Life of Lord Chancellor Sir Constantine Phipps

Chapter XXXV. **

Life of Lord Chancellor Sir Constantine Phipps. **

THE father of Sir Constantine Phipps, ancestor of the late Marquis of Normanby, [Lodge’s Peerage ofg Ireland, vol. vii. P. 83.] one of the most popular Irish Viceroys, was a distinguished naval officer eminently skilled in mathematics. He was the inventor of the diving-bell, which has done so much to recover treasure lost by shipwreck. It was but just the inventor should turn his discovery to profitable use, and this achievement is thus recorded on the tomb raised to his memory, in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth, London:-

Near this place is interred the body

Of Sir William Phipps, Knt., who in the year

1687, by his great industry, discovered among

The rocks, near the banks of Bahama on

The north side of Hispaniola, a Spanish plate

Ship, which had been under water 44

Years, out of which he took in gold and

Silver to the value of three hundred

Thousand pounds sterling, and with a

Fidelity equal to his conduct, brought it

All to London where it was divided

Between himself and the rest of the adventurers; for

Which great service he was knighted by his

Then Majesty K. James II. and afterwards

By the command of his present Majesty,

And at the request of the principal inhabitants

Of New England, he accepted the government

Of the Massachusetts, in which he continued to

The time of his death; and discharged his trusts

With that zeal for the interest of his country,

And with so little regard to his own private advantage,

That he justly gained the good esteem and affection

Of the greatest and best part of the inhabitants of that Colony.

He died 18th February, 1694;

And ‘his Lady, to perpetuate his memory,

Hath caused this monument to be erected.

From this just governor and distinguished man the noble line of Phipps has descended, but it is of his son Constantine it is my province to write.

He was born while his father was distinguishing himself - sustaining the British flag upon the waves - about the year 1650, and, devoting himself to the study of the law, was in due time admitted to its practice. The name of Constantine Phipps appears in the books of the Inner Temple in 1682. He was always industrious, and, though partial to the amusements of young men in his position - yachting, rowing, fishing, and riding - he did not neglect to store his mind with legal lore. He was very well prepared when he commenced to practise his profession, for he acted on the maxim, ‘he who is not a good lawyer before he comes to the bar, will never be a good one after it.’ Though he preferred the Equity business, and was a very good Chancery lawyer, he by no means declined the work of *nisi prius, *and in the King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Mr. Phipps was not unknown. He had powerful friends, and when a barrister shows such talents as secures him abundance of briefs, and his reputation as a lawyer is well established, and he is a useful member of Parliament, politicians prophesy his rise, and the Ministers are sure to fulfil the prediction.

Mr. Phipps acquired a very distinguished position during Queen Anne’s reign. In 1709, he, being then knighted, was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and was shortly sworn in Lord Justice. An entry in the King’s Inn Roll recites [Duhigg’s King’s Inn, p. 263.] - ‘Termino Hilarii, 1710, Memorandum quod Excellentissimus Constantinus Phipps, miles unus Dominorum Justiciariorum hujus regni Hiberni, et Dominus Cancellarius ejusdem regni, ad humilem petitionem justiciariorum et aliorum jurisperitorum hujus societatis, dignatur de inter socios hujus hospitii connumerari.’

The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was Thomas Earl of Wharton, a man, according to the account in Dean Swift’s works, who was infamous in his life, conversation, and actions. Some notice of one who governed this kingdom while Sir Constantine Phipps was Chancellor will serve to display the conduct of men in power in those days.

