Spenser’s Castle Sidney’s Official Account of Ireland Miserable State of the Protestant Church The Catholic Church and its Persecuted Rulers The Viceroy’s Administration A Packed Parliament and its Enactments Claim of Sir P. Carew An Attempt to plant in Ulster Smith’s Settlement in the Ards His Description of the Native Irish He tries to induce Englishmen to join him Smith is killed, and the attempt to plant fails Essex next tries to colonize Ulster He dies in Dublin Sidney returns to Ireland His Interview with Granuaile Massacre at Mullamast Spenser’s Account of the State of Ireland.

[A.D. 1567-1579.]

Kilcolman Castle, with its fair domains, were bestowed on the poet Spenser, who had accompanied Lord Grey to Ireland in 1579. He has left a fearful description of the miseries of the country; but it scarcely exceeds the official report of Sir Henry Sidney, which must first be noticed. At the close of the month of January, 1567, the Lord Deputy set out on a visitation of Munster and Connaught. In his official account he writes thus of Munster: “Like as I never was in a more pleasant country in all my life, so never saw I a more waste and desolate land. Such horrible and lamentable spectacles are there to behold as the burning of villages, the ruin of churches, the wasting of such as have been good towns and castles; yea, the view of the bones and skulls of the dead subjects, who, partly by murder, partly by famine, have died in the fields as, in truth, hardly any Christian with dry eyes could behold.” He declares that, in the territory subject to the Earl of Ormonde, he witnessed “a want of justice and judgment.” He describes the Earl of Desmond as “a man devoid of judgment to govern, and will be to be ruled.” The Earl of Thomond, he says, “had neither wit of himself to govern, nor grace or capacity to learn of others.” The Earl of Clanrickarde he describes as “so overruled by a putative wife, as ofttimes, when he best intendeth, she forceth him to do the worst;” and it would appear that neither he nor his lady could govern their own family, for their sons were so turbulent they kept the whole country in disturbance. In Galway he found the people trying to protect themselves, as best they might, from their dangerous neighbours; and at Athenry there were but four respectable householders, who presented him with the rusty keys of their town “a pitiful and lamentable present;” and they requested him to keep those keys, for “they were so impoverished by the extortions of the lords about them, as they were no longer able to keep that town.”

Well might he designate the policy by which the country had been hitherto governed as “cowardly,” and contemn the practice of promoting division between the native princes, which was still practised. He adds: “So far hath that policy, or rather lack of policy, in keeping dissensions among them, prevailed, as now, albeit all that are alive would become honest and live in quiet, yet there are not left alive, in those two provinces, the twentieth person necessary to inhabit the same.” Sidney at once proceeded to remedy the evils under which the unfortunate country groaned, by enacting other evils. We shall leave him to give his own account of his proceedings. He writes thus, in one of his official despatches: “I write not the names of each particular varlet that hath died since I arrived, as well by the ordinary course of the law, as of the martial law, as flat fighting with them, when they would take food without the good will of the giver, for I think it no stuff worthy the loading of my letters with; but I do assure you the number of them is great, and some of the best, and the rest tremble. For most part they fight for their dinner, and many of them lose their heads before they be served with supper. Down they go in every corner, and down they shall go, God willing."

When we remember Sidney’s own description of the desolation of country, and read of the fashion in which he remedied that desolation we cannot wonder at the piteous account given a few years later by the English poet; for who could escape the threefold danger of “ordinary law, martial law, and flat fighting.” Nor was the state of religious affairs at all more promising. The Deputy describes the kingdom as “overwhelmed by the most deplorable immorality and irreligion;" the Privy Council, in their deliberations, gives a similar account. “As for religion, there was but small appearance of it; the churches uncovered, and the clergy scattered." An Act of Parliament was then passed to remedy the evils which Acts of Parliament had created. In the preamble (11th Elizabeth, sess. iii. ca it mentions the disorders which Sidney had found, and complains of “the great abuse of the clergy in getting into the said dignities by force, simony, friendship, and other corrupt means, to the great overthrow of God’s holy Church;” and for remedy, the Act authorizes the Lord Deputy to appoint, for ten years, to all the ecclesiastical bénéfices of these provinces, with the exception of the cathedral churches of Waterford, Limerick, Cork, and Cashel.

