Life of Lord Chancellor Porter.

**

Chapter XXVIII.

Life of Lord Chancellor Porter From His Birth Till His Removal By King James II. **

It was the lot of Lord Chancellor Porter to hold the Great Seal of Ireland during a very eventful period. Of his early career I have not been able to find much trace, but he was born in England about the year 1640, and his man family held such a position in society as made him well and favourably known to the chief political leaders of the time. These circumstances are plain from the State letters of the Earl of Clarendon. Charles Porter was descended from an ancient and respectable family in Cumberland, and he was a law-student when the inauguration of Serjeants was celebrated by feasts, at which the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of the Council, with other noblemen were present; when the Judges and old Serjeants in their scarlet robes emulated the crimson gowns of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, who also attended. Mr. Porter was admitted a law-student to the Middle Temple October 25, 1656, and called to the Bar in 1660, when Mr. Foss deplores ‘the absurd use of an unknown tongue was renewed and continued to be employed for seventy years longer.’ [Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 3, 4; 4 Geo. 11. c. 26; 5 Geo. II.] Some time after Mr, Porter was called to the bar, a singular robbery disturbed the repose of Westminster Hall. In 1677, the Lord Chancellor’s mace and two privy purses were stolen out of the Chancellor’s (Lord Nottingham’s) house. The robbers missed the Great Seal, as his Lordship had it under his pillows. Five of the gang concerned in this audacious outrage were convicted, and one of them, named Sadlier, was hanged at Tyburn. [Foss’s Judges of England.] At this period the barristers must have been used to early rising, for the Courts opened at eight o’clock in the morning and sat until noon. Mr. Porter was a very hardworking man, and soon was in good practice. Lord Nottingham, an admirable equity lawyer, held the Great Seal, and some of the most beneficial enactments of the legislature were the result of the law reforms then made in Parliament, The ‘Statute of Distributions,’ [22 & 23 Car. II. c. 10, Eng.; 7 Will. III. c. 6, Ir.] for disposing most justly of personal property in cases where no disposition was made by will. The ‘Statute of Frauds’ for regulating contracts and forms of making wills [29 Car. II. c. 3, Eng.; 7 Will. III. c. 12, Ir.] were among the most valuable Statutes passed. Also the Second Magna Charta of English freedom, under which personal liberty has received an amount of protection beyond what inhabitants of Continental nations can boast, and which, alas! has been so often suspended in Ireland, ‘The Habeas Corpus Act.’ There were also improvements going on *pari passu *in the juridical system, the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was established in appeals from Courts of Equity as well as of Courts of Law. This was not settled without considerable difficulty, as I will now relate:-

Some time after Mr. Porter was recognised as an able lawyer, occurred those famous cases in England which made as great a stir among the legal circles of England as Sherlock *v. *Annesley [Post.] did afterwards in Ireland. Sir Nicholas Crispe and others *versus * Delmahoy, M.P., was one of them, and the question involved was, the right of the House of Lords to hear appeals from courts of equity. The jurisdiction in cases at common law was unquestioned, for writs of error had been brought from judgments in the law courts for centuries, but appeals in equity were unusual, and the right of them was questioned. In the appeal of Dr. Shirley *v. *Sir John Fagg, a member of the House of Commons, the Commons resolved ‘That the proceedings thereupon was a breach of the undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and the House desired there might be no further proceedings in that cause before their Lordships.’ While the controversy was raging with violence between the Houses, a report was made to the Commons, April 19, 1675, respecting an appeal brought by Crispe and Crispe, against the decree in Chancery, wherein Mr. Dalmahoy, M.P., was recited to be one of the petitioners, and certain Counsel were subsequently reported as having been ordered by the House of Lords to open and manage the said cause on behalf of Sir Nicholas Crispe.

The Counsel named were, Sir John Churchill, Serjeant Peck, Serjeant Pemberton, [Afterwards Chief Justice, first of the King’s Bench then of the Common Pleas, Westminster.] and Mr. Porter. The danger of prosecuting the appeal, in the then temper of the House of Commons, being represented by the petition of the appellant to the House of Lords, the Lords ordered, ‘That the appellants, their Counsel, agents or solicitors, or others employed in prosecuting the said appeal before their House, be privileged until the appeal was determined by their Lordships. And all persons whatsoever were prohibited from arresting or imprisoning any of them. Mr. Porter and other counsel, on the order of the House of Lords, having argued the case at the bar, were respectively summoned by the Speaker of the House of Commons to attend and ‘give an account to the House of their appearing at the bar of the House of Lords in the prosecution of an appeal in which Mr. Dalmahoy, a member of the House of Commons, was concerned, in manifest breach of the order of the said House, and for giving up, as much as in them lay, the rights and privileges of the Commons of England.’

