VOLUME XV new series 1980 UNIVERSITY ...

THE . IRISH. JURIST,.

VOLUME XV new series 1980 UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE DUBLIN

THE IRISH JURIST Vol. Page 195

211 219 237 263

289

298 326

341 356

376 395 407 411

xv

(New Series), Part 2

CONTENTS Modern Jurisprudence The Family and Society: Reality and Myth Joint Occupation and the Doctrine of Notice Criminal Due Process, the Pre-Trial Stage and Self-Incrimination The Scope of Preliminary Rulings on the Validity of Community Law International Law and the Developing Nations: The Pursuit of Rights and Justice

Winter, 1980

FRANK BATES ROBERTA. PEARCE PAUL A. O'CONNOR and THOMASA. M. COONEY T. L. EARLY

EMMANUELG. BELLO

Note Due Process and a Crime of Condition Historical Jurisprudence The Rebellion of Sir Cahir O'Doherty and its Legal Aftermath Who Governed Northern Ireland? The Royal Assent and the Local Government Bill 1922 Contrectatio

F. W. HARRIS

PATRICKBUCKLAND DAVID PUGSLEY

Reviews and Notices Robins, The Lost Children; Barrington, The Irish Administrative System; Duncan, The Case for Divorce in the Republic of Ireland; Prest, ed., Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America; Wyatt and Dashwood, The Substantive Law of the E.E.C.; Grimes and Horgan, Introduction to Law in the Republic of Ireland; Wayne, Labour Law in Ireland; Corbett, Hahlo, Hofmeyr, The Law of Succession in South Africa. Digest, ] January-3] December ]980 Judicial Decisions: Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland Statutory Legislation: Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland (for Contents of Part 1 see inside front cover)

Contributions of articles, and copies of books for review or notice should be sent to the Editor. Authors of articles published in THE IRISH JURIST will receive 50 offprints on publication; publishers of books reviewed or noticed will receive two copies of such review or notice, unless they inform the Editor that more than two are required.

Please note that typographical or printer's errors that did not appear in the original galleys and/or were indicated therein for correction but were not corrected are pointed to below.

THE REBELLION OF SIR CAHIR O'DOHERTY AND ITS LEGAL AFTERMATH F. W.

HARRIS

Introduction

The northernmost of the four provinces ofIreland, Ulster had successfully resisted the introduction of English law and government even after the accession of King James in March of 1603 had brought to an end the Elizabethan age. Ulster remained very much what it had been before the wars of the great queen's reign: a Gaelic rather than an English province controlled and dominated by local chiefs, where the authority of the king's government did not extend and where the force of the king's writ did not run, where the might and majesty of the crown's presence was to be found only at the military garrisons on the periphery of the province. Part of the realm of Ireland and yet outside its area of supervised control, the English administration at Dublin were determined to bring the recalcitrant province within the grasp of their direct authority. To accomplish this would require inevitable confrontation with the native chiefs, particularly Hugh O'Neill, the earl of Tyrone, and Rory O'Donnell, the earl of Tyrconnell, whose power the English claimed to be based on a corruption of native Irish custom which must accordingly therefore be supplanted by the introduction of English society and civility (1). The campaign which was to bring Gaelic Ulster within the confines of English rule was to cover a number of phases, each to be precipitated by certain key events and having particular goals to be achieved. The initial phase was characterised by the chipping away at the power structure of native Gaelic leadership through an erosion of the dependence of the inferior chiefs on the superior ones, a tactic first employed by Mountjoy after he became lord deputy in 1600. In light of what developed following the flight of the earls, this phase had a limited purpose; breaking the hold of the chief lords of Ulster and bringing the province into line with the rest of English Ireland. The main target was the earl of Tyrone, the most powerful and important of the Gaelic chiefs. As a result of j his programme of erosion a controversy developed between the earl and his principal follower, Donal O'Cahan, whose territory of Oireazht ui Cathdin

(1) The latest examination of English endeavours in Ireland for the reign of Elizabeth is that of N. P. Canny, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland.' A Pattern Established, 1565-76 (New York and Hassocks, Sussex, 1976); see also G. A. Hayes-McCoy, "Conciliation, Coercion, and the Protestant Reformation, 1547-71" and "The Completion of the Tudor Conquest and the Advance of the Counter-Reformation, 1571-1603" in A New History of Ireland, T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds.), vol. iii: Early Modern Ireland, 1534-159!, (Oxford, t97~' ch. 3 and 4, particularly, pp. 79-86, 93, 115-137, 140-141..

O'Doherty's Rebellion and its Legal Aftermath

299

[anglicised as Iraght O'Cahan and meaning "O'Cahan's Country"] was in Coleraine. This erosion of dependence, and particularly the controversy with O'Cahan, greatly undermined Tyrone's authority within the O'Neill lordship, tired him almost as much as the late war of Elizabeth's reign (the Nine Years' War of 1594-1603) had done, and greatly influenced his decision to flee to the Continent on 4 September 1607 (2). Until then the administration had seemed content merely to win over the Gaelic province to English control as a native enclave within, but governed and administered by, the English State. The flight of the earls presented a new and different situation which could not be ignored. Surprised by the event, the administration were faced with a province made desolate by the absence of its chief lords, which could be seized by the crown-a fortuitous opportunity that surpassed all expectation. This seizure was to be accomplished over a period of months through the legal process of indicting the fugitives as outlaw traitors followed by the confiscation of their lands through the penalty of forfeiture. The administration were propelled to the third phase by yet another circumstance which caught them unawares-the rebellion of Sir Cahir O'Doherty in April 1608. O'Doherty's rebellion made possible the elimination of the second level of Gaelic leadership within the province through the skilful use of trials at assizes and courts martial which condemned the leading participants to execution. Those who managed to escape execution were pressed into service with the army of Sweden. Trials were planned against O'Cahan and Niall Garbh O'Donnell, claimant to the leadership of the sept of the O'Donnells since the defection of the fugitive Earl Rory the previous September, but the jury empanelled to try Niall Garbh failed to reach a verdict and O'Cahan was never brought to trial. The two were simply imprisoned withoutbenefit of conviction following trial by jury. The administration then turned their attention to the next phase in the subjugation of Ulster, a plantation of the province by English and Scottish undertakers and settlers accomplished according to law. This was brought about through a number of sub-stages which are identified by the three commissions of 1608, 1609 and 1610. The first conducted a survey of the province in the summer of 1608while simultaneously holding the assizes which tried the conspirators involved in O'Doherty's rebellion. Largely because of this dual duty the commission did not produce a survey accurate enough for the plantation, which required that a second commission perform this task the following summer. The commission of 1609 prepared a mapped survey, which proved adequate for its purpose, and held inquisitions in the various counties, so that all legal technicalities

(2) O'Cahan's relationship with the earl as his chief was based on Irish custom and should not be confused with a feudal one. Donal served "the O'Neill", Tyrone's customary style in Gaelic society, as his most important urriaght (anglicised from uirrl and meaning sub-king). This term, which has no English feudal equivalent, is best described as "client chief".

300

The Irish Jurist, 1980

had been taken care of and the king's title assured. The plantation was implemented during the third commission in the summer of 1610 when virtually all native rights were brushed aside through a well-managed manipulation of the law and the passing of patents for the land to the new inhabitants from England and Scotland (3). The fifth and final phase in the subjugation of Ulster was to be the parliamentary act of attainder of the fugitives and rebels which confirmed the plantation by ensuring that the forfeiture was enshrined in statute law (11, 12 and 13 James I (1613-1615), c. 4). O'Doherty's

Rebellion

In the course of business dealings, Sir Cahir O'Doherty of Inishowen in Donegal (then still generally known by its titular name of Tyrconnell) travelled to Derry to obtain the needed signature of the military governor there, Sir George Paulet. For some months previously feelings between the two men had been running high and when they met on this occasion, almost inevitably because of the great dislike and resentment each had for the other, their hostility spilled over into harsh words and insults. It is even possible that Paulet, a man of fragile temper, struck O'Doherty in a fit of rage or frustration. Whether or not the blow was struck, O'Doherty raced back to Inishowen and informed his foster brothers, the McDavitts, of the insults received. Without regard to the consequences, he was advised, particularly by Phelim Reagh McDavitt, who apparently had also received rough or disdainful treatment at the hands of agents of the crown, to avenge the insults by attacking the royal garrisons at Culmore and Derry. Acting on this advice, O'Doherty immediately gathered his followers together and flung himself into rebellion. Through a ruse the garrison at Culmore was tricked into opening the gates, and the fort fell to O'Doherty's men during the evening of 18 April 1608. Derry was attacked the following day and, though stoutly defended, was beaten into submission-Paulet was among the dead. Though Derry was not long in rebel hands (it was reoccupied by government troops on 20 May), O'Doherty's insulted honour had been fully avenged (4). (3) A paper by the present writer dealing with the legal aspects of the Commission of 1609 is to be published in a future number of Studia Hibernica. (4) Letters by and between O'Doherty and Paulet, 4 and 5 November 1607; Chichester to the Privy Council and to Salisbury, 22 April, 4 May and 2 June 1608; Dillon to Salisbury, 25 April 1608; Bodley's letter of3 May 1608; abstracts of Captain Harte's letter and Lieutenant Barker's report, calendared at 3 May 1608; Journal of the Marching and Camping Places, 30 June 1608 (Calendar of State Papers, Ireland (hereinafter CSPI), 1606-1608, pp. 316-318, 480-487, 494-496, 499-507, 541, 580; C. P. Meehan, The Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel; Their Flight From Ireland and Death in Exile (3rd edition, Dublin, 1886), pp. 188-189; Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, by the Four Masters (hereinafter AFM), vi, pp. 2359-2363; Birchenshaw to Salisbury, 30 April 1608 (Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Salisbury (hereinafter Salisbury) xx, p, 148). See also M. G. McClain, "The Rebellion of Sir Cahir O'Dogherty and its Influence on the Ulster Plantation" (Ph.D. thesis,


