Chapter XLI: Government of Perrott, 1585-1588 (2)

If Stanley's advice had been taken, Elizabeth might have been reduced to serious straits, for it was impossible to prevent a Spanish descent, and there were but scant preparations to meet an enemy on shore. Early in 1586 it was rumoured that there would be an invasion on May Day, and Perrott asked for a small cruiser to gather news on the Biscay coast. Merchants from Spain and Portugal reported that Irishmen were free from the embargo laid on English shipping, and that the many Irish residents in the peninsula made no secret of what was going on. Forty thousand men had been collected; eighty-five ships were ready, all but the rigging; Irish refugees from Rome and elsewhere flocked to Spain. Irish sailors were often detained by the Spanish Government, and occasionally told their adventures to Perrott, who also employed a secret agent, one Davy Duke, who knew Italian and Spanish, passed as a Jesuit, and had letters of introduction from a papal bishop imprisoned in Dublin Castle. Miles Brewett, mariner of Dublin, told how he had been taken before Santa Cruz, and how the Marquis had said that he knew Perrott very well, regretting that he was such a Lutheran, and wishing for one of his best horses and for one of his best hawks. The Admiral asked Brewett much about Ireland, and he answered that he had never known it so quiet. One of James Fitzmaurice's sons boasted to him that 5,000 men were going to Ireland, that Feagh MacHugh was ready to welcome them, and that all Ireland would do the same, except Dublin, Waterford, and Drogheda. But Brewett heard from others that Philip was weary of the Irish, and that his subjects called them beggars. Their priests cried out against Duke, who, after learning all he could, went over to Bayonne and wrote boldly to say that he was going to his mistress Queen Elizabeth. He bade the Pope farewell, saying that he liked of his countrymen's company, but not of their learning. As the plot thickened, news of Santa Cruz came constantly to Waterford, and Drake's very successful predatory cruise was freely discussed by merchants and others. One said that the great sailor must have taken Cadiz if he had landed at once; for that the whole population were at a comedy, where eighteen persons were crushed to death in the panic caused by his appearance--a lady with 16,000 ducats a year being among the victims. Even in the heart of Castille, Spaniards hardly thought themselves safe. Philip and his train were amusing themselves on some artificial water, and a lady who was invited to enter the royal barge refused to do so, 'for fear of Sir Francis Drake.' The usually impassive monarch is said to have lost his temper, and banished the timid, or perhaps only sarcastic, lady from court, swearing a great oath that he would be revenged on England. To bring this happy result about, he ordered that all Irishmen and Scots should be used as Spaniards. Baltinglas had left a brother who assumed his title, and offered to invade Ireland if the King would give him 5,000 men. Philip was willing to do so much, but the Irish gentlemen clamoured for twice or thrice as many, and he then said they did not know their own minds, and should have none at all. Despairing of Spain, Fitzmaurice's son and some others proposed to go to Ireland and make terms with Perrott, but this plan was given up, owing to rumours of some severe measures of the Irish Government, and they again began to talk glibly of invasion. Santa Cruz had good information about Ireland from Limerick and Waterford merchants, 'who, under colour of their conscience lie at Lisbon these two years past, and hath their wives and children at home, and doth nothing but hearken for news of the state of England and Ireland, and whatever they can hear they report to the Cardinal and Marquis, and deliver the same with more than they can learn, and all to win themselves credit.' The English court were not blind to the danger of Ireland, though almost to the last Elizabeth seems hardly to have realised the Armada. Everything was wanting for the defence of Ireland, and the Queen would not listen. 'If,' said Perrott, 'any number of enemies arrive here, the cities and towns of this kingdom, and consequently the realm itself, will stand in great danger of losing, and the few Englishmen that be here in like danger of perishing.... I wish that the desire of peace (whereof I have little hope) may not cause forgetfulness, or breed peril to lose that we have.'[156]

[Sidenote: The cess.]

