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 ‘flight of the earls’ is considered one of the most intriguing events in Irish history. Traditionally, historians explaining this event have been divided into two schools of thought. Some have depicted the earls as offended innocents, forced into exile by unwarrantable pressure from Lord Deputy Chichester’s administration. Others have accepted the conspiracy theory, agreeing with the Dublin government’s contemporary view that the earls fled because they feared that their treasonable machinations had been uncovered. Since 1971, however, historical interpretation of the affair has been dominated by an article written by Nicholas Canny.
Departing from the previous lines of explanation, Canny focused on the intentions of the earl of Tyrconnell and Cuchonnacht Maguire to leave Ireland in 1607 as the key to understanding the flight. Anxious to leave the country because they were in acute financial difficulties, they were determined to seek profitable service with Archduke Albert, governor of the Spanish Netherlands. The ‘premature’ arrival of the ship that was sent to encompass Tyrconnell’s passage discomfited Tyrone, then preparing to go to court, causing him to ‘panic’ and take flight.
1 Meehan, C.P., The fate and fortunes of Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone, and Rory O’Donnell, earl of Tyrconnell, their flight from Ireland and their death in exile (3rd ed., Dublin, 1886), p. 43 Google Scholar; Healy, T.M., Stolen waters: a page in the conquest of Ulster (London, 1913), p. 42 Google Scholar; O’Faolain, Sean, The Great O’Neill (Dublin, 1942), pp 272-3Google Scholar.
2 Killen, , Ecc. hist. Ire., i, 480 Google Scholar; Gardiner, , Eng., i, 413-16Google Scholar; Falls, Cyril, The birth of Ulster (London, 1936), pp 131-2Google Scholar.
3 Canny, N.P., ‘The flight of the earls, 1607’ in I.H.S., xvii, no. 67 (Mar. 1971), pp 380-99Google Scholar.
4 Walsh, Micheline Kerney, Destruction by peace: Hugh O’Neill after Kinsale (Monaghan, 1986), documents 11, 30, 35, 36, 52, 58Google Scholar.
5 Ibid., documents 43a, 56b. For the length of the warning see Examination of Thomas Fitzgerald, 3 Oct. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/150a).
6 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, p. 143.
7 Clarke, Aidan, ‘Bibliographical supplement: introduction’ in Moody, T.W., Martin, F.X. and Byrne, F.J. (eds), A new history of Ireland, iii: Early modern Ireland, 1534–1691 (2nd ed., Oxford, 1989), p. 707 Google Scholar.
8 Walsh, Kerney, Destruction, documents 11, 30, 35, 36Google Scholar.
9 Ibid., document 11.
10 Ibid., documents 11, 12, 22, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d, 30, 33, 35, 36.
11 Ibid., documents 11, 43a, 102a.
12 Ibid., document 30. The conde de Punonrostro, the Protector of the Irish in Spain, made clear the contractual basis of the agreement with the earls when he recommended the granting of the annuities ‘so that they [the earls] may continue to serve Your Majesty and be under obligation to do so at all times’.
13 Ibid., documents 43a, 56b, 72a; Chichester to privy council, 22 Jan. 1607 (P. R.O., SP 63/221/12).
14 Morgan, Hiram, Tyrone’s rebellion: the outbreak of the Nine Years War in Tudor Ireland (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1993), ch. 7Google Scholar.
15 Occasionally there was considerable friction, particularly over mercantile issues. It suited neither power at the time, however, to resort to war ( Gardiner, , Eng., i, 349 Google Scholar; Lee, Maurice, James I and Henry IV: an essay in English foreign policy, 1603–10 (Urbana, 1970), pp 42-5)Google Scholar.
16 Chichester to Salisbury, 12 Sept. 1606 (P.R.O., SP 63/219/105).
17 Confession of George St Lawrence, 14 Feb. 1607 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, pp 108–9).
18 Fenton to Salisbury, 12 Feb. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/221/19).
19 Chichester to Salisbury, 27 May 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/57);______ to Sir William Ussher, in Meehan, Fate & fortunes, pp 65–6. According to the informant, the plotters were motivated by ‘the general dislike of unchristian proceedings against them’ and they aimed to secure ‘tolerance in religion’.
