Lord Chancellor Boyle.

Chapter XXVII.

Lord Chancellor Boyle, Archbishop of Ireland.

The family of Boyle in Ireland owe their fame and fortune to one of the most remarkable personages in history. Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork, who, though not a Chancellor, claims a lengthened notice in my pages. He was born at Canterbury on October 3, 1566. His father died when he was but ten years old, and he tells us: ‘After the decease of my father and mother, I being the second son of a younger brother, having been a scholar in Bennett’s College, Cambridge, and a student in the Middle Temple, London, finding my means unable to support me to study the laws in the Inns of Court, put myself into the service of Sir Richard Manwood, Knight, Lord Chief Baron of his Majesty’s Court of Exchequer, whom I served as one of his clerks; and perceiving that the employment would not raise a fortune, I resolved to travel into foreign lands, and to gain learning and knowledge and experience abroad in the world. And it pleased the Almighty, by his divine Providence, [The motto over the gateway of the Castle of Lismore is, ‘God’s Providence be mine Inheritance.’] to take me, I may justly say, by the hand and lead me into Ireland, where I happily arrived in Dublin, on the Midsummer Eve, the 23rd day of June, 1588.’

It is interesting to know the stock-in-trade necessary for an adventurous youth, gaining lordships and manors to the value of a hundred thousand a-year. Richard Boyle was twenty-two years of age, and on that Midsummer Eve, when he walked the streets of Dublin ‘all my wealth then was 27l. 3s. in money, with two tokens which my mother had given me - viz., a diamond ring, which I have ever since and still do wear, and a bracelet of gold worth about ten pounds; a taffety doublet, cut with and upon taffety, a pair of black velvet breeches, laced, a new Milan fustian suit, laced and cut upon taffety, two cloaks, competent linen, and necessaries, with my rapier and dagger.’

With his skill in turning every circumstance to profit, be soon acquired considerable property, and likewise considerable envy. He says:- ‘When God had blessed me with a reasonable fortune and estate, Sir Henry Wallop; Sir Robert Gardiner, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench; Sir Robert Dillon, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and Sir Richard Bingham, Chief Commissioner of Connaught, being displeased for some purchases I made in that province, they all joined together by their lies, complaining against me to Queen Elizabeth, expressing that I came over without any estate, and that I make so many purchases as it was not possible to do without some foreign prince’s purse to supply me with money. That I had acquired divers Castles and Abbeys upon the sea-side, fit to entertain and receive Spaniards. That I kept in my Abbeys fraternities, and convents of friars in their habits, who said mass continually, and that I was suspected in my religion; with divers other malicious suggestions.’

At this period the Desmond rebellion broke out, and all his lands were wasted. Boyle contrived to reach London, and betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle Temple, intending to renew his legal studies till the rebellion was suppressed. But he must tell his own story:- ‘Robert Earl of Essex was designed for the Government of this Kingdom (Ireland), unto whose service I was recommended by Mr. Anthony Bacon, whereupon his Lordship very nobly received me, and used me with favour and grace, in employing me in issuing out his patents and commissions for the Government of Ireland; already Sir Henry Wallop, treasurer, having notice, and being conscious in his own heart, that I had sundry papers and collections of Michael Kettlewell, his late under treasurer, which might discover a great deal of wrong and abuse, done to the Queen in his late accounts, and suspecting, if I were countenanced by the Earl of Essex, that I would bring those things to light, which might much prejudice or ruin his reputation or estate, although I vow to God, until I was provoked, I had no thought of it; yet he, utterly to suppress me, renewed his former complaints against me to the Queen’s Majesty. Whereupon, by her Majesty’s special directions, I was suddenly attacked, and conveyed close prisoner to the Gate-house, all my papers seized and searched, and although nothing could appear to my prejudice, yet my close restraint was continued, till the Earl of Essex was gone to Ireland two months afterwards with much suit, I obtained the favour of her sacred Majesty, to be present at my answers, when I so fully answered and cleared all their objections, and delivered such full and evident justifications for my own acquittal, as it pleased the Queen to use these words, “By G---‘s death, these are but inventions against the young man, and all his sufferings are but for in his being able to do us service, and these complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him a man fit to be employed by ourselves, and we will employ him in our service, and Wallop and his adherents shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them to wrong him, neither shall Wallop be any longer our Treasurer.” Thereupon she directed her speech to the Lords of the Council then present, and commanded them presently to give her the names of six men, out of which she might choose one to be Treasurer of Ireland. Her election falling on Sir George Carew of Cookington. And then the Queen arose from the Council, and gave orders, not only for my present enlargement, but also for discharging all my charges and fees during my restraint, and gave me her royal hand to kiss, which I did heartily, humbly thanking God for that deliverance.’

Truly Richard Boyle might have applied to himself the lines of the great contemporary dramatist:-

Lo, even that which mischief meant most harm,

Shall in the hour of trial prove most goodly -

Evil shall back upon itself recoil.

Richard Boyle first married Mrs. Jane Apsley, who brought him landed property worth 500l. a-year. She died at Mallow, in the county of Cork, on December 14, 1599, and was interred in Butteraut Church. He remained four years a widower when he married secondly on July 25, 1603, Catherine, only daughter of Sir Geoffry Fenton, principal Secretary of State, and a Privy Councillor. This, he takes care to tell us, was not a mercenary marriage. ‘I never demanded any marriage portion, neither promise of any, it not being in my consideration, yet her father, after my marriage, gave me 1,000l. in gold with her; but that gift of his daughter unto me, I must ever thankfully acknowledge as the crown of all my blessings, for she was a most religious, virtuous, loving, and obedient wife unto me all the days of her life, and the happy mother of all my hopeful children, whom with their posterity I praise God to bless.’

