Java How to Program 9th Edition Deitel Solutions

Manual pdf download

https://testbankfan.com/product/java-how-to-program-9th-edition-
deitel-solutions-manual/
We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!

Java How to Program 9th Edition Deitel Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/java-how-to-program-9th-edition-
deitel-test-bank/

Java How to Program Early Objects 11th Edition Deitel

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/java-how-to-program-early-
objects-11th-edition-deitel-solutions-manual/

Java How to Program Early Objects 10th Edition Deitel

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/java-how-to-program-early-
objects-10th-edition-deitel-solutions-manual/

Nursing Research in Canada 3rd Edition Wood Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/nursing-research-in-canada-3rd-
edition-wood-test-bank/
Reinforced Concrete Design 8th Edition Limbrunner
Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/reinforced-concrete-design-8th-
edition-limbrunner-solutions-manual/

Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Management 9th Edition Scarborough Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-entrepreneurship-
and-small-business-management-9th-edition-scarborough-solutions-
manual/

Practicing Texas Politics 16th Edition Brown Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/practicing-texas-politics-16th-
edition-brown-test-bank/

Financial Reporting 2nd Edition Loftus Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/financial-reporting-2nd-edition-
loftus-test-bank/

Engineers Guide To MATLAB 3rd Edition Magrab Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/engineers-guide-to-matlab-3rd-
edition-magrab-solutions-manual/
Economics 2nd Edition Hubbard Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/economics-2nd-edition-hubbard-
test-bank/
 8 Classes and Objects:
A Deeper Look, Solutions

Instead of this absurd division

into sexes, they ought to class
people as static and dynamic.
—Evelyn Waugh

Is it a world to hide virtues in?

—William Shakespeare

But what, to serve

our private ends,
Forbids the cheating
of our friends?
—Charles Churchill

This above all: to thine own self

be true.
—William Shakespeare

Don’t be “consistent,” but be

simply true.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Objectives
In this chapter you’ll learn:
■ Encapsulation and data
hiding.
■ To use keyword this.
■ To use static variables and
methods.
■ To import static members
of a class.
■ To use the enum type to
create sets of constants with
unique identifiers.
■ To declare enum constants
with parameters.
■ To organize classes in
packages to promote reuse.
 Self-Review Exercises 2

Self-Review Exercises
8.1 Fill in the blanks in each of the following statements:
a) When compiling a class in a package, the javac command-line option speci-
fies where to store the package and causes the compiler to create the package’s directo-
ries if they do not exist.
ANS: -d.
b) String class static method is similar to method System.out.printf, but re-
turns a formatted String rather than displaying a String in a command window.
ANS: format.
c) If a method contains a local variable with the same name as one of its class’s fields, the
local variable the field in that method’s scope.
ANS: shadows.
d) The method is called by the garbage collector just before it reclaims an object’s
memory.
ANS: finalize.
e) A(n) declaration specifies one class to import.
ANS: single-type-import.
f) If a class declares constructors, the compiler will not create a(n) .
ANS: default constructor.
g) An object’s method is called implicitly when an object appears in code where
a String is needed.
ANS: toString.
h) Get methods are commonly called or .
ANS: accessor methods, query methods.
i) A(n) method tests whether a condition is true or false.
ANS: predicate.
j) For every enum, the compiler generates a static method called that returns an
array of the enum’s constants in the order in which they were declared.
ANS: values.
k) Composition is sometimes referred to as a(n) relationship.
ANS: has-a.
l) A(n) declaration contains a comma-separated list of constants.
ANS: enum.
m) A(n) variable represents classwide information that is shared by all the objects
of the class.
ANS: static.
n) A(n) declaration imports one static member.
ANS: single static import.
o) The states that code should be granted only the amount of privilege and access
that it needs to accomplish its designated task.
ANS: principle of least privilege.
p) Keyword specifies that a variable is not modifiable.
ANS: final.
q) There can be only one in a Java source-code file, and it must precede all other
declarations and statements in the file.
ANS: package declaration.
r) A(n) declaration imports only the classes that the program uses from a partic-
ular package.
ANS: type-import-on-demand.
3 Chapter 8 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

s) The compiler uses a(n) to locate the classes it needs in the classpath.
ANS: class loader.
t) The classpath for the compiler and JVM can be specified with the option to
the javac or java command, or by setting the environment variable.
ANS: -classpath, CLASSPATH.
u) Set methods are commonly called because they typically change a value.
ANS: mutator methods.
v) A(n) imports all static members of a class.
ANS: static import on demand.
w) The public methods of a class are also known as the class’s or .
ANS: public services, public interface.

