In Jacobean Times.

CHAPTER VI.

In Jacobean Times.

The Jacobean age has left little mark on the county of Dublin, either in regard to its buildings or the history of its families, and in the ease of Howth an exception to the rule is not found. There is not any trace of Jacobean work in the Castle, but it is probable that an alteration in the structure was made during the reign of Charles the First, as Swift alludes in one of his references to Traulus to the fact that Traulus’s great-grandfather, the designer of the Earl of Strafford’s mansion near Naas, left his name inscribed on one of the chimneys:

And at Howth to boast his fame,

On a chimney cut his name.

[The Legion Club.]

Of the other buildings on the peninsula in Jacobean times the only one mentioned, besides Corr Castle, which had been enlarged by an annex with a thatched roof, is a house on the lands of Sutton. It is described as “a good English-like stone house.” It was roofed with slates; and as it was rated as containing six chimneys, half the number in** Howth Castle, it must have been of considerable size. Its out-offices were roofed with tiles, and its courtyard, or bawn, was surrounded with a stone wall. As will be seen in the next chapter, the site of this house is now **occupied by the modern Sutton House.

During the seventeenth century Howth was less used as it port, owing to ships being larger and facilities for embarkation and disembarkation being greater elsewhere ; but the fishery retained its importance, and the fishermen proved their skill and fearlessness in the conveyance to England of letters in open row-boats, when all other other of communication failed. It had been long recognized that, when the saving of tune was of supreme importance, Howth had the advantage over other ports, and in the reign of James the First one Captain Pepper was wont to resort there from Holyhead with a packet-boat, which passed to and fro, “like a light horseman, before all others,” but which envious people said was only a baggage-boat.”

But sometimes the winds proved too contrary for ships like it, or other obstacles intervened, and then the Howth fishermen proved their worth. In the opening years of Charles the First’s reign their bravery was severely put to the test, as pirates infested the Channel, and inflicted much loss and damage upon shipping.

Writing in his diary on July 20, 1630, the Great Earl of Cork says

• “White of Howth, being by me employed in his open boat from Howth to Holyhead to carry my letters to the Earl of Kildare and my son (expressing they should be very careful how they took their passage hither, for that the pirates were in the channel), delivered my letters there, brought me a certificate, and returned this day, to whom Henry Staines’s man gave, by my order, 5l.”

Two years later, on July, 23, 1632, the Lords Justices wrote to England that the subjects “dared not venture to sea, and told how their very good lord, the Lord Baron of Howth, witnessed from his island” one Nutt chasing two ships, and stopping them with his shot.

In the next year the position had not improved, and a pirate took, in the bay of Dublin, a bark of Liverpool, in which there was “a trunk of damask, and other linen,” belonging to the Earl of Strafford. The pirates succumbed to the strong rule of that masterful viceroy, who stationed at Howth the “Ninth Whelp,” and armed her with four brass guns; but the winds were beyond his control, and still remained a difficulty.

Writing in May, 1634, he tells one of his officials, who was coming from London, that he has sent a row-boat to await him at Holyhead, and that, if the winds do not permit the post-bark to put out, he is to entrust the letters which he has with him to the boatmen.

Ten years later, when the ships of the Parliament had established a blockade of Dublin, the Royalists found in the Howth fishermen gallant allies, and entrusted to them their despatches, which by no other means could reach their destination.

In the owners of Howth a gradual change from the old order to the new took place, and Anglo-Irish traits were superseded by those of the later English settlers. This assimilation of character was due in a great degree to the frequent visits paid by them to the English Court, as well during the reign of James the First as during the reign of Elizabeth, and to their alliances to ladies of English birth.

Although they complained of want of means, a high standard of living was maintained in the Castle. Within its hospitable walls on more than one occasion the viceroy made a prolonged stay, and, from a chance reference in the records of the Guild of Tailors in Dublin, it appears that Lord Howth’s entourage included a band of musicians, whose assistance was sought at civic entertainments.

The reference in the reign of Henry the Eighth to hawks being bred at Howth shows that the owners began early to evince an interest in sport, which has brought to their later generations wide fame and popularity. Before the 17th century had long opened there is evidence that the peninsula had become a noted centre for fox-hunting, anti the mention of a greyhound shows that hares also afforded sport.

For other residents in Howth one turns naturally first to the records of the churches; but these are meagre, and give little help. To what extent the prebendaries resided on the peninsula there can be no certainty. In the year 1630 the prebendary seems to have been in sole charge of the cure, but at other times a curate is mentioned-in 1615, Martin Cod; in 1639 Eusebius Roberts; in 1644, Humphrey Vaughan; and in 1645, John Butler. A reference to the parish priest of Howth in the reign of Elizabeth shows that even then the Roman Catholic residents were not without spiritual consolation.

