Lord Sydney. Oaths exclude Catholics. Treaty of Limerick.

**Chapter IX.

**1690-1713.

Lord Sydney, Viceroy - Parliament in 1692 - Oath excluding Catholics - Viceroy desires to maintain the Treaty of Limerick - Lord Chancellor Sir Constantine Phipps censured by the House of Commons - Defended by the House of Lords - Difference between Lord Chancellor Cox and Privy Council.

Shortly after the arrival of Lord Sydney as viceroy in 1692, a Parliament met in Dublin. As the members, both Lords and Commons, were required to take the oath of supremacy enacted during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, no Catholic could take this oath. In neither the House of Lords nor Commons was any Catholic present. Considerable difference existed between the lord-deputy and the Parliament. The Irish House of Commons insisted on its exclusive right to originate money bills, which the viceroy wished to obtain. When the Irish Parliament asserted their independence, much discussion thus arose respecting the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, and it was asserted that some changes had been introduced after the treaty was signed. There were some efforts made to prevent Catholics being allowed to make claims, and discussion ensued between the Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The viceroy, Earl of Pembroke, opened Parliament on 7th July 1707, and the concluding words of his speech were these:- “My Lords and Gentlemen, In order to the attaining and establishing the safety and welfare of this kingdom, I shall think myself extremely happy if, during my administration, all matters should be conducted with that temper and prudence as may justly entitle you to the countenance of her Majesty’s affections. For my own part, though a great honour to serve in this post, I can profess no satisfaction in it without your happiness and prosperity, the which I shall sincerely endeavour to promote; and hope, but chiefly by your assistance, to secure the good of this kingdom, and show in our several stations that we are united in our affections to each other, as well as in duty to the best of queens.”

Those good intentions of his excellency were insufficient to control the intolerant spirit of the age. Strong remonstrances from the Roman Catholics, who had been dispossessed of their estates by the Act of Settlement and Explanation, had the effect of causing some attention being given to their case. A Court was ordered to be held, but only for a very limited time. By its short sitting and abrupt termination3 over 3,000 claims were shut out; yet this limited justice actually so frightened the Puritan settlers that they formed a conspiracy to seize the Castle of Dublin, and induced several members of the Irish Parliament to join the plot. The castle was to be seized on the 11th May 1663. The viceroy (Duke of Ormonde), when aware of the conspiracy, took prompt action, and defeated the design. Four of the leaders were hanged, and this seemed to break it up. Another plot of the Puritans, in 1671, also was discovered in time to be frustrated.

Of course, in this Parliament, where only one Catholic was returned when the Acts of Settlement and Explanation were passed, [Statutes 14 and 15 Charles II. chap. 2; and 17 and 18 Charles II. chap. 2.] the Catholic owners had no voice. These Acts carried out the provisions of the Act passed in England under the title of the Adventure Act, and restored the estates of the Catholics and Protestants who had remained faithful to the father of King Charles II., and hoped on his restoration to be restored to the properties of which they had been deprived by their fidelity to Charles I.; but the king, finding the Cromwellian interest in Ireland too strong, did not attempt to do justice to the Catholics of Ireland. Thus it was that Cromwell’s partisans had their own way over Ireland. While the forfeited estates of the so-called rebels were being disposed of, the Cromwellian claimants for these estates sent as an agent to London, to get them as they expected, the Right Rev. Dr. Boyle, Lord Bishop of Cork. Through his influence with the English Privy Council, he secured large grants for his party; and though the Irish, who knew they were to be despoiled, also sent some gentlemen to act in their behalf, the bishop had sufficient influence to have them kept aloof from the Privy Council, and they were stigmatised as “the Potato Ambassadors.”

Having triumphed completely over the Irish Royalists, the dominant faction were not slow to reward the bishop. By his exertions, Cromwell’s soldiers, besides sharing the distribution of a large sum of money, although in fact many had fought against, and not for, Charles I., the claims of the Irish Catholics were postponed until those who were in possession of the estates were fully repaid their advances in money, or for their arrears of pay.