Mr. Porter and his colleagues excused themselves by stating ‘they had no notice of the order of the House, but what they heard in casual conversation; that because Mr. Dalmahoy, a member of Parliament, was a party, they, repeatedly refused to appear as counsel or to accept their fees, but they were assigned counsel, and ordered to attend at their peril. That then attending, and Mr. Dalmahoy having pleaded in the Lords House, and not insisting on his privilege, they conceived they might safely appear as counsel, without invading the rights or privileges of the House of Commons, which they never intended, and submitted themselves to the pleasure of the House if they had misbehaved themselves.’ Being ordered to withdraw, the question was put, ‘That they be taken into the custody of the Seijeant-at-Arms attending this house.’ [During the debate on this motion some ladies were in the gallery peeping over the gentlemen’s shoulders. The Speaker seeing them called out, ‘What boroughs do these ladies serve for?’ To which Mr. William Coventry replied, ‘The Speaker’s.’ Sir Thomas Littleton said, ‘The Speaker might mistake them for gentlemen with fine sleeves, dressed like ladies.’ Says the Speaker, ‘I am sure I saw petticoats.’ - 4 Cobb, *Parl. Hist. * 732.]

The House divided - for the yeas, 154; noes, 146. Mr. Charles Porter and the others were then ordered to be taken into custody of the Serjeant, for breach of privilege of the House.

When the House of Lords was aware of what had occurred, they appointed the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Bridgewater, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Lord Holles to draw up an order in this extraordinary case, which was done by the Lord Privy Seal. It recited the imprisonment of the Counsel for doing their duty at the Lordship bar, and ‘judging it to be a great indignity to the King’s Majesty in this his highest Court of judicature in this kingdom, and an unexampled usurpation and breach of privilege against the whole House of Peers, and tending to the subversion of the Government, and a transcendent breach of the liberties of the subject, which is not to be impeached but by process of law,’ ordered the Usher of the Black Rod to repair to the prison where Mr. Charles Porter, counsellor-at-law, and the others were detained in custody, and demand their delivery without fees; and the said Usher was empowered to call all persons necessary to his assistance, and to make return the following morning by eight of the clock to this House. [The order was addressed, ‘To the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod attending this House, his deputy and deputies, and to all mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and other His Majesty’s officers and loving subjects, who are for aiding and assisting in the execution hereof.’ - 6 *State Trials, *1148.]

By the report of the Usher of the Black Rod it appeared, that only Sir John Churchill was in the custody of the Serjeant-at-.Arms, and the Usher took him from the Serjeant. The latter functionary, in reply to the inquiry of the House of Commons respecting the other counsel, stated ‘that he was by force prevented from arresting them, and they had escaped.’ On which it was resolved ‘he had betrayed his trust, should be committed to the Tower, and an address presented to the King to appoint another Serjeant-at-Arms.’

The Commons resolved not to yield, so, being apprised that Mr. Porter and the other members of the Bar were attending in the discharge of their professional duties in Westminster Hall, they ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to go with his mace into Westminster Hall, and take the learned counsel into custody. We can well imagine the scene which the quiet Court of Chancery presented on that bright June morning, a.d. 1675, when the argument which Mr. Porter was addressing to the Master of the Rolls and two Masters in Chancery, sitting for the Chancellor, was abruptly cut short by the Serjeant of the House of Commons telling him ‘he must consider himself in custody, and accompany him to the House of Commons.’ Mr. Porter refused, stating ‘he was under the protection Mr. Porter of the House of Lords;’ but the Serjeant replied, ‘If he arrested. did not go quietly, he should, however unwilling, be compelled to use force.’ Mr. Porter then acquiesced, asking leave ‘to finish his argument.’ This the Serjeant could not permit. The Serjeant also laid his hand on Sir John Churchill, who was within the bar before the Master of the Rolls. Sir John read the protection of the Lords, which he also contended was sufficient, but the Serjeant held not. He then applied to his Honour the Master of the Rolls for protection, who declined to interfere; but stated ‘he was very sorry to see that he was so carried away in the face of that Court, where his Majesty was always taken to be personally present.’ The Serjeant subsequently brought his prisoners - namely, Serjeant Peck, Serjeant Pemberton, Sir John Churchill, and Mr. Porter by water, through Sir John Collin’s garden, to the Tower, and left them in custody of Sir John Robinson, Lieutenant of the Tower.