But it was soon evident that Acts of Parliament could not effect ecclesiastical reform, though they might enforce exterior conformity to a new creed. In 1576, Sidney again complains of the state of the Irish Church, and addresses himself, with almost blasphemous flattery to the head of that body, “as to the only sovereign salve-giver to this your sore and sick realm, the lamentable state of the most noble and principal limb thereof the Church I mean as foul, deformed, and as cruelly crushed as any other part thereof, only by your gracious order to be cured, or at least amended. I would not have believed, had I not, for a greater part, viewed the same throughout the whole realm.” He then gives a detailed account of the state of the diocese of Meath, which he declares to be the best governed and best peopled diocese in the realm; and from his official report of the state of religion there, he thinks her Majesty may easily judge of the spiritual condition of less favoured districts. He says there are no resident parsons or vicars, and only a very simple or sorry curate appointed to serve them; of them only eighteen could speak English, the rest being “Irish ministers, or rather Irish rogues, having very little Latin, and less learning or civility." In many places he found the walls of the churches thrown down, the chancels uncovered, and the windows and doors ruined or spoiled fruits of the iconoclastic zeal of the original reformers and of the rapacity of the nobles, who made religion an excuse for plunder. He complains that the sacrament of baptism was not used amongst them, and he accuses the “prelates themselves” of despoiling their sees, declaring that if he told all he should make “too long a libel of his letter. But your Majesty may believe it, that, upon the face of the earth where Christ is professed, there is not a Church in so miserable a case.”

A Protestant nobleman, after citing some extracts from this document, concludes thus: “Such was the condition of a Church which was, half a century ago, rich and flourishing, an object of reverence, and a source of consolation to the people. It was now despoiled of its revenues; the sacred edifices were in ruins; the clergy were either ignorant of the language of their flocks, or illiterate and uncivilized intruders; and the only ritual permitted by the laws was one of which the people neither comprehended the language nor believed the doctrines. And this was called establishing the Reformation!"

It should be observed, however, that Sir Henry Sidney’s remarks apply exclusively to the Protestant clergy. Of the state of the Catholic Church and clergy he had no knowledge, neither had he any interest in obtaining information. His account of the Protestant clergy who had been intruded into the Catholic parishes, and of the Protestant bishops who had been placed in the Catholic diocèses, we may presume to be correct, as he had no interest or object in misrepresentation; but his observation concerning the neglect of the sacrament of baptism, may be taken with some limitation. When a religious revolution takes place in a Catholic country, there is always a large class who conform exteriorly to whatever opinions maybe enforced by the sword. They have not the generosity to become confessors, nor the courage to become martyrs. But these persons rarely renounce the faith in their hearts; and sacrifice their conscience to their worldly interest, though not without considerable uneasiness. In such cases, these apparently conforming Protestants would never think of bringing their children to be baptized by a minister of the new religion; they would make no nice distinctions between the validity of one sacrament and another; and would either believe that sacraments were a matter of indifference, as the new creed implied, or if they were of any value that they should be administered by those who respected them and that their number should remain intact. In recent famine years, the men who risked their spiritual life to save their temporal existence, which the tempter would only consent to preserve on his own terms, were wont to visit the church, and bid Almighty God a solemn farewell until better times should come. They could not make up their minds to die of starvation, when food might be had for formal apostacy; they knew that they were denying their God when they appeared to deny their religion. It is more than probable that a similar feeling actuated thousands at the period of which we are writing; and that the poor Celt, who conformed from fear of the sword, took his children by night to the priest of the old religion, that he might admit them, by the sacrament of baptism, into the fold of the only Church in which he believed.

