by whomsoever claimed Y° This faced him with the problem of earning his living, which he never solved satisfactorily, though he managed to keep going by literary work and the support of patrons. His ambition was to make his mark as a man of learning, and he chose for his base Oxford which, with its high anglican traditions, was unlikely to prove congenial to his temperament. He had recommendations to several of the ' most ingenious' men in the university, including Dr Mill, the principal of St Edmund Hall, whose speciality was Anglo-Saxon. Toland hoped to be a match for ' their antiquaries and linguists who saluted me with peals of 7

Toland, Christianity not mysterious, pp ix, xiii. Collection, i, xi. For Williams see D.N.B. He had been a minister in Dublin, where his assistant was Gilbert Rule, who became rector of Edinburgh University shortly after Toland took his degree. 9 P. Coste to Locke, 23 June 1699, quoted by Heinemann in Review of English studies, xxv. 348-9. 10 Benjamin Furley to Locke, 19 Aug. 1693 (ibid.). 8

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

34

barbarous sounds and obsolete words, and I in return spent upon them all my Anglo-Saxon and old British etymologies, which I hope gave them abundant satisfaction; Hebrew and Irish I hope will bear me out for some weeks, and then I'll be pretty well furnished from the library, into which I was sworn and admitted yesterday V1 According to the antiquary and linguist, Edward Lhwyd, Toland had come to Oxford to write ' an Irish dictionary and dissertation to prove the Irish a colony of the Gauls \12 Among Toland's papers were comparative lists of Breton and Irish words which prove to be of considerable interest to Celtic scholars today, though Toland sometimes forced his parallels between the two languages. He can claim to have anticipated Lhwyd in the study of comparative Celtic linguistics.13 He stayed for a year at Oxford, making a name for himself as ' railing in coffee-houses against all communities in religion and monarchy \14 A friend told him that he had the Oxford reputation of being ' a man of fine parts, great learning and little religion \ 1 5 Toland to , Jan. 1694 [Collection, ii, 293). E. Lhwyd to J. Aubrey, 9 Jan. 1694 (R. T. Gunter, Early science at Oxford, xiv, 217). 13 Collection, i, 204-28. The Breton words were supplied by Dr Mill, and Toland himself gave what he thought to be the Irish equivalents. I am grateful to Professors R. Hemon and D. Greene of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies for examining the lists. Professor Hemon informs me that the first section (pp 205-11) consists of words taken from G. Quicquer, Dictionnaire et collogues frangois et breton, first published in 1626 and frequently reissued. The edition used must have been prior to 1671, as the form of the words is late middle Breton; from 1671 editions of Quicquer were in modern Breton. The rare Breton word ' tremenguae ', meaning field-path or stile, was wrongly rendered into French by Quicquer as ' escalier '; Toland made the same error in giving the Irish equivalent as ' dremire'. Toland's second section (pp 212-19) contains a mixture of Breton and Welsh words, in which the spelling is in the early modern form of Breton. The spelling corresponds almost exactly with Gregoire de Rostrenen, Dictionnaire frangois-celtique ou frangois-breton, 1732. Gregoire's dictionary contains a number of words marked ' alias ' (his term for ' obsolete '), which have long puzzled scholars. Several of these, both Breton and Welsh, occur in Toland's second section. As Gregoire died before the end of the seventeenth century, they cannot be derived from the Collection of Toland's pieces (published in 1726). Unless Mill got them from Gregoire himself, both must be derived from a common source. Toland's third section (pp 220-6) contains religious texts, numerals and a few colloquial sentences, all taken from Quicquer. His Irish equivalents are of interest. 14 Lhwyd to Lister, n.d. (Gunter, p. 2.78). 15 to Toland, 4 May 1694 (Collection, ii, 295). 11 12

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic 3 5 The Irish dictionary never materialised, but he continued to be interested in Celtic civilisation and towards the end of his life sketched out a ' specimen of the critical history of the Celtic religion and learning', which was largely concerned with Druidism.10 He drew on his boyhood memories for accounts of Inishowen landmarks associated with Druidism, a rocking stone at Clonmany, places where Mayday bonfires were lit, and a hill named after a whitelegged Druidess, Cnoc na Gealchosaighe.17 He was familiar with O'Flaherty's Ogygia, of which he possessed a copy. He refers to the book of Ballymote, saying that it is in the library of Trinity College, and cites other Irish manuscripts in the collections of the earl of Clanricarde and the duke of Chandos.18 He also quotes a number of Greek and Roman writers on various aspects of Celtic civilisation. His Irish background and wide reading give some value to a pioneering attempt to present a general picture of Celtic tradition. He left Oxford for London and attached himself to John Locke, to whom he had been given letters of recommendation from Holland. Locke was particularly interested in monetary questions at the time and gave Toland an Italian treatise on the subject to translate.19 But Toland's chief concern was religious speculation. He was clearly much influenced by Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity in writing his own first and best-known book Christianity not mysterious, which was published in 1696. He borrowed from Locke the concept that Christianity was a rational creed, comprehensible to an intelligent reader of the bible, without further assistance. But Toland's book aroused much more hostility than Locke's had done. It was shorter, blunter, more anti-clerical, and it had a more aggressive title. Toland argued that mystery in the New Testament referred to things that had previously been obscure, but had now been rendered intelligible: ' the gospel itself that was heretofore indeed a mystery and cannot now, after it is fully revealed, properly deserve that appellation \ 2 0 He complained that the churches had overlaid the original core of Collection, i, 1-203. It was published in 1,740 under the title A critical history of Celtic religion and reissued in 1814. 17 Ibid., pp 23, 104-5. 18 Ibid., pp 36-7, 51. The book of Ballymote disappeared from the college library some time before 1742 (T.C.D. MS D 1. 6, f. 1). 19 Bernardo Davanzati, A discourse of coins; translated from the Italian by John Toland (1696). Locke's copy of the book is in the Goldsmiths' Library, University of London. 20 Christianity not mysterious (1696), pp 102-3. 16

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

36

rational Christianity with unintelligible accretions that only served to puzzle simple folk: ' the uncorrupted doctrines of Christianity are not above their reach or comprehension, but the gibberish of your divinity schools they understand not'. Revelation for Toland was no more than a means of information, carrying conviction by its inherent reasonableness.21 In this book Toland wrote as a professed Christian, but he was attacked as a deist, and the later development of his thought showed a widening gulf between his philosophy and orthodox Christianity. Christianity not mysterious proved to be the most controversial book of the time and provoked a large number of replies, including one from Dr Peter Browne, fellow and later provost of Trinity College, who afterwards became bishop of Cork: a promotion for which Toland claimed the credit. Browne drew rather fine distinctions in his retort to Toland. ' That Christianity is not mysterious', he said, 'is very true; that there are no mysteries in Christianity is absolutely false '. He denounced Toland as ' an inveterate enemy to revealed religion ', and asserted that Toland's real design was ' no other than what he formerly declared and what he openly affects, to be the head of a sect'; he even wondered whether Toland was ambitious to become ' as famous an impostor as Mahomet \ 2 2 In the early part of 1697 Toland went over to Dublin. He is said to have gone there with the prospect of becoming secretary to the new lord chancellor—John Methuen, an English whig; but he failed to get the post. Toland is mentioned in a ballad of the time which attacked Methuen to the tune of ' Lilliburlero ' : To secure the church to be of his side, He has made Toland his spiritual guide.23 Dublin was notorious for quarrels between the church party and those who favoured toleration for dissent, and the church party was in a militant mood. Toland's book had preceded him and caused an uproar, which increased when he himself arrived. The unfortunate Locke found himself involved in the controversy, as Toland took care to proclaim that he was Locke's disciple and admirer. He introduced himself as such to William Molyneux, ' the man whom Locke was proud to call his friend '. Molyneux wrote of him to Locke: ' he was 21

Ibid., pp 37-8, 147. P. Browne, A letter in answer to a book intituled Christianity not mysterious, pp 9, 96, 148, 196. 23 P.R.O., S.P. 32/11, ff 76-7, quoted in A. D. Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, pp 356-8. 22

John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic

37

born in this country but . . . has been a great while abroad, and his education was for some time under the great Le Clerc. But that for which I can never honour him too much is his acquaintance and friendship to you and the respect which, on all occasions, he professes for you. I propose a great deal of satisfaction in his conversation. I take him to be a candid free-thinker and a good scholar. But there is a violent sort of spirit reigns here, which begins already to show itself against him, and I believe will increase daily, for I find the clergy alarmed to a mighty degree against him.324 Locke had reason to believe that Toland's book had aroused criticism of his own work. His reply to Molyneux gave a very cautious assessment of Toland: a man of parts and learning if his vanity did not impair his usefulness to the world. He asked Molyneux to be kind to Toland, but left it to his prudence how far to go.25 Molyneux soon found that there was need for caution in dealing with Toland. He wrote to Locke: ' he has raised against him the clamours of all parties; and this not so much by his difference in opinion as by his unseasonable way of discoursing, propagating and maintaining it. Coffee houses and public tables are not proper places for serious discourses relating to the most important truths. . . . Mr Toland also takes a great liberty on all occasions to vouch your patronage and friendship, which makes many that rail at him rail also at you. I believe you will not approve of this as far as I am able to judge by your shaking him off in your Letter to the bishop of Worcester. But after all this I look upon Mr Toland as a very ingenious man and I shall be very glad of any opportunity of doing him service.' Molyneux was evidently attracted and impressed by Toland in spite of his indiscretion. He was also puzzled as to what Toland was doing in Dublin and how he was financed : ' he is known to have no fortune or employ and yet is observed to have a subsistence, but from whence it comes no one can tell certainly \2fl Some of his critics believed Toland to be the paid emissary of a powerful antireligious group, but if this was the case his financial support was not generous. Molyneux was disturbed that condemnation of Toland's book should be accompanied by legal proceedings, and he blamed Dr 24

Molyneux to Locke, 6 Apr. 1697 (Locke, Familiar letters to his friends, p. 190). 25 Locke to Molyneux, 3 May 1697 (ibid., p. 206). 26 Molyneux to Locke, 27 May 1697 (Familiar letters, p. 216).

3

8

War

and

Politics

in

Ireland,

1649-1730

Browne for calling in the aid of the civil magistrate. The Dublin grand jury condemned the book—without reading a page of it—and it was also referred to the committee of religion in the Irish house of commons.27 Toland addressed an apologia to a member of the commons, protesting that his only desire was to defend Christianity against unjust imputations. There was some support for him among the more whiggish politicians, but the church party was too strong for them. On the recommendation of the committee of religion the commons resolved that the book should be burned by the common hangman twice over, in front of the parliament house and an hour later in front of the tholsel, and added that Toland himself should be arrested and prosecuted. He saved himself from this fate by a hasty departure for England, on borrowed money.28 One critic praised the parliament for making Ireland too hot for ' a Mahometan Christian, notorious for his blasphemous denial of the mysteries of our religion and his insupportable violence against the whole Christian priesthood ,'29 Bishop King thought that parliament was aiming not merely at Toland but ' against some greater persons that supported him '. He thought that there was a formal conspiracy and that agents and emissaries were employed ' to cry down the credit of religion '.80 When Toland got back to England, he was commissioned to write a life of Milton, a task that was greatly to his taste. He found Milton a man after his own heart, the champion of free speech and religious toleration, the opponent of hierarchy, who had engaged ' in contest with the famous Ussher (for he would not readily engage a meaner adversary) against prelatical episcopacy '. He noted that in later life Milton ' was not a professed member of any Christian sect, frequented none of their assemblies, nor made use of their peculiar rites '.S1 Toland did his work well; he consulted Milton's widow and nephew among other sources, and a modern critic has commended the book as one of the best early biographies of Milton.82 But Toland found 27

S a m e to same, 20 July 1697 (ibid., p p 227-8). Commons' jn. Ire. (1798), ii, 190 (9 Sept. 1697); Molyneux to Locke, 11 Sept. 1697 {Familiar letters, pp 236-7); Richard Cox to , 14 Sept. 1697 ( H . M . C . , Portland MSS, iii. 586). 29 Collection, i, xxvi. 30 W. King to archbishop of Canterbury, 13 Sept. 1697 (T.C.D. MS N 3. 1, p. 86); same to bishop of Waterford, Sept. 1697 (ibid., p. 91). 31 Toland, Life of John Milton (ed. of 1761), pp 22, 140. 32 Helen Darbishire, Early lives of Milton (1932), pp xxviii-ix. Toland's life is reproduced in full in the book. 28

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic

39

himself in serious trouble as a result of his demonstration that Eikon Basilike was not the work of Charles I, and of his comparison of that attribution to ' suppositious pieces under the name of Christ, his apostles and other great persons \ 33 This appeared to be a double attack on Charles the Martyr and on the canon of the New Testament. It was condemned in the next 30th of January sermon, preached before the English house of commons by the Rev. Offspring Blackhall. Toland was denounced as ' impudent enough publicly to affront our holy religion by declaring his doubt that several pieces under the name of Christ and his apostles (he must mean those now received by the whole Christian church, for I know of no other) are suppositious \ 34 Toland replied with a lengthy list of apocryphal works attributed to Christ and his apostles, thus showing up his adversary's ignorance and his own learning. Toland's strong views and love of argument naturally involved him in the political controversies connected with the future of the English crown and the relations between church and state. There was no doubt where Toland stood in these matters. He was for the Hanoverian succession and against all arbitrary authority; in politics a whig, and in matters of religion a tolerator of non-conformity. Defending himself against his critics he declared: ' I have always been, now am, and ever shall be persuaded that all sorts of magistrates are made for and by the people and not the people for or by the magistrates . . . and consequently that it is lawful to resist and punish tyrants of all sorts. . . . I am therefore and avowedly a commonwealth's man \35 With these views he found a congenial task in writing a biographical introduction to Oceana and other works of Harrington, whom he calls ' the greatest commonwealthman in the world'. Toland enjoyed the patronage of the whig aristocrats, the duke of Newcastle and the third earl of Shaftesbury.30 Anglia liber a was a defence of the act of settlement, which fixed the succession on the house of Hanover. It was dedicated to ' the most noble and mighty prince, John, duke of Newcastle '. In 1701 Toland was one of the party who went to Hanover to present the act of settlement and bring the order of the garter to the Life of Milton, p. 77. Ibid., p . 161. 35 Toland, Vindicius liberus (1702), pp 126-7. 86 For Harrington as a commonwealthman a n d for the relations between T o l a n d a n d Shaftesbury see C. Robbins, op. cit., p p 3 4 - 4 1 , 83

34

125-33-

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

40

future George I. In the following year he returned to Germany and visited Berlin. He recorded his impressions in the Account of the courts of Prussia and Hanover, which gave a highly favourable picture of both courts.37 He was a particular admirer of the Electress Sophia and was astonished at her ' incomparable knowledge in divinity, philosophy, history and the subjects of all sorts of books of which she has read a prodigious quantity. She speaks five languages so well that by her accent it might be in dispute which of them was her first . . . [English] she speaks as truly and easily as any native.' This may be exaggerated, to judge from what he says of the future George I : ' he understands English and in a little while will speak it readily'. The electress took a great interest in Toland and engaged in long discussions with him. But she asked him not to write about her, and was shocked to find that he had ignored her request. At Hanover he met Leibniz, with whom he engaged in arguments that continued for several years. High life was exciting: gold medals and royal portraits, burgundy and champagne in lavish quantities. What he particularly liked in both courts was the absence of sectarian divisiveness. Liberty of conscience was enjoyed by both Lutherans and Calvinists: ' the clergy seldom appear at court in either Hanover or Berlin '. There are hints that his conduct in Germany was indiscreet, but he denied that he was banished from both courts.88 As was to be expected, Toland was a strong supporter of Marlborough's war against Louis XIV. In 1705 he offered his services to Robert Harley, who was an influential figure in the coalition government that was conducting the war. He proposed to go to Germany on Harley's behalf ' neither as minister nor as spy', but as a private observer who would send a weekly letter of information. Harley did not agree to this, but employed him to write propaganda.89 Toland is thus one of the distinguished company that included Defoe, Prior and Swift. The Memorial of the state of England was a plea for protestant unity in defence of religion and liberty. It was dedicated 87

Published in 1705; the second and enlarged edition (1706) was translated into French and German; another edition was published in 1714. 38 Account of the courts (ed. of 1714), pp 55-78. Toland's correspondence with Leibniz is in Collection, ii. 383-402. See also F. H. Heinemann, 'Toland and Leibniz' in Philosophical Review, liv (1945), 439-5739 F. H. Heinemann, ' John Toland and the age of enlightenment' in Rev. Eng. Studies, xx, 135.

John Toland (1670-1722), a Donegal Heretic 41 to Harley, who was described as having an unequalled knowledge of the people's liberty and the bounds of the prince's prerogative and therefore best fitted to ' encounter those who would confound all our rights and bring us under a slavish and barbarous subjection '. Harley found contemporary relevance in an anti-French declaration of the time of Henry VII, which Toland translated and published under the title A philippic oration to incite the English against the French, but especially to prevent the treaty of a peace with them too soon after they are beaten . . . by an uncertain author who was not for paring the nails but quite plucking out the claws of the French. Harley is said to have promised Toland to make him keeper of the paper office, a post worth £400 a year. The promise was not redeemed, but Toland acknowledged that Harley, the best friend he had on earth, supplied him for two years out of his own pocket ' in diet, clothes, lodging and all other expenses'. Among other things Harley set him up in a house at Epsom, where he was able to enjoy the scenery and the social amenities.40 When Harley changed his policy and formed the tory ministry of 1710, he had no further use for Toland. An interview showed that their attitudes to peace with France were completely at variance. Toland was firm for the house of Hanover and the whig line of ' no peace without Spain '. He told Harley that ' a clandestine negotiation with France sounds very ill to English ears '. He urged Harley to abandon the high-flying tories and form a coalition of whigs and moderate tories committed to the Hanoverian succession: ' instead then of your Priors and your Swifts you ought to despatch me privately this month to Hanover'. He told Harley that he was his true champion among the well-meaning whigs : ' two hundred pounds a year quarterly paid is the utmost I expect, for which I want nothing but your commands to do acceptable service \41 Harley was deaf to the plea and Toland had no further communication with him. The tory attempts to come to terms with the pretender gave Toland the opportunity for an effective piece of propaganda, The art of restoring, in which he drew a parallel between Harley and General Monk, who had abandoned the commonwealth and restored a Stuart king. The pamphlet was reprinted ten times in the crucial year of 40

Elisha Smith to Thomas Hearne, 23 June 1706 (Bodl., Rawl. MS C 146, f. 47); Toland to Harley, 16 May 1707 (H.M.C., Portland MSS, iv, 408-10); Toland, Description of Epsom (1711). 41 Toland to Harley, 7 Dec. 1711 and c. 1712 {Portland MSS, v, 126-7, 259-60).

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

42

1714, during which the succession was in the balance. Toland was much concerned about the effect of tory policy on Ireland, where political feeling ran high over the prospects of the pretender. He deplored the signs he saw there of a catholic revival ' to the inexpressible terror of the protestants who are in daily fear of a massacre \ 4 2 He wrote several pieces in support of the Hanoverian line, but does not seem to have got anything from the whig ministers of George I. In the last years of his life his chief patron was an Irish ' commonwealthman', Robert Molesworth, a Dublin graduate who had made a name for himself by attacking the autocratic monarchy of Denmark.43 Toland edited Shaftesbury's letters to Molesworth. He also took a hand in opposing the declaratory act, the sixth of George I, by which the English parliament asserted its legislative and judicial power in Irish affairs.44 Toland's political writings were interspersed with a number of pieces on speculative and religious subjects. Letters to Serena, published in 1704, might be described as ' the intelligent woman's guide to rationalism '. Serena was George I's sister, and herself queen of Prussia. Toland addressed three letters to her: on the rise of prejudice, pagan ideas of immortality, and the origins of idolatry. He confined his arguments to pagan thought and made no overt criticism of Christianity, but the trend of his argument was certainly rationalist. He had some hard things to say of university education : ' the university is the most fertile nursery of prejudices, whereof the greatest is that we think there to learn everything, when in reality we are taught nothing . . . but our comfort is that we know as much as our masters, who affect the speech and barbarous jargon which commonly has no signification; and the main art that fits their disciples to take their degrees is to treat of very ordinary matters in very extraordinary terms \ 4 5 His exposition was accompanied by a remarkable flood of quotations from Greek and Roman authors, and was made the occasion for a fine show of learning. The book also contains two letters addressed to others, in which Toland attacked the ideas of Descartes and Spinoza. He asserted that motion is an essential attribute of matter, and denied Descartes's view that matter is a dead The grand mystery laid open (1714), p . 4 . K. Danaher and J. G. Simms, The Danish force in Ireland, i6go-i, pp 6-11; Robbins, op. cit., pp 88-133. 44 Reasons most humbly offered to the honourable house of commons 42

43

(1720). 45

Letters to Serena, p. 7.

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic

43

lump until it is stirred into activity by a power external to itself. Toland's concept of the unity of mover and moved led him on to pantheism. In his next work, Socinianism truly stated, he declared himself a pantheist, a word that he seems to have been the first to use. Adeisidaemon—the man without superstition, which was written in Latin and published in Holland in 1709, purported to vindicate Livy from the charge of superstition and argued that superstition was as dangerous to the state as atheism, if not more so. It aroused much hostility on the continent and was banned by papal decree. He sent a copy of it to Leibniz, who replied with some caution: it was quite right to attack superstition as long as it was clearly distinguished from true religion, otherwise religion might be involved in the downfall of superstition; he hoped that Toland would do as much to proclaim the truth as he had done to reject what was false. Leibniz's own position was that God was over and apart from the natural world, and he was disturbed by Toland's frequent references to the pantheistic ideas of early philosophers. Toland thanked Leibniz for his candid remarks, but replied that he proposed to reprint his Adeisidaemon without alteration.40 The suspicions of Toland's critics were confirmed by the publication in 1718 of Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity. His admiration for Islam earned him the title of ' Mahomet's solicitor general \ 4 7 The ' Mahometan Christianity ' to which he referred in Nazarenus was ' the gospel of Barnabas', a manuscript shown to him in Holland, which was in fact a forgery of not earlier than the fifteenth century written in Italian by a convert to Islam. Toland brought it to the notice of Prince Eugene of Savoy, to whom the owner presented it.48 Nazarenus also contained an account of an Irish manuscript of the four gospels in Latin, which was one of the manuscripts included in a celebrated theft from the royal library in Paris. The thief brought it to Holland and allowed Toland to study it for several months. It had been thought to be in Anglo-Saxon characters, but Toland saw that the characters were Irish and that a colophon in Irish showed that the manuscript had been written at Armagh by a monk named Maolbrigte. He informed 46

Leibniz to Toland, 30 Apr. 1709; Toland to Leibniz, 14 Feb. 1710 {Collection, ii, 383-94). 47 Toland, Tetradymus (1720), p. xix. 48 L. L. Rigg, The gospel of Barnabas (1907). The manuscript is now in the Austrian National Library.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

44

Harley, who bought it for £20; it is now in the British Museum.49 Toland's account of the manuscript was accompanied by a ' summary of the ancient Irish Christianity before the papal corruptions and usurpations, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester'. The Culdees—ceili De, a term which Toland renders ' espoused to God '—were active in the reform movement of the Irish church in the eighth and ninth centuries. Toland was apparently justified in criticising Bishops Stillingfleet and Lloyd, who had called them ' a fiction ' and ' a monkish dream '.50 This was accompanied by a vigorous disquisition on the historiography of Scotland. He criticised a number of historians on the ground that they put the Irish settlement in Scotland as late as 503 A.D. Stanihurst, says Toland, ' hated the Scots for being protestants, and so would neither allow them an early beginning nor an early Christianity. The great Ussher took up the cudgels on behalf of his uncle Stanihurst, not on the score of religion . . . but of family. . . . O'Flaherty, out of complaisance perhaps to some of his patrons, is unquestionably in the wrong '. Toland thought there was more to be said for the Scottish historians, Buchanan and Mackenzie, though he was not blind to the patriotic prejudices that led them to exaggerate the antiquity of the Irish presence in Scotland. Modern historians are not on Toland's side in the controversy.51 Nazarenus evoked a number of replies and was later translated into French. Toland's most eccentric work was Pantheistic on, written in Latin and published in 1720, the author being styled Janus Junius Eoganesius—Janus Junius the man of Inishowen. He gives a peculiar explanation for the pen-name: ' Janus Junius is the name that was given me at the font, but which for brevity's sake was quickly 49

The manuscript is Harleian 1802 and was written in 1138, though Toland tried to make out that it was much older (B.M., Cat. Ir. MSS, ii, 428-32). 50 Nazarenus, pt ii, p. 51. For the Culdees see Kenney, Sources, pp 468-71. Modern scholars render the term * clients of God ', but Toland's interpretation was also that of Charles O'Conor of Belanagare, Dissertation on the . . . Scots in North-Britain (1766), p. 34. W. Nicolson, Irish historical library (1724), pp xxix-xxxii, criticised Toland's rendering. 51 Nazarenus, pt ii, pp 43-50. The controversy was continued in O'Conor's edition of O'Flaherty's Ogygia vindicated (1775), which makes no reference to Toland. According to the most recent opinion, ' history knows nothing of any settlement of Scots in Scotland earlier than about 500' (G. Donaldson, The early Scottish monarchy, p. io, 1967).

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic

45

converted into John . . . I was called, however, by this name at first in the school roll every morning till the other boys made such game about it (to use this boyish phrase) that the master himself ordered John to be called for the future. Eoganesius is formed . . . from the peninsula where I was born.'52 In Pantheistic on a reasoned statement of the pantheist position was followed by a scheme for Socratic clubs. There was a regular liturgy for secret meeetings. With rubrics and responses, it had all the signs of a parody of church services and gave great offence. It was also taken as a model for masonic movements, particularly in France, where manuscript copies of Pantheisticon were widely circulated.53 In his last years Toland's chief support was from Molesworth, whose letters are in a tone of affectionate solicitude. But this support gave Toland little more than a bare subsistence in a carpenter's house at Putney, where his library was stacked on chairs.54 He was a martyr to rheumatism and in the spring of 1722 was attacked by jaundice. He died a few days later, leaving an epitaph, which seems never to have been committed to stone: ' Here lieth John Toland who, born near Derry in Ireland, studied young in Scotland and Holland, which, growing riper, he did also at Oxford. And, having more than once seen Germany, spent his age of manhood in and about London. He was an assertor of liberty, a lover of all sorts of learning, a speaker of Irish, but no man's follower or dependent. Nor could frowns or fortune bend him to decline from the ways he had chosen. His spirit is joined with its ethereal father, from whom it originally proceeded. His body, yielding likewise to nature, is laid again in the lap of its mother. But he is frequently to rise himself again, yet never to be the same Toland again. If you would know more of him, search his works.'55 He was a man of great gifts and remarkable courage, whose vanity and indiscretion made him a ready target for those who were 52

Toland to Bamham Goode, 30 Oct. 1720 (B.M., Add. MS 4295, f- 39v). 53 See A. Lantoine, Un precurseur da la franc-maqonnerie: John Toland, suivi de la traduction du Pantheisticon (1927); I. O. Wade, The clandestine organisation and diffusion of philosophic ideas in France from 1700 to 1J50 (1938). 54 Molesworth's letters are in Collection, ii, 484-94. The list of Toland's books is given in B.M., Add. MS 4295, f. 41. 55 English version in B.M., A d d . M S 4295, f. 76. T h e r e is also a Latin version, in which h e claimed to know ten languages.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

46

offended by his ideas, and lost him the support of many who were attracted by his opinions. He never lost the sense of his Irish background, though he reacted strongly against it. But he was also the product of renaissance humanism, the reformation and the scientific revolution. He combed Greek and Roman writers for rationalist theories of ethics and metaphysics. Giordano Bruno, the most daring of the sixteenth-century speculators, had a particular appeal for him.56 In the great political controversy of the seventeenth century he was wholeheartedly a commonwealthman. He lived in an age of transition, when traditional beliefs were giving way to scepticism, and he himself made a significant contribution to the process. His mode of thought and style of controversy have a modern ring in contrast to the arguments of some of his critics. He is clearly on our side of the dividing line that separates modern from medieval. His name became a symbol for the movement away from orthodoxy and respect for authority. Swift called him ' the great oracle of the anti-Christians'." Much of Berkeley's writing was directed against Toland's position. He does not refer to Toland by name, but attacks many of his characteristic arguments and ideas. It is not hard to identify the ' witty gentleman of our sect who was a great admirer of the ancient Druids': words put into the mouth of Alciphron who plays the sceptic in Berkeley's dialogue.58 Toland's writings became quite widely known in western Europe as successive translations appeared in the course of the eighteenth century. Much of the comment was hostile, particularly in Holland and Germany, but he became something of a hero to the French intelligentsia. Voltaire spoke of him as ' a proud and independent soul: born in poverty, he could have risen to fortune had he been more moderate \ 59 Holbach, who represented the extreme degree of scepticism in pre-revolutionary France, based much of his thought on Toland. Holbach translated the Letters to Serena and the mattermotion concept to be found in them has been described as having a 50

See ' An account of Jordan Bruno's book of the infinite universe and innumerable worlds' {Collection, i, 316-49). 57 ' Argument against abolishing Christianity ' in Swift, Works, ed. Temple Scott, iii, 18.

Berkeley, Works, ed. A. A. Luce and T. E, Jessop, iii, 176; G. A. Johnston, The development of Berkeley's thought, pp 36-40. 59 Quoted in N. L. Torrey, Voltaire and the English deists (1930), P- 1558

John Toland (16 70-1722), a Donegal Heretic

47

tremendous influence on him.60 Several of Toland's ideas were borrowed and developed by Diderot. 01 Interest in Toland has continued in both France and Germany, where a series of translations of his works and comments on his ideas has stretched into the present century. In the French Biographie generate more space is given to Toland than to Berkeley. Some recollections of him survived in his native district. There were local traditions in Inishowen of the Toland who ' had left the country, given up his religion and written against i t ' . He was ' Owen of the books ', through whose mouth it was the devil himself that spoke. The prophet of rationalism was without honour in his own country.62

V. W. Topazio, D'Holbach's moral philosophy (1956), pp 39-41. L. G. Crocker, The embattled philosopher (1955), pp 317, 320, 322. 62 W. J. Doherty, Inis-Owen arid Tirconnell (1895), p. 150.

60

G1

This page intentionally left blank

5 DUBLIN IN 1685 critical year for Dublin was 1685."* It was the year that Charles II died and James II came to the throne. The twenty-five years of Charles IFs reign had brought stability, prosperity and expansion within a predominantly protestant framework. The death of Charles, the accession of his catholic brother James, and the recall of the great duke of Ormond appeared to mark the end of an era. It was a year of anxiety for protestants and of fluctuating hopes for catholics. It was a time of transition that was to be followed by the uninhibitedly partisan policy of Tyrconnell, by the Jacobite war, and by the protestant liberation after William's victory at the Boyne. By 1685 Dublin was no mean city. It was much the largest town in Ireland, and in these islands was second only to London. There was general agreement that its population had greatly increased since 1660, but the estimates varied considerably. Church returns were an inadequate guide in a multi-religious society, and hearth-tax returns were not much better. Sir William Petty came to put his trust in the bills of mortality, statistics of burials compiled by the corporation and supplied weekly to subscribers. The returns available between 1682 and 1687 show that the burials were consistently over 2,000 a year — a figure which Petty multiplied by thirty to give a population of more than 60,000 for the city and its suburbs. His estimate was thought too high by critics who preferred houses to funerals as a basis for statistics: the number of houses would give a population of a little over 50,000.T Even at the lower figure the population had almost trebled since 1660.2 The rise in population was accompanied by a rapid spread of buildings outside the old city limits — to the

A

* This paper was originally delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, on 13 Feb. 1964, as a lecture in the O'Donnell series. 1 Burials were as follows: 1682 : 2,263; 1683-4 : 2,154; 1686-7 : 2,284; (figures for two summer quarters). According to Petty there were 6,400 houses and 29,735 hearths in 1685; eight persons were reckoned to a house. Petty, Econ. writings, ii. 496, 534, 588; Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 610-12; Willoughby, Observations on the bills of mortality (N.L.I. MS 911). 2 In 1660 poll-tax returns were 8,780, representing a population twice that number {Census of Ireland, c. I6$Q, p. 373).

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

50

north along the left bank of the river and in the grounds of St Mary's Abbey; to the west in the earl of Meath's liberty in the neighbourhood of the Coombe. By the end of Charles IFs reign more of the city was outside the walls than inside them.8 The dispersal of population led to fears for the security of the city and two military engineers were commissioned to report on the provision of adequate defences. This resulted in the production of two maps, the first made in 1673 by Bernard de Gomme and the second in 1685 by Thomas Phillips.4 These maps give an excellent idea of how the built-up area expanded during Charles IPs reign. Gomme's map of 1673 shows that there had already been considerable development to the east and south. Trinity College was now joined to the city by plots laid out along College Green and Dame Street. To the north of the College there were some quite large houses on Lazy Hill and both sides of the road towards Ringsend were lined with smaller houses. Stephen's Green had been laid out, and there were some houses facing it on the north and west sides. Further to the west was Aungier Street. Development had also taken place along St Kevin's Street and to the south of St Patrick's Cathedral along New Street, which is still so called after three centuries. But the map shows that by 1673 there had been little development north of the river. The King's inns was near the modern Four Courts. It was a large building, capable of holding King James's parliament. Most of the lawyers were protestants, but there were some catholic barristers of distinction, among them Richard Nagle, Stephen Rice, Toby Butler and Denis Daly, all of whom came to the fore under the Jacobite regime. In front of the King's Inns was a quay 300 yards long, the only one on the north side of the river. Below that was a large creek called the Pill, and then came slob land, behind which were the park and green of St Mary's Abbey. The parish church was St Michan's, and there were a few streets and lanes to either side of it — extensions of the old settlement of Oxmantown. By the time Phillips made his map in 1685 there had been rapid development on the north side. Arran Quay (named after Ormond's son), Ormond Quay and Jervis Quay (the modern Bachelor's Walk) had transformed that bank of the river. Charles Street, Capel Street Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 202. Gomme's map is in the Dartmouth collection at Greenwich; N.L.I, has a photostat. Phillips's map is in the Ormond collection in N.L.I. (MS 3137). 3

4

Dublin in 1685

51

and Jervis Street now ran northwards from the quays and were crossed by Mary Street and Abbey Street. The Pill had been filled in and the Ormond market stood on the site. Much of the north bank was still unreclaimed, but the corporation had recently ordered a survey of the strand from Mabbot's mill to the Furlong of Clontarf. This area was to be divided into 152 lots to be drawn for out of a hat by members of the corporation; each lot was to be given out on a reclamation lease at a rent of a shilling a year.5 The records of the corporation at this period are full of payments for the right to reclaim land and develop waste ground. The new areas suffered from water-logging and cellars were often flooded in winter.0 The timbered buildings known as cage-work were giving way to brick and stone. The chapter of St Patrick's in leasing an orchard on St Bride's Street specified that the lessees should build handsome convenient houses of brick and stone, three stories high and of like form with balconies.7 An important development on the south side was in the land of Tib and Tom, to the west of Graf ton Street. This was developed by a brewer named William Williams, who laid out William Street and built the Clarendon Market. The old Thingmote near St Andrew's Church had recently been leased out for levelling.8 A good indication of the progress of the city is to be found in the building of bridges. Before 1670 there was only one bridge — the old bridge on the site of the modern Father Mathew bridge above the Four Courts. In that year a new bridge was built 600 yards upstream. This innovation was a point of dispute in city politics; the opposition apparently encouraged the apprentices to riot and break up the bridge, which was consequently known as Bloody Bridge.;) By 1685 there were three more bridges. The first to be built was Essex Bridge, leading to Capel Street and called after the viceroy, Arthur Capel, earl of Essex. Higher up the river came Arran Bridge at the end of Arran Quay and Ormond Bridge joining Fishamble Street to Ormond Quay. The new bridges improved communication with the developing north side, but they were an obstruction to boats coming up the river. For most of 1685 Essex Bridge was kept open for boats and closed Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 328. N.L.I., MS 911, p. 19. 7 R.S.A.I. Jn., lxv. 34. 8 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 87, 261, 305. 9 Ibid., iv. 53; Cal. S.P. dom., i6yi, pp. 383, 388, 400. 5

6

52

War and Politics in Ireland,

1649-1730

to road traffic as the drawbridge was out of order.10 Ormond Bridge began as a wooden affair without a drawbridge, high enough to let boats pass under it. To prevent people falling over the side the sheriff of 1682 provided railings at the cost to himself of £14; in return he was given the privilege of putting up apple stalls on either side of the bridge. But the railings were pulled down and stolen so often that it was decided to scrap the wooden bridge altogether and put up a stone one with a drawbridge. The apple stalls were to stay and their proprietor was to be responsible for working the drawbridge. One of Ormond's last acts before he left early in 1685 was to place a stone with his name and the date on the new bridge.11 Leading citizens lived in many parts of the city, often side by side with shops. Phillips's map shows the Ussher and Molyneux houses near the old bridge and Domvile's house on St Bride Street. Petty lived in St George's Lane and Dudley Loftus on the Blind Quay. The modern Eustace and Anglesea Streets are called after the houses of those families. Charlemont and Clancarty houses were on College Green, with booksellers' shops close by. Lawyers lived in Hoey's Court near St Werburgh's and Swift was born there. Private houses as well as shops were distinguished by signs, among them being the black spread eagle, the holy lamb and the frying pan.12 As new buildings spread on the outskirts rents fell at the centre in Skinner Row and Castle Street.13 The north strand — a pleasant place for driving or walking — become fashionable and one of the best new houses there was leased to Lord Chancellor Porter for £100 a year.14 An English comment on the Dublin of this period was that most of the houses and streets were very regular and modern and the people as fashionable as anywhere. Most of the houses had gardens and the standard of cultivation met with Viceroy Clarendon's approval: * the sallet are very good and the roots generally much better than ours in England; asparagus here are very good, large and green \ 1 5 Dudley Loftus complained that clothes, equipages and house furniture were five times as expensive as they had been before the war. But, judging from a decorator's bill of 1685, Dublin craftsmen seem to have been very moderate in their charges. Among the items are 10

Monday book, pp. 150-1 (Gilbert MSS, Pearse St). Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 351; Cal. S.P. dom., 1684-5, P- 3°5« 12 Gilbert, Hist, of Dublin, ii. 117, 310, 321; iii. 18, 184; Ch. Ch. MSS. 18 N.L.I., MS 911, p. 26. 14 Clarendon corr., i. 368; ii. 141, 150. 15 Ibid., i. 403; Story, Impartial history, p. 91. 11

Dublin in 1685

53

' colouring the door in the dining-room and the balcony door, 65.; colouring the cornice in the drawing-room and the two doors and the bottom board, 14J.; whitening the dining-room ceiling and the drawing-room and parlour ceilings and the stairs, 95.' 18. Immigration was responsible for much of the increase in population. An act of 1662 for the encouragement of protestant strangers had a life of eleven years, during which a limited number of French, Dutch and Germans came to Dublin, most of them merchants, though there were also some mariners and craftsmen.17 The new corporation rules, introduced in 1672, provided that foreigners, as well others as protestants, who were merchants, artificers, seamen or otherwise skilled could become freemen of the city.18 A fair number of foreigners took advantage of this and by the end of Charles II's reign there was, in particular, a considerable Huguenot community. Twenty years earlier a chapel in St Patrick's had been given to them as a French church, and its records show the community's progress. In 1685 there were 29 baptisms and 33 burials recorded in the French church, which suggests that there were several hundred Huguenots.19 But the greater part of the immigration from outside Ireland was from England. It was estimated in 1687 tnat at least 35,000 English had come to Ireland in the previous fifteen years. Many of these had come to Dublin, where the woollen industry7 in particular had attracted immigrants from the English west country. One of the arrivals was Anthony Sharp, a Gloucestershire quaker who was attracted by the cheapness of Irish wool, settled in the liberties, and became one of the most prominent figures in Dublin life.20 By 1685 there were several thousand workers in Dublin engaged in spinning and carding wool. There was also a linen industry at Chapelizod, which made tapestry as well, and we hear of the newly established manufacture of crimson velvet.21 Gomme's map shows a glass house near the site of Westland Row station. The city also had a considerable catholic population, which would be needed to supply the labour force for a busy seaport and thriving Tanner letters, p. 485; N.L.I. Sarsfield papers. B.M., Eg. MS 77. 18 Ir. stat., iii. 205-12. 19 J. D. La Touche, Register of French conformed churches in Dublin. 20 N.L.I., MS 7795; A letter from a gentleman in Ireland, 1677; O. Goodbody, 'Anthony Sharp' in Dublin Hist. Rec, xiv. 12-19. 21 Clarendon corr., i. 321, 528; A. K. Leask, 'History of tapestrymaking' in R.S.A.I. ]n., lviii. 91. 16

17

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

54

centre of trade and manufacture. Petty estimated that the catholic population had more than doubled between 1671 and 1682. At the beginning of 1689 Tyrconnell said that half the population of Dublin was catholic, but in 1685 the proportion would certainly have been lower, perhaps about a third.22 Why did this extraordinary increase in population take place during the quarter of a century following the restoration? Several reasons can be suggested. In the first place Dublin was the administrative and legal focus of a great deal of activity at a time when the ownership of most of Ireland was at stake and courts and offices were busy with rival claims of catholics and protestants. It is true that parliament had not met since 1666, but commissions of one kind or another were constantly occupied with the land settlement, and the viceroys were in residence for most of the time. Ormond kept a brilliant court and set a standard of expenditure that must have been good for trade. Many of the upper classes had town houses as well as country seats. A new and socially ambitious class of rising gentry looked to Dublin for skilled craftmanship and imported consumer goods. It was estimated that the amount of such goods ' must be prodigious to supply not only the necessities but the vanity and luxury of so opulent and populous a kingdom, the rate of whose expenses was in no way regulated by the instinct of thrift \ 2 3 Its position in the middle of the east coast and a network of roads gave Dublin an advantage over the southern ports as a distributing centre for the country. The general trade of Ireland had increased and Dublin had the largest share of it. Petty estimated that in 1685 Dublin was responsible for nearly forty per cent of the total customs revenue.24 It is remarkable that it should have established this position in spite of a very bad harbour. There was a bar at the mouth of the LifFey, and ships had to moor outside Ringsend in the Salmon Pool or even further out at Pool Beg. Passengers were landed at Ringsend and driven at a furious pace across the sands in low-backed cars known as Ringsend coaches. Cargoes were unloaded into gabbards or barges and brought up the LifTey at high tide. From Gomme's map it appears that the river was quite impassable at low water. He marks a low-water depth 22

23

Petty, o p . cit., ii. 4 9 8 ; B . M . , A d d . M S 28053, f. 386.

G. Phillips, The interest of England in the trade of Ireland, 1689,

p. 22. 24

Political arithmetic, 1685/6, by Sir W.P. (P.R.O., S.P. Ire. 63/351, ff. 319-20); this does not appear among Petty's published writings.

Dublin in 1685

55

of only one foot at a point opposite Trinity College. Cargoes had to be brought up to the custom house just below Essex Bridge. Most of the trade was with England, coal, drapery, hops and tobacco being among the largest imports. Much of the coal came from Whitehaven, whose colliery masters kept a fleet of sixty ships to supply the Dublin market. In all, over 30,000 tons of coal was imported in 1685. Dublin itself seems to have been the biggest consumer, and Petty used this as a gauge of the increasing prosperity of the city. The largest items of export to England were wool and friezes, which were sent to west country ports such as Bideford and Barnstaple. Chester was at this time chiefly used for the passenger ?.«nd packet trade, and Liverpool had eclipsed it for general commercial traffic. There was a considerable export of friezes to France and the Low Countries, but the legitimate export of wool was restricted to England. Instructions of 1685 renewed a ' strict and severe prohibition ' on the transport of wool to foreign parts and deplored the frequent evasion of the rule. Direct imports from foreign countries included timber from the Baltic, and spices, wine and oranges from Spain. Brandy, wine and salt were the chief imports from France.25 In 1681 the act had lapsed that imposed restrictions on direct Irish imports from the plantations, and in the following years large quantities of tobacco were imported directly from America. After the renewal of the act in the summer of 1685 this trade was drastically reduced. But the merchants seem to have been forewarned, as the Dublin figures for direct tobacco imports reached a peak in that year. The next year they had dropped to nothing.26 One of the restoration viceroys observed that much of Dublin's trade was carried in Dutch ships. They were more suited to the choppy Irish Sea than English ships, and this was given as the reason for using two Dutch-built ships as mail boats.27 Dublin Bay was considered highly dangerous and ships were often wrecked. There were two lighthouses on Howth Head for which dues were at first collected 25

J. U. Nef, Rise of the English coal industry, i. 71, 392; Cal. S.P. dom., 1685, p. 112. Detailed figures for exports and imports of the chief Irish ports for 1683-6 are in B.M., Add. MS 4759. I am grateful to Dr L. M. Cullen for drawing my attention to this MS and for supplying further information on the trade of Dublin. 26 L. A. Harper, The English navigation laws, p. 397; the acts were 22 and 23 Charles II, c. 26 and 1 James II, c. 17. 27 Essex letters, i. 294; V. Barbour, 'Dutch and English merchant shipping in the seventeenth century' in Econ. Hist. Rev., ii. 276.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

56

from all shipping, foreign vessels being charged double. The contractors were then given £500 a year to compensate them for letting English ships off the charge.28 Gomme called the southern Howth lighthouse the Candlestick. He also showed on his map a perch or warning pole near the tip of the South Bull. Another hazard was the indiscriminate excavation for ballast. A proposal of 1685 for the establishment of a ballast office referred to the great damage done in this way to the harbour ' which occasions the driving and rolling of great quantities of loose sand into the main channel to the spoil of the harbour and the hazard of many tall ships running aground \ 2 9 The centre of government administration was the castle, which was also the ordinary residence of the viceroy. With its four towers enclosing a clutter of residential and administrative buildings and a forest of chimneys—125 in all — the castle was the subject of constant criticisms. There were two serious fires there in Charles II's reign. Even after the damage had been repaired, James's first viceroy complained that it was ' the worst lodging a gentleman ever lay in: never comes a shower of rain but it breaks into the house, so there is perpetual tiling and glazing \ 3 0 The privy council met in the council chamber in Essex Street next to the Custom House. The Four Courts, now in the last stages of decay, were in Christ Church yard. The only government building of distinction was the new hospital for old soldiers at Kilmainham, which was almost ready at the beginning of 1685, though the chapel was still unfinished and there was no tower. The pride of the corporation was the new Tholsel, or municipal building, which stood opposite the Four Courts at the corner of Skinner's Row. It appears in Malton's views of Dublin as a somewhat baroque building; it was 100 feet high, with a cupola, a clock, and, set in niches in the front wall, oversize statues of Charles I and Charles II. The statues still survive and can be seen at forbiddingly close quarters in Christ Church crypt. No expense was spared on the embellishment and furnishing of the interior. The walls were panelled in Danzig oak and the chairs upholstered with Turkey work.31 Two separate chambers were provided, one for the senior members — the lord mayor, aldermen and those who had held office as sheriffs — Cal. S.P. dom., I6JI, p. 479; ibid., 1676-j, pp. 58-9. Ibid., 1685, pp. 364-5. 80 Petty, op. cit., i. 143; Clarendon corr., ii. 47. 31 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. xxxiii. 28

29

Dublin in 1685

57

and the other for the ninety-six members of the common council. By a system of election peculiar to Dublin the common councillors were chosen every three years by the guilds. The corporation had a keen sense of its own importance as representing the second city in his majesty's dominions. Since the restoration the mayor had become lord mayor and the ceremonial was closely modelled on that of London. The inauguration of the new lord mayor was a colourful affair, with gowns of violet and scarlet and suitable renderings from the city musicians.32 In 1685 the lord mayor was Sir Abel Ram, who was both a city financier and also a member of the new landed gentry. He had succeeded to the Wexford estates acquired by his grandfather, who was bishop of Ferns. At the same time he was a banker with premises in Castle Street and had for several years been master of the goldsmiths' guild. The municipal records show a constant, but rather ineffective, concern for the sanitary and other public needs of the growing city. The time-honoured system of water supply from the Dodder had to be extended in Charles IPs reign. A large cistern was set up at St James's gate, from which leaden pipes were laid along Thomas Street; when the money ran short pipes of elm wood were used instead. There was a marble conduit in the corn market with the arms of the city and an inscription in letters of gold ' John Smith, lord mayor, 1678 '. The needs of the north bank were met by laying a pipe over the old bridge. In spite of these efforts there were complaints of scarcity, and strict orders were passed against mill races, the diversion of supply, and private selling of water. Municipal water rates were fixed, but the collection was farmed out to a contractor.33 Municipal fire-engines were provided in 1670 and orders for hooks, ladders and buckets in every parish. There were many chimney fires; orders were passed in 1685 for the regular sweeping of chimneys, and a fine of twenty shillings was prescribed whenever a chimney went on fire. There was no system of public lighting; every fifth householder was supposed to hang out a lantern between six and nine on dark nights in the winter. The paving of the streets was the subject of bitter complaint; bad workmanship was blamed for their condition and there were proposals for a paviers' corporation on the London model. 82 P.R.O.I., 33

MS M2549. Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iv. 413, 461-2; v. 345, 490; Observations of Thomas Dingley (N.L.I., MS 392); H. F. Berry, 'The water supply of indent Dublin' in R.S.A.I. Jn., xxi. 557-73.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

58

One of the troubles was brewers' drays —- slide-cars with iron runners in place of wheels — which broke up the pavement. The corporation licensed hackney coaches, fifty being considered enough to serve the needs of the city and liberties. The licence fees were earmarked for the provision of a workhouse. Beadles were appointed ' for the prevention of the many idle beggars wherewith all parts of the city have been filled'. There were two pest houses on the island of Clontarf to deal with infectious diseases.34 There was what was called a hospital in Back Lane, but it seems to have been a mere repository for the old and feeble, and there was no regular provision for the care of the sick. The practice of medicine in Dublin and for seven miles round it was controlled by the College of Physicians, the chief begetter of which had been Dr John Stearne, the first professor of medicine in Trinity College. In 1685 Patrick Dun was its president for the fifth year in succession. The charter of the College of Physicians imposed no religious bar and several catholics had been elected to fellowships during Charles IFs reign. Surgeons were less highly esteemed and were grouped with barbers in the Fraternity of Barbers and Chirurgeons of the guild of St Mary Magdalene. James II was soon to give them a new charter, which added periwig makers to the mixture.35 The guild system was still an important feature of the city's life. The guild of the Holy Trinity, or merchants' guild, tried with qualified success to maintain a monopoly of trade. By the end of Charles IPs reign this guild had more than 400 brethren. They kept a common cellar and warehouse in Winetavern Street to facilitate their dealings with the outside world. Oaths were prescribed that restricted membership to protestants, but catholics could become quarter brothers and this gave them some of the advantages of guild membership. There were many craft guilds with similar rules. Among them were the goldsmiths, the tallow chandlers, and St Luke's guild of cutlers, painter-stainers and stationers. The latest addition was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guild of saddlers, coach and coach-harness makers, bridle makers and wheelwrights.36 The leisure of Dubliners was well provided for. There were tennis courts in Winetavern Street and St John's Lane; the remains of the Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, iv. 493, 504; v. 32, 205, 207, 252-3, 357. J. D . H . Widdess, History of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, pp. 1-32. 86 J. J. Webbe, Guilds of Dublin; Cal S,P. dom., i6jJ-8, p. 451. 84

85

Dublin in 1685

59

latter are still to be seen. There was a magnificent bowling green north of the river to the west of Queen Street and a bowling alley near the Blind Quay on the south side. Plays were performed in the theatre in Smock Alley, which was the responsibility of the master of the revels, who was at pains to point out how much at a loss he was from maintaining a company of excellent actors. Stephen's Green was laid out with trees and the corporation had just ordered sixty-nine trees to be planted in Oxmantown Green. For thirsty citizens there were i,180 alehouses supplied by ninety-one brewers.37 Dublin University had made a good recovery from its troubles in the middle of the century. It had increased its income as a result of the restoration land-settlement and the general prosperity of the country. The fellows of the college included some able men. The provost, whose post was worth almost £400 a year, was Dr Robert Huntingdon, who had recently replaced his better-known predecessor, Narcissus Marsh.38 Marsh and Huntingdon were both oriental scholars of distinction. Swift's tutor, St George Ashe, and Edward Smith were both prominent members of the Dublin Philosophical Society and both later became bishops. A new fellow elected in 1685 was John Hall, a Kerryman who championed the Irish language and was commended as having ' no equal for protecting the Gaels and improving their ways \ 39 The term after his election Hall was made keeper of the library. The growing numbers had already made both the chapel and the dining hall inadequate in Marsh's time. By the end of 1684 a new chapel had been built and consecrated: the painted and gilded organ had cost £120. The student body must have numbered nearly 400. Marsh had earlier put it at 340 and said it was increasing rapidly each year. The academic ye?tr 1684-5 was a peak year with 101 matriculations. Among them was a future provost, Benjamin Pratt. Swift was in his junior sophister year.40 Protestant schooling was quite well provided for by the two cathedral schools, the new foundation of King's Hospital and a number of private teachers. St Patrick's School seems to have been flourishing. No less than twelve of those who matriculated in 1684-5 were educated under the rod of Mr Torway, its headmaster. King's Hospital "Gilbert, op. cit., i. 53, 157; Cal. S.P. dom., 1682, p. 621; Cal. anc. rec.38Dublin, v. 212, 321; Petty, op. cit., i. 146. Clarendon corr., i. 256. G. Quin, 'MS ... for John Hall', in Hermathena, liii. 127. 40 Stubbs, History of the University of Dublin, p. 114; T.C.D., Muniment Room MSS and Registers, 39

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

60

in Oxmantown, which had absorbed the old city free school, seems to have been primarily designed for poor boys, nominated by benefactors. The most successful of the private teachers was William Birkbeck, eight of whose pupils matriculated in that year. George Toilet, a member of the Philosophical Society, had a high reputation as a mathematical teacher.41 Much less is known of catholic education, but we hear a little later on of Patrick Bourke, teacher of mathematics, who asked the Jacobite corporation to establish a free school for teaching that subject on a vocational basis.42 The centre of intellectual life in the city was the Philosophical Society, which in 1685 had Sir William Petty as president and William Molyneux as secretary. Meetings were held in the Crow's Nest off Dame Street, where a surprising variety of subjects was discussed. The items for 1685 ranged from the dissection of a ' monstrous double cat' to the testing of pulvis fulminans, a kind of gunpowder plus. Most of the members were of settler stock, but the names of Foley, Keogh and Houlaghan are racier of the soil. At leasi one member, Mark Bagot, was a catholic. The society had international links. It corresponded with the Oxford Society and the London Royal Society, which published Dublin papers in its proceedings. One of the members was a Dutch doctor named Jacob Sylvius who had settled in Dublin and received the M.D. degree from the university. His magnum opus, Novissima idea de febribus, was published in Dublin in 1686. Sylvius was a friend of the celebrated Peter Bayle, with whom the society exchanged greetings. At the same time the society took an active interest in Ireland and things Irish. Among the proceedings of 1685 was an account by St George Ashe of a ' strange flowing back of the river Shannon', a report from Edward Smith on the petrifying qualities of Lough Neagh, and a communication about the discovery of cremation urns in county Cork.48 The intellectual curiosity of the society was matched by the number of booksellers and publishers. The oddest of the books published in 1685 were the rival almanacs of Bourke and Dr Whalley. In this year also appeared the short-lived Dublin Newsletter, printed by J. Ray on College Green for Robert Thornton at the Leather 41

Lawlor, Fasti of St Patrick's, p. 254; F. R. Falkiner, Foundation ... of Charles II, p. 70; C. McNeill, Tanner letters, p. 496. 42 Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, v. 462. 43 Minutes and register of the Philosophical Society (B.M., Add. MS 4811).

Dublin in 1685

61

Bottle in Skinner Row.44 Robert Boyle sent over from London the sheets of the Irish bible to be bound and issued in Dublin, where printers had no means of printing the Irish language.45 Religion played an important part in the life of the city. The church of Ireland was recovering from the wars and the effects of Cromwell's iconoclasm. During Charles IPs reign St Patrick's cathedral was reroofed and provided with a new altar resplendent in paint and gilt; a new organ was completed in 1685. In the same year a contract was made to restore the choir pews and the archbishop's throne with Danzig oak and to floor the choir with black and white marble.46 Christ Church also spent heavily on improvements to the choir and had recently invested in a four-faced chiming clock. The two cathedrals joined in raising money for new sets of bells, six for Christ Church and eight for St Patrick's. Both were cast by the same founder from obsolete canon presented by Charles II. The Christ Church tenor bell tolled curfew each night, with the result that by 1685 it was badly cracked and had to be replaced in the following year. Cooperation between the cathedrals extended to sharing a choir.47 There was one new parish church, St Andrew's, which was called the round church, though in Gomme's map it looks more like a turnip. When Lord Clarendon arrived as viceroy he was able to assure the archbishop of Canterbury that the Dublin churches were in very good order and for the most part very well served and ' infinitely crowded' with worshippers.48 The catholic church had its ups and downs in Charles II's reign. Even during the popish plot agitation there were protestant complaints that the mass houses which before were kept in private ' are now as publicly frequented as our churches'. This was followed by a drive to prohibit masses and expel Jesuits and dignitaries of the catholic church.49 In 1685 the catholic archbishop was Patrick Russell, who. had succeeded Peter Talbot. Russell had often had to go underground for self-protection. Another of the Dublin catholic clergy was singled out for his courage in remaining continually in the heart of the 41

N.L.I, has many of the issues for 1685. R. E. Maddison, ' Robert Boyle and the Irish bible' in John Rylands Library Bull, xli. 80-101 (1958). *QR.S.A.I. Jn., xl. 229; lxv. 49-72; Mason, History of St Patrick's, 45

p. 202. 47

48 49

Ch. Ch. MSS; R.S.A.I. ]n., xl. 155-9; Petty> °P- cit., i. 164. Clarendon corr., i. 407. Cal, S.P. dom.y 1679-80, pp. 18, 113.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

62

city.50 The principal catholic church was in Francis Street; it had been rebuilt by the Franciscans on the site of an old convent, but in the circumstances of the popish plot agitation had been handed over to the secular clergy. 1685 transformed the situation for catholics. During that summer Archbishop Russell held a meeting in Dublin of the bishops of his province, and they requested the king to establish the earl of Tyrconnell in such authority as might secure them in the exercise of their functions. But the catholic church was still not fully emancipated. Throughout that year the clergy refrained from wearing clerical dress in public. In the following year King James authorised the bishops to wear long black cassocks and cloaks, but they were still not to wear pectoral crosses in public.51 Up to the time of Charles II's death the official attitude to catholic churches was that they were not allowed, and that at most their existence might be winked at. A priest who preached publicly in a surplice was sent for by the protestant Archbishop Marsh and warned not to repeat his misdemeanour.52 Archbishop Marsh had an equally intolerant attitude to protestant dissenters and warned them not to use their public meeting houses.53 There were several of these and the protestant dissenters of Dublin seem to have formed a large community. The New Row and Wood Street meeting houses had two ministers each. They, and their congregations, seem to have been of the English puritan tradition. The Capel Street meeting house belonged to the synod of Ulster and evidently catered for the Scottish variety of presbyterian.54 There were about 200 quaker families in Dublin, divided into three meetings; one near Wormwood (or Ormond) gate, one in Bride Street, and one in Meath Street, where a new meeting house had just been completed. Quakers also fell under the disapproval of Archbishop Marsh, who had recently committed Anthony Sharp and others to the Marshalsea prison. Of all the protestant groups the quakers were to enjoy most favour under James II. 55 Renehan's collections on Ir. church hist., i. 229-30; Moran, Spicil. Oss., ii. 270. 51 N. Donnelly, Short hist, of Dublin parishes, ii. 32; Renehan, i. 231; Clarendon corr.y i. 395. 52 #. M. C. Ormonde MSS, N.S., vii. 314. 53 Ibid., p. 315. 54 T. Witherow, Historical and literary memorials of presbyterians in Ireland, i. 60, 81, 127; Records of presbyterian church. 35 J. Rutty, Rise . . . of quakers, pp. 149-50; information supplied by Mrs. O. Goodbody 50

Dublin in 1685

63

The unexpected death of Charles II in February 1685 came as a shock to the protestants of Dublin. They grieved over Ormond's recall and feared the worst — that Richard Talbot would be his successor. The following months were ominous, but not disastrous. Two reliable protestants, the archbishop of Armagh and Lord Granard, held the government while the names of various Englishmen were canvassed for the lord lieutenancy. But Talbot soon came over with his new Tyrconnell title and a roving commission to meddle with the army. Catholic commissions were given and protestant militiamen disarmed. Nerves were fraying, and in October 1685 there were riots in the Dublin streets; the constables were overpowered and strong action by the military was resorted to before order was restored.50 The year ended more cheerfully with the arrival of the new viceroy, Clarendon, the king's protestant brother-in-law. But the relief was short-lived and the situation for protestants deteriorated rapidly. The Dublin of 1685 was a prosperous, and in some ways a civilised, city. But its prosperity was founded on too narrow a basis and was too greatly dependent on the support of an English government. It was the capital of a predominantly catholic country, but its administration was exclusively protestant, and catholics were a small minority among its merchant and professional classes. Its strength had lain in the close links between its leading elements and the ruling classes of Ireland and England. When those links were broken and when the government of Charles and Ormonde was replaced by the unsympathetic policy of James and the active hostility of Tyrconnell, a time of trouble began for Dublin. Flight and fear were to be the experience of many of its protestant citizens until deliverance came and they were able to resume, with an added intolerance, their former predominance in the life of the city.

36

Cal. S.P. dom., 1685, P- 375-

This page intentionally left blank

6 THE JACOBITE PARLIAMENT OF 1689 I.

INTRODUCTORY

For most of its long life the Irish parliament was a body that met intermittently and exercised little influence. For nearly three centuries its legislative power was limited by Poynings' law, which required that every bill should have been approved in advance by the king and his English council. During the middle ages the parliament represented only the Anglo-Norman colony; in the eighteenth century it represented only the Protestants. In the twenty-five years of Charles II's reign there was only a single parliament and, though there was no legal bar to Catholic membership, in fact no Catholic sat in the house of commons during this parliament; for the last eighteen years of the reign it did not meet at all. James II's parliament of 1689 aroused much more interest than preceding parliaments had done. It was predominantly Catholic in composition and included both Gaelic and ' old English ' elements; it was in this way more representative of the majority of the nation than any other Irish parliament, though it was no more democratic than were English parliaments of the period. Its house of commons represented counties and cities or boroughs—two members for each county and two for each city or borough, irrespective of size. The electorate for the counties were the holders of freehold land worth forty shillings a year. The electorate for cities and boroughs depended on the terms of particular charters. In the largest group the mayor and council were the electoral body, but in a number of boroughs the freemen were also included, and occasionally the inhabitants as a whole. From Charles II's time onwards there were 150 two-member constituencies—thirty-two counties, 117 cities or boroughs (some of them very small indeed) and the University of Dublin. A remarkable diversity of opinion has been expressed about the Irish parliament of 1689. Particularly during the nineteenth century it was the subject of much controversial writing. Thomas Davis praised it highly in articles that were later republished by Gavan Duffy under the title of The patriot parliament of 1689. It was fiercely attacked by Macaulay as ' deficient in all the qualities a legislature ought to possess.' Froude condemned it as unconstitutional and ill-timed. Lecky rallied to its defence; some of its proceedings he found regrettable but understandable, others he praised as liberal and enlightened. In its own day the parliament was criticised from all points of view. Williamite writers naturally challenged its authority and castigated its proceedings. To them it was the ' pretended parlia-

66

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

ment,' an unconstitutional gathering of the rebellious supporters of a fallen king. But contemporary Jacobite accounts were hardly less unfavourable; they criticised it as ill-timed, as prejudicial to King James's prospects, and as failing to meet the demands of Irish Catholics. We have, unfortunately, very incomplete material to help us to decide between these different opinions. The Williamite parliament of 1695 ordered the proceedings of the Jacobite parliament to be destroyed. We are therefore dependent for our information on the Williamite accounts that were published while the parliament was in session or soon after; on the memoirs compiled by King James's secretaries; on the correspondence of the French ambassador, M. d'Avaux; and on the opinions of the Irish chroniclers, Plunkett and O'Kelly. The fullest version of the proceedings is given by William King, later Protestant archbishop of Dublin. He is a hostile witness, but he was in Dublin at the time and some of his evidence is corroborated by other accounts. The most objective of the Williamite material is that which gives the names of the members and the text of many of the acts.1 II.

THE SUMMONING OF PARLIAMENT

The parliament was closely linked to the events of the English revolution of 1688. James II, betrayed by his English army and unable to resist the invading forces of William of Orange, fled to France in December of that year. The greater part of Ireland remained loyal to him. Tyrconnell, the Catholic viceroy, showed much energy in organising an army and suppressing dissident Protestants. He assured his king that he would find a welcome in Ireland, and James after some hesitation accepted the invitation and reached Kinsale on 12 March 1689. On 24 March he arrived in Dublin and next day issued a proclamation summoning parliament for 7 May. The promptness of this decision calls for some comment. Ever since the accession of James II in 1685 there had been a demand on the part of Catholics for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation which had been passed by an all-Protestant parliament in 1662 and 1665. The declared object of these acts was to carry out Charles II's promises and to combine the reinstatement of Catholics with the preservation of Cromwellian interests. In practice they produced a settlement heavily weighted on the Protestant side and regarded by Catholics as highly unsatisfactory. While he was still on the throne of England James had given a number of assurances that the settlement would not be altered, but the demand continued and with it a call for a parliament to alter the settlement and pass other measures of Catholic relief. Tyrconnell had paved the way for such a parliament by remodelling the borough corporations which 1. The first three items in the list of sources on p. 82.

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 67 would return most of the members. This was done by the quo warranto procedure (of which Charles II had made effective use in England); the crown demanded the surrender of town and city charters and issued fresh ones, appointing new members of the corporations by name. Previously the corporations had been wholly Protestant; now they all had Catholic majorities, although in a number of them, notably Belfast, there were a substantial number of Protestants. Members of corporations were, of course, not necessarily resident in the towns. Further preparations for holding a parliament in 1688 included the drafting of bills, among them one for the modification (not the repeal) of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. James's English advisers were opposed to upsetting an arrangement which was regarded as safeguarding the English interest in Ireland, and no parliament had been sanctioned by the time of William's invasion. The English revolution and the backing it found among Protestants in Ireland lent force to the Catholic demand for a radical change of the land-settlement. It could be argued that such a change would strengthen support for the crown as well as meeting the claims of dispossessed Catholic landowners. In his book The state of the Protestants William King states that when parliament was summoned and the election writs sent out Tyrconnell sent letters with them recommending the persons whom he favoured, and that in most cases these persons were returned by the compliance of the mayors and sheriffs in boroughs and counties. Such methods of packing a parliament were by no means unprecedented, and King's account is probable enough. Such references as remain in corporation books to the return of members to this parliament say nothing of any alternative candidates. There is in fact no mention of any contest except in Dublin city, where King says that Gerard Dillon, ' a most furious Papist,' failed to be elected because he had purchased an estate under the Act of Settlement and was therefore presumed likely to oppose the repeal of the act. The list of the commons is set out in full in Thomas Davis's The patriot parliament from a reprint of a contemporary pamphlet and is of considerable interest. It shows that 230 members were returned out of the full quota of 300; there were no county representatives for Donegal, Fermanagh and Londonderry, and a number of boroughs, mainly in Ulster, failed to make returns.1 King says that there were six Protestants in the house. The two of whom he approved were the representatives of the University of Dublin, Sir John Meade and Joseph Coghlan, who had been with difficulty prevailed upon to stand:' the university must choose and it could not stand with their honour to choose Papists'—a reflection which suggests that Tyrconnell allowed the university some liberty of election. Davis quotes King's estimate of the Protestant representation and regrets that he did not give the 1. box the list of members see Appendix A.

68

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

other names. A contemporary pamphlet says there were only five Protestants in the commons: Sir John Meade, Joseph Coghlan, Sir Thomas Crosby, Arthur [Brownlow], and Jeremy Donovan. Sir Thomas Crosby belonged to a well-known Kerry family and sat for that county; subsequently he had some difficulty in explaining away his action to the Wilhamite authorities. Arthur Brownlow was returned for Armagh county, but withdrew before the end of the session. He had an unusual background. His real name was Chamberlain, and on his father's side he belonged to an ' old English ' family of county Louth. He inherited the estate and name of his mother's father, Sir William Brownlow of Lurgan, who had married an O'Doherty lady from Inishowen. Arthur Brownlow had been one of the few sheriffs approved of by Tyrconnell out of those selected by the previous viceroy, Lord Clarendon. He had a good knowledge of Irish and was a collector of manuscripts, his principal treasure being the Book of Armagh. Jeremy Donovan sat for the borough of Baltimore, county Cork. He was the head of one of the branches of a well-known Gaelic family, but had become a Protestant; the Williamite government, after starting proceedings against him, decided to spare him on this ground. The sixth Protestant was Sir William Ellis, an Englishman who was Tyrconnell's secretary. He was one of four remarkable brothers who were, respectively, a Protestant bishop, a Catholic bishop, a Williamite official, and a Jacobite official. He sat for the borough of St. Johnstown, county Longford. Of the Catholic members, more than two-thirds bore English names, and the house was much more representative of the ' old English ' than of the Gaelic Irish. Most of the well-known ' Pale ' families—such as Fitzgerald, Dillon and Nugent—were represented. The Gaelic members included Charles O'Kelly, who sat for county Roscommon and later wrote a history of the war under the curious title of the Destruction of Cyprus. Two O'Reillys sat for county Cavan; an O'Brien and a MacNamara represented county Clare. One of the Tyrone members was Gordon O'Neill, Sir Phelim's son. Other famous Gaelic names are scattered through the lists. The house contained some able lawyers, including Sir Richard Nagle (who was elected speaker), Terence MacDonagh and Sir Toby Butler; but a generation excluded from public life was naturally lacking in parliamentary experience. Two leading soldiers, Patrick Sarsfield and Justin MacCarthy, were also among the members. Dr. Alexis Stafford, who sat for a Wexford borough, was a remarkable priest whom James made dean of Christ Church and a Master in Chancery; he died on the field of Aughrim. The composition of the house of lords is variously estimated by contemporary accounts, some of which include peers who were summoned but did not attend. The most noticeable feature of the house was that the bishops were those of the Church of Ireland and not of the Catholic Church. This was severely criticised by Charles

The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 69 0'Kelly, who attributed James's decision to a determination to do nothing for the restoration of the Catholic Church that would offend English Protestant opinion. Four Protestant bishops—Meath, Ossory, Limerick and Cork—took their seats; three others were still in Ireland, including the archbishop of Armagh, but were excused for age or infirmity; the rest had fled to England. The ablest of those who attended was Anthony Dopping, bishop of Meath, who in effect acted as leader of the opposition. The ' Exact list,' published in London in the autumn of 1689, contains the names of thirty-one lay lords; most of them belonged t o ' old English ' families, but Gaelic Ireland was represented by Lords Iveagh, Clanmaliere, Clancarty and others. There were five Protestant lay lords— Granard, Longford, Barrymore, Howth and Rosse; the last of these was married to Lady TyrconnelTs daughter. By the time that parliament met on 7 May it was known that James's forces were faced with strong resistance from Protestants in Deny and Enniskillen. Much of the criticism directed against the parliament was to the effect that it was highly imprudent to to allow parliamentary debates to divert attention from the pressing need to gain control of these intransigent Ulster towns. The session was held in the King's Inns, a former Dominican convent near the present Four Courts. It is not known why it was not held in Chichester House on College Green, where other parliaments of the period met; it may have been because it was in a poor state of repair. James himself attended, wearing his robes and a crown newly made in Dublin. The personal appearance of an English king at the opening of an Irish parliament was without a parallel, and remained so until 1921 when George V opened the parliament in Belfast. James's speech is quoted in full by Davis. Its chief theme was liberty of conscience, which James declared himself determined to establish by law. The good of the nation, the improvement of trade and the relief of those injured by the Act of Settlement were also included in the programme. The speech in general, and in particular the failure to promise actual repeal of the Act of Settlement, must have disappointed his hearers, although there was no note of criticism in their reply. III.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

The legality of the parliament has been hotly disputed. The Williamite view was that James was no longer king of England and consequently no longer king of Ireland, the latter being ' united and inseparably annexed to the imperial crown of England.' The Jacobite view was that William was a usurper and that James continued to be king of both England and Ireland. The parliament has also been criticised on the ground that it did not comply with the provisions of Poynings' law, which required the proposed legislation to be certified into England and returned under the great seal of

70

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

England; James's seal had gone to the bottom of the Thames. This objection may be regarded as technical. Poynings' law was not designed for a situation in which the king was in Ireland and could give his personal sanction on the spot for the holding of an Irish parliament. The parliament which James summoned in Dublin had a better theoretical claim to be considered legitimate than had the Williamite parliament in London. Which was the pretended parliament and who were the rebels would depend on the outcome of the war. The spirit of Poynings' law was observed to the extent that the legislative programme was scrutinised in advance by James and his council; the latter (curiously enough) included the French ambassador, M. d'Avaux, whose despatches refer to these preliminary consultations. The first bill to be approved by the council was, naturally, an acknowledgment of James as rightful king and a condemnation of all opposition to him. The act of which Davis approved most highly was that declaring that the parliament of England did not bind Ireland and prohibiting appeals in Irish cases being brought before English courts.1 It had long been argued whether English laws were enforceable in Ireland. The subject had been raised in the negotiations between the confederate Catholics and Charles I, and the question had become more acute during the reign of Charles II, in which restrictions were imposed on Irish trade by English acts. The Declaratory Act of James's parliament in 1689 was the forerunner of the long argument begun by Molyneux and continued by Swift and Grattan for the right of Ireland to be independent of English laws and courts. Molyneux and Swift ignored the expression that the parliament of 1689 had given to this claim. Grattan did not overlook it, though he put his own interpretation on it: the Irish Catholics, he said, should not be reproached for fighting under King James's banner, ' when we recollect that before they entered the field they extorted from him a Magna Carta, a British constitution.' The act declared that Ireland had always been a kingdom distinct from that of England; its people had never sent representatives to a parliament held in England, but had their laws made in their own parliament. No English acts were ever binding in Ireland unless they had been passed into law by an Irish parliament: ' yet of late times (especially in times of distraction) some have pretended that acts of parliament passed in England, mentioning Ireland, were binding in Ireland.' This idea was declared to be against justice and natural equity, oppressive to the people and destructive of the fundamental constitution. It was therefore prescribed that no English act, even though it mentioned Ireland, should be binding unless it was made into law by the Irish parliament. The act also prohibited the practice of preferring appeals from the court of king's 1. For the text of this act see Appendix B.

The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 71 bench in Ireland to the corresponding court in England, and substituted an Irish court of appeal. Appeals from the high court of chancery in Ireland to the English house of lords were also prohibited. James is said to have regarded the Declaratory Act as reflecting on his own prerogative and only to have assented to it because of the pressure exerted by his Irish subjects. He refused to agree to the repeal of Poynings' law, which had evoked different responses in its chequered career, but since Charles I's reign had been resented by Irish Catholics. D'Avaux's correspondence suggests that before the parliament met James had been persuaded to agree to a modification of Poynings' law by which proposed legislation should be scrutinised by the viceroy but not sent over in advance to England. According to the English pamphlets a bill for the repeal of Poynings' law was introduced into the commons on 15 May but did not reach the report stage till 21 June, when a spokesman for the court stated that the king insisted on royal approval being given in advance before legislation was passed by the house of commons. This would nullify the object of the bill. The account continues: ' it is ordered to be recommitted, and the house inclined to be as free as the parliament in England.' No further reference is made to the progress of the bill, and it seems clear that James's opposition had been effective in blocking a measure which would have detracted from the king's prerogative much more directly than the declaratory act had done. King says that because James signified his dissatisfaction the bill was dropped, ' though the Irish had talked much and earnestly desired the repeal of Poynings' law, it being the greatest sign and means of their subjection to England.' IV.

THE REPEAL OF THE SETTLEMENT

To many of James's supporters the repeal of the restoration landsettlement was the primary object of the parliament. But this proved to be a highly controversial piece of legislation and much of the session was taken up in acrimonious wrangling about it. James had previously committed himself on many occasions to the maintenance of the settlement, which was regarded as an essential security for English control of Ireland. He himself had been granted an enormous estate, spread over sixteen counties, by the provision of the Act of Settlement that vested in him the lands that had been held by the regicides under the Commonwealth. He found support in the ' new interest,' those Catholics who had bought lands from those who had received grants under the settlement. Several of the Jacobite judges were in this position and they formed an active pressure group against the repeal. Tyrconnell had himself amassed a large estate (mostly in counties Dublin, Kildare and Meath) in the course of his activities during Charles II's reign as agent for the Irish Catholics. Arguments were also put forth on behalf of the few Protestants who had remained loyal to James and would be adversely affected by the repeal of the settlement.

72

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

The controversy can be followed in d'Avaux's correspondence and the English pamphlets, which are in general agreement. The bill was introduced in the commons on io May and received with a huzza and supplementary motions that nothing could be more advantageous to the king and the country than to destroy the horrid and barbarous Act of Settlement, which should be burned by the common hangman. A rival and much more limited bill was introduced in the house of lords on 13 May, which is said to have provided for the restoration of only half the lands to the dispossessed proprietors. This attempt at a compromise was defeated in the lords, but the opponents of repeal succeeded in delaying the commons bill for nearly a fortnight. When that bill reached the lords, further delay was caused by hearing objections and listening to individual applications for special treatment, while the commons grew more and more impatient. The lords made a number of amendments, and on James's suggestion a more moderate preamble was substituted for the exercise in historical polemics that the commons had approved. Davis gives both versions of the preamble. When the bill as amended was put to the vote in the house of lords, it was opposed in a vigorous speech by the bishop of Meath, who condemned it as unjust, contrary to the interest of both king and country and, above all, ill-timed: ' is it now a time for men to seek for vineyards and olive yards when a civil war is raging in the nation and we are under apprehension of invasions from abroad ? ' He said it was like trying to dispose of the skin before the beast was caught. In spite of this episcopal eloquence the bill was approved by the lords. The bishops and four of the Protestant lay lords wished to register their protest, but James objected to the term on the ground that it had rebellious overtones; they might register their dissent without specifying their reasons. But James seems to have been pleased that objections had been raised to a measure to which he himself was reluctant to agree. Charles Leslie of Glaslough, a Protestant clergyman who remained loyal to James, says that it was well known that James encouraged the Protestant lords to oppose the bill and that he had complained to Lord Granard that ' he was fallen into the hands of a people who rammed many hard things down his throat.' The amended bill was then sent back to the commons, who objected to the changes. Further delay was caused by a series of conferences between the two houses, and tempers in the commons grew frayed. Particular offence was caused by the remarks of one of the ' new interest' judges, Denis Daly, who had referred to the commons as a ' Masanello's assembly,' and had said that men from whom King James took estates could not be expected to fight for him. Masanello was a Naples fisherman who had headed a proletarian rising, and the odious comparison led the commons to start proceedings for Daly's impeachment. One of his friends saved him by spreading a rumour that Deny had been taken, and in the atmosphere of good humour

The

Jacobite

Parliament

of

1689

73

created by this news the impeachment proceedings were dropped. The two houses continued to disagree, and d'Avaux reported that ames was supporting the opposition. The commons threatened to withhold supplies, and this proved effective in securing agreement to the bill, which received the royal assent on 22 June, six weeks after its introduction. The full text of the act is given by Davis. It repealed the Acts of Settlement and Explanation and annulled all titles derived from them (with the exception of a few specific cases). The landholders of 1641 or their heirs were authorised to take steps for the recovery of their property, and all outlawries arising from the insurrection were cancelled. A court of claims consisting of three or more commissioners was to be set up to determine the rights of individuals to the recoverable property. The ' new interest'—those who had bought land from Charles IPs grantees—were to be compensated with the lands of William's supporters, which the act declared to be forfeited. The act went beyond mere repeal of the settlement and was made to apply to all who rebelled against James or even corresponded with the rebels, even if their land was not held under the settlement. King remarks that this affected almost every Protestant who could write. A special clause cancelled the grant, dating from James I's time, of Deny city and county to the London companies. The right of Deny corporation to its property would remain, but the rest of the property would go to form part of the stock available for compensating Jacobites. James himself was to be compensated for the loss of his Irish estate by a grant of Lord Kingston's lands in Cork and Roscommon. He was also to keep the Phoenix park and the royal lands at Chapelizod. Other clauses provided for the interests of influential individuals. One of these was the Catholic lawyer and entrepreneur John Browne of Westport (ancestor of the Marquesses of Sligo), whose ironworks at Knappagh, county Mayo, were declared to be of national importance and excluded from the operation of the Act of Repeal. He had bought the land from Lord Mayo under the Act of Settlement. In 1641 Catholics still held the greater part of the land in Leinster, Munster and Connacht. The Act of Repeal made provision—if James should win the war—for the recovery of what they had since lost. Those who had already been dispossessed before 1641, notably the Ulster Gaels, were not specifically provided for. But the future ownership of Irish land would depend on the outcome of the war; a Jacobite victory was essential if the repeal of the settlement was to have any meaning. In the event, the procedure laid down in the act does not seem to have been put into operation. Shortly after the adjournment of the parliament James issued a proclamation that there would be no court of claims for the time being ' because some may neglect the public safety of the kingdom upon pretence of attending their private concerns.' We hear nothing more of the court of claims, and the Jacobite defeat at the Boyne made the Act of Repeal a dead letter.