20 Chichester to Salisbury, 27 May 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/221/57); Brief collections drawn from A.B. between 29 June and 25 Aug. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/128i).
21 A spy reported that ‘Sir Henry O’Neale and Sir Christopher St Lawrence were very familiar and inward friends, and were oftentimes bedfellows’ (Report of D.M., son to R.M. of C, 22 July 1607 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, pp 227–8)).
22 Chichester to privy council, 22 Jan. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/221/12); Brief collections drawn from A.B. between 29 June and 25 Aug. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/128i).
23 McCavitt, John, ‘Lord Deputy Chichester and the English government’s “Mandates policy” in Ireland, 1605–7’ in Recusant History, xx, no. 3 (May 1991), pp 320-35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 The baron of Delvin’s confession, 6 Nov. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/174).
25 Pawlisch, H.S., SirDavies, Johnand the conquest of Ireland: a study in legal imperialism (Cambridge, 1985), chs 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Canny, N.P., ‘The government reorganisation of Ulster, 1603–7’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University College, Galway, 1967), p. 148 Google Scholar; McCavitt, John, ‘“Good planets in their several spheares”: the establishment of the assize circuits in early seventeenth-century Ireland’ in Ir. Jurist, n.s., xxiv (1989), pp 248-78Google Scholar.
27 Pawlisch, Davies, p. 73.
28 There is some conflict in the sources about the timing of the original plot. Howth confessed it occurred at Christmas 1605 and that Delvin was involved at that stage, whereas Delvin confessed his involvement began in late 1606. Howth’s time-scale seems the more reliable, as Chichester had already learned from other sources, before either of these confessions were made, that the plot originated in late 1605. See Brief collections drawn from A.B. between 29 June and 25 Aug. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/128İi); Delvin’s confession, 6 Nov. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/174); Chichester to privy council, 22 Jan. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/12).
29 Pawlisch, Davies, p. 68; Tyrone to king, 17 June 1606 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 549); privy council to Chichester, 2 Sept. 1606 (ibid, pp 548–9).
30 See note 23. General references in this article to the ‘Old English’ are used circumspectly, as they were only evolving as a cohesive group in the early seventeenth century. The ‘Mandates’ era, however, played a key role in this process. See Clarke, Aidan, ‘Colonial identity in early seventeenth-century Ireland’ in Moody, T.W. (ed.), Nationality and the pursuit of national independence: Historical Studies XI (Belfast, 1978), p. 60 Google Scholar.
31 Thomas Phillips to Hugh Owen, Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., SP 14/17/62). That Tyrone was in Dublin at this key period can be verified (see Tyrone to Salisbury, 6 Dec. 1605 (ibid., SP 63/217/88)).
32 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, document 43a; see also MacCurtain, Margaret, ‘The flight of the earls’ in Paor, Liam de (ed.), Milestones in Irish history (Dublin, 1986), p. 57 Google Scholar.
33 Morgan, Hiram, ‘The end of Gaelic Ulster: a thematic interpretation of events between 1534 and 1610’ in I.H.S., xxvi, no. 101 (May 1988), p. 28 Google Scholar.
34 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, documents 43a, 72a, 102a. Tyrone’s analysis of Old English attitudes to the religious issue at the time of the Nine Years War accords with the conclusions of modern historians. See Silke, J.J., Ireland and Europe, 1559–1607 (Dundalk, 1966), p. 21 Google Scholar; Morgan, Hiram, ‘Hugh O’Neill and the Nine Years War in Tudor Ireland’ in Hist. Jn., xxxvi, no. 1 (1993), p. 28 Google Scholar.
35 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, documents 52, 55, 75, 82, 85, 185. The Spanish exploited Tyrone’s presence in Rome. It was considered that ‘to the English, he is a bridle. Their fear of him gnaws at their entrails.’
