Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 3 (of 3), 1660-1690

by Richard Bagwell

FOOTNOTES:

[183] Bonrepaus’ letter of September 4, 1687, and Seignelay’s answer of September 29 in Lingard x. appx. IIII., and other extracts in appx. KKKK. Bonrepaus says: ‘Tyrconnel presse incessament le roi d’Angleterre pour que cela se fasse en moins de temps; et effectivement Sa Majesté Britannique y a envoyé [to Ireland] depuis huit-jours un vaisseau chargé de poudre, armes, et mortiers à bombe.’ Dangeau, January 11, 1686, and May 6, 1687. See also Macaulay, chap. iii. Bishop Cartwright’s Diary, August and September 1687. Barillon to Louis XIV., October 16, 1687, in Dalrymple, ii. 262.

[184] Seignelay’s instructions to Pointis, January 12, 1689, in Campana-Cavelli, doc. 529, and the report in the following month. ‘Quo magis nuda erant castra et fortilitia eo facilius prevideam eos posse ad obedientiam reduci.’—Archbishop King’s Autobiography.

[185] Pointis reported to Louis himself in Seignelay’s presence.

[186] Tyrconnel to James II. January 29,/February 8, 1689, in Campana-Cavelli, doc. 771. Abbé Melani to Grand Duke of Tuscany January 17/27 and February 18/28—‘buonissimo, ma non di quella elevatura che da principio aveva publicata la fama’—‘tranquilla et cosî insensibile’ that he would have stayed in France hunting and praying but for the ‘stimoli’ applied by Tyrone and the French Court, ib. docs. 728, 769. Dangeau’s Journal and Madame de Sévigné’s letters for January and February. On February 2/12 the latter writes: ‘La Reine d’Angleterre a toute la mine, si Dieu le voulait, d’aimer mieux régner dans le beau royaume d’Angleterre, où la cour est grande et belle, que d’être à S^t Germain, quoique accablé des bontés héroïques du Roi. Pour le roi d’Angleterre il y paroit content, et c’est pour cela qu’il est là.’ Vauban’s letter of February 15/25 is in Rousset’s Louvois, iv. 187.

[187] In his letter to Cardinal d’Este, his Queen’s uncle, at Rome, James says: ‘J’espère que Sa Sainteté croira que l’occasion qui se présente de détruire l’érésie avec une armée Catholique n’est pas de celles qu’on doit perdre, et qu’il n’épargnera pas les trésors de l’Église où j’expose si franchement ma propre vie,’ February 14/24, 1689. Campana-Cavelli, doc. 759. Writing to the Cardinal four days later Mary of Modena hopes the Pope’s acts will correspond with his words: ‘quali sole in questa congiuntura non ci bastano,’ ib. doc. 760. In the scarce Hist. de la Révolution d’Irlande arrivée sous Guillaume III., Amsterdam, 1691, attributed to Jean De la Brune is the following passage: ‘Malheureusement pour ce prince nous sommes dans un siècle où l’on comprend que deux et deux font quatre, et que ceux qui renversent et foulent aux pieds les droits et les libertés d’un état n’en sont point les protecteurs et les défenseurs.’ Leopold’s letter, March 30/April 9, is in Somers Tracts, x. 18, and Clarke’s Life of James II. Louis’s policy at this time is discussed by Lavisse, viii. 16. Rousset’s Louvois, iv. 152. For the Pope’s relations to James see Charles Gérin’s paper in Revue des questions historiques, 1876. Both Porter and Melfort were paid by Louis. Melfort took his orders from Croissy and corresponded with him weekly.

[188] Proclamations of February 2 and 25, March 1 and 7, 1688-9.

[189] Bennett’s Hist. of Bandon, chaps. xv. and xvi., besides the plain facts records interesting traditions. ‘During his stay at Cork Mr. Brady, the minister of the place and ten men from Bandon petitioned him (James) for pardon for that town, which he granted, saying, "You may now see you have a gracious king." And when the Earl of Clancarty and Duke of Berwick urged the destruction of that nest of rebels: to the first he said that he was a young man, and to the latter that he was a fool.... Two days after, notwithstanding the King’s pardon to those of Bandon, several were indicted at the assizes, insomuch that 30 or 40 of them fled by this opportunity and came to Bristol, being frightened at the bloody proceedings against one Mr. Brown, who was hanged, drawn, and quartered at the same assizes,’ Full and True Account of the landing of King James at Kinsale ... a letter from Bristol, April 1, 1689. See also a letter from Tyrconnel to MacCarthy, March 10, 1688-9, in Smith’s Hist. of Cork, ii. chap. vii. Exact Relation of the Persecutions, &c., sustained by the Protestants of Kenmare in Ireland, 1689.

[190] Exact Relation, ut sup.

