The Other Tudors (22 page)

In 1581, in response to a request from the Queen for information, Sir John wrote a ‘Discourse’ on the action most suited to governing Ireland. In 1584, he was again appointed to Ireland as Lord Deputy. Elizabeth had admired his first tour of duty in Munster and, after the ‘Discourse’, held him to be something of an expert on Ireland. He spent four years in Ireland this time, but it did not go well. He was hampered by his own quarrelsome bad temper, the tortuous complexities of Irish politics and enmity from a range of people, including his own officials and Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin. Ireland was a political nightmare, a true poisoned chalice for a Lord Deputy. If he was lenient towards the Irish, he was branded a traitor to his own people. If he favoured the English, he was hated by the Irish. Trying to be fair to both sides usually meant that both sides hated their governor.

Sir John took his time in going out to Ireland in 1584. In March of that year the Earl of Ormonde wrote to Burghley that Sir William Fitzwilliam should to be sent as a temporary Deputy if Sir John was delayed any further. After the matter of Sir John’s establishment was addressed, with a final estimate of £3,900 settled as the necessary sum to set up his household in Ireland, things somehow sorted themselves out.

In June 1584, Sir John arrived in Ireland and on 21 June he was formally inducted, receiving the sword of state as Lord Deputy. On 22 June an Order was sent out from Dublin Castle in the name of the Lord Deputy, Council and Grand Council for a general assembly, to begin 10 August next, and to assemble at the Hill of Tara. There were to be general musters in every county and for every barony. The following day Sir Richard Byngham, governor of Connaught, wrote to Walsingham, ‘The country is in very good state and likely to continue so.’ It was hoped that ‘the Lord Deputy will do much good’, but at the same time the arrival was noted of 1,700 Scots (illegal settlers) in the province.
¹⁰

Even before his arrival Sir John was aware of trouble brewing with Lord Justice Wallop in Athlone. On 9 April 1584, Wallop wrote to Burghley about the rule of Athlone. He feared that it was Sir John’s intention to displace him. He had saved Her Majesty £10,000, he said, and now was obliged to yield Athlone to the Lord Deputy. Sir John, he suspected, wished to carry out the pacification of Munster. The leaders of the rebels in Munster would be pardoned, but if this were done there would be little land confiscated for the English Crown. This last dig was aimed at discrediting Sir John; one thing the Queen and every noble lord and gentleman who had acquired land in Ireland wanted was more land and more money derived from that land.

In an uncharacteristic move, Sir John seems to have tried a little diplomacy, writing that he found Wallop to be well respected by the people he governed. He complimented Wallop both for his careful government and sound policy. It seemed to work. On 13 July, Wallop, now Treasurer, wrote to Walsingham supporting Sir John’s requests for funding, and a note was attached to the letter for the disbursement of £10,000. Sir John’s inauguration, when he officially received his sword of office, was an ideal occasion for him to speak to the Irish lords. He declared the Queen’s ‘care and love’ of the Irish people, and his commission to bring them to the same state of peace and prosperity as her English subjects.

Sir John made one enormously popular, yet quite simple pronouncement; he abolished ‘the name of churl’ to great applause. Perrot decreed that the term ‘churl’ should be replaced with ‘yeoman’ or ‘husbandman’. The word ‘churl’ had servile, serf-like connotations; ‘yeoman’ sounded free and English, and the Irish peasantry thanked Sir John for it. William Johnes, one of Sir John’s officers, wrote to Walsingham on 14 July, to advise him that a steady stream of rebels was surrendering, submitting to the Crown. Already it was being recognised that Perrot’s word was ‘as much credited as his hand and seal.’
¹¹

Sir John got straight to work. In August, he issued a proclamation that appealed to both sides, that any Irish who had fled the country had six months to return voluntarily before their goods, chattels and lands were forfeit. If they came back, they would prove themselves loyal and be able to resume their lands, which would please the Irish. If they failed to return, they were obviously rebels and traitors, and their lands would be seized and given to the Crown, which would please the Queen and the English.

