COOTE, Sir Charles, 2nd bt. (1610-61), of Castle Coote, co. Roscommon.

Reputedly of French descent, the Coote family had been established in England since the medieval period, but Sir Charles Coote senior, the first baronet, made his name and fortune in Ireland. An officer in the royal army during Tyrone’s rebellion, the elder Coote was rewarded for his services by being appointed provost-marshal of Connaught in 1605, and thereafter the family acquired substantial land-holdings in north-west Ireland, centred on counties Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim. Wealth brought political influence. In 1620 Coote senior was appointed vice-president of Connaught; in 1621 he was created baronet; and by 1627 he had become valued as ‘a loyal servant of the crown’.26CSP Ire. 1625-32, p. 225. By this time he had fallen in with Lord Deputy Falkland (Sir Henry Carey†) and his allies, especially the 1st earl of Cork, Viscount Ranelagh, Sir William Parsons and Sir Adam Loftus, who were fiercely opposed by another faction within the administration led by Lord Mountnorris and Viscount Loftus of Ely.27Lodge, Peerage, i. 298-9. This factional division may have influenced the early political life of Coote’s son and heir, Sir Charles, who was knighted by Falkland in 1626 and a few years later married Mary Ruish, daughter and heir of Sir Francis Ruish.28Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 190; sig. Lansdowne 823, f. 271v: 29 Mar. 1659 In 1630 the younger Coote had persuaded his young wife to assign her lands to him and his heirs, but this was disputed by her step-mother, Lady Jephson (formerly Lady Ruish), who feared for the inheritances of her own offspring.29CSP Ire. 1625-32, p. 556. In the resulting dispute, Coote was backed by Sir William Parsons, but opposed by Viscount Loftus, whose son had married another Ruish daughter.30CSP Ire. 1625-32, pp. 561-2; 1647-60, pp. 152-3. The Coote faction eventually emerged victorious after gaining the support of the English secretary of state, Lord Dorchester, and the fine levied on the estate was arranged by such Coote cronies as Edward King, bishop of Elphin, Sir Robert King* and Sir George St George.31CSP Ire. 1625-32, pp. 568, 574. This first taste of factional politics, and the importance of loyalty within interest groups which it revealed, foreshadowed the younger Sir Charles Coote’s later career.

During the 1630s, Coote’s father increased his local influence in Connaught and west Ulster. It was probably at this time that he arranged a series of profitable marriages for his younger children: his daughter, Letitia, married Sir Francis Hamilton, who owned large estates in co. Cavan, and his sons Chidley and Richard married into the Philips of Londonderry and the St Georges of Leitrim, respectively.32Lodge, Peerage, i. 303-4, 386. The efforts of the new lord deputy, Viscount Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) to reduce the power enjoyed in the west of Ireland by Old English landowners such as the 4th earl of Clanricarde and New English administrators such as Sir Robert King, do not seem to have affected the Cootes. Indeed, the elder Coote served as commissioner in the government’s plantation of Connaught, and the family invested heavily in the province, their recent land purchases being confirmed by royal authority in March 1640.33H.F. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland (2nd edn. Cambridge 1989), 94; CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 236. Despite their apparent co-operation with Wentworth during the 1630s, the Cootes were quick to withdraw their support from the former lord deputy when he was attacked first by the Irish Parliament in 1640, and then by the English Parliament in 1641. During the impeachment proceedings, Coote senior joined his old allies, including Cork and Ranelagh, as a witness against Wentworth. He may even have been directly involved in the conspiracy which brought down the former lord deputy.34M. Perceval-Maxwell, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 (Dublin, 1994), 21, 50, 79-80, 87-8.

Irish rebellion, 1641-4

The outbreak of rebellion in October 1641 plunged Connaught into chaos. Aside from Galway (under the 5th earl of Clanricarde) and Athlone (under Lord President Ranelagh) most of the province soon fell into the hands of the Catholic rebels. The younger Sir Charles Coote defended the family seat of Castle Coote in the early months of the insurrection, while his father, based in Dublin, assisted the earl of Ormond in harrying the rebels of the Pale.35Memoirs and Letters of the Marquiss of Clanricarde ed. U. de Burgh (1757), 2, 66, 71. In May 1642 Coote senior defeated the Irish forces at Trim, but was killed in action, ‘being shot through the belly at a great distance’, possibly by one of his own men.36PJ ii. 322, 327; CJ ii. 572a-b. The younger Coote, now 2nd baronet, was immediately nominated by Parliament’s Commissioners of Irish affairs to replace his father as provost-marshal of Connaught.37PJ ii. 455. Material help was not forthcoming, however, and Coote was forced to join Clanricarde and Ranelagh in making local truces with the Connaught rebels.38Memoirs of Clanricarde ed. de Burgh, 95-210. In February 1643 Ranelagh and Coote left for England, hoping to persuade the king to allocate more forces and supplies for Ireland.39Memoirs of Clanricarde, 334. At Oxford they joined other Irish Protestants, including Sir Robert King and William Jephson*. In April the king commissioned Coote to raise further troops for Connaught, but this success was off-set by Coote’s apparently unprovoked attack on Ranelagh, presenting 74 articles against him, including the charge that he was prepared to make peace with the Catholic Irish.40Bodl. Carte 5, f. 145; Memoirs of Clanricarde, 352; A. Duignan, ‘Shifting allegiances: the Protestant community in Connacht, 1643-5’, in Community in Early Modern Ireland ed. R. Armstrong and T. Ó hAnnracháin (Dublin, 2006), 128. By May it was clear not only that Coote had ‘affected nothing’ against Ranelagh (who remained at Oxford until his death in the following October), but also that royalist policy had swung in favour of reconciliation with the Confederates in return for troops.41Memoirs of Clanricarde, 396.

