1 There is much evidence to suggest that Burghley was personally responsible for the increase in escheats activity in the 1590s and that he deliberately used the grant of concealments to stimulate such an increase, despite the opposition of important Irish officials. Thus when Sir Richard Bingham clashed with the escheators in Connacht in May 1593, he complained of their activities to Burghley and attempted to convince him that they hindered, rather than helped, the recovery of royal rights ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 169, no. 34 Google Scholar). Again, when the Irish attorney general, Calthorpe, discovered in Jan. 1594 that many officials were attempting to emasculate the grant of concealments by limiting its scope to recent concealments and exempting lands long detained from the crown, he at once reported it to Burghley for appropriate action (ibid., vol. 173, no. 7).

Throughout 1594 grants of concealments continued to be issued without any limitation of time or place. In May 1595 the most disinterested of the opponents of the policy of resumption, Lord Chief Justice Gardiner, was provoked into explicit protest to Burghley. ‘I find by the articles annexed to the said commission for Munster causes as by divers letters from her majesty and some from your honour obtained, that great quantities of concealed lands are here to be found and passed.’ Gardiner assured Burghley that because of ‘careless escheator’s survey and underhand and nimble officers, most of them come lately from England to make their better provision, her majesty thereby obtains titles worth almost nothing’, and that the search for concealments was creating bitter resentment (ibid., vol. 179, no. 78). Burghley paid no attention to Gardiner’s criticisms nor to those of the vice-treasurer, Sir Henry Wallop. In January 1596 Wallop and Gardiner complained bitterly to Burghley that their previous letters had been dismissed as ‘either not true or being true mentioned by some others’ (ibid., vol. 186, no. 11). Soon after this lastletter, which contained a most detailed indictment of the corruption of escheators and surveyors, Gardiner went to England where he saw Burghley personally and extracted from him a promise to ‘write for the end of the said such proceedings’. But Gardiner discovered in March 1596 that Burghley had done nothing to end the campaign of resumption and that commissioners were again going into Munster to search for concealments (ibid., vol. 187, no. 63).

Interesting light is thrown on Burghley’s attitude at this time by the case of Francis Shane, which Wallop and Gardiner presented as proof that the escheators were damaging rather than profiting the queen. Although the English attorney, Coke, certified that Shane’s land had been improperly, found as concealed and that in the process the queen had lost some£9 (Irish) a year rent, Burghley accepted the claim of the new lessees that if their patent were revoked it would fatally discourage the searchfor concealments. The new lessees were allowed to keep the land, at an increased rent, and Shane received no compensation. See certificate by attorney Coke, 4 Mar. 1596 (ibid., vol. 187, no. 13); information on behalf of the lessees, 18 Oct. 1595 (ibid., vol. 183, no. 92).

For Burghley’s precautions against abuse of the campaign of resumption, see memorandum touching concealed lands, June 1593 (ibid., vol. 165, no. 31); the case of Tracton and Dungarvan, 1624 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 15, nos 121, 122Google Scholar).

2 For a fuller account of Boyle’s early life see Carty’s, James unpublished thesis ‘The early life and times of Richard Boyle’ (approved for the degree of M.A. in Modern Irish History, N.U.I.; in U.C.D. Library, no. 13)Google Scholar.

It will be as well to indicate here the main sources for Boyle’s career. Boyle kept every paper which he thought might prove useful—patents, conveyances, leases, of course, but also the great majority of the letters written to him and most of the letters written by him. ‘Yourlordship does well to keep the copies of your letters to the earl of Cork’, wrote Wentworth to Clifford in May 1635, ‘for I will undertake for him he shall keep the originals, and as for his own letters he has such a collection as I am persuaded few men in Christendom have besides himself’. During Boyle’s lifetime this collection was kept in hisstudy in Lismore and in a strong box in Dublin. After his death there was anatural division between those papers which were still of relevance to titles and law suits, and those which ceased to have any practical significance. Patents, leases, rentals and so on fell into the first category, while letters, letter-books, personal and industrial accounts fell into the second. There was established a sharp division between the ‘historic’ manuscripts, which Boyle’s descendants were ready to show to scholars, and the legal documents which were felt to be of no concern to anyone but the family. The ‘historic’ documents were left in Boyle’s own files, while the patents, leases, etc., were moved from one file to the other as necessity demanded.

In the eighteenth century, Smith, the historian of Cork, was given permission to consult the ‘historic’ papers. This he did, rather arbitrarily, by tearing out pages from two great letter-books which covered the period 1629-43 and carrying them off. On his death these pages came to the British Museum, where they now form most of the Museum’s two volumes of Boyle material (B.M., Add. MSS 19831 and 19832). One of the ravished letter books was taken to Hardwicke at a later date, and is now at Chatsworth (Boyle letter-book, Chatsworth). The other letter-book is lost.

