Under Elizabeth.

CHAPTER V.

Under Elizabeth

A story of an heir of the house of Howth having been carried off by a Sea Queen to the western shores of Ireland, and of his ransom having been a promise of perpetual hospitality in the halls of Howth Castle, is widely known. In the popular imagination it is the most important event in the history of Howth , and forms a link between the peninsula and the Virgin Queen, in whose reign the Sea Queen flourished.

The Sea Queeii, Graina Uaile by name, was a most remarkable woman, who fulfilled the motto of her race, *terra marique potens, *and was able to impress not only the Irish Government, but also Elizabeth herself, with a sense of her power. The story tells that about the year I575, on her return from a visit to Elizabeth, Graina Uaile landed at Howth, and proceeded as far as the Castle gates, which she found closed.

On learning that the gates were closed because it was the dinner hour, she is said to have expressed great indignation at what she considered a dereliction of Irish hospitality, and meeting on her way back to her ship the heir of the house, who was then a child, she retaliated, according to the tradition, by seizing him and carrying him off to her home in the county of Mayo, where he was detained until a promise was given that the gates should never he shut again at dinner-time, and that a place should always be laid at the table for a guest.

Modern research has shown that the date of Graina Uaile’s visit to Elizabeth’s court was 18 years later than that assigned to it in the story, and the story has been therefore deemed to be unfounded. But without direct evidence to controvert it, tradition should not be lightly set aside, and the possibility that an incident such as the tradition relates may have occurred is beyond dispute.

Although she did not go to Elizabeth’s court at the time mentioned, “the dark lady of Doona” did come a year later to Dublin to see Elizabeth’s representative, Sir Henry Sidney; and at that time the heir to Howth in the second generation was a child. [“History and Archaeology of Clare Island,” p. 41. It will be seen at this reference (note 5) that Duald Mac Firbis, in his ” Great Book of Genealogies,” assigns the incident to the 15th century, and says that it was Richard Cuairsci, or Richard of the Bent Shield, who, between 1469 and 1479, took the Lord of Bonn Etar and brought him to Tyrawley.”]

For many generations a picture in Howth Castle was believed to represent the abduction of the heir, but it is now said to represent the flight of the Israelites from Egypt. It shows a group of men and women in the midst of cattle, sheep, and dogs, and has as its principal subject a woman mounted on a white horse, who is receiving an infant into her arms, while above them the sky opens, and a figure appears in the clouds.

But, apart from this story, Howth affords an interesting study during the Elizabethan period. Its town was then accounted one of the largest and best in the county, and its port, which was provided with a quay, continued to be used for passenger, and to some extent mercantile, traffic.

At Howth several of the chief governors in Elizabeth’s reign are recorded to have either embarked or disembarked. There on two occasions in 1561 and 1562, her first Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Sussex, took ship for England, and there after appointment to the office of chief governor, in 1594 Sir William Russell, and in 1600 Lord Mountjoy landed. From Howth, amongst other places, Elizabeth’s Master of the Rolls, John Parker, [He has been, already mentioned as husband of a daughter of the house of Howth.] who was a great promoter of Irish industries, was given licence in 1564 to export wool; and in the same year a ship that had been engaged in piratical exploits was ordered to be delivered to a tenant of Lord Howth to use in the Queen’s service.

Towards the close of Elizabeth’s reign Spanish pirates made themselves much dreaded; and in 1592, about harvest time, one lay without interference near Howth, watching for one of the Queen’s ships, called the “Popinjay,” and finally sailed triumphantly through the sound of Dalkey, and took two English ships.

As appears from references to two shipwrecks at Howth, the peninsula was regarded in Elizabeth’s reign as a great danger in the navigation of ships coming to Dublin. The first of these shipwrecks, which occurred in 1560, involved the loss of the “Michael of Hilboy,” and much merchandise; and the second, which occurred in 1579, resulted in the loss of nine passengers and their horses.