74

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

The act has been criticised as retrospective and confiscatory legislation. But the demand for it was very natural. The restoration settlement had from the first been bitterly attacked by Catholics on the ground that it was weighted in favour of Cromwellians. Their attitude was later summed up by Swift: ' the Catholics of Ireland lost their estates for fighting in defence of their king, while those who cut off the father's head and forced the son to fly for his life got the very estates which the Catholics lost.' Pressure for the alteration of the settlement had been going on all through Charles II's reign, and the demand increased after the accession of James II. After the English revolution it was the hope of getting back their lands that chiefly led the Catholics to support James. They made it clear to him that their support was conditional upon his giving them what they wanted, and their demand was strengthened by the fact that most of their supplanters were in open opposition to James. The ownership of the land was a major issue in the war. Outright victory for either side would result in large transfers of land to the victors. Protestants were no less insistent on this point than Catholics were. Each regarded the others as rebels, and the confiscation of the lands of defeated rebels was a commonplace of Irish history. Retrospective interference with vested interests was not a novelty in Ireland, where the crown recognised no time limit in asserting its title to land. Protestant propaganda made much of the repeal of the settlement, but the repeal was not responsible for William's policy, which he had already declared to be the forfeiture of the estates of those who refused to acknowledge him. The real argument against the act was that it distracted attention from the military effort at a critical stage of the war. Prolonged and acrimonious parliamentary debates should not have been allowed to coincide with the siege of Deny. The provisions of the act itself involved complicated investigations which threatened to conflict with the energetic prosecution of the war. V.

THE ACT OF ATTAINDER

A measure that aroused even more Protestant indignation was the Act of Attainder, directed against those who were said to have joined William either in England or in the north of Ireland. King describes it as without parallel since the days of ancient Rome and as a Papist design to bring about the utter extirpation of the heretics. Davis regarded it as the great mistake of the parliament: it could not, he thought, be made effective without a Jacobite victory, which would make it unnecessary and vindictive. Lecky called it an act of sweeping and violent injustice, the great blot on the reputation of the parliament; but he found some extenuating circumstances. It was a conditional attainder (or outlawry), launched in the middle of a civil war; religion was not the criterion, but refusal to acknowledge James. Lecky regarded its real aim as confiscation of property and not the taking of life. He pointed out

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 75 that at the same time the English parliament was debating a bill for the attainder of Jacobites in Ireland. That bill, however, was not passed, and involved a much smaller number of individuals. The act referred to the ' most horrid invasion of the king's unnatural enemy, the Prince of Orange, assisted by many of his majesty's rebellious and traitorous subjects.' It contained the names of over 2,000 individuals, divided into different categories. There are discrepancies in the numbers shown in various accounts, and there is some duplication of names. The summary given in King's State of the Protestants does not tally with the text of the act, which he gives in an appendix as an authentic copy of the document found by the Williamite authorities in the rolls office after the battle of the Boyne. According to this, the first category, consisting of those who had notoriously joined in the rebellion, contained 1,340 names headed by the Duke of Ormond and the Protestant archbishop of Dublin. They were to be declared traitors and suffer the usual penalties of death and confiscation, unless by 10 August they surrendered to a judge and then, after due trial, were acquitted. The second category—840 names headed by the Protestant archbishop of Tuam and Arthur Chichester, Earl of Donegall—consisted of those who had left Ireland since the date of William's invasion of England or shortly before that; their absence in spite of proclamations calling them home would be construed as treason unless they returned by 1 September and presented themselves to a judge. The third category—200 in number—consisted of those who had gone at an earlier stage to live in England, Scotland or the Isle of Man. They were given till 1 October to return to Ireland; if James had by that date reached Britain (an optimistic touch), he would offer pardon to those who were bona fide resident there. The final category— 90 names—consisted of those whose absence was due to sickness, old age or other disability. They were not to be attainted; but, as it would impoverish the country to send them their rents, their lands were in the meantime to be vested in the crown. If they later returned and behaved as loyal subjects, they might claim them back. Little time was given for repentance, and we do not hear of any persons returning to the Jacobite allegiance. King maintains that the names were deliberately kept secret so as to deny any opportunity to those who might have been inclined to return. But there were enough Protestants in both houses to prevent the names from being altogether concealed, and frequent reports of Dublin proceedings were taken over to England. The first list of the names in the act was published in London in the spring of 1690. It is evidently a garbled version, which muddles the categories and contains considerably fewer names than King has in his appendix. It did not appear till after the specified dates had passed, and it is certainly true that it would not have been easy for anybody in England to have returned within the time limit to Jacobite Ireland. But the great majority of those mentioned were clearly supporters of

76

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

William, and it is difficult to take the view that the act was any more outrageous than the very summary judicial proceedings for treason which took place after the rising of 1641 and which were to be repeated by the Williamite authorities after the battle of the Boyne.1 The lists are of great interest as providing an extensive series of names and addresses of Irish Protestants of the late seventeenth century. They are mostly landowners, but there are a number of yeomen and shopkeepers included in the lists, which cover the whole country. King was particularly scathing about a clause of the act which barred James from granting pardons after 1 November. He says that it made James so angry that he developed a fit of nose-bleeding, a weakness to which he was subject. The memoirs of James's life refer ruefully to this provision as a case in which he sacrificed his own interest to the wishes of his subjects. The Protestant parliament of 1697 made a similar restriction of William's prerogative of mercy. Each parliament was suspicious of the excessive leniency of its sovereign. VI.MATTERSOFRELIGION

Catholics naturally hoped for legislation that would restore their church to the position it had held before the reformation. A Williamite pamphlet gives what is stated to be an address presented to James by the Catholic bishops and clergy, copies of which are said to have been found in Dublin after the battle of the Boyne. The address asked for the repeal of the Act of Uniformity (which gave recognition to the Protestant established church alone) and of the penal laws, and also asked for the restoration of the Catholic bishops and clergy to their livings, churches and authority. It was argued that there was no need to humour English Protestants, who were more likely to be upset by James's secular measures than by the restoration of the Catholic Church in Ireland. If this address was made it was to meet with little success. The summoning of Protestant, and not Catholic, bishops to the house of lords was an indication of James's determination to preserve the position of the established church. In his opening speech to parliament he made no reference to either church, but confined himself to expressing support for liberty of conscience. The bill for liberty of conscience as first sent up by the commons appears to have included a provision for the repeal of the Act of Uniformity. A contemporary Protestant pamphlet says that it took away the ' king's supremacy in ecclesiastics and abrogated all laws against Papists.' Another pamphlet says that James told the bishop of Meath that he did not like the commons bill, that it diminished his prerogative and was designed to make him break his word to the established church; he did not intend to do away with the Act of Uniformity nor destroy the Protestant religion, but only to take away penalties that were against liberty. This account 1. For the Jacobites outlawed after the Boyne see Analecta Hibernica, xxii.

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689

11

attributed his stand to the advice of the English Chief Justice Herbert, who told James that he would otherwise lose all his English friends. It goes on to say:' but the work is done effectively by other bills and the Act of Uniformity will stand like the edict of Nantes, till there be no occasion for it.' The version given in this pamphlet is corroborated from the Jacobite side by O'Kelly, who says that James could not be persuaded to rescind the impious laws enacted by Queen Elizabeth against the Roman church and restore the jurisdiction of the Pope lest it might alienate from him the hearts of his Protestant subjects whom he always courted. We have not the text of the act for liberty of conscience as finally passed; it seems to have assured to persons of every denomination the right to worship as they pleased. It certainly undermined the Act of Uniformity, but left it on the statute book and did not substitute a Catholic for a Protestant establishment. There is a reference to the act for liberty of conscience in a proclamation issued later in 1689, in which it is cited as the ground for allowing Protestants the free right of worship and forbidding the seizure of their churches, of which there had been a number of instances. James's memoirs state that he was particularly glad to assent to the act in spite of the provocation he had received from his Protestant subjects. An act that had the object of removing a major Catholic grievance related to tithes.1 It stated that Catholics maintained their own clergy and in addition were burdened by the payment of tithes to the Protestant clergy who performed no spiritual duties for them. It was therefore provided that Catholics should in future be required to pay tithes to their own clergy and to no others. An act regulating tithes in Ulster (of which we have not the text) presumably provided similar relief to Ulster Presbyterians. These arrangements would leave the clergy of the Church of Ireland with the tithes of other Protestants. But King, from the standpoint of a clergyman, claimed that their apparent equity was mere hypocrisy: Protestants had been so harried that few had anything titheable left, and the priests would be sure to take possession of the glebes without being given them by parliament. A further point was raised about ' appropriate tithes,' payable to bishops and other church dignitaries. This was dealt with in a supplementary act, which declared that Catholics should pay such tithes to the bishops and dignitaries of their own church, and that those only were to be considered Catholic bishops and deans who were named such by the king—a marked step towards the official recognition of the Catholic Church. But this measure fell short of what Catholics wanted. Plunkett called it irreligious on the ground that it left the church lands in the possession of Protestant bishops and only restored the Catholic bishops to such tithes as were annexed to their station: ' they mended the matter in parochial priests, for they gave possession unto them of all the tithes 1. For the text of the act see Appendix C.

78

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

of Catholic people, leaving to the ministers the tithes of their own.' D'Avaux reported to Louis XIV that two members of the commons had complained to him that James was unwilling to remove the Protestant bishops and clergy and put Catholics in their place or to restore church property. VII. FINANCE AND ECONOMICS

Finance was a pressing problem and from the government's point of view the supply bill was an important part of the legislative programme. The nature of the proposed taxation was discussed in advance by James and his advisers, the alternatives being a personal tax or a tax on property. The latter was preferred, and James asked for £15,000 a month for thirteen months, which both houses resolved to increase to £20,000. But the commons delayed the passage of the bill, as they thought that once James had his money he would pay little attention to the demand for the repeal of the Act of Settlement. Resentment at James's obstructive attitude to the repeal led to a proposal to postpone the date from which the subsidy would be payable, but James's capitulation on the land question made further threats unnecessary. We have no contemporary text of the act, but Davis discovered a copy in a collection of statutes in the library of the King's Inns. He commented that the levy was fairly distributed between different areas, and that the rebellious counties of Donegal and Fermanagh were no more heavily taxed than the rest. The act sets out the names of the commissioners in each county who were to be responsible for collecting the revenue. They consisted of the principal local families, who either owned land or had done so and hoped to recover it. Most of them were Catholics, but a few Protestants appear here and there in the lists.1 Davis particularly commended the act for its treatment of tenants. They were made responsible for the payment of the tax in the first instance, but were allowed to deduct the whole tax from their rent unless the land had been let for half its value or less, in which case they could deduct part of the tax: ' where since has a parliament of landlords in England or Ireland acted with equal liberality ? ' In fact, the tax must have been unwelcome to many who were enjoying rent-free occupation as a result of the flight of the landlords. How much was actually collected is not known, but it was not nearly enough to meet James's needs, even though they were helped out by a separate act which vested in the crown the goods of those who had left the country. TyrconnelTs interests were looked after by an act awarding him lands worth £15,000 a year. The parliament also showed a zealous, but not immediately relevant, concern for the economic progress of the country. An act prohibiting the import of English, Scottish or Welsh coal fore1. For the names see C. Preston, ' Commissioners under the patriot parliament ' in Irish Ecclesiastical Record, lxxiv, 141-57 (1950).

thejacobiteprarliamentof16898989898999999999999999999999999

79

shadiwed the protectionist attitude of the saying quoted by swift: ' burn everything English except their coal.' Coal imports were condemned as causing local unemployment and loss of currency. To prevent the act being exploited by the mineowners of Kilkenny and other Irish collieries, the price at the pithead was fixed at ninepence a barrel. An elaborate act for the advance and improvement of trade and for the encouragement of shipping and navigation set aside the restrictions imposed by the English navigation laws and permitted direct trading with the colonies. Shipbuilding was encouraged by a rebate of part of the duties on cargoes for the first three or four voyages of ships built in Ireland. Tax exemptions and other privileges were offered to seamen, shipwrights and other experts. An interesting provision was for the establishment of free schools in Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway to teach mathematics and navigation. The inclusion of Belfast among the major ports was an intelligent piece of forecasting, or a bid for Presbyterian support. The French were anxious for legislation which would give France the favoured economic position in relation to Ireland that was previously enjoyed by England. In particular, they wanted the export of raw wool, hitherto confined to England, to become a French monopoly. D'Avaux says that the commons passed bills banning the export of wool to England and facilitating the export of wool and other articles to France. Neither of these passed in the house of lords, and d'Avaux put this down to James's opposition: ' he has a heart too English to take any step that could vex the English, and that holds up the woollen business.' A bill for the naturalisation of French subjects also passed the commons, but was blocked in the lords by James's intervention. After a month of disagreement between the two houses it was redrafted to apply to all countries, as James did not wish there to be any special relationship between the French and the Irish. This seems to be the ' act for the encouragement of strangers and others to inhabit and plant in Ireland,' of which we have only the title. The dispute shows James as doggedly English in outlook. VIII. CONCLUSION What was achieved by the parliament ? James got a subsidy that was quite inadequate for his war expenses and must have been very difficult to collect. The heirs of the 1641 landowners had the satisfaction of seeing the repeal of the settlement put on the statute book, but this result was gained at the expense of much friction during the session, and was qualified by James's subsequent refusal to appoint a court to hear the cases of those who claimed title to the lands. The Catholic Church got much less than it wanted. Liberty of conscience was not the same as the reinstatement of the church, and in fact was invoked in the interest of harried Protestant clergy whose churches had been forcibly seized. The Declaratory Act denied the

80

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

authority in Ireland of the English parliament and courts, but James's refusal to abolish Poynings' law maintained the subordination of the Irish parliament to English control. The commercial and economic legislation was of little practical importance while the war lasted, and James's refusal to replace English privileges by French showed that a Jacobite victory was unlikely to have removed English commercial domination. The parliamentary session did much to disillusion James's Irish supporters. It was made clear to them that he regarded Ireland as a stepping-stone to the recovery of England and was reluctant to do anything that would alienate English opinion; the Irish had a king ' with one shoe English.' The legislation and proceedings are significant as illustrations of what Catholics wanted and of the limits to which they could press an unwilling king. The repeal of the Act of Settlement was clearly the primary object of most members; but self-government and the status of the church were also important objects, and the acts relating to them fell far short of Catholic aspirations. The economic legislation was a partial attempt to show how an independent Irish parliament could foster Irish industry and technical education. Had James won the war, the legislation of the parliament would have produced significant changes in Ireland. But those changes would not have undone the English conquest or restored Gaelic rule; and they would in some ways have restricted the freedom of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The parliament predominantly represented the ' old English ' landlord interest; its measures would have replaced a Protestant by a Catholic oligarchy, whose privileged position would have been based on crown grants and on a legal and constitutional system derived from that of England. The Irish parliament would be able to assert its independence of the English parliament, but Poynings' law would still ensure its subordination to the crown. Such legislation as conflicted with the economic interests of England would not have been likely to survive long. In Ireland, no less than in continental Europe, a Catholic dynasty would certainly have sought to influence the policy and personnel of the Catholic Church, which would thus be deprived of that freedom which was an unintended by-product of the penal laws. The reputation of the parliament has to a great extent been based on the fact that in the Declaratory Act it gave formal expression to a demand for independence of the English parliament and courts: a demand that long continued to be a major constitutional controversy. Irish Catholics of the eighteenth century were reluctant to discuss the proceedings of an assembly that had been declared illegal. But Wolfe Tone praised it highly. ' The last Catholic assembly,' he wrote, ' which Ireland had seen was the parliament, summoned by James II in 1689, a body of men whose wisdom, spirit and patriotism reflect no discredit on their country or their s e c t . . . an assembly to whosemeritssnohistorianhasyetnohistorianhassyhasyetventuredtodojustice,butwhose

The Jacobite Parliamen t of 1689 81

81

memory, when passions and prejudices are no more, will be perpetuated in the hearts of their grateful countrymen.' In the nineteenth century a series of Irish writers, beginning with Matthew O'Conor, commended it as a patriotic and public-spirited body. Davis's articles, published in the Dublin Magazine (January-April, 1843), were a detailed and thorough study, which put the parliament of 1689 in line with the movement of 1782 and the aspirations of Young Ireland. Fifty years later, in 1893, Gavan Duffy gave wide publicity and an emotive title to Davis's work. The patriot parliament of i68g was a well-timed publication, and it was not difficult to present the Jacobites of 1689 as the forerunners of the Home Rulers of the post-Parnell era.

82

War and Po litics in Ireland,

1649-1730

LIST OF SOURCES A. c CONTEMPORARY

An exact list of the lords spiritual and temporal who sat in the pretended parliament at Dublin, London, 1689. A true account of the whole proceedings of the parliament in Ireland, London, 1689. A list of such of the names . . . attainted, together with . . . the acts, London, 1690. An account of the transactions of the late King James in Ireland, London, 1690. J. T. GILBERT,

ed.

A Jacobite narrative of the war in Ireland, i68g-gi (Plunkett MS.), Dublin, 1892.

J. HOGAN,

ed.

Negociations de M. le Comte d'Avaux en Irlande, i68g-go (Irish MSS. Commission), Dublin, 1934.

W.

KING

The state of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's government, London, 1691.

C. O ' K E L L Y

Macariae excidium, or the destruction of Cyprus, ed. J. C. O'Callaghan, Dublin, 1850. B. lllater . LATER WORKS

J. S. CLARKE

The life of James III [based on contemporary Jacobite memoirs], London, 1816.

T. DAVIS

The patriot parliament of i68g, ed. C. Gavan Duffy, London, 1893.

J. A. FROUDE

The English in Ireland, London, 1874.

W.

E. H.

LECKY

History of Ireland in the eighteenth century, London, 1892.

T. B. MACAULAY

History of England, London, 1848-61.

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689

83

APPENDIX A An exact list of the knights, citizens and burgesses, who were returned and sat in the parliament held in Dublin under the late King James in 1689. NOTE—Those wanting are for Londonderry, Inniskellin and such places as were in the Protestants' hands. County of ANTRIM Cormac O'Neill Esq Randal MacDonnell Esq

Borough of Belturbet Sir Edward Tyrrel Bart Philip Tuite of Newcastle Esq

Borough of Belfast Marcus Talbot Esq Daniell O'Neill Esq

County of CLARE Daniel O'Brien Esq John Macnamara of Crattlagh Esq

County of ARDMAGH Arthur Brownlow Esq Walter Hovenden Esq Borough of Ardmagh Francis Stafford Esq Constantine O'Neill Esq County of CATHERLAGH Dudley Bagnal Esq Henry Lutterell Esq Borough of Catherlagh Marcus Baggot Esq John Warren Esq Borough of Old Leighlin Darby Long Esq Daniel Doran Esq

Borough of Ennis Florence Macnamara of Dromad Esq Theobald Butler of Strathnagaloon Esq County of CORK Justin MacCarthy Esq Sir Richard Nagle Kt City of Cork Sir James Cotter Kt John Galloway Esq Town of Youghal Thomas Uniack Alderman Edward Gough Alderman

Town of Kinsale County of CAVAN Philip Reilly of Aghnecrevy Esq Andrew Murrogh Esq John Reilly of Garirobuck Esq Miles de Courcy Esq Borough of Cavan Philip Og O'ReiUy Esq Hugh Reilly of Lara Esq

Town of Bandonbridge Charles MacCarthy of Ballea Esq Daniel MacCarthy Reagh Esq

84

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Town of Mallow Christopher Peppard Fitzgeorge Alderman John Barret of Castlemore Esq David Nagle of Carragowne Esq County of DUBLIN Borough of Baltimore Simon Lutterelof Lutterelstown Daniel O'Donovan Esq Esq Jeremy Donovan Esq Patrick Sarsfield Jun of Lucan Esq Borough of Cloghnakilty Lt-Col Owen MacCarthy City of Dublin Daniel Fion MacCarthy Esq Sir Michael Creagh Kt Lord Mayor Borough of Charlevile Terence Dermot Sen Alderman John Baggot Sen of Baggotstown Esq University of Dublin John Power of Killballane Esq Sir John Meade Kt Joseph Coghlan Esq Borough of Middleton Dermot Long Esq Borough of s Swords John Long Esq Francis Barnewell of Woodpark, county Meath esq Borough of Rathcormac Robert Russel of Drynham Esq James Barry Esq Edward Powel Esq Borough of Newcastle Thomas Arthur of Colganstown Borough of Doneraile Esq Daniel O'Donovan Esq John Talbot of Belgard Esq John Baggot Jun of Baggotstown Esq County of GALWAY Sir Ulick Bourk Bart County of DOWN Sir Walter Blake Bart Murtagh MacGennis of Greencastle Esq Town of Galway Ever MacGennis of Castlewelan Oliver Martin Esq Esq John Kirwan Esq Borough of Killeleagh Bernard MacGennis of Bally- Town of Athenry James Talbot of Mounttalbot Esq gorianbege es Esq Toole O'Neill of Drummekelly Charles Daly of Dunsandal Esq Gent Borough of Tuam James Lally of Tullendaly Borough of Newry William Bourk of Carrowfrila Rowland White Esq Rowland Savage Esq County of KERRY County and town of DROGHEDA Nicholas Brown Esq Henry Dowdall Esq Recorder Sir Thomas Crosby Kt

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 Borough of Thomastown Borough of Dingle-Icouch Robert Grace Sen Esq Edward Rice FitzJames of Ballinelig, county Limerick Esq Robert Grace Jun Esq John Hussey of Culmullin Esq Borough of Inistioge Edward Fitzgerald Esq Borough of Tralee James Fitzgerald Esq Maurice Hussey of Kerry Esq John Brown of Ardagh Esq Borough of Callan Walter Butler Esq Borough of Ardfert Thady Meagher Esq Col Roger MacElligot Cornelius MacGillicuddy Esq Borough of Knocktopher Harvey Morres Esq County of KILDARE Henry Meagh Esq John Wogan Esq George Aylmer Esq KING'S COUNTY Hewer Oxburgh Esq Borough of Kildare Owen Carroll Esq Francis Leigh Esq Robert Porter Esq Borough of Banagher Terence Coghlan Esq Borough of n Naas Terence Coghlan Gent Walter Lord Dungan Charles White Esq Borough of Philiftstown John Connor Esq Hewer Oxburgh Esq Borough of A thy William Fitzgerald Esq County of LEITRIM William Archbold Esq Edmond Reynells Esq Iriel Farrell Esq Borough of Harrystown James Nihel Esq Borough of Jamestown Edmond Fitzgerald Esq Alexander MacDonnel Esq William Shanley Esq County of KILKENNY James Grace of Courstown Esq County of LIMERICK Robert Walsh of Cloneassy Esq Sir James Pltzgerald Bart Gerald Fitzgerald Knight of City of Kilkenny the Glyn John Rooth Mayor James Bryan Alderman City of Limerick Nicholas Arthur Alderman Borough of Gowran Thomas Harrold Alderman Richard Butler Col Robert Fielding by a new Borough of Kilmallock election Sir William Hurley Bart Walter Kelly Dr of Physic John Lacy Esq

85

86

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

BoroughofAskeytonBoroughofAthboy borough of a thoybor John Bourk of Cahirmoyhill Esq John Trynder Esq Edward Rice Esq Robert Longfield Esq County of LONGFORD Roger Farrell Esq Robert Farrell Esq Borough of Lanesborough Oliver Fitzgerald Esq Roger Farrell Esq Borough of St. Johnstown Sir William Ellis Kt Lt Col James Nugent County of LOUTH Thomas Bellew Esq William Talbot Esq Borough of Atherdee Hugh Gernon Esq John Babe Esq Borough of Dundalk Robert Dermot Esq John Dowdgall Esq Borough of Carlingford Christopher Peppard Fitzlgnatius Esq Bryan Dermot Esq County of MAYO Gerald Moore Esq Walter Bourk Esq

Borough of Navan Christopher Cusacke of Corballis Esq Christopher Cusacke of Ratholeran Esq Borough of Kells Patrick Everard Esq John Delamare Esq Borough of Ratoath John Hussey Esq James Fitzgerald Esq County of MONAGHAN Bryan MacMahon Esq Hugh MacMahon Esq QUEEN'S COUNTY

Sir Patrick Trant Kt Edmond Morres Esq Borough of Maryborough Pierce Bryan Esq Thady Fitzpatrick Esq Borough of Ballynakill Sir Gregory Byrne Bart Oliver Grace Esq Borough of Portarlington Sir Henry Bond Kt Sir Thomas Hacket Kt

countmonony BoroughofCaseltbarCounytofROSCOMMON John Bermingham Esq Portreeve Charles Kelly Esq Thomas Bourk Esq John Bourk Esq County of MEATH Sir William Talbot Bart Sir Patrick Barnewall Bart

Borough of Roscommon John Dillon Esq John Kelly Esq

Borough of Trim Captain Nicholas Cusack Walter Nangle Esq

Borough of Boyle Captain John King Terence MacDermot Alderman

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 County of SLIGO Henry Crofton Esq Oliver O'Gara Esq

Borough of Dungarvan John Hore Esq Martin Hore Esq

Borough of Sligo Terence MacDonogh Esq James French Esq

County of WESTMEATH The Hon Col William Nugent The Hon Col Henry Dillon

87

Borough of Athlone County of TIPPERARY Nicholas Purcel of Loghmore Edmond Malone of Ballynahoune es Esq Esq James Butler of Grangebeg Esq Edmond Malone Counsellor at law Borough of Kilbeggan Borough of Clonmel Bryan Geoghegan of Donore Esq Nicholas White Alderman Charles Geoghegan of Lyonane John Bray Alderman [Syonane] Esq City of Cashel Manor of Mullingar Dennis Kearney Alderman Gerard Dillon Esq Prime James Hacket Alderman Sergeant Edmond Nugent of Carlanstown Borough of Feathard Esq Sir John Everard Bart James Tobin of Feathard Esq Borough of Fore John Nugent of Donore Esq County of TYRONE Christopher Nugent of Col Gordon O'Neill Dardystown Esq Lewis Doe of Dungannon Esq County of WEXFORD Borough of Dungannon Walter Butler of Munfine Esq Arthur O'Neill of Ballygawley Patrick Colclough of Mochury Esq Esq Peter Donnelly of Dungannon Town of Wexford Esq William Talbot Esq Francis Rooth Merchant Borough of Strabane Christopher Nugent of Dublin Town of New Ross Esq Daniel Donnelly of the same Gent Luke Dormer Esq Richard Butler Esq County of WATERFORD John Power Esq Matthew Hore Esq City of Waterford John Porter Esq Nicholas Fitzgerald Esq

Borough of Enniscorthy James Devereux of Carrigmenan Esq Dudley Colclough of Moughery Esq Arthur Waddington Esq Portreeve by b by a new election

88

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Borough of Fethard The Rt Hon Col James Porter Capt Nicholas Stafford

County of WICKLOW Richard Butler Esq William Talbot Esq

Borough of Newborough alias Gorey Abraham Strange of Toberduff Esq Richard Doyle of Kilorky Esq

Borough of Wicklow Francis Toole Esq Thomas Byrne Esq

Borough of Bannow Francis Plowden Esq Commissioner o of of the revenue Dr Alexis Stafford Borough of Clomines Edward Sherlock of Dublin Esq Nicholas White of New Ross Merchant Borough of Taghmon George Hore of Polehore Esq Walter Hore of Harperstown Esq

Borough of Carysfort Hugh Byrne Esq Pierce Archbold Esq upon whose default of appearance Bartholomew Polewheele Esq Borough of Blessington James Eustace Esq Maurice Eustace Gent The commons chose Sir Richard Nagle their Speaker, and Mr. John Kerney was Clerk of that house

The Jacobite Parliament of 1689 89

89

APPENDIX B An act declaring that the parliament of England cannot bind Ireland, and against writs of error and appeals to be brought for removing judgments, decrees and sentences, given in Ireland, into England. Whereas his majesty's realm of Ireland is and hath been always a distinct kingdom from that of his majesty's realm of England, always governed by his majesty and his predecessors according to the ancient customs, laws and statutes thereof: so no acts passed in any parliament held in England were ever binding here, except such of them as by acts of parliament passed in this kingdom were made into laws here; yet of late times (especially in times of distractions) some have pretended that acts of parliament passed in England, mentioning Ireland, were binding in Ireland; and as these late opinions are against justice and natural equity, so they tend to the great oppression of the people here, and to the overthrow of the fundamental constitutions of this realm. And to the end that by these modern and late opinions no person may be further deluded, be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in this present parliament here assembled, and by the authority of the same: and it is hereby declared that no act of parliament passed, or to be passed, in the parliament of England, though Ireland should be therein mentioned, can be, or shall be any way binding in Ireland, excepting such acts passed, or to be passed in England, as are or shall be made into law by the parliament of Ireland. [The remainder of the act, dealing with appeals, is omitted.]

APPENDIX C An act concerning tithes and other ecclesiastical duties Whereas tithes, oblations, obventions, offerings and other ecclesiastical duties and profits growing and arising within all and every the respective parish and parishes of this kingdom (impropriate tithes excepted) have by the law of the land, and constitution of Holy Church ever since the Council of Lateran, been due and payable to the respective pastors, curates and vicars of the said respective parishes, having cure of souls therein, as a provision and maintenance

90

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

for them for serving the said cure, by celebrating divine service, administering of sacraments, preaching and instructing the parishioners thereof in the true faith, and performing other pastoral duties belonging to their functions: And forasmuch as the Roman Catholic subjects of this kingdom for some time past have maintained their own priests, pastors, curates and vicars, and thereby have been very much impoverished by being obliged to pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical dues to the Protestant clergy, who have not laboured in the administration of any of the said spiritual offices for any of the said Roman Catholics: Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted by your most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in this present parliament assembled and by authority of the same, that your majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of this kingdom shall and may set out and pay all their tithes, oblations and other ecclesiastical duties (which of right are due and payable) from henceforth to their respective Roman Catholic priests, pastors, curates and vicars, and to no other person or persons of whatsoever religion or persuasion (impropriate tithes excepted), any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons of the Roman Catholic clergy, who shall be entitled to any tithes or payments in lieu of tithes by virtue of this act or otherwise, and their proctors and fanners, shall and may sue for the same or the value thereof by writ, bill, petition or action of debt, or such other action for substraction or not setting forth the said tithes, in any of your majesty's courts within this kingdom as he or they might have done for detaining or not paying any temporal duty, and shall and may recover their costs in such suits: And all incapacities heretofore devised by any temporal law for disabling any of the said Roman Catholic clergy from enjoying any benefices or tithes, or making any collations or benefices to them conferred void, are hereby discharged and made void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

7 SCHOMBERG AT DUNDALK, 1689

T

HE Duke of Schomberg was one of the most famous soldiers in Europe,

but his last independent command was marked by failure and the devas/ tation of his army, caused not by the enemy but by a combination of inefficient administration and Irish weather. He was half'German and, on his mother's side, half/English. He had served for many years in the French army and had won a high reputation, becoming a marshal of France in 1677. But he was a protestant, and when the Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 he left France and entered the service of the Elector of Brandenburg, who in 1688 put him at the disposal of William of Orange. He came to England with William and took part in the successful invasion that resulted in the flight of James II and the "glorious revolution". This gave William control of England, but Ireland (where the Earl of Tyr/ connell was gathering an army for James) and Scotland (where Viscount Dundee was raising the Highlands) were still to be dealt with. William had not much faith in the regular English army, which had ratted once and might rat again. His main faith was in his own Dutch troops and in the Huguenot regiments that had been formed from French protestant refugees. Holland was hard pressed by Louis XIV, and the Dutch government demanded substitutes for the troops they had sent to England. So Marlborough was sent with a large part of the English army to Holland for the summer campaign of 1689. Schomberg was given the task of building up a new army for the conquest of Ireland. This was to be as far as possible raised by protestant nobility and gentry who had escaped from Tyrconnell's regime in Ireland, and it would employ a number of officers who had been dismissed by Tyrconnell from the Irish army. But most of the other ranks would have to be levied in England. This raw army would be stiffened by Dutch and Huguenot regiments. Of all William's continental commanders Schomberg seemed to be the best qualified for this operation. He spoke English well (besides French and German). He had had experience of the same sort before when he built up a Portuguese army that enabled Portugal to hold out against Spain. But he was now in his seventyfourth year, and his temperament was cautious, professional and fussy. Orders for the raising and equipping of 18 regiments of infantry and 5 of horse and dragoons were given in March 1689 (the month that James went to Ireland with French support). But it was not till July that the expedition began to assemble at Chester. From this point on Schomberg's complaints are almost continuous. The regiments were not ready, supplies and equipment were short, the admiralty was slow in providing ships. The intention was that the expe/ ditionary force should bring Ireland under William's control and expel James during the campaigning season of 1689. But the prospects did not look bright. James was in control of all Ireland, except for Derry and Enniskillen. The attempt to relieve Derry had so far been frustrated by a boom across the river,

92

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

and the city seemed on the point of being starved into surrender. In Scotland Dundee had control of the Highlands and was a formidable threat to Mackay and his Williamite army. Schomberg had intended to go to the relief of Derry, but his expedition was not ready when, at the end of July, the whole situation dramatically changed in William's favour. Derry was relieved, the Enniskilleners routed a Jacobite army at Newtownbutler, and Dundee was killed at Killiecrankle. In Jacobite Ireland there was panic. A large part of the army disintegrated; some regiments were down to quarter strength. The greater part of Ulster was abandoned, with Carrickfergus and Charlemont the only strong points retained, besides a small mobile force under Brigadier Maxwell near Belfast. It was estimated that at the end of July James could not put more than 7,000 men in the field. This was the opportunity for Schomberg to strike hard with good prospects of success, in conjunction with the triumphant Enniskilleners and with Kirke*s three regiments who had relieved Derry. But Schomberg had much to contend with at Chester. When he got there in the third week of July he found no ships and no provisions. About ten days later 50 ships appeared, which were to carry munitions and troops, but the provision ships had not yet arrived. A major obstacle was John Shales, the supply officer. Schomberg's letters to William are full of complaints against Shales. He had not sent the promised provisions, he was particularly short on beer. Quantities of muskets were out of order because they were so badly made. Schomberg suspected Shales's son Henry, who inspected them, of taking bribes to pass defective weapons. Shales himself had generally mismanaged things; his bona fides was very suspect; he was said to have been 1 aA PPIST papist not long before. (In fact, Shales had been the contractor for James II's A NOT LONG BEFORE PAPIST NOT LONGHBEFORE IN SHALES BEEN ATHECONTJAMESO unpopular army camp at Hounslow Heath). UNPOPULAR RA,UCP T HOUNSLOW HEAHS William wanted the expedition to land as near Dublin as possible. Schomberg first thought of landing at Carlingford, but the pilots reported that the harbour was not good and that the best landing/place would be Belfast Lough. Schomberg accepted this plan, which would make for easier linking/up with forces from Derry and Enniskillen. When he set sail on 12 August there were not enough ships available. He could take only 12 regiments of infantry, leaving the rest of the infantry and all the horse to follow. He had some cannon and mortars, which are supposed to have cracked the long bridge over the Lagan at Belfast. To begin with, all went well. A following wind brought the expedition next day into Bangor Bay, where they landed with nothing more than token resistance from Maxwell's dragoons. Patrols found the neighbourhood of Belfast clear of Jacobites and a rousing welcome from the local protestants. Schomberg was cautious, and it was not till 17 August, four days after landing, that he entered Belfast. It was 17 August by the old calendar; by the more accurate new calendar it was 27 August, getting on for autumn. If anything worth while was to be done that campaigning season he would clearly have to move south without delay. But his cavalry had not arrived and would not come till near the end of August, and he thought it safer to dispose of Carrickfergus, which was held by two Jacobite regiments. A sevens-day siege, in which the r Cal. S.P. iom., i68ygo, pp. 188/220.

Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689

93

Williamites attacked both by land and by sea, was needed before Carrickfergus surrendered. By the end of August further units had arrived from England. By then the total force that had arrived from England was as follows: Infantry—18 battalions (i Dutch, 3 Huguenot, 13 newly raised in England). Cavalry—4 regiments (1 Huguenot, 3 English). Dragoons—1 English regiment.2 The approximate strength of the expeditionary force at this date was 13,000 foot and 1,500 horse. In addition, Schomberg had been joined at Carrickfergus by 500 horse from Enniskillen. They were apparently poorly armed and mounted, but were to prove very useful. A Williamite account described them as "some without boots and pistols, others with pistols but without carabines, some with one pistol and a carabine without a sword, others without all, with only a fowling/piece or firelock, most of their horses small and poor; yet such have been the courage and actions of these men as is scarce credible, especially the routing 3,000 men under MacCarthy, taking him prisoner and killing double their own number. These brave men the general made welcome and will soon be better armed and accoutred."3 Schomberg now seemed in a strong enough position to justify a move south, particularly as he could expect further reinforcements from Enniskillen and Derry and more cavalry regiments were to come from Britain. His chief shortage was in transport/horses, waggons and provisions, which had not yet arrived. He decided to start for Dundalk and rely on transport and supplies being sent by sea to meet him at Carlingford. He set out on 2 September, marching south through Lisburn, Hillsborough and Loughbrickland. At Newry, ten miles on from Loughbrickland, there was a Jacobite force of cavalry under the Duke of Berwick. The Inniskillings were all agog to engage this force, but were ordered not to advance, which upset them. They said they "should never thrive so long as they were under orders". However, Berwick retreated after burning Newry, and Schcmberg met no opposition as far as Dundalk, which the Jacobites abandoned without burning it. But Schomberg's army was already in trouble during the five days it took him to march the fifty miles from Belfast to Dundalk. The weather was wet and the wind made it difficult to pitch tents. Provisions were scarce because there were not enough horses to carry such supplies as he could have got in Belfast. The country had been devastated by Berwick and all the cattle had been removed. The best account of the operation is by the Rev. George Story, who was a chaplain to one of Schomberg's regiments and wrote what, with some justification, he called "An impartial history" of the war. In addition, we have, on the Williamite side, Schomberg's own dispatches and several diaries and memoirs of those who, like Colonel Bellingham, took part in the expedition. On the Jacobite side we have King James's own account, as well as some journals, 2 G. Story, Impartial history, p. 11. 3 A journal of what has passed in the north of Ireland, 1689.

94

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

notably the journal of Captain John Stevens, an English Jacobite. The move/ ments of both sides are well documented. George Story was himself a victim of the supply/shortage. He says that by the time Schomberg's army got to Newry he "was forced to go and dig potatoes which made the greatest part of a dinner to better men than myself, and if it was so with us it may easily be remarked that the poor soldiers had harder times of it."4 The men were already falling sick on the march; some of them were left by the roadside and had to be picked up later by rescue parties. Schomberg was worried by the shortage of bread; he gave orders that whatever bread there was should be for the men and not for the officers (because he judged that the officers could shift better). He insisted on sending the artillery horses back to Belfast to fetch bread. When the transport officer protested that artillery horses were never used for anything but artillery work Schomberg said he would rather break rules than let his men starve. Whether or not he should have allowed the situation to arise, there is something attractive about his humane concern for his men. When the army reached Dundalk the ships had not yet turned up at Carting' ford and the supply position was getting precarious. The Jacobites had overlooked 2,000 of Lord Bellew's sheep, and the starving soldiers of Schomberg's army devoured them greedily, which "cast a great many into fluxes".5 One of those who fell sick was a Swiss soldier in one of the Huguenot regiments, Jean/Francois Morsier, who kept a journal from which I quote: "The prevailing sickness was the bloody flux, caused by the bad food, which was almost entirely limited to oat'cakes, which are small cakes of the thickness of your little finger made from oat/flour dried in front of the fire, and the drink of fresh beer and water from a stagnant bog, in some places well-water which the soldiers brought to sell in the camp at half a sou the bottle. My sickness got so bad that I could not bear it any longer, being tormented by a burning fever from which I could get relief only by putting my head and forehead against the wet tent, for it rained continually. So I was sent to a castle named Karlinfort, where the sick were. All the places were taken; I had to go into a pigeon/loft at the top of the house; two or three cadets and soldiers did their best to clean it up and we slept on the floor." They were given two bowls of gruel a day, and gradually he got better. Later on he found a peasant nearby who grew cabbages, which he had cooked and well seasoned, and eventually he recovered his strength, more fortunate than many.6 Sending horses back to Belfast did not help Schomberg's prospects for an advance southwards. In fact, Dundalk was the farthest point he reached, and for the next two months he remained encamped there. George Story, who had plenty of time to examine the camp site, has provided in his history a detailed map of the lay/out. He shows the main camp on lowlying ground at the foot of the hills, straddling the Newry road about a mile short of Dundalk. It was in two 4 Story, Impartial history, p. 42. 5 B. M., Add. MS 5540. 6 J. Morsier in Soldats suisses an service etranger, vi, 90.

Schombergat Dundalk, 1689

95

lines, of which the front one was the longer, stretching on to the modern race course. Story describes the terrain as "low, moist ground". Nowadays it is mostly solid enough, but it is very flat and the drainage has certainly been improved since Schomberg's time. Even so, there are a good many areas with rushes on them, and the name of the townland at the rear of the camp is Annies, which means marshes. Dundalk had been abandoned by the Jacobites, and Schomberg might have been expected to use the town as his rear/base and to have put his camp on the high ground to the south of it. The reason why he did not do so is probably that he was anxious to keep a firm grip on his communications with Carlingford and with the land/link through the Moyry Pass to Newry and Belfast. Story's map gives a good impression of the area, with hills in the rear and a plain threaded with streams in the centre. A prominent feature was the Castletown river, with a single bridge linking the camp to Dundalk town. When the Jacobite army was approaching, Schomberg established advanced posts outside the town, running in a line from south to north on the inland side. The town itself was walled. The posts were protected with retrenchments or earthworks at strategic points. A Dutch regiment was stationed at the most advanced post, behind it were English dragoons and then the Inniskilling foot. The Inniskilling dragoons had a position to themselves near the hilly ground to the west. The artillery was well back, between the main camp and the Castletown river. Schomberg himself had his quarters in Castletown, a magnificent four/storey fortress on the south side of the river. At that time it belonged to the Bellew family; now it holds the dormitories school. Schomberg's whole position was evidently laid DORMOES of OFaAgirl's GIRLSCHOOLE.OMBERGWHOLEPOSITIOWAS EVIDENTIL out with an eye to defence rather than to attack or advance. Meanwhile the Jacobite army had been recovering from the near panic it was in at the end of July. The French had advised James that Dublin could not be defended against Schomberg's army, and that the proper course was to burn it, retire to Athlone, and hold the line of the Shannon. James showed unusual spirit and rejected this advice. Tyrconnell backed him up, new levies were raised to fill the gaps in the army, and it was decided to march north and face Schomberg, in spite of a serious shortage of weapons. James himself led the way with a small advance guard, and he was at Drogheda on 26 August, while Schomberg was still besieging Carrickfergus. The duke of Berwick was sent north as far as Newry to conduct a delaying action with a force of cavalry while the rest of the Jacobite army was assembling. It was a great relief to the Jacobites that Schomberg had not marched south and attacked them before they were ready. By 10 September most of the Jacobite army was at Drogheda and ready to hold the south bank of the Boyne against Schomberg, whose advance was daily expected. The French ambassador, who was with James at Drogheda, thought there was no reason why Schomberg should not advance that far. James had forbidden any scorched/earth tactics south of Newry, and the plain of Louth was full of grass, wheat and oats. The ambassador wondered whether Schomberg had been waiting for his cavalry—which was, in fact, the case— or why he had wasted his time besieging Carrickfergus. The protestants of County Louth also expected Schomberg to advance towards Drogheda and had collected a quantity of ale, bread and other provisions for him. When he did not

96

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

come the Irish army seized these supplies. Schomberg was under strong pressure to advance from the Irish protestants in his own force. On n September he wrote to William: "My Irish lords are constantly for giving battle; they are eager to get back to their own estates". On 15 September he wrote again to William: "Some of the colonels wish to go to Ardee and talk about giving battle as if it were only a trifle. I do not think it will be to your majesty's service to quit this position"—'that is, his Dundalk camp—'"where we can always maintain com/ munication with Belfast".7 Encouraged by Schomberg's failure to advance, James moved forward to meet him. On 14 September he went from Drogheda to Ardee, where deserters brought the news that Schomberg was very short of supplies, particularly bread. So the bold James pushed on further with his cavalry and crossed the river Fane, making his headquarters at Knockbridge, about five miles from Dundalk. A contemporary account says that James's quarters were in "some very mean cottages where his bedchamber was a poor Irish cabin (hard to creep into), without door, window or chimney; the French ambassador and the duke of Tyrconnell had suitable apartments in his majesty's quarters".8 The first night at Knockbridge was spent in fear and trembling: no one went to bed, and very few went to sleep, except for the advanced guards and the sentries; the French general, making a midnight inspection, found them all asleep except one.9 GENTRLMAKINGA MIDNIGHT CTION,FOOUDTEMALLASLLEEPONE9 But Schomberg gave them no cause for anxiety. The French ambassador could not understand it: Schomberg must be far weaker than they thought; or else he must be planning a rising in Dublin and be trying to entice James's army away from Dublin to steal a march on it and cut off its retreat to the city; or perhaps he was going to send help by sea to the protestant rebels in Dublin while he kept James engaged near Dundalk. In fact, something of the last kind was tried, though there was no deliberate plan to lure James up to Dundalk. Captain George Rooke of the English navy brought a squadron of twelve ships down the coast of County Dublin, a clear threat to James's communications. Rooke's ships came into Dublin bay and there was great excitement on the part of the protestant fifth column. But the Jacobite militia under Colonel Simon Luttrell drew up on the shore to such good effect that Rooke withdrew. The fact was that Schomberg was so worried by the lack of supplies and by the deficiencies of his army that he decided to take up a purely defensive position. The area he chose for his camp was certainly defensible against enemy attack, but it suffered from a number of disadvantages. It was lowlying and, as it was under the lee of the mountains, it was particularly liable to rainfall, which it got in abundance during that very wet autumn. A diary kept by one of Schonv berg's staff describes the conditions: "The already spongy ground was so softened by the rainy season, which set in earlier than usual, that one could not pitch a tent that the rain did not throw down".10 The fact that the camp was penned in 7 Cal. S.P. dom., i68$'<)o, pp. 252, 256. 8 A relation of what most remarkably happened during the last campaign, Dublin, 1689. 9 J. Hogan, ed., Negotiations de M. le comte d'Auaux, p. 473. 10 J. F. A . Kazner, Leben Friedrichs von Schonberg, ii, app. lx.

Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689

97

to the rear by difficult mountain country restricted freedom of manoeuvre and made it hard to find forage for the horses. The sanitary problems presented by any standing camp were magnified by the flat and watery nature of the site. Schomberg's failure to advance south of Dundalk betrayed that he was in trouble. James's chief commander, Marshal Rosen, said he was sure that Schonv berg "wanted something necessary for their going forwards".11 This encouraged James to bring up his main army as far as the river Fane and then to come almost up to Dundalk and challenge Schomberg to a fight. A French source puts the strength of James's army at 13,600 on 20 September and at 19,989 on 2 October. A review of Schomberg's army made on 26 September and 1 October gave a total strength of i8,888.12 James's challenge was made in style according to George Story's account: "Saturday the 21st about 9 o'clock in the morning (it being a very clear sunshiny day) our camp was alarmed: the enemy displayed their standard royal and all drew out, both horse and foot, bringing along a very handsome field/train. A great body of their horse drew up to the south-west of the town about half a mile from our outworks". The main body of James's army was behind the horse, drawn up in two lines. Some of Schomberg's officers were eager to come out and fight, but Schomberg would only say "Let them alone and we will see what they will do". Story's account goes on: "Meantime the duke, as if there was no fear of danger for all this . . . alighted from his horse and sat him down upon a little hill where he seemed to sleep for some time, though I believe his thoughts were at work how to repulse the enemy if they should attack him."13 The result was an anti/climax. Schomberg declined James's challenge, and James thought Schomberg's camp too strong to attack. That afternoon he withdrew his army to the line of the river Fane where they stayed for the next fortnight. There it was on solid rising ground with less rainfall than in Schonv berg's camp under the hills. To quote Story: "It would often rain all day upon us when there was not one drop in the enemy's camp; this they used to call a judgment, but it was because we lay in a hollow at the bottoms of the mountains, and they upon a high sound ground".34 Schomberg gave William his explanation of James's advance: "This morning some squadrons of the enemy appeared near this camp, a bog being between us, and then three or four regiments of the infantry, whose colours we saw and judged by their cries that King James was passing before their battalions. I believe that all these movements are intended to draw some deserters from our army, they having spread about a quantity of English and French printed billets. This has obliged me to examine more narrowly the regiments of French infantry and I find that the greater part of the recruits which were drawn from deserters about 11 Story, Continuation of the impartial history, p. 9. 12 F./E. de Vault, Memoire . . . de la correspondancc . . . pendant la guerre en Irlande (1689/91), i, 372 (Paris, Archives de guerrej; Cal. S.P. iom., 168^0, p. 273. 13 Story, Impartial history, pp. 22^ 3. 14 Ibid., pp. 38-9.

98

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Brussels and Frankfort were papists".16 The printed billets were a frank invitation to desert: "Next to the honour of never engaging in a bad cause there is nothing braver than to desert it". They made much of the mortality in Schomberg's camp, called it without parallel in history, and suggested that it was a judgement of providence.16 Desertion was an important factor in seventeenth/century warfare, and Schomberg was badly shaken by the unreliability of his so-called Huguenots, on whom he had been depending to make up for the rawness of his English troops. Some of them were found to have been corresponding with the enemy, and six of the ringleaders were hanged on a pair of gallows specially erected beside the road leading from the camp into Dundalk. Nearly 200 others were sent back in disgrace to England. Schomberg's failure to meet James's challenge was a great boost for Jacobite morale, and the most was made of the incident in a Jacobite broadsheet: "The day was very clear, so that the brightness of the scythes with which most of the foot were armed instead of pikes seemed to strike some terror into the heart of the enemy."17 William had sent Schomberg to Ireland to conquer the country, not to take a defensive line, and he wrote him several letters urging him to advance. Schonv berg's answers reveal the troubles of his army and his determination to remain on the defensive. On 20 September, when James's troops had got as far as the river Fane but had not yet come near Dundalk, he wrote: "I do not see why we should risk anything on our side. We have one little river in front of us and they another".18 That day, he wrote, eleven ships had come round from Carlingford into Dundalk Bay, so that the fear of actual starvation was removed. But Shales had not yet sent horses or carts for carrying provisions, and if the enemy laid waste to the country between Dundalk and Drogheda it would be very difficult to advance. A week later he was still in a defensive mood, and wrote to William: "So far as I can judge King James wants to have a battle before the armies separate on account of the bad season. So it seems to me that we should keep on the defensive . . . since there are still troops to come from Scotland and Denmark: by entrenching myself a little better I can continue in this camp without the enemy being able to force me".19 On 6 October he was still resisting William's pressure: "apparently Your Majesty thinks we should push the enemy before our army perishes from disease or before the reinforcements arrive that the enemy expect from France. I should very much like to do what Your Majesty is so eager for. I would have marched tomorrow, but as Your Majesty will see from the opinion of the general officers the whole army is without shoes and could not march two days without half going barefoot. So we shall have to wait for shoes from England. Not all the provision waggons have arrived, and the horses of those we have are in a very bad state. Shales did not even trouble to embark 120 artillery horses 15 J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin, 1773), iii (2), 34. 16 J. T. Gilbert, ed., A Jacobite narrative, pp. z$i'}. 17 A relation of what most remarkably happened. 18 Dalrymple, p . 28. 19 Ibid., p. 36.

Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689

99

which have been left at Chester." Besides the lack of supplies Schomberg complained of the quality of his army: "The colonels who raised new regiments, and particularly the Irish lords, thought of nothing but getting boys on the cheap . . . The officers are incapable, but their slackness and laziness are worse still. . . Although the cavalry are not so recently raised, the officers take no care of their men's horses. They are so used to lodging in inns when they are on the march that they are quite astonished by this type of warfare . . . The colonels take so little care of their regiments that half the pikes are broken, and so are half the firelocks and muskets".20 If this was so, it is odd that Schomberg does not seem to have taken any disciplinary action against the defaulters. Among the troops he thought best of were the Inniskillings. He told William: "The Inniskilling troops appear to be keen and I believe they are more dependable than the regiments of the Irish lords . . . It would be better to break some of the regiments newly raised in England and to keep all the Inniskillings. I hope their clothes will come soon; they will then look much better. I think they would be good shots if they had firelocks".21 Schomberg combined pessimism about his own army with an exaggerated view of James's, which was certainly as raw and as badly equipped. He wrote to William: "The enemy are not only strong in number but also well disciplined; the site of their camp is as well chosen as the ablest generals could contrive".23 But the general of whom Schomberg had most to fear was General Fever. Sickness in the Dundalk camp assumed appalling proportions, the combined result of marshy ground, heavy rain and insanitary habits. George Story gives a grim account of conditions in the disease/ridden camp. To protect them from the damp ground the men had been ordered to build wooden huts, thatched with straw, and to bring in fern to strew on the floor. However, "most of them were so lazy that they would starve rather than fetch fern or anything else to keep themselves dry and clean withal; which certainly was the greatest occasion of distempers, sickness and death itself, and many of them when they were dead were incredibly lousy".23 A number of the sick were sent to Carh'ngford to await shipment to Belfast. Story goes on to say: "An officer was sent out of every regiment to look after them; but for all this a great many died miserably, and several officers did not take the care that was necessary, nor was there either drugs or indeed chirurgeons to look after the sick". Others who could not be moved were piled into huts in the camp: "The chaplain . . . went to see them once a day, but always at his going found some dead. Those that were alive seemed very sorry when the others came to be buried, not that they were dead (for they were the hardest/hearted to one another in the world), but whilst they had them in their huts they either served to lay between them and the cold wind or at least were serviceable to sit or lie upon".24 20 21 22 23 24

Ibid., pp. 42/9. Ibid., pp. 29'3O. Ibid., p. 49. Story, Impartial history, p. 27. Ibid., pp. 26, 30.

100 War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 The chief killer seems to have been dysentery, the product of insanitary habits in a fixed camp, but the repeated references to bee may suggest typhus. The English troops suffered worst. Story notes that a Dutch regiment were so well hutted that not more than eleven of them died during the whole campaign. The surgeons were very badly provided with drugs to deal with flux and fever, "having in their chests only some little things for wounds*'.26 The French apothecary was put under arrest for failing to bring medicines. The physician/ general of the army was Dr. Thomas Lawrence, who belonged to a well/known medical family and later became chief physician to Queen Anne, a post of considerable responsibility. The only reference to his activities at Dundalk is to a conference he held on 13 October with all the surgeons, apparently to discuss what methods should be adopted to deal with the flux and fever, which were then very serious. Each regiment had its chirurgeon and chirurgeon's mate, but their standing was much less than that of a physician. Hospitals were set up at Carlingford, and are said to have been in charge of French doctors. On 6 October James drew his army back from the line of the Fane to Ardee, which remained his position for the rest of the month. The site was not so good, the weather was very bad and James's army became severely affected by sickness and shortage of supplies. One of the chief complaints was about the lack of salt. Neither huts nor tents kept out the water; the soldiers had to lie on the soaking' wet ground and live on half-cooked meat. The death-roll rose alarmingly. James fortified Ardee and left a garrison to hold it as an advanced post, and at the beginning of November he and the main army withdrew to Dublin. A few days later Schomberg withdrew his army from Dundalk and went back to Ulster, making Lisburn his headquarters for the winter. One of Schomberg's chief problems was getting his sick away. As many of them as possible were crowded on to the ships at Dundalk or Carlingford. Tents from the camp were put on board to keep the sick men warm. Nearly 2,000 of them were put on board, and 800 were dead by the time the ships reached Belfast. Some ships were found to have all their passengers dead. Conditions for those who were sent by road were even worse. In Story's words: "All the roads from Dundalk to Newry and Carlingford were full of nothing but dead men who, ever as the waggons jolted, some of them died and were thrown off as fast . . . As for the great hospital at Belfast there were 3,762 that died in it from 1 November to 1 May, as appears from the tallies given in by the men that buried them: so that upon the whole matter we lost high half of the men we took over with us."26 James was well satisfied to have challenged Schomberg and to have had his challenge declined. In his own words: "Thus the campaign ended very much to the king's honour and advantage . . . The miserable diseases which afflicted the enemy's camp was a visible mark of God's judgment on that wicked and rebellious generation."27 The official Jacobite account expressed a similar 25 Ibid., p. 39. 26 Ibid. 27 J. S. Clarke , Life of James II, ii, 384.

Schomberg at Dundalk, 1689

101

satisfaction: "The mighty expectations of the great Schomberg and his rebellious adherents were defeated and he marched back towards Belfast with the weak remainder of his army, being diminished much above one/half by extreme sickness and want of necessary subsistence, though he had a fleet to attend him and a whole province behind him."28 After Schomberg's withdrawal Dundalk became an advanced post for the Jacobite army, which found it in an appalling condition. Captain John Stevens described the scene: "Besides the infinite number of graves, a vast number of dead bodies was found there unburied, and not a few yet breathing, but almost devoured with lice and other vermin".29 From the Williamite point of view Dundalk had been a disaster. Instead 01 making a rapid conquest of Ireland Schomberg had got bogged down in a defensive operation which had left his army horribly weakened by disease and mortality and had contributed to a remarkable recovery of Jacobite morale. It was going to be necessary for William himself to undertake the hazardous and altogether undesirable task of coming to Ireland in 1690. Story's account shows that Schomberg was severely criticised, though Story does his best to find excuses for him and to point POINTout the difficulties with which he had to grapple. There was the inevitable post mortem, and the English house of commons held an investigation into the shortcomings of the expedition. The result was to make a scapegoat of Shales. A n address was presented to William: "That Mr. John Shales, the commissarygerieral of the provisions, be forthwith taken into custody and all his accounts, papers and stores be secured, and that a fit person or persons be put into his place."30 William granted the request, and Schomberg was ordered to arrest Shales and impound his papers, keeping a sharp look/out for fraud in the accounts. Shales was sent over to England to be prosecuted for high crimes and misdemeanours, but I cannot find that he was ever punished. He continued to hold an official post until his death in 1695, when his office was taken over by his son. The house of commons' complaints were also aimed at higher game than Shales. A second address was presented to William, criticising "the want of ability or integrity in those who have had the direction of the said affairs and by whose advice not only the reducing of Ireland has been obstructed, but the treasure of this kingdom wasted and the lives of many brave soldiers and able seamen lost without any such suitable effect as might reasonably have been expected."31 Schomberg's reputation suffered severely. In the words of a con/ temporary: "It has cast such a mist upon him that the remainder of his life will not be able to dissipate."32 28 29 30 31 32

A relation of what most remarkably happened. R. H . Murray, edL, The Journal ofJohn Stevens, p. 96. Commons'jn. (Eng.J, x, 295. Ibid., p. 296. Cal. S.P. iom., i68<)'<)o, p . 382.

Frederick, 1st Duke of Schomberg (engraving after Kneller)

Detail from the engraving by Theodore Maas of the Battle of the Boyne (1690).

104

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

William was very disappointed in Schomberg, and when he came to Ireland he treated him with marked coldness. It was with the greatest reluctance that William took the decision to come here in 1690, a move that was very risky and also prevented him from dealing with the critical situation on the continent. He made it clear that he came to the decision only because he thought that Schomberg's expedition had been mishandled and that unless he himself went to Ireland "nothing worth while would be done". He took care to see that the supply position was drastically overhauled and that he was provided with a much larger and better equipped army than Schomberg had had. Schomberg's mistake had been to allow himself to be so ill served in transport, equipment, provisions and men and to have confined his dissatisfaction to verbal protests. He had not long to live. He was killed on the south bank of the Boyne in the thick of the fighting. He got no state funeral and for a memorial he had to wait for forty years till Jonathan Swift, getting no response from the Schomberg family, put up a tablet to him in St. Patrick's Cathedral which contained the bitter comment that strangers' regard for his bravery counted for more than the ties of family/feeling. Dundalk had proved the grave of a great reputation.

8 EYE-WITNESSES OF THE BOYNE

T

HE Boyne is probably the most famous of Irish battles; at any rate it is

the only one to receive annual attention. It was undoubtedly the most internationally celebrated event in Irish history and its result was eagerly awaited in many countries of Europe. At the same time there has been a great deal of controversy about it. Was it the glorious and overwhelming victory that Williamite tradition has made it out to be ? Or, as a Frenchman put it, was it a mere skirmish, only worth considering because it was the nearest approach to a battle that William ever won ? Macaulay has described it in one of his best purple passages,26 but his interpretation has been strongly challenged by a number of non/Williamite historians, including Hilaire Belloc27 and our own President, Sir Charles Petrie.28 A particularly severe critic was Demetrius Boulger, whose book The battle of the Boyne appeared about fifty years ago. The questions at issue are whether James and his army should have made a better showing; whether the Boyne position was tenable; whether the Jacobites' disposal of their forces and the behaviour of those forces was the best that could have been expected in the circumstances. On the other hand, did William fail to make the most of his superiority in numbers and equipment; were his military dispositions sound; and, if so, why did the Jacobite army get away with such comparatively small losses ? It may therefore be of interest to examine some of the eye/witness accounts of the battle and see whether they can be used to provide answers to these questions. There are a great many eyewitness accounts on both sides. It was an inter-* national battle, and those who wrote about it were French, Dutch, Danish, German, Swiss, English, Scottish, Anglo/Irish, and even an Irishman whose diary,writteninLatin,wasshowntoMacaulay.yy.y.catulay. heseemsula 29Heseenms ti he Heseemstohavebeena schoolmaster who had joined up for the emergency. Other Irish eye-witnesses no doubt helped to provide material for the two Irish histories of the war—the Fingall manuscript called the' Light to the blind,' and thehe Destruction of Cyprus, written by Charles O'Kelly,30 who had a son at the Boyne. The accounts vary enormously in quality and frequently contradict one another on points of detail. They range from letters written on the spot to the memoirs of old soldiers written many years later. Taken together, they show how difficult it is to give a satisfactory detailed account of a battle. They can be divided into three categories: letters, diaries and journals, narratives and memoirs. Of these, the letters have the great advantage of being dated. One instinctively gives more weight to a letter written within a few days of an event than to memoirs that may have been written years after it. Letters may go wrong because of prejudice or the wish to impress the recipient, or because the writer got a garbled impression of events in other parts of the battlefield; but at any rate they are fresh evidence. Some of the Williamite correspondence is very fresh evidence indeed. There are

106

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

two letters written on the morning of July I—the day of the actual battle (I use the old style in giving dates). There are several from Duleek, written on July 2. The longest and most interesting is to the King of Denmark from the Danish envoy ' writing in haste on a drum and not at all at my ease.'19 Others written that day were from Hop, the Dutch envoy/extraordinary, to the States General in Holland,16 and from Sir Robert Southwell, William's Secretary of State for Ireland, to Lord Nottingham, his opposite number in England.23 The official Williamite account was drawn up that day by Bentinck, Lord Portland, and copies sent to Holland and England for publication.20 Williamite diaries include those of Col. Thomas Bellingham, of Castlebellingham, who knew the local countryside well and was employed as William's A . D . C . ; then there were the diary of Gideon Bonnivert, a French trooper, and two Danish journals. The most detailed Williamite narrative was by George Story, chaplain of Lord Drogheda's regiment, which was at Oldbridge. His account, styled the True and impartial history, forms the backbone of Macaulay's and is the stand Williamite version.24 On the Jacobite side the first letter was written from Kinsale on July 4 by the Marquis de la Hoguette, who saw James off to France.2 The next was written at sea on July 9 by the French Lt./Gen. Lery, who went with James.5 Lauzun, the French commander, wrote from Limerick on July 14.4 All of them were anxious to minimise their own part in the defeat, and some of them were inclined to turn the Irish into scape/goats. The fullest narrative account on the Jacobite side is by James himself.3 Another interesting account is given in the Journal of John Stevens, an Englishman who was a captain in the Grand Prior's regiment. Th e Grand Prior was Berwick's younger brother and a colonel at the age of seventeen. Berwick's memoirs also describe the battle.1 A comparative analysis of all the available versions would be too long and too confusing. But I propose to examine some of them in an attempt to establish the broad features of the battle. James's army, about 25,000 strong, crossed the Boyne on Sunday, June 29, in two columns, one over the bridge at Drogheda, the other over the ford at Oldbridge.6 Lauzun says that the infantry marched over the ford at low tide, the drummers beating their drums without having to lift them over their knees.4 The Jacobite army took up its position on the southern bank with its right a mile from Drogheda and its left at Oldbridge.2'4'5 William's army, about 36,000 strong, arrived the next day—June 30—and drew up on the high ground to the north of the river with its centre opposite Oldbridge.2'23'24 On the Jacobite side there were differences of opinion about the prospects. Lauzun thought that it was not possible to put up any resistance. He later wrote that on the day he reached the Boyne he had reconnoitred upstream towards Slane and found it fordable everywhere.4 On the other hand, the French Lt./Gen. Lery thought that the position taken up was good and the most advantageous for a battle that could have been selected between Dundalk and Dublin; he thought that the prospects of victory were favourable.5 James himself wrote in his memoirs that he found * that post an indifferent good one, and indeed the country afforded no better.' He said he knew he was in a weak position, but

Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne 3

107

had no alternative to risking a battle there. It is worth noting that a couple of months earlier, before William reached Ireland, Schomberg had written to him that the Boyne was the most likely place for the Jacobites to stand, and the best plan would be to cross it at Navan, much higher up the river.31 The most obvious point about the position on June 30 is that William's right was already threatening to outflank James's left. On the Williamite side the view seems to have been that the river, with a hostile army in position on the other side, presented a formidable obstacle. The entry for June 30 in a Danish journal says that the Jacobite army was posted very advantageously and held the crossing strongly.11 Portland's official account says that William's first opinion was that crossing the fords held by the enemy was not only difficult but almost impracticable.24 Robert Parker, who was then serving in the 18th Foot, later wrote in his memoirs that when William took a view of the enemy he observed that they were strongly posted and saw plainly that it would be a difficult matter to force them from their ground unless some measures were taken before the battle which might oblige them to break the order in which they were drawn up.18 There was some artillery fire from both sides that day (in the course of which William got his minor wound), but no serious fighting. The entry in the Danish journal said that many people urged that the best course for the Williamite army would have been to make a direct attack on the evening of June 30, or at any rate to let some regiments try the crossing and see what show the enemy would put up, but this plan was turned down as William was determined never to undertake anything on a Monday.12 William held a council of war that evening, which is described in the Danish envoy's letter of July 2. He says there was a difference of opinion. One view was that of the Duke of Schomberg, supported by some of the English generals, that the best plan would be to make a false attack at Oldbridge (and thus focus the enemy's attention on that point), and to send the main part of the army four or five miles upstream during the night to cross the river at a ford and attack the enemy in the flank. The second view was that of the Dutch general Count Solms, which was to force a crossing at Oldbridge in the teeth of the enemy. This appeared to William to be the bolder plan and therefore (added the envoy) the more in accordance with his enterprising character. But he thought it rather risky and decided on a compromise between the two plans. Duke Schomberg's son, Count Maynard Schomberg, with the greater part of the cavalry was to cross the river at daybreak at the ford four orfivemiles upstream and try to contact the enemy at about 9 a.m. (an oddly long interval to allow). At the same moment William with the main part of the army was to attack in front and force the river crossing; this was to be between 8 and 9 because the tide would then be at the ebb.19 In fact, according to Hilaire Belloc, the tide would be at the ebb between 9.30 and 10 and the crossing at Oldbridge seems to have begun rather later.27 There is some doubt whether the plan was for the right wing to cross at a ford or at Slane bridge. Lt.'Gen. Douglas's account of the council says it was intended to march towards the bridge.14 On the Jacobite side, both James and Lauzun give some account of the steps taken to meet the threat from a Williamite move upstream. Lauzun says he

108

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

posted O'Neill's dragoons at Slane bridge on June 29 with orders to keep sending out advance parties.4 James puts this operation on the evening of the 30th. He says the thought the Williamites might either march upstream to cross at Slane or try to force the ford at Oldbridge. He therefore ordered the baggage to be packed so as to leave the ground clear for a battle at Oldbridge, and also ordered O'Neill's dragoons to defend the Slane crossing as long as they could without being cut to pieces. James thought that the enemy crossing at Slane would either engage the Jacobite army or march straight for Dublin, which he said they might easily have done at any rate with a detached body of horse and dragoons, being so much superior in numbers to the Jacobites.3 Lauzun says that on the night of the 30th he reported to James that the enemy were extending their right towards Slane far beyond the Jacobite left.4 A council of war was held in which it was decided to move the Jacobite position to the left at daybreak.2 There are a number of discrepancies in the accounts of the Williamite right wing. Some of them mention Douglas as the leader rather than Count Schomberg and there are variations as regards place, time and numbers. Slane bridge had figured in the preliminary plans of both sides, but it is doubtful whether any crossing took place at Slane. Story says the right wing were first ordered to pass all at Slane, but being better informed several regiments were commanded to pass at other fords between the camp and Slane. His map shows a point halfway between Slane and Rosnaree as where the right wing of the horse crossed.24 The most direct evidence for the movements of the right wing is in a letter written next day from Duleek by Count Schomberg's adjutant, addressed to the Count's wife. He says that his force—cavalry, dragoons, infantry and five small cannon— were to go upstream to a ford five English miles from the camp and try to cross if possible. They found on arrival at the ford that it was guarded by 1,200 horse. These must have been O'Neill's dragoons, though the number is seriously exaggerated—possibly to impress the Countess with her husband's bravery. Portland's official account was nearer the mark in estimating the opposing force as eight squadrons. (It is interesting that the dragoons were considered to be horse: evidently they fought mounted.) Count Schomberg began by sending 100 mounted grenadiers down to the ford to draw the enemy's fire; they were followed by Dutch dragoons. When they reached the ford the enemy began to fire, but the dragoons plunged into the river. The enemy charged them, but the Count observed that the charge had thrown the enemy into some disorder and, sword in hand, he led the dragoons through the water. He then charged the enemy so effectively that he tumbled them one against the other and they were driven back two miles towards the main enemy force. Count Schomberg's infantry were left behind to cross the river as best they could. The adjutant was then sent to report to William, who ordered Douglas to go to the Count's support with ten battalions of infantry and a brigade of cavalry.22 James, who was of course not there, says that Count Schomberg crossed at Slane and was held up for almost an hour by O'Neill's dragoon's.3 It is only from the ' Light to the blind '—one of the Irish histories—that we find that the bridge of Slane had been broken and that O'Neill had taken up a position at Rosnaree.29 It is probable that this version is correct and that O'Neill decided that it would be useless to guard

Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne

109

the bridge at Slane leaving the Rosnaree ford unguarded. Lery, who commanded the Jacobite cavalry on that wing says that the Williamite cavalry all passed over below Slane, the river being fordable everywhere for a mile above Oldbridge —a serious underestimate of the distance from Oldbridge to Rosnaree.5 The latter seems to be the place referred to by Gideon Bonnivert, who was a trooper in Count Schomberg's cavalry: ' next morning (July i) we were up at two of the clock and marched to gain a passage two miles off about five in the morning. The passage was a very steep hill and a shallow river at the bottom. That led into a veryfineplain; as we came there we found a party of the enemy with four or five pieces of artillery ready to receive us, but that did not daunt our men. They went down briskly, notwithstanding the continual fire upon us. The grenadiers and dragoons were first on the other side and we soon followed them.'9 This fits fairly well with the topography of Rosnaree, if the steep hill is taken to be that on the far side of the river. The most obvious ford—marked as such on the Ordnance Survey—is opposite the mill below Rosnaree, though the accounts indicate that the crossing was made at more than one place. The Williamite force that took up a position south of the river near Rosnaree amounted to about a third of the whole army. The Jacobite reaction was to make a corresponding move to the left in considerable force. Lery commanded the cavalry on this wing and Lauzun accompanied him. James says that he ordered the troops to follow Lauzun, believing that the enemy's main body was about to follow its right wing. However, as he found Tyrconnell with the right wing of the horse and dragoons and two brigades of infantry in position at Oldbridge he left them there and himself moved over to the left. There he found Lauzun's force drawn up in battle formation facing the Williamite right at a distance of half a cannon shot, that is about 500 yards. James goes on to say that while he was talking to Lauzun an A.D.C. came up with the news that theWilliamites had crossed at Oldbiidge and that Tyrconnell was beaten. So James whispered in Lauzun's ear that the only hope was for Lauzun's, men to charge before the Williamites opposed to him got the news from Oldbridge. However, Sarsfield and Maxwell, who had been to see the ground, reported that a cavalry charge was impossible as there were two double ditches with high banks and a little brook between them in the valley that separated the two forces. Much the same account is given by Lery who says that Sarsfield reported to the King that two bottomless ditches would prevent him from attacking the enemy.3 A rather different story is told by Hoguette, another French general, who was anxious to show his own courage and the feebleness of Lauzun. Hoguette says he asked Lauzun why they were wasting time, to which Lauzun answered that he had been told that a ravine and a marsh separated him from the enemy and prevented him from advancing. Hoguette said the marsh was not so great and that if there was a ravine it would have been quite easy to cross it while the enemy were still at a distance; in any case they were in such a position that they would have to beat the enemy or wait to be beaten. But Lauzun only answered that they would have to march by the left towards Dublin.2 There is quite a formidable ravine where a stream joins the Boyne halfway between Donore and Rosnaree. There is high ground stretching south from the

110

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

road with a steep boggy valley that divides into two and would present a con/ siderable obstacle. This seems to fit the various accounts rather better than the site marked in an eighteenth/century map which makes the two forces face one another further to the south. For instance, the Rev. Rowland Davies, who was chaplain to one of the Williamite regiments on that flank, says: ' we saw the enemy making towards us and that they drew up on the side of a hill in two lines, the river on their right.'13 We have two accounts by Williamite colonels of the trouble they had with the bog in this sector. One was Lord Meath, colonel of the i8th Foot, who wrote on July 5 to his lady friend in England to tell her that it was now quite safe for her to come over. He said: ' we drew up to enclose the enemy's whole army, but a damned deep bog lay between us; we could not soon pass it, which gave them time to run for it.'17 The other is from Richard Brewer, colonel of the 12th Foot, who said: * there was two brigades of us that for want of knowing the ground marched through such a bog that I thought the Divell himself could never have got through and so did [the enemy] or they had not faced us as they did for half an hour almost within musket shot. But . . . a prisoner told me that as soon as they see us get over the bog it half broke their hearts. For my part I thought I should ne'er have got out of it.'10 The effect of William's manoeuvre towards Slane was to bring the greater part of the Jacobite army away from the key point at Oldbridge into a position in which they took no effective part in the fighting. This part contained some of James's best troops, including Sarsfield's cavalry and all the French infantry. The main fighting took place opposite the stretch of river from Oldbridge to Drybridge, a mile downstream. Most of the accounts of it are Williamite, and they leave a somewhat confused impression, no doubt because the fighting was itself confused and none of the witnesses could form a clear picture of the action as a whole. Portland's official account tells us that three crossings were made at once: the first at a good crossing where the enemy were advantageously placed in a little village on the opposite bank—that was Oldbridge; at the second the foot waded up to 'he armpits; but at the third ' the horse were fain to swim.'20 From other accounts, however, it appears that the crossings were staggered over a considerable length of time. Story says that the Dutch Blue Guards were the first that took the river at Oldbridge and that the action started at a quarter past ten.24 The Danes crossed at the second ford about a hundred yards lower down and their commander, the Duke of Wiirtemberg, says that he crossed about eleven when the Dutch were already engaged in action on the far side.25 From an account it appears that the Duke of Schomberg was killed about midday and that it was soon after that William himself crossed the river with the left wing of the horse who went over at a very difficult and unusual place3—the maps show it at Drybridge. The crossings seem to have given a good deal of trouble, what with the numbers in the water and the rising of the tide. Story says the Dutch marching in eight or ten abreast stopped the current, which made the Oldbridge ford deeper than usual so that they were almost up to their waists.24 The Danes crossing a hundred yards lower had even more trouble, partly because they were in such a hurry to

Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne

111

cross that they missed the line of the ford and were up to their shoulders and necks; they had to hold their muskets and powder above their heads.16 Their commander solvtd the problem by having himself carried across on the shoulders of his grenadiers—the tallest of his troops.19 William himself had more trouble than anyone, crossing at the lowest point; his horse was bogged on the other side and he had to dismount and have it dragged out of the mud—traditionally by an Inniskillinger called MacKinlay. Southwell says that the landing was so boggy that the King * was fain to walk three or four hundred paces so as to be near out of breath' ;23 the poor man was asthmatic. During the early part of the action the Jacobite resistance was strong. Story says that for over three quarters of an hour the fighting was so hot that many old soldiers said they never saw brisker work.24 This raises the question whether the Jacobites could have prevented the crossing at Oldbridge if they had held that sector in greater strength. The French general Hoguette made out that on the day before he had pressed to have batteries set up at Oldbridge and had pointed out a place that would take the enemy both in front and in the flank; he also wanted earthworks to be made along the bank. He was disgusted that Lauzun would do nothing beyond stationing a single Irish battalion there.2 The Williamite accounts give little credit to the Irish infantry but show much more respect for the cavalry and dragoons. The Duke of Wiirtemberg's comment was: ' the Irish cavalry behaved extremely well, but the foot behaved very badly.'25 A lively account of this stage of the battle is given by the Danish envoy. ' The regiment of Dutch Guards was the first that crossed, the men being above their waists in water. The enemy occupied a village on the bank, about which there are small gardens enclosed by hedges. The Dutch rushed to the attack with such impetus that their opponents immediately abandoned their position and our men, having pursued them for some time, drew themselves up in battle formation to maintain the ground they had gained. A moment later, three squadrons of King James's bodyguard, which appeared to us to be very determined, rushed sword in hand upon this regiment, to whose support a regiment of French refugees and some English regiments were hurrying. It defended itself so bravely that the Irish were twice obliged to retire with heavy loss and the Dutch remained masters of the position. The Duke of Schomberg, who had not yet crossed the river . . ., seeing that if King James's bodyguard returned to the charge the Dutch regiment might be overwhelmed, hastened to bring it assistance by urging the regiments mentioned, together with some cavalry squadrons, to cross with all speed. To ensure the success of the manoeuvre he himself crossed. Scarcely had he reached the opposite bank when King James's bodyguard returned to the charge for the third time and with such intrepidity that it at length succeeded in breaking the lines of the Dutch regiment, which had not yet got support from the troops despatched for the purpose. They were, however, already in the river and were firing from a distance on the Irish, who urged on by too great a zeal had rashly ventured as far as the street of the village. This gave us an opportunity of cutting them off, so that very few remained and our troops were left masters of the situation.'19 A more epigrammatic account of the same action was given by Col. Bellingham: * the enemy's horse of Tyrconnell's regiment behaved

112

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

themselves well, but our Dutch like angels.'8 William's Secretary/at/war for Ireland, an Oxford don called George Clarke, writing his reminiscences many years later still remembered William's anxiety for his Dutch troops: ' The King was in a good deal of apprehension for them, there not being any hedge or ditch before them nor any of our horse to support them, and I was so near His Majesty as to hear him say softly to himself " my poor Guards, my poor Guards, my poor Guards," but when he saw them stand their ground and fire by platoons so that the horse were forced to run away in great disorder, he breathed out as people used to after holding their breath upon a fright or suspense, and said he had seen his Guards do that which he had never seen foot do in his life.'11 The chief problem of the Williamites was that of protecting infantry from cavalry, now that pikes were being given up. Portland's account mentions that on first reaching the far side several Williamite regiments were attacked by cavalry and dragoons and were in difficulties because they had no pikes.20 The alternative means of defence was the chevaux'de'frise—an arrangement of spik used as a protective screen. Wiirtemberg says that two French Huguenot regiments were overwhelmed by the Jacobite cavalry because they had no chevaux'de'frise ;25 in contrast, another Danish account says * the enemy horse advanced on ou Guards, but as they found chevaux'de'jrise and vigorous firing they retired again.' The decisive movement seems to have been that on the left led by William himself with Dutch and Danish cavalry and Inniskillings. Several accounts mention the trouble that William's wound gave him and the difficulty he had over carrying a sword. The contradictions in are(arethese a good accounts example of how hard it is to be accurate in reporting a battle. According to General Douglas, William was so crippled by his wound that he could hardly hold his sword.14 Portland says he held it in his left hand,21 and the Danish envoy says he carried nothing but a walking/stick.19 William and the left wing came into conflict with Lt.'Gen. Richard Hamilton in the last serious fighting of the day. Macaulay says this was at what he calls Plottin Hall.28 Story says it was at a little church and a village called Donore about half a mile from the river. From his map the village was near the old church on top of the hill, some way from the modern village which is well down the slope.24 Southwell's description supports this. He gives a good account of the action, which illustrates how difficult it was to distinguish friend from foe; both wore the same kind of uniform. His account is as follows: * it was about a mile further on the top of a hill where were some old walls that the enemy had well lined with firelocks. Here His Majesty led up some Dutch troops, but before they had got in the Inniskillingers had made an assault on the other side and did very bravely at first, but espying another great party whom they took for the enemy just ready to surround them they began to fly and did actively put in disorder the Dutch horse and all others that stood in their way. The place was unfortunately full of holes and dungpits and the passage narrow; but above all the dust and smoke quite blinded them. His Majesty was here in the crowd of all drawing his sword '—that sword again— * and animating them that fled to follow him. His danger was great among the enemy's guns which killed thirty of the Inniskillingers on the spot. Nay one of the Inniskillingers came with a pistol cocked to His Majesty till he called out

Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne

113

" What, are you angry with your friends J " The truth is the clothes of friends and foes are so much alike that His Majesty had had goodness to excuse all that passed.'23 What must be the same incident is referred to in a Danish journal: ' when the Inniskillingers on one occasion pressed the enemy too closely he chased them back on to our cavalry. I certainly believe that in the confusion and the thick dust they and Donop's regiment [Danish cavalry] charged one another in the belief that they were charging the enemy.'12 A similar confusion is mentioned in the journal of a Huguenot called Dumont; he says he was just about to run through what he took to be an enemy when the man called out * I'm an Inniskillinger' and then Dumont realised that he was a friend by the green he wore in his hat.15 William's men wore the green at the Boyne; the Jacobites wore white paper for France. In spite of these mishaps William got the better of the opposition at Donore. Hamilton was slightly wounded in the head and taken prisoner;16 the Irish cavalry were driven back, which caused a general retreat. A glance at the map will show that the whole Oldbridge sector was untenable once the Williamites controlled the high ground at Donore church. There was also an immediate threat to the Jacobite left, which could well be hemmed in between the two prongs of the Williamite advance. James's entourage were very nervous about his safety. Lauzun kept up a refrain of * Faster, faster' to the cavalry. When Hoguette represented that this would put the infantry in danger, Lauzun replied that nothing was to be thought of except saving King James's person. He ordered Hoguette not to leave the king and detailed Sarsfield's regiment to act as escort.5 Great confusion was created by the fact that both wings of the Jacobite army made off in the same direction, heading for the crossing of the Nanny Water at Duleek. John Stevens, who was with the Grand Prior's regiment coming from the Rosnaree side, describes how his men were marching ten abreast between high banks in Duleek lane when the Irish cavalry from Donore collided with them. * The horse,' he said, ' came on so unexpected and with such speed that all supposing them to be the enemy (as indeed they were no better to us) took to their heels.' The French, also coming from the Rosnaree side, saved the situation from complete disaster; Stevens gives the credit for this to Zurlauben, colonel of the Blue Regiment.6 We have Zurlauben's own account, which bears out Stevens's story. Zurlauben says that in their retreat from Donore the Irish cut across the Blue Regiment in a defile and Zurlauben had to fire on them to clear the position and enable his own men to draw up on the high ground beyond the crossing.7 That saved the situation for the Jacobites. The Williamite pursuit was not effectively carried much beyond Duleek. Although the Irish infantry are said to have run like sheep and thrown away their muskets—many of which were in fact useless—they lived to fight again and the cavalry and the French regiments made an orderly enough retreat. From these accounts how are we to judge the handling of the two armies ? To take the Jacobites first, it seems clear that too many troops were moved to the left away from the key position at Oldbridge to a position in which they took no effective part in the battle. What is more, this leftward move was made too late

114

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

to support O'Neill's dragoons, which of themselves were too small a force to stop the crossing at Rosnaree. Hoguette says the original plan had been to make the movement to the left at daybreak but that three hours had been wasted before the order to march was given; when they did march they could see that some of the Williamite force was over the river and driving back the dragoons. In short, the Jacobite move to the left was made too late and resulted in taking too large a fraction of the army (including some of the best troops) to an area where no real fighting took place. The remainder of the Jacobite army was too weak to defend Oldbridge and the fords below it. Hoguette also criticised the disposition at Oldbridge on the ground that only one battalion lined the bank and that the others were posted too far back.2 The other major mistake was for both wings of the Jacobites to make for Duleek, which inevitably produced confusion. James justified his decision to take that line of retreat, saying that it was necessary to pass a brook at Duleek as a bog higher up made it impassable.3 But the main road from Slane could have been reached by the Jacobite left without meeting the Nanny Water. The Williamites undoubtedly won the day. Their enemies had retreated in considerable disorder, leaving behind guns and baggage, even gold watches and silver dinner/services.16 The Danish envoy remarked that the Williamites camping at Duleek without tents or baggage kept themselves warm on a chilly night with bonfires of the muskets and pikes that the Irish had thrown away.19 All the same, the Williamite accounts show an uneasy realisation that their victory was not as complete as it might have been. The enemy had got away with comparatively small losses. The Williamite plan seems originally to have been to cut off the Jacobite retreat by a pincers movement. Southwell, writing on the morning of July i, said that the right wing had crossed the river at the upper fords and that the attack at Oldbridge was about to begin ' expecting that all may soon be disordered on the other side when both parties meet.'23 Similarly the Dutch envoy said the plan was to cross the river on both wings and hem in the enemy.16 The pincers movement did not come off because the Williamite right was immobilised facing the Jacobite left near Rosnaree. It would have been more effective to have moved down the road from Slane towards Dublin, and according to James it was beginning a move in that direction when he gave the order to march for Duleek. The Danish envoy discussed the question in his letter of July 2. He remarked that Count Schomberg had no orders to cut off the enemy retreat and that William himself did not pursue the enemy on his flank as closely as he might have done ' perhaps wishing to put into practice Caesar's maxim and leave his enemies a golden bridge' so that they were able to retire.19 The implication seems to be that William did not wish to cut off James's retreat and saddle himself with an embarrassing prisoner. According to Story Portland was in favour of a more vigorous pursuit, using the technique of mounting a musketeer behind each of three thousand cavalry, but his proposal was not accepted.24 William showed reckless bravery and was in the thick of the fighting, wearing his Star and Garter.23 He had three narrow escapes, the last being from a bullet that glanced off his boot. The unfortunate James lost all credit as a result of his

Eye-Witnesses of the Boyne

115

hasty departure from the battlefield. He headed the retreat to Dublin, where he complained bitterly that the Irish had run away. What the Irish thought of him has been variously expressed. A Williamite bishop is our authority for the saying attributed to Sarsfield: * as low as we now are, change but kings with us and we will fight it over again with you.'32

I.—EYE/WITNESSES A . JACOBITE

1. Berwick, Duke of, Memoirs, i, 63/76. 2. Hoguette, Marquis de la, to Louvois, 4/14 July and 31 July/10 Aug. 1690 (Min. guerre, 961, nos. 152, 176). 3. James, King, Memoirs in Life by J. S. Clarke, ii. 393/401. 4. Lauzun, Count, to Seignelay, 16/26 July 1690 (Ranke, Hist, of England, vi. 117/24). 5. Lery de Girardin, Marquis, to Louvois, 9/19 July 1690 (Min. guerre, 961, no. 178). 6. Stevens, Capt. John, Journal, ed. R. H. Murray, p. 121. 7. Zurlauben, Col. Conrad, to Louvois, 10/20 July 1690 (Min. guerre, 961, no. 179). B. WILLIAMITE

8. Bellingham, Col. Thomas, Diary, p. 129. 9. Bonnivert, Gideon, 'Journal* in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., viii. 18/21. 10. Brewer, Col. Richard, to Thomas Wharton, [ ] July 1690 (Carte MSS, 79). 11. Clarke, George, Autobiography (H.M.C., Leyborne'Popham MSS, pp. 272/4). 12. Danish journals in Danaher and Simms, Danish force in Ireland, pp. 45/6, 62/3. 13. Davies, Rev. Rowland, Journal, ed. R. Caulfield, pp. 122/5. 14. Douglas, Lt./Gen. James, to Duke of Queensberry, 7 July 1690 (M. Napier, iii, 715). 15. Dumont de Bostaquet, Memoires inedits, p. 272. 16. Hop, Jacob (Dutch envoy), to States General, 2 July 1690 (Europische Mercurius, July 1690, pp. 64/6). 17. Meath, Earl of, to—, 5 July 1690 (R.I.A. Proc, ix, 534/5). 18. Parker, Robert, Memoirs of military transactions, pp. 1 19. Payen de la Fouleresse, Jean (Danish envoy), to Christian V, 2 July 1690 (Notes and queries, 5th series, viii. 21). 20. Portland, Earl of, Narrative of the fight at the Boyne (R.I.A., MS 24, G. 1, no. 38).