The signing of a cessation of arms between the king and the Confederates in September 1643 confirmed Coote’s fears. In November he signed a petition of ‘loyal Protestants’ protesting at the new agreement, and from the new year of 1644 the garrisons under Coote’s control, along with those under the new Viscount Ranelagh (Arthur Jones*) and Sir Robert King, were increasingly restless – their hostility to both Confederate and royalist troops prompting fears that the Protestant forces intended to join forces with the Ulster Scots.42DIB; Letterbk. of the earl of Clanricarde, 1643-7 ed. J. Lowe (Dublin, 1983), 49; Hist. of the Irish Confederation ed. J.T. Gilbert (Dublin, 1882-91), iii. 164. In February Clanricarde identified Coote’s brothers among the ringleaders, but added that he thought Sir Charles was not involved.43Letterbk. of Clanricarde, 49. In April Coote’s loyalty was further undermined by the king’s appointment of Lords Wilmot and Dillon to the presidency of Connaught – a position coveted by Ranelagh, and possibly, by this stage, by Coote himself.44SO3/12, f. 264v. Tensions in Ireland were not eased by news that a Confederate delegation was travelling to Oxford to make a formal peace treaty with the king. In response, four Protestant agents were sent to attend the court at Oxford, with Coote replacing Colonel Michael Jones at the last minute.45DIB. As a result, the delegation was largely made up of men from the north and west, with Coote being joined by his relatives William Parsons and Sir Francis Hamilton, and by another officer, MacWilliam Ridgeway, the brother of the earl of Londonderry.46Bodl. Carte 14, f. 178; Carte 63, ff. 250-3.

The delegation reached Oxford by mid-April 1644, and presented propositions which advised the king not to enter into any further agreement with the Catholic Confederates, and urged him to condemn popery, confiscate rebel estates ready for comprehensive Protestant plantation, and restart the war.47Bodl. Carte 63, ff. 250-3. The advice of the agents was greeted with horror. George Lord Digby* told Ormond that ‘the effect they aimed at was only scandal upon the king and his ministers in case they should conclude a peace upon conditions’, and Clanricarde declared that the propositions ‘have a near affinity, if not in effect the same, with the Scotch Covenant and Parliament Declaration’.48Bodl. Carte 10, f. 532; Carte 11, f. 62. On 30 May the Protestant agents, rebuffed at Oxford, arrived in London, where a very different reception awaited them. In early June they were received by the Speaker and the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and were welcomed by their fellow Irish Protestants at Westminster, including Sir John Clotworthy* and William Jephson.49Birr Castle, Rosse MS A5/31. On his arrival in London, Coote decided publicly to reject the cessation and declare his allegiance to Parliament. The reasons for Coote’s defection were varied. Although his experiences in Oxford in both 1643 and 1644 and his knowledge of the difficulties in Connaught were important factors, he told his wife in August 1644 that he was also aware of the defection of Lord Inchiquin, the governor of Munster, to Parliament in July, and of the success of the Scots army in Ulster, which ‘hath had a great influence on our affairs here’.50Bodl. Carte 12, f. 198.

Lord president of Connaught, 1645-8

In October 1644, the Commons showed its confidence in Coote by nominating him as their own lord president of Connaught, although the decision was challenged by Sir Frederick Hamilton and it was nearly a year before the appointment was finalised.51CJ iii. 647b; A. Duignan, ‘Shifting allegiances’, 129. The commission and instructions for Coote as lord president were reported to the House only on 8 February 1645 – over four months after the initial nomination had been made – and they were not approved and sent to the commissioners of the great seal until May.52CJ iv. 44a, 127a, 133b. In the meantime, Coote stayed in London, and became an adviser for Parliament’s executive committees. In January he submitted to the Navy Committee proposals for a squadron to guard the north-west coast of Ireland.53Add. 22546, ff. 9-10. In February and March he attended the Committee of Both Kingdoms with Sir Robert King, Sir John Temple*, and other Irish Protestants who had also rejected the cessation.54CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 306, 325, 337. During this period, Coote and his fellow Protestant agents had their expenses paid by Parliament’s Committee for Revenue.55SC6/ChasI/1662, m. 9. By April 1645 Coote had confirmed his allegiances by subscribing the Covenant before the Committee for Examinations.56Bodl. Carte 14, f. 425. In early May, with his commission as lord president confirmed, Coote was at last given leave to return to Connaught, with promises of 1,500 men drawn from the existing forces in Ulster.57Bodl. Carte 14, f. 467; CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 487.

During the long delay before Coote was able to return to Ireland, the situation in Connaught continued to worsen. The rejection of the cessation rendered Castle Coote and the other Protestant garrisons in Roscommon open to attack not only from the Confederates but also from the royalists under Clanricarde, despite the earl’s professed ‘constant care and regard’ for Coote personally.58Clanricarde Letterbk. ed.Lowe, 128-9. Coote, seconded by other Connaught Protestants at Westminster, Sir Robert King and Sir Francis Hamilton, had done his best to raise troops and supplies for the beleaguered garrisons in the spring of 1645.59CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 338, 391; Brereton Letter Bks. i. 46-9, 250-1, 285. With his return to Ireland, Protestant fortunes began to improve. In July Coote joined forces with the Laggan (or west Ulster) brigade under Colonel Audley Mervyn and Sir Robert Stewart to recapture the important town of Sligo from the rebels; in October he received Parliament’s thanks for his good service; and by December he and his allies had ‘taken eighteen several castles and garrisons from the Irish’, the vanquished defenders often being treated with great brutality.60Hist. of Irish Confederation, ed. Gilbert, iv. 353; CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 183-5; HMC Egmont, i. 265. In the new year of 1646, Coote, at the head of over 2,500 men, and backed by an Anglo-Scottish army of nearly 10,000 in Ulster, could at last begin to feel more secure in Connaught.61CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 434.