When these proceedings were detailed in the House of Lords, by Lord Lovelace and others, their Lordships ordered the arrest of Serjeant Topham for taking the learned Counsel into custody, and directed the Usher of the Black Rod to demand their release. The Usher, accordingly, took boat, and on going up stairs in the Tower to the apartments of the Lieutenant, he found that officer obtain with his legal captives. Then taking his Black Rod in one hand and the Lords’ warrants in the other, the Usher commanded him, ‘in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, to deliver up the prisoners.’

But the Lords Spiritual and Temporal did not obtain compliance with this demand, The Lieutenant replied, ‘That they were committed by order of the Commons, tenant and that he could not release them without their order; and if the Lords did commit any to him, he could not release them without their Lordships’ order.’ [State Trials, vol. vi. p. 1160.]

The Lords presented an address to the King, requesting his Majesty to remove the Lieutenant. This, however, the King refused, and made a speech complaining of the quarrels of the two Houses, which obliged him first to prorogue, then to dissolve the Parliament. This put an end to the imprisonment of Mr. Porter and the other Counsel. The affair had the effect of bringing the imprisoned Counsel into notice, and making them objects of sympathy with their brethren of the Bar. Several of them quickly rose to high positions. Serjeant Pemberton became Chief Justice of the King s Bench, and Mr. Porter, who was knighted, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The state of parties in England and Ireland on the death of Charles II. and accession of his brother, under the title of James II. (one of the most unfit men to whom the liberty of any people could be intrusted), will be considered in my next Chancellor’s life. I therefore refrain from alluding to the subject here.

The selection of Sir Charles Porter to succeed Archbishop Boyle, Lord Chancellor of Ireland for twenty years, was made by James II. in January 1685-6. At this time the Irish Viceroy was the Earl of Clarendon, eldest son of Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor of England. The Viceroy was born in 1638, and, in his seventeenth year, he was employed by his father in writing State letters in cipher upon the King’s business. While thus engaged he was so discreet as well as faithful, that nothing ever was discovered by him. In 1660, he married Theodosia, daughter of Lord Capel, and was appointed Lord Chamberlain to Catherine, Queen of Charles II. His attachment to the Duke of York brought him into Court favour, and he was made a Privy Councillor in 1680. On the accession of King James II. to the throne, in February 1684-5, he was appointed Lord Privy Seal, and in the December of that year constituted Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. While filling this important, and at the period most trying office, he corresponded very frequently with the King, the Lord Treasurer Rochester, his brother, and the Prime Minister, the Earl of Sunderland. [These letters are published, together with the Diary for the years 1687-8-9 to 1690. Dublin, MDCCLXV.] These letters throw a great light upon the events of that period, and show how earnest was the desire of James II. to allow his Irish Roman Catholic subjects a full and free participation in the offices and emoluments of the Government. They had been for so long a period habitually excluded from Court rights, that his attempts to do this was resented as an injustice to the Protestants; and no Protestant writer of II that, or indeed any subsequent, time can forgive the King for acts which, thank God, in our day do not challenge remark. Whether he would have acted more prudently had he lived in the present time, is difficult to surmise; but the Irish Roman Catholics at least must remember him with gratitude,

In referring to the rumour which reached Dublin, of Sir Charles Porter succeeding Archbishop Boyle as Lord Chancellor of Ireland the Earl of Clarendon, in a letter to his brother, the Lord Treasurer, [Earl of Rochester] says:- ‘You and I know him, and his talent every way; therefore I will say nothing of him but this, that he will be mistaken if he thinks to make his fortune by the employment. The King’s allowance upon the establishment is 1,000l. per annum; and the office does not bring in besides above six or at most seven hundred a-year, which is no great wealth for a man who has but a very small estate of his own, considering the figure he ought to make. The Primate lives as nobly, and as much like a gentleman throughout, as ever I knew any man in my life. But the change is resolved, and there is an end.’ It is plain the Viceroy was averse to the proposed change, and was very unwilling that his venerable friend, the Primate, should be deprived of the office he filled with ability and purity for so many years.

The rumour as to the change in the Irish Chancellorship proved well-founded, the octogenarian Boyle yielded up the Seal, and in the month of April, 1686, Sir Charles Porter arrived as Lord Chancellor of Ireland. When the news was communicated to the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Clarendon, that the yacht, with the Lord Chancellor on board, was moored at Dunleary, [The port is close to the town now known by the royal designation of Kingstown, from whence King George IV. took his departure from Ireland a.d. 1821.] his Excellency immediately sent his coach to convey him to the Castle, which was done so promptly that he arrived by ten o’clock a.m. He was the bearer of the usual letters from the King - one constituting him Lord Chancellor, the other to the Ex-Chancellor, Archbishop Boyle, directing him to hand the Great Seal to the Lord Lieutenant.