H6

War and Politics in Ireland, I649-1730

21. Portland, Earl of, to Earl of Melvill, 4 July 1690 {Melvill and Let/en papers, pp. 459'62). 22. St. Felix to Countess Schomberg, 2 July 1690 (Kazner, Leben Friedricbs von Schomberg, u353'8. 353/8). 23. Southwell, Sir Robert, to Earl of Nottingham, 1 and 2 July 1690 (H. M. C., finish , ii 32629, Finch MSS, ii. 326, 329). 24.Story,Rev.George,imoartubistory,pp.7889,Impartialhistory,pp.78/89. 25. Wiirtemberg, Duke, to Christian V, 1 and 5 July 1690 (Danaher and Simms, Danish force, pp. 42/3). II.—OTHER REFERENCES 26. Macaulay, History of England, chap. xvi. 27. Hilaire Belloc, James the second (1928), pp. 253/68. 28. Sir Charles Petrie,ee,e jac cobite Jacobite movement959 (1959), pp. ni'i8. 29. J. T. Gilbert, ed., A Jacobite narrative, pp. 97/105. 30. C. O'Kelly, macar9ae Macariae excidium, or the destruction of Cyprused, ed. J. C. O'Callaghan, pp. 502. 31. Schomberg to William III, 14 March and 26 Apr. 1690 (Cal. S. P. dom., I689'9O, pp. 509, $66). 32. G. Burnet, History of his own time (1823), iv. 140.

9 MARLBOROUGH'S SIEGE OF CORK, 1690

M

ARYBOROUGH'S Munster expedition was well planned and well executed. His capture of Cork and Kinsale was a valuable, but some what embarrassing, offset to William's own failure at Limerick. When the project was mooted it appeared to many to be foolhardy. While William and most of his army were in Ireland, the French had defeated the combined English and Dutch fleets offBeachy Head on 30 June 1690, and there was widespread panic that England would be invaded. Apart from burning the village of Teignmouth the French made no landing, but their fleet remained off the Devon/ shire coast forfiveweeks, and did notfinallyleave Torbay till 4 August.1 Immediately afterwards Marlborough, who was commandepin/chief in England during William's absence, astonished the English government by proposing to lead an expedition of 5,000 troops to the Munster coast. Most of the political leaders were strongly opposed to the plan, which meant a serious weakening of English defences while William was in Ireland and there was still fear of a French invasion. However, the Earl of Nottingham, Secretary of State, supported the plan, and so did Admiral Russell, who after Beachy Head had become the senior naval commander. Queen Mary, who was in charge during William's absence, decided that it must be referred to the king. The proposal was conveyed in a letter from Marlborough dated 7 August, which reached William at Limerick on 14 August, two days after Ballyneety had damaged his prospects of taking the town. William had shown little liking for, or trust in, Marlborough. So it is remarkable that he should at once have approved the project. He promised to let Marlborough have cavalry support from the forces in Ireland, but warned him that no artillery could be spared; he would have to bring his own munitions and use naval guns.2 Marlborough was now forty, and this was his first independent command. Petticoat influence had helped to make him a colonel at the age of twenty/four, and he had seen some active service with the French army under Turenne. But most of his experience had been that of a courtier and diplomatist. In November 1688, after William had already landed in England, he was made a lieutenant' general by James, whom he deserted very soon afterwards. William confirmed the promotion, made him an earl, and sent him in 1689 to Flanders with 8,000 English troops to serve under the Prince of Waldeck. He acquitted himself well, but returned to find himself coldly treated by William and Mary, who disliked the close relationship that Marlborough and his wife had with the Princess Anne. It was a tribute to William's good sense that he did not allow his personal feelings to affect his judgment of Marlborough's project. 1 London Gazette, T\\ Aug. 1690. 2 William to Marlborough, 14 Aug. 1690, quoted in W. S. Churchill, Marlhorougb, i, 326/7.

118

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1 730

On 2$ August 1690 (while the siege of Limerick was still in progress) a warrant was issued to Marlborough to embark eight infantry regiments. Three of them—Trelawney's, the Princess of Denmark's and Hastings's (later the 4th, 8th and 13 th regiments of foot)—had fought at the Boyne, and had then been sent back to England because of the French invasion threat. The rest—the Prince of Denmark's, the regiment of fusiliers, and the regiments of Hales, Collier and Fitzpatrick—had served under Marlborough in Flanders in the previous year. All had therefore had recent experience of active service. On the same day a warrant was issued to the admiralty to land 2,000 men of the two marine regiments at such places as the Earl of Marlborough should appoint.3 No time was lost in assembling the expedition, and Marlborough and his men were on board at Portsmouth on 30 August. Their escort was to be the main fleet—42 capital ships and 10 fire/ships—together with 17 Dutch ships. But the admiralty protested that it was unnecessary and unwise to send firstTates and second/rates and the main strength of the expedition was third/rates.4 Even so it was an impressive array amounting, according to one estimate, to '80 ships great and small'.5 It was under the joint command of three admirals—Haddock, Killigrew and Ashby, their flagship being the 70/gun Kent.6 A notable captain was the Duke of Grafton, an illegitimate son of Charles II, who had the distinc/ tion of being the English sailor to emerge with most credit from the battle of Beachy Head. He was an old friend of Marlborough, who travelled in his ship, the 70/gun Grafton.7 Adverse winds held up the expedition, and it did not sail till 17 September.8 By this time William was back in England, and the project was less hazardous than it had at first appeared to be. Just before leaving Ireland William had given instructions to Count Solms, the Dutch general to whom the Irish command was to pass in the first instance: the important task was to support Marlborough and to keep the Jacobites away from Cork and Kinsale.9 Solms held a council of war, which decided that two of the Danish regiments should be posted on the Blackwater, and that Danish, Dutch and Huguenot cavalry should be at or near Mallow: 'we have not thought it right to send a larger army towards Cork or Kinsale, as by doing so we should expose the rest of the country'.10 The Danish infantry battalions were commanded by Major/General Tettau and the cavalry by the Dutch Major^General Scravemoer. Marlborough would have preferred English generals and English troops. He sent a 'fly/boat' in advance to Waterford with a letter to Solms asking for support troops and requesting that Major^Generals Kirk and Lanier should 3 Cal S. P. dom., 16901, p. 106. 4 Ibid., p. no; Finch MSS (Hist. MSS comm.), ii, 431; T.C.D., MS K. 5. 2, no. 167. First/ rates, generally speaking, had 100 guns or over, second/rates 80 upwards, but less than 100, third/rates 52/80 (W. L. Clowes, The Royal Navy, ii, 114). 5 J. T. Gilbert, A Jacobite narrative, p. 119. 6 London Gazette, 22*2$ Sept. 1690. 7 Churchill, Marlborough, i, 331. 8 London Gazette, 15/18 Sept. 1690. 9 Cal. S. P. dom., i6$0'i, p. i n . 10 Ibid., pp. 118/19.

Marlborough 's Siege of Cork, 1690

119

be sent with them. He said he proposed to land either at Crosshaven or at Passage West. In a postscript he added: 'The sea is so rough and I am so sick that you can hardly read what I have writ'.11 By this time Solms had left for England and his place had been taken by Ginkel, the Dutch general who remained in command of the Williamite forces in Ireland for the rest of the war. Ginkel replied that Kirk and Lanier were otherwise engaged on the Shannon, and that he hoped that Scravemoer had already joined Marlborough at Cork. He added that the Duke of Wiirtemberg had expressed a great desire to take part in the operation and that he had agreed to his doing so.12 This raised a complication. Wiirtemberg, who commanded the force hired by William from the king of Denmark, was a lieutenant/general of eight years* standing and could thus claim to rank senior to Marlborough.13 On the other hand he was a foreigner in charge of an auxiliary force, while Marlborough was William's subject. The first of the continental troops to reach Cork were 900 cavalry and 300 dragoons under Scravemoer and two weak battalions—661 in all—under Tettau. Wiirtemberg brought with him Danish, Dutch and Huguenot troops—2,900 infantry and 390 horse.14 On 21 September the fleet arrived off Crosshaven, at the entrance to Cork harbour, and Marlborough sent an express to Scravemoer and Tettau to join him. The next day the fleet entered the harbour. There was some firing from Prince Rupert's Tower on the east side of the narrow entrance, where the Jacobites had a battery of eight guns. A boat/party went on shore, drove the defenders off, dis' mounted the guns and threw the carriages into the sea. On 23 September Marlborough's force landed at Passage West, seven miles from Cork on the west side of the harbour.15 It is now time to look at the position from the Jacobite side of the hill. In spite of the successful defence of Limerick and William's withdrawal, the French maintained their previous decision to take their troops out of Ireland, and Tyrconneil, the Jacobite viceroy, determined to go with them. They sailed from Gal way about 12 September. The Williamites believed that the French had hastened their departure when they heard that Marlborough was coming.18 Although efforts were made to keep Marlborough's plans secret, they had been disclosed to the Jacobites. A letter written by Lauzun, the French commander, at sea, mentions that Marlborough was to land at Cork with eight regiments escorted by an English fleet, and that this had been discovered from despatches seized from a Williamite courier.17 11 Marlborough to Solms, 19 Sept. 1690 ( T . C . D . , MS K. 5. 2, no. 185). 12 Ginkel to Marlborough, 22 Sept. 1690 (ibid., no. 193). 13 K . Danaher and J. G. Simms, Danish force in Ireland, i6$0'i, p. 142. 14 Ibid., pp. 79/80. 15 London Gazette, 2/6 Oct. 1690, the long report in which is the primary source for the siege of Cork. It is the basis of the account in Story, Impartial history of the affairs ofIreland (1691), pp. 140/3. Of more modern accounts the fullest is Wolseley, Life offohn Churchill, i, 149/203. 16 Story, Impartial history, p. 136. 17 Lauzun to Louvois, 17/27 Sept. 1690 (Paris, Min. guerre arch., vol. 960, no. 177).

120

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

The command of the Jacobite army now passed to the young Duke of Berwick, the illegitimate son of James. Berwick, of course, had a most distinguished career later on and had already shown himself to be a brave soldier. But he was very young for high command, and his task was not made easier by acute dissension in the Irish army, in which the respective partisans of Tyrconnell and Sarsfield were at daggers drawn. A military council was established to advise Berwick, and Sarsfield was included in it; but it was said that he had been given the last place, and that only because army opinion would have been offended i( he had been left out.18 After raising the siege of Limerick the Williamite army withdrew a considerable distance from the Shannon. The Jacobites took advantage of this to cross the river and made an unsuccessful attack on Birr Castle. It would have been wiser to have secured the line of communication from Limerick to Cork and Kinsale, which were the most important harbours still in Irish hands and provided the best com/ munication with France. A half/hearted attempt was made to hold Kilmallock, one/third of the distance from Limerick to Cork. But the force was very weak— ioo foot and ioo dragoons under a French lieutenant/colonel, who were over/ powered by a detachment from the Danish force. The London Gazette observed: 'this [Kilmallock] is a very useful place for that it intercepts the direct passage between Cork and Limerick'.19 The main Jacobite army took no action to support Cork or to interfere with the Williamite concentration that threatened Cork from the north. Cork was the second city of Ireland, with a population that before the war had been estimated at 20,000. It had prospered greatly in Charles IFs reign and had spread outside its walls into suburbs on the high ground north and south of the city. The old walled city was on an island formed by a division in the Lee, and the area upstream and downstream was a maze of marshes and tributary channels. The walls werefiftyfeet high and in parts ten feet thick. They enclosed an oblong (approximately 700 yards long and 250 yards wide) running north and south, with gates at the ends leading to bridges over the north and south channels of the river.20 Opposite the south/west corner of the wall, on a rock above the south channel, was the Elizabeth Fort. This had originally been built at the end of Elizabeth's reign by Sir George Carew. The citizens had later demolished it, but it had been rebuilt and equipped with brass ordnance of varying sizes, the largest being a 24/pounder. It was, however, overlooked from the high ground to the south/east known as the Cat Hill.21 Cork's weakness as a place of defence was that it was commanded by hills on either side of the river. Thomas Phillips, the military engineer who surveyed it in 1685, reported that it was 'uncapable of being made strong by reason that at either end the hills command it to that extent that no person can move in the streets'.22 According to a Williamite account, published 18 C. O'Kelly, Destruction of Cyprus, ed. J. C. O'Callaghan, p. 72. 19 London Gazette, 15/18 Sept. 1690; Danish force, pp. 76^7. 20S.6Coindealbhain,'Thek'inwallsofCork'incorhistjn CorkHist,andArch.Soc.Jn.,xlviii(194),61/2.21Thereisanexcellentaccounto f there is Elizabeth Fori by M. Mulcahy, T. F. MacNamara, and B. O'Brien in Jr. Sword, iv, 127/34. 22 Nat. Lib. Ire., MS 2557.

Cork in 1690 from Story's Impartial History (1691). West is at the top of the map.

122

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

shortly before the siege, 'it is fortified with a very good wall and curious stone bridge on which are several works; and being environed with water, were it not for the hills near i t . . . it might be made a place impregnable, but the hills has such a command of it that a battery from thence would beat the town about the ears of the garrison'.23 The commander of the garrison was Colonel Roger MacElligott, a Kerryman who had had considerable experience of military service on the continent, include ing a period in Holland in command of one of the English regiments supplied to William of Orange. During the English revolution of 1688 he had helped to hold Portsmouth for James, had been interned in the Isle of Wight by William, had escaped to France and then come with James to Ireland in 1689.24 He had a force of about 4,500 men—his own regiment and those of Lords Clancarty and Tyrone and Colonels MacCarthy, Barrett, O'Sullivan and another whose name is not recorded.25 Berwick appears to have taken the view that Cork was indefensible and to have ordered MacElligott to burn the city and withdraw to the west. MacElligott disregarded the instructions and tried to hold Cork.26 The key to the defence on the south side was Cat Hill. This had been selected by Phillips in 1685 as the best site for a secure armoury and storehouse. MacElligott began the construction of an outpost there and stationed a detachment of dragoons in it. On the north side he constructed new works a little below Shandon Castle.27 On 24 September, the day after they had disembarked at Passage West, Marlborough's men marched towards Cork. Colonel Hale's regiment led the vanguard and drew up before the outpost on Cat Hill. There was an exchange of fire with the Irish dragoons in the outpost, but no significant opposition was encountered. As Ensign Cramond put it: 'we had some popping from the hedges, but without loss'.28 Marlborough's heavy guns were brought along with the help of marines and naval ratings. They were mounted on Cat Hill in readi/ ness for a bombardment of the city. The main force camped that night about a mile and a half to the rear. On the morning of 25 September it was discovered that the Irish had abandoned the Cat post and withdrawn to the Elizabeth Fort. The discovery is said to have been made by two seamen who promptly took pos/ session of the post.29 Marlborough's men then advanced 'within musket shot of the town'. The same day Scravemoer and Tettau reached the hills on the north side. Tettau mounted guns on Fair Hill to the north of the city preparatory to an attack on the Irish works near Shandon Castle. But the Irish withdrew on this 23 An account ojtbe... cities and garrisons in Ireland that are still possessed by the forces of the late King James (1690), p. 6. 24 J. L. Garland, 'The regiment of MacElligott, 1688/89' in Ir. Sword, i, 121/7; R. Hayes, Biographical dictionary of Irishmen in France, p . 178. 25 C. Smith, Ancient and present state of Cork, ii, 205. 26 J. S. Clarke, Life of James II, ii, 419. 27 'Diary of Ensign Cramond', quoted in Cork Hist, and Arch. Soc.Jn., iii (1894),2<s I Danish force, p. 83. 28 Cork Hist, and Arch. Soc.Jn., ui, 26. 29 Smith, Ancient and present state of Cork, ii, 203.

Marlborough

's

Siege

of

Cork,

1690

123

side also. A Danish officer referred to the abandoned works as 'a redoubt which stood upon a hill so near the town that one could shoot with muskets into the street; outside it stood a large tower where [the enemy] had mounted guns; there was also a ravelin with a good communication trench and there were batteries for guns made in the ravelin*. He observed that the post was so well stocked that the Williamite advance might have been held up for a long time. These seem to be the works referred to by Story, the English chaplain and historian, as 'the new forts' and 'new Shandon Castle'.30 Besides abandoning their outposts the Irish burned the suburbs on either side of the river. The Williamites were highly critical of MacElligott's action in burning the suburbs, particularly as he had promised, for a consideration of £500 in silver, not to do so.31 There was an exchange of correspondence between MacEUigott and Scravemoer, whom he seems to have known in Holland. Scravemoer had evidently urged MacElligott not to resist the overwhelming forces brought against him and not to burn the town. MacElligott gave a pugnacious reply, accompanied by ajar of wine, in which he said he was not afraid of Scravemoer's cavalry nor of the infantry that had landed, and was resolved to receive all comers; whether he burned Cork or not would depend on what he thought best for his master's service.32 By the evening of 25 September the two prongs of the Williamite advance had, after negligible opposition, got possession of the heights on both sides of the river. That day also ships from Waterford came in with stores and provisions that Marlborough had sent there in advance. Marlborough had also asked the officers at Waterford to ship woolpacks, sandbags, pickaxes, shovels and a quantity of three/inch plank. Eight heavy guns were also put on board at Waterford 'to attend my lord Marlborough's commands'.33 Boats full of armed men were sent up the river to assist in attacking the city from the marshy ground to the east. Fine weather aided these movements. On 26 September the English troops moved forward through the ruins of the southern suburbs and there was some bombardment of the Elizabeth Fort. Similar bombardment took place from the neighbourhood of Shandon Castle on the north side. That day Scravemoer brought over his Dutch and Danish cavalry to the south side of the river and stationed them at Gill Abbey, south/west of the city. Wurtemberg arrived that day, which raised awkward questions of precede ence as he claimed the right of command. The problem was settled amicably by an agreement that he and Marlborough should command on alternate days. Marlborough, whose turn camefirst,made the password of the day 'Wiirtemberg', and Wurtemberg returned the compliment the next day. But the difficulty of divided command was not wholly removed. The Williamites had a useful helper in Rowland Davies, Dean of Ross, who had a house near Gill Abbey. Davies's journal is a good first/hand account of the siege and shows that he played an active part in helping the Williamite forces. He 30 Danish force, p. 83; Story, Impartial history, p. 141. 31 Smith, Cork, ii, 203. 32 MacElligott to Scravemoer, 23 Sept. 1690 (R. I. Acad., MS 1 2 . 1 . 12, p . 46). 33 T . C . D . , MS K. 5. 2, nos. 187,190.

124

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

says that on the morning of 27 September he told Scravemoer that good use could be made of the tower of St. Finbar's Cathedral: 'if boards were laid on the beams thereof, our men might gall the enemy in the [Elizabeth] fort*. Lieutenant Horatio Townsend was sent up with two files of men, succeeded in killing the commander of the fort and 'did other considerable execution*. The Irish fired back at the tower and 'shook it exceedingly'. Townsend fortified the resolution of his men by having the ladder taken away, and remained aloft till the Elizabeth Fort was surrendered.34 That day—27 September—there was heavy bombardment. A battery at the Cat post, consisting of two 24-pounders and three 18-pounders, fired at the Elizabeth Fort. Mortars threw bombs into the city. Heavy cannon were landed that morning 'near the Red Cow by Red Abbey' to the south-east of the city. They included some 36-pounders, which must have been among the heavy guns put on board at Waterford. A battery was set up near Red Abbey, which bombarded the eastern sector of the wall' and soon made it tumble'.35 The bombardment had the effect of making MacElligott begin negotiations. He began by making a gesture. The Protestant bishop—Edward Wetenhall—who had been held prisoner was let out with all his clergy and 1,300 of his congregation and allowed to come into the Williamite camp. MacElligott also wrote again to Scravemoer saying that his own resolution to defend the city to the last was unshaken; however, under pressure from others he proposed that two Williamites should come into Cork and two Jacobites should go out to the Williamite camp to discuss terms for a settlement, and that in the meantime there should be a ceasefire.86 Scravemoer replied that 'this matter did not belong to me, but to my lord Marlborough, who commanded*. MacElligott accordingly wrote to Marlborough 'excusing himself that he did not know it was his lordship that commanded*. Marlborough answered that the only terms he was prepared to give were to make the garrison prisoners of war. Meanwhile, however, MacElligott had also written to Wiirtemberg, who was on the north side of the city. The latter replied that if the garrison would lay down their arms they would be permitted to march away. Fortunately for the relations between Marlborough and Wiirtemberg, MacElligott did notaccept accept thelisss lessrigoruous rigorous of two offers. words: 'the did nit the of the the tow of fers. IInNScravemoer's SCRAV MORE TJETJE DIDNOT ACCEPT HE LESS RIGOUSOF THEH TOFFERS WORDS WORDS THE l

l

i

t

s

e

g

a

t

s

r

o

u

h

o

t

d

d

p

e

n

e

d

a

k

n

e

h

e

h

r

c

p

i

p

eI h

a

r wt

o

a

f

h

d

e

t

i

b

d

r

o

n

r

e

v

o

g

a

f

o

l

i

v

e

d

devilgovernor did that which i befotre and dipt our hostages till of a goveer

the came in, and afterwards sent word that he THJAT could not suchSU a THEtide TIDDE CAME AND AFTERWADS SENT WORD HEaccept COULDofNOT 37 capitulation, and soSO made a jest of OF us'.US CAPITULATION, AND MADE AJEST The next morning—28 September—the bombardment was resumed and a breach made in the eastern wall, about sixty yards from the south-east angle. About 1 p.m., when the tide was nearly at the ebb, a simultaneous attack through the east marsh was made from both sides: the English under Marlborough's brother, Brigadier Charles Churchill, from the south, and continental troops— 34 35 36 37

R. Davies, Journal, ed. R. Caulfield, pp. 152-3. Ibid., pp. 153-4. MacElligott to Scravemoer, 27 Sept. 1690 (R.I.A., MS 12.1. 12, p. 24). Scravemoer to George Clarke, 29 Sept. 1690 (T.C.D., MS K. 5. 2, no. 203).

Marlborough 's Siege of Cork, 1690

125 38

Danes, Dutch and Brandenburgers—under Wiirtemberg from the north. This was difficult going. The east marsh was bisected by a stream where Patrick Street now is, and both parts were separated from the wall by what was described as a moat twenty feet wide at the narrowest point, now covered by Grand Parade. The English force went up to their armpits as they crossed the south channel on to the marsh. The van was led by the Grenadiers, who moved forward in the face of heavy fire to the extreme edge of the marsh to within twenty yards of the wall under cover of a house that had escaped destruction. Particular note was taken of the bravery of the Duke of Grafton who was mortally wounded *in the point of his shoulder' in this operation.39 A few days later he died, much lamented by Williamites; his fate was mourned in a broadside entitled 'England's tribute of tears on the death of His Grace the Duke of Grafton'.40 The name Grafton's Alley was later given to the street near the spot where he was wounded. Another volunteer who distinguished himself in this action was Lord O'Brien, who later became the third Earl of Inchiquin. On the Danish sector Colonel Munchgaar of Prince Frederick's regiment drove the Jacobite outposts across the marsh to *a little gate and bridge that joined the island to the town; 20 or 30 of them had to jump into the moat, apart from those left dead on the bridge'. The Irish from within the city reacted strongly: 'they crowded on the walls and did their best with their muskets so that I [Munchgaar] quickly got my men under cover and warded off a large body that tried to make a sortie'.41 To support the land troops the Salamander, which is described as a bomb/ketch, and another vessel had come the channel by the morning tide. They bombarded the breach and threw bombs

into the city. INTO YHR VI

This combined assault was too much for MacElligott. He beat a chamade and sent out the Earl of Tyrone and another officer to ask for terms. He was told that the garrison would be made prisoners of war, but that they would be treated with consideration. Among the terms, which were accepted by MacElligott, were the following: that the garrison should be treated as prisoners of war, and that there should be 'no prejudice done to the officers, soldiers or inhabitants'; and that Marlborough would try to obtain clemency for them from William.42 There was to be much complaint that the treatment given to the garrison and the citizens was very different from that promised in the capitulation. That night—28 September—the Elizabeth Fort was surrendered and occupied by 200 of Marlborough's men. The fort had been used as a prison for Protestants, who were now set at liberty. On the morning of 29 September the Williamites entered the city, but in no very orderly fashion: Many seamen and other loose persons entered the city through the breach and other places and plundered many houses, especially of papists. As soon as the bridges could be mended, the Earl of Marlborough and Major/General 38 39 40 41 42

Danish force, p. 152. Davies, Journal, p. 156. Nat. Lib. Ire., Thorpe pamphlets, vol. xii. Danish force, p . 83. London Gazette, 2<6 Oct. 1690.

126

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Scravemoer entered and took much pains to preserve the city from further damage . . . In the afternoon all papists were ordered by proclamation on pain of death to repair to the East Marsh, where all that had been under arms were secured and after put under guard, the officers in the County Court House and the rest in the churches and other places.43 Scravemoer estimated the number ofprisoners at nearly 5,000; he put the William/ ite losses at no more than 50. The primary reason for the surrender seemed to be shortage of ammunition: 'we found no more than two small barrels of powder, an hundred of ball at the most, and a good deal of match*.44 A number of officers, including MacElligott and the Earls of Clancarty and Tyrone, were put on board the ships which returned to England. MacElligott was confined in the Tower of London till the war with France came to an end in 1697, when he was released and entered the French service. Clancarty was the chief Williamite prize. His enormous estate—135,000 acres—was confiscated. He himself was lodged in the Tower, escaped to France, and after sundry advent tures spent his declining years on an island in the Elbe. The Earl of Tyrone died very soon after being put in the Tower. Some other officers came to an untimely end when they were put on board the Breda, which blew up in Cork Harbour. The fate of lesser prisoners was deplorable. According to Charles Leslie of Glaslough, the garrison were marched to a 'marshy wet ground*, where they were forced through hunger to eat dead horses; they were afterwards crowded into gaols, houses and churches under such insanitary conditions that they died in large numbers.45 The Williamite governor of Cork, Colonel Hales, described the city as 'crowded with the sick and prisoners, but especially the latter, who died so fast with a kind of pestilence that unless the garrison were thinned of them it was in danger of receiving the infection'.46 Shortage of supplies and mismanagement seem to have been the main factors in the situation rather than deliberate ill' treatment. Marlborough had achieved a notable success, gained by efficient planning and vigorous execution. He was greatly aided by the active co/operation of the navy, both in the transport of men, guns and stores, and in the amphibious attack on the walls. He also received effective support from the continental troops under Wiirtemberg, who took just as active a part in the final assault as Marlborough's own men. MacElligott came under criticism from his own side for his failure to withdraw from Cork and for his ill/judged refusal to accept the comparatively favourable terms offered to him by Wiirtemberg. The Marquis d'Albeville (Ignatius White) wrote to James in a letter intercepted by the Williamites: Cork was taken by the enemy after six days' siege for want of ammunition, and the garrison made prisoners of war by the ill conduct of the governor. The Earl of Clancarty advised the burning of the town and to make their 43 Da vies, Journal, p. 156. 44 T.C.D., MS K. 5. 2, no. 203. 45 C. Leslie, Answer to a book intituled, The State of the Protestants, p. 162. 46 T.C.D., MS K. 5. 3. no. 277.

Marlborough 's Siege of Cork, 1690

127

way through the weakest body of the enemy, as all were willing to do . . . but that the governor assured them of obtaining good conditions. On the fift day of the siege they might have had good conditions and refused them; on the sixth the governor was so silly as to send the bishop and the Protestant dean to go out and capitulate, who assured the enemy they had no powder left.47 The court memoirs that form the Life of James 11 observed that the governor, though in no condition to hold Cork to the last, 'did it however till he could have no condition at all, and being forced to surrender upon discretion found little compassion at the enemy's hands'.48 Cork was the first town taken by the Williamites in which the garrison were made prisoners. At Drogheda and Waterford the garrison had been allowed to march away. The defence of Cork had gained a little time for the Jacobites—six autumn days, but it was at a heavy price in prisoners of war. They would probably have done better to abandon Cork and concentrate on the defence of Kinsale, where there was a modern fort and ample store of ammunition, but inadequate manpower. With the forces available to him MacElligott had not the means of holding the high ground on both sides of the river and thus was in an impossibly weak position. The failure of the main Jacobite army to tackle Wiirtemberg's force was an additional factor in the loss of Cork. If the French had remained and had taken active measures to relieve the city the story might have been different. The Williamites profited by Jacobite mistakes, but could fairly claim to have earned their victory. The prize was the second city in Ireland, a good harbour and a busy trading centre. It cut the Jacobites off from an important link with France and paved the way for the capture of Kinsale—'one of the best and securest harbours in the world'49—which from a naval point of view was an even greater prize. Marlborough had greatly improved William's prospects in Ireland. William acknowledged his services in somewhat ambiguous language: 'No officer living, who has seen so little service as my lord Marlborough, is so fit for great com/ mands'. He did not give Marlborough the opportunity of completing the conquest of Ireland in 1691.

47 Finch MSS, ii, 470. 48 Clarke, Life ofJames II, ii, 419. 49 Story, Continuation of the impartial history, p. 45.

This page intentionally left blank

10 A JACOBITE COLONEL: LORD SARSFIELD OF KILMALLOCK HE correspondence and papers1 of Dominick, fourth Viscount Sarsfield of Kilmallock are a valuable source of information on the Irish army of 1689/91. Lord Kilmallock, as he was commonly called, was an experienced soldier. As a young man he had enlisted under a false name in the French army and had before long been made a sergeant, a rank which he held for several years.2 In 1689 he returned to Ireland, married Patrick Sarsfield's sister and was made Colonel of a regiment of foot. He took his responsibilities seriously, and earned the reputation of being a conscientious officer who devoted himself to the interests of his regiment.3 A letter which Kilmallock wrote to his wife on 26 July, 1689 touches on some of the problems with which he was faced on taking up his command. He wanted his regiment to be moved up from the country to Rathcoole in the neighbourhood of Dublin, so that he could get its supply of arms "with less danger of being spoiled". His wife was to speak to Lord Melfort about this and also about money for uniforms. She was to get one of the Ensigns to procure red and blue velvet for the grenadier Captain's cape (sic) and blue and red broadcloth for two Lieutenants. He asked her to send to the tailor in Thomas Street for his own red coat. The officers* uniforms were ready by the beginning of September, when the regiment began its march north to meet Schomberg near Dundalk. Money, however, was not readily forthcoming. Eventually the tailors sent a petition to the King, complaining that they had not been paid for officers' coats, breeches, trimmings and other materials supplied to Lord Kilmallock's regiment; they demanded that the money should be stopped out of his Lordship's pay. There are many references in the correspondence of the next few months to the question of providing uniforms for the men. One of the company com/ manders, Walter Gal way, was posted to Dublin to act as agent for this purpose; his letters to Kilmallock give a detailed account of the difficulties he experienced. The ordinary practice was for the Colonel to provide the uniforms and to recoup himself from part of the pay due to the regiment. This method left con/ siderable latitude to the Colonel in the choice of uniform, and Kilmallock paid close attention to the problem. He sent up patterns of cloth which were to

T

1 These are partly in Trinity College, Dublin and partly in the possession of Col. T. Sarsfield of Mallow, who has lent his MSS to the National Library of Ireland. My thanks arc due to Trinity College and to Col. Sarsfield for permission to quote from the MSS in their possession. 2 Negotiations d? M. le Comte d'Avaux, p. 536. 3 Ibid.

130

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

be shown to the Duke of Tyrconnell for approval; a convenient opportunity for this was expected to occur on the day that his grace was to dine with Major/General Sarsfield. A n estimate for clothing the regiment, which is among the papers, shows the equipment that was considered necessary and the price of individual items. The sanctioned strength of the regiment was thirteen companies, each consisting of two sergeants, three corporals, sixty/two privates and a drummer. The estimate for clothing amounted to £1,188 10s. nd. Each private was to get a blue coat with red badges at Ss. id., red breeches at is., a pair of buckled shoes at is. iod., a pair of red stockings at is., a haversack and a pair of gloves at is., two shirts at is. 6d. each, and two cravats at 6d. each. A sergeant was to have a red coat, which with the breeches would cost £1. A drummer was to have a blue embroidered coat, breeches and an embroidered cap, the whole outfit costing £1 $s. Unfortunately for Kilmallock's plans, King James was determined to cut down the cost of uniforms. Instead of the Colonels providing clothing for their regiments, a cheaper and less colourful uniform was to be issued from the commissariat stores. Captain Galway wrote: " I do not find that any colonel of the kingdom will have liberty to provide for his regiment; they must take what necessaries they have out of the stores in this place, and that pursuant to a resolution taken for the furnishing of the whole army". Eventually the stores in Dublin issued 862 sets of clothing for the regiment, each consisting of a surtout (close/fitting overcoat) "of very good frieze", a waistcoat, breeches, stockings and brogues, and a single shirt. Sergeants had to make do with the same coats as privates.4 The uniforms were sent down from Dublin to Cork in charge of an Ensign with an escort of thirty men who had fallen sick in the autumn campaign against Schomberg and had since recovered. Captain Galway issued these men with breeches, waistcoats, stockings and brogues "the better to enable them to travel". A number of other men who had been sick had gone off to their homes as soon as they had recovered, not even asking for back pay. The regiment was therefore considerably below strength. Galway wrote to Kilmallock that there was much talk in Dublin about the weakness of the regiment; he had assured Sir Richard Nagle that the regiment would soon be brought up to strength. He had also sent an Ensign to visit the Drogheda hospital, but there were only nine men still there. A n acrimonious dispute arose over the question of Captain Galway's expenses. He had arranged with each company commander to pay him £$ out of the bread money to recompense him for his trouble and expense in acting as the regimental agent in Dublin. Complaints were made to the treasury com/ missioners that the men were not receiving the proper amount of bread money; from the nominal allowance of seventeen deniers6 the French almoner deducted eight, and a further deduction was then made for Captain Galway's expenses. 4 The Williamitc army also abandoned the system under which Colonels provided uniforms; instead, the commissariat issued close-bodied coats of grey frieze. (C. Walton, History of the British standing army, 1660'ijoo, p. 390). 5 A denier was a small copper coin, worth about two^thirds of a farthing.

Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock

131

The latter was highly indignant that this should have led to reflections being cast on himself and on Kilmallock: " I answered that you did no more than all other regiments of the kingdom and that when you found the abuse of the French almoner you immediately petitioned their ooard about the abuse and desired satisfaction and that your petition was the first given in, which gave satisfaction as to that part; the next was that your lordship and I combined to make all the captains pay £5 each out of the bread money tor our own private use, so that there was eight deniers a ration stopped by the French almoner and £$ by me, which was two/thirds of the value of the bread; to which I answered that the regiment of their own consent allowed me £5 for the pains and trouble I took about their business for six months past, that your lordship was no way concerned in it, more than to think that I deserved that sum and to pay your proportion, and that I was resolved hereafter never to be concerned for a people who proved so ungrateful, and I demonstrated plainly that I deserved double that sum.*' It turned out that the complaints had come from one of the company commanders, Captain James Butler, who had told the story to his brother, Sir Toby, the Solicitor/general. The latter wrote a stiff letter to Kilmallock, pointing out that the King had expressly forbidden any deductions from the regimental bread money. For most of the winter of 1689/90 the regiment was in Cork or Limerick. In April, 1690 it was directed to march from Limerick to Dublin. The original order, which bears the signatures of James II and of Sir Richard Nagle, Secretary for War, is among the papers. It is of interest as a specimen of a seventeenth/ century movement order. The King*s signature—James R—comes at the top, followed by the text of the order: Our Will and pleasure is that you forthwith march with the Regim* of ffoote under your Comand from theire present Quarters to our Citty of Dublin by the Roote in the anexed list mentioned where they are to remaine and quarter till further order You are to Cause that in theire march and Quarters good order and discipline be observed both by the Officers & Soldiers and that they duely pay for what provision and other necessaries they make use off And herein you are not to fayle Given at our Court at Dublin Castle the 25th day of Aprill 1690 And in the sixth yeare of our Reigne By his Maties Comd Ri Nagle To Our Rt Trusty & Wellbeloved the Lord Vise* Kilmalocke Comanding a Regimt of fbote in our Service or to the officer in Cheife Comanding the same The order came at an awkward time, as most of the officers had gone out recruiting. The regiment was much below strength; only four companies were at full strength, and Captain Galway thought that unless the rest were substantially reinforced by fresh recruits the regiment would be unfit for active service. A

132

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

letter from Kilmallock's brother also refers to recruiting difficulties. He had managed by making great promises to secure "three lusty fellows" who were on their way to Dublin. He also had a plan to write to several parish priests and ask them to announce to their congregations that there was an order for pressing young men into the French regiments to replace casualties; it would be advisable for such young men to enlist voluntarily in Irish regiments, where they would receive kind treatment, instead of being compulsorily pressed into French regiments, where they would not be understood and would receive bad treatment. Kilmallock himself took a hand at recruiting; an item in a bill relates to five shillings paid to his lordship in the field at Rathcoole to "make O'Donnell's recruit drink". The regiment was short of arms, and an issue of French muskets was made to bring its equipment up to strength. The quality of the muskets was not very satisfactory, as appears from the following certificate granted by the storekeeper: By L* James McNamee Storekeepr of his Maties Magazine of Warr in Limerick I doe hereby Certifie that the Carrieres of Cork brought from Corke the Number of foure hundred ninty and nine french Muskets w(h Matchlocks, besydes one lost by the s<* Cariers on the way: of which number of 499: there are two Muskets broaken in the midle of the barrels unfitt to be made use off: and the rest of the s^ Musketts being 497: I have redelivered to the Right honablc the IA Kilmalock Regiam* of ffoott in the same Condittion as I reed, that is to say the most pte of them unfixed; some wanting trickers, Cocks, Scrowe pines, Ramers, and some of theire stocks broaken: as witnesse my hand this 22 May 1690 Wittness J. Pendergast

Ja Macnamee

In view of the poor condition of its weapons, the regiment was perhaps fortunate in being stationed in Dublin during the battle of the Boyne. After the battle it retreated towards Limerick with the rest of the Irish army.6 Kilmallock himself played a distinguished part in the first siege of Limerick, defending the breach against Wurtemburg's forces with such vigour that they were repelled with heavy losses.7 There is a gap of several months in Kilmallock's correspondence, covering the latter part of 1690 and the beginning of 1691. In the spring there was a reorganisation of the Jacobite forces. Kilmallock from being Colonel of an infantry regiment now became Colonel of a cavalry regiment. There are a number of letters and papers about the equipping of this regiment, which consisted of a nucleus of Patrick Sarsfield's old regiment with the addition of 6 John Stevens, Journal, p. 131. 7 J. T. Gilbert, A Jacobite Narrative, p. 262.

Lord Sarsfield of Kilmallock

13 3

three new troops. Patrick Sarsfield, now Lord Lucan, was appointed marechal de camp.* One of the papers is headed "A list of arms and accoutrements wanting in Colonel Sarsfield's regiment". A full complement of saddles, bits, stirrups, holsters, swords, buff sword-belts, carbines, pistols etc. was required for the three new troops; a proportion of the same equipment was needed to make up deficiencies for the nine old troops. Two hundred yards of blue cloth was required to make hose, caps and carbine belts for the new troops and for deficiencies in the equipment of the old troops. The whole regiment needed hats, shoes and stockings, shirts, cravats, gloves and haversacks. The statement contains the following note: "We have cloth in Galway to make coats and cloaks for the new troops and to make some for the old regiment. If there be anything come over for breeches and waistcoats you must get us as much as will make 200 of each*'. In a letter written from Limerick on 20 May, 1691 John Gaydon, the Major,9 wished Kilmallock "all imaginable joy" of his new regiment and complained of the slavery and difficulty he was having in obtaining equipment for it. He wrote: " Though I had several disputes with M. de St Rue yet I have not gained my point. There has been but little consideration had of our new troops, for I could not get one firearm for them but I got a hundred swords for them . . . You would do well to put in for fifty case of pistols and carbines to arm at least the front of the new troops". On the back of the letter he gave lists of the equipment he had received: 130 130 50 50 120 100 150 50

What monsr de St Rue gave me saddles with all furnyture except Holsters bitts carybines case of pistols and Holsters Tents syetts which the french gaurd magasin will deliver swords carbyne belts

What I got from my Lord Lt shurts for 12 Troopes hatts for new Troopes weight of forage cords yards of Canvass for walletts and Haversacks shurts for officers 250 cloaks 600 150 600 600

all that are to desire is more fire armes more saddles more bits 8 Archives rationales, Min. de la guerre, A.I., mlxvi, 204. 9 Gaydon later had a distinguished career in France: see R. Hayes, Biographical Dictionary of Irishmen in France, p. 102.

134

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

The major reported that the coats for the new troops were being made by Alderman Peppard, who had promised to have them ready in five days, but would need to be kept up to the mark. In default of new issues strenuous efforts were made to repair damaged weapons and to improvise belts and buckles. This work was centred at Tuam under Captain Cornelius Martin, who wrote several letters about his difficulties. Blacksmiths had arrived, but there was no coal for their forges. The tailors had not got the proper leather for carbine belts and spur leathers. The curried leather that had been sent was too weak. Captain Martin seems to have been something of a character. He clearly prided himself on the condition in which he had kept Kilmallock's three horses—a stone horse, a black gelding and a bay mare. "Believe me", he wrote, "they are three fitting for the best monarch in Christendom, provided they are kindly used and not to be ridden as you did at Carnendaragone; beware of that sort of riding, for it is not always you may have one by you that may prevent what hurt you may do the horse in so bloody a heat. For God's sake abuse not the horses in what attitude soever you happen to be". Kilmallock had some difficulty in obtaining his own requirements. His wife was in Galway and was commissioned to send him camp equipment, which seems to have been a troublesome task, as things in Galway were in confusion and the Kilmallocks were short of money. However, she managed to send him a tent, six chairs and stools, five pewter dishes, a dozen plates, a frying pan and a pot with a cover, which was to serve both as stewing pan and as saucepan. One of his officers searched Limerick in vain for cheese; it had all been bought by the army and sent off to the camp. Loaf sugar was not available either, but the officer managed to send Kilmallock six pounds of the best white sugar to be had, a pound of pepper and some ginger; he also sent a sumpter saddle which cost £3. The regiment took no part in the siege of Athlone. At Aughrim it was stationed on the left wing near the causeway where the Williamite forces broke through. Kilmallock himself was reported to have been killed, but the report was false.10 After the battle he withdrew to Limerick for the final siege, during which the cavalry were stationed in County Clare and did not take a prominent part in the military operations. When the treaty was signed Kilmallock and his wife elected to go to France. On his first arrival he was appointed by King James to be First Lieutenant of one of the troops of Guards. Later on he became Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Dragoons. He was killed at the battle of Chiari in 1701, fighting at the head of his regiment.

10 J. T . Gilbert, A Jacobite Narrative, p. 138; G. W . Story, A Continuation of the Impartial History, p. 138.

11 COUNTY DONEGAL IN THE JACOBITE WAR, 1689-91 JACOBITE WAR is known in Irish as the Cogadh an da ri, the war of the two kings—Ri Seamus and Ri Liam. Ri Liam never came to Donegal, but Ri Seamus did. His coming led to a number of incidents in the county during the early part of the war, in connection with the siege of Derry and the operations round Enniskillen. In the later stages of the war, south Donegal was a base for the Williamite attack on Sligo. The war was an important affair : important for England, as it decided who was to be king, and the only time the rivals met in battle was in Ireland at the Boyne; important for Europe, as it was part of a major struggle between France and the rest. James was a satellite of France, and William was the key figure in a grand alliance that contained great Catholic powers—the Holy Roman Emperor and the king of Spain—and was formed with the good will of the Pope. But from the Irish point of view the contest was primarily one of Catholic versus Protestant. The old division between Gael and Gall was no longer as important as the religious division. Oliver Cromwell had seen to that: the 'old English' colonists who were Catholics were just as much his victims as the Gaels: they were all Irish papists', and their lands were taken away and given to the new Protestant settlers. But in Donegal the division was between Gael and Gall as well as between Catholic and Protestant; those who had lost their lands in the county were all Gaels. A new era seemed to have arrived in 1685 with the accession of King James, because he was himself a Catholic and his coming to the throne seemed to give the Irish Catholics the best chance they could ever have of getting back their lands and seeing their Church restored to its old pos-

T HE

136

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

ition. James did something for them. He appointed a Catholic viceroy, Richard Talbot, and gave him the earldom of Tyrconnell, though his family was no nearer to Donegal than Malahide and his title was not at all to the liking of the O'Donnells. Talbot made a new Catholic army which included some Gaelic regiments, though most of the colonels were 'old English', like himself. Catholics became judges and civil servants, and the Catholic Church came out of hiding. But James was king of England and knew English opinion, which was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic. He balked at giving back lands, and he balked at putting out the Protestant Church of Ireland and making the Catholic Church the official one. By stopping half-way he pleased neither country. Catholics thought he did not go far enough; Protestants thought he went too far. For Protestants the last straw came in 1688 when James had a son and it looked as if there would be a Catholic dynasty. There was a revolution in England: William was invited over from Holland, James ran away to France, and the French king sent him to Ireland with French officers, arms and money, so that he could recover his English throne with the help of the Catholic Irish who formed Tyrconnell's army. James reached Ireland in March 1689 and was welcomed by the Catholics, who expected him to give them back their lost lands and put the Catholic Church in its proper place. For the same reasons he was not welcomed by Protestants, particularly those of Ulster, which was then as now the most Protestant of the four provinces. The colonists of the north had armed themselves to resist James and support William: they were the Ulster volunteers of those days. Their strongest position was Derry, which had been built seventy years before by the London companies and given the walls and guns that are still there. It had been built as a city of refuge for the colony. In the Ulster rising of 1641 it sheltered many of the colonists, and it was to be a refuge again in 1689, though the refugees had a bad time. Donegal was part of James I's Ulster plantation. The lands of O'Donnell and O'Doherty and their vassals were taken and planted with English and Scots colonists. James I left a few lands round Kilmacrenan to some of the MacSwynes and other Gaelic families, but the little he left was taken by Cromwell, and when James II came to Ireland not a foot of the county was owned by Gaels. But there were plenty of them living there. The hills and the boglands were full of them, and taking the county as a whole they outnumbered the Protestant colonists. Only in the barony of Raphoe—the Laggan land between the Foyle and Finn

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 137

valley and Letterkenny did the colonists outnumber the

old inhabitants.1 Most of the Lagganeers were Scots — hard-working Presbyterians who had developed the land and were determined to hold on to it. The Gaels were just as determined to get it back, and the war seemed to give them their opportunity. Apart from the Laggan there were considerable numbers of Protestants along the shores of Donegal Bay from Killybegs to Ballyshannon, and along the shores of Lough Swilly. They were the tenants on the good land; the Catholics were the tenants of the great landlords for the poor hilly land of the interior and of the west coast. During the war both sides raised armies. Conyngham's dragoons fought for William; O'Donnells raised regiments of their former vassals and fought for James, at any rate for most of the time. The resistance of the Ulster Protestants had begun in Derry at the end of 1688, when thirteen apprentice boys closed Ferryquay Gate against Lord Antrim's regiment of Catholic Gaels. But many Protestants were not as hotheaded as the apprentice boys and were not prepared to be open rebels against King James. There was a compromise with Lord Tyrconnell and one of his few Protestant regiments was sent back to garrison Derry. This was the regiment of William Stewart of Ramelton, Viscount Mountjoy. Its lieutenant-colonel who took command in Derry was a Scottish Protestant, Robert Lundy. He was a professional soldier and his inclination was to serve the rightful king, who was James II. But there was strong pressure for the revolution among the Derry Protestants. A delegate was sent to William, who promised to help the Protestant cause and sent one of the Hamilton family—the Abercorns, who had been given much land round Strabane in the Ulster plantation. In the war there were Hamiltons on both sides. The main branch had become Catholic, and the Lord Abercorn of the time was on James's side. But Captain James Hamilton, whom William sent to Derry, was a Protestant. He brought arms and ammunition and William's commission for Lundy. Soon after James reached Ireland William and Mary were proclaimed in Derry and the reluctant Lundy declared himself to be on their side. From James's point of view there was open rebellion in the north. To suppress it Captain James Hamilton's Catholic uncle Richard was sent by Tyrconnell with a small army. Richard was an experienced soldier who had served in France and was now a lieutenant-general. He began by routing the Protestant volunteers of Down in an engagement called the break of Dromore. He then marched on,

138

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

clearing all before him, through Coleraine and down the county Derry side of Lough Foyle. The Protestants put up very little resistance in the open country. They either laid down their arms and accepted King James or they made for Derry, which was now crowded with 30,000 inside the walled city. There was no bridge at Derry, so Hamilton marched along the Tyrone side of the Foyle to Strabane, where he met a second Jacobite force, which consisted of Irish troops under the command of French generals. Meanwhile the Protestants prepared to hold the Donegal side of the river. Lundy held a council of war, which passed the following resolution: 'all officers and soldiers and all other armed men that can and will fight for their country and religion against popery shall appear on the fittest ground near Cladyford, Lifford and Long Causey as shall be nearest to their respective quarters; there to draw up in battalions to be ready to fight the enemy and to preserve our lives and all that is dear to us'. There was a bridge at Clady and a ford at Lifford. The Long Causey was a road over the marshes of the Swilly Burn between Lifford and St. Johnston. These orders were sent all over the Laggan and all males between the ages of sixteen and sixty were asked to report at the different centres2. When the Jacobite troops reached the crossings at Lifford and Clady they found that they were guarded by considerable Protestant forces and that an arch of Clady bridge had been broken down. We have detailed accounts of both crossings from the Jacobite side. The Duke of Berwick, the young son of King James, gives the following account of the Clady crossing: 'on April 15 we marched to Cladyford where the rebels to the number of 10,000 were inclined to dispute the passage. There was no ford and on the opposite side of the bridge, which was broken, the enemy had posted some infantry, well entrenched. We had brought with us no more than 350 foot and about 600 horse. The rest of our little army had been left near Strabane. Our infantry advanced to the bridge that had been broken down and by the fire of their musketry drove the enemy from their entrenchment. Hamilton, to avail himself of the disorder the rebels appeared to be in, ordered us to swim over the river. We instantly threw ourselves into it on horseback and gained the opposite bank with the loss of only one officer and two privates drowned. The infantry at the same time contrived by means of planks to pass over the bridge and taking possession of the entrenchments began to fire on the main body of the rebels, which was formed on the rising ground. This, joined to the bold action we had

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 139 just performed, threw them into such a panic that instead of advancing to attack us as we came out of the water they all took to flight.' Another Jacobite account says the Protestants took to their heels, crying To Derry, to Derry'3. For the Lifford crossing we have the account of Marshal Rosen, a hard-bitten German who had seen forty years' service in the French army. He says that the rebels were posted in a small fort at Lifford on the bank of the river and had some artillery. The river was higher than usual, as there had been rain. Rosen at first thought that it would be impossible to cross and that he had better join the other force at Clady. But he could see the rebels retreating from Clady and judged that they were demoralised enough for him to try the Lifford crossing, which he did where the Mourne and Finn join. He swam his own horse across, followed by his men, which so astonished the rebels that they fired one round and then retired. Rosen then joined up with the Clady force and pursued the rebels towards Derry4. His despatch has rather a boastful tone, but the Williamite accounts also show that the river was forced without much difficulty and that the Protestants beat a hasty retreat towards Derry. They put all the blame on Lundy and say that his treachery was responsible. But it appears that in open country the Jacobite officers, many of whom had seen service on the continent, were too much for the Ulster Protestants, who were amateurs without military experience. They had been called out at the last moment and very little in the way of defence plans can have been made. Lundy was severely criticised for not holding the Jacobites up at the Long Causey south of St. Johnston; he had ordered a retreat on Derry without making any stand. The Jacobites thus had the whole Laggan open to them, wiiich was a valuable source of supply with plenty of forage for the cavalry horses. They made their headquarters at St. Johnston. When Lundy got back to Derry he insisted that the city could not be defended and got a great many to take the same view, including two colonels who had just arrived from England with their regiments and now agreed to take them back home again. It was decided to bargain with the Jacobite generals about the terms that would be given if the city surrendered, and a delegation was sent to St. Johnston, which included the Church of Ireland Archdeacon Hamilton. The Jacobite commanders answered that if the city was surrendered the citizens would be allowed to live in peace, provided they handed over any horses and arms that were suitable for military purposes. They were to

140

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

have till the next day to make up their minds, and in the meantime it was understood that the Jacobite army would not come near the city. Meanwhile King James himself was on his way towards Deny and had got as far as Mongevlin Castle, which was on the bank of the Foyle between Porthall and St. Johnston. It was on the site of an old Irish castle, where Ineen Dubh had lived, but was now a substantial house of the seventeenth century, the home of Archdeacon Hamilton5. James was convinced that if he appeared before the walls of Derry the citizens would acknowledge their rightful king. He does not seem to have taken in the understanding that his army should not come near the city, as he took part of it with him. This was too much for the more rebellious citizens. They fired on him from the walls, he beat a hasty retreat to St. Johnston, and soon went back to Dublin taking Marshal Rosen with him. The siege of Derry had begun. For most of it Richard Hamilton was the Jacobite commander. Lundy escaped and Derry was defended by a combination of professionals and amateurs: the professionals were two army officers, Baker and Michelburne; the amateurs, a militant Church of Ireland rector, the Rev. George Walker, and a Scottish settler, Adam Murray. The siege lasted from April 18 to the end of July, and during it much of county Donegal was occupied either by the Jacobites or the Williamites. Most of the Laggan became the supply centre for the Jacobite army. A number of Protestants continued to live there under James's protection, which was rudely interrupted when Marshal Rosen returned and began a policy of frightfulness by driving them under the walls in the hope that the defenders would let them in and so use up their store of food. Hamilton countermanded the order and sent the Protestants away to their homes, and James was very angry with Rosen for his barbarous behaviour. The last stages of the siege led to a scorched earth policy in the surrounding countryside; houses were burned and crops destroyed over much of East Donegal and Inishowen. Doe Castle had been an outpost of the Derry garrison, but was retaken by MacSwyne—back again in his ancestral home6. Culmore was a key position at the point where the river flows into Lough Foyle. It soon fell to the Jacobites, but to the north of it Inishowen came under Wiliiamite control when an English fleet brought MajorGeneral Kirk and three regiments. The fleet was held up by the boom across the river, but Kirk's men occupied a number of places on the shores of Loughs Foyle and Swilly and also garrisoned Inch Island. On Donegal Bay such Protestants

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 141 as Sir Albert Conyngham and the Gores held the coastline from Killybegs to Ballyshannon. Protestants also held the line of the Erne into Enniskillen, which was the other centre of anti-Jacobite resistance in Ulster. The Enniskilleners, who included colonists from South Ulster and North Connacht generally, conducted an enterprising defence and ranged over a wide area, threatening to cut the Jacobite lines of communication, which lay through Strabane, Omags and Dungannon. Patrick Sarsfield was based on Sligo, but could not come further north than the Bundrowes, unless the Protestants could be cleared out of Ballyshannon and Belleek. The crossing at Ballyshannon was guarded by a tower and gateway on the bridge. Early in June the Enniskilleners were bringing stores up the Erne from Ballyshannon, when Sarsfield approached with a force of horse and dragoons. A skirmish followed, for which we have the following Williamite account: 'Colonel Hamilton (Gustavus Hamilton, the Enniskillen commander) drew out of the town all the horse he had and a considerable body of foot and attacked the enemy so opportunely and with that courage and resolution that they were soon found in disorder and confusion; and the foot coming up and securing a pass, the whole party was entirely defeated, Sarsfield and five or six men narrowly escaping, the rest being most killed and about two hundred taken, the best of which they kept and the rest they stripped and sent away to carry the news to their friends'7. This jubilant account may be exaggerated, but the incident shows how important the Erne line of communication was for Enniskillen. With the object of joining up with Sarsfield, cutting Enniskillen's link with the sea, and preventing interference with the Jacobite lines of communication, the Duke of Berwick was sent from Derry up the Finn in the latter part of June to set up what was called a flying camp—a mobile force of four hundred cavalry and dragoons. He made his headquarters between Killygordon and Stranorlar at a house called Cavan Park, which belonged to Lord Mountjoy. The latter had been sent to France and was safely locked up in the Bastille while Berwick occupied his riverside house on the Finn. Berwick was only nineteen, but he had seen active service against the Turks in Hungary. He had Churchill blood as his mother was Marlborough's sister, and he later became a distinguished Marshal of France. However, he had only limited success in these operations. His first effort was to go through Barnesmore and attack Donegal town, which was garrisoned by three hundred Protes-

142

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

tant rebels. He went through the gap at night and attacked the town at daybreak. His own account says he burned the town and the military stores and commandeered fifteen hundred animals, oxen, cows and sheep. But he did not succeed in capturing Donegal Castle to which the garrison retired, and it remained in Protestant control8. Berwick's next assignment was to move on Enniskillen from the north. In the first week of July he transferred his camp to Trillick, about twelve miles north-east of Enniskillen. But before long Marshal Rosen recalled him to deal with a Williamite force that had come into Lough Swilly, and he returned to Cavan Park. This move into Lough Swilly was made with part of the fleet that had brought Kirk's force into Lough Foyle. It had spent some time at anchor off Red Castle, but early in July part of it rounded Malin Head, anchored off Rathmullen and also made a landing on Inch, which was then an island at high tide. The London Gazette has a detailed account of the Williamite base on Inch, which threatened to take the Jacobite army in the rear, though the threat was not actually put into effect. Williamite ships with six hundred men anchored off Rathmullen on July 9. They heard that the Irish had a great cow-camp at Tully, about six Irish miles from Rathmullen. Next day a military engineer with a party landed on Inch. They crossed the island till they came to the great strand, which was covered by the tide; and they built a redoubt and sent for guns and more men and tools. When the tide was out, the strand was clear and several poor Protestants came over to them with their cattle. The Irish sent some dragoons from their Derry camp, but after some firing they withdrew. On July 11 the Inch defences were strengthened with more guns and a second redoubt. The Williamites sent a small boat to Lough Fern, where a Mr. Cunningham with forty Protestants had taken refuge on a small island—presumably to save themselves from the attentions of their Catholic neighbours. On July 17 the Williamite commander went to Rathmullen and ordered the officer of the garrison that had been posted there to remove the Protestants and their cattle to Inch. Word had come that the Duke of Berwick had returned from the Enniskillen area and was going to attack, which he did the next day. The report in the London Gazette was as follows: 'the Duke of Berwick with about 1500 horse and foot attacked our party at Rathmullen, who took care to barricade the streets and some other advantageous passages so that their horse could not break in upon them; the

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 143 fight lasted about two hours and then the enemy retired with the loss of 240 men. On our side Lieutenant Cunningham was killed and an ensign wounded. At night v/e drew our party into the island'9. Berwick's own account says: 'I tried the countenance of the enemy's infantry with my dragoons, but it was not possible to dislodge them as long as they were supported by the frigates which fired incessantly upon us; so that the whole day was spent in skirmishing, and the next morning I retired to Cavan Park'1 >. Soon afterwards an Irish party under Cornet Carroll burned Rathmullen. Marshal Rosen wrote to James that Carroll should be rewarded for this action11. The Williamites continued to fortify Inch, and finally had sixteen cannon on the island and ten on board two ships which, at low tide lay dry on the strand and had a detachment of 35 men on each. The Jacobite troops made several appearances on the strand, but when the Williamite cannon fired they withdrew. Inch was also used as a Protestant refugee camp. Kirk reported that it sheltered over 12,000 of the poor inhabitants 'whom the enemy would suddenly have destroyed if not protected, they having burned all the houses above Inch, Rathmullen etc/12. A number of the refugees enlisted in the Williamite array and five companies were thus added to each regiment. But the Williamites did not use Inch for an attack on the rear of the Jacobite army, as they might have done. The Jacobite generals were very nervous that they would be trapped in a pincers operation between Kirk's troops coming across from Inch and the Enniskilleners coming up from the south. To prevent the pincers closing Rosen asked for the Duke of Berwick to be given enough troops to capture Ballyshannon. The psychological effect of the Inch landing was considerable; it helped to demoralise the Jacobite army and make it more and more pessimistic about being able to take Derry. Plans were made for withdrawal from the siege. The orders were to destroy the countryside so as to prevent the Williamites feeding themselves and their horses. The scorched earth policy fell heavily on the Laggan and Inishowen as the Jacobites prepared to retreat. What finally decided them to do so v/as the breaking of the boom across the Foyle on July 28. Two days later the Inch garrison saw great fires burning in the Letterkenny direction, which they took to be villages set on fire by the Jacobites. Rosen wrote to James that retreat was the only course: it wculd not be possible to hold Lifford or Strabane or the river crossings on the Finn; the whole countryside was ruined and laid waste, and troops could not be maintained in it13. The result was that the entire area

144

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

was abandoned to the Williamites. The Jacobite army retreated towards Dublin, leaving Charlemont in county Armagh and Carrickfergus as the only strong points still held in Ulster. Meanwhile Ballyshannon continued to be a life-line for Enniskillen. Right up to the end of July the Duke of Berwick hoped to cut it off by a combined operation, with his own force coming down from Cavan Park and Sarsfield coming up from Bundrowes, where he is said to have had a camp of four thousand men. Berwick wrote a spirited letter from Cavan Park to Sarsfield, whom he addresses by the nickname of Notorious—a pointer to the reputation Sarsfield already had as a dashing soldier: Dear Notorious, This is to give you notice that Marshal Rosen or I will march within three or four days from this place to Ballyshannon, so that if you look out sharp this way you may see us laying on these rebelly and cowering roguesf; which may give you also an opportunity of attacking on that side of the water to make a diversion. I am afraid the siege of Derry will be raised and I thank God I have not nor ever will give my consent unto it. I will say no more of this till I meet you at Ballyshannon. In the meanwhile I remain, dear Notorious, Your kind friend and servant, Berwick14. For Brig. Gen. Sarsfield But Berwick did not meet Sarsfield at Ballyshannon. The day he wrote his letter—July 31—was the day that the Enniskilleners won a decisive victory at Newtownbutler, eight miles south-east of Enniskillen. As a result of this defeat as well as their failure at Derry the Jacobites lost Ulster and eventually Ireland. The Williamite commander was an English soldier, Colonel Wolseley, who was sent by Kirk from Lough Swilly to Killybegs in a frigate called the Bonaventure. Its cargo of 70 barrels of powder, 2000 muskets and four small field guns was escorted round Donegal Bay to Ballyshannon and then15on to Enniskillen by 400 horsemen and 400 foot-soldiers . The collapse of the Jacobite armies in Ulster was largely due to self-help on the part of the colonists who turned Derry and Enniskillen into resistance centres. The Jacobite army had not the guns or the siege equipment to take Derry, and it proved ineffective against the rough-riders of Enniskillen. William's fleet and army did not come to the

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 145 rescue till the eleventh hour, when Derry was nearly starved. Such help as they did give was made possible by the Donegal harbours and the sea communications which enabled them to work in co-operation with the Protestant colonists along the coast. The retreat of the Jacobites was followed by the landing of Marshal Schomberg and a Williamite army on the shore of Belfast Lough. Next year William himself came over and found a firm base in Ulster from which to operate. The battle of the Boyne ended James's stay in Ireland. But the war went on for another year and Donegal men fought against Donegal men in Munster and Connacht. Sir Albert Conyngham's dragoons had driven Catholics out of the county, but when Conyngham got down to Tipperary he met the Donegal Catholics again16. They had rallied to the standard of Baldearg O'Donnell, whose arrival caused great excitement. He was a brigadier in the Spanish army, who came to Ireland just after the Boyne and seemed to be the fulfilment of the old prophecy that an O'Donnell with a red mark would be the saviour of Ireland. He was allowed to raise an Ulster corps, but was given no guns to arm it or money to pay it; and the people of Munster found the Ulster creaghts very uncongenial allies. Baldearg did not turn out to be the saviour of Ireland. As the war went on he became more and more discontented. He thought that he had a better right than Talbot to the title of Tyrconnell, and he found that he and his Ulstermen were cold-shouldered by the rest of the Jacobite army. After the battle of Aughrim he saw no future in the war and began to make terms with William's general, Ginkel17. While these negotiations were going on, O'Donnell played a somewhat devious part in the operations round Sligo. The Taco > ites held Sligo under the command of Sir Teague O'Regan, an eccentric veteran who had distinguished himself by a gallant defence of Charlemont. The Williamite advance on Sligo in 1691 was based on Ballyshannon and Belleek, where there were bridges over the Erne. The commander was Colonel John Michelburne, one of the heroes of the siege of Derry. His operations began unluckily. A party of dragoons, sent to patrol the Bundrowes, were tempted by the idea of fishing for salmon. While they were happily engaged in this way they were attacked by an Irish party and ten of them were taken prisoner18. However, after Aughrim Michelburne was able to advance in strength on Sligo and started to negotiate with Sir Teague O'Regan for the surrender of this isolated Jacobite outpost. O'Regan agreed that, unless he was relieved within ten days, he would hand

146

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

over Sligo on August 15 and march out with all the honours of war. When they day came he refused to surrender, and Michelburne's hopes were disappointed. The reason was that Baldearg O'Donnell had decided to do his last service to King James, and at the same time show King William's general that he was a force to be reckoned with. He marched with his Ulstermen to the relief of Sligo, and Sir Teague accordingly refused to hand over the town. Baldearg O'Donnells hand was strengthened by this show of force and he proceded to bargain with General Ginkel, who promised him the command of a Williamite brigade in Flanders and to recommend him for the title and estates possessed by his ancestors. In return O'Donnell undertook to help the Williamites against Sligo. In these operations he co-operated with Sir Albert Conyngham, Gael and Gall from the same county. O'Donnell's men did not like this change of front; many of them refused to follow him in his transfer of allegiance, though others were brought round by a generous distribution of Williamite guineas. Conyngham and O'Donnell were attacked by the Sligo garrison one foggy morning at Collooney. They were taken by surprise. Conyngham hurriedly mounted his horse, which shied and carried him into the Sligo ranks, where he was quickly put to death. The grim story is told that an Irish sergeant greeted him with the words: 'Sir Halbert you are, and by this halbert you shall die'. The Williamite account continues: 'O'Donnell escaped the nearest ever man did from being taken, and if they had got him he had been presently hanged'19. O'Donnell survived the war and lived to draw a Williamite pension and later returned to the Spanish army, where he became a major-general. He had failed to fulfil a prophecy and must have been a sad disappointment to the people of Donegal. The war ended with the treaty of Limerick, but it was in fact a Williamite victory. Catholic hopes for land and Church collapsed. There was exile for the Wild Geese; poverty and humiliation for those who stayed at home. Thf Protestant colonists had been badly frightened by the Catholic challenge. They tried to make sure that then1 should never be another one and that Protestant ascendancy should continue to the end of time. NOTES 1. S. Pender (ed.), Census of Ireland, c. 1659. 2. G. Walker, True account of the siege of Londonderry, p. 48,

County Donegal in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 147 3. Berwick, Memoirs, i. 44; J. T. Gilbert (ed.), A Jacobite narrative, P- 454. Analecta Hibernica, xxi. 87-9. 5. Dublin Peimy Journal, iv. 240 (1836). 6. Hist. MSS Comm., rep. 12, app. vi., p. 142. 7. An exact relation of the glorious victory . . . , 1689 (Thorpe coll., Nat. Lib. Ire.). 8. Berwick, Memoirs, i. 53. 9. London Gazette, 8 Aug. 1689. 10. Memoirs, i. 54. 11. An. Hib., xxi. 196. 12. London Gazette, 5 Aug. 1689. 13. An Hib., xxi. 196. 14. Ir. Sword, ii. 109. 15. A Letter from Liperpool, 1689 (Thorpe coll.). 16. T.C.D., MS K. 5. 1, no. 122, quoted by D. Verschoyle in 'Background to a hidden age', Don. Ann., vi. 119 (1965). 17. See J. O'Donovan 'The O'Donnells in exile' in Duffy's Hibernian Magazine, i. 50-6 (i860). 18. Account of the transactions in the north of Ireland, 1691 (Joly coilNat. Lib. Ire.). 19. T.C.D., MS K. 5. 11, no. 1097; W. G. Wood-Martin, History, of Sligo, ii. 133.