It is also a matter of fact, that though the Protestant services were not attended, and the lives of the Protestant ministers were not edifying, that the sacraments were administered constantly by the Catholic clergy. It is true they date their letters “from the place of refuge” (e loco refugii nostri), which might be the wood nearest to their old and ruined parish-church, or the barn or stable of some friend, who dared not shelter them in his house; yet this was no hindrance to their ministrations; for we find Dr. Loftus complaining to Sir William Cecil that the persecuted Bishop of Meath, Dr. Walsh, was “one of great credit amongst his countrymen, and upon whom (as touching cause of religion) they wholly depend." Sir Henry Sidney’s efforts to effect reformation of conduct in the clergy and laity, do not seem to have been so acceptable at court as he might have supposed. His strong measures were followed by tumults; and the way in which he obtained possession of the persons of some of the nobles, was not calculated to enhance his popularity. He was particularly severe towards the Earl of Desmond, whom he seized in Kilmallock, after requiring his attendance, on pretence of wishing him to assist in his visitation of Munster. In October, 1567, the Deputy proceeded to England to explain his conduct, taking with him the Earl of Desmond and his brother, John, whom he also arrested on false pretences. Sidney was, however, permitted to return, in September, 1568. He landed at Carrickfergus, where he received the submission of Turlough O’Neill, who had been elected to the chieftaincy on the death of Shane the Proud.

The first public act of the Lord Deputy was to assemble a Parliament, in which all constitutional rules were simply set at defiance (January 17th, 1569). Mayors and sheriffs returned themselves; members were sent up for towns not incorporated, and several Englishmen were elected as burgesses for places they had never seen. One of these men, Hooker, who was returned for Athenry, has left a chronicle of the age. He had to be protected by a guard in going to his residence. Popular feeling was so strongly manifested against this gross injustice, that the judges were consulted as to the legality of proceedings of whose iniquity there could be no doubt. The elections for non-corporate towns, and the election of individuals by themselves, were pronounced invalid; but a decision was given in favour of non-resident Englishmen, which still gave the court a large majority. In this Parliament if, indeed, it could be called such Acts were passed for attainting Shane O’Neill, for suppressing the name, and for annexing Tyrone to the royal possessions. Charter schools were to be founded, of which the teachers should be English and Protestants; and the law before-mentioned, for permitting the Lord Deputy to appoint persons to ecclesiastical bénéfices for ten years, was passed.

Sir Philip Carew came to Ireland about this time, and renewed the claim of his family to possessions in Ireland. This plea had been rejected in the reign of Edward III.; but he now produced a forged roll, which the corrupt administration of the day readily admitted as genuine. His claim was made in right of Robert FitzStephen, one of the first adventurers; his demand included one-half of the “kingdom of Cork,” and the barony of Idrone, in Carlow. Several engagements ensued, in one of which Carew boasted of having slain 400 Irish, and lost only one man. If his statement be true, it is probable the engagement was simply a massacre. The war became so formidable, that the MacCarthys, FitzGeralds, Cavanaghs, and FitzMaurices united against the “common enemy,” and at last despatched emissaries to the Pope to implore his assistance. It is strange to find native Irish chieftains uniting with Anglo-Norman lords to resist an English settler.

