Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:43:38.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Brendan Bradshaw S.M.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Arecent writer has drawn attention to the reluctance of historians to undertake a study in depth of individual Tudor parliaments in Ireland. He attributes this reluctance to the sparseness of the source material. Nevertheless the task must be undertaken if the history of Tudor Ireland is to be understood. The present essay is confined not only to a particular parliament, the reformation parliament of Henry VIII, but to a particular aspect of the parliament, namely its reaction to the ecclesiastical legislation which formally established the breach with Rome.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 63 , March 1969 , pp. 285 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1969

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.)

References

1 Treadwell, V. ‘The Irish parliament of 1569–71’ inR.I.A. Proc, 65 C 55.Google Scholar

2 The roll is in the P.R.O.I., and is designated simply as Statute Roll, 28–29 Henry VIII. This is a unique parliamentary roll, the only surviving one of 504.

3 Shaw Mason, W., ‘Collation of the Irish statutes’ in T.C.D., MS V 2.7.Google Scholar

4 ‘Parliaments and great councils in Ireland, 1461–1586’ in I.H.S., iii (1942–3), 60–77; ‘Bills and statutes of the Irish parliaments of Henry VII and Henry VIII’ in Anal. Hib., x (1941), 71–169.

5 Mooney, C., ‘The first impact of the reformation’ in Gorish, , Ir. Catholicism, 3 (11), 20.Google Scholar

6 Ware, R., Reform, of Church of Ireland (London, 1681),Google Scholar passim; Mant, R., History of the Church of Ireland (London, 1840), 2, 117–23Google Scholar; Jourdan, G.V., ‘The breach with Rome’ in Phillips, Ch. of Ire., 2, 204–6.Google Scholar

7 Litton Falkiner, C., ‘The parliament of Ireland under the Tudor sovereigns’ in R.I.A. Proc., 25 C 521–2 (1905)Google Scholar; Wilson, Philip, Beginnings mod. Ire., pp 163–7.Google Scholar

8 Edwards, Church & state, pp 8, 15. Professor Edwards dealt with the matter again in 1965, but only incidentally, in a study of the parliament from a constitutional aspect. See his ‘Irish reformation parliament of Henry VIII, 1536–7’, in Hist. Studies, vi (1968), pp 59–84.

9 For instance, his treatment of the reformation parliament was relied : upon by Professor Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., in his history of the Med. : province Armagh (Dundalk, 1946), p. 221.Google Scholar

10 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 316, 318, 349, 361.

11 Ibid., ii, 370.

12 Ibid., ii, 404.

13 Ibid., ii, 320.

14 Ibid., i, 438, 439, 445; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, nos 106, 149.

15 Stat, of realm, iii, 493, 492, 460; cf. 28 Hen. VIII, cc. 2, 10, 7, in P.R.O.I.

16 Stat. of realm, iii, 460; cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, i, 439. The chancellor, Audley, proposed that an act regulating the appointment of bishops be enacted in Ireland but his proposal was not taken up (S.P. Hen. VIII, i, 439). Apparently the English act was considered sufficient for Ireland also. That act was applied in the appointment of George Browne as archbishop of Dublin, late in 1535 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, no. 597 (20, 23, 47)). It was also applied in the appointment of Edward Basnet as dean of St Patrick’s cathedral in 1537 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1509–73, p. 25).

17 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 315.

18 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 318; cf. ibid., p. 316. A note by the editor of the state papers suggests that there is a disparity in the various reports of the acts passed at the first session (ibid., ii, 320). Three lists in all survive, compiled on different occasions. These lists are in complete agreement so far as the ecclesiastical legislation is concerned, apart from discrepancies in the titles of the acts (ibid., ii, 315, 318, 524; cf. ibid., ii, 534.

19 L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, no. 1082; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 318; L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, nos 1032, 1051 (ii).

20 28 Hen. VIII, c. 19. The proctors’ opposition is reported by Brabazon, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 315. On the history of the clerical proctors in parliament see Richardson, & Sayles, , Ir. pari, in middle ages, particularly pp 76–80, 183–6.Google Scholar Cf. Falkiner, , ‘Parliament of Ireland under the Tudor sovereigns’, in Proc. R.I.Α., 25 C 521–2.Google Scholar

21 Thus Dr Edwards interpreted the presentation of ecclesiastical legislation at the final session (Church & state, p. 15).

22 Although the bill is no longer extant it is possible to reconstruct it from Shaw Mason’s, W. ‘Collation of the Irish statutes’ in T.C.D., MS V 2.7.; 28 Google Scholar Hen. VIII, c. 30 (P.R.O.I.). The transmiss of a bill ‘for the release of such as have obtained pretended licences and dispensations from the see of Rome ’ is to be found among the Irish state papers in P.R.O., S.P. 60/5, no. 62; it was published by Professor Quinn, D.B. in Anal. Hib., 10, 147–50.Google Scholar It is clear from the Shaw Mason collation that this is not the transmiss that was sent across for the first session of parliament in 1535 and finally passed at the last session in the autumn of 1537. The second transmiss corresponds to an English act that was subsequent to the original faculties act. These two acts were quite different in character and function. The earlier one was constructive and permanent in effect. Its purpose was to modify the procedure for obtaining faculties. Where these had been obtained hitherto from the Roman curia they were to be obtained henceforth within the king’s dominions (Stat. of realm, iii, 464; Stat. Ire., i, 142–57). The later act was a purely expediential ad hoc measure, designed to provide an additional boost to the revenue. It was negative in effect and related only to dispensations already held from the holy see. Its effect was to invalidate all such dispensations. It augmented the revenue by requiring the holders of papal licences, certain categories excepted, to reapply to the state to have them validated at the cost of a stipulated fee (Stat. of realm, iii, 672; P.R.O., S.P. 60/5, no. 62). It is evident from the existence of a transmiss that this later measure was envisaged for Ireland also. But logically it would not have been introduced until the more basic act had first been passed. The abrupt termination of parliament shortly after the enactment of the first measure would explain why the later one was not introduced, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 524, 534.

