Life of Lord Chancellor Sir Alexander Fitton, Lord Gatsworth.

Chapter XXX.

Life of Lord Chancellor Sir Alexander Fitton, Lord Gatsworth.

(continued from front page)

It is said that James II. employed his Irish Judges in diplomatic missions, and in England they were received with derision, and nicknamed ‘The Potato Ambassadors.’

Of the Chief Judges who, at this period, presided in the Irish Courts of Justice, we have a good account. In these judicial decisions no authenticated act of cruelty or corruption remains on record. The three powerful Judges, Nugent, Lord Riverstown, Rice, and Daly, remained within the kingdom, in possession of large properties, and, armed in conscious innocence, set their personal or political enemies at defiance. Two of the Judges were Protestants, who had survived the revolution - even one of them was continued in office by King William. But the great ornament of the Irish Bench at this time was John Keating, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; a great magistrate who, in a slippery or stormy period, exercised official station with mild manners and untainted integrity. This great man was calm, patient, and humane in the trial of prisoners; clear, laborious, and consistent in the discussion of civil suits; faithful to his King and country in the indulgence of political principle, and attached to God in the exercise of Christianity. Thus persecuting Protestants charged him with being a concealed Papist, whilst furious Roman Catholics were confounded at his firm attachment to the established religion. Connected with no party and dignifying office by despising its tenure, he equally resisted the interested views of Clarendon and Tyrconnel. Is it not certain some protest would have been made by these eminent Judges, had Sir Alexander Fitton been, in truth, the unworthy person whom Protestant historians have described?

Great allowance must be made for the violence of political writers during this and the succeeding reigns. That the Irish Roman Catholics, plundered and oppressed in the previous century, despoiled of their properties during the time of Cromwell, and looking on the Act of Settlement as obtained by fraud, and a base return for the sacrifices they had made towards the Restoration of the Stuart dynasty, should look on James II. as their Deliverer from the bondage in which they were kept was naturul. They expected to be placed in those situations of power and emolument from which they had been debarred by the Act of Queen Elizabeth, which directed ‘that all civil and military officials, lay and clerical, should take the Oath of Supremacy.’ James II., who was an avowed Roman Catholic, was desirous of showing how much he felt the sufferings of the Irish on account of their constancy to the creed of their forefathers.

Roman Catholics were commissioned to the army, to the Bench - Catholic gentlemen were named High Sheriffs in counties; the Corporations, hitherto exclusively Protestant, were now almost as exclusively Catholic, and the local magistracy, who so lately scorned to allow a Papist to set beside them, found, to their dismay, they were outnumbered by the members of the hated creed. No wonder alarm and dismay fell upon the whole Protestant population of Ireland. They, who had been accustomed to look upon the Papists as the helots of the land, only fit to be hewers of wood or drawers of water, now found all those high offices and places of dignity, which had been heirlooms in Protestant hands, were grasped greedily, and clutched firmly by the favourites of the Court. What if the children of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry, plundered by the Cromwellian Settlement, should have their exile in Connaught ended, or return from abroad, and demand their Restoration! Could the Act of Settlement be repealed? It was stated that when King James II. sent Lord Clarendon to Ireland in 1685, the Viceroy declared that the King would preserve the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, and the Lord Lieutenant instructed the Judges to declare this as the Magna Charta of Ireland. Would this be adhered to? Soon it was found it would not. The first intimation of an intention to break this law was a letter written by Sir Richard Nagle, Attorney-General for Ireland, one of the most eminent lawyers of the day, who, whilst in England, pointed out inaccuracies and imperfections in those Acts, and their great injustice. This was termed the Coventry Letter. Then, when the Earl of Tyrconnel, was appointed Lord Lieutenant, on his Proclamation, issued February 21, 1686, he promised to defend the Jaws, liberties, and established religion, but upon debate at the Privy Council, the Acts of Settlement and Explanation were omitted, and Tyrconnel so wrought upon the mind of the King, that he consented to the repeal of the Acts.