301

The attack on Derry proved to be the high-water mark of the rebellion. With news of its outbreak at hand four days after it began, Lord Deputy Sir Arthur Chichester mistakenly concluded that the rising had been "begotten" by a report of Spanish ships off the Tyrconnell coast, but a report from the English embassy at Brussels, more closely attuned to the progress of the dealings and. negotiations between the fugitive earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell and the archdukes (governors of the Spanish Netherlands) and the king of Spain, described the rebellion as "foolish and rash", with little likelihood of assistance from the Continent (5). Immediately he learned of what had taken place, Chichester began preparations for the defence of the realm. Early in May, with a contingent having "already advanced", Chichester despatched "all available forces both of horse and foot" against O'Doherty and his followers. Sir Richard Wingfield, marshal ofthe king's forces in Ireland, was placed in command, with Sir Oliver Lambert acting as his lieutenant. For the next two months O'Doherty, seemingly having been advised not to risk everything on a pitched battle, retreated before the royal forces. At last, however, at about eleven o'clock on the morning of Tuesday, 5 July, O'Doherty and a party of his followers came in contact with Wingfield's troops near Kilmacrenan

University of Pennsylvania, 1930), pp. 19-60; Richard Bagwell, Ireland Under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum (London, 1909), i, pp. 51-58; Meehan, Fate and Fortunes, pp. 183-190; Brian Bonner, That Audacious Traitor (Dublin, 1975), pp. 147-193; Dictionary of National Biography, xli, pp. 429-430 for O'Doherty; xliv, pp. 86-87 for Paulet. Because Sir Ralph Bingley had been granted the island of Inch with its valuable fishing rights less than two months after King James came to the throne, the nature of the business meeting between O'Doherty and Paulet may have been that O'Doherty "was compelled to sell certain lands to Sir Richard Hansard; and, for this purpose, he [was] required to visit. Derry, and even to enter [paulet's] office, to await the arrival of the purchaser, and of Captain [Harte], who was to witness the sale" (George Hill, Ail Historical Account of the Plantation in Ulster at the Commencement of the Seventeenth Century, 1608-1620 (Belfast, 1877), pp. 61-62, but without citing a source). The king's grant of Inch to Bingley was made by a grant dated 18 May 1603 and was confirmed by an inquisition taken at Lifford on 12 September 1609 as having been in force at the time O'Doherty went into rebellion (Irish Patent Rolls of James I (hereinafter IPR), pp, 15, 383). Bingley's grant was then in force because the king's directive "to restore Sir Cahir O'Doherty to all his father's lands", with Inch specifically included in the restoration, was written by the Privy Council the same day Culmore was seized and therefore was not received in Dublin until after O'Doherty had committed an act of armed rebellion (CSP!, 1606-1608, pp. 475-476). A peculianty of the background to the rebellion was that the hostility between O'Doherty and Paulet was in marked contrast with the friendly relationship that had existed between the young Irish knight and Sir Henry Docwra, Paulet's predecessor at Derry (see below p. 302). An outline chronology of the events discussed in this article will be found at Appendix A, below, pp. 321-22. . (5) Chichester to Clanricard, 23 April 1608 (Chichester's original report "that some foreign forces were arrived" appears in the postscript of his letter to the Privy Council of 22 April); Beaulieu to Trumbull, 18 May 1608 (CSP!, 1606-1608', pp. 483, 490; Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire (hereinafter Downshire), ii, p. 59.)

'302


in 'Tyrconnell, In the relatively brief but furious melee which followed O'Doherty was shot in the head and died almost instantly. Stunned by the loss of their leader, his followers broke and scattered. News of the victory reached Chichester at Dundalk by four o'clock the following afternoon. What yet remained to be done by the government's military forces was a matter of mopping up the small bands of rebels dispersed throughout much of the province as well as taking into custody anyone suspected of dealing with or harbouring them. Chichester accordingly published a proclamation on 7 July which promised pardon and reward for those rebels who brought in their fellows dead or alive; only Phelim Reagh McDavitt excepted (6). Arrival inLondon of the news of O'Doherty's defeat and death caused King James to express his great relief at the turn of events and the Privy Council their belief that the outcome would "suffice to crush all machinations both inside and outside the Kingdom". This evaluation proved largely correct, but there had existed more than a little misunderstanding and misrepresentation between governments and interested parties of the cause, scope and implications of the rebellion. Having been foreman of the jury which indicted the fugitive earls at LitTord, O'Doherty was certainly not acting as their surrogate or representative when he . raised the standard of rebellion less than four months later. Furthermore, in 1601the then earl of Tyrconnell, elder brother of Earl Rory of the flight, had caused the election of O'Doherty's uncle as chief of their sept. This resulted in the defection to the English of O'Doherty and the Mcffavitts, and a lingering hostility on his part to the family of the earl. This change of allegiance was accomplished chiefly through the good offices of Sir Henry Docwra (Paulet's predecessor at Derry) who treated O'Doherty with respect and friendship, and was highly thought of in return; and who recommended that the young man be knighted for his bravery in action. That the rebellion was planned over a period of time and part of a conspiracy to which the earls were attached rather than the rash act of a moment is refuted by the negotiations O'Doherty was then deeply involved in to be admitted as a gentleman of the privy chamber of Henry, the prince of Wales. The rebellion was caused solely by O'Doherty's dis-

(6) For O'Doherty's rebellion see CSPI, 1606-1608, April through July 1608, pp. 480 ff., particularly pp. 482-483, 501 and 608-609 for Chichester's letters of 22 April and 4 May to the Privy Council and 6 July to Salisbury. His proclamation of 7 July is given at p. 608 of the calendar as well as in Robert Steele, Tudor and Stuart Proclamations. 1485-/714 (Oxford, 1910), ii, p. 19. See also the account of the suppression of the rebellion in "William Farmer's Chronicles of Ireland from 1594 to 1613" in The English Historical Review (hereinafter EHR), xxii, no. 85 and 87 (January and July 1907), pp. 536-540. The present writer's "The State of the Realm: English Military, Political and Diplomatic Responses to the Flight of the Earls, Autumn 1607 to Spring 1608", The Irish Sword, xiv, no. 54 (Summer 1980), pp. 47-64 describes something of the English military preparations which were well under way when O'Doherty broke into rebellion.


303

agreement with Paulet and the advice he subsequently received from Phelim Reagh and most likely as well from Niall Garbh. Had O'Doherty been acting for the earls there is little likelihood that Niall Garbh would have become involved, even if only to the degree of offering advice and not to that of taking an active part, because his prime concern was to supplant the fugitive Tyrconnell and become chief of the sept of O'Donnell and possibly the next earl. Tyrone's representation to the king of Spain that his "vassals" were in revolt was little more than an attempt on the earl's part to legitimise and give substance to his pleas for backing to enable him to return to Ulster. Former followers and supporters of the earls may have taken the field, but they never claimed to be fighting for them or under their orders. It must thus be concluded that, though at times described otherwise, O'Doherty's rebellion was a local uprising not connected to an international conspiracy (7). Effects of the Rebellion The flight of the earls and O'Doherty's rebellion combined to leave the native population of Ulster bereft of leadership capable of holding off English advances into the province's Gaelic interior; the flight having removed the paramount chiefs and the rebellion having resulted in the death, imprisonment or transportation of most of those next in importance in the order of Gaelic society. Of these, some who took part in the rebellion, such as O'Doherty, were killed in skirmishes with government troops. Others, such as Sir Henry 6g O'Neill, died in government service attempting to suppress the rebels. Some were later rounded up by government troops or were turned in by other rebels who wished to avail themselves of Lord Deputy Chichester's promise of pardon and reward for bringing in their former confederates as prisoners or their heads in a sack. Some of the captured rebels were executed outright under martial law while others were tried at Common law, found guilty and executed. It was in this last way that Shane Carragh O'Cahan (Donal's brother) and Phelim Reagh McDavitt were eliminated. Niall Garbh O'Donnell, arraigned and tried on charges of treason but not convicted, and Donal O'Cahan, who never underwent the formality of a trial, were imprisoned in the Tower of London where they died with the previously incarcerated Cormac McBaron O'Neill (Tyrone's brother). Of those who remained, many, usually referred to as "swordmen" and considered undesirable under the proposed project for the plantation of the province, were shipped off for service in the army ofthe king of Sweden. Art Og O'Neill, Oghy 6g

(7) Giustinian to the Doge and Senate of Venice, 30 July 1608 (Calendar of State Papers .•. Venice (hereinafter CSPV), 1607-1610, pp. 153-154); Sir Henry Docwra, "A Narration of the Services Done by the Army Ymployed to Lough-Foyle" in Miscellany of the Celtic Society (Dublin, 1849), pp. 248-249, 262; O'Doherty to the Prince ofWales, 14 February 1608; Walter Quinn to O'Doherty, 20 April 1608; Examination of Henry Quinn, 27 April 1608 (CSP!, 1606-1608, pp. 414, 479, 489).


