These two descriptions of persons, whose ultimate aim in the former reigns had been to acquire an ascendency over the old native Catholic interest of the country, now began to consider themselves an independent Irish interest: and although the Revolution did not let in the Irish nation immediately to those civil rights and liberties which it imparted or secured to England, yet it enkindled in those who gave into it, a spirit of freedom, which disposed them to insist upon the constitutional rights of Irishmen.

In no sense whatever did the Revolution of 1688 open to Ireland any of those constitutional blessings which were so strongly asserted by it in England. The supporters of the Whig interest in Ireland, differed from those who forwarded the Revolution in England, in principle, in action, and in views. The Irish Whigs of that day were the relics of the Oliverian party, avowing no other principle than that of retaining the monopoly of the power of the few, over the bulk of the nation; acting upon them with arbitrary severity, in order to rivet the whole native power of the country in disgraceful and everlasting thraldom. So deeply rooted was this pseudo Whiggism of 1649, implanted in most of the Irish Protestants of that day, that the lapse of more than a century has not eradicated it. It will be the candid duty of the historian, to trace its progress and operation upon the nation at large, and to discriminate between their political conduct towards their country, and that of another Protestant party, who have from time to time endeavoured to set up the genuine principles of the English Revolution, against the systematic abuse of them by their Protestant opponents in Ireland.* It has been observed by a late respectable historian,† that "the persons whom the king appointed lords justices, dis"covered an arbitrary spirit, and great partiality in the dispen"sation of 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 connivance 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 oppres"sive than in regard to the Irish forfeitures. The most bene"ficial leases were not only retained for themselves and their

• This is the important clue that can alone lead the reader through the intricate mazes of historical misrepresentation, to a fair unbiassed judgment and an unclouded view of the present state of Ireland. Out of this ground of difference arises the modern distinction between the true constitutional Whig and Orangeman of Ireland, to which, in the proper time and order, I must draw the attention of my reader.

† Somerville's History, 1 vol. p. 486.

"friends, but in the competition for estates and farms, the "lowest bidders were sometimes preferred, which unavoidably "led to the suspicion of secret compensation being made them "for flagrant breach of trust. These misdemeanors and the "grievances occasioned by them, produced complaints and dis"affections, 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 industry of pow“erful individuals, who were not themselves free from all ac❝cession to the guilt alleged, prevented any effectual redress of "public abuses, and the punishment of state delinquents."

Lord Sydney having been created lord lieutenant, 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 po parliament in Ireland, except that which sat under James, for the last twenty-six years: and although the parliament of England had undertaken to legislate for Ireland on the most important matters of state, yet had it not proceeded to the extent of raising money directly upon 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 of these measures of government. The commons consented to grant a sum not exceeding 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, were transmitted from England, and laid before the House of Commons. In resentment of this encroachment upon their privileges, they rejected one of them, and from the extreme urgency of the case alone they consented to pass the other; but not without having entered very pointed resolutions upon their journals in support of their rights.* His ex

2 Journ. 28." 21st of October, 1692. Resolved, that it was, and is the sole "and undoubted right of the commons of Ireland, in parliament assembled, to prepare and resolve the ways and means of raising money. Resolved, that it was, and is the undoubted right of the commons to prepare heads of bills "for raising money. Resolved, that notwithstanding the aforesaid rights of "the commons, this house doth think fit, upon consideration of the present "exigencies of affairs, and the public necessity of speedily raising a supply for "their majesties, to order that a bill, transmitted out of England, intituled, "An Act for an additional Duty of Excise upon Beer, Ale, and other Liquors, "be now read: whereupon the said bill was read the first time, and ordered a "second reading to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. Resolved, nemine contra

cellency was highly enraged at these resolutions, and in his speech, upon proroguing the parliament, he severely reprimanded them for having, in contravention of the design of their meeting, undutifully and ungratefully invaded their majesties prerogative. The commons requested permission to send commissioners to England, in order to lay a full and impartial statement of their conduct before their majesties; when they were tauntingly assured by the lord lieutenant, that they might go to England to beg 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 having money bills originate with them. This unexpected and ungracious prorogation created general discontent: several bills of importance remained to be perfected, several grievances to be redressed. Sydney became unpopular; and government found it prudent to recal

him.

Upon the removal of Lord Sydney, the government was vested in three justices, Lord Capel, Sir Cyril Wyche, and Mr. Duncombe. Difference of principle disunited their government, which shortly after was concentred in Lord Capel, as lord deputy. He best knew the disposition and wishes of the English 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 favour, sought impartially to give the 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 to displace all those who thwarted his designs.... Several changes were made in the administration, and a new parliament was convened.

