Brodrick, Viscount Midleton, birth to Test Act 1717

Chapter XXXVI.

Life of Lord Chancellor Brodrick, Viscount Midleton, from his birth until the attempt to repeal the Test Act in 1717.

It appears these pleasant prospects were not fully realised, The good understanding did not endure. The Solicitor- General was a friend to toleration, and the rulers of Ireland were advocates of intolerance. So much so, indeed, that, in their hatred of Popery, they made enemies of ‘the Presbyterians by requiring the Sacramental Test, according to the usages of the Church of Ireland, to be taken by all officials, civil or military. In vain the Roman Catholics argued by Counsel at the bar of the House [Vide ante, vol. i. p. 514.] against this odious enactment, and it was thought so crushing upon them, that, for this sole reason, the Government considered the dissenters had no right to complain. This appears by the following extract of a letter from Sir Edward Southwell, to the Earl of Nottingham, Secretary of State. The letter is dated February 19, 1704:-

‘When first the news came of the Sacramental Test being added, there was some noise made thereat by the dissenters; and some more busy than others, endeavoured to try what strength there might be in the House to favour the taking it out. But they met so little encouragement, and even these gentlemen were so sensible of the great advantages accruing by the bill for suppressing the Popish interest, that they have almost declined any further talk about it, and I see nothing to interrupt a good conclusion.’ [History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland by Reid and Killen, vol. iii. p. 102.]

The passing of this Act caused infinite disgust to the Presbyterians. In Derry, ten out of twelve aldermen, and fourteen out of twenty-four burgesses were deprived of their respective offices. The Presbyterian ministers at first conceived they could not conscientiously take the Royal Bounty, and a case was laid before the Solicitor-General for his opinion, ‘whether they might, with safety, take the Royal Bounty, if tendered, considering the late Act.’ His opinion, as reported to the synod, was ‘That they might continue to receive it with safety, inasmuch as it did not accrue to them out of any *office *or *place of trust *bestowed by the Sovereign.’

It was, however, from the opposition made by the House, of which the Solicitor-General was Speaker, to some bills proposed by the Lord Lieutenant, and which were thereby defeated, Mr. Brodrick was removed from his office of Solicitor-General. He continued Speaker, and had leave to practice during the recesses of the House, [Before the rank of King’s Counsel existed, the Speaker, when a practising barrister, had precedence at the bar. - Duhigg’s History of the King’s Inns.] and on June 12, 1707, the Queen recalled him to official duties as her Attorney-General for Ireland. This was probably owing to the Duke of Ormond having been removed from the Vice-royalty. On June 14 a liberal and accomplished nobleman - the Earl of Pembroke - who was known to be a friend of toleration, became Viceroy. ‘The appointment of this nobleman,’ says the Rev. Dr. Killen in his ‘History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland,’ [Vol. iii. P. 119.] ‘the well-known friend of toleration was hailed by the Presbyterians ~s encouraging a hope that the ignominious disqualification created by the Sacramental Test might be abolished. So far as his Excellency and the administration which he represented were concerned this hope would not have been disappointed, as it was one of his instructions to endeavour to effect the repeal, or modification, of this obnoxious and impolitic law.’ The concluding portion of his Excellency’s speech, when he opened the session of the Irish Parliament on July 7, 1707, breathes a fervent desire to benefit all classes and creeds in the kingdom.

‘My Lords and Gentlemen,

‘In order to the attaining and establishing tile safety and welfare of this kingdom, I should think myself extremely happy if, during my administration, all matters should be conducted with that temper and prudence as may justly entitle you to the continuance of Her Majesty’s affections. For my own part, though a great honour to serve in this post, I can propose no satisfaction in it without your happiness and prosperity, the which I shall sincerely endeavour to promote; and hope, but chiefly by your assistance, to secure the good of this kingdom, and show, in our several stations, that we are united in our affections to each other, as well as in duty to the best of Queens.’