The patent for the Chancellor’s appointment being ready, his Excellency convened the Privy Council for three o’clock, at which Sir Charles took the oath, and had the Seal delivered to him by the Lord Lieutenant. He received much hospitable attention from Lord Clarendon, and his statement that ‘the King was resolved not to have the Acts of Settlement shaken,’ gave the Protestants of Ireland great satisfaction and peace of mind, To the Viceroy himself this was welcome news. He evidently had misgivings on the subject; when writing to the Lord Treasurer of England, Lord Clarendon says : - ’ This declaration does me good; for now all the discourse of the town is:- ‘You see, my Lord Lieutenant told us true, and the King will have the Acts of Settlement preserved, notwithstanding what the Irish talk of their interest at Court.’ My Lord Chancellor has said to these, who have asked him, whether there should be any alteration of the Judges (which, he told me, had been very many) that he knows nothing of it; that he had heard it spoken of in England, but that it was not resolved on; and he did believe there was some stop in it: and yet, he told me, he had been assured here that Mr. Nugent had made his robes; to which I said nothing, but smiled. But it is very true when I writ to my Lord President of the reports here, and named Mr. Nugent in that letter, he had then actually made his robes; if the word may be taken of the draper, who sold the cloth, and of the taylor, who made them. There are those here who have been so inquisitive as to inform themselves thus narrowly.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 149. I fear the inquisitive people were not confined to the seventeenth century.]

Reports were in circulation for some time that several of the Irish Judges had incurred the King’s enmity, and at a period when the term of office was during pleasure; this portended a change. Judge Johnson was one of those mentioned. He is praised by the then Lord Lieutenant, [Clarendon’s State Letter, vol. i. p. 139.] and with apparent reason:- ‘I am very sorry he is under estimate the King’s displeasure; as I shall be for any man who falls under that great unhappiness. He came into Ireland with my Lord Chief Justice Smith, when he first came hither, one of the Commissioners of the Court of Claims; and under his favour and countenance he grew up. He is the eldest Judge in this kingdom, having sat for sixteen years on the bench. Whatever faults he may be guilty of, I dare say disloyalty was never yet laid to his charge.’ ‘As for other Judges here, whom his Majesty is displeased with, my Lord President has named to me Sir Richard Reynells and Sir Standish Harstowne. For the first I can say nothing knowingly, but what all the world knows, that he is a very able man. He came over hither a young man, five or six years before the King’s restoration. He has got a very good estate purely by his practice in the law before he was a Judge. He is of the Council, as much with the Irish as the English, and so he will again, when he is out, in all probability. In his station as a Judge no man can carry the prerogative higher than he does, no man can make greater professions of duty and loyalty to the King. As for Sir Standish Harstowne, I can say nothing but from my own observation of his behaviour in the place he is as a Baron of the Exchequer; where the King is more immediately concerned than in any other Court, and he certainly understands the business there perfectly well, and, by all that appears to me, does his duty very well.’

Neither the Viceroy nor the Lord Chancellor approved of the changes which the King resolved to make among the Irish Judges. Especially promoting Mr. Nugent, whom the Lord Lieutenant considered a man very unfit for the judicial bench. The Chancellor being so recently arrived was desirous of ascertaining the estimate his Excellency had formed of this barrister, and inquired, ‘Was his Lordship acquainted with him?’ His Excellency replied, ‘Very slightly; that he had been only a few times with him on ordinary business.’ When the Chancellor observed, ‘He is a very silly fellow, and grows very troublesome.’ The Lord Lieutenant had a better opinion of Mr. Daly, who was raised to the Common Pleas Bench on the removal of Judge Johnson. Writing to the Lord Treasurer, he says:- ‘Mr. Daly seems a sober man; he has the character of one of the best lawyers of that, (the Catholic) party, there being, in truth, but three above or equal to him - Nangle, Garret Dillon, and Stephen Rice. He is reputed a modest man; he is perfect Irish, of old Irish race; he is very bigoted and national, and yet all he is worth in the world is of his own acquiring, and but little. He was bred a clerk to Patrick Darcy, a man famously known by all who knew anything of the late wars in this kingdom.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 162.]