On the 24th May 1662 it was ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the present Parliament assembled, that the memorial of thanks to the Lord Bishop of Cork for his services performed in England, be entered in the journal of this House, *in haec verba. *

Upon a report made this day by the Lord Viscount Conway and Lord Viscount Massareene unto this House, of the ample, clear, and undoubted testimony which his Majesty’s lords justices of Ireland have received of the great and eminent services performed both to his Majesty and this kingdom by the right rev. father in God, Michael Boyle, Lord Bishop of Cork, in the late trust he was employed about in England, concerning the Bill for the settlement of Ireland, which hath been eminently carried on and managed by his presence, virtue, and indefatigable endeavours: It is ordered that the said lord bishop, for his effectual endeavours in accomplishing that service, which was committed unto him by the lords justices and council, in reference to the good and settlement of this kingdom, be entered in the journal book of this House, together with the lords justices’ recommendation, to remain to posterity as a mark of honour and testimony of the gratitude of the House to the said Lord Bishop of Cork. [*Lords’ Jour. Ir. *vol. i. p.302.] He had something more satisfactory in £1000 from the king, and large grants under the Act of Settlement. [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors, *vol. i. p.395.]

An English statute, called the Adventure Act, created great offence in Ireland. It was passed really to grant the forfeited lands of the alleged disloyal Irish to such adventurers as would pay into the English treasury money to give pay to the soldiers employed in suppressing the so-called rebellion of 1641. At this time the Confederate Catholics held a council at Kilkenny, which resembled the appearance of a Parliament. It was held on 24th October 1642. There were 11 Spiritual and 14 Temporal peers, and 26 representative commoners. A Speaker presided, and 24 members of supreme council, six from each province, peers and commons, sat in one chamber, not a separate one, but prepared for the Lords when in consultation. Lord Mountgarett was elected president of the Supreme council. [‘Rev. T. O’Hanlon, *Catechism of Irish History, *p.378.]

Besides, the penal commercial customs and navigation restrictions impeded Irish commerce. Not more than one-fourth could be Irishmen on board merchant ships. Importation of cattle or provisions from Ireland was not allowed. Such was the state of the navigation laws, that a ship from an English settlement in America, with colonial produce, was stranded on the Irish coast, the law did not allow the cargo to be landed in Ireland, or to be removed in an Irish ship. An English ship had to be sent for, and although the cargo was required in the Irish market, it could not be delivered in Ireland, without being again re-shipped to Ireland.2

It was the Parliament of William and Mary in England that annulled all the statutes passed in the Irish Parliament of King James II When the Irish Parliament met in 1695, it was occupied with the impeachment of the lord chancellor, Sir Charles Porter, who was charged with taking excessive fees, with favouring Papists against Protestants, and acting partially on various occasions.

Having obtained permission to be allowed to speak in his own defence in the House of Commons, he was allowed to do so, and his defence was so complete, that, on the question put, it was held sufficient without going into any evidence. The chancellor’s acquittal was carried in the affirmative by a considerable majority, the numbers being 121 for, to 77 against, the chancellor.

The Speaker, Rochfort, was much upset at the triumph of the chancellor; and was returning home, when, in Essex Street, Dublin, while the Speaker’s coach was proceeding through that narrow thoroughfare, another coach endeavoured to pass. This coach contained Sir Charles Porter, the lord chancellor, also homeward bound. The anger of the Speaker, excited by the triumph of the chancellor in the House of Commons, was rekindled by the chancellor’s coachman trying to pass, and, letting down the window of his coach, he desired the chancellor’s coachman to keep back. Finding this order unheeded, the Speaker at once leaped from his carriage, seized the reins of the chancellor’s horses, and nearly brought them down. He then directed the Speaker’s mace, which was in his coach, to be brandished in the face of the astonished coachman of the chancellor, declaring he would be run down by his man, and would justify what he did. The chancellor’s coachman then allowed the Speaker’s coach to proceed without further interruption. Next day the lord chancellor brought the matter under the consideration of the peers, alleging the conduct of the Speaker of the House of Commons was an insult to him as Speaker of the House of Lords; but their lordships considered the chance meeting of the coaches in a narrow street could not be regarded as a premeditated insult, and the affair was allowed to drop.

I quite agree with my friend, the late Daniel Owen Maddon, when he says: “To rake up past history for materials to exasperate the politics of the present time is a hateful practice, worthy only of a heartless demagogue or an extravagant fanatic. But there are occasions when it is useful to reflect upon the enormities of the past. And when wonder is expressed why the social state of Ireland is so calamitous, let the history of the country from 1688 to 1829 be examined, and it will appear evident to any impartial or judicious inquirer, that it is unreasonable to expect deep-seated evils can be removed in a single generation, even by the wisest laws or the most skilful statesmen. The operation of the Revolution of 1688, so beneficial to England and to mankind, was ruinous to Ireland.”

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.