Then in 1884 Dr Grosart applied to the duke of Devonshire, into whose family most of Boyle’s lands had passed, for permission to edit and publish Boyle’s diary and a selection from his papers. On condition that nothing discreditable to Boyle should be published and that Grosart should defend his reputation, permission was given. The ‘historic’ papers were brought over to Chatsworth, the files broken up, the papers arranged chronologically in some 30 volumes, and an admirable calendar of them made (Boyle MSS, Chatsworth).

Grosart published the diary in full (Lismore papers, series I, i-v), and selections of the letters (ibid., series 2, i-v). The edition has many faults. There is no index, the notes are ludicrously inadequate, Grosart’s biographical study of Boyle (ibid., series 2, v) is both wildly inaccurate and eulogistic. But largely because he did not know which entries and which letters were incriminating to Boyle, Grosart did not distort through suppression. The diary is printed in full and reasonably accurately, while Grosart’s selection of the correspondence, being entirely haphazard, gives a fair sample of the material. There are, however, many misreadings and inaccuracies in the reproduction of the documents selected. [over]

Meanwhile the material left behind at Lismore, which included a few letters overlooked in 1884, was becoming obsolete as the Devonshires sold their estates in Ireland. It moved out of the category of personaland into the category of ‘historic’, and finally in 1952 the collection was transferred to the National Library of Ireland (Lismore MSS, N.L.I.). The collection is very extensive, containing the papers of Boyle’s successors as well as his own estate papers (Interim report on Lismore MSS, N.L.I., Special list 15). As yet it is uncatalogued and unarranged, and for this reason I refer in notes not to the original patents or leases but to the published summaries in the Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz. and Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, or to an inventory of deeds drawn up by Boyle in 1640 (Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142).

In addition to these collections of Boyle’s own papers, part of one of the Boyle volumes in the British Museum is made up of papers relativeto Boyle, and in particular his trial in 1599, collected by one Fitch (B.M., Add. MS 19831).

Of the other sources useful for Boyle’s career, I need mention here only the S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, preserved in the P.R.O., London, In this paper I have referred to the originals rather than to the Cal. S.P. Ire., because most of the references to Boyle or to the search for concealments are omitted in the published summary.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the duke of Devonshire for his permission to use the Boyle MSS at Chatsworth, and Mr Wragg, the keeper of the manuscripts there, for making their use so pleasant.

3 A good deal of evidence exists on Boyle’s exploitation of his office. In November 1593, for instance, one Edmund FitzMorrisLea acknowledged a debt of £9 to Boyle for ‘the obtaining of the said Edmund FitzMorris Lea his livery of his lands’. Again, in 1599, Boyle admitted that he had been given the wardship of one of the O’Maddens ‘for service, under the exchequer seal’. The accusations against him in 1599 charged him with less ‘legitimate’ perquisites. According to them he ‘secretly suppressed her majesty’s title and privately sold her majesty’s land for his own gain. He sold in Connacht, in O’Madden’s country only, 19 ploughlands.’ There can be little doubt that Boyle financed the projects described below from the profits of such activities. See bond of Edmund FitzMorris Lea, 2 Nov. 1592 (Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 7); charges against Richard Boyle, 16 Feb. 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 4).

4 This paragraph is based upon J. Carty, op. cit., pp. 30-35, and the sources there cited.

5 See especially Sir Francis Shane to Burghley, 25 July 1595 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 181, no. 57 Google Scholar); Shane’s answer to Warren’s information, 22 Oct. 1595 (ibid., vol. 183, nos 100 and 101).

6 Henry Deane’s evidence, 18 Feb. 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 7); Boyle’s answers to Deane, 23 Feb. 1599 (ibid., no. 8).

7 According to Deane, Boyle as ‘deputy-escheator and one Capstock, now deceased, deputy-surveyor, were linked in a confederacy so as no man could pass anything but as they listed . . . Boyle bound oneBarret to pass his book to Capstock before he returned offices on record’ (Deane’s evidence, 18 Feb. 1599, B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 7).

See also Sir Francis Shane’s answers, 22 Oct. 1595 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 183, nos 100 and 101Google Scholar); Sir Henry Wallop and Sir Robert Gardiner to Burghley, 10 Jan. 1596 (ibid., vol. 186, no. 11).

8 Royal letter of 24 July 1586 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 117); royal letter of 21 Feb. 1592 (ibid., pp. 228-9); lease to John Lye, 1 June 1592 (P.R.O.I. rep. D.K. 16-20, no. 5745).