But, as the Bishop of Canea states in his ” Histories of Dublin Parishes,” it was not until the reign of James the First that his charge was defined. The parish priest was then a notable man, the Rev. William Shergoll, who, in 1631, was advanced to “the Prebend of Howth, in St. Patrick’s Chapter,” and who was during the Confederation a consulting divine. He signed himself “Professor of Divinity, Prebendary of Howth, and Vicar-Forane of Fingal,” and to the high place which he occupied in the affections of the people of that district many wills of that period bear witness.

Before the reign of James the First, Corr Castle had passed from the Whites to Lord Howth, and was occupied by the blind lord’s son, Richard, who had married one of the Cosbys of Abbeyleix. The bearer of the Earl of Cork’s letter, Michael White by name, was probably a cadet of the family that owned Corr Castle. His will, and that of his father, are on record, and show that “a great fishing boat, with all things thereunto belonging,” was their chief possession.

When James the First ascended the throne, Nicholas, the son of the blind lord, was still in possession of the Howth title and estate, and able to take an active part in the movement that began then for a toleration of the Roman Catholic religion. The chief promoter of that movement was Nicholas’s brother-in-law, Sir Patrick Barnewall.

At the time he succeeded to the title Nicholas had not been on good terms with Sir Patrick, and in consequence of the non-fulfilment of the agreement that Sir Patrick should marry his sister, he instituted a suit for the recovery of half the amount for which his father-in-law had bound himself. A decree was in 1595 given by Archbishop Loftus as Chancellor of Ireland in favour of Nicholas, and although Sir Patrick sought to upset it by subterraneous methods, it was upheld by the privy council of England.

During the next few years Nicholas and Sir Patrick seem to have made up their differences: in 1600 Sir Patrick accompanied Nicholas to England in his mission on behalf of the Pale, and from that time they appear to have been close friends.

When the movement for toleration bad attained its height in tbe autumn of 1605, Nicholas was entertaining the Lord Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester, at Howth, whither Chichester had been driven by the plague which was then raging in Dublin. During the six weeks that Chichester was his guest, Nicholas used to accompany him to the door of the church on Sundays, but would not attend worship, and approved of the petition which was presented to Chichester in November, protesting against interference with the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. On the arrest of Sir Patrick Barnewall and others for the promotion of the petition, Nicholas boldly asserted still further his devotion to the Roman Catholic religion by joining in a letter to the Earl of Salisbury, as Sir Robert Cecil had then become, complaining of their imprisonment.

As long as the plague was virulent the government of the country was conducted from Howth. There Chichester issued his warrants, and there, as he tells the Earl of Salisbury, he held the meetings of his council. At a meeting on September 30 four of the members were present, and at one on October 16, when an order concerning attendance at church was made, seven were present. One of the councillors who attended both these meetings was Archbishop Loftus’s successor, Thomas Jones, who was then Bishop of Meath, but who, before Chichester left Howth, was appointed, on Chichester’s recommendation, Archbishop of Dublin and Chancellor of Ireland.

In the intervals of business Chichester and Nicholas used to go out hunting, and on one occasion, when led by a fox over the lands of Balgriffin, which had belonged to a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, discussion as to the merits of their respective faiths arose. “Alas!” said Nicholas to Chichester, ” the owner of this and other estates abandoned all, and is now living in poverty in foreign lands. Could you give an instance of such a thing among the men of your profession?” “Oh!” replied Chichester, “you can point to only one case in yours.” But Nicholas came off best in the encounter, and was able to name two others from the immediate neighbourhood who were in similar circumstances.’

While staying at Howth Chichester referred to Nicholas as an old man who could not live long, and in less than two years his death took place. It was announced by Chichester on May 11, 1607, and his funeral is recorded in Ulster’s office to have taken place at Howth 10 days later. His second wife survived him for a short time, until July 25, and proved his will. It had been made nine years before, on** **March 20, 1598, and shows that family affection was one of his attributes, and that his married life was happier than that of his father, or, as will be seen, than that of his son. He left, besides his heir, a younger son, Thomas, by his first wife, and three sons, Edward, Richard, and Almeric, by his second wife. He had also four daughters: by his first wife, Mary, who married William Eustace of Castlemartine; and by his second wife, Margaret, who married first Jenico, Viscount Gormanstown, and secondly Luke, Earl of Fingal; Elinor; and Alison, who married Thomas Luttrell of Luttrellstown.

His successor, Christopher, had shown himself, as we have seen, before the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign a brave soldier, but had displayed the impetuosity and recklessness of character which are so often united with courage its the Irish race.

He possessed also another characteristic of his countrymen, wit and readiness of speech, and his sense of humour was little understood by Sir Arthur Chichester and other staid statesmen with whom be had to deal. But it proved probably a passport to the favour of James the First, and all references to Christopher made by James in his individual capacity, when free from his council, are couched in terms of warm friendship and praise.

At the time of his father’s death Christopher was in the Netherlands. Durisig the first two years of the reign of James the First lie appears to have remained in a state of inactivity in Ireland, but at their close he began to express dissatisfaction with his position. In the spring of 1605 he wrote to Viscount Cranborne, as Sir Robert Cecil was then, to solicit “some mark of the King’s gracious and liberal recognition of his services,” and in the autumn of that year, not having received a favourable reply, he was found by Chichester, when staying at Howth, determined on entering the service of some other country.

