Life of Lord Chancellor Talbot Continued

CHAPTER VII.

Life Of Lord Chancellor Talbot Continued.

At this time (1435) the state of Ireland caused the Privy Council of Ireland to address the King. Their address was presented by the Viceroy, Sir Thomas Stanley, who was then proceeding to England to seek payment for the arrears of his pay, due by the Crown. The limits within which the English laws were acknowledged may be judged from the document:-

‘First, that it please our Sovereign Lord graciously to consider how this land of Ireland is well nigh destroyed and inhabited with his enemies and rebels, in so much that there is not left in the nether parts of the counties of Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare, that join together, out of subjection of the said enemies and rebels, scarcely thirty miles in length and twenty miles in breadth, as a man may surely ride or go, in the said counties, to answer to the King’s writs and to his commandments.’

The memorial then describes the outer parts of the said land to be so destroyed and oppressed with enemies and rebels, that the few liege people dwelling in them be not sufficient to victual the cities of Waterford, Cork, and Limerick, nor the walled towns, whereby the said cities and walled towns are on the point to be famished. They propose to the King a remedy which has not often been tried for Irish discontents, ‘That they, without displeasure of him, much desire his presence at this time into his land, the which would be a principal remedy of all the mischiefs and matters aforesaid, and sovereign comfort of his people, and final rebuke of their enemies, that God grant them to see in haste.’

They attributed the decline of the remote parts of the country, ‘because during thirty years past the Lieutenants and other Governors only made visits for a sudden journey or a hosting, and made no residence among the people there, to punish the rebels by the King’s laws.’

They made also a good suggestion, ‘That the King should ordain that the Admiral of England should, in summer season, visit the Coasts of Ireland, to protect the merchants from the Scots, Bretons, and Spaniards, who came hither with their ships stuffed with men of war, in great numbers, seizing the merchants of Ireland, Wales, and England, and holding them to ransom.’ [Gilbert’s Viceroy’s of Ireland, p. 333.]

During the absence of Sir Thomas Stanley, in 1436, the Government of Ireland was intrusted to the care of Archbishop Talbot, who was repeatedly appointed Lord Justice in the absence of the Lord Deputy, when the exigencies of State recalled that high functionary to England.

This most urgent remonstrance was unheeded, and affairs in the English colony grew from bad to worse. At a Parliament held in Dublin in 1441, before the Earl of Ormond, acting as Deputy to Sir Leon de Welles, sixth Baron of Welles, Archbishop Talbot and John White, Abbot of St. Mary’s, Dublin, were delegated to request King Henry VI. to provide regular pay for the troops; that in ordinary cases persons should not be summoned from Ireland to England; that the Government of Ireland should be committed to ‘some mighty English lord; and that the privilege of creating temporal Peers, of which there were but few, might be conferred upon the Viceroy for the time being.’

This last request, however, the King peremptorily declined, stating he would reserve to himself the creation of Peers; and that the names of eligible persons should be certified to him.

The Archbishop, who is stated to have been the rival of the Earl of Ormond, took advantage of this opportunity to inform King Henry of the necessity of removing Ormond from the Government of Ireland. He said:-

‘Please your Highness,

‘If it had been seen good and profitable for you, and for your land, to have had the Earl of Ormond your Lieutenant, he should be named at the Parliament; giving you to understand that they all, both Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons there assembled, considered in their wisdom that it was most expedient to your Sovereign Lord to have for your Lieutenant there a Lord of the birth of this your noble realm (of England) to whom your people show more favour, and obey, than to any man of that (Irish) land’s birth. For men of this realm keep better justice, execute your laws, and favour more your common people, and ever have done before this time, better than ever did any man of that land, or ever is like to do. And, please your Highness to consider how it behoveth, that he that should be your Lieutenant there, be a mighty courageous and laborious man, to keep the field, and to make resistance against your enemies, in comfort and support of your true liege people there, and none of these be seen nor found in the Earl, for both he is aged, unwieldy, and unlusty to labour, for he hath, for lack of labour, lost in substance all his castles, towns, and lordships, that he had within your land; wherefore, it is not likely that he should conquer, nor get any grounds to you, Sovereign Lord, that hath thus lost his own. Moreover, please you to know, that at divers Parliaments, when the Earl hath had rule there, he hath ordained and made Irishmen, and grooms, and pages of his household, Knights of the Shire, the which would not in anywise assent to good rule, nor to do anything that should profit and avail to you, Sovereign Lord; and also hath suffered divers Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, to absent them from Parliament, therefore taking of them great fines, to his singular avail there, as the profit should be yours. At the departure of Lord Welles, the substance of the Gentles and Commons desired that the Earl should in nowise be his Deputy, because of great rigour and breaking of peace, and this they dread him to do, like as he has done before; whereupon, at last, he was bound by indentures tripartite, to keep the peace and be of good rule during the time that he was Deputy to the said Lieutenant.’

