Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. Vol. 3 (of 3)Bagwell, Richard
History
Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. Vol. 3 (of 3)
Bagwell, Richard
Ireland -- History -- 16th century
Fitzwilliam refused to let Bingham confront his accusers at Galway,
lest the terror of his presence should silence them. The result was
that their uncontradicted statements were sent over to England, and
Walsingham's wrath was hot within him. The unfairness of the procedure
was evident, the reason for it much less so. 'It may fall out, my Lord
Deputy, to be your own case, for it is no new thing in that realm to
have deputies accused.' Considering Walsingham's evident prejudice
against him, Fitzwilliam suggested that the Queen should give him a
successor. The trial of the case was removed to Dublin; and the Lord
Deputy foretold that no Connaught chief would go there to accuse
Bingham. If fear did not prevent such a journey, poverty would. And so
it turned out. Much was proved against inferior officers, and there
can be no doubt that the Governor of Connaught was apt to shield
useful underlings under almost any circumstances. That he was guilty
of extreme severity, and that he executed children who were retained
as hostages, is probably true. But he managed the province well, and
got a large revenue out of it. And it is certain that he had friends
among the Irish as well as enemies. Among these was Roger O'Flaherty,
grandfather of the author of _Ogygia_. This Roger owned the castle
and lands of Moycullen, and had long complained of Sir Murrogh's
usurpations. It seems that he was satisfied, for he wrote strongly
in the Governor's favour, who also befriended him with the English
Government. Sir Murrogh was an enterprising man, and never made the
impossible attempt to prove his title to land. 'Why, man,' he told his
own counsel, 'I got it by the sword; what title should I say else?'
Bingham was an absolute ruler. Opposition he checked ruthlessly, and he
cared little for constitutional forms. He took no pains to conciliate
anyone, and was of course accused of provoking men to rebel. Nor did he
care to disguise his opinion that many of the Irish ought to be rooted
out. Perhaps the worst charge against him is that made by Fitzwilliam,
who called him an atheist, 'for that he careth not what he doeth, nor
to say anything how untrue soever, so it may serve his turn.'[199]
[Sidenote: Bingham and Bishop Jones.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account