4

1692. justice: the trial of crimes was often conducted in a

summary way; and without regard to the essential
forms of law: evidence was suppressed with the con-
nivance of the judges: the principal transgressors
were acquitted, whilst those who acted under their
direction and influence suffered the extreme vengeance
of the laws. But in no case did the management of
the justices appear more iniquitous and oppressive, than
in regard to the Irish forfeitures. The most beneficial
leases were not only retained for themselves and their
friends, but in the competition for estates and farms,
the lowest bidders were sometimes preferred, which
unavoidably led to the suspicion of secret compensa-
tion being made them for flagrant breach of trust.
These misdemeanours, and the grievances occasioned
by them, produced complaints and disaffections, which
were made the ground of specific charges, presented
to the legislature in both kingdoms. Enquiries were
instituted; important discoveries were made; but the
extreme intricacy and tediousness of this business, the
private concerns of the parties in England, and the in-
dustry of powerful individuals, who were not them-
selves free from all accession to the guilt alleged,
prevented any effectual redress of public abuses, and

the punishment of state delinquents.”
Lord Syd- Lord Sydney, having been created lord-lieutenant,
venes a par- immediately issued writs and convened a parliament ;

the primary object of which was to raise supplies to
discharge the debts contracted during the war. There
had been no parliament in Ireland, (except that which
sat under James) for the last twenty-six years : and

liament.

although the parliament of England had undertaken 1692
to legislate for Ireland on the most important matters
of state, yet had it not proceeded to the extent of
raising money directly upon the people of Ireland:
The Irish parliament could not be insensible of the
encroachments made on their independence; they felt
their consequence, and manifested by their conduct
their resentment against the measures of government.
The commons consented to grant a sum not exceed-
ing 70,000l, pleading the inability of the people from
the calamities of the late wars to encrease the grant.
They considered it to be their indisputable right to
determine in the first instance both the sum and the
manner of raising every supply granted to the crown.
In violation of this privilege, two money-bills, which
had not originated with them, had been transmitted
from England, and laid before the house of commons.
To resent this encroachment upon their privileges,
they rejected one of them, and from the extreme
urgency of the case alone consented to pass the
other ; but not without having entered very pointed
resolutions upon their journals in support of their
rights*

His excellency was highly enraged at these resolu.' Lord Syd-
tions, and in his speech upon proroguing the parlia- mands and
ment severely reprimanded them for having, in the parlia
contravention of the design of their meeting, unduti-
fully and ungratefully invaded their Majesties prero-

ney repri.

ment.

2

1693. gative. The commons requested permission to send

commissioners to England, in order to lay a full and impartial statement of their conduct before their Ma. jesties; when they were tauntingly assured by the lord-lieutenant, that they might go to England to leg their Majesties' pardon for their seditious and riotous assemblies. The lord-lieutenant, in justification of his conduct, procured the opinion of the judges against the right which the commons claimed of origin. ating money-bills in their house. This unexpected and ungracious prorogation created general discontent: several bills of importance remained to be perfected, and several grievances to be redressed. Sydney became unpopular; and government found it prudent

to recall him. Sydney re. Upon the removal of Lord Sydney, the governChanges in ment was vested in three justices, Lord Capel, Sir mene, and a Cyril Wyche, and Mr. Duncombe. Difference of

principle disunited their government, which shortly after was concentered in Lord Capel, as lord-deputy. He best knew the disposition and wishes of the Eng. lish cabinet, and warmly espoused the interest of the English settlers, and as eagerly opposed the claims of the Irish under the articles of Limerick. Sir Cyril Wyche and Mr. Duncombe, regardless of court-faa vour, sought impartially to give full effect to the articles of Limerick, upon which the court-party and the protestants in general looked with a jealous eye, as prejudicial to their interest. The inflexibility of Wyche and Duncombe soon worked their removal : and the accommodating zeal of Capel enabled him te

called.

the govern

new parlia. ment convened.

displace all those, who thwarted his designs. Several 1695. changes were made in the administration, and a new

parliament was convened.

The business of this session was at first undis- New session of parlia

turbed, and the supplies, which had been required, were quietly granted. Several penal statutes were enacted, without any opposition, against the catholics; some of which were in direct contravention to the articles of Limerick. Yet a law was made in this parliament for the confirmation of these very articles†; but which in fact was an abridgment, rather than a confirmation of them in several instances. Notwithstanding the tide of courtly prejudice against the tend

* Such were, An Act to restrain foreign Education, 7 William and Mary, c. iv. An Act for the better securing the Government, by disarming Papists, 7 William and Mary, c. v. An Act for banishing all Papists exercising any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and all Regulars of the Popish Clergy out of the Kingdom, 9 William III. c. i. An Act to prevent Protestants intermarrying with Papists, 9 William, c. iii. An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors, 10 William, c. xiii.

† An Act for the Confirmation of Articles, made at the Sur render of the City of Limerick, 9 William III. c. ii.

ment, in

which Sir

Charles Por spicuous for

ter was con

his probity.

Whilst this bill was pending, a petition was presented by Mr. Cahusac and some few, on behalf of themselves and others comprised in the articles of Limerick, setting forth, that in the bill there were several clauses, that would frustrate the petitioners of the benefit of the same: and, if passed into a law, would turn to the ruin of some, and the prejudice of all persons entitled to the benefit of the said articles, and praying to be heard by counsel to the said matters: which having been presented and read, it was unanimously resolved, that the said petition should be rejected. II Journ. Com. p. 194.

1695.

ency and observance of these articles, Sir Charles Porter, the chancellor, nobly dared to stand up in support of them.

This conduct of the chancellor brought upon him the whole vengeance of the castle. The lord-deputy is reported, with the assistance of his friends and creatures, to have procured a charge to be fabricated against him, accusing him of designs hostile to government. In support of the accusation, a motion was made in the House of Commons, but on being heard in his own justification, he was most honourably acquitted.

However strenuous in the cause of freedom our ancestors may have been at the revolution, the unbiassed mind questions the purity of their patriotism, when it contemplates the English parliament and government opposing that very liberty in Ireland, which they sa warmly espoused in England. The fermentation of the two kingdoms became alarming. It was na longer a contest between a conqueror and an oppressed people reclaiming their natural, civil, or religious rights. The bulk of the nation was so dispirited and reduced under their sufferings, that their feeble moans were scarcely heard on their own shores, much less across St. George's Channel : they existed only as the passive objects of persecution. The conflict was with that very protestant ascendancy in Ireland, which it had been the primary policy of the English cabinet for the last century to establish, and which now only had been effectually accomplished. It was impossible that civil liberty should make the progress it did in England, and that Ireland should be more