I

Robert Ayleway – his surname was also spelt Aylway, Alloway or Aileway – first appears in November 1669, when he notified the English House of Lords, upon oath, that a suit had been lodged against a domestic servant of Richard Byron, second Lord Byron, a royalist peer from Westmoreland, in breach of his parliamentary privilege.Footnote ⁷ Judging from probate records in the National Archives of the United Kingdom, the family came from the region around Gloucestershire and Somerset in south-west England, and how or why he knew Byron is therefore unclear. Ayleway does not appear to have attended university or the Inns of Court, but when he married Elizabeth Clayton, daughter of John Clayton, a former parliamentarian and recorder of Leeds with connections in northern England, he too was described as being of the Inner Temple, suggesting some sort of legal connection.Footnote ⁸ Eight years later, he carried several petitions to Charles II and the Dutch ambassador concerning a long-standing legal case about goods seized by the Dutch from an English merchant.Footnote ⁹ Perhaps this caught the eye of the privy council, since in 1678 he was appointed auditor-general of Virginia, a post within the patronage of the council’s Committee of Trade and Plantations and, in effect, a sinecure executed by deputy.Footnote ¹⁰ The appointment was subsequently contested by the local Virginian elite, who alleged that the post was actually in the gift of the governor, and the spat was only finally resolved in Ayleway’s favour in 1689.

By this point, though, he had long since left England for Ireland, travelling to Dublin in 1679 on behalf of George Legge, later first Baron Dartmouth.Footnote ¹¹ As lieutenant general of the Ordnance between 1679 and 1682, and then master-general until 1689, Legge was the departmental head of the English Ordnance Office, which provided arms, ammunition and artillery to military and naval forces in England, oversaw the care and maintenance of its fortresses, and supervised its smaller counterpart in Ireland.Footnote ¹² Besides acting in the trusted and demanding role of estate steward or land agent for Legge’s estates in Ireland, and those of another tory grandee, Theophilus Hastings, seventh earl of Huntingdon, it appears that Ayleway’s primary role was to act as the agent and representative for English interests in the reform of the Irish Ordnance Office during this period.Footnote ¹³ Between 1681 and 1688 the Ordnance Office in England, like many other fiscal-military institutions, underwent a process of administrative renewal in which Legge was particularly active, and which was also eventually extended to the Irish office.Footnote ¹⁴

Thus, in 1682 the post of Clerk of the Ordnance was created there, probably to bring the Irish office more closely into line with its English counterpart, and Ayleway was appointed to this post, making him responsible for all secretarial and administrative matters and the disbursement of stores.Footnote ¹⁵ New sets of instructions were issued three years later, modelled on those drawn up by Dartmouth in 1683 for the English Ordnance Office, testifying to an ongoing and proactive process of administrative harmonisation.Footnote ¹⁶ These instructions hived off the disbursement of stores to a new Clerk of the Deliveries, bringing the office further into alignment with the English pattern, though since Ayleway held both of these new posts the institutional changes were apparently symbolic rather than substantive.Footnote ¹⁷ He appears to have been both active and diligent, collaborating with William Robinson, the surveyor-general and storekeeper of the Ordnance in Ireland, in a definitive survey of Irish fortifications in 1686.Footnote ¹⁸ By 1688 he was therefore a senior and experienced official within the Irish fiscal-military establishment, with powerful patrons in England, supervising a process of institutional reform intended to impose the apparatus of bureaucratic government upon Ireland, even if its underlying operation continued to rely on the informal networks of patronage and influence that stretched across the British Isles in this period.

Yet there was a fundamental difference between these developments and those that were to occur after 1692. McGrath has argued that state formation under the Protestant Ascendancy arose out of domestic politics and interests, mediated through and endorsed by the Irish Parliament and the Anglo-Irish elites. By contrast, the changes of the 1680s were apparently imposed upon Irish Ordnance structures from outside, by English diktat, through the dispatch of English personnel to Ireland. This resembled the experience of the Irish Treasury between 1660 and 1685, which was gradually and permanently subordinated by 1685 to the political and financial control of the English Treasury, and English interests, in contrast to the relative autonomy it had exercised during the 1660s and 1670s.Footnote ¹⁹ Although the Irish army remained independent, it was thoroughly overhauled after 1686 and placed more directly under the control of the lord lieutenant, who was himself by this point increasingly subject to English direction.Footnote ²⁰ Similar efforts were made between 1679 and 1688 to bring English colonies in the West Indies and North America under closer central control, and it seems fair to treat all of these examples as manifestations of the wider process of state formation that was already in train by the 1670s but was pushed into a much higher gear by the ‘tory reaction’ in England after the end of the Exclusion Crisis in 1681.Footnote ²¹

The events of James II’s reign, both in England and Ireland, beginning with the effort to restore Catholicism by ‘absolutist’ means in 1686 and ending with armed invasion by William of Orange in November 1688, eventually brought a halt to this process. Under James II’s lord deputy, Richard Talbot, first earl of Tyrconnell, Ireland initially remained quiet, though large segments of the Protestant community either hunkered down or fled.Footnote ²² Ayleway did one, then the other. He claimed in the ‘Case’ that he had considered it ‘very necessary for those of his principles to unite for the support and advancement of the public cause’ by surrendering his office, and, along with other Protestant officers, he accordingly resigned in January 1689, leaving Ireland the following month.Footnote ²³ Francis Aungier, first earl of Longford, recommended Ayleway to his patron James Butler, the second duke of Ormond, as ‘an honest gentleman’, and in May 1689 Ayleway applied directly to William, now king of England, Scotland and Ireland, who recommended him to the Committee of Trade and Plantations as ‘a suffering person from Ireland, and one very fit to be employed’ in the West Indies.Footnote ²⁴ Events clearly intervened, since in June he was appointed commissary to the Train of Artillery in Ireland by William’s German general, Frederick Herman de Schomberg, first duke of Schomberg, now the master-general of the Ordnance in England and commander-in-chief of the Williamite expeditionary force being assembled to reconquer Ireland.Footnote ²⁵ Six months later, and in recognition of his good conduct on this expedition, he was also appointed comptroller of the Train, and occupied this post until being arrested on charges of corruption, malfeasance and treason in October 1690.

II

The Select Document contains Ayleway’s response to these charges, in which he offers proofs of his innocence and lays the blame for faults on others. How far he glossed over his actions is difficult to judge, especially since some problems experienced by the train in Ireland undoubtedly were the fault of the English Ordnance Office.Footnote ²⁶ Yet the bulk of the surviving evidence suggests that the general charges of incompetence and corruption were unfair, and that the ‘Case’ presents a reasonably accurate picture of events in Ireland between 1689 and 1691, at least as Ayleway saw them. It also suggests that the Williamite war effort was held back in part by mutual suspicion and rivalry between established officials such as Ayleway, and new military and civilian officials who had often not collaborated with the Jacobite regime between 1685 and 1688, and suspected the loyalty of those who had.