9 See especially Shane to Burghley, 25 July 1595 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 181, no. 57 Google Scholar); petition of Crowe, Caddie and Fox, 15 Oct. 1595 (ibid., vol. 183, no. 86); Shane’s answer to Warren, 22 Oct. 1595 (ibid., nos 100 and 101).

10 Lease to Edmund Barret, 16 June 1595 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., pp. 313-4); Shane to Burghley, 8 Mar. 1596 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 187, no. 18 Google Scholar); information given to Burghley by Warren, 13 Oct. 1595 (ibid., no. 14).

11 Lease to John Lye, 26 Mar. 1593 (P.R.O.I. rep. D.K. 16-20, no. 5803); lease to John Lye, 10 Aug. 1594 (ibid., no. 5878). For Kilvehenny see Deane’s evidence, 18 Feb. 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 7). Proof that Lye’s leases were passed for Boyle is provided by conveyance by Lye to Boyle of lands granted on 10 Aug., 12 Aug. 1594 (inventory of deeds, 1640, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, p. 137); entry for 12 Feb. 1636 (Lismore papers, series 1, iv).

12 Lease to Deane and Rawson, 5 June 1594 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 273). This lease is given in full and discussed atlength in Carty, op. cit. The state of these lands at the end of Boyle’s career is best shown in a book of the lands assigned to Robert Boyle, drawn up in 1639 (Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6244). For Wentworth’s investigation see Joshua Boyle to the earl of Cork, 8 Apr. 1639 (Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, vol. 20, no. 6).

13 Some light is thrown upon the rôle of Stacke bythe ‘Confessions’ of Patrick Crosby. Crosby, who was Lord Deputy FitzWilliam’s agent and was often appointed temporary deputy-escheator by him, was only less active in the search for concealments than Boyle himself. He was, however, bitterly hostile to Boyle, and when in 1596 Sir Henry Wallop launched an attack on Boyle, Crosby turned queen’s evidence. According to the ‘Confessions’, Stacke came to Crosbywith the information that the land of Burreis, in Kerry, containing ‘54 ploughlands or there abouts’, was concealed, and suggested that Crosby should have it found for the queen and passed on a grant of concealments. Crosby, whose protection by the lord deputy made him an excellent ally for a local expert like Stacke, would dearly have loved a straight division of the spoils between them. But, as he comments bitterly, ‘ it were mere folly to find land unless the surveyor had been dealt withal beforehand to survey it favourably’. He therefore approached Capstock and they came to terms. In this instance Capstock was working not with Boyle but with Nicholas Kenney, Crofton’s successor as escheator-general. Itwas agreed that Kenney should find a title for the queen on evidence provided by Stacke, that Capstock should survey the land, and that Crosby should pass it on a grant of concealments. The land was to be divided equally between them.

All four journeyed into the country and the land was found for the queenand surveyed, but the legal authorities were unusually scrupulous and the inquisition was declared deficient. At this point Kenney decided to sell outand in return for his former services ‘Morrice Stacke undertook to get Kenney a lease for 7 years of 2 ploughlands in that country where there was an alum mine’. Capstock also decided to sell out and Crosby promised him £50 to survey the land when it was again found as concealed.

Crosby now procured a temporary deputation and successfully presented the case for a royal title himself. Capstock employed one of his provincial agents, James Hussey, to survey the land at the agreed rate. Then Crosby returned with his certificate and Hussey’s survey to Dublin ‘where he dealt with Capstock to make up the particular’, that is to make out a certificate of the survey and have it signed by Fenton. Capstock demanded the immediate payment of £40, and ‘presently in sight of Crosby told out of that £40 some part thereof, and said, “This shall get it done ”, and forthwith went to Sir Geoffrey Fenton and got his hand to the particular and delivered him the money as he said ’.

Crosby gave another instance in his ‘Confessions’ of this combination of local expert, Dublin expert, and surveyor. He declared that Patrick Grant’s grant of concealments was managed by William Dougan of Dublin and Helias Shea of Munster. Shea found land worth £100 a year and Dougan arranged to have it surveyed at £4 (Irish) a year, paying Antony Harpenny who surveyed the land 20 nobles. ‘And for that land should pass without any further survey they gave 20 marks to Sir Geoffrey and 10 to Capstock’.

Although Boyle himself is not mentioned in Crosby’s ‘Confessions’, the men named by Crosby were all close associates of his and are frequently referred to in his papers.

See ‘Confessions’ of Patrick Crosby, 1596 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 186, no. 11 Google Scholar).

