Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Ohlmeyer, Jane
2018.
The Cambridge History of Ireland.
Article contents
Thomas Sheridan (1646-1712) and his ‘Narrative’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Extract
A part from the surviving state papers (notably those of Lord Lieutenant Clarendon) one of the most important sources for the history of Ireland in the reign of James II is the ‘Narrative’ written in 1702 by Thomas Sheridan. Sheridan was appointed secretary to Lord Deputy Tyrconnell and first commissioner of the revenue at the end of 1686 and was dismissed, following allegations of corruption, early in 1688. Sheridan claimed that James had made him secretary against Tyrconnell’s wishes so that he could watch Tyrconnell’s behaviour on his behalf, and that Tyrconnell fabricated the charges of corruption in order to be rid of him. Most historians, especially those hostile to Tyrconnell, have accepted Sheridan’s account as accurate. Sir James Mackintosh, for example, wrote : ‘Clarendon and Sheridan’s MSS agree so exactly in their picture of Tyrconnell, have such an air of truth in their accounts of him that it is not easy to refuse them credit, though they were both his enemies’.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1976
References
1 The original MS is among the Stuart papers at Windsor Castle, MS M6. There is a microfilm copy in the University of London Library (Microfilm 150/550), to which I was allowed access by gracious permission of Her Majesty, the Queen. The ‘Narrative’ is printed in full in H.M.C. Stuart MSS, vi, 1–75 (hereafter cited as ‘Narrative’).
2 SirMackintosh, J., History of the revolution of 1688 (London, 1834), p. 125n.Google Scholar Macaulay and Bagwell both used the ‘Narrative’ pretty uncritically. See also Kenyon, J.P., Robert Spencer, earl of Sunderland (London, 1958), p.137n.Google Scholar
3 Simms, J.G., Jacobite Ireland, 1685–91 (London, 1969), p. 38.Google Scholar
4 D.N.B., under Sheridan, Mr Sheridan’s speech after his examination by the house of commons (1681), p. 3; Life of Bishop Bedell, ed. Jones, T.W. (Camden Society, 1872), pp 75–7,Google Scholar A full and impartial account of all the secret consults of the Romish party in Ireland (1689), pp 31–2 (hereafter cited as Secret consults). This last source is of very uneven reliability. Its chronology is often muddled, it is almost worthless for the period before 1685 (it accepts the whole popish plot fabrication as genuine), and even for 1685–8 it is unreliable for events in England. For example, it treats as authentic the bogus Letter from a Jesuit at Liège (1687), which alleged that James II was a lay member of the Society of Jesus (pp 61–2), it also alleges that the pope pressed James to give high office to the earl of Castlemaine (pp 112–13), whereas in fact the pope loathed Castlemaine after his rude and boorish conduct as James’s ambassador to Rome. For events in Ireland in 1685–8 the pamphlet, carries more conviction. Some incidents can be confirmed from other evidence, such as Sunderland’s ridiculing Tyrconnell’s warning of the imminent Dutch invasion in Sept. 1688 (Secret consults, p. 134, Cal. S.P. dorn., 1687–9, no. 1472). On one occasion the author of Secret consults refers to a remark as being made to him personally (p. 115) which strengthens the impression that he was in Ireland at the time. I have therefore used the pamphlet, but with caution.
5 Life of Bishop Bedell, p. 207; Cal. S.P Ire., 1666–9, p. 560; D.N.B., under Sheridan; Secret consults, pp 22–3.
6 Mr Sheridan’s speech, p. 4, Cal. S.P. dom., 1673–5, PP 170–3 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1660–2, pp 151–2 • the date given here (1660) must be wrong, as Sheridan was only fourteen at the time.
7 Cal. treasury books, iv, 858–9, v, 27, 30, 162, 495–6, 1287–8, Mr Sheridan’s speech, p. 4; Account of the revenue farm, 15 July 1678, Bodleian, Carte MS 38, f.477; H.M.C. Leeds MSS, p. 20.
