Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
The dominance of successive earls of Kildare in Anglo-Irish politics between 1470 and 1534 has prompted historians to label the period that of ‘the Kildare ascendancy’. This term denotes more than just the years in which the earls were in office; it includes assumptions about government policy, and the king’s relations with his Anglo-Irish magnates. From the later fourteenth century, the crown had normally maintained a deputy in Ireland directly from its English resources; and from his salary the deputy agreed to provide a retinue for the defence of the lordship. The scale of subvention and size of the retinue declined progressively, however, and the Irish revenues were too small to support a deputy lacking a substantial landed interest there: the king therefore sacrificed a degree of political control for financial economy and after 1478 relied almost exclusively on the local power of Kildare.
1 I am very grateful to Dr Christopher Haigh of Manchester University who supervised my earlier research and made a number of helpful comments on, and criticisms of, this paper.
2 Richardson, & Sayles, , Ir. pari, in middle ages, pp 151–5, 227–9Google Scholar; Lydon, J.F., The lordship of Ireland in the middle ages (Dublin, 1972), pp 269–71, 273, 277–8.Google Scholar
3 The performance of these governors is discussed by Quinn, D.B., ‘Henry VITI and Ireland, 1509–34’ in I.H.S., 12, no. 13 (Sept. 1961), pp 318–44.Google Scholar
4 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 277–8,Google Scholar and Ireland in the later middle ages (Dublin, 1972), pp 179–81, and MacCurtain, Margaret, Tudor and Stuart Ireland (Dublin, 1972), pp 5–16, 20–21,Google Scholar are interpretations which seem to be based on Quinn’s factual account (loc. cit., PP 322–44).
5 Quirin, loc. cit., pp 324, 329–32, 336–7, 339–41, 343–4; Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 277–8Google Scholar; MacCurtain, , Tudor and Stuart Ireland, pp 7, 11, 14–15.Google Scholar
6 Quinn loc. cit., p. 344; Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, p. 277.Google Scholar Cf. Quinn, loc. cit., pp 333–4, 336, 340–41.
7 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 273, 276–8Google Scholar; Ireland in the later middle ages, pp 179–81; MacCurtain, , Tudor and Stuart Ireland, pp 7, 11–15, 20Google Scholar; Morton, G., Elizabethan Ireland (London, 1971), p. 55,Google Scholar Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 408 Google Scholar; Curtis, , Med. Ire. (1938), p. 352,Google Scholar Bryan, D., The Great Earl of Kildare (1933), p. 263.Google Scholar
8 Edwards, , Church & state, pp 1–2 Google Scholar; ‘The Irish reformation parliament of Henry VIII, 1536–7’ in Hist. Studies, vi. (London, 1968), p. 59, Quinn, ‘Henry Villi and Ireland’, pp 342–3Google Scholar; Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, p. 278.Google Scholar
9 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 191–4, 222–3, 242–5, 248–50, 272–4Google Scholar; Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 402–8Google Scholar; Richardson, & Sayles, , Ir. parl, in middle ages, pp 269–75, 279Google Scholar; Elton, G.R., England under the Tudors (2nd ed., London, 1974), pp 22–35, 38–41, 72–4, 89–97Google Scholar
10 Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 323–4Google Scholar; Elton, G.R., The Tudor revolution in government (Cambridge, 1953), pp 37–9,CrossRefGoogle Scholar England under the Tudors, p. 92. A campaign to restore royal authority in Ireland had been mooted in 1483 and 1491, and in 1506 Henry VII had contemplated leading an army of 6,000 men in person L. & P Ric. III & Hen. VII, i, 43, 377; Bayne, C.G. and Dunham, WH. Jr. (ed.), Select cases in the council of Henry VII (Seldon Soc, 75, London, 1958), pp 46–7.Google Scholar
11 S. P. Hen. VIII, ii, 73–5, 90–91 Cf. L. & P Hen. VIII, Hi, no. 1675, For a different view, see Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 327–8, 330, 336, 344,Google Scholar and MacCurtain, , Tudor and Stuart Ireland, p. II.Google Scholar
12 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 258–60.Google Scholar In 1501–2, Sir William Darcy as receiver general accounted for revenues of £1,587 3s. 3d., including a scutage and a parliamentary subsidy : Betham’s extracts from pipe rolls, N.L.I., MS 761, ff 327–32. Cf. S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 78. In 1485, £185 12s. 8d. was available to the governor from the revenues after ministers’ fees and other expenses had been paid : Quinn, D.B., ‘Guide to English financial records for Irish history, 1461–1558’ in Anal. Hib., 10 (July 1941), pp 17–27.Google Scholar The subsidy yielded perhaps a further £500 : Quinn, D.B., ‘The Irish parliamentary subsidy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’ in R.I.A. Proc., 42 (1935), sect. C, pp 228–30.Google Scholar Kildare’s army seems normally to have comprised 120 kerne md 160 galloglass : Hore, & Graves, , Southern & eastern counties, p. 161.Google Scholar
13 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 275–6Google Scholar; Ireland in the later middle ages, pp 155–7; B.M., Harleian MS 3756, ff 13–24.