On the occasion of his second marriage Richard Boyle was knighted, and, by the patronage of Sir George Carew, Lord President of Munster, he was appointed Clerk of the Council for that province. [Commission dated November 16, 1602. Salary 20l. per annum with large fees of office.] He was sent with dispatches to Queen Elizabeth, to announce the success of her Majesty’s forces at Kinsale, and used such expedition in his journey that he left the Lord President at Shandon Castle, Cork, on Monday morning, and next day, Tuesday, delivered his packet, and supped with Sir Robert Cecil, principal Secretary of State, at his house in the Strand. At seven in the morning Cecil presented Sir Richard Boyle to Queen Elizabeth in her bedchamber, who remembered him, calling him by his name, and giving him her hand to kiss, She said she was glad he was the happy man to bring her first news of that glorious victory.

On his return to Cork, Sir George Carew proposed that Boyle should purchase the estates granted by the Crown to Sir Walter Raleigh, which were then unprofitable. He also wrote to Sir Walter, urging him to sell these lands, then untenanted and of no value to him, and to Sir Robert Cecil, requesting that wily statesman to advise Raleigh to sell these lands to Sir Richard Boyle. The result was, property consisting of forty thousand acres, lying along the lovely valley of the Blackwater, in Munster, was purchased by Boyle for a thousand crowns.

[This sale was questioned- after the execution of Raleigh. In Gibson’s History of Cork, vol. ii. p. 31, is the following letter from the Earl written January 16, 1631, from Dublin, to Sir Walter’s son:-

‘Honourable Sir, - I received letters from you of November 11, 1630, whereunto I made you a present answer, and in these my letters did represent unto you the infinite trouble and charge that your lady-mother and yourself did undeservedly, without any just grounds, by unnecessary suits, draw upon me when I was in England, which I shall not thoroughly recover these many years. I also tendered to your consideration how I purchased your father’s lands, when they were utterly waste and yielded him no profit.

‘The sum that he and I agreed upon was really paid, whereof I paid him in ready gold a thousand crowns sterling, after his attainder, when he was a prisoner in the Tower, Which debt of mine to him, being forfeited to His Majesty, I made choice (out of my love to him) rather to supply him with all in his extremity than to accept a composition tendered to me by Sir John Ramsay, after Earl of Holderness, who, for five huudred marks in ready money, offered to procure me a discharge, under the broad seal for the debt, yet in regard your father made it appear unto me, that he hoped, so he might be supplied with the thousand crowns, that it would do him more good than a thousand pounds would have done him before he fell into his troubles, and much avail towards the procuring of his enlargement, which my affection guided me to make choice of, although it constrained me to tarry two months in London, and to sue out a release to the King for the money, under the Great Seal, at my own charge, which the fees, with my own stay in London for no other cause, was very expensive and burdensome unto me, it standing me in no less than two hundred pounds sterling.

‘Again, upon my purchase from your father, he entered into bonds to me of six thousand crowns, which I have extant under his hand and seal, to free the land, as well from all arrears due to the Queen which amounted to about one thousand marks, as from all other charges and encumbrances made by him, before he conveyed the lands to me. And I am confident, if Her Majesty’s death and his own troubles had not happened, he would have cleared all these arrears, according to his undertaking, which afterwards I was enforced to discharge, as also to pay (as I can make it evidently appear) other two thousand seven hundred and odd pounds for freeing the lands from such former estates and encumbrances as your father hath made them liable and subject unto, contrary to his covenant and bond, upon either of which I could have no remedy against him by reason of his attainder.’]

The purchase cost the Earl of Cork more money than he ever paid to the unfortunate Sir Walter Raleigh. On the lands near Youghal, and close beside this historic town of which I have narrated the chief events, [The letter further recites various sums given to Sir Walter and for his use. And the very day that he took shipping from Cork, on his last fatal voyage, he did me the honour to dine with me at Sir Randall Clayton’s house. Where he called unto him the Lord Barry, the Lord Roche, his son Watt Raleigh, Captain Whitney, and divers others; and taking his son by the hand told them all that I had kept continual house for three months together for himself and his company, and that I had supplied him with several provisions for victualling of his ships, and with three hundred and fifty crowns in ready money, and also supplied most of his captains in his fleet with money, and that now I would needs press upon him a hundred pounds in French crowns, which I have no need of nor will not take. He again took his son by the hand, and said unto him, “Watt, you see how nobly my Lord Boyle hath entertained and supplied me and my friends, and therefore I charge you upon my blessing, if it please God that you outlive me and return, that *you never question the Lord Boyle for anything that I have sold him, for I do lay my curse upon my wife and children if they ever question any of the purchases his Lordship hath made of me; *for if he had not bought my Irish land of me, by my fall it would have come to the Crown, and then one Scot or other would have begged it, from whom neither I nor mine would have had anything for it, nor such courtesies as I now have received.” I accompanied him on shipboard and at my departure he reviewed the favours I had done him, and this was the last time that I saw his face.

‘Sir, for conclusion I am well satisfied by very learned counsel, and I think you are of the same opinion, that neither yourself or your mother can either by law or equity recover anything from me, *yet nevertheless, if you will both join in perfecting such a release as my counsel shall draw up, and I send unto you, and that without any condition I will make it *appear unto you that I honour and respect those that your noble deceased father hath left behind him; or if you rather desire to make your pretended right, either in law or equity, to appear before two indifferent and understanding lawyers that are men of learning and integrity, and that you likewise make it evident unto them what strength and addition of title, or any at your mother and you can do, that may tend to the bettering of your estate, I am very likely to be induced upon notice from you of the lawyer you will choose, to nominate and join another unto him to hear and determine your pretences. And so praying you to believe that I have not been so ill-bred to neglect the answering of any noble gentleman’s letters as I esteem you to be. I wish your lady-mother and yourself all happiness, so take leave.

