1 ‘Sir Oliver St John appointed deputy’, 2 July 1616 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 128). In the seventeenth century, ‘great office’ usually referred to the offices of the viceroy, the lord chancellor, the chief baron of the exchequer and the office of chief justice of Ireland. The office of master of the ordnance was a senior post that usually warranted a place on the Irish privy council but such an office did not rank as ‘great office’.

2 Edmund Sherburne to [Carleton], 9 Apr. 1616 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1611–18, p. 361). Edward Sherburne (also spelled Sherborne) was one of Robert Cecil’s secretaries until Cecil’s death in 1612. For a short account of Sherburne’s court life, see Aylmer, G.E., The king’s servants, 1625–42 (London, 1971), pp 79–80 Google Scholar, 291.

3 Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers (London and New York, 1981), pp 38-9Google Scholar.

4 Tawney, R.H., Business and politics under James I (Cambridge, 1958), p. 136 Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., p. 137.

6 Prestwich, Menna, Cranfield: politics and profit under the early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), p. 29 Google Scholar. See also idem, ‘English politics and administration, 1603–1625’ in Smith, A.G.R. (ed.), The reign of James VI and I (London, 1973), pp 148-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 The commission for defective titles and the commission for surrenders were proclaimed by joint proclamation on 15 July 1606 (Lambeth Palace Library, Carew MS 629, p. 139). Both commissions were created for essentially the same purpose, that is, to ensure that all landowners held their lands by a clear title in common law ( O’Dowd, Mary, ‘ “Irish concealed lands papers” in the Hastings manuscripts in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California’ in Anal. Hib., no. 31 (1984), p. 77 Google Scholar).

8 Clarke, Aidan, ‘Pacification, plantation and the catholic question, 1600–23’ in Moody, T.W., Martin, F.X. and Byrne, F.J. (eds), A new history of Ireland, iii, (Oxford, 1976), pp 206-8Google Scholar; Ranger, T.O., ‘The career of Richard Boyle, first earl of Cork, in Ireland, 1588–1643’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar; ‘Richard Boyle and the making of an Irish fortune, 1588–1614’ in I.H.S., x, no. 39 (Mar. 1957), pp 257-97Google Scholar; Kearney, H.F., Strafford in Ireland, 1633–41: a study in absolutism (Manchester, 1959), pp 10–11 Google Scholar.

9 D.N.B.,arts on Richard Boyle, Francis Annesley, Sir William Parsons and Sir Charles Wilmot, for whom see also Ranger, as above, n.8.

10 Ranger, ‘Career of Richard Boyle’, pp 198–209.

11 Kearney, Strafford in Ire., pp 8–9. For an analysis of court factions in the early Stuart period, see Sharpe, Kevin, ‘Faction at the early Stuart court’ in History Today, xxxiii, no. 10 (1983), pp 39–46 Google Scholar; idem, SirCotton, Robert, 1586-1631: history and politics in early modern England (Oxford, 1979), pp 113-50Google Scholar. Lockyer, Buckingham, is also an important source of evidence for court factions in the reign of James I, esp. pp 38–50.

12 Peck, Linda, Northampton: patronage and policy at the court of James I (London, 1982), pp 7, 23, 80Google Scholar; Prestwich, ‘English politics and administration’, p. 15.

13 Ibid.

14 Wolf, J.B., ‘Ellesmere and politics, 1603–17’ in Reinmuth, Howard S. (ed.), Early Stuart studies: essays in honor of David Harris Wilson, (Minneapolis, 1970), p. 50 Google Scholar.

15 D.N.B. arts on Sir Ralph Winwood and George Abbot.

16 There is a series of letters on this matter: Birch, Thomas, The court and times of James I illustrated by authentic and confidential letters from various public and private collections, ed. Williams, R.F. (2 vols, London, 1849)Google Scholar. See, e.g., Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 7 Jan. 1613, (ibid., i, 219); same to same, 25 Feb. 1613 (ibid., p. 230); Thos Lorkin to Thos Puckering, 24 June 1613 (ibid., p. 248); Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 23 Dec. 1613 (ibid., pp 281–2); same to same, 3 Mar. 1614 (ibid., pp 300–1).

17 Dr Kearney notes in his text on the Strafford administration that ‘the Old English [were] excluded ... from the administration but [were] still in possession of the richest land in Ireland. Gaelic Ireland, and especially Ulster, which had played such a large part in the politics of Ireland in the sixteenth century, had ceased to count as a political force.’ (Kearney, Strafford in Ire., pp 8–9.) See also below, n. 74.