Thomas Earl of Wharton, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by the force of an excellent constitution defied the effects of vice, either on body or mind. His character was the opposite of what that of a man in authority ought to be, and, the instances of his want of truth and sincerity, recorded by Swift, would amuse if they did not disgust. Numerous instances of defrauding the public by peculation are recounted, of which the following is a specimen [Swift’s Character of Thomas Earl of Wharton, in Swift’s Works, Hawkesworth’s Edition, vol. iii, p. 387.]:-

‘That his Excellency can descend to small gains, take this instance: there was 850l. ordered by her Majesty to buy new liveries for the State trumpeters, messengers, &c., but with great industry he got them made cheaper by 200*l., *which he saved out of that sum; and it is reported that the steward got a handsome consideration besides from the undertaker. The Lord Lieutenant has no power to remove or appoint a Solicitor-General without the Queen’s letter, it being one of the appointments excepted out of his Commission, yet, because Sir Richard Levinge disobliged him by voting according to his opinion, he removed him, and put in Mr. F--- , though he had no Queen’s letter for so doing, only a letter from Mr. Secretary Boyle, that her Majesty designed to remove him.’

The Privy Council in Ireland have a great share in the administration, all things being carried on by the consent of the majority, and they sign all orders and proclamations there as well as the Chief Governor. But his Excellency disliked so great a share of power in any one but himself, and, when matters were debated in Council other wise than he approved, he would stop them and say. ‘Come, my Lords, I see how your opinions are, and therefore I will take your votes,’ and so he would put an end. to the dispute.

One of his chief favourites was a scandalous clergyman, a constant companion of his pleasures, who appeared publicly with his Excellency, but never in his habit. His Excellency presented this divine to one of the Bishops with the following recommendation: ‘My Lord, M--- is a very honest fellow, and has no fault but that he is a little too immoral.’ He made this man chaplain to his regiment, though he had been so infamous that a Bishop in England refused to admit him to a living he had been presented to, till the patron forced him to it by law,

His Excellency recommended the Earl of I--- to be one of the Lords Justices in his absence, and was much mortified when he found Lieutenant-General Ingoldsby appointed, without any regard to his recommendation, particularly, because the usual salary of a Lord Justice in the Lord Lieutenant’s absence is 100l, per month, and he had bargained with the Earl for 40*l. *

These specimens of the Lord Lieutenant’s character must show how ill-suited he was to govern any country, more especially one torn by recent civil war and crushed by partial legislation, as Ireland then was. After a short and mischievous sojourn of little more than two years, Lord Wharton was removed, and James Butler, second Duke of Ormond, again found himself in Dublin Castle, intrusted in the Queen’s name with the chief place in the Government of Ireland.

While party-spirit was prevailing in the country, and the Lord Chancellor doing his utmost to allay those bitter feelings from which one of the fairest kingdoms of the earth has ever been the victim, he devoted himself with the utmost diligence to his duties as a judge. He found, indeed, plenty to occupy his time, and endeavoured to correct some of the abuses of that Court, which he considered led to unnecessary expense. He also intimated a wish to shorten the process by discouraging repetitions, and refusing costs of motions, exceptions, and pleadings which were prolix or irrelevant. Any alarm which these innovations upon the old system may have excited were speedily allayed by the Chancellor becoming hateful to the dominant party in Ireland, which shortly deprived him of his place.

Among other reforms which Sir Constantine Phipps tried to establish, was the abolition of the ceremony of walking in procession round the statue of King William III. in College Green.

From the time of its erection in 1701, the anniversary of November 4, 1690 (day of King William’s landing in England), had been a day of very natural rejoicing to those who, by the success of his campaign, had become ascendants in Church and State. They had the monopoly of every appointment in both kingdoms, and were not likely to allow the Roman Catholic population to forget their inferior position. The practice hitherto had been to hoist the British flag on Bermingham tower, to fire cannon from the guns in the park, which were responded to by volleys from the different barracks of Dublin, and a regiment paraded in College Green. Then all the bells of the churches were kept ringing, and at noon the Lord Lieutenant held a levee at the Castle, from whence, at 3 p.m., a procession issued forth, composed of the Viceroy, Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Aldermen, the Lord Chancellor, Judges, Provost of Trinity College, and other civil and military dignitaries, with those nobility and gentry who attended the levee, and all marched between lines of troops along Dame Street and College Green, to Stephen’s Green. Having made the circuit of Stephen’s Green, they returned, and as they reached the statue in College Green, made three rounds, after which the troops fired three volleys.

