Life of Lord Chancellor Loftus - concluded.

Chapter XX. **

Life Of Lord Chancellor Archbishop Loftus - Concluded. **

A this period, filling the lucrative, but, I imagine, not very congenial office of Clerk of Decrees and Recognisances in the Court of Chancery of Ireland, was Edmund Spenser, the poet. He had published, before leaving London, an exquisite pastoral poem, which won him the friendship of a great and good man, Sir Philip Sidney. Spenser was also known to Sir Philip’s uncle, another great but not good man, the Earl of Leicester, who befriended the poet; and, when Lord Grey of Wilton, was sent as Viceroy to Ireland, in 1580 (to shorten the wars by an effectual prosecution), he made Spenser his Secretary, on the recommendation of Lord Leicester. I suppose then as now, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had a very considerable share in the Irish Administration. In our days we have heard of Secretaries to the Viceroy who were Viceroys over him; and, it is probable, Leicester imbued the new Secretary for Ireland with his notions of ‘shortening the war’ by extirpation, for that was the, project of pacification Spenser recommended.

The first essay in arms of the Viceroy was not fortunate to the English. He imprudently entered the Wicklow defile, known as Glenmalure, [The river that flows through this vale, called by Spenser the ‘baleful Oure,’ has been fully identified by my friend P. W. Joyce, Esq., M.R.I.A., as the Avonbeg, which, at its confluence with the Avonmore, forms the ‘Meeting of the Waters,’ in the lovely vale of Ovoca.] and, when encompassed by hills, found to his cost that he was in the midst of enemies. A volley of musketry threw ,his army into confusion, and the O’Toole’s and O’Byrne’s, with the Eustaces of Baltinglass, and other disaffected Anglo-Irish, turned the confusion into a rout. Eight hundred killed, including several officers of rank, and the loss of baggage and other stores, were the result of Lord Grey’s rash expedition.

This ignominious defeat, which, it is said, was witnessed by Spenser, and is referred to by him in the fifth book of the ‘Faery Queen,’ rankled in the breast of both Viceroy and Secretary. The most vigorous measures were pressed on against the natives, until, in the fearful words of the Secretary, ‘neither man, woman, nor child was spared.’ The fertile province of Munster presented a scene of ruin and desolation. Famine followed the fiery track of war, and Spenser, if he had any feelings of humanity, could hardly congratulate himself upon the success of his share in Irish administration.

On the attainder of the Earl of Desmond, his vast estates were divided amongst English adventurers. Raleigh had an immense tract in Cork and Waterford; Sir Arthur Hyde a fair slice in the lovely Valley of the Munster Blackwater, in which Castle Hyde was long the residence of his descendants; but, through the process of the Landed Estates’ Court, has now passed into other hands [Castle Hyde, County Cork, is now the residence of John R. H. W. Becher, Esq., who married Lady Emily Hare, daughter of the late and sister of the present Earl of Listowel.]; while Spenser got three thousand acres, also in the County of Cork, with the then picturesque Castle of Kilcolman, in which he resided for some years. Here he spent his time in poetic composition, and wrote also very merciless ‘Views of the State of Ireland.’ Occasionally his seclusion was enlivened by the presence of friends. Sir Walter Raleigh visited him while at Kilcolman; and it lends additional interest to the portions of the castle yet standing, owing to the fostering care of a valued friend, [John Harold Barry, Esq., J.P., on whose estate Kilcolman stands.] to think these two great and gifted men here sojourned. Both enjoyed the world’s fame; and their melancholy fate teaches the impressive lesson, how fleeting are the joys of this life. When the rebellion of the Earl of Tyrone broke out, Spenser’s Castle was set in flames, and he, with his wife and some of his children, barely escaped, while one perished in the conflagration. He died a few years after in poverty in London. The end of Raleigh was also tragical - he perished on the scaffold.

I now return from Spenser and Raleigh to the more prosaic Life of Lord Chancellor Loftus. Words, imputing corrupt conduct, having been uttered against the Lord Chancellor, a Commission issued to Robert Gardiner, Serjeant. at-law, Chief Justice of the Chief Place, and Robert Dillon, Chief Justice of the Common Bench, to inquire into the matter, as the Chancellor determined to prosecute and examine witnesses, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, on behalf of Adam, Archbishop of Dublin and Chancellor.

