Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland: 'Reform' treatises and political discourse 9781526118172

Citation preview

D

u r i n g th e s i x t e e n th c e n t u ry, officials and interested

These treatises argued for the adoption of specific policies to confront various problems perceived in Ireland. Some of these were highly coercive in arguing for ‘reform’ through an aggressive programme of regional conquest and colonisation, while others had a more sanguine view of Ireland, proposing that ‘reform’ could be achieved through educational and social change, or the expansion of the court system. Whatever the approach, a great many of these policies were implemented in Ireland in due course.  The decision to implement these policies played a major role in shaping the history of early modern Ireland and indeed the wider British state. As such, these treatises are central to how the Tudors governed the country. This book offers the first extended treatment of the approximately six-hundred extant ‘reform’ treatises. In doing so, it examines not just the content of this large body of papers, but how officials and other parties on the periphery of the Irish government debated policy in sixteenth-century Ireland and what impact their writings had.

Front cover: Sir Henry Sidney, LordDeputy, accompanied by an armed force, sets out from Dublin Castle for a progress through Ireland. From The Image of Irelande, by John Derricke, published in 1581

Debating Tudor policy in sixteenthcentury Ireland ‘Reform’ treatises and political discourse

o

Heffernan

David Heffernan is an R. J. Hunter Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Queen’s University, Belfast

Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland

parties in Ireland composed hundreds of papers on crown policy and sent them to the metropolitan government in England. The information contained in these ‘reform’ treatises substantially shaped how senior ministers in England viewed an Ireland which very few of them had visited personally. Moreover, these documents informed much of these ministers’ outlooks on the Irish of Ireland and the allegedly backward political and social system operating there. 

ISBN 978-1-5261-1816-5

David Heffernan 9 781526 118165 www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland

•

Series editors David Edwards david edwards & Micheál micheálÓóSiochrú siochrú The study of Early Modern Irish History experienced something of a renaissance Alreadyhas published in the last decade. However, studies tend to group around traditional topics in political The significant plantation gaps of Ulster: Ideology and behind practicethis series is to idenor military history and remain. The idea Micheál Siochrú Éamonn Ó Ciardha (eds) tify key themes and set theÓagenda forand future research.   Each volume in this series comes from leading scholars from Ireland, Britain, North America and elsewhere, addressing a particular subject. We aim to bring the best of Irish historical research to a wider audience, by engaging with international themes of empire, colonisation, religious change and social transformation. Already published The plantation of Ulster: Ideology and practice Micheál Ó Siochrú and Éamonn Ó Ciardha (eds) Ireland, 1641: Contexts and reactions Micheál Ó Siochrú and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds) The Scots in early Stuart Ireland: Union and separation in two kingdoms David Edwards and Simon Egan (eds)

Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland

•

‘Reform’ treatises and political discourse DAVID HEFFERNAN

Manchester University Press

Copyright © David Heffernan 2018 The right of David Heffernan to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 5261 1816 5 hardback First published 2018 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or thirdparty internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset in 10.5/12.5 Minion Pro by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

For my parents Joe and Mary Heffernan

• Contents

List of figures and tables page viii Series editors’ preface ix Acknowledgements x Abbreviations xii Note on conventions xiv Preface xvi Introduction: Debating Tudor policy in Ireland: The ‘reform’ treatises

1

1 Conquest or conciliation? The policy debate in Henrician Ireland, c.1515–1546 26 2 ‘Reform’ treatises and the inception of the Tudor conquest in midsixteenth-century Ireland, 1546–1565

77

3 Treatise writing and the expansion of Tudor government in midElizabethan Ireland, 1565–1578

122

4 Complaint, reform and conflict: Treatise writing in late Elizabethan Ireland, 1579–1594

174

Conclusion 217 Select bibliography of primary sources

223

Index  231

•

Figures and tables

Figures

1 Number of extant treatises for select years, 1515–1609

4

Tables history and memory

1 2 3 4

Number of extant treatises by year, 1532–1543 Number of extant treatises for select years, 1547–1568 Number of extant treatises by decade, 1510–1579 Number of extant treatises for select years, 1576–1587

39 90 123 175

•

Series editors’ preface

The study of Early Modern Ireland has experienced a renaissance since the 1990s, with the publication of a number of major monographs examining developments in the country during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from a variety of different perspectives. Nonetheless, these works still tend to group around traditional topics in political, military or religious history and significant gaps remain. The idea behind this new series is to identify key themes for exploration and thereby set the agenda for future research. Manchester University Press, a leading academic press with a strong record of publishing Irish related material, is the ideal home for this venture. The fourth volume in this series is the first monograph to appear. Following the success of the previous three edited collections the time is right to proceed with publishing monograph studies of important topics to help fulfil the series’ core objective of setting new standards for the detailed understanding of the early modern period. Written by a leading young scholar the book deals with one of the great debates about sixteenth-century Ireland, namely the formulation and development of Tudor ‘reform’ policy. While historians have long been aware that a number of authors attempted to influence English crown policy by writing advice papers or ‘treatises’ about Ireland, only now is it possible to appreciate the full extent of such writing. More treatises (over six hundred) survive about Ireland than for any other part of the Tudor dominions. David Heffernan’s study presents for the first time a comprehensive analysis of all the surviving texts, their contents, and their influence on Tudor policy. Building on the work of an earlier generation it presents a major reassessment of the origins and course of Tudor ideas about conquest, colonisation, and religious and administrative reform in Ireland. We expect it will become a benchmark study and give fresh impetus to research on the Tudor realms. David Edwards and Micheál Ó Siochrú

x

•  acknowledgements  •

•

Acknowledgements

This book began its life around 2006 when, as a student at University College Cork, I decided to write about the cultural position of the Anglo-Irish or Old English community of Ireland as part of a class on ‘Murder and Intrigue in Sixteenth-Century Ireland’. Much of the basis for that paper was provided by the observations of a number of canonical commentators on Ireland during the early modern period, writers such as Richard Stanihurst, Edmund Spenser and Fynes Moryson. In the end it was these texts which held my attention and this interest provided the basis for later research initially entitled ‘English Representations of the Irish: Image and Reality’. This, at the outset, took the shape of a socio-­anthropological study somewhat in the vein of those previously undertaken on early modern Ireland by D.B. Quinn and Nicholas Canny. However, an early discovery was to fundamentally alter the nature of the project. There were many, many more of these documents than would generally be assumed from perusing the secondary literature, a very substantial portion of which had been understudied or ignored for, it seems, one fundamental reason: their failure to enter print since the sixteenth century. Furthermore, when I began looking at these neglected treatises it became apparent that many more of them were interested in narrow, and some might say tedious, issues of government policy than the array of printed texts, with their concern for Irish social and cultural mores, would lead a casual reader to conclude. Thus, what had started as a study of a number of well-known authors and the representations of Irishness in their writings became a work designed to retrieve a large array of treatises from unwarranted neglect and use them to develop a better understanding of the government policy with which they were so concerned. The book which follows is, in essence, derived from this work, though different in some substantial respects and, I hope, a better read.

HEFFERNAN____9781526118165_Print.indd 10

22/02/2018 10:05



•  acknowledgements  • xi

I have incurred a great many debts while working on this material. First, I must thank David Edwards. Dave’s encouragement over the years has been limitless and this book would most likely not have its present shape had it not been for the numerous insights he has provided. Hiram Morgan and Natalie Mears both offered valuable insights, for which I’m grateful. Additionally, I should thank Cathy Hayes, James Maguire and the staff of the Irish Manuscripts Commission, through which an edited volume of seventy of the ‘reform’ treatises recently appeared. Working on that volume, which is very much a companion piece to this book, allowed me to attain a greater understanding of those individual texts and the circumstances of their composition. When I started this work far more research was done in libraries than it would ten years later with the rapid advancement of digitisation. As such, much of the work found in this book was conducted in Special Collections in the Boole Library in Cork where the staff are perennially helpful. I also wish to thank the staff of the British Library, Lambeth Palace Library, the National Library of Ireland and the archives and manuscripts department in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. Research trips to some of these institutions in the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2013 were kindly funded by Research Travel Grants from the School of History at UCC. At Manchester University Press Emma Brennan has guided the book through to publication, while the production staff there also facilitated its appearance. I must also thank the series editors, David Edwards and Michaél Ó Siochrú, for considering the study for inclusion in the Studies in Early Modern Irish History series in the first instance. For their thoughts and advice on the text I wish to thank the readers of the manuscript. For their thoughts on various aspects of the ‘reform’ treatise literature over the years in ways which have informed the present volume I also wish to thank Stephen Alford, Simon Egan, Steven Ellis, Jason Harris, Philip Healy, Brendan Kane, Brid McGrath, Mary O’Dowd and Áine Sheehan. Friends and family, above all, have encouraged me throughout. Thus, to my twin brother, Joe, and my older brothers, Kenneth and Colin, and my sistersin-law, Elizabeth Horgan and Ceili Fitzgerald, I owe a lot. No doubt they have often tolerated my rants about early modern Ireland with far greater patience than should be expected. My parents have, however, provided me with the greatest support possible in financing an education which was lengthier than most. For this, and much else besides, I dedicate this book to them.

HEFFERNAN____9781526118165_Print.indd 11

22/02/2018 10:05

xii

•  abbreviations  •

•

Abbreviations

Add. MSS AJLH Anal. Hib. Archiv. Hib. BL Bod. Lib. Brit. Ac. Proc. CCM CPRI CSPI DIB EHR ELH EL Fiants HJ HMC HT Hunt. Lib. IAS IER

Additional Manuscripts (British Library) American Journal of Legal History Analecta Hibernica Archivium Hibernicum British Library Bodleian Library Proceedings of the British Academy J. S. Brewer et al., Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, 1515–1624, 6 vols (London, 1867–1873) James Morrin (ed.), Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Chancery in Ireland, Henry VIII-Elizabeth, 3 vols (Dublin, 1861–1863) H.C. Hamilton et al. (eds), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1509–1670, 24 vols (1860–1912) Dictionary of Irish Biography English Historical Review English Literary History Ellesmere Manuscripts Kenneth Nicholls (ed.), The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns, during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary and Elizabeth I, 4 vols (Dublin, 1994) Historical Journal Historical Manuscripts Commission History Today Huntington Library Irish Archaeological Society Irish Ecclesiastical Review



IHS IJ IMC Ir. Econ. Soc. Hist. JBS JCHAS JCLAS JGAHS Jn. Eccl. Hist. JNMAS JRSAI L.P. Lib. Muner. LPL NUIG NUIM Ormond Deeds ODNB OED PAPS PMLA PRIA SCJ TNA, SP SP.Henry.VIII Statutes

Stud. Hib. TAPS TCD UCC UCD UJA WLB

•  abbreviations  • xiii

Irish Historical Studies Irish Jurist Irish Manuscripts Commission Irish Economic and Social History The Journal of the Butler Society Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society Journal of the County Louth Archaeological Society Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of the North Munster Archaeological Society Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Letters and Papers, foreign and domestic, Henry VIII, 21 vols (London, 1862–1932) Rowley Lascelles (ed.), Liber Munerum Publicorum Hiberniae, 2 vols (London, 1852) Lambeth Palace Library National University of Ireland, Galway National University of Ireland, Maynooth Edmund Curtis (ed.), Calendar of Ormond Deeds, 1172– 1603, 6 vols (Dublin, 1932–1934) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography John Andrew Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (eds), The Oxford English Dictionary, 20 vols (Oxford, 1989) Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Publications of the Modern Language Association Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy The Sixteenth Century Journal The National Archives, Kew, London, State Papers State Papers During the Reign of Henry VIII, 11 vols (London, 1830–1852) The statutes at large passed in the parliaments held in Ireland from the third year of Edward the second, A.D. 1310, to the twenty sixth year of George the third, A.D. 1786, 21 vols (Dublin, 1786–1804) Studia Hibernica Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Trinity College Dublin University College Cork University College Dublin Ulster Journal of Archaeology Walsingham Letter Book

xiv

•  note on conventions  •

•

Note on conventions

The year is taken as beginning on 1 January, as opposed to 25 March, as was the convention in early modern Ireland owing to the retention of the Julian Calendar. When referring to the nobility I have generally utilised personal names when discussing events prior to an individual’s elevation to the peerage, and so on, and used their title thereafter. Thus, for example, William Cecil is generally referred to as such prior to 1571, and to as Burghley thereafter. In some instances, given the scope of the study, multiple individuals bore the same title. Efforts have been made in such cases to differentiate between these individuals, for example, by using first names. As such, for instance, Walter and Robert Devereux are distinguished by referring to them as the first and second earls of Essex, respectively. Generally recognisable modern spellings have been used for personal names and place names. Thus, for example, Carrickfergus is given as such, despite being just as often referred to as Knockfergus in the sixteenth century. In other instances, often for more obscure family names or place names, the contemporary usage has been applied. Therefore, Tyrrye has been retained as such given that the modern spelling, Terry, appears not to have been in widespread use in the sixteenth century. When quoting the original spelling has for the most part been retained, while all figures are given in Arabic numerals even when appearing as Roman in the original documents. When citing items from the State Papers I have followed the bold printed letters generally located on the top right-hand corner of the leaves. The folio numbering for the Cotton MSS utilised here is that found in the top corner of the leaves with a line through it. For the first reference to a manuscript document details of the author, title and year of composition are given prior



•  note on conventions  • xv

to the manuscript or volume reference, to provide clarity on the content of the document cited. For second and subsequent references generally only the manuscript or volume reference is provided. Throughout, the community of the Pale and the urban districts have been referred to as the Old English, while the magnates of English descent have generally been termed Anglo-Irish, a distinction owing to the general belief among political analysts in Dublin and its environs that figures such as the Geraldine earls had degenerated in contrast to their own cultural rigidity.

xvi

•  preface  •

• Preface

During the sixteenth century hundreds of treatises were written on the political, social, economic and religious state of Ireland. Composed by a broad array of New English, Old English and Gaelic Irish writers, these tracts attempted to analyse the Irish polity and put forward ideas on how the crown might shape that polity into the future. Central to these studies was an intrinsic belief that Ireland was a deeply troubled place, though not all were agreed on what the cause of that turmoil was. Some, for instance, suggested that it was the survival of bastard feudalism, or ‘coign and livery’ as contemporaries termed the system of private military exactions, which was at the heart of Ireland’s supposed anarchy. Others believed that the greatest obstacle facing the Tudor state in Ireland was variously the independence of the powerful lords of Ulster; the Scots incursions in the north-east of the country; the allure of Irish social and cultural mores which could lead even civil Englishmen to degenerate into barbarism; or the self-interest and naked corruption of crown servants in Ireland, which were responsible for the instability and disorder of the country. The solutions put forward were equally varied. These included regional conquest to reduce adversarial lordships; plantation, or targeted colonisation; the appointment of provincial presidents; and attempts to inculcate the peoples of Ireland to the virtues of English social, economic and cultural practices through a programme of social engineering and the establishment of regional garrisons. Later, these alleged solutions created further problems, notably in relation to the issue of financing the army and regulating the conduct of its constituent parts, to which the writers of political discourses responded by putting forward a variety of schemes to introduce an improved crown taxation system in Ireland or to cut back on expenditure by reducing the size of the garrison. The response of those who received the treatises at Dublin Castle and at



•  preface  • xvii

Whitehall was variously to dismiss them, to adopt them unequivocally or, more usually, to incorporate piecemeal the proposals they contained. Though many were indeed ignored, and despite the fact that those which were implemented were regularly diluted owing to financial stringency, the importance of these texts and the ideas enunciated therein on the shaping of government policy in Tudor Ireland and the history thereof was immense. This book presents an extended examination of this body of sources and their role in the debate on, and formation of, public policy for Ireland under the Tudors. Historians have long been aware of the importance of the treatises and their centrality to the debate on crown policy in sixteenth-century Ireland. In 1979 Brendan Bradshaw argued in The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century that a handful of these documents written during the reign of Henry VIII were indicative of a benign ‘reform’ movement in Ireland.1 These, it was suggested, were influenced by the tenets of Christian Humanism and resulted in the early 1540s in a constitutional reform programme that was unfortunately scuppered from mid-century onwards. In The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland Nicholas Canny examined a number of treatises written in the 1560s and 1570s to argue that the conquest of the country was cemented at this time through the establishment of provincial presidents and regional colonies, a movement which was driven by the lord deputy, Sir Henry Sidney.2 In his highly influential essay, The Chief Governors: the Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland, 1534–1588, Ciaran Brady examined the treatises of the viceroys of Ireland to propose a fundamental revision of the history of Tudor Ireland, one which contended that the conquest of the country was a by-product of the failure of a sanguine, legal and administrative reform programme.3 More recently, historians such as John Montano, Christopher Maginn, Steven Ellis and many more have examined groups of treatises to document such issues as the early Tudor discovery of the political, social and economic landscape of Ireland,4 the colonisation of the country,5 how the Tudors sought to implement religious reform in Ireland,6 military strategy there during wartime,7 along with a great many other things.8 Yet, enlightening as many of these previous studies have been, by focusing on a limited range of texts, and often those composed by high-ranking officials and, above all, the chief governors, these earlier works have distorted the way we perceive the treatise literature produced on sixteenth-century Ireland. What this study seeks to underline is that a great many individuals beyond those occupying high office in Ireland had an opportunity to contribute to the debate on government policy in Tudor Ireland. Hence it demonstrates that the writings of lowly officials such as the Henrician solicitor general, Walter Cowley, or the Elizabethan chancellor of the exchequer, Edward Waterhouse, are at least as significant as those of figures such as Sidney or his near successor in the viceregal office, Sir John Perrot. In the case of the writings of the

xviii

•  preface  •

Henrician chief baron of the exchequer, Patrick Finglas, or the Elizabethan clerk of the Privy Council, Edmund Tremayne, their treatises were far more influential in shaping policy in Tudor Ireland than, for instance, Edmund Spenser’s View of the Present State of Ireland or Richard Beacon’s Solon his follie on which lavish and largely unwarranted attention have been heaped.9 This is so because Cowley first proposed establishing provincial presidents in Ireland, Finglas propounded the programme of regional military conquest which would eventually be utilised to conquer Ireland and Tremayne developed the policy known as ‘composition’ which would become a cornerstone of all administrations in Ireland during the last quarter of the sixteenth century and beyond. Spenser, by way of contrast, offered nothing new; he simply said what many others had said many times before. The fact that he said it far better should not lead to a mistaken attribution of originality or singular importance to the View. Effectively, then, this book argues for a fundamental revision of our understanding of a particular body of documents and their role in the formation of Tudor policy in Ireland. Historians of Ireland have recognised that such a study would be of great utility. Writing in the 1950s, D.B. Quinn noted that the treatises ‘have never been systematically collated and studied as a whole’ and that if this could be accomplished ‘it would add a chapter of great interest to Irish history’.10 R.D. Edwards and Mary O’Dowd were more expansive in 1985 when they stated that in ‘view of the ideological debate which these treatises have aroused there is an urgent need to assess them from an archival viewpoint. They need to be placed in a chronological sequence and the main authors identified.’11 Others such as Andrew Hadfield continued to call in the 1990s for more additional printed volumes of documents ‘languishing in the state papers’.12 Finally, in 1998 Alan Ford claimed that the way forward in studies of political discourse in Tudor and early Stuart Ireland was by escaping ‘from the tyranny of the existing canon [of treatises] and [by] expanding the scope of academic enquiry by investigating some of those texts that still lie unedited, unused and unread by scholars and explore in some depth their precise historical context’.13 In light of the centrality of the treatises to the study of the political history of Tudor Ireland and the avowed need for a systematic survey it is curious that no such work has been produced. The closest was Quinn’s The Elizabethans and the Irish published in 1966 which looked at a wide, though not exhaustive, array of tracts both in print and manuscript.14 This pioneering but impressionistic monograph was primarily concerned with English perceptions of the Irish from a socio-anthropological perspective. Only one other work is comparable with Quinn’s, though regrettably its influence on subsequent generations of historians has been less avowed than it might be. Dean Gunther White’s doctoral thesis completed in 1967 at Trinity College, Dublin, offered



•  preface  • xix

a comprehensive study of Tudor government in Ireland up to 1571 which was largely based on the evidence of the ‘reform’ treatises.15 It is easy to see why no study has eclipsed those produced by Quinn and White. The fundamental reason for this lacuna is that many extant treatises have yet to be published or even calendared to date. Some notable contributions were made in this respect when numerous treatises were made available in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries within antiquarian collections. Since 1928 the work of the Irish Manuscripts Commission (IMC) and the space allocated to the printing of transcribed manuscripts in a number of prominent journals has meant that the writings of individuals such as William Gerrard, Edward Walshe, Rowland White, Richard Hadsor and William Herbert have also been reclaimed from obscurity.16 The ongoing project by the IMC to produce revised calendars for the State Papers Ireland Tudor series up to the late summer of 1575 is making the treatises readily identifiable within that vast collection, and in many instances providing detailed treatment of the content of those same treatises.17 Additionally, Christopher Maginn and Steven Ellis have brought editions of some early Tudor treatises into print. Finally, a volume of some seventy treatises edited by the present author was published by the Irish Manuscripts Commission in 2016.18 Inevitably, though, the concentration continues to be on tracts of a certain level of literary sophistication, while hundreds of treatises, which affected government policy substantially, remain available only through recourse to the original manuscripts, many of which are difficult even to identify, owing to inadequate calendars and poor catalogues. Many misconceptions have developed owing to this concentration on a narrow range of treatises. For example, it is generally understood that more radical approaches to governing Ireland did not develop until the 1580s and 1590s.19 When all the treatises are examined it becomes clear that every extreme proposal for governing Ireland made in the late Elizabethan period had already been made in the days of Henry VIII. Additionally, by not embracing the full range of extant papers less commonly expressed viewpoints have simply been lost to the historical record. Such is the case with the position that developed in Elizabethan Ireland that the Gaelic bastard feudal exactions should be temporarily tolerated by the Irish government, a proposal that contradicted over two hundred years of parliamentary legislation prohibiting the exactions in Ireland. It may have been a minority view, but given that it was held by a former viceroy and privy councillor, such as the third earl of Sussex, it needs to be examined.20 Moreover, the general supposition has been that a handful of influential texts were written by Old English officials during the reign of Henry VIII and that thereafter political discourse on Ireland was dominated by New Englishmen.21 While this is broadly accurate, what follows highlights how Old Englishmen continued to write treatises down to the end of the Tudor period with some effect. It also shows that numerous Gaelic Irish

xx

•  preface  •

writers composed treatises, something generally ignored. These texts show how members of the soon to be conquered community were able to offer policy alternatives and attempt to find their own place within the conquering class. But most important of all, the manner in which the treatises might have contributed to the debate on Tudor policy for Ireland has been distorted. When all of the ‘reform’ treatises are examined a very different picture of that debate emerges. For instance, it becomes clear that rather than striving towards a constitutional revolution which was assimilative of Gaelic Ireland the officials who dominated the Irish government during the reign of Henry VIII favoured the adoption of a strategy of regional conquest beginning in what they termed south Leinster, encapsulating the lordships of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs, O’Byrnes and O’Tooles in Carlow and Wicklow. They bombarded Henry VIII and Cromwell with treatises and letters urging this approach in the years following the Kildare Rebellion. Conversely, few advocated for the more conciliatory programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ which Anthony St Leger implemented briefly between 1540 and 1543, suggesting perhaps that it was not well favoured among political elites in Dublin.22 Equally, by examining the entire body of extant treatises it becomes clear that deputies such as Sussex and Sidney were not innovators in espousing a programme of regional presidents and colonies to reduce the more wayward regions of the country.23 Colonisation figured as a policy option in a great majority of treatises composed from 1515 onwards and the first proposal for regional presidents was made as early as 1533. Both options gained widespread support in the decades that followed and Sussex and Sidney simply incorporated them into their programmes for government.24 Finally, it becomes clear that New English officials in Ireland did not become united in the late Elizabethan period in the view that Ireland was beyond reform and a much harsher brand of military subjugation and even partial extermination would now have to be practised.25 Rather many treatise writers, both Old and New English, suggested that Tudor policy itself had failed as it had led to gross official corruption and overt militarisation. Hence what was needed was not a more brutal subjugation but reform of English officialdom itself along with more conciliatory assimilative measures towards the native population. Ultimately, of course, these less aggressive efforts failed, but the fact that they were attempted needs to be factored into any consideration of the drift of policy across the period. If these misconceptions have been allowed to develop it is again the result of focusing on a limited range of treatises, and these often those found in the State Papers and the Carew Manuscripts. While some of the major collections for the study of sixteenth-century Ireland, notably the Carte MSS  and the Cecil MSS, contain surprisingly few treatises, large collections of treatises can be found elsewhere, for instance the papers of Francis Walsingham in Cotton



•  preface  • xxi

MS Titus B XII in the British Library. Duplicates of many of these particular papers are also to be found in Additional Manuscripts 48,015 and 48,017 in the British Library. These were portfolios of treatises which Walsingham’s brother-in-law, Robert Beale, had prepared from Walsingham’s own papers to aid him during those periods when he acted as an understudy for Walsingham in the office of English secretary of state.26 Similarly, Lansdowne MS 159 in the British Library is a series of papers which were collected by the Jacobean chancellor of the exchequer and master of the rolls, Sir Julius Caesar. A substantial block of these date to the Henrician and mid-Tudor period and it is possible that Caesar had these removed from the State Records as the papers involved are written in a hand of their time of composition and are in all likelihood the originals.27 Many of these treatises were critical texts in the debate on Tudor policy in Ireland. Moreover as copies of these treatises are often not extant amongst the State Papers a great many of them have been entirely overlooked in previous studies of the high politics of Tudor Ireland. Other treatises found amongst collections such as the Royal MSS, Carte MSS, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS, Pepys MSS, Additional MSS of the British Library and the more peripheral parts of the Cottonian MSS examined here for the first time are at present virtually unknown to historians and their influence on English government unassessed. It is the contention of this book that only by examining all of the treatises found in these collections can a comprehensive view of the treatise literature be made and the contribution of these texts to the formation of crown policy in sixteenth-century Ireland fully assessed. In examining the treatises as a body of sources this study necessarily engages with the debate on the ‘reform’ of Ireland. Since the appearance of Bradshaw’s The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century in 1979 and Brady’s The Chief Governors in 1994 a view has flourished which suggests that the word ‘reform’ was used in the political discourse of the time to mean a constitutional, administrative and judicial policy option which fundamentally differed from military conquest.28 Both Bradshaw and Brady argued that this more sanguine approach was the alternative to the conquest and colonisation model favoured by historians such as Quinn and Canny.29 While this was the orthodox view of the period for many years it has been substantially discredited in recent times. Since the mid-1990s studies by historians such as David Edwards, Vincent Carey and John Montano have succeeded in re-orientating the study of Tudor Ireland to again show sufficient appreciation of the militarisation and violence that accompanied the Tudor conquest of Ireland.30 Additionally, Christopher Maginn and Steven Ellis have demonstrated that ‘reform’ as it was used from the mid-fifteenth century through to the Henrician period meant to ‘restore’ – to return the English lordship to the power it had enjoyed at its height in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. In this sense ‘reform’ could be applied to any ­measure, whether

xxii

•  preface  •

­ ilitary engagement or legal assimilation, that might rejuvenate English m power in Ireland.31 This study first argues that the Bradshaw/Brady interpretation utilises a modern interpretation of the word ‘reform’ without sufficient consideration of its meaning in Tudor times. Conversely, Maginn and Ellis’s new formulation has much to support it. But inevitably ‘reform’ when used to mean the ‘restoration’ of the medieval lordship still equated to ‘conquest’, as when commentators such as Patrick Finglas wrote about ‘reforming’ the Irish lordships of south Leinster the ‘restoration’ of English power they necessarily implied a ‘conquest’ of the present ruling elites. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that ‘reform’ was but one term used at this time, albeit that most widely employed when discussing the political state of Ireland. Other terms were also used such as to ‘put [Ireland] in order’.32 Most saliently we need to bear in mind that ‘reform’ and its usage was evolving over the course of the sixteenth century and it began to take on different meanings at different times. Some began to make a clear distinction between the idea of ‘conquering’ Ireland militarily and ‘reforming’ through assimilative means.33 Others used the word in a manner which made clear that they believed ‘reform’ should take the shape of legal and judicial amelioration.34 But others spoke of ‘reform’ in conjunction with words such as ‘extirp’, which indicated a far less benign understanding of what ‘reform’ encapsulated.35 Equally new terms such as ‘weed out’ and ‘root out’ began to enter usage as a substitute for ‘reform’.36 As the discourse on Irish policy evolved over the course of the century, the meaning of the word ‘reform’ fundamentally changed. If ‘reform’ referred to the restoration of English power during the reign of Henry VIII then it had a largely clear meaning, for there was a consensus that this should be undertaken through consolidation and expansion of the lordship into those regions held by Irish lords on the borders of the Pale. But later, in the mid-Tudor and Elizabethan periods, the consensus broke down on how Ireland should be governed and radically different views began to emerge on what policies should be employed there. As these disparate policies emerged the word ‘reform’ began to mean different things. Clearly though this later elasticity in meaning presents an interpretative problem for the historian of Tudor Ireland. An absolute definition of the word has been eschewed in this study. Rather, the distinction made is that ‘reform’ essentially meant any means by which the Irish polity would be overthrown and the country fully incorporated into the  English state. But as there were certainly more coercive or conciliatory ways to do this a distinction is generally made between coercive ‘reform’ and conciliatory ‘reform’ or assimilation. Throughout, the term is generally placed in parentheses to highlight the ambiguous meaning of the word. Beyond engaging with the historiographical debates currently underway, what follows is primarily concerned with examining the first articulation of



•  preface  • xxiii

particular policies within the treatises, how they gained support and how the advocacy for them in these texts might have contributed to the formation of Tudor policy in Ireland. It does so for a wide range of policy initiatives, including that to adopt a strategy of regional conquest; to assimilate the Irish lords by having them take their lands of the crown or ‘surrender and regrant’ as it has become known; to improve the state of the church and – depending on the time period under consideration – introduce the reformed Protestant faith; to appoint provincial presidents and councils; to plant colonies of English settlers in unstable regions; to establish a form of crown taxation; to expel the Scots from the north-east; to shire the country; to introduce the organs of English government such as sessions of assize; to establish a university to act as a Protestant seminary; and to reform the judiciary by appointing better trained ministers, often from England. In doing so it assesses the contribution of the treatises to the Tudors arriving at the principal strategies employed to incorporate Ireland into the English state from inception to implementation. Throughout the following some attempt will be made to indicate how the ‘reform’ treatises and the policies they proposed on, and for, Ireland compare individually and as a whole with contemporary treatises and policies produced on, and for, England. Yet this is limited as no comparable study for Tudor England has appeared. For instance, the most significant study to date of the treatise literature on Tudor England has been Arthur Ferguson’s The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance published in 1965, which examined a wide array of treatises written on England, their medieval heritage and their humanist underpinnings. But this was not systematic and while – as in the Irish context – substantial coverage was given to canonical authors, questions such as how many treatises are actually extant on England for the sixteenth century were not touched upon.37 Ferguson’s contemporary Geoffrey Elton contributed to our understanding of the English treatises by anatomising the work of the ‘commonwealth men’ such as Thomas More, Thomas Starkey and Edmund Dudley, though his thesis that these contributed to a ‘Tudor revolution’ in government under the direction of Thomas Cromwell has been largely discredited.38 Finally, Joan Thirsk’s work has pioneered the study of the many treatises written on economic policy and ‘projecting’ in Tudor England.39 Yet despite these studies a systematic analysis of the treatise literature produced on sixteenth-century England remains elusive. While it is regrettable that no such work has appeared, many other recent developments in the political history of Tudor England have broadened the scope of studies of political discourse and high politics in a manner that has relevance here. Previously, it was argued forcefully by historians such as Conyers Read, J.E. Neale and Elton that the critical subjects of study for historians of high politics in Tudor England were the monarch and formal institutions of government such as the Privy Council.40 Recent work has deemed otherwise.

xxiv

•  preface  •

In particular, the thesis that politics functioned as a closed network of decisive monarchs working in consultation with a small clique of faction-ridden ministers has been replaced by one in which there was much more wide-ranging and informal political participation. Simon Adams, Stephen Alford, Patrick Collinson, John Guy, Paul Hammer and Natalie Mears, in particular, have demonstrated how limited the extent of factionalism was at the Tudor court and how politics there was considerably collegial.41 In addition, it has become apparent that the political world of Tudor England stretched far beyond politicians of the first rank to a network of less influential ministers and informal counsellors such as Robert Beale, Nicholas Bacon, Edmund Tremayne and Thomas Smith.42 Finally, in recent years scholars including Natalie Mears, Peter Lake and Michael Questier have begun examining how a growing ‘public sphere’ impacted on wider societal awareness, and debating, of political events.43 Yet for Ireland much of the focus of political history remains on formal institutions and those occupying high office.44 By examining the whole range of extant treatises by high-ranking officials down to the most obscure writers this study argues that Tudor Ireland’s political history was characterised by a much wider political world than that of Dublin Castle. In order to best examine the evolution of the treatise literature a chronological approach has been adopted here, studying the principal topics arising in the treatises and how they reflected changing policy considerations in each distinct period. For example, the scheme of ‘composition’ is examined as part of a wider study of the treatises produced during the mid-Elizabethan period. By necessity some contextualisation is provided, though this has been limited to a considerable degree to avoid an overly long text. Somewhat unfortunately, perhaps, this methodological approach does lead to some repetition of details, as it is impossible to chart the government’s response to the various problems encountered in regions such as Ulster over the course of the century, notably the incursions of the Scots and the recalcitrance of the Gaelic lords there, without reiterating certain points. Critically, this is largely owing to the fact that the treatises themselves were often repetitious and, as will become abundantly clear, the aspirational solutions which appeared in them usually had long shelf lives in Tudor Ireland. What follows, then, is a study of a particular set of documents, the ideas contained in them, and how they might have contributed to the formation of government policy and the high politics of Tudor Ireland. In doing so it reveals much about issues such as the colonisation of Ireland, the introduction of both the Protestant Reformation and Counter Reformation there, and the nature of military strategy in a country that was bedevilled by conflict throughout much of the century, but particularly so from 1546 onwards, while also highlighting how people in sixteenth-century Ireland discoursed about matters of public interest. The Introduction provides a study of the ‘reform’ treatises



•  preface  • xxv

as a body of sources. Here the authorship, typology, form and composition of the tracts are examined. Chapter 1 begins by examining the foundational Tudor treatises written during the reign of Henry VII and reign of Henry VIII up to 1534. It then moves on to consider the policy debate in the aftermath of the Kildare Rebellion when a broad range of officials and interest groups in Ireland favoured a strategy of regional conquest in south Leinster, but were overruled in favour of a cheap ‘political alternative’ known as ‘surrender and regrant’. Chapter 2 covers the period from 1546 through to the end of Sussex’s government, a time of great political change in Ireland, though strikingly one for which limited treatises are extant. Chapter 3 examines the treatises written during the mid-Elizabethan period in the midst of a great expansion of government activity in Ireland as provincial bureaucracies were established in Connacht and Munster and disastrous attempts to colonise Ulster were implemented. Lastly, Chapter 4 concludes by addressing a preponderant literature of complaint which emerged in the treatises in the closing decades of the Tudor century. This argued that crown policy, and in particular reliance on a highly corrupt military to reduce the country, needed to be overhauled, and a more sanguine brand of ‘reform’ grounded on extension of the common law put in its place. Ultimately, and finally, in the course of such an inquiry it is imagined that much will be revealed to confirm D.B. Quinn’s statement concerning the utility of the treatises for gaining some insight into the minds of Tudor Englishmen in Ireland, specifically that they were at once ‘curious, surprised, hostile, censorious, nationalistic, reforming, and, paradoxically, at times sympathetic and brutal almost in the same breath’.45 Notes  1 Brendan Bradshaw, The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1979).  2 Nicholas Canny, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland: A Pattern Established, 1565– 76 (Hassocks, 1976).  3 Ciaran Brady, The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland, 1536–1588 (Cambridge, 1994).  4 Christopher Maginn and Steven Ellis, The Tudor Discovery of Ireland (Dublin, 2015).  5 Examples include, Robert Dunlop, ‘Sixteenth Century Schemes for the Plantation of Ulster’, in Scottish Historical Review, 22:85 (Oct., 1924), 51–60; 22:86 (Jan., 1925), 115–26; 22:87 (Apr., 1925), 199–212; D.B. Quinn, ‘Sir Thomas Smith (1513–1577) and the Beginnings of English Colonial Theory’, in PAPS, 89:4 (Dec., 1945), 543–60; D.G. White, ‘The Reign of Edward VI in Ireland: Some Political, Social and Economic Aspects’, in IHS, 14:55 (Mar., 1965), 197–211; Hiram Morgan, ‘The Colonial Venture of Sir Thomas Smith in Ulster, 1571–1575’, in HJ, 28:2 (Jun., 1985), 261–78; Michael MacCarthy-Morrogh, The Munster Plantation: English Migration

xxvi

•  preface  •

to Southern Ireland 1583–1641 (Oxford, 1986); Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British, 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001); Audrey Horning, Ireland in the Virginian Sea: Colonialism in the British Atlantic (Chapel Hill, 2013).  6 Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Sword, Word and Strategy in the Reformation in Ireland’, in HJ, 21:3 (Sep., 1978), 475–502; Helen Coburn Walsh, ‘Enforcing the Elizabethan Settlement: The Vicissitudes of Hugh Brady, Bishop of Meath, 1563–84’, in IHS, 26:104 (Nov., 1989), 352–76; James Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral and the University Question in Ireland, c.1547–1585’, in Helga Robinson-Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Dublin, 1998), pp. 1–21; Ciaran Brady and James Murray, ‘Sir Henry Sidney and the Reformation in Ireland’, in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben (eds), Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550–1700 (Aldershot, 2006), pp. 14–39; Henry A. Jefferies, The Irish Church and the Tudor Reformations (Dublin, 2010); Mark A. Hutchinson, ‘Reformed Protestantism and the Government of Ireland, c.1565–1582: The Lord Deputyships of Henry Sidney and Arthur Grey’, in The Sidney Journal, 29:1–2, Special Issue: Sir Henry Sidney in Ireland and Wales (2011), 71–104; Mark A. Hutchinson, Calvinism, Reform and the Absolutist State in Elizabethan Ireland (London, 2015).  7 Cyril Falls, Elizabeth’s Irish Wars (London, 1950), pp. 35–48; Ciaran Brady, ‘The Captains’ Games’, in Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (eds), A Military History of Ireland (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 136–59; John McGurk, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland (New York, 1997); Rory Rapple, Martial Power and Elizabethan Political Culture: Military Men in England and Ireland, 1558–1594 (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 51–85.  8 Vincent Carey, ‘John Derricke’s Image of Ireland, Sir Henry Sidney, and the Massacre at Mullaghmast, 1578’, in IHS, 31:123 (May, 1999), 305–27; Vincent Carey, Surviving the Tudors: The ‘Wizard’ Earl of Kildare and English Rule in Ireland, 1537–1586 (Dublin, 2002), esp. pp. 87–93; Patricia Palmer, Language and Conquest in Early Modern Ireland: English Renaissance Literature and Elizabethan Imperial Expansion (Cambridge, 2001); John Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism in Ireland (Cambridge, 2011); Jon G. Crawford, Anglicizing the Government of Ireland: The Irish Privy Council and the Expansion of Tudor Rule (Dublin, 1993), esp. pp. 216–21, 307–8, 391–2; Jon G. Crawford, A Star Chamber Court in Ireland: The Court of Castle Chamber, 1571–1641 (Dublin, 2005), esp. pp. 181–94; Anthony McCormack, The Earldom of Desmond, 1463–1583: The Decline and Crisis of a Feudal Lordship (Dublin, 2005), pp. 83–7; Fiona Fitzsimons, ‘The Lordship of O’Connor Faly, 1520–1570’, in William Nolan and Timothy O’Neill (eds), Offaly: History and Society (Dublin, 1998), pp. 207–42; Fiona Fitzsimons, ‘Cardinal Wolsey, the Native Affinities and the Failure of Reform in Henrician Ireland’, in David Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1100–1650: Essays for Kenneth Nicholls (Dublin, 2004), pp. 78–121; Gerald Power, A European Frontier Elite: the Nobility of the English Pale in Tudor Ireland, 1496–1566 (Hannover, 2012), esp. pp. 63–5; Margaret McPeake, ‘Strumpets, Wood Nimphs, and Contaminants: Representing Irish Women in New English Discourse, 1571–1601’, in David A. Valone and Jill Marie Bradbury, Anglo-Irish Identities, 1571–1845 (New Jersey,



•  preface  • xxvii

2008), pp. 44–58; Mark A. Hutchinson, ‘“The State”: Ireland’s Contribution to the History of Political Thought’, in The Irish Review, 48 (Winter, 2014), 28–35; Brendan Kane, The Politics and Culture of Honour in Britain and Ireland, c.1541– 1641 (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 98–9.  9 See, for example, Sydney Anglo, ‘A Machiavellian Solution to the Irish Problem: Richard Beacon’s Solon his follie (1594)’, in Edward Chancy and Peter Mark (eds), England and the Continental Renaissance: Essays in Honour of J.B. Trapp (Suffolk, 1994), pp. 153–64; Vincent Carey, ‘The Irish Face of Machiavelli: Richard Beacon’s Solon his follie (1594) and Republican Ideology in Ireland’, in Hiram Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 83–109; Hans Pawlisch, Sir John Davies and the Conquest of Ireland: a Study in Legal Imperialism (Cambridge, 1985); James P. Myers, Jr, ‘Early English Colonial Experiences in Ireland: Captain Thomas Lee and Sir John Davies’, in Éire-Ireland, 23:1 (Spring, 1988), 8–21; Jean Brink, ‘Sir John Davies: Lawyer and Poet’, in Thomas Herron and Michael Potterton (eds), Ireland in the Renaissance, c.1540–1660 (Dublin, 2007), pp. 88–104. The range of works on Spenser is vast. For bibliographical information on the range of material, see Willy Maley, ‘Spenser and Ireland: A Selected Bibliography’, in Spenser Studies, 9 (1991), 227–42; Willy Maley, ‘Spenser and Ireland: An Annotated Bibliography, 1986–96’, in Irish University Review, 26:2, Special Issue: Spenser in Ireland: “The Faerie Queene”, 1596–1996 (Autumn– Winter, 1996), 342–53. Examples of some of the most important publications since Maley’s bibliographical publications include, Andrew Hadfield, Spenser’s Irish Experience: Wilde Fruit and Salvage Soyl (Oxford, 1997); Andrew Hadfield, Edmund Spenser: A Life (Oxford, 2012); Willy Maley, Salvaging Spenser (London, 1997); Nicholas Canny, ‘Poetry as Politics: a View of the Present State of the Faerie Queene’, in Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology, pp. 110–26; David Edwards, ‘Ideology and Experience: Spenser’s View and Martial Law in Ireland’, in Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology, pp. 127–57; Richard McCabe, The Oxford Handbook of Edmund Spenser (Oxford, 2010). A similar pattern is in evidence for writers such as Barnaby Rich, John Derricke and Richard Stanihurst. See, for example, John Harrington, ‘A Tudor Writer’s Tracts on Ireland, His Rhetoric’, in Éire-Ireland, 17 (Summer, 1982), 92–103; Eugene Flanagan, ‘The Anatomy of Jacobean Ireland: Captain Barnaby Rich, Sir John Davies and the Failure of Reform, 1609–22’, in Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology, pp. 158–80; Eugene Flanagan, ‘Captain Barnaby Rich (1542–1617): Protestant Witness in Reformation Ireland’, PhD (TCD, 1995); Colm Lennon, Richard Stanihurst: the Dubliner 1547–1618 (Dublin, 1981); John Barry, ‘Derricke and Stanihurst: a Dialogue’, in Jason Harris and Keith Sidwell (eds), Making Ireland Roman: Irish Neo-Latin Writers and the Republic of Letters (Cork, 2009), pp. 36–47. 10 D.B. Quinn, ‘Ireland and Sixteenth-century European Expansion’, in T.D. Williams (ed.), Historical Studies I (1958), pp. 20–32, p. 23. 11 R.D. Edwards and Mary O’Dowd, Sources for Early Modern Irish History, 1534– 1641 (Cambridge, 1985), p. 86. 12 Andrew Hadfield, ‘Review: Coloniser and Proselytiser’, in The Irish Review, 13, Autobiography as Criticism (Winter, 1992/1993), 169–72.

xxviii

•  preface  •

13 Alan Ford, ‘Reforming the Holy Isle: Parr Lane and the Conversion of the Irish’, in Toby Barnard, Dáibhí Ó’Cróinín and Katharine Simms (eds), A Miracle of Learning: Studies in Manuscripts and Irish Learning: Essays in Honour of William O’Sullivan (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 137–63, p. 139. 14 D.B. Quinn, The Elizabethan and the Irish (Ithaca, 1966). For other attempts at analysing the texts in a systematic fashion see Edward M. Hinton, Ireland through Tudor Eyes (Philadelphia, 1933); Edwards and O’Dowd, Sources for Early Modern Irish History, pp. 85–105. However, the range of the former is quite limited, while the latter considered the treatises not in their own right but as part of a general introduction to the range of source material available to students of early modern Ireland. 15 D.G. White, ‘The Tudor Plantations in Ireland before 1571’, PhD, 2 vols (TCD, 1967). 16 The first such work dates to the seventeenth century when James Ware (ed.), The Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633), published works by Edmund Campion, Meredith Hanmer and Edmund Spenser. Other tracts followed in antiquarian works in the eighteenth century. See, for instance, John Lodge (ed.), Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, or a select collection of State Papers, 2 vols (Dublin, 1772), I, pp. 5–12, 87–150, 151–326, which contains tracts by George Carey, Thomas Lee and William Farmer. The nineteenth century saw the appearance of multiple tracts by figures such as David Sutton and Warham St Leger in works such as Herbert J. Hore and James Graves (eds), The Social State of the Southern and Eastern Counties of Ireland in the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1870), pp. 160–76, 267–8. Since the appearance of William Gerrard’s ‘Notes’ on Ireland in 1931 numerous Tudor tracts have been edited and published in Analecta Hibernica. See Charles MacNeill (ed.), ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s Notes of His Report on Ireland’, in Anal. Hib., 2 (Jan., 1931), 93–291. This is simply a brief outline of the array of treatises that have appeared in print since the seventeenth century. For an exhaustive listing, see David Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises and Government Policy in Sixteenth-Century Ireland’, PhD, 2 vols (UCC, 2013), I, pp. 5–6, fn. 12. Alternatively, see the listing of much of this material in the Select bibliography, pp. 223–30. 17 Colm Lennon (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Tudor Period, 1547–1553 (Dublin, 2015); Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Tudor Period, 1566–1567 (Dublin, 2009); Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Tudor Period, 1568–1571 (Dublin, 2010); Mary O’Dowd (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Tudor Period, 1571–1575 (Dublin, 2000). 18 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery; David Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises on Tudor Ireland, 1537–1599 (Dublin, 2016). 19 See pp. 182–5. 20 David Heffernan, ‘Six Tracts on “Coign and Livery”, c.1568–78’, in Anal. Hib., 45 (2014), 1–33. 21 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution; Ciaran Brady, ‘The Road to the View: on the Decline of Reform Thought in Tudor Ireland’, in Coughlan (ed.), Spenser and Ireland, pp. 25–45.



•  preface  • xxix

22 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution. For a definition of St Leger’s programme as a ‘political alternative’, see Christopher Maginn, “Civilizing” Gaelic Leinster: The Extension of Tudor Rule in the O’Byrne and O’Toole Lordships (Dublin, 2005), p. 59. 23 Canny, Elizabethan Conquest; Brady, Chief Governors. 24 See below, pp. 36–54. 25 This has been the argument of a great number of previous studies. See, for example, Brady, ‘The Road to the View’; Brady, Chief Governors; Steven G. Ellis, Tudor Ireland: Crown, Community and the Conflict of Cultures 1470–1603 (London, 1985), pp. 278–312; Colm Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland: The Incomplete Conquest (Dublin, 1994); Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 419–23; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 228–9; Nicholas Canny, The Formation of the Old English Elite in Ireland, National University of Ireland, O’Donnell Lecture (Dublin, 1975); Nicholas Canny, ‘Edmund Spenser and the Development of an Anglo-Irish Identity’, in The Yearbook of English Studies, 13, Colonial and Imperial Themes Special Number (1983), 1–19; Nicholas Canny, From Reformation to Restoration, 1534–1660 (Dublin, 1987), esp. pp. 105–7; Nicholas Canny, ‘Identity Formation in Ireland: The Emergence of the Anglo-Irish’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, 1500–1800 (Princeton, 1989), pp. 159–212, esp. p. 164. 26 The British Library Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts: The Yelverton Manuscripts, Additional Manuscripts, 48,000–48,196, 2 vols (London, 1994). 27 BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos 1–124, are a large portfolio of papers on Ireland dating primarily to the 1550s before the collection shifts abruptly to early seventeenth-­ century papers. 28 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution; Brady, Chief Governors. 29 See, for example, Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest. 30 David Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence in Sixteenth-Century Ireland’, in Edwards, Lenihan and Tait (eds), Age of Atrocity, pp. 34–78; Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism; Carey, ‘John Derricke’s Image of Ireland’. 31 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery. 32 See, for example, John Kite?, ‘The State of Ireland and Plan for its Reformation’, 1515, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1. 33 This divergence of views was noted in Edward Waterhouse?, ‘A Treatise of Irlande’, 1586, NLI, MS 669, fo. 55r, wherein it is noted, ‘The plottes for reformacion of Irelande are of two kyndes, one which vndertake to procure by conqueste and by peoplinge of contries with English inhabitants … Another kynde is of those wherein is vndertaken to make reformacion by publique establishment of iustice’. 34 As we will see figures such as the mid-Elizabethan lord chancellor, William Gerrard, the former viceroy of Ireland, James Croft, and the master of the rolls, Nicholas White, held such an outlook. See pp. 186–99. 35 Thus figures such as Ireland’s first secretary of state, John Chaloner, the ­mid-Elizabethan lord justice, William Pelham, and the early Jacobean official, Robert Jacob, could use phrases such as ‘reform’ and ‘subjection’, ‘reform and

xxx

•  preface  •

extirp’ and ‘reformation and extirpation’. See Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 184; Raymond Gillespie (ed.), ‘Three Tracts on Ireland, c.1613’, in Anal. Hib., 38 (2004), 1–47, 17. For Chaloner’s use, see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Six Tracts’, 22. 36 See, for instance, John Merbury’s ‘Mixed Collections’, printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 279–84. 37 A.B. Ferguson, The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance (Durham, 1965). 38 G.R. Elton, ‘Reform by Statute: Thomas Starkey’s Dialogue and Thomas Cromwell’s Policy’, in Proceedings of the British Academy, 54 (1968), 165–88; G.R. Elton, Reform and Renewal: Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal (Cambridge, 1973). 39 Joan Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture: A History from the Black Death to the Present Day (Oxford, 1997); Joan Thirsk, Economic Policy and Projects: The Development of a Consumer Society in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1978). 40 Prominent examples include, Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols (Oxford, 1925); Conyers Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1960); J.E. Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments: 1559– 1581 (Milan, 1955); G.R. Elton, The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1953); G.R. Elton, England Under the Tudors (London, 1974). 41 For some of the most important contributions, see Simon Adams, Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics (Manchester, 2002); Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994); Stephen Alford, The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558–1569 (Cambridge, 1998); John Guy (ed.), The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade (Cambridge, 1995); John Guy, The Tudor Monarchy (London, 1997); Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms (Cambridge, 2005); Paul Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: the Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 (Cambridge, 1999). 42 Mary Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith: a Tudor Intellectual in Office (London, 1964); R. Tittler, Nicholas Bacon: the Making of a Tudor Statesman (Ohio, 1976); Patrick Collinson, ‘Sir Nicholas Bacon and the Elizabethan Via-Media’, in HJ, 23:2 (Jun., 1980), 255–73; Patricia Ann Brewerton, ‘Paper Trails: Re-reading Robert Beale as Clerk of the Privy Council’, PhD (University of London, 1998); Mark Taviner, ‘Robert Beale and the Elizabethan Polity’, PhD (St Andrew’s University, 2000); Jacqueline D. Vaughan, ‘Secretaries, Statesmen and Spies: The Clerks of the Tudor Privy Council, c.1540–c.1603’, PhD (University of St Andrews, 2007). 43 See, for example, Peter Lake and Michael Questier, The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven, 2002); Peter Lake and Steven Pincus (eds), The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007); Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse. 44 See, in particular, Brady, Chief Governors; Crawford, Anglicizing. 45 Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish, p. 33.



•  introduction  • 1

•

Introduction Debating Tudor policy in Ireland: The ‘reform’ treatises

In the late 1580s the Elizabethan secretary of state, Francis Walsingham, no doubt had many guests to his study at his house at Seething Lane in the shadow of Tower Hill in London. As one of the most powerful ministers in the Tudor government and as head of the Elizabethan intelligence services these visitors would have ranged from high-ranking noblemen to agents in Walsingham’s spy network, often living on the fringes of society. Whatever the station of those who entered Walsingham’s study in these years they might well have glimpsed a small volume of papers lying on the secretary’s desk entitled ‘A Note of all the written bookes in the Chests or abroad’. This was a catalogue prepared by Walsingham’s private secretary, Thomas Lake, in 1588. In it were lists of documents along with reference numbers to the locations of these documents in much larger volumes, many of which would have been stored in ‘Chests’ elsewhere in the study or at court. This index was organised thematically, with separate sections listing, for example, documents relating to Scotland, to the war in the Low Countries, and to Ireland. The latter section was particularly long, occupying some twenty folios.1 Much of this listed documents relating to the revenues of Ireland, while the catalogue also indicated that Walsingham had large portfolios of papers in his study on the establishment of a presidential council in Munster and the recent ‘cess’ controversy. But the most striking aspect of the Irish section of this index was the number of references to policy papers or treatises on the political state of Ireland and how to ‘reform’ the second Tudor kingdom.2 By the time this index, now termed Walsingham’s ‘Table Book’ and housed in the British Library as Stowe MS 162, was drawn up in the 1580s a great many treatises had been written on the thorny question of Ireland. From the reign of Henry VII officials in Ireland had begun preparing policy papers and submitting them to the metropolitan government in England. These anatomised the

2

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

political state of Ireland and offered proposals for how to reform the country or overthrow the Gaelic lordships there which threatened English control of the island. At first these treatises were written sporadically, with one appearing every few years during the reign of Henry VII and the first half of the reign of his son, Henry VIII. When the Tudors began taking a sustained interest in Ireland again from the mid-1530s onwards there was a sharp increase in the number of papers being produced. By the time of the long reign of Elizabeth I in the second half of the sixteenth-century treatises were so ubiquitous to the governance of Ireland for senior ministers in London that they had portfolios of them prepared just like Walsingham, with papers bearing a multitude of titles such as a ‘Discourse’, ‘Survey’, ‘View’, ‘Discovery’, ‘Description’, ‘State’, ‘Dialogue’, ‘Narration’, ‘Relation’, ‘Device’, ‘Notes’, ‘Report’, ‘Information’, ‘Articles’, ‘Boke’, ‘Book’, ‘Opinion’, ‘Plot’, ‘Plat’, ‘Brief’ or ‘Breviat’. By the end of the century at least six hundred such treatises, that we know of, had been written on Ireland and what should be done there.3 Any assessment of what proportion of the ‘reform’ treatises written during the sixteenth century this represents is, of course, speculative, but some assertions can be made. Evidently, some treatises written at the time have not survived. Thomas Bathe and Edmund Sexton composed treatises around 1528 and 1535 respectively which are not extant.4 Other evidence is simply more suggestive. For instance, among the Royal Manuscripts in the British Library is a treatise by Captain John Dowdall which he sent to James I early in his reign. However, this was a duplicate of a paper he had originally written for Elizabeth I in 1599 and which would now be entirely lost to us if Dowdall had not re-submitted it several years later to the new monarch.5 Despite these lost treatises there is substantial evidence to reassure the historian of Tudor Ireland that a great deal of the ‘reform’ treatises written at the time do in fact survive. The clearest example is provided in ‘A Treatise of Irlande’ written in 1586. This long tract contains a section entitled ‘The effecte of the seueral plottes for the reformation of Ireland’, which provides a listing of treatises for the ‘reform’ of Ireland that the author was aware of. Of those listed, the first earl of Essex’s plot for ‘Ulster’, Nicholas Malby’s plot to govern Ireland with an army of 2,000 men, William Gerrard’s proposals and those by Edmund Tremayne, Patrick Sherlock, Anthony Power, John Perrot and William Russell are all extant.6 There are no references here to any lost treatises. Furthermore, when writers such as Edward Walshe and Nicholas Dawtrey referred to other treatises in their own papers there is a reassuring absence of references to tracts which are lost.7 For a majority of the extant treatises only one copy has survived. There are a sizeable number of treatises for which two copies are extant, often in cases where George Carew collected a copy of a paper which is also found amongt the State Papers, or where a paper in Walsingham’s archive was copied for his



•  introduction  • 3

sometime understudy as secretary of state, Robert Beale. Beyond this there are very few treatises for which three or more copies are extant. Generally, these were written by prominent officials such as William Pelham’s ‘Discourse’ on Ireland written in 1580 for which there are four extant copies.8 These papers often profoundly influenced policy formation at the time and the importance of a treatise often correlates with the number of survivals. For instance, there are four surviving copies of Edmund Tremayne’s influential treatise proposing the policy known as ‘composition’ in 1573.9 There are a handful of tracts which exceed these numbers. Six copies of the lord chancellor, Thomas Cusack’s ‘Book’ on Ireland which he sent to the duke of Northumberland in 1553 are extant.10 There are also a remarkable number of copies of John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ written in 1581 as he began his campaign for appointment as chief governor of Ireland. At least ten copies of this text survive, one of which significantly was copied into Mountjoy’s commonplace book.11 However, two treatises stand alone in terms of number of extant copies. These are the Henrician chief baron of the exchequer, Patrick Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ and Spenser’s ‘View’, for each of which there are approximately twenty-five copies extant.12 The treatises were composed in almost every year after 1534. But some periods witnessed a much greater output than others depending on the political conditions prevailing in Ireland at any one time (see Figure 1 for an i­mpression of the scale of treatise composition across the century). For instance, a significant number of tracts were written in the second half of the 1530s as ­individuals made proposals for how to govern Ireland in the aftermath of the Kildare Rebellion. This tapered off in the 1540s, and for much of that decade, and the 1550s, there are very few extant treatises, as little as one or two per year. However, from the 1560s onwards there was a steady increase in the number of treatises – usually as many as ten a year – being produced. This peaked at the end of the century as the Nine Years War witnessed an unprecedented level of consultation between the metropolitan government and officials in Ireland, manifest in the survival of dozens of tracts for 1598, 1599 and 1600, at the height of the conflict. Who wrote these policy papers and what motivated them to do so? What were they about and where were the authors getting their information from? There are no absolute answers to these questions when dealing with such a large body of documents produced over such a broad expanse of time, yet there are patterns. Those who had taken up their pens to advise Henry VII and Henry VIII were more often than not members of the Anglo-Irish or Old English communities, generally of the Pale or more anglicised regions of Leinster and Munster. Prominent here were figures such as the chief baron of the exchequer, Patrick Finglas, or Sir William Darcy of Platten. These early writers were at pains to highlight the encroachment of Irish customs into the

4

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

60

Numbers of extant treaties for select years, 1515–1609 50 40 30 20 10

09

16

00

99

16

15

95

15

91

15

83

79

15

15

71

15

65

15

57

49

15

15

37

33

15

15

15

15

0

1  Number of extant treatises for select years, 1515–1609 Source: Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78

English lordship and urge a rejuvenation of crown power in Ireland. They were soon joined by New English officials such as the sometime master of the rolls and lord chancellor, John Alen, and the under-treasurer, William Brabazon. Indeed, while at this early stage there was a parity between Old English and New English in terms of the volume of treatises produced, from mid-century onwards the number of treatises written by New Englishmen began to substantially eclipse those composed by the Old English.13 Yet treatise writing was not confined to Old Englishmen and New Englishmen. A small number of papers were written by Welshmen.14 Examples include tracts by the Munster undertaker, William Herbert, and the long-serving Elizabethan army captain, William Mostyn.15 There are also over a dozen treatises written by Gaelic Irishmen. The mayor of Limerick and one of the sewers of the king’s chamber, Edmund Sexton, composed a number of tracts in the 1530s, the notorious archbishop of Cashel, Miler McGrath, wrote several treatises in the 1590s, while Francis Shane, an anglicised O’Farrell, prepared papers on military strategy during the Nine Years War.16 Other than these there are a handful of Gaelic Irish writers, notably Cormac MacBrian O’Connor and Turlough O’Brien.17 This, broadly speaking, was how the authorship of the ‘reform’ treatises broke down along ethnic lines. A more complicated issue is the station of the authors and the role they might have played in the governance of Ireland. For



•  introduction  • 5

a small number of authors little more than their name is evident. But generally we know something of their background. From this we can say that the writers of ‘reform’ treatises fall into a number of broad categories. The most conspicuous were viceroys and senior ministers; however, it should not be assumed that all senior figures composed policy papers. Sussex, Henry Sidney and John Perrot produced roughly a dozen papers each, but the longest-­serving chief governor between 1534 and 1603, William Fitzwilliam, on the basis of the extant evidence, does not appear to have ever composed a formal treatise. Similarly, the Elizabethan lord chancellor, William Gerrard, wrote numerous papers on Ireland in the late 1570s, but other high-ranking ministers such as Gerrard’s near contemporaries, the secretary of state, Geoffrey Fenton, and the under-treasurer, Henry Wallop, generally did not.18 The composition of treatises, though, was not limited to senior political figures. Numerous officials occupying less prominent offices offered counsel. These included the mid-Tudor muster official and later first clerk of the Court of Castle Chamber, Thomas Walshe, the comptroller of the wine customs in Waterford, Henry Ackworth, the late Elizabethan exchequer officer, Robert Legge, and the chief justice of Munster, William Saxey.19 The expansion of the military establishment as the century progressed led to an increase in the number of army officers writing treatises. By the 1580s and 1590s they were writing as frequently as civil officials. For instance, George Carew, who held a number of military offices in Ireland in the 1580s and 1590s including the position of master of the ordnance, wrote several papers on Irish policy, as did army captains such as Thomas Lee and the muster master, Ralph Lane.20 Less numerous, though still substantial, were the number of treatise writers who held religious office, particularly archbishops and bishops such as the Henrician and Edwardian archbishop of Dublin, George Browne, and the Elizabethan pluralist bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, William Lyon.21 Finally, a large number of ‘reform’ treatise authors were would-be colonists or latterly undertakers in the Munster Plantation such as Nicholas Bagenal, Warham St Leger, Jerome Brett, Humphrey Gilbert, William Herbert and Edmund Spenser.22 Outside of officials, army captains, bishops, archbishops, aspiring colonists and plantation undertakers, a number of treatises were composed by individuals who did not hold any official position in Ireland. For example, John Denton, a merchant active in Ireland in the late 1560s and early 1570s, wrote a considerable treatise at the end of this period which was part memoir, part policy paper.23 The station of these individuals did not necessarily influence their views on the ‘reform’ of Ireland. For example, while army captains such as John Merbury and John Dowdall advocated a brutal policy of scorched earth and inducement of famine conditions to reduce Gaelic Ireland, other military officers such as Thomas Lee and William Piers were far more accommodating

6

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

of the Irish polity.24 Equally, Spenser’s views were much more coercive than his fellow Munster undertaker, William Herbert. What station did affect was the focus of a writer’s paper. Archbishops and bishops tended to concentrate on religious reform, while army officers dealt with military strategy. Senior ministers, though, addressed a wide range of topics, but even here there was often a tendency to give greater coverage to issues of official and judicial reform. An individual’s station also influenced whether their writings garnered any attention. Clearly, the practicality of a writer’s proposals and the effectiveness with which he argued them played a role here, but unquestionably a proposal made by Sussex received far greater consideration than one by, for example, Henry Ackworth. The regularity with which these individuals wrote treatises obeyed no pattern. Among the viceroys the most prolific writers were Sussex, Sidney and Perrot, each having composed over a dozen papers, while further down the ranks of officialdom William Piers (11), William Herbert (11), William Saxey (10), Robert Legge (9), John Alen (8), Nicholas Dawtrey (8), William Gerrard (7) and Robert Cowley (7) surpassed all others in their composition of policy papers.25 The array of extant documents which collectively constitute this political discourse are not a homogenous group of formal treatises. Indeed, it is difficult to define with precision what actually constitutes a ‘reform’ treatise. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a treatise as ‘A book or writing which treats of some particular subject; commonly, one containing a formal or methodical discussion or exposition of the principles of the subject’.26 Clearly, texts such as Sussex’s ‘Opinion’ and ‘Relation’ written in the early 1560s, Spenser’s View and Richard Beacon’s Solon his follie fit this definition.27 But beyond their formal and systematic nature the substance of such treatises can vary greatly. However, there are other documents which must be, and will be, considered as ‘reform’ treatises even though they were not written as formal treatises. For example, there are a very large number of letters extant, written to senior ministers in England, which dealt extensively with the state of Ireland and offered proposals for how to extend government control over the country. These merit just as much consideration as formal treatises. However, there is a need to disambiguate between these various forms.28 The most common form of treatise was the formal treatise. These were formally structured papers with a title such as a ‘Discourse’ or ‘Plot’, often arranged into numbered or itemed sections.29 Within this particular form there developed a number of sub-genres. The dialogue became increasingly popular towards the end of the century, perhaps as Willy Maley has suggested in response to New English fears of cultural degeneracy.30 As such, the holding of conversations between English-born speakers in the View or the ‘Dialogue of Silvyne and Peregrine’ was intended to reinforce the belief that only through cultural insulation could the New English avoid contagion.31



•  introduction  • 7

A somewhat similar sub-genre was the question-and-answer tract employed by Nicholas Dawtrey and William Piers.32 Here, though, the intention was to reinforce the knowledge gap between the experienced man on the ground and the metropolitan government. One further sub-genre was the rhetorical essay, a studied exercise in persuading monarch and senior ministers alike of the feasibility of a proposal, good examples of which are seen in the writings of Edmund Tremayne from the early 1570s on the ‘composition’ scheme.33 Less numerous were informal treatises. These were essentially the same as formal treatises; however, they lacked many of the structural characteristics such as a title and sub-headings. Rather, they appeared as extended discussions on policy issues without any delineation of points. Examples include a tract prepared on the O’Rourke lordship by John Merbury in the late 1580s, while numerous tracts lacking a title or clear structure are found among Walsingham’s papers in Cotton MS Titus B XII.34 However, generally speaking these papers were far less plentiful than formal treatises. Next to formal treatises the most numerous form in which ‘reform’ treatises appeared were as pieces of correspondence or what can be termed ‘letter-tracts’.35 Initially, these appear to be routine letters. But when such letters offered extended analyses of the political state of the country and made recommendations for how to extend Tudor rule in Ireland they have to be considered as part of the treatise literature. For instance, Anthony Trollope addressed a number of letters to Burghley in the 1580s which made extended reports on the political state of the country.36 In terms of their form these do not initially seem to be treatises but letters. Nevertheless, in light of their content, these letters must, and indeed previously have been, considered as ‘reform’ treatises.37 Such correspondence, while clearly not formal and systematic treatises, merit consideration as ‘reform’ literature. A fourth popular form of document was the report or journal.38 Composed by high-ranking officials, such writings were often conceived both to inform certain parties in London of their activities and, in many instances, to defend those same actions. There was a sharp increase in the number of justificatory accounts of service being produced in the closing decades of the century as complaints about the corrupt dealings of Irish officials became rife. Thus, a number of viceroys, including Sussex and Sidney, composed journals and memoirs.39 Many of these such as Russell’s diary or Arthur Grey’s declaration of service are simply straightforward records of past events and, as such, do not necessitate consideration as ‘reform’ treatises.40 However, a significant percentage of these journals were also suffused with ideas about the ‘reform’ of Ireland.41 Such is the case with Thomas Cusack’s ‘Book’ (1553). This, while ostensibly a report on his progress around the country, also contains substantial ‘reform’ proposals.42 Documents of this kind cannot but be considered as part of the ‘reform’ treatises.

8

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

A fifth form of treatise is almost indistinguishable from the formal treatise. These were internal government memoranda which were, for instance, ­composed during the course of negotiations with Gaelic lords. In this regard we might consider treatises composed by figures such as Geoffrey Fenton, Henry Wallop and Robert Gardener in 1590 as internal memoranda, as they were the product of the crown’s negotiations with the second earl of Tyrone at the time.43 These working documents often followed from the composition of a formal treatise as the author was required to produce a subsequent paper to clarify or expand on certain points. For instance, following the submission of a ‘Discourse’ in 1598 by Nicholas Dawtrey the Privy Council sought further details from Dawtrey which led to the composition of a second paper.44 Finally, a number of works published in England during the sixteenth century must be considered as part of the ‘reform’ debate. Many of these were straightforward treatises, notably Richard Beacon’s Solon his follie. Others are less strictly treatises but merit consideration. The promotional pieces which appeared on Thomas Smith’s project to colonise the Ards peninsula in 1572 and Robert Payne’s Briefe description of Irlande, a pamphlet promoting settlement in the Munster Plantation, were published to encourage emigration from England to Ireland, yet they merit consideration given their depiction of Ireland and use for colonisation thereof.45 Equally, while John Derricke’s The Image of Irelande published in 1581 has long been focused on solely for the woodcuts which accompanied the text, a number of recent studies have firmly established the importance of the text itself to the ‘reform’ debate.46 Thus, when the many individuals who wrote treatises on Ireland during the sixteenth century set down their thoughts they did not always compose their works as formal treatises. Equally, they were not all concerned with the same issues in Ireland. Some were focused on the political state of the country, some with religious affairs, some with colonisation, and some with a wide range of different policy concerns. Inevitably, given the lack of knowledge of Ireland which pertained in England at the outset of the period under study, many of the earliest treatises, and a great many later ones too, were concerned with the geography of the country. These geographical treatises generally divided Ireland into four, five or six provinces; four if one adhered to modern divisions, though most included Meath as a fifth, while a number elected to give Munster as two entries, specifically Desmond (Deasmhumhain or South Munster) and Thomond (Tuathmhumhain or North Munster). These were often subdivided into counties, baronies, cantreds and ploughlands with concurrent information on geographical features such as havens and large settlements.47 The earliest of these was a pamphlet entitled the ‘Description of Ireland’ which appeared around 1515, features of which were incorporated into numerous subsequent treatises.48 These strictly geographical descriptions were often accompanied by a political anatomisation of the country which identified the principal Gaelic



•  introduction  • 9

and English lords. This format was established in the earliest treatises, notably a ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ (c.1496) and ‘The State of Ireland’ (c.1515) and appeared regularly down to the century’s end.49 The purpose of these works of geographical description and political anatomisation seems relatively clear. In the first half of the century the Tudors were resoundingly ignorant of the geography of the remoter parts of Ireland. For instance, when writing to Anthony St Leger in 1540 Henry VIII made note that the earl of Ormond’s lands were geographically located in a region where he could be of benefit in reducing the Irish lordships of Carlow and Wicklow, but the king’s general ignorance of even one of the foremost lordships of the country and the periphery of the Pale was confirmed by the statement that he had determined this only by consulting ‘the platt [i.e. map] of the lande’.50 Consequently, as the effective reach of the government gradually extended beyond the Pale in the mid-Tudor period and into Connacht and Ulster during Elizabeth’s reign, information on the geography of those regions became a necessity in order to implement administrative rule therein.51 The shiring of Clare in the early 1570s provides an illuminating example of this process accompanied as it was by the composition of a number of such descriptions of the county.52 In tandem with this discovery of the political and geographical landscape of Ireland Tudor commentators were equally interested in their treatises to describe the political, social and cultural practices prevailing there. The earliest such writings were found in texts such as the ‘State’ (c.1515) and William Darcy’s ‘Articles’. Central to these was the concern over the apparent degeneracy of the English of Ireland and the ubiquity of practices such as ‘coign and livery’, succession by tanistry and adoption of Irish apparel.53 These concerns resonated until the end of the century in treatises written by figures such as Sussex, Warham St Leger and John Perrot.54 Clearly, though, there was an overarching political consideration to these writings. Such social and cultural practices were anatomised to demonstrate their perfidy as a prelude to proposing their eradication. This colonial ethnography was to alter somewhat in the ensuing period as writers such as Fynes Moryson, Luke Gernons and Hugh Collier began writing expositions of Gaelic society from what would now be deemed a more socio-anthropological perspective.55 These discussions of Gaelic society inevitably led to considerations of how to extend English rule outwards from the Pale. Recent studies of sixteenth-­ century Ireland posit that both conciliatory and coercive measures to achieve this were given equal consideration by Tudor commentators.56 However, this was certainly not the case early in the century when the overwhelming concern was to revitalise the lordship through military intervention in those parts of Gaelic Ireland adjoining the Pale.57 The concern for legal, judicial and administrative reform, and the extension of the common law came later, but crucially

10

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

when it did it was largely in response to problems identified within officialdom and the military executive in Ireland, rather than in an effort to subdue the Gaelic lordships. Such criticism of the manner in which Ireland was being governed abounded in the latter half of the reign of Elizabeth I in the writings of figures such as William Gerrard, Robert Legge and Nicholas White.58 The approach which was overwhelmingly favoured from quite early in the century for advancing English rule in Ireland was military intervention, leading cogently to the composition of military tracts. This coercive streak was displayed in the very earliest extant Tudor treatise, the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ (c.1496) which exaggeratedly listed the forces available to the major lords of Gaelic Ireland. This was not an idle mathematical exercise. Nor was it unique. As Chapter 1 shows, the desire for military intervention and regional conquest was openly expressed throughout most of the treatises written during the reign of Henry VIII. Moreover, the establishment of a garrison system throughout much of Leinster and Ulster from 1546 onwards led to the regular composition of military tracts providing details in respect of garrison locations and troop allocations for these. Sussex’s most extensive composition on Ireland, his ‘Opinion’ of 1562, covers a great many issues, one of the principal being the need for military action in certain regions and the establishment of garrisons at locations such as Armagh.59 Henry Sidney’s demands as put forward by him in a number of treatises during the negotiations surrounding his reappointment as lord deputy in 1575 largely concerned the size of his forces, their pay and victualling.60 A further distinctive type of treatise was the colonial treatise.61 Recommendations to this effect were made in the ‘State’ (c.1515) and Finglas’s ‘Breviat’, and the idea gained increasing adherents from the early 1550s as the first state-sponsored Tudor plantation was undertaken in the midlands. At this time writers such as Edward Walshe and John Alen put forward proposals on how to further the plantation of Laois and Offaly.62 Efforts to colonise north-east Ulster and the south coast of Munster followed in the late 1560s and early 1570s. For Ulster both those who unsuccessfully sought land grants, such as Thomas Gerrard, and those like Thomas Smith who received extensive allotments, produced a range of tracts outlining their colonisation plans.63 In the south, Humphrey Gilbert, Warham St Leger and Jerome Brett composed a multitude of treatises outlining their proposals to plant settlements at key havens along the southern coast of Ireland.64 Some years later the attainder of the earl of Desmond and his allies following the Desmond Rebellion saw various proposals made for colonising these Munster lands by writers such as Richard Spert, John Ussher and William Pelham before a state-sponsored plantation was resolved upon.65 Another type of tract dealt with religious reform. Generally, religion was discussed in the treatises in the context of enforcement of the Protestant



•  introduction  • 11

Reformation. But even before the Henrician Reformation of the 1530s and during the reign of Mary I the problems which were assayed in the Irish church reflected those identified in the Church of Ireland. They focused on the relative poverty of the established church, the language barrier and, above all, the lack of adequately trained ministers. There was an overwhelming consensus on these, but treatise writers were less agreed on how to confront these problems, with some favouring a coercive approach and others arguing that Protestantism should be fostered through persuasion. Those who argued for forceful methods advocated the enforcement of fines for non-­conformity and the establishment of institutions such as that eventually founded, the Ecclesiastical High Commission, to ensure conformity. Advocates of the persuasive approach among other measures favoured the publication of an Irish translation of the Bible and the Articles of Faith. Yet there was generally a considerable overlap. Whether arguing for coercion or persuasion, all were agreed that the lack of a suitably trained ministry and the impoverishment of the physical church were major hindrances to any religious reform. Accordingly, initiatives such as that to establish a university in Ireland both to prepare a domestically trained ministry and inculcate the population to the new faith were universally favoured.66 That there were different forms of treatise such as geographical, colonial, military and religious treatises was of course a by-product of the individual motivations of the authors of the treatises to compose papers. In his ‘Anothomy’ of 1615 Barnaby Rich attested succinctly to the manner in which personal motives, a desire to acquire political favour and patronage, or further vested concerns, and occasionally even to promote policies which might benefit the state, were all factors in the decision to compose a position paper: I thynke ther hath byne no one thynge more preiudy-cyall to the servyce of Irelande, then thes numbre of water castynge physytyans, that have taken uppon them to looke into the state of Irelande, to spye out the dysceases & to informe at random, they knowe not what them selves, sometymes for ther owne gayne, sometyme to helpe ther frendes, sometymes to hurt ther foes, sometymes for love, sometymes for haate, and some that would styll be pre-scrybynge of medycyns, that wer utterly ygnorant from whence the sycknes grewe.67

Clearly, even contemporaries were aware that treatises were being composed for a multitude of reasons. First, individuals wrote papers proposing specific policies for Ireland as they believed that these were the best means to expand Tudor control of Ireland. This clearly motivated a substantial number of writers. Thomas Cusack wrote his ‘Devise’ anatomising the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ in 1541 at a time when he was at the centre of efforts to implement that programme.68 Edmund Tremayne wrote a number of tracts in the early

12

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

1570s offering his considered thoughts on how Ireland could be effectively governed.69 Tremayne seems to have genuinely believed that the recommendations he made were those best suited to reforming Ireland. Equally, William Herbert composed several treatises on Ireland and more specifically Munster in the 1580s, culminating in his canonical work Croftus Sive in Hibernia Liber. These offered proposals which Herbert evidently advocated for in the belief that they were the best means to ‘reform’ Ireland.70 Whatever else might have influenced figures such as Cusack, Tremayne or Herbert there is little doubt that they keenly believed in the recommendations they made. But it would be specious to suggest that treatises were written solely out of a concern to counsel the best methods to expand Tudor rule in Ireland. The writers of treatises were motivated by myriad personal and communal political concerns. Cusack, for instance, might have believed firmly in the wisdom of the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’, but he also had a great personal stake in the success of that programme. However, in a great many instances concern for personal gain was the overwhelming motivation to write a ‘reform’ treatise. For instance, Henry Bagenal’s tracts on Ulster in the 1580s and 1590s were always written with an eye to furthering his family’s position in the province from their stronghold at Newry.71 Scores of similar instances of self-interest could be cited. Such self-serving motivations were inherently connected with the quest for patronage, which was central to the production of ‘reform’ treatises. This was most starkly presented in the dedications of the numerous tracts which received print treatment at the time. For instance, Thomas Churchyard variously solicited Drew Drury (brother of lord justice William Drury), Christopher Hatton and Lord Howard of Effingham at the outset of his Irish works, evidently in search of patronage.72 John Derricke dedicated the Image of Irelande to Philip Sidney, the son of its central character Henry, and in doing so cast his text in support of Sidney’s reappointment as viceroy.73 An explicit reference to the link between the preparation of ‘reform’ tracts and patronage was made by the author of a brief memorandum sent to Walsingham around 1585, potentially by the clerk of the check, Thomas Williams. This document begins with a preface where the author acknowledges that his ‘Device’ is composed of ‘few particulars as from other sufficient collections’, before conceding that his motive was to ‘beseech your honour to peruse the same … delivered as the testimonies of my zealous mind towards my prince, my country and your honourable self whom I desire to have the patron of my simple travails’.74 Thus, what we have here is a very stark acknowledgement by the author of a treatise that his primary motive in composing a political tract on Ireland was to obtain patronage. Beyond the desire to shape policy and offer proposals which were personally beneficial treatise writers could take up their pen for a third reason:



•  introduction  • 13

they were requested to offer counsel. At the end of his significant ‘Book’ on Munster presented to Queen Elizabeth in 1574, Humphrey Gilbert clearly indicated that the paper was prepared in response to a request by Elizabeth to have the former governor of Munster’s thoughts on how to ‘reform’ Ireland.75 There are numerous other examples where internal evidence points towards a treatise having been composed in response to a request to do so from the queen, the Privy Council or a senior minister. Interestingly, these requests were made of senior figures such as the lord chancellor, William Gerrard, but also some very marginal characters such as one ‘Goring’ whose first name is unclear, but who was most likely an army captain, J. Goring; Thomas Knyvett was directed by Robert Cecil to prepare a paper on the reform of the coinage following consultation with the master of the exchange in England; and William Udall, an agent of Cecil’s who revealed the second earl of Essex’s meeting with Tyrone in 1599 and was rewarded with imprisonment for four years shortly thereafter.76 Evidently, individuals wrote treatises for a multitude of reasons. What is less easy to discern though is exactly how writers went about composing a treatise. Personal knowledge and ‘on the ground’ experience would undoubtedly have shaped what was written. For instance, Nicholas Dawtrey’s proposals for the division of Clandeboye in 1594 were primarily a product of his long experience as seneschal of that country.77 Equally, Edward Baeshe’s ­recommendations for ‘reform’ of the victualling system in Ireland were informed by over thirty years as a crown victualler.78 Likewise, William Lyon’s proposals for a persuasive approach to spread the established faith in Ireland was the product of his experience as a bishop in Munster throughout the 1580s and 1590s.79 But this was often not the case. In general, treatise writers were elaborating on policies proposed by others or on themes which had become widely discussed. One conspicuous example was the universal acceptance of the idea that the Irish lordship had decayed as a result of the cultural degeneracy of the Old English and their adoption of ‘coign and livery’. But it is rarely possible to determine if one author who reached such a conclusion did so after encountering such an analysis in another text or because it had entered common discourse, both verbal and written at the time.80 Similar developments occurred in relation to the depiction of the Irish character. By the end of the period one writer need not have borrowed from any specific source in order to posit that the natives were unreconcilable barbarians outside the parameters of English civility, as this view was commonly expressed. For instance, Andrew Trollope commented acerbically on the barbarity of the inhabitants of the country shortly after his arrival in Ireland, noting that ‘at this instante the Irishe men, except [in] the waled townes, are not christyans, cyvell, or humane creators, but heathen, or rather savage, and brute bestes. Ffor many of them, aswell women, as men, goe comonly all naked saveing onely a lose mantle

14

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

hangeng aboute them.’81 Yet by Trollope’s time such views were hardly novel, all the more so when it is considered that Andrew Boorde’s depiction of the Irishman had been in print throughout England since the 1540s: For the people there be slouthfull, not regarding to sow and tille theyr landes, nor caring for ryches. For in many places they care nor for pot, pan, kettyl, nor for mattrys, fether beds, nor such implementes of houshold, wherefore it is presupposed they lak maners and be untaught and rude, the which rudeness which theyr melocoly complexion causeth the[m] to be angry and testy wythout a cause.82

Clearly, many ideas had become part of the common lexicon of political ­discourse in sixteenth-century Ireland. Often treatise writers were deriving their ideas directly from other papers. Indeed, a number of authors openly attested to their knowledge of the writings of others in their own treatises. Edward Walshe, in his ‘Conjectures’ on the midlands plantation, also written in 1552, remarked on the surveyor, Walter Cowley’s scheme for the plantation of much of Leinster.83 The most striking attestation by an author of his knowledge and consultation of the treatises of others was made in ‘A Treatise of Irlande’, almost certainly composed by Edward Waterhouse in 1586. Here knowledge was displayed of the writings of Patrick Sherlock, Anthony Power, John Perrot, Edmund Tremayne, John Ussher, Nicholas Malby, the first earl of Essex, and William Piers, among others.84 Similarly, a tract most likely written by Nicholas Dawtrey at the height of the Nine Years War contained an extended analysis of the schemes for the ‘reform’ of Ireland written by Malby and Piers.85 Given the repetition of ideas in the treatises throughout the century it is safe to assume that many writers were similarly familiar with other treatises and that this doubtlessly influenced their own writings. In some cases, though, the debt one author owed to another was far greater. Intertextuality is a difficult thing to track. Luckily in the case of the Tudor treatises on Ireland what is today more commonly called plagiarism was rampant, making instances of direct borrowing easy to discern. The earliest extant treatise on Tudor Ireland, ‘A Description of the Power of Irishmen’, was re-worked in 1556 by John Alen, who curiously felt no need to adjust the numbers detailing the forces of the Gaelic lords from the original despite the passage of sixty years since the composition of the first text.86 Alen’s brother, Thomas, may well have been the mastermind of a paper, ‘Matters for the good government of Ireland’, composed around 1558, large portions of which were simply a re-worded copy of a ‘Memoriall’ drawn up by the Irish Council in 1537.87 A tract which appears to have been written by the future lord deputy, William Russell, in 1579 begins with a political anatomisation of Ireland taken almost verbatim from the opening passages of the ‘State of Ireland’ (c.1515).88 Many similar examples abound throughout the treatises.