As these annual displays provoked animosity between Catholics and Protestants, and were often attended with tumult. Sir Constantine, while Lord Justice, during the reign of Queen Anne, hoped to put an end to them by refusing to join the procession. But the spirit of the ascendancy party was too strong to suffer this opportunity of showing its strength to collapse so quickly. William Aldrich, then High Sheriff, a violent partisan, took the head of the procession, and, leaving the Lord Justice alone in his glory, had the honour of being the chief actor in the annual show. [Gilbert’s History of Dublin, vol. iii. P. 42.]

The Jacobite party often offered indignities to this unhappy statue. On the night of Sunday, June 25, 1710, the King’s face was plastered with mud, and his Majesty deprived of his sword and truncheon. The next day there was a great commotion, and the House of Lords resolved, ‘That the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker, do, as from this House, forthwith attend his Excellency, and acquaint him that the Lords, being informed that great indignities were offered last night to the statue of his late Majesty King William of glorious memory, erected on College Green, to show the grateful sense this whole kingdom, and particularly the city of Dublin, have of the great blessings accomplished for them by that glorious Prince, have made this unanimous resolution, that all persons. concerned in that barbarous fact are guilty of the greatest insolence, baseness, and ingratitude, and desire his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant may issue a proclamation to discover the authors of this villany, with a reward to the discoverer, that they may be prosecuted and punished accordingly.’ The Chancellor, having communicated as directed, the Lord Lieutenant issued a Proclamation, and offered a reward of one hundred pounds for the discovery of the offenders. It was afterwards found that three young men, students of Trinity College, were the perpetrators - that it was done in a frolic. The consequences were serious. The students were expelled from the University, sentenced on November 18, 1710, to six months’ imprisonment, to a fine of 1001. each, which was however reduced to five shillings. [Ibid. p. 44.]

Sir Constantine was evidently a person of refined tastes, and much esteemed by literary men. Thomas Prior the poet, who was constantly employed by the English Government in negotiations with the Continent, for which purpose his knowledge of foreign languages especially qualified him, writing to Dean Swift, then in Dublin, from Paris, August 1713, says, ‘Pray give my service to your Chancellor,’ and in the twelve volumes of the Works of the Dean of St. Patrick, [Hawkesworth’s Edition.] are several letters from the Chancellor to Dean Swift.

From these it appears that Swift, who was on very intimate terms with the influential men of the time, was endeavouring to promote the interest of the son of the Lord Chancellor. Whatever was the situation which Dean Swift endeavoured to secure for Mr. Phipps there was some delay in securing the appointment. The Chancellor again wrote:-

‘Dublin, October 24, 1713.

‘Dear Sir, - I am indebted to you for your kind letters of the eighth and tenth instant, and I very heartily acknowledge the obligation. That of the eighth gave me a great many melancholy thoughts, when I reflected upon the danger our Constitution is in, by the neglect and supineness of our friends, and the vigilance and unanimity of our enemies; but I hope your Parliament proving so good, will awaken our friends, and unite them more firmly, and make them more active.

‘That part of your letter of the tenth, which related to my son, gave me a great satisfaction, for though your Commissioners here have heard nothing of it, yet I believed Mr. Keightly might bring over full instructions. in it, but he is arrived and knows nothing of it, so that whatever good intentions my Lord Treasurer [Earl of Oxford.] had in relation to my son, his Lordship has forgotten to give any directions concerning him; for, with him, things are just as they were before you left Dublin, If you will be so kind to put his Lordship in mind of it, you will be very obliging.

‘I cannot discharge the part of a friend, if I omit to let you know that your great neighbour at St. Pulcher’s [Dr. King, Archbishop of Dublin] is very angry with you. He accuseth you of going away without taking your leave of him, and intends in a little time to compel you to reside at your deanery. He lays some other thing’s to your charge which you shall know in a little time.