The business of this session was at first undisturbed, and the supplies which had been required, were quietly granted. Several "dicente, that the receiving or reading of the said bill, so transmitted as afore"said, be not drawn into precedent hereafter. 28th of October, 1692. A "motion being made, and the question being put, that a bill now on the table, "intituled, An Act for granting to their Majesties certain Duties for one "Year, might be read, it passed in the negative. Resolved, that the said bill "be rejected by this house. Resolved, that it be entered in the Journal of this "house, that the reason why the said bill was rejected, is, that the same had "not its rise in this house." On the 3d of November, 1692, the lord lieutenant, in a very angry speech, prorogued the parliament, in which he severely reprobated these resolutions, and required the clerk to enter his protest (quod vide in Appendix, No. L.) against them, that it might remain as a vindication of their majesties prerogatives and the right of the crown of England in these particulars to future ages. After two prorogations, this parliament was dissolved on the 5th of September, 1693.

new penal statutes were enacted 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 abridgement rather than a confirmation of them in several instances. Notwithstanding the tide of courtly prejudice against the tendency 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, by which he was accused 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 glorious in the cause of civil freedom were the exertions of our ancestors at the revolution, yet the unbiassed mind must necessarily doubt the purity of their patriotism, when it contemplates the English parliament and government opposing that very liberty in Ireland, which they so zealously supported in England. The fermentation between England and Ireland became alarming. It was no 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 pas sive objects of persecution. The conflict was with that very Protestant ascendency 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

• Such were; An Act to restrain foreign Education, 4 William and Mary c. iv. An Act for the better Securing the Government by disarming Papists, 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, 9 William c. xiii.

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

Whilst this bill was pending, a petition was presented by Mr. Cusac 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. 2 Journ. Com. p. 194.

England, and that Ireland should be more than insensible of its blessings. The Irish legislature was called upon, to surrender and renounce those very rights, which the English parliament had so gloriously asserted. Mr. Molyneux, one of the members for the university of Dublin, a very popular character, was the most forward in the cause of Irish patriotism. In 1698, he published his famous book, intituled "The Case of Ireland's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated," which greatly encreased his reputation, influence and popularity within and without the parliament of Ireland.*

This book was written in a strain of independent discussion and spirited assertion, to which Ireland had hitherto been a stranger. The author considered how Ireland originally became annexed to the crown of England, how far this connection was founded in conquest, what were the true and lawful rights of the conquerors over the conquered, and whether those rights, whatever they might be, extended to posterity indefinitely; and finally, what concessions had been made to Ireland, and what were the opinions of the learned, who had handled the subject: he closed with strong inferences in support of a perfect and reciprocal independence of each kingdom upon the other.

As

The Bishop of Derry, who published his book in 1723, and dedicated it to William Conolly, Esq. the then speaker of the House of Commons, says, p. 138," that this gentleman was allowed by every body, to write like a person "of good parts, good learning, and good breeding: and it was generally thought "an excusable failure in his case, if his zeal for the honour and interest of "his native country sometimes exceeded his knowledge. But it so happened, "that immediately upon the publishing of his book, the English House of "Commons made an humble address to the king, wherein they took notice of

46

dangerous attempts lately made by some of his subjects in Ireland, to shake off "their subjection and dependance upon England, taking also particular notice of "the bold and pernicious assertions of this writer. Hereupon, adds this learned "prelate, several dabblers in English laws and politics, looked upon them"selves as called to arms." The intemperate violence of the English com. mons on this occasion appears from a paragraph in the first form of their address, which upon a second reading was prudently omitted; namely," and "that your majesty would be pleased to order copies of the journals of the last "parliament, and so from time to time of all succeeding parliaments of Ireland, "to be transmitted into England, in order to be laid before the parliament "here, and to discourage all things, which may in any degree tend to lessen "the dependance of Ireland upon England." Eng. Journ. Com. 30 June, 1698. It is singular, that from the surrender of Limerick, no public charge or accu. sation of any attempt to throw off their dependance upon the crown of England was ever raised against the Roman Catholics of Ireland. This charge and interference by the English commons have been ever considered by the Irish, as unwarrantable and unconstitutional. The body of Catholics was in no manner implicated in it. This'publication of Mr. Molyneux was the first effort of notoriety made in Ireland by an Irish Protestant in favour of the civil liberty of Ireland.

As it was upon the principle and admission of such previous independence that the union was ultimately effected, nothing can more forcibly illustrate the mischief of that gross anomaly in politics, imperium in imperio. It is a metaphysical truth, that all independence must be reciprocal: and therefore it becomes a matter of more astonishment, that Mr. Molyneux's arguments