Atrocities in Ireland

Chiefly through the favour of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham Cary was appointed to succeed Viscount Grandison as lord deputy of Ireland, being sworn 18 September 1622. In office he showed himself both bigoted in his opinions and timid in carrying out a policy which continually dallied with extremes. Although he was conscientious, he was easily offended, and he failed to conduct himself with credit when confronted with any unusual difficulties.
Falkland was greatly distressed at the number of priests in Ireland and their influence over the people. He was influenced by a sermon of James Ussher on the text "He beareth not the sword in vain", and issued a proclamation on 21 January 1623, ordering their banishment from the country. This proclamation was highly inappropriate at the time because of the negotiations for the Spanish marriage/ In February 1624 he received an order from the English privy council to refrain from more extreme measures than preventing the erection of religious houses and the congregation of unlawful assemblies.
Falkland convened an assembly of the nobility of Ireland on 22 September 1626, on account of the difficulties of maintaining the English army in Ireland. He laid before the assembly a draft of concessions promised by Charles, which were subsequently known as the "Graces". They promised the removal of certain religious disabilities and the recognition of sixty years' possession as a bar to all claims of the crown based on irregularities of title. Falkland did not conduct the negotiations was skill, and for a long time there seemed no hope of a satisfactory settlement. Finally in May 1628, a deputation from the nobility agreed, before the king and privy council at Whitehall, on certain additional concessions in the "Graces" and then confirmed, that Ireland should provide a sum of £4,000 for the army for three years.
Falkland believed that his difficulties with the nobility had been largely due to the intrigues of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Adam, Lord Loftus, After the dissolution of the assembly of the nobility in 1627, he brought a charge against Loftus of malversation, and of giving encouragement to the nobility to refuse supplies. After the case had been heard in London, Lord Loftus was allowed to return to his duties pending further inquiry.
Falkland had for some years been engaged in tracking out what he supposed was a dangerous conspiracy of the Byrnes of Wicklow, and in August 1628 was able to announce to Charles I that the result of his protracted investigations had been successful, a true bill having been found against them at the Wicklow assizes. The aim of Falkland was to set up a plantation in Wicklow on the confiscated estates of the Byrnes, but as his designs were disapproved of by the commissioners of Irish causes, the king appointed a committee of the Irish privy council to investigate the matter more fully. Falkland took deep offence because one of the members of committee was the lord chancellor, Loftus and he refused to afford any assistance in the investigation on account of the "high indignity" offered to himself. When, as the result of the inquiry, it was discovered that the Byrnes had been the victims of false witnesses, Falkland was, on 10 August 1629, directed to hand over his authority to the lords justices on the pretext that his services were required in England. Charles I, recognising his good intentions, continued him in favour.
Cary broke his leg, which then had to be amputated, in Theobalds Park and as a result, he died in September 1633. He was buried on 25 September 1633 and was buried at Aldenham.

eire4 wrote: »

Certainly it is historically correct that the English set about exterminating the old Gaelic way of life which they saw as barbarian. This policy kicked into high gear after Kinsale when at that point the whole country was effectively conquered. When I said exterminated in realtion to the Irish people I guess I could have phrased that better. I did not mean an out and out intentional campaign of genocide. But there is no question that the Irish were slaughtered directly and indirectly in large numbers over the years and the Irish population was reduced to abject poverty and thus when the blight hit we had the atrocity that was the famine.

As for others who say that some Irish were involved in the whole above process they are absolutely correct. One thing the English have always been very good at is perfecting the policy of divide and conquer. They used those tactics with huge success in Ireland.

CDfm wrote: »

There was a certain amount of pragmatism locally and thats ok but what does come thru is that British rule was not benevolent and certainly in the 19th century it was catastrophic.

They treated the Irish & Ireland differently to themselves with different rules customs and laws.

ejmaztec wrote: »

When I watched a documentary some time ago, on the subject of their famine, it was mentioned that the rest of the Scottish population chipped in to help them out, and this changed the situation entirely. Some did die, and many emigrated, but the famine was nowhere near as devastating as it was here.

The documentary suggested that Sir Walter Scott had romanticised the highlanders in his novels, which led to the lowlanders and well-to-do folks having some admiration for them.

What I'm curious about is the level of help the rest of the Irish population gave to the starving, and what those living in the towns and cities actually thought of their fellow countrymen.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am convinced that this is so, but I can't imagine where we might find the evidence. But the absence of evidence is indicative of something. Let me explain in anecdotal mode.

I have traced my ancestry back to the famine years and earlier. I have names and locations for a number of ancestral households in West Kerry: they were Rundale shareholders in an area that was particularly hard hit by the famine. In the case of one household, they lived in a clachán that is even today notorious for the severity of the suffering people experienced during those years. Yet even in relatively recent years (I did some questioning in the 1960s and 70s) family members who were born in that part of West Kerry avoided all talk of the famine: it was taboo. I think it is slightly less taboo today, but we are more than a generation further removed, and many of those who carried the sense of taboo are no longer living - and their stories are lost.

I am sure that there were accounts of suffering and trauma, but I suspect there were also stories of what people did to survive.

Contrast that with the strong sentiments we can perceive among many Americans who trace their lineage back to famine emigrants. Their ancestors also survived. But they did not have to cope with finding themselves alive in the 1850s in a place where so many of their families and their neighbours died in appalling circumstances. They seemed to transmit a different attitude through the generations that followed them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I read correctly you believe some form of survivors guilt came into play in Ireland which emigrants and their descendants did not feel ...

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And, until Pete St John wrote "The Fields of Athenry", there was no song about the famine experience.

I suspect, however, that the experience was not not completely excised from family lore, that the accounts might have been passed down within the family, but never mentioned outside. I base this suspicion principally on my view of human nature, and my (perhaps arrogant) belief that I have some sort of "feel" for the cultural milieu.

I have to reconsider the histories of the famine that I have read, and remind myself that they necessarily omit the experiences of those most impacted by the disaster.