Exercises
NOTE: Solutions to the programming exercises are located in the ch08solutions folder.
Each exercise has its own folder named ex08_## where ## is a two-digit number represent-
ing the exercise number. For example, exercise 8.4’s solution is located in the folder
ex08_04.

8.2 Explain the notion of package access in Java. Explain the negative aspects of package access.
ANS: Package access allows a class, method, or variable to be accessible within the same
package. Package access does not promote good OOP when applied to an instance
variable because it destroys the notion of information hiding.
8.3 What happens when a return type, even void, is specified for a constructor?
ANS: It is treated as a method and is not considered to be a constructor.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
and Dublin. Dutch and French merchants suffered more than the
English, and the States Government, with the King of England’s
sanction, sent a special squadron to Ireland, whom the pirates seem
to have dreaded much more than their own sovereign’s cruisers. The
French sometimes acted against the pirates, and there were
negotiations with Spain, but the Government admitted towards the
close of 1612 that the evil could only be checked in the West of
Ireland ‘by laying the island and sea coast waste and void of
inhabitants, or by placing a garrison in every port and creek, which
is impracticable.’ In the autumn of 1611 nineteen sail of pirates were
sighted on the west coasts, most of whom drew towards Morocco at
the approach of winter, when the Spanish galleys were not much to
be feared. This was their constant practice, and in the then state of
European politics they were as sure to find employment on the sea,
as their congeners the ‘bravi’ were to find it on land. The pirates
continued to give trouble until Strafford’s time.[97]

FOOTNOTES:
[82] Davies’s Discovery, 1613. It appears, however, from his letter
to Salisbury, December 1, 1603, that Chief Baron Pelham held the
first assize in Donegal without his help, and before his arrival in
Ireland. The contemporary letter must prevail against the treatise
written ten years later.
[83] Davies to Cecil, April 19, 1604.
[84] Davies to Salisbury, December 8, 1604 and May 4, 1606.
[85] Davies to Salisbury, May 4, 1606; Brouncker’s letter of
September 12, 1606.
[86] Davies to Salisbury, May 4, 1606; Brouncker’s letter of
September 12, 1606.
[87] Davies to Salisbury, written at Waterford in September 1606,
and printed in Davies’s Tracts.
[88] Davies to Salisbury, November 12, 1606.
[89] Davies to Salisbury, August 7 and December 11, 1607.
[90] The King to Chichester, April 26, 1611, sent by Knox and
delivered June 15; Lords of the Council to Chichester, April 30;
Bishop Knox to Abbot, July 4; Report by Chichester and
Archbishop Jones, October 7. O’Sullivan has a full account of
Knox’s proceedings, violent in tone but not substantially
disagreeing with the official correspondence. He says the
Catholics were bound to place in all parish churches at their own
expense ‘biblias corruptæ, mendosæque versionis in vulgarem
sermonem traductas.’—Compendium, 221.
[91] Jacob, S. G., to Salisbury, October 18, 1609; Davies to same,
October 19; Chichester to same, October 31; Captain Lichfield to
same, December 31, Lords of the Council to Chichester, June 8,
1610; Richard Morres (‘a poor soldier to my lord’) to Salisbury,
1611, No. 353; Note of Lord Chichester’s services calendared at
May 1614, No. 825; Vice-Treasurer Ridgeway’s minute, August
1615, No. 166; Lord Esmond to Dorchester, June 20, 1631. Court
and Times of Charles I., ii. 135. For the Polish element in the
matter see the State Papers, Ireland, calendared at September
29, 1619, August 1621, No. 773, and June 17, 1624.
[92] Chichester to Devonshire, January 2, 1606; to Salisbury, April
13, 1608.
[93] Wilmot’s letter, January 16, 1606; Chichester to the Council,
July 16, 1607; Lords of Council to Chichester, March 8, 1608, and
his answer, March 30; Chief Baron Winch to Chichester, April 2;
Council to Chichester, April 27, 1609; Chichester to Salisbury, July
19, 1610; to Salisbury and Nottingham, September 21; Council to
Chichester, July 31.
[94] Lords of Council to Chichester, March 8, 1608, and his
answer, March 30; James Salmon (afterwards first Provost of
Baltimore) to Thomas Crooke, June 23; Danvers to Salisbury,
November 20, enclosing the letter from Bishop Lyon and others;
Privy Council to Danvers, November 20; Liber Munerum
Publicorum, vii. 50, where Crooke is described as ‘armiger in
legibus eruditus.’
[95] Danvers to the Council, January 19, 1609; Sir R. Moryson to
Salisbury, August 22; Henry Pepwell to Salisbury, August 22;
Chichester to Salisbury and Nottingham, September 21, 1610;
Captain Henry Skipwith (deputy vice-admiral) to Chichester, July
25, 1611; Roger Myddleton to Salisbury, August 23; Petition of
Robert Bell to the King, July 1616, No. 277; Skipwith to Sir Dudley
Carleton, August 24; St. John to Winwood, April 4, 1617, in
Buccleuch Papers, Hist. MSS. Comm. Leamcon is now the name
of a house and watch-tower opposite Long Island, but in the time
of James I. it was given to the whole of the sheltered water
between Castle Point and Schull Harbour.
[96] Danvers to the Privy Council, January 19, 1609, and to
Salisbury, February 24; Chichester’s letters of February 5 and April
7; the Council to Chichester, April 27; Chichester to Salisbury,
Northampton, and Nottingham, April 11, 1611.
[97] Chichester’s letters of January 29 and June 27, 1610,
Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, i. 206, 314; Lords of the Council to
Chichester, September 9, 1611, January 31, and November 18,
1612; Lord Carew to Salisbury, September 6, 1611. The
international importance of the pirates will be best understood
from the early chapters of Mr. Julian Corbett’s England in the
Mediterranean.
 CHAPTER VII
THE PARLIAMENT OF 1613-1615

