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 late Lord Chichester had lands to the value of £10,000 in one
gift; and Lord Falkland £10,000 in money at once.” His Chaplain
(afterwards Bishop) Bramhall, wrote to Archbishop Laud five years
later:—“I think I should soon be able to show that the Crown has
been defrauded of many appropriations, for here it hath been usual
... upon a Letter for £20 to pass £30 or £40 ... to pass that for
nothing, in time of peace, which was found to have been worth
little or nothing in time of war; and to take up appropriations as
gentlemen do waifs in England.” These comments reveal only a surface
acquaintance with the misdeeds practised against the Crown by its
trusted servants.
In the year after Strafford’s arrival he provided a remedy for
some of the evils which corroded justice by causing Acts to be
passed extending the “Statute of Uses” to Ireland, and clothing
the Commissioners for Defective Titles with far-reaching powers.
The first Act made secret conveyances impossible; and the second
authorised the Commissioners to issue Patents which should stand good
against the Crown, even if wrongfully obtained or corruptly enlarged,
provided fines were paid. The Government was in debt; and, in order
to raise cash, many grants, new and old, were assailed. Fines were
then exacted as the price of indefeasible Patents.
In 1635, when the Star Chamber at Westminster declared the Charter
of the London Corporation forfeit, Strafford’s eye detected an
unforeseen consequence. The Londoners, being compelled to surrender
the Bann and the rest of their Irish estates, were left burdened with
a rent of £100 a year to the Chichesters for Lough Neagh under the
lease of 1622. Deprived of the river, Lough Neagh became useless to
them; and they probably petitioned the Crown for relief. Strafford
then caused the Chichester Patents to be scrutinised, and the
misdeeds of his predecessor came to light. Yet he dealt not ungently
with the dead peer’s heirs. Instead of re-seizing the whole of their
ill-gotten possessions, he confined himself to demanding a surrender
of Lough Neagh. At the outset the Chichesters resisted, but the
stream of authority against the validity of their grants soon swelled
to a torrent. Strafford knew that constant protests under two reigns
had been lodged against them.
Their base origin in 1603-4, Sir James Balfour’s inquiry of 1618,
Allen’s repugnant findings at Derry and Carrickfergus in 1621, the
ruling of the Exchequer Barons in 1623, the “discovery” of Sir
William Power in 1628, and the order of Charles I. on Colonel
Forbes’s petition in the same year, covered them with discredit. In
1630 the “opinion” of ex-Baron Oglethorpe openly alleged “fraud”; and
Strafford, backed by these accumulated condemnations, took action.
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