In general, Ayleway appears to have been perceived as a competent officer. Schomberg’s letters to William III complained about most of his officials but reserved particular praise for Ayleway, who was ‘the only good officer we have’ (‘le seul bon officier que nous y avons’), although in April 1690 he wrote that Ayleway had not seen any campaigning in 1689 and was ‘somewhat slow’ (‘un peu lent’).Footnote ²⁷ A series of letters that Ayleway sent to the Board of Ordnance in London between September 1689 and September 1690 support this impression. For example, Ayleway was later blamed for the shortage of supply wagons in the spring of 1690, as the Williamite army marched south towards Dublin and their decisive victory at the Battle of the Boyne. Yet this was largely outside his control. Schomberg complained in April 1690 that entirely new wagons were needed, the ones brought over the previous year being now unusable ‘either by their unwieldy clumsiness or by being made of rotten or shaken timber, they must be laid aside, so that all will be at a stand without them’, and Ayleway himself wrote to the Ordnance Board that ‘the ways here are very rough and destructive of our carriages’.Footnote ²⁸ According to the army chaplain George Warter Story, several wagons were diverted to transport bread to the troops.Footnote ²⁹ Ayleway further reported to the Board in July 1690 that the artillery train was heavily overloaded when it entered the field, and that the thirty guns and four howitzers were ‘too many for our horses and men, and so I told the Duke often but it was H[is] M[ajesty]’s pleasure to have it so’, suggesting that Schomberg and William ignored advice that the transport was inadequate.Footnote ³⁰ Another charge brought against him at the court martial were delays in shipping the artillery train from Carrickfergus to Carlingford Bay, which Ayleway blamed on others failing to transmit clear sailing orders to the transport ships in June 1690. Given that Story recorded an identical accident that occurred in November 1689, it is possible that he reproduced a garbled version of this incident.Footnote ³¹

Ayleway was also proactive in addressing this problem of transportation. At the outset of the campaign in April 1690 he wrote to London to ask for at least sixty or eighty new wagons, with tarpaulins and spare axletrees, to supplement the stockpile of axletrees, spokes and other spare equipment he had already laid up at Carrickfergus in January for this purpose.Footnote ³² The following month he complained again to the Board that the supplies sent from England did not contain sufficient spare carriages, drudge- or block-wagons, spare wheels or tools, but that he had spent his time making several ammunition limbers, as well as 100 light carrs or wagons more suited for the Irish roads.Footnote ³³ He also repeatedly recommended to Schomberg the employment of oxen – ‘they draw [?swift] and steady and so I [find] them better for the great mortars and guns than horses’ – but Schomberg rejected these suggestions.Footnote ³⁴ Frustrated, Ayleway promised that ‘I will [upon] my own account buy some to show His Grace the usefulness of them and I hope he will be prevailed upon to [make] use of them’, and in August 1690 the army did indeed finally hire a large number of draught oxen for the wagons, along with nearly 130 confiscated from Jacobite supporters.Footnote ³⁵ The following year 600 oxen were used for the artillery train besieging Athlone, and 160 were acquired to carry bullets, tools and grenades to the army at Mullingar, suggesting that Ayleway’s advice was well-grounded.Footnote ³⁶

Ayleway was also charged at the court martial with providing inadequate amounts of bedding and tents at the army encampment at Dundalk in 1689, of leaving behind vital entrenching equipment on the march south to Dublin in 1690, of delivering the wrong calibre of cannon balls and mortar rounds, and of otherwise cheating the state through poor mustering and the embezzlement of supplies. Far less evidence survives that can confirm or dispel these allegations. He claimed that he got hold of eight tons of lead at Waterford to supply a deficiency in the ammunition stores, though no evidence survives to confirm this, only a letter he wrote to the Board of Ordnance in England asking that further stocks of lead be sent.Footnote ³⁷ It was actually the Clerk of the Stores for Ireland, Hugh Rowley, who purchased over two tons of lead for ammunition, and William Robinson was ordered in August 1690 to ‘procure all the lead possible to be got either out of public or private houses in or about Waterford or Carrick for the making of musket bullets […] you can’t get too much of this commodity, there being a great deal wanting’.Footnote ³⁸ Ayleway may indeed also have failed to take regular musters of the train, a further charge, but Schomberg’s secretary James de Cardonnel commented to the Board in December 1689 on the difficulties he himself had experienced with this, the train being quartered piecemeal across the north of Ireland at Belfast and Carrickfergus with the sick hospitalised at Carlow and Hillsborough.Footnote ³⁹ Thus most surviving sources suggest that Ayleway was a competent and active officer, who merited Schomberg’s trust, and that the accusations made against him were not consistent with his wider contributions to the Williamite war effort.

The letters to the Ordnance Board in England also suggest that Ayleway used his experience and expertise to make a number of other unspectacular but important contributions not mentioned in the ‘Case’. There were, for instance, serious shortages of weapons in 1689 with which to equip the Irish regiments raised for Williamite service. Although there had been some 3,421 muskets in Ireland in December 1688, with 1,200 carbines and 3,479 unmounted musket barrels, many of these had been taken to outfit the Jacobite armies.Footnote ⁴⁰ Schomberg complained from Dundalk in 1689 that the officers of the English regiments took little care of their men’s weapons, that those sent from the Ordnance Office were inadequate, and that the agents for the local regiments raised at Enninskillen had been forced to purchase arms in Scotland at their own expense.Footnote ⁴¹ The repair and refitting of arms was therefore a priority, and early in 1690 the English Ordnance Office accordingly dispatched the gunmaker John Hartwell to Ireland with a team of gunsmiths to repair the weapons, who arrived, after some delays, at Carrickfergus in April.Footnote ⁴² Hartwell immediately wrote to Ayleway and the Ordnance Board that there was a serious shortage of seasoned wood for making stocks, and that oil was necessary but likewise unobtainable.Footnote ⁴³ Both were eventually issued, but after some delays, which Ayleway blamed on the difficulties in unloading the Ordnance ships which had arrived in Belfast with the supplies.

Several months later Ayleway was of more immediate use, once Hartwell began to complain to the Board that his men’s salaries were unpaid, that ‘they mutter and grumble and say it is small encouragement for them to work without meat, drink and money’ and that since the death of Schomberg at the Battle of the Boyne in June ‘I have none to aid me, according to your orders, neither do I know who to go to for instructions’.Footnote ⁴⁴ Ayleway lent his assistance, pressing the Board for Hartwell to be paid and advancing the gunsmiths £30 out of his own pocket, which they later noted had kept them from starving.Footnote ⁴⁵ Six months earlier he had, ‘by my interest, got a little for the paymaster [of the train] upon His Grace’s bills [of exchange], or else we would not have subsisted’. There was a severe financial shortage around this time – Ayleway had noted in March that ‘our army [is] in a good condition as to health, but as poor as church mice’ – and his intervention therefore appears to have been well-timed.Footnote ⁴⁶ A petition presented to the English House of Commons in February 1703 also stated that in October 1689 Ayleway had furnished the horses of the artillery train with corn worth £417 out of his own pocket, which was ‘a great service and advantage to the public at the time’.Footnote ⁴⁷ Ayleway therefore appears to have merited the good opinion that the Ordnance Board declared they had of him in July 1690.Footnote ⁴⁸

Arrested and imprisoned in September 1690 upon accusations of corruption and wilful negligence, his chief accusers were Dutch officers John Wijnand van Goor and Willem Meesters, colonel and comptroller respectively of the Dutch artillery train, and experienced soldiers who had been brought over to Ireland by William III.Footnote ⁴⁹ After many delays a court martial was convened in April 1691 by Goddard van Ginkel, by then the commander-in-chief of the Williamite army in Ireland, and because most of the key witnesses for the prosecution were absent Ayleway claimed in the ‘Case’ that he was able to mount an effective defence. Yet, just as the court seemed on the verge of acquitting him, it was dissolved by Ginkel, and Ayleway was returned to confinement. Although released from custody in November 1691, the charges remained, and Ayleway therefore petitioned the king for a further court martial and for the payment of £1,037 16s. 5d. that he was still owed by the state.Footnote ⁵⁰ The ‘Case’, as noted above, was probably drawn up in connection with these appeals.

There is no evidence that the retrial Ayleway wanted was ever granted, but nearly eight months later he received two payments of £1,176 and £718 to discharge several arrears, and acquired several forfeited estates in Co. Louth to offset some £672 that he was still owed.Footnote ⁵¹ This perhaps reflected his new leverage in the 1692 and 1695 parliaments as M.P. for Dunleer in Co. Louth, the Legge family’s pocket borough, and Ayleway continued to act in their interest for the remainder of his life.Footnote ⁵² As well as handling the sale of land worth nearly £4,300 to the bishop of Meath in 1698, he supervised the other Irish interests of the family, including a long-running legal case over their lands in Co. Galway, writing to Dartmouth’s widow with some concern in November 1695 of measures he had proposed ‘out of the great concern and zeal I have for the good of my deceased Lord’s children’. Ayleway also exploited the obligations and reciprocities of patronage and clientage for his own ends, writing to Dartmouth’s son, the first earl of Dartmouth, in March 1702 to ask him to intercede with the earl of Rochester, lord lieutenant of Ireland, to help recover some of the £672 still owing to him.Footnote ⁵³ Finally, he nursed his grievances to the last, noting to Dartmouth in one of his last letters on 25 March 1702 that ‘I believe Your Lordship has heard how I have been used by the Dutch, and that all my employments were taken away by them, and given to Dutchmen’.Footnote ⁵⁴ Considering matters were now ripe for redress, he thought of applying for them again with Dartmouth’s help, particularly the office of clerk of the Ordnance, which Dartmouth’s father had got for him twenty years before.

