. “1 THE LIFE AND CAREER 0F SIR ANTHONY ST . LEGER OF ULCOMBE. KENT (1496?~155~3), LORD. DEPUTY OF IRELAND: A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY IN THE EVOLUTION. OF EARLY TUDOR ANGLD‘IRISH POLICY Thesis for the Degree of ML 0. MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY PETER I. PIVERONUS, IR. 1 9 7 2 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Life and Career of Sir Anthony St. Ulcombe, Biographical Study of the Tudor Anglo-Irish Policy. Leger of Kent, Lord Deputy of-Iraland: A Evolution of Early presented by Peter J. Piveronus has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in M Date June 28, 1972 0-7639 "I, I nuns & suns Rflifimfilhn I L; .KARY BINDEBS I; "I 'I-‘r-D'RTJICIIGAI I I =2" ABSTRACT THE LIFE AND CAREER OF SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER OF ULCOMBE, KENT (1496?-1559), LORD DEPUTY OF IRELAND: A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY IN THE EVOLUTION OF EARLY TUDOR ANGLO-IRISH POLICY By Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. The history of Anglo-Irish relations is a long and turbulent one. From the beginnings of English involvement in Ireland in the late twelfth century, to the advent of the Tudor period in 1485, English kings met with considerable difficulties as the lack of effective political control, combined with official apathy and outright neglect encouraged both domestic and foreign intrigue. As a consequence, Ire- land during this period frequently served as the stronghold of Eng- land's enemies and was the scene of almost continual insurgency against the English throne. These factors forced England's rulers to assume a highly aggressive stance in regard to their relations with Ireland which, in time, became traditional and made Ireland's con- quest by England ultimately inevitable. With the accession of Henry VII, Ireland's relationship to England suddenly became altered. The navigational improvements which Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. enabled Columbus to reach America and permitted Magellan to circum- navigate the world, also brought Ireland closer to England and to the centers of Continental intrigue, thereby increasing the threat of foreign intervention in combination with domestic insurgency. The significance of these events in terms of their total im- pact on the future course of Anglo-Irish relations can be readily discerned when set against the uncertainty of English rule. In 1485, Ireland, of all the British fringe areas, remained the most difficult of territories for the English kings to conquer and govern. Under the first Tudor sovereign, Ireland served as a Yorkist refuge and was the staging area for at least two unsuccessful though highly dangerous intrigues against the infant dynasty. In spite of the rather stern measures which Henry VII took to combat disloyalty and bind the country more closely to English rule, Ireland in 1509 still remained largely outside the limits of English control. Henry VIII's Irish policy was, in great measure, a continuation of his predecessor's and called for the re-assertion of royal rule in accordance with the King's expansionist aims. To accomplish the not too easy task of bringing Ireland more directly under royal control, a policy of suppression was inaugurated in 1520 under the direction of the Earl of Surrey and renewed in earnest following the rebellion of "Silken Thomas" in 1536, an event which served to alter Henry's earlier approach to the Irish question from one of intermittent activity to the all-out suppression of Ireland's autonomy and the attempted extir- pation of Irish consciousness and traditions. To implement these changes on a comprehensive scale Henry, in July 1537, appointed a Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. royal commission and directed it to conduct a thorough investigation of the whole situation in Ireland. The resultant survey compiled by the commissioners who were sent, supplied Henry with the outlines of the new policy about to be inaugurated and directly influenced the future course of Anglo-Irish relations for years to come. Presiding over this commission was a Kentish gentleman by the name of Sir Anthony St. Leger of Ulcombe. So successful was his mis- sion to Ireland in 1537 that Henry had him appointed to succeed Sir Leonard Grey as Lord Deputy upon the latter's recall in 1540. Three years later, Ireland had not only peace, but was able to send 1,500 kerne to accompany the King during the siege of Boulogne, and one year later sent 2,000 kerne to assist the English king in the war against Scotland, an indication that, under St. Leger's deputyship, English rule had become more securely and widely established than it had ever been in recent memory. More important still, the success exhibited by St. Leger during his first term in office as Ireland's chief gover- nor, taught Henry VIII the value of employing native Englishmen as viceroys in place of the age-old but oftentimes unreliable practice of relying upon Irish aristocrats to govern the country. Beginning with his commission to Ireland in 1537 until his final recall in 1556, St. Leger's career as an Irish official included nearly fifteen years of almost continuous service covering three con- secutive reigns. During that time and through a combination of indus- triousness, understanding, and general executive ability, Sir Anthony was to become one of England's most respected viceroys in Ireland during the early sixteenth century. His three administrations (the Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. first lasting from 1540-1548; the second from 1550-1551; and the last from 1553-1556), contributed significantly to the evolution of Anglo- Irish policy for not only was the system of direct rule by English- born viceroys established in Ireland on a more permanent basis, St. Leger's career as Lord Deputy also witnessed the creation of the first scheme for a corporate private plantation on a large scale in Ireland and also saw the formation of the first private enterprise to be es- tablished anywhere within the Sphere of English influence for pur- poses of colonial exploitation. Up until 1540, English policy in Ireland was characterized basically by frustration and lack of progress toward the full consoli- dation of English control. Following St. Leger's appointment as chief governor in July of that year, there was a considerable accretion to English power for the first time in many years. Through a well- balanced application of conciliation and force, English authority had become effectively asserted over a great portion of the country as Anglo-Irish aristocrat and native Irish Chieftain alike made their submissions. By 1559, the year of Sir Anthony's death, for better or for worse, the death-knell had sounded for an autonomous Gaelic Ire— land. After years of disappointment and counteraction, the English conquest was revived and, in the process, the foundations laid for the evolution of modern British colonialism. The purpose of the following study is to examine English ex- pansionist policy in Ireland during the early sixteenth century within the context of the life and career of Sir Anthony St. Leger with par- ticular emphasis on his tenure as Lord Deputy of Ireland. In this Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. regard, it will concentrate mainly on Sir Anthony's more notable ac- complishments as Viceroy and, by way of conclusion, will evaluate his major contributions to the evolution of Anglo-Irish policy in general. THE LIFE AND CAREER OF SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER OF ULCOMBE, KENT (1496?-1559), LORD DEPUTY OF IRELAND: A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY IN THE EVOLUTION OF EARLY TUDOR ANGLO-IRISH POLICY BY Peter J. Piveronus, Jr. A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1972 ,2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful completion of the following dissertation was made possible by the combined efforts of a number of exceptional peOple who deserve my utmost thanks and appreciation. To Professor Marjorie E. Gesner, my thesis director, for her remarkable patience, understanding, and expert advice in a subject which she knows best; to Professor Thomas L. Bushell and Dean Richard E. Sullivan, both of whom have graciously taken time out from their very busy schedules to patiently read and edit my manuscript; and to my parents for their continued encouragement and occasional financial support. Special thanks should also go to Mr. Walter Burenski of the Michigan State University Libraries and to his capable assistant Mrs. Jane Sagataw for their invaluable help which made it possible for me to obtain much needed source materials from the British Museum and the Public Record Office, London. Typing of the manuscript was performed by Mrs. Carolyn Piersma. Lastly, but in no way least, to my loving wife Bonnie for her unusual forebearance during very difficult times, and for her editing expertise in helping me to prepare the final draft. It is to her and to my three children, Elizabeth-Anne, William, and Michelle-Lee, that I dedicate this meager piece of scholarship. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGINS OF ANGLO-IRISH POLICY TO 1537 . . . . . . . . . . EARLY LIFE AND CAREER (l496?-1538) ST. LEGER AS LORD DEPUTY: HIS FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE (1540-42) . ST. LEGER'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION: THE CONCLUDING YEARS (1543-1548). AGAIN AS LORD DEPUTY: ST. LEGER'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION (1550-1551). LORD DEPUTY FOR THE LAST TIME: ST. LEGER'S THIRD ADMINISTRATION AND FINAL DAYS (1553-1559). CONCLUSION . BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY. APPENDICES Appendix A. The St. Leger Family Coat of Arms . B. Pedigree of Sir Anthony St. Leger of Ulcombe, Kent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Map of Ireland, 1500 D. Pedigrees of the Great Anglo-Irish Families Table I: The Geraldines . Table II: The Earls of Kildare. iii Page 32 67 106 139 183 215 232 258 259 260 261 262 Page Table III: The Earls of Desmond . . . . . . 263 Table IV: The Butler Earls of Ormond . . . . 264 Table V: The MacWilliam Burkes of Clanrickard and Maye. . . . . . . . . . . 265 The Anglo-Irish Expedition to Scotland (November 1545), showing the Names and Origins of the Ships taking part in that Campaign . . . . . . . . 266 The Last Will and Testament of Sir Anthony St. Leger of Ulcombe, Kent . . . . . . . . . . 270 The Viceroys of Ireland (1470-1556) . . . . . . 271 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGINS OF ANGLO-IRISH POLICY TO 1537 The history of Anglo-Irish relations prior to the coming of the Tudors to the English throne began in the year 1154, almost one hundred years after the Norman invasion. That year, Pope Adrian IV (1154-59), the only Englishman ever to occupy the Chair of St. Peter, issued the Bull, Laudabiliter, a document which expressed papal thoughts on Ireland at the time and one which clearly indicated that the papacy authorized the invasion and conquest of Ireland by the English. In the second paragraph, Adrian grants Henry II permission: . for the enlargement of the bounds of the church, for the restraint of vice, for the correction of morals and the intro- duction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian reli- gion, . . . [to] enter that island and carry out there the things that look to the honor of God and to its own salvation. Although the initial scheme of conquest was never realized, after 1170 large numbers of Anglo-Norman adventurers and colonists were found making their way to Ireland in search of lands and 1The Papal Bull, Laudabiliter, cited from, Basic Documents in Medieval History, Norton Downs, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1959), pp. 81, 82. lordships, seeking them with the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church. With this, the English conquest of Ireland, a process which took almost five hundred years to accomplish, had begun. English involvement in Ireland at this time was precipitated by a marital diSpute between two rival kings, Dermot McMurrough, Prince of Leinster, and O'Roric, King of Meath. According to Giraldus Cambrensis,2 the dispute began when Dermot allegedly seduced the wife of O'Roric, who took revenge by uniting his forces with those of Roderick, the Prince of Connaught, in order to drive Dermot from power. Dermot, discovering himself abandoned by his peOple and their chiefs who allied themselves with his enemies, fled to England where he en- listed the support of Richard de Clare, called Strongbow,3 to help him regain his lost kingdom from his fellow Irish adversaries. In return for this assistance, Dermot promised Strongbow his eldest daughter in marriage, together with the succession to his kingdom. After his encounter with Strongbow, Dermot journeyed to South Wales where he was successful in negotiating a treaty of alliance 2The earliest known account of the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the twelfth century is provided by Giraldus Cambrensis, "The History of the Conquest of Ireland," in, The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis, Thomas Wright, ed. (London: H. G. Bohn, I553), pp. l84f. 3Richard de Clare's ancestors were descended from Godfrey, the son of Richard I, then Duke of Normandy. De Clare was later to be appointed governor of Ireland by Henry II. V., genealogical table in Wright, p. 183 " with Robert FitzStephen and his brother Maurice.4 In return for pledging their assistance to Dermot, Robert and Maurice were promised the town of Wexford, "with two adjoining cantreds of land to be held in fee . . ."5 Accordingly, in May 1170, Robert FitzStephen, mindful of his engagement and true to his plighted faith, had mustered thirty men-at-arms, of his own kindred and retainers, together with sixty men in half-armour, and about three hundred archers and foot-soldiers, the flower of the youth of Wales, and embarking with them in three ships, landed at the Barne . 6 Following this initial thrust, during the three centuries prior to 1485, a succession of English invaders came to Ireland bent on conquering.7 Henry 11 followed Strongbow in 1172, and succeeded in establishing himself as "Lord of Ireland." After him came Prince John in 1185 with an army of between two and three thousand men. Upon becoming king, John again returned to Ireland in 1210, this time at the head of an overwhelming force intent on crushing feudal Opposition to his reign and preventing that country from becoming a safe retreat for rebels. Edward III's son, Lionel of Clarence, followed in 1361 with an army of 1,500 men under the command of the Earl of Stafford. 4The FitzStephen family originated from a long line of princes in South Wales. Robert was the son of Nesta, who was the concubine of Henry II and who later became the wife of the Duke of Pembroke, Gerald of Windsor. The FitzGeralds descended from Nesta's three sons. Her daughter married William de Barri, the father of Giraldus Cambrensis, making the FitzGeralds the half-brothers of the FitzStephens. The two families were to go on to distinguish them- selves highly during the attempted conquest of Ireland. Wright, p. 183. SWright, p. 183. 6Wright, p. 189. 7Edmund Curtis, A_History of Medieval Ireland from 1110-1513 (Dublin: Methuen 8 Co., Ltd., 192371 Richard II visited Ireland on two separate occasions, in 1394 and 1399, the latter visit costing him his throne. In 1449, Richard, Duke of York, accompanied by his wife, Cecily Neville, "the Rose of Raby," landed at Howth, "with great pomp and glory" and a substantial body of tr00ps. And yet, despite their overwhelming numbers and the superiority they displayed in combat against their more primitive Irish adversaries, the English could not effectively consolidate their gains, and Ireland remained unsubjugated. The infant Anglo-Norman colony which was established in the wake of the first English in- vasion in 1170, was too weak to complete its work of conquest. The major cause of the failure of the English to colonize Ireland completely stemmed from the neglect and jealousy of the Anglo-Norman kings, who feared in Ireland the growth of an independent power able to challenge their authority. From its beginnings in 1170, apart from the few notable exceptions mentioned above, the war for the conquest of Ireland was carried on mainly by feudal conquistadores with very little, if any, direct help from the Crown. This was be- cause, for the most part, the Anglo-Norman kings had neither the means nor the inclination to subjugate the island thoroughly. From their standpoint, there was more fame and fortune as well as sheer adventure to be found in Scottish, Welsh, and Continental politics than in Ire- land. In short,"the Angevins were absentees who were . . . generally content to look upon Ireland as a mere dominion" and little else.8 As a consequence, in Spite of the considerable territory ac- quired by the original conquest in the late twelfth century, the 8Richard Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudors, (London: The Holland Press, 1963), I, vi. extent of actual English control in Ireland during the years before the coming of the Tudors was confined to the greater half-arch around Dublin, called the Pale. Here and in a few ports were con- centrated a relatively vigorous trade, the apparatus of government and a somewhat primitive high society. Outside the Pale was a Gaelic world ruled by Irish "kings" intent on remoulding their ancient king- ships. Throughout this region, the major factors in Operation were the traditional authority vested in the tribal leaders, the forceful personalities of the various Chieftains, and the continuous dissension and suspicion which seemed perpetually to divide tribal society, a fact which, no doubt, served to facilitate the continuance of the English presence in Ireland in Spite of the generally weak structure of English rule. DeSpite the inconsistency diSplayed by medieval English rulers, Ireland did figure very prominently in one major aSpect, namely, her Strategic location in relation to England. In 1436, Adam de Moleyns, Clerk of the Privy Council and later BishOp of Chicester, wrote a separate treatise on the subject, in which he recognized the immense strategic importance of Ireland to England: Nowe here be ware and hertly take entente, As ye wolle answere at the laste judgemente, That for sloughe and for racheshede Ye remembre, wyth alle youre myghte take hede To kepe Yrelond, that it not be loste; Efor it is a baterasse and a poste Undre England, and Wales another God forbade but eche were othere brothere, 0f one ligeaunce dewe unto the kynge.9 9"The Libel of English Policy," Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland, Thomas Wright, ed., (London: Green, Longman & Roberts, 18315, II, 187. Warning of the grave consequences of losing Ireland, he continued: It nedeth no more matter to explore, Which if it be loste, as Christe Jhesu forbede, Ffarewelle Wales, than England cometh to drede Ffor alliaunce of Scotelonde and of Spayne, And other moo, as Pety Bretayne, . 10 And so have enmyes envrron rounde aboute. Here, the author was quick to point out the perilous position from which an Irish Uprising, in association with foreign enemies, could place England, a fact which would become more fully apparent in future years. These decisions, however, found little reSponse from the English authorities either before or after 1436, and with the possible exception of King John's invasion in 1210 and Richard II's two ill-fated expeditions to Ireland in the late fourteenth century, no further attempts were made to subject Ireland systematically and completely to direct English control until the coming of the Tudors. Between 1470 and 1485, while England's attention was pre- occupied by the dynastic dispute between York and Lancaster, a notable change occurred in Anglo-Irish relations.11 In 1470, the Council of Ireland elected the Earl of Kildare justiciar according to the Statute of FitzEmpress which, during the time of Henry II, had granted to the English barons in Ireland, who comprised the majority of the Irish Council, the right to select a justiciar in the event of a vacancy until the King should decide.12 10"The Libel of English Policy," 189. 1For an in-depth discussion of Ireland in the late fifteenth century, A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A Histor ofMedieval Ireland (London: Ernst Benn, Ltd., 1968), pp. 37' . s oufH—be consultea. 12Otway-Ruthven, p. 386. Acknowledging Kildare's leadership, the Irish Parliament (rep- resenting Leinster and a few towns), then proceeded to take the nec- essary steps not only to legalize the Fitzgerald claim, but to en- force it. Accordingly, in 1474, the Irish Parliament granted to the Earl a retinue of 160 spearmen and established the Guild of St. George consisting of 200 men whose purpose it was to defend the Pale against both foreign as well as domestic encroachments.13 The rise of the House of Kildare in late fifteenth-century Irish politics marks the culmination of the long-standing demand on the part of the English colonists in Ireland for home rule, asserted finally and definitely in 1460 when a rather revolutionary declaration was made which specified that in the future Ireland was not to be bound by English acts of parliament if these were not accepted by the Irish Parliament.14 The power of the Kildare dominance over the Irish adminis— tration at this time was based largely on and reinforced by a series of marriages, both with the Irish and with the English. The marital alliances which were thereby forged had the overall effect of assimi- lating Norman—Irish and native Celtic elements producing, as a con- sequence, a Hibernicized Anglo-Irish aristocracy joined to the House of Kildare both by blood and sentiment. Needless to say, the impact 13Edmund Curtis, A History of Ireland (London: Methuen 8 Co., Ltd., 1950), 146; cf., OtWay-Rut vei'fj' —pp. 395, 396. 14"England's Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1307-1485," in V. H. H. Green, The Later Plantagenets (London: Edward Arnold, Ltd. 1966), p. 364; cf? 0tway- -Ruthven, pp. 395, 396, H. R. Richard- son, G. 0. ,Sayles, The Irish Parliament in the Middle A es (Phila- delphia: The Universityo ofP Pennsylvania Press, 1952), apter 16. this had on the relationship between the Crown and the Dublin govern- ment was to prove quite ominous for the King. For what it did was to establish a political system in Ireland which, under the tutelage of the Kildares, exerted almost absolute control over the government of Ireland. The climax of Kildare rule came in 1477 when Gerald Fitzgerald, the eighth Earl of Kildare, referred to by the Irish as "Garret More," was uncontestedly chosen justiciar by the Irish Council under the Statute of FitzEmpress just prior to his father's death in 1478.15 Whereupon, in actual defiance of the King's will, Kildare called to- gether a parliament which met at Naas and proceeded to confirm his tenure in office once and for all.16 With this event, Anglo—Irish power in Ireland reached its peak. Indeed, by 1485, so conclusive was Geraldine dominance of the government that Ireland seemed destined to follow a course independent of future English control. The dire fOreboding made over forty years before by Adam de Moleyns was ap- parently coming true. Ireland was being lost. With the accession of Henry VII, a new, more aggressive Irish policy was inaugurated. The Wars of the Roses had all but ruined the Anglo-Irish colony. During the dynastic Struggle between the Yorkist and Lancastrian factions of the English royal house, Ireland became a haven for political intrigue and adherents both to the White and the Red Rose took refuge there. _In the meantime, in those parts of 150tway-Ruthven, pp. 397, 398. 16James A. Froude, History of Eggland from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth (New York?—'C. Scribners a Sons, l§§95, Ireland which were formerly brought under English control, the Eng- lish language as well as English power gradually succumbed to native Irish influences and was on the verge of disappearing altogether. The colonists who followed in the wake of Henry II's conquest in the twelfth century, along with their descendants, were by the end of the fifteenth century, swept into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the Conquest until the reign of the eighth Henry the strange phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation, baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralyzing every effort at a remedy.17 Despite the Statutes of Kilkenny (1367) which aimed at forbidding the "Englishry" of Ireland to use the Irish language, intermarry with Irish families or emulate Irish habits and customs, the scattered nature of the Norman settlements, the lack of support from the home government, and the spasmodic character of Anglo-Irish administration, had the inevitable result and by 1485, Ireland had become the dagger at England's back. The King's Irish enemies, had recovered all but absolute possession of the island, and nothing remained of Strongbow's conquests save the shadow of a titular sovereignty, and a country Strengthened in hostility by the means which had been used to subdue it.18 Such was the dismal state of affairs confronting Henry Tudor in Ireland when he ascended the English throne. In spite of his decisive victory over Richard III at Bosworth Field, the romance of the White Rose died hard, especially in Ireland where over the next 17Eroude, II, 243. 18Froude, II, 248. 10 ten years, two unsuccessful attempts were to be made against the Tudor monarchy, one with the overt assistance of a foreign power.19 In the face of this threat, Henry VII resolved to take de- cisive action to deal with the recurring Irish problem. On October 13, 1494, Kildare was removed from power and replaced by Sir Edward Poynings as the King's Deputy in Ireland. Poynings thereupon took it upon himself to crush the Anglo-Irish home rule party and to restore the full sovereignty of the King. In place of Anglo-Irish lords, Sir Edward brought over from England native Englishmen and placed them in high positions of responsibility within the Irish administration. In addition, the new viceroy took steps to revive the King's ancient rights and privileges, designed to insure that the Irish Parliament would never again be used against the interests of England. In 1494- 95, Parliament was summoned to put these principles into effect. It was a packed assembly and one which was largely dominated by Poynings himself at every turn. The King's Deputy easily persuaded the assembly to attaint the earl of Kildare on the charge of treason. Kildare was 19These were the Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck episodes which took place in 1487 and 1495 reSpectively, the former involving the direct intervention of Mary of Burgundy who, in support of the pretender Simnel, dispatched an army under the command of Martin Swartz to assist the usurper in his attempted invasion of England which occurred in June, 1487 and was disastrously defeated by forces loyal to Henry VII. Both the Simnel and Warbeck incidents are amply recorded. A full account of the former episode is contained in Francis Bacon, Historic of the Raigne_ of King_Henry the Seventh, mod. ed. ,J. L. Lumby (Cambridge: The University Press, 1885). James Gairdner, History_ of the Life and Reig_ of Richard III to which is added the story of Perkin Warbeck from original sources, rev. ed. (New York: Kraus Reprint, 1968) relates the latter event. A more recent interpretation of both incidents is found in Agnes Conway, Hen£y_ VII'S Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485-1498 (Cam— bridge: The University Press, 1932). 11 subsequently found guilty of the charge brought against him and later sent to the Tower. Poynings' orders were to reduce the Lordship of Ireland to "whole and perfect obedience," and to suppress those who practiced on the innocent and true English subjects, great and diverse robberies, murders, burnings, and the universal and damnable extortions of coign livery and pay.20 In the long run, Poynings sought to restore those sovereign rights of the English crown in Ireland which dated back to 1327. His more immediate purpose, however, "was to prevent Ireland's remaining a hatching—ground for Yorkist plots and to end Home Rule as enjoyed by a Yorkist nobility."21 The final result of Poynings' policies was the act of the Irish Parliament of 1494-95, known as Poynings' Law.22 The professed reason for its passage was to insure that an Irish Parliament would not in the future act freely against the interests of English policy. This act placed an important regulation on the authority of the Anglo-Irish deputies by requiring formal royal consent for the meeting zoEdmund Curtis defines coigne (coinmhe) and livery as the right of an Irish king or chief to quarter on his tenants. This was a practice employed often during the course of the period in question not only by Irish Chieftains but by Anglo-Irish magnates as well for the maintenance of their armies, usually during times of war. Be- cause of its frequency, more often than not, coign and livery resulted in a great many abuses being perpetrated on the tenant pOpulation of Ireland. Edmund Curtis, §_History of Medieval Ireland from 1110-1513, xxx111. 21Curtis, A_History 2£_Ireland, p. 151. 22University of Michigan Microfilms, Reel 1072, No. 14130, 10 Henry VII, f. 100, c. 4, The Laws and Statutes 9§_Ire1and, Sir Richard Bolton, ed. (Dublin, 1621), pp. 55,456. 12 of Parliament and the King's prior consent for the legislation to be brought before it. According to Professor Curtis, one important constitutional object of the Act was to prevent the Irish Parliament from repeating the Simnel episode.23 Poynings' Law exerted a number of significant effects on the workings of the Anglo-Irish Parliament.24 By requiring permission under the Great Seal for an Irish Parliament to be called, and pro- hibiting bills from coming before it without prior consent of the Anglo-Irish and English Councils, the Act placed a complete restraint on the autonomy and legislative initiative of the assembly and, in the long run, was a contributing factor to the downfall and final collapse of the home rule movement and the re-assertion of direct English control. Not only did the Act completely destroy all legis- lative initiative in the Irish houses of Parliament, but it also limited the total amount of legislation considered and passed, all of which had the effect of producing short sessions, curtailing debate, and thus limiting the activities of the assembly as a whole. Poynings' rule over Ireland was rather brief, lasting a little over one year. His chief mission in going over to Ireland was to re- assert imperial sovereignty, save the Pale, and bridle the Anglo- Irish parliament, the nucleus of home rule sentiment in Ireland and the major source of the King's Irish troubles. Having accom- plished his immediate objectives, at least for the time 23In 1487, it was the Irish Parliament which had proclaimed Lambert Simnel, Edward VI. Curtis, A_History g£_1re1and, pp. 150, 151. 24D. B. Quinn, "The Early Interpretation of Poynings' Law, 1494-1534," Irish Historical Studies, 111 (1942), 60-77. 13 being, Poynings and his one thousand English troops departed from Ireland in January 1496.25 Following Poynings' departure, Henry VII came to the reali- zation that if further discontent was to be averted and order main- tained, the attainted Kildare would have to be restored to some kind of control. With this verdict, and in an attempt to gain the Earl's co-Operation, Henry pardoned the whole body of Kildare's supporters and gave to Kildare as his second wife the hand of his cousin Eliza- beth St. John. Kildare was then commissioned as Lord Deputy of Ire- land and governed under the authority vested in the king's young son, Prince Henry, who became titular Lord Lieutenant. Kildare's tenure in office lasted until his death in 1513. At the moment of his accession in 1509, Henry VIII seemed quite content to allow Ireland to remain governed by his father's so-called "pale policy," leaving the actual control of the coun- try in the hands of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. Henry's youthful inexperience combined with Continental ambitions occupied his attention and for the first nine years or so of his reign, there was very little, if any, direct intervention in Irish affairs on his part.26 He continued the Earl of Kildare as Lord 25Bagwell, I, 113, 114. 26With the exception of a single document in the State Papers of Henry VIII (full reference: Great Britain, Public Records Office, State Papers, King_Henry VIII: Corres ondence between the Govern- ments of En land and Ireland [London: The Record Commission, 1834], II: 1515-1538, "State of Ireland and Plan for its Reformation," lf.; henceforth, §;£, Hen, VIII), and two documents in the Carew Papers (Great Britain, Archepisc0pal Palace at Lambeth, Calendar 9§_State Pa ers Carew, J. S. Brewer, ed. [London: Longmans, Green, Reader 6 14 Deputy27 and, subsequent to his death, followed him by his son, called by the Irish "Garret Oge."28 In fact, Henry's policy toward the Kildares at this time appears to be one of favoritism. In October 1515, the younger Kildare was granted a license to found a perpetual college at Maynooth and permitted to endow that college with the advowsons of various churches. That same month, he was also granted, in tail male, the manor of Ardmolgham in County Meath and allowed to fortify his town of Kildare, which was designated a free borough.29 The status of English rule in Ireland at Henry VIII's suc- cession is summarized by the following quotation from A. G. Ritchey: Every trace of English government, save the miseries which it caused, had passed away from Ireland. The English king had no force in Ireland, nor any ally, save the hereditary enemies of the House of Kildare. The English conquest was confessedly a failure. The Anglo-Norman colony had disappeared or been abandoned into the Celtic population. If the King of England were any longer to be Lord of Ireland, the conquest of the island must be commenced again. The Irish question rose before English statesmen: Was England to hold Ireland, and, if so, how long? Too long Tudor princes shrank from looking the difficulty in the face-~they temporized, vacillated, and sought some middle course, some compromise. But the Irish question Dyer, 1867], 1, Nos. 1, 2; henceforth, Cal. Carew MS), I was not able to locate any other first-hand sources dealing—with Irish policy in the reign of Henry VIII prior to the lieutenancy of the Earl of Surrey in 1520. The letters and papers of Henry VIII (Great Britain, Public Records Office, Letters and Papers, Foreign_and Domestic, illustrative of the Rei___3f—Kin Henry VIII, 1509:1547, . rewer st: 213, e331 [L353§%H-H s Majesty's Stationery Office, 1920]; henceforth, LGP), before July 1518 are also sparse of written evidence which would—lead us to suggest that the King had any direct involvement in the actual supervision of Irish affairs. 27LGP, I, Pt. 1, No. 632 (22). ZBLEEJ II, Pt. 1, No. 996; No. 1704 (March 24, 1516). ZQLEP, 11, Pt. 1, Nos. 997-1000. 15 became at 1ength--amid the complications of the sixteenth century-—the question of English politics. England found that she must either conquer Ireland, or herself succumb to the struggle.30 A contemporary account, in calling for reforms, gives an equally dismal picture of the state of the country in the early years of the sixteenth century: Who lyste make surmyse to the King for the reformation of his Lande of Irelande, yt is necessarye to shewe hym the state of all the noble folke of the same, aswell of the Kinges subjectes and Englyshe rebelles, as of Iryshe enymyes. And fyrst of all, to make His Grace understande that ther byn more then 60 countryes, called Regyons in Ireland, inhabytyd with the Kinges Iryshe enymyes; some regyon as bygge as a shyre, some more, some lesse, unto a lytyll; some as bygge as halffe a shyre, and some a lytyll lesse; where reyneith more than 60 Chef Captaynes, where- of some callyth themselffes Kynges, some Kynges Peyres, in ther langage, some Prynceis, some Dukes, some Archedukes, that 1yveth onely by the swerde, and obeyeth to no other temperall person, but onely to himself that is stronge; and every of the said Captaynes maketh warre and peace for hymself, and holdeith by swerde, and hath imperiall jurysdyction within his rome, and obeyeth to no other person, Englyshe ne Iryshe, except onle to suche persones, as maye subdue hym by the swerde . 1 The implication of this statement is quite clear: if the English were ever to put an end to Ireland's political anarchy and restore order, the King's authority over the whole island must somehow be re- asserted. The first sign of a reiteration of the King's authority taking place occurred in regard to the composition of the Irish Coun- cil where, beginning in 1511-12, there was an increase in the English 30A. G. Ritchey, A Short Histor of the Irish People (Dublin: The Talbot Press, Ltd., 18875, p. . 313.9. Hen. VIII, II, 1. 16 32 element from two to four. Within the Anglo-Irish administration in Dublin, an imperialist faction began to voice its demands. These took the form of the report cited above33 which arrived in England in the year 1515. Originating from those on the Irish Council who felt that the time had come to call for the re-establishment of imperial authority in Ireland,34 it tells of an unhappy and dwindling Pale becoming less and less English. In addition, the report lists a host of other maladies, ranging from "willful war made by the King's deputy without the assent of the Lords and King's Council," and "un- lawful impositions set upon the King's subjects," to, "lords and gentlemen falling to Irish order and Irish habits" and "marriages and nourishings daily making with the Lord's Irish rebels."3s The solu- tion it offers is that the King first, "make a thorough reformation of this land," beginning with Leinster, and then take control of the country out of the hands of the native lords and place it under the direct supervision of native-born Englishmen.36 At this point, Henry's Irish policy begins to appear more assertive and Henry is seen himself participating in the routine 32This English element consisted of John Topclyff, who was appointed (March 12, 1511), to be Chief Justice of the King's Bench, LBP, 1, Pt. 1, No. 731 (19), and William Rockeby, ArchbishOp of Dublin, who was appointed Chancellor of Ireland on May 21, 1512, LGP, 1, Pt. 1, No. 1221 (44). In 1513, Rockeby and Tapclyff were succeeded by Sir William Compton as Chancellor and Patrick Birmingham as Chief Justice, both native-born Englishmen. LGP, 1, Pt. 2, No. 4542; II, Pt. 2, No. 2535 (2). "“ 335.9. Hen. VIII, II, 1. 34Cal. Carew M§:: 1, Nos. 1 a 2. 35 36 Cal. Carew !§:» 1, No. 2. Cal. Carew M§:, I, No. 1. 17 administration of Irish affairs.37 Between him and Wolsey, a new and more vigorous Irish program was inaugurated. In July 1518, Henry dispatched letters of instruction both to the Earl of Desmond and to the City of Cork, eXpressing deep concern about fresh rumors of Desmond's intrigues on the Continent.38 Chief among the King's memoranda for action to be undertaken in regard to the Irish problem was one for a debate on Irish affairs with his council to "devise how Irelandmay be reduced and restored to good and obedience."39 In addition to taking part in matters of general policy, the King can also be seen participating in areas of Specific activity. In July 1519, Sir Thomas More was instructed by Henry to get Wolsey to initiate in the Star Chamber or before the justices, a Waterford suit against the town of New Ross, "for disturbing them [Waterford] in the use of a grant of prize wines made to them by the King's progenitours." That the King took the side of Waterford in this in- stance was done in consideration of that town's steadfast loyalty to Henry VII during the Perkin Warbeck episode. The following month, George, the Earl of Shrewsbury and Steward of the Royal Household, was encouraged by Henry personally, to assume a more active interest in his Wexford liberty and, in this regard, was issued a warrant by the King, "to arm 40 of his retainers for quelling the rebels in 37King Henry VIII to the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland (July 1520). 5.9. Hen. VIII, II, 31-35. 38 Lap, II, Pt. 2, No. 4293 (July 7, 1518). 39Lap, III, Pt. 1, No. 576 (ii). 18 Ireland, who withhold the revenues of his [the Earl's] inheritance there."40 In,response to the shift toward a more active policy, early in 1520, the younger Kildare was replaced by an English nobleman, Thomas, Earl of Surrey, son of the Duke of Norfolk who was slain at 41 The the Battle of Bosworth Field fighting on the Yorkist side. Earl of Surrey was someone in whom Henry had complete trust and ad- miration both as a soldier and as a statesman. Following his ap- pointment as the King's new Irish deputy in place of the ninth Earl of Kildare, Surrey landed in Ireland at the head of an army of 1100 men to begin the re-conquest.42 Henry's appointment of Surrey signals a significant change in overall strategy at this time. Since 1485 and prior to 1520, with the exception of Poynings' brief tenure from 1494-1496, the problem of governing Ireland was met by placing confidence in the Earl of Kildare and governing through him. This approach was utilized by Henry VII who governed largely by Kildare's advice and was continued during the first part of Henry VIII's reign. From the English stand- point, this method of governing Ireland had the advantage of being more convenient and cheaper while from the Anglo-Irish perspective it offered a number of advantages. Among other things, it made it 402§23 II, Pt. 2, No. 3853; III, Pt. 1, Nos. 356, 430, 981. 41George E. Cokayne, The Com lete Peerage gf_En land, Scot- land, Ireland, etc., extant, extinct or ormant, (London: The St. CafiTerine Press, _1936), Ix, 6f276—1's—_'fi-620; enceforth sec. 422- m- V_I_I_I_, II, 31; Cal. Carew Mi, 1, No. 5. 19 possible for the lords to prosecute their private feuds using state revenues. More specifically, the system of relying on the Anglo- Irish lords for the government of the country meant that the Earl of Kildare, for instance, could levy military service and quarter his followers in the homes of the farmers and the poor gentry of the Pale. It also allowed the lords to exact fines and to levy taxes on their tenants under the pretense that they were engaged in the service of the Crown. Finally, this system enabled the Anglo-Irish lords to connive with any native Irish Chieftain who showed a willing- ness to join their faction whether it was to Oppose a rival lord or the royal authorities.43 Needless to say, this system proved to be highly unreliable in governing Ireland effectively. More important from the King's standpoint, it resulted in a great many abuses being perpetrated in his name which only served drastically to undermine popular confidence in the royal authorities. In 1520, therefore, Henry VIII decided, as his father had done in 1494, to re-institute the system of sending a native-born Englishman to reside in Dublin on a more or less permanent basis, supported in his efforts by a large standing army of English tr00ps. The plans which Henry had formulated in accordance with the shift in policy centered around the following objectives: (1) re- viving Anglo-Irish loyalty with the King attempting, by letter, to recall the outlying lords to their allegiance "and that if any of them violate their oaths, my lord Cardinal's Deputy shall accurse them, and interdict their countries till they find sureties to be 43Froude, II, 254f. 20 reconciled"; (2) restoring the King's peace and taxes over the whole island by requiring that every 20 acres of arable land in English- Speaking areas pay to the King a subsidy of 12 pence a year, while in Irish-speaking areas, for every 20 acres, 8 pence was to be paid, "and that all the churches pay the same subsidy as those of the 12 English shires . . ."; (3) unifying and anglicizing the Irish church under Wolsey's legatine authority. In addition, the English governor was to have three additional Englishmen on his council who could not act without his consent. To help him implement these instructions, Surrey was provided with a substantial contingent of English troops.44 No sooner had Surrey arrived in Ireland (May 23, 1520), than official disillusionment set in. Shortly after his arrival the Earl caused considerable alarm in England by requesting an additional 800 troops above the 1100 originally sent, merely to stabilize his exist- ing position.45 This request was then followed by a report from Surrey to the King, dated June 30, 1521, in which the Lord Deputy indicated that a complete conquest of the country would necessitate a total armed commitment of at least 6000 men and an unspecified number of years to accomplish. Moreover, to make matters even more unattractive to the King, Surrey implied in the same dispatch that the conquest itself must be financed and armies supported from Eng- land; that castles and towns must be built as the conquest proceeded; and that English settlers be brought in to supervise the Irish to 44Henry's objectives are outlined in the following: LGP, III, Pt. 1, No. 670; IV, Pt. 1, No. 80. 455.9. Hen. VIII, II, 67. 21 work the land. Henry, however, rejected Surrey's assessment of the situation in Ireland and came to the conclusion that to maintain an English deputy on the current scale would be "frustratory," and that the money saved would be better spent on "higher enterprises."46 In short, the King decided that the best results would be derived by conquest over a longer period of time. Surrey's failure to convince the King of the feasibility of a total conquest of Ireland thus re- sulted in the conclusion of the initial active phase of Henry's Irish policy and the reversion back to the policy of relying on the Anglo- Irish lords for the government of the country. This was, in turn, compounded by Surrey's serious illness and he was recalled in March 1522 and replaced by the Earl of Ormond.47 ‘ The retrenchment of Henry's Irish policy in 1522 was dictated not so much by desire on the King's part, as by sheer neces- sity. The realization of the enormous cost it would require just to maintain the Irish lieutenancy in its present state proved, in the final analysis, to be the deciding factor in postponing Henry's ex- periment with the system of employing native English viceroys to govern Ireland, and bringing to a temporary close the policy of active intervention inaugurated by him in 1520 and placed under Surrey's direction. For in spite of his spurious reputation for extravagance, economy was still Henry's main object in dealing with 46Surrey to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 72-75.. Henry's reactions are contained in his dispatch to Surrey, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 88, 89. 47S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 95-97. Surrey suffered much from dysentery, and asked to be recalled in September 1521. LGP, III, Nos. 583, 2072. 22 the Irish problem. Nonetheless, if, following Surrey's recall in 1522, Henry's Irish policy ceased to be aggressive, the nature of his subsequent approach to the problem of Irish administration during the period from 1522-29, suggested that the possibility of future intervention was still envisioned. While in retrOSpect, the years 1522-29 display no very clear pattern other than an extreme reluctance to initiate radical experi- ments, the conduct of Henry's foreign policy during these years tended to place Ireland in a highly prominent position. For in the midst of the intricate power struggles of Europe during the early sixteenth century, as subsequent events were soon to prove, Ireland had the potential for becoming a dangerous center for political and military intrigue against England. For this reason, if for no other, Henry would be compelled to give renewed attention to Ireland and assume, once again, a more active role in Irish affairs. Ireland's strategic importance first became apparent to Europe's leaders on two separate occasions during the first half of the sixteenth century. The first occurred in 1523 while Henry VIII was engaged in a war with France. That year, James, the tenth Earl of Desmond, negotiated a treaty with Francis I whereby the former agreed to make war against Henry upon the arrival of a French army which, as matters went, was never sent.48 The second instance was slightly more serious and, once again, involved the intrigues of the Earl of Desmond, this time in 48Great Britain, British Museum, Cotton MS, Titus B XI, leaf 352, in which the precise terms of the treaty between Francis 1 and Desmond are recorded in full. 23 alliance with the Emperor, Charles V. Aggravated by Henry's divorce from his aunt, Catherine of Aragon, Charles entered into negotiations with the Earl which culminated in an actual invasion of England by Desmond in 1529, utilizing a small but effective fleet of ships and a rather substantial army.49 The reaction of the English authorities to the Desmond in- vasion illustrates the seriousness of the situation which is summed up in a letter to Wolsey from R. Gryffyth, dated July 8, 1530: Twenty thousand Irishmen have come within these twelve months to Pembrokeshire, the Lordship of Haverford West, and along the sea to St. David's. They are for the most part rascals out of the dominions of the rebel earl of Desmond, very few from the English pale. The town of Tenby is almost all Irish, rulers and commons, who disobey all the King's processes issuing from the exchequer of Pembroke, supposing their charter warrants them to do $0. One of them, named Germyn Gruffith, is the owner of two great ships well appointed with ordinance. They will take no English or Welsh into their service. Last year, hearing of a great number of them being landed, the writer made a privy watch, and in two parishes took above 200, and sent them to sea again. They have since returned with many more, but he has ever expelled them as before. Throughout the circuit there are four Irishmen to one English or Welsh. Order should be given that no man in these ports retain any Irishmen in his service, otherwise they will increase more and more. The mayor and town of Tenby have committed great riots and unlawful assemblies, with divers extortions, as appears by indictments against them in the records of Pembroke. They have also aided and victualled the King's enemies at different times.50 By dismissing it as a piratical raid by a few Irish "rascals," Gryffyth tends to underestimate the broader implications of the 49The progress of these negotiations is related by Charles V's chaplain, Gonzalo Fernandez, who was sent to Ireland to negotiate the possibility of a Desmond-Imperial alliance which was never con- cluded. Thomas Babcock to emissaries of Wolsey, LGP, IV, Pt. 2, Nos. 4485, 4878; Pt. 3, No. 5501, Cal. Carew N§,,‘TT'No. 33. SOLGP, Iv, Pt. 2, No. 4485. 24 Desmond invasion in terms of its long-range effect on the future course of Anglo-Irish relations. Desmond's expedition into Wales, in conjunction with the overall threat of foreign intervention was, no doubt, a main consideration in explaining Tudor policy toward Ireland after 1530 and forcing Henry once again to undertake a policy of active intervention. Wolsey's fall from power in 1529 marked a shift nearer to a policy of continuous intervention from England. Thomas Cromwell was placed at the head of Irish affairs and the King's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, appointed Lord Lieutenant.51 In designating the Duke of Richmond, Henry decided once again to dispense with home rule by Irish aristocratic families. Up to now, with few exceptions, the governorship of Irish affairs was entrusted to the great aristocratic House of Kildare. The formula that was now agreed Upon called for a strong "secret council" to be established, comprised of a triumvirate of officials who would provide a bureaucratic alternative to the personal government of the Anglo-Irish lords. John Alen, the Arch- bishop of Dublin, and a former servant of Wolsey's who was recently made Chancellor of Ireland, was to head up the executive. Alen was assisted in this task by John Rawson, an Englishman and a member of the Irish Council since 1512, and by the Chief Justice, Patrick Bermingham, a member of one of the old Anglo-Irish professional families. On August 4, 1529, the "Secret Council" was set up and 51The Duke of Richmond was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on June 22, 1529 and held that office until his death. S.P. Hen. VIII, II, l47n. 25 governed in Richmond's name until the appointment of Sir William Skeffington as Lord Deputy on June 22, 1530.52 Between August 1529 and March 1530, Skeffington was in Ire- land as the King's Special commissioner, engaged in the attempt to stabilize conditions in the Anglo-Irish territories and charged with providing an estimate of the military situation. The policy which Skeffington adopted looked back to Poynings and called for the re- establishment of direct rule. Its success or failure depended mainly on Kildare's co-operation, which was not forthcoming. As a conse- quence, by 1532, whatever power Skeffington possessed upon his arrival in Ireland, had become substantially undermined by behind the scenes activity on the part of the Earl and his supporters and he was withdrawn and replaced by Kildare.53 At approximately the same time as Skeffington's recall, the Irish councillors were asked to offer their opinions on the current situation in Ireland and requested to give their advice on what policy should be followed in the fUture. Accordingly, they dispatched John Alen with an elaborate set of instructions and recommendations 54 in their name. In these documents both English clerics and szKing Henry VIII to Sir William Skeffington, 3.2. Hen. VIII, 11, 147-151; cf., Cal. Carew M§., I, No. 32. $3Piers Butler (Earl of Ossory), in a diSpatch to Cromwell dated Jan 2, 1532, complains vigorously of Kildare and relates of the Earl's persistent intransigency, Cal. Carew §§34 I, 45-49. 545.9. Hen. VIII, 11, 162-166. 26 Anglo-Irish officials alikeSS clearly regarded the Englishry in Ireland as in a state of chronic disorder and decline (their picture is very similar to that given in the above-mentioned dispatch in 1515).56 Although they refrained from attacking Kildare directly, they did admit that an English governor--one who, unlike Skeffington, knew the country--must be brought over and installed as soon as possible: . so as for the releve and helpe of this pour lande, or any good order to be had here, the next meane is to sende hither an Inglishe Deputie, who we trust, within thre yeres, shall bringe the Inglishe shires of Leynster and Mounster to good purpoos, so as the Kingis subsidie may rynne ther.57 In short, the Councillors were appealing for direct rule and the re- establishment of the system based on government by English viceroys. Circumstances aided their appeal, for in 1532, Kildare (Garret Oge), was seriously wounded in battle and the following year, the council at Dublin was summoned to consider his successor. Accused of being in league with the King's foreign enemies,58 Kildare was dis- missed for the last time in 1534 and later imprisoned in the Tower. 55Among them included Edward Staples, Bishop of Meath; William Laundy, Abbot of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin; Walter Wellesley, Bishop of Kildare; James Cotterel, Abbot of St. Thomas Court, Dublin; John Dublin; Sir J. Arnwall; the Lord of Trymlettiston; Barons Finglas and White; ChristOpher Delahide, justice; John Rawson, George Armachan, and the Prior of Louth. §;£: Hen: VIII, II, 164-166. 57 565323» pp. 14, 15. S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 165. 58Rumors were afoot that agents of Charles V aimed to establish contact with the Leinster Geraldines and with the Earl of Kildare in particular. S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 196, 198; cf., LEP, VII, Nos. 122, 229, 530, 957. ___' 59S.P. Hen. VIII, II, l83n. 27 However, before his hastened departure from Ireland took place, the Earl had taken it upon himself to appoint as his successor his eldest son, Thomas, Lord Offaly, pOpularly known as "Silken Thomas." During the elder Kildare's imprisonment, the Butlers, ap- parently in the h0pe of provoking "Silken Thomas" into Open rebellion against the King and thereby bring the whole weight of the English Crown down upon their arch-rivals, spread the false rumor that the elder Kildare had been put to death by his captors. The ruse proved 60 The successful and on June 11, 1534, Lord Offaly rose in revolt. following October, Sir William Skeffington was once again appointed Lord Deputy and dispatched to Ireland at the head of a large army to quell the uprising.61 Henry's re-appointment of Skeffington marks the renewal of the policy of direct control from England, the object of which was to ensure that in the future Ireland would not be used as a rear entrance to England by her Continental enemies aided by Irish insurgents. In this endeavor, the newly appointed Lord Deputy was to be supported by the Kildare rivals, the Butlers. As a guarantee that they would give their support wholeheartedly to the Dublin ad- ministration, an indenture was signed on May 31, 1534 between the King and Piers Butler, Earl of Ossory, and his son James, granting them palatine jurisdiction over four counties in southwest Leinster and southeast Munster on condition that they join forces with Skeffington.62 603.9. Hen. VIII, II, 197, 198. 615.9. Hen. VIII, II, 202. 625.9. Hen. VIII, II, 194, 207. 