תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

the king was to order John to return into Ireland, for the purpose of taking possession of De Lacy's castles and lands, during the nonage of that baron's eldest son Walter. But the death of Geoffry, duke of Bretagne, the third son of the king, who was carried off at this time by a fever, prevented an experiment which would have most probably ended but in a repetition of the former failure and disgrace.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Review of the steps taken by Henry for the transfer of Ireland to John.-Translation of the relics of the three great Irish Saints.-Exploits of De Courcy in Ulster.-Death of Henry the second.-Remarks on the arguments of Molyneux and others respecting the transfer of the dominion of Ireland to John.-De Courcy resents the appointment of De Lacy as deputy.-Cathal of the bloody hand gains the kingdom of Connaught.-Is joined by the princes of Thomond and Desmond.-Accession of Richard I.-Hugh De Lacy, son of the first lord of Meath, appointed deputy.-Affairs of Connaught.-Defeat of the English by Donald O'Brian.-Perfidy of O'Brian.-His death.-Rapid change of Deputies.-Insurrection of the Irish.-Successes of Mac Carty of Desmond.-Death of Roderic O'Connor.Low state of Irish Literature at this period.-Remarks on Giraldus.

On the subject of Henry's grant of the realm of Ireland to his son John, and the supposed effects of that measure, as regarded the political relations between the two countries, a question has been more than once raised, among constitutional lawyers, upon which it may be expected that I should here offer some remarks. But a more direct opportunity will occur for considering this controversy when we come to notice the events of the subsequent reign. Mean while, a brief review of the steps taken, at different times, by Henry, towards such a transfer of bis Irish dominion, may put the reader more clearly in possession of the bearings of the question that has since arisen out of that measure; and will also show that Henry himself was not without doubts as to the safety and policy of the step. His relinquishment, indeed, of the design originally entertained by him of bestowing upon John the title of king, arose, most probably, from the apprehension that the establishment of a separate sovereignty over that country might, at some future time, be assumed as a ground for questioning the dependence of Ireland on the English crown. On no other supposition is it easy to account for the great uncertainty of purpose exhibited by him on this point. Thus, though, in the year 1177, he actually intended to make this boy king of Ireland, and caused him, with the pope's permission, to be so declared by a council or parliament at Oxford, it is yet clear, from numerous records, that John took no other title than that of lord of Hibernia. Notwithstanding this, when he was about to proceed to that country, in 1185, application was made by his father to pope Lucius III., requesting that he would allow the young prince to be crowned; but the pope, for what reason is not known, refused his consent. On the accession, however, of Urban III., the same request, it appears, was renewed; for that pontiff, shortly after his election, granted permission to Henry to crown any one of his sons whom he should choose king of Ireland, and, at the same time, sent him, as a mark of his peculiar favour, a crown made of peacock's feathers interwoven with gold. In reply to this gracious communication, Henry named to the pope his youngest son John, and requested that a legate should be sent to assist at his coronation. On the arrival, however, of the cardinal Octavian for that purpose, the king, who in the mean time had given up his project of sending John again into Ireland, abandoned likewise all intention of crowning him.

The year 1186 was rendered memorable in our ecclesiastical annals, by the A. D. translation of the remains of the three great national saints, Patrick, Columba, 1186. and Brigid, which had been discovered in Down in the preceding year. The pious bishop of that see, Malachy, used frequently, we are told, to implore of God, in his devotions, that he would vouchsafe to point out to him the particular place or places in which the bodies of these saints lay concealed. While thus employed, one night, in the cathedral of Down, he saw a light, like a sunbeam, traversing the church, and at length

resting at a spot where, upon digging, the bones of the three bodies were found.* This discovery having been reported to John de Courcy, then lord of Down, it was determined that messengers should be despatched to pope Urban III., for the purpose of procuring his permission to remove or translate these relics to some part of the church more worthy to receive them. The pope accordingly sent over as his legate on the occasion cardinal Vivian, who was already well acquainted with Down and its clergy; and, on the 9th of June, the relics of the three saints, having been put into distinct boxes, or coffins, were removed, with the usual solemnities, to a more distinguished part of the church, and there deposited in one monument.†