18 Clarke, Aidan, The Old English in Ireland, 1625–42 (London, 1966), pp 25, 235–7Google Scholar.

19 See, e.g., some of the letters that Cecil received from the Gaelic and Old English lords and gentry: Tyrone to Cecil, 2 June 1605 (P.R.O., S.P. 63/217/36; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 286–7); Lord Roche to Cecil, 2 June 1605 (S.P. 63/217/37); Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 310); Lord Gomarston [Gormanston] and other noblemen of the English Pale to the earl of Salisbury, 8 Dec. 1605 (S.P. 63/217/90; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 265–6). See also the comments of the English privy council to Lord Deputy Chichester after the death of Mountjoy in 1606: Council to Chichester, 30 Apr. 1606 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 460).

20 Charles Blount, Baron Mountjoy, earl of Devonshire, who played a major role in the ending of the war with the earl of Tyrone in 1603, was created lord lieutenant of Ireland in the same year (D.N.B.). Until his death in 1606 he was the chief liaison between the English privy council and the lord deputy and council in Ireland (Chichester to king, 7 June 1612, S.P. 63/232/22). After Mountjoy’s death, Robert Cecil assumed full control of all Irish affairs, a fact Sir Roger Wilbraham, solicitor-general of Ireland, 1586–1603, verifies in his journal (‘Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham’ in Camden Miscellany, x (1902), p. 106 Google Scholar).

21 Some indication of the agitation of the catholic land-owners in these years can be found in the instructions sent in 1609 by Sir Humphrey May, a member of the English privy council, to Sir John Davies, attorney-general of Ireland: ‘his majesty ... commanded me to write that he knows you will be careful in passing particulars which are not in charge to avoid clamour and disturbances of any of his subjects by dealing with the owners of lands with their own consents’ (Report on the manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings (H.M.C., 4 vols, London, 1928-47), iv, 5)Google Scholar. See also Clarke, ‘Pacification, plantation’ & the catholic question’, p. 206.

22 Prestwich, ‘English politics and administration’, p. 150; Sharpe, ‘Faction at the early Stuart court’, p. 45; Linquist, Eric, ‘The first earl of Salisbury, 1610–12’ in Albion, xviii (1986), pp 23–41 Google Scholar.

23 The Irish state papers reveal ample evidence of the Howard patronage in Ireland: king to Chichester, 17 Sept. 1613 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 421); same to same, 7 Nov. 1614 (ibid., p. 524); Chichester to earl of Somerset, 28 Feb. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/8; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 17). See also Lord deputy to Lord Rochester, 6 Feb. 1613 (Edwards, R. Dudley (ed.), ‘Letter-book of Sir Arthur Chichester, 1612–1614’ in Anal. Hib., no. 8 (1938), p. 76)Google Scholar; Peck, Northampton, pp 89–90.

24 Their agitation became particularly vocal after the death of Salisbury in 1612. See, for example: Chichester to______, Aug. 1613 (B.L., Cott. MSS, Titus B, f. 229); Lord deputy and council to English privy council, c.23 July 1612 (‘Chichester letter-bk’, pp 37–8); Lord deputy to same, 5 Aug. 1613 (ibid., pp 123–5); Lord deputy to Sir Julius Caesar, 29 Nov. 1613 (ibid., p. 149).

25 English privy council to Chichester, 7 Mar. 1613 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 328).

26 Lord deputy and council to king, May 1613 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 352–4); Dr T. Ryves to Sir Daniel Dun, 29 May 1613 (B.L., Cott. MSS, Titus B, X, f. 222; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 354–5); ‘Apostiles unto the articles preferred by the recusants of Ireland to his ma [jes] tie touching ye disorders and abuses pretended to be in the civil government’, 1613 (S.P. 63/232/15); ‘Brief relation of the passages in parliament’, [July] 1613 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 392–9).

27 ‘The humble petition of the lords, knights and others of his highness’s realm of Ireland’ (Lodge, John (ed.), Desiderata curiosa Hibernica; or a select collection of state papers (2 vols, Dublin, 1772), i, 237-50)Google Scholar.

