Life of Lord Chancellor Porter

Chapter XXIX. **

Continuation of the Life of Lord Chancellor Porter From His Appointment by Wing William III. till his Death. **

Sir Charles Porter returned to practice at the English Bar during the interval between his losing the Great Seal of Ireland in 1686, and regaining it in 1690. Lord Clarendon, in his Diary, January 1689, says: ‘I was at the Temple with Mr. Roger North and Sir Charles Porter, who were the only two honest lawyers I ever met with.’ This last remark is not very complimentary to the profession to which the writer’s father belonged. It must have been a great relief to a lover of peace, and of studious research, like Porter, to rest for a time in the congenial cloisters of the Temple, far from the anxieties, cares, and worry, of a Lord Chancellor during this turbulent period of Irish politics.

After an interval of about three years, he was, once more, summoned from his quiet chambers to hold the Irish Seal. Within that brief space what important events occurred! A dynasty had fallen; the country he had left witnessed a short pageant of a King occupying Dublin Castle, holding a Parliament in the capital of his remaining kingdom, two others having very properly signified their disinclination longer to acknowledge his sway, and he very readily took the hint.

While in Dublin, James II. managed matters better. He felt his power and used it, by giving to his Catholic subjects, at least, the reality of Royal rule. The Irish Parliament only sat for a few months, and subsequent events rendered its Acts nugatory. Then came the tug of war - the gallant defence of the ‘prentice boys of Loudonderry - the memorable Battle of the Boyne, where the limpid waters of the bright river were tainted with the crimson tide, flowing equally from Jacobite and Williamite veins. Then the conflicts of Athlone, the hotly-contested field of Aughrim, the sieges of Limerick; and it was for the purpose of assisting in negotiating the Articles of Capitulation of this historic city that King William III. summoned Sir Charles Porter from the smoke-stained quadrangles of the Temple to assume his former position in the Emerald. Isle. He was associated as Lord Justice with Mr. Coningsby [Thomas Coningsby accompanied King William III. into Ireland, and was close to the King when, on the eye of the :Battle of the Boyne, he was wounded in the shoulder by the earth thrown up by a cannon ball aimed at him. Coningsby was the first to staunch the wound with his handkerchief. On the departure of the King, he was constituted Lord Justice with the Lord Chancellor, and subsequent raised to the peerage as Baron Coningsby of Clanbrassil. In the reign of Queen Anne he was Vice-Treasurer and Paymaster of the Forces in Ireland. In 1719 he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Coningsby, and died May 1, 1729.] on his arrival in Dublin towards the close of September 1689.

At nine o’clock in the evening of October 1, 1691, Sir Charles Porter, Lord Chancellor, and Thomas Coningsby, Esq., Lords Justices, arrived at the camp of the Commander-in-Chief of the English army to sign the Articles on which Limerick was to be delivered up. On the 2nd, at two o’clock, the Irish Generals, Sarsfield, Wauchop, and other. contracting parties on the part of the Irish, proceeded to Ginckle’s camp, where they discussed the respective articles seriatim. On the 3rd, the Irish officers dined with the Duke of Wurtemburg, when the Articles. were interchangeably signed. The first, relating to the surrender of the city, was signed by the respective Generals; and the others, defining the privileges granted to the Irish, were signed by Sir Charles Porter, Thomas Coningsby, and Baron De Ginckel. On the part of the British Government, these were afterwards ratified by their Majesties’ Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England. [History of Limerick, by Lenehan, p. 269.] As these famous Articles have been the sub ject of much controversy, I give these relating to the privileges granted to the Irish (or supposed to be secured thereby) in detail:-

‘Articles agreed upon the third day of October 1691, by the Right Honourable Sir Charles Porter, Knight, and Thomas Coningsby, Esq., Lords Justices of Ireland, and His Excellency Baron De Ginckle, Lieutenant-General, and Commander-in-Chief of the English Army, on the one part; and the right Honourable Patrick Earl of Lucan, Percy Viscount Galmoy, Colonel Nic Purcell, Colonel Dillon, and Colonel John Browne, on the other side. On the behalf of the Irish inhabitants in the city and county of Limerick, the counties of Clare, Cork, Kerry, Sligo, and Mayo, in consideration of the surrender of the city of Limerick, and other agreements made between the said Lieutenant-General Ginckle, the Governor of the city of Limerick, and the Generals of the Irish army, bearing date with these presents for the surrender of the said city and the submission of the said army. It is agreed, that,

‘I. The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion.

‘II. All the inhabitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers, now in arms, under any commission of King James, or those authorised by him to grant the same, in the .several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them; and all the commissioned officers in their Majesties’ quarters, that belong to the Irish regiments, now in being, that are treated with, and who are not prisoners of war, or have taken protection, and who shall return and submit to their Majesties’ obedience; and their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy all and every of their estates of free hold and inheritance; and all the rights, titles and interests, privileges and immunities, which they, and every or any of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully entitled to, in the reign of King Charles II., and shall be put in possession, by order of the Government, of such of them as are in the King’s hands, or the hands of his tenants, without being put to any suit or trouble therein; and all such estates shall be free and discharged from all arrears of Crown rents, and other public charges, incurred and become due since Michaelmas 1688 to the day of the date hereof: and all persons comprehended in this article shall have, hold and enjoy all their goods and chattels, real and personal, to them or any of them belonging, and remaining either in their own hands, or the hands of any persons whatsoever, in trust for or for the use of them, or any of them: and all and every the said persons, of what profession, trade or calling soever they be, shall and may use, exercise and practise their several and respective professions; trades and callings, as freely as they did use, exercise, and enjoy the same in the reign of King Charles II., provided that nothing in this article contained be construed to extend to, or restore any forfeited person now out of the kingdom, except what are hereafter comprised; provided also that no person whatever shall have or enjoy the benefit of this article that shall neglect or refuse to take the oath of allegiance [‘I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear the allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.] made by Act of Parliament in England, in the first year of the reign of their present Majesties, when thereunto required.

‘III. All merchants or reputed merchants of the city of Limerick, or of any other garrison now possessed by the Irish, or of any town or place in the counties of Clare or Kerry, who are absent beyond the seas, that have not borne arms since their Majesties declaration in February 1688, shall have the benefit of the second Article, in the same manner as if they were present, provided such merchant and reputed merchants do repair into this kingdom, within the space of eight months from the date hereof.

‘IV. Preserves to certain officers the benefit of the Second Article upon certain conditions.

‘V. Grants a general pardon to all persons comprised in Second and Third Articles.

‘VI. Provides that no person or persons comprised in the foregoing Articles, shall be sued, molested, or impleaded at the suit of any party for any trespass, or any arms, chattels, &c. by them taken during the war, or for any rents, &c. by them received, or any waste committed.

This article to be mutual and reciprocal on both sides.

‘VII. Allows to noblemen and gentlemen comprised in Second and Third Articles the use of arms.