With more foresight than Mountjoy displayed, Chichester formed the opinion that such a course could only result in Christopher’s “dishonour and utter undoing,” and he endeavoured to dissuade him from it, and to induce the King to give him either a pension during his father’s life or command of a troop of horse. For six months Chichester persisted in his efforts, but wrote finally that Christopher could no longer be restrained, and, having given up all hope of obtaining anything from his own sovereign, was about to enter the Spanish service, in which his brother Thomas had been for some years, and had become “one of the captains of best esteem and most power.”

The period of the episode in Irish history known as “the flight of the earls” was then approaching. With that episode Christopher’s name is closely connected, and the part attributed to him in it has brought on him much obloquy. According to his own account, about Christmas, 1605, he became aware that a conspiracy existed in Ireland “to shake off the yoke of the English government, and to adhere to the Spaniard,” and he was instrumental in preventing an attempt “to seize upon the Castle of Dublin, and to kill or otherwise dispose of the Deputy and council,” by representing that active help from Spanish sources would be essential to its success.

It was, he says, his intention to reveal the conspiracy before it could cause “his country’s ruin or the King’s disturbance”; and with that object, as well as with the one indicated by Chichester, he set out in August, 1606, from Ireland for London. There, he tells us, the conspiracy began to appear to him of less importance, resting, as he was then disposed to believe, only on “discourse by means of priests and some slight promises of assistance”; and he left finally for the Netherlands without making any disclosure.

In the Netherlands he met Richard Stanihurst, the author of the well-known Elizabethan description of Ireland, who had married, like Lord Dunsany, a sister of Christopher’s mother, and Christopher Cusack, the founder of the Irish Colleges in the Netherlands, whom he calls his near kinsman, and gathered from them that the conspiracy had “infected many of the King’s subjects, as well on that side as on this, and that the King of Spain had assured the conspirators of aid.”

Thinking it no longer right to withhold anything lie knew, he returned to London, and imparted the whole matter to the Earl of Salisbury, by whom he was sent back to the Netherlands, where his military qualities were much appreciated, and the command of 1,000 men was offered to him.

Meantime Chichester was expressing apprehension, which was shared by the council, that Christopher’s presence in the Spanish camp might lead others to go to it, and give encouragement to revolutionary sentiments in Ireland, and announced, evidently with a feeling of relief, in May, 1607, the death of Christopher’s father, inasmuch as it would have the effect of recalling Christopher to his own country.

Although he had heard of the disclosures, Chichester knew the discoverer only by the letters A. B., and learned, a few weeks later, to his amazement, that these letters concealed the identity of the new Lord Howth, whose return to Ireland he might soon expect. At the same time the task of sifting the truth of the disclosures was assigned to him, and on Christopher’s return it was at once begun, and proved very difficult owing to Christopher’s “lightness and inconstancy.”

The secret departure of the Earls of Tyrconnel and Tyrone at the beginning of September left in Chichester’s mind no doubt as to the existence of a conspiracy; but his opinion as to whether Christopher had been aware of the Earls’ intention or not varied from day to day. On September 5 he alluded to Christopher as a person who had deserved well of the Government, and who was entitled to great rewards; but on September 10 he became doubtful of his good faith on hearing a rumour that a boat with “six young and lusty fellows” was kept waiting at “the quay of Howth” for some unknown purpose, and that Christopher was allowing many priests to resort to Howth Castle to see “the old Countess of Kildare” and “the Lady Dowager of Delvin,” who were then his guests.

On receiving Chichester’s indecisive reports, the English privy council came to the conclusion that the best thing to be done was to place Christopher under arrest. Whether he had well deserved or not, they thought a little confinement could do him no harm, and his restraint might be excused to him on the ground that it was to save him from the vengeance of the conspirators if they became aware of his being a discoverer.

Chichester did not receive the privy council’s letter until November, but having then “by good hope artificially drawn” Christopher to Dublin, he lodged him in Dublin Castle. He had made up his mind to free himself of further responsibility by sending Christopher for the privy council to examine; but as a suitable ship was not available, and in consideration of the high rank of the prisoner, he postponed doing so until he had time to communicate with the Earl of Salisbury.

It was not until the second week in December that he was able to complete the arrangements for Christopher’s departure, and his confidence in him was then so great as to lead him to assure the Earl of Salisbury that Christopher “had dealt carefully and soundly since his coming over in the business, which had been to his great travail, charge, and hazard.”

On his arrival in London, Christopher was placed tinder close restraint, and at-the beginning of February he was still in want of “liberty to take the air for his better health” ; but before the middle of March he was successful in convincing the privy council of “his loyal heart to his king and country,” and was sent back to Ireland acquitted of all charges, and accompanied by a letter containing a hint to the Irish council that they had been remiss in not expediting legal business of his which was then pending.

