James II. Sir William Petty. Forfeited Estates. William III.

**Chapter VIII.

**1685-1690.

James II. King - Visits Ireland in 1688 - Summons a Parliament - The King’s Speech - Titles of Statutes - Sir William Petty - Statement respecting Forfeited Estates - William III. King - English Parliament annuls Irish Statutes of King James II.

The number of Catholic lords and gentlemen who took part in the Confederation of Kilkenny, or who were accused of rebellion in 1641, left a great portion of Ireland for distribution among the Cromwellian party and the London capitalists, who advanced money under the provisions of the Adventure Act.

During the closing years of the reign of Charles I., the forces of the Confederation of Kilkenny, authorised, as they believed, by authority from the king, took up arms in his cause, and, under the military skill of the famous General Owen Roe O’Neill and other leaders, fought many battles with varied success. After the death of Owen Roe, as it was believed by poison, and finding the Cromwellian party in England defeated, the Royalists and the Confederates broke up; and when Cromwell overran Ireland, the estates of the Royalists became the prey of his victorious army.

While the Parliament of England took no step to encourage loyal Irish to maintain the right of their king against his enemies, they made laws to destroy industry in Ireland. For this purpose the Act prohibiting the growth of tobacco in Ireland was passed, and more important merchandise was prohibited from being carried in Irish ships to the colonies. Restrictions were also placed on the number of sailors serving on board English ships, only a third of whom could be men of Ireland.

Though no Parliament met in Ireland during the time of Cromwell, Irish members were summoned to England, and attended the English Parliament. Care was taken that those members were of the party in rebellion against Charles I. They made no protest against the despoiling the estates of the loyal Irish who sat in the Confederate councils at Kilkenny, or fought under Owen Roe O’Neill, or other Irish generals, in many a hard-contested battle. While Richard Cromwell remained in Ireland as viceroy, he also sent Irish members of the same politics to the English House of Commons. On the Restoration the first Irish Parliament which met after the Cromwell era of 20 years was held in Chichester House, a large building on Corkhill, Dublin, with plenty of accommodation for Lords and Commons. Though Sir Maurice Eustace was lord chancellor, the Most Rev. John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, was appointed by royal commission the Speaker of the House of Lords, and as such sat upon the woolsack. Sir Maurice Eustace, Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery, and Charles Coote, Earl of Mountrath, lords justices, occupied seats elevated above the peers, over which was a canopy, as a symbol of state. Lord Baltinglas bore the sword of state, Viscount Montgomery the cap of maintenance, and the Earl of Kildare the robe. [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. i. p.370.] To this Parliament only one Roman Catholic was returned, who, with an Anabaptist, was member for Trim. The Speaker of the House of Commons was Sir Audley Mervyn. In his inaugural address the Speaker noticed with approbation the exclusion of the Catholics: “I may warrantably say, since Ireland was happy under an English Government, there was never so choice a collection of Protestant fruit that ever grew within the walls of the Commons House. Your Lordships have piped in your summons to this Parliament, and the Irish have danced. How many have voted for and signed to the returns of Protestant elections? So that we may hope for, as we pray, that Japheth may be persuaded to dwell in the tent of Shem.” [Gilbert’s *History of Dublin, *vol. iii. p.60.]

By the death of Charles II. in 1685, without legitimate issue, his brother James, the Duke of York, was proclaimed king, under the title of James II. This, of course, caused much disgust to those who obtained the estates of the Catholics under the Act of Settlement, especially when they saw Roman Catholics appointed to the bench and other offices hitherto monopolised by Protestants. The change of the Duke of Tyrconnel for Lord Clarendon as lord-lieutenant, and Sir Alexander Fitton, Lord Gawsworth, for Sir Charles Porter as chancellor, increased the fears of the English party. These fears increased when it was known that, after leaving England, the king, queen, and their son sought and found refuge with Louis XIV., and that James II. was resolved to come as king to Ireland. His Majesty was loyally received in Cork in March 1688, and proceeded from Cork to Lismore Castle, thence to the Duke of Ormonde’s castle at Kilkenny, and, amidst the rejoicings of the citizens, on Saturday, 24th March, entered Dublin in great state. The king lost no time in issuing a proclamation for assembling a Parliament in Dublin on May 7th. It is curious to remark that, on the Lords assembling, although there was a tolerably large attendance of Spiritual peers - six Protestant prelates - no Catholic bishops were summoned. One duke, 10 earls, 16 viscounts, 21 barons, with the six Spiritual peers, made 54. These constituted the House of Lords, while the Commons sent 24 members. They met at the King’s Inns, and the king opened parliament in person. This was the only time such an event occurred in Ireland. He wore his royal robes, and the Commons being summoned to the House of Lords, his Majesty delivered the following speech from the throne:-