The good intentions of the Viceroy were not sufficient to overpower the intolerant spirit of the age. The repeal of the Test being specially given in charge to Lord Pembroke, he soon made efforts to feel his way before he would commit himself to a defeat, and the result is thus stated in a letter, written by his secretary, Mr. Doddington, Member for the borough of Charlemont:- ‘As to the other grand affair, I mean the taking off the Sacramental Test, it was impracticable in this House, and will ever be so, as long as this Parliament continues, which is made up of two-thirds as High Churchmen as any in England.’ [Letter from Mr. George Doddington to Mr. Hopkins, dated August 14, 1707, State Paper Office, London.]

The Presbyterians of Ulster refused to be enrolled as Militia while the Test stood unrepealed. Alan Brodrick, the Attorney-General and Speaker of the House of Commons, went to England and brought the matter before the Government. As no one knew better the impossibility of effecting anything in the Irish House of Commons that would relieve the Catholics from disability, he proposed that the clause in the Irish Act should be repealed by the English Parliament, as the Oath of Supremacy had been repealed in the previous reign. His views were strengthened by the efforts of the Presbyterians, who employed an Irish barrister, Mr. Stevens, to go to London and, second the efforts of the Attorney-General. But the times were not propitious. The English Parliament had but recently been dissolved, the new elections were not over, and no pledge could be obtained that the Ministry would attempt to repeal the obnoxious Test. Lord Pembroke, having been appointed Lord High Admiral in room of Prince George of Denmark, resigned the Viceroyalty of Ireland to the great grief of the Catholics and Presbyterians.

This estimable nobleman was succeeded by. his opposite in every relation of life - the Earl of Wharton. A new champion also entered the arena, who fought for the maintenance of the Test with a powerful weapon - satire. This was no other than Dean Swift. In his hot zeal against the Presbyterians, he regards them as far more dangerous foes to the Established Church than the Papists, as the Catholics were then usually designated. It is rather amusing to read his estimate of their condition in 1707 and contrast it with that in the year 1870. ‘We look upon the Papists to be altogether as inconsiderable as the women and children. Their lands are almost entirely taken from them, and they are rendered incapable of purchasing any more; and for the little that remains, provision is made by the late Act against Popery that it will daily crumble away. To promote which, some of the most considerable among them are already turned Protestants, and so, in all probability, will many more. Then the Popish priests are all registered, and without permission (which I hope will not be granted) they can have no successors; so that the Protestant clergy will find it perhaps no difficult matter to bring great numbers over to the Church; and in the mean time the common people, without leaders, without discipline, or natural courage, being little better than hewers of wood and drawers of water, are out of all capacity of doing any mischief if they were ever so well inclined.’ [Swift’s Works, vol. ix. P. 158.]

It was Lord Wharton who brought Joseph Addison to Ireland, and appointed him Secretary of State. He represented the borough of Cavan in the Irish Parliament, in 1709. Though famous as an easy and graceful writer, he could not express himself with any degree of fluency. An anecdote related of him proves this. On a motion before the House, Addison rose, and having said, - ‘Mr. Speaker, I conceive’ - paused, as if frightened by the sound of his own voice. He again commenced - ‘I conceive, Mr. Speaker’ - when he stopped, until roused by cries of ‘hear! hear!’ When he once more essayed with - ‘Sir, I conceive.’ - Power of further utterance was denied, so he sat down amidst the scarce suppressed laughter of his brother Members, which soon burst forth, when a witty senator said, ‘Sir, the honourable gentleman has *conceived three limes, *and brought forth *nothing.’ *

Mr. Brodrick continued to discharge the duties of Attorney-General from June 30, 1707, to 1709, when Sir Richard Pyne, Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench, having died at Ashley in England, Sir Alan Brodrick, for he had been knighted, was appointed his successor. The biographer of the Earl of Wharton claims credit for his Lordship having selected Sir Alan for this important office, and states, ‘He obtained that high post for one of the most worthy patriots of that kingdom, as an instance of the care he took of the security of religion and liberty.’

On being appointed to the seat on the Bench, Sir Alan was called to the Upper House as Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench. He was no longer eligible to sit in the House of Commons, and we cannot feel surprised if the Members of that House, so long the theatre of his labours, witnesses of his services, should present him with some token of their esteem. We find that on May 20, 1709, it was resolved by the House of Commons of Ireland, * nemine contradicente*, ‘That the thanks of this House be given to the Right Hon. Alan Broderick, Esq., late Speaker of this House, and now Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty’s Court of Queen’s Bench, for his faithful and eminent services performed to this House in the Chair, and during the time of his being Speaker; and the Lord Moore and Mr. Serjeant Caulfield were ordered to attend his Lordship, and acquaint him with the vote of thanks of this House.’ [Com. Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 644.]