At the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign comfort began to be considered by the owner of Howth, and a mansion was added to the ancient keep. This mansion was, no doubt, of a semi-fortified type, like the castle of Rathfarnham, which was erected some years later by Archbishop Loftus. Though probably not all occupying their original place, three tablets, which were affixed near it, still remain at Howth. They bear the St. Lawrence arms impaled with those of the Plunketts. To a daughter of that house the Lord Howth of Elizabeth’s time was married, and the largest of the three tablets has, as well as their arms, their initials and an inscription: IDNS DEUS MISERIT NRI (probably standing for Jesus Dominus Deus miseritus est nostri). This tablet, which bore also formerly the date 1564, is over an arched gateway, through which the stable-yard is entered from the north, and it seems not improbable that an entrance to the courtyard of the Castle was constructed in 1564 at this point to supersede the use of the vaulted passage through the mediaeval gateway tower, which afforded little room for vehicles. What portions of the present buildings date from that time cannot be determined with certainty, but the hall and kitchen appear to have been amongst them.

With the exception of the Archbishop of Dublin, the Lord of Howth was then the first of “the men of power and name” in the county, and his possessions in it were extensive and far-reaching. To the north lay his manor of Baldongan, with the lands of Rogerstown and Balscadden, and to the west his manor of Ward; while the manor of Howth had attached to it the lands of Kilbarrack and Killester, besides scattered holdings in other places.

Christopher, who succeeded in 1658 to the title and estate on the death of his brother Richard, is the most striking figure in the line of the Lords of Howth during the sixteenth century. His force of character is shown in the fact that his nomination to the council was simultaneous with his succession to the title, and that his assistance in the government of Ireland was considered indispensable by most of those to whom Elizabeth entrusted the sword.

Of his early life little is known. As has been already mentioned, he became in 1544 a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as late as 1554 he appears to have been a member of it, but in 1556 he is mentioned in connexion with the Ward, and was then resident there, as his brother Richard had been prior to his succession to the title. He must have been then married for more than ten years. His wife, Elizabeth Plunkett, was a daughter of Sir John Plunkett of Beaulieu, and possibly a house in the parish of Raheny, which her father is said to have held in 1551, from Lord Howth, may have had seine connexion with their marriage.

The ability of the blind lord, as Christopher was called, probably from defective eyesight, seems to have been chiefly shown in the capacities of a counsellor and diplomatist. For the first 12 years of Elizabeth’s reign his name is constantly appended to the proclamations as a member of the council, at which his first appearance was made in December, 1558, when the news of Queen Mary’s death arrived.

In 1561 he was employed by the Earl of Sussex to carry on negotiations with Shane O’Neill, and in the winter of 1562 he was sent by Sussex, with two other members of the council, to discuss with Elizabeth and her ministers the measures to be taken in the government of Ireland.

According to the Book of Howth, the latter mission was one which others were reluctant to undertake, and required no small talent as a courtier. It was only by much perseverance that the three messengers carried their point with the Queen, and it is evident that they had no little difficulty in overcoming her antipathy to them on the ground of their Irish birth, which was revealed at the first audience, by her asking Lord Howth if he was able to speak the English tongue.

By Lord Justice Arnold the blind lord was no less trusted than by Lord Sussex, and he was one of those employed by him to hold a parley with the chief of the O’Reilly clan on the borders of the Pale. Later on Sir Henry Sidney, while Lord Deputy, made use of him in further negotiations with O’Neill.

But he had a reputation also as a man of action, and before a general hosting against Shane O’Neill in the autumn of 1560, he was appointed “chief and general captain” of the forces in Dublin county. To this hosting he contributed in respect of Howth, in addition to his own services, three men and transport.

In 1563 he accompanied the Earl of Sussex on one of his journeys to the North, and rendered him notable assistance. With the help of the men of Dublin he brought Sussex safely through the dangerous Moyrie Pass, near Newry, and he was one of the commanders at Dungannon in an engagement with O’Neill, which lasted all day until “the woods so rang with the shot that it was strange to hear.”

Again, three years later in 1556, in a general hosting against Shane O’Neill, under Sir Henry Sidney, he is found serving in person and contributing six archers on horseback, and is reported to have done good service in exacting retribution for the burning of many villages and districts in the Pale.

The Government did all they could to bind to them the blind lord and his relations, who were then regarded as “people of very great birth, alliance, kindred, riches, and friendship.” Soon after his succession to Howth, in May, 1561, Queen Elizabeth announced her intention of confirming to him his title, and nine years later, in February, 1570, Lord Deputy Sidney conferred on him at Drogheda the honour of knighthood.

But a time came when the interests of the Government and those of the chief men of the Pale conflicted, and, notwithstanding the efforts of the Government to attach him to their side, the blind lord was found foremost in defence of his own class.