304

O'Hanlon and Art McBrian McArt O'Neill were among those of rank or substance designated to be transported (8). . Because of his death in rebellion, an attainder in law which resulted in forfeiture, O'Doherty's country of Inishowen had fallen to the crown and could be incorporated into the plantation project. Other territories already claimed as forfeit, such as O'Cahan's country, could safely and expeditiously be disposed of because of the convenient removal of the principal native claimants who would not later turn up as litigants disputing the inclusion of these territories in the plantation. It was therefore justifiably concluded that as a result of the flight of the earls, O'Doherty's rebellion, "and the traitorous juggling of Sir Neale O'Donnell, O'Cahan, and others, six entire counties in Ulster were escheated" to the crown and the way made clear for the complete absorption of the province into the forms of English government and society (9). Less tangible but perhaps more important over the long term, the forceful suppression of the rebels had given the native inhabitants a clear indication of the power of the government within their province-their submission and obedience to that power followed as a result. Just over a year later Chichester, somewhat to his own surprise, found great crowds coming forth in every county to declare "their obedience and submission to the law" in a manner he had never expected to see. Fear had undoubtedly greatly influenced their decision to obey and submit. They had seen how the rebellion had been crushed by government troops and they had seen the effect of Chichester's proclamation of 7 July which caused many of the rebels to vie for pardon at the price of their companions' heads. As a result of this proclamation, with rebels betraying and even slaying their former comrades, and the continued efforts of the army the back of the rebellion was quickly broken and Chichester was able to announce at the beginning of August-less than four months after it had begun-that all of the principal leaders were either dead or captured (10).

ctz.ktq.~t '.L

(8) See Appendix D for a list outlining the loss of native Irish leaders in Ulster from the Flight of the Earls to O'Doherty's Rebellion, below, p. 325. (9) For death in rebellion as an attainder in law see C. W. Russell and J. P. Prendergast, preface to CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. lx-lxi, lxxix, Chichester's comment on p. 57 and Davies's on pp. 572 and 576, the statement in Analecta Hibernica (hereinafter Anal. Hib.), iii, p. 171, and the remarks by W. F. T. Butler, "The Policy of Surrender and Regrant" in The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, xliii (1913), p. 115 to include n. 1, reprinted in Gleanings from Irish History (London, 1925), pp. 235-236 to include n. 36; Fenton to Salisbury, 7 July 1608; Brief Relation of the Passages in Parliament, (n.d.) 1613 (CSP!, 1606-1608, p. 609; Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts (hereinafter CCM), 1603-1624, p. 279); McClain, "Rebellion" (thesis), pp. 77-82, 87-88. (10) Chichester's Instructions to Ley and Davies, 14 October 1608; Chichester to Salisbury, 4 August 1608 and 18 September 1609; Proclamation (by the Lord Deputy), 7 July 1608 (CSP!, 1606-1608, p. 608; CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 11, 64, 286; Steele, Proclamations, ii, p. 19). . The effectiveness of Chichester's proclamation in helping to bring the rebellion to an end is mentioned in Meehan, Fate and Fortunes, p. 195. The earlier proclamation of 23 April 1608 by the Lord Deputy and Council was aimed specifically against~offered rewards for the capture of O'Doherty and Phelim Reagh.

,1llh~' •

""" /

/1..fl4CL

II

IINl

/1\

Q.M.c.{,

I I

I

I


305

For the English the rebellion had pointed out how precarious their hold on the province had actually been. Yet while the vulnerability of their isolated garrisons had been underlined by the initial success of the capture of Culmore and the attack on Derry the rebellion had been quickly contained, its effects were not permanent, and the lessons learned from it proved useful. In future, garrisons were to be placed in a more friendly environment, in a countryside which could be expected to offer support in times of need. On the other hand, for the natives of Ulster the rebellion was a complete disaster and the height of folly from start to finish. Conceived and executed with no purpose in mind other than personal revenge and with no regard for the consequences, it was not, as was alleged during the parliament of 1613-15, part and parcel of the flight or the treasonable plot of which the earls stood accused, although such an association did serve a propaganda purpose while also giving the new community of settlers a reason for continued vigilance. Sir Henry Wotton, English ambassador at Venice, observed just two months after O'Doherty's death that King James, "having introduced [the] beginnings of civil intercourse" into that "wild and woody" country, had acquired with the forfeited territories the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to its inhabitants what they had previously failed to understand: that they had been tyrannised under the rule of "the Tyrones and other chiefs", but that having submitted the peace of the realm would be "to their own benefit". The Privy Council expressed their opinion of what was to come from their slightly different perspective. They understood that King James intended to ensure that what followed reflected honourably upon him while at the same time contributing to his profit and that what was to be done would be accomplished through means of his choice because, as Chichester so aptly phrased it, he had become "now sole proprietor of the most part of [the province], as the native lords thereof were formerly accounted and known to be". Irish annalists writing in the next generation concluded that from the flight of the earls and O'Doherty's rebellion, "it came to pass that their principalities, their territories, their estates, their lands, their forts, their fortresses, their fruitful harbours, and their fishful bays, were taken from the Irish of the province of Ulster, and given in their presence to foreign tribes". It was, to a great degree, because of the loss of these lands that a conspiracy was hatched, primarily in Coleraine, in 1615 and that a full-scale rebellion broke out in 1641 (11).

(11) Brief Relation, (n.d.) 1613; Wotton's Audience with the Cabinet of Venice, 9 September 1608; Privy Council to Chichester, 20 July 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 14 October 1608 (CCM, 1603-1624, p. 279; CSPV, 1607-161.0, p. 168; CSPl, 1606-1608, p. 617; CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 68); the often quoted statement of the results, for the Irish, of the flight and the rebellion is from AFM, vi, p. 2363 ; T. W. Moody, The Londonderry Plantation, 1608-41 (Belfast, 1939), p. 59.

306


The Commission of 1608

On 5 July 1608, the same day O'Doherty was killed, Lord Deputy Chichester, accompanied by a retinue which included Attorney General Sir John Davies, some of the Irish council, and a substantial armed guard, set out from Dublin to prepare the newly acquired crown territories for the forthcoming plantation. By the time they reached Armagh town Chichester had concluded what needed being done and the means to do it. He therefore sent back to Dublin for two commissions under the Great Seal: one of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery and the other for surveying the lands in question. Sir Arthur resolved that with these in hand he would remain up to a week in each county and thereby "intermix some other needful service of the King's with this prosecution of the [few remaining] rebels". The duties to be performed as the cortege made its circuit through the province were summarised as threefold by Attorney General Davies: the continued military prosecution of the remnants of the rebellion then operating in small bands in scattered parts of the province, the distribution of civil justice according to English law, and the surveying of all lands come to the crown through the attainder of the fugitives or by reason of any other title. In addition, about ten days after Chichester began his journey, Sir Thomas Ridgeway (the treasurer), having just recently distinguished himself in Chichester's eyes for his service as a volunteer under Wingfield, took horse from Dublin to reach Sir Arthur with the specific commission to enquire super visum corporis of O'Doherty. Because death in rebellion in Ireland was an attainder in law, accomplishing this commission of enquiry would facilitate the speedy attainder of the deceased rebel chief and thus more quickly entitle the crown to his estates rather than having to wait through more protracted legal manoeuvres such as had been undertaken against the fugitive earls. That obtaining and using this commission of enquiry was something of a formality is evidenced by the inquisition of record not being taken until 13 August (at Lifford), by which time O'Doherty's head had been placed on a pike to adorn Dublin's Newgate and his quartered body "put up for signs at the Derry". The official inquisition declared that O'Doherty and his adherents had been "in open and actual rebellion against the king", that O'Doherty had been killed in battle against the king's forces, and that official notice had been made that it was indeed the rebel chief's body which lay dead on the field of battle (12). (12) Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August 1608; Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Ridgeway to Salisbury, 15 July 1608 (CSPI, 1606-1608, p. 613; CSPI,16081610, p. 7; Public Record Office, London, State Papers (hereinafter PRO, SP) 63/224/171; Ulster Journal of Archaeology (hereinafter UJA), iii (1855), p. 168 where Davies's letter is dated 8 August. Davies's remarks do not appear in the calendared version of his letter); Inquisition taken at Lifford, 13 August 1608 (1nquisitionum in Officio Rotulorum Cancellariae Hiberniae asservatarum, Repertorium (hereinafter 1nq. Off. Rot. Cane.), ii, Donegal, Jac. 1 (4». The disposition of O'Doherty's remains is mentioned in Chichester to the Privy Council, 6 July 1608 (CSP!, 1606-1608, p. 607); the title page of The Over-


307

Two further inquisitions, taken at Lifford on 13 and 14 October, repeated that O'Doherty had been in rebellion and had thereby violated the provisions of the grant of Inishowen made by letters patent from the king of 28 January 1605. (The inquisition of 13 October was later cited by Attorney General Davies in his abstract of the king's title to Inishowen). Subsequent inquisitions at Derry on 1 September 1609 and Lifford on 12 September 1609 said much the same thing; that O'Doherty's grant was voided by his rebellion and therefore "the country of Inishowen is in the possession of the Crown". Inishowen was the king's-and had been since O'Doherty's death on 5 July, if not since the first moments of rebellion in April-and could be disposed of by whatsoever means pleased his royal majesty. In the end, while his severed head went to Dublin and his quartered body went to Derry, O'Doherty's Inishowen went as a gift of the king to Chichester (I3). Of the principal rebels remaining in the field after O'Doherty's death, Shane Carragh O'Cahan had entered into rebellion by slaying an Irish agent of the government, named Dennis O'Mullan, and O'Mullan's brother on 9 May 1608. He thereby fell foul of the declaration of treason contained in 10 Henry VII (1495), c. 21, which made premeditated murder an act of treason; that O'Mullan had been a government agent was merely incidental to Shane Carragh's treason. Manus O'Cahan, third brother of the family, was expected to join the fray and Donal O'Cahan was himself believed to have supported the rebels, but, because he had been in custody since at least 17 February, he was not able to take an active part in the conflict, either for or against the rebels, and had offered his castle at Limavady and some pledges as surety to the government. Chichester was inclined to accept this offer because the information against the eldest

throw of an Irish Rebel (London and Dublin, 1608) purports to show O'Doherty's head at Newgate. Chichester does not name those who accompanied him as commissioners during the journey. Those who took part in the survey (see Appendix C, ii, below, p. 324) must have been with him for at least part of the time, but no mention is made, as might be expected, of who the justices of assize were. Because they were fulfilling a similar function in Wexford as of 25 July, Chief Justice Sir James Ley of the King's Bench and Second Baron Robert Oglethorpe of the Exchequer did not make the journey (CSPI, 1606-1608, p. 618). In fact, no judge, justice or baron of the superior courts took part in the summer's work in Ulster. Since it "would have been a great charge to the King if special commissioners had been sent from Dublin" to execute their separate duties individually, the commissioners were asked to double up-in this case, triple up-on the work. Therefore, those involved in suppressing the rebellion and surveying the lands had the additional responsibility of "holding the assizes" (CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 12). (13) Inquisitions taken at Lifford, 13 and 14 October 1608 (Inq. Off. Rot. Canc., ii, Donegal, Jac. 1 (5), (6»; King's grant to O'Doherty, 28 January 1605 (IPR, p. 59); Davies's abstract of the king's title~[n.d., calendared in 1610] (CSPI, 1608-1610, /) p. 572); Inquisition at Derry, 1 September 1609; Inquisition at Lifford, 12 September, 1609 (Inq. Off. Rot. Cane., ii, appendix, IV Derry and V Lifford; IPR, pp . .379, 383); Inishowen granted to Chichester, 22 February, 21 June and 16 July 1610 (IPR, pp. 161, 169, 173).