This page intentionally left blank

12 KILKENNY IN THE JACOBITE WAR 1689-91

K ILKENNY,

which figured so largely in the Confederate War, has been almost entirely neglected by historians of the Jacobite War. But its share in the events of 1689-91 was by no means insignificant. It was visited more than once by both King James and King William, and for a considerable time it was the Williamite general headquarters. When William of Orange landed in England in the autumn of 1688, King James set out for London to confront him, and one of his attendants was the second Duke of Ormonde. When the twTo rivals were in short range of one another, Ormonde after having supper with James went out and joined William, following the example of Churchill and many others. Ormonde had strong reasons for this; not only was he an Irish Protestant who saw the rival religion becoming more and more dominant as a result of James's ideas, but he had a Dutch mother and his Dutch uncle Overkirk was with William as one of his principal officers. Ormonde's defection to William's side naturally affected his position in Kilkenny which, like most of Ireland, inclined to James's side. Kilkenny was a mainly Catholic town and the Protestant mayor and corporation had been replaced by a Catholic mayor—John Roth—and a corporation wThich was mostly Catholic, although the town apothecary, Josias Haydock, who had been on the old corporation, was on the new one too. It was an awkward position for Ormonde and the Protestants of Kilkenny. It was thought discreet for one of the duke's Protestant agents—Captain John Baxter—to stay outside the town at Dunmore Castle. Ormonde's affairs were looked after by James Bryan and Valentine Smyth, who were Catholics. Smyth reported that Lord Galmoy—one of the Catholic Butlers who was James's lord lieutenant for Kilkenny—had insisted on using the round tower beside the castle for storing arms and ammunition. Galmoy was very

150

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

inquisitive about what cash there was in the castle and Smyth was afraid he was going to confiscate it. Ormonde sent directions that if it was not too late "his papers and all other his goods, pictures, hangings, beds etc. should be shipped off to England." But apparently it was too late, as nothing was done to remove the contents of the castle. A letter from John Baxter to Ormonde's secretary shows how things at Kilkenny looked from the Protestant point of view. He is writing from Dunmore: "I and my wife and small family . . . have been at this place these six weeks according to his grace's order to Mr. Valentine Smyth on my behalf . . . My lord's servants here are most of them in arms. Mr. James Bryan of Jenkinstowne hath by commission raised a troop of horse. Mr. Valentine Smyth's eldest son, who acts in the office under his father, is the cornet to it. Mr. James Shee, one of his grace's collectors, is quartermaster and his brother, Patrick Shea, who is clerk and receiver under Mr. Smyth, is in arms, and Michael Langton, who supplies that place which last I had at Kilkenny Castle, is likewise a trooper under the said Bryan." In March, 1689, King James arrived at Kinsale and on his way to Dublin passed through Kilkenny where he stayed the night of April ,9. There is evidence of the welcome he got in the account book of Capt. George Gaffney who commanded a company in Col. Edward Butler's infantry regiment: "Gave the men a barrel of beer to drink the king's health the night he came to Kilkenny—16s.; powder for to give a volley—2s." In May, 1689, the Patriot Parliament met in Dublin—a parliament whose members were nearly all Catholics who insisted on repealing the Act of Settlement, by which many Protestants held lands that they had got since 1641, and also on declaring the supporters of William of Orange guilty of treason, which would involve the older stratum of Protestant landowners (including Ormonde) in the loss of their estates, which would then be available for distribution to Catholics. In this parliament Kilkenny City was represented by the mayor, John Roth, and by Alderman James Bryan. The county was represented by James Grace of Courtstown and Robert Walsh

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War

151

of Clonassy. Five other boroughs in the county were represented by two members each. An act of the Patriot Parliament that had a special interest for Kilkenny was the act prohibiting the importation of English, Scotch or Welsh coal; it had a clause to prevent profiteering by the owners of the Kilkenny coalpits by fixing the pithead price at 9d. a barrel. But most of this legislation was in effect a paper transaction; the Jacobite regime did not last long enough to obtain any substantial results from it and land-hungry Catholics were sorely disappointed. Several Kilkenny regiments took part in the siege of Derry: Galmoy's horse and the foot regiments of John Grace and Edward Butler. Galmoy took a prominent part in the early stages of the siege of Enniskilen, and there is a curious story of his attempt to take Crom Castle on Lough Erne without having any guns. He seems to have been a man of ingenuity, as he made two dummies out of tin bound round with whipcoard and covered with buckram, so as to look like real guns. He had them dragged towards the castle with a great deal of noise and appearance of effort, and then summoned the castle to surrender under threat of immediate bombardment. But his bluff was called and his troops were vigorously repulsed by the garrison. After the sieges of Derry and Enniskillen were over James's troops retired from the north and left it open for a Williamite army under the veteran Marshal Schomberg who advanced as far as Dundalk to meet the Jacobite army in the autumn of 1689. The French ambassador did not think much of the Jacobite army, but he singled out Lord Galmoy's as one of the two good cavalry regiments. King James also expressed particular satisfaction with Galmoy's cavalry when he reviewed his army at Drogheda. The meeting between James's army and Schomberg's was an anti-climax; both were on the defensive, the autumn was very wet and there was a lot of sickness in both camps. They called it a Hay; Schomberg retired to Belfast and James to Dublin. There is a tradition that Schomberg tried to get Colonel Jbhn Grace to bring his men over to the Williamite side and that Grace sent back a firm refusal written on a playing

152

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

card—the six of hearts, which was afterwards locally known as Grace's card. In Dublin so many of James's soldiers were sick that the city was described as "almost turned into a hospital." James seems to have thought Dublin too unhealthy and to have spent most of the winter in Kilkenny, which had a high reputation for climate: Water without mud and air without fog, Fire without smoke and land without bog. There are references to James being at Kilkenny in November, 1689, and for a great part of January, 1690. It wras also a military centre of some importance; Colonel John Grace's and Colonel James Purcell's infantry regiments were stationed there; Lord Galmoy's cavalry regiment was divided between Kilkenny and Maryborough. It was also reported that gunsmiths were busy in Kilkenny making weapons with the help of a plentiful supply of coal. The militia was reorganised under the new mayor, John Archdeacon, who had the rank of major. Protestants were not allowed to be members, but had to pay taxes for the expenses. A number of Protestants remained in Kilkenny during the Jacobite regime and seem to have come through without great suffering; there are not the same atrocity stories about Kilkenny that were published in broadsheets about other places at the time. One troublesome affair was reported in September, 1689, when a Jacobite grenadier is said to have come into church—the cathedral presumably —during service and "committed several rudenesses" when he was turned out by force he went and raised the people, crying out that the Protestants had murdered a grenadier in church and buried him in a vault; upon which there was an assault made on the church, and seats were pulled up and the people abused and "worse would have followed, had not the governor come in and prevented it." One result of King James's stay seems to have been the foundation of the Royal College or University of St. Canice's, Kilkenny, with a rector and eight Drofessors. The Protestant headmaster of Kilkenny College, Dr. Hinton, had fled with his pupils and Dr. Phelan, the Catholic bishop of Ossory,

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War

153

took the opportunity of using the premises as an educational institution for his own faith; it got its royal charter in February, 1690. As it came to an end that summer after the Battle of the Boyne, it had a short life; but it must have been a merry one, as among the goods seized by the Williamites in the house of Walter Lawless at Talbot's Inch were "a hundred barrels of beer from the Irish college." On its way from the Boyne to Limerick the Irish army passed»through Kilkenny in what seems to have been rather a disorderly way. There is an account written by an English Jacobite called John Stevens. He was at the Boyne on the first of July, by the old calendar, and about midday on the fourth he reached Kilkenny. This is how he describes the scene: "All the shops and public houses in the town were shut and neither meat nor drink to be had, though many were fainting through want and weariness So, hearing the stores at the castle were broken up and much bread and drink given out, I resolved to try my fortune there and found drink carried out in pails and many of ihe rabble drunk writh what they had got. Yet upon my approach I perceived some officers whom want had carried thither as well as me but were somewhat more forward, so ill-treated by Brigadier Wauchope first and next by the Duke of Tyrconnell, who gave a lieutenant a thrust in the breast with his cane, that I went away resolved rather to perish than run the hazard of being ill used. As soon as we were drove away the town and stores v/ere sold for £300, which a great officer of ours put in his own pocket when good men were perishing with hunger and weariness and what was left to the en/.'my mi^ht have plentifully relieved their wants." The townsfolk, in fact paid protection money to save the town and castle from being looted by the Irish army. Tyrconnell and the French general, the Comte de Lauzun, stayed the night in the castle, and one of the last official acts of the Catholic mayor, John Archdeacon, was to authorise eight shillings worth of candles to be bought to light the rooms for them during their stay; there are some Other interesting items in the mayor's accounts ;

154

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

"5s. paid to Patrick McMoran for shoeing Col. Sheldon's horses, he helping to keep the city from plunder after the route; £1 14s.: paid for iron for shoeing Lord Tyrconnell's horses; £3 0 1 paid to Nicholas Murphy for seven carcases of mutton given to the guards that came with Lord Tyrconnell; 3s. paid to men and women for carrying corn to the mill for want of horses to get some ground to make bread for the running army after the rout; £1 16s. for iron delivered to Thomas Barry for mending the locks of the city gate after the rout of the Boyne; £25 14 3 paid to the board of ordnance for mounting seven iron sakers (cannon) three mounted on field carriages and four on truckles— four placed on half-moons of the city walls and three about the castle of Kilkenny." There was about a fortnight's gap before the Williamite army took over Kilkenny. On July 16 that army reached Carlow on its march south from Dublin. Ormonde, who had fought at the Boyne and had led the Williamite force into Dublin, was detached to secure Kilkenny, while the main army marched on to Bennettsbridge. Kilkenny surrendered without resistance and the Jacobite historians lamented that a strongly fortified town, which had put up some resistance to Cromwell, should have been abandoned by the Irish army without a fight. Ormonde was delighted to find so little damage done to his castle and its contents. A note was lying on the table; it was from the Comte de Lauzun to say that he had given particular directions that the castle should not be damaged. George Story, the chaplain who wrote the Williamite history, says that the castle was preserved with all its goods and furniture, not without the cellars well furnished with what the Jacobite army had not had time to drink. Three days later Ormonde was able to entertain William and his retinue to dinner in the castle. William was reported to be very pleased with the beauty and situation of the place. The silver fork he used at dinner was long treasured as an heirloom by the Ormonde family. The Kilkenny Corporation has an order with King William's autograph sent from his camp at Bennettsbridge superseding the Jacobite

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War

155

mayor and corporation and substituting a new, allProtestant body with Capt. John Baxter as mayor. William's main army did not go through Kilkenny City; it went across the south-east of the county from Bennettsbridge towards Carrick. There William got bad news from England, where there was a near-panic after the English and Dutch navies had been beaten by the French ofr Beachy Head. William accordingly decided to go back to England, but when he got to Dublin he was relieved to hear the French had not followed up their victory and things in England had settled down. So he changed his mind and rejoined his army on their march to Limerick; on the way he visited Kilkenny again, and he and his whole retinue spent the night of August 2 in the castle. The first reverse that William's army met after the Boyne was administered by a Kilkenny veteran, Col. Richard Grace, who held Athlone. William sent Lt.-Gen. Douglas to take it, Grace's answer to Douglas's summons was that he would eat his old boots first. Douglas bombarded him for a week, shot away all his ammunition and then withdrew. This set-back was soon followed by Sarsfield's raid at Ballyneety, at which young John Grace was said to have been present as Sarsfield's A.D.C. Soon after that William abandoned the siege of Limerick and went back to England. His army in Ireland remained more or less inactive during the winter of 1690-'91 under a Dutch general, Ginkel, who made his headquarters at Kilkenny. He was there for most of the time from October, 1690, to May, 16.91. There are several records of payments made by the new mayor, John Baxter, for military requirements : Soldiers were employed laying sods to strengthen the fortifications; locks were provided for the barrier gates; St. Mary's Church was used as a magazine. A military hospital was set up and Ginkel wrote to the mayor asking for equipment for it : "the necessaries required for the hospital here being not yet arrived . . . . I do hereby require you in the meantime to cause the inhabitants to furnish the said hospital with twenty beds for

156 War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 the use of the sick and wounded soldiers." he also asked for "necessaries for dressing their food as two or three kettles, wooden vessels or earthen chamber pots, wooden platters and wooden cups for their drink or broth." During the winter the militia was reorganised and restricted to Protestants. There were two companies under Captains Josias Haydock and Joshua Helsham. The men were quartered on Catholics as a form of retaliation for the previous Jacobite arrangement by which Protestants were taxed to pay for the Catholic militia. The Williamite militia was not very effectively armed and this became important when the bulk of the regular army moved to the front for the summer campaign of 1691. Haydock wrote to the lieutenant-governor of Kilkenny, Col. Coote, asking for a supply of arms. He got this rather dusty answer : " as for arms there are none to be had, except the army here have some to spare . . . . Ammunition is ordered for you and you must make the best shift you can till arms may be had. 50 of the army will be left in the town to assist you, which is all I could get or that the general could spare." In the spring of 1691, just before the campaign opened, the Williamites had a series of legal proceedings and sentences of outlawry for high treason were passed against the leading supporters of King James. Long lists of names were returned for different areas. The Kilkenny city lists included Shees, St. Legers, Lawlesses. The county lists had Graces, Fitzgeralds, Butlers, Comerfords, Walshes, Bryans and many others. Unless the sentences were reversed these outlaws stood to lose all their property : most of them were not landowners, but many of them were—some such as Galmoy and the Graces on a very large scale; others were substantial merchants. The threat of confiscation was an important factor in William's negotiations for putting an end to the war. It was one of the points for settlement at the treaty of Limerick and the treaty largely turned on it. The battle of Aughrim on 12th July, 1691, was a major disaster for the Irish army and really decided the war. Kilkenny men did not take a specially prominent part in it, but there is a reference to Lord Galmoy doing good

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War

157

work after the battle in covering the retreat with his regiment "as prosperously as so small a body could do." One of the prisoners taken was Patrick Lawless, the son of Walter Lawless of Talbot's Inch. Patrick Lawless later had a distinguished career on the Continent and ended up by becoming Spanish ambassador in London and Paris. The end of the war came with the treaty of Limerick, in which Galmoy took a prominent part and was one of the signatories. The scheme of the treaty was that those of the Irish army who wished to go to France should be allowed to do so; but in that case they would forfeit their property. Those who wished to stay in Ireland as subjects of King William would be pardoned and allowed to keep their property if they were still in arms at the end of the war. Those who had been killed or had been taken prisoner or had already surrendered unconditionally would not be pardoned and their estates, if they had any, would be forfeited. Most of the Irish army had no landed property, but some had and the majority of them decided to stay in Ireland and take advantage of the treaty. Lord Galmoy was one of the most prominent of the great estate-owners who decided to go to France and forfeit his Irish estate. He fought with distinction in the armies of France and Spain and reached the rank of lieutenant-general. His son, Edward, also went to France and was killed at Malplaquet. Another Kilkenny man who went to France and distinguished himself was Michael Roth—nephew of the Jacobite mayor, John Roth—who also reached the rank of lieutenant-general and became a count. On the Williamite side Ginkel was the hero of the day and returned in triumph to Kilkenny, where he stayed for about a fortnight in the latter part of October before going on to Dublin and London. After the battle came the pay-ofT, and the leading Jacobites v/ere divided into the sheep and the goats—from the Williamite point of view. Those who claimed the benefit of the treaty of Limerick had their cases heard, and nearly all the claims were admitted. Among the successful

158

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

claimants were Col. Edmond Butler of Ballyragget, Lord Mountgarrett, Captain James Bryan, Major Pierce Butler of Mustard Garden, Foulks and Henry Comerford, Theobald Den of Polestown, Capt. George Gaffney, Vincent Nash of Newhouse near Gowran, Richard Shee, Walter Tobin, Michael St. Leger, and several Purcells and Pays. One claim was disallowed after a long and heated argument: that was the claim of Edmund Blanchfield, who was held to have broken the rules by taking protection from the Williamites and then going back again to the Jacobite side. His property was confiscated and sold by auction at Chichester House in College Green, Dublin, where most of it was bought by a London company, the Corporation for making Hollow Sword-Blades. Galmoy's estate was sold in the same way; so also were the estates of Walter Lawless of Talbot's Inch, Robert Walsh of Clonassy, Walter Bryan of Bawnmore and several others. The estates were bought either by the Hollow Blades Company or by individual Protestants. No Catholic was allowed to bid. There was much discussion about the case of John Grace. The old Col. John had died in 1690. His son, Robert, was wounded and taken prisoner at Aughrim and died before the war ended. The estate was settled on his two sons, Oliver and John. Oliver was in France and died nine days after his father, John was at Limerick and claimed the benefit of the treaty. It was argued that as Oliver had succeeded to the property while he was in France it should be forfeited. The Graces had an influential relation in England—the Duke of Buckingham—and John went over to enlist his help. Unluckily he engaged in a surreptitious love-affair while he was staying in the Duke's house; the Duke found out, was furious and refused to help. So the Grace estate came under the hammer at Chichester House. That was how the eighteenth century began. The estates of Jacobites who were not protected by the treaty of Limerick were sold to Protestants. Those Jacobites whose estates were protected by the treaty, such as Butler of Ballyragget or Lord Mountgarrett, faced a century of penal

Kilkenny in the Jacobite War

159

laws and political and social eclipse—the direct result of Protestant victory and Catholic defeat in the Jacobite war.

This page intentionally left blank

13 COUNTY LOUTH AND THE JACOBITE WAR From one aspect the Jacobite war was the concluding phase in a century-long struggle for the land between Catholic and Protestant. The Cromwellian confiscation had dispossessed Catholics east of the Shannon; after the restoration of Charles II Catholics had recovered a fraction of their losses, but much less than they had hoped for. Protestants resented the fact that Catholics had made any recoveries at all. The Restoration Act of Settlement became the centre of controversy. Catholics hoped for its repeal; most Protestants looked on the Act as the guarantee of their title deeds. The Jacobite war brought things to a head. Virtually all Catholics were on the side of James II and virtually all Protestants on the side of William. Both sides had come to the conclusion that the complete suppression of their opponents was essential to their owTn security. Each regarded the other as rebels, and the penalties for unsuccessful rebellion included the confiscation of land. Louth had, of course, been one of the counties of the Pale, and most of the land was owned by colonists of Norman or English stock. Before Cromwell over two-thirds of the county was owned by the older strata of colonists, who had remained Catholic. At the Restoration Catholics had recovered about a third of their former holding. But it was to a few of the more influential families that most of the restitution was made, and most of the smaller owners failed to recover their lands. The Restoration settlement gave back the broadest acres in the county to Sir John Bellew of Castletown—later Lord Bellew of Duleek; to Lord Carlingford, head of the Taafe family; to Lord Louth of the Plunkett family. The first two had nearly 6,000 plantation acres each, and Lord Louth had over 4,000 plantation acres; the figures would have to be nearly doubled to get the equivalent in statute acres. Smaller, but quite substantial, estates were recovered by Patrick Bellew of Barmeath, Thomas Clinton of Clintonstown and Nicholas Gernon of Milltown among others. Altogether there were about twenty Catholic landowners, great and small, shown in the record at the end of the Restoration settlement. In the place of dispossessed landowners new owners had come in, such as Sir William Tichborne, who got Beauly in place of a

162

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Plunkett and built himself the very fine house we can still admire; Henry Bellingham, who got Gernonstown, later named Castlebellingham; Erasmus Smith, who endowed Protestant schools; Henry Townley, whose family name is commemorated in Townley Hall, among others. The largest Protestant landowner, however, was one whose titles went back long before Oliver Cromwell to the sixteenth century and the dissolution of the monasteries; he was Henry Moore, Earl of Drogheda. When James II came to Ireland in March, 16S9 he was enthusiastically welcomed by Catholics, not so much for his own sake as because he represented the chief hope they had of recovering and holding their lost lands and political and religious privileges. Only in Derry and Enniskillen—the Protestant cities of refuge in the north—was James resisted and William acknowledged. The first demand of Catholics was for a Parliament and a new law to drive a " coach and six " through the Restoration Act of Settlement. The Parliament met in May, 1689 and the Louth representatives in the House of Commons were now all Catholics. The county was represented by Thomas Bellew of Dundalk and William Talbot of Haggardstown, who was Lord Tyrconnell's nephew. Hugh Gernon and John Babe sat for Ardee; Robert Dermot and John Dowdall for Dundalk; Christopher Fitzlgnatius Peppard and Bryan Dermot for Carlingford; and Henry Dowdall and Christopher FitzGeorge Peppard for Drogheda. Lords Bellew and Louth sat in the House of Lords. The Act of Settlement was repealed, and all those who had lost land since 1641 could now hope to get it back. An Act of Attainder was also passed, which attainted or outlawed some thousands of Protestants unless they acknowledged allegiance to King James by a certain date. If they failed to do so, their lands would be confiscated and available for distribution to Catholics. The list included the Earl of Drogheda, Sir William Titchburn, Thomas Bellingham and about sixty others from County Louth, most of whom were in England preparing to help William to conquer Ireland. But the members of this Patriot Parliament were counting their chickens too soon. The Acts passed by the Patriot Parliament could be effective only in the event of a Jacobite victory. Catholic hopes were dashed, first by the successful resistance of Derry and Enniskillen, and in the following year by the arrival of William and by his victory at the Boyne. That victory went to the heads of William's Protestant supporters and they confidently expected that all the land still in Catholic ownership would now be available for distribution. William at first thought the war was won. When he reached Finglas, just north of Dublin, he issued a declaration calling on the Jacobites to surrender unconditionally ; he made no promises about their lands. There were plenty of deserving supporters whom William wished to reward with confiscated Irish land, and it was natural for him to see the advantage of taking away the estates of Jacobites whose support of James had forced William himself to take the appalling risk of coming over to Ireland at a time when Holland was threatened by Louis XIV's army and his position in England was threatened by the French navy. William's Protestant followers also

County Louth and the Jacobite

War

163

saw no advantage in making any concession to Irish Catholics who had just repealed the Act of Settlement and passed the Act of Attainder. But the demand for unconditional surrender was a mistake. It made the Irish Catholics desperate and they determined to hold out for better terms. They found a leader in Patrick Sarsfield. William met with a serious reverse at Limerick, which he had to abandon in the late summer of 1690. The war went on for more than a year longer and Ginkel, William's Dutch general, was left in charge of operations. Ginkel's instructions were to repair the damage done by the demand for unconditional surrender; he was to try to bring the Jacobites to terms in time to avoid an Irish campaign in 1691. Negotiations went on and Catholic intermediaries were used in the bargaining; the terms offered wrere some form of toleration for the Catholic religion and the restoration of, at any rate, most of the lands owned by Catholics when the war began. One of the intermediaries was John Bellew, the eldest son of Sir Patrick Bellew of Barmeath. The father was with the Jacobite forces, but the son had remained in Dublin, acknowledged William and put his services at the disposal of the Williamite government in an effort to get a settlement. To allay suspicion the Williamite authorities declared him an outlaw when he left for the Irish quarters. This stratagem was not successful, as the Jacobite authorities arrested John Bellew and kept him in prison till after the battle of Aughrim.1 After the war he got a royal pardon from William. The negotiations did not succeed, partly because Sarsfield took a tough line with the negotiators, and partly because the terms offered were too vague and because Catholics were not convinced of the good faith of William's supporters, though they were readier to believe in W7illiam himself. Meanwhile the Williamites were taking action against the Jacobites and their property in the parts of Ireland under William's control. Estates were taken over by special commissioners; law courts were set up, assizes held, and juries returned long lists of Catholic supporters of King James who were to be outlawed. Most of the Louth outlawries seem to have been pronounced in April, 1691, shortly before military operations began again. The list for County Louth contained ninety-nine names and there were fifty for Drogheda, which was treated as a separate unit.2 The lists were compiled by Protestant juries in the absence of many of the Jacobites, and there are some surprising omissions. For instance, they do not include Oliver, who became the eighth Lord Louth in 1689 after his father's death, though they do include his brother Thomas, who was in France for his education. There is no mention of Sir Patrick Bellew, but his second and third sons, Richard and Christopher, are listed; the eldest son, John, who was doing cloak and dagger work for the Williamites, is not there. The list begins with the names of Richard, Earl of Tyrconnell, Stickillin, and John, Lord Bellew of Duleek, Castletown, and his second son, Richard; Walter, his eldest son, who was also with the Jacobite army, is not included. There are a 1. Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 133. 2. Analecta Hibernica, No. 22.

164

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

number of priests mentioned, including Andrew Matthews, Abbot of Mellifont. There is an interesting row of Drogheda shopkeepers—John Owens, tailor; Thomas Nugent, baker; Martin Handcock, cooper; Patrick Mahan, bookseller; and James Bellew, skinner. Very few of these outlaws were landowners, but they stood to lose any other property they had, such as houses, stock or leaseholds. When the summer of 1691 set in nothing had come of the negotiations between William and the Catholics, and another campaign became inevitable. Athlone fell at the end of June, and on July 12 William's general, Ginkel, won a decisive military victory at Aughrim. That was a far more bloodthirsty affair than the Boyne, and the Irish losses were very heavy. Among those wounded and taken prisoner were Lord Bellew and his eldest son, Walter. Limerick was soon the last hope of the Irish, and a very forlorn hope at that. Their spirits were dejected, there was friction with the French commanders and much talk of a negotiated settlement. On 23rd September, 1691, treaty talks began, in which Sarsfield was the moving spirit on the Jacobite side. The Irish had not much to bargain with: one city with very little area to provide supplies or maintain cavalry. On the other hand, William was most unwilling to keep his army for another winter in Ireland; he wanted to move it to Flanders, where his position was almost desperate. Ginkel was authorized to go a good way to meet the wishes of the Catholics, but he could not go so far as to offer them a complete indemnity or to promise official recognition for their church. There was hard bargaining before the Treaty of Limerick was signed on 3rd October, 1691. One of the hostages exchanged as a guarantee of good faith during the negotiations was Lord Louth. Part of the treaty provided that those of the Irish army who wished to accompany Sarsfield to France should be allowed to do so, and that King William should supply ships for their transport. That part of the treaty was carried through without much trouble, and those who went formed the nucleus of the celebrated Irish brigades in the service of France. They were allowed to go, but were treated as outlaws so far as any property they had in Ireland was concerned. Foreign treason lists were later drawn up, but they had comparatively few names from Louth—twenty in the county list and nineteen in the Drogheda list. Not all of these were soldiers; there were several priests, including Dominick Maguire, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, whose Irish address was given as Ardee; many of the Drogheda names were those of merchants. The county list included Thomas Plunkett, a brother of Lord Louth, who transferred from France to Austria and became a captain of cuirassiers in the service of the Holy Roman Emperor; he was later allowed to come back to Ireland and spent his declining years at Louth Hall. 1 The list also has several Dermots of Kilcurly and a couple of Taafes of Drumleck. For those who wished to stay in Ireland, pardon and restoration of their estates, if they had any, were offered to those who were still holding out at the end of the war. 1. Louth MSS. N.L.I.

County Louth and the Jacobite War

165

Those who had been killed or captured or had surrendered unconditionally at an earlier stage were to have their estates confiscated, and so were those who went to France. Most of the Irish at Limerick who had landed estates decided to stay in Ireland, take the benefit of the articles of the treaty and get back their estates. Tribunals were set up to hear their claims, of which over 1,200 altogether were heard and nearly all allowed. Twenty-one claims from Louth were admitted. These did not correspond to twenty-one separate estates. The names included several from the same family, and others who were leaseholders or merchants. Among landed proprietors were Sir Patrick Bellew of Barmeath, Lord Louth, Capt. Thomas Cashell of Cashellstown and John Babe of Darver, all of whom seem to have recovered their property without much trouble. Capt. Roger Bellew of Thomastown had more difficulty in getting his property back; he was involved in long legal proceedings with William Barton, who had got hold of it in the meantime and tried to intimidate Bellew into giving him a long lease of it at a low rent. However, the Bellews seem to have persisted, and they still had rights in the property in 1736 when they conveyed it to Thomas Tenison.1 In addition to the pardons that automatically went with a successful claim to the articles of Limerick, a number of special royal pardons were granted by King William at his discretion. The estates of Lord Bellew and Lord Carlingford were saved in this way. The Bellew case was particularly complicated. After the first Lord Bellew and his eldest son had been wounded at Aughrim, they were taken to England as prisoners and died there. Richard, the second son, was at Limerick, and so could either stay in Ireland and be pardoned or go to France with Sarsfield and be treated as an outlaw. Actually, he went to France but claimed that he did so for the sake of his health, and not to fight, and that General Ginkel had told him that it would be all right. After his father and brother had died he claimed to be heir to the estate which had, in the meantime, been given to Lord Sydney, while Richard Bellew himself was liable to the penalties of being an outlaw. So he got a pass for himself and his footman to travel to Holland where he met General Ginkel who promised to intercede for him. He also enlisted the powerful help of the Duke of Shrewsbury. But .he King was very reluctant to give him a pardon; it seemed that Lord Sydney was afraid of his claiming £3,000 back profits from the estate and he had to promise to let Sydney keep the money before his pardon went through. To mal 0 assurance doubly sure, he got his father's outlawry reversed by special warrant and ended up by getting his own claim to the articles of Limerick recognized just before the lists closed. It appears that he succeeded in doing all this while he was still a Catholic. Early in Anne's reign he was to the fore in protesting against the Popery Bill on behalf of himself and other Catholics.2 His protest failed, and by 1707 he had conformed to the Established Church and had taken his seat in the Irish House of Lords. 1. Louth ArchcBological Journal, V, 196. 2. Cal. S.P., dom., i6gy, p. 61; B.M. Add. MS. 37, 673, f. 3.

166

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Nicholas Taafe, the second Earl of Carlingford, was killed at the Boyne; but his brother and heir, Francis, was high in the favour of the Holy Roman Emperor, William's chief ally. Francis was already a Count of the Holy Roman Empire and a lieutenant-general; soon after he became a field marshal. William gave special instructions that no attempt should be made to outlaw the dead brother Nicholas, or to interfere with the Taafe estate.1 Francis died in 1704 and the estate went to his nephew; when the nephew died in 1738 without children the earldom died out and the lands were divided, two-thirds to a Protestant relative and one-third to the Catholic Viscount, who sold his share to the Fitzmaurices. The ten years after the war were filled with disputes about confiscated lands. Protestants were openly hostile to the Treaty of Limerick, which was not confirmed by the Irish Parliament till 1697 and then in a truncated form. William and his English Parliament quarrelled bitterly about the right to dispose of confiscated lands in Ireland. The English Parliament wanted them to be sold to help to pay for the war and relieve the harassed tax-payer. William wanted to give them out as rewards to his friends and supporters. At first William seemed to be getting his way, and a number of royal grants were made. In some parts of Ireland these were on a fantastic scale—100,000 plantation acres to William's lady friend, the Countess of Orkney; about as much to his young Dutch favourite, Keppel; 150,000 to Bentinck, Earl of Portland, another Dutchman. There were loud complaints about what were called " the exorbitant grants " of the King. In County Louth the royal grants were more modest. General Ginkel was given Lord Slane's estate, 40,000 acres in all, but most of it was in Meath, and the Louth portion was relatively small. Lord Sydney, one of the few Englishmen whom William liked, was first given Lord Bellew's estate, but when that seemed likely to be recovered by the heir he was given some other estates, including Stickillin, which had belonged to Lord Tyrconnell. John Baker, whose father had been Governor of Derry during the siege, was given the estate of Nicholas Gernon—Milltown and other lands. In 1699 the English Commons forced William to agree to an inquiry into the way in which the confiscated lands in Ireland had been allotted. In the following year they forced him to agree to an Act of Resumption which cancelled all his grants with a few exceptions, one of which was John Baker's. The rest of the confiscated land was vested in a body of trustees to be sold towards the expenses of the war. The Act of Resumption was a humiliating demonstration of the power of the English Commons over the Crown. It was also a humiliating treatment of an Irish question without any consultation with the Irish Parliament—Protestant though it was. That offended the pride of Irish Protestants; their pockets were also affected, as Sydney and some others had sold out when they saw how the political wind was blowing, and Irish Protestants had bought their grants at v/hat seemed very cheap 3. Annesley MSS., XX, 101.

County Louth and the Jacobite War

167

rates. The Act made some provision for the " Protestant purchasers," but they were still to be considerably out of pocket as the result of the resumption proceedings. One of those affected in this way was Sir Richard Levinge, who had bought Tyrconnell's estate of Stickillin, which had been granted to Sydney.1 The trustees took three years over their work, from 1700 to 1703. Most of their time was taken up with hearing claims based on settlements made before the war began. Two of the Louth claims were successful: Patrick Gernon was able to save the estate of Killincoole, which would otherwise have been forfeited because of the outlawry of his father, Hugh; in the same way Nicholas Taafe saved the Stephenstown estate which had been held by his outlawed father, Christopher. But the trustees rejected the claim of Thomas Clinton, junior, to ClintonstowTn. When all the inquirie were complete and allowance had been made for all the exemptions—under the articles of Limerick special pardons and successful claims—the balance was put up to auction at Chichester House on College Green, the site of the present Bank of Ireland. Bidding was limited to Protestants. Only five estates in County Louth were auctioned: William Talbot's at Haggardstown, bought for Thomas Keightley, one of the Revenue Commissioners; Lord Slane's, bought by John Graham, William Barton and i^nthony Bury; Christopher Cheevers's at Carnantown, bought by John Newton; Thomas Clinton's, bought by Sir William Robinson, John Asgill and Thomas Bellingham; and Nicholas D'Arcy's. Bidding at the auction was not keen. War had just broken out again with France and there was talk of a Jacobite restoration, when everything would be in the melting-pot again. A large number of estates remained unsold at the end of the auction; an omnibus bid for them was offered by an English finance company with the peculiar name of the Corporation for making Hollow Sword Blades. The D'Arcy estate of Stonetown was one of the estates knocked down to the Corporation. However, its Irish land speculation was not a success and a few years later it sold out; Stonetown—over 1,000 plantation acres—was sold for £360 to Richard Tisdall, a lawyer and politician. The Hollow Sword Blades company then plunged even more disastrously into South Sea finance and burst in the famous bubble. The Chichester House auction of 1703 concluded the complicated series of transactions known as the Williamite confiscation. In County Louth it did not amount to very much—far less than in some other counties. The big estates, those of Lords Bellew, Carlingford and Louth, were protected by the articles or by special pardons. Several other estates were also protected in these ways or by the admission of legal settlements. The proportion of lands held by Catholics, which had been less than a quarter when the Jacobite war began, was still about a fifth when the auction finished. But the period of the Penal Laws was to follow, and life was to be very hard for landowning Catholics. A number of them changed their faith under the pressure. At the end of the penal period only one substantial estate in the county—Barmeath— seems to have been held by a Catholic. The Williamite confiscation of land was only part of the price paid by Catholics for their defeat in the Jacobite war; the shadow of that defeat spread over most of the eighteenth century. 1. An abstract of the conveyances is given in Irish Records Commissioners' Reports, 1821-$ pp. 348-96.

A. The Town of Sligo. B. The Stone Fort, which is altogether commanded by the Earth Fort. C. The Earth Fort, on a high ground, and newly fortified with a good Chemien, Court, and Glacies, well palisaded. D. The entrance into the Fort. E. A Sally-port to relieve the Outworks. F. A Well, which is continually full of water. G. The Retrenchments of the Town. H. A Bastion, which is made on a commanding ground. I. The High-way that leads from Collooney to Sligo. K. The way that leads from Sligo to Ballyshannon. L. The Sea, being a strand at low water. M. The Abbey. N. The Church. O. A Redoubt, which commands the two ways at the> bottom of the hill.

Sligo in 1689 following retrenching by Colonel Henry Luttrell. Additional fortification to the Earth Fort was by R. Burton, his Majesty's Engineer.

14 SLIGO IN THE JACOBITE WAR, 1689-91

S

LIGO played an important part in the Jacobite war. It changed hands several times, and there was sharp fighting in and around the town. It was not a large place or very strongly fortified, but it was of strategic importance as the key to Connacht, commanding the road from Ulster, where the Williamites were particularly powerful. When the troubles began, Sligo was the most Protestant part of Connacht. Cromwell had reserved the county for his soldiers, and it was not earmarked for the Irish like Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. In 1688 ninety per cent of the land in the county was owned by Protestants— such families as Coote and Cooper, Gore and Ormsby. Besides the big Protestant landowners with their substantial houses, there were a good many Protestant tenants; but the greater part of the population was Catholic. The accession of the Catholic King James II in 1685 had caused anxiety to Protestants and had raised in Catholics the hope of recovering lost land. But no great changes had taken place up to the time of the English revolution at the end of 1688, when James was driven off his throne by William of Orange. Tyrconnell, the Catholic viceroy, did not accept the English revolution and did what he could to provide James with a strong base in Ireland from which he might be able to work his way back to England. Tyrconnell regarded Protestants as fifth columnists, and had a good deal of justification for doing so. Many of the leading Protestants had already left for England and had offered their services to William; many of the Ulster Protestants congregated in Derry and Enniskillen and prepared to oppose Tyrconnell. Outside Ulster there were sporadic attempts to set up Protestant resistance movements, and Sligo was a conspicuous example. We have an interesting contemporary account of the situation written by a Sligo Protestant, Richard Wood of Castle Lacken.1 He describes the growing anxiety of the Protestants in the county. Orders to disarm them were issued from Dublin Castle; more and more of their cows were stolen; their Protestant tenants were forcibly evicted. The last straw was the talk of a Catholic garrison being sent to occupy the town of Sligo. At the beginning of January 1689 the Protestants decided to take positive action. They formed an association under Lord Kingston and the Hon. Chidley Coote and issued a declaration that they were determined to unite themselves with England and hold to the lawful government thereof and a free parliament. They went on to declare that they had taken up arms as a purely defensive measure without any aggressive intention, unless they were provoked. They formed troops of both horse and foot and occupied Sligo and a large number of strong points round it, such as Grange, which would secure the road to Ballyshannon and Derry; Newtown on Lough Gill; Manorhamilton; 1 Included in 'Three seventeenth/century Connacht documents', edited by M. O Duigeannain, and published in Galway Arch, and Hist. Journal, xvii, 154/61 (1936).

170

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Collooney; Markree, the home of the Coopers; and Ballintogher, the home of a redoubtable and militant clergyman named Dr. John Leslie. Sligo itself was not a walled town. It had a comparatively modern fort beside the river (close to where the Town Hall now stands) called the Stone Fort, which had been built in Cromwell's time and was armed with seventeen miscellaneous guns, none of them very large. It is shown at B on the accompanying map. On the hill to the north of the river was a derelict earth fort which was to become of great importance during the course of the war, under the name of the Green Fort (C on the map). The Protestant association took energetic action against any Catholic centres in the neighbourhood, claiming that they were being used as hostile bases. A patrol of troopers under Captain Arthur Cooper of Markree reconnoitred the position at Ballymote, the Taafe castle, which had a Catholic garrison under Counsellor Terence MacDonagh. MacDonagh's men were drawn up across the road. Cooper's party fired a blunderbuss which killed one man and wounded five others and drove the rest back into the castle. More vigorous fighting took place at Longford Castle which belonged to Henry Crofton. He was of planter stock, but his mother was an O'Conor and he had been brought up a Catholic. The Protestants asserted that Longford Castle was a base for rapparees. So a patrol party under the command of William Ormsby and Francis Gore made a night attack on it, burning the entrance gate which was stoutly defended by the garrison till they were nearly suffocated by the smoke. The castle was stormed and a number of arms—pikes, skeeans, swords and a few muskets— commandeered. Two months after this resistance centre had been set up in Sligo letters came in from Col. Lundy, the Protestant commander at Derry, urging Lord Kingston and his Sligo men to join the Derry forces, as otherwise he was afraid they would not be able to hold out against the troops Tyrconnell was sending from Dublin. A council of war was held and the ' reverend and judicious' Dr. Leslie carried a resolution not to leave Sligo till the last extremity. Chidley Coote was deputed to go to Derry to explain to Lundy and ask for arms and ammunition. But Lundy wrote again, begging Lord Kingston to consider whether if Derry fell Sligo could hold out. So another council of war was held, this time without benefit of the advice of the ' grave and worthy' Dr. Leslie. It was decided to leave Sligo and burn the stores they could not take. The Protestant exodus took place on March 24 in bad weather. Some went in a ship then in the harbour, others in open boats, one of which was wrecked near Donegal; most took the Ballyshannon road. Wood gives a graphic description of the journey: ' God knows the hardships poor gentlewomen with their children suffered that night at Grange and what they endured next day in their march by the extreme hardness of the weather and the difficulties in passing over rivers, especially Bundrowes, which did sweep the loads off the horses' backs very often '. When they reached Ballyshannon they found that Lundy had double-crossed them; a letter from him said that forage was very scarce at Derry and that Lord Kingston should stop where he was till further orders. On April 7 orders came to march to Ballybofey en route for Derry, but by the time they got there King James's forces had crossed

Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91

171

the Finn at Clady and cut off the approach to Derry. Sligo had meanwhile been occupied by the Jacobites, so Lord Kingston, by now thoroughly disgusted, left for Scotland to join King William; most of his followers made their way to Enniskillen and took an active part in its defence. The governor appointed for Sligo by King James was Henry Luttrell, who later earned a bad name as a traitor at Aughrim and Limerick. During the siege of Enniskillen Sligo was an important Jacobite base. It was the centre of operations for Patrick Sarsfield, who was one of the leading commanders in the north/west region. But in spite of Sarsfield's talents the Enniskilleners got the better of the fighting. They found a good amateur leader in Thomas Lloyd of Croghan near Boyle, who was admiringly referred to by his men as the ' little Cromwell'. He routed the Jacobites near Belleek on the Erne and captured Terence MacDonagh on Fish Island. The main Jacobite force, however, got away and fell back on Sligo. The worst defeat the Jacobites suffered was at Newtownbutler, where the Enniskilleners routed Justin MacCarthy, Lord Mountcashel, and took him prisoner. That broke up the siege of Enniskillen about the same time as the siege of Derry was raised and threatened the whole Jacobite position in the north/west. Sarsfield got the news near the Bundrowes and fell back rapidly on Sligo, followed by Col. Francis Gore with three troops of horse and 150 foot. This was early in August 1689. There is a story of an ingenious stratagem thought up by Gore with the object of recovering Sligo for the Protestants. When Gore's party were within six or seven miles of Sligo they took an Irish prisoner and brought him to the colonel, who found that he was a foster-brother of his own—his nurse's son. Gore threatened to hang the man but finally pretended to be overcome by his appeals for mercy and offered to spare him if he would carry a message to Sarsfield's camp and warn half a dozen of Sarsfield's officers, who were his particular friends, that the whole Williamite force from Derry and Enniskillen were on the march to Sligo: 20,000 men who would be there the next day in overwhelming strength. This was to be a friendly warning to them and the foster/brother was not on any account to tell anyone else. The foster/brother, of course, told every one he met on the way to Sligo and started a panic retreat in the direction of Athlone. Sarsfield asked the reason for the panic and the foster-brother was brought to him and told his story. The officers named by Gore happened to be there and it was well known that Gore had in fact been friendly with them; so the story was readily accepted and Sarsfield and his men abandoned Sligo in the face of what they thought was a greatly superior force. Soon afterwards Gore and his small party came into Sligo and found the guns intact and a quantity of stores left behind by the Jacobites. Whether this story is true or not, Sarsfield did retire and the Protestants for the second time took possession of Sligo.2 Gore was soon reinforced by Sir Albert Conyngham of Mountcharles with his dragoon regiment from south/west Donegal. A month later Col. Thomas Lloyd, the ' little Cromwell', took command of Sligo bringing with him three troops of horse. He has given his own account in a letter to Marshal Schomberg, the veteran who had arrived in the north with a 2 A . Hamilton, A true relation of the actions of the Inniskilling men, London, 169

172

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

considerable Williamite army.3 Lloyd said he was very anxious about the Sligo position, as enemy forces were threatening it. He thought attack the best means of defence and sallied out in the direction of Boyle. He got as far as Ballinafad by night and sent out an advance party which surprised the Jacobite sentinels on top of the Curlews, killing one and taking three prisoner. The main Jacobite force then moved out of Boyle and their infantry then lined the wall of Lord Kingston's deer park on the southern slope of the Curlews to the east of the road from Sligo. The Jacobite horse,' which consisted most of the Irish gentry', were drawn up in a lane at the foot of the mountain. Lloyd reconnoitred the situation about sunrise and found his opponents very strongly posted. However, he ordered Sir Albert Conyngham and his dragoons to get inside the wall of the deer park and drive out the enemy sheltering behind it. Lloyd himself and Captain George Cooper then attacked the Jacobite infantry who ran to a nearby bog and then dispersed. The Jacobites' horses were very fresh and galloped through Boyle and out the other side, unsuccessfully pursued by Lloyd's troopers whose horses were tired and could not keep up the pace. Lloyd's despatch made the most of a rather minor engagement and was published in full to keep up Williamite spirits. He was left in possession of Boyle and captured the port/ manteau of Col. Charles O'Kelly, the Jacobite commander. But Lloyd's success was only temporary and he did not keep Boyle for long. Superior enemy forces were concentrating and Sligo was soon to be attacked by the Jacobites under Sarsfield. The story is told in a couple of Williamite broad/ sheets published at the time. They give a lively account of the fighting, though the topographical details are not easy to make out. One of the broadsheets is 'A full and impartial relation of the brave and great actions that happened between the Iniskilling men and the French Protestants on the one side and the Irish rebels commanded by Sarsfield on the other, near Sligo \4 The French Protestant in the story was a Huguenot captain called St. Sauveur, who behaved with great gallantry. The action started at Jamestown, county Leitrim, which had been held as a Protestant outpost. Sarsfield with 5,000 ' choice men' of the Irish army was joined by a local Connacht force of 2,000 and had no difficulty in driving the Jamestown garrison back towards Sligo. The town was defended by Col. Lloyd with Iniskilling foot, helped by the Huguenot St. Sauveur, most of whose men were grenadiers. The Williamite cavalry had retired towards Ballyshannon and their commander, Russell, had advised Lloyd and St. Sauveur to abandon Sligo, but' they bravely stood to it, defying the enemy'. St. Sauveur occupied a pass not far from the town—apparently Ballysadare—which he maintained against Sarsfield's force till his ammunition was used up, ' the monsieur himself an excellent marksman often firing at the head of his men, after which they retreated to the town with no great loss and defended themselves with their baggonets in their muskets till they took possession of two of the forts beyond the town, the French captain . . . the lower fort and Lloyd with the Iniskilling 3 An exact account of the royal army under the Duke of Scbomberg, with particulars of the defeat of the Irish army near Boyle, London, 1689. 4 London, 1689.

Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91

173

men . . . the upper fort \ That presumably means that St. Sauveur occupied the Stone Fort and Lloyd the Green Fort on the top of the hill. There is another broadsheet which carries the story further, and adds more details.5 This was a report by Captain Richard Smith who came with reinforcements in an attempt to relieve Sligo. He describes a sally by Lloyd's men which forced the enemy to retire till they were reinforced and drove Lloyd and his Iniskillingers back into the town. The report goes on: 'in the meantime our foot got into the castle and the enemies' foot drew up in the market/place . . . The castle being crasie and not thought tenable our men quitted it and got into the fort which they held five days, so long as they had any ammunition left'. This reference to the crazy castle and the market/place presumably means that the old Fitzgerald castle in the middle of the town was first occupied and then abandoned for the Stone Fort. The account goes on: * one remarkable stratagem made use of by the Irish for the storming of the fort was: they built a box of timber as high as the wall with stairs, through which they might ascend to the top of the wall without danger '. The defenders countered this move by tumbling out a parcel of shavings round the base of the contraption and sending down a man in a basket to set the shavings alight. When the rope was being pulled up it was cut by a shot and ' let the poor adventurer fall'. However, another rope was let down and pulled him up to safety. George Story, the chief Williamite historian of the war, describes the Huguenot captain's defence of the fort.6 He says that the captain was afraid that the enemy might assault the fort under cover of darkness so ' he got a great many fir deals and dipping the ends of them in tar they made such a light when set on fire that he discovered the enemy coming with an engine they called a sow; but having killed the engineer and two or three more, the rest retreated and he burned the engine'. Sow is a technical term for a siege engine designed to provide cover for an assaulting party. This sow was described as of very strong whole timber bound with iron and covered with two rows of hides and as many of sheepskins, which rendered * her' proof against musket ball or steel arrows.7 M. St. Sauveur put up a gallant fight but his provisions ran out and there was a shortage of water in the fort; so he surrendered to Sarsfield on honourable terms that allowed the garrison to march out with their arms and baggage. Captain Smith paid a tribute to Sarsfield, saying that he faithfully kept the terms agreed and entertained the officers the day they were signed. George Story says that when the garrison were marching over the bridge Sarsfield stood there with a purse of guineas and offered anyone who would fight for King James a horse and arms and five guineas advance pay, but they all answered they would never fight for the Papishes (as they called them), except one who took the horse and arms and guineas and deserted the next day.8 5 A full and true account of all the remarkable actions and things that have happened in the north of Ireland, London, 1689. 6 G. Story, Impartial history of the affairs of Ireland, pp. 33 7 W . Harris, Life of William HI, pp. 246x7. 8 Story, op. tit., p. 34.

174

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

So by the end of October 1689 the Jacobites were again in Sligo and were to hold it for almost two years, nearly as long as the war lasted. It was strongly garrisoned, with a regiment of horse under Col. Henry Luttrell, a regiment of dragoons under Sir Neale O'Neill (which later distinguished itself at the Boyne) and 3,000 foot. Luttrell seems to have been an energetic commander, and it was reported that he repaired two forts and built a third. The accompanying map, reproduced from W. G. Wood/Martin's History of Sligo, is styled * The plan of the town and forts of Sligo as it is retrenched by the Hon. Col. Henry Luttrell with the additional fortification done to the earth fort by R. Burton, H.M's engineer, 1689 \9 The map shows retrenchments round the town from the Stone Fort running outside St. John's church and round by the Abbey and further retrenchments from the river up to the Green Fort on both sides. It also shows a redoubt commanding the two roads at the bottom of the hill, north/west of the town. This may be the third fort that Luttrell is said to have made. By the summer of 1690 things were looking black for the Jacobites. William's forces in Ireland were building up, and he himself was getting ready to come over. In May came the surrender of Charlemont, the last Jacobite stronghold in Ulster, after a gallant defence by Teague O'Regan, an eccentric veteran. James was delighted with O'Regan's prowess, made him a knight and sent him to command in Sligo. So for the next fifteen months Sligo was in charge of this old warrior. O'Regan came from Ballynecloghy, co. Cork. He had seen service in France in Charles II's reign and was a good soldier, though he did not look like one. He was a hunchback and is described as wearing an old weather' beaten wig, a cravat all on one side and boots with a thousand wrinkles in them.10 Sir Teague decided that the Stone Fort was indefensible as it was too low down, and that the proper place for the defence was the old earth fort on the top of the hill. So he had the guns brought up to the Green Fort, or Sod Fort as it was often called, and made that his main position. The remains of it are still quite impressive and it dominates the country in every direction. The battle of the Boyne was a severe blow to the Jacobites, and the Williamite advance towards the Shannon promised to make things very difficult for the Sligo garrison. But Richard Grace stoutly defended Athlone against the Scots general Douglas and Sarsfield at Limerick administered a severe rebuff to King William himself. William went back to England and left his Dutch general Ginkel in charge of his troops in Ireland. When winter set in, conditions for fighting became very difficult. But William was most anxious to keep up the pressure on the Irish and not to let them recuperate too easily in the west. Orders from England came for a two/prong attack on the Irish positions—a southern thrust into Kerry and a simultaneous northern thrust towards Sligo, for which General Douglas was detailed. General Ginkel's correspondence, which is in the ancestral castle of Amerongen in Holland, has some exchanges between him and Douglas about this winter expedition against Sligo.11 Douglas objected that he was not strong enough to 9 W. G. WoocUMartin, History of Sligo, ii, 13 10 Story, op. cit., p. 62; Cork Hist, and Arch. Jn., xii, nu$ (1906) 11 Ginkel papers, Amerongen (Nat. Lib. Ire., microfilm N 4050).

Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91

175

deal with Sligo that winter and Ginkel tried to overrule him. He urged Douglas to march with all his forces towards Sligo and do his best to take it; if that was beyond him he should at least penetrate into north Connacht to draw enemy strength away from the south where a thrust into Kerry was the other part of the Williamite strategy. The Jew in charge of the commissariat was to see that enough bread for Douglas's force was available at Belturbet. Douglas, who was up in Armagh, retorted that if Sligo was to be taken he must have cannon, spades and shovels, engineers, battery masters and other requisites for a siege. ' I have,' he wrote, * neither engineer, battery master, instruments or other necessaries and thus I do not incline to make another Athlone siege; and suppose you had all the necessaries for a siege I do not see it possible that cannon or waggons can be brought to Sligo from this province, but if there be any gentleman more knowing than I in the country let him undertake the matter of conveying the cannon and waggons to Sligo and I shall give all the assistance I can, but I am sure the thing cannot be performed.' William himself wrote to Douglas to say how anxious he was to have Sligo besieged. Douglas again wrote to Ginkel that it could not be done. * I'm as willing as any mortal, but ... it is not possible to carry cannon or waggons any way from Ulster to Connacht in the winter*. Douglas said it would be better to wait for the spring when the roads would be in a fitter state for transporting cannon. Douglas's protests were effective and the idea of attacking Sligo in the winter was given up. In the meantime the bridge over the Erne at Belleek was repaired and made fit to carry heavy cannon. In March 1691 the Iniskilling foot— ancestors of the Iniskilling Fusiliers—were getting ready at Ballyshannon for the campaign. Their colonel said he was seeing to arms and tents and exercising the regiment twice a week.12 The exercises included raids in the Sligo direction which claimed successes in the shape of captured cattle or rapparees killed or taken prisoner. The main summer campaign opened in June and was directed at Athlone. Sligo was a subsidiary objective. The Williamite commander who was to deal with it was Col. John Michelburne who had made a reputation for himself at the siege of Derry. He held the Erne front with headquarters at Ballyshannon. His force consisted of one and a half infantry regiments, a troop each of Sir Albert Conyngham's and Col. Wynne's dragoons, and a considerable body of militia.13 Michelburne's operations began unluckily. About the middle of June a party of dragoons sent to patrol the Bundrowes were tempted by the idea offishingfor salmon and while they were happily engaged in this way they were attacked by an Irish party under Captain MacSharry and ten of them were taken prisoner and brought to Sligo. This started a correspondence between Michelburne and Sir Teague O'Regan who had been old comrades in arms in France in Charles II's time. Another of these comrades was Col. Edward Scott, deputy governor of Sligo, who had actually served in the same regiment as Michelburne. Scott 12 Col. Zachariah Tiffin to Ginkel ( T . C . D . MS, K.5.5., no. 533 ; Clarke letters). 13 Michelburne's operations are described in An account of the transactions in the north of Ireland, A.D. 1691, London, 1692. The same source contains his letters to O'Regan.

176

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

came from Easky, county Sligo. His brother Francis was a lieutenant who had been taken prisoner by the Williamites and lodged in Derry. So Michelburne's idea was to trade one lieutenant for ten dragoons. The resulting correspondence introduces a human note that relieves the rigours of war. Michelburne's first letter was as follows: ' Sir, 'Tis no small satisfaction to me to know that my old acquaintance Sir Teague O'Regan, the happiness of whose company I have so often enjoyed in the French campaign, should be in a garrison so near me, as also Col. Scott. I have sent you a pacquet of letters by my drum from the prisoners in Londonderry, one whereof is to Col. Scott from his brother to whom I have been civil on the colonel's account, which he does kindly acknowledge. My service to Col. Scott. I am, sir, your most humble servant, John Michelburne.' After several letters the prisoners were exchanged and O'Regan threw in some forty Protestants, men, women and children, who wanted to leave Sligo for Ballyshannon. Meanwhile Aughrim was fought and things looked gloomy for the Jacobites. The Williamites kept up the pressure on Sligo and had a decided success at Ballysadare bridge on July 23 when a party of horse and dragoons from Enniskillen beat back O'Regan and an advanced post. The Enniskilleners claimed to have beaten the Irish back under the guns of Sligo fort and to have nearly captured Sir Teague himself, if he had not looked so unimpressive that they failed to identify him. King William was anxious to finish off the war in Ireland and had authorised the offer of good terms to any commander on the Irish side who would surrender. Michelburne hoped to get O'Regan to accept the terms and wrote him another letter on July 26, a fortnight after Aughrim:— * Sir, You must needs be very sensible of your own weakness by the news you have of your army being totally beaten, how that they are not able to stand before us. So pray seriously consider it. I presume you have not yet seen the lords justices' proclamation which I enclosed send you. You have an opportunity to do yourself and your friends a kindness if you do but lay hold of this opportunity in treating with me as to the surrender of Sligo. I am, Sir, your humble servant, John Michelburne. I thank you for your present of the cask of claret you sent me. Be pleased to accept of a bottle of usquebaugh and some good London snuff.' Michelburne followed up his letter with a close blockade of Sligo, and negotiations started for the surrender of the town. All seemed to go smoothly; terms were drawn up by which the garrison were to hand Sligo over and march out with the honours of war. Sarsfield, now Lord Lucan, was asked for his approval and gave it. August 15 was fixed for the hand over. When the day

Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 177

177

came Sir Teague refused to surrender and Michelburne's hopes were badly disappointed. What had gone wrong ? Had O'Regan double/crossed the Williamites or had he some justification for his refusal ? The Williamites put it down to ' some treacherous inconstancy natural to the mere Irish'. Ginkel claimed to have intercepted a letter from the deputy governor of Sligo, Col. Scott, to Sarsfield to the effect that the talk of surrender was a stratagem to deceive the enemy.14 Another version gives the Irish side of the story and introduces a remarkable character. This was Hugh Baldearg O'Donnell, a direct descendant of the chieftains of Tir Conaill, who had been a soldier of some distinction in the Spanish service and had arrived in Ireland four days after the battle of the Boyne.15 He claimed to be the rightful earl of Tyrconnell and obviously disliked the title being taken by Richard Talbot, who was of an old English family. He felt that his lineage and his military experience were not appreciated, and he became thoroughly dissatisfied. The same offer of terms that the Williamites held out to Sir Teague O'Regan in July 1691 tempted O'Donnell to see what conditions he could get from King William, and he sent an agent to bargain with General Ginkel. What O'Donnell wanted was an opportunity to serve with his Ulster division on William's side in the European war and to be made earl of Tyrconnell. While the bargaining was going on, Sir Teague O'Regan from Sligo sent O'Donnell a letter to say that he had agreed to surrender unless he could be relieved within ten days. O'Donnell had no objection to showing the Williamites that he and his Ulstermen were a force to be reckoned with. So he moved to the neighbourhood of Sligo with the result that Michelburne's men retired and O'Regan regarded himself as freed from the undertaking to surrender. This version seems to have been the true one and O'Regan later saw to it that it was incorporated in the final terms of surrender.16 Michelburne was severely criticised for the Sligo fiasco and disputes arose between him and the militia under his command. King William was informed that' the foolishness of Col. Michelburne before Sligo has encouraged that place to defend itself and O'Donnell to play one of his Irish tricks instead of submitting as he intended'. Queen Mary ordered an inquiry into Michelburne's conduct to be held and the chief command on the Sligo front was given to the earl of Granard, to whom Michelburne was now subordinate.17 Bargaining went on between the Williamites and O'Donnell, which caused a split among the Ulstermen, many of whom had no liking for the idea of going over to William's side. But O'Donnell himself became more and more convinced that the Jacobite cause was lost. He came to an agreement with Ginkel that he should be promised the command of two regiments in Flanders and be reconv mended for the title and estates formerly possessed by his ancestors. In return 14 De Ros MSS, 12/102 (P.R.O.N.L). 15 J. O'Donovan, ' The O'Donnells in exile' in Duffy's Hibernian Magazine (i860), pp. $o<6, 106/7.

16 The terms are among the Ginkel papers in Amerongen. 17 Cal. S. P. iom., 169CI, pp. 501, 528.

178

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

O'Donnell undertook to help the Williamites against Sligo, in spite of the unwillingness of many of his men. In the latter part of August 1691 he was operating in the neighbourhood of Castlebar in conjunction with Sir Albert Conyngham, who wrote some letters about the difficulties O'Donnell was having with his mutineers. He spoke very highly of O'Donnell's good sense and the way that with the help of Williamite guineas he was managing to over/ come the mutiny—a tendentious term for the conduct of troops who fail to follow their commander when he changes sides. On September 4 O'Donnell and Conyngham had reached Colloony. That night Scott with a force of 700 set out from Sligo and on a foggy morning took their opponents by surprise. Conyngham hurried on to his horse, but the animal shied and carried him into the Irish position. The grim story is told that an Irish sergeant recognised him, called out, * Sir Halbert you are, and by this halbert you shall die' and suited the action to the word. O'Donnell had a narrow escape; the Williamites were sure that if he had been caught the Irish would have hanged him on the spot. The Williamite force had to abandon their tents and baggage and retreat in confusion to Boyle. Scott had scored a distinct success for Sligo. But the Williamite superiority in numbers was too great for the result to be in doubt. O'Donnell was reinforced, pushed Scott back into Sligo and was then sent to take Ballymote.18 Sligo was now closely invested on all sides. From the north Michelburne reached Drumcliffe on September 10 and next day got within half a mile of Sligo. The day after that he forced the outworks and got into the town itself. On the 13th Lord Granard came up from the south and set up his battery against the Green Fort. It was not a very formidable battery, consisting only of field guns, but even so he had great difficulty in bringing the guns across the Curlews. The horses gave up and the men had to take over. The official account in the Dublin Intelligence adds that Granard by some artifice led the defenders to believe that besides field guns he had heavy cannon, mortars, bombs and carcasses (shrapnel), which so terrified them that in a short time they agreed to surrender on the terms originally arranged with Michelburne.19 The garrison was allowed to march out with full honours of war, with their arms and baggage, drums beating, colours flying, match lighted and bullets in their mouths. All who wished could make their way to Limerick, which was still in the last throes of the final siege. Sir Teague himself and Col. Scott seem to have got there, as they joined Sarsfield and went off to fight in France. But many of Sir Teague's followers saw the end of the war approaching and dropped out of the campaign. Those of the townsmen of Sligo who wished to stay behind were to be protected in their bodies, liberties and goods, and were to be given freedom to pursue their usual occupations. The clergy of the town and district were also to be protected and to have full liberty to exercise their functions.20 These terms were not to be maintained in later years, but in the meantime Sir Teague's stout defence seemed to have produced an honourable and satisfactory 18 T.C.D. MS, K.5.11, nos. 1065,1089, 1097, 1121; Wood^Martin, op. cit., ii, 133. 19 Dublin Intelligence, 15^22 Sept., 1691. 20 Ginkel papers, Amerongen.

Sligo in the Jacobite War, 1689-91 179 result. The Green Fort was of great interest to the Williamites. They described it as being of sod work, extremely strong and well provided, having a garrison of 6oo men and sixteen guns. The capture of Sligo was thought worthy of commemoration together with Athlone and Galway. A medal was struck for the three towns and the Sligo part shows the town with the Green Fort on the hill above it. There is a specimen in the British Museum, from which Wood/Martin took one of the illustrations in his history of Sligo.21 That ends the story of Sligo in the Jacobite war. The town had many changes of fortune, but in the later stages of the war it put up a long and spirited resistance with slender resources and for many months maintained its key position as the guardian of northern Connacht. 2i Wood/Martin, op. cit., ii. 139-

This page intentionally left blank

15 WILLIAMITE PEACE TACTICS, 1690-1

illiam Ill's policy for ending the Irish war went through many changes during the fifteen months between the battle of the Boyne and the surrender of Limerick. With the varying fortunes of the war it oscillated between unconditional surrender and the securing of a negotiated settlement by the grant of liberal terms. William regarded the Irish war as an exasperating sideshow which diverted his forces from the real scene of action in the Netherlands, where he and his allies were hard put to it to withstand the pressure of the French. From the beginning of his reign his policy had been to induce the Irish Jacobites to surrender upon terms, and it was with the greatest reluctance that he decided in the spring of 1690 that he must himself go to Ireland and fight the matter out. As he put it to his ally the elector of Bavaria :

W

It is a terrible mortification to me to be able to do so little to contribute to the common good this year, and that I am obliged to go to Ireland, where I shall be as it were out of knowledge of the world. If I can soon reduce that kingdom I shall afterwards have my hands free to act with all the more energy against the common enemy.1

For a negotiated settlement the principal questions at issue were the Catholic religion and the estates of the Jacobites. One of William's first acts after his accession to the English William to elector of Bavaria, 14 Mar. 1690 (N. Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem en Bentinck,J iii. iii. 158). 158). In further references this work is cited as Correspondentie. 1

182

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

crown had been to issue a proclamation, in February 1689, in which he called on the Irish Catholics to surrender on a promise that they should keep their estates and continue to enjoy all the favour for the private exercise of their religion that the law allowed; he also promised that he would speedily call a parliament in Ireland and there promote further indulgence to them. If, however, they did not surrender within two months, their estates would be forfeited and distributed to those who had assisted William in reducing Ireland to its due obedience.2 At that stage, with William precariously established in England and James apparently firmly established in Ireland, there was almost no response to this proclamation and it became clear that Ireland could not be reduced without the use of force. However, there continued to be much discussion in Williamite circles as to whether the Irish Jacobites could be induced to accept terms and whether too uncompromising an attitude would have the unfortunate effect of making them desperate and prolonging their resistance. There were several advocates of a policy of discrimination, and it was suggested that the offer of pardon to the less intransigent might be useful and cause internal jealousy.3 From the time that he was committed to the Irish expedition William's general policy appears to have been to offer the minimum of concessions consistent with bringing the war in Ireland to a rapid conclusion. It was of over-riding importance to him to finish that war as soon as possible and switch his forces over to the continent. At the same time, if he could bring sufficient pressure on the Irish Jacobites to induce them to surrender unconditionally he would be able to make use of their forfeited estates to pay for the campaign and to reward deserving friends and helpers. It was not until that policy had been tried and had failed that William accepted the fact that the grant of comparatively favourable terms would be necessary to make the Jacobites submit. In May 1690, just before he crossed over to Ireland, William appointed Sir Robert Southwell to be his principal secretary 2

H.M.C. rep. 12, app. vi, p. 165. Various arguments are set out in pamphlets published in 1689, A declaration for Ireland or no declaration?', Reasons for his majesty issuing a general pardon to the rebels of Ireland. 3

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

183

of state for Ireland. Southwell was ordered to accompany William on his Irish expedition, and was well aware that one of his chief duties would be the framing of terms for the conclusion of the war. We have the memorandum which he drew up to clear his ideas just after his appointment. On the first page is the note, ' about a declaration of pardon and how far to extend or contract it'. In the margin is written, ' to prepare some heads herein as being a matter of great weight and consequence \4 After William's victory at the Boyne Southwell took the view that the Jacobite cause was hopeless; the body of the people were fled wherever their fears or inclination sent them, and the only course for the leaders was to ' retire into a few places of strength and there capitulate in the best manner they can'. If William went on as he had begun, the Irish were at his mercy and their lands would provide enough to pay all the arrears of the army and the cost of the Irish expedition; and England would not have cause to repent of ' the care and expense they were at \ 5 William directed Southwell to consult the committee of protestants who had taken provisional charge of Dublin.6 The question put to them was ' what is fit to be done for drawing in and protecting the Irish and others now in rebellion against their sacred majesties King William and Queen Mary? * The result of the committee's deliberations was reported to William's camp by Joseph Coghlan, who had represented Trinity College in the patriot parliament of 1689. The report maintained a significant silence about the Jacobite landowners, but recommended that a free pardon should be given to members of the lower orders who surrendered and gave up their arms.7 The committee's report was made over to Southwell and his staff, who burned midnight oil in drawing up a declaration, the scheme of which was ' to invite in all of the meaner sort, as farmers or those who have some personal estate in house, goods or cattle, but not to [be] meddling with the landed men till it appears into what posture they throw themselves or into what corners 4

B.M., Add. MS 19,670, f. 2. Southwell to Nottingham, 4 July 1690 (B.M., Add. MS 38,146, ff. 98-9). 6 Same to same, 6 July 1690 (ibid., f. 101). 7 Southwell papers in T.C.D., MS I. 6. 11, p. 57. 5

184

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

they retire \ Southwell expected that this would bring in ' the body of men which make the bulk of the nation and that the rest will afterwards look the more abject \ 8 This was the well-known declaration of Finglas, in which William promised pardon to members of the lower orders who surrendered by August i. But as for the ' desperate leaders of the rebellion ', as William was now in a position to make them sensible of their errors, they were to be left to the event of war, unless by great and manifest demonstrations they convinced him that they were deserving of his mercy, which could never be refused to the truly penitent.9 This attempt to drive a wedge between the common people and the landed classes was a complete failure. It had a superficial resemblance to the Cromwellian policy of exempting the lower orders from transplantation to Connacht. But it was ill-adapted to the situation of 1690, when the Catholic nobility and gentry still had considerable forces at their disposal and had not given up hope of obtaining tolerable terms of peace. In any case a declaration which confined its terms to worldly goods and made no reference at all to the question of toleration for the Catholic religion would have had little appeal for the private soldier, who never showed any inclination to give up the struggle until the concluding stages of the war, when he began to be restive about getting his pay. Contemporary accounts, both Williamite and Jacobite, are agreed that the uncompromising character of the declaration of Finglas served to stiffen the Jacobites at a time when their defeat at the Boyne must have made their position seem desperate. Story, the Williamite chaplain, observed that many of the Irish officers complained that the declaration was too narrow and that their exclusion from its terms obliged them to stick together as their only means of self-preservation.10 Story's own view was that William himself would have preferred a more generous declaration but was obliged to consider the views of the English interest in Ireland. Bishop Burnet's comments ran on much the same lines : 8

Southwell to Nottingham, 6 July 1690 (H.M.C. Finch MSS, ii. 343).

London Gazette, 10 July 1690. 10 G. W. Story, A continuation of the impartial history of the wars of Ireland, p. 27. 9

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

185

It was hoped that the fullness of the pardon of the commons might have separated them from the gentry, and that by this means they would be so forsaken that they would accept of such terms as should be offered them. The king had intended to make the pardon more comprehensive, hoping to bring the war soon to an end, but the English in Ireland opposed this. They thought the present opportunity was not to be let go of breaking the great Irish families, upon whom the inferior sort would always depend. And in compliance with them the indemnity now offered was so limited that it had no effect; for the priests, who governed the Irish with a very blind and absolute authority, prevailed with them to try theif fortunes still.11 The Jacobite author of ' A light to the blind ' came to a similar conclusion : But the estated gentlemen the prince excluded from his mercy. This was a foolish edict, and the first of this kind, I believe, that ever had been; for commonly a prince, entering into a country in order to conquer it, doth in the first place encourage the principal persons to submit unto him, and when these are gained the rest do follow in course. I suppose the prince of Orange was persuaded to go against reason in favour of his great officers, who would have the Irish Catholic lords of land to be rejected from all expectation of recovering their estates, because the said officers were sure in their own conceits that the Irish army would be overcome at last, and because then they might have those lands by the prince's grant.12 It is very doubtful whether William was persuaded against his better judgment to adopt this uncompromising policy. The explanation of the Finglas declaration is presumably that William's appreciation of the situation after the Boyne was very much the same as James's, that all was over for the Jacobites. The resistance at Limerick showed William his mistake, and from the autumn of 1690 there was a marked change of policy. Southwell dropped out of the picture and the working out of a new policy was chiefly entrusted to William's Dutch advisers—Ginkel, the commander in the field, and Bentinck at William's headquarters. Both Ginkel and Bentinck took the view that the war in Ireland should be brought to an early conclusion by a negotiated settlement, and that this could be secured only by the offer of liberal terms to Catholic landowners. William himself accepted the desirability of a negotiated settlement, but was evidently reluctant to make more 11

G. Burnet, History of his own time (1823 ed.), iv. 99. J. T. Gilbert, A Jacobite narrative, pp. 105-6.

12

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

186

concessions than necessary. In particular, he was anxious to arrive at a settlement which would allow for sufficient confiscations to satisfy his English parliament and himself. The winter session of 1690—i was largely occupied with a dispute between William and the commons about the right to dispose of the expected Irish forfeitures. The record makes it clear that William throughout kept a close control over policy and that Ginkel had by no means a free hand in his negotiations. From the Williamite point of view the advantage of the new policy was that it tended to produce a division of opinion among the Irish Jacobites, driving a wedge between the influential minority who held estates under the restoration act of settlement and the majority who had failed to recover their lands at the restoration. The land-settlement question involved a distinct cleavage of interest, as was clear from the strong opposition which certain members of the patriot parliament of 1689 nad offered to the bill for the repeal of the act of settlement. To a large extent this cleavage between the landed and the landless coincided with the other great line of demarcation, which separated the Catholics of Ireland into Old English and Gaels. Ormond's policy had been directed to securing that as few as possible of the reinstated Catholics should be of Gaelic stock. Apart from the conspicuous exceptions of Lords Clancarty and Antrim the overwhelming majority of the Catholics who regained their lands at the restoration belonged to families of Norman or English origin. Besides those who had wholly or partly recovered their ancestral estates under the act of settlement, the ' new interest'—such Catholics as Denis Daly who had bought lands granted to protestants—were attracted by the prospect of a negotiated peace. Charles O'Kelly, the author of ' The destruction of Cyprus ', was highly critical of the latter class : Some Catholics were only too anxious to submit. These were men of new interest, so called because they had purchased from usurpers the inheritance of their own countrymen. As these lands were all restored to the old proprietors by the repeal of the settlement, the coveting purchasers, preferring their private gains to the general interest of religion and country, were for submitting to a government which they very well knew would never allow that decree,13 13

Macariae excidium (ed. J. C. O'Callaghan, 1850), p. 71.

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

187

From the autumn of 1690 a continual series of negotiations took place between Williamites and Jacobites. There are a number of letters between Bentinck and Ginkel referring to the progress of the negotiations and to the movements of Grady, the chief intermediary. Grady was John Grady of ' Cobray \ county Clare.14 He is referred to as Counsellor Grady and seems to have been a barrister of the Inner Temple. He first comes into the picture at the end of July 1690, when William was about to besiege Limerick. Grady seems to have been sent out of Limerick by the Irish peace party, with Tyrconnell's knowledge, to see what terms could be obtained from William for the landed Jacobites. He presented himself at William's camp at Goldenbridge and gave an account of the condition of the Jacobite forces, saying that the French were anxious to withdraw and had only been deterred by the Irish threatening that in that case they would lay down their arms.15 At this stage William was still in high hopes of taking Limerick and of bringing off his policy of unconditional surrender. The Irish in Limerick were therefore kept waiting for Grady's return. In October the Marquis d'Albeville wrote from Limerick to Tyrconnell that not a word had been received from Grady and that the garrison had had ' no manner of intelligence ' from the enemy. D'Albeville was strongly opposed to negotiations and observed that those who had arranged for Grady's despatch had little acquaintance with state affairs.16 Grady had meanwhile been sent to England, where Bentinck interviewed him and decided that his services could be used for further negotiations. William's failure at Limerick had transformed the military situation, and Williamite policy was now directed towards a negotiated settlement. Towards the end of October Bentinck wrote to Ginkel that Grady was being sent back to Ireland, and that negotiations should be pressed forward as energetically as possible.17 In November he wrote 14

Cobray may be a corruption of Cappaghroe, which in 1631 was in the possession of John O'Grady (J. Frost, History and topography of the county of Clare, p. 317). 15 T.C.D., MS K. 5. 1 (Clarke corr., no. 78). 16 D'Albeville to Tyrconnell, 27 Oct. 1690 (H.M.C. Finch MSS, ii 478). "Bentinck to Ginkel, 25 Oct. 1690 {Correspondence, iii. 188).

188

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

again asking what had become of Grady and suggesting the use of other intermediaries as the matter could not be neglected. 18 Early in December William himself wrote to Ginkel urging that the fighting should be intensified in Sligo and Kerry as, if the rebels were not pressed, it was very doubtful whether they would submit to such terms as at that stage he was willing to grant them.19 Ginkel answered that the rebels would be reduced all the sooner if William was prepared to make some concessions. He evidently thought that William was still trying to drive too hard a bargain.20 Ginkel's representation seems to have had some effect, as Bentinck next wrote that Ginkel might allow Grady to propose more favourable terms to the Irish.21 A few days later Bentinck wrote again, asking impatiently for the result of Grady's mission and remarking that if the Irish were to be brought to terms it was important not to make them desperate. Ginkel might therefore offer them more favourable and more general conditions. What Bentinck feared was that William's army might be locked up in Ireland for the next campaigning season, which would be disastrous considering the state of affairs in the Netherlands.22 Soon after he wrote that William was so persuaded of the need to use his arms elsewhere that if things could be finished in Ireland he would probably agree to give a general pardon with the exception of certain individuals. As Grady had brought proposals from the other side which amounted to more or less the same thing, Ginkel was asked to send him back to the enemy with authority to treat on these lines.23 In January Bentinck went so far as to express the view that it would be better to do without all the confiscations than to be deprived of the troops for the next campaigning season on the continent.24 The state of the negotiations at the end of 1690 is described in a memorandum given to the Cornte d'Avaux by a follower of Baldearg O'Donnell. The object of the memorandum was 18

Bentinck to Ginkel, 15 Nov. 1690 (ibid., p. 191). W i l l i a m to Ginkel, 4 D e c . 1690 (ibid., p. 192). 20 G i n k e l to W i l l i a m , 9 D e c . 1690 (ibid., p. 194). 21 Bentinck to Ginkel, 13 Dec. 1690 (ibid., p. 196). 22 Same to same, 20 Dec. 1690 (ibid., pp. 197-8). 23 Same to same, 24 Dec. 1690 (ibid., p. 199). 24 Same to same, 13 Jan. 1691 (ibid., pp. 201-2). 19

Wittiamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

189

to inquire whether French help would be forthcoming to enable O'Donnell to carry on in the event of Ginkel's terms being accepted by the Old English. The terms were said to include an undertaking that all who had held estates in 1684 should be restored, with the exception of Lords Clancarty and Antrim. This version tallies with Bentinck's reference to the exception of certain individuals from the general pardon. The agreement was to be guaranteed by the pope, the emperor and the king of Spain. The memorandum stated that these terms were attractive to the Old English but stoutly opposed by the Gaels, who had regained little by the restoration settlement and still hoped to recover what they had had in 1641 or even earlier.25 O'Kelly's references to the negotiations give the impression that there was a considerable body of opinion in favour of making terms. One reason which he gave for the Irish determination to resist was their lack of trust in the English, ' who infringed so often the public faith \26 From the Williamite side Story corroborates this, saying that, although William himself was punctilious in his observance of the declaration of Finglas, some of his officers were apt to neglect the king's honour when it stood in conflict with their own profit and advantage.27 The same point is brought out by a letter written by a Williamite observer in December 1690. He was of opinion that if the Williamites had behaved with more lenity the Irish Jacobites, from what they themselves had said, would have submitted; they thought, however, that public faith had not been kept with them, and were particularly put off by the conduct of Douglas's army which had ' traversed the country like the plague of Athens, paying no regard to declaration or protection \ 28 Light is thrown on these proceedings by a letter in which Sarsfield referred to negotiations which William had been conducting with Judge Daly, Lord Riverston and others who had promised to deliver up to him the strongest of the Irish posts. Sarsfield's military activities in the winter of 1690-1 were largely directed to countering this move on William's Negoc. d'Avaux en Irl., pp. 738-9. Macariae excidium, pp. 58 and 102-4. 27 Story, An impartial history, pp. 94-5. 28 Mr T. to his brother, 13 Dec. 1690 (T.C.D., MS I. 6. 10, p. 131). 25 26

190

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

part.29 At this stage the Irish resistance movement was too strong for the peace party. In January 1691 Grady told Ginkel that he could no longer go into the Irish quarters or even send letters there except at grave risk; he therefore advised that Ginkel should make a public declaration of William's terms.30 Grady himself seems to have gone off to Dublin and to have taken no further part in the negotiations. In July Ginkel sent for him but was told that he was seriously ill; his life had been despaired of, but he was recovering and hoped to be able to join Ginkel. We do not, however, hear that he actually did so.31 Ginkel obtained authority for a declaration in which he announced that William and Mary had no desire to oppress their Catholic subjects by persecuting them in their religion or ruining them in their estates and fortunes; they had therefore authorised Ginkel to grant reasonable terms to all who would submit.32 This declaration was much too indefinite to produce results; it was intended as a preliminary feeler. As Coningsby, one of the Dublin lords justices, put it, it was not thought proper to offer a general amnesty in the name of the government until the temper of the Irish had been tried by Ginkel's declaration, which gave them ' all the hopes imaginable ' and yet did not commit the king to anything. In spite of this somewhat cynical approach Coningsby evidently realised the advantages of concluding an immediate settlement on liberal terms. In the same letter he wrote: 'you know how little inclinable I am to show any favour to the Irish, but . . . I cannot help wishing the war were over on any terms \33 The declaration produced no response, and the Williamites could gauge the temper of the Irish only from a report which one of their spies brought from Limerick at the end of February. This stated that the Irish depended wholly on Sarsfield's fortune 29 SaSarsfieldto Mountcashel, 24 Feb. 1691, quoted from Ministere de la guerre, A' 1066 (Irlande vi), no. 187, by H. Mangan in Irish

Sword, i. 24. 30 Ginkel to Coningsby, 13 Jan. 1691 (H.M.C., rep. 4, app. p. 318). 31 Ginkel to Coningsby, 2 July 1691 (ibid., p. 320); Israel Fielding to George Clarke, 4 July 1691 (Clarke corr., no. 689). 32 32 DublinIntelligence,3-10Feb.1691(Cal.S.P.dom.,1690-1, 33 Coningsby to Nottingham, 17 Feb. 1691 (Col. S.P. dom., I690-1, P. 265).

