Part 26 (2/2)
Richard I., who succeeded to the throne, was too much occupied about foreign affairs to attend to his own kingdom. He was a brave soldier, and as such merits our respect; but he can scarcely be credited as a wise king. Irish affairs were committed to the care of John, who does not appear to have profited by his former experience. He appointed Hugh de Lacy Lord Justice, to the no small disgust of John de Courcy; but it was little matter to whom the government of that unfortunate country was confided. There were nice distinctions made about t.i.tles; for John, even when King of England, did not attempt to write himself King of Ireland.[315] But there were no nice distinctions about property; for the rule seemed to be, that whoever could get it should have it, and whoever could keep it should possess it.
In 1189 Roderic's son, Connor Moinmoy, fell a victim to a conspiracy of his own chieftains,--a just retribution for his rebellion against his father. He had, however, the reputation of being brave and generous. At his death Connaught was once more plunged in civil war, and after some delay and difficulty Roderic resumed the government.
In 1192 the brave King of Th.o.m.ond again attacked the English invaders.
But after his death, in 1194, the Anglo-Normans had little to apprehend from native valour. His obituary is thus recorded: ”Donnell, son of Turlough O'Brien, King of Munster, a burning lamp in peace and war, and the brilliant star of the hospitality and valour of the Momonians, and of all Leth-Mogha, died.” Several other ”lamps” went out about the same time; one of these was Crunce O'Flynn, who had defeated De Courcy in 1178, and O'Carroll, Prince of Oriel, who had been hanged by the English the year before, after the very unnecessary cruelty of putting out his eyes.
The affairs of the English colony were not more prosperous. New Lords Justices followed each other in quick succession. One of these governors, Hamon de Valois, attempted to replenish his coffers from church property,--a proceeding which provoked the English Archbishop Comyn. As this ecclesiastic failed to obtain redress in Ireland, he proceeded to England with his complaints; but he soon learned that justice could not be expected for Ireland. The difference between the conduct of ecclesiastics, who have no family but the Church, and no interests but the interests of religion, is very observable in all history. While English and Norman soldiers were recklessly destroying church property and domestic habitations in the country they had invaded, we find, with few exceptions, that the ecclesiastic, of whatever nation, is the friend and father of the people, wherever his lot may be cast. The English Archbishop resented the wrongs of the Irish Church as personal injuries, and devoted himself to its advancement as a personal interest. We are indebted to Archbishop Comyn for building St.
Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, as well as for his steady efforts to promote the welfare of the nation. After an appeal in person to King Richard and Prince John, he was placed in confinement in Normandy, and was only released by the interference of the Holy See; Innocent III., who had probably by this time discovered that the English monarchs were not exactly the persons to reform the Irish nation, having addressed a letter from Perugia to the Earl of Montague (Prince John), reprimanding him for detaining ”his venerable brother, the Archbishop of Dublin,” in exile, and requiring him to repair the injuries done by his Viceroy, Hamon de Valois, on the clergy of Leighlin. The said Hamon appears to have meddled with other property besides that belonging to the Church--a more unpardonable offence, it is to be feared, in the eyes of his master. On returning from office after two years viceroyalty, he was obliged to pay a thousand marks to obtain an acquittance from his accounts.[316]
John ascended the English throne in 1199. He appointed Meiller FitzHenri[317] Governor of Ireland. It has been conjectured that if John had not obtained the sovereignty, he and his descendants might have claimed the ”Lords.h.i.+p of Ireland.” There can be no doubt that he and they might have claimed it; but whether they could have held it is quite another consideration. It is generally worse than useless to speculate on what might have been. In this case, however, we may decide with positive certainty, that no such condition of things could have continued long. The English kings would have looked with jealousy even on the descendants of their ancestors, if they kept possession of the island; and the descendants would have become, as invariably happened, _Hibernicis ipsis Hibernior_, and therefore would have shared the fate of the ”common enemy.”