[The following interrogatories were put:- ‘Do you know Kellam Shrawley, of London, skinner? When did you hear him pronounce and declare any infamous or slanderous speeches against the Archbishop of Dublin, either touching his person or his behaviour in any judicial or other office he holdeth or exerciseth for Her Majesty? If you did hear such infamous speeches, then, when, where, upon what occasion, and who was present?*]

• Depositions taken on May 2, before the Commissioners set forth, John Tyrrell deposes that about the 1st of August last, upon a conference had between him and Kellam Shrawley, the latter stated ‘that the Lord Chancellor had offered him great injustice in staying one Richard Wilcocks, his man, being bound to shipboard, because he would not deliver a bond wherein one Reynoldes of Dublin, merchant, stood bound to Shrawley;’ to which deponent answered, ‘You say not well, for my Lord Chancellor is a good Justice.’ Unto which Shrawley replied, ‘My Lord was unfit to be a Judge, and was a corrupt and partial judge; and, by reason of his alliance, none could have justice there but such as himself pleased, by reason of the marrying of his daughters;’ and further said, ‘What was he before he was Chancellor but a jack and a knave, and, setting his Chancellorship aside, his man was as honest a man as he; and that he would prefer a Bill to the Council in England showing his injustice.’ These words wore spoken in London, at the shop door of deponent, in Cheapside, at the sign of the Fox.

Mathew Handcock, of Dublin, merchant, stated he heard Shrawley affirm ‘that by reason of my Lord, Chancellor’s alliance in Ireland, no Londoner could have justice.’

Christopher Challoner deposes he heard Shrawley say ‘the Lord Chancellor of Ireland did offer to his man, Wilcocks, great injustice; that he was a corrupt Judge, and that his man was honester than the Chancellor, setting his authority aside; and that by bribes he did maintain his daughters in their bravery.’ And further, that by means of alliance, by marrying his daughters with gentlemen in Ireland, no Londoner could have justice at his hands; that he was a corrupt man, and so he would prove him.

(Signed) ‘R. Gardner, Robert Dillon.’

• Morrin’s Calendar Pat. And Close Rolls, Ir. Vol. ii. P. 124.

How far Shrawley was able to justify his attack, upon the judicial conduct of the Lord Chancellor does not appear, but I fear the charge was not wholly unfounded, for he was soon in another scrape. The Queen wrote to the Lord Deputy, on September 2, 1583, the following letter:- ‘We have been informed, that our Chancellor, in a variance between our servant Williams and one Colclough, married to the Chancellor’s daughter, upon a supposed contempt in great extremitie and chollor, comytted our servant to the Marshalsea, a noysom place, repleat with sundry prisoners, and detained him there by the space of twelve days, with comaundment that he should not goe abroad with his keeper, and that at a time when the employment of his service for us was thought to be most needful; and in the end, our Chancellor’s allegations being heard before our Deputy and Council, his witnesses examined, who could not prove any one point, notwithstanding the Chancellor very earnestly required the continuance of his imprisonment, and in his own house, yea in open assemblies in our Courts of Record of Exchequer and Chancery, and before our Deputy and Council there, did not forbear to use him with hard speeches and sondry disgraces. We do not a little marvayle that a man of the good justice, wisdom, and temperence expected in a man supplying his place, should so much forget himself, and so long, as to use our servant and officer [Williams was Clerk of the Cheque and Muster Master to the Queen.] so severely, reproachfully, and unadvisedly: to which abuses we, minding to give redress, and willing to understand our officer’s misdemeanor (as well yt concerneth us to doe), our pleasure is, that you, our Deputy and Council, shall receive the particulars of them from our servant, and that the Chancellor shall directly and particularly, under his own hand, thereunto make answer; and the truth of each pointe being by you duly examined, you shall again to us certify, unless our servant be in credit restored, and by our Chancellor theretofore satisfied. And further, our pleasure is that our servant and officer henceforth be better respected than to receive any such disgrace, but rather to be supported in our service and all his honest causes, a thing not impertinent for our better service. Oatland, Sept. 20, 29°.” [Pat. Roll, 30 Eliz.]