‘We hourly expect my Lord Lieutenant. [Duke of Shrewsbury.] The Whigs begin to be sensible they must expect no great countenance from him, and begin to be a little down in the mouth since they find Broderick [Afterwards Lord Chancellor Lord Midleton. He was elected Speaker.] is not to be their Speaker,

‘I am, with very great truth,

‘Your most obedient servant,

‘Con. Phipps.’

The Irish House of Commons took active steps for the removal of Sir Constantine Phipps from the Chancellorship. On December 18, 1713, it was resolved ‘That the Lord Chancellor, having represented Edward Lloyd, news writer, who had printed proposals for publishing “Memoirs of the Chevalier de St. George,” a traitorous work, as an object of her Majesty’s mercy, and as not having any evil design in publishing the said libel, in order to obtain a *nolle prosequi *on the indictment against him, acted therein contrary to the Protestant interests of the kingdom.

‘Resolved - That it appears to this House that the said Sir Constantine Phipps, Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, in a speech by him made on the 16th day of January, 1712, to the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Dublin, being then one of the Lords Justices of Ireland, did take upon him, by declaring his opinion, to prejudge the merits of the cause then depending between her Majesty and Dudley Moore, Esq., and thereby influence the Aldermen, some of whom are constantly returned as jurors in all causes of importance in that city.

‘Resolved - That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, humbly to beseech her Majesty to remove the Right Honourable Sir Constantine Phipps, Knight, Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, from his place of Lord High Chancellor of this kingdom, for the peace and safety of her protestant subjects of this kingdom.’

An address embodying these resolutions was addressed to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, and on December 21, 1717, Mr. Brodrick the Speaker, with several Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, waited on the Lord Lieutenant at the Castle, with their address, who promised to transmit it by the first opportunity.

The efforts of the Lord Chancellor to promote the welfare of all her Majesty’s subjects in Ireland, and not the violent Protestant party, was the cause of the complaints to which he was subjected by this portion of the people of Ireland, and it was most gratifying for him to find, that, while the representatives of the ascendancy party in the House of Commons refrained for a moment forging the fetters of the Penal Code wherewith to bind the Catholics, in order to concoct an address to the Queen, praying for his removal, the Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, were pre-senting an address of directly the opposite tendency.

Some notion may be conceived of the expressions used towards this high official, at the time when he was Lord Justice, by the lower orders of the populace of Dublin, from the evidence given before the Lords on December 18, 1713, when it was proved that one Richard Nuttal said, ‘That the Lord Chancellor was a canary bird, a villain, and had set this country by the ears, and ought to be hanged.’ Their Lordships directed the Attorney-General to prosecute Nuttal for speaking these words. [Lord’s Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 437.]

The Peers, ‘Spiritual and Temporal, united in their efforts to disconcert the enemies of the Lord Chancellor. Their address shows the lengths party spirit went to procure his recall:-

‘Most gracious Sovereign,

‘We, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, having taken into our serious consideration the calumnies and reproaches which have been cast upon Sir Constantine Phipps, your Majesty’s Lord High Chancellor of Ireland and Speaker of this House: And having this day had under our examination several groundless aspersions thrown upon him by one Richard Nuttall, whereby he was traduced, even whilst he was one of your Majesty’s Lords Justices, as having been a promoter of all the dissensions which have lately happened in this kingdom, do think ourselves obliged, in justice to that excellent Minister, in all humility to represent unto your Majesty that we do not find, but that, in the several eminent stations in which he hath served your Majesty since his coming into this country, he hath acquitted himself with Honour and Integrity, as becomes a discerning and vigilant Governor; an equal Administrator of Justice; a true lover of the Church as by law established; and a zealous assertor of the Prerogative, in opposition to a factious spirit which hath too much prevailed in this Nation,

‘We, therefore, most humbly beseech your Majesty that you will not suffer any evil report against him (if any such should reach your Majesty) to make an impression on your royal heart to his disfavour.” [Lord’s Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 437.]