36 O’Faolain, The Great O’Neill, pp 266–81.
37 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, p. 4.
38 Sheehan, A.J., ‘The recusancy revolt of 1603: a reinterpretation’ in Archiv. Hib., xxxviii 1983), pp 3–13 Google Scholar.
39 McCavitt, ‘Mandates’, p. 323.
40 Mooney, Canice, ‘A noble shipload’ in Ir. Sword, ii (1954-6), p. 196 Google Scholar. Bath, John and Richard Weston signed the Pale petition protesting against the ‘Mandates’ (A petition to the lord deputy, Dec. 1605 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603-6, pp 362–5))Google Scholar.
41 Confession of George St Lawrence, 14 Feb. 1607 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, pp 108–9); Chichester to Salisbury, 27 May 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/221/57).
42 Brief collections drawn from A.B between 29 June and 25 Aug. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/128i). That Howth was a Protestant does little to undermine the essentially Catholic nature of the conspiracy. He was, in any case, very much a maverick figure, and his unstable nature was reflected in his attitude to religion. Before his departure to serve with Archduke Albert he was reported to have attended mass (see Chichester to Salisbury, 26 Jan. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/11)). His father signed a letter sent by noblemen of the Pale protesting about the ‘Mandates’ (Noblemen of the Pale to Salisbury, 8 Dec. 1605 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 365–6)).
43 Delvin’s confession, 6 Nov. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/174). Delvin signed the Pale petition protesting about the ‘Mandates’ (Petition to the Lord Deputy, Dec. 1605 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 362–5)).
44 Among those who alleged that there was no substance to the allegations against the earls was Sean O’Faolain. He claimed that ‘felon-settlers, agents provocateurs, spies, petty officials of every kind dogged them like shadows. Failing to get any evidence to support the story of a plot, Chichester egged on his men to badger his victims into some indiscretion that would justify him in proclaiming them traitors’ (O’Faolain, The Great O’Neill, pp 272–3).
45 Privy council to Chichester, 19 Nov. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199, ff 168–71). This missive clearly implied that the English privy council believed that Chichester was over-reacting to the allegations that the northern earls were involved in a new treasonable conspiracy.
46 Chichester to privy council, 22 Jan. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/12); Chichester to Salisbury, 27 May 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/57).
47 Lord deputy and council to privy council, 26 June 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/88).
48 Apprehensive about the possibility of renewed conflict in Ireland, this policy was probably inspired in large measure by the king’s absolute aversion to war. A contemporary remarked of the king that he was ‘the most cowardly man that ever I knew’. See Russell, Conrad, The crisis of parliaments: English history, 1509–1660 (Oxford, 1971), p. 258 Google Scholar.
49 Lake to Salisbury, 27 Aug. 1606 ( H.M., C., Salisbury, xviii, pp 254-6)Google Scholar.
50 Sir Thomas Windebank to Salisbury, 10 June 1607 (ibid., xix, pp 150–51).
51 Canny, N.P., ‘The treaty of Mellifont and the reorganisation of Ulster, 1603’ in Ir. Sword, ix (1969), p. 261 Google Scholar.
52 King to Chichester, 16 July 1607 (P.R.O., 31/8/201, ff 242–7).
53 Ibid.
54 McCavitt, ‘Mandates’, p. 328.
55 Brief collections drawn from A.B. between 29 June and 25 Aug. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/128i); Delvin’s confession, 6 Nov. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/174). Howth later reemphasised the role played by religious grievance in the formulation of the plot when he commented that ‘Tyrone was never so sure of foreign forces as then he was, and the assistance of the country, for that the punishment for religion had drawn the hearts of all the people from the King’ (Lord Howth’s charge against Sir Garret Moore, May 1608 ( H.M., C., Hastings, iv, p. 156 Google Scholar)).
56 St John to Salisbury, 11 Dec. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/192); Salisbury to Lake, c. Nov. 1607 ( H.M., C., Salisbury, xix, pp 315-17Google Scholar).
