Strafford had seduced this lord's daughter. The criminal correspondence was established by his letters, found in her drawers after her death. Her husband, sir John Gifford, required from his father-inlaw a greater portion than he thought proper to bestow upon his strumpet daughter, the deputy's mistress. Gifford, by a paper, petition, brought the affair before the privy council, which issued a decree in his favour. The chancellor, relying on its illegality, refused compliance; and, in punishment of his contumacy, was sequestered from his seat in the privy council, deprived of the seal as chancellor, and committed to prison. Notwithstanding the high commendations previously bestowed on him by the deputy, a variety of charges of malversation in office were now adduced against him, to answer the purposes of the moment. He appealed to Charles, for redress against such flagitious oppression: but the despotic monarch, determined to support his despotic vicegerent, rejected the petition: and the chancellor was reduced to the humiliating necessity of deprecating the vengeance of the insolent satrap, by an acknowledgment of offence and a supplication for pardon.* During Strafford's whole administration, acts of state, or, in other words, acts of the privy council, had all the force of the laws of the land; and were enforced by arrest, fine, and imprisonment.† in some particulars to offer my humble advice. I judge his majesty will be much better served in sir Adam Loftus than in his lordship; for sure he is a gentleman of far greater abilities, and much better governed; besides one that I am confident would be much more pleasing to the rest of his majesty's ministers here, than his lordship."538 "Loftus found it necessary to purchase his liberty and his former station, by an humble petition to the deputy and council, by which he acknowledged his offence in the most mortifying terms of submission and repentance."539 + Extract from the Impeachment of lord Strafford. “Article 4. The said earl of Strafford said that he would make the earl [of Cork] and all Ireland know, so long as he had the government there, any act of state, there made or to be made, should be as binding to the subjects of that kingdom, as an act of parliament."540 "As for the words, he confessed them to be true; and thought he said no more than what became him; considering how much his master's honour was concerned in him; and that if a proportionable obedience was not as well due to acts of state, as to acts of parliament, in vain did councils sit; and that he had done no more than what former deputies had done."541 "He proved by the lord Dillon, in the lord Chichester's and lord Grandison's time, that the acts of state were by the judges reputed as laws of the land for the present, and proceeded by arrest, imprisonment, and fines, upon contempt, which sir Adam Loftus confirmed." 99542 538 Strafford, I. 403. 541 Frankland, 883. 689 Leland, III. 46. 540 Baker, 499. Jurors who refused to give verdicts agreeably to the wishes of the judges and the government, were cited before the star-chamber court, and ruinously fined, and most grievously imprisoned.* Strafford uniformly proceeded on the iniquitous principle, " that Ireland was a conquered country, and that the king was the lawgiver, in all matters not determined by acts of parliament." This principle he openly avowed on his trial, when his life was in jeopardy, for this and other causes: and this fully accounts for the despotic authority he assumed, for his outrageous proceedings with parliament, for his depredations in Connaught-and for all the endless variety of injustice and oppression, which marked his despotic career, as lord deputy of Ireland. One odious feature of his administration, which he likewise admitted on his trial, and for which he pleaded precedent as a justification, was sending parties of soldiers to execute orders of state, or decrees of courts. It is easy to conceive the oppression that would be com *"Concerning the sentencing of jurors, and the questioning them in the star-chamber," said lord Strafford, on his trial, "it is true; divers of these sentences were past.”543 † Article 3, of the Impeachment. "He did declare and publish, that Ireland was a conquered nation; and that the king might do with them what he pleased."544 "True it is," he said, 'Ireland was a conquered nation; which no man can deny: and that the king is the lawgiver, in matters not determined by acts of parliament, he conceived all loyal subjects would grant. 