•  introduction  • 15

Finally, there is one extraordinary example of intertextuality which requires individual consideration in light of the insight it gives into the utilisation of other texts by treatise writers. This was a gazetteer almost certainly composed by Edward Waterhouse.89 Work on the text began in the mid-1570s and was still ongoing by 1586 when the most well-known copy of this text ‘A Treatise of Irlande’ was composed.90 However, even this latter copy, a large text of over 25,000 words, was not complete and clearly Waterhouse had intended to add further to it.91 What is unusual about the ‘Treatise’ is that it attempted to act as a kind of beginner’s introduction to the political state of Ireland, detailing the history of the country both prior to and since the English conquest, outlining the geography of the island and then offering a political and anatomical breakdown of the country, county by county. In doing so it drew directly on a range of treatises which Waterhouse evidently possessed copies of. Large sections are copied from the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’, while there is also clear evidence of Waterhouse’s reading of a ‘Description of Ireland’ written around 1515 and Finglas’s ‘Breviat’.92 What is most striking about this gazetteer is the manner in which it became a standard reference and, indeed, a template from which to compose treatises. Henry Bagenal’s ‘Description of Ulster’, for instance, was basically a reiteration of the sections on Ulster contained in this gazetteer.93 John Dymmock’s ‘Treatice of Ireland’ which he began in 1587 and which he continued to adapt up to Essex’s term as lord lieutenant in 1599 was also little more than an updated version of Waterhouse’s original ‘Treatise’.94 Numerous further examples abound in the 1590s by writers such as Meredith Hanmer.95 Treatises were distributed in a number of ways. A significant proportion of the extant treatises stayed within Ireland where they were addressed to various viceroys of the period, particularly Sussex and Sidney.96 Curiously, the extant evidence indicates that only the chief governors were solicited in this fashion and there was seemingly no practice of sending papers to other senior ministers such as the lord chancellors or under-treasurers. This was also the case for interim chief governors and the treatise that William Lyon sent to Adam Loftus and Henry Wallop during their term as joint lord justices in the early 1580s is exceptional for having been addressed to stand-in governors.97 The overwhelming majority of treatises were, however, sent directly to England to the monarch or senior ministers. These were often borne by a message bearer, although there is clear evidence that a substantial number of treatises were delivered personally at court by the author. For instance, the ascent of a monarch could lead to a flood of petitioners to London, many of whom bore policy papers. Indeed, in the case of Walter Raleigh’s views on the suppression of the Desmond Rebellion in 1582 we have an instance of a treatise which was not delivered to court but was actually deposed from an individual while there, the paper being in Burghley’s hand.98 Often these direct appeals

16

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

proved highly successful. Such was the case with Henry Bagenal who travelled to court in 1586 where he presented his ‘Description’ and ‘Information’ in which he sought a reduction of O’Neill influence in the north and an expanded role for his own family. His expedition was largely a success and a number of his requests were granted when he returned to Ireland.99 Finally, there are examples of treatise writers offering further counsel than that contained in their papers which they claimed to be wary of setting down on paper.100 Unfortunately, this secret counsel is now lost to us. Whether borne by a message bearer or delivered personally by the author at court these tracts were destined for a limited range of individuals. During the reign of Henry VIII the principal recipients of such tracts other than the king himself were Thomas Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell. The following reign witnessed papers being prepared for Somerset and Northumberland, while, from his appointment as secretary of state, William Cecil began receiving papers.101 Such limited treatises as were prepared under Mary were generally addressed to the queen herself. Elizabeth’s reign is more complex. Early on the principal recipients were Cecil and, to a much lesser degree, Leicester. This pattern changed significantly, however, in the 1570s as Burghley’s primacy was challenged by his successor as secretary of state, Francis Walsingham. Indeed, by the end of that decade the two appear to have been receiving a roughly even amount of papers offering counsel, a pattern which continued into the 1580s. Walsingham’s death again shifted the balance back in Burghley’s favour. The 1590s saw a growing number of papers being sent directly to his son and political successor, Robert Cecil. The factional wrangling between the Cecils and the second earl of Essex did not greatly influence the flow of treatises and Essex was the recipient of resoundingly few papers, with the notable exception of the months following his appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland. Finally, below these major recipients a number of minor recipients can be identified, particularly in the 1590s when lower-ranking officials such as the lord keeper of the great seal, John Puckering, had one or two papers addressed to them.102 While Burghley and Walsingham were the chief recipients of such papers during the Elizabethan period, there is clear evidence of a circulation of copies of manuscripts among other ministers at court, a subject which remains remarkably underdeveloped for both England and Ireland.103 Robert Beale’s Irish papers largely comprise copies of treatises he had made for his use from copies owned by Walsingham to whom he often acted as understudy in the office of secretary of state. Similarly, the solicitor general, Thomas Egerton, was clearly not the recipient of many tracts, yet there are numerous treatises from the 1580s and 1590s among his papers in the Huntington Library which were likely copied from originals in the State Records at the time or from the personal archive of another minister.104 Walsingham’s collection of treatises



•  introduction  • 17

on Ireland was loaned to Robert Cecil in 1596, presumably as he sought to develop a greater understanding of the crisis unfolding across the Irish Sea.105 Once proposals arrived at Whitehall they might meet with a number of responses. Some such as John Bell’s dystopian proposals for planting Ulster were simply ignored, while others such as the petitions for lands to colonise made by Thomas Gerrard and Richard Spert for Ulster and Munster respectively were overlooked in favour of other colonisation schemes.106 Most merited some degree of consideration. If they were found agreeable they could often be implemented. But there are remarkably few treatises to which a ­specific policy initiative being implemented can be individually credited. George Browne’s scheme for the suppression of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin in order to endow a university in Ireland was one such exception.107 What was far more usual was for a treatise or a policy proposal to add to a growing swell of support for an initiative. Often officials in Ireland had to write to the metropolitan government for many years or even decades in support of a measure before it gained traction. The campaign to have an expeditionary force sent to Lough Foyle during the Nine Years War is one example which took a markedly long time to materialise. The idea was initially conceived as part of Sidney’s campaign against Shane O’Neill in 1566 and was resurrected with the outbreak of hostilities in 1594. But, despite incessant calls for the launching of such an expeditionary force throughout the conflict it was not until May 1599 that a force of around 4,000 troops commanded by Henry Docwra was dispatched to Lough Foyle.108 Thus, it took nearly six years from the time the expedition was conceived until it was finally carried out. This was due to the perennial problems of Tudor governance: lack of troops and finances, military reverses, procrastination on the part of the monarch and prioritisation of military initiatives on the continent.109 To a large extent these delays and failures were the result of the decidedly unspecific nature of much of the ‘reform’ treatises. In a great many instances writers made proposals without providing any of the necessary details on how to actually implement them as effective policies. For instance, reformers would acknowledge the necessity of dispensing with ‘coign and livery’ yet fail to proffer any advice on what should be done with the thousands of men-atarms throughout the country who would be affected or, and perhaps more importantly, how the government could actually force the lords to accept the prohibition.110 Rather, a majority of treatise writers opted to convince their readers that the policy proposals they enunciated in their writings could be executed speedily and cheaply. This short-sightedness was to plague successive administrations in Tudor Ireland as poorly prepared schemes were implemented only to have them meet with failure owing to various pitfalls such as shortage of funds, a fundamental failure to understand the dynamics prevailing within individual regions or a lack of the resolve needed to carry on

18

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

with certain policies. Yet, in spite of these deficiencies, the ‘reform’ treatises were a major medium for the conveyance of policy ideas in Tudor Ireland. They played a major role in the formation of government policy in each individual period of the Tudor conquest of Ireland. The pages that follow chart the policy ideas argued for in the treatises over the course of the Tudor century. Notes 1 ‘Walsingham’s Table Book’, BL, Stowe MS 162, fos. 46–65. 2 Ibid., esp. fos. 47r–50r. 3 For full listings, see Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78. 4 Clodagh Tait, ‘“A trusty and well beloved servant”: The Career and Disinternment of Edmund Sexton of Ireland, d. 1554’, in Arch. Hib., 56 (2002), 51–64. See David Heffernan (ed.), ‘Robert Cowley’s “A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland”, c.1526’, in Anal. Hib., 48 (2017), pp. 1–30 on Bathe’s lost text. 5 John Dowdall, ‘The naturs and dispositions of the Irishe nation, and with what mild hand they have bin governed or howe rather they ought to bee governed’, 1599, BL, Royal MS 18 A LVI. 6 NLI, MS 669, fo. 55r. 7 D.B. Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s ‘Conjectures’ concerning the state of Ireland’, in IHS, 5:20 (Sep., 1947), 303–22, 315; Hiram Morgan (ed.), ‘A Booke of Q + Answars concerning the warres or rebellions of the kingdome of Irelande’, 1597, in Anal. Hib. 36 (1995), 79–135, 128–9. 8 For copies of Pelham’s ‘Discourse’, see BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 79–92; BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 460–474r; CCM, 1575–1588, 440 (LPL, MS 597, fos. 384–403); CCM, 1575–1588, 570 (LPL, MS 614, fos. 46–62). The copy from LPL, MS 597 is printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 182–204. 9 BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 357–360; Huntington Library, EL MS 1,701; BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 274–277; Cambridge University, Trinity College MS 710. The full text of the Cotton copy is printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 96–103. 10 BL, Harley MS 35, fos. 180–194; BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 266–273; TCD, MS 842, no. 6; TNA, SP 61/4/43; John Rylands University Library, Manchester, English MS 497, fos. 4–73; LPL, Carew MS 611, p. 112. 11 Copies of Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ include CCM, 1575–1588, 511, misdated as 1583; BL, Add MS 48,017, fos. 63–71; BL, Sloane MS 2,200; BL, Stowe MS 159, fos. 181–193; BL, Harley MS 3,292, fos. 5–12; NLI, MS 3,314, fos. 45–73; BL, Add. MS 4,763, fos. 176v–184r; Bod. Lib., Carew MS 103, fos. 99r–113r. The text of the ‘Discourse’ excepting a small section at the end wherein the ‘Description’ written in 1515 was copied verbatim, was published in 1626. See the preface to E.C.S., The Government of Ireland under the Honorable, Ivst and Wife Gouernour Sir Iohn Perrot Knight (London, 1626). 12 Edmund Spenser, Works of Edmund Spenser: A Variorum Edition, 11 vols (Baltimore, 1932), X, p. 39, lists most of the surviving copies of the View. Copies



•  introduction  • 19

of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ include LPL, MS 621, p. 92; LPL, MS 600, p. 204; TCD, MS 581, no. 7; TCD, MS 786; TCD, MS 842, fos. 25–36; TNA, SP 60/2/7; BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 243–247; BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 172v–177; BL, Harley MS 35, fos. 204v–222; BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 480–481; BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 586–587; NLI, MS 8,071. For a full listing, see David Heffernan, ‘Patrick Finglas’s A Breviat of the Conquest of Ireland and of the Decay of the Same (c.1535) and the Tudor Conquest of Ireland’, in SCJ (forthcoming, 2018). 13 On the use of Old English and Anglo-Irish in the present study, see the Note on Conventions, p. xiv. 14 On the ‘New Welsh’ in Ireland, see Rhys Morgan, The Welsh and the Shaping of Early Modern Ireland, 1558–1641 (Suffolk, 2014). 15 See, for example, William Herbert, ‘Description of Munster’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/58; William Mostyn, ‘A Plot for the cutting off of that “cruell and tironious traytor of Tiron” and of his wicked confederates’, 1598, TNA, SP 63/202(iii)/185. 16 Examples of these include, Edmund Sexton, ‘A declaration of the havens, etc., of Ireland’, 1539, calendared in L.P., XIV(i), 997(i); Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 338–43. 17 David Heffernan, ‘An early Elizabethan treatise on Laois and Offaly: Cormac mac Briain Í Chonchubhair’s ‘A Device for the Government of Ireland (c.1565)’, in Ossory, Laois and Leinster, 6 (2016), 113–28; Turlough O’Brien’s ‘Discourse’ printed in Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), ‘A View of Religious Affiliation and Practice in Thomond, 1591’, in Archiv. Hib., 48 (1994), 13–24. 18 DIB, ‘Fenton, Geoffrey’; Judith Barry, ‘Sir Geoffrey Fenton and the office of Secretary of State for Ireland’, in IHS, 35:138 (Nov., 2006), 137–59; DIB, ‘Wallop, Henry’. 19 See, for example, Robert Legge, ‘A Breviat or Sumiarie of the the causes againste the lord deputye’, 1593, TNA, SP 63/169/3. 20 See, for example, George Carew, ‘A Discourse for Ireland’, 1594, CCM, 1589– 1600, 151. 21 See, for example, William Lyon, ‘A view of certain enormities and abuses meet to be considered of’, 1596, TNA, SP 63/191/8(i). 22 See, for example, Nicholas Bagenal, ‘A Declaration how … the Newrie … May be fortified … by the Trayvell of Sir Nicholas Bagenall’, 1577, HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS ii, p. 56. On the Munster planters, see below pp. 175–82. 23 John Denton, ‘A statement of the several services performed in Ireland’, 1575, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 3–10. 24 Cf. ‘Sir John Dowdall to secretary Cecil’, 1600, CCM, 1589–1600, 340, with ‘Captain Pyers Articles for the North of Ireland’, 1578, HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS ii, pp. 87–91. 25 Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78. 26 OED, treatise, n. 27 Spenser, View; Richard Beacon, Solon his follie, eds Clare Carroll and Vincent Carey (Binghamton, 1996). 28 See the introduction to Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises for more on these forms.

20

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

29 Julia Reinhard Lupton, ‘Mapping Mutability: or Spenser’s Irish Plot’, in Brendan Bradshaw, Andrew Hadfield and Willy Maley (eds), Representing Ireland: Literature and the Origins of Conflict, 1534–1660 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 93–115, addresses the variable meanings such titles could have. 30 Willy Maley, ‘Dialogue-wise: Some Notes on the Irish Context of Spenser’s View’, in Connotations, 6:1 (1996/97), 67–77. 31 Spenser, View; Hugh Collier?, ‘The Dialogue of Peregrynne and Silvynnus’, 1599, TNA, SP 63/203/119, transcribed at www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E590001–001/ index.html. 32 Morgan (ed.), ‘A Booke of Q + Answars’; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 323–5. For another example, see Anonymous, ‘Questions and Answers concerning the State of Ireland’, 1604, TNA, SP 63/216/63. 33 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 96–103. 34 Ibid., pp. 293–8. 35 There are a few examples of private correspondence which merit consideration as part of the ‘reform’ literature. See, for example, Henry Docwra, ‘A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend’, 1586, CCM, 1575–1588, 621. For the attribution, see John McGurk, Sir Henry Docwra, 1564–1631: Derry’s Second Founder (Dublin, 2005), pp. 26–37, esp. p. 37. 36 TNA, SP 63/85/39; TNA, SP 63/131/64. 37 See, for example, Brady, ‘The Road to the View’, where Trollope’s letter-tracts have been considered as part of the evolution of the treatise literature. 38 David Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals of the Elizabethan Irish Wars (Dublin, 2014). 39 Willy Maley, ‘“The name of the country I have forgotten”: Remembering and Dismembering in Sir Henry Sidney’s Irish Memoir’, in Herron and Potterton (eds), Ireland in the Renaissance, c.1540–1660, pp. 52–73, p. 57, has classified these document as ‘memory texts’, but this elides the practical purpose to which such papers were put. Ciaran Brady (ed.), A Viceroy’s Vindication?: Sir Henry Sidney’s Memoir of Service in Ireland, 1556–78 (Cork, 2002). Alternatively they had them composed on their behalf, as Sussex did through Ireland’s deputy herald, the Athlone Pursuivant, Philip Butler. See, for instance, CCM, 1515–1574, 207, 211, 212, 215, 217, 238. For more on these, see below pp. 195–6. 40 Arthur Grey, ‘Lord Grey de Wilton’s Declaration of service’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/106/62, printed in Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals, pp. 140–54. 41 Ian Mortimer, ‘Tudor Chronicler or Sixteenth-Century Diarist? Henry Machyn and the Nature of his Manuscript’, in SCJ, 33:4 (Winter, 2002), 981–98, examines the overlap of various textual forms during this period. 42 ‘The copy of the book sent from Sir Thomas Cusake, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to the Duke of Northumberland’s Grace for the present state of Ireland’, 1553, CCM, 1515–1574, 200, pp. 235–47. The end of the calendar version (pp. 246–7) inaccurately conflates the closing passages of a tract by Thomas Walshe written in 1552 with the closing sections of Cusack’s tract. 43 ‘Opinions of Robert Gardener and Henry Wallop for the reformation of Ulster’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/152/39; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 290–2; ‘John



•  introduction  • 21

Perrot’s opinion upon the book agreed upon by the Earl of Tyrone’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/153/1. 44 Nicholas Dawtrey, ‘Discourse on the rebellion in Ireland’, 1598, TNA, SP 63/202(ii)/52; Nicholas Dawtrey, ‘The answer to the three notes or postils set down by your Honours upon the margin of certain opinions laid down by me unto the queen’s most excellent majesty’, 1598, TNA, SP 63/202(ii)/53. 45 A letter sent by I.B. Gentleman vnto his very frende Maystet [sic] R.C. Esquire vvherein is conteined a large discourse of the peopling and inhabiting the cuntrie called the Ardes (London, 1572); The offer and order giuen by Sir Thomas Smyth Knighte, and Smyth his sonne, vnto suche as be willing to accompanie the sayd Thomas Smyth the sonne, in his voyage for the inhabiting some partes of the Northe of Irelande (London, 1572); Robert Payne, ‘A briefe description of Ireland’, in IAS, Tracts Relating to Ireland, I, no. 2. 46 Carey, ‘John Derricke’s Image of Ireland’; Maryclaire Moroney, ‘Apocalypse, Ethnography, and Empire in John Derricke’s Image of Irelande (1581) and Spenser’s View of the Present State of Ireland (1596)’, in English Literary Renaissance, 29:2 (Sep., 1999), 355–74; Barry, ‘Derricke and Stanihurst’. 47 Examples include, CCM, 1515–1574, 191; ‘Notes of Ulster, Connaught, Munster and Leinster’, 1560, CCM, 1515–1574, 229. 48 Anonymous, ‘Description of Ireland’, 1515, L.P., II (i), 1367. 49 See, for example, ‘Capteines of cuntryes in Irland’, BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 219–220. See the relevant sections from Humphrey Gilbert’s ‘The Book for the Reformation of Ireland’, printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 116–28. 50 ‘King Henry VIII to Sentleger’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 324, p. 245. 51 J.H. Andrews, ‘Geography and Government in Elizabethan Ireland’, in Nicholas Stephens and Robin Glasscock (eds), Irish Geographical Studies: Essays in Honour of E. Estyn Evans (Belfast, 1970), pp. 178–91. 52 Robert Twigge (ed.), ‘Edward White’s Description of Thomond in 1574’, in JNMAS, 1 (1910), 75–85; Martin Breen (ed.), ‘A 1570 list of Castles in County Clare’, in JNMAS, 36 (1995), 130–8. 53 Kenneth Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages (Dublin, 1972); Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish, esp. pp. 34–57; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, esp. pp. 117–36. 54 Sussex, ‘The opinion of th’Earl of Sussex, touching the reformation of Ireland’, 1560, CCM, 1515–1574, 227; Warham St Leger, ‘The nature of Sorowhen lands and other chargeable lands in Ireland’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/144/84; John Perrot, ‘Reasons to move your Lordships [the Privy Council] to cut away the Captainries and Tanistships used among the mere Irishry’, 1590, CCM, 1589–1600, 73. 55 Luke Gernons, ‘A Discourse of Ireland, anno. 1620’, printed in Caesar Litton Falkiner (ed.), Illustrations of Irish History (London, 1904), pp. 348–62; Hugh Collier?, ‘Discourse on the mere Irish of Ireland’, c.1607, Bod. Lib., Exeter College MS 154, fos. 55–74, available on www.ucc.ie/celt. 56 See below, pp. 36–54. 57 David Heffernan, ‘The Reduction of Leinster and the Origins of the Tudor Conquest of Ireland, c.1534–1546’, in IHS, 40:157 (May, 2016), 1–21.

22

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

58 For examples of these writings, see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 211–15, 285–6, 316–19. 59 Sussex, ‘The opinion of the Earl of Sussex Lieutenat-General, as well for the ordering of Ulster as the government of the whole realm, after Shane O’Nele shall be expulsed’, 1562, CCM, 1515–1574, 236. 60 ‘Henry Sidney’s notes for Ireland and demands in case he were sent again to be Deputy’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/48/40. 61 Some of the principal studies of colonial activity are, White, ‘Tudor Plantations’; D.B. Quinn, ‘The Munster Plantations: Problems and Opportunities’, in JCHAS, 71 (1966), 19–41; Robert Dunlop, ‘The Plantations of Leix and Offaly, 1556–1622’, in EHR, 6:24 (Jan., 1891), 61–96; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, esp. pp. 66–92; Canny, Making Ireland British; MacCarthy-Morrogh, Munster Plantation; Philip S. Robinson, The Plantation of Ulster: British Settlement in an Irish Landscape, 1600–1670 (Belfast, 1994); Morgan, ‘Colonial Venture’. 62 John Alen, ‘Instructions touching Ireland’, 1556, BL Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 27–29r; Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’. 63 See, for example, Thomas Gerrard’s ‘Humble petition’, printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 69–71. 64 See, for example, ‘Jerome Brett’s notes or offers made to the queen by certain good subjects to plant the islands lying off Munster’, 1573, TNA, SP 63/40/21. 65 For treatises by all three individuals, see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 182–204, 227–30, 236–8. 66 See, pp. 54–9, 153–60. 67 Edward M. Hinton (ed.), ‘Rych’s Anothomy of Ireland, with an Account of the Author’, in PMLA, 55:1 (Mar., 1940), 73–101, esp. 82. 68 Thomas Cusack, ‘Cusackes Devise’, 1541, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 347. 69 Examples include, Edmund Tremayne, ‘Advice touching the state of Ireland’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/32/64; Edmund Tremayne, ‘The causes why Ireland is not reformed’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/32/65; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 72–83, 96–103. 70 William Herbert, ‘Description of Munster’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/58; William Herbert, ‘That the bands of footmen are at this present rather an offence than a defence to the province of Munster’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/59; William Herbert, ‘A note how that her Majesty shall save £2,600 a year in the Province of Munster and be as well served as at this present’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/60; William Herbert, ‘Notes of Her Majesty to consider of’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/98; William Herbert, Croftus Sive in Hibernia Liber, 1591, eds Arthur Keaveney and John Madden (Dublin, 1992). 71 Herbert F. Hore (ed.), ‘Marshal Bagenal’s Description of Ulster, Anno 1586’, in UJA, 1:2 (1854), 137–60; ‘The information of Sir Henry Bagenal touching her Majesty’s service in the north of Ireland’, 1586, TNA, SP 63/124/66. 72 ODNB, ‘Churchyard, Thomas’; Thomas Churchyard, A generall rehearsall of warres (London, 1579); Thomas Churchyard, The moste true reporte of Iames Fitz Morrice deathe and others the like offenders; with a brief discourse of rebellion (London, 1579).



•  introduction  • 23

73 John Derricke, The Image of Irelande (London, 1581); Carey, ‘John Derricke’s Image of Ireland’. 74 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 250–2. 75 Ibid., pp. 116–28. 76 Ibid., pp. 355–9; ‘Thomas Knyvett to Robert Cecil’, 1603, TNA, SP 63/215/107; ‘William Udall to the queen’, 1599, Hatfield House, Cecil Papers 186, fos. 159–162. For Goring, see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 329–34. 77 Ibid., pp. 320–2. 78 Edward Baeshe, ‘Articles touching the victualing in Ireland’, 1579, BL, Add. MS 32,323, fos. 188–189. 79 See, for example, William Lyon, ‘A view of certain enormities and abuses meet to be considered of’, 1596, TNA, SP 63/191/8(i). 80 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Six Tracts’. 81 TNA, SP 63/85/39, fo. 97v. 82 Andrew Boorde, The fyrft boke of the Introduction of knowledge (London, 1548), p. 22. 83 Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’. The reference is almost certainly to Walter Cowley, ‘Device by Walter Cowley for reformation of certain exactions in the country of Cahir McArt Kavanagh’, 1549, TNA, SP 61/2/25(i), printed in Hore and Graves (eds), Social State, Appendix. 84 NLI, MS 669, fo. 55r. 85 Morgan (ed.), ‘A Booke of Q + Answars’, pp. 127–30. 86 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 19–27. 87 Ibid., pp. 28–35; ‘A Memoriall, or a note of for the wynnyng of Leynster, too be presented too the Kynges Majestie and his Graces most honorable Counsayle’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 162. 88 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 160–72. 89 Hiram Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion: The Outbreak of the Nine Years War in Tudor Ireland (Suffolk, 1993), p. 40, n. 95, has previously noted the similarity of NLI, MS 669 to a number of other tracts and applied the term ‘gazetteer’ to the work. 90 TNA, SP 63/56/62–63, are early draft copies dating to around 1576, the first of which is in Waterhouse’s hand. 91 NLI, MS 669. The text terminates abruptly on f. 62v during a glossary of the various Gaelic exactions. Here ‘Blackrentes’ and ‘Cuddies’ have been entered as headings, but no definition is entered and large spaces are left, almost certainly indicating that the text was left unfinished. 92 See ibid., fo. 1r for usage of the ‘Description’ and ibid., fo. 6r, for passages which mirror the ‘Breviat’. 93 Hore (ed.), ‘Bagenal’s Description’. 94 John Dymmock, ‘A Treatice of Ireland c.1599’, in IAS, Tracts Relating to Ireland, II, no. 1. 95 Meredith Hanmer, ‘The description of the Realm of Ireland, the circuit and bound of every county, with the names of all the principal towns, gentlemen, castles, rivers and freeholders’, 1597, TNA, SP 63/201/157; Morgan Colman?, ‘A Perambulation of Leinster, Meath and Louth, of which consist the English Pale

24

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

and first of the county of Dublin’, 1596, CCM, 1589–1600, 260. The document is in Colman’s hand, though not signed by him. For the description of Antrim taken from the Dobbs MS, see John Dubourdieu, Statistical Survey of the County of Antrim with Observations on the means of improvement (Dublin, 1812), pp. 1–7; Edmund Hogan (ed.), The Description of Ireland and the state thereof as it is at this present in anno 1598 (Dublin, 1878). 96 See, for example, a tract Edward Walshe wrote to Sussex in BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 207–210; BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 248–249, was a tract by Richard Eustace addressed to Sidney around 1568. 97 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 222–6. 98 ‘The opinion of Mr. Rawley upon the means of subduing the rebel in Munster’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/96/30. 99 Hore (ed.), ‘Bagenal’s Description’; TNA, SP 63/124/66. On the Bagenals generally, see P.H. Bagenal, ‘Sir Nicholas Bagenal, Knight Marshall’, in JRSAI, Sixth Series, 6:5 (Mar., 1915), 5–26; P.H. Bagenal, Vicissitudes of an Anglo-Irish Family, 1530–1800 (London, 1925), esp. pp. 44–50; DIB, ‘Bagenal, Henry’. 100 See, for example, Anonymous, ‘An abstract of the misorders and evil rule within the land of Ireland’, 1537, TNA, SP 60/5/24. Patrick Sherlock and Nicholas Taaffe, in treatises they prepared in 1574 and 1585 respectively, also offered to provide further information in secret. See Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 108–15, 253–7. 101 See, for example, ‘Thomas Wood to William Cecil’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/21. 102 ‘William Saxey to John Puckering about Irish inconveniences’, 1595, TNA, SP 63/179/48, printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 326–8. 103 For a study of the creation and circulation of manuscripts, see H.R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558–1640 (Oxford, 1996). 104 ‘The Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery: List from The Ellesmere Collection’, in Anal. Hib., 8 (Mar., 1938), 431–41. 105 See, BL, Stowe MS 162, fos. 46–62, the endorsement of which contains a note, possibly in William Davison’s hand, reading, ‘Sir R. Cecill hathe it of me, 1596’. This has previously been noted in John Cooper, The Queen’s Agent: Francis Walsingham at the Court of Elizabeth I (London, 2012), p. 239. 106 John Bell, ‘How Irish rebels may be taught to be obedient to her Majesty’, 1597, TNA, SP 63/201/156; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 69–71, 236–8. 107 ‘Device of George Browne, Archbishop of Dublin, for converting the lately suppressed Cathedral Church of St. Patrick’s beside Dublin into a University’, 1547, TNA, SP 61/1/10. 108 On the subsequent history of the expedition, see Hiram Morgan, ‘Missions Comparable? The Lough Foyle and Kinsale Landings of 1600 and 1601’, in Hiram Morgan (ed.), The Battle of Kinsale (Wicklow, 2004), pp. 73–90; Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, I, pp. 54–5; Docwra’s ‘Narration’, in O’Donovan (ed.), Miscellany of the Celtic Society, pp. 233–86; Darren McGettigan, Red Hugh O’Donnell and the Nine Years War (Dublin, 2005), pp. 93–100. The definitive study is now McGurk, Sir Henry Docwra, pp. 53–203. Also, see a recent republication of O’Donovan’s version of Docwra’s text in, William Kelly (ed.),



•  introduction  • 25

Docwra’s Derry: A Narrative of Events in North-west Derry, 1600–1604 (Belfast, 2003). 109 For another example of the slow journey from conception to inception see Jon G. Crawford, ‘The Origins of the Court of Castle Chamber: A Star Chamber Jurisdiction in Ireland’, in AJLH, 24:1 (Jan., 1980), 22–55; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 173–94. 110 See Heffernan (ed.), ‘Six Tracts’.

26

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

1

•

Conquest or conciliation? The policy debate in Henrician Ireland, c.1515–15461

As with so much else in the Tudor dominions the reign of Henry VIII was of critical importance in defining how government policy was shaped in Ireland during the sixteenth century. Historians of the period, long aware of this fact, have closely examined a number of treatises written on Ireland at the time with a view to determining how the Tudor conquest of Ireland or indeed efforts to constitutionally ‘reform’ the country came about. This focus has not been entirely wayward as the treatises written at this time introduced the great majority of policy options which would be attempted in Tudor Ireland. However, there has been a wayward tendency in the historiography of Henrician Ireland to focus on the more benign aspects of government policy at the time.2 In part this is owing to a failure to correctly identify what senior officials and other interested parties in Dublin, the Pale and further afield actually wanted to happen in Ireland. They were, with few exceptions, seeking a renewed programme of regional conquest beginning in those areas immediately adjoining the Pale which were controlled by Irish septs such as the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs in Carlow and Wicklow, or ‘south Leinster’ as they termed it, and the O’Connors and O’Mores in the midlands of Ireland. When the whole range of treatises written during this period and other government correspondence and papers are consulted this becomes quite clear. Admittedly, these same officials could put forward more conciliatory proposals aimed at introducing English law and resort to the courts. For instance, some began to suggest that regional councils should be established in Munster, Connacht and Ulster with the aim of extending the common law into those regions. Others argued that the king should attempt not to conquer the foremost Irish lords such as O’Neill and O’Donnell in Ulster but should have them take their lands of him and attempt to have them anglicise their lands. Yet this was seen, to a large extent, as a cheap means



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 27

of pacifying these greater lords so that they would not interfere if the crown attempted to militarily reduce south Leinster and the midlands. What follows demonstrates that the approach which was overwhelmingly canvassed for in the treatises produced in the decade following the Kildare Rebellion, by both Old English and New English officials alike, was to undertake a programme of regional conquest beginning in south Leinster. Despite a flood of treatises to England promoting this approach, though, the king baulked at the cost. Subsequently, a cheaper strategy of conciliation, now known as ‘surrender and regrant’, was developed in the late 1530s and from late 1540 was implemented by Anthony St Leger and Thomas Cusack. This approach though was only followed energetically until 1543. Thereafter thoughts turned once again to military conquest with the midlands lordships of the O’Connors and O’Mores now increasingly viewed as a region for possible intervention.Coercive military engagement was the approach overwhelmingly favoured throughout this period by ‘reform’ treatise writers. The course of religious reform under Henry is also examined in this ­chapter, highlighting the emergence of a number of the key policies utilised to aid the spread of the Protestant faith in sixteenth-century Ireland. Finally, the emergence in the treatises of a number of strategies for dealing with regional problems such as the incursions of the Scots in the north-east and the weakened state of crown rule in Munster are explored. However, before addressing the course of policy debate in the decade or so after the Kildare Rebellion we first need to turn to the earliest ‘reform’ treatises largely dating to the years 1515–1534, for the ideas expressed in these papers were to exert an enormous influence not just on how policy developed in Ireland during the sixteenth century but even on how the Irish polity was viewed and conquest thereof justified right down to the end of the century. Discovering the state of Ireland: The early Tudor treatises, c .1515–1534

It is generally assumed that individuals who turned their thoughts to Ireland in the sixteenth century had sources from which to derive ideas, above all in the writings of the twelfth-century polymath, Gerald of Wales.3 However, few treatises written on Ireland in Tudor times evince the influence of Gerald or other works such as those of the fourteenth-century Benedictine monk, Ranulph Higden, whose Polychronicon included sections on Ireland.4 5Indeed, as Christopher Maginn and Steven Ellis have demonstrated, the early Tudors were markedly ignorant of even the geography and landscape of Ireland. The reasons for this were alighted onto in one of the earliest Tudor ‘reform’ treatises. Here it was argued that the kings of England in the fifteenth century had ‘not substantially seen to the land’ as a result of ‘the dissention in England

28

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

betwixt the houses of Lancaster and York for the title of the crown … whereby they have not had opportunity to provide for Ireland’.6 But as the Wars of the Roses drew to a close, and Henry VII consolidated his hold on England, Ireland became the object of renewed attention.7 Accordingly, the earliest Tudor treatises (which became foundational texts for later writers) were crucial in providing the elementary details of the history, geography and political landscape of Ireland to future writers. The first extant ‘reform’ treatise for the Tudor period, the anonymously authored ‘A Description of the Power of Irishmen of this land of Ireland’, dates to sometime in the early-to-mid-1490s. It may well have been commissioned as part of an abortive attempt by Henry VII, with the backing of Pope Alexander VI, to launch a comprehensive programme for the ‘reform’ of Ireland following the conclusion of Edward Poynings term as lord deputy in December 1495.8 If the ‘Description’ was not commissioned as part of the preparation for this stillborn ‘reform’ programme then the date of composition is suggestive that the paper was drawn up by an individual in response to these early Tudor attempts at revitalising crown rule in Ireland. The ‘Description’ began by asserting that English power in Ireland now prevailed only within the four counties of the Dublin-centred Pale. An anatomisation of Ireland beyond this bastion of English rule followed. Beginning with Leinster the chief lords of each province with the names of the countries they controlled were given, followed by a listing of the number of horsemen, galloglass and kern which each commanded. As such the forces of the chief lords of Leinster, Desmond, Thomond, Connacht, Ulster and Meath were given in detail. The ‘Description’ concluded with a number of points on the allegedly highly militarised and anarchic nature of Irish society. These were epitomised in the failure to adopt succession through primogeniture and in the lords’ taking of goods from their tenantry. Hence, in this the earliest surviving Tudor ‘reform’ treatise many of the standard characteristics of that discourse began to emerge, notably a view about the backwardness of Gaelic society and the exaggeratedly militarised nature of the country. But, more substantially, the anatomisation of the country into lordships and their description according to the military power available to each took hold. Not only did this feature in dozens of treatises written over the course of the sixteenth century, but the names, figures and lay-out found in the ‘Description’ were being copied verbatim as late as the 1590s.9 A number of noteworthy documents were composed in the years that followed. Writing to the seventh earl of Ormond in 1498, the sometime chief baron of the exchequer, John Wise, called for the ‘reform’ of Ireland and proposed both the putting away of ‘coign and livery’ and the erection of a fort near Carrick-on-Shannon to ‘resist all the Irishemen in this land’.10 Wise made note of his having recently written to Henry VII providing information on Ireland and he may well have also been the compiler of the ‘Description’.11



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 29

Sometime late in the reign of Henry VII one Edmond Golding sent a letter to Ormond in which he expressed dismay at the cultural degeneracy of the Pale. He noted, in particular, that the Gaelic practice of riding without a saddle had been widely embraced and that English apparel had become less common even in the Pale. Accordingly, he urged Ormond to act to curb the encroachments of Gaelic military retinues into the four counties. Golding was the father-inlaw of Patrick Finglas and he singled out William Darcy of Platten for praise in his letter as an English cultural stalwart.12 Both figures would shortly play a central role in early Tudor discourse on Ireland. Writings are extant for one further figure around this time. Christopher Cusack, who served as sheriff of Meath in 1511, entered a series of treatises into his commonplace book around this time listing the principal landowners of the county and their military capabilities.13 This closely paralleled the concerns of the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ and may have been designed to demonstrate the resources available should direct crown rule be reintroduced in Ireland. While these writings are the earliest extant documents for a ‘reform’ discourse in Tudor Ireland the origins of the ‘reform’ movement have understandably been traced to 1515. At least five treatises may have been composed at this time, a burst of writing which was possibly due to rumours of Henry VIII visiting Ireland and plans for a parliament.14 Somewhat important is a brief ‘Description of Ireland’ which attempted to define Ireland’s geographical extent, before breaking down the five ‘portions’ of the country into cantreds, hundreds and baronies. The purpose of this was to emphasise the revenue that could be generated in Ireland if the king was able to collect a subsidy of half a mark (6s. 8d.) on every ploughland.15 The ‘Description’ was a widely read piece in the sixteenth century, with the geographical description it provided copied into many other treatises, notably versions of the late Elizabethan viceroy, John Perrot’s highly significant ‘Discourse’ written in 1581.16 Though brief and concerned with rather more mundane matters than the other treatises written around this time the ‘Description’ should possibly garner more attention than it has, for, crucially (together with the earlier ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’), it provided observers with the basic information on the physical and political geography of Ireland needed to allow them to further analyse the country. While the ‘Description’ has been relatively ignored, the importance of the series of ‘Articles’ submitted by William Darcy at Greenwich on 23 June 1515 has been well noted.17 This brief paper was primarily concerned with the degeneracy of those of English descent in Ireland.18 This was witnessed most forcefully in the adoption of the system of Gaelic bastard feudal exactions by the great English lords since the time of the sixth earl of Desmond, James FitzGerald (d. 1463). The most prevalent of these was ‘coign and livery’ derived from the Gaelic coinnmheadh and English ‘livery’ and generally meaning the taking of

30

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

hospitality by the lord from his tenants and his billeting of his troops on their lands.19 Additional signs of this degeneracy were seen in the adoption of Irish dress, intermarriage with the Irish of Ireland and the decline of archery in the Pale, while the common law was now not even wholly obeyed in the four shires of the Pale: Kildare, Meath, Dublin and Louth. Overshadowing all this was the present viceroy, Gerald FitzGerald, ninth earl of Kildare, whose own degeneracy, as Darcy presented it, was at the heart of the lordship’s decay.20 Given the brevity of Darcy’s paper it is curious that he has been referred to as ‘the father of the movement for political reformation in Ireland’.21 Moreover the ‘Articles’ simply offered an analysis of the cultural degeneracy prevalent in the lordship, and while they were important in this regard, Darcy offered no proposals on how to reverse the problems he identified. This, though, was not the case with the two other treatises possibly written in 1515. The anonymously authored ‘The State of Ireland and Plan for its Reformation’ and ‘A Breviat of the Conquest of Ireland and of the Decay of the Same’ by the second justice of common pleas and future chief baron of the exchequer, Patrick Finglas, are the two most important early Tudor treatises on Ireland. The date of composition of neither text is wholly certain but there is strong circumstantial and internal evidence to posit that the ‘State’ was written around 1515, while the earliest conjectured date of composition of the ‘Breviat’ is generally accepted as 1515. It is quite possible that the ‘State’ was written by the archbishop of Armagh, John Kite, who had recently arrived in Ireland and had written to Thomas Wolsey in 1514 on the need to ‘reform’ Ireland.22 Yet what has been relatively underappreciated to date is that the ‘State’ was adapted from a fifteenth-­ century work known as the Salus Populi written by the pseudonymous ‘Pander’.23 The clearest evidence for this is gleaned from a copy of the paper in the British Library which contains some brief ancillary passages at the beginning and end that do not appear in the copy of the paper published in the nineteenth century. In one of these the author explains that his purpose in writing the ‘State’ was to condense the principal points of what imaginably was this earlier Latin poem into English prose: Thies and many other values wherein this land excelleth other lands the saide Pander showeth in his said boke named Salus Populi with other diuers instructions touching the reformacion of this land, so couertly closed vnder poesies laureate and paynted with so many colors of [nether?] and dities of ould authorities that it passeth my wyt to expresse thintent therof clerely in Englishe, yet because the saide booke is directed to the kinge and his counsell, and percase som of them be not acquaynted with poesie and meter, I have conceaved this litle abstract in thenglishe tonge out of the sayd book, wherby they may vnderstand the whole effect therof in substance without any other comment.24



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 31

Deciphering the original layout of the ‘State’ presents further difficulties, primarily as a number of additional surviving copies exhibit great variation in the arrangement of material.25 However, the version printed in the nineteenth century and the slightly more expansive copy in the British Library largely correlate and likely reflect the original layout of the treatise.26 The ‘State’, as adapted from the Salus Populi, begins with a lengthy analysis of the political landscape of Ireland not wholly dissimilar to that found in the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’, though in this instance the concern was more with the degeneracy of the English of Ireland than with military capabilities.27 Having surveyed the political geography of the country the author moves on to an analysis of the perceived anarchy of the Irish polity, noting the extortions of the lords and the decay of the lordship in the face of a viceroy who himself had recourse to ‘coign and livery’.28 The second half of the paper then turned to a consideration of how the country might be ‘put in order’, establishing the popular metaphor that would regularly be used by commentators on Ireland throughout the century of applying medicine to a diseased body.29 Two questions were first put to the reader. First, could the king’s subjects be taught to use crossbows and handguns, and, second, could weapons and harnesses be made available for the king’s subjects to buy in the port towns?30 The import of these questions was quickly made apparent as a proposal for the wholesale conquest of Ireland was laid out. A captain was to be established in Ireland with command of 500 men (200 mounted archers, 100 mounted gunners, 100 Welsh spearmen, and 100 horsemen after the Irish manner) to aid the deputy to put the country in order. This, it was envisaged, would take three years and should first be undertaken in Meath, specifically the barony of Kenlis. Elaborate proposals were then made for the erection of a brand of county militia with particular emphasis laid on encouragement of archery. Once it proved successful in Kenlis this process should then be extended throughout Meath and then into the rest of the English parts of Ireland, notably in Leinster and Munster.31 However, this was but the first step in the ‘reform’ of Ireland, for once the English parts of the country had been ‘put in order’ the conquest and settlement of Gaelic Ireland was to be undertaken. The two areas focused on were the part of Leinster lying between Wexford and Dublin, or ‘south Leinster’ as it would soon become known, and Ulster, particularly the region along the eastern seaboard in Antrim and Down.32 Some conciliation was seen and the ‘Pander’ did suggest the incorporation of the greater Irish chiefs by making them lords of parliament.33 The overall significance of the ‘State’ is hard to evaluate. The Salus Populi from which it would appear to be derived is almost certainly not extant and as such it is impossible to determine the extent to which the ‘State’ was simply an abstract of this earlier work or offered significantly new statements on Irish policy. The survival of copies is also somewhat curious with most appearing

32

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

in antiquarian collections of the seventeenth century. The State Paper copy provides the sole early sixteenth-century survival. Most significantly, there are no copies among the Irish papers of William Cecil, Francis Walsingham, Robert Beale or George Carew where copies of such a critical early Tudor treatise would typically be found. Despite this, the overall bent of the ‘State’ is very clear. It offered what appears to have been the first comprehensive programme for a strategy of military conquest in Ireland produced under the Tudors, though derived in an unquantifiable fashion from an earlier work. This too was the purpose of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ though his proposals were more limited and ultimately far more influential. This treatise may first have been written in 1515, though the dating of the ‘Breviat’ is a matter of significant contention. Maginn and Ellis have recently argued that Finglas initially composed the historical sections of the treatise in 1515 and subsequently updated it in 1529, 1536 and 1537, adding his prescriptive proposals for ‘reform’ at these later times. It is probable that proposals to dissolve a number of monastic houses and use them for the colonisation of south Leinster were added in the mid-1530s. However, the supposition that nothing but the historical section was written in 1515 is grounded upon some endorsements in late ­sixteenth-century copies of the text found among the papers of George Carew, a collection in which many treatises were incorrectly dated.34 It seems more likely that the paper was finished by 1535 when Patrick’s son, Thomas, delivered a completed copy of it at court, though as to when the ‘Breviat’ was first begun, conclusive evidence seems elusive.35 Whatever the composition history of the ‘Breviat’, the text itself is relatively simple. It first provided a historical overview of the conquest and subsequent decay of the English lordship since the twelfth century, before outlining a proposal to begin a programme of regional conquest.36 This, Finglas argued very succinctly, should be begun in Leinster with the reduction of the lordships of the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs, while the strategy to be employed was a system of nucleated garrisons at locations such as Wexford, Ferns, Carlow, Leighlin and Arklow around which English settlements would be erected. Evidently, 1515 was easily the most significant year in the development of early Tudor political discourse on Ireland. Yet further tracts were to follow. There are numerous extant copies of ‘Ordinances and Provisions for this Land of Ireland’ possibly written in 1519 by William Darcy, a paper comprised of 110 itemised points on the ‘reform’ of the lordship. These recommended a variety of measures ranging from the prohibition of Irish dress and the Gaelic exactions to the regulation of trade in the Pale and the cutting of passes in the march region.37 One further paper, ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland, and of the Remedies thereof’ written in the mid-1520s, most likely by the



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 33

Butler agent, Robert Cowley, has garnered slightly greater attention than the ‘Ordinances’. The ‘Discourse’ presented arguably the most comprehensive programme for the ‘reform’ of Ireland. Much of the text was concerned with the commonplace analysis of the political and social decay of the lordship with a strong anti-Geraldine bent and a more subtle endorsement of the Butlers is in evidence. This factional bias also influenced the ‘reform’ programme outlined. In brief, this recommended that the extension of the Pale should be begun by reducing the lordships of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs and the O’Byrnes. A lord lieutenant should be appointed to oversee this with the duke of Norfolk recommended. A standing army of 4,000 men should be established to implement this military campaign. To see off any intervention from elsewhere in Ireland the author proposed that indentures be negotiated with O’Neill, O’Donnell and MacWilliam Burke, whereby they would surrender their lands to the king and receive them back in return for paying rents to the crown which would also provide funds to finance this ‘reform’ programme. If these ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements did not prove successful at maintaining these lords in peace while MacMurrough was being reduced a policy of divide and rule would be utilised whereby lords such as the Clandeboye O’Neills were incited against the O’Neills of Tyrone and so forth. Consequently, the reduction of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs and O’Byrnes could proceed. As with Finglas, the author proposed a system of nucleated garrisons which would eventually develop into English settlements. Following this ‘particular reformation’ a more ‘general reformation’ could be commenced, beginning with the reduction of lordships such as the O’Connors and O’Mores westwards to the Shannon. There is a paradoxical element to the ‘Discourse’ in that only one copy of the paper survives and there is little tangible evidence of its influence. But much of the programme bore a striking resemblance to what was undertaken in the late 1540s. This along with the clear articulation of policies such as ‘surrender and regrant’ suggest that the ‘Discourse’ is one of the most important of these early Tudor foundational treatises.38 A final paper merits considerable attention, not least because it has been relatively ignored compared with those just recited. ‘Certain causes of the mysordre and debate in Irlande’ was almost certainly written in late 1532 or 1533 by Robert Cowley’s son, Walter.39 The text is usually ascribed to the master of the rolls, John Alen; however, internal evidence indicates an author who was familiar with the workings of the Irish Council, but was not a member.40 He also proclaims himself to have been born in Ireland though his father was born in England.41 While Walter was certainly born in Ireland there is some uncertainty regarding Robert’s background, the near contemporary Book of Howth asserting that Robert was a New English settler rather than a scion of the Old English Cowleys of Kilkenny.42 Moreover, the text is

34

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

heavily ­pro-Butler, as the Cowleys were, and indicates that the author was writing in England where Walter was in 1532 and 1533. The ‘Certain causes’ was largely an unrelenting assault on the government of the earl of Kildare. There was little new in this of itself but Cowley’s prescriptions for ‘reform’ are noteworthy. His proposals for confronting the Gaelic lordships mirrored his father’s prescriptions in seeking the pacification of numerous lordships in south Leinster and the midlands, and a drive westwards towards the Shannon. Beyond this the spectre of the Scots problem in the north-east was raised in a manner which presaged the discourse on that issue for several decades to come. Finally, and most importantly, Cowley recommended that a provincial president and council be established in Munster, the first recommendation of its kind in the extant records.43 Consequently, the ‘Certain causes’ must be accorded some considerable attention among the treatises produced in Ireland prior to the Kildare Rebellion. The importance of the early Tudor treatises on Ireland has been acknowledged for some time, but studies of them have often created a false impression of these tracts. In particular, Brendan Bradshaw in his Irish Constitutional Revolution presented a misleading interpretation of four of these documents.44 Here it was suggested that Darcy’s ‘Articles’, the ‘State’ (c.1515), Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ and the ‘Discourse’ written in the mid-1520s constituted evidence of a movement in the Pale which sought to ‘reform’ Gaelic Ireland along conciliatory lines. Furthermore, it was suggested that these texts reveal that this movement was influenced by the tenets of Christian humanism. Only the ‘State’ evinces any signs of having been influenced by humanist thought,45 Darcy’s ‘Articles’ are concerned wholly with analysis and offer nothing by way of a programme of prescriptive government ‘reform’ and most importantly three of the texts singled out put forward proposals for military intervention in Gaelic Ireland accompanied by renewed English settlement. Moreover, the fact that these papers were often written from a partisan perspective, and specifically a pro-Butler standpoint which sought a diminution in the power and influence of the Geraldine earls of Kildare was largely elided in Bradshaw’s analysis. Nevertheless, Bradshaw’s recognition of the importance of these texts was quite correct. A number of key concerns, for instance, were established in them, notably with the degeneracy and Gaelicisation of the English of Ireland and the prevalence of ‘coign and livery’, while the political geography of Ireland and the relative military strength of individual lordships were itemised. Therefore, documents such as the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ and the ‘State’ provided the basic intelligence needed for anyone considering Irish policy. Indeed, the relatively quick response of the metropolitan government to these early treatises is seen in the Ordinances for the Government of Ireland published in 1534 which was based heavily on the ‘Ordinances’



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 35

compiled around 1519. Although not an exact copy of the treatise the printed Ordinances were clearly written with the paper to hand and substantial portions are copied verbatim from the treatise.46 As to how to proceed to ‘reform’ the country these treatises were equally as forthcoming. Military engagement, English settlement, cultural ‘reform’, prohibition of Gaelic social mores and many other proposals that dominated government policy in sixteenth-­ century Ireland were all recommended in the earliest of these Tudor treatises. Equally, more conciliatory approaches such as the negotiation of indentures with Gaelic lords whereby they would be formally recognised as subjects of the crown were proposed. However, these were never to be used exclusively and were usually adjuncts to more concerted military action, often with the goal of pacifying more powerful lords such as O’Neill while the reduction and ­settlement of those parts of Gaelic Ireland adjoining the Pale were undertaken. The importance of these texts is borne out in their use by later writers. Even before Finglas’s death in 1537 his proposals for south Leinster were being incorporated into the writings of senior ministers in Ireland.47 In 1556 the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ was copied wholesale in a tract probably written by the former lord chancellor, John Alen, with some additions to address the political considerations of the 1550s.48 The ‘Description’ and the figures given for the military retinues available to each lord continued to be copied verbatim into treatises written as late as the 1590s.49 Similarly, a ‘Discourse’ written around 1579, almost certainly by a young William Russell, was copied wholesale from the analysis of the political geography found at the outset of the ‘State of Ireland’ (c.1515).50 Into the seventeenth century these texts continued to be regarded as especially significant and many copies were still being made at this time, while luminaries such as John Davies and James Ware drew attention to Finglas’s and Darcy’s writings.51 Yet these treatises were not being written in a theoretical bubble. Considerable attempts were made throughout the reign of Henry VIII to re-impose direct crown rule over Ireland. In 1520 the earl of Surrey, Thomas Howard, was appointed viceroy of Ireland in the office of lord lieutenant. His brief, as directed by Henry VIII, was to bring the Irish closer to obedience, using his discretion to employ a moderate policy or more severe methods depending on what the circumstances required.52 Although Surrey’s term in office proved brief he did come to a conclusion about how crown rule could be extended beyond the Pale. This was outlined in a letter-tract which he sent to the king in 1521 in which he argued that two options were available to Henry: After my poure opinion, this londe shall never be broght to goode order and dew subjeccion, but only by conquest; wich is, at Your Graces plesure, to be broght to pas twoo maner off ways. One way is, iff Your Grace woll one yere sett on hande to wyn one contree, and a nother yere, another contree, and so contynew, tyll all at

36

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

length be won. After myn opinion, the lest nomber, that Your Grace must occupie, can be no les then 2,500 …

while, ‘iff Your Grace woll, in more brieff tyme, have your purpose broght to pas, and to set upon the conqwest in dyvers places, at one tyme; then, after my poure opinion, 6,000 men is the lest nomber that Your Grace must occupie’.53 Surrey’s prescription for either a piecemeal extension of English rule utilising an average-sized garrison or the employment of a large force to speedily effect a full conquest was, in retrospect, prophetic of how Tudor rule in Ireland would actually develop. Neither of these approaches was adopted at the time. Nevertheless, the 1520s saw continued efforts by Wolsey to ‘reform’ crown government in Ireland. These efforts were addressed in considerable detail some time ago by D.B. Quinn and have more recently been studied by Fiona Fitzsimons.54 What these studies demonstrate is that direct crown rule in sixteenth-century Ireland did not develop in response to the destruction of the house of Kildare in the mid-1530s, but rather the Kildare Rebellion occurred in response to these attempts to re-impose control from England in the 1520s. What also seems clear is that these endeavours in the 1520s and early 1530s were directly impeded by the efforts of the Geraldines to maintain their position of p ­ re-eminence in the governance of the lordship. Therefore, the decision to execute the tenth earl of Kildare and his uncles in late 1535 produced an environment in which a new approach to the government of the country was not simply desired but wholly necessary. We now turn to examine this critical policy debate. Promoting conquest: The ‘reform’ treatises and the reduction of south Leinster

On 26 June 1536 the lord deputy of Ireland, Leonard Grey, and his council, including the master of the rolls, John Alen, the under-treasurer, William Brabazon, the bishop of Meath, Edward Staples, the chief justice of common pleas, Thomas Luttrell and the chief baron of the exchequer, Patrick Finglas, addressed a letter to King Henry VIII from Dublin stating their opinion on what direction Irish policy should take.55 The government of the lordship had been transformed in the preceding two years. Previously, the lordship had been dominated by the Geraldine earls of Kildare who acted as a bridge between crown government and Gaelic Ireland beyond the Pale. But the destruction of the house of Kildare following an ill-judged decision to revolt in 1534 had created a power vacuum in Ireland, particularly so in Leinster.56 The question of how best to fill that vacuum was what concerned Grey and his co-authors in their letter of 26 June 1536.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 37

The lord deputy and council were emphatic in their support for a new departure declaring that, ‘such oportunytie, meanes, and waies for coquesting, subduying and reforming of your hole domynion’ had been made available ‘as the like hath nat ben seen theise hunderith yeres past, and God knoweth whether the like shall ever be seen agayne in our daies without a ferther greate charge’.57 They then noted the decay of the lordship and the growing strength of the Gaelic lords. But there was a solution. The key to reforming the lordship was to begin by reducing the Gaelic parts of south Leinster which lay between Dublin and Wexford. As such the council was clear in its recommendations: May it please Your Highnes to call unto your gracious memory, how ofte and many tymes and for the more parte contynually, we have advertized Your Grace and your Counsaille, that Your Highnes, ne your heiers, shulde be at any assured stay to have your domynion defended from Irishmen, without your greate charges to be sustayned a new, ever within few yeres, onleste ye did conqueste Mcmurho, Omurho, Obyrne, Othole, and theire kinsmen, which inhabite bytwene Dublin and Waxforde, inhabiting the same with Inglishmen, or, at the leaste, subdue and reforme the saide parsons to a due obedience.58

This was how Grey and the council members perceived the state of the lordship in the summer of 1536. This proposal, to ‘reform’ or ‘reduce’ south Leinster, particularly the O’Toole, O’Byrne and MacMurrough Kavanagh lordships, was the most prominent issue raised in the treatises produced during the late Henrician period. But it was not a novel suggestion in 1536. It was a paramount concern in a number of the foundational treatises written in the 1510s and 1520s. For instance, the ‘State’ written in 1515 recommended the establishment of settlements in the region from ‘the cyttye of Dublyn to the porttownes of Wexford and Rosse’.59 While the programme of regional conquest outlined in ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’ ranged westward as far as the Shannon, the principal focus was on reducing the MacMurrough Kavanaghs and the O’Byrnes.60 On the eve of the Kildare Rebellion in 1534 a further proposal to this effect was made by Patrick Finglas’s son, Thomas, in a ‘Report’ presented at court. This suggested that the O’Byrnes, O’Mores and MacMurroughs should be ‘reformed’. It was made clear that a certain degree of confiscation would be involved in this, Finglas recommending that the king should ‘tak out and reserv to Your Grace, and your heires, land, forest, and revenus, such as shalbe thogh most best plesaunt and profitable for you’.61 But the most significant Henrician paper to propose the reduction of south Leinster was Patrick Finglas’s ‘Breviat’. Here Finglas very unambiguously identified the MacMurrough Kavanagh, O’Byrne and O’Toole lordships for settlement, asserting, ‘first our souerayne lord the kyng shold extend his gracious power for the reformacion of Leynyster, wyche is the key and

38

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

hyeway for reformacion of the remenant, and is sytuate in an angle betwixt Waterford and Dublin, wherin noo Iryshe man dwell but the Kauanaghis of whom McMorowe is captayne … and the Byrnes and Toles, wyche was not in this 100 yeres better to be conquered and expulsed than they be nowe’.62 But the importance of the ‘Breviat’ is far greater as here Finglas provided the strategic approach which would come to dominate ideas from the 1530s onwards on how such a programme of regional conquest should be undertaken. This revolved around the establishment of nucleated garrisons which would eventually evolve into settlements. Through this a network of garrisons would be established within, and on the periphery of, south Leinster at Old Ross, Carlow, Leighlin, Wexford, Ferns, Wicklow and Arklow. Clearly then there was an established view among policy speculators prior to the Kildare Rebellion that the lordships of south Leinster should be reduced and the Pale extended into the region. While the view that the Gaelic lordships of Wicklow and Carlow should be reduced pertained in the opening decades of the sixteenth century it did not become a burning issue until the 1530s as a number of factors coalesced to make such an enterprise doubly attractive. One motivating factor was the passage of the Act of Absentees through the Irish Reformation parliament. This saw a considerable extent of land in south Leinster resumed to the crown and these estates were consequently available for granting to individuals who could utilise them as a foundation for settling Wicklow and Carlow.63 Moreover, as the dissolution of Ireland’s religious houses was undertaken from the mid-1530s it became possible that sites located in and around the lordships of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs, O’Byrnes and O’Tooles could be dissolved and granted to figures willing to undertake the reduction of those lordships. Indeed, in his ‘Breviat’ Finglas recommended the allocation of these houses to English-born settlers.64 Additionally, the resurgent power of the Butlers in the aftermath of the demise of the Kildare Geraldines provided a further incentive for intervention in south Leinster. Not only did the Butlers hold extensive lands around Arklow, but many of those pushing for an aggressive intervention in Wicklow and Carlow were advocates for the Butlers. Clearly, though, the most critical determining factor was the destruction of the house of Kildare. The Geraldines had mediated the lordship’s relations with the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles since the late fifteenth century.65 A new modus operandi for governing the Pale’s southern borders was consequently now required. The solution that a great proportion of senior government officials would begin to favour from 1535 onwards was to initiate a programme of regional conquest in south Leinster. A further peripheral concern, though a highly significant one for later developments, was over the midlands lordships of the O’Connors and O’Mores, which were often identified as problematic lordships in which coercive intervention might also be required. From 1535

•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 39



Table 1  Number of extant treatises by year, 1532–1543 Year

1532

1533

1534 1535

1536 1537

1538 1539 1540 1541

1542 1543

No. of treatises

0

1

2

10

7

2

3

11

6

2

3

1

Source: Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78

those officials who had become convinced of the need for the reduction of south Leinster began pressing their case to Henry and Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell himself was conscious of the need for a new departure querying in 1535 in a memorandum of his own whether ‘it shalbe expedient to begynne a conquest or a reformation’ and ‘how tharmy shall aduannce at marche and what enterpryse shalbe takyn at hand’.66 This campaign would aim to fully convince both the king and his chief minister that the reduction of Leinster was not just feasible, but desirable, and lasted until 1537 when the king baulked at the cost of such measures. Nevertheless, officials continued to recommend such an approach into the 1540s and, as Chapter 2 shows, there are very significant links between this earlier campaign and the initiation of a strategy of conquest in the midlands from 1546 onwards. This lobbying for the reduction of south Leinster had a substantial impact on treatise writing in the 1530s (see table 1). Prior to the Kildare Rebellion the composition of tracts had been quite sparse, with some years seeing one or two such documents appear often followed by a year or two of complete inactivity. This situation pertained up to 1534 at which time there began a steady increase in treatise composition, peaking in 1536 and 1537 at the height of the campaign to initiate a programme of conquest. However, this temporary surge was halted with the decision to adopt a cheaper policy of conciliation and during the years when ‘surrender and regrant’ was at the forefront of government policy in the early 1540s treatise composition became almost inert, a development which is elaborated on later in this chapter. The first proposals for the reduction of Leinster were prepared in the closing months of 1535. It is quite significant that these were produced by William Brabazon. In a series of letter-tracts sent to Cromwell in September 1535 the under-treasurer laid out clearly his view that aggressive intervention in Gaelic Ireland should be undertaken. In particular, the king should seek ‘to banisshe the Tooles, the Burnes, and the Cavenaghs’ in south Leinster and then ‘procede further into other parties’.67 Brabazon’s suggestion to ‘procede further into other parties’ was expanded on in a separate treatise written at this time in which he argued for a plantation of much of Kildare. Here he stated that the majority of the remaining Kildare Geraldines should be put to death and the earldom attainted. Five hundred ‘northern men’ should then be planted

40

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

in Ireland with 300 in Kildare. Further lands could be obtained by launching an inquiry into who had supported the Geraldines.68 Therefore Brabazon very early established himself as one of the most strident advocates of a forward policy of conquest in Leinster. He would continue to do so into 1536 when, in a wide-ranging series of ‘Remembrances’, he clamoured for the ‘reform’ of the Gaelic lordships of the region as ‘the rote and gall of all mischeif’ in Ireland.69 No more concrete recommendations for the reduction of south Leinster are extant for 1535. The following year, though, saw policy papers promoting this approach regularly arrive in England for the king or Cromwell’s perusal. One of the principal advocates of this approach was the master of the rolls, John Alen, who composed a letter-tract to Henry VIII on 6 October 1536.70 Here he claimed that ‘if those parties of Leynster were conquest, reformed, or subdued to your due obedience, wherin McMurgho, the Byrnes, and Tholes, nowe inhabite’ then it would ‘kepe this lande in a staye … and yit have a yerely revenues into Englande’.71 Furthermore, it was suggested that five or six forts should be set up in O’Connor’s country to recover that area, which would also serve the purpose of preventing the inroads of the O’Briens across the Shannon.72 Alen has consistently been identified as a moderate.73 However, his aversion towards the Irish was quite acute and in his letter to the king he stated that he would banish the inhabitants of those regions entirely were it feasible, but believed that if they were ‘all banished … it were not a litle difficultie to inhabite the lande agayne’.74 The debate over whether encroachments should be made into south Leinster become most intense around the time of Alen’s writing, in the summer and autumn of 1536. To this period date several treatises by the Cowleys, Robert and his son Walter.75 One of these, a tract addressed to Cromwell by Robert, was unquestionably the most belligerent document composed to lobby Henry and Cromwell to undertake the wholesale subjugation of south Leinster and the midlands.76 Cowley’s proposal was largely derived from Finglas whom Cowley followed in recommending the establishment of nucleated garrisons at locations such as Arklow, Wicklow and Ferns. But Cowley’s proposal went much further. Having made these proposals for south Leinster, he went on to sketch a means to advance into the other provinces. In Ulster, Carrickfergus and Carlingford were to be re-edified, while a walled town was to be constructed at Armagh. Similar provisions were outlined for Munster and Connacht. However, Cowley’s ideas were severe not just in the breadth of the conquest imagined but also in the methods to be employed, which included devastation of the countryside to induce famine: The verey lyving of the Irishery doth clierly consist in twoo thinges; and take awey the same from them, and they are past for ever to recover, or yet noy any subject in Irland. Take first from them their cornes, and as moche as can not be husbanded, and had into the handes of suche as shall dwell and enhabite in their landes



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 41 and countree, to brenne and distroye the same, so as the Irisshery shall not lyve therupon; then to have their cataill and beastes.77

This is the earliest explicit recommendation of what is now termed the policy of scorched earth and as such is highly significant as the forebear of Spenser and other Elizabethan advocates of this approach. While Cowley was preparing this highly coercive programme his son Walter also composed a treatise. This was more limited in scale than most of the schemes proposed at the time, with Walter recommending the establishment of a garrison of 300 men at Ferns, which along with a further force of 200 under the earl of Ossory would begin ‘to wyn the castels, holdes, and catail of the Kewanaghes and Briues, whiche lieth betwen Dublin [and] thEnglishe pale … for to inhabyt’.78 The treatises noted so far were all written by individual writers, but there was clearly accord among these senior officials. The most tangible demonstration of this was in the collective preparation of a lengthy policy paper early in 1537. ‘A Memoriall, or a Note, for the wynnyng of Leynster’ was a memorandum drawn up by the lord deputy and council as a means to convince Henry of the appeal of planting the lands of the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs.79 The document was dispatched to England on 10 February 1537 with a covering letter from the council which stated that they had drawn up the project to convince the king that ‘no interprise mought be so honorable, neither more profectable for Your Highnes, than the reducing of Leynster to your obedience’.80 The signatories to this covering letter included Grey, Ossory, James Butler, William Brabazon, Thomas Luttrell, Patrick Finglas, Gerald Aylmer and John Alen. The scheme outlined was extensive and, again, modelled around the proposals made by Finglas in the ‘Breviat’. The three lordships were to be emptied of inhabitants in the initial phase. It was then envisaged that some 10–12,000 settlers would be brought in, some 3–4,000 of whom would be taken from among the Irish of England. Following Finglas, a series of walled towns and castles were to be occupied, specifically Wicklow, Arklow, Ferns, Enniscorthy, Ross, Leighlin, Carlow and Castledermot. Estates were then to be granted to the younger sons of English gentry families with title. For instance, one was to be made lord of Wicklow with a grant of land between Wicklow and Arklow. Each of these would maintain a certain number of soldiers who would be established as freeholders under the new lords and captains. To preside over this new nobility, it was envisaged that an earldom of Carlow would be created with estates in Carlow, Ferns and Idrone. As such it was likely envisaged that the support of the English aristocracy could be secured by holding out the hope of acquiring further titles. To cement the conquest, it was believed a garrison of 1,600 would be necessary of which 600 were to be under the newly created earl with the remainder commanded by the lord deputy.81

42

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

The sheer scale of this enterprise was equalled by just one other initiative. This originated not among senior government officials but within a circle of county notables in Wexford.82 The surviving evidence of their plans is a memorandum addressed to Cromwell in the summer of 1537 by Walter Brown, John Devereux and Alexander Keating.83 The trio were roundly critical of the settlement which had placed William St Loe as seneschal, along with his lieutenant, Watkin Ap Howell, and just 46 men, in Wexford to hold the county. As they saw it a force of even 300 would ‘withowt the ayde of the said counte wortths do no good’. Rather, they proposed, ‘that 5 or 6 thousyn parte souldiors, parte husboune, and other crafty men, to tylle and inhabite the lands betwix Dulyng and Wexfford withyn litill contynuans wolde be a good benefite in augmentyng of our souerayne lords inheritans’.84 Again, this was not a radical departure from the plans laid out in Finglas’s ‘Breviat’; however, Brown, Devereux and Keating proceeded to make a further suggestion which was distinctive. Being conscious of the parsimony of the king in 1537 and the magnitude of the scheme proposed they stated ‘it may please your good Lordschipe that by your exortacion that our said souerayne Lord is pleasure will yess and lett to serue tyll as aleasse of all his said counte and libarty as well all maner rents, casualts, wards, wrecks, awosongs, with all other maner profits in the said counte’.85 As such, we have here an example of a proposal to launch a semi-private plantation scheme along the lines of those which would be effected for the north-east in the early 1570s. Ironically, both the ‘Memoriall’ and the Wexford scheme, the two most ambitious proposals concerning the disposal of lands in the province, were composed in 1537 when efforts to convince Henry of the desirability of going ahead with some form of conquest of Leinster were coming to an end. What had started in 1535 as a general debate on what policy should be adopted for settling those lands immediately adjoining the Pale snowballed in 1536 into the dominant issue of correspondence between Dublin Castle and Whitehall. On 2 January of that year the Butlers signalled their support for the initiative in a letter signed by Ossory, his son, James, Grey, Alen and Aylmer.86 The following months saw Grey contemplate a slightly different tactic as backed with the threat of military force he negotiated a series of indentures with various figures within those lordships, an approach which would prove highly significant in later years. These agreements provided for the principals of those lordships to acknowledge Henry’s suzerainty in return for their recognition as subjects by the crown. Indentures of this nature were concluded with Tadhg MacGerald O’Byrne on 22 January and with Cahir MacInnycross of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs in the summer of 1536.87 While these agreements are important in that they foreshadowed the policy of ‘surrender and regrant’, the conciliatory approach employed remained peripheral at this time in preference for a more concerted campaign of coer-



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 43

cive military intervention. The urgings by Grey and the council members to this effect reached a crescendo in the latter half of 1536 and early 1537. As seen, they sent a clear statement of their collective thinking to Henry on 26 June, on the need to subdue south Leinster. In tandem, Grey and Brabazon made a foray into those regions earmarked for subjugation throughout the summer and succeeded in pacifying MacMurrough in an act which was conceivably intended to convince Henry and Cromwell of the feasibility of their aims.88 This was supplemented by additional letters on 29 October to Henry and 23 November to Cromwell, the latter perhaps giving the most unambiguous statement of their position yet, asserting that ‘ther is no enterprise more honorable, neyther more profitable for the Kinge and his heyres, neyther more feasible, and with les charges to be executed, then the reformyng of Leynster’.89 Their final, and most comprehensive, statement came on 10 February 1537 in the shape of the ‘Memoriall’.90 If this last act was intended as such a definitive and forceful statement in favour of the adoption of a programme of regional conquest of south Leinster that it would finally meet with the king’s acceptance, the viceroy, councillors and those others who had promoted the scheme for so long were to be thoroughly surprised by Henry’s response. Ireland’s government, far from being geared towards ‘reducing’ Leinster, was to be run with financial retrenchment as its guiding principle. In a scathing letter, which pointed towards blatant corruption and fiscal profligacy within the Irish administration, Henry stated: ‘Good counsailors shuld, before their oune private gaynes, have respecte to their princes honor, and to the publique weale of the cuntrey whereof they have charge. A greate sorte of you (We must be plain) desire nothing ells, but to reign in estimacion, and to flece, from tyme to time, all that you may catche from Us.’91 In keeping with this new found parsimony the size of the garrison was to be reduced, not augmented as the council’s policy of conquest would have necessitated. In essence, Henry had refused to implement a strategy of regional conquest on the basis that it was prohibitively expensive. While this brought to an end the period of most active campaigning for the reduction of south Leinster through the medium of ‘reform’ treatises it did not silence all proponents of this approach. Later in 1537 Robert Cowley recommended that Peter Talbot be appointed to occupy lands bordering the O’Toole lordship.92 A novel proposal was made in June 1537 when the Irish Council advised Cromwell that one solution to the unrest in the midlands was to provide Cahir O’Connor with ‘some other convenient thing’ and ‘inhabite the same [Offaly] with Inglishmen’.93 This, the first recommendation of transplantation under the Tudors, evidently involved compensation, but the concern to extend the Pale was still paramount. A less accommodating approach was espoused by Francis Harbert who in early 1538 urged the expulsion of the O’Connors from

44

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Offaly and the plantation of their lands with English settlers.94 Furthermore, several of the treatises received by the commissioners sent to Ireland to investigate affairs there in the summer of 1537 reiterated the need for the reduction of the Gaelic lordships adjoining the Pale in Wicklow and Carlow. Thomas Luttrell, for instance, stated that Leinster should be reformed so that the lordship ‘mought be dyschargeid of the said inwarde enymise’.95 John Alen mirrored these sentiments.96 However, Henry’s letter earlier that year and Cromwell’s determined efforts to reduce expenditure, and with it the size of the garrison, eliminated any chances that a programme of conquest would be undertaken in 1537. Thus ended the most intense phase of the campaign for the reduction of Leinster. In summation, from early in the reign of Henry VIII the authors of treatises on the state of Ireland began arguing strongly that the Pale could be more fully secured and extended by conquering the lordships of the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs in south Leinster. In the aftermath of the Kildare Rebellion most officials in Ireland concluded that the time was now opportune to undertake this reduction of south Leinster. Consequently, from late 1535 through to the spring of 1537 they attempted to convince Henry and Cromwell to commence with such a regional conquest by lobbying to that effect through correspondence, conciliar reports and many treatises. This lobby involved almost every senior government official, with Grey, Brabazon, Alen, Aylmer, Luttrell, Patrick Finglas, Robert and Walter Cowley, and the earl of Ossory all expressing support. Additionally, other less influential figures such as Thomas Agard and Martin Pellys also recommended this approach.97 But the desire to have a forward strategy of regional conquest adopted in Leinster did not cease in the late 1530s. Calls for such an approach continued into the 1540s, with the midlands lordships of the O’Connors and O’Mores increasingly identified as a threat on a par with the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs. As Chapter 2 shows, this would ultimately result in the invasion of the midlands in 1546. The figures who initiated this were intimately connected with the drive to reduce south Leinster in the 1530s and were led by William Brabazon and John Alen. Given this, it is highly incongruous that the campaign for the reduction of south Leinster has been so absent from recent studies of late Henrician Ireland. That it has been reflects the preoccupation with other policy initiatives which surfaced around this time, notably the scheme known to posterity as ‘surrender and regrant’. However, this is doubly unusual, for ‘surrender and regrant’ was as much a pragmatic response to the abandonment of plans to launch an aggressive policy of regional conquest in the late 1530s as it was a liberal programme of inclusiveness and conciliation.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 45

An experiment in conciliation: ‘Surrender and regrant’

The policy programme of formal indentures between the Gaelic lords of Ireland and the crown, which after William Butler’s coining of the term has come to be known as ‘surrender and regrant’, was overseen in the early 1540s by Grey’s successor as lord deputy, Anthony St Leger.98 ‘Surrender and regrant’ involved agreements between the Gaelic lords and the crown whereby the lord surrendered his lands to Henry who then regranted them with some title of English nobility.99 In doing so the king’s ‘Irish enemies’, who the Irish lords had been identified as in the ‘reform’ treatises up to that point, became his lawful subjects with the rights that appertained to such. In return the newly ennobled Irish lords undertook to Anglicise their lands through a programme of social and cultural reform, notably by prohibiting ‘coign and livery’ and adopting succession through primogeniture. Ultimately, it was envisaged that the organs of English government and crown taxation would also be introduced. To lend the scheme greater legitimacy an Act for the Kingly Title was passed in 1541 whereby Henry’s status was altered from Lord to King of Ireland, in the process elevating the lordship to a kingdom.100 This latter measure may have been undertaken in response to rumours that certain Irishmen had offered the same title to James V of Scotland in 1540.101 The passage of Henry’s Act for the Kingly Title served two purposes. First, it proclaimed Henry’s claim to sovereignty over all Ireland, buttressing the strength of the ‘surrender and regrant’ agreements being negotiated between St Leger and the Gaelic lords. Second, it superseded the papal grant of the lordship of Ireland to Henry II, as enshrined in the bull Laudabiliter enunciated by Pope Adrian IV in 1155, thus re-legitimising the claims of the English crown to Ireland, which had been weakened following the split with Rome.102 Indentures of the kind on which ‘surrender and regrant’ was based did not originate with St Leger. They had been routinely utilised throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For instance, in 1449 Henry O’Neill agreed a formal indenture with the Irish viceroy, Richard, duke of York. This was reaffirmed numerous times in the following decades, with O’Neill receiving a scarlet cloak and gold chains from Edward IV in 1463, a symbolic exchange of the sort which John Montano has recently highlighted were central to the ‘surrender and regrant’ programme of the 1540s.103 Two of the earliest treatises written in the sixteenth century argued the case for such indentures. In the ‘State’ of 1515 the author proposed that the Irish lords be allowed to sit as lords of parliament, while the ‘Discourse’ written around 1526 recommended that O’Neill, O’Donnell and MacWilliam Burke surrender their lands to the crown and receive them back with a proviso that they would begin paying taxes, a measure which the probable author, Robert Cowley, re-proposed in a ‘Deuyse’ written in 1538.104 Moreover, at the time of his expedition to Ireland Surrey

46

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

recommended the suit of Cormac Óge MacCarthy Reagh to hold his lands of the king.105 Simultaneously, Henry wrote to the lord lieutenant remarking that O’Neill should travel to the court to have a knighthood bestowed on him.106 More significantly, an offer was made by a Gaelic lord in 1520 to take his lands of the crown with a peerage, which Henry responded favourably to. The identity of the lord in question though is frustratingly unclear.107 These developments were not unique to Ireland. Throughout the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII similar agreements were reached in Wales whereby questionable titles were recognised by the crown in return for agreements to foster English law and customs.108 Indeed, a willingness to engage in such a conciliatory approach in Ireland was demonstrated as early as 1520 in the pragmatism Henry displayed in his instructions to Surrey in 1520: We, and our Counsail thinke and verilie beleve, that in caas circumspecte and politique waies be used, ye shall not oonely bring theym to ferther obedience, for thobservaunce of our lawes, and governyng theym selffes accourding to the same, but also folowing justice, to forbere to deteigne rebelliously suche landes and dominions as to Us in right apperteigneth; whiche thing must as yet rather be practised by sober waies, politique driftes, and amiable persuasions, founded in lawe and reason, than by rigorous dealing, comminacions, or any other inforcement by strenght or violence.109