28 For example, the matter came under review when Sir George Carew was sent to Ireland on a general commission of inquiry into Irish government affairs in 1611: ‘Collections of certaine heades made by the L[ord] Deputie, the L[ord] Carew and Tr[easure]r for the increase of his ma [jes] tie’s revenues in Irelande, with som advices of Mrr Attorney and his opinion how they maie be putt in execu[t]ion’, Sept. 1611 (Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, pp 87–9); Lord Deputy Sir Arthur Chichester to_____, 10 Oct. 1611 (ibid., p. 140); ‘An estimate report made by Sir Lawrence Esmond ... of certain lands in the county of Wexford’, 1611 (ibid., p. 142). See also Clarke, ‘Pacification, plantation’ & the catholic question’, pp 206–8.

29 The four commissioners were Sir Humphrey Winch, former chief justice of the king’s bench in Ireland; Sir Charles Cornwallis; Sir Roger Wilbraham, former solicitor-general of Ireland; Calvert, Thomas, clerk of the English privy council (Desid. cur. Hib., i, 283)Google Scholar. ‘The instructions and return and certificate of the commissioners’ are printed in Desid. cur. Hib., i, 327-91Google Scholar; Acts privy council, 1613–14, p. 190.

30 The catholic landowners had eloquently requested an impartial inquiry: ‘we humbly beseech your highness to appoint some indifferent commissioners to examine the relations in particular’ (Desid. cur. Hib., i, 237-8)Google Scholar.

31 Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 9 Sept. 1613 (Court & times of James I, i, 273).

32 Wilbraham, Diary, p. 113.

33 See, e.g., the comments Sir John Davies made two years earlier: ‘Collections of certaine heades’ (Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 84). See also ‘An estimate made by . . . Sir Lawrence Esmond ... of certaine lands in the county of Wexford’ (ibid., p. 142).

34 ‘His majesty’s speech delivered in the council chamber at Whitehall on ... 12 April 1614’ (Desid. cur. Hib., pp 302–13); King to Chichester, 7 Feb. 1614 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 470); ‘Speech of King James the First in council chamber at Whitehall ... touching the miscarriage of the recusant lords and gentlemen of Ireland in the parliament begun in that realm 18 May 1613’ (Cal. Carew MSS, 1603–24, pp 288–92).

35 Chamberlain to Carleton, 17 Feb. 1614 ( Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. N.E.McClure, (2 vols, Philadelphia, 1939), i, 509 Google Scholar).

36 Chichester arrived in England in the last week of March (Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 31 Mar. 1614, Letters of John Chamberlain, i, 520; King to Chichester, 7 Feb. 1614, Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 470).

37 Sir John Throckmorton to William Trumbull, 1 Apr. 1614 (Report on the manuscripts of the marquess of Downshire (H.M.C., 4 vols, 1924-40), iv, 362)Google Scholar.

38 The works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding, James (14 vols, London, 1857-74), xii, 2–21 Google Scholar; D.N.B., art. on Sir Ralph Winwood; John Moore to Trumbull, 24 July 1613 (Downshire MSS, iv, 170).

39 Speech of Sir Ralph Winwood in the House of Commons, 5 Apr. 1614 (Downshire MSS, iv, 367).

40 ‘Lord Chichester’s services’, [May] 1614 (S.P. 63/232/36; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 479–80). See also Chichester to____, Aug. 1613 (B.L., Cott. MSS, Titus B, X, f. 229); ‘Office of the vice-treasurer and treasurer-at-war’, [Aug.] 1615 (S.P. 63/233/36; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 88).

41 In his speech to the catholic delegates on 20 April 1614 James noted that Chichester was one of the most ‘unreprobable [unreproachable] governors ..., as some of yourselves have acknowledged him to be to myself (Cal. Carew MSS, 1603–24, p. 288).

42 Ranger, ‘Richard Boyle & an Irish fortune’, pp 258–97; idem, ‘Career of Richard Boyle’, pp 87–9, 93–4; Clarke, ‘Pacification, plantation & the catholic question’, pp 187–242.

43 Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 139.

44 Later Chichester referred to himself as a ‘younger brother who had made his fortunes by the king’s favour’ (Chichester to Salisbury, 13 May 1611, P.R.O., S.P. 63/231/39; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 57). See also Chichester to Cranborne (Cecil), 28 Aug. 1604 (S.P. 63/216/39; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 194; Lord deputy to Salisbury, 8 Aug. 1605 (S.P. 63/217/52-3; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 308).

45 Chichester to Salisbury, 7 Dec. 1605 (S.P. 63/217/89; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 362). Though unknown to most royal councillors in London in 1604, he had won the admiration and respect of Mountjoy and Robert Cecil in the last years of Elizabeth, coming to their attention during the war with Tyrone when he served in Ireland under Essex.