Sidney now began to put his plan of local governments into execution; but this arrangement simply multiplied the number of licensed oppressors. Sir Edward Fitton was appointed President of Connaught, and Sir John Perrot, of Munster. Both of these gentlemen distinguished themselves by “strong measures,” of which cruelty to the unfortunate natives was the predominant feature. Perrot boasted that he would “hunt the fox out of his hole,” and devoted himself to the destruction of the Geraldines. Fitton arrested the Earl of Clanrickarde, and excited a general disturbance. In 1570 the Queen determined to lay claim to the possessions in Ulster, graciously conceded to her by the gentlemen who had been permitted to vote according to her royal pleasure in the so-called Parliament of 1569. She bestowed the district of Ards, in Down, upon her secretary, Sir Thomas Smith. It was described as “divers parts and parcels of her Highness’ Earldom of Ulster that lay waste, or else was inhabited with a wicked, barbarous, and uncivil people.” There were, however, two grievous misstatements in this document. Ulster did not belong to her Highness, unless, indeed, the Act of a packed Parliament could be considered legal; and the people who inhabited it were neither “wicked, barbarous, nor uncivil.” The tract of country thus unceremoniously bestowed on an English adventurer, was in the possession of Sir Rowland Savage. His first ancestor was one of the most distinguished of the Anglo-Norman settlers who had accompanied De Courcy to Ireland. Thus, although he could not claim the prescriptive right of several thousand years for his possessions, he certainly had the right of possession for several centuries. An attempt had been made about ten years before to drive him out of part of his territory, and he had written a letter to “The Right Hon. the Earl of Sussex, Lieutenant-General of Ireland,” asking for “justice,” which justice he had not obtained. He was permitted to hold the Southern Ards, because he could not be expelled from it without considerable difficulty, and because it was the least valuable part of his property.

Smith confided the conduct of the enterprise to his natural son who has already been mentioned as the person who attempted to poison Shane O’Neill. The first State Paper notice of this enterprise is in a letter, dated February, 8, 1572, from Captain Piers to the Lord Deputy, stating that the country is in an uproar “at Mr. Smith coming over to plant in the north.” There is a rare black letter still extant, entitled, ["Letter by F.B. on the Peopling of the Ardes”] which Smith wrote to induce English adventurers to join him in his speculation. It is composed with considerable ability. He condemns severely the degeneracy of the early English settlers, “who allied and fostered themselves with the Irish.” He says that “England was never fuller of people than it is at this day,” and attributes this to “the dissolution of abbeys, which hath doubled the number of gentlemen and marriages.” He says the younger sons who cannot “maintain themselves in the emulation of the world,” as the elder and richer do, should emigrate; and then he gives glowing accounts of the advantages of this emigration.

Strange to say, one of the principal inducements he offers is that the “churle of Ireland is very simple and toylsomme man, desiring nothing but that he may not be eaten out with ceasse [rent], coyne, and liverie.” He passes over the subject of rent without any comment, but he explains very fully how “the churle is eaten up” with the exactions of “coyne and liverie.” He says these laborious Irish will gladly come “to live under us, and to farm our ground;” but he does not say anything about the kind of treatment they were to receive in return for their labour. His next inducement is the immense sale (and profit) they might expect by growing corn; and he concludes by relieving their fears as to any objections which the inhabitants of this country might make to being dispossessed from their homes and lands, or any resistance they might offer. He considers it immaterial, “for the country of Lecale [which had been taken in a similar manner from Savage] was some time kept by Brereton with a hundred horses, and Lieutenant Burrows kept Castle Rean [Castlereagh], and went daily one quarter of a mile to fetch his water, against five hundred Irish that lay again him.”

Smith concludes with “an offer and order” for those who wished to join in the enterprise. Each footman to have a pike, or halberd, or caliver, and a convenient livery cloak, of red colour or carnation, with black facings. Each horseman to have a staffe and a case of dagges, and his livery to be of the colour aforesaid.

Strype wrote a life of Sir Thomas Smith, Bart., Oxford, 1620. He mentions this attempt at colonizing Ulster, having this good design therein: “that those half-barbarous people might be taught some civility.” He speaks of “the hopeful gentleman,” Sir Thomas Smith’s son and concludes with stating how the expedition terminated: “But when matters went on thus fairly, Mr. Smith was intercepted and slain by a wild Irishman.”