Finally, on the eve of the inception of the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ in 1537 a proposal was made to make Cahir O’Connor baron of Offaly. This approach was offered as one of two potential solutions to unrest in the midlands, the other being to transplant the O’Connors and settle Offaly with English planters.110 That these seemingly diametrically opposed remedies, one involving confiscation and plantation, and the other accommodation, could be made simultaneously yet again highlights the manner in which these approaches could be formulated as almost casual alternatives. The latter proposal was made in 1537 at roughly the same time that two important treatises were prepared which contained in embryonic form all of the components of the conciliatory policy St Leger would implement from 1540 onwards. The dating is significant as these documents were composed once it had become clear, in early 1537, that Henry was unwilling to undertake the costly reduction of south Leinster. The first of these treatises was prepared by the bishop of Meath, Edward Staples, and bore the clearest likeness to the policy St Leger later employed. This ‘Information’ was one of a series of documents which was prepared at the time for presentation to the commission into Irish affairs of which St Leger formed a part. Here Staples called for Cahir O’Connor to be created baron of Offaly and in return for the new lord to pay a fixed annual rent to the crown.111 Staples’s probable influence on St Leger’s programme did not cease there, for it was he who petitioned the future



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 47

lord deputy to have Henry proclaimed King of Ireland by act of parliament. Moreover, it was with this measure which the bishop of Meath chose to open his memorandum to the commissioners: Fyrste, where the Iryshe men, of long contynuaunce, hathe supposyd the Regall estate of this lande to consyst in the Bysshop of Rome for the tyme being, and the Lordship of the Kinges of Englande heere to be but a governaunce under the obedyence of the same, whiche causith them to have more respect of due subjectyon unto the said Bysshop, then to our Soveraigne Lorde; therfore me semeith it convenient, that His Highnes be recognised heere, by Acte of Parlyament, Supreme Governour of this domynyon, by the name of the King of Ireland, and then to induce the Iryshe captaynes, aswell by ther othes as wryteinges, to recognise the same.112

Staples’s dedication to the idea of having Henry proclaimed King of Ireland was further evinced in the summer of 1538 when he again wrote to the commissioners to sound his support for the measure.113 As such the germ of what would become St Leger’s conciliatory programme was contained in the bishop’s memorandum of 1537. In this respect Staples’s role in the formulation of St Leger’s strategy was perhaps as significant as that of either the lord deputy himself, or his closest aide, Thomas Cusack.114 The second, anonymously authored, memorandum written in the late 1530s which offered policy proposals that prefigured ‘surrender and regrant’ was composed by a government official who was most likely not on the Irish Council but was privy to the ideas being discussed at the highest levels in Dublin Castle at the time.115 His ‘Device’ suggested a method for dealing with the MacMurrough Kavanaghs, which it was believed could be applied to the other lordships if ‘he that is now called MacMurrough, and every one of the gentlemen of the Kavanaghs, have a certain lands appointed to them, and to the heirs of their bodies lawfully begotten and every of them to hold the said lands of the King’s highness by knight’s service, some by one whole knight’s fee’.116 The principals of social, economic and cultural reform which would later be employed by St Leger were then elaborated on. Accordingly, the creation of freeholders was to be encouraged while those objects of perpetual censure, the Gaelic exactions, were to be done away with. The council’s general position on the conquest of Leinster as exemplified in the ‘Memoriall’ sent by them to Henry early in 1537 was incorporated in a diluted fashion in a further provision which recommended the occupation of a string of fortresses across the province, notably Carlow, Leighlin, Ferns, Arklow and Wicklow.117 As such there was an admixture here of conciliatory and coercive measures, a trait which was shared with the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ in the years ahead. Finally, it was noted that force could be utilised to impose such a settlement, the author remarking on ‘the good strength the King’s

48

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

highness hath now of mere Englishmen in those parts … ready to chastise offenders’.118 These then were the two examples of treatises written in the 1530s proposing the conciliatory approach. It is significant that these papers were far outnumbered by the numerous schemes for the reduction of Leinster outlined above. Indeed, this dearth of papers on the conciliatory approach continued into the 1540s as the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ was actually being undertaken. The sole formal treatise on the system of indentures that were being negotiated at this time was prepared by St Leger’s close ally in government, the speaker of the House of Commons and future lord chancellor, Thomas Cusack, in 1541.119 This ‘Devise’ explained the advantages which would ensue if St Leger’s programme was brought to fruition. The problem presented by Gaelic Ireland, as Cusack saw it, was that the lords’ insecurity in relation to ownership of their lands led them to ‘persevere in warre and mischief’ and to be taken as ‘Irish ennymies’, whereas ‘now they having ther landes of the Kingis Majestie … which is the chiefest meane, by good wisdome, to contynewe them in peace and obedience’.120 He then elaborated on how the viceroy’s system of formal indentures would lead to the end of succession by tanistry and its replacement with inheritance by primogeniture. Furthermore, the socio-economic foundations of the country would be transformed as fixity of tenure and an end to the allegedly perpetual state of war pertaining in Gaelic Ireland would lead to an improvement of the country.121 Finally, Cusack considered the individual agreements which were then being negotiated between the crown and the various Gaelic lords, yet interestingly it was not the greater Irish lords, such as O’Neill, O’Donnell, MacWilliam or O’Brien, who were prominent here, but O’Connor, O’More, MacMurrough Kavanagh, O’Byrne and O’Reilly.122 The overriding concern was still with those lordships on the periphery of the Pale. The latter point again reaffirms that ‘surrender and regrant’ to a substantial degree developed out of a pragmatic need to find a working relationship with the lords of south Leinster and the midlands following Henry’s refusal to undertake a costly military conquest. Yet for many years the prevailing historiography has suggested otherwise. Following Brendan Bradshaw, the late Henrician period is supposed to have witnessed a ‘liberal revolution’ in Ireland. In particular, Bradshaw suggested that St Leger was inspired by the spirit of Christian humanism as manifested in a series of political tracts which originated from within the Old English community of the Pale in the 1510s and 1520s.123 This ideological grounding led the new lord deputy to impress on the king that the ‘reform’ of Ireland was not just a political necessity but a ‘moral obligation’.124 Thus, conciliation and sanguine ‘reform’ defined government policy in the period from the Kildare Rebellion through to the close of Henry VIII’s reign. Yet this thesis is open to a number of funda-



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 49

mental criticisms. For one, the treatises which Bradshaw suggested inspired this ­conciliatory programme favoured coercion and a programme of renewed conquest. Furthermore, St Leger himself was at least as pragmatic as he was ideological, as will be demonstrated through a perusal of his correspondence from the early 1540s.125 Most saliently, the theory of a ‘liberal revolution’ fails to recognise that an aggressive approach in south Leinster was the broadly favoured policy option in the mid-to-late 1530s and that this policy was only refrained from for financial reasons. There has been some revision of Bradshaw’s thesis in recent years. Fiona Fitzsimons has identified a number of fundamental flaws in Bradshaw’s analysis of the political tracts on which so much of his study rests, while Brady has demonstrated that St Leger was forced to rely on the corrupt distribution of monastic property in Ireland to build consensus for his policies.126 More recently, Maginn has characterised St Leger as neither a shrewd manipulator nor a political idealist, but rather as a pragmatist.127 These revisions are timely, given the continued assertion in many other studies that conciliation was the driving force of government policy in late Henrician Ireland.128 Contrary to this reading of the period the 1530s and 1540s were dominated by sabre-rattling by a majority of senior officials in Ireland. It is for this reason that the number of treatises proposing regional conquest of parts of Leinster, or coercive ‘reform’, far outweighs the handful of policy papers urging a more assimilative brand of conciliatory ‘reform’. The dearth of treatises on ‘surrender and regrant’ by officials and other interested parties certainly undermines Bradshaw’s thesis. Yet considerable weight must be accorded to St Leger’s and Henry VIII’s policy pronouncements, for if the king and the viceroy were unequivocally in favour of conciliation this would go some way to substantiating Bradshaw’s argument. Yet this was not the case. Analysis of St Leger’s outlook is made difficult by the lack of any explicit statement of his views in the form of a memorandum or treatise. The new viceroy’s Irish career had begun in 1537 when he, along with George Paulet, Thomas Moyle and William Berners, had been dispatched by Henry on commission to investigate affairs there and see to an overhaul of expenditure. This sojourn was no doubt critical in the formulation of his thoughts on Ireland and the policies he would employ there as viceroy. St  Leger’s initial position seems to have been in favour of regional conquest. In 1538 he and his fellow commissioners had addressed a letter to Cromwell wherein they had claimed of Offaly that ‘onlesse it be people with others then be there alredy, and also certen fortresses there buylded and warded, if it be gotten the one daye, it is loste the next’.129 Consequently, there is evidence to suggest that St Leger was in favour of some limited policy of conquest in Leinster in the late 1530s. Following his appointment as lord deputy in 1540 St Leger appears to have concluded that the system of indentures between the crown and the Gaelic

50

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

lords which Grey had experimented with in 1536 was indeed the correct approach to governing the lordship.130 Far from initiating a new departure in Irish policy upon his arrival in office, St Leger adopted many features of Grey’s programme, although admittedly adding substantially to the edifice he began with. In 1540 St Leger began implementing what Maginn has accurately termed a ‘political alternative’ which he believed could be used to govern Ireland without resorting to a costly military solution. It is clear from a perusal of St Leger’s correspondence that there was a strong strain of forceful pragmatism running through his actions. A letter, for example, of his to the king in late 1540 recounted a journey he had made into the lordship of the MacMurrough Kavanaghs where he spent ten days ‘burnyng and destroying the same’ until such time as MacMurrough submitted, renounced the name of MacMurrough and agreed to hold his lands of the king. In the same letter St Leger explained his taking of pledges from O’Connor as ‘he is not somoche to be trusted, but alwaies we muste, as nere as we may, kepe hym under’.131 An almost identical practicality is displayed in a report on his progress in Ulster.132 Indeed, the perception of pragmatism backed by considerable force is compounded by the knowledge that contemporaries based in England and further afield clearly recognised that ‘surrender and regrant’ was devised as a means to lock wayward lords who had been pacified into binding accords of amity with the crown. William Thomas, a Henrician official who would later serve as a clerk of the Privy Council under Edward VI, in a panegyric of Henry VIII’s life entitled ‘Peregryne’, briefly mentions recent developments in Ireland.133 Here he noted that the programme implemented by the king and St Leger at the start of the 1540s was to lay ‘in such substantial garrisons in the straits of his borders’ which ‘constrained them to humble themselves … to a perpetual peace’. This done he confirmed ‘his force with mercy’ and ‘rewarded divers of them with … places of civil honour, as earls, barons, knights’.134 As such, the writings of this Henrician and Edwardian official would appear to confirm that even in St Leger’s own day many believed the new policy employed in Ireland was grounded on pragmatism and the employment of a considerable degree of coercion. Certainly St Leger expressed more sanguine views elsewhere. Yet Bradshaw has excused his more aggressive words and actions as products of a strategy of ‘exemplary conciliation’, a phraseology which explicitly aims to moderate the more coercive aspects of St Leger’s actions in office at this time.135 Ultimately, a more balanced appraisal of the deputy who orchestrated the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ will have to display a greater awareness of his essentially pragmatic as opposed to idealistic approach, or as Robert Dunlop once characterised it his ‘constructive statesmanship’.136 The view that ‘surrender and regrant’ was a pragmatic alternative which was adopted in favour of a more costly programme of regional conquest is further



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 51

reinforced through a perusal of Henry VIII’s correspondence throughout 1540 and 1541. With three years past since his order for financial retrenchment in Ireland and a new dynamic operating in the making of policy in London following Cromwell’s fall, the king’s enthusiasm for a more aggressive front across the Irish Sea was growing anew. In a letter to the viceroy dated 26 September 1540 he ordered the lord deputy to ‘reduce that corner, which the Cavenaughes, Toles, Brynnes, and their complices, inhabite, as it be no gall herafter to our Englisshe pale’.137 Thus, the king was contemplating a renewed dedication to the conquest of Leinster late in 1540. Yet just weeks later two letters arrived from the lord deputy and Irish Council informing Henry of a more cost-effective approach to governing the lordship.138 Evidently Henry was swayed by the programme outlined in these letters and early in 1541 he wrote back signalling his approval of St Leger’s first tentative steps towards initiating ‘surrender and regrant’ indentures, taking particularly ‘good parte’ with the viceroy’s negotiations with Turlough O’Toole.139 That the deputy had temporarily gained the upper hand on the more militant element or ‘conquest party’ within the government was indicated by Henry’s blunt statement concerning a proposal for the reduction of Leinster recently put forward by a group led by William Brabazon that ‘We doo in noo wyse lyke any parte of your divise in that behalf.’140 Thus, not only was there a dearth of treatises written on ‘surrender and regrant’ but there is strong evidence that St Leger was a late convert to the principal of conciliation and that Henry had been considering renewed aggression in Leinster just weeks before the inception of the scheme. The course and results of that programme are clear.141 Following the negotiation of a number of embryonic agreements between lords such as Turlough O’Toole the net of those with whom St Leger was arranging formal indentures widened to include lords from all four provinces.142 In Ulster Conn O’Neill became earl of Tyrone, after Henry refused him the earldom of Ulster; however, negotiations with Manus O’Donnell stalled.143 The other notable agreement was between O’Brien and the crown, Murrough O’Brien being granted the title of earl of Thomond. Elsewhere negotiations with lesser lords also saw them receive English title, for example Barnaby MacGiollapadraig, who as first baron of Upper Ossory was the first Irish lord to sit in the Dublin parliament as an English peer.144 A number of other attempts at ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements were abortive. Such was the case in the O’Toole lordship where the murder of Turlough O’Toole scuppered the arrangement arrived at between him and the viceroy.145 In other areas such as the O’Rourke and O’Reilly lordships of Breifne negotiations simply petered out as the policy was abandoned late in 1543.146 The short life span of the conciliatory programme, when combined with the lack of contemporary writings such as treatises by officials in support of

52

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

it, suggests that ‘surrender and regrant’ did not enjoy widespread support in Dublin political circles. Indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that many officials still favoured a more aggressive programme for government involving expansion of the Pale into south Leinster through military intervention there. Although this lobby had been quieted by the decision of Henry and Cromwell to favour financial retrenchment in 1537, a desire to reduce south Leinster continued to find expression in the Irish policy recommendations of a number of individuals.147 This ‘conquest party’ was not a homogenous group of officials who were united on policy decisions. Rather it was a loose group of government agents and Butler affiliates, many of whom had been advanced to their positions by Cromwell, and who all simply shared a common desire for a forward strategy in Leinster.148 Surviving the secretary’s downfall, these individuals, among whom Brabazon and Alen were most prominent, continued to favour the subjugation of the O’Tooles, O’Byrnes and MacMurrough Kavanaghs, and often conspired to undermine St Leger to attain that end. The clearest indication of this was given in 1540 when a treatise for the ‘reformatyon of Laynster’ was drawn up by a cohort of council members and the Butlers.149 This scheme in effect was a resurrection of the Brotherhood of St George, which had been established for defence of the Pale either in 1473 or 1474.150 The proposal centred on the appointment of a board of twelve officers or pensioners presided over by a ‘Greate Maister’. These regional commanders would be stationed throughout Leinster with the head resident at Ferns. Extensive details on the arms and pay of the military retinues they would command indicates that the central purpose of the projected association was military activity. The members would assemble each St George’s Day at Ferns while half of the pensioners with the head would appear before the government in Dublin twice a year to make account of their activities.151 Curiously, two potential boards were provided at the conclusion of the document, one nominated by Ormond, the other by the council. The Butler panel recommended Ormond’s brother, Richard Butler, as Great Master, with John Travers, a client of the earl’s and the master of the ordnance, as chief pensioner.152 Cahir McArt Kavanagh was to fill the position of second pensioner with a host of Kavanaghs besides, along with a handful of O’Byrnes and O’Tooles.153 The council’s suggestions as to who should be appointed as Great Master and his pensioners was similar in so far as the Kavanaghs were well provided for, though the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles are noticeably absent from their list.154 A consensus is evident between both Ormond and the council that John Travers would be first pensioner. However, the most significant point of departure between the Butler panel and that proposed by the council was in relation to the most senior position, that of Great Master. The council’s recommendation was that William Brabazon should act as Great Master.155 Clearly, this initiative was not as militant as some of those which were



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 53

favoured by the under-treasurer and his associates in government just a few years previously. The members of the Gaelic septs of south Leinster, for instance, made up half of the proposed pensioners, auguring a more moderate stance. Moreover, the duties which it was envisaged the board members would carry out included the holding of assize sessions throughout Leinster and the administration of justice in the province generally. Provisions of this nature were almost entirely lacking from the earlier proposals of the mid1530s. However, there was a clear militancy to the entire scheme, from the more than casual associations with the Brotherhood of St George to the extensive details on military retinues and the hosting. This was but the most detailed proposal put forward for intervention in south Leinster during the zenith of ‘surrender and regrant’, and a number of similar schemes are extant for the years between 1540 and 1543. One of these called for ‘reform’ of the lordship of the O’Byrnes and was championed by Brabazon and the Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Edward Basnet, from 1540 through to 1544.156 In June 1542 John Alen described the reduction of south Leinster as ‘that stringe that I have always harped on’, and urged the destruction of the region to remove the threat posed by the Irish there: And thogh some think best … to receyve them to summission … I thinke best, les they and the residue sholde revolte hereafter, that now, whiles tyme serveth, to make that place sure, from whens the grounde of all treasons and rebellions hath most rysen … And better it were, in mine opynion, to have that cuntrie utterly desolated to fede wylde bestes … then to have soche a denne of thevys and traitors ther, in the middes of Your Majesties strenght.157

Another offer to undertake the ‘reform’ of south Leinster was made by the earl of Ormond in 1543. In this instance the earl’s unwillingness to relinquish certain lands in the region to the government for use as possible seats for garrisons ensured that no action was taken even as the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’ was coming to an end.158 Finally, it is striking that even St Leger expressed an awareness of the need to ‘reform’ Leinster at this time. His utterances on this occasion were even suggestive that the viceroy viewed ‘surrender and regrant’ and intervention in south Leinster as intrinsically linked, asserting that formal agreements were being concluded with lords such as O’Neill in order to put the government on a firmer footing before commencing with the conquest of the O’Byrnes, O’Tooles and MacMurrough Kavanaghs.159 It is wholly clear and very noteworthy that even during the three years when ‘surrender and ‘regrant’ was being implemented between late 1540 and late 1543 there were repeated calls for military intervention in Leinster by the most senior Irish officials. The legacy of ‘surrender and regrant’ itself proved ambiguous.160 The primary problem encountered in the following decades related to the e­ stablishment of

54

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

successors to the first earls of Thomond and Tyrone. In particular, the crown’s inexplicable decision to support Matthew O’Neill, Conn’s son, though possibly illegitimate, as second earl, paved the way for years of antagonism in Ulster between the crown and Shane O’Neill, whose claim to succeed in Tyrone was stronger through tanistry. Similarly the crown’s desire to introduce social, cultural and economic change within the lordships appears to have fallen far short of its stated aims and as late as the 1570s and 1580s schemes were still being hatched to introduce some form of taxation in Connacht and Ulster.161 Conversely, in Thomond the policy finally came to fruition from the 1580s onwards, in a lordship which had suffered decades of internal unrest following the crown’s decision to support another unsuitable candidate in the shape of Donough O’Brien as second earl. The succession of another Donough O’Brien as fourth earl in 1582 marked a rare success in the long run for St Leger’s programme, which saw the earl serve as a prominent loyalist during the Nine Years War and eventually gain appointment as lord president of Munster in 1615.162 That the positive results of the conciliatory ‘reform’ programme which was followed between 1540 and 1543 should have proved so limited is in part owing to events both before and following St Leger’s initiative. The years between the Kildare Rebellion and St Leger’s arrival in office saw a wide-ranging campaign to adopt a policy of regional conquest for south Leinster. This was briefly abated by the inception of the policy of ‘surrender and regrant’, while concerns over the possibility of a combined French and Scottish intervention in Ireland dominated affairs there in 1544 and 1545.163 However, as we will see 1546 saw a renewed effort by the ‘conquest party’ in Dublin to launch an aggressive intervention into the midlands, particularly in Offaly where Brabazon fortified Daingean in what would become a prelude to the plantation of the midlands. Thus, the period between the Kildare Rebellion and the end of Henry’s reign ought to be associated to a far greater extent with the efforts of a substantial element in Dublin to begin a general conquest of Leinster. St Leger’s programme was an alternative based largely on pragmatism, and a short-lived one at that. The Henrician Reformation and the emergence of the university question

In November 1534 the first Act of Supremacy was passed through the English Reformation parliament making Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church of England. At the time of the passage of the Act the Irish lordship was enveloped in the chaos wrought by the Kildare Rebellion. Consequently, it would be 1536 before the Irish Reformation parliament was convened. Nevertheless, the relative proximity of the Kildare Rebellion to the first meeting of the parliament is perhaps fitting. As with secular policy religious reform experienced a major alteration in the mid-1530s.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 55

Yet it would be remiss to overstate the changes which occurred as a result of the religious legislation enacted through the Reformation parliament, as many of the problems confronting religious reform in the post-Reformation years were broadly similar to those found in the pre-Reformation Church. The principal issue was the relative poverty of the Irish Church. Although a handful of dioceses such as Dublin, Armagh and Meath provided adequate l­ivings, further afield, particularly in Connacht and parts of Munster and Ulster, church income was wholly inadequate.164 Moreover, this poverty extended from livings to the physical state of the church which was also generally quite neglected and the third article of the ‘Ordinances’ composed around 1519 called for the re-edification of churches.165 In a similar vein the admittedly anti-Butler author of a series of ‘Articles’ against the earl of Ormond written in 1525 claimed that even churches throughout Kilkenny and Tipperary were in ‘extreme decaye’.166 This poverty no doubt contributed to the major issue confronting the pre-Reformation church, the lack of suitably trained clergy. This problem was so acute that in the ‘State’ (c.1515) it was claimed that the poorness of the clergy was one of the principal causes of the disorder and decay of Ireland.167 Similarly, when writing to Wolsey in 1528 the archbishop of Dublin, Hugh Inge, and the chief justice of king’s bench, Patrick Bermingham, complained of, ‘the sorroufull decay of this londe, aswell in good Christianitie … whiche hathe growen for lakke of goode prelates and curates in the Chirche’.168 Despite these concerns at least one proposal was made at this time to utilise the church as an instrument of secular ‘reform’. In 1520 the archbishop of Dublin, William Rokeby, proposed that Wolsey use his legatine power to dispatch a commissary to Ireland. This commissary would convene a meeting of the principal heads of the church and religious orders there where they would be enjoined to begin preaching throughout the country that the king wished to begin a benign programme of ‘reform’.169 This proposal aside the pronouncements on the pre-Reformation church found in the treatises was wholly pessimistic and it is little surprise that the concern for the poorness of livings, the need to re-edify churches and provide a better educated and trained ministry were paramount in thoughts on religious reform down to the end of the sixteenth century. The course of the Henrician Reformation requires little discussion.170 The legislation establishing Henry’s supremacy over the Church of Ireland was quickly passed through the Reformation parliament in May 1536, though owing to complications thereafter the full Reformation legislation was not completed until the following year.171 A campaign to begin dissolving Ireland’s religious houses was subsequently undertaken, although this proceeded slowly in Ireland and widespread dissolution did not occur until the 1540s.172 Ultimately, many of the changes wrought by the Henrician Reformation were

56

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

largely transient. A more conservative religious programme was introduced in the 1540s and other than the supremacy the dissolution of the religious houses proved the most significant outcome of religious reform in Ireland prior to the Edwardian Reformation. Nevertheless, the broad strategies through which religious reform would be attempted in Ireland down to the end of the Tudor period began to emerge in the years following the Henrician Reformation. Given that the crown’s hold over the great majority of the country beyond the Pale was almost wholly theoretical, reform at this time was largely restricted to the archdiocese of Dublin, the archdiocese of Armagh inter Anglicos, and a few dioceses in and near the Pale such as Meath and Kildare.173 Here a handful of active clerics, notably the newly appointed archbishop of Dublin, George Browne, and the bishop of Meath, Edward Staples, began the process of religious reform.174 These attempts, it has long been understood, were made through both persuasive and coercive means.175 These twin strategies implied that individuals could either be persuaded to become convinced Protestants through preaching, education and the availability of religious texts in the vernacular, or else they should be coerced through punitive measures into outward conformity to the established church, which might in time lead to more dedicated conformity. These approaches dominated ideas on religious reform within the treatises down to the end of the Tudor period. They were quickly in evidence after the Henrician Reformation, most notably in the writings and actions of George Browne. Writing to Cromwell in a letter-tract of January 1538 he bemoaned his inability to have the clergy in Ireland ‘ons to preache the Worde of God, or the juste title of Our moste illustrious Prince’, either ‘by gentll exhortacion, evangelicall instruccion, neither by oathes of theym solempnie taken, nor yeate by threates of sharpe correccion, can I persuade or induce onye’.176 Accordingly, he sought a dispensation to enforce conformity and that a master of the faculties be sent to Ireland to aid in this. These measures were expanded on in the series of ‘Articles’ which Browne drew up in 1538 and distributed among the clergy of the archdiocese. These were heavily reliant on utilising the supremacy laws to ensure conformity, passed in 1536 and 1537, while the bidding prayers Browne attempted to enforce throughout the diocese sought to invoke Henry’s supremacy at services.177 However, included in these were measures which in advocating sincere preaching and other measures chimed broadly with the persuasive approach. This highlights that coercive and persuasive approaches were used in tandem with each other by reformers throughout the century. Browne’s writings at this time have been widely discussed.178 This is no doubt attributable to the striking lack of attention given to religious matters in the extant treatises from the inception of the Henrician Reformation through to the close of the reign. One of the few clear proposals is found in a ‘Device’ which Robert Cowley composed in 1538. Here he recommended the



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 57

unification of perhaps a half a dozen of the poorer Irish bishoprics into one living which might better provide for ministers and thus attract a more able preacher ‘suche as wolde not oonlie truelie and diligentlie set furth the true wurde of god, but also stir and provoke their flocks to knowe their dueties to the king’s Maiestie aswele as supreme hed of the churche in erthe’.179 A similar proposal was made by Murrough O’Brien in 1543 as part of the negotiations elevating him to the peerage as first earl of Thomond, while he also requested that learned Irishmen trained at Oxford or Cambridge be sent to preach in Thomond, a persuasive approach which would resonate in the decades ahead.180 As such, in the few extant treatises addressing religious reform at this time the broad view that persuasive and coercive means could be used to further religious reform emerged. But overall religious reform was not attempted with much urgency in the 1540s. This, James Murray has argued, was the result of St Leger’s willingness to prioritise his political endeavours over religious reform, even to the extent of distributing ecclesiastical property as a means of patronage to build support for his initiatives.181 Ironically, in this effort to secularise religious property are to be found the origins of the university question.182 This would become one of the central issues down to the 1590s for religious reformers who believed a university was needed to oversee the training of a Protestant ministry for Ireland, while the education provided at such an institution would lead to the fostering of the Protestant faith in all students. The origins of this university question lie in a proposal made by St Leger, writing with Alen and Brabazon, in a letter-tract which they sent to the king in August 1542. They began by asserting the need for the council to have a permanent residence in Dublin ‘for them to reside in, and also som honeste interteynemente to kepe a table for 2 messe of meate for them, besides certen necessarie ministers and servants to attende upon them’.183 The solution was simple. Dublin was needlessly served by two cathedrals, St Patrick’s and Christ Church. Accordingly, the smaller of these, Christ Church, with annual revenues of £260, should be suppressed and the house with £200 of the revenues converted for the use of the council as a permanent residence.184 Additionally, it was envisaged that four little churches adjoining the church should be annexed to it and ministers appointed to serve there for the parish ‘wherof it may please Your Highnes, that oon may be a skoole master, which will miche please the citezins, that have no skoole nowe here’.185 In this point lay the origins of the university question in Tudor Ireland. Plans for the establishment of a university in Ireland had appeared regularly throughout the late medieval period but had never come to fruition. St Leger’s proposal though was gradually expanded on in the years ahead and would eventually lead to the establishment of Trinity College, Dublin.186 The retrospective significance of the proposal was not matched by the

58

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

i­ nterest it inhered in Henry VIII at the time. Having presumably never received a response St Leger was forced to write to the king again almost a year later in June 1543 re-summarising his proposal.187 When Henry finally responded in August 1543 he prevaricated, noting the proposal ‘hath a good apparance’, but that he wished for further details on the revenues of Christ Church.188 Clearly he did not wish to agree to the scheme on the basis of imprecise information that might result in a shortfall that the crown would have to make up. In the end, St Leger ran into opposition from within the archdiocese and in January 1544 he wrote to Henry to report the abandonment of the scheme in the face of the opposition of the citizens of Dublin.189 Despite this initiative having ended with no result St Leger had provided the seed of a greater initiative. At its heart was the basic fact that Dublin was still served by two cathedrals and that St Leger still viewed the dissolution of one of them as a means to engender political support through the dispensing of the largesse that would ensue from suppression of one of the two cathedrals. Accordingly, late in 1546, he proposed the dissolution of St Patrick’s. On this occasion his recommendation was accepted and St Patrick’s Cathedral was dissolved the following year.190 There the issue might have ended had the archbishop of Dublin, George Browne, not composed a treatise late in 1547 outlining a scheme for the establishment of a university in Dublin: ffyrst where the Cathedrall churche of Saint Patricks besides Dublin hathe of late been suppressed and dissolued, That the same Cathedrall Churche may be erected agayne and established for ever, to gether wt all the howses appteyneng and lying comodiously abowte it, and therof a faire and lardge colledge to be made, for the fyrst planting of an uniusitie there, and there to be placed a certaine nombr of felowes to be contynwall students (in all discipline necessarie) and so in tyme and by degrees convenient to growe to be prechers.191

The resulting church was to be named the Church of the Holy Trinity and the university was to be named Christ’s College wherein four lecturers in Latin, Greek, civil law and divinity would be appointed and 200 students maintained. The college would be supported by annexing benefices throughout Ireland such as the parsonage of Trim in Meath and the parsonage of Dungarvan in Waterford. The religious purpose of the institution was made clear as the college was ‘for educacion of students & youth, whiche may from tyme to tyme growe, aswell in the knowledge of god’, while ‘the same students beynge repayred to ther native shyres shall by ther learnynge and goode educacion be bothe example of goode lyvinge & also a lyvely trompe to call that barbarous nacion from evill to goode’.192 Browne’s proposal would dominate thinking on the establishment of a university in Dublin for the following forty-five years and, as such, was a cornerstone of the persuasive approach towards religious reform.193



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 59

Even as Browne was writing further religious reforms were being undertaken. Between 1547 and 1560 Ireland, only recently a subject of the Henrician Reformation, would experience three further religious settlements. Despite this instability many of the broad concerns of religious reformers later in the century were already on display in the treatises written during Henry’s reign, notably the concern over the poverty of the church and the poor quality of the ministry. Equally, the broad strategies of coercion and persuasion to further religious reform were in evidence, while policy initiatives such as the enforcement of conformity and the fostering of a trained ministry in a Dublin university had been proposed. However, many other initiatives had not emerged yet, and the years that followed saw elaborate strategies devised that could not have been foreseen when Henry VIII sought an annulment to his first marriage. Regional problems: Colonies and presidencies?

The problems confronting the Irish administration under Henry VIII extended beyond the Pale and the immediately adjoining marcher areas. An awareness of this fact no doubt informed a memorandum, entitled ‘Note of five shirys that shold be obedient vnto the king’, which was drawn up in 1536 and identified the MacMahon and O’Reilly lordships as areas for future government intervention.194 Ultimately, though, problems could present themselves from even further afield and in the course of Henry’s reign two such difficulties did arise from the extremities of the country. These were the earldom of Desmond in the south-west and the Scots incursions, primarily in the shape of the MacDonnells, in the north-east. Particular regional problems of this nature would persist throughout the century and would see the composition of an abundance of treatises designed to combat these specific issues through targeted policies, tracts which often bore little resemblance to papers emanating, for instance, from Dublin Castle, which were usually concerned with more general ‘reform’ initiatives.195 The estrangement of the Geraldine earls of Desmond from crown government was of long standing. Although the eight earl, Thomas, had been appointed as lord deputy in 1463, five years later he was executed following his conviction for treason and relations between Dublin Castle and the Munster earls had stagnated thereafter.196 James, eleventh earl (1520–29), conducted negotiations with both François I and Charles V as the French king and Holy Roman Emperor variously found themselves at loggerheads with Henry VIII, leading in the French case to a formal treaty in 1523.197 Indeed, such was the perceived seriousness of Fitzgerald’s actions that a bill for his attainder was prepared in 1528.198 In response to these oscillating relations a number of reformers suggested

60

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

action against Desmond. William Rokeby, archbishop of Armagh, was quite lenient in his memorandum of 1520 when he recommended that ‘loving letters be written by the king to Desmond’ and that, ‘A promise should be made in Desmond’s letter that if he do his duty like his ancestors, the King will give him a general pardon.’199 Conversely, the ‘Discourse’ written in the mid-1520s did not urge a compromise and favoured the wooing of the earl’s uncles and his Gaelic allies, who might then act in opposition to Desmond.200 Such inflexibility was also on display in the 1530s, a result no doubt of Desmond’s negotiations with foreign powers at a time when the Tudor state’s international position looked increasingly precarious. This ensured that a much harder stance was taken. In 1534, for instance, Thomas Finglas suggested a forceful pacification of the earldom, now held by James’s uncle, Thomas, twelfth earl (1529–34), and the attainder of his lands if he proved unreceptive to the government’s wishes. Similarly, in 1536 Robert Cowley recommended that Desmond be prosecuted ‘with all extremytie, as the Kinges arrogant rebell’.201 Yet, there was also a more accommodating element within the government. A ‘Remembrance’ which was directed to Cromwell in 1536 was drawn up with the intention of rehabilitating the earl and consequently ­re-establishing English government in Munster.202 As such, Desmond’s ‘homage’ to the crown was to be symbolised by a renewed payment of yearly rents into the ­exchequer. Sheriffs were to be reappointed throughout the earl’s lands to implement the common law. Finally, there was to be an investigation into concealed lands in the south-west as ‘the king hath lost moche of his right in that cuntrye’ and now was ‘the tyme to helpe to reforme hit’.203 This willingness to restore the earl, by now James FitzJohn, the fourteenth earl, to his former position in the southern province was encouraged by Desmond himself in the summer of 1537 when he wrote to the king to request the allocation of 300 men with which he would reduce all of Munster.204 However, James’s offer of assistance was as much designed to duplicitously undermine the position of a rival claimant to the earldom, James FitzMaurice, as it was a sincere offer of service to the crown, for FitzMaurice had found favour at the royal court and it subsequently became government policy to support his claim over that of the earl’s.205 This attitude was epitomised by Robert Cowley who in 1537 wrote disparagingly of James FitzJohn ‘who pretendith to be Erle’ declaring of FitzMaurice that ‘it shalbe the Kinges honour he may have the better remedie’.206 The extent to which FitzJohn’s insecurity concerning his title to the earldom had driven a wedge between him and the government was fully revealed in 1539 when he helped broker the formation of the Geraldine League.207 He subsequently invaded the Ormond lordship in an effort to distract the Butlers from coming to the relief of the Pale which was suffering the depredations of the northern lords.208 The response of those in Ireland commenting on the situation in Munster



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 61

was encapsulated by John Alen, who recommended that the rival claimant to the earldom, James FitzMaurice, ‘now in the Corte … be sent to my Lord Butler, with 300 footmen in his aide’.209 Indeed, the government response to the continued intransigence of the earl was increasing support for his rival claimant. This strategy, however, was scuppered in March 1540 when James FitzMaurice was slain near Fermoy.210 With the favoured claimant gone and FitzJohn more secure than ever within his lordship negotiations became somewhat inevitable. In the summer of 1540 Ormond brokered a peace with Desmond who was eventually pardoned in 1541.211 By 1542 John Alen, a former critic of the earl, noted ‘he is of Inglish blode, and therwith a wyse man, and doth repayre to Youre Highnes to seke your mercie, grace, and favours, I have goode hope of his well doing’.212 Thereafter, relations between Dublin Castle and the fourteenth earl remained largely amicable. However, the strained relationship between the crown and James’s son and successor, Gerald, would have enormous consequences for the landscape of late Tudor Munster. One further solution to the problems wrought by Desmond’s intransigence and the general problem of administering wayward regions such as Munster which surfaced at this time merits especial attention – specifically the proposal to establish a regional council in the south presided over by a provincial president. A solution of this sort was being grasped towards in the 1520s when the author of the ‘Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’ recommended the appointment of five ‘captains every having a certain limitation how far his authority should extend to govern’.213 But the origin of the scheme for provincial presidents and councils properly belongs to the 1530s. Modelled on the Councils of the North in England and of Wales and the Marches, the first such proposal was iterated in a treatise written by Walter Cowley in 1533. Here he suggested a president for Munster who would oversee a board composed of the temporal and ecclesiastical lords of the province: Because that Dublin, where the Kinges Counsaile doo sytt, is soo far from the said counties, and upper parties of the lande … it were necessarie that dyvers in that parties were appoyntid as the Kinges Counsaile, and oon of theym to be President; as thErle of Ossorie, or the Lorde Thesaurer, his son, and the Archebisshop of Casshell; with theym the Busshop of Waterford, the Bisshopp of Lymeryk, the Bisshop of Ossory, the Maior of Waterforde, with the two comyssioners or justices that shalbe resident in that parties.214

Although less specific than Cowley’s proposal a ‘Devyse’, most likely written in 1537 by Grey, suggested that the dispute over title to the earldom of Desmond should be resolved and a commission established ‘to mynystre iustice and to procure the kyng’s advanntage in augmentacion of his revenues’.215 Cowley’s proposal for a formal provincial council was seconded in 1539 when William Brabazon wrote to Cromwell recommending such a body

62

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

for the southern province, which he envisaged would also hold jurisdiction over Kilkenny and Wexford. Brabazon also echoed Cowley’s recommendation that the council be largely comprised of the spiritual and temporal lords of the province.216 A fourth supporter, John Travers, extended the scope of the proposed scheme in his ‘Devices’ of 1542 by suggesting not just a council in Munster but also one in Ulster.217 Travers’ writing coincided with efforts by St Leger, Brabazon, John Alen and Travers to have an embryonic council appointed in Munster. There was no mention here of a president but what was envisaged was a council of arbitration within which the now rehabilitated earl of Desmond and the bishops of Waterford, Cork and Ross would occupy a position of prominence.218 This scheme was relatively more detailed than others with St Leger, Brabazon and Alen submitting a separate memo outlining how the cost of this council could be offset. Here it was argued that by resuming the monies which accrued on the customs and dues of the city of Waterford, which the city now enjoyed, back into the king’s hands by act of parliament some 200 marks (£133 6s. 8d.) would be attained annually for the maintenance of the Munster council.219 Despite these provisions the council appears not to have been established in 1542 and in 1546 Alen reaffirmed his belief that one ought to be instituted for the south.220 Additionally, there was a renewed effort by Henry and the Privy Council to arrange for the establishment of a council that year. The evidence for this is scant but it appears that the archbishop of Cashel was intended to serve as president.221 It is therefore legitimate to suggest that had it not been for the combined disturbances wrought by Brabazon’s invasion of the midlands, Henry’s death some months later and a change of administration at Dublin Castle, a president and council might have been appointed for Munster as early as the 1540s. The policy proposal, though, persisted and would later be implemented. The other major regional problem which confronted the government in Henrician Ireland was the incursions of the Scots, predominantly in the shape of the MacDonnells who from the late fourteenth century had been making inroads into north-east Ulster, particularly the Glens and the Route in Antrim. Given the antagonistic relationship between the lordship of the Isles and the kings of Scotland through much of the fifteenth and into the sixteenth century a strong MacDonnell presence, even one which encroached into parts of Ireland, was not looked at too unfavourably. However, with the reaching of an accord between James V of Scotland and the Clan Donnell in the early 1530s the MacDonnells’ presence in the north-east of Ireland suddenly became a threat to the security of the wider English state.222 Thus, in his extensive treatise written around 1533 Walter Cowley noted the settlement of the Scots in Ulster remarking that they were ‘greatly to be fearid, oonles that in short tyme they be dryven from the same’.223



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 63

A number of policy proposals emanated from Ireland from the 1530s onwards on this issue. Writing in 1539, John Alen suggested a relief force of five or six ships and 700–800 men to be dispatched to Olderfleet, primarily to combat the Geraldine League, but also ‘to do displesur to the Scottes’.224 Brabazon had written Cromwell just a few weeks before Alen urging him to impress upon the king the necessity of dispatching two ships, one eight tonne and one fifty tonne, to patrol the waters between north-east Ireland and the Isles, claiming it was the MacDonnells who were the chief strength of the northern lords in their combination against the state.225 John Travers, sometime later in his ‘Devices’, mirrored the under-treasurer’s thoughts when he counselled that a captain should be appointed either to Carrickfergus or Olderfleet and provided with a galley or bark to patrol the waters between Ireland and Scotland. The Scots inhabiting a number of castles along the sea coast, who numbered some two or three thousand, were to ‘be expulsed from the saide castels, and order taken that non of them be permytted to haunte nor resorte into this countre’.226 Travers was writing just as the danger posed by the growing Scottish settlement in Ireland was becoming most acute, for in 1542 Henry declared war on Scotland in what would lead to the Rough Wooing.227 This was soon followed by a renewal of the traditional Franco-Scottish alliance against England. The effect of these actions in Ireland was that French and Scottish ships were combining to commit ‘dyverse hurtes’ off Lambay and Carrickfergus, as reported by St Leger and the council.228 These problems were compounded in 1544 when reports began to reach Ireland that Gerald FitzGerald, the exiled head of the Kildare Geraldines, was in France awaiting to depart for Ireland with a force of 15,000 men.229 St Leger’s reaction was, in any event, limited and he simply requested two ships to ‘peruse the northe partes of this lande’ for French and Scottish shipping, while the far greater movement was of military resources out of the country as 1,000 kern were recruited in Ireland for service on the French and Scottish fronts.230 Fears of Scottish intervention became more acute in the summer of 1545, compounded by rumours of FitzGerald’s arrival at the head of a combined French and Scottish army.231 Nevertheless, resources were not diverted to Ireland in any meaningful fashion. St Leger and the council wrote to the Privy Council in May to sound out their reservations concerning the inadequacy of the 500-man garrison left to defend the country.232 Further to this, arrangements were made for utilising a pretender to the lordship of the Isles, Donough MacDonnell, to sow unrest in western Scotland, and thus hamper any possible invasion, though the latter eventuality began to look increasingly unlikely from 1546 when France made peace separately with the Tudor state.233 Thereafter, the threat posed directly by the Scots to the security of Ireland subsided briefly, but would remain paramount into the mid-Tudor period.

64

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Overall, the measures proposed in the few treatises and reports which contemplated the problems posed by the Scots in the north-east were remarkably unimaginative, generally suggesting that by placing token garrisons at locations such as Olderfleet or Carrickfergus, and appointing a handful of ships to patrol the straits between Ireland and the Isles, any further incursions could be prevented. But, there was one suggestion put forward at this time for tightening the crown’s hold on Ulster which was somewhat novel, though the primary objective in this instance was to over-awe the Gaelic lords of the province and reconquer the region. This came in the ‘State’ (c.1515), where it was recommended that large parts of Ulster, notably in the north-east around the Ards peninsula, the Glens, Carrickfergus and the Dufferin, be conquered and inhabited by the English nobility of England and Ireland: Also, nowe the King maye lyghtly, with noble folke of Ingland, and of Ireland, conquere and inhabyt a greate parte of the countye of Wolster, that hathe byn conqueryd and inhabytyd with the Kinges subgettes before nowe, that is to saye the barony of Lecchahyll, the barony of the Arde, the baronye of the Dyiferens, the barony of Cragfergonnes, the barony of Bentrye, the baronye of Grene Castell, the barony of Doundrom, the baronye of Gallagh, the barony of Mawlyn, the barony of Tuscard, the barony of Glynnes, and all the remenent landes, that lyeth betwyxt the Grene Castell and the ryver of the Banne.234

Whether this was the inspiration for those who would later set themselves to conquering and colonising the north-east in order to prevent the settlement of the Scots is uncertain, but it is of consequence that this idea surfaced at this time. In subsequent years this proposal, along with that to establish regional councils in the provinces, would become increasingly favoured on a theoretical level and would eventually be implemented. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this period for the subsequent development of treatise writing in Tudor Ireland. A number of foundational texts were composed between the outset of Henry’s reign and the 1540s which provided commentators on Ireland down to the end of the century with the basic ideas on which nearly all policy drives and ideological persuasions would be based for the remainder of the Tudor period. These included some of the essential measures through which religious reform would be undertaken down to the close of the sixteenth century, as well as the scheme to establish provincial councils in order to reintroduce Tudor rule in Munster, Connacht and Ulster, and the settlement of colonies of loyal English subjects to stem the flow of Scots settlers into north-east Ulster. More saliently, the idea emerged in the ‘reform’ treatises at this time that Ireland could be brought more firmly under crown rule through either coercive or conciliatory means. In the latter respect policies such as ‘surrender and regrant’ were advocated as a means



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 65

of assimilating Gaelic Ireland into the newly established kingdom of Ireland without having to pay for an expensive military conquest. Equally advocates of coercion developed a programme for the reduction of Gaelic Ireland. This argued that the Pale ought to be extended, with the MacMurrough Kavanaghs, O’Byrnes and O’Tooles in Carlow and Wicklow being the first lordships to experience military intervention. This call to ‘reduce’ or ‘reform’ the Gaelic parts of the country adjoining the Pale temporarily abated as ‘surrender and regrant’ was adopted between 1540 and 1543. However, even during the earlyto-mid-1540s the idea of implementing a programme of regional conquest beginning with south Leinster continued to attract widespread support. From 1546 onwards this coercive approach was effectively adopted, not in south Leinster, however, but in the midlands lordships of the O’Connors and O’Mores. Notes 1 This chapter does not address the whole of Henry’s reign, but the period up to 1546 when William Brabazon led an incursion into the midlands counties. Also, see Heffernan, ‘Reduction of Leinster’. 2 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution; Brady, Chief Governors. 3 Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica, eds F.X. Martin and A.B. Scott (Dublin, 1978); Giraldus Cambrensis, The History and Topography of Ireland, ed. J.J. O’Meara (London, 1982); Hiram Morgan, ‘Giraldus Cambrensis and the Tudor Conquest of Ireland’, in Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology, pp. 22–44. 4 Ronald Waldron (ed.), John Trevisa’s Translation of the Polychronicon of Ranulph Higden (Heidelberg, 2004). 5 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery. 6 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Robert Cowley’s “A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland”’. 7 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 113–34. 8 Ibid., pp. 80–9. On the abortive reform initiative, see Mary Ann Lyons, Church and Society in County Kildare, c.1470–1547 (Dublin, 2000), p. 55; J.A. Watt, The Church in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1972), pp. 37–9. 9 See above p. 15. 10 ‘John Wise to [the] Earl of Ormond’, 1498, Ormond Deeds, IV, pp. 336–7. 11 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, p. 41, have recently suggested this. 12 ‘Edmond Golding to the Earl of Ormond’, c.1507, Ormond Deeds, IV, App. 76, pp. 356–8. 13 Christopher Cusack, ‘Collections concerning Ireland and especially Meath’, c.1511, TCD, MS 594; Christopher Cusack, ‘The extent of ye counties of Meath, Dublin and Louth’, c.1511, TCD, MS 804, partially printed in Brendan Scott, Religion and Reformation in the Tudor Diocese of Meath (Dublin, 2006), App. 1, pp. 149–51. For further information on the provenance of Cusack’s commonplace

66

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

book, see Steven Ellis, Defending English Ground: War and Peace in Meath and Northumberland, 1460–1542 (Oxford, 2015), pp. 169–70. 14 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 135–43, notes the context in which these treatises were written. Ibid., pp. 42–4, argue that a tract on the ‘Havens of Ireland’ was likely composed around this time. However, the list usually appears with copies of the ‘Description of the Power of Irishmen’ and, consequently, may have been written in the 1490s or even been an appendix of sorts to that treatise. What follows addresses the other four treatises of the time. 15 Anonymous, ‘Description of Ireland’, 1515, L.P., II(i), 1367. 16 For examples of Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ in which the ‘Description’ is included, see BL, Add. MS 4,763, fos. 176v–184r; NLI, MS 3,314, fos. 45–73. 17 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 37–9. Differing copies of the ‘Articles’ variously give the day of submission as 23 or 24 June; however, the most contemporary copy which has been followed here is dated 23 June. On Darcy more generally, see Steven Ellis, ‘An English Gentleman and his Community: Sir William Darcy of Platten’, in Vincent Carey and Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds), Taking Sides?: Colonial and Confessional Mentalities in Early Modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 19–41; DIB, ‘Darcy, William’. Also, see Lennon, SixteenthCentury Ireland, pp. 77–86. 18 For recent studies on the issue of cultural degeneracy in the Pale in the late Medieval period, see Sparky Booker, ‘Intermarriage in Fifteenth-century Ireland: The English and Irish in the “Four Obedient Shires”’, in PRIA, 113C (2013), 219– 50; Sparky Booker, ‘An English City? Gaelicisation and Cultural Exchange in Late Medieval Dublin’, in Seán Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin X (Dublin, 2010), pp. 287–98. 19 C.A. Empey and Katharine Simms, ‘The Ordinances of the White Earl and the Problem of Coign in the Later Middle Ages’, in PRIA, 75C (1975), 161–87; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Six Tracts’. 20 For the most extensive copy of Darcy’s ‘Articles’, see Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 91–3. The majority of the other copies are comprised solely of the first four clauses. See, for example, CCM, 1515–1574, 2. 21 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, p. 37. 22 John Kite?, ‘The State of Ireland and Plan for its Reformation’, c.1515, SP.Henry. VIII, ii, 1. For the attribution to Kite, see Fitzsimons, ‘Cardinal Wolsey’, p. 84. ‘John Kite to Thomas Wolsey’, 1514, TNA, SP 60/1/3. 23 This is doubly curious given that attention was drawn to the connection in a footnote to the printed version. See SP.Henry.VIII, ii, p. 10. 24 BL, Add. MS 4,792, fos. 95–110, fo. 110r. Material which appears on fo. 95 and fo. 110 is not found in the version printed in the nineteenth century. These omissions aside, the texts broadly match. However, BL, Add. MS 4,792 is rendered difficult to read due to the text being badly faded. 25 See, for example, TCD, MS 842, fos. 41–56; TCD, MS 581, fos. 31–44. 26 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1. As the core content of the treatise appears to be faithfully reconstructed in this printed version it is referenced here throughout. 27 Ibid., pp. 1–9.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 67

28 Ibid., pp. 9–17. 29 Ibid., p. 17. 30 Ibid., p. 18. 31 Ibid., pp. 18–24. 32 Ibid., pp. 24–5. 33 Ibid., p. 29. 34 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 27–34. 35 David Heffernan, ‘Patrick Finglas’s A Breviat of the Conquest of Ireland and of the Decay of the Same (c.1535) and the Tudor Conquest of Ireland’, in SCJ (forthcoming, 2018). 36 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 69–79. 37 Ibid., pp. 99–109. 38 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 39 The text is usually referred to by the title given it in SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 64, ‘Report to Crumwell’. However, this is an artificial title which does not appear anywhere on the text. The title applied above is derived from the first sub-heading on the paper which does not have a title. 40 White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, suggests Alen as the author. SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 64, pp.  178–9. 41 Ibid., p. 167. 42 DIB, ‘Cowley, Robert’. 43 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 64, pp. 171–3. 44 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 32–57. 45 In particular, the concern for the renewal of archery mirrors sections of classic works of English humanism such as Thomas Elyot’s Boke Named the Gouernour (1531) and Roger Ascham’s Toxophilus (1545). See Steven Gunn, ‘Archery Practice in Early Tudor England’, in Past and Present, 209 (Nov., 2010), 53–81. 46 ‘Ordinances for the Government of Ireland’, 1534, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 70. Cf. Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 56–62, 99–109. 47 See pp. 36–44. 48 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 19–27. 49 See p. 15. 50 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 160–72. 51 Henry Morley (ed.), Ireland under Elizabeth and James I (London, 1890), pp. 213–342, 283, 301–2, 323; James Ware, The Works of Sir James Ware concerning Ireland revised and improved. In three volumes, ed. Walter Harris, 3 vols (Dublin, 1739–1746), II, pp. 93–4. 52 ‘King Henry VIII to Surrey’, 1521, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 12, p. 52. 53 ‘Surrey to King Henry VIII’, 1521, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 20, p. 73; ‘Surrey to Wolsey’, 1520, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 15; ‘Norfolk to Crumwell’, 1535, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 104. On Howard’s early career, see Susan Elisabeth Vokes, ‘The Early Career of Thomas, Lord Howard, Earl of Surrey and Third Duke of Norfolk, 1474–c.1525’, PhD (University of Hull, 1988); DIB, ‘Howard, Thomas’; Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 143–52. 54 D.B. Quinn, ‘Henry VIII and Ireland, 1509–34’, in IHS, 12:48 (Sep., 1961), 318–44;

68

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds), A New History of Ireland, 9 vols (Oxford, 1976), ii, pp. 662–87; Fitzsimons, ‘Cardinal Wolsey’. 55 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1536, SP.Henry. VIII, ii, 133. 56 Laurence McCorristine, The Revolt of Silken Thomas: A Challenge to Henry VIII (Dublin, 1987). Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, pp. 5–46; Fitzsimons, ‘Cardinal Wolsey’. 57 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 133, p. 337. 58 Ibid. 59 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1, p. 25. 60 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 61 Thomas Finglas, ‘Report on Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1534, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 69, p. 189. 62 TNA, SP 60/2/7, fo. 21v. The quote here is taken from the State Paper copy in Patrick’s son Thomas’s hand. The corresponding passage in the Hatfield version of the ‘Breviat’ printed in Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, p. 77, does not specifically mention the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles. 63 Statutes, i, pp. 84–9. 64 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 77–9. 65 Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, pp. 5–32. 66 Thomas Cromwell, ‘Remembrances for Ireland’, 1535, TNA, SP 60/2/31, fo. 83r, calendared in L.P., VII, 1211. 67 Quote from, ‘William Brabazon to Crumwell’, 1535, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 105, p. 279; William Brabazon, ‘The Treasurer of War in Ireland to Cromwell’, 1535, CCM, 1515–1574, 70; DIB, ‘Brabazon, William’. 68 William Brabazon, ‘Proposals to “your good mastership” (Cromwell) for the pacification of Ireland’, 1535, L.P., IX, 332. 69 William Brabazon, ‘A Note of certen Remembrances’, 1536, TNA, SP 60/3/94, fo. 203r. 70 ‘J. Alen to King Henry VIII’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 150. 71 Ibid., p. 374. 72 Ibid. 73 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, p. 109; Carey, Surviving the Tudors, pp. 88–9; DIB, ‘Alen, John’. 74 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 150, pp. 373–4. 75 ‘W. Cowley to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 131; ‘The Devises of Robert Cowley, for the furtheraunce of the Kinges Majesties affayres in His Graces land of Irland’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 147. 76 ‘R. Cowley to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 129. 77 Ibid., p. 329. 78 ‘W. Cowley to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 131, pp. 332–3. 79 ‘A Memoriall, or a note, for the wynnyng of Leynster’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 162. 80 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to King Henry VIII’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 161, p. 408. 81 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 162, pp. 412–16.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 69

82 White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, pp. 105–6, briefly surveyed this scheme. 83 Brian C. Donovan, ‘A Community in Transition: The Royal Liberty and the County of Wexford, 1536–1603’, BA dissertation (TCD, 1989), pp. 35–40. For more on Brown, Devereux and Keating’s family background and individual careers, see Heffernan, ‘Reduction of Leinster’, p. 12. 84 ‘Walter Brown, John Devereux and Alexander Keating to Cromwell’, 1537, TNA, SP 60/4/27, fo. 80r. 85 Ibid. 86 ‘Lord Ossory, &c. to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 113. 87 ‘Indenture made 22nd January 1535, 28 Hen. VIII, between Lord Leonard Grey, Justiciary of Ireland, and Thadaeus O’Byrne, principal captain of his nation’, 1536, CCM, 1515–1574, 72; ‘Treaty of peace and final concord between Lord Leonard Grey, Deputy, and the Lord Charles McYncrosse Cavenagh’, 1536, CCM, 1515– 1574, 77; ‘Indenture made 14 July 1536, 28 Hen. VIII., between Lord Leonard Grey, Viscount Grane, Deputy, and Charles McMurgho’, 1536, CCM, 1515–1574, 82. 88 ‘W. Cowley to Robert Cowley’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 123; ‘Thomas Alen to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 139. 89 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to Henry VIII’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 153; ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 156, p. 392. 90 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 162. 91 ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 165, p. 423. 92 Maginn, “Civilising” Gaelic Leinster, p. 53; ‘Robert Cowley to Crumwell’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 171, p. 446. Talbot was eventually appointed captain of the Harolds’ country in south Dublin in 1537. See CPRI, I, p. 26. 93 ‘The Council of Ireland to Crumwell’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 170, p. 444. 94 ‘Francis Harbert to Norfolk’, 1538, TNA, SP 60/6/7, fo. 15. 95 ‘Luttrell to Sentleger, &c.’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 184, p. 506. 96 John Alen, ‘To the Honourable, by the auctorytye they use, Mr. Anthony Seintleger, George Poulet, Thomas Moyle, and William Berners, the Kinges Commyssioners in Ireland’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 183, p. 498. 97 Thomas Agard, ‘Agard to Crumwell’, 1535, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 90; ‘Martin Pellys to Cromwell’, 1537, CCM, 1515–1574, 96. 98 William F.T. Butler, ‘The Policy of Surrender and Regrant’, in JRSAI, Sixth Series, 3:1 (Mar., 1913), 47–65; 3:2 (Jun., 1913), 99–128; William F.T. Butler, Gleanings from Irish History (Dublin, 1925); ODNB, ‘St Leger, Anthony’; Peter Piveronus, ‘The Life and Career of Anthony St. Leger, Ulcombe, Kent (1496?-1559), Lord Deputy of Ireland: A Biographical Sketch in the Evolution of Early Tudor AngloIrish Policy’, PhD (Michigan State University, 1972). 99 Maginn, ‘“Surrender and Regrant” in the Historiography of Sixteenth-Century Ireland’. 100 Statutes, i, pp. 176–7. 101 The document detailing the offer is ‘Layton to the Earl of Essex’, 1540, SP.Henry. VIII, v, 372, pp. 178–9. The context was a rumour that James V was preparing to sail to Ireland, Layton related that he had heard from someone who ‘was

70

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

at Courte in Lente last, and … saw 8 gentylemen of Ierlande with the Kynge, whyche browght unto Hym the seales under wryttynge of all the greate men in Ierlande, that they wolde houlde of Hym, and take Hym for thayre Kynge’. Ibid., p. 178; Alison Cathcart, ‘James V, King of Scotland – and Ireland?’, in Sean Duffy (ed.), The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords, and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600 (Dublin, 2007), pp. 124–43. 102 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, 331, argues the case that the King should take the title of King of Ireland, noting that it would supersede any claims that the Pope was the natural lord of Ireland on the basis of Laudabiliter. For a further discussion of this, see James Murray, Enforcing the English Reformation in Ireland: Clerical Resistance and Political Conflict in the Diocese of Dublin, 1534–1590 (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 127–30. 103 ODNB, ‘Ó’Néill, Éinrí’; Katherine Simms, ‘“The king’s friend”: O’Neill, the Crown and the Earldom of Ulster’, in James Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), pp. 214–36; Edmund Curtis, ‘Richard, duke of York, as viceroy of Ireland’, in JRSAI, 7th ser., 2 (1932), 158–86; Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism, pp. 316–34. 104 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1, p. 29; Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’; ‘The Deuyse of Robert Cowley for the staye and particuler reformacion of Irlande’, 1538, TNA, SP 60/7/45, fo. 138v. 105 ‘Surrey to Wolsey’, 1521, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 17. Christopher Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers, the Tudor Sovereigns, and English Multiple Monarchy’, in Journal of British Studies, 5:3 (July, 2011), 566–86. 106 ‘King Henry VIII to Surrey’, 1520, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 12. 107 ‘King Henry VIII to _____’, 1520, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 14. 108 Peter Roberts, ‘The English Crown, the Principality of Wales and the Council in the Marches, 1534–1641’, in Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill (eds), The British Problem, c.1534–1707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (London, 1996), pp. 118–47, esp. pp. 120–1. 109 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 12, p. 52. 110 ‘The Council of Ireland to Crumwell’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 170, p. 444. 111 Edward Staples, ‘A certen Information for our Souveraigne Lordes moste honourable Commyssioners in Irlande’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 182, p. 485. Another copy of the tract was owned by Robert Beale later in the century. See BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 161–163. DIB, ‘Staples, Edward’. Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, p. 176, have suggested on the basis of the hand in which the document is written that the ‘Information’ was composed by John Alen. However, Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, p. 194, comprehensively proved that the treatise was written by Staples. 112 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 182, p. 480. 113 ‘Bishop Staples to Sentleger, or Moyle’, 1538, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 233. 114 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 193–4, 232–3, has noted Staples’s influence, but this diminishes in comparison with the emphasis on Cusack’s role both in Bradshaw’s text and in subsequent studies.



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 71

115 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 3–6. 116 Ibid., p. 4. 117 Ibid., pp. 4–6. 118 Ibid., p. 6. 119 DIB, ‘Cusack, Thomas’; ODNB, ‘Cusack, Thomas’; H.D. Gallwey, ‘The Cusack Family of Counties Meath and Dublin’, in The Irish Genealogist, 5:5 (Nov., 1978), 591–600, esp. 591–6; J. Roderick O’Flanagan, The Lives of the Lord Chancellors and the Keepers of the Great Seal of Ireland, from the earliest times to the reign of Queen Victoria, 2 Vols (London, 1870), I, pp. 207–37. 120 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 347, p. 326. 121 Ibid., p. 327. 122 Ibid., pp. 327–30. The Leinster lords and O’Reilly are dealt with fairly extensively over two pages, while in contrast the greater lordships of O’Donnell, MacWilliam and O’Brien are treated together in one paragraph. O’Neill does not figure. 123 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 32–57. 124 Ibid., p. 205. 125 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1541, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 349, for example, relates a campaign into O’Neill’s country, during which time they ‘burnid grete parte of the same, and distroyed miche of his cornis and butters’. 126 Fitzsimons, ‘Cardinal Wolsey’, pp. 80–7; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 32–40. 127 Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, pp. 75–6. 128 This is notably the case in Brady’s study, but also in a number of textbooks for the period. Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 13–71; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 108–48; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland, pp. 144–64; S.J. Connolly, Contested Island: Ireland, 1460–1630 (Oxford, 2007), pp. 99–123. 129 ‘Sentleger, &c. to Crumwell’, 1538, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 196, p. 536. 130 On Grey’s term as governor, see Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 13–25. 131 ‘Lord Deputy Sentleger to King Henry VIII’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 322, pp. 235–6. 132 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1541, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 349. 133 ODNB, ‘Thomas, William’. A Welshman, Thomas played a role in the dissolution of the religious houses in England before travelling to Venice where he wrote the ‘Peregryne’ in 1547. He later took part in Wyatt’s Rebellion for which he was hung, drawn and quartered. 134 J.A. Froude (ed.), The Pilgrim: A Dialogue of the Life and Actions of King Henry the Eight (London, 1861), p. 67. 135 Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, p. 209. 136 Dunlop, ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Policy’, p. 293. 137 ‘King Henry VIII to Sentleger’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 325, p. 247. Also, ‘King Henry VIII to Sentleger’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 324, which called for the reduction of Leinster, with Ormond to play a prominent role in doing so. 138 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1540, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 328; ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 329.

72

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

139 ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland’, 1541, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 337, p. 293. 140 Ibid. 141 Maginn, ‘“Surrender and Regrant” in the Historiography of Sixteenth-Century Ireland’. 142 Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, pp. 65–76. 143 ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council’, 1541, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 361; ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council’, 1541, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 370. On the creations at this time, see Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’. 144 David Edwards, ‘Collaboration without Anglicisation: The MacGiollapadraig Lordship and Tudor Reform’, in Patrick Duffy, David Edwards and Elizabeth Fitzpatrick (eds), Gaelic Ireland, c.1250–1650 (Dublin, 2004), pp. 77–97. 145 Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, p. 74. 146 Maginn, ‘The limitations of Tudor Reform’; Ciaran Brady, ‘The O’Reillys of East Breifne and the Problem of “Surrender and Regrant”’, in Breifne, 6:23 (1985), 233–62. 147 See, for example, ‘Robert Cowley to Crumwell’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 171; ‘Francis Harbert to Norfolk’, 1538, TNA, SP 60/6/7; SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 184. 148 For instance, there was some dissension between Thomas Agard, a close confidant of Brabazon’s, and John Alen and Gerald Aylmer. See ‘Walter Cowley to Cromwell’, 1536, TNA, SP 60/3/40. Also a number of the most vocal advocates of an aggressive stance in Leinster were Butler partisans, notably the Cowleys. On the promotion of these individuals by Cromwell, see Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian Reform and the Origins of the Kildare Rebellion, 1533–34’, in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, 27 (1977), 69–93; Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 90–100. 149 ‘Devyses of your moste humble subjectes for reformation of Laynster, and for contynuance of the same’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 330. 150 Johnathan Good, The Cult of St. George in Medieval England (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 109. 151 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 330, pp. 272–3. 152 On the growth of the Butler network at this time, see Edwards, The Ormond Lordship, pp. 163–75. 153 DIB, ‘MacMurrough Kavanagh, Cathaoir’. 154 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 330, p. 275. The Kavanaghs named on both the council’s and the Butler’s proposed board were Cahir McArt, Donal McCahir, Art McDonogh, Murghe McGarad and Creven. 155 Ibid., p. 276. 156 Christopher Maginn, ‘A Window on Mid-Tudor Ireland: The ‘Matters’ against Lord Deputy St Leger, 1547–8’, in Historical Research, 78:202 (Nov., 2005), 465–82, 482; ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to the King’, 1544, TNA, SP 60/11/32. 157 ‘J. Alen to King Henry VIII’, 1542, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 369, p. 393. 158 ‘Sentleger to the Privy Council of England’, 1543, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 392, pp. 461–2. On the Butler estate around Arklow, see Seamus O’Duinn, ‘The Manor



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 73

of Arklow in the 16th Century’, in Arklow Historical Society Journal (1986), pp. 44–9. 159 ‘Sentleger to King Henry VIII’, 1542, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 365, pp. 377–8. 160 See Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’, on the legacy of ‘surrender and regrant’ through to the close of the reign of Elizabeth I. 161 For a study of a lordship which demonstrates that acceptance of English title did not lead to a commensurate adoption of English social and political ideas, see Edwards, ‘Collaboration without Anglicisation’. 162 Brian O’Dálaigh, ‘A Comparative Study of the Wills of the First and Fourth Earls of Thomond’, in JNMAS, 34 (1992), 48–63; Ivar O’Brien, O’Brien of Thomond: The O’Briens in Irish History, 1500–1865 (Sussex, 1986), pp. 11–49. 163 William Palmer, The Problem of Ireland in Tudor Foreign Policy (Suffolk, 1994), pp. 55–65; T. Blake Butler, ‘King Henry VIII’s Irish Army List’, in The Irish Genealogist, 1:1 (April, 1937), 3–13; 1:2 (Oct., 1937), 36–9; Piveronus, ‘Sir Anthony St. Leger’, pp. 106–38; White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, pp. 155–94; D.G. White, ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Kerne in France and Scotland, 1544–1545’, in Irish Sword, 3 (1957–58), 213–25. 164 Steven Ellis, ‘Economic Problems of the Church: Why the Reformation Failed in Ireland’, in Jn. Eccl. Hist., 41:2 (Apr., 1990), 239–65; Murray, Enforcing, pp. 20–3. For an interpretation which argues that the pre-Reformation church was not as poor as generally imagined, see Henry Jefferies, ‘The Armagh Registers and the Re-interpretation of Irish Church History on the Eve of the Reformations’, in Seanchas Ardmhacha, 18:1 (1999/2000), 81–99; Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 15–38. 165 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, p. 99. 166 Anonymous, ‘Articles to bee shewed, on the behalf of thErl of Kildare, unto the Kinges Grace by my Lord Leonard Grey, towching the mysedemeanour of thErl of Ormond, sethens the departure of the Kinges Commyssioners out of Ireland’, 1525, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 42. 167 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1, pp. 15–16. 168 ‘Archbishop Inge and Lord Chief Justice Bermyngham to Wolsey’, 1528, SP.Henry. VIII, ii, 44, p. 126. 169 William Rokeby, ‘Memoranda for Ireland’, 1520, L.P., III (i), 670. 170 For detailed previous studies, see Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 71–87; Murray, Enforcing, pp. 82–197. Also, see the coverage of the period by G.V. Jouvan, in Walter Alison Phillips (ed.), History of the Church of Ireland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 2 vols (London, 1933–1934), II, pp. 169–246, which remains one of the most detailed surveys of religious reform at this time. 171 Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The Opposition to the Ecclesiastical Legislation in the Irish Reformation Parliament’, in IHS, 16:63 (Mar., 1969), 285–303. See, for example, Statutes, i, pp. 90–1, 104–10, 127–32. 172 Brendan Bradshaw, The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1974). 173 For in-depth studies of these dioceses, see Murray, Enforcing; Henry Jefferies, Priests and Prelates in Armagh in the Age of Reformations, 1518–1558 (Dublin, 1997); Scott, Religion and Reformation.

74

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

174 Murray, Enforcing, pp. 91–124; Brendan Bradshaw, ‘George Browne, first Reformation Archbishop of Dublin, 1536–1554’, in Jn. Eccl. Hist., 21:4 (Oct., 1970), 301–26; Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 138–42; DIB, ‘Browne, George’; DIB, ‘Staples, Edward’. 175 On the two strategies, see Bradshaw, ‘Sword, Word and Strategy in the Reformation in Ireland’. 176 ‘Archbishop Browne to Crumwell’, 1538, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 197, p. 539. 177 George Browne, ‘Theise be articles devised by the moste reverend Father in God, George, Archbusshop of Dublin, at the commaundement of our most dreade Soveraigne lorde the King, for the reformation of certen enormyties and abuses amonges his clergie’, 1538, printed in J. Payne Collier (ed.), ‘The Egerton Papers’, in The Camden Society, 12 (1840), 7–10; George Browne, ‘The Fourme of the Beades’, 1538, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 214. 178 See, for example, Bradshaw, ‘George Browne’. 179 TNA, SP 60/7/45, fos. 137v–138r. 180 ‘An Abregement of the Irisshmens Requestes’, 1543, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 393. 181 Murray, Enforcing, pp. 159–61, 170–88. 182 Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’, deals with this issue in detail. 183 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1542, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 375, p. 414. Murray, Enforcing, pp. 162–9, looks exhaustively at the Christ Church scheme. 184 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 375, p. 415. 185 Ibid. 186 In 1321 the archbishop of Dublin, Alexander Bicknor, issued an ordinance for the foundation of a university in the city. Another attempt was made to foster an Irish centre of learning in 1358, while the 1460s saw the development of two separate schemes to endow colleges in Youghal and Drogheda. See Edmund Curtis, A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), pp. 220, 226, 329; Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 127–9. The ninth Earl of Kildare had also sought to establish a college at Maynooth in 1518. See Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 87–96, for more on this. 187 ‘Sentleger to King Henry VIII’, 1543, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 394, p. 468. 188 ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland’, 1543, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 398, p. 484. 189 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1543, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 401, pp. 489–90. 190 Murray, Enforcing, pp. 194–5. 191 Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 5–14, p. 6. 192 Ibid., p. 11. 193 Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’. 194 ‘Notes of the five shirys that shold be obedient vnto the king’, 1536, TNA, SP 60/3/88. 195 For examples of these, see treatises by John Merbury and Nicholas Dawtrey in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 293–8, 320–2. 196 Art Cosgrove, ‘The Execution of the Earl of Desmond, 1468’, in



•  conquest or conciliation?, c.1515–1546  • 75

Journal of the Kerry Archaeological and Historical Society, 8 (1975), 11–27. 197 James Hogan, Ireland in the European System (London, 1920), pp. 9–34; Declan M. Downey, ‘Irish-European Integration: The Legacy of Charles V’, in Judith Devlin and Howard B. Clarke (eds), European Encounters: Essays in Memory of Albert Lovett (Dublin, 2003), pp. 97–117; Mary Ann Lyons, Franco-Irish Relations, 1500–1610: Politics, Migration and Trade (Suffolk, 2003), pp. 27–34. 198 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to the King, Wolsey, and others’, 1528, TNA, SP 60/1/66. 199 L.P., III (i), 670. 200 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 201 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 69; ‘R. Cowley to Crumwell’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 147, p. 367. 202 ‘Remembrance for secretary Cromwell for settling the earl of Desmond’s lands’, 1536, TNA, SP 60/3/49. This treatise is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, p. 4. 203 TNA, SP 60/3/49, fo. 103r. 204 ‘James FitzJohn, earl of Desmond, to the King’, 1537, TNA, SP 60/5/1(i). 205 ‘The Council of Ireland to Crumwell’, 1538, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 259. 206 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 171, p. 447. 207 ‘James FitzJohn to King Henry VIII’, 1539, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 266. 208 ‘Ormond to Crumwell’, 1539, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 282. 209 ‘J. Alen to Crumwell’, 1539, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 272, p. 137. 210 ‘The Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 296; Anthony McCormack, ‘Internecine Warfare and the Decline of the House of Desmond, c.1510 – c.1541’, in IHS, 30:120 (Nov., 1997), 497–512. 211 ‘Ormond to Essex’, 1540, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 298; ‘Sentleger to King Henry VIII’, 1541, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 334; ‘Submission of James, earl of Desmond’, 1541, TNA, SP 60/10/4(i). 212 ‘J. Alen to King Henry VIII’, 1542, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 369, p. 392; McCormack, The Earldom of Desmond, esp. pp. 58–74. 213 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 214 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 64, p. 173. 215 Leonard Grey?, ‘A Devyse for the Weall of Irelande’, c.1537, BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 166–168r, fo. 168r. 216 ‘Brabazon to Crumwell’, 1539, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 270. 217 John Travers, ‘Certaine Devices for the Reformation of Ireland’, 1542, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 382. 218 CCM, 1515–1574, 172. 219 ‘Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII’, 1542, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 375, pp. 413–14. 220 John Alen, ‘A note of the state of Ireland with a devise for the same’, 1546, L.P., XXI(i), 915. 221 See ‘Minutes of Council, with the King’s Commands’, 1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 448, p. 583, which recommends that a council be established at Limerick presided

76

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

over by the archbishop of Cashel, who at the time was Edmund Butler, an illegitimate son of the eight earl of Ormond. See DIB, ‘Butler, Edmund’. 222 On the continuing settlement of the Scots in the North in the preceding period, see Simon Kingston, Ulster and the Isles in the Fifteenth Century: the lordship of the Clann Domhnaill of Antrim (Dublin, 2004); Philip Smith, ‘Hebridean Settlement and Activity in Ireland, c.1470–1568’, MA (Queens University Belfast, 1993); Jamie Cameron, James V: The Personal Rule, 1528–1542 (East Lothian, 1998), pp. 228–54; Alison Cathcart, ‘Scots and Ulster: The Late Medieval Context’, in William P. Kelly and John R. Young (eds), Scotland and the Ulster Plantation (Dublin, 2009), pp. 62–83; James Michael Hill, Fire and Sword: Sorley Boy MacDonnell and the Rise of Clan Ian Mor, 1538–1590 (Athlone, 1993), pp. 5–19; Gerard Hayes-McCoy, Scots Mercenary Forces in Ireland (1565–1603) (Dublin, 1937), pp. 8–12. 223 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 64, p. 172. 224 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 272, pp. 137–8. 225 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 270. 226 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 382, p. 432. 227 Marcus Merriman, The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots, 1542–1551 (East Lothian, 2000). 228 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council to King Henry VIII’, 1543, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 391, p. 459. 229 ‘The Lord Justice and Council to Henry VIII’, 1544, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 407; ‘The Lord Justice and Council to Henry VIII’, 1544, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 408; Lyons, Franco-Irish Relations, pp. 59–74. 230 ‘Sentleger to Wriothesley’, 1544, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 410, p. 507; White, ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Kerne’. 231 Palmer, The Problem of Ireland, pp. 55–65. 232 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Council of England’, 1545, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 414; ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Council of England’, 1545, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 415. 233 ‘The Council of England to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland’, 1545, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 416; ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Council of England’, 1545, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 421; Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 20–32; Butler, ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Army List’. Alison Cathcart, ‘The Forgotten ‘45: Donald Dubh’s Rebellion in an Archipelagic Context’, in The Scottish Historical Review, 91:232 (Oct., 2012), 239–64. 234 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1, p. 24.