‘VIII. The inhabitants and residents of Limerick and other garrisons to be permitted to remove their goods, &c. without search or dues, and to have six weeks’ time allowed for removal.

‘IX. The oath to be administered to Roman Catholics shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other.

‘X. Persons breaking these Articles to lose the benefit of same.

‘XI. The Lords Justices to protect all persons comprehended in these Articles for the space of eight months.

‘XII. The Lords Justices undertake that their Majesties will ratify the Articles within eight months, and endeavour that same shall be confirmed by Parliament.

‘XIll. Frees Lord Lucan from engagements as to the debts of Colonel John Brown.

‘These articles were signed by Sgravenmore, Chas. Porter, H. Maccay, Tho. Coningsby, T. Talmash, Bar. De Ginckle.’

When the articles were signed, it was discovered tha.t after the words, Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, Mayo, or any of them, in the second Article, an important clause” which had been agreed upon, was omitted, viz., ‘And all such as are under their protection in the said counties.’ Thereupon the Lords Justices, who were aware the clause was agreed upon and inserted in the draft of the Articles, caused the King by Letters Patent to ratify and confirm the omitted words.

Besides the foregoing, there were also military articles. agreed upon between the respective generals, by virtue of which forty thousand of the Irish troops sailed for the French coast and were formed into the regiments of the Irish Brigade and paid by the French King; they were the men who changed the fortune of war against England at Fontenoy. [Vide O’Callaghan’s Irish Brigades, p. 350.] The Irish, who submitted on the faith of the Articles. of Limerick, soon found they had little to reward their confidence. ‘Justices of the peace, sheriffs, and other magistrates, presuming on their power in the country, did, in an illegal manner, dispossess several of their Majesties’ subjects, not only of their goods and chattels, but of their lands and tenements, to the great disturbance of the peace of the kingdom, subversion of the law, and reproach of their Majesties’ Government.’ [Harris’s Life of William III.].

Sir Charles Porter had been nominated Lord Justice, together with Coningsby and Lord Sydney, subsequently Lord Lieutenant, and the Chancellor applied himself to forward the good government of a country torn by dissensions and bleeding from the wounds inflicted during the recent war. It was no easy matter to preserve order among the state of things which then prevailed. On one side were the adherents of King William III., flushed and triumphant with recent victory, and determined to fence themselves behind a rampart of law, which would prove for ever an impassable barrier to the beaten party. On the other side was the great bulk of the people, who had clung to the cause of James II. with the fervour of their creed and race, who by the terms of the Treaty of Lime rick, were to enjoy civil and religious freedom; but the violation of the treaty left them at the mercy of men who only wanted a pretext for extirpating them. Nor was this pretext long wanting. Scattered bands of the Jacobite army, hordes of Irish who had hoped to obtain. employment as camp-followers, but who had no desire to serve in the Irish Brigades on the Continent, and preferred to wander in gangs at home, seeking a precarious subsistence on plunder from those who had been in the Williamite service, were constantly swooping upon the outlying houses of the Cromwellian or Williamite adherents. Their predatory habits, their lairs and retreats among pathless hills, the shelter of bogs, the houseless wilds, made it impossible to guard against their coming, or to arrest their flight. Like eagles .swooping upon their prey, they fell upon a convoy of military with provision, or a well-stored house, and the work of death and devastation was prompt and sure. If rescue was attempted, no trace of the banditti could be found. Not a clue could be discovered of the formidable array of a few minutes before, and the trooper might weary himself in search of the Rapperee, who lay, crouched like a hare in the neighbouring bog, or plunged in the stream with his mouth and nostrils above the surface. [Dr. Curry’s Civil Wars of Ireland. vol. ii. chap. viii. ] The Lord Chancellor felt the importance of upholding the authority of the law in such a state of affairs. He procured competent Judges - men of character and knowledge of the law - and tried as far as possible to give the Irish people the protection of the law, and thus induce confidence in the administration of justice.

The counties most peaceful were intrusted to the care of Lords Lieutenant, who had several Deputy Lieutenants to share the responsibility of the internal management. Strong measures for repressing outrage were needed, and arms were placed in the charge of militia officers, to be used for the protection of life and property against the enemies of both. The Privy Council was composed entirely of those who had manifested the utmost zeal in the cause of King William. Seventeen Justices were appointed to try prisoners at assizes in various counties, and active steps were taken to allay the disturbing elements which prevailed throughout the land.

Perhaps one of the measures which tended most to induce the Catholic people to assist In the re-establishment of law and order was the abolition of the office of Commissioners of Forfeiture, who had shamefully abused their trust. [Harris’s William. P. 294.]

At length it was deemed necessary to summon a Parliament, and Lord Sydney issued writs for a Parliament to meet in Dublin. The Roman Catholics being excluded from sitting in Parliament by the Act of the English Parliament of 1691 the Irish Parliament which assembled in Chichester House, a.d. 1692, was exclusively Protestant. Henry Viscount Sydney received at the Castle. the Lord Chancellor who wore his state robes, the Archbishops and Bishops in their lawn, the Judges in their judicial robes, the members of the Privy Council, Masters in Chancery, Peers and several members of the House of Commons, who attended his Excellency’s progress to open Parliament. It was a great spectacle for the citizens. of Dublin, and as such sights are not now seen in the Irish capital. I introduce an account here:-

First came the State trumpets and kettledrums, the pages and yeomen, the Gentlemen-at-Large, three Pursuivants the Chaplains, Serjeants-at-Arms, Gentlemen Ushers, and King-at-Arms. Then followed his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, with an escort of Horse Guards, in his State coach and six, followed by the coaches and six of the nobility and members of the House of Common; the route from the Castle to Chichester House, where the Parliament sat, was lined with infantry. On the arrival of his Excellency, he proceeded to his robing room, and when the business of the session commenced. The following ceremonies took place. The Bishop of Kildare, being the premier Bishop, read prayers; the Lord Chancellor and the rest of the Lords, the Archbishops, and Bishops took the oaths, [The oath ran thus: ‘I, A. B. do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and hertetical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or by any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign Prince, person, Prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority. pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the realm.’] and subsequently the declaration, [The Declaration against Transubstantiation was couched in the most offensive language possible to the most sacred tenets of the Catholic Church, the belief of the Divine Presence in the Eucharist. It, as well as the foregoing oath, was imposed by Stat. 3 and 4 William and Mary c. 2, in violation of the ninth Article of the Treaty of Limerick. They are no longer a disgrace to the Statute Book.] and then the inferior officers of the House. The Lord Chancellor being informed there were several Lords who desired to take their seats and be introduced to the House, appointed two of the eldest Peers (Lords Ely and Massereene) to bring them in; accordingly there were introduced the Lord Longford, Lord Blessington, Lord Shelburne, and the Lord Coningsby, one by one, preceded by the Ulster King-of-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod; each as he came in delivered his patent and writ of summons on his knees to the Speaker, which he caused to be read by one of the clerks; and his claim being allowed, he was desired to take his seat.