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

191

and conduct: ' draw him away and they are gone. Tyrconnell and he are no great friends, neither can he abide the French. Tyrconnell never stirred abroad but once since he landed, and his countenance denotes something of despair.' 34 During the spring of 1691 the negotiations hung fire. The question of terms was again raised by Bentinck in May. H e wrote to Ginkel that if the Irish thought of surrendering, as there was some ground for hoping, he should not hesitate to give them quite favourable terms, as nothing could be more helpful than to see the end of the war in Ireland.35 Ginkel accordingly went up to Dublin and discussed the matter with the lords justices, Porter and Coningsby. He succeeded in convincing them that the issue of a proclamation offering generous terms provided the best hope of bringing the war in Ireland to an early end. At the same time the lords justices were acutely aware of the opposition shown by influential protestants in Ireland to the grant of concessions to Catholics. They drafted a proclamation (which they wished to be issued in the queen's name) offering pardon and restoration of their estates to all those in arms who surrendered, and promising Catholics such freedom to practise their religion as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles II. The draft proposed to specify a particular year of Charles's reign for determining the privileges of Catholics. This draft formed the basis on which the articles of Limerick were subsequently drawn up. When it was sent over to England for approval Porter observed : ' it will be absolutely necessary upon any terms to end the war in Ireland this summer and the most probable means will be by giving the large terms mentioned in the proclamation. The English here will be offended that the Irish are not quite beggared, and what the house of commons will say when they see those lands gone which they designed for the payment of the army you can better judge than I.' 36 In their official letter transmitting the draft the lords justices expressed the conviction that all the forfeited estates in Ireland were not worth one34

Account of affairs in Limerick by Mr Floyd, Feb. I6QI ( T C D MS I. 6. 9, P- 98). 35 39

Bentinck to Ginkel, 11/21 May 1691 {Correspondentie, p. 236). Porter to Sidney, 29 May 1691 (Cal. S.P. dom., I690-1, pp. 393-4).

192

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

tenth the expense and hazard of another summer's war, and that as there was a party among the Irish which was opposed to any negotiation it was necessary that the proclamation should leave no room for suspicion; terms less generous than those proposed would be useless.27 Ginkel communicated the proposals to Bentinck, who was with William in Holland. Bentinck replied that he could not at present convey a decision but could say that Ginkel must try and end the war in whatever way he could.38 It appears that William decided not to authorise the issue of the draft proclamation in the queen's name, but to leave it to the lords justices to prepare a modified version for issue on their own behalf.39 This modified proclamation was sent to Ginkel for publication at a suitable opportunity. Ginkel waited for a psychological moment, and after the capture of Athlone published the proclamation, which was dated 7 July 1691. In its final form it differed considerably from the original draft. Instead of pardon being offered to any individual in arms who surrendered, a distinction was drawn between private soldiers and officers. Privates were to be pardoned if within three weeks they surrendered with their horses, arms and equipment, for which they were to be paid. Officers to qualify for pardon were not only to surrender themselves within three weeks but to deliver up any towns, forts or garrisons in their charge, or to bring over their regiments or troops or a considerable portion of them. The terms of the proclamation were, however, extended to cover the civilian inhabitants of Limerick and Galway who should be instrumental in procuring the surrender of those towns. The clause relating to religion was much weaker than in the original draft. No reference was made to the reign of Charles II. It was merely stated that as soon as possible William and Mary would summon a parliament in Ireland and endeavour to obtain for Catholics such further security as might preserve them from any disturbance on account 37

Lords justices to Nottingham, 29 May 1691 (ibid., pp. 394-5); the draft is with the letter (ibid., pp. 395-6). 38 Bentinck to Ginkel, 8/18 June 1691 {Correspondentie, p. 241). 39 T h i s decision w a s later referred to in a letter from the lords justices to Ginkel, 13 J u l y 1691 (Clarke corr. no. 735).

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

193

of their religion.40 Ginkel was dissatisfied with the clause relating to religion and appears to have omitted it when he first published the proclamation. He observed that it promised Catholics nothing, and apprehended that it would do more harm than good; he thought it would be better to say nothing than to give so limited an assurance.41 The immediate effect of this proclamation on Irish Catholics was inconsiderable; that on protestants was much more pronounced. Protests were made that the terms were far too favourable. It was alleged that the draft proclamation had been unanimously rejected by the Irish privy council, in spite of which the lords justices and the general had persisted in issuing it; tnat its terms had been studiously concealed from the protestants of Ireland; and that 'the lords justices and their secretaries will not confess anything relating to it or so much as speak of it to a protestant \42 The reaction in England also seems to have been unfavourable. Blathwayt, the secretaryat-war, wrote to George Clarke, secretary-at-war for Ireland : ' the lords justices' proclamation gives occasion of great talk here and of some dissatisfaction; as you know it is impossible to please all at once \43 Ginkel himself thought the terms of the proclamation inadequate and raised with the lords justices the desirability of offering a general pardon. The lords justices thought that they had already gone as far as they were authorised to do and saw no advantage in extending the terms : * should we publish a general pardon we give away the estates of all those persons who have submitted already upon easier 40

Bibliotheca Lindesiana contains some earlier drafts of this proclamation, dated 22 J u n e 1691. T h e only printed copy of the version of July 7 is cited as having been in P . R . O . I . (Steele, Tudor and Stuart proclam., ii. 151); the entry notes that the date was inserted in ms. It also cites a ms copy in T.C.D. This is MS I. 6. 10, pp. 149-51; it tallies with the catalogue summary of the P . R . O . I . copy. T h e r e is a French version which corresponds exactly with the T . C . D . copy (Archives nationales, fonds A I, mlxxx. 180). 41 Ginkel to Coningsby, 8 July 1 6 9 1 ; same to lords justices, 11 July 1691 {H.M.C. rep. 4, app. pp. 321-2). It was presumably due to Ginkel that the Charles II clause reappeared in drafting the articles of Limerick. 42 Notes on the back of the T . C . D . copy of the proclamation. 43 Blathwayt to Clarke 30 July 1691 (Clarke corr., no. 798).

194

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

terms, others who are in France and of divers others in no condition to serve or dis-serve their majesties' interest \ 44 When the Williamite forces approached Galway, Ginkel sent a trumpeter with a copy of the proclamation to Lord Dillon, the governor, offering the same terms if Galway were surrendered before it became necessary to use artillery. The first answer was that Galway would be defended to the last, but next day the governor asked for a safe conduct for emissaries who were to negotiate a capitulation. Bargaining went on for a whole day and night with the emissaries frequently returning to consult their principals.45 The argument largely turned on whether the terms should include freemen and inhabitants of Galway who were not actually in the town at the time. In particular the negotiators pressed the case of Clanricarde's brother, Lord Bophin, whose regiment was part of the garrison, although he himself was a prisoner captured at Aughrim. There were also several prominent landowners of the county who were not in Galway town but engaged in negotiating with Ginkel. They demanded to be included in the terms although they were not part of the garrison. Ginkel was in something of a dilemma. The proclamation of July 7 had provoked a storm of protestant indignation. An earlier letter from William had had the disconcerting postscript: ' I must seriously urge you to be more severe than your natural self. You know with what sort of people you have to deal, who will not be governed by mildness.'46 Ginkel's own view was that it was advisable to finish the war as soon as possible, if necessary by giving the Irish a free pardon; one month of war cost more than all the forfeitures were worth.47 He agreed to the terms proposed by the Galwaymen, but had evidently some hesitation in doing so. He twice wrote to William to express the hope that in the special circumstances his action would be approved.48 Writing some years later he recalled that the 44 45

Lords justices to Ginkel, 9 J u l y 1691 (ibid., no. 717). A particular relation of the surrender of Galway, 1691. This is the Williamite official version, ' published by authority'. 46 William to Ginkel, 1/11 May 1691 {Correspondentie, p. 235). 47 Ginkel to Coningsby, 24 July 1691 (H.M.C. rep. 4, app. p. 322). 48 Ginkel to William, 22 July and 8 Aug. 1691 (Cal. S.P. dom., I690-1, pp. 455 and 475).

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

195

drafting of the Galway articles had given him particular trouble and that it was a long time before he could bring himself to agree to them. He was induced to do so by the consideration that prolonging the siege would have put him in a difficult position as he would have had to use his heavy artillery for eight to ten days to make a breach in the walls.49 The Galway articles, which were signed on 21 July 1691, guaranteed their estates both to the garrison and to the mayor, aldermen, freemen and inhabitants of the town. Ginkel was to be provided with a list of the Catholic clergy, and they and the laity of Galway were to be allowed the private practice of their religion; the clergy were to be protected in their persons and property. The articles were the subject of much criticism. Bentinck wrote to Ginkel that the English thought that he had given Galway unnecessarily favourable terms.50 A contemporary memorandum analyses from the official viewpoint the reasons for the protestant clamour against the proclamation of July 7 and the Galway articles. The writer suggested that one reason for the clamour was that ' every gentleman of Ireland ' expected a share of his Catholic neighbour's lands. He asked whether these gentlemen really wanted the war to go on for another year; whether they thought Ireland the ne plus ultra of the confederacy; and whether they did not know that a great part of the confederacy consisted of Catholic princes. He apprehended that if Limerick were not taken during August the rainy season would set in : ' and then we know what will be the effect; for to be baffled now means another year, and there needs little explanation to know what force outwards is necessary to blockade twenty thousand men in a double city \ 5 1 From the beginning of the final siege of Limerick the question of a negotiated settlement assumed increasing impor49

Ginkel to Blathwayt, 6/16 Aug. 1697 (N.L.I., Annesley MSS, xxvii. 153). 50 Bentinck to Ginkel, 3/13 Aug. 1691 {Correspondentie, p. 249). The controversy about the Galway articles continued for several years, and was not settled until 1697 when William issued orders restricting the benefit of the articles to those who were actually in the town at the time of its surrender. Copy of order dated 23 Apr. 1697 in Annesley MSS, xxvii. 159. 51 Documents on the reduction of Ireland in R.I.A., MS 24. G. 7, P. 83.

196

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

tance. The Williamites were desperately anxious to end the war before winter set in; the Jacobites had lost heart after Aughrim and a growing number of them were eager to secure tolerable terms before it was too late. On August i, two months before the capitulation, Coningsby wrote to Ginkel from Dublin, impressing on him the need for ending the war that summer and saying that if it could not be ended by force it should be ended by treaty: People generally here are averse to give the Irish any manner of conditions; but it is because they do not, as they ought, consider the misery of this country and less understand the circumstances of affairs abroad. But, my lord, if your lordship finds any inclination in the enemy to make an end of the war by that way and thinks that my being with you may contribute anything towards it, at a minute's summons, though I come alone, I will be ready to attend you. I am not only more concerned than ordinary upon the account of our master but have abundance of uneasiness for fear the year being so far spent should by the cursed weather this country is subject to hinder you, my lord, from finishing this work you have so gloriously begun and with such strange expedition carried on.52

In the second week of August it was reported to Ginkel that the Irish were inclined to accept the terms offered in the proclamation, but had ' surmises of the parliament not making it good '; they had all agreed and signed a paper and taken the sacrament upon it that they would act only in accordance with a unanimous decision.53 This seems to refer to a measure taken by Tyrconnell to counter the growing tendency on the part of individual Irish officers to consider surrendering on terms. He wrote to Louis : ' I see daily a disposition in certain spirits towards a settlement and, fearing that several might think of making a private capitulation, I have made all the officers and soldiers of the army take an oath of fidelity, beginning with myself \54 Fumeron, the French commissary, expressed the view that the Irish had lost heart after Aughrim. He attributed the administration of the oath to Tyrconnell's 52

Clarke corr., no. 804. Capt. Peter Poore to Major Malcolm Hamilton, 8 Aug. 1691 (Clarke corr., no. 875). 54 Tyrconnell to Louis, 5/15 Aug. 1691 (Archives nationales, fonds A I, mlxxx. 187). 53

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

197

apprehension that some of the Irish officers intended to make terms with Ginkel independently; he doubted, however, whether the device would be as successful as Tyrconnell hoped, since some officers had not yet taken the oath. He mentioned that the dissentients included the delegates who had gone to France the previous year.55 The reference is to Henry Luttrell and Colonel Nicholas Purcell whom Berwick, describing them as trouble-makers, had sent to France in September 1690 with a request that James should not allow them to return.58 De Tesse and d'Usson reported to Louis on August 7 that there was a serious deterioration in the morale of the Irish army; now that the enemy had crossed the Shannon the cavalry were despondent because they could not be sure of adequate fodder for their horses; the infantry were rendered no less despondent by the talk of their officers who regarded capitulation as the only course open to them.57 On the same day an envoy of Ginkel's was discovered to be carrying a letter addressed to Henry Luttrell, the terms of which showed that Luttrell had for some time been in communication with the other side. Tyrconnell had him arrested and tried by court martial. Fumeron observed that this was likely to cause trouble as Luttrell had many supporters. De Tesse and d'Usson thought that it would have been better to have hanged him immediately, as his arrest was certain to cause a great stir among the Irish troops.58 According to ' A light to the blind ', Luttrell pleaded that he had met his correspondent ' on a privileged day of some late cessation' and had informed him that the Irish might surrender if they were assured that Ginkel had full powers from William to grant liberal terms to the Catholics. The writer goes on to say that the majority of the court held that the prisoner did not deserve death but that Tyrconnell, who 55

Fumeron to —, 23 July/2 Aug. and 6/16 Aug. 1691 (ibid., nos. 178 a n d 192). 56 Berwick, Memoires (1778 ed.), i. 58-9. Purcell was one of the signatories of the civil articles of Limerick. 57 De Tesse and d'Usson to Louis, 7/17 Aug. 1691 (Archives nationales, fonds A I, mlxxx. 199). 58 Fumeron to—; de Tesse and d'Usson to Louis, 7/17 Aug. 1691 (ibid., nos 201-2).

198

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

was president of the court and had voted against the prisoner, kept him in confinement in the castle, where he remained until the surrender of Limerick.59 Tyrconnell died in the middle of August, and a few days later Porter wrote to George Clarke that he thought this would mean the end of hostilities, as it was Tyrconnell's influence which held the French and Irish together. He referred to the negotiations with Luttrell, which he thought would produce a divergence of opinion among the Irish : ' and this together with good terms and the more dreadful persuasion of your army and cannon will necessarily bring on a speedy submission \60 It is of interest that at this stage the Williamites should have regarded Tyrconnell rather than Sarsfield as the mainstay of the resistance movement. It is difficult to say when Sarsfield's influence was first turned towards a negotiated settlement. O'Kelly, with reference to the negotiations which led up to the treaty of Limerick, talks of the general astonishment caused by the ' sudden prodigious change of Sarsfield who now appeared the most active of all commanders to forward the treaty, representing that provisions were giving out and that there was no hope for any terms after that . . . Sarsfield, who was believed to be the last man to hearken to a treaty, was now the most earnest to push it on—a mystery which requires some further time to unravel'.61 On September 17 d'Usson wrote to Louis that there was a general desire for capitulation and that Sarsfield had informed him that they had already waited too long.62 The morale of the Irish army was said to have been seriously affected by a pamphlet put out by the peace party, purporting to be Tyrconnell's last testament. This document was addressed to Tyrconnell's compatriots, warning them that they were on the verge of ruin and that it was vain to expect help from the French, whose policy was to prolong the war into the winter and then withdraw. The pamphlet alleged that, although Tyrconnell had in public urged that no capitulation should be made without James's consent, he had done so only because Gilbert, A Jacobite narrative, p. 149. Porter to Clarke, 19 Aug. 1691 (Clarke corr., no. 875). 61 Macariae excidium, p. 154. 62 Archives rationales, fonds A I, mlxxxi. 168.

59 60

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

199

he knew that Sarsfield and Luttrell were looking for an opportunity to ruin his reputation. The effects of the pamphlet were so serious that the Jacobite lords justices asked the French for money to make an emergency distribution of pay to the army.83 On September 16 Ginkel repeated the offer of the July proclamation and announced that it would hold good for another eight days.64 On the eighth day, September 23, the Jacobites at last responded. Sarsfield and Wauchope came over to the Williamite camp and asked for a capitulation and a cessation of arms.65 Ginkel had already received a letter from William authorising him to promise Sarsfield a reward if the negotiations were successfully concluded—a curious sidelight which illustrates William's anxiety for an Irish settlement and his recognition that Sarsfield was the key figure.66 The offer of an Irish estate had no attractions for Sarsfield, but he asked for the privilege of sending back some cargoes of wine and other goods from France on the return voyage of the ships which transported the Irish troops. Ginkel fixed the quota at three hundred tons, and we hear later of two of Sarsfield's cargoes being seized by the customs but released on William's orders.67 The terms proposed by the Jacobites included a general indemnity and the restoration of all the estates held in 1688. They also asked for freedom of worship and an undertaking that there should be no discrimination against Catholics in respect of employment or residence.68 Ginkel replied that it was not in his power to grant such terms and that there was no advantage in his promising what the law would not allow him to make good.69 Ginkel was authorised to grant terms only to those who were still able to offer opposition. Sarsfield was chiefly concerned to provide for those who had held out 63

Fumeron to —, 8 / 1 8 Sept. 1691, enclosing a copy of Tyrconnell's testament (ibid., nos 155-6). 64 Ginkel's declaration is given in full by Story, A continuation, pp. 219-20.

Ginkel to lords justices, 23 Sept. 1691 (H.M.C. rep. 4, app. p. 323). Ginkel to Clarke, 23 Sept. 1691 (Clarke corr., no. 1010). 67 Cal. treas. papers, I697-1702, p. 114; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 57, p. 484; Cal. S.P. dom., I693, P- 5. 68 Story, A continuation, p. 230. 69 Ginkel to Sarsfield, 3 0 Sept. 1691 (Clarke corr. no. 1038). 65

66

200

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

to the end. There was thus sufficient common ground for reaching a settlement. The articles, which were signed on 3 October 1691, guaranteed their estates to the garrison and citizens of Limerick and to the various forces still holding out in the west, provided that they submitted to William. Whether the articles also included those under the protection of the Jacobite army was later to be the subject of much controversy. Catholics were to enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the laws of Ireland or as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles II. 70 The terms of the Limerick articles were strongly criticised from both the Jacobite and the Williamite sides. The Jacobite author of * A light to the blind' commented that the Irish commissioners had agreed too easily with Ginkel. They should have insisted on the right of all Catholics to the free exercise of their religion, their temporal liberties and the restoration of the estates which they had held in the reign of Charles II. In particular he criticised the exclusion from the articles of those Catholics who had submitted to William after the Boyne, and also of those who had been killed or taken prisoner.71 On the other hand the Dublin Protestants thought that the terms were far too lenient. Archbishop Marsh was aghast at the unhappy conditions that (he knew not how or why) had been granted to a rebellious people that were not able to defend themselves.72 A contemporary versifier summed up the protestant attitude : Hard fate that still attends our Irish war, The conquerors lose, the conquered gainers are; Their pen's the symbol of our sword's defeat,73 We fight like heroes, but like fools we treat. In fact the settlement was greatly to William's advantage. The whole course of the negotiations shows that from August 1690, when William raised the first siege of Limerick, the rapid conclusion of the war on a negotiated basis was a more pressing 70

For these negotiations see my article ' T h e original draft of the civil articles of Limerick 1691 ' (I.H.S., viii. 37-44). 71 Gilbert, A Jacobite narrative, pp. 176-8. 72 Diary (Irish Ecclesiastical Jn., v. 148). 73 The British muse—including a smart poem on the generous articles of Limerick and Galway (R.I.A., Haliday collection, box 133, tract 9).

Williamite Peace Tactics, 1690-1

201

objective for Williamites than for Jacobites, and that William's advisers were in favour of a liberal settlement if that would ensure the immediate ending of the Irish campaign. The initiative for peace continually came from the Williamite side, and although a minority of the Jacobites were from the first in favour of responding to Ginkel's approaches they were never able to prevail until the reverses at Athlone and Aughrim changed the military situation. The history of these wartime negotiations must be taken into account in judging of the way in which the articles of Limerick were implemented. The terms of the treaty were not the result of a snap decision taken by the commander in the field. They were the outcome of a policy gradually developed over the preceding twelve months. In framing this policy the importance to William and his allies of an early peace in Ireland was held to outweigh the disadvantages of granting to the Irish Jacobites religious and territorial concessions.

This page intentionally left blank

16 THE TREATY OF LIMERICK i.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most controversial questions in Irish history is the Treaty of Limerick, which brought the Jacobite war of 1689-91 to an end. Catholics hoped that the settlement would secure their position, but in fact it ushered in the age of penal laws and Protestant ascendancy. There has been much debate about the Treaty. How was Patrick Sarsfield induced to agree to it ? How badly was it broken ? Did its terms leave room for genuine misunderstanding, or was there a clear breach of faith on the part of the Crown and its agents in England and Ireland ? The Treaty consisted of two documents: the military articles, which related to the treatment 1of the Irish army and its transport to France; and the civil articles, which related to those who wished to stay in Ireland as subjects of William and Mary. The chief argument has been over the civil articles, and in particular the first article, which promised the Roman Catholics of Ireland such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the laws of Ireland or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II; it also held out the hope that more favourable conditions would be given to them as soon as a meeting of the Irish Parliament could be called for the purpose. Of the other civil articles the most important were the second, which promised pardon and restoration of confiscated property to certain classes of individuals; the sixth, which put a bar on lawsuits arising from war-time incidents; and the ninth, which made the Oath of Allegiance the only one to be required of those Catholics who submitted to the Crown. The Treaty was the product of lengthy negotiations, which must be viewed against the international and political background. William regarded the Irish campaign as a disagreeable necessity, which he hoped to bring to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible so that he could concentrate on the more important object of preserving Holland from French attack. For Louis XIV Ireland was a place with which he hoped that William would be fully occupied for as long as possible; to that end he wras prepared to give French aid in moderation to James who, for his part, looked on Ireland as a stepping-stone to get him back to England. For those who supported William and James the most important questions were religion and land. The history of the previous half1. The text of the civil articles is given in the Appendix.

204

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

century had set Protestant against Catholic in a struggle for Irish land. Although the rigour of the Cromwellian settlement had been mitigated after the Restoration, yet Protestants had decidedly got the better of the bargain, and at the end of Charles II's reign they owned more than three-quarters of the country. But neither side was satisfied; Protestants felt aggrieved at having to give up part of the lands they had got under Cromwell; Catholics were disappointed at the smallness of the share they had recovered. The accession of James aroused the hopes of Catholics and the fears of Protestants, but the settlement remained intact so long as James was on the throne in England. The revolution of 1688 opened the way for a decisive settlement in favour of one side or the other. Each regarded the supporters of the other as rebels liable to all the penalties of treason, which included the forfeiture of land. The proceedings in the " patriot parliament "—the repeal of the Act of Settlement and the attainder of the leading Williamites—were designed to provide the basis for a wholesale transfer of propert}^ to Catholic ownership. This policy was natural and it was not difficult to justify it. William had already announced that he would forfeit the estates of those Irish Catholics who did not submit to him by a certain date. The proceedings of the patriot parliament no doubt confirmed Williamites in their determination to exact retribution, but they did not suggest the idea of confiscating land.

2.

THE NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY

From the time he was committed to the Irish campaign William's policy seems to have been to offer the minimum of concession consistent with bringing the war in Ireland to a rapid conclusion. If he could get the Irish Jacobites to surrender unconditionally he would be able to forfeit their estates, which would help to pay for the war and reward his supporters. His victory at the Boyne seemed to give him his chance; there was every sign that the Catholics of Ireland were at his mercy and would have to take whatever terms he chose to offer them. In his declaration at Finglas the " desperate leaders of the rebellion " were required to surrender unconditionally and no hope was held out to them that they would be allowed to keep their estates; nothing was said about toleration for the Catholic religion. Observers on both sides thought that William's uncompromising attitude had the effect of arousing in the defeated Jacobites a desperate resolve to continue the struggle as their only means of self-preservation. William's failure at Limerick showed him his mistake. From the autumn of 1690 there was a marked change in his policy. He had

The Treaty of Limerick

205

failed to finish the war in one campaigning season, but he still hoped to do so that winter by negotiation. The French had left, and if the leading Irish Catholics could be induced by the offer of tolerable terms to make peace he could transfer his troops from Ireland to Flanders in time for the season of 1691. All through that winter William's general, Ginkel, bargained with an Irish peace party, which was representative of those who held land under the Restoration settlement and were interested in terms that would let them keep what they had. The majority, who were landless, were not interested in that kind of bargain. The chief go-between was a Catholic barrister named John Grady, who went to and fro between Jacobites and Williamites with offers and counter-offers. The Duke of Wiirtemberg, who commanded the Danish contingent in William's army, described the position in a letter to the King of Denmark: " The Catholic gentleman whom Lt. Gen. Ginkel had sent to Galway has returned and has produced a power of attorney from the government that King James left behind . . . [who] have declared that if aid from France (with which thej'- are being cajoled) does not arrive soon they intend to lay down their arms . . . on condition that they retain their estates and the exercise of their religion as in King Charles's time." This is the first reference to maintaining conditions as they were in Charles II's time, and it appears that it was the Catholics who asked for an assurance in these terms. It is remarkable that Catholics should have considered Charles II's reign—the era of the Act of Settlement and the Popish Plot—as the standard by which their future treatment should be regulated. But William was not prepared at that stage to let the Catholics off so lightly. It was not religion that was the stumbling-block so much as the question of forfeiting lands. W7illiam was anxious to withhold pardon from some large land-holders in order to have the disposal of their estates. His Protestant supporters in Ireland were no less anxious to increase their own property at the expense of their Catholic neighbours. On the Jacobite side, Sarsfield vigorously opposed the negotiations and arrested the chief negotiators— Judge Denis Daly and others. Grady told Ginkel that he could not go into the Irish quarters or even send letters there except at grave risk. He advised Ginkel to make a public declaration of William's terms. This was done in the form of an announcement that William and Mary had no desire to oppress their Catholic subjects by persecuting them in their religion or ruining them in their estates and fortunes, and had authorized Ginkel to grant reasonable terms to all who submitted. This was too vague to be effective, and it became clear that the war would not end that winter. Before fighting started in the summer of 1691 the Williamites made another effort to get a negotiated settlement. In May Ginkel went up to Dublin to consult the Lords Justices, Sir Charles Porter and Thomas Coningsby, both of whom were to be associated with

206

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

the Limerick Treaty negotiations.1 The terms proposed were sent over to England in the form of a draft proclamation and permission was asked to publish it in the Queen's name. The draft restricted its terms to those Jacobites who were still in arms; they were offered, first, restoration of their estates notwithstanding any attainders and, second, permission to exercise their religion as freely as in a particular year (left blank in the draft) of Charles II's reign. The Lords Justices emphasized that, as there was a party among the Irish opposed to any negotiation, the terms of the proclamation must be such as to leave no room for suspicion. They were well aware that there would be criticism from Protestants that the terms were too " tender " to Catholics. Porter wrote to Lord Nottingham, the Secretary of State: " The English here will be offended that the Irish are not quite beggared, and what the House of Commons will say when they see those lands gone which they designed for the payment of the army you can better judge than I." William did not approve the terms of this draft and would not go beyond a very much modified version to be issued by Ginkel at a suitable opportunity. This version contained an offer of pardon restricted to those who brought over part of their regiments or were instrumental in surrendering forts or garrisons. The question of religion was treated in terms that held out no immediate pledge but gave hopes for the future: " Lest those who are to take benefit of this proclamation may be apprehensive of being persecuted for exercizing their religion . . . as soon as their majesties' affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom they will endeavour to procure them such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their religion." Freedom from disturbance seemed to offer more than the bare liberty to " exercize their religion," the wording of which did not exclude the imposition of secular disabilities on Catholics; but Ginkel himself thought very little of an assurance in such terms; he said it promised nothing to Catholics and would do more harm than good. He issued the proclamation soon after the capture of Athlone. Catholics paid little attention to it and the number that came over to William's side at that stage was insignificant. Protestants made much more stir about it and insisted that the terms were far too generous. It was made clear to Ginkel that there would be the strongest opposition to any settlement that gave generous terms to Irish Catholics. The campaign went on; Ginkel won his major victory at Aughrim on July 12 and the surrender of Galway followed soon after. By the terms granted to Galway the garrison and townsfolk were allowed to keep their property and enjoy the private exercise of their religion; Catholic lawyers were allowed the liberty to practise that i. When there was no Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy in Ireland the Government was entrusted to two or more Lords Justices. Porter was a judge and rather more sympathetic to Jacobites than Coningsby, who was a politician—Macaulay called him " a busy and unscrupulous Whig."

The Treaty of Limerick

205

they had had in Charles IFs reign. Limerick was now the last hope. The greater part of the Jacobite army was concentrated there, and the wives and families of the leading Catholics also found shelter in the city. The question of a negotiated settlement came increasingly to the fore. The disaster at Aughrim had depressed the Jacobites generally and had strengthened the peace party, who were now again engaged in active negotiations with the Williamites. The Duke of Tyrconnell, the Viceroy, sent word to King James, then in France, that help must be sent at once from France or else the Irish must be allowed to make terms. The French decided to send help and urged that the Irish should hold out as long as possible. For the wider strategy of the war it was just as much a French interest that Limerick should hold out over another winter as it was a Williamite interest that Limerick should surrender before the winter set in. In contrast to his attitude after the Boyne, Tyrconnell was now in favour of continued resistance and spared no effort in the uphill task of making the French policy acceptable to the Irish. But the idea of prolonging resistance into the winter simply to suit French long-term strategy had no appeal for the Irish Jacobites; they had no wish to be treated as expendable. Fumeron, the French supply officer, wrote pessimistically to the Ministry of War in Paris saying that morale was very low among the Irish officers: " If they hold out till October, as we are urging them to do, it is only on account of the hope that some have of getting help from France so that they can be assured of chasing the enemy out of their country, and that others have that the King of France will send enough ships to enable them to go to France with their regiments; for without that I think that they will capitulate to Ginkel this winter, if fear does not make them do so sooner." This letter contains the first suggestion that part of the Irish army might go to France—a suggestion that was of obvious interest to those Irish officers who had no landed estates and might look forward to a military career on the Continent. The prospects of a settlement were improved by the death of Tyrconnell, who had a stroke after dining with the French commander. His death was a great blow to the pro-French party and weakened the Irish determination to resist. Ginkel was still anxious to end the war by negotiation. He was very doubtful of his ability to take Limerick by direct assault. It was a position of great natural strength, on an island in the Shannon. The weather was bad, and the previous year's failure suggested that there was little to be expected from full-scale siege operations. The alternative was to blockade the city, and it became clear that everything would depend on whether French help could arrive in time. A convoy was assembled at Brest in August, but a long series of delays held up its departure and it did not actually leave Brest until October, two days after the Treaty had been signed. The gross delay undermined the whole French policy and was a major factor in bringing about the surrender of Limerick.

208

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

On September 16 Ginkel managed to throw a bridge of tin boats across the Shannon a couple of miles above Limerick. The French supply officer reported this reverse in a despatch to Paris and referred to the latest orders received from France. These were that Limerick should be held as long as possible, but that if it had to be abandoned then as many as possible of the Irish troops should be brought over to France. He said that all depended on the French squadron arriving soon with money and supplies; otherwise the Irish would surrender and it would be difficult to persuade them to go to France. They were attracted by the idea of terms that would allow them to enjoy their estates in peace; they also hoped for service in King William's army. These hopes were stimulated by a declaration that Ginkel made on the day he crossed the Shannon. It offered pardon and a guarantee of their property to the Irish army and the citizens of Limerick if they surrendered in eight days. This was their last chance, he said: " If they still continue obstinate they must be answerable for the blood and destruction they draw upon themselves, for I hereby acquit myself before God and the world and wash my hands of it." This declaration seems to have had a considerable effect. The next day d'Usson, the French commander, wrote to King Louis that there was a general desire for capitulation and that Sarsfield had told him that they had waited far too long. On September 22 Ginkel launched a heavy attack along the Clare bank of the river and pursued the Irish right up to the Thomond Bridge (which led from the Clare bank to the King's Island on which the main city stood); this so alarmed the French officer in charge of the gateway that he pulled up the drawbridge and cut off the Irish retreat. A horrible slaughter followed; according to the Williamite history " Before the killing was over they were laid in heaps on the bridge, higher than the ledges of it." The next day Sarsfield and a Scottish Jacobite named Wauchope came into the Williamite camp and asked for a capitulation and a cease-fire. This was the beginning of what was referred to as the Treaty. The word was not at that time restricted to solemn agreements between high contracting parties; it also meant bargaining or negotiation, and it is in that sense that it was used on this occasion. The final settlement was referred to as the Articles of Limerick—the military articles and the civil articles. Talks followed over the next ten days. The Irish representatives were treated with courtesy and there are references to them dining with Ginkel and the other Williamite commanders. Ginkel recognized Sarsfield's title of Earl of Lucan, though it had been conferred after King James had been driven out of England. Up to this stage Ginkel's offers had all related to the treatment of Catholics in Ireland and the question of the estates of Catholic landowners. But, as we have seen, the question of estates was of no interest to those who were not landowners; landless men were more interested in the question of the Irish army going to France, which had been

The Treaty of Limerick

209

under discussion within the walls of Limerick. Ginkel's secretary, an Oxford don named George Clarke, has left us an account of the talks. According to him the first thing Sarsfield and Wauchope wanted to know was whether they might " go and serve where they had a mind." When Ginkel agreed to this, a temporary cease-fire was asked for and the question of further terms was postponed until Sarsfield and Wauchope had returned to the city. A series of talks then followed in which the terms of the military and civil articles were hammered out. The military articles gave little trouble. Ginkel, as the commander on the spot, considered himself competent to decide them on his own responsibility, although they were much more extensive than the terms of an ordinary military capitulation. The military articles provided that all who wished to go to France should be allowed to do so, and that Ginkel should be responsible for supplying fifty transport ships for the journey, and if necessary another twenty, and two men-of-war to carry the principal officers and act as convoy. The Williamites did their best to discourage the Irish soldiers from going to France. But in spite of their efforts several thousand men followed Sarsfield and formed the nucleus of the celebrated Irish regiments which distinguished themselves in the French service during the eighteenth century. The real bargaining took place over the civil articles, the terms that were to apply to Catholics in Ireland generally and, in particular, to those of the Irish army and of the inhabitants of Limerick who wished to stay in Ireland. Here Ginkel's hands were tied by the previous instructions he had received, which precluded a general pardon and did not allow him to go very far in making promises to Catholics. A long meeting was held in the camp on September 25 in which Sir Toby Butler, the celebrated lawyer, and the Catholic Archbishops of Armagh and Cashel, Dominic Maguire and John Brenan, took part. A couple of days later the Irish proposals were sent out to Ginkel. They asked for a full indemnity, the restoration of all Catholics to their estates, liberty of worship and a priest for every parish, freedom to hold civil and military appointments and to practise professions and trades, and the transfer to King William's army of any Irish soldiers who were willing to serve against France or any other enemy. All these terms, they insisted, should be guaranteed by Act of Parliament, an indication that the Irish realized that promises from Ginkel and William would not be enough to allay the hostility of a Protestant parliament. These demands were far too great for Ginkel to consider. They would have given Catholics a much better position than they had in Charles II's time and would have left William with no confiscated estates at all. Ginkel was not prepared to consider them as a basis for discussion. He is said to have replied that " though he was in a manner a stranger to the laws of England yet he understood that the Irish demands were so contradictory to them and dishonourable to

210

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

himself that he would not grant any such terms." Ginkel then put forward his own proposals and next day there was a further conference in which Sarsfield, Sir Toby Butler and others took part. When Sir Toby asked what Ginkel's proposals meant, George Clarke, as Ginkel's secretary, answered that it was intended to grant terms to all who were in a condition to offer opposition. This implied that those not still in arms would get no terms. Sarsfield then said that " he would lay his bones in these old walls rather than not take care of those who stuck by them all along": a striking phrase which shows Sarsfield in a creditable light as taking responsibility for the fate of some of those who would be left behind in Ireland, even though his primary interest may have been in the army that he himself was to lead to France. Discussion then took place on whether the terms should be extended to those under the protection of the Irish in certain counties. The point was conceded and the words " all those under their protection in the said counties 1" were included in the draft. This was the celebrated missing clause, which was not to be found in the fair copy that was actually signed. Clarke's papers contain the original draft of the articles, from which it is clear that the clause was then included. The signing of the Treaty was delayed as the Irish decided that Ginkel's signature to the civil articles was not enough and that they should also be signed by the Lords Justices who were on their way from Dublin. The military and the civil articles were both signed on 3 October, 1691. The military articles have already been described. The first of the civil articles provided that Irish Catholics in general should enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the laws of Ireland or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II. The word " or " was a significant addition to the original draft. There was also an undertaking that William and Mary would try to induce the Irish Parliament to give such further security to Catholics as would preserve them from disturbance on account of their religion. Several articles laid down conditions for the Irish army and for the inhabitants of Limerick. Pardon was not offered to those who had been captured or who had already submitted unconditionally. But those who had held out to the end and who were now prepared to give allegiance to William could claim the benefit of the articles. This would entitle them to pardon and the restoration of confiscated property: they could, if they were gentlemen, ride with a sword and a case of pistols and keep a gun in their houses; they could follow their trades or professions as freely as they had done in Charles II's time. An important article was the sixth, which referred to the " great violences " for which both sides had been responsible during the war, and prescribed that in the interests of peace there should be no legal actions against individuals on either side on account of such incidents. 1. For its position in the articles see p. 219 below.

The Treaty of Limerick 211

211

The reasons for the surrender were the subject of much subsequent speculation on the part of both Jacobites and Williamites. One Jacobite account—the curiously named " Destruction of Cyprus "— referred to the " universal astonishment at the sudden, unexpected, prodigious change of Sarsfield who now appeared the most active of all commanders to forward the Treaty, representing that provisions were giving out and that there was no hope for any terms after that. . . . His authority made the Irish agree with much reluctancy. Sarsfield, who was believed to be the last man to hearken to a treaty, was now the most earnest to push it on, a mystery which requires some further time to unravel." This account criticized the wording of the agreement and said that the articles were not warily drawn but room was left for captious exceptions, neither was there any article that assured true worship. On the Williamite side, George Clarke made some interesting comments: " It may appear very strange that a numerous garrison, not oppressed by any want, should give up a town which nobody was in a condition to take from them, at a time when those who lay before it had actually drawn off their cannon and were preparing to march away, and when that garrison did daily expect a squadron of ships to come to their relief, if they had needed any. But when we reflect that the first thing they insisted upon when the}/ beat the chamade1 was a liberty to go and serve where they would, and that Sarsfield reckoned on making himself considerable in France by being over such a body of troops, it will be easy enough to account for their attitude." But it was not really surprising that the surrender should have been decided upon. The Irish were completely hemmed in and there was no assurance that the French convoy would get past the English fleet that was on the look-out for it. Friction between the French and the Irish, and among the Irish themselves, had undermined the will to resist. Sarsfield had secured a great deal in getting Ginkel to promise transport to France, and honourable terms seemed to have been obtained for those who were to stay at home. It was a great relief to the Williamites that Sarsfield identified himself with the negotiations. As late as the end of July the English Government had been considering the possibility of Sarsfield keeping up the fight with his cavalry even after the surrender of Limerick, and it was debated whether in that case he should be given belligerent status or treated as a mere rebel. Ginkel was authorized to promise Sarsfield a reward if he would come to terms. When Sarsfield was sounded on the subject during the course of the treaty talks he said he was not interested in an Irish estate but would be glad of a permit to send some cargoes of wine and other goods from France on the return voyage of the transport ships. Ginkel agreed and fixed the quota at 300 tons, and we hear of some of Sarsfield's cargoes coming to Ireland and being released by the customs on William's orders. 1. Drum signal as sign of intention to parley.

212

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

It is not necessary to suppose that this privilege affected Sarsfield's decision. The fact that an Irish army could be maintained in being and continue to fight in France must have counted much more with a man who was primarily a soldier. It was a very remarkable bargain to have secured from Ginkel to get him to let the army go and still more to supply the transport for it. Ginkel was criticized for going so far. That he did so is the measure of the value he attached to the negotiated surrender of Limerick. The terms of the Limerick Treaty were heavily criticized by the Dublin Protestants as being far too lenient. Archbishop Narcissus Marsh was aghast at the unhappy conditions that (he knew not how or why) had been granted to a rebellious people that were not able to defend themselves. Bishop Anthony Dopping of Meath delivered an attack on the Treaty in a sermon in Christ Church Cathedral, arguing that faith should not be kept with a people so perfidious as the Irish. Another reaction was expressed in A smart poem on the generous articles of Limerick and Galway :

Hard fate that still attends our Irish war, The conquerors lose, the conquered gainers are; Their pen's the symbol of our sword's defeat, We fight like heroes but like fools we treat. 3.

THE FATE OF THE TREATY

The civil articles were a compromise, which granted to neither side its full demands. Some of the articles contained an impressive array of legal phraseology, but the document as a whole was unsatisfactory and left loopholes for future argument. There was no guarantee for the observance of its terms but the good faith of William and his successors. The responsibility of the Crown was weakened rather than strengthened by the insertion of an undertaking that it should make the " utmost endeavours " to get the articles confirmed by the Irish Parliament. It was not long before the first hitch occurred. No sooner had Ginkel's son left for England with the signed copy of the articles than it was noticed that the words " and all those under their protection in the said counties " had been left out. This was the beginning of the long argument about the " missing clause." The Irish Catholics maintained that the clause had been agreed to and should be incorporated in the articles. Many Protestants maintained that the Catholics were trying to work in an additional concession to which they had no right. George Clarke was quite definite that the words were in the agreed draft and that they had been left out by the clerk who made the fair cop}/. When Ginkel and Clarke reached England they stated what had happened and the case was discussed by William and his Privy Council. A majority in the Council was against putting the words in, but William relied on

The Treaty of Limerick 213

213

Ginkel and issued an addition to the letters patent to the effect that the words had been carelessly left out and should be regarded a part of the articles. This, one might have thought, should have ended the matter, but it was only the beginning of a long wrangle that went on for more than five years. Although the Treaty did not come before the Irish Parliament until 1697, the hearing of individual claims was taken up without much delay. Early in January, 1692 the Lords Justices wrote to William that they had already restored estates to about sixty persons who appeared certain to be entitled to the benefit of the articles. In the same month a proclamation was issued that those concerned should put in their claims. By the end of 1694 the Irish Privy Council had heard 491 claims and had allowed 483 of them. The proceedings showed that William and his Government were in earnest about implementing the terms of the Treaty. Successful claimants whose property had been confiscated got it back and others were allowed to keep their property undisturbed. Barristers such as Sir Toby Butler and Sir Stephen Rice were able to practise and a number of Catholics were allowed to carry arms on the scale laid down in the articles. At the end of 1694 there had still been no fresh anti-Catholic legislation passed in the Irish Parliament. William was ready at an early date to include a Bill for the confirmation of the articles in the programme of the Irish Parliament. But there was such opposition on the part of Protestants that it was not found politic to bring up the Bill in the Commons before 1697. The question of giving any additional security to Catholics never came up at all. Under the Poynings' Law procedure the full text of the Bill had to be approved by the King and his English Privy Council. The Irish Parliament could not change a word; they could only accept or reject. The draft sent over to England by the Irish Government left out the disputed words " and all such as are under their protection in the said counties." The English Council asked why, and referred the matter to William in Holland: he best knew how far his personal honour was involved. Strangely enough, William did not think his honour was involved; he ordered the Bill to be approved as it stood. As it came before the Irish Parliament the Bill had the title " For the confirmation of the articles made at the surrender of Limerick "; but it fell far short of ratifying the Treaty. It did not refer at all to the first article by which Catholics in general were to have the privileges in the exercise of their religion which they had had in Charles II's reign. It specified how the second article, in favour of the Irish army and the inhabitants of Limerick, was to be confirmed, repeating its terms without the missing clause. The hearing of future claims was limited to a period of two years. The sixth article, which barred litigation over incidents that had taken place since the beginning of the war, was confirmed; but the war was defined as having begun on 10 April, 1689 (the time-limit originally

214

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

given to Catholics to acknowledge William), and not with the revolution of 1688. A year was allowed for bringing actions about disputes that had arisen between November, 1688 and April, 1689; Protestants were eager to have some opportunity to get redress for what they had endured during the Jacobite regime. There was no reference to the ninth article, which specified that no oath should be demanded except the Oath of Allegiance. The Protestant House of Commons passed the Bill reluctantly, thinking it too lenient to Catholics. The House of Lords, also Protestant, took a surprisingly different attitude. A strong minority, including seven bishops of the Established Church, thought that it was unjust to Catholics and protested that it did not live up to its title: not a single article was confirmed in full. The Bill passed the Lords by a small majority and a bewildered English Secretary of State remarked: " Nothing is more surprising than to see a House of Parliament in Ireland making difficulties on a Bill because it is not favourable enough to Papists, and that bishops should appear in the head of the opposition is wonderful to the last degree." After the passing of the Act the hearing of claims was taken up again, this time before a bench of nine judges. They heard 713 claims under the articles of Limerick and 78 under the articles of Galway; all of which were allowed except eight. The judges appear to have tried to be fair to the claimants and to have been particularly anxious not to allow them to be deprived of their rights by the two-year time limit laid down in the Act; seventy-five claims were admitted on the last day allowed for hearing. Altogether from 1692 to 1699 nearly 1,200 Limerick claims were admitted and the successful claimants included representatives of almost all the leading Jacobite families. There were twelve peers: Antrim, Clanricarde, Dillon, Dunboyne, Dunsany, Fitzwilliam of Merrion, Gormanston, Iveagh, Kingsland, Louth, Mountgarrett and Westmeath. The families of the Pale were well represented with twenty-eight Fitzgeralds, twenty-two Nugents and other well-known names. There were Kellys and O'Reillys, MacNamaras and O'Briens, and many other Gaelic names. The lists include Captain John Connell, great-grandfather of the Liberator, and Garret Nagle, grandfather of Edmund Burke. What was the actual effect of leaving the missing clause out of the Bill ? It seems to have been unexpectedly small. Because of a dispute between William and the English Parliament as to which of them should get the profits of confiscated land there was no Act of Parliament that automatically forfeited the estates of Irish supporters of King James. Instead, legal proceedings for high treason were taken in the courts against a large number of individuals. Up to 1697 such proceedings had not been taken in Clare and Mayo, the counties most affected by the missing clause. After the Bill ratifying the Treaty had passed, the Irish Lord Chancellor wrote to the English Government that the clause had been omitted because of Protestant objections, but that it was still in the King's power to

The Treaty of Limerick 215

215

make it good just as much as if it had been included in the Act. In other words, by refraining from prosecuting, the Government could, after all, give some of the advantages of the missing clause. It appears that this policy was adopted, and a number of Catholics in the counties in question continued to hold their lands without being formally admitted within the articles. What was the effect of Parliament's failure to ratify the first clause, which should have guaranteed to Catholics the privileges in the exercise of their religion that they had in Charles II's reign or were consistent with the laws of Ireland ? In fact, the laws of Ireland guaranteed no religious privileges to Catholics in Charles II's reign. The Elizabethan Act of Uniformity required all to conform to the Established Church, and though we do not hear of recusancy fines being collected in Charles II's reign, yet there were spasmodic anti-Catholic drives, notably at the time of the Popish Plot. The Act of 1697 banning bishops and regular clergy certainly affected the de facto position; if the Act were observed there would eventually have been no ordained priests in Ireland. Many years later Charles O'Conor tried to defend William on the ground that, as such laws were virtually in force in Elizabeth's reign, William did not consider there was any infraction of the articles of Limerick. The same argument would apply to the parts of the Anti-Popery Act of 1704 aimed at pilgrimages and St. Patrick's Purgatory, although they were fresh legislation affecting the practice of the Catholic religion. The second article was generally regarded as the most important. Protestants seem to have considered it primarily as indemnifying a limited number of individuals from forfeiting their property as a consequence of supporting James's cause. This part of the article was, broadly speaking, kept. Other privileges, such as the carrying of arms and the practice of professions, were secured to the same individuals by saving clauses in legislation that affected Catholics in general. Such a saving clause appeared as late as 1728 in one of the Acts that barred Catholics from acting as solicitors. The privileges so provided were strictly confined to the terms of the article. Thus in the Act of 1695 for the disarming of Papists there is a section which allowed to those comprehended within the articles of Limerick the exact quantity of arms specified in the second article. The same Act forbade a Catholic to own a horse worth £5, but the negotiators of the Treaty had not thought of that point, and no exceptions were allowed. The second article promised to those included in it the holding of their estates and all the rights they were entitled to in Charles II's reign by the laws then in force. This undertaking was clearly broken by those clauses of the " Popery Act " of 1704 which turned the Catholic father of a Protestant heir into a tenant-for-life and prevented Catholics from inheriting from Protestants. There were important consequences arising from the disregard of the ninth article, by which Catholics were not to be required to take more than an oath of allegiance. The demand for

216

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

an oath of abjuration, abjuring the Stuart " pretender " and swearing that Anne was rightful queen, went beyond the terms of the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath of Abjuration was demanded from barristers in 1703 and from voters in 1704. By 1709 everyone was liable to be called on to take it. The Oath of Abjuration was intensely objected to by Catholics and, although some took it, there was a general unwillingness to do so. The passing of the " Popery Act" of 1704 was strenuously opposed by Catholics as a gross breach of the articles of Limerick. Sir Toby Butler and Sir Stephen Rice argued the case with much eloquence at the bar of the Irish House of Commons. Butler contended that the Bill would make for " the destroying of the said articles granted upon the most valuable consideration of surrendering the said garrisons at a time when they had the sword in their hands and for anything that then appeared to the contrary might have been in a condition to hold out much longer." He proceeded to set out in logical form his proofs that the provisions of the Bill would take away from Catholics the rights they had possessed by law in Charles II's reign. Rice's arguments were on similar lines: in Charles II's reign there were no laws to prevent a Catholic father disinheriting an undutiful son or from being guardian to his own child; there were no laws that barred Catholics from buying land or leasing it for more than thirty-one years or that applied the principle of gavelkind to inheritance by Catholics. He claimed that the Act would be " an apparent breach of those articles and the public faith also and highly justify the French King's breaking the edict of Nantes." In the debate that followed several members of the Commons (who were, of course, all Protestants) admitted that the articles of Limerick had been granted on the public faith and that if the Bill contravened them it ought to be rejected. They argued, however, that the articles were not contravened by the Bill: there were no laws in Charles II's reign that restricted the passing of future legislation. It was urged that the Oath of Abjuration could not be objected to by those who had wholeheartedly sworn the Oath of Allegiance; the conduct of Catholics in " magnifying, admiring and applauding all the actions of the French King and his allies " was a denial of that allegiance which they were by law obliged to give to the Queen of England. The disloyalty of Catholics, it was maintained, made the Bill necessary for the " security, quiet and wellbeing of the public," objects which were " consonant to all laws heretofore made or that were in force either in the reign of King Charles or at any time since." The provisions of the Bill against pilgrimages were declared consistent with the first article of Limerick. Emphasis was laid on the word " or " in the phrase " as are consistent with the laws of Ireland or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II." The word " or," it was urged, implied that the Government had the choice of which alternative to adopt; in Charles II's

Th e Trea tyofL im erick 217

217

reign there were no laws in favour of Popery and several against it. The Irish Commons were very ready to salve their consciences by arguments of this kind. They were determined to pass the Bill, which they regarded as necessary to protect the Protestant regime during a war with France in which the sympathies of the Catholic population were strongly suspected of being with the enemy. Butler and Rice argued in the same way before the Lords, but unlike 1697 the Catholic case found no supporters and the Lords passed the Bill unanimously. 4.

AFTERMATH

What, in effect, was secured by the articles of Limerick was that the Williamite confiscation of land was much more restricted than Protestants had hoped for. Those Jacobites who had submitted prematurely and those who were killed or captured during the war, or who went to France after it, lost their estates. In 1688 Catholics owned between a quarter and a fifth of the land; the Williamite government confiscated about a third of this area, leaving Catholics in possession of about fourteen per cent of the country. Those Catholics who had held out to the end of the war and were prepared to stay in Ireland secured their estates as a result of the articles of Limerick or the similar articles of Galway. But they found themselves subjected to so many restrictions and disabilities as a result of the Penal Laws that a great many of the families concerned became Protestant in the course of the eighteenth century. The Penal Laws were bitterly resented by Catholics, not only as oppressive in themselves, but as a breach of faith and a contravention of the Treaty of Limerick. Protestants denied that there had been any such contravention and made the most of the imprecise phrasing of the articles. They thought their Government had been liberal—• too liberal—in its treatment of open and unrepentant rebels. The Jacobite cause was by no means lost at Limerick. Louis XIV continued to support the claims, first of James II, then of James's son. More than one invasion of Ireland was planned; many of the leading Catholic families had relatives in the French army. Religion and politics were inseparable, and the favourable attitude of Rome to the Jacobite cause was bound to affect the political sympathies of Irish Catholics. It was natural that the Protestant administration in Ireland should attempt to secure its position by measures calculated to weaken the influence of Catholics as much as possible. At the same time the surrender of Limerick had given a real advantage to William and his allies. The concessions offered to Catholics by the Treaty were the outcome of a deliberate policy arrived at after many months of negotiation. William and his advisers considered them to be a price worth paying for the advantage that their cause had gained by the war ending before the winter of 1691. But many of William's supporters were openly hostile to the agreement and

218

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

strongly opposed to any liberal interpretation of its terms. From the first the Treaty was the subject of dispute; subsequently, it provided material for one of the great controversies of Irish history. FOR FURTHER READING

A more detailed account of the Treaty and its effect on the land settlement, together with a list of sources, is to be found in J. G. Simms, The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland, 1690-1703 (London, 1956). The most important contemporary accounts are A Jacobite Narrative, ed. J. T. Gilbert (Dublin, 1892); C. O'Kelly, Macariae excidium or the destruction of Cyprus, ed. J. C. O'Callaghan (Dublin, 1850); G. Story, A continuation of the impartial history of the wars of Ireland (London, 1693) [Williamite].

The Treaty of Limerick 219

219

APPENDIX THE CIVIL ARTICLES OF LIMERICK1

Articles agreed upon the Third Day of October, 1691 between the Right Honourable Sir Charles Porter, Knight, and Thomas Coningsby, Esq., Lords Justices of Ireland; and His Excellency the Baron De Ginckle, Lieutenant General, and Commander in Chief of the English Army; on the one Part And the Right Honourable Patrick Earl of Lucan, Piercy Viscount Gallmoy, Colonel Nicholas Purcell, Colonel Nicholas Cusack, Sir Toby Butler, Colonel Garret Dillon, and Colonel John Brown; on the other Part: In the behalf of the Irish Inhabitants in the City and County of Lymerick, the Counties of Clare, Kerry, Cork, Sligo and Mayo. In Consideration of the Surrender of the City of Lymerick and other Agreements made between the said Lieutenant General Ginckle, the Governor of the City of Lymerick, and the Generals of the Irish Army, bearing date with these Presents, for the Surrender of the said City, and Submission of the said Army: It is Agreed, That I The Roman Catholicks of this Kingdom shall enjoy such Privileges in the Exercise of their Religion as are consistent with the Laws of Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the Reign of King Charles the II: And their Majesties, as soon as their Affairs will permit them to Summon a Parliament in this Kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholicks such farther Security in that particular, as may preserve them from any Disturbance, upon the Account of their said Religion. II All the Inhabitants or Residents of Lymerick, or any other Garrison now in the possession of the Irish, and all Officers and Souldiers, now in Arms, under an}/ Commission of King James, or those Authorized by him to grant the same in the several Counties of Lymerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them2; and all the Commissioned Officers in their Majesties' Quarters, that belong 1. The text is taken from the official version published in Dublin in 1692. 2. The missing clause " and all such as are under their protection in the said counties " should have been included at this point; it was restored by order of William III, see p. 223 below.

220

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

to the Irish Regiments, now in being, that are Treated with, and who are not Prisoners of War, or have taken Protection, and who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and their and every of their Heirs, shall hold, possess and enjoy all and every their Estates of Free-hold and Inheritance; and all the Rights, Titles and Interests, Privileges and Immunities, which they, and every or any of them held, enjoyed or were rightfully and lawfully Intituled to, in the Reign of King Charles the II, or at any time since, by the Laws and Statutes that were in force in the said Reign of King Charles the II, and shall be put in possession, by order of the Government, of such of them as are in the King's Hands, or the Hands of his Tenants, without being put to any suit or trouble therein; and all such Estates shall be freed and discharged from all Arrears of Crown-Rents, Quit-Rents, and other publick Charges incurred and become due since Michaelmas, 1688 to the day of the date hereof: And all persons comprehended in this Article shall have, hold, and enjo}/' all their Goods and Chattels, real and personal, to them or any of them belonging, and remaining either in their own hands, or the hands of any persons whatsoever, in trust for, or for the use of them, or any of them: and all and every the said persons, of what Profession, Trade, or Calling soever they be~ shall and may use, exercise and practise their several and respective Professions, Trades and Callings, as freely as-they did use, exercise and enjoy the same in the Reign of King Charles the II: Provided, that nothing in this Article contained be construed to extend to, or restore any forfeiting person now out of the Kingdom, except what are hereafter comprized: Provided also, That no Person whatsoever shall have or enjoy the benefit of this Article, that shall neglect or refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance made by Act of Parliament in England, in the First Year of the Reign of their present Majesties, when thereunto required. Ill All Merchants, or reputed Merchants of the City of Lymerick, or of any other Garrison, now possessed by the Irish, or of any Town or Place in the Counties of Clare or Kerry, who are absent beyond the Seas, that have not bore Arms since their Majesties' Declaration in February, 1688,1 shall have the benefit of the Second Article, in the same manner as if they were present, provided such Merchants, and reputed Merchants, do repair into this Kingdom within the space of eight months from the date hereof. IV The following Officers, viz., Colonel Simon Lutterel, Captain Rowland White, Maurice Eustace of Yermanstown [Yeomanstown, 1. i.e., 1689 by the modern calendar.

The Treaty of Limerick 221

221

Co. Kildare], Chievers of Maystown, commonly called MountLeinster, now belonging to the Regiments in the aforesaid Garrisons and Quarters of the Irish Army, who were beyond the Seas, and sent thither upon affairs of their respective Regiments, or the Army in general, shall have the benefit and advantage of the second Article, provided they return hither within the space of eight months from the date of these Presents and submit to their Majesties' Government, and take the above mentioned Oath. V That all and singular, the said persons comprized in the 2d and 3d Articles, shall have a general Pardon of all Attainders, Outlawries, Treasons, Misprisions of Treason, Premunires, Felonies, Trespasses, and other Crimes and Misdemeanors whatsoever, by them, or any of them committed since the beginning of the Reign of King James the II: and if any of them are Attainted by Parliament, the Lords Justices, and General, will use their best Endeavours to get the same repealed by Parliament, and the Outlawries to be reversed Gratis, all but Writing-Clerks' Fees. VI And whereas these present Wars have drawn on great Violences on both parts, and that if leave were given to the bringing all sorts of private Actions, the Animosities would probably continue, that have been too long on Foot, and the publick Disturbances last: For the Quieting and Settling therefore of this Kingdom, and avoiding those Inconveniences which would be the necessary consequences of the contrary, no person or persons whatsoever, comprized in the foregoing Articles, shall be Sued, Molested, or Impleaded at the Suit of any Party or Parties whatsoever, for any Trespasses by them committed, or for any Arms, Horses, Money, Goods, Chattels, Merchandizes, or Provisions whatsoever, by them seized or taken, during the time of the War. And no person or Persons whatsoever, in the Second or Third Articles comprized, shall be Sued, Impleaded, or made accountable for the Rents or mean Rates of any Lands, Tenements, or Houses by him or them received or enjoyed in this Kingdom, since the beginning of the present War, to the day of the Date hereof, nor for any Waste or Trespass by him or them committed in any such Lands, Tenements, or Houses: And it is also agreed, that this Article shall be mutual, and reciprocal, on both sides. VII Every Nobleman and Gentleman, comprized in the said 2d and 3d Article, shall have liberty to Ride with a Sword, and Case of

222

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Pistols, if they think fit; and keep a Gun in their Houses, for the Defence of the same, or for Fowling. VIII The Inhabitants and Residents in the City of Lymerick, and other Garrisons, shall be permitted to remove their Goods, Chattels, and Provisions, out of the same, without being viewed and searched, or paying any manner of Duties, and shall not be compelled to leave the Houses or Lodgings they now have, for the space of six weeks next ensuing the Date hereof. IX The Oath to be administered to such Roman-Catholicks as submit to their Majesties' Government, shall be the Oath abovesaid, and no other. X No person or persons, who shall at any time hereafter break these Articles, or any of them, shall thereby make, or cause any other person or persons to forfeit or lose the benefit of the same. XI The Lords Justices and General do promise to use their utmost Endeavours, that all the persons comprehended in the abovementioned Articles, shall be protected and defended from all Arrests and Executions for Debt or Damage, for the space of eight months, next ensuing the Date hereof. XII Lastly The Lords Justices and General do undertake, that their Majesties will Ratine these Articles within the space of eight months, or sooner, and use their utmost Endeavours, that the same shall be ratified and confirmed in Parliament. XIII And whereas Colonel John Brown stood indebted to several Protestants, by Judgments of Record; which appearing to the late Government, the Lord Tyrconnel, and Lord Lucan, took away the Effects the said John Brown had to answer the said Debts, and promised to clear the said John Brown of the said Debts; which effects were taken for the publick use of the Irish, and their Army:

TheTreatyofLimerick223 For freeing the said Lord Lucan of his said Engagement, past on their publick Account, for Payment of the said Protestants, and for preventing the mine of the said John Brown, and for satisfaction of his Creditors, at the instance of the Lord Lucan, and the rest of the Persons aforesaid, it is agreed, That the said Lords Justices, and the said Baron de Ginckle, shall intercede with the King and Parliament, to have the Estates secured to Roman-Catholicks, by Articles and Capitulation in this Kingdom, charged with, and equally liable to the payment of so much of the said Debts, as the said Lord Lucan, upon stating Accompts with the said John Brown, shall certifie under his Hand, that the Effects taken from the said Brown amount unto; which Accompt is to be stated, and the Ballance certified by the said Lord Lucan in one and twenty days after the Date hereof: For the true performance hereof, We have hereunto set our Hands, Char. Porter Tho. Coningsby Bar. De Ginckle Present, Scravemore H. Maccay T. Talmash And whereas the said City of Lymerick hath been since, in pursuance of the said Articles, surrendered unto Us, Now know ye, that We having considered of the said Articles, are Graciously pleased hereby to declare, that We do for Us, Our Heirs and Successors, as far as in Us lies, Ratifie and Confirm the same, and every Clause, Matter and Thing therein contained. And as to such Parts thereof, for which an Act of Parliament shall be found to be necessary, We shall Recommend the same to be made good by Parliament, and shall give Our Royal Assent to any Bill or Bills that shall be Passed by Our Two Houses of Parliament to that purpose. And whereas it appears unto Us, that it was agreed between the Parties to the said Articles, that after the words, Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, Mayo, or any of them in the second of the said Articles, the words following: Viz., And all such as are under their Protection in the said Counties,

should be inserted, and be part of the said Articles. Which words having been casually omitted by the Writer, the omission v/as not discovered till after the said Articles were Signed, but was taken notice of before the second Town was surrendered: And that our said Justices, and General, or One of them, did promise that the said Clause should be made good, it being within the Intention of the Capitulation, and inserted in the Foul Draught thereof. Our further Will and Pleasure is, and We do hereby Ratifie and Confirm the said omitted Words, Viz. And all such as are under their Protection in the said Counties Hereby for Us, Our Heirs and Successors, Ordaining and Declaring, that all and every Person and Persons therein concerned, shall and may have, receive, and enjoy the

224

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Benefit thereof, in such and the same manner, as if the said Words had been inserted in their proper place, in the said second Article; any Omission, Defect, or Mistake in the said second Article, in any wise notwithstanding. Provided always, and Our Will and Pleasure is, that these Our Letters Patents shall be Enrolled in Our Court of Chancery in our said Kingdom of Ireland, within the space of one year next ensuing. In Witness &. Witness Our Self at Westminster, the twenty fourth day of February, Anno Regni Regis & Reginae Gulielmi & Mariae Quarto1 per Breve de Privato Sigillo.

i. i.e., 1692 by the modern calendar.

17 IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE, 1692-1728 rish catholics were deprived of the parliamentary franchise by a law commonly supposed to have been passed in 1727, but actually passed in 1728.1 There has been much misunderstanding of the developments that led up to this law and of the extent to which earlier restrictions had already curtailed the voting rights of catholics. Curry said that catholics were excluded from the vote in the first parliament of Anne's reign.2 In the debate on the catholic relief bill of 1793 Speaker Foster claimed that catholics had not voted since the revolution of 1688 and that he could prove it from the commons' journals.3 Grattan contested this statement and asserted that catholics voted in considerable numbers up to George II's reign.4 The discussion of the subject in Porritt's classic work, The unrejormed house of commons, is not altogether satisfactory.5 There is therefore need for further examination of how far catholics in Ireland exercised the parliamentary franchise between the revolution and the act of 1728. The first Irish elections after the revolution were held in 1692. In the preceding year an English act had abolished the oath of supremacy in Ireland and had substituted an oath to the effect that the doctrine of the pope's deposing power was impious and heretical and also a declaration against transubstantiation. The act stated that no one might sit in the Irish parliament without taking the oath and subscribing the declaration, which effectively excluded catholics from membership. The act, however, did not affect the voting rights of catholics, which were not questioned in any of the election petitions of 1692.6

I

1

1 Geo. II, c. 9, sect. 8. The bill received the royal assent on 6 May 1728. 2 J. Curry, Historical and critical review of the civil wars of Ireland, ii. 229 (1793 ed.). 3 3 Parliamentary register, xiii, 4 4 Ibid., pp. 354-5. 5 E. Porritt, Unreformed house of commons, ii. 218-24. 6 3 W. and M., c. 2 (Eng.). The oath of supremacy had similarly been abolished in England by 1 W. and M., c. 8.

226

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

At the next election, in 1695, the question of voters' religion came up in several petitions, but in no case did the proceedings result in a finding that challenged the voting rights of catholics. In county Kilkenny it was alleged that ' a very great number of poor Irish papists ' had been made freeholders a few days before the election ' contrary to the known laws of the kingdom'. The creation of fictitious freeholds became an open scandal, but this particular petition was allowed to drop without further inquiry.7 Another petition related to Trim, where catholics had been allowed to vote as freemen of the borough. The case was considered by the Irish privy council, in which the opinion seems to have prevailed that, although burgesses were required to take the oath of supremacy, freemen were not required to do so and that catholics had the right to vote as freemen.8 Another petitioner in the same year alleged that in Athenry most of those who had voted for his opponent were ' poor papists, many of whom could not speak English '. He also failed to obtain satisfaction.9 No more success was gained by a petitioner in 1696 who alleged that his opponent in Askeaton had been elected by voters who were ' papists and by law made incapable for to vote for members to serve in parliament \ 10 In the following year at a by-election in Trim it was alleged that several persons had voted who were not free of the borough and ' unqualified to vote, being Irish papists'. This petition also was rejected.11 Thus, although it was asserted that the fact of being a catholic should have disqualified a voter, no support was at this stage given by the commons to such assertions. In 1696 an attempt to assassinate William, and the resulting emotion of loyalty and anti-catholicism, led to an English act for the preservation of the king's person. The act empowered magistrates to require any person to take the oath denying the pope's deposing power; it also provided that no one who refused to take the oath should vote in a parliamentary election. The effect of this provision was to deprive English catholics of the vote.12 The Irish commons in 1697 drew up the heads of a similar bill, the draft of which was sent over to England under the Poynings' law procedure. As approved Commons' jn. Ire. (ed. 1796), ii. 61. Ibid., ii. 55; P.R.O., State papers, Ireland, 63/357, f. 201 (11 July 1695). The term ' oath of supremacy' was commonly applied to the oath about the pope's deposing power which was substituted for it by 9 3 W. and M., c. 2 (Eng.). Commons jn. Ire., ii. 57. 12 10 Ibid., ii. 148. " Ibid., ii. 166. 7 and 8 W. Ill, c. 27. 7 8

Irish Catholics and the Franchise, 1692-1728

227

by the English council the bill corresponded closely to the English act. It empowered magistrates to exact the oath denying the pope's deposing power and provided that those who refused to take that oath should not be allowed to vote at a parliamentary election. The commons passed the bill, although there was a division at the third reading (92 in favour, 68 against).13 In the lords the clause about the parliamentary vote was approved at the committee stage, but the bill as a whole was rejected. Fourteen lords, including Archbishop Narcissus Marsh, protested against the rejection of the bill. They made particular mention of the clause about the vote and expressed the view that it would have been a ' great security to the government \ 14 William King, then bishop of Derry, was opposed to the bill on the ground that it required catholics, under penalty of praemunire, to take an oath that controverted an article of their faith. He thought it reasonable to deprive catholics of ' all public trust, profit or power ', but that it was hard to take away men's estates, liberties or lives merely because they differed in sentiments of religion. He told the archbishop of Canterbury that most protestants were disgusted by the bill and that even those who supported it admitted that it was hard to subject ' about 800,000 persons without distinction of age, sex or quality to the discretionary power of two justices of the peace in a matter that reached not only their liberty and property but their very lives '. In expressing these views King made no specific reference to the parliamentary vote.15 Two days after the lords had rejected the bill for the preservation of the king's person the commons considered a report from a joint committee of both houses on an alleged plot for ' the utter extirpation of protestants '. Their findings were expressed in a number of unanimous resolutions, one of which was that ' the excluding of papists from having votes for electing any members to serve in parliament in this kingdom is necessary to be made into a law'. This resolution was cited by Foster in 1793 to support his case that catholics did not exercise the franchise after 1688. Far from supporting Foster's contention it suggests that catholics were voting and that the commons wished to have them legally prevented from doing so.16 Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 224. 14 Lords' jn. Ire., i. 664-5. King to Lord Clifford, 20 Nov. 1697; King to Tenison, 30 Nov. 1697 (T.C.D., MS N 3. 1, pp. 134, 136). 16 Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 230 (29 Nov. 1697); Parliamentary register, xiii. 336. 13 15

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

228

The English council included the bill for the preservation of the king's person in the list for the parliamentary session of 1698. This time the commons objected to the clause empowering magistrates to impose the oath denying the pope's deposing power. As under Poynings' law the bill could not be amended by the Irish parliament, it lapsed for that session, the last of William's reign.17 William's privy council had evidently no inhibitions about going against the ninth article of Limerick, which provided that no oath other than the oath of allegiance should be required of Irish catholics. After the next election, in 1703, there was an interesting petition from Lisburn. The successful candidate was Richard Nutley, who was supported by the local magnate, Lord Conway. Nutley was a tory barrister, who had come over from England as counsel for the Irish forfeiture trustees. The defeated candidate alleged that the catholic priest charged his people at mass to go to the election and vote for Nutley and that many catholics had accordingly done so. The case was heard at the bar of the house and Nutley's election was upheld, a remarkable decision as Nutley's association with the forfeiture trustees would not have commended him to the commons.18 Lisburn was a ' potwalloper ' borough, in which all the inhabitants had the right of voting. During 1703 there was much correspondence between the Irish and English governments about the terms of a bill to prevent the growth of popery. The draft approved by the English council— which contained no provision restricting the voting rights of catholics —was not put before the Irish parliament as a bill to be passed without amendment under the Poynings' law procedure.19 Instead, the text was made available to the Irish commons and used as the basis of heads of a bill drafted by the commons and then delivered to the lord lieutenant for further action under Poynings' law. During this process a fresh provision was inserted by the commons which affected the voting rights of catholics. It took the form of a clause providing that ' for preventing papists having it in their power to breed dissension among protestants by voting at elections for members of parliament' no freeholder, burgess or freeman, being a catholic, should be allowed to vote unless he took the oaths of allegiance and abjuration. If he did so he should be allowed to vote ' as amply and fully as any protestant'. The bill as approved by the English council differed in a number of respects from the heads 17

19

Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 253. 1S Ibid., ii. 320, 334.

Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 185.

Irish

Catholics

and

the

Franchise,

1692-1728

229

drawn up by the Irish commons, but the clause that regulated voting at parliamentary elections was approved without any change of substance and passed into law. 20 T h e oath of abjuration included a declaration that Anne was rightful and lawful queen and that James had no right to the crown. Sir Toby Butler and the other catholics who protested against the bill made particular reference to this clause as contravening the ninth article of Limerick, by which no oath other than the oath of allegiance was to be taken from catholics. 21 The wording of the clause suggests that, subject to the oath of abjuration being taken, catholics would be allowed to. vote as freemen in boroughs as well as voting as freeholders in counties. The oath of abjuration was disliked by catholics, who were prepared to give de facto allegiance to Anne but reluctant to give her de jure allegiance and deny James's title. But the oath of abjuration, unlike the oath against the pope's deposing power, was not in contravention of any specifically catholic doctrine and was in fact taken by a number of catholics, although many others refused to do so. In 1706 lists were prepared of persons who promised to vote at the next election for Sir Donough O'Brien and his son Lucius. Certain names were marked ' papists abjurers ' and the agent put a query in the margin as to whether they had taken the oaths and whether the oath of abjuration had to be taken immediately before the election. In 1708 a list was prepared of persons who promised to vote for Lucius O'Brien and to take the oath of abjuration ' if any of the rest of our clergy and function does i t ' . Another list of this period contains the names of some seventy-five catholics who had taken the required oaths. 22 T h e permissibility of taking the oath of abjuration became a controversial question in 1709 when the second anti-popery act was passed. This empowered magistrates to require any male aged sixteen or over to take the oath of abjuration. It also required registered priests to take it, although in 1704 when priests were first registered the English council had thought it advisable to omit this requirement. 23 Priests showed great hostility to the oath; out of 1080 on the register less than forty took it and they incurred severe condemnation from their brethren in Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 375-6; 2 Anne c. 6, sect. 24. Curry, Civil wars of Ireland, ii. 397. 22 N.L.I., Inchiquin papers. I am grateful to M r John Ainsworth for showing me these references. 23 8 Anne, c. 3, sect. 22, 23; F. Annesley to Ormond, 29 Jan. 1704 (H.M.C., Ormonde MSS, new series, viii. 50). 20

21

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

230 24

consequence. It was maintained that it was a sin for a catholic to take the oath and some years later a bundle of indulgences from the pope, pardoning persons who had taken the oath, was reported to have been seized from a priest.25 It is hard to say what effect the requirement of the oath of abjuration had on the number of catholic voters. No general election took place for nearly ten years after the condition was first imposed and during this period the number of genuine freeholders who were catholics must have markedly declined as the older generation died off and were often replaced by heirs who became protestants. But, particularly in the western counties, catholic freeholders were still quite numerous and there are several references to them taking the oath of abjuration. Thus in 1712 William Brabazon of Lough Mask repudiated a recantation alleged to have been signed by himself and others begging the pardon of God and the church for having taken the oath of abjuration. He declared that he had deliberately taken the oath and that he thought there was nothing wrong in so doing.26 On the other hand Archbishop King seems to have thought that at the general election following the requirement of the oath there would be no catholic voters. He regretted this as likely to favour the supporters of dissent as against the church party: ' for though the papists hate both yet they expect more moderation from one than the other \ 27 When the Irish commons were drafting the anti-popery bill of 1709, it was proposed to deprive catholics of the franchise altogether. This gave rise to a debate in the course of which it was argued that it was unreasonable that so large a section of the population should be bound by laws that were not made by their representatives, that religion should be taken into consideration only in so far as it endangered the state and that therefore all who took the oath of abjuration should be allowed to vote. These suprisingly liberal arguments carried the day and the prohibitory clause was omitted from the draft bill sent over to England for approval.28 During the same session the commons gave prolonged consideration to a petition about a by-election in the borough of Irishtown, county W. P. Burke, Irish priests in penal times, p. 50. Commons' jn. Ire., iii. 80 (20 Feb. 1716). ™ Dublin Gazette, 29 July 1712 (Archiv. Hib., xvi. 17-18). 27 King to E. Southwell, 13 March 1711 (N.L.I., MS 2055). 28 Addison to Somers, 14 June 1709 (Letters, ed. W. Graham, p. 151) Addison was secretary to the lord lieutenant. 24

25

Irish Catholics and the Franchise, 1692-1728

231

Kilkenny. The defeated candidate, Agmondisham Cuffe, alleged that if the returning officer had not disallowed the votes of catholics he would have been elected. The committee which investigated the case produced a long report: some of the members maintained that the votes of the catholics had rightly been excluded, others that catholics should have been allowed to vote. By a majority the committee rejected the petition and after a heated debate the same decision was reached by the house of commons with a vote of seventy-nine to fifty-two. Addison referred to the case and said it was treated as a party measure and as a victory for the whigs. The case was one of those relied on by Speaker Foster in 1793 in support of his contention that catholics had no votes at the time.29 The results of other election petitions could equally well be cited to prove the opposite. Much depended on the personality and prejudices of the returning officer, which often operated to the disadvantage of catholics. Another petition of 1709 was that of Nicholas Bourke, Richard Blake, and Thomas Burke. These are the names of three prominent catholic landholders of county Galway, two of whom had been admitted to the benefit of the articles of Limerick. When they announced their intention of voting for Lord Dunkellin— Clanricarde's son and heir—the sheriff put them under arrest and thus prevented them from voting.30 The general election of 1713 was of particular interest to catholics. They were very optimistic about the outcome of the negotiations that the tory ministry were conducting with the ' pretender '. The ministry had decided to have a general election in Ireland in the hope of getting a tory majority and could count on the whole-hearted support of catholics in their effort. The defeated candidate for county Carlow alleged that the catholic gentry of the county had actively supported his opponent ' without regard to the laws for preventing papists breeding any dissension among protestants at elections'. They had engaged in energetic electioneering ' by appearing in the field well mounted, well armed and in red coats ' and they had made a number of freeholders for voting purposes, some of whom were their own liveried servants. This petition remained undisposed of at the end of the session, as did another petition from Charleville, county Cork, in which it was ^Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 612-14; Addison to Sunderland, 20 June 1709 (op. cit., p. 155); Parl. register, xiii. 336. The petition, which was presented in October 1708, was not decided till June 1709—an unusually 30 long time. Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 634.