The changes contemplated were made - Sir Richard Changes Reynell was displaced from the King’s Bench, and Thomas Nugent, King’s Counsel, succeeded. [Patent, Dublin, April 23, 1686.] He was speedily promoted, for, in the January following, Sir William Davy was removed from the Chief Justiceship of the King’s Bench and, Nugent put into his place; while Sir Bryan O’Neill, Bart., succeeded Nugent as Puisne Judge. In the Common Pleas Judge Johnson made way for Denis Daly. In swearing the new Judges, who were Catholics, the Oath of Supremacy was dispensed with by the King’s letter. This occasioned some disquietude to the Viceroy, who, fearing it might be charged against him as a breach of the law, desired that the King’s letter should be entered at the Signet Office, at Whitehall, as his warrant for so acting. [State Letters, vol. i. p. 163.]

On receiving the news of the proposed change, the Viceroy sent for Sir Richard Reynell, who at once waited on the Lord Lieutenant; and the account of the interview is so creditable to the Ex-Judge that I cannot omit it. When the Viceroy informed him of the King’s pleasure he replied, ‘That he very cheerfully submitted, and should always do so whatever determination his Majesty might make concerning him. He said his religion and his profession had taught him loyalty to the King, and he practised it ever since he was in a capacity for doing so, and if he knew what was most acceptable to the King, he would show his duty by doing it.’ He then asked, ‘If he might return to his practice?’ The Viceroy replied, ‘He knew nothing to the contrary, and that his Majesty did not concern himself what his subjects did or what callings they betook themselves to, as long as they behaved themselves dutifully.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 164.]

Character Sir Charles Porter, says Smyth, [Law Officers of Ireland.] ‘was a loyal gentleman of agreeable and social manners, but equally destitute of legal talents or private fortune. The former defect it was thought must render him subject to the management of Popish Judges, and the latter necessity insure his acquiescence in the most criminal measures; his integrity, however, proved superior to personal distress, and once more made him a poor and private man,’ But I must not anticipate events, The King resolved to supply him with a modest income, by ordering him a pension of 1,500l. the the place of Chancellor being not worth, viis et modis 500l. per annum, and a man must live in a handsome way, or else he will hear of it. The Chancellor took Sir John Cole’s house in the Strand, at 100l. a-year. This sum was considered high for a house near Dublin. [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 170.] The business of the Court was sufficient to show the Chancellor a better judge than he got credit for, and he was courteous and social with the members of the Irish bar.

Notwithstanding the assurances that the Act of Settlement would not be disturbed, it was so generally known to have been obtained by such glaring injustice, and worked so much suffering to the loyal and staunch Irish Catholics, who were steady supporters of the house of Stuart, that the new possessors of the estates of the Irish nobility and gentry were anything but easy in their minds. The Earl of Clarendon strongly advised the English Government to issue a Commission for settling the Irish estates, He urged ‘that this, more than anything else that can be thought of, would settle the minds of the kingdom, and raise a very considerable sum of money.’ ‘This,’ he stated, ‘was the opinion of not only English, but Irish Catholics; for all men of that religion who have estates, are either confirmed in their old possessions or in their new acquisitions by the Act of Settlement, and they are as much afraid of a breach upon these Acts as the new-interested English, and would give anything to be secured.’ The Lord Chancellor was of time same opinion, and consulted several of the most eminent men at the Irish bar, who regarded it as the best means of quieting the distrust which existed. They added, *‘it will not please all, *for ‘there are some of both parties who will not like it; but they would not like any settlement.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 177.] *

*The Lord Chancellor was not above asking places for his relatives. The promotion of Mr. Rice placed the office of Counsel to the Revenue in the gift of the Lord Lieutenant, on which the Chancellor asked it for his brother, but was refused, as his Excellency and the Lord Treasurer had already notified that Mr. Pyne should be appointed to the vacancy. The Chancellor then said, ‘He would have done; but Mr. Pyne was a bad man, and a very great Whig.’ Let us hope the terms are not synonymous.

When the subject of the New Commission of Grace was discussed between the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Justice Keating, the latter strongly recommended that the Commissioners should have no salaries. [Ibid. p. 195.] ‘If the Judges were employed,’ he said, ‘they had good salaries from the King, and were bound to do him all the service they could; and, if salaries were allowed, there would be many pretenders for the salaries only, and some might get in who did not understand the business.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 225.] The names of Roman Catholics selected as Members of the Privy Council caused considerable sensation in Dublin Castle. The new Judges were Catholic, as was also Mr. Richard Nagle, or Nangle, as the Lord Lieutenant writes the name. This gentleman was a very eminent member of the Irish bar. Writing to the Lord Treasurer, his Excellency thus alludes to these new appointments, ‘The truth is, between you and me, it is a very ridiculous thing to make a puisne Judge of every bench of the Privy Council, and was never done but in Sir R. Reynell’s case, because of his great ability, and being put by from being Lord Chief Justice. The poor men are almost out of countenance to accept it (Judge Nugent excepted, who is indeed a very troublesome impertinent creature), and think it will bring envy on them, when it was not needed. I may add, that the making of so many Privy Councillors is an additional charge upon the revenue, for every Councillor has the impost of a certain quantity of wine every year, which, though it be no great matter, yet, according to the old saying, “every little makes a mickle.”’ [Ibid. p. 320.]

