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
The Anglo-Irish gentry of the ancient faith protested against his
electoral arrangements, but were laughed at. They carried their
plaints to the King in London, and were imprisoned or abused as
“recusants.” Such of them as were not lodged in the Tower or the
Fleet were only allowed to return home to witness the Deputy’s
triumph. “Hurly-burlies and other unnecessary stirs were moved in
sundry places,” but all to no purpose. The packed Parliament met,
and the Commons made Sir John Davies Speaker, after a feverish
protest from the Anglo-Irish. When it proceeded to business its
first enactment was that O’Neill and the Northern chiefs, dead or
alive, stood attainted of high treason; that their estates were
forfeited, and their Letters Patent void. The cleavage between the
Anglo-Catholics and the disfranchised natives was such that the
Bill of Attainder passed unanimously, and was proposed by Sir John
Everard, the “recusant” candidate for Speaker, who had renounced a
judgeship rather than take the oath of apostacy. Six Ulster counties
were then made the Royal demesne.
Now came the moment for Chichester’s privy turn. He had a year before
procured the assent of the English Privy Council to the “heads” of
several measures which he desired to pass, including one “to confirm
the Patents of Ulster Undertakers.” Some shift of wind afterwards set
in at Whitehall against him, and his Majesty, scenting his purpose,
thwarted it. No sufficient ground for this sudden disfavour anywhere
appears. The records of State are often a blank at the most critical
moments.
Perhaps the King was smarting at the havoc wrought by his lordship’s
grants; perhaps he bemoaned the £2,500 “compensation” paid from his
purse to free the Bann and Lough Foyle; perhaps he grudged the Deputy
the £10,000 he extracted from Parliament “for extraordinary equipage
and porte.” Perhaps he learnt of the £10,000 of the embezzled
Ulster rents. At any rate, James I. was vexed with his new peer,
and determined he would not allow him to “cook” statutes as he had
cooked Patents. Cecil was dead, and the influence which the hunchback
wielded was lacking. In the royal councils Cecil’s enemies openly
complained of the way in which he had tolerated the devastation
of Crown lands. Sir Richard Cooke, the Irish Chancellor of the
Exchequer, urged Chichester’s removal, and wrote bitterly of the
disorders he witnessed, although formerly he had supported the Deputy.
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