When the House assembled, notice was given to the Viceroy, who entered in great state. Before him marched his gentlemen, two holding white staves, the Usher of the Black Rod, Cork and Athlone Heralds, Lord Donegal bearing the Cap of Maintenance, and the Earl of Meath the Sword of State. His Excellency wore his robes, the train borne by three noblemen’s sons, those of the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Clifford, and Lord Santry.

On his Excellency being seated on the throne, the Lord Chancellor standing on his right hand, ordered the Usher of the Black Rod to go to the House of Commons, and acquaint them that his Excellency commanded their attendance at the bar of the House of Lords. After they obeyed the summons, his Excellency addressed them in the speech from the throne, and then the Lord Chancellor directed them to return and elect their Speaker. His Excellency then retired to his robing-room, and the Lord Chancellor adjourned the House to Friday at ten o’clock, when the Commons were to present their Speaker to the Viceroy. The House of Commons on their return from the Lords proceeded to choose their Speaker, and a right honourable member proposed Sir Richard Levinge, who was then Solicitor-General, for that high and important office. The motion being approved of, the question was put by the clerk by direction of the House, whereon it was resolved ‘that Sir Richard Levinge, Knight, [He was created a Baronet in 1704, Attorney-General in 1711, and Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in 1720. He was ancestor of the present estimable and popular Sir Richard Levinge, Bart. of Knockdrin Castle, County Westmeath.] their Majesties’ Solicitor-General, be Speaker of this House.’ Mr. Speaker was then conducted to the chair and placed therein, by two of the members, his proposer and seconder. Then the Speaker returned thanks to the House for the honour conferred on him, excusing his inability for so great an undertaking and trust, Promising, nevertheless, his utmost endeavour to serve their Majesties and this. country, and hoped this House would assist and support him therein. [Com. Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 9.]

The Speaker being seated, the last Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament in England in the third year of their Majesties’ reign, for abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland and appointing other oaths, was read. After which, the swearing in of members proceeded; the House then adjourned until Friday morning, October 10, at eight o’clock, when they were to meet in order to pre sent their Speaker to the Lord Lieutenant, according to his Excellency’s command.

The Parliament having assembled on October 10, 1692, accompanied Sir Richard Levinge as their Speaker to the House of Lords, where, on being presented to his Excellency, the Speaker said:

‘May it please your “Excellency, -

The Commons of Ireland, in obedience to their Majesties’ writs of summons, and, according to the course of Parliament, have met together in their House, and have done me the honour to choose me the Speaker. I was infinitely the more surprised, because I could turn my eyes no way in that honourable House without seeing many of its worthy members, who, in all respects, are much better qualified for the service of the House; and when I reflect how great quickness, memory, judgment, courage, and, experience are necessary to the well-filling of that chair, I blush and tremble with the sense of my imperfections, and since I would be much rather wanting to my own advancement by declining it with modesty than rashly execute it to the public detriment, I beseech your Excellency, with all tender regard to the Commons, to direct them to return back to their House and make another choice of a fitter person to supply the chair.’

To this the Lord Chancellor replied:-

‘Mr. Speaker, - For such I must now call you, the experience his Excellency has of your abilities, and the great inclination you have shown, while you were in England, for the interest of this country, are qualifications which sufficiently recommend you for this service; and though his Excellency does not disapprove of your modesty in excusing and disabling yourself, yet he does easily distinguish between that and your real ability, and commands me to let you know that though there are many other worthy and learned members in the House of Commons, yet he is of opinion they could not have made a better choice than they have done, and therefore does fully approve of you for their Speaker, and require you to attend their service accordingly. [Com. Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 10.] The Speaker then thanked His Excellency and asked for the usual privileges of the Commons, which being granted, the proceedings of the sessions commenced. A notice of the short comings of this Parliament, which refused to pass some of the bills sent from England, may be judged from the speech of the Lord Lieutenant, proroguing the houses on Thursday, November 3, 1692, less than a month from their assembling.

‘My Lords and Gentlemen, - Upon the opening of this session I did acquaint you with the motions which induced their Majesties to call this Parliament, which were no other than what entirely regarded a happy settlement of this kingdom, upon such foundations as might not only secure the peace, but bring you into a prosperous and flourishing condition.

‘I am sorry I cannot say there has been such a progress made by you, gentlemen of the House of Commons, towards these ends, as their Majesties had just reason to expect; and I am the more troubled that you, who have so many and so great obligations to be loyal and dutifully affected to their Majesties, should so far mistake yourselves as to entrench upon their Majesties’ prerogative, and the rights of the Crown of England, as you did on October 27 last, when, by a declaratory note, you affirmed, that it is the sole and undoubted right of the Commons. of Ireland to propose heads of bills for raising money; and also again, on the 28th of the same month, when you rejected a bill sent over in the usual form, intituled “An Act for granting to their Majesties certain duties for one year,” you voted that it should be entered in your journals, that the reason why the said bill was rejected was, that the same had not its rise in your House. These votes of yours being contrary to the Statutes 16th Henry VII. and the 3rd & 4th Philip and Mary, and the continued practice. ever since, I find myself obliged to assert their Majesties’ prerogative, and the rights of the crown of England, in these particulars in such a manner as may be most public .and permanent; and therefore I do here, in full Parliament, make my public protest against these votes, and the entries of them in the journal of the House of Commons, which protest I require the clerk of this House to read, and afterwards to enter it in the journals of this House, that it may remain as a vindication of their Majesties’ prerogative and the right of the Crown of England, in these particulars, to future ages.’ The Lord Lieutenant then handed to the Lord Chancellor his protestation, which Sir Charles Porter delivered to the clerk of the House, who read it aloud; Sir Charles then, at his Excellency’s request, addressed the members:-