When Christopher returned to Ireland, Howth Castle was occupied by Chichester, who had gone there for Easter, which fell early in l608, and fresh disclosures, made by Christopher in London, were being investigated. These disclosures concerned Sir Garret Moore, ancestor of the Earls of Drogheda, on whom a viscountcy was afterwards conferred, and involved Moore in charges of complicity in the flight of the Earls, and in the encouragement of satanic art.

The medium in that practice was Moore’s own chaplain, an English minister called Aston, and this “conjuror and raiser of spirits” had the assurance to wait upon Chichester, when he was at Howth, and to endeavour to justify his methods. As Chichester did not believe his denial of compact with the devil, either by blood or promise,” he was consigned to a small castle close by, either the gate-tower of Corr Castle, and compelled to make a statement in writing.

Never did a document penned at Howth result in more extraordinary revelations. In it Aston alleged that the Chancellor-Archbishop, Thomas Jones, whose daughter Sir Garret Moore had married, was one of those who had sought his aid in divination; and so great was the superstition of the time that the Archbishop thought it necessary to let the Earl of Salisbury know that he held the raising or invoking of spirits to be a great blasphemy against God, and to be only effected by some contract with Satan to the hazard of a man’s soul.

In such an art, he says, he could not be in any way a partaker, and detested and abhorred it as damnable. He proceeds to tell the Earl of Salisbury that Aston’s mention of him was due to one of his servants who had asked Aston to try his skill in recovering a sum of £60 that had been taken out of the Archbishop’s trunk in his palace at Tallaght, but that he knew nothing of the matter except that the money was still wanting, and that his son spoke of Aston as a worthless person.

As Chichester disclosed to the Earl of Salisbury under their most secret cypher, the truth was that Aston had declared the Archbishop’s wife to be the delinquent, and the Archbishop’s son, who apparently gave credence to the divination, had been afraid to tell his father, knowing that it would greatly grieve and displease him to hear that the money was taken by a person near and dear to him.”

About a month after his return to Ireland, in the beginning of May, Christopher made a formal charge of treason against Sir Garret Moore. The immediate cause of his doing so was exasperation, and the provocation was great. By his own admission Moore had told Christopher that he considered him an “idle-headed lord, a speaker of untruths, one that would crack and brag much, yea, that would draw a man into the field, but when he came there would not and durst not fight him”;** **and he could hardly have said anything more galling to a man of Christopher’s temperament.

In his calmer moments Christopher would possibly not have made the charge, for in the end he failed to prove it; but he was able to produce significent evidence of intimacy between Moore and the Earl of Tyrone to warrant Moore being held to bail for a lengthened period. To unravel the circumstances that attended the Earls’ flight passed the wit of man, and at the conclusion of the inquiry on Christopher’s charge, the King said that Moore’s part was only known to God and himself.

Equally mysterious were the relations between Christopher and Moore. Through his wife Christopher had a connexion with him; and a short time before making the charge he had been on such good terms with him as to contemplate the marriage of his eldest son to Moore’s daughter.

[Sir Garret Moore’s father, Sir Edward Moore, was married several times, and much confusion has arisen as to his wives, and as to their somewhat numerous husbands. According to a Harleian Manuscript, one of his wives was the widow of Wentworth of Essex; and, as will he mentioned later on, Christopher’s wife was a daughter of that house. In a pedigree of her family her father is said to have married as his second wife the widow of Sir Edward Moore. Which of the two versions is correct I cannot determine.]

At the time he made the charge against Moore, Christopher professed to be in great want of money, and began again to think of leaving Ireland. Once more Chichester urged that such employment might be given him as would enable him to live where he was a principal member of the commonwealth”; and he was more successful than on the previous Occasion, for Christopher, who followed the letter to the King’s court, was given a command in the army such as he had long coveted.

Whether his visit to England was undertaken to press his claim for employment, or to strengthen his position in regard to the charge against Moore, is not clear; but the charge against Moore was discussed while he was at Court, and a promise of encouragement and comfort was given him on account of the enemies whom he had made in doing service to the King.

He stayed in England only a week or two, but on his return to Ireland he was confined to Howth for some months by what he calls a strange disease. His military command does not seem to have proved so profitable as he expected, and in September he wrote to the Earl of Salisbury praying for some further mark of the King’s favour. Unless it were granted to him, he said that he would go to reside in England, as he preferred to live on small means there than in Ireland, and lie asked for a reply soon, as the best season to obtain a tenant for his castle and demesne was approaching.

At that time the Irish council had Christopher under examination in regard to his charges against Sir Garret Moore, but he suspected their impartiality, and succeeded in having the investigation transferred to England. Chichester, who had become very unfriendly to him, did all he could to prejudice the English privy council against him.

His witnesses were represented as unfit “to condemn a horse-boy,” and as a lesson to Christopher, it was suggested that he should not be heard, and should be sent back to Ireland. But once again Christopher triumphed, and although his case against Moore failed, he returned from Court with the highest testimony to his good faith.