308


O'Cahan had been given by Shane Carragh before his murder of the O'Mullans; an act which tended to cancel the propriety, if not the probity, of his earlier information. A more important consideration for accepting O'Cahan's surety may have been Sir Arthur's conclusion that "the accusation made against him will not hang him". In a further attempt to secure his release O'Cahan promised to bring in Shane Carragh dead or alive and to keep the territory of Iraght O'Cahan in Coleraine in good order, meaning that he was personally willing to assist the government in stamping out the last vestiges of rebellion in his country if it would secure his freedom. Chichester admitted not knowing whether or not to trust him and, rather than take an unnecessary risk, O'Cahan remained in custody (14). By the beginning of August, even without O'Cahan's assistance, Shane Carragh had been captured, Oghy Og O'Hanlon (who was both Tyrone's nephew and O'Doherty's brother-in-law) was set upon and his small band crushed, Niall Garbh was taken into custody, and Phelim Reagh (described by Chichester as "the very firebrand of this rebellion") was captured by forces operating under Wingfield. An air of confident optimism pervaded his majesty's commissioners that a great social good would be derived from the trying of criminal matters relating to the rebellion at assizes in each county under the commission of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery. Action through Common law would be brought against selected principal rebels with the purpose of demonstrating to the general populace the rudiments of English justice. The other, less important, rebels were to face judgment under martiallaw(15). The first proceedings at Common law for "the distribution of civil justice" were the sessions held at Armagh where Attorney General Davies noted "a great appearance & good attendance" from the local inhabitants. A grand jury was empanelled and an indictment was "most willingly" presented by the jurors against "their kinsmen and followers" who had taken part in the rebellion led, in this county, by Oghy 6g O'Hanlon and Art McBrian McArt O'Neill. Lists were drawn up by the jurors "of all the natives of that country" currently in rebellion so that it might be known "whose sons, ... servants, or followers, they were, that the father, master, or chief lord might bring them to justice according to a special Act of Parliament in the realm" (10 Henry VII (1495), c. 3). Chichester (14)Chichester

to Salisbury, 17 February and 14 June 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 2 April and 19 May 1608; Phillips to Salisbury, 10 May 1608 (eSPI, 1606-1608, pp. 418, 448-449, 519, 524, 559-560); An Act whereby Murder of Malice prepensed is made Treason, 10 Henry VII (1495), c. 21 [Rot. ParI. c. 37] (J. G. Butler, The Statutes at Large, passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland, i, p.56). (I5) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August 1608; Ridgeway to Salisbury, 15 July 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, pp. 168-169; csrt, 1606-1608, p. 613; csn. 1608-1610, pp. 8, 15). For the principal rebels tried at common law during the 1608 proceedings see Appendix B, below, p.323.


309

took particular note of the names which appeared on these lists either as rebels or those who had relieved them. By this action virtually everyone in Armagh who either had taken sword in hand against the crown or had given aid and comfort to those who did stood indicted of treason (16). Satisfied with the results achieved through law at Armagh the commissioners moved on to Dungannon, Tyrone's former seat of government, where the inhabitants "gave as diligent attendance as they were wont when their fugitive master was present". It was here, because of the weight of evidence against him and in order to give a public display of law and justice as well as a clear demonstration of the fate which awaited all rebels and those who harboured them, that Shane Carragh O'Cahan "was indicted, tried, and found guilty by his own friends and kinsmen, and having judgment of high treason, was accordingly executed in the camp, and his head set upon the castle of Dungannon". Chichester was delighted with the opportunity of Shane Carragh's trial and execution because it afforded the means for a demonstration of justice through Common law to the rude and uncivilised inhabitants whom he felt to be "so stupid by nature, or so tough or disposed by their priests, that they show no remorse of conscience, or fear of death". His earlier confidence and optimism was now to bear fruit, for he found Shane Carragh's execution following trial at Common law to be "a kind of death seldom or never seen in these parts ... before this time, and [it] seems to terrify them more than that of hanging by martial law, a death they contemn more ... than any other nation living" (17). Sir Arthur believed he had gained another useful point at Dungannon by granting "life and liberty" to a monk, reportedly a close adviser to O'Doherty during the rebellion, who, "in the sight of all the people, cast off his religious habit and renounced his obedience to the Pope", Prior to leaving for Coleraine Chichester dealt with the remaining principal menofthe county "whom he held doubtful and suspected" and won from them the promise, extracted as the means for regaining royal favour and opinion, to act in concert with the government should Tyrone return. Sir Arthur assured himself that they would not fail to effect this, "if it be not for the hope and fear they have of the fugitives' return" (18). (16) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August

1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p.169; CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 7, 15-16); An Act adnulling a Prescription which Tray tors and Rebels claimed within this Land, 10 Henry VII (1495), c. 3 [Rot. ParI. c. 7] (Butler, Statutes at Large ... Ireland, i, pp. 43-44). (17) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, pp. 169-170; CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 7, 16). (18) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August 1608 (pRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 7-8,16). The apostate monk, captured at Birt Castle and brought to Dungannon by Lambert, is identified as Phelim O'Doherty in "Farmer's Chronicles" (EHR, xxii, 87 (July 1907), p. 538 (to include n. 7) and 540). Ridgeway questioned the monk regarding Niall Garbh's part in the rebellion at an examination that took place at Culmore on 22 June (Report on the Manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawson lfa$ti1l$s, Esq. (hereinafter Hastings) iv, pp. l!i6-157; CSPl, 1608.1610, p. 309).

/

310


From Dungannon the party of commissioners, together with their retinue and military escort, journeyed to Coleraine by way of the forest of Glenconkeyne and the Glynns where Davies found that "the wild inhabitants wondered as much to see the King's Deputy, as the ghosts in Virgil wondered to see .!Eneas alive in hell". Such a route not only made apparent the power of the king's armed forces to the native inhabitants of this remote wilderness, it also, and perhaps more importantly, clearly demonstrated that the king's deputy "and all the officers of his army have discovered that unknown fastness, and the people of the country knowing their fastness to be discovered, will not trust so much therein as heretofore, which trust made them commit so many thefts, murders, and rebellions, for they presumed more upon their [that is, the crown's] ignorance of their country than upon their own strength" (19). Chichester's march through Glenconkeyne caused the rebels who had sought the safety of its woods and bogs to attempt to flee back into Tyrconnell which brought them across the path of the forces led by Wingfield and Lambert. In the fighting which ensued, though not in any sense a pitched battle, because the rebels were travelling in small groups, many of the rebels were slain and others, including Phelim Reagh, were captured. Wingfield gave orders that Phelim, who had no desire to be taken alive and put up such a stout resistance that it was necessary to wound him in order to subdue him, be cared for so that he might live to be tried. News of Phelim's capture greatly pleased Chichester who wished him to be examined with particular attention to Niall Garbh's involvement in the rebellion. Proving Niall Garbh's participation in the rebellion would be vital for it would remove the heir claimant to leadership of the O'Donnells and thereby dispose of the man most likely to be the last potential centre of organised resistance to English plans in the province. His elimination would both ease the introduction of English law and government into Tyrconnell and at the same time facilitate the laying of the foundation to the plantation. Concentrated opposition would cease to exist. The complete dearth of leadership among the native Gaelic population would, it was conceived, force the inferior inhabitants to accept whatever state of affairs was thrust upon them (20). After the noteworthiness of the law sessions at Armagh and Dungannon, those held in Coleraine were found to have "no extraordinary business" though one interesting, if slight, incident did occur. The usual indictments of rebels were taken, but no one of outstanding merit or social position was charged except for a priest who had served the O'Cahans and had been captured as an active follower of Shane Carragh. The priest steadfastly refused to accept the jurisdiction of an English court, ,

~

(19) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; esp!, 1608-1610, p. 16). (20) Chichester to the PrivyCouncil, 3 August 1608 (C,SP:I;16Q8-1610, pp. 8-9). _,