Time ran out, though, before any of this could be effected, and Ayleway died at some point shortly after October 1702.Footnote ⁵⁵ His will noted that he now lived at Mount Rawdon in Co. Meath, on lands that he had leased from the estate of Sir Arthur Rawdon, an Irish tory grandee during the 1680s, and disposed of about £320 in gifts and annuities of £210 per year, including an annuity of £100 per year to his wife Elizabeth, although he warned ungraciously that it would be reduced to £30 ‘if my said wife shall be so foolish as to marry again, she being now of great age’. One of his executors was his friend John Clayton, rector of St Michan’s in Dublin and later dean of Kildare, who was presumably a relative of his wife, and had previously served as commissary for the Church of England in Virginia.Footnote ⁵⁶ Clayton and the other executors subsequently found, though, that Ayleway had ‘died mightily in debt and confusion’, owing at least £150 to the Legge family, and even ten years later Ayleway’s nephew was forced to admit that the debt was unlikely to be paid until his aunt died and her annuity could be liquidated.Footnote ⁵⁷

III

Ayleway’s petition of 1692 demonstrates how an ongoing process of Irish fiscal-military state formation was interrupted by the events of 1688, and how new tensions emerged out of this disjuncture. His position had always reflected the power of his patrons, and as they fell, so they dragged him down with them. Legge, now Baron Dartmouth, was stripped of his offices after the Glorious Revolution in November 1688, and then imprisoned early in 1691 in the Tower of London on suspicion of Jacobite loyalties, where he died later that year. Schomberg’s death at the Battle of the Boyne in June 1690 removed another important patron. Ayleway wrote to the Ordnance Board the following month with news of rumours that Sir Henry Goodricke would be promoted from lieutenant-general to master-general,

The Board promised in return to ‘do him any good offices’ they could, but with Schomberg gone their power likewise appears to have waned, leaving him powerless against his accusers.Footnote ⁵⁹ Indeed, the attack appears to have been embedded within a wider framework of political and personal allegiances and prejudices, which pitched a new group of military officials against the former Irish fiscal-military establishment, a proto-Tory ‘old guard’ who had served the Crown’s state-building project in the 1680s and whose loyalty was therefore suspect.

One element was professional tension and cultural prejudice between van Goor and Meesters on the one hand and Ayleway on the other, who certainly had no hesitation blaming his tribulations upon ‘envious humours of some few Dutchmen, who thought Mr Ayleway a check on them’. They appear to have allied with Jacob Richards, the first engineer of the British artillery train, who had fallen out with Ayleway in December 1689 over the post of comptroller to the train, protesting to the Board that Ayleway had been appointed over his head. This, he thought, was ‘a little severe’, and he went on to press his own claims with ‘a favourable account of my capacity and how far the Comptrollership is my due’.Footnote ⁶⁰ He subsequently complained that had he been in England he could have secured the post – ‘I find my forwardness upon [this] expedition has of late been very prejudicial to me’ – and concluded that although honour and preferment meant more to him than material gain, ‘if I receive not the reward which I find is my due I cannot much longer (upon that foundation) serve with contentment’.Footnote ⁶¹ Although Richards was an official in the English Ordnance Office, having been appointed third engineer in 1685, he had spent the past few years overseas as part of his professional education and thus was probably not part of the ‘old guard’ who had dominated the Ordnance Office during its period of administrative consolidation.Footnote ⁶² Conspiracy and intrigue therefore overlapped with public service, as new officials competed for places opened up by the conquest of Ireland, and exploited shifts within informal patronage networks to root out those whose loyalty to the Williamite cause already appeared suspect.

Ayleway also fell out with James de Cardonnel, who was Schomberg’s secretary and a Huguenot with no prior military service.Footnote ⁶³ Indeed, Ayleway wrote to the Board of Ordnance in 1689 that ‘Mr Cardonnel abuses me, he having dealt ill by me in other things’, and accused him of intercepting correspondence and behaving ‘more like a madman than a secretary’, while Cardonnel himself complained that Ayleway ‘took no more notice of [me] than if I had spoke to him from a footman’.Footnote ⁶⁴ A final opponent was Bartholomew van Homrigh, one of the ‘three Inquisitors’ who examined his case in November 1690, and whom, he complained, was ‘a known enemy of Ayleway … appointed to rake up what might be gathered from persons and papers to be formed into an accusation against him’. Possibly they had fallen out over the part that van Homrigh, a Dutch merchant and an early supporter of the Dissenting interest, had played in the surrender of the city of Dublin’s charter in 1687, part of the attack on ‘English’ liberties and the established religion in Ireland that eventually persuaded Ayleway to resign his post.Footnote ⁶⁵ Thus, most of the parties opposing him were foreigners who had not been closely involved in the regime during the period of state formation and consolidation between 1681 and 1688, and were not embedded within the tory patronage networks that had sustained it during this period.

By the same token, Ayleway received a great deal of informal assistance from established crown servants who had served successive regimes faithfully between 1681 and 1688, even after James II’s campaigns in England and Ireland began to raise their hackles. During the court martial in April 1691 he seems to have been treated sympathetically by the president, Colonel Percy Kirke, another former servant of James II, who confirmed to the court that it had not been Ayleway’s fault that grenades were lacking at Carrick.Footnote ⁶⁶ John Hartwell the gunsmith testified at the court martial that there had been no lack of iron at Carrickfergus, thereby refuting charges of negligence. While Hartwell may have been perfectly sincere, Ayleway had not only assisted Hartwell’s gunsmiths but also lobbied the Board in July 1690 to get him appointed armourer to the Irish Ordnance Office, promising ‘my utmost interest to assist Mr Hartwell to get the employment he desires, and I do not doubt but we shall succeed [in] it’.Footnote ⁶⁷ Another supporter was William Robinson, who had worked alongside Ayleway at the Irish Ordnance Office since 1679. In January 1691 he wrote to George Clarke, Ginkel’s military secretary, to remind him of Ayleway’s plight and to support his request for a speedy trial.Footnote ⁶⁸ Ayleway in turn seems to have omitted to mention in the ‘Case’ that Robinson was one of the three Inquisitors who had examined him, probably to shield his ally from his criticisms.

Finally, Ayleway received a degree of support from Israel Feilding, second secretary to the lord justices of Ireland and informal aide to George Clarke. Feilding wrote to Clarke in August 1691 to urge the payment of arrears owed to Ayleway, provided he was not already in debt to the Crown: ‘I assure myself’, Feilding said, ‘[that] doing him justice need not be recommended to you’.Footnote ⁶⁹ This generous act occurred only days before Ayleway was granted leave by the lords justices to join Arthur Forbes, first earl of Granard on his military expedition to Sligo, and Feilding may well have been involved in this. A number of links connected him with other members of the ‘old guard’. His uncle, Basil Feilding, was election agent in Carlisle to the leading tory politician Sir Christopher Musgrave, the lieutenant-general of the Ordnance between 1682 and 1687 and thus Legge’s deputy in England.Footnote ⁷⁰ Feilding himself was named one of the commissioners of the Irish Ordnance Office in April 1690, and his fellow commissioner was Francis Cuffe, who had been lieutenant of the Ordnance in Ireland alongside Ayleway in the 1680s. During this time, Feilding had himself been an agent in England to the family of James Butler, first duke of Ormond and the lord lieutenant of Ireland, who was also a patron of, among others, Francis Cuffe and his family, the earls of Longford, who had recommended both Feilding and Ayleway to Ormond in 1689.Footnote ⁷¹ An inveterate place-seeker, Feilding also hoped to be appointed storekeeper of the Ordnance in Ireland, and may have desired Ayleway’s support and remaining influence in his unsuccessful applications for this post.Footnote ⁷²

Robert Ayleway’s experience between 1690 and 1692 therefore hints at a series of deep rifts between those who had served under James II before 1688 and those who were now arriving in Ireland with the Williamite expeditionary force. The latter appear to have been profoundly suspicious of the loyalty, commitment and competence of those who had remained in the Crown’s service throughout the 1680s. Ayleway, part of this ‘old guard’, resented the arrival of new officials who knew little of Irish conditions, did not respect local experience, suspected his own loyalty, and even now sought to turn the war to their own advantage. Schomberg and Ginkell therefore had the difficult tasks of managing and balancing these competing interests, especially at moments of confrontation, and Ginkell’s prevarication.