23 2

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

alleged that ' one Teige Croneen, a notorious papist, brought from Kerry upwards of thirty, being papists or late converts, who were made free of the borough to vote against the petitioner'. But in county Roscommon a petition was allowed on the ground that the sheriff had admitted the votes of ' several itinerant freeholders, many of whom were papists or else late conver/ts who never qualified themselves by law to vote at such elections \ 3 1 In the first session of George Fs Irish parliament an act was passed to prevent the fraudulent creation of freeholds. This prescribed that no catholic freeholder, burgess or freeman should be allowed to vote unless he had taken the oaths of allegiance and abjuration at least six months before the election; he might also be required to take them on the election day as well. For voting in contravention of this provision the penalty was £100, of which half was to go to the informer.32 There has been considerable misunderstanding of this act, which was designed to prevent the creation of voters at the time of elections. It imposed no new oaths on catholics but provided that the oaths already required should have been taken at least six months beforehand. Mountmorres gives a very garbled account of the act. He says that up to 1715 catholics exercised the franchise without any restraint, but that by this act they were required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy [sic].3Z Porritt says that in the debate of 1793 Foster ' quoted the preamble of the act of George I which made voters liable to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy'. In fact, Foster quoted the preamble of the act of George II, not George I, and neither act required the oath of supremacy to be taken by voters.34 At the next general election, in 1727, it was alleged that the provisions of the act of 1715 had been infringed in county Clare and evidence was produced that catholics had been allowed to vote without strictly complying with the procedure laid down for taking the oaths.35 In the first session of George II's reign the Irish commons approved the heads of a bill for regulating elections. It contained 31

32 Ibid., ii. 745, 753, 755. 2 Geo. I, c. 19, sect. 7. Mountmorres, History . . . of the Irish parliament from 1634 to 1666, i. 162(1792) 34 Porritt, Unreformed house of commons, p. 219. Curiously enough, the words ' oath of supremacy' occur in the margin of the 1786 edition of the Irish statutes. The words ' oath of abjuration' are in the text in that edition and in the 1716 copy of the act. 35 Commons' jn. Ire., iii. 534. 33

Irish Catholics and the Franchise, 1692-1728

233

a clause that ' for the better preventing papists from voting in elections ' no papist should be entitled to vote at a parliamentary election. No additional oath was prescribed for voters; it was a straight ban on catholics. Catholic historians have incorporated in their accounts of this legislation the tradition that the clause was introduced at a comparatively late stage into a bill that purported merely to put a stop to election irregularities: catholics were thus taken by surprise and prevented from making the protests that they would otherwise have made. Matthew O'Conor suggests that if catholics had had an opportunity of bringing the matter to the.notice of Cardinal Fleury his influence would have saved them from disfranchisement. He condemned the proceedings as a miserable trick, ' such as pickpockets might practise, unworthy of the generosity of highwaymen'. Plowden attributed the initiative to Archbishop Boulter, whose enthusiasm for the English interest made him particularly hostile to Irish catholics. Contemporary records do little to support the tradition of surprise, other than an entry in the commons' journals that the heads of the bill were amended in some way at the committee stage. The state papers and the correspondence of Boulter and Swift throw no light on the matter.30 There seems no doubt that Irish catholics would have been deprived of the franchise long before 1728 if it had not been for the comparative moderation shown by such men as William King, who were responsible for the rejection of the bills of 1697 and 1698 (which followed the English act of 1696 and would have required the oath denying the deposing power of the pope to be taken by voters in Ireland) and for the modification of the bill of 1709 (which would otherwise have excluded catholics from the franchise).37 This comparative moderation towards catholics was a characteristic of the church party, whose attitude was influenced by the fact that the extremer opponents of the catholics were supporters of the dissenters and in favour of removing the sacramental test. It is hard to estimate the significance of the loss of the franchise in 1728. The number of catholics who were genuine freeholders— that is, holders of land in fee or of substantial leases for lives etc.— had greatly declined by that date. There were still a good many of them in the western counties and their influence must have been M. O'Conor, History of the Irish catholics, pp. 200-202 (1813); F. Plowden, Historical review of the state of Ireland, i. 263-9 (1803); 37 Commons' jn. Ire., iii. 522. See above, 227, 230. 36

234

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

appreciable in the county elections. In the boroughs, although there was no legal bar on catholics being freemen and thus eligible for the parliamentary—but not the civic—franchise, not many catholics of independent status can in practice have been admitted to the privilege. The control of boroughs was in the hands of protestants, who alone could be office-holders or members of the common council.38 As is clear from the election petitions, a large number of catholics were enfranchised both in the boroughs and in the counties by the influence of candidates who were anxious to accumulate votes. Matthew O'Conor suggested that catholics were allowed to keep the franchise for so long because of the interest that the protestant gentry had in preserving the voting rights of catholics who were likely to support them. General elections were regarded as imminent during most of Anne's reign (because of the prevailing political tension) and also in the reign of George I (who was elderly and not regarded as a good life). This is said to have dissuaded protestants from disfranchising those whose votes might soon be needed. But with the accession of George II, robust and in his forty-fourth year, the next general election was, rightly, regarded as a distant prospect and the time was considered appropriate for the disfranchisement of catholics.39 Disfranchisement must have had an adverse effect on the standing and security of catholic landholders and on the economic position of catholic leaseholders. Burke referred to the tendency of landlords to grant leases to protestants who could be turned into voters rather than to catholics who could not. The precarious position of catholic proprietors must have become even more so when they were deprived of the possibility of being useful to their protestant neighbours by voting in the county elections. As Burke put it, ' the taking away of a vote is the taking away the shield which the subject has, not only against the oppression of power, but that worst of all oppressions, the persecution of private society and private manners.40 38

The Essex rules of 1672 imposed the oath of supremacy on officeholders in boroughs and on members of the common council, but not on freemen (Irish statutes, ii. 236). Porritt says that catholics were prevented from being freemen by 4 W. and M., c. 11. No such act exists. The reference seems to be to c. 2, which is not to the point and refers to the oaths required of protestant foreigners admitted to the freedom of boroughs (op. cit., ii. 224). 39 40 M. O'Conor, as above. Burke, Works, iii. 287, 307

18 THE BISHOPS' BANISHMENT ACT OF 1697 (9 WILL. Ill, c. I) he first act of the Irish parliamentary session of 1697 provided for the banishment of all catholic clergy exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction and also of all regular clergy. It was the first act since the treaty of Limerick that directly affected the practice of the catholic religion in Ireland, and it was something of a paradox that it should have coincided with the making of peace between William III and Louis XIV. In its early stages the bill seems to have been confined to the regular clergy, and there is some obscurity about its extension to bishops and other clerical dignitaries. The treaty of Limerick ended the war in Ireland, but it did not end the European war. During the following six years the Williamite government and its supporters were periodically alarmed by the threat of a Jacobite invasion of Ireland supported by help from France. They had no doubt where the sympathies of the catholic clergy lay, and on a number of occasions priests were arrested and kept in custody until the crisis was over. There was some conflict of opinion about what classes of clergy were most dangerous. The accepted version was that regulars were the greatest menace. A memorandum drawn up by a protestant bishop, apparently at the end of 1691, suggested the expulsion of regulars, on the ground that they were a

T

burden to the kingdom and under no government but that of their superiors. They depend more immediately on the pope's authority and are supported by it against their bishops. They bear a greater sway amongst the people than the secular priests and are more irreconcilable to their majesties' government, and they seem to wish for nothing more than to be sent away so that they may be supported abroad. Wherever there is any commotion they are not only privy to it, but foment it. A sense of episcopal solidarity seems to have led the writer to suggest that ' if there were any of the Romish bishops now in Ireland, one of them salaried in each province with a pension of £100 per annum would be a good means to gain intelligence and keep the rest of the clergy in order V 1

Cal. S.P. dom., i6gi-2, p. 56.

236

War

and

Politics

in

Ireland,

1649-1730

A different view was taken in another memorandum written about the same time : the papist hierarchy in all spiritual matters impoverishes the natives, viz., making them pay their dues to them, though they pay the same to our clergy. . . . Proposed that all secular clergy may under severe penalties be banished the realm, pursuant to laws in that case made. The regulars may stay because the secular clergy are turbulent and ambitious, every parish priest aspiring to be an archdeacon, then a dean, then a bishop . . . on the other hand the regulars are for the most part harmless, ignorant, poor men, who only preach morality and gather no riches for themselves nor ever did for the pope.2 During crises it was the practice to make arrests of catholic clergy, and particular importance was attached to the securing of regulars. Such a crisis occurred at the end of 1692, when there was an alarm of a threatened French invasion. In January 1693 a government committee was appointed to consider what should be done with regulars in custody and to report the most easy and effectual way of sending them out of the kingdom.3 The committee reported that a royal proclamation of 1673 had required ' all titular popish archbishops, bishops . . . and others exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction . . . and all regular priests' to leave by a fixed time. This proclamation had proved ineffective and had been supplemented by three further proclamations. The committee expressed the opinion that the ' great number of popish archbishops, bishops and regular clergy now in Ireland ' tended to disturbance of the peace and was against the law. They recommended expulsion by a similar proclamation, but suggested that it would be advisable to obtain special orders from their majesties.4 At that time there seem to have been only one archbishop and one bishop in the country but there seem to have been quite a number of regular clergy.5 Most of the bishops were at St Germain in attendance on James II and did not conceal their desire for his restoration. Their letter to the pope, written early in 1692, implored him to help James to recover his dominions from the unjust usurper.0 The lord lieutenant forwarded the committee's report to England on 23 January 1693 and asked how the king wished 2

Ibid., pp 68-9. Cal. S.P. dom., i6g^, pp 6-7. 4 Ibid., pp 8-9. 5 Archbishop Brenan of Cashel and Bishop Phelan of Ossory. 6 SpciO .li s3s.i,.04-9S.pciO .li s3s.i,.04-9S.pciO .li s3s.i,.04-9S.pciO .li s3s.i,.04-9S.pciO .li s3s.i,.04-9. 3

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697

237

the regular clergy to be dealt with. By 17 May he had still received no definite orders, and the question seems to have been quietly shelved.7 One of those who pressed for the expulsion of clergy was Anthony Dopping, bishop of Meath, the strongest figure on the Church of Ireland bench of bishops. In a report on his diocese made to the government on 23 October 1693 he complained of the poor progress of protestantism and proposed as a remedy the banishing of catholic clergy, both regular and secular, ' there being little hope of converting the people while they arc suffered in the kingdom '.8 In another memorandum he observed : ' it could also be wished that there was an act to banish at least all regulars out of that kingdom. For they, having little to do and being generally men of more learning than the seculars, have more leisure and ability to pervert and seduce protestants and to be contriving and designing how to increase their own party and lessen ours '.9 The first step towards the passing of a banishment law was taken in the Irish house of commons on 21 October 1695: 'ordered that the committee of laws do prepare heads of a bill to be brought in to banish all the popish regular clergy by a certain time and to prohibit any popish clergy to come into this kingdom from and after Michaelmas next \10 No mention was made of bishops or other dignitaries at this stage. The commons motion got a sympathetic response from Lord Deputy Capel, who was a strong whig and distinguished for his hostility to catholics. Within three days he and his council had a bill ready for the suppression of monasteries and the banishment of regulars which was transmitted to England under the Poynings' law procedure.11 Catholics wrere alarmed at this development and sought the intervention of William's ally, the Emperor Leopold. They had a valuable friend at the imperial court in Francis Taafe, fourth earl of Carlingford, Who was a distinguished soldier who had helped to relieve Vienna in 1683 and had recently been made a field-marshal. Carlingford wrote to Menegatti, the emperor's confessor, to say that the proposal to banish the regular clergy was very harsh, and that the French would have the excuse to make propaganda in Rome and elsewhere Cal.S.P.dom.,i6gs,pp15,141.Cal.S.P.dom.,i6gs,pp15,141. Marsh's Library, MS Z 3. 1.4, p. 163. 9 Archiv. Hib., xxii, 168. 10 Commons' ]n. Ire., ii, 102. n B.M., Add. MS 9715, f. 28. 7

8

238

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

that England was plotting the abolition of the catholic religion. The emperor ordered his envoy, Count Auersperg, to take the matter up and remind William of the promises of religious toleration he had made and point out to him the danger to the whole alliance that would be created by religious persecution in Ireland. The envoy was told that William was determined to keep his promises to the Irish catholics. The latter would have observed the partiality that William had for them. He would extend it, with the proviso, ' so far as lay in his power'. But he did not know in what respect the resolution of the Irish house of commons infringed the treaty of Limerick. It was pointed out to the envoy that the resolution was based not only on the ground that the regular clergy were a danger to the state, but that the number of monks and nuns in Ireland was a burden on the people. The envoy admitted to William's secretary that he had had inquiries made among Irish catholics and found there was some substance in this point. He suggested that the superiors of the monasteries might be warned against allowing excessive numbers of entrants. He asked that the proposal to banish the regulars should not be laid before the English privy council. This was put to the king and the bill was not approved for the time being. It was not returned to Ireland during the parliamentary session of 1695.12 The next session was held in the summer of 1697, wnen peace negotiations between William and Louis were already in progress. This might have been expected to lessen religious tension, and catholics had high hopes that the French negotiators would secure a promise of toleration for them in the peace settlement. On the other hand, protestants were in an angry mood as a result of an attempt to assassinate William in 1696. Capel was dead, but catholics had little hope of toleration from Henri de Ruvigny, earl of Galway, who became a lord justice of Ireland in 1697. Lord Galway was a Huguenot who did much to encourage the settlement of Huguenots in Ireland. His reputation in catholic circles is summed up in a letter in the Vatican archives: ' Lord Galway, one of the rulers in Ireland and a powerful enemy of the catholics, will have to be reckoned with, as he seeks nothing but the destruction of the catholic religion and the persecution of all who profess it; by so doing he hopes to take vengeance for the expulsion of the French Huguenots and to gratify his followers by handing over to them the spoils of the catholics, without which it would be impossible for his supporters to continue 12

O. Klopp, Der Fall des Hauses Stuart, vii, 134-7.

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 239 to reside in Ireland \ 1 3 Methuen, the new chancellor of Ireland, had rationalist leanings and was later to continue a successful diplomatic career in Portugal; but he was regarded as ' a virulent promoter of all the acts which have passed in Ireland to the detriment of the catholics \ 1 4 Under Poynings' law a new parliamentary session had to be started with bills approved by the English privy council, and it was the practice for these to be apportioned between the two houses of the Irish parliament. The bill entitled ' An act for suppressing all friaries, monasteries, nunneries and other popish convents and for banishing all regulars of the popish clergy out of Ireland ', which had been blocked in 1695, was resurrected for the session of 1697 and allotted to the Irish house of lords in the first instance. A clause had been added to it in England vesting in the crown the revenues of ' guilds, fraternities, chantries and other religious societies for popish and superstitious uses \ 1 5 The bill had its first reading in the lords on 31 July, but when it came up for the second reading on 3 August the house ordered that it should lie on the table, so that no second reading of it took place.10 Strong objection was taken to the guilds and chantries clause, which was regarded as an attack on the property rights of protestants who were in possession of the former guilds and chantries property. The Irish government reported that they were convinced that not a single member of either lords or commons would vote for the bill while it contained the guilds and chantries clause. The irony was that the whole Irish parliament was eager for the suppression of the religious orders and for the expulsion of the regulars. Under Poynings' law no amendment of the bill could take place until it was referred back to England and approved in another form by the English privy council. As it had been decided at last to introduce a bill for the ratification of the articles of Limerick, and as this was likely, even in its truncated form, to be obnoxious to a body of protestant opinion, it was desirable from the government point of view to sweeten the pill with anti-catholic legislation in the form of a banishment bill. The latter was therefore transmitted lo England by the Irish government with the omission of the guilds and chantries clause. It appears that at this stage it was widened to include bishops and other church dignitaries, as the Irish government reported that Coll. Hib., iv, 62. Ibid., p. 73. 15 Cal. S.P. dom., 250. s p.i6gy 16 Lords' jn. Ire., i, 599-600.

13 14

240

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

it was transmitted ' with some small change in the title as an act of banishing all papists exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the papist clergy \ 1 7 This was much more far-reaching and was calculated to affect the future existence of the church in Ireland much more drastically than a law confined to the suppression of houses and the expulsion of regulars. It is curious that the decision to expel bishops and other authorities should apparently have been taken in such a casual way, as a by-product of Irish parliamentary dislike for an irrelevant accretion to the original bill. James Vernon, the under-secretary in England, did not like the procedure, which he referred to as a ' new way introduced of mending bills by a side wind ', though he admitted that the Irish government had been given its opportunity by the mistake of the English privy council in inserting the guilds and chantries clause.18 It seems clear that the change in the title represented a change in the substance of the bill, which had up to this time been opposed by catholics on the ground that it provided for action against the regular clergy, and on that ground alone. Even before the introduction of the original bill in the Irish house of lords catholics had become aware of its imminence, and efforts were made to get William's catholic allies to intervene. Hoffmann, the emperor's agent in London, reported that the bill directly affected religion and that he had therefore protested about it, but had been told by the duke of Shrewsbury, the secretary of state concerned, that nothing could be done.19 The Irish government had also proposed that a bill should be drafted for encouraging the education of children in the protestant religion.20 Although this did not get beyond the proposal stage, word of it got out and similar efforts were made for intervention against it by the catholic powers. The internuncio in Brussels asked Count Auersperg, the imperial envoy to William, to block any measure to educate catholic children as protestants. The Cal. S.P. dom., i6gj, pp 283-4. The bill seems to have been extensively redrafted. Apart from its extension to church dignitaries, the new title omitted the reference to the suppression of friaries etc., and the act made no substantive provision for such suppression, though there are two consequential references, one to burial in a suppressed monastery and the other to the powers of magistrates to issue warrants for suppression. 18 Vernon to Shrewsbury, 7 Sept. 1697 <(G. P. R. James, Letters illustrative of the reign of William III, i, 345-6). 19 Hoffmann's report of 20/30 July 1697, cited in Klopp, vii, 470. 20 Cal. S.P. dom., 1697, pp 197-8. 17

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 241 internuncio had heard about the proposal from the Spanish ambassador and was asking both the latter and Count Auersperg to investigate this and also the report that the Irish parliament proposed to banish the regulars. The internuncio added that the Spanish ambassador would raise these matters at the peace congress, which was already meeting at Ryswick: he would speak to the ambassadors of the other allies on the point as well as to the French envoy, so that there should be general agreement to secure liberty for Irish catholics.21 The idea of using the peace congress to secure better conditions for catholics had already been put up to the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda by the bishop of Elphin, who urged that the catholic powers should instruct their delegates to intervene on behalf of the loyal, faithful and oppressed inhabitants of Ireland.22 Count Auersperg made representations to William's secretary Blathwayt—who was in Holland with William—but with very little effect. Blathwayt fobbed him off with the following letter, dated 16 September 1697, N.S. : ' I have represented to the king the contents of the letter you did me the honour to write about the acts that are to pass through the Irish parliament. As you know, his majesty is always mindful of all that his imperial majesty may wish of him. I am ordered to let you know that the act about the regular priests contains nothing new and is merely what has always been wished for by the secular clergy of the Roman Catholic church so that they may practise their religion in as peaceful a manner as possible, and his majesty has no desire that it should be altered '. Blathwayt added that William knew nothing of the act for the education of catholic children as protestants, but to satisfy the emperor Blathwayt had written to England conveying orders that no such act was to be considered without first telling William, who would not permit anything to become law in Ireland which might be objected to by his allies.23 It seems clear from this that Count Auersperg supposed that the banishment bill affected only regulars and had no idea that it extended to bishops and others in authority. At the time Blathwayt wrote his letter the bill with its new title ' An act for banishing all papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the popish clergy . . .' was well on its way through the Irish parliament. It had its first reading in the house of lords on 30 August, had its 21 22 23

Coll. Hib., iv, 56-7.

Moran, Spicil. Ossor., ii, 325. Ibid., ii, 322; Coll. Hib., iv, 60.

242

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

third reading, nem. con., in that house on 3 September; it was then sent to the commons, which gave it its third reading on 10 September, the day on which the treaty of Ryswick was signed. It and other bills received the royal assent on 25 September.24 It raised no discussion in Ireland, and its peaceful passage through parliament was in contrast to that of the bill for the ratification of the treaty of Limerick, which was the subject of protest by Bishop King and others on the ground that the title was a fraud and that not a single article had been ratified in full.25 Count Auersperg sent a copy of Blathwayt's letter to the internuncio. He hoped there would be no further talk of the education bill. However, he did not see how he could stop the banishment bill, since the secular clergy had asked for it. He thought it a scandal that those who should be solely concerned with the flock which God had entrusted to them should be fighting among themselves. Auersperg was inclined to think that the secular clergy did wish to have the regulars banished, but he promised to do what he could to see that if the act was passed it should not be rigorously enforced. His master, the emperor, had instructed him to help the Irish catholics as much as possible, and he had no doubt that the expulsion of the regulars would be a cause of grief to many.26 The internuncio viewed the position with comparative equanimity. He was pleased to note that the project for educating catholic children as protestants was being held up by William: that project was the most deadly so far aimed at the catholic religion and Auersperg had done well to make his immediate and effective protest. The banishment bill did not appear to present so obvious a threat to the catholic religion, but the internuncio thought that it would be advisable for Auersperg to continue to protest against it. The removal of the religious would be playing into the hands of the heretics, who were afraid of taking violent measures against the church, but tried instead to undermine the edifice by displacing the stones which kept the building firm and entire: the regular clergy were the headstones, united and bound together; secular clergy were not so closely bound and could be more easily torn apart; the heretics, to conceal their evil designs, alleged that the secular clergy were petitioning for the removal of the regulars; even if they did so—which was improbable—the Lords' jn. Ire., i, 616, 620, 638; Commons' jn. Ire., ii, 193. The dates are old style. 25 Lords' jn. Ire., i, 633-7. 26 Coll. Hib.,iv, 61. 24

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697

243

seculars could not be allowed to ruin the church for the benefit of their own whims and interests; Auersperg was to do all he could to block any innovation whatever in religious matters in Ireland. The letter, which was written in Brussels on 29 September 1697, N.S., indicates that the internuncio also was under the impression that the question was confined to the banishment of regulars.27 But from the letter of an Irish priest in Brussels dated 21 September 1697, N.S., it appears that there was already information that the bill extended to the bishops: It is clear that Mr Secretary Blathwayt's remark in his letter that the act concerning regular priests contains nothing new is only an unjust excuse made in bad faith. . . . If this act is considered in its full scope we will find that soon there will be no priests in the kingdom. The act specifically says that all the bishops, all the seminary priests and the ecclesiastical dignitaries as well as all the regulars will be perpetually banished under pain of death . . . and as all the bishops will be perpetually banished . . . there will be no more ordinations, and where there are no ordinations there will be no more succession of priests, and by an infallible rule there will be no more priests to administer the holy sacraments nor to assist the faithful in this poor kingdom. It is therefore just that the king should ensure that the act is not passed into law, as the banishment of the regulars is against the first and ninth articles of the capitulation of Limerick.28 The passage of the bill through the Irish parliament for the expulsion of ecclesiastical authorities as well as of regulars was the subject of further representations to Hoffmann, the emperor's resident in London. He protested strongly to the department in Whitehall, as both secretaries of state were away. He got a discouraging reply, which confined its terms to the regulars and argued that they did not deserve the emperor's intercession : a Benedictine called Harrison, who was suspected of being concerned in the plot to assassinate William and had a price of £1,000 on his head, had been made general of the order—he had in fact been made prior of the English house of Benedictines in Paris. Hoffmann reported to Vienna that there were about a thousand regulars in Ireland and between 4,000 and 5,000 secular priests. He Coll. Hib., iv, 59-60. Moran, Spicil. Ossor., ii, 322-3. The act makes no reference to seminary priests. It is not clear how the ninth article (which provided that the only oath to be taken by catholics should be the oath of allegiance) was involved. 27

28

244

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

had been assured that the act affected only the regulars who were a burden on the people, and that the seculars themselves wanted the regulars to be removed. However this was contradicted by the following statement which he had received from the secular clergy : The secular priests of the Roman Catholic church of the kingdom of Ireland, being advised 'that his Britannic majesty has been informed that the act which is to be passed in the Irish parliament to the prejudice of the priests of the Roman communion does not affect the secular clergy but only the regulars of the said kingdom, accordingly represent with great humility to Mr Hoffmann, resident of his imperial majesty, that the said act concerns and affects the said secular priests just as much as the regulars. For it is stated in this act that no bishop, dean, dignitary or priest educated in any seminary (who have always been the mainstay of the catholic religion) will be able to stay in Ireland after a certain time limited by the said act under pain of treason and will not be able to return under pain of high treason. And after the death of the secular priests who have parishes or are charged with cure of souls it will not be permitted to put others in their places, which will bring about the ruin of the Roman Catholic religion. There were at all times in Ireland bishops, vicars general and other dignitaries whom this act is now designed to exclude. And inasmuch as his majesty has been informed that the secular clergy have wished and do wish the banishment of the regular clergy the said secular clergy declare that they have never desired that the said regular clergy should be excluded from the said kingdom.20 Hoffman hurried from one official to another. They shrugged their shoulders and said the decision was for the king. Sunderland, the lord chamberlain, argued that penal laws were never strictly enforced, or rather that they were not enforced at all. Hoffmann had already informed Count Auersperg, who was at the Hague, of the real state of affairs. Auersperg took the matter up, recalling the promises that William had made at the beginning of his reign and also drawing attention to the treaty of Limerick. Blathwayt's reply again took the stand that only the regulars were adversely affected : ' the banishment of the regular priests will relieve the seculars. The former were all agents of France and will work only for our common enemies. I cannot imagine that the succession of secular priests will be forbidden. Ill-informed people have told you otherwise'. Auersperg then tried an approach to Bentinck, who had just brought off the successful negotiations with France. He asked Bentinck to consider the bad effect that assent to the banishment bill would have on the emperor 29

Klopp,vii,471-2,512.Klopp,vii,471-2,512.

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697 245 and on the other catholic powers. He alluded to William's undertaking to the emperor at the beginning of the alliance and to his promises to the unfortunate Irish. Bentinck replied that the expulsion of the regulars would not harm the catholic religion, quite the contrary. Auersperg pointed out that two years previously—in 1695 —the emperor's intervention had proved effective and he hoped that this would be the case again. Bentinck rejoined: ' if you knew these regulars better you would not intercede for them'. Auersperg answered that the bill was not confined to the regulars but included all persons exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction : ' you know enough of our religion to understand that where we do not have bishops we can no longer have priests'. Bentinck countered by saying that some bishops could be allowed to travel to Ireland to ordain priests. Auersperg realised that nothing further could be done.30 The bill, in fact, had already received the royal assent. Why did William depart from his previous policy of avoiding interference with the catholic religion and of trying to meet the wishes of his ally the emperor ? Bellesheim, the author of the only large-scale history of the catholic church in Ireland so far published, quotes Klopp, the German historian of the Jacobite movement, as relating the change in William's attitude to his anger at the arrangement made between the French and imperial delegates at Ryswick, and in particular at the fourth article of the second Ryswick treaty, that between France and the emperor, which provided that there should be a return to the status quo ante helium with the significant exception that the recent gains by the catholic church were to be retained. This anger is said to have brought out the Calvinist in William. There were [said Klopp] circumstances in which William succumbed to strange deceitfulness and to the prejudices of his upbringing. Particularly was this so in connection with the treaty of Ryswick. The French ambassadors had with sly calculation at the eleventh hour brought the notorious clause into the fourth article. Among the noncatholic ambassadors the rumours spread, not without the aid of those Frenchmen, that this had been done with the foreknowledge and approval of the emperor. So there was general excitement, in which for some days William III also took part. The victory of French cunning, which reckoned on the prejudices of the protestants, was at least for some days complete. But the consequences of this victory extended even further than French cunning had itself planned. They recoiled heavily on a wholly unfortunate nation. For during this time that William III 30

Klopp, vii, 472-4.

246

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

was exasperated against everything catholic there reached him at the Hague the particularly hateful decisions of the Irish parliament of 1697 against the catholics. The imperial envoys, Auersperg and Hoffmann, had for weeks strained every nerve with the English ministers and had implored and warned them to consider that these unholy decisions had not the king's sanction. They found in the whole body not a voice in favour of the catholics of Ireland. And the great king himself, in his exasperation over the alleged injustice of which the French ambassadors at Ryswick were guilty, descended to the point of view of an ordinary Englishman of the time. William sanctioned the decisions of the protestant parliament of Ireland.31 The association that Klopp traced between the sanction given to the banishment bill and William's anger at the terms of the treaty between Louis and the emperor is not sustainable. The royal assent was given to the bill on 25 September, o.s. (i.e. 5 October, N.S.). The treaty between Louis and the emperor was signed on 30 October, N.S., and William's reaction was expressed on the following day. He was disturbed at the prospect of a new line-up in Europe and wrote to Heinsius, the Dutch pensionary: ' I have always apprehended a religious war, fearing lest France and Austria should have a secret understanding, which is at present but too manifest \ 32 Although, however, this took place too late to affect the banishment act, it is true that relations between William and the emperor were much cooler in the summer of 1697 than they had been in 1695. This was partly because the war which cemented the interdenominational alliance was coming to an end. It was also due to the impatience that William felt at the emperor's demands and the consequent delay in the making of peace, which eventually led to William's decision to sign the treaty without his imperial ally. William's entourage could thus count on their master's indifference to representations from imperial envoys, and there is no evidence that William himself gave serious attention to the problem. Ireland had long ceased to interest him otherwise than as a source of broad acres to bestow on friends and supporters. At the end of October the duke of Bavaria, who was on a visit to William, tried to raise the question of the Irish catholics, but he found him evasive : ' I have ', said William, ' to fall in with the wishes of the Irish parliament which is well aware of the turbulent spirit of the regular clergy and has to take measures for the preservation of peace \ 3S 31 32 33

A. Bellesheim, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Irla?id, iii, 23-4. P. Grimblot, Letters of William III and Louis XIV, i, 130. Coll. Hib., iv, 62.

The Bishops' Banishment Act of 1697

247

The question of withholding royal assent after the bill had gone through the houses of the Irish parliament never arose. During William's absence in Holland the day-to-day administration in England was carried on by lords justices, who referred only points of particular importance to William in Holland. Before William had left England in the spring he had approved the banishment bill in its original form when the title referred only to the suppression of monasteries and the banishment of regulars.34 There is nothing to indicate that it was referred to him again when it took on a new title, and the date on which the amended version was returned to Ireland allowed no time for a reference to Holland. The commission for the royal assent was signed a few days later, on 17 August, by the lords justices a considerable time before the bill was reintroduced in parliament.35 Count Auersperg's handling of the case proved ineffective. He remained too long under the impression that only regulars were to be banished, and he undermined his position by his readiness to concede the force of the argument that seculars would not be unduly worried by the removal of competitors. When he did take up the question of ecclesiastical dignitaries with Bentinck and point out the crippling effect that the want of bishops would have on the church it was too late. The bill was already law. To implement the act a census was taken of the catholic clergy in each county, city and town, distinguishing regulars from seculars. For this it was possible to use the administrative machinery set up in connection with a recently imposed poll tax, which levied a particular rate on persons in Romish orders. The total number of catholic clergy so returned was 872 seculars and 495 regulars, making a total of I 53^7'86 The only return that has survived is that for the diocese of Dublin. It shows that some attempt was made to distinguish priests exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is noted that Edmund Murphy, parish priest of St Andrew's, was supposed vicar-general, and that Russell, parish priest of St John's, was titular dean of St Patrick's; 34

H.M.C., Buccleuch MSS, ii, 485. Cal. S.P. dom., i6gy, p. 314. 86 W. P. Burke, Irish priests in penal times, pp 120-8; 9 Will. Ill, c. 8, sect. 4. The figures are taken from Royal Society, Phil, transactions, xxii, 521-2, which give area figures as well as totals. Burke's figure for seculars is 892, which is also given by L. F. Renehan, Collections on Irish church history, i, 84. 35

248

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Dr Cruse, titular archdeacon of Dublin, was said to be living in county Kildare.87 From the beginning of 1698 arrangements were put in hand for transporting the clergy affected by the act, and a large number of regulars were given government passages to the continent. The figures were communicated to the Royal Society as an interesting piece of statistics: 153 regulars transported at government cost from Dublin, 170 from Galway, 75 from Cork and 26 from Waterford, making a total of 424.38 The number of regulars who left Ireland appears to have been greater than that shown in the official census. Mary of Modena observed that about 700 had left, of whom about 400 were in France and the rest in other catholic countries.89 Their financial plight was deplorable and there are many references to their needs. There were only eight bishops in the country when the act was passed. Ossory and Kildare left of their own accord. Only one of the remaining six was arrested in 1698, Sleyne of Cork. The rest remained in hiding, though some of them were arrested in later years and there was a continuing effort on the part of the government to round up missing bishops.40 Archbishop Comerford of Cashel wrote a melancholy letter to the pope in August 1698 describing the effect of the banishment act. He says, however, that ' nevertheless some of our brethren have remained in cellars and cisterns, in mountains and caves'. He himself is ' sustained by the bread of tribulation and the water of scarcity but, thanks be to God, he has not laid down his office, but performs it and will do so while life lasts \ 4 1 He kept his word and, sheltered by the Mathew family, remained at large until his death in 1710.42 The banishment of the regulars was much more effectively implemented than the banishment of the bishops and other clergy exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In fact, nothing of consequence seems to have happened to secular dignitaries other than bishops. The modification of the banishment bill to extend it beyond to regulars to bishops and other dignitaries seems to have been an attempt 37

Marsh's Library, MS Z 3, 1, 19 (1). Royal Soc. Phil, trans., xxii, 522. Burke, p. 132, quotes this source, but appears to have made a mistake in giving 190 as the Galway figure; he gives 424 as the total transported, p. 144. Renehan, p. 84, also gives 190 for the Galway figure. 89 Burke, p. 132. 40 M. Wall, Penal laws, pp 13-14. 41 Moran, Spicil. Ossor., ii, 345-6. 42 Wall, p. 15. 38

The Bishops'Banishment Act of 1697 249

249

by officials to cripple the catholic church without attracting the attention of William and his allies to the potentialities of the measure. What some protestants hoped for is summed up in the impressions of an English visitor to Dublin : Our red-lettered gentlemen were never under such circumstances here as now. For their bishops and regular clergy are banished by act of parliament, which makes it death to find any of them returned again. So that now they are wholly depending on the seculars, and every parish is allowed its priest; but when he dies, there being none to ordain a new one, it must remain without; and this will be the state of the whole kingdom in a little time when the present set of priests shall be extinct.43 It was a plausible forecast, but it was not to be realised.

43

John Dunton, Conversation in Ireland, pp 556-7.

This page intentionally left blank

19 THE CASE OF IRELAND STATED AFTER

the

defeat

of

the

Catholic

Jacobites

by

the

Protestant

Williamites in the war that ended with the Treaty of Limerick in 1691, a new phase opened in the Irish parliamentary tradition. The series of parliaments that came after the war represented what has been called 'the Protestant nation', in contrast to the Catholic nation that was the predominant element in the Patriot Parliament of 1689. But the Protestant parliaments were faced with the same problems—Poynings' Law and the application of English acts of parliament to Ireland. Poynings' Law gave final drafting power to the executive in England, the king's ministers and the rest of his Privy Council; it did not concern the English parliament. That parliament was at the heart of the second problem, the growing practice of passing laws in England for the regulation of Irish affairs. There were Protestants who reacted to both these situations in exactly the same way as the Catholics of the Patriot Parliament had done, though for a long time Protestants discreetly ignored the parallel; it would have been distasteful and imprudent to acknowledge the support of Catholic Jacobites in the effort to win constitutional rights for a Protestant parliament. These two problems continued to be a cause of occasional friction for the next ninety years, until the inauguration of 'Grattan's Parliament'. To begin with, the English executive appeared to Protestants to represent more of a threat than the English parliament. In the war against France, which went on for several years after the war in Ireland had finished, William III had Catholic allies, the Holy Roman Emperor and others, who pressed him to give fair treatment to Catholics in Ireland and, in particular, to observe the Treaty of Limerick. In that treaty King William had undertaken to do his best to get the terms ratified by the Irish parliament and to recommend to that parliament that

252

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Catholics should be given such further security as 'may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion'. Protestants, who had felt themselves humiliated and harried during the Jacobite regime and whose estates had been the subject of confiscatory legislation, were in no mood for granting concessions to Catholics and did not relish the prospect of ratifying the Treaty of Limerick, to say nothing of giving additional security to Catholics. In comparison with what was regarded as the pro-Catholic policy of the English executive, one act of the English parliament was reassuring to Irish Protestants. Within a few weeks of the Treaty of Limerick that parliament had passed a law appointing new oaths for Ireland and requiring members of both Houses, the Commons and the Lords, to take an oath and make a declaration that no Catholic could possibly agree to. The declaration, which already applied to the English parliament and continued to do so until 1829, was particularly offensive : it repudiated transubstantiation and referred to the invocation of the Virgin and the celebration of the Mass as idolatrous and superstitious. For the first time there was a law —and it was an English law—that effectively barred Catholics from either House of the Irish parliament. It remained an integral part of the constitution of that parliament until the Act of Union of 1800.1 The first of the Protestant parliaments met in the autumn of 1692. The great majority of the 300 members of the House of Commons were landowners. As men of property they naturally agreed with John Locke's opinion that the preservation of property is the end of government. Their estates had been acquired in a series of confiscations from Catholics, and their chief aim was to ward off any possibility of a Catholic attempt to get them back. They were a minority in a countryside that, apart from Ulster, was overwhelmingly Catholic. They were afraid of the hazards to which the European war might expose them, and above all they were haunted by the spectre of a Stuart restoration. They wanted security and they thought that it was to be found in the suppression of Catholics in general and Catholic gentry in particular. They were disturbed by what they considered the partiality of the government towards Catholics and by the quantity of land already given back to

Th

e

Case

of

Ireland

Stated

253

former owners under the Treaty of Limerick and special pardons. They expected the Treaty of Limerick to be put before parliament for ratification and they were in no mood to agree. Their feeling of insecurity and the bitterness engendered by civil war made them aggressive and intolerant. The Parliament of 1692, after a short and stormy session, broke up without ever considering the Treaty of Limerick. The immediate point of contention was Poynings' Law; this was exemplified in the disputed right of the executive to draft a money-bill without previously consulting the Irish House of Commons. Most of the government's income was on a permanent basis, but the balance had to be found from additional taxes levied by passing supplemental money-bills from time to time. The government took the view that by Poynings' Law it was entitled to draw up money-bills, or any other bills, without prior consultation and that the Irish parliament must either accept or reject them; it had no right to make amendments or suggestions. The question was one of principle; in the eyes of the English government Ireland was a dependent kingdom. So two money-bills were sent over from London to open the parliamentary session. The Irish House of Commons took exception to this procedure and resolved that they had the sole right to propose heads of money-bills, that is, the right to choose the ways in which they were to be taxed. The sanction that they possessed was the power of the purse. They were ready to contribute to the expenses of government if they were allowed to choose the means of raising money and if attention was paid to their grievances. They passed under protest a beer-duty bill, but they rejected the government bill for a tax on corn 'because it had not its rise in this house'. They also rejected a militia bill and a mutiny bill, and they began a detailed inquiry into government mismanagement. They set up a highly organised system of committees to investigate the details of finance and administration. Strong words were used about the corruption and incompetence of government officials. The Lord Lieutenant, Lord Sydney, reported to Whitehall that the House of Commons were like a company of madmen: 'They talk of freeing themselves from the yoke of England, of taking away Poynings' Law . . . and twenty other extravagant discourses have been

254

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

amongst them.'2 Less than a month after the session had begun he brought it to an end with a rebuke: their resolutions, he said, were contrary to Poynings' Law and encroached on the rights of the Crown of England. It was an extraordinary end to a parliament of Protestant colonists who had just been delivered by the King of England from the loss of their property and their privileged position. The rejection of the money-bill of 1692 was long remembered and quoted in later conflicts between parliament and the executive. The tough line adopted by the Irish Commons in 1692 made the governments of William III and Anne extremely wary in their handling of later Irish parliaments. The government's right to send over a money-bill was preserved by the token repetition of the beer-duty bill after each general election. Otherwise the Commons was allowed to choose its own method of taxation. Its control over the executive was fortified with a resolution that no money should be voted until the Committee of Public Accounts had scrutinised the revenue and expenditure, and the executive was made accountable for every part of the administration. The Commons was also able to turn the government away from its original policy of conciliating Catholics. The formidable accumulation of penal laws passed from 1695 onwards was the price paid to Protestant politicians for their agreement to vote the necessary taxation. The Treaty of Limerick was not brought forward again until 1697, and was then ratified in so mutilated a form as to be hardly recognisable. The guarantee for the practice of religion on which Catholics had pinned their hopes was not ratified at all. At the same time, the attempts made by Whig administrations in England to secure religious toleration for Protestant Dissenters in Ireland were regularly frustrated at this period. Relations between the Church of Ireland and the Scots Presbyterians in Ulster were very strained, and a majority in the Irish parliament, and in particular in the House of Lords, where the bishops were a large element, were determined to make no concessions to what was regarded as a threat to the Established Church. Such party politics as there were turned on this question of toleration for Presbyterians. Whigs were for it; Tories, or the 'Church Party', were against it.

The Case of Ireland Stated 255 While the Irish parliament at this period showed itself a match for the executive, it had a formidable challenge to meet from the English parliament. This took two forms: English legislation, and judgements on appeal in the English House of Lords overruling the Irish House of Lords. Both forms developed in the course of William Ill's reign and provided the occasion for a celebrated book with the title The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated. Its author was William Molyneux, who had since 1692 represented Dublin University in the Irish parliament. He belonged to a family that had been prominent in Irish affairs since the sixteenth century. He was an attractive and talented man, of considerable standing in the world of science, a founder of the Dublin Philosophical Society, a member of the Royal Society of London, and the author of several books. He had an admiration for John Locke, the philosopher, and they often corresponded. He had a particular regard for Locke's Two Treatises of Government, which taught that there was a compact between ruler and ruled and that government should be by consent of the governed. Locke, as a member of the English Board of Trade, was concerned about a campaign by English cloth-merchants to stop the growing export of Irish woollens to foreign countries. Bills for this purpose were introduced into the English Commons in 1697. Locke, who had corresponded on the subject with Molyneux, hoped that the Irish parliament would itself put a brake on woollen exports and encourage the linen trade, but it became clear that this would not satisfy the English merchants and that there was a threat of English legislation.3 At the same time there was a clash of appellate jurisdiction between the English and Irish Houses of Lords in a suit between the Bishop of Derry and the London companies who formed the Irish Society. These two situations were the background for Molyneux's book, which he wrote early in 1698. It had two themes: (1) the historical status of the Irish parliament; (2) representational government as a human right. For the first theme he could draw on the researches of his father-in-law, Sir William Domville, who had been Attorney-General of Ireland and had collected a number of legal precedents from medieval times to show that the Irish parliament was the sole instrument for passing statute

256

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

law applicable to Ireland. Among the documents in Domville's possession was the medieval treatise on Irish parliamentary procedure, Modus Tenendi Parliamenta in Hibernia. This had been published in 1692 by Molyneux's brother-in-law, Anthony Dopping, Bishop of Meath, a fact which suggests that there was an interest in the Irish parliament as an ancient institution and that the Protestant colonists regarded themselves as heirs of an earlier tradition. For the wider theme, the rights of man, Molyneux drew heavily on Locke's ideas and incorporated several verbatim (and unacknowledged) quotations from Locke in his own book. At the outset he argued that the cause of Ireland, which he called 'my own poor country', was also the cause of mankind in general. To find a basis for deciding the relationship between England and Ireland Molyneux went back to the Norman Conquest. He maintained that Ireland was not conquered by Henry II in any sense that would give the English parliament jurisdiction over it. On the contrary, the Irish kings had voluntarily submitted and in return Henry had made a compact with the Irish people that they should enjoy the same liberties as the people of England. In the seventeenth-century manner Molyneux takes us down the ages with a wealth of precedents to show that the English parliament never legislated for Ireland until 1641, except in isolated circumstances when representatives from Ireland were brought over to take part in the proceedings. He goes on to say that in recent years there had been a number of occasions on which the English parliament, in which Irishmen were not represented, had passed laws for Ireland. He was 'sorry to reflect that . . . when the subjects of England have more strenuously than ever asserted their own rights and the liberty of parliaments it has pleased them to bear harder on their poor neighbours'.4 Molyneux argued that a large part of the people of Ireland were descendants of those who had assisted Henry II and later kings to conquer Ireland. But his reference to the Irish kings shows that he was taking his stand as a citizen of Ireland and not merely as an Englishman who had brought his civic rights across the sea with him. He does not specifically exclude Catholics from the rights of citizenship. But his references to them are coloured by the recent

Th e Case of Ireland Sta ted

257

struggle between Jacobites and Williamites. He refers with approval to the English act of 1691 that imposed on members of the Irish parliament the requirement of making a declaration against Catholic doctrines. He regarded it as a law 'highly in our favour', and argued that voluntary compliance with this English law did not give the English parliament the right to bind Ireland with other less favourable laws. Molyneux took his argument on to a wider plane when he declared : 'That Ireland should be bound by acts of parliament made in England is against reason and the common rights of all mankind.' All men, he said, were by nature in a state of equality and so had the right to be freed from laws to which they had not consented. Legislation without consent would naturally lead to taxation without consent: 'To tax me without consent is little better, if at all, than downright robbing me.' His argument was based on the right to enjoy representation in the legislature and he claimed that if the parliament of England could bind Ireland, the people of Ireland ought to have their representatives in it: "This, I believe, we should be willing enough to embrace, but this is an happiness we can hardly hope for.'5 English politicians had no intention of admitting Ireland to the privilege of a union with them. A practical point was made of the uncertainty and.confusion created for the Irish citizen by the existence of two parallel parliaments, each claiming to legislate and adjudicate for Ireland. This conflict was particularly troublesome in the case of appeals to the House of Lords, and Molyneux argued that the English House had no jurisdiction in Irish cases. The Bishop of Derry's case produced an open rift between the two Houses of Lords. It was followed by other cases of the kind, one of which was to bring about the English Declaratory Act of 1720 —the 'Sixth of George I'—which flatly contradicted Molyneux's contention. In the closing passage of his book Molyneux referred to the Irish system of representative government as 'this noble gothic constitution'—an epithet based on the notion of a golden age of Saxon democracy—and he pleaded for its preservation in an era of absolutism. Reaction in England to Molyneux's book was uniformly hostile. A shower of pamphlets expressed opposition to it: An

25 8

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Answer to Mr. Molyneux; A Vindication of the Parliament of England; The History and Reasons of the Dependency of Ireland. A committee of the English Commons examined the book in detail and reported the more objectionable passages to the House, which resolved nem. con. that the book was of dangerous consequence to the crown and people of England by denying the authority of the king and parliament of England to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland and the subordination and dependence that Ireland hath, and ought to have, upon England, as being united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm.6 The reasoning inferred that the authority of the imperial Crown of England was to be exercised through the imperial parliament. The usual ritual of ordering the book to be burned by the common hangman was for some reason not included in the resolution, though it is often said that the book was burned. The Commons addressed the King on the danger of the book and made the point that Molyneux was not speaking for himself alone, that his 'bold and pernicious assertions' were in line with the general attitude of the Irish House of Commons. The King was asked to punish those who had been guilty of such conduct and to discourage anything that might lessen the dependence of Ireland upon England. William confined himself to ordering the Irish government to prevent anything of the sort occurring in future. Molyneux had raised a constitutional storm, and it is clear that politically conscious people in Ireland were afraid of the consequences of this rash challenge to the English parliament. Their fears were justified, as in the following year (1699) the English parliament passed the law preventing the export of Irish woollens to foreign parts, and what appeared to be a promising export trade was killed by the most celebrated instance of Ireland's being bound by English laws. But by that time poor Molyneux was dead, a victim at the age of forty-two to an incurable kidney disease. His book became the classic statement of the rights of the Irish parliament, and it reached its tenth edition in 1782, the year in which the English parliament at last yielded to Molyneux's contention.7 A modern historian has made a study of Molyneux as one of

The Case of Ireland Stated 259 a group of what she has called 'commonwealthmen', a band of radical thinkers, influenced by Locke, believing in natural rights, freedom of thought and expression, and government by consent. Molyneux is seen as a link in the chain that leads to the American revolution.8 Another link in that chain was Robert Molesworth, Molyneux's contemporary and fellow member of parliament, who sat for the county of Dublin. Molesworth had won international notoriety for his attack on the absolutist military regime in Denmark. He shared Molyneux's admiration for the so-called gothic constitution, the legislature consisting of King, Lords and Commons working together, and the executive accountable to the whole body of the people.9 Towards the end of William's reign the English House of Commons asserted itself against the king by taking complete control of the estates confiscated from Irish Catholics, with scant regard for the vested interests that Protestants had acquired in them. This rivalled the killing of the export trade in woollens as a factor in building up the resentment felt by Protestants in Ireland over the domineering attitude of the English parliament. In the first of Anne's Irish parliaments the House of Commons complained to the Queen about the distressed condition of the country and the way in which the constitution 'hath of late been greatly shaken'. The Queen was asked either to restore her Irish subjects to a full enjoyment of their constitution or else to grant them 'a more firm and strict union' with her English subjects.10 This suggests that the primary demand was for freedom from interference with the rights of the Irish parliament; if that failed, union was asked for as a second-best. The Queen's reply was chilly and gave no hope that either request would be granted. On other occasions, stimulated by the negotiations for union between England and Scotland, emphasis was laid on union for its own sake: the surrender of an independent Irish parliament in favour of representation within a wider and more powerful imperial parliament. The Irish Commons, congratulating the Queen on the Scottish union, inserted in their address the prayer that God might 'put it in your royal heart to add greater strength and lustre to your crown by a yet more comprehensive union'.11 But the English government did not consider that Ireland presented

260

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

the problem that had made the Scottish union necessary, and there was no move on its part to extend the union to Ireland. When the Irish House of Lords continued to press the point and to hope that the Queen 'will perfect this great work by bringing her kingdom of Ireland also into the union' the Lord Lieutenant replied that he had no directions from Her Majesty to say anything on the subject.12 Swift contrasted the treatment given to Scotland with that given to Ireland in an allegory which he wrote, but did not publish, at this time—The Story of the Injured Lady, Being a True Picture of Scotch Perfidy, Irish Poverty, and English Partiality. Ireland is the lady, ruined and cast off by a gentleman (who is England) in favour of a rival—an unattractive female 'with bad features and a worse complexion', inferior to the injured lady in appearance and fidelity.13 It was for long to be a grievance with Irish politicians and publicists that laws affecting Ireland should be passed by a parliament in which there was no Irish representation. But to what extent was the Irish parliament itself representative of those for whom it legislated ? and in particular could it be said to represent Catholics, who were not able to sit in it? But although from 1692 Catholics could not be members they still for some years had the vote, which was not finally taken from them until 1728. In the counties all forty-shilling freeholders had the franchise, and during William's reign a good many Catholics were therefore entitled to it. In some boroughs the vote was given to freemen, who might include Catholics, and in a few to residents. Catholics used their votes to show preference for one Protestant candidate over another, and defeated candidates often complained about this. In 1704 voters were required to take the Oath of Abjuration, that is, to swear that Anne and not James Stuart was the rightful sovereign. It was against the principles of many Catholics to do so, but some did and were therefore allowed to vote 'as amply and fully as any Protestant'. In 1709 it was proposed to take away the vote from Catholics, but a majority of the Commons took the surprisingly liberal view that it was unreasonable for them to be bound by laws not made by their representatives; it was pointed out that the same reasoning applied as in the case of objections to Ireland being 'cramped by English acts of parliament'.14

The Case of Ireland Stated 261 The force of this logic seems to have weakened by 1728, when Catholics as such were deprived of the vote. The Irish parliaments of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries had a strong sense of the rights of citi2ens and the traditions of representative government, but these privileges were primarily claimed on behalf of the "Protestant nation', and there was a diminishing regard for the claims of Catholics to share in them. Notes 1. 3 William and Mary, c. 2 (Eng.). 2. Cat. SP Dom., 1695: Addenda, 213. 3. H. F. Kearney, 'The Political Background to English Mercantilism, 1695-1700', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser. XI (1959). 4. Molyneux, Case, Dublin 1698, 105. 5. Ibid., 97-8. 6. Commons' Jn. (Eng.), XII, 331. 7. E. R. McC. Dix, 'List of Editions of Molyneux's Case', Irish Booklover V (1914), 116-18. 8. C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonivealthman, Cambridge, Mass. 1959, 137-43. 9. Ibid., 88-102; B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 1967 Cambridge, Mass., 71-3. 10. Commons' Jn. (Ire.) (1798), II, 342. 11. Ibid., 494. 12. Lords' Jn. (Ire.), II, 247-8. 13. Swift, Works, ed. H. Davis, IX, 1-12. 14. See above, chapter 17, pp. 225-34; W. Graham, ed., Letters of Joseph Addison, Oxford 1941, 151.

This page intentionally left blank

20 THE MAKING OF A PENAL LAW (2 ANNE, c. 6), 1703-4 he act of 1704 'to prevent the further growth of popery' was, in Lecky's words, the most notorious of the penal laws. It was also the most comprehensive. It covered changes of religion, the purchase and inheritance of land, education, guardianship, employment, voting and pilgrimages. It was from the first regarded as an important and highly controversial measure. There was a great deal of argument about it, and its form changed remarkably during the protracted proceedings that took place before it passed into law. Catholics opposed it strenuously at various points in the legislative process. The introduction, at a late stage, of the sacramental test hit dissenters and produced further controversy. There were a number of unusual features in the treatment of the bill which repay investigation of the considerable volume of material relating to it. There are also gaps in the evidence which make it difficult to be certain about such questions as the attitude of the English government of the day to penal legislation in Ireland. It is particularly hard to determine why, and by whom, the sacramental test was introduced into the bill.1 Early in 1703 the Irish lords justices sent over to England their proposals for the next parliamentary programme. They included a bill ' for preventing protestants from turning papists and for any estate of protestants to descend or come to any papist and to prevent papists from disinheriting protestants '. Proposals for legislation of this kind had been considered by the Irish commons in 1697 and 1698, but there had been no session of the Irish parliament since 1698 and no further steps had been taken. The lords justices

T

1

The chief primary sources for the history of the bill are the correspondence between the English and Irish governments (calendared in Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4), Commons' jn. Ire., and two manuscripts from the Southwell collection, B.M., Add. MSS 9715, 37,673. Of secondary accounts the fullest is to be found in Froude, The English in Ireland, i. 329-33, 340-53. The question of the test is discussed in considerable detail in Beckett, Protestant dissent in Ireland, pp. 43-52.

264

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

suggested to the secretary of state, the earl of Nottingham, that the bill would be more acceptable to an Irish parliament if it went further and prevented catholics from buying or inheriting freehold property.2 No reply to this letter is forthcoming, but shortly after its receipt Nottingham sent for Sir Richard Cox, an Irish judge who soon afterwards became lord chancellor: the queen was considering many Irish matters on which he might be useful.3 Ormonde was then appointed lord lieutenant and ordered to transmit some bills as the. necessary preliminary to the summoning of parliament. As soon as he reached Ireland he appointed a committee of his council to draw up heads of bills. The fact that there had already been discussions with England on the subject was concealed from the council to give it the satisfaction of thinking that it was taking the initiative in drafting legislation. The resulting draft was transmitted to England in June 1703 under the title 'An act to prevent the further growth of popery'. In addition to the proposals previously submitted—for preventing protestants turning catholic and preventing catholics acquiring protestant estates or disinheriting protestants— the bill contained clauses limiting the catholic residents of Limerick and Galway to twenty specially licensed merchants in each town. It was explained that this was a necessary measure as they were strong towns with a large catholic population and in all rebellions had proved ' of fatal consequence to the English '. Ormonde thought that the English council would find the Limerick and Galway clauses ' hard and inconvenient': he had however been unable to keep them out of the bill, although he had in other ways made it less severe than the draft proposed by his council. The bill at this stage did not prevent catholics from buying or inheriting property that had not been in protestant ownership.4 Irish catholics quickly got information that such a bill was before the English council and a petition was presented to the queen by Lords Fitzwilliam of Merrion and Bellew of Duleek on behalf of themselves and other beneficiaries of the articles of Limerick. The queen took what seems to have been the unusual step of ordering that the petitioners should be given a copy of the draft bill and be heard by the English law officers. William Wogan, the Dublin official who was trying to steer the bill through the English council, B.MV Add. MS 9715, ff. 39-41; Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 161, 253. *CaL S.P. dom., 1702-3, p. 592. 4 Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, pp. 5, 24. 2

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

265

thought that it would be rejected, as the attorney-general considered that in certain respects it contravened the articles of Limerick.5 The law officers' objections were sent over to Ireland lor comment. They have not survived but can be deduced from the Irish government's reply. The first: objection related to a clause restricting the right of catholics to sell property. In reply it was pointed out that this was not intended to stop bona fide sales but to prevent catholics from selling in order to deprive their protestant heirs; in such cases provision was made for a court inquiry. The second objection, somewhat surprisingly, raised the point that the restrictions on purchase and inheritance applied only to protestant property. The Irish government replied that this was intentional: protestants owned nine-tenths of the country and if that position was safeguarded the security of Ireland was well on the way to being realised; so long as catholics were free to inherit and purchase from one another they would have no reason to complain; if however the English council wished to apply the English restrictions (which completely prohibited the purchase and inheritance of land by catholics) the Irish government had no objection to offer. Another criticism related to the clauses about Limerick and Galway. The Irish government urged in reply that they were the strongest towns in Ireland and each of the two sieges of Limerick had cost England a year's war and at least half a million of money; catholics had got into Limerick and Galway contrary to the act of explanation. At the same time Ormonde's secretary, Edward Southwell, pointed out that the bill represented ' what is here desired '. If it was not approved by the English council as a measure to be put before the Irish parliament under the Poynings' law procedure, the Irish commons would itself frame a measure of the kind in the form of heads of a bill: it would therefore be helpful to know how far the English council would be prepared to go in approving such a measure.6 The bill was again referred to the English attorney-general with instructions to draft ' such a bill as may be a reasonable security to the protestants and satisfactory to the people '.7 No such bill had been drafted by the time the Irish parliament met towards the end of September 1703, and Southwell wrote to Nottingham's undersecretary pressing for information: ' for the commons here are 5

Wogan to Edward Southwell, 6 July 1703 (B.M., Add. MS 37, 673, f. 3). 6 7 Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, pp. 55-7. Ibid., p. 69.

266

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

resolved to do something of that kind and it will be very necessary for us to know what will be agreed in England'. He asked for a copy of the attorney-general's draft as soon as possible.8 As there was no government ' popery bill' before it the Irish commons approved a motion to bring in the heads of such a bill and instructed a committee of four to prepare a draft and also to frame a bill to prevent catholics from inheriting. The latter bill would presumably have brought Irish law into line with the English law under which catholics were disabled from inheriting lands unless they took the oaths and made the declaration against transubstantiation.9 It would thus have gone beyond the original proposal of the Irish government, which was to prevent catholics from inheriting the estates of protestants but not to bar them from inheritance of other kinds. The commons committee had drawn up the heads of a bill before a draft had arrived from England, which had been approved by a committee of the English council but had not yet been laid before the queen. It was sent in advance because the Irish government were anxious to know what was likely to be approved in England: they could thus try to head the Irish commons off unacceptable proposals. Nottingham drew Southwell's attention to the fact that the draft contained ' no clause for disinheriting papists etc.'. The attorney-general had prepared such a clause but ' though it was more moderate . . . . than that came from Ireland, yet even this was judged too hard while we are in alliance with princes of that religion and especially while we are pressing particularly the emperor for favour to his protestant subjects in Hungary and Silesia '.10 It appears from this that the English government did not at that stage approve of preventing catholics from inheriting lands from protestants, let alone preventing them from inheriting at all. A few days later a fresh draft was prepared by the English law officers which they thought would be to the taste of the Irish government, as it was on the lines of the draft that had been sent over from Ireland.11 According to Nottingham this included clauses providing that the children of catholics should be educated as protestants and ' for giving the estates of such as at eighteen do not become protestants to the next protestant of their kindred'. Nottingham's account seems to suggest something much more drastic than anything so far proposed; but apparently the draft referred 8 Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 133. 9 3 Commons jn. Ire., ii. 321 (ed. 1798); 10

Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 151.

7 & 8 Wm III, c. 27, sect. 4. "Ibid., p. 160.

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

267

to the bringing up of catholic orphans as protestants and to the exclusion of catholic heirs from property that had been in protestant ownership. The queen did not approve of these clauses, apparently from consideration of the feelings of her catholic allies, and they were omitted from the copy sent to Ireland.12 What seems to be a copy of this draft of the English law officers— including the clauses objected to by the queen—is among the State Papers.13 The curtailed version sent over to Ireland was made available to the Irish commons and much of it was incorporated verbatim in the heads of the bill approved by the commons.14 The draft sent from England contained provisions against inducing protestants to turn catholic, sending children abroad for education, allowing protestant property to be bought by catholics and regulating the residence of catholics in Limerick and Galway. It did not contain a clause preventing catholics from being guardians or, apparently, from inheriting lands from protestants.15 The provisions for Limerick and Galway were more moderate than the original proposals of the Irish government. They allowed all catholics who were already resident in the two towns to remain there, subject to entering into a bond to be loyal to the crown. This was milder than the original proposal to limit the catholic inhabitants to twenty licensed merchants in each town, a proposal that the law officers evidently regarded as a violation of the articles. The preparation in the Irish commons of the heads of the bill was then undertaken by a committee of the whole house, with the instruction to add clauses for the better discovery of catholic children being educated abroad, for the prevention of pilgrimages to ' St Patrick's Purgatory and other superstitious places' and for the application of gavelkind to the inheritance of estates by catholics.16 Some further amendments were made in committee, of which the 12 Ibid., p. 162. 13 S.P. Ire., 63/363, f. 115. The summary in Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, pp. 182-3, gives the misleading impression that the draft prohibited catholics from buying any land; the prohibition was limited to lands held14 by protestants. Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 373-7. From a comparison of the draft in the State Papers with the heads of the bill approved by the commons it can be deduced what was omitted from the version sent over to Ireland. 15 The commons' heads have nothing about guardianship and their reference to the inheritance by catholics of protestant property is worded quite differently from the English draft. 16 Commons3 jn. Ire., ii. 365.

268

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

most important were the ban on catholics inheriting from protestants and the requirement that the oath of abjuration should be taken by voters in a parliamentary election. Otherwise the bill was similar to the draft sent over from England. There were no clauses about the requirements for holding public office. The regulations about the purchase of land applied only to land that had been in protestant ownership; catholics were still left free to buy land from other catholics. The great importance that the commons attached to their proposals was shown in several ways. The heads of the bill were recorded in extenso in the journals—an unusual procedure; instead of deputing a single member to carry the text to the lord lieutenant the whole house came with it, and the speaker delivered an oration, in the course of which he referred to the efforts of catholics to oppose the measure and the great sums of money they had raised for the purpose.17 The heads of the bill as framed by the Irish commons now had to be considered by the Irish and English privy councils. From the earlier proceedings it appeared that the English government was reluctant to agree to legislation that could be construed as a breach of the articles of Limerick or would be likely to be objected to by catholic allies or be used by the emperor as an argument to counter allegations that he was ill-treating his own protestant subjects. The Irish government was anxious not to propose anything that the English government would seriously object to. At the same time it wished to keep the Irish commons in a good humour and had to take into account the strong anti-catholic feeling of the house and its tendency to be critical of the government and awkward over the passage of government legislation. The protestant gentry felt very sore over the restrictions on the woollen trade and the proceedings of the forfeiture trustees. They had convinced themselves that catholics were being pampered and protestants ill-treated. There had been some stormy meetings about supply and the government had had difficulty about getting the commons to agree to heads of a bill granting two years' revenue, which would avoid the need of calling parliament again until 1705. The actual money bill would still have to be got through. The speaker, Alan Broderick, was a difficult man, and he and his supporters were ' industrious to oppose everything that was for the queen's service \ 18 The Irish government had therefore strong reasons for not wanting the ' popery bill' to be weakened in the course of its 17 Ibid., p. 385. lsCal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 175.

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

269

consideration by the English council. They knew that vigorous efforts would be made by catholics to get the bill thrown out and its fate must have seemed problematic in view of the attitude adopted up to that point by the English government. The most that the Irish government could reasonably hope for was that the bill should be approved in the form in which it had left the commons. From a memorandum sent by Edward Southwell to Nottingham it appears that the bill was transmitted by the Irish council without any amendment of consequence. This view is confirmed by the terms of a catholic protest submitted at the time. The points protested against are all in the heads proposed by the commons. A note at the end of the protest stated that catholics had been informed that it was proposed to stiffen the bill by a further provision preventing catholics from purchasing from one another; this would be ' no small addition to their misfortunes \ 19 The bill was transmitted by the Irish council to England on 7 December 1703.20 William Wogan, the Dublin official who had handled the earlier bill in the summer, was again sent over to see the draft through the English council. He at once reported that it would be strongly opposed by the catholics whose solicitor, Mullony, had already put in a petition against it: they would have to be heard but Wogan hoped that the protestant interest would prevail.21 This time the earl of Antrim was joined with Lord Fitzwilliam of Merrion in protesting against the bill as a violation of public faith. They had both been admitted to the benefits of the articles of Limerick and protested, on behalf of themselves and other catholic beneficiaries, that if the bill became law it would prove the entire ruin of the catholics and that it was contrary ' as well to the words as to the plain intent and meaning' of the articles.22 The protest was referred to the English law officers. The attorney-general had been difficult over the earlier draft and raised objections to this one also. He was in a critical mood as he had been offended by the Irish speaker's remarks about the money raised by catholics to oppose the bill; he took the remarks as a reflection on his own P.R.O., S.P. Ire., 63/363, f. 165; Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, pp. 180-1. The catholic protest is calendared ' about October'. As, however, it refers to the recent transmission of the bill for registering popish clergy (which was sent on 16 Dec. 1703), the protest is clearly to be dated in the latter part of Dec. 1703 or in Jan. 1704 while the popery bill was before the English council. 20 B.M., Add. MS 9715, f. 43. 21 B.M., Add. MS 37,673, f. 23. 22 B.M, Add. MS 9715, f. 77. 19

270

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

integrity. Southwell told Ormonde that the bill might be held up because the attorney-general was nettled by what the speaker had said; he added that ' the popish agents are very saucy in their applications'. At the same time Southwell impressed on Nottingham how necessary it was to get the bill through; he pointed out that the Irish commons were intent on having it and considered it the most important bill of the session.23 Wogan was instructed to keep in close touch with Lord Coningsby, who was a key figure as he was a member of both privy councils; he had also been one of the principal negotiators of the treaty of Limerick and could be regarded as an authority on its interpretation. When a committee of the English council went through the bill in detail, Coningsby ' was a stout champion for it and defended every clause'. The discussions were prolonged and Wogan was pessimistic about the outcome. At one stage he feared that the gavelkind clause was ' in a desperate condition '. The deliberations were so protracted both in committee and in the full council that catholics grew hopeful that the bill would be defeated. Coffee-house gossips were certain that it would never pass and protestant gentry in Ireland became very uneasy. Ormonde told Nottingham that some of them threatened to obstruct the money bill if the popery bill was returned with any material alterations. The Irish speaker and his brother, Thomas Broderick, tried hard to show that Ireland was in a state of unrest and that the favour shown by the English government to catholics and its reluctance to approve the popery bill were responsible for this state of affairs. However, Coningsby assured Wogan that all would be well and his forecast proved correct. On 20 January 1704 the bill was approved by the English council in a form that was considerably stronger than the draft sent over from Ireland.24 What proved to be the most controversial of the additions was the sacramental test, and there has been much argument as to why a test that chiefly affected presbyterians should have been introduced into a bill to prevent the further growth of popery. It is remarkable that the English council should so far have changed its attitude as to strengthen rather than weaken a bill that had been approved both by the Irish commons and by the Irish council. It is also remarkable how little notice the official 2

*H.M.C, Ormonde MSS, N.S. viii. 52; Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 248. 24 B.M., Add. MS 37,673, ff. 25-47; Cal S.P. dom., 1703-4, pp. 492, 501.

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

271

correspondence took of the changes made in England. In the list of bills approved by the English council it was noted that the bill to prevent the growth of popery had passed without any alteration except for the omission of a clause affecting one individual. Francis Annesley wrote to Ormonde how little the popery bill had been changed. These opinions were presumably those of men who had expected the bill to be weakened and, in their relief that this had not happened, paid little attention to the fact that it had been strengthened. Ormonde expressed his thanks to Coningsby for the trouble he had taken in piloting the bill through the English council, but he made no remark about its alteration except to say that there would be some opposition to the sacramental test.25 Bishop Burnet gave a peculiar account of the handling of the bill in the English council. He said there was strong opposition to it from those who had ' a mind to have a share in the presents ' that were offered by Irish catholics for obstructing it. The pretext relied on was that while the queen was in alliance with the emperor and solicitous for his protestant subjects it was hardly decent to pass so severe a law against catholics; although, to be sure, the emperor knew that Irish catholics were all on the side of France and he was not likely to be sympathetic to them. On the other hand parliament was sitting in England at the time and might be critical if the council showed obvious reluctance to approve anti-catholic legislation. The device adopted was to add the sacramental test, which would hit dissenters and make the bill as a whole seem much less desirable to those who had been most eager for it. This cunning artifice was defeated by the wisdom of the Irish parliament, which accepted the test and passed the bill.26 Burnet's account, though based on allegations current at the time, is not credible. If this had been the attitude of the English council, they would hardly have strengthened the anti-catholic provisions of the bill. The number of dissenters in the Irish commons was less than a dozen and subsequent attempts to remove the sacramental test were regularly defeated. The house had recently resolved that the regium donum was an unnecessary expenditure. There were no grounds for supposing that the addition of the test would induce the commons to throw out a popery bill. Burnet added that the privy council's 25

B.M., Add. MS 9715, f. 83; H.M.C., Ormonde MSS, N.S. viii. 56;

H.M.C. rep. 7, app. p. 769. 26 History of his own times (ed. 1753), iv. 28-9.

272

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

artifice put the Irish commons in such a bad humour that the ' supply bill was clogged and lessened by many clauses added to it'. This shows that Burnet did not understand Poynings' law. In fact, the arguments over supply had taken place when the heads of the bill were being drawn up in the latter part of 1703. The bill itself went through without a hitch in February 1704—the same month in which the popery bill was going through the commons. Defoe produced an interesting pamphlet on the test—The parallel, or persecution of protestants the shortest way to prevent the growth of popery in Ireland. It took the form of an address to the queen from her dissenting subjects in Ireland protesting against ' the terrible and, pardon them Madam if they think, undeserved mortification' of being associated with catholics in the bill. Defoe regarded the introduction of the test as a political manoeuvre connected with the English occasional conformity bill, which was to be supported by the argument that ' in all nations it has been the practice to exclude all such as are not of the national church from any share in the administration of public affairs '. He hinted that the test had been introduced as the result of an agreement between Archbishop King of Dublin and Lord Nottingham. He made great play with a favourable reference to dissenters in King's State of the protestants under James II, a book which had been licensed by Nottingham. Defoe deplored the change in King's attitude: the bishop of Derry, a man of moderation, had remembered to the honour of dissenters the support they had given to the persecuted clergy of the established church during the Jacobite regime; the archbishop of Dublin, ' grown quite a new man ', was ready to persecute those same dissenters. The Irish government could not disown responsibility: ' if they had no hand in the contrivance of the clause, if it was sent back with that clause inserted without the privity or knowledge of any of the governing party in this kingdom [Ireland] either in church or state, this may acquit them of ingratitude to the dissenters, but it can never acquit them of being imposed upon ', and in Defoe's opinion it was discreditable to be imposed on. King himself, writing some years later, disclaimed responsibility for the insertion of the test, but once it had become law he resisted any measure for its removal or modification. "King to bishop of Clogher, 8 Feb. 1716 (T.C.D., King corr.). There are many references in King's correspondence to the desirability of maintaining the test. Unfortunately the letter book containing letters from April 1703 to August 1704 is missing.

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

273

A third account of the proceedings is given in a letter said to have been sent by Gilbert Dolben to Sir Richard Cox, the Irish lord chancellor. Dolben was at one and the same time a judge in Ireland and a member of the English commons. The letter described the lengthy consideration of the bill both in the full English council and in committee; it stated that the text of the bill was in the end unanimously agreed, even though the committee contained members of different parties. Most of the amendments were in favour of the church of Ireland and the noblest of all was the amendment that required the sacramental test to be taken by all office-holders. This amendment was said to have been made at the queen's specific direction; Dolben was charged with the duty of informing Cox of this and requesting him to see that Ormonde used his ' utmost interest' in support of the amendment. The letter is summarised in Walter Harris's life of Cox and there seems no reason to doubt its authenticity. We need not suppose that the queen took the initiative in suggesting the amendment. It is much more probable that Nottingham was responsible and wished to silence criticism by invoking the queen's name. Cox was a tory in politics and would have been predisposed in favour of the test; he was also one of the trustees of Ormonde's estate and was an appropriate intermediary for a confidential message of this kind. Dolben was also a tory; as he was the son of an archbishop of York and the nephew of an archbishop of Canterbury it would have been natural for him to be in favour of the sacramental test. A couple of months after this he was made a baronet, which may have been in recognition of this political service.28 The letter gives no hint that the introduction of the test was a matter of political tactics. Froude suggests that it may have been introduced to secure the assent of the bishops and high church peers in the Irish lords, referring no doubt to King and others who had opposed previous anti-catholic bills and had scruples about infringing the articles of Limerick. This is possible and is consistent with King's own statement, which included the remark that he was against the bill. But there is nothing in the official correspondence to suggest that any difficulty was expected from the lords. A possible explanation is that Nottingham—a keen churchman and high tory—, when faced with Coningsby's determined advocacy of a strong bill and also with the threat of parliamentary trouble 28

Ware, Works (cd. W. Harris), ii. 221-2.

274

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

in Ireland, found it expedient to agree to the anti-catholic provisions and at the same time saw the opportunity of bringing Ireland into line with England by inserting the test into the clause that related to the holding of public office. It is certainly possible that Defoe was right in suggesting that the promotion of the English occasional conformity bill—in which Nottingham was a prime mover—was connected with the Irish test clause. In the event there was very little trouble over the remaining stages of the bill. Southwell was able to give Nottingham a reassuring report: ' When first the news came of the sacramental test being added there was some noise made thereat by the dissenters and some more busy than others endeavoured to try what strength there might be in the house to favour the taking it out. But they met so little encouragement and even those gentlemen were so sensible of the great advantages accruing by the bill for suppressing the popish interest that they have almost declined any further talk about it and I see nothing to interrupt a good conclusion \ 29 The important day was 22 February 1704, when the bill was debated in a committee of the whole house of commons. The proceedings began with hearing the catholic case, which was forcibly put by Sir Toby Butler and Sir Stephen Rice, their main argument being that the bill was a breach of the articles of Limerick. Butler was broad-minded enough to add a plea for the dissenters and to argue that the test was a poor reward to them for the services they had rendered in putting ' a stop to the career of the Irish army * at Derry and Enniskillen. Rice made the point that the bill would go far to justify the revocation of the edict of Nantes. Their arguments carried no weight with the house. Various speakers argued that the bill was not a breach of the articles: there was no law in force in Charles IPs reign to prevent the passing of future legislation; this interpretation was supported by the use of the word ' or' in the phrase ' the laws of Ireland or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles I I ' . It was also argued that the oath of allegiance referred to in the articles could reasonably be held to extend to the oath of abjuration. There was no disagreement until the test was reached. That was debated for two hours, in the course of which it was argued that the clause tended to divide the protestants, which was particularly dangerous when ' we were provoking the papists afresh'. A few 29

Cal. S.P. dom., 1703-4, p. 537.

The Making of a Penal Law, 1703-4

275

speakers ' in the height of their resentment were pleased to say they thought this was added on purpose to hazard the bill'. Allegations are said to have been made that Irish catholics had paid £40,000 to get the clause inserted by the English council ' in hopes that when they could not get the bill laid aside in England thereby so to clog it that it should not pass here'. Such charges, however, were accompanied by a warning not to lose ' so valuable a sheep' as the popery bill for a ha'porth of tar. Speakers on the other side urged that even in the north more than eighty per cent of the gentry were churchmen and that if Ireland was ever to be united to England the legal position in the two countries would have to be similar.30 When the clause was put to the vote there were not more than twenty negatives.31 As a sop to the feelings of dissenters this vote was followed by another giving leave to bring in heads of a bill to allow dissenters the same degree of toleration in Ireland that they enjoyed in England. But no further steps were taken to implement this resolution.32 A year later a petition was presented to the commons on behalf of the dissenters praying that a bill should be introduced to enable dissenters to hold public office without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the established church ' contrary to their consciences \ 33 The house ordered that the petition should lie on the table and no action was taken on it. When the popery bill reached the lords, the catholics again presented a petition against it and asked for a hearing. Their counsel were heard at the bar of the house by Cox, the chancellor, who then summarised the arguments to the lords with so much perspicuity and such justice to all parties that he was greeted with general applause—or so at least his biographer relates.84 The house then proceeded to give its unanimous approval to the bill.35 The viceroy's assent quickly followed and the bill passed into law on 4 March 1704. It was a landmark in the history of penal An impartial relation of the several arguments of Sir Stephen Rice, Sir Theobald Butler and Councillor Malone, Dublin, 1704. 31 Cal. S.P. dom., 1703^, pp. 542-3. Plowden alleges that some members * who could not altogether reconcile the act to their consciences by the most disgraceful casuistry affected to clear themselves of responsibility by resigning their seats to others of a more pliant disposition' (Historical review of the state of Ireland, i. 211). This is not supported by the commons' journals, which record no resignations during the period that the bill was before the house. 32 33 Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 401. Ibid., pp. 451-2. 85 " W a r e , Works, ii. 2212. Lords' jn. Ire., ii. 73, 76. 80

276

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

legislation, affecting the catholic gentry, as property owners and as heads of families, much more than any previous laws. They showed considerable ingenuity in evading its provisions, but most of the loopholes were blocked by the supplementary act of 1709,86 which imposed a variety of further restrictions and in particular introduced the discoverer, who could obtain possession of property that was found to have been the subject of transactions designed to defeat the popery laws. From 1709 the penal period began in earnest and there was a steady increase in the number of heirs to landed estates who decided that conforming to the established church was the lesser evil.