‘My Lords and Gentlemen, - His Excellency having been acquainted that both Houses intended severally to present some heads upon which they desired bills to be prepared of such as his Excellency and the Council should approve of, commands me to acquaint you that he will take them into his consideration, and that against the meeting of the Parliament, after this intended prorogation, such of them as shall be found requisite’ shall be in readiness to be brought into Parliament.’ The Lord Chancellor then prorogued the Parliament until April 6 next year, which it was again prorogued and before meeting dissolved. solved. Thus, notwithstanding all the professions of loyalty to the Throne, very serious differences soon widened into a breach between the King’s Deputy in Ireland and the Irish Parliament. The necessity of furnishing the supplies to meet the debts of the Irish Government - the great arrears of pay to civil and military officers - had been one of the Lord Lieutenant’s chief reasons for summoning Parliament, and, as usual, bills were to be submitted to the Privy Council of England, pursuant to Poyning’s Law. But a spirit of independence had arisen among the Irish members, that now displayed itself in a very marked manner, and when two money bills came over, certified by the Privy Council in England, the Irish members refused to pass them, asserting their right to originate all bills involving supplies of money, the same as the English House of Commons.’ Despite the efforts of the Government, the Irish Parliament adhered to their determination, and rejected one of the bills, which so incensed the Lord Lieutenant, that, after two adjournments he dissolved the Parliament on September 5, 1693: A struggle for power had been going on for a long time with more or less vigour between the Viceroy as representing the Executive Government, and the Irish Parliament. It dated from 1576, when the then Lord Deputy, Sir Henry Sidney, [A curious coincidence in the name. For full particulars of the case, *temp. * Queen Elizabeth, vide Life of Lord Chancellor Gerard, ante, p. 290.] asserted the right of raising taxes by royal prerogative, without the sanction of the legislature. [Moore’s History of Ireland, vol. iv. p. 74.] Since then the Irish House of Commons jealously resisted the least infringement on its privileges, and looked with no patient eye upon any interference by the Parliament of England in their legislative functions. Willing, however, to show respect to the throne, they intimated to the Lord Lieutenant a desire to lay before William and Mary their reasons for their conduct. The answer to this application shows how much their conduct incensed the Lord Lieutenant. ‘They are at liberty,’ he scornfully replied, ‘to beg their Majesties’ pardon for their seditious and riotous assemblies.’

He had previously to this discourteous answer taken the opinion of the Judges of England, who, having regard to Poyning’s Law, condemned the conduct of the Irish Parliament. It would appear also that he had incurred the anger of the Protestant ascendency party by endeavouring faithfully to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick, and allowed the army to be recruited by Catholics. Upon the establishment of King William and Queen Mary on the throne, such of King James’s soldiers as submitted to the new dynasty did not feel any reluctance to serve beneath the banner of England. These matters formed the ground of complaint exhibited against the Viceroy by Sir Francis Brewster, Sir William Gore, Sir John Macgil, Lieutenant Stafford, Mr. Stone, and Mr. Kerne. They were examined at the Bar of the House, their complaints considered so justifiable as to merit the attention of both Houses. Each House then prepared and presented an address to the Throne. They denounced abuses attending grants of forfeited estates, contended that protection afforded to the Irish Catholics was injurious to the Protestant interest; that a Mayor had been imposed upon the city of Dublin for two years successively, [The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Sir William Carroll, Knt., M.D., had. been in this position, 1868-9, without any complaint from any quarter. [The years appear wrong. KF]] contrary to the ancient privileges and charter; that persons accused of murder were executed without proof; that the army was recruited with Irish Papists who had been in open rebellion; that additions were made to the Articles of Limerick after the capitulation was signed, and the place surrendered. [Smollet’s History of England, vol. i. p. 173.]

The usual answer was given, ‘that due attention would be paid to all remonstrances from their Majesties’ faithful Lords and Commons,’ but for some time no steps were taken in the matter. William’s sagacity, and, perhaps, the advice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, prevented his visiting on the Lord Lieutenant or Lords Athlone and Coningsby, who are also implicated, the vengeance of the Irish Protestant party. He doubtless, felt, that some show of observance of the Treaty of Limerick was necessary, for to this he was pledged.

The condition of Ireland was such that the King at length was forced to show due regard to the remonstrances, and Lord Sydney was recalled. It is very probable that nobleman was desirous of this. He would, I believe, have afforded protection to the Catholic population, but he was powerless against the adherents of King William, who regarded the liberty to crush the Papists as a right they had won at the sword’s point, and, on July 3, 1693, Lord Sydney left Ireland. Previously to his departure, Coningsby and the Lord Chancellor had been accused of flagrant acts of oppression in Ireland. They were impeached in the English House of Commons by the Earl of Bellamont, but after an examination of the Articles exhibited against them, the Commons, who were at the devotion of the Government, declared that, considering the state of affairs in Ireland, they did not think them fit grounds for an impeachment. [Smollet’s History of England, vol. i. p. 205.]

Before Lord Sydney’s departure, Henry Lord Capel, a younger brother of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, who had been Lord Lieutenant in 1672, was appointed Lord Justice. This was a species of probation sometimes adopted to see what kind of a Lord Lieutenant the Lord Justice would make.

Whether it was originally designed that Capel should pass through this intermediate grade on his way to the higher dignity, does not appear;. but his qualifications for office in the eyes of the English Ministry might be summed up in this one, that he was ready to waive all inconvenient scruples in order to form, concentrate, and control a party strong enough to command a majority in the Council and in the House of Parliament, devoted to what was called the English interest in Ireland, that is, the principle of extreme encouragement of the Protestants by legislative and all other means, and of equally emphatic discouragement of the Catholic religion, interest, and population, throughout the kingdom. In Justice to the King, it ought to be added, that neither in the withdrawal of the one functionary, nor in the appointment of the other, did he follow his own unbiassed inclination. But usually at a distance from the seat of Government his object, as Burnet remarks, too palpably was, *‘*so to balance factions as to neutralise any opposition powerful enough to embarrass his foreign policy.’

This disposition of the Viceroy soon gathered a band of kindred spirits around him. In the words of the writer already quoted, [Dublin University Magazine, vol. xlvi. p. 725.] ‘Capel had no difficulty in finding a party as unscrupulous as himself. His game was their -he played for power, they for lands and houses. The great point with the latter was to strain, and, if necessary, to distort the Articles of Limerick, so as to throw as much property as possible into the hands of the Crown by confiscation, for the purpose of being made the subject of fresh grants, in which they hoped to share.’

This conduct of the Lords Justices was exceedingly distasteful to the Lord Chancellor, who, jealous of the honour of England, and the true interests of the King, was desirous of supporting the Treaty of Limerick in its integrity. But the state of the exchequer was such that honest courses were forced to yield to the stern dictates of poverty. The army and civil servants were clamorous for their pay, which was lamentably in arrear, and to secure the co-operation of the Irish Parliament, to raise the necessary supplies, the rigidity of the Articles of Limerick should be relaxed in favour of Protestants, and to this the Lord Capel felt strongly inclined. We find preserved amongst the Southwell MSS. ample proof of the adverse notions which prevailed at this date (1694) in the Irish Executive; they threw such clear light upon the policy dictated by prudence and by faction that I give them in full. The first is from the Lords Justices, Sir Cyril Wich and William Duncombe, who were associated with Lord Capel as Lords Justices; the other is from the Lord Capel alone, both are addressed to the English Secretary of State:- *

To Mr. Secretary Trenchard.*,

Dublin Castle, July 14, —94.,

‘Sir, - In the beginning of May, we received yours of April 24, in which, amongst other things, you signify his Majesty’s commands to us, that we should send him our opinion, whether we think it convenient that a Parliament should be called here, and at what time, and particularly in relation to the sole right claimed by the late] House of Commons of beginning money-bills in their House; and in order thereto, you sent us, by their Majesties’ command, a copy of the opinion of the Judges in England in that matter, which their Majesties thought fitt wee should communicate to such Gentlemen here, and in such manner as we should believe most advisable.