311

"affirming that the secular [arm had not the right to] condemn a priest for any offence whatsoever". Whether or not the court had the right, it certainly had the power. The priest was indicted, tried and executed for treason-a crime not clergyable in Common law-with Attorney General Davies noting that the priest's contention had been proved false "both by his judgment and execution" (21). The point was well taken and it may have been especially gratifying to Chichester who saw the steady influx of seminary priests and Jesuits into Ireland as being singularly injurious to the welfare of the state and therefore wished to have at hand an Irish statute similar to the English one which made it treason for a Catholic priest to be in that country (27 Elizabeth (1585), c. 2). As the matter then stood in Ireland, Chichester realised that "the common law [did] not warrant the drawing of the sword against them" merely for their presence in that realm; yet he ardently believed it to be "necessary to offend or transgress against the law in some things in order to maintain justice in great matters or in the whole". Had Chichester had his way, the priest executed at Coleraine would have found it difficult if not impossible to escape his fate no matter the circumstances or the charge (22). Phelim Reagh and the Lifford Assizes Within a week of O'Doherty's successful attack on Derry a letter was written to Salisbury by Sir Henry Dillon of Dublin in which blame for the defeat was ascribed both to Paulet's inefficiency and unpreparedness and, perhaps more significantly, to "the indiscretion of the justices of assizes employed into these parts these two years last past, who have exasperated" Phelim Reagh McDavitt. Dillon stated that a number of weighty charges had been brought against Phelim during this time and that his cases were as often as not referred to such persons as held grudges or otherwise maligned him; an assertion later corroborated by Docwra who said that the vexatious treatment Phelim received was based "upon no sufficient ground of reason". The result was that "the fellow was impoverished and made desperate". If the cause of his poverty and desperation was Paulet, and as Sir George was in charge of the government at Derry there is reason to accept that he was, the reasoning behind Phelim's advice to O'Doherty to seek revenge through blood becomes more readily understandable. In aiding O'Doherty to avenge his insulted honour he likewise acted against

(21) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 16). , . Davies says that the cleric was "O'Cahane's priest and ghostly father" who had been "taken in action of rebellion with Shane Carragh O'Cahane". (22) Chichester to the Privy Council, 4 May 1608 (CSPI, 1606-1608, pp. 500-501); An Act against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and other such like disobedient Persons, 27 Elizabeth(1585), c. 2 (Owen Ruffhead, The Statutes at Large [England], ii, pp. 633-635; see also 35 Elizabeth (1593), c. 2 pp. 673-675; 1 James I (1604), c. 4, iii, pp. 3-5; ~.J~men (~605)? e.s, iii, pp. 4~-51). .

312


the man who had brought him to such straitened circumstances (23). Coherent leadership of the scattered groups of rebels died with O'Doherty on the fifth of July. Phelim Reagh was not capable of leading much more than a small band, a judgment he was wise enough to have made. Donal O'Doherty, Sir Cahir's illegitimate brother, wished to succeed to leadership of his sept, but Phelim would not hear of it. The two fell out and, with their respective followers, parted company. Fully aware of Chichester's offer of pardon and reward to anyone who aided in his capture Phelim was glad to see Donal's back, believing that had they stayed together Donal must surely have taken his head to the English. The only other person who might have been able to regroup the rebels by virtue of his status or importance in native society was Niall Garbh O'Donnell. While evidence was obtained which indicated that some kind of agreement or alliance had been arranged between him and O'Doherty, Niall Garbh had never quite taken the final step into overt rebellion. Had he been biding his time waiting for an opportunity to catch the government forces between himself and Phelim Reagh it became academic when an informant told Wingfield of Phelim's hiding place and the marshal swooped down upon his prey (24). Because Chichester's proclamation of 7 July had excepted him from pardon Phelim Reagh's fate was predictable following his capture. It was deemed imperative, however, that he should be kept alive for questioning because Chichester was convinced that he would implicate Niall Garbh. Sir Arthur was also anxious to learn if Phelim had any information concerning the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell; in particular anything he might know regarding the reasons for their flight and any links or connections between them and the rebellion (25). Phelim Reagh's first examination took place on 3 August in the

(23) Dillon to Salisbury, 25 April 1608 (CSPI, 1606-1608, pp. 485-486); Docwra, "Narration", p. 261. Even if Paulet were not directly responsible for Phelim's circumstances he must certainly have been indirectly responsible and therefore, at the very least, looked upon by Phelim as the crown representative accountable for the miscarriage of justice he believed he had received. From years of service in Ulster both Dillon, as its crown attorney, and Docwra, as governor of Derry, were intimately aware of the matter of which they spoke. Theirs were not hearsay statements, but rather were based on personal experience and first-hand knowledge. (24) Examination of Patrick Og O'Correran (possibly 6 Corcrain or 6 Corrdint, 12 July 1608 (Hastings, iv, p. 159). The entry for the reward for Phelim's capture states that "Patrick Conley and his tenant", who had revealed Phelim's location to Wingfield, received £30 English and 170 head of cattle. As the cattle had been acquired "out of the preys and booties taken from the rebels" they were not included as a debit in the financial accounts signed by both Chichester and Ridgeway. It was by this means that the rebels provided the reward for their own capture and allowed Chichester to inform the Privy Council "that the King's charge will not exceed £100" for payment of rewards (CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 28, 32). (25) Demands (proposed by Chichester) to be made to Phelim Reagh, 1 August 1608 (CSP!. 1608-1610, pp. 1-2; Meehan, Fate and Fortunes, pp. 209-210).

. I


313

presence of Marshal Wingfield, Sir Oliver Lambert and Bishop George Montgomery, who then held the sees of Derry, Raphoe and Clogher and whose wife had temporarily been in the hands of the rebels since their capture of Derry. During this examination Phelim revealed that a meeting between O'Doherty and Niall Garbh had taken place two or three nights before the attack on Derry. Though not himself present at this meeting, being later informed by O'Doherty of what had transpired, he said that while O'Doherty had wanted only to take the town's military stores and what could be obtained as spoils Niall Garbh had "earnestly laboured and persuaded him that ... he should burn the town and massacre the people". Furthermore, Niall Garbh had proposed to capture Lifford and the governor of Ballyshannon by asking the governor to a meeting and taking him prisoner. Niall Garbh, if ever it had been his intention, failed to act on this. The day after the attack on Derry, Phelim stated, Niall Garbh had sent two representatives, one of whom was a friar, to receive a share of the spoils from O'Doherty. Furthermore, Niall Garbh had also agreed to give details of the disposition of government forces and promised to join O'Doherty in open rebellion as soon as he received arms for his men. These, as the supreme achievement of his duplicity, he expected to be supplied to him by the government for his part in hunting down the rebels. Phelim also reported that it was Niall Garbh who had later advised O'Doherty to cut loose his cattle herds and "shift for himself" when Wingfield began closing in on him. Of the earls Phelim could report nothing, save that Tyrone was expected to return in the autumn. As to what hopes and expectations the earls might entertain regarding their return, he reported that they anticipated a general rising of the Irish from which they would be able to possess themselves of the entire realm. Where he obtained this information, whether from some source on the Continent or perhaps from current rum our, was not stated. In the plotted treasons he offered no new information and implicated no one already not suspected by the government. As to why his brother, Shane Crone McDavitt, had fled with the earls, he could say only that it was because "of the love he bare to the Earl of Tyrconnell". O'Doherty, he said, would have gone with them as well, but he was then in Dublin and unable to reach their place of departure in time. Following O'Doherty's death he said that he met with fellow rebels Brian Crossagh (Tyrone's nephew), Art McBrian O'Neill and the sons of Ferdoragh McOwen near Omagh where they all swore an oath to one another, but Phelim claimed never again to have trusted any of them (26). (26) Examinations of Phelim Reagh McDavitt, both 3 August 1608 (esp!, 1608-1610, pp. 2-4; Meehan, Fate and Fortunes, pp. 210-212). There are two different records of the examination of Phelim Reagh taken oil 3 August. The second was prompted by the arrival of the list of questions Chichester wanted put to him (cited in n. 25). Phelim was also examined personally by Chichester on 8 August, but. the record of this examination apparently has not survived. Davies did make use of it, however, when preparing the crown case

314


Because of his close personal relationship with O'Doherty, placing him at the centre of rebel plans and activities, Phelim's information against Niall Garbh was a most damning accusation. Niall Garbh thereby stood accused of taking an active part in planning the attack on Derry as well as offering support and information once the rebellion was under way. Though not himself present when the rebels fell on Derry, Niall Garbh certainly could have been considered an accessory before the fact to an act of armed rebellion. That he continued to supply both support and information throughout the rebellion must have made him an accessory after the fact as well. Phelim, without hope of pardon and seemingly without reason to implicate an innocent Niall Garbh, had clearly involved him in the rebellion. The contention that Niall Garbh "had no part in Sir Cahir O'Doherty's rebellion" is not tenable (27). Though the question lingers as to why Phelim should inform against a former ally, it would appear that his statement was not made under torture. To Phelim, he, O'Doherty and the other rebels had placed their lives and all they possessed at risk when they took sword in hand while Niall Garbh had consistently hung back with promises of future action which, somehow, never materialised. Phelim may have consequently looked upon Niall's waiting game as a bid to take advantage of the situation regardless of how it turned out by watching the flow of events to determine the eventual winner and then coming in on their side at what hopefully would be a critical moment and thus be credited with and praised for the deliverance of the final victory. Guided by such thinking, Phelim may have concluded nothing but disgust for Niall who had promised so much but delivered so little. The possibility that Phelim was willing to tell his examiners what they wanted to hear and what he was certain they already knew in the hope of receiving clemency is refuted by his knowing, as he most certainly must have, that he had been excepted from all hope of pardon. If he had somehow become convinced otherwise he would surely have disclaimed his statement against Niall Garbh at his public execution and this he did not do. Phelim's statement was not without fabrication, however. His assertion that O'Doherty would have joined the earls in their flight cannot be taken seriously because there is little likelihood and no evidence that any kind of alliance had been formed between the foreman of the Lifford jury against Niall Garbh in October 1609 (CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 308, 311). Susan Montgomery, the bishop's wife, was freed from captivity when government troops took Birt Castle in June. (27) The conclusion in favour of Niall Garbh is to be found in Sean 6 Domhnaill, "Sir Niall Garbh O'Donnell and the Rebellion of Sir Cahir O'Doherty" in Irish Historical Studies, iii, no. 9 (March 1942), pp. 34-38. The available records, however, would seem to indicate that while his part in the rebellion was not an active one he was not innocent of the charge of treason. This has recently been pointed out by Aidan Clarke who feels it a "more likely possibility that [Niall Garbh] calculatedly encouraged Sir Cahir". ("Pacification, Plantation, and the Catholic Question, 1603c23" in "tNew History of Ireland, iii, n. Lon p. 197.)


