Dominick Sarsfield, 1st Viscount Sarsfield

Dominick Sarsfield, 1st Viscount Sarsfield of Kilmallock (c. 1570-1636) was an Irish peer and judge who became Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas, but was removed from office for corruption and died in disgrace.

Early history

Dominick Sarsfield was born in Cork, third son of Edmund Sarsfield, an alderman of the city. Little is known of his first wife. His second wife was Anne Bagenal, daughter of Sir Nicholas, sister of Henry Bagenal, and widow of Dudley Loftus, son of the Archbishop of Dublin. Dominick entered Middle Temple in 1593, and returned to Ireland to practice at the Bar before 1600. He was appointed attorney general for Munster in 1600 and chief justice of the province in 1605. In 1607 he was appointed a judge of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland and Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas in 1612. He was made the first Irish baronet in 1619 and ennobled in 1625. He chose the title Viscount Kinsale but became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the de Courcy family, who already had a barony of that name, eventually agreeing to adopt Kilmallock instead.^[1] His main residence was Carrigleamleary Castle near Mallow.

Despite his acquisition of titles and offices, Sarsfield was always a controversial character. He was summoned to the Privy Council in 1615 to answer certain charges, although he cleared himself at that time. He was accused of permitting his eldest son to become a Roman Catholic in 1628, and of treason in 1631.^[2] Two years later his career was destroyed by the re-opening of the Bushen case from 1625.

Case of Philip Bushen

Philip Bushen, a farmer of Grangemellon, County Kildare, was charged with the murder of his wife, Grace, in 1620. He was originally from Devon and was about eighty years old in 1625. Grace's death had generally been accepted as natural--the evidence of murder was thin, and Bushen in his defence pointed out that his main accuser was a bitter personal enemy. That there was widespread doubt about his guilt seems clear--two grand juries refused to indict him.^[3] The choice of Sarsfield, who normally went on the Connaught assize to go on the Leinster, was later thought to be suspicious, but in fact there was a good reason: the Bushen case was to be heard in Irish and Sarsfield was the only senior judge who spoke fluent Irish.^[4]

Sarsfield's actual conduct of the trial however was remarkable even in an age when judicial bullying of juries and witnesses was not uncommon. The Star Chamber later accepted that he had heard the case in private, refused to hear Bushen in his own defence or witnesses on his behalf, and intimidated the jury by telling them that a certain "great man" had an interest in the verdict. When one juror held out for acquittal, he urged the others to beat him into submission. The most serious accusation, however, was that Sarsfield had agreed with the sheriff of Kildare that Bushen's property would be forfeited and shared between them, and this also the Star Chamber seems to have accepted.^[5]

Bushen was found guilty and hanged. The case aroused some comment, but it did not become a major issue until 1633, when opponents of the Lord Deputy of Ireland, Viscount Falkland, persuaded Bushen's son to accuse Falkland himself of complicity in the plot to seize his father's lands. This was a serious mistake. Falkland sued his accusers for libel before the Star Chamber, which exonerated him, censured Bushen and his co-accusers, and imposed a heavy fine. While there was no case against Falkland, the evidence against Sarsfield was so strong that the Star Chamber could not overlook it and in the same proceedings the chamber found him guilty of corruption. The Lord Keeper said: "Justice should be done in open court before the face of the world, and mens lives not to be taken away in private chamber . . . and I do verily persuade myself that Bushen died innocently."^[6]

At a second hearing on 20 November 1633, Sarsfield was found guilty of corruption, deprived of office, fined £5000, ordered to pay £2000 to Bushen's family, and imprisoned in the Fleet. He died in deep disgrace in 1636, and was buried in Cork.^[7] His eldest son William (died 1648) succeeded as second Viscount.

Assessment

Elrington Ball accepts that Sarsfield was not a judge of the first rank and that his conduct of the Bushen case was improper.^[8] However he doubts whether Sarsfield was guilty of the more serious charges, arguing that no judge would risk his career in hope of a small profit, that Sarsfield always took a strong line with troublesome juries and that he may well have believed Bushen guilty. Wedgewood, on the other hand, accepts that Sarsfield was motivated by greed and argues that his conduct was part of a wider problem of judicial corruption.^[9] Crawford also accepts that Sarsfield hoped to gain Bushen's estate for himself, and that such behaviour was only to be expected from a judge who attracted accusations of corruption throughout his career.^[10]

References

1. ^ Croker, Thomas Crofton; Researches in the south of Ireland: illustrative of the scenery, (London: John Murray, 1824), p. 77.
2. ^ Ball, F. Elrington; The Judges in Ireland 1221-1921 (London: John Murray, 1926)
3. ^ Ball, p. 252.
4. ^ Wedgewood C.V.; Thomas Strafford 1st Earl of Wentworth - a revaluation, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1961)
5. ^ Crawford, Jon G.; A Star Chamber Court in Ireland (Four Courts Press, 2005)
6. ^ Crawford, p. 3.
7. ^ "Descent of Dominick Sarsfield", Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, (Cork Historical and Archaeological Society), vol. 21 (1915), p. 133.
8. ^ Ball, p. 254.
9. ^ Wedgewood, p. 142.
10. ^ Crawford, p. 106.