The great fraud of UlsterHealy, T. M. (Timothy Michael)
History
The great fraud of Ulster
Healy, T. M. (Timothy Michael)
Ireland -- History -- 17th century; Ulster (Northern Ireland and Ireland) -- History
Wily councillors before long suggested a way out. He was advised
to abandon his original purpose and send in a petition for a
“reversionary” Patent for the fisheries. This was only to take effect
at the end of Clotworthy’s lease, but for immediate consolation
he also prayed for a grant of the rent payable under it to the
Crown. The plan was a catching one to recover lost ground, but what
reasons could be found to support it? None existed, so Lord Donegall
proceeded to invent them. He had to get over the difficulty that
Strafford compelled the surrender of 1640 as an act of restitution,
and had compensated his father and himself by the grant of an
indefeasible Patent for the rest of their ill-gotten estates with
an allowance of £60 a year in the Crown-rent. Acceptance of the
advantages conferred in 1640 could hardly be reconciled with a demand
for further compensation in 1660. To blame Strafford for enforcing
the surrender would be natural and tempting, but was unthinkable,
as any slight on the memory of the martyr-Viceroy who had given his
life to uphold Charles I. would be fatal in a suppliant to Charles
II. Lord Donegall, therefore, had to present matters in a way which
should make it appear that his father and himself in relinquishing
the fisheries were the victims of arbitrary power, and at the same
time find a scapegoat to accuse—an attack upon whom would not offend
the King.
The position was delicate, and needed the best-considered falsehoods.
Lord Donegall, however, was no witling, and the tradition of the
“great Deputy” stirred his brain until at length the necessary
culprit was hit upon in Deputy Wandesforde. He, in Strafford’s
absence, signed the Patent of 1640, and on him all the blame for
compelling the surrender was cast in 1660. The innocent Wandesforde
was charged with having deprived Lord Donegall of a pension of £40 a
year, and “forcing on him fresh Patents under colour of his having
defective title.” This was as gross a myth as the fables of the
Clotworthy pension or the promises of the “famous paper.” Wandesforde
merely carried out arrangements previously made by the Lord
Lieutenant; and had nothing to do with the surrender, or the question
of an allowance. Yet this blameless subordinate, who had been dead
twenty years, was saddled with the doings of his master and with the
hagglings of the Commissioners for Remedying Defective Titles.
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