Since the dissolution of Perrott’s Parliament in 1586

none had been held in Ireland, but James made up The King
determines to
his mind to have one. Lord Carew was instructed to hold a Parliament,
obtain information as to how it had best be done, 1611.
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]
In order to carry out the royal policy in Ireland it
was evidently necessary to secure a Protestant New
constituencies are
majority, and this could hardly be done without created.
creating new constituencies. The power of the King
to make boroughs was not seriously disputed, and The counties.
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 The boroughs.
half of these might be depended on. The cities and
boroughs which received writs for Perrott’s Ulster.
Parliament were thirty-six in number, but of these
Carrickfergus and Downpatrick made no returns. Munster.
Cavan, Derry, Gowran, and Athlone had since
become corporations, and were presumably Leinster.
entitled to their writs in the ordinary way. James
created thirty-nine new boroughs expressly for Connaught.
parliamentary purposes, of which no less than
nineteen were in Ulster, where the late forfeitures Character of the
had made the Government strong: Belfast, new boroughs
Coleraine, Newry, Bangor, Newtownards, Armagh,
Charlemont, Dungannon, Agher, Strabane, Clogher, University
Derry, Lifford, Ballyshannon, Donegal, Limavady, representation.
Enniskillen, Monaghan, Belturbet. The Munster
cities and towns were almost desperate, one A Protestant
member each from Youghal, Dungarvan, and majority secured.
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]
When it was decided to call a Parliament, Carew
advised that every member of the House of The oath of
supremacy not
Commons should take the oath of supremacy, ‘as exacted.
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]
Opposition on the part of the Recusants was soon
found to be much more determined than Davies Strong Roman
Catholic
had anticipated. As early as October 1612 Sir opposition.
Patrick Barnewall had written against it, and in the
following month lords Slane, Killeen, Trimleston, Demand for
Dunsany, and Louth addressed a letter to the King toleration.
in which they complained of not being previously
consulted as to the measures to be laid before The peers
Parliament, and claimed to be the Irish Council summoned.
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]
On the eve of the opening of Parliament eleven
recusant lords addressed a petition to the Lord Renewed Roman
Catholic
Deputy in which they repeated the complaints of complaints.
the former letter. They further objected to peers of
England or Scotland being called by writ. A better- Chichester’s
founded grievance was the partiality shown by answer.
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 met in the Castle on May 18. The
discontented lords and gentlemen had brought Parliament meets.
armed retinues with them, and the Government
thought that no open building would be safe. As Contest for the
the Recusant lords refused to attend, nothing could Speakership.
happen in the Upper House; but in the Commons
there was an immediate trial of strength over the Violent
proceedings in the
election of Speaker. Sir John Davies had been Commons.
returned for Fermanagh, and the Protestant party
at once accepted him as the Government Sir John Davies is
candidate; while the Opposition were for Sir John elected.
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]
On the following day the Roman Catholic lords
wrote to the King reiterating their arguments, Continued
opposition of the
avoiding the name of Parliament, which they called Recusant Lords,
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 and Commons,
the real Speaker, and that he had been forcibly put
out. During the next two days they sent three who refuse to
petitions to the Lord Deputy. In the first they attend the House.
begged to be excused attendance for fear of their
lives, and asked to see the official documents Speeches of Sir
John Davies.
relating to the late elections. In the second they
declared themselves ready to attend if they might
The Tudors held
be assured that their lives were safe, and that they Parliaments for
should have an opportunity of questioning special objects.
improper returns. Chichester granted this, and said
he would be ready in the House of Lords to receive King James I. to
their Speaker. The Lower House met at nine on the hold a real
morning of the 21st, but the Opposition refused to Parliament
Ireland.
in