“My Lords and Gentlemen, - The exemplary loyalty which this nation hath expressed to me at a time when others of my subjects undutifully misbehaved themselves to me, or so basely deserted me, and your seconding my deputy, as you did, in his firm and resolute asserting my right, in preserving this kingdom for me, and putting it in a position of defence, made me resolve to come to you, and to venture my life with you in defence of your liberties and my own right. And to my great satisfaction I have not only found you ready to serve me, but that your courage has equalled your zeal. I have always been for liberty of conscience and against invading any man’s property, having still in my mind the saying in Holy Writ: *Do *as *you would be done to, for that is the Law and the Prophets. *

It was this liberty of conscience I gave which my enemies, both abroad and at home, dreaded, especially when they saw that I was resolved to have it established by law in all my dominions, and made them set themselves up against me, though for different reasons. Seeing that if I had once settled it, my people (in the opinion of the one) would have been too happy, and I (in the opinion of the other) too great. This argument was made use of to persuade their own people to join with them, and too many of my subjects to use me as they have done. But nothing shall ever persuade me to change my mind as to that; and wheresoever I am the master, I design (God willing) to establish it by law, and to have no other test or distinction but that of loyalty.

I expect your concurrence in this Christian work, and in making laws against profaneness and all sorts of debauchery.

I shall also most readily consent to the making such good and wholesome laws as may be for the general good of the nation, the improvement of trade, and the relieving of such as have been injured by the late Acts of Settlement, as far forth as may be consistent with reason, justice, and the public good of my people. And as I shall do my part to make you happy and rich, I make no doubt of your assistance, by enabling me to oppose the unjust designs of my enemies, and to make this nation flourish.

And to encourage you the more to it, you know with what ardour, generosity, and kindness the Most Christian King gave a secure retreat to the queen, my son, and myself, when we were forced out of England, and came to seek for protection and safety in his dominions; how he embraced my interests, and gave me such supplies of all sorts as enabled me to come to you, which, without his obliging assistance, I could not have done; this he did at a time when he had so many and so considerable enemies to deal with, and you see stfll continues to do so.

“I shall conclude as I have begun, and assure you I am as sensible as you can desire of the signal loyalty you have expressed to me, and shall make it my chief study, as it has always been, to make you and all my subjects happy.” [This speech is stated to be printed from an authentic copy in manuscript sold by E. Rede, Dublin, in 1740.]

The king having concluded his speech, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gawsworth, desired the Commons to elect their Speaker. Their choice was Sir Richard Nagle, Attorney-General, a very able member of the Irish Bar. For the first time for many years the House of Commons, with six exceptions, was Roman Catholic, and Plowden says: They were, perhaps, the fairest representatives of the people of Ireland ever sent to any Parliament in that kingdom.” [Hist. Review, vol. i. Appendix, p. 138.]** **We can very well imagine the anxiety with which those who, either by descent, by purchase, or by grants, held the forfeited estates, watched the course of events.

Only the titles of the Acts passed in this Parliament of King James 11. were supposed to be preserved. [Life and Death of the Irish Parliament.] The Acts were publicly burnt, and a heavy penalty was to be imposed on any one preserving a copy. As I have procured the titles of these Acts, I give them here. The public can judge if they were deserving the censure so lavishly poured upon them.