46 The Irish state papers between 1605 and 1614 chronicle the inner frustrations that Chichester felt over his inability to reform further the exchequer and judiciary: Chichester to Cecil, 19 June 1605, 4 July 1606 (S.P. 63/217/44, 63/219/76; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 294, 509–10); Chichester to Cecil, 24 Jan. 1608 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, p. 401); Chichester to Cecil, 18 Oct. 1608 (ibid., 1608–10, p. 87); Chichester to Cecil, Aug. 1613 (B.L., Cott. MSS, Titus B, X, f. 229). See also ‘The insufficiency of clerks to enter pleas in the Common Pleas of Ireland’ (B.L., Lansd. MS 156, f. 12); Chichester to Sir John Davies, 10 Oct. 1611 (Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 140).

47 ‘The principal heades of Captain Barnaby Riche’s treatise delivered to my Lord [Cecil]’ (B.L., Lansd, MS 156, f. 6).

48 ‘Petition of grievances’ (Desid. cur. Hib., i, 249). See also Ranger, ‘Richard Boyle’ & an Irish fortune’, pp 284–5. The MS evidence indicates that Chichester and Sir John Davies, his attorney-general, recommended from 1609 new land policies to alleviate some of the catholics’ grievances (‘Collections of certaine heades’, Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 84; Chichester to_____, 10 Oct. 1611, ibid., p. 140; ‘Lo[rd] deputy’s advices to Sir Thos Ridgeway, [Apr.] 1609’, S.P. 63/228/74a, Cal. S.P. Ire. 1608–10, p. 370).

49 In his ‘Opinions’ Davies recommended that no further grants of concealment be given and that an official be appointed to search out concealments. ‘It will never be done ... ’, he stated, ‘but for private ends unless some man ... be wholly countenanced by the state to undertake that business wholly and to be rewarded after a certain rate out of the composition for strengthening titles (‘Collections of certaine heades’, Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 88). For an examination of what followed his recommendation, see Clarke, ‘Pacification, plantation’ & the catholic question’, p. 222.

50 Ranger, ‘Career of Richard Boyle’, p. 63.

51 The English parliament met in April and was dissolved on 7 June 1614 (Wilbraham, Diary, p. 114). Dr Linda Peck has suggested that this generally accepted view of Northampton’s role in the dissolution of parliament requires revision (Peck, Northampton, pp 206–13). But see Prestwich, ‘English politics and administration, 1603–25’, p. 151; Prestwich, Cranfield, pp 153–4; Sharpe, ‘Faction at the early Stuart court’, p. 43; idem Sir Robert Cotton, pp 162–3.

52 Thos Lorkin to Thos Puckering, 21 July 1614 (Court & times of James I, i, 337); Prestwich, Cranfield, p. 158.

53 King to Chichester, 8 July 1614 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 487); to Sir John Throckmorton, 23 Apr. 1614 (Downshire MSS, iv, 388–9).

54 SirWooton, Henry, ‘A short view of the life and death of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham’ in Harleian Miscellany, v (1810), p. 309 Google Scholar.

55 The Irish parliament reconvened on 11 October 1614 and prorogued on 29 November 1614 (Commons’ jn. Ire., i, 13; Moody, T.W., ‘The Irish parliament under Elizabeth and James I’ in R.I.A. Proc., xlv (1945), sect. C, pp 68-9Google Scholar; King to Chichester, 7 Nov. 1614 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 524–5)).

56 Chichester to Winwood, 11 Feb. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/4; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 13).

57 St John to Winwood, 24 Sept. 1614 (S.P. 63/232/9; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 505); St John to Winwood, 17 Oct. 1614 (S.P. 63/232/24-5; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 510); St John to Winwood, 9 Dec. 1614 (S.P. 63/232/43; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 530–31); Winwood to Bodley, 25 Feb. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/6a; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 16); Josias Bodley to Winwood, 15 June 1615 (S.P. 62/233/31; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 72); St John to Winwood, 29 Oct. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/40; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 94).

58 ‘Instructions for the Lo[rd] Carewe ... sent into Ireland as a principall commissioner’ (Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 1).

59 Oliver St John to Salisbury, 4 May 1611 (S.P. 63/231/31; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, pp 46–7); St John to Salisbury, 6 Oct. 1611 (Lambeth Palace, Carew MS 629, p. 154).