One reason for Coote’s success was the coordination of the war effort promoted by the parliamentary commissioners sent to Ulster in the summer of 1645. One of the three commissioners was Coote’s old friend and neighbour, Sir Robert King, who lost no time in involving Coote in efforts to persuade Ormond not to conclude a peace deal with the Confederates in the new year of 1646.62Bodl. Carte 16, f. 457. In the early spring Coote and King again collaborated in winning Viscount Ranelagh to Parliament’s cause, and they were involved in the bungled attempt to capture Athlone.63CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 521; infra, ‘Arthur Jones’. With the full backing of the Ulster commissioners, and the continuing support of the Laggan forces, Coote was able to make further gains in Roscommon and Leitrim during March and April, and in early May he crossed into Galway to besiege Clanricarde in his main residence, Portumna Castle.64HMC Egmont, i. 287, 292. The Portumna siege was the high-water mark of Coote’s Connaught campaign. Clanricarde, mortally offended at the actions of his erstwhile friend, asked Ormond to declare Coote ‘a rebel and a traitor according to his desert’, and called on the Confederate army of Leinster, under Thomas Preston, to come to his aid.65Clanricarde Letterbk. 228, 229, 234. Preston, arriving at Portumna in mid-May, forced Coote’s expeditionary force to retreat into Roscommon.66Clanricarde Letterbk. 236. As Preston advanced through Connaught in the following weeks, his colleague Owen Roe O’Neill moved against the Ulster Scots, smashing Robert Monro’s army at Benburb in early June.

Even before the catastrophic defeat at Benburb, Coote had withdrawn from Connaught to the relative safety of Belfast. There he began lobbying for Parliament to take the Connaught situation more seriously, sending his Scottish brother-in-law, Sir Robert Hannay, to Westminster, and renewing his contacts with other Irish Protestants in England, such as Sir Philip Percivalle*.67HMC Egmont, i. 294; Irish Rebellion ed. Hogan, 189-92. Hannay attended the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs on 18 June, and reported on the increasingly desperate situation in Connaught after the ‘late unhappy misfortunes’ in Ulster.68Irish Rebellion ed.Hogan, 192-8. The changing situation in Westminster – where from May 1646 the Irish committee had come under the influence of the Independent faction – caused Coote to modify his approach. In July there were rumours that Coote had decided to travel to England to wait in person on the pro-Independent lord lieutenant of Ireland, Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*),69Bodl. Carte 18, f. 76. and the favourable response of the Committee of Irish Affairs to Coote’s requests in the summer and autumn reinforce the impression that he was indeed courting the Independent interest.70CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 476-7, 502, 524. On 1 January 1647, when the new Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs nominated privy councillors to accompany Lisle as lord lieutenant, Coote was included, although only ‘for the present’.71CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 728; SP21/26, p. 5. This note of doubt suggests that Coote was losing favour with the Independents in the winter of 1646-7, possibly as a result of his uncomfortably close ties with the Ulster Scots.

The rapid build-up of men and supplies for Lisle’s Munster expedition, at the expense of other provinces, further distanced Parliament’s lord lieutenant from the president of Connaught, who found himself starved of funds as a result. By mid-January Coote was liaising with the Ulster provisioner and ally of Sir John Clotworthy, John Davies*, who was no friend of the lord lieutenant, and in February he told Percivalle of his frustration at the diversion of supplies to Munster.72HMC Egmont, i. 353, 358. By March, Coote, by now in a ‘very sad condition’ in Connaught, sent agents to Westminster in order to ‘prevent that torrent which carrieth all to Munster’.73HMC Egmont, i. 366, 378-80. The change in factional politics at Westminster from the beginning of March – with the Presbyterians gaining control of Irish affairs, and the refusal to renew Lisle’s commission as lord lieutenant – seems to have eased Coote’s position in the short term. In late March he was granted a commission to command both the Connaught forces and the Laggan troops, with the Scottish colonel, Sir Robert Stewart, as his subordinate.74CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 609. In early June, Coote was again actively lobbying Presbyterians such as Denzil Holles* and Sir John Clotworthy.75HMC Egmont, i. 412-3. After the impeachment of the Eleven Members by the New Model army, Percivalle warned Coote that the Presbyterians were no longer in a position to help Connaught, but added that the Independent MP, William Pierrepont, ‘is your friend and a worthy man’.76HMC Egmont, i. 434-5. In July Coote at last received orders allowing him £8,000 for Connaught, and confirming the union of the Connaught with the Laggan forces.77CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 758-9.

Throughout 1646 and 1647, Coote changed his own stance depending on the balance of power in Parliament and its committees, and this reinforces the impression that, rather than adhering to any one faction at Westminster, he was more concerned about the survival of Ireland generally, and Connaught in particular. After the Independents had seized power in August 1647, Coote tried to re-establish his links with the party, but the Independents were wary. When in October 1647 the Admiralty Committee proposed Coote as vice-admiral of Ulster, the Lords concurred and passed the matter to the Commons, who failed to confirm the appointment.78ADM7/673, p. 408; CJ v. 335a. In the new year of 1648, after further complaints from Coote of the weak state of Connaught, Parliament made a few half-hearted efforts to send support.79CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, p. 720. In February the regiment of Colonel Chidley Coote, Sir Charles’s brother, was reassigned to the west of Ireland, money was promised from forfeited Irish properties, and £2,000 assigned to Coote from the excise.80CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 20, 21; CJ v. 465a. In April, May and June recruits were promised, and money advanced for Coote’s forces in Connaught and Ulster.81CSP Dom. pp. 40, 43; CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, p. 716; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 18.