‘There are so good reasons for the sitting of a Parliament, from the great want of money to carryon their Majesties’ service, and of some laws necessary for the good of the country, that we neither presume to trouble. their Majesties anew with what they are so well apprized of, nor dare we advise that a Parliament should not meet. But if it be reasonable that the inclination of the most of those who are likely to compose the House of Commons, in relation to their adhering to or quitting the pretence to the said right, should have any influence upon the resolution which is to be taken in this matter, it is necessary that we should faithfully acquaint their Majesties with what we believe will be the event of the meeting, and our reasons for it.

‘We communicated the copy of the Judges’ opinion in Council, which we conceived the most popular reckoning that they would (and we desired them to do so), communicate it to their friends round the country. And though it be not so long a time since, as that we can yet be able to give an account of what influence it may have had upon men’s minds; yet, when we consider that this opinion of those learned gentlemen (though not coming authentically to their hands till now), yet has been heard of, and read by all who are desirous of information of this kind very long since we are afraid that the bare acquainting men now afresh with what they knew so well before can have but little new effect towards the change of their judgments. Foreseeing that it would be of considerable use to us to know how those who are like to be chosen stood affected in this point, we have all along made it our care, as cautiously and undiscernedly as we could, to enter into these thoughts and resolutions. We have severally discussed with some of the gentlemen themselves, we have consulted some of the Judges who have opportunities in their circuits of conference about these as well as other matters, and whom we desired to inform themselves thereabouts; we have advised with many others who can very well judge of the. tempers of those with whom they often converse in severall parts of the Kingdom, and we cannot in duty but inform their Majesties that we generally find men as stiff as ever; and as resolved, if not to pursue the point and maintain it, yet not to retract and give it up. Some few here and there think it had been better that the question had not been started, and would be glad it might now be quiett and undecided; these are, therefore, willing enough that the Parliament should not meet, that they might neither pay money, nor be put upon the necessity of declaring themselves either way, and so either lose their party by owning and retracting their error, or obstruct the publique service by persisting; but the greater: number, as we conceive, resolve positively to go forwards, and are earnest for a Parliament, that they may have a second opportunity of renewing, and, as they thinke, riveting their claim. Nay, we gather from what now. and then falls from some of them, that they aime, not only att the immediate consequence of this right (if it be one), the having no bills sent them, which any way bring a charge upon the people, but at the endeavour of having many of the laws, which will deserve a great deal of consideration before they passe. Some speak of putting in hard for the Habeas Corpus Act, and yet would have it exclusive to all Papists; some think it necessary that the Bill of Rights should be made a law here too, though it declares (among other things) a standing army in time of peace, without which this country cannot subsist (nor ever has) to lie against law. And there are some, too, who would have a Generall Act, in imitation of that in Henry VII.’s time, to make all the laws of England, made since that time, laws of the Kingdome; and some doe not stick to say in express terms that a law made in England does not bind Ireland, tho’ made with that intent. But we never yett met with more than two gentlemen who believed that the House would part with their pretence to the sole right, one of whom is a nobleman, and so not to sit there, and the. other a man that was against it before.

‘Their Majesties will, from hence, see how farr (in our opinion at least) the House, when it meets, will be from letting goe their hold. And yet we perceive that my Lord Capell is sanguine enough to believe that the chiefe asserters to this right are ashamed of it, and will certainly give it over; and has told us as much, as we have likewise told him our thoughts. We hope that he has taken his measures better than we have done, for it is evident that one of us is mistaken; and we should be heartily glad to find (since it would be for their Majesties’ service) that time would show that we are so.

‘One of the likelyst ways that we know of to make gentlemen thro’ly consider what they are to doe, is to let them understand plainly that the Crown will not part with this right; which we suppose was one of the chief ends of sending ye paper above spoken of hither, to be communicated, that all well-meaning men might have time to advise whether it will be worth their while to insist so zealously upon a point, and so much to their prejudice, which they are sure not to gain. And yet, we find (but cannot tell by what means it comes about) that a great many have expectations that their Majesties will give way, and hope by perseverence to bring it about. As long as there is any ground for this opinion, they will certainly be very tenacious, and therefore we pray to know whether we ought not to goe on as hitherto we have done, in declaring positively to those who are concerned, as occasion offers, that their Majesties will not give up this prerogative, which is undoubtedly theirs.

‘We have not been hasty in giving our thoughts on this question, as well because it is a matter of great moment, and required great deliberation, and sedate recollection, as because we do not see if their Majesties should resolve upon calling a Parliament how it can well meet till .after the next Session in England. The bills for money which were, according to command, sent over in paper long since, are not yet returned, and when they are, they must passe all the forms of the Council here, which is not like to be at this time of the yeare, before they can be ingrossed to be sent into England under the Seale. And yet all this must be done, and they must be returned back again before the meeting of the Parliament, because it seems to be a necessary justification of their Majesties’ right to begin with bills for money.

‘We have fully and plainly, as their Majesties’ service requires, told you our thoughts and our fears, and shall, with all the prudence and diligence which we are masters of, obey what commands are sent us.

‘Weare, &c.,

Yor most humble Servants,

‘Cyril Wich.

‘W. Duncombe.’

The letter of Capel is quite opposite in the views it expresses from the foregoing. It shows how completely he was the mouth-piece of the Protestant ascendency party, and hints that the conduct of the Chancellor was opposed to the interests of the Crown. As it throws much light upon the state of parties in Ireland, and the difficulty of the Lord Chancellor acting with a man of Capel’s unscrupulous character, I give it in full:- *

‘To Mr. Secretary Trenchard.*

Sr.,-

‘Dublin Castle: July 14, 1694.

‘My indisposition hath for some time hindered me from giving an answer to yours of April 15, concerning calling a Parliament here, and, of late, my desire to joine with the other Lords Justices in a representation thereof; but finding they have not the same sentiments in this matter with myself, I think it my duty humbly to offer my own poor opinion, upon this occasion, which so nearly concerns the King’s affairs.

‘That there is a necessity for calling a Parliament no one can doubt who will consider the want we have of money. There is an arreare of 180,OOOl. to the civil and military lists, grown due since the beginning of the Establishment, January 1691. The General Officers of the Army; the officers of the Ordnance, and the Governors of the severall forts and garrisons, with many others, unpaid. There are likewise very considerable debts owing from the Crown not comprehended in the Establishment, which ought to be satisfied, nor is there any prospect when our condition will mend, the charge on the Establishment exceeding the produce of the growing revenue, by a modest computation, at least 60,OOOl. per annum.

‘The severall garrisons and forts of this kingdom are out of repair, and must also be furnished with stores and other provisions of War.

