REVIEW OF THE CIVIL WARS IN IRELAND. BOOK I. CHAP. I. Of the state of the Irish from the time of the Invasion of HENRY II. IN order to form a right judgment of the principles, and con duct of the natives of Ireland, since the reformation (from which period only, I purpose to consider their civil dissentions), it is necessary to look back to the times preceding that event, and to take a cursory view of the manner in which the first British adventurers,* and their successors, for several several ages, treated these, as they affected to call them, conquered • All Ireland was by Henry II. cantonized among ten of the English nation, (viz. the Earl Strongbow, Robert Fitzstephen, Miles de Cogan, Philip Bruce, Sir Hugh de Lacy, Sir John Courcey, William Burke FitzAndelm, Sir Thomas de Clare, Otho de Grandison, and Robert le Poer,) and though they had not gained the possession of one-third part of the whole kingdom, yet, in title they were owners, and lords of all, so as nothing was left to be granted to the natives. And, therefore, we do not find in any record, or history, for the space of three hundred years after these adventurers first arrived in Ireland, that any Irish lord obtained a grant of his country, from the crown, but only the king of Thomond; who had a grant but only during king Henry III.'s minority; and Roderick O'Connor, king of Connaught, to whom king Henry II. before this distribution was made, did grant that he should be king under him; and keep his kingdom of Connaught in the same good and peaceable state in which he kept it be fore his invasion of Ireland.-Sir John Davis's Historical Relations, p. 60. people. Now it is evident from all our records, that after these adventurers got footing in that kingdom, the British colonies only, and some few septs* of the Irish, that were enfranchised by special charter, were admitted to the benefit and protection of the laws of England; and that the Irish, as such, were generally reputed aliens, or rather enemies; insomuch, that it was adjudged no felony to kill a mere Irishmant in time of peace. It is also evident, that the Irish on their part, « did, at several times, desire to be admitted to the benefit of the law; as in their petitions to Richard II. and lord Thomas, of Lancaster, before the war of the two houses; and afterwards, to lord Leonard Gray, and Sir Arthur St. Leger, when Henry VIII. began to reform that kingdom. And it was certainly a great defect in the civil policy of Ireland, that for the space of three hundred and fifty years at least after the conquest was first attempted, the English laws were not communicated to its people, nor the benefit or protection thereof allowed them; for as long as 1 Sir John Davis's Historical Relations, Dub, ed. p. 45. These were the O'Nials of Ulster, OʻMalachlins of Meath, the O'Connors, of Connaught, the O'Briens, of Thomond, and the Mac Mouroghs, of Leinster.-Id. ib. ↑ So ridiculously, as well as tyrannously, was this distinction kept up, "that no man was to be taken for an Englishman, who had not his upper lip shaven" (which, it seems, the Irish had not.) “ And if any man should be found among the English, contrary thereunto, it was lawful to seize him, and his goods, as an Irish enemy.—Ib. p. 92. "Those, that were adventurers," says Sir John Temple, " in the first conquests (of Ireland), and such other of the English nation as came over afterwards, took possession, by virtue of former grants, of the whole kingdom, drove the Irish, in a manner, out of all the habitable parts of it, and settled themselves in all the plains and fertile places of the country, especially in the chief towns, ports, and sea-coasts. It was no capital offence to kill any of the rest of the (non-enfranchised) Irish; the law did neither protect their life, nor revenge their death.”—Hist. of the Irish Rebel. p. 6, 7. But although an Englishman did not incur any capital punishment for killing a mere Irishman, he was punished, it seems, according to the old Brehon law, by an erick, or fine; thus it appears, that one William, the son of Roger, among others, was at a gaol delivery at Waterford, by John Wogan, lord justice of Ireland, fined five marks, for killing one O'Driscal, an Irishman.-See Sir John Davis's Hist. Relat. p. 49. "But if, on the other hand, the jury had found that the party had been of English race and nation, it had been adjudged felony.-Id. ib. they were out of the protection of the laws, so as every Englishman might oppress, spoil and kill them without control, how was it possible they should be other than outlaws, and enemies to the crown of England? If the king would not admit them to the condition of subjects, how could they learn to acknowledge and obey him as their sovereign? When they might not converse, or commerce with civilized men, nor enter into any town or city without peril of their lives, whither should they fly, but into woods and mountains, and there live in a wild, and barbarous manner? In a word, if the English would neither in peace govern them by the law, nor in war root them out by the sword, must they not needs be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their sides, to the world's end?" On the other hand, that these people merited far different treatment from the crown of England, is manifest from hence, that when they were at last admitted to the condition of subjects* under James I. they gave many signal proofs of their dutifulness, and obedience; and, as the same knowing, and impartial witness, whom I have hitherto quoted, then vouched for them,4 "would gladly continue in that condition, as long as they might be protected, and justly governed, without oppression on the one hand, or impunity on the other; there being, in his opinion, no nation under the sun that did love equal, and indifferent justice, better than the Irish, or that would rest better satisfied 3 Id. ib. p. 52. "It was not till the 12th of James I. ann. 1614, that the Irish were con sidered as subjects; for then an act was made in the Irish parliament, declaring, that the natives of Irish blood were in several statutes and records called Irish enemies, and accordingly abridged of the benefit of the laws, but that being then taken into his majesty's gracious protection under one law, as dutiful subjects—those laws of distinction and difference were wholly abrogated."