[191] Exact Relation, ut sup. Orpen says eight families were detained by the Irish officers ‘as slaves to work for them at their iron-works, which none of the natives were skilful in.’ Fifteen hundred pounds worth of bar and pig iron was left behind. There is a picture of the ‘white house’ of Killowen in its present ruined state in Fitzmaurice’s Life of Petty.

[192] The rank of the French officers is mentioned by Rousset, but according to Dangeau, Boisseleau was only a captain in the Guards, while Pusignan was already a marechal de camp. Abbé Bronchi to Duke of Modena, March 11/21, in Campana-Cavelli; Rosen to Louvois, March 16/26, ib.; De Sourches, iii., February 5/15 and 15/26. A full and true account of the landing, &c., April 1, 1689. The Marquis de la Fare notes in his memoirs that Barillon realised how he had been duped by Sunderland, ‘et je crois qu’il est mort de regret.’

[193] King, iii., xiii. 2. A Short View of the Methods made use of in Ireland, &c., by a clergyman lately escaped from thence, licensed October 17, 1689, dedicated to Burnet. Smith’s Cork. Leslie in his answer to King says Brown resisted the sheriff and that a man was killed in the scuffle, this accounting for James’s unusual harshness in that case. Sir Lawrence Parsons, who was included in the great Act of Attainder, had defended his own house at Birr. He surrendered it on conditions, and Baron Lynch sentenced him to be hanged, drawn, and quartered for articling with the King, but he did not actually suffer. Howell’s State Trials, xii. no. 364.

[194] Full and true account of the landing, 1689. A Light to the Blind. A Short View of the Methods, ut sup. Avaux to Louvois, April 14; to Louis XIV., April 23.

[195] Louis XIV.’s instruction to Avaux, February 1/11, 1688-9, and March 2/12, and Avaux’s answer, March 17/27. Avaux to Louvois, April 4/14. Louvois to Avaux, June 3/13.

[196] Avaux to Louis, May 27. Writing to Croissy on October 21 he calls Melfort ‘grand fourbe et qui ment plus effrontément qu’aucun homme que j’ai jamais vu.’ For Melfort’s opinion of Avaux, see Pointis on September 5 in Rousset’s Louvois, ii. 214. Afterwards, when Melfort was at Rome, Mary of Modena insisted on his forgiving Tyrconnel. He obeyed: ‘but without a fault to let loose a pack of about fifty nephews against me, besides the females, and all the time protest all manner of friendship and respect for me, swearing he could not tell what could be done when I was gone, to send his Duchess to cry an hour at my lodgings and make me cry too for company, and all this while harbour malice in his heart is horrible,’ Ellis’s Original Letters, 2nd series, iv. 187. ‘The King went to Ireland only in order to go to England,’ Melfort’s memorial of October 20, 1689, in Macpherson, i. 334.

[197] Proclamations of March 25 and April 1, 1689.

[198] Mackenzie’s Narrative. Macpherson’s Original Papers. Avaux to Louvois, March 4/14. Belfast was effectually protected by King James’s Government until Schomberg’s arrival made it no longer necessary, document in Benn’s Belfast, p. 165.

[199] Instructions to Lundy, February 21, and to James Hamilton, February 22, in Mackenzie. Declaration of Union in Walker’s True Account.

[200] Walker’s True Account. Mackenzie says a shot was fired and threats made to burn the gates. Light to the Blind. Avaux to Louis XIV. and to Louvois, April 13/23 and 15/25.

[201] Walker and the author of Light to the Blind substantially agree. Clarke’s Life of James II., ii. 333. Macpherson, i. 186.

[202] Stevens says 1500 English, Scotch, and Irish were landed, but Dangeau (April 20) says ‘plus de quatre mille,’ which must include those in the first fleet. Life of Sir John Leake, chap. iii. Troude, Batailles navales de la France, pp. 189-194. Clarendon and Rochester Correspondence, ii. 45, 65. Captain Mahan observed (Sea-power, chap. iv.) that in spite of Bantry Bay and of the numerical superiority of the French at sea, Rooke never lost command of St. George’s Channel. Schomberg landed unopposed, and ‘the English communications were not even threatened for an hour.’

[203] Stevens, pp. 54-59. Avaux to Louvois, and May 28/June 7 and June 17/27. Stevens followed what was afterwards the mail-coach road from Cork to Dublin by Clogheen, Clonmel, and Callan to Kilkenny. The MS. of his journal in the British Museum has been published with valuable notes by Dr. Robert H. Murray, Oxford 1912.

[CHAPTER LI]
THE PARLIAMENT OF 1689

King James’s Irish supporters. Tyrconnel.