315

which indicted them and either or both of the earls. While the earls had endeavoured to take advantage of the rebellion in their dealings with Spain by picturing it as an uprising of their vassals this was simply not the case. Much of O'Doherty's social position as well as his knighthood had been won in the late war fighting against the earls and it was not likely that he would throw that over to join former adversaries in exile. As there was no mention of his name substantively linking him directly with the plottings surrounding Tyrone and Tyrconnell, though it was erroneously reported that he had fortified Tory Island in preparation for when "the army shall arrive out of Spain", it must be concluded that O'Doherty was not involved and therefore had no reason to flee. With his chief dead Phe1im's statement would do no harm. Phelim may have thought that such an answer would prove too intriguing to his examiners and that it might buy him some time, an invaluable commodity to a man facing death (28). During the second week of August 1608 the commissioners arrived in Tyrconnell and immediately set about the business of bringing Phelim Reagh and about twenty "relievers and abettors" of the rebellion to trial at Common law. The sessions, Davies prosecuting, were held at Lifford where they "were tried and executed as traitors". By mid-September Chichester was boasting that "the rebels are all broken, dejected, and forlorn, scarce anywhere three of them together" (29). The Survey of 1608 Work under the commission of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery wound down after Lifford and, since additional demonstrations of the law were not necessary and rebels of substance or stature were not to hand as ready examples, no further mention was made of trials at Common law as the journey continued through its final stages before the return to Dublin. The trials and executions at Common law had had a marked effect on the native population which appeared in English: eyes to be cowed, broken and, coupled with the losses suffered in the rebellion and the executions at martial law, leaderless. In this way at least the work of preparing the province for the coming plantation was successful. That this was an indirect or adjunct preparation was not realised until after the return to Dublin, by which time the surveying of the lands in question had been accomplished, but in a faulty manner. When finally it was realised that the survey work of 1608 was insufficient and that it would have to be done again, the formal record of findings by inquisitions, the "office" of

(28) Hansard to Lord [Salisbury], 1 November 1607 (CSPI, 1606-1608, p. 315). (29) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608; Chichester to the Privy Council, 12 September 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 169; CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 15,26,28). Meehan is incorrect in stating that the trial and execution of Phelim Reagh took place at Derry (Fate and Fortunes, p. 194).

316

.;


the' survey, was cast aside and apparently never enrolled and therefore completely superseded by the one of the following summer (30). Each of the counties was surveyed individually by inquisition, by authority of the commission issued under the Great Seal of Ireland dated 19 July, the whole of the work being brought together as "A booke of Kings lands••... " The first inquisition, that of Tyrone, was completed at Dungannon on 27 July and declared that all temporal lands within the county (with the exception noted of about 2,000 acres to Sir Henry 6g O'Neill) had come to the crown through the recent outlawry and attainder of the earl and that all ecclesiastical lands had come to the crown by virtue of the act of 11 Elizabeth (s. 3, c. 1) which had attainted Shane O'Neill in 1569. Davies was quick to point out that as these church lands had never since been divested of by any grant from Elizabeth or James they were still, therefore, held directly by his majesty (31). The findings by inquisition for Armagh and Coleraine, both dated 2 August, were practically the same as for Tyrone. With grants to Turlough McHenry O'Neill and Sir Henry 6g O'Neill noted as exceptions, Armagh was found for the crown by the earl of Tyrone's attainder while Coleraine, containing O'Cahan's country, had been in the possession of the crown since the act of 11 Elizabeth; "since which time", Davies noted with apparent satisfaction, "O'Cahane and all the inhabitants have been

(30) The record of the survey has survived as "A booke of the Kings lands founde upon

the last generall survey within the province of Ulster anno Ie: 1608" in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Rawlinson A. 237) and has been published in Anal. Hib., iii (September 1931), pp. 151-218. Regarding the deficiencies of the survey see J. H. Andrews, "The Maps of the Escheated Counties of Ulster, 1609-10" in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (hereinafter Proceedings RIA), lxxiv, Section C, no. 4 (1974), pp. 139-140; Hill, Historical Account of the Plantation, p. 67. (31) Authority to survey the escheated territories, 19 July 1608, mentioned in Chichester to the Privy Council, 3 August 1608 (CSPI, 1608-1610, p, 7) and cited in the survey for each county in the "booke of the Kings lands" (Anal. Hib., iii, pp. 151, 160, 167,192,204,213-214); Davies to Salisbury. S August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; CSP!, 1608-1610, pp. 16-17); fragment of Inquisition taken at Dungannon, 27 July 1608 (The Bishopric of Derry and the Irish Society of London, 1602-1705, T. W. Moody and J. G. Simms (eds.), vol. i: 1602-1670, pp. 32-33; given as the survey of Tyrone in Anal. Hib., iii, pp. 151-160); An Act for the Attainder of Shane O'Neill ... , 11 Elizabeth (1569), s. 3, c. 1 [Rot. ParI. c. 9] (Butler, Statutes at Large ... Ireland, i, pp. 322-338; an abstract of which appears in J. T. Gilbert, A Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, vol. i, part 1, Appendix III, pp. 302-304); see also Chichester's letters to the Privy Council and to Salisbury of 3 and 4 August 1608 (CSPI, 1608-1610, particularly pp. 9, 10, 12). Sir Henry Og O'Neill's grant was for two "ballibetaghes". Since each ballibetaghe was made up of 16 "balliboes", each of which being an area of pasturage able to maintain 20 cows and generally equal to about 60 acres (in Armagh it could have been 100 or even 120 acres as in the barony of Orior), this grant would have been one of 1,920 acres if based on 60 acres to the balliboe (Anal. Hib., iii, p. 151, n. 2; Andrews, "Maps" in Proceedings RIA, lxxiv, p. 139). For a list of the commissioners in each county, and the dates and places where the surveys were taken see Appendix C, below, pp. 323-24.


317

intruders" and thus little more than squatters on the king's lands (32). Next was Tyrconnell, referred to as Donegal in the findings dated at Lifford on 9 August, which was determined to be "entirely in His Majesty's hands" by the outlawry of the earl of Tyrconnell and O'Doherty's death in rebellion. As for any claims on the part of Niall Garbh, Davies did not hesitate to make it clear that "he has never had any grant passed to him of his portion of the country". He would consequently pose no problem, particularly if he were found guilty of collusion with O'Doherty. In the absence of such a verdict it is not hard to understand why he disappeared behind the walls of the Tower of London (33). Neither Fermanagh nor Cavan presented any surprises. Although based on somewhat different circumstances, the findings for both were similar to what had preceded them. The inquisition for Fermanagh, dated at Devenish on 18 August, found it to be in the crown by the death in rebellion of Hugh Maguire (killed in 1601) and the outlawry and attainder of Cuchonnacht Maguire (a fugitive with the earls until his death at Genoa sixteen days before the survey of Fermanagh was completed). Conor Roe Maguire, Cuchonnacht's nephew, had long been acquiescent to English interests in Ulster and, though he had once expected a grant of the entire county, note was made in his behalf that he receive a grant of only three of its seven baronies. Mention was also made that some consideration should be had for native occupiers within the county. The survey work was completed at Cavan town on 6 September, when it was found that the death in rebellion of the O'Reilly chiefs during Elizabeth's reign had brought that entire county within the prerogative of the king. As with Fermanagh, brief mention was made of the native occupiers who claimed rights of freehold and for whom some consideration might later be given when Cavan was distributed for plantation (34). The pieces of the puzzle that was the proposed plantation were seemingly beginning to fit together. Recourse to law as a means of thwarting the plantation would avail the native inhabitants little because the law was being utilised as a device to produce it. The government thus had a unique advantage as they used the law almost as a set of rules or a blueprint which they were not likely to give up. Future cases against the land settlement of the plantation would begin with the government

(32) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; eSPI, 1608-1610, p. 17); the survey of Coleraine and the survey of Armagh, both 2 August 1608 (Anal. Hib., iii, pp. 160-166,213-218). How the surveys for both counties were accomplished the same day, at different locations and by much the same commissioners is not explained. Another anomaly is that the commissioners passed through Armagh before Tyrone, yet the survey of Armagh is dated after that taken at Dungannon. (33) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 170; esp!, 1608-1610, p. 17); the survey of Tyrconnell (cited as Donegal), 9 August 1608 (Anal. Hib., iii, pp. 167-171). ' (34) The surv~y o.~.Fermanagh, 18 August 1608; the survey of CavaIJ6 September 1608 (Anal. 1lI, pp. 192-203, 204-213).

un:

add I

/)

Cl1J'"I.1f\d

"'-

3ig

The Irish Jurist, i9S0

always holding the whip hand. Davies thus had apparent good reason to gloat over the prospect, for by early autumn of 1608 the Icing's ministers at Dublin would be able "to present a perfect survey of six several counties, which the King has now in demesne and actual possession in this province; which is a greater extent of land than any prince in Europe has to dispose of" (35). Here, however, Sir John was in error for the survey of 1608 was far from perfect, as it suffered from a number of major flaws, both in its planning and in the manner in which it was carried out. Interestingly, the commission issued the following year, which Davies would do much to influence, specifically mentioned that the shortcomings of the survey had resulted directly from its being joined with the administration of public justice through the assizes and gaol deliveries and the military suppression of the rebellion. Too much time and effort had been spent on these other functions which had seemed of such paramount importance at the time, but the reliability and usefulness of the survey had suffered as a consequence. Perhaps of greatest significance was the fact that no maps were made of the territories in question. Using local and therefore Irish units of measure such as "baIIiboes", "polls" and "tates", the surveyors attempted to estimate the area of each county and their baronies which would prove productive. As well as having apparently been a lesson learned in Munster, where more exact measuring had been both costly and time-consuming, the retention of Irish measurements was intended "to avoid confusion" as well as being a means to short cut the cost of any "further charge in measuring". That such thinking was defective was not immediately realised, as was the result that a great deal of land had been overlooked or otherwise left out. Problems also arose when an attempt was made to adapt the Irish measurements to the English acreage of the proposed precincts and proportions to be used in the distribution of land to the new settlers. It soon became apparent that a more detailed survey would be necessary and that one of its primary duties would be cartographic (36).