While these discreditable matters were casting odium on the Chancellor of Ireland, a very upright Judge presided over the same Court in England. This was Lord Chancellor Bromley, of whom the noble and learned author of the ‘Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England’ says - ‘Bromley is not celebrated as a great Jurist, or as one of those who laid the foundation of our system of Equity; but while he held the Great Seal I find no trace of any complaint against him as a Judge, either on the ground of corruption, or usurpation or delay, and we may be sure if there had been abuse there would not have been silence.’ [Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, vol. ii. p. 122.]

I have now, with regret, to darken still more the shadows which rest upon the life of Lord Chancellor Loftus.

The case of Dr. O’Hurley, Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, is peculiarly striking. He was one of the most distinguished men of his time. Had been a professor of philosophy in Louvain, [Rev. Dr. Moran’s Archbishops of Dublin, p. 135.] and subsequently filled the Chair of Canon Law at Rheims. When in Rome he gained the esteem of the Pope, Gregory XIII,, who, in 1580, appointed him Archbishop of Cashel. To a dignified appearance and deportment he united mild unassuming manners. When, in 1583, persecution raged against the Irish Catholics, the Archbishop of Cashel sought refuge in the house of a friend, the Castle of Slane, County Meath.

It chanced, however, that one of the Judges, Robert Dillon, [He is named in O’Sullivan’s History, p. 124, Chancellor, but this is a mistake; Robert Dillon, of Riverston, County Westmeath, was not Lord Chancellor. He was Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.] came on a visit to the Castle, and during dinner, at which a number of persons of the reformed creed were present, the conversation turned upon Papists, and the most revolting charges were preferred against the Catholic faith. The Archbishop, who was also at the table, though wishing to retain his disguise, could not listen to these absurd and untrue allegations without a word in defence of his faith. He accordingly refuted the charges, with so much grace, eloquence, and learning that he filled the whole company with reverence and surprise. The Judge at once suspected he was some eminent Catholic priest, specially sent to this country to stay the progress of the Reformation, and on his return to Dublin informed the Lords Justices of the circumstance. Archbishop Loftus, Lord Chancellor, and Sir Henry Wollop, then Lords Justices, were at once on the alert. The culprit’s arrest was immediately decided on, and a force was sent to Slane Castle to effect that object; but Archbishop O’Hurley fearing this, sought safety by flight, and had gone to Carrick-on-Suir. He was followed and taken. When brought to Dublin he was asked, ‘Are you a priest?’ He replied, ‘I am, and an Archbishop.’ This was an admission of guilt in those days, and he was conveyed ‘to a loathsome prison, and kept in chains until the following year, when he was again brought before the Lords Justices. They sought, first by gentle means and persuasion, to induce him to subscribe to the Oath of Supremacy, and renounce the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; they promised him, if he complied, not only pardon for the past, but rewards for the future. Dr. O’Hurley replied, ‘that no temporal reward would induce him to give up the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the true faith.’

He was then fearfully tortured, his execution ordered, and, lest there should be public excitement, he was led forth in the early dawn to die. On Friday, May , 1584, he was hanged on Osmantown Green, and his remains interred in the churchyard of St. Kevin. [For a full account of this martyrdom, see ‘History of Catholic Archbishops of Dublin,’ by Rev, Dr. Moran, vol. i. p. 135.]

Lord Chancellor Loftus showed a very persecuting spirit, which was, unhappily, the prevailing spirit of this time. Writing to Lord Burghley on the general decay of the Protestant religion, he recommended putting the Ecclesiastical Commission in force, ‘for this people are poor, and fear to be fined; if liberty be left to myself and such Commissioners as are well affected in religion, to imprison and fine all such as are obstinate and disobedient, and if they persist, to send them into England for example’s sake, I have no doubt but, within a short time, they will be reduced,to good conformity.’ [State Paper Office, Temp. Eliz.]