‘An Act should likewise pass for settling the militia, which is now almost quite laid aside, and will, with great difficulty, be called together again. Great heats and disputes have lately arisen between the Governor and the Deputy-Governor of the County of Dublin, and the Colo nels and other officers of the militia, about the raising thereof, and the opinion of the lawyers, produced to us on that matter, which has set them at a distance among themselves, and will, I fear, be of ill example to the rest of the counties. Besides, there is no legal course, at present, to be taken with the Irish to compel them to contribute to the charge thereof; so that the Kingdom is not in a fit posture of defence; and, should the enemy land with a small force of men upon any part of the western coast, we should find great difficulty to suppress them; and the Irish (who were never more insolent in these parts than now) will be ready upon any opportunity to joine with them.

‘Some temporary laws expired the last Parliament, which being of great benefit to the people, ought to be revived. And we want other good laws, which, after so great a revolution, ought to be enacted for strengthening and securing the English and Protestant interest; such as are bills for disarming Irish Papists, for prohibiting them from keeping horses above five pounds value, or thirteen hands and a half high; for restraining foreign education; for taking of Tories; for observing particular holidays and no other; for the settling of civil bills, &c. Many private bills are also wanting for the benefitt of particular subjects. An Act of Parliament is also wanted for the rebuilding and repairing of churches, most of the parishes in this Kingdom either having no churches at all, or, if any, out of repair, and not fitt to celebrate Divine service in, which causes many to depart from our Communion. And thus their separation may be partly imputed, in a great measure, to the non-residence of the clergy, and a total failure of their duty in a very. great many parts of the Kingdom.

‘The meeting of a Parliament will also have this good effect, it will assure their Majesties’ Protestant subjects of their affection to them, and of their care for their preservation, notwithstanding the reports (as if there would be no more Parliaments in Ireland) which some have of late too industriously spread about, who either do not know or do not wish, the good of the Government.

‘The argument used against meeting of a Parliament. here, I find, is the probability of their reviving old quarrells, and that they will fall again to their former heats about the Articles of Limerick, and their sole right of originating. money-bills, which should they insist upon, it would make a greater breach than exists already, and prejudice their own and their Majesties’ interest.

‘For my own part, I have made it my business ever since my coming hither, to inquire into this matter. I have conversed with all sorts of people, and with many of the angry gentlemen of the late House of Commons, upon this subject, and they all tell me they will not differ with their Majesties; and tho’ no man can be sure what a Parliament will, or will not, doe when they come together, yet I am really of opinion that all heats will be laid aside, and that another Parliament will meet in a temper and resolutions to do their Majesties and their country all the service that can be expected from good Englishmen and Protestants, and will contribute to their utmost towards the support of the Government, being sensible they have been burthensome enough already to England, and cannot reasonably expect any further supplies from thence.

‘This is the language and disposition of all the eminent lawyers and leading men I discourse with, upon this occasion, and I am verily persuaded they tell me their minds, and the truth; for t’will be infinite advantage to them to have a good settlement in Parliament. Another rupture with their Majesties would utterly undoe them, and leave the country untenanted, and unimproved; ‘tis therefore their interest not to differ with the King, and interest can never ly; and, for this reason, I am the more confirmed in my beliefe that they will doe well, and answer the ends for which they are call’d.

‘I must needs confess that some of the members of the Privy Councill and Judges are of another opinion, and have told me, should a Parliament be called, they will stand to their former vote, of having the sole power of Money Bills, but they do not instance in any particular persons, and therefore I am apt to believe they are apprehensive of the consequence of such an assembly, as to their own private interest. I am loath to think they are afraid of a good agreement between them Majesties and their people.

As for confirming the Articles of Limerick and Galway, I find the first and the sixth Articles may meet with some opposition. The first, if confirmed, they say, establishes the Popish religion, which cannot be digested by any Protestant; and, for the sixth, they who object against it say they would readily agree that when any goods, horses, cattell, money, &c., are taken in pursance of any military or civil orders for the use of the publique,. the persons so seizing should be pardoned; but when any person acted without authority, and converted the goods to his own private advantage, he ought to be answerable to the party injured; and this is also an objection against passing an Act of Indemnity for all trespasses done during the war. But even in this case they tell me they will have due regard to the King’s honour and word, and I hope will be prevailed with to pass an Act for a generall oblivion.

‘I have here, with all sincerity and truth for their Majesties’ service, according to the best of my judgment, delivered my opinion concerning a Parliament in Ireland, and with all humility submit the same to their Majesties’ most gracious consideration.

‘I am, Sir,

‘Your most faithfull, humble Servant,

‘Capel.’

It is plain from these two documents; so essentially differing in opinion, that there were hostile parties in the Irish Government. The Lord Chancellor and two of the Lords Justices were for maintaining the Treaty of Limerick, while Lord Capel and his adherents desired revocation in order to possess power over the beaten Catholics. He strongly urged the King to remove Sir Charles Porter from the office of Lord Chancellor, and Sir Richard Cox from his seat on the Judicial Bench. Though the King would not do so in the summary way suggested, he did not positively refuse, and on May 10, 1695, signed twelve letters containing changes in the Irish Executive for future use. These were intrusted to Lord Capel; who was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland. Shortly after the return of the Lord Deputy, on May 27; he dismissed Sir Richard Cox from the Privy Council. Sir Robert Southwell condoled with him in the words - *Bona agere, et mala pati, regium est. *

Capel was now Lord Paramount; and determinded to have matters all his own way. Writs issued for assembling a new Parliament, which met. on August 27; 1695, and from the very outset displayed a very tractable spirit. In the address of thanks for his Exxellency’s speech, the members’ state:- ‘We take leave to assure your Excellency that we will avoid all heats and animosities in our debates, and apply ourselves to what shall be agreeable to his Ma.jesty’s expectation, and for the service of the publick by supplying the deficiency of the revenue, &c.’ [Com. Jour. vol. ii. p. 46.]

Porter was soon the object of attack. Robert Rochfort, Attorney-General, was elected Speaker, and he was hostile to the Chancellor. Action was soon taken against Sir Charles Porter. About a month after the assemblage of Parliament, on September 30, 1695, Colonel Ponsonby presented to the House of Commons the following Articles, charging high crimes and misdemeanours against him, which were received and read:-

‘1st. That the said Sir Charles Porter, since his Majesty’s happy accession to the Crown, contrary to his Oath, Office, and Duty as Chancellor, and in manifest breach of the Trusts reposed in him, hath by himself, his Agents, or Servants, corruptly and illegally exacted and taken from his Majesty’s subjects new and excessive Fees, contrary to the Laws and Customs of this Realm, and to the evil example of other Ministers and Officers, and to the great oppression of the subjects.

‘2nd. That the said Sir Charles Porter, in his Office and Place of Lord Chancellor, hath used and exercised a Power above and against Law, and to the subversion of the fundamental Laws and established Government of this Realm, extending such his Power at his meer Will and Pleasure, without any reasonable or warrantable cause over the Persons and Estates of his Majesty’s subjects of this Kingdom.

3rd. For imprisoning illegally one Elnathan Lun, until the said Lun enlarged one Packer, indebted to said Lun and partner, whereby the said debt of 1,200l. was lost. The said Lun being forced to enlarge Packer to procure his own release.

