Chapter XXX: 1572 and 1573 (2)

At this critical time death deprived the Irish Government of Lord Chancellor Weston's services. He had held the Great Seal for six years, respected by all the official world as a father to the commonwealth; and the very Irishry lamented his loss. Weston was sincerely religious, not without a tinge of Puritanism, and was filled with anxiety at the condition of the Irish Church. Non-resident clergymen and desecrated churches were the rule, and he felt that he was giving a bad example by holding the temporalities of two deaneries, Wells in England and St. Patrick's in Ireland. It was thus that scanty salaries were eked out both before and after the Reformation. His conscientious scruples aggravated his naturally weak health, mainly caused, as he believed, by the damp climate, more probably by the want of vegetables and by unskilful physicians. He left a widow who appears to have been worthy of him, and an equally virtuous daughter, who was married first to Brady, Bishop of Meath, and afterwards to Secretary Fenton. Catherine Fenton, the only daughter of this second marriage, whilst in her nurse's arms, consented in childish play to be the wife of Richard Boyle, afterwards Earl of Cork. Many years later Boyle, a widower of four years' standing, actually married the 'little lady' with whom he had played in his bachelor days. That she inherited the virtues of her mother, grandmother, and grandfather, may be inferred from the beautiful passage in which one of the most powerful and successful men of his time has recorded his debt to his second wife. 'I never,' he says, 'demanded any marriage portion, neither had promise of any, it not being in my consideration; yet her father after my marriage gave me 1,000_l._ in gold with her; but the gift of his daughter unto me I must ever thankfully acknowledge as the crown of all my blessings; for she was a most religious, virtuous, loving, and obedient wife unto me all the days of her life, and the happy mother of all my hopeful children, who, with their posterity, I beseech God to bless.' Among the children were the famous Orrery, and the yet more famous Robert Boyle.[258]

[Sidenote: Catholic intrigues. Rowland Turner.]

The relations of England both with France and Spain were at this time extremely strained, and Antonio de Gueras, the Spanish Commissioner in London, thought the expedition of Essex might be turned to good purpose. The English refugees in Spain and the Low Countries kept pressing Philip to invade Ireland, and Rowland Turner, calling himself Lord Audley, an English priest from Louvain, was sent to Ulster with letters from De Gueras to Sir Brian MacPhelim. Essex, the Spaniard wrote, was about to land with 3,000 men and to exterminate the O'Neills. In order to frustrate his plan, Sir Brian was advised to put himself under the direction of Turner, a prudent, worthy, and faithful Catholic gentleman, with 500 splendidly armed men awaiting his orders in England. Turner, who had lately been in Spain, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, was well known to the English Government; and his foolish boasts about hanging all Protestants were not likely to enhance his reputation for ability or discretion. Sir Brian, though very willing to keep off Essex, had no idea of directly opposing Queen Elizabeth, nor of engaging in oecumenical plots for the extirpation of heresy. Like Archbishop Fitzgibbon, he feared that the English Catholics would make a tool of him, and throw him away when a turn had been served. He received Turner very coldly, who bitterly complained that he was not believed, though an exile for God's sake and for that of the Irish. Captain Piers hinted to Sir Brian that Turner's noble blood was fabulous, and the exile, while insisting upon his own stainless pedigree, retorted that Piers himself was the son of a scoundrel, and unworthy of being believed on his oath. His language, indeed, though he wrote in Latin, was almost worthy of Marryat's boatswain. The Irish were wretched, beggarly paupers, the slaves of the English, who took their cattle and fished their waters without payment, and held all their country either by force or fraud. By listening to Turner the natives might change all this, and make the English their slaves for ever. But they would not listen; and Turner shook the dust from his feet, though Essex thought he could trace the effects of his machinations. He was afterwards employed by Alva, and received money from Philip, but he does not appear to have risked a second rebuff in Ireland.[259]

[Sidenote: Essex can do little or nothing.]