An Act declaring that the Parliament of England cannot bind Ireland, and against writs of error and appeals to be brought, for removing judgments3 decrees, and sentences in Ireland into England.
An Act for repealing the Acts of Settlement and Explanation.
An Act for taking off all incapacities of the natives of this kingdom.
An Act for repealing the Act for keeping and celebrating the 23rd of October as an anniversary thanksgiving in this kingdom.
An Act for liberty of conscience, and repealing such Acts and clauses in any Act of Parliament granted to his Grace James, Duke of Ormonde.
An Act for the encouragement of strangers and others to inhabit and plant in the kingdom of Ireland.
An Act prohibiting the importation of English, Scotch, or Welsh coals into this kingdom.
An Act for vesting in his Majesty the goods of absentees.
An Act for the advancement and improvement of trade, and for the encouragement and increasing shipping and navigation.
An Act for the attainder of divers rebels, and for the preserving the interests of loyal subjects.

We learn from the *Historical Review *by Dr. Ball, p.271, in a very important note in the Appendix, that there were 35 Acts passed, so I have only named the principal. The note also gives the number of acres stated by Sir William Petty as having been restored to the original proprietors. He gives the entire number of Irish acres seized by the usurpers at 5,200,000. Of these, he says, the Roman Catholics got back 2,340,000. While the Protestants, in addition to the property of the Church, he estimates at 2,400,000 Irish acres. The remainder; 460,000 acres, were of course taken possession of by Cromwell’s greedy soldiers; and while the families of the despoiled owners had the chance of recovering them, they got the lord chancellor to grant writs of restitution which authorised the sheriff to eject the intruders, and give back the lands to those who could prove their right to get them back. While Chief Justice Whiteside in our day, and Chief Justice Keating in 1689, considered these proceedings as unjust, because their lands had been acquired either by descent or purchase, and put into family settlements, surely both these learned judges must have been struck with the fact that those whose ancestors had been possessed of the lands for scores of years, and were only deprived of them by their loyalty, had every right to recover them when the turn of events gave them the power.

This power did not last long. William, Prince of Orange, who had married Mary, daughter of James II., was invited to England and made king. He was a brave general, and, invited to Ireland, fought the troops of James at the Boyne, Aughrim, and Athlone. Limerick capitulated, and it must be a reproach to the memory of King William III. that the articles of capitulation were violated.

As no Parliament was held in Ireland during the Jacobite and Williamite war, the English Parliament of 1690 annulled the Acts of the Irish Parliament of King James II.

Now it appears to me that several of these statutes were not only free from injustice and oppression, but likely to be beneficial. Yet they were denounced by no less an authority than the late Right Hon. James Whiteside, who, in reference to this Parliament, says: “This unjust Parliament, which King James packed through Tyrconnel’s art, sat from 7th May till 20th June, and during that period contrived to perpetrate more acts of injustice and oppression than had ever been committed in the same space of time by any legislative assembly in the world.” He refers to Archbishop King’s work, entitled *The State of the Protestants in Ireland under the late King James’ Government *- a work written solely from a most prejudiced point of view, and which the eminent prelate wrote before the natural emotions of joy and exultation for conquest over those who had sat in King James’ Parliament had time to cool. His party contended James was not king when he convened this Parliament.

[I am glad to find my opinion of the much-abused Parliament of King James II. sustained by very good politicians and historians. In the very able work, *Young Ireland, *published by Sir Charles Gavan Daffy, when referring to the contributions of Davis to the *Citizen Magazine, *Sir Charles says: “The Irish Parliament of James II., which has been systematically misrepresented, he made the subject of a careful review, and printed several of its Acts *in extenso, *to vindicate its moderate and practical character.”

Mr. Lecky, the distinguished author, in a note in *The History of England in the Eighteenth Century, *expresses a hope that the notices of James’s Parliament should be republished. Davis contemplated doing so, entitling the work *The Patriot Parliament, *1689, *with the Statutes, Biographical Notices of King, Lords, and Commons, *etc., edited by Thomas Davis, Barrister-at-Law.]

That the English Convention Parliament of 1688 had conferred the Crown of England, Ireland, and Scotland on William and Mary; while on the other side the legality of this Parliament was asserted. It was urged that three constitutional bodies were present - King, Lords, and Commons. That the Commons were duly elected by writs directed to the proper returning officer. The peers summoned, and both Spiritual and Temporal Lords sat in the usual way. Five new creations of peers were, according to Mr. Lynch in his *Legal Institutions, *made legally and in order.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.