To the part taken by him in the conflict there are many references in the Book of Howth. As a note in it records, it belonged to him; and in the opinion of Dr. Round, it was compiled under his direction, and contains references to himself, which, although written in the third person, are his own composition.

As appears from it, as well as from the state papers, the conflict became in a great degree a personal one between the chief men of the Pale and the Lord Deputy, Sir Henry Sidney. This Sir Harry,” says the Book of Howth, “was very severe and upright in judgment, and yet a friendly gentleman to his own friends, very courteous, sober, wise, and free of his own nature, so was he when he would be in a rage a very lion in speech, and soon after appeased when he did call himself to remembrance, as witnessed the Lord of Howth.”

This occasion was no doubt one on which the Lord Deputy endeavoured to force the chief men of the Pale to submit to taxation in consideration of the Crown forgoing its right to call a hosting: “the first day the Lord Deputy was in a great rage, and threatened the gentleman to the Castle of Dublin, but the morrow after, the Lord Deputy did well allow the gentleman’s request, and did confess that he and the council did commit an error, and so promised upon his honour the like should not be in his time.”

But in the next encounter, which concerned the right of the Crown to levy cess without the assent of Parliament, the Lord Deputy proved the victor. It came to a head in 1.576, when the blind lord and the other chief men of the Pale laid their cause before the privy council in England, continued throughout the next year, when they were for a short time prisoners in the Castle of Dublin, and terminated in 1578, when they were for five months kept in close confinement in the same place

During the latter imprisonment “the charges of diet and fees” pressed heavily upon them, and a sample of those paid by the blind lord has been thought worthy of preservation in the Book of Howth: “his confinement 40s.; his diet for 28 days £14 l3s., by composition at 22d. sterling per diem £12 12s. sterling.”

Throughout these proceedings the blind lord is represented by the Book of Howth as the spokesman for his fellows. But they are admitted not to have been in every instance as amenable to his leading as could have been desired; and in the contention about enforcing taxation in lieu of a hosting, “one of the greatest as he thought himself,” Sir Christopher Barnewall, of Turvey, is said on the first day to have recanted, and to have complained that “the Lord of Howth spoke more than was desired him to speak.” At “that gentleman’s word ” the others are said to have been grieved, and the moral is drawn that “every man should beware to speak for the commons, for some one will halt and flatter, as there it did appear by this gentleman.”

The disagreement between the blind lord and Sir Christopher Barnewall may have had its origin in private as well as in public concerns. A year after his succession to the title the blind lord had entered into an agreement with Sir Christopher Barnewall that his eldest son, Nicholas, should marry a daughter of Sir Christopher Barnewall’s called Margaret, and that Sir Christopher Barnewall’s eldest son, Patrick, as soon as he reached the age of 14, should marry his daughter Mary.

But, although apparently married to the young lady assigned to him at the appointed time, Patrick Barnewall proved recalcitrant, and finally instituted, in 1579, proceedings for a dissolution of the marriage, which was granted. For the fulfilment of the agreement Sir Christopher Barnewall had bound himself in the sum of £1,000, and the blind lord felt the breach of covenant so strongly as to impose on his son the obligation of recovering half the amount specified in the bond, which, as will be seen, his son did.

At the time the divorce proceedings were instituted by Patrick Barnewall, the blind lord’s relations with his own wife had become so unhappy as to lead to their separation. In 1578 he was ordered to pay her eight pounds a month until the variance should be ended; and in the following year charges of infidelity, and even cruelty, led to proceedings against him in the Castle Chamber, which corresponded to the Star Chamber in England.

On his first appearance in that court, in the month of May, 1579, the blind lord secured the conviction of one of his servants for perjury in allegations of immorality which he had made against him, but two months later he was himself convicted of beating his wife with great barbarity because she had protested against “his dissolute life.” In addition, he was convicted of beating one of his daughters until, it is said, he caused an ague, from which she died, and also of beating one of his servants who had sought to befriend his wife. Fines to the amount of £1,000 were imposed, and their non-payment led to his imprisonment for more than six months, when he was only released “to save the word of the Lord Chancellor,” with whom he had negotiations that are not clearly explained.