14 The exchequer received £894 11s. 7¾d. from Kildare’s lands for the year 1536–7 at a time when they were just recovering from the rebellion (Cal. Carew MSS, i, no. in). All but £76 15s. 8d. of this was from Cos Kildare and Meath. For the 3¾ years, 1534–7, the under-treasurer accounted for £1,078 8s. o¾d. from crown lands, although his accounts suggest that under Kildare, 1532–4, the lands had been made to yield c. £420 p.a. (P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2).
15 S. P Hen. VIII, ii, 37, 45, 60–61, 65–66, 69–70, L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 2693; Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 322, 324, 329–30.Google Scholar In 1516–17, Ormond had been on the brink of rebellion as a result of Henry’s refusal to confirm his claim to the earldom (L. & P. Hen. VIII, ii, nos 1230, 1269), although he later gave good service under Surrey.
16 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 58, 76, 89–90; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ni, nos 1646, l675, 1709, 1774; Quinn, loc. cit., pp 328–9.
17 L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 81, N.D., probably early Jan. 1522; it precedes L. & P. Hen. VIII, iii, no. 1762, N.D., probably early Feb. 1522), 81 (2) (c. Oct 1522?, cf. ibid., iii, no. 2693); S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 97–8, 1363 Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 93; Quinn, loc. cit., pp 331–2.
18 John Butler, sixth earl of Ormond, was formally restored in 14,75, but he and his brother, Thomas, seventh earl (d. 1515), were absentees. Thomas later appointed his heir-male, Sir Peter Butler, as his deputy in Ireland, so that the retainder of the latter by the eighth earl of Kildare (d. 1513) contained the rivalry until the death of the two earls (Ormond deeds, 1413–1509, no. 316; Powicke, F.M. & Fryde, E.B. (ed.), Handbook of British chronology (2nd ed. London, 1961), p. 463).Google Scholar
19 For example, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 100, 105, 107, 117, 121–4; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 1352.
20 For example, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 136, 141, 143, 145–7; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 1352, 3698, 3817, 3922, 4302.
21 Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 323, 332–4, 342Google Scholar; S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 34–5, 43, 46–8, 50, 57, 123–4, 133, 14l, 143, 146, 148; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 1352, 3698, 3699, 5084, 5349.
22 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 105, 117, 134, 137–8, 148; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 4312, 4933, Quinn, loc. cit., pp 330–35, 337; Ormond deeds, 1509–47) no. 149, 150; Handbook Brit, chron., p. 460.
23 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 126–30; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 4302, 4933 (r, 1527, placed 1528). Ormond left Ireland in Aug. 1526, Kildare after 20 Dec. (Quinn, loc. cit., p. 333; Dignitas decani, p. 55).
24 Quoted in L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 3698; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 126–8; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 4094, 4302, 4933; Handbook Brit. chron., p. 156. Cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 3698. The patent of neither vice-deputy has survived.
25 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 126–8. Cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 3698–700. Delvin’s inability to maintain his retinue necessitated an extension within the Pale of the practice of ‘coign and livery’. It was further extended under Ossory, though Kildare followed Delvin’s precedent : S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 503.
26 L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 4094. Ossory returned between 23 Feb. and 10 May, probably after 20 Mar. : Ormond deeds, 1509–47, nos 137, 139, 140; L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 4248. Cf. Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 334–5.Google Scholar
27 S.P Hen. VIII, ii 127–30, 134–40, 143, 154 n. L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, nos 4264, 4302, 4422, 4510, 4546, 4562, 4609, 5349.
28 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 140 n.