IV

Given Ayleway’s own background, including his close connections with conspicuously tory grandees in England before 1688, and with Irish tories in the 1690s, and the evidence that the ‘Case’ provides for the strong sense of overlap between public service, English liberties and loyalty to the Church of England, it also hints at the conditions underlying the gradual growth of an Irish tory party between 1692 and 1716.Footnote ⁷³ The main importance of the Case, though, is the insight it offers into the intellectual assumptions of an important official within the developing Irish (and British) fiscal-military state before 1688, and the languages in which these could be expressed. No doubt Ayleway shaped his text with an eye to wider circulation, if not wholesale publication, but his rhetorical style makes it quite clear that he expected certain points about Englishness, English rights and laws and the nature and rewards of public service, to resonate with his audience. The ‘Case’ therefore represents one potential set of attitudes towards the fiscal-military states of England and Ireland at this key moment of administrative evolution and elaboration, though further work will be necessary to establish how representative his ideas were.

A strong streak of xenophobia is, perhaps understandably, particularly prominent. Ayleway contrasts his standing as ‘an Englishmen and a true son of the English Church’ with ‘the envious humours of some few Dutchmen’, who persecute him for their own private, selfish ends. Allied with this is the conceptualisation of law and liberty as the inalienable inheritance of free-born Englishmen, ‘entitled by their birth, and by the established laws of the kingdom to the equal distribution of justice’. In his concluding section, Ayleway again appeals against the ‘new forms of Judicature, not supported by any laws amongst us’, used by foreigners to restrain the liberty of Englishmen and deprive them of their property. Indeed, in some respects Ayleway’s petition contains an incipient critique of the Glorious Revolution as an event that had undermined the rule of law in England and Ireland. Yet the religious dimension cannot be understated, nor separated from these constitutional concerns. Ayleway noted that he was a ‘true son of the English Church’ and had conducted himself ‘as a trusty servant, honest man, and Protestant ought to do’. He emphasised his zeal for his country and religion, and claimed that it was his principles that had led him to resign his post in 1688. He objected to how Tyrconnell had trampled on English liberties in Ireland to break open the state to Irish Catholics, and he therefore supported William III as the ‘protector and preserver of laws and liberties in their proper course and channel’, both because English liberties were important in themselves and because they assured the protection of the Protestant religion.

Even more interesting is Ayleway’s discussion of government, which was created, he argued, for the defence of individual liberty and property. The state rested upon two supports, namely law and patronage. Those ‘rotten branches’ that impeded the growth and perfection of the flourishing tree of government had to be pruned or cut off entirely, and, to this end, it was necessary that the state enforce amongst its servants the laws established ‘by the wisdom of our forefathers’ for their regulation, ‘since government cannot be supported and subsisted but by its own rules and methods’. The alternative was for matters to become ‘confused and out of their proper channel’, as exemplified by the abuses to which Ayleway felt he had been subjected, and which he had therefore resolved to set before the public not only for his own benefit but for the wider protection of the commonwealth. Left unchecked, he argued, such abuses threatened its survival, and he compared England’s laws to the banks and dykes of Holland, where a single breach risked flooding the entire country. Thus even the smallest infringement of an Englishman’s liberties and privilege risked undermining the entire superstructure of the English constitution by allowing authority to be exercised unchecked, leaving government like a spider’s web, ‘that hold flies fast but let bigger and stronger creatures pass through’.

Yet, Ayleway contended, the proper operation of patronage was also necessary, enabling ministers ‘to support and nourish the root of government by cherishing those branches that contribute to the well-being of it’. Although men should set public service above personal concerns, ‘for that all private interests are but so many rivelets flowing from the great fountain of the … government’, the duty of the state was to encourage and support those officials who could lend it most service. While the law restrained misconduct, patronage rewarded good conduct and encouraged others to do the same. Ayleway even argued, with no apparent embarrassment, that it was established practice ‘to encourage such as deserve well in the public affair with rewards rather exceeding their merits, the end to invite and induce others to the service of the Government’. Thus his own rewards were necessary, and for the public good, since they encouraged others to excel. The creation of formal state structures in Britain and Ireland during the 1680s therefore marched in step with the private benefits and rewards that those who occupied them could enjoy. As Walsh and McGrath have shown though, the difference after 1692 was that such structures would emerge largely from within the Anglo-Irish elite, rather than being imposed upon them from outside through English agents such as Ayleway.

National Library of Ireland MS 420: ‘Case of Robert Ayleway esqr, late Comptroller of the Artillery in Ireland’, 1692

[f. 1] The many hardships put on the said Robert Ayleway requires the publishing his Case, with the circumstances of it, and the rather for that his cheifest pledges, in this world, are and were at stake (vizt) his reputation, fortune and Liberty, the Darlings of mankind and the true objects of all humane Laws. It is therefore to be admitted proper and just, to vindicate them from the difficulty of oppression under which they seem to groane, and to file off the rust by that meanes contracted, by shewing to the world the particulars of the accusation against him, and of what testimony’s were give for his justification. And in regard his integrity and Capacity are the two things endeavour’d to be blemished by the proceedings against him, it may not seem improper to introduce this discourse in brief with this Character (vizt) that hee is an Englishman, and a true son of the English Church, and as such all his Life lived and behav’d himself, and gave many testimony’s both att home and in foraigne partes of his love & Zeale to both his Countrey and Religion.

That after spending a considerable time in the publick service Hee was by his late Majesty King Charles the 2d (about fourteene yeares since) Constituted Auditor-Gen^ll of Virginia for life and afterwards (to witt) in October 168[1] was by l[ett]res Patent made Clerke of the Ordnance in Ireland, and the place of Clerke of the Delivery’s joyn’d with it, In which Employm^ts he continued severall years, and in all respects demean’d himselfe as a trusty servant, honest man, and Protestant ought to doe.

That in the yeare 1688 the said Mr Ayleway considering it was very necessary for those of his principles to unite for the support and advancement of the public Cause, hee therefore determin’d to adhere to his present Mat^y’s Interest,Footnote ⁷⁴ as the Protector and preserver of Law’s and Liberty in their proper Course and Channell. To Effect which hee apply’d himself, to the late Lord TyrconnellFootnote ⁷⁵ then in the Government of Ireland, and gave up to him the l[ett]res Patents of his Employments, and by his Example, in that respect, influenced several others to doe the like; after which the Eyes of that Government was upon him, lookeing on him as disaffected and dangerous, and to be able as well as willing to thwart and prejudice their intended designes, by discovering their power and stores. Resolutions were therefore take to restrain his Liberty, to the end, by that or severer courses to putt it out of his power to doe the late King’s party harme. But Mr Ayleway used all early and speedy measures to free himselfe from soe great a danger, and did with much difficulty Escape out of Ireland into England in the month of February 1689 where on his arrival hee offer’d his service to his present Mat^y.