14 Lease to Edmund Barret, 8 June 1595 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p.333); conveyance to Sir Henry Wallop, etc., 14 Jan. 1597 (ibid., p. 436). See also Boyle’s answers, 16 Feb. 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 4). For Killocken see report of the bishop of Elphin, 6 June 1637 (Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, vol. 19, no. 20). For Wentworth’s action in favour of the church see petition of William Newport, 5 July 1637 (ibid., no. 17). Very Rev. M. J. Canon Connellan confirms that the Killocken in question is Cill Luacainn near Strokestown (and not Cill Eimhín near Carrick-on-Shannon) and had no connection with any Dominican monastery.

It is difficult to say how much land in all was passed to Boyle or how much it was worth. According to Sir Henry Wallop, writing in Jan. 1596, Boyle and Capstock had ‘within less than a year gotten into their hands, being passed some in their own names and some in the names of others to their use . . . about 200 ploughlands of great value’ ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 186, no. 11 Google Scholar).

15 Carty, op. cit., discusses the relation between the activity of Boyle and his allies and the outbreak of the rebellions in some detail. Two contemporary documents postulating such a connection are: observations on Ireland, 3 Dec. 1596 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 196, no. 2 Google Scholar); report by Udall to Cecil, 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 2).

16 For Parsons’ and Kenney’s gains see the series of grants made in their own names in the early years of Jas I (Cal. pat. rolls Ire. Jas I). For Kenney’s part in the campaign seeRawson’s information, Feb. 1596 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 186, no. 99 Google Scholar). According toRawson, Kenney, who combined the offices of escheator-general and deputy-auditor, had ‘of late bought certain letters of concealed lands to be passed in fee farm, viz of Thomas Murray, Robert Honeyman and others, and to find out these concealed lands has procured commissions to himself and others, so as he is continually riding abroad about that business . . . Note now that this Kenney is the party that must have these lands, having boughtthese letters, and he is a commissioner in his own cause and also escheator. He will make what value he list to help himself’.

Crowe continued his interest in concealments well into the seventeenth century and there are many references in the Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, to his activities, often to Boyle’s disadvantage.

17 Helias Shea to Francis Mitchell, Jan. 1595 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 13 Google Scholar); receipt by James Shurlock of £100 from Spring, 29 Nov. 1595 (ibid., no. 17); James Shurlock to Mitchell, 2 Jan. 1596 (ibid., no. 18); and other bonds and receipts in the first volume of the Boyle MSS, Chatsworth.

18 Grant to Thomas Browne and his wife and to Richard Boyle and his wife, io June 1596 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire. Eliz., p. 362); conveyance by Browne to Boyle, 23 June 1598 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, p. 137); a list of property in Aherlo in 1603 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 17-19); enrolment by Boyle of a conveyance fromBysse and Dougan to Annabel Spring, 4 Apr. 1597 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire. Eliz., p. 437).

19 Grant to Isham, 4 Jan. 1597 (ibid., pp. 410-13); grant to Isham, 16 June 1597 (ibid., pp. 413-15); bond to Harpenny, 25 Sept. 1596 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 21 Google Scholar); release by Crosby, 3 Sept. 1605 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, p. 73); grant to Shurlock, 25 Nov. 1597 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire. Eliz., p. 495); conveyances by Shurlock to Casey, 1 Sept. 1595 and 7 Nov. 1595 (ibid., pp. 504-5); conveyance by Shurlock to Boyle, 17 May 1598 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, p. 137); deed by Strowbridge to Boyle, 5 Apr. 1597 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 24 Google Scholar); release by Crosby, 3 Sept. 1605 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, p. 25); acquittance by Champen to Stacke, 9 Mar. 1600 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 39 Google Scholar).

20 These adventures are traced in detail by Carty, op. cit. There are some errors in his otherwise excellent account owing to a necessary reliance upon the Cal. S.P. Ire., but it presents an accurate general picture.

We have seen in footnote 1 that up to the beginning of 1596 Burghley rejected the criticisms of the campaign of resumption made by Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Robert Gardiner, and other Irish officials. It will be of interest to trace briefly the development of his views after that date. During 1596 Burghley made no attempt to restrain escheats activity, but he did order inquiries into the conduct of the escheators and surveyors in general, and Boyle and Capstock in particular. The letter ordering an inquiry into Shane’s case went so far as to censure Fenton, and to threaten the dismissal of the attorney and sergeant, but the intention seems to have been rather to ensure that the queen profited as well as the escheators and their alliesthan to limit the search for concealments.