This was a blow at the whole Protestant landowners of the kingdom, and had its irresistible consequence. It alienated the affections of the entire Protestant population from the King and his Government, and before the faithless monarch fled from England, the Ulster nobles and gentry were preparing for civil war.

James II. quitted England on December 23, 1688, and sought shelter at the Court of Louis XIV., who, in compassion to his fallen state, and hoping by his means to check the increasing power of his adversary, William of Nassau, offered him a French army to assert his rights. Among the few magnanimous deeds or words related of the fugitive King is his reply to this offer: ‘No Sire, I will recover my dominions by the aid of my own subjects, or perish in the attempt.’ He was soon at the head of such Irish troops as were in the service of France, numbering about 1,200, and with a strong armament sailed for Ireland from Brest. The progress of King James II., from his landing at Kinsale to his triumphal entry into Dublin, is little known. I am, therefore, induced to describe it here. On his landing, March 12, 1688-9, he was welcomed with shouts and acclamations, bonfires blazed, and windows gleamed with light. He proceeded next day to Cork, and remained at Major-General MacCarthys, where he, was joined by Lord Tyrconnel. He continued at Cork from March 13 to 20, during which time the city kept high festival in his honour. On Wednesday, March 20, he took his departure from Cork for Dublin, and lay that night at the Earl of Cork’s Castle at Lismore. It was on this occasion his royal nerves were shaken by being suddenly asked to look from the window of the tower which overhangs the Blackwater, and he started back in affright on seeing the sheer depth of the rock on which the Castle is built. [O’Flanagan’s Guide to the Blackwater in Munster, p. 50.] From Lismore he made the next day’s journey to Clonmell. On Friday he rested at the Duke of Ormond’s Castle at Kilkenny, and on Saturday made a short visit en passant to Sir Maurice Eustace’s fine seat of Harristown, near Kilcullen Bridge. All along his Majesty’s route was one continuous demonstration of loyalty. [At Carlow he received the same tender demonstrations his grandson Charles Edward did in Scotland, in ‘45, when the Jacobite ladies contended for his kisses. - Vide Dublin Magazine,p, 106, 1843.] On Saturday, March 24, about noon, he entered the Irish metropolis. The streets, from James’s Gate to the Dublin Castle, were lined by the regular troops, and, at the entrance to this portion of the city, called the Liberties, there was a stage, hung with tapestry, whereon were two harpers playing. Here a number of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, in their vestments, met the King, and forty young ladies, clothed in white, preceded him to the Castle, scattering flowers upon his path. The houses along the streets through which the Royal progress lay, displayed great demonstrations of loyalty. Banners waved from roofs and parapets, tapestry fluttered in the breeze, and even the humblest dwelling showed a desire to welcome the Catholic King. At the bounds of the city, the Lord Mayor and Corporation, with the officers of various guilds, in their robes; Ulster King of Arms, with the heralds and pursuivants, in tabards and uniforms, swelled the cortege. Having received the Sword of State, his Majesty handed it to Lord Tyrconnel, who bore it before the King through the city. The Lord Mayor also presented the City Sword and Keys, and the Recorder of Dublin, Prime Serjeant Dillon, read the Address of the Corporation. A line of coaches-and-six, belonging to the Irish nobility, was followed by a guard of honour, numbering two hundred Irish cavalry; then followed the Grand Prior, Fitz James the Duke of Berwick’s brother, the State trumpets and drums, with twenty gentlemen-at-large. The King, preceded by Lord Tyrconnel, bearing the Sword of State, rode a spirited charger; he wore a suit of plain cinnamon-coloured cloth, and a black slouching hat; a George being over his shoulder, with a blue ribbon. He was escorted by the Duke of Berwick, Lord Grnard, Lords Powis Lord Melford on his right, with their hats on. Close behind rode a troop of dragoons; then a number of Peers and gentlemen, more guards and attendants; then coaches of Peers and gentlemen, amongst them the Judges, who wore their robes, closed the procession.