In an autograph letter, written on April 13, 1609, the King informed Chichester that Lord Howth had left him “in a clear conceit” of his loyalty, and indicated that he believed the discredit thrown on him was due to jealousy. Chichester was commanded to extend all possible favour and protection to him, and Moore was threatened with the loss of the King’s goodwill if he retained any dregs of displeasure against him.

An idea that Christopher had saved himself by compromising Lord Delvin, who was also suspected of assisting the Earls’ flight, was declared to be untrue, and Chichester was assured in *verbo regis *that Lord Howth bad been as careful of Lord Delvin’s safety as of his own.

The proceedings against Sir Garret Moore brought his father-in-law, Archbishop Jones, and Christopher into conflict. At no time does the Archbishop seem to have been friendly to Christopher, and when Christopher was in the Netherlands the Archbishop advised the Earl of Salisbury to take steps to lower him in the estimation of the Spanish authorities, on the ground** **that he was a giddy-headed person who enjoyed a dangerous popularity with persons addicted to desperate courses.

The origin of the Archbishop’s unfriendliness was the jealousy between the Anglo-Irish and the later English settlers. “It has ever been the habit of people like Lord Howth,” wrote the Archbishop, to detract from the credit of English servitors.

In the autumn of 1608, when the Irish council was inquiring into the charges against Moore, Christopher, not unnaturally, distrusted the Archbishop, and thought that he was using his position to suppress evidence against his son-in-law, and to disparage his son-in-law’s accuser.

“His daily croakings ” frightened the Archbishop, who showed small strength of mind for the head of the judiciary ; and lest the King might give heed to them, a letter was sent off by the Archbishop to the Earl of Salisbury. Conveniently forgetting what lie had previously written, the Archbishop now professed to have never given Christopher any cause of offence, and complained that although he had sent him protestations of friendship, he was unable to abate the edge of his tongue.

Apparently Christopher’s criticisms of the Archbishop were made partly in joke, but the solemn prelate had no appreciation of humour, and was the more troubled, Chichester says, because Lord Howth made a merriment of that which so greatly grieved him.

On Christopher’s return to Ireland in the spring of 1609, after the investigation before the English privy council, the Archbishop’s son, Sir Roger Jones, constituted himself his father’s champion, and tried to provoke a quarrel with Christopher by imitating Sir Garret Moore, and saying that Christopher was a valiant man amongst cowards.

The taunt was unnoticed by Christopher at the time, but was not forgotten five months later when an affray took place between Christopher and Sir Roger and their respective followers. It occurred in a tennis court in Dublin. According to Christopher’s account he went to the tennis court by chance, and the affray arose through Sir Roger’s drawing his sword on him while he was armed with nothing more formidable than a wand, which it was his habit to carry.

A man called Barnewall, whom Christopher claimed as a kinsman of his own, was killed, and, as Christopher believed, by Sir Roger or one of his followers. On the other hand, Chichester said that Christopher went to the tennis court for the purpose of attacking Sir Roger with a cudgel in his hand, and that Barnewall, who was independent of both the combatants, was killed by one of Christopher’s followers while trying to save Sir Roger. Chichester was accused by Christopher of great partiality, and of interfering with the coroner’s inquiry, and he showed plainly in his letters that all his sympathies were with Sir Roger.

News of fire affray, which occurred on Sunday, reached him while he was in Christ Church Cathedral, and during service he sent off the mayor to bring Christopher and his followers to Dublin Castle. He takes much credit for having treated Christopher with great respect, and asked him to dine at his own table; but he admits that one of his objects was to keep hint safe until the council could meet and commit him to prison.

As regards his interference with the coroner’s inquiry, he excused himself on the ground that the jury would only find the crime one of manslaughter, and adds naively that they would not have done more if Sir Roger himself had been the person killed.

In consequence of this affair the Archbishop thought it necessary to himself indite a letter to the King, and to heighten its effect wrote in Latin, although he says he had discarded that language for forty years. Notwithstanding the restraint which the Latin tongue imposed, the letter was most intemperate, and Christopher was denounced as a man of a violent and seditious disposition, who had always insulted and calumniated the writer, and who had now committed an unprovoked assault with the help of his “cut-throat” retainers on the writer’s son.

Since Christopher’s return from England Chichester had never ceased to express dissatisfaction with him. In July he had sent the Earl of Salisbury a bitter tirade against him, which he wound up by uttering a hope that he might have nothing more to do with him.

In answer Christopher complained that Chichester had given over twenty pardons to partisans of Sir Garret Moore, the clan of O’Carolan, who were his sworn enemies. Twenty-five of them had set upon three of his servants, killing one and inflicting 18 wounds a-piece on the others, and they would have wounded him only that he was attended by a guard such as accompanied him during the war.

When left no resource but to seek redress from the council, he said that he had found Archbishop Jones and Sir Garret Moore were to be two of his judges, and that Chichester had taken the opportunity to accuse him of having gone to England to charge him with treason, and “grew into such a choler that he spared not to use him with reproachful speeches as traitor and the like.”