8 The life and times of Anthony à Wood, ed. Clark, A. 5 vols (Oxford Historical Society, 1891–1900), ii, 385–7;Google Scholar Cal. S.P. dorn., 1677–8, p. 315, L.T., A short account or state of Mr Sheridan’s case (1681), pp 1–2. (Although this pamphlet refers to Sheridan in the third person it reads very much as if he had written it and includes a reference to ’ Your Gr[ace] ’—presumably Ormond—on p. 1.) See also Barrili on to Louis XIV, 13/23 Dec. 1680, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts of French ambassadors’ reports, bundle 147- It was later alleged that he married James’s illegitimate daughter (Life of Bishop Bedell). His wife at the time of his death was Helen, née Appleby ( Lart, C.E. (ed.), Parochial registers of Saint Germain en Laye (2 vols, London, 1910–12), ii, 125).Google Scholar
9 Cal. treasury books, v, 850, Sheridan to Danby, Jan. 1678, B.M., Add. MS 28079, f. 9.
10 Cal. S.P dom, 1678, p. 54. I owe the information that no further action was taken to Mr Τ J Crist. The book’s preface was dated 4 Jan. 1677/8. It was reprinted by Saxe Bannister under the even less appropriate title of Some Revelations in Irish History (London, 1870). For Sheridan’s authorship, see Mr Sheridan’s speech, p. 8, and Bannister, pp 241–2. All references are to Bannister’s edition.
11 See for example Petty, ‘A treatise of taxes’ (1662) in Economic writings of Sir William Petty, ed. Hull, C.H. (2 vols, Cambridge, 1899), 1, 23–8Google Scholar and Bannister, pp 96–8, 109, 214–15.
12 Cal. treasury books, v, 30 ; Petty, ‘Verbum sapienti’ in Economic writings, i, 105–8; Bannister, pp 182–6; see also Bannister, p. 210.
13 Bannister, p. 39.
14 Ibid., pp 9, 75, 79, 83.
15 Birch, T., History of the Royal Society (4 vols, London, 1756–7), 3, 461–2, iv, 119, 121,421.Google Scholar
16 Ormonde MSS, i, 27; ibid., n.s., iv, 322, 341–2, Cal S.P dom., 1679–80, p. 336, L.T., A short account, p. 2; Mr Sheridan’s speech, PP 5–6. He had also sought Danby’s favour on Patrick’s behalf , H.M.C. Leeds MSS, p. 20.
17 Mr Sheridan’s speech, pp 4–5 ; Grey, A., Debates in the house of commons, 1667–94 (10 vols, London, 1763), viii, 119, 152Google Scholar; Sam. Ellis to John Ellis, B.M., Add. MS 28930, f. 215; Barrillon to Louis XIV, 13/23 Dec. 1680, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 147
18 Commons’ jn., ix, 674–5; Grey, , Debates, 8, 116–17, 122–4Google Scholar, H.M.C., Finch MSS, ii, 103.
19 L.T., A short account, pp 4–5, 8; Grey, , Debates, 8, 119–22;Google Scholar Ormonde MSS, N.S., V, 525 (20 Jan. is the date on L.T., A short account).
20 Cal. S.P. dom., 1680–1, p. 181 ; Ormonde MSS, i, 31–3; ibid., N.S., vi, 2, 63, 85; Clarendon correspondence, ed. Singer, S.W. (2 vols, London, 1828), 1, 46.Google Scholar
21 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 211, 291–3; H.M.C. Leybourne-Popham MSS, p. 246; Cal. S.P. dom., 1680–1, pp 498, 530–31.
22 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 211, 228, 234, 432, Ormond had earlier opposed Patrick Sheridan’s being made bishop of Cloyne : ibid., N.S. iv, 322.
23 Ormonde MSS, i, 33; ibid., N.S. vi, 205, 289; Windsor Castle, Stuart MS M7 (also on University of London Library microfilm 150/ 550), PP 59, 61. (This document seems also to have been written by Sheridan; see pp 79, 90, 95, 109.)