29 L. & P. Hen. VIII, v, no. 398 (p. 306). In Feb. 1529, Ossory admitted ‘quod maxima pars dicti comitatus [Meath] est wastata, deper-data & desolata, nonnullis spoliacionibus & cremacionibus per ipsum nunc Oconghor & complices suos anno instante factis, necnon diversis aliis injuriïs ligeis nostris in eodem comitatu comorantibus illatis’ (printed (inaccurately) in Quinn, , ‘Irish parliamentary subsidy’ : p. 241,Google Scholar from Memoranda roll, 20 Hen. VIII m. 18d (Commissions, Hilary term; Ferguson extracts, P.R.O.I. MS ia 49 136, f. 137). He also complained that he could not afford the deputyship (L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 5349). Lord Chancellor Alen brought £100 with him to Ireland early in 1529, but only for use as the king directed.
30 Quinn, D.B., ‘Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, and his connexion with Ireland, 1529–30’ in I.H.R. Bull, 12 (1935), pp 175–7Google Scholar; L & P. Hen. VIII, v, 313, 314, 318, 319, 325; S. P Hen. VIII, ii, 147–8, iii, 21–2; Memoranda roll, 24 Hen. VIII m. 15 (St. Peter’s College, Wexford. Hore MS I, pp 1176–80).
31 L. & Ρ Hen VIII, iv, no. 6541, v, 318–21, 325. The complaints of the previous three years about disorders in the Pale and the threat from the Irish cease about 1530 (though this may be an illusion created by the lack of evidence), and hostings against them recommence (Ann. Conn., A.L.C., A.F.M., A.U., s.a. 1530, 1531 1532).
32 L. & P Hen. VIII, v, no. 1061; Quinn, , ‘Henry Vili and Ireland’, pp 338–9.Google Scholar
33 L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 5349. For alienations, see for instance Ormond deeds, 1509–47, nos 100, 130; Fiants, Ire., Hen. VIII, nos 11, 13, 20, S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 169.
34 Quinn, D.B. (ed.), ‘The bills and statutes of the Irish parliaments of Henry VII and Henry VIII’ in Anal. Hib., 10 (July 1941), pp 114–16, 120–23, 126–7, 134, 137Google Scholar; S. P. Hen. VIII, ii, 149–50, 169; L. & P. Hen. VIII, in, no. 670, iv, nós 80, 81. The previous subsidy, granted to Kildare as deputy in 1516, had expired in 1526. In the earlier fifteenth century there were complaints that those elected to parliaments were wholly under the influence of the magnates ( Griffith, M.G., ‘The Talbot-Ormond struggle for control of the Anglo-Irish government, 1414–47’ in I.H.S., 2, no. 9 (Sept. 1941), pp 378, 383–5, 388–30).Google Scholar If this phenomenon was unchecked in the early sixteenth century, when few representatives attended from beyond the Pale, Kildare’s influence there must have been almost invincible.
35 For example, Loades, D.M., Politics and the nation, 1450–1660 (London, 1974), pp 117–8, 132–4, 139–41.Google Scholar Like Kildare, however, the northern magnates were not defenceless against this policy : cf. James, M.E., ‘A Tudor magnate and the Tudor state • Henry Percy, fifth earl of Northumberland’ in Borthwick Papers, no. 30 (York, 1966), p. 3 and passim.Google Scholar
36 In the north, in contrast, royal policy aimed at attracting men into the king’s service by fee or office and to develop the king’s landed position as a counterweight to those of other magnates ( Loades, , Politics and the nation, pp 140–41Google Scholar; James, , ‘Tudor magnate’, pp 17–19 Google Scholar; ‘Change and continuity in the Tudor north’ in Borthwick Papers, no. 27 (York, 1965), pp 9–12).
37 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 272, 275,Google Scholar Ireland in the later middle ages, pp 163–4; Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 319–20Google Scholar; Cal. pat. rolls, 1476–85, pp 90, 118, 153, 210, 403, ibid., 1485–94, PP 84, 252. Cf. Griffith, , ‘Talbot-Ormond struggle’, pp 378, 383–6, 388.Google Scholar
38 Colley to [Cromwell], 9 June 1536 (PRO., S.P. 1/104/158; L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, no. noe). Cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 179. See S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 187, and below, for evidence that Kildare and Ormond retained the judges and the king’s legal counsel.
39 [W Cowley?) to Cromwell (S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 168); Gwynn, , Med. province Armagh, p. 64.Google Scholar
40 For this and some of what follows, see Ball, , Judges, 1, 114–15, 120, 193–5.Google Scholar Cf. Memoranda roll, 9–10 Hen. VIII m. 10, 19 Hen. VIII m. 13 (P.R.O.I. MS 1a 49 136, ff 41,48, 113).