attend, and demanded the exclusion of the

members to whose return they objected. Having
Davies praises
exhausted all methods of persuasion, Chichester Chichester.
came down to the Lords, and the House of
Commons were summoned to attend. Davies had And flatters
in the meantime briefly returned thanks for his James.
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]
If Chichester had chosen to take advantage of the
refusal of the Opposition to attend in either House, Patience of
Chichester.
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 The Opposition
send delegates to
peers, came to the Upper House, but no one else the King,
appeared; and eleven Recusants sent their reasons
in writing for staying away. Two days later the and the Deputy
seceders were summoned by proclamation in order follows suit.
to pass a Bill for the recognition of the King’s title.
The Recusants acknowledged this in writing, but Frequent
refused to appear, though the Lord Deputy prorogations
follow.
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]
Towards the end of August, when the King
returned from his progress, he issued a commission Royal Commission
for grievances.
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]
Having examined the officers of Chancery upon
oath, the Commissioners found that writs had been Proceedings of
the
duly issued to ‘all counties, ancient cities, and Commissioners.
boroughs,’ and returns made. Where specific
instances of wrongful election had been alleged, Disputed
each case was gone into upon its merits. Nine of elections.
these were in counties and five in cities or
boroughs. In Fermanagh it was alleged that Connor Fermanagh.
Roe Maguire and Donnell Maguire had been duly
elected, notwithstanding which Sir Henry Ffolliot Tyrone.
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]
The writ to the sheriffs of Dublin was issued on
April 1, and on the following day they gave their Contest in Dublin.
warrant to the mayor, Sir James Carrol, to hold an
election. On the 20th, when the sheriffs sat in their The
court, they were persuaded by the Recusant Commissionersfind the facts.
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]
Besides the general objection to the new boroughs
special objection had been taken in five cases, of Contests in
Boroughs.
which the most remarkable was that of Cavan. It
was alleged that Captain Culme, who brought a
Cavan.
mandate from the county sheriff, had proposed
himself and the Lord Deputy’s secretary, George
Cavan members
Sexton, but that the townsmen had refused to unseated.
elect them. Four or five days later the high sheriff,
Sir Oliver Lambert, held an election, and it was said The Kildare case,
and others.
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]
When the Irish Parliament was just about to meet
the English Council had sent for Sir Patrick The delegates in
London.
Barnewall. He was known to have written letters
declaring that the assembly as constituted would
reduce Ireland to slavery, and that the new Barnewall Talbot.
and

boroughs were erected only to pass money votes.

His abilities were known, and no doubt he was Non-residence of
considered formidable since his victory in the members.
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]
Thomond and his associates were instructed by
Chichester to point out that many of the Irish Case for the Irish
Government.
candidates for parliamentary honours had been in
actual rebellion, that some could speak no English,
and that ‘all were elected by a general combination Distinction
between native
and practice of Jesuits and priests, who charged all and Anglo-Irish
the people, upon pain of excommunication, not to Catholics.
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 original deputation from the Irish Opposition

consisted of six persons, but James had declared The King gives
frequent
his willingness to see twelve, and the additional audiences.
number who came was considerably greater, six
peers and fourteen commoners, including Everard, Talbot in the
Barnewall and Thomas Luttrell. The latter sat for Tower.
the county of Dublin and had been prominent, or in
official language turbulent and seditious, during the Luttrell in the
late short session. James heard the deputation in Fleet.
Council several times during the month of July,
‘while they did use daily to frequent their secret Suarez
conventicles and private meetings, to consult and repudiated.
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 first thing that struck the Commissioners was

the general neglect of true religion, the ministers The rival
Churches.
and preachers being insufficient both in number
and quality, and the churches for the most part
ruinous. There were, however ‘a multitude of Suggestions
the
by

Popish schoolmasters, priests, friars, Jesuits, Commissioners.