One reason for Parliament’s eagerness to reinforce Coote’s position at this time was the fear that the Scots in the north west would be drawn into the royalist unrest in England, Scotland and other parts of Ireland which became the second civil war. As early as February 1648, two of the Laggan regiments, under Sir Robert and Sir William Stewart, refused to obey Parliament, and denounced Coote.82CSP Dom.1648-9, p. 22. This problem seems to have been resolved in the short-term, but in October 1648 the Derby House Committee warned Coote and the new Ulster commander, George Monck* that there were moves afoot to send troops from northern Ireland to support the royalists in Scotland.83CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 31. Coote was immediately appointed acting governor of Londonderry, and he was instructed to work with Monck in arresting his colleagues, Sir William Stewart, Colonel Audley Mervyn and Lord Montgomery of the Ards.84CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 317. In December Coote and Monck issued a warrant for the arrest of mutinous officers of Sir William Cole’s regiment, and by early January 1649 Coote was thanked by the Commons for having arrested Sir Robert Stewart and Ormond’s Ulster agent, Humphrey Galbraith.85Bodl. Carte 23, f. 74; CJ vi. 114a. As a reward he was allowed custody of Culmore fort, the fishing duties on Loch Sall, the customs of Londonderry and the right to appoint new officers for the Laggan brigade.86CJ vi. 114a. This purge of the Ulster regiments, and the arrest of their Scottish and Old Protestant commanders, gave Coote the reputation of unflinching, even ruthless, loyalty to Parliament. When the marquess of Ormond wrote to Coote in March 1649, hoping to win him over to Charles II’s cause, it was a forlorn hope.87Bodl. Carte 24, f. 62.

Commonwealth and land settlement, 1649-55

After Ormond’s peace treaty with the Confederates in January 1649, and with the re-doubled efforts of the royalists in Ireland in the spring of that year, Coote found himself in a difficult position. In May 1649 the remaining Laggan regiments revolted, and besieged their old commander in Londonderry.88CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 788; Ludlow, Mems. i. 227. Reinforcements came to Ireland only slowly, and in August the council of state lamely advised Coote to try to hold out until relief arrived.89CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 791. Parliament’s response was equally slow: they endorsed Coote’s loyalty and promised to support him only in late August 1649 – after Oliver Cromwell’s* army had arrived in Dublin – and by the time supplies reached Londonderry the immediate danger had passed.90CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 289, 309, 591. The 1650 campaign brought a better response from Westminster. Coote had complained of the lack of money, provision and recruits in the winter of 1649-50, and in the early months of the new year, clothes, money and new troops were despatched with reasonable haste.91CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 458, 470, 510, 511; 1650, pp. 73, 76-7. These shipments allowed Coote to go on the offensive, defeating the Ulster Irish at Scarrifhollis, near Letterkenny, in June 1650, and, working with Colonel Robert Venables* and other New Model officers, he was able to subdue large areas of the north and west of the country by the end of the year.92Ludlow, Mems. i. 255; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 295-6. In December 1650, after the relief of Carrickfergus, Parliament rewarded Coote by granting him sequestered land worth £500 p.a.93CJ vi. 339a, 505a. In March 1651, Coote petitioned Parliament for supplies to allow him to invade Connaught, and he had been allocated 1,600 extra troops by May.94Add. 15857, f. 184; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 186.

The new campaign was swiftly executed: Athlone surrendered in June, Portumna capitulated in July, and in September Coote stood before the well-defended city of Galway.95CSP Dom. 1651, p. 274; Ludlow, Mems. i. 270-1; Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 48. The siege of Galway would continue throughout the winter of 1651-2. By December, Coote was seeking to avoid bloodshed by making peace with the defenders, and he was authorised to do so on the same terms as had been offered to Limerick by the lord deputy, Henry Ireton*.96Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 103-4. After a long delay, articles were agreed on 5 April 1652, but the deal struck antagonised Parliament’s Irish commissioners (Edmund Ludlowe II*, Miles Corbett*, John Jones I* and John Weaver*), who claimed the terms were far too lenient to the Irish rebels and to the property-owning citizens.97Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 146, 163, 165-7. Realizing the problems involved in reversing the decision now the city had fallen, the commissioners were forced to accept the surrender, and they reluctantly accepted Coote’s probity, saying that he ‘did act very faithfully, and conceived what he consented unto was for your [Parliament’s] service’.98Bodl. Tanner 53, f.23; Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 168-9. Coote later claimed that he had needed to secure the city before the rebels could be reinforced and the siege prolonged, but some New Model officers still suspected his motives.99Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 186; Ludlow, Mems. i. 307-8.