‘Yours, Sir, to command,

‘R. Corke.’ [Historical and Picturesque Guide to the Blackwater in Munster, by J. R. O’Flanagan: Lond 1844.]] stood the College of Youghal, a religious foundation of the Fitz Geralds of Desmond, It possessed about 600*l. *a-year endowments; and in 1597, Nathaniel Baxter, then Warden of the College, was bound under penalty of a thousand marks to resign the place to Queen Elizabeth in forty days. Before this time expired Baxter assigned the College and the livings to Sir Thomas Norris, then Lord President of Munster. He transferred it to William Jones of Youghal, as trustee for Sir Walter Raleigh. Jones parted with his interest to Sir George Carew, who conveyed the same to Sir Richard Boyle. On the attainder of Raleigh, Boyle paid a thousand pounds to King James I., and obtained a patent, in 1604, for all Sir Walter Raleigh’s lands in Ireland, this College being on them; but Sir James Fullarton had obtained, in the previous year, 1603, a grant of concealed Church lands, which entitled him to claim the endowed lands of Youghal College, so that Boyle had to purchase afresh from Fullarton, Boyle not being quite satisfied as to the validity of his title to these College lands, thought it well to have a kinsman Warden, and accordingly applied to Sir George Carew, that his relative, Doctor Boyle, be made Warden, which was acceded to. The Reverend Dr. Boyle, when Warden of the College, conveyed the revenues shortly after the marriage of his kinsman, Sir Richard, with the daughter of Sir Geoffrey Fenton, as a jointure for the lady. The indenture bears date April 8, 1605, and sets forth the College and all the edifices, lands, parsonages, rectories, and vicarages, in more than one diocese, with all their advowsons and patronages, to hold in fee farm for ever, at a rent of twenty marks yearly. [Gibson’s History of Cork, vol. ii, p. 38.]

The Bishop of Waterford, Dr. Atherton, took proceedings against the Earl of Cork for the recovery of Ardmore, Lismore, and other lands belonging to the Church, which, under the purchase from Sir Walter Raleigh, the Earl got into his possession, We learn from Ryland [History of Waterforel.]* *his lordship compounded for the lands of the See of Waterford, by giving back Ardmore to the Church, but Bishop Atherton sueing for the remainder, and being well qualified by his talents and spirit to go through with the suit, fell, as there is too much reason to think, a sacrifice to that litigation, [When Dr. Ryland in his History of Waterford was suggesting a serious imputation upon the character of the Earl of Cork he should have given some evidence of the Earl’s complicity, if there was any, instead of recording what probably was only the whisper of his enemies.] when he suffered for a pretended crime of a secret nature, made felony in that Parliament upon the testimony of a single witness, that deserved no credit, and who in his information pretended that the crime had been sometime before committed upon himself. The Bishop, during all the time of his most exemplary preparation for death, and even at the moment of his execution, is stated to have absolutely denied the fact, and the fellow who swore against him when he came to be executed himself, some time after, confessed at the gallows the falsehood of his accusation. [Ware’s Bishops.]

We have seen in the memoir of Lord Chancellor Lord Loftus, that, on the departure of Lord Falkland, Lord Deputy in 1629, the Lord Chancellor and Earl of Cork were Lords Justices. While in office, we are informed, ‘several Popish houses were seized in Dublin for the King’s use.’ This is not quite correct, for Lord Cork contrived to become the possessor of a goodly mansion which has given the name to the hill on which it stood, close to Dublin Castle, and is called Cork Hill at this day. Lord Wentworth became Viceroy in 1631, and received the Sword of State from the Lords Justices. Both pretended great joy at his coming; we have read the fulsome letters of Loftus; the Earl of Cork was equally adulatory. In a letter addressed by him to the Lord Treasurer of England, the Earl writes - ‘Right Honorable and my Singular Good Lord, -

‘I gladly understand that his Majesty, in his high wisdom, hath made choice of the Lord Viscount Wentworth to be Lord Deputy General of Ireland, of whose nobleness, wisdom, and plentiful estate I heard much when I was at Court, whereof reports hath made an addition from thence, since he was designed for this Government, which I shall with all alacrity yield up to him, as I am confident in general tranquillity, having a full heart, full of comfort, in that a nobleman of his abilities and reputation, with so full and absolute power, shall govern us.’ [Gibson’s History of Cork, vol. ii. p. 41.]

As in the case of the Lord Chancellor, this comfort to the heart of the Earl was not destined to last long. The first dispute was about the tomb which the Earl erected in the choir of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, an immense pile of sculpture with a background of black marble, showing sixteen figures painted and gilt. This monument the Lord Deputy resolved to pull down, and the Earl, writing to Sir William Beecher on March 20, 1633, says - ‘I’d rather have my hand cut off,’ Both the Earl and the Viceroy appealed to Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, who clearly thought the place selected by the Earl highly objectionable. In a letter to the Lord Primate, who was a friend of the Earl’s, Laud wrote:- ’ The information here was, that his Lordship had got up his monument at the end of the choir, just in the place where the altar or communion-table stood, a place most unfit for such a purpose, and not offered, for aught I know, to be taken by any King in Christendom, and therefore most unfit for a subject.’ Laud was willing to temporise. His plan was characteristic of the time. ‘The monument,’ he suggests, may stand, *if screened off from the choir. *I can hardly believe the Earl had good counsel to put it there.’ [Ibid. p. 44.] The Earl carried his point; the monument was not removed; [It has been placed in another part of the church during the recent restoration by the munificence of Sir Benjamin Guinness,] but Wentworth was not a man to be conquered with impunity. Next year the Earl was summoned to appear before the Viceroy in the Court of Castle Chamber, Here the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Reeves, preferred charges against him for the illegal possession of the College and revenues of Youghal. His cousin, the Ex-Warden, then Bishop of Cork, and the Bishop of Waterford were likewise charged with aiding and assisting the Earl of Cork in the illegal possession of this property. The Earl played the game of delay, and, not having the deeds and documents relating to the Youghal property at his house at Dublin, pleaded his privilege, ‘it being Parliament time.’ The case was postponed to the ensuing term. Then he produced his patents and leases; Lord Wentworth adjourned the case, and sent a message to the Earl that ‘if he consented to abide by his award, he would prove the best friend he ever had.’