A startling incident occurred while the King was riding along in this order. One Flemming, a Scotchman, rushed through the crowd in Skinner’s Row, flung his hat high in the air, and cried aloud, ‘Let the King live for ever! ’ Then catching his Majesty’s hand, fervently kissed it, and ran capering after his hat. [Dublin Magazine, p. 106. 1843.] As the procession proceeded, the favourite tune played was ‘The King enjoys his own again,’ and the shout, ‘God save the King!’ was not disturbed by a dissentient voice. As he approached the Castle, the Roman Catholic Primate, and several other bishops, and members of various religious orders, met him. The first act of the King, on dismounting, was to kneel and receive the blessing from the Roman Catholic Primate.

Thus, in triumph and splendour, James II. entered Dublin. When he rested a brief space, he repaired to the Castle Chapel, where a Te Deum was sung for his happy arrival. Then a grand banquet followed in the new banqueting hall, which Tyrconnel had built.

Next day, a proclamation issued for assembling a Parliament in Dublin on May 7. No Catholic Bishops were summoned, though among the Spiritual Peers were six Protestant Bishops, including the Primate of the Protestant Church. One Duke, ten Earls, sixteen Viscounts, and twenty-one Barons, with the six Bishops, constituted King James’s House of Lords. The Commons returned 224 [Vide The Irish Parliament of 1689. Dublin Magazine, p. 113, 1843.] Members.

They met at the King’s Inns, on May 7, and the King opened Parliament in person. He wore his Royal robes with the Crown. The Commons being summoned, His Majesty delivered the Speech from the throne [Vide the Irish Parliament of 1689. Dublin Magazine, p. 476, 1843.]:-

‘My Lords and Gentlemen,

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

‘It was this Liberty of Conscience I gave, which my enemies both abroad and at home dreaded; especially when they saw that I was resolved to have it established by law in all my dominions, and made them set themselves up against me, though for different reasons. Seeing that if I had once settled it, my people (in the opinion of the one) would have been too happy; and I (in the opinion of the other) too great.

‘This Argument was made use of, to persuade their own people to joyn with them, and too many of my subjects to use me as they have done. But nothing shall ever persuade me to change my mind as to that; and wheresoever I am the master, I design (God willing) to establish it by law, and have no other test or distinction but that of loyalty.

‘I expect your concurrence in so Christian a work, and in making laws against prophaneness and all sorts of debauchery.

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

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

‘I shall conclude as I have begun, and assure you I am as sensible as you can desire, of the signal loyalty you have expressed to me, and shall make it my chief study, as it always has been, to make you and all my subjects happy.’ [This speech corresponds with that given by Lesley, and James’s own memoirs. It is stated to be printed from an authentic manuscript, printed and sold by E. Rider, Dublin, 1740. The Acts of this Parliament were printed and sold at his Majesty’s printing house, Ormond Quay, and at the College Arms in Castle Street, 1689. Great pains were subsequently taken to destroy the original editions of these Acts. They were burnt in the Castle Chamber, and 500l. penalty imposed on persons retaining copies. One only is said to be in existence - the Act for raising 20,000l. a month, in the King’s Inns Library. Vide the ‘Statutes of 1689’ in the Dublin Magazine, p. 29, 1843.]

At the conclusion of the King’s Speech, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gawsworth, directed the Members of the House of Commons to retire and elect their Speaker. They obeyed and chose Sir Richard Nagle, with whose abilities and character we are already familiar. I must add a short notice of this ornament of the Irish Bar.

Richard Nagle was born on the banks of the Munster Blackwater, and, it is said, the old Castle of Carrignacunna (now the property of Mr. Foot) was the home of his childhood. King says he was educated among the Jesuits, and designed for a clergyman, but, afterwards, studied law, and arrived at great perfection. We have seen, in the ‘Life of Sir Charles Porter,’ that he declined the honour of being a Privy Councillor rather than give up his practice at the Bar, and Tyrconnel rightly considered him a proper person to advise the King upon the affairs of Ireland, when he brought him to England in 1686. Nagle’s reputation was so justly high, that this selection on the part of Tyrconnel was regarded with dismay by parties interested in maintaining the Act of Settlement intact. It is recorded that ‘on being informed of Nagle’s arrival in London, they were so transported with rage, that they had him immediately sent out of the city.’ Upon this Nagle wrote his celebrated letter from Coventry.[The Irish Parliament of 1689. Dublin Magazine, p. 119, 1843.]