For Sir John, Scotland was a hostile kingdom. He wrote to Walsingham that he was sorry he had so few spies in Spain and Scotland, and could only report that 120 more galleys were ready to invade from Scotland carrying troops. By mid-August, Sir John was planning his move against the Scotts invaders, reporting that his officials were preparing to send soldiers, money and food to supply his troops. A couple of days later a letter was sent to Burghley by Mr Fenton concerning the danger of an invading army of 4,000 Scots. The Deputy, he reported, would have 2,000 men besides any Irish who would fight on the English side. Sir John wrote to Burghley to describe the current situation, his intention to ‘look through his fingers’ [spy] at Ulster, whose people he could not trust. He believed that the Scots planned to help the Irish to set up Shane O’Neill against the English. Sir John planned to move his more trusted Irish allies (the O’Mara’s, O’Connor’s and Kavanaugh’s) into Munster and to the Outer Isles to act as a first line of defence against a Scots invasion. Enclosed was a report by Gerald Hay of Wexford, a merchant arrived from Spain, concerning English and Irish rebels abroad who included ‘young Stucley’ (Thomas Stukeley).

On 25 August, Sir John set out, with the intelligence that several Irish lords had joined the Scots and that there was to be a naval invasion. He planned to intercept their galleys at Loughfoyle and by 30 August Sir Richard Byngham was able to report to Walsingham from Roscommon that the Scots forces had returned home. Six of their galleys were reported as taken or sunk by Elizabeth I’s ships. On 31 August 1584 the Privy Council wrote to the Lord Deputy approving his actions; they believed the Scots would think twice before trying something like that again. In fact, very few Scots landed in Ireland. The Queen herself wrote sharply to her Lord Deputy, ‘Your Lordship is not ignorant how loth we are to be carried into charges, and how we would rather spend a pound, forced by necessity, than a penny for prevention.’
¹²
This view was to hamper Sir John’s time in Ireland; Elizabeth would only respond with funds during a crisis,but would give him nothing to prevent crises from occurring.

By October, Sir John felt confident enough to report that all seemed to be going well. He wrote to Walsingham of his plan for maintaining 1,100 soldiers in the heart of Ulster. He estimated that he needed £50,000 a year for three years. To sweeten the message he sent his hostages to Elizabeth: Clanrycard’s heir, the young Lord of Dunkellen and O’Rourke’s son. He also enclosed his plan for the government of Ulster.
¹³
Burghley also received a missive from Sir John including plans to erect seven towns, seven castles and seven bridges, and to found two universities. Sir John sent a mazer (a large dish) garnished with silver gilt, with the arms of ‘Sorley Boy’ (one of the rebels) graven in the bottom, a nice gift to the Queen’s most influential adviser.

Writing from Dublin Castle, Sir John sent a detailed report to the Privy Council, demonstrating how some money invested now could bring about peace and prosperity. Once again, Perrot suggested that as the Queen had already spent between £30,000 and £40,000 per annum in Ireland (and sometimes £50,000 to £60,000), if she would allow him £50,000 per annum for three years, over and above the natural revenue of the country, he would be able to keep the peace and set things up so that the payments could be stopped after the period (hiring and training troops, building towns, castles and bridges). His letter crossed one from Elizabeth, presumably before she had seen the amount of money he wanted her to provide. Walsingham wrote to Sir John that the Queen was pleased with his service in Ulster; she would like to know about his plot for maintenance of 500 soldiers there, and how far the young Scottish King had been involved in the invasion. Elizabeth’s concerns ran far further than the state of the government of Ireland.

The year 1585 opened with news, sent to Burghley, of the Scots plan of another invasion of Ulster. Sir John regretted that the Privy Council had not yet sent him the 600 men he requested, reminding them that, as warriors, the Scots were superior to his native Irish troops.

