Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:31:21.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lord Deputy Chichester and the English Government’s ‘Mandates Policy’ in Ireland, 1605–1607

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

John McCavitt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the liveliest debates in recent early modern Irish historiography has concerned the ‘failure’ of the Reformation in Ireland and when this occurred. Originally Professor Canny took issue with Dr. Brendan Bradshaw on this topic. Canny rejected Bradshaw’s thesis that the Reformation had failed in Ireland by 1558 and argued that counter-reformation catholicism only triumphed in the nineteenth century. Other contributions were then made to the debate by Dr. Alan Ford and later Karl Bottigheimer. Ford considered the 1590–1641 period as crucial, while Bottigheimer favoured the early seventeenth century as the key era. In the light of the work of Ford and Bottigheimer, Canny reconsidered the issue in an article published in 1986. He rejected what he believed to be Ford’s overly-pessimistic assessment that the Church of Ireland clergy soon despaired of the Reformation’s success in the seventeenth century. Instead, it is contended, Protestant clergy and laymen alike were optimistic that penal prosecution might still pave the way for considerable advances at this time. Moreover, Canny further argued that Ford was ‘mistaken in treating the clergy as an autonomous group and mistaken also in allowing excessive influence to ideology as the determinant of policy’.

Type
Other
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , May 1991 , pp. 320 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cann., passim.

2 Ford, Bottig, passim.

3 Canny, Nicholas, ‘Protestants, Planters and Apartheid in Early Modern Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, 25, no. 98, (Nov. 1986), pp. 105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Much of the specific analysis of the ‘Mandates’ policy, it will be clear, supports some of the general conclusions offered by Canny in his reconsidered overview of the early seventeenth century. The present writer, however, would emphasise the leading role played by the secular authorities in this campaign even more. He would argue, indeed, that during the ‘Mandates’ era some Protestant clergy may have been resentful of the leading role assumed by the secular authorities in this campaign, displeased at the manner in which Chichester criticised its bishops and angered by the way in which church affairs were pried into by laymen.

5 Ford, p. 42.

6 King to Chichester, 16 Oct. 1604 (P.R.O., 31/8/203 f. 27).

7 Bradshaw, Brendan, ‘Sword, Word and Strategy in the Reformation in Ireland’, Historical Journal, 21, (1978), pp. 475–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Ibidem.

9 Memorials for Reformation of the Clergy and Establishing of a Learned Ministry, P.R.O., 31/8/ 199 ff. 12–5); Chichester to Salisbury, 2 Nov. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/80). The exact dating of the ‘memorials’ is not certain. Historical context strongly suggests that these ‘memorials’ were the product of the animated discussions which took place within the Irish administration after Chichester assumed the deputyship in February 1605.

10 Cann. p. 429.

11 Commission for Making of Shires and Divers Other Matters, 19 July 1605 in Erck, J. C., Repertory of the Inrolments on the Patent Rolls of Chancery in Ireland Commencing with the Reign of James I, (Dublin, 1846), pp. 182–4 Google Scholar; Davies, pp. 217–1. Chichester persisted with this policy in spite of opposition from the ecclesiastical lobby on the Irish Council who disliked such lay interference in internal church affairs.

12 Davies, pp. 217–71; Davies to Salisbury, 12 Nov. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/132).

13 Memorials for Reformation of the Clergy and Establishing a Learned Ministry in Ireland, (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 12–5). See note 9 about the dating of this document.

14 James Perrot, The Chronicle of Ireland, 1584–1608, ed. by Herbert Wood, p. 184. William Daniells dedicated his translation of the book of Common Prayer to Chichester, see Falkiner, C. L. (ed.) ‘William Farmer’s Chronicles of Ireland’ in English Historical Review, no. 85, (1907), p. 535.Google Scholar

15 Davies, pp. 217–71.

16 For further details concerning the practical ‘persuasive’ measures which the Irish government undertook at this time see McCav. chapter seven.