On enquiry into the case of Edward Lloyd, which was one of the grounds of complaint made by the House of Commons in their address, the facts as stated in the Lords’ ‘Representation to the Queen, December 24, 1713, appear as follows:-

That Lloyd did, in September 1712, publish a proposal to print the ‘Memoirs of the Chevalier de St. George,’ and take in subscriptions for the same, When the Lords Justices and Council of Ireland were apprised of this, they seized his papers, and thus put a stop to the printing the book. They likewise ordered a prosecution, and a bill of indictment was found against him for treasonable and seditious libel, whereon Lloyd retired into England. While there, he petitioned the then Lord-Lieutenant, Duke of Ormond, setting forth he had no evil design in the publication for which he was indicted, that his poverty rendered him an object of mercy, and that he had given evidence of his zeal in the Queen’s service by discovering a most infamous libel against her Majesty, and that he would never offend again. The Duke of Ormond, having referred this Petition to the Lords Justices, their Lord-ships in Council referred it to the Law Officers, the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals. These officials reported ‘that Lloyd, being no further criminal than by intending to print and publish the book, and being in very low circumstances, he might be an object of her Majesty’s mercy.’

Whereupon not the Lord-Chancellor alone, but the Lords Justices in Council, wrote to the Duke of Ormond, on May 23, 1713, this result, and his Grace, by his reply, dated June 18, 1713, required the Lords Justices to stay further proceedings on the said indictment, which they did accordingly. The Lords also found, on perusing the speech, which, luckily for himself the Lord Chancellor had put in writing before he spoke it to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen in Council, on January 16, 1712, that so far from its being contrary to the Protestant interest of this kingdom, it was quite conservative of it. Indeed, the following extracts show, that the Lord Chancellor was as desirous of denying the Roman Catholics the free exercise of their religious ceremonies as Oliver Cromwell himself.

‘There is another thing which we recommend to you, which is, the preventing public mass being said, contrary to law, by priests not registered, or that will not take the Abjuration Oath; or are otherwise disabled from officiating.

‘We have more than ordinary reason to press this, because we suffer by your neglect. The country, generally, make the city their pattern; and, after your example become negligent of their duty in this respect. For, being asked why they permit public mass to be said, their answer is, “It is done in Dublin, and, as we are informed, by the approbation of the Government, for else it could not be done; and why should we be more officious than others?”

‘There are very good laws made to prevent this; and we have issued a Proclamation for the due execution of these laws, and have charged it in the most pressing terms we could.”

The attempt to remove the Lord Chancellor occasioned a great amount of antagonism in Ireland. It was not merely confined to the Parliament. The Commons, addressing the Queen for his removal, the Lords that he might be retained in his office; but clergy and laity shared in the matter.

Swift, in writing to Dr. King, Archbishop of Dublin, states that the Addresses had been sent to the Queen:-

‘London: December 31, 1713.

‘My Lord,

‘Your Grace’s letter, which I received but last post, is of an earlier date to what have since arrived. We have received the address for removing the Chancellor, and the counter addresses from the Lords and Convocation; and you will know, before this reaches you, our sentiments of them here, I am at a loss what to say on this whole affair. Our Court seems resolved to be very firm in their resolution about Ireland. I think it impossible for the two kingdoms to proceed long upon a different scheme of politics. The controversy with the city I am not master of: it took its rise before I ever concerned myself with the affairs of Ireland, further than to be an instrument of doing some service to the kingdom, for which I have been ill requited. But, my Lord, the question with us here is, whether there was a necessity that the other party should have a majority.

‘The address for removing the Chancellor is grounded upon two facts; in the former of which he was only concerned with others; the criminal was poor, and penniless, and a *noli prosequi *was no illegal thing. As to Moore’s business, the Chancellor’s speech on that occasion hath been transmitted hither, and seems to clear him from the imputation of prejudging. Another thing we wonder at is, to find the Commons in their votes approve the sending for the Guards, by whom a man was killed. Such a thing would, they say, look monstrous in England.’ [Swift’s Works, vol. xii. P 23.]