In this letter, dated Coventry, October 26, 1786, he shows the reasons which induced the passing of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, that it was for their religion the estates of the Irish Catholics were sequestered, and the hardship of allowing these Acts to remain unrepealed. He was at once regarded as the ablest man of his party, received the honour of knighthood, and was made Attorney-General in 1687. [The Nagles of Anakissy, near Mallow, County Cork, now represented by my talented friend and kinsman, David A. Nagle, Esq., Town Councillor of Cork, is a branch of the family from which Sir Richard Nagle traced descent.] Duhigg [History of the King’s Inns, p. 236.] bears the following high testimony to his character. ‘James’s Attorney-General, Sir Richard Nagle, dignified that situation by exchanging its usual character for that of a stern, inflexible patriot. He carried measures similar to those of 1782, and thus paid homage to the excellence of English law by transferring its full and complete enjoyment to his countrymen.’ On the arrival of James ll. in 1688-9, Sir Richard Nagle was made Secretary of State, but this could not have been for some time, as he was undoubtedly Speaker of the House of Commons during the short Session, commencing May 7, 1689, and ending on July 20, of the same eventful year.

As the proceedings of this Parliament were subsequently declared null and void, and the Acts passed were burned and of no effect, it is only as historical events I refer to them. They show how fully men of all creeds and classes recognised James as their lawful Sovereign, and how blindly attached were the Irish to a race which so little deserved such devotion.

The Lords who sat in King James ll.’s Irish Parliament at Dublin, May 7, 1689 to November 12, were

Sir Alexander Fitton, Lord Baron of Gawsworth, Lord Chancellor; Dr. Michael Boyle, Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland; Richard Talbot, Duke of Tyrconnel.

Earls

Nugent Earl of Westmeath.

MacDonel Earl of Antrim.

Barry Earl of Barrymore.

Lambert Earl of Cavan.

MacCarthy Earl of Clancarty.

Power Earl of Tyrone.

Aungier Earl of Longford.

Forbes Earl of Granard,

Dougan Earl of Limerick.

Viscounts

Preston Viscount Gormanston.

Butler Viscount of Mountgarett.

Dillon Viscount of Costello and Gallen.

Netterville Viscount of Dowth

Magennis Viscount of Iveagh.

Sarsfield Viscount of Kilmallock.

Bourk Viscount of Mayo.

Dempsy Viscount of Glanmalier.

Brien Viscount of Clare.

Butler Viscount of Galmoy.

Barnewall Viscount of Kingsland.

Parsons Viscount of Rosse.

Bourk Viscount of Galway.

Brown Viscount of Kenmare.

Cheevers Viscount of Mount Leinster.

Bishops

A. Dopping, Bishop of Meath.

T. Otway, Bishop of Ossory and Kilkenny.

E. Wetenhall, Bishop of Cork and Ross.

S. Digby, Bishop of Limerick and Ardfert.

Barons

Benningham Baron of Athenry.

Courcy Baron of Kinsale.

Fitz Maurice Baron of Kerry.

Fleming Baron of Slane.

St. Laurence Baron of Howth.

Barnewall Baron of Trimblestown.

Plunkett Baron of Dunsany.

Butler Baron of Dunboyne.

Fitzpatrick Baron of Upper Ossory.

Plunkett Baron of Louth.

Bourke Baron of Castle Connell.

Butler Baron of Caher.

Bourke Baron of Brittas.

Blaney Baron of Monaghan.

Malone Baron of Glenmalure.

Maguire Baron of Enniskillen.

Hamilton Baron of Strabane.

Bellew Baron of Duleek.

Bourke Baron of Bophin.

Nugent Baron of Riverstown.