28 Assured of the backing of this powerful family, Skeffington then set about to reduce the Kildare stronghold of Maynooth. Arriving in Ireland with a powerful fOrce and a train of artillery, Skeffington successfully stormed the Geraldine fortress of Maynooth Castle, bat- tering down its stout walls with his cannon and, upon its surrender, slaughtering most of the surviving garrison.63 In the aftermath of the capture of Maynooth and the retreat of the remnants of Kildare's forces into Munster,64 a rift suddenly developed in the Irish Council between those who advocated a more vigorous policy for Ireland, and those whose approach was more re- strained. The successful Maynooth campaign, by giving the English forces the upper hand militarily, tended to provide encouragement to those elements both in England and on the Irish Council who favored an extreme policy of re-conquest. In this category was the Lord Deputy, who was supported by the Treasurer of the King's Household, Sir 63The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 236, 238. 64With the fall of Maynooth, the Geraldine revolt gradually subsided and in August 1535 FitzGerald surrendered unconditionally, The Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII, 8. P. Hen. VIII, II, 27Sf. Sent as a prisoner to London, ”Silken Thomas was place ed on trial for high treason, found guilty, and executed two years later in February 1537 at Tyburn along with five of his Geraldine uncles. Great Britain, Parliament, Statutes of the Realm, A. Luders, T. E. Tomlins, J. Raithby et. a1. , eds. (London: The Record Commission 1852), III, 26 Hen. VIII, c. 25, pp. 529, S30; 28 Hen. VIII, c. 18, pp. 674, 675. 29 William Fitzwilliam. In a dispatch to Cromwell, a strong advocate of the hard-line approach,6S Fitzwilliam suggested that the King: . shulde divise an Act of Parliament to bee passed within the said lande, whereby His Highnes maye have all suche landes, as any personne, Spirituell or temperall, holdeth within the said lande of Irlande; or elles that the said personnes 500 having the said lande, shall becomme contributours and bearers with His Grace, after the value of their said lande, as well for the changes His Highnes hath alredy been at aboutes the said conquest, as yf any such like chaunce (which God defende) maye happyn hereafter.66 Opposition in the Council to this kind of solution came from the Master of the Rolls, John Alen, nephew of ArchbishOp Alen who had been murdered by adherents of "Silken Thomas" in 1534, and from Gerald Aylmer, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer.67 Since it was claimed that many of those who had supported Kildare did so to safeguard their lives,68 it was felt by men like Alen and Aylmer that to resort to the type of policy of mass confiscation being proposed by Fitzwilliam would only make matters worse for the authorities and prevent a peace- ful reconciliation with those formerly under the compulsion to rebel. Moreover, as the Earl of Ossory cautioned,69 there was the danger that 6SLGP, VIII, No. 527, in which the Chief Minister put forth a proposal to declare the King's conquest by Statute, inferring that by equity all spiritual and temporal lands should revert to him. 668.P. Hen. VIII, II, 341. 67On June 16, 1535, a suggestion which had the backing of eight members of the Irish Council was forwarded to England by Alen and Aylmer in which it was proposed to sanction the issue of pardons on payment of fines. §4£3 Hen: VIII, II, 246. 68Sir Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire to Patrick Barnewall of Fieldston (April 17, 1535), LGP, Addenda, I, No. 982. 693.9. Hen. VIII, II, 249-256. 30 forfeitable lands would pass out of cultivation as farmers would re- fuse to take leases on lands which might afterwards be forfeited by attainder. By the summer of 1535, it was quite evident that a new pro- gram for governing Ireland was being considered. Sir Leonard Grey's appointment early in 1536 to succeed the late Sir William Skeffington as Lord Deputy was an indication of the King's earnest desire to see the system of ruling the Irish through English viceroys established on a more permanent basis. The gravity of the Kildare episode, in- volving as it did the threat of direct intervention by a EurOpean power, made it quite apparent that if Ireland was ever to be brought and kept under control, a more direct approach to the task of ad- ministering the country would be needed. Up until 1534, the problem of governing Ireland had been ap- proached in one of two ways: either by appointing an English viceroy to reside in Dublin, supported by a large standing army, or placing confidence in one of the great Anglo-Irish magnates and attempting to govern through them. The former course of action was attempted on three previous occasions between 1485 and 1534, and although it was somewhat effective in establishing a certain degree of order and "good governance," there were definite financial limitations inherent in it as the failure of Surrey's projected conquest in 1520 had demonstrated.70 As for the latter approach, the Kildare incident had clearly proven its unreliability. 7oSupra., pp. 18f. 31 Before a system of direct control from London could be im- posed, however, it was first necessary to discover a practical way to increase revenue in order to offset the huge cost of maintaining an interventionist program such as the one envisioned in 1535. It was at this point that Henry decided to launch an investigation into the entire state of affairs in Ireland, and, in particular, to ascer- tain the precise reasons for lagging revenue yields. Su5pecting that jobbery might be one of the main factors involved in the deficits, Henry, in the summer of 1537, appointed a royal commission to uncover the culprits and dismiss them from his service. Presiding over that commission was a young Kentish gentleman by the name of Sir Anthony St. Leger. CHAPTER II EARLY LIFE AND CAREER (1496?-1537) Sir Anthony St. Leger was born in or about 1496; the exact date of his birth is uncertain.1 He was the eldest son of Ralph St. Leger, esquire of Ulcombe in Kent, and Elizabeth, the daughter of Richard Haut of Shelvingborne, in the same county.2 Both the Additional MS 5520 and the Harleian MS 1074 show3 him to be related by marriage to the royal family through Sir Thomas St. Leger, beheaded by Richard III in 1483,4 who, either in January 1475 or 1476, became the second husband of Anne, the Duchess of Exeter, the sister of Edward IV, following her divorce in 1461 from Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter and Earl of Huntington.5 1C. H. and T. Coopers, eds., Athenae Cantabri iensis (Cam- bridge: Deighton Bell 8 Co., 1858), I, 192; hence art At . Cantab.; Dictionary of National Bio ra h , Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, E1 or 6 Co., 1897), L, 168; encrforth, DNB. zggg, L, 163; Ath. Cantab., I, 192. 3Great Britian, British Museum, Add. MS 5520 (f. 187); Harleian MS 1074 (f. 305), cited from Collectanea Topoggaphica g£_Geneologica, J. G. Nichols, ed. (London: John Bowyer Nichols & Son, 1834), I, 297, henceforth, Coll. Top, Geneo. 4Chronicles g£_London, Charles Kingsford, ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1905), p. 192. SGEC, v, 215, 216. 32 33 The St. Leger family took its name from a village of a similar name in Normandy. The roll of Battle Abbey indicates that Sir Robert de St. Leger accompanied William the Conqueror to England in 1066 and was among those who assisted him in the conquest.6 Tradition main- tains that Sir Robert supported the Duke's hand while he stepped from his ship onto the English shore in Sussex,7 and that following William's victory at Hastings he defeated a pagan Dane who inhabited Ulcombe and thereby established his residence there becoming, "pos- sessed of this manor at the latter end of the Conqueror's reign, hold- ing it of the archbishop [of Canterbury] by knight service."8 His descendant, Ralph de St. Leger, along with other Kentish gentlemen, followed Richard I to the siege of Acre in the Holy Land and was afterwards knighted, tOgether with two brothers, Sir John and Sir Thomas St. Leger, by Edward I for meritorious service in combat before the siege at Calverock in Scotland. Earlier, another Ralph and Hugh St. Leger of Knolton, Kent, were two of the "Recognitores Magnae Assisae" in the second year of the reign of King John.9 6Edward Hasted, The History and Topography 2f_the County g£_ Kent (Canterbury: Bristow, 1797), V, 388. 7W. E. Ball, "Stained-Glass Windows of Nettelstead Church," Archaeologica Cantiana, XXVIII, (1909), 221; henceforth, Arch. Cant. 8Hasted, V, 388. 9Rev. J. Cave-Browne, "Knights of the Shire of Kent," Arch. Cant., XXI (1895), 210. Also, the Duchess of Cleveland, ed., The Battle Abbengoll with some account g£_the Norman Lineages (LoEEEn: John Murray, 1889), III, 100. 34 According to James Wills,10 the St. Legers remained settled in the county of Kent for several succeeding generations and during the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, several in- dividuals of the family appear to have held various offices. Arnold St. Leger represented Kent in parliament during Edward III's reign, as did his son Sir Ralph St. Leger of Ulcombe, and in the tenth year of Richard II, was sheriff there.11 Sir Ralph's son, Sir John St. Leger, was likewise sheriff in 1431. His wife, Margerie Donnett, is buried beside him in Ulcombe Church. Sir John and Margerie had four sons, the eldest being Sir Anthony's great-grandfather, Ralph St. Leger. The second son, Bartholmew, married Blanche, the daughter of Lord Fitzwalter. Sir Thomas St. Leger, who married Anne of Exeter, was the third son. The youngest son was Sir James St. Leger, who married Anne, the daughter and co-heiress of Sir Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormond, and from this marriage descended the St. Leger's of Devon- shire.12 The first recorded mention of Anthony St. Leger occurs when, at the age of twelve (1508), he was sent to France and then to Italy . . . . . 13 . fer hls educat1on 1n the essent1als of grammar and etiquette. H15 formal education was continued at Cambridge14 and Gray's Inn,15 after A 10James Wills, The Irish Nation: Its History and its Bio- graphy (London: A. Fullerton 8 Co., 1871), I,-367. 11Hasted, v, 389. 123:111, 221, 222. 13David Lloyd, The Statesmen and Favourites gf_England, Ire- land and Scotland, from the Reformation £2_the Revolution (London: J. Robson, 1766), I, 99. 14Ath. Cantab., I, 192. 15 NB L, 163; Ath. Cantab., I, 192. 35 which he entered the service of Henry VIII and Wolsey at the Court, "where his debonnairess and freedome took with the King, as his solid- ity and wisdome with the cardinal."16 In October 1514, at the age of eighteen, we find him in attendance at the marriage of the Princess Mary to Louis XII of France,17 and the following year, he is men- tioned as comprising one of Lord Abergavenny's suite.18 Indeed, at this time, his entire family seems to have already attracted the young King's favor, which may, in large measure, help to eXplain why the youthful St. Leger was so readily accepted at Court. In 1509—10, immediately following Henry VIII's accession, Sir Anthony's father, along with other prominent members of the St. Leger family, including Bartholmew, Anne St. Leger (the daughter of Anne of Exeter and Sir Thomas St. Leger), and Sir George St. Leger (the son of Sir James St. Leger and Anne Butler), were granted a royal pardon.19 Earlier, on May 11, 1509, his father served as Esquire for the Body at the funeral of Henry VII,20 and in 1513, Sir George St. Leger took part in the First French War, appearing on the muster roll of the King's forces Operating in the vicinity of Calais in command of the 16Lond, I, 99. 17L8P, II, Pt. 2, No. 471 (May 14, 1515). lstep, 1, Pt. 2, No. 5483 (October 9, 1514). lgtap, 1, Pt. 1, No. 1003 (1 m.3); No. 438 (2 m.S). No reason for the pardon is specified. ZOLGP, 1, Pt. 1, No. 20. 36 rear guard comprised of 100 men.21 Sir George's name also occurs in 1517 as part of the retinue of Sir Richard Wingfield, Deputy of Calais.22 In 1520, Sir Anthony's father and Sir George, appear on the list of nobles and others selected to accompany the King and Queen 23 while late the fol- to France and the Field of the Cloth of Gold, lowing year (December 1521), Sir Anthony's brother, Arthur St. Leger, was given the royal assent to his recent election as Prior of the Convent of Bilsington in Canterbury diocese.24 As a member of the royal court, Sir Anthony was charged with carrying out a number of minor but important responsibilities. In August 1523, he was appointed to assist in the collection of the royal subsidy for the county of Kent,25 and in October of the same year, in a diSpatch to Wolsey from Warham and others,26 his name appears in connection with the measures ordered undertaken for the defense of the southeastern coast in the vicinity of Dover and the Cinque Ports against an expected French landing. 21LGP, 1, Pt. 2, No. 4306 (June 30, 1513); No. 4477 (Sep- tember 1513). 22253, 11, Pt. 2, No. 3188 (April 29, 1517). ZSLEPR 111, Pt. 1, Nos. 703, 704 (Sir George's wife served in attendance on Queen Catherine, LaP, 111, Pt. 1, p. 245). 24LEE, III. Pt. 2. No. 1849. 25L6?, III, Pt. 2, No. 3282. 26LGP, 111, Pt. 2, Appendix 45, P. 1586. St. Leger, to- gether with Wotton, Jasper Tirel, and John Cromer, were placed in command of Maidstone hundred and the three adjacent to it. 37 Late during the following summer,27 Sir Anthony was again granted a commission to collect the subsidy in Kent, and two years later, in February 1526, he was made one of the Commissioners of the Peace in Kent, following in his father's footsteps.28 As favorable as Sir Anthony's position within the Wolsey circle may appear, it was as a member of the Cromwell faction at Court that St. Leger attained real prominence within the royal ad- ministration. Lloyd's Opinion29 that Sir Anthony assumed a major role in bringing about Wolsey's downfall is difficult to substantiate by any conclusive evidence; however, his allegation that, following Wolsey's fall from power, St. Leger attached himself closely to Cromwell seems to be a more accurate observation. Beginning in 1533 and continuing until Cromwell's demise, there is frequent and close communication between the two men. On June 8, 1533, there appears a highly conciliatory dispatch to Cromwell from St. Leger, in which the Chief Minister is presented with a buck, "beseeching [him] to be content with it, for it was, in my judgement, the best that was in the ground of my keeping . . ." Concluding his letter, Sir Anthony makes the admission that "half the living I have is by you,"30 a rather straightforward indication that his status at this time de- pended largely on Cromwell's good graces. That same year, there is 27£§£3 IV: Pt- 1. N0. 547 (August 1, 1524). zsggg, IV, Pt. 1, No. 2002 (February 11, 1526). For Ralph St. Leger's terms as Commissioner of the Peace, see, L8P, 1, Pt. 1, No. 6 (January 1, 1515); No. 677 (July 8, 1515); No. 7Z7'(Ju1y 24, 1515); No. 1302 (December 18, 1515). 29Lloyd, 1, 99. 301.89, v1, No. 604. 38 brief mention of his name in the Cromwell papers which states that he was granted a commission of some kind on Cromwell's advice, further evidence that he shared the King's Minister's favor.“ A year later, in 1534, his name recurs in various diSpatches to Cromwell.32 Writing to Cromwell on June 20, 1534, he states: "I thank you for your goodness, by which I have all my living. I give you my heart, the greatest jewel I have. I send you a buck,"33 affirming, once again, his close reliance on Henry's minister for his position within the King's administration. There is substantial evidence which indicates that Sir Anthony had assumed an active role in the dissolution of the monas- teries. In January 1535, he received a commission, "to inquire into the pursuance of the commission in re to tenths and spiritualities."34 On July 29, 1538, the site of the priory of Bilsington was leased to him,35 and two years later, in 1539, Sir Anthony's name appears in connection with the suppression of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, together with the Lord Riche, Chancellor of the Court of the Augmenta- tions of the Revenues of the Crown, and Sir Christopher Hallis, one of the King's attorneys.36 31L8P, VI, No. 1625 (2). 32Sir Edward Guildford to Cromwell, May 9, 1534, L8?, VII, No. 630; Christ0pher Hales to same, No. 788 (June 4, 1534). 331.69, VII, No. 862. 34Lap, VIII, Pt. 1, No. 149 (40). SSLGP, x111, Pt. 1, p. 586. 36Harleian MS, 419 (f. 115), cited from Rev. John Edmund Cox, ed., The Works 2£_Thomas Crammer (London: The Parker Society, 1846), II, 3987 39 A further illustration of St. Leger's vastly improved status in relation to the Cromwell circle occurred on August 2, 1535 when he was appointed, along with Sir William Fitzwilliam and George Paulett: to reform all matters relating to the safe custody and defence of the town and marches of Calais, and of the castles of Guysnes, Hanmes, Rysbank, Nevingham Bridge, Mark and Oye, the conduct and visage of the deppty, mayor, captains and other officers, and of the soldiers. The appointment of St. Leger, Fitzwilliam, and Paulett to this highly important task was apparently at the advice of Cromwell and it is doubtful that such a significant responsibility would be entrusted to a group of mediocre officials. Earlier that year, Sir William Fitzwilliam, who presided over the mission, was commissioned, together with Lord Sandes, John and ChristOpher Hales, and William Breswode, to investigate the state of affairs at Guisnes and draw up a list of ordinances and decrees governing the county of Guisnes in behalf of the King. Presumably, it was the success of this previous mission to Guisnes which prompted Cromwell to dispatch a similar one to Calais under Fitzwilliam's direction, this time including Anthony St. Leger as one of the commissioners.38 By October 1535, St. Leger had returned to England and is found, once again, requesting favors from Cromwell: I have sent you seven phesants, killed with a hawk. I trust it will not be long before you have more. Whereas Dr. Layghton 37L89, Ix, No. 236 (3). 38[Richard Turpyn], The Chronicle of Calais in the Reigns of Hen VII and Hengy VIII £g_the Year 1540,-31 G. Nichals, ed. (LondEn: file Cam'énTocrety, 18R), X_XXV,_3'0'1 -"3'3"'1 . 40 has lately visited the monastery at Ledes, of which my brother [Arthur] is prior, and has given instructions not to go out of the precincts; I beg of you, considering that my brother has hitherto always been used to recreation with his hounds for a certain infirmity with which he is troubled to grant him his accustomed liberty,39 a small favor, no doubt, but one which St. Leger thought required the King's Minister's support. The following year (1536), when the King decided the time had arrived to diSpose once and for all of his bothersome second wife, Anne Boleyn, St. Leger's name appears as one of the grand jury of Kent which, at Deptford on May 11, found a true bill against her.40 The previous March, he was involved in the inventory taken at the monastery of Saxborough on the Isle of Sheppy in Kent, accompanied in this capacity by Sir Thomas Cheney and his uncle, Sir William Haut, presumably as one of the agents Lloyd mentions who actively assisted Cromwell in the suppression of the monasteries and other 41 In October of that same year his name occurs religious houses. again, this time on the list of "such noblemen and gentlemen as be appointed to supply men against the northern rebels,"42 and on the seventeenth, he wrote to Cromwell a highly revealing note which, for this reason, is worth quoting in full: 39L89, x, No. 373. 4oLGP, X, No. 876 (8), October 31, 1535; Baga de Secretis, pouches 8 8 9, Rep. 111 of Dep. Keeper of the Public Records, Appendix II, 243, cited from Froude, 476. 41£§23 X. N0. 562 (March 27, 1536). 42L6P, x1, No. 580 (1); cf., Appendix VIII, p. 594. St. Leger fielded a retinue of from 20-40 men. 41 Have me excused that I send you not your fat doe this year; as soon as I can find one you shall have it. I send you cheezes from my great dairy and a crane of my own killing. I beg your favor. But for the goodness I found in your father and you, in my lord Cardinal's days and now in the King his Grace's days, I [would have] been undone. I am one of the King's blood of the "surar-seys" and so cousin-germain to his Grace whom it may please to give me some prebend or free chapel. I have lived "harly" since the late lord of Canterbury died.43 The above dispatch provides us with what is perhaps the best clue to the reason behind St. Leger's rapid advancement within the royal administration. It clearly reveals his powerful reliance on the King's Minister for his advancement as well as a close attachment to the Cromwell family as a whole (as inferred by his reference to the help he received from Cromwell's father during Wolsey's time). Another factor which may have been indirectly involved in his rapid rise within court circles was, as Sir Anthony himself indicates in the dispatch, the fact that he was related to the royal family as a result of the marriage of Sir Thomas St. Leger to the sister of Edward IV. Taken together, these two points undoubtedly contributed somewhat to his political and social status in 1536 and can be con- sidered as highly important reasons for any further promotions. While Sir Anthony was experiencing his first real taste of public life, the situation in Ireland prOgressed as follows: With the sudden death of Sir William Skeffington in 1536, Sir Leonard Grey 44 was chosen to succeed him as Lord Deputy. As Marshal of the Army 43LEP, XI, No. 746. The reference is to the recent death of Sir Anthony's wife's uncle, Archbishop William Warham of Canterbury. 44Lord Deputy Grey to King Henry VIII, February 23, 1536, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 306, in which Grey acknowledges the reception of his patent as Lord Deputy and his authority to summon a parliament. 42 prior to his appointment, Grey had been given the task of reorganizing the army which, following the victory over the rebel Kildare, had become lax and undisciplined, "robbyng and ryffing our subjectes, with such other misbehaveors to long here to be expressed, which hitherto had not ben redressed, ne duely corrected . ."45 A foretaste of the approach Grey would assume toward the problem of governing Ireland came on February 14, 1536, nine days befbre his appointment as chief governor became official, when one of his first acts was to imprison the five remaining Kildare brothers as part of the King's scheme to liquidate the entire Kildare branch of the Geraldine family thereby eliminating them once and for all as a future source of trouble.46 This Grey followed up by an attack on the O'Brien chief who, in alliance with Sir John Fitzjohn of Desmond, obtained a great part of Munster, "ayenst the Kinges will and pleas- ure."47 In August 1536, Grey set out to attack the O'Brien-Desmond 45S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 291. Grey's appointment as Marshal of the Army came on October 3, 1535 in the ferm of a patent from the King. Ireland, Public Record Office, Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Chance in Ireland of the Reigns—of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizthth, James—Morr1n, edTT'iDublin: ATEx Thom 6 Sons, 1860), 27, 28 Henry VIII, Membrane 25, No. 85; henceforth, Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire. 46The list of those Fitzgeralds whom the King wanted appre- hended is located in the State Paper Office, London. The list itself is in the handwriting of John Alen, then Master of the Rolls in Ire- land. It was compiled sometime in October 1535 on orders from the King (S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 293n.). The five Fitzgerald brothers taken into custody were Sir James, Oliver, Richard, and Sir John and Walter Fitzgerald (S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 304, 305). Following their capture, all five kinsmen were hastily shipped to England for safe keeping (LEE, X, Pt. 1, No. 301). 473.9. Hen. VIII, II, 319. 43 confederacy. His army marched unopposed across the central plain to Cashel, and there captured the undefended Desmond castle of Loughgyr which was then handed over to the loyal Lord Butler to repair and maintain at his own expense. At this point in the campaign, Grey was joined by Donogh O'Brien, who offered his forces to the Lord Deputy to fight against his father on condition that he be granted Carri- gunnell castle which was captured but afterwards lost by treachery to Matthew O'Brien.48 Next, Grey attacked O'Brien's Bridge on the Shannon which had, for quite sometime, exposed Limerick and Tipperary to attack. The bridge itself was constructed of wood, with a castle built in the water at each end. The castle located on the Limerick side was the strongest, being made of hewn limestone or marble, twelve to fourteen feet in thickness, and armed with an iron gun capable of firing shot as large as a human head at its attackers along with two smaller weapons, one belonging to some ship, and the other being of Portuguese make. To make matters even more difficult for Grey's assault, the garrison was armed with muskets and hand guns, and the whole fortress was further strengthened, and very skillfully at that, with hogsheads full of sand.49 Nevertheless, and in spite of a stout defense by O'Brien's men, Grey's forces succeeded in storming the castle with the valuable assistance provided by Donogh O'Brien. Those who survived the English 48The progress of Grey's expedition against O'Brien is related in the Council of Ireland's letter to Cromwell (August 9, 1536), in S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 349f. 49William Body to Cromwell, Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 86. 44 onslaught escaped Via the other side. While the attack was in prog- ress, Grey drew sharp criticism for his conduct of the siege from William Body, who, throughout the expedition, took it upon himself to assume the character of a royal commissioner and who, in his dislike for the Lord Deputy, wrote to Cromwellso condemning the chief governor's behavior. Grey, on the other hand, was equally con- temptuous of Body.51 During the siege, some of Grey's soldiers grew discontented for not having received their back pay and after the capture of the castle, refused to go beyond the Shannon into Clare in pursuit of O'Brien until their arrears were received in full. Consequently, after taking Carrigogunnell once more, Grey retired to Dublin to meet Parliament, leaving behind the artillery which he had brought with him on the campaign to batter down the castle walls at Limerick and Clonmel.52 Bagwell sums up the results of the expedition against O'Brien in these words: His expedition had shown that a small army well led and well paid could go anywhere and do anything in Ireland, and that feudal castles could do nothing against a prOper siege train; but it had also shown that the necessary conditions were not likely to be fulfilled under a King who gave away priories while crossing passages, and who staked one of the finest bells in London upon a single throw of the dice.53 SOCal. Carew ME; I, No. 86. 51Lord Deputy Grey to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 396 (November 24, 1536). 52The Council of Ireland to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 3l6f. (August 1536). SSBagwen, I, 204. 45 Prior to launching the campaign against O'Brien and his ally, the Earl of Desmond, Grey, in response to the instructions issued to him by the king on February 23, 1536,54 summoned a parlia- ment which met at Dublin. Henry's main purpose in calling together a parliament in Ireland at this time was twofold: firstly, to enact legislation which would formally recognize the royal supremacy and thus drastically curtail the Pope's power in Ireland; and, secondly, to take the necessary steps to regain royal control over those re- gions which, over the years, through negligence, inheritance, or en- croachment by the native Irish, became lost to the English. The end result was the passage of a number of bills, including, among others, the Act of the Supreme Head which declared Henry the head of the Church of Ireland, the Act of Attainder of the Earl of Kildare, and the Act of Absentees.SS The last act, the Act of Absentees, is per- haps the most significant piece of legislation enacted by Grey's parliament, mainly because of its effect on the future course of land policy. Lamenting the sorry state of the country, in particular, the loss of rents from the King's once vast possessions, the Act blames the resultant weakness of English rule in Ireland on the noblemen of the realme of England, and especially the lands and dominions of the Earldoms of Ulster and Leinster, who having the same, both they and their heirs, by process of time demising within the said realme of England, and not providing for the good order and suritie of the same their possessions there, in their absence and by their neglicences suffered those of the 545.9. Hen. VIII, 11, 306. 5For a convenient reference to the legislation passed during this particular session of the Irish Parliament, vu, David B. Quinn, "The Bills and Statutes of the Irish Parliaments 6? Henry VII and Henry VIII," Analecta Hibernica, X (1941), 138f. 46 wilde Irishe being mortal and naturell enemies of the kings of England and English dominion, to enter and hold the same without reluctance . In addition, the Act accused the absentee prOprietors Of making leases of divers holdings and manours, tO the late earl Of Kildare, which by occasion of the same came to the possession of Thomas Fitzgerald, his sonne and heir . As blameworthy as the English nobles were made to appear, it was the native Irish, according to the authors Of the Act, who were the chief cause of the King's troubles in Ireland. Among those crimes of which the Irish are accused is, "usurp[ing] and encroach[ing] upon the King's Dominion, which hath beene the principalle cause Of the miserable estate, wherein it is at this present time . . ." In order tO insure "that the like shall not ensue hereafter," the Act compelled the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Berkeley, George Talbot and the heirs general of the Earl Of Ormond to surrender to the King all honours, manours, castles, seignories, hundreds, franchises, liberties, county palatines, annuities, knights fees, advowsons . and all singular other possessions, hereditaments, and all other proffites as well Spirituall as temporall . Besides confiscating the lands of absentee landlords, the act implied that the King could also compel the Irish chiefs, whom he had suspected of illegally encroaching upon Crown lands, to surrender their lands to him as well. This was to have an important effect on future policy, for once these lands were in his possession, the King had the Option either of leasing them tO English settlers, or re-granting them to the chiefs on condition that they pledge their loyalty and service to him. Time would determine which course the King would follow. 56The Laws and Statutes of Ireland, 29 Hen. VIII, Cap. 111, 95f. 47 The accomplishments which Lord Grey's term in Office wit- nessed in the military and legislative spheres, however, could not conceal the basic shortcomings of his administration. In the first place, the Lord Deputy had not been on good terms with the wife Of the former chief governor, Lady Skeffington and her son-in-law, Anth- ony Colley, who at one time accused Grey Of shortening the late Lord Deputy's life by his overbearing manner. In a dispatch to Cromwell, dated February 13, 1536, Colley Offers these highly unflattering re- marks about the manner by which Grey conducted himself while in Ireland: At the coming last over of the Lord Leonard Grey into this poor country of Ireland, he mustered the soldiers, both horsemen and footmen, which were under the retinue of Sir William Skeffington, then being Deputy, with strait and crue fashion, even accordingly as the Earl Of Kildare did at our coming last out of Ireland, which was thought by all the Council of England afterward to be urgently handled. These musters was not better, but much worse, for the said Lord Leonard had unfitting words to the King's Deputy, much worse ever the Earl Of Kildare had, beside threttyng Of his captains with imprisonment; as also to Leonard Skeffington said, after the musters, he would strike him with his dagger, with such a raging fashion that men must needs suffer him to say and do what he would; which demeanor went never from the Lord Deputy's heart during his life, and greatly I think it shortened the same.5 Lady Skeffington also complained Of Grey's harshness and meanness of temper as her letter to Cromwell dated August 1, 1536 stated. The widow Skeffington was particularly incensed at the new Lord Deputy for literally evicting her from her late husband's Official residence at Maynooth Castle without allowing her ample time pr0per1y to remove her belongings: 57Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 73. 48 May ytt plese yower Maistershepe to be adwertissyd, that be yower Maistershep meynes and gwdnes, Mr. William Boddy hath cawssyd all my stwffe to be dellyweryd from my Lorde Deypwte, sawynge swmparte, weche he stelle holdythe, wyche I well nat complene me Of, for I trwste lycke wysse, by the sayd Mr. Body, to hawe thereof remedy. Newerthelles yt hathe nat ower meche plessyd the sayd Lorde Deypwte, the dellyweryng of my sayd stoffe; for immeydeatly after the order in that behalffe tackon, the sayd Lorde Deypwte with haste sassyd my serwand, weche kepte my sayd stwffe, to hawe yt owte of the castelle of Mynowthe, and wolde mot suffere hym to hawe leysure to prowyd cartes for the carege of the same. Wher- fore he was fene to ley it in a cherche, ther cam certen men from the Lorde Deppwte, and arestyd the sayd stoffe, for certen dewtes, wyche my sayd latte hwsebonde schold owe for the Kynges casses here; wyche shalbe payd, as sowne as I may resseve the wages Of my sayd latte hwsband, weche ys yette on payd.58 More than personality clashes, Grey's major problem in ad- ministering Ireland stemmed from shortages in revenue. Revenue from Ireland was traditionally derived from two main sources: forfeitures, such as those from the Earl Of Kildare, and parliamentary grants. Taken together, both amounted at this time tO approximately 5,000 pounds, Of which 1,000 pounds was outstanding.59 Henry constantly complained about the lack of revenue from Ireland and diligently sought to reduce his commitments there in accordance with what he could actually afford.60 In order to augment his Irish revenues, the King appointed his Vice-Treasurer in Ireland, Sir William Brabazon, to look into the sources Of revenue more closely, providing him with a detailed set Of instructions for this task and urging him to give his exclusive attention to financial matters. By commissioning 585.9. Hen. VIII, 11, 348. 59The Council Of Ireland to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 3l6f. 60King Henry VIII to Lord Deputy Grey and the Council Of Ireland, S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 422. 49 Brabazon, Henry thus set the entire course of Anglo-Irish policy after 1535 in the direction of reforming his Irish administration in accordance with his desire for economy and, in the future, would carefully evaluate and scrutinize the merits of his Officials in Ireland almost exclusively by how well they performed their duties toward accomplishing this goal.61 Grey reSponded to the King's call for economy by indicating that without adequate subsidies from the royal treasury, Ireland simply could not be governed effectively. It was quite apparent from Grey's standpoint, that if the military establishment there was to be safely reduced and the country effectively pacified, it would take larger sums of money than were currently available, and although Brabazon was attempting to provide an accurate account of every shill- ing Spent, shortages still remained.62 The difficulties Grey encountered with Lady Skeffington and from deficits in revenue were compounded by the Lord Deputy's uneasy relationships with the members Of his Council. The main source of friction stemmed from Opposition to the way in which the chief governor handled the Irish problem, in particular, his policy Of military ex- pansionism as characterized by punitive eXpeditions into the interior such as the one recently conducted against O'Brien and Desmond. One of the leading members Of the opposing faction on the Council was Sir William Brabazon, whose first contact with Ireland 615.9. Hen. VIII, II, 422. 62The Lord Deputy and Council Of Ireland to King Henry VIII, §;E: Hen. VIII, 11, 426-433. 50 came as Grey's companion when the chief governor was re-appointed Marshal of the Army in 1535.63 Almost from the start, the relation- ship between Grey and the Vice-Treasurer was none tOO easy, as the fellowing diSpatch from Grey to Cromwell reveals. In it, Grey claims that the friction between himself and Brabazon was instigated by certain members of the Council, and, in particular, by Thomas Agard, the Vice-Treasurer of the Irish mint: But, my Lorde, to be playne tO you, as I advertised you by myn other letters, William Brabason handelith me very straitely and unkindely; which his onkynde dealing with me greavith me mych the more, for that he was your Lordeschipes servaunte, and myn Olde acquayntaunce. The particularities of his doinges I will nat Open, until I speke with you. He bruteth and imageneth, that onkyndness is putt betwixte hym and me, by instigacion of the Maister of the Rolles, and others of the Counsayle. My Lorde, all the Counsaile in Irelande neither shulde put variance, not yet contynew the same, betwexte us, if his doinges were as they shulde be; and, by the faith of an honeste man, and a gentilman, the saide Maister of the Rolles, Cheef Justice, and the Justice Houth, have contynually, at all tymes, preavely persuaded me to forbere hym, and ensue his good will, without having respecte to any Of his unkinde doinges. As I understande, he berith me the wors good will for the Maister of the Rolles sake. By my faithe, I never harde that the Maister of the Rolles ded hym displeasure; but I think the displeasure that he berith hym, is by the instigacion of Agre, who I assure you is the moste grownde Of the devision here, with his associated, Poole, Cusake, and Water Cowley, which togethers alured William Body to the same trade, endusing all others, which wolde gyve theym credite, to the like. The event which precipitated an Open clash between the two men followed Grey's decision in August 1536 to expand the war against O'Brien and Desmond into Munster,6S a course of action which Grey's 635.9. Hen. VIII, II, 292. 64Lord Deputy Grey to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 383, 84. 653.9. Hen. VIII, II, 361f. Sl detractors on the Council charged was arrived at without either their advice or approval. In reply to Brabazon's accusation that the Lord Deputy had deliberately left him behind so that he alone might take sole credit for the campaign, Grey stated: But if the praise of the Mounster jornay be defaced, because, as it hath ben falsely there, that I, and others, entending solely to take the praise there of, for a policie, lefte Maister Tresorer behinde us; me thinketh it is not well; for uupon my faith there was no such thing meant.66 On the contrary, Grey claimed, it was Brabazon who, by his own vo- lition, decided to tarie in these parties, boath for the defence of the countrey, re-edfying Powes-coarte, and the contynuying of the workes of the bridge Of Athy and Woodstocke . 67 Moreover, Grey emphatically denied that the expedition into Munster was initiated without the approval of the Council, insisting that it was Brabazon together with his allies on the Council, John Alen, the Master of the Rolls, and Gerald Aylmer, the Chief Justice, who expressed their approval: Treuthe it is, my Lorde, I was enjoined to folow the advise of the Counsaile, espcially Of the Treasorer, the Chief Justice, and the Maister of the Rolls . . . if I have inter- prised any jornay, or other exploit, without thadvise of the said Counsaile, I ask no favour, but extreme punishment.68 The differences of Opinion between Grey and his Council, in addition to the Lord Deputy's admitted inability to stabilize Irish 665.9. Hen. VIII, II, 385. 67S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 385. Throughout the duration of Grey's campaign against O'Brien, Brabazon remained stationed with a body of troops in the vicinity of Dublin, "for the defence of the country there" (S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 344). 688.P. Hen. VIII, II, 386. 52 finances, did not pass unnoticed by the King who, in the summer of 1537, resolved to send a team of investigators to Ireland to ascertain and report on the actual state of affairs there. While the instruc- tions which the commissioners were to take to Ireland with them were being drawn up, Robert Cowley, then Clerk of the Crown of Chancery and another of Grey's antagonists, took the liberty of sending to Cromwell a list of suggestions for reform, some of which would help shape fUture policy decisions. Cautioning against the further ex- pansion of the military role in Ireland beyond what was necessary to consolidate the "Englishry," Cowley advocated, among other things, recognizing the pro-English James Fitzmaurice as the legitimate Earl of Desmond in place of the recalcitrant James FitzJOhn, the present self-proclaimed Earl: if percase he in Irlande woll come, and make any reasonable submyssion 68 the Kinges Commissioners and Counsaile there . . . Other suggestions Cowley put forth included. fortifying the marches of the Pale in the region of O'More country and Westmeath; planting "certain gentilmen, as Peter Talbot, thers of the Walshemen, and others nighe Dublin," in O'Toole country; enforcing the old Statutes of Kilkenny, and, in connection with this, expelling "harpers, rymours, Irishe cronyclers, bardes, and reshallyn, [who] commonly goo with praises to gentlemen in the English pale, praysing in rymes . their extorcions, robories, and abuses, as valiauntnes . . ."; and finally,prohibiting the wearing of native Irish costume.70 Above all 695.9. Hen. VIII, II, 447. 705.9. Hen. VIII, 11, 446, 449. 53 else, Cowley stressed the importance of consolidating English authority within the Pale before any "general reformation" of Ireland could take place.71 His long-range goal was to see the native Irish driven completely from the "English" side of the River Shannon, which, once achieved, would then serve as a natural barrier against future encroachments: then shal the English pale bee wel 200 Iryshe myles in leyngth and more and a little armye, with theme selffes, shall suffice generally to subdue the residue and inhabite. They have piles, holds, and stronghouses reddy made, that suffisith to inhabit. . In the tracting of tyme, and with litle changes, this is, in my most symple mynde, the nerist way, oonles the general reformation should follow immediately.72 It is quite apparent from the above remarks that Cowley is in agree- ment with those on the Council who, at the time, favored a policy of retrenchment, in contrast to the Lord Deputy's seeming desire for a stronger interventionist role. In agreement with Cowley on this point was John Alen, who in a dispatch to the King on October 6, 1536, presents the Option of consolidating present gains or establishing the system of direct rule from England on a more permanent basis: Wherfor my simple advise shalbe to Your Grace, not to differ the reformacion of oon parte of the Irishry, under hope and expextacion to have tyme to reforme all. But first, not eXpecting tyme for that purpose, divise to make suche staye, that what chaunce so ever shulde happe, ye mought kepe that ye have alredye without echaust- ing of your treasure if all the residewe of Irlande wolde saye the contrary. On the other hand, Alen continues: 715.9. Hen. VIII, II, 450, 451. 723.9. Hen. VIII, II, 450. 735.9. Hen. VIII, II, 374. S4 . if Your Majestie, fOr such causes as shalbe seen to you requysite, do not thinke convenyent to put this divise to execution, than I think . . . that this man, nowe Deputie . . . chosing such a convenient number as it shall please Your Majestie to assign unto him, take the govern- aunce and defence of the land.74 Henry's determination to conduct a thorough investigation of affairs in Ireland, eSpecially of financial matters, resulted in the appointment of Sir Anthony St. Leger as presiding officer of a royal commission whose main task it was to discover the means to reduce exPenditure and increase revenue and, in conjunction with this task, expose any instances of malfeasance. The newly-established commission was also given control over legislation and was empowered to see to it that the various acts for the establishment of the royal supremacy in Church and State were duly enacted. In addition to these far- reaching powers, the Commission was to have the right to enter the Irish Parliament as the King's councillors, and therein to outline the King's policy to the members "with all their wit and dexterity" and both houses Of the Irish legislature were informed to this effect.75 Afterwards, the Commissioners exercised the power of dissolving Parliament. Of particular interest is the composition of the Commission Henry VIII had appointed. Besides St. Leger, the three remaining 745.9. Hen. VIII, II, 375. 75Instructions to the Royal Commissioners in Ireland, King Henry VIII to St. Leger, Paulet, Moyle, and Berners (July 31, 1537), S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 452f.; LGP, XII, Nos. 378-389; 931, BEE: Close RhIlsj—Ire., 27, 28 Henry VIII: Membrane 3, Nos. 103, 104, p. 35. 55 members76 chosen to represent the King in Ireland were relative new- comers to Irish affairs and, as such, maintained no close affiliation with any special faction on the Irish Council. As such, the Com- missioners sent could be exPected to provide the King with an accu- rate and unbiased account of the actual situation there and, most important, to report impartially on the activities of the King's Irish Officials with a view toward weeding out the disloyal and in- competent from positions of responsibility within the administration there. Departing from England early in August 1537, the Commissioners were delayed from reaching their destination by adverse winds and did not arrive in Ireland until the last week Of September.77 Upon their arrival, they were greeted by Lord Grey who promised them his every assistance in their task. On September 27th, Thomas Agard filed this preliminary report to Cromwell on the progress of their activities to date: Mr. Sentleger, Mr. Paulet and the other Commissioners and myself, with the King's Treasure, arrived in Dublin [Sept 8]. Since the coming they have discharged part of the English army, and yesterday departed to Powers Courte, a place lately re-edified by Mr. Treasurer, on the border of the Tollys. They intend to "peruse" Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny, Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, and return to Dublin to the Parliament. All is quiet and like to continue so, if O'Connor is kept out of his country.78 76The remaining members of the Royal Commission were, George Paulett, the younger brother of the Marquis of Winchester; Thomas Moyle of Grey's Inn, Receiver-General of the Court of Augmentations and afterwards, Speaker of the House of Commons; and William Berners, Auditor of the same court (S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 456, 457). 77St. Leger to Cromwell (Sept. 26, 1537, the date of their arrival in Ireland), S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 510. 78LGP, x11, Pt. 2, No: 723. 56 In accordance with their instructions, the Commissioners then proceeded to hold inquests into the state of the several counties and towns to which they scheduled visits, including, besides those men- tioned in Agard's dispatch, Irish-town, Clonmell, and Dungarvan.79 Although most of the inquests made are extremely verbose, none of the findings really presents the entire picture of the grievances which the Commission was sent to remedy. Nonetheless, the Commission- ers, and, in particular, St. Leger, were to be highly commended for their efforts and especially for what they did manage to expose in the way of abuses.80 These included, among Others, the practice of coign and livery by freeholders, both lay and Spiritual, on their tenants. During their inquiry, the Commissioners discovered that these were exacted at the mercy of each individual lord or his har- binger and that there was no definite limit to the amount of these services, which were universal. Thus, while summer oats, for in- stance, were customarily restricted to a bushel, or a bushel and a half for each ploughland, more Often than not, the amount of oats demanded from tenants was far in excess of this quantity. Other abuses which the Commissioners uncovered included the illegal exaction Of customs, called "srahe" and "bonneh," along with coign and livery, or as modifications to them, and price-fixing through the hoarding by merchants of Vital commodities such as fuel and foodstuffs. In ad- dition, there were numerous cases where law and order had broken down 79LGP, XII, Pt. 2, NO. 862. 80Thomas Agard to Cromwell, LGP, XII, Pt. 2, No. 1302. 57 completely, and of murders, robberies, extortion, arson and other crimes committed by all manner of persons, lay and spiritual alike.81 Completing their survey of the king's lands in Carlow, Kil- kenny, Tipperary, Waterford, Dublin, and Kildare, the Commission discovered much depopulation and desolation.82 As a further hindrance, it was reported that O'Connor had invaded Offaly and that the Earl of Desmond had refused to conclude a treaty of submission which the Com- missioners had Offered to him earlier. On hearing this, Cromwell in a diSpatch to St. Leger and the other members of the Commission indi- cated his diSpleasure over the way in which the Lord Deputy and the present Council had dealt with the situation in the past. He was especially annoyed over their handling of O'Connor who, he charged, was being encouraged in his rebellious attitude by persons supposedly loyal to the Crown. Concluding his letter, the King's Minister directed the Commissioners to expose the culprits and send periodic reports directly to him as to their whereabouts and activities. In their relations with Desmond, the Commissioners were advised to appear conciliatory, in the hOpe of securing the Earl's trust and co- . 83 OperatIOn. 81A more complete summary of these abuses will be found in S.P. Hen. VIII, II, SlOn. 825:. Leger SE; §_1_. to Cromwell, 5.9. Hen. VIII, 11, Sl7f. (November 15, 1537). 83Cromwell to St. Leger (December 10, 1537), S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 519f. Interesting to note about this particular dispatch from Cromwell to St. Leger is how the Chief Minister signs his name to the letter, "Your loving Frende," giving added proof of the very close relationship between the two men at this time. 58 On January 2, 1538, the Commission concluded its inquiry and St. Leger wrote to Cromwell summing up their accomplishments to date. He began by evaluating the nature of the Irish problem in the follow- ing manner: We assure your good Lordship that the same countrie is moche easlyer wonne, then kept; for whensoever the Kyngis pleasure to wynne the same agayn, it wilbe don without great diffi- cultie, but the keeping thereof wilbe bothe chargeable and difficyll; for onelesse it be peOpled with others, then be there already, and also certain fortresses there buylded and warded, if it be gotten one daye, it is loste the next. Continuing, St. Leger then designated the main concerns with which the Commission dealt and outlined its major achievements as such: First, the Irish Parliament, which St. Leger complained sat contin- uously fOr very long intervals without producing much in the way of constructive legislation. To attend sessions, Members of Parliament experienced great difficulty in travelling to and from Dublin through areas that were not fully under the King's firm control. Further- more, St. Leger also discovered that the Parliament as a whole was rather lax in observing the regulation which required that all mem- bers of the House of Lords sit in their robes; however, he did promise a prompt remedy to this shortcoming. On the other hand, Sir Anthony was able to report that by the close of the first session of Parlia- ment in December, all the principal legislation over which the Com- missioners were given supervision, including the Acts of Succession, Supremacy, and First Fruits, had been successfully enacted.8 84St. Leger g£:§13 to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 534f. S9 The Commission's second major concern involved the troublesome O'Connor, "and the countrye of Offalye," which had been recently in- vaded. Here, St. Leger reported that in Spite of the loss Of five or six English soldiers, "for lacke of good watche in the night," the Lord Deputy was able to, "drave the said Okonnor out of the said Offalye into the said Odynnes countre, the more parte of which countre the said Lorde Deputie also prayed and burned," and afterward: after longe paynes by hym and the sowldears were taken, and the said Okonnor in woodes and bogges, where no man coulde approche hym, but to great disadvaintage, returned home; after whose return the said Okonnor humbly sent unto the Lord Deputie, requyring his favour, affyrmyng that he wolde com to hym apon salve conducte.8S However, no sooner had O'Connor come to terms with the authorities than he enticed his brother, Cahir, "to whose custodie the countrie of Offalye was by the Lorde Deputie commyted," to ally his forces with him in Open defiance of the English. To St. Leger, this act of treachery proved, beyond doubt, that O'Connor could not be trusted in any future dealings, for, in his own words, "there is no more trust in [him] than in a dogge . ."86 Another major concern with which the Commissioners dealt was the stubborn refusal of James Fitzjohn, the Earl of Desmond, to come to terms. Explaining that as much diligence as possible was being used to secure Desmond's submission and loyalty, St. Leger was forced to admit that, "as yet we see no pese thereof performed." Earlier, 85$.P.Hen. VIII, II, 535. 86Cromwell to St. Leger _e_t_. 11., S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 467, 468 (August 7, 1537). 60 the Commissioners had been infOrmed that Desmond had made an overture of peace and that he wished to help the English to consolidate their hold on Munster. Accordingly, the Commissioners were advised to handle Desmond "in gentyll sorte." However, in spite of these con- ciliatory gestures on the part of the authorities, Desmond, by early 1538, still persisted in remaining outside the English camp. Other matters investigated by the Commission involved the courts for Kilkenny, Tipperary,and Waterford, all of which St. Leger found notoriously corrupt and inefficient. To remedy this, he ad- vised the King to appoint, two substancyall men to be justices, and to be recyant in the said towne of Waterforde, which standith very propys for the 3 shyres, and also to appoynt other offycers there, as well for mynstracion Of justifi§7 as yerely to ryde their cycuites 1n the sa1d shyres . . . As to the royal revenues in Ireland, perhaps the most im- portant item on the Commission's agenda, St. Leger promised that within three weeks of the date given on the dispatch to Cromwell (January 2, 1538), the Commission would be ready to report on the Vice-Treasurer's account, "and to leave suche recorde thereof, and also of the survay, as the lyke there of had not been in Ireland this longe season."88 St. Leger kept his word and by March, 1538, the public accounts had been put in reasonably sound order, at least for the time being. 87St. Leger e£_-al: to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 468. 88Brabazon to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 526 (December 30, 1537). 61 The King replied to St. Leger and the other members of the Commission on January 17, 1538, thanking them for their services and granting them discretion as to when they would return to England, bringing Aylmer and John Alen with them. For the duration of their stay in Ireland, he directed them to "wey the state of the land, and the inclination of every officer there, that hathe any charge undre us," and gave them the authority to report directly to him anyone even remotely suspected of putting "anything in perill or jeapordy to our dishonour, or to the trouble of the country . ."89 St. Leger remained in Ireland for two more months to report on the situation there. In a dispatch dated February 10, 1538, he notified Wriotheseley of the death of Lord Devlin, "one of the best marchers here . . .," and implored him to expedite his own return to England since, "money and victuals are here very dear, and I have too long abstained from bribery to begin now."90 A day later, St. Leger again wrote to Wriotheseley informing him that the Vice-Treasurer's account had been completed and giving him assurances that other un- finished business would soon be ready also. Indications are at this time that the negotiations which were being conducted with the Earl of O O C O O I 91 Desmond for h1s subm15510n were continuing but to no avail. A rumor 89King Henry VIII to St. Leger, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 543. 90St. Leger to Wriothesley, LGP, XIII, Pt. 1, No. 251 (February 10, 1538); 5.9. Hen. VIII,'IT} 546. There are indications that St. Leger may have been requested to remain in Ireland longer than was originally planned. 