4th. For illegally removing Thomas Tilson from his office of Usher in the Court of Chancery.

5th. That the said Sir Charles Porter, being disaffected to his Majesty’s Government, and a great Favourer of the late King James, his Adherents, and the Irish Papists, put into Commission, and continues several persons in the Commission of the Peace who have been active in the late King’s Service against his Majesty, and are unfit persons to be in Commission, some of them having imbrued their hands in Protestant Blood, and others indicted and outlawed for High Treason committed against his Majesty; and the said Sir Charles Porter had sufficient knowlege of the aforesaid matter relating to the said Justices of the Peace.

‘6th. That the said Sir Charles Porter, contrary to his Oath, Office, and Duty, hath notoriously favoured the Irish Papists against Protestants, in causes depending before him, by using great Delays in favour of the Irish Papists, and not giving such Judgments as the cases required when the same were ripe for Judgment, as appears by the case of Bart and Carthy, the case between Sir Arthur Gore and the Lord Dillon, the case between Kelly and Grolier; and the case between Robert Twigg, Plaintiff, Henry Ball, Robert Ball, and Richard Yates, Defendants, and several other cases of like nature, contrary to Magna Charta; and the said Sir Charles Porter hath showed such favour, as well to Irish Papists, that have not claimed any benefit from any Articles, as to others, who have not been adjudged within any Articles.

‘7th. That the said Sir Charles Porter, contrary to his said Oath, Office, and Duty, hath acted partially, arbitrarily, and illegally in causes before him between Parties, particularly by releasing George Philips, Esq., when in execution at the suit of Morris Bartley, and by commit ting the Sub-Sheriff and Bailiffs of the High Sheriff of the County of Dublin, for taking the said George Philips in execution.’ [Com. Jour. Vol. ii. p. 76.]

On October 5, a motion was made in the House that the articles against Sir Charles Porter, Knight, Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, contained matters of impeachment. The previous question being demanded, the House divided - 94 voting for, and 116 against - on which the debate was adjourned. At a later day it was ordered, that witnesses in support of the articles, as also against the allegations contained therein, should be sworn before the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Baron. When sworn they were to be examined in the House.

The principal promoters of the articles having required the attendance of his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, the Earl of Meath, the Earl of Longford, Lord Massareene, the Bishops of Clonfort and Waterford, in the House of Commons, to give their testimony on oath for the articles, a conference took place and reported ‘that their Lordships could not comply with the desire of the House of Commons, by giving to the Lords mentioned in their message leave to go down to that House-* First, *Because it is not parliamentary for the House of Commons to examine any Person upon Oath. * Secondly, *That the House of Peers, being a Court of Judicature, and Judges of all Impeachments brought from the House of Commons, will examine such of their Peers as the Commons shall desire, if any Impeachment shall be brought before their Lordships, according to the usual methods of Parliaments.

But the Commons were not satisfied with this answer. They appointed a Committee to search for precedents, and, on October 25, 1695, the Solicitor-General reported ‘that the House of Commons are, and always will be, desirous to preserve a good correspondence with the House of Peers, and in order to it will decline anything that may be an intrenchment on their Lordships’ Judicature or right, yet are not satisfied with the reasons afforded by their Lordships at a conference on October 21:-

‘1st. Because the House of Commons do conceive that, what is desired in their Message to their, Lordships. will be no intrenchment on the judicature of the House of Peers, the same being for the information and satisfaction, of the House of Commons only; which they conceive to be no Parliamentary Trial, but in order to prepare for such Trial before their Lordships.

‘2nd. Because it is Parliamentary for the House of Commons to receive Evidence of Witnesses who have been sworn, of which there are several precedents.’

Upon conference with, the Lords, they resolved to adhere to their resolution, while the House of Commons insisted upon theirs, and there is no knowing what the result of this difference of opinion might have been had it been; carried much further; but, on October 25, the Lord Chancellor attended the House of Commons, and as the Journals inform us, ‘the Lord Chancellor being admitted with: the purse, a chair being placed for him on the right hand, within the bar, he laid down the purse and his hat, and at the back of the chair, uncovered, was heard what he could say on the articles exhibited against him.’ [Com. .Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 108.]

Unfortunately we have no record of his speech in defending himself on this occasion, but it was signally successful, for on the question being put, ‘That what Sir Charles Porter, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, said to the House in relation to the matters contained in the articles exhibited against him, is satisfactory to the House without any proof,’ the House divided, and the affirmation was carried by 121 for, to 77 against, the motion. The result was the rejection of the articles, and the witnesses summoned were discharged from further attendance. [Ibid. p. 120.] The night Sir Charles Porter triumphed over his enemies, by the House of Commons rejecting the charges against him, he was proceeding, homewards in his coach, through the narrow street then as now called Essex Street, which runs parallel with the quay along the Liffey - it was named after the Lord Deputy’s brother, Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex - and entered the city by the Essex Gate. At this period it formed the chief communication between Chichester House, where the Parliament assembled, and Chancery Lane, in which the Chancellor and many other Judges resided, being near the Four Courts in Christ Church Lane. As the unwieldy coach of that period lumbered along the ill-paved street, which was utterly dark, for no public lights were used at the period, [The Statute for lighting the streets of Dublin was not then passed. Its date is 9 William III. c. 17.] and owing to the lateness of the hour most of the inhabitants were in bed, the Chancellor’s coachman tried to pass another carriage immediately in front. This was the coach of Rochfort, Speaker of the House of Commons and Attorney-General, a violent enemy of the Lord Chancellor. A stray glare of light happening to fall upon the Chancellor’s equipage as the two vehicles were nearly in collision, the Speaker instantly called aloud for the Chancellor’s coachman to keep back. This peremptory mandate being either unheard or unheeded, the Speaker, in his robes, darted from his coach, and disregarding danger and dirt, seized hold of the reins of the Chancellor’s horses, and brought them on their haunches. With a petulance and littleness unworthy such an occasion, he ordered his mace to be produced from his coach, and thrust it before the Chancellor’s coachman, declaring, ‘That he would be run down by no man, and would justify what he did.’

The Lord Chancellor, with wise discretion, took no personal part in this street rencontre. He made no attempt to drag his mace through the mire, and was content to allow the Speaker’s carriage precedence while their route lay in the same direction. [Dub. Univ. Mag. vol. xlvi. p. 734.]

Some idea may be formed of the inflammable materials of which the Parliament of Ireland was then composed by the fact, that this paltry squabble was deemed of sufficient importance to be brought before Parliament. The Lord Chancellor complained to the Lords of what he thought a personal affront. The Lords sent the statement to the Commons, requesting an answer, which they returned to the effect that, ‘as the matter was purely acci dental, it could not be looked on as designed affront to their Lordships in the person of their Speaker.’ [Lords’ Jour. Ir. vol. i. p. 600.]