John de Courcy, now left to encounter the whole brunt of the Irish struggle almost alone, owed the success which in general attended his arms far less to his own and his small army's prowess, than to the wretched feuds and divisions which distracted the multitudes opposed to him; who, instead of following the rare example set by the chieftains of the south, and reserving, by a truce among themselves, their combined hostility for the oppressor, still continued their mutual broils and feuds, and, in the very face of the common enemy, thought only of flying upon each other. In the year 1187, O'Loghlin, prince of Tirone, was, after a sanguinary struggle, deposed from his throne; but the prince who succeeded him, Roderic O'Lachertair, had but a brief tenure of his ill-got power, as, in a few months after his accession, when in the act of ravaging and despoiling the county of Tirconnel, this usurper was put to death, and the rightful ruler restored. Nor was it long before O'Loghlin himself fell on the field, but in a cause far more worthy of an ancient national chief. Having been attacked at Cavan-ne-cran, by the English A. D. garrison of the castle of Mogcava, he gained, after a desperately fought action, a 1187. complete victory over them, but was himself killed by an English arrow in the moment of triumph. About the same time O'Cavenan, king of Tirconnel, attacked by surprise when on a journey, by Flahertach O'Medory, another of these petty princes, was, together with his brother and a number of servants, treacherously murdered.‡

Those who thus recklessly made war upon their own countrymen would not scruple, of course, to aid the enemy in the same cause; and we find, in the same year, a native chieftain, Cornelius O'Dermot, leagued with De Courcy in an invasion of Connaught, whither that lord had been invited by a faction within the province, for the purpose of deposing from the sovereignty Connor Manmoy, to whom his father, the feeble Roderic, had, some few years before, surrendered the reins of power. The province of Connaught had been active in the revolt against John, and this treacherous invitation now opened to De Courcy a means of reducing it to obedience. The son of Boderic, however, had secured the aid of the brave and indefatigable Donald O'Brian, and their united armies engaging De Courey, who had not counted on so formidable a resistance, forced him to retreat precipitately from Connaught. Then, putting down the rebellious faction he had come to assist, they re-established the authority of Connor on apparently secure grounds.

A. D.

The very next year, however, some of the nearest friends of this prince, having joined in a conspiracy against him with the late vanquished party, he was, be- 1189. tween both factions, basely murdered. Nor even then did the curse of discord cease to hang around that ill-fated house; as, for many a year after, Connaught continued to be torn and convulsed by the remains of this unnatural strife; while the fallen monarch, Roderic O'Connor, still lived to witness, from his melancholy retreat at Cong, the merited judgments which a long course of crime and dissention was now bringing down on his ill-starred realm and race.

Whatever hope might still have been cherished, by those who looked to Ireland, with other views than of mere plunder, that Henry might yet find leisure to apply himself to the peaceful settlement of a country, which, according to the policy now pursued towards it, was to become either the prop and ornament, or the disgrace and burden, of England, such slight opening of hope was now closed for ever by the death of this powerful king, which took place in the month of July 1189, at the castle of Chinon, in Normandy;the event being embittered, if not accelerated, by his discovery of the base treachery, and ingratitude towards him, of his favourite son, John. He died, say the historians, cursing his children.

The period of Anglo-Irish history-for of this mixed character has my task now be

* Officium Translationis, &c., of which a portion is given by Usher, Primord. Eccles. 889.-"Et cum nocte quadam instantissime in Ecclesia Dunensi sic oraret, vidit quasi radium solis per ecclesiam, et usque ad locum sepulturæ dictorum sanctorum corporum perlustrantem."

Lanigan, ch. xxx. § 8.

Ware's Annals, ad. ann. 1188.

§ Ware's Annals, ut supra. Vallancey's Laws of Tanistry.

come-upon the borders of which we are arrived, may safely be hurried over both by the historian and his readers, through more than one century of its course, without losing much that either the pen or the memory can find any inducement to linger upon or record. However wanting in distinctness and interest may have been the details of Ireland's struggle with the Danes, and however confused, occasionally, froin factious alliances, may have been the relations between the two parties, it is certain that each is, in general, found in its own natural sphere of action, and pursuing the course that might be expected from it, whether of aggression or resistance; while the ultimate result was such as reason, humanity, justice, must all approve-namely, the triumph of the people of the land, in defence of their own soils, and the utter rout and expulsion of their insolent invaders. In the course, of affairs however, which we are now about to contemplate, all is reversed, preposterous, and unnatural,-wholly at variance, not only with right, but even with the ordinary course of injustice and wrong. The people of Ireland, the legitimate masters of the soil, disappear almost entirely from the foreground of their country's history, while a small colony of rapacious foreigners stand forth usurpingly in their place. Expelled, on the one hand, as enemies and rebels, from their rightful possessions, by the English, and repulsed, on the other, as intruders, by the native septs, into whose lands they were driven, a large proportion of the wretched people, thus rendered homeless and desperate, were forced to fight for a spot to exist upon, even in their own land. Compared with the fate, indeed, of the miserable multitudes whom we shall find from time to time dispossessed by the English extermination would have been mercy.