After Smith's death Essex could do little but bemoan his hard fate and confess that the people, 'to increase their own plague, had refused her Majesty's mercies.' The causes of failure he thus sums up: 'Two great disadvantages I find in this little time of my continuance here. The first by the adventurers, of whom the most part, not having forgotten the delicacies of England, and wanting resolute minds to endure the travail of a year or two in this waste country, have forsaken me, feigning excuses to repair home, where I hear they give forth speeches in dislike of the enterprise to the discouragement of others. The second, that the common hired soldiers, both horsemen and footmen, mislike of their pay, and allege that they were not pressed by commission but by persuasion, and therefore ought not to be detained in this service longer than they like to stay. This is not hidden from the Irish, who also are fully persuaded that this war is altogether mine, alleging that if it were your Majesty's, it should be executed by the Lord Deputy, being your chief general here; and therefore thinking that I must be in a short time wearied with the charge, have confederated to stand in arms, which they would never do with your Majesty unless it were in respect of me, whereby I must acknowledge the weakness of myself, and so consequently of any subject that shall attempt any great service, and therein part with his prince either honour or profit. Therefore my humble petition is, that, albeit the moiety of the charge be mine, according to my covenant with your Majesty, that yet some means may be devised that all the officers, soldiers, and dealers in this war may seem to be your Majesty's; the war yours, and the reformation your Majesty's, and I only the instrument and executor of this service; whereby all men shall either put on better contentations and new courages, or else I with better warrant may punish the mutiny and the base ignobility of the soldiers' minds.'[260]

[Sidenote: Falstaffian recruits.]

The Devon and Somerset men, under Captain Burrowes, showed a particularly craven spirit, and began to desert at the prospect of active service. Essex hanged a few without much effect, for they preferred both starving and hanging to fighting. This is not surprising when we consider how they were recruited. The Privy Council directed the Western gentlemen to call for volunteers, and in default of a response to press those whom the country could best spare. Of course they sent all the greatest blackguards.

[Sidenote: The Irish profess to regard Essex as a mere private person.]

Captain Thomas Wilsford, who saw clearly how matters stood, reported that the Irish were actuated 'by despair to farm any part of their lands. They affirm they are no rebels, for that they say it is not the Queen's wars, and that they do but defend their own lands and goods.' The English, moreover, were unwarlike, 'through the fat, delicate soil and long peace at home,' and unable to cope with the Irish, who, while retaining their native hardiness, had become skilled in the use of weapons. The task was too great for any but the Queen, though Essex was one to go through with his undertaking even at the cost of his earldom. He 'shot not at the gain and revenue of the matter, but rather for the honour and credit of the cause.' It is not in this poetic fashion that flourishing colonies have been founded, nor was the Earl himself sanguine, for he sent a trusty messenger to England with a detailed account of his troubles; and indeed nothing could be worse than the aspect of affairs, especially after the escape of Desmond had made it hopeless to expect help from the Pale.[261]

[Sidenote: Appeal to Fitzwilliam against him.]

Essex could do nothing against the enemy, but some whom he considered lukewarm friends were more within his power. Piers, being accused of giving information to Sir Brian, was closely imprisoned and treated with excessive harshness, though there does not appear to have been any evidence against him. Nor was Fitzwilliam spared, for the Irish very reasonably held that if the war was the Queen's the army should be led by the Queen's Deputy, and it is probable that that experienced officer was of the same opinion himself. Essex professed readiness to serve under him as a private adventurer, but in the meantime accused him of encouraging libels against Burghley and himself. 'He could be contented to hear me ill spoken of openly in his chamber by his own servants, and he to show countenance, as though he took pleasure in his man's words ... he can be contented to sit in his chair and smile; and because I see further that all the Irish messengers of Ulster are daily with his lordship and I no way made privy to their petitions, or causes of their coming thither, I conclude that underhand many things may pass to my disadvantage, for already, whatsoever I require at any Irishman's hands, he appealeth to the Lord Deputy.'[262] Captain Wilsford thought that Ulster was about the quietest part of Ireland, and it is likely that Fitzwilliam, besides a not unnatural jealousy, thought it extremely unreasonable that with the scanty forces at his disposal he should be in any way called upon to advance the Northern enterprise.

[Sidenote: The Marward abduction case.]

The carrying off of the Fitzpatrick ladies had created much stir at the English Court, on account of the high position of the victims. That, however, was in a remote part of the country, and the captives were detained as hostages only. The story of an abduction of the day throws more light upon the state of society than any number of political disquisitions. Janet Marward, heiress and titular baroness of Skryne in Meath, a manor worth some 200_l._ a year, was a royal ward, and the Queen gave her wardship to Fitzwilliam, who sold it to her stepfather, Nicholas Nugent, second Baron of the Exchequer. Her mother, besides being married to a judge, was the daughter of a judge, John Plunket, Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Nugent sold the unfortunate girl to his nephew, the Baron of Delvin's brother. 'Afterwards, by procurement of the mother, the maid, being but eleven years old, was made to mislike of Nugent and to like of the young Lord of Dunsany, being of the Plunkets, whereupon there fell great discord between the Houses of Delvin and Dunsany, and the maid being by her mother and father-in-law brought into this city as the safest place to keep her, on Friday last at night about twelve o'clock the Baron of Delvin's brother, accompanied with a number of armed men, the watch being either negligent or corrupted, entered one of the postern gates of the city with twenty swords and entered by sleight into the house where the maid lay, and forcibly carried her away, to the great terror of the mother and of all the rest.' William Nugent married the heiress without her own consent or that of her friends. But we may hope that in time she got to 'like of' her lawless husband tolerably well, for when he was in prison for conspiracy nine years after it is recorded that she sent him some shirts. With such things going on under the very shadow of Dublin Castle, it is no wonder that Fitzwilliam should clamour for recall or that he should regret the hard fate of his three marriageable daughters, who were losing their time in Ireland. Had they been heiresses and royal wards their lot might have been still harder.[263]