60 ‘From the Lord Chichester to the Lord Carew touching the plantation of Wexford’, 24 Dec. 1616 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1603–24, p. 331). See also Lord Chichester to Lord Carew, 19 Mar. 1616 (ibid., p. 326).

61 Parliament reconvened 18 Apr. 1615 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 49).

62 King to Chichester, 7 May 1615 (ibid., p. 54).

63 King to Chichester, 22 Aug. 1615 (ibid., p. 87).

64 Wilbraham, Diary, pp 115–16.

65 Rushworth, John, Historical collections abridg’d and improv’d (6 vols, London, 1703-8), i, 292 Google Scholar; Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley, ‘Notes concerning the crown’s revenues’, 9 Oct. 1615 (Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif., MS El. 1478).

66 See, e.g., St John to Winwood, 7 Aug. 1614 (S.P. 63/232/14; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 498); same to same, 3 Mar. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/9; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 17).

67 The criticisms are subtle but strong. See, e.g., St John to Winwood, 28 Nov. 1614 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1611–14, p. 527); same to same, 3 Mar. 1615 (S.P. 63/233/9; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, pp 17–18).

68 Survey of the undertakers and servitors placed in Ulster between 2 Feb. and 25 April 1613 (Hastings MSS, iv, 159–82); Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, The Scottish migration to Ulster in the reign of James I (London, 1972), pp 139-41Google Scholar.

69 ‘The lord commissioners’ report to his majesty concerning the plantation of Longford’ (Cal. Carew MSS, 1603–24, pp 378–80). There is also evidence in the report of the commissioners in 1622 that St John carried out royal orders during his rule to see that no tenures were granted in the new plantations that were in common soccage or ‘mean knights service’. Soccage tenures reduced the revenues payable to the crown to an annual rent. ‘Mean [i.e., ‘mesne’] knights service’ appears to have been tenures held by demesne lords and chief freeholders of the major lord of the territory. Thus feudal incidents, such as wardships, would be under the aegis of the magnate rather than of the crown. (‘Entry book of the 1622 commissioners and other letters and papers relating to Ireland, 1616–21: “the revenue’” (B.L., Add. MS 4756, ff 41, 42, 53, 54)).

70 Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 6 Apr. 1616 (Court & times of James I, i, 394).

71 See, e.g., the comments of Sir Ralph Winwood to the lord justices appointed as interim governors dated 1 Jan. 1616 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 115).

72 ‘Certain considerations touching the plantation in Ireland’ ( Spedding, , Life of Bacon, xi, 116-26Google Scholar).

73 Letters from George, Lord Carew, to Sir Thomas Roe . . ., 1615–1617, ed. MacLean, John (Camden Society, vol. lxxvi, London, 1860), p. 40 Google Scholar. Dr Pawlisch in his study of Davies states that ‘in ... plantations in Wexford, Longford and Leitrim a great deal of equity was shown when the government granted to natives ... two thirds to three quarters of their lands formerly held by Gaelic forms of tenure’ ( Pawlisch, Hans, Sir John Davies and the conquest of Ireland: a study in legal imperialism (Cambridge, 1985), p. 81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar). It was during St John’s administration that plans for these plantations, begun under Chichester, went forward from new perspectives.

74 In recent years Tudor historians have highlighted the factious confrontations that sixteenth-century governors also faced. However, the onset of the Stuart period heralded important changes in court and Castle politics, not least a diminution of the political influence of the Old English and Gaelic landowners. For analyses of sixteenth-century court and Castle politics, see Canny, Nicholas, The Elizabethan conquest of Ireland: a pattern established, 1565–76 (Hassocks, 1976)Google Scholar; Brady, Ciaran, ‘The government of Ireland, c. 1540–1583’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Dublin, 1980)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Faction and the origins of the Desmond rebellion of 1579’ in I.H.S., xxii, no. 88 (Sept. 1981), pp 289–312 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Conservative subversives: the community of the Pale and the Dublin administration, 1556–86’ in Corish, Patrick J. (ed.), Radicals, rebels and establishments (Historical Studies XV, Belfast, 1985), pp 11–32 Google Scholar; Ellis, Steven G., Tudor Ireland: crown, community and the conflict of cultures, 1470–1603 (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

75 In his D.Phil, thesis, Dr Ranger discusses St John’s problems with the Castle and court factions during his tenure of office (Ranger, ‘Career of Richard Boyle’, pp 198–209).

76 Kearney, Strafford in Ire., pp 13–14.

77 Ibid., pp 185–222.