(35) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (pRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, pp. 170-171; CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 17). (36) Andrews, "Maps" in Proceedings RIA, lxxiv, pp. 139-140, 142; Andrews, "Geography and Government in Elizabethan Ireland" in Irish Geographical Studies in Honour of E. Estyn Evans, Nicholas Stephens and R. E. Glasscock (eds.) (Belfast, 1970), pp. 189-190; Commission of Enquiry, 21 July 1609 (Inq. Off. Rot. Canc., Appendix (first item); Hill, Historical Account of the Plantation, pp. 122-123 (dated 19 July at the start and 21 July at the end); Walter Harris, Hibernica (Dublin, 1747), pp. 68-69 (n.d. other than year); CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 255-256 (dated 19 July); IPR, p. 374 (dated 21 July»; D. B. Quinn, "The Munster Plantation: Problems and Opportunities" in Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, Ixxi (1966), pp. 23-30; Robert Dunlop, "The Plantation of Munster, 1584-1589" in EHR, iii (1888), pp. 253-261; Project for the Plantation, [c. January 1609] (Anal. Hib., viii, p. 287; CCM, 1603-1624, p. 14 (dated 23 January); Harris, Hibernica, p. 54 (n.d.); Hill, Historical Account of the Plantation, p. 92 (n.d.j);

O'Doherty's

Rebellion and its Legal Aftermath

319

In the closing days of the summer of 1608 Attorney General Davies, unable as yet to see the drawbacks and limitations of the survey he was , then in the 'midst of, began to turn his attention to the formulation of a practical scheme for the plantation, declaring it to be "a matter of great consideration, wherein it is not easy to lay down a good and sure project". Because he was aware that previous English settlements had been rooted out by the Irish or had degenerated to a state equal in barbarism to that of the natives, Sir John was convinced that the same would "happen to this plantation within a few years, if the number of civil persons who are to be.planted do not exceed the number of the natives, who will quickly overgrow them as weeds overgrow the good corn". On the issue of native participation in the plantation Davies was to come into direct opposition to Chichester, who apparently believed that some "consideration must be had of the natives". Davies's views, however, seemed to be taking hold among the other commissioners, for nowhere during the entire northern sojourn was any mention made of equity in regard to those who had seemingly served their purpose as "freeholders" when the crown supported them against their Gaelic lords. Government statements in their behalf made by proclamation in 1605, 1607 and 1608 were either swept aside, overlooked or forgotten. Justice had become subordinate to policy and the great mass of native Irish did not, as freeholders, fit into the policy that' was beginning to take shape. Total expropriation was the solution to limited treason-all land was to be confiscated when only a few stood indicted for treason. The result was very similar to that of 1569, but on a larger scale and this time put to use, and the parliamentary act of resumption of that year was to be dusted off and put into operation as a cornerstone of the new settlement (37). From the departure from Dublin on 5 July through the work completed at Cavan on 6 September, the commission of 1608 had taken just

Moody, The Londonderry Plantation, 1609-41 (Belfast, 1939), Appendix G, pp. 451-456. The balliboe was prevalent in Tyrone, Armagh and Coleraine as was the poll in Cavan and the tate in Fermanagh. The poll was reckoned to contain about 24 acres and the tate 30. This was to be good grazing ground and not waste land (Andrews, "Maps" in Proceedings RIA, lxxiv, p. 139). For balliboe see note 31. (37) Davies to Salisbury, 5 August 1608 (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 171; eSPI, 1608-1610, p. 17); Chichester to the Privy Council, 14 October 1608 (esp!, 16081610, p. 68). Chichester expressed a "regard of the poor freeholders' rights" the day after receiving news of the flight of the earls (7 September 1607) and quickly followed this with a proposal to "divide the lands amongst the inhabitants", with additional grants to servitors and undertakers (esp!, 1606-1608, pp. 262, 276). Though there is no apparent reason to doubt Chichester's sincerity, the Venetian ambassador believed moderation towards the Irish was being proposed solely to afford the plan for an English and Scottish settlement time to become "matured" (eSPV, 1607-1610, p. 115): See also T. W. Moody, "The Treatment of the Native Popula.. tion under the schemefor the Plantation in Ulster" in Irish Historical Studies; i, no. 1 (March 1938), pp. 59-63; the comments on p. 197 of New History of Ireland, iii.

320


over two months to finish its work in the field. From the moment of return to Dublin later in September until it was put into final form on or shortly before 14 October every effort was put into completing the written record of the proceedings of enquiry, the "office" or findings by inquisitions. On the fourteenth, Chichester, satisfied that all had been accomplished according to need and requirement, detailed his own description of the state and condition of the six counties, paying particular attention to locations best reserved for military installations, the possible legal claims of any Irish or English which might be satisfied with grants under the plantation, and what other Irish might be served and pacified through grants. Chichester turned this account over to Attorney General Davies and Chief Justice Sir James Ley of the King's Bench who were to carry it to London where they would work in close consultation with the king's ministers there to formulate the actual plan for the plantation (38). / By early October the Privy Council, even before Davies and Ley had received Chichester's advices regarding the manner which he proposed for the proceeding of the plantation, had decided that a plantation was consequential of the events in that province and especially so when coupled with the cost of military preparations which had been begun in anticipation of an invasion led by Tyrone and which had continued because of O'Doherty's rebellion. Had there been a point of no return from which the plantation could be withdrawn it had definitely been passed (39).t

(38) Chichester to Salisbury, 11 September 1608; Chichester's Instructions to Ley and Davies, 14 October 1608 (CSPI, 1608-1610, pp. 25, 54-65); "booke of the Kings lands", the last entry for which is 6 September 1608 (Anal. Hib., iii, pp. 151-218). Chichester dated a letter from Dublin Castle on 4 July and another from Dundalk on the sixth; the. intervening date therefore being that on which the Commission set forth (CSPI, 1606-1608, pp. 605-608; cited by the editors of CSPI, 1608-1610, p. lxxviii, to include n. 3). Davies confirms this with greater precision in his statement that word of O'Doherty's death arrived "the day after they began this journey". Since this news was delivered to Chichester by Captain Henry Vaughan at 4 p.m. on the sixth, the departure from Dublin must have been on the fifth (PRO, SP 63/224/171; UJA, iii, p. 167; CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 14; the editors of the Irish calendar failed to notice this). Inclusive of the departure date from Dublin on 5 July to the date of the completion of the survey of Cavan on 6 September the commissioners took sixty-four days to complete the field work of the Commission of 1608. (39) Privy Council to Chichester, 8 October 1608 (CSPI, 1608-1610, p. 46). tFor their helpful criticism, advice and assistance during the preparation and writing of this paper I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Alan Scarth of Liverpool and Fr. Philip Eichner, S.M. of Mineola, New York.


321

APPENDIX A OUTLINE OF CHRONOLOGY Note: all dates given are Old Style.

16Q7 Friday, 4 September

the flight of the earls

1607-1608 late December/early January

1608 by Wednesday, 17 February Monday, 18 April the night of Monday, 18 April about an hour before dawn, Tuesday, 19 April Friday, 22 April ... Saturday, 23 April Wednesday, 4 May Monday, 9 May Friday, 20 May

. .

before Tuesday, 14 June between Thursday, 9 June and Wednesday, 15 June by Tuesday, 21 June by Saturday, 2 July before noon, Tuesday, 5 July about 11 a.m., Tuesday,S July ... about 4 p.m., Wednesday, 6 July Thursday, 7 July Friday, 8 July Saturday, 9 July after Saturday, 9 July Sunday, 10 July ... Monday, 11 July ... on or shortly after Sunday, 15 July

indictments of the juries empanelled Cahir O'Doherty, Tyrone (Sir Henry

fugitives are handed down by at Lifford in Tyrconnell (Sir foreman) and at Strabane in Og O'Neill, foreman)

Donal O'Cahan is committed a prisoner to Dublin Castle King James, through the Privy Council, directs that O'Doherty be restored to all lands of Inishowen (including Inch) O'Doherty's rebellion begins with his capture of Culmore . O'Doherty attacks Derry news of the rebellion reaches Lord Deputy Chichester at Dublin proclamation by the Lord Deputy and Council against O'Doherty and Phelim Reagh government forces commanded by Marshal Wingfield are ordered to begin military operations against the rebels Shane Carragh O'Cahan enters rebellion unopposed .by the rebels, Wingfield's forces reoccupy Derry Sir Henry Og O'Neill is killed in government service against the rebels suspected of treason, Niall Garbh is taken into custody by Wingfield Birt Castle falls to crown forees Niall Garbh arrives a prisoner at Dublin and is committed to the Castle Chichester's departure from Dublin begins the journey of the Commission of 1608 O'Doherty is killed near Kilmacrenan in Tyrconnell word of O'Doherty's death reaches Chichester encamped at Dundalk Chichester's proclamation announces O'Doherty's death in rebellion and excepts Phelim Reagh from pardon . Chichester and the commissioners are informed that Shane Carragh has been captured the commissioners are encamped at Mount Norris in Armagh assizes for Armagh are held Oghy os O'Hanlon's rebel forees are defeated near the Blackwater in Armagh news is reeeived that Donal O'Doherty, Sir Cahir's illegitimate brother, has been captured (apparently later executed) Treasurer Ridgeway leaves Dublin with the commission to enquire super visum corporis of Sir Cahir O'Doherty

322 Monday, 18 July Tuesday, 19 July

The Irish Jurist, 1980 . .