24 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 197, 222, 225–6, 254, 262, 281, 284, 301; Sheridan to Ormond, 29 Nov 1681, Bodleian, Carte MS 39, f. 345; Barrillon to Louis, 29 Aug./8 Sept. 1681, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 150.
25 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 197, 209–10, 226–7, 233–4; Sheridan to Ormond, 29 Nov. 1681, Bodleian, Carte MS 39, f. 345.
26 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 302, 313, 318. Although Sheridan is named in only one of these letters, all three clearly refer to the same man.
27 Ibid., pp 310–12; H.M.C. Hastings MSS, ii, 392.
28 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 318, 328–9, 338.
29 Ibid., pp 311,316,318,329.
30 Ibid., pp 314–15, 321, 407, 410–12, 418; Longford to Arran, ) Aug. 1682, Bodleian, Carte MS 216, f. 127.
31 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 537. Note the remark of Rochester’s brother Clarendon that Sheridan was ‘a wicked cheating man’, Clarendon correspondence, ii, 12.
32 Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 432, 440.
33 Cal. S.P. dom., Jan.-June 1683, p. 41, 1684–5, p. 114 (the pension was continued by James II : ibid., 1685, no. 607); Cal. treasury books, vii, 1106, 1140. I know of no evidence to support Sheridan’s claim that Charles wished to make him a secretary of state (‘Narrative’, p. 51).
34 ‘Narrative’, pp 5–6; Clarendon correspondence, i, 442. In September 1686 Sheridan was said to be closely associated with Sunderland and Tyrconnell; Barrillon to Louis. 20/30 Sept. 1686, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 167 (I have come across no evidence about Sheridan’s relationship with James between Sept. 1681 and Feb. 1685.)
35 Ellis correspondence, ed. Agar Ellis, G.J.W (2 vols, London, 1829), 1, 126,Google Scholar Kenyon, J.P., The Stuart constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp 438–9.Google Scholar The ‘Narrative’ makes no direct mention of Sheridan’s conversion.
36 H.M.C Stuart MSS, i, 251, 340, 356.
37 ‘Narrative’, pp 6–10; Barrillon to Louis, 13/23 and 20/30 Sept., II/21 and 14/24 Oct. and 16/26 Dee. 1686, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 167; D’Adda (papal nuncio in London), 19/29 Nov. 1686, B.M., Add. MS 15396, ff. 189-90; Ronchi (Modenese envoy), 11/21 Nov. 1686, Cambridge University Library, Add. MS 4836, f. 182; Clarendon correspondence, ii, 51–12, 68–9; Ellis correspondence, i, 196, 206–7; Kenyon, Sunderland, pp 142–4.
38 ‘Narrative’, pp 12–15, 48; Anal. Hib., i, 44; letter to John Ellis, 12 June 1686 (B.M., Add. MS 28930, f. 321); Ellis correspondence, i, 68, 216, 222. It should be noted also that Tyrconnell was a member of the Old English aristocracy whereas Sheridan’s family was Irish.
39 Povey to Southwell, Oct. 1686, Nottingham Ufniversity) L[ibrary], Portland MSS, PwV 60; ‘Narrative’, pp 15–16, Cal. S.P. dom., 1686–7, nos 1245, ιΦ31 D’Adda, 7/17 and 14/24 Jan. 1687, Vatican Archives, Segretaria di Stato, Inghilterra 12, ff. 14, 22.
40 ‘Narrative’, p. 14; Newsletter to Bentinck, 19 Jan. 1688, Nottingham U.L., Portland MSS, PwA 2129.
41 I have dealt with this topic at length in an article, ‘The earl of Tyrconnell and James IPs Irish policy, 1685–8’ to be published in Hist. Jn. in 1978.
