The reader cannot be surprised that the jurors of Roscommon, under these circumstances, found for the crown. Nothing less could have been expected: "The presence and interposition of a lord deputy, whose character and temper were fitted to operate on men's passions, had probably their full effect on this occasion. The king's title was found, without scruple or hesitation; and the verdict attended with a petition for an equitable treatment of present proprietors, and a due provision for the church.”224 The example of Roscommon had a decided influence on the counties of Mayo and Sligo, where the king's title was found, without difficulty. Galway remained. All the arts of the deputy were in vain. The jury refused to find the bills; and, as already stated, were enormously fined and imprisoned.* * "The jury of the county of Galway was summoned to meet at Portumna, on Aug. 13, 1635, and consisted of the principal gentlemen of the county. The king's title to all the lands in it, except such as belonged to the church, or had been granted out by the patents of his predecessors, WAS PROVED BY THE CONQUEST OF KING HENRY II. and the grant he made of it to Roderic, lord of Connaught; by the grant of Henry III. to Richard De Burgo, of twenty-five cantreds, out of thirty, whereof the whole consists, upon a rent of three hundred marks for the first five years, and of five hundred for ever afterwards; and by the payment of this rent into the exchequer, and the allowances thereof in the sheriff's accompt from time to time; by the descent of King Edward IV. from Lionel, duke of Clarence, and the heiress of De Burgo; and 224 Leland, III. 37. It is painful to find, that every step we take in these investigations, affords additional evidence of the prejudice, the sinister views, or the incapacity of the writers of Irish history. Leland by the vesting of their lands in the crown, by the statute of 10. Henry VII. c. 15. "The jury, however, UPON PRETENCE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF HENRY II. WAS NOT A CONQUEST, but a submission of the inhabitants; that the grant to Roderic was barely a composition, whereby the king had only the dominion, but not the property of the lands, though the rent paid sufficiently proved the latter; that, in tracing the descent to Edward IV. proof had not been made of Lionel duke of Clarence's possession; and that the statute of Henry VII. related to tenures rather than to lands, though no man could be proved to have any land there in property at that time, thought fit to find against the king's title, (though no grant was produced from the crown to any ancestor of the possessors, and WHERE NO BODY ELSE HAS A RIGHT, THE KING'S TITLE MUST BE GOOD;) and when called upon to declare in whom the freehold was vested, (if not in the crown) they refused to do so. The lord deputy highly resented this proceeding; and, conceiving it would be of ill example to the rest of the kingdom, and would retard, if not defeat, the execution of his project, caused the jurors to be prosecuted, for a combination with the sheriff who empannelled them, to defeat the king of his right. They were tried on the 27th of May, 1636, FINED FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS A MAN, SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT TILL IT WAS PAID, AND TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, UPON THEIR KNEES, IN COURT AND AT THE ASSIZES, OF THEIR OFFENCE, in refusing to find what they ought to have found, upon the evidence produced, and which their neighbours had actually found the same." upon 225 225 Carte, I. 82. narrates, without the slightest censure, this Connaught spoliation, unsupported by letter-dropping, conspiracy, rebellion, or any accusation of not building houses or planting orchards. Of all the various instances of the obliquity of Carte's history, there is none more extraordinary than the view he gives of this hideous affair. He absolutely defends the proceedings of Strafford; and unqualifiedly censures the jury, who, "on the evidence produced, ought to have found," he says, "as their neighbours had found." Among his accusations of the jury, the first is, their grounding their refusal of finding a title to the province, on "THE PRETENCE," as this prejudiced historian says, "that the subjection of the country under Henry II. was a submission, not a conquest." In what a state of delirium must the mind of the man be, who could be so far lost to a sense of reason or justice, as to style this sound and irrefragable plea "a pretence," or to countenance any claims resting on such untenable ground! That in a country, which for centuries had been despoiled on pretexts as iniquitous, such claims should be advanced by a depredator of the character of Wentworth, is not wonderful: but that an historian, writing, a century afterwards, with all the facts before him, on which to form a correct estimate, should for a moment admit that the titles to estates, held in the same families for ages, should be affected by the ques tion of the conquest or submission of the country, is inexpressibly astonishing. The invasion of Henry took place in 1172; and the spoliation of Connaught was projected in 1636, that is, four hundred and sixty-four years afterwards. Of what consequence could it have been to the proprietors of estates, what was the character of the proceedings of Henry,-whether he received a submission, or made a conquest? Suppose it a submission: does it thence follow, that Charles I. had a right to an acre, or even a perch, of an estate that had descended from heir to heir, for the intermediate four centuries and a half? Suppose it invasion: does that enhance the strength of the claim? Had every man, woman, and child in the whole nation been subdued by, and sworn allegiance to, Henry II. or, to give the argument its utmost force, Henry V. VI. VII. or VIII. could that warrant a jury in finding a title in the crown to the whole of the soil; or justify the imposition of a fine of eighty thousand pounds sterling on the jury, for not finding such title? Could any thing but the most rampant spirit of rapine ever lay a claim on such wretched ground, or any thing but the most dire insanity or obliquity of mind ever undertake the palliation of the vile deed? We have already stated, that the project miscarried; not through the honour or justice of the monarch or his agents, but through the intestine troubles at home, which gave them much more serious and finally fatal employment than plundering the inhabitants of Connaught. We have asserted, that the judges were bribed. This is recorded by Wentworth's own hand. To ensure the assistance of the court, he advised the king to bestow on the lord chief justice and the chief baron, four shillings in the pound, from the first yearly rent raised out of the depredated estates, in order to interest them in promoting the rapine. The "royal martyr," worthy of such a representative, gave, and the judges, worthy of such a monarch and such a deputy, received, the wages of their prostitution. Well might Shakspeare exclaim, แ Thieves for their robbery have authority, The bribe had the desired effect: for Wentworth says, "I have found it, upon observation, to be the best given that ever was; for that by these means they attend that business with as much care and diligence as if it had been their own private; and that every four shillings, once paid, would better his majesty's revenue four pounds."225 Who can read this odious detail, without standing aghast with horror? A king conspires with his vicegerent, to despoil his defenceless subjects; and, to ensure success in their flagitious undertaking, they tender a manifest bribe to the judges who are to decide the cause. The amount 225 Strafford, I. 442. |