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 77

2

•

‘Reform’ treatises and the inception of the Tudor conquest in mid-sixteenth-century Ireland, 1546–1565

The mid-Tudor and early Elizabethan period saw a notable reduction in the number of treatises being composed on the state of Ireland, at least by comparison with the flurry of writings which appeared in the years following the Kildare Rebellion. This is curious, for these years saw wide-sweeping changes in the country. In the two decades roughly beginning with Edward VI’s accession and running through to the viceroyalty of Thomas Radcliffe, third earl of Sussex, the effective reach of the government widened to embrace most of Leinster and large parts of Munster, Connacht and Ulster. The first major, state-sponsored plantation of the Tudor age was undertaken in the midlands. Finally, in Ulster the government’s conflict with Conn O’Neill’s son and successor, Shane, presaged the acrimony of the crown’s relations with the lords of that province which would pertain for the remainder of the century. Indeed, this shift in government policy is well established in the historiography of the period and historians from Philip Wilson as early as 1913, through Dean Gunther White and Brendan Bradshaw in the 1960s and 1970s and a wide range of more contemporary historians such as David Edwards have all argued that the mid-Tudor period saw a drastic escalation in the level of militarisation and violence in Ireland.1 There have been arguments against this, notably by Ciaran Brady who has suggested that there were significant continuities in policy.2 Yet the argument for continuity is confronted by a clear set of developments which occurred from the closing months of Henry VIII’s reign onwards which indicate a distinct shift towards governing Ireland through more coercive measures. Clearly, the militarisation of Leinster, as well as southern and eastern Ulster, in the late 1540s presents an unambiguous evidential basis for suggesting a break with the past.3 Furthermore, the initial resort to plantation, the introduction of martial law under Sussex and an increasing dependence on ­purveyance or

78

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the ‘cess’ to support the garrison are all features that are indicative of heightened aggression. There were exceptions to this drift towards more coercive policies, most notably in the survival of the programme of ‘surrender and regrant’, yet even this conciliatory initiative survived only in an attenuated form after 1543.4 What follows is an analysis of the ‘reform’ treatises composed from 1546 when a military campaign was initiated in the midlands by William Brabazon through to the conclusion of Sussex’s term in Ireland and the uncovering of rampant malpractice by his successor in the vice-regal office, Nicholas Arnold. While the treatises extant for much of this period are admittedly less fulsome than for other periods a number of common concerns arose within them. Many focused on the establishment of a system of garrisons and colonies in the newly occupied midlands. There was also increasing support for the establishment of provincial councils in Munster, Connacht, Ulster, and even Leinster. For Ulster treatise writers were increasingly concerned to tackle the problem of Scots settlement there, while later in the period the rise of Shane O’Neill led a number of writers to question how the lord of Tír Eoghain should be engaged with. Curiously though, despite the manner in which Shane came to occupy crown resources so greatly, not a great many writers touched on the topic of ousting or accommodating him. In part this may have been owing to the autocratic nature of Sussex’s administration, and this chapter argues that the dip in treatise composition at this time may have been owing to an awareness that Sussex was uninterested in the kind of policy debate that led to the writing of position papers. Moreover, as the final section of the chapter discusses, Sussex’s administration and the methods it employed were actually leading to growing complaints about the nature of Tudor policy in Ireland as early as the late 1550s. However, before exploring any aspect of Sussex’s tenure as viceroy it is necessary to turn to the closing months of Henry VIII’s reign when a coercive programme of military intervention, as argued for in a great proportion of the treatises composed since the mid-1530s, was finally initiated. Leinster: Militarisation and plantation

In the closing months of the reign of King Henry VIII, John Alen composed yet another treatise on Ireland entitled a ‘Note on the state of Ireland with a Dyuise for the Same’. This paper is quite significant for it demonstrates the manner in which the strategic thinking of those who had pressed for a reduction of south Leinster since the 1530s was altering in the course of the 1540s. Alen was still concerned for the lordships of Wicklow and Carlow, stating ‘in the reformation of Leynster … some thinge … moght haue been done more then is’.5 In order to see the region brought under crown control he urged that the ‘capitaynes that haue charge in Leynster be furnyshed and



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 79

put to it a fresh’.6 Yet an additional concern now taxed Alen as much as south Leinster. The O’Connor lordship, he argued, would also have to be conquered. Attempts had been made throughout the 1540s to negotiate a ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangement with Brian O’Connor Faly, the most recent an offer of a viscountcy in 1545, yet these had all failed.7 Alen suggested that this prevarication had strengthened O’Connor at the expense of the crown. Accordingly, he noted that ‘men of experience hath shewed me that it wer almost as facile to reduce Leynster to a lawe, as O’Chonor to the state he was in fyue or sixe yeares past … and what pease so ever he kepe … it is no small peril that he sholde haue this strength … so as it were goode to provyde for the worst’.8 He went on to argue in a subtle manner that it was imperative that O’Connor be reduced.9 This is highly significant. While Alen had briefly recommended intervening in the O’Connor lordship in 1536 this was peripheral to his strategic thinking at that time, but by 1546 he viewed intervention in the lordship of O’Connor Faly in the midlands as being as crucial, if not more so, than the conquest of south Leinster.10 Yet much of St Leger’s viceroyalty in the years prior to 1546 had centred on efforts to stabilise relations with O’Connor. It may then not have been entirely coincidental that just as enthusiasm for an aggressive approach in Leinster was growing afresh the viceroy found himself confronted with charges of misconduct in office. These were brought by Alen,11 Ormond12 and Walter Cowley, three long-standing supporters of the reduction of Leinster.13 Their complaints were supported from Ireland by Brabazon serving as interim lord justice and other senior officials such as Aylmer and Luttrell.14 However, if this loose coalition of senior officials who favoured aggressive intervention in south Leinster and, increasingly, the midlands were attempting to have St Leger removed from office in 1546 they were to be frustrated in this design. In England St Leger was ultimately cleared of the charges ranged against him. Conversely, Alen was removed from his position as lord chancellor and Cowley was temporarily imprisoned, while Ormond died in an unrelated occurrence of food poisoning while in London.15 However, St Leger returned to an Ireland where the political climate in the midlands had changed dramatically. Brabazon had launched a military incursion into the region in the summer of 1546 during St Leger’s absence in London.16 Despite a paucity of evidence concerning the incursion it is clear that this was not a transitory campaign and Brabazon oversaw the establishment of a fort and garrison known as Fort Governor at the site of the O’Connor castle at Daingean in Offaly. St Leger may have favoured a reversal of this initiative following his return to Ireland but events in the months that followed acted against him. The situation in the midlands escalated in 1547 and following the death of Henry VIII the new regime dispatched Edward Bellingham to oversee military activities in the midlands.17

80

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Upon Bellingham’s arrival, Brabazon now penned a brief ‘Note’ late in 1547 for presentation to the military commander. In this treatise he returned to a very old theme, to ‘reduce to obedience … this Leinster’.18 Claiming that more highly placed officials in Ireland had written on this topic than there was paper available he lamented ‘yet it is as it was’.19 Brabazon was clear what needed to be done. The aggressive approach he himself had implemented in the midlands needed to be continued. Accordingly, the fort at Daingean needed to be reinforced and additional garrisons established throughout the lordships of the O’Connors, O’Mores and O’Dempseys. In order to have St Leger removed from office a cohort of his political opponents now drew up a series of charges of misconduct against the embattled lord deputy in 1547. These ‘Matters’ were not signed or attributed, yet it is almost certain that the document was compiled by a multitude of St Leger’s political opponents, led by Brabazon and Alen.20 The text comprised 139 charges laid against St Leger’s government. For the vast majority of these the names of individuals were written in the right-hand margins next to the points, indicating individuals who could elaborate further thereon. The links with those who favoured the forward strategy in Leinster are striking, with the names of Thomas Luttrell, Walter Cowley and Gerald Aylmer all appearing in these marginal notes. These were all long-standing supporters of the reduction of Leinster and along with Brabazon and Alen comprised the living remnant of those who had lobbied most forcefully for the reduction of Leinster in the 1530s. The ‘Matters’ were concerned with two issues above all others: charges of corruption against St Leger and the Irish lordships of Leinster, principally the O’Connors and the O’Mores in the midlands and those of Wicklow and Carlow.21 Indeed, one of the concluding articles in the ‘Matters’ could not have more succinctly expressed the manner in which the preferred strategy of those who had favoured military intervention in Leinster had evolved from the 1530s. Here it was asked ‘Whether the kingis maiestie for all his chargs hathe gotten any p[ro]fight amonge Irishemen: or is in any securitie of the realme befor Ochonor, Omore, and the residew of Leynster be duely reformed’.22 Hence, while the overriding objective of the ‘Matters’ was to have St Leger removed from office in tandem the paper urged for an aggressive strategy of conquest to be initiated in Leinster. This was quickly realised. In January 1548 Bellingham was appointed to succeed St Leger as lord deputy. Upon returning to Ireland he quickly began to initiate the programme of regional conquest. Military campaigns were conducted into the midlands, where Fort Protector was established at Ballyadams in the O’More lordship as a counterpart to Fort Governor at Daingean in Offaly.23 Clearly then the aggressive intervention in the midlands urged by Brabazon and Alen in their treatises of the previous two years was quickly initiated following St Leger’s removal from office. The militarisation of a wide arc of land spanning outwards from the Pale



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 81

and embracing much of Leinster and south Ulster occurred very rapidly following the outbreak of the war in the midlands. A network of seneschals, sheriffs and constables were appointed to oversee the establishment of garrisons throughout an area stretching westwards to the Shannon and as far north as Carrickfergus. These regional commanders were established as overseers in certain lordships within which it was envisaged the system of Gaelic exactions would be expediently remitted into seneschals’ dues.24 The ensuing resources would then be utilised to support the wards and garrisons under their command whose role was to establish control over the surrounding countryside.25 This process was articulated succinctly by Walter Cowley in a number of policy documents he addressed to Bellingham in 1549.26 In a detailed ­letter-tract he wrote from Wexford in January he recommended a significant programme of fort construction, with Roscommon, Athlone, Carlingford, Carrickfergus, Nenagh and Sligo all earmarked as locations for garrisons. Additionally, the forts which had been established in the midlands were to be continued and a mobile force was to be employed between Cork, Kinsale and Youghal.27 Elsewhere, in a further ‘Device’, Cowley outlined how a regional commander stationed at the abbey of Woney or Owney in east Limerick would oversee north Munster with a force of several hundred men maintained through contributions from the Gaelic septs of the region: The king’s captaine in the late Abbay of Wony to haue the Rians, Doyers, bothe the Ormonds, the Meaghers, Are, Rourkes and Breanes in this side the Shennon, to beare a certaine contribution to him yerly, leving by estimacion half such certaine contribucions to the captaynes of the countries there, and bynding theim for their rate to haue ther stables and a certaine standing housholde.28

Cowley proceeded to recommend the extension of this system throughout Leinster remarking that, where established, seneschals were to ‘be at the chardges of the countre for the keaping of them in quyete’.29 Cowley’s stratagem broadly mirrored the network of garrisons which was being developed in the late 1540s and into the 1550s. The most conspicuous of these were the two forts in the midlands, that at Daingean in Offaly (later Fort Governor) erected by Brabazon and Fort Protector in Laois. The under-­ treasurer was also instrumental in fulfilling the ambition for a westward drive to the Shannon as he took up the position of constable of Athlone Castle in 1547, a post which was retained as a perquisite of office by his successors in the office of under-treasurer.30 From here Robert Dillon, whose forebears had held the constableship of Athlone throughout much of the fifteenth century conducted campaigns into east Connacht in 1548.31 South of the Pale John Brereton was established as seneschal of Wexford in 1547 and was followed shortly thereafter in that office by John Issam, while Thomas Alen was appointed as constable of Wicklow castle in 1548.32 Anthony Colclought was

82

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

selected to oversee and fortify Leighlin Bridge in 1549 in the same county, Carlow, where Brian Jonys and Robert St Leger were established as important regional commanders.33 Though more closely tied to the Pale Westmeath also experienced some tightening of the government’s control in early 1550, when Peter Dalton was appointed to oversee the Daltons’ country there. The county experienced further incursions in the following months owing to land grants to Brabazon and others.34 In Ulster Nicholas Bagenal, Andrew Brereton and Roger Brooke were established at Newry, Lecale and Dundrum, respectively.35 Finally, in Munster James Walsh was appointed constable of Dungarvan, while another of the sites Cowley had expressly noted, Nenagh, was garrisoned under Walter Ap Howell.36 Hence within a few years of the initial incursion into the midlands a network of garrisons had been established throughout Leinster and parts of Ulster and Munster. Overseen by a cadre of seneschals and constables, from 1556 these were also often operating under commissions of martial law and had increasing resort to purveyance to supply their forces.37 Many of these officers and subsequently their successors in those offices, individuals such as Nicholas Malby, Nicholas Bagenal, Thomas Alen and William Piers, were to become significant authors of treatises.38 From 1546 onwards, then, a strategy of regional conquest was largely initiated through the erection of a network of garrisons, such as had been proposed by many treatise writers since 1515. Yet this programme of militarisation differed in key respects from what had been advocated by Finglas and others throughout the reign of Henry VIII. For one it was begun in the midlands rather than in Wicklow and Carlow, while somewhat ironically ‘south Leinster’ would remain unreformed for decades to come and would continue to feature as an issue in treatises down to the 1570s.39 More importantly the scale of the militarisation undertaken was much greater than that which had been envisaged. Plans had been formulated to reduce three Irish lordships on the southern periphery of the Pale, but in the decade after 1546 intervention of varying degrees occurred throughout a great part of Leinster westwards to the Shannon, and in much of Ulster and Munster. Moreover, in a good many instances land grants accompanied the establishment of garrisons in these regions. Central to these proceedings was the development of the settlements in Laois and Offaly where militarisation evolved into plantation. Settlement here was originally restricted to the military strongholds established by Brabazon, but Bellingham quickly resolved to establish a town in Laois in order to displace the O’Mores.40 This more conventional approach was complemented by alternative policy proposals. For instance, John Alen writing a very brief letter-tract to the comptroller of the household, William Paget, in 1548 recommended that the principal O’Connors and O’Mores be transplanted to the



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 83

English pale around Calais and Boulogne in France where ‘if they wer killid the king had lost neuer a true man, and long from hens’.41 Conversely, reconciliation with the Gaelic Irish of the region remained a possibility throughout the period with pardons being granted even while Walter Cowley was conducting a survey of the territories as a preliminary to plantation.42 Nevertheless, settlement remained the preferred solution to the midlands question and it was at the heart of a small, but significant, proposal from which the roots of the plantation of Laois and Offaly have generally been traced. This was drawn up in 1550 by a group of twenty-three individuals representing a diverse range of figures from Irish officialdom. Central were a clique of high-ranking political figures, notably Gerald and Richard Aylmer, Thomas Luttrell, Patrick Barnewall, at that time serving as master of the rolls, and John Travers. These were senior Old English officials who had sought military intervention in south Leinster in the 1530s and now desired to oversee a plantation of the midlands. They were joined by a range of regional landholders from the western extremities of the Pale such as Oliver Sutton and military officers who had been active in the midlands in the late 1540s such as Francis Cosby. Associations had developed among some of these figures during the course of the war in the midlands since 1546.43 The initiative they favoured was confined to Laois where they requested to have all lands to them and their heirs with the exception of some small parcels which would be reserved to Lea and Carlow castles and the king. Then they stated that despite the wasted state of those lands they would ‘yelde yearely to the kinges maiestie after Mychelmas come twelve monnethes sex hundreth poundes yrishe And shall from Mychelmas nexte kepe the Forte ther vpon ther owne proper costes and chardges And from Ester nexte forwarde no more to be ther at his highnes charges to fyftie men’.44 This scheme bears a marked similarity to that put forward by Brown, Devereux and Keating for Wexford over a decade previously, but unlike in that instance tangible results ensued. Indeed, many of those involved had received leases in the midlands over the twenty-four months prior to the joint application for Laois.45 Clearly following presentation of their ‘Offers’ late in 1550 the project was not adhered to in the manner envisaged, but it did set in motion the granting of a substantial number of individual leases, in February and March of 1551.46 Of the twenty-three names appended to the application thirteen received plots either in Laois or Offaly.47 If the impact of the ‘Offers’ has generally been muted by historians it is perhaps owing to the fact that the principal organisers of the application, civil officials such as the Aylmers, Barnewall and Luttrell, were among those who did not receive lands in the midlands. Rather, the beneficiaries were those whose names appeared further down the list of signatures on the ‘Offers’ who, in keeping with the settlement’s role as a military colony, were primarily soldiers and local landowners.

84

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

The grants included stipulations which would become staples of English colonisation in Tudor and Stuart Ireland including obligations to improve the built environment, provide for the defence of the region and introduce English social and cultural norms. Yet the lack of prior planning marked the midlands initiative at this early stage as quite distinctive from later endeavours.48 Furthermore, despite Croft’s desire to create copyholds and shire the two counties the incipient colony remained simply a series of sparse settlements located around what were primarily military outposts.49 Tellingly, the extant instructions issued to St Leger and Croft during the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I repeatedly instructed the viceroys to undertake a more systematic plantation, yet very little was achieved.50 It was this lack of coherence in the development of the plantation that prompted Edward Walshe to compose a series of ‘Conjectures’ in 1552 on the midlands question and colonial policy in Ireland more generally.51 Here he argued that the law had to be fostered in order to produce a densely populated colony: For without that lawe a fewe havinge the Lande they shalbe weke the lande shalbe wast and an endles cry shalbe to the kinge for helpe and so for savinge to the kinges maiestie after cowleyes opinion a little some of rent wherby the plantinge of men can not be thicke the kinge shalbe at contynuall chardges and thinges shall contynue in an vncertaynty example of leyse and offayly.52

Citing the classical Roman precedent of establishing thickly populated colonies on small areas of land, Walshe went on to opine that plantations in Ireland should also be densely settled, unlike what was occurring in Laois and Offaly. Walshe’s tract stands as a sharp critique of the half-heartedness with which the settlement policy in the midlands had been followed and of the unruly state of the colony in the early 1550s.53 Yet, despite being addressed to Northumberland, it appears to have had little or no discernible effect. Indeed, the years between Walshe’s writing and the appointment of Sussex in 1556 saw little headway made in reinvigorating the initiative. Conversely, the fortunes of the O’Connors and their Gaelic neighbours were actually buoyant at this time.54 In response to this period of abortive plantation John Alen, like Walshe before, composed a treatise in November 1556 outlining how the midlands colony should be organised. Alen’s proposal focused specifically on Laois where he recommended that twelve towns should be established, each overseen by a ‘head gentleman’ and with 2,000 acres allotted to each.55 These urban centres should be established on the borders of the country and near forested areas in order to prevent inroads and see to the deforestation of Laois in order to deprive would-be malefactors of any ‘fastnes’.56 Each town would have six horsemen appointed for its defence with the inhabitants practising archery.



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 85

Those settled in these towns should preferably be of English birth, but certainly of English descent, while intermarriage and other associations with the Irish of the region were to be strictly prohibited. In addition, the settlers would be required to erect double ditches and bulwarks around their allotments. Many other recommendations followed, including one to have the country erected into a shire and to apportion some of the plantation lands to each of the two forts.57 From these it is clear that Alen envisaged a military colony centred on fortress-towns in key locations. Ideally, these would eventually evolve into civilian settlements but the initial priority was to secure the region from the large numbers of displaced and rebellious Irish there at present. Alen’s tract was most likely submitted to Sussex who, upon his appointment, had made the plantation of the midlands one of his priorities. From a superficial point of view it seemed that action was being taken in 1557. Parliamentary legislation granted Sussex wide-ranging power to begin making grants of land in Laois and Offaly and the region was made into shire ground as Queen’s County (Laois) and King’s County (Offaly), with the settlements around Fort Protector and Fort Governor renamed Maryborough and Philipstown respectively.58 A limited dispensation was made for the displaced Irish who were to be granted one-third of all lands in the counties, a reservation of sorts which would be located on the western extremity of the midlands. The remaining lands would be distributed among Old and New English settlers, with provision also made for supporting the forts by assigning three ploughlands to each. Grants came with stipulations to create freeholds, cut passes and generally provide for the defence of the colony.59 Much of this reflected Alen’s proposals.60 But despite these promising beginnings the rekindled plantation policy was shortly extinguished yet again as negotiations broke down with the O’Connors and O’Mores. Years of intermittent conflict between the septs and the garrisons headed by Henry Radcliffe, Francis Cosby and Henry Colley would ensue and during this period of unrest the plantation was not advanced to any great degree beyond the planning stage arrived at in 1557. This situation pertained into the 1560s. Curiously, almost no treatises were written on the topic of the midlands plantation during this period. The few clear articulations concerning settlement of the midlands came from Sussex himself, who in 1562 reiterated his continuing preference for a military-style colony when he opined that for Laois and Offaly: it will be needful to continue an England born captain, as there now is, to have the charge and guarding of those counties with the two forts in them, and to have the order and government of the foresaid seven Irish countries adjoining; and for his better maintenance to have in ordinary wages 40 horsemen, 200 footmen, and 200 kerne, whereof 20 horsemen, 100 footmen to be placed in the fort in the Queen’s county, 20 horsemen, 100 footmen to be placed in the fort in the King’s county, and the 200 kerne … and in all extraordinary causes he may be speedily assisted by the

86

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

principal Governor, as the case shall require. He must have authority to execute martial law.61

When the plantation was re-initiated in 1563 it was dominated by the army. White estimates that of 88 grantees over half were associated with the military.62 Irish grantees, though not corralled into a reservation-type segment as the Marian scheme had proposed, were limited to those who had either conformed or received pardons. Furthermore, the plantation ensured that the Irish were polarised between conformist landholders and landless tenants with few rights to the areas they occupied.63 This latter element did not long remain tranquil and as early as 1564 the intermittent conflicts between the disaffected O’Connors, O’Mores, and O’Dempseys with the crown colony had reignited. The conflict which would characterise the plantation for the remainder of the century had begun. Thus, by the end of the period under consideration the midlands settlement had not advanced much beyond being a beleaguered military colony, reliant upon Dublin Castle and Whitehall for subventions that would ensure its survival.64 The ramshackle state of the settlement nearly two decades after the government had first intervened in the region gave rise in 1565 to one of the most curious treatises written during the period. This ‘Device’ was most likely written by Cormac MacBrian O’Connor in 1565. After years at the Scottish court this son of Brian O’Connor Faly returned to Ireland as a rebel in 1563 and had roamed as an outlaw until the probable date of composition of the ‘Device’ in 1565. Here he attempted an analysis of the root causes of the unrest in his native region asserting that the central issue was that law and order had broken down: The first and most notable cause wherefore those two countries of Offaly and Laois and all other the like have transgressed and lived without order or rule was and yet is because there was never law maintained, civil order prescribed unto them, nor the people edified nor instructed in the knowledge of God.65

This was clearly a simplification but one which served well O’Connor’s purpose, to have ‘the restitution of those 2 countries, with all other possessions thereto belonging, to me, and to mine heirs, and to the O’Mores’.66 Pointing to the money that could be saved and the resources that might be directed towards more pressing problems in Ulster, the Irishman essentially called for the abandonment of the plantation scheme. Though Cormac’s suggestions were as improbable as they were impractical it is illuminating that such a proposal could even be entertained and highlights the pitiable progress of the first of the Tudor plantations in Ireland by the mid-1560s. It is well established that a major shift in government policy occurred from the late 1540s. In 1546 a programme of coercive regional conquest was adopted beginning in the midlands. This quickly led to the establishment of an extensive



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 87

chain of regional garrisons which extended as far north as Carrickfergus, westward to the Shannon and south into Munster, with Leinster in particular highly militarised, augmented by the establishment of the first major state-sponsored plantation of the Tudor period in the midlands. Although there were only a limited number of treatises composed at this time these generally reflected these developments with discussion of both the garrison system and the plantation appearing in the writings of, for instance, Walter Cowley, John Alen and Edward Walshe at this time. These developments were not minor and cumulatively do much to corroborate Dean Gunther White’s statement that: ‘Much of the answer to what went wrong in Ireland lies in that period.’67 Sussex and treatise writing in early Elizabethan Ireland

From its very inception in 1556 Sussex’s viceroyalty was fundamentally different from that of any of his near predecessors in office. Heir apparent to the earldom of Sussex, and earl in his own right from 1557, Radcliffe was the first magnate appointed to govern Ireland since the Kildare Rebellion. The increased prestige he consequently enjoyed translated into a more powerful remit in Ireland and was exhibited in his title of lord lieutenant, an office exercised by just two others in the sixteenth century: Surrey in the early 1520s and the second earl of Essex at the height of the Nine Years War.68 What was more, as Brady has clearly demonstrated, Sussex came to the vice-regal office with distinct ideas concerning how he intended to govern Ireland, an agenda of sorts, which he refined into a systematic programme by the early 1560s.69 This was in stark contrast to the other mid-Tudor governors. Brabazon, for instance, held strong ideas about adopting a programme of military conquest, but he only served briefly as an interim lord justice and was never in a position to implement these designs himself. Conversely, the man he attempted to convert to this principle through his treatise written in 1547, Edward Bellingham, was a military man sent to oversee a war which he did not create.70 Despite Bellingham’s depiction as a bellicose character it is difficult to ascertain what his actual views on Ireland were, particularly so since there is no extant treatise or overt statement of his thoughts on Ireland.71 In a similar vein to Brabazon two other interims governors, Thomas Cusack and Gerald Aylmer, were not in a position to impose their own vision of policy on Ireland and there is evidence to suggest that they, and Aylmer in particular, were becoming quite disaffected with the drift of government policy as the 1550s progressed. Though serving as lord deputy James Croft, too, was not in a position to shape government policy in Ireland. There is at least one instance of him earning a stern rebuke for his own views, contradicting those of Whitehall. This occurred in 1551 in response to a letter Croft had dispatched to Dudley in May.

88

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

In that letter Croft had explained that he had not been able to erect a series of fortifications around Cork, Kinsale and Baltimore owing to a lack of resources and a reluctance to impinge further on those of the inhabitants. He then expostulated further on the task of reforming Ireland, noting the ‘people of this land are they never so savage be the creatures of god, as we are, and ought of charytie to be cared for as our brethern’. As such the king ‘is their souerayne lord appoincted to governe them in all godly and cyvill ordre, through whose gouernment, if the people perish, howe greate is the bourden’.72 He then called for wages to be paid on time and sounded his belief that Ireland had to be reduced through conciliatory means and sanguine assimilation.73 The response from Edward some weeks later is revealing of just how limited the influence of many of the mid-Tudor viceroys was in comparison to Sussex’s later authority. Rather than enthusiastically endorse the new governor’s call for fair dealing the king admonished him for his failure to proceed with the fortifications ordering that ‘whensoever ye are prescribed an order from vs or the lords of the counsail ye do your vttermost tobserve it, for if you woll gyve ear vnto perswasions ye shall not wante of soche there as in stede of counsaile woll travell tobase you’.74 He was to continue with the fortification strategy regardless of what appealed to his own better judgement. Finally, there was St Leger for whom there are a number of treatises extant from this period. Nevertheless, the evidence of these and some additional correspondence points not to a figure who had a significant hand in forming and shaping policy for implementation in Ireland, but rather a man advising moderation in the face of an increasingly belligerent executive. In a letter to Cecil in January 1551, for instance, he cast scorn on those who had called the earl of Tyrone a traitor at the council table noting that ‘suche handeling of wylde men hathe don muche harme in Yrland’, while also remarking on incidences of ‘habominable murders and roberies’ by government agents.75 Furthermore, a memorandum which he submitted to the Privy Council prior to his re-appointment in 1550 urged handling of ‘Yrishmen with the more humanite’, though this was a pragmatic step ‘lest they by extremytie shuld adhere to other fforen powers’.76 Overall, this tract urged the brand of conciliation which St Leger had overseen during the heyday of ‘surrender and regrant’ in the 1540s. Yet this most assuredly was not what was being implemented under Edward VI and it would be unwise to suggest that St Leger was programmatic in the 1550s in the manner that Sussex would later be, not least because the documentary record for his last term as lord deputy between 1553 and 1556 consists of little more than a dozen documents.77 In contrast to all of these in a series of treatises which he composed throughout his long time in office Sussex articulated clear and systematic ideas about governing the country and in many instances succeeded in having



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 89

them implemented. Much of the details of these are considered more closely elsewhere, but his approach in brief included a commitment to consolidate the government’s hold over Leinster through establishment of the midlands plantation; a concurrent enterprise to advance into and, if possible, conquer Ulster, ­principally through the erection of a provincial capital at Armagh with subsidiary garrisons at Carrickfergus, Newry and Lough Foyle; a staunch dedication to upholding the ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements arrived at in the 1540s and a determination during his early years in Ireland to rid the north-east of the Scots presence. The methods which Sussex advocated to achieve these ends altered little during the near decade he was in office. Overall, his belief was that expansion of the garrison, extension of the ‘cess’ to support the army, settlement of pockets of loyal New Englishmen and an increasing proliferation of martial law commissions could bring more recalcitrant areas into the orbit of the government’s control. Supplementing this he urged the creation of provincial presidencies and the fostering of judicial institutions as a means to Anglicise the country.78 His position as lord lieutenant permitted him to obtain heightened powers. Thus, in 1558 he sought and received authority to grant commissions of martial law to his subordinates, a development which had lasting consequences.79 Equally, the level of discretion he was granted in overseeing the grants of land in the midlands plantation was quite remarkable with the ability to make grants under various terms, for any period of years, and without the warrant of the king or queen.80 That Sussex was single-minded in his approach towards Irish policy is clear not just from the clarity of exposition in his writings, particularly the later treatises from 1562, but also in the manner in which he appears to have stifled political consultation. The years of his lord lieutenancy witnessed a noticeable decline in political discourse in Ireland. This dearth of treatises on matters of high policy in the late 1550s and early 1560s has been highlighted by Brady who surmised that it was the earl’s autocratic style of governance which was responsible for the phenomenon.81 Moreover, when those with an eye to writing position papers did take up their pen at this time they more often than not concerned themselves with issues such as victualling, as seen in a series of tracts entitled ‘Archana Irlanda’ most likely written by Thomas Alen and James Barnewall in 1559, or regional issues as Francis Harbert did.82 Admittedly some commentators, such as the Alen brothers, John and Thomas, proffered ideas on the governance of Ireland, though there is limited tangible evidence of the impact of these writings.83 Edward Walshe, for instance, was clearly prolific at this time, authoring a number of books on Irish policy, the majority of which are unfortunately lost.84 In a letter to Cecil in 1559 he wrote at length on his knowledge of Irish affairs before requesting ‘to be supported for one yere here in Englande’ to act as a policy adviser.85 His bypassing of Dublin Castle to solicit ministers in England with his ideas is indicative of the

90

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  • Table 2  Number of extant treatises for select years, 1547–1568

Year

1547

1549

1551

1556

1557

1559

1561

1562

1565

1568

No. of treatises

2

5

6

4

6

8

3

6

7

11

Source: Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78

lack of consultation within Ireland at this time and his rather unusual request clearly evinces how at least this political theorist was willing to circumvent an Irish executive which was uninterested in independent policy formation. As table 2 illustrates, the period did not witness a high level of consultation between either Dublin Castle or Whitehall with the wider political establishment in Ireland such as had occurred in the mid-to-late 1530s. The falling levels of treatise composition seen in the early 1540s continued unabated into the late 1540s and early 1550s. The fact of Sussex’s stifling of political commentary seems not to be borne out by the slight increase in treatise production in, for example, 1562; however, the vast majority of such writings were actually being produced either by the viceroy or directly on his behalf. Furthermore, the brief jump in 1559 was the result of an increase in petitions to the royal court following Elizabeth I’s accession when individuals such as John Walshe of Youghal submitted treatises which were little more than thinly disguised personal suits.86 Overall, the level of treatise composition remained markedly low. That this occurred during the period when Sussex was in office is doubly incongruous as the expanding New English community in Ireland and the extension of the government’s reach into the provinces ought collectively to have led to an increase in treatise writing. That the restrictive environment during Sussex’s tenure was responsible for the lack of treatises is borne out by the immediate rise in the number of extant tracts from the point of his removal from office in the mid-1560s. In only one area does this silencing of political discourse not appear. This concerned the growing support for the establishment of provincial councils. As seen, this initiative had gained adherents during Henry VIII’s reign and had nearly been implemented for Munster in the 1540s. Such was the likelihood of a council being established there that rumours were circulating early in Edward’s reign that Francis Bryan was to be established as president of Munster.87 Proposals to establish such councils continued into the mid-Tudor period. Walter Cowley, writing in 1549, drew up and sent a memorandum to Bellingham wherein he recommended councils in Munster, Ulster and Connacht.88 Furthermore, in 1549 a commission was operating in Munster which included Desmond and John Travers, and most significantly, the archbishop of Cashel, who had been mooted as a potential provincial president in the closing months of the previous reign.89



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 91

In 1552 Thomas Walshe, in contrast to so many of the vague ‘reform’ proposals written throughout the century, composed an extremely detailed treatise on the establishment of a provincial council in Munster. The authority which Walshe envisaged the president overseeing this body would hold was impressive. This included the right to investigate land tenure, establish freeholders, survey and revalue crown lands, administrative power over the eleven bishoprics in the province and power to collect all escheats, fines, and other dues.90 Moving on, he listed the nine towns which a president would have jurisdiction over, stating that a gaol, free school and court were to be established in each of them and even providing a model diagram for the court.91 The president was to be assisted by six councillors, two of whom would have a legal background, a captain to head the 100-man strong retinue which would be attendant upon the president, a surveyor, a receiver and a clerk to the council. Towards the end of his paper Walshe intimated that such a council should also be established in Leinster, with the viceroy consequently left to employ his energies in Ulster and Connacht. He concluded by stating that there were numerous theories about how to bring Ireland to a ‘certain reformation’, but that the surest means to do so was to establish a president in Munster.92 Despite the detail in Walshe’s tract the council scheme was blocked during the closing years of Edward’s reign as in August 1551 he had written to Croft commenting of the initiative that ‘it semethe vnto vs very harde to be devised without putting vs to further chardgs’.93 In the absence of such a local jurisdiction Croft should labour to ride the circuit of assize into the provinces. Support for provincial councils continued to grow through the 1550s and into the 1560s. In his ‘Conjectures’ Edward Walshe seemed to posit that councils were required for each province, though he only made explicit reference to the necessity of such an institution for Munster.94 Cusack, in his ‘Book’ to Northumberland in 1553, sought a president for Munster, Connacht and Ulster.95 Accordingly, St Leger’s instructions on his reappointment in 1553 commanded him to consider whether a council should be established in Munster, although nothing came of this.96 An anonymous treatise composed around 1555 also recommended provincial councils for Connacht and Munster.97 Unusually, Clanricard and Desmond were explicitly named to be appointed as presidents of Connacht and Munster respectively; however, it was also implied that a vice-presidential office would be created. It is unclear whether it was these officials who would in effect exercise the presidential power, with the earls fulfilling an honorary role, or if the magnates would actually perform some tangible function.98 A long-standing proponent of a council for Munster, John Alen, in 1556 found himself agreeing with the ‘motion to have a council in Limerick, and another in Galway’, though he believed Leinster should be better secured and the Scots expelled from the northeast before this was undertaken.99 Shortly thereafter Desmond ­proposed that

92

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

councils be established composed of the lords of a given region and presided over by the earls.100 Another tract, written slightly later in the 1550s, this one perhaps by Rowland White, also endorsed the appointment of the magnates and lords to presidential office in Ireland. Critically, White envisaged that these would be drawn from England. Accordingly, the earl of Warwick would be appointed to Munster, Lord Grey to Connacht, Sussex’s focus would now be exclusively on Ulster, with the only non-noble, Henry Sidney, overseeing Leinster.101 The accession of Elizabeth I brought a wave of petitions from Ireland including a number of curious proposals by the leading magnates. In essence, these proposed an anachronistic alternative to provincial presidents. In the first such proposal, made in February 1559, the earl of Clanricard requested a grant of ‘the leading and captainry of Connacht’ through which he would bring the Gaelic Irish of the province to ‘a civil order’.102 Other provisions included rights to certain dissolved religious houses in the province and a fixed stipend. This was not an isolated proposal. Writing in July 1559 the earl of Ormond outlined a similar scheme whereby he sought to be appointed as captain over the MacMurrough Kavanaghs, the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles to finally oversee the reduction of south Leinster that had been largely shelved following the chaos that had been wrought in the midlands.103 These proposals most likely represent efforts to determine what might be feasible under a new monarch and a new set of ministers in England, yet they are nevertheless interesting as an alternative means of provincial government to the species of council proposed to that date. Schemes in this vein, indeed, persisted into the 1560s, and as late as September 1563 an anonymous treatise was proposing that the earls of Clanricard, Desmond, Kildare and Ormond should each be appointed as a president, curiously with Kildare operating outside Leinster in the north-east of Ulster around Lecale and the Ards, where he held some limited estates.104 The following decade, which would witness the inception of the scheme, saw its championing by Sussex himself. He sounded his support in 1560, though his musings at this time did not extend beyond a fleeting call for councils at Galway and Limerick.105 In 1562, though, when he set down his thoughts on Ireland at greatest length, he elaborated much further. Leinster was to continue to be governed by a handful of captains, individually overseeing specific regions such as the midlands counties and the Wicklow region, but the other three provinces were each to have a president and council. The specifics Sussex provided on how these presidencies should be established and how they would operate were inherently contradictory. In his briefer ‘Relation’ he recommended that martial figures be appointed in each province, with attendant councils composed of the lords spiritual and temporal and some legal officials. These were to have equal military retinues of forty men.106



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 93

However, a remarkably different picture is presented in his extensive ‘Opinion’ which confirms Brady’s proposal that Sussex’s conception of how the office would operate in Ulster was fundamentally different to that foreseen in Connacht and Munster.107 Here the details for the latter two provinces are markedly the same as those provided in the ‘Relation’, the lord lieutenant noting that they would ‘use a direction differing from the President of Ulster, as he is placed in a better country, and amongst better or less dangerous people’.108 It followed that the north would require different measures. The president there would have a military retinue of 100 horse, 300 foot, 200 kern and 200 galloglass at his disposal so that he might be ‘the strongest man in Ulster’.109 In tandem a building programme was to be commenced and the president was to oversee a severe implementation of the laws, the tone of this stricture implying that a commission of martial law would be involved.110 That there was a consensus by the 1560s that provincial councils should be created is clear from the support the initiative garnered even among the Pale community, a section of the Irish populace which was becoming increasingly disaffected with Sussex’s administration. Thus, in the course of 1562 and 1563 Thomas Cusack and William Bermingham both composed treatises separately appealing for the appointment of presidents in Munster, Connacht and Ulster.111 Sussex’s support had entrenched the idea that councils should be established and in July 1562 the lord lieutenant received a set of instructions commanding him to establish provincial councils in Munster, Connacht and Ulster.112 Yet before this could be accomplished Sussex’s government ran into serious problems which hindered any attempt to create regional governments in the provinces. In Munster the earls of Desmond and Ormond entered into a fresh round of feuding, while in Ulster relations with Shane O’Neill hampered the ability to form a council there. Additionally, Sussex’s entire administration began to face serious charges of misconduct. The councils which the queen and Privy Council had in 1562 ordered to be established were not effected, but it is highly telling that a commission was granted to William Fitzwilliam, George Stanley, Thomas Cusack and Francis Agard to govern Munster in the absence of the earls of Desmond and Ormond in England in early 1565.113 When Sidney arrived in office the following year the implementation of provincial councils were simply pending. The growing support for the appointment of provincial presidents during Sussex’s time as chief governor is noteworthy, not just because the policy was soon implemented under Sidney, but because it actually engendered some discourse during Sussex’s lord lieutenancy. But this singular example does not negate the idea that Sussex was indisposed to open counsel, for there was one issue which came to dominate his time as viceroy, which in normal circumstances should have aroused considerable debate, yet on which hardly any treatises were written. This was the problem posed by Shane O’Neill.

94

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Ulster: Shane O’Neill and the Scots

The rise of Shane O’Neill as head of the lordship of Tír Eoghain was opposed in the late 1550s by the crown, who favoured the claim of the baron of Dungannon, Mathew O’Neill, Conn O’Neill’s eldest son, to succeed his father as second earl of Tyrone by right of primogeniture. However, by 1559 Shane had established himself as the de facto head of the O’Neills.114 Relations between the Elizabethan government and the Ulster lord oscillated thereafter. The crown briefly flirted with acknowledging Shane as second earl in the summer of 1559 before relations soured and outright conflict between Sussex’s government and O’Neill erupted.115 This situation was briefly interrupted at the end of 1561 as Shane made his infamous visit to Elizabeth’s court, an interlude which led to months of protracted negotiations following which covenants were agreed with Shane in April 1562.116 Upon his return to Ireland Shane quickly disregarded these agreements and began a campaign to undermine Sussex.117 Simultaneously, Shane was expanding his military reach and in 1563 he raided Armagh and the Pale. In September 1563 he reached the apogee of his power when Thomas Cusack, acting as the crown’s chief representative, concluded a humiliating treaty with Shane at Drumcree, which among other concessions agreed to recognise Shane as Conn’s lawful heir.118 But owing to a delay in ratifying this agreement by parliamentary statute Shane recommenced campaigning in Ulster shortly thereafter. At this juncture the newly instated administration of Nicholas Arnold did little to curb Shane’s power in Ulster favouring appeasement. The appointment of his successor, Henry Sidney, ushered in the final stage of Shane’s relations with the crown. During this time Shane suffered a series of military reverses and the crown consequently suspended its policy of appeasement, resolving to engage the Ulster chieftain militarily, a scenario which prevailed until his death in 1567.119 This oscillation between periods of conciliation and enmity was reflected in the treatises composed on the subject of Shane’s position in Ulster and his relationship with the crown. This discourse is remarkable for its limited nature. For all that Shane taxed Dublin Castle’s time and resources the number of writers who actually ventured an opinion on how to deal with the Ulster lord was curiously small. Indeed, other than Sussex, Sidney, Nicholas Arnold and Thomas Cusack, hardly any other officials prepared papers on how to confront or contain Shane. The two exceptions were a considered paper, ‘Meanes to be vsed with Shane O’Nele’, composed during the negotiations with Shane at court in 1562 and a brief series of advisory texts written after the peace of Drumcree in October 1563, which presented a set of fanciful injunctions to encourage Shane to foster the common law and Protestantism throughout his lands.120 This reticence though did not, of course, extend to Sussex. His foremost



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 95

views in this respect are found in his major policy documents of 1560 and 1562, though clear articulations of his outlook are also found in a number of letter-tracts composed in the early 1560s. One prominent example is a letter he addressed to Cecil in 1561 shortly before the crown’s attempt at coming to a lasting accommodation with Shane in England. Here he presented a highly idealised view of an Irish kingdom which was stable, with the exception of the baleful northern lord, on whose overthrow the future security of Ireland depended, stating: ‘Yf Shane be overthrowen all is setteled, yf Shane settell all is overthrown. To overthrowe him nowe wylbe a charge, to defend him when he hath overthrowen wylbe a gretter charge. And to think to deteyr him in the state he is in for a tyme is but fancye.’121 For the chief governor the danger posed by the Ulster lord was inherently connected to the problem of faction in Ireland. This was clearly outlined in a tract he wrote in 1560. This apparently manifested itself most palpably in the re-emergence of the Geraldines under the aegis of the eleventh earl of Kildare and was evinced in the provinces in the rise of Donal O’Brien in Thomond and Shane in Tír Eoghain. That these two pretenders should have scuttled the ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements of Henry’s reign was a double affront to the crown. Responding to his own analysis Sussex recommended that the Butlers be promoted as a counterweight to the Geraldines, a measure which went beyond preferment of Ormond and his relatives to advancement of those regional lords who had traditionally been associated with the Butlers. Consequently, MacCarthy Mór and O’Donnell were recommended for elevation to the peerage as earls.122 This particular tract was composed in 1560 and beyond a general statement concerning the desirability of removing Shane from power did not elaborate on measures to be taken against O’Neill, instead concentrating on the perceived mechanics of faction in Ireland. By 1562, however, when he composed his most extensive disquisition on Ireland, his ‘Opinion’, Sussex was prepared to be far more expansive.123 Shane, he contended, had to be expelled entirely from Tyrone. The lordship should then be divided into three parts which would be granted to Henry O’Neill, Turlough O’Neill and Turlough Luineach. The central element of Sussex’s settlement, though, would be located at Armagh, where a strong town would be constructed, with a president established there. This figure was to be provided with a large military retinue and there is little doubt that Sussex envisaged a martial government for the province. Further walled towns were to be erected at Carrickfergus, Lough Foyle and Newry, while a network of castles and bridges were to be constructed along the principal lines of communication throughout the province.124 By the summer of 1563, with Shane increasingly preponderant in the north and Sussex facing heavy censure from England, the earl resolved on a more desperate course. In a letter-tract dispatched to Cecil on 20 May he i­ dentified

96

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

three impediments to the service against Shane, namely the intransigence of certain elements of the English of Ireland, the aid provided by the Scots to Shane and the treachery of certain Irish lords such as O’Reilly who proclaimed themselves loyalists. His solution was to accommodate the MacDonnells asserting that ‘yf the granntyng of Ieames McConell’s requests, and therby assuryng of his estate, myght be eny meanes to drawe him and his brother from this combynacion it were better in my opynyon to tolerate with him for the tyme then to hazard a worsse matter’.125 His principal strategy, though, was to prosecute O’Neill through a concerted campaign into Tyrone, when he would ‘god wyllyng go in to Glankonkyne and ther ether put Shane from his cattell and take or kyll a grete part of it, yf it flye not over the ryver of the Bannd, or dryve him to fyght’.126 Hence, by the summer of 1563 Sussex’s approach was based upon temporising with the Scots and utilising scorched earth tactics to draw Shane out of Tyrone. Sidney’s approach to Shane was broadly similar to Sussex’s although he had briefly flirted with the idea of more amicable relations while serving as interim lord justice in 1559. At this time he and O’Neill had entered into a bond of gossiprid127 and Sidney’s impression as relayed in a ‘Note’ by Sussex to the queen was that Shane might ‘be made the best instrument in Ireland for the scourge of the Scotts’.128 But by the eve of his appointment as lord deputy Sidney was expressing similar sentiments to the erstwhile lord lieutenant’s pessimistic outlook on O’Neill. He asserted that Shane would ‘never be reformed but by force’ and went on to suggest two courses. Either the government could proceed immediately with a military campaign or Elizabeth could temporise until such time as the crown’s position could be strengthened by fortifying Newry, Dundalk and Carrickfergus, and restoring Calvagh O’Donnell in Tyrconnell.129 As such both, Sussex and Sidney appear to have held significantly similar views which encapsulated the more confrontational approach to relations with Shane. The countervailing argument can be found in a memorandum which was drawn up by Thomas Cusack prior to his negotiating of a treaty with Shane on the crown’s behalf at Drumcree in 1563. Here the former lord chancellor allowed that if Shane would agree to establish peace in his domain he should be acknowledged in the title of O’Neill by the queen. Furthermore, the rights and duties he claimed over MacMahon, O’Hanlon and Magennis were to be agreed, besides which his claims over Maguire, O’Rourke, O’Reilly, and for certain lands in Tyrconnell, were to be put to arbitration.130 Finally, a standing commission should be established to oversee the province, but far from being a check on his behaviour Shane, upon ‘shewing himself a good subiect’, was to ‘haue principall aucthoritie and rule in that comission’.131 This conciliatory bent persisted throughout the spring of 1564 with Cusack repeatedly calling for Shane to be granted the earldom which had been promised him at Drumcree.132 Nicholas Arnold went even further in his inference that the best means



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 97

to reduce the Ulster lord was through appeasement. Writing his ‘Notes’ in January 1565, when the orthodox view was that the government should no longer temporise with Shane, Arnold claimed that ‘he may become so good a subiect as hereafter her Matie shall thinke mette rather to be cherisshed the throwen owt’.133 It was the lord justice’s opinion that ‘the makinge of O’Nele ryche and stronge, and the assuring of him of the Queene’s Mat’s favour and proteccion, woulde rather overthrowe O’Nele’.134 In essence his argument was that O’Neill sought power in Ulster over his neighbours and through recognition of his position by the crown. It was the government’s failure to grant such power which had created years of unrest in the north. Consequently, by allowing Shane to accede to the position he aspired to he could be made peaceful and amenable to English rule and, in addition, moulded into an ally to aid in the expulsion of the Scots from Ireland.135 These, then, were the two strategies, conciliation and outright opposition, available to the government in relation to Shane. Both were variously argued for in the course of the 1560s. Appeasement of Shane was approved when the crown’s hand was weak, while, conversely, a military solution designed to remove the Ulster lord from power was favoured at more propitious times. Circumstances ranging from conditions in the midlands, Shane’s own military strength in the north and political unrest in the Pale all played a hand in determining which approach was favoured from year to year. One further factor influencing the government’s oscillating approach to Shane was the crown’s shifting relations with the Scots throughout the late 1550s and into the 1560s. As seen, the Scots problem had taxed successive administrations, both in Dublin and in London, as early as the 1530s. The international significance of a strong MacDonnell presence in Antrim and Down became starkly clear in the 1540s as an allied France and Scotland threatened to intervene in Ireland on behalf of a range of Irish interests, including the exiled Gerald FitzGerald and the O’Connors.136 Awareness of the dangers presented by this Trojan Scottish presence in Ulster led the Edwardian regime to take a number of preventative measures in relation to the north-east. One of the more unusual proposals was made by the Privy Council to Bellingham in the summer of 1549, recommending that they employ some pirates (who were at that time plaguing shipping in the Irish Sea) against the MacDonnells.137 A more stable provision was the appointment of a range of military figures in Ulster, in part to curb the spreading settlement of the MacDonnells, with Carrickfergus in particular acting as an advance outpost, variously headed by Ralph Bagenal, Walter Floddy and Edward Larkin as constables thereof.138 Rumours were rife in the spring of 1550 that a joint Franco-Scottish invasion was imminent with the intention of restoring Gerald FitzGerald and the O’Connors.139 Yet the response to this threat was relatively slow. It was not until the following January that an expedition was mounted from England to

98

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

provide for the security of Ireland against any potential invasion. Although initially earmarked to be sent under Lord Cobham the expedition was eventually headed by James Croft whose remit was to oversee the defence of the southern and north-east coastlines against a possible French invasion and the depredations of the MacDonnells.140 A campaign to Rathlin followed late in 1551, which Cusack – whose report to Warwick on the journey is the principal source for the engagement – suggested had been somewhat successful, yet which actually ended in disaster and the release of Sorley Boy MacDonnell from imprisonment at Dublin.141 By the end of the reign the Scots presence in Ulster was expanding rather than contracting. The first major proposal for colonisation of the north-east came in 1555. This was submitted by a consortium of senior officials and individuals with experience of service in the region, including the under-treasurer Edmund Rouse, the master of the rolls, John Parker, Edward Larkin and William Piers, along with two soldiers who arrived in Ireland as part of Croft’s expedition in 1551, William Crofton and Richard Bethell. The evidence for this initiative is admittedly scant. What is clear is that in 1555 the group simply sought fishing rights on the Bann but in September were granted much more than this when they were given leave to fortify and settle ‘any suche convenient grounde upon the Northe partes of their Majesties’ realme as by their discreacions maye seame convenient for their suerties, and the same grounde so taken to make strong and fortifie’.142 What this, in effect, amounted to was a carte blanche right to colonise or otherwise plant an unspecified amount of north Ulster. The venture does not appear to have produced any tangible results, possibly owing to the termination of St Leger’s administration in 1556 and Rouse’s replacement as under-treasurer by Henry Sidney. Yet it is noteworthy as perhaps the earliest effort to establish in the region the brand of colony which was attempted with greater energy in the early 1570s. Sussex’s vision for north-east Ulster was far more ambitious. Early in 1557 he sent a response to a set of articles Mary had addressed to him in November of 1556, wherein he outlined an elaborate scheme to establish settlements along much of the northern coastline of the country.143 It was envisaged that this vast colonisation project would centre on the major havens in the north: Carlingford, Strangford, Carrickfergus, Olderfleet, Lough Foyle and the Bann.144 Emphasising the abundance of resources available in these areas, Sussex recommended the construction of towns and re-edification of existing castles and fortifications. Addressing the problems wrought by the encroachments of the MacDonnells the lord lieutenant suggested the construction of a town at Belfast to curb their incursions: the plac most necessary to be inhabyted at the fyrst for the expulsing of the Scotts be Belfaste, whiche standeth nere to [thene] of the water of Knockfergus, Knockfergus,



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 99 Owelderflyte, the Ban and the playns of Clandeboye, lying betwext the soyd places. I would think on thowsand inhabytants that might bothe manuer the grownd and vse ther wepons for the defenc if it wer fully suffycyent for them, vaz. banyshing of the Scotts and the quyetyng of the realme.145

The remainder of Sussex’s memorandum focused on provisioning the proposed settlements and developing trade between the port towns and those which would be established in the interior.146 Despite pressing for his proposal to be put into action throughout 1557 his northern colony was stillborn, while a separate proposal in 1557 to have Henry Sidney established with a grant of Lecale in Down also did not come to fruition.147 Meanwhile, efforts to dislodge the MacDonnells from the north-east in 1557 and 1558 took the conventional shape of military campaigns.148 Sussex was not the only significant Irish figure at this time voicing his belief in the orthodox view – that the Scots should be expelled entirely from Ireland. Perhaps as early as 1556 John Alen was pressing a case for the establishment of two garrisons, of 3–400 men each, which would serve to expel the Scots and encourage inhabitation.149 George Dowdall, the archbishop of Armagh, suggested in 1558 that the lords of Ulster be courted to expel the Scots from the north-east: And to banishe the Scottes, out of the whole realme, the most easiest waye, shalbe by Pollecye, to procuer all the Irishemen, wch you call wylde Irishe, against them; And that none entertayne any parte of them ffor their warres, the one against, the other, thoroughe all the whole Realme. And alsoe those wch be there scituated aboute them in the North, As, O Doneill … And O Cahan … the Captayne of Clanneboye … The Earle of Tyroon … to Travayle Daylie ffor their Banisheinge.150

Dowdall’s proposal was made shortly before the difficulty of containing Shane O’Neill’s ambitions was fully realised. As relations with Shane deteriorated in 1559 the proposal to utilise the Gaelic lords of Ulster against the Scots became increasingly improbable. Indeed, the opposite of Dowdall’s proposal was attempted shortly thereafter. In 1560 a revolution in diplomatic relations between England and Scotland occurred which would have a profound effect on Dublin Castle’s response to the MacDonnells’ presence in Antrim and Down over the coming years. This centred on the Treaty of Berwick, negotiated in 1560 between the Protestant Lords of the Congregation in Scotland and the Tudor state. Under the established terms Elizabeth would intervene militarily in her northern neighbour’s affairs to expel the French and facilitate the establishment of Protestantism in Scotland. The significance of this for Irish affairs lay in a stipulation that Archibald Campbell, fifth earl of Argyll, and one of the foremost Lords of the Congregation, would utilise his dominant position in the western Highlands to intervene militarily in Ulster against Shane O’Neill.151 Accordingly, in the course of these negotiations the

100

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

MacDonnells suddenly became a boon to English rule in Ulster, where since the 1530s their forcible expulsion from the north-east had been the preferred policy.152 The proposed invasion by Argyll failed to materialise as the early 1560s saw a continuous shifting of alliances between Shane, the Scots and the Tudor state.153 Thus, although the MacDonnells were central to both O’Neill’s military reverses and subsequent murder in 1567 no firm footing had been found on which to ground relations between the Scots in Ireland and the Tudor state by the late 1560s.154 This precarious situation manifested itself most tangibly in the musings of the former lord deputy, James Croft, who wrote a short memorandum in 1561 in which he stated that the decay of Ireland was owing solely to two points: the lack of laws and ministers to enforce them and ‘the great acesse that Scotts hath in to the north partes of Ireland, partely by makyng invasions to spoile the countres, but chiefly callid in by the inhabitannts of the realme to help to defende them and to revenge their wrong or to vsurpe vpon their neighbors’.155 Despite essaying that this was one of the foremost obstacles to the ‘reform’ of Ireland the former lord deputy equivocated to some extent when providing a potential remedy, querying ‘whether it shalbe mete to extirpe all the Scotts or by degrees to put away some parts of them, and retayne parte for a tyme, or that those Scotts which be now in Conaught with the Irish lords may be taken to the princ’s service and that there bonaught may be borne ouer the countrey’.156 Signs of this shifting situation are to be seen in Cormac MacBrian O’Connor’s ‘Device’ which unequivocally called for accommodation of the Scots. O’Connor envisaged that Elizabeth might grant denization to any Scots who had been long settled in Ireland as a means to prevent any further encroachments. Furthermore, O’Connor was in favour of a renewal of the ‘oulde freindshippe’ which had existed between the crown and the Scots of the Western Isles early in Henry VIII’s reign.157 This conciliatory approach, though, was not mirrored in what proved to be the most important treatise written at the time on the means to be employed to remedy the Scots problem. This was an extensive proposal by a group of twelve individuals which is undated but was almost certainly composed in early 1565.158 The identity of those involved is unknown, with the exception of William Piers, the constable of Carrickfergus Castle, who acted as representative for the company and whose name is appended to the proposal.159 Their request was to effectively be granted all of Antrim and Down in fee farm from the queen to hold free of all rents for seven years while they established a colony there. As such, they aimed to ‘enter the northe parte of Ireland in the chief place of the Scotts force and expell them from all possession in that realme’.160 At the same time they would assist Calvagh O’Donnell in regaining a foothold in Tyrconnell, while it was further propounded that Shane and the Scots might both be reduced by putting them ‘bothe in one warr’.161



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 101

Expanding on the proposed settlement they earmarked it to grow to 4,000 inhabitants within three or four years: Itm, wee shall wth the grace of god within the terme of three or ffowre yeres next comeinge plant ffowre thowsand inhabitants of her naturall subiects in that northe cuntrey and at thend of seven yeres wee shall yelde vnto her highnesse a yerelie rent of a syse, viz. for everye acre of arable land, medowe and pasture 4d. Irishe, every acre of mountayne, heathe and wood 1d. Yrysh, to be answered as parcell of her Mat’s revenewe of Ireland.162

Of Elizabeth they requested that 1,000 cavalry and 2,000 foot be levied out of England, victuals for the first year and the use of four ships including the Phoenix. In addition, the unknown group of twelve sought corporate status, along with the right to exploit all commodities and fishing in the area. Piers’s centrality to the project was confirmed in a request that £12,000 be granted them to wall Carrickfergus and reinforce the castle there.163 The religious needs of the proposed colony were also catered for in a provision calling for the appointment of ‘sume wurthie learned man to the bishopryck of Downe’, while the company themselves would strive to obtain learned preachers to dwell there.164 Finally, a commission of martial law was requested.165 This proposal did not meet with approval in 1565. Nevertheless, with its emphasis on semi-private colonisation of the north-east as the best means to stem the flow of Scottish settlers into Ireland, the document is extremely significant, for it foreshadowed the policies pursued in Ulster over the following decade, culminating in the failed colonies attempted by Thomas Smith and the first earl of Essex. Indeed, the direct link between the Piers tract and these later measures was made clear in one of Sidney’s most significant memoranda, written prior to taking office in 1565, where he claimed of the Scots that ‘the suerrest and sonest’ means to dispel them was ‘to inhabit betwene them and the sea’. In the margin next to this point was scribbled ‘Note Cap Peers hys offer for thys’.166 By the late 1560s the shape which the political landscape of Ulster would take on for the period which encompasses Sidney’s viceroyalties was becoming apparent. With Shane removed from 1567 and the granting of colonisation rights in the north-east proceeding apace it appeared that much of the problems which had plagued successive mid-Tudor administrations in Ulster had ceased to figure. However, as detailed in Chapter 3, the colonisation projects of the 1570s ended in abject failure, while the disappointing of the crown’s hopes that Hugh O’Neill would serve as its instrument in the province brought Ulster to the fore of the crown’s Irish problems again by the 1580s. But it was not just these long-running problems in the north and elsewhere that were threatening crown government in Ireland during Elizabeth’s reign, for Sussex’s time in office witnessed the first major signs of disillusionment among the Pale community with the drift of government policy.

102

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

‘O let your Matie be substancially ware of gardyner’s crafty sect, that wude sey and vnsey with one brethe’

Clearly, the years when Sussex held high office in Ireland witnessed a noticeable decline in treatise composition. Equally, it seems plausible that the lack of debate on policy issues was due to the autocratic nature of the earl’s lord lieutenancy. Yet, there was a second, and perhaps equally profound, reason for this absence of consultation between political commentators in Ireland and the Sussex regime, for the earl’s was the first administration to engender widespread criticism within the Pale and beyond. This opposition focused on a number of abuses of power within the executive, above all the social and economic problems which were attendant on heightened militarisation. These criticisms contributed to the termination of Sussex’s administration in 1564.167 As such, they constitute the first major stirrings towards one of the most important developments within the political discourse of Elizabethan Ireland: complaint about how policy was severely disrupting the social and economic life of the country; excessive levels of corruption; a reliance on overly coercive ‘reform’ methods, instead of conciliatory ‘reform’; and how all of these developments were proving detrimental to the extension of crown government. This literature of complaint would become widespread and, contrary to current perceptions about the New English drift towards the use of more uncompromising methods in the closing decades of the century, extremely significant in late Elizabethan Ireland. But at the time it was largely concentrated on criticising the earl and his administration. Thus, while political discourse in Ireland was stymied by Sussex’s potential disregard for the current policy initiatives of others, it was especially hindered by a concentration among political elites in the Pale and elsewhere on opposing the regime rather than working in cooperation with it. Criticism of those in charge of Dublin Castle was nothing new. It was especially prevalent among those seeking to undermine office-holders in the hope of benefiting from a change in personnel through advancement or the adoption of alternative policies. John Alen in particular falls into this latter category. However, the 1550s witnessed the emergence of a distinct type of critique, one which was reactive to the militarisation of the country and the growing levels of corruption which accompanied this, both within the military executive and the supply system of the garrison. One of the earliest such stirrings is contained in a set of ‘Articles’ dating to the opening weeks of Mary’s reign in 1553. Here it was suggested that very little gains had accrued from the spending of vast sums of money by Croft on his Ulster expeditions, while the anonymous author pointed to corruption within the military executive and called for leading crown officers such as the under-treasurer and the auditor to be questioned to that effect:



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 103 To these matters let there be called the Treasurer, Watkin Ap Howell, John Wakley, Matthew Kyng, Robert Cusack, Giles ‘Ovington’ [Hovendon], Thomas Jenyson, Auditor, Anthony Marche, Roger Brooke and their several depositions kept until God may send time that they may be present with others face to face that truth may herein appear, and no longer be kept back for fear of threat, or other displeasure.168

These sentiments were mirrored just months later in ‘The Treatise for the Reformation of Ireland’ which recounted what appears to have been a critical debate on government policy within a prominent family of the Pale community. The evidence is admittedly somewhat tenuous, coming as it does from the pen of an anonymous individual writing around 1555, who in the course of his tract relates a gathering at the house of a Mr Aylmer, where matters of public policy were discussed.169 The author notes that it was this event which prompted him to compose his treatise, during the course of which he sharply criticises the militarisation of Ireland and the development of the garrison network under Edward. He goes on to describe the army ranks as ‘a multitude of rash needy soldiers’ whose presence was unnecessary in a country that ‘coveted nothing so much as the knowledge of a law’.170 Furthermore, in the midst of a general condemnation of the policy of militarisation he assailed the ‘greedy soldiers, that sought nothing else but spoil and continuance of service’.171 That the author of this document should draw inspiration to write such a critique from a discussion which quite possibly took place at Gerald Aylmer’s, or his brother Richard’s, house is highly instructive. These were Old English officials who had sought a programme of regional conquest in the 1530s and had led the scheme to begin a plantation in the midlands in 1550. Yet here, just a few years later, there was a quick shift to find fault with the manner in which this conquest was being undertaken, with particular disaffection shown towards the actions of the garrison soldiers. Clearly, then, there were antecedents for the growth of wider discontent under Sussex, and some of the general topoi of that complaint literature, heightened militarisation, excessive corruption and an intolerable economic burden, were emerging. These were soon dwarfed by the torrent of unrest aroused by the earl’s administration. Admittedly, a number of tracts from this period lamented the economic deterioration of the countryside without directly assigning responsibility for this decline to the viceroy. One such was a book, perhaps an early composition by Rowland White, which, despite lamenting the decayed state of the Pale, wholly endorsed the administration.172 Yet this support was somewhat anomalous and the vast majority of those analysing the economic landscape were quick to identify the viceroy and his supporters as the source of the problems there. Sussex’s principal critics during his first years in Ireland were unquestionably the archbishop of Armagh, George Dowdall, and the fourteenth earl

104

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

of Desmond who in a series of letter-tracts composed in the closing year of Mary’s reign articulated many of the discontents which would emanate from the Pale community over the coming decades.173 In a series of submissions made between late 1557 and his appearance at court in the summer of 1558, Dowdall expansively detailed the straitened conditions prevailing in Ireland. The wars, both in Leinster and Munster, had seen the countryside wasted, while the added burden of finding and providing for the enlarged garrison was leading to the further impoverishment of the queen’s subjects. Famine had already claimed ‘manny hundredth of men, wymen and children’.174 The primate also directly implicated the viceroy in this despoliation, claiming he had orchestrated the burning and looting of the cathedral church at Armagh as a reprisal for Dowdall’s opposition to the administration’s policies.175 Yet it was not simply in order to criticise those at the helm in Ireland that the archbishop and the earl took up their pens and they did not hesitate to express their own ideas on what direction policy should be taking. Desmond recommended the establishment of a four-man commission to determine why conditions in the country had deteriorated so drastically, who was responsible for the decline and how the situation might be ameliorated. He proceeded to articulate his own view that a general policy of conquest was not advisable given the ‘hole lande woulde not countervaill the chardgs’, while ‘if all Yrishe men coulde be trayned on by fayre meanes’ then, conversely, a gradualist, assimilative programme might be ‘the better way’.176 It seems plausible that the pair were acting in unison to convince queen and Privy Council of the wisdom of a change in policy as Dowdall in his ‘Opinion’ also delineated the choice between a conciliatory policy and one of conquest before calling for adoption of the former. This was most necessary so that the country could be held with ‘a small number of Souldiers, that shall not be a sore Burthen, ffor the English Pale’.177 Effectively, then, a protest movement, small in scope but composed of prominent figures, was emerging in the early years of Sussex’s tenure of office. These entreaties ultimately proved fleeting as the two protagonists died shortly after, while Elizabeth’s accession brought to power numerous ministers unfamiliar with these writings. What mattered more was the substance of Dowdall and Desmond’s complaints, with the emphasis on the failure of militarisation, the high-handed behaviour of the Irish executive, the misconduct of the soldiery and above all the intolerable economic burden of the ‘cess’. Dowdall had alighted onto this latter issue in his letter to the lord chancellor and archbishop of York, Nicholas Heath, late in 1557, when he claimed that the Pale was reduced to extreme poverty by reason of ‘cess to hostings, cess of corne, bewff and all kinde of victwalz to forts, the plasinge of souldyors, there horses and horsboyes vpon fermorz’.178 This critique of the method whereby the military establishment in Ireland was increasingly being supported would prove the most enduring aspect of Desmond and Dowdall’s criticisms.



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 105

The ‘cess’ developed from the practice of purveyance which had been employed both in England and Ireland since late medieval times. Purveyance involved the crown’s right to have royal forces supplied, along with the royal household, or that of the chief governors in Ireland, by the country on the basis of the royal prerogative. Goods, primarily in the form of foodstuffs, were obtained below the market value to be paid for later.179 The practice appears to have not remained indistinguishable from the Gaelic exactions in the form of ‘coign and livery’ by the end of the fifteenth century.180 As such, purveyance was a traditional aspect of crown government in Ireland, but one which became increasingly onerous as it was more frequently resorted to. Though contemporaries argued that the practice had only been introduced under Bellingham in the late 1540s, reference to the ‘cess’ or ‘cessors’ abounds in treatises composed throughout the reign of Henry VIII.181 Yet it is clear that a distinct alteration in the methods employed to supply the royal forces occurred under Bellingham, particularly in his decision in 1547 and 1548 to convert the obligation to provide for the hosting into an order for the baronies of the Pale to provide supplies for the midlands forts.182 Hence, the ‘cess’ became an object of sharp criticism with the outset of the war in the midlands and the adoption of a strategy of regional conquest. Major unrest at the innovation was not immediate, though Bellingham was obliged to write a series of stinging letters to the mayors of Dublin and Drogheda ordering compliance.183 Yet this lack of dissent was seemingly the result of the infrequent recourse to it. The process was repeated just once between Bellingham’s original usage and the appointment of Sussex: by Croft in 1551. Under Sussex, though, the ‘cess’ assumed its position as the primary source of contention between Dublin Castle and the Pale community, as Sussex exploited it in his first year in office and proceeded to do so in every subsequent year.184 It appears that it was during 1557, when the lord lieutenant’s administration cessed for the second time, and suspicions of the intent to regularly exploit the system would have arisen, that unrest first began to emerge concerning its use, as clearly evinced in Dowdall’s writings. Yet, it was not until the early 1560s that critics of the practice began objecting to its use in a truly concerted fashion. When opposition did arise it extended beyond criticism of the ‘cess’ itself to look at the more wide-ranging corruption within the military executive and Sussex’s government. Problems of this kind were not entirely unforeseen. As early as the 1520s the possibility of tensions arising between the soldiers and the people of the country on which they were billeted over their provisioning and lodgings was prophesied in the ‘Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. To prevent this the author argued that captains and constables were to be appointed in each parish to ensure that the commons were providing goods of a suitable quality and that the soldiers were not abusing their rights.185 The fatal flaw

106

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

here, though, was that no provision was made for monitoring those officers who would have oversight of the system. Though few other tracts so directly addressed the potential pitfalls that provisioning an enlarged army establishment could present considerable space was nevertheless given to the issue of victualling elsewhere. The Ordinances for the Government of Ireland of 1534, for instance, gave extensive details on how the soldiers in the Pale should be supplied and at what rates.186 It did not take long for the enlarged army establishment necessitated by the war in the midlands to begin creating problems. The inability to pay the garrison even may have been responsible for the highly improbable efforts to extract bullion from Clonmines in Wexford in the early 1550s as the two issues were discussed side by side in correspondence between St Leger’s administration and the Privy Council in England.187 But the most unequivocal indication of the financial problems wrought by supplying the enlarged garrison is glimpsed in two undated treatises which can be dated with reasonable certainty to the end of Edward VI’s reign. These devices were treatises of a kind not seen before in that they presented hard financial proposals for how to reduce expenditure in Ireland by variously changing rates of pay, from the vice-regal office downwards to altering the shape of the garrison, for instance by employing more galloglass and kern.188 As such by the mid1550s there was a growing awareness that increased expenditure was causing problems and that an alternative needed to be found. Yet when individuals such as John Alen were prepared to advise Sussex upon his appointment in 1556 to ‘raither cesse more than to litle’ even in the awareness that ‘herin argumentes wolbe made’ it was perhaps inevitable that opposition would be provoked.189 The genesis of the campaign against the ‘cess’ seems reasonably clear. By the early 1560s an opposition movement was operating in the Pale, which sought to oppose the demands imposed through non-compliance. More significant than this physical defiance was the decision of some of the representatives of that community to bypass the Irish executive and present their grievances at court. Subsequently, a group of Pale-born students, attending the Inns of Court at that time, gained a hearing before the Privy Council, perhaps owing to the influence of Robert Dudley, in 1562.190 These Palesmen presented their grievances in the form of a ‘Book’ declaring the current state of the Pale. In this ‘Book’ they outlined the intolerable economic burden imposed by the ‘cess’, with the complainants pointing towards ‘the extremitie of the said Ceasses’, not simply in the scale and frequency thereof, but also in the obligation to provide for a boy and two horses for every solider ‘whose infinite charge and unruelie Doinges are not possible to be written’.191 However, the problems attendant upon this imposition were as great, if not greater, than the practice of ‘cess’ itself. The ‘cators’, those officials charged with obtaining



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 107

goods for supplying the governor’s household, were singled out for especial rebuke for the extortion they practised, while the soldiers were accused of murder and rape.192 Compounding these problems was the simple fact that the army was being stationed in the Pale ‘where … there is no syrvice[?] to be don’.193 Overseeing all of this was a corrupt executive which, the students inferred, were cessing far more than was necessary for private gain and allowing ‘coign and livery’ to be taken in the Pale.194 Finally, it was claimed that the administration had exploited the recent currency debasement to reduce the repayments owing to those whom ‘cess’ had been imposed upon and who were lucky enough not to fall into the category of those who ‘yet do remaine unpaid’.195 In conclusion, the students surmised that if the current burdens imposed by the expanded garrison, both in the form of the ‘cess’ and ancillary extortion, were continued then ‘the pore and miserablie cuntrie’ would continue to ‘runneth Dailly into waste and utter decaie’.196 The students’ protest produced mixed results. Sussex was forced to make direct answer to several of the accusations laid against his government, yet despite further submissions from prominent Pale landholders such as Oliver Plunkett and Christopher Cheevers little was achieved.197 Conversely, a number of the most prominent Palesmen involved were committed to the Fleet. Nonetheless, the episode had drawn attention to Irish affairs and particularly on-goings in the Pale and the complaints received simply needed reiteration by more prominent figures to garner further attention. This duly occurred in the summer of 1562 in the shape of submissions by the prominent Meath landholder, William Bermingham, and the long-serving New English official and master of the rolls, John Parker. Of the two, Parker was the more expansive.198 His critique of the earl’s government was contained in a lengthy book addressed to the queen in June. Here it was suggested that a racketeering business of sorts had been set up by Sussex, and a cohort of his senior officials, including his brother Henry, Sidney, Fitzwilliam, George Stanley, Jacques Wingfield, Nicholas Heron and Francis Cosby, whom Parker variously referred to with vitriol as ‘cormorants’ and ‘these cruell Egipcians’.199 Ironically, Parker, who had been at the heart of St Leger’s administration during the heyday of its corrupt dealings in monastic lands in the 1540s, pointed first and foremost to exploitation of crown lands by Sussex’s followers to line their own pockets.200 Moving on, Parker condemned the practice of ‘cess’, an ‘invencion’ he stated which would prove to be the ‘most pestilent ouerthrowe of your Matie’s comen welthe there that can be imagined’.201 Further accusations mirrored those of the Pale students, including the suggestion that the Gaelic exactions were being abused by figures such as Heron in Carlow and that the debasement of the currency had been exploited by Sussex’s clique to enrich themselves.202 In conclusion to this very overt attack on the lord lieutenant and those associated with him Parker

108

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

wrote: ‘O let your Matie be substancially ware of gardyner’s crafty sect, that wude sey and vnsey with one brethe.’203 Clear in his criticism though he may have been, but significantly influential in bringing the Irish executive to account Parker was not. It was Bermingham who was undoubtedly the more influential, though frustratingly the less expressive of his reservations concerning Sussex’s government. For example, his most significant criticism of the administration is simply a brief list of questions which pondered what benefits had accrued from six years of war under the lord lieutenant, whether goods being cessed for the midlands forts were in fact being put to that use and if the rents from the midlands were in fact finding their way into the crown’s coffers.204 The one major recommendation made by Bermingham was for secret musters to be conducted to determine how much fraud was occurring within the army set-up and it was this latter point, more so than any other complaint received in the course of 1562, which impressed on Elizabeth and her councillors the necessity of investigating Irish affairs.205 Here were allegations which went beyond injustices being perpetrated against the Pale community to strike at the monarch’s own purse, for the imputation was that the subventions annually dispatched from England to Ireland were to finance an army which was intentionally kept well below number. That it was this issue, more so than any other, which moved Whitehall to action is revealed in the response late in 1562. A commissioner, Nicholas Arnold, was dispatched to Ireland at the end of the summer with instructions to follow up on Bermingham’s accusations concerning the muster.206 Elizabeth was explicit in stating that it was this which had occasioned Arnold’s appointment as she was ‘enformed by one William Bermingham, sheruiant of Methe that we haue been greatelie deceved in our musters there for lacke of nombers and for other abuses in supplyenge of souldiors at the muster with hired men’.207 Clearly, despite the range of complaints addressed by the Palesmen and other agents such as Parker, it was the practice of fraudulent musters attested to by Bermingham which above all led to the investigation into Sussex’s government. Subsequent events have been narrated elsewhere.208 Arnold arrived late in 1562 and proceeded to conduct a preliminary investigation which revealed that abuses were at least substantial enough to warrant further inquiries. Consequently, a commission consisting of Arnold and Thomas Wrothe was established in October of 1563. The commission resulted in the composition of a number of further treatises offering ideas on how to scale back expenditure or find alternatives to the ‘cess’. Sussex and his administration produced the first of these in the autumn of 1562 when they proposed resuming religious houses back into the crown’s hands by act of parliament and using the proceeds from these to replace the burden of the ‘cess’.209 But these proposals largely



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 109

came from Sussex’s detractors. Principal here were Arnold himself, along with Thomas Cusack and Bermingham, the latter producing an extremely detailed series of ‘Notes’ in 1565 outlining how the Irish establishment was costing nearly £25,000 and how some £5,000 could easily be saved.210 While these proposals were being made Arnold was uncovering rampant malpractice within the administration which contributed to the termination in 1564 of Sussex’s long spell as chief governor. Arnold was selected to succeed as lord justice the governor whose administration he had been sent to investigate. While the requirements of his new office directed his energies elsewhere he continued to investigate the affairs of the previous government. That he believed serious wrongdoings had been perpetrated by senior officials within both the civil and martial executives is clear from the major treatise he sent to Cecil and Leicester in the first weeks of 1565. In these ‘Notes’ the new viceroy complained of being impeded in his attempts to uncover the scale of the misconduct, and that it was clear serious misconduct had been occurring: And there of I shoulde discourse all those frivolus reasons and devics which the capens (and their advocate Mr Dix) have vsed to make, to the ende they mought procure the paye into their owne hands (and the cawses of all those losses which mought ensewe to her matie and contrye thereby), I shoulde write to the trooble of your honnor in readinge a longe booke.211

Ultimately, the assertion that wrongdoings had unquestionably been committed was as far as Arnold’s commission would progress. No concrete findings would ever be made as Arnold’s own administration quickly came under fire. In particular, he faced growing opposition from Sussex having returned to England, but even within Ireland a number of staunch critics emerged, notably the Kildare landholder Oliver Sutton who argued that Arnold’s actions had stirred the midlands into renewed war.212 But Arnold’s woes extended beyond such criticisms. As Brady has noted, the specific circumstances of the lord justice’s appointment implied that his government, and the methods employed, should be the antithesis of Sussex’s methods: that is less militaristic, more appreciative of the concerns of the Pale community, and, above all, cheaper.213 As such, a drastic reduction in the size of the garrison was mooted. However, this resolution could not have come at a more inopportune time, when O’Neill was again restless in Ulster and disturbances were rife among the midlands septs. Effectively, Leinster and Ulster had become so highly militarised and crown–Irish relations there so confrontational over the preceding decade that any immediate abandonment of a military policy was increasingly implausible. The two decades from the mid-1540s to the mid-1560s saw the period of sparsest treatise composition on Irish policy under the Tudors between the

110

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Kildare Rebellion and 1603. This is somewhat unusual given that the mid-­ Tudor period witnessed profound changes in Ireland with an adoption of a ­coercive strategy of conquest and plantation in Leinster and a major extension of the ambit of crown activity throughout not just that province but north into Ulster and south-west into Munster. This reduced policy debate may have been due, to some extent, to the autocratic nature of Sussex’s administration. However, it also serves to highlight that immense policy changes could occur in sixteenth-century Ireland for which there was no major flurry of treatise composition. But it may also be indicative of a satisfaction among senior officials and policy commentators at the direction of public policy. Then, as now, individuals wrote policy papers to change government policy, not to express agreement with the present course. Given that the mid-to-late 1540s saw the initiation of a strategy of regional conquest, advocated for by the great majority of treatise writers since the Kildare Rebellion, the lack of treatises for this period might simply be indicative of contentment among commentators on the new direction of policy. If it was, it did not last long, and indeed the treatises being produced from the mid-1550s onwards began to express discontent at the manner in which the new wars being waged by the crown were damaging the society and economy of regions such as the Pale. The content of the treatises being produced also evolved in other ways. In particular, the concern to promote a programme of coercive conquest and settlement gave way to meditations on how colonies which were now in existence should be organised. Writers such as Edward Walshe and John Alen began to argue that such settlements had to be planned and could be developed in a number of different ways. The government’s spreading influence into the remoter parts of the country was reflected in the appearance of treatises calling not just for the appointment of provincial presidents, but also for the establishment of colonies around the north-eastern seaboard to keep the Scots out and subdue the more unruly elements amongst the Gaelic lords of Ulster such as Shane O’Neill. Thus, though limited in number, the treatises extant for this period attest to the spreading influence of the Tudor crown across Ireland and the changes attendant upon it. Notes 1 Philip Wilson, The Beginnings of Modern Ireland (Baltimore, 1913), pp. 295–426; Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 258–88; White, ‘The Reign of Edward VI’, 197–201; White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, pp. 195–235; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 228–77, 314–20; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland, pp. 164–75; David Edwards, ‘Tudor Ireland: Anglicisation, Mass Killing and Security’, in Cathie Carmichael and Richard C. Maguire (eds), The Routledge History of Genocide (Abingdon, 2015), pp. 23–37;



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 111

Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence’. For other studies arguing along these lines, see Fitzsimons, ‘The Lordship of O’Connor Faly’; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 139–50; Power, A European Frontier Elite, pp. 113–44; Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism, pp. 117–22. 2 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 45–71. 3 Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence’; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 139–50. 4 Maginn, ‘“Surrender and Regrant” in the Historiography of Sixteenth-Century Ireland’, 565; Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’, 566–86. 5 John Alen, ‘A Note of the State of Ireland with a Dyuise for the same’, c.1546, TNA, SP 60/11/53, fo. 158v. The tract is also calendared in L.P., XXI(i), 915. 6 TNA, SP 60/11/53. 7 ‘The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Privy Council in England’, 1545, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 414, p. 519. 8 TNA, SP 60/11/53, fo. 155r. 9 Ibid., fo. 156r. 10 ‘J. Alen to King Henry VIII’, 1536, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 150, p. 374. 11 ‘J. Alen’s Charges against Sentleger’, c.1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 441; ‘Sentleger’s Answer to J. Alen’s Charges’, c.1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 446; ‘J. Alen’s Answer to Sentleger’s Charges’, c.1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 447. 12 Alan Bryson, ‘The Ormond–St Leger Feud, 1544–6’, in IHS, 38:150 (Nov., 2012), 187–210; Murray, Enforcing, pp. 188–92. 13 Included in Alen’s charges was the accusation that St Leger had failed to reform Leinster and also a reiteration of his assertions concerning the untrustworthiness of Brian O’Connor Faly expressed in his ‘Note’. See John Alen, ‘Certen Notes on the State of Ireland’, 1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 441, p. 564; ‘J. Alen to the Privy Council’, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 446, pp. 577–8. 14 ‘The Lord Justice and Council of Ireland to the Privy Council in England’, 1546, SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 444. 15 David Edwards, ‘Malice Aforethought? The Death of the Ninth Earl of Ormond, 1546’, in JBS, 3:1 (1986–87), 30–41; David Edwards, ‘Further Comments on the Strange Death of the 9th Earl of Ormond’, in JBS, 4:1 (1997), 58–64. 16 White, ‘The Reign of Edward VI’, p. 199; Alan Bryson, ‘Sir Anthony St Leger and the Outbreak of the Midland Rebellion, 1547–8’, in PRIA, 113C (2013), 251–78; Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence’, p. 67; Heffernan, ‘Reduction of Leinster’, pp. 18–19. 17 For example, see Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 228–77, 314–20; Lennon, SixteenthCentury Ireland, pp.  164–75; Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence’; Maginn, ‘Civilizing’ Gaelic Leinster, pp.  86–98; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, pp. 173–86; Power, A European Frontier Elite, pp. 113–44; Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism, pp. 117–22. 18 William Brabazon, ‘A note giuen to Mr Bellingham, the worthie generell anno primo E. 6th’, c.1547, BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fo. 31r. 19 Ibid. 20 Maginn, ‘A Window on Mid-Tudor Ireland’, pp. 465–82; White, ‘The Reign of Edward VI’, pp.  201–2; Bryson, ‘Sir Anthony St Leger’, pp. 267–72. For more

112

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

on the authorship of the document, see Heffernan, ‘Reduction of Leinster’, pp. 19–20. 21 See in particular nos 28–48, 68–72, 132–9, in Maginn, ‘A Window on mid-Tudor Ireland’, pp. 473–6. 22 Ibid., p. 482. 23 White, ‘The Reign of Edward VI’, p. 203. 24 For examples of the dues which it was expected would be remitted to these regional commanders, see ‘An order taken between the Constable or Captain of Leighlin, and such as inhabit the parcels that are appointed territory under the rule of the same’, 1552, CCM, 1515–1574, 196; ‘An order taken by the Lord Deputy and Council the last of April, anno regni Edwardi sexti [sexto] 1552, between the Constable of Catherloghe and those which do inhabit the parcels appointed territory under the said Constable’, 1552, CCM, 1515–1574, 197. 25 Edwards, ‘The Escalation of Violence’; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 139–50. 26 DIB, ‘Cowley, Walter’. 27 ‘Walter Cowley to Edward Bellingham’, 1549, TNA, SP 61/2/12, fo. 23. 28 Hore and Graves (eds), Social State, pp. 281–6, p. 283. 29 Ibid. 30 DIB, ‘Brabazon, William’; Harman Murtagh, Athlone: History and Settlement to 1800 (Athlone, 2000), pp. 36–42. 31 DIB, ‘Dillon, Robert’; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland, pp. 209–10; ‘Robert Dillon to Edward Bellingham’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/106; ‘Robert Dillon to Edward Bellingham’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/109. 32 See Fiants, Edw. VI, 8; ‘Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Privy Council’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/125; Fiants, Edw. VI, 138. 33 DIB, ‘Colclough, Anthony’; Fiants, Edw. VI, 249; Lib. Muner., I, pt. 2, p. 118. 34 For Dalton, see Fiants, Edw. VI, 464. For grants of land to William Brabazon, William St Loe and Francis Digby, respectively, see Fiants, Edw. VI, 778, 787, 817. 35 For Bagenal’s grant of Newry, see CPRI, pp. 228–9; Bagenal, ‘Sir Nicholas Bagenal’. For a full account of the controversy which ensued from Brereton’s appointment, see ‘The Council in Dublin to the Privy Council’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/25. 36 Andrew Wyse also became constable of Limerick in 1551; however, this was a perquisite which had been held by his father since 1523. See Fiants, Edw. VI, 558; 772, for the respective grants to Walsh and Wyse; Lib. Muner., I, pt. 2, p. 116. Robert St Leger had been constable of Dungarvan since 1544 before Walsh was appointed. Ibid., p. 123. 37 David Edwards, ‘Beyond Reform: Martial Law & the Tudor Reconquest of Ireland’, in History Ireland, 5:2 (Summer, 1997), 16–21; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 209–44. 38 On the increasing prominence of the garrison figures, see Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 144–50. 39 For example, John Alen’s ‘Description’ (c.1556) and Thomas Alen’s ‘Matters’ (c.1558), both reproduced in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 19–35.