91St. Leger to Wriotheseley, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 546. 62 that the Earl and John Fitzgerald Oge, one of Desmond's kinsmen, were both dead--a rumor which proved false--prompted St. Leger to admit to Wriotheseley that, in his Opinion, Desmond's death was no great loss since his loyalty was dubious from the outset, a tacit admission that the powerful lord was expendable after all.92 While in retrospect, the Irish problem continued to defy a final solution, the Royal Commission which was sent to Ireland in the summer of 1537 and presided over by Sir Anthony St. Leger was to prove itself highly significant in a number of reSpects. True, chronic shortages in revenue would remain to plague both the Crown and the King's Irish officials, but by March 1538, the last time St. Leger wrote from Ireland before his return as Viceroy in 1540, a number of important accomplishments were recorded, including the sub- mission of the O'More and the O'Connor before the Lord Deputy and Council.93 These submissions were followed by Desmond's deliverance of his son to the Mayor of Waterford, William Wise, as a guarantee of the Earl's future obedience to the King.94 In the legislative Sphere, under St. Leger's guiding influence, the Irish Parliament of 1536-37 succeeded in obtaining the passage of the Acts of Succession and Supremacy and in suppressing the monasteries. In the area of jurisprudence, the corruption of the county courts of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Tipperary was exposed and reforms put forth, including QZLEE, XIII, Pt. 1, No. 271; S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 548. 9393?.» x111, Pt. 1, NO. 80. 94L8P, x111, Pt. 1, Nos. 455-56. 63 the appointment of native-born Englishmen to serve as justices of the peace, a suggestion which was urged by St. Leger himself.95 Apart from these immediate gains, the Commission also exerted important long-range effects, eSpecially on the future course of Anglo-Irish relations. For the results compiled by St. Leger and his associates on the Commission, supplied the King with suggestions for future policy changes and pointed the way toward direct royal control. Most important, the Objective nature of the Commission's reports demonstrated to Henry the value of close, personal super- vision Of the troublesome Irish situation, utilizing hand-picked Officials who were not in any way affiliated with local factions there. St. Leger returned to England sometime in early April 153896 where, apparently in June of that same year, he was appointed as one of the gentlemen of the King's privy chamber.97 The following July, 95St. Leger SE. 21: to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, $34-$39. 96Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers relating_to Ireland during the Rei ns of Henry VIII', Edward VI, MaryI _, and Elizabeth, 1509- 1596, Hans Claude— Hamilton, ed. ,’(London: Longman Green 8 Co. , 1860), Henry VIII, L NO. 37, henceforth, Cal: §;E: Ire. 97St. Leger' 5 name first appears on the Privy Council list beginning in June 1538, V., the BishOp of Meath's letter to St. Leger dated June 17,1538, in which the Bishop suggests to Sir Anthony that Henry VIII be made King of Ireland, a suggestion which was to have great bearing on the course of future policy (L8P, XIII, Pt. 1, No. 1205). Also, Alen and Aylmer to St. Leger, cohddrning the state of Irish affairs (June 27, 1538), L8P, XIII, Pt. 1, Nos. 1271, 1280 (f. 34, 50b.). It appears from—Ehese latter two dispatches that St. Leger exercised some form of direction over Irish affairs in spite of his return to England. 64 he was made Commissioner of the Peace for Ulcombe, Kent,98 and, sub- sequently, was awarded the house and site of the former priory of Bilsington, Kent, along with its rectory to hold for fifty years at 70 pounds annually.99 Other awards and reSponsibilities followed. Early in 1539, St. Leger was nominated for a garter100 and his name appears high on a list of prominent officers and gentlemen Of the Privy Chamber, among others, Sir John Russell, Sir Thomas Henneage, Sir Francis Bryan, Ralph Sadler, and Sir Thomas Seymour, to name but a few.101 In February 1539, he, along with his wife, Lady Agnes, received a grant in fee for 400 pounds, "of the reversion and rent reserved upon a lease by John, late abbot, and the convent of St. Augustine's without Canterbury,"102 and on the 14th of that month, he was present as one of the jurors that tried and condemned the Master of the Horse, Sir Nicholas Carew, for having secretly conspired against the King in favor of Catherine of Aragon and the Exeter family in the autumn of 1536.103 In response to rumors which were being received at Court 98 L8P, XIII, Pt. 1, NO. 1519. 99 L8P, XIII, Pt. 1, p. 570 (6); L8P, XIII, Pt. 1, p. 581. 100 L8P, XVIII, Pt. 1, No. 451; XIX, Pt. 1, No. 384. 101L8P, x1v, Pt. 1, No. 2. 102 L8P, XIV, Pt. 1, No. 403 (9), February 4, 1539. l ostep, XIV, Pt. 1, No. 290 (15). On the last day of 1538, Carew was Edht to the Tower. According to Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador, his arrest was on account of a letter he had written to the Marchioness of Exeter, which was found among her correspondence, 65 from agents on the Continent that the French were about to attack Calais, Sir Anthony was given a commission to search and defend various parts of the coast along the Thames and the east coast of Sussex in preparation for an anticipated landing.104 From his return to England to the time of his designation as Lord Deputy, St. Leger continued to serve the King's administration in a number Of important tasks. In the summer of 1539, he was again made Commissioner of the Peace for the county of Kent,105 and in October, he received yet another important assignment from the King when he was among those chosen to go to Brussels in order to procure from the Regent of the Netherlands a safe passage through Flanders for informing her of conversations in the King's Chamber during the con- troversy over the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The charges which were brought against Sir Nicholas at his trial included not only this particular letter but, even more important, the con- versations he had held with her husband, the Marquis in 1536, "about the change in the world,” and especially for implying in his corres- pondence to the Marchioness, that the proceedings then in progress against the Marquess were contrary to justice. 104L823 XIV, Pt. 1, No. 398. As a precaution against the threat of a French landing, Henry ordered plans drawn up for the construction of bulwarks along the coast from Dover to Berwick, especially by the Channel and along the Thames (L82, XIV, Pt. 1, Nos. 398; 940; p. 439). When completed, these were to form the basis for the network of coastal fortifications whose purpose was to repel sea-borne attacks on England's east coast. 1051.89, XIV, Pt. 1, No. 1192 (25). 66 Anne of Cleves whom he helped escort from there to England.106 Upon his return, he was then made Sheriff of Kent and remained in that particular capacity until his appointment as Viceroy of Ireland in 1540.107 1061., "A booke containing the names of them which should receive the Ladie Anne Cleave and waife of the Kinge Henry VIII" (Harleian MS, 296 [f. 171]; Cotton MS, Vitellius, C. XI, f. 222), cited in the Chronicle of Calais, 175; cf., LGP, XIV, Pt. 2, Nos. 356; 415; 5147-572‘73'VII), p. 199; (2), p. 2621 1°7Lgp, x1v, Pt. 2, NO. 619 (38, 67), November 1539. CHAPTER III ST. LEGER AS LORD DEPUTY: HIS FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE (1540-1542) Following the departure of the Commissioners from Ireland in January 1538, Sir Leonard Grey's policy continued much the same as before.1 Viewing the Irish problem from a purely military standpoint, his method of maintaining order and dealing with the native Irish Chieftains relied very heavily on force with little correSponding emphasis on persuasion and negotiation. On the Council, the Lord Deputy was regarded as too quick to resort to force and much too inclined to make aimless raids into the interior instead of effec- tively consolidating present gains. Writing to St. Leger, Alen, in apparent reference to Grey's fondness for military solutions, offers the fOllowing suggestion in the choice of a future chief governor: I would not have the Deputy representing the King's majesty's person and estate be a common skurrer for every ryght matter; but when he should begynne a warre begynne it upon a juste and goode grounde, and when it were 500 beganne, to be 500 profoundelye executeid, that all other shulde take example thereby.2 1Supra., pp. 41f. 2Alen to St. Leger, 5.9. Hen. VIII, II, 491. 67 68 St. Leger tended to agree with Alen's suggestions. As the contents of his letter to Thomas Cromwell dated January 2, 1538 indicate,3 Sir Anthony was quick to see the futility of embarking upon desultory expeditions merely to reduce a single clan or force the submission of a single chieftain as the Lord Deputy was then in the process of doing against O'Connor. Although Grey did entice the O'Connor chief to render his submission (March 6, 1538),4 his clan continued to persist in its Irish ways and, for all due purposes, remained outside the sphere of effective English control. Moreover, there were many sceptics both in England and Ireland, including St. Leger, who could not bring themselves to trust O'Connor and who believed that, at the first Opportunity, he would unhesitatingly renounce his allegiance in spite of his pledge of loyalty.5 With such an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion surrounding relations between the native chiefs and the authorities, it is small wonder that Grey enjoyed such a slight measure of success in his dealings with the Irish and felt that the use of force was his only alter- native. According to the historian, Richard Bagwell,6 Sir Leonard was supposed to have had an ulterior motive for his attack on 3St. Leger to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 534f. 4Grey to Cromwell, 5.9. Hen. VIII, II, SS9f. (March 17, 1538). "' "" "" 5Grey to Cromwell, 5.9. Hen. VIII, II, 566f. (April 1, 1538). 6Bagwell, I, 215. 69 O'Connor, namely, to seize the heir of Kildare whose half-sister was married to the Chief of Offaly, himself an O'Connor. In Bagwell's words: "it is difficult to avoid the thought that Grey had a private as well as public object in persecuting to the death all members of the fallen [Kildare] family except the children of his [O'Connor's] own sister." Whatever the precise reason, Grey's mass arrest of the Kil- dare brothers7 failed to include the most important member of the Kildare house, Gerald Fitzgerald. Gerald was the eldest son of "the fair Geraldine," Lady Elizabeth Kildare, whose husband, Sir James Fitzgerald, was among those arrested by Grey and transported to Eng- land. With the assistanee of Lady Eleanor McCarthy, Gerald Fitzgerald made good his escape to France where he took refuge at the court of Francis 1, setting off a frantic effort by the English to kidnap him.8 While the pursuit of the young Fitzgerald made its way across Europe, in Ireland, Grey's high-handed policy continued to arouse the dissatisfaction of those about him. Added to his difficulties with Alen and Aylmer, was the hostility of the House of Ormond. From the outset of his administration, Lord Grey and the Butlers had never been on cordial terms with each other. Quite the opposite. In fact, Sir Thomas Lutrell, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and another of Grey's opponents on the Council, was under the distinct impression 75.9. Hen. VIII, II, 304. 8Gerald Fitzgerald's escape to France from Ireland, and his reception at the Court of Francis 1, is related by Warner to the English Ambassador to France in, S.P. Hen. VIII, 111, 211-213; cf., James Hogan, Ireland in the Euro ean S stem (New York: Longmans, Green 8 Co., I920), I:_3§f7, for the mo ern version. 70 that Sir Leonard hated the Earls of Ormond more than he did the Kildares. As he states in his letter to Aylmer, dated June 5, 1538: The said Depute and Erle [Ormond] was never at so far asquare to gydder, as they be now at; ye and if to be playn, I thynk that the said Erle, and thErle of Kildare, fawrid othir worse, than they two now do.9 On his part, Grey constantly complained that the Butlers were untrust- worthy allies and intrigued with the Irish against the authorities.10 The Butlers, in response to his allegations, retaliated by charging the Lord Deputy with having deliberately conspired with the Geraldines and others at their expense.11 In a letter to Robert Cowley, Lord Butler made the claim that Sir Leonard was the Earl of Kildare re- incarnated: 9Luttrell to Aylmer, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 19. 10Grey's complaints against Ormond are detailed in "The, Copy of My Lord Deputies booke against the Erle of Ormonde and his sonnes," S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 74-76n. Among his accusations included, "sup- porting, andimayntenaunce of the traytor and rebell Brene Ochinor, and the dayly parsevyng of his trayterous purpose . . ." Grey also charged that "syns the first tyme he was the Kinges Deputie, the Lord of Osserie, the Lord Butler, and Richard Butler, and all there retynue, have not trulye done ther sarvyse and delygence to serve the King in his warrys, and his other affayrys, within this His Graces land of Ireland." 11Ormond's grievances against the Lord Deputy are outlined in "Certain Articles putto the Kinges Highnex most honorable Counsaill by thErle of Ormond and Ossorie, wherin he fele hymsilf greved by the Lord Deputie," S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 77-80n. According to Ormond, Grey, unlike himselfT—“thIhg no reSpecte to the faithfull mynd and service . . . dothe not oonly supporte and anymate divers, that were grevous offendours in the [Kildare] rebellion, to annoy the sayd Erle [of Ormond] dayly, and as amny as served the Kinges Highnes undre hym in that rebellion; but also procureth and recevethe certain of them that gladly wold see the said Erle hart blode . . ." Other complaints by Ormond against the Lord Grey are contained in his letter Robert Cowley (June 1538), §ggj Hep, VIII, III, 20f. 71 My Lord Deputie is the Erle Of Kildare newly borne againe, not oonly in distruying of those that alway have servid the Kinges Majestie, but also in mayntenyng the hole secte, band, and aliaunce of the said Erle, after so vehement and cruell a sorte, as the like hath not seen, to be bydden The misunderstanding between Grey and the Butlers would, in all likelihood, have been tolerated had it not been for the fact that in the absence of the Kildares, the House of Ormond came to be re- garded as one of the main supports of English rule in Ireland. As such, the Butlers comprised a vital component to the maintenance of English authority within those areas under their jurisdiction. Grey, however, feeling the Butlers untrustworthy, sought to demonstrate that they were eXpendable and that the authorities could very well do with- out these troublesome earls. As a consequence of the Lord Deputy's disdainfu1 attitude toward them, relations between Dublin Castle and the House of Ormond grew steadily worse. Attempts made by the Council to reconcile Grey to the Butlers met with very limited success.13 Taken tOgether, Grey's difficulties with the Butlers, his unpOpularity with the leading members of his Irish Council, in 125.9. Hen. VIII, III, 32 (June 10, 1538). 13Brabazon, Alen and Aylmer to Cromwell, S. P. Hen. VIII, III, 71f., in particular, "The copie of the Cunsailes O_der-h_twixt my Lord Depuite and thErle of Ormonde and Lord Butler," in which Ormond and his sons, "promised befor the said Counsaile . . . obedientlie to serve the Kingis Highnes, under the said lorde Deputie, as other noble men of the Kingis subjectes of this lande shall or aught to do; and also to obey the said Lord Deputie in all laufull thinges . ." Grey reciprocated by a promise, "upon his honor, faith, and duetie, to intreate and intertayne the said Erle, and Lord Butler, after souche loving sourte and fassion, as to ther degrees . . ." This agreement, however, did not prevent Butler from writing to Crom- well on August 26, 1538, accusing Grey of doing "daily what he can, aswell by himself as by anymating others, to undoe us." §1Es Hep: VIII, III, 94. 72 addition to continued revenue shortages and the chaotic state of the country revealed by St. Leger's commission in 1537-38, signalled the end of his career. Alen and Aylmer, during their brief visit to England in the summer of 1538 to report on Irish conditions, left behind a mass of accusations against the Lord Deputy which included, among other irregularities, refusing the advice of the Council, and, more seriously, conSpiring with the Geraldines (whom he hathe famyliarlie enterteyned and allured unto him), by whose corrupte and sinister counsailles, and by occasion of a certen secrete conference or confederacion betwixt him and oon George Poulet Esquire, oon of the Kinges late Comissioners in Irlande, alluring unto there the said Geraldyne secte, and havyng secrete intelligences togidther, and reasorting togidders in secretenes, both by night and otherwise, after a suspecte and indirecte facion, keping privaye counsailles and consul- tations togiders . 14 Temporarily recalled from office, Grey returned to England and was charged with committing a variety of offenses, including assisting the King's enemies, violence toward the members of the Council, and extortion. Found at fault, Grey was afterwards attainted of high treason and on June 28, 1541, executed on Tower Hill.15 14"Articles of the enormyties and abuses of the Lorde Leonarde Gray, the Kinges Deputie of Irlande; to the moste parte whereof the Kinges late Commissioners there be privie," fl. Hen. VIII, III, 36f. 15Grey's recall came on April 1, 1540, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 197. The numerous charges brought against him by the Council of Ireland are listed in the Council of Ireland's Articles against Grey, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 248f., L8P, XV, NO. 830. Following Grey's return to England, Sir William BreEEEOn was chosen to serve as Lord Justice in his absence, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 194. Brereton's swearing in came on May 8, 154'6',‘ c317 ST. .', Hen. VIII, 1x, No. 26. 73 Henry's choice to succeed Lord Grey fell on Sir Anthony St. Leger whose keen awareness of the problems associated with the Irish situation which he derived from his recent visit as head of a royal commission, together with his "moderation, discretion, and upright- ness" made the King's decision a relatively easy one. In appointing Grey's successor, Henry was faced with the fask of selecting someone with those vital qualities of perserverence, tolerance, and understand- ing in which the former chief governor was so obviously deficient. Sir Patrick Barnewall of Fieldston, in a dispatch to Cromwell dated May 19, 1540,16 elucidates those qualifications which the future Lord Deputy should possess. Among these he lists loyalty, faithfulness, and the ability to foster peace balanced with firmness in dealing with the King's admitted enemies. By selecting St. Leger, Henry VIII, in Bagwell's words, "was probably actuated in part by such motives and in part by hopes of an increased income," which Sir Anthony, in his capacity as presiding officer of the Royal Commission to Ireland in 1537, strove diligently to achieve.17 Still another factor to consider in explaining Henry's choice of St. Leger had to do with the attitude of the native chiefs. Just prior to Sir Anthony's appointment as Viceroy in July 1540, O'Neill sent a diSpatch to Henry,18 in which he promised obedience and pledged to keep his neighbors in order if, in choosing a new deputy, the King would refrain from selecting someone "extortionate," an apparent l6 1 5.9. Hen. VIII, III, 209, 210. 7BagweII, I, 374. 18LGP, XV, No. 897. 74 reference to Grey. With the late Lord Deputy's terribly poor re- lations with the native chiefs clearly before him, the decision to appoint someone with St. Leger's qualities appeared somewhat obvious. Disturbed by persistent shortages of revenue in contrast to "the Kinges great costes and charges, of late yeares defrayed in that lande," Henry dispatched St. Leger to Ireland in July 1540 with the following set of instructions. Upon his arrival, St. Leger, accom- panied by the revenue commissioners, Thomas Walshe, the baron of the Exchequer; John Mynne, the auditor of the Exchequer and Clerk to the General Surveyors; and William Cavendish, the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations, was directed, to surveye all His Graces landes, possessions, and revenues there, of all sortes, kyndes and natures, and lykewise take thaccomptes of all accomtantes, with such other thinges as in tharticles of his said instructions . More specifically, the newly-appointed Lord Deputy was ordered to survey and report on all those lands which had come into the King's possession since Kildare's uprising; to examine the current state of the garrisons and fortresses throughout the country, withdrawing those garrisons which were deemed to be unnecessary; to investigate the charges recently leveled against the Chancellor and Vice-Treasurer; and finally, "to advaunce certayn of his good subjectes of those partes to honour," apparently in reference to certain Irish officials who were to be rewarded fOr their past service to the King.19 Judging 19King Henry VIII to St. Leger, Walsh, Mynne and Cavendish, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 227f. St. Leger was officially appointed Lord deuty—On if y 7, 1540, Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 32-33, Henry VIII, Membrane 1, NO. l. The-53h WHO accompanied St. Leger to 75 from the content of his instructions, it is fairly obvious that one of St. Leger's major tasks as chief governor would be similar to what it was when the King previously designated him to serve as head of the Royal Commission of 1537, namely, to increase revenue from Ireland while, at the same time, make every effort to reduce expendi- tures whenever and wherever possible. Embarking at West Chester, St. Leger landed in Ireland some- time in mid-July 1540.20 In carrying out the tasks assigned to him by the King, Sir Anthony adopted the policy suggested earlier by Alen and Aylmer21 which made the consolidation of English authority within the Pale primary to the subjugation of Ireland as a whole, and for the next eight years or so, the "reformation of Leinster" became a constant object of his first administration. The basic weakness of English rule, combined with the downfall of the Leinster Geraldines, had created a dangerous power vacuum which threatened to be filled by such troublesome native Irish tribes as the clans Kavanaugh and O'More. Ireland in 1540 were highly regarded by the King as financial experts and had previously taken an active part in Cromwell's dissolution of the monasteries. Sir William Cavendish, the brother to George Cavendish, Wolsey's biographer and confidant, was the Auditor of the Court of Augmentations who received grants of monastic lands in Hertfordshire. John Mynne was the Auditor of the Exchequer to the General Surveyors. Thomas Walshe was the Baron of the Exchequer. 20The State Papers, Hen VIII, record St. Leger's arrival on August I2T' However, in t e Calendar of Patent and Close Rolls, Ireland, St. Leger was sworn into office-3h July 267*suggesting that his arrival was at an earlier date. §;£: Hen. VIII, III, 227n; Cal: 225, Close Rolls, 133:, 32, 33 Hen. VIII, Mdhbrane 1, No. l. 21Supra., pp. 50f. 76 Past experience in governing Ireland had demonstrated all too well that the Pale was the key which largely determined the fate of English rule. With this fact in mind, St. Leger began his first tenure in office by attempting to secure the Leinster frontier against the more dangerous Irish who, according to a report filed by the Lord Justice and Council of Ireland to Henry VIII, shortly after St. I Leger's appointment on July 7, 1540, "at the departing from hers of the Lorde Leonard Gray," were causing untold havoc "on every side."22 The chief culprits was the clan Kavanaugh. Taking advantage of the political confusion following Grey's departure in the Spring Of 1540, they conducted a damaging invasion of Leinster, with the assist- ance of their allies, O'More and O'Connor. In retaliation, Sir Anthony, upon assuming control of the government, immediately launched a military campaign against them. With the aid of the Earl of Ormond, St. Leger's forces proceeded to lay waste the Kavanaugh lands. Indeed, so thorough was the Kentishman's expedition, that within ten days after initiating his attack, the Kavanaugh chief submitted by renouncing the name of McMurrough, and agreeing to hold his lands of the Crown by knight service.23 Following his successful expedition against the Kavanaugh clan, St. Leger turned his attention to subjugating their allies, O'More and O'Connor. The former were dealt with easily and by late 22The Lord Justice and Council to King Henry VIII, July 25, 1541, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 223. 23Ormond to King Henry VIII, 5.9. Hen. VIII, 111, 225i. (July 26, 1540); Lord Deputy St. Leger to King Henry VIII, S423 533, VIII, III, 235f. (September 12, 1540), for the hosting against the Kavanaugh and their submission. Also, L82, XVI, Nos. 42, 43. 77 summer 1540, pledges of obedience were extracted from the O'More sons.24 The submission of O'Connor, however, required a little more doing. Here, St. Leger's strategy was to separate them from their neighbors and confederates, O'Doyne, O'Dempsey and others, then, once having accomplished this, to encircle them with a series of fortified positions located at Kinnegad in Westmeath, at Kishevan in Kildare, at Castle Jordan in Meath, and at Ballinure in King's County. Henry expressed the wish that the troublesome O'Connor chief, "be utterly expelled from his country” altogether and his lands given over to his more trustworthy brother Cahir on condition that the latter proceed to conduct himself in an orderly fashion, a promise which Cahir would not always keep as future events were to show. Expelling O'Connor was not to be necessary, however, for by November he had voluntarily rendered his submission and, at St. Leger's advice, it was proposed that he be created a baron and given a grant of land.25 An added obstacle to the maintenance of law and order in Leinster were the clan O'Toole,26 led at this time by the notorious 24For the terms of the pledges taken from the O'More sons, wide., Lord Deputy St. Leger to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 236; L8P, XVI, NO. 70. ZSLord Deputy and Council to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, 111,316; for St. Leger' 5 plan of attack on O'Connor, S. P. Hen. VIII, IIL 235, 236; the Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII, S. P. Hen. VIII, III, 24lf. (September 22,1540). Notice of O'Connor' 5 sub- mission is related in St. Leger's dispatch to King Henry VIII, 8. P. Hen.VIII, 111,264,265 (November 13,1540); L8P, XVI, No. 21. O'Connor, however, was not awarded a peerage as Sir Anthony advised. 26The extent of the depredations by O'Toole can be derived from Grey's letter to Henry VIII on June 4, 1538, S.P. Hen. 78 Tirlogh O'Toole, a Chieftain with a past reputation fOr making mis- chief, but who, nevertheless, appeared anxious to come to terms with the English provided some advantage could be gained thereby.27 O'Toole had suffered greatly at the hands of the Kildare and, there- fore, could be expected not to assist the young Fitderald's threat- ened restoration. Moreover, in the absence of the Kildares from Leinster, O'Toole was provided with an opportunity to take his place as a major political force in SUpport of the English. Hence, from the standpoint of both the authorities and O'Toole himself, reconciliation appeared quite advantageous. In his dealings with O'Toole,28 St. Leger could not have been unaware of this possibility. With Gerald Fitzgerald on the Continent plotting for a return to Ireland with the help of his powerful sponsor, the King of France, the Lord Deputy would need all the allies he could find. Sir Anthony thereby lent the O'Toole Chieftain the necessary funds for the passage to England where he remained for almost one month at the royal court as the King's honored guest. After some negotiation, with the Duke of Norfolk acting as mediator, a grant was authorized whereby O'Toole agreed to VIII, III, 15f.; as well as from Brabazon's diSpatch to Aylmer and J. Alen (June 5, 1538), S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 17f. LEE, XVI, No. 26S; and St. Leger to Henry VTTT} STPI Hen. VIII, III, 339, 340, contain further mention of O'Toole. 27LGP, XVI, No. 265. 28V., the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII (November 14, 1540), wherein St. Leger suggests that land grants be made to O'Toole and his brother Art Oge, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 266f.; LEE, XVI, No. 490. 79 become the King's tenant by knight-service at a rent of five marks yearly. As part of the agreement, O'Toole's brother, Art Oge, was given custody of Castle Kevin on the borders of the Pale, presumably to guard against future incursions by O'Connor.29 Pursued in accordance with the task of consolidating English authority in the Pale, the submission of Tirlogh O'Toole marks a milestone in the evolution of Anglo-Irish policy, for out of it would come consequences which had far-reaching effects on the future course of relations between the English authorities and the native chiefs. Not only did O'Toole's submission provide the English with a powerful ally should Fitzgerald ever decide to invade Ireland and attempt a restoration of Geraldine power, more important, the rela— tive ease by which the negotiations were concluded demonstrated to St. Leger and his Council the advisability of adopting a policy of conciliation in place of the hard-handed approach so often resorted to in past relations with the Gaelic chiefs. In short, the O'Toole grant of 1541 was to become the model for future agreements concluded between the King's officials and the native Irish chiefs. By taking a conciliatory approach in respect to their dealings with those chieftains willing to submit voluntarily, St. Leger and his council earnestly believed that the subjugation of Ireland would be more readily achieved and at less cost to the government. The 29Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 32, 33 Henry VIII, Membrane 14, No. 109; also, King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Counc11 of Ireland, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 279f. (January 27, 1541). 80 men who sat alongside Sir Anthony on the Irish Council,30 for the most part, did not believe in the feasibility of a total conquest and were of the Opinion that the maintenance of English rule could only be upheld by supplementing the threat of force with a policy of appease- ment. In regard to O'Toole, this policy worked in favor of the English, for henceforth Tirlogh and his fellow tribesmen gave up plundering the Pale and little was heard from them subsequently.31 Encouraged by the treaty with O'Toole, St. Leger proceeded to conclude similar agreements with other Irish princes whose purpose was to bring them voluntarily into formal allegiance to the Crown. Accordingly, McWilliam made his submission in March 1541.32 McWilliam's submission, it should be noted, is significant be- cause he possessed the capability of preventing a hostile junction between the powerful clans O'Brien of Clare and O'Donnel of Ulster, one which, if ever affected, could greatly endanger the Pale. 30Among those who comprised St. Leger's Council in 1540 included, John Alen, Lord Chancellor; Sir Gerald Aylmer, Chief Jus- tice of the King's Bench; Sir William Brabazon, Vice-Treasurer; Sir Thomas Luttrell, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; James Bathe, Chief Baron of the Exchequer; Robert Cowley, Master of the Rolls; Patrick Barnewall, the King's Sergeant. Alen, Aylmer, Cowley, and Barnewall, especially, were all supporters of the conciliatory policy based on economy and retrenchment which Sir Anthony was about to put into effect. 31For further mention of O'Toole, 3,, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 432f., 4S6f. 32St. Leger to Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 28$f. (February 21, 1541). McWilliams' promise of submission was given sometime in March 1541, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 291; also, LEE) XVI, No. 784, 385, 386. In JET? 1373‘, h——e was created Earl of Clanricard, Cal: Carew MS, I, No. 179. 81 James Fitzjohn, the Earl of Desmond was next to submit, fully acknowledging the King's supremacy over church and state and, among other things, agreeing to abide by and enforce the King's decision in regard to the Kildare lands and renounce his claims to the allegiance of the Munster English with the exception of those who held their lands directly under him or his ancestors. Finally, and as a guaran- tee to his pledge, Desmond agreed to have his son educated in England. St. Leger describes the Earl's act of submission in the following manner: And in the presence of McWilliam, Ochonor, and divers other Irish gentlemen, to the nomber of 200 at the leste, he knelyd down before me, and moste humbly delyverid his said submission, desiring me to delyver unto him his said pardon, granted by Your Majestie, affirming that it was more gladde to hym to be so reconciled to your favours, then to have any worldly treasure; protesting that no earthly cause shoulde make him from henceforth swarve from Your Majesties obedience. After that done, I delyverid to hym your saide moste gratious pardon, which he moste joyfully accepted.33 After taking the oath of allegiance, Desmond was sworn in as a Privy Councillor and he and Ormond together pledged 4,000 pounds to promote cross-marriages between their children and to keep the peace between them. In light of his recent diplomatic successes with O'Toole, McWilliam, the Earl of Desmond, and others,34 St. Leger, reiterating 33The terms of Desmond's submission are related in Cal. Carew mg, I, No. 153; Lap, XVI, Nos. 459, 552. 34The same month the earls of Desmond and Clanricard made their submissions, McGilpatrick, lord of Upper Ossory also came to terms, agreeing to live peacefully, to exhibit loyalty, and to hold his lands from the Crown by knight service, Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 32, 33 Henry VIII, Membrane 11, No. 56. For the articles of MEGilpatrick's submission, v., S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 291, 292; LEE, XVI, No. 552. _- 82 the doctrine of conciliation, wrote to advise Henry that [the King's subjects in Ireland] will muche sooner be brought to honeste conformitie by small gifts and honeste persuasions than greate rigour and, when Your Majestie once hath obedience, profyte will some followe. This suggestion was then followed by a call for a further clarifi- cation of land policy as it related to the legal status of lands held by those lords and chiefs who had already submitted or were about to submit, which early in 1541 was still undecided: So as tyll furder knowledge of Your most gratious pleasure, we can not conclude of any graunte to any the said dis- obeysantes upon their submission. The implications of Sir Anthony's above statement become quite clear when set against the background of Anglo-Irish relations in general: that unless a more definite land policy was arrived at fairly soon, further negotiations with those individuals presently outside the sphere of English control, but who were willing to render their sub- missions, yet hesitant to do so lest they lose their lands in the process, could be adversely affected. At the heart of relations between the English and Irish over the years since the original conquest in the twelfth century, was the problem of land confiscation and control. Before the advent of the Tudors,37 land confiscation by the Crown in Ireland was a highly haphazard affair and, for the most part, the native tribes remained in control of the greater part of the country, even inside those areas where the English were supposed to have exercised direct control. 355.9. Hen. VIII, III, 290. 363.9. Hen. VIII, III, 309. 37G. Orphen, Ireland under the Normans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19125, II, 133. 83 Within the region of the Pale, McGillamocholog had possession of much of the south county of Dublin. The region in the vicinity of Ferrs was left to various local chieftains, primarily Murtough and McMur— rough. The control of a vast portion of the west country and the central plain was in the hands of the clans O'Connor and O'Brien. In the north, actual control of Ulster, following the demise of the Earldom of Ulster in the late fourteenth century, was divided be- tween the clans O'Neill and O'Donnel; while over the southwest part of Munster, the wild McCarthy and McCreagh clans held sway.38 Added to the failure of the original conquest to expel the native tribes completely from the areas which were subdued, was the growth of feudal honors and liberties, such as the earldoms of Desmond, Ormond, and Kildare, which, in the absence of direct and effective royal control, were unparalleled anywhere else in the British Isles.39 The Earls of Desmond, for instance, over a period of 350 years or so since the Norman conquest, had, by 1500, evolved for themselves one of the greatest palatine jurisdictions in all of Ireland. Isolated from practically all contact with the Pale, fol- lowing the execution of the seventh earl in 1468, the Earldom of Desmond maintained an almost autonomous state in Munster and occupied a position of international importance, mainly on account of the 382;, map of Ireland, 1500, Appendix c, 39David B. Quinn, "Anglo-Irish Local Government, 1485-1534," Irish Historical Studies, I (1938-39), 367. 84 continued hostility of its princes to the English King, which per- sisted until James Fitzjohn's submission to St. Leger in 1541.40 The state of landed prOperty in Ireland at the time of Henry VIII's accession in 1509, therefore, saw two-thirds of the country in the hands of the native Irish, and the remaining one-third in the actual possession of the descendants of the original Anglo-Norman settlers (such as the Geraldines of Munster and Leinster), many of whom, by the early sixteenth century, had become so Hibernicized as to appear almost unrecognizable to their English compatriots. Added to the failure of the first conquerors to expel the Irish totally from lands won in battle, and the growth of feudal earldoms at the expense of the Crown was the poor relationship which existed between English and Irish, caused by the refusal of previous English rulers to provide cooperative clan chiefs the pro- tection of English laws or grant them legal title to the lands still in their possession. On the contrary, with the exception of the 41 "five bloods," all other Irish were regarded as villeins accord- ing to English law and, as such, were declared incapable of 42 possessing freehold estates. As a consequence, in those regions 40Quinn, Irish Historical Studies, I, 367. 41These are defined as the "five royal races" ( uin ue sanguines) or kings of the provinces. They included, tae OaNeill of Ulster, t e O'Connor of Connaught, the O'Brien of Thomond or Limerick, the McMurrough of Leinster, and the McLaughlin or McLochlainn of Meath. Curtis, AHistorx o_f;Medieval Ireland, p, 57, 42Moritz Bonn, Die en lische Kolonisation in_Irland (Stuttgart: J.G. Cottasche buchhandlung nacfifolger, 1906), pp. 128, 129. 85 where the English kings, through their Anglo-Norman vassals and their descendants, succeeded in maintaining some semblance of royal control, natives who were not in the privileged category defined by the "five bloods," could be dispossessed of their lands and expelled. Even in those areas where Irish proprietors were not expelled, such as parts of Westmeath, Ossory, and Leix, tenure was still highly precarious and the original inhabitants were permitted to retain only the more in- accessible and barren regions until it came time for them to be re- placed by settlers who possessed the inclination to occupy them. There were, no doubt, exceptions. In some districts occupied by English settlers, Irish proprietors were in existence. Under the Butlers in middle and southern Tipperary, there were Irish landholders, as there were in Limerick under the Earls of Desmond, and in Cork under the Barrys.43 However, for the most part, in those parts of Ireland which were subjected to the initial Norman conquest, for a native Irishman of common stock to hold land under English law was unknown.44 Under these circumstances, it is little wonder that the end result of the above policy of land control alienated the vast majority of native Irish from their English overlords, and thereby prevented the blending of both peoples into one nation under English authority. 43William F. T. Butler, Confiscations in Irish History (Dublin: The Talbot Press, Ltd., 1917), pp. 37'1. 44It should be noted that there were some parts of Mayo and Galway (over which the de Burgos exercised nominal control) where settlers had completely abandoned the English system and had adOpted Irish customs in regard to land tenure. On the whole, nevertheless, the deBurgos were successful in expelling practically all of the native land owners in those districts subject to them, Butler, pp. 3, 4. 86 By contrast, those Irish chieftains who were confronted with the possibility of losing their ancestral lands outright were either forced to surrender these lands, or fight to maintain them. As might be expected, many chiefs chose the latter course of action. Sir Anthony's arrival in Ireland as Lord Deputy signaled a profound change in the former approach to the problem of land con- trol.45 In his letter to the King, dated June 28, 1541,46 St. Leger strongly urged the adoption of a land program which would provide those native chiefs willing to make their submissions voluntarily with some assurance that they would receive from the King legal titles to the lands they held: Albeit, undre Your Majesties pardon, considering they have had the same landes so long in possession, never requyring title from your most noble progenitours, but rather seking means to confbunde all your jurisdiction and regalie in this lande, fearing to be expelled from their said possessions, whiche hathe putt Your Majestie and your noble progenitors to infynyte charges; we thinke it specially goode (oonles Your Majestie wolde make a generall conqueste) that Your Highnes liberally raunte ther landes upon honeste conditions, whereby Your Majest1e shall not onely inforce your right, whiche hitherto they wolde not recognyse, so as yf they eftesoones transgres, 45The urgency for settling the age-old land question first became apparent to Henry VIII following the collapse of the Kildare rising and some attempt was made at reform. The result was the passage of the Act of Absentees in 1537 (s ra., pp. 45f), which ceded to the Crown large tracts of land in nster and Leinster formerly in the possession of Norfolk, Shrewsbury, and Ormond, among others, and implied that the Kin could compel the native chiefs, just as he had compelle the above-mentioned absentee English and Anglo-Irish landlords, to surrender their lands to him. However, by overlooking the possibility of voluntary submissions taking place in the future, eSpecially on the part of the native clan chieftains willing to submit, there was no provision made fer confirming the lands of those chiefs rendering their submissions voluntarily. Thus, by 1540, the land policy in respect to the Gaelic chiefs was still largely unsettled. 465.9. Hen. VIII, III, 290. 87 yt can not be denyd but Your Majestie may justely use them, as to suche offendors shall apperteyne; but also, yf they shulde all relapse to ther olde trayterous manner (as peraventure all will not), Your Highnes wer in no worse case, but better than ye were heretofore.47 Briefly, what St. Leger is here advocating is a policy of land reform which would not only assure those native chieftains rendering their submissions willingly, confirmation of their lands, but most important from the English standpoint, would also enforce the King's right to those lands which would otherwise go unrecognized. Having outlined his suggestions, St. Leger proceeded to recommend that the chieftain O'Reilly, being here at Your Graces Parliament, and wearing thapparell whiche Your Highnes sent unto hym of Your Graces gyfte, made humble suete unto us, to be petitioners for hym unto Your Majestie that he mought have and holde hys landes upon Your Highnes to hym and to his heires for ever.48 Continuing, Sir Anthony also suggested, bycause he [O'Reilly] ys a man of greate power, we thinke it convenyent, that he have the honour a Vycount, and to be callyd the Vicount of the Cavan whiche ys the chieffe towne in his countrey . 49 By decorating them with English titles, conciliating them with expensive gifts, and inducing them to sit as lords in the Irish Parliament, St. Leger's aim was to win over the Gaelic chiefs to loyalty and English habits. Once they were reconciled to English authority, his hope was that their retainers would emulate their example and themselves evolve into English lords and overlords. As 47S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 309. Italics mine. 485.9. Hen. VIII, III, 509, 310. 49 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 309, 310. 88 a logical consequence, it was anticipated that the Irish chiefs especi- ally would voluntarily renounce their Irish titles and willingly accept the inferior position of territorial vassals under the English king. In the midst of the discussion over the land question, in June 1541, St. Leger called together his first parliament as Lord Deputy. This was to be a highly important session,for out of the proceedings came the Act creating Henry VIII "King of Ireland." The session itself was unusually well attended and comprised not only prominent ecclesiastics but also included both native as well as Anglo-Irish aristocrats, gentry,and citizens. What was rather pecul— iar about this particular parliament was the attendance of an un- usually high prOportion of Irish chiefs and their representatives, including, "deputies of the Great O'Brien, the Great Orayly and many other Irish captains . ."50 Parliament opened officially on Trinity Sunday (June 13, 1541), accompanied by much solemnity.51 Presiding as Speaker was 52 Sir Thomas Cusacke who, upon declaring Parliament in session, made SOLGP, XVI, No. 926. 51St. Leger to Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 304. 52There is an interesting and informative biography of Sir est Times to the Reign_ of Queen Victoria (London: Longmans, Green 5 Co. , 1870), 1,207f. According to C. Litton Faulkner, "The Parlia- ment of Ireland under the Tudor Sovereigns with some Notices of the Speakers of the Irish House of Commons," Proceedings_ of the Royal Irish Academy, XXV, Sec. C (1904- 05), 523, Cusacke has —the —dis- tinction of being the first recorded Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. St. Leger describes Cusacke as, "a man that ryght pain- fully served Your Majestie at all tymes," and as, "a gentill man 89 a right solemn "preposition" praising the King for his extir- pation of the BishOp of Rome's power, and for his innumerable benefits shown to his pe0p1e; which was prudently answered by the Chancellor [Sir John Alen].53 The Earl of Ormond translated the Speech into Irish for the benefit of those in the assembly who could not understand English, after which St. Leger made the following proposal: that forasmuche as Your Majestic had alwais bene the only protector and defendor, under God, of this Realme, that it was moste mete that Your Majestie, and your heirs shuld from thence forthe be named and called King of the same. Whereupon Sir Anthony thereby, caused the Bill devised for the same to be redde; whiche ons being redde, and declred to them, in Irisshe, all the whole Howse moste willinglye and joyouslye considderid and agreid to the same. And being thre tymes redde, and with one voice agreid, we sent the same to the Lowar House, where, in lyke wise, it passid, with no lesse joy and willing consente. And upon the Saterday foloing, the same Bill being redde in playne Parliamente, before the Lordes and Commons, it was by me, your moste humble servaunte, moste joyously con- sentid, no lesse to my comforte, then to be agein rissen from dethe to life, that I, so poore a wretche shold, by Your excellent goodness, be put to that honour, that, in my tyme, Your Ma estie sholde moste worthelye have a nother Imperiall Crowne . 4 On the following Sunday, after a solemn high mass in Dublin's St. Patrick‘s Cathedral, the Act declaring Henry VIII, King of Ireland, was officially proclaimed in the presence of 2,000 excited persons and amidst much celebration during which there "were made in the citie greate bonfires, wyne sette in the stretis, greate festinges in their howses with a goodly sorte of gunnes." On this occasion, the King of the best possessions of any of his degre within youre Inglishe Pale," S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 304. O'Flanagan is of the Opinion that Sir Anthony and the Speaker were on very good terms with each other. 53.1.33, xv1, No. 926. $4S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 304, 305. 90 issued a proclamation for a general pardon of " . . . all prisoners not lying at sute of any partie for dette, or suche like [were] frely delyverid owte of the prisons wherin thei were, onles it were for treason, wilful murder, rape, or dette."SS On the 28th of June, the King's newly created title was sub- mitted to him by St. Leger and the Council for his approval: We moste humbly beseche Almyghty God long to contynue Your Majestie in the honor thereof. The Lordes and Commons make moste humble petytion to Your Highnes, that, forasmuche as Your Majest1e ys nowe and shalbe, King of this Your Realme, and that nowe yt ys unyted and knytt to your Imperiall Crowne of Englande, that in all wryttes and matters of recorde here in this lande, that this style may be sayd, "Henry thEight, King of Inglande, Irelande, and of Fraunce, Defendor of the Faythe, and in Erthe Supreme Hed of the Churche of Inglande and Irelande. We beseche Your Majestie to knowe your moste gracious plesur in the same.56 The significance of the above-mentioned Act on the future course of Anglo-Irish relations cannot be over-estimated. Its over- all implications in regard to the English king's traditional status in Ireland were made perfectly clear. It declared that, as with England, Henry's claim to Ireland was based on an imperial title and, as such, suggested that it was to be independent of papal grant. Henceforth, real sovereignty over Ireland rested not in the pOpe with the King of England as sort of Papal viceroy, but with the English monarch alone. St. Leger, in a diSpatch to the King shortly before Parliament was summoned, called on him, "to take up the title, King of Ireland," and summed up the main reason for the Act's passage, "for the 55A cOpy of the proclamation is located in the British Museum, Cotton MS, Titus B XI, leaf 373. S6 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 307, 308; Cal. Carew MS) I, Nos. 156, 158; LGP, XVI, No. 926. 91 Irish have §_foolish notion that the bishop g£_Rome i__king of Ire- S7 Declares the historian Bagwell: "Thus, after a lapse land." of nearly four centuries did Henry II's successor repudiate all obligations to Rome, and declare himself King of Ireland by divine right."58 St. Leger adjourned parliament on July 28,59 after which he journeyed north to Cavan in order to conduct negotiations with the powerful O'Donnel chief for his submission. This was accomplished on August 6, whereby the O'Donnel chieftain, "bothe condescendid and indentid to be Your Majesties true faythefull subjecte." In making his submission, O'Donnel consented not onely to repaire to Your Graces Parliamente, and other assemblies, as others the lordes and nobles of this Your Majesties Realme are accustomed; but also yf that Onele wye not frame hymselffe to honeste conformyte and obed- ience, and be contented to submytt himselffe as a subjecte unto Your Highnes, he will, at all tymes, upon convenyent warnyng, ryse with suche power as he can make to prose- quite the said Onele and hys confederates, in suche sorte as to suche traytorous rebelles shall appertayne.6o Finally, O'Donnel also promised: to recognize and accept the King of England as his liege lord and king; not to ally with the enemies of the English king but to prosecute them to the utmost of his ability; to renounce the pope's authority; to receive and hold his lands from 57L§23 XVI, No. 367. Italics mine. S8Bagwell, I, 260. 59The Lord Deputy and Council to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 311; LGP, XVI, No. 1044. 60The Lord Deputy and Council to King Henry VIII, S42: Hen: VIII, III, 313, 314; LGP, XVI, No. 1072; Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 159. At the same time (August 14, 1541), Brian O'Magherty also made his submission, LEE, XVI, No. 1097; Cal: Carew ES, I, No. 160. 92 the King, "and take such title as [he] shall give him;" and lastly, to serve the King of England personally on all great undertakings, providing a force of 120 kerne, "and as many Scots," or to send one of his deputies in his stead.61 On August 28, St. Leger wrote to Henry, notifying him of O'Donnel's submission and informing him, to understand, that till the tyme we may knowe Your Majesties determynate pleasure, we can not conclude with dyverse Irishemen, whiche sue to receyve ther landes at Your Majesties handes, lyke as Odonel nowe dooth, for the con- siderations expressed in our letters [a reference to the Lord Deputy's dispatch of June 28]. Continuing, Sir Anthony proceeded to urge the King, to be advertised of your moste gracyous pleasure, as well concerning the same, as tooching McWilliams peticyon, bothe for his landes, and to be created Vycounte, tyll he may come to Your Majestie. And Odonelles desyre ys, to be created Erle of Tryconnell or Slygogh, and to receyve his landes of Your Highnes gyfte.6 The submission of O'Donnel is noteworthy because it represents a prime example of the comprehensive nature which agreements con- cluded between the English authorities and the Irish tribal chiefs assumed after St. Leger became Lord Deputy in 1540. Unlike previous agreements made between the English and Irish, the provisions of the O'Donnel treaty of 1541 established a completely novel set of relationships between the authorities and the native chiefs. Under Sir Anthony's predecessor, Lord Grey, the nature of Anglo-Irish agree- ments were highly limited in sc0pe and, for the most part, were confined to pledges of fealty and service, guaranteed by the surrender 615.P. Hen. VIII, III, 314. 623.P. Hen. VIII, III, 316, 317. 93 of hostages and confirmed by the payment of a yearly tribute.“5 In the case of the treaty made with O'Donnel, not only was there a pledge of loyalty and a promise of military assistance; more important was O'Donnel's tacit recognition of the English king's supremacy in matters of church and state, including the right to dispense lands and titles as he saw fit. Gradually, the ruling class of Ireland was being lured into close reliance upon the English monarch. The ex- pectation, expressed by St. Leger, that with the prOper inducements the clan chieftains could be made to renounce their lands and titles voluntarily and willingly accept the status of territorial vassals under the King of England, was apparently being realized. While the negotiations between the Lord Deputy and O'Donnel were in progress, plans were being formulated for a military campaign against O'Neill, "as he ceases not to annoy the King's adherents ." The expedition was planned to commence on September 15, "to march against him if they may be furnished with money.” O'Neill was given until September 3rd to appear before the Deputy and Council to make his submission. September was regarded as a highly propitious time in which to launch a military campaign as, "the corn of his [O'Neill's] country is likely to be ripe in rick or stack,"64 thereby enabling the English forces to live easily off the land as their in- vasion proceeded. 63V., Ormond's letter to Cromwell, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 165; also,-“A note of the Peasses made in the tyme of the Lord Leonerd the Kinges Deputie, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 169-173 (January 2, 1540). 