Before his assassination Smith had written an account of his proceedings to his father, in which he says that “envy had hindered him more than the enemy,” and that he had been ill-handled by some of his own soldiers, ten of whom he had punished. He also expresses some fear of the native Irish, whom he had tried to drive out of their lands, as he says they sometimes “lay wait to intrap and murther the maister himself.”

I have given details of this attempted plantation in Ulster, because it illustrates the subject; and each plantation which will be recorded afterwards, was carried out on the same plan. The object of the Englishman was to obtain a home and a fortune; to do this he was obliged to drive, the natives out of their homes, and to deprive them of their wealth, whether greater or less. The object of the Irishman was to keep out the intruder; and, if he could not be kept out, to get rid of him by fair means or foul.

It is probable that the attempt of Smith was intended by Government principally as an experiment to ascertain whether the plantation could be carried out on a larger scale. The next attempt was made by Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, who received part of the signories of Clannaboy and Ferney, provided he could expel the “rebels” who dwelt there. Essex mortgaged his estates to the Queen to obtain funds for the enterprise. He was accompanied by Sir Henry Kenlis, Lord Dacres, and Lord Norris’ three sons.

Sir William FitzGerald, the then Lord Deputy, complained loudly of the extraordinary powers granted to Essex; and some show of deference to his authority was made by requiring the Earl to receive his commission from him. Essex landed in Ireland in 1573, and the usual career of tyranny and treachery was enacted. The native chieftains resisted the invasion of their territories, and endeavoured to drive out the men whom they could only consider as robbers. The invaders, when they could not conquer, stooped to acts of treachery. Essex soon found that the conquest of Ulster was not quite so easy a task as he had anticipated. Many of the adventurers who had assumed his livery, and joined his followers, deserted him; and Brian O’Neill, Hugh O’Neill, and Turlough O’Neill rose up against him. Essex then invited Conn O’Donnell to his camp; but, as soon as he secured him, he seized his Castle of Lifford, and sent the unfortunate chieftain a prisoner to Dublin.

In 1574 the Earl and Brian O’Neill made peace. A feast was prepared by the latter, to which Essex and his principal followers were invited; but after this entertainment had lasted for three days and nights, “as they were agreeably drinking and making merry, Brian, his brother, and his wife were seized upon by the Earl, and all his people put unsparingly to the sword-men, women, youths, and maidens in Brian’s own presence. Brian was afterwards sent to Dublin, together with his wife and brother, where they were cut in quarters. Such was the end of their feast. This wicked and treacherous murder of the lord of the race of Hugh Boy O’Neill, the head and the senior of the race of Eoghan, son of Nial of the Nine Hostages, and of all the Gaels, a few only excepted, was a sufficient cause of hatred and dispute to the English by the Irish."

Essex visited England in 1575, and tried to induce the Queen to give him further assistance in his enterprise. On her refusal, he retired to Ireland, and died in Dublin, on the 22nd September, 1576. It was rumoured he had died of poison, and that the poison was administered at the desire of the Earl of Leicester, who soon after divorced his own wife, and married the widow of his late rival Essex complained bitterly, in his letter to Sir Henry Sidney, of the way in which he had been treated in his projected plantation of Clannaboy, and protested against the injustice which had been done through him on O’Donnell, MacMahon, and others, who were always peaceable and loyal, but “whom he had, on the pledged word of the Queen, undone with fair promises.” Probably, only for his own “undoing,” he would have had but scant pity for others.