36

8 Anne, c. 3.

21 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT OF 1713 THE IRISII PARLIAMENT of 1713 sat for one month only, and produced the

minimum of legislation with the maximum of wrangling. 1713 was a year of great political tension both in England and in Ireland. The Tory ministry of Oxford and Bolingbroke had just concluded the Peace of Utrecht and was obliged by the Triennial Act to face a general election in England. In Ireland there was no such obligation, but the ministry took the calculated risk of dissolving the Parliament elected ten years before and summoning a new one. Much thought had been given to this decision. The prospects and proceedings of the new Irish Parliament were of close concern to the leading political figures in both countries. Its short life is remarkably well documented, and frequent references to it are to be found in the correspondence of Oxford, Bolingbroke, Shrewsbury, Swift and Archbishop King of Dublin. Detailed accounts of the election and of the proceedings of the House of Commons were supplied to Edward Southwell, who had been secretary to the Lord Lieutenant during both periods of the second Duke of Ormonde's tenure of the office.1 There was a spate of pamphlets; the best known of them was attributed to Dr Patrick Delany, fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and had the title 'The long history of a short session of a certain parliament in a certain kingdom'. In the latter part of Anne's reign the mutual antagonism of Tories and Whigs showed itself in Ireland no less than in England, although conditions in the two countries were markedly different. The presence in Ireland of large numbers of Catholics and Presbyterians gave party politics a distinctive flavour. The question of an agreement between the Tories and the Pretender had very different implications for the two countries. Those Protestants in Ireland who were most fervent in their support of the Established Church and their disapproval of Presbyterians had reason to be apprehensive about a Stuart succession, which was eagerly awaited by Catholics, who looked forward to recovering lost lands. After the Jacobite war it was commonly said that there were only two parties in Ireland, Protestants and Papists; but a division had soon appeared among Protestants on such questions as the interpretation of the articles of Limerick and the treatment of Dissenters. The division became more marked during the early part of Anne's reign, when English politics had their effect on the Irish administration. Ormonde was a Tory choice of Viceroy; Wharton's Government took up an advanced Whig position, strongly in favour of Dissenters and the removal of the test. In 1710 the change of ministry in England brought a further increase of political tension in Ireland. Ormonde was reappointed, and much more bite was given to his administration by the arrival of an English barrister as Lord Chancellor. This was Sir Constantine

278

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Phipps, who had won a great reputation as counsel for Dr Sacheverell and had come to Ireland with the evident determination to pursue a high Tory line and to crush all opposition. By this time it was clear enough who would be hostile to a Tory policy, and Phipps proceeded to organize a purge of the leading Whigs in the administration and the judiciary. The most important of his victims was Alan Brodrick, who had been Speaker of the Commons from the beginning of Anne's reign until he was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench just before the change of ministry. He was now dismissed from this post; he was also removed from the Privy Council along with his brother, Thomas Brodrick, and William Conolly, an old ally of theirs. Conolly lost his post of Revenue Commissioner. These changes had their effect on the parliamentary session of 1711, in which there was a Whig majority in the Commons and a Whig Speaker— John Forster, the Recorder of Dublin, who had been removed from the Attorney-Generalship. Leading members of the Opposition included Thomas Brodrick, William Conolly and Robert Molesworth.2 Between them they gave Ormonde's Government a very uncomfortable time. The Commons agreed to additional duties on ale and other articles for two years, but they threw out an important Tillage Bill, challenged the appointment of magistrates and insisted on making the stimulation of revolutionary principles the ground for granting financial aid to Trinity College, Dublin. There were some very close divisions and the session came to a stormy end with violent clashes between the Lords and the Commons. Ormonde's secretary, Edward Southwell, reported that things had come to such a pass that the same Parliament could not be allowed to sit again. Swift told Stella that he had often advised that Parliament should be dissolved, even though he had not thought the scoundrels had as much courage as they had actually displayed. Ormonde was criticized for his handling of the situation and Swift took the view that he had been badly advised: 'He is governed by fools and has usually much more sense than his advisers, but never proceeds by it.'3 Ormonde went over to England and the Duke of Shrewsbury was considered as an alternative. In the meantime Sir Constantine Phipps was the effective governor of Ireland as the senior Lord Justice. He continued to arouse hostility and suspicion. Much of the hostility related to a dispute over the election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, in which Phipps fought hard for a Tory alderman against a Whig majority. The political atmosphere was further strained by the dismissal of Marlborough and his replacement by Ormonde; many of the Protestant community in Ireland were Army officers who had served under Marlborough; Molesworth's son had saved Marlborough's life at Ramillies. Phipps was severely criticized for his action in connexion with the customary performance of Tamerlane on King William's birthday in 1712; he had ordered the prosecution of a Whig for reading aloud a prologue that came out strongly for 'no peace without Spain*. Suspicion of Phipps's Jacobite leanings was aroused by the withdrawal of the prosecution of a publisher who had advertised a Jacobite pamphlet, The memoirs of the Chevalier de St George, a name for the Pretender. His penchant for 'new convert' lawyers also aroused suspicion. Two of them had been appointed Queen's Counsel soon after Phipps's arrival, and he was alleged to rely too much on them and on the Catholic lawyer, Sir Toby Butler. A number of new converts were also appointed to the Commission of the Peace. Whigs alleged, with much justification, that conversions were generally made for

The Irish Parliament of 1713

279

technical and not for spiritual reasons, and that the converts remained allied in sentiment with the community they had left rather than with the community they had newly joined.4 Nine converts were elected to the 1713 Parliament, all in the Tory interest.5 Phipps's actions seemed admirably calculated to arouse the hostility of colonial Ireland. It is surprising that he got as much support as he did from members of the established Church, who imagined that they had more to fear from Presbyterians than from Catholics and who thought that depreciating William was the best way of appreciating Anne. Early in May1713the Irish Parliament was dissolved, but no arrangements for a new one were announced and there was much speculation as to whether a new one was to be summoned. The greater part of the revenue was on a permanent basis; but during Anne's reign additional duties amounting to a little over 25 per cent of the permanent revenue had been voted in each session of Parliament. These additional duties were to expire at the end of 1713 and it would have been normal to hold a meeting of Parliament in the late summer of that year to vote the duties for another two years. But doubts were expressed whether a Parliament was necessary; the military establishment in Ireland had been below strength and there had been a considerable surplus of revenue over expenditure for the previous two years. At the end of April, Molesworth was in London and heard that there was no likelihood of a parliamentary session: it was hoped to keep expenses within the ordinary revenue. 'The truth', he added, 'is that they dare not let an Irish Parliament meet.' Early in September the Tory Sir Richard Cox was hoping there would not be a new Parliament that year 'for scare of the worst'.6 Cox had been Lord Chancellor in Ormonde's first Viceroyalty and was now in Brodrick's place as Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench; he was also a member of the Privy Council. He was a close associate of Edward Southwell and kept him fully informed of political developments. In the second week of September it was decided that the Duke of Shrewsbury should be Lord Lieutenant. Shrewsbury had joined the Tories in 1710, but he was not an extremist, and the English ministry hoped that he would be more successful than Ormonde in managing an Irish Parliament. Bolingbroke wrote to Matthew Prior: 'The sweetness of his temper, the strength of his understanding and the happiness of his address will enable him better than any man I know to calm the minds of that distracted nation, who from knowing no distinction but Protestant and Papist are come to be more madly divided about Whig and Tory, High Church and Low, than even this society of lunatics to which you and I belong.'7 Shrewsbury's appointment raised the spirits of Whigs and lowered those of the more committed Tories. On the other hand, Swift, who was in England at this time, had long been in favour of sending Shrewsbury to Ireland: 'He is the first gentleman we have and of an excellent understanding and capacity for business.' Swift warned Archbishop King that violent opposition on the part of the Irish Parliament would not be tolerated in England, and that the Court would take a firm stand on the principle 'that Her Majesty ought to exert her power to the utmost upon any uneasiness given to herself or her servants.' This was a warning against an attack on Phipps, with whom Swift was also in correspondence.8 A question that was to be of considerable importance was the choice of the Lord Lieutenant's secretary. In Anne's reign this was a key position. The

280

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

secretary was a member of the Irish Commons and Privy Council, he corresponded with the Secretary of State in England, and was responsible for much of the work of political management. The Whig interest was markedly encouraged by Shrewsbury's choice of Sir John Stanley of Grangegorman. Stanley was himself a Whig and had family ties with two of the leading members of the opposition, Molesworth and Forster. He had long been secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, a post that Shrewsbury had held for some years and continued to hold while he was Lord Lieutenant. Phipps wrote anxiously to Bolingbroke and got the discouraging reply: 'I know very well Sir John Stanley's relations, acquaintance and habits to be entirely Whiggish, which I have taken the liberty to tell him are matters of much prejudice to him and which will oblige him to more than ordinary circumspection in his behaviour; he has professed to me all that can be asked of a reasonable man and I hope he will make these professions good'.9 On October io a proclamation was issued for a new Parliament which was to meet on November 20, and preparations were immediately made for a general election. Recent English experience had suggested that the Government in office had a great advantage in its powers of appointment and in the backing of all who were on its pay-roll or hoped to be so. Phipps and his supporters on the Privy Council had not neglected their preparations. It was generally agreed that the sheriffs for 1713 were thoroughly to be relied on to support the Tory interest or, as Molesworth put it, they were 'such a crew of beggarly knaves that the Tories would have the false returns of such necessary tools while their year of office lasted'.10 Prospects in the constituencies were methodically studied. Southwell's papers contain two sets of forecasts analysing the position in each constituency and suggesting suitable ways of winning Tory seats.11 As usual the election was drawn out over several weeks and some returns had already come in by the time Shrewsbury arrived at the end of October. It had been hoped that his personal influence would turn the scales in several constituencies and his late arrival was a handicap for the Government. The Tory line was Queen and Church; they denounced Whigs as republicans. Whigs took their stand by the revolution of 1688; they maintained that the Tory administration had divided Protestants and encouraged Catholics and Jacobites. Leaflets were issued with such titles as A letter to the

freeholders of Ireland or Advice to the electors of the ensuing parliament.

Catholics took a great interest in the election and there were many complaints of the ways in which they assisted the Tory candidates. In County Carlow it was alleged that the Catholic gentry 'interfered in a zealous and most industrious way . . . by making several casual freeholders some of whom were their menial servants in livery and by themselves appearing in the field well mounted, well armed and in red coats managing and seducing freeholders' to influence the election in favour of the Tory candidates. In Charleville, County Cork, it was alleged that 'a notorious papist had brought from Kerry upwards of thirty being papists or late converts who were made free of the borough'.12 Election expenses seem to have been on a modest scale. Cox wrote that Sir Richard Levinge had been hard pressed and that his seat had cost him £200; Cox's own son was elected after a hard fight 'to the tune of,£i3i'. 13 The rowdiest contest was in Dublin, where Forster, the Recorder, was one of the Whig candidates and where feeling ran high because of the Government's interference in the mayoral election. It was usual to hold the

The Irish Parliament of 1713

281

poll in the Bluecoat School on the north side of the Liffey. On this occasion the sheriffs changed the polling to the Tholsel in the heart of the city—the building in which Forster's court was held. The Whigs rapidly occupied most of the building and left no room for the supporters of the Tory candidates. The latter stormed the place and began to pull down the platform to make room for themselves. This started a riot in which the leading parts were said to have been taken by a servant of Phipps and by James Cotter, a prominent Catholic. The sheriffs called in the military, who were attacked by enraged Tories armed with planks from the dismantled platform. The troops fired; one man was killed and several were wounded. Shrewsbury restored order by proposing that the poll should be held both at the Bluecoat School and at the Tholsel, with the result that the Tories voted at one and the Whigs at the other. He also ordered some Catholic chapels to be closed, which earned him the commendation of Whigs. The Tories claimed that they had a majority of the voters, but enough of their votes were disallowed to give the victory to the Whig candidates with majorities of about ioo each. Tory claims that the fellows and scholars of Trinity should have votes in the city on the strength of their college rooms were rejected. So were claims on behalf of vicars choral, sextons, parish clerks, pensioners, and invalids in the Kilmainham hospital.14 In spite of their defeat in Dublin, Tories did better in the country as a whole than they had expected and reckoned that they could count on 180 votes in a House of 300. Southwell was provided with a list in which Government supporters were indicated by vertical, and the opposition by horizontal marks.15 The first test came with the election of the Speaker. It was the practice for the Crown to recommend one of the law officers. There had been no contest for a century, and on that occasion the Crown nominee had been elected. This time Sir Richard Levinge, the Attorney-General, was nominated by the Crown and recommended to the Commons by Sir John Stanley, the Lord Lieutenant's secretary. William Conolly recommended an Opposition candidate, Alan Brodrick. Both were previous Speakers, Levinge in the shortlived Parliament of 1692, Brodrick from 1703 till his appointment as a Chief Justice in 1710. Brodrick was much the stronger character; he had been a thorn in the Government's side during Ormonde's first Viceroyalty, when he had acted as leader of the Opposition and had made the most of the strategic possibilities of the speakership. It was at the close of his tenure that Swift quoted the saying 'he was a very sorry Speaker whose single vote was not better than fifty common ones'. Levinge was a lawyer rather than a politician and was, in Swift's words, 'the most timorous man alive'.16 He and Brodrick had both been over to England to negotiate for the Crown recommendation. Brodrick seems to have been sanguine about his chances, which suggests that the Whigs expected a new deal from Shrewsbury.17 Phipps, who had been responsible for Brodrick's removal from the Chief Justiceship and the Privy Council, could not have looked forward with any pleasure to having him as Speaker. The Crown's decision was delayed until about a fortnight before Parliament was due to meet. Brodrick had been canvassing in the meantime and had secured promises from a number of members on whom the Government could normally have counted. Archbishop King saw that there was going to be a clash between the Government and the Opposition on this question, and

282

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

tried to get Brodrick to withdraw. He discussed the matter with some of the leading Whigs, who said they were ready to give up the contest for the Speakership if their grievances were redressed by the removal of the great minister, i.e. Phipps, and the settlement of the Dublin city dispute. They argued that the objects of a Parliament were to give money and to obtain redress of grievances; if it was to mean only giving money without redress they were as well without a Parliament. They were clearly not in a conciliatory mood. Neither were the Tories, who turned a deaf ear to King's appeals to settle the city dispute before Parliament met; they told him they had the House of Commons in their pocket and would be justified in all they did.18 When it came to the vote, Brodrick was elected by a majority of four votes —131 to 127. This was a great disappointment to Cox, who reported to Southwell that about twenty of those on whom they had relied had voted for Brodrick. Southwell's papers include a complete list of those who voted for Levinge and an incomplete list of those who voted for Brodrick. The latter list specially mentioned General Frederick Hamilton and all his half-pay officers,' naming several of the latter and describing two of them as violent. The Government could normally count on half-pay officers to follow the definite recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, and it is a measure of Army feeling against the Tory Government that so many of them refused to do so. Bolingbroke expressed strong disapproval: 'I hope I am not ill natured', he wrote to Stanley, 'but I confess myself extremely tired of that leniency which suffers a fleet and army to declare for a faction against the Crown'.19 Cox thought there was 'a glorious opportunity' of exercising the Crown's prerogative by refusing to accept Brodrick as Speaker, but it was decided not to take such a step.20 The next trial of strength came with the contest for the Chairman of the Committee of elections. The government candidate was Anderson Saunders, a Tory lawyer who was one of Southwell's most assiduous correspondents. The Opposition put up John Forster, Recorder of Dublin and a former Speaker. Forster was elected by 127 to 121, which was a further blow to Cox. He complained that the Whigs had mustered their full strength, while the Tories had been slack in attendance and nine or ten of them had actually voted for the Opposition candidate. One of those who voted for Forster was Sir John Stanley, the Lord Lieutenant's secretary; Forster was his niece's husband. The post was of particular importance, as there were to be many election petitions, including one from Forster's own constituency of Dublin. Political rather than judicial considerations decided such petitions and the Chairman's influence would count for much.21 The Government's chief object was to get the usual additional duties voted for another two years. Since the revolution the Commons had tried to insist on their 'sole right' to initiate Money Bills, and the custom had developed of letting the Commons draw up the 'heads' of a Money Bill; the heads were then converted into a regular Bill in the Irish Privy Council for transmission to England under the Poynings' law procedure. Normally Parliament met early enough to allow this procedure to go through before the life of the existing taxes came to an end. On this occasion Parliament met much later than usual; so a temporary three-months Bill had been prepared by the Privy Councils. But it was made clear that the Commons could take the usual initiative for providing supplies beyond that period by framing heads of a Money Bill.

The Irish Parliament of 1713

283

Financial questions were considered on a number of occasions, but parallel with them debates were held on various controversial subjects, including a proposal to attaint the Pretender and all who supported him. Prolonged discussion of the Dublin election riot ended in a series of resolutions, one of which was that Phipps's servant had been 'a chief fomenter of and instrument in' a design to obstruct the poll. Another debate was held on the withdrawal of the prosecution of the publisher of The memoirs of the Chevalier de St George; it was resolved that this had given great encouragement to the papists and other friends of the Pretender, and that the publication was designed to prevent the Hanoverian succession. The Commons found that Phipps had acted contrary to his duty and contrary to the Protestant interest, and that an address should be prepared requesting his removal. Two days later the three-months Supply Bill was passed. At the same time an address to the Queen was voted, praying for the removal of the Chancellor and adding that the Commons had every intention of granting further supplies.22 Meanwhile the House of Lords was taking steps to defend Phipps. The day after the Commons resolution of censure the Lords ordered a man to be prosecuted for having said that the Chancellor was a canary bird, a villain, and that he had set the kingdom together by the ears and ought to be hanged. The Lords further resolved that Phipps had acquitted himself with honour and integrity. An address to the Queen was voted saying that the Chancellor was an equal administrator of justice, a true lover of the established Church and a zealous asserter of the prerogative. The Queen was requested not to allow any evil representation against him to make any impression to his disfavour on her royal heart. A dissenting minority of ten, which included Archbishop King, protested against these proceedings.23 Cox kept Southwell fully informed of developments. He sai^l that if the Commons succeeded in getting rid of Phipps nobody would dare to serve the Queen in opposition to the Whigs. The Tories had the support of more than two-thirds of the Lords, two-thirds of the Privy Council, all the judges and a majority of the Commons; but of their Commons supporters nine were in England, ten in the country, and others were lukewarm and slack in attendance. Southwell and Ormonde were asked to exert their influence at this critical time. The Commons were not likely to vote any more money unless they had their way over Phipps. Perhaps the Lord Lieutenant might be induced to exert himself; much of the blame for what had happened was laid on his secretary, Sir John Stanley.24 Stanley, however, protested that if he had not been so zealous as to remain in the House of Commons till two in the morning a much larger number would have voted against the Government.25 Shrewsbury thought the chief cause of the trouble was the dispute over the Lord Mayor and Phipps's insistence on rejecting any Whig candidate. Before the session began several of the Whigs had promised him that they would vote for Levinge as Speaker provided the affair of the mayoral election was settled. Shrewsbury had told Lord Oxford that he wished some of Phipps's friends in England would make it clear to him that the Crown did not want the dispute to go on. Oxford seems to have had some letters on the subject sent to Phipps, without effect. Swift had already written to Phipps that the best course would be not to trouble the English ministers with this affair, as they would neither support him nor pay attention; accounts of the squabble might as well be of a little boy playing with cherry stones. Shrewsbury regretted that he himself

284

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

had not been able to settle the dispute and save Phipps from the wrath of the Commons. He lamented: 'My temper is so unfit to join with either of these parties that I hope Her Majesty will recall me and name some other Governor more fitly qualified for this tempestuous station, and who will reside here so as to make himself better obeyed than I have been able to do, even when I signified Her Majesty's commands; for, it being known I was only to stay here a few months, I have made the figure of a Viceroy in a play rather than of one who had the honour of Her Majesty's patent.'26 The Lord Lieutenant felt he was not getting the backing of the English ministry. The Archbishop of Armagh had died before Parliament met and he had specially asked that the see should not be filled until the end of the session. In spite of this, reports came from England that the appointment was being given to Thomas Lindsay, Bishop of Raphoe, who was one of Phipps's most active supporters and who had the influential backing of Swift; these reports in due course were officially confirmed. Shrewsbury saw no hope that the Commons would vote any more money and proposed that measures should be taken to carry on within the permanent revenue; he thought the best way of bringing the Opposition to its senses was to show that the Queen could support her Government without it. He decided that there was no advantage in waiting for the heads of the Money Bill and adjourned Parliament a month after it had assembled. He asked Bolingbroke for permission to prorogue it if during the recess he found it impossible to bring the parties to a better temper.27 Meanwhile Bolingbroke had come to the conclusion that too much encouragement had been given to the Whigs and told the Queen that it was dangerous to let things run on any further. The appointment of Lindsay to Armagh seems to have been designed to show Crown support for Phipps in an attempt to stop the rot. Bolingbroke informed Oxford of what he had told the Queen; he added that he saw an opportunity for making up their own differences and for giving new strength and new spirit to the ministry by taking a firmer line in Ireland.28 This was followed by a favourable reply to the Lords' address in support of Phipps. Swift wrote to King that the Opposition had done itself nothing but harm by its proceedings in the Commons; they only served to convince the Crown and the English ministers that there 'could be no safety while those people are able to give obstruction . . . neither do we here think it worth our while to be opposed and encourage our enemies only for £70,000 a year, to supply which it may not be hard to find other expedients'.29 Early in January, Shrewsbury sent for Brodrick, Torster and other Opposition leaders and informed them that Her Majesty was willing to give them an opportunity of doing themselves justice; if, however, there was no agreement at the next meeting of Parliament he had orders to dissolve it.30 According to a report made to the Vatican, Shrewsbury rebuked the Opposition for having attacked Phipps as a Jacobite and for having presumed to meddle with the succession question, which was properly one for the Parliament of Great Britain. Brodrick was said to have replied that the Irish Parliament had as absolute a right to legislate for Ireland as the British Parliament had for England, and that the Commons were resolved to exercise that right so as to secure the Protestant succession; Shrewsbury answered that the British Parliament had taken suitable measures to secure the succession and that the Irish Parliament would not be allowed to intervene in matters relating to the

The Irish Parliament of 1713

285

succession of the Crown. The Vatican report concluded by stating that the ministry was determined to dissolve that turbulent Parliament and was dissatisfied with the Lord Lieutenant for not having refused to approve the Commons' choice of Brodrick as Speaker.31 Shrewsbury prorogued Parliament and awaited further orders from England. Cox told Southwell that he was certain that Parliament would be dissolved and that Shrewsbury would return to England: he had no doubt that the revenue could be made up and that if Ormonde came over in September he could easily settle that problem. At the beginning of February orders were received from England that Parliament was to be prorogued until August 10, and it was correctly presumed that this meant it would never sit again; before that date Anne was dead and Parliament automatically dissolved.32 The English ministry seems to have criticized Shrewsbury, who tried to justify himself to Oxford. It was never his intention, he said, to put the administration of Ireland under anything but Tory control; but he was convinced that Whigs had the majority in the Commons and that they had to be conciliated to a greater extent than would be the case in England. He thought a fresh election would return a House no less hostile to Phipps; he regretted that the conduct of the Commons had made it so difficult for the Queen to remove Phipps to a more advantageous post and replace him by a substitute who would combine devotion to the Church with acceptability to the Whigs.33 King summed up the situation to Swift and pointed out that political conditions in England and Ireland were very different. In England party conflict was concerned with who should form the ministry and fill Government offices. The real issue in Ireland was the ownership of estates 'which are all claimed by the forfeiters and nothing can restore them but the Pretender nor anything take them from us but bringing him in. . . . Here is the true source of the zeal and violence of the Protestants of Ireland. Remove the fear of the Pretender and you may lead them like a dog in a string.'34 Whig anxieties on this score were strengthened by a sudden increase in the number of recruits for the Irish regiments in France; recruiting agents were using the Pretender as a talking-point and promising the men that they would be back within a year.35 It is not surprising that so many Irish Protestants should have been hostile to Phipps, who had first come to notice as counsel for Fenwick, the Jacobite conspirator against William III, and later as counsel for Dr Sacheverell; the whole career of Phipps and the character of his Irish administration in particular seemed to show a leaning towards High Churchmanship, Jacobites and Catholics. It is more remarkable that a man of Cox's experience should have supported Phipps, but the reason may be found in his dislike of Phipps's opponents. Cox had for years been opposed to the Brodricks and their party and undoubtedly regarded their pro-Dissenter policy as a dangerous threat to the Established Church, of which Phipps had constituted himself a champion. At the same time, Cox was an Irish Protestant and quite sincere in disclaiming Jacobite leanings. After Anne's death he declared that he had all along been 'perfectly Hanoverian as to the succession' and that the income of ^550 he drew from confiscated land was quite enough to account for such an attitude; in fact, he did not know any Protestant in Ireland that was not Hanoverian. On all other counts he was determined to be anti-Whig to his dying day; so great was his hatred of their canting, lying and hypocrisy.36

286

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

The Irish Parliament of 1713 was a sadly bungled affair, in which the Government's plans were frustrated by a policy that oscillated between compromise and intransigence. Shrewsbury's appointment had been designed to calm the political atmosphere, but its immediate effect was quite the opposite. The superimposition of Shrewsbury upon Phipps gave the impression of a weakening of Tory policy, of which the Opposition took full advantage. It appears that Swift had for a considerable time advocated Shrewsbury's appointment and that the decision was that of Oxford rather than of Bolingbroke. The latter had at first agreed that it would be advantageous to have a conciliatory Viceroy, but later concluded that things had got out of hand and that Phipps must be strongly backed.37 By this time, however, more and more of the Government's supporters in the Commons had deserted and Phipps's opponents had become increasingly aggressive. There was no prospect of regaining a majority for the Government without sacrificing Phipps, for which the ministry was not prepared. The only alternative was to do without Parliament and cut expenditure so as to bring it within the permanent revenue. Shrewsbury remained in Ireland until the beginning of June 1714, trying to keep the peace between the contending factions. The revenue position was alleviated by orders for the reduction of some regiments on the Irish establishment and the suspension of the regium donum to Presbyterian ministers.38 Tories thought Shrewsbury half-hearted and his departure was celebrated with lampoons. Archbishop King, on the other hand, admired his skill in calming political passions and said that his departure was greatly lamented by most of the Protestants in Ireland. In the Viceroy's absence Phipps, Archbishop Lindsay of Armagh and the old and infirm Archbishop of Tuam were made Lords Justices. High Toryism was in the ascendant. King wrote gloomily: 'Many hearts melt for fear and many are at their wits' end what course to take; most of figure are leaving this country, many go to England and in the meantime papists crowd in upon us.'39 But the Tory ascendancy was not to last long. The Queen's death and the accession of George I brought in the Whigs and a complete change in the Irish Government and judiciary. Archbishop King and the Earl of Kildare replaced Phipps and Lindsay as Lords Justices. Molesworth wrote triumphantly to King: 'This day our country is delivered from the domination of two tyrants, and in their stead we have two worthy honourable patriots set over us.'40 1 2

B.M., Add. MSS. 34, 777; 38, 157. For a recent study of Molesworth see C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Common-

wealthman. P.R.O., S.P. 63/367, f. 200; Swift, Journal to Stella (ed. H. Williams), pp. 364, 414 • The Conduct of the Purse of Ireland; the two Queen's Counsel were Garrett Bourke and Michael Sweeney {Lib. mun. Hib., ii. 77). 5 Garrett Bourke, George Browne, Cornelius Callaghan, Darby Egan, Redmond Everard, Patrick French, Denis Kelly, George Mathew, Charles Plunkett. • H.M.C., Var., viii. 262; B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, f. 9. 7 Bolingbroke, Works, vii. 440. 8 Swift, Corr. (ed. F. E. Ball), ii. 79. 9 Bolingbroke, op. cit., p. 518; Stanley's correspondence with Bolingbroke is in T.C.D., MSS S. 3. 11-13. 10 H.M.C., Var., viii. 264. 11 B.M., Add. MS. 34, 777. 12 Commons' jn. Ire. (ed. 1796), ii. 745, 753. 13 B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, ff. 21, 26. 14 Ibid., f. 23 ; Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 766; Political state of Great Britain, vi. 356-64. 15 B.M., Add. MS. 34, 777, f. 47; ibid., 38, 157, f. 26. 3

4

The Irish Parliament of 1713 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

287

Swift, Works (ed. T. Scott), vii. 6; Corr., i. 227. The long history of a short session, p. 5. T.C.D., MS. N. 3. 4, p. 239; Swift, Corr., ii. 100. T.C.D., MS. S. 3. 11, pp. 27-29. B . M . , A d d . M S . 34, 777, f. 9 0 ; ibid., 38, 157, f. 2 6 . Ibid., f. 29. Commons' jn. Ire., ii. 7 6 7 - 7 1 . Lords' jn. Ire., ii. 436. B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, ff. 34-36. T.C.D., MS. S. 3- 11, p. 74H.M.C., Bath MSS., i. 242-4; Swift, Corr., ii. 72. P.R.O., S.P. 63/369, f. 45; H.M.C., Bath MSS., i. 242-4. H.M.C., Portland MSS., v. 373. B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, f. 45; Swift, Corr., ii. 111. Political state of Great Britain, vii. 73. Vatican MSS., Inghilterra xxi, ff. 64-65. B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, f- S3H.M.C., Bath MSS., i. 245. Swift, Corr., ii. 116. B.M., Add. MS. 38, 157, f. 63. Ibid., f. 108. Bolingbroke, Works, vii. 473, 490; H.M.C., Portland MSS., v. 373. Lloyd's newsletter, 29 March 1714; Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, iii. 116. T.C.D., MS. N. 3. 4, pp. 288, 305. Molesworth to King, 2 September 1714 (T.C.D., King MSS.).

This page intentionally left blank

22 CONNACHT IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

c most

onnacht in the eighteenth century1 was regarded as the remote and the most catholic part of Ireland. These two qualities gave the region a very individual character, and the few travellers who ventured to cross the Shannon had the sensation of entering another world. This did not apply to two of the live counties—Leitrim and Sligo, which had been allotted to the soldiers of the parliamentary army in the Cromwellian settlement and for this reason were not typical of the province. The essential Connacht lay beyond the Shannon in the counties of Galway, Mayo and Roscommon, the greater part of which had been reserved for catholic landowners in the Cronrvvellian settlement. The result of this arrangement was to leave the catholic gentry in a much stronger position in Connacht than in the rest of Ireland. This position remained largely unshaken by the Jacobite war, as the treaty of Limerick, the terms of the surrender of Galway, and their own solidarity protected most of the Connacht landholders from confiscation at the end of the war. When the eighteenth century began, several hundred catholic landholders were in occupation of a substantial part of Galway and Mayo and, to a lesser degree, of Roscommon. This situation was a constant source of anxiety to the authorities, who from time to time were alarmed about the prospect of a French landing in the west supported by catholic landlords and catholic peasants. It was said that catholics in Connacht outnumbered protestants by fifty to one and that in some counties there were so few protestant freeholders to serve on juries that the region could scarcely be held to acknowledge the authority of the government. la 1

This paper was originally delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, on 27 Feb. 1958, as a lecture in the O'Donnell series. la Report of the commrs of enquiry into Irish forfeitures, 1699.

290

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Many of these catholic landholders were descended from Galway merchants—Blakes, Frenches, Lynches, Martins—who during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had acquired vast areas in Galway, Mayo and Roscommon from the older proprietors, such as the Burkes and O'Flahertys. The O'Flahertys were reduced to a minute fraction of the great tracts they had once held in west Galway, but the Burkes still had very extensive possessions. The largest estate in Connacht was that of the earl of Clanricarde; the ninth earl was himself a fervent catholic, but as he had been taken prisoner at Aughrim he had had to agree to bring up his sons as protestants, and there were protestant trustees to supervise the arrangement. Then there were Brownes in Mayo, at the Neale and at Westport, descended from an Elizabethan surveyor of Connacht whose descendants had become catholic and had fought in the Jacobite army. Other catholics, such as Bellews and Plunketts, had been transplanted from elsewhere in Cromwell's time and had remained on the Connacht estates assigned to them. Side by side with this assortment of catholic landowners were the protestants who had come into Connacht during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—Binghams, Kyres, Gores, Ormsbys and others, who were concerned to uphold the protestant interest and put as much pressure as possible on catholic families to conform to the established church. During the greater part of the eighteenth century the penal laws were a constant menace to catholics. Their influence was felt particularly strongly in Connacht, just because there were more catholic freeholders there than anywhere else. The result was that a large proportion of the catholic landowning families changed their allegiance at some time or other during the century. The names and dates were recorded in the official convert rolls, and show that many families remained catholic until the second half of the century. There was a steady drain, which gradually undermined the catholic position and left a much reduced, but still appreciable, number of catholic landowning families that still kept the old faith by the end of the century. There were various reasons for individual changes, but most of them were connected with

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

291

property rather than with religious conviction. Probably the chief reason was the wish to keep the estate together instead of allowing it to be gavelled or divided among a number of children. If the eldest son turned protestant he could inherit the entire estate, and many of the converts were eldest sons. Family disputes often led to conversions, which would help the convert in the lawcourt. Thus Sir Walter Blake's son became a protestant in order to strengthen his position in a lawsuit against his father. Families that had made covert marriage settlements which contravened the penal laws or had arranged for neighbours to hold property on trust for them were afraid of protestant discoverers exposing the transactions and claiming the lands. Timely conversion was often adopted as the best defence in such cases. Sometimes the heir to an estate was a minor whose guardians had to be protestants and do their best to bring him up as a protestant. Young John Browne of Westport was an instance.His catholic father died when he was a boy, and his guardians took the precaution of sending him to Oxford to be ' secure from the insinuations of his popish kindred '.2 After that he took his place in protestant society, became a member of parliament and eventually got a peerage. Another Browne—Dominick Browne of Castlemacgarret—waited until his father was ninety years old before he conformed to the established church in 1754. Robert Martin of Dangan was justifiably suspected of Jacobite leanings in 1745 and thought it advisable to strengthen his position by conforming in that year. A French traveller in Connacht at the end of the century formed the opinion that many of those who had conformed had done so in case a relative should turn protestant and claim the estate, while others had conformed in order to become members of parliament. Quite a number of the Connacht members belonged to families that had been catholic at the beginning of the century. This Frenchman was told a story of the owner of Oranmore in county Galway who decided to conform and was asked by the clergyman what had led him to see the light. His answer was disconcerting and consisted of the one word ' Oranmore \ 3 2 3

Synge to Wake, 15 Apr. 1725 (Gilbert coll.). [La Tocnaye], Rambles through Ireland (Cork, 1798), ii. 16.

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

292

Although the penal laws provided a very strong inducement to alterations of religion there were a number of catholic families, including some that were very well-to-do, which never altered their allegiance. In the last decade of the century there were still quite a lot of catholic landholders, particularly in Galway and Mayo. They included Blakes, Frenches, Dalys, Lynches, who were closely related to those branches of their families that had conformed and had become prominent in the social and public life of the province. Many protestant families were connected by marriage with catholic families. In consequence, relations between the two religions were closer and more friendly among the gentry in Connacht than elsewhere. Some of the wealth of Connacht catholics came from their connection with Irish merchants who had businesses in other countries. For instance, the Bellews of Mountbellew, county Galway, were connected with the firm of Lynch and Bellew, merchants in Cadiz; George Moore of Moore Hall in county Mayo had made his fortune as a merchant in Alicante. Wolfe lone described Galway and Mayo as the two great catholic counties, which held the cream and flower of the catholic gentry.4 More than anywhere else in Ireland the landholders in Connacht during the eighteenth century belonged to families that had been associated with the province for several centuries. The fact that so many of them were catholic, for at least part of the century, gave them a link with the mass of the people, and there seems to have been less hostility between landlord and tenant than there was in some other parts of Ireland. There was comparatively little absenteeism, and it was noticed that many of the gentry spoke Irish, which brought them into more direct contact with ordinary people.5 An observer commented on the slow provincial accent and the peculiar singularity of deportment characteristic of the gentry who had spent most of their lives in Connacht.6 In contrast with the first half of the nineteenth century, Connacht in the eighteenth century was not overpopulated. In the early part Autobiography (ed. R. B. O'Brien), i. 136. E. Wakefield. Account of Ireland, ii. 754. 6 J. McParlan, Statistical survey of county Mayo, introd., p. vf.

4

5

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

293

of the century it was remarked how thinly populated many areas were. Western Connacht had been a very disturbed area in the seventeenth century and its population had been much reduced.7 Much of eastern Connacht had been put under grazing and had not many inhabitants. In 1717 Archbishop Synge of Tuam noted that the country was very thinly peopled, 4 sheep giving very little room for tenants to occupy \& John Wesley, who visited the region several times, commented in 1760 that Connacht in particular had been largely depopulated by the change to pasture, and that it was believed to have scarcely half the population that it had had eighty years before.9 In the first half of the century many Connacht people must have enlisted in the Irish regiments on the continent. Charles O'Conor of Belanagare often received remittances from France, Spain and Germany on behalf of his poorer neighbours.10 Tenants on the Dillon estate supplied recruits for the Dillon regiment in the French service. Eighteenth-century statistics are not reliable, but they suggest that the population of Connacht rose a good deal more rapidly in the fifty years before 1841 than that of Leinster or Munster.11 This was partly due to immigration. Several thousand Ulster catholics took refuge in Connacht at the end of the century. Lord Altamont settled a number of them round Louisburgh, which was founded for the occasion; others were taken by Richard Martin of Ballynahinch. All through the century there were few roads in Connacht, and the western parts of Galway and Mayo were almost inaccessible. Thomas Molyneux on his well-known visit to Roderick O'Flaherty in 1709 succeeded in getting a few miles along the coast to the west of Galway town through the stoniest and wildest country he had ever seen.12 Most of west Galway remained entirely roadless until the early part R. O'Flaherty, West Connacht (ed. J. Hardiman), p. 414. Synge to Wake, 15 Jan. 1717 (Gilbert coll.). 9 Journal, iv. 378. 10 Memoirs, p. 175. 11 E.g. the ratio between Beaufort's estimates (1792) and the T841 census is 1:2*8 for Connacht and 1:1*9 for Munster. 12 Ir. Arch. Soc. Misc., i 171. 7

8

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

294

of the nineteenth century, when a Scottish engineer named Nimmo made the road to Clifden. In Mayo, Erris was equally inaccessible. Archdeacon Pococke set out in 1752 from Newport to the Mullet with a guide and hired horses, and had an adventurous journey through morasses, across rivers and over rocky mountains.13 At the turn of the century this road to the Mullet was described as Alpine, intercepted by a score of unbridged rivers and without a single human habitation over a stretch of at least fifteen miles.14 The inaccessibility of the region had the advantage that outsiders could not easily come in and raise rents by their competition. When the nineteenth-century roads were made in west Galway it was said that Connemara had gone to the devil and that good roads only encouraged strangers to outbid the local people.15 In the earlier part of the century long stretches of the Shannon were unbridged and the river was a considerable barrier to Connacht traffic. The Grand Canal did not reach the Shannon until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Poor communications tended to keep Connacht a place apart and largely self-sufficient. The houses of many of the gentry were primitive and crudely furnished, and good eating was much more common than good housing. Mrs Pendarves, who paid a long visit to Connacht in 1732, remarked that the gentry of the region did not seem to want good houses or more furniture than was absolutely necessary, but that they made up for it in eating and drinking. She was astonished to visit a thatched cabin and to be told that it belonged to a gentleman of £1,500 a year, who gave entertainments of twenty dishes of meat.16 A hundred years later, Maria Edgeworth had a similar experience at the Martins' castle of Ballynahinch—a dilapidated affair with doors that stayed neither open nor shut, ceilings and walls splotched with damp, curtainless windows, and a pigstye and dunghill too close for comfort. At the same time, she had magnificent meals—venison, salmon, Irish tour, pp. 84-9. J. McParlan, Statistical survey of county Mayo, pp. 164-5. 15 H. Dutton, Statistical survey of county Galway, p. 375. 16 M. Delany, Autobiography, i. 350.

13

14

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

295

lobsters, oysters and game, all well cooked and well served.17 Richard Cumberland, the dramatist, who visited Eyrecourt in the 1760s noted that its noble owner lived in the style of the country, with more hospitality than elegance. A slaughtered ox was hung up whole and slices carved from the carcase.18 The plentifulness of provisions was reflected in the prices. Archdeacon Pococke in 1752 thought the Newport rates remarkably cheap : beef a penny a pound, mutton a penny farthing, chickens a penny each and a fat goose for sixpence. He found the peasantry feeding pretty well. In a cabin in which he sheltered, the family were dining on potatoes and buttermilk and oatcakes cooked on the griddle, which they offered to him. They were also boiling some goat, but did not offer him any of that. Instead they said they would get him some eggs and milk. Their utensils were of wood, mostly of solid timber. They used scallop shells for drinking, and had rushlights dipped in tallow which they melted in a scallop shell. The cabin had clean straw and clean blankets, but the smoke was very troublesome to Pococke till the owner gave him a low seat where he could crouch below the level of the smokecloud. An interesting census taken in the diocese of Elphin in 174919 gives some idea of social life at the time. It shows the name of each householder with his occupation, religion, the number of his children below and above the age of fourteen, and the number of male and female servants living in the house. The overwhelming majority of the population were catholic; protestants were chiefly to be found as servants or employees of big houses, or sometimes as tenants of protestant landlords. Parishes without a big house, or in which the local landlord was a catholic, had virtually no protestants in them. An extraordinary variety of occupations is represented in the census. Self-sufficiency, even in small country places, extended to wigs, stays and gloves. The bigger landlords kept very large domestic staffs. Lord Kingsborough had thirty-one men servants and nine women servants; Arthur French of 1T Tour in Connemara, 18 Memoirs, i. 278. 19

In P.R.O.I.

pp. 41-4.

296

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Frenchpark had sixteen men servants and ten women servants. Even a catholic in reduced circumstances such as O'Conor of Belanagare had four servants living in as well as five married couples living in adjacent cottages who were returned as servants. Tenant farmers had one to three servants. Goldsmith's uncle—a clergyman passing rich on forty pounds a year—had four men and two women to look after himself and one child. The majority of the people were labourers or cottiers, with a sprinkling of weavers, shepherds, tradesmen and artisans. According to the census families were small, not much more than two children in a family on an average. In Roscommon and the eastern part of Galway and Mayo sheep raising was the staple form of agriculture. The October fair at Ballinasloe was the great event, at which round about 70,000 sheep were sold. Much land was taken on lease by middlemen—largely catholics—who sublet at double the rents they paid themselves. Some of these middlemen, such as the O'Malleys and O'Flahertys, leased lands that had formerly belonged to their ancestors. Until the population began to press on the land available, the peasants do not seem to have found their lot as intolerable as in some other parts of the country. Their houses and clothes were very primitive, but they seem to have had enough to eat and their relations with their landlords were comparatively good. Tithes were less oppressive in Connacht, where they were levied only on corn and sheep, as compared with Munster where they had to be paid on potatoes, milk, eggs and chickens. The Whiteboy movement of the 1760s and '70s seems to have had little effect on Connacht, and right up to the French landing in 1798 the province was regarded as the quietest part of the country. In April of 1798 only one United Irishman was produced at the Mayo assizes, and Galway was believed by the government to be the best behaved part of Ireland.20 Charles O'Conor of Belanagare, in an account of a reclamation scheme on which he settled seventeen families with holdings of ten Irish acres each, said that in spite of the primitive conditions they were not pressed for hunger : they had plenty of potatoes, plenty 20

N.L.I., MS 5619 (O'Malley papers), p. 349.

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

297

of water and plenty of naked brats; moreover they were happy in the insensibility of which their southern brethren were destitute.21 In 1773 O'Conor sent to the R.D.S. a survey of the parish of Kilronan in county Roscommon, in which he said that the peasants paid their rent by the sale of surplus cattle and pigs. The women in this parish did no spinning— which is in contrast to Arthur Young's experience of other parishes. O'Conor commented on the practice of distillation in the parish. Every cottier to a man distilled his oats into spirits, and every cabin became a whiskey house until the spirit was drunk.22 The introduction of protestant tenants from outside was a major grievance. There were a number of attempts to strengthen the protestant interest in the province by such settlements, and most of the violence that occurred was directed against protestant settlers. In particular there was a houghing campaign against their cattle in Anne's reign, which excited much attention. A colony of protestants established about that time ion the Mullet in the far north-west of Mayo found their cattle stolen and their gardens plundered by the catholics who had been forced into the mountainous interior by the arrival of strangers.23 Protestant tenants were attacked and driven out in 1757 by the O'Flahertys with a large band armed with guns, swords and spiked poles.24 A protestant colony at Manulla found it very difficult to maintain itself in an overwhelmingly catholic region. John Wesley, who preached there, observed that the catholics had changed little in a hundred years; most of them retained the same bitterness arid thirst for blood and would as freely cut the throats of protestants as they had done in the previous century.25 The town of Galway declined greatly in the eighteenth century. Its fortunes had been built up by catholic merchants who had developed a flourishing trade with Spain and France. As the most catholic of the seaports it came under grave 21

O'Conor to Walker, 21 Oct. 1786 (Gilbert coll.). J. Sinclair, Statistical account of Scotland, xxxi. 371-8. 23 C. Otway, Sketches in Errts and Tyrawley, pp. 347-9. 24 Commons' jn. Ire. (ed. 1798), vi. xcv. 25 Journal, iv. 268. 22

298 War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730 suspicion after the Jacobite war. The Popery Act of 1704 laid down that no fresh catholics other than seamen and day-labourers should come to live there, and that the existing catholic inhabitants should give security for their good behaviour. When there were threatened French invasions in 1708 and 1715, the catholic residents were turned out of the town. The corporation was in the hands of a small protestant group who showed little initiative and constantly quarrelled among themselves. In spite of these discouragements Galway town continued to be obstinately catholic. Very few protestants settled there, and, whatever the law might be, there was a constant influx of catholics. In 1762 there were 14,000 catholics and only 350 protestants in the town. Although regular trade declined, smuggling flourished and there were many reports of brandy and other goods being brought into the town at night through gaps in the mouldering walls. In 1731 the house of lords had a special inquiry into the growth of popery in Galway. Numbers of friaries and nunneries were searched, but the occupants had absented themselves and the searchers found nothing but empty beds.26 The harbour suffered from neglect, and in 1769 the merchants petitioned parliament for a grant to repair the ruinous quays, but many years passed before anything was done.27 The wretched condition of the harbour had hastened the decline of the port, and in 1762 there were only three or four Galway ships going to sea. The town itself showed obvious signs of decay and grass was to be seen growing in the streets. In the latter part of the century, with the relaxation of the penal laws, there was some revival in the fortunes of Galway as a regional capital. Jewellers and portrait painters came down from Dublin on periodical visits to cater for the needs of the Connacht gentry. There was a theatre which brought down Dublin companies to play comedies and farces—plays with such titles as ' Wild oats, or the gentlemen strollers ' or 4 iHg h l ilife f e bbelow stairs'. The profits of the theatre were ' HHigh precarious, and the management sometimes had to be helped 26 27

Lords' jn. Ire., iii. 115. Commons' jn. Ire., vii. 314.

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

299

out by the amateur efforts of the local gentry.28 Richard Martin of Dangan, and later of Ballynahinch, was passionately fond of acting; Mrs Martin was an accomplished actress, and there was plenty of local talent. Wolfe Tone took part in these theatricals in 1783 in the celebrated tragedy of ' Douglas ' and the farce ' All the world's a stage \ In the process he fell head and ears in love with Mrs Martin. 29 Connacht, because of its isolation, remained the most conservative part of the country, where the Irish language and traditions were strongly entrenched all through the eighteenth century. A great centre of tradition was at Belanagare in Roscommon, where a branch of the O'Conors had managed to preserve a fair fraction of their former inheritance. Carolan used often to stay with Denis O'Conor and later with his son Charles, the celebrated antiquary. Charles got a great part of his education from Carolan, who was very fond of his pupil. The boy's translation of a Latin psalm into Irish delighted Carolan so much that he was inspired to take up his harp and burst into a song for the occasion. Charles O'Conor's biography and correspondence give a very good idea of the life of a catholic gentleman in eighteenth-century Connacht. He was on friendly terms with his protestant neighbours, including the local clergyman, and got considerable satisfaction from country pursuits—cutting trees, clearing land and building a retreat for himself which he called his hermitage. But there are constant references to the penal laws, and he was very conscious of the precariousness of his position. Family arrangements had probably contravened the laws and his youngest brother took advantage of the situation to turn protestant and claim the land as a discoverer. Troublesome litigation followed, and an expensive compromise was necessary before things were cleared up. Another patron of Irish poetry was Hugh O'Donnell of Larkfield, county Leitrim, who was responsible for the collection of O'Donnell poems.30 He was a descendant of Neil Garbh 28 Connaught Journal, 1793, 1795. 29 Liam 0 Briain, ' Theobald Wolfe Tone in Galway', in Irish Sword, ii. 228-9. 30 E. O Tuathail, ' On Hugh O'Donnell in Larkfield ', in Eigse, iii. 21-4.

300

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

and had settled in county Leitrim as a tenant on a protestant estate. But he was highly respected by all the people round as the representative of a great Irish family and was commonly referred to as ' the earl'. Two of his sons became generals in the Austrian army and were counts of the Holy Roman Empire. But they retained their connection with Ireland. Conn O'Donnell of Larkfield was one of the few notable catholics in Leitrim at the end of the eighteenth century. Another branch of Neill Garbh's descendants came to Mayo, and their story is of interest as illustrating the different ways in which an old Gaelic family could attain distinction in eighteenth-century Ireland. The O'Donnells seem to have come into Mayo in the middle of the seventeenth century, when one of them married the daughter of a transplanted O'Neill. Neill Garbh's grandson Rory settled on a remote corner of the Ormond estate in north-west Mayo. Rory's son Manus was a colonel in the Jacobite army, took advantage of the terms of the treaty of Limerick to stay on as a tenant on the Ortmond estate, and in the 1720s moved into the recently founded town of Newport, where he was one of the few catholics in a protestant colony. The O'Donnell's flourished in Newport, leasing land and building up their financial position. Manus's daughter Anne married a young MacDermott Roe, and the occasion was celebrated by Carolan with an epithalamium. Carolan also composed a poem, called 4 The hawk of the Erne and Ballyshannon ' for Manus's son Calvagh Roe. This Calvagh moved over to the east of Mayo to Newcastle, where he leased some land. His son went into the Austrian army, became a major-general and a count of the Holy Roman Empire, and eventually returned to Ireland and spent the last years of his life at Newcastle, where he died in 1793. He took his place as one of the leading catholic gentry of Mayo, although Wolfe Tone rather airily dismissed him with the words ' General O'Donnell—he knows nothing of politics '. Another of Manus's grandsons attained distinction at Newport, but did so by becoming a protestant. This was Neil O'Donnell, who conformed to the established church in 1763, and devoted considerable energy to developing Newport.

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

301

He encouraged merchants to settle there, started the manufacture of tobacco and claimed to have turned the place into the premier port of Connacht, producing a larger revenue than Galway or Sligo.31 He became sheriff of the county in 1776 and a baronet in 1780. His accounts for 1788 show that he was drawing nearly £4,000 a year from his Newport estate, besides a very considerable income from other property. The Newport O'Donnells turned into something very like a typical ascendancy family. A son married an Annesley, a daughter married Sir Capel Molyneux; two sons were members of the Irish parliament. One of them, James Moore O'Donnell, was a strong opponent of the union. His story illustrates some of the perils of political life in Connacht at the end of the eighteenth century. There is an account of an election row in Castlebar in 1790; the Binghams tried to duck some bucks who supported the Brownes, two of whom were candidates on the other side; the sheriff intervened and called in the army and the consequence was a riot, in which a number of people, including James Moore O'Donnell, were severely beaten.32 The feud continued, and in 1800 James Moore O'Donnell fought a duel with one of the Binghams and was killed. His sorrowing father put up a tablet in Newport church in the best eighteenth-century style: ' The tears of his friends have evinced his value, the regret of his country has recorded his integrity: in arduous times he proved his loyalty to his king, in corrupt ones he supported the independence of his country : and as he lived a man of honour so he died a man of courage '. In fact, there had been a certain ambivalence in James Moore O'Donnell's conduct in 1798. He had raised a corps of yeomanry, but most of them were catholics who joined the French and seized control of Newport. After the insurrection had collapsed, James Moore O'Donnell took an active part in capturing some of the leaders who were on the run. But having captured them he acted as counsel for their defence during the courtmartial proceedings, and when they were convicted he offered to go surety for them and used his influence Commons1 jn. Ire., xi. 444. For Connacht O'Donnells see A.F.M., vi, 32 app. For Newport O'Donnells see N.L.I., O'Donnell papers. N.L.I., MS 5619, p. 203. 31

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

302

to mitigate their sentences. A local clergyman charged him with high treason and he was accused of aiding and abetting the United Irishmen. A sworn inquiry was held into his conduct, but eventually he was cleared.33 Suspicion was no doubt aroused by the fact that George Blake, the general of the insurgents, was his cousin. These O'Donnells were proud of their Gaelic antecedents, and Sir Neil had the gratification of getting possession of the famous Cathach—the battle book of the O'Donnells—which his son-in-law discovered in a French monastery. His grandson made it over to the Royal Irish Academy, where it now is. The history of the Martin family makes a good example of the more turbulent side of life in Connacht in the eighteenth century. A running feud with pitched battles went on between them and the O'Flahertys, who had been dispossessed by the Martins in the seventeenth century of most of their lands. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the Martin of the day was Richard, who had been a captain in the Jacobite army but had got a pardon from William III, which confirmed him in the possession of an enormous area of west Galway, in which medieval conceptions of law and order prevailed. The O'Flaherty champion was Eamonn Laidir, or Edmond the Strong. The two used to fight on horseback, sword in hand. Martin was always surrounded by an army of his followers, which enabled him to escape with comparative ease, while Edmond had to cut his way out through Martin's supporters.34 Richard Martin's son Robert was killed by the O'Flahertys. Another Robert, Richard's grandson, was also a turbulent character. An army officer, who was spending the evening in Galway, had occasion to spit out of an upper window. Unfortunately for him, the spittle fell on the head of Robert Martin, who happened to be outside. Martin in a paroxysm of rage rushed upstairs, drew his sword and ran it through the luckless lieutenant, killing him on the spot. The trial was held in Dublin, as Martin—catholic though he was—had too much local influence for the crown to expect a fair trial in Galway. But the Dublin jury had a good deal of Galway 33

R. Hayes, Last invasion of Ireland, pp. 305-6. O'Flaherty, West Connaught, p. 416.

34

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

303

in its make-up and returned a verdict of not guilty. This Martin was an enthusiastic Jacobite who caused much anxiety to the authorities in 1745. Governor Eyre reported that Martin could within twenty-four hours bring to the gates of Galway eight hundred men as 35 absolutely devoted to him as the Camerons to Lochiel. Martin thought it advisable to turn protestant. Soon after he had a violent quarrel with Governor Eyre, attacking him with a bludgeon and a sword, until Eyre fell bathed in his own blood. Robert's son Richard was the most famous of all the Martins. He was variously known as Hairtrigger Dick, because of the number of duels he fought; the King of Connemara, where he ruled supreme over 200,000 acres; and Humanity Dick, because—however little he cared for human life—he was devoted to animals : he was one of the founders of the R.S.P.C.A. One iof his duels was fought in Castlebar with another famous Connacht eccentric, George Robert Fitzgerald. This fight became legendary and the story of it was taken down a hundred years later by Douglas Hyde. Richard Martin had a long and extravagant life, and his debts were estimated at over £100,000. He contributed largely to the impression of Connacht eccentricity and extravagance that was popularised by Charles Lever. His son, the last of the Martins of Connemara, continued the family tradition. He and the O'Flahertys had a battle in which both sides mobilised an army of tenants armed with sticks. But by the nineteenth century the machinery of the law had become more effective and both Martin and O'Flaherty served a term in Galway jail.36 But not all the Connacht gentry were extravagant eccentrics. Arthur Young found several improving landlords when he visited the province in 1776. Lord Altamont at Westport had made a number of experiments in bringing mountainy land under cultivation. He had imported English cattle to improve the local breed and had started a weaving industry. Thomas Mahon of Strokestown gave Young much information about the famous Roscommon sheepwalks. He had imported an English ram, bought from the celebrated Robert Bakewell. 35 36

O. J. Burke, Annals of the Connaught circuit, pp. 84-6, 98-101. M. Edgeworth. Tour in Connemara, pp. 102-3.

304

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

He also employed a ploughman from Suffolk, who taught his technique to ploughmen at Strokestown and on the neighbouring estates. Mahon went in for tree-planting on a large scale— ash, beech, silver fir and Lombardy poplars. Arthur Young also visited Woodlawn near Ballinasloe, the home of the Trench family, which was of huguenot origin and acquired large areas in Galway, Mayo and Roscommon by judicious purchases and an astute marriage alliance in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Young has given a detailed account of Trench's experiments in bog reclamation. On the Trench estate every cabin had eight or nine Irish acres. The tenants had two or three cows apiece and most of them kept pigs and poultry. Their women did spinning. Potatoes, oats and butter were the usual diet. The Trenches had the rights in the great fair of Ballinasloe, which brought in a good income. It used to leave Ballinasloe in a highly insanitary condition. The doors of the houses were almost inaccessible on account of dunghills as high as the eaves. Sanitation was improved in the early part of the nineteenth century by the energetic efforts of a clerical member of the Trench family.37 Another improving landlord was Robert French of Monivea, who drained bogs and developed the linen industry, sowing flax, starting spinning schools, setting up weavers and building a bleaching mill. When Arthur Young visited him he had ninety-six looms and three hundred and seventy spinning wheels on his estate. Although the Monivea family had conformed to the established church quite early in the century, Robert French was regarded as friendly to catholic claims. There is an interesting reference of 1768 to the catholic Bellews (who themselves had no votes) proposing to turn some protestant tenants into freeholders to vote for Robert French and Denis Daly.38 Daly wasa descended from a judge of James IPs. His father had conformed in 1729, but remained a strong advocate of catholic claims and led the opposition in Galway to the vigorously protestant Governor Eyre. The son, Denis Daly, was one of the leading orators of the Irish commons. H e collected a valuable library at Dunsandle, the finest ever formed in the province. 37 Statistical survey 'of county Galway, p. 332, 38 N.L.I., Bellew papers.

Connacht in the Eighteenth Century

305

1798 was a sensational year for Connacht. In August a French expedition, which was making for Donegal, was forced by adverse winds into Killala bay in the north of Mayo. The events of the next month are well known—the capture of Killala, the battle of Castlebar Races and the defeat at Ballinamuck of Humbert's forces and of the Irish who had joined him. Up to the landing Connacht had been the province least affected by the events of 1798. But the excitement of a French landing infected a number of the catholic gentry, such as Blake of Garracloon and O'Dowd of Bonniconlan, who brought along their tenants with them. They were joined by others who were attracted—so it seemed to Bishop Stock—by French uniforms, military rations and the prospect of spoils of war.39 After Humbert's victory at the ' races of Castlebar' a provisional republic of Connacht was declared, with John Moo're of Moore Hall—great-uncle of George Moore the writer—as its president and a council of twelve. Magistrates were appointed—all catholics, but men of moderation who administered their areas reasonably and earned the commendation of local protestants. The bishop was surprised at the orderly conduct of the insurgents, and noted that not a drop of blood was shed by the Connacht rebels except in the field of war. There was some destruction of protestants' property. Several big houses were burned, and an attack was made on a colony of Ulster weavers who had been imported by one of the Gore family and had aroused the traditional dislike of protestant colonies. The defeat at Ballinamuck was followed by a terrible retribution on the Connacht insurgents. Martial law was imposed, hundreds of cabins were burned and many of their owners hunted down and killed. A number of the leaders were hanged, chiefly through the efforts of Denis Browne, who earned the title of Denis the Rope. Browne complained that his zeal in punishing rebels was not shared by other protestant gentry in the province. So the eighteenth century closed for Connacht in an atmosphere of unsuccessful insurrection, military repression, death and destruction. The hunted and houseless peasants of Mayo had every reason to feel betrayed and embittered. 39

Narrative of what passed at Killalla, p. 22.

306

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Conditions in Connacht generally deteriorated in the early nineteenth century, when a rapidly growing population led to competition for land and increased rents, and improved communications assimilated the province to the rest of the country. Little was left of the easy-going ways in which some tolerance and friendliness had lightened the burden of poverty in eighteenth-century Connacht.

23 COUNTY SLIGO IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY In the eighteenth century Sligo was a remote and seldom visited part of Ireland. It was far from Dublin and not on the way to anywhere else, except from Donegal to Mayo. Right up to the end of the century there was no mail-coach route from Dublin to Sligo. There was only one town, and for much of the period it was small and undeveloped. The county had no resident nobility, not even a bishop's palace. Until 1798 life was uneventful and Sligo finds little mention in the general history of eighteenth-century Ireland. But the local history for the period is well documented and there is a variety of sources, printed and unprinted, from which we can form a picture of a self-contained society with an individual way of living that has many points of interest. Social and economic conditions in eighteenth-century Ireland were to a great extent the result of the wars of the seventeenth century in which the Protestants, first in Cromwell's time and then in William of Orange's, defeated the Catholics and as a result got nearly all the land and enjoyed a complete monopoly of political and administrative power. Sligo is, of course, part of Connacht, and was so in Cromwell's time. But it was not part of the Connacht reserved for the Irish under the transplantation scheme; it was earmarked for Cromwell's soldiers. At the restoration of Charles II some Catholics got back part of the lands that Cromwell had taken from them. But some got nothing back and among these were O'Connor Sligo and O'Gara, who had owned a great part of the county. The only prominent Catholic landowner in the county to be restored was Lord Taafe, who got back his estates at Bally mote. Less than ten per cent of the county was owned by Catholics at the end of Charles II's reign. The Williamite war involved much less confiscation in the county and perhaps less bitterness than in some other parts of Ireland. When the war began in 1689, the Protestants gathered in Sligo town to hold it for King William, but in the autumn of that year they surrendered it on honourable terms to Patrick Sarsfield, who treated them with courtesy and faithfully observed the terms of the surrender. After that it was held for King James for two years until it was surrendered, again on honourable terms, in the autumn of 1691, just before the treaty of Limerick. One of the prominent supporters of King James was Henry Crofton of Longford Castle. He was appointed by James to be high sheriff of the county and also represented it in the Patriot Parliament of 1689. His family history was unusual. He came of English stock, settled in Ireland since the sixteenth century. His father had bought

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

308

Longford Castle from its Irish owners and had married a daughter of O'Conor Don. The children were Catholics, brought up in their mother's faith. During the Jacobite regime Henry Crofton was a good friend to his Protestant neighbours, the Irwins of Tanrego, and sheltered them when they were on the run. After the war Henry Crofton was pardoned by William and remained in possession of his estates. The family stayed Catholic until the time of Henry's grandson James, who fell in love with a Protestant, Miss Robinson of Sligo town, whose father objected to the marriage on religious grounds. James turned Protestant and married the lady, and thus the Croftons rejoined the ranks of the Protestant families of the county.1 One of the members for Sligo town in the Patriot Parliament of 1689 was Counsellor Terence MacDonagh, who also took a prominent part in the fighting with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He was admitted to the benefit of the articles of Limerick, which saved his property from confiscation and enabled him to practise at the Dublin bar for some years, to the great advantage of his co-religionists. After that he retired to his home at Creevagh, Co. Sligo. His reputation for shrewdness and legal learning survived in the folklore of the county and there are several stories about him recorded by the Irish Folklore Commission. He had his troubles as well as his triumphs; periodically, when there was a scare of a French invasion, he would be arrested, and his story brings out the difficulties that life had for Catholics in the eighteenth century. But there is evidence that he was respected by a number of Protestants.2 The head of the Taafe family, Lord Carlingford, was killed fighting for King James at the battle of the Boyne, but his brother and heir was a celebrated soldier in the army of the Holy Roman Emperor, King William's principal ally, and a posthumous pardon was therefore given to Lord Carlingford. So the Taafe estates at Ballymote were not confiscated, though the family lived abroad in Austria. The result of these pardons was that, unlike the position in some other counties, very little change in the ownership of land in Sligo took place as a result of the Williamite war. Of the Protestant landowners at the beginning of the eighteenth century the most remarkable were the O'Haras, who were distinguished by their Gaelic name and descent from the Coopers, Gores, Ormsbys, Joneses, Irwins and other landed families of the county. The O'Haras were a relic of the ancient proprietors, a distinction they owed to the fact that early in the seventeenth century Teigue O'Hara had died leaving two minor sons who were put in charge of the court of wards3 and brought up as Protestants. But they were not bigoted Protestants; they !H. T. Crofton, Crofton Memoirs, pp. 142-3. J. C. T. MacDonagh, ' Counsellor Terence MacDonagh,' in Studies, xxxvi. 307-18, and xxxvii. 65-74. 3 H. F. Kearney, 'Court of wards ... in Ireland, 1622-41' in Proc. R.I.A., lvii, C2, 54. 2

County Sligo in the Eighteenth

Century

309

had many Catholic relatives and Kean O'Hara who owned Annaghmore at the beginning of the eighteenth century married a wife from a wellknown Catholic family, the Mathews of Thomastown, County Tipperary. Kean O'Hara was on very friendly terms with Counsellor MacDonagh. The O'Haras also gave shelter to the Catholic bishop of Achonry in his distress.4 Kean O'Hara's son Charles has left an interesting account of the county in the opening years of the eighteenth century.5 According to him it was very much of a subsistence economy, in which money played little part: ' In the beginning of this century,' he says, ' the whole country was covered with cottage tenants, who, having no foreign demand for the produce of their farms, mostly paid their rent in kind, in duties and in work. The only money brought amongst us was by means of the army and some very few lean cattle sold to the Leinster graziers. So that an estate in this county before the year 1710, though amply sufficient for plenty at home, was yet of little use to support a landlord abroad. For this reason gentlemen generally lived on their own estates.' This account is corroborated by the estimates of rents in the county made in connection with the confiscation of land at the very end of the seventeenth century. The rent of good land in County Sligo was put at half a crown an Irish acre, which would work out at about one shilling and eightpence an acre for good and bad land taken together.6 An attractive picture of social life in the county in the early years of the century can be got from the life of Carolan, the famous musician, who visited many houses in the county, both Catholic and Protestant. ' Carolan's country' included most of the well-known Sligo houses: Markree, Tanrego, Longford, Temple House, Creevagh, Coolavin and Annaghmore among others. His music included tunes for Croftons and Irwins, Kean O'Hara and General Wynne. This tradition of patronizing Irish music was kept up in the latter half of the century, when Arthur O'Neill, the blind harper, visited the Irwins at Tanrego, the Croftons at Longford and various other houses, and was, in his own words, * uncommonly well treated.' 7 Charles O'Hara described the middle years of the century as a period in which the economy of the county went over to cattle-raising, which brought in more money but had the effect of clearing out tenants, so that the county was very thinly populated. In 1733 the estimate of households in the county was 6,200 of which rather less than one-fifth were Protestant. This was based on the hearth-money returns, which almost certainly underestimated the number of Catholic houses. Allowing for this, the population of the county in 1733 may be taken as about 4 T. 5

O'Rorke, History of Sligo, i. 239. Ainsworth report on O'Hara papers (National Library of Ireland). I am grateful to Mr. John Ainsworth for drawing my attention to this material. «T. C. D., MS N. 1. 3. 7D. O'Sullivan, Carolan, ii 167.

310

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

48,000—nearly twenty per cent less than it is today. The proportion of Protestants was higher than in any county outside Ulster.8 There is an interesting account of the county written in 1739, which suggests that trade was developing and that there was a growing demand for the products of the area.9 According to it, Sligo town was still very small, with rather more than 300 houses. It was an English mile long and half a mile broad and regarded as very healthy, with an oldest inhabitant who had recently died at the age of 122. The harbour was poor; ships had to anchor off Oyster Island and needed a pilot to take them past Blackrock, where there was no lighthouse. Even so, there was an export trade in beef, hides, tallow, butter and barley. There were two markets a week in the town, at which large quantities of linen yarn and cloth were sold. The country people also wove coarse friezes. The chief manufacture in the town was usquebaugh, which Mr. John Debutts distilled in great quantities, having the ' largest and best conveniencies in Ireland for the purpose'. The fishing industry was not developed, but there were large quantities of shellfish—' mussels, cockles, etc., which afford a very plentiful provision to the poor and regales to the rich'. At the mouths of the Sligo and Drumcliff rivers were very large oyster beds and the oysters were ' reckoned for firmness, fatness and delicious taste to excel all others'. There were also many women employed in getting dulse and * slushkaun' [?sloak] off the rocks. Kelp was burned to make soap-ash. The gentry were busy making themselves new and elegant houses, some of them with new and elegant names. Charles O'Hara's ' pretty new seat' was called Nymphsfield. Mercury was the classical transformation of Markree, the home of the Coopers, ' a regular and very elegant piece of modern architecture'. But Owen Wynne's house * of Haslewood by far excels all the rest', and the writer gives a very detailed description of it. The house was built for General Wynne by Richard Cassel, the most noted architect in Ireland at the time. In 1749 the Protestant Bishop of Elphin made a census of his diocese, recording every householder by name with his religion, occupation and the number of his children.10 It does not take in the whole county, but covers a great part of it, including Sligo town, which had 294 Protestant and 318 Catholic households—a much higher proportion of Protestants than there were in the county generally. At six per house that would give a population of rather less than 4,000. An idea of a gentleman's establishment can be got from the figures for Hazel wood, which was occupied by Colonel Wynne and his wife, two children over fourteen, two children under fourteen, twelve Protestant manservants and ten Catholic women servants. The gardener and his wife were Catholics, 8 The figures have been up-graded according to the formula given in K. H. Connell, Population of Ireland, p. 24. 9By the Rev. W. Henry, in Public Record Office of Ireland. i°In P.R.O.T.

County Sligo in the Eighteenth Century

311

and so were most of the thirty-four cottiers on the estate. Of course, wages were very low at the time, although they were higher than when the century began. The O'Hara accounts show that in the early years of the century the coachman got £6 a year, with a suit of livery, a hat, shoes and stockings; by the middle of the century his wages had gone up to £10 10s-, with £1 for his washing and 7/- a week extra when he was in Dublin. At that time the gardener got £13 13s a year, the cook £10, the housemaid £3 and the pantry boy £2. The most famous visitor to the county during the century was John Wesley, who passed through it more than a dozen times. He did not find the Sligo people very responsive to his preaching and referred sorrowfully to 'this sink of wickedness' and 'the poor, stupid sinners of Sligo'. His first impressions of the county, gathered on the way from Boyle to Sligo in May 1758, were surprisingly favourable. He refers to the county as 'the best peopled that I have seen in this kingdom; eight villages we counted in seven miles. The town, I think, is little less than Limerick'—a serious overestimate on his part—'the country round it is fertile and well improved, even the mountains to the very top'. He described a minor grain riot in the town, which took place while he was there: 'the mob had been in motion all the day, but their business was only with the forestalled of the market who had bought up all the corn far and near to starve the poor and load a Dutch ship which lay at the quay; but the mob brought it all out into the market and sold it for the owners at the common price; and this they did with all the calmness imaginable and without striking or hurting anyone'. On one of his journeys Wesley's chaise got stuck in a 'slough' near Tubbercurry; he had to be carried across on the shoulders of a countryman, while the chaise was forced through with great difficulty, with horses pulling ropes and men shoving from behind.11 The most colourful character in county society was Charles O'Hara, of whom mention has already been made. He made a fashionable marriage to Lady Mary Carmichael, the daughter of a Scottish earl and the sister of the Archbishop of Dublin. He is said to have won her heart by the dash and gallantry he showed at a hunting party in England. There were many tales told of him and his wonderful horses, shod with silver shoes; one story was of his jumping from a precipitous height on Knocknashee.12 He lived in the grand style, with houses in Dublin, Bath and Harrow, a son at Oxford and stables at the Curragh. His stud book and the account of his son's racing expenses are among the papers at Annaghmore, and now microfilmed by the National Library. O'Hara was a great friend of Edmund Burke. Their correspondence has recently been published and is of much interest. Most of it relates to the English political situation, but there are a good many passages relating to Sligo life. Burke and O'Hara were both enthusiastic farmers and tried to follow the writings of the great nWesley, Journal, iv. 267-8; v. 506; vi. 191-2. 12T. O'Rorke, History of Ballysadare, p. 399.

312

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

agricultural expert of the day, Arthur Young. Some of the new developments were not suited to the Sligo climate and O'Hara lamented to Burke that his wheat lay flat on the ground with the rain pouring down on it; caterpillars ate up his cabbages, and his servants, armed with Norfolk hoes, weeded his turnips so enthusiastically that they tore up two-thirds of the crop. Burke advised him to stick to potatoes rather than turnips and adapt his methods to Irish conditions. In an earlier letter O'Hara described to Burke his efforts to modify the local farming traditions: 'I went yesterday to divide a very large mountain farm among its inhabitants, who according to their own tradition have lived under me there for 500 years; 'tis their phrase. With great difficulty I divided them into four villages, for 'twas an innovation; but I told them they must be modernized. They were sufficiently so as to vice and I have a desire to make them industrious and to preserve them. You'd hardly expect this from a man you used to accuse last winter of being as bad as any Cromwellian. I therefore tell it to retrieve your favour.'13 Arthur Young himself visited Sligo on his tour of Ireland in 1776 and has given a detailed description of the county. Oddly enough, he makes only one incidental reference to O'Hara's farming—that he had got good results from feeding bullocks on potatoes. Young paid far more attention to Joshua Cooper, with whom he stayed at Markree. Cooper had long grown turnips for stock-feeding, but had lately taken to growing cabbages for feeding cattle and sheep. He found that cattle greatly preferred cabbages, and that cabbage-fed sheep were much the fattest. He used oxen for ploughing, four or six to a plough; they were far more profitable than horses. His hogs were fattened on potatoes, but raw potatoes made the pork flabby and greasy; parboiled potatoes well salted produced good, firm pork. He had improved the breed of his cattle and had done much land-drainage and reclamation of bog. Rents were fifteen shillings an acre and likely to rise still higher. Young found that the county was going over from pasture to tillage, a development that continued to the end of the century. He said that most of the tillage farms were very small, poor people taking land in partnership and subdividing down to five or six acres. This was the rundale system. In the south of the county Young was told that conditions had improved in the last twenty years; people were clothed and fed better and were much more industrious. Fewer went off as spalpeens or itinerant labourers. The rent of a cabin was £1 a year and the grass of a cow 30/-. The food of the poor was 'potatoes, milk and herrings, with oaten bread in summer. All keep cows, not pigs, and but a few poultry. They have an absolute bellyful of potatoes and the children eat them as plentifully as they like. The average price of oatmeal something less than a penny a 130'Hara to Burke, 30 Aug., 1771. Burke to O'Hara. 30 July, 1772 (R. Hoffman, Edmund Burke, New York agent, pp. 499. 526); O'Hara to Burke, 10 Aug., 1762 (Burke. Corr., ed. T. W. Copeland, i, 146).

County Sligo in the Eighteenth

Century

313

pound. All of them have a bit of cabbages. They prefer oat-bread both to potatoes and to wheat-bread. All afford whiskey. A year's turf will cost a family 30/-. The common people are so amazingly addicted to thieving everything they can lay their hands on, that they will unshoe the horses in the field in the barony of Liny; they are also liars from their cradle, but wonderfully sagacious, cunning and artful.' In the northwest of the county, near Easky, Young found the people less prosperous; 'the circumstances of the people are not at all improved in twenty years; they are not better fed or clothed or in any respect better off than formerly. Nor are they at all industrious. Even of seaweed they do not make one half the advantage they could; they might get sixty loads where they get one. They increase in number very greatly so as to be evidently crowded; this has been the case particularly since inoculation was introduced, which was about ten years ago. They live on potatoes and milk and for three months in the year on oatmeal.' Young also stayed at Ballymote with the Fitzmaurices, who had bought the property from Lord Taafe and had tried to establish linen weaving with the help of Protestant weavers imported from the north. The enterprise had started badly, but later got on its feet.14 The O'Haras did the same thing and built houses on their estate for eighty Protestant weavers. By the end of the century linen had become the chief manufacture of the county and there was a linen hall in Sligo town. In 1791 60,000 yards of linen were exported from Sligo by sea.15 There is a well-known account in Young's book of MacDermott, the prince of Coolavin, who had astonishing pride in spite of an income of only £100 a year. His sons were not allowed to sit down in his presence. O'Hara was welcomed to his house, but visitors without Milesian pedigrees were given very offhand treatment. However his Gaelic pride seems to have been regarded as an amiable eccentricity.10 Local political activities were often controversial and there were a good many disputes over the parliamentary seats, two for the borough and two for the county. The Wynnes of Hazelwood soon established a firm control over the borough and at the Act of Union Owen Wynne was recognized as its owner. For many years the county representation was shared by a Wynne and a Cooper. For a considerable time the O'Haras had to find boroughs in other parts of Ireland, but in the later years of the century Charles O'Hara the younger got one of the county seats, with Joshua Cooper.as his partner. But they were not at all of the same outlook. Charles O'Hara, as a friend of the Burke family, was sympathetic to Catholics and tried to forward their case in the house of commons. He also spoke and voted against the union. Cooper, on the other hand, was a strong Protestant, a privy councillor and a unionist. Elections were stirring 14 A. 15

Young, A tour in Ireland (Bohn). i, 223-43. J. McParlan, Statistical survey of County Sligo, p. 81. Beaufort, Memoir, p. 144. Woung, op. cit., i. 219.

314

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

affairs. We hear of rum punch and claret flowing like water; of the polling book being stolen and pages torn out and burned; and of electoral lists being thrown over the battlements of Sligo bridge.17 The condition of the county at the end of the eighteenth century is described in a survey made for the Dublin Society by Dr McParlan. He reported that it was primarily a tillage county and that, together with Mayo, it was the 'principal granary and potato support of the manufacturing counties of the north in times of scarcity'. He noted that the quantities of potatoes, oats and barley produced were immense. He was most impressed with the farming abilities of Mr Wynne of Hazelwood: 'the more the soil of this demesne is unfriendly to agriculture and ungrateful, the more it reflects honour on the masterly exertions of Mr Wynne, who as a farmer stands unrivalled in this and perhaps in most counties of Ireland'. McParlan said that Sligo was regarded as the best market in Ireland for the export of grain. The cattle of the gentry and opulent farmers, he said, were excellent: 'those among the mountains and the poor were wretchedly bad and, until the mountains and the poor were first improved, not capable of much improvement'. Sligo was still mainly an Irish-speaking county at the end of the century. McParlan thought that the English of most of the common people was very imperfect and not improving very fast. There are accounts of peasants talking through interpreters to their landlords, who do not seem to have known Irish themselves.18 The purest Irish was spoken in Inishmurray. O'Hara mentions the island to Burke as a primitive Arcadia, which neither he himself nor most of the Sligo gentry had heard anything of, although it was part of the county. 'They are an unmixed people,' he says, 'their Irish purer than our people speak and many of their stories, I am told, have all the natural beauty so well counterfeited in Fingal. They have ruins very singular and of great antiquity. But the innocent simplicity of their lives is extraordinary. Extremely hospitable to any stranger that goes among them and miraculously chaste; whatever disputes may arise are settled among themselves; they were never known to carry a complaint into the great world. . . . When I go to London I shall try to get this island. I think you'd pay me a visit there, tho' you won't here.'19 There is an entertaining account of a visit paid to Inishmurray in 1779 by the French artist, Gabriel Beranger, who was taken out to it by Colonel Irwin of Tanrego.20 McParlan, writing in 1802, said that there was only one house on the island and that 'the children, the daughters particularly, of whom there are a great parcel grown up, seem to wish for more'.21 However, it seems that he underestimated the population as it was i7O'Rorke, History of Sligo, i. 367. iSMcParlan, op. cit., pp. 5, 14, 88. 19 Burke, Con., ed. Copeland, i. 146. 20 W. Wilde, Memoir of Gabriel Beranger, pp. 43-5. siMcParlan, op. cit., p. 100.