643:. Leger to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 318f. 94 Before the expedition got under way, on September 8, word was received from the King as to the desired form his newly declared title in Ireland was to assume: Henry VIII, by the Grace of God, king of England, Fraunce, and Irelande, Defendour of the Faith, and in Eirth, immediately undre Christ, supreme Hed of the Churches of England and Irlande.6S In the same dispatch, the King also announced his long-awaited decision in regard to the native chiefs and future land policy: . albeit there might be diverse reasons made to the con- trary of that you write unto Us, yet, considering your wisedomes and fidelities towardes Us to be such, as wold not have written the same, but uppon mature advise and con- sultation and being of our oune nature disposed rather to wynne our subgiettes to the knowledge of their bonden duetyes, and to an honest kynde of lief, b thextention of our mercy and liberalitie towardes them, {fienb _y_the just—- persecution of them b the sworde, where there oure —wil- fulnes and disloyal bihavour shal not enforce us to the contrary; We halve resolved, and be content, that according to our former letters, you shal make grauntes to such Irishe men, as shal cumme in, andknowledgg.their dieutyes towardes Us; 500 as all patentes to be 500 graunted Beiconveyed aftre -he forme of the mynute of a patent, whiche we sende unto you herwith, and have also in it the clause whiche shalbe determyned by this Acte nowe sent unto you; having ever re- garde, as our letters specific, that all such personages, as be of great honour and possessions, may either com over to make presently their submission unto Us, or, at the least, that you knowe our pleasure by writing, before you shall conclude with the same.66 [Italics mine.] In accordance with the above decision, Henry consented to invest the chieftain O'Reilly with the title, Viscount Cavan (an intention which, as matters went, was never carried out). St. Leger was then directed, either with the Lord Chancellor or the Chief Justice, 65King Henry VIII to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland, S. P. Hen. VIII, III, 323. 665.9. Hen. VIII, III, 324; S.P. Hen. VIII, I, 666, 667, 672, 673. 95 to take suche ordre for the division bothe of his countrey, and of all others, which shall have their landes hereaftre in like sorte, as he may hold of Us that whiche We shal give unto him; and every gentleman besides, dwelling in the same to hold ther portions likewise of Us, and there to have our letters pantentes passed by you there accordingly.67 Henry's announcement in September 1541 to, "make grauntes to such Irishe men, as shal cumme in, and knowledge their dieutyes towardes Us," and his expressed intention to create O'Reilly a peer, marks the inauguration of the policy known as, "Surrender and Re- grant," surrender to the King of all lands formerly in the possession of the Irish chiefs, and re-grant by the King to those same chiefs on condition that they make their submissions voluntarily. This policy, once officially adopted, remained in ferce for the duration of St. Leger’s first term in office as chief governor to shape the future course of Anglo-Irish relations. Moreover, that the King agreed to win over the Irish " . . . by thextention of our mercy and liberalitie towardes them, then by the just persecution of them by the sword .," is clear evidence that by the latter part of 1541, the King and his Council, acting largely on suggestions advanced by Sir Anthony St. Leger and the Irish Council earlier that year, had renounced the hard-line policy practiced by previous viceroys in their relations with the Irish, in favor of the conciliatory approach which Sir Anthony and his Council had been advocating up to then. The decision to permit those chieftains who had submitted voluntarily the return of their lands by letters patent was arrived at only after a lengthy discussion on the matter had taken place in the 673.9. Hen. VIII, III, 324. 96 English Privy Council. On August 1, 1541, the Council with the King on his progress to York, put various questions to the Council in London, inquiring, among other things, if the Kinges Majeste shuld gyve his landes, and his in- heritaunce to his rebelles and disobeysauntes [meaning the Irish], besides the [respect of his honour], it wolde be [to be considered], whither it mighte be a meane to gyve them, and others heraftre courage to lyve in their obedyence, or rather eftsones to rebelle, as the tyme served them; considering aswell the benefite, which they shall nowe receyve uppon their rebellion, that ys to saye, to have a good title gyven them to that, which before they usurped uppon His Highnes, as the diSposicion of the peple to untruth and mutability.68 In response to their questions, the Council in London wrote on August 11: that it cannot be but honorable if the Kinges Majestie, uppon theire submission, liberallie, uppon honest conditions, doo give them theire landes, wherof His Majestie hathe had neyther profite ne possession: and the same, as we take it, must nedes be a greate justification and inforcement of his title, whiche long by theire rebellion hathe been obscured; 500 that therbee we thinke His Majestie shall not onelie wynne them, and make them perfyte subjectes, and in the acceptacion of theire landes of His Majestie cause them, to knowledge and confesse his title, which they have ever refused; but also, in our opinions, shall rather encourage them, and all other lyke disobeisauntes, to come to lyke conformytie and submission then eftesones to rebell; whiche if they doo, the Kinges Majestic, as we take it, canne be in no woorse case but rather in better then before.69 These words echo those expressed two months earlier by Sir Anthony St. Leger and his Council. Coupled with the King's decision in September, they are a clear indication that St. Leger's proposed policy of conciliation had convinced both the King and his counsellors that this was the best approach to take in any further dealings with the Irish. The success which Sir Anthony had attained in his 685.9. Hen. VIII, I, 666, 667. 693.9. Hen. VIII, I, 672. 97 relations with the Irish chiefs to date, as evidenced by the important agreements concluded with the most powerful among them, mostly by peaceful negotiation, could not but have influenced the King's final judgment in favor of a policy of conciliation. Upon final clarification of the land issue, St. Leger turned his attention to O'Neill who, in Spite of earlier indications that he would submit, remained adamant in his refusal to come to terms. Failing via diplomatic means to win him over, the Lord Deputy finally resorted to a show of force. On September 23, he received a letter from the King approving the planned expedition against O'Neill and also consenting to O'Donnel's suit for his lands and the earldom of Tryconnell, "if something reasonable can be gotten from him."70 To- gether with the forces of O'Donnel, O'Hanlon, McGuiness, and McMahon, St. Leger crossed into O'Neill's country to be joined there by O'Neill's two nephews who had recently defected to the English, Phelim Roe, Neill Connelagh, and also by the Savages of Ards. Writing to Henry from the borders of Ferney on October 9, Sir Anthony de- scribes the thoroughness with which his forces ravaged the O'Neill country for a period of twenty-two days before compelling O'Neill to take refuge with his kern and cattle in the vast expanse of Ulster forest where he "could not be found." The attempt by his son, Con O'Neill, to divert the English invasion by an assault on Leinster, according to St. Leger's report, was turned back "with great 7OS.P. Hen. VIII, III, 330; LGP, XVI, No. 1194. Nonetheless, in spite of the promises originally made to O'Donnel, his elevation to the earldom of Tryconnell was to be deferred until the start of James I's reign in 1603. 98 slaughter" by the Lord of Louth, assisted in this task by Sir James Gernon, Sir James Dowdall, and others.71 In the meantime, with the Lord Deputy absent from Dublin, Robert Cowley, Master of the Rolls in Ireland and a former opponent of the Lord Grey, sent the following dispatch to the King accusing Lord Deputy of disloyal sentiments: Here ensue such words as Sir Anthony Sentleger, knight, spoke openly in Ireland: "The king's father at his first entering into England had but a very slender title to the Crown till he married queen Elizabeth." This statement, Cowley alleged, was uttered by St. Leger one evening over dinner at Kilmainham Castle (the Lord Deputy's official residence in Ireland), and in the presence of the Irish Council. As if this accusation was not damaging enough in itself, Cowley then proceeded to charge Sir Anthony, along with other leading members of the Coun- cil, with malfeasance in office: Undoubtedly your Highness would marvel to know the jugglings in Ireland. The Deputy, Chancellor, bishOp of Dublin, Chief Justice, and Vice-Treasurer, every one of them seek their own profit and pluck fleeces from Your Highness, making their hands, thinking wore are.72 The extreme gravity of Cowley's accusations brought this re- buttal from the Council. In response to Cowley's aSpersions on St. Leger's loyalty, they replied: Heard no such words [at Kilmainham], but at Thomas Court in Dublin. Sir Anthony, in speaking of King Lewis [Louis XII] of France and the dissension in his time, cited the dis- sension between the houses of Lancaster and York, and the said Henry VII had no great title by his mother the duke of 71$.p. Hen. VIII, III, 336-338; Lap, XVI, No. 1244. In the meantime, St. Leger's new-found ally, O'Donnel, was busy ravaging both Tyrone and Fermanagh, and with his flotilla of warships, also ransacking the island of Lough Erne. 72LGP, XVI, No. 1268. 99 Somerset's daughter. Baron Walsh replied that he had no perfect title before he married King Edward's daughter. Sir Anthony replied that he had no perfect title for some about him advised him to take the realm by conquest. "But now," said he, "thanked he the Lord, all titles be in the King our master." By way of conclusion, they stated: "Took it that these words pro- ceeded no evil intent, but only to the praise of God that wrought wondrously."73 His allegations, having been proved groundless, Cowley suffered dismissal from office (April 1542), and Sir Thomas Cusacke, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons and Sir Anthony's close friend, was appointed to take his place.74 The exact motives fbr Cowley making such broad-sweeping accu- sations against the highest officials in Ireland can only be sur- mised. Nevertheless, based on what evidence is available, there is good reason to believe that Cowley's hostility toward St. Leger and the Council at this time was actuated, in large measure, by dif- ferences in policy. According to Cowley, the system of governing Ireland then in force, namely, through a conciliar body supervised by a viceroy sent from England and reSponsible directly to the King, was, in his estimation, totally inadequate to deal with the peculiar- ities of the Irish situation. Such a system, Cowley contended, re- sulted in widespread corruption and waste, much to the disadvantage of the King. As he stated: the great officers having the governance of the land, who com- monly apply not their werkes to the Kinges honour or profit ne for the weal of his subgietes there, but all their actes 73L8P, XVI, No. 1487. 7493}: Eat: Close Bells, Ire., 34 Hen. VIII, Membrane 6, No. 29; Lap, XVII, No.—2T9. "'— 100 and study radicat to enryche theym with the Kinges revenues, and other perquisites, making their handes, during their tymes, never mynding to enlargise the Kinges enheritaunce, or to discharge his subgectes of the trybutes they pay to Irishmen, or to subdue any Irish rebelles to the Kinges obeysaunce, or yet to establish any util provision for the common weal of the Kinges subgietes. Dismissing the idea of a total conquest as impractical, Cowley's sug- gestions for reform strongly hinted at the adoption of administrative changes similar to those already undertaken in Wales: So might Irland be ordeiid, if it were subdued; no Deputie Generall but several rulers, in manner of Seneshalles and Justices of Peas. What renome shuld thereof grow to the King? Whate strenght and great profit?75 Differences in policy approach among Cowley, St. Leger, and the Council, were aggravated by the existence of personal rivalry. That the Master of the Rolls in Ireland resented the Lord Deputy can hardly be doubted. With Sir Anthony away from the capital, an excel- lent Opportunity presented itself for Cowley to make mischief not only at the eXpense of the chief governor but of the entire Council and what better way of accomplishing this than by attacking St. Leger's loyalty and casting doubt on the moral integrity of the Council. The fact that Cowley failed in his attempt is ample proof of the high degree of confidence which the King diSplayed toward his newly- appointed Irish viceroy and a clear indication that, for the time being at least, the current system of administering Ireland would continue uninterrupted. 7s"Cowley's Plan for the Reformation of Ireland," S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 346-48. 101 St. Leger Spent the remainder of 1541 continuing the war against O'Neill. The expedition launched that autumn had failed to make contact with the Irish enemy, necessitating a second campaign in November, followed by still another in December. The last cam- paign ended in victory for the Lord Deputy's forces. Taken by sur- prise and plagued by extreme weather, O'Neill was compelled to sur- render by the end of the year. In a dispatch to the King dated December 17, 1541, St. Leger reported on his capitulation: "Oneil much humbled himself and promised peace and has given one of his best sons in pledge."76 Victory, though finally achieved, did not come easily, and in the same diSpatch, Sir Anthony related the many hardships suf- fered by his troops during the long and arduous campaign. Despite the capture of 3,000 of O'Neill kerne by the Lord Deputy's forces, the English had sustained a great many casualties as the harsh winter took its toll. Concluding, St. Leger stated that he: Could not himself conclude with Oneil, but has appointed to meet him at Dundalk the Wednesday after St. Stephen's Day and bring him to Drogheda to the rest of the Council. Told him he would not deliver him until the Kin 's pleasure, but advised him to stand to the King'sorder.7 The year thus ended with another of Ireland's powerful chief- tains subdued, at least for the moment, and much of the country at peace for the first time in many years. This fact was brought out in 76LGP, XVI, No. 1458 (December 17, 1541). O'Neill's formal submission-Was made at Greenwich on September 24, 1542, whereby he was created the Earl of Tyrone on October 1, 921: Pat: Close Rolls, Ire., 33 Hen. VIII, Membrane 2, No. 2; Cal. Carew MS, I, Nos. 173, 174‘; .5411. £192- VIII, III, 421, 422. "'" _— 77S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 350-353, 102 a dispatch from the Council of Ireland to the English Council, dated January 8, 1542, in which St. Leger's official conduct is highly commended: The land is in such peace as has not been seen these many years. Praise the Deputy's liberality in entertaining Desmond and O'Neil, his policy in war, dexterity in framing peace, and diligence in protecting the King's subjects. Any sinister report to the contrary [an obvious reference to Cowley's accusations], is not to be credited. The year 1542 opened with further submissions taking place in accordance with the new policy Henry officially adopted the previous September. In the spring, Tirlough McO'Brien, captain of Sonaughe, came in and rendered his submission, and was afterward created Earl of Thormond.79 O'Brien's submission was followed by that of Maguillen 80 on May 8th. Ten days later, McDonnel, captain of the gallowglass, also came to terms.81 While these submissions were taking place, a quarrel had erupted between Phelim Roo, McDonnell and Con O'Neill, which threatened to engulf the whole of Ulster in civil war. Among the causes for the diSpute were the stealing of cattle by Phelim R00, and the expedition of Phelim R00 and McDonnel to Armagh, allegedly with the intention of 785.9. Hen. VIII, III, 358; Lap, XVII, No. 12. 79For his submission, v., S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 345; LEE, XVII, Nos. 179, 180; McO'Brien-was created Earl of Thormond sometime in July 1542, Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 33, 34, 35 Hen. VIII, Membrane 4, No. 6; S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 394; LEE, XVII, No. 460. 80 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 381; LfiP, XVII, No. 340. 81$.P. Hen. VIII, III, 383; Lap, XVII, Nos. 332, 333. 103 killing ConO'Nein. Other differences were caused by the contro- versy over the lands of Phelim Roo's inheritance and the murder of O'Neill's eldest son by McDonnel.82 However, through the intercession of the Lord of Louth, Sir John Plunckett, Sir George Dowdall, late prior of Ardy, and Sir James Gernon, the dispute was peacefully arbi- trated without the traditional resort to warfare.83 The dispute between the two O'Neill chiefs and O'Donnell in early 1542 deserves special mention because it represents one of the first controversies of its kind to be negotiated successfully between quarrelsome Irish chiefs with the assistance of the English. The fact that a settlement was reached peacefully through arbitration with the English authorities playing the part of referees, is suggestive of the trust which the chiefs diSplayed in the Lord Deputy to settle their disputes with impartiality, a distinction which very few chief governors enjoyed previously. 82Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 169. 83The men chosen to represent the Lord Deputy at the nego- tiating table were all well acquainted with this part of Ireland. Sir John Plunckett was the sheriff of Uriel and father of Sir Oliver Plunckett, the Baron (or Lord) of Louth, who had been highly instru- mental in repelling Con O'Neill's invasion of Leinster late in 1541. George Dowdall was a close associate of St. Leger's who, through the Lord Deputy's influence in 1542, was brOUght to the attention of Henry VIII, and, having made a voluntary surrender of his priory at Ards, received a promise of the Archbishopric of Armagh. As one of George Cromer's officials, Dowdall was elevated to the episcopacy upon the former's death in 1543, DNB, XV, 384. Sir James Gernon was particularly well acquainted with-UTster, having been granted pro- tection by St. Leger, "in consideration that he know O'Neill's country . . .," LGP, XVI, No. 916. His father, Sir Patrick Gernon was earlier attainted—for adhering to Thomas Fitzgerald during the Kildare rebel- lion. The terms of the agreement arrived at are outlined in Cal: Carew MS, I, No. 166. 104 1 On May 24, 1542, there occurred the submission of Hugh O'Kelley, the Abbot of Knockemoy monastery in Tuam diocese, before the Lord Deputy and Council.84 Like O'Donnel, the abbot O'Kelley agreed, "to renounce the Roman pontiff and assist at the hostings." In return, O'Kelley was to receive fu11 custody of the monastery of Knockemoy, "with the rectory of Galway adjacent to it." Earlier that same month, O'More at last came to terms. On May 13, Rory O'More came in and submitted on condition that he be restored, "of certain lands of the earldom of Kildare and of certain monasteries.”85 That O'More's request was promptly granted is a further illustration that, as with O'Toole previously, the Crown was still anxious to fill the political void left after the downfall of the House of Kildare by awarding the lands which they had earlier forfeited to Irish chiefs who were willing to submit themselves to English authority and pledge their allegiance to the English Crown. O'More's submission in May 1542 marks the close of the initial phase of St. Leger's first administration as Lord Deputy. The success which he enjoyed as chief governor to date can be meas- ured not only by the relatively large number of submissions already obtained.86 More important in terms of the effect on the future course 84Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 168; LéP, XVII, No. 344. 85Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 163; LGP, XVII, No. 1071. 86The roster is quite impressive by any standard for inscribed on it are the names of some of the most illustrious families in Ire- land at the time. By mid-1542, "Irishmen upon Your Highnesses peace" included, among others, O'Toole, Kavanaugh, O'Donnel, O'Neill, O'More, McMahon, McGuiness, O'Hanlon, McGuire, and O'Reilly 105 of Anglo-Irish relations, St. Leger's first twenty-two months in of- fice witnessed the beginnings of a significant change in Anglo-Irish policy away from the exclusively repressive approach so often advo- cated and practiced by previous viceroys, toward one based more on conciliation. Such is the approach Sir Anthony had espoused almost from the moment of his arrival in Ireland to assume the office of Lord Deputy. The fact that his suggestions for land reform were officially adopted by the King to become the basis for all future relations be- tween the English and the Irish for the remainder of Henry VIII's reign is ample testimony both to the confidence displayed in him by the King and to his ability as an administrator. (S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 357; gig, XVII, No. 337), not to mention the agreements which were also concluded with Lord Barry, McCarthy More, Lord Roche, McCarthy Reagh, McCormack, Barry Oge, O'Sullivan of Beare, O'Callahan, Barry Roo, McDonaghe, and Sir Gerald McShane, in the autumn of 1542 (Indenture between the Lord Deputy, Lord Barry and others, September 26, 1542, S.P. H32, VIII, III, 421f). Thody O'Brynes' submission in July 1547: along with fourteen of his fellow clansmen, completed the list of those native chieftains making their peace with the king between 1540-42, (SSE, XVII, No. 458; 921, Carew MS, I, No. 170). CHAPTER IV ST. LEGER'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION: THE CONCLUDING YEARS (1543-1548) In spite of Sir Anthony's initial success as Lord Deputy, especially in his dealings with the native chiefs, his first tenure in office was not without its problems. In many of his dispatches at this time there are indications of persistent revenue shortages, ac- companied by a recurrent demand for more money, in particular, to pay the troops on garrison duty. In August 1542, we find St. Leger writing that he: "Is ashamed so often to write for money but affairs here are so hindered for lack of it."1 Although the number of troops had been reduced the previous December to 550 footmen, their pay was in arrears for months, and 980 pounds was all the King had sent to remedy the matter.2 To complicate matters, while Henry and his Irish viceroy were struggling with inadequate revenue yields (the King as late as March 15.9. Hen. VIII, III, 409; LGP, XVIII, No. 688. 2The Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to King Henry VIII, December 7, 1542, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 433. 106 107 1543 was still complaining of deficiencies from customary sources),3 the hostility which had been steadily increasing between England and France since 1540, finally erupted into open warfare in 1543.4 Coinciding with the outbreak of war was the reappearance of Gerald Fitzgerald, who, following his successful escape to France,5 was recruited by Francis I in a projected invasion of Ireland with the assistance of the French army and navy. On May 20, 1544, the Lord Justice and Council of Ireland6 wrote to Henry informing him of the arrival of Gerald at Nantes where a French fleet had been speedily assembled to convey him to Ireland. The report tells of large num- bers of Irishmen resorting to France to seek service as part of the invasion force and concludes by identifying the source of this highly valuable piece of intelligence as William de la Cluse, "a man of an 3LGP,.XVIII, Pt. 1, No. 245. Henry had ample cause for com- plaint,for revenue yields at the end of 1542 showed a deficit of over 3,000 pounds, Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 176. 4The Cambridg£_Modern Histor , A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, Stanley Leathes, eds., (New York: e MacMillan Co., 1904), II, 457f., explains the events which led up to and culminated in the outbreak of war. SSupra., p. 69. 6In October 1543, St. Leger, upon his request, was granted a temporary leave of absence to return to England and "repair to the King about affairs in Ireland." In his absence, his duties were assumed by Sir William Brabazon, who presided over the government as Chief Justice, LGP, XVIII, Pt. 2, No. 327 (12). While in England Sir Anthony was made—Knight of the Garter. The ceremony for Sir Anthony's investiture took place at Greenwich on April 24, 1544 at 4 p.m. St. Leger was knighted by the Duke of Suffolk who was chosen by Henry VIII to represent him in his absence. ESE, XIX, Pt. 1, No. 384. 108 honeste estymacion, dwelling in Bridges [Bruges], whose fader was the hoste of thIrishmen resorting thider . ."7 Additional evidence corroborated rumors of a planned Franco- Irish assault on Ireland sometime in the near future, and provided added infOrmation in regard to its overall strength and probable des- tination. A letter from Sir William Brabazon to the King dated June 13, 1543, estimated the total strength of the invasion force at 15,000 men, and speculated that the invading army would come ashore, "either in Odonnelles country, or elles at one of Your Graces cities of Lymericke or Waterforde.” Brabazon's dispatch also revealed that the invasion of Ireland was being planned in conjunction with a ' descent on England itself, and thus may have been part of a much larger scheme: there is also ready 52 sayle to advance towardes Scottelande, and foure hundred galleys, foystes, and galyasses, with Turkes to come apon the caste of England.8 Nor were the Lord Justice's fears without foundation. According to Sir James Ware, the French at this time were already in communication with O'Donnel through one of their agents, identified by Ware as Theobald de Bois, whom Francis I had dispatched to Ireland, pre- sumably to encourage the local chieftains to rebel.9 During the course of his negotiations with O'Donnel Ware reports, de 8015 made a generous offer of men and money on condition that O'Donnel undertake 7 8 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 501. S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 503, 504. 9Sir James Ware, The Antiquities and Historyg£_1reland, con- taining_the Annals of Ireland during_the Reigg§_of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward—f, End—Mary mubnn: A. Crook, 1763'), p. 109. 109 a campaign against the English. However, O'Donnel, mindful of the treaty he recently concluded with St. Leger, politely declined the Frenchman's offer, thereby compelling Francis to rely primarily on the pOpular support Gerald could arouse upon his arrival in Ireland for the ultimate success of the projected venture. Although the invasion which was falsely rumored to occur sometime during the latter part of 1544 failed to arrive as expected, the fear of a combined Franco-Geraldine descent in the near future remained a distinct possibility. On February 26, 1545, St. Leger (who had since returned to Ireland from his extended leave of absence in October 1543, to resume his duties as chief governor),10 reported to Wriotheseley from Kilmainham, warn- ing of a possible invasion of Ulster by Fitzgerald with help not only from the French, but also from MacConnel, the Lord of the Isles: This is to advertise your Lordship, that there runnes a great brewt here, that in the beginnyng of this sommer the Scottes intende to sende into theis partes a Scott of the Isles, callid McOnell, with a great nombre of wilde Scottes, intending to lande in the northe partes of this lande, wheare is thought that yonge Gerald will, by ayde of the Frenchmen, also arrive. The practies this last yere made by the French King to divers captaynes of the remote partes of this lande (whereof I sent your Lordeship knowledge from O'Doynall) make us here rather to believe this be true.11 10The first indication that we have of St. Leger's return to Ireland from England comes from a dispatch of his addressed to the King and dated November 25, 1544, in which he complains of bandits along the River Shannon, "who robbed and killed all that would pass that way between Lymericke and Waterforde . . ." SSE, XIX, Pt. 1, No. 644. According to Sir James Ware, St. Leger returned to Ireland in August 1544, landing at Dublin on the 11th of that month, "where he was splendidly entertained by the Council and Com- mon people." (Ware, p. 110). 113.9. Hen. VIII, III, 506; L69, xx, Pt. 2, No. 273. The rumor concerning MacConnel's compliafiEE with the French for an 110 As a precaution against the expected invasion, St. Leger, in the same dispatch, urged that ships of the Royal Navy be sent as soon as possible to patrol the waters separating Ulster from Scotland: I wolde wishe, if it mought so staunde with the Kinges Majesties pleasure, that one or twoo of his shippes nowe, in the begynning of this yere, might peruse the northe partes of this islande, wheare thei shulde not faile, ether to have somme Frenchmen, or els encountre with theis Scottes galles, passing betwene the owte Isles and this lande; whiche Scottes yerely resorte unto the northe partes here, and do muche harme in the countrie, and here is nether ship nor bote worthie to be set further for the same, the havens of Dublin and Drogdha being so evil dangerous, that me dare not adventure to have any good shippes there.12 This request was followed by similar appeals both to the King as well as to the Privy Council. In his letter to the Privy Council dated April 14, 1545, Sir Anthony informs them further of the rumor of a Scottish invasion of the north in conjunction with the forces of Gerald Fitderald and the French, all the while, urging the immediate dispatch of ships to defend the coast against the anticipated assault: I have also byn advertised, that this begynnyng of the sommer, there shalbe sent into the northe partes of this Realme, a certain catteyn of the wylde Scottes, and that the French king wolde sende younge Geralde, with some power with hym, to join with the seid Scottes. I have, for that purpose, caused all theis quarters to be mustered, and given in chardge to be furnisshed with weapon according; wheare of is small store here, and specially of bowes. And it might please your Hon- ours to move the Kinges Majestie, that two or three shippes mought this sommer visite the northe partes of this Realme, I think thei shulde do muche good.13 His letter to the King that day contained the same request: invasion of Ireland proved to be false and six months later the Lord of the Isles joined forces with the English. 125.9. Hen. VIII, III, 507, 508. 135.9. Hen. VIII, III, 514, 515; Lap, xx, Pt. 1, No. 519. 111 that foreasmuche as here be no shippez mete, that two or three of your shippez mought peruse that same northe partes, and other havens of this your Relame, where no doubt thei shoulde en- countre ether Frenchmen or Scottes, and so cause them to feere to frequent the same.14 Faced with the threat of an impending invasion, St. Leger was quick to respond. In the spring of 1545, he began taking the steps necessary for the defense of the country, and on May 6, sent a report to the Privy Council informing them that defensive measures were underway, while continuing to stress the need for a sufficient naval strength in order to deal effectively with the sudden intrusion of enemy warships in Irish waters. Particular reference was made to the four vessels, supposedly Scottish, off Lambay, which succeeded in imposing a naval blockade of Dublin Bay: And this 10 or 12 daies paste, ther hathe lyen foure shippes of warre, supposed to be Scottes, at the ylande of Lambaye, whiche lieth, in effecte, right against the mouth of the haven of Dublin, so as no shippe moght departe the same haven into England, without great danger and perill of takyng; by whiche course the saide Frenchemen and Brittons moche trade to Scottelande.15 One of Sir Anthony's main problems was that of defending an extended coast with the limited number of tr00ps at his diSposal. Writing to the Privy Council on May 11, he informed them of the con- struction of forts in the area of Cork and Kinsale, and told of the diSpatch of Sir John Osborne with a force of forty men, "to assiste thos of the same towns." At the same time, however, St. Leger warned that should the French decide to land troops in great numbers, es- pecially along the south coast, 14S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 515. 155.9. Hen. VIII, III, 517-519; Lap, XX, Pt. 1, No. 665. 112 and were disposed to arrest upon the wynnying of the same townes [meaning Cork and Kinsale], it wolde be harde to save them. For neither are thei of them selves defencible agenst an army, nor yet thos townes nor countrie so furnisshed with men, as were hable to defende the same; and the country so barren and, that no victualles are there to be hadm if we shulde repaire thither with any nombre. To compensate for the lack of men, St. Leger's military strategy focused primarily on the English Pale, "wheare [there] is moche more liklihood that Frenchmen wolde attempte to do harme . . ." He hesitated to remove the small retinue of 500 men from Dublin: For in case that smale retynue shulde be farre from Dublyn, we thinke, if there landed but two thousande men nere Dublyn, thei wolde put the same, or Droghda, or both, whiche be the keyes and refuge of this countrie, in a great adventure, or we shulde be hable to resorte to the succoure thereof. Instead, the Lord Deputy concentrated the main bulk of his forces in the vicinity of Dublin, "that God willing, though thei wolde lande a great meny more then twoo thousande, thei shulde nether with ease lande, nether yet be unfoughten with."16 As if to anticipate the expected invasion, naval activity off the Irish coast suddenly diSplayed a marked increase throughout the summer months. On June 30, it was reported to the Privy Council that seventy "diverse greet shippes," or more were sighted off Ireland near Houth heading southward. One of their number, upon drawing too near the batteries at Houth, "was shot throughe the sail with a piece of ordinaunce of the Kinges there being . . ." Sixty additional ships, "whiche drawe after the reste," were sighted off Drogheda. Although their actual intent was unknown, it was feared that they would attempt to land troops. However, the Privy Council was assured 165.9. Hen. VIII, III, 521, 522; Lap, XX, Pt. 1, No. 707. 113 that should such an attempt be made, the Council of Ireland was re- solved, "to resist their attemptate . . . to the uttermoste of oure power." Meanwhile, from Galway, came an ominous report that large numbers of French, Papal, and Genoese warships had arrived at Anda- lusia in Spain, an indication that the rumored invasion was to be part of a co-ordinated effort on the part of the Catholic powers against England.17 A climax to the above-mentioned naval sightings came on July 6, 1545 when there took place off the old head of Kinsale a minor naval engagement between a French man-of—war and a ship of the Royal Navy, the Murderer, captained by William Logan. Returning from a routine patrol to the west of Ireland, Logan's ship was suddenly attacked and a fierce fight resulted during which seven of Logan's men were killed or wounded. Abandoning ship, the survivors of the battered English warship, along with their captain, made their escape to shore and the town of Kinsale, allowing the Murderer to be taken as a prize by the French. A subsequent 17It is quite apparent from the nature of these sightings that the Irish Sea was, at the time, the main corridor of communi- cation through which French naval vessels passed on their way to and from their allies, the Scots. From a military standpoint, the route northward from the French channel and Atlantic ports through St. George's Channel (the Irish Sea), presented a far more direct yet less hazardous approach to Scotland than did the more circuitous one through the English Channel. In light of this rather obvious fact, the Irish Sea thus assumes great military and strategic signi- ficance both to the French, whose free and easy access to Scotland with men and supplies was vital to the maintenance of their valuable Scottish ally, and to the English whose security along their northern flank depended upon isolating Scotland from France. 114 investigation into the matter concluded that Logan fought courageously and exonerated him from all blame for the ship's capture.18 Responding, no doubt, to the unfortunate loss of the Murderer, St. Leger wrote to the King appealing once again for ships and inform- ing him that the lack of Royal Navy warships in Irish waters made it necessary for his brother, Robert, to outfit and man a vessel at his own expense: We have ben inforced diverse tymes, at oure owne charges, sithens theis warres, to furnyshe men of warre to see, to de- fende the havens here. And Roberte Sentleger, broder of Your Graces Deputie, all theis warres, hathe kepte a shippe of 70 tonne, mannyd and vytailed at his owne charges, to serve Your Highnes upon theis costes; assuring Your Majestie, that in no warres betwixte Englande and Fraunce, within remembrance of man, so lytle hurte was donne by thennemyes, and so moche to them, upon theis costes, as hathe been these warres. And if it wolde please Your Majestie to appoynte but oone shippe, well furnysshed, out of the haven of Brystowe, to accompany the said Roberte Sentlegers ship and one John Hyll of Mynett, whiche this yere, at his owne adventure, hathe donne uppon theis costes honeste service, taking twoo or three pryces, ther moght be good service donne . The following day, in a postscript to a diSpatch addressed to the King, St. Leger mentioned the arrival in Dublin of an envoy from Donald MacConnel, the Lord of the Isles.20 Comprising the Scottish delegation were Patrick Maclane, brother to Lord Maclane, and Rory Maclane, bishop-elect of the Isles, both of whom, on July 28, received a commission from MacConnel and his "barons and Council of the Isles" to journey to England and once there, to negotiate with 18 No. 29. Cal. S.P. Ire., Hen. VIII, 1, No. 15 (1); Lap, XX, Pt. 2, 19 20 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 530. S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 517. 115 Henry and the Earl of Lennox, described as the "second person in the realm of Scotland," for an alliance.21 Passing through Ireland, they arrived at the Court at Woking on August 23, whereupon they advanced certain proposals on which they desired to confer with Lennox, who was at the time with the Earl of Hertford at Newcastle intending to in- vade Scotland.22 A grand scheme was formulated whereby in conjunction with Hertford's thrust into Scotland from the south, Lennox and MacConnel were to launch a diversionary attack into the Scottish Highlands, penetrating, hOpefully, as far as Stirling.23 The diversionary assault was to originate from Ireland and comprise a substantial contingent of Irish troops.24 Lennox was directed to proceed at once to Ireland, in order to provide the necessary 215.9. Hen. VIII, V. 482-484. MacConnel desired the alliance with the English, presumably in order to gain the advantage over his arch-rival, the Earl of Argyle, whose territory it was proposed to invade during the course of the expedition. 22Hertford, et al., to King Henry VIII, S.P. Hen. VIII, V, 486, 487 (August 11,-I545). With the death of the Catholic, Franco- phile James V in December 1542, the pro-English, Earl of Arran, leader of the Protestant party among the Scottish nobility, came to power. Henry, seeing an opportunity to extend Tudor sovereignty into Scotland as he had already done in Ireland and Wales, began nego- tiations for a marriage between the young Prince Edward, and the daughter of James, Mary, Queen of Scots. These negotiations resulted in the conclusion of a treaty in 1543, whose terms were formally set out in the Treaty of Greenwich. However, Henry's arrogance, together with fears that the Anglo-Scottish alliance would ultimately mean the end to Scottish independence, eventually forced Arran to denounce the Treaty and re-assert the French alliance. Henry vented his fury by declaring war on the Scots and sending Hertford to the borders of Scotland with orders to invade and devastate the country. Roger Lockyer, Tudor and Stuart Britain (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964), pp. 163, 164. 23S.P. Hen. VIII, V, 504-506. 245.9. Hen. VIII, III, 533. 116 assistance raising and drilling the force required for the invasion attempt. In all, an army of 2,000 Irish kerne and gallowglass was to be raised and placed under the command of the Earl of Ormond.25 The Lord of the Isles was to join the expedition with 8,000 men on con- dition that Lennox remained in Argyle's country with at least 2,000 men. In return for his alliance, Henry promised MacConnel a pension of 2,000 crowns and agreed to maintain 3,000 of his men.26 After a temporary postponement due chiefly to difficulties in communications between England, Ireland and Scotland, as well as to problems in raising the necessary quota of troops, at length, on November 17, 1545, Lennox and Ormond sailed out of Dublin harbor at the head of a large invasion flotilla. The fleet itself comprised twenty-four vessels, over half of which originated from Irish ports, manned by approximately 300 sailors, many of whom were also Irish.27 25S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 534. Gallowglass, or "Gall-Gaedhie," was the name given to those warriors who originated from the many isles and indented mountain coasts of Argyle and the Hebrides. Speaking a dialect of Irish and Scandinavian, these men were of great bulk and stature who fought in helmets and heavy mail, with deadly axes, their favorite weapon. These fierce warriors were the perfect counterpart to the non-professional, part-time Irish warrior, the kern, or ceatharnaigh, G. A. Hayes-McCoy, Irish Battles (London: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd., 1969), p. 108; Curtis, A_History 2: Medieval Ireland, p. 146. 26S.P. Hen. VIII, V, 508. 27Cal. S.P. Ire., Hen. VIII, I, No. 25. To compound matters, the ships which were expected from Chester and Beaumaris to trans- port the troops to Scotland had not yet arrived from England. As a consequence, St. Leger and Lennox were forced to employ Irish ships for-this purpose, a task which the port towns of Wexford and Water- ford more than met. S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 535. 117 The Irish ships (armed) included, Robert St. Leger's pinnace; John Parker's ship, Peter; and the Trinity of Dublin. The town of Water- ford contributed five warships, the James, Christopher, Nicholas, Mary Trinity, and Portingall. The remaining Irish ships (unarmed) included, the Mary White, Savior, Jesus, and Sonday, all from the port of Wexford.28 Aboard these vessels were 2,000 Irish troops which included 1,500 kerne, and 400 gallowglass, supplemented by 50 "half- hakes" and another 50 archers.29 The expedition's main objective, after it had departed Dublin harbor, was to pursue and, if possible, intercept a squadron of unidentified ships which were reported operat- ing off the northeast coast of Ireland, and then to lay siege to Dun- barton Castle, or, failing that, to land troops in Argyle's country.30 As to the further progress of the enterprise, very little is known, other than it was caught in a violent storm off Belfast Lough and greatly damaged. Remnants of the fleet did manage to reach the Clyde; however, upon attempting to land, the invasion force met with un- expectedly stiff resistance, after which the invasion was dis- continued.31 28L8P, XX, Pt. 2, 394, 39s. 29"Half-bakes" or "demi-hakes" is a sixteenth-century term used to describe combat personnel whose principal weapon was a long pistol. They were apparently used in support of the archers. §1Er M32, VIII, III, 589. 30This particular piece of information is derived from a dis- patch to the King by St. Leger and the Council which appears in extenso in, S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 541-544. In it, the Lord Deputy mentions the sighting of a small squadron of unidentified ships making their way north through the Irish Sea. It was assumed that they were part of a French troop convoy making its way to Scotland with supplies and reinforcements. 31John Hooker in Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles g§_England, Scotland and Ireland (c. 1587), mod. ed., Sir Henry Ellis (London: 118 Shortly before the departure of the expedition to Scotland, on November 15, Ormond sent to Lord Russell a copy of an anonymous letter which he had received earlier. The contents of the letter directed accusations against the Lord Deputy on the Earl's behalf, stating, among other items, that it was the chief governor's delib- erate intention to send Ormond to Scotland in order that he might be disposed of in favor of St. Leger's brother Robert}2 then Constable of Dungarvon: Right honorable lord, earl of Ormond, if you were the man that some men writeth you be, I would not write this; but I doubt not you will prove a true man, and they in Ireland that think to cast you away false. The King, upon their false lies, wrote a privy letter (LGP, XX, Pt. 2, No. 94) by his Council . . . to the effect that Whereas the whole Council they wrote for names and companies of those most able to serve the King next summer, it was in order that you might be sent over, whose proceedings His Highness thinks not to be true. The Deputy was to keep that letter to himself. There is a common saying that you shall be sent into Scotland to be cast away; and the Deputy's J. Johnson gt_§l,, 1808), VI [Ireland], tells of the abortive in- vasion attempt. Following the fleet's departure from Sherise, the invasion flotilla, "sailed northwards, and rode at anchor without the hauen of Oldfleet beyond Karegfergus where hauing remained hulling without the mouth of the hauen, contrarie to the advice of the masters approach of a storme, and therefore did wish them to take a goode harbrough), it hapned that the said night there arose so boisterous a tempest that the whole fleet was like to haue beene overwhelmed. The mariners betaking their passengers and themselves to the mercies of God, did cut their maine masts, let slip their anchors, and were weather driven to the hauen of Dunbritaine in Scotland, wheras they were like to run their ships on ground, and consequentlie they all should either haue beene plunged in the water, or else haue beene slain on the land by a great number of Scots that awaited their approach. God with his gratious clemencie preuenting their imminent calamitie sent them not onlie a wished calme but also a prosperous gale of wind that blewe them back to safetie to the Irish coast, from whence they were scattered" (pp. 315, 316). 32Robert St. Leger, the younger brother of Sir Anthony, in August 1543, was awarded custody of the Castle of Dungarvan at the Lord Deputy's urging, LEP, XVIII, Pt. 2, No. 646. 119 servants say that they will keep Christmas in your strongest houses. Lennox said in Chester: "1 must into Ireland and from thence shall go with me into Scotlande the most noble man in Irland, and for his labour he shall shortly after be set in the Towre." The King believes that you let the reforma- tion of Irland, whereas it is they who destroy the land with bribery and extorcion. All Ireland knows that the Deputy is "the most dissembler and most craftiest man that ever came amongst them," and seeing the land nigh cast away through the false guiding of him and his brother, he would turn the fault upon others. He makes men in England believe that Ireland is brought into peace, but in the English Pale is nightly, "Bod- rag and robbery and stealing," an every other quarter great war, and Irishmen coming together. The Deputy and his brother re— ceive part of the robberies to maintain theves "and there be nightly more theves in the King's manor at Catherloghe than in a great part of Ireland," and who have robbed and wasted the countries about them both Irish and English; of which the King knows nothing. In closing, the writer admonished Ormond to "take no discourage, and set valiently forward against the Scots; and trust God and your truth shalbe enough before so just a King to quit you against craft and falsehood."33 According to Walter Cowley,34 the author of this and another letter to which Cowley was not privy, was a William Cantwell, who Cowley was later to admit35 enticed him and others on the Irish Coun- cil to become implicated in the controversy against the Lord Deputy out of sympathy with the Earl of Ormond: All the King's subjects in Ireland, both the Council and the rest, so esteemed the earl of Ormond as next to the Deputy, the chief stay of the realm, that when they heard of sinister ways devised by my Lord Deputy to trap him, guiltless, in the 335.p. Hen. VIII, III, 538, 539. 34§;£: M32, Mill, III, 578-580. Walter Cowley is the son of the late Robert Cowley, who was disgraced from his post as Master of the Rolls by St. Leger in April 1542, V., Chapter II, pp. 108f. -' 35LaP, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 923. 120 King's indignation, they wished that harm should rather follow my Lord Deputy.36 And yet, judging from the propitious timing of the note to Ormond just as he was about to depart on the Scottish campaign, it is not at all unlikely that the letter Ormond sent to Russell may have been devised by Walter Cowley himself. His motive: to gain revenge on the Lord Deputy for the earlier dismissal of his father, Robert Cowley, as Master of the Rolls, while at the same time advancing his own reputation in the eyes of the Privy Council. Assuming this to be true, the entire plot against Sir Anthony may have been premediated by Cowley with Cantwell's compliance. The highly vengeful tone of the letter is fairly apparent. Its overall intent: to discredit the Lord Deputy's standing before the Irish Council by turning one of its most prominent members, the Earl of Ormond, against him. Nor did Ormond require much provocation to Oppose St. Leger openly. He and the chief governor had never been on easy terms, es- pecially since the time Sir Anthony wrote to Wriothesley complaining that Ormond was obstructing the reformation of Leinster by his over- bearing nature and recommending that he be given no additional grants 37 of land in Ireland. In fact, Ormond's power in Ireland was already quite extensive, so much so that it had become embarrassing even to 38 the Lord Deputy. Not only was the Earl's influence on the Irish 36L69, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 923. 375.9. Hen. VIII, III, 506f. (February 26, 1545). 38An illustration of the extent of the Earl of Ormond's power in Ireland during the first half of the sixteenth century can be seen by examining the Ormond Deeds (full reference: Ireland, Kilkenny Castle, Calendar gf_0rmond Seeds, Edmund Curtis, ed. (Dublin: Govern- ment Stationery Office, 1937), IV; henceforth, Cal. Ormond Deeds). The abolition of the earldom of Ormond as a result of the 121 Council great, he also claimed far-reaching powers for himself and even attempted to expand the boundaries of his palatinate of Tippe- rary throughout the whole of northern Munster.39 As compensation for the limitations St. Leger was pr0posing be placed on the Earl's activity, the Lord Deputy suggested that the Irish administration be divided among a succession of Irish noblemen fer two or three years at a time with Ormond becoming the first deputy of the new series.40 This conciliatory gesture on Sir Anthony's part, however, failed to appease the Earl's displeasure. Other accusations against St. Leger fellowed in rapid suc- cession as the Viceroy's adversaries gathered fer the kill. In a passage of the Act of Absentees in 1536, failed to prevent Sir Piers Butler from petitioning the King shortly after to receive the whole Butler property in Ireland, as male heir of the seventh earl. In spite of the opposition he encountered from Sir Leonard Grey who urged that the palatinate of Tipperary be abolished permanently, Sir Piers won his bid and on October 23, 1537, the King formally acknowl- edged his claim and granted to him and to his son James the title, "Earl of Ossory and Ormond," along with certain manors which were included in the Butler lordship with other grants. By 1538, the family title, Earl of Ormond, which Sir Piers had claimed since 1515, was confirmed to him and he had recovered palatine power and most of the Irish lands of the Butlers. V., Cal. Carew MS, I, 128; _C_a_l_. Ormond Deeds, IV, Deed 128. - — ——— 39The actual character and extent of the Butler lordship and its palatine liberties are detailed in Cal. Ormond Deeds, IV, 344; 375-380. The nature and extent of the IIberty of Tipperary is 11- lustrated in Cal. Ormond Deeds, IV, Nos. 23, 210, 265, 346. Note- worthy is the_fact that among his other powers, the Count Palatine of Ormond could grant charters of English liberty to the Irish, which was otherwise the prerogative of the King. Expansion of the bound- aries of Tipperary, in particular, the Butler recovery of North Tipperary, where the O'Kennedy chief had recently revived his king- ship and occupied the castle and manor of Nenagh, is recorded by several treaties between the Earl and O'Kennedy clan. V., Cal. Ormond Deeds, IV, Nos. 180, 237, 269, 294, 357. " “'— 40S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 512. 122 dispatch to Henry VIII, Rory O'More, Captain of Leix, charged Sir Anthony with discriminating against him in favor of O'Connor who was on anything but good terms with the authorities at the time. He complained of St. Leger's "shameful partiality" and of the Deputy's brother who, according to O'More, "keeps thieves, traitors, outlaws, and felons in the King's house of Carloghe nightly, who have robbed all the writer's country as bearer can more fully declare."41 Sir Anthony, caught completely off-guard by the extreme gravity of these accusations, replied to the charges which were being leveled against him in a letter to Paget on January 10, 1546. Re- questing that "he and his accusers . . . be treated before the King and Council," St. Leger proceeded to inform Paget that the serious- ness of the charges brought against him were having a deleterious effect on the perfOrmance of his official duties. Nonetheless, he concluded his diSpatch by assuring Henry's Secretary of State that "he can leave this land in good stay as none are now at war."42 Some of the most damaging indictments against St. Leger's conduct issued from the rancorous pen of the Lord Chancellor, Sir John Alen, who was abetted in this regard by his long-time associate and friend on the Irish Council, Sir Gerald Aylmer, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench. Like Ormond, Alen and Aylmer were on uneasy terms with the chief governor almost from the moment he took office. Although the precise reasons for their incompatability can only be surmised, one of the main causes may very well have been due to their personal dislike of Sir Anthony himself, which, in all likelihood, “1.53. xx, Pt. 2. No. 797. 42L8P, xxx, Pt. 1, No. 43. 123 stemmed from St. Leger's relatively rapid rise within the Irish ad- ministration to a position of power and influence far in excess of their own, in spite of their longer service records in Ireland.43 Writing to the King on February 27, 1546 concerning the dispute be- tween Ormond and St. Leger, they make note of their seniority: . we twayne, being Your Graces olde servauntes, having therto trayvailed hertofor with Your Highnes in the affairs of this your Realme, more than any others here . [including Sir Anthony St. Leger, presumably.] Continuing, they proceeded to outline the grievances between the Vice- roy and the Earl, including a charge by Ormond that Sir Anthony's brother, the Constable of Dungarvan, was deliberately intercepting the Earl's letters of complaint and preventing their delivery to the King. As a remedy, Alen and Aylmer advised Henry to send for both St. Leger and Ormond and, in their absence, appoint a nobleman, "to examine their proceedings." The Chancellor and Chief Justice then concluded by urging that a fu11-scale investigation be conducted into the current state of affairs in Ireland as soon as possible in order to ascertain: 3A more apparent reason for Alen's sudden animosity toward the Lord Deputy may have stemmed from an incident which occurred in August 1543 involving St. Leger's choice of someone to serve as Lord Justice of Ireland during his leave of absence that year and part of the next ( ra., p. 107, n. 6). For this appointment, Sir Anthony recommended EIs Vice-Treasurer, Sir William Brabazon. His prefer- ence fer Brabazon was arrived at on the basis of the Vice-Treasurer's conciliatory manner in dealing with the Irish, in contrast to the Lord Chancellor's ”unweildy [tendency] fer martial affairs," a state- ment which, if true, is a marked turnabout from Alen's earlier stand on moderation, LGP, XVIII, Pt. 2, No. 165. Since the Lord Chancellor usually assumedffhe office of Lord Justice in the Viceroy's absence from the country, St. Leger's choice of Brabazon could not but have deeply offended Alen. 124 how much in these five years the revenues are increased, how far the King's writ runs more than before, how the Irishmen ennobled by the King demean themselves, what is the strength of the Pale more than it was five years past, and whether Leynester is reformed (for that matter rests betwixt the Deputy and his brother and the Earl).44 In spite of their declared neutrality in the dispute, there is very little doubt that Alen and Aylmer wished to see the Lord Deputy discredited. The expectation on their part was that during the course of the prOposed inquiry the King and Privy Council would discover certain irregularities in the administration of the govern- ment in Ireland and, upon completing their investigation, attach the onus of blame to St. Leger. Sir Anthony, on the other hand, was not without his defenders who, once the battle-lines were drawn, quickly came to the Lord Deputy's assistance. Among those taking St. Leger's side was the Archbishop of Dublin, George Browne, who, in a dispatch to the King on February 28, 1546, accused Ormond of, "being more like a prince and governor than a subject. What 'toye' he has in his head the writer knows not." The ArchbishOp then issued the following counter- charge laying the blame squarely on Ormond for whatever chaotic state of affairs existed in the country at the time: Before the King gave Ormond lands on this side of the Barrowe the "countrye" of Dublin and Kyldare were defended by ten soldiers, but within eight weeks after the Earl had taken them the writers' poor tenants lost 12 score kine and eight horses, and have since lost the value of 1,000 myks. The country here had rather given 100 pounds yearly than have the 44L&P, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 290. 