In December 1596, however, evidence came to Burghley’s notice which supported Gardiner’s thesis that the campaign of resumption had been largely responsible for the Connacht rebellion. A compilation of this evidence was drawn up and carefully examined by Burghley, as marginal comments in his hand demonstrate. Cases were cited of complaints against escheators made by men who were now in rebellion, and Sir Richard Bingham was quoted as saying that most of the grievances of Connacht sprang from the search for concealments there. Burghley’s comments indicate clearly that he was coming to accept this interpretation.

As a result the instructions drawn up on Feb. 1597 for the new lord deputy, Burgh, were a triumph for Wallop and Gardiner. Burgh was warned of the various malpractices of the escheators, authorised to establish a commission to hear complaints against them, and advised to take the advice of Wallop and Gardiner in this and all other matters. A new commission of inquiry into Boyle’s misdemeanours was issued to Burgh, Wallop and Gardiner. Armed with these powers, Wallop and Gardiner were not only able to keep Boyle in prison for most of 1597, but also able to bring escheats activity almost to a stop.

On Burgh’s death in October 1597 Fenton and his allies the judgesat once attempted to recommence the search for concealments through ‘general commissions granted out of the exchequer . . . for finding out concealed or forfeited lands’. Wallop and Gardiner used their authorityto forbid the issue of such general commissions, and their action was supported by Burghley who gave Gardiner supervisory powers over the exchequer court. By this time, clearly, Burghley had decided that the campaign of resumption must be abandoned.

In 1598, however, Wallop’s influence declined sharply enough to allow a resumption of escheats activity in Munster, though as far as one can see at the initiative of Fenton rather than of the English authorities. The outbreak of the Munster rebellion completed the conversion of Robert Cecil, who had succeeded his father as Elizabeth’s most influential minister, to Gardiner’s thesis. Cecil took the view, whether for reasons of expediency or conviction, that the Irish had many genuine grievances which should be redressed. Among these grievances was the conduct of the escheators. In January 1599 one of Cecil’s agents, Udall, wrote a long defence of the policy of conciliation, advising the punishment of notorious offenders in order to convince the Irish of the government’s change of heart. It was as the result of this letter that Boyle was arrested in February 1599 and thrown into the gate-house prison. See especially royal letter to the lord deputy on Shane’s case, 1596 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 196, no. 51 Google Scholar); observations on matters seeming to be out of order in Ireland, 3 Dec. 1596 (ibid., no. 2); draft instructions for Lord Deputy Burgh, annotated by Burghley, Feb. 1597 (ibid., vol. 197, no. 68); instructions for Burgh, Apr. 1597 (ibid., vol. 198, no. 95); Wallop and Gardiner to Burghley, 15 Dec. 1597 (ibid., vol. 201, no. 104); Udall to Sir Robert Cecil, Jan. 1599 (B.M., Add. MS 19831, no. 1).

21 For Crosby and his exploitation of Carew’s favour see especially: information against Crosby, 3 July 1600 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1600, pp. 294-9); Crosby’s answers, Dec. 1601 ( O., P.R., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 207, no. 125 Google Scholar).

22 See especially: deed between Sir Walter Raleigh and Richard Boyle, 7 Dec. 1602 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, pp. 37-8); grant to Sir Richard Boyle, 10 May 1605 (ibid., p. 41); record of an inquisition held at Tallagh, 2 Apr. 1605 (ibid., p. 66).

23 Lord Deputy Carey to Cecil, 20 Nov. 1603 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603-6, p. 108); William Parsons to Boyle, 7 May 1614 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 205-7).

24 Note by Salisbury on an Irish petition (Cal. S-P. Ire., 1606-8, p. 108); royal letter to lord deputy and council, 27 June 1605 (ibid., 1603-6, pp. 299-300).

25 Commission of defective titles, 10 June 1606 (Repert. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, pp. 299-301); observations on Irish finance, 1611 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611-14, p. 120).

