Ireland History

The attacks of the Irish and the secession of many of the ” Sean-Ghaill” had already loosened the English grip upon the country. Within sight of Dublin, the lands around Tallaght were secured only by paying ” black rent ” to O’Toole ; a similar subsidy was paid to O’Hanlon, who threatened to shut the mountain passes beyond Dundalk which kept up communication with the remaining fortresses on the north-east coast; Mac Murrough was still paid for his protection of the Leinster roads.

Beyond the Shannon both ” mere Irish ” and “English rebels ” were equally independent, and even on the eastern side of that river the descendants of Hugh De Lacy’s followers who lay beyond the line of lakes had also renounced allegiance.

 Despite frequent laws against ” absenteeism,” many of the settlers continued to leave the country.

Posted on July 22nd, 2008 under The Absorption of the Normans. Tags: black rent, culture, English rebels, hugh de lacy, irish, Nation, o'toole, Renew, sean-ghaill, Tallaght. Comments: None

Above : Picture Of King Henry II

• A War of Plunder.—During more than a century Ireland was torn and harassed by the efforts of the Norman barons to occupy the lands thus allotted to their enterprise by their King. These grants were made, as we have seen, in utter disregard of the rights of the Irish owners ; they violated the spirit in which some of the Irish chiefs submitted ; many were in faithless breach of specific treaties ; others affected territories whose chiefs had never paid homage to Henry. Destitute of moral sanction, they had not even the excuse of successful conquest and future peace for the lands were not yet occupied, and could not be without bitter warfare. They were, in fact, an utterly callous inducement to a general war of extermination—” letters of marque authorising them to rob, plunder, and steal whatever they could, and to hold as of right whatever they could steal.”*
• Isolated Fighting.—The fighting that resulted was, for the most part, isolated and local. Each Norman endeavoured to seize his own particular piece of country ; each clan defended its own territory against the assailant. On neither side was there unity or cohesion. Th« barons were far from being loyal to the King, and the King, for his part, was far from trusting them; from the first the rivalries between the adventurers were fierce, and often broke out in open warfare, sometimes marked by treachery. But they were the attacking parties, and could choose their time and place, relying upon the power of the Crown until opportunity offered. The clans, on the other hand, content to restrict themselves to the defence of their respective territories, could not know when or whence an attack might come. It was a situation which demanded constant vigilance, but, too often, the opening for the attack was afforded by the rivalries of clans and the dissensions of families.

Posted on May 8th, 2008 under The Settlement Of The Normans. Tags: battle of thurles, hugh de lacy, maurice fitz-gerald, robert fitzstephen, st. laurence o'toole, tiernan o'rourke. Comments: None