The Earl of Anglesey, when writing to Dr. Swift, shows how strong was the feeling of the Lords in favour of the Lord Chancellor:-

‘Dublin, Jan, 16, 1713-14.,

‘Mr. Dean,

You judged extremely right of me, that I should, with great pleasure, receive what you tell me, that my endeavours to serve her Majesty, in this kingdom, are agreeable to my Lord Treasurer and the rest of the Ministers, **

‘You are very kind, too, in your good offices for Mr. Phipps, because a mark of favour so seasonably as at this time conferred on the Lord Chancellor’s son, will ,have a much greater influence, and reach farther than his Lord-ship’s person. **

‘I shall trouble you with no compliments, because I hope soon to tell you how much I am, Dear Sir,

‘Yours,

‘Anglesey,’ [William Phipps, Esq., the Lord Chancellor’s only son, married Lady Catherine Annesley, only daughter and heiress of the Earl of Anglesey.]

The Lord Chancellor had active friends throughout the country. An Address of the High Sheriff, Justices of the Peace, Clergy, and Grand Jury of the County of Cork, was adopted at the Quarter Sessions held for that county at Bandon, July 12, 1713-14, and presented to Queen Anne by Lord Bolingbroke. ‘We cannot but with grief and great concern take notice, that the unhappy and fatal dissensions which reigned and were fomented some years past, do yet continue in this kingdom, notwithstanding the indefatigable zeal and application of the Right Honour-able Sir Constantine Phipps, Lord High Chancellor, and your other excellent Ministers, to the contrary. We cannot but join with great pleasure and satisfaction your Majesty’s most loyal Lords in Parliament, and your faithful clergy in convocation assembled, in their dutiful and humble request to continue your Royal countenance and favours to that great Minister, whose impartial justice, consummate abilities, and unbiassed affection to the constitution in Church and State are equal to those great trusts in which your Majesty’s unerring wisdom for the safety and honour of your Majesty’s interests and the common good of your people has placed him.’ [Smith’s History of Cork, vol. ii. pp. 231, 232.]

As Parliament was prorogued to Monday, January 18, 1713, and further to August 10, 1714, and the Queen died on August 1, whereby the Parliament was dissolved, I can find no trace of any proceedings upon these Addresses. That the Lord Chancellor had not been removed from his office, or lost nothing of his dignity, may be inferred from the fact that, on the death of the Queen in 1714, [The number of Chancery decrees in Ireland enrolled during the reign of Queen Anne bear no proportion to the number pronounced. I could only discover one hundred and three, but this was far short of the decrees actually made.] he, with the Archbishop of Armagh, were appointed Lords Justices of Ireland.

He did not long retain office. On the accession of King George I., a change of Government took place, and Sir Constantine Phipps ceased to be Lord Chancellor. He returned to London, and resided in the Temple, but continued to correspond with his friends in Ireland, and took an interest in Irish affairs.

The constant practice of importing Chancellors from England was calculated to act prejudicially upon the enthusiasm of the legal profession in Ireland. For no amount of legal learning, of knowledge in the practice of the Courts in Ireland, constituted a claim to the highest offices in the law. The *noblesse de la robe *was aspired to by the highest families in this kingdom, and the Bar was always regarded as the profession of a gentleman. It was, therefore, a source of discontent that strangers to the country, practitioners of another land, were elevated over the heads of the most eminent Irish lawyers, drawing after them tribes of relations - sons, sons-in-law, nephews, or remote cousins, on whom they bestowed registrarships, clerkships, the offices of secretary, purse and train bearers, and other offices of which they had the patronage, to the prejudice of members of the Bar of Ireland. It was therefore very gratifying that, on the removal of Sir Constantine Phipps, in 1714, King George I. delivered the Great Seal of Ireland to Sir Alan Brodrick, whom he created Lord Midleton,