There was, also, a very national House of Commons assembled. The names of the Members, as given in Archbishop King’s work,. and in the Appendix to Plowden, are unmistakably Irish, With the exception of three - Francis Plowden and Dr. Stafford, returned for the borough of Bannow; and Luke Dormer, Member for New Ross. The Members, with six exceptions, are supposed to have been all Roman Catholics, and Plowden states ‘were probably the fairest representation of the people of Ireland that ever were sent to any Parliament in that country.’ [Hist. Review, vol. i.]

The Roman Catholics now beheld the long-coveted opportunity of regaining possession of their forfeited estates. Many Members of the House of Commons remembered their ancestral homes, from which they had been ruthlessly expelled by the troopers of Cromwell, or the merciless undertakers, who, for some inconsiderable sum, had become master of the broad lands in which the forefathers of the Members dwelt. Several were of families whose afflicted mothers, despairing fathers, and weeping sisters had been transplanted to the wastes of Clare, or the rock-bound coasts of Connaught, and were ready to grasp at the chance of again looking upon the pleasant fields in which they had played in their youth, the forest glades through which they had hunted in more mature years, and of ejecting in turn those who forcibly, with the word of God on their lips, but the sword in their hands, offered the choice of ‘Hell or Connaught’ to the Irish Papist. These were, no doubt, the motives which made the now dominant party demand from the King the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. The King could not, for, if unwilling, he was unable to refuse their demand. Accordingly a, Bill was prepared, reciting ‘the sacrifices which Bill to the Roman Catholics of Ireland had made for the Royal authority; how the usurper, Oliver Cromwell, seized and sequestered their estates, and gave them to his soldiers and adherents; that two Acts of Parliament passed here, one intituled “An Act for the better execution of his Majesty’s gracious declaration for the Settlement of the Kingdom of Ireland, and satisfaction of the several interests of adventurers, soldiers, and others his subjects there;” the other Act, intituled “An Act for Explaining of some doubts arising upon an Act intituled an Act for the better execution of his Majesty’s gracious declaration for the settlement of his Kingdom of Ireland, and satisfaction of the several interests of adventurers, soldiers, and others his subjects there; and for making some alteration of, and additions unto, the said Act for the more speedily and effectual settlement of the Kingdom;” by which many of the said Catholic subjects were ousted out of their ancient inheritances, without being as much as heard, and some were distributed amongst Cromwell’s soldiers and others, who, in justice, could not have the least pretence, contrary to the peace made in 1648, and contrary to justice and natural equity. Be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the said two several Acts, &c., be and are hereby repealed.’

The Act, which was a very comprehensive one, [A very full transcript is given in Plowden’s Hist. Review, vol. i. Appendix, p. 171.] provided compensation for innocent purchasers, or incumbrancers, out of the estates of rebels, and authorised the Lord Chancellor to appoint Commissioners to inquire and report upon the estates of rebels on August 1, 1688. Such Commissioners to allot and reprise these, who, on petition, shall be entitled to claim reprisal.

We can well imagine the dismay and alarm of the settlers during the progress of this Bill through Parliament. The estates for which their fathers risked life and limb, for which they conquered or intrigued, which many had bought with cash, and from which they had expelled the Irish without the least compunction, were now to be taken from them. They, in their turn, were to be transplanted, and shoots of the old stem were to grow up in the old soil. Such opposition as they best could make, they did. An address to King James on behalf of purchasers, under the Address to Act of Settlement, was prepared by Chief-Justice Keating [Archbishop King’s State of the Protestants, Appendix, p. 96.] - a most able document. It was on behalf of purchasers who, ‘for great and valuable considerations, have acquired lands and tenements in this kingdom, by laying out, not only their portions and provisions made for them by their parents, but also the whole product of their own industry, and the labour of their youth, together with what could be saved by a frugal management, in order to make some certain provision for old age and their families, in purchasing lands and tenements under the security of divers Acts of Parliament and public declarations from the late King; and all these accompanied by a possession of twenty-five years.’ This address showed that by the conduct of Charles I. and Charles II. the Settlement was binding; that the Acts were passed with all the formalities usual in Acts of Parliament in Ireland; viz., framed by the Chief-Governor and Council of Ireland, with the advice of the Judges and his Majesty’s Council there: transmitted to England; considered by the Council, before whom Counsel and agents of the Irish pretending to be the proprietors were heard; and the Acts of Settlement, having passed both Houses of Parliament, received the Royal assent, as did in like manner the Act of Explanation.