Between his duties as Judge in the Court of Chancery, looking after his Archdiocese, making Protestants of Papists, and attending to his family, Adam Loftus had plenty to do. He frequently administered the Irish Government as Lord Justice during the temporary absence of the Viceroy. He held this important trust in 1597, and again in 1599, on the memorable occasion when the once-favoured Earl of Essex left Ireland without leave, and startled the Queen by presenting himself before her in her dressing-chamber, before she had completed her toilet. We know what a warm reception he got. At the close of the year, the Archbishop was named one of the Assistant Councillors to the Lord President of Munster, and, in 1603, had pardon of intrusion and alienation in reference to numerous grants he acquired of the manors and estates of Rathfarnham, Ballintryer, Newtown, Stagonil, Timothan, Old Court, Kilclogan, Wexford, Hooke, Painstown, Le Naas, &c. [Rot in Canc. Hib.] The latter years of this Prelate were for the most part spent in amassing riches by accumulating estates. Fortunately for him., he was not required by the Government, as in former years by the Chapter of St. Patrick’s, to pledge himself ‘not to ask for more.’ His cry was ever, ‘Give! give!’

His daughters made great marriages. Anne, the second daughter, married Sir Henry Colley, of Castle Carbury, and from that union the late Marquis Wellesley and Arthur Duke of Wellington have descended. But honours and lordships, mitre and mace, were soon to lose their possessor. The three score years and ten, after which we are told comes travail and sorrow, had been passed. The Chancellor survived the Royal Lady who had shown him such favour by two years, and the powers of life were drawing to a close. He expired at the Palace of St. Sepulchre on April 5, 1605. His death took place forty-two’ years after his consecration, the greater number of which were passed as Archbishop of Dublin. He was buried in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, at the right side of the monument of his former associate in the office of Lord Justice, the Earl of Cork.

In his time religious disputes and persecutions so greatly occupied the time of public men, we have little to relate of the Archbishop as a Chancellor. But from his talents and capacity we may presume he did the business of suitors with despatch, and, when unbiassed, with ability and equity. The complaints made against him must, of course, detract from his merit, but they do not appear to have proved prejudicial, for, to the time of her death, he retained the favour and confidence of his early patroness, Queen Elizabeth.

The proceedings of the Court of Chancery in Ireland were now assuming something of arrangement. The Decrees of the Court preserved, commence in the 24th Henry VIII. There is a chasm in the series, from 1643 to 1655, when the business of the Court of Chancery, as well as of the other Courts of Justice in Ireland, was suspended by the unhappy civil war then prevailing. Thence, until the Restoration of King Charles II., there are rolls of the Decrees and Adjudications of the Commissioners for the administration of justice in Ireland.

The Decrees of the Commissioners appointed for executing the Acts of Settlement and Explanation are separately preserved, in very good condition. As some notice of the duties of the Master of the Rolls may be interesting to legal readers, I give an account of them, also specimens of the Practice and Pleadings in Chancery, depositions, and the encouragement for English barristers to practise in Ireland, which are curious and worth preserving; they serve to display the state of the legal profession in Ireland during the days of Queen Elizabeth.

The duties of the Master of the Rolls in Queen Elizabeth’s time were disclosed by a warrant appointing Edward Fitz Symon Master of the Rolls. It runs thus, ‘Whereas Nicholas White, Master of the Rolls, is, for abusing and non-using of his office, sequestrated to do therein until our gracious pleasure be known to the contrary; and for that there is none in the mean time to sit in our High Court of Chancery, to hear, decide, order and determine causes between party and party, and otherwise to continue that Court as hath been accustomed, and to have the keeping and custody of the Rolls, records, files, books, and other writings of the Court, whereby those that have need of the sight of them may have recourse for copies, and such like furtherance of their causes as to justice appertains; we have thought good, by the advice and consent of our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor, Sir Henry Sidney, Knight of our Order of the Garter, Lord President of our Marches of Wales, and Lord Deputy General of Ireland, to give and grant, like as we do hereby give and grant, full power and authority to our well-beloved Edward Fitz Symon, Esq., our Serjeant-at-Law, not only to sit in. our High Court of Chancery, and there hear, decide, order, decree, and determine such cause and causes as depend in the said Court, or hereafter shall be brought in suit in the said Court, and to do, execute, proceed, and set forth, all and every other thing and things in the Court in as large and ample a manner as the said Nicholas White, Master of the Rolls, or any other before him in that office, might and ought to have done in the said Court of Chancery, which perteyneth to the keeping of the Master of the Rolls’ Office; to have, hold, use, occupy, and exercise, the said office of setting, hearing, ordering, decreeing, and determining causes, as aforesaid, and the keeping of the rolls, documents, records, files, books, writings, and other the premises unto the said Edward, until our pleasure be further known touching the said Master of the Rolls. April 20, 20 of Elizabeth.’ [Morrin’s Calendar Pat, and Close Rolls Chan, Ir. vol. ii, p. 269.]

