THE PARLIAMENT OF 1613-1615
[Sidenote: The King determines to hold a Parliament, 1611.]
Since the dissolution of Perrott's Parliament in 1586 none had been
held in Ireland, but James made up his mind to have one. Lord Carew was
instructed to obtain information as to how it had best be done, legal
sanction for the Ulster settlement and for the general establishment
of English law being mentioned as principal objects. There were but
four bishops and four temporal peers alive who had served on the last
occasion, and no perfect list of Perrott's House of Commons existed
in Ireland. The law and practice of Parliament were almost forgotten,
and William Bradley, Davies' agent in Ulster, was appointed clerk of
the proposed Lower House, and sent over to confer with the officials
in England, where he unearthed a journal of Perrott's Parliament.
Having received instruction in parliamentary forms, he brought back
a commission which enabled Chichester to decide all questions of
precedence. Robes and a cloth of estate for the Lord Deputy were sent
over by the same messenger.[98]
[Sidenote: New constituencies are created.]
[Sidenote: The counties.]
[Sidenote: The boroughs.]
[Sidenote: Ulster.]
[Sidenote: Munster.]
[Sidenote: Leinster.]
[Sidenote: Connaught.]
[Sidenote: Character of the new boroughs]
[Sidenote: University representation.]
[Sidenote: A Protestant majority secured.]
In order to carry out the royal policy in Ireland it was evidently
necessary to secure a Protestant majority, and this could hardly be
done without creating new constituencies. The power of the King to make
boroughs was not seriously disputed, and it was exercised in England
as late as 1673. Thirty-three shires, counting the Cross of Tipperary,
returned two members each, and it was hoped that half of these might be
depended on. The cities and boroughs which received writs for Perrott's
Parliament were thirty-six in number, but of these Carrickfergus and
Downpatrick made no returns. Cavan, Derry, Gowran, and Athlone had
since become corporations, and were presumably entitled to their writs
in the ordinary way. James created thirty-nine new boroughs expressly
for parliamentary purposes, of which no less than nineteen were in
Ulster, where the late forfeitures had made the Government strong:
Belfast, Coleraine, Newry, Bangor, Newtownards, Armagh, Charlemont,
Dungannon, Agher, Strabane, Clogher, Derry, Lifford, Ballyshannon,
Donegal, Limavady, Enniskillen, Monaghan, Belturbet. The Munster
cities and towns were almost desperate, one member each from Youghal,
Dungarvan, and Dingle being the most that could be expected, and nine
new boroughs were created: Lismore, Tallow, Mallow, Baltimore, Bandon,
Clonakilty, Ennis, Tralee, and Askeaton. In Leinster the new creations
were Athy, Carlow, Newcastle (Dublin), Ballinakill, Fethard (Wexford),
Enniscorthy, Kilbeggan, and Wicklow. In Connaught the new boroughs were
Tuam ('the Archbishop's chief seat, which will send Protestants'),
Sligo, Roscommon, Boyle, Castlebar, and Carrick-on-Shannon. Care was
taken to select places which might at least be expected to grow into
good-sized towns. A few of them were, and have remained, mere villages,
but most of them are reasonably large country towns, while Belfast,
Londonderry, Coleraine and Sligo have become much more. The University
of Dublin returned two members for the first time; and there could
be no doubt that the Government would be able to command a majority.
In the House of Lords reliance was placed upon the bishops; but some
of the temporal peers were Protestants, and there was little danger
of accidents happening there. The Roman Catholic lords and principal
gentlemen of the Pale saw that they would be in a minority, and
suggested in a letter to the King that the Parliament should be held in
England.[99]
[Sidenote: The oath of supremacy not exacted.]
When it was decided to call a Parliament, Carew advised that every
member of the House of Commons should take the oath of supremacy, 'as
they do in England,' or be disqualified. 'But if that shall seem too
sharp to be offered, yet a rumour that it is required will be a means
to increase the number of Protestant burgesses and knights, and deter
the most spirited Recusants from being of the house.' The rumour was
spread about accordingly, though the sharp offer was not actually made,
and Davies thought it would have the desired effect. Ireland, he said,
was rich in saints, but had never produced a martyr, and the Recusants,
rather than suffer a repulse by refusing the oath, would 'make return
of such as will take it, and yet not easily yield to make sharp and
severe laws against them.' But the King decided to rely on the new
boroughs and not to have the oath administered, there being no law in
Ireland by which the members could be compelled to take it. It was at
first intended that the Parliament should meet in November 1612, but
things could not be got ready so soon, and it was postponed first to
February and then to May in the following year.[100]
[Sidenote: Strong Roman Catholic opposition.]
[Sidenote: Demand for toleration.]
[Sidenote: The peers summoned.]
Opposition on the part of the Recusants was soon found to be much more
determined than Davies had anticipated. As early as October 1612 Sir
Patrick Barnewall had written against it, and in the following month
lords Slane, Killeen, Trimleston, Dunsany, and Louth addressed a letter
to the King in which they complained of not being previously consulted
as to the measures to be laid before Parliament, and claimed to be the
Irish Council within the meaning of Poynings Act. This position was,
no doubt, unsustainable; but their other arguments were of more weight.
They protested against boroughs being made out of wretched villages,
by the votes of whose mock representatives 'extreme penal laws should
be imposed on the King's subjects.' Ecclesiastical disabilities had
been very sparingly and mildly pressed by Queen Elizabeth, but now the
fittest men were excluded from official positions even in the remotest
parts of the country. There were already plenty of Irish rebels on the
Continent, and it was undesirable to add to the number of those who
'displayed in all countries, kingdoms, and estates, and inculcated into
the ears of foreign kings and princes the foulness (as they will term
it) of such practices.' It was by 'withdrawing such laws as may tend to
the forcing of your subjects' conscience' that the King might settle
their minds and establish their fidelity. This letter had no immediate
effect; the manufacture of boroughs was proceeded with, and Chichester
was made a peer, an honour, said James, which had only been deferred so
that the meeting of Parliament might give it greater lustre. The King
directed him to call up by writ as peers certain persons distinguished
by their nobility of birth and by their estates in Ireland--namely,
the Earl of Abercorn, Henry Lord O'Brien, the Earl of Thomond's eldest
son, who was a sound Protestant, Lord Ochiltree and Lord Burghley; but
there was a majority without these, and they were not to come unless
their private affairs admitted. As a matter of fact, they do not seem
to have attended. All the old nobility, being of full age, received
their writs of summons, except Lord Castle Connell, whose title was
actually under litigation. Lord Barry's claim was allowed, as it had
never been disputed in fact, though he had an elder brother who was a
deaf mute.[101]
[Sidenote: Renewed Roman Catholic complaints.]
[Sidenote: Chichester's answer.]
On the eve of the opening of Parliament eleven recusant lords addressed
a petition to the Lord Deputy in which they repeated the complaints
of the former letter. They further objected to peers of England
or Scotland being called by writ. A better-founded grievance was
the partiality shown by sheriffs and returning officers. They also
protested against the slur cast on their loyalty by the presence of
troops, and against the Castle as a place of meeting, especially as it
was over the powder magazine. The audacious allusion to the Gunpowder
Plot gave Chichester a fine opportunity of retort. The powder, he
said, had been removed to a safe place; 'but let it be remembered of
what religion they were of that placed the powder in England and gave
allowance to that damnable plot, and thought the act meritorious, if
it had taken effect, and would have canonised the actors.' As to the
boroughs, he could only stand upon the King's prerogative, the best
choice possible having been made; but disputed elections were for the
House of Commons and not for him. As for the soldiers, they were but
one hundred foot, brought into Dublin to protect the Government and
Parliament against the tumultuous outrages of the ruder part of the
citizens who lately drove their mayor from the tholsel and forbade him
to repair to the Lord Deputy for succour.[102]
[Sidenote: Parliament meets.]