Lord Cork agreed, and we can imagine his consternation when the Viceroy’s decision was ‘that be should be fined fifteen thousand pounds for the rents and profits of the Youghal College property, and surrender all the advowsons and patronage - everything except the College-house and a few fields near the town.’ The Earl did not meet with much sympathy on this occasion. Some persons positively rejoiced at his being compelled to disgorge so large a share of his suddenly-acquired wealth. Archbishop Laud wrote a congratulatory letter, in rather coarse style, to the Deputy, dated November 15, 1633. It was as follows:-

‘My Lord, -

‘I did not take you to be so good a physician as you are for the truth; a great many Church cormorants have fed, so full upon it that they are fallen into a fever, and for that no physic is better than a vomit, if it be given in time, and therefore you have taken a very judicious course to administer one so early to my Lord Cork. I hope it will do him good, though, perchance, he thinks not so, for if the fever hang long about him or the rest, it will certainly shake either of their estates to pieces. Go on, my Lord, I must needs says this is *thorough, *indeed, and so is your physic, too, and that is thorough.’ [Lord Macaulay says that Wentworth was the first to use this word thorough. The word occurs in Spenser’s View of the State of Ireland. We may conclude from Laud’s play upon the word it was a favourite terra with the Viceroy. Note to Gibson’s Cork, vol. ii, p. 46.] The Irish Viceroy soon had other work to occupy his attention than making Irish cormorants disgorge their plunder. The Long Parliament commenced sitting, and the combined wrath of three nations fell upon the devoted head of Strafford Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. I must confine myself to the share Ireland had in laying his haughty head on the block. He was summoned from Ireland by Charles I., and, aware of his unpopularity in England, was reluctant to go to London, but the King pledged himself ‘that not a hair of his head would be touched.’ Repairing to the Court, the Viceroy was at once impeached by the House of Commons, ordered into custody, and committed to the Tower. A Committee of thirteen was intrusted with the office of sustaining the charges against him. These members of the House of Commons, joined to a Committee of the Lords, were invested with authority to examine all witnesses, to call for every paper, and to use any means of scrutiny into any part of the Earl’s behaviour and conduct. [Clarendon, vol. i. p. 192.] The Irish Houses of Parliament were only too glad to have the opportunity of assisting in the downfall of the haughty Viceroy. Sir John Clotworthy and others gave all their attention to carry on the prosecution, and the Earl of Cork was perhaps no reluctant witness of his maladministration, though he would fain have us believe he preferred not being examined. He says, ‘Though I was prejudiced in no less than 40,000l. and 2,000 marks a year, [This was not a small estimate for a very subordinate portion of the vest territory he bought from Raleigh for a thousand crowns!.] I put off my examination for six weeks.’ The Earl says, ‘he was so reserved in his answers, that no matter of treason could by them be fixed upon the Earl of Strafford.’ [Gibson’s History of Cork, vol. ii. p. 46.] But there was matter enough; the articles of impeachment numbered twenty-eight, and referred to his conduct as President of the Council of York, as Lieutenant of Ireland, as Councillor or Commander in England. The case of Lord Mountnorris was adduced as a flagrant proof of his arrogant, unconstitutional, and unjust conduct while Viceroy of Ireland It was this -

During a dinner-party at the Lord Chancellor Loftus’s, it was stated that Annesley, one of the Lord Deputy’s attendants, brother of Lord Mountnorris, in moving a stool had sorely hurt his master’s foot, who was at that time afflicted with the gout. ‘Perhaps,’ said Lord Mountnorris, who was among the guests, ‘it was done in revenge of that public affront which my Lord Deputy formerly put upon him, *but he has a brother who would not have taken such a revenge.’ *

These words were reported by some mischief-makers to the Viceroy, who, on pretence, or perhaps real alarm lest the suggestion might prompt Annesley to avenge himself in another manner, ordered Lord Mountnorris, an officer Court in the army, to be tried for mutiny and sedition against his General. [The Viceroy is styled Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland,] The Court-Martial, consisting of the chief officers then quartered in Ireland, appear to have taken an extreme view of the guilt of the accused, for they found the offence capital, and sentenced him to be beheaded.

Lord Strafford, in reply to this article of impeachment against him, defended himself by saying ‘that the sentence of the Court Martial was the unanimous decision of the Court, not of the Lord Deputy. That he spoke not to any member of the Court, nor voted in the trial, but sat uncovered as a party, and immediately withdrew, not, by his presence, to influence their decision. That when he was acquainted with the sentence he thought it iniquitous, and did not keep Lord Mountnorris a moment in suspense with regard to his fate, but instantly told him “he would sooner lose his right hand than execute such a sentence,’ and at once procured his Majesty’s free pardon for that nobleman.” [Lord Mountnorris lived to a.d. 1690.] Hume, in noticing this case, says, ‘These excuses alleviate the guilt; but there still remains enough to prove that the mind of the Deputy, though great and firm, had been not a little debauched by the riot of absolute power and uncontrolled authority.’ [History of England, vol. vii, p. 300.]

We now learn the true reason for the impeachment of Lord Chancellor Bolton, Chief Justice Lowther, and Bramhall, Bishop of Derry. It was the Irish House of Commons playing their part of the programme to bring Strafford and his master to the block; ‘it prevented these persons who were best acquainted with Strafford’s councils giving evidence in his favour before the English Parliament.’ [Ibid. p. 297.]

The trial of Lord Strafford must have been a solemn trial, one. It took place in Westminster Hall, in the presence of the Lords and Commons - the one as accusers, the other as Judges. Besides the chair of State, a close gallery was prepared for the King and Queen, who attended during the whole trial. We may be sure both felt the most intense interest in every stage of the State trial. When Whitelock, who was elected chairman of the committee appointed to draw up the impeachment, refused to have anything to do with an article charging the Earl ‘with the design of bringing over the army from Ireland for the purpose of reducing England to subjection,’ on the intelligible ground, ‘that it was not honourable for the House of Commons to proceed upon an article whereof they could not make a clear proof,’ the management of this charge was entrusted to Sir Walter Earle. He made such a wretched hand of it that the Queen, enquring his name, said, ‘that water-dog did bark, but not bite; but the rest did bite close.’ [Hume, History of England, vol. vii. p. 297.] This shows how well she judged the progress of the case, Strafford bears testimony to the ability and fair spirit with which some of the counsel for the prosecution acted, ‘Glynne and Maynard,’ he said, ‘used him like advocates, but Palmer and Whitelock [Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors of England, vol. iii, p. 22,] like gentlemen, and yet left out nothing that was material to be urged against him.’ The defence of Strafford won the following tributes from two great lawyers and orators of different times and nations, Whitelock said, ‘Certainly never any man acted such a part on such a theatre with more wisdom, constancy, and eloquence, with greater reason, judgment, and temper, and with better grace in tribute to all his words and gestures, than this great and excellent person did; and he moved the hearts of his auditors, some few excepted, to remorse and pity.’ [Whitelock’s Memoirs, 44.]

