Edward VI., Mary and Elizabeth. Plantations.

**Chapter V.

**1537-1603.

Reigns of Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth - Mary’s Efforts to restore the Catholic Religion - The Queen requests the Pope to send a Bull restoring England to the Catholic Faith - Parliament repeals the Statute declaring Henry VIII Head of the Church - Cardinal Pole invested with the Pallium - Archbishop Vaughan also - Anecdote of Dean Cole, and how his Mission was thwarted - Accession of Queen Elizabeth - Forfeited Estates of the Earl of Desmond - Royal Grants to Raleigh and Spenser - Kilcolman Castle - Costume in House of Lords and Commons - Planting the forfeited Estates - Angry Letter from the Queen to the Archbishop of Dublin - Perrot’s Parliament in 1586 - Members of House of Common - Irish Chiefs attend - Attempt to evade Poynings’ Law - Viceroy applies for Archbishop’s Recall - Tried for High Treason - Found Guilty -Sentenced - The Queen’s Clemency.

I do not find mention of any Irish Parliament during the short reign of Edward VI. It is worthy of note that, although the Catholics regained full power and the practice of their religion, on the crown of England descending to Henry’s daughter by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, no instance of intolerance can be traced in Ireland, though the evil spirit of persecution was rife in England. As was quite a matter of course, and to be expected, after the accession of Mary to the throne, on the death of King Edward VI., a Parliament met in Dublin on June 1, 1557, and repealed all the statutes passed since the 20th year of King Henry VIII. against the Pope and the Catholic religion. The statute declared that the title of Supreme Head of the Church was not justly attributable to any king or civil governor. An Act was passed which regulated ecclesiastic matters, with a proviso which displays most singular moderation - “That this Act should not extend to, or affect in any way, such grants of ecclesiastical property as had been made by the Crown to private individuals, or to any public or civil corporation.”

It may be some guarantee to those in our day who dread any display of Catholic ascendancy when Ireland gains Home Rule, to recollect that, though in Queen Mary’s reign the Catholic faith in Ireland was fully established, yet no single case of persecution against those who remained steadfast in the Protestant, faith occurred.

At the request of Queen Mary, the then Pope Paul VI. sent a papal Bull restoring the queen’s dominions to the ancient faith, and submission to the See of Rome. The bearer of this treasure was Cardinal Pole, an Englishman of noble birth; who had lately received the Pallium, a dignity not conferred since on any Englishman for two centuries and a half, but is now worthily borne by another Englishman of noble birth, His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster.

Though Romanism was stained by bigotry in England, no intolerance was shown Protestant doctrine in Ireland. Nay, such was the toleration of the Irish, that many English families, friends of the Reformation, fled to Ireland for, and found protection among, the Irish Catholics. Leland in his History relates an amusing story that the Dean of St. Paul’s, Cole, was directed to go to Ireland, armed with a commission to persecute heretics. While halting at Chester on his way to Dublin, he showed his commission at the inn he occupied, in the presence of the landlady. She had Protestant relatives, who, like many others, sought refuge in Ireland, and naturally feared for their safety. Resolved to frustrate the design, she contrived to abstract the commission from the dean’s box, and placed in its stead a pack of cards. The dean, when before the Irish Privy Council, stated the instructions he received when leaving London, and produced the box which had held the royal commission, and empowering the Privy Council to enforce the authority of the queen, and lo!, when opened, the pack of cards fell fluttering on the table. The irreverent burst of laughter added to the dean’s chagrin. We may guess his confusion and the surprise of the council, who felt relieved by the trick evidently practised on the dean. The death of the queen put an end to any attempt to renew the commission.

Queen Mary died in 1558, after an unhappy reign. The loss of Calais seems to have greatly affected her. She said the name was written on her heart.