The regular revenue of Ireland was small, and as an army was absolutely necessary, it had been usual to levy irregular taxes upon the shires of the Pale. There were plenty of lawyers to condemn taxation without the consent of Parliament; but in this case the prerogative had been allowed, though there were many long disputes as to the amount of the aid, and as to its incidence. Cess of some kind had been exacted since the time of Edward III., and Sidney, who understood the subject thoroughly, describes it as a 'prerogative of the Prince and an agreement and consent of the nobility and Council to impose upon the country a certain proportion of victual of all kinds, to be delivered and issued at a reasonable rate, and, as it is commonly termed, the Queen's price, so that the rising and falling of prices makes the matter easier or heavier to the people.' The cess had been regularly levied since the latter years of Henry VIII., and a practice had crept in of applying it to the Lord-Deputy's household as well as to the army. The uncertainty of the impost was the worst part of it, and Elizabeth wished to substitute a regular money payment. Temporary arrangements were made, and the total sum leviable was fixed at 2,100_l._; the cultivated parts of Kilkenny, Tipperary, Wexford, Carlow, King's County, and Queen's County being made contributory, as well as the original Pale. Perrott tried to abolish the cess altogether, and to substitute a fixed land-tax of 1_l._ on every ploughland. This was reduced to 13_s._ 4_d._, but the Bill failed in the House of Commons, and Perrott had to fall back upon the composition of 2,100_l._[157]

[Sidenote: Bingham is sent to Holland,]

[Sidenote: but soon returns to Ireland.]

The Council acquitted Bingham of all Dillon's charges; but no peace followed, and Perrott continued to pile up accusations against him. For the sake of quiet the English Government resolved to utilise Bingham's energies in Holland, and he took the opportunity to sum up his services for Burghley's information. Connaught was at peace, though he had little help from his official superior, and Elizabeth was sure to be pleased at his having made the province pay its own expenses. 'The Lord Deputy,' he said, 'took the Composition book from myself, and would not give me so much as a copy of that which in effect was my own work, whereby I was driven to search it out with infinite labour and pains.' Bingham had been given to understand that he should succeed Lord Willoughby in Holland, and be allowed to appoint a deputy in Connaught. But the Queen named Sir Thomas Le Strange to act during his absence, while giving particular orders that none of his officers should be displaced. Bingham saw no prospect of advancement in Holland after the departure of Leicester, on whose patronage he relied, and returned to England with him or before him. He was admitted to the Queen's presence, the house at Athlone was given up to him, in spite of Perrott and of Wallop's claim to a leasehold interest in it, and he returned to Ireland much stronger than he had left it.[158]

[Sidenote: Perrott's credit declines.]

[Sidenote: Perrott leaves Ireland.]

The restoration of Bingham to his government marks the time when the scale finally turned against Sir John Perrott. His faults of temper have been already sufficiently commented on; he was in bad health; and worse things than ill-health or ill-temper were whispered about him. But Ireland was manifestly peaceful, and by appointing Sir William Fitzwilliam the Queen showed that she expected quiet times and wished for an unambitious policy. Whatever chagrin Perrott may have felt at his supersession, he certainly expressed none. All he asked was that his successor might come at once, so as to let him take the waters at Bath; Spa being now out of the question. Fitzwilliam, however, lingered six months; and when at last the time came for delivering the sword Perrott presented to the Corporation of Dublin a silver gilt bowl bearing his arms and crest, and the words _relinquo in pace_. In handing over the badge of office he called his successor to witness that all was peaceful, and hoped that he would say so to the Queen's Council. Fitzwilliam answered that if he could leave it half as well he should do his Queen and country good service. 'There is,' continued Perrott, 'no ill-minded or suspected person in this kingdom, which can carry but six swords after him into the field, but if you will name him and shall desire to have him, notwithstanding that I have resigned the sword, yet... if they come not in on my word, I will lose the merit and reputation of all my service.' Fitzwilliam replied that it needed not, for all was well. Three days later Perrott left Ireland for ever. A great number of noblemen and gentlemen came to see him off, among whom old Tirlogh Luineach was conspicuous. That representative of an order that had almost passed away accompanied him to the ship and would not put off until the last moment. He watched the retreating sail until it was below the horizon, and then shed tears 'as if he had been beaten.' Nor was it only lords and chiefs who mourned for Perrott. The poor came forty miles to see him pass, praying for his long life and striving to take his hand if possible, or to touch the hem of his garment. When he asked them why they did so, they answered, 'that they never had enjoyed their own with peace before his time, and did doubt they should never do so again when he was gone.'[159]

[Sidenote: State of Ireland when Perrott left--Connaught and Leinster.]