Country Sligoin the Eighteenth Centry

315

at the end of the century, for in the census of 1841 there were nearly a hundred on the island. Sligo town had grown considerably in the course of the century and at its close the population was estimated at over 8,000. McParlan said it consisted of seven or eight streets of tolerably decent houses, some very good. He went on say: 'it has been considered rather unclean and unhealthy, but it is by the kind interference of the lord of the soil shortly to be paved, cleansed, flagged, lighted etc. to the great comfort and satisfaction of the inhabitants.'22 However, these blessings were still in the future. Like all other towns during the century, Sligo was in the hands of a small, unrepresentative clique who did little to promote urban amenities; the record of their activities or inactivities since 1709 is to be found in the Town Book, still preserved by the corporation. There is mention of the employment of a scavenger, but the general policy in sanitary matters was to order each householder to clean the space in front of his own house. The courthouse seems to have been used for assemblies and another Frenchman, La Tocnaye, gives an amusing account of a concert held there, with the drummer in the judge's seat, the fiddlers in the lawyers' seats and the dock and witness box used for the audience.23 By the end of the century the population of the whole county had greatly increased. The number of houses in 1792' both those liable to hearth-tax and those exempt, was about 15,000, which at six to a house would represent a population of 90,000, nearly double the population of 1733. This trend became more pronounced in the following fifty years, in which the population doubled itself; it was over 180,000 in the census of 1841, that is more than three times the population of today. There must, even during the latter part of the eighteenth century, have been growing pressure of population and demand for land, and this was reflected in the rise in rents. In 1789 the average rent of the county, taking good and bad land together, was put at twelve shillings an Irish acre, compared with 1/8 at the beginning of the century.24 Sligo was falling into line with the rest of pre-famine Ireland, a grim progression of growing population, increasing rents and diminishing holdings. In the first half of the nineteenth century Sligo was one of the most overcrowded and poverty-stricken counties in Ireland. But conditions were not like that for most of the eighteenth century. Writing in 1775 Charles O'Hara could estimate that there were twelve acres per head of the population in the county as compared with six in Ireland as a whole.25 Conditions were deteriorating towards the end of the century, but the people of the county seemed to find life more endurable than those in some other parts. Rents rose greatly during the century, and the people were at the mercy of economic fashion, tillage followed by pasture, and pasture by tillage. But for much of the 22lbid., p. 70. ^Rambles through Ireland (Cork, 1798), ii. 68. ^Hibernian gazeteer (1789), p. Ix. 25 N.L.L, Report on O'Hara papers.

ii 68

316

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

period there was not the pressure of population on the land that there was in the south of Ireland. The people had the benefit of the Connacht custom of exempting potatoes from tithe, and the sea coast (of which the county has an unusual length) provided food and fertilizers. The landowners were mostly resident and were not specially harsh masters—not, for instance, like those of Tipperary. Charles O'Hara thought that too much of their own rural society was bad for them: 'ambition in retirement', he said, 'is the devil; bashaw over the poor, an intriguer for injustice and oppression on grand juries, and a bad neighbour'.26 But there are also accounts of landlords trying to help tenants out of difficulties, of Colonel Irwin getting the people of Inishmurray exempted from taxes, of Joshua Cooper not allowing his Protestant views to prevent him from dealing fairly in a case between a priest and some bucks who were annoying him.27 We do not hear of the plethora of squireens and middlemen that were to be found in some other parts. This was presumably because of the high proportion of resident landlords and because of the rundale system, in which a large area was rented jointly from the landlord and then subdivided. Whiteboys were not prevalent and right up to the arrival of the French in 1798 the county seemed peaceful enough. What was considered an unsettling influence was brought into the county by Catholic refugees from the north after the 'battle of the Diamond'. Charles O'Hara gave houses to some of them and others settled in different parts of the county; it was alleged that they brought with them bardic prophecies of calamity which affected the temper of the natives of the county.28 The excitement of the French coming through on their way from Castlebar to Ballinamuck brought out an enthusiastic populace, but they had no local leaders of the type that came forward in Mayo. There was spirited righting near Collooney and elsewhere, and some damage was done to the property of Protestants. The list of loyalists who later claimed compensation was not very formidable, and most of them appear to have been of the Protestant tenant class rather than big landowners. There is a story that the insurgents came to Longford House looking for one of the young Croftons, but when his father had himself stretched as an obstruction in the doorway they went away.29 Repression followed on defeat, but the hand of the law seems to have fallen less heavily in Sligo than in the neighbouring county of Mayo, where Denis Browne, the high sheriff, earned the grim title of 'Denis the Rope'. But 1798 must have brought bitterness into the relations between landlords and people. The old century ended unhappily, and the years that followed brought with them a rapid deterioration of living standards in the county. 26Burke, Corr., ed. Copeland, i. 144-5. 27 27 Wakefield, Ireland statistical and political, ii. 750; Wilde, op. cit, p. 46; O'Rorke, Ballysadare, p. 164. 28 W. G. Wood-Martin, History of Sligo, iii, 16; O'Rorke, Bally sadare, p. 400. 29Wood-Martin, op. cit., iii. 25-6, 424-7.

INDEX Abbey, river, 22 Abjuration, Oath of, 215-16, 229-30, 260, 268, 274 Account of the Courts of Prussia and Hanover (J. Toland, 1705), 40 Achonry, Catholic Bishop of, 309 Acts of Parliament (English): Declaratory Act (1719), 42, 257 Forfeitures Resumption Act (1700), 166-7 Act of Settlement (1701), 39 Triennial Act (1694), 277 Act of Union (1800), 252, 257, 259-60, 301, 313 Acts of Parliament (Irish): Act of Attainder (1689), 74, 162-3 Bishop's Banishment Act (1697), 215, 239-48 Declaratory Act (1689), 70-1, 79-80 Act of Explanation (1665), 66-7, 73 Popery Act (1704), 165, 215-16, 298 Act of Settlement (1662), 66-7, 69, 71-3, 78-80, 150, 161-2, 186, 204-5 Act of Uniformity (1559), 76-7, 215 Act of Union (1800), 252, 257, 259-60, 301, 313 Addison, Joseph, 231 Adeisidaemon (J. Toland, 1709), 43 Administration, see Government Aghnacrevy, 83 Albemarle, 1st Earl of, see Van Keppel, Arnold Joost Albeville, Marquis d', see White, Ignatius Alicante (Spain), 292 Allegiance, Oath of, 203, 214-16, 220, 229 Almanacs (Dublin), 60 Altamont, 1st Earl of, see Browne, John -, 3rd Earl of, see Browne, John Denis America, 55 American Revolution, 259 Amerongen Castle, Utrecht, 174 AngliaLibera (J. Toland, 1701), 39 Anglo-Scottish Union, 259-60 Annaghmore (Co. Sligo), 309, 311 Anne, Queen of England, 100, 117, 165, 216, 225, 229, 234, 254, 259-60, 264, 266-7, 272, 277-9, 283-6, 297 Annesley, family, 301 -, Francis, 271

Answer to Mr Molyneux .,., An ([S. Clement], 1698), 257-8 Antrim, County, 83 -, 3rd Earl of, see MacDonnell, Alexander -, 4th Earl of, see MacDonnell, Randal Apprentice Boys (Londonderry), 137 Archbold, Pierce, 88 -, William, 85 Archdeacon, John, Mayor of Kilkenny, 152 Ardagh, 85 Ardee (Co. Louth), 86, 96, 100, 162, 164 Ardfert (Co. Kerry), 85 Armagh, County, 68, 83, 144 -, city, 43, 83, 175 -, Catholic Archbishop of, see Maguire, Dominick —, Church of Ireland Archbishops of, see Boulter, Hugh; Lindsay, Thomas; Marsh, Narcissus; Ussher, James Arouet, Franqois-Marie, alias Voltaire, 46 Arran, Richard Butler, Earl of, see Butler, Richard Art of Restoring, The (J. Toland, 1713), 41-2 Arthur, Nicholas, 85 -, Thomas, M.P., 84 -, Dr Thomas, 26 Asgill, John, 167 Ashby, Admiral Sir John, 118 Ashe, St George, 59-60 Ashley, Anthony, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, 39, 42 Askeaton (Co. Limerick), 86, 226 Aston, -, of Kilbarry (Co. Waterford), 16 -, Sir Arthur, 4-9 Athboy (Co. Meath), 3 Athcarne Castle (Co. Meath), 3 Athenry (Co. Galway), 84, 226 Athlone (Co. Westmeath), 22-3, 87, 95, 134, 155, 171, 174-5, 179, 192, 201, 206 -, 1st Earl of, see Van Reede, Godard Athy (Co. Kildare), 85 Auersperg, Leopold, Count, Imperial envoy in England, 238, 240-7 Aughrim, battle of, 68, 134, 145, 156, 158, 163-5,171, 176, 194, 196, 201, 206-7, 290 Aungier, Francis, 1st Earl of Longford, 69

318

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Austria, 164, 246, 308; see also Holy Roman Empire Aylmer, George, 85 Babe, John, 86, 162, 165 Baggot, John, junior, M.P., 84 -, -, senior, M.P., 84 -, Mark, 60, 83 Baggotstown (Co. Limerick), 84 Bagnal, Dudley, 83 Baker, -, 140 -, John, 166 Bakewell, Robert, 303 Ballea, 83 BaUinafad (Co. Sligo), 172 Ballinakill (Queen's County), 86 Ballinamuck (Co. Galway), 305, 316 Ballinasloe (Co. Galway), 296, 304 Ballinelig, 85 Ballintogher (Co. Sligo), 170 Ballybofey (Co. Donegal), 170 Ballygarth (Co. Meath), 3 Ballygawley (Co. Tyrone), 87 Ballygorianbeg, 84 Ballyhack Castle (Co. Wexford), 13-14 Ballykelly (Co. Londonderry), 4 Ballymote (Co. Sligo),. 170, 178, 307-8, 313 Ballymote, Book of, 35 Ballynahinch (Co. Galway), 293-4 Ballynahowen (Co. Westmeath), 87 BaUynecloghy (Co. Cork), 174 Ballyneety (Co. Limerick), 117, 155 Ballyragget (Co. Kilkenny), 158 Ballyshannon (Co. Donegal), 137, 141, 143-5, 169-70, 172, 175-6, 300 Ballysodare (Co. Sligo), 172, 176 Baltic Sea, 55 Baltimore (Co. Cork), 68, 84 Banagher (King's County), 85 Bandon (Co. Cork), 83 Bangor Bay, 92 Bannow (Co. Wexford), 88 Barmeath (Co. Louth), 161, 167 Barnesmore Gap (Co. Donegal), 141 Barnewall, 3rd Viscount, of Kingsland, see Barnewall, Nicholas -, Francis, 84 -, Nicholas, 3rd Viscount Barnewall of Kingsland, 214 -, Sir Patrick, 86 Barnstaple (Devon), 55 Barrett, Colonel John, 84, 122 Barrow, river, 12-13 Barry, John, 84

Barry, Richard, 2nd Earl of Barrymore, 69 -, Thomas, 154 Barrymore, 2nd Earl of, see Barry, Richard Barton, William, 165, 167 Bath, 311 Bavaria, Elector of, see Maximilian Emmanuel II Baxter, John, Mayor of Kilkenny, 155 -, Captain John, 149-50 Beachy Head, 117-18, 155 Beauly (Co. Louth), 161 Belanagare (Co. Roscommon), 293, 296 Belfast (Co. Antrim), 67, 69, 79, 92-6, 99, 151 Belfast Lough, 92, 145 Belgard (Co. Dublin), 84 Belleek (Co. Fermanagh), 141, 145, 171, 175 Bellesheim, A., 245 Bellew, family, 95, 290, 292, 304 -, 1st Lord, see Bellew, John -, 3rd Lord, see Bellew, Richard -, Christopher, 163 -, James, 164 -, John, 163 -, John, 1st Lord Bellew, 94, 161-7 -, Sir Patrick, 161, 163, 165 -, Richard, 3rd Lord Bellew, 163, 165, 264 -, Captain Roger, 165 -, Thomas, 86, 162 -.Walter, 163 BeUewstown Castle (Co. Meath), 3 Bellingham, Henry, 162 -, Colonel Thomas, 93, 106, 111, 162, 167 Belloc, Hilaire, 105, 107 Belturbet (Co. Cavan), 83, 175 Benburb, battle of, 21 Bennetsbridge (Co. Kilkenny), 154-5 Bentii.ck, Hans Willem, 1st Earl of Portland, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 166, 185, 187-9, 191-2, 195, 244-5, 247 Beranger, Gabriel, 314 Berkeley, George, 46-7 Berlin, 40 Bermingham, John, 86 Berwick, 1st Duke of, see Fitzjames, James Bibliotheque Universelle, 33 Bideford (Devon), 55 Bills, parliamentary (English): Occasional Conformity Bill (1703), 272, 274 Bills, parliamentary (Irish): Beer Duty Bill (1692), 253-4 Militia Bill (1692), 253 Money Bill (1703-4), 268, 270; (1713), 284

Index

(Bills, parliamentary [Irish], continued) money bills, 254, 282 Mutiny Bill (1692), 253 Popery Bill (1695), 237-9 'Short' Money Bill (1713), 283 Tillage Bill (1713), 278 Bingham, family, 290, 301 Birkbeck, William, 60 Birr Castle (King's Co.), 120 Blackball, Rev. Offspring, 39 Blackrock (Co. Sligo), 310 Blackwater, river, 118 Blake, family, 290, 292, 305 -, George, 302 -, Richard, 231 -, Sir Walter, 84, 291 Blanchfield, Edmund, 158 Blathwayt, William, secretary to William III, 193, 241-4 Blessington (Co. Wicklow), 88 Bluecoat School (Dublin), 281 Board of Trade (English), 255 Bolingbroke, 1st Viscount, see St John, Henry Bonaventure, 144 Bond, Sir Henry, 86 Bonniconlan, 305 Bonnivert, Gideon, 106, 109 Bophin, Lord, see Bourke, John Boulger, Demetrius, 105 Boulter, Hugh, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, 233 Bourk, John, 86 -, Thomas, 86 -, Walter, 86 -, William, 84 Bourke, -, publisher of an almanac, 60 -, Garrett, 286 -, John, Lord Bophin and 9th Earl of Clanricarde, 35, 194, 231, 290 —, Michael, Lord Dunkellin, 231 -.Nicholas, 231 -.Patrick, 60 -, Richard, 8th Earl of Clanricarde, 194, 214 -, Theobald, 6th Viscount Mayo, 73 - Ulick, 5th Earl of Clanricarde, 1, 22 -, Sir Ulick, 84 Boyle (Co. Roscommon), 86, 172, 311 -, Peter, 60 -, Richard, 1st Earl of Cork, 12 -, Robert, 61 -, Roger, 1st Lord Broghill, 2, 12, 18 Boyne, battle of the, 32, 49, 73, 76, 104-16, 118, 132, 135, 145, 154-5, 162, 164, 166, 174, 177, 181, 183-5, 200, 204, 207, 308 -, river, 3, 5, 95, 102, 105-7, 153

319 Brabazon, Edward, 4th Earl of Meath, 110 -, William, 230 Brandenburg, Elector of, see Frederick William Bray, John, 87 Brenan, John, Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, 209 Brest, 207 Brewer, Richard, 110 British Museum, 44, 179 Brod(e)rick, Alan, 268-70, 278-9, 281-2, 284-5 -.Thomas, 270, 278 Broghill, 1st Lord, see Boyle, Roger Brown, John, 85 -.Colonel John, 219, 222-3 -, Nicholas, 84 Browne, family, 290, 301 -, Denis, 305, 316 -, Dominick, 291 -, George, 286 -,John, 73 -, John, 1st Earl of Altamont, 291, 303 -, John Denis, 3rd Earl of Altamont, 293 -, Dr Peter, 35, 37-8 Brownlow, Arthur, 68, 83 -, Sir William, 68 Bruno, Giordano, 46 Brussels, 21, 98, 243 Bryan, family, 156 -, James, Alderman of Kilkenny, 85, 150 -.Captain James, 149-50, 158 -, Pierce, 86 -.Walter, 158 Brydges, James, 1st Duke of Chandos, 35 Buchanan, George, historian, 44 Buckingham, 1st Duke of, see Sheffield, John Bundrowes, The (Co. Donegal), 141, 144-5, 171, 175 Burke, family, 290, 313 -.Edmund, 234, 311-12, 314 —, Thomas, 231 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 184, 271-2 Burton, R., H.M. engineer (1689), 174 Bury, Anthony, 167 Butler, family, 156 -, Colonel Edmond, 158 -, Edward, 157 -.Colonel Edward, 150-1 -, James, called Lord Dunboyne, 214 -, James, 1st Duke of Ormond(e), 1-6, 9-19, 21-3, 49-50, 52, 54, 63, 186 -, James, 2nd Duke of Ormond(e), 75, 149-50, 154, 264-5, 270-1, 273, 275, 277-9, 281, 283, 285 -, James, M.P., 87

320

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Butler, Captain James, 131 -, Major Pierce, 158 -, Piers, 3rd Viscount Galmoy, 149-51, 1568, 219 -, Richard, Earl of Airan, 50 -, Richard, 5th Viscount Mountgarrett, 158, 214 -, Richard, M.P. for Gowran (1689), 85 -, Richard, M.P. for New Ross (1689), 87 -, Richard, M.P. for Co. Wicklow (1689), 88 -, Theobald, 83 -, Sir Toby, 50, 68, 131, 209-10, 213, 21617, 219, 229, 274, 278 -, Walter, M.P. for Callan (1689), 85 -, Walter, M.P. of Munfine, M.P. for Co. Wexford (1689), 87 Byrne, Sir Gregory, 86 -, Hugh, 88 -, Colonel Michael, 4 -, Thomas, 88 Cadiz, 292 Cahermoyle (Co. Limerick), 86 Callaghan, Cornelius, 286 Callan (Co. Kilkenny), 85 Capel, 1st Lord, see Capel, Henry -, Arthur, 1st Earl of Essex, 51 -, Henry, 1st Lord Capel, 237-8 Cappaghroe (Co. Clare), 187 Carew, Sir George, 120 Carlanstown (Co. Meath), 87 Carlingford (Co. Louth), 86, 92-5, 98-100, 162 -, 1st Earl, see Taafe, Theobald -, 3rd Earl, see Taafe, Francis Carlow, County, 83, 154, 231, 280 -, parliamentary borough, 83 Carmichael, Lady Mary, see O'Hara, Lady Mary Carnantown (Co. Louth), 167 Carolan, Turlough, 299-300, 309 Carrickfergus (Co. Antrim), 92-3, 95, 144 Carrick-on-Suir (Co. Tipperary), 15, 17-18, 155 Carrigmenan, 87 Carrigogunnel Castle (Co. Limerick), 23 Carrigoon (Co. Cork), 84 Carroll, -, Cornet, 143 -, Owen, 85 Carrowfrila, 84 Carysfort (Co. Wicklow), 88 Case of Ireland... Stated, The (W. Molyneux, 16S8), 255-8 Cashel (Co. Tipperary), 87 -, Catholic Archbishops of, see Brenan, John;

Comerford, Edward Cashell, Captain Thomas, 165 Cashellstown (Co. Louth), 165 Cassel, Richard, 310 Castlebar (Co. Mayo), 86, 178, 301, 303, 305, 316 -, 'Races of, 305 Castlebellingham (Co. Louth), see Gernonstown Castleconnell (Co. Limerick), 23, 25 Castlehaven, 3rd Earl of, see Tuchet, James Castle Lacken (Co. Sligo), 169 Castle MacGarret (Co. Mayo), 291 Castlemore, 84 Castletown (Co. Louth), 95, 163 -, river, 95 Castlewellan (Co. Down), 84 Catalonia, 29 'Cathach' (battle-book of the O'Donnells), 302 Catholic Church, the, 68-9, 76-7, 79-80, 136, 244-5, 249 Catholics (English), 226 -, (Irish), 1, 4, 8, 10-14, 22, 25, 27, 31, 33, 42, 49-50, 53-4, 58, 62-3, 65-7, 71, 74, 76-8, 80, 125, 136-7, 142, 149-51, 156, 158-9, 162-5, 167, 169-70, 181-2, 184-6, 190-3, 195, 197-200, 203-10, 212-17, 219, 222, 225-35, 237-42, 244-6, 248, 251-2, 254, 256, 259-61, 263-72, 274-7, 279-81, 2856, 289-91, 293, 295-301, 304-5, 307-10, 313, 316 Caulfield, family, Viscounts Charlemont, 52 Cavan, County, 68, 83 -, parliamentary borough, 83 Cavan Park (Co. Donegal), 141, 143-4 Cavanagh, -, Lieutenant-Colonel, 9 Chandos, 1st Duke of, see Brydges, James Chapelizod (Co. Dublin), 73 Charlemont (Co. Armagh), 92, 144-5, 174 -, Viscounts, see Caulfeild, family Charles I, King of England, 1, 11, 39, 56, 70-1 Charles II, King of England, 1, 9-11, 16, 1819, 23, 29, 49-50, 53, 56-8, 61-3, 65-7, 70-1, 73-4, 118, 120, 161, 174-5, 191-2, 200, 203, 205-7, 209-10, 213, 215-16, 274, 307 Charleville (Co. Cork), 231, 280 Cheevers, Christopher, 167 Chester, 2, 55, 91-2, 99 Chiari, battle of, 134 Chichester, Arthur, 3rd Earl of Donegall, 75 Chievers, -, Jacobite officer, 221 Christianity Not Mysterious (J. Toland, 1696), 35-8 Church of Ireland (or Established Church), 68, 76-7, 136, 165, 214-15, 254, 273,

Index 276-7, 279, 283, 285, 290, 300, 304 Churchill, family, 141 -, Brigadier Charles, 124, 149 -, John, 1st Duke of Marlborough, 40, 91, 117-19, 122-7, 141, 278 Clady (Co. Londonderry), 138-9, 171 Clancarty, Earls of, see MacCarthy, family -, 4th Earl of, see MacCarthy, Donough Clanmaliere, 3rd Viscount, see O'Dempsey, Maximilian Clanricarde, 5th Earl of, see Bourke, Ulick -, 8th Earl of, see Bourke, Richard -, 9th Earl of, see Bourke, John Clare, County, 83, 219-20, 223 Clarendon, 2nd Earl of, see Hyde, Henry Clarke, George, 112, 193, 198, 209-12 Clifden (Co. Galway), 294 Clinton, Thomas, 161, 167 Clintonstown (Co. Louth), 167 Clogher,'Catholic Bishop of, see MacMahon, Heber -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Jones, Henry Clonakilty (Co. Cork), 84 Clonassy (Co. Kilkenny), 85, 151 Clonderalaw Castle (Co. Clare), 24 Clonmel (Co. Tipperary), 10-11, 17, 21-2, 28, 87

Clonmines (Co. Wexford), 88 'Cobray' (Co. Clare), 187 Coghlan, Joseph, 67-8, 84, 183 —, Terence, esq., M.P., 85 -, Terence, gent., M.P., 85 Colclough, Dudley, 87 -, Patrick, 87 Coleraine (Co. Londonderry), 138 Colganstown, 84 Collier, -, Colonel, 118 Collooney (Co. Sligo), 146, 170, 178, 316 Comerford, family, 156 -, Edward, Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, 248 -, Colonel Henry, 158 -, Patrick, 11 Commission of the peace (Irish), 278 Confederation of Kilkenny, 1, 11, 13, 70 Congregationalists (Irish), see Independents Coningsby, Thomas, 1st Lord, 190, 196, 205-6, 210, 213, 219, 223, 270-1, 273 Connacht, province, 22, 73, 141, 145, 169, 172, 175, 179, 184, 289, 290-4, 296, 298-9, 301-3, 305-7, 316 Connemara, 294 Connor, John, 85

321

Conolly, William, 278, 281 Convert rolls, 290 Conway, Francis Seymour, 1st Lord Conway, 228 Conyngham, Sir Albert, 137, 141, 145-6, 171-2, 175, 178 Coolavin (Co. Sligo), 309, 311 Coolnamuck (Co. Waterford), 4-5, 7 Cooper, family, 169-70, 308, 310, 313 -, Captain Andrew, 170 -, Captain George, 172 -, Joshua, 312-13, 316 Coote, family, 169 -, Chidley, 169-70 -, Colonel Richard, 156 Corballis (Co. Meath), 86 Cork, County, 2, 60, 73, 83, 219, 223 -, city, 11-12, 19, 83, 117-20, 122-4, 126-7, 130-1, 248 -, Catholic Bishop of, see Sleyne, John Baptist -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Wctenhall, Edward —, Church of Ireland Dean of, see Davies, Rowland -, 1st Earl of, see Boyle, Richard Cotter, James, 281 -, Sir James, 83 Courstown, 85 Courtstown, 150 Cox, Richard, son of Sir Richard Cox (q.v.). 280 -, Sir Richard, 264, 273, 275, 279-80, 2823, 285 Cramond, Ensign William, 122 Cratloc (Co. Clare), 83 -, Castle, 23 Creagh, Sir Michael, 84 Creevagh (Co. Sligo), 308-9 Crofton, family, 309, 316 Crofton, -, Mrs (nee Robinson), 308 -, Henry, 87, 170, 307-8 -, James, 308 Crom Castle (Co. Fermanagh), 151 Cromwell, Oliver, 1-19, 21-2, 61, 135-6, 154, 161, 169-70, 204, 290, 307 Croneen, Teige, 232 Crosby, Sir Thomas, 68, 84 Crosshaven (Co. Cork), 119 Cruse, -, Dr, Catholic Archdeacon of Dublin, 248 Cuffe, Agmondisham, 231 Culmore (Co. Londonderry), 140 Culmullen, 85 Cumberland, Richard, 295 Cunningham, -, Lieutenant, 143 -, -, Mr, of Donegal, 142

322

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Curlew, family, 172, 178 Curragh, the (Co. Kildare), 311 Cusack, Christopher, of Corballis (Co. Meath), M.P. for Navan (1689), 86 -, Christopher, of Ratholeran, M.P. for Navan (1689), 86 -, Captain Nicholas, 86 -, Colonel Nicholas, 219 Daly, family, 292 -, Charles, 84 -, Denis (I), 50, 72, 186, 189, 205, 304 -, Denis (II), descendant of Denis Daly (I) (q.v.), 304 Dangan (Co. Galway), 291, 299 D'Arcy, Nicholas, 167 Dardistown (Co, Westmeath), 87 Dardistown Castle, 3 Darver (Co. Louth), 165 Daton, William, Catholic Bishop of Ossory, 248 D'Auvergne, Henri de la Tour, Vicomte de Turenne, 117 Davies, Rowland, Church of Ireland Dean of Cork, 110, 123-4 Davis, Thomas, 65, 67, 70, 72-4, 78, 81 De Bonnac, Jean Dusson, Marquis d'Usson, 208 De Bostaquet, Dumont, 113 De Bougrenet, Jacques Louis, Chevalier de LaTocnaye, 315 De Burgo, Dominic, Catholic Bishop of Elphin, 241 Debutts, John, 310 De Caumont, Antonin, Comte de Lauzun, 106-9, 111, 113, 119, 153 De Courcy, Miles, 83 Defoe, Daniel, 40, 272, 274 De Gomme, Bernard, 50, 53-4, 56, 61 Delamare, John, 86 Delaney, Dr Patrick, 277 De Massue, Henri, Seigneur de Ruvigny, 1st Earl of Galway, 238 Dempsey, John, Catholic Bishop of Kildare, 248 Den, Theobald, 158 Denmark, 42, 98, 106, 119, 259 Dermot, family, 164 -, Bryan, 86, 162 -, Robert, 86, 162 -, Terence, 84 Derry, see Londonderry -, Church of Ireland Bishops of, see Hopkins, Ezekiel; King, William De Ruvigny, Henri, see De Massue, Henri

Descartes, Rene, 42 De Schomberg, Frederick Herman, 1st Duke of Schomberg, 91-104, 107, 110-11, 129, 145, 151, 171 -, Maynard, 3rd Duke of Schomberg, 107-9 Destruction of Cyprus, The (C. O'Kelly), 68, 77, 105, 186, 189 Devereux, James, 87 Devon, 117 'Diamond', battle of the, 316 Diderot, Denis, 47 Digby, Simon, Church of Ireland Bishop of Limerick, 69 Dillon, family, 68, 293 -, 4th Viscount, see Dillon, Thomas -, 7th Viscount, see Dillon, Theobald -, 8th Viscount, see Dillon, Henry -, Colonel Garret, 219 -, Gerard, 87 -, Colonel Henry, 8th Viscount Dillon, 87, 214 -, John, 86 -, Theobald, 7th Viscount Dillon, 194 -, Thomas, 4th Viscount Dillon, 23 Dillonstown, see Warrenstown Dingle (Co. Kerry), 85 Dissenters, Protestant (Irish), 62, 77, 233, 254, 263, 271-2, 274-5, 285;see also Independents; Presbyterians; Quakers Dodder, river, 57 Doe Castle (Co. Donegal), 140 Doe, Lewis, 87 Dolben, Gilbert, 273 Domville, Sir William, 255 Donegal, County, 31, 67, 78, 135-6, 140, 170-1 -, town, 141, 305, 307 -, Bay of, 137, 140, 144-5 Donegal Castle, 141-2 Donegall, 3rd Earl of, see Chichester, Arthur Doneraile (Co. Cork), 84 Donnelly, Daniel, 87 -, Peter, 87 Donore (Co. Westmeath), 87 Donovan, Jeremy, 68 Dopping, Anthony, Church of Ireland Bishop of Meath, 69, 76, 212, 237, 256 Doran, Daniel, 83 Dormer, Luke, 87 Douglas, Lieu tenant-General James, 107, 155 Dowdall, -, Miss, of Kilfinny (Co. Limerick), 23 -, Henry, 84, 162

Index Dowdall, John, 86, 162 Down, County, 84, 137 Doyle, Richard, 88 Draper, -, Captain, 24 Drogheda (Co. Louth), 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 21, 84, 95-6, 98, 106, 127, 130, 151, 1624 -, 1st Earl of, see Moore, Henry —, 3rd Earl of, see Moore, Henry Dromada (Co. Limerick), 83 Dromore, 137 Drumcliffe (Co. Sligo), 178 Drumcliffe, river, 310 Drumleck (Co. Louth), 164 Drummekelly, 84 Drummond, John, 1st Earl of Melfort, 129 Drybridge (Co. Meath), 110 Drynham, 84 Dublin, County, 71, 84, 259 -, city, 2, 10-12, 36-8, 49, 52-7, 60-3, 66-7, 69-70, 75-6, 79, 84, 92, 95-6, 100, 106, 108-9, 114-15, 129-32, 140, 144, 150-2, 154, 157, 163, 170, 183, 190-1, 196, 200, 205, 210, 248-9, 280, 282-3, 298, 302, 307-8, 311 -, Catholic Archbishops of, see Russell, Patrick; Talbot, Peter -, Catholic Archdeacon of, see Cruse, -, Catholic Dean of, see Russell, — —, Catholic Vicar-General of, see Murphy, Edmund —, Church of Ireland Archbishops of, see King, William; Marsh, Narcissus -, Church of Ireland Archdeacon of, see Pococke, Richard Dublin Castle, 56, 131, 169 Dublin Intelligence, 178 Dublin Newsletter, 60 Dublin Philosophical Society, 59-60, 255 Duffy, Gavan, 65, 81 Duleek (Co. Meath), 106, 108, 113, 114 Dun, Sir Patrick, 58 Dunboyne, Lord, see Butler, James Duncannon (Co. Wexford), 11, 13-14, 17, 19 Dundalk (Co. Louth), 2, 4, 11, 87, 93104, 106, 129, 151, 162 Dundee, 1st Viscount, see Graham John Dungan, Lord, see Dungan, Walter -, Garret, 9 -, Walter, called Lord Dungan, 85 Dungannon (Co. Tyrone), 141 Dungarvan (Co. Waterford), 18, 87 Dunkellin, Lord, see Bourke, Michael

323

Dunmore Castle (Co. Kilkenny), 149-50 Dunsandle (Co. Galway), 84, 304 Dunsany, llth Lord, see Plunkett, Randall Easky (Co. Sligo), 176, 313 Edgeworth, Maria, 294 Edinburgh University, 32 Egan, Darby, 286 Elbe, river, 126 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 77, 120, 215 Ellis, Sir William, 68, 86 Elphin, Catholic Bishop of, see De Burgo, Dominic -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Synge, Edward -, diocese of, 295, 310 Emly, Catholic Bishop of, see O'Brien, Terence Ennis (Co. Clare), 83 Enniscorthy (Co. Wexford), 87 Enniskillen (Co. Fermanagh), 69, 83, 91-3, 135, 141-2, 144, 151, 162, 169, 171, 274 Epsom (Surrey), 41 Erne, Lough, 151 -, river, 141, 145, 171, 175, 300 Erris (Co. Mayo), 294 Essex, 1st Earl of, see Capel, Arthur Established Church, see Church of Ireland Eugene, Prince of Savoy, 43 Eustace, James, 88 -, Maurice, 88, 220 Everard, Sir James, 87 -, Patrick, 86 -, Redmond, 286 Eyre, family, 290 -, Governor Stratford, 303-4 Eyrecourt (Co. Galway), 295 Fane, river, 96-8, 100 Fanning, Dominick, 27 Farrell, Iriel, 85 -, Lieutenant-General Richard, 15-19 -, Robert, 86 -, Roger, 86 Fennell, -, Colonel, 26-7 Fenwick, Sir John, 285 Fermanagh, County, 67, 78 Fern, Lough, 142 Ferns, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Ram, Thomas Fethard (Co. Tipperary), 87 -, (Co. Wexford), 88 Fielding, Colonel Robert, 85 Finch, Daniel, 2nd Earl of Nottingham,

324

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

106, 117, 206, 264-6, 269-70, 272-4 Finglas, Declaration of, 162, 184-5, 189, 204 -, -, Catholic officer at Drogheda, 9 Finn, river, 139, 141, 143, 171 -.valley, 136-7 Fish Island, near Belleek (Co. Fermanagh), 171 Fitzgerald, family, 68, 156, 214 -, Edmond, 85 -, Edward, 85 —, George Robert, 303 -, Gerald, Knight of Glin, 85 -, James, M.P. for Inistioge (1689), 85 -, James, M.P. for Ratoath (1689), 86 -, Sir James, 85 -, Nicholas, 87 -, Oliver, 87 -, Robert, 19th Earl of Kildare, 286 -, William, 85 Fitzjames, Edward Rice, 85 -, Henry, called the 'Grand Prior', 106, 113 -, James, 1st Duke of Berwick, 93, 95, 106, 120, 122, 138, 141-4, 197 Fitzmaurice, family, 166, 313 Fitzpatrick, -, Colonel, 118 -, Thady, 86 Fitzroy, Henry, 1st Duke of Grafton, 118, 125 Fitzwilliam, Thomas, 4th Viscount FitzwilHam, 214, 264, 269 Flanders, 117-18, 146, 164, 177, 205 Fleming, Christopher, 17th Lord Slane, 166-7 Fleury, Andre-Hercule, Cardinal, 233 Forbes, Arthur, 1st Earl of Granard, 63, 69, 72, 177-8 Fore (Co. Westmeath), 87 Forster, John, 278, 280-2, 284 Foster, John, 225, 227, 231-2 Foulks, —, claimant under the Articles of Limerick, 158 Foyle, Lough, 138, 140, 142 -, river, 140, 143 -.valley, 136-7 France, 4, 41, 47, 55, 66, 79, 98, 106, 113, 120, 122, 126-7, 134-7, 141, 157-8, 163-5, 167, 174-5, 178, 194, 197, 199, 203, 205, 207-12, 217, 235, 244-6, 248, 251, 271, 285, 293, 297 Frankfurt, 98 Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, 91 French, family, 290, 292 -, Patrick, 286

French, Robert, 304 Frenchpark (Co, Roscommon), 296 Friar's Island, Limerick, 24 Froude, J.A., 65, 273 Fumeron, -, French supply officer, 196-7 Gaffney, Captain George, 150, 158 Galloway, John, 83 Galmoy, 3rd Viscount, see Butler, Piers Galway, County, 84, 169, 289-90, 2924, 296, 302, 304 -, city, 79, 84, 119, 133-4, 179, 192, 194-5, 205-6, 212, 214, 217, 248, 264-5, 267, 289, 297-8, 301, 303 -, Articles of, 194-5 -.Captain Walter, 129, 131 Garirobuck, 83 Garracloon (Co. Mayo), 305 Gaydon, Major John, 133 Geoghegan, Bryan, 87 -, Charles, 87 George I, King of England, 40, 42, 232, 234, 286 George II, King of England, 225, 234 George V, King of England, 69 Germany, 40, 45-7, 293 Gernon, Hugh, 86, 162, 167 -, Nicholas, 161, 166 -.Patrick, 167 Gernonstown (Co. Louth), later Castlebellingham, 106, 162 Ginkel, Lord, see Van Reede, Godard Glasgow University, 32 Glaslough (Co. Monaghan), 72 Glin, Knight of, see Fitzgerald, Gerald Glorious Revolution (1688), 66-7, 74, 91, 122, 169, 204, 214, 225 Goldenbridge, 187 Goldsmith, Oliver, 296 Gore, family, 141, 169, 290, 305, 308 -, Colonel Francis, 170-1 Gorey.a/zVwNewborough (Co. Wexford), 88 Gormansto(w)n, 6th Viscount, see Preston, Nicholas -, 7th Viscount, see Preston, Jernico -, 8th Viscount, see Preston, Jernico Gormanstown Castle (Co. Meath), 3 Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated (D. Williams, 1692), 33 Government (English), 211, 213-15, 251-5, 268-70 Government (Irish), 56, 213, 216-17, 228, 239-40, 254, 258, 265-8, 272, 277-8, 285-6 Gowran (Co. Kilkenny), 85

Index Grace, family, 156 -, James, 85, 150 -, John, 151-2, 155, 158 -, John, junior, 158 -, Colonel Oliver, 86, 158 -, Colonel Richard, 155, 174 -, Robert, senior, 85, 158 -, Robert, junior, 85 Grady, John, 187, 188, 190, 205 Graf ton, 1st Duke of, see Fitzroy, Henry Graham, John, 167 -, John, 1st Viscount Dundee, 91-2 Granard, 1st Earl of, see Forbes, Arthur 'Grand Prior', the, see Fitzjames, Henry Grange (Co. Sligo), 169-70 Grangebeg, 87 Grangegorman (Co. Dublin), 280 Grattan, Henry, 70, 225 'Grattan's Parliament', 251 Great Island, near Waterfoid, 13, 18 Greencastle (Co. Down), 84 Hacket, James, 87 -, Sir Thomas, 86 Haddock, Admiral Sir Richard, 118 Haggardstown (Co. Louth), 162, 167 Hague, The. 246 Hales, Colonel Sir John, 118, 126 Hall, John, 59 Hamilton, family, 137 -, Elizabeth, Countess of Orkney, 166 -, General Frederick, 282 -, Colonel Gustavus, 141 -, James, Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Raphoe, 139-40 -, Captain James, 137 -, Lieutenant-General Richard, 112, 137-8, 140 Handcock, Martin, 164 Hanover, 39-41 -, House of, 39, 41 Harley, Robert, 1st Earl of Oxford, 40-1, 277, 283-6 Harpeistown (Co. Wexford), 88 Harrington, James, 39 Harris, Walter, 273 Harrison, -, a Benedictine, 243 Harristown (Co. Kildare), 85 Hanold, Thomas, 85 Harrow (Middlesex), 311 Haydock, Captain Josias, 149, 156 Hazelwood (Co. Sligo), 310 Helsham, Captain Joshua, 156 Henry II, King of England, 256 Henry VII, King of England, 11, 41 Herbert, Sir Edward, Chief Justice of King's

325

Bench (English), 77 High Life below Stairs, a faice, 298 Hillsborough (Co. Down), 93 Hinton, Dr Edward, headmaster, Kilkenny School, 152, 168 History and Reasons of the Dependency of Ireland, The (W. Atwood, 1698), 257-8 Hoffman, Johann Philipp, Imperial resident in England, 240, 243-4, 146 Holland, 12, 33, 35, 43, 45-6, 91, 106, 122-3, 136, 162, 165, 192, 203, 213, 241, 247 Holies, John, 1st Duke of Newcastle, 39 Hollow Sword Blades Company, 167 Holy Roman Emperor, see Leopold 1 Holy Roman Empire, 300; see also Austria Hop, Jacob, Baron, Dutch envoyextraordinary, 106 Hopkins, Dr Ezekiel, Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry, 32 Hore, George, 88 -, John, 87 -, Martin, 87 -, Matthew, 87 -, Walter, 83 House of Commons (English), 6, 101, 166, 186, 252, 255, 258-9, 273 House of Commons (Irish), 38, 65, 68, 72-3, 78-9, 162, 191, 213-14, 216-17, 225-9, 231-3, 237-9, 253-4, 258-60, 263, 265-7, 269-72, 274, 277-8, 280-5, 304, 313 House of Lords (English), 71, 252, 255, 257 House of Lords (Irish), 68, 72, 79, 162, 165, 214, 217, 227, 239-41, 254-5, 257, 25960, 273, 275, 278, 283-4 Hovenden, Walter, 83 Howth, 13th Lord, see St Lawrence, Thomas Huguenots (in Dublin), 53 Humbert, General Jean Joseph-Amable, 305 Hungary, 141, 266 Huntington, Dr Robert, 59 Hurley, Sir William, 85 Hussey, John, M.P. for Dingle (1689), 85 -, John, M.P. for Ratoath (1689), 86 -, Maurice, 85 Hyde, Douglas, 303 -, Henry, 2nd Earl of Clarendon, 52, 61, 63, 68 Inchjquin, 1st Earl of, see O'Brien, Murrough -, 3rd Earl of, see O'Brien, William Inch Island (Co. Donegal), 140, 142-3 Independents, i.e. Congregationalists (Irish), 62; see also Dissenters Ineen Dubh, 140

326

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Inishmurray (Co. Sligo), 314 Inishowcn (Co. Donegal), 31-2, 44, 47, 68, 140, 143 Inistioge (Co. Kilkenny), 85 Ireton, Bridget, 21 -, General Henry, 2, 21-9 Irish Folklore Commission, 308 Irish Rebellion (1641), 76, 136 Irish Society of London, 255 Irishtown (Co. Kilkenny), parliamentary borough, 230-1 Irwin, family, 308-9 -,-.Colonel, 314, 316 Iveagh, Lord, see Magennis, Bryan James I, King of England, 73, 136 James II, King of England, 49, 56, 58, 62-3, 65-6, 68-80, 91-3, 95-100, 105-11, 11314, 117, 120, 122, 126-7, 129-31, 134-7, 140, 143, 145-6, 149-52, 156, 161-3, 169-71, 173-4, 182, 185, 197-8, 2035, 207, 214-15, 217, 236, 304, 307-8 'James III' (James Francis Edward Stuart, the 'Old Pretender'), 229, 231, 260, 277-8, 283, 285 Jamestown (Co. Leitrim), 85, 172 Jenkinstown (Co. Kilkenny), 150 Jersey, 29 Jones, family, 308 —, Henry, Church of Ireland Bishop of Clogher, 18 -, Lieutenant-General Michael, 2, 12-13, 17-18 Kearney, Dennis, 87 Keightley, Thomas, 167 Kells (Co. Meath), 86 Kelly, family, 214 -, Charles, 86 -, Denis, 286 -, John, 86 -, Dr Walter, 85 Kerney, John, 88 Kerry, County, 68, 84, 174-5, 188, 219-20, 223, 232, 280 Kilbarry (Co. Watcrford), 16 Kilbeggan (Co. Westmeath), 86 Kilcurly (Co. Louth), 164 Kildare, County, 71, 85 -, parliamentary borough, 85 -, Catholic Bishop of, see Dempsey, John -, 19th Earl of, see Fitzgerald, Robert Kilkenny, County, 79, 85, 226 -, city, 12, 85, 149-57 —, corporation, 154 Kilkenny Castle, 150, 154

Killala, Bay of, 305 -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Stock, Joseph Killaloe (Co. Clare), 23-4 Killballane, 84 Killiecrankie, battle of, 92 Killigrew, Admiral Henry, 118 Killincoole (Co. Louth), 167 Killorky, 88 Killybegs (Co. Donegal), 137, 141, 144 Killygordon (Co. Donegal), 141 Killyleagh (Co. Down), 84 Kilmacthomas(Co.Waterford), 18 Kilmacrenan (Co. Donegal), 136 Kilmainham (Co. Dublin), 56, 281 Kilmallock (Co. Limerick), 23, 85, 120 Kilronan (Co. Roscommon), 297 King, Captain John, 86 --, Robert, 1st Lord Kingsborough, 295 -, Robert, 2nd Lord Kingston, 73, 169-72 ~, William, Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Dublin, 38, 66-7, 737, 227, 230, 233, 242, 272-3, 277, 279, 281-6 King John's Castle, Limerick, 24, 27 Kingsborough, 1st Lord, see King, Robert King's County, 85 King's Hospital (Dublin), 59 King's Island, Limerick, 22, 25, 28 Kingsland, Lord, see Barnewall, Nicholas Kingston, 2nd Lord, see King, Robert Kinsale (Co, Cork), 1, 11-13, 66, 83, 106, 117-18, 120, 127, 150 Kirk, Major-General Percy, 92, 118-19, 140, 142-4 Kirwan, John, 84 Klopp, Onno, 245-6 Knappagh (Co. Mayo), 73 Knockbridge (Co. Louth), 96 Knocknashee (Co. Sligo), 311 Knocktopher (Co. Kilkenny), 85 Lagan, river, 92 Laggan (Co. Donegal), 136-8, 140, 143 'Lagganeers', 136-7 La Hoguette, Marquis de, 106, 109, 111, 113-14 Lally, James, 84 Lanesborough (Co. Longford), 86 Langton, Michael, 150 Lanier, Major-General Sir John, 299-300 La Tocnaye, Chevalier de, see De Bougrenet, Jacques Louis Lauzun, Comte de, see De Caumont, Antonin Lawless, family, 156

Index Lawrence, Dr Thomas, 100 Lecky, W.E.H., 65, 74, 263 Le Clerc, Jean, 33, 37 Leibniz, Baron, see Von Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm

Leigh, Francis, 85 Leinster, province, 3, 73, 293, 309 Leitrim, County, 85, 289, 300 Lenthall, William, Speaker of the English House of Commons, 12, 17 Leopold I, of Austria, Holy Roman Emperor, 135, 164, 166, 237, 244, 246, 251, 308 Lery de Girardin, Marquis, LieutenantGeneral, 106, 109 Leslie, Charles, 72, 126 -, Dr John, 170 Lctterkenny (Co. Donegal), 136-7, 143 Letters to Serena (J. Toland, 1704), 42-3 Letter to the Bishop of Worcester (J. Locke, 1697), 37 Letter to the Freeholders of Ireland.... A (1713), 280 Levellers, 2 Lever, Charles, 303 Levinge, Sir Richard, 167, 280-3 Ley den, 33 Lhwyd, Edward, 34 Liffey, river, 54, 281 Lifford (Co. Donegal), 138-9, 143 Light to the Blind, A, 105 Limerick, County, 85, 219, 223 -, city, 10, 22-9, 79, 85, 106, 117-20, 131, 133-4, 153, 155, 158, 163-5, 171, 174, 178, 181, 185, 187, 190-2, 195, 198, 200, 204, 207-12, 217, 219-20, 222-3, 265, 267, 311 -, Articles of, see Limerick, Treaty of -, Catholic Bishop of, see O'Dwyer, Edmund , Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Digby, Simon -, Treaty of, 146, 156-8, 164-6, 199-201, 203, 206-8, 210-24, 228-9, 231, 235, 238-9, 242-4, 251-4, 264-5, 268-70, 273-4, 277, 289, 300, 307-8 Lindsay, Thomas, Church of Ireland Bishop of Raphoe and Archbishop of Armagh, 284, 286 Liny, barony of (Co. Sligo), 313 Lisburn (Co. Antrim), 93, 100, 228 Liverpool, 55 Lloyd, Thomas, 171-3 -, William, Bishop of Worcester, 44 Locke, John, 33, 35-7, 252, 255-6, 259 Loftus, Dudley, 52

327

Loghmore, 87 London, 33, 35, 45, 49, 57, 61, 69-70, 75, 149, 157-8, 176, 243, 253, 279, 314 -, Tower of, 29, 126 London companies, 73, 136, 255 (London)derry, County, 67, 83 -, city, 11, 45, 69, 724, 83, 91-3, 135-44, 151, 162, 169-71, 175-6, 227, 274 London Gazette, 142 Long, Darby, 83 -, Dermot, 84 -, John, 84 Long Causey, the (Co. Donegal), 138-9 Longficld, Robert, 86 Longford, County, 16, 86, 309 -, (Co. Sligo), 316 -, 1st Earl of, see Aungier, Francis Longford Castle (Co. Sligo), 170, 307-8 Loughbrickland (Co. Down), 93 Lough Mask (Co. Mayo), 230 Louis XIV, King of France, 40, 78, 91, 162, 196-8, 203, 207-8, 217, 235, 238, 246 Louisburgh (Co. Mayo), 293 Louth, County, 68, 86, 95, 161-7 -, 6th Lord, see Plunkett, Oliver -, 7th Lord, see Plunkett, Matthew -, 8th Lord, see Plunkett, Oliver Louth Hall (Co. Louth), 164 Low Countries, 16, 29, 55, 181, 188 Lucan (Co. Dublin), 84 -, 1st Earl of, see Sarsfield, Patrick Ludlow, Edmund, 7-9, 25 Lundy, Lieutenant-Colonel Robert, 13740, 143, 170 Luttrell, Colonel Henry, 83, 171, 174, 1979 --, Colonel Simon, 84, 96, 220 Luttrellstown, 84 Lynch, family, 290, 292 Lyvett, John, 15-16 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 1st Lord Macaulay, 65, 105-6, 112 MacCarthy, Earls of Clancarty, 52 -, Charles, 83 -, Daniel Fion, 84 -, Donough, 4th Earl of Clancarty, 122, 126, 186, 189 -, Justin, 68, 83, 93, 122, 171 -, Lieutenant-Colonel Owen, 84 MacCarthy Reagh, Daniel, 83 MacDermot, Terence, 86 MacDermott, family, 313 MacDcrmott, -, 313 MacDonagh, Terence, 68, 88, 171, 308-9

328

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

MacDonnel, Alexander, 85 -, Randal, 83 MacDonnell, family, 16 -, Alexander, 3rd Earl of Antrim, 137, 186, 189, 214 -, Randal, 4th Earl of Antrim, 269 MacElligott, Colonel Roger, 85, 122-7 MacGennis, Bernard, 84 -, Ever, 84 -, Murtagh, 84 MacGillicuddy, Cornelius, 85 Mackay, Hugh, 223 MacKinlay, -, an Inniskillinger, 111 MacMahon, Bryan, 86 -, Heber, Catholic Bishop of Clogher, 22 -, Hugh, 86 McMoran, Patrick, 154 MacNamara, family, 214 -, Florence, 83 -, John, 83 MacNamee, Lieutenant James, 132 McParlan, -, Di, 314-15 MacSharry, -, Captain, 175 MacSwyne, family, 136, 140 Magennis, Bryan, 5th Viscount Magennis of Iveagh, 69, 214 Maguire, Dominick, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, 164 Mahan, Patrick, 164 Mahon, Thomas, 303-4 Malahide (Co. Dublin), 136 Malin Head (Co. Donegal), 142 Mallow (Co. Cork), 84, 118 Malone, Edmond, counsellor-at-law, M.P. for Athlone (1689), 87 -, Edmond, of Ballynahowen, M.P. for Athlone (1689), 87 Malplaquet, battle of, 157 Malton, James, 56 Man, Isle of, 29 Manorhamilton (Co. Leitrim), 169 Manulla (Co. Mayo), 297 Maolbrigte, a scribe, 43 Markree, later Mercury (Co. Sligo), 170, 309-10, 312 Marlborough, 1st Duke of, see Churchill, John Marsh, Narcissus, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin and Armagh, 59, 62, 200, 212, 227 Martin, family, 290, 302 -, Captain Cornelius, 134 -, Mrs Elizabeth, 299 -, Oliver, 84 -, Richard (I), Captain in the Jacobite

army, 302 -, Richard (II), 'Humanity Dick', son of Robert Martin (I) (q.v.), 293, 299, 303 -, Robert (I), son of Richard Martin (I) (q.v.), 291, 302 -, Robert (II), son of Richard Martin (II) (q.v.), 302-3 Martin's Castle, Ballynahinch (Co. Galway), 294 Mary II, Queen of England, 117, 177, 183, 190, 192, 203, 205-6, 210 Maryborough (Queen's Co.), 86, 152 Mathew, family, 309 -, George, 286 Matthews, Andrew, Abbot of Mellifont, 164 Maximilian Emmanuel II, Elector of Bavaria, 181, 246 Maxwell, Brigadier Thomas, 92, 109 Mayo, County, 214, 219, 223, 289-91, 293-4, 296-7, 300, 304-5, 307, 314, 316 -, 6th Viscount, see Bourke, Theobald Maytown, see Mount Leinster Meade, Sir John, 67-8, 84 Meagher, Henry, 85 -, Thady, 85 Meath, County, 71, 86, 166 -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Dopping, Anthony -, 4th Earl of, see Brabazon, Edward Melfort, 1 st Earl of, see Drummond, John Mellifont, Abbot of, see Matthews, Andrew Memoirs of the Chevalier de St George, 278, 283 Memorial of the State of England (J. Toland, 1705), 40-1 Menegatti, -, confessor to Emperor Leopold I, 237 Mercury, see Markree Methuen, John, Lord Chancellor (Irish), 36, 239 Michelburne, Colonel John, 140, 145-6, 175-8 Middlemen, 296 Midleton (Co. Cork), 84 Milford Haven (Pembrokeshire), 2, 12 Mill, Dr John, Principal of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, 33 Milton, John, 38 Mochury, 87 Modus Tenendi Parliamenta in Hibernia (1692), 256 Molesworth, Robert, 42, 45, 259, 278-80, 286

Index Molyneux, Sir Capel, 301 -, Thomas, 293 -, William, 36-7, 52, 60, 70, 255-9 Monaghan, County, 86 Mon(c)k, General George, 2-3, 41 Mongevlin Castle (Co. Donegal), 140 Monivea (Co. Galway), 304 Monro, Sir George, 3, 11-12 Moore, George, 292, 305 -, Gerald, 86 -, Henry, 2nd Earl of Drogheda, 106, 162 -, 2nd Earl of Drogheda, 106, 162 -, John, 305 Moore Hall (Co. Mayo), 292 Morres, Edmond, 86 -, Harvey, M.P., 85 —, Hervey Redmond, 2nd Viscount Mountmorres, 232 Morsiei, Jean-Francois, 94 Moughery, 87 Mountbellew (Co. Galway), 292 Mountgarrett, 5th Viscount, see Butler, Richard Mountjoy, 1st Viscount, see Stewart, Sir William Mount Leinster, alias Maytown, 221 Mountmorres, 2nd Viscount, see Morres, Hervey Redmond Mount Talbot (Co. Roscommon), 84 Mourne, river, 139 Moyry, pass, 95 MuUet, The (Co. Mayo), 294, 297 Mullingar (Co. 7/estmeath), 87 Mullony, solicitor in London for Irish Catholic lobby (1703-4), 269 Munchgaar, Colonel Frederik, 125 Munfine, 87 Munster, province, 1-2, 11-12, 14, 17, 73, 117, 145, 293, 296 Murphy, Edmund, Catholic VicarGeneral of Dublin, 247 -, Nicholas, 154 Murray, Adam, 140 Murrough, Andrew, 83 Mustard Garden (Co. Kilkenny), 158 Naas (Co. Kildare), 85 Nagle, David, 84 -, Garret, 214 -, Sir Richard, 50, 68, 83, 88, 130-1 Nangle, Walter, 86 Nanny Water, 3 Nantes, Edict of, 77, 91, 216, 274 Nash, Vincent, 158 National Library of Ireland, 311

329

Navan (Co. Meath), 86, 107 Nazarenus.... (J. Toland. 1718), 43-4 Ncagh, Lough, 60 Neale, The (Co. Mayo), 290 Newborough, see Goiey Newcastle, 83 Newcastle (Co. Dublin), 84 Newcastle (Co, Mayo), 300 Newcastle, 1st Duke of, see Holies, John Newhouse, near Gowran (Co. Kilkenny), 158 Newport (Co. Mayo), 294-5, 300-1 New Ross (Co. Wexford), 12-15, 87 Newry (Co. Down), 93-5, 100 Newton, John, 167 Newtown (on Lough Gill), 169 Newtownbutler (Co. Cavan), 92, 144, 171 Nihel, James, 85 Nimmo, Alexander, engineer, 294 Nottingham, 2nd Earl of, see Finch, Daniel Novissima Idea de Febribus (1686), 60 Nugent, family, 68, 214 -, Christopher, of Dardistown, M.P. for Fore (1689), 87 -, Christopher, of Dublin, M.P. for Strabane (1689), 87 -, Edmond, 87 -, Lieutenant-Colonel James, 86 -, John, baker, of Drogheda, 164 -, John, M.P., 87 -, Thomas, 1st Lord Nugent in the Jacobite peerage, 189 -, Thomas, 4th Earl of Westmeath, 214 -, Colonel William, 87 Nutley, Richard, 228 Nymphsfield (Co. Sligo), 310 Oaths, see Abjuration; Allegiance; Supremacy O'Brien, family, 214 -, Lord, see O'Brien, William -, Daniel, 83 -, Sir Donough, 229 -, Lucius, 229 -, Murrough, 1st Earl of Inchiquin, 1-4, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17 -, Terence, Catholic Bishop of Emly, 26-7 -, William, called Lord O'Brien, later 3rd Earl of Inchiquin, 125 Oceana (J. Harrington, ed. J. Toland, 1700), 39

O'Connor Sligo, 307 O'Conor, family, 170, 299 -, Charles, 215, 293, 296-7, 299 -, Denis, 299 -, Matthew, 8, 233-4

330

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

O'Conor Don, 308 O'Dempsey, Maximilian, 3rd Viscount Clanmaliere, 64 O'Doherty, family, 136 O'Donnell, family, 136-7, 300-2 -, Anne, 300 -, Calvagh Roe, 300 -, Conn, 300 -, Hugh, 299 -, Hugh Baldearg, 145-6, 177-8, 188-9 -, James Moore, 301 -, Manus, 300 -, Sir Neil, 300, 302 -, Neil Garbh, 299-300 -, Rory, 300 O'Donovan, Daniel, M.P. for Baltimore (1689), 84 -, Daniel, M.P. for Doneraile (1689), 84 -, Jeremy, 84 O'Dowd, family, 305 O'Dwyer, Edmund, Catholic Bishop of Limerick, 27 O'Farrell, —, Lieutenant-General, 10 O'Flaherty, family, 290, 296-7, 302-3 -, Eamonn Laidir, 302 -, Roderick, 293 O'Gara, 307 -, Oliver, 87 Ogygia ... (R. O'Flaherty, 1685), 35 O'Hagan, family, 16 O'Hara, family, 308-9, 311, 313 -, Charles, 309-16 -,Kean, 309 -, Lady Mary (nee Carmichael), 311 -, Teigue, 308 O'Kelly, Charles, 68-9, 77, 105, 172, 186, 189 Oldbridge (Co. Meath), 106-11, 113-14 Omagh (Co. Tyrone), 141 O'Malley, family, 296 O'Neill, family, 300 -, Arthur, harper, 309 -, Arthur, M.P., 87 -, Constantine, 83 -, Cormac, 83 -, Daniel, M.P. (1689), 83 -, Daniel, nephew of Owen Roe O'Neill (q.v.), 4, 5, 10 -, Gordon, 68, 87 -, Hugh Dubh, 10, 21-3, 25-9 -, Sir Neale, 174 -, Owen Roe, 1, 3-4, 10-11, 16, 21 -, Toole, 84 -, Colonel Turlough McArt Oge, 16, 21 Oranmore House (Co. Galway), 291

Ordnance Survey (Irish), 109 O'Reagan, Sir league, 145-6, 174-8 O'Reilly, family, 214 -, Philip Oge, 83 Orkney, Countess of, see Hamilton, Elizabeth Ormond(e), 1st Duke of, see Butler, James —, 2nd Duke of, see Butler, James Ormsby, family, 169, 290, 308 -.William, 170 Ossory, Catholic Bishops of, see Daton, William; Phelan, James -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Otway, Thomas O'Sullivan, -, Colonel, 122 Otway, Thomas, Church of Ireland Bishop of Ossory, 69 Overkirk, Lord, see Van Nassau, Henry Owens, John, 164 Oxburgh, Hewer, M.P. for King's County (1689), 85 -, Hewer, M.P. for Philipstown (1689), 85 Oxford, 33-5,45, 291, 311 -, 1st Earl of, see Harley, Robert Oxford Society, 60 Oxmantown, Dublin, 50, 60 Oyster Island, Sligo Bay, 310 Pale, The, 161

Panthetsticon (J. Toland, 1720), 44-5 Parallel, or Persecution of Protestants ..., The (D.Defoe, 1705), 272 Paris, 43, 157, 243 Parker, Robert, 107 Parliament (English), 11-14, 21, 23, 28-9, 42, 65, 75, 80, 166, 186, 209, 214, 251-2, 255-60, 271, 284; see also Acts of Parliament; Bills, parliamentary; House of Commons; House of Lords -, (Irish), 38, 54, 65-7, 69-71, 73-4, 76, 78, 162, 166, 182, 196, 203, 210, 21213, 215, 225-6, 228, 235, 238-44, 2467, 249, 252-6, 258-61, 263-5, 271, 27782, 284, 286, 291, 301; see also Acts of Parliament; Bills, parliamentary; House of Commons; House of Lords -, (Irish, of James II, 1689 [the 'Patriot Parliament]), 50, 65-90, 150-1, 162, 183, 186, 204, 251, 307-8 Parsons, Richard, 1st Viscount Rosse, 69 Passage (Co. Waterford), 11, 13, 17-19 Passage West (Co. Cork), 119, 122 Patriot Parliament of 1689, The (T. Davis, ed. C. Gavan Duffy, 1893), 67, 81 Pay, family, 158

Index Penal Laws, 76, 80, 167, 203, 217, 244, 254, 263, 275-6, 290-2, 298 Pendarves, -, Mrs, 294 Peppard, -, Alderman of Limerick, 134 -, Christopher FitzGeorge, 84, 162 -, Christopher Fitzlgnatius, 86, 162 Petrie, Sir Charles, 105 Petty, Sir William, 49, 52, 54-5, 60 Phelan, Dr James, Catholic Bishop of Ossory, 152 Philipstown (King's Co.), 85 Phillips, Thomas, 50, 52, 120, 122 Phipps, Sir Constantine, 277-86 Phoenix Park, Dublin, 73 'Plottin Hall' (Co. Meath), 122 Plowden, Francis, historian, 233 Plowden, Francis, revenue commissioner (Irish) and M.P. (1689), 88 Plunkett, family, 161-2, 290 -, Charles, 286 -, Matthew, 7th Lord Louth, 162-3 -, Oliver, 6th Lord Louth, 161 -, Oliver, 8th Lord Louth, 163-5, 167, 214 -, RandaU, llth Lord Dunsany, 214 -, Thomas, 163-4 Pococke, Richard, Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Dublin, 294-5 Polehore (Co. Wexford), 88 Polestown (Co. Kilkenny), 158 Polewheele, Bartholomew, 88 Popish Plot, 205, 215 Portarlington (Queen's County), 86 Porter, Sir Charles, 52, 191, 198, 205-6, 210, 213, 219, 223 -, Colonel James, 88 -, John, 87 -, Robert, 85 Porthall (Co. Donegal), 140 Portland, 1st Earl of, see Bentinck, Hans Willem Portlester, near Drogheda, 5 Portsmouth, 118, 122 Portugal, 91, 239 Powel, Edward, 84 Power, John, M.P. for Charleville (1689), 84 -, John, M.P. for County Waterford (1689), 87 -, Richard, 1st Earl of Tyrone, 122, 125-6 Poynings' Law, 65, 69-71, 80, 213, 226, 228, 237, 239, 251, 253-4, 265, 272, 282 Pratt, Benjamin, 59 Presbyterians (Irish), 62, 77, 136-7, 254,

331 277, 279, 286; see also Dissenters Presbyterians (Scottish), 32 Preston, -, 1 -, Nicholas, 6th Viscount Gormansto(w)n, 3 -, Jernico, 7th Viscount Gormansto(w)n, 3 -, Jernico, 8th Viscount Gormansto(w)n, 214 Pretender, the Old, see 'James III' Prior, Matthew, 40-1, 279 Privy Council (English), 65, 212-13, 227-9, 238-40, 264-6, 268-71, 273, 275 -, (Irish), 56, 193, 213, 226, 251, 264, 26870, 278-9, 280-3 Protestants (English), 76 -, (Irish), 1-4, 12-14, 16, 22, 32, 42, 49-50, 534, 58, 63, 65-9, 71-80, 92, 95-6, 125, 13546, 149-50, 152, 155-6, 158-9, 161-3, 166-7, 169-71, 176, 183, 186, 191, 193, 200, 203-6, 209, 212-17, 227-8, 230, 234, 238-42, 246, 251-2, 254, 256, 25961, 263-71, 274, 278-80, 283, 285-6, 289-92, 295, 297-300, 304-5, 307-10, 313, 316 Prussia, 40, 42 Purcel, Nicholas, 87 Purcell, family, 158 -, -, Major-General, 25, 27 -, Colonel James, 152 -, Colonel Nicholas, 197, 219 Putney (Surrey), 45

Quakers (Irish), 62 Queen's County, 86 Ram, Sir Abel, 57 —, Thomas, Church of Ireland Bishop of Ferns, 57 Ramillies, battle of, 278 Raphoe, barony of (Co. Donegal), 136 —, Church of Ireland Archdeacon of, see Hamilton, James -, Church of Ireland Bishop of, see Lindsay, Thomas Rathcoffey (Co. Kildare), 13 Rathcoole (Co. Dublin), 129, 132 Rathcormac (Co. Waterford), 84 Rathmines, battle of, 2, 4, 12 Rathmullan (Co. Donegal), 142-3 Ratholeran, 86 Ratoath (Co. Meath), 86 Ray, J., printer, of Dublin, 60 Reasonableness of Christianity ..., The (J. Locke, 1695), 35

332

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Rebellion, Irish (1641), see Irish Rebellion Red Castle (Co. Donegal), 142 Regium donum, 271 Reilly, Hugh, 83 -, John, 83 -, Philip, 83 Reynells, Edmond, 85 Reynolds, -, Colonel, 15, 17 Rice, Edward, 86 -, Sir Stephen, 50, 213, 216-17, 274 Ringsend, Dublin, 2, 50, 54 Riverston, Lord, see Nugent, Thomas Robinson, Miss, see Crofton, -, Mrs -, Sir William, 167 Roche, -, Captain, 13-14 Rome, 237 Rooke, Captain George, 96 Rooth, Francis, 87 Roscommon, County, 68, 73, 86, 169, 232, 289-90, 296, 303-4 -, parliamentary borough, 86 Rosnaree (Co. Meath), 108-9, 113-14 Rosse, 1 st Viscount, see Parsons, Richard Roth, John, 85, 149-50 -, Michael, 157 Royal Dublin Society, 297, 314 Royal Hospital (Kilmainham, Co. Dublin), 56, 281 Royal Irish Academy, 302 Royal Society (of London), 60, 255 Rupert, Prince, Count Palatine of the Rhine, 1, 11-13 Russell, -, Catholic Dean of St Patrick's, Dublin, 247 -, Admiral Edward, 117 -, Colonel Francis, 172 -, Patrick, Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, 612 -, Robert, 84 Ryland, Rev. R.H., historian, 16 Ryswick, Treaty of, 241-2, 245-6 Sacheverell, Dr Henry, 278, 285 Sacramental Test (Irish), 233, 263, 271-4 St Andrew's Church, Dublin, 50 St Germain-en-Laye, 236 St John, Henry, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, 277, 279-80, 282, 284, 286 St Johnston (Co. Donegal), 13840 St Johnstown (Co. Longford), 68, 86 St Lawrence, Thomas, 13th Lord Howth, 69 St Leger, family, 156 -.Michael, 158 St Mary's Abbey, Dublin, 50

St Michan's Church, Dublin, 50 St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, 50, 53, 61, 104 St Patrick's Purgatory, 215, 267 St Patrick's School, Dublin, 59 St Sauveur, -, Captain, 172-3 St Thomas's Island, Limerick, 25 St Werburgh's Church, Dublin, 52 Salisbury, Bishop of, see Burnet, Gilbert Sankey, -, Colonel, 19 Sarsfield, Countess, 129, 134 -, Dominick, 4th Viscount Sarsfield, 12934 -, Patrick, 1st Earl of Lucan in the Jacobite peerage, 68, 84, 109-10, 113, 115, 120, 129-30, 132-3, 141, 144, 155, 163-5, 171-4, 176-8, 189-90, 198-9, 203, 205, 208-12, 219, 222-3, 307 Saunders, Anderson, 282 Savage, Rowland, 84 Scarrifhollis (Co. Clare), 22 Schomberg, 1 st Duke of, see De Schomberg, Frederick Herman —, 3rd Duke of, see De Schombcrg, Maynard Scotland, 1, 21, 32, 44-5, 75, 91-2, 98, 171, 259-60 Scott, Colonel Edward, 175-8 -, Francis, 176 Scravemoer, Lord, see Van der Duyn, Adam Shaftesbury, 3rd Earl of, see Ashley, Anthony Shales, Henry, 92 -, John, 92, 98, 101 Shanley, William, 85 Shannon, river, 22-4, 28, 60, 95, 119-20, 161, 174, 197, 207-8, 289, 294 Sharp, Anthony, 53, 62 Shea, Patrick, 150 Shee, family, 156 —, James, 150 -, Richard, 158 Sheffield, John, 1st Duke of Buckingham, 158 Sheldon, Colonel Dominick, 154 Sherlock, Edward, 88 Shrewsbury, 1 st Duke of, see Talbot, Charles Silesia, 266 'Sixth of George I', see Acts of Parliament (English), Declaratory Act (1719) Slane (Co. Meath), 106-10, 114 -, 17th Lord, see Fleming, Christopher Sleyne, John Baptist, Catholic Bishop of Cork, 248 Sligo, County, 87, 169, 188, 219, 289, 301, 307-16

Index Sligo, town, 87, 135, 141, 145-6, 169-79, 307-8, 310-11, 313-15 Smith, Edward, 59-60 -, Erasmus, 162 -, John, 57 -, Captain Richard, 173 Smyth, Valentine, 149-50 Sodnianism Truly Stated (J. Toland, 1705), 43 Solms-Braunfels, Henry Trajectinus, Count Solms, 107, 118-19 Sophia, Electress of Hanover, 40 South Sea Bubble, 167 Southwell, Edward, 265-6, 269-70, 274, 277-83, 285 -, Sir Robert, 106, 111-12, 114, 182-5 Spain, 21, 29, 55, 91, 135, 157, 189, 278, 293, 297 Spencer, Robert, 2nd Earl of Sunderland, 244 Spinoza, Benedictus de, 42 Stafford, Dr Alexis, 68, 88 —, Francis, 83 -, Captain Nicholas, 88 Stanihurst, Richard, 44 Stanley, Sir John, 280-3 State of the Protestants of Ireland, The (W. King, 1691), 67, 75, 272 Stcarne, Dr John, 58 Stephenstown (Co. Louth), 167 Stevens, Captain John, 94, 101, 106, 113, 153 Stewart, Sir William, 1st Viscount Mountjoy, 137, 141 Stickillin (Co, Louth), 163-4, 167 Stillingfleet, Edward, Bishop of Worcester, 44 Stock, Joseph, Church of Ireland Bishop of Killala, 305 Stonetown (Co. Louth), 167 Story, Reverend George, 93, 95, 97, 99-100, 106, 108, 110-11, 114, 123, 154, 173, 184, 189 'Story of the Injured Lady, The' (J. Swift, unpublished), 260 Strabane (Co. Tyrone), 87, 137-8, 141, 143 Strange, Abraham, 88 Stranorlar (Co. Donegal), 141 Strathnagaloon, 83 Strokestown (Co. Roscommon), 303-4 Stuart, James Francis Edward, see 'James III' Suir, river, 11, 13, 15, 18 Sunderland, 2nd Earl of, see Spencer, Robert Supremacy, Oath of, 225-6, 232 Sweeney, Michael, 286 Swift, Jonathan, 31, 40-1, 46, 52, 59, 70,

333

74, 79, 104, 233, 260, 277-9, 281, 283-6 Swilly, Lough, 137, 140. 142, 144 Swilly Burn (Co. Donegal), 138 Swords (Co. Dublin), 3, 84 Sydney, Henry, 1st Viscount Sydney, 165-7, 253, 260 Sylvius, Dr Jacob, 60 Synge, Edward, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Tuam, 293 -, Edward, Church of Ireland Bishop of Elphin, 310 Syonane, 87 Taafe, family, 161, 164, 166, 308 -.Christopher, 167 -, Francis, 3rd Earl of Carlingford, 165-7, 308 -, Nicholas, 4th Earl of Carlingford, 166 -, Nicholas, son of Christopher Taafe (q.v.), 167

-, Theobald, 1st Earl of Carlingford, 1, 161 Taghmon (Co, Wcxford), 88 Talbot, Charles, 1st Duke of Shrewsbury, 277-86 --, Frances, Countess of Tyrconnell, 69 -, James, 84 -,John,84 —, Marcus, 83 -, Peter, Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, 61 -, Richard, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, 9, 49, 54, 62-3, 66-8, 71, 78, 91, 95-6, 109, 111, 119, 130, 136-7, 145, 153-4, 162-3, 166-7, 169-70, 177, 187, 191, 196-8, 207, 223 -, William, M P. for County Louth (1689), 86, 162, 167 -, William, M.P. for Wexford town (1689), 87 -.William, M.P. for County Wicklow(1689), 88 -, Sir William, 86 Talbot's Inch (Co. Kilkenny), 153 Talmash, Thomas, see Tollemache, Thomas Tamerlane (Sir S. Garth's prologue), 278 Tanrego (Co. Sligo), 308-9 Teignmouth (Devon), 117 Temple House (Co. Sligo), 309 Tenison, Thomas, 165 Test, see Sacramental Test Tholsel (Dublin), 281 Thomastown (Co. Kilkenny), 85 Thomastown (Co. Louth), 165 Thornton, Robert, 60 Tichborne, Sir William, 161-2 Ticroghan Castle (Co. Meath), 5, 10 Tipperary, County, 87, 145, 316

334

War and Politics in Ireland, 1649-1730

Tisdall, Richard, 167 Toberduff, 88 Tobin, James, 87 -.Walter, 158 Toland, John, 31-47 Tollemache (Talmash), Thomas, 223 Toilet, George, 60 Tone, Theobald Wolfe, 80, 292, 299-300 Toole, Francis, 88 Torbay (Devon), 117 Torway, John, headmaster of St Patrick's School, Dublin, 59 Tothill, -, Colonel, 25 Townley, Henry, 162 Townley Hall (Co, Louth), 162 Townsend, Lieutenant Horatio, 124 Tralee (Co. Kerry), 85 Trant, Sit Patrick, 86 Trench, family, 304 Trillick (Co. Tyrone), 142 Trim (Co. Meath), 86, 226 Trinity College, Dublin, 35, 50, 55, 58-9, 65, 67, 84, 183, 255, 277-8, 281 Trynder, John, 86 Tuam (Co. Galway), 134 -, Church of Ireland Archbishop of, see Synge, Edward Tubbercurry (Co. Sligo), 311 Tuchet, James, 3rd Earl of Castlehaven, 13-14, 23-4 Tuite, Philip, 83 Tullendaly, 84 Tully (Co. Donegal), 142 Turenne, Vicomte de, see D'Auvergne, Henri de la Tour Turvey (Co. Dublin), 3 Two Treatises of Government (J. Locke, 1690), 255 Tyrconnell, Countess of, see Talbot, Frances -, 1st Earl of, see Talbot, Richard Tyrone, County, 68, 87 -, 1st Earl of, see Power, Richard Tyrrel, Sir Edward, 83 Ulster, province, 3, 15-17, 19, 67, 69, 77, 92, 100, 136, 141, 144-5, 169, 174-5, 177, 252, 254, 293, 305, 310 -, General Synod of, 62 Uniacke, Thomas, 83 Union, of England and Scotland (1707); see Anglo-Scottish Union Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1800), see Acts of Parliament (English; Irish), Act of Union (1800) United Irishmen, Society of, 296, 302

University of St Canice's (or Royal College), Kilkenny, 152 Unreformed House of Commons, The (E. and Annie G. Porritt, 1903), 225, 232 Ussher, James, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, 38, 44, 52 Usson, Marquis d', see De Bonnac, Jean Dusson Utrecht, Treaty of, 277 Van der Duyn, Adam, Lord Scravcmoer, Major-General, 118-19, 122-4, 126, 223 Van Keppel, Arnold Joost, 1st Earl of Albemarle, 166 Van Nassau, Henry, Lord Overkirk, 149 Van Reede, Godard, Lord Ginkel, 1st Earl of Athlone, 28, 119, 145-6, 155, 157, 163-6, 174-6, 185-97, 199-201, 205-13, 219, 223 Vatican, 284-5 Vatican Archives, 238 Verney, Sir Edmond, 4, 5, 9 Yernon, James, 240 Vienna, 237, 243 Vindication of the Parliament of England ..., A (J. Cary, 1698), 257-8 Voltaire, see Arouet, Franqois-Marie Von Donop, Colonel Moritz Melchior, 113 Von Holbach, Baron, 46-7 Von Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Baron Leibniz, 40, 43 Von Rosen, Marshal Conrad, 97, 139-40, 142-4 Von Tettau, Major-General Julius Ernst, 11819, 122 Von Zurlauben, Colonel Conrad, 113 Wadding, Father Luke, 11 -.Thomas, 16 Waddington, Arthur, 87 Waldeck, George Frederick, Prince of, 117 Wales, 13 Walker, Reverend George, 140 Wall, Colonel Garrett, 4, 5, 7 Waller, Major-General Sir Hardress, 23 Walsh, family, 156 -, Robert, 85, 150-1, 158 Warren, John, 83 -, Colonel William, 4-5, 9 Warrenstown, later Dillonstown (Co. Louth), 4-5, 9 Waterford, County, 87 -.city, 10-19, 79, 87, 118, 123-4 Wauchope, Brigadier John, 153, 199 Wesley, John, 293, 297, 311

Index Westmeath, County, 87 -, 4th Earl of, see Nugent, Thomas Westport (Co. Mayo), 290, 303 Wetenhall, Edward, Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, 69, 124, 127 Wexford, County, 57, 68, 87 -, town, 11-13, 21, 87 Whalley, -, Dr, publisher of an almanac, 60 Wharton, Thomas, 1st Marquess of Wharton, 277 White, Charles, 86 -, Ignatius, Marquis d'Albeville, 126, 187 -, Nicholas, M.P. for Clonmcl (1689), 87 -, Nicholas, M.P. for Clonmines (1689), 88 -, Rowland, 84, 220 Whiteboys, 296, 316 Whitehall, 243, 253 Whitehaven (Cumberland), 55 Wicklow, County, 88 —, parliamentary borough, 88 Wight, Isle of, 122 Wild Geese, 146 Wild Oats, or the Gentlemen Strollers, a farce. 298 William III, King of England, 28, 49, 66-7, 69, 74-6, 91-2, 96-9, 101- 4, 105-8, 110-12, 114 117-19, 122, 125, 127, 135-7, 145,

335

149-50, 154-5, 157, 161-6, 169, 171, 174-7, 181-90, 192, 194, 197, 199-201, 203-6, 209-10, 212-15, 217, 226, 228, 235, 237-8, 240-7, 249, 251, 254-5, 258-60, 278-9, 285, 302, 307-8 Williams, Dr Daniel, 33 -.William, 51 Wogan, family, 13 -.Edward, 13-14, 18-19 -, John, 85 -, William, 264, 269-70 Wolseley, Colonel William, 144 Wood, Richard, 169 Woodlawn House (Co. Sligo), 304 Wood-Martin, W.G., 174, 179 Woodpark (Co. Meath), 84 Worcester, Bishops of, see Lloyd, William; Stillingfleet, Edward Wiirtemberg, Frederick William, Duke of, 110-12, 119, 123-7, 132, 205 Wynne, family, 313 -, General Owen, 175, 309-10, 313-14 Yeomanstown (Co. Kildare), 220-1 Youghal (Co. Cork), 11-12, 14, 83 Young, Arthur, 297, 303-4, 312-13 'Young Ireland', 81