41 Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 80. The reserved appointments remained the same in Kildare’s patent of 1524 (ibid., no. 100). Bail’s remarks on the treasurership are inaccurate : Sir William Darcy was under-treasurer by Oct. 1523 but Kildare reappointed Trimbieston in Sept. 1524 (Memoranda roll, 15 Hen. VIII m.2id, 16 Hen. VIII m.4 (B.M., Add MS 4791, ff 199v, 200v)); the lord treasure ship was held successively by Prior Rawson (Feb. 1522-mid-1524) and Ormond himself (L. & P. Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2087; Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 101). See also below for Trimbieston and Fingías.
42 L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 5349.
43 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 117–18; L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 1352. For Darcy’s case, see Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 321–2.Google Scholar On being recommissioned as deputy in 1524, Kildare undertook not to stir up the Irish against him.
44 L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 3698; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 168, 179. Gf. Quinn, loc. cit., p. 341.
45 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 168–9. The document is undated, but composed in England after Kildare’s summons to court in 1533, probably by Walter Cowley on information supplied by Ossory. Of the six clans mentioned, O’Neill, O’Byrne, and O’Toole supported the rebels in 1534-5. O’Neill’s raids on Louth, with the assistance of Kildare’s brother, were probably to settle an old score for the earl. The Dublin marches had been weakened as a result of a fine for praemunire exacted from Alen, Archbishop (S.P Hen. VIII, 2, 158–9),Google Scholar which prevented him from protecting his lands properly. Kildare maintained Fitzpatrick’s tanist against Ossory, resulting in the murder of Ossory’s son ; and Kildare’s raids on McMahon and O’Reilly, probably in support of O’Neill (cf. A.U., s.a. 1532), may have been offensive rather than reprisary.
46 A.L.C., Ann. Conn., A.U., A.F.M., s.a. 1524, 1525, 1526.
47 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 131–2; Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 335–6.Google Scholar Kildare had his revenge on O’More immediately after his return in 1530, leading a hosting against him : Dublin annals, Ware’s transcript (B.M., Add. MS 4791, f. 138).
48 A.L.C., Ann. Conn., A.F.M.. A.U., s.a.; Kildare’s rental, entries of indentures (B.M., Harl. MS 3756, ff 1–10v the last entry, disregarding Elizabethan ones, is of 13 Nov. 1532).
49 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 161: A.F.M. s.a. 1532, 1533; see also below.
50 Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 321, 323–4, 333, 340–41Google Scholar But cf. Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, p. 277 Google Scholar; MacCurtain, , Tudor and Stuart Ireland, p. 15 Google Scholar; Morton, , Elizabethan Ireland, p. 15.Google Scholar
51 Edwards, , Church & state, pp 1–2,Google Scholar ‘Ir. reformation pari.’, pp 5960; Morton, , Elizabethan Ireland, p. 15 Google Scholar; MacGurtain, Tudor and Stuart Ireland, pp 15, 20.Google Scholar The fullest accounts are in Bagwell, , Tudors, 1, 156–64Google Scholar; Wilson, , Beginnings mod. Ire., pp 87–93 Google Scholar; and Fitzgerald, Brian The Geraldines (Dublin, 1951), pp 195–227.Google Scholar
52 Cal. S.P Spain, 1534–8, pt 1, no. 87 (the Imperial ambassador’s view). Cf. Elton, G.R., ‘Thomas Cromwell’s decline and fall’ reprinted in Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government (Cambridge, 1974), 1, 193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 339–40.Google Scholar Sir Thomas Boleyn, later earl of Wiltshire, was created earl of Ormond in 1528 and given some of the Butler lands.
53 L. & P Hen. VIII, vi, no. 857; Cal pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 8. Kildare granted the manor of Rathwere to Offaly in November, though Cromwell’s influence is apparent in its regrant the following August to Darcy, John : L. & P Hen. VIII, 7,Google Scholar no. 1068 (7), viii, no. 250. In part, the appearance of closer supervision by Cromwell may be an illusion created by the chance of survival of his papers in contrast to Wolsey’s. This is not the whole explanation, however. Wolsey had deputies summoned to court, and rang the changes every two years, he interrogated in council, and presided in star chamber ; but in ten year., he made no attempt to apply to Ireland his northern policies regarding royal patronage and buying up land for the crown : Cromwell was attacking the basis of Kildare’s position within a few months of assuming control. For a different view of Cromwell’s policy, see Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, p. 343.Google Scholar
54 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vi, nos 299 iii, 551 ii, vidi, nos 728, 729; S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 180–81. For the activities of Cromwell’s chaplains, see Ellis, S.G., ‘The Kildare rebellion and the early Henrician reformation’ in Hist. Jn., 19, no. 4 (Dec. 1976), p. 811.Google Scholar
55 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 155, 162–92; Quinn, ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 340–41.Google Scholar
56 Examination of Antony Butyn, 31 May 1533 (P.R.O., S.P.2/0/3; L. & P Hen. VIII, vi, no. 567). The connection with Kildare’s activities is the probable reason for the examination’s survival (among Cromwell’s papers?).