FOOTNOTES:

[234] Thomas Smith, Junior, to Burghley, Sept. 10; Fitzwilliam to Mr. Secretary Smith, Oct. 21; to Burghley, Oct. 26; to the Queen, Sept. 25; Edward Maunsel to Fitzwilliam, June 11; Tirlogh Luineach O'Neill to Fitzwilliam, Oct. 10; Maltby to Fitzwilliam, Oct. 14. Young Smith landed Aug. 30, 1572.

[235] Sir Thomas Smith to Fitzwilliam, Nov. 8, 1572; Thomas Smith, Junior, to Burghley, Nov. 21; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Feb. 18, March 9, and May 20, 1573.

[236] Perrott to Sir Thomas Smith, Jan. 28, 1572; to the Privy Council (with Fitzmaurice's submission enclosed), March 3; to Burghley, April 12. _Perrott's Life_, p. 73.

[237] Desmond to Cecil and to the Duke of Norfolk, Aug. 26, 1568; to the Privy Council, Nov. 1; to the Queen, July 17, 1569; Sir John of Desmond to Cecil, May 30, 1569; Note of 1,573_l._ 2_s._ 4_d._ issued out of the Exchequer for the diets of the Earl of Desmond and Sir John, May 4, 1569.

[238] Sir John of Desmond to the Queen, May 30, 1569; Desmond to Cecil and Norfolk, Aug. 26, 1568; to the Privy Council, Nov. 1; to the Queen, July 17, 1569; Lady Desmond to her husband, Nov. 23, 1569; Perrott to Fitzwilliam, Dec. 4, 1571; St. Leger to the Privy Council, Oct. 17, 1570; to Burghley, June 6 and July 12, 1571.

[239] Declaration of Martin Frobisher, Dec. 4, 1572. Sir T. Smith to Burghley, Jan. 10, 1573; W. Herle to Burghley, March 16, 1572. The two last are in Wright, i. 454 and 475.

[240] Answer of the Earl of Desmond, Jan. 6, 1572-3, in _Carew_. Signed by Desmond, Jan 21, in presence of several members of the Privy Council. Sir John of Desmond signs as a witness.

[241] 'Her Majesty is so loth to sign anything that I know not what to do.'--Sir T. Smith to Burghley, Jan. 10, 1572-3; Wright, i. 456; Fitton to Burghley, April 10, 1573.

[242] Burghley, Sussex, and Leicester to Essex, March 30, 1574; Sir Thomas Smith to Burghley, June 2, 1573. 'Her Majesty remaineth in one opinion for my Lord of Essex. I trust it will continue, and his Lordship had needs make much haste. The time draweth away, and winds be changeable, and minds.'--Wright, i. 480. Essex's offers and an abstract of the grant to him are in _Carew_; and also his covenant with the Queen, May to July, 1573. See also Devereux, _Earls of Essex_, chap. i., and Shirley's _Monaghan_.

[243] Brief of Provisions, &c., July 19. Instructions for Mr. Tremayne, Clerk of the Council, June 9, 1573. Tremayne to Burghley, June 28 and 30, and July 4; Fitzwilliam to the Queen, June 12; to Burghley, June 30; Perrott to Warwick, July 14, in _Life_, p. 75; the Queen to Perrott, Aug. 10. Lanfey in Pembrokeshire was a residence of Essex, and he did not get on well with his neighbour at Carew Castle.

[244] See two letters, June 20 and July 20, 1573, printed in _Lodge's Portraits_ (Walter, Earl of Essex), from Essex to Burghley. In the R.O., calendared under Dec. 1574 (No. 81), is the paper above quoted, which shows how complete a division of Antrim among the colonists was really intended.

