Second paragraph of third chapter:
The loyalists of Ireland were far more exposed to suspicion for resisting the royal claim to supremacy over the Church than were those of England. In England, refusal to submit might be regarded as the outcome of loyalty to the pope rather than of disloyalty to the king. In Ireland, those at first called on to conform were the inhabitants of the Pale, and resistance to the law was exceedingly difficult for people with such a strong tradition of loyalty. Disobedience to the king’s laws was their perpetual complaint against the Anglo-Irish outside the Pale, and they hesitated to act in any way which might result in their being identified with the older colonists. Hence their tacit acceptance of the ecclesiastical changes. There was an equally tacit acceptance by those Irish or Anglo-Irish lords who were coerced or persuaded into submitting to the royal authority during the course of the reign. In the actual operation of the new laws can be traced the real attitude of each class in the country.
I have been wondering where the phrase “Church and State” originates as a book title. Robert Dudley Edwards published this in 1935; my father used a similar title, Church and State in Modern Ireland, for his own book on the more recent period. Looking back, I find an 1886 essay by Tolstoy, a mid-nineteenth century Church and State Gazette in England, and an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson about the need for “a wall of separation between church and state”; but I think the inspiration is more likely to be from other historians: A.L. Smith published Church and State in the Middle Ages in 1913, and probably the original use of the phrase in this context is Robert Keith’s The History of the affairs of Church and State in Scotland from the beginning of the Reformation in the Reign of King James V to the retreat of Queen Mary into England in 1568, published in 1735.
I did not know Robin Dudley Edwards, though I saw him in action, heckling shallow Nationalist interpretations of Irish history at a UCD seminar only a few months before he died in 1988. He published this in 1935 when he was 26; it is the book of his PhD thesis from a couple of years earlier. It’s a remarkable piece of research for the day, looking in detail at the records for the efforts by the governments of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I to impose the Reformation in Ireland (and Mary I’s efforts to reverse it).
He concentrates a bit more on the early part of the period, which I am less interested in, rather than the 1560s and after, but I can understand first of all that any writer have more energy for dealing with the earlier bit of research and second that there was simply more going on in the 1530s, 1540s and 1550s in terms of the dynamics of religion and government.
There are two stories here. The first is that the government of Ireland was weak and London was not prepared to put in enough resources to make it effective, so the story of Tudor Ireland is of one chief governor after another failing to make much impact until the very end, in 1603. The second is that the Protestant side was unable to find resources to staff the religious effort; most Irish people spoke Irish, but the state was constrained to operate in English; any sensible rising Protestant evangelist stayed in England where it was safer and the monetary rewards better; and the ability of the state to enforce religious behaviour (let alone belief) even in the most loyal areas was correspondingly weak.
Despite its weight I also found it quite a quick read. I know that much more research has been done on the topic since, but it’s good to go back to basics sometimes. You can get it here (at a price); I was lucky enough to get my father’s copy.
This was the shortest unread book that I added to my shelves in 2018. Next on that pile is New State, Modern Statesman: Hashim Thaçi – A Biography, by Roger Boyes.