Dopping, Lord Bishop of Meath, on June 4 1689 in his place in the House of Lords, delivered a very able of and argumentative speech against the Bill for repealing these Acts. He contended this Bill unsettled a formal foundation (upon which this kingdom’s peace and flourishing were superstructed), and designs to erect another in its stead, the success whereof is dubious and uncertain. He urged it was unjust to turn men out of their estates without any fault or demerit, to deprive widows of their jointures, and children of their portions, whose money had been laid out on the public faith of the nation, declared in two Acts of Parliament, and on the public faith of his Majesty’s Royal brother, expressed in his Letters Patent. He showed how delusive was the nature of the reprisals promised by the Bill; that the repeal was neither for the public or the King’s good, that it would not only ruin the kingdom and people, but destroy all public faith, and was inconvenient in point of time.

Despite all opposition, the Bill passed both Houses, and received the Royal assent. We are told, indeed, and I believe truly, that James was unwilling to pass the measure, and Bishop Lesley states, ‘As to his carriage in Ireland, I have heard not a few of the Protestants confess, that they owed their preservation and safety, next under God, to the clemency of King James, who restrained all he could the insolence and outrage of their enemies, of which I can give you some remarkable instances and good vouchers. I appeal to the Earl of Granard whether Duke Powis did not give him thanks from King James for the opposition he made in the House of Lords to the passing of the Act of Attainder, and the Act for the Repeal of the Act of Settlement; and desired that he, and other Protestant Lords, should use their endeavours to obstruct them. To which the Lord Granard answered, “that they were too few to effect that; but if the King would not have them pass, his way was to engage some of the Roman Catholic Lords to stop them.” To which the Duke replied, “that the King durst not let them know that he had a mind to have them stopt.”’

The representatives of the old inheritors having now the law in their favour, were not slow to act upon it. The process appointed for the Acts of Repeal to be administered by Commissioners was too tedious for the eager claimants. According to Archbishop King, [State of the Protestants, p. 182.] the following device was adopted to get into possession more speedily. Wherever the Protestants had let their lands to Catholic tenants, these tenants forsook the Protestant landlord, and became tenants to the pretended Catholic proprietors. Several Protestants filed bills in Chancery, complaining of this as contrary to the Act, which allowed them to keep possession until May, 1690, which not being yet come, or any Commission being appointed to execute the Act, they moved for injunctions to quiet the possessions; but the Chancellor answered, ‘That this did not concern landlords who let their lands, but only such as occupied farms themselves; and that the Parliament had granted that indulgence to them, only that they might have time to dispose of their stocks, which not being the case with those who had tenants, they must go to common law and try their titles.’ By this Equity. means most of the old proprietors got into their estates.

[The notice to quit served on the new proprietor, and also the order to restore possession to the old, were as follows:-

‘County Kildare

By the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Kildare and one of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council.

‘Sir, This is to let you understand that I am authorised to give the proprietor possession of the land of Ballysannan, &c., according to the Act of Parliament; and that you may not be surprised therein I give you this notice.

from, Sir,

‘Your loving friend and servant,

‘CHARLES WHITE’

‘For John Annesly, Esq.’

Second Order.

‘Whereas Luke Fitz Gerald, Esq., has proved himself before me to be the ancient proprietor of the town and land of Ballysannan, and that his ancestors were possessed of their mansion house there in the year 1641. I do therefore, in pursuance of his Majesty’s orders unto me, appoint the undernamed persons to give possession of the mansion house there to Luke Fitz Gerald, Esq. And for so doing, this shall be your warrant.