57 R. Delahide to Cromwell, 10 Oct. 1533 (P.R.O. S.P.60/2/14; L. & P. Hen. Vili, vi, no. 1250 (calendared inadequately)); ibid., vi, no. 105 (11, 16), vii, nos 407, 553; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 3, 5, 14; Ball, , Judges, 1, 191–3, 198, 200–02.Google Scholar Bermingham had held the chancellorship by English patent of 1520 : Cromwell may initially have thought the office vacant by. his death.
58 Kildare to Wiltshire, 5 Aug. 1533 (P.R.O. S.P. 1/78/91; L. & P Hen. VIII, vi, no. 944). Cf Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 2.
59 Cromwell’s remembrances (B.M., Titus MS B I, ff 427, 453v, L & P. Hen. VIII, vi, nos 1381, 1382); ibid., vi, no. 1056.
60 Cromwell to Kildare, draft N.D. (P.R.O., S.R1/238/188; L. & P Hen. VIII, Add., no. 889).
61 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 193. The same point was made by Ossory on taking office in 1522 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 81).
62 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 181 In 1528, the new deputy required the king’s letters to Kildare’s steward to release the ordnance (ibid., ii, 145). The reprimand probably concerned the Kildare-Ormond feud (L. & P Hen. VIII, vi, no. 1056).
63 Cal. S.P Spain, 1529–33, pt 11 (2), no. 1133, Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74) no. 41; Quinn, , ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, pp 341–2.Google Scholar
64 Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, pp 809–10, 812.Google Scholar
65 L. & P Hen. VIII, vi, no. 1069; Cal. S.P. Spain, 1529–33, pt 11 (2), nos 1133, 1161 There is a chronological difficulty, in that sometime before the rising, Offaly was at court : S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 198; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 71–2. Had Offaly left Ireland after Kildare’s departure in February, the earl’s patent would have lapsed, as occurred in June when Delvin’s election as justiciar annulled it (P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii, pt 11, no. 1310 11 2). Tentatively, (Dffaly’s arrival may be placed with his step-mother’s.
66 Examination of Robert Reyley, 5 Aug. 1536 (Lambeth, MS 602, ff 138–40v; Cal. Carew MSS 1515–74, no. 84); S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 182 : Cal. S.P Spain, 1529–33, pt 11 (2), no. 1161 ; Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 1 The commission of 1534 has not survived, but cf. that of 1519 Red Bk Kildare, pp 188–9.
67 Talbot to Agard, II Sept. 1535 (Lambeth, MS 602, f. 130; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix no. 347); Lambeth, MS 602, ff 138v, 139; Lynch’s deposition against R. Delahide, 21 Jan. 1535 (P.R.O., S.P.60/2/64; L. & P. Hen. VIII, viii, no. 82); Examination of OfFaly, c. Oct. 1535 P.R.O., S.P.60/2/159; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, no. 514); Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 1; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 273. Cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 174.
68 Report to Hen. VIII, c. Feb. 1534 (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 183). For the tradition that Offaly was a ‘headlong hotspur’, see especially Stani-hurst in Holinshed, , Chronicles (1808), 6, 304.Google Scholar Offaly himself asserted, admittedly afterwards, that the rebellion ‘came nothyng of my owne mere mosyon’ (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 273). Cf. P.R.O., S.P.60/2/159, S.P.60/2/64; Lambeth, MS 602, f. 130.
69 P.R.O., S.P.6/3/178 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, vi, no. 1487 ii), S.P.1/238/188 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, Add. no. 889); Elton, , Tudor revolution in government, pp 361–7.Google Scholar Cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 121.
70 Cal. S.P. Spain, 1529–33, pt π (2), no. 1161, 1534–5, pt 1 nos 4 8, 9, 45; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 121.