125 earl so nigh; for although he repairs to the Council in English apparel, there is more Irish rule and stealth in his said lands than in the Geraldines time.45 Other counter-arguments were included in a letter from John Brereton to Paget on January 9, 1546, in which the former vouched for the Lord Deputy by highly commending his official behavior while at the same time, accusing St. Leger's detractors of malicious intent: if he and his accusers [meaning Ormond and his allies], were brought before the King, it would soon be seen that the thing was done of malice.46 In the meantime, Ormond had returned to Ireland from the abortive expedition to Scotland and, upon his arrival, wrote to the Council in London attacking St. Leger's administration as corrupt and extravagant. More seriously still, the Earl also accused the Viceroy of deliberately and willfully concealing information from the King in order to disguise his many shortcomings: Wrote to divers of them several letters of the state of this poor realm; which letters were forcibly taken, opened and read and detained by the Deputy from Tuesday morning before Christ- mas until the Friday following. Upon the view thereof the Deputy and others of the Council wrote to him to repair thither; and (although the Deputy has said "that rather than he would be subverted he would subvert five realms" and divers persons had been procured to promote false matter against him) at the risk of his life from "so unjust a governor" and his brother, Mr. Robert, he repaired thither. Instead of taking council for the King's affairs, they only desired him to conceal what he knew of the evil governance of this realm and consuming of the King's treasure. In Spite of their coloured persuasions to tarry home at this present, and although sure that in his absence false matter will be procured against him, he will resort to the King with Speed. Begs credence for bearer. 4SEEE, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 295 (February 28, 1546). “3&3. XXI. Pt. 1. No. 38 (January 9, 1546). 126 Is resorted that the Deputy sends Agarde, Parker, and Gold- smythe thither, who are reputed liberal of Speech and crafty, and, having their only living of the King, would cloak men's offenses against his Highness ”concerning the miserable state of this realm."47 Mindful Of the effect such a serious misunderstanding among the members of the Irish Council could have on the future Operation Of the Anglo-Irish administration, a preliminary hearing was ordered to investigate the controversy which met at Greenwich in April. On the 28th of that month, following a brief investigation into the matter, during which both sides made their arguments known, the Privy Council came to the conclusion that the charges which were brought against the Lord Deputy were unsubstantiated by the facts presented,and St. Leger was consequently exonerated from all blame in the affair.48 In reaching its decision, the Council had at its disposal the views Of several key witnesses, many of whom came fOrth and praised Sir Anthony's official conduct. Perhaps the most conclusive testimony to be offered on Sir Anthony's behalf came in the fOrm of a combined dispatch to the King on March 23, 1546, by the Earls of Desmond, Tyrone, Thomond, the Baron of Upper Ossory and several Irish chieftains who declared: 47S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 550f.; Lap, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 247. 48On February 16, 1546, St. Leger was summoned to England by the Privy Council in order to appear for questioning. In his absence, Brabazon was once again appointed to assume the head of the Irish administration until his return, SSE, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 226; cf., Grants in February 1546, No. 302 (33); No. 310 (16). The Council's decision exonerating Sir Anthony is recorded in, Great Britain, Public Record Office, The Acts of Priv Council, J. R. Dasent, ed. (London: Her MajestIeE‘StEEIShEEy’O??IeET‘T890), II, 399; henceforth, 539, 127 If so eloquent and prudent a man is not to remain among them they beg that another may be sent like Anthony Sentleger; and they regret that their ancestors did not meet with such rulers.49 That St. Leger was held at this time in very high esteem by the Irish is further evidenced by Sir Thomas Cusacke who (in refer- ence to the above letter), wrote to Paget on March 28, "of the quiet- ness of this realm, which is now so verified that those who Offer the contrary will purchase small honesty." Continuing, Cusacke offers his support for the chief governor doing so on behalf of the earls of Desmond, Thomond, and Tyrone, the Lord of Upper Ossory, O'Connor, O'Moloy, the Kerroules and MacGoghecan, with other Irish lords, and for all English llords, promising to defend the country till his return, lamenting his de- parture and "ascrybyng" that if such truth and gentleness had been Shown them by previous governors they had been re- formed as well then as now. No doubt, such strong endorsements of the Lord Deputy, especially those offered by the Irish chiefs, could not but have influenced the Council's verdict in St. Leger's favor. Following Sir Anthony's exoneration in April, the Privy Coun- cil, on May 5, 1546,51 ordered John Alen, together with John Gold- smith, the Clerk of the Irish Council, to appear before it in order that certain matters not included in the previous investigation, might be resolved. Among the questions which the Council wished clarified were (1), St. Leger's conduct in the King's service, es- pecially his administration of justice; (2), what gifts, rewards and 495.9. Hen. VIII, III, 562. soLap, XXI, Pt. 1, NO. 480. 51333, XXI, Pt. 1, Nos. 744, 745; APC, I, 402; 5.9. Hen, VIII, III, 566. — —- — 128 other services he had accepted, if any, while in office and for what purpose; (3) whether he had mistreated any member of the Irish Coun- cil; and (4) what misdemeanors the Lord Chancellor and Ormond com- mitted, if any. The investigation into these matters began on May 25, 1546 with a dispatch from the Council of Ireland to the Privy Council in London, issuing a flat endorsement of the Lord Chancellor Alen who, in their Opinion, "has served nigh eight years 'truly, indifferently and discreetly."'52 The Council's statement was then followed by a dispatch from Alen himself. In communicating his position, the Chancellor began by presenting a highly uncomplimentary View of the state Of Ireland since the time St. Leger first assumed Office: The English Pale is not amplified, but in strength decayed; and many Irishmen never stronger, and no provision to re- sist them if they revolt. The King's writ is no further obeyed than it was. The revenues for the six years charges, are little augmented. He continues: It is strange to see how the King is beguiled, what money he has spent these six years, and his ancient enemies stronger, his subjects feebler, and his profits not augmented. I marvel why my lord Deputy, if Irishmen may be so conformable as he says, Should have all the revenues of Ireland and 5,000 pounds yearly out of England to maintain his estate; and the King to be rex nominae tantum while the Deputy weeds out all his Grace's expert servants and will have only such as are Obsequious.S Sir Anthony responded by categorically denying Alen's pessi- mistic evaluation of the Irish situation. In contrast to the Lord SZLGP, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 914. 535.9. Hen. VIII, III, 564; LGP, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 916. 129 Chancellor's allegation Of an Irish resurgence, St. Leger stated "Irishmen were never so weak, the Byrnes' not half the horsemen they were, the Tooles of no strength, the Kavanaughs, that could make eight or nine score horsemen, not able now to make forty."S4 In reSponse to the alleged revenue shortages which Alen accused him of being in large measure responsible for causing, St. Leger defended himself by saying, "to advance the revenues I have done my part, and more might have been done if the Chancellor had not letted,'as shall appear by mine articles.'" As to the Lord Chancellor's charge of embezzlement, the Lord Deputy replied by turning the tables on Alen: I know not what he means by saying that the King is beguiled. I trust that I have not misspent more of his Majesties treasure and think that the Chancellor has 1,000 pounds more of it in Store than I; and I am ready to prove the revenues augmented, subjects disburdened and Irishmen "enfeblisshed." What revenues received of Irishmen and retained from them that they before had "I can declare if the Chancellor will not." Sir Anthony then proceeded to accuse Alen of falsehood in charging that 5,000 pounds per annum was being used illegally by the Lord Deputy in order to maintain his estate, "for he knows that no such sum is spent there, and that I spend 500 marks a year more than I receive. He Spareth more every year than I have done there these six years." Answering Alen's charge that he was deliberately weeding out highly qualified persons from the Irish administration in favor of his supporters, St. Leger replied: S4Sir Anthony's full response to Alen's charges may be found in S.P. Hen. VIII, III, S69f., and also in LGP, XXI, Pt. 1, No. 917. 130 He would that I had fewer men about me that he and others might rule the King's deputy. Ye may see whether he was Of counsel with Cowlies book, for these are the articles sent by Ormond to Louis Bryan his servant so that I think he would have the King neither rex indeed nor yet in nomine, the ”eXpert serv- ant" meaning himself, whom alone I have gone about to weed out having known him these 8 or 9 years to be a weeder and destroyer of expert and honest servants. By way of conclusion, St. Leger, on a note of resignation, pleaded that an impartial hearing be conducted into the nature of the mis- understanding between him and the Lord Chancellor as soon as pos- sible, after which he asked to be relieved of his duties no matter what the final outcome: let me no more be fatigued with writing answers but let us be called before you and if I be clear, discharge me; and I beg you means to the King "to rid me from this hell where I have remained thies vi years" to serve his Highness elsewhere, even in Turkey. Sir Anthony's wish for an impartial hearing was granted and on August 17, 1546, both he and Alen made their appearance before the Privy Council, "their objections one against the other in writing redde.”55 Upon listening to their arguments, "and the abbreviation of the Council of Ireland's answers to the Privy Council's inter- rogatories read and pondered," the Council came to the conclusion, "that the Chancellor had maliciously sought to set the Earl of Ormond against the Deputy.”S6 Alen was also found guilty Of being a "pro- moter of discord and a common taker of bribes tO the defraudation of justice . . ." AS a consequence of the Council's guilty verdict, the Lord Chancellor was subsequently deprived of his Office and committed to the Fleet.57 5SAPC, I, 517. S6LGP, XXI, Pt. 1, NO. 1468. 57L8P, XXI, Pt. 1, NO. 1512. 131 The year 1546 came to a close, therefore, with one of St. Leger's most vehement opponents publicly disgraced and the Lord Deputy's grip on the reins of the Irish government more firm than ever. Whatever the precise reasons for the Privy Council's final judgment exonerating Sir Anthony of the various charges brought against him by his many adversaries both on and Off the Irish Coun- cil, one fact seems certain: St. Leger, because of his merits as an administrator, at this juncture in the progress Of Anglo-Irish relations, was considered too valuable a tool to the overall success Of Henry VIII's Irish policy to be sacrificed on the basis of mere personal animosity. In spite of emerging victorious in this latest challenge to his integrity, the next two years were to Signal Sir Anthony's polit- ical eclipse. Following Henry VIII's death in 1547, St. Leger was allowed to continue in office;58 however, his standing in the eyes of the incoming administration of the Duke of Somerset had deter- iorated considerably as evidenced by the investigation which the Lord Protector ordered conducted into St. Leger's activities, "in consid- eration that the Deputy have had their fees of late augmented more largely then afortymes."59 St. Leger's main disadvantage in relation to the Somerset circle apparently stemmed from the fact that he did not belong to the same religious faction as did the Lord Protector and his supporters on the Privy Council. Indeed, this fact alone may very well account for Sir Anthony's recall in the Spring of 1548 and his replacement by 58Ca1. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 2. 59Apc, II, 76. 132 someone more agreeable to Somerset's own religious views. Such a per- son was Sir Edward Bellingham,60 a gentleman of the bedchamber of Ed— ward VI, whom the young king sent over to Ireland in the Spring of 1547 in charge of reinforcements fer the army.61 Before his arrival in Ireland, Bellingham had enjoyed a some- what distinguished career in the King's service. He had been the Governor of the Isle of Wight and served during Henry VIII's siege Of Boulogne in 1544.62 In addition, Bellingham also held various diplomatic posts in Hungary and at the Imperial Court.63 While in Ireland, Bellingham was stationed on the borders of the Pale to guard against the troublesome O'More and O'Connor both of whom, at the time, were threatening the peace along the frontier.64 In the summer of 1547, Sir Edward assisted the Lord Deputy in defeating Brian O'Connor and Patrick O'More who, a few 6oCal. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 11. Edmund Butler, the Archbishop of Cashel, in writing to the Lord Protector, praises Bellingham for Opening, "the very gate of the right reformation." 61Sgl, 233, Close Rolls, Ire., 1 Ed. VI, Membrane 16, NO. 113. In sending over Bellingham, the COhhcil gave as its reasons for Sir Edward's appointment, " . . . he being a gentleman in whom, fOr his wisdom, policy, and experience in the affairs of war, both His Majesty and the Council put great confidence." 62APC, I, 302. 63Prior to Bellingham's going over to Ireland, he served as English Ambassador to the Imperial Court, APC, II, 8. 64539, II, 90-93; Cal. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, I, Nos. 7, 8. 133 months befOre, had invaded Kildare.6S Bellingham also helped in the repair of the fort Of Dingen, assisted in the construction of Fort Protector, and was highly influential in finally forcing O'Connor and O'More to submit.66 Indeed, so much did Sir Edward impress Somer- set and the Council with his military expertise that, at the beginning of 1548, the Irish administration was directed to be guided by his advice and to reimburse him with the usual salary of forty Shillings per day.67 At length, in March 1548, St. Leger was ordered to return to England;68 and on April 12, he was replaced by Bellingham, who was "sent to Ireland to resyde as the Kinges Majesties Deputy."69 It cannot be denied that Sir Anthony St. Leger's first ad- ministration as Lord Deputy of Ireland from 1540-1548 was highly significant in respect to the evolution Of Anglo-Irish relations for his appointment came at a time when a number of important changes were being contemplated in the formulation of future policy. Chief among these was the introduction of a whole new system of land tenure, the ultimate purpose Of which was hOpefully to convert the ruling class of Ireland from independent and oftentimes highly troublesome 65The O'Connor-O'More invasion of Leinster in 1547 is re- corded in Richard Cox, Hibernia Anglicana (London: Joseph Watts, 1689), I, 283. 66Their submission took place only after a lengthy guerrilla war was waged which persisted throughout the summer and fall of 1547 and was not concluded until Brian O'Connor's forced surrender in November 1547, 921, §1£3 £33,, Ed. VI, 1, No. 131. 67Cal. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 78. 68APC, II, 548. 69APC, II, 181. 134 clan chieftains to loyal, obedient English vassals or, to use Pro- fessor Beckett's phrase, to affect "the fusion of the colonial and the native populations by a complete abandonment Of the policy of segregation and by the extension of English law to the whole country."70 Previous policy measures, based largely if not solely on force and repression, had failed to win the co-operation of the Irish chiefs and hampered the further extension and consolidation Of English control. Once this fact had become apparent, the King, acting on suggestions St. Leger himself made to the Privy Council in the summer Of 1541 shortly after he assumed the Office of Lord Deputy,71 granted the new viceroy the authority to confirm the lands of those chiefs who voluntarily made their submissions to the Crown and also to grant English peerages. In this way, by creating some of the more con- genial chiefs earls and requiring their presence at the royal court for investiture, both Henry and St. Leger expected to realize a long sought-after goal of Anglo-Irish policy: the pacification of the country through the assimilation of Irish laws and institutions to those of England. This ideal was at the heart of the so-called policy of Surrender and Re-grant which is what constituted the whole essence of Henrician policy toward Ireland after 1541. In implementing the desired changes, St. Leger displayed great ability, a high degree of moderation, foresight, and discretion, 70J. C. Beckett, A Short History of Ireland (3rd ed.; London: Hutchinson University Libhary, 1966), p. 451 71Supra., pp. 86f. 135 especially in his dealings with the native chiefs. AS a result, and for a time, the policy which Henry adOpted and placed under St. Leger”s supervision was successful in accomplishing its major objectives and there did occur a general submission to the King's claims as Irish chiefs and Anglo-Irish lords alike formally recognized Henry's newly- proclaimed title, King of Ireland, and renounced "the usurped author- ity of the BishOp of Rome." DeSpite the accusations made by his detractors, the immed- iate success Of Henry's new policy as carried out by Sir Anthony St. Leger during his first term in Office can be seen not only in the relatively peaceful state of the country, but also by the fact that for the first time in well over one hundred years, an English king was able to utilize the fighting ability of a large contingent of Irish trOOps in his foreign wars.72 And yet, for all its apparent success in winning over a large number of those chiefs to loyalty who would otherwise have remained outside the sphere of English control, for all its merits, the System of Surrender and Re-grant as it became called, had one serious short- coming: it did not take into account the Irish law of land tenure which gave to the chief in a designated region full and official right to the lands in his district for life. 72This is a reference both to the Irish kerne that were re- cruited and sent to fight for the English king against the French at the siege of Boulogne in 1544 (LEP, XIX, Pt. 1, Nos. 240, 477; 5.9. Hen. VIII, III, 497f.), and ta—t'he Irish contingent that took part in the ill-fated expedition to Scotland in November 1545, sgpra., pp. ll6f. 136 A case in point was the treaty made between Con O'Neill and St. Leger in 1542, by which O'Neill was granted lordship over Tyrone.73 Under Brehon Law74 the native Irish of Ulster were per- mitted to elect their chiefs which meant that, in the case of O'Neill, his successor was chosen by the members of the tribe from among his descendants. However, once recognized as Lord of Tyrone by the English, O'Neill was no longer responsible to his tribe either for his title or the succession which, upon his death, would devolve automatically upon his eldest son or, if the English King so desired, be revoked and given to another. Moreover, as soon as O'Neill became an earl, he acquired full ownership of his domain, something which was totally foreign to the principals of Brehon Law, under which all tribal land was held in common. Thus, for O'Neill to have accepted such an agreement as out- lined by the provisions of his treaty with the Lord Deputy in 1542, implied Open defiance of Irish law and popular tradition and ran him the risk of opposing former allies and dependents. For as the rank and file Of the Irish gentry saw themselves becoming increasingly threatened with deprivation by their own leaders in alliance with the English king, their resentment grew and conflict in the form of internecine warfare became virtually inevitable. One such example of this occurring involved the diSpute be- tween Con O'Neill and Phelim Roo, a minor chieftain in Tyrone, which 735.9. Hen. VIII, III, 381. 74 . . . W1lliam F. T. Butler, Gleanings from Ir1sh HIStory (London: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1925), pp. 125 . 137 erupted into Open warfare shortly after O'Neill submitted to hold his lands of the English king. One of the major issues at stake in the dispute concerned the long-standing controversy over Phelim Roo's right of inheritance to his father's lands under Irish law which he accused Con O'Neill of attempting to seize illegally from him but which, from the latter's point of view, were rightfully his as Lord of Tyrone. In the end, with the assistance of a team of English negotiators,7S a compromise solution was worked out whereby Phelim Roo was restored to his father's lands, at the time when he became chief of Tyrone with the name and dignity Of O'Neyle and such as he afterwards acquired . saving to Lord O'Neyle his accustomed domination in Tyrone as 109% as he shall fully conduct himself toward the King In short, by fOrmally recognizing Con O'Neill's dominant position in Tyrone, the above agreement upheld the rule of primogenture established by Con O'Neill's treaty with the English in 1542, in Spite of the claims which Phelim ROO received to his father's lands and to the dignity of being henceforth referred to as O'Neill. Notwithstanding the successful negotiation of this dispute which, at one point, came very close to engulfing the whole of Ulster in civil war, and the formal recognition of Con O'Neill's overlordship in Tyrone, one fact remains clear: that merely introducing the rule 75The English Officials involved in the negotiation proceed- ings included John Alen, the Chancellor; Edmund, the BishOp of Kildare; Oliver Plunckett, the Baron of Louth; William Birmingham, the Baron of Carbury; Sir Thomas Cusacke, the Master of the Rolls; John Travers, the Master of the Ordnance; and George Dowdall, late Prior of Ardee and future Archbishop of Armagh, £21, Carew MS, I, NO. 161. 76Cal. Carew MS, I, NO. 169. 138 of primogenture in place of the traditional Irish system of land holding could not and, indeed, did not prevent minor chieftains such as Phelim Roo from insisting on rights of their own in relation to the major chieftains, even if this meant Opposing them by force. Therefore, while in retrospect, the system first introduced by St. Leger into Ireland in 1541 may have won over to English loyalty a large number of the more powerful chieftains, what it threatened to do in the long run was to produce a climate of suspicion and mistrust among the vast majority of lesser chiefs which, in the end, could only create far more enemies for the English authorities than friends. In still another sense, the effects of Henry's new land policy generated in Ireland the same evils which the Tudors had all but eliminated in England. By imposing a system of feudalism on the Irish, the English unintentionally created a vassalage which, although loyal outwardly to the Crown, was, in actual fact, dedicated to the advancement Of its own selfish interests. The overall result was the gradual emergence of "overmighty subjects" in the form of a native Irish aristocracy which held virtual sway in their respective regions and, as future events were to reveal, would scarcely hesitate . . 77 to Oppose the English openly when the Opportunity served them r1ght. 77A pertinent example of this actually taking place is illus- trated by the rise of the House Of O'Neill during the late sixteenth century which culminated in the rebellion of the so-called Great Hugh "the Red" O'Neill in 1590. 2,, Bagwell, III, 294f. CHAPTER V AGAIN AS LORD DEPUTY: ST. LEGER'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION (1550-1551) Returning to England, Sir Anthony Spent the remainder Of 1548 tending to his personal affairs. There is a letter from him to the Master of Requests, dated July 13, in which he indicates a desire to exchange certain benefices in Kent for temporal lands in Ireland either with the ArchbishOp of Dublin, the Dean of Christchurch, or the BishOp of Meath.1 He also appears to have been quite concerned about the charges which were recently brought against his brother Robert fOr piracy, and in the same letter, promised to get him to re- Spond to the accusations.2 1Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of State Pa ers, Domestic Series, Edward Ml, Mary, Elizaheth, 1547;1580, Rogert Lemon, ed. Lon on: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, 6 Roberts, 1856), Edward VI, IV, NO. 27; henceforth, Cal. Si” M. The benefices which St. Leger held in Kent included—E;hgesnoth, formerly belonging to the monastery of Feversham, and the lands Of chantry previously known as Kents Chantry in the parish of Hedcron. These lands were granted to him on the day following his appointment as Lord Deputy of Ireland in June 1540, SEE, XV, NO. 942 (36). 2These charges grew out of accusations brought by Henry Crowne, a Lubeck merchant, in March 1547 against two of Robert's servants, Richard Stevens and John Goodyear, whom Crowne testified 139 140 For England, the two years following St. Leger's recall in the Spring of 1548 were a time Of social and religious upheaval. In January 1549, Archbishop Cranmer's Prayer-book was authorized by Parliament for use from the following Whit Sunday. The previous June, the Lord Protector Somerset issued his proclamation against enclosures and, following the example set by Wolsey at an earlier date, established commissions to tour those counties that suffered most from them.3 Reaction to this policy was swift. Angered by the intro- duction of a Prayer-book which was considered too protestant, the villagers of Stampford Courtenay in Devonshire, on Whit Sunday 1549, compelled their parish priest to cease using the new Prayer-book and forced him to celebrate the Mass according to the Latin rite. Their rebellion quickly spread to neighboring parishes and it was not long before the whole of the English west country was up in arms.4 Meanwhile, Opposition from the landlords to Somerset's land reform program, frustrated the work Of the enclosure commissions and angered the peasants. Norfolk, in particular, was seething with robbed his ship (APC, II, App. f. 649, p. 448). As a result, Robert was formerly charghd'with piracy and imprisoned in the Fleet, but set at liberty on condition that he appear before the Privy Council within twenty days of his release (December 8, 1549) to answer Crowne's charges, or pay the Lubeck merchant his due (APC, II, f. 45, p. 363, 364). _— 3Lockyer, pp. 112f. 4The rebellion which resulted became known as the Western Rising of 1549 and is studied in detail by Frances Rose-Troup, The Western Rising g£_1549 (London: Smith, Elder 8 Co., 1913). 141 discontent and by early July 1549, Sporadic outbreaks Of violence had coalesced into a general rebellion.S In the midst of these events, St. Leger's name does not pass unmentioned. At the outbreak of Ket's Rebellion, we find him in resi- dence at Ledes Castle, where in August he wrote to Cecil notifying him of his progress raising men in Kent to deal with possible out- breaks of violence there Should they occur.6 Sir Anthony also played a part in the intrigues which con- tributed to the political demise of the Lord Protector, whose social policy, coupled with the leniency which he displayed in dealing with Ket's Rebellion and the Western Rising, aroused the animosity of the more reactionary members of the Council which, by September, had resolved to depose him.7 On October 12, 1549, Sir Anthony was among those who were sent to Windsor to arrest the Duke who was taken into custody the next morning, along with his personal adherents, including, SThis rising, not to be confused with the Western Rising, became known as Ket's Rebellion, named after a well-tO-do Norfolk tradesman, Robert Ket, lord of the manor of Wymondham, who was in- duced by the peOple of his district to lead them in their rebellion against the enclosure of common land and the fOrcible eviction of tenants from them. The progress of Ket's Rebellion and the un- fortunate fate of its leader and his supporters is amply recorded in S. T. Bindoff, Ket's Rebellion (London: Historical Association Pamphlet, G. 12, 1949). 6Cal. 5.9., Dom., Ed. VI, VIII, No. 50. 7For Somerset's fall, A.F. Pollard, Sflgland under Protector Somerset (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Truber 8 Co., Ltd., 1900), , should be consulted, W. K. Jordan, Edward VI. The Young Egnz (London: George Allen 8 Unwin, Ltd., 1968),p pp 494f. , presents more recent version. 142 Sir Michael StanhOpe, Edward Wolf, and Mr. William Grey.8 Heading up the arresting party was the Vice-Chamberlain, Sir Anthony Wingfield, a well-known adversary of Somerset's.9 Whether St. Leger's participation in the apprehension of the Protector indicates that he was also Opposed to Somerset and his policies can only be surmised. However, if one's associates is any barometer of a man's true loyalties, Sir Anthony's presence alongside two admitted enemies of the Duke, would seem to indicate that he may very well have shared at least a portion of their antagonism toward the Lord Protector, especially in light Of Somerset's recent dis- missal of him as Lord Deputy. Despite his recall, St. Leger's reputation at Court does not appear to have been adversely affected to any noticeable extent. On April 23, 1550, he was present at a chapter meeting of the Order of the Garter, held at Greenwich. Also in attendance were the Duke of Somerset (who, on February 6, 1550, had been released from the Tower, and on the 18th of that month, was granted a free pardon),10 the Marquesses of Dorset and Northampton, the Earls of Bedford and Wiltshire, Lord Paget, Sir Thomas Cheyney, Sir John Gage, and Sir Anthony Wingfield.11 In May 1550, Sir Anthony was on hand with Lord Cobham, Paget, and Secretary Wotton to conduct a party 8£iteraryRemains of King Edward VI, J. G. Nichols, ed. (London: The Roxburghe c155, 1857), II, 734; henceforth, Lit. Rem., Ed. VI. 9The third member of the arresting party was Sir John Williams, the Treasurer of the Augmentations and Revenues of the Crown, and another of the Protector's Opponents, Pollard, p. 80. 10Pollard, p. 282. 11Lit. Rem., SS, Mi, II, 260. 143 of French ambassadors on their way tO conclude a treaty Of peace with Edward VI,12 and, in July, he was ordered to accompany the forces of the Duke of Somerset and the Lord Privy Seal, "to the see coast," presumably for the purpose of coastal defense.13 One month later, he was to be re-appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland fOr a second time.14 The man Sir Anthony was sent to replace as chief governor was Sir Edward Bellingham whose brief eighteen-month tenure in office had been suddenly interrupted by illness, forcing him to leave Ireland early in December 1549.15 Bellingham's deputyship began with his arrival at Dalkey on May 19, 1548.16 Among the major tasks confront- ing Sir Edward was that of safeguarding the border areas of the Pale which, Since the conclusion of St. Leger's first administration the previous March, had come under constant attack from O'Connor and O'More who, in spite of being defeated in Open combat during the mid-summer of 1547 by a force which Sir Anthony led against 12 . . th. Rem., gg, VI, 11, 273. 13Lit. Rem., g9, El; II, 285. 14Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward VI, 1547- 1553, R. H. Brodie, ed. (London: His Majesties Stationary Office, 1924), III, p. 146, henceforth, Cal. Pat. Rolls, Ed. VI. 15Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 49. 16Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire. , 2 Ed. VI, Membrane 2, No. 3. Bellingham‘s Instructions were —issued on April 28, 1548, Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire. , 2 Ed. VI, Membrane 1, No. 1. 144 them,17 continued a guerrilla—like campaign of resistance against the English which persisted almost to the end of 1548.18 Reports originating from the fringe areas of the Pale at this time tell of frequent incursions and convey the impression of great apprehension on the part of the English authorities. John Brereton, the Captain of the Guard, whom Bellingham had placed on the borders of Kildare to protect against possible raids, stated that "every night or second night he is constrained to answer the cries and watchfires both on horseback and on foot."19 Francis Cosbie, the Constable of Fort Protector, writing to the Lord Deputy sometime in July 1548, warned of the approach of a large force of O'Connor and O'More to within three miles of Rathhamman in Meath,20 and on the following day con- veyed intelligence, "that on Wednesday night O'More with a large company came to the Barrow, and took 100 kine, certain garrans and many sheep, and that James M'Gerald and Cormac O'Connor followed after them, and so also Onno M'Hugh with his kern."21 17Cox, I, 283. . 18The final submission of O'More and O'Connor came sometime 1n November 1548, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 131. 19221; S P-. 133 , Ed. VI, 1, No. 20. 2093}: §;P:, Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No, 47, 21"O'More, like a jolly fellow," writes Cosbie to the Lord Deputy, "offered the kerne 6 shillings 8 pence a fortnight to serve him, and to their gentlemen according to their league." Cal. S423 133., Ed. VI, I, No. 50. "" 145 Harassed continually by these raids, border service took on a particularly disagreeable aSpect and complaints were frequent. James Fitderald, the Constable of Lea Castle, reported that along his section of the frontier adjacent to O'More and O'Hugh country, his orders were more often than not disobeyed, as his kerne refused to patrol more than two miles beyond the Castle Lea for fear of ambush.22 Indeed, reported Fitderald, so daring were his adversaries in their exploits that they even attempted bribery in order to entice the royal kerne under his command to desert and join them in their marauding activities.23 Bellingham's reSponse to this sudden resurgence of native Irish strength came in the form of a military operation into Leix which was launched in August 1548. Employing the services of a strong contingent of Drogheda men, the Lord Deputy succeeded in vanquishing his foe, utilizing measures which were extreme, including the in- discriminate slaughter of those O'Connor and O'More who were unfortu- nate enough to be taken alive.24 Upon the successful conclusion of the campaign which, according to Bellingham's account, took only thirty days to accomplish, the chief governor ordered the strengthening of Ports Protector and Denigen,25 and placed the command of the former 22221: §;E;, Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 48. 2393i’ ii" I,re‘s Ed- VI, I, NO. 48. 4Writing to the Privy Council following a major engagement, Bellingham gave this account of the losses suffered by the enemy: "More woodkerne slain that day than the oldest man in Ireland ever saw." Cal. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 84. 25These two fortresses were to become part of a broader network of strongholds constructed along the frontier of Leinster 146 stronghold under Sir William St. Low, whose distinguished service during the eXpedition made him one of the Lord Deputy's favorites.26 Added to Sir Edward's difficulties along the frontiers of Leinster was the constant threat posed by piracy to Anglo-Irish commerce, especially along the south and west coasts, a danger to which St. Leger had more than once addressed himself while in of- fice.27 On July 8, 1548, the Mayor of the town of Youghal, wrote to the Lord Deputy informing him of the apprehension of a pirate named Smith who, up until the time of his capture by the authorities, had plundered their fishing boats.28 On July 15, the Mayor and Council of Kinsale wrote of pestilence and "a wide empty town, few men and naughty neighbors.” To compound their troubles from disease and law- lessness, they reported that two pirates, Eagle and Richard Colley respectively, had succeeded in all but blockading their harbor, the latter setting himself in a castle belonging to Barry Oge, whose aunt he married.29 The next day, the Mayor of Cork assured Bellingham that as much care as possible was taken, "that no soldiers take ship- ping to leave the realm," but warned that, "many English adventurers for the purpose of repelling native attacks and providing the English with a base of Operations into the interior. 26Cal. S.P. Ire., Ed. v1, I, No. 34. 27Supra., Chapter Iv., pp. llOf. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 27. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 29. 147 do much harm to them and the whole line of coast [and] haunt the haven mouth [Cork harbor]."30 In an attempt to counteract the extreme threat of piracy, Bellingham, in September 1548, appointed the Earl of Desmond to the office of the Admiralty under the Lord Admiral's seal.31 In this capacity, the Earl was given the reSponsibility of patrolling the waters along the entire south-southwest coast from Dungarvan to Galway, an area where piratical incidents were reported to be at their highest. However, in Spite of Desmond's appointment, depredations on the high seas continued to occur periodically throughout the remainder of the year, although their number and frequency seems to have lessened considerably by the year's end.32 Whether this decrease was due in any way to the Earl's efforts as Admiral can only be surmised. In the late fall of 1548, rumors once again began to circulate that Gerald Fitderald, with the assistance of the French king, was planning to launch an invasion of Ireland.33 On November 21, 1548, in a dispatch to Protector Somerset, the Lord Chancellor John Alen (who had since been restored to his former office from which he was dis- graced in 1546),34 reported, "that the French king intends to send 3022- En 33., Ed. v1, 1, No.31. 31 Cal. ., Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 89. S P 32 Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, Nos. 112, 127. 33For previous mention of Gerald Fitzgerald's intrigues at the French Court, X31 Chapter IV, pp. 106f. 34Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 2 Ed. VI, M. 14, No. 82. 148 young Gerald Fitzgerald into Ireland with an army." The report warned that the probable location for the anticipated French landing would be at Skerries, "on the mainland directly over against Lambay, which is the only road in these seas for them betwixt Brittany and Scotland being in their direct trade into the Firth of Dunbarton." Continuing, Alen informed Somerset that James Delahide had landed, "and by like is secretly with the Earl of Desmond," a rumor which, no doubt, served to increase everyone's apprehension on the Council, especially considering Desmond‘s most recent appointment and the sea forces which were at his disposal should he ever decide to join the Franco-Geraldine cause.35 The above gossip only compounded Bellingham's difficulty in governing Ireland effectively. Like Sir Leonard Grey before him, Bellingham failed to gain the co-operation of the members of his Irish Council. In respect to the Vice-Treasurer of the Irish Mint, Thomas Agard, Sir Edward can be seen constantly complaining both to Somerset and Warwick about being slighted by him, or having no power to dispense favors to those performing good service because of the Treasurer's interference. In one instance, he accused Agard of spending the 2,000 pounds of Bristol coin, "which he brought over to hisown use, besides the 1,000 pounds delivered to him for bullion."36 Being first and fOremost a military man, Bellingham displayed very little patience toward the civilian branch of the Irish administra- tion, treating its members, who were comprised mainly of lawyers whom 359,11: §_°_P_'n I_rg., Ed. VI, I, N05. 129, 130. 36%; _S-_P_-. Ire., Ed. VI, I, Nos. 107, 123, 132 (I). 149 he quite obviously disliked, in a cavalier fashion. Although he was regarded as scrupulously honest where money matters were concerned, there were some members on the Council who were under the distinct impression that the Lord Deputy's real aim was to set himself up as a dictator and govern without or even in spite of their advice and counsel. In fact, Alen reported that Bellingham, in a fit of anger, once stated that had he his way, all of them would be hanged on the spot. In his dispatch to Sir William Paget concerning this incident, Alen stated: Wishes that Jupiter and Venus were as bountiful to Bellingham as Mars and Saturn have been . . . [His] personal conduct towards the Council is overbearing in the extreme; telling them it would be a good turn for the King if they were all hanged.37 The result of Sir Edward's high-handed conduct was all too obvious as far as the integrity of the Irish Council was concerned. Its members intimidated, it gradually degenerated into a "lifeless, spiritless corpse which forced itself to remain silent until this tyranny should be overpast."38 Nor were the Lord Deputy's relations with the Irish chiefs any better than those with his Council. At best, his attitude can be described as one of contempt, as his letter to O'Carroll, upbraiding him for his "idle" excuses and fear to come in and render his sub- mission, illustrates. Objecting strenuously to O'Carroll reSponding to him in Latin, Bellingham retorted: And where yow wold have answher in latyn, remember yow lyve undre a englysche kyng, whiche requirythe in so gret a cyrcut of 3799;. £31., 133., Ed. v1, II, No. 32. “Bagwell, I, 339. 150 countrey as yow occupy to have sum honest man whom yow myght trust to wryte your letters in englyshe, and I lykewhyse trust to expownde myn sent unto yow. As bad as Sir Edward's relations were with the Irish, they were somewhat mild in comparison to those he maintained with the Anglo- Irish lords. Throughout his brief tenure in office, Bellingham dis- played a marked jealousy toward the great families of Ireland which sometimes bordered on paranoia. His envy was most apparent in his dealings with the House of Ormond, whose young earl he kept under house arrest in England in order to encourage him to abandon his, "usurped unsufferable rule which I trust he will do yet in time to come."40 Nor was his antagonism limited to the Butlers alone. When the Earl of Desmond neglected his summons to appear before the viceroy, Bellingham promptly issued a summons for his arrest, whereupon the Earl was brought to Dublin and made to, "kneel upon his knees an hour before he knew his duty," an action which hardly ingratiated the Lord Deputy to the House of Desmond.41 To his credit, Bellingham‘s administration did achieve some noteworthy successes as forts were erected, breweries started, and Irishmen encouraged to cultivate their lands.42 In regard to religious matters, the Reformation progressed steadily as measures were taken to encourage and disseminate the order of service which ArchbishOp Browne 39Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, I, No. 138. 4OCal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 1, No. 140. 41This episode involving the Earl of Desmond is colorfully described by John Hooker in Holinshed's Chronicles, VI, 323. HEEL-ii” Ire., Ed. VI, I, No.122. 151 had introduced earlier,43 although attempts at modifying religious worship did not go unchallenged especially by the masses who, for the most part, were opposed to Reformation doctrines.44 After the arrest of Somerset late in 1549, Bellingham, plagued by ill health, left Ireland, embarking at Howth for the journey back to England on December 16.45 Upon his departure the Council of Ireland unanimously elected Sir Francis Bryan Lord Chief Justice, and with Bryan's sudden death a short time later, Brabazon became the acting governor.46 As for the ailing Sir Edward, he was allowed to retain his office as Lord Deputy until his death early in 1550, whereby with trouble brewing once again over rumors of an 43Walter Palatyne reporting to the Lord Deputy stated: "Great diligence had been used in the Book of the Reformation which is made and the suffragans have received it. George Browne says it will be with his lordship on the following Saturday or Sunday." Cal. §;E:, 132:, Ed. VI, I, No. 133. Archbishop Browne's earlier efforts to introduce and advance the Reformation in Ireland will be discussed more fully below on pp. 173f. 44The Bishop of Meath, Edward Staple, sums up the intensity of this Opposition in a dispatch dated sometime in December 1548: "Particularizes the excessive hatred raised against himself among all ranks of society for preaching the Reformed religion, for which peOple accuse him of heresy. Fears for his life." Cal. S.P., 133:, Ed. v1, I, No. 156. _ '— 45921: Bat: Close Rolls, Ire., 3 Ed. VI, 20, No. 133. 46Bryan was Marshal of the Army at the time of his appoint— ment as Lord Chief Justice which took place on December 27. Bryan took the oath of office before Lord Chancellor Alen at Trinity Cathedral on December 29. Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, 133:, 3 Ed. VI, Membrane 20, Nos. 134, 135._—His_untimely death came on February 2, 1550. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, II, Nos. 50, 52. There is no exact date fo?_Brabann'§_§ppointment. Sal: Eat: Close Rolls, 135:, 2 Ed. VI, Membrane 20, No. 136. 152 impending Franco-Geraldine invasion, it was decided to re-appoint Sir Anthony St. Leger to succeed him.47 Two months prior to St. Leger's re-appointment, reports began arriving in England from an English agent in France, Sir John Mason, which confirmed earlier rumors that plans were being devised between the French and certain Irish factions for an attempted invasion of Ireland, the ultimate goal of which was the restoration of the House of Kildare in the person of Gerald Fitzgerald.48 Writing from Paris on June 14, 1550, Mason noted the arrival at the French Court of George Paris, ”sent from Ireland by M'William with letters of credence and of the dispatch to Ireland of M. de Botte, a Breton, disguised as a merchant," presumably to organize a general insurrection in support of the projected scheme.49 The origins of this most recent plot to bring back Gerald Fitderald to Ireland with the assistance of France date from the spring of 1549, when the blind Scottish bishop, Robert Wauchop, 47Upon St. Leger's appointment for a second time, a number of important changes took place in the composition of the Irish Council. Sir Thomas Cusacke, an old and trusted friend of St. Leger's replaced the aging Sir John Alen as Lord Chancellor while Patrick Barnewall, another of Sir Anthony's cronies, became the Master of the Rolls, filling the office vacated by Cusacke's elevation to the Chancellorship. Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 4 Ed. VI, Membrane 15, No. 190. Also, Cal. Pat. Rolls, Ed. VI, III, p. 416, for St. Leger's patent of appointment—Which was issued—on August 4, 1550. 48Ca1. S.P., Ire., Ed. v1, 11, Nos. 50—52. 49Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar g£_State . Papers, Foreign Series, g£_the Reign gf_Edward VI, 1547-1553, William B. Turnbull, ed. (London: Longman, Green 6 Roberts, 18615, Nos. 217, 218; henceforth, Cal. S.P. Foreign. 153 arrived in Ireland from France and set about attempting to organize a general confederation of northern and southern chieftains for a rebellion against the English.50 At approximately the same time that Wauchop landed, John de Monluc, the Bish0p of Valence and French am- bassador to Scotland, also arrived. Acting on instructions from Henry II, Monluc's mission was to confer with Wauchop and arrange for a Franco-Irish alliance against England. Sir James Melville, the English ambassador to France at the time (who later became the envoy of Mary, Queen of Scots to Elizabeth), reported in his memoirs that the purpose of Monluc's visit was: to know more particularly the motions and liklihood of the offers made by [O'Neill], Odonnell, Odocart, and Callock, willing to shake off the yoke of England, and become sub- ject to the King of France, providing that he would procure the Pope's gift of Ireland, and then send to their help 2,000 Hacbutiers, 200 light horsemen, and four cannon. 1 After a brief sojourn in Ireland, BishOp Monluc proceeded to Scotland, and there conferred with the Queen-Dowager, Mary of Lor- raine, before finally returning to France to report on his nego- tiations.52 During the course of his stay in Scotland, Monluc pre- sumably raised the possibility of an informal Scots-Irish league in conjunction with a Franco-Irish alliance, a suggestion which was appar- ently well received among certain members of the Scottish nobility.53 502.1; ii“: 125;, Ed. VI, II, NOS. 50-52. 51Memoirs of Sir James Melville g; Halkill (1535-1617), A. Francis Steuart, edT'ZLondon: Routledge, 15295, pp. 22, 23. szflgggigg of Sir James Melville, pp. 23, 24. 53931, 51.. 133., Ed. VI, II, No. 52 (I) (II). 154 News of these proceedings spread rapidly. On April 7, 1549, the Imperial agent in Paris, Van der Delft, mentioned in the course of his diSpatch to the Emperor: Some peOple assert that they [the Irish] have some understand- ing with the Scots, who, as I learn from a close confidant of the Scottish ambassadors still here, are thinking more of carrying on war than of peace. They [the Irish] are expecting in two or three months to have good certainty of aid from France.54 Throughout the remainder of 1550, Mason continued to report on the French intrigues in Ireland and, in particular, on the activi-. ties of George Paris. Writing from Blois on December 4, 1550, Mason conveyed his extreme anxiety about the state of affairs in Ireland, "which he has every day in his dish,” warning that, "the noblemen there, with the majority of the peOple [are] ready to give themselves to a new master." Continuing, he reported that George Paris, who was again sent to Ireland with replies to the letters of McWilliam "and others," had told his friends, "that he doubtedth not to see the French King shortly to bear the Crown of Ireland, and that he hopes 'to bring jolly news' when he returns at the end of Lent."55 In a dispatch to the Privy Council dated March 18, 1551, Mason displays apprehension over the possibility of arms and munitions being smuggled into Ireland, obviously to assist the planned insurrection: M. d'Estrees, the Master of the Ordnance has lately been to Brest for the purpose of shipping certain ordnance and munition Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of Letters, 54 Dis atches, and State Pa ers relatin £2_the Ne otiation§_between En Eand and Spain, Roya l yler, e . (London: sis Majesties Sta- tionary Office, 1914), IX (1547-1549), p. 90. 5593—1. _S_.E_., Foreign (1547-1553), No. 264. 155 under the charge of a Scottish gentleman. These are said to be for Scotland, but Masone is much afraid that they are intended for Ireland.56 A month later, in another dispatch to the Council, Mason informed them of the return of George Paris from Ireland, in company with a great gentleman [later revealed to be Cormac O'Connor],S7 . . . offering the service of the rebels with their country to the French king, if he will send troops thither. They have had very good countenance both of the King and of the Constable and have been in communication with the BishOp of Rome's ambassador; but, concluded Mason, a bit Optimistically, "it is understood that ."58 On they have been informed they may look for no aid hence . the other hand, in spite of his reassurances, as late as May 10th, Mason can still be found reporting the presence of Irishmen at the French court, where, "they are much favored by the Vidame$9 who had 56Sir John Mason to the Council, Cal. S.P., Foreign (1547- 1553), No. 305. 57Sir John Mason to the Council, Cal. S.P., Foreign (1547- 1553), No. 324, April 22, 1551. Cormac OTCohnor, who accompanied Paris to France, is said to have requested a total of 5,000 men from the Constable to assist him in his projected rising against the English. His request, however, was in vain and, as Mason reported: "he has been put off with fair words and is likely to receive nothing else." Nonetheless, he admitted, "the Queen Dowager of Scotland and the Vidame would have them helped." 58Sir John Mason to the Council, Cal. S.P., Foreign (1547- 1553), No. 320, April 18, 1551. 59The Vidame is identified as Francois de Vend6me, Vidame of Chatres. He was among the six French hostages delivered to the Eng- lish in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-French Treaty of 1549- 1550. As the last of the French hostages to leave England, the Vidame was given his liberty sometime after September 8, 1550 when the Privy Council granted him and his entourage of thirty persons freedom to proceed to Scotland from whence he eventually made his way back to France. Whether, on his journey to France, the Vidame stopped off in Ireland or contacted O'Connor is a matter of conjecture. ABC, 11, 121. 156 offered to take the island himself with a very small force . . .," an obvious indication that a certain element at Henry II's court was still taking the idea of outright intervention very seriously. Even the Pepe was rumored to have had a hand in the intrigue to invade Ireland, as this report from Mason to the Privy Council dated May 19th stated: [He] has seen a letter from Rome in which it is said that the Bishop of Armachan is thoroughly and very well dispatched touching the matters of Ireland. What this may be he can rather con- jecture than now certainly, but either is it cursing, or giving the said realm in redam, or some mischief or other, Which he trusts shall take't e same effect as have other malicious practices which have hitherto been meant against England from that see.60 Such was the gravity of the situation which greeted Sir Anthony St. Leger as he prepared to assume the office of Viceroy for the second time in September 1550. In the face of a possible native insurrection with the aid of a foreign power, one of the most urgent tasks confronting the incoming administration was that of restoring the confidence of the Irish princes which had been badly damaged by Bellingham's high-handed policy. The success of Sir Anthony's past record in his dealings with the Irish chiefs, as evi- denced by the number of voluntary submissions which he obtained during his previous term in office, was undoubtedly a main factor which in- fluenced his re-appointment. This, and the knowledge of the country which he derived from his previous experience, would undoubtedly be a highly valuable asset in averting further trouble with the chieftains. Aware that any amount of undue force might drive the Irish into the hands of his country's enemies, Sir Anthony, acting in accordance 60931: §;E:’ Foreign (1547—1553), No. 347. 157 with his instructions, took all possible means to, ”use gentleness to such as shall show themselves comformable."61 Hence, one of his first official acts upon assuming office, was to send letters of en- couragement to the Earls of Desmond, Thomond, Clanricard, and McWilliam, in addition to the native chiefs, O'Donnell, O'Reilly, O'Kane, and McQuillen. Accompanying the letters the Lord Deputy dis- patched gifts of scarlet robes and silver plate, "whereby they shall the more diligently sarve the King and not embrace foreign govern- ments."62 Such an amicable gesture on his part could not but exert a favorable impact on future relations between the Irish princes and Dublin Castle. Conciliating the Irish princes was not to be St. Leger's only main consideration by any means. An equally urgent matter which re- quired his prompt attention, eSpecially if a rebellion should erupt, was the reform of the garrisons along the frontier of the Pale which, since the departure of Bellingham, had fallen into a state of neglect. Reports of rampant licentiousness among the garrisons, together with an almost total lack of discipline63 prompted the new chief governor 61V., Instructions to Sir Anthony St. Leger, Deputy, and the Council, JEIy 1550, from, The Egerton Papers, J. P. Collier, ed. (London: The Camden Society, 1840), XII, 13-23; Cal. Carew MS, I, No. 193. 62Great Britain, Public Record Office, S.P. 61/2, 55. 63Henry Wise and John Morton to Bellingham, January 6, 1549, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 11, No. 4. 