[Sidenote: Contest for the Speakership.]
[Sidenote: Violent proceedings in the Commons.]
[Sidenote: Sir John Davies is elected.]
Parliament met in the Castle on May 18. The discontented lords and
gentlemen had brought armed retinues with them, and the Government
thought that no open building would be safe. As the Recusant lords
refused to attend, nothing could happen in the Upper House; but in the
Commons there was an immediate trial of strength over the election
of Speaker. Sir John Davies had been returned for Fermanagh, and the
Protestant party at once accepted him as the Government candidate;
while the Opposition were for Sir John Everard, member for Tipperary.
Everard was a lawyer of high character who had been second Justice of
the King's Bench and had resigned early in 1607 rather than take the
oath of supremacy. Thomas Ridgeway, the Vice-Treasurer, who sat for
Tyrone, proposed Davies as the fittest person and as recommended by the
King himself, and the majority assented by acclamation; but Sir James
Gough, member for Waterford county, proposed Everard, and was seconded
by Sir Christopher Nugent, who represented Westmeath. Gough objected to
all the new boroughs and to all members who were not resident in the
places which returned them; and William Talbot, member for Kildare,
who had been removed from the recordership of Dublin for refusing the
oath of supremacy, moved that the House should be purged from unlawful
members before a Speaker was chosen. Sir Oliver St. John, Master of
the Ordnance, who had been returned for Roscommon, thereupon remarked
that he had sat in several English Parliaments, and that a Speaker must
be chosen before election committees could be appointed. The practice
in England was for the 'Ayes' to go out and for the 'Noes' to remain
within. 'All you,' he said, 'that would have Sir John Davies to be
Speaker come with me out of the House.' The Opposition, who stayed
inside, refused to name tellers, and Sir Walter Butler, his colleague
in the representation of Tipperary, placed Everard in the chair,
where he was held down by Sir Daniel O'Brien of Clare and Sir William
Burke of Galway. Ridgeway and Wingfield then offered to tell for both
sides, but the Opposition gathered together 'in a plumpe' so that they
could not be counted. As the majority returned the tellers called the
numbers out loud, and 127 were found to be for Davies, which was a
clear majority in a possible 232. St. John called upon Everard to leave
the chair, but he sat still; whereupon the tellers placed Davies in
his lap, and afterwards ejected him with some show of force. It was
pretended that great violence was used, but an eye-witness declared
that there was none--'not so much as his hat was removed on their
Speaker's head.' The defeated party then walked out, and Talbot said,
'Those within are no House; and Sir John Everard is our Speaker, and
therefore we will not join with you, but we will complain to my Lord
Deputy and the King, and the King shall hear of this.' The outer door
having been locked during the division, Burke and Nugent re-entered to
demand the keys. Davies invited them to take their seats; and when the
door was opened, Everard and all his party left the Castle, declaring
that they would return no more.[103]
[Sidenote: Continued opposition of the Recusant Lords,]
[Sidenote: and Commons,]
[Sidenote: who refuse to attend the House.]
[Sidenote: Speeches of Sir John Davies.]
[Sidenote: The Tudors held Parliaments for special objects.]
[Sidenote: King James I. to hold a real Parliament in Ireland.]
[Sidenote: Davies praises Chichester.]
[Sidenote: And flatters James.]
On the following day the Roman Catholic lords wrote to the King
reiterating their arguments, avoiding the name of Parliament, which
they called an intended action, and repeating the thinly veiled threats
of their former letter. The Opposition in the House of Commons wrote
in somewhat the same strain to the English Council, maintaining that
Everard was the real Speaker, and that he had been forcibly put out.
During the next two days they sent three petitions to the Lord Deputy.
In the first they begged to be excused attendance for fear of their
lives, and asked to see the official documents relating to the late
elections. In the second they declared themselves ready to attend if
they might be assured that their lives were safe, and that they should
have an opportunity of questioning improper returns. Chichester granted
this, and said he would be ready in the House of Lords to receive their
Speaker. The Lower House met at nine on the morning of the 21st, but
the Opposition refused to attend, and demanded the exclusion of the
members to whose return they objected. Having exhausted all methods
of persuasion, Chichester came down to the Lords, and the House of
Commons were summoned to attend. Davies had in the meantime briefly
returned thanks for his election, modestly depreciating his own fitness
but enlarging upon the wisdom of those who had chosen a spokesman
to represent them; 'for the tower of Babel may be an example to all
assemblies that where there is a confusion of tongues, great works
can never go well forward.' After the Lord Deputy had approved him
as Speaker, Davies made a much longer speech, in which he traced the
history of Parliaments in Ireland, showing how partial their nature
and effects had hitherto been. During the later Middle Ages Ireland
outside the Pale had not been within the scope of the Constitution, and
since Henry VII. the few Parliaments summoned had been upon special
occasions. Henry VIII. had held two, one for attainting the Geraldines
and for abolishing the Pope's title, the other for turning the lordship
into a kingdom and for suppressing the abbeys. The object of Mary's
Parliament was to settle Leix and Offaly in the Crown, thus introducing
the policy which Elizabeth had followed up. The establishment of the
reformed Church, the declaration of the Crown's title to Ulster, and
the forfeitures which followed the attainder of Desmond and Baltinglas
had occupied the great Queen's three Parliaments. Now, under James, a
representation of the whole kingdom was attempted for the first time,
and general legislation would be taken in hand. As to the new boroughs,
Davies argued that, as Mary had created two and Elizabeth seventeen
counties, the right to make boroughs could hardly be denied to King
James. He had made about forty, and the proportion of boroughs to
counties was still less than it had been before Mary's creations. As to
the peers, there were now none who did not fully acknowledge the King;
and no see was without a bishop appointed by him. Davies concluded
his speech with some well-deserved praise of Chichester and with much
bare-faced flattery of James. He had sung the virtues of Elizabeth in
courtly verse; for he knew her weak point, in spite of which she was
one of the greatest and wisest sovereigns that the world has seen. That
might be excused, but a man of the Attorney-General's attainments ought
to have been above describing James as 'the greatest and best king that
now reigneth upon the face of the earth ... whose worthiness exceeds
all degrees of comparison.'[104]
[Sidenote: Patience of Chichester.]
[Sidenote: The Opposition send delegates to the King,]
[Sidenote: and the Deputy follows suit.]
[Sidenote: Frequent prorogations follow.]
If Chichester had chosen to take advantage of the refusal of the
Opposition to attend in either House, he might have made any laws
he pleased. As it was, he showed the greatest patience. The Lord
Chancellor, with the bishops and four temporal peers, came to the
Upper House, but no one else appeared; and eleven Recusants sent their
reasons in writing for staying away. Two days later the seceders were
summoned by proclamation in order to pass a Bill for the recognition
of the King's title. The Recusants acknowledged this in writing, but
refused to appear, though the Lord Deputy promised that no other
business should be taken in hand, and contented themselves with sending
delegates to represent their grievances to the King. A general levy
of money to defray expenses was made all over Ireland, 'whereunto
the Popish subjects did willingly condescend'; but when this came
to James's ears, he ordered it to be forbidden by proclamation. The
deputation, to whose departure Chichester made no objection, consisted
of Lords Gormanston and Dunboyne, with Sir Christopher Plunkett, Sir
James Gough, William Talbot, and Edward FitzHarris, the defeated
candidate for the county of Limerick. The Government sent out Lord
Thomond, Chief Justice Denham, and Sir Oliver St. John to explain
the situation in London; and they carried over all the declarations
and petitions of the Recusants. Parliament was adjourned until the
King should be in a position to make up his mind, and afterwards, by
special royal order prorogued to November 3. There were six successive
prorogations, and the Irish Houses did not assemble again until October
1614, during which time the addled Parliament had met and separated in
England. This may have been partly the consequence of Bacon's advice,
who saw the inconvenience of having two Parliaments going on at once.