71 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 194–5; B.M., Titus MS Β 13 f. 467 (L. & P. Hem. VIII, vii, no. 420); Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt 1, no. 70; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 286).Google Scholar The view that Kildare was placed in the Tower on arrival seems to have originated with the Anglo-Irish chroniclers (Cal. Carew MSS, Book of Howth, p. 193; Stanihurst (op. cit., p. 286).
72 Lambeth, MS 602, ff 138v–9v (Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84); L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, nos 614, 736, ix, no. 514. Chapuys had written in April that Kildare was ‘mail dispose de corps et du cerveaul dessorte quii ne le fault mestre en nombre de ceulx que pourraient servir a vostre maieste, ny anitre’ (Cai. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt h no. 145).
73 Lambeth, MS 602, f. 139. Kildare was well enough to sign warrants on 30 April (B.M., Add. MS 19865, f. 15). The date of his death appears in Pender, Séamus (ed.) ‘The O Clery book of genealogies’ in Anal. Hib., 18 (1951), p. 179,Google Scholar and is confirmed by Chapuys, (L. & P. VIII, 7, no. 1193)Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt i, no. 87) and Hamilton, W.D. (ed.), Wriothesley’s chronicle (London, 1875), s.a. 1534.Google Scholar
74 Cal Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 228.
75 Examination of Offaly, c. Oct. 1535 (P.R.O., S.P.60/2/159; L. & P Hen. VIII, ix, no. 514); Lambeth, MS 6012, ff 138–40v (Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84, misses this point).
76 Lambeth, MS 602, ff 130–9v; L. & A Hen. VIII, vii, no. 957; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 288)Google Scholar; B.M., Add. MS 4787, f. 54.
77 Preamble to the attainder of Kildare, May 1536 (Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c, 1; Lambeth, MS 602, f. 139v; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 193–5; Cal pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 7, 12.
78 Quinn, , ‘Henry Vili and Ireland’, pp 329–30, 334–6Google Scholar; see also above.
79 Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 144; S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 126, 131–2, 143–7, L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, no. 5748 (2). Cf. L. & P Hen. VIII, iv, 5815 (8). Ossory’s attempt to obtain proof of treasonable conspiracy against Kildare was unsuccessful, though many retainers involved in the 1534 rising were implicated.
80 Archbishop Marsh’s Library, Dublin, MS Z4 2 7, f. 410 (Loftus’s Annals); T.C.D., MS 543/2, s.a. 1534; Lambeth, MS 6012, f. 139v Between the demonstration on 11 June and mid-July, by which time news of Kildare’s arrest would have reached Ireland, nothing is known about the activities of Kildare’s supporters. Archbishop Cromer held a provincial synod at Drogheda on 30 June, however, suggesting that any disorders in the Pale cannot have been very serious : Gwynn, Aubrey & Murray, L.P (ed.), ‘Calendar of Archbishop Cromer’s register’ in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., 10 (1941–4), p. 126.Google Scholar
81 These and other aspects of the rebellion are discussed in Ellis, ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, passim.
82 Wernham, R.B., Before the Armada (London, 1966), p. 138.Google Scholar
83 Lambeth, MS 602, f. 139v (Cal. Carew M SS, 1515–74, no. 84); L. Se P. Hen. VIII, vii, nos 924, 957, 980. Ossory had returned by 16 July : Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 197.
84 Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt 1, nos 70, 84, 86, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 198, 200, 228; Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII, c. 1.
85 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii, pt xii, no. 1310 11 2; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 198, 200, 217; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 292, 294)Google Scholar; SirWare, James, The histories and antiquities of Ireland, ed. Ware, R. (Dublin, 1704), p. 89 Google Scholar; Cal. Carew MSS, Book of Howth, p. 193; Lambeth, MS 602, f. 139v; A.U., Ann. Conn., A.L.C., s.a. 1534; A.F.M. s.a. 1535. Alen’s case is related by Bagwell, , Tudors, pp 165–6.Google Scholar For an interpretation of its significance, see Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, pp 811, 814–15, 819–20.Google Scholar
86 Lambeth, MS 602, f. 140. Cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 108. En route, Offaly reduced the castles of Sir Walter Bedlow of Roche, an important Co. Louth marcher, and of O’Neill of the Fews.
87 Hore, & Graves, , Southern & eastern counties, p. 43.Google Scholar Devereux was head of the principal Anglo-Irish family in Wexford and justice of the liberty. The rebels burnt the town, stripping it of £300 worth of goods.