-Borlase Reduct. of Irel. p. 188. 4 Sir John Davis's Hist. Rel. Dub. ed, p. 123. "By divers heavy penal laws, the English were forbidden to marry, to foster, to make gossips with the Irish, or to have any trade or commerce in their markets or fairs. Nay, there was a law made no longer since than the 2d of Henry VIII. that the English should not marry with any person of Irish blood, though he had gotten a charter of denization, unless he had done both homage and fealty to the king in the chancery, and were also bound by recognizances, with sureties, to continue a loyal subject,”—Sir John Davis, ib. p. 50. "I dare affirm," says Sir John Davis, (attorney general in Ireland, in the reign of James I.) " that for the space of five years last past, there have with the execution thereof, although it were against themselves; so as they might have the protection, and benefit of the law, when upon a just cause they did desire it." CHAP. II. The state of the Irish, at the beginning of the Reformation. IN this condition of absolute slavery, the Irish remained during the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and queen Elizabeth, when the new reformed religion was first introduced among them; a circumstance not at all likely to induce them to embrace it, even though they had been willing to part with their old religion, which was far from being the case. This obstacle to the reformation, was accompanied with others still greater; their new pastors were totally ignorant of the Irish language, as their flocks, for the most part, were of the English;* besides, the inferior clergy, in those days, who had the imme not been found so many malefactors, worthy of death, in all the six circuits of this realm (Ireland), which is now divided into thirty-six shires at large, as in one circuit of six shires, namely, the western circuit of England. For the truth is, that in time of peace, the Irish are more fearful to offend the law, than the English, or any other nation whatsoever."-Hist. Relat. p. 116. "Even within the English pale," (viz. the counties of Dublin, Meath, Lowth, and Kildare,) “ the Irish language was become so predominant, that laws were repeatedly enacted to restrain it, but in vain.-In those tracts of Irish territory, which intersected the English settlements, no other language was at all known; so that here the wretched flock was totally inaccessible to those strangers who were become their pastors."-Leland's Hist. of Ireland, Dub. ed. 4to. vol. ii. p. 194. In a letter from her majesty's council about this time (1584) to the archbishop of Canterbury and bishop of London, complaint is made, " that in some parts of England, great numbers of persons occupied cures, being notoriously unfit, most for lack of learning, many charged or chargeable with great and enormous faults, as drunkenness, filthiness of life, gamesters at cards, haunting of ale-houses, and such like; against whom they heard not of any proceedings, but that they were equally suffered, to the slander of the church, to the offence of good people, yea, to the famishing of them for lack of good teaching, and to the subverting many weak beings from their duty to God and the queen's majesty. And that they had, in a general sort, heard, out of many parts, of this lamentable estate of the church."-The Harmony between the old and present Non-conformists Principles, p. 91. diate cure of souls, were men of no parts or erudition; and what was worse, they were full as immoral as they were illiterate.' "The clergy in Ireland," says Mr. Spencer,* writing of this period, "excepting the grave fathers, who are in high places about the state, and some few others, who are lately planted in the new college, are generally bad, licentious, and most disordered."+ 1 Spencer's State of Ireland, Dub. ed. He was secretary to lord Leonard Gray, deputy of Ireland, in the reign of Elizabeth. "Whatever disorders," adds he, on this occasion, "are in the church of England, may be seen in that of Ireland, and much more; namely, gross simony, greedy covetousness, fleshly incontinency, careless sloth, and generally all disordered life in the common clergymen. And besides these, they have particular enormities; they neither read the scriptures, nor preach to the people, only they take the tythes and offerings, and gather what fruit they can off their livings, which they convert as badly." -State of Irel. p. 131. "Yea, and some of them (the bishops) whose dioceses are in remote parts (of Ireland), somewhat out of the world's eye, do not at all bestow the benefices which are in their own donation, upon any (clergymen), but keep them in their own hands, and set their servants or horse-boys to take up the tythes, and fruits of them, with the which some of them purchase great lands, and build fair castles upon the same.-Spencer ib. The same writer had before said, that other bishops, "received, as due tribute, shares of their livings from their clergy, as the latter received them duly. For (adds he) the bishops have their clergy in such awe and subjection under them, so as they may do to them what they please; for the clergy, knowing their own unworthiness and incapacity, and that they are therefore still moveable at their bishops' will, yield what pleaseth him, and he taketh what he listeth."-Id. ib, "The prejudices conceived against the reformation, by the Irish natives more especially," says Dr. Leland, "were still further increased by the conduct of those who were commissioned to remove the objects and instruments of popular superstition. Under pretence of obeying the orders of state, they seized all the most valuable furniture of the churches, which they exposed to sale, without decency or reserve. The Irish annalists pathetically describe the garrison of Athlone issuing forth with a barbarous and heathen fury, and pillaging the famous church of Clonmacnoise, tearing away the most inoffensive ornaments, books, bells, plate, windows, furniture of every kind, so as to leave the shrine of their favorite saint, Kiaran, an hideous monument of sacrilege. Nor do such complaints appear to be entirely groundless, for we find that Sir James Crofts, the successor of St. Leger, who had been remanded into England, was particularly instructed to prevent the sale of bells, and other church furniture."-Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii.` p. 196. |