But these matters show there could be no common cordiality between those men to whom the Irish Government was intrusted. The Lord Chancellor, Sir Richard Cox, Sir Cyril Wich and Duncombe were advocates for observing the Articles of Limerick, and treating the Catholics with justice and moderation, while the more powerful party, of which the Lord Deputy Capel was the head, resolved to crush the Papists, and the way in which they were sustained in their measures by the Irish Parliament may be judged by the preamble of the Act which ratified (?) the Articles of Limerick [9 Wm. III. C. 2.]:

‘That the said Articles, *or so much of them as may consist with the welfare of your Majesty’s subjects of this kingdom, *may be confirmed,’ &c.

The utmost severity was shown to the great bulk of the Irish people, who were so cooped and caged within legislative disabilities, it was hoped they would be forced either to a renunciation of their religion, or to an abandonment of their country. [2 Dublin University Mag. Vol. xlvi. P. 734.] Acts were passed restraining foreign education, disarming Papists, banishing Popish clergy, preventing Papists from being solicitors or intermarrying with Protestants. The Papist was the’ enemy,’ and so termed, whether he desired to be friend or not. [Ib. p. 735] The Lord Chancellor was powerless to resist this line of conduct, but when an effort was made to prolong the power of those who wrought such cruelty, he resisted with success.

Lord Capel had been in failing health, as appears by his letter above quoted, and his illness grew as time rolled on. During the spring of 1696 he removed to Chapelizod, a village close to Dublin, where was situated the ‘King’s House,’ a mansion purchased from the Eustace family by Charles II., the ruins of which are still standing. This formed the summer residence of the Irish Viceroys before the Vice-regal lodge in the Phoenix Park was devoted to their use. When the Lord Deputy’s malady showed symptoms of danger, the party who acted with him feared that his death would terminate their reign of power unless they obtained the appointment of some of their number as Lords Justices. To effect this Brigadier Wolseley and Mr. Stone, repaired to the House of Sir Richard Cox, who, at this time, was in England, and not finding his clerk, from whom they expected to procure the Signet, which was in Sir Richard Cox’s keeping, they broke open Cox’s chamber door, ransacked his desk and papers, until they found the Signet, which they affixed to a warrant authorising the preparation of a patent for Lords Justices. They spurred hard for Chapelizod, and finding the Viceroy still alive, though dying, they prepared a patent constituting Morrogh, Vicount Blessington, and William Walseley , Esq., Master of the Ordnance, Lords Justices during his Majesty’s pleasure, or until the Lord Deputy should regain his health. This patent was dated May 16, but still one more matter was needed to give it validity - the Great Seal must be affixed, and this was in the possession of the Lord Chancellor. Could he be induced to seal it? They resolved to try, and, on the morning of the 17th, a summons, as from the Lord Deputy, brought the Chancellor to Chapelizod. Here the confederates were assembled, and placed the patent, ready for completion, before the cautious Lord Chancellor. He knew his men and their object, and refused to yield to their request without express directions from the Lord Deputy, whom he desired to see. This they dare not refuse; but the dying man, possibly bethought him of the harsh conduct he pursued towards the Chancellor, for he was supposed to have been privy to the fabrication of the charges made in Parliament, and wasted by sickness was indisposed to any exertion. What the Chancellor foresaw took place. The interview was declined; and Sir Charles Porter peremptorily refused to affix the Great Seal to the patent, with out the express authority of the Lord Deputy.

A meeting of the chief Judges, the Attorney and Solicitor General, and some of the Council was held at Chapelizod, to consider what action should be taken in the matter, but the Chancellor was immovable, and in a few days the Lord Deputy was no more. [Dublin University Magazine, vol. xlvi. p. 737.]

The Lord-Lieutenant died, May 30, 1696, and on the assembling of Parliament, on Saturday, June 27, Sir John Hely, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, acquainted the Lords that the Lord Chancellor, late Speaker of the House of Lords, being advanced to the high station of Lord Justice, and General Governor of the Kingdom, his Majesty named him Sir John Hely, by commission, Speaker of the Lords. He was ordered to have liberty to go circuit without the mace, and, on the motion of Lord Charlemont, it was ordered that this House, with its Speaker, do attend his Excellency Sir Charles Porter, Knight, Lord Justice and General Governor of Ireland, at three of the clock this afternoon, and congratulate him on his late happy accession to the Government of, this kingdom. [Lord’s Journals, vol. i. p. 588] He does not appear to have remained long Chief Governor, for he died suddenly of a fit .of apoplexy, when left alone in his house in Dublin, on June 15, 1697. He was: succeeded by John Methuen, Esq., as Lord Chancellor of Ireland. His death was lamented by King William III.: Sir Robert Southwell thus mentions the King’s opinion of the late Lord Chancellor when writing to Sir Richard Cox:- ‘His Majesty is sorry for the loss of a good Chancellor; and thinks the root of all the animosity against him was for little else than his supporting the Articles of Limerick; so that it looks probable his Majesty will have good thoughts of those who, on this account, proved his friends.’

Sir Richard Cox wrote a poem on the Chancellor’s death, but I have not been able to find any trace of it. William Molyneaux, Member for the University of Dublin, published his celebrated work, ‘The Case of Ireland being bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated.’ He contended that by a declaratory Irish Statute of 29 Henry VI., the re-enactment of Acts passed in England was necessary to give them force in Ireland. This work, printed in 1698, was considered to prove the constitutional independence of Ireland, and was regarded as of dangerous tendency to the Crown and Parliament of England. The House of Commons at Westminster appointed a committee to examine the work. Upon the report, the House, in a body, presented an address to William III., representing the dangerous attempts of some of his subjects in Ireland to shake off the subjection and dependence upon England; manifested not only from the bold and pernicious assertions in the book called’ The Case or Ireland,’ but more fully and authentically by votes and proceedings in the Commons of Ireland. These had, during their last Session, transmitted an Act for the better security of his Majesty’s person and Government, whereby an English Act of Parliament was pretended to be re-enacted, with alterations obligatory on the Courts of Justice, and the Great Seal of England. The English Commons, therefore, besought his Majesty to give effectual orders for preventing any such encroachments for the future by punishing those who were guilty; that he would take care to see the laws which direct and restrain the Parliament of Ireland punctually observed, and discourage every thing which might have a tendency to lessen the dependence of Ireland upon England.

This remonstrance was graciously received, and the King promised compliance. [Smollet’s History of England, vol. i. p. 317] Mr. Whiteside pleasantly comments upon these proceedings:- ‘The ponderous foxhunters of the Lower House were indignant with a treatise they could not answer; and, finding the case of Ireland well stated they ordered the essay to be burned by the hands of the common hangman! A severer punishment awaits certain pamphleteers of the present day; their essays are not burned, but they are never read.’ [Life and Death of the Irish Parliament, part I. p. 66.]

Index Chapter 30. Home.

Life of Lord Chancellor Porter - continued.