Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T05:16:58.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XVIII The History Of Poynings’ Law, 1615–41

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Aidan Clarke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirty years ago, in a magisterial study of the early operation of Poynings’ Law, Professor R. Dudley Edwards and Professor T.W. Moody noted that ‘the primary dividing-line in the history of the law falls between the parliaments of 1613–15 and 1634–5’. Previously, they showed, it had curtailed the Irish executive and enjoyed the approval of the Irish parliament; only subsequently, they argued, was it used as a means of enabling the government to control parliament. The purpose of the present study is to develop that argument by examining both the way in which Lord Deputy Wentworth took advantage of altered circumstances to reierse the statute’s function in 1634–5 and the way in which members of the Irish parliament unsuccessfully campaigned to restore the traditional interpretation of its provisions in 1640–41.

Type
Historical Revision
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 70 , September 1972 , pp. 207 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1972

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

1 Edwards, R. Dudley and Moody, T. W., ‘The history of Poynings’ Law: part I, 1494–1615’ in I.H.S., 2, no. 8 (Sept. 1941), pp 415–24.Google Scholar

2 Knowler, W. (ed.), The earl of Strafford’s letters and dispatches (2 vols, London, 1739), 1, 269.Google Scholar

3 Clarke, Old English, ch. III.

4 Article 34 of the Graces, ibid., p. 249.

5 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1625–32, p. 346.

6 Acts privy council, 1628-9, pp 194–5.

7 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1625–32, pp 358–63.

8 Acts privy council, 1628–9, p. 107.

9 Ibid., pp 111–2.

10 Ibid., pp 110–1.

11 Cal. S.P Ire., 1625–32, p. 386.

12 Ibid., pp 384–5; P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/247 72.

13 The reference ought, of course, to have been to 10 Henry VII and 3 & 4 Philip and Mary.

14 Acts privy council, 1628–9, p. 151.

15 Ibid, pp 194–5.

16 Ibid, pp 192, 194.

17 Steele, , Tudor and Stuart proclam., 2, 31.Google Scholar

18 Clarke, , Old English, pp 55–6.Google Scholar

19 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1625–32, pp 516-7; P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/250 30. The precedent for such an invitation appears to have been set by Lord Deputy Chichester in 1611. It may have represented a reduction of traditional rights to consultation raCher than a concession. Edwards and Moody, art. cit, above, ii, 423.

20 Cal. S.P Ire., 1625–32, pp 537-8, P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/250 86.

21 Clarke, Old English, ch. v; Kearney, Strafford in Ire., chs v-vri.

22 Strafford’s letters, i, 183.

23 Coke to Wentworth, 14 Apr and 13 May 1634, Windebanke to Wentworth, 21 Apr. 1634 (Strafford MSS, Sheffield City Library, vol. 5). In fact, by the terms of 11 Elizabeth, sess. 3, c. 8, this proposal was illegal (Edwards and Moody, art. cit., above, ii, 420).

24 Strafford’s letters, i, 269.

25 Ibid, i, 246.

26 Commons’ jn., Ire., 22 July, 1, 2 Aug. 1634, PP 65–6, 70–1

27 Strafford’s letters, i, 279.

28 Lords’ jn., Ire., 26–30 July 1634, pp 10–17.

29 Ibid, 1 Aug. 1634, pp 18–20.

30 Ibid, 2 Aug. 1634, pp 20–5. Strafford’s letters, i, 279, 290–2. Edwards and Moody, art. cit., above, ii, 422.

31 Commons’ jn.s Ire., n, 18, 19, 26 Nov , 9, 11 Dec. 1634, 21 Mar 1635; pp 79, 81, 82, 84, 89, 90, 107. Strafford’s letters, i, 404–5.

32 Commons’ jn., Ire., 13 Dec. 1634, p. 90. Cf ibid, 14 Nov 1634, p. 80.

33 Cal S.P. Ire., 1647–60, pp 181–6.

34 Commons’ jn., Ire., 25 Nov. 1634, p. 84.

35 Strafford’s letters, i, 348-9. Wentworth to Goring, 23 May 1635 (Strafford MSS, vol. 8). In fact, parliament continued to investigate the matter, and Wentworth cooperated so far as to allow Gookin to be brought to the bar of the commons (Commons jn., Ire., 6, 7, 21 Mar , 17 Apr. 1634, pp 103, 104, 107, 118).