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 113

40 ‘Edward Bellingham to the Privy Council’, 1548, TNA, SP 63/1/84. 41 TNA, SP 61/1/129, fo. 230r. 42 Edmund Curtis (ed.), ‘The Survey of Offaly in 1550’, in Hermathena, 20:44 (1930), 312–52. 43 See, for example, ‘John Brereton, Richard Aylmer, Francis Cosby and James MacGerrald to Bellingham’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/41. 44 ‘Offers of Gerald Aylmer, John Travers, and others, for the inhabiting of Leix, Irry, Slewmarge, and other possessions of the O’Mores’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/69, fo. 198r, printed in Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’, pp. 321–2. 45 See, for instance, Fiants, Edw. VI, 407, for a grant of lands in Laois to Gilves Hovendon. 46 Fiants, Edw. VI, 661–736, are primarily concerned with leases of land in the two counties in February and March of 1551. 47 Fiants, Edw. VI, 407 (Giles Hovendon), 661, 944, 954 (Mathew Kyng), 662 (William Iarbard), 673, 685 (William Hydney), 693, 1143 (Oliver Sutton), 696 (Thomas Smythe), 697 (Anthony Colclought), 699 (Thomas Jacob), 716 (Henry Wyse), 724 (Francis Cosby), 735 (Roger Brooke), 740 (Walter Peppard), 741 (John Travers), 48 See, for example, a lease of lands in Offaly to Redmund Óge Fitzgerald, Fiants, Edw. VI, 732, which stipulated that the O’Connors were not to inhabit the granted lands, sufficient weapons were to be retained, a contribution towards the ‘cess’ and towards the fort at Daingean was to be borne and FitzGerald was not to be absentee. 49 James Croft, ‘Instructions for Mr. Wood to be declared to the Privy Council’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/54, fo. 159v; ‘Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council’, 1552, TNA, SP 61/4/4. 50 ‘Instructions by the King and Council to Sir Anthony St Leger and the Council of Ireland’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/57, printed in Collier (ed.), ‘The Egerton Papers’, pp. 13–23; ‘Instructions by the king for James Croft’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/32; ‘The king to James Croft’, 1551, SP 61/3/73; ‘Instructions from Queen Mary to Anthony St Leger and others of the Council’, 1553, TNA, SP 62/1/2. 51 DIB, ‘Walshe, Edward’. 52 Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’, p. 315. 53 Ibid., pp. 303–14. 54 Fitzsimons, ‘The Lordship of O’Connor Faly’, pp. 222–5; White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, pp. 332–41. 55 John Alen, ‘Instructions touching Ireland’, 1556, BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 27–29r, fo. 27r. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., fos. 27v–28r. 58 Statutes, i, pp. 240–3. 59 ‘Orders for Leix’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/19; ‘Orders for the holding of the English that shall be placed in Leix’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/20; ‘The consignation of Leix’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/21; ‘Division of Offaly’, 1556, TNA, SP 63/7/62. On these developments, see Dunlop, ‘The Plantation of Leix and Offaly’, pp. 67–8; Susan Doran,

114

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

‘The Political Career of Thomas Radcliffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex, 1526?–1583’, PhD (London University, 1979), pp. 91–3. 60 Brady, Chief Governors, p. 250, has previously highlighted the influence of Alen’s treatise on the measures taken in 1557. 61 CCM, 1515–1574, 236, p. 338. 62 White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, II, p. 51. 63 Fitzsimons, ‘The Lordship of O’Connor Faly’, p. 230. 64 On the subsequent history of the colony, see ibid., pp. 232–4; White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, II, pp. 115–62; Carey, ‘The End of the Gaelic Political Order’, pp. 237–48; Carey, ‘John Derricke’s Image of Irelande’. 65 Heffernan, ‘An early Elizabethan treatise on Laois and Offaly’, p. 125. 66 Ibid. 67 White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, p. 18. 68 Henry Fitzroy also served nominally as Lord Lieutenant from 1529. See ODNB, ‘Fitzroy, Henry’. 69 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 72–81. 70 See pp. 78–87. 71 Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I, pp. 326–45; Wilson, The Beginnings of Modern Ireland, pp.  299–308; Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp.  259–60; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland, pp. 164–7; Power, A European Frontier Elite, pp. 116–36. The significant exception is Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 48–51, who argued that Bellingham was not as bellicose as previously believed. In the absence of a policy paper composed by Bellingham, see his correspondence throughout TNA, SP 61/1. 72 ‘James Croft to Warwick’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/27, fo. 64r. This letter-tract is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 12–15. 73 Ibid., fo. 64v. 74 ‘The King to James Croft’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/48, fo. 136r. 75 ‘Anthony St Leger to William Cecil’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/3, fo. 9v. 76 ‘Remembrances for Ireland’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/55, fo. 132r. This treatise is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 8–9. 77 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 48–71, argues for the programmatic nature of the period. For instance, the State Papers records for these years comprise very little. See TNA, SP 62/1/2–10, while these are supplemented by very few documents from other archival collections. 78 For some of the viceroy’s numerous compositions, see Sussex, ‘A present remedy for the Reformation of the North and rest of Ireland’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/13; ‘The opinion of th’Earl of Sussex touching the reformation of Ireland’, 1560, CCM, 1515–1574, 227; ‘The opinion of the Earl of Sussex Lieutenant-General, as well for the ordering of Ulster as the government of the whole realm, after Shane O’Nele shall be expulsed’, 1562, CCM, 1515–1574, 236; ‘A relation of the Earl of Sussex, in what sort he found the Kingdom of Ireland, when he came thither, and in what estate the same was in anno 1562, and his opinion of the reform thereof’, 1562, CCM, 1515–1574, 237. For further copies of the latter, see TNA, SP 63/5/101; BL, Add. MS 4,767, fos. 151–155. On the efforts to introduce



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 115

administrative and judicial institutions along the lines of England, see Crawford, Anglicizing. 79 ‘Requests of the earl of Sussex’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/27. 80 Statutes, i, pp. 240–1. 81 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 81–2. 82 On these see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 36. Francis Harbert, ‘Articles concerning the government of Ireland’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/15. Also, see an anonymous tract dealing with largely administrative issues. ‘Notes of remembrance, probably for Sir Thomas Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter, on being appointed Lord Deputy’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/11. 83 John Alen, ‘Instructions touching Ireland’, 1556, BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 27–29r; ‘Thomas Alen to William Cecil’, 1558, TNA, SP 63/1/9. 84 Edward Walshe, ‘The detection of the onely dificulte errors wherby the quenes Matie and the gouernor of yrland were hitherto deceaved and wherby the faythfull subiects were abused’, 1563, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 207–210; ‘Edward Walshe to William Cecil’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/71. 85 Ibid., fo. 158v. 86 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 49–51. 87 ‘Mathew Kyng to William Wise’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/89. 88 ‘Walter Cowley to Edward Bellingham’, 1549, TNA, SP 61/2/12. 89 ‘Statutes made and ordained at Limerick, 7th February, 3 Edw. VI. by James, Earl of Desmond, Edmund, Archbishop of Cashel, John Travers, and Thomas Howthe, the King’s Commissioners’, 1549, CCM, 1515–1574, 187. 90 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 7–15. 91 Ibid., pp. xiv, 10. 92 Ibid., p. 14. 93 ‘The king to James Croft’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/48, fo. 139v. 94 Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’. The explicit references to presidents are on pp. 316, 321. 95 CCM, 1515–1574, 200. 96 ‘Instructions from Queen Mary to Anthony St Leger and others of the Council’, 1553, TNA, SP 62/1/2. 97 Anonymous, ‘Propositions for services in Ireland’, c.1555, TNA, SP 62/1/9, fos. 28v–29. The treatise has been attributed to St Leger by White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, p. 345, the tone, however, points towards an official outside of the vice-regal office. Furthermore if St Leger were the author it would be a unique case of him writing a treatise on the country. The full text of the treatise is presented in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 24–7. 98 TNA, SP 62/1/9, fos. 28r–29v. 99 Heffernan, ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 23. 100 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 90–1; ‘Desmond to Queen Mary’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/11; Robert Remon?, ‘The declaration of the earl of Desmond’s chaplain, touching the abuses and government of Ireland’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/12. 101 Rowland White?, ‘Book of the waste and decay of the English Pale, and the cause of the same’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/77. For the attribution to White, see Brady, Chief

116

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Governors, pp. 81–2. Much of the document is made up of folios which are blank except for headings, indicating that the text was left unfinished. 102 ‘Petition of the earl of Clanricard to the queen’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/16. 103 ‘Petitions of the earl of Ormond’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/46. 104 ‘Notes concerning the army in Ireland and concerning ye establishment of 4 counsells’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/31. 105 See Sussex’s ‘Articles’ printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 52–5. 106 CCM, 1515–1574, 237. 107 CCM, 1515–1574, 236. 108 Ibid., p. 335. 109 Ibid., p. 332. 110 Ibid., pp. 332–4. 111 ‘Thomas Cusack, relative to a reformation in the government of Ireland’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/5/33; ‘Bermingham’s memorial of advice for the government of Ireland’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/27. These two texts are presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 49–52. 112 ‘Instructions for the earl of Sussex’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/41, fo. 99r. A slightly earlier set of instructions, ‘Memoranda of divers matters to be despatched for Ireland’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/18, also commanded Sussex to establish councils. 113 ‘Commission for George Stanley, William Fitzwilliam, Thomas Cusack and Francis Agard to govern Munster during the absence of the earls of Ormond and Desmond’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/12/47. 114 For further background, see Ciaran Brady, Shane O’Neill (Dundalk, 1996), pp. 22–35. 115 ‘Instructions by the queen to Sussex’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/60; ‘Shane O’Neill to the queen’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/79; ‘Shane O’Neill to the queen’, 1561, TNA, SP 63/3/14; ‘Proclamation against Shane O’Neill’, 1561, TNA, SP 63/4/13(i). 116 Brady, Shane O’Neill, pp. 35–47; James Hogan, ‘Shane O’Neill comes to the Court of Elizabeth’, in Séamus Pender (ed.), Féilscríbhinn Torna: Essays and Studies Presented to Professor Tadhg Ua Donnchadha (Cork, 1947), pp. 154–70; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 32–69; Ciaran Brady, ‘Shane O’Neill Departs from the Court of Elizabeth: Irish, English, Scottish Perspectives and the Paralysis of Policy, July 1559 to April 1562’, in S.J. Connolly (ed.), Kingdoms United? Great Britain and Ireland since 1500: Integration and Diversity (Dublin, 1999), pp. 13–28. 117 See, for instance, a series of letters which Shane wrote to the queen, Dudley and Cecil on 2 November 1562 claiming his lands had been spoiled while in England. TNA, SP 63/7/39–41. 118 Brady, Shane O’Neill, pp. 48–52; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 241–2; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland, pp. 270–1; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 69–83. For the peace accord, see CCM, 1515–1574, 239. 119 Brady, Shane O’Neill, pp. 52–65; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland, pp. 271–4. 120 ‘Meanes to be vsed with Shane O’Nele’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/5/43. James Croft possibly suggests himself as the author of this document. ‘Advices for Ordering of Shane O’Neill’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/51. 121 ‘Sussex to William Cecil’, 1561, TNA, SP 63/4/37, fo. 81r.



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 117

122 CCM, 1515–1574, 227. Also, see Carey, Surviving the Tudors, pp. 97–120. 123 White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, II, pp. 132–8, argues that the ‘Opinion’ was composed early in 1563. 124 CCM, 1515–1574, 236. 125 ‘Sussex to William Cecil’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/8/46, fo. 96v. 126 Ibid. 127 Gossiprid was essentially a pledge of fraternal association between a lord who thereby gained service, and his client, who received protection, patronage and preferential treatment of his suits. 128 ‘Notes of the earl of Sussex to induce queen Elizabeth to permit him to remain in England’, 1559, TNA, SP 63/1/13, fo. 23r. 129 ‘Sir Henry Sydney’s articles for the publick affairs of Ireland’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/13/46, fo. 110r. This treatise is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 65–8. 130 ‘A memorial for Thomas Cusack of certain things to be declared to the Lord Lieutenant Sussex, as to means to be used to bring Shane O’Neill to submission’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/8/64, fo. 128. The document is heavily annotated by Cecil. 131 Ibid., fo. 129r. See TNA, SP 63/8/67, for a slightly different draft of this document. 132 ‘Thomas Cusack to William Cecil’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/10/38; ‘Thomas Cusack to William Cecil’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/10/51. 133 Nicholas Arnold, ‘Notes to be considered for the government of Ireland’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/12/20, fo. 62r, at www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E560001–001.html. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid., fo. 62v. 136 David Potter, ‘French Intrigue in Ireland during the Reign of Henri II, 1547–1559’, in The International History Review, 5:2 (May 1983), 159–80. Also, see Lyons, Franco-Irish Relations, pp. 77–108; Palmer, The Problem of Ireland, pp. 55–72. 137 ‘Privy Council to the Lord Deputy and Council’, 1549, TNA, SP 61/2/46. 138 Lib. Muner., I, pt. 2, p. 119. Floddy was removed from office in 1552. See ‘Anthony St Leger to William Petre’, 1554, TNA, SP 62/1/8. 139 ‘George Dowdall to John Alen’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/51; ‘William Brabazon and Council to the Privy Council’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/52. 140 ‘Articles for the expedition into Ireland’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/2; ‘Instructions to James Croft’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/14; ‘Instructions for Richard Bethell’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/15. 141 ‘Thomas Cusack to Warwick’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/52; Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 35–7. 142 Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1542–1631, 46 vols (1890–1964), v, pp. 183–4, p. 183. 143 ‘Articles sent by the queen to Lord Fitzwalter to be considered, 17 Nov. 1556’, 1556, TNA, SP 62/1/22(i); ‘Opinions of Lord Fitzwalter on the above articles’, 1557, TNA, SP 62/1/22(ii). 144 Ibid., fos. 71v–72r. The initiative has received markedly little attention. See Dunlop, ‘Sixteenth Century Schemes’, 52–4, which is still the most detailed overview. Also, see Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 96–7; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 13–14, 96–7.

118

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

145 TNA, SP 62/1/22(i), fo. 73r. 146 Ibid., fos. 73r–74r. 147 ‘Sussex to the king and queen’, 1557, TNA, SP 62/1/37. 148 ‘Articles delivered to Henry Radcliffe to be explained to the queen’, 1557, TNA, SP 62/1/31; ‘Sussex to the queen’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/70; ‘Sussex to the queen’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/71; ‘Sussex to the queen’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/75; Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 46–50; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 12–24. 149 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 19–27. 150 Thomas Gogarty (ed.), ‘The Archbishop of Armachane’s Opinion touchinge Ireland’, in JCLAS, 2:2 (Sep., 1909), 149–64, 159. 151 ‘Argyll’s request to Queen Elizabeth, for his service proffered for subduing Ulster’, 1560, TNA, SP 63/2/27. 152 Jane Dawson, The Politics of Religion in the Age of Mary, Queen of Scots: The Earl of Argyll and the Struggle for Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2002); Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 57–99; Hiram Morgan, ‘British Policies Before the British State’, in Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill (eds), The British Problem, c.1534–1707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (London, 1996), pp. 66–88, esp. pp. 76–80; Palmer, The Problem of Ireland, pp. 73–88. For the French element to these events, see Lyons, Franco-Irish Relations, pp. 109–30. 153 Dawson, The Politics of Religion, pp. 104–10, 126–37. 154 Ibid., pp. 155–65; Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 115–22; Ciaran Brady, ‘The Killing of Shane O’Neill: Some New Evidence’, in The Irish Sword, 15 (1982–83), 116–23. 155 ‘A remembrance by Sir James Croft showing the need of some to administer justice throughout Ireland, and proposing that Grammar Schools be erected’, 1561, TNA, SP 63/3/17, fo. 42r. This treatise is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 47–8. 156 TNA, SP 63/3/17, fo. 42v. 157 Heffernan, ‘An early Elizabethan treatise on Laois and Offaly’. 158 On the dating of the document and the possible identity of the twelve individuals involved, see White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, II, pp. 166–9; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 70–2. 159 William Piers, ‘A paper relating the policy of Scotland, to promote James MacDonnell to be Lord of all the Isles of Scotland, with the reasons of its failure’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/9/83; DIB, ‘Piers, William’. 160 Ibid., fo. 181r. 161 Ibid., fo. 180r. 162 Ibid., fos. 181r–181v. 163 Ibid., fos. 181v–183v. 164 Ibid., fo. 183v. 165 Ibid. For further discussion of the proposal and the context in which it was written, see Canny, Elizabethan Conquest. 166 TNA, SP 63/13/46, fo. 110r. 167 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 89–94, 101–7, 209–44; Ciaran Brady, ‘Conservative Subversives: The Community of the Pale and the Dublin Administration, 1556–



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 119

86’, in Patrick Corish (ed.), Radicals, Rebels and Establishments, Historical Studies XV (Belfast, 1985), pp. 11–32. 168 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 18. 169 Brendan Bradshaw (ed.), ‘A Treatise for the Reformation of Ireland, 1554–5’, in IJ, 16 (1981), 299–315. 170 Ibid., 309. 171 Ibid., 308. 172 TNA, SP 62/2/77. 173 ‘George Dowdall to Nicholas Heath and the Privy Council’, 1557, TNA, SP 62/1/61. This treatise is presented in full in Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 34–5. ‘Articles submitted to the Privy Council by George Dowdall’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/44; ‘The effecte of the booke exhibited by the archbishop of Armagh’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/45; Gogarty (ed.), ‘Opinion’; ‘Desmond to Queen Mary’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/11; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 89–91; Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 267–75; White, ‘Tudor Plantations’, I, pp. 398– 404, 417–22; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 118–19; DIB, ‘Dowdall, George’; DIB, ‘FitzGerald, James FitzJohn’. 174 TNA, SP 62/2/45, fo. 103r. 175 TNA, SP 62/1/61, fo. 172. 176 TNA, SP 62/2/11, fo. 17r. 177 Gogarty (ed.), ‘Opinion’, 157. 178 TNA, SP 62/1/61, fo. 172r. 179 Allegra Woodworth, ‘Purveyance for the Royal Household in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth’, in TAPS, New Series, 35:1 (Dec., 1945), 1–89; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 215–19. 180 Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 27–8; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 369–73. 181 See, the ‘Ordinances’ composed around 1519 in Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 99–109; Anonymous, ‘An Abstracte of Mysorders and Euill Rule within the land of Irlande’, c.1537, TNA, SP 60/5/24, fo. 56v. John Alen and Thomas Luttrell used the term ‘cessors’ in their submissions to the commissioners in 1537. See SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 183, p. 495; 184, p. 505. The terms also abounded in the Ordinances for the Government of Ireland, 1534, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 70. 182 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 219–20. 183 ‘Edward Bellingham to the Mayor of Drogheda’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/57; ‘Edward Bellingham to the Privy Council and the Mayor of Dublin’, 1548, TNA, SP 61/1/67. 184 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 220–30. 185 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 186 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 70. 187 ‘Anthony St Leger, James Croft and part of the council to the Privy Council’, 1551, TNA, SP 61/3/24; Des Cowman, ‘The German Mining Operation at Bannow Bay, 1551–52’, in Journal of the Wexford Historical Society, 11 (1986), 67–82; Jack Williams, Robert Recorde: Tudor Polymath, Expositor and Practitioner of Computation (London, 2011), pp. 35–52. 188 ‘Device for the better government of Ireland’, 1553, TNA, SP 61/4/82. This was most likely written by an Old Englishman and proposed a highly unusual system

120

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

whereby the office of lord deputy would rotate among the chief English and Irish lords from Kildare and Ormond to figures such as the earl of Tyrone and even O’Reilly, with each holding the post for one year. ‘A Deuyse howe to kepe Irelonde in the staye it nowe remayneth vpon the revenues onely of the same and not to putt the king’s Matie to further chardge as his grace is dayly burdened with at this present’, c.1553, TNA, SP 61/4/83. 189 BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 27–29r, fo. 28r. 190 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 101–3; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 119–30, contains one of the most expansive overviews of the students complaints. Valerie McGowan-Doyle, ‘Elizabeth I, the Old English, and the Rhetoric of Counsel’, in Brendan Kane and Valerie McGowan-Doyle (eds), Elizabeth I and Ireland (Cambridge, 2014), pp. 163–83, esp. pp. 171–4. 191 ‘A book comprehending twenty-four articles, specifying the miserable estate of the English Pale in the years 1560 and 1561, delivered to the Privy Council, by certain students of Ireland’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/5/51, printed in, Crawford, Anglicizing, App. 2, pp. 432–8, esp. pp. 435–6. 192 Ibid., pp. 434–6. 193 Ibid., p. 435. 194 Ibid., pp. 434–7. 195 Ibid., pp. 436–7; Conyers Read, ‘Profits on the Recoinage of 1560–1’, in Economic History Review, 6:2 (Apr., 1936), 186–93. 196 Crawford, Anglicizing, p. 437. 197 For Sussex’s interrogatories to the articles laid against him by the students, see TNA, SP 63/5/52–53, 57. ‘Oliver Plunkett, Christopher Cheevers, and other noblemen and gentlemen of the Pale to the queen’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/12. For a similar submission to Dudley, see TNA, SP 63/6/13. Also, see ‘Thomas Barnewall and other gentlemen of Meath to the queen’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/7/31. 198 DIB, ‘Parker, John’. 199 John Parker, ‘A slanderous book addressed to the queen against the lord lieutenant Sussex and other governors of Ireland’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/37. 200 Ibid., fos. 77v–80r. 201 Ibid., fo. 81v. 202 Ibid., fos. 80–88. 203 Ibid., fo. 89r. 204 William Bermingham, ‘Interrogatories relative to bishoprics, soldiers, cesses, musters, etc.’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/28. 205 Ibid., fo. 57r. Also, see a subsequent memorandum by Bermingham drawn up after the decision to investigate Irish affairs had been taken. ‘William Bermingham to Northampton and William Cecil’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/53; Brady, Chief Governors, p. 103. 206 ODNB, ‘Arnold, Nicholas’. 207 ‘Instructions given to Nicholas Arnold’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/49, fo. 149r. 208 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 103–7; Doran, ‘Thomas Radcliffe’, pp. 132–49. 209 ‘Lord Lieutenant and Council to the queen’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/68. 210 William Bermingham, ‘Orders how to proceed to the pay of the army in Ireland’,



•  ‘reform’ treatises and tudor conquest, 1546–1565  • 121

1563, TNA, SP 63/9/19; ‘William Bermingham’s Offer’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/20; ‘A device by Nicholas Arnold, to abridge the charges in Ireland’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/81; ‘Sir Thomas Cusake’s Advice for orders to be taken presently in Ireland’, 1564, HMC, Pepys MSS, pp. 25–6; ‘Notes offered by Bermingham to be considered of by the Privy Council’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/12/1. 211 TNA, SP 63/12/20, fo. 59v. 212 ‘A briefe note of the Earle of Sussex cowrse in his government of Irelande’, 1565, BL, Add. MS 4,767, fos. 156–160; Oliver Sutton, ‘Articles to the queen’s Matie of the needless wars in Ireland’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/15/54. Sutton prepared many papers at this time, mostly aimed against the earl of Kildare. See TNA, SP 63/15/55–58. See Hore and Graves (eds), Social State, pp. 167–76, for TNA, SP 63/15/56. 213 Brady, Chief Governors, p. 109.

122

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

3

•

Treatise writing and the expansion of Tudor government in mid-Elizabethan Ireland, 1565–1578

The mid-Elizabethan period in Ireland was dominated by the administrations of Henry Sidney. Between his first appointment in 1565 and his final revocation in 1578 he served as lord deputy for eight years and significantly influenced the policies implemented under William Fitzwilliam’s caretaker government from 1571 to 1575. This was a period of marked expansion in the reach of crown government in Ireland. While efforts had been made from mid-century onwards to extend the Pale into parts of Leinster and along the north-east coastline, the 1560s and 1570s witnessed the arrival of crown officers in some of the remotest parts of Ireland, whether in the guise of provincial presidents, their subordinates, or aspiring colonists. Of equal significance were innovative efforts to reform the finances of crown government in Ireland through reduction of expenditure and increases in revenue. Simultaneously, the first truly concerted efforts at protestantising the country were undertaken, in tandem with the arrival of the forces of the Counter Reformation in Ireland. Many treatises were attendant upon these occurrences, a development that diverged greatly from what had preceded it. Where Sussex’s regime had stifled political consultation, Sidney’s years in office witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of those proffering counsel. A range of factors encouraged the increase in treatise composition at this time. The growing security threat posed by Ireland as England’s international position, and in particular English relations with Philip II’s Spain, deteriorated led to a growing number of colonisation schemes for securing the south coast of Ireland by figures such as Jerome Brett and Humphrey Gilbert.1 Moreover, the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V in 1570 led to an increasing concern for religious reform in Ireland. Additionally, the New English community continued to expand bringing future treatise writers to Ireland, notably within the military executive. This continuing growth of the garrison, in turn, led to the composi-



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 123 Table 3  Number of extant treatises by decade, 1510–1579

Decade

1510s

1520s

1530s

1540s

1550s

1560s

1570s

No. of treatises

8

6

40

23

46

58

129

Source: Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78

tion of treatises offering proposals for how to finance the army. Consequently, figures such as Edward Waterhouse, John Chaloner, John Ussher and Nicholas White began producing papers with provisions and figures on how to reduce expenditure and increase crown revenue which were more detailed than those seen to date under the Tudors.2 Sidney facilitated this increase in counsel, for not only was he more permissive than Sussex, but he explicitly incorporated the proposals of others into his programmes for government. Thus, for example, William Piers’s ‘Ulster Project’ was directly cited in one of Sidney’s policy papers, while the ‘composition’ scheme devised by Edmund Tremayne was one of his key policies in 1575. These myriad factors explain the increase in the number of treatises composed during the Sidney years, a development which saw twice as many policy papers composed in the 1570s as in the 1560s. The extent of this increase is borne out in table 3. This chapter examines the treatises written during this period of increased counsel and the impact of the ideas contained in them on government policy under Sidney. Fitzwilliam is only given cursory attention as despite spending four years in office his influence was limited and we find no extant policy papers by him articulating any cohesive design for the ‘reform’ of Ireland. Of particular note are the myriad proposals for financial reform made at this time. The administrative and judicial reform which was concomitant upon the expansion of the Tudor state in Ireland and manifested in the shiring of much of the country is overviewed, as is the course of religious reform as England’s conflict with the forces of the Counter Reformation became most acute. But first we turn to examine the much delayed establishment of provincial presidents and councils and the various colonial projects put forward for the north-east and elsewhere at this time. Provincial presidents and regional colonies

In his seminal study of the lord deputyships of Henry Sidney, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland, Nicholas Canny posited that the viceroy was the chief institutor of a new programme of conquest in Ireland based on the twin methods of colonisation and the establishment of provincial presidencies. Canny’s emphasis on the pivotal role of Sidney in these processes is open to criticism, particularly so because, as demonstrated in the foregoing chapters,

124

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

provincial councils and the establishment of colonies had been proposed for Tudor Ireland for several decades prior to Sidney’s first entering office in 1565.3 Nevertheless, Canny’s focus on the these twin processes in the decade between the mid-1560s and mid-1570s was pertinent, for while these actions may have been promoted for some time it was during the mid-Elizabethan period that provincial presidents and councils first appeared and colonisation in regions other than the midlands was first attempted. As such, Canny’s focus on two major policy developments of the period, as demonstrative of the creeping Elizabethan conquest, was pertinent. The following section addresses how the ‘reform’ treatises contributed to these policy developments. As illustrated, the presidential scheme had been in the firmament for several decades prior to Sidney’s appointment, gaining adherents among high-­ ranking officials such as Walter Cowley, William Brabazon and Thomas Cusack, as well as lesser-known officials such as Thomas Walshe. Most importantly it had been championed by Sussex in his extensive policy documents of the early 1560s. The fact that even critics of the lord lieutenant, notably William Bermingham, were in agreement that provincial presidents ought to be appointed demonstrates that an overwhelming consensus had formed on this issue by the time of Sidney’s entering office.4 Tellingly, a proto-­council was instituted for Munster in 1565 during the absence of Ormond and Desmond in England to resolve their conflict following the battle of Affane. This consisted of William Fitzwilliam, George Stanley, Thomas Cusack and Francis Agard whose remit was essentially to provide the kind of provincial government which advocates of presidential councils sought.5 Upon entering office in 1565 Sidney showed the, by now, standard support for provincial councils. In his ‘Articles for the publick affairs of Ireland’, a treatise outlining his programme for government, he called for ‘a president with 2 or 3 suffycient counsellors, having at ther commandment 2 hundreth fotemen and 1 hundreth horsemen’ to be established in Munster.6 No mention was made of a similar institution for Connacht or Ulster. By 1567 his vision extended to the western province, iterating in a long letter-tract to the queen of Munster and Connacht that there was ‘no Waye for Reformacion of thies two provinces, but by planting Justice by Prisident and Counseills’.7 Yet this mirrored the language which had been used by the majority of those other supporters of presidents previously seen. Moreover, the majority of his memoranda and position papers from the late 1560s are silent on the topic, while provincial councils are barely alluded to in his ‘Memoir’ of service, written in the early 1580s.8 Support continued to be voiced from others. A treatise most likely prepared by the bishop of Kilfenora, John O’Neilan, in 1567 argued that a captain should be placed in Limerick with a military retinue to govern Thomond, a scheme somewhat paralleling the presidential proposal.9 A further tract



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 125

submitted to Cecil early in 1568 by another Irishman, though unidentifiable beyond this, recommended the appointment of a president in Ulster to reside at Carrickfergus and hold sessions of assize there, while the Irish marshal would oversee the military governance of the province.10 Proposals for councils were also being debated among ministers in England independent of Irish officials, with, for instance, Winchester writing to Cecil in 1566 proposing the establishment of a provincial council in Ulster and other suitable places.11 Finally, in the years following Sidney’s appointment, but prior to the appointment of the first president, Edward Fitton, in Connacht, a handful of writers such as Patrick Sherlock continued to campaign for the creation of such offices.12 There was far more support and promotion of the presidential scheme than previous studies have identified. Of equal significance to the origins of the presidential scheme is the theoretical conception of the office itself and specifically whether those appointed would fulfil a primarily judicial or martial role. Canny was in little doubt that as an instrument of an aggressive policy of conquest the presidents would perform a martial function first and foremost.13 Conversely, Brady has consistently argued that these provincial bureaucrats were originally intended to oversee the establishment of English legal institutions with any military activity engaged in directed towards that end.14 In the most comprehensive study of the Munster presidency yet conducted Denis Kennedy suggested a similar sanguinity in the original conception of the office, though unlike Brady he saw a drift towards a martial presidency in Sussex’s writings. Both writers ultimately concluded that the presidential offices quickly degenerated into military governance in the early 1570s.15 A third reading of the purpose of the presidential office steers a via-media between these latter two interpretations, acknowledging the overtly military role of the presidents, while also emphasising the continuing civil competences of those appointed. Jon Crawford, Mary O’Dowd and Bernadette Cunningham have generally favoured this construal, though Crawford in his more recent work has argued that the degree to which any degeneration of the presidential offices into military governance occurred in the 1570s and 1580s has been overstated, indicating a drift towards a view of the presidents as primarily civil officials.16 It would appear that the view of the presidents as both military figures and instruments of legal ‘reform’ most accurately captures how treatise writers believed the presidencies would function in the years leading up to the inauguration of the scheme in the late 1560s. In most instances the details provided by advocates of the initiative in their papers were so scant that it is impossible to determine what role they saw provincial presidents fulfilling. But when looking at the writings of those who provided specifics on how the office would operate, notably Thomas Walshe, it becomes clear that both a martial and judicial capacity were foreseen.17 Sussex, again, believed that

126

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the presidents would be the instruments to introduce the common law but would also act as regional military commanders, particularly in Ulster. Brady has noted this discrepancy in relation to the northern province but has overstated the degree to which the presidents in Munster and Connacht would exercise powers approximate to their counterparts in Wales and the north of England.18 Although cognisance should be taken of the previously noted contradictions in Sussex’s writings on this topic it is impossible to overlook the lord lieutenant’s explicit recommendation in his ‘Relation’ of a martial figure commanding a military retinue to serve as presidents in Ulster, Connacht and Munster.19 Sussex continued to push this approach long after his departure from office and a treatise almost certainly written by him in 1569 argued for the same set-up.20 Sidney, likewise, did not baulk at discussing the military function of the presidents. The reference to the establishment of a Munster presidency in his ‘Articles’ written in 1565 gave only two specific details: that the president should be counselled by two to three individuals and that he ought to have a military force of 200 foot and 100 horse at his disposal.21 Moreover, the appointment of provost marshals as standard provincial officers in Connacht and Munster also indicates the military function of the provincial administrations. Such appointments were rare in England and in general were only appointed at the local level during wartime.22 Consequently, the regular appointment of provost marshals in Connacht and Munster further suggests that the provincial presidencies and councils were charged from the onset with an overtly military function. Finally, the instructions consecutively drawn up for Warham St Leger, John Pollard and John Perrot in Munster are extensive and markedly similar tracts. They deal with a host of minutiae concerning the office of president, from the handling of letters to the restoration of the church, most of which points towards the government’s desire for a civil officer who would implement legal and administrative ‘reform’. However, all three documents make explicit reference to the need to prosecute any wrongdoers with ‘fire and sword’ and the use of martial law was authorised in each instance.23 Inevitably, reliance on instructions or any other statement of intent is limited and must be supplemented with an appraisal of how the office actually functioned in the two provinces where presidents were eventually appointed. In Munster this was dogged by a faltering start when the first two candidates, Warham St Leger and John Pollard, failed to take office, St Leger owing to the objections of the earl of Ormond, Pollard following protracted negotiations on his stipend and his subsequent death.24 This was followed by Humphrey Gilbert’s infamous spell as military governor at the time of the rebellion of James FitzMaurice, after which Perrot finally became the first president, charged with suppressing the remnants of the conflict. For an office allegedly



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 127

designed to introduce the norms of English governance into the province this was a less than auspicious beginning.25 In Connacht Andrew Corbett was first proposed for the position prior to Edward Fitton’s appointment in 1569.26 Within months, though, of their arrival he and the chief justice of the province, Ralph Rokeby, were dispatching pessimistic reports to Whitehall.27 Fitton, in particular, appears to have realised quite early on that a strong military presence would be a requisite if the provincial bureaucracies were to operate effectively.28 Thus, within the first few years of the appointment of the presidents the military role had become much more central to their operation. It would be remiss, however, to posit that the offices degenerated entirely into military governance. While excessive recourse to martial law, clientelism and heightened military engagement were all certainly characteristic of Perrot, Fitton, William Drury and Nicholas Malby’s government, and so too of John Norris and Richard Bingham’s later, there were still tangible attempts by successive presidents to establish judicial institutions, most palpably through the holding of sessions of assize.29 Consequently, it would be a flawed analysis which contends that legal and judicial institutions were not fostered piecemeal in Munster and Connacht following the establishment of the presidencies. But equally it is necessary to give weight to the degree to which presidential governance was more often than not overtly confrontational and militaristic. As with the scheme to have provincial councils headed by presidents in Munster and elsewhere established, proposals for regional colonies to bring wayward areas under crown control had enjoyed long-standing support since the early years of Henry VIII’s reign, notably in the writings of treatise writers such as John Kite, Patrick Finglas and the Cowleys.30 The focus of these early proposals, though, was largely on planting south Leinster, while in the following decades the geographical focus of the discourse on colonisation moved to the midlands. However, Elizabeth’s reign saw the range of regions in which prospective colonies were envisaged expand enormously with one proposal in the late 1560s even suggesting the systematic colonisation of the country by having one English settler provided by every two parishes in England.31 Such proposals were lofty but are indicative of the more ambitious context in which colonial projects were being conceived for Ireland. By the time of Sidney’s appointment it was increasingly north-east Ulster, where it was envisaged new settlements would serve to curb the encroachments of the Scots, which was becoming the focus of those promoting colonisation in their treatises. Although the ‘State’ (c.1515) had briefly suggested such an approach, two documents were pivotal in this respect: Sussex’s proposal for the plantation of Ulster made in 1557 and the ‘Ulster Project’ submitted in 1565 by a company of individuals, among whom William Piers is the only readily identifiable figure.32 The motives for colonisation and the places to fortify and settle

128

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

­ roposed in these two papers were picked up and borrowed by a host of writp ers favouring colonisation of the north-east in the late 1560s and early 1570s. Sidney was no exception in this regard. His major treatise on the colonisation of Ulster, a letter-tract dispatched to Cecil in November 1568, epitomises this. Here he begins by noting that the problem wrought by the Scots’ ­continuing incursions into Ulster is one of the major problems confronting English rule in Ireland.33 He then recommends the occupation of Rathlin Island, before suggesting that the nobility of England might be persuaded to participate in the colonisation of the north-east.34 A colony of two thousand men should be established centred on eight settlements: Carrickfergus, Olderfleet, Glenarm, Red Bay, Markettown, the Bann, Skerries and Portrush. Additionally, a town was to be constructed at Armagh and a bridge and castle erected at some point on the Blackwater.35 The viceroy, doubtlessly hoping to emphasise the necessity of implementing his proposals, concluded by saying that if they were not approved the province should be left to the Scots and Irish. There was little new in this. The locations chosen for fortifying were substantially the same as in Sussex’s proposals of 1557. Both wanted Carrickfergus, Olderfleet and the Bann settled, for example, while the earl’s earlier recommendation of Lough Foyle and Carlingford approximated geographically with Sidney’s earmarking of Portrush and Skerries. The stricture that Armagh become a provincial centre with re-edification of the town was a staple of Sussex’s writings.36 In 1562 the lord lieutenant called for the occupation of the havens facing towards Scotland and the construction of bridges on the rivers.37 Similarly, the focus of the scheme associated with Piers was on Antrim and Down, the area with which Sidney was primarily concerned. But, far more significant than his derivation from the Sussex and Piers’s schemes, Sidney’s proposals chimed strongly with what Cecil favoured. A year earlier he had drawn up a memorial on the extension of the Pale into Ulster. Here he identified Carrickfergus, the Bann, Portrush and a number of other havens near to those earmarked by Sidney as sites for fortifying and placing of wards. He too believed Armagh ought to be established as a major provincial town, that a bridge needed to be constructed across the Blackwater and concluded by prophesying the continued growth in power of the Irish and inroads of the Scots if these steps were not taken.38 Sidney was not innovating, he was agreeing with what Cecil had already decided upon. A perusal of Sidney’s other memorandum from the late 1560s does not reveal much more by way of innovatory colonial thought. His ‘Articles’ of 1565 made a brief point on the desirability of planting the north-east to keep the Scots from occupying that region: If your Matie fynde not apte tyme presently to expuls them your heighnes may winke at them for the tyme. If your heighnes will expuls them ther ar divers wayes,



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 129 but the suerrest and sonest is to inhabit betwene them and the sea, wherby with some shipping all hope of succor shalbe cut from them.39

In the margin here Sidney wrote, ‘Note Cap Peers hys offer for thys’ attesting directly to his reliance on earlier schema. A series of letters from 1566 gave ambiguous testament to his advocacy of colonisation. In these he supported the suit of Valentine Browne and some Bristol merchants to plant the Bann and noted the desirability of inhabiting the north-east, but also remarked somewhat pessimistically on the slow and expensive example provided by the midlands plantation.40 In 1567 he was in favour of fortifying Derry, Armagh and Carrickfergus, but his proposal on how to keep the Scots out at this time was to adopt a method which had repeatedly and conclusively failed for several decades, namely the dispatch of a handful of barks and frigates to patrol the seas between Antrim and the Western Isles. On this occasion he did make one innovative recommendation. This was a call for Protestant exiles from the Low Countries, then resident in England, ‘to be planted in Irelande’.41 A large body of such settlers had arrived in England in the 1560s at which time numerous proposals were made for the formation of colonies of Dutch artificers. One of these was established at Maidstone in Sidney’s native Kent in 1567 the same year as his proposal. It seems likely Sidney drew his inspiration from these occurrences.42 Although the Irish scheme came to nothing in 1567 Sidney returned to this initiative in 1576 when he arranged for a community of these refugees to reside at Swords in Dublin.43 Yet this latter point aside Sidney was not an innovator in terms of his promotion of colonial activity and his ideas were ultimately a reiteration of those favoured by Sussex and many other commentators, or a reflection of what increasingly favoured by the decision makers in England. The colonisation which was attempted during these years occurred over a substantial portion of the country, embracing three provinces, and failing only to have any major impact upon Connacht. In Munster a cohort of individuals whose ties to the province would prove long-standing, including Warham St Leger, Humphrey Gilbert, Richard Grenville and Jerome Brett, were involved in a scheme to have much of Cork and Kerry granted to them in the late 1560s.44 This will be looked at more closely in Chapter 4, as a precursor to the official Munster Plantation which was initiated in the aftermath of the Desmond Rebellion. Beyond this collective venture a number of these figures attempted independent initiatives. Gilbert, for example, continued to highlight the need to secure the southern havens around Baltimore and Bearehaven, while also pointing to the desirability of establishing garrisons throughout the province.45 Moreover, St Leger and Grenville actually succeeded in establishing a small settlement at Kerrycurrihy in the late 1560s.46 Further north in Connacht efforts were less organised and less intensive, yet

130

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the incursion of officials following the establishment of the provincial presidency saw the formation of small-scale settlements somewhat comparable with the Bagenal holding at Newry in Ulster.47 Efforts in Leinster were more sporadic. The plantation in the midlands continued fitfully and acquired a near neighbour in 1568 when Peter Carew successfully established himself at Idrone in Carlow.48 Carew is a somewhat anomalous character whose methods involved a form of legal imperialism, administered through his agent, John Hooker. His attempts to establish legal title on the basis of grants made to Carews in preceding centuries to lands in Carlow, Cork, Waterford and, above all, Meath brought him into serious conflict with landowners such as Christopher Cheevers. Despite the incendiary impact of his actions on local interests he enjoyed both Sidney’s and Elizabeth’s unwavering support throughout his time in Ireland. Nevertheless, while Carew may have had grand ambitions for establishing a colony in Carlow his presence in the region remained largely nominal.49 Elsewhere in the province Jerome Brett favoured granting colonisation rights in Wexford as an adjunct to the plantation being proposed by him and others in Munster.50 However, it was Ulster and in particular the north-eastern corridor, largely encompassing Antrim and Down, where colonisation was most doggedly pursued in these years. The spur to such activity provided by the continuing, and indeed growing, interrelationship between various political elements in Ulster and western Scotland has been looked at in detail elsewhere.51 In brief, the unrest caused by the continuing encroachments of the MacDonnells was compounded by renewed interference by the earl of Argyll in Ulster. More significantly a number of marriage alliances between the Irish of Ulster and the Scots of the Western Isles, notably between Turlough Luineach O’Neill and Agnes Campbell, the widow of James MacDonnell, were arranged in the late 1560s. These cemented political ties between the two regions and increased the likelihood that further Scots mercenaries would arrive into the north. These regional developments impressed upon Elizabeth and her ministers the necessity of stabilising the region, if necessary through the erection of settlements to create a buffer between the Irish of Ulster and the Scots of the Isles. The issue of how to finance such an undertaking as ever remained of paramount concern. Certainly the necessity of avoiding excessive expenditure seems to have been manifest in Francis Knollys’s somewhat unusual suggestion that the MacDonnells should be settled in Tyrone if they would expel Turlough Luineach. Even Knollys, however, saw the benefits of colonisation, stating that haven towns should be erected at Strangford, the Bann and Lough Foyle.52 Another proposal was John Smyth’s advice in 1569, which imagined a three-pronged approach of stationing ships off the coast of Ulster, garrisoning strategic locations including Rathlin, Beleek and Ballyshannon, and negotiating with the more pliable elements among the northern lords.53 Despite



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 131

its sound reasoning Smyth’s approach did not correspond with what was increasingly favoured at Whitehall. The method which was eventually selected as satisfying both the desire for the establishment of settlements, but at limited cost to the exchequer, was to assign certain lands in Ulster to private individuals who would subsequently endeavour to plant there. This approach had gained adherents as soon as treatises started being written on Tudor Ireland, but became increasingly favoured from 1568 onwards as a swell of petitions were sent to London seeking lands in the north-east. In July 1568 George Thornton sought a grant of Island Magee which he, along with his lieutenant, John Potter, had already fortified and on which they would ‘have a fisher towne inhabited with Englyshmen’.54 More extensive was the suit of Thomas Gerrard, who requested a grant of the Glens and much of Clandeboye in 1570. If he were provided with a force of 100 horse and 400 foot for three years and was armed with a commission of martial law Gerrard believed he could erect a colony centred on two towns, one at Olderfleet, the other location to be decided. After the three years this colony would furnish some 250 men to the crown forces in Ireland.55 Thornton and Gerrard were unsuccessful in their efforts to acquire lands, unlike two other suitors, Nicholas Malby and Thomas Chatterton. Chatterton covenanted to have the lands of the O’Hanlons and the Fews in Armagh, while Malby was granted the lands of the MacCartans at Kinelarty in Down. The details of these are limited, though Chatterton appears to have contracted to create a civil colony by 1579.56 In any event both ventures were opposed by Fitzwilliam upon the receipt of lands in 1572, both failed utterly in their briefs and both had their grants revoked by 1576.57 At the same time that these two military figures were endeavouring to acquire lands a joint proposal was drawn up by captains Thomas Browne and Thomas Barrow. They sought a grant of the Ards Peninsula and a force of 100 foot and 50 horse to be financed by the crown for four years. After this period they would have established a civil colony which would benefit the crown £200 rent annually, while they would also be in a position to furnish a force of 100 foot and 50 horse for fifteen days each year at that point.58 The pair were unsuccessful in their application for lands, not owing to any disinterest on Elizabeth’s part, but as a result of a competing suit put forth by Sir Thomas Smith in 1571. Smith, a privy councillor and from 1572 secretary of state, initially requested lands in Clandeboye and parts of Tyrone; however, his ambitions were soon restricted to the more modest suit for the Ards.59 Given his prominence in government it is not surprising that Smith’s petition triumphed over Browne and Barrow’s and in November 1571 he was granted the Ards along with rights to any lands which he succeeded in prising from the Irish of Clandeboye, Tyrone or other adjacent lands. The subsequent history of the colony need only be sketched in the briefest of detail as it has

132

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

attracted considerable attention for a multitude of reasons. In particular, the application of the joint-stock principle to the financing of the project, the influence of classical theory on the conceptualisation of the colony and the use of promotional literature to garner support and contributions towards the enterprise have been examined by D.B. Quinn, Hiram Morgan and Mary Dewar.60 Despite these innovations the venture became an unmitigated disaster. Although as many as 800 men had at one time gathered at Liverpool to take part in the expedition led by Smith’s son and namesake, delays in departing meant that by the time the company arrived in Ireland in August 1572 it comprised little more than a force of 100 men. Smith Jr was dead in little over a year and subsequent attempts to rekindle the colony through Jerome Brett and George Smith, Smith Snr’s brother, met with a similarly ignominious end.61 The severe difficulties encountered by the first expedition to the Ards did not wholly dampen Smith’s enthusiasm for the initiative. Though the documents have received little attention Smith drew up two treatises for the rejuvenation of the colony in December 1573.62 The ‘Offices Necessarie in the Colony of the Ards’ and ‘Orders set owt’ outlined a comprehensive scheme for the establishment of a military colony which would in time evolve into a civil settlement.63 This was to be governed by a ‘chieftain’ or ‘leader’ as Smith’s deputy. A common council would be established comprising a ‘tenth parte of the adventurers’. These would be responsible for establishing the laws of the settlement and overseeing the governance thereof, but in light of the military state that would initially pertain the ‘leader’ was to be aided by a privy council of twelve men chosen from the common council, who would oversee martial affairs. Further details on military officers from the master of the horse down to the rank and file followed, with Smith cautioning that a Spartan order should be maintained in banqueting and decorum as best fitting the forward progress of the military colony. The new colony was to be centred on a town or city variously referred to as the ‘Queene’s New Colony’ or ‘Smyth’s Colen’, which would be erected either at Newtown, Hollywood, Bangor, Grey Abbey or some other suitable location.64 This was to cover a portion of ground of roughly 60 acres. It would be surrounded by walls and a trench. Within the town streets would be laid along a grid system leading to a market place at the centre of the settlement, where it seems likely all the other civic buildings would be located. Outside the walls and ditch a ‘highway’ would be constructed 100 feet wide encircling the entire city. Beyond these walls and the highway the soldiers were to be allotted portions of land: 250 acres for a horseman, 125 acres for a footman, upon which they would erect a house and orchard on a six-acre plot and raise a variety of crops on the rest of the allotment. To encourage the latter, ascending fines would be imposed from year to year against those who failed to put their



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 133

land under the plough. For further administration the wider colony would be divided into hundreds, fifties and tenths headed by ‘centeniers’, ‘cinquanteniers’ and ‘deceniers’. For the civil and legal administration of the colony the heads of the hundreds would establish courts leet and baron on which Smith provided extensive details. Thus, the early failures of the colony in the Ards led to the formulation of further theoretical ideas by Smith on the settlement there. However, despite his optimism, subsequent expeditions would prove equally unsuccessful. Nevertheless, these latter writings are of considerable consequence for later endeavours, for the grid system and allotments envisaged foreshadowed much of the theoretical plans for the Munster Plantation a decade later. The foundering state of Smith’s settlement led to the composition of one of the most unusual proposals for colonising the north-east. This was contained in a ‘Discourse’ produced on the wider subject of religious dissenters in England written by one Carleton in late 1572 or early 1573. This may have been George Carleton who shortly thereafter travelled with the first earl of Essex to colonise Ulster. Among other measures to be taken for policing these non-conformists in England, Carleton proposed that both Smith’s grant and any others made in the north-east of Ulster should be called in and into those lands should be transplanted religious dissenters from England, be they Catholics, advanced Protestants or atheists. These would subsequently be guarded by a garrison of 1,000 cavalry and 2,000 foot who could, Carleton argued, see to curbing the encroachments of the Scots while they were also overseeing the security of this bizarre Mecca of religious dissent.65 Malby, Chatterton and Smith had all provided evidence of the difficulties attendant upon planting in north-east Ulster, yet far from abandoning the effort, the queen and her ministers decided that colonisation there might still prove successful if its scale were increased. In May 1573 an ‘Offer’ was presented to the queen by Walter Devereux, first earl of Essex, which far exceeded any previously proposed schema for settling Ulster.66 Planting scions of the English nobility in the north to reclaim parts of the province was a long established practice which dated at least as far back as 1473 when Edward IV had granted lands in east Ulster to Lord Henry Grey.67 Thus Essex’s initiative was not a wholly novel occurrence. In his proposal the earl petitioned to have all of Clandeboye, incorporating most of Antrim and northern Down. He covenanted to establish a plantation within seven years and mortgaged much of his lands in Wales and Essex in return for Elizabeth’s assistance in his efforts.68 The subsequent history of this the largest colonial initiative of the 1570s has curiously not yet been the subject of a thorough study.69 The ‘Enterprise’ began ominously. The expedition carrying 1,200 men was scattered crossing the Irish Sea, while the revolt of the major lords of Clandeboye within weeks of Essex’s arrival and the onset of disease in the winter severely impacted on

134

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

his forces. In January 1574 Essex fled south to the Pale. Thereafter he would confine himself to conducting military forays into Ulster often combined with massacres and acts of indiscriminate violence, most infamously at Belfast in 1574 and on Rathlin Island the following summer. By that time, his plans in ruins, Essex was negotiating for a grant of the barony of Farney in Monaghan. Here he intended to establish a small colony, though his death in 1576 prevented him from realising this ambition. From a theoretical perspective Essex’s original plan for the colony in the autumn of 1573 was based around a loose division of power between his principal followers or the ‘gentlemen adventurers’. Thus, for instance, Lord Rich was to have Red Bay, Arthur Champernoun would settle at Dunseverick, while others scions of prominent political families, such as Henry Knollys and Thomas Cecil, would command in Burney Dall and Portrush, respectively.70 Yet this was an unspecific articulation of his plans and the fact few details were forthcoming on such issues as to where or what type of settlements might be established at this time is representative of the manner in which the earl forsook any efforts to establish a civil colony. By late 1574, though, spurred on by an increasing requirement to persuade Elizabeth and the Privy Council of the practicality of his enterprise, he was more expansive. His fullest exposition of his vision for the north followed in his ‘Opinion for the Government and Reformation of Ulster’ written early in October 1574.71 In opening his treatise the earl candidly admitted that he had failed to establish a civil colony. His solution was two pronged. Tyrone needed to be encircled to ‘expulse’ and ‘utterly to root’ out Turlough Luineach.72 This could be achieved by the erection of three walled towns, one at the Blackwater (Benburb), another on the Bann (Coleraine) and the third at Lough Foyle. Each would need to be provided with a garrison of 100 foot and 100 horse, except for the Blackwater where provision was made for twice as much infantry.73 The second aspect of Essex’s project was to plant Clandeboye through the founding of a pair of towns in the Glens and at Belfast and the construction of a fort at Masserene.74 In addition, ten adventurers were to be selected, each of whom would have 6,000 acres, but would be obliged to build a small castle. It was envisaged that this would eventually lead to a rent of £5,000 per annum accruing to the exchequer.75 Finally, Essex claimed that a force of 2,000 men was needed in Ireland and that 1,300 of those would have to be under his command.76 To support Essex’s proposals a separate treatise was composed by Edward Waterhouse, who had obtained a position as an agent of Essex’s operating between Ulster and London. This scheme was largely a reiteration of Essex’s proposals with some minor elaboration on his building plans and added emphasis on the role of the colony in combating the Scots problem.77 But what is more interesting in this ‘Device’ was Waterhouse’s scheme for limiting



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 135

Scottish involvement in Ulster by tying the regional economy of north-west England to that of the eastern seaboard of Ulster. In particular, the havens around Whithaven and St Bee’s in Cumbria were to be developed as they were best placed geographically to exploit the economic potential of links between north-west England, Ulster and the Isle of Man. Among the industries which would prosper, Waterhouse argued, was the trade in minerals and seacoals from Newcastle while a fishery of salmon, herring and ling could be exploited. To subsidise his scheme Waterhouse believed a sum of some £2,500 should be levied in contributions from Lancashire, Westmoreland and Cumberland.78 This adjunct proposal by Waterhouse to his reinforcement of Essex’s ‘Opinion’ is quite a noteworthy piece, for it appears to be the sole example of a policy paper written under the Tudors arguing for economic integration of north-west England and Ulster. The building programme outlined by Essex and Waterhouse in their respective papers dominated the course of the ‘Enterprise’ between October 1574 and the early summer of 1575. As the queen prevaricated, Essex remained in the Pale with no progress made on reducing Ulster. When the queen signalled that the ‘Enterprise’ should be terminated in May nothing of value had been achieved by two years of activity and the squandering of nearly £100,000.79 Essex’s initiative was but the most elaborate and expensive in a series of colonial projects which had successively failed in Ireland in the decade after 1565. The combined effect of all this was to convince Elizabeth and a majority of her senior ministers that colonisation, even when supposedly farmed out to private contractors, was not just prohibitively expensive, but typically ineffective also. As a result Essex’s venture was to be the last major colonial scheme attempted in Ireland until the inauguration of the Munster Plantation. When that effort was got under way it appeared that lessons had been learnt from the previous decade, for from the very outset the crown was determined to organise and direct the establishment of the plantation, while the entreaties of treatise writers who sought a continuation of private plantation at that time would largely fall on deaf ears. The mid-Elizabethan period is noteworthy for the establishment of the presidential councils and the drive towards increased colonial activity there in the 1560s and 1570s. These had been petitioned for by treatise writers for several decades since the 1530s, and now some thirty years later were finally initiated. That they were finally attempted at this stage is perhaps unsurprising. The scope and ambition of crown government was expanding rapidly and as a centralising Renaissance state the Elizabethan regime was in a far better position to attempt radical policies in the more wayward parts of the country. Nor was the drive to establish greater control of Munster, Connacht and Ulster through provincial governance and colonies the only ambitious policy pursued in the late 1560s and 1570s. In the 1570s it became clear that the

136

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

finances of the second Tudor kingdom needed a major overhaul. With this policy speculators began writing many treatises proposing a wide range of measures either to reduce expenditure or increase revenues in Ireland. Financing Ireland: Proposals for financial reform

Ever since the 1530s successive Tudor monarchs had shown a desire to limit expenditure in Ireland, a great proportion of which went on maintaining the ever growing garrison. With the invasion of the midlands in the late 1540s the Dublin government fell back on the cess as a means of providing for the establishment. However, as seen, this had provoked widespread opposition. In any event even with the cost of maintaining the garrison partially offset by the cess, the annual subventions required to finance the Irish government were still far too great for the ever parsimonious Elizabeth I. In light of this, many treatise writers from the 1550s onwards began to incorporate proposals to reduce expenditure and increase revenues into their policy papers on Ireland. This was in large part due to the impact of what is now termed monarchical prejudice, whereby certain rulers displayed a somewhat unbalanced concern for certain issues. For Elizabeth I in the Irish context these concerns included a desire to keep expenditure to a minimum. Thus, treatise writers concerned themselves with greater frequency with the finances of Ireland as the reign matured. Nevertheless, a desire to reform the finances was long-standing. The desirability of establishing standardised rents was expressed regularly as early as the 1520s, while commentators such as Robert Cowley and John Walshe continued to push for this in the intervening period.80 Indeed, the substitution of the Gaelic methods of exactions for a standardised taxation system was one of the central tenets of ‘surrender and regrant’ as articulated by Cusack and others.81 Such ideas found further focus in the reign of Elizabeth I. For instance, the idea first surfaced in the late 1550s that the revenue could be increased if the traditional exaction used to support galloglass in Ireland, bonnaught, was transmuted into a payment to the crown. But it was the furore over the ‘cess’ in the 1560s that provided the starting point for a renewed debate on a taxation system in Ireland to maintain the military establishment. During Sussex’s tenure the alternatives put forward by Arnold, Bermingham and Cusack argued that savings could be made in the Irish set-up by reducing the allowance granted to the lord lieutenant’s household, as well as limiting the size of the garrisons in the midlands and throughout Leinster. To elaborate on just one example: in 1563 William Bermingham recommended that a force of 2,000 men be employed to enforce a prohibition of ‘coign and livery’. The Meath landowner’s method of maintaining this force was simple and highly anachronistic: have the army raised from among the populace of the Pale.82



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 137

Writing somewhat later in 1569 Patrick Sherlock proffered a scheme designed exclusively for Munster which harked back to ideas of a regional militia. Here it was recommended that letters should be sent to the mayors and suffrains of the major towns in the province instructing them to keep a certain number of ‘men in a readiness at all times as the lord treasurer shall will them to attend upon him in doing your Majesty’s service, with their furniture of weapon, and victuals’.83 Sidney also was more than aware of the necessity of reducing costs upon his appointment in 1565. Thus, he attempted numerous measures to alleviate the burden of the ‘cess’. These included manipulation of the exchange rate between England and Ireland and the farming out of the victualling to the private contractors, Thomas Might and Thomas Sackford. Later Fitzwilliam attempted crown victualling, whereby the garrison was placed in forts on the periphery of the Pale, where it was supplied by government agents. Each of these initiatives met with failure.84 Yet these proposals focused primarily on cost reduction or more traditional methods of supplying military retinues, rather than proposing alternative means of providing income. The 1570s, then, were remarkable for the novelty displayed by treatise writers when devising schemes for financial reform that far surpassed those produced to date, and which, most innovatively, concerned themselves with measures to significantly augment the revenues generated in Ireland. The following examines these proposals for financial reform. Foremost among the financial reform measures proposed in the treatises of the 1570s was that now termed ‘composition’. The importance of the scheme of ‘composition’ and the respective roles of Edmund Tremayne and Henry Sidney in the formulation and implementation thereof has been identified by Ciaran Brady.85 Subsequent studies of composition by Crawford, Cunningham and Treadwell have elaborated on the scheme by analysing the council’s role in its implementation, providing details on the minutiae of the agreements reached in Connacht and by investigating attempts by John Perrot to resurrect the initiative through the 1585–86 parliament.86 However, while Brady’s recognition of the scheme as of pivotal importance for the history of late Tudor Ireland is doubtlessly correct, his analysis of the origins and formulation of the policy did not provide an exhaustive study of the influences acting upon Tremayne and Sidney in the 1570s. In particular, the novelty of Tremayne’s ideas may have been overstated, not simply because similar opinions had been expressed in Ireland for some time prior to his writing, but also because compounding for purveyance was a practice already in use in England since the days of Edward VI. Moreover, ‘composition’ was developed as a substitute for the system of Irish exactions such as ‘coign and livery’. It was never conceptualised by Tremayne as a substitute for the ‘cess’ as previous studies have contended. Rather ‘composition for cess’ developed

138

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

in the course of 1577 and 1578 as Sidney’s continued recourse to punitive cesses in the Pale sparked opposition and the idea of extending Tremayne’s scheme to that region was arrived at. Tremayne’s ‘composition’ scheme evolved out of efforts to prohibit ‘coign and livery’ and to develop a means of financing the army in a manner which would meet with greater political acceptance than had the ‘cess’. Indeed, Sidney had attempted a fresh prohibition of the Irish exactions through parliament in 1569 which had met with mixed success. As a consequence of the setbacks Sidney encountered in developing an alternative to the ‘cess’ during his first term as viceroy, when he began mounting a campaign for a second term in 1573 he adopted as a central tenet of his programme for government a proposal which was first articulated in 1571 by Edmund Tremayne. This future clerk of the Privy Council had been in Ireland from 1569 to 1571 and again in 1573 during which time he had developed a concentric plan for dispensing with the Gaelic system of exactions, while also reducing wholesale the recourse to the ‘cess’.87 The scheme of composition outlined in Tremayne’s tracts was relatively straightforward. Ireland was lawless owing to the power the lords derived from ‘coign and livery’ and other exactions. This lawlessness prevented the spread of the common law and also frustrated the propagation of the reformed faith.88 Since law and religion could consequently not ‘reform’ Ireland the ‘third minister’, the army, would be required to do so.89 However, the problems posed by the question of ‘Howe to keep the army without overburdening’ needed to be resolved.90 In answer Tremayne recommended that a ‘great’ army – figures were not provided – be maintained which would prove strong enough to at once force the lords to give up their military retinues and compel the whole country to contribute towards the upkeep of the queen’s army. The country should partly supply money and partly provisions, while the Pale community would have to be ‘compounded’ with to determine what it should contribute.91 Thus, with the Gaelic exactions removed a formal system of taxation would be created, whereby the lords: might be brought to declare the limits of their territories and who be their tenants, free or otherwise, and that known there might be such a composition by the consent and good allowance of the same lords as it should certainly be known what the lord should receive and what the tenant should pay, and though not at the first by penny rent, yet with some certainty of such provision or service to be taken and done as shall be agreed upon between the lord and the tenant, so as there may be a certainty what the one shall give and the other take.92

This done the now all powerful state, supported by its enlarged army provided for by the country, would be able to begin the ‘reform’ of the country afresh. The novelty of Tremayne’s composition scheme should not be overstated,



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 139

for England provided examples of similar arrangements in the decades prior to the first articulation of his initiative in 1571. Composition agreements had been arrived at between the crown and the shires as early as Edward VI’s days, whereby the latter compounded to provide a fixed sum in cash and kind to the crown in discharge of the obligation to provide purveyance for the royal household.93 The motives to compound in England paralleled Ireland to some extent, the extortion and abuses of the purveyors being paramount. The number of such composition agreements increased considerably from the outset of Elizabeth’s reign with Cecil particularly eager to promote compounding.94 Thus, the concept of composition was not wholly novel, while the scale on which it was envisaged for Ireland also had an exemplar in England, Somerset having attempted in 1548 to totally replace purveyance with a system of national taxation charged per head of livestock.95 Nevertheless, despite its derivative nature, ‘composition’ as devised by Tremayne involved both an end to the system of Irish exactions and the introduction of a major programme of crown taxation throughout Ireland. As such, given that Sidney and his successors would be charged with implementing such a momentous proposal it is of immense significance to the history of mid-Elizabethan Ireland. Tremayne was not the only figure who had concluded that installing a sizeable army in Ireland and finding some mechanism to pay for the same was the only way to force the lords to abandon the exactions. Two others were noted by Brady in his study.96 The first, Edward Fitton, had seen first-hand as president of Connacht how impotent government officials could be if they lacked the military capacity to enforce crown authority. Doubtlessly, such a force would prove ineffective if it could not be financed and Fitton had already been forced to take provision of the country without pay for lack of victuals and wages. His solution to this problem was to appoint at least one house – ­generally a dissolved religious property – in each county to house the soldiery, while the demesne lands thereof would be used to pay for their upkeep.97 This was a rather benign solution compared with Humphrey Gilbert’s vision for Munster. In his ‘Book for the Reformation of Ireland’ which he presented to the queen in 1574 he effectively claimed that ‘coign and livery’ could be ended in the province and the region brought under effective control by stationing an army of 1,600 foot and 400 horse there.98 His argument was starkly utilitarian. The people of Munster were currently charged with maintaining the lords’ retinues through the Gaelic exactions, the size of which he detailed, amounting to nearly 6,000 troops.99 Consequently, the country should prove relatively receptive to supplying the royal force of 2,000 through the ‘cess’ if that army could in turn put down the lords’ forces and ensure an end to ‘coign and livery’. It was argued that this cost rationalisation exercise would serve to find the victuals of the army, while the pay of the 2,000 would be acquired through a combination of coinage manipulation and the

140

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

increased income generated by the ensuing ability to effectively collect all monies owed to the state from customs and other dues.100 Gilbert concluded his argument with an acknowledgement that some would question whether the Irish would yield such a ‘cess’. He answered these reservations by noting that he had put down the FitzMaurice rebellion with just 500 men, thus a force of 2,000 should prove more than sufficient to overawe the country into providing the subventions.101 At the very termination of his treatise Gilbert made a brief remark that the English parliament might also provide a double-­ subsidy towards underwriting the cost of conquering Ireland.102 Yet the debate on fiscal reform was much broader than these particular treatises. For instance, an anonymous document from the early 1570s proffered an unlikely solution, suggesting that an army of 2,500 be situated in Ireland under the colonelship of Burghley’s eldest son and heir, Thomas Cecil. The means to reduce the cost of this force was not to be through taxation or similar measures but by appointing men of sufficient resources to entertain their bands as captains, replacing any captains now in those positions whose livings were not substantial enough to do so.103 There was a particular surge in ideas in 1574, an occurrence perhaps attributable to the fact that lobbying began around this time to determine who would replace Fitzwilliam in the vice-regal office. For instance, a tract on Munster written by Perrot following his term as provincial president stated that a commission should be established to oversee the abandonment of ‘coign and livery’ in the province and its replacement with a system of freeholders paying rents to the provincial lords. Any who persisted in taking exactions were to have their lands attainted.104 In a separate treatise he proposed that the exactions be forbidden countrywide and that the ‘LL. and captaines of country be compelled to agree with their freeholders for a yearlie rente’.105 To implement this he imagined that an army of 400 horse and 1,400 foot dispersed throughout the country would suffice. Thus, there was a significant discourse in progress in the years leading up to Sidney’s reappointment in 1575 and while Tremayne was doubtlessly the foremost influence on the new programme for government as Brady contends he was not the only figure promoting rational schema for the establishment of a taxation system to support the army who might then curb recourse to ‘coign and livery’. Tremayne’s ideas may have won Sidney’s acceptance but convincing Elizabeth and her ministers that they were feasible proved more difficult. His case was not helped by a number of competing tenders for the office of viceroy. These included Lord Arthur Grey de Wilton who had been mooted as a replacement for Fitzwilliam in 1571 and who was again considered in 1575.106 Sidney’s foremost rival though was Essex, whose plans for reforming Ulster as outlined in his ‘Opinion’ of October 1574 was considered as an alternative to Sidney’s new ‘composition’ scheme. As a consequence of these rival bids



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 141

Sidney revised his request for 2,600 men to implement his programme downwards.107 The details of these negotiations are largely gleaned second-hand from a memorandum of Burghley’s, but the final particulars are found in two ‘Plotts’ Sidney composed in the second half of 1575. In these he outlined how he would govern Ireland with just 1,200 men across the four provinces, providing a breakdown of the projected costing of his entire administration.108 Thus, by the time he was appointed Sidney had already been forced to compromise and the military force allocated to him cannot have measured up to the ‘great’ army Tremayne had envisaged in his tracts.109 Sidney’s efforts to apply the scheme have been overviewed elsewhere though a systematic study has yet to appear.110 In brief, upon his arrival in Ireland to begin his second term as viceroy, Sidney attempted to implement Tremayne’s scheme of ‘composition’ in Connacht and Munster, where he largely devolved responsibility for negotiating the agreements to the new presidents, Nicholas Malby (Connacht) and William Drury (Munster).111 However, the focus to date in the historiography are on his efforts in the Pale. This is misleading, for Sidney did not attempt to introduce ‘composition’ in the Pale in 1575 and 1576, nor had it ever been Tremayne’s intention to introduce ‘composition’ there as an alternative to the ‘cess’. Rather Sidney simply elected to continue to have recourse to ever-increasing cesses. There is very little evidence to suggest, as previous studies have, that this was a strategy designed to make the Pale community more amenable to the introduction of a ‘composition’ down the line. Whatever Sidney’s intent the outcome was explosive. The Pale community led by members of the nobility such as the Viscount Baltinglass and the baron of Howth, and a wide section of the most prominent gentry families organised themselves in opposition to Sidney’s punitive cesses and refused to provide the same without the consent of parliament or grand council. When Sidney failed to hear their grievances they appealed directly to court early in 1577 and sent three agents, Richard Netterville, Henry Burnell and Barnaby Scurlocke, to England to argue that Sidney’s continuing resort to the ‘cess’ on the basis of the royal prerogative was unconstitutional.112 However, the apparent disavowal of the queen’s prerogative saw them meet with a harsh response. The three were committed to the Fleet and Sidney was given permission to arrest the ring-leaders in the Pale. Moreover, in September 1577 William Gerrard was sent to England to represent Sidney’s administration in the controversy. Contrary to Brady’s assertion that Gerrard abandoned the lord deputy, the lord chancellor comprehensively refuted the Pale community’s arguments that there was no legal precedent for recourse to the ‘cess’ and successfully defended Sidney’s administration as a result. Nevertheless, it was soon concluded that the Pale community would have to be negotiated with and a new dispensation reached. It was at this juncture, and not before, that the idea of ‘compounding’ for ‘cess’ was reached. Thus, in

142

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the course of 1578 and 1579 Gerrard was charged with negotiating a ‘composition for cess’ with the Pale community. These negotiations revolved around a detailed proposal first proposed by the lords of the Pale in the summer of 1577 and later refined and submitted by Burnell in 1578. This was to provide for the victualling of 1,000 soldiers by paying one penny per day towards their upkeep amounting to £1,500 sterling in the year in return for a commutation of the ‘cess’.113 Protracted wrangling over this resulted in a temporary ‘cess’ in November which expired in the spring of 1579 at which time an agreement was reached. The Pale would provide £2,000 per year rather than the £1,500 initially offered by Burnell based on 1d. per day for 1,000 soldiers, with the increment used to provide an additional 9,000 pecks of oats for the victualling. Thus, the ‘cess’ controversy temporarily abated.114 What we might accurately term the second cess controversy after the first in the early 1560s led to the composition of numerous treatises. One of these written in 1577 was a vindicatory ‘Discourse’ by Sidney’s son, Philip, which unfortunately is only partially extant. In a highly rhetorical piece replete with irony, Philip suggested that the actions of the Pale community were irrational as they had bypassed Sidney to take their complaints to court, thus negating his ability to offer them redress. Moreover, he argued that his father was in fact attempting to renegotiate the burden of the cess in the Pale community’s best interest. As such the ‘Discourse’ elided the central problem posed by the ‘cess’: the inability and unwillingness to pay.115 Numerous other proposals surfaced in 1578 as Gerrard was negotiating the terms of on which the Pale community would compound. These offered alternative ways to finance the government of Ireland and provide for the military establishment there. John Chaloner incorporated Burnell’s offer into his own detailed memorandum of 1578. In his view the Pale community’s offer was duplicitous and the country ought to provide closer to £5,000 per year.116 He went further than this, though, and suggested that implementation of other measures such as coinage manipulation, resumption of the impost on wine and other wares, and compounding with the lords, particularly for bonnaught, soren and ‘cess’, would make the government of Ireland self-­financing by generating some £30,000 per year.117 Conversely, Nicholas White composed a ‘Plot’ in 1578 which gave extensive details on how to drastically reduce expenditure, augment the revenue, ease the ‘cess’ and victual the soldiers.118 White’s proposals leaned towards a fundamental overhaul of crown government rather than a temporary expedient to end the agitation current in the Pale. For instance, his counsel focused on expanding the court system to increase the inflow to the exchequer and reforming the offices of the surveyor and auditor in tandem to curb embezzlement of monies which ought to be accruing to the crown.119 One final set of documents merits attention in terms of the debates which



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 143

were underway in 1578. At this time a controversial treatise which Sussex had written in 1568 arguing that ‘coign and livery’ should not be immediately prohibited was apparently given fresh appraisal. There is no clear answer as to why this paper was dusted off a decade later and given fresh consideration, but the most likely answer is that the renewed furore over the ‘composition’ and ‘cess’ in the late 1570s led to serious consideration being given to Sussex’s controversial position. Officials in Ireland in 1578 responded with a litany of objections, with political figures such as Nicholas White, Nicholas Malby and John Chaloner all staunchly objecting to Sussex’s thesis and claiming that ‘coign and livery’ had to be done away with at once.120 As such Sussex’s stance was rebuffed. But what is significant about this reappraisal of the former viceroy’s treatise is the extent to which the fragmented political environment brought on by the controversies over the ‘composition’ was leading to discussion of such a radical alternative as a piecemeal tolerance of ‘coign and livery’. Thus the 1570s saw the composition of a wide range of treatises ­proposing means to reform the finances of the Irish kingdom. Nicholas White and Patrick Sherlock speculated that the crown’s costs could be drastically reduced by, for example in White’s case, severely rationalising the list of crown officials in Ireland. Conversely, treatise writers such as Humphrey Gilbert and John Chaloner put forward elaborate schema for augmenting Elizabeth I’s revenues in Ireland by methods such as coinage manipulation and collecting greater customs in the port towns. One of these, that devised by Edmund Tremayne and geared around bringing the lords to ‘compound’ in exchange for setting aside their exactions, or ‘composition’ as it has become known, became a central plank of Tudor rule in Ireland for the remainder of the century. That such issues were becoming a staple of the debate on policy is indicative of the ever-growing reach of crown rule in Ireland as the sixteenth century progressed. Yet it was not the only major sign, for the treatises being written at this time also displayed a great concern to extend greater administrative control over the country. Administrative and judicial reform in Elizabethan Ireland

The drive towards fiscal consolidation was but one of the major administrative and judicial reforms with which treatise writers were concerned during the early and mid-Elizabethan periods. The territory under direct crown control expanded greatly following the adoption of a strategy of regional conquest in the late 1540s incorporating much of the midlands and parts of east Ulster, while the establishment of provincial government in Connacht and Munster in the late 1560s brought these provinces more closely within the ambit of Tudor government. This control would, however, remain only nominal if the

144

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

organs of Tudor government were not developed within these areas. Thus, from the 1550s onwards measures were being proposed to introduce Tudor rule in a more evolved way than the simple establishment of garrisons with military commanders.121 The clearest manifestation of this process was in proposals to shire the country.122 The term shire had come into use in early medieval England to denote an administrative unit consisting of ‘hundreds’. Though it had gradually been superseded following the Norman Conquest by the counté or county the term was still in use by the sixteenth century.123 The widespread application of the term in sixteenth-century Ireland possibly lies in the foundational Tudor treatises and the frequent use of the phrase ‘four obedient shires’ for the Pale.124 Thus, from the very outset of the resumption of Tudor rule in Ireland the term ‘shire’ was firmly entrenched within the debate on policy. The county system itself extended beyond the Pale to incorporate much of Munster, the Butler lordship and Wexford. Yet much of the country was not divided according to these administrative units and early geographical treatises tended to resort to the traditional division of the country into four, five or six parts corresponding to a greater or lesser extent with the modern-day provinces when anatomising the country. It is curious, given the omnipresent discussion of the ‘four obedient shires’ within the earliest treatises, that the issue of shiring the region around Wicklow was not a concern during the campaign for the reduction of south Leinster in the 1530s.125 Indeed, the major proposal for shiring which occurred at this time involved the division of the medieval county of Meath into Meath and Westmeath in 1542 and a concomitant proposal to shire part of Longford, the latter of which did not come to fruition.126 The subject of creating new counties within previously un-shired regions truly emerged in the treatises written during the 1550s. One of the earliest substantive recommendations of this approach is found in Thomas Walshe’s treatise of 1552. Here he argued that if presidents were established in Munster and Leinster, leaving the viceroy free to govern Connacht and Ulster, they ‘shall in short time be able to divide and establish much thereof into shires and counties’.127 His views were reflected the following year by Thomas Cusack who noted the desirability of dividing the whole country and explicitly proposed the shiring of parts of west Leinster around Upper Ossory and the lordships of the O’Carrolls and O’Kennedys.128 But proposals for the creation of new shires in the 1550s primarily focused on the newly conquered midlands as thoughts turned from how to develop a series of military garrisons into a civil plantation. Thus, in 1552, Edward Walshe in his ‘Conjectures’ recommended the division of the conquered lands in the midlands and the establishment of a county town and markets.129 Though Walshe did not elaborate this borough town no doubt would eventually be replete with a gaol and session house, while the shire would be



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 145

overseen by a sheriff (shire-reeve), all staple components for future advocates of shiring. Walshe’s proposals were mirrored the following year by Cusack in his ‘Book’ to Northumberland in which he called for the shiring of Laois and Offaly.130 But perhaps the most significant recommendation of the initiative is found in John Alen’s tract on the remodelling of the midlands plantation. Alen’s proposal that Laois should ‘be established by let of parlement making it a shire’ was quickly fulfilled with the passing of an act through the parliament in 1556 which erected both Laois and Offaly into shire ground as Queen’s County and King’s County.131 The creation of Queen’s County and King’s County in 1556 offered a model for the future shiring of the country. Just as the midlands was to be shired so too the other parts of the country would be erected into counties as the government became gradually more interventionist in the decades that followed. The approach was articulated lucidly in a treatise most likely drawn up by James Barnewall in preparation for the parliament of 1560. Here a major reshuffle of the county system in Leinster was to be initiated by parliamentary statutes whereby the principal Gaelic lordships in the province would be replaced with shires overseen by shire towns. Thus, the O’Byrne and O’Toole lordships would be superseded by two shires of Wicklow and Arklow. Similarly, the MacMurrough Kavanaghs and the MacVaddocks would be established within two new counties with shire towns at Ferns and Enniscorthy. Similar arrangements were outlined for lordships such as those of the MacGiollapadraigs in Upper Ossory, the O’Carrolls and the MacCoghlans, while in the case of others such as the O’Dunnes their lands were to be incorporated into the recently established midlands shires.132 It was at this time that Sidney began to have a significant impact on the policy of shiring. In a series of ‘Articles of advice’ sent by Sussex to England in 1561 a very brief but noteworthy point was made. This simply read, ‘Sir Henry Sidney would have the realm departed into shires.’133 A great many of the policies pursued by Sidney as lord deputy were simply picked up from ideas favoured by Sussex, but here we have unequivocal evidence that Sidney was forming his own views on shiring independent of his predecessor. Indeed, his views may have clashed with the lord lieutenant. In his most extensive treatise on Ireland, his ‘Opinion’ written in 1562, Sussex did not display any real concern to have those parts of the country which remained un-shired to be divided into counties. Rather his overwhelming concern was to have the lands of septs such as the MacMurrough Kavanaghs and the O’Byrnes overseen by military governors. Moreover, Sussex did not plan for the establishment of the aspects of county administration which theoretically should be attendant upon shiring, but believed that individuals seeking redress within these regions should have recourse to the central courts in Dublin. As such, Sussex’s views in this instance reflected his centralising and autocratic tendencies.134