Having mentioned the names of preceding Viceroys - Lord Welles, Lord Dudley, and Sir Thomas Stanley, who, with Thorndon, the Treasurer, and other State officials, could, if summoned, give evidence of the Earl’s misgovernment; the Ex-chancellor concluded: ‘Also, please your Highness, the premises considered, to discharge the Earl of the office of Lieutenant, and to direct a Commission to certain Commissioners, to enquire within your land of the matter comprised in the articles, and of the rule and governance that the Earl hath been of in the time that he hath stood Lieutenant there, heretofore over the which is rehearsed above, and thereupon to certify you by writing, under your Great Seal, of that which they find by such inquisition, and so you may have clear knowledge, whether it be for your profit and avail, for the ease and welfare of your land, that the Earl be your Lieutenant there or not. And the Earl must be discharged before that the said inquisition be taken, for he hath so rigorously treated your poor people of your land before this time, that they dare not say the truth while that he standeth your Lieutenant there.’

These representations had not power to cause the Earl loss of favour with the King, for we find him appointed Lieutenant in 1442; but, in the August of that year, he was summoned to attend the Privy Council in London, so we may fairly conclude the complaint produced some effect. The Treasurer, Giles Thorndon, was required to state, on oath, who were the fittest, most indifferent, and impartial persons in Ireland, to be employed as Government officials, which he did according to his judgment. The result of the inquiry showed both the Earl of Ormond and his accusors merited censure. The Earl’s profits as Viceroy were much diminished, and both he and the Archbishop were lectured by the Council. The account of a careful Irish historian relates that having been summoned to attend ‘to hear what should be said unto them,’ the Treasurer declared, ‘That, for some time past, justice could not be obtained by the subjects in Ireland, in any matter affecting the interests of the Earl of Ormond and his followers on one part, or those of Sir John Talbot and his brother, the Archbishop, on the other; but that discord, partiality, and division prevailed both in the King’s Council and all his Courts there.’ [Gilbert’s Viceroyr’s, p. 341.]

The Council, in very explicit terms, informed both the Viceroy and Archbishop, that their dissension was the cause of the divisions and troubles to the liege people of Ireland, and the King was determined such discord should cease.

According to the evidence of Thorndon, the constant changes of Governors had an injurious effect upon legal proceedings. He stated that the Officers of the Exchequer, and other Courts, dared not proceed to recover the King’s debts, from dread of being ejected from office at every change of Governor. That the Chief Baron of the Exchequer ought to be a sufficient learned man of law, and that he, as well as other legal officers, should discharge their duties personally, as great injuries had been caused by appointing deputies. That large annuities and pardons for debts had been illegally granted by the Governors, and that the annual expenses of the Viceroy and his officers exceeded all the revenues of Ireland for that year by 1,456l. He called attention to the ordinance ‘that men born in Ireland. should go home, and live in the same land, or else pay to the King a certain sum of money.’

At this period the Office of Lord Chancellor was filled by Thomas Chase, whose patent bears date 20 Henry VI. This was the same who, ten years before, had been appointed to succeed the Archbishop, but he then refused to admit the sufficiency of Chase’s appointment, and delivered the Seal to the Lord Deputy instead.