The quiet state of Connaught is perhaps most justly attributable to Bingham, but the Lord Deputy might take full credit for Leinster. Yet it was perhaps well that Fitzwilliam was polite, for the home province, though not in rebellion, was full of brigands who would certainly not have come at Perrott's call. Feagh MacHugh, with his 100 swordsmen, gave a ready refuge to vain and light persons, but he thought it politic to pay his respects to the new governor. His son-in-law, Walter Reagh, one of the bastard Geraldines who had long given trouble, was ready for any desperate feat. Captain Thomas Lee planned his destruction, but Mrs. Lee was an Irishwoman and kept the outlaw well-informed. Walter Reagh promptly murdered one of his followers who had been in communication with Lee, and the captain, not unnaturally, separated from his wife. Sir George Carew had assigned his constableship of Leighlin to Dudley Bagenal, son of the old marshal, whom Perrott justly called a 'very unadvised man.' Bagenal had treated many of his Irish neighbours abominably, yet he neglected to keep his proper quota of English, and garrisoned his fort with kerne at 40_s._ or 3_l._ a year. Walter Reagh having stolen some cattle, the constable pursued with eighteen men, was drawn into an ambuscade, killed and mutilated. Walter Reagh was not hanged until ten years later.[160]

[Sidenote: Munster. The Desmond forfeitures.]

[Sidenote: The settlement hangs fire.]

[Sidenote: Irish and English tenants.]

Munster was exhausted by war, and the only danger was from Spain. Some said soldiers were as little needed in Kerry as in Surrey or Middlesex, but little could be done in the way of colonisation while rumours of the Armada filled the air. The land, however, was roughly surveyed, and the seignory of 12,000 acres was fixed as the basis of a plantation, fractional parts being assigned in proportion to the colonists' means. The younger sons of gentlemen and substantial yeomen were to be encouraged to take leases under the undertakers, as the great grantees were called, and English artisans and labourers were also to be provided, while settlers from the same country were to be placed near one another. Difficulties soon arose. A disposition was shown to stretch the Queen's title, and this caused universal distrust. Thus Fitzgerald of Decies, who had been created a viscount for his staunch loyalty against the Desmonds, and who had always claimed to hold of the Queen, was required to prove his title strictly. If he could be made out Desmond's tenant, then was Decies at the Queen's mercy. It was no wonder that Mr. Surveyor Robins had stones thrown at him. Legal questions sprang up like mushrooms after rain. Who were innocent of rebellion, and how far were conveyances to uses fraudulent? 'At Cork, Kilmallock, and Clonmel,' said the Solicitor-General, 'we spent five weeks in hearing the claims and titles to her Majesty's lands found by office. We had every man's bills, and fair evidence showed us, whereby it appears that the Irishry (especially by their daily feofments to uses) have practised as many fraudulent shifts for preserving their lands from forfeiture as in England; and albeit their evidence be fair and very lawlike without exception, yet because fraud is secret and seldom found for her Majesty by jury, we have put the undertakers for the most part in possession, who, dwelling but half a year upon the lands, shall have better intelligence to discover the false practices than the commissioners can possibly learn out. They plead their cause by lawyers, who almost all of them in those parts have purchased titles against her Majesty, so as we have had much trouble to pacify and content them in some reasonable sort by persuasion of further hearing hereafter, and full allowance of their good titles.' The Irish took advantage of the delay to take possession of land everywhere, and three or four years after Desmond's death, the population was five times as great as it had been at the end of the war. A native squatter would offer a higher rent than any English settler, and everyone saw that the Plantation would fail in its main provisions. Between surveyors, lawyers, and undertakers it was impossible to make a clear title to anything, and the settlement hung fire during Perrott's administration. But some of the undertakers came over and resided, leaving the final measurement of lands to a future day. They quarrelled among themselves, and made confusion more confounded.[161]

[Sidenote: Ulster.]

[Sidenote: Tyrone and Tirlogh Luineach.]

[Sidenote: Ambition of Tyrone.]