26 Boyle’s papers provide some interesting evidence on the continuance of the search for concealments after 1603. It is clearthat before 1606 Boyle and others attempted to resume their old profitable exploitation of escheats activity. In 1605, for instance, Boyle agreed witha contact at court that he would manage a grant of concealments for him (Kellet to Boyle, 2 July 1605, Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, vol. 1, no. 139). He was also able to pass land on grants of concealments during this period (Greatrakes to Boyle, 2 July 1613, ibid., vol. 2, no. 68). After the issue of thecommission of defective titles there were no more grants of concealments, but it is clear that concealments were still found and passed on general grants from the king. There are many examples of this in Boyle’s papers. We may give as an instance the case of Kilcony, since it re-introduces William Crowe. On 18 Nov. 1618 Roger Jones, later Viscount Ranelagh, wrote toBoyle: ‘Mr Crowe, by the sinister suggestions of some of our neighbours in the county of Sligo, curiously prying into every man’s estate, has found that albeit your lordship passed the abbey of Court with many other lands thereto belonging, that yet there is one quarter called Kilcony which is not passed to your lordship by the said grant, of which he takes advantage and has procured an office to entitle his majesty thereto, as also to the quarter of Drombenda which is in my possession . . . which lands because they are not passed in particular words he has now passed again upon a letter of Sir Robert Jacobs and procured a lease of 60 years’ (ibid., vol. 9, no. 149). Boyle was forced to buy Crowe out. This example reminds us that the ‘unofficial’ search for concealments was sometimes directed against an adventurer where he was not strong enough to defend himself. But for the most part it was directed against the Irish. A letter from Connacht in 610 besought Carew ‘to ease us of this racking for concealments, for these people begin to think that we mean by little and little to root them out utterly’ ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 228, no. 47 Google Scholar). As a result the recusant agents complained in 1613 that ‘many ancient possessions and inheritances’ were ‘called in question upon old sleeping records, upon the prosecution of some private men for their own gain, passing letters patent thereof without any benefit of moment to theking’. Chichester’s answer admitted that ‘some leases have been granted by the deputy to such persons as he thought fit’. Another complaint spoke of the ‘many indirect practices used by someescheators and their deputies in the taking and returning of offices’, and another of ‘escheated lands of great value, for the benefit of surveyors and great men, surveyed at very low rates’ (Complaints of the recusant agents with Chichester’s answers, 1613, Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611-14, p. 373 et seq.).

Evidence of the exploitation of the commission of defective titles by adventurers is provided by Barnaby Riche in his Treatise of 1610 (the principal heads of Riche’s treatise, 1610, P.R., O., S.P. Ire., vol. 229, no. 152 Google Scholar; memorial on finance, 1610, ibid., vol. 228, no. 86). The very small compositions accepted are shown in a list of fines paid on the commission drawn up in 1611, probably as a result of Riche’s information (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611-14., p. 104, et seq.). In Sept. 1611 a compilation on Irish finance argued that revenue derived from compositions on the commission could be increased if ‘the order in making the like compositions in England’ were observed (ibid., p. 120).

Boyle’s own use of the commission amply illustrates its exploitation by the adventurer class. In March 1610 all Boyle’s lands were passed on the commission, partly in his name and partly in Thomond’s. Although, as correctly reported, the two allies passed ‘so many parcels of land as the particulars contained in a roll of parchment reach 16 yards in length’, they paid only £70 Irish composition between them (grant to Boyle, 23 Mar. 1610; grant to Thomond, 8 Mar. 1610, Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, pp. 157, 160-1). The title derived from composition on the commission was particularly useful to Boyle in the case of the Raleigh lands, the detailed story of which I have been unable to tell in this paper. Briefly, after Raleigh’s attainder, Boyle was able by complex and unscrupulous legal devices to undermine the titles of those who had obtained long leases from Raleigh. In so doing he exposed his own title to the estates to damaging challenge by the crown. In 1609 the chief justice of Munster, Edward Harris, presiding over one of Boyle’s successful suits against the Raleigh lessees, realised the grave weakness of Boyle’s title, wrote to warn him of it and advised him to take immediate steps to remedy the deficiency. But when Boyle came to compound for the lands on the commission no objection to his title was raised, and on the strength of his composition he was able to procure in 1614 a new patent on the commission of surrenders which gave him a secure title to the Raleigh estates. See Harris to Boyle, 24 Apr. 1609 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 131); grant to Boyle, 26 Jan. 1614 (ibid., 182-9). For a further discussion of these points see footnote 28.

27 Lease to William Taafe, 2 Sept. 1596 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 364); lease to Ludovic Bryskett, 13 Dec. 1594 (ibid., pp. 303-4); conveyance from Bryskett to Boyle, 13 Mar. 1595 (ibid., p. 323); conveyance from Taafe to Spring, 2 Oct. 1596 (ibid., p. 437).

Both these patents are given in Carty, op. cit. His treatment of the Taafe patent is, however, inaccurate in many details. He assumes that all the land passed on it was passed by Boyle for himself, and he counts it, with Rawson’s patent, as a record of Boyle’s acquisitions. In fact most of the land was passed in reversion for other landowners. Inchivikrinymonastery and its extensive lands were passed for John King.