‘Given under my hand and seal this 6th day of May 1690, I do hereby appoint Captain W. Archbold or Captain J. Dillon, of Athy, to give possession of the mansion house of Ballysannan.

‘CHARLES WHITE’

‘To Luke Fitz Geraldn, Esq.’

The following were among the Acts passed by the Parliament of Ireland, elected in the reign of James II. A.D. 1689:-

‘An Act declaring that the Parliament of England cannot bind Ireland, and against writs of error and appeals to be brought, for removing judgments, decrees, and sentences in Ireland into England.

‘An Act for repealing the Acts of Settlement and Explanation.

‘An Act for taking off all incapacities of the natives of the kingdom.

‘An Act for repealing the Act for keeping and celebrating the 23rd of October, as an anniversary thanksgiving in this kingdom.

‘An Act for Liberty of Conscience, and repealing such Acts and Clauses in any Act of Parliament which are inconsistent with the same.

‘An Act for repealing an Act entitled ” An Act for Confirmation of Letters Patent, granted to his Grace, James Duke of Ormond.”

‘An Act for the encouragement of strangers and others to inhabit and plant in the kingdom of Ireland.

‘An Act prohibiting the importation of English, Scotch, or Welsh Coals into this Kingdom.

‘An Act for vesting in his Majesty the Goods of Absentees.

‘An Act for the advance and improvement of Trade, and for the encouragement and increase of Shipping and Navigation.

‘An Act for the attainder of divers rebels, and for preserving the interests of loyal subjects.’

The legality of King James’s Parliament was not without defenders. It was contended the three elements of a legal Parliament, King, Lords, and Commons, existed in it. The Commons were summoned by writs directed, to the legal returning officers. In the upper house, the Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, were summoned, and sat in the usual way. The five new creations of Peers were made legally and in order. This was the opinion of Mr. Lynch in his Legal Institutions.

On the other side, it was argued that James was no longer King, when he issued the proclamation and writs for assembling the Parliament; that the English Convention Parliament of 1688 gave the Crown to William and Mary; that the moment William became King of England, he was instantly King of Ireland, and then Parliament passed a bill of rights - expelled the late King and his dynasty; limited the crown to Protestants; forbade the King marrying a Roman Catholic, and limited carrying arms to Protestants; abolished the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, substituting the oaths of allegiance and abjuration; gave the crown of England, France, and Ireland to William and Mary, and the administration exclusively to King William ill. [Parliament in Ireland, 1689. Dublin Magazine, p. 173, 1843.]

The events which followed William’s progress to the Boyne are familiar to the readers of Irish history. Tyrconnel accompanied James in his flight to France, and returned to Limerick, where he died suddenly. On his death, the Lord Chancellor, Chief Baron Rice, and Plowden, assumed the office of Lords Justices, but their tenure of office was of brief duration.

Lord Chancellor Fitton was succeeded by Sir CHARLES PORTER as Lord Chancellor in 1691. Fitton was attainted, and it is supposed followed his Royal Master to France, and died there. Whether the conduct of Fitton before he was made Chancellor was criminal or innocent, God only can judge, but His hand fell heavily upon the representatives of the Fittons of Gawsworth. ‘In less than half a century the husbands of its two co-heiresses, James Duke of Hamilton and Charles Lord Mohun, were slain by each other in a murderous duel, arising out of a dispute relative to a partition of the Fitton estates; and Gawsworth itself passed into an unlineal hand by a series of alienations complicated beyond example in the annals of this county.’ [Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. P. 295.]

Though no doubt the troubled reign of James II. was little favourable to steady pursuits, the course of law flowed on uninterruptedly amid the crash of thrones and fall of dynasties. There are nearly a hundred Chancery decrees made during the reign of James ll. enrolled. I have looked carefully through those made while Lord Gawsworth held the Seals, but could observe nothing to mark ignorance of his duty, or incapacity to perform it. He confirms reports, dismisses bills, decrees in favour of awards, grants injunctions, with the confidence of an experienced equity judge.

Index Chapter 31. Home.