Sunday, 24 July ... Wednesday, 27 July

Rory O'Donnell, Earl of Tyrconnell dies at Rome the Commission of 1608 is formalised under the Great Seal of Ireland Chichester is at Dungannon the survey of Tyrone is completed by inquisition dated at Dungannon

late July, probably between Sunday the 24th and Wednesday the 27th assizes for Tyrone are held, at which Shane Carragh is tried and later executed and a monk [phelim O'Doherty] apostatises Phelim Reagh is captured last week of July ... Cuchonnacht Maguire dies at Genoa Tuesday, 2 August Tuesday, 2 August the surveys of Coleraine and Armagh are completed by inquisitions dated at the Castle of Coleraine and Moyry Castle respectively Wednesday, 3 August Phelim Reagh is examined by Marshal Wingfield, Lambert, and Bishop Montgomery Wednesday, 3 August Chichester and the commissioners are encamped near Coleraine first week of August assizes for Coleraine are held, after which a priest of the O'Cahans is executed Monday, 8 August Phelim Reagh is examined (probably at Lifford) by Chichester . after Monday, 8 Augi« ... assizes for Tyrconnell are held, at which Phelim Reagh is tried and later executed Tuesday, 9 August the survey of Tyrconnell is completed by inquisition dated at Lifford Saturday, 13 August inquisition post mortem of O'Doherty is taken at Lifford Thursday, 18 August the survey of Fermanagh is completed by inquisition dated at Devenish Friday, 2 September Chichester, leaving the rest of the commissioners in the field, arrives back at Dublin Tuesday, 6 September the survey of Cavan is completed by inquisition dated at Cavan town Thursday, 13 October and Friday, 14 October further inquisitions post mortem of O'Doherty find Inishowen in the crown Friday, 14 October the "office" or formal record of the Commission of 1608 has been completed and Chichester drafts his advices regarding the plantation

I

I

~I


323

APPENDIX B TRIALS AT COMMON LAW OF PRINCIPAL REBELS HELD DURING THE COMMISSION OF 1608 Session held at Armagh: (after 9 July)

Oghy 6g O'Hanlon, Art McBrian McArt O'Neill, and all known rebels and associates in Armagh indicted as rebels

Sessions held at Dungannon: (late July, probably between the 24th and 27th)

Shane Carragh O'Cahan

indicted for rebellion, tried, convicted and executed

an apostate monk [Phelim O'Doherty]

given his life and freedom for apostasy

Sessions held at Coleraine: (first week of August)

a priest of the O'Cahans

indicted for rebellion, tried, convicted and executed

Sessions held at Lifford: (after 8 August, probably the 9th)

Phelim Reagh McDavitt and twenty of his fellow rebels indicted for rebellion, tried, convicted and executed

APPENDIX C THE SURVEY OF 1608 Accomplished by authority of a commission issued under the Great Seal of Ireland dated 19 July 1608. Appendix C, i THE SURVEY BY COUNTY Survey of Tyrone taken at Dungannon Earl of Thomond Sir Thomas Ridgeway Sir Oliver St. John Sir Adam Loftus

on 27 July before: Sir John Davies Sir Foulke Conway Sir Toby Caulfield William Parsons

Survey of Coleraine taken at the Castle of Coleraine on 2 August before: Sir Thomas Ridgeway Sir Adam Loftus Sir Oliver St. John Sir John Davies William Parsons Survey of Armagh taken at Moyry Castle on 2 August before: Sir Thomas Ridgeway Sir John Davies Sir Oliver St. John Sir Toby Caulfield Sir Oliver Lambert Sir Edward Blaney William Parsons Survey of Tyrconnell (cited as Donegal) taken at Lifford on 9 August before: Sir Thomas Ridgeway Sir Adam Loftus Sir Richard Wingfield Sir John Davies Sir Oliver St. John Sir Foulke Conway Sir Oliver Lambert Sir Richard Hansard William Parsons

324


Survey of Fermanagh taken at Devenish ort18 August before: Sir John Davies' Sir Edward Blaney William Parsons Survey of Cavan taken at Cavan town on 6 September before: Sir John Davies Sir Edward Blaney William Parsons Appendix C, ii

DF

'

THE COMMISSIONERisURVEY Earl of Thomond (Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Tyrone only. Sir Richard Wingfield (Marshal of the Army and Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Tyrconnell (Donegal) only. Sir Thomas Ridgeway (Treasurer and Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Tyrone, Coleraine, Armagh and Tyrconnell (Donegal). Sir' Oliver St. John (Master of the Ordnance and Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Tyrone, Coleraine, Armagh and Tyrconnell (Donegal). Sir Adam Loftus (Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Tyrone, Coleraine and Tyrconnell (Donegal); Sir John Davies (Attorney General): took part in the survey of Tyrone, Coleraine, Armagh, Tyrconnell (Donegal), Fermanagh and Cavan. Sir Oliver Lambert (Privy Councillor): took part in the survey of Armagh and Tyrconnell (Donegal). Sir Foulke Conway: took part in the survey of Tyrone and Tyrconnell (Donegal). Sir Toby Caulfield: took part in the survey of Tyrone and Armagh. Sir Edward Blaney (Seneschal of Monaghan): took part in the survey of Armagh, Fermanagh and Cavan. Sir Richard Hansard: took part in the survey of Tyrconnell (Donegal) only. William Parsons (Surveyor General): took part in the survey of Tyrone, Coleraine, Armagh, Tyrconnell (Donegal), Fermanagh and Cavan. [In his letter of 5 August Davies says that the inquisition at Dungannon was taken without Parsons being present; his name might have been added later just to fill out the record. Also, there is no explanation of how the surveys of both Coleraine and Armagh were accomplished the same day, at different'locations, by commissioners who supposedly took part in both) c/O4ll- ...a.gLl~~k.2~, "

+-

APPENDIX LIST OUTLINING

D

THE LOSS OF NATIVE IRISH LEADERSIDP FOR ULSTER O'DOHERTY'S REBELLION

Brian McArt O'Neill Sir Henry Og O'Neill Sir Cahir O'Doherty Rory O'Donnell (Earl of Tyrconnell) Shane Carragh O'Cahan Cuchonnacht Maguire Phelim Reagh McDavitt Brian ne Savagh MacMahon Caffar Og O'Donnell Oghy 6g O'Hanlon Art McBrian McArt O'Neill Art 6g O'Neill ... ... ... Donnogh McQuinn 6g O'Cahan Donal McArt O'Mullan ... Shane O'Reilly 'Conn McRory MacMahon Shane O'Quinn McNeill . Niall Og McArt O'Neill . Hugh O'Neill (Earl of Tyrone) . Donal O'Cahan . Niall Garbh O'Donnell Cormac McBaron O'Neill

FROM THE FLIGHT

OF THE EARLS TO

convicted for manslaughter government servitor ... rebel chieftain

executed at Dublin, [November] 1607 killed in action, before 14 June 1608 slain in rebellion, 5 July 1608

fugitive, indicted for treason rebel ... fugitive, indicted for treason rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel undetermined undetermined not a rebel government servitor ...

died at Rome, [18] July 1608 executed at Dungannon, [on or about 27] July 1608 died at Genoa, 2 August 1608 executed at Lifford [on or about 9] August 1608 slain in rebellion, 13 March 1609 executed at Dublin, 18 July 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 scheduled for transportation to Sweden, 1609 scheduled for transportation to Sweden, 1609 volunteered for service in Sweden, 1609 volunteered for service in Sweden, 1609

fugitive, indicted for treason arraigned on charges of treason arraigned on charges of treason suspected of treason

died at Rome, 10 July 1616 imprisoned without trial, died in the Tower of London, 1617? imprisoned without conviction, died in the Tower of London, 1626 imprisoned without trial, died in the Tower of London, date unknown

c ti ~ ~ ~

",~ (I).

c::r-

~ ~ ;::

s~

~. t'-
~

{All dates, including Continental ones, are Old Style). w N v.

APPENDIX LIST OUTLINING

D

THE LOSS OF NATIVE IRISH LEADERSHIP FOR 'ULSTER O'DOHERTY'S REBELLION

Brian McArt O'Neill Sir Henry os O'Neill Sir Cahir O'Doherty Rory O'Donnell I(Earl of Tyrconnell) Shane Carragh O'Cahan Cuchonuacht Maguire Phelim Reagh McDavitt Brian ne Savagh MacMahon Cirlfar Og O'Donnell Oghy Og O'Hanlon Art McBrian McArt O'Neill Art Og O'Neill Donnogh McQuinn Og O'Cahan Donal McArt O'Mullan ... Shane O'Reilly Conn McRory MacMahon Shane O'Quinn McNeill . Niall Og McArt O'Neill . Hugh O'Neill (Earl of Tyrone) . Donal O'Cahan . Niall Garbh O'Donnell Cormac McBaron O'Neill

FROM THE FLIGHT

OF THE EARLS TO

convicted for manslaughter government servitor ... rebel chieftain

executed at Dublin, [November] 1607 killed in action, before 14 June 1608 slain in rebellion, 5 July 1608

fugitive, indicted for treason rebel ... fugitive, indicted for treason rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel rebel undetermined undetermined not a rebel government servitor ...

died at Rome, [18] July 1608 executed at Dungannon, [on or about 27] July 1608 died at Genoa, 2 August 1608 executed at Lifford [on or about 9] August 1608 slain in rebellion, 13 March 1609 executed at Dublin, 18 July 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 levied for transportation to Sweden, 1609 scheduled for transportation to Sweden, 1609 scheduled for transportation to Sweden, 1609 volunteered for service in Sweden, 1609 volunteered for service in Sweden, 1609

fugitive, indicted for treason arraigned on charges of treason arraigned on charges of treason suspected of treason

died at Rome, 10 July 1616 imprisoned without trial, died in the Tower of London, 1617? imprisoned without conviction, died in the Tower of London, 1626 imprisoned without trial, died in the Tower of London, date unknown

(All dates, including Continental ones, are Old Style).