Among James’s advisers during his reign in Ireland Tyrconnel was by far the most important. As a thorough French partisan Avaux supported him, and Berwick, whose sympathies were also French, while noting that he was rich, says he was not accused of getting money unfairly. Anthony Hamilton, who knew him very well, says he did save some property for sufferers by the Cromwellian settlement, and was well paid for his services. His disregard for truth was shown in his dealings with the younger Clarendon and with Mountjoy. The elder Clarendon tells us that he was mixed up in a plot to assassinate Cromwell, and that he had threatened Ormonde with a like fate, since there was no chance of killing him in a duel. He was personally brave, but no soldier. He cursed and swore with a force and frequency remarkable even in that age. As a Gentleman of the Bedchamber he was in the secret of James’s many amours, and was one of the ‘men of honour’ who tried to blast the character of Anne Hyde, notwithstanding which he remained her husband’s trusted servant. James doubted his judgment, even when following his advice. Sheridan is a hostile witness, but his opinion of Tyrconnel has much support from other sources. ‘He was a tall, proper man, publicly known as the most insolent in prosperity and most abject in adversity, a cunning dissembling courtier of mean judgment and small understanding, uncertain and unsteady in his resolutions, turning with every wind to bring about his ambitious ends and purposes, on which he was so intent that to compass them he would stick at nothing, and so false that a most impudent notorious lie was called at Whitehall and St. James’ one of Dick Talbot’s ordinary truths.’[204]

Justin MacCarthy.

Donough MacCarthy, the Muskerry of the Civil War, was created Earl of Clancarty before the Restoration, and after it regained most of his property. He had married Ormonde’s sister, and his third son Justin, who served long in the French army, returned to England with the rank of colonel at a time when the no-popery feeling was at its height. Justin promoted the marriage of his nephew Donough, the fourth Earl, with Sunderland’s daughter. The young lord, though he had been brought up a Protestant by Fell, was not kept safely by him at Oxford, and soon returned to the Church of Rome. His romantic story has been told by Macaulay, and the tale was dramatised by Tom Taylor. His uncle had married Strafford’s daughter, and was thus by several alliances connected with the most powerful people at the English Court. When Charles first entertained the idea of remodelling the Irish army he thought of employing MacCarthy as a fitting instrument. Halifax warned him of the danger of meddling with an army ‘raised by a Protestant Parliament to secure the Protestant interest; and would the King give occasion to any to say that where his hands were not bound up he would show all the favour he could to the Papists?’ Since the Oxford dissolution Charles no longer feared Parliament, and replied that he did not care what people said. He repeated the whole conversation to MacCarthy, which was hardly the way to secure honest advice. Soon after the accession of James, Justin was in command of a regiment at Cork, and became very popular, even with the Protestants of that town. When Clarendon arrived his relations with him were at first quite amicable, but he was more or less in co-operation with Tyrconnel, and a coolness soon arose. He seems to have made love to the Lord Lieutenant’s married sister, which did not mend matters. MacCarthy became major-general in April 1686, when Tyrconnel was made lieutenant-general, and, like him, was sworn of the Privy Council.[205]

Sarsfield.

Patrick Sarsfield resembled Tyrconnel in his great stature, but in nothing else, except that he also was an Anglo-Irishman of the Pale. At the Restoration the estate of Lucan was in the hands of Sir Theophilus Jones, who was protected by the Act of Settlement. William Sarsfield, Patrick’s elder brother, who married Charles II.’s daughter by Lucy Walters, was declared innocent by the Court of Claims, his father having been innocent; and so the remainder was saved. Jones held on at Lucan until he was fully compensated, but ultimately Patrick became his brother’s successor to about 2000l. a year. He served for several years in France, and afterwards in Charles’s guards with the rank of captain. He was always ready to resent any insult to his country or countrymen, and was wounded dangerously in a duel when he seconded Lord Kinsale. Both the principals were lads of twenty. He commanded a regiment after the accession of James, served with distinction at Sedgemoor, helped Tyrconnel to remodel the Irish army, and fought bravely at Wincanton. In Ireland afterwards he commanded the regiment of horse which bore his name and was raised through his influence, and his popularity was boundless. Berwick praises him, though without allowing him much military talent. Avaux had a high opinion of him, and Englishmen acknowledged that he always kept his word. James was inclined to depreciate him at first as having no head, but afterwards saw good reason to better his opinion. It took the joint efforts of Avaux and Tyrconnel to get him made a brigadier.[206]

The Hamiltons.

