Since the publication of Rev. Professor Aubrey Gwynn’s study of the later history of the Book of Kells the name of the donor of the book to Trinity College has come to light. He was Henry Jones (1605-82), eldest son of Lewis Jones, bishop of Killaloe, and was successively bishop of Clogher (1645), scoutmaster general to Cromwell’s army, and bishop of Meath (1661). In 1646 he was appointed vice-chancellor of the University of Dublin, a position he seems to have continued to hold under the commonwealth. He was already known as a benefactor of Trinity College Library. The two handsome oak staircases from the old library which now lead to the Long Room gallery were traditionally associated with him. He was remembered as the donor of the Book of Durrow but it was strangely forgotten that he had also given Trinity the Book of Kells, which is in our eyes so much more striking a volume because so much more lavishly illuminated. Perhaps it was the silver shrine in which Durrow was still preserved that touched the imagination of his contemporaries.

On the intelligence side, the Irish wars in this period were little different from any of the large-scale enterprises overseas of the 1590s. The expedition to Ireland of 1599, as in the case of the Cadiz expedition of 1596 and its successor to the Islands in 1597, is preluded by a crop of ‘projects’ and ‘espialls’ in the state papers, and the preparations traceable there have the distinctive marks of a special service. Among the many eye-witness accounts of oversea operations in the 1590s, however, which take the form of private journals, as distinct from dispatches to the queen or the privy council, Sir John Harington’s journal of Essex’s command in Ireland stands by itself in importance, though its position appears to be challenged by the contemporaneous Treatice of Ireland, by John Dymmok, who like Harington served under Essex there. It was pointed out long ago that these two works, so far as they cover the same events, agree almost word for word with each other. The question of authenticity is not helped by the fact that Harington’s journal has shared the fate of all his letters and papers in that neither the original nor any contemporary copy of it are to be found. Internal evidence, however, shows that the borrower was Dymmok, perhaps acting with the indifference in these matters that was characteristic of the period, though more commonly found among the chroniclers. The wonder perhaps is that Dymmok has allowed himself to repeat a number of Harington’s misplaced verbal ‘conceits’, for the existing differences tell strongly in favour of Dymmok as witness. Where the differences are not due to copyists’ errors Dymmok has invariably improved the sense, and the matter-of-fact ending to his relation of the Munster journey is in noteworthy contrast to an unfair gloss in the corresponding passage in Harington.

In 1765 a major decision was taken in London which amounted to the formulation of a new English policy towards Ireland: viceroys in future were to reside constantly in Dublin and the old system of undertakers was to be overthrown. But it was not until 1767 that British government found in Viscount Townsend a nobleman prepared to carry out the new policy. By May of 1768 Townsend had reached the crisis point in his relations with the undertakers. They had just behaved in an utterly intolerable manner in the viceroy’s eyes by using their influence as the principal servants of the crown to secure the rejection in the house of commons of the crown’s scheme to increase the number of troops on the Irish establishment, on which the king’s ministers in London had set very great store. The augmentation was the principal issue over which the fierce struggle between the viceroy and the undertakers was fought, but the true question to be settled, as Townsend insisted over and over again with characteristic vehemence, was of deeper significance. Was the undertaker system, which had allowed a considerable measure of autonomy to a small oligarchy in Ireland, to be allowed to continue? Or was a bold policy to be pursued of re-establishing once and for all the power of the king’s representative in Ireland, especially in the control of patronage, thus administering a serious check to the self-governing aspirations of the Anglo-Irish gentry, and emphasising Ireland’s subordination to England?