Finally Christopher appealed to the King to allow him to leave Ireland; but Chichester insinuated that his object was to live upon the King, and obtained a letter from the English privy council desiring Christopher to retire to Howth, and to remain there until further orders were sent.

This restraint, which was imposed in April, 1610, was not removed for four months, and even then Christopher found difficulty in obtaining a licence to go to England. In the end he left shortly before Christmas without one. On his arrival in London he was refused access to the Court, but in response to a personal letter to the King in the following April, a hearing before the privy council was granted him.

As a result of the statement which he made, Sir Roger Jones was ordered also to attend. On receipt of this order Chichester became evidently uneasy and wrote to the Earl of Salisbury in a chastened mood, assuring him that although Christopher had dealt exceedingly ill with him, he could never be adverse to him, and always would wish him well, on account of the service that he had rendered at the time of the Earls’ flight.

On Sir Roger’s arrival the privy council sought to effect a reconciliation between Christopher and him, arid failing to do so committed Christopher to the Fleet, from which in a few weeks he was released on giving an undertaking that he would submit himself to the order of the council when called upon, and would meantime not approach the King, Queen, or Prince, or proceed further in his quarrel with Sir Roger.

Before long those conditions were a dead letter, and a year later Christopher appears as one of the King’s train on his annual progress. In the autumn of that year he returned to Ireland, and at the same time the King gave Chichester what can only be considered a severe lecture on his conduct towards him. He warns Chichester in this letter under his own hand, which is dated October 4, l6l2, to take care that no private anger transports him against Lord Howth, and tells him that he has had Lord Howth under his own observation the whole time he had been in England, and had found his carriage unexceptionable.

In conclusion lie refers to persecution which some of Lord Howth’s servants had suffered at the hands of Sir Garret Moore, and commands that it should be stopped, and that assurance should be given to Lord Howth that he will be allowed to live quietly in his own country.

The next occasion on which Christopher is mentioned was two years later, in the summer of 1614, when Chichester returned from a visit to the King, and royal admonitions are seen to have borne fruit. On July 14 Chichester arrived very early in the morning at Howth, and in the afternoon proceeded to Dublin, attended by “great troops of horsemen of all estates.” As he entered the city he received ” the sword of justice and estate,” and selected Lord Howth as the person to bear it before him.

Still more remarkable is the fact that in the following September, Christopher and Archbishop Jones were associated in an attempt to relieve the King’s perennial necessities by raising a contribution as a free gift from the county of Dublin, and notwithstanding the impecuniosity of which Christopher so often complained, and of which his detractors have taken advantage, he put down no less than £100 as an example to others.

In his family relations, as in his public ones, Christopher was not happy. He had married before *1597 *an English lady, Elizabeth, daughter of John Wentworth, of Great Horksley, in Essex, a cadet of the Yorkshire house, but had separated from her before Chichester went to stay in the autumn of 1605 at Howth. The alliance was made after Christopher had come to years of discretion, and bears every indication of having been a love match ; but it was probably contracted, like everything Christopher did, with little thought. [She was received by Queen Elizabeth, who accepted from her a New Year’s gift of “sleeves unmade, with a piece of purle upon a paper to edge them.” See Mrs. Palliser’s Hist. of Lace,” Lund., 1902, p.310.]

The question of an allowance to his wife became, after their separation, a cause of additional contention, and came before the privy council of England, who arranged in 1608 that the amount should be £100 a year. From some years that sum seems to have been paid, but in the summer of 1614 it was withheld by Christopher on the ground that money had fallen to his wife in England.

That she was entitled to property in her own right would appear to have been the case; but the privy council found that no increase of money had then come to her, and induced the King to write, on December 5, a direction to Chichester to compel Christopher to pay, and to that end to place him under restraint, if the forms and customs of Ireland would permit.

Such a course was contrary to the lady’s own wish, arid the King can hardly have been very earnest in suggesting it, as only two months before he had made Christopher a grant of £100 a year in acknowledgement of his long and faithful service to himself and Queen E1izabeth. It is probable that there was more to be said on Christopher’s side than is apparent, for the allowance to his wife was afterwards reduced, and it is possible that this may have been also true in regard to a dispute with his brother-in-law, Thomas Luttrell, whom Christopher accused of having used “opprobrious and disdainful words” regarding him before the council, but who denied having done so.

As an entry in Ulster’s office records, Christopher’s death took place on Sunday October 24**, **1619, in the morning, at Howth, and his body was there interred; but, for some reason which is not explained, the obsequies were not celebrated until Sunday, January 30, following. As the same authority states, two sons, Nicholas and Thomas, survived him, as well as his wife, who married as a second husband Sir Robert Newcomen.

Nicholas, who succeeded to the title and estate, was in character the reverse of his father, and led an uneventful and domestic life. Notwithstanding a rumour of his having attended a service of the Roman Catholic Church, his father seems to have consistently professed the religion of the Established church, and four years before his death he had married Nicholas to the daughter of an English ecclesiastic who held then the see of Meath. This marriage resulted in** **every happiness, end having been made when Nicholas was only 18 years of age had much influence on his life.

