PROMISED CHARTER OF GRACES.

273

thirds thereof.' Notwithstanding this, as we shall presently see, the king's good intentions were thwarted, first by the Lord Deputy Wentworth, and ten years later by the Lords Justices Borlase and Parsons.

Conformably with the king's instructions, a Parliament, convened for the double purpose of voting supplies and confirming the graces, met in Dublin Castle on July 16, 1634. By great care in the nomination of sheriffs, by procuring the return of Government candidates for particular places, and by dexterous management of the passions and interests of the members, as well as by threats and promises, Wentworth secured the voting of the supplies and prevented the passing of the graces.

1

2

The Commons remonstrated with him thereupon. They stated that they could not sufficiently discharge their duty to his Majesty, or the trust reposed in them by their country, unless they were careful in these great affairs to conserve the honour of his Majesty's word, in that respect passed unto them his people, who had heretofore, by their said agents, presented a free gift of 120,000l. to his Majesty, and 150,000l. loan money or contribution by them forgiven, and 40,000l. in these two last years contributed by the country, amounting in the total to 310,000l., exceeding in proportion their abilities and the precedents of past ages. However, the Lord Deputy was obdurate, the money was kept, and the graces were refused. Yet, in opening their Parliament, Wentworth had told them that his Majesty intended to have two sessions of that Parliament, the one for himself and the other for them; so as if they,

1 Leland, vol. iii. p. 16. How like all this is to Lord Castlereagh's tactics in passing the Act of Union at the close of the last century! We may presume both he and Wentworth considered the means were justified by the end. 'I shall labour,' says Wentworth, to make as many captains and officers burgesses in this parliament as I possibly can, who having immediate dependence on the crown, may almost sway the business between the two parties which way they please.'-Carte. A.D. 1635.

Strafford, 'State Letters,' vol. i. p. 278.

T

without conditions, supplied the king in this they might be sure his Majesty would go along with them in the next meeting through all the expressions of a gracious and good king.'

The remonstrance of the Lords was no less ineffectual. 'Both houses,' writes Wentworth, 'pressed extremely for the graces, especially for the law of England,' of three score years' possession to conclude his Majesty's title, urging his Majesty's promise at every turn."2 He told them that the refusal was his own, 'their request never having been so much as sent over by him, and that passing this Act to prevent inquiry into defective titles was not good and expedient for the kingdom at the time.' He afterwards induced the council to assure his Majesty that 'he was not bound, either in justice, conscience, or honour, to perform the solemn promise he had made to these people for the valuable consideration before mentioned.'

He

Wentworth openly boasted of his success in this matter. cared not for appearances. Common decency, justice, the honour of his royal master, were all feathers in the scale against that stern policy of wrong and oppression which, from the starting-point, he made his rule for the government of Ireland. He had entered on his office the year before with a determination to govern with the utmost severity and rigour. Ireland he regarded as a conquered country in the strictest sense. He afterwards avowed and defended this opinion on his impeachment, when it was charged on him as a traitorous principle. His theory was that the king's Irish subjects had forfeited the rights of men and citizens.'

Wentworth next proceeded to revive the scheme of the confiscation of Connaught and the county of Clare, although the king had promised to have the proprietors confirmed in their possessions. His project was nothing less,' says Leland, than to subvert the title to every estate in every part of Connaught,

1 21st of James I.

Leland, vol. iii. p. 10.

" History of Ireland,' vol. iii. p. 31.

2 State Letters,' vol. i. P.

4

A.D. 1635.

56

279.

FURTHER SCHEMES OF CONFISCATION.

275

and to establish a new plantation through this whole province, a project which, when first proposed in the late reign, was received with horror and amazement, but which suited the undismayed and enterprising genius of Lord Wentworth." To establish the title of the Crown, he went back to a grant made four centuries before, which he alleged had passed by marriage to the Duke of York, grandfather of Edward IV., and consequently was the property of his legitimate successor, the reigning monarch. He proceeded to Connaught with judges and soldiers, the former to try the causes, the latter to enforce verdicts for the Crown. He tells us himself that he took the troops, 4,000 horse, as good lookers on, while the plantations were settling." He prevailed on the king to grant 48. in the pound to the Lords Chief Justice and Chief Baron out of the first yearly rent raised on the commission of defective titles, which he had found, upon observation, to be the best given that ever was, for that by these means they did intend that business with as much care and diligence as if it were their own private, and every 48. thus paid would better his Majesty's revenue 41.4