By this short and true acc^t it appeares that Mr Ayleway was conversant with the Affaire of the Ordnance, That hee gave sufficient demonstration of his Zeale and truth to the present Government by [f. 2] quitting his then employment and the reasonable expectations of other advancements, forsaking all his fortune and substance, w^ch lay in Ireland, hazarding his Life in a very great measure, and stripping his family of subsistance, which renders him deserving of impartiall justice in preserving his reputation, life, Liberty and property, all which were by the subsequent proceedings (but without ground) question’d.

That M^r Ayleway becoming knowne to the most renown’d Gen^ll his Grace the late Duke SchonbergFootnote ⁷⁶, was about the 20^th of June 1689 by him appointed Commissary of the Trayne of Artillery then design’d for Ireland, and haveing behaved himselfe in that station to his graces satisfaction, the said Duke thought him fitt to succeed Capt ClarkeFootnote ⁷⁷ in the Office of Comptroll^r, In which hee continued remarkably in his said Graces favour, soe long as hee lived and the world allows that his said Grace was intirely in the English Interest and a competent Judge, what persons were fitt to be employ’d to support it.

That about the 14th of June 1690, one M^r GoorFootnote ⁷⁸ a Dutchman arriv’d at Belfast with the Character of Coll^ll of the said Train of Artillery, and one M^r MeestersFootnote ⁷⁹ another of that Countrey with the Character of Comptroll^r of the Dutch that belong’d to the said Train, and they were no sooner entered upon their Comands, but they both consulted of measures to supplant M^r Ayleway and by that meanes to procure to themselves the intire mannagem^t of the Train (but could not effect their ends till after the death of Duke Schonberg) to the doing whereof all Engines were putt to worke, and an arrow was made of every crooked stick to impeach him; and since truth and sincerity could not have warranted so groundles a proceeding, false and scandalous aspersions were privately laid against him, before Gen^ll GinckellFootnote ⁸⁰ to induce his believing M^r Ayleway unfitt for the station hee possess’d, and the said Gen^ll giving early Creditt to what was offer’d to the disadvantage of M^r Ayleway, Did on the 2^d of October 1690 (without further Examination or Enquiry, but the Information so by him rec[eive]d from the said Aylewayes prosecutors) Order Mr Ayleway to be confin’d, and on the 5th of the same month all his Bookes and papers were Seized on and examin’d privately by such as accus’d him, and not any of Mr Ayleway’s friends admitted to be present on persuall thereof, tho’ hee petition’d for that liberty.Footnote ⁸¹ But the matters contain’d in his papers, not affording sufficient matter for his ruine, Three Inquisitors (a thing new in these Kingdomes) to witt one VanhomrighFootnote ⁸² a known Enemy of Ayleway, and one Coll^ll VennerFootnote ⁸³, and some third personFootnote ⁸⁴ were appointed to rake up what might be gather’d from persons and papers to be form’d into an accusation against himFootnote ⁸⁵; which three persons being very vigilant in discharging the confidence putt in them, Issued many Summons and Examin’d such on Oath (without legall Authority to Administer any such) by whose testimony they expected any discovery, and were lead by their Industry soe farr as to draw the Depositions to that advantage, that diverse of the wittnesses (finding them untrue and inconsistent) refus’d to signe them. Those proceedings were deem’d cruell and severe by many, first in restraining a man’s Liberty without any previous proofe Contrary to Magna Charta, and the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. Secondly seizing on his Vouchers and papers without which hee could not justify himselfe in any thing. Thirdly his Enemyes possessing themselves of [f. 3] his papers, and no friend admitted to be present on persuall, by which meanes hee might be depriv’d of his most materiall Evidences, and [?ett] might be putt among them that might import his ruine, ffourthly appoint a new Judicature by Inquisitors, which was an encouragement to any person, [?quovis jure quâ vesue Injuriâ]Footnote ⁸⁶ to Charge him. Fifthly by the unwarrantable proceedings of those Inquisitors, by Administering illegal Oathes and wresting the truth by drawing Depositions, contrary to the words and meaning of such as were Examin’d, and that, that is yett more severe is, That M^r Ayleway thus depriv’d of his Liberty, and (as much as in his Enemyes lay) of his reputation too, His Tryall is deferr’d and delay’d, by which the privilege given to the greatest Criminalls of Justifying and clearing themselves by a fair heareing is not allow’d him, the celeris justicia appointed by the great Charter is not regarded; Hee therefore thus greiv’d and as advis’d by many, oppress’d. Hee thereupon prefered several Petitions, both to the then Lords Justices of Ireland, and to the said Generall, praying that his papers might be restor’d him, a Charge drawne up against him, and a Court martiall appointed to try him, yet receiv’d not any answer to any of them, which obliged him to apply himselfe by Petition to his Mat^y in the month of Dec^r 1690, the prayer whereof was in the words following (to witt) Your Pet^r humbly prayeth your Mat^y to Order him, his Charge, his papers and a Tryall so that, if gulty to be made an example, if Innocent to be restor’d to your Mat^y’s favour &c. His Mat^y thereupon (according to his wonted Clemency and Justice) granted the prayer of the Petition, and his pleasure therein was ordered to be signified to the Lords Justices, by the Right Hon^ble the then Lord SydneyFootnote ⁸⁷ which was accordingly done by His Lo^pp’s l[ett]re of the 27th day of the same moneth, upon which some of M^r Ayleway’s Bookes and papers were return’d to him, and other materiall writeings were detained from him and severall collections hee had made not relateing to the Charge laid against him were Copyed.Footnote ⁸⁸

The said M^r Ayleway haveing obtain’d his Mat^y’s said Order for an immediate Tryall, hee expected that a period would be putt in a short time to his troubles, whereby hee might obtaine an Enlargem^t from his Captivity, and be restor’d to the good name and reputation hee always had until blemished by the dark Clouds wrongfully heap’d upon him. But missing of the expected expedition hee Peteitioned the then lords Justices and Gen^ll that a Charge should be drawn against him, and a Court martiall appointed according to his Mat^y’s Orders, But M^r Ayleway could not have a Charge, until the 18^th of February 1690, nor an Order for a Court Martiall, from the Gen^ll until the 12^th of March following, by which his Excellency appointed but 9 Feild officers whereas there ought to have been 12, by reason of which defect Major-Gen^ll KirkeFootnote ⁸⁹ then President refus’d to hold a Court, and thereupon M^r Ayleway was constrain’d to make fresh applications and obtained an Order bearing date the 18^th day of the same month, whereby the Gen^ll doth name all the Assistants [f. 4] among whom were named some persons which could not attend by reason whereof the said last Order proved likewise ineffectuallFootnote ⁹⁰; which obliged M^r Ayleway to make further applications for an effectuall Order, all which delay’d the said M^r Ayleway’s Tryall until the 13^th of Aprill 1691 att which time and not before a Court Martiall sate, whereof the Hon^ble Major Generall Kirke was president, Coll^ll WoolselyFootnote ⁹¹, Coll^ll John FooksFootnote ⁹², Coll^ll Goor, Lieu^t Coll^ll BoyleFootnote ⁹³, Lieu^t Coll^ll WiseFootnote ⁹⁴, Lieu^t Coll^ll PeirceFootnote ⁹⁵, Marquess de RadaFootnote ⁹⁶, Lieu^t Collonell BrazierFootnote ⁹⁷, Major AllenFootnote ⁹⁸, Major NobleFootnote ⁹⁹, Major ColtFootnote ¹⁰⁰ and Major NewtonFootnote ¹⁰¹ were assistants, all sworne. What the Charge was against Ayleway and what defence hee made therein, will fully appeare by what follows, which is a true Coppy of the proceedings of the Court in that respect, and obtained with great difficulty, For the Judge AdvocateFootnote ¹⁰² refused to give Copy’s thereof till my Lord Sydney came to the Government and declar’d hee durst not doe it.

Information being given by their Mat^ys’ Advocate Gen^ll against Robert Ayleway Esq^r, Commissary of the Stores and Comptroll^r to the Train of Artillery that the said M^r Ayleway being in their Mat^ys service and pay, many Errors and miscarriages were frequently comitted in the management of the said Office whereby their Mat^ys service was sometimes greatly retarded and often utterly lost, as the following articles might more fully appeare, and the said Ayleway having opened his answer the Court proceeded to the Examination of witnesses on the several articles aforesaid.