Meanwhile the O'Connors were fighting in Kerry. Cathal Carragh obtained the services of FitzAldelm, and expelled Cathal Crovderg. He, in his turn, sought the a.s.sistance of Hugh O'Neill, who had been distinguis.h.i.+ng himself by his valour against De Courcy and the English. They marched into Connaught, but were obliged to retreat with great loss. The exiled Prince now sought English a.s.sistance, and easily prevailed on De Courcy and young De Lacy to help him. But misfortune still followed him. His army was again defeated; and as they fled to the peninsula of Rindown, on Lough Ree, they were so closely hemmed in, that no way of escape remained, except to cross the lake in boats. In attempting to do this a great number were drowned. The Annals of Kilronan and Clonmacnois enter these events under the year 1200; the Four Masters under the year 1199.
The former state that ”Cahall Carragh was taken deceitfully by the English of Meath,” and imprisoned until he paid a ransom; and that De Courcy, ”after slaying of his people,” returned to Ulster.
Cathal Crovderg now obtained the a.s.sistance of the Lord Justice, who plundered Clonmacnois. He also purchased the services of FitzAldelm, and thus deprived his adversary of his best support. The English, like the mercenary troops of Switzerland and the Netherlands, appear to have changed sides with equal alacrity, when it suited their convenience; and so as they were well paid, it mattered little to them against whom they turned their arms. In 1201 Cathal Crovderg marched from Limerick to Roscommon, with his new ally and the sons of Donnell O'Brien and Florence MacCarthy. They took up their quarters at Boyle, and occupied themselves in wantonly desecrating the abbey. Meanwhile Cathal Carragh, King of Connaught, had a.s.sembled his forces, and came to give them battle. Some skirmishes ensued, in which he was slain, and thus the affair was ended. FitzAldelm, or De Burgo, as he is more generally called now, a.s.sisted by O'Flaherty of West Connaught, turned against Cathal when they arrived at Cong to spend the Easter. It would appear that the English were billeted on the Irish throughout the country; and when De Burgo demanded wages for them, the Connacians rushed upon them, and slew six hundred men. For once his rapacity was foiled, and he marched off to Munster with such of his soldiers as had escaped the ma.s.sacre. Three years after he revenged himself by plundering the whole of Connaught, lay and ecclesiastical.
During this period Ulster was also desolated by civil war. Hugh O'Neill was deposed, and Connor O'Loughlin obtained rule; but the former was restored after a few years.
John de Courcy appears always to have been regarded with jealousy by the English court. His downfall was at hand, A.D. 1204; and to add to its bitterness, his old enemies, the De Lacys, were chosen to be the instruments of his disgrace. It is said that he had given mortal offence to John, by speaking openly of him as a usurper and the murderer of his nephew; but even had he not been guilty of this imprudence, the state he kept, and the large tract of country which he held, was cause enough for his ruin. He had established himself at Downpatrick, and was surrounded in almost regal state by a staff of officers, including his constable, seneschal, and chamberlain; he even coined money in his own name.
Complaints of his exactions were carried to the King. The De Lacys accused him of disloyalty. In 1202 the then Viceroy, Hugh de Lacy, attempted to seize him treacherously, at a friendly meeting. He failed to accomplish this base design; but his brother, Walter, succeeded afterwards in a similar attempt, and De Courcy was kept in durance until the devastations which his followers committed in revenge obliged his enemies to release him.
In 1204 he defeated the Viceroy in a battle at Down. He was aided in this by the O'Neills, and by soldiers from Man and the Isles. It will be remembered that he could always claim a.s.sistance from the latter, in consequence of his connexion by marriage. But this did not avail him. He was summoned before the Council in Dublin, and some of his possessions were forfeited. Later in the same year (A.D. 1204) he received a safe conduct to proceed to the King. It is probable that he was confined in the Tower of London for some time; but it is now certain that he revisited Ireland in 1210, if not earlier, in the service of John, who granted him an annual pension.[318] It is supposed that he died about 1219; for in that year Henry III. ordered his widow, Affreca, to be paid her dower out of the lands which her late husband had possessed in Ireland.