The mere fact that things were unsettled in Ireland might, he thought,
be a good reason for expecting a liberal supply in England.[105]
[Sidenote: Royal Commission for grievances.]
Towards the end of August, when the King returned from his progress,
he issued a commission to Chichester himself, to Sir Humphry Winch,
late Chief Baron in Ireland and now a Judge of the Common Pleas; Sir
Charles Cornwallis, lately Ambassador in Spain; Sir Roger Wilbraham,
who had been Solicitor-General in Ireland; and George Calvert, clerk of
the Council. Two sets of instructions were given to them: by the first
they were to inquire into all matters concerning the Irish elections
and the proceedings in Parliament; by the second to report upon all
general and notorious grievances, of which a few were specially
mentioned. The English commissioners reached Dublin on September 11,
and immediately proceeded to inquire into parliamentary matters, at the
same time giving notice far and wide that they had come to inquire into
grievances generally. For a month there were no complaints, and it was
not until the return of some of the recusant petitioners from London
that any progress could be made in that direction. James had been very
careful to tell Chichester that he did not distrust or blame him, but
attributed the attacks on him to the priests and Jesuits. His great
object was to teach the Irish to seek redress by an orderly petition
to their Sovereign rather than 'after the old fashion of that country,
to run upon every occasion to the bog and wood, and seek their remedy
that way.' This inquiry would only strengthen the Deputy's government.
If the malcontents could be induced to get to work in Parliament by
taking unopposed business first, probably the rest would follow in good
time.[106]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of the Commissioners.]
[Sidenote: Disputed elections.]
[Sidenote: Fermanagh.]
[Sidenote: Tyrone.]
Having examined the officers of Chancery upon oath, the Commissioners
found that writs had been duly issued to 'all counties, ancient cities,
and boroughs,' and returns made. Where specific instances of wrongful
election had been alleged, each case was gone into upon its merits.
Nine of these were in counties and five in cities or boroughs. In
Fermanagh it was alleged that Connor Roe Maguire and Donnell Maguire
had been duly elected, notwithstanding which Sir Henry Ffolliot and
Sir John Davies had been returned; and that Captain Gore had pulled
out Brian Maguire's beard because he had voted for his namesake. In
this important case the defeated candidates were summoned before the
Commissioners, who reported that one who spoke no English had declined
to appear, and that the other, having been indicted for treason, had
broken prison and betaken himself to the woods. As for Brian Maguire,
he confessed that 'Captain Gore did shake him by the beard, but pulled
no part of it away, nor did him any other hurt.' In Tyrone the question
was between Sir Thomas Ridgeway, afterwards Earl of Londonderry,
who was returned, and Tirlagh O'Neill, who spoke no English. It
appeared that thirty-four British freeholders voted for the former and
twenty-eight for the latter--such were county elections in those days.
The result was that no knight of the shire was unseated; and in the
worst cases the evidence was certainly conflicting.[107]
[Sidenote: Contest in Dublin.]
[Sidenote: The Commissioners find the facts.]
The writ to the sheriffs of Dublin was issued on April 1, and on the
following day they gave their warrant to the mayor, Sir James Carrol,
to hold an election. On the 20th, when the sheriffs sat in their court,
they were persuaded by the Recusant citizens to come to an election
in the mayor's absence. Alderman Francis Taylor and Thomas Allen were
returned unopposed; but the mayor ignored the proceedings, and held a
fresh election seven days later on what is now College Green, outside
the walls but within the liberties of Dublin. Proclamation had been
made at ten that morning, and the nomination took place accordingly at
two. The Recusant party acknowledged the validity of the proceedings
by nominating Taylor and Barry, who had already been declared duly
elected; but the mayor proposed the recorder, Richard Bolton, and
Alderman Richard Barry. The voices appearing about equal, Carrol
ordered a division, and declared the majority to be for his nominees,
but without actually taking a poll. The beaten party petitioned on
the ground that the original election was good, that the second was
really held before two o'clock, and that the majority in fact was for
Allen and Taylor. The first question was left by the Commissioners to
the lawyers in England. Watches were perhaps not then very common in
Dublin, but the weight of evidence was in favour of the appointed hour
having been observed, and of the majority having been on the side of
Bolton and Barry. It was not denied that no poll had been taken.[108]
[Sidenote: Contests in Boroughs.]
[Sidenote: Cavan.]
[Sidenote: Cavan members unseated.]
[Sidenote: The Kildare case, and others.]
Besides the general objection to the new boroughs special objection
had been taken in five cases, of which the most remarkable was that
of Cavan. It was alleged that Captain Culme, who brought a mandate
from the county sheriff, had proposed himself and the Lord Deputy's
secretary, George Sexton, but that the townsmen had refused to elect
them. Four or five days later the high sheriff, Sir Oliver Lambert,
held an election, and it was said that he behaved with great violence,
while his musketeers with matches burning excluded all but his
partisans. Thomas and Walter Brady were the opposition candidates, and
George Brady, who voted for his namesakes, was struck by Lambert. The
Commissioners found that this was after the election, that Brady had
used bad or irritating language, and that Sir Oliver had struck him
'with a little walking-stick, but his head was not broken,' as the
petitioners alleged. Culme and Sexton were declared duly elected, but
the Commissioners found upon the evidence that the two Bradys had the
majority. Later on the return was annulled, and in the end the two
Bradys were returned. Kildare was the only other borough where the
Commissioners found that an undue election had been made.[109]
[Sidenote: The delegates in London.]
[Sidenote: Barnewall and Talbot.]
[Sidenote: Non-residence of members.]
When the Irish Parliament was just about to meet the English Council
had sent for Sir Patrick Barnewall. He was known to have written
letters declaring that the assembly as constituted would reduce
Ireland to slavery, and that the new boroughs were erected only to pass
money votes. His abilities were known, and no doubt he was considered
formidable since his victory in the matter of the mandates. Barnewall
may have had influence with the delegates in London, but William Talbot
was the chief legal adviser of the Opposition, and their petition to
the King was drawn up under his guidance. Observers in London thought
him the real head of the deputation. Talbot afterwards had a son
Richard, who was destined as Earl and Duke of Tyrconnel to overthrow
for a moment the fabric raised by Elizabeth, James and Cromwell, and
grudgingly maintained by Charles II. Gormanston and his five companions
petitioned as agents for twenty-one counties and twenty-eight ancient
cities and boroughs, and a schedule was appended containing particulars
of electoral irregularities. They laid special stress upon an English
Act of Henry V. binding in Ireland by the operation of Poynings's
Law, which required that members of Parliament should be resident in
the counties for which they sat, and that knights of shires should be
natives of them. The statute as to residence has been long obsolete in
England, where attempts to revive it had deservedly failed, and it had
been disregarded in Ireland in Perrott's time; but in point of strict
law the petitioners were right, for the requirement of residence, which
had been abolished or suspended in Ireland in the time of Edward IV.,
was clearly reaffirmed by St. Leger's Parliament under Henry VIII.
Boldly assuming that they were the majority, the petitioners asserted
that their speaker lawfully elected was ejected by violence, and that
they themselves were terrorised.[110]
[Sidenote: Case for the Irish Government.]
[Sidenote: Distinction between native and Anglo-Irish Catholics.]