With Lord Deputy Perrot, in the year 1585, the contest about the cess was renewed, and accusations of ill-faith were made against him by die blind lord and other Irish peers. Subsequently the blind lord retracted what he had said, and as one of the last acts of his life he sent a present of an intermewed goshawk to Perrot. Three weeks before the mention of his present to Perrot, on August 16, 1589, the blind lord had made his will, and probate of it was granted on November 20 following, just a month after his death, which took place on October 24, 1589.

The sole member of his family named in it is his eldest son, and it was his wish that no one except his said son should “intermeddle with his goods and chattels.” Besides his son, he mentioned his servant, Richard Hanlon, to whom he left a farm and some live stock; his page, Lawrence, to whom he left his grey horse and his cape, which was of the same colour; and one Belle White, to whom he left a house for her life.

It was by the blind lord, as has been seen, that a mansion house was added to the ancient keep, and Howth Castle, as we know it to-day, is probably a monument to his energy and pre-eminence amongst its owners under the Tudor and Stewart dynasties. He has been described by Dr. Round as a typical Elizabethan gentleman, and in a careful analysis which Dr. Round has made of his part in the compilation of the Book of Howth, attention is specially drawn to the pride which he took in his family.

It is manifested in the Book of Howth by reference to a conversation with gentlemen in Sir Henry Sidney’s train, who excelled in heraldry, about noble English men in Ireland; [“Book of Howth,” p.21. No doubt the blind lord’s informant was chiefly the Rev. Robert le Commaundre, rector of Tarporley in Cheshire, who came in Sir Henry Sidney’s train, and is known as the author of a valuable manuscript entitled the “Book of Heraldry and Other Things.” See C Litton Falkiner’s” Essays relating to Ireland,” p. 208.]and it is further proved by his erection of the mansion, and by his placing near it the tablets with his own and the Plunkett arms.

In addition, he appears to have built a house at Raheny as a dower house, and placed on it a tablet, which has been lately brought from Raheny to Howth Castle, and which bears, like the tablets already mentioned, the St. Lawrence and Plunkett arms impaled, with the initials C. and E., and the date, 1572.

In addition to the blind lord’s pride in his family, Dr. Round draws attention to his avidity in gathering information, which was combined with a remarkable want of historical perspective and extraordinary credulity, and to his resentment of insinuations of disloyalty in the case of the Anglo-Irish.

His will is prefaced by a more than formal acknowledgement of his unworthiness: “First I bequeath my soul to Almighty God, my maker and my redeemer, whom I, most cruel and wicked sinner, have diversely offended and transgressed His law and commandments, for which I, with all humility and penitence therefor, most willingly crave mercy and pardon, and beseech Him to be merciful unto me, and forgive me my sins and wickedness.”

But at the same time his life would appear to have been one of much public usefulness, and until the year of his death his name was included in all the commissions for taking the muster and keeping the peace in his county.

The charges against him of cruelty can hardly have been baseless, but his misconduct was probably a temporary ebullition of passion. His early life with Elizabeth Plunkett seems to have been happy. As has been seen he was careful that she should be commemorated as well as himself in all his undertakings, and the blessing of a quiver over-flowing with children was not wanting.

It is also certain that on her death, the date of which is unknown, another lady, Cecily, daughter of Henry Cusack, an alderman of Dublin, was found willing to take her place. [She married secondly John Barnewall of Monkton in Co. Meath and thirdly John Finglas of Westpalstown in Co. Dublin. To her will, which is dated August 1, 1635, she appended on August 12, 1636, a codicil which she desired should have “the same force, vigour, and virtue in law.” In it she directed that her executrix should keep her month’s mind and year’s mind according to the usual custom of the country, and should bestow some alms “at those terms” upon the poor, and expressed her wish that her will should not be perused by many but by “such as it doth concern, and that after her burial.” Cf. Chancery Decree, Eliz., no. 685 Jac. I, no. 110.] Writing in the lifetime of the blind lord, Stanihurst says that the, Baron of Howth, signifying the disposition of his mind, speaketh in this wise:

Si redamas, redamo, Si spernis, sperno. Quid ergo?

Non licet absque tuis vivere posse bonis

The blind lord had no less than 14 children, but of these only four sons, Nicholas, Thomas, Leonard, and Richard, and one daughter, Margaret, are known to have survived him. Thomas appears to have been killed on October 2, 1600, in an engagement between the forces of the Crown and those of O’Neill at the Moyrie Pass. Leonard, who in a funeral entry is mentioned as the blind lord’s third son, died on November 7, 1608, having made a will on the preceding day, in which he refers to his wife, Ann Eustace, and his daughter Elizabeth, and shows his devotion to agricultural life by mention his “choice cow” and of his sheep, as well as of his ploughman, to whom he leaves “a couple of corn.