Lord Chief Justice Whiteside’s words are corroborative of this opinion:- ‘Never did mortal man speak for another as did Strafford for himself, for his dignities his life,’ The records of human eloquence contain no finer lesson. It is impossible to read his immortal defence without being touched even to tears. By the law of treason he was not guilty; a special law of attainder was enacted for his ruin, and a precedent set, too bad to follow. His enemies argued, with some plausibility, that if an offender should be proscribed who violated a particular law, ought not the great offender to be punished who violated the spirit of all law? The Peers of England, to their disgrace, convicted him. The King deserted him at the last moment. He walked heroically to the scaffold, placed his head composedly on the block, repeating, as he did so, ‘Put not your faith in Princes.’ Another Chief Governor of Ireland executed for his crimes as Governor. [Life and Death of the Irish Parliaments, Part I. p. 63.]

Lord Cork’s diary contains the following entry of this event:- ‘This day the Earl of Strafford was beheaded. No man died more universally hated, or less lamented by the people.’ The Earl of Cork did not long survive the Viceroy. He died in Youghal in 1643. Borlase says, ‘He was a person for his abilities and knowledge in affairs of the world eminently observable, inasmuch as, though he was no Peer of England, yet he was admitted to sit in the house of Lords upon the Woolsack, *ut consiliarius.’ *This clearly entitles this remarkable man to a place in these pages, and 1 trust I have not taken up more space than his career, so full of incident and interest, warranted.

Michael Boyle, the future Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was nephew of the Earl. He might truly be said to have been ‘to the mitre born.’ He was Son of Richard Boyle, mentioned in the foregoing narrative as Warden of Michael’s Youghal College; who, on the death of his brother, John Boyle, Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, in 1620, was, through the interest of Richard styled the Great Earl of Cork, appointed to succeed John as bishop of this diocese, He was subsequently, on May 30, 1638, translated to the Archiepiscopal See of Tuam. He died in 1644, having issue, by Martha, daughter of Richard Wright, of Catherine Hill, Surrey, two Sons and nine daughters. His sons were Michael, afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and successively Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, and Archbishop of Dublin and of Armagh, born in 1609, and 1609 Colonel Richard Boyle, killed at Drogheda, a.d. 1649, in the indiscriminate massacre ordered by Cromwell after he had gained possession of the town.

The youth of Michael was spent chiefly in Munster, while, his father resided in Cork, and being designed for the Church, in which his uncle, the Earl, possessed immense patronage, received a very excellent education.

Takes , In 1637, Michael Boyle, the Earl’s nephew, graduated as Master of Arts in Oxford, and subsequently took the degree of Doctor of Divinity in the University of Dublin. He was not long in the subordinate rank of curate. Shortly after he was ordained, July 22, 1637, he was presented to the living of Clonpriest, in the county of Cork. But a rectory was not sufficient for a divine so highly connected as the Reverend Michael Boyle, D.D. He aspired to a position of greater dignity, and soon obtained it. In 1640 he was made Dean of Cloyne, in the diocese of Cork, and on the breaking out of the civil war in the following year, received, in addition, the lucrative office of Chaplain-General to the Army of Munster, with the allowance of twenty shillings a day. He had an excellent opportunity of witnessing and sharing in most of the important events which took place, The Irish, under Sir Phelim O’Neill, were 30,000 strong, and soon overcame several of the northern counties. The English possessed the cities and towns, which shortly gave them the command of the rural districts; and when they gained the power of the sword, they used it with relentless sway.

In 1644, Dean Boyle used his influence with Lord Castlehaven, who commanded the Irish army in Munster, to spare Doneraile, a pretty town in the northern part of the county of Cork, the seat of the St. Leger family (Viscount Doneraile), and which acquires interest for all lovers of literature from its proximity to Kilcolman Castle, Spenser’s Irish residence. [It has another claim upon me, as the Rector is a dear and valued friend, and an able literary colleague in the pages of the Dublin University Magazine.] When Lord Castlehaven made his rendezvous at Clonmel, he writes, ‘Thither came Dean Boyle, who was then married to my Lord Inchiquin’s sister; his business was to persuade me to spare Doneraile, and other houses and castles not tenable. I answered that I desired it as much as he, though hitherto they had annoyed the country equally as if they had been strong; I told him, in short, I had orders to take all I could, and such as I thought not fit to garrison to destroy. Yet, if he pleased to cause the garrisons to be drawn out, and, by letters from the owners to put them into my hands, I would appoint some few men unto them, with commanders in whom I most confided, and would make it my business to intercede to the Council to preserve them. The Dean and I parted good friends; but whether he could prevail or no with my Lord Inchiquin, or the owners, I know not; but I heard no more from him.’ [Castlehaven Memoirs.]

The northern Irish were inspirited by the valour, and guided by the counsels, of the famous Owen Roe O’Neil, whose death was the most signal loss his army could sustain, The history of the Confederation of Kilkenny; and the government of Ireland by the Marquis of Ormond; Cromwell’s ruthless rule; and the Restoration of Charles II., are deeply interesting, but foreign to these memoirs.

In 1660, Dean Boyle, with eleven other clergymen, were consecrated together as Bishops in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He obtained the united Sees of Cork, Cloyne and Ross. He also was admitted a member of the Privy Council of Ireland. ‘Not content,’ says D’Alton, [Lives of the Archbishops of Dublin, p. 281.] ‘with the aforesaid three bishoprics, he held possession of six parishes in the western portion of his diocese, as sinecures, under colour he could not get clergymen to serve them, in consequence of which he received a very severe reproof from his relative, Roger Earl of Orrery, Lord President of Munster.