42 ‘Narrative’ p. 16; Cal. S.P. dom., 1686–7, no. 1805. The ‘Narrative’ refers twice (pp 21, 37–8) to a letter on this subject from James to Tyrconnell dated 15 Feb. 1687 A letter from James was enclosed in Sunderland’s of that date, but Sunderland’s letter gives no hint of its contents (Cal. S.P. dom., 1686–7, no. 1462).
43 ‘Narrative’, pp 24, 35–6; Secret consults, p. 103; Cal. S.P. dom., 1686–7, no. 1748.
44 D’Adda, 14/24 Jan. 1687, Vatican Archives, Segretaria di Stato, Inghilterra 12, f. 22, Diary of Dr Thomas Cartwright, ed. Hunter, J. (Camden Society, 1843), p. 26 Google Scholar; ‘Narrative’, pp 17–20, 23; Secret consults, pp 85–6, 89–90; Ellis to Sheridan, 12 Mar. 1687 and Sheridan’s reply, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 166–7 (summarised briefly in Anal. Hib., i, 56–7). This MS was formerly Rawl. MS A139B, and contains various papers relating to Sheridan’s hearing, including a second petition of Aug. (?) 1688 not mentioned in Anal. Hib., i.
45 Longford to Clarendon, 12 Mar. 1687, and Coote to Clarendon 31 Mar. 1687, Bodleian, Clarendon MS 89, ft 48–9, 66; Cal. S.P dom., 1686–7, no. 1748; Ellis correspondence, i, 298; Secret consults, p. 91; Bruce, T., earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, ed. Buckley, W E. (2 vols., Cambridge, 1890), 1, 149.Google Scholar Ailesbury also wrote that Sheridan was a zealous catholic and was put in by Tyrconnell neither seems to have been true.
46 ‘Narrative’, pp 22–3 ; for the commissioners’ letters of March and May 1687; see Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 164–5 (Anal Hib., i, 56); Herbert Aubrey to Clarendon, 19 Mar. 1687, Bodleian, Clarendon MS 89, f. 61 Sheridan also inquired into the qualifications oL,the existing subordinate officers : Sheridan’s answer to the articles gainst him, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 162–3; the letter (dated l7 Mar. l687) is in ibid., f. 173.
47 Cal. S.P dom.. 1687–9, no. 230; Ailesbury, Memoirs, i, 149; Secret consults, pp 91–2.
48 ‘Narrative’, pp 28–30. Although Sheridan claimed (p. 28) that Sunderland had ordered Tyrconnell in James’s name to bring Sheridan with him, I can find no evidence of this. Secret consults, p. 92, states that no one was present to counter Rice’s arguments about the revenue.
49 Tyrconnell to James II, 28 Mar. 1688, B.M. Add. MS 32095, f. 259; Cal. S.P. dom., 1687–9, no. 783.
50 ‘Narrative’, p. 31; Tyrconnell to James, 28 Mar. 1688, B.M., Add. MS 32095, f. 259; Sheridan’s petition to the king, 20 June 1688, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 118.
51 Barrillon to Louis, 6/16 Sept. 1687, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 172; D’Adda, 23 Sept./3 Oct. 1687 (misdated 1688), B.M., Add. MS 15397, f. 283.
52 ‘Narrative’, p. 33, Sheridan’s second petition to king, Aug. ( ?) 1688, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 146, Culliford to Ellis, 5 Nov. 1687, Thompson to Ellis, 5 Nov 1687, Aubrey to Ellis 15 Nov 1687, B.M., Add. MS 28876, ff. 36–8, 40.
53 Aubrey to Ellis, 28 Nov. 1687, B.M., Add. MS 28876, f. 47
54 Newsletter to Bentinck, 19 Jan. 1688, Nottingham University Library, Portland MSS, PwA 2129, ‘Narrative’, pp 33–5; Anal. Hib., i, 44, Sheridan’s answer to the articles, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 158.
