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
In 1630 a “case” was submitted to Sir Robert Oglethorpe, one of the
Barons of the Exchequer, who in 1623 had denounced their origin.
Oglethorpe retired in 1624 from his position in Dublin as judge
(probably owing to his uncomfortable uprightness in Patent matters);
and resumed his practice at the Bar in London. The “case” he received
was incomplete, and its framer is unknown, but though omitting much,
it is startling enough. It sets out that five Patents had been
issued on foot of Wakeman’s Letter for £100, “in value surmounting
£4,000 per annum,” including one for the fishery of the Bann. It
foreshadowed that further grants were in contemplation, and asked the
ex-Judge for his opinion as a lawyer if the King could have all of
them declared void by legal process?
Oglethorpe’s reply shows that he and the other Exchequer Barons
ruled against the Wakeman Patents in 1623, and that this decision
“was certified to the Lord Deputy (Falkland) upon referment from
his late Majesty.” He again branded them with “fraud” and “deceit,”
and advised that this taint would “extend to many Letters Patent in
Ireland”; for, quoth he, “this is a great and general case.”
When this “opinion” was delivered Lord Cork, prince of
Patent-mongers, wielded the Sword of State with Chancellor Loftus,
and of course no action was taken. In 1632 Charles I. made up his
mind to replace both Lords Justices; and in the following year
there arrived in Dublin a Viceroy less dishonest than Ireland had
known for some time. This was Wentworth, Lord Strafford. Whatever
his faults, the new Lord Lieutenant hunted down those who had preyed
on the country since Elizabeth’s reign, and in the eight years he
served as Viceroy he earned the hatred of every confiscator. Those
whose avarice he checked or penalised, including Patentees like the
Earl of Cork and Sir John Clotworthy, were Strafford’s chief enemies.
When he perished on the scaffold, their self-interested testimony
spoke his doom. Many of his processes were, of course, expedients to
provide revenue for the King in order to dispense with the summoning
of Parliament. Others were well-grounded investigations to recover
property of which the Crown had been cozened.
Strafford had to deal, not only with lawless Patents, but with
Patents which, if lawful, conveyed, in acreage and value, lands
largely in excess of what the King had authorised. He was not three
months in Dublin before he obtained an insight into the ways of
his predecessors. On the 23rd October, 1633, he reported that, “in
all the Plantations, the Crown had sustained shameful injury, by
passing in truth ten times the quantities of lands expressed in their
Patents, and reserving throughout base tenures in soccage.” As to
those who “held the Sword” before him, he remarked:—
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