Of the six Hamilton brothers, Ormonde’s nephews, three survived to take part in this war. They were grandsons of the first Earl of Abercorn, but probably born in Tipperary. George was killed at Saverne, having married Fanny Jennings, who, as Tyrconnel’s second wife, played an important part. Anthony, famous as a courtier, but above all as a writer, was much liked by the Lord Lieutenant Clarendon, and did not approve of the way in which good soldiers were turned out of his own regiment only because they were Protestants. A younger brother, John, was killed at Aughrim, but not otherwise distinguished. Richard was perhaps the most important of James’s Anglo-Irish officers. He fought gallantly at the Boyne, but showed little ability as a general. Melfort disliked the family, and no doubt the feeling was reciprocated. He said Lady Tyrconnel had a black heart, and that both Anthony and Richard deserved to be hanged, the one for running away at Crom, the other for mismanaging the siege of Londonderry. All the brothers had served in France.[207]

Meeting of Parliament.

The Peers.

The Commons.

On May 7 Parliament met according to the proclamation in the King’s Inns, the suppressed Dominican priory where the Four Courts now stand. James wore a crown, and was generally present at sittings of the Upper House, where he was always sure of a majority. The Protestants were indeed two to one on paper, but scarcely half a dozen temporal peers remained in Ireland, and but seven bishops. Primate Boyle, Gore of Waterford, and Roan of Killaloe were excused for infirmity, but four took their seats. Their leader was Anthony Dopping of Meath, who was supported by Digby of Limerick, Otway of Ossory, and Wetenhall of Cork and Ross. James did not venture to summon any prelates of his own Church, for the lawyers knew that it would have a disastrous effect in England. He did create some temporal peers, and could create more if they were wanted. Lord Clancarty, who was under age, was allowed to sit. In the Commons the Protestants were an insignificant minority, for no returns were made from the districts commanded by Londonderry and Enniskillen. In the counties the sheriffs had been appointed by Tyrconnel, and most of the boroughs had been remodelled by him. He sent letters to the returning officers, and nothing more was required. Strafford had done much the same, and in Charles II.’s Parliament there had been no Roman Catholics in the House of Commons. In 1689 Protestant freeholders had for the most part left the country, and in the reconstructed boroughs Protestant freemen were always in a minority. Of the whole number of 230 not many more than 60 bore Celtic names, the rest being of Norman or English origin. Tyrconnel was always accused of favouring the Pale at the expense of the Irish natives, which may in some measure account for the predominance of the Anglo-Irish element. They were all new to parliamentary work, and the King himself instructed them in procedure as far as he could. An assembly of men impoverished by war and by the legislation of the victors, and long excluded from public life, found themselves in power, and were above all things anxious to regain the possessions of their ancestors.[208]

The King’s speech.

James opened the proceedings with a speech in which he thanked the Irish nation for their loyalty, and declared for liberty of conscience. His former attempts to establish it had, he said, unfortunately failed, but he was nevertheless determined that where he had power there should be ‘no other test or distinction but that of loyalty.’ He was anxious to relieve sufferers by the Act of Settlement ‘as far forth as may be consistent with reason, justice, and the public good of my people.’ Nagle, the great assailant of the Settlement, was at once chosen Speaker of the Commons, Fitton the Chancellor and Chief Justice Nugent being summoned to the House of Lords by writ as Barons of Gosworth and Riverston.[209]

Influence of Avaux.

The Land Settlement attacked.

Proposed confiscation.

In his opening speech James handsomely acknowledged his debt to the Most Christian King, without whose help he could never have reached Ireland, and he gave Avaux a copy for transmission to France. He often resented the Ambassador’s arrogance, who, on his part, took no pains to hide his contempt for His Britannic Majesty’s incapacity. But everyone knew that the Frenchman was in power, and that his counsels were all but commands. Many members of the House of Commons wished to thank Louis XIV. directly for the services mentioned in the royal speech, but Nagle said this should be left to the King himself. The great work of the session was the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. James saw that such a revolution would destroy his chances in England; but he was in the hands of the Irish, who would not hear of any compromise. Not only members of Parliament, but the soldiers in the street, said that if he would not restore them to their own, they would not fight to restore him to his. The Commons insisted on total repeal, but there was opposition on one point. Since the Parliament of 1661 much property had changed hands for value, and it was now proposed to confiscate the land and all the improvements. Compensation to Protestant purchasers was scarcely thought of, but there were many Roman Catholics in the same position, and among them two or three judges. The lawyers might have been willing to make allowances, but the ignorant majority of the Commons would listen to nothing. Those who bought forfeited lands, they said, bought stolen goods, and had no rights at all. Within a few days of the opening of Parliament, and while the Repeal Bill was as yet not quite ready, an address to the King was presented by Lord Granard on behalf of the purchasers. It was written by Chief Justice Keating, who showed that the credit of the country and the royal revenues would be destroyed if property legally acquired were to be confiscated without regard to two solemn Acts of Parliament or to the promises of two Kings. The Protestants had already been deprived of their movable goods by the Rapparees, ‘that is, the armed multitude,’ and would be completely and finally ruined if they lost their lands also. ‘The thriving Catholics who were purchasers (as most of the province of Connaught are) are likewise to be turned out of their estates and possessions, and their own and the improvements of those who hold under them utterly lost.... What is to become of the frequent declarations made by the Earl of Clarendon, and the Earl (now Duke) of Tyrconnel, of Your Majesty’s fixed resolutions never to lay aside the Acts of Settlement and Explanation? Why did the judges in their several circuits declare in all places where they sat, unto the countries there assembled, that Your Majesty was resolved to preserve the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, and that they were appointed by the then Chief Governor here to declare the same unto them; from whence they took confidence to proceed in their purchases and improvements, and (with submission be it spoken), if this Bill pass, are deluded.’[210]

Parliamentary independence.