158 to order the fortresses strengthened and extra munitions sent for.64 With a view toward the re-organization of the entire military estab- lishment in Ireland, "as [it] maye bothe be able [of] men and fitt for the warres . . .," St. Leger was directed to prohibit officers from recruiting more than ten per cent of their regiments from among the Irish population, as well as to outlaw the exercise of ”black rents, and coyne, and liveries, as much as may be, charginge us with no more than shalbe necessary."65 Shortly after his re-appointment as Lord Deputy in July 1550, and just prior to his departure from England in August, St. Leger submitted a series of requests to be taken under consideration by the Privy Council.66 Among the questions he put to the Council in— volved his authority, ”to grant lands to men and their hayres in Offallie and Lex receiving as shall pleas you to the kinges majestie." The lands in question were situated adjacent to Kildare and had been a persistent source of irritation to the English, inhabited as they were by the highly troublesome O'Connor and O'More. Apparently in response to Sir Anthony's inquiries, the new Lord Deputy, upon his arrival in Ireland, was instructed to conduct a survey of Leix and Offaly, 64Sir John Travers, Master of the Ordnance ot the Privy Council, October 6, 1550, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 11, No. 61. 65Instructions to Sir Anthony St. Leger in The Egerton Papers, 17, 18. 66Great Britain, Public Record Office, S.P. 61/2, 55. 159 lately called O'Chonor country and O'More's country . now in good Towardness to be wholly in our hands and pos- session, and yet not in perfection, the Deputy and Council to take order for the full and ample possession of the same countries, and also for the surveying therof, and to let them to farm otherwise for terms of twenty-one yeres, allowing the farmers one or two yeres rent free. The decision to plant Leix and Offaly was taken in consider- ation of the past trouble encountered by the English authorities from the former inhabitants of these territories. As early as June 27, the Privy Council had come to the conclusion, that lexe and Ofale, being the countreys late Oconour's and Omores, shuld be lett out to the Kinges subjectes at con- venient rentes, to thintent it may both be enhabited and also a more streingth for the Kinges Majestie.68 This decision, together with the directive he was issued Upon his going over to Ireland, gave to Sir Anthony the authority: (a) to banish the remaining inhabitants of these lands, and (b) to prepare a survey of the newly-vacated regions with a view toward leasing por- tions of these areas at a fixed rent and for a Specified length of time to settlers willing to live on and farm them. In accordance with these instructions, about one month subsequent to St. Leger's arrival in Ireland, the Privy Council, at Leighes, commissioned him, together with other members of the Council of Ireland, to let, to farm for 21 years or less, under the great seal of Ireland, all manors, lands, tenememts, meadowes, lesues, pastures, ffyshinges, warrens, and other hereditaments which shall hereafter come to the King's hands in Ireland; and also under the King's seal, to let all such of which the King is now owner or shall hereafter come into his hands which are 67Instructions to Sir Anthony St. Leger in The Egerton Papers, 21. , 68 APC, III, 56. 160 now in lease for term of years or lives after the eXpiration of such leases; reserving upon every lease such rents as have been accustomed, or more. The final outcome of these events and the surveys of Leix and Offaly which were conducted during the months of November and December 1550,70 came in the form of a petition presented to the Privy Council by a group of prominent gentlemen in which it was proposed that a full-scale plantation be made of Leix, Irry, Sleghemarge, and all other parcelles whiche were under the O'Mores and their followers at the tyme of ther rebellyon within Lexe with all the Dempsies countrey (thinhabitabtes not to be removed for that they servd the Kinges maiestie). Furthermore, the petition also stipulated that: considering that the same nowe in effecte ys wholly waste they shall yelde yearely to the kinges maiestie after Mychelmas come, twelve monnethes sex hundreth poundes Yrishe/ and shall from Mychelmas next kepe the Forte ther Vpon ther owne proper costes and chardges/71 In short, the proposal being advanced by the twenty-three Anglo-Irish and English officials, soldiers, and gentlemen who co-signed the docu- ment called for a syndicate to take over the whole of Leix and other 69c211. Pat. Rolls, _Ed. Y1» III, p. 346. 70Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 11, No. 65. Also, Edmund Curtis, "The Survey of Offaly in 1550," Hermathena, XX (1929), 312-352. For that of Leix, 1,, Walter Cowley's survey made in December 1550 in Cal. Ormond Deeds, V, 56-58. 71S.P. 61/2, 69, from the Appendix in D. B. Quinn, "Edward Walshe's 'Conjectures Concerning the State of Ireland' (1552)," Irish Historical Studies, V (1946-1947), 321, 322. Among the signatories were not a few prominent members of the Irish Council, including Justices Gerald Aylmer, Thomas Luttrell, John Travers, and the newly-appointed Master of the Rolls, Patrick Barnwell. 161 dependent districts, expel the original inhabitants (except those who had professed themselves loyal to the King) from the greater part of these lands, and to assume, after a brief preliminary period, the cost of garrisoning Fort Protector while paying 600 pounds annually to the Crown in the form of rent. ”This proposal is remarkable," states Quinn, "as being the first project for a corporate private plantation in Ireland, and also as being the product of a combination of Anglo- Irish and English adventurers."72 Robert Dun10p is equally emphatic about the significance Of this particular scheme. Not only was this project one of the first of its kind ever to be undertaken on a large scale in Ireland; in Dunlop's Opinion, if any one person is to be held responsible for actually originating such a plan, that person was Sir Anthony St. Leger. As he states, it is possible that this scheme, so moderately conceived, may have originated with Sir Anthony St. Leger. . . . That he was in favor of a judicious plantation policy in Leinster and more particularly, on the borders of the Pale is undoubted.73 Dunlop has ample reason for making this assumption for as early as 1537 and again in 1544, St. Leger can be found advocating some sort of plantation scheme. In 1537, while presiding over the royal commission which was sent to Ireland to examine and report back on the condition of the country, Sir Anthony, encouraged, no doubt, by the difficulties Lord Grey was experiencing in his attempt to subdue the O'Connor, as a final solution to the problem, prOposed that a 72Quinn, "Edward Walshe's 'Conjectures,'" 309. 73Robert Dun10p, "The Plantation of Leix and Offaly," English Historical Review, VI (1891), 64. 162 plantation be inaugurated, "for unless [their country] be peopled with others than there be there already, and also fortresses there be builded and warded, if it be gotten the one day it is lost the next.”74 Seven years later, in 1544, St. Leger reiterated his earlier plantation prOposal in a lengthy diSpatch entitled, "Articles devised by the King's Majesty's Deputy and Council of Ireland to be declared to his Highness and his most honorable Council." In it, he presented a general appraisal of the condition of Ireland since 1537 and ad- vanced various suggestions for the continued maintenance of English rule, one of which was for the plantation of a colony Of native-born Englishmen: If it seem chargeable to continue a garrison in the fortresses of Leinster, the King 'may erect one or two honorable estates of English blood' there which would be vigilant to keep the country obedient. Another suggestion proscribes dividing the country up into three parts: Think that the King should plant in one corner there, together, 100 of his army with other English subjects, and divide the land into three parts, giving one to the Englishmen, the second to the gentlemen now inhabiting there, and the third, with all the chief garrisons, to remain in his own hands. Concluding the dispatch, St. Leger advised that certain portions Of waste land be granted to persons who, "had served him here [for] he cannot better reward them and inhabit parcel Of this portion Of Leinster than to plant a number of them here."75 Taken together, the two sets of proposals St. Leger espoused in 1537 and 1544, were basically the pattern future plantation policy 74S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 536. 75LGP, XIX, Pt. 1, No. 79. 163 in Ireland would assume, namely, the expulsion of the original in- habitants from an area, and its re-settlement by reliable elements, preferably Englishmen. All this was to be carried out in conjunction with the construction Of fortresses to be situated at key locations which would serve simultaneously as defenses against Irish raids and as centers Of law enforcement for the surrounding country. St. Leger was by no means the only Irish Official to suggest the introduction Of new settlers as a means Of pacifying the Irish countryside. In 1521, the Earl of Surrey thought that to facilitate a general re-conquest might require planting new settlers which, in the Earl's opinion, could be easily done by inducing Spaniards, Flem- ings, and Germans, as well as Englishmen, to emigrate to Ireland.76 However, nothing came Of Surrey's suggestion and it was left to successive viceroys to act upon it at a future date. One such viceroy was Sir Edward Bellingham who, acting on the advice of his Surveyor-General, Walter Cowley, advanced his own plan for plantation. However, unlike the proposal St. Leger made in 1550, Bellingham's plan, if completed, would have left most Of the land in the hands of certain trustworthy Irish Of inferior social and political status and did not in any way involve the kind of re- settlement scheme which was undertaken in 1551. In fact, Cowley's pro- prOposals in 1549 concerned mainly Wicklow and did not include nor even mention Leix or Offaly.77 Moreover, before anything substantial 76S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 74, 7s. 77Sanction by the English government came on June 11, 1549 and went to lesser Irish lords who were regarded as trustworthy. 164 could come of his scheme, Bellingham took ill and returned to England where he died shortly after, leaving the task of formulating and carrying out a more comprehensive plantation program to his successor. With the completion of Cowley's rough survey of Leix in December 1550, the actual re-settlement Of Leix and Offaly began in earnest. Accordingly, beginning in February 1551 and continuing throughout the year, a limited number of leases were made at periodic intervals to various gentlemen residing in Leinster as well as to army veterans who had loyally served the King's forces in the recent campaign against the rebellious O'Connor and O'More.78 The lands which were granted were to comprise the future baronies of Warrens- town, Coolestown, and Upper and Lower Philipstown in what was formerly King's County; and Portnahinch, Maryborough, East and West, Strad- bally, Culenagh, and Ballyadams, in what was previously Queen's County. In regard to the terms of the leases granted,79 it was pro- vided that once the lease was settled, the lessee, and following his death, his designated assignee, should dwell permanently upon the premises and that no assignment should take place without the explicit This seems to indicate that most of the lands would be left in Irish hands and that no general plantation was being contemplated at the time. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 11, Nos. 25 (I), 46. 78Ireland, Public Record Office, Calendar to Fiants of the Reigns g§_Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip_and Mary, Elizabeth 75h lin: Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 1875), Ed. VI, report 8, app. 9, Nos. 599, 611; henceforth, Cal. Fiants. Also, Walter Cowley to Paulet, Wiltshire and the Lord'High Treasurer, "Leases of Leix, Offaly and other places, passed to divers persons," Cal: §;P,, 133:, Ed. VI, III, NO. 12. 79V., the lease to Francis Cosby of Kildare dated March 15, 1551, Cal.-Fiants, Ed. v1, NO. 724. 165 approval of the chief governor acting in conjunction with the Council of Ireland. Furthermore, it was stipulated that the lessee must not, under any circumstances, allow any of his lands to be leased or even inhabited by an O'Connor or an O'More. In addition, every person living on the land leased was required by law to possess an ample number of weapons for his own defense. Finally, the terms of the grant obliged the lessee to contribute a certain proportion of the cesses for the upkeep and maintenance of the royal forts. Here, then, marked the advent Of a new approach to the problem of land control in Ireland. The earlier method of restoring the native chiefs their lands on terms analogous to those which St. Leger granted to O'Reilly in 1541,80 had been superseded in favor Of a deliberate policy of expulsion and re-settlement. Henceforth, should the English encounter further resistance to their authority by any Irish chief or tribe, it was assumed that the lands of the Offending chief or tribe could be confiscated, their people ban- ished, and the vacated territory surveyed and leased out to Eng— lish settlers on a long-term basis. As a guarantee that the original inhabitants would not return to resume possession Of the confiscated lands, settlers assigned to them were forbidden to lease or even allow their newly-acquired lands to be peopled by any Of their former occupants. As an added measure of protection against the ever-present possibility Of a forceful resumption of ownership on the part of the Irish, settlers were obliged to provide for their own defense and pay 8OSupra., p. 95. 166 a certain percentage of their taxes for the upkeep of the royal forts in their immediate vicinity. With these facts in mind, one could safely say that the ef- fort which was made during St. Leger's second administration to plant parts of Leix and Offaly in the manner described above, represents one of the first genuine colonization projects of its kind attempted s- anywhere within the Sphere of English control. That grants to the confiscated lands in Leix and Offaly were made in a haphazard fashion, and at the time accounted for only a fraction of the total land sur- veyed within these regions, cannot disguise the fact that it was Sir Anthony St. Leger who was in large part responsible for the beginnings of a plantation policy in Ireland, if only in a minute sense.81 St. Leger's second term in office is also noteworthy in that it witnessed the first attempt in modern times to exploit systemati- cally Ireland's mineral resources, chiefly lead, silver, and alum, on a large scale.82 It had long been known that Ireland possessed sub- stantial quantities of gold and silver. As far back in time as the fifth century A.D., there is mention of "exhaustless" stores Of "veiny silver" and “golden ore," and although this statement may be somewhat exaggerated, the fact remains that as late as Norman and Plantagenet times, Ireland's mineral resources were looked upon as a potential source of great wealth. Edward III, in response to 81For the frequency of these leases, Xx, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, NO. 12. 82The following discussion was based in large part on informa- tion derived from the article by M. D. O'Sullivan, "The EXploitation of the Mines Of Ireland in the Sixteenth Century,” Studies, XXIV (1935), 442-452. 167 favorable reports originating from Ireland of their value and anxious to acquire funds in order to prosecute successfully the wars in France, instructed his officials to search for mines Of gold and silver in Ireland. According to the author of the "Libel of English Policy,” Ireland's supply of precious metals was regarded as con- siderable: Ffor of silvere and golde there is the oore Among the wylde Yrishe, though they be pore; ; Ffor they ar rude, and can thereone no skylle; 5 SO that if we had there pese and god wylle, ' To myne and fyne, and metalle for to pure, In wylde Yrishe myght we fynde the cure. As in Londone seyth a juellere, Whyche brought from thens gold oore to us here, Whereof was fyned metalle gode and clene As the touche, no bettere coude be sene.és And yet, in Spite of these earlier displays of enthusiasm, it was not until after the advent of the Tudors that an actual attempt was made to realize the full potential of Ireland's resources. Ac- cording tO O'Sullivan, Thomas Agard was the first English official to renew interest in the subject of the mines in Ireland with a proposal that they should be worked on behalf of the Crown.84 Acting on Agard's advice, St. Leger wrote to Henry in October 1541 suggesting the possibility of mineral exploitation in Ireland, emphasizing the immense rewards this could bring: . . . the mynes that be heare, bothe of leade, tynne, coper, and iron, whiche we thinke wolde be a greate ryches, if it mought be quyetely labored for.85 83"The Libel of English Policy," in Wright, pp. 186, 187. 84O'Sullivan, 444. 85.54.11- 5er £11. III, 339; LGP, XVI, NO. 1284. 168 In response to these suggestions, a committee of experts con- sisting of, ”Thomas Agarde of Irelande, Garret Harman of the citie of London, goldsmith, and oone Hans a Dutchman,"86 was dispatched to Ireland in 1546 to investigate the possibility of developing the mines on a large scale. Although their report was distinctly favor- able, Henry died before the project could materialize, and it was left to the officials of his son's reign to see it seriously undertaken. In 1550, Sir Anthony St. Leger, upon assuming Office as Lord Deputy for a second time, was directed by the King to work the mines at Clonmines near Banmow in Wexford where silver mixed with lead was found in abundance.87 As the necessary Skilled workers were not readily available in Ireland to work the mines, St. Leger found it necessary to rely on foreign labor. Accordingly, Germans and Cornishmen were imported to dig the ore and placed under the supervision of Joachim Gundelfinger.88 A smelting house was built at Ross to purify the raw ore, and stores were established at Newtown Barry and Ballyhack.89 Like the re-settlement scheme which was then underway for Leix and Offaly, the results of Sir Anthony's mining enterprise of 1550- 1551 fell far short of original expectations, and as the operational cost of working the mines exceeded their actual yield, in time the 86APC, II, 502. 87Instructions to Sir Anthony St. Leger, July 1550 in The Egerton Papers, 17. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 111, Nos. 130, 131. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, No. 14 (I). . _'_-o ”3“!" 169 project had to be discontinued.90 Nevertheless, in spite of the eventual closing of the Wexford mines, St. Leger can rightly be given credit for being the first Irish deputy in the modern era to make the attempt to take advantage of Ireland's mineral wealth for the benefit of the English government. While Leix and Offaly were in the process Of being surveyed and planted, and Ireland's mines were being exploited, measures were underway to counteract the fears, expressed earlier, of a possible French invasion. In January 1551, it was proposed, "that Lord Cobham should be sent tO the south of Ireland with a navy and army to put the port towns in a prOper state of defence," and, once having ar- rived, to supervise the surveying of Cork, Kinsale, Baltimore, and Berehaven.91 Lord Cobham's anticipated expedition, however, failed to take place as scheduled. Instead, Sir James Croft, St. Leger's successor as chief governor, was sent in Cobham's stead with orders to conduct a thorough inspection of all harbors between Berehaven and Cork and to select sites for the fortification of the points found to be most strategic. In carrying out his orders, Croft was given the 90The mines were discontinued under Sir Anthony's successor as Viceroy, Sir James Croft in February 1553. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, Nos. 26, 78. 91Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 111, NO. 4. The decision to send an expedition tO-Ireland was probably taken in reply to Sir John Travers' report on the poor state of Ireland's coastal defenses and his request for additional supplies and munitions, Cal: 5:23, 132,, Ed. VI, 11, NO. 61, October 6, 1550. George Brooke, Baron Cobham, had previously been in command of the garrison at Calais, W. K. Jordan, Edward VI; Ih§_Young King, pp. 246f. law“, | "‘“l' .I L‘!’ . n 170 discretion to extend his Operations as far as Waterford but to act in consultation with the Lord Deputy in all decisions to be taken.92 The selection of Croft, one of the most experienced profes- sional soldiers available in England at the time, to undertake such a crucial mission, suggests the extreme concern of the King and Privy Council for the security of Ireland against outside attack. To illus- trate the extent of their concern, a month or so prior to Croft's appointment, Edward VI, "forbecause the Frenchmen did go about prac- tice in Ireland," ordered the dispatch of a naval expedition to Scot- land, its purpose, to "break the afore-said conspiracies." The force which was sent was placed under the command of one of England's ablest and most respected naval commanders, William Winter, and consisted of ”four Ships, four barks, four pinnaces, and twelve victalers," a con- siderable flotilla.93 Setting sail early in January 1551, Commander Winter's squadron, after a brief stOpover in Ireland, arrived off the Firth of Forth on the 25th. There, the English commander encountered a small French naval force lying in wait. A brief, but fierce skir- mish followed, during which Winter succeeded either in capturing, grounding, or otherwise scattering his French adversaries before turning and heading for home waters.94 92Instructions to Sir James Croft to go to the Lord Deputy St. Leger; The King to St. Leger informing them of the Croft expedi- tion, 921: S423, Ire., Ed. VI, III, Nos. 13, 14. These dispatches were issued on Febfuary 25 and 26 respectfully. Also, "A lettre to the Lord Deputie of Ireland declaring the cause why Sir James Crofte is presently sent thither . . .," APC, III, 223. 93 . . . The Chronicle and Political Papers Of King Edward VI, W. K. Jordan, ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: The Cornell—Uhiversity Press; 1966), p. 51; henceforth, Chron. Ed: VI. 94Chron. Ed: VI, p. 51, n. 3. n' e. «u “at" 171 As apprehensions of a French invasion deepened, two ships and a pinnace, "with ordnance and munition," were sent to Waterford and Cork under the command of Richard Bethell. In conjunction with Bethell's eXpedition, St. Leger was ordered to march southward in a display of force for the purpose of assisting Croft in the refurbish- ing of the coastal defenses at Cork and Kinsale.95 AS a further pre— caution, and to insure the loyalty of the Earls of Desmond and Thomond in case of an actual French landing, St. Leger had their sons sent to England as hostages.96 The fear of invasion which was being expressed by the authori- ties On both sides of the Irish Sea was not without foundation,for in the early spring of 1551, a fleet of approximately 160 French ships, "laden with provisions of grain, powder and ordnance," set sail out of Brest and arrived Off the Irish coast. No sooner was the fleet sighted than a terrible storm blew in Off the open ocean to wreck Sixteen of the largest vessels and blow the remainder to Scotland. Whether or not a landing in Ireland was in fact planned can only be surmised. Professor Hogan theorizes97 that the French fleet's main purpose was to attempt a landing. The State Papers, Ireland, however, seem to . . . 98 . . . . indicate otherWIse. From them, the impreSSIOn is gained that the Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, Nos. 15, 16; Chron. 52: V13 96St. Leger to the Privy Council, March 23, 1551, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 111, No. 17. 97HOgan, Ireland in_the European System, p. 118. 98Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, NO. 18; also, Chron. Ed: VI, p. 54. ' 01-81 172 fleet sighted Off the Irish coast at this time was destined for Scot- land where it was expected to reinforce, supply, and pay the French troops stationed there. Be that as it may, Professor Hogan's con- jecture may very well be correct, for were it not for the intervention of natural forces, the sudden appearance of hostile Ships Off the Irish coast in such large numbers might have signalled the start of a full-scale invasion. In the midst of this welter of activity, on January 19, 1551, St. Leger wrote to Secretary Cecil in response to certain "malicious rumours raised against him." These rumors also involved Sir Anthony's chaplain, James Bicton, who was accused Of harboring papist ideas. In reply, St. Leger asserted his own and Bicton's innocence: I heer also that they name me a Papist. I wolde to god I were to trye it with the best that so nameth me, that moost honorable Counsell excepted. They have also hindered my suet for my chaplen namyng hym also a papist. I dare say there is no one man within this Realme who hathe more set furthe the King Maties proceadinge than he.99 Judging from the nature Of the charge leveled against them, the likelihood is that it originated from a certain faction on the Irish Council who were Opposed to the Lord Deputy over what they con- sidered was his lack of progress in respect to the matter of reli- gious reform. Among the instructions Sir Anthony took with him to Ireland upon his re-appointment as Lord Deputy in 1550 included trans- lating the Church service in accordance with royal ordinances in those churches where it was possible to gather a congregation together 99Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, NO. 3. In September 1550, St. Leger had unsuccessfully recommended Bicton for the bishopric of Ossory. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, No. 60. 173 which could understand the language. Where this was not possible, translations were to be made in Irish until such time as it was pos- sible to teach the people how to use English. However, with the ex- ception of the translation Of the Prayer Book into Latin which, in all likelihood, had been completed by the end of 1550, little attempt was made to advance the Reformation in Ireland by St. Leger prior to 1551.100 Sir Anthony's tardiness in acting on this matter may have been what prompted those members of the Irish Council who were anxious to see the Reformation fully established in Ireland to accuse him of surrounding himself with men of papist sympathies. Chief among Sir Anthony's antagonists in the area of religious reform was the ArchbishOp Of Dublin, George Browne,who, perhaps more than any one individual, was the person responsible for first intro- ducing the Reformation into Ireland and overseeing its progress. His elevation to the archepiSCOpacy came as the result of the tragic mur— der of his predecessor Archbishop John Allen by adherents of "Silken Thomas" in 1535.101 Formerly an Augustinian friar and Pro- vincial of the Order in England, Browne, who received the royal con- firmation on March 12, 1535,102 was sent to Ireland to accomplish two 100Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, No. 3. 101The untimely death of Archbishop Alen is recorded in a dispatch to Henry VIII from Sir John Rawson, the Prior of Kilmainham and then Chief Justice of Ireland, S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 201. 102The letters and papers of ArchbishOp Browne are printed in "The Life and Death Of George Browne, Sometime Archbishop of Dublin," Harleian Miscellan , J. Malham, ed. (London: Dutton, 1810), VIII, 534-541; henceforth, Harl. Miscell. 174 main objects of Henry VIII's religious prOgram then managed by Thomas Cromwell: (l) the establishment of the King's supremacy, and (2) the "purification" of the Irish Church by ”the plucking down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry."103 NO sooner had the Archbishop set foot in Ireland than he began to press the doctrine of the King's supremacy over both church and state, in Spite of the fact that no Act of Parliament had yet been enacted authorizing him to make such claims. In reply to a message from Cromwell, who eXpressed his wholehearted approval of the Archbishop's efforts and urged him to take all means to enforce the royal will in Ireland, Browne writes: My most honoured lord, your poor servant, receiving his mandate as one of his Highnessess's Commissioners, bothe endeavoured, almost at the danger and hassard of this temporal life, to procure the nobility and gentry of this nation to due Obedience in owing of his Royal Highness their supreme head, as well Spiritual as temporal, and found much Oppunging therein, es- pecially by my brother Armagh [George Cromer], who has been the main Oppunger, and so hath withdrawn most of his suffra- gans and clergy within his See and jurisdiction. He made a speech to them, laying a curse on the people whosoever Should own his Highnessess's supremacy, saying, that isle, as it is in their Irish chronicles insula sacra, belongs to none other than the Bishop Of Rome, that gave it to the King's ancestors. There be two messangers, by the priests of Armagh, and by the archbishOp now lately sent to the Bishop Of Rome. Your lord- ship may inform his Highness that it is convenient to call a parliament in this nation to pass the supremacy by Act, for they do not much matter his Highnesses's commission, which your lordship sent us over. This island hath been for a long time held in ignorance by the Romish orders; and as for their secular orders, they be as ignorant as the people, being not able to say mass or pronounce the words, they not knowing what they themselves say in the Roman tongue. The common peOple of this island are more zealous in their blindness, than the saints and martyrs were in truth at the beginning Of the GOSpel. I send to you, my very good lord, these things, that your lordship and his Highness may consult what is to be done. 103Harl. Miscell., VIII, 534. 104Harl. Miscell., VIII, S34. 175 The tone and intent of Browne's letter to Cromwell strongly suggested that the task which ArchbiShOp Browne set before him was not so much the preaching of the Gospel as the complete establishment of the King's supremacy both spiritual and temporal over the whole of Ireland. During the debate in the Irish Parliament of 1536 on the Supremacy Bill, Browne was to be the guiding hand in securing its passage. In an address to the House immediately following the de- bate, he implored the members not to delay in passing the measure warning, "he who will not approve this Act as I do is no true subject of his Highness."105 Not wishing to give the King any cause for dis- pleasure Should the measure fail to pass, the House promptly gave its approval. Encouraged by the swift enactment of the Supremacy Bill, Browne then attempted to force the Irish clergy to preach the doctrine of the King's supremacy from the pulpit and remove from their churches those relics, images, and other symbols associated with the Old reli- gion.106 Needless to say, the aggressiveness which Browne displayed in pressing the Reformation forward brought him into direct conflict ‘with the vast majority Of the Irish people and alienated even those Inoderate Catholics who, although tacitly approving the Archbishop's newlyeenacted reforms, were, nonetheless, far from disposed to advance ‘the Reformation any further than was absolutely necessary. In a letter to the Lord Privy Seal dated April 3, 1538, Browne's irritation at 105Harl. Miscell., VIII, 536. 106Bagwell, I, 304. 176 this resistance comes forth. Dismissing the common people of Ireland as "blind and unknowing," he proceeded to accuse their clergy of cleverly discouraging them, "from following his Highness's orders."107 The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, George Cromer, frequently quarreled with him and, as Browne himself stated, "is not active to exectute his Highness's orders in the diocease."108 As for the removal of relics and images from the churches, this too, Browne reported, was proceeding with great difficulty, owing to the resistance of the clergy who "find them so sweet for their gain, that they heed not my words," and the disdainful attitude of the people, especially those in the rural areas who, "much hate your lordship [meaning Cromwell], and call you in the Irish tongue the Blacksmith's son."109 In contrast to Browne's enthusiasm in prosecuting the Reforma- tion, St. Leger's attitude toward religious reform was characterized chiefly by restraint. From the start of his first administration in 1540, Sir Anthony committed himself to a policy of non-interference in religious matters, and throughout his eight-year term in Office, was very careful not to allow anything of a religious nature to inter- fere with his attempts to pacify the country both within and beyond the Pale. In the words of Professor Robert Dudley Edwards, "A 107Harl. Miscell., VIII, 536, 537. 108Harl. Miscell., VIII, 536, 537. 109Harl. Miscell., VIII, 536, S37. 177 peaceful border and a satisfied Pale were of more importance to the Castle . ."110 In order not to discourage the loyalty of those within the English Sphere of control who might otherwise Oppose the authorities should an effort be made to enforce the changes, St. Leger deliberately made religious reformation a subsidiary issue. Outside the Pale, the religious question was avoided altogether. Pressing the Reformation forward at the ArchbishoP's desired rate of Speed, Sir Anthony thought, would more than likely provoke a political crisis, and this the ViCeroy sought to avert at all costs.111 Upon his re-appointment as Lord Deputy for a second term, St. Leger reverted to the religious policy in force during his pre- vious tenure in office. Unlike his predecessor Sir Edward Bellingham, whose harsh enforcement of the royal supremacy had antagonized the in- tensely Catholic Irish to the point of sedition,112 Sir Anthony, anxious to conciliate their wounded sensibilities, and desirous of avoiding further friction, hesitated to embark upon a more radical 110Robert Dudley Edwards, Church and State ig_Tudor Ireland (Dublin 6 Cork, The Talbot Press, Ltd., [1937]), p. 127. 111St. Leger's apparent indifference toward the matter of doctrinal change during his first tenure as Lord Deputy was a re- flection of the King's preoccupation with securing constitutional and administrative control over both the English and Irish churches as opposed to the creation of a reformed Church of Christ. The only instances where Sir Anthony was in any way involved with religion at this time, came in regard to a commission which he and other members of the Council were issued by Henry in March 1541 to survey and supress the friaries in Ireland. The only other recorded instance concerned a grant he was awarded by the King on September 23, 1541 of all church patronage, with the exception of BishoPics and Deaneries. S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 295, 335. 112Bellingham's religious policy is discussed by Bagwell, I, 341, 342. In general, Sir Edward's policy consisted of a strict enfOrcement Of the royal supremacy for which he would allow absolutely no disobedience. 178 approach to advance the Reformation beyond the point it had reached at the time of Bellingham's departure. As might be expected, St. Leger's reluctance to press the Reformation forward at the pace dic- tated by the extremists, like Archbishop Browne, who wished the government to place its progress in Ireland ahead of all other con- siderations, caused friction almost from the start.113 Notwithstanding his moderate stance in regard to the matter of religious reform in general, St. Leger's second administration did, nevertheless, make an honest attempt to realize at least some of the more immediate objectives outlined by the King's instructions of July 1550. Among these included a directive to, sett furthe God's service to be administered within our said realme amongest our lovinge subjects there as largely as he may, accordinge to the ordinances and proceedings in the Englische tongue, in all places where the inhabitantes, or a convenient nombre of them, understand the Englische tongue. And where the inhabitants understand not the Englische tongue, they to cause the Englische to be translated truly into the Irishe tongue, unto suche time as the peOple maye be brought to understand the Englische, gevinge strayte order for the Observation thereof.114 Accordingly, a concerted effort was made to translate the new liturgy into Irish. However, upon seeing the difficulty of achieving this to 113St. Leger's attitude toward Browne's protests that he was being too lenient toward those who persisted in the old religion can be summed up in reference to a reply he made to the Primate Dow- dall in a similar vein: "Goa to goe to, your matters of religion woll mare all." Browne's accusations are contained in his letter to the Earl of Warwick dated August 6, 1551, charging Sir Anthony with papistical practices, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, NO. 45. 114Instructions to Sir Anthony St. Leger, July 1550 in The Egerton Papers, 14. 179 any great extent due to a Shortage of scholars with a sufficient knowledge of the Irish language, St. Leger had it rendered into Latin instead.115 On March 1, 1551, in response to a directive issued by the King on February 6, the Lord Deputy summoned a conference of bishops at Dublin and there issued a proclamation prohibiting the Mass and enforcing the Communion service in English.116 During the confer- ence, one of the ecclesiastics in attendance, the Primate George Dowdall, came forth to announce his avid Opposition to the proposed changes. When the Primate, who at one time was a close associate of St. Leger,117 threatened to lay the feared clerical curse upon the Lord Deputy Should he make any attempt to enforce the changes, Sir Anthony was provoked to reply: I fear no strange curse, so long as I have the blessing of that Church which I believe to be the true one.118 When pressed by Dowdall to declare what church he believed to be the true church, Sir Anthony gave this response: I thought we had been all of the Church of Christ; for he calls all true believers in him his church and himself the head thereof.119 And yet, despite what appeared to be a resolution on his part to see the proclaimed reforms universally enforced throughout 115Cai. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, No. 3. 116Harl. Miscell., VIII, 541. 117In fact, it was St. Leger who prOposed that Dowdall be elevated to the Archbishopric of Armagh upon Cromer's death in 1543. Sgpra., Chapter 111, n. 83. 118Hari. Miscell., VIII, 541. 1195221: MiéSEllx» VIII» 541' 180 Ireland, St. Leger's inability to do so, especially in the face of mounting opposition both from laity as well as clergy loyal to the old faith, not only confirmed the suspicions of ArchbishOp Browne, but also aroused the dissatisfaction of the Privy Council which by the Spring of 1551 had come under the influence of the Earl of War- wick, himself an ardent reformer.120 At length, the decision was eventually made to replace Sir Anthony by Sir James Croft, and he was subsequently recalled on April 11, 1551.121 Among the factors which influenced Warwick's action to have St. Leger withdrawn were those which, no doubt, stemmed from Sir Anthony's failure to fulfill the goals outlined in his in- structions. Although steps were taken to initiate the plantation of Leix and Offaly on a limited scale, the venture itself, was not an immediate success and a follow-up proposal for the further development of the O'Connor and O'More lands was rejected outright.122 In con- trast to his previous term in office, during which he was able to produce an actual if only slight revenue surplus, Sir Anthony's second 120Pollard, England under Protector Somerset, pp. 224f. 121APC, III, 256. Sir James Croft was formally appointed to replace sn‘figer on April 25, 1551, 9.9}.- Pat. Close Rolls, 13,, 5 Ed. VI, Membrane 13, NO. 96; APC, III, 23'6'.‘ """sir An‘E—‘t ony remained in Ireland to assist Croft until the latter's deputation was formalized. Sir James entered into his office as chief governor on June 1, 1551. V., "Instructions by the King to Sir James Croft appointed Lord Deputy, and to others appointed of the Privy Council of Ireland," Cal: 5:23, 133:, Ed. VI, 111, No. 32. 122According to Professor Quinn (Irish Historical Studies, V, p. 309), the rejection of this particular proposal may EEVe been a definite factor which led up to St. Leger's recall. The full text of Sir Anthony's proposal is outlined in §;E: 61/3, 3. 181 administration found it almost impossible to hold down expenditures which, in the Six years of Edward VI'S reign, rose steadily from 17,000 pounds in 1547 to 52,000 pounds by 1553, while revenue yields for the same period averaged only 11,000 pounds.123 The efforts which were made to Offset the immense cost of governing the country by minting the silver ore from the mines in Wexford met with little success. "The Master of the Mint," St. Leger informed the Council shortly before his return to England in May 1551, "is so destitute of bullion that he hath not wherewithal to furnish his ordinary charges."124 However, of all the factors which contributed to St. Leger's downfall in 1551, perhaps the most decisive was his conciliatory attitude toward the matter of religious reform and the hostility this aroused on both Sides of St. George's Channel. An indication of just how controversial Sir Anthony's views on religion were at the time, comes in a letter which Archbishop Browne sent to Warwick sometime in 1551 shortly before St. Leger's dismissal from office. 123On the other hand, St. Leger's first administration found it possible to produce, by 1547, a slight surplus of approximately 500 pounds. A document in the State Papers Section of the Public Record Office calendered under January 1553 (S42, 61/4, 75), calcu- lates the average expenditure for five years of Henry VIII's reign (1542-1547) as 8,500 pounds, while revenue yields for the same period amounted to an average of 9,000 pounds annually. The re- markable fact about this document is what it reveals, namely, that for the first time in many years, Ireland was paying for itself. Credit for this outstanding financial achievement must go to St. Leger who was assisted by his highly capable Vice-Treasurer, Sir William Brabazon. 124Sir Anthony St. Leger, Sir James Croft and part of the Irish Council to the Privy Council, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 111, No. 24. 182 In it, the Archbishop accused Sir Anthony of having lent to him, ”fyve works" which were deemed by the Archbishop to be, ”poisoned to maynteyne the masse with transubstanciacion and other naughties." The Reverend Myles V. Ronan125 identifies Browne's "fyve workes" as the treatise which is catalogued by Hamilton as "MS Tract, 'Boke owte of Ireland,‘ in Latin."126 According to Father Ronan, it was this treatise which Browne sent to Warwick early in February 1551 as an indictment of St. Leger's religious beliefs, and if his assumption is correct, then the book and its contents may very well have been the direct cause which resulted in Sir Anthony's recall in April. 125 Rev. Myles V. Ronan, The Reformation in Dublin, 1536-1558 (London: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1926), p. 368. -—- 126 . . Cal. S.P., Ire., Philip 6 Mary, II, NO. 78. An alternate theory has it thEE—St.-Eeger's recall was due to the King's desire to make use of his services closer to home, although for what purpose exactly, is not known. V3, Edward VI'S Warrant Book in John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1822), II, 264. CHAPTER VI LORD DEPUTY FOR THE LAST TIME: ST. LEGER'S THIRD ADMINISTRATION AND FINAL DAYS (1553-1559) From the time of his recall in April 1551 until June 1, the date when Croft's deputation became formalized, St. Leger remained in Ireland in order to acquaint the newly-appointed Lord Deputy with his offical duties. His return to England was followed by ArchbishOp Browne's accusations in August.1 AS a result of these charges, in December, Sir Anthony was excluded from the King's chamber, "till he had made answer and had the articles delivered him."2 St. Leger, however, did not long remain in the King's disfavor and by April 1552, was re-admitted to the royal presence having successfully defended himself against Browne's accusations the previous January.3 Subsequent to his reconciliation with the King in April and prior to being re-appointed as Lord Deputy for a third time by Queen 1These accusations were mentioned previously in Chapter V, p. 182. 2Chron. Ed: V1, p. 102. 3St. Leger's reply to Browne's allegations came on January 3, 1552, APC, III, 456; Chron. fig, VI, p. 119 makes note of his re- admission to the King's chamber. 183 184 Mary in October 1553, Sir Anthony was charged with carrying out a number of important tasks, in addition to being given a substantial honor for his services past and present. On June 13, 1552, he was awarded full possession of Ledes Castle in Kent together with "the park of Ledes, and all the lande known as Ledes Parke . . . by the service of the twentieth part by one knight's fee, rendering 10 pounds at the Exchequer."4 The next day he received a commission to accompany Sir Richard Cotton and Thomas Mildemay, "to consider the state of the town and marches of Calais and the forts therein accord- ing to the King's special instructions."5 These included conducting a general inquiry into the accounts of the Treasurer of Calais, Sir Maurice Dennys, ”from his first entry upon that office and give his quietus est," this being done, "in consideration that the King has not for a long time been certified of the state of the said town and marches . . .," a reference to the unworthy state of the town's reve- nues which Sir Anthony was sent to help rectify. The results of the commission's findings were highly un- complimentary to Sir Maurice. On November 20, 1552, he was ordered to return to England, "with as much Spede as he may conveniently,"6 and Six days later was committed to Fleet prison, "for his disobed- ients towardes the Kinges Majesties Commissioners sent to Calleys as 4Cal. Pat. Rolls, Ed: VI, IV, 326. SCa1. Pat. Rolls, pg, 3;, IV, 352. APC, IV, 81. This appointment apparently was influenced by St. Leger's previous eXper- ience as royal commissioner to Calais in 1535. V3, sppra., p. 6APC, IV, 174. 185 for other matters touching his accompt."7 Promptly appealing the Council's decision, Sir Maurice gave his explanation for the dis- crepancies which the commission discovered in his account to the Privy Council on the afternoon on January 30, 1552.8 His reasons apparently satisfied the members for shortly after, he appears to have been reinstated to his former position.9 Still suSpicious of Denny's activities, the Council, in the spring of 1553, directed St. Leger, the Comptroller, and Thomas Mildemay to return to Calais once again with instructions to conduct a more thorough investigation into the Treasurer's accounts, report- ing any and all irregularities to the Council, "that the Kinges Majesties pleasour maybe therein knowne." Unlike their inquiry of the year before, however, no discrepancies were discovered and Sir Maurice was allowed to retain his Office.10 Throughout this whole period, St. Leger's esteem within the royal administration remained high. An indication of this came in October 1552 when, following his return from Calais, he was granted, along with other prominent gentlemen, a commission, as one Of the King's councillors, "to enquire of heresies."11 His associates in this task included an impressive list Of political and religious dig- nitaries, among them the Archbishop of Canterbury; the BishOps of London, Winchester, Lincoln, and Chichester; the Dean of Canterbury; 7 8 APC, IV, 177. APC, IV, 179. 9APC, IV, 211. 1OAPC, IV, 264. 11 Cal. Pat. Rolls, pg, El; IV, 355. 186 Richard Cox, the King's Almoner; John Hale, one of the King's Justices of the Common Pleas; the Dean of St. Paul's; Doctors of Law, Thomas Wotton, Gosnolde, Goodrich, Nicholas Bacon and John Ramsey; the Arch- bishops of Middlesex and Chichester; and Professors of Theology, John Josephe and William Goodacre. The transition of power from Edward VI to his half-sister Mary upon the youthful king's death in July 1553, failed to diminish St. Leger's standing in relation to the Crown. If anything, Mary's accession seemed to enhance it. Sir Anthony was present at her Coro- nation as one Of the four bearers of the royal canOpy12 and, shortly after, was elevated to the Queen's Privy Council, where he served as suitor to Bishop Gairdner.13 Scarcely one month later, on September 1, 1553, Sir Anthony was once again appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland.14 In making the decision to re-appoint St. Leger, it is likely that the Queen was influenced by Sir Anthony's religious outlook, especially his display of toleration toward Catholics during his previous term as chief governor. It is fairly certain that his former 12The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of the two Years of Queen Mary, and e3pecially of the rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyat, written §y_a resident in the Tower of London, J. G. Nichols, edf (London: The Camden Society, 18 8505, XLVIII, 135; henceforth abbreviated, Chron. 9. Jane. 13APC, IV, 313. As such, St. Leger's association with the Catholic circle at Mary's court must have been a close one. 14Cal. Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 1 Philip 6 Mary, Membrane No. 2, 4 (October 23, 1553), for his instructions. St. Leger's re— appointment occurred on September 1, 1553, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar Of the Patent Rolls, Philippé Mar (London: His Majesty's Stationery—Office, 1937), I, 304; ’hEncefor , Cal: Pap. Rolls, Philip §_Mary. 187 reluctance to prosecute the Reformation in Ireland had not passed un- noticed by the Queen whose religious policy was a complete reversal of that Of the previous two reigns, and who, as soon as her throne was secured, set herself to the task of undoing the Reformation and restoring the old religion. And yet, to eXplain St. Leger's return to Ireland as Viceroy in 1553 solely on the basis of his past leniency toward Irish Catholics does not tell the whole story. For given Sir Anthony's previous eXperience as an administrator, together with his vast knowledge of Ireland, and in particular, his reputation for fairness in his dealings with the Irish, it is doubtful that Mary could have made a better choice.15 Sir Anthony's predecessor, Sir James Croft, had not encountered much success in dealing with the many problems of Irish administra- tion. Chief among his difficulties was a debased currency accompanied by runaway inflation. In a common supplication to the Privy Council early in 1552, Croft, together "with the rest of the Nobility, Gentlemen and Merchants and divers others Of the King's subjects," offered the following reason for the high cost of living: 15Despite his absence from Ireland, St. Leger's reputation among the Irish chiefs remained high. In the case of one chieftain, Sir Anthony came to be regarded as a friendly intermediary at Court. In February 1552, Con O'Neill, Earl Of Tyrone, complaining of ill- treatment at the hands of Croft's Marshal of the Army, Sir Nicholas Bagenall, issued an appeal to St. Leger to intercede in his behalf at the royal court, confident, in his words, "that he will see his complaints delivered to the King and Council," which Sir Anthony proceeded to do much to O'Neill's satisfaction. Con Earl of Tyrone to Sir Anthony St. Leger (February 9, 1552), Cal. §;£:' I333, Ed. VI, IV, NO. 9. The King's reply came in a diSpEtch to Tyrone dated Cal: S423, 133:, Ed. VI, IV, No. 80. 188 The universal dearth of all thinges risen in Ireland is attributed to the money as the "furst and pryncipall cawse, withoute remedye whereof yt is thought almost ympossible to sett a staye." As a solution, Croft and his associates then ventured the suggestion, ”that the moneys of Ireland may be of like valuation weight and fineness as in England."16 In response to this proposal, an attempt was made to ease the currency problem by minting the silver extracted from the mines re- cently begun in Wexford and regulating the bullion coined. A month before St. Leger's departure from Ireland in June 1551, Robert Recorde was sent over and placed in charge of the mint and mines.17 One year later, in June and July 1552, Martin Pirry, Comptroller of the Irish Mint was directed18 to supervise the minting of 1500 pounds of silver bullion into sixpences for Ireland.19 This was done in response to various questions put to the Privy Council by Croft the previous November asking, 16Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, NO. 5 (11). Among the signi- tories to EHE'stpiioEEIbn were Jenico, Viscount Gormanston, Richard, Viscount Montgaret, the Baron of Slane, Thomas Butler, Patrick Barnewall of Trimleston, the Viscount Batinglas, Patrick Barnewell, Master of the Rolls, John Travers, Patrick White, Francis Harbart, Richard Barnewall, Sheriff, Alderman John More, Attorneys for Water- ford, Maurice Wise and William Lumbard, Attorneys for Drogheda, Robert Kelly and Robert Fleming, and the Attorneys for Galway. .Such an impressive list of public officials and gentlemen is indicative that many of the middle and upper classes in Ireland at this time were quite concerned about the state of the Irish economy and in sympathy with Croft's evaluation of the currency problem and what should be done about it. For Croft's other views on the currency question, X34 921: §4331 1523, Ed. VI, 111, No. 50; No. 80 (I); NO. 31. 17Apc, III, 271, 27s. 18Apc, IV, 105. 1993}: §L£:, Ire., Ed. VI, Iv, NO. 53, 189 whether it be expedient that the King's money, current in Ireland should be of such value as that in England? Whether it be profitable for the King but not for the people or for the people but not for the King?20 To which this reply was given: that money "is for none other use, but for exchange” and Should be taken for the value proclaimed. "Yt followeth not . . . that we sholde esteme anything otherwyse then reason wolde we did esteme it. Yf we wolde use leade to make armour or edge tooles to make monney it wolde . ruste, canker, break and be fylthie."21 The mines which were to provide the silver for the new coins, despite their initial promise, proved unprofitable. An investi- gation which was conducted into the state of the mines in January 1553 by Sir Edward North, Sir John Mason, and Sir Martin Bowes, re- vealed that from April 1551 when the mines were first begun, to April 1552, the total expense of their Operation amounted to over 6,000 pounds. Operating expenses alone totaled more than 3,000 pounds, in addition to the 2,000 pounds which had been paid out for the services of the imported German miners. By way of contrast, the King's actual profit from the mines amounted to only 474 pounds. This left a huge deficit of over 5,000 pounds which had to be made up from funds out of the royal treasury. AS a consequence, in February 1553, the decision was taken to discontinue Operation of the mines indefinitely, the cost of their upkeep regarded as being too Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, III, No. 75. 21931: §;E:’ Ire., Ed. VI, 111, NO. 80 (I); given on December 22, 1552 to the Privy Council. 190 extravagant and the yields too unsatisfactory to justify their continued activity.22 Added to the problem of runaway inflation, were other diffi- culties Croft had to contend with. The chronic lack of revenue pre- vented the Lord Deputy from paying Gerald Fitderald (who had since made his peace with the English), the one year's rent of his land.23 Croft also experienced problems attempting to expel the Scots from Ulster. In September 1551, Croft made an expedition into Ulster for the purpose of engaging the forces of James MacDonnell of Raghlin, and succeeded in storming the Castle of Keanbaan which was defended by MacDonnell's brother Colla. On his way back to Dublin, Croft con- cluded agreements with O'Donnell and O'Neill, both of whom consented, "that they Should have no more Scots in Connaught."24 In spite of these assurances, however, it became necessary for Croft to send Sir 22Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, Nos. 26, 78; also, APC, IV, 208, 210, 225, 233, 239, for further mention of the mines. 23APC, IV, 31; Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, No. 49. In April 1552, GeraId—Fitzgerald—WES IEStorEd_to some of his estates by Edward VI. Shortly after Edward's death, Fitzgerald returned from France and during Wyat's rebellion rendered the new queen invaluable assist- ance which not only won him Mary's favor but eventually resulted in the complete restoration of the House of Kildare in 1554. The Kildare restoration that year was marked by the creation of Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl Of Kildare and Baron of Offaly by letters patent from the Queen dated May 13, 1554. Cal. Pat. Rolls, Phili 8 Mary, I, 177. Edward VI'S grant to Fitzgerald is recorded in a .-Pat. Close Rolls, Ire., 6 Ed. VI, Membrane 1, No. 1 (April 253—15523,— and included besides the lordships and manors of Portlester and Maylogh in County Meath, the lordships and manors of Maynooth, in County Kildare, "which were parcel of the possessions of Gerald, late Earl." 24Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, 111, NO. 52 (September 27, 1551); cf., Thomas Cusack's "Book" in Cal. Carew MS, I, pp. 235f. 191 Nicholas Bagenall, the Marshal of the Army, north once again the following November with orders to break up an alliance between the Scots and Hugh McNeill Oge.25 Notwithstanding Croft's efforts to continue the earlier attempts made by St. Leger to resettle the lands confiscated from the O'Connor and the O'More in Leix and Offaly, a large percentage of these lands still remained unleased26 and there were complaints that the maintenance of the forts was exceedingly expensive, the cost of their upkeep being in excess of 7,000 marks annually.27 From the towns came reports that the poor were near starvation and that a great part of the country "lieth waste," largely as a consequence of the unsettled state of the currency, or so it was 8 assumed.2 To make matters more complicated for Croft's administration, piracy continued to remain a grave problem, especially along the south coast,29 and although an earnest attempt was made by the Admiral of 25Cal. s.p., Ire., Ed. VI, III, NO. 65 (1), November 18, 1551. 