In Ulster Tirlogh Luineach was getting old, while Hugh O'Neill, representing the bastard Dungannon branch, grew daily stronger. Hugh was now Earl of Tyrone, with a title to all he held in his country or district, reserving 240 acres to the Crown for the fort at Blackwater, and with a grant of markets and fairs. The new Earl covenanted to let Tirlogh enjoy the chiefry during his life, to abide by the decision of a royal commission as to boundaries, rents, and services, and not to make estates to any of the smaller chiefs called _urraughts_, without consent of the State. Tirlogh was thus placed in possession of that part of Tyrone which lies north and west of the Mullaghcarne mountains, while receiving 1,000 marks from the Earl for the remainder. But Tyrone grasped at all which Con Bacagh or Shane had enjoyed, and Perrott saw that he was restrained by fear only. His wife was O'Donnell's daughter, and with that chief's help he hoped to crush Tirlogh. But Hugh, the son of Calvagh, claimed the succession in Tyrconnell, and joining his force to that of Tirlogh he attacked Tyrone's camp at night. The latter's force was much superior, but he was surprised, defeated, and obliged to fly to Dungannon. Hugh was afterwards murdered by order of Ineen Duive, who wished to clear the succession for her own son. When Fitzwilliam reached Dublin, he found the Earl and Tirlogh there, lodging complaints against each other. Tyrone's defeat gave great delight to many, and David Power, who had some personal experience of his dealings, said publicly at Dundalk that he would climb so high as to break his neck, while Perrott thought 'nothing had done so much good in the North these nine years.' But the troubles in Ulster were only beginning.[162]

FOOTNOTES:

[131] Perrott to Walsingham, Nov. 16 and 27, 1584 (with enclosures); to Burghley (with enclosures), Jan. 15, 1585.--Gregory's _Western Highlands_, chap. iv., where Perrott's siege of Dunluce, and other matters belonging to 1584, are placed under 1585.

[132] Stanley to Walsingham, Jan. 5, 1585; George Peverley, victualler, to Walsingham, Jan. 5; to Burghley, Jan. 20; Perrott to Walsingham, Nov. 16, 1584; to Burghley, Jan 15, 1585. The Master of the Ordnance was the same Jacques Wingfield who so narrowly escaped professional ruin in 1561.

[133] Composition of Lord Deputy and Council with Sorley Boy, Oct. 17, 1575; Sorley Boy to Perrott and to Captain Carleile, Feb. 5, 1585; Captain Barkley to Perrott, Feb. 26; Norris to the Privy Council and Fenton to Walsingham, March 7; Beverley to Burghley, April 1; Perrott to Walsingham, April 24.

[134] Lists printed from the roll in _Tracts relating to Ireland_, vol. ii. p. 134. Kildare, who died in England this year, no doubt had his writ of summons, but does not seem to have attended. He was ill in London on Aug. 3.

[135] _Lists_ as above.

[136] _Lists_ as above. Perrott's _Life_, p. 199; see also a partial list of members calendared at May 11, 1586. The _Four Masters_, under 1585, give a sort of Homeric catalogue of the chiefs present.

[137] _Tracts relating to Ireland_, vol. ii. p. 143. Ormonde to Burghley, Oct. 20, 1583; Sir N. White to Burghley, May 27, 1585.

[138] Sir N. White to Burghley, May 27, 1585; Perrott to Walsingham, May 30; the Poyning's Suspension Bill is in _Carew_, June 1585, No. 578.

[139] Perrott to Walsingham, May 30 and June 18, 1585. He believed that the opposition would collapse if firmly handled, and that firmness would save the Queen's pocket. 'If they escape,' he said, 'farewell to my reputation both with Irish and English.'

[140] Irish _Statutes_, 27 Eliz.; Perrott's _Life_.

[141] Norris to Walsingham, March 3; Fenton to Walsingham, May 24; Loftus to Burghley, May 31. 'I am forced to play at small game to set the beasts here a-madding, merely for want of better game.... You think, as I ought to think, that it is time for me to have done with the world; and so I would, if I could get into a better, before I was called into the best, and not die here in a rage, like a poisoned rat in a hole.'--Swift to Bolingbroke, from Dublin, March 21, 1729.