146

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

The appointment of Sidney as lord deputy led to the most energetic period of shiring seen in sixteenth-century Ireland. Efforts focused on Sidney’s parliament; at the first assembly in 1569 a bill was put forward for shiring the country. Despite some opposition to the measure from Ormond Sidney succeeded in having an Act passed through parliament allowing for the speedy creation of counties out of lands remaining un-shired.135 In tandem, Thomas Cusack was tasked with shiring Connacht and in 1569 the province was departed into the four counties of Galway, Mayo, Sligo and Roscommon.136 Sidney also proposed dividing Wicklow into two counties to be called Wicklow and Ferns.137 Although a commission was established to this end as late as 1578 this latter initiative faltered and Wicklow was not shired until 1606. The passage of the Act of shiring through parliament in 1569 and Sidney’s subsequent shiring of Connacht in 1569 ensured that henceforth the initiative would be a staple of proposals for ‘reforming’ regions not currently shired or in which the current county system was considered inadequate. The latter was the case in Munster, which despite being shired since the late medieval period was the subject of numerous proposals for alteration during Elizabeth’s reign. Thus, for instance, Perrot recommended in 1574 that a new shire be erected there to be called Queen’s County consisting of Desmond’s lands, part of the earl of Clancar’s lands, the region around Duhallow and a portion of Carbery.138 A decade later Morgan Colman recommended the division of Limerick into two counties.139 More generally, individuals simply called for the division of the remainder of the country. For instance, on the eve of his appointment as viceroy Perrot, in one of the treatises written as part of his campaign to be appointed, pithily stated that the ‘provinces not already divided into shires [are] to be brought into counties’.140 But proposals for shiring in the 1570s and particularly in the 1580s focused above all on Ulster. Thomas Gerrard in his scheme for the plantation of part of Clandeboye and the Glens requested ‘that the same ground may be made a shire’, while Essex requested authority to shire and divide the same region in 1573.141 In central and western Ulster where government authority was significantly weaker little headway in shiring the province was made in the 1570s other than the initiation of the process in Breifne in 1579. Additionally, one of the major concerns of Ulster policy in the lead up to the Nine Years War was to shire the remainder of the province and introduce institutions such as the gaol house and sessions of assize.142 The shiring of the country and the attendant provision of shire towns with gaols and session houses and county officers were the most palpable manifestation of the expansion of Tudor government in Ireland from mid-century onwards. Along with these administrative reforms judicial reform was also being undertaken. In many ways though the motivations for these changes in the legal establishment diverged, primarily because judicial reform was two-



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 147

pronged, involving on the one hand centralised changes in Dublin, and on the other the extension of the court system into the regions in which government control was becoming greater. Two major issues predominated in discussion on ‘reform’ of the judiciary in Dublin in the treatises: reform of the bench of the four courts and the need for new courts with oversight of additional areas of government activity. Criticism of the judges on the bench and lower-ranking officers of the four courts focused on the interrelationship between the legal families of the Pale which tended to monopolise judicial positions. Moreover, it was argued that the consanguinity of these families and their ties to the wider political community of the Pale compromised the rigorous implementation of the common law. Later these complaints were expanded to question the quality of the lawyers’ training. Complaints of this nature were not common in the early Tudor treatises as this was universally a New English discourse which did not become common until mid-century when the Old English were superseded as the primary agents of counsel. Yet some minor criticisms nevertheless appeared early in the reign of Henry VIII. The most important early statement of this kind is found in a letter-tract sent by the under-treasurer, John Stile, to Wolsey in 1521.143 Stile asserted that ‘here be ryzght fewe well lernid men in the lawe, or clerkes of the Kynges Cortes; and thoes that be, use grete parcyallyte to ther fryndes’.144 Accordingly he proposed ‘that some lernyd men of Yngland were [sent] here … for the gode order of this land, and also for thencreaseynge of the Kynges revenwis’.145 Thus, Stile quickly set the tone for later criticism of the bench and recommended the most popular remedy: the appointment of  English-born judges. Although only a fragment of a contemporary series of ‘Articles for the Reformation of Ireland’ survives it too called for the appointment of Englishborn judges and a master of the rolls.146 In 1535 in a series of proposals which he sent to Cromwell, William Brabazon echoed Stile in requesting that a well-learned judge be sent over from England, sentiments which were echoed in a number of the submissions to the commissioners for Irish affairs in 1537.147 These concerns proliferated in the 1560s and 1570s. In 1565 Sidney requested the queen ‘to appoint some one Englishe man, learned in the lawes of the realme, whom I may speacially truste in your heighnes’ affayrs’.148 In his ‘State’ (c.1579) William Russell repeated the view that one of the great impediments to the reform of Ireland was the consanguinity among the families that dominated the legal profession within the Pale: One of the other great cause of the decay of the commonwealth is our learned men of the law when he is a barrister hath commonly a fee of all his clients during his life and when he is chosen to be a judge or any of the Queen’s officers what through

148

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the friendship of this fee and the near kindred of one to another, so linked within the English Pale as commonly they are within the 5th degree, the poor can have no justice neither the Queen her right.149

The same accusation was repeated by William Gerrard in 1578 and there seems little doubt that close kinship in a considerable number of instances was prejudicing the enforcement of the common law.150 As with many policy matters of the 1570s the writings of Edmund Tremayne are of crucial importance in this respect. In his first major treatise on Ireland, his ‘Notes’ prepared in 1571, he claimed of the Old English legists that ‘they continue study no time, they come home pleaders that were never utter-­ barristers and hearsaying for offices as they fall’.151 He also criticised their consanguinity noting that most of the judges were born in the Pale. His solution was simple and involved a drastic dilution of the Old English presence on the bench and in high office. The offices of lord chancellor, master of the rolls, chief baron of the exchequer, attorney general, solicitor general, chief remembrancer of the exchequer and surveyor should all be held by Englishmen, while at least one English-born judge was to sit on the bench of each of the four high courts.152 Tremayne’s views were again reflected in Sidney’s writings. At the end of the last of the series of four extensive letter-tracts detailing his progress through the four provinces in late 1575 and early 1576 Sidney appended a brief series of ‘Hedds’ for reformation of the country.153 His principal concern in these was that four learned personages be sent from England to act as advisers to him. He specifically requested Tremayne, and suggested Edward Montague as an adviser on ‘what might be reaped out of a good Soyle quietlye possessed’.154 The other two would act as master of the rolls and attorney general, with a ‘Mr Bell’ mentioned, most likely Robert Bell, a noted judge and since 1572 the Speaker of the House of Commons in England.155 But Sidney’s request for judges and lawyers from England did not cease there. Claiming there was no Old Englishman suitable to occupy the bench in Ireland other than Lucas Dillon he entreated that if ‘it wold please her Majestie to send hether three Lawyers, whereof twoe to be Cheife Justices of the Principall and Common Benches, and one to be an Attorney Generall of this Realme; this is so necessarie, that, if I should write a whole Quier of Paper onelye of this Pointe, I were not able to expresse the Necessitie of it’.156 It is beyond question that a consensus had formed by the 1570s among many senior English-born officials in Ireland that the bench of the high courts and other senior judicial offices should be staffed with lawyers and judges from England. A final ingredient began to appear at this time as the traditional complaints of inadequate training and consanguinity were augmented with criticism of the Old English lawyers for their adherence to Roman



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 149

Catholicism. These views would find their most vitriolic expression in the letter-tracts of Andrew Trollope in the 1580s.157 Thus, ‘reform’ of the bench as it occurred in the course of the Elizabethan period primarily involved the supersession of the Old English by a cadre of New English lawyers and judges. Yet reform of the bench within the existing four courts was not the sole judicial reform deemed of merit by treatise writers, for a number of additional courts came into existence during the Elizabethan period. Foremost here was the Court of Castle Chamber, a tribunal court under the direction of the viceroys and council, designed to be the exact equivalent of the Court of Star Chamber in England. The origins and workings of the court have been studied exhaustively by Jon Crawford who, following Herbert Wood, has demonstrated that the roots of the institution lay in article fourteen of the Ordinances for the Government of Ireland (1534). Here it was ordained that the lord chancellor with a judge from each of the four courts and other members of the council would sit twice a week during term time to hear complaints and adjudicate thereon.158 Yet for unknown reasons this tribunal court seems not to have been established in the 1530s. As such the roots of the court eventually established under Elizabeth lay in a proposal made by Sussex in his ‘Opinion’ of 1562.159 Here he noted that there was no fit court to hear cases of riot and similar abuses in Ireland and as such it was necessary that a court similar in constitution to Star Chamber be established to deal with offences of this kind. Unusually, the response was swift and within months steps had been taken to establish the court with the appointment of Thomas Walshe as first clerk. Even then, political unrest during Sussex’s last years in Ireland stunted its development and the Court of Castle Chamber did not come properly into existence until 1571.160 The Court of Castle Chamber was but the most important institutional development which occurred within the court system in Ireland in the mid-Elizabethan period. Other new courts developed in tandem. For instance, a Court of Admiralty for supervision of Irish maritime law was established under the jurisdiction of Ambrose Forth in the 1570s, though little is known of the exact specifics of how the institution was founded.161 Furthermore, the 1560s and 1570s witnessed the creation of bodies such as the Court of Faculties charged with establishing conformity to the state religion. Finally, while the Court of Wards was not formally established until 1622 by the 1580s the author of the ‘Treatise of Irlande’, Edward Waterhouse, could declare that ‘there is none yett established there but the receipte [is] chargeable vppon the auditor and theire lands certefied by the sherifes and escheator’.162 Therefore the mid-Elizabethan period saw the establishment of new judicial bodies in Dublin carrying areas of oversight which reflected the expanding reach of the government. Yet it was in the localities that the greatest change in the judicial system

150

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

was seen. The theoretical concern which underpinned Tudor administration of Ireland on the local level was that the commons could have recourse to the courts without having to bring their suits to Dublin. Failure to provide access to the common law was identified as central to the perceived lawlessness of Ireland in Robert Cowley’s ‘Discourse’ of the mid-1520s, who claimed that the ‘king’s courts of his laws [are] kept continually at Dublin in a corner of the land where the king’s subjects of the remote parts of the land might not repair for justice … [causeth] the king’s subjects of the remote parts to incline unto Irish laws’.163 Accordingly, one of the principal motives underlying the drive to establish provincial councils from the 1530s was in order to establish regional courts for dealing with suits in the provinces without recourse to Dublin. Yet few tracts other than Thomas Walshe’s uniquely detailed treatise addressed how these courts would function in any meaningful detail.164 The presidential courts were designed to act as a high court of redress within the provinces for those unwilling or unable to bring their suits to Dublin. Yet judicial administration on the county level was always understood to lie more properly with officers such as the justices of the peace and through the quarterly holding of sessions of assize. Within the treatises mention of these is first found in the ‘State’ of 1515, but much more extensive measures were outlined in the Ordinances of 1534.165 Justices of the peace were to be appointed in every shire, with wardens of the peace and constables serving under them in every barony and parish respectively.166 Gaols should be established in each shire and quarter sessions were to be held in each county with the judges of the high courts going on circuit twice yearly.167 These early prescriptions continued unabated into Elizabeth’s reign. In a brief treatise composed in 1561 the former viceroy, James Croft, recommended the establishment of grammar schools and other educational institutions so that both the Old English and Irish could be trained up to become ‘ministers as were convenient for thexecution of the lawes in all parts of that realme’.168 Yet Croft was aware that the Irish environment was not one which could be yet brought to resemble local administration in England, stating that ordinances should be applied to bring the country ‘as nere as may be to the common lawe’ until ‘things shall growe to a more rypenes’.169 There were no shortage of further proposals to this effect in the decades that followed. Edmund Tremayne did not offer any major proposals for judicial reform on the local level in his ‘Notes’ but in criticising the lack of general sessions and the manner in which the justices of the peace executed their office he was by extension arguing that these problems should be remedied.170 In 1574 John Perrot in his ‘Necessary things’ proposed that two judges be sent from Wales to Munster to provide counsel on the effective operation of the local courts in the province.171 Writing in the late 1570s William Russell called for sessions of assize to be held quarterly in each shire.172



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 151

Despite these repeated concerns to establish the normal functioning instruments of Tudor government in England on the county level in Ireland it seems relatively clear that this had not occurred by the 1570s. An indication of the degree to which this initiative had failed by the mid-Elizabethan period was provided by Rowland White in his tract on ‘The Dysorders of the Irisshery’ produced in 1571 shortly before his death. Noting that the motive for establishing presidential courts and sessions of assize in the localities had been to bring justice to the commons and prevent their impoverishment he asserted that this goal had not been achieved in that the cost of providing these courts on the local level had simply led to greater impoverishment.173 More shockingly, William Gerrard could report in his ‘Notes’ (1578) that, upon his arrival at the session house in Trim in Meath, the building had been left open and was ‘full of donge and cattayll in it as though in a pynefold’. Gerrard was suggesting this was representative of the wider country.174 Ultimately, what was occurring on the local level was a situation where the aims of policy speculators were firmly outrunning the state’s ability to put theory into practice. One simple example is instructive. In December 1573 Thomas Smith drew up his series of ‘Orders’ for rejuvenating his colony on the Ards peninsula. Here he laid down extensive conditions for the appointment of officials and holding of courts leet and baron. It was stipulated that certain adventurers would hold ‘a court baron from three wekes to three wekes to hold plea of all thinges amongs his tennants with such authorytie as the order, custome and right is in England’.175 The subsequent expeditions launched by Smith to Ireland failed even to establish a military settlement let alone a civil colony with proper courts such as he had envisaged. There are few clearer examples of calls for the introduction of common law institutions into the localities in Ireland so spectacularly outrunning the ability to achieve those goals. The crown, of course, could have recourse to a more long-standing policy to expedite the introduction of English administrative and judicial functions into the remote parts of Ireland: ‘surrender and regrant’. Although the conciliatory programme was quickly abandoned as the driving force behind government policy in 1543, the policy was retained in a much diluted form. While only two Irish lords were raised to the peerage by Henry VIII’s children as many as eight were proposed for ennoblement between the 1550s and 1580s.176 This sporadic recourse to the assimilative programme was reflected in the treatises, with authors occasionally proposing ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements. In 1553 in his ‘Book’, Cusack in arguing that the agreements reached in the 1540s had quieted much of the country gave tacit approval to further ennoblements.177 In his 1562 ‘Opinion’, Sussex was more specific in asserting that Donal MacCarthy Mór was especially desirous of a title, one which was eventually forthcoming when he was elevated to the title of earl of Clancar in 1565, the last creation under the Tudors.178

152

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Following this fitful enthusiasm for ‘surrender and regrant’ in the early 1560s the policy lay dormant until it was rejuvenated upon Sidney’s reappointment in the mid-1570s.179 At this time a number of proposals were made for creations, most significantly that to establish Turlough Luineach as earl of Castleconnell. Curiously, much of the initiative in this respect came from Sidney yet he failed to follow through on the proposals when given clearance to do so from England.180 This intemperate response may have been owing to the influence of a brief paper written by Edmund Tremayne. The sole extant copy is undated but internal evidence suggests that it was written in 1576, while Tremayne’s treatment of whether to allow grants to the Scots in the north-east certainly points towards the document having been composed in the aftermath of Essex’s ‘Enterprise’.181 Here Tremayne argued that while the establishment of English law through ‘surrender and regrant’ arrangements was a fine goal it could unwittingly produce even more absolute lords: But if it be well considered that the verie corrupt matter that stoppeth the course of thenglish governement is that one man is possessor and rule of so greate a countrey and that by this grant of hir Matie such be made more absolute LLs. then they were before, great hede is to be taken to prevent the evells that are likelie in this case to arise.182

Therefore he urged that the lords’ tanists and other stakeholders within the lordships also be accommodated under any agreements. Inevitably, this stipulation would have dissuaded O’Neill and others from entering into such arrangements. Whether Tremayne’s treatment of ‘surrender and regrant’ was responsible for the collapse of Sidney’s proposals in 1576 is unclear, yet within a short span of time a new initiative to ennoble O’Neill had arisen. This emerged not from England, Sidney, or any other English official in Ireland, but from O’Neill himself. The ‘Offers’ made in 1579 proposed that Turlough should be elevated to the peerage as earl of Armagh and baron of Benburb, while his son Art would receive the title of baron of either Strabane or Newtown.183 Additionally, he sought the office of president of Ulster but with the stipulation that extensive portions of the province including Carrickfergus, the Bagenal lands at Newry and the Blackwater fort, would be exempt from his jurisdiction. In return he would pay an annual rent of £3,000 and help to introduce the ‘composition’ into Ulster.184 Turlough’s fanciful proposal was not given serious consideration and by the 1580s he had returned to Sidney’s proposal to be created earl of Castleconnell. A number of further treatises proposing ‘surrender and regrant’ type arrangements appeared in the years that followed. One such was produced for Ulster in 1585 by Nicholas Taaffe. This called for a melding of aspects of ‘surrender and regrant’ with Perrot’s favoured approach of breaking up the



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 153

Gaelic lordships by dividing them between a number of powers within the sept. Thus, according to Taaffe’s scheme, the O’Neill lordship was to be split between a number of parties including Turlough Luineach, Hugh O’Neill and the MacShane. But in the process Turlough’s son, Art, was to be created baron of Strabane or Omagh.185 Despite these schemes another Irish lord would not be ennobled until Rory O’Donnell was created first earl of Tyrconnell in 1603. Evidently, while ‘surrender and regrant’ was given fitful consideration during Mary’s and Elizabeth’s reigns these resulted in little concrete progress in anglicising the country and extending administrative and judicial reform. An illuminating picture of the manner in which the administrative and judicial landscape of Ireland had been altered by the mid-Elizabethan period is best gleaned from the extensive ‘Treatise of Irlande’ (c.1586). Here the country was anatomised according to the provinces and counties of Ireland. The divisions are strikingly modern and contrast sharply with those found in the ‘State of Ireland’ written some seventy years earlier in 1515 in which the country was anatomised according to the lords who ruled their ‘countries’.186 Elsewhere in the ‘Treatise’ the author gave extensive details on the court system, from the various institutions in Dublin down to a sample account of the circuit for quarter sessions throughout much of Leinster and Munster.187 Though perhaps unintended the document is a striking statement on how the conquest which had been undertaken since the late 1540s and the administrative changes which followed had altered the landscape of Tudor Ireland. Yet there is a danger in placing too much faith in the changed picture presented by texts such as the ‘Treatise’. For all that the organs of Tudor government had been extended throughout Ireland the country was still effectively undergoing a military conquest. Thus, martial law predominated in some areas, the regions were largely governed by seneschals, army captains and provost marshals, endemic levels of corruption prevailed within officialdom and there was a striking level of lawlessness amongst the rank and file of the crown garrison. Even in the most settled parts of the country in the Pale the burden of financing and supplying the army through the ‘cess’ and ‘composition’ had led to social and economic immiseration. Tudor England was not governed in this manner and these issues were soon to lead to sharp levels of complaint and subsequent efforts at reform in the 1580s. But before turning to that period we must examine the course of religious reform in early and mid-Elizabethan Ireland. Debating religious reform: Coercion or persuasion

The early Elizabethan period saw the first truly concerted efforts at protestantising Ireland. The previous lethargy was primarily the outcome of the fluctuating circumstances of the mid-Tudor period. The Henrician Reformation had

154

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

seen the supremacy of the English monarchy over the church in the Tudor dominions established, while in Ireland the Church of Ireland was created. Yet, while nominally Protestant, from a doctrinal perspective the Church of England and the Church of Ireland remained largely Catholic. Accordingly, the accession of Edward VI and the establishment of a committed Protestant church witnessed a major shift in religious policy. Still, this oscillation was short lived and with Mary’s accession in 1553 a return to strict Catholicism ensued. Upon Elizabeth’s succession in 1558 yet another religious settlement was arrived at whereby a conservative Protestant church was established. Each of these religious settlements were, as in England, ratified by parliament in Ireland, yet the brevity of both Edward and Mary’s reigns ensured that little progress was made at effective religious reform under either monarch.188 The longevity of Elizabeth’s reign was to allow for an extended programme of religious reform.189 Despite the concerted nature of these reform efforts there is, as with the Henrician Reformation, a surprising dearth of treatises written explicitly on the subject of religious reform.190 Nevertheless, it is still relatively simple to identify the major obstacles confronting the Elizabethan regime as it sought to protestantise Ireland: the physical decay of churches and the poorness of livings. For instance, writing towards the end of the 1570s William Gerrard stated ‘that the churches in moste places were fallen downe, nothinge remayninge savinge the twoe endes without rooffe’.191 But the single greatest obstacle to be overcome was unquestionably the lack of suitably trained ministers. This concern, like many other issues relating to religious reform under Elizabeth, appeared early in the reign of Edward VI. In his proposal for the establishment of a university in 1547 George Browne recommended the dispatch of three bishops from England to take up sees in Ireland. In 1552 James Croft sought some learned ministers to be sent to Ireland, a request which on this occasion led to the arrival of Hugh Goodacre and John Bale.192 The latter’s sojourn is well known owing to his highly stylised Vocacyon, a memoir of his time as bishop of Ossory in which he compared his plight to that of St Paul.193 The onset of Elizabeth’s reign did not lead to any substantive change in this pattern. A brief memorandum by Sussex most likely written prior to the parliament of 1560 is one of his rare comments on religious policy in Ireland. Here he resigned himself to the difficulties attendant upon providing trained ministers to sees in Ireland and advised the reappointment of bishops who were deprived during the Marian period but also admitted the need for ministers from England to fill the highest positions in the Church of Ireland.194 Sussex’s comments were reflective of what occurred in the 1560s. At this time numerous bishoprics throughout the country were occupied by men who were either known recusants or at best individuals of questionable religious viewpoints who were willing to conform to any settlement arrived at



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 155

in England. Such were the bishop of Ferns, Alexander Devereux, the bishop of Clonfert, Roland Burke, and the archbishop of Tuam, Christopher Bodkin, each of whom maintained their positions through successive changes of religion from Henry’s reign through to Elizabeth’s, often being acknowledged simultaneously by England and Rome. James Murray has recently argued that Hugh Curwen, the early Elizabethan archbishop of Dublin, was a confirmed Catholic up to his preferment to Oxford in 1567.195 Indeed, as Henry Jefferies has noted the ministry of the Church of Ireland by the mid-1560s could rely on little more than two confirmed Protestant bishops in Adam Loftus and Hugh Brady.196 This contention is supported by contemporary observers.197 The testimony of Nicholas Arnold and Thomas Wrothe, in particular, is worth noting: Concerning religion and the favorers of it, we ar sorie to saye what we fynde, blinde ignorance, the leadre to supstition … here are two good Bisshops of Armaughe and Meath, ther lives be unblaimed and ther diligence in preaching worthy to be commended, especiallie Meath … The rest of the Bisshops as we here be all Irishe, we nede say no more.198

This lack of adequate ministers to appoint as bishops and archbishops in Ireland lay behind the proposal led by Christopher Goodman to bring the leader of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, to Ireland in the late 1560s; however, the scheme never materialised.199 The trend of inadequate ministers continued into the 1570s. In 1573 Fitzwilliam found himself writing to the queen to request the reinstatement of Christopher Brown as bishop of Down, despite his earlier revocation.200 Brown’s ability to speak Irish qualified him for reappointment. However, the most infamous example of a wholly unsuitable character who could nevertheless flourish within the Church of Ireland is that of the notorious careerist Miler Magrath who occupied various bishoprics before being preferred as archbishop of Cashel and yet was negotiating a reconciliation with Rome as late as 1612.201 While clerics could be imported from England to solve the problem of a ministry which was not suitable the more enduring solution to this issue was to establish a university within Ireland which could act as a Protestant seminary and produce a domestically trained ministry for the Church of Ireland. Efforts to do so had been made as early as the 1540s, notably in George Browne’s scheme to use the resources from the suppression of St Patrick’s Cathedral to endow a university in Dublin. Calls for the establishment of such an institution continued to find expression in numerous treatises of the 1550s. Thus, in 1558, the primate of Ireland, George Dowdall, proclaimed in his ‘Opinion’ that, ‘it shalbe verye expedient ffor that whole Realme, to erect an Univeristye … wherby learninge shall encrease, and … dutye, to God’.202 Dowdall proffered his own proposal in a separate submission in the summer

156

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

of 1558. Here he requested a grant of two religious establishments in the town of Termonfeckin in Louth through which he would ‘p[ro]vide a lyvinge for a c[er]tain nowmbr of p[rie]sts to be there deputed in a collage, for meyntenig of godds dywyn Syuice’.203 This scheme was accepted by the queen but the accession of Elizabeth just weeks later and Dowdall’s own death scuppered the initiative.204 Browne’s proposal continued to dominate thinking on the establishment of a Protestant seminary in Elizabethan Ireland. Although St Patrick’s had been suppressed early in the reign of Edward VI it had been reconstituted under Mary and Philip in 1555.205 Accordingly, implementing Browne’s scheme remained a feasible option. Writing in the late 1550s Thomas Alen advocated the dissolution of the cathedral and the use of the proceeds for the endowment of a university.206 Without directly citing Browne’s proposal it seems to have been at the heart of a ‘Device’ which was sent to Cecil in 1563 giving extensive details on the financing of a college in the city.207 On a slightly different note a scheme put forward for the reformation of Ulster in 1568 also proposed using the proceeds from St Patrick’s to endow a college but this, it was argued, should be established at Armagh.208 The opposition of the archbishop of Dublin, Hugh Curwen, to the conversion of St Patrick’s in order to facilitate the university scheme became an impediment in subsequent years.209 Equally his successor, Adam Loftus, later opposed the plan, despite having sounded his support during the 1560s.210 Nonetheless, prominent ecclesiastics and administrators, notably Hugh Brady and Robert Weston, continued to advocate the endowment of an institution.211 Efforts to do so culminated in the producing of a bill to that effect for passing through the 1569–71 parliament, a development which may have occasioned the arrival of Edmund Campion in Dublin, Sidney potentially envisaging his appointment as first provost of any future university.212 Despite this, and the production of an alternative scheme by John Ussher to facilitate an endowment, no such institution was to be established in the early or mid-Elizabethan period.213 Calls for the establishment of a university would continue to find expression in treatises written throughout the late 1570s and 1580s from individuals as varied as the military captain and pamphleteer, Barnaby Rich, to the baron of Delvin, Christopher Nugent.214 William Russell proposed a novel alternative to the St Patrick’s scheme when he suggested simply removing half the chapter of the cathedral to Athlone where a university should be founded.215 In the 1580s John Perrot’s own proposals were equally novel calling, in a number of treatises prepared as part of his campaign for the viceregal office, for the creation of two universities, one serving the south at Limerick and another serving the north of the country at Armagh.216 This proposal, though, was never seriously contemplated. As James Murray has clearly demonstrated



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 157

it was Burghley not Perrot who was responsible for the direction of the initiative to found a university in the mid-1580s, and the lord treasurer was unequivocally in favour of reviving George Browne’s scheme to suppress St Patrick’s.217 Perrot subsequently proffered alternative proposals but these met with consistent objections from the archbishop of Dublin, Adam Loftus, along with the prebendaries of St Patrick’s.218 Their combined opposition ensured that Perrot was unsuccessful in having a university established.219 In the years that followed numerous further university schemes appeared, notably that of William Herbert to endow two universities.220 A university, however, would not finally be established until 1591 when a group of individuals including Loftus, Henry Ussher, Luke Chaloner and James Fullerton succeeded in establishing Trinity College on the site of All Hallows outside Dublin.221 Meanwhile, in the absence of an adequately trained ministry or a university through which to provide for such a ministry alternative methods of promoting the Protestant faith in Ireland were undertaken, both persuasive and coercive. At this time, efforts to protestantise through persuasion overwhelmingly focused on breaking down the language barrier by producing printed religious texts in Irish. From the 1540s service books had been available in Dublin through the bookseller, James Dartas.222 The first book to be printed in Ireland was Humphrey Powell’s Book of Common Prayer, which appeared in 1551.223 However, these service books and Powell’s text were in English and, as such, did not transcend the prevailing problem of impacting on a largely Irish-speaking people. Thus, as early as 1551 the Privy Council had written to St Leger and his council instructing them that ‘where the inhabitants understand not the Englishe tongue, they [i.e. the lord deputy and council] to cause the Englishe to be translated truly into the Irishe tongue, unto such tyme as the people may be broughte to understand the Englishe’.224 In October 1562 even Alexander Craik, whose bishopric lay within the English Pale, petitioned Cecil to be discharged from his see on the basis that he could not speak Irish.225 Addressing this quandary in the 1560s Sidney resolved to have an Irish language catechism produced as a preliminary to producing the New Testament in Irish. The issue here was not the provision of an adequate translation, which was available, but fashioning an Irish type. Consequently, Brady and Loftus were overseeing the development of such a type as early as 1567.226 It would be several decades before this more ambitious goal was reached, but a catechism was prepared for publication by John Kearney in 1571. The Aibidil Gaelige agus Caiticiosma contained translations of extracts from the Book of Common Prayer and prayers selected from John Carswell’s prayer book, along with a full translation of the Twelve Articles which had been promulgated as the foundation of the Church of Ireland.227 Yet despite these robust efforts to appoint Irish-speaking ministers and producing printed religious works in Irish there was a fundamental contradiction in Tudor policy, for, as

158

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Patricia Palmer has clearly demonstrated, the policy of the Tudors towards the Irish language more broadly was to attempt almost to disavow it.228 Thus, the broader imperial lingual policy could often overshadow the basic requirements of religious reform and hamper this fundamental persuasive approach. Just as the 1560s witnessed concerted efforts to protestantise through these persuasive methods, so too renewed efforts at coercive enforcement of religious reform were undertaken from early in Elizabeth’s reign. This approach was succinctly outlined by Sussex in a letter-tract to Cecil in the summer of 1562 where he asserted that religious reform were ‘not I think to be holpen by private comyssions, but rather by p[ar]lament, wheryn lymyts in religion & discipline maye be appoynted, wt suche severe orders for punyshment of the brekers therof, as men may fere to go beyond or come short’.229 Measures of this nature in the years which followed centred on the establishment of the Ecclesiastical High Commission, established in the mid-1560s to launch inquiries into heretical views and to ‘correct all such persons as should obstinately absent themselves from church and divine services as by law established’. The coercive basis of the commission was made clear in the statement that recusants should suffer either a ‘fine or imprisonment as … shall seem expedient’.230 The Commission was briefly superseded between 1577 and 1578 by a Court of Faculties which Sidney erected to be overseen by George Ackworth and Roger Garvey.231 The development of these institutions was compounded throughout these years as the increasingly adversarial international situation which the Elizabethan state found itself in ensured that nominal acceptance of the state religion was no longer sufficient and greater enforcement was deemed necessary. Consequently, the number of senior government officials in favour of the coercive option slowly increased, with letter-tracts written by Arthur Grey, Edward Waterhouse, William Gerrard and Loftus, for instance, being largely in favour, while fringe figures such as Andrew Trollope also persistently called for a hard line in enforcement.232 By the closing decades of the century persuasion and coercion, the twin methods by which advancement of the Reformation was sought, had both been regularly recommended by influential figures such as Loftus and employed as part of religious policy. Awareness of the necessity for more persuasive tactics to be utilised in association with coercive enforcement is found in many more treatises of the time by figures such as Perrot and William Herbert.233 Indeed, a perusal of tracts by writers such as William Lyon reveals that it was widely believed the two should be employed in tandem with eachother, these reformers recommending strict enforcement of the anti-recusancy laws along with stressing the importance of education to inculcate the populace in the reformed faith.234 However, the degree to which one should be favoured above the other was still undecided and the severe anti-Catholicism of the Stuart period was not yet fully in evidence.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 159

Some final notes of the views of individuals on religious reform as expressed in their treatises at this time are pertinent. The concerted and energetic nature of Sidney’s programme has been demonstrated in two studies, one jointly produced by Ciaran Brady and James Murray, the other by Mark Hutchinson.235 In the 1560s this lay behind the drive to produce printed religious texts in Irish. Similarly, it was a major factor in the development of the Ecclesiastical High Commission and the Court of Faculties.236 Sidney’s clearest statement on religious reform is found in a detailed report to the queen in 1576, a ­letter-tract which is an oddity as a treatise by a viceroy which dealt explicitly and extensively with the issue of religious reform. Here he identified three major problems in Ireland, the ‘ruyne of the verye Temples’, the ‘Want of good Mynisters to serve in theim’ and the need to provide good livings to stamp out absenteeism.237 To remedy the first he advised that funds should be diverted for the repair of churches. Harking back to the proposal to bring John Knox to Ireland in the 1560s, he recommended that preachers should be sought in Scotland, many of whom could overcome the lingual barrier. Finally, absenteeism could be curbed by apportioning some of the crown’s rents to provide for the livings of ministers. Sidney was not alone in this thinking and his analysis and proposals were mirrored in a multitude of treatises by commentators such as Anthony Power and Edmund Tremayne in the 1570s.238 Tremayne, for instance, wanted bishoprics united and livings improved to entice a better standard of minister to take up positions within the Church of Ireland.239 Robert Weston and John Perrot favoured the repair of decayed churches and the establishment of schools as the best means to promote the new faith.240 On a tangential note William Russell argued in his ‘Discourse’ that parish lands often supported priests still committed to the papacy and that as such all lands annexed to parish curates should be confiscated to the crown’s use by an act of parliament.241 In his major programme for the ‘reform’ of Munster William Pelham also recommended the resumption of all church lands into the crown’s hands until such time as the same could be redistributed among spiritual officers following examination of their abilities.242 Finally, of particular note in the early 1580s are a series of ‘Notes’ delivered at court to Francis Walsingham by the clerk of the Irish Council, Rowland Cowyck, late in 1582.243 Though it has not attracted any previous attention Cowyck’s paper was the most detailed treatment of the subject of religious reform of the period. His proposals centred on the establishment of an ecclesiastical visitation. This he argued should be headed by a doctor of the Court of the Arches in England. Yet the purpose of Cowyck’s proposed visitation was not to protestantise the country but to see to an overhaul of ecclesiastical officers and property, primarily with the aim of enriching Elizabeth’s coffers. Parish priests who were found guilty of offences such as simony were to be

160

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

deprived. Where chantry and guild lands had been given to massing priests in mortmain to establish prayers for the dead, these lands were to be sequestered to the crown, an act which Cowyck believed could produce £2,000 worth of lands in profit. More general prescriptions included an investigation into the decay of church livings, while archbishoprics, bishoprics and other livings were to be properly taxed. Cowyck’s proposal was not implemented to any great extent in the 1580s. Nevertheless, his ‘Notes’ are significant in the manner in which they foreshadowed the extensive ecclesiastical visitations undertaken under James I. Despite increasing engagement with the issue of religious reform and concerted efforts to protestantise the country the progress of the Reformation in early and mid-Elizabethan Ireland was extremely poor. Although there are some isolated examples of temporary success, such as in Galway, in most areas what adherence was attained was resoundingly nominal.244 This dismal failure was attested to in a number of reports which were sent to England in the 1570s, notably a letter-tract by the bishop of Waterford, Marmaduke Midleton, in 1579 which starkly related the failure of the Reformation in the city.245 Yet it was not simply the case that the Protestant Reformation was failing to gain traction in Ireland, but that the Counter Reformation was finding considerable success there. The revival of papal authority in Ireland began in the 1560s and 1570s with the arrival of a wave of Jesuits and continentally trained clerics such as Richard Creagh, David Wolfe and William Good.246 This was part of the intensification of the papal and Spanish opposition to the Protestant Tudor state, which manifested itself most tangibly in the Northern Rising of 1569 and Pope Pius V’s subsequent excommunication of Elizabeth in 1570. In Ireland the confessional divide also began to evolve into the fusing of faith and fatherland in the political rhetoric of rebels such as James FitzMaurice. The fusing of religion and politics in the ideology of disaffected elements throughout Ireland was solidified during the turbulent years of the Desmond Rebellion and the Baltinglass revolt.247 Hence, by the mid-Elizabethan period the religious divisions which would characterise early modern Ireland had taken hold. The mid-Elizabethan period witnessed wide-sweeping changes in the political landscape of Ireland. The crown’s influence in Munster and Connacht was greatly expanded through the advent of the provincial councils there, whereas, although ultimately unsuccessful, the efforts to colonise the north-east of the country for a while opened the possibility of a rejuvenation of crown control of parts of Ulster. This increased net of government jurisdiction was manifested most forcefully in the shiring of the country, while the development of the ‘composition’ scheme was at heart an effort to find a means to finance the ongoing reduction of the country to English rule. Finally, concerted efforts were undertaken to protestantise the country.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 161

There is little doubting the pivotal role of Henry Sidney during this period of upheaval. Yet as the preceding has made clear he was not an unquestionably necessary agent in these developments. For instance, while Sidney favoured provincial presidents and regional colonisation he was in no way unique in this view. The establishment of these councils in Munster and Connacht and attempts at planting the north-east and other regions at this time were purely circumstantial. Conversely, Sidney’s desire to have the country shired was recognised even during Sussex’s tenure and he was a dynamic force in undertaking this in the late 1560s. Ultimately, Sidney was a much more permissive viceroy than Sussex and as such a far greater number of policy proposals proliferated from the mid-1560s onwards. These offered a multitude of schemes which significantly impacted on Elizabethan Ireland. Central here were the papers written on financial reform and alternatives to the ‘cess’, particularly the scheme of ‘composition’ pioneered by Edmund Tremayne. However, this writing of treatises on fiscal reform and on financial administration more generally is significant beyond its leading to the scheme of composition, for it began to bring to light issues which had been prevalent under other governors such as Sussex. Specifically, it began to be revealed that excessive corruption and maladministration were problems which were rife in Ireland and furthermore that the root of those problems lay in the policy of conquering Ireland through military coercion which had taken hold in the mid-Tudor period. The major shift in ‘reform’ treatises and political discourse in the aftermath of the Sidney years was in the renewal of calls from among certain sections of the Irish political establishment to adopt a more conciliatory approach to ‘reform’ and bring an end to such latent corruption. Notes 1 Stephen Alford, The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558–1569 (Cambridge, 1998); Wallace MacCaffrey, The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime (Princeton, 1994); Palmer, Problem of Ireland, pp. 55–108; Morgan, ‘British Policies’; David Edwards, ‘Ireland: Security and Conquest’, in Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds), The Elizabethan World (Abingdon, 2011), pp. 182–200. 2 See, for example, Edward Waterhouse, ‘Suggestions for improving Irish revenue yields’, c.1575, BL, Add. MS 48,015, fo. 125; ‘Memoranda for the consideration of the Privy Council in their resolutions for Ireland, suggested by Mr. Chaloner’, 1578, TNA, SP 63/62/5. 3 Dennis Kennedy, ‘The Presidency of Munster under Elizabeth and James I’, MA (UCC, 1973), esp. pp. 13–23; McCormack, The Earldom of Desmond, pp. 83–7, 126–31, 136–43. 4 On the growth in support for provincial bureaucracies, see pp. 61–2, 90–3.

162

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

5 TNA, SP 63/12/47. 6 TNA, SP 63/13/46, fo. 109v. 7 ‘Henry Sidney to Queen Elizabeth’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/20/66, printed in Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 18–31, p. 29. 8 See, for example, ‘Henry Sidney to Leicester’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/16/35; Henry Sidney, ‘Memorial of things not expressed in the letters brought by Ralph Knight, but committed to be declared by speech’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/21/20. Brady (ed.), A Viceroy’s Vindication?, pp. 18–19, where Brady also notes the somewhat incongruous absence of the presidential scheme from Sidney’s account of his Irish career. 9 K.W. Nicholls (ed.), ‘A Commentary on the Nobility and Gentry of Thomond, circa 1567’, in The Irish Genealogist, 4:2 (Oct., 1969), 65–73. 10 ‘Propositions for the Reformation of the North of Ireland by an Irishman’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/23/29, fos. 89v–90r. 11 ‘Winchester to William Cecil’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/16/62, fo. 182v. 12 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 61–5. Also, see ‘The good that is like to growe by placing of a president and counsell in Mounster’, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 159v–160v, which is undated but would appear to have been written at some time in the late 1560s. 13 Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 47–8. 14 Ciaran Brady, ‘Faction and the Origins of the Desmond Rebellion’, in IHS, 22:88 (Sep., 1981), 289–312, esp. 295; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 73–4, 137–40, 169–78. 15 Kennedy, ‘The Presidency of Munster’, pp. 17–22, 28–45. 16 Bernadette Cunningham, ‘From Warlords to Landlords: Political and Social Change in Galway, 1540–1640’, in Gerard Moran (ed.), Galway: History and Society (Dublin, 1996), pp. 97–129; Mary O’Dowd, Power, Politics and Land: Early Modern Sligo, 1568–1688 (Belfast, 1991), pp. 28–9, 45–6, 54; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 319–23; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 41–58, presents this new interpretation. 17 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 7–15. 18 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 73–4. 19 CCM, 1515–1574, 237, pp. 347–8. 20 Sussex?, ‘A plotte conceaued for the gouernment of the Realme of Irelande’, c.1569, BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 284v–290v. Internal evidence suggests that the document was composed after the abortive appointment of Andrew Corbett as president of Connacht, but prior to the subsequent appointment of Edward Fitton there and the outbreak of the FitzMaurice rebellion in Munster. For internal similarities which point to Sussex as the author cf. with his ‘Relation’ of 1562. 21 See above p. 124. 22 Lindsay Boynton, ‘The Tudor Provost-Marshal’, in EHR, 77:304 (Jul., 1962), 437–55. 23 ‘Draft of Instructions for the government of Munster, devised for Sir Warham St Leger’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/16/22, printed almost wholly in CSPI, 1606–1608, pp.  xxiii–xxix. ‘Draft of instructions for the establishment of a President and Council in Munster’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/26/9; Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 48–59.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 163

24 ODNB, ‘St Leger, Warham’. 25 Kennedy, ‘The Presidency of Munster’, pp. 24–7; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 137– 40; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 98–116; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 308–14. 26 ODNB, ‘Fitton, Edward’. 27 ‘Edward Fitton to William Cecil’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/30/43; ‘Ralph Rokeby to William Cecil’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/30/44; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 314–19; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 98–116; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 137– 40; Cunningham, ‘From Warlords to Landlords’, pp. 102–12; Bernadette Cunningham, Clanricard and Thomond, 1540–1640: Provincial Politics and Society Transformed (Dublin, 2012), pp. 9–20. 28 ‘Edward Fitton to William Cecil’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/31/6. 29 Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 307–23; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 41–58; Kennedy, ‘The Presidency of Munster’, pp. 86–7; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 162–300, overviews a number of military figures in Elizabethan Ireland. See, in particular, pp. 250–300, for an in-depth study of Bingham’s presidency. Also, see Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 281–6, for a study of Malby’s time in Connacht. 30 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1; 129; 131; TNA, SP 60/4/27; Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 69–79. 31 ‘Device for plantation of Ireland with Englishmen’, c.1568, TNA, SP 63/23/26. 32 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1; TNA, SP 62/1/22(ii); TNA, SP 63/9/83. 33 ‘Henry Sidney to William Cecil’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/26/18, fo. 71r. 34 Ibid., fo. 72r. 35 Ibid., fos. 72r–73r. 36 CCM, 1515–1574, 236, p. 332. 37 Ibid., pp. 333–4. 38 ‘A memorial by Cecil’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/22/49. 39 TNA, SP 63/13/46, fo. 110r. 40 ‘Henry Sidney to William Cecil’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/17/14; ‘Henry Sidney to William Cecil’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/19/51; ‘Henry Sidney to the Privy Council’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/19/71. 41 ‘A note of the chiefest matters contained in the lord deputy’s letters which are to be considered and answered’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/21/48, fo. 197. 42 Valerie Morant, ‘The Settlement of Protestant Refugees in Maidstone during the Sixteenth Century’, in The Economic History Review, New Series, 4:2 (1951), 210–14. 43 Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 161–2, contains a letter from Sidney to Walsingham in 1576 outlining his provisions for the community. Brady (ed.), A Viceroy’s Vindication?, pp. 78–9. 44 ‘The petitions addressed to the Privy Council by gentlemen who offer to suppress the rebels in Munster, and to plant that province with natural Englishmen’, 1569, TNA, SP 63/28/2, is the central text. See, also, ‘Offers of English subjects for planting Munster, addressed to Cecil’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/26/52; ‘Note of the demands of Warham St Leger, Humphrey Gilbert, Jacques Wingfeild, and others’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/26/81; ‘Offers of English subjects for planting Munster, addressed to Henry Sidney’, 1569, TNA, SP 63/27/22; D.B. Quinn (ed.), The Voyages and

164

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Colonising Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 2 vols (London, 1940), II, App. 1, contains transcriptions of some of the relevant documents. For the argument that St Leger was the driving force behind the colonisation of Munster in the late 1560s, see Peter Piveronus, ‘Sir Warham St. Leger and the First Munster Plantation, 1568–69’, in Éire-Ireland, 14:2 (Summer, 1979), 15–36; Peter Piveronus, ‘Sir Warham St Leger: ‘Organizer-in-Chief of the Munster Plantation Scheme of 1568–69. Evidence from the Hand-Writing Analysis of Selected Documents in the PRO, London’, in The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, 6:1 (Jun., 1980), 79–89. 45 See, for example, Humphrey Gilbert, ‘The Discourse of Ireland’, 1572, printed in Quinn (ed.), The Voyages and Colonizing Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, I, pp. 124–8. 46 Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 77–8. 47 T. Cronin, ‘The Elizabethan Colony in Co. Roscommon’, in Harman Murtagh (ed.), Irish Midland Studies: Essays in Commemoration of N.W. English (Athlone, 1980), pp. 107–20. 48 John P. Prendergast, ‘The Plantation of the Barony of Idrone, in the County of Carlow’, in The Journal of the Kilkenny and South-East of Ireland Archaeological Society, New Series, 2:2 (1859), 400–28; 3:1 (1860), 20–44, 69–80, 144–64, 171–88; 3:2 (1860), 196–208. 49 John MacLean (ed.), The Life and Times of Sir Peter Carew, Knight, with a Historical Introduction and Elucidatory Notes (London, 1857); Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, p. 68; ODNB, ‘Carew, Peter’; Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 278–9; J.A. Wagner, The Devon Gentleman: The Life of Sir Peter Carew (Hull, 1998). 50 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 56–60. 51 Hayes-McCoy, Scots Mercenary Forces, pp. 77–121; Costello, Turlough Luineach O’Neill, pp. 52–106; Hill, Fire and Sword, pp. 100–67. 52 ‘Mr. vice-chamberlain Knolly’s opinion not to allow the name of O’Neill to Turlough Luineach, but rather to offer his freehold to Alexander Óge and his new Scots, on condition that they expel him and take it themselves’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/21/56. 53 ‘John Smyth’s Advice for the Realm of Ireland’, 1569, printed in Hayes-McCoy, Scots Mercenary Forces, App. 1, pp. 345–7. 54 ‘George Thornton to William Cecil’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/25/19, fo. 35v. 55 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 69–71. 56 For details of Chatterton’s grant, see Bod. Lib., Carte MS 61, fo. 87, printed in CSPI, 1608–1610, pp. 552–5; Dunlop, ‘Sixteenth Century Schemes’, pp. 117–19. 57 ‘Nicholas Malby to Burghley’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/34/25; ‘William Fitzwilliam to Burghley’, 1572, TNA, SP 63/38/24; Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 76–7; Dunlop, ‘Sixteenth Century Schemes’, pp. 117–19. 58 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 84–9. 59 ‘A breife of the demaunde and humble peticion of Thomas Smythe and his associats to the Queenes moste excellente Matie’, 1571, HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS ii, pp. 12–13; ‘A breife of the said suppliantes devise or deseigne for the first enterprisinge, inhabitinge, devidinge, and defence or polliceing of



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 165

the saide countrie as plowlandes’, 1571, HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS ii, pp. 13–15. 60 A letter sent by I.B. Gentleman; The offer and order giuen by Sir Thomas Smyth; Morgan, ‘Colonial Venture’; H.F. Hore, ‘Colonel Thomas Smyth’s Settlement in the Ardes. 1572’, in UJA, First Series, 9 (1861/1862), 177–82; Quinn, ‘Sir Thomas Smith’; Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith. 61 Morgan, ‘Colonial Venture’, p. 264. 62 Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith, pp. 165–7, provides the most extensive analysis of the documents to date. 63 Thomas Smith, ‘Orders set owt by Sir Thomas Smyth’, 1573, Essex Records Office, Hill Hall MSS D/DSh 01/2; Thomas Smith, ‘Offices Necessarie in the Colony of the Ardes’, 1573, Essex Record Office, Hill Hall MSS D/DSh 01/7. 64 This city is usually referred to as ‘Elizabetha’; however, it was more often referred to as the ‘Queene’s New Colony’ or ‘Smyth’s Colen’ in the documentation found at Essex Records Office. See, for example, ‘Indenture between Thomas Smith and John Barkley’, 1573, Essex Records Office, Hill Hall MSS D/DSh 01/3; ‘Deed of Covenant between Thomas Smith and Francis Bruning’, 1573, Essex Records Office, Hill Hall MSS D/DSh 01/5. Smith had mentioned establishing a settlement called ‘Elizabetha’ but this occurred much earlier in May 1572. See ‘Thomas Smith to Thomas Smith Jr.’, 1572, Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series of the Reign of Elizabeth, 17, January–June 1583 and Addenda (London, 1913), no. 493. 65 George Carleton?, ‘Discourse on the present state of the realm of England’, c.1572, TNA, SP 12/21/121, printed in extenso in CSPD, Elizabeth, Addenda, 1566–1579, pp. li–liv, 439. 66 ODNB, ‘Devereux, Walter’. 67 Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 61–2. 68 Essex, ‘The offer of Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, touching the inhabiting in the north of Ireland’, 1573, CCM, 1515–1574, 302; Essex, ‘A breviate of the articles contained in a draught of the patent to be granted by the Queen’s Majesty to the Earl of Essex and his heirs for ever’, 1573, CCM, 1515–1574, 303; ‘Articles between the Earl of Essex and the Adventurers for settling Clandeboye, the Route, and the Glens’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/44/23. 69 R.C.Morton, ‘The Enterprise of Ulster’, in HT, 17:2 (Feb., 1967), 114–21; Dunlop, ‘Sixteenth Century Schemes’, pp. 124–6, 199–212, gives one of the most extensive overviews. Canny, Elizabethan Conquest, pp. 88–90; Costello, ‘Turlough Luineach O’Neill’, pp. 107–69. 70 Essex, ‘Note of Clandeboye, the Route and the Glens, with the principal seats reserved for Her Majesty and the Earl’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/48/81. 71 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 132–8. 72 Ibid., p. 133. 73 Ibid., p. 134. 74 Ibid., p. 135. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid., p. 136. Also, see Essex, ‘The garrison necessarie to be maintayned for two

166

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

yeres for the reformacion of Vlster’, 1574, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 443v– 445r. Other copies are TNA, SP 63/48/5 and BL, Add. MS 48,015, fos. 335–336. 77 Edward Waterhouse?, ‘A mean to quiet the north parte of Vlster’, 1574, Bod. Lib., St Amand MS 10, fos. 61–64, fos. 61–62. 78 Ibid., fos. 63–64. 79 ‘Queen Elizabeth to Essex’, 22 May 1575, TNA, SP 63/51/39. 80 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 49–51. 81 SP.Henry.VIII, iii, 347. 82 ‘Bermingham’s memorial of advices for the government of Ireland’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/27, fo. 55v. On the other schemes to this end proposed at the time, see pp. 108–9. 83 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 64. 84 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 231–3; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 388–90. 85 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 140–58; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 391–2, has followed Brady’s argument in attributing the genesis of the scheme to Tremayne. 86 Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 308–407; Victor Treadwell, ‘Sir John Perrot and the Irish Parliament of 1585–6’, in PRIA, 85C (1985), 259–308; Bernadette Cunningham, ‘The Composition of Connacht in the Lordships of Clanricard and Thomond, 1577–1641’, in IHS, 24:93 (May, 1984), 1–14; Cunningham, Clanricard and Thomond, pp. 21–7; Bernadette Cunningham, ‘Natives and Newcomers in Mayo, 1569–1603’, in Raymond Gillespie and Gerard Moran (eds), A Various Country: Essays in Mayo History, 1500–1900 (Westport, 1987), pp. 24–43. Also, see O’Dowd, Power, Politics and Land, pp. 32–4. 87 DIB, ‘Tremayne, Edmund’. Also, see Nicholas Canny, ‘Review: Revising the Revisionist’, in IHS, 30:118 (Nov., 1996), 242–54, esp. 247–9, who argues that Tremayne acted as more of a mouthpiece for Sidney’s ideas. 88 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 72–83, 96–103. 89 Ibid., p. 80. 90 Ibid., pp. 80–1. This brief section of Tremayne’s text is the most significant and clearly lays out his proposal for composition. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid., p. 102. 93 Woodworth, ‘Purveyance for the Royal Household’, 39. 94 Ibid., 40. 95 Ibid., 19–21. 96 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 137–40. 97 ‘Edward Fitton to William Cecil’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/31/6, fos. 14v–15r. 98 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 116–28. 99 Ibid., pp. 120–1. 100 Ibid., p. 123. 101 Ibid., p. 122. 102 Ibid., p. 128. 103 ‘Device for placing a garrison of 2,500 in Ireland’, 1573, TNA, SP 63/40/56. 104 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 139–44.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 167

105 John Perrot, ‘Note of the Lord President of Munster’s opinion for reforming of Ireland’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/54/39, fo. 120r. 106 ODNB, ‘Grey, Arthur’. 107 ‘Memoranda by Burghley for the plat of Ulster’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/48/75, fo. 238r. Burghley did not explicitly state that the forces involved, which numbered 2,060 men and a further 600 kern, were the figures requested by Sidney, however, these figures are presented after Essex’s proposed forces and, given that the document is a comparison of the two men’s respective proposals for government (Essex’s being those required for his ‘Plat’ for Ulster), it can be inferred that these figures relate to the numbers desired by Sidney. Also, see Burghley, ‘Note of charge for one year for Ulster, and comparison of proposals by Essex and Sidney’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/48/77. 108 ‘Henry Sidney’s plot for the government of Ireland’, 1575, TNA, SP 63/52/83; ‘Plot by Henry Sidney to govern Ireland’, 1575, TNA, SP 63/53/67. The geographical distribution of the final army was like so: Ulster (350), Munster (300), Connacht (300), Leinster (250). 109 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 145–6, has noted this drastic dilution of Tremayne’s proposals. 110 Ibid., pp. 146–58; McGowan-Doyle, ‘Elizabeth I, the Old English, and the Rhetoric of Counsel’, pp. 174–6; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 392–407, provides the most detailed survey to date. 111 McCormack, The Earldom of Desmond, pp. 139–43. 112 Brady, Chief Governors, pp. 146–54, 235–44. 113 ‘Ways of victualling an army of 1,000 men, whereby the English Pale may be somewhat eased’, 1577, TNA, SP 63/58/70; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 148–9. 114 Crawford, Anglicizing, pp. 309–407; ‘Summary of the whole proceedings in the cess matters up to the expiration of the four months compounded for in 1578/9, Jan. 31’, 1579, TNA, SP 63/65/53; Carey, Surviving the Tudors, pp. 181–9. 115 Duncan-Jones and Van Dorsten (eds), Miscellaneous Prose of Sir Philip Sidney, pp. 3–12; Willy Maley, ‘Sir Philip Sidney and Ireland’, in Spenser Studies, 12 (1998), 223–7. 116 John Chaloner, ‘Memoranda for the consideration of the Privy Council’, 1578, TNA, SP 63/62/5, fo. 19r. 117 Ibid., fo. 19v. Chaloner quite possibly took the idea of coinage manipulation from Gilbert who had suggested likewise in 1574. See Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 122. 118 Ibid., pp. 150–5. 119 Ibid. 120 For more on the content of these treatises, see Heffernan (ed.), ‘Six Tracts’, 14–33. 121 On the wider history of administrative and judicial development in Tudor Ireland, see Crawford, Anglicizing; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court. 122 Caesar Litton Falkiner, ‘The Counties of Ireland: An Historical Sketch of their Origin, Constitution and Gradual Delimitation’, in PRIA, 24C (1902–1904), 169–94, remains one of the most in-depth studies of the shiring of Ireland.

168

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

For the most recent account, see Montano, The Roots of English Colonialism, pp. 187–95. For a map outlining the development of the county system, see Connolly, Contested Island, p. 412. Also, see Myron C. Noonkester, ‘The Third British Empire: Transplanting the English Shire to Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and America’, in Journal of British Studies, 36:3 (Jul., 1997), 251–84. 123 OED, shire, n. 124 See, for example, the ‘Ordinances’, c.1519, printed in Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 99–109. 125 See, for example, Finglas’s ‘Breviat’, in Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 69–79. The authors of these treatises possibly believed the region would be divided and incorporated into the medieval counties of Dublin, Kildare, Carlow and Wexford. 126 ‘King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland’, 1542, SP.Henry. VIII, iii, 381, p. 428; Statutes, i, pp. 232–5. For more discussion, see Ellis, Defending English Ground, pp. 130–3. 127 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 14. 128 CCM, 1515–1574, 200, pp. 237, 246. 129 Quinn (ed.), ‘Edward Walshe’s “Conjectures”’. 130 CCM, 1515–1574, 200, p. 241. 131 BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 27–29r, fo. 27v; Statutes, i, pp. 241–3. 132 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 43–5. 133 Ibid., p. 54. 134 CCM, 1515–1574, 236. 135 Statutes, i, pp. 347–9; Victor Treadwell, ‘The Irish Parliament of 1569–71’, in PRIA, 65C (1966/67), 55–89. 136 ‘Thomas Cusack to William Cecil’, 1569, TNA, SP 63/27/45; Joseph Mannion, ‘Elizabethan County Galway: The Origin and Evolution of an Administrative Unit of Tudor Local Government’, in Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, 64 (2012), 64–89. 137 Falkiner, ‘Counties of Ireland’, pp. 124–5. 138 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 141. 139 Ibid., p. 241. 140 Ibid., p. 234. 141 Ibid., p. 70; CCM, 1515–1574, 303. 142 See pp. 199–205. 143 ‘John Stile to Wolsey’, 1521, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 25. 144 Ibid., p. 86. 145 Ibid. 146 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, p. 94. 147 L.P., IX, 332; SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 183. 148 TNA, SP 63/13/46, fo. 111r. 149 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 167. 150 MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’, 115. 151 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 78. 152 Ibid.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 169

153 Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 109–10. 154 Ibid., p. 109. 155 ODNB, ‘Bell, Robert’. 156 Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 109–10. 157 ‘Andrew Trollope to Burghley’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/64, fo. 201r. 158 Herbert Wood, ‘The Court of Castle Chamber of Star Chamber of Ireland’, in PRIA, 32C (1914–1916), 152–70; Crawford, ‘Origins of the Court of Castle Chamber’; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 173–94. The relevant article has been given as article eleven in these studies, though it appears as the fourteenth ordinance. See SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 70. 159 CCM, 1515–1574, 236, pp. 342–3. 160 See TNA, SP 63/16/110, for Sidney’s proposal to resurrect the court. 161 John C. Appleby and Mary O’Dowd, ‘The Irish Admiralty: Its Organisation and Development, c.1570–1640’, in IHS, 24:95 (May, 1985), 299–326; Kevin Costello, The Court of Admiralty, 1575–1893 (Dublin, 2006), pp. 1–4. 162 NLI, MS 669, fo. 12r; Victor Treadwell, ‘The Irish Court of Wards under James I’, in IHS, 12:45 (Mar., 1960), 1–27. 163 Heffernan (ed.), ‘A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland’. 164 See p. 91. 165 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 1, p. 19. 166 SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 70, p. 214. 167 Ibid., pp. 209–10. 168 James Croft, ‘A remembrance by Sir James Croft showing the need of some to administer justice throughout Ireland, and proposing that Grammar Schools be erected’, 1561, TNA, SP 63/3/17, fo. 42r. 169 Ibid., fo. 42v. 170 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 72–83. 171 Ibid., p. 141. 172 Ibid., p. 169. 173 Canny (ed.), ‘Rowland White’s “The Dysorders of the Irisshery”’, 160. 174 MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’, 114. 175 Essex Records Office, Hill Hall MSS D/DSh 01/2, fo. 1r. 176 See, in particular, Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’, 573–9. Also, see Maginn, ‘“Surrender and Regrant” in the Historiography of Sixteenth-Century Ireland’; Maginn, ‘The Limitations of Tudor Reform’. 177 CCM, 1515–1574, 200, pp. 245–6. 178 Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’, 573–7; CCM, 1515–1574, 236, p. 336. 179 There were some passing instructions to create Irish peers. See ‘The queen to Henry Sidney’, 1567, TNA, SP 63/21/10, which proposed making O’Carroll a baron. 180 Maginn, ‘The Gaelic Peers’, 577–8. 181 Edmund Tremayne, ‘Touchinge grants to be made by the Quen’s Matie to LLs. possessing or ruling great countries in Ireland’, c.1576, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fo. 361. 182 Ibid., fo. 361r.

170

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

183 Thomas Fleming, ‘O’Neill’s Offers’, 1579, TNA, SP 63/67/21, fo. 45r. 184 Ibid., fos. 45r–46r; Costello, Turlough Luineach O’Neill, pp. 183–6. 185 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 256. 186 NLI, MS 669, esp. fos. 11–53. 187 Ibid., fo. 12. 188 Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The Beginnings of Modern Ireland’, in Brian Farrell (ed.), The Irish Parliamentary Tradition (Dublin, 1973), pp. 68–87; Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The Edwardian Reformation in Ireland, 1547–53’, in Archiv. Hib., 34 (1977), 83–99; Henry A. Jefferies, ‘The Irish Parliament of 1560: The Anglican Reforms Authorised’, in IHS, 26:102 (Nov., 1988), 128–41. 189 Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 125–284; Murray, Enforcing, pp. 242–316. 190 On the lack of treatises for the Henrician Reformation, see pp. 54–9. 191 MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’, 114. 192 ‘James Croft to William Cecil’, 1552, TNA, SP 61/4/28, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 63–4. 193 John Bale, The Vocacyon of Johan Bale to the bishoprick of Ossorie, eds Peter Happé and John N. King (Binghamton, 1990); Steven Ellis, ‘John Bale, Bishop of Ossory, 1552–3’, in JBS, 2:3 (1984), 283–93. 194 Sussex, ‘For the settling of religion’, c.1559, HMC, Salisbury MSS iii, pp. 459–60. The document is erroneously dated to 1589 in the calendar for that collection, however, internal evidence points to a date of composition prior to the 1560 parliament, almost certainly in 1559. 195 Devereux incurred Sidney’s chagrin. See ‘Henry Sidney to Cecil’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/18/93, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 264–6; Helen Coburne Walsh, ‘Enforcing the Elizabethan Settlement: The Vicissitudes of Hugh Brady, Bishop of Meath, 1563–84’, in IHS, 26:104 (Nov., 1989), 352–76, esp. 353–4; Thomas G. Connors, ‘Surviving the Reformation in Ireland (1534–80): Christopher Bodkin, Archbishop of Tuam and Roland Burke, Bishop of Clonfert’, in SCJ, 32:2 (Summer, 2001), 335–55; Murray, Enforcing, pp. 242–60. 196 Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 131, 136. 197 See, for example, ‘Robert Weston to William Cecil’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/24/2. 198 ‘Commissioners Wrothe and Arnold to the Privy Council’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/10/34, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 139–41. 199 Jane Dawson, Lionel K.J. Glassey and John Knox, ‘Some Unpublished Letters from John Knox to Christopher Goodman’, in Scottish Historical Review, 84:218, Part 2 (Oct., 2005), 166–201, esp. 176–82. 200 ‘William Fitzwilliam to the queen’, 1573, TNA, SP 63/39/30. 201 DIB, ‘Magrath, Miler’; Robert Wyse Jackson, Archbishop Magrath: The Scoundrel of Cashel (Dublin, 1974). 202 Gogarty (ed.), ‘Opinion’, 164. 203 ‘Private suit of George Dowdall for licence to purchase certain premises at Termonfeckin for the purpose of founding a College’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/63, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, p. 83. 204 ‘Queen Mary to Sussex’, 1558, TNA, SP 62/2/64. 205 Murray, Enforcing, pp. 231–2.



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 171

206 Thomas Alen?, ‘Vpon alteracion of S. now Patricke’s, an opinion in that behalf’, c.1558, BL, Lansdowne MS 159, fos. 104–108r. 207 ‘A Device for a College to be erected in Dublin’, 1563, TNA, SP 63/9/49, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 126–8. 208 ‘Propositions for the Reformation of the North of Ireland by an Irishman’, 1568, TNA, SP 63/23/29, fo. 88. 209 For Curwen’s opposition, see ‘Hugh Curwen to the earl of Pembroke’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/11/13, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 151–3. 210 ‘Adam Loftus to William Cecil’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/15/12, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 225–8. 211 ‘Hugh Brady to William Cecil’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/13/5, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 160–3; ‘Hugh Brady to William Cecil’, 1565, TNA, SP 63/13/74, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 200–2; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 66–8. On Brady’s support for the scheme and Loftus’s opposition, see Coburn Walshe, ‘Enforcing the Elizabethan Settlement’, pp. 364–5; Helga RobinsonHammerstein, ‘Archbishop Adam Loftus: The First Provost of Trinity College, Dublin’, in Robinson-Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation, pp. 34–52, has conversely argued that Loftus was not opposed to the endowment of a university. 212 Treadwell, ‘Irish Parliament of 1569–71’, 84. 213 ‘John Ussher to Burghley, with a rejoinder made to a reply of the Mayor and Staplers of Dublin relative to Ussher’s Book for reformation of the staple’, 1571, TNA, SP 63/33/8, printed in J.T. Gilbert, A History of the City of Dublin, 3 vols (Dublin, 1861), I, pp. 383–4; Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’. 214 Barnaby Rich, Allarme to England (London, 1578), sig. Diiii-Ei; Christopher Nugent, ‘Baron Delvin’s plot for the reformation of Ireland’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/108/58, fo. 142v. 215 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 171. 216 E.C.S., The Government of Ireland, p. xvi. 217 Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’, pp. 26–8. 218 ‘Petition of the Prebendaries of St. Patrick’s to the Privy Council’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/113/56; ‘Arguments against the dissolution of St Patrick’s’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/113/56(i); ‘Reasons to prove that yf St Patrick’s shoulde be dissolved the lyvings and revenues thereof coude not conveniently be ynmployed to the purposed ende’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/113/56(ii). 219 For more on Perrot’s feud with Loftus over St Patrick’s, see Roger Turvey, The Treason and Trial of Sir John Perrot (Cardiff, 2005), pp. 25–34. On subsequent developments, see Murray, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’, pp. 30–5. 220 Ciaran Brady, ‘New English Ideology in Ireland and the two Sir William Herberts’, in A.J. Piesse (ed.), Sixteenth-Century Identities (Manchester, 2000), pp. 75–111. 221 On the establishment of the college, see J.V. Luce, Trinity College Dublin: The First 400 Years (Dublin, 1992), pp. 1–10. 222 M. Pollard, Dublin’s Trade in Books, 1550–1800 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 33–6. 223 E.R. McClintock Dix, Printing in Dublin prior to 1601 (Dublin, 1932), gives brief

172

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

details on the works produced in sixteenth-century Dublin and plates showing title pages thereof. 224 ‘Instructions by the King and Council to Sir Anthony St Leger, lord deputy, and the Council of Ireland’, 1550, TNA, SP 61/2/57, printed in Collier (ed.), ‘The Egerton Papers’, pp. 13–23, p. 14. 225 ‘Alexander Craik to William Cecil’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/7/32. 226 D.B. Quinn, ‘Information about Dublin Printers, 1556–1573, in English Financial Records’, in Irish Book Lover, 28:5/6 (May, 1942), 112–15; Dermot McGuinne, Irish Type Design: A History of Printing Types in the Irish Character (Dublin, 1992), pp. 4–22. 227 Brian Ó’Cuív (ed.), Aibidil Gaoidheilge & Caiticiosma: Seaán Ó Cearnaigh’s Irish primer of religion published in 1571 (Dublin, 1994); Ciaran Brady and James Murray, ‘Sir Henry Sidney and the Reformation in Ireland’, in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben (eds), Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550– 1700 (Aldershot, 2006), pp. 14–39, p. 19; Hutchinson, ‘Reformed Protestantism and the Government of Ireland; Marc Caball, ‘Gaelic and Protestant: A Case Study in Early Modern Self-fashioning, 1567–1608’, in PRIA, 110C (2010), 191– 215, esp. 196–207; Marc Caball, ‘Print, Protestantism, and Cultural Authority in Elizabethan Ireland’, in Kane and McGowan-Doyle (eds), Elizabeth I and Ireland, pp. 286–308. 228 Patricia Palmer, Language and Conquest in Early Modern Ireland: English Renaissance Literature and Elizabethan Imperial Expansion (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 125–34. 229 ‘Sussex to William Cecil’, 1562, TNA, SP 63/6/57, in Shirley (ed.), Original Letters, pp. 117–18. 230 Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 138–9; Murray, Enforcing, p. 261; CPRI, I, pp. 489–90. 231 Murray, Enforcing, pp. 297–8; Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 174–5. 232 ‘Arthur Grey to the queen’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/79/25; ‘Edward Waterhouse to Francis Walsingham’, 1579, TNA, SP 63/66/66; ‘Adam Loftus to Burghley’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/154/37; ‘Andrew Trollope to Burghley’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/64. Gerrard had special seats prepared at St Patrick’s for the nobility and those of the legal profession, by which means non-attendants would be easily exposed and those attending would act as models for others. See TNA, SP 63/66/66, fo. 204v. 233 See, for instance, Perrot’s support for the university scheme as outlined in his ‘Discourse’ of 1581, printed in E.C.S., The Government of Ireland; ‘William Herbert to Burghley’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/129/42; William Herbert, ‘Considerations touching the state of Munster’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/132/70. 234 Cunningham (ed.), ‘A View of Religious Affiliation’, pp. 13–24; ‘William Lyon to Lord Hunsdon’, 1596, TNA, SP 63/191/8; William Lyon, ‘A view of certain enormities and abuses meet to be considered of’, 1596, TNA, SP 63/191/8(i). 235 Brady and Murray, ‘Sir Henry Sidney’; Hutchinson, ‘Reformed Protestantism’. 236 Brady and Murray, ‘Sir Henry Sidney’, pp. 33–9. 237 ‘Sir Henry Sydney to Queen Elizabeth’, 1576, printed in Collins (ed.), Letters, I,



•  treatise writing in mid-elizabethan ireland, 1565–1578  • 173

pp. 112–14, p. 113. Also, see ‘Sir Henry Sydney to the Lords of the Councell’, 1576, in Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 102–10, esp. p. 109. 238 See Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 95. 239 Ibid., p. 77. 240 Ibid., pp. 66–8, 140. 241 Ibid., p. 170. 242 Ibid., pp. 184–5. 243 Rowland Cowyck, ‘Of certeyne Notes concerning her Mat’s proffitt in Ireland’, c.1582, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 34–41. 244 Nicholas Canny, ‘Galway: From the Reformation to the Penal Laws’, in Diarmuid Ó’Cearbhaill (ed.), Galway: Town and Gown, 1484–1984 (Dublin, 1984), pp. 10–28; Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 186–202, provides a detailed overview of the religious landscape of Ireland in the 1570s. 245 ‘Marmaduke Midleton to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/73/70. 246 Colm Lennon, ‘Primate Richard Creagh and the Beginnings of the Irish CounterReformation’, in Archiv. Hib., 51 (1997), 74–86; Thomas M. McCoog, The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England, 1541–1588: ‘Our Way of Proceeding?’ (New York, 1996). 247 Hiram Morgan, ‘Faith & Fatherland in Sixteenth-Century Ireland’, in History Ireland, 3:2 (Summer, 1995), 13–20.