Thomond and his associates were instructed by Chichester to point out
that many of the Irish candidates for parliamentary honours had been
in actual rebellion, that some could speak no English, and that 'all
were elected by a general combination and practice of Jesuits and
priests, who charged all the people, upon pain of excommunication, not
to elect any of the King's religion.' They were to tell the Council
in the petitioners' presence that at a conference with Tyrone and his
Irish allies when they thought they were going to conquer Ireland,
'he and the rest of the Irish did solemnly declare and publish, that
no person of what quality or degree soever being descended of English
race, birth or blood, though they came in with the conquest, and were
since degenerated and become Irish by alteration of name and customs,
should inherit or possess a foot of land within the kingdom,' and that
Celtic owners could be found for all. When asked what was to happen
to their Anglo-Irish allies, they answered that they might stay as
vassals or labourers, 'and if they liked not thereof they might depart
the kingdom.' Among those elected, or by the petitioners supposed to
be elected, were a son-in-law of Tyrone's and many other rebels, and
among the candidates were another son-in-law and a half-brother of
the arch-traitor, with many more of the same wicked crew, 'for they
would have Barabbas and exclude Jesus.' Chichester saw clearly that
the position and interests of those who were English in everything but
religion differed fundamentally from those of the native Irish, and
in the wars of the next generation the distinction became apparent to
all.[111]
[Sidenote: The King gives frequent audiences.]
[Sidenote: Talbot in the Tower.]
[Sidenote: Luttrell in the Fleet.]
[Sidenote: Suarez repudiated.]
The original deputation from the Irish Opposition consisted of six
persons, but James had declared his willingness to see twelve, and the
additional number who came was considerably greater, six peers and
fourteen commoners, including Everard, Barnewall and Thomas Luttrell.
The latter sat for the county of Dublin and had been prominent, or
in official language turbulent and seditious, during the late short
session. James heard the deputation in Council several times during
the month of July, 'while they did use daily to frequent their secret
conventicles and private meetings, to consult and devise how to frame
plaintive articles against the Lord Deputy.' Under these circumstances
it is not surprising that the King found it hard to come to a decision,
and when he went on progress to the west towards the end of the month
he reserved judgment. Before this, however, Talbot was sent to the
Tower for not condemning with sufficient clearness the opinions of the
Jesuit Suarez, as to the deposition and murder of kings. That murder
was not lawful he had no doubt, but thought that deposition might be,
and he said this in the King's presence. Luttrell lay for nearly three
months in the Fleet for the same reason, when he made submission in
writing. Sir Patrick Barnewall, whose loyalty was undisputed, and who
had had enough of the Tower, found no difficulty in repudiating the
doctrines of Suarez and Parsons as 'most profane, impious, wicked, and
detestable ... that His Majesty or any other sovereign prince, if he
were excommunicated by the Pope, might be massacred or done away with
by his subjects or any other.' As for his own king he firmly held that
all his Highness's subjects should spend their lives and properties to
defend him and his kingdoms, 'notwithstanding any excommunication or
any other act which is or may be pronounced or done by the Pope against
him.' Talbot's submission was less complete, and he remained in the
Tower for over a year.[112]
[Sidenote: The rival Churches.]
[Sidenote: Suggestions by the Commissioners.]
[Sidenote: Military irregularities.]
[Sidenote: Abuses by sheriffs.]
The first thing that struck the Commissioners was the general neglect
of true religion, the ministers and preachers being insufficient both
in number and quality, and the churches for the most part ruinous.
There were, however 'a multitude of Popish schoolmasters, priests,
friars, Jesuits, seminaries of the adverse Church authorised by the
Pope and his subordinates for every diocese, ecclesiastical dignity,
and living of note,' who were resident, and who lost no opportunity
of execrating the reformed faith, being supported and countenanced by
the native nobility. Of the magistrates, sheriffs, and other officials
many were Roman Catholics, and the priesthood was constantly recruited
from seminaries in Spain and Belgium. The Commissioners could only
recommend the ruthless enforcement of ecclesiastical conformity. All
should be driven to church or punished, Popish schools suppressed, and
priests weeded out, able and religious schoolmasters being provided,
while 'idle and scandalous ministers' gave place to well paid and
conscientious successors. All this was neither very original nor very
practical, and the report is more to the purpose where remediable
evils are dealt with. Extortions by soldiers were loudly complained
of, and not altogether denied by Chichester, though he declared that
he had taken the greatest care to prevent them, and though he was
ready to pay three times the value if it could be proved that he had
taken 'of the value of a hen' wrongfully during his eight years'
government. The Commissioners found that billeted soldiers did exact
money from the people at the rate of about three shillings a night for
a footman besides meat and drink, and that they sometimes took cattle
or goods in default of payment, 'whereby breach of peace and affrays
are occasioned.' The viceregal warrant always required them to march
straight from point to point, but they sometimes went round on purpose
to gain more time at free quarters. There were many other similar
disorders and oppressions, yet it did not appear that applications were
often made to the Lord Deputy, 'who upon their complaints hath given
order for redress of such grievances as hath been manifested unto us.'
On the other hand aggrieved parties pleaded that they were afraid to
provoke the enmity of the soldiers by complaining, and that remedies
cost more than they were worth, though they admitted that Chichester
was 'swift of despatch and easy of access.' The Lord Deputy said no
sheriffs were made who had not property in their shires, 'and if such
who are of better estates are omitted it is for their recusancy,' but
the Commissioners found that many had none, either there or elsewhere,
that they gathered crown rents and taxes in an irregular manner, and
that they were guilty of other minor extortions, 'the reason whereof
being affirmed to be that in the civillest counties in the English Pale
and in other counties there are found very few Protestants that are
freeholders of quality fit to be sheriffs, and that will take the oath
of supremacy as by the laws they ought to do, and by the Lord Deputy's
order no sheriff is admitted till he enter into sufficient bond for
answering his accounts.'[113]
[Sidenote: Ploughing by the tail.]
[Sidenote: Prevalence of the practice.]
[Sidenote: Its cruelty]
[Sidenote: and long continuance.]
One grievance there was which deserves special mention, because its
history shows how even the most obvious and reasonable reform may be
resented when it involves a change in the habits of country people. It
had long been the custom, especially in Ulster, to till rough ground by
attaching a very short plough, which might be lifted over an obstacle,
to the tails of ponies walking abreast. This was prohibited by Order
in Council in 1606, the penalty being the forfeiture of one animal for
the first year, two for the second, and for the third the whole team.
No attempt was made to enforce this until 1611, when Captain Paul
Gore, to whose company arrears were due since O'Dogherty's rebellion,
obtained leave to pay himself by realising the penalty for a year
in one or two counties. Chichester consented, but limited the fine
to ten shillings for each plough. The fine, smaller or greater, was
often paid, but did not have the desired effect. Gore no doubt made
a good bargain, for in the following year Chichester ordered the ten
shillings to be levied all over Ulster, spending most of the money
so raised upon roads, bridges, and the repairs of churches. James,
with his usual improvidence, granted this to Sir William Uvedale for
£100 Irish, and it was admitted that he made £800, while much more
was really collected from the people. Collections unauthorised by
Chichester had also been made in Connaught and even in the Pale. It was
not the short ploughs that had been prohibited but the ploughing by the
tail, and it had been particularly provided that no penalty attached
if traces of any kind were used. Perhaps the collectors stretched a
point, and the petitioners were at all events justified in pointing
out that there was no law to support the prohibition, and that the
peasants concerned had neither skill nor means to use better ploughs.
The English settlers who saw these ploughs at work thought them both
'uncivil' and unprofitable; and the cruelty was obvious, Chichester
stating that many hundred of beasts were killed or spoiled yearly. The
horses stopped when they felt the jar of a stump or boulder, and no
doubt the resulting tillage was of the poorest kind. In modern times
spade labour was used in rough places, and was much more efficient. It
was the intention of Chichester to pass an Act of Parliament against
ploughing by the tail, but this was not actually done until Strafford's
time. The statute sets forth that 'besides the cruelty used to the
beasts the breed of horses is much impaired in this kingdom to the
great prejudice thereof.' The repeal of this measure was actually made
a condition of peace between Charles I. and the Irish Confederates in
1646. The practice gradually ceased to be general after it had been
forbidden by law, but even near the end of Charles II.'s reign it still
prevailed in the rocky barony of Burren in Clare, where it was found
necessary to tolerate it. Arthur Young found the barbarous custom still
strong in Cavan, and in Connaught it was not quite extinct even in
Queen Victoria's reign. Its cheapness really recommended the practice,
which was even defended on the ground of humanity, because it shortened
the draught.[114]
[Sidenote: Alleged legal extortion.]