Sir John was determined to do the best he could for the people of Ireland, whether English or Irish. On 4 March 1585, he sent a circular to the Bishop, Sheriff and Justices throughout the country. He wanted to set up a commission of inquiry into the decay and ruin of churches, chancels and bridges and the neglect of free schools. He ordered that these details must be returned to him by mid-summer under threat of penalties.

In March 1585 began one of those epic struggles between two stubborn men that often blights public life. On 18 March, Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, sent a letter to Burghley to try to persuade the Queen to expressly to forbid the dissolution of St Patrick’s Cathedral (in November 1584 there is the first mention by Sir John of plans for converting St Patrick’s into a university). Loftus wrote that he would not endure seeing his church lands or buildings misappropriated and if Sir John’s plan was supported, he would resign. Within three weeks a second letter followed: Loftus reported, with some exaggeration, that there were only three Protestant preachers in Ireland apart from those provided by the training seminary at St Patrick’s. Loftus argued that he was not being obstructive to the Lord Deputy, nor acting for his own personal benefit, but rather to protect the Protestant spiritual wellbeing of Ireland, by maintaining a religious seminary, based in the Cathedral, rather than creating a university.

This was a bad time for Sir John to battle against such an important figure as the Archbishop as he was ill. Wallop wrote to Walsingham that Perrot was ill with colic and gallstones. The stones could pass through the system, with agonising pain; otherwise there were such cures on offer as a concoction of cooked and crushed snail shells and bees mixed in bonemeal water.

Not everyone disliked Sir John, however. Doctor John Long, Archbishop of Armagh, wrote to Walsingham in June 1585 with good news about the Lord Deputy’s actions. The Ulster lords had apparently come to Dublin Castle dressed in English attire. A leading Catholic churchman had converted to Protestantism:

Archbishop Long had found good in Sir John; Loftus still did not. He wrote again to Burghley saying that the two had met and that Sir John had reiterated his plan to turn St Patrick’s into a university and had informed the frustrated prelate that he would be his enemy if the Archbishop opposed him. Loftus, however, had found a new ally, one who detested Sir John quite as much as he did. Loftus wrote to Burghley, commending a gentleman named Jacomo di Francesqui, a servant to ‘Mr Vice-Chamberlain Hatton’, ‘a forward and valiant gentleman.’
¹⁵
Romantic myth would have it that Sir Christopher Hatton had never married because of his love for Elizabeth I, with whom he was a favourite. Certainly, he never married. His heir was William Newport, son of Sir Christopher’s sister Dorothy, although he did have an illegitimate daughter, Elizabeth. She became Sir John Perrot’s mistress, which was the cause of the emnity between the two men. Elizabeth had a daughter by Perrot, also named Elizabeth. Sadly, there is no record of Elizabeth Hatton ever marrying. Their daughter, Elizabeth Perrot, married Hugh Butler of Johnston.

Once again, Loftus wrote to Walsingham, more in sorrow than anger, shedding crocodile tears. He had always wanted to live at peace with the Lord Deputy, he said, but had heard that Sir John meant to complain to the Court about him. However, not all the Irish prelates were against Sir John. In July 1585, John Long once again wrote to Walsingham concerning the refusal of the Justices of the Peace to take the oath of supremacy and added that he found Sir John to be of a good Protestant persuasion.

The animosity of Loftus continued, though. He wrote, again and again, about the impertinences that he suffered at Sir John’s hands. He found an ally in the newly appointed Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath, who wrote to thank Walsingham for his recent promotion. Sir John had already acted against Bishop Jones, granting a commission to many enemies of Jones to inspect all the churches in Ireland, admonish churchmen who failed to come up to standard and even deprive them of their living or send them to prison, if necessary. Jones added his weight to the call by Loftus that the English Council should mediate between Loftus and Sir John to bring peace to the government of Ireland. Walsingham wrote back to say that he held both Loftus and Perrot in esteem, and would seek to reconcile the pair.