88 T.C.D., MS 543/2, s.a. 1534, MS 591, f. 12; Marsh, MS Z4 2 7, ft 410–0v; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 293–5Google Scholar); Lambeth, MS 602, f. 140 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84).
89 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 250–1; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 293–6)Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt. 1, no. 87; Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 1; R. Butler (ed.), Annals of Thady bowling (Ir. Arch. Soc, 1849), s.a. 1534; B.M., Add. MS 4791, if 259–9v.
90 For Desmond, O’Brien and the MoCarthies, see Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, pp 821–2Google Scholar; S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 229, 251–2. In Tipperary, Kildare’s castle of Knockgraffon provided a base for attacks on the Butlers (S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 251). The revolt in Munster and south Leinster is discussed in Ellis, S.G., ‘The Kildare rebellion, 1534’ (M.A. thesis, University of Manchester, 1974, pp 109–11, 123–30).Google Scholar
91 L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1404, viii, no. 82, ix, no. 347; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 200, 270, 371; Marsh’s Library, MS Z4 2 7, f. 410; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, pp 295–6)Google Scholar; P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2 (L. & Hen. VIII, xii, pt ii; no. 1310 11 10).
92 Printed from B.M., Add. MS 19865, f. 15, in Ellis, S.G., ‘Privy seals of chief governors in Ireland, 1392–1560’ in I.H.R. Bull. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
93 The government drew up lists of rebels, probably for use in proceedings in king’s bench and in exacting fines for the pardon proclaimed in 1537; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 229, 320. P.R.O., E. 101/248/23, f. 2, refers to one such list. The pardons, however, do not appear on the patent rolls, and only two are known (Dowdall deeds, no. 222).
94 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 279–80. Cf. ibid., ii, 266, 295. Exceptionally, tenants failed to follow lords who remained loyal, as those of the absentee earl of Wiltshire who, the bailiff reported, ‘dyd ayde [the} traytor thomas fytzgerald, and as they saith, for the only sauffegarde of ther lyffis’ (P.R.O., S.P 1/239/153; L. & P Hen. VIII, Add., no. 982). Wiltshire’s lands, however, adjoined Kildare’s.
95 Listed with references in Ellis, ‘Kildare rebellion’, app. 11 : a few have come to light since. The names survive mainly in reports of ringleaders forwarded by the council, in informations, and in the Irish attainder. The role of the clergy is discussed in Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, pp 812–22.Google Scholar
96 Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt 1. nos 70, 71, 75; L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, no. 924; P.R.O., E. 101/421/6 nos 35, 36, 39.
97 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1014; Cal. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt 1, no. 75. Letters to Waterford, Limerick and Sir John Fitzgerald of Desmond have survived (Lambeth, MS 632, f. 262 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1099); B.M., Add. MS 4799, ff 42, 44 (L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, nos 1144, 1145)).
98 Chapuys to Charles V, 29 Aug. 1534 (P.R.O., Transcripts, MS 31/18/3 1, f. 127; L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1095); B.M., Add. MS 19865 f. 14v Lambeth, MS 602. f. 157 (Cal Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 135). St Lawrence, the son of Lord Howth. had custody of the castle at Artane in which Archbishop Alen was executed. He appears to have saved himself by fleeing to court (Lambeth, MS 602, f. 139v (Cal. Carew MSS. 1515–74. no. 84); S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 217; Ball, , judges, 1, 202),Google Scholar his office of chief remembrancer being confirmed to him by English patent of 17 Aug. (Cal. pat. rolls Ixe., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 96)., He was among the retainers with Kildare in\ England in 1519 (L. & P Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2693).
99 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 204; B.M., Add. MS 19865, f. 14v; Lambeth, MS 602, f. 157 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 135). Cf. Fletcher, A., Tudor rebellions (2nd ed., London, 1973), pp 27–33.Google Scholar
100 For exampile, among the gentry, David Sutton of Rathbride, Co. Kildare, a receiver, and James Boys of Balldul•lane, Co. Meath, constable of Maynooth castle, who were also auditors of the earl’s accounts (B.M., Harl. MS 3756, ff 3v, 36, Add. MS 19865, f. 15; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 232).
101 Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 3–6; P.R.O., S.P. 65/1/2 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii, pt 11, no. 1310 11 1).
102 Lynch’s deposition against R. Delahide, 21 Jan. 1535 (P-R-O-j S.P.60/2/64; L. & P Hen. VIII, viii, no. 82); S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 229, L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, no. 553.