[Sidenote: Excessive fees.]
[Sidenote: Chichester is absolved.]
It had been complained--and in what age or country has there been no
such complaint?--that clerks in the law courts exacted excessive fees,
the fear of which prevented men from taking legal remedy. Chichester
was able to answer that all scales of charges had been twice carefully
overhauled, that they were now much less than in Queen Elizabeth's
time, and that those who had reason to complain well knew that he would
give them redress if required. The Commissioners found it very hard to
get the exact truth because both judges and officers were so frequently
changed, but they found abuse 'in some particular cases.' Chichester
had greatly increased the revenue, and, as he believed, without adding
to the burden of the people; but some new offices had been created
in the Exchequer, and it was not clear that this was always to the
advantage of either King or subject. Many clerks of courts sought 'to
make their fees equal both in number and value with the fees paid to
like officers in England, which seemeth heavy to the subjects of this
kingdom, being generally of much less ability.' The Commissioners made
arrangement for the preparation of accurate lists of fees, and they
unanimously exonerated Chichester from any malpractice. 'We found the
Deputy upright,' wrote one Commissioner in his diary. Another in a
letter, after hearing voluminous evidence, thought too much time was
taken up with trivialities. 'Whole heaps' of cases of oppression by
soldiers had nevertheless, he said, been established, and he seems to
have thought the military element in the Government much too strong. It
had been said by a man of good understanding, Cornwallis reported, that
'these Irish are a scurvy nation, and are as scurvily used,' and he
supposed that when he had heard the Commissioners on their return his
noble correspondent would be of the same opinion.[115]
[Sidenote: Royal proclamation, Feb. 7, 1613-1614.]
[Sidenote: Chichester is sent for.]
Having received the report of the Commissioners, the King sent Sir
Richard Boyle to Ireland with 1,000 copies of a proclamation for
distribution all over the country. In it James announced that he
had vouchsafed in person to debate with the malcontents on several
occasions, that they had not met him in a proper spirit, and that
there was evidently a conspiracy among them to bring Chichester into
disfavour, whose conduct he had nevertheless found 'full of respect to
our honour, zeal to justice, and sufficiency in the execution of the
great charge committed unto him.' Inferior officers remained liable
to punishment for proved demerits. Boyle, who was sworn of the Privy
Council as soon as he reached Dublin, also carried a letter from the
King to Chichester expressing fuller confidence in him, and directing
him to come over and make arrangements for another session, while so
many Irish peers and members of Parliament were in London. He was not,
however, to leave Ireland if he thought that reasons of state required
his continued presence there. He started just a month after Boyle's
arrival, leaving the Government in the hands of Archbishop Jones and
Sir R. Wingfield as Lords Justices, narrowly escaped drowning near
Conway, and reached London in due course. Among those who accompanied
him were Sir John Davies and Sir Josiah Bodley.[116]
[Sidenote: The King verbally promises toleration]
[Sidenote: to all who disavow Suarez.]
[Sidenote: Sir James Gough publishes the royal message,]
[Sidenote: but is not believed.]
While the Commissioners were still sitting in Dublin, Lords Gormanston
and Roche, Sir James Gough, and Mr. Patrick Hussy, member for Meath
and titular baron of Galtrim, took leave of the King at Royston. James
made a speech, which according to Gough's report contained the words:
'As for your religion, howbeit that the religion I profess be the
religion I will make the established religion among you, and that the
exercise of the religion which you use (which is no religion, indeed,
but a superstition) might be left off; yet will I not ensue or extort
any man's conscience, and do grant that all my subjects there (which
likewise upon your return thither I require you to make known) do
acknowledge and believe that it is not lawful to offer violence unto my
person, or to deprive me of my crown, or to take from me my kingdoms,
or that you harbour or receive any priest or seminary that would allow
such a doctrine. I do likewise require that none of your youth be
bred at Douai. Kings have long ears, and be assured that I will be
inquisitive of your behaviour therein.' There were plenty of witnesses,
and James was not able to deny the substantial correctness of Gough's
version, who took care to repeat it to Sir Francis Kingsmill, a
fellow-passenger across the channel. On landing Gough betook himself to
Munster, where he published the King's words at Youghal, Clonmel and
Dungarvan. Having given the report a fortnight's start in the part of
Ireland where he was best known, Sir James repaired to Dublin Castle
and delivered the royal message to numerous audiences in the Lord
Deputy's presence 'in the action and tone of an orator.' He was called
into a more private place, where he maintained his faithful rendering
of 'the most great and true King's words,' which he was ready at his
command to proclaim 'at Hercules' Posts.' He threw himself upon the
royal protection, professing that the Jesuit doctrine was a new thing
to him, and repudiating it for himself and his colleagues. They would,
he said, refuse the ministration of priests who held it, and also
discover them to the authorities. Chichester, who must have cursed the
garrulous monarch, declared his disbelief, and Gough was kept under
restraint in the Castle.[117]
[Sidenote: The King cannot explain away his words,]
[Sidenote: but Gough has to submit.]
James admitted that he had used the language imputed to him, but
without intending thereby to claim a dispensing power or to promise
full toleration, and he sent over a proclamation to that effect for
circulation. Against Sir James Gough he made four points, that his
turbulent conduct to the Deputy must be taken as directed against the
King, that he had no warrant at all to make any report to his Lordship,
that he wilfully misrepresented the royal meaning, and that he had
cunningly reported only so much as suited him, which was a very small
part of what had been said. Gough was to be detained until he made
submission, and when he had made it the Deputy might release him as
an act of his own favour. In less than a month after the date of the
King's letter Gough made an ample apology. He now understood that his
Majesty intended the laws against recusancy to be enforced, 'but that
his subjects should be compelled by violence or other unlawful means
to resort to the Protestant churches I think it not his pleasure.'
Their consciences were to be left free. As this pretty nearly
represented Chichester's own ideas, the submission was accepted and Sir
James Gough released.[118]
[Sidenote: Talbot before the Star-chamber.]
[Sidenote: The law officers discourage severity]
[Sidenote: Bacon nevertheless magnifies Talbot's offence,]
[Sidenote: but he is ultimately released.]
Talbot was brought before the Star-chamber in London on the same day
that Gough made his submission in Dublin. At a previous hearing before
the Council the English oath of allegiance was tendered to him, and
extracts from Suarez and Parsons were read, of which he was given a
copy to meditate upon during his imprisonment. Though the oath of
allegiance had no statutory force in Ireland the law officers, Hobart
and Bacon, had given a cautious opinion that it might be administered
to Irishmen in England, 'but whether it be convenient to minister it
unto them, not being persons commorant or settled there, but only
employed for the present business, we must leave it unto his Majesty's
and your Lordships' better judgments.' This is a plain hint that they
did not think it convenient, but they were overruled, and Bacon, who
had since become Attorney-General, had to conduct Talbot's prosecution.