17 Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 5 Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/95).

18 Chichester to Devonshire, 29 Oct. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/79). In a very interesting recent study of the ‘Mandates’ policy as it affected Dublin, Lennon argues that ‘it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the aldermen and their fellow-merchants were targets of political and economic resentment as much as of religious restriction’, (Lenn. p. 171). Although not ruling out that such considerations played a part, it could be argued that the policy of targeting the wealthy was a tactical measure motivated primarily by religious considerations.

19 Lenn. p. 178. Note that the ‘Mandates’ policy probably would have begun in the summer of 1605 but for an outbreak of plague affecting Dublin, see Chichester to Devonshire, 29 Oct. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/79).

20 Chichester to Devonshire, 29 Oct. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/79).

21 Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 5 Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/95).

22 Pawlisch, Hans, Sir John Davies and the Conquest of Ireland; a Study in Legal Imperialism, (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chapter six.

23 Chichester to Salisbury, 7 Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/89).

24 Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 5 Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/95).

25 Ibidem. This recusant tactic had a long-standing tradition as a ‘conservative’ defence strategy of the Old English community, see Ciaran Brady, ‘Conservative Subversives: the Community of the Pale and the Dublin Administration, 1556–86’, in Corish, P. J. (ed.) ‘Radicals, Rebels and Establishments’, Historical Studies, 15 (Belfast, 1985), pp. 11–32.Google Scholar

26 The English Privy Council’s response was not received until 21 Feb. 1606, see Privy Council to Chichester, 24 Jan. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 62–5). Nevertheless, further ‘Mandates’ proceedings were carried out in Castle Chamber in Jan. 1606, see Decree of Castle Chamber, 29 Jan. 1606 (Calendar State Papers Ireland, 1603–6); H.M.C., Egmont, 1, pt. 1, p. 31.

27 See, for example, Chichester to Devonshire, 2 Jan. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/1) in which Chichester revealed that he had spies ‘in all quarters’ and troops at the ready ‘to take any opportunity if it be offered’.

28 Privy Council to Chichester, 24 Jan. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 62–5). Note that the refusal to countenance an all-out anti-recusant drive in Ireland in the wake of the Gunpowder Plot accorded with the ‘moderate’ response to the plot in England. See John J. LaRocca, ‘“Who Can’t Pray With Me, Can’t Love Me”; Toleration and the Early Jacobean Recusant Policy’, J.B.S., 23, no. 2, (1984), p. 30.

29 Privy Council to Chichester, 24 Jan. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.31/8/199 ff. 62–5).

30 The sequence of events in Dublin in October and November 1605 suggests that while the Deputy was preparing to use prerogative power to underpin his religious policy, the actual ‘Mandates’ device was hit upon almost at the last minute, leaving no time for consultation with London.

31 Chichester to Salisbury, 27 Apr. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/49).

32 Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 7 Mar. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/23).

33 Chichester to Salisbury, 4 July 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/76).

34 H.M.C., Egmont, 1, pt. 1, pp. 31–2.

35 Fitz., Words, pp. 133–5.

36 Declaration of James Duff and Nicholas Humfrey, 11 Mar. 1606, (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/33); I.E.R., 10, (1984), p. 180; Moran, p. 232.

37 Moran, p. 232. This source indicates that the authorities made a determined bid to raise the fines imposed. Lennon argues, by contrast, that ‘only a fraction’ of the fines worth £1580 meted out in Castle Chamber was paid, (Lenn. p. 171). An examination of financial records reveals, however, that £1145 of the fines levied at this time in Castle Chamber were actually paid, see B. L. Lansdowne MS 156, f. 233. The figure provided by the Lansdowne MS is stated to represent Castle Chamber fines realised on recusants for the financial year ending Michaelmas 1605. The dating, of course, is clearly erroneous and should have stated 1606 as the anti-recusant drive only started in the winter of 1605.