The monastery of St John the Baptist was passed for the Croftons. Boyle passed for himself only lands first leased to Deane and Rawson for 21 years, among them the castle of Bealicke and its lands, the abbey of Court and the abbey of Rathbranna. In short, Boyle was managing Taafe’s grant of reversions and disposing of much of it to other landowners, presumably being allowed to use some part of it as his commission. As far as his own lands were concerned the patent marked part of the process of securing rather than of acquisition. It may be remarked that Boyle’s land was quite improperly passed either on Taafe’s grant or on Bryskett’s since Burghley had ruled that concealments should not be passed in reversion. Some 40 years later, during Wentworth’s attack on Boyle, the validity of his title to these lands was questioned because of this irregularity.

There remains the question of the castle of Clonebirne and its twelve quarters of land, which were passed on Taafe’s grant and which were later claimed by Boyle. Mr Carty assumed that these lands became forfeit upon Hugh Mc Tirlagh O’Connor Roe’s attainder for treason and were snapped up by Boyle. In fact, Boyle was acting for O’Connor Roe who had been pardoned after his attainder in 1587 and granted a 21 year leaseof his own lands. O’Connor Roe approached Boyle to obtain for him a grant in reversion and Boyle passed the lands on Taafe’s grant. But before payment or conveyance was made O’Connor Roe was again in rebellion and Boyle had no alternative but to claim the lands for himself.

See especially a letter from Connacht, 4 Mar. 1610 ( P.R., O., S.P. Ire., Eliz.-Geo. III, vol. 228, no. 47 Google Scholar); Boyle to Sir Robert Parkhurst, 12 Feb. 1633 (Boyle letter-book, Chatsworth, pp. 526-600).

28 The development of the general grant was conditioned by the fact that all royal land in Ireland was already tenanted. So in 1605 Chichester told Salisbury that very little ancient royal land had passed ongeneral grants because it was leased out on long leases at high rents. The grantees had concentrated upon concealments and forfeitures instead (Chichester to Salisbury, 25 May 1605, Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603-6, pp. 278-9). After 1605, Salisbury’s prohibition on the passing of concealments, though inevitably ineffective, made it more difficult for a grantee to depend entirely upon concealments and forfeitures for his profit. As we have seen the search for concealments went on, and it was the continued issue of general grants which frustrated Salisbury’s policy of conciliation. When Salisbury wrote to Chichester in 1611 asking him to answer charges thatsome landowners had been denied the benefit of the commission of defective titles, Chichester answered frankly: ‘It is not unlike that some of the lands to which certain persons in possession pretend title are passed upon books of fee farms or lease to strangers. For how could so many books as the king has given be filled up with increase of rents, if the grants didnot now and then pass lands escheated or long subtracted and detained from the crown. For his known inheritance is leased for so many years unexpired or so high surveyed, that little of it has passed upon books’ (ibid., 1608-11, p. 148). After Salisbury’s death there was even less pretence at enforcing the prohibition. When the surveyorgeneral, William Parsons, was accused in 1613 of undervaluing concealments, he defended himself bysaying that concealments were always passed on general grants and that his low rates benefited men whose profit had been intended by the king (ibid., 1611-14., p. 373 et seq.).

The general grant was not only a disguised grant of concealments. Indeed at least while Salisbury maintained his supervision of Irish affairs, the most important function of the general grant was to benefit those who already held land from the king. Despite Chichester’s evidence, a great deal of ancient royal land was passed in reversion on general grants, although very little of it was passed for the grantee. There were some cases in which the grantee passed land in reversion because he thought he could exploit a weakness of title to buy the lessee out. The earl of Thomond passed Catherlagh in this way and Sir Oliver Lambert passed Boyle’s castle of Bealicke. But in both these instances the lessee was able to defend himself, even in Boyle’s case to have the offending patent revoked, and this was typical of the hazards and risks of passing land in reversion (Thomond to Salisbury, 3 Mar. 1610, ibid., 1608-11, pp. 396-7; grant to Sir Oliver Lambert, 1 July 1607, Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 267; Boyle to Parkhurst, 12 Feb. 1633, Boyle letter-book, Chatsworth, pp. 526-600). In the great majority of cases land was passed in reversion and then conveyed to the man who already leased it, in return for a cash payment. Very many instances of this are given in this paper.

29 In 1610, before Boyle and Thomond had compounded upon the commission of defective titles, Riche complained that ‘many have altered their tenures under colour of amending their titles’. Boyle’s own grant on the commission amply confirms the truth of this statement, as the example given in this paper illustrates (see the sources given in footnote 38). This was another instance in which there was one law for the adventurer and one for the Irish. In 1613 the recusant agents complained of commissions granted to ‘mean men’ to seek out cases in which in capite tenure had been improperly changed or suppressed, alleging that these officers had forced landowners to compound several times for the same intrusion (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611-14., p. 373 et seq.).

