Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:42:16.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IRISH ‘INDEPENDENTS’ AND VISCOUNT LISLE’S LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2002

PATRICK LITTLE
PATRICK LITTLE
Affiliation:
History of Parliament Trust, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the influence of a distinct Irish Protestant faction on parliamentarian policy-making in the mid-1640s – the Irish Independents. These men were not merely clients of parliament’s lord lieutenant, Viscount Lisle, but formed a group with consistent personnel and policies, which can be traced back to the ‘Boyle group’ in the Irish council of the 1620s and 1630s. In the 1640s they came into an alliance with the English Independents, based on common hostility to the Presbyterian party, the Scots, and the supporters of Ormond and Inchiquin in Ireland. This coalition was, however, inherently unstable. Faced with equivocation at Westminster, where Ireland had always been low on the list of priorities, from December 1646 the Irish Independents were forced to take charge of parliament’s Irish policy, and many of the initiatives previously attributed to Lisle in 1646–7 can more properly be laid at their door. In conclusion, it is suggested that the Irish Independents represent a radical strain in Irish Protestantism, which supported Ireland’s closer integration into an ‘English Empire’, and which would see its fulfilment in the unionist agenda developed in the 1650s.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 941 - 961
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Dr Robert Armstrong, Dr Jason Peacey, and Dr David Scott for their comments on an earlier version of this article. I am grateful to the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement for permission to cite material in their keeping.