The 14^th of Aprill 1691 the Court being satt as aforesaid the President demanded of M^r Ayleway an account of the horses in his Charge att the time when the army marched from Hillsborough which he delivered to the Court and is as followeth [f. 6]

And having Compared the same with that taken by the right Hon^ble the Lord Justice CunningesbyFootnote ¹⁰⁷ att Atherdee they did not much differ, And then the said M^r Ayleway being demanded whether the number of horses aforesaid were not sufficient to draw all the ammunition and stores agreed by the Gen^ll to be carryed, The said Ayleway allow’d the same to be sufficient and being further demanded why Collers, harnes, horseshoes, and many other less necessary things were Carryed, and musq^t ball was left behind; Hee replyed that it was impossible for the Train to march without some of those materialls, whereas two waggons were design’d for to carry Collers, Harness &c One only Carriage was employ’d, and that there was not any one Carriage employ’d but what was laden with necessary’s for the said Trayne. And a great number of Wittnesses being examined what the particulars were that were soe carryed, and on debate of the whole matter the Court were of opinion that the said Carryages were not misimploy’d by the said Ayleway by what then appear’d, And ordered the further debate of the matter till next day att nine of the clock in the same place.

The 15^th of Aprill 1691 the Court being satt as aforesaid the matter against M^r Ayleway comeing under debate, In regard M^r Meesters, Coll^ll Richards and severall other material wittnesses were in England who could make the Cause very cleare if presentFootnote ¹⁰⁸; and in regard his Exc^ie Lieut Gen^ll Ginckell will be in this Citty in a day or two, with whom the President was desired to advise withall and communicate the whole proceedings to his Exc^ie, The Court therefore thought fitt to adjourne and accordingly was adjourn’d till Saturday 18^th Aprill Instant

The 18^th of Aprill 1691 the Court being to meet that hour the following Order was sent whereby the same was dissolv’d.

By which said last recited Order M^r Ayleway’s Confinem^t and afflictions are continued and all the former proceedings are become and made null on a bare pretence without Oath, that M^r Meesters, Collonell Richards and others could make good the Charge; whereas Meesters & Richards were the cheife accusers, against M^r Ayleway, and both a considerable time in Ireland after his Confinement, and might have given Evidence against him, if any thing materiall they had to offer. And the said Richards being sworne on the Tyrall of the first article, his testimony was deem’d frivolous and had he any thing more material to testify, it were strange that when Examined hee did not recollect himselfe; and it is not to be doubted, but their Inclinations led them rather to ruine then favour Ayleway, they being the promoters of the mischeifs heap’d upon him, and therefore improbably they would parte the Kingdome ‘ere they had given in Depositions against him, had they any thing materiall to make. And the rather for that M^r Ayleway understanding that Meesters and Richards designed for England, and fearing that some pretence might be made in their absence to give him further delay, hee Petic[i]oned the Lords Justices that they should stay in the Kingdome untill after his Tryall, which was not comply’d with, and yett on the Suggestions of their absence his miseryes are continued. And as for the words (and others) in the Order it is but a groundless p[re]tence and admitting the allegation true, Yet is seemes without president to dissolve the Court after entertaining the Cause and proceeding thereon, and Examining every article, untill finall Judgement were given, That particuler being opposite to the proceedings of all Judicatures, and of very great inconveniency, and introduces a most dangerous practice. For that no man once accus’d, tho’ never soe innocent, can be acquit’d if after Tryall the whole proceedings by nullifyed on a groundless pretence or suggestion which, if of any weight, should have been offer’d before the Tryall, and had the same been a a good ground for delay after the Tryal, it could not reasonably operate more, than by a suspension of the proceedings by adjournment untill that impediment had been remov’d; Then the suggestion of the wittnesses absence, was made to an improper Judge, the Court-Martiall [f. 8] being appointed to that matter, and being possess’d of the Cause, was the proper Course of giving the rule in any business before them; But as this case is a stranger to the proceedings on a suggestion, which had the same been true, yet might be of no effect for ought hee knew, Concludes and layes aside a Cause not then properly before him. But considering that if Ayleway were acquitt, hee must be restored to his Employments The securest way then of settleing such as obtain’d the same was to prevent it. Then is is to be further noted that Ayleway was Confin’d the 2^d of October 1690 and from that time till the first day of his Tryall, which was the 13^th of Aprill 1691 was near seven months, which was a sufficient time to prepare wittnesses, when it must be expected the Cause would be determin’d there being many Petititon’s to that end in that time preferr’d – And the rather for y^t all that time the three Inquisitors, continu’d a fix’d & undiscountinued Jurisdiction to dive into all Corners, and pick up all scraps to impeach Ayleway Yet the pretended materiall Evidences, absent att the time of the Tryall, but in the Countrey for several months during that Confinement conversant with the said Inquisitors, and even the managers & accusers themselves; yet in all that time, Meesters his Examination’s not taken, nor M^r Ayleway tried before his departure; and the others Evidence then absent was taken and given in Evidence on the Tryall but ruled frivolousy. And if their Evidence had been deem’d requisite or of any Effect to criminate Ayleway, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Court and Tryall had been appointed dureing their absence – All which deduced the impartiall to Judge that the said dissolveing Order was ill grounded and that the Gen^ll was misinformed when hee granted it. That M^r Ayleway was thereby much oppressed and deprived of his Liberty, and of his employm^ts and his Credit blemished without foundation or bottom, Then the several oppressions put upon him by the insinuations and contrivances of Goor Meesters and other his Enemyes.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ And further it is to be observ’d that the said Suggestion whereon the said Order was grounded was made by Coll^ll Goor, M^r Ayleway’s known persecutor and one of his Judges. So that a forraigner is not only Judge of the Life and Liberty of an Englishman, but likewise manager and accuser; a method seldome used in proceedings, against Free born subjects of England Intitled by their birth, and by the Established Laws of the Kingdom to the equal distribution of Justice.

Now matters standing as above and Mr Ayleway’s restraint continued it is expedient to give the Reader a review of the hereinbefore recited Charge against him, by which it will be further sufficiently evinced, that the pretence of want of wittnesses is a sham and contrivance.

For some reasons herein after sett forth the 6^th article comes to be dismiss’d before the fifth.

[f. 11] This Charge is very great and heavy and therefore requires to be the better clear’d, which cannot be more effectually done than demonstrating that all the matters sett forth in this article were solely the miscarriage of Meesters, the chief Engine against Ayleway in this heavy and oppressive persecution, all which will appeare evidently by the following p[ar]ticular.

And to shew this, even the minutes of the Court herein before noted (tho short in several p[ar]ticulars) sett forth that it appear’d to the Court the Commissary M^r Meesters left att Carrickfergus, and had the charge of the stores, and likewise had the care of shipping the said Mortars Canon Balls etc And which were accordingly shipped and arrived att Dublin in Aug^t last, and the same being directed to be reshipp’d for Waterford in order to the Seige of Lymerick, the mortars and Canon ball were kept in Dublin and the shells shipp’d for Waterford, and all done by the orders of Meesters and not by any default of M^r Aylewayes.

All which being thus made evident to the Court they declar’d their admiration wherefore Ayleway was prosecuted and Meesters spar’d, and yet that was omitted in the minutes; for reasons, which seem by the [?connexion] of matters apparent, since the speedy dissolution of the Court seems to manifest the grounds of that omission. And the truth of matters is, that since the Dutch became concern’d in the Train, there were diverse notorious miscarriages, and to cleare the nocent the innocent must be accus’d, and since the accusation was not like to hold, it was thought more safe by the guilty rather to leave the matter still in suspense, than that M^r Ayleway should be released by a judgement, that so nearly troubled and reflected on M^r Meesters.