30 Grant to Sir Richard Boyle, 10 May 1604 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 41); grant to Boyle, 23 Mar. 1610 (ibid., pp. 160-1); king’s letter for Boyle, 26 Jan. 1614 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 182-9).

31 I have been able to trace 25 patents in all, most of which can be found in Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I. These patents were passed on grants belonging to or assigned to Francis Blundell, Thomas Browne, Sir George Carew, Sir James Carroll, Sir John Davis, Francis Edgeworth, Sir John Everard, Sir James Fullerton, Sir James Hamilton, Sir John King, Sir Adam Loftus, Lord Roche, Sir James Semple, Sir William Taafe, the earl of Thomond, Sir William Ussher, Sir James Wakeman, Sir James Ware, Sir Charles Wilmot.

32 Assignment to Boyle by Carew, 30 Sept. 1603 (ibid., p. 12); grant to Boyle, 29 Nov. 1603 (ibid., p. 12); summary of grant of 1603 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, pp. 32-3).

33 Grant to Browne, 8 Mar. 1604 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 59); deed of feoffment from Browne to Boyle, 10 June 1604 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, pp. 138-9).

In these grants Boyle was able to repay George Shurlock for passing Galbally. The abbey of Mothell, passed on Carew’s grant, and the abbey of Cahir, passed on Browne’s grant, both belonged to Shurlock and were conveyed to him by Boyle.

34 Grant to Thomond, 30 July 1604 (Repert. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 140); grant to Thomond, 20 June 1606 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, pp. 78-9); grant to Thomond, 8 Mar. 1610 (ibid., p. 157); conveyances from Thomond to Boyle, 18 May 1606, 21 June 1606, 9 Mar. 1610 (inventory of deeds, Lismore MSS, N.L.I., MS 6142, pp. 127, 138-9, 141).

35 Annesley to Sir Humphrey May, 1613 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 158-60); Adam Loftus to Boyle, 1606 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 2, no. 48 Google Scholar). For Boyle’s relations with King, see Stoughton to Boyle, 4 Dec. 1603 (ibid., vol. 1, no. 13). For the part played by Annesley, see Evan Owens to Boyle, 3 Feb. 1615 (ibid., vol. 5, no. 133). For the part played by Parsons, see especially Parsons to Boyle, 17 Sept. 1613 (ibid., vol. 4, no. 94); Parsons to Boyle, 18 Feb. 1615 (ibid., vol. 5, no. 147).

36 Reference to Boyle’s participation in the management and sale of grants may be found in Lismore papers, series 1, passim; Boyle MSS, Chatsworth, vols 1-6, passim.

37 Grant to Sir James Hamilton, 13 Mar. 1606 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 76; grant to Sir Charles Wilmot, 15 June 1616 (ibid., pp. 280-2).

38 Grant to Taafe, 1 Jan. 1604 (ibid., p. 2); grant to Boyle, 23 Mar. 1610 (ibid., pp. 160-1); Fenton to Boyle, 25 July 1606 ( MSS, Boyle, Chatsworth, vol. 2, no. 27 Google Scholar); William Fenton to Boyle, 20 Feb. 1617 (Lismore papers, series 2, i. 67-8).

39 There are a number of examples in Boyle’s papers of small landowners making use of general grants to secure their lands. Thus on 14 June 1614 Boyle noted in his diary: ‘I received of WilliamMc Shane Oge’s son for passing Ballynard in fee simple on Wakeman’s book, £6, and he owes me a horse and £6 more’. On 15 Oct. 1615 Boyle noted that Edmund Fitzjohn Gerald had passed him the fee simple of 2 ploughlands and 40 acres ‘in consideration of which grant I paid for him to Mr Blundell for a lease of Cahirultane and the rest of his lands, except Ballymartyr, £50, and to Sir Charles Wilmot for the fee simple of his lands so leased, £100’. On 28 Dec. 1615 Boyle noted a payment of £46 to William Parsons and Adam Loftus for passing lands belonging to John and William Supple on Wilmot’s grant of fee simple. There are many more such examples among the Boyle papers (Lismore papers, series 1, i. 26, 84-5, 95).

40 Wentworth to Arundel, 19 Aug. 1633 (Sheffield City Library, Wentworth-Wodehouse papers, Strafford MSS, letter-book 8, no. 11). In May 1630 Boyle himself wrote to Sir William Beecher: ‘All his majesty’s lands in this kingdom are either passed away in fee farm or fee simple; he has nothing but the reversion of impropriations ... to reward his servants and suitors withal’ (Boyle letter-book, Chatsworth, pp. 102-5).