38 Pawlisch, Hans, Sir John Davies and the Conquest of Ireland, A study of Legal Imperialism, (Cambridge, 1985) chapter sixCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 I.E.R., 10, (1874), pp. 459–60.

40 Cann. pp. 444–5; Bottig. p. 206.

41 Barnewall to Salisbury, 16 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/217/96).

42 Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 23 Apr. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/43).

43 Chichester to Devonshire, 23 Apr. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/45).

44 Privy Council to Lord Deputy and Council, 3 July 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 91–2).

45 Davies to Salisbury, 5 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/148).

46 Fitz. pp. 137–9.

47 Sir John Davies, 4 May 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/218/53).

48 Sir Henry Brouncker, 12 Sept. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/103a).

49 Archives of Waterford, H.M.C., Tenth Report, App. 5., p. 77.

50 Brouncker to Privy Council, 18 Nov. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/134).

51 Ibidem.

52 Fitz. passim.

53 Morrison to Salisbury, 25 June 1607 (P.R.O., S.P.63/221/87).

54 Moran, p. 235.

55 Chichester to Salisbury, 1 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., S.P.63/219/147).

56 Ibidem.

57 Calendar of Patent Rolls, Ireland, James I, pp. 98–100; H.M.C., Egmont, 1, pt. 1, p. 32.

58 This communication was not received in Ireland until 25 Feb., 1607, see Privy Council to Lord Deputy and Council, 31 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 195–9).

59 Chichester to Salisbury, 20 Feb. 1607 (P.R.O., S.P.63/221/21).

60 Privy Council to Lord Deputy and Council, 31 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 195–9).

61 Reginald Walsh, ‘Persecution of Catholics in Drogheda in 1606, 1607 and 1611’, in A.H., 6 (1917), pp. 64–8); I.E.R., 10, (1874), pp. 519–21 and p. 523; Fitz. pp. 162–3.

62 Fitz. pp. 64–6.

63 Privy Council to Brouncker, 23 Dec. 1606 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 189–90). The death of Devonshire, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in April 1606 was an important juncture in the ‘Mandates’ campaign. He was an avowed opponent of any form of coercion. Had he lived the ‘Mandates’ campaign may well have had to be aborted at an even earlier stage than eventually proved the case.

64 Privy Council to Brouncker, 11 Apr. 1607 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 217–20).

65 Privy Council to Chichester and Lord Chancellor, 12 Apr. 1607 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 221–3).

66 See note 64.

67 Lord Deputy and Lord Chancellor to Privy Council, 1 May 1607 (P.R.O., S.P.63/221/42).

68 McCav. chapter eight.

69 Privy Council to Chichester, 22 July 1607 (P.R.O., 31/8/199 ff. 236–9); Chichester to Privy Council, 4 Aug. 1607 (P.R.O., S.P.63/222/112).

70 Fitz. pp. 147–9; Brouncker to Privy Council, 10 Feb. 1607 (P.R.O., S.P.63/221/15).

71 McCav. chapter eight.

72 In February 1609 Chichester evaluated the relative importance of the religious and civil reforms which were required and concluded, of his religious objective, that it was ‘of great weight and consequence, wherein if there be no reformation, all the buildings and labour are in vain, and this needs no further argument or desertation’, see Chichester to Privy Council, 5 Feb. 1609 (P.R.O., S.P.63/226/21).

73 Protestantization was described as ‘the only sure ground of faithful obedience and good government’, see Lord Deputy and Council to Privy Council, 5 Dec. 1605 (P.R.O., S.P.63/21795).

74 Fitz. pp. 162–3.

75 Ford, passim; Aidan Clarke, Plantation and the Catholic Question, 1603–23’, in New History of Ireland, 3, (Oxford, 1976), pp. 190–1.