The confusion surrounding the surrender of Galway reflected the doubts about Coote’s loyalty which had been growing since 1649. Coote’s associations with the Ulster Scots had annoyed the Independents in the mid-1640s: after the execution of the king they became a security risk. There were even accusations that, during the siege of Londonderry in 1649, Coote had secretly been negotiating with Scots, exchanging powder for provisions.100Ludlow, Mems. i. 227. In 1651 Coote was criticised by the parliamentary commissioners for employing a Scotsman called Hamilton to secure the Laggan area of Ulster.101Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 19-20. The English inhabitants of Ulster – deeply tainted by their Scottish connections and their royalism since 1648 – received protection from Coote: in 1652, for example, he defended the right of Lord Montgomery of the Ards to compound under the 1649 articles.102CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 583. The Galway treaty had also raised fears about Coote’s potential favouritism towards the native Irish. These concerns were not entirely unfounded. In the early 1650s, Coote certainly went out of his way to protect the interests of his old neighbour, the earl of Clanricarde. Coote had agreed lenient articles with Clanricarde in 1652, and he used his influence to ensure they were honoured by Parliament.103Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 253-4, 302; CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 651-2; CJ vii. 321b. He had already secured custody of the earl’s estate at Portumna, and it was probably as a result of Coote’s influence that Clanricarde was allowed to retire to England and was paid an annuity until his death in 1657.104Eg. 1762, f. 202v; Add. 32471, ff. 13v, 22. Coote’s efforts to bring Irish tenants onto his depleted Connaught estates were roundly attacked by the parliamentary commissioners in 1652, who claimed that natives from Donegal been enticed south by Coote, causing the depopulation of lands allocated to other settlers.105Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 299. Coote also favoured the French family, in May 1654 saving from demolition their castle at Monivea castle, and his attitude to the Dillons was no doubt influenced by his decision to lend Sir Lucas Dillon £1,815 in August 1653.106J. Cunningham, Conquest and Land in Ireland: the transplantation to Connacht, 1649-1680 (Woodbridge, 2011), 108, 114-5; Irish Statute Staple Bks. 82; NLI, MS 2745, f. 1. His appointment as commissioner for the allocation of lands to the transplanted Irish, based at Loughrea, in June 1655, gave him scope to do further deals with the Catholic community, with the ultimate aim of securing his own dominant position in Connaught.107Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 521.

Coote’s also took the opportunity to strengthen his ties with the Old Protestant community. Despite his attachment to the commonwealth, Coote continued to move in the same local circles after 1649 as he had done since the 1630s. His agents to London in 1649 and 1650, for example, were Connaught Protestants such as Sir Oliver St George and Sir Robert King, who had long been associated with the Coote family.108CJ vi. 339a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 103, 117, 289, 458; 1650, pp. 583, 295-6, 299. In his negotiations with various Irish garrisons, Coote used as intermediaries Connaught officers such as Major John King (son of Sir Robert), Colonel John Cole* and Sir Oliver St George.109Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 163, 236-7. He was also on good terms with his immediate family, borrowing considerable sums from his brother, Chidley, in 1653.110Irish Statute Staple Bks. 11, 197. In the mid-1650s Coote’s connections outside the province also broadened: in June 1653 his son and heir married the daughter of the chancellor of the Irish exchequer and co. Kildare landowner, Sir Robert Meredith, and, probably around this time his brother, Thomas Coote, married the daughter of Moses Hill of Hillsborough, co. Down.111CP; Lodge, Peerage, i. 304-5. Service on government commissions between 1653 and 1656 brought Coote into closer contact with influential Munster Protestants including Sir Hardress Waller* and William Jephson*.112Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 335-566. Through this network, Coote made contact with another dominant figure in Cromwellian Ireland: Roger Boyle*, Lord Broghill. Coote’s father had been an ally of Broghill’s father, the 1st earl of Cork, in the 1620s and 1630s, and the two had friends in common, but there was also a frisson of rivalry between the sons that never quite subsided.113P. Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland (Woodbridge, 2004), 71. Evidence for direct collaboration between the two in the mid-1650s is surprisingly sparse. They seem to have first worked together in 1654 over the payment of arrears for pre-1649 officers; and by September 1656 Coote was on good terms with Broghill’s brother, the 2nd earl of Cork (Sir Richard Boyle*): otherwise, relations between the two were cordial, but not friendly.114CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 214, 253; Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 10 Sept. 1656, 24 Apr. 1657.

Henry Cromwell and the Old Protestant ‘interest’, 1655-8

The key figure encouraging co-operation between Coote and Broghill was the lord protector’s younger son, Henry Cromwell*, who came to Ireland as lieutenant-general in 1655. Coote made contact with Henry Cromwell very soon after his arrival in Ireland, and found him very sympathetic to his concerns. Before August 1655 Coote had asked Henry to intercede on his behalf to help secure land grants in co. Meath, and Cromwell agreed ‘as well from a sense of his great merit and faithfulness, as by the justice of the request’.115TSP iii. 691. By the end of the year, Coote had enlisted Henry Cromwell’s support for his attempts to gain supplies for the forces in Connaught.116TSP iv. 227. In October 1656, Henry also backed Coote in his efforts to get his patent as president of Connaught renewed by the protector, ‘though perhaps it might be thought by some that those presidentships are not so necessary’.117TSP v. 494. Henry pressed Coote’s case in November and December.118TSP v. 612, 672, 697. In return, Coote assisted Henry Cromwell in the management of his new estate at Portumna in Galway, arranging for soldiers to work on restoring the castle.119Henry Cromwell Corresp. 193, 331.