36 Strafford’s letters, i, 353. Wentworth to Charles, 9 Mar. 1635 (Strafford MSS, vol. 3). It was this suggestion that prompted Charles’s celebrated adage that parliaments ’ are of the nature of cats, they ever grow curst with age ’ (Strafford’s letters, i, 365).

37 Wentworth to Cottington, 10 Apr. 1635, Wentworth to Coke, 19 May 1635 (Strafford MSS, vols 8, 9). Steele, , Tudor and Stuart proclam., 2, 35.Google Scholar

38 Clarke, Old English, ch. VIII. Kearney, Strafford in Ire., ch. XIII.

39 Whitaker, T. D. (ed.), The life and original correspondence of Sir George Radcliffc (London, 1810), pp 187–8Google Scholar. Strafford’s letters, ii, 391–2.

40 Ibid, ii, 394–5, 396.

41 Commons’ jn., Ire., 17 Feb. 1641, p. 176.

42 Clarke, Old English, ch VIII.

43 Commons’ jn., Ire., 30, 31 Mar, 1 Apr, 8, ir, 15 June 1640, pp 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147.

44 Ibid, 13 June 1640, pp 146–7.

45 Whitaker, , Life of Radcliffe, pp 249–51.Google Scholar

46 Commons’ jn., Ire., 10 Feb. 1641, pp 170–71.

47 Whitaker, , Life of Radcliffe, pp 210–13.Google Scholar

48 P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/258 62, 64. Commons’ jn., Ire., 7 Nov. 1640, PP 162–3.

49 Ibid, 10, 11, 12 Nov 1640, pp 164, 165, 166.

50 Whitaker, , Life of Radcliffe, pp 204–5.Google Scholar

51 Commons’ jn., Ire., 19 Nov. 1640, p. 166.

52 Cal. S.P Ire., 1633–47, p. 247.

53 Clarke, , Old English, pp 137–8. Google Scholar

54 Commons’ jn., Ire., 26, 30 Jan. 1641, pp 166–7.

55 Ibid, 25 Feb. 1641, p. 183. Cal. S.P. Ire., 1633–47, pp 286–7, P.R.O, S.P Ire, 63/259 11.

56 Commons’ jn., Ire., 17, 23, 25 Feb. 1641, pp 176–7, 181–2, 183.

57 Ibid, 13, 16 Feb. 1641, pp 173, 174–5. Lords’ jn., Ire., 23 Feb. 1641, p. 161. Clarke, , Old English, pp 141–2.Google Scholar

58 Commons’ jn., Ire., 27 Feb. 1641, p. 185. Lords’ jn., Ire, 27 Feb. 1641, pp 165–9.

59 Lords’ jn., Ire., 4 Mar. 1641, pp 176–7.

60 P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/259 4. The calendared summary of this letter (Cal S.P Ire., 1633–47, p. 270) is misleading. The original does not support T. J. Kiernan’s conclusion that the lord justices were ‘now fully aware of the great potentialities of the new interpretation’ of Poynings’ Law (Finan, admin., p. 47).

61 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1633–47, pp 286–7; P.R.O, S.P. Ire, 63/259 11.

62 Clarke, , Old English, pp 143–4.Google Scholar

63 Cal. S.P Ire., 1633–47, pp 323-4; P.R.O, S.P Ire, 63/259 61

64 This was significantly underlined on 30 June, when the lord justices asked the commons to speed up preparation of an important bill (Commons’ jn., Ire., p. 242).

65 Ibid, 17, 18 June 1641, pp 233–5.

66 Ibid, 1, 7, 23 July 1641, pp 243, 249, 265.

67 Ibid, 11 May, 22, 30 June, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, 24, 27 July, 7 Aug. 1641, pp 203, 237, 241–2, 248, 249, 252, 263, 268, 273, 286. On one of these occasions, 7 July, the bill set on foot was intended to replace a rejected government bill.

68 Ibid, 10 July 1641, pp 253–4. The journals of the house of lords for this session are noit extant.

69 Cal S.P Ire., 1633–47, pp 317–22, P.R.O, S.P Ire, 63/260 1

70 Cal S.P. Ire., 1633–47, p. 339, P.R.O, S.P Ire, 63/260 12.