It will not therefore be thought impertinent to sett forth the p[ar]ticulars in reference to the Dutch mannagement of the Train, sinceth it must be the more certain way of distinguishing the innocent from the nocent. On which point the weight and burthen of this whole Case stands. Which is as followeth.

About the 18^th of June 1690 Coll Goor and Meesters began to Officiate, and on the 22^th of the same month his Mat^y made the following Ord^r

To the Ma^rs of the Transport ships above mentioned

[f. 12] This Ord^r was sent to the Ma^rs of the ships, by the hands of a poore Lighterman, without any manner of directions from Goor; whose directions they were by the order to observe, and thereupon the Ma^rs apply’d themselves to Meesters, who sent the King’s Order back by an Express to Goor for directions which was never return’d, and the following order was made the 26^th day of the same month.

Upon which the ma^rs immediatey sett sail; all this was sworne before Dudley LoftusFootnote ¹¹¹, Ma^r in Chancery, by Ralph Heeley, Benjamin Master and John Weston, three ma^rs of those Transport Shipp’s.

But now it was nois’d about the Camp, and in all probability the King was made to believe soe (as appears by wording the 2^d order) that the Ma^rs of the ships were disaffected and refus’d to obey his first order, under pretence that they had no Convoy, when there was no more in it, than Goores omission of directions. Now had the wind come about in the mean time and kept the ship’s in harbour? what condition would the army have been in.

After the storeships arriv’d in Dublin Harbour, there was an apprehension that some french ships were design’d for that Harbour, whereupon the stores were confusedly thrown on shoare, and to put them in Order and settle a store in Dublin, Meesters was sent thither the 16 of July 1690, and whilst hee was in Dublin, And Ayleway with the Army on their March to the Seige of Limerick, Meesters did shipp off the stores of warr for that Seige, And ship’t shells instead of Balls, which appears prov’d before the Court Martiall to Article the 5^th And as an additionall proof thereof And that the proportions Meesters sent were very ridiculous. And that hee had sent Carcasses and shells for the 18 inch mortar, and forgot to send the Mortar, take this following affid^t

When these stores arriv’d att Waterford, Ayleway was sent from Limerick thither to receive them, and was very industrious to supply the defects of the proportion, hee gott lead att Waterford and cast 8 Tunn of Musq^t Ball, hee procur’d deales, Canvas for sandbag’s and other necessary’s, hee dispatched an Express immediately to Dublin for flints to be sent to the Camp forthwith upon Horses which was done accordingly; It was say’d that Meesters declar’d that hee sent all the Canon Ball in the stores of Dublin, the proportion he sent for Eight 24 pound^rs Gunns was 1900 Ball and for 4 Culverin 2014 Ball; now every body knows, that at a seige 24 pound^rs were of more use then the Culverins and yet for 8 of them but 1900 ball and for 4 other 2014 Ball. Att this rate were the rest of his proportions. But that there was more Ball in the stores, and that he knew it, Read this following affid^t

Jur[at] cor[am] me 7^o die Maii 1691 Dud: Loftus

Ri: Orpen

There is further to be observ’d on this affid^t that Meesters knew the 18 inch Mortar was in Dublin, when the Carcasses and shells for it were sent, and therefore hee has no Plea for himselfe but meer negligence.

When Meesters had dismiss’d these Transport ship’s from Dublin hee himselfe march’d for Lymerick with 8 eighteen pound^rs, six Tinn boates, and what proportion of stores hee thought fitt, with a guard of 80 horse and 20 ffoot, besides the People beloning to the Train. On the 11^th of August Coll EchlinFootnote ¹¹³ with 140 Dragoones, mett him att Cullen about 18 miles short of Lymerick, and inform’d him that SarsfieldFootnote ¹¹⁴ was abroad with a party and advis’d him to stay there all night, To draw up his Gunns and stores in the Court of the Castle, and hee would bee their Guard that night; Meesters accepted not the Coll^ll’s service, But march’d on a mile beyond the Castle of Cullen, where hee Encamp’d in so severe a place that Experience’d soldiers say, that had they been upon their Guard, and their Gunns drawn up, and loaded with partridge shott, they might have defended themselves against five times the number that came against them till relief could have come; But such was their wonderfull Care, after the Coll^ll’s caution, they were all surpriz’d, taken asleep in their Beds their Horses att Grass and very quietly knock’d in the head, Except carefull Meesters, who crept into a Ditch in a potato Garden, as hee himselfe relates it, and except some, who were taken Prisoners, and a few others who made hard shift to Escape, whilst the Enemy were destroying those things they could not carry off. The allar’m came to Coll Echlin who was diligently upon his Guard att his horsehead, Hee imediately mounted, attacqued the reare, who were posted advantageously to secure Sarsfield’s retreat, kill’d many of them, Beat them from their post and possess’d himselfe thereof, And notwithstanding all Sarsfield’s endeav^rs, hee preserv’d his post and forc’d the Enemy to quitt all the Prisoners and Plunder they had taken.

Att Carrick in the March towards Lymerick the Dutch Offic^rs of the Artillery detach’d (without takeing notice of Ayleway) some Gunns and stores to march against Waterford, and comeing before the Towne, Maj^r Gen^ll Kirke having the Comand, Ordered Handgranadoes to be delivered out, but being told there was none, required the reason thereof from Aylway who acquainted him that hee was not made acquainted with what [f. 15] they brought, but that there were enough att Carrick, and if they were not brought, it was not his fault, which upon Examiniation hee found to be true, And after in open Court upon Ayleway’s Tryall related this passage tho no mention thereof in the minutes.

That att the opening of the then next Campaigne, the Army made a long halt att Mullengarr, and ‘twas generally say’d and believed their halt was occasion’d by the want of Tinn boates, when there were at that time Eleaven Tinn boates in Dublin never in service, with all their Carriages and furniture by them. This being discover’d and making a great noise, there came out an advertizement in the Dublin Intelligence of the 7^th of July 1691, That the said Tinn boates were all along w^thin the knowledge of the Train, but being made useless last yeare were putt up etc. But how true this is may easily be judg’d, for it is well knowne that Duke Schonberg brought with him from England 20 Tinn boates with their Carriages and furniture, not one of them during the whole warr to the time of the army’s forementioned halt att Mullengarr, being any way’s prejudiced or impair’d, Except the 6 Boates which march’d with Meesters to Cullen, and those by Ayleway’s Care were repair’d and made serviceable att Waterford, afterwards sent from thence by sea to Dublin, and the same six boates with 3 others march’d with the army to Mullengarr, so that the other 11 were never used yet left behind att Dublin.

There were several affid^ts made by Credible wittnesses of several other neglient or ignorant miscarriages of these men which for brevity sake are here omitted.

When Ireland was reduc’d, these Dutch Command^rs never sumon’d the people of the Train to discharge them of the King’s service, But their Countrey men were paid off all their arreares, and had a months pay given them besides, and were Carryed with them for England for the service in Flanders, whilst most of the English were left behind not knowing whether they were in the King’s service or not, and to this day cannot gett their arreares. For the payma^r is permitted to goe for and continue in England, and when these poor people petition in Ireland, they are told nothing can be done till their acco^ts are stated, when they repair to England, and apply themselves to the payma^r to make up their accounts, they are answered, that hee cannot make them up there because his papers are in Ireland. When they tell the payma^r that they heard he had rec^d four months pay for them, hee ownes it, But sayes hee paid some, and the rest Meesters drew out of his hands, a little before hee went for Flanders. Thus a great many who serv’d all the warr well, and were in good Condition when they Entered into the service, are now with the widdows and Children of others that were kill’d in the service, starving in Ireland, of which necessity, barbarous advantage it taken, their arrears bought for a trifle, by some who know what they buy, and perhaps were the only [f. 16] Cause of that necessity, through a prospect of buying. Thus is the King deceiv’d and the Loyall subjects oppress’d.

