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
By this time, however, the Deputy was plunged in the throes of a
scandal springing from his own misdeeds. He had promoted the attempt
to seize the estate of the last Gaelic Chief, O’Byrne of Wicklow,
and dared not suffer his assistants to be impeached for former
wrongdoing. To allow Forbes to take the lid off the cauldron in
which the hell-broth of the previous reign lay simmering was not
Falkland’s notion of statecraft. The new “discovery” was no more to
him than that of Sir William Power or Sir James Balfour, and less
than that of the Exchequer Barons. Possibly he quieted Forbes with
the gift of £300, for the “discoverer” went abroad soon afterwards
and never returned, being killed in a duel in Hamburg in 1632. Still
his shipping-off did not benefit Falkland, whose agony was about
to begin. The eyes of England, as well as Ireland, were fastened
on his treatment of the O’Byrnes, and both kingdoms resounded with
rumour against him. Throughout two reigns and three Deputyships the
persecution of the O’Byrnes lasted. It comprised the whole art and
mystery of Patent-shuffling and confiscation. To understand the
story is to understand the methods and policy of Chichester and his
successors. It is the Southern counterpart of the Ulster tragedy.
The reasons which impelled the Northern Lords—O’Neill, O’Donnell,
and Maguire—to go into exile can best be realised by studying the
doom of the Wicklow chief who held his ground. Carte (an English
Protestant historian), writing in 1736, summarises the case as “very
extraordinary, and contains in it such a scene of iniquity and
cruelty that, considered in all its circumstances, it is scarce to be
paralleled in any age or country.” Since then, Carte’s disclosures
have been supplemented by State papers and other records which
furnish dates and details that he lacked. They confirm the judgment
on his work passed by Dr. Johnson, who styled it “that book of
authority.” Carte’s narrative largely follows the “Remonstrance”
lodged on behalf of the O’Byrnes, which fails to disentangle the
parts played by Chichester, by St. John, and by Falkland, but mingles
all together. In the following condensed account the action taken by
each Deputy is separately shown, while needful particulars are added
from the State Papers and Patent Rolls.
CHAPTER XVIII.
LORD FALKLAND’S SHAME.
The harrying of the O’Byrnes under Chichester was largely carried
out through Sir William Parsons, his Surveyor-General—a seasoned and
hardy pillager. Parsons was a Commissioner at Limavady in 1609, when
the inquisition which “found” the Bann for Sir Arthur to forestall
the Londoners was concocted. In 1621 St. John nominated him to take
“office” for the fabrication of the “Carrickfergus” Patent which
abstracted the non-tidal Bann from the Corporation. He was the chief
author of the Antrim inquisition of 12th July, 1605, which “found”
that the King owned the “pool” of Lough Neagh “towards Claneboy.”
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