Yet Essex could be generous and knightly with his friends, kind and courtly, at least to his English dependents. There are some curious accounts of his expenses while he was “Lord-General of Ulster,” in a State Paper, from which it will appear that he could be liberal, either from natural benevolence or from policy. The entries of expenditure indicate a love of music, which he could easily gratify in Ireland, still famous for the skill of its bards. He gave ten shillings to the singing men of Mellifont, then inhabited by Edward Moore, to whom it had been granted at the suppression of monasteries. A harper at Sir John Bellew’s received three shillings; “Crues, my Lord of Ormonde’s harper,” received the large sum of forty shillings, but whether in compliment to the bard or the bard’s master is doubtful. The Earl of Ormonde’s “musicians” also got twenty shillings. But there are other disbursements, indicating that presents were gratefully received and vails expected. “A boy that brought your lordship a pair of greyhounds” had a small donation; but “M’Genis, that brought your lordship two stags,” had 13_d_., a sum equivalent to L7 of our money. Nor were the fair sex forgotten, for Mrs. Fagan, wife of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, was presented with a piece of taffeta “for good entertainment.”

Sir Henry Sidney returned to Ireland in 1575. He tells us himself how he took on him, “the third time, that thanklesse charge; and so taking leave of her Majesty, kissed her sacred hands, with most gracious and comfortable wordes, departed from her at Dudley Castell, passed the seas, and arrived the xiii of September, 1575, as nere the city of Dublin as I could saufly; for at that tyme the city was greevously infested with the contagion of the pestilence." He proceeded thence to Tredagh (Drogheda), where he received the sword of the then Deputy. He next marched northward, and attacked Sorley Boy and the Scotch, who were besieging Carrickfergus; and after he had conquered them, he received the submission of Turlough O’Neill and other Ulster chieftains. Turlough’s wife, the Lady Agnes O’Neill, nee M’Donnell, was aunt to the Earl of Argyle, and appears to have been very much in favour with the Lord Deputy.

In the “depe of wynter” he went to Cork, were he remained from Christmas to Candlemas. He mentions his entertainment at Barry’s Court with evident zest, and says “there never was such a Christmas kept in the same.” In February he visited Thomond, and subdued “a wicked generation, some of whom he killed, and some he hanged by order of law.” A nice distinction, which could hardly have been appreciated by the victims. The Earl of Clanrickarde caused his “two most bade and rebellious sonnes” to make submission, “whom I would to God I had then hanged.” However, he kept them close prisoners, and “had a sermon made of them and their wickedness in the chief church in the town.” John seems to have been the principal delinquent. Some time after, when they had been set at liberty, they rebelled again; and he records the first “memorable act” which one of them had done, adding, “which I am sure was John."

Sidney then marched into the west, and had an interview with the famous Grace O’Malley, or Granuaile, which he describes thus: “There came to me also a most famous femynyne sea captain, called Granuge I’Mally, and offered her services unto me wheresoever I would command her, with three galleys and two hundred fighting men. She brought with her her husband, for she was as well by sea as by land more than master’s-mate with him. He was of the nether Burkes, and called by nickname Richard in Iron. This was a notorious woman in all the coasts of Ireland. This woman did Philip Sidney see and speak with; he can more at large inform you of her.” Grana, or Grace O’Malley, was the daughter of a chieftain of the same patronymic. Her paternal clan were strong in galleys and ships. They owned a large territory on the sea-coast, besides the islands of Arran. Her first husband was Donnell O’Flaherty. His belligerent propensities could scarcely have been less than hers, for he is termed Aith Chogaid, or “of the wars.” Her second husband, Sir Richard Burke, or Richard an Iarainn, is described by the Four Masters as a “plundering, warlike, unjust, and rebellious man.” He obtained his soubriquet from the circumstance of constantly appearing in armour. It would appear from this account that Sidney’s statement of the Lady Grana being “more than master’s-mate with him,” must be taken with some limitations, unless, indeed, he who ruled his foes abroad, failed to rule his wife at home, which is quite possible. The subjoined illustration represents the remains of one of her castles. It is situated near the lake of Borrishoole, in the county Mayo. The ruins are very striking, and evince its having once been an erection of considerable strength.