Richard is referred to in 1575 in connexion with a deposition made by him against the Earl of Kildare, and was one of the beneficiaries under his brother Leonard’s will; and Margaret is also named in her brother Leonard’s will as the recipient of his “stone jug double gilt.” In 1583 he was residing at Derindell, and was apparently then unmarried, but she was married twice, first to William Fitzwilliam of Donamore, and secondly to Michael Berford of Kilrow, who died before 1603. She died February 16, 1620.

Nicholas Lord Howth, who succeeded the blind lord as his eldest son, had been knighted a year before his father’s death, in May, 1588, and was at that time a man well advanced in years, with many children.

He had been twice married, first, as has been already mentioned, to Margaret, daughter of Sir Christopher Barnewall, of Turvey, and, secondly, to Mary, daughter of Sir Nicholas White, of St. Catherine’s. His second wife had been previously married to Christopher Darcy of Platten, and before his succession to the title Nicholas had for a time resided at the latter place. In 1583 arid 1584, when he was appointed a commissioner for the muster in the county of Meath, he is described as of Platten, and subsequently, in 1557, as of Osbertstown.

Like his father, Nicholas was devoted to the interests of the Pale, and did nott always find it easy to reconcile that the with the requirements of the Government-a difficulty which was accentuated in his case by his more or less open profession of the Roman Catholic religion.

A few months after his father’s death he was appointed a guardian of the Pale during the temporary absence of the Lord Deputy, Sir William Fitzwilliam, in the west of Ireland; but he was soon afterwards alienated from the Government by joining in charges made against the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Robert Dillon.

The originators of these charges were members of the Nugent family, to whom Nicholas was distantly related, but he was probably induced to take the part he did by his father-in-law, Sir Nicholas White, who complained that the malice of Sir Robert Dillon against him knew no end.

Nicholas is first mentioned in connexion with the charges against Sir Robert Dillon in the year 159l, and for the next two years was constantly in the company of Lord Delvin, the head of the Nugent family. They appear signing letters together at Lord Delvin’s seat in Westmeath, attending together before the council, and collecting evidence together at Howth. Lord Delvin speaks in one of his letters of injuries done to Nicholas by Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam, but Nicholas does not seem to have harboured any feeling of resentment, and is recorded to have exclaimed on an offer from the Lord Deputy to leave them alone with the council: “No, God forbid, my Lord, that we should mistrust your Lordship in any matter that concerns the Queen.”

Under the next Lord Deputy, Sir William Russell, Nicholas re-established himself in the good opinion of the Government, and gave proof of his loyalty to the Crown. He had the good fortune to be the first to greet Sir William Russell, as Sir William landed at Howth, and also passed the night of his arrival, July 31, 1594, in the Castle; and in the following February, on Sir William Russell’s return from an expedition against the O’Byrne’s, Nicholas was foremost in offering congratulations and assistance. His assistance was accepted, and two months later he accompanied Sir William Russell on a further expedition against the O’Byrnes, and rendered such service as entitled him to the thanks of the Queen.

During the rising under Tyrone the Government received from him great support. In the autumn of 1598 he was one of the few men of the Pale who came to their aid, and he was given then a commission with the Sheriff to execute martial law in his county.

A year later he was the only one to respond to a call upon the militia, and brought to the assistance of the army 200 foot and horse that he had raised. These troops were so deficient in equipment as to be useless, but in a parley that ensued with Tyrone his advice proved of value, and contributed to securing a truce. Of all the men of the Pale, the Lords Justices said, he was the only one deserving of notice, and a letter of thanks to him in the Queen’s name was suggested as “a comfort and an encouragement.”

At the same time his eldest son, Christopher, who succeeded him, was making a name for himself and bringing additional distinction to the house of Howth. He is first mentioned as serving in the spring of 1595 with his father against the O’Byrnes, of whom he effected a notable capture. The greater portion of the next year he spent in England at the Queen’s court, and during that time he appears to have been knighted.