23 Ibid., i, 438.

24 Stat. of realm, iii, 464.

25 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 207.

26 Ibid., ii, 370, 380, 426.

27 Ibid. ; the proposed tax on revenue corresponded to an English act that extracted a tenth and a fifteenth (Stat. of realm, iii, 516–24).

28 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 370.

29 Dickens, A.G., The English reformation (London, 1964), p. 125.Google Scholar

30 The Kildare rebellion gave expression to the resentment of the colonists of the Pale as a whole, not only of the powerful feudal lords, at the encroachments of ‘mere English’ minions of the king. An instance of the local attitude towards the insinuation of ‘new men’ is the sharp reaction of the cathedral chapter of St Patrick’s Cathedral to the request to elect an Englishman, Edward Basnet, as their dean in 1537 (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 420; P.R.O., S.P. 60/4, no. 10). For another example of new English infiltration, a proposal to replace the colonists in the judiciary by English legists, see S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 218. On the other hand the letters of Archbishop Browne indicate that the animosity of the Anglo-Irish was heartily reciprocated by thè English by birth. ‘To be plain with your majesty I think they be weary of us all that be English men here’; so wrote Browne to the king in 1545 (S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 557). See also P.R.O., S.P. 61/3, no. 45. For an example of the threat to existing leases resulting from the redistribution of monastic property see S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 570.

31 Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 12.

32 For Barnewall’s property transactions see Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 73, 131 ; Fiants, Ire., Hen. VIII, nos 235, 335, 469, 510; Fiants, Ire., Edw. VI, nos 31, 71, 114, 1148. For the purpose of consolidating his position in the north County Dublin area Barnewall did not scruple to avail of Archbishop Browne’s morally dubious alienation of the richest of the archiepiscopal property, that attached to the manor of Swords (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 131 ; Fiants, Ire., Hen. VIII, no. 335. Barnewall was appointed master of the rolls in 1550, Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 208.

33 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 370, 426.

34 Ibid., ii, 422.

35 Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., p. 73; Fiants, Ire., Hen. VIII, no. 235. Having acquired Grace Dieu he lost no time in moving residence there. He gives it as his address in subsequent official documents. The same year he acquired the use of the site of the Carmelite friary at Knocktopher, County Kilkenny, and extensive lands adjoining (Fiants, Ire., Hen. VIII, no. 335). For his activities in connection with the suppression of the religious see Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., pp 134, 135.

36 S.P.Hen. VIII, ii, 403, 404.

37 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 437. It is not suggested that evidence cannot be found in the colony of a nostalgic attachment to the venerable institution of the religious life and to its practitioners. This can be found in the king himself.

38 Falkiner is not accurate when he states in respect of this parliament that ‘Henry VIII made such additions to the temporal peerage as were necessary to secure a majority in the upper house’ (R.I.A. Proc., xxv C 521). The king, anticipating difficulty in connection with the ecclesiastical legislation, took the precaution of creating additional peerages (H.M.C., Cecil MSS, iii, 459). But it does not seem that he did so to the extent of giving the lay representatives an absolute majority. A list of the members of the parliament of 1536–7 does not survive. Lists, not altogether reliable, of the next two parliaments show that the lay peers outnumber the spirituality by seven in 1541 and three in 1560 (Falkiner, ibid., xxv G 522, 525; V. Treadwell, ‘The Irish parliament of 1569–71’ in R.I.A. Proc., lxv G 66). It must be remembered that on those occasions the spirituality had been depleted through the loss of the abbots on the suppression of the religious. At all events it is certain that the spiritual lords were able to wield a majority at the session of May 1537 by the simple device of diligent attendance (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 437).

39 According to the lord deputy the spiritual lords signified their assent to the original bill for the twentieth tax (S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 438). The rejection of the bill by the commons necessitated the introduction of an amended measure, applicable to the clergy alone. Not until then did the spiritual lords pick up the courage to resist.

40 Ibid., ii, 437. This was the only occasion on which the bishops showed fire. Obviously the royal supremacy was not at issue. It is difficult to see what basis Mooney could find for his statement that the ‘higher clergy yielded to the first onslaught (to pass the reformation legislation) only after a determined struggle’ (‘The first impact of the reformation’ in Corish, , Ir. Catholicism, 3 (11), 19).Google Scholar

41 28 Hen. VIII, cc 19, 25, 27 (P.R.O.I.).

42 S.P. Hen VIII, ii, 517, 524, 534.

43 28 Hen. VIII, ce. i8, 23, 17 (P.R.O.I.). The transmisses of these bills are undated ( Shaw Mason, W., ‘Collation of the printed statutes with the rolls’ in T.C.D., MS V 2.7, pp 8, 14).Google Scholar However the bills are listed among those brought across by the royal commission in September 1537 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 384; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 452); Edwards, , Church & state, p. 15,Google Scholar may not have adverted to the date of the bill’s transmission when he suggested that parliament hesitated to pass the act against papal authority.

44 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 297.

45 H.M.C., Cecil MSS, iii, 459.

46 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii,318, 370.

47 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 452; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 388.

48 Elton, G.R., England under the Tudors (London, 1955), pp 172–3.Google Scholar

49 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 437 ; cf. Elton, op. cit., p. 67.

50 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 388.

51 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 382 (5).

52 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 384; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 452.

53 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 570; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 382 (5).