Irish chiefs in Dublin.
Besides the O’Reillys and O’Ferralls the house of Commons contained but few of the native race. An O’Brien and a Clancy sat for Clare. Sir Hugh Magennis divided Down with Sir Nicholas Bagenal, and Shane MacBrian O’Neill was returned, but did not attend, as Captain Barkley’s colleague for Antrim. Among the burgesses we find a Shee or O’Shea sitting for Kilkenny, a Gwire or Maguire for Trim, a Kearney for Cashel, a Hurley for Kilmallock, a Casey for Mullingar, and a Neill or O’Neill for Carlingford. John Ffrehan, who was returned for Philipstown, was most likely a Celt also. The bulk of the members were of old Anglo-Irish race, with a good sprinkling of more modern settlers, of officials, and of military officers. John and Thomas Norris sat for the counties of Cork and Limerick respectively, Sir Warham St. Leger for Queen’s County, Sir Richard Bingham for Roscommon, and Sir Henry Harrington for Wicklow. Nearly all the chieftains of Ireland, though not actually members of Parliament, obeyed the Lord Deputy’s summons, and he strictly insisted on English costume being worn. ‘Please your lordship,’ said old Tirlogh Luineach, ‘let my priest attend me in Irish apparel, and then they will wonder at him as they do now at me; so shall I pass more quickly and unpointed at.’[136]
Parliamentary procedure.
The Speaker.
Rules were laid down for the conduct of business in the House of Commons. Members were not to wear arms in the House, they were to speak standing and uncovered, and only once on each reading of a Bill. Freedom of speech was granted, and freedom from arrest for members, their servants, and their goods. On the other hand no member was to disclose ‘the secrets either spoken or done in the House’ to any stranger, under such penalties as the Speaker, with the assent of the House, should think proper to inflict. One rule may seem strange to the present age, in which parliamentary debate has come to be so largely a matter of flouts and gibes and sneers. Every member was enjoined ‘to frame his speech after a quiet and courteous manner, without any taunts or words tending to the reproach of any person in the said House assembled.’ The first struggle was about the election of a Speaker. Nicholas Walshe, Chief Justice of Munster and member for the city of Waterford, was put forward by Perrott. Ormonde had a very good opinion of him, and Perrott, when President of Munster, must have learned his value. The opposition, though strong, was fruitless, and Walshe was duly chosen Speaker.[137]
The Parliament is hard to manage.
A prorogation.
Perrott had not been easily induced to abandon his scheme for the dissolution of St. Patrick’s. He continued to attack Loftus, but nevertheless gave him the chief control over the drafting of Bills; and the Chancellor was accused of purposely drawing them so as to arouse opposition. By Poyning’s law, and the Acts explaining it, these Bills had to be sent to England and returned after passing the Privy Council. If disapproved in this form, they could not be amended without sending them to England again. Travelling was tedious, Parliaments were short, and thus there was a risk that all legislation would be stopped. One Bill was for extending to Ireland all the English laws against Popish recusants, and this was certain to arouse the fiercest animosity. Another contained provisions derogatory to the privileges of the peerage. Desmond’s Bill of Attainder as amended contained eight names instead of twenty times that number, and made so many reservations that it would have been almost useless to the Crown. Nearly all the other Bills went too far or not far enough, but the difficulty might have been avoided by suspending Poyning’s Act, as had been done in 1537 and 1569. The landowners and lawyers of the Pale said that they feared to make the Viceroy despotic, but Perrott said that they dreaded all legislation favourable to the Crown. The bill only passed the Lords by one vote, of which the validity was disputed, Lord Lixnaw having given his proxy first to Lord Slane, who opposed, and afterwards to Lord Dunboyne, who supported the bill. The Chancellor took it privately from Dunboyne, and counted the absent peer among the ‘contents.’ Upon this or some other pretext the Commons threw the Bill out on the third reading by a majority of thirty-five. Perrott looked upon this check as a disgrace to himself and a hindrance to the Queen, and prorogued Parliament for a few days. This enabled him to bring the Bill in again, but it was lost by a reduced majority, although Ormonde’s friends, who had at first opposed, now voted with the ‘ayes.’ Partly by his rudeness, and partly by his determination to prevent jobs, the Lord Deputy had made many enemies, and six Englishmen turned the scale against the Bill. ‘And thus,’ said Perrott, ‘they have not only overthrown the repeal of Poyning’s Act, that should have set them at liberty to treat of that and all other things necessary for this State, but also dashed most of the statutes that were penned in Ireland and sent back confirmed from England, as, namely, that for the safety of the Queen.’[138]
Agitators.
The chief opposition to Perrott’s measures came from the Pale, and among the leaders were Sidney’s old antagonists Richard Netterville and Henry Burnell. ‘These popular fellows,’ said Perrott, ‘or good countrymen, as they would be gloriously termed, have been ever of this humour against all governors, and some of them, namely Netterville and Burnell, have been in the Tower of London for causes of far less moment than this is.’