Violence of the Commons.

A Bill for recognition of the King’s title received the royal assent on the fourth day of the session. No difficulty was made about declaring the Irish Parliament independent, nor about annulling all patents conferring office during life or good behaviour, but the Commons would do nothing further until the Act of Settlement had been repealed; and many of the old proprietors seized upon land without waiting for the legal sanction. A Bill introduced into the Lords by Chief Justice Nugent provided that half of the land disposed of by the Acts of Settlement and Explanation should be restored to the old proprietors, but the Commons would have none of it, and insisted on total repeal. A Bill for the desired purpose brought in by Sir Ulick Bourke, member for Galway county, was received with loud huzzas, and read a first and second time on the same day. One member moved that anyone who opposed the repeal was an enemy to King and country; another that the horrid and barbarous law should be burned by the common hangman. But James saw clearly enough that to annul the legislation of his father and brother would be fatal to his chances in England. After consulting Avaux, who saw how Ireland, which he hoped to make a dependency of France, would be impoverished, the King conferred privately with some members of both Houses, and found that he could struggle no longer, but it was agreed that purchasers under the Settlement should have reprisals out of forfeited land. Bishop Dopping made a gallant but vain effort to stem the tide. The King, he said, would have no regular revenue, for the Protestants were already stripped by the Rapparees of all but the bare walls. It was now proposed to take them also, and improving Catholics would be in no better case. ‘The old proprietor comes poor and hungry into his estate, and can pay nothing until his tenants raise it; and the present possessor loses the benefit of his purchases and improvements, and who then is able to supply the necessities of His Majesty? Besides this, in many parts of the kingdom the land is hardly able to pay the King’s quit-rent by reason of the universal depredations that reign everywhere; and can it be imagined but that things will grow far worse when the ablest Catholic merchants, and the most wealthy purchasers of that communion are ruined and undone?’[211]

The Act of Settlement repealed.

In the House of Lords many attempts were made to soften the measure of repeal, but they were as constantly resisted by the Commons, and no other business could be done until the royal assent was given about the middle of June. The Bishop of Meath, with three of his brethren, and four temporal peers, recorded their dissent, James telling them that they must not use the word protest, which had grown up in rebellious times. They were not allowed to set out their reasons. The Acts of Settlement and Explanation, and every transaction growing out of them, were ‘absolutely repealed, annulled, and made void to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatever, as if the same had never been made or passed,’ and the land restored to the representatives of those who possessed it on October 22, 1641, the day before the rebellion broke out. Real property belonging to anyone who had been in rebellion since August 1, 1688, or in communication with those who had, was forfeited without trial and vested in the King. The property of the London companies in Ulster was confiscated. There were some provisos for the relief of a few highly favoured persons, and the King was empowered to grant reprisals in specially meritorious cases. Land formerly belonging to any monastery, and used for public purposes, was vested in His Majesty, to be disposed of to ‘such pious and charitable uses’ as he should think fit. Reprisals to purchasers for valuable consideration might be made out of the forfeitures. All outlawries of the ancient proprietors were reversed. A few Protestants whose titles were older than 1641 might have escaped the operation of the Act, and it was resolved to draw the net still closer.[212]

The Act of Attainder.

The preamble to the Act of Attainder, passed before the end of June, sets out that ‘a most horrid invasion’ had been made by the King’s unnatural enemy, the Prince of Orange, supported by many of his traitorous subjects. To quell this rebellion, Tyrconnel had raised an army, promises of pardon having been given by proclamation to all, with very few exceptions, but this clemency had been without effect. The Act affected some 2400 persons, of whom more than half, from the Primate and the Duke of Ormonde down to yeomen and shopkeepers, whether ‘dead or alive, or killed in open rebellion, or now in arms against Your Majesty or otherwise,’ were attainted of high treason, and subjected to all its penalties, unless they voluntarily surrendered by the 10th of August. Others who had been absent from Ireland, presumably for ‘a wicked and traitorous purpose,’ since November 5, 1688, were given till September 1, while those already living in Great Britain or the Isle of Man had till October 1. Among the latter was Henry Dodwell, the most learned of the non-jurors. A few whose residence had always been in England might surrender there up to November 1, in case the King had then been in that kingdom for a month. A certain number of persons, among whom was Robert Boyle, ‘by reason of sickness, nonage, infirmities, or other disabilities,’ could not come to Ireland, but it was not desirable that their Irish incomes should be paid beyond the channel, and therefore their lands were vested in His Majesty, for the defence of the realm. If they were innocent, they might come over and prove it to the satisfaction of Fitton or Rice, or of the commissioners appointed to execute the Act. A special clause repealed the private Act by which Monck, the chief instrument of the Restoration, had sought to secure his share of the forfeited estates. A royal pardon was to have no effect unless it was enrolled in Chancery before November 1. James afterwards complained that he had been induced to assent to this clause without fully understanding it, and it was indeed as great an act of political suicide as his father had committed when he gave up the power of dissolving the Long Parliament without its own consent.[213]