[142] Perrott's _Life_; James VI. to Perrott, Aug. 8, in _Carew_; Perrott to Walsingham, Aug. 10 and Nov. 11; to Burghley, Sept. 8 and 24; Sir H. Bagenal to Perrott, Sept. 3; Wallop to Burghley and Walsingham, Nov. 18; Walsingham to Archbishop Long, Dec.

[143] Composition Book of Connaught and Thomond, Oct. 3. Details may be studied in the appendix to Hardiman's edition of O'Flaherty's _West Connaught_. As to the measurement it may be observed that Clare, to take one county as an example, is estimated at 1,260 quarters. Making allowance for the difference between Irish and English measure, this gives rather less than 250,000 statute acres for all Clare. The real area is about 828,000 acres. The gross acreage of all Connaught and Clare is about five millions and a quarter, and a rental of 4,000_l._ gives much less than a farthing per acre.

[144] Perrott to Burghley, Sept. 8 and 24, 1585. The 'Articles' referred to were sent to Ireland by Fenton in the following spring, and are printed in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 63.

[145] Perrott to Walsingham, Jan. 27, 1586; Sir G. Carew to Walsingham Feb. 27; to Burghley, Aug. 2, 1588, in _Carew_; Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, Jan. 28, 1586; description of Munster, 1588, p. 530; Wallop to Burghley, Oct. 1585 (No. 19) and Nov. 18; to Walsingham, March 7, 1586; Vice-President Norris to the Privy Council, Oct. 18, 1586.

[146] Printed statutes, 28 Eliz. caps. 7 and 8; Perrott to Walsingham, June 18, 1585; Lords Gormanston, Slane, Howth, and Trimleston to the Queen, Dec. 10, 1585. Parliament was dissolved May 14, 1586; and see Speaker Walshe's speech on that day.

[147] Perrott's _Life_, p. 216; Hill's _MacDonnells of Antrim_, pp. 171-187; the Queen to the Lord Chancellor and Council, Feb. 26, 1586; Captain Price to Walsingham, March 31; to Burghley, April 15; Fenton to Burghley, April 19 and June 14, 1586; Submission of Sorley Boy, June 14. The Indentures are in _Carew_ ii. 427.

[148] Docwra's _Relation_; _Four Masters_, 1586; Bingham to Walsingham, Feb. 5, 1586; to Perrott, July 30 and Aug. 16 and 26; to Loftus, Aug. 30; Wallop to Walsingham, Aug. 23. The execution of Richard Oge Burke, called _Fal fo Erinn_, was made a principal charge against Bingham in 1595 and 1596, when his accusers seemed to have driven him finally from Ireland. Bingham justified this execution, since most of the Burkes (including the Blind Abbot, afterwards MacWilliam) declared, under their hands and under the sanction of an oath, that Richard Oge had persuaded them to resist the Governor, to bring in Scots, and to hold the Hag's Castle against him. Seven members of the Council of Connaught were present at the execution, 'Sir Richard having no other means of ordinary trial at that time by reason of the great troubles.'--Discourse of the late rebellion of the Burkes, with all the signatures, Nov. 17, 1586; O'Flaherty's _West Connaught_, p. 186.

[149] Wallop to Walsingham, Aug. 23, 1586; Maguire to Perrott, Aug. 28; Bingham to Loftus, Aug. 30; answer of Donnell Gorme, &c. (Sept. 22). Bingham says he marched seventy-two miles in two days.

[150] Docwra's _Relation_ ('not slain past two persons'); _Four Masters_, 1586; Stowe's _Chronicle_; Bingham to Burghley, Oct. 6, 1586, 'not one man slain by the enemy;' to Loftus and Perrott, Sept. 23; to Wallop, Oct. 18; Captain Woodhouse to Fenton, Sept. 23. Bingham owns to 'divers men hurt and galled.'

[151] Bingham to Burghley, Oct. 8 and Dec. 5, 1586; to Wallop, Oct. 18; Wallop to Burghley, Nov. 15; Irish Council to Burghley, Sept. 27; true discourse of the cause, &c., Nov. 16 and 17; Perrott's note of his expenses, Sept. (No. 43).

[152] The despatch sent by Fenton is printed in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 49; Perrott to Walsingham, Jan. 12, 1586, and four letters to Burghley, on April 12, 15, 16, and 26, from White, Fenton, Perrott, and Wallop respectively.