The Ex-Chancellor, at this period, had no retiring pension, and was of too active habits, and devoted to his profession, to spend his time listlessly or idly. Accordingly he resumed his station at the English Bar, and became a prime favourite with Jacobites and Tories. [Duhigg’s History of the King’s Inns, p. 264.] His legal acquirements were of too high a class not to place him in the foremost rank of legal practitioners, and when he returned to Westminster Hall he had very lucrative business at the Bar. Duhigg states that ‘Phipps seemed to consider official station as still encircling him, and violated professional decorum at the Bar of the House of Lords, for which that august assembly most justly gave the offender a public reprimand.’ [Ibid. p. 265.] But the historian of the King’s Inns uses such strong language in reference to all whom he dislikes, that I am not disposed to place implicit reliance on all his statements.

Dean Swift undertook the advocacy of Irish interests, which, hitherto, had been completely subordinate to those of England. One extract from the pamphlet, ‘Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture,’ will serve as a proof of the advice he gave in this matter:-

‘I could wish the Parliament had thought fit to have suffered these regulations of *Church *matter, and enlargement of the *prerogative, *until a more convenient time, because they did not appear very pressing, at least to the persons principally concerned; and, instead of these great refinements in *politics *and *divinity, * had *amused *themselves and their committees a little with the *state of the nation. *For example: what if the House of Commons had thought fit to make a resolution *nemine contradicente *against wearing any cloth or stuff in their families, which were not of the growth and manufacture of this kingdom? What if they had extended it so far as utterly to exclude all silks, velvets, calicoes, and the whole *lexicon of female fopperies, and declared that whoever acted otherwise should be deemed and reputed an enemy to the nation? *What if they had sent up such a resolution to be agreed to by the House of Lords; and by their own practice and encouragement spread the execution of it in their several counties? What if we should agree to make *burying in woollen a fashion *as our neighbours have made it a law? What if the ladies would be content with Irish stuffs for the furniture of their houses, for gowns and petticoats, for themselves and their daughters? Upon the whole, and to crown all the rest, let a firm resolution be taken by *male *and *female *never to appear with one single shred that comes from England; and let all the people say Amen.’

The appearance of this pamphlet, at a time when the Irish manufactures were depressed by the partiality evinced to the trade of England, created immense excitement throughout Ireland. Dean Swift, who was at once re-garded as the writer, became the object of popular enthusiasm. The Duke of Grafton, then Lord-Lieutenant, and the Government, were furious, and a prosecution of the printer was proposed. Whitshed, then Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, was a willing tool for any arbitrary proceedings. He was son of Thomas Whitshed, an eminent Irish barrister; was appointed Solicitor-General in 1709, and Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in 1714. The Judges of Ireland were dependent on the Government, for they held their offices during pleasure; and Waters, the printer, having been brought to trial before the Chief Justice upon an indictment, this high-handed, arbitrary Judge sent back the Jury nine times in order to coerce them to find the printer guilty. Feeling they were in the power of this Judge, they, at last, made a sort of compromise between their consciences and his inclination, and found a special verdict. The Duke of Grafton, then Lord-Lieutenant, upon mature advice, and instruction from England, instructed the Attorney-General to enter a *noli prosequi, *and the affair was allowed to drop. Pending these proceedings, and while the prosecution was hanging over the head of Waters, the printer, Swift applied to Sir Constantine Phipps to try and have a writ of error, as we find by the following reply from the Ex-Lord Chancellor of Ire-land:-

‘Sir,

‘Ormond Street: January 14, 1720-21.