543 "Article 15. That the said earl did, by his own authority, without any warrant or colour of law, tax and impose great sums of money upon the towns of Baltimore, Bandonbridge, Tallagh, and divers other towns or places, in the realm of Ireland; and did cause the same to be levied upon the inhabitants of those towns by troops of soldiers, with force and arms, in a warlike manner: and, on the ninth of March, in the twelfth year of his now majesty's reign, traitorously did give authority unto Robert Saville, a sergeant-at-arms, and to the captains of companies of soldiers in several parts of the realm, to send such numbers of soldiers to lie on the lands and houses of such as would not conform to his orders, until they should render obedience to his said orders and warrants; and after such submission, and not before, the said soldiers to return to their garrisons; and did also issue the like warrants unto divers others, which warrants were in warlike manner put in execution accordingly: and by such warlike means he did force divers of his majesty's subjects of that realm to submit themselves to his unlawful commands."546 To this article the earl replied, "that to this day nothing hath been more usual in Ireland, than for the governors to appoint soldiers to put all manner of sentences in execution, which he proved plainly to have been done frequently, and familiarly exercised in 543 Nalson, II. 45. 644 Baker, 499. 645 Frankland, 883. 546 Baker, 501. mitted by such officers of justice, let loose on the objects of his vengeance. On the extent of this grievance, the evidence of sir Arthur Tyringham, who was cited in Strafford's defence, throws great light. He deposed, that " In Faulkland's time, he knew twenty soldiers assessed upon one man, for refusing to pay sixteen shillings sterling."547 Lord Strafford, when answering to the article of his impeachment on the subject of martial law, replied, "It has been always in force, and executed in all times in Ireland, and never so sparingly as in my time."* Persons going up and down the country, who could not give a good account of themselves, were hanged by the provost marshal.t It must be obvious, even to a cursory observer, that when individuals had the power of executing martial law on persons "who could not give a good account of themselves," many men, obnoxious to the ruling powers, would, merely on that ground, be regarded as persons "who could not give a good account of themselves:" and, inferring from known principles of human nature,-from the eternal tendency in the possessors of uncontrolled power to abuse it,—from the rancorous and malignant spirit that existed towards the Roman Catholics, and, at least in an equal degree, from the impunity their oppressors experienced, it is by no means improbable, that of the "hundreds of persons" who were thus hanged, as "not able to give a good account of themselves," there were many incomparably superior in worth and standing to the military executioners, by whose sentence they were hurried to their last account with "all their sins and imperfections on their heads." How little value must have been set upon human life,-how deplorable the waste of the species,-what scenes of carnage and desolation must have taken place, when, in a time of peace, those "who could not give a good account of themselves" were liable to be tried, and were frequently tried, by courts martial, and hanged! Who was to decide on the goodness of the account? Probably, in most cases, Grandison's, Faulkland's, Chichester's, Wilmot's, Cork's, and all preceding deputies' times."549 "The earl answered, that the lord deputies have ever exercised martial law, upon the march of the armies, as well in time of peace as war. "549 "The earl of Ely was sworn, and testified that martial law was in use in the kingdom of Ireland."550 "The deputies and generals of the army have always executed martial law, which is necessary there."551 66 "I dare appeal to those that know the country, whether in former times many men have not been committed and executed by the deputies' warrant, that were not thieves and rebels, but such as went up and down the country. If they could not give a good account of themselves, the provost marshal, by direction of the deputies, using in such cases to hang them up. I dare say, there are hundreds of examples in this kind.552 547 Baker, 511. Idem, 21. 548 Ibid. 550 Ibid. a merciless wretch, who united in his person the three characters of judge, jury, and executioner! I shall close the account of the malversations of lord Strafford, with two or three individual cases of injustice and violence, which are fair specimens of his general administration. A suit was instituted by sir James Craig, against a certain Dermot M'Carty, which was twice dismissed from court as unjust. The plaintiff applied to Strafford, who gave a decree in his favour for the enormous sum of 54961.!!! which totally ruined the defendant, who applied for permission to go to England, where he hoped for redress. But the deputy issued a positive prohibition to leave the kingdom.