Necessarily there were many compelled verdicts for the Crown. But in some instances, where juries were not quite so compliant, they were forthwith fined and imprisoned. Wentworth himself describes the mode of proceeding in one instance of a jury in the county of Galway, who refused to find a title for the king. We bethought ourselves,' says he, of a course to vindicate his Majesty's honour and justice, not only against the person of the jurors, but also against the sheriff, for returning so insufficient, indeed, we conceive, so packed a jury, and therefore we fined the sheriff in 1,000l. to his Majesty."5

As regards the jurors, they were fined 4,000l. each, their estates were seized, and themselves imprisoned till the fines were paid. The sheriff died in prison. The jury were further condemned to acknowledge their offence in open court on their knees.1 At one time Wentworth contemplated the execution of the sheriff, but even he must have shrunk from the perpetration of so flagrant a crime. He writes to Wandesford, afterwards Lord Deputy, 'I am full of belief they will lay the charge of Darcye the sheriff's death to me. My arrows are cruel that wound so mortally, but I should be more sorry by much the king should lose his fine; therefore, I pray you, consult it thoroughly with the judges."

Even had this system of terrorism failed to enforce verdicts for the Crown, the Lord Deputy had another expedient in reserve by which he felt sure he could not fail to attain his object. This was a resort to the Parliament which he had so packed that, as he writes to the Secretary of State, the Protestants are the majority, and this may be of great use to confirm and settle his Majesty's title to the plantations of Connaught and Ormond; for this you may be sure of, all the Protestants are for plantations, all the other against them; so as these, being the great number, you can want no help they can give you therein. Nay, in case there be no title to be made good to these countries in the Crown, yet should not I despair, forth of reasons of state, and for the strength and security of the kingdom, to have them passed to the king by an immediate Act of Parliament."3

These unjust and unconstitutional proceedings were not confined to Connaught alone. Actions for ejectment on the title were instituted in the other provinces. Several proprietors escaped by the payment of large sums as compositions. Among

1 Leland, 'History of Ireland,' vol. iii. p. 34.

2 This letter is dated London, July 25, 1636, and is addressed by the Lord Deputy to Christopher Wandesford, Esq., Master of the Rolls, and one of the Lords Justices of Ireland. Strafford, 'State Letters,' vol. ii. p. 13.

3

3 Strafford, 'State Letters,' vol. i. p. 353. Letter of December 16, 1634.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION-COURT OF WARDS.

277

others the O'Byrnes of Wicklow preserved a portion of their estates by a payment of 15,000l., and the city of London was sued for breach of covenant in the plantations of Derry and Colrain, and their forfeit lands redeemed by a fine of 70,000l.1

Meanwhile, an indignant outcry against the confiscation of Connaught was raised all over the kingdom; the troubles in England were also increasing, and the Lord Deputy's grand scheme of spoliation had to be abandoned. Thus, notwithstanding all the pains taken, the protracted legal farce and the final decision to order establishing the king's title, the western proprietors were left in possession of their estates. But the several attempts to deprive them of their possessions of centuries not only inflicted a wound both deep and galling on those immediately concerned, but tended much to alienate the whole. nation from a rule that could authorize, or even tolerate, such proceedings.

CHAPTER LXII.

PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION OF THE IRISH CATHOLICS UNDER THE STUARTS-COURT OF WARDS-HIGH COMMISSION COURT-CASTLE CHAMBER-TORTURING OF JURORS-OPPRESSIONS AND EXACTIONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS DESCRIPTION BY COTEMPORARIES OF THE ESTABLISHED CLERGY OF THE DAY-MEANS EMPLOYED FOR THE PLANTING OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION IN IRELAND.

As at this period the persecution and oppression of the Irish Catholics had reached its height, it may be well to glance at the several grievances under which they laboured.

First were the oppressive powers of the Court of Wards and the Court of High Commission. The Court of Wards was established in Ireland in 1614, the 11th of James I. Carte tells us it had no warrant from any law or statute as that in England had.''

1 Leland, vol. iii. p. 40.

'Life of Ormond,' vol. i. p. 517.