He returned to Ireland, where he landed in January, 1597, with a commission in the regular army, and was subsequently appointed commander of the garrison at Cavan, with a fee of 10s. per day. Power to execute martial law was entrusted to him, and in a letter from Lord Dunsany, who married a sister of his mother, there is reference to the good services rendered by him on the border of Cavan.

During the spring of 1598 he was engaged against Tyrone’s confederates in Leinster, and acquitted himself so well that his valour was brought under the notice of the privy council in England, with a suggestion that an assurance of their “thankful acceptance of his service” might be sent to him. He continued throughout that year to assist in the operations against Tyrone’s confederates, and in the winter was sent to the relief of Maryborough, and subsequently was stationed at Kells.

When the Earl of Essex landed in Ireland in April, 1~99, Sir Christopher St. Lawrence was in command of the garrison at Naas, with authority to execute martial law over a large extent of country, and thence accompanied Essex in May on his expedition to suppress the rebellion in southern Ireland.

During that expedition he performed two gallant exploits. The first was near Athy, where he swam across the river Barrow to rescue horses that had been carried oft from the army, and returned in triumph with the horses and the head of one of the marauders, and the second was at Cahir, where he was instrumental in preventing the escape of the garrison.

He accompanied Essex also in August on his ill-starred expedition to Ulster, and is mentioned while at Niselerathy, near Louth, as being in command of 500 horse and 50 foot. At that time, in commending a suit which Sir Christopher made to the Queen and her privy council, Essex, who had possibly made his acquaintance in England, speaks of him as “a very gallant, able servant to her Majesty, and his own dear and worthy friend”; and in the following September he communicated to him his secret departure from Ireland, and gave him a place amongst the few who attended him to Elizabeth’s court.

Sir Christopher St. Lawrence possessed a typical Irish character, and was no less impulsive than brave. In the autumn of 1598 “it was current both in court and country above ten days together” that he had slain Sir Samuel Bagenal about “the lie or such like brabble”; and while on the way with Essex to the Palace of Nonsuch, he is said to have proposed to engage in single combat Lord Grey de Wilton and Sir Robert Cecil, whom Essex had reason to believe were hostile to him, the former on the road and the latter in the sacred precincts of the Court.

A few weeks after Essex had been committed to the care of the Lord Keeper, Sir Christopher pledged publicly Essex’s health and his enemies’ confusion, and on being called to account, not only stood to his words, but also said that he would fulfil his promise if anyone attempted to disparage Essex’s character.

According to rumour at the time, “Lord Treasurer did school him, but nothing else was done to him,” and a courtier, who took him to task while he was in bed, discreetly retired on being informed by Sir Christopher that what he had said “he would maintain with his sword in his shirt against any man.”

Meantime Sir Christopher and the other Irishmen who had accompanied Essex were received by the Queen, and, although told that they had made “a scornful journey,” were accorded a gracious reception, calculated to ensure their loyalty in the future. A few days later Sir Christopher was brought before the privy council and accused of having uttered threats apparently against Sir Robert Cecil, which he denied “with great reverence to the place, but passionate as a soldier.”

He was taunted with being an Irishman, and with great dignity made the following reply, which niany have since echoed: “I am sorry that when I am in England I should be esteemed an Irishman, and in Ireland an Englishman. I have spent my blood, engaged and endangered my life often to do her Majesty service, and do beseech to have it so regarded.”

On being told finally to return to his command in Ireland, he begged leave to continue for a time in England, where he had private business of much moment, and represented the smallness of his charge in Ireland. His conduct and representations appear to have made a most favourable impression, and he was permitted to postpone his return to Ireland for two months, and granted by the Queen, in consideration of the good report which had been made to her of him, arrears of pay long due.

When leaving London he was commended by the Queen to the Lords Justices of Ireland as one who had ” well deserved in her service,” and for whom she desired “good grace arid countenance”; and he was so much in favour with Sir Robert Cecil that, five days after his return to Dublin, in January, 1600, he was able to appeal confidentially to him for help in regard to his arrears, payment of which was refused to him, notwithstanding the Queen’s letter.

A month later, on February 26, 1600, Lord Mountjoy arrived in Ireland, as Essex’s successor. As he landed at Howth it fell to the lot of Nicholas to he the first to receive him, and as in the case of Sir William Russell, to entertain him that night in the Castle.