Extreme harshness of the new law.

Most of the absentees mentioned in the Act stood attainted unless they surrendered in Ireland within a few weeks; none were given longer time than four or five months, and there was no official publication. The earliest list, printed in London, and without authority from the Irish Government, was not circulated till four months after the latest date at which the King could pardon. A few well-known names had been published earlier, but no one could be expected to face Rice or Nugent without accurate knowledge of the position. Commissioners were appointed to carry out this Act and the Act of Repeal, but many of the old proprietors took possession before they were passed. All titles deriving from the Act of Settlement had been annulled, and the refugees could have had nothing even if they returned. Whether the text of the Act of Attainder had been purposely kept secret or not really makes very little difference. It remained in manuscript, though the general drift of it was, of course, quickly known in London. Those concerned were scattered all over Great Britain, and many of them in extreme poverty, having nothing but the little they had been able to carry away. Men who had owned thousands of cattle were living on charity, and in no condition to employ lawyers. And those who had fled for their lives were not likely to trust themselves empty-handed in Dublin. Communication with Ireland was exceedingly difficult, and letters from such Protestants as stood their ground could only increase the distrust of those who had gone. It was evident to all thinking men that the difference between the two Kings and the two Parliaments could only be decided by arms.[214]

Hasty legislation.

Case of Trinity College.

The Act of Attainder was drafted and passed in a great hurry. Many of the persons included are insufficiently described, and the Christian name, so necessary for identification, was often omitted and sometimes wrongly given. This occurs even in the case of several peers. Less known names were given in by the members of the House of Commons, whose accuracy there was neither means nor time to test. Joseph Coghlan, who sat for the University, was called on to give a list of the members of Trinity College, Provost Huntingdon and all but four of the fellows having gone to England, but he said he could not do this without the buttery book, and he took care that the butler should not be found until after the Bill had passed into law. Perhaps the King had had enough of colleges. The power of appeal from the Irish to the English courts of law was taken away by a separate Act, which also declared the independence of the Irish Parliament. Another Act vested in the King the personal property, including arrears of rent and unreaped corn, of persons who had left Ireland, ‘thereby endeavouring to weaken Your Majesty’s interest, and showing an apparent diffidence of Your Majesty’s protection.’ It must be admitted that their fears were well founded, for James was not his own master.[215]

King James is powerless.

Protestant refugees in London.

‘What, gentlemen, are you for another ’41?’ said James to those who would have gone still greater lengths against the Protestants; and we are told that the Irish never forgave him for this speech. More than forty-seven years had passed since the fatal October 23, and it had become the fashion to say that the Puritans or Protestants had been rebels from the first and their opponents the loyal subjects. The parliamentary majority cared little for the Crown unless its wearer would be their very humble servant, while he only thought of how to regain England and Scotland. Avaux, who cared for none of these things, but thought only of thwarting the Prince of Orange by gaining a dependency for France, encouraged the separatist tendency. An Act had been passed in 1662 reciting the events of 1641, and appointing October 23 as an anniversary holy day for ever. That Act was now repealed, but the dreadful memories of the rebellion could not be so effaced either in England or Ireland. James’s old assailant, Thomas Pilkington, who had been cast in 100,000l. damages and spent nearly four years in prison, was now a knight and Lord Mayor of London. With the sheriffs and several aldermen he attended the anniversary service in Bow Church, where the Irish Protestants in London met to hear a sermon from Archbishop Vesey of Tuam, who had been plundered, but did not leave Connaught until he thought his life in danger. The preacher reflected upon those half-hearted Protestants who would fain have submitted quietly, forgetting the past and prophesying smooth things for the future. ‘They were,’ he said, ‘almost made to believe the Paris massacre was a fable by those that affirmed there was no dragoon reformation in France, that the gunpowder conspiracy was a Protestant plot, that the murders in Ireland were committed by the Protestants upon themselves. They were almost persuaded of their great moderation in the use of power, till by the gnashing of their teeth, they saw their grinders.’ While this sermon was being preached in London, Schomberg’s army was still rotting at Dundalk.[216]

Treatment of the clergy.