[245] Essex to Tirlogh Luineach O'Neill, Sept. 6; to Leicester, Sept. 15; to the Privy Council, Sept. 16; Sir P. Carew to the Privy Council, Sept. 16.

[246] Essex to the Privy Council, Sept. 10.

[247] Essex to the Privy Council, Sept. 29; Sir N. Bagenal to Lord Deputy and Council, Sept. 27; Sir P. Carew to Burghley, Sept. 29.

[248] Waterhouse to Burghley, Sept. 29; Sussex to Burghley, Oct. 15; Essex to the Privy Council, Oct. 20 and 28; to Burghley, June 4, 1574.

[249] Perrott to the Privy Council, April 9; to Burghley, April 12 and May 11; Fitton to Burghley, April 10.

[250] Russell's _Geraldine History_; Perrott to Burghley, May 11 and 18, and June 18; to the Privy Council, May 21; to Leicester, May 18, in _Carew_; Lord Deputy and Council to the Queen, May 25; Desmond's answers, May 18.

[251] Testimonial under town seal of Cork, April 18. Perrott to Burghley, April 19, with enclosures; to the Privy Council, May 11 and July 2; Petitions of John Besse and John Moreau, May 11 and June 15; Fitzwilliam to the Privy Council, June 13, with enclosures. _Perrott's Life_, p. 76.

[252] See State papers of April, 1573. Lord Deputy and Council to the Queen, June 10, with enclosures; Essex to the Privy Council, Nov. 2.

[253] Perrott to Burghley, July 13; to the Queen, same date; N. Walshe to Burghley, Sept. 26.

[254] Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Oct. 13; to the Privy Council, Nov. 5; the Queen to Perrott, Aug. 10; Desmond to the Queen, July 17 and Oct. 28; to the Privy Council, July 18 and Oct. 28; to Burghley, Oct. 28; Perrott to Fitzwilliam, July 18; N. Walshe to Burghley, Sept. 26; Bishop of Cork (Matthew Seaine) to Fitzwilliam, before Oct. 13.

[255] For Desmond's escape, after Oct. 28, and before Nov. 20, see Ware's _Annals_, Harris's _Dublin_, and Smith's _Kerry_, all varying slightly from each other. The account of the _Four Masters_, who say nothing of his having given parole, cannot be reconciled with the dates. Lord Deputy and Council to Desmond, Nov. 20; Fitzwilliam to the Privy Council, Nov. 20; to Burghley, Nov. 22 and 23; J. Walshe to Burghley, Nov. 30 and Dec. 2.

[256] N. White to Burghley, July 17; H. Colley to N. White, Oct. 10; to Fitzwilliam, same date; Sir B. Fitzpatrick to Sidney, May 6; Tremayne to Burghley, July 4; R. Mostyn to Fitzwilliam, Oct. 9; Fitton to Burghley, June 12 and July 2; to Sir T. Smith, April 10, June 29, and Aug. 12.

[257] Fitzwilliam to Burghley, June 30, Sept. 10, and Oct. 13; to the Queen and to the Privy Council, Sept. 10; Fitton to Sir T. Smith, June 3; to Burghley, Sept. 6 and 17; Lord Deputy and Council to the Queen, June 12, with enclosures; the Queen to the Lord Deputy and Council, and to Fitton, June 29.

[258] Perrott to the Privy Council, May 21, 1573; Weston, C., to Burghley, Sept. 14, 1569, June 17 and Oct. 20, 1572; to Fitton, Feb. 8, 1573; Lord Deputy and Council to the Queen, June 10, 1573; Wallop to Walsingham, May 7, 1584, and June 15, 1585; Earl of Cork's _True Remembrances_. Sidney, Perrott, and Weston, all suffered from stone.

[259] News out of Spain in _Foreign Calendar_, Jan. 5, 1572. A. de Gueras to the Rebels in Ulster, May 1573; Rowland Turner to Sir Brian MacPhelim, May 1573; Essex to the Privy Council, Oct. 4; and see _Domestic Calendar_, additional, Dec. 1573 and Aug. 1574.

[260] Essex to the Queen, Nov. 2, 1573.

[261] Instructions for E. Waterhouse, Nov. 2; Thomas Wilsford to Burghley, Dec. 1.

[262] Essex to Burghley, Nov. 2 and Dec. 9.

[263] N. White, M.R., to Burghley, Dec. 12, 1573; Fitzwilliam to Burghley, Oct. 13, 1573; petition to Burghley, Sept. 1582; Ormonde to Burghley, May 30, 1583.