26In order to provide a remedy for the shortage of leases while at the same time encourage additional grants, Croft and the Connmfil put forth a proposal that lands "should be made freehold instead of copyhold." Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland to the Privy Council, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, NO. 4 (January 26, 1553). 27931: §;E:, Ire., Ed. VI, IV, No, 4, 28Lord Deputy Croft to Secretary Cecil, Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, No. 27 (March 14, 1552). 29Recorded instances of piracy during 1551-1552 were numerous as Bretons, Flemings, French and English free-hooters wrecked havoc on merchant shipping Off the Irish coast. Beginning in June 1551. and continuing into 1552, the stream of complaints both from fore1gn as we11.as domestic merchants is almost endless. 192 the Fleet to capture the most notorious of the rovers, Strangewiche,30 pirates still continued to prey both on Irish as well as English merchant Shipping all along the Irish coast. Confronted by difficulties from almost every angle, Croft, as might be eXpected, soon wearied of his reSponSibilities and in Novem- 1 ber 1552 requested the King's permission to return to England.3 In his absence, the task of administering the realm was entrusted to a council of four headed by Sir Thomas Cusacke, the Lord Chancellor.32 As Croft's successor, it was proposed to return St. Leger for a third term.:53 However, the King's death intervened before the intention could become a reality. As a result, the actual decision to re- appoint Sir Anthony was deferred until after Mary's accession had taken place and the new queen was secure Upon her throne. Arriving in Ireland in October 1553 aboard the man—O-war, Boulogne, which had been Offered for that purpose by the Mayor of 3OAPC, IV, 222, 230, 236. The ships involved in the attempted capture ofrfhis reckless buccaneer were the Royal Navy warships, Marie Willoughby and Petre, out of the Portsmouth naval base. The Earl of Desmond's forces were also sequestered. 31921; §;£;. Ire., Ed. VI, IV, No. 62. 32The three remaining members of the governing council were Justices Aylmer and Luttrell, and the Baron of the Exchequer White. Cal. S.P., Ire., Ed. VI, IV, No. 62. 33The proposal came in one of the King's dispatches to the Earl of Tyrone sometime in May 1553 in which Edward reassures the Earl of his favor by allowing his Countess to return to him, referring him for further particulars, "to Sir Anthony Sentleger, whom he pur- poses to send presently into Ireland as Lord Deputy." Cal: 542:, 1353'! Ed. VI, IV, NO. 80. 193 Bristol,34 St. Leger's immediate task was to discover a way in which to deal successfully with the severe revenue crisis which, since his departure in June 1551, had grown to immense prOportions and was, in large measure, reSponsible for Croft's return. Indeed, revenue shortages had become SO serious that in March 1554, the Privy Council decided to order a full-scale inquiry into the state Of the Irish accounts.35 The commission which was sent to investigate matters found the accounts of the Lord Treasurer, Andrew Wise, to be in such disarray that he was condemned to make amends for over 10,000 pounds and imprisoned in the Fleet.:56 So urgent was the demand for money that the government felt compelled to resort to forced loans from 34APC, IV, 354. St. Leger's Ship was captained by Jeffrey Coke, "one-Of'the Quene's Heighnes' servauntes." In addition to his duties transporting the newly-appointed viceroy to Ireland, Coke was also charged with "transporting aswell . . . suche letters as shalbe addressed to and fro in her Majesties affaires . . ." That a ship of such size--the Boulogne weighed over 30 tons portage--was utilized for this task points out the extreme threat which piracy posed for unarmed ships passing to and from Ireland and emphasizes the need for an adequate sea power to deal with the danger. 3SAPC, IV, 4, 5. The commission which was sent comprised the Lord TreaSUFEr, the Lord Steward, Secretary Bourne and Sir Richard Southwell. Their instructions were to call before them Sir Edward Rouse and Valentine Brown and take any means necessary, "to under- stand in what terms thaccount of Andrewe Wise . . . Standeth in, and to make reporte unto the Bourde of that they shall fynde in that behalf, to thende that thereupon suche further ordre maye be taken herin as to equyte and justice shall apperteigne." 36Andrew Wise succeeded Sir William Brabazon to the office of Vice-Treasurer upon the latter's death in 1552 after a long and distinguished career in public service. The date of Wise's appoint- ment came on July 31, 1552 in the form of a patent to the Lord Deputy Croft, APC, IV, 105. Subsequent to his imprisonment, Wise was de- prived of his office by order of the Privy Council on May 8, 1553 and his place taken by Sir Edmund Rouse, APC, IV, 182; Cal: S423, 1323, Philip 6 Mary, I, No. 5. _ 194 merchants and private individuals from time to time. Coinciding with St. Leger's arrival in October, Robert Peckham, the Treasurer of the Irish Mint, ordered that the sum of money previously borrowed "from certain merchants and others in Ireland . . . for the Queen's use," be repaid.37 At one point the following summer, the critical finan- cial situation confronting the Council of Ireland necessitated a forced loan of 6,000 pounds which was extracted from the executors of the late Justice Luttrell, to be repaid, it was agreed, over a period of six years in installments of 1,000 pounds per annum.38 As a final solution to the revenue crisis, forced loans were not enough, and, as the problem mounted, it was found necessary to supplement them with direct subsidies from the royal treasury. Shortly after St. Leger's appointment, 20,000 pounds were apprOpriated out of the treasury and delivered to Andrew Wise, "to be emploied about the Quenes Heighnes affairs there [Ireland]."39 In September 1554, Peck- ham was directed to pay "to the Deputy of Ireland in preste 300 pounds 40 In October, a warrant of pay- for the defraying of charges there." ment in the amount of 200 pounds was issued to Sir George Stanley, "towardes prest money and wages of 200 archers out of Lancashire for Ireland,"41 and the following summer, on July 26, 1555, an appeal was made to the Lord Treasurer, 37APC, IV, 359. 38APC, v, 36. 3QAPC, IV, 353. 4OAPC, V, 59. 41APC, IV, 354. 195 to begynne to make payment of suche Treasure as is to be sent into Irelande to Mr. Rouse, who hathe of longtyme tarried here for the same, in consideration that the King and Quenes Majesties charges dailie increasith there for wante of paye. Here was clear evidence that Ireland was definitely not paying its own way. In Spite Of the extraction of forced loans and general sub- sidies from the royal coffers, no matter what was tried, the financial problem in Ireland seemed to defy solution. Compounding the problem of revenue deficiencies was the exis- tence of a debased coinage, a problem which carried over from Croft's administration to plague St. Leger for the duration of his last term in Office. In order to ascertain the number of new coins minted since 1552, an inventory was taken of all the coins in pence in February 1556; however, it is uncertain what effect this action had on the state of the Irish currency or whether it helped to mitigate the grave inflationary crisis to any appreciable extent.43 Another problem which Sir Anthony inherited from the previous administration was that of piracy. An indication of just how serious the problem was regarded came Shortly after St. Leger assumed office when as one of his first official acts he recommended that immediate compensation be paid to a Polish merchant by the name of Cernin Gertzin of Danzig, "who repayreth thither to demaunde justice towching a Shipp of his whiche he allgeth hath byn lately Spoyled there."44 DeSpite the capture of the notorious free-booter, Stephenson, by the 45 Earl of Desmond in May 1555, the south coast of Ireland continued to 42APC, v, 164. 43APC, IV, 242. 44 45 APC, IV, 366. AFC, IV, 126. 196 remain a haven for sea-rovers, who kept the Admiralty Courts quite occupied by their daring eXploits and provided plentiful Opportunity of demonstrating the law's delays.46 Other problems remained as well. The lack of justice admin- istered by the courts prompted a series of complaints both to the Lord Deputy and the King and Queen. On May 20, 1555, Patrick Roche of Waterford, wrote to the Lord Deputy and Lord Chancellor, "with a Supplication to the King and Quenes Majesties, . . . requyreng them to mynster justyce SO as the poore man be not dryven further to complayne."47 A like grievance came in a letter from Piers Walshe to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland, "with a Supplication en- closed exhibited to the King and Quenes Majesties," dated September 28, 1555, compleyning for the want of justice in the matter of landes whereunto he claymeth title there for redresse wherof they be required fourth with to examine the matter and to take suche finall ordre therein as to equitie and justice shall apperteyne.48 Whatever the many difficulties which remained to harry his final tenure in Office, Sir Anthony's third administration was not without its noteworthy developments. One of the most Significant of these occurred in the fall of 1555 with the formation of the Bann Corporation. In a suit made to the King and Queen on September 26, on behalf of the Vice-Treasurer, Sir Edmund Rowse, John Parker, the Master of the Rolls and a former secretary to St. Leger, Richard Bethell, Thomas Kent, William Pyres, William Crofton, and Edward 46APC, V, 99, 101, 108, 250. 47APC, V, 129 (May 20, 1555). 48APC, V, 180, 181. 197 Lorkin, all prominent gentlemen, it was proposed that a corporation of adventurers be established for the purpose of eXploiting the salmon fisheries of the River Bann in Ulster. Accordingly, a grant was authorized which permitted the sponsors of the projected scheme not only the privilege of securing profits from fish, but also empowered them to, take any suche convenient grounde upon the Northe partes of their Majesties' realme as be their discretions maye seame convenient for their suerties, and the same grounde so taken to make stronge and fortifie, and being fortified to kepe and defend it in forceable maener to their Majesties' use against any rebelles or ennomyes of the saide realme of Ireland during their Heighnesses pleasure.49 The newly-incorporated company was also directed to perform, "certayne sarvice in the Northe parties of the saide realme in places nowe without the leave or privitie of their Majesties inhabited with the 50 . ." These serVices Scottes, not being there naturall subjectes were Obviously intended to be of a military nature Since their ulti- mate Objective was to expel the Scots completely from Ulster. By utilizing the company in a military as well as economic capacity, it was expected that the troublesome Scots could be expelled in a manner which would avoid relying exclusively on the already overburdened finances Of the Crown. The formation of the Bann venture, therefore, had motives to it which were other than purely commercial.51 49APC, V, 183. SOAPC, v, 259. 1In Spite of the attempts which were made to stabilize the Situation in Ulster, that region continued to remain in a state of ex- treme confusion complicated by the influx of large numbers of warlike Scots which the formation of the Bann Corporation failed either to prevent or reverse. St. Leger's efforts to pacify the province were to no avail being continually hampered by shortages of money and an 198 To pinpoint the precise origins of this ambitious sixteenth century enterprise, it is necessary to revert back to the years 1541 and 1542 and the treaties which St. Leger concluded then with Con O'Neill and his satellite clans.52 Besides attempting to bring the area ruled by this powerful Irish chieftain more directly under Eng- lish control, these agreements were also meant to Open up the north of Ireland as a source of profit to the Crown. It was precisely for this reason that a treaty with the sub-chieftain McQuillen was con- cluded in May 1542.53 The treaty with McQuillen was deemed highly important to the English because his lands adjoined the rich salmon fisheries of the River Bann which, if properly exploited, could pro- vide the King with sorely needed revenues. With this in mind, St. Leger promptly dispatched his trusted lieutenant, Sir John Travers, northward to come to the aid of McQuillen who at the time was engaged in a war against his arch-rival, O'Cahan. In conjunction with his Irish ally, Travers succeeded in capturing the strategically situated Castle of Coleraine in which he stationed a garrison in order to de- prive O'Cahan of the fishery's use. Following the capture of Castle Coleraine, a treaty was concluded between the quarreling factions with the English acting as intermediary. In it, both parties pledged not to molest fishermen utilizing the waters of the Bann or to exact inadequate sea power to patrol the waters separating northern Ireland from Scotland. V3, Hooker in Holinshed's Chronicles, VI, 325. 52Supra., Chapter 111, pp. 101, 102. 535.9. Hen. VIII, III, 381. 199 customs from them. O'Cahan, in turn, leased Coleraine Castle to Travers for 100 pounds a year.54 Control of this vital outlet to the Scottish Sea thus gave to the English a foothold near the mouth of the River Bann and thereby prepared the way for the creation of the Bann Corporation to take place at a future date. The significance Of this event in terms of its impact on the evolution of Anglo-Irish relations cannot be overestimated. It cer- tainly would be no overstatement to make the claim that the Bann Corporation was the first chartered company of its kind to be estab- lished by the English for the purpose of colonial exploitation. The fact that Ireland and not Africa (as is sometimes supposed) was des- ignated as the field of enterprise for this bold endeavor, in addition to the highly autonomous position in which the terms of the charter placed Rowse and his associates, suggests that a precedent had been set in Ireland during the reign of Queen Mary for the great chartered companies which, in future years, were to become such a prominent feature of English colonial expansion overseas. Moreover, the fact that the charter was granted, "at the mocion of the Lord Deputy [St. Leger] and others of the Counsaill of the realme of Ireland, ."55 reveals that Sir Anthony's role in the actual formation of the company was anything but passive. St. Leger's last term as Lord Deputy witnessed progress in other areas besides. The plantation program which Sir Anthony was charged with implementing during his previous term in office56 and 54 55 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 407, 408. APC, V, 183. S6Supra., Chapter V., pp. 158f. 200 continued by Croft's administration,but with limited success, was renewed in earnest, Sir Anthony being directed in his instructions from Queen Mary to grant lands in fee-simple at a small quit-rent either to Englishmen or Irishmen on condition that the lessee con» struct and maintain farm buildings and agree to cultivate a certain portion of the land.57 The chief motive behind these grants was the attempt to deveIOp the lands in Leix and Offaly along lines similar to those in Leinster. In conjunction with grants of land in Leix and Offaly, St. Leger and the Council of Ireland were permitted to diSpose of Crown lands in Ireland, to the clear value of 1,000 pounds and not above for term of lives or years or in fee tail or fee simple, the money arising from the sales to be expressed in the patents and writings and to be paid to Rouse or the Vice-Treasurer. The lands which were sold, in turn, were to be held in chief by knight service, "without rent or tenth reserved, except messuages, etc., ."58 Resorting to the sale of Crown lands in this manner was done in light of the continued severity of the financial crisis, presumably to offset eXpenditures by attempting to provide additional sources of revenue for the Crown. As such, it is but one more indi- cation that the Irish administration could not support itself from customary sources. The remainder of St. Leger's third term in Office was marred by scandal. Sometime during the latter part of 1555, Sir William Fitzwilliam who was at the time temporary keeper of the great seal of 57Cal. Pat. Rolls Ire., 1 Philip 6 Mary, Membrane 2, NO. 4. 58Cal. Pat. Rolls, Philip gMarZ, I, 103. 201 Ireland,59 came forward and accused Sir Anthony of falsifying the Irish accounts in favor of the ex-Vice-Treasurer, Andrew Wise, who, on a previous occasion,60 was found guilty Of financial irregularities. Fitzwilliam's charges, besides that of partiality toward Wise, also included, "taking gifts at the hands of Irishmen to show them partial favour."61 St. Leger immediately issued a reply, vigorously denying the charges leveled against him by Fitzwilliam and affirming his im- partiality toward Wise.62 His response, however, apparently failed to satisfy the Privy Council of his innocence and he was consequently recalled in April 1556, "to answer the accusations made against him by Sir William Fitzwilliam.”63 Upon his return to England, Sir Thomas Radcliffe (afterward created Earl of Sussex), was appointed to replace him as Lord Deputy.64 590N8, x1x, 232. 6OSupra., p. 193, 61Cal. S.P., Ire., Philip 6 Mary, I, No. 8 (I). 62St. Leger's reply to Fitzwilliam's charges came sometime in January 1556. Cal. S.P., Ire., Philip 6 Mary, I, NO. 8 (I). 63Cal. S.P., Ire., Philip a Mary, I, NO. 10. 64Cal. Pat., Close Rolls, Ire., 4 8 5 Philip 6 Mary, Membrane 6, No. 57. The patent for RaHCIiffeTs appointment was issued on March 9, 1556. His powers were very similar to those granted to St. Leger by Edward VI in 1547. Sir Thomas arrived in Ireland to take up his official duties in April 1556 and was formally sworn to office on May 1. 202 There is a passage in Edmund Campion's, History p£_lreland which suggests that Sir Anthony's political demise in 1556 was the direct result of his views on religion. As he states: Queene Mary established in her Crowne, committed her govern- ment once more to Saintleger, whom sundry Noblemen pelted and lifted at, till they shouldered him quite out of all credite. He to be counted forward and plyable to the taste of King Edward the sixt his raigne, rymed against the Reall Presence for his pastime, and let the papers fall where Courtiers' might light theron, who greatly magnified the pitth and conveyance of that noble sonnet. But the originall of his own handwriting, had the same firmely (though contrary to his owne Iudgement) wandering into many hands, that his adversarie caught it in his way; the spot wherof he could never wipe out. Thus he was removed . 65 The "papers" which Campion speaks of may well have been the poem against the doctrine of Transsubstantiation entitled, "The Ballad of the Euchrist, being a corrupt judgment of the Euchrist," which John Foxe66 claims St. Leger earlier wrote in honor of Edward VI. Assuming that both Campion and Foxe are correct in their assumption, it certainly would not have taken the more Catholic members of Mary's Council long to press for Sir Anthony's immediate recall, in spite of his past record of toleration toward Catholics in 6SEdmund Campion, A_Histor of Ireland (Modern ed., New York: Scholars Fascimiles 6 Reprints, 19§077'p. 124. Campion's state- ment seems to conflict with Father Ronan's theory mentioned in Chapter V, p. 182. 6 6 V., Rev. Stephen Reed Cattley, George Townsend, eds., The Acts and MOhuments p£_JOhn Foxe (London: R. B. Seely G W. BurnsIdE, 1841), V11, 7191 Foxe entitled the poem, "The Instruction of King Edward the Sixt given to Sir Anthony Seyntleger, Knight of his privie chamber, being a corrupt judgement of the Euchrist." Although his statements about its precise authorship are somewhat ambiguous, the impression is nonetheless gained from Foxe that St. Leger was the real author, an Opinion which is strongly denied by later writers, including J. G. Nichols (Lit. Rem., Ed. VI, 1, viii, ix). 203 Ireland. Be that as it may, the most likely explanation for his sudden downfall had more to do with the accusations that were being leveled against him than with religion.67 Indeed, so serious were these charges that in March 1557, it was decided to convene a hearing by the Privy Council into the matter. Preparatory to the upcoming investigation, Sir Thomas Mildmaye was sent to Ireland with orders to confiscate and bring with him upon his return, "all suche bookes and nootes as concerne Sir Anthonye St. Leger's accounte."68 The following May, Sir Anthony's servant, Stephen Warren, "was committed to the Marshalsea to be secretlie kepte without conference with any man otherwise then by ordre from hence."69 The hearings began on September 26, 1557 with Andrew Wise presenting evidence, testefieng the receipt of sundrie sommes of money by Sir Anthony St. Leger, knight of him and others, that is to say, 67This is also the Opinion of Robert Dudley-Edwards, Church 6 State ip_Tudor Ireland, p. 165. There were, of course, other factors present which may also have influenced the decision to recall him besides those already mentioned, namely his age and the state of his health (Sir Anthony was over 60 and suffering from sciatica which he had been afflicted with as early as 1552. Writing to Northumberland on March 10 of that year he stated: "for thys ij days I have bene so payned with the syatyca as I ame nether hable well to go nor ryde." £a_l_. a” 113., Ed. VI, IV, NO. 22. 68APC, VI, 70. 69AFC, VI, 86, 87. Warren was shortly thereafter released following Eh‘8ppeal on his behalf by St. Leger. His release was made on condition that Sir Anthony assume the responsibility for his appearance before the Council to respond to questions the members wished put to him concerning St. Leger's accounts. 204 oon bill bearing date the Vth of August in the first yere of the Quene's Majesties reigne conteyning the receipt of two hundred pounds of the said Sir Anthony St. Leger to him and others. Wise then followed this with other evidence of St. Leger's alleged irregularities. A bill bearing the date August 30, 1553 was pro- duced which purported to Show receipt by St. Leger of 700 pounds from Philip Cockerhan, Collector Of the Petty Customs of London. On the 22nd of October the same year, the sum of 562 pounds, 6 Shillings, 8 pence was supposedly received by Sir Anthony, "and no cause declared whie." On October S, 320 pounds was alleged to have been received by the former viceroy, "pp ppppa, and no cause eXpressed wherefore;" and on the following day, Wise reported that 267 pounds, 14 shillings was received by a Robert Pryrathe from St. Leger, "an no declaracion for what purpose." To make matters worse as far as Sir Anthony was concerned, Wise claimed that the evidence which he had just presented to the Council was subscribed in the hand of the man he was accusing. The sum total of the illegal transactions, Wise estimated in con- cluding his testimony against St. Leger, came to over 2,000 pounds.70 Following Wise's testimony, St. Leger made his appearance before the Council and presented his counter-arguments.71 These ap- parently failed to convince the members of his innocence for in December 1558, it was ordered, that where he [St. Leger] is indebted into the Quenes Majestie in great sommes of money . . . to make payment thereof to her Highnes' use, and to signifye with Spede to the Lordes what he myndeth to doo herein.72 70APC, VI, 173, 174 (September 26, 1557). 71APC, VI, 182. 72APC, VII, 14. 205 For someone with Sir Anthony's long and distinguished career in public life, here was the ultimate humiliation. However, while it appears that the Privy Council was sure Of his guilt, as late as 1564, it remained uncertain precisely how much St. Leger had actually em- bezzled, in Spite of Wise's earlier testimony swearing to the exact amount Sir Anthony was alleged to have taken.73 Did St. Leger commit the crime of embezzlement during his last tenure as viceroy? Taking the evidence presented by his detractors at face value, it would seem so. And yet, the fact that the investi- gation into the matter was continued beyond the time of his death in 1559, tends to cast serious doubt on the validity of the original accusations which were raised against him. As for Sir Anthony's adversaries and their motives for at- tacking the sickly Old man, given the nature of sixteenth century court politics, it is highly doubtful that anything more than jealousy, animated by an inordinate amount Of personal ambition, motivated men such as Sir William Fitzwilliam and Andrew Wise to level their charges. Fitzwilliam, a young man scarcely past the age of thirty at the time his accusations against St. Leger were made, was the leader of a group of malcontents who were Opposed to the aging Sir Anthony almost from the start of his final term in office. Born in 1526, Sir William was related through his mother to Sir John Russell, the first Earl of Bedford by whom he gained entrance into the Court circle of Edward 74 VI. Even though a staunch Protestant, Fitzwilliam stood loyally by Mary'and supported her claim to the throne during the ill-fated Lady 73APC, VII, 192. 74ONE, XIX, 232. 206 Jane Grey episode. Rewarded for his fidelity, Fitzwilliam was created temporary keeper of the great seal of Ireland, a position which he held from his appointment on July 3, 1555, until September 13 of the same year.75 Sir Williams' physical connection with Ireland began in October 1554, when he accompanied the ex-Lord Chancellor Sir John Alen and Valentine Brown as part of a royal commission sent by Queen Mary to Ireland to assist St. Leger in managing the sale of the Crown lands which Sir Anthony was directed to dispose of in accordance with his instructions in October 1553.76 The composition of this com- mission deserves Special mention for besides the aged Alen, a past foe of St. Leger, it included the fanatical Brown who, like Fitz- william, was a staunch Protestant who would, during the time of Elizabeth, publish a notable tract on the Reformation of Ireland in which he advocated the total extermination of all Irish Catholics, particularly those related in any way to the House of Kildare.77 The chief beneficiary of Fitzwilliam's successful campaign to unseat St. Leger was the equally youthful high-nosed figure of Sir Thomas Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter, soon to become the Earl of Sussex and Sir Anthony's successor as Lord Deputy of Ireland. Born the same year as Fitzwilliam, Fitzwalter was related through his mother to the Dukes of Norfolk, she being the daughter of Sir Thomas 8 Howard.7 As a member of England's privileged class, Fitzwalter, from the start, enjoyed a highly distinguished public career. In 1544, he 75 Cox, 1, 302. 76 . . Cal. S.P., Ire., Philip 8 Mary, I, No. 2. 77 7 Cos, I, 302. 8Ath. Cant., I, 462. 207 had attended Henry VIII on his expedition to France, and in 1547 was one of the lords who bore the canopy at Henry's funeral. In the ex- pedition against Scotland which was conducted that same year, Fitz- walter was given a command and participated in the Battle of Pinkie on September 10 which nearly cost him his life. In October 1551, he met briefly with the Queen Dowager of Scotland and took part in the bar- riers of the king's court during the month of January 1552. In March the following year, he was elected one of the knights for the county of Norfolk to the Parliament which assembled on March 1. Al- though his name appears among those who witnessed the will of Edward VI whereby the Crown was settled on Lady Jane Grey, like Fitz- william, Fitzwalter Offered his loyalty to Queen Mary and rendered her essential service in the suppression of Wyat's Rebellion.7 It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time when Fitzwilliam and Fitzwalter first became acquainted with each other. A good guess would be that their association began sometime after March 1554 when Sir Thomas accompanied Sir Williams' uncle, the Earl of Bedford, as an emissary to the Emperor and Prince Philip of Spain to conclude a marriage treaty between the Crown Prince and Queen Mary. Upon the successful conclusion of their mission, Bedford and Fitzwalter re- turned to England and were among those present at the marriage banquet which was held at Winchester on July 25, 1554.80 Perhaps it was through Bedford that the two men came to know each other. In fact, their introduction may have taken place at the nuptial ceremony itself, although lacking a complete list of the guests present, it is 795Eflg Efiflfiga 1. 462- 80Chron. 9: Jane, p. 170. 208 impossible to determine all those who were in attendance. At any rate, it is not long after that we find Fitzwilliam coming under the influence of Fitzwalter who can be seen referring to him as a friend to whom he would gladly Show pleasure.81 In August 1556, Fitzwilliam was among those who accompanied Sir Thomas to Ireland following his appointment as Lord Deputy the previous April and, from that time on, the two men were in frequent contact. Being part of a royal commission seemed to provide Fitzwilliam with the Opportunity he needed to attack St. Leger and what better way to do this than to accuse the Old man of financial dishonesty at a time when the revenue problem in Ireland threatened to reach crisis prOportionS. In his attempt, Fitzwilliam found a willing accomplice in Andrew Wise who, in light of Similar charges of financial dis- honesty which were leveled against him earlier,82 was anxious, no doubt, to shift the blame for any discrepancies away from himself and toward the unsuspecting St. Leger. By allying himself with Fitzwilliam in this attempt, perhaps Wise thought he could succeed in clearing his own name and restore himself to favor under a new viceroy. Whatever the precise reasons for their complicity, Wise and Fitzwilliam suc- ceeded in their aim. Hampered by illness, Sir Anthony was unable to withstand this final, relentless assault on his character and integ- rity by a group of youthful, clever adversaries who, in their lust for power, contributed to his final undoing. 81Cal. Carew MS, I, pp. 257, 260. 82Supra., p. 193. 209 Regardless of his recall in 1556, and the scandal arising out of Fitzwilliam's charges, St. Leger's reputation within Court circles remained unaffected. In April 1557, he accompanied King Philip in a procession of notable dignitaries at Whitehall to celebrate St. George's Day, ”the Quen['s] grace lokyng owt of a wyndow [beside] the court on the garden syde,"83 and on October 27, he was present as one of the chief mourners at the funeral of the Countess of Arundel, along with Lady Worcester, Lady Lumley and Lord North.84 Sir Anthony himself survived long enough to witness the final days of Queen Mary and the beginning of a new reign under the youthful Queen Elizabeth. St. Leger's advanced years and the poor State of his health did not keep him from remaining active in public life. In 1558, we find him taking part in the ill-fated attempt to relieve Calais which fell to the French that year after 220 years of English control. Early in January 1558, a letter was addressed to him for a levy of 100 tenants to be employed as foot soldiers for the reinforcement of the beleagured garrison.85 Later that same month, he was given permission to furnish his men, "with such armour and weapons as remayneth Of the Quenes Majesties store at Dover . . .," and in the same diSpatch, "wylled to haste over with all Spede with his men."86 832h3_Diar pf_Henry Machyp, J. G. Nichols, ed. (London: The Camden SOOiety, 1868), XLII, 134. 84Ma¢hyn'5. Diagy, p. 155. 85522, VI. 226, 227 (January 1, 1558). 86APC, VI, 246 (January 26, 1558). 210 However, before he could complete the crossing with his small force, bad weather forced a postponement of the expedition. Nevertheless, considering his physical condition at the time, Sir Anthony's willing- ness to accompany his men on such a hazardous mission Speaks well of his dedication to duty and his devotion to queen and country. Nor was St. Leger's vast knowledge of Ireland overlooked. In 1557, a suggestion was made by an unknown source that the mines in Wexford, discontinued in February 1553, be reOpened and that leases be made to anyone willing to work them. As if in direct response to this prOposal, the decision was taken sometime during the summer of 1558 to reopen the mines and St. Leger was called upon to render his advice.87 On August 9, 1558, the Master of the Horse and Sir John Baker were ordered to, write unto Sir Anthony St. Leger thunderstande of hym hys knowledge touching the saide myne workes, and what the oer already gotten may be worth and what the quantitie therof is, with his Opinion also what condicions were best to be devesed for the Quenes Majesties commodity and suretye in the letting of the same mynes . Upon receipt of his reply, Sir William Petre and Baker were directed, to call unto them suche as they shall thinke mete for that purpose and to consider in what sorte the saide mynes may best be letton . . . and see what bargayne they may bring them unto for her Hieghnes' best advauntage . 89 87This was done more than likely in consideration of St. Leger's past experience as director of the Short-lived Clonmines mining project in 1550-1551. 88APC, VI, 370, 371. 89APC, VI, 371. 211 Exactly what Sir Anthony's suggestions were is not known, although in the Carew papers90 there is a lengthy document entitled, "little and short abstract," which elaborates plans for a projected mining scheme which Elizabeth and her advisors were to put into actual operation in 1559. The idea was that the mint should be worked in conjunction with the mines, something which had been attempted earlier but with very little success.91 The analogy between the project which was now being advanced and the one previously tried out in May 1551, just prior to St. Leger's return to England, is worth mentioning. In fact, the two months de- lay from the time of Sir Anthony's recall from office in April 1551 and his actual departure in June, may have had something to do with the Wexford mines whose operation was then being conducted in con- junction with the mint. His former experience with the mines, plus the fact that it was primarily St. Leger whose advice was solicited when the decision was taken to reopen the mines in 1558, raises specu- lation that Sir Anthony may well have been reSponsible for the ideas contained in the Carew document, if not its actual author. Indeed, it is possible that some of the ideas contained in the 1557 document may have found their way into St. Leger's reply to Petre and Baker in 1558. It is also possible for Sir Anthony to have been the unknown source who offered the suggestion to reopen the mines and lease them out to interested parties. Whatever the case may be, that the Privy Council found it necessary to consult St. Leger on such an important matter, demonstrates their appreciation of the knowledge which Sir 90Cal. Carew E» I, No. 213. 918upra., pp. 166f. 212 Anthony derived from his past eXperience administering the mines. In doing so, they could not have rendered a more fitting testimony to his Skill as an administrator nor provided a better way to counteract the ill effects of the scandal under which St. Leger labored during his final days on earth. Sir Anthony's demise came on Thursday, March 16, 1559, "at his howse of Vauckham in Kent." He was buried on April 5 in the parish church of All Hallows, ”hard by the said howse."92 Eight days later, his wife, Lady Agnes, also succumbed and was buried alongside her husband on April 4, 1559.93 "It is remarkable," exclaims Hasted, "that the wife died eight days after the husband but was buried one day before him."94 St. Leger's epitaph reads as follows: Sir Anthony Sentleger, knight of the most honorable order of the garter, gentleman of the privie chamber, and employed in most honourable offices under the most renouned Henry Eight and Edward the Sixth, Kinges; twice deputy of Ireland, by whose meanes in his first government the nobilitie and com- mons there were induced by free and general consent to geve unto Henrie the Eighth King of England that province, also Regalia Jura the title and sceptre Of Kinge to him and his posteritie for ever whose predecessors before were inituled Lordes of Ireland. This grave councellor after this course of life spent the service of thies two rare and redoubted kinges, having endured nevertheless some crosses in the tyme of Queene Mary, and yet living to see the felicious raigne of our present peerlesse Queene Elizabeth departed anno salutis 1559 aged about 63 years.95 92Machyn's Diary, p. 372. 93Machyn's Diary, p. 372. 94Hasted, II, 243. 95Ath. Cant., I, 196. 213 According to John Hooker, it is the fatal destiny of every good governor to be Slandered, "for the more paines they take in tillage the worse is their harvest . . ." On the contrary, he con- tinues, "the better be their services, the greater is the malice and enuie against them; being not unlike a fruitefull apple tree, which the more apples he beareth the more cudgels be hurled at him."96 It seems highly unfortunate that someone with Sir Anthony St. Leger's past record of distinguished service in public life Should be forced to end his days under the dark pall of scandal. And yet, as the chronicler states, this seemed to be the fate of every good governor during the sixteenth century and Sir Anthony was certainly no exception to the rule. Writing to Sir William Petre in the wake of the initial attacks made against him late in 1555, St. Leger stated in a tone of mild frustration: ”I have meat to the surlip and drink to the netherlip, and can reach neither of them."97 If the barometer of a man's career is measured by the frequency of criticism leveled against him, Sir Anthony could go down in history as one of England's finest Viceroy's in Ireland. Whether he was actually guilty of the charges brought against him or was, in reality, slandered mainly on account of his enviable record as an administrator, one fact stands out above all others: that as a viceroy, to quote Hooker, "this man ruled and governed vierie iustlie and uprightlie in good 96Hooker in Holinshed's ChroniCles, VI, 325. 97921. §_._P_.. Ire., Philip 6 Mary, I, No. a. 214 . 98 . . . conscience . . ." Whatever the actual verdict on his guilt or innocence, there could be no finer monument to Sir Anthony St. Leger's memory than this. 98Hooker, 325. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION In evaluating the life and career of Sir Anthony St. Leger, one cannot help but take notice of his ability as an administrator. According to Sir James Ware, St. Leger "was a man very well versed in Irish affairs."1 Froude Speaks of him as a man of great ability and one who displayed a keen appreciation of the Irish problem: The policy of St. Leger had been "to make things quiet”; to overlook small offenses so long as the general order was unbroken, and to be contented if each year the forms of law could be pushed something deeper beyond the borders of the Pale. His greatest success had been prevailing upon an O'Toole to accept the decent dignity Of sheriff of Wicklow, As a further merit, and a great one, he had governed eco- nomicglly . . . His maxim had been--Ireland for the Irish This view is supported by that of Richard Bagwell who also places St. Leger far ahead of his times in his attitude toward those he governed. Referring to Sir Anthony's toleration of the Irish, he states: He thought that Irishmen on the whole kept their word as well as Englishmen, "and if Irishmen use their own laws, so doth the Earl of Ormond and all the Lords Marchers in Ireland." We have here a line of argument very common in our own day 1Ware, p. 140. 2Froude, V, 381. 215 216 [Bagwell was writing in 1885 while Ireland was agitating for home rule], but very rare in that of Henry VIII, and St. Leger must be credited with unusual breath of view. The Irish customs were in truth necessary; for there was then no way of enforcing English law, and the difficulty of applying it fully has not disappeared even in the reign of Queen Victoria. The implication contained in the latter part of Bagwell's statement is that Sir Anthony was well aware of this. The facts about St. Leger's career as Lord Deputy of Ireland bear these Opinions out. That he was called upon to serve as Viceroy on three separate occasions under three monarchs testifies to his respectability as an administrator and chief governor. His compre- hension of the Irish problem is embodied in a Statement from the preamble of an ordinance made in 1542: Quia nondum Sic sapiunt leges et jura, ut secundum ea jam immediate vivere et regi possint "because the [Irish] as yet do not savor the laws [of England] as immediately to live after and be ruled by them"; and while it gained for him a high reputation for fairness among his Irish contemporaries, it also made him the envy of others, so much so that more than one attempt was made to discredit him in the eyes of his superiors.4 In addition to being an administrator of more than average caliber, Sir Anthony possessed other qualities as well. Of these, especially noteworthy were his ideas on religious toleration. Although 3Bagwell, I, 283, 284. 4Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies p£_En land, new ed., P. Austen Nuttall (New York: AK; Press, Inc., 1965), II, 140. A marked indication of Sir Anthony's high esteem among the Irish is afforded by the arrival in Dublin of the Earls of Tyrone (with his Countess), Desmond, Thomond, and Clanricard during the autumn of 1550 for the purpose of welcoming him back to Ireland upon his re- appointment as Lord Deputy for a second term, and of Sitting with him at the Council Board. Cal. S.P. Ire., Ed. VI, 11, No. 55. 217 the First Book of Common Prayer was compiled and published in Ireland under St. Leger's sanction, the hesitancy which he displayed in pressing the Reformation beyond what the religious sensibilities of the people would accept at the time put him far in advance of his period and rightly set him above the passions and prejudices which were such an unfortunate aSpect of sixteenth century religious life. AS an added indication of his reSpect for religious differences, Sir Anthony caused a Latin version of the new communion service to be prepared for the use of those Irish priests who were willing to adOpt the new changes in worship but who were hampered by their ignorance of the English language. Besides being the author of numerous Official letters and papers, Sir Anthony is also credited with writings of a more informal nature. His moving epitaph to the memory of his friend and associate, Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder, testifies to a fairly well-deveIOped poetic imagination and a highly sensitive character: Thus liveth the dead that whilome lived here Among the dead that quick go on the ground. Though he be dead, yet doth he quick appear By immortal fame that death cannot confound. His life for aye, his fame in trump Shall sound. Though he be dead, yet is he here alive, 5 NO death can that life from Wiatt's life deprive. SFrom B. M. Harleian MS 78, f. 7, cited from, LEE, XVI, No. 641 (p. 310). Both the St. Legers and the Wyatts were established Kentish families. Henry Wyatt, Sir Thomas' father, served on the commission of peace for Kent and for several other home counties at about the same time Ralph St. Leger was doing likewise. Their sons, Sir Thomas and Sir Anthony, made their debut at Court approximately the same time, Sir Thomas as Sewer Extraordinary in 1516, and St. Leger among those in attendance at the marriage of the Princess Mary to Louis XII of France in 1514. Later, both Wyatt and Sir Anthony were to become very useful members of the Cromwell circle and it is more than likely that the two men became acquainted at this time. Like 218 The contention made earlier by Campion and Foxe that St. Leger authored the controversial poem denouncing the doctrine of transub- stantiation, if actually true, provides additional evidence of a poetic aptitude. According to Nichols who expresses doubts about Sir Anthony's authorship, the poem itself, "is neither better nor worse than the generality of religious poetry of the time . ."6 For all his merits as an administrator and a man of tolerance and understanding, Sir Anthony's most profound impact on the history of Anglo-Irish relations comes from the contributions he made to actual policy development. His influence here can most readily be discerned in respect to two particular phases of Anglo-Irish policy evolution during the first half of the sixteenth century. The first of these occurred between the years 1540-1548, coinciding with St. Leger's first administration, and became known as the policy of Surrender and Re-grant. The second had to do with the plantation or re-settlement of Leix and Offaly in 1550-1551, which began with Sir Anthony's second term as Lord Deputy and was continued into his final term in Office. St. Leger, Sir Thomas was equally dependent on the King's Minister for favors. Unlike Sir Anthony, however, Wyatt fell temporarily out of favor after Cromwell's downfall in 1540. Accused of communicating with Cardinal Pole while still in Henry's service (Sir Thomas was then Ambassador in France), Wyatt was imprisoned in the Tower on January 17, 1541. Pardoned on March 21 without ever being brought to trial, Sir Thomas was restored to royal favor. His death occurred in 1543. Two very good biographies of Wyatt's life and career recently published are by Patricia Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Back round (Stan- ford, Calif.: The StanfordPUniverSity Press, I964 , an enneth Muir, Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt (Liverpool: The University Press, 1963). Th3_CIassicbiography of Wyatt is provided by George Fredrick Nott, ed., The Works g£_Henrngoward, Earl pf_Surrey, and p£_ Thomas Wyatt the Bid??? 2" vols. (London: 1815-1816). 6 Lit. Remains p£_§d: VI! 1, 206. 219 Essentially, the system of Surrender and Re-grant involved the surrender by local Irish chiefs of their lands to the Crown which would, in turn, re-grant them to these same chieftains in return for their pledges of fealty and military assistance. In terms of its actual Operation, this system implied the retention of lands by the native chiefs who, once rendering their submission, were given legal title to them under English law. By enticing the chiefs to surrender their lands to the English king in this manner, it was expected that the Irish princes would gradually abandon their tradi- tional Gaelic way of life by becoming dependent upon the English Crown for the legal title of their lands and honors. In short, what the system Of Surrender and Re-grant amounted to in reality was a modified feudal arrangement whereby the Irish chiefs held their authority over their clans as well as the titles to their lands from the English king rather than from Brehon Law as was customarily the case. It Should be carefully noted that this arrangement involved no expulsion of the original inhabitants of the lands in question nor did it pre- clude re-settlement by "foreigners" in place of their original in- habitants. Examining the origins of this policy, it would be no exag- geration to suggest that its basic outline was the result of pro- posals which St. Leger himself put forth to the Privy Council shortly after his initial appointment as Lord Deputy in 1540.7 As it became increasingly apparent to England's leaders that previous policy 7The reasons for undertaking the policy of Surrender and Re— grant as well as St. Leger's role in its formulation were discussed in full in Chapter III. 220 measures based solely on the use of force had failed to win over the loyalty of the native chiefs, Henry VIII, acting on recommendations advanced by St. Leger, consented to grant those Irish chiefs volun- tarily making their submission, legal title to their lands under Eng- lish law. In addition, it was also agreed to make English peers out of certain Irish chiefs who came to terms with the English. With this decision and O'Neill's subsequent creation, Earl of Tyrone in 1542, a whole new phase of Anglo-Irish relations was opened up. In place of the old aristocracy descended from the original Norman con- querors who oftentimes proved themselves quite unreliable as allies in helping the authorities govern the country, it was now decided to work in co0peration with the native chiefs, a totally new departure from previous policy measures. It was in implementing policy, however, that St. Leger achieved lasting distinction as an administrator for, above all else, he was an innovator. Abandoning the purely forceful approach of his prede- cessors in their earlier dealings with the chiefs, St. Leger adOpted a policy grounded on moderation and restraint. Although he did not totally exclude the use of force from his policy deliberations, es- pecially if a certain chief proved altogether intransigent, Sir Anthony balanced it with an equal amount of conciliation. To quote from James Gairdner: "Sir Anthony . . . knew both how to compel submissions when necessary and to win them by compromise when expedient."8 Such an approach won him the trust and confidence of the Irish leadership and gained for him the enviable distinction of being one of the only high 8L6P, XVI, lii. 221 English officials in Ireland genuinely admired and respected by those he governed. As a result, under his direction, the initial phase of Henry VIII's new Irish policy after 1540 achieved remarkable success within a relatively short Span of time. Not only did it succeed in pacifying much of the country and reconciling both the native Irish and old English aristocracy to royal control to a greater extent than could be recalled in recent memory, more important perhaps, it did so in a rather economical manner. Taking the 500 pound revenue surplus Sir Anthony was able to produce in 1547, it can rightly be said that St. Leger is probably the only English official at the time who suc— ceeded in making Ireland pay for itself, if only temporarily. Con— ciliation proved to be much cheaper than force. .As a consequence, from the period of Sir Anthony's appointment to the office of viceroy in the summer of 1540, until just prior to his departure from Ireland in the spring Of 1548, Anglo-Irish relations were characterized by a considerable accretion to English power accompanied by a slight but noteworthy reduction in expenditures. Notwithstanding its initial success, in actual fact, the system of Surrender and Re-grant was a policy which was completed on paper only. For while a significant number of chieftains made their submission to the authorities, the system itself failed to achieve universal application and, in time, was superceded by a different and more radical approach. Two major reasons may be cited for this failure. First, for all its merits, the system of Surrender and Re-grant failed to over- come the local particularisms Of the various clan chieftains and thus could not prevent the chiefs from resorting to internecine warfare 222 among themselves whenever their demands were not met to their satis- faction through arbitration. Nor did the system take into considera- tion the intricate workings of Irish law which gave to the tribes the right to hold land in common and to elect their leaders. With the imposition of feudal law with its emphasis on land ownership and primogeniture, the English carelessly overlooked how this could set chief against chief and, in the end, encourage the very process which they were trying SO earnestly to prevent. The second reason for the demise of the system of Surrender and Re-grant had to do with the inability of the English authorities at Dublin Castle effectively to enforce the system. They Simply lacked the means and the capacity to do so. Actual English control of Ireland was still limited in practice to the Pale and did not ex- tend to the interior of the country. As a consequence, even after the new Irish policy of Henry VIII had been introduced by St. Leger in 1541-1542, local princes, for the most part, were still able to manage their affairs in much the same way as before, which more often than not implied resorting to internal warfare among themselves to settle local grievances. By 1550, therefore, it had become fairly obvious to English policy-makers that an alternate approach was needed to solve the nagging Irish problem and, once again, Sir Anthony's talents as an administrator were procured. Acting on St. Leger's instructions from the Privy Council prior to his departure to assume the reins of the Irish government for a second time in the summer of 1550, a proposal was advanced by a group of prominent Anglo-Irish entrepreneurs for 223 the plantation of Leix and Offaly which resulted in the creation of the first project for a corporate private plantation by a combination of Irish and English interests. Subsequently, actual attempts were made at planting settlers in these two regions with St. Leger directed to oversee the entire undertaking. The origins of the plantation or re—settlement policy which followed, resulted from the sudden breakdown of English control im- mediately preceding St. Leger's departure from Ireland in 1548, especially along the borders of the Pale. Failure to pacify O'Connor and his ally, O'More, forced Lord Protector Somerset and the Privy Council to reconsider seriously previous land policy and to contemplate a more extreme solution. What followed was a whole new approach to the problem of land reform. The prOgram which was about to be inaugurated proceeded in two distinct stages. The first stage was implemented immediately following the defeat of the hostile O'Connor-O'More confederation by St. Leger and Bellingham late in 1547 and involved the construction of two elaborate fortresses, capable of accommodating large numbers of troops. The purpose of these forts was to screen the surrounding countryside from actual Irish raids as well as to discourage potential raids from occurring in the future and thereby make possible the further deveIOpment of the land for farming chiefly by garrison troops and army veterans who, in return for military service, were allotted land to cultivate. The second Stage involved the expulsion from Leix and Offaly, of their former inhabitants O'Connor and O'More, whose breach 224 with the authorities in 1547-1548 brought about the confiscation of their lands and those of their dependents. In place of the diSposseS- sed tribesmen, the Crown proceeded to lease portions of the confis- cated territory to reliable Anglo-Irish and English tenants for an extended period of time and at a fixed rent. In return for their leases, tenants were required not only to cultivate the lands upon which they settled but to provide for their own defense as well as for the upkeep of the forts. The justification for these grants was to insure against the possibility of the Irish reclaiming the land sometime in the future by providing encouragement for the evolution of a loyal, steadfast class of yeomanry in Ireland whose Stake in the country on behalf of the King of England would be more than incidental. The role played by Sir Anthony St. Leger in directing the new policy of land reform in 1550-1551 was no less Significant than was his part in implementing the previous policy of Surrender and Re-grant ten years before. The efforts which were inaugurated during his second administration and continued during his last term in Office to re-settle Leix and Offaly, although admittedly insignificant in com— parison to future enterprises, nevertheless, succeeded in establishing a precedent for the systematic large-scale policy of plantation which was soon to follow. Together with the formation of the Bann Corpora- tion in 1555, the attempted plantation of Leix and Offaly in the early 1550's set down the broad outlines of a general colonization effort 225 which, in the long run, laid the foundations of modern British colonialism both in theory and practice.9 Paralleling the changes taking place in regard to policy evolution were a number of significant innovations in the Anglo-Irish administration which, although admittedly receiving scant attention up to now, must not be overlooked since they were to have far—reaching effects on the nature of Anglo-Irish government in the sixteenth century. Among these innovations, one of the most important develop- ments occurred in reSpect to the composition of the Irish Council and, in particular, to the make-up of the office of the Lord Chancellor. Next to the Lord Deputy, the Lord Chancellor was the most im- portant Official in the Anglo-Irish administration and the leading member of the Council. As holder of the Great Seal, the Chancellor's major reSponsibilities included drawing up and authenticating commands of the King. He also administered the oath of Office to each incoming Viceroy and served as principal advisor to the chief governor.10 90. B. Quinn's article in the Irish Historical Studies (supra., Chapter V, no. 69), which deals with Edward Walshe's "Conjec- tures," suggests that the origins of English policy for overseas colonization, i.e., Africa and North America, had their beginnings in sixteenth century Ireland. Although in making this claim, Professor Quinn refers Specifically to Walshe and his ideas on plantation during the period of Croft's term as Viceroy, judging from the nature and intent of the instructions issued to St. Leger in July 1550, there is no reason why we cannot assume that the principles which were to inspire future overseas settlement were first worked out during the period of Sir Anthony's second term in office as Lord Deputy of Ireland and manifested themselves in the scheme for the plantation of Leix and Offaly put forth by the consortium of English and Anglo- Irish gentlemen in December 1550. (Supra., p. 160). 