Dr. George Montgomery, whose only child the lady was, was a Scotsman of high birth, and skilled in the affairs of Church and State, During the reign of Elizabeth he bad been presented to the living of Chedzoy, in Somersetshire, and which holding it acted as an intelligencer for James, who on his accession to the throne of England gave him the deanery of Norwich, and two years later appointed him Bishop of Derry with the sees of Clogher and Raphoe in commendam.

The Bishop’s wife was a Somersetshire lady, Susan, daughter of Philip Steyning, of Holnicott, and several letters from her to her only sister and her sister’s husband, a member of the Devonshire family of Willoughby, are preserved amongst the Trevelyan Papers. In one of these letters the Bishop’s wife mentions that the future Lady Howth, who was left behind in England, did not approve of her father’s translation to Ireland. [Her mother mentions that in Ireland she was reminded of her daughter’s having said that if she went there she would he full of lice. Trevelyan Papers, iii, p.100.]

By the death of his wife, which he announced in February, 1614, the care of their “little tender branch” devolved entirely upon the Bishop, and no time was lost by him in transferring his charge to a husband. Writing to his wife’s brother-in-law on June 20*, *1618, the Bishop informs him that he had married his daughter into a noble house, the best in the Pale, and that he hopes thereby all her friends who have anything to do with Ireland may derive much comfort.

He adds that she had already borne her husband a daughter, like her mother and aunt did first, and that she hopes soon to present him with a son. As a portion the Bishop had given her the lordship of Whitwell in Colyton, but he indicates that his responsibilities were not ended, and that there still rested on him “a great burden for settling the estate of the house of Howth.”

As a document fonird amongst his papers showed, it was his intention to use for that purpose his influence with James the First, who never forgot his “black Irish bishop”; but his death soon after his son-in-law’s succession to Howth prevented the accomplishment of his design.

Although included in a list of persons recommended for command in the army as colonels, Nicholas is only mentioned in connexion with civil life. [The Bishop named secondly Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Lord Brabazon, and after the Bishop’s death, which occurred in 1621, Lord and lady Howth, who were his executors, were involved in much litigation with her and others. Lodge’s ”Peerage,” 1, 274; Chancery Decrees, Jac.. I, nos. 231, 236, 281, 298] In 1625 he was one of the chief men of the Pale who responded to a call for money from their insatiable sovereign, and who protested “before God and his Majesty” their willingness to bestow themselves and all their means in the King’s service, and in 1627 he was appointed a commissioner to levy a subsidy for the maintenance in Ireland of 5,000 foot and 500 horse.

As a member of the House of Lords he was one of those who presided at the trial of Lord Dunboyne for manslaughter, and he was in 1630* *active in agitating that a Parliament should be summoned. In the previous year he had joined in a petition complaining of unequal incidence of taxation, and had taken the part of under-tenants against “the great lords, judges, generals, and officials,” and he was believed by the Irish Government to have been actuated in taking part in the movement for a meeting of Parliament by a desire to obtain relief from charges imposed on him by the ecclesiastical courts, which were said to exceed those imposed by the army.

By his relations, the majority of whom differed from him in faith, Nicholas was held in universal esteem. The only discordant note is sounded by his mother, who mentions in her will that he had caused her much grief “by putting her in suit for a bargain which she had never concluded with him,” but she forgave him freely, and left him and his her “prayers and blessing.”

In addition to testifying to Nicholas’s virtues, wills of that time throw much light on the life of the house of Howth, and his mother’s is not the least interesting. It was dated April 20, 1627, and was made with the consent of her second husband, Sir Robert Newcomen, knight and baronet. Her step-son, Thomas Newcomen, was entrusted with the duties of executor; but was in no way “to bar or let” a will in England, of which her son, Thomas St. Lawrence, was the executor.

To her son Thomas’s nurse and a god-daughter she left remembrances; and she mentions also her sister in-law, Mrs. Rose St. Lawrence, “wife of Richard St. Lawrence of Dublin, Esquire,” as having taken great pains with her in her sickness. In the will of Matthew Plunkett, Lord of Louth, dated December 11, 1625, Nicholas appears as the recipient of a case of pistols ; and under the will of his uncle, Jenico Preston, Viscount Gormanston, dated Noveniber 2, 1629, he was left two horses, called Monkey and Boniface, and a ring with the motto “Remember Gormanston,” as well as entrusted with power in regard to the marriages of his uncle’s children. To Nicholas, the eldest son of his great-uncle Richard, Robert St. Lawrence of Lishanstown near the Ward bequeathed for many considerations, by his will, proved February 10, 1637, the farm of Ballysaw, in the county of Meath, and left him as an executor the duty of exercising a fatherly care towards his little ones.”

Before that time Robert St. Lawrence seems to have succeeded his father, who was, however, a few years previously in the possession of Corr Castle, where Mass was reported to be celebrated by Mr. Shergoll; and he is said to have died at Howth.

