The History of Ireland: 17th Century. Bagwell Richard

to purge the Commons.

      Supply is demanded at once,

      and six subsidies are voted.

      The session is talked out.

      The two Houses at variance.

      The demand for a prescriptive title to land.

On the fourth day of the Session the House of Commons met for business and the Roman Catholics at once demanded that the House should be purged, that is that all members should be expelled who did not inhabit the districts represented by them. This would have been fatal to the Protestant party, which comprised many official persons living in Dublin, and it had been decided in 1613 that residence was not essential. On the other hand Sir Thomas Bramston, who as sovereign of Belfast had returned himself, was declared not duly elected and ordered to refund 16l. which he had received as wages. These payments were fixed as in 1613, at 18s. 4d. a day for counties, 10s. for cities, and 6s. 8d. for boroughs. A committee for privileges was appointed and the Protestants carried the nomination of it by a majority of eight. Seeing that power lay with the party who were certain in the long run to support the Government, Wentworth summoned his Council the same day and Chief Baron Bolton proposed to go on with supply the next morning. He was supported, of course, by Wandesford, Mainwaring, and Radcliffe; but Wilmot, Parsons and St. Leger, the president of Munster, were inclined for a later day. Wentworth then spoke in favour of the bolder and prompter course. The committee, he said, could not possibly increase the Protestant majority, and might have the contrary effect. The Roman Catholics would be anxious to secure the rewards of loyalty by voting for what they could not prevent. His real fear, though he did not say this openly, was lest time should be given for the formation of parties. Wilmot, whom he suspected of intriguing with members of the House of Commons, said he retained his opinion in favour of delay, but that it was useless for any one to speak after the Lord Deputy. The Chancellor then declared himself on the side of power, saying that he should have been for prompt action even if Wentworth had taken the opposite view. After a lecture from the Viceroy on their duty to the King, the Council broke up, and next morning Wandesford proposed a resolution to give six subsidies ‘to be levied in a parliamentary way in four years,’ two in the first and second years, and one each in the third and fourth. Some of the Recusant party, finding themselves in a temporary majority, at once moved to postpone the vote until the House had been purged, and carried it by twenty-eight. But this was recognised as being what is nowadays called a snap division, and when the original motion was nevertheless put both parties feared to lose their credit with the Government. The Roman Catholics, having made their protest, supported Wandesford’s motion, which passed unanimously, and all was over before noon. The rest of this session, said the Lord Deputy compendiously, ‘we have entertained and spun them out in discourses, but kept them nevertheless from concluding anything. No other laws passed but the two Acts of subsidies, and that other short law for confirming all such compositions as are or shall be made upon the commission of defective titles.’ The Government was strengthened by a difference of opinion between the two Houses, which prevented a joint petition in favour of the graces. The Commons claimed the right to sit covered at a conference; this was denied them, no conference took place, and the petition forwarded was in the name of the Lower House only. Wentworth took no trouble to reconcile the two chambers, having learnt in England that a strict understanding between them was not favourable to the Crown. The Lords were, however, quite as anxious for the graces as the elected chamber, and especially for that which promised that sixty years possession should be a good title against the Crown. Indeed, Lord Fingall and Lord Ranelagh were more perseveringly outspoken than any member of the House of Commons. The first, as the head of an ancient family with a very chequered history, who had been treated with scant civility by Wentworth, and the latter, as the son of Archbishop Jones, had doubtless many reasons to fear an inquisition into their titles.[196]

      Wentworth is refused an earldom.

Conscious of having done great service Wentworth asked the King for an earldom, taking precautions that no one should know he had done so. His suit was refused in a rather disagreeable letter, and much indignation has been expressed by many writers, but it is questionable whether this refusal should be added to the load of blame which Charles I. must bear. Wentworth was only forty-one, he had opposed the court until his thirty-sixth year, and he had already received a viscounty and two of the greatest places in the gift of the Crown. Burghley never became an earl. Both Cranfield and Weston had to serve much longer for the coveted honour, and neither of them had ever been in opposition. In later times not only earls but marquesses and dukes have been multiplied exceedingly, and it seems a small favour that Charles refused to a great man. Thousands of people now know something about Strafford who have scarcely heard of Cottington or Windebank, but this was not so at the time. Indeed the fact that his work was chiefly done in the North and in Ireland made him less prominent in the eyes of his contemporaries than inferior men who were always about the Court.[197]

      Debate on the graces

      Petition of the Commons.

      The King’s promise as to titles.

      Free Trade demanded.

The Lords had discussed the graces, and had ventured to suggest what laws should be passed to carry out the remedial policy foreshadowed by them. The debates had no conclusion, but Wentworth protested even against talk as an infringement of Poynings’ Act. According to him they had no business to do anything more than offer humble prayers to the Lord Deputy; and that was the course adopted by the Commons. The petition begins by reciting that titles in Ireland were generally uncertain, many documents having been lost or stolen during rude and disturbed times, and others being defective through the ignorance of those who drew or engrossed them; ‘whereof divers indigent persons, with eagle eyes piercing thereinto commonly took advantage to the utter overthrow of many noble and deserving persons, that for the valuable consideration of service unto the Crown, or money, or both, honourably and fairly acquired their estates, which is the principal cause of the slow improving planting and building in this land.’ While this uncertainty existed no one had the courage to make improvements, and everyone longed for the English law of James I., which made sixty years possession a good title even against the Crown. This grace, the Commons said, had been ‘particularly promised by his Majesty, approved by both the Councils of State of England and Ireland, and published in all the Irish counties at the assizes, and was most expected of all the other graces.’ They also protested, though in very guarded language, against the common law being overridden by the Council and the Star Chamber. Next to the security of real property the most important matter was the encouragement of trade and manufactures, for want of which Ireland swarmed with ‘vagabonds and beggars, sound of limb and strong of body.’ Free trade was what they really asked for, which was for the benefit of both King and people. On the faith of the graces which they believed would give them prosperity, the subjects of Ireland had already given 310,000l. and now they had voted six subsidies more, which was far in excess of what had been done in past ages. They acknowledged Wentworth’s ‘strong propension’ to advancing the good of the country, and exhorted him to increase his reputation by persuading his Majesty to redeem past promises and thus to ‘conserve a right intelligence between the best of Kings and his most faithful and dutiful subjects of Ireland.’[198]

      The King’s promises are not kept.

      The King can do no wrong.

      Prorogation August 2.

      Second session, Nov. 4.

      The Commons are unmanageable.

      Sir Piers Crosbie.

      Wentworth’s answer was what might have been expected. Official extortion he was ready to repress, and all administrative reforms he would further to the utmost, but rather by way of concession from the King than by law. Orders in Council were to be preferred to Acts of Parliament, unless the latter were likely to bring profit to the Exchequer. Nothing was to be done to limit