The Chancery practice seems to have been well settled at this time. In a suit in which William Birt, of Drogheda, was plaintiff, and Patrick Bathe, of Ruthleigh, county Meath, defendant, the pleadings are much as in our time.

[The Bill stated, plaintiff’s title to certain lands, and prayed to be continued in quiet possession, which he alleged he could not enjoy without instituting a suit at Common Law for each disturbance and trespass, where he stated he could not have an indifferent trial, in consequence of the great alliance, friendship, and connection of the defendant in the country. The defendant’s answer denied the plaintiff’s statement of title. The plaintiff replied. The defendant rejoined. The plaintiff sur-replied. Issue being joined, a Commission was directed to examine witnesses, and the cause coming on for hearing, it was adjudged and decreed by the Lord Chancellor and Court that the suit shall be dismissed; that the defendant and his heirs shall have the pasture in controversy until the plaintiff shall recover same by order of the Court or by the course of the Common Law; and that the defendant shall have his costs against the plaintiff, in consequence of the wrongful vexation of the plaintiff, 5l. Given at Her Majesty’s Castle of Dublin, November 20, 1593.

Ad. Dublin, Canc.

• Morrin’s Calendar Patent and Close Rolls in Chancery, Ir., vol. ii. p. 330.

The technicality and clearness of reasoning of Counsel is well shown in the following:- Cormack MacCartie complained in Her Majesty’s Court of Chancery that he was to be impeached by colour of an office (inquisition) taken before the Bishop of Cork, and William Saxey, Chief Justice of the province of Munster, at Cork, on the 20th of November, in the 7th year of her Majesty’s reign, whereby it was presented that King Edward III. gave and granted to John Lombard and his heirs the Castle of Guynes, near Cloghroe, with other lands of which those in the possession of the said Cormack were said to be parcel; to which office the Counsel of Cormack objected divers imperfections and objections of insufficiency: first, for in the title and style of the office, which was part of the substance and essential part of the office, it was said that the Bishop of Cork, and Saxey, Chief Justice, did inquire (as by inquisition appeareth) ‘by virtue of the writ of the Lady the Queen,’ whereas no writ ought to have been directed, but to such. as were officers, sheriffs, escheaters, or coroners, and not by any Judge - authority being properly given to Judges, not by writ but by Commission; - also the thing annexed to the inquisition not being a writ but a Commission, they took the inquisition without authority, and so coram non judice; also if it had been intended as a Commission, yet was it but to inquire in crociis et marchiis cancellarie Domine Re,qine as well liberties as without, for the word ‘ejusdem,’ being a relative, ought to have related to the last antecedent, and so be limited to inquire in * crociis et marchiis cancellarie*, within which limits the county of Cork or the land inquired of was not, and so void; further, they did not name themselves ‘Commissioners,’ and they said that the writ was directed to them, whereas the Commissioners showed it was directed to them ‘and others;’ and the Commission not being returnable, it was objected that the Commission came into Court without warrant, not coming by certiorari or other means; it was further objected that the words ‘pro salvo custode’ were not words of condition, but rather of consideration, and if they had been words of condition, yet the seisin of King Edward III. not being found, or the seisin of Lombard, the patentee, but rather the contrary, for it appeared by the inquisition that the MacCarties were ‘time out of mind’ seized of the castle and lands, which ‘time out of mind,’ being no other than time of prescription, the time of prescription extending before the time of Edward VI., it was gathered that they were, at the time of the patent, before and after, seized, and so could not be impeached by the condition, if it had been a condition; all which being moved by the counsel of Cormack, and a day being given to consider the exceptions, and all parties being called into Chancery on a day prefixed, before Sir Robert Gardiner, Chief Justice of the Bench; Sir Robert Dillon, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; Sir Robert Napper, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, being called on to assist the Chancellor and Court, and the matter being fully debated, and the argument of all parties heard and considered, it was resolved by the Court that the office (inquisition) was imperfect and insufficient to entitle Her Majesty to the lands comprised therein; and it was therefore ordered by the Lord Chancellor that the inquisition and Commission should be considered void, frustrate, and to no effect. Given at Her Majesty’s Castle of Dublin, May 24, 1596, and in the 8th year of Her Majesty’s reign.