76 Bottig., p. 198.

77 M. A. Murphy, ‘Royal Visitation of Cashel and Emly 1615’, in A.H., 1, (1912); M. A. Murphy, ‘The Royal Visitation of Cork, Cloyne and Ross and the College of Youghall’, A.H., 2 (1913), pp. 173–215; M. A. Murphy, ‘The Royal Visitation, 1615, Diocese of Killaloe’, in A.H., 3 (1914), pp. 210–26; M. A. Murphy, ‘The Royal Visitation, 1615, Dioceses of Ardfert and Aghaloe’, A.H., 4, (1915), pp. 178–98; M. V. Ronan, ‘Royal Visitation of Dublin, 1615’, in A.H., 8, (1941), pp. 1–55. At the time of the 1613–15 Parliament complaints were made by recusants that they were forced to pay for the refurbishment of Protestant churches. Chichester confirmed that this had been the case, see Lodge, John (ed.) Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, 1, (Dublin, 1872), pp. 239–252.Google Scholar

78 Ford, p. 43.

79 Recent studies of King James I’s religious policies in England illustrate that while he was ideologically opposed to ‘persecution’, he was willing to take action against anyone who threatened his regal position. Chichester, of course, portrayed Catholicism as posing a particularly serious threat to crown interests in Ireland. See J. J. LaRocca ‘“Who Can’t Pray With Me, Can’t Love Me”, Toleration and the Early Jacobean Recusant Policy’, in J.B.S., 23, no. 2 (1984), pp. 22–36; Jenny Wormald, ‘Gunpowder, Treason and Scots’, in J.B.S., 24 (1985) pp. 141–168; Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, ‘The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I’, in J.B.S., 24, (1985), pp. 169–207. LaRocca, John J., ‘James I and his Catholic Subjects, 1606–1612; Some Financial Implications’, Recusant History, 18, (1986–7), pp. 251–262.Google Scholar

80 John McCavitt, ‘The Execution of Bishop O’Devanna, 1612’, to be published in the 1991 edition of Seanchas Dhroim Mor (Proceedings of the Dromore Historical Society). James countenanced these executions on the basis that the defendants were accused of treason. It is clear, however, that both the Irish recusants and Chichester considered them as part of a policy to stifle recusant opposition to the Government’s religious policy.

81 Ibidem.

82 King James’s attitude to the Catholic religion was at times a source of confusion during his reign. Chichester was not the only person to be disappointed by treating the King’s rhetoric on the issue at face value; see Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, ‘The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I’ in J.B.S., 24 (1985), p. 184.

83 Dread of incurring massive expenditure as a result of renewed hostilities in Ireland after 1603, for whatever reason, was something which haunted the London authorities which had been so sorely pressed to meet the huge demands presented by the prolonged rebellion of Hugh O’Neill that had just ended. This fear was undoubtedly a major factor reinforcing any ideological opposition which the King and his London advisers entertained towards an all-out campaign of ‘persecution’ in Ireland.

84 Cann. pp. 446–7; Canny, Nicholas, ‘Protestants, Planters and Apartheid in Early Modern Ireland’, in Irish Historical Studies, 25, no. 98 (Nov. 1986), pp. 105–115)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Professor Canny considers the Bohemian example particularly relevant in this respect; see Evans, R. J. W., The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700, (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar.

85 Lennon summed up the impact of the ‘Mandates’ campaign on the recusants of Dublin by remarking that ‘compulsion helped to foment more ingrained opposition to the forms of the established religion’, (Lenn., p. 184). Also there is a growing body of opinion that Bishop O’Devanna’s execution proved to be a crucial juncture in securing the success of the Counter-Reformation in Ireland. See Benignus Millet, ‘Who wrote the Martyrium… Cornelli Dovenii, Cologne, 1614?’, in Recusant History, 17, (1984–5), pp. 358–61; Corish, P. J., The Irish Catholic Experience, an Historical survey, (Dublin, 1985), p. 98 Google Scholar; J. J. Silke, ‘Bp O’Devanney, OFM, C1533–1612’, in Seanchas Ard Mhacha (Proceedings of the Armagh Historical Society), (1988), pp. 9–32.