The name of Mr. Nagle being inserted in the list of those gentlemen to be sworn of the Privy Council of Ireland, called for a remonstrance from the Lord Lieutenant to the Lord President in England. His Excellency admitted him to be ‘a very learned and an honest man, but he was a practising barrister, and it was not etiquette for such to be barristers of the Council. It will not look well that a man who has the honour to be of the King’s Privy Council should be crowding at the bar of the Courts of Justice bareheaded, and his bag in his hand. I have not heard it was ever yet done, but to Sir Francis Bacon, when he was Attorney-General, [The Attorney-General for Ireland is now always a member of the Privy Council.] and to satisfy his ambition, by the credit he had with the Duke of Buckingham, or rather by importunity, he was made a Privy Councillor; but he never appeared afterwards in Westminster Hall unless the King s business required him.’ [Vide Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England, vol. ii, p. 348.]

How different was the conduct of Mr. Nagle to that of Sir Francis Bacon! When Mr. Nagle was informed of the designed honour he expressed surprise, and told his Excellency ‘he wondered his friends would move in his behalf without first consulting himself, and to leave his practice would be his ruin.’ He added, ‘that to appear at the bar, after being of the Council, would be *undecent *even for the King’s service. [Bacon was of a different opinion, Ibid. p. 349.] He therefore requested his Excellency not to take any notice of him, that he was not ambitious, and preferred to be let alone. His practice brought him a larger income than a Chief Justiceship, and he had a great charge of children, for whom he was bound in conscience to provide. That he was fully as ready and as willing to serve the King in his present station as in any rank.’ [Clarendon’s State Letter, vol. i. p. 234.]

King James II. informed the Lord Lieutenant of his decision that his Irish Roman Catholic subjects should be admitted into all offices hitherto exclusively filled by Protestants, such as Members of Corporations, Justices of the Peace, and High Sheriffs. His Excellency made pretence of taking the advice on this subject of the Judges, but this was mere evasion; and matters not going on to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, Richard Talbot, then Earl of Tyrconnel, who may be regarded as the most urgent that the Catholics should, as the King directed, have equal privileges with their fellow-subjects, called on his Excellency to enquire the cause of the delay. His language, as reported, reads coarse and offensive, which indeed corresponds with his general character. He told the Lord Lieutenant ‘the Sheriffs made were generally rogues, and old Cromnwellians; but he (Lord Tyrconnel) had excused him to the King, because that the Viceroy, a stranger to Ireland, could not know people himself, and was advised by the late Chancellor.’ To this Lord Clarendon replied, ‘It was true he did not know many himself, and was advised by the late Chancellor, as he should always be by whoever the King put in that station, but that he was not wholly influenced by the Chancellor, as he had enquired from other worthy men, Catholics as well as Protestants, and the Sheriffs he appointed were as good a set of men as had been chosen these dozen years.’ Whereupon Lord Tyrconnel swore, ‘By --- , I believe it, for there has not been an honest man Sheriff in Ireland these twenty years.’ ‘That is hard censure,’ replied his Excellency, ‘but it is not my business to find out the faults of twenty years past.’

While this dialogue was going on, Lord Chancellor Porter joined them, Tyrconnel enquired, ‘What was doing about the Justices of the Peace?’ ‘My Lord,’ replied the Chancellor, ‘my Lord Lieutenant has showed me the King’s letter, and I am taking the best method I can for the speedy obeying of it. I have spoken to three Roman Catholic Judges, and to others of quality of that religion, to furnish me with the names of honest men in the several counties fit for the employment, and the thing shall be done as it ought to be; and if your Lordship will give me any names, you will oblige me.’ ‘By ---,’ said his Lordship, ‘I see you will be a great while about it.’ ‘My Lord,’ says the Lord Chancellor, ‘the King knows I never was slack in his service, and he shall not find me guilty of that fault.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 254.]

