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: 21 March 2016
The history of Poynings’ Law is complex and multifaceted. Much has been written about it, at times with the end result being a recognition that to investigate Poynings’ Law is to venture into a quagmire. At the same time, a number of important works have been published over the years that throw light upon specific periods in the history of that law. Until recently much of the focus has been on the period stretching from the passage of the law in 1494-5 up to 1641, with some significant excursions into the eighteenth-century history of the law.
1 Some of the most significant works are Quinn, D.B., ‘The early interpretation of Poynings’ Law, 1494–1534’ in I.H.S., ii, no. 7 (Mar. 1941), pp 241–54Google Scholar; Edwards, R.D. and Moody, T.W., ‘The history of Poynings’ Law: part I, 1494–1615’ in I.H.S., ii, no. 8 (Sept. 1941), pp 415–24Google Scholar; Clarke, Aidan, ‘The history of Poynings’ Law, 1615–41’ in I.H.S., xviii, no. 70 (Sept. 1972), pp 207–22Google Scholar; Kelly, James, ‘Monitoring the constitution: the operation of Poynings’ Law in the 1760s’ in Parliamentary History, xx (2001), pp 87–106Google Scholar. Other important works are cited in the footnotes in this article.
2 Siochrú, Micheál Ó, ‘Catholic Confederates and the constitutional relationship between Ireland and England, 1641–1649’ in Brady, Ciaran and Ohlmeyer, Jane (eds), British interventions in early modern Ireland (Cambridge, 2005), pp 207–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, James, Monitoring the constitution: Poynings’ Law and the making of law in Ireland, 1660–1800 (Dublin, forthcoming)Google Scholar. I should like to thank Dr Ó Siochrú and Dr Kelly for allowing me to read their work before publication.
3 Curtis, Edmund, ‘The acts of the Drogheda parliament, 1494—5, or “Poynings’ Laws”‘ in Conway, Agnes, Henry VII’s relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–1498. With a chapter on the acts of Poynings’ parliament, 1494–5, by Edmund Curtis (New York, 1972), pp 120–21Google Scholar.
4 Ibid., p. 129.
5 This confusion was warned against by Simms, J.G. in ‘The case of Ireland stated’ in Farrell, Brian (ed.), The Irish parliamentary tradition (Dublin, 1973), p. 128Google Scholar.
6 Stat. Ire., i., 44.
7 Ellis, Steven G., ‘Henry VII and Ireland, 1491–1496’ in Lydon, James (ed.), England and Ireland in the later middle ages (Dublin, 1981), p. 237Google Scholar.
8 Quinn, ‘Poynings’ Law’; Edwards & Moody, ‘Poynings’ Law’.
9 Quinn, ‘Poynings’ Law’; Edwards & Moody, ‘Poynings’ Law’; Clarke, ‘Poynings’ Law’; Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The beginnings of modern Ireland’ in Farrell (ed.), Irish parliamentary tradition, pp 69–71.
10 Bradshaw, Brendan, The Irish constitutional revolution of the sixteenth century (Cambridge, 1979), pp 147–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Stat. Ire., i, 89–90, 157–9, 320–22.
12 Ibid., pp 246–8; Edwards & Moody, ‘Poynings’ Law’, pp 419–20.
13 Commons’ jn. Ire. (3rd ed.), i, 27, 42, 44, 46, 53–6; Edwards & Moody, ‘Poynings’ Law’, pp 421–3.
14 Clarke, ‘Poynings’ Law’, pp 210–11.
15 Commons’ jn. Ire., i, 69, 70–71, 80, 90, 141–2, 145–8, 155, 157, 161–7, 169–71, 174–7, 183, 186, 196; Clarke, ‘Poynings’ Law’.
16 Commons’ jn. Ire., i, 394, 396–401, 419, 440–41, 459–60, 463–9, 479–80; O’Donoghue, Fergus, ‘The Irish parliament under Charles II’ (M.A. thesis, University College Dublin, 1970), pp 57–8.Google Scholar
17 Commons’ jn. Ire., i, 401.
18 Ibid., p. 161.
19 Ibid., pp 440–41.
20 Ibid., pp 503–5, 513–14, 526–9; O’Donoghue, ‘Ir. parliament’, pp 99–100; James, F.G., Ireland in the empire, 1688–1770 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp 11–13Google Scholar.
21 Edwards & Moody, ‘Poynings’ Law’, pp 421–4; Clarke, ‘Poynings’ Law’, pp 211–22.
22 Despite the fact that parliament did not meet between 1666 and 1689, both Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, and James Butler, duke of Ormond, gave some consideration towards Poynings’ Law and possible attitudes thereto in Ireland following suggestions that a parliament might be convened during their respective tenures as lord lieutenant in the 1670s: see Essex to William Harbord, 30 Nov. 1674 (N.A.I., Wyche MSS, 1/4/1); Aydelotte, J.E., ‘The duke of Ormonde and the English government of Ireland, 1677–85’ (Ph.D. thesis, Iowa University, 1975), pp 30–194Google Scholar. For the Jacobite parliament see Simms, J.G., The Jacobite parliament of 1689 (Dundalk, 1974), pp 3–28Google Scholar.