But a mission was at this period intrusted to the Bishop of Cork, which obliterated any pain from the wound inflicted by his cousin’s censure. He had been made a of Privy Councillor, and was selected by the Irish Lords Justices to repair to England, in order to watch the progress of the Act of Settlement, which vitally concerned the Protestant interest in Ireland. Having a thorough knowledge of the State of the Protestants, and, no doubt, a very eager desire that no influence should diminish their powers, or impair the fortunes which they had acquired by the overthrow of the Catholic proprietors during the civil war and the Commonwealth, and having great Parliamentary influence by his connexions and friends, he executed his trust to the entire satisfaction of the party he represented. The following proceedings in the House of Lords, Ireland, under date of Saturday, May 24, 1662, shows the sense that House entertained of the Bishop’s success:- ‘It is ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the present Parliament assembled, that the memorial of thanks to the Lord Bishop of Cork for his services performed in England, be entered in the journals of this house, in haec verba.

‘Upon a report made this day by the Lord Viscount Conway, and the Lord Viscount Massareene, unto this House, of the ample, clear, and undoubted testimonies which his Majesty’s Lords Justices of Ireland have received of the great and eminent services performed, both to his Majesty and this kingdom, by the Right Reverend Father in God, Michael Boyle, Lord Bishop of Cork, in the late trust he was employed about in England, concerning the Bill for the Settlement of Ireland, which hath been eminently carried on and managed by his presence, virtue, and indefatigable endeavours. It is ordered that the said Lord Bishop, for his effectual endeavours in accomplishing that service which was committed unto him by the Lords Justices and Council, in reference to the good and settlement of this Kingdom, be entered in the journal book of this House, together with the Lords Justices’ recommendation, to remain to posterity as a mark of honour and testimony of the gratitude of the House to the said Lord Bishop of Cork.’ [Law Jour. Ir. vol. i. p. 302.]

In 1663, Dr. Boyle was translated from the Province of Munster to Leinster, on being appointed Archbishop of Dublin. At head quarters, with great political influence, he was not likely to let any opportunity escape of enriching the See; and the Patent Rolls in Chancery bear witness of his activity. By the Act of Settlement he had further confirmation of the lands of his See, together with an augmentation of so much of the forfeited lands as increased the total amount of the income of the Dioceses of Dublin and Glendalough, over and above certain manors and several lands, to the yearly value of 2,000l., which he subsequently further increased.

He repaired and beautified the archiepiscopal palace of St. Sepulchre. To enable him to defray the expense of his removal from Cork to Dublin, and to put the palace in good repair, King Charles II presented him with 1,000l., payable out of the profits of the estates of the persons mentioned in the Act of Settlement, who purchased decrees and lands in Connaught and Clare, in the right of persons transplanted, but whose estates were confirmed to them. He had large grants decreed to him by the Act he was so instrumental in passing.

In 1663, on the death of Sir Maurice Eustace, Archbishop Boyle received time high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and appears to have discharged the judicial functions with due dignity, ability, and integrity. I subjoin to this memoir a notice of the orders in Chancery used and framed for the convenience of suitors of his Court, and, in many points, the same procedure which is now in force was then practised. It may be interesting to the practitioner to find how little change 200 years have made in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland. Indeed, the principal alterations have been made by the legislation of the last few years, which tend to relieve the Lord Chancellor of much responsibility, and lead to the elucidation of facts by oral examination.

In 1678, the Chancellor was again translated from the See of Dublin to the Primacy of Armagh. He had thus worn the mitre in the three Provinces - of Munster, Leinster, and Ulster.

In 1679, an Order in Council was made, to which the Royal Hospital of Kilmainham owes its existence, It directed that sixpence in the pound be deducted out of the pay of the Irish army, then numbering 7,000 men, and that the amount should be issued and employed towards the building and settling an Hospital for Irish pensioners. And, for the speedy execution of His Majesty’s said directions, the Lord Lieutenant, Marquis of Ormond, did accordingly order that Michael Lord Archbishop of Armagh, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, John Lord Archbishop and others of Dublin, Richard Earl of Arran, Sir Charles Meredith, :Chancellor of His Majesty’s Exchequer, Sir Robert Booth, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and many others, any three of them to be a standing Committee, to send for artists and workmen, and treat with them for building the said Hospital. A sum of 23,579l. was then raised and expended, and the Royal Hospital has been since an Asylum in Ireland for brave old soldiers, natives of Ireland. [Attempts to abolish this institution have been made from time to time. In 1833, again in 1852 - and in 1870, there were indications which caused apprehension the meditated injustice was not abandoned.]

While Lord Chancellor Boyle was presiding over the Court of Chancery in Ireland, a great equity lawyer filled the analogous position in England - Heneage Finch, Earl of Nottingham. Like all the Irish Chancellors whose lives I have so imperfectly traced, this great Judge has suffered from the want of reporters; and, though there have been, for many centuries, some contemporary reporters, good, bad, and indifferent in England, unfortunately, until within the last hundred years, we had no attempt whatever to publish regular reports in Ireland. No doubt, as has been well observed, [Vide Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors of England, vol. iii, p. 415. ‘much inconvenience does arise from the multiplicity and copiousness of reports in modern times; but, we ought to recollect the great advantage we derive from full and accurate statements of all that passes in our Courts of Justice, whereby Judges, speaking to the nation, are constantly on their good behaviour; and, while what is trivial soon sinks from notice, that which is important is imperishably preserved.’ The noble and learned author of ‘The Lives of the English Chancellors laments the want of better reports than those miserably executed ones which gave the judgments of Lord Chancellor Nottingham, containing defective narratives of facts, hardly any statement of counsels’ points, or cases relied on, and no reasons for the Judge’s decision; merely an abstract of the Decree with the words, ‘The Court ordered;’ the ‘Court directed;’ or the ‘Court allowed.’ I wish I had even so much to assist me, I have not been able, hitherto, to trace a single reported of any Court in Ireland, save the few contained in Sir John Davies’ little volume already mentioned. The appended rules and orders indicate the practice and pleadings, tempore Lord Chancellor Boyle, the same as in England; and, as by implication almost every subject of litigation Equitable could be clothed with a trust, the object of the Lord Chancellor was to see how far the case was one warranting the proper interposition of a Court of Equity. The Court of Chancery fairly administered assets on the principle that the executor or administrator who held the property of the deceased, was a trustee, bound to pay debts and legacies, and to apply the surplus according to the will, or, in case of intestacy, pursuant to the Statute of Distributions. [Adair v. Shaw, 1 Scho. And Lefr., p. 262.] By the then recent English Statute of Frauds, [29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 10. The Irish Act corresponding to the English is 7 Will. iii. c. 12,] trust estates in fee simple were made legal assets. This Statute has been considered the most important and useful Act ever passed by the legislature, and regulates to a great extent every transaction we engage in.