174

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

4

•

Complaint, reform and conflict: Treatise writing in late Elizabethan Ireland, 1579–1594

The years around the Desmond Rebellion witnessed many significant changes in Ireland. The religious overtones of the rebellions in Munster and in the heart of the Pale between 1579 and 1583 led to a growing animosity between the generally Catholic Old English and the predominantly Protestant arrivistes.1 There was also a marked acceleration in the pace at which the state was advancing into the provinces with, for example, increasing settlement and administrative reorganisation in Connacht.2 A rapid turnover in personnel throughout Irish officialdom occurred with the arrival of a number of figures who would dominate government down to the end of the Tudor period. These included the under-treasurer and sometime lord justice, Henry Wallop, the secretary of state, Geoffrey Fenton, John and Thomas Norris, respectively president and vice-president of Munster and major military commanders in the 1590s, and Richard Bingham, president of Connacht and marshal of Ireland in the 1590s.3 Equally, where Burghley exerted a disproportionate influence over Irish affairs up to the 1570s, from his appointment as secretary of state in 1573 Walsingham began to play an equally pivotal role there.4 Finally, the plantation of the attainted lands of Desmond and his confederates in the mid-1580s saw the greatest land re-distribution yet seen under the Tudors in Ireland. Yet despite these tangible changes the rate of treatise composition did not alter to any significant degree to reflect major policy shifts. Admittedly, at the height of the Desmond Rebellion in 1580 and 1581 there was a slight increase in the number of treatises being produced, but thereafter the rate returned to that of the 1570s with, on average, a dozen treatises extant per year. These changes in personnel and religious divisions were paralleled in a shift in the tone and content of the treatises produced in the 1580s and early 1590s. Many reflected the ever-extending reach of the government into regions as wayward as north Connacht around Mayo and Sligo where a significant



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 175 Table 4  Number of extant treatises for select years, 1576–1587

Year

1576 1577

1578 1579 1580 1581

1582 1583 1584 1585

1586 1587

No. of treatises

9

15

11

16

10

15

22

18

14

18

9

10

Source: Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, II, pp. 238–78

crown presence would have been unimaginable in the days of Elizabeth’s father or siblings. But the most significant change was in the development of a literature of complaint within the treatises which starkly criticised both the broad drift of policy in Ireland and individual practices which had arisen within officialdom there. Indeed, the content of many of the treatises produced at this time conflicts sharply with the prevailing orthodox historiographical interpretation of the period which suggests that ‘reform’ failed at this time and a more fatalistic view of Ireland began to gain traction among New English officials.5 While this is true of a sizeable element of the New English, the predominant concern among treatise writers at this time was actually to overhaul the administration itself. It was argued that rampant militarisation and corruption within the army and officialdom, which had characterised Ireland since the adoption of a strategy of ‘reform’ through conquest in the late 1540s, was actually undermining crown government. Consequently, it was argued that a more conciliatory, assimilative approach to ‘reform’ should be adopted along with stringent measures to end the corruption that was rampant throughout the country. Indeed, in significant ways this literature of complaint resulted in tangible changes. However, ultimately, these developments were scuppered by the outbreak of the Nine Years War. But before turning to this, the major development within the treatises produced in the 1580s and early 1590s, we will first examine the treatises attendant upon the establishment of the Munster Plantation. The Munster Plantation

As soon as the fifteenth earl of Desmond took the decisive step into rebellion in 1579 officials, military officers and would-be colonists began contemplating the expectant land rush which would occur throughout Munster.6 This was not the first time that the southern province had been the focus of land speculation. As early as 1569 continuing uncertainty over Desmond’s future as a regional magnate had led officials such as Patrick Sherlock to propose the plantation of his lands: Item, if the said earl be condemned by his peers your Majesty may extend your clemency upon his body and enter immediately upon all his lands and the same

176

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

to bestow to your Majesty’s pleasure upon such gentlemen as shall stand bound to defend it at their own charges and to pay your Majesty for the same as it shall be surveyed.7

The late 1560s also witnessed the drawing-up of the first detailed scheme for the plantation of Munster. This was proffered by that group of perennial suitors for grants in the southern province which included Warham St Leger and Humphrey Gilbert.8 The petition they submitted in 1569 earmarked the lands of the earl of Clancar, the MacDonaghs, the O’Callaghans, the O’Sullivans, the O’Driscolls, the MacSweeneys and their followers, along with the area between Ross and the sound of Blasket for settlement. In return for this sizeable grant the petitioners offered to suppress the rebellion in the province and also gave extensive details on various services they would provide to the crown as the holders of the region.9 In form the scheme closely paralleled that which was put forward for Ulster earlier in the 1560s which William Piers was involved in, and while neither project came to fruition both were to foreshadow the various plantations affected by others in Ulster and Munster in the 1570s and 1580s.10 In 1580 the three options open to the crown for dispensing of the soon to be attainted lands of Desmond and his followers were plainly presented by Edward Waterhouse in a letter to Walsingham, querying ‘whether it shold be totally inhabited with naturall English men, or with a mixture of meere English and those of the English race born in the Pale, or whether part of the naturall inhabitannts, now rebells, might not ether upon fines or rents reservid or both be reconsilie to grac and repossess their own’.11 Needless to say, most observers favoured and indeed expected wholesale confiscations, but uncertainty remained as to who the major beneficiaries of such measures would be. Initially, the possibility of selling the confiscated lands even seems to have been countenanced, an option which was eventually settled on for the Baltinglass lands in the early 1580s. This latter development occurred despite a campaign by a number of martial figures, notably Henry Harrington and Thomas Lee, to have those lands distributed among individuals within the military executive who were most active in quelling the unrest in the Pale.12 Other proposals such as that presented to the queen by John Ussher in 1583 envisaged a state-sponsored plantation of the viscount’s lands peopled with thousands of ploughmen and artificers.13 Despite these entreaties the Baltinglass lands were quickly sold off to recuperate some of the costs of the recent conflicts. This option though was not to be favoured in Munster where the sheer quantity of land available ensured that a more considered redistribution would be executed. As Michael MacCarthy-Morrogh established in his detailed study of the Munster Plantation there was a wide range of proposals for dispensing with



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 177

the attainted lands of Desmond and his allies in the early 1580s, with various interest groups advocating a mixture of corporate, commercial, philanthropic and settlement proposals.14 One corporate scheme was put forward under the direction of a shadowy character in Irish plantation history, one Richard Spert, who acted in 1583 as the agent for a group of unknown figures. These requested a grant of 160 ploughlands of attainted Desmond land in order to establish a number of trades, including hemp, woad, madder, fisheries, textiles and ironworks.15 Their ambition was considerable with Spert holding out hope that bullion mines might be discovered there and also that: by means of our trade within one seven years we shall be able upon that part of Ireland to maintain 10 or 12 sail of ships and in time likely to increase them to a further number, so that our strength by sea will be such as will be able, the fitness and aptness of the coast considered, either for discovery or otherwise to do her Majesty great service.16

The success or otherwise of Spert and those he represented in this instance is elusive, although Spert himself resurfaced during the reign of James I when he recommended the confiscation of all waste grounds in Ulster to the crown and the development of an almost identical set of products and manufactures as those he had earlier suggested for Munster.17 His belief in Ireland as the beginnings of England’s New World, which would serve the twin purposes of a launching pad for discovery and the source of precious metals, resonates throughout his writings. More broadly, Spert’s proposal can be viewed as part of the extension to Ireland of the alternative agriculture and economic projecting which flourished in England in the second half of the sixteenth century and which have been examined in great detail by Joan Thirsk, and subsequently by Nicholas Canny for Ireland.18 The concern to cultivate alternative crops such as woad and madder was a staple of these writings in England and became a feature of many of the settlement projects proposed for Munster at this time, and indeed of economic projects wider afield in Connacht. Thus, in 1584 a warrant was granted to John Williams and Peter Demaistres to begin cultivating woad in the vicinity around Youghal in a project that was supported by Perrot and Walsingham.19 At the same time that these efforts were being undertaken Robert Fowle and John Browne were similarly seeking a warrant to begin producing commodities such as woad, madder and train-oil in Connacht.20 Projects of this kind were thus strongly connected with the wider projecting movement within the Elizabethan dominions. The development of Munster to become a centre of manufacturing and resource exploitation was also favoured in 1584 by Morgan Colman, who had previously served as Pelham’s secretary. In his ‘Notes’ he urged that the ‘inhabitants possessing the wood countries to be tied to draw under their

178

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

manurances artificers out of England, skilful to make coal, tile, brick, earthen pots and such other devices to be put in sale for the common utility of the country’.21 His memorandum on the settling of Munster is also notable as a forerunner of the scheme worked out for Connacht under Oliver Cromwell, Colman suggesting that English servitors should be given lands along the sea coast of the province, leaving the uplands in the interior to the Irish, ‘whereby that manner of settling will be in part an environing of the others planted in the upland and hem them in the better from revolting in time to come’.22 A similar optimism concerning the size of the hoped-for grants was displayed by Ralph Lane, though in this instance the lands in Munster would be used for the purposes of transplantation. Acting in conjunction with Thomas Miagh and James Moore in 1584, Lane requested the colonelship of Kerry, a position which he believed should include everything west of a line running north from Bearehaven to the Shannon.23 Lane was eager to point out the role his new office would play in the defence of Munster from foreign invasion, essentially positing a privatisation of security in the province. However, he did not rely exclusively on this feature of the proposal to sell his initiative to the government, but rather expostulated that his appointment in Kerry would benefit crown rule in Ireland by finally removing the perennially problematic O’Mores from Laois to the south-western extremity of the island. Here transplantation of the midlands septs, which had been mooted by Grey in the 1530s and John Alen during Edward’s reign, was put forward again as a beneficial way to dispense with the attainted lands in the aftermath of the rebellion, though Lane was seemingly the sole advocate of this option at the time.24 Nor was transplantation the only initiative of long standing in Tudor Ireland which individuals sought to further through the distribution of the attainted lands in Munster. John Ussher, in a letter-tract produced early in 1582, favoured exploiting the imminent territorial windfall to fund the erection of a university at Kilmainham in Dublin to further the advancement of Protestantism. This was a proposal that Ussher had been pushing for a decade and which in one form or another had been circulating in ‘reform’ circles in Dublin since the 1540s.25 Ussher was not the only figure to suggest utilisation of the attainted lands to pay for services elsewhere. Writing in 1580 during the early stages of the rebellion Nicholas Malby urged Walsingham to ‘procure a warrant that such lands as now are fallen to her Matie may be let to her Mat’s comodytie’, which, ‘will presently get her Matie great profit that I sense a great parte of her highness’ charges for this province shalbe borne therby’.26 As such the lands of the rebels in Munster were to be used to offset the cost of the provincial government of Connacht. These propositions were, however, of secondary importance throughout the period of the rebellion and it was assumed early on that much of the province would be planted along traditional lines in its aftermath. One of



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 179

the more extensive schemes was conceived by William Pelham, who served briefly as lord justice at the outset of the rebellion, and whose depiction as a strictly military governor ignores the fact of his attempts to articulate a coherent programme for the post-rebellion reconstruction of Munster.27 In both his correspondence of the time and in a detailed ‘Discourse’ he wrote in 1580 he laid out such a programme.28 Here he called for Desmond’s lands to be escheated along with those of other rebels, primarily to finance the fortifying and garrisoning of Munster, specifically at Mallow and Cassan. Fortifications were also to be established along the course of the Shannon at points such as Athlone. Elaborating further, Pelham provided details on the establishment of a civil colony, for instance by highlighting a number of regulations on trade he wished imposed. Freeholds were to be created throughout the province, while the ‘cess’ could be dispensed with once rents began accruing from the planted lands. Other provisions included restraining the power of the lords, particularly Ormond, by rescinding the earl’s palatine liberty in Tipperary and prohibiting the retention of idle men throughout the province. Significantly one extant copy of Pelham’s tract bears Valentine Browne’s name on it, suggesting that Browne consulted the document while surveying the province after the rebellion and in preparation for the plantation.29 It is interesting to speculate that this largely ignored governor may have influenced those charged with working out the plantation scheme. Pelham’s proposal concerning the erection of settlements along the Shannon was echoed by a number of senior officials in Ireland who favoured a plantation in Munster led by the Dudley-Sidney circle.30 Central here was Edward Waterhouse, with Pelham, Geoffrey Fenton, Henry Wallop and Nicholas Malby also in support, each of whom were closely connected with Walsingham and Leicester. Their scheme was outlined in a ‘Plat’ which Waterhouse devised in the summer of 1580, but which frustratingly has not survived.31 As such details of their proposal must be gleaned from supplementary correspondence. In April 1580 they began writing, primarily to Walsingham, who seems to have been responsible for the commencement of the scheme, Waterhouse noting that the secretary of state was ‘desirus to haue a substanciall plat laid how the lands of the rebells might be with safetie convertid to her Mat’s proffitt’.32 At this time their strategic thinking as articulated by Waterhouse was to have a plantation established along the Shannon, which, mirroring Pelham’s ‘Discourse’, would play a major role in the strategic military security of Ireland.33 Mention of developing a coherent ‘Plat’ or ‘Plot’ for planting this part of Munster first appears at this time. This quickly materialised. Writing to Walsingham in the summer of 1580 Waterhouse provided some vague details on using the lands of the Viscount Barry to pay for the war effort, possibly by granting them to the earl of Leicester to plant.34 Greater information was provided in a letter to the earl himself from Fenton in September 1580. Here

180

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

he recommended that Desmond’s lands in Kerry should ‘be transferred to my L. of War[wick] or els to Mr Phillipp Sydney by the title of baron of Kerrey’, arguing that ‘eyther of thies 2 I know wold be acceptable neighbors to your L.’.35 If this proposal was deemed favourable by Leicester Fenton stated he would provide greater details on how to effect it, while he would also strive to win over one or two more senior members of the Irish Council to support the initiative.36 The ‘Plat’ was evidently dispatched to England around this time, but little seems to have come of it, perhaps because the war was to drag on for three more years thereafter. In the intermittent period the army captains or ‘servitors’ as they referred to themselves in their correspondence with London also began arguing for a share of the rewards which would come once the conflict had ceased.37 Many of these petitioned individually. Raleigh, for instance, requested a grant of Barryscourt in 1581, while Daniel Kirtan and Rhys Mansell petitioned for Corbally and Adare, respectively.38 For a time, though, hopes of any plantation being effected were endangered by a widespread belief that the queen might resolve to pardon Desmond and his followers once the rebellion was quelled.39 This fear was owing to the recall of the hardline lord deputy, Arthur Grey, in 1582 as the prosecution of Desmond seemed to stall. Frustration at the failure to bring an end to the rebellion was even exhibited in Raleigh’s deposition before Burghley in 1582 in which he suggested pardoning some of the lesser rebels, an act which would have reduced the amount of land to be planted.40 But the greatest threat came from the earl of Ormond, Grey’s replacement as military commander in Munster, which many feared indicated a shift towards a more lenient position on the monarch’s part and the possibility that no plantation would be undertaken. Consequently, a campaign to denigrate Ormond was mounted by a number of those who had personally served in Munster, notably Raleigh, Humphrey Gilbert, Edward Barkley, Francis Lovell and Warham St Leger. This campaign, though leading to the earl’s temporary replacement in 1581, in the long run proved largely unsuccessful.41 Yet, despite Ormond’s attempts to temper the scale and impact of the projected plantation by encouraging native land claims, a resolution to conduct a government coordinated settlement of the attainted lands along scientific lines in the province was reached by the time of Perrot’s arrival in Ireland to take up the post of lord deputy in 1584. Consequently, the various corporate, commercial and private plantation schemes submitted over the five years since the outbreak of the rebellion were rejected in favour of a tightly controlled government project. The principal organisers of this innovative settlement were Burghley, Walsingham, Christopher Hatton, the attorney general, John Popham, and the solicitor general, Thomas Egerton, whose working out of the scheme throughout 1585 was recorded in a series of working memoranda and the



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 181

eventual Articles of Plantation. Generally, they outlined plans for the granting of seignories to individuals considered of sufficient status and wealth to oversee the required improvements to the lands received. The allotments were to vary in size from 4,000 to 12,000 acres, while a host of specifics were also provided at the planning stage on the breakdown of landowners and tenants to live thereon.42 It was envisaged that the settlers would create a plantation which would be a microcosm of society in England and a model to the rest of Ireland. Consequently, the lands of Desmond and his followers fell not to the military men who had petitioned so strongly for them throughout the course of the rebellion, but to individuals such as Christopher Hatton, John Popham, William Herbert, William Courtenay, Phane Beecher and George Bourchier.43 The plantation would continue to act as a spur to the composition of treatises in the years following its establishment. Some of these continued to focus on economic projects. The most celebrated of these is undoubtedly A Brief Description of Ireland by Robert Payne published in 1589. Payne, a native of Nottinghamshire, was a marginal figure in the economic projecting of the time and had been involved in the cultivation of woad in England before travelling to Ireland to take up a freehold on the Castlemahon seignory of Phane Beecher. This led to the composition of the Description which, among other initiatives, proposed the establishment of connywarrens for rabbit-catching as an economic activity on the plantation.44 Security also featured in treatises emanating out of Munster in the 1580s and early 1590s and a detailed ‘Plot’ by Warham St Leger for the provision of a garrison of 400 foot and 50 horse to secure the province was submitted on two occasions to the queen between 1589 and 1594.45 It was evidently rebuffed on both occasions. Other treatises on the plantation simply called for the undertakers to abide more strictly by the designated Articles of Plantation.46 Among the treatises produced by the undertakers in the plantation the writings of William Herbert, Edmund Spenser and Richard Beacon have been accorded especial attention. There is little doubting the strong case for this exceptionalism. Herbert’s Croftus Sive in Hibernia Liber finished in 1591 is the only extended and sophisticated treatment of the ‘reform’ of Ireland written in Latin during the sixteenth century.47 That it drew on the views of James Croft, whom Herbert had consulted with in 1590 and was consequently informed by the thoughts of an official who had governed Ireland forty years previously is equally significant. In arguing that education and a conciliatory line towards the Irish would serve to extend civility into the country it was easily the most sanguine of the works produced by these three writers.48 Beacon’s Solon his follie published at Oxford in 1594 took the form of a dialogue between the ancient Athenian law-giver, Solon, and the semi-mythical philosopher-poet, Epiminedes – with the sixth-century bce Athenian tyrant, Pisistratus, appearing briefly – in which discussion of the dispute between the city states of

182

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Athens and Megara over the island of Salamina was used as an allegory for meditation on the ‘reform’ of Ireland and its role in the war between England and Spain. It is primarily noted for allegedly exhibiting the first influence of Machiavelli’s republican thought in an English text. More generally Solon his follie favoured a strongly coercive approach to the government of Ireland.49 Finally, Edmund Spenser’s A View of the Present State of Ireland offered a highly sophisticated synthesis of the discourse on Ireland which had been playing out since the beginning of the century. Yet for all the attention it has garnered it is a strikingly unoriginal work offering almost nothing by way of innovative proposals.50 Brady has recently argued that these texts are exceptional in terms of the distinctiveness of the manner in which the authors attempted to essay what England’s role in Ireland ought to be.51 While this is surely correct it is also a view which is informed by historians retrospectively assessing the literary sophistication of these texts. In practical terms Spenser, Beacon and Herbert’s tracts are still simply treatises, the tangible significance for the direction of government policy of which is overstated by the focus on them. The Munster Plantation differed from previous plantations in Ireland in that it was the first such initiative which was both overseen by the crown and organised along scientific principals. While the settlements in the midlands might hold some claim to being orchestrated by the government – chaotic as their inception was – thereafter colonisation had been resoundingly directed by private individuals both in Munster and Ulster. Ultimately, the failure of those efforts, along with the cost that had been incurred by the crown in supporting supposedly ‘private’ enterprises, saw a resolution to embark on a government-directed plantation in Munster in the 1580s at the expense of the range of commercial, economic and philanthropic projects proposed during the course of the rebellion. This pattern would be largely followed for much of the seventeenth century. Creating a tabula rasa

For many years the closing decades of Elizabeth’s reign in Ireland have been depicted as ones in which a more extreme view of Ireland began to proliferate among New English officials there.52 In this interpretation efforts at conciliatory ‘reform’ were increasingly out of favour from around 1580 as the Desmond Rebellion and the revolts in the Pale convinced many New English observers that sanguine methods were not going to prove effective in Ireland.53 Eventually, this culminated in the 1590s in the development of a view espoused most infamously by Edmund Spenser that only by creating a tabula rasa or a blank slate in Ireland on which a new society could be constructed could the country ever be brought under effective English control. Yet this



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 183

was but one viewpoint on the state of Ireland that prevailed at this time. As we shall see in the next section a great many individuals began to cast scrutiny on the conduct of crown officers in Ireland and the policies being pursued there, arguing that corruption and gross militarisation were actually responsible for the problems presented by Ireland. At least from the perspective of the treatises being written in the 1580s and early 1590s this was the greatest shift to occur at this time. However, before turning to these developments it is pertinent to provide a swift overview of the more fatalistic approach and the desire for a tabula rasa as it found expression in the treatises. One example is seen in a letter dictated by Henry Sidney to a secretary while he was at Denbigh in north Wales on 17 September 1580. Sidney was almost certainly at Denbigh Castle at that time leased from Elizabeth I to Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester. The letter set out to offer advice to his near successor in the office of lord deputy of Ireland, Arthur, Lord Grey de Wilton, as the latter prepared to take up his new position in Ireland. In it Sidney discussed a number of matters. He was particularly keen to urge caution on Grey in his use of the ‘cess’ and in how he compounded with the Pale community noting that his handling of these was ‘the Thinge that chefely brak my Backe’.54 Other than this his primary interest was in advising Grey which officials he should place his faith in when he arrived in Ireland. But the most striking feature of Sidney’s letter of advice was a passage in which he dealt more broadly with the issue of ‘reforming’ Ireland, and to which there is a fatally resigned tone: My thinks it is nowe owte of Season to mak any Treatise or Discorse of a generall Reformacion, for that were like as if a Man seinge his Howse on Fire, wold sette downe and drawe a Plotte for a newe, before he wold put his helpinge Hande to quenche the owlde. Neither yet doe I knowe what Course you shalbe directed, or of your self are inclined to howld; for if your Course be either by Direction or Inclinacion to temporise, then mvste you proceede in different Maner, from that Course which you mvste howld; if you aspire to a perfecte Reformacion of that acursed Countrie.55

Thus, by 1580 Henry Sidney had concluded not only that it was ‘owte of Season’ to speak of the general ‘reform’ of Ireland, but more saliently advised Grey that if he wished to truly ‘reform’ the country there could be no more room for temporising. The former lord deputy was not the only individual concluding that severe measures were necessary in Ireland, not just to quell the rebellion in Munster, but to assimilate the country more generally. Such a view was inferred in Philip Sidney’s discussion of the utility of a general conquest in his ‘Discourse’ written just a few years earlier.56 Although he had only briefly visited Ireland in 1576 Philip’s views are nevertheless significant as he was a candidate for the vice-regal office in 1580 before Grey was appointed and was so again in

184

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

1582–83.57 This more coercive view was expressed with unrepentant clarity by Barnaby Rich in his Allarme to England published in 1578: the greatest cause of those endlesse warres that are holden in Ireland, do onely proceede of the mercie & lenitie that is vsed amongest them: and that the onely meanes to bring the people soonest to conformitie, and the countrie to quietnesse, is without compassion to punishe the offenders, and without either grace or mercie to execute the rebelles, and such as be malefactours.58

Many proponents of this view began arguing that a more extreme course was necessary to ‘reform’ the country, that essentially a tabula rasa or clean slate was needed on which a new society along the lines of England could be fashioned. This found fullest expression in a letter-tract which Lodowick Bryskett, a friend and sometime client of the Sidneys, sent to Walsingham in the spring of 1581. Alighting onto the general issue of reforming Ireland he suggested that the country could well be compared to ‘an old cloak or garment often times mended and patched up, wherein now so great a rend or gash being made by violence’ that ‘all the world doth know there is now no remedy but to make a new, for to piece the old again will be but labour lost’.59 With the exception of Rich all these individuals were intimately connected with what has been termed the Dudley-Sidney circle.60 Broadly founded on Mary Dudley’s marriage to Henry Sidney in the 1550s the circle included Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, his brother, Ambrose, earl of Warwick, and Henry and Philip Sidney.61 Individuals such as Grey were strongly associated with Leicester and Sidney. In the Irish context this circle had played a significant role. Outside of Sidney acting as lord deputy, efforts had been made to have Philip succeed him as viceroy in the late 1570s, while Grey eventually took charge of the Irish administration in 1580. More importantly, one of the proposals put forward in 1580 for dispensing with Desmond’s lands once his rebellion was ended was essentially a Dudley-Sidney led plantation of the province.62 Thus, the Dudley-Sidney circle played a prominent role in Irish politics at this time. Many of the most senior members of this clique were clearly beginning to have doubts about the possibility of any kind of reformation of Ireland succeeding unless it entailed a drastic overthrow of the existing state of Ireland. Thus, there were significant figures voicing scepticism in treatises over the possibility of any kind of conciliatory ‘reform’ proving fruitful in Ireland by the 1580s. Such views were also being aired by the decision makers of the age at court. In the absence of an all-encompassing study of Walsingham’s role in the government of Ireland a definitive perspective of the secretary of state’s attitude towards Irish policy remains elusive.63 But a brief note from his fragmentary Irish archive reveals much about Walsingham’s outlook on the ‘reform’ of the country. This is entitled ‘The heads of some speches delivered to



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 185

her Matie concerning the diseased state of Ireland by Sir Francis Walsingham’ and is a record of a conference Walsingham had with Queen Elizabeth in the closing weeks of 1580.64 Here it was put to the queen that Ireland ‘hath bene diseased of long time’ and how ‘a milde course taken with ye disobedient was by experience founde not to worke that good’.65 Conversely, as a result of this mild course ‘the infection hath crept further’.66 As a result if the disease was not treated it would lead either to the loss of Ireland or ‘a languishing sicknes’ that would be a continuous drain on the crown’s coffers. However, if Ireland were reformed it could still be of great commodity. Accordingly, Walsingham urged a severe prosecution of the ‘euill humors’ which afflicted Ireland.67 An army of 4,000 men should be sent to prosecute Desmond and his allies in Munster; the coastal towns should be garrisoned; martial law should be established for the present time; the rebels’ lands should be redistributed; the Irish customs were to be banished; pledges ought to be taken from individuals of suspect loyalty; and all castles and fortresses save those deemed of value to the crown should be reduced. In concluding the conference it was determined that the lord deputy and other officials in Ireland should be asked to write down their views on a definitive ‘plot’ for Ireland.68 This brief but highly valuable note gives a revealing insight into Walsingham’s views on Ireland by 1580. Clearly, his advocacy of more coercive measures such as the use of martial law and establishment of an army of 4,000 men could be dismissed as simply reactive to the rebellion in the south. But his initial statements to the queen leave little doubt that he believed a more conciliatory approach to Irish affairs had failed and a more coercive approach generally was now required. By 1580 many individuals had come to consider Ireland in some sense beyond ‘reform’ along traditional lines and many were expressing these views in their treatises. From this perspective a more thorough overthrow of the existing state of Ireland was needed on to which a new society could be fashioned, a ‘civil’ English society. This was not a negligible view held by a handful of fringe characters with little influence. There are strong indications the former viceroy, Henry Sidney, was of this persuasion, while a wide range of individuals associated with the Dudley-Sidney circle may also have espoused this more fatalistic mind-set. But, most critically, Francis Walsingham, who along with Burghley had virtually monopolised the management of Irish affairs from England by 1580, was seemingly also an advocate of such an approach. Consequently, the developing view, around 1580, that ‘reform’ had failed is a significant characteristic of the political discourse of the late Elizabethan period. However, it was largely eclipsed by the emergence of a literature of complaint within the treatises which sought to re-orientate crown policy away from militarisation and coercive ‘reform’ to a more sanguine approach grounded on regulation of crown officers in Ireland and extension of the common law. We now turn to consider this.

186

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

The late Elizabethan literature of complaint

The outbreak of the Desmond Rebellion has generally been identified as a turning point after which New English attitudes towards Ireland and disaffection at the possibility of ‘reforming’ the country set in. As we have seen this was certainly in evidence in many of the treatises composed in the 1580s. However, from the perspective of the treatises the orthodox historiographical view which places emphasis on this failure of ‘reform’ in the 1580s and early 1590s would seem to be inaccurate, for what primarily taxed policy debaters at this time was discussion not of how the Irish and, increasingly, the Old English were beyond reform, but how crown policy and official conduct were actually at the root of the problems being encountered in Ireland. Thus, the major development in treatise writing in the late Elizabethan period was the emergence of a literature of complaint which identified problems in crown policy in Ireland and abuses perpetrated by the officials charged with governing the country.69 There were significant antecedents to this ‘reform’ movement. Since the 1550s the Old English community of the Pale and beyond had been voicing their disquiet at the growth of the military establishment, the corruption of the army captains, the abuses perpetrated by the rank and file, and above all the purportedly crippling economic burden of supplying and financing the garrison. Complaints of this nature were also increasingly heard not just from Old Englishmen but from New English officials. Richard Overton, for example, composed two letter-tracts from Ireland in the mid-1560s outlining the many abuses in the exchequer office and in the mustering system.70 Equally, efforts had been made to respond to these complaints. The most noted was the commission dispatched under Arnold and Wrothe in the early 1560s. But other attempts at reform are evident. For instance, John Symcott, a remembrancer in the exchequer office was an active reformer in that branch of the Irish administration in the early 1570s.71 It might be argued that an information deficit was responsible for the metropolitan government’s failure to respond energetically to the abuses noted within these reports of the 1560s and 1570s. But if the queen, Burghley, Walsingham and other senior ministers in England were in any doubt concerning the gravity of the corruption and malpractice dogging the government of Ireland at this time they were surely divested of any such doubts by the reports made before them by William Gerrard in late 1577 and early 1578. Vice-president of Wales and the Marches since 1562, cousin of the English attorney general, Gilbert Gerrard, and from 1576 the lord chancellor of Ireland, William Gerrard was an official whose counsel was listened to.72 Gerrard composed numerous reports on Ireland over the course of the half decade or so that he served as lord chancellor there.73 However, it was the reports he made



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 187

before the Privy Council during his extended visit to court in late 1577 and 1578, and which he collected together as a series of ‘Notes’ in May 1578 before his return to Ireland, which would seem to have been his most striking, and perhaps influential, statement on Irish policy. These ‘Notes’ propounded a strikingly critical analysis of the manner in which Ireland was being governed. Central to this were the actions of the officers charged with implementing Tudor policy on the local level in Ireland, specifically the seneschals and sheriffs. These, he argued, were abusing the Gaelic exactions with equal if not greater abandon than the Irish lords. As such, he argued, as far as the commons went in Ireland ‘it was small difference betwene the spoyle of the enymies and their [i.e. the seneschals and sheriffs] severall oppressions, for bothe thone and thother beggered theim’.74 Compounding this was the weight of the ‘cess’ which was magnified by the corruption of the cessors. However, Gerrard’s criticism of these abuses was but secondary to his broader assessment of government policy in Ireland. The lord chancellor was clear that the policy of using military power to ‘reform’ the country, that is a coercive approach, was folly. What was needed was rigorous enforcement of the common law, and more conciliatory, assimilative ‘reform’: Soche as affirme the swoord muste goe before to subdue theise, greatly erre. For can the swoord teache theim to speake Englishe, to use Englishe apparell, to restrayne theim from Irishe exaccions and extorcions, and to shonne all the manners & orders of the Irishe. Noe it is the rodd of justice that muste scower out those blottes. For the sword once wente before, and setled their auncestors, and in theim yet resteth this instincte of Englishe nature, generally to feare justice. So as justice without the swoord may suffize to call all those to her presence. And untill this course and devise to purge those Englishe degenerates, the second sorte of Englishe rebells, of and from all Irishe staynes be taken in hande, the pollecye to wade further to gayne teritories is as it were to suffer the parties nier home to burne, and to seeke to quenche a fyer afarr of.75

Hence, rigorous implementation of the common law in those parts of the country which historically had formed part of the lordship was necessary, while assimilation of the more distant Irish regions would follow later. Significantly, Gerrard believed that the earls of Ormond and Kildare should be given a prominent role in this new approach to the governing of Ireland.76 To effect this, Gerrard argued, was relatively simple. His views were grounded on his observations of the history of the lordship since the twelfth century. The lordship, Gerrard had determined, was at its most prosperous between the reigns of Henry III and Edward III. During this time the common law was followed throughout much of the country including Connacht and north to Carrickfergus in Ulster. Moreover, the court system was maintained by the sending of well-trained judges from England.77 To settle justice as it was

188

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

in the time of Edward III it was necessary to again begin dispatching judges to Ireland from England. In this Gerrard mirrored proposals made in the 1570s by Tremayne and Sidney, but his plans were more fulsome. His advice in the immediate term was to send three judges to Ireland. The first would serve as the chief justice of queen’s bench, the second as the chief justice of common pleas, and the third would serve as the chief justice of Munster. Each of the three would have a junior associate in office, generally being the current holder of the office. Thus, John Plunkett would now serve as the junior associate to the new chief justice of queen’s bench, James Dowdall would serve as associate to the chief justice of common pleas, while finally Nicholas Walsh would serve as an associate to his replacement as chief justice of Munster. Additionally, the current attorney general, Thomas Snagg, was to be moved to Connacht to serve as chief justice there. Following the pattern the current chief justice of the province, Thomas Dillon, would be demoted and serve under Snagg. Finally, the current solicitor general, Richard Bellings, was to keep sessions twice a year for Ulster at Newry.78 The unsettled atmosphere of the northern province was acknowledged and Gerrard proposed that the solicitor would hold these in association with the marshal. Justice would be ministered on circuit with the chief justice of queen’s bench holding sessions throughout the Pale, the chief justice of common pleas serving the rest of Leinster and the two provincial justices holding sessions throughout their respective jurisdictions in Munster and Connacht. Gerrard believed firmly that these individuals should be given special power. Not only were the three newly arrived judges from England to be appointed to the Privy Council, but in administering justice he affirmed that ‘noe parfecte prescripte order [can be] sett downe’, but rather the execution of the common law ‘muste be lefte to the discreation of the Justice’. Finally, to avoid partiality the judges should be men of means; they should be assiduous in maintaining themselves without aid or gifts of hospitality. Moreover, they would serve a maximum term of three years in Ireland.79 By making these changes to the make-up of the bench the problems Gerrard identified in Ireland could, he believed, be remedied. Gerrard’s treatises would potentially have added to a growing awareness in England of the manifest problems inherent in the government of Ireland. Nevertheless, his proposals do not seem to have been acted on, at least not immediately. The 1580s and 1590s did see the appointment of English-born justices in a number of the offices Gerrard had suggested, most notably the reforming justice, Robert Gardener, who was appointed to the head of queen’s bench in 1586.80 More generally any efforts to redress some of the abuses the lord chancellor identified would have been stymied by the outbreak of simultaneous revolts in Munster and the Pale shortly after Gerrard’s time of writing. However, contrary to the expressed views of many historians of the



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 189

period, this does not mean that criticism of the internal workings of the Irish government ended in 1579. While a temporary hiatus occurred as a result of the rebellions, Desmond’s defeat in Munster ushered in a period of unprecedented complaint about the nature of crown policy in Ireland. This would pertain until the outbreak of the Nine Years War. The authors of this literature of complaint were a disparate group. It would be misleading to suggest that the sole critics of the government at this time were a clique of Old English politicians disenchanted at their own community’s dwindling influence in the governing of Ireland. Newcomers from England were equally, if not more, willing to eschew government practices in Ireland and the position of those involved within the polity ranged from individuals occupying government office to private citizens. Few were as vociferous in their complaints as the master of the rolls, Nicholas White, who had railed against official policy since the early 1570s and even throughout the Desmond Rebellion.81 Other senior officials were involved. The chief justice of queen’s bench, Robert Gardener, was to play a major role in this reform movement following his arrival in Ireland in 1586, most significantly in the all-but prohibition of martial law in the early 1590s.82 Though less prominent, the chief justice of common pleas, Robert Dillon, was also responsible for a number of reports reaching England which cast a disapproving eye over the political landscape of Ireland.83 Others staffed lower offices. Robert Legge, a serial complainer who was the bane of many within government circles, including Fitzwilliam and Loftus, served as the deputy remembrancer in the exchequer office. Roger Wilbraham, the English-born solicitor general also composed a number of critiques of the Munster Plantation. Complaints were also heard from the nobility, with the baron of Delvin, Christopher Nugent, composing a treatise calling for the implementation of significant changes in government policy at the outset of Perrot’s government.84 Others who did not occupy high office also composed missives on the perceived problems in the government of Ireland. These included military officers such as Barnaby Rich and Thomas Lee, undertakers like William Herbert, religious figures such as William Lyon, along with more obscure individuals like Andrew Trollope and Edmund Tyrrye. This was not a homogenous group of actors and the common concerns of their writings should not lead to an assumption that they formed a lobby group operating in shared interest. White, for instance, was clearly concerned for the position of the Old English community. Conversely, Dillon’s ruthlessness in furthering his own career saw him clash with numerous members of high standing in the Pale community. Trollope’s vitriolic condemnation of the Catholicism of the Old English led him to suspect White, a committed Protestant, of being a papist and to go so far as to accuse Delvin of idolatry.85 Wilbraham was a senior member of Fitzwilliam’s government of which figures such as Lee and Legge

190

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

were passionate opponents. Evidently, then, the motives of the contributors to this literature of complaint were myriad and they in no way constituted a homogenous pressure group. The gravest issue for these commentators, and the foremost theme of their writings, concerned the role of the military in the determination of Irish policy. In this light it was believed that Dublin Castle was far too reliant on the garrison to govern the country when it should be attempting to sow stability by more conciliatory policies and peaceful persuasion grounded on application of the common law. In essence this was a rebuke of the programme of coercive regional conquest undertaken since the late 1540s and the growth of the garrison attendant upon it. Foremost here were the criticisms of the master of the rolls, Nicholas White. In a letter-tract addressed to Burghley in 1581 he suggested that over-reliance on the military to govern Ireland was undermining crown government rather than strengthening Dublin Castle’s hold on the country as was intended, asserting that: ‘If her Majesty be rightly informed of the true state of this her kingdom it is high time for her to look to the amendment thereof, lest (among other grievances) the sword by which it was first gotten be wet too much.’86 Furthermore, he inferred that self-­interest was the motive which governed those charged with running Ireland, an inclination which led many to promote conflict there for private gain. In place of such policies he counselled temperance and reliance on the common law, which he believed his own community, the Old English, should be charged with implementing.87 Another remarkable statement concerning the misconduct of the rank and file came from the bishop of Ross, William Lyon, in a treatise he sent to the interim lord justices, Adam Loftus and Henry Wallop, in 1582. Here he laid out strong criticisms, alleging that the soldiers took what they wished from the commons and paid no heed to the condemnation of the mayor of Cork and others. In finishing he remarked that ‘amongst the heathen there is no such wicked soldiers’, and claimed that if steps were not taken to reform these abuses the rebels would ever be strengthened.88 There was widespread agreement with these sentiments. The baron of Delvin might not have been so overt in his criticism of the military build-up attendant upon the Desmond Rebellion but such disapproval was nevertheless inferred in his recommendation in 1584 that the standing garrison be reduced to 1,000 soldiers.89 Often such criticisms gave way to sustained condemnation of the use of martial law. As David Edwards has demonstrated martial law came into use under Sussex in the late 1550s. Thereafter the granting of such commissions had increased dramatically.90 In contrast to England where martial law was utilised only in times of severe emergency such as during the Northern Rising of 1569, by the 1580s this emergency measure was in general use in Ireland no matter the environment.91 Accordingly, martial law and the manner in which



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 191

it usurped the common law came in for widespread criticism from individuals such as Robert Legge in Ireland. Indeed, even at court, the former viceroy, James Croft sounded his opposition to martial law, among other practices such as the ‘cess’. A ‘Discourse’ he presented to the queen in 1583 was particularly critical of the use of martial law and the resort to the ‘cess’ and other impositions without proper prior consultation of the queen’s subjects, listing the ‘ministracion of Marshall lawe, withoute reasonable lymitacion, & yt in undue tymes and places, to the great lett to the course of the Comon Lawe, sesses and settinge of pryces, with other impositions withoute the assent of ye inhabitauntes’ as ‘the causes of the perishinge’ of the country.92 Although he could see the need for some limited application of martial law in war-time, ultimately he argued that it was ‘a basterd and unnaturall lawe, usurpinge thauthoritie of the Comon Lawe’.93 Elsewhere he asserted that the approach to governing Ireland through martial law had been greatly in error ‘where quiet ministeracion of Justice should have been ministred’.94 But his most expressive passage was in questioning the suitability of pursuing a military strategy for reducing Ireland without even attempting a more assimilative approach first, noting: ‘Is it to be marvelled that Ireland resteth in disorder when the cheif manner of curinge consisteth in cuttinge of the members and to winne men with force, and not by reasonable meanes, which is to correct menn which will not learne theire lessons. But to correct before teachinge is preposterous.’95 Yet, it was not just the presence of a standing army or the reliance on martial law in Ireland which aroused resentment, but also the difficulties which were attendant upon having such a force stationed around the country. These included, but were not limited to, the economic burden of the ‘cess’, and later the composition, the extortion of the senior officers, the blatant contravention of the common law by both the executive and the soldiery and a seeming willingness to act in the most incendiary of fashions within the regions. The latter aspect was alluded to by White who noted that many in Ireland sought a continuation of the wars there to ‘seek more their own setting a work’.96 The chief justice of Munster, Nicholas Walsh, posited that the burdens of the ‘cess’ and composition were the true causes of the unrest in Munster at the time of the Desmond Rebellion.97 Trollope reported in 1587 that bands in Munster were guilty of excessive requisitioning of goods under the heading of the ‘cess’. Moreover, the captains were so determined to exact as much pay for themselves as possible that one band had allegedly been made up of just nineteen soldiers.98 Robert Dillon, writing at the height of the Desmond Rebellion, reached similar conclusions. In his view the soldiery in the Pale were abusing the ‘cess’, there were far too many needless offices being created within the military executive, while the army figures, which reached 6,000 on the books, numbered fewer than 3,000 in actuality.99 These views were not the

192

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

sole preserve of officials who firmly believed in a more conciliatory assimilative approach in Ireland. Even army captains such as William Russell and Warham St Leger, who elsewhere argued for a coercive strategy in Ireland, were open about the manifest problems in the mustering.100 Corruption extended beyond the military establishment. The judiciary and other officials also came in for sharp censure. Evidently, this was not the standard level of corruption which was endemic in all of Europe’s pre-­ modern societies, and which was to some extent tolerated, but corruption on an abnormal scale, which it was felt could not be tolerated.101 It certainly seems safe to conclude that the individual whom Robert Rosyer, the attorney general of Munster, claimed in 1586 had been found guilty of treason nine times and had received pardons on each occasion as a result of repeated acts of bribery would not have escaped punishment had his crimes been committed in England.102 Rowland Cowyck in the ‘Notes’ he presented at court in 1582 identified lower-ranking officers such as sheriffs and seneschals as either delaying the certification of fines or forfeitures paid into the local courts or attempting to conceal the payment altogether.103 Such general condemnations of the widespread corruption being practised in Ireland could often give way to sustained criticism of specific individuals. To the fore here was William Fitzwilliam. Judging from the charges made against him by figures by such as Thomas Lee Fitzwilliam was a highly skilled racketeer.104 Fitzwilliam’s greatest indictment came in 1593 when Robert Legge composed a ‘Breviat’ of ‘Causes’ against Fitzwilliam. This extraordinary document running to fifty-five single-sided folios is the most extensive condemnation of any governor of Ireland and his administration composed during the sixteenth century.105 Here Legge detailed the myriad corruption engaged in by Fitzwilliam and his closest associates in government. Legge concluded that Fitzwilliam was responsible for the embezzlement of thousands of pounds of the queen’s revenue, detailing the nuance of each method of theft and concealment. In its totality Legge’s ‘Breviat’ depicts an administration that was not a government but a highly proficient racket. Adam Loftus often came in for a hard time. Early in 1590 Legge reported that on examining the books in Dublin he had discovered that the lord chancellor owed large sums of money to the crown and was also guilty of accepting fines for pardons which he failed to certify. When Legge questioned Loftus on this the lord chancellor lamented that Legge had not drowned on his way to Ireland.106 Barnaby Rich laid a series of accusations against Loftus, ranging from negligence in promoting the religious reformation to corrupt activity throughout the early 1590s. Rich’s complaints against the archbishop eventually culminated in him fleeing Ireland having twice been attacked on the streets of Dublin by Loftus’s men in the space of two days in June 1592.107 Much of the criticism of the archbishop centred on his attempts to construct his own



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 193

faction in the Pale in order to further his numerous offspring. His nepotism apparently proved to the detriment of crown government on numerous occasions. William Udall suggested that Loftus’s appointment of his sons as army captains was detrimental to the state as they deliberately hired Irish soldiers to fill out their bands who subsequently joined the rebels.108 In response to accusations by Rich, Legge and others such as Robert Pipho, Loftus submitted a defence of his conduct to Burghley in 1592.109 The archbishop’s rejoinders to the accusations of corruption, nepotism and general misconduct were predictable enough, lurching from outright denial of wrongdoing to careful attempts to exhibit his ignorance to his own unwitting participation in the misconduct of others. Thus, where he was adjudged to have received deliveries of malt as bribes from the bishop of Leighlin he laid the blame on a steward of his who had failed to notify him of the arrival of this cargo. Elsewhere, he argued that his bestowing of prebendaries upon a large number of his family members and kinsmen, far from being a demonstration of his partiality, was a result of the fine characters of those involved. Henry Wallop, though absent from office in England for much of Fitzwilliam’s tenure, was the subject of one extended book of complaint. This was prepared by the auditor, Christopher Peyton, in 1589 and outlined in detail how the under-treasurer was guilty of doctoring the account books in Ireland.110 More conspicuously the deputy escheator, Richard Boyle, increasingly had charges of forgery and perjury lain against him in the 1590s by figures such as Udall.111 Despite being arrested seven times Boyle managed to have himself cleared of the corruption he was manifestly guilty of on each occasion. Others such as the governor of Connacht, Richard Bingham, also came in for severe criticism from critics such as Robert Fowle, while the holding of high office did not shield Grey from the reproach of figures such as Trollope.112 Thus, charges of corruption were often made against very specific targets. As the 1580s progressed the practice of granting pardons to known offenders became a subject of sharp censure. Pardons were regularly issued in Ireland and offered numerous benefits. From a military perspective they led to an immediate, if temporary, cessation of hostilities. They also produced a financial dividend as absolution was dependant on a cash payment to the government. What was principally at issue was the excessive granting of pardons, especially where those pardons were being given so that the negotiating officials involved could profit personally. Fitzwilliam, as demonstrated in Lee and Legge’s reports, was a particularly bad offender.113 While their own dealings with the governor might have inclined them to exaggerate the extent to which this practice was severely undermining the state during Fitzwilliam’s time in office no such bias would appear to have coloured Thomas Lovell’s judgement. In a tract around 1592 he suggested that this practice was the

194

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

root cause of all Ireland’s problems. Following a description of how hosts of rebels would go out against the state committing murders and robberies before being granted pardons to cease their activity Lovell suggested that these pardons simply acted as a means for respite before engaging in further misbehaviour. Accordingly, ‘by the means of protecting of rebels giveth them assistance, as well to make provision for their victuals as for liberty, continueth long wars and doth much embolden them to rebel, because they know that after protecting they get pardons, or pardons are gotten for them by such as first put them out’.114 To compound these difficulties the crown soldiers were subsequently left with little to do and were billeted on the country people, whose animosity they aroused. Another often maligned convention was the sale of offices. Edmund Tyrrye sent an extensive memorandum on venality to Burghley in 1585 wherein he complained that a pyramid scheme had been created in Munster with the county sheriffs creating posts which they could sell on down the chain of officers. He went on to note that there were now men filling positions in Cork with ‘nothing else to do but eating and drinking upon the poor husbandman, who sometimes is forced to fast all day and night with his poor wife and children’.115 Like so many of his fellow reformers, however, Tyrrye’s motives are hard to decipher. He appended to the end of his memorandum a request to be appointed as an overseer of offices in Cork and Limerick, thus suggesting that an additional position be created there, the very practice he had taken up his pen to condemn. As such, Tyrrye’s treatise was largely written in order to acquire a fiscally remunerative office himself, having found his mercantile interests compromised by the economic destruction wrought by the Desmond Rebellion.116 A further issue of contention were concordatums. The concordatum fund had been established in Ireland during the mid-Tudor period.117 Seemingly an institution peculiar to Ireland it involved a special fund for extraordinary expenses – distinctive of the funds for the normal establishment – which could be disposed of to individuals if the chief governor and council were in concord that the purpose to which the money was being put warranted drawing from this special fund.118 In a country where pay was constantly in arrears, where the crown was always short of money and in which emergency funding could be needed in times of rebellion, such an auxiliary fund undoubtedly made good sense. Yet the purposes to which concordatums or issues of payment from the concordatum fund were increasingly being put in the 1580s and 1590s clearly did not correspond to the initial motives for establishing the fund. In 1593 Robert Legge suggested that Fitzwilliam and his allies on the council were using the concordatums as their own private ‘slush-fund’: His Lo. for his tyme haue geven awaye her Mat’s treasure and casualtyes moste wonderfullye and made suche allowanncs to the Lo. channcellor and the bishoppe



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 195 of Meathe and others as haue not bene hard of. If they ride with hym, then they haue allowannc per diem out of her Mat’s coffers, some haue 40s. per diem, some 30s., some more, some lesse. And if the Lo. channcellor staye at home yet hathe he allowannc of 20s. per diem, vpon suggestion of greate charges of houskeepinge when the deputie is from home and yet spendethe no more then at any other tyme, but this is her Mat’s treasure devided amongeste them.119

The newly established plantation in Munster also came in for criticism. In particular, numerous undertakers were accused of breaching the Articles of Plantation. Foremost here were writings by Roger Wilbraham who composed a number of letter-tracts questioning the conduct of the undertakers and the management of the Plantation more generally. Throughout these he repeatedly asserted that certain undertakers were not populating their estates with English settlers but rather, in contravention of the Articles of Plantation, preferred Irish tenants who would pay higher rents.120 Many of Wilbraham’s concerns were mirrored in further reports on the plantation and Munster by writers such as William Lyon and William Herbert in the 1580s and 1590s.121 These were the most critical subjects about which complaints were received in England and in Dublin. A number of other issues surfaced regularly. Unease over the appointment of poorly qualified sheriffs and the purchasing of those offices was regularly expressed.122 Others were concerned about the granting of custodiams of escheated and concealed lands and urged that these should be surveyed and recorded in the exchequer office before any such grants were made to avoid embezzlement.123 Of the victualling system figures such as Swethin Johnson were critical arguing that inefficiencies in the supply system were disrupting wartime efforts in Munster.124 Finally, in terms of religious reform, a number of commentators regularly complained about the failure to implement existing laws which they believed would aid in furthering the reformed faith.125 A correlative development to the emergence of this literature of complaint was the proliferation of memoirs and journals by the viceroys and other prominent officials.126 This was not an entirely novel occurrence. From the 1530s governors such as Leonard Grey had composed journals, or had them composed on their behalf, recounting their military exploits in Ireland.127 Sussex, in particular, had copious accounts of his military campaigns composed throughout his time as lord lieutenant.128 But these early accounts were generally written to laud an individual’s achievements. In the 1580s and 1590s though these end of service reports morphed to become essentially vindications or defences of an individual’s record in office, rather than acclamation. As such this new brand of end of service report, far from being attempts at self-glorification, were designed to rescue the reputation of the author from ignominy and suspicions of corruption at Whitehall. Central here are successive lord deputies, Henry Sidney, Arthur Grey, John

196

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Perrot and William Fitzwilliam. Sidney’s ‘Memoir’ was designed to vindicate his service in Ireland and promote his reappointment.129 Grey’s ‘Declaracion’ of service, which he compiled in 1583, was engineered to allay doubts about his wartime record in Ireland by, for instance, glossing over defeats such as that suffered at Glenmalure and extolling the death-toll among the rebels in Munster.130 Upon leaving office in 1588 Perrot also composed a ‘Declaration’ of his service.131 Despite this, the death of Walsingham, Perrot’s patron, in 1590 saw the onset of a determined campaign by Burghley to have Perrot charged with treason, which ultimately ended in his conviction and eventual death in the Tower while awaiting execution.132 Finally, although he did not provide such an account upon leaving office, William Fitzwilliam had an ‘Apology’ composed in 1599 as Burghley’s death the previous year robbed him of the protection he enjoyed against charges of having been largely responsible for the outbreak of the Nine Years War.133 Lower-ranking officials also prepared such memos. As seen, Loftus did so in 1592 in response to accusations of corruption. In Connacht both Nicholas Malby and his successor as governor of the province, Richard Bingham, prepared discourses on their handling of unrest in the province in 1581 and 1586 respectively. Bingham’s efforts were largely successful, unlike Malby who was rebuked by the queen while at court in 1582 and suffered a diminution in his pay and authority.134 Evidently, these were tangible responses by leading officials to the increasing levels of complaint at their actions in the 1580s and 1590s. This late Elizabethan literature of complaint did not simply express grievances about official misconduct and the manner in which Ireland was being governed. Clear proposals were offered on how to reform the abuses that were being identified. Legge, for instance, in 1590 recommended that martial law ‘cease, except in time of rebellion and in place of rebellion, and then and ther not to be grannted, except to chief officers as governors of provincs’.135 Rowland Cowyck proposed solutions to a number of issues in his ‘Notes’ presented at court in 1582. To monitor the issuance of concordatums he suggested that these should be certified quarterly, while the good conduct of sheriffs should be promoted by demanding sureties of them for their good behaviour on entering office and refraining from automatically granting them pardons upon conclusion of their terms.136 Valentine Browne put forward detailed proposals for reform of the musters in 1580, for instance by forbidding captains from discharging men from their retinues except before the muster master on muster day.137 Among other proposals for the regulation of pardons Alexander Cosby in his ‘Articles’ written in 1593 stated that ‘any that shall murder, burn or waste any her Majesty’s lawful subjects’ were not to be granted a pardon ‘but to be pursued evermore to the death, both he and his relievers’.138 This is but a brief selection of the myriad proposals made to aright the many problems outlined in this late Elizabethan literature of complaint.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 197

Many of these proposals became the basis for concerted reform of Ireland as the 1580s and early 1590s saw efforts to redress the issues identified in this literature of complaint. Central here was Robert Gardener who arrived in 1586 as a reforming justice. Gardener’s arrival was closely associated with the work being undertaken by Robert Legge to reform the exchequer. In a letter to Burghley in September 1587 Legge noted that he had previously sent copies of a collection concerning abuses within the exchequer office to Walter Mildmay and Walsingham, ‘whereupon justice Gardener was sent over’.139 Thus Gardener was dispatched to Ireland initially to oversee some reform of the financial branch of the government but would become the central character in reforming the wider abuses in the Irish establishment. Elsewhere there were determined attempts to root out fraud in the mustering of troops. Proposals for reforming the system had been made throughout the mid-1580s by figures such as the deputy clerk of the check, Thomas Davies, and indeed as early as 1582 a memorandum had been drawn up on the issue by Burghley.140 This culminated in September 1587 with the issuance of a series of ‘Orders’ for the taking of musters and recording of troops numbers with the muster master and clerk of the check.141 Here extensive directions were not just laid down for the certification of any soldiers departing from a band by the captain, but also for recording weapons and furniture so that the crown could avoid being defrauded of monies for apparel. But clearly the most substantial reform at this time was the severe restrictions placed on the use of martial law. By the late 1580s appeals by prominent figures such as Croft to curb reliance on martial law, combined with the reports of a number of local controversies brought about by its misuse, had impressed upon the queen the necessity of curtailing recourse to it. By the early 1590s a prohibition of some sort was favoured,with Robert Gardener chosen to oversee it.142 While in England late in 1590 he composed a brief memorandum recommending that ‘all commissions for martial law formerly granted by any governors may be called in’.143 Gardener also drew up a draft proclamation by which it was assumed the queen would: by this or proclamacion command all persons of what sort so ever to whom any aucthoryty of execucion of marshall lawe eyther is or shalbe grannted or comytted within any or provinces if Lenister, Mynster or Connaughte forwith vppon publication herof to forbeare any execution of ther said comission vntill our further pleasuer be singnifyed therin.144

Ulster was to be omitted from the ban as a result of its unsettled state, though even here it was ‘very sparinglye to be vsed’ as attested to by a policy document in relation to the northern province drawn up jointly by Gardener and Wallop in 1590.145 Some months later in 1591 martial law was effectively prohibited by Elizabeth except in times of rebellion.146 Although it would be reintroduced

198

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

during the course of the Nine Years War, this prohibition, albeit brief, attested to the strength of the reform movement of the 1580s and early 1590s. It is possible to envisage that greater reform could have been achieved and, indeed, it was attempted. In May 1592 an extensive series of ‘Articles’ for reform were dispatched from the queen and Privy Council to Fitzwilliam and his council.147 Many of these articles had been outlined in a brief memorandum drawn up by Gardener in 1590.148 Fitzwilliam and his council were to consider the ‘Articles’ and send responses to the queen as a preliminary towards implementing the reforms outlined. Of five broad headings two, religious reform and the placing of wards in castles, were only briefly traversed.149 The ‘Articles’ were overwhelmingly concerned with the other three issues, namely ‘matters of justice’, the Irish finances and the Munster Plantation. Concerning the plantation numerous matters involved in the original surveys on which the settlement had been based and the establishment of rents were the overwhelming focus.150 The discussion of the Irish finances centred on the proper regulation of the exchequer offices and need for certification of monies coming in and out to root out the sort of corruption which had been reported as so widespread throughout the previous ten years. The under-manning of army bands also arose here. The ‘Articles’ called for reform of the musters, specifically by calling for proper certification to the lord deputy by the captains when any soldier died or was replaced.151 But the most critical section of the ‘Articles’ were those found under the heading of ‘matters of justice’. Enforcement of the recent prohibition of martial law was paramount here and that the common law should be favoured throughout the country except in extreme circumstances. Accordingly, in any lands that had been shired – which by 1592 included virtually the entire country – the common law was to be exercised by sheriffs and justices of the peace, rather than seneschals or captains implementing military rule through martial law. These sheriffs were to be selected according to the same standards as pertained in England, serving one year, at the end of which they were no longer to receive an automatic pardon but only if they were deemed to have conducted themselves appropriately in office. Addressing the more general issue of granting pardons the practice was to be severely curtailed and where such amnesties were to be granted fines were to be taken and reserved for the exchequer. Thus what was discussed under ‘matters of justice’ essentially amounted to the abandonment of military governance and martial law through seneschals or sheriffs acting as military captains.152 Intrinsically, this was a call to reform much of the system which had come into existence in the late 1540s and which had expanded in the ensuing forty-five years. The fact that this system of English officers governing Ireland in a militarised and oppressive fashion resembled in great detail the alleged anarchy of Ireland as depicted in treatises



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 199

stretching back to 1515 was unambiguously expressed in one of the addenda to the ‘Articles’: it is openly reported that the sheriffs are accustomed to devour the people in every barony or cantred with kern and horsemen or else to compound with the lords and so leave the lords to their wonted parliaments exacting from the freeholder and poor men what they please, whereby justice is sold and the country tyrannised as of old.153

This was a striking condemnation of English rule in Tudor Ireland issued directly by Elizabeth I’s government in England. Indeed, so much of the ‘Articles’ were reflective of the content of the treatises submitted to the government over the previous decade or so that it is hard in this instance to not acknowledge the role of the treatises in influencing the drift of crown policy. But, ultimately, the responses of the metropolitan government to the literature of complaint which had been received throughout the 1580s and early 1590s were still-born. In 1594 the most destructive conflict to occur in Ireland under the Tudors erupted. It emerged from Ulster. The Ulster question, c .1576–1594

It is fitting to conclude by examining the problem of Ulster and how it was engaged with in the treatises in the twenty or so years prior to the Nine Years War. Ulster was the most enduring problem that the Tudors faced in Ireland and ultimately the province would not be brought into the ambit of the British state until the advent of the Stuarts.154 From the vantage point of the mid1570s, though, such an eventuality must have seemed distant, for despite three decades of attempted interventions in the north, whether through ‘surrender and regrant’ or colonisation, Ulster remained largely outside crown control.155 Most gallingly the latest effort to conquer the province, Essex’s ‘Enterprise’, had resulted in enormous sums of money being squandered, possibly as much as £100,000. In the lacuna which arose in the aftermath of the ‘Enterprise’ a number of innovative proposals emerged for tackling the problems posed by Ulster. Among the most novel was John Chaloner’s suggestion in the ‘Notes’ he composed around 1578 that by regulating the timber trade around Wexford and Wicklow the Scots would be robbed of the resources to produce the ships needed to travel to Ireland.156 More tried and tested measures were being followed in attempting to negotiate a ‘surrender and regrant’ agreement with Turlough Luineach in the late 1570s.157 Yet schemes for ameliorating the problems posed by Ulster were pursued most energetically by William Piers. These repeatedly favoured finding common cause with the Irish of the province against the Scots. Even at the height of Essex’s ‘Enterprise’ in 1574 Piers

200

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

recommended a reorientation of crown relations with the O’Neills to dissuade Turlough Luineach from drawing on the aid of his wife’s brethren.158 This effort to sunder the links between the Irish and Scots of Ulster was central to Piers’s proposals in the years that followed. Accordingly, in 1578 a company of Irishmen led by Hugh MacPhelim O’Neill of Clandeboye requested to have 300 crown forces under their command in order to establish settlements in the north-east. They would, however, be at the direction of Piers and the submission of a very similar set of proposals in tandem by him indicates that they were working in accord. This is very unusual as what they were effectively requesting was a resumption of Thomas Smith’s grant only with the Irish of Clandeboye in conjunction with Piers overseeing the plantation, which it was argued would finally serve to expel the Scots from the north-east. What is most unusual is that there are several surviving copies of the series of ‘Offers’ made by MacPhelim and his company among, for instance, Burghley and Walsingham’s papers, which might indicate that some consideration was actually given to the proposal.159 In any event it was not proceeded with though the Privy Council did order Drury to release a contingent of 100 foot and 50 horse for Piers’s use in April 1579.160 By 1581 Piers had returned to the idea of accommodating Turlough Luineach so that he would cease bringing Scots mercenaries into Ulster and if possible expel them from Ulster in alliance with the baron of Dungannon.161 Treatise writers in the decade or so leading up to the outbreak of the Nine Years War were aware that three fundamental issues confronted the crown in Ulster: the Scots, the lordship of Tír Eoghain and the normalisation of English government in the other lordships of the province. The Scots problem was of long-standing. Little had changed in relation to it by the 1580s except that the failure of the colonial schemes of the early 1570s ensured that planting the north-east coastline was no longer seen as a viable solution. The issue of the O’Neill lordship became much more difficult as the 1580s progressed and it became evident that the baron of Dungannon, the future earl of Tyrone, Hugh O’Neill, was not the cure-all for the province that it had been imagined he would be. Where previously it had been hoped that his superseding Turlough Luineach would lead to the normalisation of government activity in the north, from 1579, when Hugh first attempted to claim the title of O’Neill, but it increasingly became evident that this would not happen. Finally, in 1587 the crown abandoned any tacit support for Hugh.162 Yet this interrelationship between the crown, Tyrone and Turlough was but one aspect of the problem posed by the lordship of the O’Neills and it was also a firmly held view that no matter who presided in Tyrone the power of the lordship should be reduced by, among other measures, separating the uirríthe from the O’Neills. The third major issue arising within the treatises at this time was a new development. Previously, commentators had urged a conquest of Ulster.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 201

However, the costly failure of attempts to do so in the 1560s and 1570s now led to calls to incorporate the province through the extension of the administrative and judicial arms of English government, notably by shiring the province, and introducing gaol houses, sheriffs and sessions of assize. Ironically, this ostensibly more assimilative approach proved the most incendiary in the years prior to the Nine Years War. Thus, debates on Ulster policy in the 1580s and 1590s centred on what was to be done with the O’Neill lordship, what balance of power should prevail between Hugh, Turlough and the Bagenals at Newry and how government activity should be normalised by shiring the province and introducing the composition and other initiatives which were proceeding at speed in Connacht. Though the treatises he prepared as part of his campaign to gain the office of lord deputy are remarkably bereft of any consideration of Ulster, shortly after his entering office in 1584 Perrot developed a coherent approach to these issues. First, he sought to negotiate a composition which would provide for 1,100 men. Conversely, though, he inveighed against appointing a provincial president in favour of a tripartite division of power in central Ulster among three lieutenants, Hugh O’Neill, Turlough Luineach and Henry Bagenal.163 In this Perrot was following the strategy advocated by Sussex more than twenty years earlier when he had urged the division of the lordship of Tír Eoghain among three rival O’Neills.164 In time for Perrot this evolved into a general policy of attempting to reduce the power of the Gaelic lords by undermining succession by tanistry through division of the lordships among rival contenders.165 A further stipulation of his policy proposals in 1584 was that a series of seven towns, seven castles and seven bridges should be constructed throughout Ireland, though the overwhelming majority of these were to be located in the north.166 But these plans remained largely unrealised. The problem of introducing the organs of English government into the province and reducing wayward elements there were addressed succinctly in ‘A Treatise of Irlande’ the most detailed version of which was composed in 1586. This text, which Edward Waterhouse appears to have been working on from the mid-1570s, acted as a template for the writings of many other commentators and, as such, the treatment of Ulster offered by Waterhouse is of particular significance.167 The four major impediments to the ‘reform’ of Ulster identified by Waterhouse were the lack of towns and forts, the power of the O’Neills, the incursions of the Scots and, lastly, ‘the want of due exercisinge of religion and iustice’.168 Waterhouse offered four distinct approaches to solving these four issues. To remedy the want of towns and fortresses the revenue generated by Ulster was to be reinvested in erecting forts. To reduce the lordship of Tír Eoghain the uirríthe would have to be separated from the power of the O’Neills. Additionally, Waterhouse proposed that Hugh and Turlough Luineach’s jurisdiction be limited to north of the Blackwater with

202

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the crown controlling all lands south of the river. To combat the MacDonnells it was proposed that a pension be offered to their traditional rivals in the Western Isles, the MacLeans. This stipend, Waterhouse stated, would amount to far less than the intolerable sums which had been expended on alternative measures to curb the encroachments of the MacDonnells. Finally, to normalise English government in Ulster it was proposed that the province should be shired, sheriffs should be appointed to each county, sessions of assize conducted therein and a provincial council established to oversee the governance of the region.169 A year later Waterhouse offered further proposals on how to manage the balance of power in Ulster in a ‘Demonstration’. Here he argued that Tyrone should be given a position of predominance within Tír Eoghain which would become more complete upon Turlough Luineach’s death. The Bagenals, with Nicholas installed as chief commissioner for Ulster, were to essentially be granted oversight of all eastern Ulster encompassing Antrim, Down, much of Armagh and north Louth. His novel proposal, though, was for the second earl of Essex to be established in the barony of Farney, which his father had received as compensation for the abandonment of his ‘Enterprise’ in 1575. From this seat the second earl would exercise jurisdiction over Monaghan, Cavan, Fermanagh and Tyrconnell: To appoint a continual garrison, parcel of her Majesty’s ordinary bands in Ireland, and the same garrison to be at Dunanny in Farney, and to consist of 100 horsemen and 200 footmen, whereof the Earl of Essex to be general and to have the government of: The O’Reillys, The MacMahons, The Clankies and the ‘Poles’ of Meath, Maguire and O’Donnell.170

Waterhouse’s ‘Demonstration’ was astute in that it recognised that much of the unrest in Ulster was owing to an insecure balance of power there, both within the O’Neill lordship and, perhaps more importantly, between Hugh and the Bagenals, noting that the ‘The discontentment that hath grown between the earl of Tyrone and Sir Nicholas Bagenal hath been chiefly for the superiority over Magennis and O’Hanlon’.171 As such, it was supposed that by introducing a further element into the province, Essex, this volatility could be stabilised. Given Waterhouse’s promotion of the Bagenal interest it is little surprise to find a strong correlation between their views as seen in two papers prepared by Henry Bagenal in 1586. The most celebrated of these was the ‘Description of Ulster’ which Bagenal presented while at court in 1586. This was simply the sections on the geography and ‘reform’ of Ulster from Waterhouse’s ‘Treatise’ recreated almost word for word.172 More significant then is Bagenal’s own work, his ‘Information’ composed in June 1586.173 Here he called for a diminution of the power of the O’Neills by dividing power in Tír Eoghain north of the



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 203

Blackwater between Hugh O’Neill and Turlough Luineach. Like Waterhouse he insisted that O’Neill power should terminate at the river and the uirríthe south of there should be entirely sundered from O’Neill overlordship. The province should also be shired, sessions of assize introduced and shire-halls and gaols constructed in appropriate shire towns. Unsurprisingly, he also called for the appointment of a provincial governor, though stopped short of proposing himself or his father for the position. Interestingly, he diverged from the solution to the Scots problem proffered by Waterhouse and which he himself had inserted into his ‘Description’. Instead of offering a pension to the MacLeans he proposed that a grant of denization be made to those MacDonnells settled in Antrim. Finally, he argued that the bands of soldiers billeted in Ulster should be removed from dependence on the country as the burden was creating severe resentment throughout the province. A composition in the form of cattle should be taken instead. Bagenal’s views closely reflected those put forward by Waterhouse, and the pair had clearly consulted. Their proposals were largely standard solutions at this time and were echoed by a number of Bagenal’s contemporaries. Henry Wallop, in a general report on the state of Ireland which he sent to Burghley in 1586, recommended the construction of roads and fortifications in the north to facilitate the spread of effective governance there.174 George Carew, in a brief memorandum drawn up specifically on Ulster in 1589, was even more unequivocal when he suggested that O’Donnell, O’Cahan, Maguire and MacMahon were all to allow sheriffs, build gaols and allow garrisons in their lordships. He furthermore recommended that the MacShane be promoted to counterbalance the increasing influence of Tyrone.175 In a similar vein William Weston, writing in 1593, favoured creating freeholds in Antrim and Down as a means to sow some stability in two counties which he saw as mired in disorder as a result of the power of the chief men there.176 Indeed, the proposals to erect gaols and shire-houses had been put forward for Newry by Nicholas Bagenal throughout the 1570s.177 Equally, the idea of dividing power within the Ulster lordships featured prominently elsewhere. Nicholas Dawtrey, for example, advocated dividing Clandeboye between a number of the principal O’Neills and MacCartans there, sentiments which were mirrored by Christopher Carleill.178 Robert Gardener, in a memorandum composed on the O’Farrell lordship in 1590, dealt with the suppression of the chieftainship, the introduction of composition and the establishment of rents and freeholders.179 Finally, Miler McGrath was strongly in favour of undermining the power of O’Neill by separating his uirríthe from him.180 While these proposals were being made in the 1580s and early 1590s concerted efforts were underway to implement some of these proposals. Bagenal’s idea of countenancing the Scots presence in the north-east was effectively implemented in 1586 when Sorley Boy MacDonald, the head of the Antrim MacDonalds, and

204

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Angus MacDonald, the head of the Dunyveg branch, were officially granted much of the Glen and the Route to hold in fee farm.181 Progress, albeit more gradual, was also made in introducing administrative reforms into the lordships of south Ulster. In the late 1570s these efforts focused on the lordship of the O’Reillys of East Breifne, the reorganisation of which would serve as a model for encroachments into Ulster in the years that followed.182 This lordship was shired as county Cavan in 1579. In 1584, following the death the previous year of the O’Reilly, Aodh Conallach, an agreement was reached whereby two of his sons Seán and Pilib Dubh along with their uncle Eamón would share power in the county, an arrangement which it was hoped would bring the use of the O’Reilly title to an end.183 Attendant upon this was the holding of sessions of assize and other standard common law procedures, and establishment of rents payable to the crown, overseen by a newly appointed sheriff. This pattern of ‘reform’ continued into the 1590s, though by this time the lordship of Tír Eoghain and in particular Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone, was a growing problem. Since the mid-1570s it had been hoped that Hugh would act as a crown loyalist in Tyrone, eventually superseding Turlough Luineach and acting as a conduit for the introduction of English government into the lordship of the O’Neills.184 By 1590 when he travelled to court it was clear that this was not going to be the case. This visit became the occasion for an extensive debate on the direction that policy towards the northern province should take.185 This involved some of the most senior Irish officials, Henry Wallop, Robert Gardener and Geoffrey Fenton, while Perrot’s advice was also sought. Treatises, though of a slightly different nature in that they were solicited working memoranda by senior officials called to court to give their advice, were composed by these figures. Wallop and Gardener writing together on 10 May favoured a somewhat old-fashioned approach to the reformation of Ulster, suggesting that a governor be appointed who would reside at Armagh, which was to be re-edified. This was a revival of Sussex’s scheme, but was accompanied by a proposal to have the province shired throughout and staffed with sheriffs. Turlough and Hugh were to be joined in commission with the governor, who would most likely be Henry Bagenal. Thus, Wallop and Gardener’s joint memorandum was little more than a summation of three decades of tried methods at reforming Ulster.186 Perrot and Fenton drew up separate memoranda though the substance of their recommendations was virtually identical, both, for example, placing much emphasis on the necessity of separating Hugh from his uirríthe, particularly O’Cahan.187 Both men also agreed that pledges should be obtained, that the earl should consent to Ulster being shired and also agree not to retain Scots mercenaries. Fenton also prioritised the introduction of a composition in the north so that Ulster could be drawn to contribute as much to the queen’s coffers as Connacht had been.188 The result of these deliberations is difficult to determine. However, in at



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 205

least one instance, that of Perrot, there is a subsequent extant tract wherein he comments upon O’Neill’s responses to his initial treatise which had been divided into nineteen articles. Of most import here is Perrot’s assertion that of the nineteen points he had raised in his original memorandum O’Neill had failed to respond or only responded in part to eight. These concerned his uirríthe, his taking of black rents, his right to execute offenders without a warrant of martial law, his keeping of galloglass and kern and his reception of friars, nuns and priests within his lands.189 Apprehension had also been expressed by Fenton in relation to the probability of Tyrone seeking the title of O’Neill when Turlough Luineach’s imminent death vacated the position. Equally, Gardener and Wallop’s lack of faith in the willingness of Tyrone to accept their proposals was made evident through their reticence to discuss the issue, querying ‘howe likelye the erle of Tyrone … will agre to the likinge or choyce of any shrive or other offices or in provydinge for ther safetye and maintenance we leve to your honor’s consideracion’.190 Thus, even the most senior government officials, involved in what must have been one of the most extensive debates on the means which might be used to ‘reform’ the O’Neill lordship by utilising the once allegedly pliant earl seem to have been pessimistic about the possibility of success. Despite these deliberations Tyrone was not the immediate issue which led to the slide into war between the lords of Ulster and the crown, but the increasingly interventionist line taken by Fitzwilliam’s government in south Ulster. Following the death of Sir Ross MacMahon in 1589 the government attempted to undermine the position of his successor to the MacMahon lordship in Monaghan, Hugh Roe. These events eventually resulted in Hugh Roe’s execution in 1590.191 This may have been owing to his unwillingness to facilitate the naked corruption of Fitzwilliam by providing the lord deputy with several hundred cattle. Shortly thereafter, in 1591, an arrangement not dissimilar from that of introducing the organs of English county government into the lordships (albeit in a much more hostile and heavy-handed fashion) was orchestrated by the solicitor general, Roger Wilbraham. Under the terms of this arrangement the MacMahonship was suppressed, the lordship was divided between various competing parties among the MacMahons, freeholds were created and a sheriff appointed.192 Subsequent attempts to introduce similar arrangements into the Maguire and O’Donnell lordships in Fermanagh and Tyrconnell in the years that followed resulted in major unrest, particularly in the choice of sheriffs, whose behaviour it seems was highly incendiary in upsetting local interests.193 These events, combined with various efforts to undermine Tyrone’s position in the O’Neill lordship, ultimately led to the Nine Years War.194 In time the conquest of the country was consolidated in Ulster through the confiscation and plantation of the province that had proved most impervious to Tudor encroachments.

206

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

In retrospect the drift of treatise writing in the 1580s and early 1590s is extremely curious. We know that at the end of this period Ireland was riven by the most destructive and bloody conflict witnessed there under the Tudors. Yet the major shift in the content of the treatises prior to the Nine Years War was in the emergence of a literature of complaint which called for the abandonment of the coercive, militaristic approach to governing Ireland and the flagrant levels of corruption attendant upon it. Treatise writers urged reform of the military executive, tighter controls over the rank and file soldiers, an end to martial law and the abuse of shrieval offices, while within civil officialdom corruption, venality and embezzlement were railed against. This is not to say that harsher views were not omnipresent too. Many commentators had concluded that Ireland was beyond ‘reform’ and that a harsher brand of crown rule which would create a tabula rasa on which a new English society could be constructed was necessary. But these individuals were in a minority among treatise writers at this time, albeit a significant minority. Nevertheless, they were outnumbered by those calling for an overhaul of crown policy in Ireland, whether Old English officials such as Nicholas White and Robert Dillon, or New Englishmen such as William Lyon or Robert Legge. Moreover, this literature of complaint was leading to changes, most notably in the widescale prohibition of martial law in the early 1590s. Ultimately, though, such efforts, significant as they were, did not prevent the emergence of a conflict in Ulster which would scupper any attempted overhaul of crown policy in Ireland. After decades of efforts to colonise or militarily conquer Ulster treatise writers from the mid-1570s onwards began suggesting that the northern province could be reduced in a more benign fashion by introducing the organs of English county administration into the Irish lordships there. In the end it was this very process, carried out in a heavy-handed and antagonistic manner by the second administration of William Fitzwilliam, which led the second earl of Tyrone and his confederates to undertake the largest rebellion against crown rule in Ireland seen under the Tudors. With that the subject of treatise writing would shift dramatically towards consideration of the military strategy to be adopted in Ulster.195 Notes 1 Jefferies, The Irish Church, pp. 205–40. 2 Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 200–300; O’Dowd, Power, Politics and Land, esp. pp. 25–44, 89–104; Hubert Thomas Knox, The History of the County of Mayo to the Close of the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1908), pp. 175–262. 3 Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 75–103, overviews the New English presence



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 207

in late Elizabethan Ireland. Barry, ‘Sir Geoffrey Fenton’; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 251–300; Kennedy, ‘The Presidency of Munster’, pp. 111–73. 4 Mitchell Leimon, ‘Sir Francis Walsingham and the Anjou Marriage Plans, 1574– 1581’, PhD (Cambridge University, 1989), pp. 77–105; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 150–61; Cooper, The Queen’s Agent, pp. 239–57. 5 Brady, ‘The Road to the View’; Brady, Chief Governors; Brady, ‘Sixteenthcentury Ulster’; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 278–312; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp.  419–23; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 228–9; Canny, Formation of the Old English Elite; Canny, ‘Edmund Spenser and the Development of an Anglo-Irish Identity’; Canny, From Reformation to Restoration, esp. pp. 105–7; Canny, ‘Identity Formation in Ireland’, esp. p. 164. 6 On the rebellion, see C.R. Sasso, ‘The Desmond Rebellions, 1569–1573 and 1579– 1583’, PhD (Loyola University of Chicago, 1980), pp. 268–353. On the plantation, see Quinn, ‘The Munster Plantations’; Robert Dunlop, ‘The Plantation of Munster, 1584–1589’, in EHR, 3:10 (Apr., 1888), 250–69; Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 121–64; MacCarthy-Morrogh, Munster Plantation. 7 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 62. 8 Piveronus, ‘Sir Warham St. Leger and the First Munster Plantation’; Piveronus, ‘Sir Warham St. Leger: ‘Organizer-in-Chief’. 9 For the relevant documents, see p. 163, n. 44. 10 TNA, SP 63/9/83. 11 ‘Edward Waterhouse to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/72/55, fo. 145r. 12 ‘Suit and offer of Thomas Lee’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/102/57; ‘Henry Harrington to Burghley’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/105/65. 13 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 227–30. 14 MacCarthy-Morrogh, Munster Plantation, pp. 19–30. 15 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 236–8. 16 Ibid., pp. 237–8. 17 Raymond Gillespie (ed.), ‘Plantation and Profit: Richard Spert’s Tract on Ireland, 1608’, in Ir. Econ. Soc. Hist., 20 (1993), 62–71. 18 Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture; Thirsk, Economic Policy; Canny, Making Ireland British. 19 Ibid., pp. 110–11, 151. 20 ‘Robert Fowle and John Browne to Burghley’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/111/49. 21 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 241. 22 Ibid. 23 ‘Demands of Mr. Ralph Lane to the Privy Council, touching the colonelship to be committed to him in Kerry, Clanmorris, and Desmond’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/107/100, fo. 262r; ‘Ralph Lane to the queen’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/107/61; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 243–6; ODNB, ‘Lane, Ralph’. 24 ‘The Council of Ireland to Crumwell’, 1537, SP.Henry.VIII, ii, 152, p. 444; SP 61/1/129. 25 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 216–8; Gilbert, A History of the City of Dublin, I, pp. 383–4.

208

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

26 ‘Nicholas Malby to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/78/47, fo. 106r. 27 See, for example, Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, p. 227, who refers to Pelham as an ‘interim’ military governor. Brady, Chief Governors, completely overlooks this chief governor. ODNB, ‘Pelham, William’. 28 ‘William Pelham to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/72/33; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 182–204. The document evidently gained a widespread distribution as a number of copies are extant. See CCM, 1575–1588, 570; BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 460–474; BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 79–92. 29 See CCM, 1575–1588, 570. 30 For a previous analysis of the scheme, see Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 108–9. 31 See ‘Henry Wallop to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/76/21, fo. 41r, wherein he refers to ‘the Platt drawen by Mr Waterhowse’. 32 ‘Edward Waterhouse to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/72/55, fo. 145r. 33 Ibid., fo. 145; ‘Henry Wallop to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/72/59; ‘Henry Wallop to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/73/19. 34 ‘Edward Waterhouse to Francis Walsingham’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/74/30, fo. 58r. 35 ‘Geoffrey Fenton to Leicester’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/76/19, fo. 33v. 36 Ibid., fos. 33v–34r. 37 See, for example, ‘Memorandum of a petition to the queen of a servitor of Cosbride and Cosmore’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/108/23, for the use of this nomenclature. 38 ‘Walter Raleigh to Francis Walsingham’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/80/82; ‘Petition of Daniel Kirtan to Burghley’, 1584, SP 63/107/99; ‘Petition of Rhys Mansell to the Privy Council’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/108/37. 39 On Desmond’s negotiations with the crown, see McCormack, The Earldom of Desmond, pp. 187–92. 40 ‘The Opinion of Mr Raleigh upon the means of subduing the rebels in Munster’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/96/30. 41 ‘Walter Raleigh to Francis Walsingham’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/80/82, printed in Edward Edwards, The Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, 2 vols (London, 1868), II, pp. 11–13; ‘Edward Barkley’s advice how to overthrow the traitors in Munster’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/95/69; ‘Warham St Leger to Burghley’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/80/29; ‘Warham St Leger to Burghley’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/102/17; ‘Warham St Leger to the Queen’, 1583, HMC, Salisbury MSS iii, pp. 4–7; ‘Observations on the earl of Ormond’s government while Lord General in Munster’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/90/67. On Lovell’s accusations against Ormond, see ‘Ormond to Burghley’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/110/59; ‘Francis Lovell to Francis Walsingham’, 1585, TNA, SP 63/115/9; Edwards, The Ormond Lordship, pp. 229–37. 42 For the documents relating to the working out of the Plantation, see TNA, SP 63/121/54–58. 43 MacCarthy-Morrogh, The Munster Plantation. 44 ODNB, ‘Payne, Robert’; Payne, A brief Description of Ireland. 45 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 271–8. 46 Anonymous, ‘Opinion towching the establishing of ye government of Ireland’, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 117–118.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 209

47 It has escaped attention to date, but Herbert appears to have initially begun work on the paper as an English language treatise. See Harley MS 35, fos. 145–178. 48 Brady, ‘The two Sir William Herberts’, pp. 75–111. 49 Beacon, Solon his follie. 50 For notes on the material relating to Spenser and the ‘View’, see p. xxvii. 51 Brady, ‘Spenser, Plantation, and Government Policy’, pp. 100–2. 52 Brady, ‘The Road to the View’; Brady, Chief Governors; Brady, ‘Sixteenthcentury Ulster’; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 278–312; Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland; Crawford, Anglicizing, pp.  419–23; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 228–9; Canny, Formation of the Old English Elite; Canny, ‘Edmund Spenser and the Development of an Anglo-Irish identity’; Canny, From Reformation to Restoration, esp. pp. 105–7; Canny, ‘Identity Formation in Ireland’, esp. p. 164. 53 Crawford, Anglicizing, esp. pp. 414–9; Crawford, A Star Chamber Court, pp. 8–11; Brady, Chief Governors; Brady, ‘Sixteenth-century Ulster’. This is also the argument of Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, though Bradshaw contends that reform failed in the mid-Tudor period. 54 ‘Sir Henry Sydney to Arthur Lord Grey, Lord Deputy of Ireland’, 1580, printed in Collins (ed.), Letters, I, pp. 279–83, p. 280. 55 Ibid., p. 281. 56 Katherine Duncan-Jones and Jan Van Dorsten (eds), Miscellaneous Prose of Sir Philip Sidney (Oxford, 1973), p. 10. 57 See Collins (ed.), Letters, p. 281, where Henry Sidney alludes to his son’s candidacy for the vice-regal office. 58 Rich, Allarme to England, sig. Dii. 59 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 206. 60 Roger Howell Jr., ‘The Sidney Circle and the Protestant Cause in Elizabethan Foreign Policy’, in Renaissance and Modern Studies, 19:1 (1975), 31–46. 61 ODNB, ‘Dudley, Robert’; ODNB, ‘Dudley, Ambrose’. 62 See pp. 179–80. 63 In the absence of such a study, see Leimon, ‘Sir Francis Walsingham’, pp. 77–105; Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 150–61; Cooper, The Queen’s Agent, pp. 239–57. 64 ‘The heads of some speches delivered to her Matie concerning the diseased state of Ireland by Sir Francis Walsingham’, 1580, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fo. 365r. The document is undated but clearly the conference occurred at this time. Reference to rebellion in the Pale attests to a date of composition after the outbreak of the Baltinglass revolt in the summer of 1580. More precisely the ‘heads’ concludes with notice that a resolution was taken to write to senior officials in Ireland requesting their views on a ‘plot’ for Ireland. These letters began arriving in the opening weeks of 1581. 65 ‘The heads of some speches delivered to her Matie concerning the diseased state of Ireland by Sir Francis Walsingham’, 1580, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fo. 365r. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 See the introduction to Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises. 69 For an ancillary analysis of these issues, see David Heffernan, ‘Complaint and

210

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

Reform in late Elizabethan Dublin, 1579–1594’, in Kathleen Miller and Crawford Gribben (eds), Dublin: Renaissance City of Literature (Manchester, 2017). 70 ‘Richard Overton to William Cecil’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/10/36; ‘Richard Overton to William Cecil’, 1564, TNA, SP 63/11/91. 71 See, for example, ‘John Symcott to Burghley’, 1574, TNA, SP 63/46/66; ‘John Symcott to Burghley’, 1575, TNA, SP 63/49/38. 72 DIB, ‘Gerrard, William’; ODNB, ‘Gerrard, William’. 73 For example, ‘Mr. William Gerrard, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to Mr. Secretary Walsingham’, 1576, CCM, 1575–1589, 41; ‘William Gerrard, Lord Chancellor, to [the Privy Council?]’, 1577, CCM, 1575–1589, 46; MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 176–81; DIB, ‘Gerrard, William’. 74 MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’, 116. 75 Ibid., 96. 76 Ibid., 98. This view is repeated on 187. 77 See ibid., 118–23, for Gerrard’s analysis of the history of the lordship. 78 F.E. Ball, The Judges in Ireland, 1221–1921, 2 vols (Dublin, 1926), I. 79 MacNeill (ed.), ‘Gerrard’s Notes’, 183–7. A less detailed outline of these proposals is on 123–6. 80 An English-born chief justice of common pleas was not appointed until 1593, when William Weston entered office. He died the following year following which the office reverted back to Old English occupancy until the 1630s. An Englishborn chief justice of Munster was appointed in the early 1590s. 81 ‘Nicholas White to Burghley’, 1573, TNA, SP 63/41/80; ‘Nicholas White to Burghley’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/80/48; ‘Council of Ireland to Francis Walsingham’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/94/101; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 211–15. 82 Ball, The Judges in Ireland, I, pp. 222–3. 83 DIB, ‘Dillon, Robert’. 84 ‘Roger Wilbraham to Burghley’, 1591, TNA, SP 63/161/28; ‘Baron Delvin’s plot for the reformation of Ireland’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/108/58, printed in the preface to J.T. Gilbert (ed.), Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of Ireland, 5 vols (London, 1874–1884), IV(i). 85 ‘Andrew Trollope to Burghley’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/64. 86 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 212. 87 Ibid., pp. 211–15. 88 Ibid., pp. 222–6. 89 TNA, SP 63/108/58, fo. 145r. 90 Edwards, ‘Beyond Reform’; Edwards, ‘Ideology and Experience’. 91 J.V. Capua, ‘The Early History of Martial Law in England from the Fourteenth Century to the Petition of Right’, in The Cambridge Law Journal, 36:1 (Apr., 1977), 152–73; John Collins, Martial Laws and English Laws, c.1500–c.1700 (Cambridge, 2016). 92 Charles MacNeill (ed.), ‘Fitzwilliam Manuscripts at Milton, England’, in Anal. Hib., 4 (Oct., 1932), 287–326, esp. 313–15; James Croft, ‘A Discourse for the Reformacon of Irland’, 1583, Northamptonshire Records Office, Fitzwilliam MS 67, p. 4.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 211

93 Ibid., p. 9. 94 Ibid., p. 12. 95 Ibid., p. 10. 96 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 213. 97 ‘Nicholas Walsh to Francis Walsingham’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/81/31; DIB, ‘Walsh, Nicholas’. 98 TNA, SP 63/131/64. 99 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 208–10. 100 For Russell and St Leger’s treatises, see ibid., pp. 160–72, 271–8. 101 Wilfrid Prest, ‘Judicial Corruption in Early Modern England’, in Past and Present, 133 (Nov., 1991), 67–95. 102 ‘Robert Rosyer to Burghley’, 1586, TNA, SP 63/126/22, fo. 64r. 103 BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fo. 38v. 104 Thomas Lee, ‘Infformacion giuen to Queen Elizabeth against Sir William Fitzwilliams, his gouernmente in Irelande’, 1594, BL, Harley MS 35, fos. 258– 265; Thomas Lee, ‘A Brief Declaration of the Government of Ireland’, in Lodge (ed.), Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, I, pp. 87–150, transcribed from TCD, MS 652. Copies of both treatises are available online at www.ucc.ie/celt/published. html. James P. Myers, Jr., ‘Early English Colonial Experiences in Ireland: Captain Thomas Lee and Sir John Davies’, in Éire-Ireland, 23:1 (Spring, 1988), 8–21; John McGurk, ‘A Soldier’s Prescription for the Governance of Ireland, 1599–1601: Captain Thomas Lee and his Tracts’, in MacCuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland, 1550–1700, pp. 43–60; Robert Legge, ‘A Breviat or Sumiarie of the causes againste the lord deputye’, 1593, TNA, SP 63/169/3. 105 Ibid., fos. 6–59. The calendar entry for the ‘Breviat’ runs to just three lines. See CSPI, 1592–1596, p. 88. 106 ‘Book by Robert Legge touching the debts of the lord chancellor, the bishop of Meath, Robert Dillon, Nicholas White, and other principal officers when John Perrot came over from Ireland in July 1588’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/150/52(ii). 107 ‘Book drawn by Barnaby Rich, and delivered to the lord deputy Fitzwilliam for the reformation of Ireland’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/144/35; ‘Barnaby Rich to Burghley’, 1591, TNA, SP 63/158/12; ‘Barnaby Rich to Burghley’, 1591, TNA, SP 63/158/52; Hinton, Ireland Through Tudor Eyes, pp. 57–61; DIB, ‘Rich, Barnaby’; Flanagan, ‘Captain Barnaby Rich (1542–1617)’; Thomas Herron, ‘Reforming the Fox: Spenser’s “Mother Hubberd’s Tale”, the Beast Fables of Barnabe Riche, and Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin’, in Studies in Philology, 105:3 (2008), 336–87. 108 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 359. Also, see ‘A note how the archbishop of Dublin hath linked and allied himself in strong friendship and kindred by means of the marriages of his children marriageable and unmarriageable’, 1592, TNA, SP 63/165/32. 109 ‘Adam Loftus to Burghley’, 1592, TNA, SP 63/166/1, wherein Loftus attributes the charges against him to these three figures. ‘The answers of the lord chancellor of Ireland to certain articles objected against him by Barnaby Rich and Robert Legge’, 1592, TNA, SP 63/166/59. Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 113–16. 110 ‘Articles exhibited by Auditor Christopher Peyton to the Privy Council of the

212

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

points at variance between him and Sir Henry Wallop touching the exercise of their offices’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/146/4. 111 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 355–9; Terence O. Ranger, ‘Richard Boyle and the Making of an Irish Fortune, 1588–1614’, in IHS, 10:39 (Mar., 1957), 257–97; David Heffernan, ‘Reconstructing the Estate of Richard Boyle, first Earl of Cork, c.1602–43’, in History Ireland, 23:2 (Mar.–Apr., 2015), 18–20. 112 Andrew Trollope, ‘Reipubliciae benevolus’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/85/39. For examples of Bingham’s critics, see ‘Thomas Jones to Burghley’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/144/30; ‘Robert Fowle to Burghley’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/155/12. 113 BL, Harley MS 35, fos. 258–265; Lodge (ed.), Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, I, pp. 87–150; TNA, SP 63/169/3. 114 ODNB, ‘Lovell, Thomas’; Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 302. 115 Ibid., p. 260. 116 See ‘Petition of Edmund Tyrrye to the Privy Council’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/105/15, wherein he gives notice of the spoil of his goods off Cornwall in 1581. Also, see ‘Petition of Edmund Tyrrye to Burghley, for license to transport grain into Ireland free of custom in respect of his great losses by pirates’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/105/24; ‘Petition of Edmund Tyrrye to the Privy Council, with an order that he may have license to transport 200 or 300 qrs. wheat’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/105/33. 117 Mention of concordatums can be found as early as 1555. See ‘Propositions for services in Ireland’, c.1555, TNA, SP 62/1/9, fos. 29v–30r. 118 OED, concor’datum. 119 TNA, SP 63/169/3, fo. 48r. 120 ‘Roger Wilbraham to the Lords Commissioners for Munster causes’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/13; TNA, SP 63/161/28. 121 See, for example, ‘William Lyon to Lord Hunsdon’, 1596, TNA, SP 63/191/8; DIB, ‘Lyon, William’; ODNB, ‘Herbert, William’. 122 See, for instance, Robert Legge’s ‘Remembrances’, printed in Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 316–19. 123 Robert Legge, ‘Book of collections of things amiss in the state of Ireland’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/28(i), fo. 65r; Robert Legge, ‘Memoranda’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/152/2. 124 BL, Add. MS 48,017, fos. 104–110. 125 William Herbert, ‘Description of Munster’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/135/58; William Herbert, ‘A note of such reasons which moved Sir W. Herbert to put the statute in execution against Irish habits’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/144/57(ii). 126 For a more expansive analysis of this literature of vindication, see Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, I, pp. 226–31. 127 For example, ‘Journal of the progress of the lord deputy in a hosting into Desmond’s country from Nov. 5 to Dec. 24’, 1539, TNA, SP 60/8/38. On these sources, see Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals, pp. ix–xx. 128 CCM, 1515–1574, 207, 211, 212, 215, 217, 238. Copies are also contained in TCD, MS 581 and BL, Add. MS 4,763, fos. 109–120. See Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals, pp. 3–11, for a journal from TCD, MS 581. Sussex also compiled end of service reports which were designed to undermine his replacement, Nicholas Arnold.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 213

Sussex, ‘A briefe note of the Earle of Sussex cowrse in his government of Irelande’, 1565, BL, Add. MS 4,767, fos. 156–160. Also, see another unattributed text, ‘A brief memorial of service done in Ireland, during the government of the earl of Sussex’, 1566, TNA, SP 63/19/83. 129 Also, see ‘A brief memorial of Sir Henry Sidney’s service in Ireland’, 1578, CCM, 1575–1589, 120. 130 DIB, ‘Grey, Arthur’; ‘Lord Grey de Wilton’s Declaration of service’, 1583, TNA, SP 63/106/62, printed in full in Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals, pp. 140–54. 131 ‘A brief declaration of part of the services done to your Majesty by Sir John Perrot, knight, during the time of his deputation in the realm of Ireland’, 1588, TNA, SP 63/139/7. 132 Hiram Morgan, ‘The Fall of Sir John Perrot’, in John Guy (ed.), The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 109–25; Turvey, Treason and Trial; Pauline Henley, ‘The Trial of Sir John Perrot’, in Studies, 21:83 (Sep., 1932), 404–22. 133 Hiram Morgan, ‘The Deputy’s Defence: Sir William Fitzwilliam’s Apology on the Outbreak of the Nine Years War’, in PRIA, 114C (2014), 181–214. 134 ‘A discourse of the services done by Sir Richard Bingham in the county of Mayo, within the province of Connacht … in July, August, and September 1586’, 1586, TNA, SP 63/126/53(i); Rapple, Martial Power, pp. 250–300; Rapple, ‘Taking up Office in Elizabethan Connacht’; ‘Sir Nicholas Malby’s Discourse’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/72/39, printed in Edwards (ed.), Campaign Journals, pp. 155–64. DIB, ‘Malby, Nicholas’. 135 TNA, SP 63/152/2. 136 BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 38v–39r. 137 Valentine Browne, ‘Orders meet to be observed for the musters in Ireland’, 1580, TNA, SP 63/79/50, fo. 136r. 138 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 309; Ivan Cosby, ‘The English Settlers in Queen’s County, 1570–1603’, in Pádraig G. Lane and William Nolan (eds), Laois: History and Society (Dublin, 1999), pp. 283–326. 139 Robert Legge, ‘Book of collections of things amiss in the state of Ireland’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/28(i), fo. 65r. 140 ‘Instructions and orders thought meet to be observed for the musters in Ireland’, 1582, TNA, SP 63/98/76; ‘Instructions for the taking of musters effectually, delivered to treasurer Burghley by Thomas Davies’, 1585, TNA, SP 63/121/37. 141 ‘Orders meet to be observed in Ireland, for the better service of Her Majesty, by the captains and other soldiers, and by constables and wards of castle’, 1587, TNA, SP 63/131/39, printed in extenso in CSPI, 1586–1588, pp. 413–4. Many of the reforms proposed mirror suggestions made by Valentine Browne in the paper he prepared around 1580. See TNA, SP 63/79/50. 142 Edwards, ‘Ideology and Experience’, pp. 140–2. 143 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 286. 144 Robert Gardener, ‘Draft Proclamation to restrain martial law in Ireland’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/150/4(i), fo. 13r.