In 1443, on the death of the Archbishop of Armagh, the Dean and Chapter of that See, so far from resenting the various efforts which Archbishop Talbot bad made to lord it. over them in the matter of the Primacy, elected him Archbishop, but on his declining that dignity it was conferred upon John Mey. Probably he felt reluctant to leave the Capital, where he appears to have been highly esteemed, and in 1445, he was, for the fourth time, Lord Deputy of Ireland; and in 1447, strange to relate, deputy to the Viceroy, Earl of Ormond. This nobleman was mistaken if he imagined he could keep the Archbishop quiet by appointing him deputy, for we find he then composed a work, intitled ‘De abusû regiminis Jacobi Comitis Ormoniae, dum esset locumtenens Hiberniae.’ The Lord Treasurer, Giles Thorndon, also wielded a pen against the Viceroy, and Thomas Fitz Thomas, Prior of Kilmainham, probably under the influence of the Archbishop and Lord Treasurer, went to England to accuse him of high treason.

These were days when men might legally fight duels, and wager of battle offered by Thomas Fitz Thomas, Prior of Kilmainham, was accepted by Ormond. The lists were prepared at Smithfield, London, the usual theatre of such rencontres, and the combatants prepared for the struggle. The Earl was placed in charge of the Duke of Exeter, Constable of the Tower. He was sworn to appear when summoned before the Council, and not to go more than forty miles outside London, except he wished to perform a pilgrimage, to the shrine of St. Thomas à Becket, at Canterbury, who was claimed by the house of Ormond as the family saint. His lordship was subsequently allowed to lodge near Smithfield for his breathing and ease against the day of battle. [Vide Letter of Jordan, Bishop of Cloyne and Cork. Ware, p. 323.]

If the description given of the Earl the year before by the Ex-chancellor was correct, ‘that he was aged, unwieldy, and unlusty to labour,’ [This statement must have been untrue, or at least exaggerated. This nobleman, called the ‘White Earl,’ was a distinguished knight, also a proficient in the laws of heraldry and chivalry, and much attached to learning. At his request King Henry V. appointed a King-at-arms for Ireland.] he could not have proved a very formidable foe. The valiant Prior, in the meantime, was in the training of Giles Thorndon, the Treasurer, another bitter enemy of the Earl, and was equipped with armour and provided with attendants at the King’s expense. As his previous life gave him no opportunity of practising the use of arms, he had now to take lessons; and one Philip Trehere, who practised the uncongenial pursuits of fishmonger and professed swordsman, was also, at the royal cost, employed to instruct the Prior in ‘certain points of arms.’

On the appointed day Smithfield was a scene of bustle, for the whole tide of population of famous London town was flowing in that direction. The news that a wager of battle was to be decided in the presence of the King, the combatants being two Irishmen, one an Earl, the other a Prior, no doubt lent an additional interest to the coming event. Though the display of deeds of arms was much more common then than now, and combats of knights, either singly or in the grand spectacle of the tournament, were of frequent occurrence, there was something so novel in the present combat, that everyone, high or low, from gentle knights to humble burgess, crowded the lists. All at Smithfield was in due order, the inclosure prepared for the conflict was levelled and smoothed with care, fenced from the pressure of the expectant crowd, and a throne erected for the King, with seats in his vicinity for the nobles and other persons of distinction.

The hour named for the combat had come, but no monarch sat as President on the vacant throne; no knights; no heralds made proclamation; no one appeared in the lists. Men looked at one another enquiringly, and speculated on the absence of the chief performers in the expected tragedy. At length a solitary herald appeared to announce ‘that Holy Church would not permit the scandal of one of her Ministers using carnal weapon to destroy his Christian brother, and there would be no passage of arms.’ The disappointment was very great, and having given vent to their injured feelings, the crowd dispersed.

The ecclesiastical authorities, struck with the improprieties of a Churchman fighting a duel, induced the King to withdraw his sanction and to take the decision of their differences into his own bands. Upon investigation, Henry acquitted the Earl, declared that the charges originated in envy and malice, and issued letters patent setting forth that ‘the Earl was faithful in his allegiance, meritorious in his services, whole and unspotted in his fame, that none should on pain of royal indignation revive the accusations, or reproach his conduct; and that his arraigners were men of no credit, nor should their testimony be admitted in any case.’ Seeing that Archbishop Talbot, then Lord Deputy, was one of those who were most active in reproaching the conduct of the Earl, this was a smart rebuke to him, and was followed by the Royal mandate, commanding him to attest officially writs declaring the innocence of Ormond, and send them for public proclamation to the cities and towns of Ireland. [Gilbert’s Viceroys, p. 347.]