23 A discourse of Ireland by Sir William Temple, 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 27382, f. 4). Although the ‘discourse’ is credited to Sir William Temple, it is possible that the author was in fact his younger brother, John: see Gibney, John, ‘Select document: A discourse of Ireland, 1695’ in I.H.S., xxxiv, no. 136 (Nov. 2005), pp 449–61Google Scholar.
24 A discourse of Ireland by Sir William Temple, 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 27382, ff 5–6); S. J. Connolly, ‘The Glorious Revolution in Irish Protestant thinking’ in idem (ed.), Political ideas in eighteenth-century Ireland (Dublin, 2000), pp 27–63; idem, ‘Precedent and principle: the Patriots and their critics’, ibid., pp 130–58; Hayton, D.W., Ruling Ireland, 1685–1742: politics, politicians and parties (Woodbridge, 2004), pp 40–41Google Scholar; McGrath, C.I., ‘English ministers, Irish politicians and the making of a parliamentary settlement in Ireland, 1692–5’ in E.H.R., cxix (2004), pp 588–90Google Scholar.
25 McGrath, C.I., The making of the eighteenth-century Irish constitution: government, parliament and the revenue, 1692–1714 (Dublin, 2000), pp 74–5Google Scholar; Hayton, Ruling Ireland, pp 40–14.
26 Mackie, J.D., A history of Scotland (London, 1991), pp 244–5, 253–4Google Scholar; Dunn, R.S., ‘The Glorious Revolution and America’ in Canny, Nicholas (ed.), The Oxford history of the British Empire, i: The origins of empire: British overseas enterprise to the close of the seventeenth century (Oxford, 1998), pp 460–65Google Scholar.
27 Hayton, D.W., ‘Constitutional experiments and political expediency, 1689–1725’ in Ellis, Steven G. and Barber, Sarah (eds), Conquest and union: fashioning a British state, 1485–1725 (London, 1995), pp 280–84Google Scholar; see also McGuire, J.I., ‘The Irish parliament of 1692’ in Bartlett, Thomas and Hayton, D.W. (eds), Penal era and golden age: essays in Irish history, 1690–1800 (Belfast, 1979), pp 2–6Google Scholar; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 74–8.
28 McGuire, ‘Ir. parliament’, pp 2–3; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 49–117; Hayton, D.W., ‘Introduction: The long apprenticeship’ in Parliamentary History, xx (2001), pp 8–10Google Scholar.
29 Cal. S.P. dom., 1691–2, pp 111–12, 174, 179, 214–15, 357, 375–6, 380, 382; ibid., 1695 & Add., pp 189–92, 194, 197, 203–5, 207–8; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 76–8; McGuire, ‘Ir. parliament’, pp 5–9. The convoluted and long-drawn-out process of preparing the government legislative programme for the 1692 parliament, and the extent to which that process (if not the outcome) was to some degree exceptional because of uncertainty arising out of the breakdown in government in the preceding years, is detailed in Kelly, Monitoring the constitution, ch. 2.
30 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 10–36; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 78–88; McGuire, ‘Ir. parliament’, pp 11–22.
31 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 28; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 84—6; McGuire, ‘Ir. parliament’, pp 19–21.
32 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 35–6.
33 McGrath, C.I., ‘Parliamentary additional supply: the development and use of regular short-term taxation in the Irish parliament, 1692–1716’ in Parliamentary History, xx (2001), pp 27–54Google Scholar.
34 Idem, Ir. constitution, pp 85–6.
35 Kenyon, J.P. (ed.), The Stuart constitution, 1603–1688: documents and commentary (Cambridge, 1966), p. 419Google Scholar.
36 McGrath, ‘English ministers, Irish politicians’, pp 591–613; idem, Ir. constitution, pp 90–100.
37 English privy council minutes, 11 July 1695 (P.R.O., PC 2/76, p. 160). I wish to thank Dr John Bergin for this reference.
38 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 44–5; McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 100–17.
39 McGrath, , ‘Parliamentary additional supply’, pp 27–54; idem, ‘Central aspects of the eighteenth-century constitutional framework in Ireland: the government supply bill and biennial parliamentary sessions, 1715–82’ in Eighteenth-Century Ireland, xvi (2001), pp 9–34Google Scholar.
40 Idem, Ir. constitution, pp 118–34.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., pp 134–52.
43 English privy council minutes, 4, 30 July 1703 (P.R.O., PC 2/79, pp 413–14, 430–31). I am indebted to Dr John Bergin for this reference. See also McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 156–60.
