« PreviousContinue »
sums up the character of these two men in the following words:—
“After Sir Anthony Selinger was Lord Deputy. He was a wise man, well beloved in his beginning. He did so much by his wisdom, that he brought in all the Irish lords in Ireland, and sent them to the King, which did surrender all their land to the King, which the King did give this same to them again with rich gifts. He began the cesses in his time, which gat him displeasure. After him, Sir Edward Bellingchame, a good man, a very true payer of all men, and never took anything but that he paid for; and in his time Afale and Lexe was wan, and a strong fort builded in every of them ; and after being sent for into England, [he] there died. This man had cesses worse than Selingere, but for his own horses wholly was kept in his own stable, and paid for all he took, and was a truedealing man. He could not have bide [abidel the cry of the poor. He never in his time took anything of any man but that he truly paid ; for he ware ever his harness, and so did all those who he liked of.”
Brian died in February 1549, and Bellingham shortly after.
Sentleger arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1550.4 His demands on taking office will be found in the Irish
* “The Book of Hothe" (Carew MS. 623), f. 119 b.
f He was certainly not there on 11 March, when Sir William Brabazon was acting as Lord Justice. (See Carew Papers, Vol. I. p. 224.) At a meeting of the Council, 27 July 1550, a sum of money was voted to him, as Deputy, for his service in Ireland, and 500l. by way of reward, from the King. The Deputy's salary had been increased already, 28 June 1550, 200 marks, making it 1,000l. per annum. In King Edward's journal there is a notice of Sentleger's appointment under 4 August 1550. (See Nichols' Remains of Edw. VI., pp. 287, 289.) His instructions are dated July 1550. (Carew, I. 226.) Alen, in a letter to his brother, seems to have had hopes of the deputyship. “Ye shall declare,” he says, “to my Lords “what pains I have taken sithence my coming hither, specially sithence “ the Deputy's departure and this sudden chance, the care and direction ‘ in effect of the affairs of the whole realm lying upon me, so as if in “ these cases there had been one in my place, I speak for no vainglory, “I take God to record; but to remember the Lords how necessary it is “ to have more officers, in such a country as this, than one, to be expert
State Papers preserved in the Record Office.* Among other articles in his instructions he is directed to set forth the service of the English Church in English and in Irish, as it may best be understood; to take inventories of all the goods, jewels, and bells of parish churches; to urge on the labours of the miners in Ireland, especially in digging for alum; to survey timber fit for shipbuilding; to place the countries of Leix and Offally in greater security, by letting the lands for 21 years, and allowing the farmers one or two years rent free. He is commanded also to do his best in reducing those parts of Leinster which were still occupied by the Kavanaghs, the Tooles, and the Byrnes.
It could not be expected that Alen would see without displeasure the return of his old enemy to power. Whether he signalized his animosity, or—shall it be said his restlessness?—by complaining of Sentleger's conduct to the Privy Council, I cannot tell. But on the 12th of September he received letters of revocation. He was allowed either to return to England, or remain in Ireland on his pension, and he preferred the former, giving way to Sir Thomas Cusack, who had been appointed in his room on the 4th of August.f
Though no longer a member of the Council, he could not forbear at times expressing his dissatisfaction at the treatment he received from the Deputy. Before the close of the year, and again in the beginning of 1551, Sentleger finds himself compelled to answer the complaints of Alen and others, in the following letter to the future Lord Burleigh.
“ and in credit.” He acknowledges that he found great obstacles, especially because he is defamed that he “can agree with no man ;” and expresses his willingness to give up his office for an annuity of 100l. (Irish State Papers, II. 50.)
* II, 54. f See Morrin, p. 208.
“ Gentle Mr. Cecil, “I cannot render you condign thanks for the goodness I hear you daily minister to my furtherance and the maintenance of my good name; yet ye shall have that God requireth—the poor heart to requite it. And where I hear that my late companions here, now displaced upon just ground, speak their pleasures upon me, my trust is that the most honourable Council will consider my deeds, and not the malicious report of such persons, but as the same are untrue. I doubt not the King's Majesty hath now 5,000 hearts moo in Ireland than he had at my repair; and I trust it is not unknown to my good Lords that my coming hither was not mine own suit, and much less to serve mine own turn, but by their honourable commandment, and to serve my Sovereign Lord, which, God to witness, I study to the uttermost of my power. I hear also that they name me a Papist. I would to God I were to try it with the best that so nameth me, that most honourable Council excepted.”