On the accession of Queen Elizabeth in A.D. 1558, the condition of affairs in Ireland were not favourable to English rule. Revolt took place in Munster, where the Earl of Desmond had a powerful army, and some of Elizabeth’s forces were defeated. The Earl of Essex, the viceroy, was recalled, and it is said the queen so forgot her position as a queen, and her decorum as a lady, as to give him a slap on the ears, which caused him to exclaim, “I would not suffer such conduct from your father.” As was expected, the English throne being occupied by a Protestant queen, all that had been done to restore the ancient faith to the churches in Ireland was now changed. The statues, pictures, and other marks of Catholic piety were removed from the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s and Christ’s Church, in Dublin, and the officials, with due alacrity, from being zealous Catholics of Queen Mary, were speedily converted into equally sturdy Protestants under Queen Elizabeth. The forfeiture incurred by the revolt of the Earl of Desmond placed over 400,000 acres of land at the disposal of the Government, and the queen was able to bestow 11,000 acres on Sir Walter Raleigh, who had served her Majesty in Ireland. This large grant included the towns of Lismore and Youghal, where Sir Walter built a residence on the plan of his birthplace in Devonshire, now the property of the family of the late Sir John Pope Hennessey, M.P. The poet Edmund Spenser, author of the *Faery Queen, * who had not been well treated by the close-fisted treasurer, had also a grant of 4,000 acres in County Cork. It is said, when he wrote his poem he sent it to the queen, with a request he should have some remuneration for his work. The queen directed Lord Burleigh “to give him a reasonable sum.” Finding this not complied with, Spenser sought to get back his poem. This, too, was unnoticed; so the poet addressed the queen in these lines

“I was promised on a time,

Some reason for my rhyme

From that time to this season,

I neither had rhyme nor reason.”

The forfeiture of the Desmond estates made Spenser proprietor of the Castle of Kilcolman, near Buttevant, in the county of Cork. His antipathy towards his Irish neighbours, as disclosed in his writings, induced them to burn his castle, and he and his family, with the exception of one child, fled into England, where he died. He is buried in Westminster Abbey. The Hydes and Bechers, now owners of Castle Hyde, also had valuable grants from the Desmond estates.

It does not appear that at this period there was any fixed place of meeting, as we find the Parliaments summoned to meet, now in Dublin, now in Drogheda, Trim, Naas, or Kilkenny. It is reserved for our day to have members endeavouring to obtain a seat within the House of Commons of Westminster, which does not suffice to hold the members at present entitled to represent them in the faithful Commons, so no doubt they will be relieved from the plethora by the removal of greater numbers of the Irish members. Some discussion has lately been excited by the attempt to secure a seat by the deposit of a hat, a card, or a book. The attention of tile Speaker has been called, and it is said he considers the hat should be the walking hat usually worn by the member, not a duplicate used for the purpose of securing the seat. It was not merely as regarded the order of legislation that Poynings’ Parliament took action. It was discovered that for many years the peers of Parliament, Spiritual and Temporal had ceased to appear in their robes, to the great dishonour of the House of Lords. They were therefore compelled to wear their respective robes; and I presume some such enactment, either express or implied, was presented for the members of the House of Commons. In this respect we are able to state that up to the time of the Union, the Irish members attended in court dress. Those members who had Orders displayed the stars and ribbons, wore them both in the Lords and Commons, and the members wore their swords. Rather singular that in what was long regarded as the first assembly of gentlemen in the world, all should wear their hats except the Speaker, who wears a courtly robe and a long wig. We learn from Sir Nathanael Wrexall, he felt deeply shocked when he beheld the House in 1780, with the knights, citizens, and burgesses clad in great-coats, frocks, and wearing boots. We have a tradition of the member for New Ross in Irelan4, who, during a violent contest between the Irish Government and the Nationalist members in the time of Lord Chesterfield, in 1757, after riding post from his residence to Dublin, and not having time to change his attire before the division was taken, strode into the House as he was attired, recorded his vote, which thereby the National party defeated the Government, giving the Nationalists the narrow majority of one. He is yet remembered in popular memory as “Tottenham in his boots.”

As the Irish never neglect an opportunity of giving expression to their loyalty to the throne, they readily availed themselves of the royal trust. Public and private rejoicings took place in Dublin. Bonfires blazed, feasts were given, cannon and musketry were loud, bells rang merry peals, and theatricals such as were likely to amuse the populace took place. The pageant entitled “The Nine Worthies” shows a curious jumble of sacred and profane notabilities, namely, Hector, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Joshua, David, Judas Maccabaeus, King Arthur, Charlemagne, and Godfrey of Bouillon. There was tilting for the knights, and all display denoted loyalty to the king.

Not that the king, at his pleasure, might confer as well the dignity as the possessions to any other for the defence of the said realm. On this question the late Chief Justice Whiteside, in his Lecture on the Irish Parliament, [*Life and Death of the Irish Parliament, *part i. p.41.] says: “The propriety of this decision came before the House of Lords at Westminster in 1832, in the case of the Earl of Shrewsbury, claiming, as Earl of Waterford, to vote at the election of representative peers of Ireland, and it was held that the dignity (if the peerage was not taken away by the Irish Act against absentees; and that the opinion above cited was not binding in the House of Lords, or any other court of justice, which was read in English and in Irish. It was unanimously agreed to, and, being read three times in the Lords, was committed to the Commons, who were equally willing to pass it. Next day, it was read in plain [Probably for plein (full).] Parliament, before the Lords and Commons, before it received the assent of the lord-deputy.”