[153] Perrott's _Life_, p. 243. Loftus to Burghley, April 26 and Dec. 4 and 12 1586; to Walsingham, Sept. 30; Bingham to Burghley, Dec. 5 and Feb. 26, 1587; acquital of Bingham under the hands of the Council (Loftus, Bagenal, Bishop Garvey of Kilmore, Gardiner, C.J., and Fenton), Feb. 20, 1587; Wallop to Walsingham, May 31, 1586; Perrott to Leicester, April 18, 1587, in _Carew_; the Queen to Perrott, Feb. 9, 1587. For the altercation with Bagenal see the Marshal's own passionate and affecting letter to the Privy Council, May 15, 1587, and another to Leicester in _Carew_; the Council's account, May 15; and White's account, May 23. See also, for Perrott's behaviour, Wallop to Burghley and Walsingham, April 26, and July 5, 1588.

[154] Perrott to Sir George Carew, April 27 and Oct. 30, 1586, and Aug. 9, 1587; to Leicester, April 18, 1587 (all in _Carew_); Perrott to Walsingham, March 7, 1588.

[155] The above is chiefly from Motley's _United Netherlands_, chap. xiii.; the story of Stanley's ill-treatment at Seville is in a letter of Dec. 17, 1587, from Bishop Lyons of Cork to Fenton, on the authority of Galway merchants lately from Spain; Privy Council to Perrott, Jan. 30, 1587; warrant for arrest of Captain Jacques, Feb. 9. For reports about Stanley see the Irish and Foreign S. P. _passim_; the pardon for the eleven soldiers is in Morrin's _Patent Rolls_ 35 Eliz. No. 31. For Sir Rowland Stanley see Sir Roger Wilbraham to Burghley, May 10, 1590.

[156] Perrott to the Privy Council, Jan. 28, 1586; to Walsingham, Feb. 7, 11, and 20, and March 7; Examination of Miles Brewett, April 26, 1587; James Wyse, Mayor of Waterford, to Perrott, July 30; Perrott to Walsingham, Aug. 9; news by Tyrrell and Woode, Aug. 21; Gaspar Thunder's report, Oct. 5; Instructions for Sir W. Fitzwilliam, Dec.; Perrott to Walsingham, May 12, 1588.

[157] Sidney's Brief Relation, 1583; Sidney to the Privy Council, Jan. 27, 1577, in _Carew_; petition of N. Nugent and others, July 1563, in _Carew_; Answer of B. Scurlock and others, Jan. 11, 1577, in _Carew_; Fenton to Burghley, Aug. 22 and Sept. 4, 1586; Perrott to Burghley, June 10, 1585; Note of acts, 1586, in _Carew_, ii. 425. The composition is in Morrin's _Patent Rolls_ (note to 39 Eliz.)

[158] Acquittal of Sir R. Bingham, Feb. 20, 1587; his discourse, July; Bingham to Burghley, Oct. 3, 1587, and Feb. 13, 1588.

[159] Perrott to Walsingham, March 7, 18, and 21, and April 1, 1588, and Perrott's _Life_; Fitzwilliam's patent is dated Feb. 17, but he was not sworn till June 30.

[160] Perrott to Carew, March 27, 1587, in _Carew_; Sir N. Bagenal to Burghley, March 26; H. Sheffield to Burghley, March 29; Andrew Trollope to Burghley, Oct. 27 (for Lee's case); Perrott's declaration, June 29, 1588, and Fitzwilliam to Burghley, July 31.

[161] Wallop to Burghley, April 26, 1586; St. Leger to Burghley, May 30; Sir Roger Wilbraham, S.G., to the Munster Commissioners, Sept. 11, 1587; Arthur Robins to Walsingham, Sept. 17; Andrew Trollope to Burghley, Oct. 19; Sir W. Herbert to Burghley, April 30, 1587, and to Walsingham, July 12, 1588.

[162] Morrin's _Patent Rolls_, May 10, 29 Eliz., and May 13; Tyrone's answer, April 1587 (No. 58); Andrew Trollope to Burghley, Oct. 26, 1587; Tyrone to Perrott, Jan. 4, 1588; Perrott to Walsingham, May 12; Bingham to Burghley, May 15; Wallop to Walsingham, June 21.