Coote’s alliance with Henry Cromwell increased the suspicions of the sectaries and radical army officers, who had already made strenuous efforts to reduce his influence. As early as August 1652 Parliament’s Irish commissioners told Coote that the termination of Oliver Cromwell’s lord lieutenancy had annulled all civil appointments – a fact which would impinge on Coote’s authority in Connaught. They clearly expected trouble from Coote, and warned him not to ‘give way to a spirit and temper of jealousy and distrust towards those that God hath placed above us’.120Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 252. In the summer of 1653, when the lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood*, reduced the size of the army in Ireland, he disbanded Coote’s regiment of horse and also the regiments of his three brothers, in what looks like a deliberate attempt to clip his wings.121SP28/93, ff. 92, 100, 102; SP28/94, f. 7. In 1654, and again in 1656, when Coote was elected as MP for Galway and Mayo, Fleetwood ordered him to remain in Ireland, ostensibly because he could not be spared from the army.122TSP ii. 558; Burton’s Diary, i. 288-9. Yet the exclusion of Coote from Parliament did not entirely remove his political influence on the national stage. Of particular importance was Coote’s role as an electoral patron in Connaught and Ulster. In 1654 Coote almost certainly had a hand in the election of all four Connaught MPs: the 1640s veteran, Sir John Temple, sat with Coote’s friend, Sir Robert King, for Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon; and his old army colleague, Sir John Reynolds, joined Coote as MP for Galway and Mayo. Other 1654 MPs with previous military connections with Coote included John Cole for Cavan, Fermanagh and Monaghan, and Ralph King for Derry and Coleraine, giving a total of perhaps six MPs returned with Coote’s approval in 1654. In 1656, Coote secured seats for Sir Robert King and John Bridges for Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon; for himself at Galway and Mayo; and probably for Ralph King, Tristram Beresford and Richard Blayney in various Ulster seats. These, with the six or more MPs elected through Broghill’s influence and those backed by Henry Cromwell personally, provided the nucleus for the Irish ‘party’ in this Parliament. In the circumstances, Coote’s own exclusion from Parliament was only a minor inconvenience.123P. Little, ‘Irish Representation in the Protectorate Parliaments’, PH xxiii. 341, 343, 345.

The second protectorate Parliament saw Coote’s friends and allies active in opposing the militia bill and thus the rule of the major-generals, and in supporting the constitutional changes outlined in the Remonstrance, which soon became the Humble Petition and Advice. Guided by Lord Broghill, the Irish MPs worked closely with the Scots, and with courtly and Presbyterian groups in England, and this broad alliance can be seen promoting Coote’s interests in Parliament, despite his absence. In April 1657 the ordinance for confiscations and donations in Ireland, which settled the redistribution of land, was approved as long as Coote’s previous land grants were honoured.124Burton’s Diary, ii. 65; CJ vii. 526b. On 1 May Broghill reported from the committee which considered the grants of land made by the Long Parliament that all orders concerning Coote and others should be upheld. Against objections that such a general order should not be passed, Broghill, Sir Charles Wolseley and Bulstrode Whitelocke – all prominent ‘kinglings’ – supported the bill, and Broghill reminded Parliament that ‘they are the gifts of the Long Parliament to your faithful servants ... It takes nothing from you’.125Burton’s Diary, ii. 95-6; CJ vii. 529a. The bill was passed, and received the protector’s assent in June.126CJ vii. 558b; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 16. Land was a crucial question for all Old Protestants, and political and financial security was increasingly seen as being dependent on the strength of the Cromwell family against the army. Broghill’s defence of Coote reinforces the idea that they were allied in other ways, and that Coote did indeed support the offer of the crown to Cromwell.

With Cromwell’s refusal of the crown, morale among the Irish supporters of kingship drooped. After the sitting closed, William Jephson departed for Germany, Sir John Reynolds for France; Sir Hardress Waller and Lord Broghill temporarily distanced themselves from the government. Coote, who had been in Dublin during the spring of 1657 – all the better to monitor events in England – had returned to Connaught by early July.127Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 24 Apr. 1657; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 634; TSP vi. 400. He still maintained his close ties to Henry Cromwell, who took over as lord deputy in November 1657, and in early 1658 he was again acting as Cromwell’s agent in ‘the settlement’ of the Portumna estate.128TSP vii. 15. Henry Cromwell realised the importance of keeping Coote on board: in June 1658 he recommended that Coote should be created a baron or a viscount, with a seat in the Other House, but, despite Secretary John Thurloe’s* assurances that ‘there will be no difficulty therein’, nothing came of the matter.129TSP vii. 155, 176. After the death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658, the Old Protestants backed Richard Cromwell* as protector, and continued to align themselves with his brother, Henry, now lord lieutenant of Ireland.

In the elections for Richard Cromwell’s 1659 Parliament, Coote was again elected for Galway and Mayo, and influenced the return of Robert Parke for Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon; he presumably also influenced the elections of his brother, Thomas Coote, his subordinate officer, Ralph King, and Monck’s brother-in-law, Dr John Gorges, in Ulster seats.130TSP vii. 593. Coote did not have a clean sweep, however: he had to share Galway and Mayo with Colonel Thomas Sadleir, the governor of Galway, and, more worryingly, Broghill interfered with the Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon election by persuading Sir John King to stand down in favour of the English lawyer, Thomas Waller, who had been recommended to him by Secretary Thurloe.131P. Little, ‘Irish Representation’, 350-1. On this occasion there was no attempt to stop Coote from taking up his seat at Westminster. In January 1659 Coote told Henry Cromwell that he intended to wait on him at Dublin before leaving for England, and on 18 February Henry was reassured by the earl of Thomond that ‘my lord president Coote, nor others in Dublin, need not suspect being welcomed into the House’.132TSP vii. 601, 618. Coote had arrived at Westminster by the end of March. On his arrival, he reported to Henry Cromwell that the Commons had agreed not only to allow Irish and Scottish MPs to sit, but also to recognise the Other House, and now ‘affairs... begin to grow more serene... we are in a probably way of building on such a basis as may be comfortable and permanent’.133Henry Cromwell Corresp. 484-5. Coote would be a prominent supporter of this settlement. On 28 March he acted as teller in favour of the Commons transacting with the Other House, and on 6 April he was named to the committee to consider how relations between the two Houses were to be conducted.134CJ vii. 621b, 627b. Two days later, he was again teller in favour of returning to the traditional forms when sending messages between the Houses – thus legitimising the Other House as a replacement for the House of Lords.135CJ vii. 632b. Coote was also involved in defending Henry Cromwell against accusations that he had exceeded his authority in the exercise of martial law, and on 28 March he discussed the case privately with Broghill, Anthony Morgan*, and three leading Cromwellians: John Glynne*, Sir John Maynard*, and his old associate, William Pierrepont.136Henry Cromwell Corresp. 490. Coote was appointed to the committee of Irish affairs on 1 April, and thereafter, as the political situation deteriorated, he was involved in measures to protect Richard Cromwell and his Parliament from ‘dangerous persons now in London’ (18 Apr.), and to investigate the charges against William Petty* as surveyor-general in Ireland (21 Apr.).137CJ vii. 623a, 641b, 644a. Coote’s activities in Parliament suggest that the army radicals were right to be suspicious of him. According to Edmund Ludlowe II*, on the closure of the Parliament in April 1659, Coote waited on Henry Cromwell in Dublin, ‘to consult what might be done to continue their reign’, before returning to Connaught.138Ludlow, Mems. ii. 71-2.