The last testamentary wishes of Nicholas’s uncle, Edward, are contained, although he is said to have been a lawyer, in a nuncupative will, which was proved on February 6, l639, and were that none other than the Lord Baron of Howth’s son, Nicholas St. Lawrencc, should inherit his possessions. [Lord Howth left no legitimate son.]

But of the wills of the St. Lawrences at that time the most interesting is that of Nicholas’s uncle, Thomas, who on his return from the Spanish service had settled down amongst his kith and kin in the Pale. His love for them end for the haunts of his youth is pathetic. His will, which bears date March 27, 1638, opens with a direction that a chapel dedicated to our Lady should be built at Howth between the College ~and the Church, near the alley of the churchyard, 21 feet long and 12 feet broad, wherein his body was to be laid and a monument to his memory erected, and that a stone cross should be placed on the hill of Dunmoe, in the county of Meath. £40 pounds are bequeathed to buy a basin and ewer for the use of the Lords of Howth, and a similar bequest is made in the case of the Lords of Slane. Rings are left to the children of Lord Howth, and to those of the last Christopher Lord of Slane, as well as to the Lady of Fingal anti the Lady of Gormanston; and remembrances hi money are bequeathed to his cousin, Thomas Fleming, brother to Christopher, Lord of Slane; to George FitzGerot, alias Roe Darcy, “son to Darcy of Dunmoe, that sometimes kept at Platten”; to Mr. Shergoll and to Edmund Dillon, “son to old Costello.”

His cousin, Nicholas Barnewall of Turvey, and William Sarsfield of Lucan, are appointed executors, with a cup of plate as a remembrance; and his cousin, Nan Sarsfield, of Lucan, is left his relics and a ring.

To clothe the door-beggars, “let the poor of Howth be first served,” £100 is set aside, and amongst the poor on the day of his burial a sum of £12 is to be distributed which “was almost forgotten.” The residue was left by him for ” masses of requiem”; but if to such disposal of the residue there should be strong opposition, the money was to be spent on his monument in addition to that already bequeathed for its erection.

Nicholas’s other two uncles, Richard, whose will was executed on March 20, 1660, and Almeric or Ambrose, who died in 1622, both married. As has been already mentioned, Richard’s wife bore the Christian name of Rose, [It would appear from the grant of probate that he married a second time, as his wife’s name is given in it as Margarst. He mentions only one child, a daughter, called Charity.] and Almeric’s wife was Anne, the widow of Thomas Adice, of Portmarnock.

When the Irish Parliament was summoned by the Earl of Strafford, Nicholas took a prominent place as a legislator. In the “Manner of the proceeding to the Parliament” he is named amongst the peers, and he served as chairman of more than one committee. With English statesmen he kept also in touch, and when Viscount Conway visited Ireland, he presented him with one of his greyhounds.

A few days after the rebellion broke out he waited with the other peers of the Pale on the Lords Justices, and joined with them in a profession of loyalty to the King and the Government, and in a representation of their defenceless state from want of arms.

To** **those who lay most in danger the Lords Justices gave a small proportion of arms and munitions, which they could ill spare, in order to assure them of their trust in them; but Lord Howth required no such assurance, and the isolated position of his residence was in itself the best defence.

When two months later the Lords Justices asked for a public conference, only Lord Howth and two other peers, namely, the Earl of Kildare and Viscount Fitzwilliam, responded.

In the turmoil that ensued Howth proved a place of refuge; and when the Duke of Ormond was shut up in Dublin on land by the Confederate forces and on sea by the ships of the Parliament, it was to Lord Howth he looked to transmit his despatches to England. Writing to Ormond on March 23, 1644, Nicholas says that a boat had gone, according to his direction, and that the men expected a fee of five pounds 10s. for crossing and re-crossing, as well as 30s. for their victuals.

Two months later, on** **May 13, Ormond wrote to Nicholas asking for information about two men-of-war that had gone from Bullock to Howth, and requiring a fishing-boat to go again with a letter to Holyhead, as Parliament ships lay in Dublin harbour. Even with the help of the Howth men for two months that summer letters could not be got through, and it must have been with some anxiety that Nicholas received on October 3 a letter from Ormond, asking him to provide a boat for the conveyance of despatches to Holyhead.

But Ormond had not long his faithful friend to help him. Troubles, private as well as public, had accumulated upon Nicholas, and before he made his will, which is dated August 24, 1643, his “estate and means were almost altogether wasted and burned.” The outlook could not have been blacker for him and in the summer of 1644 he joined other Irish peers in representing to the King the unhappy and distracted condition of the Royalists between the powerful armies of the Confederates and the Scotch Covenanters. They said that their only security had been the cessation; and as it was now expiring, they implored the King to arbitrate between the Catholics and Protestants, and to declare the Covenanters his enemies. To subsist in their present divided condition appeared to them utterly impossible. Under the burden of present misery, and fear of the future, Nicholas, Lord Howth, seems to have sank gradually, and he passed away before December 22, on which day his will was opened.

To Chapter 7. Ball Index. Home.