The Other Tudors (24 page)

The question of invasion was active as always. In August Sir John reported that he had spoken with James Tirrell, a Dublin merchant who had returned from Bilboa, who had information about the Spanish preparation for war. Sir John was in increasingly poor health, but at last release was in sight. In September he was able to write to Walsingham, thanking him for arranging with the Queen that Sir John might be recalled. In December it was clear that Sir John had had enough, partly due to illness: ‘I daily look for an easterly wind to bring over another governor, according to the constant bruit that runneth generally in the realm here … For my own part my disease doth so increase upon me as I am daily worse and worse.’
²⁵

He had some reason to breathe a sigh of relief. In the same month his successor, Sir William Fitzwilliam, was receiving his orders from the Queen. In the New Year Sir John wrote to the Queen with pleasure at his recall, but stating his willingness to defend his actions in the face of his accusers, even when wracked with disease. Sir John was not going to be allowed to escape so easily, however. Almost before the ink was dry on Sir William Fitzwilliam’s commission to the post, Loftus, Gardiner and Fenton were reporting that the new Lord Deputy’s household was having trouble gathering provisions as the outgoing incumbent had already stripped the place bare. Sir John, however, was glad to be going home finally: ‘I remain here daily expecting the coming over of the new governor, that I may take the advantage of this spring to help my swollen legs and the grating stone that lieth in my kidneys …’
²⁶

If Loftus and his cronies sought to denigrate Sir John, others were more generous. The Attorney Charles Calthorpe wrote in March to Burghley: ‘This Lord Deputy’s departing is much lamented, by reason of his good and happy government, both for the Prince and people, as specially may appear by the great increase of Her Majesty’s revenue, the decrease of Her Majesty’s charge, and keeping of Her Majesty’s subjects in justice and peace …’
²⁷

As Sir John’s homecoming seemed so close, his contentment grew. He had written to the Queen about his plans to deal with his health problems but days and weeks passed and still there was no sign of his replacement. A growing anxiety in Sir John led him to write to Walsingham in April 1588, begging that the new Lord Deputy might be hurried to Dublin. Sir John’s health was deteriorating and he longed to take up the treatment he needed. He was also in financial limbo, as the Treasurer had been told to stop paying his personal expenses, in anticipation of the arrival of his successor. He wrote again in May, but it was 25 June 1588 before Sir William Fitzwilliam finally arrived in Dublin. Fitzwilliam’s journey had been broken by ill health, and he was now obliged to wait for Sir John’s better health before they could meet.

The ailing Fitzwilliam went on to report that he was suffering from a ‘tertian ague’ (bouts of malaria with attacks at three-day intervals) and was subject to fits. He also stated that there was a remarkable lack of ready money available. On 29 June Sir John was finally able to make his declaration relating to the state of Ireland before the Council and its new Lord Deputy.

In July, Sir John began his journey home. At the end of July, Fitzwilliam asked for Burghley’s help. When he left, Sir John had, against instructions, taken the state robes with him, and he claimed to have them at his house in Wales and would send them on later. Fitzwilliam also noted that of £12,000 that had been sent over from Elizabeth I, which was not to be spent until he had agreed, it appeared that only £46 13s 4d was left.

Sir John responded to the Privy Council in September from Carew Castle. He admitted that he had, indeed, taken the official robes, but they were old and shabby and he was planning to turn them into stool covers. As soon as he had received the new Lord Deputy’s letter, he had sent them back, ‘wishing that His Lordship would upon my promise have forborne to write to your Lordships for such a trifle, but I hope his Lordship will leave them to his successor.’
²⁸

On 12 December 1588, the Privy Council discussed matters relating to the rule of Ireland and they wanted answers from Sir John, particularly his opinion of the situation in the north of Ireland. The month saw Sir John provide a variety of documents to the Council; including 14 memorials, covering issues from his service in Ireland to the reasons behind the disagreement between Perrot and some of his Council. In response Sir John wrote, ‘A brief declaration of part of the services done to your Majesty by Sir John Perrot, knight, during the time of his deputation in the realm of Ireland’, an exceedingly lengthy document, listing and justifying all he had done, with names of witnesses who could confirm his version of events. Another declaration covered his expenses for travel and accommodation. The dates covered were from when he ‘received the sword’ on 21 June 1584, until he was relieved on 16 April, and left Dublin on 2 July 1588; the total days in Dublin were 122 weeks 4 days, and ‘On journeys’ he spent 24 weeks 3 days.’
²⁹

The first of the serious accusations against Sir John was recorded late in 1588, although it appears that nothing was done about it at that time. The declarations against him remained to haunt him later on. These included the ridiculous charge that he took the Lord Deputy’s robes home with him, he took food and wine belonging to the office of Lord Deputy, he made decisions against the orders and interests of the Queen and that he appointed unqualified and lazy Justices and Sheriffs without the Council’s approval. The charges were for the most part trivial, already resolved or just well-rehearsed spite on the part of his enemies. In March 1589 Sir John produced a rebuttal of those charges that he referred to as being from an unknown informer. Later charges would have more substance and be irrefutable, however.