* An arbitrary proclamation had been issued in 1635, prohibiting the nobility, undertakers, and others, who held estates in Ireland, from leaving the kingdom without license. But this proclamation, in its most rigorous interpretation, could never justly extend to the case of M'Carty; and even if it did, could not justify the refusal of license. On the commitment of lord Ely, his confidential servant, James Parry, was summoned to the council-board, and interrogated with a view of criminating his master. He was then dismissed, with orders to attend for further examination, and did attend every day for a week. without being summoned to the board again. At the end of the week, lord Ely sent him to England to make proper representation of his case to the government there. In order to prevent his application, and of course to defeat lord Ely's object, Strafford immediately wrote to England to have Parry arrested and sent back, which was accordingly done. On his return he was fined 500l.-imprisonedand totally ruined.t "Dublin Castle, 28th June, 1637. "For our reasons, best known to ourselves, we think it not fit to grant the petitioner's request; but do rather hereby expressly inhibit, and forbid him to transport himself into England, or any part beyond the seas, without our licence first had in that behalf: and, of these directions the petitioner is required, not only to take notice, but also obey the same, as he will answer the contrary at his utmost peril."558 "April, 3, 1641. "James Nash deposed that he knew the passages of all the causes, having been a solicitor and agent for the father of Mac Carty, and waiting on their occasions in Dublin. That after the obtaining of two dismissions in the suit, my lord did order and decree for sir James Craig, 54964 against Mac Carty. And on this decree an order to dispossess him of all his father's estate; and he banished into a foreign part; the young man, for fear, would not come in and appear; but, hoping to have redress in England, did petition in this matter, in desire and hope to have redress in that decision made by the lord Strafford." 99554 + Henry Parry deposed, that his lord and master, the lord chancellor Ely, being committed to the castle of Dublin, the earl sent for him, and commanded him to attend the judges to be examined about some Lord Roche having been sued in the star-chamber in England, applied for permission to go over to justify himself-but was refused. Two members of parliament, appointed by the house of commons a committee to present a remonstrance to king Charles, were denied license to depart, and an embargo laid on the shipping to prevent them.t From the whole tenor of Strafford's conduct, and from his declarations, it incontestibly appears that he contemplated the establishment of a complete despotism at least in Ireland, and doubtless would have finally aided in its establishment in England, had he not beerr arrested in his career. As long as his administration continued in Ireland, he was successful-for his government was very nearly as arbitrary as that of the then reigning king of France or Spain.‡ Eulogy has been lavished on the disinterestedness of lord Strafford and his disregard of his personal concerns. "Whatever affection he had for power, he had very little of self-interest in him."555 This trait of character is just as unfounded as the rest of his history, narrated by Carte, Leland, and Hume. He amassed enormous wealth in Ireland by his rapacity and monopolies. He had a large family, and lived with great prodigality-and yet he was enabled to provide a single child with an estate of 5000l. a year, and woods, which, near papers seized; that he attended six days; but his lord having occasion to make use of his friends' interest, sent him over into England to solicit his majesty for relief; that here he was attached by Mr. Secretary Cook's warrant; that he entered into bond before he could be discharged of the messenger to return into Ireland; that after his return, he was fined 500l. and ordered to acknowledge his offence at the board; and that he was imprisoned and utterly ruined; that his fine was reduced to 250l.; that he paid 1841."9556 *"The lord Roche deposed, that he was denied license, intending to come over to justify himself against an information in the star chamber."9557 +"Sir Robert Smith deposed, that having a command from the house of commons in Ireland to come over hither, he was denied license, and a restraint was laid upon shipping upon that account. Mr. Fitzgarret deposed to the same effect."558 So as I can now say, the king is as absolute here, as any prince in the whole world can be, and may be still if it be not spoiled on that side." 99559 His profits by the monopoly of tobacco were most exorbitant. He bought it at 4d. 6d. and 8d. per pound, and sold it at 2s. 2s. 6d. and 3s. The council under his directions, issued a proclamation prohibiting the sale of any tobacco, without his seal. Those who contravened the proclamation, were fined, imprisoned, and pilloried by order of the council. Sixty at a time have been committed to prison. It was stated on his trial, that his gains by this monopoly exceeded the whole public revenue of Ireland.5 555 Carte, I. 56. 560 |