Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017
The enactment, by the Irish parliament of 1494-5, of the measure later known as Poynings' Law had far-reaching effects upon the whole subsequent course of Irish parliamentary history to 1782. Poynings' Law was the foundation-stone of a peculiar system of legislative procedure which made it impossible for the Irish parliament to develop on parallel lines with the parliament of England. It prescribed conditions to be observed by the Irish executive, with regard to the summoning and proceedings of the legislature, which were seldom satisfactory to both parties at the same time, and resulted in protracted attempts by each in turn to have the law altered in accordance with changes in their own character, circumstances and interests. The function and interpretation of the law passed through a number of distinct phases, and it was only in the later phases that it came to be regarded as a hated symbol of the subordination of the Irish parliament.
page 416 note 1 The term ‘ viceroy’ is used in this paper to signify a chief governor, whether officially styled lord lieutenant or lord deputy, functioning in Ireland (this excludes a titular lord lieutenant) and empowered in his patent of appointment to hold parliament (this excludes lords justices in this period).
page 416 note 2 By Dr. David B. Quinn. See ‘ The early interpretation of Poynings’ Law, 1494-1534’ above, ii. 241-54.
page 416 note 3 10 Hen. VII, c. 4 (see above, ii. 242).
page 416 note 4 The old view that Poynings’ Law was primarily intended by its framers to reduce the Irish parliament to impotence simply accepts as a historical fact the assertions of patriotic Irish politicians in the eighteenth century. On the authority of such historians as Plowden (History of Ireland (1812), i. 275-8), Gilbert (History of the viceroys of Ireland (1865), p. 448), Prendergast (The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland (1865), pp. xviii-xix), Richey (A short history of the Irish people (1887), pp. 232-3), this misreading of Irish history in the Tudor period found its way into popular history-books. It receives no support in the works of standard modern historians (e.g. H. A. L. Fisher, History of England, 1485-1547 (1913), pp. 60-1 ; M.T.Haydenand G.A. Moonan, A short history ofthe Irish people (1921), pp. 187-8; R. Dunlop, Ireland from the earliest times to the present day (1922), p. 58 ; E. Curtis, A history of Ireland (3rd ed., 1937), pp. 150-2). At the same time, as Dr. Quinn points out, Poynings’ Law may well have been intended to deprive the Irish parliament of its initiative in the field of private legislation, and in particular to stop the encroachments of private interests upon the rights and revenues of the crown in Ireland.
page 417 note 1 See below, pp. 423-4.
page 418 note 1 The contemporary term is usually ‘ repeal’, but it is clear that only a suspension is ever intended.
page 418 note 2 The most recent original work on this phase of Poynings' Law is contained in (a) a largely unpublished Ph.D. thesis ‘Tudor rule in Ireland, 1485-1547’ by D. B. Quinn (1933); (b) T. J. Kiernan, History of the financial administration of Ireland to 1817 (1930), ch. 1; and (c) T. W. Moody, ‘ The Irish parliament under Elizabeth and James 1’, in Proc. RIA, xlv, sect, c, pp. 41-81 (1939).
page 418 note 3 28 Hen. VIII c. 4, cited in Kiernan, op. cit., p. 6.
page 418 note 4 28 Hen. VIII c. 20; Kiernan, p. 6. The explanatory act declared that the suspension was to apply the measures relating to any one, and not necessarily to all three together, of the subjects mentioned above—the king's honour, the increase of his revenues, and the common weal of Ireland.
page 419 note 1 ‘ Bills and statutes of Irish parliaments of Henry VII and Henry VIII ’, ed. D. B. Quinn, to be published in a forthcoming number of Analect. Hib. (no. 10, PP. 153-4)-
page 419 note 2 S.P. Hen. VIII, iii. 311, 315, 399, 414, 428, 436, 442.
page 419 note 3 Technically, the act 11 Eliz. sess. 3, c. 8 was another amendment (see below, p. 420).
page 419 note 4 3 & 4 Philip & Mary, c. 4 ; Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 6-10.
page 419 note 5 This point is missed by Dr. Kiernan (op. cit., p. 9).
page 420 note 1 R. Dudley Edwards, Church and state in Tudor Ireland (1935), p. 199.
page 420 note 2 11 Eliz. sess. 2, c. 1 ; Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 10-12.
page 420 note 3 11 Eliz. sess. 3, c. 8 ; Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 15-19.
page 420 note 4 Moody, op. cit., pp. 46-7 ; Edwards, op. cit., pp. 199-200.
page 420 note 5 Dr. Kiernan's view (op. cit., pp. 15-16) that the act of 1557 was overlooked cannot be accepted.
page 420 note 6 The purpose of the act is completely misunderstood in E. and A. Porritt, The unreformed house of commons, ii. 426.
page 421 note 1 Doubtless a bill for transmission to England, not one that had been transmitted, as the latter would have involved a contravention of the act of 1569 (11 Eliz. sess. 3, c. 8). Dr. Kiernan's contrary statement (op. cit., p. 23) is not borne out by his sources.
page 421 note 2 Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 22-4 ; Moody, op. cit., pp. 47-8.
page 421 note 3 Ibid., pp. 49-57.
page 422 note 1 Moody, op. cit., pp. 61-2, 64-71 ; Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 28-33.
page 422 note 2 Dr. Kiernan's explanation of the origin of legislative initiation in parliament (op. cit., pp. 31-2) is over-simplified. Note that the matter quoted by him on p. 32 belongs to 29 Nov. 1614, not 18 Apr. 1615.
page 423 note 1 Above, p. 417.
page 423 note 2 A reinforced or ‘ great council’ was used in Elizabeth's reign for authorising a general hosting, its enacting formulà being : ‘ It is concluded by us, the lord deputy, the lords spiritual and temporal and the rest of her majesty's council of the same ’ (Council Book, 1556-71, in Hist. MSS. Comm., 15th Rep., app. 3, passim). Dr. Quinn comments: ‘ Presumably this, if any, was the reinforced council used in connection with Poynings’ Law, though there is no indication in the council books of any discussions on proposed legislation. The “ great council ” procedure for general hostings was gradually abandoned in the last thirty years of Elizabeth's reign, and may similarly have ceased in regard to Poynings’ Law.’
page 423 note 3 Moody, op. cit., pp. 51, 56, 58. The interpretation of this matter in M. T. Hayden, ‘ The origin and development of heads of bills in the Irish parliament’ (Journ. RSAI, lv. 113) is confused and misleading.
page 424 note 1 Kiernan, op. cit., pp. 34-5, 37-8.