Shortly after Elizabeth’s accession to the throne, a Parliament was assembled in Dublin, at which the statutes enacted during the reign of Queen Mary for the restoration of the Catholic religion were repealed, and the queen’s supremacy as “Head of the Church” was established. We learn from Mr. Jenning’s very able and entertaining work, *Anecdotes of the British Parliament, *the prompt action of Henry VIII. to cause the dilatory members of the House of Commons to pass an Act for the suppression of monasteries. So I am able to give a proof that Henry’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth, was also able to bring an Irish archbishop to obey her commands. Finding Dr. Loftus, whom she appointed Archbishop of Dublin, delaying to comply with her request that he should resign the deanery of St Patrick’s in favour of Dr. Weston, whom she had selected as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, she wrote to the archbishop the following brief but very emphatic letter:-

“Reverend Prelate, - I understand you are backward in complying with your agreement; but I would have you to know that I, who have made you what you are, can unmake you, and if you do not forthwith fulfil your engagement, by ---- I will unfrock you. - Yours, if you demean yourself,

Elizabeth.”

[London Society, vol. ix. P.500.]

This letter had the desired effect, and Dr. Weston was speedily Dean of St. Patrick’s.

Queen Elizabeth adopted the plan, subsequently carried out by her successor James I., of obliging the grantees of the Irish forfeited estates to plant them with English or Scotch colonists. She also prohibited the daughters of such colonists from intermarrying with Irishmen for two descents.

In the Parliament which met in Dublin A.D 1585, known as Perrot’s Parliament, we find the most perfect account of the members of Lords and Commons. As after the suppression of monasteries by Henry VIII. no abbot was summoned3 the Lords consisted of bishops and temporal peers. At this Parliament in the Lords were 26 bishops, and the same number of temporal peers. Of these were four Irish lords. Owing to the great number of counties formed in Ireland during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, there sat in the House of Commons no less than 54 members for 27 counties, and 72 from 36 cities and boroughs, making a total of 126. The names of several members denote Irish members. [*Historical review *by Ball, pp. 15, 16, and note in Appendix, p. 265.] Possibly the presence of the Irish chiefs in Perrot’s Parliament induced the spirit of resistance to the lord-deputy, which did not take place with his predecessors. Poynings’ Law was not inflexible; it had been occasionally dispensed with, and Sir John Perrot sought to do so with his Parliament. He wanted to get some Acts passed, but the House was not complaisant, and he could not bring any members to obedience. This did not please the queen, and I have given a specimen of her epistolary style when her will was thwarted. It is likely she addressed the viceroy in such words, as unfortunately when drinking at the council table he was heard to say of the queen, “She may command what she list, but we will do as we like.” At another time he said, “This fiddling woman troubles me out of measure; it is not safe for her Majesty to break such hard bread to her servants.” He was also charged with designing to suppress St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Finding himself greatly disconcerted by the chancellor Archbishop Loftus, he besought the queen to recall him; and on his visiting London a charge of high treason for seeking to weaken the queen’s authority in Ireland, was preferred against him. A prosecution, conducted by Sir John Puckering, queen’s serjeant, was brought on the strength of those rash expressions. Aware of the weak case against the accused, the queen’s serjeant tried to influence the jury with the words used. “For,” he said, “the original of his treasons proceeded from the imagination of his heart, which imagination was in itself high treason, without the prisoner proceeding to overt act; and the heart being possessed with his traitorous imagination, and not being able to contain itself, burst forth in vile and traitorous speeches, for *ex abundantia cordis os loquitur.” *

In reference to the charge of designing to suppress the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s, Perrot said the archbishop, who was his mortal foe, derived a revenue of 800 marks a year from it; and he, the viceroy, wished to make it the site of the proposed University of Dublin, now Trinity College. The jury having retired, in less than an hour brought in the verdict finding the prisoner guilty! The dread sentence was pronounced but not executed. The queen, on reading the report of the trial, remembered the rescript of the Emperor Theodosius, which, she said, should rule this case: “If any person speak ill of the emperor through a foolish rashness or inadvertency, it is to be despised; if out of madness, it deserves pity; if from malice, it calls for mercy.” [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. i. p.271.] It is not often the queen showed such clemency. Some believed Sir John Perrot was a son of Henry VIII.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.