(Signed) A. Dublin Canc.

• Morrin’s Calendar Patent and Close Rolls in Chancery, Ir., vol, ii. p. 381.

As a specimen of the pleadings of the period, I give the following:- The charter of the guild of St. James the Apostle (Cork) having the seal broken, interrogatories were directed touching the said charter: viz,, Whether the charter produced in Chancery, enclosed in a box, with the seal detached, had ever been properly sealed? What quantity of the seal had been seen upon the label of the charter? How was the seal broken; and at what time?

Depositions of witnesses taken in Chancery in reply to the above interrogatories, on November 28, 1565:-

Denis Neile states ‘that he saw the charter sealed with the Great Seal: the same year that Mr. Tirrell was married to Margaret Fitz Symon, one Walter Browne was Master, and having the box, wherein the charter was enclosed, in a woman’s house by the cuckold’s post, he and deponent went into the house, and calling for the box, Walter said that the woman had taken some of the droppings of the “pricketts” that remained in the box, and the woman with her hand striking the charter, supposing it to have been a book, broke the seal with such violence that part of it flew into deponent’s bosom.’ - Morrin’s Calendar, vol. i. p. 491.]

Strong inducements were held out to entice English lawyers to settle in Ireland. Ralfe Rookby was directed by a clause in a letter of Queen Elizabeth, on Patent Roll of the twelfth of her reign, ‘to have one month’s entertainment, to commence from his arrival in Ireland; and an allowance for his residence to practice his profession of the law.’ He accepted the offer and was soon provided with a place. The Queen sent over Sir Edward Fitton (ancestor of Sir Alexander Fitton, Lord Gawsworth, Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1689), to be Lord President of Connaught, at a salary of 133l. 6s. 8d. a-year, and Ralfe Rookby was nominated Chief-Justice of that province. The salary was modest for a Chief-Justice - 100l. a-year - and as no doubt Irish customs and practices were unknown to Chief-Justice Rookby, the Lord-Deputy was directed to select a suitable man of Ireland, learned in the laws, and with a knowledge of the Irish tongue, to be assistant to the said Justice. If he was not so assisted, I can well imagine the perplexity of the lately-arrived Judge when called on to decide whether lands were rightly subject to ‘coin and livery, toll, cuttings, reliefs, refections, kernitie, cosherie, cuddy, gellatynny, gillection,’ and other Irish exactions.

Some extracts from a will of the time of Queen Elizabeth must close my legal specimens of this reign:- ‘William Nathaniel Dillon, of Dublin, gentleman. He bequeathes his soul unto the hands of Almighty God, his maker, and to his Sonne, Jesus Christ, his Saviour and Redeemer, and to all the glorious companye of Saynts in Heaven, and his body to be buried in Christ’s Church, or any other place where God and his executors should think good.’ He then proceeds to dispose of his property, and does not forget the needy. ‘To four poor houses in Dublin, 20s., equally to be delivered, and out of those poorhouses, six men and six women to have gowns of frieze and their dinner at his funeral. To Alice, his wife, the profits of all his leases and lands during the minority of his children, his basin and ewer of silver, parcel gilte, his nest of tunnes, and great salt silver double gilte, and the rest of his plate, as jewels not already disposed of. To Patrick Fox a satin doublet, a pair of velvet hose, his best cloke, faste with velvet and a mourning cloke. To every of his men a mourning cloke. March 15, according to the computation of the Church of England, 1593, 36th of Elizabeth. [Morrin’s Calendar Pat, and Close Rolls Chancery, Ireland, vol. ii. p. 620]

Index Chapter 21. Home.