Читать книгу Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum (Vol.1-3) - Bagwell Richard - Страница 17

Table of Contents

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]

New constituencies are created.

The counties.

The boroughs.

Ulster.

Munster.

Leinster.

Connaught.

Character of the new boroughs

University representation.

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]

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]

Strong Roman Catholic opposition.

Demand for toleration.

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]

Renewed Roman Catholic complaints.

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]

Parliament meets.

Contest for the Speakership.

Violent proceedings in the Commons.

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]

Continued opposition of the Recusant Lords,

and Commons,

who refuse to attend the House.

Speeches of Sir John Davies.

The Tudors held Parliaments for special objects.

King James I. to hold a real Parliament in Ireland.

Davies praises Chichester.

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]

Patience of Chichester.

The Opposition send delegates to the King,

and the Deputy follows suit.

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]

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]

Proceedings of the Commissioners.

Disputed elections.

Fermanagh.

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]

Contest in Dublin.

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]

Contests in Boroughs.

Cavan.

Cavan members unseated.

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]

The delegates in London.

Barnewall and Talbot.

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]

Case for the Irish Government.

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]

The King gives frequent audiences.

Talbot in the Tower.

Luttrell in the Fleet.

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]

The rival Churches.

Suggestions by the Commissioners.

Military irregularities.

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]

Ploughing by the tail.

Prevalence of the practice.

Its cruelty

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]

Alleged legal extortion.

Excessive fees.

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]

Royal proclamation, Feb. 7, 1613–1614.

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]

The King verbally promises toleration

to all who disavow Suarez.

Sir James Gough publishes the royal message,

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]

The King cannot explain away his words,

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]

Talbot before the Star-chamber.

The law officers discourage severity

Bacon nevertheless magnifies Talbot’s offence,

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]

The King on the constitution of Parliaments,

on Irish grievances,

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]

Final award as to parliamentary difficulties, 1614.

The Houses get to business at last.

The Roman Catholics at first stay to prayers,

but soon desist.

Legislation proceeds smoothly,

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]

Finance.

A free gift is asked for,

but with little success.

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 20,000l. A nest egg was provided by the Archbishop and Lord Howth, who put their names down for 100l. 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]

Last session of the Parliament, 1615.

A subsidy cheerfully granted,

but collected with difficulty.

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 30,000l. 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 2s. 8d. in the pound for natives and 5s. 4d. for aliens and denizens. The imposition on realty was 4s. and 8s. 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]

Proposed legislation, most of which is abandoned,

against Recusants,

for a fixed revenue,

against Tanistry,

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]

A highway system introduced.

Legislation against Scots repealed.

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]

Parliament is dissolved October, 1615,

and the King falls back on prerogative.

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]