Two archbishops, seven bishops, and more than eighty other clergymen were included in the Act of Attainder, and the number of those who left Ireland was probably much greater. Those who stood their ground, or who went no farther than Dublin, were reduced to poverty, and three Acts were passed which made their position desperate. By one of these, tithes due by Roman Catholics were made payable to the Roman Catholic incumbents, ‘and to no other person, or persons of whatsoever religion or persuasion soever.’ Impropriate tithes were at first excepted, but by a second Act all such tithes as formerly belonged to bishops and other dignitaries were to be paid by Roman Catholics to the corresponding persons of their own church. The decision as to who was entitled to each bishopric and deanery was left to the King, archdeaconries and other patronage being vested in the bishop or archbishop so acknowledged. Advowsons belonging to Roman Catholics were preserved for the presentation of their co-religionists. A third Act abolished the impost popularly called Ministers’ Money, payable to the incumbent out of household property in corporate towns. In no case was any compensation given. As the Rapparees had stripped them bare, most of the Protestants could do little by voluntary contributions; but they made an effort to support such clergymen as remained at home. ‘Many dissenters of all sorts,’ says King, ‘(except Quakers) contributed liberally to this good end, which ought to be remembered to their honour.’ Apologists for James draw attention to the fact that the word Protestant does not occur in his Act of Attainder, but it was not wanted. He established liberty of conscience by law, but sought help from Rome to destroy heresy with a Catholic army, and in the meantime he had sheriffs, judges, and officials to begin the work.[217]

Commercial legislation.

English coal prohibited.

In considering the dealings of England with Ireland, nothing has been more justly blamed than the commercial restraints imposed by the stronger country upon the weaker. Trade from Ireland to the plantations was forbidden except through England. The Irish Parliament now abolished this restriction, but it was not forgotten that James was still nominally King of England, and therefore colonial goods might be transported in Irish bottoms to Great Britain as well as to Ireland, thus dispensing with English legislation to the contrary. It was recognised that Ireland possessed but few merchant vessels, and the building of more was encouraged by large premiums. Shipwrights and artificers were offered great privileges if they would settle in Ireland, and schools of navigation were to be established at Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, and Galway. But while thus moving in the direction of free trade the Irish Parliament passed another Act prohibiting the importation of English, Scotch, or Welsh coal, on the ground that it prevented the employment of poor people in supplying turf and fire-wood. If, nevertheless, fuel ran short, the Lord Lieutenant might grant licences to bring in a strictly limited quantity on the requisition of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin; thus securing a monopoly to the licensees. It was, however, feared that the proprietors of Irish coal mines, at Kilkenny and elsewhere, might raise their prices; and a maximum was accordingly established in their case. When winter came the shivering soldiers broke into empty houses for the sake of the woodwork, and it became necessary to offer special encouragement to people who would bring coal from Kilkenny to Dublin.[218]

Imperfect records of this Parliament.

Daly’s case.

Scramble for property.

Small revenue from confiscations.

It is not likely that any reports of debates in this Parliament ever existed. The documents concerning it are scanty, for the Parliament of England lost no time in declaring all its proceedings void, and the Parliament of Ireland in 1695 further ordered all records to be destroyed, imposing heavy penalties upon officials for not surrendering those in their keeping. But we have some evidence that the proceedings were disorderly, as was to be expected in an assembly of inexperienced men violently excited by the prospect of regaining the power and property they had lost. Mr. Justice Daly was a Roman Catholic, and strongly Nationalist, but Clarendon had no objection to him except that he thought no native Irishman should be a judge. He was a man of high character, who had made a fortune at the bar and had invested it in land of which the title was derived from the Act of Settlement. His interest was therefore opposed to the repeal of that measure, and he fought hard on the same side as Bishop Dopping. Disgusted by the turbulence of the majority, he declared in private conversation that this was no Parliament, but a Masaniello’s assembly, and that men whose property was taken by the King could not be expected to fight for him. The members were squabbling for estates instead of preparing to resist the Prince of Orange, dividing the bear’s skin before they had killed the bear—‘All the honour we do to His Majesty is by reflecting on his father and brother as wicked and unjust princes, charging them with enacting those laws that were contrary to the laws of God and man.’ This incautious speech was reported to the House of Commons, and articles of impeachment were quickly agreed to. Daly refused to withdraw his words, saying he would rather emigrate to Jamaica. But his friends persuaded him to promise some sort of apology. Edmund Nugent of Carlanstown, who represented Mullingar, was sent to tell the judge that he would be pardoned on submission. Perhaps he thought the proposed apology insufficient; at any rate he announced that there would be a full one, and also that Londonderry was taken. The members cheered loudly and threw up their hats, with shouts of ‘No submission—we pardon him’; but the truth was soon known, and Nugent was threatened with being brought to the bar for playing this trick. The scramble for the property of absentees had begun even before the meeting of Parliament, and it was clearly necessary to make some attempt at order. In March, military officers, acting, or professing to act, by Tyrconnel’s authority, seized the goods of absentees all over the country, but not in Dublin, where the quays were crowded like a fair. Nearly everything of value was sent to England. In May, when Parliament was sitting, the Commissioners of Revenue continued the work of the soldiers by royal warrant. By that time much of the goods already taken had been sold, and the officers concerned, being at the siege of Derry, could not be brought to account. On the last day of the session an Act was passed at the instance of the Commissioners, vesting in the King all the personalty, including arrears of rent, left by absentees mentioned in the Act of Attainder, or who aided and abetted the Prince of Orange. In August, when Parliament had risen, the Commissioners extended their operations to Dublin, but they were instructed not to strip houses or injure trade. The business was so mismanaged, and there was so much dishonesty, that His Majesty had little profit from the widespread ruin. Six months after the passing of the Act Avaux reported that the King had not received, and he believed never would receive, more than one thousand crowns out of confiscated property worth two millions.[219]