57 Chichester to Salisbury, 9 Oct. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/153).
58 Privy council to Chichester, 28 July 1607 (ibid., 31/8/199, ff 236–9). This letter is dated 22 July 1607 in Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, pp 231–3.
59 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, p. 48.
60 See note 58.
61 Ibid.
62 McCavitt, ‘Mandates’, p. 328.
63 See note 58.
64 This argument was most recently advanced in Kerney Walsh, Destruction, p. 50.
65 Privy council to Chichester, 31 July 1607 (P.R.O., 31/8/199, f. 240).
66 Fenton to Salisbury, 13 Aug. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/118). The significance of Chichester’s decision to travel north at short notice is put into perspective by his outright rejection in June 1607 of a proposal that he should visit Munster, despite earnest solicitations from various quarters, on the grounds that the earl of Salisbury knew why ‘I cannot well stir from hence [Dublin]’ (Chichester to Salisbury, 8 June 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/77)).
67 Chichester to Salisbury, 7 Sept. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/126).
68 Examination of Thomas Fitzgerald, 3 Oct. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/150a). Of those interrogated after the flight by Chichester, , Kerney Walsh describes the friar’s evidence as the ‘most plausible’ (Destruction, p. 51)Google Scholar.
69 Information of James Rath, 7 Oct. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/152a); Sir Cormac O’Neill’s confession and appendage by Chichester, Oct. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/222/164a); Kerney Walsh, Destruction, documents 43a, 56b.
70 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, p. 45.
71 Owing to the need for secrecy, Chichester was the only Dublin official aware of all the details of the investigations (see Chichester to Salisbury, 26 June 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/221/89)).
72 McCavitt, John, ‘The lord deputyship of Sir Arthur Chichester in Ireland, 1605–16’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast, 1988), pp 329, 381Google Scholar.
73 Kerney Walsh, Destruction, document 43a.
74 The earl of Tyrone’s articles, 1607 (Cal. SP. Ire., 1606–8, pp 374–83).
75 Morgan, Hiram, ‘Extradition and treason trial of a Gaelic lord: the case of Brian O’Rourke’ in Ir. Jurist, n.s., xxii, pt 1 (summer 1987), p. 300 Google Scholar.
76 Chichester to Salisbury, 8 Sept. 1607 (P.R.O., SP 63/222/128).
77 Chichester to Salisbury, 26 Jan. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/11); Fenton to Salisbury, 12 Feb. 1607 (ibid., SP 63/221/19); Chichester to Salisbury, 4 June 1608 (ibid., SP 63/224/119).
78 Chichester to Salisbury, 11 May 1608 (ibid., SP 63/224/102).
79 Chichester to Salisbury 7 Dec. 1608 (ibid., SP 63/225/275). He was given the command of a company of foot, ‘having raised himself adversaries for doing service for the king’ (King to Chichester, 9 June 1608 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, p. 553)).
80 If the flight had not occurred, it is open to question whether James would have pursued policies as hostile to Tyrone as his remarks of July 1607 indicated. In the absence of clear proof of Tyrone’s treasonable practices, the king may well have been disposed to revert to his more characteristically timorous approach towards the earl. Certainly his capacity for vacillation was legendary. Later in his reign he retreated from a hardline stance against the recusants at the time of the 1613–15 Irish parliament. See McCavitt, ‘Chichester in Ireland’, ch. 11.
81 McCavitt, John, ‘The political background to the Ulster plantation, 1607–1620’ in Cuarta, Brian Mac (ed.), Ulster, 1641: aspects of the rising (Belfast, 1993), p. 10 Google Scholar.
82 Henry, Gráinne, ‘Ulster exiles in Europe, 1605–1641’ in Cuarta, Mac, Ulster, 1641, p. 56 Google Scholar. Tyrone remarked in May 1615 that he was resolved to ‘meet death with sword in hand’ (Kerney Walsh, Destruction, document 211).
83 I would like to thank Dr Mary O’Dowd and Dr Hiram Morgan for comments on drafts of this article.
