lish rule in the south of Ireland and his paramount influence in Munster marked him out for promotion to various high dignities. On the occasion of his second marriage on 25 July 1603 to Catherine Fenton, daughter of Sir George Fenton, principal secretary of state, he received the honour of knighthood. On 12 March 1606 he was sworn a privy councillor for the province of Munster, and 12 Feb. 1612 a privy councillor of state for the kingdom of Ireland. On 29 Sept. 1616 he was created Lord Boyle, baron of Youghal, and on 6 Oct. 1620 Viscount Dungarvan and Earl of Cork. On 26 Oct. 1629 he was appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, and on 9 Nov. 1631 he was constituted lord high treasurer. So greatly was he esteemed for his abilities and his knowledge of affairs that, 'though he was no peer of England, yet he was admitted to sit in the Lords House upon the woolsack ut consularius' (Borlase, Reduction of Ireland, 219). For his promotion and honours he was in a great degree indebted first to Sir George Carew, and afterwards to Lord-deputy Falkland. On the appointment of Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, as lord deputy in 1633, he, however, discovered not only that the fountain of royal favour was, so far as he was concerned, completely intercepted, but that all his astuteness would be required to enable him to hold his own against the overmastering will of Strafford. The action of Strafford in regard to the immense tomb of black marble which the earl had erected for his wife in the choir of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, was, though not unjustifiable, sufficiently indicative of the general character of his sentiments towards him. It was utterly impossible, indeed, that there could be harmonious action between men of such consuming ambition placed in circumstances where their vital interests so conflicted. At first Strafford had the advantage, but the Earl of Cork's patience and self-control, disciplined by a long course of trials and hardships, never for a moment failed him. In the management of intrigue he was much more than a match for Strafford, who found his purposes thwarted by causes in a great degree beyond his ken, and ultimately fell a victim to the hostility provoked by his rule of 'thorough.' One of the first intimations made to the council after Wentworth's arrival was the intention of the king to issue a commission for the remedying of defective titles to estates. The real design of the commission was to enable the king to obtain money by confiscating estates to which the title was doubtful. It was too probable that the Earl of Cork, if an inquiry of this kind were set on foot, would not escape scatheless. A charge was preferred against him in regard to his possession of the college and revenues of Youghal. Wentworth, after hearing the defence, adjourned the court, and sent word to the Earl of Cork that, if he consented to abide by his award, he would prove the best friend he ever had. The earl at once agreed, whereupon he intimated the decision 'that he should be fined fifteen thousand pounds for the rents and profits of the Youghal College property, and surrender all the advowsons and patronage—everything except the college house and a few fields near the town.' On learning the sentence Laud wrote to Wentworth in high glee: 'No physic is better than a vomit if it be given in time, and therefore you have taken a very judicious course to administer one so early to my lord of Cork' (Laud to Wentworth, 15 Nov. 1633, Letters and Despatches of Thomas, Earl of Strafford, i. 156). Deeply chagrined as the Earl of Cork no doubt was by this turn of affairs, he never permitted himself to indulge in expressions of anger or to show any direct hostility to Strafford. While undoubtedly working to undermine his authority, he even took pains to let it be known indirectly to Strafford how thoroughly he admired his rule. Laud, writing to Strafford 21 Nov. 1638, mentions that the Earl of Cork had spoken to him in high terms of his 'prudence, indefatigable industry, and most impartial justice' (Letters of Strafford, ii. 245), to which the unsuspecting Strafford replies: 'It must be confessed his lordship hath in a judicious way had more taken from him than any one, nay than any six in the kingdom besides; so in this proceeding with me I do acknowledge his ingenuity as well as his justice' (Letters, ii, 271). Possibly the Earl of Cork deemed it best, in the uncertain condition of the struggle at this time, to be secure against any result; but even to the last, when the fall of Strafford seemed inevitable, he avoided taking a prominent part against him. At the trial he bore witness with seeming reluctance. 'Though I was prejudiced,' he says, 'in no less than 40,000l. and 200 merks a year, I put off my examination for six weeks.' He also states that he was 'so reserved in his answers, that no matter of treason could by them be fixed upon the Earl of Strafford.' All the same, but for the Earl of Cork, Strafford's Irish policy would very likely not have been met with the skilful and persistent opposition which led to his impeachment; and in any case that the Earl of Cork's reluctance to bear witness against him was not inspired by affection or esteem is sufficiently shown from an entry in his diary on the day of Strafford's