214

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

145 ‘Opinions of the Justice Gardener and Sir Henry Wallop for the reformation of Ulster’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/152/39, fo. 132r. 146 Edwards, ‘Ideology and Experience’, p. 142. 147 Christopher Maginn, William Cecil, Ireland, and the Tudor State (Oxford, 2012), pp. 105–6, has previously examined Burghley’s role in these events. The ‘Articles’ are calendared in full in CSPI, 1588–1592, pp. 503–15. 148 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 285–6. 149 CSPI, 1588–1592, pp. 503–4, 506–7. 150 Ibid., pp. 512–14. 151 Ibid., pp. 507–12. 152 Ibid., pp. 504–6. 153 Ibid., p. 514. 154 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion; Brady, ‘Sixteenth-century Ulster’; Lennon, SixteenthCentury Ireland, pp. 283–92; Ellis, Tudor Ireland, pp. 278–99; Canny, From Reformation to Restoration, pp. 115–19. 155 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 16–25. 156 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 156–9. 157 See pp. 152–3. On Turlough Luineach throughout this period, see Costello, ‘Turlough Luineach O’Neill’, pp. 170–225. 158 CCM, 1515–1574, 333. 159 ‘The Offer of Hughe MacPhellemy and the L. and gentlemen of the northe vnto Capt. Willyam Piers for the furderrance of her Mat’s servyce’, 1578, BL, Lansdowne MS 26, fos. 209–210. Walsingham’s copy is BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fo. 198. 160 ‘The Privy Council to William Drury’, 1579, TNA, SP 63/66/29. 161 ‘Articles by Captain William Piers for the reformation of the North’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/85/7, printed in Hayes-McCoy, Scots Mercenary Forces, App. 2; ‘William Piers to Francis Walsingham’, 1581, TNA, SP 63/80/13. 162 On O’Neill’s shifting relations with the crown, see Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 85–112. 163 TNA, SP 63/112/40; ‘John Perrot to the Privy Council’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/112/41, fos. 88r–89r. 164 CCM, 1515–1574, 236, p. 332. 165 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 47–50, looks at this attempt to end succession by tanistry. Turvey, Treason and Trial, pp. 21–5, deals with Perrot’s policy towards Ulster more generally. 166 TNA, SP 63/112/41, fo. 90r. The locations were as follows: Towns (Athlone, Coleraine, Sligo, Mayo, Dingle, Lifford, Newry), Castles (Blackwater, Ballyshannon, Melleek, the Munster Blackwater, Castlemartyr in the Route, Galen in Offaly and Kilcolman in Wicklow), Bridges (Coleraine, Lifford, Ballyshannon, Dundalk, the Munster Blackwater, the Deal, Kells in Clandeboye). John Perrot, ‘John Perrot to Burghley’, 1584, TNA, SP 63/112/28. 167 TNA, SP 63/56/62, is an early draft. 168 NLI, MS 669, fo. 61r. 169 Ibid., fos. 61r–61v.



•  complaint, reform and conflict, 1579–1594  • 215

170 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, p. 269. 171 Ibid. 172 Hore (ed.), ‘Bagenal’s Description’. 173 TNA, SP 63/124/66. 174 ‘Henry Wallop to Burghley’, 1586, TNA, SP 63/123/52. 175 George Carew, ‘Notes touching the ordering of Ulster’, 1589, TNA, SP 63/143/54. 176 ‘William Weston to Burghley’, 1593, TNA, SP 63/171/21. 177 HMC, De L’Isle and Dudley MSS, ii, p. 56. 178 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 320–2; ‘A note of the names of such gentlemen and their countries, lying under the government of Captain Christopher Carliell as desire to surrender their lands to Her Majesty and to take the same again by English tenure’, 1592, TNA, SP 63/167/66. Also, see Rachel Lloyd, Elizabethan Adventurer: A Life of Captain Christopher Carleill (London, 1974), pp. 84–109, 136–81. 179 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 287–9. 180 Miler McGrath, ‘Book set down in writing by the archbishop of Cashel by Her Majesty’s express commandment declaring the state of Ireland’, 1592, TNA, SP 63/164/46. 181 See Ciaran Brady, ‘East Ulster, the MacDonalds and the Provincial Strategies of Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone, 1585–1603’, in Kelly and Young (eds), Scotland and the Ulster Plantations, pp. 41–61. 182 There have been a number of in-depth studies conducted on the O’Reilly lordship. Brady, ‘The O’Reilly’s of East Breifne’; Ciaran Brady, ‘The End of the O’Reilly Lordship, 1584–1610’, in Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers, pp. 174–200; Bernadette Cunningham, ‘The Anglicisation of East Breifne: The O’Reillys and the Emergence of County Cavan’, in Raymond Gillespie (ed.), Cavan: Essays on the History of an Irish County (Dublin, 1995), pp. 51–72. 183 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 40–3. On the shiring of the county, see ‘Certayne, contries, territories and landes now to be made Shire ground and to be called the countie of Cavan’, 1578, BL, Cotton MS Titus B XII, fos. 194–196. 184 On the closing years of Turlough’s career, see Costello, ‘Turlough Luineach O’Neill’, pp. 248–87. 185 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 75–6. 186 TNA, SP 63/152/39. 187 Heffernan (ed.), ‘Reform’ Treatises, pp. 290–2. 188 Ibid. 189 ‘Sir John Perrot’s opinion upon the book agreed upon by the earl of Tyrone’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/153/1. 190 TNA, SP 63/152/39, fos. 133v–134v. 191 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 61–4. 192 See ‘Lord deputy and Council to the Privy Council’, 1590, TNA, SP 63/156/1, on the preparations for the division of the county. Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 61–70; P.J. Duffy, ‘The Territorial Organisation of Gaelic Landownership and its transformation in County Monaghan’, in Irish Geography, 14 (1981), 1–26; Peadar Livingstone, The Monaghan Story: A Documented History of

216

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

the County Monaghan from the Earliest Times to 1976 (Enniskillen, 1980), pp. 81–94. 193 That these developments were the cause of the conflict was suggested even by figures such as John Dowdall. See BL, Royal MS 18 A LVI, fo. 3. 194 Morgan, Tyrone’s Rebellion, pp. 71–3; Peadar Livingstone, The Fermanagh Story: A Documented History of the County Fermanagh from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (Enniskillen, 1969), pp. 46–56. 195 For a survey of the treatises produced during the Nine Years War, see Heffernan, ‘Tudor “Reform” Treatises’, I, pp. 242–56.



•  conclusion  • 217

•

Conclusion

When the earliest writers of treatises on Ireland of the Tudor period began composing policy papers during the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII they can hardly have foreseen how central to the functioning of Tudor government in Ireland documents of this kind would become by the end of the sixteenth century. The foregoing has sought to demonstrate just how important these documents were. Significantly it has highlighted how numerous the treatises were and that at least six hundred are extant that were composed during the timeframe involved. This is a far more substantial number than previously appreciated. More important are the revelations concerning the authorship of the treatises. These were not the preserve of senior officials but were written by a wide array of individuals including minor officials in the Dublin administration, court officers, civic officials in the corporate towns such as Waterford and Cork, merchants, army captains and would-be colonists. A great many were written by viceroys and those who staffed the highest offices in their administrations. But we can no longer argue that it was solely senior ministers in England and the chief governors in Ireland who had an opportunity to engage with and influence the formation of public policy for the second Tudor kingdom. That so many individuals were debating Tudor policy in Ireland in this way is noteworthy for a great many policy initiatives undertaken by the Tudors in Ireland were highly influenced by the treatises. Clearly, some initiatives were not preceded by a flurry of such papers, notably in the case of ‘surrender and regrant’. But when examining initiatives such as the drive to establish provincial council, to colonise north-east Ulster and south-west Munster and to develop new systems of taxation in the 1570s the foregoing has made clear that the treatises must be considered of substantial import in determining how these policies were arrived at. What comes across most in assessing the wide array of treatises that have

218

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

come down to us from the Tudors is the repeated return to a number of common themes. It is fitting to conclude by reflecting on these for if studies of the treatise literature are to advance further it may well be by exploring these themes individually in order to assess in more detail how the thoughts expressed on these issues in the treatises impacted on specific areas of policy formation. None of these themes was more prominent and of more significance for the direction of events in Tudor Ireland than the concern for regional conquest. Chapter 1 has made abundantly clear that such a strategy was overwhelmingly favoured by reformers in Dublin and the Pale in the first half of the century and that this had major consequences for the course of events throughout the century. However, this has focused to a large degree on south Leinster, the midlands and the coastal corridor along north-east Ulster. Yet specific consideration has not been given here to other types of regional conquest advocated for, particularly during the Elizabethan period when the extension of crown government into the more wayward parts of the country saw proposals for all manner of intervention in, for instance, the more far-flung parts of Connacht. That these should be examined in greater detail is important, for it points towards an exponential increase in the ambition of crown officials in Ireland; a centralising Renaissance state gradually expanding its reach. This is important also as it foreshadowed how the early Stuart state, dissatisfied with having initiated a vast plantation in Ulster, would move to swallow up whatever remaining chunks of land could be found, particularly in Leinster and Connacht in the 1610s, 1620s and 1630s. It is not surprising that this should happen as it was foreseen as early as the 1530s that extensive colonisation would have to follow from attempts at regional conquest. But there was a highly significant change in theoretical thinking on this over the course of the sixteenth century. In the 1530s the principal thinkers in this regard, Patrick Finglas and Robert Cowley, envisaged that conquest and colonisation would work side by side. In this view a number of nucleated garrisons would be established in a given region which would simultaneously advance the military reduction of the region and evolve in time into civilian colonies. This view prevailed for a long time and was most strikingly emphasised by Thomas Smith in the treatises he produced as part of his efforts to colonise the Ards peninsula in Down. But this approach failed, to a large degree in the midlands and in absolute form in north-east Ulster in the 1570s. But what ultimately led to a new approach to colonisation was the war which erupted in Munster in 1579. The garrison system was to be maintained but now it was fused with the introduction of an army of unprecedented size. With this complete military conquest was made possible in such a short space of time, and with the country utterly reduced, colonisation could finally take root successfully. It was this same process which would eventually



•  conclusion  • 219

see Ulster and other regions planted with considerable success under James I. Yet even here some continuity is striking for the manner in which these plantations bore to a considerable degree the imprint of writers such as Finglas and Edward Walshe, but above all Smith. Investigating further the specifics of the treatises and their treatment of colonisation, however subtle, would reveal more about what was one of the most important processes that shaped Ireland in the early modern period. For instance, it is notable that a deceptively banal letter-tract by John Ussher written to Francis Walsingham in 1582 urged the use of confiscated land in Munster to endow a university in Dublin. In time, Trinity College, Dublin received large tracts of land in Ulster when the six counties were distributed under James I. Conquest and colonisation, though, were not the only things argued for in the treatises and they were but one side of Tudor policy in Ireland. As the foregoing has made clear more accommodationist and conciliatory approaches were available, were argued for and were periodically attempted. None of these has been more prominent in the historiography than the policy known as ‘surrender and regrant’. Yet from the perspective of the treatises very few were written in support of it and when writers early in the century such as Robert Cowley did propose accommodating lords such as O’Neill and O’Donnell in Ulster it was with the explicit purpose of pacifying them while a more interventionist line was taken by the government against smaller lordships in Leinster adjoining the Pale. Conciliation really became a major strand of the treatises, not as the historiography would have it in the early decades of the century, but later during the reign of Elizabeth I. Chapter 4 has shown that the descent into military governance and spiralling levels of corruption and official abuses led by the 1580s to unprecedented calls for a more sanguine approach to governing Ireland. Much more can be done to address these issues. It has been argued that the policy of conquest which eventually saw the reduction of the country was adopted forcefully from 1546, but if this reform movement of the late Elizabethan period was the expression of a desire to pull back from the precipice of military governance then that is of very major import for the history of early modern Ireland. It suggests that things could have developed quite differently and that the tangled politics of the mid-to-late-Elizabethan period were far from a deterministic situation which had to result in a final major military conflict such as the Nine Years War. If the broad themes of this literature of complaint as sketched here were investigated in greater detail and factored into the wider history of these years a more nuanced view of what is still an imperfectly understood period may emerge. Inevitably, the writers of treatises were not simply concerned with the overarching issue of conquering and pacifying Ireland. There was a country to be governed and how to do it occupied greater space in the treatises. Commentators very early began to argue that this could best be achieved

220

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

by extending access to the court system by establishing regional councils in Munster in particular, and also Connacht and Ulster. The earliest such proposals though envisaged a council composed of the temporal and ecclesiastical lords of the given province acting as a commission of arbitration. When regional councils were finally instituted in the late 1560s these were very different bodies headed by provincial presidents and staffed largely by officials appointed from Dublin. Moreover, there was a substantial military role for the new councils with provost marshals appointed in the provinces with them and military retinues provided through which the new presidents could impose their will. That the provincial council scheme had altered radically from that envisaged by treatise writers in the 1530s and 1540s is clear in that the leading regional magnates such as the earl of Desmond in Munster and the earls of Clanricard in Connacht, whom it was earlier believed would play central roles on the councils, became some of the staunchest opponents of figures such as William Drury and Nicholas Malby. Yet examination of the treatises can only reveal how commentators conceived of the regional councils on a theoretical level. Ultimately, to fully understand how the presidencies and councils developed further analysis of the tenures of figures such as Drury and Malby is needed. Regional councils headed by presidents were but one method essayed on how to extend English government control throughout the country and anglicise it in tandem. Other methods outlined in the foregoing were paramount in the treatises. Authors, for instance, argued that the organs of English county administration should be imposed in the country at large and not just within the Pale and enclaves of English settlement. As such the more wayward parts of the country ought to be shired and shire-towns, courts and gaols introduced there. The people of specific regions could be anglicised by prohibiting Irish social and cultural practices and introducing English manners, notably the English language and agrarian farming. The idea which emerged most forcefully, though, in the treatises in this respect was that the country ought to be anglicised by eradicating the political tyranny associated with the Irish lordships which became simplistically defined as ‘coign and livery’. As such the commons in Ireland could be made English subjects simply by removing them from the oppression of these exactions. In time this trope became the single most important rationalisation for conquest and colonisation. Clearly all these efforts at extending the reach and activity of the state in Elizabethan Ireland required funding. It was generally accepted that the income the crown received for its efforts in Ireland was well below what it should be and by the 1560s and 1570s many treatise writers such as Nicholas White, Humphrey Gilbert and John Chaloner were debating how greater revenue could be generated in Ireland to fund a government which was always a drain on Whitehall’s coffers. First and foremost this concentrated on devel-



•  conclusion  • 221

oping novel systems of taxation such as the scheme of ‘composition’ devised by Edmund Tremayne, which was eventually resolved upon in the 1570s. However, there were many other measures, great and small, proposed by treatise writers throughout the century to improve the crown’s revenue in Ireland, whether by reforming the exchequer office and rooting out corruption in Dublin officialdom to such minimal measures as introducing customs on particular goods and ensuring more efficient collection thereof. As noted, on a number of occasions the issue of religious reform was curiously muted in the treatises written on Ireland across the sixteenth century. It was certainly a major theme within many individuals’ writings but it was not as central as might have been expected for the times. Those that did offer comment on this regularly returned to some core issues: the need for a university in Ireland to act as a Protestant seminary, the relative suitability of using coercive or conciliatory measures to protestantise the country and the general need to re-edify churches, appoint suitably trained bishops and provide those same bishops with adequate livings from their sees. While the great majority of these initiatives were in evidence in treatises produced throughout the whole of the sixteenth century it was not until the 1570s following the excommunication of Elizabeth I that writers began to argue strongly for the protestantisation of the country. Curiously, when this intensified interest in religious reform emerged it was already dominated by quite a pessimistic tone, not just concerning the possibility of protestantising the Irish, but perhaps even more so the Old English. Given this, the evidence of the treatises, albeit only one source, would seem to suggest that even if the Protestant Reformation had not failed in Ireland by the 1570s many New English observers certainly believed it had. Nevertheless, there are insufficient treatises to support this contention, and the theme of religious reform and its treatment in the six-hundred or so extant treatises points to the limitations of using these papers to determine such complex issues without also reading widely of the routine correspondence and other records which make up the state paper records of the time. These were but the foremost themes addressed in the treatises and expounded on at some length in this study. A multitude of other themes were covered with regularity by treatise writers across the period. Just some of these policies being debated including the desire to develop economic activities such as fishing and the production of cash crops like woad and madder; to develop enclosures; to reform the customs and relatively minor aspects of the exchequer such as the taking of fines and recognizances; to reform the coinage; to ­deforest parts of the country which were deemed inaccessible and establish roads; to introduce more efficient ways of victualling the army; or to survey and map parts of the country. Many of these issues are of substantial importance. For instance, the desire to create freeholders throughout the country as a means of introducing English societal norms while s­imultaneously

222

•  debating tudor policy in sixteenth-century ireland  •

­ ndermining the Irish system of landholding was a paramount concern for u treatise writers and those debating public policy in Ireland more generally. Equally, observers returned over and over to the purportedly perfidious nature of Irish culture and how it could undermine English standards of civility. Clearly, there is no shortage of further avenues to explore in terms of the policy debate on Tudor Ireland and how the treatises impacted thereon. As noted early on in this book those who wrote treatises were driven to do so for a great many reasons. Often they acted out of self-interest, but they also wrote out of a desire to influence some of the things mentioned here, whether it be fomenting regional conquest, developing a better system of taxation, bringing the common law to the more remote parts of the country or doing something as simple as developing a fishery in Mayo or cultivating woad in Munster. Whatever their motive, the long-term impact of their writing would have been unknown to them. Sometimes the historian of Tudor Ireland when coming across these papers a half a millennium after the time of their composition can simply see a rough piece of government administration. This misses the point. The treatises and the ideas put forward in them profoundly influenced how Ireland developed in the early modern period, and perhaps consequently in the ensuing period. Their importance should be commensurately acknowledged.



•  select bibliography  • 223

•

Select bibliography of primary sources

M a n u s c ri p t m a t e ri a l

The National Library of Ireland, Dublin MS 669 Edward Waterhouse?, ‘A Treatise of Irlande’, c.1586 MS 3,314 Mountjoy’s Common-Place Book including John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ and a synopsised version of Spenser’s ‘View’ MS 8,071 A late sixteenth-century copy of Patrick Finglas, ‘A Breviat of the Conquest of Ireland and of the Decay of the Same’, c.1515–37 Trinity College, Dublin TCD MS 581 TCD MS 594 TCD MS 652 TCD MS 786

TCD MS 804 TCD MS 842

Irish papers, including copies of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ (c.1515–37) and ‘The State of Ireland and Plan for its Reformation’ (c.1515) Christopher Cusack, ‘Collections on Ireland, especially Meath’, c.1511 Collections of papers, including Thomas Lee, ‘A Declaration of the Government of Ireland’, 1594 Collection of papers on Ireland, including corrupted copies of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’, c.1515–37, and ‘Ordinances and Provisions for this Land of Ireland’, c.1519, and a copy of Parr Lane’s ‘News from the Holy Isle’ Irish papers including sections from the collections of Christopher Cusack on the extent of the Pale counties, c.1511 Collection of treatises, including corrupted copies of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’, c.1515–37, and ‘Ordinances and Provisions’, c.1519, and copies of the ‘State’ (c.1515), Thomas Cusack’s ‘Book’ to Northumberland (1553),

224

•  select bibliography  • John Bale’s Vocacyon (1553) and George Dowdall’s ‘Opinion touching Ireland’ (1558)

Essex Records Office, Essex Hill Hall MS D/DSh 01 Papers of Thomas Smith for rejuvenation of the Ards peninsula colony, c.1573–4 Hatfield House, Hertfordshire Cecil Papers 144/1 Collection of early Tudor treatises on Ireland, c.1496–1537 Cecil Papers 186 William Udall to the Queen, 1599 The British Library, London Add. MS 4,763 Large collection of papers including copies of John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1581) and a number of treatises presented to the commissioners sent to Ireland in 1537 Add. MS 4,767 Collection of treatises and papers on early Elizabethan Ireland including John Walshe’s ‘Information’ (1559) and Sussex’s ‘Relation’ (1562) Add. MS 4,792 Papers including a copy of the ‘State’ (c.1515) Add. MS 4,819 Collection of papers on sixteenth- and ­seventeenth-century Ireland including William Mostyn’s ‘Opinion’, 1597 Add. MS 19,831 Collection of papers on Ireland including William Udall, ‘Considerations respecting the state of Ireland’, 1599 Add. MS 24,852 Essex, ‘A note of the seuerall pryncypall seats reserved for her Matie’, c.1574 Add. MS 32,323 Copy Book of letters relating to Irish affairs compiled by Edmund Tremayne, c.1571–81, including a number of treatises by Edward Baeshe (c.1579–80) Add. MS 33,743 Thomas Lee, ‘The Discovery and Recovery of Ireland with the Author’s Apology’, 1600 Add. MS 34,313 Collection of late Elizabethan and early Stuart treatises on Ireland including Thomas Lovell’s ‘The beginning and continuance of the rebels of Ireland’, c.1592, and Thomas Lee’s ‘Discovery and Recovery’ (1600) Add. MS 47,052 Anonymous, ‘Description of Leinster and part of Ulster’, c.1599 Add. MS 48,015 Large collection of sixteenth-century treatises on Ireland owned by Robert Beale Add. MS 48,017 Large collection of sixteenth-century treatises on Ireland owned by Robert Beale Cotton MS Domitian XVIII Collection of chronicles copied by Lawrence Nowell including a copy of Finglas’s ‘Breviat’ (c.1515–37)

Cotton MS Faustina C IX Cotton MS Julius F VI Cotton MS Titus B X Cotton MS Titus B XI Cotton MS Titus B XII Cotton MS Titus B XIII Harley MS 35 Harley MS 292 Harley MS 1,877 Harley MS 3,292 Harley MS 7,042 Lansdowne MS 159 Royal MS 18 A LIII Royal MS 18 A LVI Royal MS 18 A LXV Royal MS 18 B XLV Sloane MS 1,328 Sloane MS 2,200 Stowe MS 159 Stowe MS 162

•  select bibliography  • 225 Anonymous, ‘A small discourse about reducing Ireland to civility’, c.1558–1603 Miscellaneous collection of papers of Elizabethan and early Stuart period including ‘A Description of the Province of Munster’, c.1601 Collection of papers and treatises on Elizabethan and early Stuart Ireland, including a series of journals/­ treatises by Henry Sidney (1575–6) A large collection of papers and correspondence relating to Ireland dating from the fourteenth century through to the reign of Elizabeth I Papers relating to sixteenth-century Ireland including a large body of Francis Walsingham’s Irish papers A large collection of Elizabethan papers on Ireland, including a number of Elizabethan treatises Collection of treatises written on sixteenth-century Ireland Copy of Barnaby Rich’s ‘A looking-glass for Her Majesty wherein to view Ireland’, c.1599 Anonymous, ‘Colonisation Project’, c.1585 Copy of John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1581) Anonymous, ‘State of Ireland’, c.1593 Irish Papers of Sir Julius Caesar including many Henrician and mid-Tudor treatises John Bell, ‘A Supplicacion for the great, for the wonderfull, for the infinite enriching of my Gracius Lord and Soveraign’, c.1603 John Dowdall, ‘The naturs and dispositions of the Irishe nation’, c.1604 Richard Spert’s proposals for the plantation of Ireland, c.1608 Thomas Lee’s ‘Declaration’, 1594 Copy of John Dymmock’s ‘A Treatice of Ireland’ (c.1587–99) Copy of John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1581) Copy of John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1581) Francis Walsingham’s Table Book

Lambeth Palace Library, London Carew MS 103 Collection including discourses for the reformation of Ireland, c.1600 Carew MS 597 Letter Book of William Pelham, c.1579–80, including his ‘Discourse’ for the ‘reform’ of Munster (1580) Carew MS 600 Collection including Morgan Colman?, ‘A Perambulation of Leinster, Meath, and Louth, of

226

Carew MS 602 Carew MS 607 Carew MS 609

Carew MS 611 Carew MS 612 Carew MS 614

Carew MS 616 Carew MS 621 Carew MS 623 Carew MS 628

Carew MS 632 Carew MS 635

•  select bibliography  • which consist the English Pale, and first of the county of Dublin’, 1596, and George Carew’s ‘Discourse of Ireland’ (1601) Collection including a ‘Device’ proposing ‘surrender and regrant’ (c.1537) Collection including Robert Legge’s ‘Book’ to John Perrot (1585) and Morgan Colman’s ‘Short Notes’ (1584) Sussex, ‘The Opinion of the Earl of Sussex LieutenantGeneral, as well for the ordering of Ulster as the government of the whole realm, after Shane O’Nele shall be expulsed’, 1562 Collection including Thomas Cusack’s ‘Book’ to Northumberland (1553) Collection including William Russell’s ‘Project’ (1599) Large collection of treatises, including Sussex’s ‘Opinion’ (1560) and ‘Relation’ (1562), Nicholas White’s ‘Plot’ (1578), John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1583), George Carew’s ‘Discourse’ (1595), William Saxey’s ‘Advertisements’ (1596), and John Dowdall’s proposals for a policy of scorched earth (1600) Collection including William Piers’s ‘Articles’ (1574) and John Perrot’s paper on the abolition of tanistry (1590) Collection of papers and memoirs, including John Perrot’s ‘Discourse’ (1581) Collection which includes ‘What Ireland is and how much’(1549) Large collection of papers from the 1570s, including Sussex’s ‘Opinion’ (1574), numerous papers by William Gerrard, and some ‘cess’ and ‘composition for cess’ papers including Henry Burnell’s ‘Device to ease the cess’ (1577) Collection containing George Carew’s ‘Discourse for Ireland’ (1594), and Francis Shane’s ‘Discourse’ (1597) Collection including Essex’s ‘Offers’ (1573) to plant Antrim and Down and other papers relating to the earl’s ‘Enterprise’ of Ulster

The National Archives, London SP 60: State Papers, Ireland, Henry VIII, 1509–1547 SP 61: State Papers, Ireland, Edward VI, 1547–1553 SP 62: State Papers, Ireland, Mary I, 1553–1558 SP 63: State Papers, Ireland, Elizabeth I, 1558–1603



•  select bibliography  • 227

Northamptonshire Records Office, Milton Fitzwilliam MS 67 Two discourses by James Croft touching Ireland, c.1581–3 Fitzwilliam MS 68 Anonymous, ‘Notes collected at the request of a friende that going over into Ireland was desirous to be instructed of some things apperteyning to that Government’, c.1588 The Bodleian Library, Oxford Carte MS 55 Irish correspondence of William Fitzwilliam, c.1562–1596 Carte MS 56 Irish correspondence of William Fitzwilliam, c.1571–1575 Carte MS 57 Irish correspondence of William Fitzwilliam, c.1568–1575 Carte MS 58 Irish correspondence of William Fitzwilliam, c.1561–1568 Exeter College MS 154 Hugh Collier, ‘Discourse on the mere Irish of Ireland’, c.1607 Jones MS 56 Carew Reynell, ‘Howe that barbarous Conntrie might be reduced to a better Civilitye’, 1599 St Amand MS 10 Edward Waterhouse, ‘A mean to quiet the north parte of Vlster by restrayninge the sallies and invasions of the Scottes and to strengthen the northwest coaste of Englande’, 1574 P r in te d p ri m a ry s o u rc e s , g u i d e s a nd ca l en d a rs

Bale, John, The Vocacyon of Johan Bale to the bishoprick of Ossorie, eds Peter Happé and John N. King (Binghamton, 1990). Barry, John and Hiram Morgan (eds), Great Deeds in Ireland: Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis (Cork, 2013). Beacon, Richard, Solon his follie, eds Vincent Carey and Clare Carroll (Binghamton, 1996). Boorde, Andrew, The fyrst booke of the Introduction of Knowledge (London, 1552). Bradshaw, Brendan (ed.), ‘Fr. Wolfe’s description of Limerick city, 1574’, in JNMAS, 17 (1975), 47–53. ——, ‘A Treatise for the Reformation of Ireland, 1554–5’, in IJ, 16 (1981), 299–315. Brady, Ciaran (ed.), A Viceroy’s Vindication?: Sir Henry Sidney’s Memoir of Service in Ireland, 1556–78 (Cork, 2002). Brady, W. Maziere (ed.), State Papers Concerning the Irish Church (London, 1868). Brewer, J.S., et al. (eds), Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts Preserved at Lambeth Palace, 1515–1624, 6 vols (London, 1867–1873). Bryskett, Lodowick, A Discvrse of Civill Life (London, 1606). Buckley, James (ed.), ‘Munster in A.D. 1597’, in JCHAS, 12 (1906), 53–68.

228

•  select bibliography  •

Canny, Nicholas (ed.), ‘Rowland White’s “Discors Touching Ireland”, c.1569’, in IHS, 20:80 (Sep., 1977), 439–63. ——, ‘Rowland White’s “The Dysorders of the Irisshery”, 1571’, in Stud. Hib., 19 (1979), 147–60. Churchyard, Thomas, A generall rehearsall of warres (London, 1579). ——, The moste true reporte of Iames Fitz Morrice deathe and others the like offenders; with a brief discourse of rebellion (London, 1579). Collins, Arthur (ed.), Letters and Memorials of State, 2 vols (London, 1746). Cunningham, Bernadette (ed.), ‘A View of Religious Affiliation and Practice in Thomond, 1591’, in Archiv. Hib., 48 (1994), 13–24. Curtis, Edmund (ed.), ‘The Survey of Offaly in 1550’, in Hermathena, 20:44 (1930), 312–52. ——, Calendar of the Ormond Deeds, 1172–1603, 6 vols (Dublin, 1932–1934). Dawtrey, John (ed.), The Falstaff Saga, being the life and opinions of Captain Nicholas Dawtrey (London, 1927). Derricke, John, The Image of Irelande (London, 1581). Donovan, Brian C. and David Edwards, British Sources for Irish History, 1485–1641: A Guide to manuscripts in Local, Regional and Specialised Repositories in England, Scotland and Wales (Dublin, 1997). Duncan-Jones, Katherine and Jan van Dorsten (eds), Miscellaneous Prose of Sir Philip Sidney (Oxford, 1973). E.C.S., The Government of Ireland under the Honorable, Ivst and Wise Gouernour Sir Iohn Perrot, Knight (London, 1626). Edwards, David (ed.), Campaign Journals of the Elizabethan Irish Wars (Dublin, 2014). Falkiner, Caesar Litton (ed.), Illustrations of Irish History (London, 1904). ——, ‘Barnaby Rich’s ‘Remembrances of the State of Ireland, 1612’ with notices of other manuscript reports, by the same writer, on Ireland under James the First’, in PRIA, 26C (1906), 125–42. Gillespie, Raymond (ed.), ‘Plantation and Profit: Richard Spert’s Tract on Ireland, 1608’, in Ir. Econ. Soc. Hist., 20 (1993), 62–71. ——, ‘Three Tracts on Ireland, c.1613’, in Anal. Hib., 38 (2004), 1–47. Gogarty, Thomas (ed.), ‘The Archbishop of Armachane’s Opinion touchinge Ireland’, in JCLAS, 2:2 (Sep., 1909), 149–64. Hadfield, Andrew and John McVeagh (eds), Strangers to that Land: British Perceptions of Ireland from the Reformation to the Famine (Cornwall, 1994). Hamilton, H.C., et al. (eds), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1509–1670, 24 vols (1860–1912). Harington, John, ‘A Short View of Ireland Written in Anno. 1605’, in Anecdota Bodleiana, I (Oxford, 1879). Harrington, John P. (ed.), The English Traveller in Ireland: Accounts of Ireland and the Irish through five centuries (Dublin, 1991). Harris, Walter (ed.), Hibernica, or some antient pieces relating to Ireland, 2 vols (Dublin, 1747). Heffernan, David (ed.), ‘Six Tracts on “Coign and Livery”, c.1568–78’, in Anal. Hib., 45 (2014), 1–33.



•  select bibliography  • 229

——, ‘An Early Elizabethan Treatise on Laois and Offaly: Cormac mac Briain Í Chonchubhair’s ‘A Device for the Government of Ireland (c.1565)’, in Ossory, Laois and Leinster, 6 (2016), 113–28. ——, ‘Reform’ Treatises on Tudor Ireland, 1537–1599 (Dublin, 2016). ——, ‘Robert Cowley’s “A Discourse of the Cause of the Evil State of Ireland”, c.1526’, in Anal. Hib., 48 (2017), pp. 1–30. Herbert, William, Croftus Sive in Hibernia Liber, eds Arthur Keaveney and John Madden (Dublin, 1992). Hinton, Edward M. (ed.), ‘Rych’s Anothomy of Ireland, with an Account of the Author’, in PMLA, 55:1 (Mar., 1940), 73–101. Historical manuscripts commission publications   De L’Isle and Dudley MSS, 6 vols (London, 1925–1966).   Pepys MSS (London, 1911).   Salisbury (Cecil) MSS, 23 vols (London, 1888–1973). Hogan, Edmund (ed.), The Description of Ireland and the state thereof as it is at this present in anno 1598 (Dublin, 1878). ——, ‘Haynes’ Observations on the state of Ireland in 1600’, in IER, 8 (1887), 1112–22; 9 (1888), 54–66, 160–74. Hore, Herbert F. (ed.), ‘Marshal Bagenal’s Description of Ulster, Anno 1586’, in UJA, 1:2 (1854), 137–60. Hore, Herbert J., and James Graves (eds), The Social State of the Southern and Eastern Counties of Ireland in the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1870). IAS, Tracts Relating to Ireland, 2 vols (Dublin, 1841–1843). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, 21 vols (1862–1932). Lodge, John (ed.), Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, or a select collection of State Papers, 2 vols (Dublin, 1772). MacNeill, Charles (ed.), ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s Notes of His Report on Ireland’, in Anal. Hib., 2 (Jan., 1931), 93–291. ——, ‘Fitzwilliam Manuscripts at Milton, England’, in Anal. Hib., 4 (Oct., 1932), 287–326. Maginn, Christopher, and Steven G. Ellis, The Tudor Discovery of Ireland (Dublin, 2015). Maley, Willy (ed.), ‘The Supplication of the Blood of the English Most Lamentably Murdered in Ireland, Cryeng out of the Yearth for Revenge (1598)’, in Anal. Hib., 36 (1995), 1–77. McLaughlin, Joseph (ed.), ‘Select Documents XLVII: Richard Hadsor’s ‘Discourse’ on the Irish State, 1604’, in IHS, 30:119 (May, 1997), 337–53. Morgan, Hiram (ed.), ‘A Booke of Q + Answars concerning the warres or rebellions of the kingdome of Irelande’, 1597, in Anal. Hib., 36 (1995), 79–135. Morley, Henry (ed.), Ireland Under Elizabeth and James I (London, 1890). Myers, James P. (ed.), Elizabethan Ireland: A Selection of Writings by Elizabethan Writers on Ireland (Connecticut, 1983). Nicholls, Kenneth (ed.), ‘A Commentary on the Nobility and Gentry of Thomond, circa 1567’, in The Irish Genealogist, 4:2 (Oct., 1969), 65–73. O’Donovan, John (ed.), Miscellany of the Celtic Society (Dublin, 1849). Payne Collier, J. (ed.), ‘The Egerton Papers’, in The Camden Society, 12 (1840).

230

•  select bibliography  •

Quinn, D.B. (ed.), The Voyages and Colonising Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 2 vols (London, 1940). ——, ‘“A Discourse of Ireland” (Circa 1599): A Sidelight on English Colonial Policy’, in PRIA, 47C (1941/1942), 151–66. ——, ‘Edward Walshe’s ‘Conjectures’ concerning the state of Ireland’, in IHS, 5:20 (Sep., 1947), 303–33. Rich, Barnaby, Allarme to England (London, 1578). ——, A short suruey of Ireland (London, 1609). ——, A nevv description of Ireland (London, 1610). Shirley, E.P. (ed.), Original Letters and Papers in Illustration of the History of the Church in Ireland during the reigns of Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth (London, 1851). Smith, Thomas, A letter sent by I.B. Gentleman vnto his very frende Maystet [sic] R.C. Esquire vvherein is conteined a large discourse of the peopling and inhabiting the cuntrie called the Ardes (London, 1572). ——, The offer and order giuen by Sir Thomas Smyth Knighte, and Smyth his sonne, vnto suche as be willing to accompanie the sayd Thomas Smyth the sonne, in his voyage for the inhabiting some partes of the Northe of Irelande (London, 1572). Smyth, John, ‘Irish Bardism in 1561’, in UJA, 1:6 (1858), 165–7. Spenser, Edmund, Works of Edmund Spenser: A Variorum Edition, 11 vols (Baltimore, 1932). ——, A View of the Present State of Ireland, eds Andrew Hadfield and Willy Maley (Oxford, 1997). State Papers During the Reign of Henry the Eight, 11 vols (1830–1852). Twigge, Robert (ed.), ‘Edward White’s Description of Thomond in 1574’, in JNMAS, 1 (1910), 75–85. Vossen, A.F. (ed.), Two Bokes of the Histories of Ireland (Assen, 1963). Walshe, Edward, The office and duety in fightyng for our countrey (London, 1545). Ware, James (ed.), The Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633). Wood, Herbert (ed.), The Chronicle of Ireland, 1584–1608 (Dublin, 1933).



•  index  • 231

• Index

Absentees, Act of 38 Ackworth, George 158 Ackworth, Henry 5–6 Adare, Co. Cork 180 Admiralty, Court of 149 Adrian IV, Pope 45 Affane, Co. Wexford 124 Agard, Sir Francis, seneschal 93, 124 Agard, Thomas, captain 44, 81–2 Alen, John, master of the rolls and lord chancellor of Ireland 4, 6, 10, 14, 33, 35–6, 40–2, 44, 52–3, 57, 61–3, 78–80, 82, 84–5, 87, 89, 91, 99, 102, 106, 110, 145, 178 Alen, Thomas 14, 89, 156 Alexander VI, Pope 28 Antrim, county of 31, 62–5, 97, 99–101, 128–36, 202–4 Ap Howell, Walter, captain 82 Ap Howell, Watkin, captain 42, 103 archery 30 Arches, Court of the 159 Ards peninsula, the, Co. Down 8, 64, 92, 131–3, 151, 218 Argyll, earls of see Campbell, Archibald Arklow, Co. Wicklow 32, 38, 40–1, 47, 145 Armagh, archdiocese of 55–6, 60, 155 Armagh, Co. Armagh 10, 40, 89, 94–5, 104, 128–9, 156, 204 Armagh, county of 131, 202 Arnold, Sir Nicholas, lord justice 78, 94, 96–7, 108–9, 136, 155, 186 Ascham, Roger 67

Athens 182 Athlone 81, 156, 179 Aylmer, Gerald 41–2, 44, 79–80, 83, 87, 103 Aylmer, Richard 83, 103 Baeshe, Edward, victualler 13 Bagenal, Sir Henry, captain 12, 15–16, 152, 201–4 Bagenal, Sir Nicholas, marshal 5, 82, 130, 152, 201–3 Bagenal, Sir Ralph, captain 97 Bale, John, archbishop of Ossory 154 Ballyadams (Philipstown), Co. Laois 80, 85 Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal 130 Baltimore, Co. Cork 88, 129 Baltinglass Revolt, the 160, 176 Bangor, Co. Down 132 Bann, river 64, 98–9, 128–30, 134 Barkley, Edward, captain 180 Barnewall, James 89, 145 Barnewall, Patrick 83 Barrow, Thomas, captain 131 Barry, Viscount 179 Barryscourt, Co. Cork 180 Basnet, Edward, dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral 53 Bathe, Thomas 2 Beacon, Richard xviii, 6, 8, 181–2 Beale, Robert, clerk of the Privy Council xxi, xxiv, 3, 16, 32, 70 Bearehaven, Co. Cork 129, 178 Beecher, Phane 181

232

•  index  •

Beleek, Co. Fermanagh 130 Belfast, Co. Antrim 98, 134 Bell, John 17 Bell, Robert 148 Bellingham, Edward, lord deputy 79–82, 87, 90, 97, 105 Bellings, Richard 188 Benburb, Co. Tyrone 134 Bermingham, Patrick, chief justice of king’s bench 55 Bermingham, William 93, 107–9, 124, 136 Berners, William, commissioner 49 Berwick, treaty of 99 Bethell, Richard 98, 193 Bicknor, Alexander 74 Bingham, Richard, governor of Connacht 127, 174, 196 Blackwater (Ulster), river 128, 134, 152, 201–3 Blasket Islands, Co. Cork 176 Bodkin, Christopher 155 bonnaught 100, 136, 142 Boorde, Andrew 14 Boulogne 83 Bourchier 181 Boyle, Richard 193 Brabazon, Sir William, under-treasurer 4, 36, 39–44, 51–4, 57, 61–3, 78–82, 87, 124, 147 Brady, Hugh, bishop of Meath 155–7, 194–5 Breifne 51, 146, 204 Brereton, Andrew 82 Brereton, John 81 Brett, Jerome, colonist 5, 10, 122, 129–32 Bristol 129 Brooke, George, ninth baron Cobham 98 Brooke, Roger 82, 103 Brown, Christopher 155 Brown, Walter 42, 83 Browne, George, archbishop of Dublin 5, 17, 56, 58–9, 154–7 Browne, John 177 Browne, Thomas, captain 131 Browne, Sir Valentine, auditor 129, 179, 196 Bryan, Sir Francis, lord justice 90 Bryskett, Lodowick 184 Burghley, Lord see Cecil, William Burke, Roland 155 Burnell, Henry, lawyer 141–3 Burney Dall 134

Butler, Edmund, archbishop of Cashel 75–6 Butler, James, ninth earl of Ormond 41–2, 79 Butler, Piers, eighth earl of Ormond, first earl of Ossory 41–2, 44, 52–3, 55, 61 Butler, Richard 52 Butler, Thomas, seventh earl of Ormond 28–9 Butler, Thomas, tenth earl of Ormond 92–3, 95, 124, 126, 146, 179–81, 187 Butlers, the 33–4, 38, 42, 52, 55, 60, 95, 144 Caesar, Sir Julius, master of the rolls xxi Calais 83 Cambridge 57 Campbell, Agnes 130 Campbell, Archibald, fifth earl of Argyll 99–101, 130 Campion, Edmund xxviii, 156 Carbery, Co. Cork 146 Carew, George, general and antiquarian 2, 5, 32, 203 Carew, Peter 130 Carey, George, lord justice xxviii Carleill, Christopher, captain 203 Carleton, George 133 Carlingford, Co. Louth 40, 81, 98, 128 Carlow, Co. Carlow 32, 38, 41, 47, 83 Carlow, county of xx, 9, 26, 36–44, 65, 78, 80, 82, 107, 130 Carlow, proposed earldom of 41 Carrick-on-Shannon 28 Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim 40, 63–4, 81, 87, 89, 95–9, 101, 125, 128–9, 152, 187 Cashel, archbishop of 61–2, 90 Cassan 179 Castle Chamber, Court of 149 Castledermot, Co. Kildare 41 Castlemahon, Co. Cork 181 Cavan, county of 202, 204 Cecil, Sir Robert, first earl of Salisbury 13, 16–17 Cecil, Sir Thomas, first earl of Exeter 134, 140 Cecil, Sir William, first Lord Burghley 7, 15–16, 32, 88–9, 95, 109, 125, 128, 139–41, 156–8, 174, 180, 185–6, 190, 193–4, 196–7, 200, 203 ‘cess’ 1, 77–8, 89, 104–10, 136–43, 153, 161, 179, 183, 187, 191



•  index  • 233

Chaloner, John, secretary of state xxix–xxx, 123, 142–3, 199, 220 Chaloner, Luke 157 Champernoun, Arthur 134 Charles V, king of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor 59 Chatterton, Thomas 131, 133 Cheevers, Christopher 107, 130 Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin 57–8 churches, physical decay of 55, 59, 153–60, 221 Churchyard, Thomas 12 Clancar, earl of 176 Clandeboye 13, 33, 99, 131–6, 146, 200, 203 Clankies 202 Clanricard, earls of 91–2, 220 Clare, county of 9 Clonfert, bishop of 155 Clonmines, Co. Wexford 106 ‘coign and livery’ xvi, xxviii, 9, 13–14, 17, 28–9, 31, 34, 45, 105, 107, 136–40, 143, 220 coinage 107, 139–40, 142–3, 221 Colcought, Anthony, captain 81–2 Coleraine, Co. Derry 134 Colley, Henry, captain 85 Collier, Hugh, captain 9 Colman, Morgan, secretary 146, 177–8 colonisation and plantation xvi, xvii, xx, xxi, xxiv, 63–4, 78–87, 98–101, 110, 122–4, 127–36, 160–1, 200, 217 Common Prayer, Book of 157 ‘commonwealth men’ xxiii ‘composition’ 3, 7, 123, 136–43, 153, 160–1, 201, 203–4, 220 concordatums 194–6 Connacht xxv, 9, 26, 28, 40, 54–5, 64, 77–8, 81, 90–3, 100, 124–7, 129, 135, 137–40, 143–4, 146, 160–1, 174, 177–8, 187–8, 193, 196–7, 201, 204, 218, 220 connywarrens 181 Corbally 180 Corbett, Andrew 127 Cork, bishop of 62 Cork, Co. Cork 81, 88, 217 Cork, county of 129–30, 194 Cork, mayor of 190 corruption xvi, xx, 102–10, 153, 161, 174–5, 183, 186–99, 206, 219 Cosby, Alexander, captain 196 Cosby, Francis, seneschal 83, 85, 107 Counter Reformation xxiv, 122–3, 160

Courtenay, Sir William 181 Cowley, Robert, master of the rolls 6, 33–4, 40–1, 43–5, 56–7, 60, 127, 136, 150, 218–19 Cowley, Walter, solicitor general xvii–xviii, 14, 33–4, 40–1, 44, 61–2, 79–83, 87, 90, 124, 127 Cowyck, Rowland, clerk 159–60, 192, 196 Craik, Alexander, bishop of Kildare 157 Creagh, Richard, archbishop of Armagh 160 Croft, James, lord deputy xxix, 84, 87–8, 91, 98, 100, 102, 105, 150, 154, 181, 190, 197 Crofton, William 98 Cromwell, Oliver 178 Cromwell, Thomas xx, xxiii, 16, 39–40, 42–4, 51–2, 56, 60–1, 63, 147 Cumbria 135 Curwen, Hugh, archbishop of Dublin 155–6 Cusack, Christopher, sheriff of Meath 29 Cusack, Robert 103 Cusack, Thomas, lord justice and lord chancellor 3, 7, 11–12, 27, 47–8, 87, 91, 93–4, 96, 98, 109, 124, 136, 144, 146, 151 Daingean (Philipstown), Co. Offaly 54, 79–81, 85 Dalton, Peter 82 Daltons 82 Darcy, Sir William 3, 9, 29, 32, 34–5 Dartas, James 157 Davies, Sir John, attorney general 35 Davies, Thomas 197 Dawtrey, Nicholas, seneschal 2, 7–8, 13–14, 203 Delvin, baron of see Nugent, Christopher, sixth baron Delvin Demaistres, Peter 177 Denbigh, Wales 183 Denton, John 5 Derricke, John xxvii, 8, 12 Derry 129 Desmond 8, 28 Desmond, earldom of 59–62, 146, 220 Desmond, earls of see FitzGerald family Desmond Rebellion, the 10, 15, 129, 160, 174–82, 186, 189–91, 194 Devereux, Alexander 155 Devereux, John 42, 83 Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex 13, 15–16, 87, 202

234

•  index  •

Devereux, Walter, first earl of Essex 2, 14, 101, 132–6, 140, 152, 199, 202 Dillon, Lucas 148 Dillon, Robert 81 Dillon, Robert, chief justice of common pleas 189, 191, 205 Dillon, Thomas 188 Dix, William 109 Docwra, Henry, captain 17 Dowdall, George, archbishop of Armagh 99, 103–5, 155–6 Dowdall, James 188 Dowdall, John, captain 2, 5 Down, bishop of 155 Down, bishopric of 101 Down, county of 31, 63–4, 97, 99–101, 128, 130–6, 202–3, 218 Drogheda, Co. Louth 74 Drogheda, mayor of 105 Drumcree, Co. Armagh 94, 96 Drury, Drew 12 Drury, William, lord justice 12, 127, 141, 200, 220 Dublin xx, 26, 28, 36–7, 41, 52, 54, 57–8, 97–8, 145, 147, 149–50, 153, 156–7, 178, 195, 217–18, 220–1 Dublin, archdiocese of 55–6 Dublin Castle xvi, xxiv, 42, 47, 59, 61–2, 86, 89–90, 94, 99, 102, 105, 190 Dublin, county of 30–1, 37–8, 42 Dublin, mayor of 105 Dudley, Ambrose, third earl of Warwick 92, 180, 184 Dudley, Edmund xv Dudley, John, first duke of Northumberland 3, 16, 84, 87–8, 91, 145 Dudley, Robert, first earl of Leicester 16, 106, 109, 179–80, 183–5 Dudley-Sidney circle, the 179–80, 183–5 Dufferin, Co. Down 64 Duhallow, Co. Cork 146 Dunanny, Co. Monaghan 202 Dundalk, Co. Louth 96 Dundrum, Co. Down 64, 82 Dungarvan, Co. Waterford 82, 112 Dungarvan, parsonage of, Co. Waterford 58 Dunseverick, Co. Antrim 134 Dunyveg 204 Dymmock, John 15

economic projecting xxiii, 177, 181, 221 Ecclesiastical High Commission, the 11, 158–9 Edward III 187–8 Edward IV 45, 133 Edward VI 50, 77, 84, 88, 90–1, 103, 106, 137, 139, 154, 156, 178 Egerton, Thomas, solicitor general, attorney general 16, 180 Elizabeth I 2, 9–10, 13, 16, 90, 92, 96, 101, 104, 108, 122, 127, 130–1, 134, 136, 139–40, 143, 149, 153–4, 158–60, 175, 182, 185–6, 197, 199, 219, 221 Elyot, Sir Thomas 67 Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford 41, 145 Epiminedes 181 Essex, earls of see Devereux family Eustace, Richard 24 Eustace, Rowland, second Viscount Baltinglass 141, 176 factions 95 Faculties, Court of 149, 158–9 Farmer, William xxviii Farney, Co. Monaghan 134, 202 Fenton, Sir Geoffrey, secretary of state 5, 8, 174, 179–80, 203–5 Fermanagh, county of 202, 205 Fermoy, Co. Cork 61 Ferns, bishop of 155 Ferns, Co. Wexford 32, 38, 40–1, 47, 52, 145–6 Fews, the, Co. Armagh 131 financial reform 136–43, 220–1 Finglas, Patrick, chief baron of the exchequer xviii, xxii, 3, 10, 15, 29–30, 32–5, 37–8, 40–2, 44, 82, 127, 218–19 Finglas, Thomas 32, 37, 60 fishing 135, 177 Fitton, Sir Edward, under treasurer, president of Connacht 125, 127, 139 FitzGerald, Gerald, ninth earl of Kildare 30, 34 FitzGerald, Gerald, eleventh earl of Kildare 63, 92, 95, 97, 187 FitzGerald, Gerald, fifteenth earl of Desmond 10, 61, 92–3, 124, 146, 174–82, 184–5 FitzGerald, James, sixth earl of Desmond 29 FitzGerald, James, eleventh earl of Desmond 59–60



•  index  • 235

FitzGerald, James, fourteenth earl of Desmond 60–2, 90–2, 103–4 FitzGerald, James FitzMaurice 60–1, 160 FitzGerald, James FitzMaurice, Elizabethan rebel 126 FitzGerald, Thomas, eighth earl of Desmond 59 FitzGerald, Thomas, tenth earl of Kildare 36 FitzGerald, Thomas, twelfth earl of Desmond 60 FitzMaurice Rebellion, the 126, 140 Fitzroy, Henry, first duke of Richmond and Somerset 114 Fitzwilliam, Sir William, lord deputy 5, 93, 107, 122–4, 131, 137, 140, 155, 189, 192–4, 196, 198, 205–6 Fleet (prison), the 107, 141 Floddy, Walter, constable 97 Fort Governor, Co. Offaly 79–81, 85 Fort Protector, Co. Laois 80–1, 85 Forth, Ambrose 149 Fowle, Robert 177, 193 Foyle, Lough 17, 89, 95, 98, 128, 130, 134 France 54, 63–4, 83, 97–9 Francois I, king of France 59 Fullerton, James 157 Galloglass 28, 136, 205 Galway, Co. Galway 91–2, 160 Galway, county of 146 Gardener, Sir Robert, chief justice of queen’s bench 8, 188–9, 197–8, 204–5 Garvey, Roger 158 Geraldine League, the 60, 63 Geraldines, the 34, 36, 38–40, 63, 95 Gernons, Luke 9 Gerrard, Sir Gilbert, attorney general 186 Gerrard, Sir Thomas 10, 17, 131, 146 Gerrard, Sir William, lord chancellor xix, xxviii–xxix, 2, 5, 10, 141–3, 148, 151, 154, 158, 186–8 Gilbert, Sir Humphrey 5, 10, 13, 122, 126, 129, 139–40, 143, 176, 180, 220 Glenarm, Co. Antrim 128 Glenconkein, Co. Tyrone 96 Glenmalure, Co. Wicklow 196 Glens, the, Co. Antrim 62, 64, 131, 134, 146, 204 Golding, Edmund 29

Good, William 160 Goodacre, Hugh, archbishop of Armagh 154 Goodman, Christopher 155 Goring, J., captain 13 Greencastle, Co. Down 64 Grenville, Sir Richard 129 Grey Abbey, Co. Down 132 Grey, Arthur, fourteenth baron de Wilton, lord deputy 7, 140, 158, 178, 180, 183–4, 193, 195–6 Grey, Leonard, lord deputy 36, 41–4, 50, 195 Grey, William, thirteenth baron de Wilton 92 Hadsor, Richard xix Hanmer, Meredith xxviii, 15 Harbert, Francis 43, 89 Harrington, Sir Henry, seneschal 176 Hatton, Sir Christopher, lord chancellor 12, 180–1 Heath, Nicholas, archbishop of York, lord chancellor 104 hemp 177 Henry II 45 Henry III 187 Henry VII 1–3, 28–9, 46, 217 Henry VIII xvii, xix, xx, xxii, xxv, 2–3, 9–10, 16, 26, 29, 35–6, 39–41, 43–7, 49–52, 54, 58–9, 62, 64, 77–9, 90, 95, 100, 105, 127, 147, 151, 217 Herbert, Sir William, undertaker xix, 4–6, 12, 157–8, 181–2, 189, 195 Heron, Nicholas, sheriff 107 herring 135 Higden, Ranulph 27 Highlands, Scottish 99 Hollywood, Co. Down 132 Hooker, John 130 Hovendon, Giles 103 Howard, Charles, second baron Howard of Effingham 12 Howard, Thomas, second earl of Surrey, third duke of Norfolk, lord lieutenant 33, 35–6, 45–6, 87 Idrone, Co. Carlow 41, 130 Inge, Hugh, archbishop of Dublin, lord chancellor 55 Irish Sea, the 51, 133 ironworks 177

236

•  index  •

Island Magee 131 Issam, John 81 Jacob, Robert, solicitor general xxix James I 2, 160, 177, 219 James V, king of Scotland 45, 62–5 Jenyson, Thomas, auditor general 103 Johnson, Swethin, victualler 195 Jonys, Brian 82 judicial reform 6, 143, 146–51, 186–8 Kearney, John 157 Keating, Alexander 42, 83 Kenlis, Co. Meath 31 kern 28, 205 Kerry, county of 129, 178–80 Kerrycurrihy, Co. Cork 129 Kildare, county of 30 Kildare, diocese of 56 Kildare, earls of 36, 38, see FitzGerald family Kildare Rebellion, the xx, xxv, 3, 26, 34, 36–9, 44, 48, 54, 77, 87, 110 Kilfenora, bishop of 124 Kilkenny, county of 33, 55, 62, 109 Kilmainham, Co. Dublin 178 Kinelarty, Co. Down 131 Kinsale, Co. Cork 81, 88 Kirtan, Daniel, captain 180 Kite, John, archbishop of Armagh 30, 127 Knollys, Sir Francis 130 Knollys, Sir Henry 134 Knox, John 155, 159 Knyvett, Henry 13 Kyng, Mathew 103 Lake, Sir Thomas, secretary of state 1 Lambay Island 63 Lancaster, house of 28 Lane, Ralph, colonist and army captain 5, 178 language 157–8 Laois (Leix, Queen’s County) 10, 78–87, 145, 178 Larkin, Edward, constable 97–8 Laudabiliter 45 Lecale, Co. Down 82, 92, 99 Lee, Thomas, captain xxviii, 5, 176, 189, 192 Legge, Robert, deputy chief remembrancer 5–6, 10, 189–94, 196–7, 206 Leicester, earl of see Dudley, Robert Leighlin, bishop of 193

Leighlin, Co. Carlow 32, 38, 47, 82 Leinster 3, 10, 28, 31–2, 77–87, 89, 91–3, 104, 109–10, 122, 136, 144–5, 153, 197, 218–19 Limerick, bishop of 61 Limerick, Co. Limerick 91–2, 112, 156 Limerick, county of 146, 194 ling 135 literature of complaint xxv, 102–10, 174–5, 186–99, 206, 219 Liverpool 132 Loftus, Adam, archbishop of Dublin 15, 155–60, 189–90, 192–5 London 1, 7, 51, 97, 131, 134 Louth, county of 30, 156, 202 Lovell, Francis, sheriff 180 Lovell, Thomas 193–4 Low Countries, the 1, 129 Luttrell, Thomas 36, 41, 44, 79–80, 83 Lyon, William, bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross 5, 13, 15, 158, 189–90, 195, 206 MacCartans 131, 203 MacCarthy Mór, Donal, first earl of Clancar 95, 146, 151, 176 MacCarthy Reagh, Cormac Óge 46 MacCoghlans 145 MacDonaghs 176 MacDonnell, Angus 204 MacDonnell, Donough 63 MacDonnell, James 96, 130 MacDonnell, Sorley Boy 98, 203 MacDonnells 59, 62–5, 96–101, 130–6, 202–4 MacGiollapadraig, Sir Barnaby, first baron of Upper Ossory 51 MacGiollapadraigs 51, 145 Machiavelli, Niccoló 182 MacLeans 202–3 MacMahon, Hugh Roe 205 MacMahon, Sir Ross 205 MacMahons 59, 96, 202–3, 205 MacMurrough Kavanagh, Cahir McArt 52 MacMurrough Kavanagh, Cahir MacInnycross 42 MacMurrough Kavanaghs xx, 26, 32–3, 36–44, 47–8, 50–3, 65, 92, 145 MacShane, the 153, 203 MacSweeneys 176 MacVaddocks 145 MacWilliam Burkes 33, 45



•  index  • 237

MacWilliams 48 madder 177, 221 Magennises 96, 202 Maguires 96, 202–3, 205 Maidstone, Kent 129 Malby, Sir Nicholas, president of Connacht 2, 14, 82, 127, 131, 133, 141, 143, 178–9, 196, 220 Mallow, Co. Cork 179 Man, Isle of 135 Mansell, Rhys 180 Marche, Anthony 103 Markettown, Co. Antrim 128 martial law 77, 82, 89, 93, 101, 126–7, 131, 153, 185, 190–1, 196–8, 206 Mary I 11, 16, 84, 98, 102, 104, 153–4, 156 Masserene, Co. Antrim 134 Mayo, county of 146, 174, 222 McGrath, Miler, archbishop of Cashel 4, 155, 203 Meath, bishop of 155 Meath, county of 8, 28–31, 107–8, 130, 136, 144, 151, 202 Meath, diocese of 55–6 Megara 182 Merbury, John, captain xxx, 5, 7 Miagh, Thomas 178 midlands plantation, the 10, 77–87, 89, 103 Midleton, Marmaduke, bishop of Waterford 160 Might, Thomas, victualler 137 Mildmay, Walter, chancellor of the exchequer 197 military strategy 6 ministers, need for suitable 59, 153–60, 221 Monaghan, county of 134, 202, 205 monarchical prejudice 136 monasteries, dissolution of 32, 38, 49, 55, 92, 107, 139 Montague, Sir Edward 148 Moore, James 178 More, Sir Thomas xxiii Moryson, Fynes 9 Mostyn, William, captain 4 Moyle, Thomas, commissioner 49 Munster xxv, 1, 3–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 26–7, 31, 34, 40, 54–5, 59–62, 64, 77–8, 82, 87, 90–3, 104, 110, 124–7, 129–30, 135, 137, 139–41, 143–4, 146, 150, 153, 159–61, 174–85, 188–9, 191–2, 194–7, 217, 220, 222

Munster Plantation 5, 8, 129, 133, 135, 174–82, 189, 195, 198, 218–19 musters 108, 186, 196–7 Nenagh, Co. Tipperary 81–2 Netterville, Richard, lawyer 141 Newcastle 135 Newry, Co. Down 12, 82, 89, 95–6, 130, 152, 188, 201, 203 New Testament, the 157 Newtown, Co. Down 132 New World, the 177 Nine Years War, the 3–4, 14, 17, 54, 87, 146, 175, 189, 196, 198–201, 205–6, 219 Norfolk, duke of see Howard, Thomas Norris, Sir John, lord deputy, president of Munster 127, 174 Norris, Sir Thomas, vice-president of Munster 174 North, Council of the 61, 126 Northern Rising, the 160, 190 Northumberland, duke of see Dudley, John Nottinghamshire 181 Nugent, Christopher, sixth baron Delvin 156, 189–90 O’Brien, Donal 95 O’Brien, Donough, second earl of Thomond 54 O’Brien, Donough, fourth earl of Thomond 54 O’Brien, Murrough, first earl of Thomond 51, 54, 57 O’Brien, Sir Turlough 4 O’Briens 40, 48, 51, 81 O’Byrne, Tadhg MacGerald 42 O’Byrnes xx, 26, 32–3, 36–44, 48, 51–3, 65, 92, 145 O’Cahans 99, 203–4 O’Callaghans 176 O’Carrolls 144–5 O’Connor, Brian 79, 86 O’Connor, Cahir 44, 46 O’Connor, Cormac MacBrian 4, 86, 100 O’Connors 26–7, 33, 40, 43–4, 48, 50, 65, 78–87, 97 O’Dempseys 80, 86 O’Donnell, Calvagh 95, 99–100 O’Donnell, Manus 51 O’Donnells 26, 33, 45, 48, 99, 202–3, 205, 219 O’Driscolls 176

238

•  index  •

O’Dunnes 145 O’Dwyers 81 O’Farrells 203 O’Hanlons 96, 131, 202 O’Kennedys 144 O’Mores 26–7, 33, 44, 48, 65, 78–87, 178 O’Mulryans 81 O’Neilan, John, bishop of Kilfenora 124 O’Neill, Art 152–3 O’Neill, Conn, first earl of Tyrone 51, 53–4, 77, 88, 94, 99 O’Neill, Henry 95 O’Neill, Henry, fifteenth-century lord of Tyrone 45 O’Neill, Hugh, second earl of Tyrone 8, 13, 101, 153, 200–6 O’Neill, Hugh MacPhelim 200 O’Neill, Matthew 54, 94 O’Neill, Shane 17, 54, 77–8, 93–101, 109–10 O’Neill, Turlough 95 O’Neill, Turlough Luineach 95, 130, 134, 152–3, 199–205 O’Neills 16, 26, 33–5, 45–6, 48, 51, 53, 94–7, 153, 199–205, 219 O’Neills of Upper Clandeboye 33, 99, 200 O’Reilly, Aodh Conallach 204 O’Reilly, Eamón 204 O’Reilly, Pilib Dubh 204 O’Reilly, Seán 204 O’Reillys 48, 51, 59, 96–7, 202, 204 O’Rourkes 7, 51, 81, 96 O’Sullivans 176 O’Toole, Turlough 51 O’Tooles xx, 26, 32, 36–44, 51–3, 65, 92, 145 Offaly (King’s County), county of 10, 43–4, 46, 49, 54, 78–87, 145 Olderfleet, Co. Antrim 63–4, 98, 128, 131 Old Ross, Co. Wexford 38 Omagh, Co. Tyrone 152–3 Ormond, earldom of 9 Ormond, earls of see Butler family Ormond, lordship of 60 Ossory, bishop of 61 Overton, Richard 186 Oxford 57, 155 Paget, William, first baron Paget 82 Pale, the xxii, 3, 9, 26, 28–30, 32, 35–6, 38, 41, 43–4, 48, 51, 56, 59–61, 65, 80, 82, 93–4, 97, 101–10, 122, 128, 136–44,

147–8, 153, 157, 174, 176, 182–3, 186, 188–9, 191, 193, 218–20 ‘Pander’, the 30–1 pardons 193–4, 196, 198 Parker, John, master of the rolls 98, 107–8 Paulet, George, commissioner 49 Paulet, William, first marquess of Winchester 125 Payne, Robert 8, 181 Pelham, Sir William, lord justice xxix, 3, 10, 159, 177–8 Pellys, Martin 44 Perrot, Sir John, president of Munster, lord deputy xvii, 2–3, 5–6, 9, 14, 29, 126–7, 137, 140, 146, 150, 152–3, 156–9, 195–6, 201, 204–5 Peyton, Christopher 193 Philip II 122, 156 Phoenix, the 101 Piers, William, constable 5–7, 14, 82, 98, 100–1, 123, 127–9, 176, 199–200 Pipho, Robert 193 Pisistratus 181 Pius V, Pope 122, 160 Plantagenet, Richard, third duke of York 45 Plunkett, John 188 Plunkett, Oliver 107 Pollard, John 126 Popham, John, attorney general 180–1 Portrush, Co. Antrim 128, 134 Potter, John, captain 131 Powell, Humphrey 157 Power, Anthony, captain 2, 14, 159 Poynings, Edward, lord deputy 28 primogeniture 28, 45, 94 Protestant Reformation xxiv, 10–11, 153–61, 221 provincial councils and presidents xvi, xxv, 1, 34, 61–2, 64, 78, 89–93, 95, 110, 122–7, 135, 143, 152, 160–1, 201, 204, 217, 220 provost marshals 126, 153, 220 ‘public sphere’ xxiv Puckering, John, keeper of the great seal 16 Radcliffe, Henry, captain 85 Radcliffe, Thomas, third earl of Sussex, lord lieutenant xix, 5–7, 9–10, 15, 77–8, 84–110, 122–8, 136, 143, 145, 149, 151, 154–5, 158, 161, 190, 195, 201, 205



•  index  • 239

Raleigh, Sir Walter 15, 180 Rathlin Island 98, 128, 130, 134 Red Bay, Co. Antrim 128, 134 ‘reform’ debate xvii, xxi–xxii regional conquest xxiii religious reform xvii, 6, 10–11, 27, 54–9, 64, 153–60, 221 Rich, Barnaby, captain, pamphleteer xxvii, 11, 156, 184, 189, 192–3 Rokeby, Ralph, justice of Connacht 127 Rokeby, William, archbishop of Dublin 55, 60 Rome 45, 155 Roscommon, Co. Roscommon 81 Roscommon, county of 146 Ross, bishop of 62 Ross, Co. Cork 176 Ross, Co. Wexford 37 Rosyer, Robert, attorney general of Munster 192 Rouse, Edmund, under-treasurer 98 Route, the, Co. Antrim 62, 204 Russell, Sir William, lord deputy 2, 7, 14, 35, 147–8, 150, 156, 159, 192 Sackford, Thomas, victualler 137 Salamina 182 Salisbury, earl of see Cecil, Robert salmon 135 Salus Populi 30 Saxey, William, chief justice of Munster 5–6 scorched earth, policy of 5, 40–1, 96 Scotland 1, 54, 62–5, 86, 97, 99, 128, 130, 159 Scots, the xvi, xxiii, xxiv, 27, 34, 59, 62–5, 78, 91, 96–101, 110, 127–36, 152, 199–201, 203–4 Scurlocke, Barnaby, lawyer 141 seacoals 135 secret counsel 16 Seething Lane 1 sessions of assize xxiii, 127, 146, 150–1, 202–5 Sexton, Edmund, mayor of Limerick 2, 4 Seymour, Edward, first duke of Somerset 16, 139 Shane, Sir Francis, captain 4 Shannon, river 33–4, 37, 40, 81–2, 87, 178–9 Sherlock, Patrick, Butler agent 2, 14, 125, 137, 143, 175–6 shiring 84–5, 144–7, 160–1, 202–5, 220

Sidney, Sir Henry, lord deputy xvii, xx, 5–7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 92–3, 96, 98–9, 101, 107, 122–4, 126, 128–30, 137–43, 145–7, 149, 152, 156–61, 179, 183–5, 188, 195–6 Sidney, Sir Philip 12, 142, 180, 183–5 Skerries, Co. Antrim 128 Sligo, Co. Sligo 81, 174 Sligo, county of 146 Smith, George 132 Smith, Sir Thomas, secretary of state 8, 10, 101, 131–3, 151, 200, 218–19 Smith, Jr., Thomas, colonist 132 Smyth, John 130–1 Snagg, Thomas, attorney general 188 Solon 181 Somerset, duke of see Seymour, Edward, first duke of Somerset south Leinster, reduction of xx, xxii, xxv, 26–7, 31–44, 48–9, 52–3, 78–80, 82–3, 92, 127, 144, 218–19 Spain 122, 182 Spenser, Edmund, undertaker xvi, xviii, xxvii, 3, 5–6, 41, 181–2 Spert, Richard, colonist 10, 17, 177 St Bee’s, Cumbria 135 St George, Brotherhood of 52–3 St Lawrence, Christopher, eighth baron Howth 141 St Leger, Sir Anthony, lord deputy xx, 9, 27, 45–54, 57–8, 62–4, 79–80, 84, 88, 91, 98, 106–7, 115, 157 St Leger, Robert 82, 112 St Leger, Sir Warham, colonist xxviii, 5, 9–10, 126, 129, 176, 180, 192 St Loe, William, captain 42 St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin 17, 57–9, 155–7 Stanihurst, Richard xxviii Stanley, George, marshal 93, 107, 124 Staples, Edward, bishop of Meath 36, 46–7, 56 Starkey, Thomas xxiii Strabane, Co. Tyrone 152–3 Strangford Lough 98, 130 Stile, John, under-treasurer 147 ‘surrender and regrant’ xx, xxiii, xxv, 11–12, 26–7, 33, 39, 42–54, 64–5, 78–9, 88–9, 136, 151–3, 217, 219 Surrey, earl of see Howard, Thomas Sussex, earl of see Radcliffe, Thomas Sutton, David xxviii

240

•  index  •

Sutton, Oliver 83, 109 Swords, Co. Dublin 129 Symcott, John 186 Taaffe, Nicholas 152–3 tabula rasa 182–5, 206 Talbot, Peter 43 tanistry 9, 152, 201 taxation xvi, xxiii, 136–43, 217, 220 Termonfeckin, Co. Louth 156 Thomas, William 50 Thomond 8, 28, 54, 57, 95, 124 Thomond, earls of see O’Brien family Thornton, George, captain 131 Tipperary, county of 55, 179 Tír Eoghain 78, 94–7, 200–5 Tower, the 196 Tower Hill, London 1 train-oil 177 transplantation 43, 82–3, 133, 178 Travers, John, master of the ordnance 52, 62–3, 83, 90 Tremayne, Edmund, clerk of the Privy Council xviii, xxiv, 2–3, 7, 11–12, 14, 123, 137–43, 148, 150, 152, 159, 161, 188, 220 Trim, Co. Meath 151 Trim, parsonage of, Co. Meath 58 Trinity College, Dublin 57, 157, 219 Trollope, Anthony 7, 13, 149, 158, 189, 193 Tuam, archbishop of 155 Tyrconnell 96, 100, 202, 205 Tyrone 33, 54, 78, 94–7, 130–6, 200–5 Tyrone, earls of see O’Neill family Tyrrye, Edmund 189, 194 Udall, William 13, 193 uirríthe 200–5 Ulster xvi, xxiv, xxv, 2, 9–10, 12, 15, 17, 26, 28, 31, 40, 50–1, 54–5, 62–5, 77, 81–2, 86, 89–102, 109–10, 123–36, 143–4, 146, 152–3, 160, 176, 182, 187–8, 197, 199–206, 217–20 Ulster, earldom of 51, 78 Ulster Plantation, the 177, 218–19 university question, the xxvi, 17, 57–9, 154–7, 178, 219, 221 Upper Ossory 51, 144–5 Ussher, Henry 157 Ussher, John, Dublin alderman 10, 14, 123, 156, 176, 178, 219

venality 194, 206 Wakley, John 103 Wales 46, 133, 150, 183 Wales and the Marches, Council of 61, 126, 186 Wales, Gerald of 27 Wallop, Sir Henry, under-treasurer 5, 8, 15, 174, 179, 190, 193, 197, 203–5 Walsh, James 82 Walsh, Nicholas, chief justice of Munster 188, 191 Walshe, Edward xix, 2, 10, 14, 24, 84, 87, 89, 91, 110, 144–5, 219 Walshe, John 90, 136 Walshe, Thomas 5, 20, 91, 124–5, 144, 149–50 Walsingham, Sir Francis, secretary of state xx, 1–2, 7, 12, 16, 32, 159, 174, 176–80, 184–6, 196–7, 200, 219 War of the Roses, the 28 Wards, Court of 149 Ware, James, antiquarian 35 Warwick, earl of see Dudley, Ambrose Waterford, bishop of 61–2 Waterford, Co. Waterford 62, 217 Waterford, county of 38, 130 Waterford, mayor of 61 Waterhouse, Sir Edward, secretary, chancellor of the exchequer xvii, 14–15, 123, 134–5, 149, 158, 176–7, 179, 201–3 Western Isles of Scotland, the 62–5, 100, 129–30, 202 Westmeath, county of 82, 144 Weston, Robert, lord chancellor 156, 159 Weston, William, chief justice of common pleas 203, 210 Wexford, Co. Wexford 37–8 Wexford, county of 31, 37, 42, 62, 81, 106, 130, 144, 199 White, Sir Nicholas, master of the rolls xxix, 10, 123, 142–3, 189–91, 205, 220 White, Rowland xix, 92, 103, 151 Whitehall xvii, 42, 86–7, 90, 127, 131, 195 Whithaven, Cumbria 135 Wicklow, Co. Wicklow 38, 40–1, 47, 81, 92, 145–6 Wicklow, county of xx, 9, 26, 36–44, 65, 78, 80, 82, 144, 146, 199 Wilbraham, Roger, solicitor general 189, 195, 205



•  index  • 241

Williams, John 177 Williams, Thomas 12 Winchester, marquis of see Paulet, William Wingfield, Jacques, master of the ordnance 107 Wise, John 28 woad 177, 181, 221 Wolfe, David 160 Wolsey, Thomas, archbishop of York,

primate of England, lord chancellor 16, 30, 36, 55, 147 Woney, abbey of, Co. Limerick 81 Wrothe, Sir Thomas, lord justice 108, 155, 186 Wyse, Andrew, under-treasurer 112 York, house of 28 Youghal, Co. Cork 74, 81, 90, 177