The fate of the bellicose Prior may be a warning to sacerdotal combatants. He was deprived of his office of Prior of Kilmainham by the Visitor-General of the Hospitallers, not on account of his martial propensities, but for allowing the buildings of this beautiful Priory to become dilapidated through avarice. He did not expend sufficient money to prevent decay. He appears to have been a most unscrupulous man. His successor represented to Parliament that when deposed, Fitz Thomas broke open the box in which the official seal of the Priory was kept, took it away, and therewith sealed several grants, which were of course illegal and void.

The power of the State was then constantly fluctuating between the rival houses of Ormond and Talbot - one year in the hands of one party, the next in the other. In 1446, Sir John Talbot, then Earl of Shrewsbury (brother of the Archbishop) in his seventy-third year, was again appointed Viceroy of Ireland. He was accompanied by a body of English troops, and soon was actively employed in protecting the borders of the colony from the inroads of the Irish. In 1447, Talbot was granted the Earldom of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan. In this year was held the Parliament at Trim, wherein was enacted the statute, ‘that those who would be taken for Englishmen should not wear a beard upon the upper lip; that the said lip should be shaved once at least in every two weeks, and that offenders therein should be treated as Irish enemies.’ An Act was also passed restraining display in horse accoutrements. ‘No man,’ says the statute, ‘shall be so hardy henceforth as to use any gilt bridles, peytrells, or any other gilt harness, in no place, in said land, except knights and prelates of Holy Church.’

On the retirement of Sir John Talbot from the Vice-royalty, in 1447, the Archbishop was again appointed Governor, and distinguished himself by his efforts to keep the colony free from English rebels and Irish enemies.’

The days of Archbishop Talbot were drawing to a close during the summer of 1449. He had worn the mitre of Dublin for the long period of thirty-two years, and filled the exalted station of Lord Chancellor of Ireland for a considerable time. He had borne no small share of the yoke of Irish government, and was Privy Councillor during the reigns of Henry V. and VI. But all is vanity, and no titles or dignities could avert the death stroke when the hour which awaits all mortals arrived. He died on the 15th August, 1449, and was buried in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. A marble monument with his figure in brass, mitre on head and crozier in band, was raised in his honour with a suitable inscription.

For many years a question of precedency was in dispute between the Prelates of Armagh and Dublin, which, however, was ultimately decided in favour of Armagh.

A more serious charge, however, at least one involving more penal consequences to the Chancellor Archbishop, was made in this year. Talbot had a Royal mandate, reciting, that the King was led to understand that divers of his Irish subjects, arrayed in arms, held unlawful meetings, and traversed the country from place to place, causing injury to the King, and his liege subjects, all which evil doings the Archbishop of Dublin was alleged to aid and abet; he was therefore commanded forthwith to put a stop to such meetings, and without fail to appear before the King and Privy Council at an early day, to answer such matters as might be charged against him. [Ibid. pp. l55.]

It is hardly within my province to trace the ecclesiastical changes which the Archbishop promoted, and which are duly recorded in D’Alton’s work. [Ibid. pp. 155-6-7] He was about being superseded, but evidently was reluctant to part with the office of Lord Chancellor. It is related that, in 1432, Thomas Chase, who had been appointed his successor, presented his letters patent in the presence of Sir Christopher Plunkett the Lord Deputy, in the Chapter room of the house of the Dominicans, and required the Archbishop to deliver up the Great Seal, the Archbishop took exception to the letters patent, which he contended, did not sufficiently substantiate such an intention, and declined giving the same, but consigned the Seal to the custody of the Lord Deputy, until the King’s will should be better ascertained, and Talbot was allowed to remain Chancellor.

Index Chapter 8. Home.