The prisoner not unnaturally vacillated a good deal, but at last,
having studied Abbot's excerpts from the two Jesuits, he declared that
they involved matters of faith and must be submitted to the judgment
of the catholic Roman church, but, he added, 'for matter concerning
my loyalty, I do acknowledge my sovereign liege lord King James to be
lawful and undoubted King of all the kingdoms of England, Scotland,
and Ireland, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Highness
during my life.' The practical politician who was in Bacon along with
the lawyer, the theologian, and the philosopher would no doubt have
been satisfied with this; but officially he was bound to accuse Talbot
of maintaining a power in the Pope to depose and murder kings. He had
not merely refused the oath of allegiance, but had affirmed the power
of the Church over civil matters. 'It would astonish a man,' said
Bacon, 'to see the gulf of this implied belief. Is nothing exempted
from it? If a man should ask Mr. Talbot whether he do condemn murder,
or adultery, or rape, or the doctrine of Mahomet, or of Arius instead
of Zuarius; must the answer be with this exception, that if the
question concern matter of faith (as no question it does, for the moral
law is matter of faith) that therein he will submit himself to what the
Church will determine.' Talbot was fined £10,000, but there does not
seem to have been any intention to make him pay, and he was allowed to
return to Ireland after spending several more months in the Tower. This
was euphemistically described by the Privy Council as 'attendance on
his Majesty's pleasure,' but they took care that his property should
not suffer in his absence. Clemency was shown, but a theoretical gulf
had been dug which made it more difficult than ever to reconcile the
discordant elements of Irish life.[119]
[Sidenote: The King on the constitution of Parliaments,]
[Sidenote: on Irish grievances,]
[Sidenote: and on toleration.]
On April 12 in the council chamber at Whitehall, and in the presence of
Chichester and of the recusant Irish peers and members of Parliament,
James delivered the memorable speech which foreshadowed the course
of Irish policy until the advent of Strafford. It manifests much
cleverness, combined with a characteristic want of dignity. The
parliamentary questions were of course decided against the petitioners,
who were lectured for their disrespectful bearing at the outset,
and for seceding when things went against them. 'The Lower House,'
he said, 'here in England doth stand upon its privileges as much as
any council in Christendom; yet if such a difference had risen here,
they would have gone on with my service notwithstanding. What,' he
exclaimed, 'if I had created 40 noblemen and 400 boroughs? The more
the merrier, the fewer the better cheer,' adding with a good deal of
truth that 'comparing Irish boroughs new with Irish boroughs old,'
there was not so very much to choose between them, and that for the
most part they were likely to increase. The legal point as to members
being non-resident he was entitled to pass over lightly, for the law
was obsolete in England. 'If you had said they had no interest,' he
remarked, 'it had been somewhat, but most have interest in the kingdom,
and are likely to be as careful as you for the weal thereof.' As to
civil grievances those complained of were such as were found in all
countries, and might be redressed on application to the Lord Deputy,
whom the recusants admitted to be the best governor that Ireland had
ever had. After full inquiry by an impartial commission the King had
'found nothing done by him but what is fit for an honourable gentleman
to do in his place.' As to the question of religion, he said the
recusants were but half-subjects, and entitled only to half privileges.
'The Pope is your father _in spiritualibus_, and I _in temporalibus_
only, and so you have your bodies turned one way and your souls drawn
another way; you that send your children to the seminaries of treason.
Strive henceforth to become good subjects, that you may have _cor unum
et viam unam_, and then I shall respect you all alike. But your Irish
priests teach you such grounds of doctrine as you cannot follow them
with a safe conscience, but you must cast off your loyalty to the
King.' And he referred to an intercepted letter from one such priest,
which was much more to the purpose than extracts from Suarez and others
like him.[120]
[Sidenote: Final award as to parliamentary difficulties, 1614.]
[Sidenote: The Houses get to business at last.]
[Sidenote: The Roman Catholics at first stay to prayers,]
[Sidenote: but soon desist.]
[Sidenote: Legislation proceeds smoothly,]
[Sidenote: and Tyrone's attainder is passed unanimously.]
Chichester left London on July 11, one week after the Irish Parliament
had been prorogued by the Lords Justices for the sixth time. A letter
from the King written at Belvoir Castle soon followed him, which
contained the final award as to Irish parliamentary matters. The
Protestant or Government party were pronounced generally to have been
in the right; but the Opposition were not to be any further questioned,
since there had been a certain amount of foundation for their
complaints. It had been proved that eight boroughs were erected after
the issue of the writs, and this disqualified their representatives
during the existing Parliament. Three other boroughs were pronounced
by the Commissioners to have no power by charter or prescription to
send burgesses, and this decision was confirmed. The rest of the
elections were declared to be duly made. Sir John Davies carried the
royal letter to Dublin along with the Bills finally agreed upon, which
did not include that against Jesuits, seminary priests, and other
disobedient persons. The prorogation expired on October 11, on which
day the Houses met, Chichester having undergone a surgical operation
in the interval. He was sufficiently recovered to open Parliament in
person, to make a short speech, and to see the effect of the King's
letter, which was read by the Lord Chancellor in his presence. Davies
made another speech to the Commons, with the usual classical allusions
and the usual appeals to history. James was the Esculapius who had
healed their differences, and now there was good hope that their wills
should be united. Differences of opinion there needs must be, and
sound conclusions could not be reached without them, for had not Ovid
said that nature could effect nothing without a struggle? At first all
went smoothly, and the Roman Catholics sat patiently through prayers,
which were offered up by the Speaker himself. The lawyers held that
prayers said by a layman could do them no harm, but the priests thought
otherwise, and attendance was discontinued after a week. In the Lords,
where a bishop officiated, it was from the first considered out of the
question. When the House of Commons came to business both Talbot and
Everard exerted themselves to prevent any disturbance. Three Bills
were passed without much difficulty, for acknowledgment of the King's
title, for the suppression of piracy, and for taking away benefit of
clergy in cases of rape, burglary, and horse-stealing. The English Act
of 28 Henry VIII. was never extended to Ireland, and the prevalence of
piracy was attributed mainly to that. Special commissions of admiralty
were now devised, pirates being denied both benefit of clergy and right
of sanctuary. If a jury were sworn there could be no challenge. The
Bill for the attainder of the northern chiefs was passed without a
single dissentient voice, and became law. Sir John Everard, who seems
to have had little sympathy with the Ulster Celts, spoke in favour of
it and made little of objections. 'No man,' he said, 'ought to arise
against the Prince for religion or justice,' adding that the many
favours bestowed on Tyrone by the late Queen and present King greatly
aggravated his offence. 'And now,' wrote Davies, 'all the states of
the kingdom have attainted Tyrone, the most notorious and dangerous
traitor that was in Ireland, whereof foreign nations will take notice,
because it has been given out that Tyrone had left many friends behind
him, and that only the Protestants wished his utter ruin. Besides, this
attainder settles the plantation of Ulster.'[121]
[Sidenote: Finance.]
[Sidenote: A free gift is asked for,]
[Sidenote: but with little success.]
[Sidenote: The Protestants have no working majority.]
Our Tudor and Stuart sovereigns looked upon Parliament mainly as an
instrument for putting money in their purse. Ireland was a dependency,
and was generally a source of expense rather than of income until after
the Restoration, when inconvenient criticism was avoided by charging
pensions upon the Irish establishment. 'The King was never the richer
for Ireland,' though private adventurers sometimes made fortunes there.
Chichester had greatly improved the revenue, and as there was peace in
his time, except for the brief rebellion of O'Dogherty, there were good
hopes of making Ireland a paying concern. After his return from England
he issued letters asking for a free gift from the county of Dublin;
intending to do the same elsewhere if this first appeal was successful,
and hoping thus to raise 20,000_l._ A nest egg was provided by the
Archbishop and Lord Howth, who put their names down for 100_l._ apiece,
but the Roman Catholic majority hung back, and as soon as it was known
that a parliamentary subsidy would be asked for the chance of any
other contribution grew less and less. The Bill, which was the first
of the kind in Ireland, was duly forwarded to the English Council, but
there were many delays before it was remitted, and it did not reach
Ireland until two days after Parliament had been again prorogued. The
constituencies generally appear to have made their representatives
regular allowances, and this was found very burdensome. Chichester
had found it impossible to keep the Houses sitting with no business
before them. Moreover for want of occupation the members began to make
inconvenient inquiries into the general course of government, and they
rejected Bills for the confirmation of titles to lands acquired by
forfeiture in Elizabeth's time. The Papists, wrote Winwood's secretary,
had been in a majority during the whole session 'through their careful
attendance and the negligent attendance of the Protestants, and this
had given them such confidence of their own strength that they have
dared to mutter, not many days before the Parliament was prorogued,
that the new charters might yet be made void, that the Act of 2
Elizabeth might be suspended, and that the recusant lawyers who were
put from pleading might be again admitted to the bar.'[122]
[Sidenote: Last session of the Parliament, 1615.]