On the death of Charles II., February 6, 1684-5, James Duke of York was proclaimed King. His Declaration in Council, of his ‘determination to preserve the Government both in Church and State, as by law established; to defend the monarchy, never to depart from the just rights and prerogatives of the Crown, or invade any man’s property; to defend the nation, and go as far as any man in preserving it in all its just rights and liberties,’ was received with unbounded applause. [Fox, James II., p. 75.] In Ireland his accession opened prospects of happiness and tranquillity to the Catholics; and, as he was bound to the Irish by strong ties of gratitude and interest, being himself a Catholic, they expected repose after long sufferings. The Viceroy of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon, was kindly disposed; a devoted adherent of the House of Stuart; and, though I have no doubt his knowledge of the arbitrary love of power of that shortsighted race made him fear the promises of King James would not be very well kept, he tried to cheer up the spirits of the Irish Protestants, which, from the moment James II. mounted the throne, had fallen very low. No Protestant felt secure of any office held at the will of the Sovereign; and, as the Chancellor was not only a Protestant, but an Archbishop, he justly considered the odds were against his holding on.

The first intimation the Viceroy received of the King’s intention to relieve the octogenarian Chancellor-Archbishop from the fatigues of his judicial office, was in a letter from Lord Sunderland to the Viceroy, dated February 25, 1685-6. In his reply, the Viceroy says, ‘While I am writing, I receive yours of the 25th post, and, at the same time, my Lord Presidents, I confess they did surprise me, as to the laying aside the Chancellor; but it is resolved, and so no reply must be made to it, No doubt he will have heard it from other hands, for several letters mention it. I believe the Marquis of Athol will be troubled at this change, and with reason; for his cause, which has been for many years depending, both here and in Scotland, and has taken up thirteen entire days in hearing it pleaded on both sides since the term, was finished on Saturday last; and yesterday the Judges, who assisted, went their circuits. My Lord Chancellor had appointed the beginning of next term to give judgment; and, it is thought, it will go for my Lord Athol; and now I doubt it must all begin anew.’

On receiving direction to inform the Lord Chancellor, the King desired to give him his ease, [A polite way of turning a man out.] the Lord Lieutenant communicated the news to the Lord Chancellor, with every kind expression which could gild the bitter pill. His Grace received the intelligence with great submission, and without showing the least surprise or dissatisfaction. No doubt the unpleasant report that he was to be removed had previously reached him. He told his ‘Excellency he had thought of requesting permission to resign the Great Seal, but was restrained by the idea that it would not have looked well in him to have quitted the service while the King appeared to be in any difficulties. That he made it the whole business of his life to serve the Crown, and would continue to do so though he were only a private curate, and that he most cheerfully acquiesced in his Majesty’s good pleasure. That he would be extremely mortified if he thought the King was, in any way, dissatisfied with him, because he had received many favours from his Majesty, and never found he was the least under the King’s displeasure.

In the following April reports that the Archbishop would have, as his successor, Sir Charles Porter, reached Dublin, and, as he was known to be a good staunch Protestant, the hopes of the Irish Protestants again revived.

King James II. having decided on removing the Archbishop from the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, appointed Sir Charles Porter in his place; and, although Porter was sworn in, and intrusted with the Great Seal as Lord Chancellor, the Lord Lieutenant, Earl of Clarendon, was so tenacious of not slighting Archbishop Boyle, that in writing to him, after the swearing in of his successor, on April 17, 1686, he continues to address him as Lord Chancellor. [State Letter, vol. i. p. 154.]

‘I gave your Lordship the trouble of a long letter so lately that I needed not to have given you any now, but only to give you an account, that on Thursday, my Lord Chancellor Porter arrived. As soon as I read the King’s letters, I immediately directed his patent to be prepared; and yesterday he was sworn, and I delivered him the Seal at Council; so that he is now in full possession of his office; and this morning he keeps the first Seal in order to the term, which begins on Wednesday here, as it does in England. And as for the rest I suppose he will give your Lordship an account himself. I have no more to add at present, but that I am with great respect,

‘My Lord,

‘Your Lordship’s

‘Most faithful and most humble servant,

‘Clarendon, C.P.S,’

The Archbishop of Armagh was one of the Spiritual Peers who attended King James II,‘s Irish Parliament in Dublin, in 1689, but does not appear to have taken part in the debates.

The Ex-Chancellor reached the patriarchal age of ninety-two years, in 1702, when he died. He had outlived most of his faculties, sight and hearing, mind and memory, all were gone, which is charitably supposed to have caused him to leave so little to the poor. His charitable bequests but being but twenty shillings each to twenty poor men of the Parish of St. Patrick’s, and as much to ten of the Parish of St. Michan’s. Well may Sir James Ware express surprise at his will. He states the Ex-Chancellor died very rich, and, in earlier years, was of a disposition both liberal and public-spirited. He gave in his lifetime 200l. towards erecting a new gate-house to the College of Dublin, and joined in a contribution of 100l. to the University with Thomas, Bishop of Ossory, and Dr. Jeremy Hall, towards buying books for the library. [Ware’s Bishops.]