55 Secret consults, pp 100–2; bp of Kildare to Clarendon, 14 Feb. 1688, Bodleian, Clarendon MS 89, f. 147; ‘Narrative’, pp 34, 46; Cal S.P. dom., 1687–9, no. 684 (Tyrconnell apparently talked openly of this letter : ‘Narrative’, p. 38). Sheridan’s name was included in a new revenue commission dated 23 Dec. 1687 which suggests that he was not then regarded as unworthy of ’trust (Cal. S.P dom., 1687–9, no. 638).
56 Newsletters to Bentinck, 19 and 26 Jan. 1688 (Nottingham University Library, Portland MSS, PwA 2129, 2135).
57 ‘Narrative’, pp 36–7, Anal. Hib., i, 44–5; Sheridan’s second petition, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 146; Secret consults, pp 103–5.
58 Anal. Hib., i, 44–5 ; ‘Narrative’, p. 37.
59 ‘Narrative’, pp 37–9, Cal. S.P. dom., 1687–9, nos 731, 752, Secret consults, pp 108–10, Barrillon to Louis, 6/16 Feb. 1688, P.R.O., Baschet transcripts, 175; Newsletter to Bentinck, 6 Feb. 1688 and Povey to Southwell, 4 and 15 Feb. 1688, Nottingham University Library, Portland MSS, PwA 2141 and PwV 61 For Sheridan’s connections with Petre see Secret consults (much of it highly dubious, but there may be a kernel of truth) and Sir W Ellis to J. Ellis, 15 Feb. 1688, B.M., Add. MS 28931, f. II.
60 H.M.C. 8th rep., app. 1, p. 558.
61 Cal. S.P. dom., 1687–9, nos 779, 849–50, ‘Narrative’, p. 40 (Sheridan claimed that Tyrconnell suspended him on his own authority).
62 This was certainly true of Ellis : Sir W. Ellis to J. Ellis, 15 Feb. 1688, B.M., Add. MS 28931, f. 11; Sheridan to lord chancellor Fitton, 6 Mar. 1688, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 174.
63 ‘Narrative’, pp 42–9 ; Sheridan’s first petition, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, fF. 119-20 (partly printed Anal. Hib., i, 45–6); Sheridan’s second petition, ibid., ff 146–7.
64 Sheridan to Fitton, 6 and 9 Mar. 1688, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 174-5, Povey to Southwell, 26 May 1688, Nottingham University Library, Portland MSS, PwV 61
65 Report of the committee, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 148–53. especially f. 153.
66 Anal. Hib., i, 47–50, 53–6; Report of committee, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 151–2; Secret consults, p. 125; ‘Narrative’, pp 44–8.
67 Anal Hib., i, 49, quoting Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 151–2.
68 ‘Narrative’, p. 45, Sheridan’s answer to the articles, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, ff 158, 162–31 Anal. Hib., i, 49–50; 56.
69 Anal. Hib., i, 48–9, 51–2. The sums named in the bribery allegations were mostly £30 or less.
70 Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Latham, R.C. and Matthews, W (11 vols, London, London 1970– ), 4, 415.Google Scholar
71 Aubrey to Ellis, 31 Jan. 1688, B.M. Add. MS 28876, f. 61 (as John Ellis was Sir William Ellis’s brother, Aubrey was careful about what he wrote to him). Another commissioner, Culliford, helped Sheridan in his efforts to get permission to go over to England late in 1687 ‘Narrative’, p. 35. But see the remark about commissioner Dickinson in Secret consults, p. 104. (Could Dickinson have been the author?)
72 ‘Narrative’, pp 48–9 ; Anal Hib., i, 42–3, 46.
73 ‘Narrative’, p. 49; Sheridan’s second petition, Bodleian, MS Arch. F.C.6, f. 147; Cal. S.P. dom., 1687–9, no. 1193, Clarendon correspondence, ii, 175; Anal. Hib., i, 46.
74 Ellis correspondence, ii, 14; ‘Narrative’, pp 49–50.
75 ‘Narrative’, pp 52–74; D.N.B., under Sheridan; Lart, Parochial registers of Saint Germain en Laye, ii, 125.
- 1
- Cited by