Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Between folios 179v and 181v of volume 216 of the state papers for Ireland is a document entitled ‘Discourse humbly presented by Richard Hadsor ...’ which a later hand has endorsed as having being written ‘probably some time in 1604 when Tyrone & Tyrconel were in peace’. In 1854 an anonymous scholar (possibly E.P. Shirley) published a transcript of the document in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology, but without appending either notes or commentary on the text or investigating its authorship. In the first volume of the Jacobean series of the Calendar of State Papers, Ireland the editors, C. W. Russell and J.P. Prendergast, provided an almost complete transcript, suggesting that they too found it noteworthy. But since then the ‘Discourse’ has received virtually no further attention from historians. Yet it contains, among other things, the earliest articulation of a ‘three kingdoms’ approach to the new Stuart multiple monarchy. Two reasons may account for its neglect: first, neither the anonymous editor of 1854 nor Russell and Prendergast paid any attention to the question of the authorship of the treatise — the former being apparently of the view that certain sections of the text would be of interest to the journal’s antiquarian readership, while the latter mistakenly attributed the tract to either a Richard or a John Hudson, neither of whom was identifiable; secondly, its contents are odd, a mixture of useful information and relatively unconventional opinion.
1 P.R.O., SP 63/216/64, ff 179v-181v. A contemporary copy is to be found in B.L., Cott. MS Titus BX, ff 79–84.
2 U.J.A., 1st ser., ii (1854), pp 245–52.
3 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 230–39. The interest of the editors in the text seems to have been related to its importance in fixing the date of composition of Shakespeare’s Henry VIII.
4 See above, pp 306–9.
5 Hadsor to Cecil, 27 May 1598 (P.R.O., SP 63/202/2/40; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1598–9, p. 155). For his dealing with the Irish and English peers see H.M.C., Salisbury, x, 248, 280, 311–12Google Scholar.
6 The best overall acount is Challis, C. E., The Tudor coinage (Manchester, 1978), esp. pp 268-74Google Scholar; see also idem (ed.), A new history of the royal mint (Cambridge, 1992), pp 179–397, 736–7. Pawlisch’s, Hans S. chapter. ‘The case of mixed money’, in his Sir John Davies and the conquest of Ireland: a study in legal imperialism (Cambridge, 1985), pp 142-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is good, especially on the legal aftermath. Simon, James, An essay towards an historical account of Irish coins (Dublin, 1749)Google Scholar is older and somewhat polemical but still quite valuable. Hall, Hubert, Society in the Elizabethan age (London, 1886), pp 122–32 Google Scholar, highlights the corruption associated with the scheme. As Pawlisch noted, however, it is ‘surprising’ that ‘the history of Elizabeth’s Irish debasement has neither been fully told nor placed within its proper political context’ (p. 143).
7 Cecil to Mountjoy, 19 Oct. 1601 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1601–3, p. 155).
8 The king gave orders for the minting of new Irish coins on 4 Aug. 1603 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, p. 72), and Lord Deputy Cary and the Irish council published a proclamation on 11 Oct. 1603 announcing the return to earlier valuations (P.R.O., SP 63/215/98; Cal. S.P. Ire., I603-6, pp 93–5). It took three more proclamations to reestablish monetary policies in Ireland and between England and Ireland: 22 Jan. 1605 (P.R.O., SP 63/218/69; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 449–501), 11 Nov. 1606 (P.R.O., SP 63/219/129; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1606–8, pp 13–14), and 19 May 1607 (text in Simon, Essay, pp 113–14).
9 Hadsor to Cecil, 28 Jan. 1601 ( H.M.C., Salisbury, x, 23 Google Scholar).
10 For the queen’s 1601 proclamation see Cat Carew MSS, 1601–3, p. 67. Cary to Cecil [c. Jan 1603] claimed the proclamation was published in Dublin on 10 June 1601 (P.R.O., SP 63/212/127; Cal. S.P. Ire., I601-3, p. 563).The arrangements for the exchange were twice modified by proclamation: 9 June 1602 (P.R.O., SP 63/211/50; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601–3, pp 407–10) and 24 Jan. 1603 (Cal. Carew MSS, I601-3, pp 409–14).
11 See Pawlisch, Davies, pp 153–7.
12 Hadsor to Cecil, 4 Mar. 1603 ( H.M.C., Salisbury, xii, 661 Google Scholar); Cary to Cecil, 28 Jan. 1603 (P.R.O., SP 63/212/124; Cal. S.P. Ire., I60I-3, p. 561).
13 Middle Temple records: minutes of the parliament of the Middle Temple, ed. and trans. Martin, C. T. (4 vols, London, 1904-5), i, 430Google Scholar; ii, 610, 619, 692, 694, 702.