(1551.) At the same date Sentleger earnestly requested leave to throw up his office and return to England. There were other causes at work, besides those already mentioned, to render his administration far from agreeable to himself. The Privy Council in England had determined to impose upon Ireland the English Service-Book;f and there can be little doubt, I think, that Sentleger had not only a predilection for the old religion, but in common with some of his predecessors a personal friendship for Dowdall; all the stronger, perhaps, from his dislike of Archbishop Brown. When the order for appointing the
* Irish State Papers, Edw. VI, Vol. III., No. 3.
f In the order issued to Sentleger, dated at Greenwich, Feb. 6, 1551, he is commanded to see that the Liturgy and Common Prayer be used throughout Ireland, as they had been “translated into our mother tongue; of this realm of England ” (Phoenix, p. 128). But in his instructions, preserved by Carew, I. 226, he is permitted to substitute the Irish for the English tongue, where the latter is not understood, till such time as the people may be brought to understand English. So this enforcement of the English Liturgy had a political as well as a religious purpose.
service was discussed in the Irish Council Chamber, and proposed by the Deputy, the motion was resisted by Dowdall and his suffragans, who eventually withdrew, after employing the same arguments against the service in English as had generally been employed by those who held similar views in England. The author of Brown's Life, already referred to, has given a very dramatic version of this story in terms highly complimentary to Archbishop Brown. But Brown has left us, in his own handwriting, another version of the same matter, which throws rather a different light on the character and conduct of the chief persons concerned in it.
“This massing, with like, being spoken in open Council against, by the Lieutenant, Sir Raphe Bagnall, and me, that it was too much against duty to suffer the Primate so to contemn the King's proceedings, and required he might be called before him (Sentleger) and the rest; who came and disputed plainly the massing and other things, contrary the King's proceedings, and that he would not embrace them ; whereat the Deputy said nothing. The same Sir Raphe Bagnall called him errant traitor. Sir Thomas Cusacke, the Chancellor, the said Primate's cousin, answered, ‘Mr. Bagnall, no traitor.’ So the Primate departed, and continued as he did, till the same Mr. Sentleger was discharged of the deputation; who, coming hither, sent in message to the Earl of Tyrone by his servant, ‘Have me most heartily commended to my Lord your master, and pray him in anywise to follow the counsel and advice of that good father, sage senator, and godly bishop, my Lord Primate, in everything; and so he shall do well.” Howsoever the matter was, the Primate, like a traitor, soon upon fled, writing to the said Chancellor—(I pray God to send in that trusty vocation an Englishman)—that he would never be bishop, where the holy mass (as he called it) was abolished.”
* Irish State Papers, III. 45. From a document in the Irish State Papers (Vol. I., No. 141), it will be seen that some of Archbishop Brown's contemporaries held views of his character and conduct very different from those which were put forth in his Life in the “Phoenix.” In a paper
Sentleger was revoked on the 11th of April, and Sir James Croft was appointed in his place. Sir James had already been sent to Ireland at the commencement of the year, to co-operate with the Deputy.” His instructions upon his appointment were much the same in effect as those issued to his predecessor.f Croft's attention was
of interrogatories to be administered to himself or the Deputy, I find the following charges brought against him ; whether justly or unjustly, whether by an enemy or an official, I cannot undertake to say. (1.) Whether the Lord Protector and Council wrote to George, Archbishop of Dublin, before Christmas last, not to alienate any part of his bishopric. Nevertheless he alienated most part of it to his children. (2.) Whether he said he had matters of treason and other abuses to lay to the charge of Master Seintleger. (3.) Whether he at any time did set out the King's injunctions and homilies. (4) “Whether he preached at any time from November last till Sep“tember 1548; which day he long before premonished to the people ; “ and whether he procured or sent to Justice Luttrell, parson Luttrell, “ the vicar of Drogheda, or to any other to be at that undecent sermon, “ wherein he willed the audience to do all their former ceremonies, “ affirming that, like as Luther condemned the Bishop of Rome's tradi“tions and ceremonies, so doth this Scot, that last preached here, condemn “ the mass and other our ceremonies. Therefore whatsoever he is that “[doth] either maintain, succour, or credit this Scot in his preaching, is “ not the King's true subject.” (5.) Whether he has received any letters from the Earl of Desmond or [other] Irishmen. (6.) Whether he suffered the said preacher to obtain a licence, or inveighed against him in the said sermon, &c. It is stated in Brown's Life (p. 133) that according to some papist's writing, he relapsed under the reign of Queen Mary, and died for joy on receiving a bull from the Pope confirming him in his see. The writer of that Life, however, contends that this is nothing more than a scandal of Brown's enemies, and thinks that it is sufficiently refuted by Brown's religious zeal and activity in behalf of Protestantism. I think myself it is very improbable, but not for the reason stated. Had the rumour any connexion with these interrogatories 2 * See his Instructions, Carew, I. 230. t See Carew, I. 231.