[Sidenote: A subsidy cheerfully granted,]
[Sidenote: but collected with difficulty.]
[Sidenote: Optimism of Sir John Davies.]
Parliament was again prorogued at the end of January 1615, and James,
seeing little chance of a supply, was on the point of directing a
dissolution. But he changed his mind, and decided to be guided by the
proceedings on the money Bill. The Houses met accordingly on April 18,
and the subsidy was granted without any difficulty. Vice-Treasurer
Ridgeway thought this a half-miracle, the House of Commons 'being
compounded of three several nations, besides a fourth, consisting of
old English Irelandised (who are not numbered among the mere Irish or
new English) and of two several blessed religions (whatsoever more),
besides the ignorance of almost all (they being at first more afraid
than hurt) concerning the name, nature, and sum of a subsidy.' Contrary
to the settled practice of later times the Bill was introduced first
in the House of Lords. Winwood's secretary, who sat for Lifford, was
allowed precedence in the debate, and was much struck by the readiness
of all parties. Many of the Irish assured Blundell that they would
willingly have given two subsidies if it had not been for the great
loss of cattle during the late severe winter. Nobody knew what the sum
raised was likely to amount to, but Ridgeway thought it might reach
30,000_l._ in money and cows. Chichester said it could not be got in
coin unless specie were sent from England to pay the officials, who
were all in debt; their creditors might then be enabled to meet the
tax. Former benevolences and cesses in Ireland had been raised on
land only, and there were many exemptions for waste and in favour of
influential people. Goods were now included, and taxed at 2_s._ 8_d._
in the pound for natives and 5_s._ 4_d._ for aliens and denizens. The
imposition on realty was 4_s._ and 8_s._ English precedent was departed
from in so far that the clergy were taxed as well as the laity, but
this was changed in Strafford's time. Half the money was to be paid
in September 1615, and half in the following March. The preamble of
the first Irish subsidy Bill bears evident marks of Davies's hand,
setting forth that Ireland had been hitherto only a source of expense
to the Crown owing to continual disturbances. 'But forasmuch,' it
proceeds, 'as since the beginning of his Majesty's most happy reign
all the causes of war, dissension, and discontentment are taken away,'
principally by extirpating traitors and placing English and Scotch
colonies in Ulster, the King was now 'in full and peaceable possession
of his vineyard,' and entitled to expect some income from it. The
King's letter of thanks is an echo of this, but it was Carew and not
Davies that proved a true prophet when a worse war than Tyrone's broke
out in that very Ulster which was supposed to be 'cleared from the
thorns and briars of rebellion.'[123]
[Sidenote: Proposed legislation, most of which is abandoned,]
[Sidenote: against Recusants,]
[Sidenote: for a fixed revenue,]
[Sidenote: against Tanistry,]
[Sidenote: and for many other purposes.]
It was originally hoped or intended that there should be very
important legislation in this Irish Parliament. Bills were prepared
for repairing churches and preventing waste of Church property and
against pluralities and non-residence. On the other hand stringent
enactments were contemplated against Jesuits and seminary priests,
and in particular to make the English law enforceable against
Recusants who fled into Ireland to have more free exercise of their
religion there. No part of this programme was carried out, and it was
probably from a feeling of relief that the Irish majority were so
amenable in connection with the subsidy. The oath of allegiance had
not been imposed by law in Ireland, and it was proposed to legalise
its administration by commissioners, but this was not done. Several
Bills devised to give the King a fixed revenue were also abandoned. Of
twenty projected Acts 'concerning the common weal, or general good of
the subject,' only two became law, those against piracy and against
benefit of clergy in cases of felony. Of the other abortive bills that
of largest scope was for abolishing the Brehon Law and the custom of
gavelkind and for naturalising all the native Irish. Tanistry and
gavelkind had already been declared illegal by judicial decisions,
and probably it was not thought prudent to raise the question. But
an Act was passed repealing certain statutes in which Irishmen had
been treated as enemies or aliens, and declaring that all natives
and inhabitants of Ireland did in fact live under one law. Bills for
confirming royal grants to undertakers in Ulster and Munster came
to nothing, and probably it was thought wiser to keep the power of
forfeiture in reserve. A poor law was contemplated, but the machinery
for working the 43rd of Elizabeth did not exist in Ireland, and nothing
effectual was done until 1838. A Bill for the preservation of woods was
abandoned, and so was another, for the protection of hawks, pheasants,
and partridges, which may sound odd to modern sportsmen.'[124]
[Sidenote: A highway system introduced.]
[Sidenote: Legislation against Scots repealed.]
[Sidenote: A general pardon.]
To this Parliament Ireland owes the first establishment of a regular
highway system, the remote results of which delighted Arthur Young
when the roads of England were still very bad. The charge was placed
on the parishes, and compulsory powers were given to take small stones
out of quarries, and underwood when required, paying such compensation
as the supervisor thought reasonable. An Act of Mary against bringing
in Scots and marrying with them was repealed in consequence of the
union of England, Scotland, and Ireland 'under one imperial crown.'
The only other act of great importance passed was one for a general
pardon of all offences not specially excepted. But the list of
exceptions was a long one, including treason and misprision of treason,
piracy and murder, since the beginning of the reign. Burglary, arson,
horse-stealing, and rape were pardoned unless committed within one
year before the beginning of the session. Witchcraft, however, and
most offences against the revenue, were excepted if committed since
the King's accession. Outlaws were excepted until such satisfaction
was given as would lead to a reversal of the outlawry, and a special
Act was passed to restrict the power of private suitors to place their
adversaries in such a position. 'No kingdom or people,' said Davies,
'have more need of this Act for a general pardon than Ireland,' but it
was considered very insufficient. Nothing was done to abate extortion
in the Exchequer and other courts, and there were no words of 'pardon
of intrusions and alienations, which is the burden that lies heavy upon
all the gentlemen of the kingdom.'[125]
[Sidenote: Parliament is dissolved October, 1615,]
[Sidenote: and the King falls back on prerogative.]
[Sidenote: Obsolete statutes.]
The subsidy having been granted, Parliament was prorogued after
sitting four weeks, and it was intended to have another session in
October. Long before the recess was over James made up his mind that
there should be a dissolution, and that he would not receive another
deputation from the Irish Commons. The reasons given were that the
existence of Parliament interfered with the ordinary course of
justice, and that the luxury was too expensive both for the members
and for the constituents, who paid them more or less sufficiently.
That this was not the true reason may be inferred from the fact that
a dissolution was very unpopular. Probably the King thought Irish
Parliaments dangerous and unmanageable as he learned to regard English
ones, and he had no great appetite for legislation when the prerogative
was strong enough to carry out the most pressing reforms. Orders were
given to reduce the scale of legal fees and to have them hung up in
all the courts. If the clergy exacted excessive charges for burials
they were to modify them. Restraints on trade were to be removed by
proclamation, but the exportation of wool was forbidden except into
England. Finally the Statute of Kilkenny and all other Acts prohibiting
commerce between English and Irish were to be treated as obsolete until
the next Parliament, when they might be utterly repealed. As a matter
of fact no Parliament met until Strafford's time, and the system of
bureaucratic government without effective criticism was not destined to
be successful.[126]
FOOTNOTES:
[98] Instructions for Carew, June 24, 1611, in _Carew Papers_;
Chichester to Salisbury, February 17, 1611; Lords of Council to
Chichester, March 7, 1613; King to same, March 21; Lords of Council to
same, October 9, 1612.
[99] List of Perrott's Parliament in _Tracts Relating to Ireland_, ii.