Chancellor-Archbishop Boyle was the last of the long roll of ecclesiastical Chancellors whose memoirs I have placed before the reader. He had considerable knowledge of the law and practice of his court, and the orders promulgated by him, to which I shall presently advert, were well framed. He was buried by torchlight in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, under the altar, without any pomp. Stuart in his history of Armagh [Page 389.] says, ‘Dr. Boyle seems to have been at once rapacious in the attainment of wealth, and liberal and public-spirited in its expenditure.’ In my opinion the evidence is far greater to sustain the former than the latter allegation, save where his family or self-interest was concerned. He founded the town of Blessington, in the county of Wicklow, where he erected a splendid country-seat, with a private chapel, also a parish church. The title of Viscount Blessington was, in consequence, conferred on his son, Morough Boyle. Lord Blessington erected a monument to his father’s memory in the church of Blessington, crowned with a mitre, and beneath are the arms of the see of Armagh. Upon black marble was the following Chrch, inscription:-

Michael Boyle S.T.D. Archiepisco-

pus Armachonus, totius Hiberniae

Primas et Metropolitanus, summus

Regni, per viginti annos Cancella-

rius; ejusdemque supius justitiarius.

Inter plurima sua de ecclesia et Repub-

lica merita. Ecclesiam hanc Beatae

Mariai de Blessington, cum Coeme-

terio (ad Dei gloriam, decentem cultus

Divini administrationem, et hujus

Parochiae solatium et usum) propriis

sumptibus fundavit, erexit, et lagenis,

calicibus, patinis argenteis, caeteroque

supellectile mensam sacram et Eccle-

Siam instruxit, addito etiam campanile

elegante, cum sex harmonicis cam-

panis. Haec omnia vicesima quarta

Augusti, Anno millesimo sex centesimo

octuagesimo tertio Deo et Religioni

solemniter dedicavit. Ut perpetuum

sit piae hujus munificentiae Monumen-

tum, Lapis hic inscribitur memorialis

per Filium ejus Morough Vicecomitem

Blessington. Abi et fac tu similiter.

Michael Boyle, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland, Lord High Chancellor of the Kingdom for twenty years, and often Lord Justice of the same. Among many other his merits to the Church and Commonwealth, he founded and erected (at his own expense) this Church of Blessington, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, together with the Churchyard, to the glory of God, the decent administration of Divine Worship, and the comfort and use of this parish. He also furnished the Communion-table and Church with silver Flagons, Cups, and Patins, and other Ornaments; and added to the Church an elegant Steeple with a Ring of six musical Bells. All these things he solemnly dedicated to God and Religion on the 24th day of August, MVCLXXXIII. His son, Morough, Viscount Blessington, hath caused this Memorial to be inscribed on this stone as a Monument for ever of his pious munificence, Go and do thou likewise.

In 1673, ‘A collection of such of the Orders heretofore used in Chancery, with such alterations and additions thereunto as Michael Lord Archbishop of Dublin Lord Chancellor of Ireland, hath thought fit at present to ordain and publish for reforming of several abuses in the, said courts, preventing multiplicity of suites, motions, and unnecessary charges to the suitors, and for their more expeditious and certain course of relief,’ was published in Dublin, printed by Benjamin Toke, printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. These orders have reference to the practice of the Court. The first order, provided, ‘That no subpoena be made returnable immediate, unless the party against whom it is to issue be at the time of the service thereof in the city or suburbs of Dublin, or within ten miles distance from the same; and that no subpoena to answer be made returnable in vacation time, but within fifteen days before or after the term.’ The clerk of the Hanaper was required to enter all writs, and whatever passed the Seal, in a book to be kept at the office for

public use. Provision was made for substitution of service. For the filing of Bills; for Attachments; that Counsel be careful that no pleadings contain needless repetitions, or matter scandalous,’ and if so, ‘both the parties and Counsel on whose side and under whose hand it passeth shall pay good costs to the party injured, and such Counsel shall receive the reproof of the Court, and the crime will be adjudged more gross, if it shall appear that such pleading passed ‘his hand without a deliberate perusal.’

That answers ought regularly to be positive, without saying, ‘It is as to remembrance or belief,’ if it be said to’ be done within seven years. That if a hearing be prayed upon bill and answer, the answer must be admitted to be true in all points, and no other evidence admitted unless it be a matter of record. If the Court shall not give a decree, the bill to stand dismissed with costs, or the plaintiff, if he desire it, allowed to reply, paying fifty shillings costs. Orders referring to Demurrers follow next; also respecting Pleas, Replications, Rejoinders, Dismissing bill for want of prosecution, examination of witnesses, &c. The Six Clerks, formerly the examinators of the Court, were required by Order XXVI. ‘to take care they employ under them in their office none but persons of known integrity and ability, who shall take an oath not to deliver or make known directly or indirectly to the adverse party, or any other (save the deponent who comes to be examined), any of the interrogatories delivered to be examined upon any examination taken or remaining in his office,’ under severe penalties therein stated. ‘The mode of exhibiting interrogatories, credibility of witnesses, &c., to be subject to the advice of the Master of the Rowles, or, in his absence, of a Master of the Court. The Carriage of Commissions, Processes of Contempt, Writs of Scire-Facias, and other processes to be made into the county where the party is resident, and if not to be found there, the same may issue with any county where estate lyeth. Punishment for Contempt of Court and Injunctions are fully provided for by Orders 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49.’

The Master’s Reports were regulated by Orders 50, 51, and 52, which direct, ‘The Masters are to be circumspect and wary on giving oaths, that they be reverently and knowingly taken, and are therefore to administer the same themselves to the party, and where they discern him rash or ignorant, to give him some conscionable admonition of his oath, and be sure he understandeth the matter contained in affidavit.’

Mode of sueing and defending *In forma Pauperis *was regulated by Orders 53, 54, 55, and 56. By Order 57 ‘Counsellors and Attornies are to make motions proper for themselves and after a cause is settled (hearing Counsel on both sides) no new motion is to be made to cross it, except it be upon new matter, and when any motion is made, the last order is always to be produced, and any order obtained without producing the last order, to be void, and the costs occasioned by the neglect to be paid by the party aggrieved.’

Decretal Orders were to be entered after ten days from Orders, the date of order pronounced, Order 58. Motion days, seal days, hearings, &c., were also definitely provided for. Notwithstanding the ability of the Lord Chancellors of Charles II’s. reign, I only find two hundred and fifteen decrees of that period enrolled.

Index Chapter 28 Home.