1OO'Elanagan, I, 9. 226 During the early Tudor period, a large percentage of those who served as Lord Chancellor of Ireland were clerics. Henry Dean, Chancellor in 1494-1495, was the BishOp of Bangor. His successor, Walter Fitzsimon, had been for many years the Archbishop of Dublin as was William Rockeby, who followed Fitzsimon in 1498. From 1509- 1534, out of a total of five Lord Chancellors, three were churchmen. Dr. Hugh Inge (1527-1528), and John Alen (1529-1532), were both Arch- bishops of Dublin. George Cromer, Lord Chancellor from 1532-1534, was Archbishop of Armagh.11 While most of these ecclesiastical Chancellors were well educated and sometimes distinguished men, some like George Cromer, by their actions while in office, demonstrated that their loyalty was more to the church than to the King's will. Thus, the danger was always present that an ecclesiastical Chancellor might function in competition with the Crown, something which Henry VIII, in his eagerness to establish himself as head of church and state in practice as well as in theory, could not afford to tolerate for any great length of time. Beginning with the appointment of Patrick Barnewall, Lord Trimilestown, who was chosen to replace Cromer following the latter's dismissal from Office in 1534 for refusing to acknowledge the King's supremacy, a greater proportion of future Lord Chancellors between 1534 and 1555 would be chosen from the ranks of the gentry and the legal profession. Lord Trimilestown, for example, originated from a family of considerable legal training and himself was a man of dis- tinguished reputation as a financier, having served as Vice-Treasurer 11O'Elanagan, I, l42f. 227 and High Treasurer. Sir John Alen, who held the Chancellorship from 1539-1546, was an avid student of law as was Sir Thomas Cusacke, Lord Chancellor from 1551-1555. The shift in the selection of Lord Chancellors after 1534 away from clerics toward men with a legal background of some kind, reflected the increasing complexity of government in the sixteenth century and coincided with Cromwell's attempted re—organization of the royal administration.12 ArchbishOp Alen's criticism of the poor manner in which the Records of Chancery were being maintained pointed up the need for skilled personnel and led in 1532 to the establishment of the Office of the Master of the Rolls in Chancery whose primary duty would be to examine all state and other official documents, and comparing those records and writs that emanated from the Chancery.13 This highly crucial task required men who were not only skilled in the niceties of the law, but who also possessed a knowledge of Latin and Norman-French, Since a great proportion of the legal records and pleadings were in either one or the other of those languages. In Short, the need was for more educated persons, especially for those articulate in law. Ireland, however, possessed few men learned in the law during the first half of the Sixteenth century. Added to the problem of an acute shortage of trained legal minds, was the unfortunate fact that 12G. R. Elton, Tudor Revolution ip_Government (Cambridge: The University Press, 19535, pp. 415f. 13O'Flanagan, 164. 228 Irish students were barred from studying law in English schools until Henry VIII remedied this injustice in 1541.14 To meet the growing demand for more lawyers came pleas fOr the advancement of the legal profession in Ireland. While Sir John Alen was Chancellor, Patrick Barnewall, the King's Sergeant and eldest son of the late Lord Chancellor Trimilestown, advanced the proposal for the establishment of an Inn of Chancery at Dublin for the pur- pose of training young Irish men in the fundamentals of law. In a dispatch to Cromwell dated April 5, 1538, Barnewall outlines his suggestions: Yf your Lord thoght hyt mette that ther shold be a house of Chaunsery here, where suche as were towardes the lawe, and other yong gentlemen, moght be togedyr, Y recken hyt wold doo moche good, as Y have declared, ore now unto your Lorde- scheppe; and, in especyall, for the increasse of Inglishe tonge, habite, and ordyr; and all 500 to be the mene as suche as hathe, ore shall be, at stody in Ingland, shold have the bettyr in remembrans ther larnyng. For defawt wherof now, in effect, wee doo forgyte moche of that lyttll larnyng that we atteynd there. Barnewall's letter reflected the changing needs of the Anglo-Irish government during the 1530's toward a greater degree of Specialization and bureaucratic order and had the support of the Irish justices and lawyers who, in a joint petition to the King and Council of England on August 29, 1541, requested that the recently suppressed house of Blackfriars be officially granted to them for the purpose which the King's Sergeant had in mind: Our humble duties remembered to your most discreet wisdome,-- Please it the same to be advertised, that whereas we, our soveraine Lord the King's Majestie's Judges and learned Counsaill of this Realm of Ireland and others lerned in his 14 15 S.P. Hen. VIII, III, 417, 430. S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 571. 229 Highnes' lawes, and such as hath presedet us in our romhis before this tyme hathe been searved in terme tyme, in several merchantes' howses within the citie of Dublin, at borde and lodging; SO that whensoever anything was done by the said Judges and Counsail and others lerned for the setting forthe of our said soverain Lorde's causes, and other to our charges commytted, tyme was lost ere we could assemble ourselves togither, to consult upon every such thing, therefore we, pryncypaly considering our humble and boundyn duties unto our said soveraine Lord, the comenwelthe of this realme, and also the bringing upe of gentlemen's sonnes within this realme, in the English tong, habits, and maners, thoght it mete to be in our house togithir at bord and lodging, in terme tyme, for the causes aforesaid, and for the same intent and purpose we toke the late supressed house of Blakfriers, in the South Barbis of the said citie, and kept commons ther the last two yeris termely. And con- sidering our said terme and faithful unfamed purpose in our judgements and understanding to be bothe to the honor and profitt of our said soveraine Lord, the comenwelthe of this realme, and th'encres of virtue, we mooste humble beseeche your discreet wisdomes to be so good unto us as to be a meane unto our soveraine Lord, that we may have the said house and the landes belonging . . . for we doe call the same now the King's Inn.16 In response to their appeal, that same year, Henry devised to Sir John Alen, the Chancellor; Sir Gerald Aylmer, Justice; Sir Thomas Luttrell, Justice; Patrick White, Baron; Patrick Barnewall, King's Sergeant; Robert Dillon, the King's Attorney; and Walter Cowley and to other Professors of the Law, the monastery of the Friars Preachers, declaring the newly-created house of chancery ancillary to the Inns of Court in England.17 St. Leger's role in respect to the above deveIOpments was no less Significant than were his contributions to policy evolution. AS 16O'Flanagan, I, 200, 201. 17The dissolution of Blackfriars is recorded in LGP, XVI, No. 1128. The grant which was made over to the Irish justices took place on May 6, 1542 and is cited in LGP, XVII, No. 305. 230 head of the royal commission to Ireland in 1537, one of whose main tasks it was to report back on the conditions in Ireland and, in particular, to investigate abuses in the management of the Anglo- Irish administration, Sir Anthony could not avoid being made aware of the profound changes which were affecting the administration of the Irish government and their implications for the future. Like many of the men who were employed on his Council, St. Leger also possessed a sound knowledge Of the law and could be counted on to supervise the increasingly complex apparatus of the English govern- ment in Ireland in a sound and intelligent manner. That he was keenly aware of the value of officials with good legal training is evidenced by his choice of councillors to assist him in the task of governing. When Robert Cowley was dismissed from Office as Master of the Rolls in April 1542, Sir Anthony recommended as his successor, Sir Thomas Cusacke, who, apart from being a close friend and associate of St. Leger, was also someone with considerable knowledge of the law.18 St. Leger also made a valuable contribution to the advancement of legal training in Ireland by urging that the age-Old prohibition against the admission of Irish students to English schools of law be eliminated once and for all. In fact, it was more than likely at Sir 18The extent of Cusacke's legal training is examined by O'Flanagan, I, 207f. 231 Anthony's request that Henry decided in 1541 to abolish this highly discriminatory practice.19 His request for equal treatment on behalf of Irish students wishing to study law in England is but one more example of St. Leger's sincere concern for the Irish and provides added credence to his power of understanding in his dealings with them, a quality which very few English officials in Ireland possessed at the time. Surely, if a motto could be devised accurately to symbolize St. Leger's main contribution to the turbulent history of Anglo—Irish relations, it might read: intellexit; "he under- stood." 19 V., St. Leger's appeal to the Council at Westminster, in LGP, XVII,-NO. 722: "Begs them to move the King that all gentlemen repairing thither from hence [Ireland] to study law [in England] may be admitted to any Inn of Court. 81 BL IOGRAPHICAL ESSAY BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY I PRIMARY SOURCES For someone who is confronted with the task of examining the life and career of Sir Anthony St. Leger, the most obvious places to begin one's researches would be at the British Museum and the Public Record Office both in London and Dublin. Unfortunately, in my case, a shortage of funds made it virtually impossible fOr me to extend my research activities either to England or Ireland. As a consequence, bibliographical references rely almost entirely on materials which I found to be readily available at various libraries here in the United States. The exceptions were a roll of microfilm from the Cottonian Collection in the British Museum (Titus 8 X1), which was kindly loaned to me for my use by Dr. Gesner of the History Department, and selected photostats from the British Museum and the Public Record Office, London, which I managed to obtain with the invaluable assistance of Mr. Walter Burinski of the Michigan State University Libraries. At the same time, however, I was extremely fOrtunate to dis- cover during the course of my research, that a fairly abundant supply of printed sources exists in this country on matters relating to early 232 233 sixteenth century Anglo-Irish history and is readily available to the interested scholar. It is largely from these that I was able to re- construct Sir Anthony's biography. As to the St. Leger pedigree, there is a geneology of the family outlined in the Additional MS and in The Visitations pf_§gpp. taken 13 the Years 1574 and 1592, Vol. LXXV (London: The Publications of the Harleian Society, 1824), which Show Sir Anthony to be four generations descended from Sir John St. Leger and Margery, the daughter and heiress of the Donnett's of Syllam in Suffolk. Both these sources and The Collectanea Topographica pp GeneOIOgica, J. G. Nichols, ed., Vol. I (London: John Bowyer Nichols 6 Son, 1834), which contains a reference cited from the Harleian MS 1074 in the British Museum, also Show that Sir Anthony was indirectly connected with the royal house through the marriage of Sir Thomas St. Leger to the Sister of Edward IV, Anne of Exeter, a fact which may shed some light on St. Leger's rather rapid ascent to a position of prominence within the royal administration. References to the St. Leger family itself are quite plentiful in late fifteenth and early sixteenth century records, and the name recurs frequently in several instances. During the late fifteenth century, the above-mentioned Sir Thomas St. Leger, emerges as one of the more prominent members of the family. Married to the Duchess of Exeter in 1461, Sir Thomas became the recipient of many honors from Edward IV. His name is mentioned frequently in the Calendar p£_Patent Rolls preserved ip_the Public Record Office for the Reigp§.2£_Edward I!_apd_Richard III, 2 vols. (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916). Accused of being in league with the Duke of Buckingham who led 234 the abortive uprising against Richard III in 1483, Sir Thomas was among those who were placed on trial for high treason and executed. The Chronicles pf_London, Charles Lethbridge Kingford, ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1905), and Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles pf England and France ip_Two Parts, Sir Henry Ellis, ed., Vol. 1 (London: F. C. G J. Rivington, 1811), record his trial and execution which took place in November 1483. Sir Thomas' only daughter, Anne, married to George Maners (afterward created Lord Ros), receives mention in the Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic relating_£g_the Reign p£_King_Henry VIII, J. S. Brewer, pp: 21:: eds., 21 vols. (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1920), as do her uncles, James, Bartholemew, and Ralph, all Of who, in addition to being mentioned here, also appear in several places in the Calendar pf Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents preserved ip_the Public Record Office, Henry VII, 2 vols. (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1898-1915). There is an interesting document in the Calendar pf Ormond 233533 Edmund Curtis, ed., Vol. IV: 1509-1547 (Dublin: Government Stationery Office, 1937), relating to Anne Butler St. Leger which de- serves special mention. Her father was Sir Thomas Butler, the seventh earl of Ormond who died in 1515 without male issue leaving behind as his only offspring two daughters, Anne (married to Sir James St. Leger), and Margaret (married to Sir William Boleyn). As heirs gen- eral, both Sisters received possession of the Butler estates in Eng- land, but the right to succeed to the Irish prOperty was fought out for over ten years among three parties, Anne St. Leger's son and heir, 235 Sir George St. Leger (later to become Henry VIII's ambassador to Denmark), Sir Thomas Boleyn, son of Margaret and father to Queen Anne Boleyn, and Sir Piers Roe Butler, a descendant of the Polestown branch of the Butler family who was at the time claiming to be the true and only heir of the senior branch of the Butlers in Ireland. At length, a compromise was reached by the King in 1527 by which Sir Thomas Boleyn became Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, and Sir Piers, Earl of Ossory. On February 18, 1528, a tripartite indenture to settle all claims was drawn up between the King and St. Leger, Margaret Boleyn, Sir Thomas Boleyn and Sir George St. Leger, and Piers Butler and his son James (Deed 136). The end result of the agreement concluded gave to Sir George St. Leger and his heirs a substantial portion of the Butler estates in Ireland. According to the Calendar pf Patent Rolls preserved ip_the Public Record Office, Edward 111, 18 vols. (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1891-1916), the St. Legers seemed to have had an early Irish connection of some kind, although what the actual relation of this branch of the family was to the English one remains moot. In August 1345, a William de Sancto Leodgario appears as Archdeacon of Meath. In September 1353, this same William was nominated, along with James Gernour, attorney in Ireland for John Telyng, chaplain, for a period of one year, and in 1360, a Master Richard de Sancto Leodgario is mentioned as Archdeacon of Dublin who was sent that year to Ireland under the King's protection, "in order to further the King's business there." This "Irish" branch of the St. Leger's also receives mention 236 in the Calendar p£_0rmond Deeds (Vol. IV) where they appear as the Barons of Rosconnell in County Kilkenny. The name of Sir Anthony's father, Ralph St. Leger of Ulcombe, occurs in the Calendar g£_Patent Rolls preserved 12 the Public Record Office, Henry VII, Vol. I: 1485-1494 (London: His Majesty's Sta- tionery Office, 1914), where in 1489, he was granted a mandate, to- gether with John Bromston and Robert Brown, "to put Woderove in pos- session." In the Calendar p£_Patent Rolls preserved ip_the Public Record Office, Henry VII, Vol. II: 1494-1509 (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916), Sir Ralph appears in various other capaci- ties, being commissioned On April 23, 1496, "to muster and array the men [of Kent] in view of the warlike preparations of the king Of Scots which threaten the town of Berwick," and as commissioner of the peace for Westminster and Canterbury between the years 1498-1502. There is hardly anything known about Sir Anthony's actual birth- date and the primary source materials which were examined yielded little if anything at all on the subject. References to Sir Anthony for the years between his supposed birth in 1496 and his debut at Court in 1514 are also scant. The sources for his education are David Lloyd, Ihg_ Statesmen and Worthies pf_England, Ireland and Scotland, from the Reformation pp_the Revolution, Vol. I (London: J. Robson, 1766), who mentions his early Studies in Italy and France which, in all probabil- ity, occurred sometime between 1508-1510. C. and C. COOper, Athenae Cantabrigienses, Vol. I: 1500-1585 (Cambridge: Deighton Bell 6 Co., 1858), and J. and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Vol. IV (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927), contain references to his 237 attendance at Cambridge and Gray's Inn, although it is not Specified by either Of these sources exactly when he was resident at these two institutions. The lists of Cambridge students contained in Mary Bate- son, Grace Book B, Part 113 Containing the Accounts pf_the Proctors pf_ the University pf_Cambridge, 1511-1544 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer— sity Press, 1905), and the succession of readers in William Douthwaite, Gray's Inn: Its Histogy and Associations, compiled from Original and Unpublished Documents (London: Reeves 6 Turner, 1886), yielded no additional information in this respect. In contrast to the paucity of references to St. Leger during his earlier days, the sources for his career after 1514 are quite plentiful. Of general utility for Sir Anthony's career before 1540 are the Letters and Papers, Henry VIII (in particular, Vols. II-XIV). Here, a large proportion of the references mentioning St. Leger illus- trate his very close relationship with Thomas Cromwell, especially Sir Anthony's reliance upon the King's Minister for his position at Court. [Richard Turpyn], The Chronicle pf_Calais ip the Reigns pf Henpy VII and Henry VIII £p_the Year 1540, J. G. Nichols, ed., Vol. XXXV (London: The Publications of the Camden Society, 1846), lists him as one of the royal commissioners sent to Calais in 1534 to investigate the condi- tion of the town and garrison. The State Papers, Hengy VIII: Corres- pondence between the Governments pf_§pgland and Ireland, Vol. II: 1515- 1538 (London: The Record Commission, 1834), like the Letters and Papers, also contain a wealth of information dealing with Sir Anthony's public life prior to his appointment as Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1540, including all of the official correspondence relating to his tenure as 238 the head of the royal commission which was sent to Ireland in 1537 with instructions to conduct a thorough investigation of conditions there and forward its recommendations to England. Among the most important sources of information for St. Leger's first administration as chief governor of Ireland, besides the Letters E Papers (Vols. XIV-XXI), is undoubtedly the State Papers, Henry VIII: Correspondence between the Governments p£_Eng1and and Ireland, Vol. III: 1538-1546 (London: The Record Commission, 1834), in which there is contained a mass of official correspondence in the form of letters to and from St. Leger, many of them transcribed in his own hand. The Calendar pf_Carew MSS preserved ip_the Archepiscopal Palace a£_Lam- 2332, J. S. Brewer and William Bullen, eds., Vol. I: ISIS-1586 (London: Longmans, Green, Reader 6 Dyer, 1867), as well as being rich in sixteenth-century Irish source materials, contain much that is per- tinent not only to Sir Anthony's first term in office but to his vice- regal career in general. Of Special interest are the many treaties which were concluded between the English authorities at Dublin Castle and the native Irish chiefs and Anglo-Irish lords, all of them recorded in full. For St. Leger's second and third administrations two of the most important sources of primary materials are QE£§.EE.EEE.EIEXX. Council pf England preserved ip_the Public Record Office, J. S. Dasent, ed., Vols. II-VII: 1550-1570 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Of- fice, 1890-1907), and the Calendar pf State Papers, Ireland relating 32 the Reigns pf_Hen3yVIII, Edward VI) Mary and Philip, and Elizabeth I, preserved 12 the Public Record Office, H. C. Hamilton, ed., Vol. I: 239 1509-1587 (London: Longmans, Green, Longmans 6 Co., 1860). The latter source is invaluable to any student of Irish history, especially as a convenient guide to the materials located in the State Papers Section of the Public Record Office. The Egerton Papers, a_Collection and James I, from the original MSS ip_the possession pf Lord Francis Egerton the eighth earl p£_Bridgewater, J. P. Collier, ed., Vol. XII (London: The Publications of the Camden Society, 1840), contain the list of instructions to St. Leger upon his re-appointment as Lord Deputy for a second time in July 1550. Their importance lies in the fact that they are very minute and relate to the more Significant aspects of Anglo-Irish government during the first half of the six- teenth century, including the collection of revenue, the letting of royal farms, the reducing and ordering of conquered territories, the effective application of public money, the employment of natives, and the correct application of the laws. Needless to say, the existence of such a document is vital to the student engaged in Studying the problems associated with English administration in Ireland at this time. The Chronicle and Political Papers p£_King Edward VI, W. K. Jordan, ed. (Ithaca, New York: The Cornell University Press, 1966), and the Lit- erary Remains p£_Edward 21, J. G. Nichols, ed., Vol. 11 (London: The Publications of the Roxburghe Club, 1857), also contain highly useful references to this particular segment Of Sir Anthony's public career. In regard to the attempt by St. Leger in 1550 to introduce the Reformation into Ireland, there are a number of very useful documents contained in The Harleian Miscellany: a Collection pf_5carce, Curious 240 and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts found ip_the late Earl pf_9§: ford's Library, J. Malham, ed. Vol. VIII (London: The Publications of the Camden Society, 1810). Included among these documents is the proclamation which Edward VI ordered St. Leger to have read throughout Ireland in February 1550, directing that the Prayer-book be trans- lated, "into our mother tongue of this realm of England, according to the assembly of divines lately met within the same, for that purpose." There is also an interesting excerpt from the collection of Anthony Martin, the former Bishop of Meath, which records St. Leger's alter- cation with the Primate Dowdall who strenuously objected to the introduction Of the new liturgy. Sources for the plantation policy inaugurated by St. Leger in Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary, Elizabeth (Dublin: Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 1875-1890). Specific references were made to Report 8, Appendix 9 (1876). Not only does this source serve as a useful guide to the number and frequency of the leases made in Leix and Offaly at this time, more important per- haps, it outlines the precise terms by which government leases were to be granted to English settlers. The intrigues of Gerald Fitzgerald at the French court and the threatened invasion of Ireland by forces loyal to him receives mention in a number of sources. There is valuable primary material relating to this important matter in the Calendar p£_State Papers, Foreigp_ Series, pf the Reign p£_Edward 11, 1547-1553, William B. Turnbull, ed. (London: Longman, Green 8 Roberts, 1861), and the Calendar of Letters, 241 Dispatches, and State Papgrs relating £2_the Negotiations between England and Spain, preserved ip_the Archives p£_Simancas and elsewhere, Royall Tyler, ed., Vol. IX: 1547-1549 (London: His Majesty's Sta- tionery Office, 1914), as well as in the Calendar pf State Papers, Ireland (Vol. II, Edward VI). The Memoirs pf Sir James Melville pf_ Halkill, 1535-1617, A. Francis Steuart, ed. (London: Routledge, 1929), also contain much that is of use, including mention of BishOp Monluc's visit to Ireland in the spring of 1550 which coincided with that of the BishOp WauchOp whose purpose it was to investigate the possibility of a native insurrection to accompany Gerald's anticipated arrival with French and Scottish military assistance which, as matters went, failed to occur. Besides the many official letters and papers to his credit, it has been noted that Sir Anthony was the author of other writings as well. His epitaph to the memory of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder is men- tioned in the ILetters and.Papers (Vol. XVI), and is recorded by George Francis Nott, ed., The Works pf Henry Howard, Earl pf Surrey, and_p£ Sir Thomas_Wyatt the Elder, 2 vols. (London, 1815, 1816). The poem on the doctrine of the Euchrist which John Foxe attributed to St. Leger is to be found in The Acts and Monuments pf_John Foxe, Rev. Stephen Cattley and George Townsend, eds., Vol. 111 (London: R. B. Seely 6 W. Burnside, 1841), and in the Literarnyemains p£_Edward VI_(VOI. I). Sir Anthony's death and burial and that of his wife, Lady Agnes St. Leger, is recorded in The Diapy p£_Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor pf_London, 1550-1563, J. G. Nichols, ed., Vol. XLII (London: The Publications of the Camden Society, 1868). His will is 242 listed in J. Challener and C. Smith, eds., Index p£_Wills prpved ip_ the Prerogative Court p£_Canterbury Wills, 1383-1558 (London: The British Record Society, 1893), and is now located in the Public Record Office, London. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Seed of the Public Record Office and to Mr. Walter Burinski of the Michigan State University Libraries for the invaluable assistance rendered by these two gentle- men in enabling me to obtain a facsimile of the original will. As St. Leger was the recipient of many important appointments and honors, one should mention the major sources for the many patents which were issued him during his long career in public life. Chief among these sources is the Calendar 22 the Patent and Close Rolls pf_ Chancery rp_lreland pf the Reigns p£_Henry VIII, Edward 21, Mary, and Elizabeth, James Morrin, ed., Vol. 1 (Dublin: Alex Thom G Sons, 1861), which contains the patents pertaining not only to St. Leger but to many of his colleagues in the Anglo-Irish government. The Calendar pf_ Patent Rolls preserved ip_the Public Record Office, Edward 21, 1547- 1553, R. H. Brodie, 5 vols. and index (London: His Majesty's Station- ery Office, 1924—1929), and the Calendar p£_Patent Rolls, preserved 12. the Public Record Office, Philip and Mary, 4 vols. (London: His Maj- esty's Stationery Office, 1936-1939), were also found to be very use- ful, especially for the latter part of Sir Anthony's career. Of lesser importance to St. Leger's life and career, but of great value to the serious Student of Anglo-Irish history in the early sixteenth century, are the following sources, all of them rich in material dealing with Ireland: The Calendar p£_State Papers, Domestic Series, 2: the Reigns p£_Edward 21, Mary, and Elizabeth, 243 preserved ip_Her Majesty's Public Record Office, Robert Lemon, ed., Vol. I: 1547-1580 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans G Roberts, 1856), the State Papers, Henry VIII: Correspondence relative £p_ Scotland and the Borders, Vol. V: 1534-1546 (London: The Record Commission, 1834), the Calendar p£_State Papers relating_pp_Scotland preserved ip_the Public Record Office, John Thorpe Markham, Esq., ed., Vol. I: 1509-1589 (London: Longman, Brown, Longmans 8 Roberts, 1858), the Calendar prState Papers and Manuscripts relating_£p_English Ag- fairs existing_ip_the Archives and Collections p£_Venice and ip_other Libraries p£_Northern Italy, Rawdon Brown, pp: 21:: eds., Vols. I-VI: 1202-1558 (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts 6 Green, 1864- 1890), and especially, the Calendar p£_Dispatches, and State Papprs relating £p_the Negotiations between England and Spain preserved ip- the Archives p£_Simancas and elsewhere (cited above), and the Calendar pg State Papers and Manuscripts existing_ip_the Archives and Collec— £122§.2£.M11222 Allen B. Hinds, ed., Vol. I: 1385-1618 (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1912). Proclamations relevant to rela- tions between England and Ireland during the early Tudor period are calendared in Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, 1485-1714, Robert Steele, ed., Vol. 11 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1910). Reference to statutes originating in the Irish Parliament during this same period can be derived from Ihp_pay§_app_8tatutes p£_lre1and, Sir Richard Bolton (Dublin, 1621). For the statutes passed by English parliaments from 1485-1560, the Statutes pi_php_§paip, A. Luders, T. E. Tomlins, J. Raithby, SE: 21:! eds., Vols. II-IV (London: The Record Commission, 1856-1859), were consulted and found to be Of great value. 244 II SECONDARY SOURCES NO Study of Anglo-Irish history during the sixteenth century would be complete without mention of the works of the two eminent Irish historians, John Hooker and Sir James Ware. John Hooker in Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles pf Epgland, Scotland and Ireland (c. 1587), mod. ed., Sir Henry Ellis, Vol. VI (London: J. Johnson 25: al., 1808), is of particular usefulness for the history of Ireland to the end of 1586. Sir James Ware, The Antiquities and Historypf Ireland, containing the Annals pf Ireland duripg_the Reigns p£_Henry VIII, fig: ward Xi, and Mary (Dublin: A. Crook, 1705), can truly be said to have laid the foundations for the study of Irish history in the sixteenth century and, as such, is indiSpensable. Although of somewhat lesser prominence than Ware and Hooker, Richard Cox, Hibernica Anglicana; pr, The Historypf Ireland from the Congpest thereof py_the English £p_this Present Time, Vol. I (London: Printed for Joseph Watts, 1689), should not be overlooked. Richard Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudors, 3 vols. (rev. ed.; London: The Holland Press, 1963), is, without doubt, the best modern account of the period. Robert Dun10p in the Dictionary pf National Biography, Sidney Lee, ed., Vol. L (London: Smith, Elder 6 Co., 1897), and C. and C. Cooper in the Athenae Cantabrigienses, present the studies most recently made of St. Leger's life and career. Apart from these and the sum- maries made by Thomas Fuller in The History pf the Worthies p£_England, new ed., P. Austin Nuttall, Vol. II (rev. ed.; New York: Ams Press, Inc., 1965), by John Lodge in, The Peerage pf Ireland; pr_A.Geneolpgical 245 History p£_the Present Nobility p£_that Kingdom; with their Paternal Coats p£_ArmS, rev. ed., Mervyn Archdall, Vol. VI (Dublin: J. Moore, 1789), and by James Wills in The Irish Nation: Its History and its Biography, Vol. I (London 6 Edinburgh: A. Fullerton 6 Co., 1871), I know of no other study of Sir Anthony in existence. There are a number of good Short histories of Ireland which deserve special mention because of their utility in the study of six- teenth-century Anglo-Irish relations. A. G. Ritchey, A_Short History p£_the Irish Pepple pp_the Date pf the Plantation p£_Ulster (Dublin: The Talbot Press, 1887), is most excellent, especially for the policy of Henry VIII in Ireland. I also found Ritchey to be somewhat hostile to English policy in regard to the Irish, which makes the work some- what prejudiced in its outlook. Robert Dunlop, Ireland from the Earliest Times Ep_the Present Day (London: Oxford University Press, 1922), is, like Ritchey, another good short account of Irish history, as are J. C. Beckett, A_Short Historyp£_lreland (London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1952), and Edmund Curtis, 5_History p£_lreland (London: Methuen 6 Co., Ltd., 1950). Agnes Conway, Henry VII'S Relations with Scotland and Ireland, i£§§:ifigg_(Cambridge: The University Press, 1932), is extremely valuable in shedding light on Henry VII'S administration in Ireland. Especially useful in this respect is Miss Conway's discussion of the deputyship of Sir Edward Poynings and its impact on Anglo-Irish policy development in the late fifteenth century. Edmund Curtis, A_History p£_Medieval Ireland (Dublin: Methuen 6 Co., Ltd., 1923), is indis- pensable for the medieval period as is A. J. Otway-Ruthven, 5 History 246 p£_Medieval Ireland (London: Ernst Benn, Ltd., 1968). Professor Curtis was eSpecially useful for his interpretation of the period of the so-called "Kildare Supremacy," 1477-1513, as well as for the geneologies of all the great Irish families which he lists in the ap- pendix of his book. Professor Otway-Ruthven presents what is, by far, the most in-depth analysis of medieval Ireland. Indeed, so compre- hensive and well documented is her study, that the book tends to be- come somewhat cumbersome in places. To compensate for what appears to be a deficiency of good full-length studies on Anglo-Irish history, especially for the early Tudor period, a number of illuminating journal articles have appeared in recent years which shed some light on the various aspects of Anglo-Irish relations and policy at this time. These include the studies made by Robert DunlOp, David B. Quinn, and, more recently, a pioneering work on the origins of plantation policy in Ireland by D. G. White. Included among Professor DunIOp's articles are "The Planta- tion of Leix and Offaly, 1556-1622," English Historical Review, VI (1891), and, "Some Aspects of Henry VIII's Irish Policy," 93223.921f ipgp_HiStorical Essays (London, 1902; Manchester, 1907). These have been superseded by the work done by D. B. Quinn and, even more re- cently, by D. Gunther White. Most useful among Professor Quinn's re- searches I discovered were his articles, "Anglo-Irish local Govern— ment, 1485-1534, Irish Historical Studies, I (1939), and "The Early Interpretation of Poynings Law, 1494-1534," Irish Historical Studies, II (1941). The former study examines the problems of English admin- istration in Ireland and attempts to delineate the actual extent of 247 effective English control in Ireland during the late fifteenth and early Sixteenth centuries. The latter Study prOvides a very good analysis of Poynings' Law and the profound effect it had on the future Operation of the Irish Parliament. Professor Quinn has also contrib- uted much to updating Henrician policy. His article, "Henry VIII and Ireland, 1509-1534," Irish Historical Studies, XII (1960-1961), at— tempts to correlate English policy in Ireland with the knowledge of Henrician England derived from the works of A. F. Pollard and G. R. Elton. Quinn has also delved extensively into the subject of colo- nization and plantation which is generally regarded to be one of the new major features of Anglo-Irish policy after 1534. In "Edward Walsh's 'Conjectures' concerning the State of Ireland (1552)," iri§p_ Historical Studies, V (1952), Professor Quinn demonstrates that the origins of a systematic re-settlement policy occurred as early as 1550, and that planting colonies in Ireland would very closely resemble the planning of Similar settlements in America at a later date. D. G. White, "The Reign of Edward VI in Ireland: Some Political, Social, and Economic ASpects," Irish Historical Studies, XIV (1964-1965), makes a pioneer attempt to link together several themes largely overlooked in sixteenth century Anglo-Irish history, in particular, the origins of a re-settlement policy, and is an excellent supplement to Quinn's study on the same subject. In regard to relations between Ireland and the Continent, James Hogan, Ireland ip the European System, Vol. I (London: Longmans, Green, 6 Co., 1920), is very valuable. Particularly useful is Pro- fessor Hogan's discussion of Irish intrigues at the French Court in 248 the early sixteenth century, eSpecially those relating to the Gerald Fitzgerald episode. Two of the most important contributions to date on English land policy in Ireland, although both are somewhat dated, are the works by W. F. T. Butler, Confiscations ip Irish History (Dublin: The Talbot Press, Ltd., 1917), and Moritz Bonn, Die englische Kolonisation ip_1rland (Stuttgart: J. G. Cottasche buchhandlung nachfolger, 1906). Chapter one in Butler contains a highly important discussion of Tudor confiscations which should not be overlooked. G. Orphen, Ireland under the Normans, Vol. 11 (Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1912) was of great utility for providing a background knowledge of land policy in Ireland following Henry II's conquest. An important contribution to the study of Anglo-Irish admin- istrative history in the sixteenth century is provided by J. Roderick O'Flanagan, The Lives p£_the Lord Chancellors and Keepers p£_the Great Seal p£_lreland from the Earliest Times 32 the Reign p£_Qgeen Victoria, Vol. I (London: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1870). Herbert Wood's article, "The Office of Chief Governor in Ireland, 1172-1509," Proceedings p£_ the Royal Irish Acadpmy, XXXVI, Sec. C (1921-1924), is useful in de- fining the role of the King's Deputy in Ireland; however, the sc0pe of Herbert's Study does not go beyond the reign of Henry VII and is, therefore, of limited use for the period later. The workings of the Irish Parliament in the early sixteenth century are examined by C. Litton Falkner. His article, "The Parlia- ment of Ireland under the Tudor Sovereigns with some Notices of the Speakers of the Irish House of Commons," Proceedings pi_the Royal Irish 249 Academy, XXV, Sec. C (1904-1905), presents a highly valuable study of the subject and is a useful follow-up to Professor Quinn's above- mentioned work on Sir Edward Poynings. Falkner also prints a list of the Speakers of the Irish House of Commons, which includes St. Leger's friend and associate, Sir Thomas Cusacke, the Lord Chancellor Of Ireland from 1553-1556, whom Falkner claims is the first Speaker of the Irish Commons. In respect to the study of Irish ecclesiastical history, there have been a number of very good works completed over the years. Robert Dudley Edwards, Church and State ip_Tudor Ireland: A_History p£_Pena1 ppy§_against iripp Catholics, iééfifip23_(0ublin G Cork: The Talbot Press, Ltd. [1935?1), provides what is perhaps the best work on the Irish church in the Tudor period by a noted Anglo-Irish scholar. Professor Edwards' book also contains a highly useful bibliography. J. T. Ball, Th2 Reformed 922232.25 Ireland, 1532:1882 (London: Long- mans, Green 6 Co., 1886), a valuable study no doubt, was written chiefly from the point of view of legislation. John D'Alton, Memoirs p£_the Archbishops p£_Dublin (Dublin: Hodges 8 Smith, 1838), presents highly fascinating personal accounts of all the archbishops of Dublin down to the nineteenth century. Of eSpecial interest is the account D'Alton gives of BishOp John Alen and his tragic murder in 1535 by the adherents of "Silken Thomas." A very valuable biography of Archbishop Browne and his contribution to the Reformation in Ireland is also in- cluded. Richard Mant, History p£_the Church p£_lreland from the Reformation $2 the Revolution (London: J. W. Parker, 1840), is a well-documented piece of scholarship by a former Anglican bishOp of 250 Down and Conor. As one might eXpect, its viewpoint is decidedly Anglican and Protestant. AS a counterpart to Mant, Myles V. Ronan, The Reformation ip_Dublin, 1536-1558 (London: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1926), should be consulted. Here, the Roman Catholic position in regard to the Irish Reformation is elaborated. Of the two, the Rever- end Mant is, I feel, far better documented. Other works of interest relating to the sixteenth century in Ireland which were referred to from time to time are by Alice StOpford Green, The Making p£_lreland and its Undoipg, 1200-1600 (London: Macmillan 8 Co., Ltd., 1908), A. K. Longfield, Anglo-Irish Trade 31 the Sixteenth Century (London: G. Routledge 6 Sons, Ltd., 1929), S. M. Lough, "Trade and Industry in Ireland in the Sixteenth Century," Journal p£_Politica1 Economy, XXIV (1916), and M. D. O'Sullivan, "The Exploitation of the Mines of Ireland in the Sixteenth Century," Studies, XXIV (1935). Mrs. Green, who took part in the events leading up to the Easter Rebellion of 1916 (her drawing room was used to plan the Houth gun-running incident in 1914), and who later became one of Ireland's first woman Senators, presents an extremely comprehensive study of Gaelic culture and its unfortunate demise during the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries. A. K. Longfield and S. M. Lough give very useful and scholarly accounts of the nature and extent of Irish trade and industry during the sixteenth century. Both can be rightly considered the forerunners of further endeavors in this partic- ular area of study. M. D. O'Sullivan, explores the attempts made under Henry VIII and Edward VI to systematically exploit Ireland's natural 251 resources, chiefly in Silver and lead. Needless to say Professor O'Sullivan provided some highly informative reading. As St. Leger's life and career spanned most of the Tudor era and coincided with five distinct reigns, to overlook the numerous works on English history during this period would be remiss to say the least. For the reign of Henry VII, Francis Bacon, Historie prlphp_raigne p£_ Henry the Seventh, mod. ed., J. L. Lumby (Cambridge: The University Press, 1885), is the classic study. William Busch, England 32923.323. ngprp, English tranS., A. M. Todd, Vol. I: 1485-1509 (London: A. D. Innes 6 Co., 1895), is listed among the best of the modern accounts of Henry VII'S reign. It contains an excellent bibliographical note which is particularly useful on the chronicles of the reign. James Gairdner's two works, Henry the Seventh (London: Macmillan 6 Co., i§_added the Story pf Perkin Warbeck from original sources (rev. ed., New York: Kraus Reprint, 1968), are, like Bacon and Busch, indispen- sable, the former study being the standard English version, the latter containing a very valuable essay on Perkin Warbeck. A most excellent Short biography of the first Tudor monarch is by Gladys Temperley, prry_!ii_(8oston 6 New York: Houghton 6 Mifflin Co., 1914). In re- cent years a number of good biographies on Henry VII have made their appearance to supplement the earlier works by Gairdner and Temperley. Derek Pitt,~ngry.!ii_(0xford: Oxford University Press, 1966), is a brief but interesting study. The most recent accounts of Henry VII are the well-researched works of R. L. Storey, IDE.BE$EE.2£.§EEEX.YII. (London: The Blandford Press, 1968), and Eric N. Simons, prry_!ii; The First Tudor King (London: Fredrick Muller, 1968). 252 The reign of Henry VIII contains an almost endless stream of historical literature. Indeed, judging from the reams of paper which have been devoted to the study of the second Tudor, one could safely say that of all the English monarchs, it is the reign of Henry VIII which has received the most attention from authors of English history, a fact which serves to illustrate its immense importance. H. A. L. Fisher, Th3 History pr England, rrpp the Accession pr Esp y Yii_pp_phg. Dppph_p£_gppry_!iil (London 6 New York: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1906), is reputed to be one of the best general histories of the reign. Par- ticularly valuable about the book is Professor Fisher's bibliography. J.S. Brewer, The Reign prHenry VIII from his Accession pp_the Death pf Epippy, J. S. Gairdner, ed., 2 vols. (London: J. Murray, 1884), contains, by far, the fullest account of the first twenty years or so of the "Great Harry's" reign, by a noted Tudor scholar. Lord Edward Herbert (of Cherbury), The Life and Raign_e 9.551.318. my £15 _e_i_gh_tl_1_ (mod. ed., London: Alexander Murray, 1870), which first made its ap- pearance in 1649 and was initially published under the editorship of Horace Walpole in 1764, is the earliest full account but one which is highly apologetic in tone. Nonetheless, Lord Herbert presents the reader with much valuable information derived from authentic papers. By far, one of the most comprehensive studies to emerge on Henry VIII is that provided by A. F. Pollard, prry_!iii_(rev. ed., New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960). Although it is certainly not the final word on Henry--having been superseded recently by equally perceptive studies by J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley, Calif.: 253 The University of California Press, 1968), and Lacy Baldwin Smith, Henry VIII: The Mask p£_Royalty (Boston: Houghton 6 Mifflin, Co., 197l)--Pollard is still regarded as one of the best modern accounts of Henry VIII. AS king, Henry VIII was extremely fortunate to be surrounded by a number Of able, clever advisors. Of all his advisors, two men stand out above all the rest and are particularly noteworthy because of their many contributions to the development of policy both domestic and foreign. Both men also exerted a considerable impact on Sir Anthony's career in public life. I am, of course, referring to Thomas Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell. Wolsey's life and career is well documented. George Cavendish, The Life 2: Cardinal Wolspy, Richard S. Sylvester, ed. (London 6 New York: Published for the Early English Text Society, 1959) first pub- lished in 1641, is the earliest known account of the Lord Cardinal's life by his gentleman usher. As one might expect coming from such a close confidant, Cavendish's presentation is almost too sympathetic. Like Cavendish, Mandell Creighton, Cardinal Wolsey (London 6 New York: Macmillan 6 Co., 1888), is also heavily biased in favor of Wolsey. A. F. Pollard, Wolsey: Church §_State ip_Sixteenth CenturyEngland (rev. ed.; London 6 New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), is one of the more modern interpretations. Like his excellent Study of Henry VIII, Pollard's analysis of Wolsey is equally well-documented and is espe- cially illuminating on Wolsey's policies on Church and State. The standard life of Thomas Cromwell is presented by R. B. Merriman, The Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, 2 vols. (Oxford: 254 The Clarendon Press, 1902). Volume two is eSpecially useful because in it is a useful essay on Irish policy before 1540 illustrating Crom- well's contribution which was quite considerable. Cromwell's public career is perhaps most notable because of his role in reSpect to the administrative reforms which occurred in the English government during the 15305- G. R. Elton has written an important book on the subject entitled, The Tudor Revolution ip_Government (Cambridge: The Univer- sity Press, 1953), which should be read by every serious student of English history. What is particularly significant about Elton's study is the long-range impact certain of Cromwell's administrative reforms in England may have exerted on the nature and functioning of the English administration in Ireland, especially when examined from the standpoint of Professor Quinn's researches into the nature of Henrician policy in Ireland at this time and the role Cromwell assumed. For the reign of Edward VI there are two good works which I consider indispensable for a thorough understanding Of his reign. A. the Death p£_Elizabeth, 1547-1603 (London 6 New York: Longmans, Green 6 Co., 1923), is, by most standards, the best general account of Edward VI, and one which also contains a very valuable, although somewhat dated, bibliography. Pollard's other work on Edward, Epgland under Protector Somerset (rev. ed., New York: Russell 6 Russell, 1966), covers the first part of the reign and includes a good study of the Protector Somerset's administration, although the book itself is out- right biased in favor of him. P. F. Tytler, Epgland under the Reigp§_ p£_Edward !i_and Mary, illustrated ip_a Series p£_0riginal Letters 255 never before printed with Historical introductions and Biographical and Critical Notes, 2 vols. (London: R. Bentley, 1839), prints valuable source material for the reign ip_extensio. Most recently, W. K. Jordan has come forth with two excellent analyses of Edward VI'S reign, both of which up-date Pollard. The first, Edward Ki; ng_prpg_ Kipg_(London: George Allen 6 Unwin, Ltd., 1968), deals with events during Somerset's tenure of power which came to an end with his down- fall in 1549. The second of Jordan's works, Edward Xi; The Threshold 25.22325 (London: George Allen 6 Unwin, Ltd., 1970), concerns itself largely with the events surrounding the protectorship of the Duke of Northumberland, and also includes an appraisal Of Edwardian thought and culture, as well as an extended treatment of economic matters and of the Edwardian concept of the state and of history. The above-mentioned Studies should be read in conjunction with F. W. Russell, 523:3.532217 iipp_ip Norfolk (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman 6 Roberts, 1859), and S. T. Bindoff's short but perceptive essay, "Ket's Rebel- lion, 1549," Historical Association Pamphlets, General Ser. G, XII (1949), both of which attempt to analyze the exact nature and causes of the social and political unrest which was so characteristic of this period of English history. Of the several lives of Lady Jane Grey, R. P. B. Davey, :53. Nine Day's Queen: Lady Jane Grpy and her Times (London: Methuen 6 Co., 1909), is reputed to be the best version. Other studies include, Philip Sidney, "Jane the Quene," being some account p£_the Life and Literary remains prLady Jane Dudley, commonly called Lady_Jane Grey» 256 (London: 5. Sonneschien 6 Co., 1900), and I. A. Taylor, Lady Jane Grey and Her Times (New York: 0. Appleton 6 Co., 1908). A good general account of the reign of Queen Mary is by John Lingard, A_History pr_§pgland from the First Invasion py_the Romans rp_the Revolution in 1688, 13 vols. (New en1., American ed., Boston: Phillips 6 Sampson, 1853-1855), although it is decidely Roman Catholic in its attitude towards the religious controversies of the day. By far, the best biography to appear on Mary is by H. F. M. Prescott, A_Spanish ngpr} IEE.E$£E.2£.'31°°dZ Mary] (London: Constable Press, 1940), which was later published under the title, Mary Tudor (New York: Macmillan 6 Co., 1953). J. M. Stone, The History pr_Mary 1, Queen 25. ip_0riginal Private Letters and other Contemporary Documents (London: Sands, 1901), is next to Prescott the Standard Roman Catholic version of Queen Mary's life, and although somewhat biased in places, is based in great measure on contemporary documents. There are a number of good Standard surveys of the early Tudor period which deserve Special mention. J. D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1558 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1952), is perhaps the best general survey of the early Tudor period. For the period between 1529-1558, J. A. Froude, History p£_§pgland from the fall pr Wolsey pp. the Defeat pr_the Spanish Armada, 12 vols. (New York: C. Scribner's 6 Sons, 1899), is generally regarded as the classic work for the period and one of the great masterpieces of English historical literature. Though written with a strong anti-Catholic bias, Froude is indispensable 257 for a comprehensive understanding of the period as a whole, without which any study of Tudor England would be incomplete. Of the more concise varieties of Tudor history, S. T. Bindoff, ngpr_§pgiapd (London 6 New York: Pelican Books, 1950), which is an excellent piece of sound scholarship, and G. R. Elton, England under the Tudors (London: Methuen 6 Co., Ltd., 1956), are two of the more well-known works in this category. Helen Cam, England before Eliza- beth (London 6 New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), J. R. Green, Short History pr the English People (London: Macmillan 6 Co., 1874), Con- yers Read, The Tudors: Personalities and Practical Politics ip Six- teenth Century England (New York: Holt 6 Co., 1936), and J. A. Wil- liamson, The Tudor Age (London: Longman's, Green 6 Co., Ltd., 1953), provide very useful studies for anyone desiring to pursue his study of the Tudor period further. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE ST. LEGER FAMILY COAT OF ARMS APPENDIX A THE ST. LEGER FAMILY COAT OF ARMS From: The Visitations p£_Kent, taken ip the years 1574 and 1592, W. Bruce Bannerman, ed. (London: The Publications of the Harleian Society, 1924), LXXV, 68. 258 APPENDIX B PEDIGREE OF SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER OF ULCOMBE, KENT APPENDIX B PEDIGREE OF SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER OF ULCOMBE, KENT Sir John St. Leger, = Margery, daughter and heir knight . . . Donnet of Syllyam, Suffolk Richard (PLANTAGENET), - Cecily (yst. da. of Duke of York Ralph (DE NEVILLE) Earl of Westmoreland lHenry Holland, Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntington F I j Anne of Exeter 8 2Sir Thomas St. Leger Ralph - Margaret Bartholomew a Blanche (s. of Edward IV) (beheaded, 1483) Tyrrel Fitzwilliams Anne a George 1James St. Leger - Anne (da. 6 coh. Maners of Sir Thos. Butler, (Lord Ros) seventh earl of Ambrose Grisacre Ormonde Ralph 8 Anne Prophet r' Sir George St. Leger f Anne Knevet l of (Co.) Sussex (Ambassador to Denmark) r I I Sir Ralph a Elizabeth Haut Anne James St. Leger St. Leger John St. Leger = Katherine (da. to George, Lord Burgaveny) [T ’ 1 Arthur (Dean of Robert Here the St. Legers of Canterbury, 1541-1568) (Const. of Devonshire were Dungarvan, descended. 1543-1550) SIR ANTHONY gT. LEGER 8 Agnes Warham (niece of Archbishop (1496?-1559) l Hugh Warham of Canterbury) 1 r ’ ’T_l Sir Anthony Sir Warham St. Leger - Ursula Nevell William = Isabell Keys (Master of the (Lord President of I (da. to Lord Rolls in Ireland Munster, 1566; Knighted, Burgaveny) and Privy Knighted, 1593) Sir William St. Leger Councillor) (Lord President of ' , Munster, 1627) Sir Anthony St. Leger Henry St. Leger I 1 (Lord President of Munster, Anne - Sir George Warham 1566, Knighted, 1593) of Malsanger 2Edward Thwaytes, Esq. of Esture From: Add. MS 5520 f.187. Courtesy of British Museum, London. 259 APPENDIX C MAP OF IRELAND, 1500 APPENDIX C MAP OF IRELAND, 1500 5? e Mimic OCEAN a; MISTER I. .. ' 7' . .C 01:3, O’NEILL .- 1| ”lye '\ \ 3'- ‘ . ['5 \MS‘: ° 1 KINNMEHT< “Aims. 6 '. . E ‘“ C 4‘: - D ,%W’ I’ll. Dublin . B ., ’* V mm“ 260 APPENDIX D PEDIGREES OF THE GREAT ANGLO-IRISH FAMILIES 261 nmwmcounemu mseflmufiuv mafiuoumfl: one >mm0fleoz.mm Nuoumflm.« .mfluasu ”scum anH .o.v momu mg ozoz>H mo .meamnoo .moofinnmzNuflm maoamm mo nonmooc< one” .6 m.6a>eo .om mo dormem QH>cH one op OOAH< n muHmD3.N¢ a.‘ 4 9334358. ......h .3421: not 9:58:83. ... 3.3.. 4.....34 84:3. 5.x”... D4. .8 3.... 358.55 NEE v.93... 9.... (I‘M. ..8 5 8.3.8.... ...? 4 ....d‘wox J... ...». 8 no ...-«4488. E ME...- 80.8....“ .\a 4)....“ flank % 31.4 koala-v83 FEM“)? qr$fi¢41&..r@ 93$:ke. 55.5.“. Ike? f 8r \C‘N .8331.» 8 :82. . do . .53.. .... (fix. ..u4. ... 4:}. ..flbi huge 8VI..Q8M.... «... ..HV.. 18...: «r. .... .tN’trVuN ...-.....tte... 0 3x ...» 1... ......ww..rfi$ A. .... We W‘s... 4.. ...- I\ .3 ..v infiSfl. 4:89 P. a $32.34. 4‘ 483. ...... ...... ...... .5... .. .. 55.5 .35.? .3533 x: ...- «mom; .Hm >ZOEZ< «Hm mo HszHmMH oz< 4.3: H93 mg m xHszmmd. 270 APPENDIX C THE VICEROYS OF IRELAND (1470-1556) APPENDIX C THE VICEROYS OF IRELAND (1470-1556) Lord DeEutZ Term in_0ffice Sir Thomas Fitzgerald, _ 7th Earl of Kildare 1470 1477 Sir Gerald Fitzgerald, 8th Earl of Kildare . . . . . . . . . . 1478-1494 The Great Earl *Sir Edward Poynings . . . . . . . . . . 1494-1496 2:: 22::12.F1::52::”' Sir Gerald Fitzgerald, 9th Earl of Kildare . . . . . . . . . . 1513-1520 Garret Oge *Sir Thomas Howard, 1520_1522 Earl of Surrey 3::rzaggtigréssory 1522-1529 *Sir William Skeffington . . . . . . . . . . 1530-1532 3:; Siii‘lfifFfiifiifim' *Sir William Skeffington . . . . . . . . . . 1534-1535 *Sir Leonard Grey . . . . . . . . . . 1535-1540 *SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER . . . . . . . . . . 1540-1548 *Sir Edward Bellingham . . . . . . . . . . 1548-1550 *represents native Englishmen 271 Lord Degpty *SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER *Sir James Croft *SIR ANTHONY ST. LEGER 272 Term in_0ffice 1550-1551 1551—1553 1553-1556 ”'TIII'IT’LTIMIMIMTfifljililflflgfihijfljiflfflms