To second the sword in this mode of governing, the weapon of the legislator was also resorted to, and proved a still more inhuman because more lingering, visitation. Giving a name to its own work, the Law called "enemies" those whom its injustice had made so; and, for the first time in the annals of legislation, a state of mutual hostility was recognised as the established relationship between the governing and the governed. While such was the sad history of the people themselves, through many a dark age of suffering and strife, the acts of the rulers by whom so rampant a system of tyranny was administered will be found no less odious to remember, no less painful to record; though in so far pregnant with lessons of warning, as showing what penalties wait upon wanton misrule, and how sure a retribution tyranny provides for itself in the rebound of its own wrong.

The kindly feelings of Richard I. towards his unworthy brother, John, were shown not more in the favours and dignities so prodigally lavished upon him both in Normandy and England, than in the easy and generous confidence with which he still left him in unrestricted possession of the grant of the lordship over Ireland, which had been bestowed on him by the late king. With the slight exception, indeed, of the mention of Ireland among those parts of the British dominions for which he requested a legate to be appointed by Pope Clement III., Richard appears not to have at all interfered with that country during his short, chivalrous reign. It is to be observed, however, that, in the pope's rescript complying with this request, the range of the legate's authority in Ireland is limited strictly to those parts of the country in which John, earl of Mortagne, the brother of the king, has power or dominion." We find the same terms employed in a charter of franchises granted at this period by John himself. While, in other instruments conferring immunities and privileges, he acknowledges, in like manner, the subordinacy of his own power, by annexing exceptions and reservations of all that belonged or related to the English crown.

Allusion has been made, in the preceding chapter, to a question raised in later times, respecting the consequences of Henry's grant of the kingdom of Ireland to his son John, a question which, at more than one crisis of our history, has been agitated with a warmth and earnestness which could be infused into it only by the political spirit and ferment of the moment. By one of the parties in this controversy it has been contended that the act of Henry, in making his son king of Ireland, produced a great and fundamental

"The septs that were thus expelled from their habitations in vain sought an asylum in the more inaccessible parts of the country, since hostile septs, to which they were as invaders, opposed their inroads."— Brodie, History of the British Empire. Introduction.

The first instance, I believe, of any decided difference of opinion on this point, occurs in the decisions of the judges of England, on the precedent of the Staple Act (2 Hen. V1.,) when to the question," Whether the Staple Act binds Ireland?" two directly opposite opinions were given, on the two several occasions when the case was brought under their consideration. The opinion pronounced, however, by the chief justice Hussey on the last of these two occasions, and to which all the other judges assented, was, that "the statutes made in England did bind those of Ireland ;"-a view of the case confirmed, in later times, by the high authority of chief justice Cook, and likewise of sir John Davies.

The first public controversy to which the question gave rise, was that which took place on the passing of the Act of Adventurers, 17 Car. I., between sir Richard Bolton (or, rather, Patrick Darcy, assuming that name) and sergeant Maynart, whose respective pamphlets on the subject may be found in Harris's Hibernica. At the close of the same century, the question was again called into life by Molyneux, in behalf of the Irish woollen manufacture, and received new grace and popularity from his manner of treating it. About fifty years later

change in the relations between the two kingdoms; that, by this transfer, he had superseded or voided whatever claim he could pretend to, from conquest, over Ireland, leaving it to all intents a separate and independent kingdom;* while, by the introduction among that people, as well in his own reign as in that of his son John, of the laws and institutions of England, they were provided with the means of internal government, and thereby exempted from all dependence on the English legislature.

This view of the question, though leading to conclusions which cannot but be welcome to all advocates of Ireland's independence, is, unluckily, destitute of foundation in historical fact. The title of king of Ireland, bestowed on the young prince, was, as we have seen, withdrawn almost as soon as announced; and though Henry afterwards again contemplated the same step, and had even a legate sent over from Rome to assist at his son's coronation, the same misgivings again came over him, and he abandoned the project; apprehending, perhaps, from the actual possession of the title by John, those very pretentions which afterwards, arose from the mere presumption of his having been invested with that title.