Sir William Drury was made Lord President of Munster, 1576, in place of Sir John Perrot. Sir Nicholas Malby was installed in the same office in Connaught; but the barbarities enacted by his predecessor, Fitton, made the very name of president so odious, that Sidney gave the new Governor the title of Colonel of Connaught. The Earl of Desmond and Drury were soon at variance. Sidney says, in his Memoir, that the Earl “was still repyning at the government of Drury.” After causing great apprehension to the governors, the Lord Deputy sent the whole party to Kilkenny, and found the “Earl hot, wilful, and stubborn; but not long after, as you know, he and his two brothers, Sir John and Sir James, fell into actual rebellion, in which the good knight, Sir William Drury, the Lord Justice, died, and he, as a malicious and unnatural rebel, still persisteth and liveth.”

In 1577 serious complications were threatened, in consequence of the pecuniary difficulties of the crown. An occasional subsidy had been granted hitherto for the support of the Government and the army; an attempt was now made to convert this subsidy into a tax. On previous occasions there had been some show of justice, however little reality, by permitting the Parliament to pass the grant; a scheme was now proposed to empower the Lord Deputy to levy assessments by royal authority, without any reference to Parliament. For the first time the Pale opposed the Government, and resisted the innovation. But their opposition was speedily and effectually silenced. The deputies whom they sent to London to remonstrate were committed to the Tower, and orders were despatched to Ireland that all who had signed the remonstrance should be consigned to Dublin Castle.

It is said that Elizabeth was not without some misgivings as to the injustice with which her Irish subjects were treated, and that she was once so touched by the picture presented to her of their sufferings under such exactions, that she exclaimed: “Ah, how I fear lest it be objected to us, as it was to Tiberius by Bato, concerning the Dalmatian commotions! You it is that are in fault, who have committed your flocks, not to shepherds, but to wolves.” Nevertheless, the “wolves” were still permitted to plunder; and any impression made on the royal feelings probably evaporated under the fascinating influence of her next interview with Leicester, and the indignation excited by a “rebel” who refused to resign his ancestral home quietly to some penniless adventurer. There had been serious difficulties in England in 1462, in consequence of the shameful state of the current coin; and the Queen has received considerable praise for having accomplished a reform. But the idea, and the execution of the idea, originated with her incomparable minister, Cecil, whose master-mind applied itself with equal facility to every state subject, however trifling or however important; and the loss and expenditure which the undertaking involved, was borne by the country to the last penny. Mr. Froude says it was proposed that the “worst money might be sent to Ireland, as the general dust-heap for the outcasting of England’s vileness." The standard for Ireland had always been under that of England, but the base proposal above-mentioned was happily not carried into execution. Still there were enough causes of misery in Ireland apart from its normal grievances. The Earl of Desmond wrote an elaborate and well-digested appeal to Lord Burleigh, complaining of military abuses, and assuring his Lordship that if he had “séné them [the poor who were burdened with cess], he would rather give them charitable alms than burden them with any kind of chardge.” He mentions specially the cruelty of compelling a poor man to carry for five, eight, or ten miles, on his back, as many sheaves as the “horse-boies” choose to demand of him; and if he goes not a “good pace, though the poor soule be overburdened, he is all the waye beaten outt of all measure.”

Cess was also commanded to be delivered at the “Queen’s price,” which was considerably lower than the market price. Even Sidney was supposed to be too lenient in his exactions; but eventually a composition of seven years’ purveyance, payable by instalments, was agreed upon, and the question was set at rest. The Queen and the English Council naturally feared to alienate the few nobles who were friendly to them, as well as the inhabitants of the Pale, who were as a majority in their interest.