103 P.R.O., S.P.60/2/159 (L. & P Hen. VIII, ix, no. 514); S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 225, 245; Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 298)Google Scholar; Record commissioners’ repertory to exchequer inquisitions (P.R.O.I., MS RC9/3, iii, 35–7, RG9/8, ii, 53–4; inquisition post mortem on Bath’s lands; the repertory is defective but the date of Bath’s treason as 24 September may be deduced). Both Cromwell’s interrogatory of Offaly about the treasurer, and the ‘royal’ warrant noted previously may equally have concerned James Gernon, styled the traitor’s purse-bearer, who was attainted with Bath (L. & P. Hen. VIII, xi, no. 1 ; Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 1).
104 Gwynn, & Murray, , ‘Cal. Cromer’s register’, pp 126–27, 169–72,Google Scholar Gwynn, , Med. province Armagh, pp 70–72, 129—30Google Scholar; L. & P Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1211 (misdated c. Aug. 1535). Despite the council’s expectations, Trimbieston cleared himself of these charges in England.
105 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 268, 270; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 16; Lib. mun. pub. Hib., i, pt 11, p. 30.
106 Col. pat. rolls, Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 2, 4–6; S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 323, iii, 13; P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2 (L. & P Hen. VIII, xii, pt. 11, no. 41); Stat Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 1; B.M., MS Titus Β XI, π, f. 175; P.R.O.I., MS RC9/8, i, 68, Memoranda roll, 25 Hen. VIII m. 26d; 26 Hen. VIII m. 1 (P.R.O.I., MS ia 49 136, ff 179, 183); Hore, , Wexford town, 2, 173—4Google Scholar; Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, p. 821.Google Scholar
107 Talbot’s case may be followed in P.R.O.I., MS RC9/8, ii, 17–21; Lambeth, MS 602, ff 130, 140 (L. & P Hen. VIII, ix, no. 347; Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84); S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 245, 323; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vili, nos 716, 892, xii, pt 11, 1310 11 1; Stat. Ire., i, 28 Hen. VIII c. 13; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 35. Cf., for example, the complaint of Kildare’s brother in 1533 mat tne earl had ruined his lands for supporting Skeffington as deputy, 1530–32 (S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 179–80).
108 Size of the army deduced from the treasurer-at-war’s view of account, Aug. 1534-Sept. 1536 (P.R.O., S.P.65/1/1; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xi, no. 934); see also Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion’, pp 75–6.Google Scholar Cf. Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, pp 233–4, 238.Google Scholar Henceforward references to Kildare are to the tenth earl.
109 Alen to Cromwell, 16 Feb. 1535 (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 226); L. & P. Hen. VIII, viii, no. 82. The campaign after Oct. 1534 is discussed in in Ellis, , ‘Kildare rebellion’, pp 78–106.Google Scholar
110 B.M., Harl. MS 3756, ff 13–24; L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, no. 1013; lists of Irish chiefs supporting the rebels, with references, in Ellis, ‘Kildare rebellion’, app. II. There is no evidence about O’Nolan, O’Ryan, the Fox, Magawley or McDermot (relatively unimportant chiefs), nor about O’Rourke. On the failure of Fitzpatrick, McMahon and O’Reilly to support the rebels, see above, note 45 (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 343, 346).
111 With regard to most participants, there is no evidence as to whether they continued to support Kildare after Oct. It is presumed that they did not. What evidence there is suggests that the more active a participant and the more closely linked to Kildare, the less likely he was to come in to the king. Most of Kildare’s councillors, and men such as Burnell, probably could not expect pardon.
112 S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 206–7; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1574, Add., no. 982; Ware, Histories and antiquities, p. 90.
113 Alen to Cromwell, 16 Feb. 1535 (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 222); S.P Hen. VIII, ii, 220–24, 237, 245. Cf. Stanihurst ( Holinshed, , Chronicles, 6, 297).Google Scholar The act, 26 Hen. VIII c. 25 (ed. Stat, of realm), attainted Thomas Fitzgerald, earl of Kildare (so styled) and his supporters (unnamed), with provisoes excepting his uncles, James and Richard, and any other who had or should submit before 17 Dec. The date on which the act passed cannot be determined precisely, since the lords’ journal has not survived for the sixth session of the reformation parliament. House of Lords Record Office, original act, 26 Hen. VIII no. 25, shows that the bill originated in the lords. Presumably the act was immediately certified into Ireland.
114 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 278, 305, 321, 407; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, nos 332, 358.
115 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 194–7, 207–16.