Not all his erstwhile colleagues were prepared to denigrate their departed leader. At least two of his supporters held firm. Fitzwilliam wrote to the Privy Council and added a brief note to Burghley, ‘It may please your Lordship, I cannot obtain Sir Lucas Dillon’s hand nor Sir Nic. White’s to any letter wherein Sir John Perrot is mentioned not to their liking.’
³⁰

In May came a detailed account of lengthy dialogue between Sir John and his successor, Fitzwilliam. Fitzwilliam was in a difficult position. It was easy to blame Sir John for anything that was wrong, but no Lord Deputy wanted to admit that all the good was down to his predecessor. Fitzwilliam had said that he was under no obligation, nor would he follow all the rules and directions of Sir John’s government. Sir John’s response was, ‘If his Lordship hath found a better course than I did follow it shall no whit displease me, for I did my best and I hope he will do so too.’ Fitzwilliam responded that he might follow some of Sir John’s policies, but that he would not be bound to necessarily follow all of them. Sir John then produced another rebuttal on the matter to Burghley that began:

Sir John was determined to set the record straight and prove that he had governed in a fair and judicious manner. He was particularly determined to show that he had treated both the Irish and English with equal favour and punishment, when necessary.

By August 1589 the Queen had made Sir John a member of the Privy Council, and he was now on the receiving end of such letters from Ireland as he had formerly sent. Sir Richard Byngham wrote concerning malicious complaints and reports sent to England against him that he claimed were the work of rebels and malcontents. He begged that Sir John would acknowledge his service during his time of office, and how he ‘justified’ himself from the slanders against him.
³¹

Now that he was a member of the Privy Council, Sir John became the resident expert on Irish matters. A docquet (list) of the opinions of the Earl of Ormonde, the Lord Grey and Sir John Perrot relating to the defence of Ireland was committed to the consideration of the Council. The following month Sir John set out a series of notes for the Lord Treasurer on how to reduce Sir John Norris’s pay to the Irish.

In April 1590 Sir John wrote to Burghley, giving an update on the state of his health and then moving to a lengthy analysis of Irish affairs. He reminded Burghley that Irish lands were held by custom and should be dealt with accordingly, adding that the Crown should not interfere in this. He supported his favourable impression of O’Connor of Sligo, who he held in esteem. It was Sir John’s opinion that a recent case against him had gone badly ‘for Sir R[ichard] Byngham had a great mind to have Sligo, and to place himself there, and his brother Sir George Byngham at Ballymote.’ Sir John then commended his own son, Thomas, aged 37, to be governor of Connaught, if Sir Richard was dead (presumably there was a rumour to this effect).
³²

Fitzwilliam was finding out at first hand how troublesome the rule of Ireland could be. In early 1590, Sir Edward Moore wrote to Sir John Perrot, asking that he might be assigned the muster of cattle in the north. He added some wider news; in his opinion, Ireland might be lost through bad government. Whereas Sir John had gone out of his way to try and act honourably, his successor seemed to be throwing all that goodwill away. In January, Owen Woodde wrote to Sir John about the Lord Deputy’s attempts to pacify Galway by meeting the rebels. A safe passage was guaranteed into the meeting – but not out – and therefore most of those invited refused to attend. A number of notable Irish lords, Woodde said, were now dead or hanged. He finished on the rather depressing note, ‘The Lord Chancellor’s quartan ague [malaria bouts at four-day intervals] and the Lord Deputy’s quotidian fits [daily attacks of fever] have this term nonsuited many a poor man.’
³³

Out of sight, however, was not out of mind. Before long, new accusations of treasonable activity began to arise against Sir John. Much of the trouble lay in the fact that John never held his tongue nor considered his words when he was in a passion. One particularly dangerous enemy was Sir Christopher Hatton, who was now able to give full reign to his animosity. Sir Christopher was sensitive on the subject of his rise to power. Sir John is supposed to have said that Hatton had caught the Queen’s attention because of his dancing (that he had ‘risen by the galliard’); Elizabeth I is supposed to have first been attracted to Hatton as he danced at a masque.

In 1590, matters became serious for Sir John. An ex-priest, Denis Roughan (also called O’Roughan), produced a letter that appeared to be from Sir John to Philip of Spain, promising to help Spain conquer England if he was promised the governorship of Wales. On 16 February of that year, Fitzwilliam wrote to Burghley from Dublin Castle. He sent his son, John, to deliver the letter, presumably for added security, that it might be passed to the Queen. He reported that Roughan and his wife had brought him the incriminating letter and that Roughan was in fear of his life from Sir John’s supporters in Ireland. According to Fitzwilliam, public report had it that Sir John’s popularity amongst the Irish was not due to his fair dealing or honesty, but to his support of Spain – and also because he was Catholic. Roughan reported that he said Mass for Sir John and that he had given him confession.

A copy of the letter to Philip of Spain was enclosed, in Fitzwilliam’s handwriting. The writer, apparently Sir John, acknowledged Philip’s letters to him and offered that if Philip would give him ‘the whole land of Wales for ever’ then Sir John would undertake to get him the two lands of England and Ireland. The address on the letter was, ‘Out of the Castle of Dublin, the 25 June 1585’.

It was a good time for Roughan to bring forward his plot. On 17 February 1590, Robert Legge, Deputy Remembrancer in the Exchequer in Ireland, made his report to Burghley on the revenues and debts appertaining to Ireland. He attached a certificate from Sir Henry Wallop and Justice Gardiner relating to this petition. His opinion was that the revenues and debts needed close scrutiny. In the enclosed report by Legge was all the information ‘touching the debts of the Lord Chancellor (Adam Loftus), the Bishop of Meath, Sir Robert Dillon, Sir N[icholas] White, and other principal officers when Sir John Perrot came over from Ireland in July 1588.’ Legge found that Loftus had cheated the Queen out of revenues, as well as running up debts to the Crown. He held on to churches and livings, using the revenues to support his young children who were not then or ever likely to be church ministers. When Legge faced Loftus, he was insulted by the furious Archbishop. The others were the same, insulting and threatening Legge and refusing to pay what they owed. It was an ideal moment to divert attention to the misdeeds of Sir John.
³⁴