There appears to have been some intention entertained by the Crown at this time, of paying the Roman Catholic Prelates, In a letter from Dublin Castle, dated June 12, 1686, the Viceroy informed the Lord Treasurer, that on Thursday, June 10, the Roman Catholic Primate was with me, He asked me whether I had received orders from the King for the paying any money to him. I told him no. He said he had sometime hence a letter from the King, declaring that he would make certain allowances to the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops, and that they were all to be paid to him, and he was to distribute the money according to his Majesty’s directions. I told him I had not yet received any orders concerning him.’ [‘This money was subsequently paid.’ - Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. p. 256.]

The subject of the Commission of Grace occupied the attention of the Irish Executive, and, when the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Nagle dined at the Castle towards the close of July 1686, a long conversation took place between the Lord Lieutenant and these two guests. Mr. Nagle did not enter so warmly into the project as the others. He said ‘Lord Tyrconnel told him of it, and bid him prepare something in writing respecting it, but he could not believe a Commission would be useful, or that it would bring in very considerable sums of money. That whatever was to be done, either for confirming the present settlements, or for the relief of such of the old proprietors as ought to be relieved, would be done best by Parliament; he thought it yet too soon to call a Parliament. The Acts ought to be first agreed on, which would take time; so many interests should be felt, and there were so many difficulties in the way, he could not put anything into writing, though Lord Tyrconnel was in great haste.’ [i. ibid. p. 332.]

The Lord Chancellor was thought by the Roman Catholics to be rather remiss in carrying out the King’s wishes respecting appointing members of their creed to offices, Major-General Macarty, a great friend of Lord Tyrconnel’s, and an Irish barrister, Mr. Nihill, recently made King’s Counsel, called on the Lord Chancellor, and, in the course of conversation, the General (who seems to have been a very free-spoken person), told him ‘that he, the Lord Chancellor, had extremely disappointed them (the Irish) in the expectation they at first had of him.’

The Chancellor asked ‘Wherein he had deceived them? That he was a frank man, and would discourse very freely with him, if be would come to particulars.’

‘Why then,’ said the General, ‘we did expect you should have done all that the King commanded without any hesitation.’

‘So I have,’ said the Chancellor; ‘there is no one command I have received from the King which I have not obeyed; and I will ever do so. I may, perchance, make some representation to the King sometimes contrary to what he has directed, as I have leave to do; but, if the King orders his former commands to be, notwithstanding, pursued, they shall be obeyed with all possible readiness and cheerfulness.’

‘You are very scrupulous,’ said Macarty, ‘in admitting Roman Catholics to be Justices of the Peace, though the King has directed, by his letter, that they should be admitted; you refused our Primate’s brother and several others for no reason but because they had no estates.’

‘My Lord Lieutenant,’ said the Chancellor, ‘gave me the King’s commands as soon as he received them, and I as presently put them in execution; that is, I immediately spoke to the three new Judges, and all the other Roman Catholics who are in the King’s service, and others whom I knew, to furnish me with the names of men proper for that employment. There were several lists given to me for most counties, and I admitted all whom any of the King’s Counsel, or any other person of worth, fit to be credited, could answer for upon their own knowledge; and as for the others, for whom they would not answer, I informed myself of them, and found they were men of no estates, many of them criminals, not fit to be put into the King’s Commission. As for your Primate’s brother, he is a poor country fellow, lives upon six pounds a-year, which he rents of Sir Michael Cole, and has nothing else in the world. After all this,’ said he, ‘if you think fit for the King’s ,service to name such a man upon the bench, he shall be made a Justice of the Peace.’

‘No, in good faith,’ said Macarty, ‘I do not think it fit, but you make difficulty in putting ill men out of Commission, except they are proved to be rogues’ by some notorious villany they have committed, which will be hard for us to prove.’

‘Sir,’ replied the Chancellor, ‘it is not enough to say, in the general, “such a man is a rogue;” the best of men may be so blasted. But if any man tells me, “such a man is an ill man upon my own experience, that he did this and that at such a time;” without further proof I will put all such men out of commission.’ [He evidently meant the statement should come upon undoubted authority.]

Whereupon Macarty named one or two, and gave such good reason why they were unfit to remain in the Commission, but could not say for what counties they were appointed, on which the Chancellor said, ‘Send me a note of them to-morrow, and I will put them out.’ This ready acquiescence of the Chancellor quite pleased the General. ‘Faith, my Lord,’ said he, ‘I think you are a very honest gentleman, but they say you have taken ten thousand pounds of the Whigs; and there are thoughts of having you sent home.’