Now to returne to Ayleway and see how hee spends the remainder of his Confinement, which was as follow’s; After other Petitions the 20^th of May 1691 hee apply’d himselfe to the Gen^ll and pray’d that his Exc^y would determine whether hee was discharg’d from the King’s service or not, if not, to be posted in his Employ, and if hee was, to have an Order for the payment of his arreares; but this mett with no answer. The 23^th of June in the said yeare, hee prayed His Exc^y to doe something for his releife, to order him his arreares or some parte thereof, and to give him leave to attend his Exc^y as a Volunteer that Campaigne. The same Petition was again sent the 1^st of August 1691; but hee rec’d no manner of answer; And his private affair’s lying all this while neglected, by reason of his Confinem^t and his health much impaired, Hee petitioned the Lords Justices to grant him Licence to repair into the Countrey for one month, upon which follow’d this Ord^r.

By The Lords Justices of Ireland

Now this month that was allow’d him for his private affairs hee spent the greatest parte thereof with the Earle of GranardFootnote ¹¹⁷ in his Expedition ag^t Sligoe, and then return’d to his Confinem^t. But before this Ord^r came to his hands hee had rec^d the following authority.

By the Lords Justices of Ireland

By the Lords Justices ComandI. Feilding

Which authority I hope will be allow’d an Evidence that the L^ds Justices did not think Ayleway an Enemy to the present Governm^t nor the accusations against him true, and what proves it yet further, is, That when the Gen^ll and other offic^rs were return’d from the Campaigne to Dublin a Petition was p[re]ferr’d by him in the words following.

The prayer whereof was in termes thus.

To w^ch Peticion hee rece^d no no answer. But another Court Martiall being pressed for by the said Ayleway’s applycacon, Att last in Nov^r 1691 the Gen^ll released the prisoner, Ordering him only £100 in parte of his arreares without any further satisfaction to him, He being released after a Confinem^t of above 13 month (vizt) from the 2^d of October 1690 to the 12^th of No^r 1691 by the Gen^ll only, But not acquitted by the finall sentence of a Court martiall nor clear’d to his King of the Crimes hee stood Charg’d withal. And thereupon Ayleway repair’d for England, and humbly Peticioned his Mat^y for another Court Martial, his arreares etc; His Mat^y referr’d the matter to the Baron D’Ginckell as by the subseq^t Ord^r appeares &c.Footnote ¹¹⁸

Upon which his Exc^ie Reports

But here is to be not^d that notwithstanding Ayleway’s frequent application hee could not gett this report but a day or two before the King’s departure for Flanders, when his Mat^y was in a hurry of other business. And Ayleway has yet receiv’d no releife thereupon.

Then as to the Opinion of the Court Martial after the discussion of the last Article that the Offices of Comptroll^r and Comissary were incompatible M^r Ayleway thinks himselfe very free from blame or imputation in that respect, The same Court having att the same instant, declar’d that it was no Crime or fault in him, and truly it should be rather deem’d a Credit to M^r Ayleway than an offence, In the heat of warr & service to discharge the Office of such Employments sufficiently without fault, miscarriage or giving ground for any just complaint against him. And his acting’s being no other then what was done by the power, directions and Comand of his Gen^ll, what hee did in pursuance of such, cannot be imputed a Crime to him, And it is to be observ’d that tho M^r Meesters the material wittness against him, and his accuser att the same time, that hee prosecutes Ayleway for holding Inconsistent Employm^ts did himselfe actually officiate in the several places following (vizt) Comptroll^r of the Train of Artillery; Comissioner of the Office of the Ordnance, Comptroll^r of the Bridgeboates, or some such office or place relateing to them, Payma^r of the Dutch belonging to the Artillery, and storekeeper of the Office of the Ordnance in England, the advantage of which Employments amounts to at least £2500 p[er] annu[m]. Yet the Inconsistency of all those places (all in themselves much more incompatible than those held by M^r Ayleway) was never Charg’d as a fault in him tho many great and notorious miscarriages were in the discharge thereof, soe that M^r Meesters might be well compar’d to the Glutton, that spitt in the pottage, to the end none else should eat of it, that hee may preserve all for himselfe.

Upon this whole matter it may be Collected how severely M^r Ayleway was used and handled, by the envious and malicious prosecutions of such who Comitted the Crimes themselves wherewith he was charg’d, And how far those Gentlemen were lead by their Ambitions and coveteous principles, in striking att the Life Liberty and property of an honest subject without other ground or reason, than the Expectation of reaping some advantage or satisfac^con by his ruine and fall, And without the least Colour of truth in what was [f. 19] alleadg’d against him, as may appeare by the whole tract of the forgoeing proceedings.

It was the Golden Rule of our forefathers to Encourage such as deserve well in the publick affair, with rewards rather exceeding their merritts, the end to invite and induce others to the service of the Government. So that advancements and rewards were the great nourishers & encouragers [of] virtue, and in effect two pillars that much contribute to the support of the great Burthen and weight of Civill Government. For tho in right reason, the publick affaire is more to be regarded by every p[ar]ticular, than any private advantage, for that all private Interests are but soe many Riveletts flowing from the great fountain of the Establish’d Lawes, and Constitution of the Government, and that failing, those must fall of Course, Yet since every Comonwealth was originally Instituted for the preservation of every one in his particular Property and Liberty, by an universall Law, regarding every individuall, It was deem’d Politick (since liberty and property is the Comon and particular Darling) to support and nourish the Root of Governm^t by cherishing those branches that contribute to the well being of it. On the other side since Government cannot be supported and subsisted, but by it’s owne rules and methods, there is nothing more to be regarded, than the keeping of every subordinate within the Limits and rules of those Constitutions Established for them: And that by pruneing and cutting off Rotton branches that impede the growth and p[er]fection of the flourishing Tree of Civill Government. So that as in the one Case those that deserve well are wel rewarded to encourage others to doe good, In the other Case the delinquents are severly punished.

Since those Rules seem to be the Bases of a well Govern’d City, by [?everting] them, things become confus’d and out of their proper Channell. Therefore it was thought of advantage to the publick, to Comit the Case of M^r Ayleway to the press, for that it touches the public, tho him more particularly, And to the end that the readers and such as are Intitled to the protection of the Law’s of England, might by p[er]usal of it find out and discover a great attempt made (in this particuler Case) to violate the Established Laws. And finding the Cause better able to cure y^e Distemper either by takeing Care that the Comitters of such notorious Offences be punished, to the end to prevent the like proceedings for the future, By deterring others from violating those Constitutions that preserve our Lives and Temporall beings, And to the intent that some redress might be proscrib’d for M^r Ayleway, by meanes of some friendly application for him: So that the well doer may be rewarded, and the Delinquents punished, All which is the Intent of our gratious soveraign and hap[p]y Government.

The Laws of England are like the Banks of Holland, the least break on any of the Banks if not early repair’d will become an Inlett to [f. 20] Overflow the whole Countrey; And so it is if Breaches and Violations on the Laws be not speedily repair’d the Nocent are encouraged to enlarge the Breach and so by degrees overpower and merge those rules hitherto preserv’d and made for us by the wisdom of our forefathers, And they then will serve only as spiders webbs, that hold flyes fast but let bigger and stronger Creatures pass through; The unchastis’d are, as if not tyed or bound by the Law’s, and consequently may Lord att their pleasure over the just.

In this Case here is Liberty restrain’d, and Honest man depriv’d of his property, new formes of Judicature, not supported by any Law’s among us, Introduc’d, Vice encouraged by M^r Ayleway’s prosecuto^rs and virtue overcast with the darke Clouds of p[er]section and prejudice, And all this to gratify the Envious Humours of some few Dutchmen, who thought M^r Ayleway a Check on them, And to effect their designe of removeing him have by their intreigues and devices, rendred frustrate his [?sacred] Mat^ys positive and gratious Orders, granted on M^r Ayleway’s Petition, Whereas had the same been observ’d according to his Mat^y’s intent, M^r Ayleway had been fully releived; And it is not at all doubted, But that his sacred Mat^y will, in this Case (according to his wonted Clemency and Justice in releiving the oppress’d) Punish the Offend^rs, after due Examination of the Charge against him.