14 H.M.C., , Salisbury, xvi, 207 Google Scholar (20 Aug. 1604), 324 (5 Oct. 1604).
15 See above, pp 331–6.
16 Cal. S.P.Ire., 1608, p.cxi.
17 Hadsor to Cecil, 17 July 1604 ( H.M.C., Salisbury, xvi, 175 Google Scholar).
18 William Saxey, ‘A discovery of the decayed state of the kingdome of Yreland & the meanes to repower the same’, 1604/5 (P.R.O., SP 63/216/59; Cal. S.P. Ire., 1603–6, pp 217–28); SirDavies, John, A discoverie of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued, nor brought under obedience to the crowne of England, untill the beginning of his majesties happie raigne (London, 1612)Google Scholar.
19 See Canny, Nicholas, The formation of the Old English elite in Ireland (O’Donnell Lecture, Dublin, 1975)Google Scholar; Lennon, Colm, Richard Stanihurst the Dubliner, 1547–1618 (Dublin, 1981)Google Scholar; Brady, Ciaran, ‘Conservative subversives: the community of the Pale and the Dublin administration, 1556–1586’ in Corish, P.J. (ed.), Radicals, rebels and establishments: Historical Studies XV (Belfast, 1985), pp 11–32.Google Scholar
20 See Hadfield, Andrew and McVeagh, John (eds), Strangers to that land: British perceptions of Ireland from the Reformation to the Famine (Gerrards Cross, 1994), pp 3–133 Google Scholar.
21 Davies, Discoverie, pp 233, 112–13.
22 Ibid., pp 263–8.
23 Ibid., pp 262–3, 275.
24 Both during and after the war Hadsor favoured a policy of exploiting factions within the native Irish: see Capt. Edward Fitzgerald to Cecil, 12 Jan. 1601 ( H.M.C., Salisbury, xi, 8–9 Google Scholar); Hadsor to Cecil, 4 Mar. 1603 (ibid., xii, 661); Hadsor to Cecil, 23 June 1603 (ibid., xv, 145–6). Thus he may have been promoting the same here.
25 Goodman, Godfrey, The court of King James the First, ed. Brewer, John S. (2 vols, London, 1839), i, 97–9Google Scholar (with Brewer’s note) and the reproduced correspondence between Cecil and Mountjoy on efforts to end the war (ibid., ii, 41–52 (with Brewer’s note), 23–4); Camden, William, Annales rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum, regnante Elizabetha (2 vols, London, 1615-27)Google Scholar, trans, as “The life and reign of Queen Elizabeth’ in Kennett, White (ed.), A complete history of England (3 vols, London, 1706), ii, 652–3Google Scholar; Naunton, Robert, Fragmenta regalia, or observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, her times and favourites (London, 1641; repr. 1870), pp 18–20 Google Scholar.
26 See Galloway, Bruce, The union of England and Scotland, 1603–1608 (Edinburgh, 1984)Google Scholar; Levack, Brian P., The formation of the British state: England, Scotland and the union, 1603–1707 (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Wormald, Jenny, ‘The creation of Britain: multiple kingdoms or core and colonies?’ in R. Hist. Soc. Trans., 6th ser., ii (1992), pp 175-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 See Galloway, Bruce R. and Levack, Brian P. (eds), The Jacobean union: six tracts of 1604 (Edinburgh, 1985)Google Scholar; Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, ‘Ireland and the monarchy in the early Stuart multiple kingdom’ in Hist. Jn., xxxiv (1991), pp 279-95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Reg. privy council Scot., 1599–1604, p. 304.
29 Morrill, John, ‘The fashioning of Britain’ in Ellis, Steven G. and Barber, Sarah (eds), Conquest and union: fashioning a British state, 1485–1725 (London & New York, 1995), pp 15–17 Google Scholar. The ‘three kingdoms’ approach, inspired by J.G.A. Pocock’s calls for a new ‘British history’ and H.G. Koenigsberger’s work on European ‘composite states’, was initially developed by historians concerned with the English Civil War, especially Conrad Russell and John Morrill; the focus has been greatly expanded: e.g. Asch, R.G. (ed.), Three nations — a common history?: England, Scotland, Ireland and British history, c. 1600–1920 (Bochum, 1993)Google Scholar; Grant, Alexander and Stringer, K.J. (eds), Uniting the kingdom?: the making of British history (London, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bradshaw, Brendan and Morrill, John (eds), The British problem, c. 1534–1707: state formation in the Atlantic archipelago (London, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 I am grateful to Nicholas Canny, Raymond Gillespie and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful observations.