Cambrensis states that De Courcy had no children; but the Barons of Kinsale claim to be descended from him; and even so late as 1821 they exercised the privilege of appearing covered before George IV.--a favour said to have been granted to De Courcy by King John, after his recall from Ireland, as a reward for his prowess. Dr. Smith states, in his _History of Cork_, that Miles de Courcy was a hostage for his father during the time when he was permitted to leave the Tower to fight the French champion. In a pedigree of the MacCarthys of Cooraun Lough, county Kerry, a daughter of Sir John de Courcy is mentioned. The Irish annalists, as may be supposed, were not slow to attribute his downfall to his crimes.
Another English settler died about this period, and received an equal share of reprobation; this was FitzAldelm, more commonly known as Mac William Burke (De Burgo), and the ancestor of the Burke family in Ireland. Cambrensis describes him as a man addicted to many vices. The Four Masters declare that ”G.o.d and the saints took vengeance on him; for he died of a shameful disease.” It could scarcely be expected that one who had treated the Irish with such unvarying cruelty, could obtain a better character, or a more pleasing obituary. Of his miserable end, without ”shrive or unction,” there appears to be no doubt.
[Ill.u.s.tration: STALACt.i.tE CAVE, TIPPERARY.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: KING JOHN'S CASTLE, LIMERICK.]
FOOTNOTES:
[304] _Warrior.--Hib. Expug._ lib. ii. cap. 17.
[305] _Defeated_.--Giraldus gives a detailed account of these affairs.--_Hib. Expug._ lib. ii. cap. 17. He says the Irish forces under Dunlevy amounted to ten thousand warriors; but this statement cannot at all be credited. De Courcy took advantage of some old Irish prophecies to further his cause. They were attributed to St. Columbkille, and to the effect that a foreigner who would ride upon a white horse, and have little birds painted on his s.h.i.+eld, should conquer the country. De Courcy did ride upon a white horse, and the birds were a part of his armorial bearings.
[306] _Newry_.--See an interesting note to the Annals (Four Masters), vol. iii. p. 40, which identifies the valley of Glenree with the vale of Newry. In an ancient map, the Newry river is called _Owen Glenree fluvius_.
[307] _General_.--This is mentioned also by O'Flaherty, who quotes from some other annals. See his account of Iar-Connaught, printed for the Archaeological Society.
[308] _Says_.--_Sylloge_, ep. 48.
[309] _Lives_.--We give authority for this statement, as it manifests how completely the Holy See was deceived in supposing that any reform was likely to be effected in Ireland by English interference: ”Ita ut quodam tempore (quod dictu mirum est) centum et quadraginta presby.
incontinentiae convictos Romani miserit absolvendos.”--Surius, t. vi. St.
Laurence had faculties for absolving these persons, but for some reason--probably as a greater punishment--he sent them to Rome. English writers at this period also complain of the relaxed state of ecclesiastical discipline in that country. How completely all such evils were eradicated by the faithful sons of the Church, and the exertions of ecclesiastical superiors, is manifest from the fact, that no such charges could be brought against even a single priest at the time of the so-called Reformation.
[310] _Midnight_.--”Itaque c.u.m s.e.xtae feriae terminus advenisset, in confinio sabbati subsequentis Spiritum Sancti viri requies aeterna suscepit.”--_Vita S. Laurentii_, cap. x.x.xiii. The saint's memory is still honoured at Eu. The church has been lately restored, and there is a little oratory on the hill near it to mark the spot where he exclaimed, _Hoec est requies mea_, as he approached the town where he knew he should die. Dr. Kelly (_Cambrensis Eversus_, vol. ii. p. 648) mentions in a note that the names of several Irishmen were inscribed there.
[311] _Fatal_.--Dr. O'Donovan gives a long and most interesting note on the genealogy of St. Laurence O'Toole, in which he shows that his father was a chieftain of an important territory in the county Kildare, and that he was not a Wicklow prince, as has been incorrectly a.s.serted. The family removed there after the death of St. Laurence, when they were driven from their property by an English adventurer.
<script>