139; List of the Parliament of 1613 in _Liber mun. pub. Hiberniæ_, vii.
50; Remembrances touching the Parliament, No. 93 in vol. v. of _Carew
Papers_; as to Connaught and Munster, _ib._, Nos. 92, 87; Calculations
as to the votes of the nobility, _ib._ 86; Brief Relation of the
Passages in Parliament (part in Carew's hand), _ib._ 149. Counties and
boroughs sending burgesses to Parliament in State Papers, _Ireland_,
April 1, 1613. A letter written in 1612 by David Kearney, Archbishop of
Cashel, and others, to the Irish seminaries in Spain, says, 'What keeps
everyone in a state of intense suspense is the fear of the approaching
Parliament, in which the heretics intend to vomit out all their poison
and infect with it the purity of our holy religion, and it is expected
that things will take place in it such as have not been seen since the
schism of Henry VIII. began.'--_Spicilegium Ossoriense_, i. 122.
[100] Carew's Remembrances to be thought of touching the Parliament in
_Carew Papers_, 1611, No. 93; Davies to Salisbury, October 14, 1611,
State Papers, _Ireland_; The King to Chichester, June 2 and September
26, 1612, in Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_; Brief Relation, etc., in
_Carew Papers_, 1613, No. 149.
[101] Letter of Lords Gormanston, Slane, Killeen, Trimleston, Dunsany,
and Louth to the King, November 25, 1612, printed in _Leland_, ii. 443;
the King to Chichester, March 4 and 31, 1613, in Cal. of State Papers,
_Ireland_.
[102] Petition of May 18, 1613, with Chichester's answer in _Carew
Papers_. The signatories are Lords Gormanston, Fermoy, Mountgarrett,
Buttevant, Delvin, Slane, Trimleston, Louth, Dunboyne, and Cahir. The
names of Lords Killeen and Dunsany, who signed the first letter, are
absent, but the former was active later.
[103] Narratives in _Carew Papers_, 1613, Nos. 146, 147, 149, the last
paper being a detailed account signed by forty-one Protestant members.
Dr. Ryves to Dr. Dunn, May 29, in Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_. St.
John had been active in the English Parliament of 1593, and was M.P.
for Portsmouth 1604-1607.
[104] Narratives _ut sup._ Davies's first speech is given in Grosart's
edition of his _Prose Works_, ii. 218 (Private Circulation, 1876); the
other in Davies's _Tracts_, 1787, from a copy in the British Museum,
formerly in Clarendon's possession, compared with one in the Commons
Journal, printed by Leland as an appendix. Both speeches are printed
in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_. Davies was well versed in English
history and legal antiquities, but he confounds the 'Parlement' of
Paris with the States General.
[105] Petitions and declarations by the Recusants in Parliament
calendared in State Papers, _Ireland_, May 17-27, 1613; Lord Deputy and
Council to the King, _ib._ No. 685; the King to Chichester, _ib._ July
8.
[106] The instructions to the Commissioners are in _Desiderata Curiosa
Hibernica_, omitting the first two which are now supplied by _Irish
Cal._, 1613, No. 781. Bacon to the King, January 1614, in _Spedding_,
v. 2; The King to Chichester, September 1613, _Cal._ No. 759.
[107] Schedule of returns in _Irish Cal._, May 31, 1613, with the
Commissioners' awards at November 12, also printed in _Desiderata
Curiosa Hibernica_. The other disputed county elections were in Armagh,
Cavan, Down, King's County, Limerick, and Roscommon.
[108] Schedule _ut sup._
[109] Schedule _ut sup._
[110] The petition is in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 212, the
names and constituencies in Cal. of State Papers, _Ireland_, 1613, No.
692. _Irish Statutes_, 18 Edw. IV. cap. 2, 33 Henry VIII. sess. 2, cap.
1. Hallam's _Constitutional History_, chap. xiii.
[111] Instructions to Thomond, Denham and St. John, June 6, 1613 in
_Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 208 (misprinted 280).
[112] _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 231, 233; Barnewall's letters,
_ib._ 164; for Talbot, _ib._ 231, 234, 236, 321, and _Irish Cal._ 1614,
Nos. 852 and 969.
[113] Complaints of Recusants with Chichester's answer, 1613, No. 709.
[114] _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 369; _Irish Statutes_, 10 and
11 Car. I. cap. 15; Dineley's _Voyage_ in 1681, p. 162; _Confederation
and War_, v. 299. Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613, as
to 'what great sums of money have been drawn out of the supposed
commiseration of the hinder parts of these poor Irish garrans.' _Ulster
Journal of Archæology_, vi. 212. Uvedale ultimately surrendered his
grant for 1,250_l._, _Cal._, March 15, 1625. Cæsar Otway's _Erris and
Tyrawly_ (1841), p. 358.
[115] Report of Commissioners in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i.
359. Roger Wilbraham's _Diary_ (Camden Society's Miscellany, vol.
x.). Cornwallis to Northampton, October 22, 1613; Sir Robert Jacob to
same, November 30. Both letters show that Cornwallis was closely in
Northampton's confidence.
[116] _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 291-301. Chichester left
Chester March 21, but a letter calendared at March 27, shows that the
Council were not then aware that he had left Ireland (he did not get it
till the following December).
[117] Lord Deputy and Council to the Privy Council, November 24, 1613;
Sir James Gough's Discourse written and subscribed before the Lord
Deputy, Chancellor and others, No. 973; Report to the King of Spain,
_ib._ No. 969. 'Hercules' Posts' was a tavern in Fleet Street.
[118] The King to Chichester, January 4, 1614. The submission, dated
January 31, 1614, is in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 287.
[119] Opinion of law officers in _Spedding_, iv. 388; Bacon's Speech,
January 31, 1614, _ib._ v. 5; Privy Council to Chichester, calendared
No. 798 under January 27, 1614, but perhaps of earlier date; same to
same, July 25, 1614. _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 321, 393.
[120] James's speech is in _Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica_, i. 302,
dated April 12, 1613, which is an obvious misprint. It is printed in
_Carew_ at April 20, 1614, the 'Thursday before Easter.'
[121] The King to Chichester, August 7, 1614; St. John to Winwood,
October 23 and November 4; Davies to Somerset, October 31, enclosing
his speech of October 11, and to Winwood.
[122] Chichester to the King, October 16, 1614; St. John to Winwood,
September 3 and 24 and October 23, 1614; Davies to Somerset, and also
to Winwood, October 31; to Winwood, November 28; and to Somerset,
December 2. Francis Blundell to Winwood, December 17; Chichester to
same, December 18. Parliament was prorogued on November 29.
[123] Proposition for the increase of the Irish Revenue, September
1611, in _Carew_, No. 70, signed by Chichester, Carew, Vice-Treasurer
Ridgeway, Chief Baron Denham, and Davies; _Irish Statutes_, 11, 12,
and 13 James I., chap. 10; The King to Chichester, March 25, 1615;
Chichester to the King and F. Blundell to Winwood, April 28; Ridgeway
to Winwood, August 7; Chichester to Winwood, October 31; Council of War
for Ireland (Grandison, Carew, and Chichester) to Conway, February 8,
1625.
[124] Abstract of Acts brought over by Sir H. Winch and Sir J. Davies
1812, No. 439. _Irish Statutes_, 11, 12, and 13 James I. _Le Case de
Gavelkind_, 3 Jac. I., and _Le Case de Tanistry_, 5 Jac. I. in Davies's
Reports, 1628. _Irish Statutes_ 1612, chap. 5.
[125] _Irish Statutes_, 1612, chaps. 6-9. Titles of proposed Acts,
1612, No. 530 in Calendar of State Papers, _Ireland_. St. John to
Winwood. November 28, and December 9, 1614.
[126] Parliament was dissolved October 24, 1615. The King to
Chichester, August 22, and October 17; Lords of Council to Chichester,
June 26; Chichester to Winwood, October 31.