It may be said that, though John was styled only "Lord of Hibernia," none of the succeeding kings of England took any higher title, and yet were not the less invested with regal authority over that country. But, to put his son independently in possession of that power, Henry must have surrendered all hold of it himself; and that he did not do so, is abundantly proved by all the subsequent acts and instruments of his reign, by his appointment of all the ministers and officers of the government in Ireland, by his recalling from that country the young Lord of Hibernia himself, and committing the charge and command of the kingdom to John de Courcy in his stead. He also made numerous grants of lands in that realm, some to be held of himself alone and his heirs, others by tenure of him and John and their heirs; still reserving, in all these grants, certain services to himself, and thus clearly establishing that in him the right and title of the property lay.

While thus weak are the grounds derived from the supposed kingship of John, for regarding Ireland at this time as a distinct and independent kingdom, the inferences drawn from the alleged introduction into that realm, of the laws and institutions of England, thereby enabling, as it is said, the Irish people to legislate for themselves,—are no less fallacious and unsubstantial.

In order to give dignity to this supposed dawn of English legislation in Ireland, the Curia Regis, or Common Council, held by Henry at Lismore, is styled, prematurely, a Parliament, that term not occurring even in English records till towards the middle of the 13th century; while, in order to instruct his new subjects in the art of law inaking, a sort of Formulary, still extant, containing rules and directions for the holding of parliaments, is pretended to have been transmitted by him to Ireland for that purpose.§

The claims of this document to so high an antiquity, though sustained by no less an authority than sir Edward Coke, were shown satisfactorily by Prynne, Selden, and others, to be wholly without grounds. Notwithstanding which, it was again, at a later period, appealed to by Molyneux in proof of the antiquity of Irish parliaments; and again, with equal ease and success, was set aside by his various opponents in the controversy. The

the Irish demagogue, Lucas, revived the topic, in his own coarse but popular strain. Nor has the subject, even in our own times, been permitted to slumber; as a learned argument in favour of Darcy's and Molyneux's view of the question has appeared, not long since, from the pen of Mr. Monck Mason.

"We shall observe that by this donation of the kingdom of Ireland to king John, Ireland was most eminently set apart again as a separate and distinct kingdom by itself from the kingdom of England."—-Moly

neux.

It is not a little curious that chief justice Coke should have been of the very same opinion with Molyneux, as to Ireland being "a distinct dominion separate from the kingdom of England," though drawing so perfectly different a conclusion from it :-adding, "Yet the title thereof being by conquest, the same by judgment of law might, by express words, be bound by the parliaments of England." Sir John Davies, with far more consistency, in asserting the power of the English parliament to bind this country, so far from considering Ireland as a distinct, separate kingdom, pronounces her to be but "a member appendant and belonginge, or unyted and annexed to the imperial crowne of England." See his speech, in 1613, as speaker of the Irish house of commons, first published by Leland, in the Appendix to his second volume.

In the face of this historical fact, Molyneux persists, for the sake of his argument, in giving to John the title of king throughout.-See preceding note. In a similar manner, he says elsewhere, "During which space of twenty-two years, both whilst his father Henry II., and his brother Richard I, were living and reigning, king John made divers grants and charters to his subjects," &c. &c.

On John's own seal, of which Speed has given an engraving, no higher title is assumed than that of Lord of Hibernia; "Sigillum Johannis filli Regis, Domini Hiberniæ." It is strange that Prynne, with all these facts before his eyes, should have committed the mistake of asserting that John, created king of Ireland by his father at Oxford, “enjoyed that title till his death."-On the Institutes, c. 76.

"Modus tenendi Parliamentum," &c. This record is given, at length, in Harris's Ware, chap. 13. Selden pronounces it to be "a late imposture of a bold fancy, not exceeding the reign of Edward III.” (Titles of Honour.) See Prynne (on the Fourth Part of the Institutes) for the numerous proofs he brings against the antiquity and authority of this document.

original roll of this record, which was in the possession of Molyneux himself, and which he had before him, as he states, while writing his "Case of Ireland," is now lost; and how far even the exemplification of this roll, said to have been made in the 6th year of Henry V., may be received as authentic, is yet a farther question. But enough of incongruities and anachronisms have been pointed out in the substance of the " Modus" itself, to disqualify it totally as authentic evidence respecting the times to which its pretended date refers.