The Pale was kept in considerable alarm at this period, by the exploits of the famous outlaw, Rory Oge O’More. In 1577 he stole into Naas with his followers, and set the town on fire; after this exploit he retired, without taking any lives. He continued these depredations for eighteen years. In 1571 he was killed by one of MacGillapatrick’s men, and the Pale was relieved from a most formidable source of annoyance. But the same year in which this brave outlaw terminated his career, is signalized by one of the most fearful acts of bloodshed and treachery on record. The heads of the Irish families of Offaly and Leix, whose extirpation had long been attempted unsuccessfully, were invited in the Queen’s name, and under the Queen’s protection, to attend a conference at the great rath on the hill of Mullach-Maistean (Mullamast). As soon as they had all assembled, they were surrounded by a treble line of the Queen’s garrison soldiers, and butchered to a man in cold blood.

This massacre was performed with the knowledge and approval of the Deputy, Sir Henry Sidney. The soldiers who accomplished the bloody work were commanded by Captain Francis Crosby, to whom the chief command of all the kerne in the Queen’s pay was committed. We have already related some incidents in his career, which show how completely destitute he was of the slightest spark of humanity.

Sir Henry Sidney retired from office finally on the 26th of May, 1578. He dates his Memoir from “Ludlow Castell, with more payne than harte, the 1st of March, 1582.” In this document he complains bitterly of the neglect of his services by Government, and bemoans his losses in piteous strains. He describes himself as “fifty-four yeres of age, toothlesse and trembling, being five thousand pounds in debt.” He says he shall leave his sons L20,000 worse off than his father left him. In one place he complains that he had not as much ground as would “feede a mutton,” and he evidently considers his services were worth an ampler remuneration; for he declares: “I would to God the country was yet as well as I lefte it almost fyve yeres agoe.” If he did not succeed in obtaining a large grant for his services, it certainly was not for want of asking it; and if he did not succeed in pacifying the country, it was not for lack of summary measures. Even in his postscript he mentions how he hanged a captain of Scots, and he thinks “very nere twenty of his men.”

It seems almost needless to add anything to the official descriptions of Ireland, which have already been given in such detail; but as any remark from the poet Spenser has a special interest, I shall give some brief account of his View of Ireland. The work which bears this name is written with considerable prejudice, and abounds in misstatements. Like all settlers, he was utterly disgusted with the hardships he endured, though the poet’s eye could not refuse its meed of admiration to the country in which they were suffered. His description of the miseries of the native Irish can scarcely be surpassed, and his description of the poverty of the country is epitomized in the well-known lines:

“Was never so great waste in any place, Nor so foul outrage done by living men; For all the cities they shall sack and raze, And the green grass that groweth they shall burn, That even the wild beast shall die in starved den."

Yet this misery never touched his heart; for the remedy he proposes poses for Irish sufferings is to increase them, if possible, a thousandfold; and he would have troops employed to “tread down all before them, and lay on the ground all the stiff-necked people of the land.” And this he would have done in winter, with a refinement of cruelty, that the bitter air may freeze up the half-naked peasant, that he may have no shelter from the bare trees, and that he may be deprived of all sustenance by the chasing and driving of his cows.

It is probable that Spenser’s “view” of Irish affairs was considerably embittered by his own sufferings there. He received his property on the condition of residence, and settled himself at Kilcolman Castle. Here he spent four years, and wrote the three first books of the Faerie Queene. He went to London with Sir Walter Raleigh to get them published. On his return he married a country girl, named Elizabeth an act which was a disgrace to himself, if the Irish were what he described them to be. In 1598, during Tyrone’s insurrection, his estate was plundered, his castle burned, and his youngest child perished in the flames. He then fled to London, where he died a year after in extreme indigence.

His description of the condition of the Protestant Church coincides with the official account of Sidney. He describes the clergy as “generally bad, licentious, and most disordered;” and he adds: “Whatever disorders you see in the Church of England, you may find in Ireland, and many more, namely, gross simony, greedy covetousness, incontinence, and careless sloth.” And then he contrasts the zeal of the Catholic clergy with the indifference of “the ministers of the Gospel,” who, he says, only take the tithes and offerings, and gather what fruit else they may of their livings.

“That no man whatsoever Do walk without the livery of his lord, Either in cloak or any other garment.”