Commonwealth and Restoration, 1659-61

The fall of the protectorate in May 1659, and the removal of Henry Cromwell as lord lieutenant, put Coote in a difficult position. In July he was re-appointed as a colonel of foot in the new list, after (somewhat surprisingly) Colonel Lawrence and Colonel Whalley had attested to his loyalty to the commonwealth, despite rumours that ‘the army officers [in Connaught] mistrusted those whom he appointed to manage affairs’.139CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 12-13. In October, Coote again emphasized his support for Parliament, for, he said, ‘his interest was wholly involved in the preservation of the Parliament, all that he enjoyed being derived from their authority’.140Ludlow, Mems. ii. 124. Whether this was merely a sop to the army, or the basis for Coote’s deeper political motivation, is difficult to determine. Certainly, Coote was not a natural ally for the radical republicans and their army supporters. In December, with England descending into chaos, Coote and his Old Protestant allies were forced to make a move.

The catalyst for revolt was the activity of Coote’s former colleague from the Irish wars, George Monck, in Scotland. Monck, increasingly alarmed at events in Westminster, declared against the committee of safety in November 1659, and sought support from Ireland. Although the Irish officers at first refused to help, Monck remained hopeful of support from Coote, Broghill and Sir Theophilus Jones*.141Clarke Pprs. iv. 96. His expectations were fulfilled in mid-December, when the Irish officers changed tack, and Jones seized Dublin.142Clarke Pprs. iv. 203. Coote acted quickly in support: collecting a force of ‘English-Irish’, he marched on Galway and removed Colonel Sadleir from his command there, other suspect officers in Connaught were also removed, and Major Alexander Brayfield* was forced to yield Athlone after the garrison mutinied.143Ludlow, Mems. ii. 187-9. On 26 December the council of officers at Dublin – including Coote and his allies, John Bridges and John Cole – publicly resolved to refuse entry into the Irish capital to their commander-in-chief, Edmund Ludlowe II, whom they suspected of disloyalty to Parliament.144CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 695. As Monck marched on London in January 1660, Coote, Broghill, Waller and others openly declared their support for his actions, and called for a free Parliament.145Clarke Pprs. iv. 241-3. Their activities were approved by Parliament, and on 19 January Coote was appointed one of five commissioners to govern Ireland for the restored Rump.146CJ vii. 804a, 815b.

The General Convention, which met in Dublin in March, was controlled by a coterie led by Broghill, who dominated Munster, and Coote, whose influence extended across Connaught and Ulster. At least a dozen of the members were elected on Coote’s interest, including his son and two of his brothers.147Clarke, Prelude to Restoration, 171, 173-4, 177, 188, 199, 226-9. Ludlowe was convinced that Coote was the main player in Ireland at this time: he said of Monck, that ‘what he did relating to the affairs of Ireland was... coloured with the name of Sir Charles Coote’, and accused Coote and Sir Theophilus Jones of being ‘the principal confidants of Monck on that side’.148Ludlow, Mems. ii. 209, 229. One royalist agent advised that the king should win over Coote and Broghill, ‘considering how much the affairs of Ireland depend on them’.149Bodl. Clarendon 62, f. 68. As in the 1650s, there were tensions between Coote and Broghill over how to proceed, but generally the Old Protestant interest was united by the need to maintain the stability of Ireland and security for their own land-holdings.150Clarke, Prelude to Restoration, 236-7, 275-7, 287-9. When, for example, the Convention sent agents to Westminster in early 1660, they were instructed to demand that the lands voted to Coote, Broghill and other leading Protestants were to be made good and confirmed to them – a request which echoed the desires of the Irish ‘kinglings’ in 1656-7.151Add. 32471, ff. 84v-5.

Coote’s activities in the winter of 1659-60 suggest that, at this stage, he was merely in favour of restoring stable government, not the monarchy. There were rumours in royalist circles as early as the summer of 1659 that Coote and others were seeking an opportunity for ‘declaring the Scots king’s interest’, and Ludlowe and his allies had accused Coote and Broghill of intending to bring back Charles Stuart in February 1660, but there is no firm evidence to suggest that Coote was an active supporter of the Restoration until April 1660.152Nicholas Pprs. iv. 156, 162; Diary of Johnston of Wariston ed. J.D. Ogilvie (Edinburgh, 1940), iii. 174. In fact, the return of the king presented many problems for Coote and other former supporters of Parliament and the protectorate. Coote had reportedly admitted in 1659, that, ‘as he had opposed the late king in his arbitrary designs, so he would continue to act in conformity to those actions, well knowing that if the son should happen to prevail, the English interest would be lost in Ireland, and the Irish restored to the possession of their lands, according to an agreement passed between them’.153Ludlow, Mems. ii. 124. As late as April 1660 the king’s advisers suspected that Coote and Broghill were intent on keeping ‘all things upon a very slow motion’.154Bodl. Carte 30, f. 559.