44 Edward Southwell to earl of Nottingham, 22 July 1703 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1703^4, pp 56–7).
45 For details of the various supply acts passed during the years 1703–11 see McGrath, ‘Parliamentary additional supply’, pp 40–49, 54. For the politics of supply in the same period see idem, Ir. constitution, pp 153–264.
46 Edward Southwell to John Ellis, 3 Jan. 1705 (B.L., Add. MS 28893, f. 3); Southwell to Sir Charles Hedges, 8 Jan. 1705 (ibid., Add. MS 9715, f. 110); William Wogan to Southwell, 16, 18, 20 Jan. 1705 (ibid., Add. MS 37673, ff 57, 59, 61); Southwell to Ormonde, 12, 14 Dec. 1704 (N.L.I., Ormonde papers, MS 2462, pp 18–22, 62–6); Irish privy council to — — —, 8 Jan. 1705 (P.R.O., SP 63/365/25). The four bills were: illegal raising of money by grand juries; suppression of blasphemy; relief of creditors; repeal of penalties relating to the linen industry.
47 McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 212, 234, 250. It should be noted, however, that the Irish council did initiate some government legislation following the commencement of the 1709, 1710 and 1711 sessions: see Kelly, Monitoring the constitution, ch. 3.
48 Between 1692 and 1710 the Irish parliament enacted about 190 acts, the majority of which, especially after 1703, originated as heads of bills: see Hayton, ‘Long apprenticeship’, pp 11–13. For the most comprehensive statistical assessment of the origin and number of bills in the Irish parliament in the period 1703–13 see Kelly, Monitoring the constitution, Tables 1–5.
49 Lords justices to duke of Shrewsbury, 19, 23 Sept. 1713; lords justices to Lord Bolingbroke, 10 Oct. 1713 (P.R.O., SP 63/369/154, 158, 160). The 1713 government supply bill was a variation on a theme, in that instead of imposing the usual additional inland excise duties for one year, it imposed a wider range of duties for a shorter period of time. The purpose was to ensure that the existing taxes did not expire during the time that it took parliament to consider their reimposition. The bill was not interpreted as an attempt to undermine the 1695 compromise. See McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 267–8.
50 For the details of this complex and crucial period see Hayton, Ruling Ireland, pp 159–85.
51 McGrath, Ir. constitution, pp 264–83.
52 English privy council minutes, 9, 14–15 Sept., 18 Oct. 1715 (P.R.O., PC 2/85, pp 279–80, 282–4, 293–4); Commons’ jn. Ire., iii, 9, 14, 16, 20, 22, 29, 38, 40, 43, 50, 64–5, 73, 77–8.
53 Commons’ jn. Ire., iii, 73, 92, 111–12, 160, 173, 175, 225, 238–9, 295, 306, 371–2, 389, 441, 454. On the basis of those bills that originated as heads of bills and later received the royal assent as acts of parliament, at least 18 such acts were passed in 1717, 27 in 1719, 16 in 1721–2, 22 in 1723–4, and 17 in 1725–6. These figures can be confirmed through an examination of the five volumes of the English privy council minutes covering the years 1714–27 (P.R.O., PC 2/85–9).
54 Commons’ jn. Ire., iii, 463, 468, 470, 475, 479–85; ibid., vii, 12, 16, 20–21, 24, 30, 54, 63–5, 67–89, 70–71, 73, 76–7, 90–92; ibid., ix, 296; English privy council minutes, 1727 (P.R.O., PC 2/90, pp 51–3, 66–8, 78–80); ibid., 1761 (PC 2/108, pp 191–2, 208–10, 213–15). In 1727 and 1761 all three government bills were passed. In 1776 one bill was passed, one was rejected, and the other was postponed indefinitely. In 1727 five bills had been prepared by the Irish privy council of which three were returned from England, while in 1761 four bills were prepared of which three were returned. See also Kelly, ‘Monitoring the constitution’, pp 91, 93–4.
55 Lord Townshend to Lord Weymouth, 21 Nov. 1769 (P.R.O., SP 63/430/162–6; Cal. H.O. papers, 1766–9, ii, 520–22); Commons’ jn. Ire., viii, 288, 323, 328. Neither of the government’s bills were passed in 1769.
56 For a comprehensive analytical and statistical assessment of the origin and number of bills in the Irish parliament from 1715 onwards see Kelly, Monitoring the constitution, chs 4–5 and Tables 6–11.
57 Hayton, ‘Long apprenticeship’, p. 13.
58 In 1746 a government tillage bill was presented in and passed by the House of Lords, but was rejected in the Commons on the grounds that it was a supply bill (Commons’ jn. Ire., iv, 503–5).
59 Hayton, ‘Long apprenticeship’, pp 7–8.
60 I wish to acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, which facilitated the researching and writing of this article.