The great and leading mistake, however, of those now obsolete champions of Ireland's independence, who appealed in its behalf to the Anglo-Norman code, was their overlooking the fact, that, from all this boasted system of law and polity introduced by the invaders into the country, the natives themselves were entirely excluded; that neither at the period where we are now arrived, nor for many centuries after, were the people of Ireland, properly speaking, the native inhabitants of the land, admitted to any share whatever in the enjoyment of those foreign institutions and privileges which yet have been claimed, in their most unrestricted form, for the Ireland of modern days, on the sole presumption of their having been at that period her own. It will be found, as we proceed, that within the narrow circle of the Pale alone were confined, for many centuries, all the advantages resulting from English laws;* and the few instances that occur, from time to time, of the admission, at their own request, of some natives of Ireland to this privilege, only show, by the fewness and formality of the exceptions, how very general and strict was the exclusion.t

At what period parliaments, properly so called, began to be held by the English in Ireland, there appear no means of ascertaining; but it is the opinion of sir J. Davies, that for 140 years after the time of Henry II., there was but one parliament for both kingdoms, and that the councils held occasionally, by the Lords of the Pale, during that interval, were, as he expresses it, rather Parlies than Parliaments. Neither were the interests of the English settlement left wholly unrepresented during that period, as we learn from the records of the reigns of the first three Edwards that Ireland sent representatives to the English parliament under all those kings.

It has been naturally an object with those who have adopted the views of Molyneux on this subject, to prove that parliaments were among the very earliest of the institutions bestowed on Ireland by her new masters; because, in a separate and self-willed legislature, they found a mark of that disjunction and separateness of the two realms which forms a vital part of their theory; and because, during whatever interval the new kingdom may have been left unprovided with a parliament of its own, it must, for that period, be held to have been subject to the Statute Laws of England, and the theory of its independence and self-government must, in so far, be relinquished.

There are yet a few other points connected with Molyneux's view of the history and attributes of the Irish parliament, which shall be noticed as cases arise which require recurrence to the subject. But it may be adverted to here, as at least curious, that

With reference to a writ sent by Henry III, in the thirtieth year of his reign, to the archbishops and others in Ireland, for the strict observance of the laws of England in that country, Prynne says, "Yet, not. withstanding, this privilege of using the laws of England in Ireland was never intended by king John nor king Henry to extend to all the native Irish in general, but only to the English inhabitants transplanted thither, or there born, and to such native Irishmen as faithfully adhered to these kings, and the English in Ireland, against the Irish rebels."

Among the records in the Roll's Office, Dublin, are many of these licenses granted to particular Irish to use the English laws; some of them being Irish women, whose husbands were English. Thus, for instance, "Quia Rado Burges (Anglico qui Hib continue moratr) maritata est qd ipa et hedes sui utantr legib' Anglic."-See Inquisit in Office. Rotul Cancellar. Hibern., &c. Several of such records of licenses to use the English laws are given by Prynne, chap 76.

This assertion may, doubtless, admit of dispute; and Mr. Mason has produced some instances of councils held in Ireland in the reigns of Edward 1. and Edward II, to which the name of Parliament may fairly be allowed. "In the third of Edward II.," he says "previous to the period fixed upon by sir J. Davies for the commencement of Irish legislation, there was a parliament in Ireland, the enactments of which were printed by sir Richard Bolton (the chief baron that was cotemporary with sir John Davies,) in his edition of Irish Statutes, A. D. 1621."

It is clear that Molyneux, though, in one sense, so warm a champion of Ireland's independence, would have hailed a Union, such as now exists between the two countries, with welcome. In noticing the fact above stated, he says:- If from these last mentioned records it be concluded that the parliament of England may bind Ireland, it must also be allowed that the people of Ireland ought to have their representatives in the parliament of England. And this, I believe, we should be willing enough to embrace:—but this is a happiness we can hardly hope for."

To this obvious objection Molyneux necessarily laid himself open, by acknowledging that till the time of Henry III., no regular legislature had yet been established in Ireland. He likewise not merely admits, but demonstrates, that from the ninth of Edward I., to the fiftieth of Edward III., a period occupying about a century, the representatives of Ireland came over to sit in the parliament of England;-a fact which, concurring with the absence of all evidence as to any councils having been held previously in Ireland, except that memorable one convoked by Henry II, at Lismore, seem strongly to corroborate the opinion advanced by sir John Davies respecting the time when a regular legislature was first established in this country.

« הקודםהמשך »