seminaries of the adverse Church authorised by the
Pope and his subordinates for every diocese, Military
ecclesiastical dignity, and living of note,’ who were irregularities.
resident, and who lost no opportunity of execrating
the reformed faith, being supported and Abuses by
countenanced by the native nobility. Of the sheriffs.
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]
One grievance there was which deserves special
mention, because its history shows how even the Ploughing by the
tail.
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, Prevalence
practice.
of the

especially in Ulster, to till rough ground by

attaching a very short plough, which might be Its cruelty
lifted over an obstacle, to the tails of ponies
walking abreast. This was prohibited by Order in
and long
Council in 1606, the penalty being the forfeiture of continuance.
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]
It had been complained—and in what age or
country has there been no such complaint?—that Alleged legal
extortion.
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 Excessive fees.
scales of charges had been twice carefully
overhauled, that they were now much less than in Chichester
absolved.
is

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]
Having received the report of the Commissioners,
the King sent Sir Richard Boyle to Ireland with Royal
proclamation,
1,000 copies of a proclamation for distribution all Feb. 7, 1613-
over the country. In it James announced that he 1614.
had vouchsafed in person to debate with the
malcontents on several occasions, that they had Chichester is sent
not met him in a proper spirit, and that there was for.
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]
While the Commissioners were still sitting in
Dublin, Lords Gormanston and Roche, Sir James The King verbally
promises
Gough, and Mr. Patrick Hussy, member for Meath toleration
and titular baron of Galtrim, took leave of the King
at Royston. James made a speech, which according to all who
to Gough’s report contained the words: ‘As for your disavow Suarez.
religion, howbeit that the religion I profess be the
religion I will make the established religion among Sir James Gough
you, and that the exercise of the religion which you publishes the
use (which is no religion, indeed, but a royal message,
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 but is not
believed.
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]
James admitted that he had used the language
imputed to him, but without intending thereby to The King cannot
explain away his
claim a dispensing power or to promise full words,
toleration, and he sent over a proclamation to that
effect for circulation. Against Sir James Gough he but Gough has to
made four points, that his turbulent conduct to the submit.
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 was brought before the Star-chamber in
London on the same day that Gough made his Talbot before the
Star-chamber.
submission in Dublin. At a previous hearing before
the Council the English oath of allegiance was
tendered to him, and extracts from Suarez and The law officers
discourage
Parsons were read, of which he was given a copy severity
to meditate upon during his imprisonment. Though
the oath of allegiance had no statutory force in Bacon
Ireland the law officers, Hobart and Bacon, had nevertheless
given a cautious opinion that it might be magnifies offence,
Talbot’s

administered to Irishmen in England, ‘but whether

it be convenient to minister it unto them, not being
but he is
persons commorant or settled there, but only ultimately
employed for the present business, we must leave released.
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]
On April 12 in the council chamber at Whitehall,
and in the presence of Chichester and of the The King on the
constitution of
recusant Irish peers and members of Parliament, Parliaments,
James delivered the memorable speech which
foreshadowed the course of Irish policy until the on Irish
advent of Strafford. It manifests much cleverness, grievances,
combined with a characteristic want of dignity. The
parliamentary questions were of course decided and on toleration.
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]
Chichester left London on July 11, one week after
the Irish Parliament had been prorogued by the Final award as to
parliamentary
Lords Justices for the sixth time. A letter from the difficulties, 1614.
King written at Belvoir Castle soon followed him,
which contained the final award as to Irish The Houses get to
parliamentary matters. The Protestant or business at last.
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 The Roman
Catholics at first
a certain amount of foundation for their stay to prayers,
complaints. It had been proved that eight boroughs
were erected after the issue of the writs, and this but soon desist.
disqualified their representatives during the
existing Parliament. Three other boroughs were
Legislation
pronounced by the Commissioners to have no proceeds
power by charter or prescription to send burgesses, smoothly,
and this decision was confirmed. The rest of the
elections were declared to be duly made. Sir John and Tyrone’s
Davies carried the royal letter to Dublin along with attainder is
passed
the Bills finally agreed upon, which did not include unanimously.
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]
Our Tudor and Stuart sovereigns looked upon
Parliament mainly as an instrument for putting Finance.
money in their purse. Ireland was a dependency,
and was generally a source of expense rather than A free gift is
of income until after the Restoration, when asked for,
inconvenient criticism was avoided by charging
pensions upon the Irish establishment. ‘The King but with little
success.
was never the richer for Ireland,’ though private
adventurers sometimes made fortunes there.
The Protestants
Chichester had greatly improved the revenue, and have no working
as there was peace in his time, except for the brief majority.
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,