Considering the depth of his involvement in the parliamentarian and Cromwellian regimes, Coote’s reconciliation with the Stuarts was surprisingly swift. The king had returned to England in late May. By the end of June, Coote had been proposed as lord president of Connaught – a post which he had never before held by royal authority – and he was confirmed in this office by the end of July.155CSP Ire. 1660-2, pp. 3, 17-18. In August 1660 the king promised to secure the estates of Coote and his brothers, and this was confirmed by a royal award in 1661.156Eg. 2542, f. 407; CSP Ire. 1660-2, pp. 177-8, 188-9, 243. On 6 September 1660 Coote’s position in royal favour was confirmed, when he was created Baron Coote of Castle Cuffe, Viscount Coote of Castle Coote, and earl of Mountrath, and on the same day his younger brother, Richard, was created Baron Coote of Colooney.157CP; Lodge, Peerage, i. 308-9, 386. On 26 October the new earl was promoted to the joint-government of Ireland, as lord justice in the company of Lord Broghill (now earl of Orrery) and the old royalist, Sir Maurice Eustace.158CSP Ire. 1660-2, p. 68. Coote’s friends and family also benefited from royal largesse: in October 1660 the royal army in Ireland included officers with firm connections with the Cootes, such as Sir Oliver St George, Sir John King, Sir Robert Hannay, John Cole and John Folliott; and in January 1661 pardons were granted to a number of Coote’s relatives and clients, including St George, Sir Robert Meredith, Sir Robert Hannay, Sir John Cole, Sir William Ussher and Robert Parke.159CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 288-9; 1660-2, pp. 188-9.

With his political position secured, and his authority in Connaught confirmed, Coote quickly resumed an important role in the government of Ireland. In 1661 he joined Orrery as the most important manager of the Irish Parliament: in April he assured Secretary Nicholas that the lords justices had sewn up the elections in Ireland, and were confident that the Dublin Parliament would advance the king’s service.160CSP Ire. 1660-2, p. 314. In June he was confident that the Irish Parliament’s compliance had ensured that ‘all things are now fully restored to their ancient order’.161Eg. 2537, f. 345. In November he arranged the despatch of bills for approval in England, including the ‘general bill for settlement’ of Irish estates.162CSP Ire. 1660-2, p. 463. But Coote’s role as governor in Ireland was cut short in December 1661, when he fell ill with smallpox. Coote’s death, on 18 December 1661 – described by Orrery as ‘a great blow to this poor kingdom’ – hastened the disbandment of the lords justices, and the onset of the 1st duke of Ormond’s rule as lord lieutenant, both of which weakened Old Protestant power in the country.163CSP Ire. 1660-2, p.479. Coote was buried in state at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, on 6 February 1662.164Lodge, Peerage, i. 309. He was succeeded in the earldom of Mountrath by his son and heir, Charles.

Assessment

Coote has sometimes been seen as entirely unprincipled. His ruthlessness is certain, but that should not suggest that he was entirely without scruple. For example, in his religious beliefs, Coote no doubt shared the Old Protestant fear and hatred of Catholicism, and this guided his treatment of the native Irish on campaign in the 1640s and early 1650s; but his easy relations with the Ulster Scots and his welcome of the Covenant suggest that his Presbyterianism was more than reactionary in nature. When Coote advised Henry Cromwell on the settlement of Ireland in March 1659, he urged him ‘to get over as many able good ministers as it is possible, that your lordship endeavour the settlement of a godly and sober ministry there’ – and suggested that contacts should be made with the London Presbyterian churches.165Henry Cromwell Corresp. 485. Equally, Coote’s loyalty to his kinsmen, and to his affinity in the west and north of Ireland, provided an important constant throughout his career. Local Connaught men or relatives such as the St Georges and Kings could rely on Coote’s support from the 1630s until after the Restoration. As the leader of an extended political network, Coote may be compared with his rival, Lord Broghill, who displayed a similar devotion to his own, Munster, ‘interest’.

Coote’s political career, which lasted from 1641 to 1661, spanned the most turbulent decades of Irish history, and his role in affairs during this period exemplifies the changes and compromises which the Old Protestant gentry were forced to make to ensure their survival. As a local commander in the early 1640s, Coote was loyal to the crown until the cessation of arms of September 1643 destroyed his trust in the king’s Irish policies. From 1644 he supported Parliament, but was reluctant to be drawn into Westminster factional politics in case this compromised his ability to wage war in Ireland. From 1649, although demonstrably loyal to Parliament, his local allegiances with the Ulster Scots and Old Protestants, and his relative leniency to the Catholic Irish, made him suspect to the army. In the mid-1650s, Coote allied Henry Cromwell and the Irish supporters of the offer of the crown to the protector, and he remained a Cromwellian until the collapse of the protectorate in 1659. The Restoration crisis again saw Coote awaiting events in England, anxious not to be caught on the losing side. His political survival, and the grant of an earldom in 1660, are reminders that Coote was as astute a politician as his longer-lived contemporaries, Lord Broghill and General Monck.