‘Having been a little indisposed, I went at Christmas into the country, which prevented me from sooner acknowledging the favour of your letter. As to Waters’ case, [Dean Swift’s printer.] I was informed of it; and the last term I spoke to Mr. Attorney-General [Sir Robert Raymond.] about it; but he told me he could not grant a writ of error in a criminal case, without direction from the King; so that Waters is not like to have much relief from hence, and, therefore, I am glad to have some hopes it will drop in Ireland, I think the Chief Justice should have that regard to his own reputation to let it go off so; for I believe the oldest man alive, or any law book, cannot give any instance of such a proceeding. I was informed who was aimed at by the prosecution, which made me very zealous in it; which I shall be in everything wherein I can be serviceable to that gentleman, for whom no body has a greater esteem than

‘Your most humble and most obedient servant,

‘Con Phipps.

‘To Dr. Swift.’

Sir Constantine Phipps died at his residence in the Middle Temple, on October 9, 1723. He left an only son, William Phipps, who married Lady Catherine Annesley, only daughter and heiress of James, fourth Earl of Anglesey. The grandson of Sir Constantine Phipps, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was raised to the Peerage in 1767 as Baron Mulgrave, of New Ross, county of Wexford. Henry Phipps became Viscount Normanby and Earl of Mulgrave in 1812; and Constantine Henry Phipps, the most popular Viceroy of Ireland from 1835 to 1839, was created Marquis of Normanby in 1838. He married the Honourable Maria Liddell, eldest daughter of Lord Ravensworth, and, dying in 1863, was succeeded by his son George Augustus Constantine Phipps, now second Marquis of Normanby. His Lordship is a Privy Councillor, Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms; had been Comptroller of her Majesty’s Household, and Governor of Nova Scotia. His Lordship is married to Laura, daughter of the late Captain Russell, R.N., and has several children.

Dean Swift’s opinion of Sir Constantine Phipps is thus expressed in his vindication of the Lord Carteret, written in 1730, after the death of the Ex-Chancellor. Referring to the persons of merit promoted, while Lord Carteret was Lord-Lieutenant, when mentioning Doctor Patrick Delany, [Reverend Patrick Delanv D.D. Dean of Down. He was married to Mary Granville, whose entertaining letters have been so ably edited by Lady Llanover. He built the commodious house of Delville, near Dublin, and laid out the grounds with much taste. This place Swift caricatured in one of his satires. It is now occupied by the accomplished P. J. Keenan, Esq., M.R.I.A.]

Swift says, ‘This divine lies under some disadvantage; having in his youth received many civilities from a certain person then in a very high station here, for which reason, I doubt not, the Doctor never drank his confusion since; and what makes the matter desperate, it is now too late; unless our *inquisitors *will be content with drinking confusion to his memory. The aforesaid eminent person, who was a judge of all merit, except that of party, distinguished the Doctor among other juniors in our University for, his learning, discretion, and good sense.’

I have now traced the ‘Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland’ from the days of the Plantagenets to the Georgian era. Their political position, constantly discharging the duties of Viceroy, accounts for the introduction of matters which, otherwise, would be foreign to this work; though often undesirable, it was unavoidable. The baneful effects of party and religious animosity upon the welfare of a country has been exposed, and repeated endeavours to decry and depreciate the characters of men holding judicial positions, censured. Happier times are before me for my concluding volume: - the glorious Irish Revolution of 1782, showing what may be achieved by Irishmen abandoning their sectarian and political differences, and remembering their common country; then the short-lived prosperity of the kingdom, checked by the disastrous events which closed the last century. The Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland was carried chiefly through the instrumentality of an Irish Lord Chancellor, who supported, with .the might of his powerful intellect, a measure which destroyed the Parliament of his native land. He thereby expected to obtain a wider sphere for his insatiable ambition, but ended his career in discomfiture, defeat, and early death, Then I behold Chancellors of high legal talents, great political integrity, and personal worth - Redesdale, Ponsonby and Sir Anthony Hart; and the professional reader will, I trust, be compensated for the contents of this volume, by their Lives; while the Patriot, the Statesman, and the accomplished Equity Judge were combined in the person of the illustrious Irish Chancellor, Lord Plunket.

End of the first volume

Index.

Home.