French efforts to capture trade.

French wines.

Irish wool.

Avaux did not believe James had much chance of gaining England and Scotland, though the sanguine English Jacobites kept him constantly informed as to the general discontent and as to William’s personal unpopularity. But in any case the ambassador was sure that the complete reduction of Ireland was a necessary preliminary. In the meantime he sought to advance French interests. One plan was to naturalise all Louis’s subjects in Ireland, and a Bill for this purpose passed the House of Commons, but James insisted that the privilege, such as it was, should be extended to all foreign visitors. He was asked sarcastically by members of the Lower House whether Kirke and Schomberg were included, but he had his way. Avaux also sought special terms for French wines, instead of which an Act was passed giving the King general power to regulate the duties on foreign commodities, and he ordered the Revenue Commissioners to remit tonnage and other dues in the case of French importers. By far the most important of Irish commodities was wool, the exportation of which to foreign parts from England or Ireland was felony by an English Act of Charles II. Avaux now proposed to make the export of wool to France free, and at the same time entirely to prohibit its being sent to England. By this means English manufacturers would be deprived of their raw material for the benefit of their French competitors. A Bill for the double purpose found favour with the House of Commons, but the King again interposed, and the ambassador had to be contented with a promise that all French ships should be allowed to take cargoes of wool. The Irish Parliament had declared itself independent, but the English Act remained in force, and the sailors of a St. Malo vessel refused to load the forbidden goods, with the chance of being taken at sea and hanged in England. The Englishman in James was always asserting himself, while he knew that his only effective supporter was the French King. Avaux saw that great profits might be made if these difficulties could be got over, and he offered to share them with Louvois, who administered a dignified rebuke. He would have nothing to say to such traffic, and ‘the King, our master,’ would take it very ill.[220]

End of the Parliament.

The Irish Parliament was prorogued on July 18, and it did not meet again. Londonderry was relieved twelve days later, and Schomberg landed in less than a month. Many of the members had already dispersed to look after the forfeited lands, the repeal of the Act of Settlement and the measures against absentees having exhausted their interest in parliamentary matters. One of the last Acts passed secured 15,000l. a year to Tyrconnel. At least one chief reason for assembling a Parliament was to get money for the war, and 20,000l. a month was voted, but it was hard to collect, and proved quite inadequate. Supporters of James who were not mainly interested in the land question thought the Parliament had done much more harm than good, many officers and the best of the country people being engaged at home and leaving the war to take care of itself. It was evident to every clear-sighted person that arms must decide, not only whether James or William should rule Ireland, but whether the King of England should be King in Ireland also. The pretension of the smaller country to act independently of the greater had been defined by the late legislation, and was evidently incompatible with the facts, nor did James venture to separate the two islands by repealing the law of Poynings. The penal laws that followed are accounted for, though not excused, by the conduct of the native Irish Parliament during its short tenure of power. The treatment of the French Protestants by James’s patron had also done much to embitter the feelings of the victors.[221]

Clever men saw at the time, and everyone can see now, that James’s Irish adventure was hopeless. He thought of Ireland only as a stepping-stone to England, and his French supporters thought only of diverting William’s attention from the Continent, and thus strengthening the position of their own King. The Irish very naturally thought first of regaining their lands, and hoped, with the aid of French power, to hold the country in spite of England. The English colony would have been destroyed if James had been victorious, and the Protestant landowners, who received no mercy from an Irish Parliament, were not likely to show much when their turn came.