‘Sir,’ replied the Chancellor, proudly, ‘I thank God I am above bribes, and I flatter myself that the King has a better opinion of me, than to believe any such thing till he sees it proved. I can safely take my oath that, directly or indirectly, I have not had a penny since I came hither (more than the King’s allowance), but 156l. from the profits of the place; I had been told, indeed, my Lord Tyrconnel reported the Whigs had given me ten thousand pounds. When next I see Lord Tyrconnel, I shall desire him to give me an account of this, for such aspersions are not to be borne.’

Mr. Nihill said, ‘Lord Tyrconnel sometimes reported things which light people tell him, without enquiring or considering, and if he takes a pique to a man, never leaves him till he ruins him if he can.’

The Chancellor replied, ‘If that be the humour of Lord Tyrconnel, it is an ill one, and I will be more on my guard with him. I should regret being called home, if it should be with the King’s displeasure, otherwise I shall be always ready to be disposed of, as his Majesty pleaseth.’ This was reported by the Chancellor to the Lord Lieutenant next morning. [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 335.]

The departure of Mr. Nagle, with Lord Tyrconnel, to England, alarmed the Irish Protestants exceedingly. They guessed some mischief was brewing against them, and, knowing well how Lord Tyrconnel spoke of them, for he never minced his words or concealed his thoughts, trembled for their recently acquired properties. The Lord Lieuten, in a letter addressed to King James II. on August 14, 1686, states, ‘The fears of the Anglo-Irish are excited; the King. 1st, by the changes made in the army, of substituting Roman Catholics for Protestants; 2ndly, by the statement of the Irish, that there was no rebellion in 1641, [That. of course meant no rebellion on their part. They always maintained they fought for the ‘King in the Civil War] and that grants made were void, the old proprietors having forbid the tenants paying rents to the present landlords; 3rdly, the Roman Catholic Clergy in several places forbidding people to pay tithes to the Protestant ministers.’ He then says, ‘Your Majesty’s gracious resolutions to preserve the Acts of Settlement did satisfy all people, even the Catholics, who had a mind to thrive, and to have the country settled, till some men, who are in places of trust, by their actions and words were thought to know more of your Majesty’s mind than I do.’ He wishes to inform the King it is a mistake to suppose ‘that the gross of the English in this kingdomn are fanatics of Cromwell’s brood, and the offspring of those who served in the rebellion against your sacred father, There are very few of the original soldiers and adventurers now left, or of their descendants; of the latter not twenty families, and no great number of the former. But the generality of these two great interests sold their lots, many of them to honest men who, upon the King’s Restoration, brought with them out of England to lay out here that little which remained of their fortunes, after their families were ruined for their loyalty. Of these men, and of those called the ‘49 interest, who were by all accounted loyal, and of old English planters in Queen Elizabeth’s time, does the bulk of the English interests and inhabitants consist; these men carry on six parts in seven of the trade of this kingdom. They are of the Church of England by constant practice, and not to a late going to church only; and I must further say that, in my life, I never met with people fuller of duty to your Majesty, nor more desirous of opportunities to manifest their loyalty.’ [Clarendon’s State Letters, vol. i. p. 355-6.]

If any representations could influence the King in favour of these men, it would have been this earnest and impressive appeal.

Serious changes were pending, and both Lord Clarendon and the Chancellor were regarded as obstacles. They were marked for removal, and Roman Catholics were to succeed.

In Lord Clarendon’s Diary, with the date of January 11, 1687, we learn the fate of the Lord Chancellor. The entry of the Lord Lieutenant is this, - ‘In the morning I went to see my Lord Chancellor. He showed me a letter he had received from Sir Patrick Trant, which took notice to him of Mr. Fitton’s coming to succeed him, at which Sir Patrick seemed much troubled, but said it could not be helped, and Lord Tyrconnel was dissatisfied with him, Sir Charles Porter. All the Papist party themselves seem surprised at these changes; they were troubled to lose Sir Charles Porter, who had carried himself with great applause, and discharged the office of Chancellor to the general satisfaction of all men.’ [Ibid. vol. ii. p. 160.]

Not long after this entry, Lord Tyrconnel returned to Dublin. He brought with him the King’s letter to Lord Clarendon, desiring him to deliver the Sword to Lord Tyrconnel, within a week after his arrival, Next day, July 9, Lord Tyrconnel waited on his Excellency at the Castle, accompanied by Sir Alexander Fitton, whom he introduced, saying the King had sent him over, but without stating for what purpose. His Excellency said he would give Lord Tyrconnel the Sword on Saturday, which he did accordingly; and Sir Alexander Fitton succeeded Sir Charles Porter as Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In consequence of the reappointment of Sir Charles Porter in 1690, I postpone the life of Sir Alexander Fitton until after Lord Chancellor Porter’s death.

Home.