With such confidence did he inspire Mountjoy that in the following May he was appointed to govern his comity during Mountjoy’s absence in the North, and was said by him to be “one of the best of the nobility.” His reputation was further enhanced by the singular discretion and ability which he displayed that summer on a mission to the Queen’s court on behalf of the inhabitants of the Pale, who were at that time groaning under the maintenance of the army, and found that “if there were no rebel to spoil them, the army would consume them.”

He made, like his son, a favourable impression on the Queen, and on his return to Ireland was vindicated by the issue of proclamations covering the grounds of his complaints. From a letter which he wrote to Sir Robert Cecil, it appears that such practices as littering horses with corn, extorting money and drink, and abusing and beating the people, were proved against the soldiers, and, no doubt, the inhabitants of the Pale blessed Lord Howth for his interference, although some of the officers, who said that their horses were starved under the hew regulations, asserted that the contrary was the case.

Although the Irish officials had not been too well pleased at the idea of the mission, the Queen’s reception of Nicholas caused it to be regarded in a very different light. On his return to Ireland they found that only for his efforts in moderating “the wilfulness of the Pale,” the most serious results would have followed, and were loud in praise of his great worth, as well in private life as in the many employments, “martial and civil,” which he had held under the Crown.

His inclusion on the council board was recommended by Mountjoy, and Dublin county and its marches were placed in his sole charge. In discharging that trust he is said to have been active in putting the county in arms, and “in his own person very stirring to go from place to place to see the straits and passages manned, using all diligence he could to defend the country according to the trust reposed in him.”

His son, Sir Christopher St. Lawrence, was constantly employed during Mountjoy’s government as a colonel, and greatly increased his reputation as a soldier, although still bearing the character of a wild Irishman.

Before Mountjoy arrived it was reported that “the Lords of Ormond and Thomond and Sir Christopher St. Lawrence were dangerously hurt in a brawl amongst themselves”; and in April following, when the Earl of Ormond was taken prisoner by the O’Mores, and Sir Christopher was sent with reinforcements to Kilkenny, it was expressly provided that his part was to lead the troops, and not to take charge of Ormond’s “sorrowful lady.”

During that summer, while fighting against the O’Mores with Mountjoy, Sir Christopher captured an immense number of cattle, sheep, and goats ; and in the following October, while fighting against Tyrone, he was wounded at the Moyrie Pass, where his uncle Thomas had been killed. In the early months of 1601 he was at Mountjoy’s right hand in military operations in the central districts of Ireland, and had “a very hot skirmish” with Captain Tyrell, one of Tyrone’s partisans, at the pass which hears Tyrell’s name in the county of Westmeath.

Although smarting under neglect in regard to promotion, he was said by Mountjoy to have acted “the part of an honest man,” and he was promised by Mountjoy a certificate of his good service to the Queen.

In writing to one of the Irish officials Sir Christopher says that he prays God Mountjoy will not forget his promise, for he has lost his blood often for the Queen, and thinks that she has never heard of it, but concludes his letter by wishing his friend good fortune, and himself and his comrades money and little rest, for he knows that as long as a soldier could go he should never stay still.

In August he was with Mountjoy in the North of Ireland, in command nominally of 750 men; and in the autumn he was sent into Munster to oppose the Spaniards, and was present at the siege of Kinsale.

During the early part of 1602 he appears to have been stationed in Dublin, but in July he was appointed Governor of Monaghan, and went there to take charge of the garrison. His rule was of short duration, for according to Fynes Moryson, Mountjoy found it necessary to recall him in October, in order to settle differences between him and his second in command.

He had been there, however, long enough to gain the love of many of the inhabitants in Monaghan and the adjoining counties of Cavan and Fermanagh, and he was alleged to have tried to make the northern border of the Pale a dependency of his own.

Some mysterious negotiations are said to have taken place at the same time between him and Tyrone, and accusations of disloyalty and tyrannical conduct to the later English settlers were afterwards made against him. He considered himself maligned, and on November 5 wrote to Cecil, begging leave to go to England “for the repairing of his reputation,” and saying that he would return next day if Cecil wished, as he had no suit to make, but only wanted to speak with his Honour”; and in the following January Mountjoy wrote to Cecil that Sir Christopher desired military employment in some other country, and recommended that he should be allowed to seek it, as many Irish swordsmen would be certain to follow him, and if as many as 2,000 could be induced to do so, the establishment would be saved a £100,000.

To Chapter 6. Ball Index. Home.