To this vote of thanks the Chief Justice replied:- ‘I am extremely sensible of this great honour done me, as I always have been of the goodness of the House of Commons in supporting me in the discharge of the trust they were pleased to repose in me; and can’t sufficiently acknowledge their favour, or express the satisfaction I take, that the witnesses of my behaviour during so many Sessions of Parliament have unanimously approved of it, and given an uncontrollable testimony of my having, in all instances, to the best of my power, done my duty to the Crown, the House of Commons, and the kingdom in general. [Com. Jour. Ir. vol. ii. p. 647.]

The Commons were not long deprived of his presence. He had been little more than twelve months on the judicial Bench when a change took place in the Ministry, and the incoming party, wishing to provide for Sir Richard Cox, and not disposed to place him again in the Court of Chancery, offered him the Chief Justiceship of the Queen’s Bench; Sir Richard having signified his acceptance, the Ministry displaced Brodrick, who, perhaps, was not unwilling to resign the post, for we find that, for some years during which Sir Richard Cox held it, party spirit raged with great violence. The Parliament being dissolved by proclamation on May 6, 1713, and writs issued for new elections, Sir Alan Brodrick was returned for the county of Cork. On November 25 of that year the Lord-Lieutenant, the Duke of Shrewsbury, opened Parliament, and the choice of Speaker falling on their old favourite, Brodrick, he was presented in that capacity to his Excellency. The following was his speech on that occasion:-

‘May it please your Grace,

‘The Commons in Parliament assembled, in obedience to your Grace’s commands, and according to ancient usage, have proceeded to the choice of one of their Members to preside in their debates as Speaker of their House, and have commanded me to present myself to your Grace as the person whom they have elected to that great and important trust.

‘To collect readily the true sense of a numerous assembly, to form the same into questions, in order to their final resolution, and to present their conclusions, declarations, and petitions to your Grace in the best manner, and with full advantage, is part of the duty which that man undertakes who is hardy enough to accept so arduous a province; and the sense I have of my own imperfections and disabilities makes me tremble when I reflect on the difficulties under which learned, experienced, and wise men have laboured in the Chair of that House.

‘But when I consider that my endeavours to serve her Majesty and this kingdom in the Chair of a former Parliament were so acceptable to, and approved by, the whole House of Commons, that they were pleased to express their sense of them by a signal mark of their respect after I had ceased to be a Member of their House; when I consider that out of many gentlemen of great abilities, and knowledge in the laws and methods of Parliament, the Commons have now again judged me capable of filling the Chair to their expectation, I dare not put my own fears and diffidence of myself in balance with their superior judgment.

‘I delight myself with an agreeable prospect of unanimity in the Parliament, and hope as well as earnestly desire, to see that their warmest contest may be who shall show most zeal and forwardness in expressing their loyalty and duty to her Majesty, their firm adherence to our most excellent Constitution in Church and State, and the most profound respect for your Grace’s person and Government. Such a temper may be reasonably expected under a Chief Governor who, in addition to ancient nobility, greatest offices of honour and trust in the State, and the favour of her most excellent Majesty, is qualified to make us a happy people by a discerning judgment, a consummate wisdom, a mild and gracious disposition and temper of mind, and an inclination to heal the divisions and cure the distractions of this once happy country.’ [Com. Jour. Ir, vol. ii. p. 747.]

The reply of the Lord Chancellor [Sir Constantine Phipps. He had been much disappointed by the election of Brodrick as Speaker.] was merely intimating the acquiescence of the Lord Lieutenant in the choice of the Commons.

Sir Alan Brodrick continued to show the utmost attention to his duties as Speaker. He appears to have imbibed the most ultra-Protestant fears of the Papists. That a strong leaning towards the house of Stuart existed was probably the case, but no demonstration was made in Ireland as in Scotland to justify the cruel code which the Parliament of Ireland enacted against their fellow-countrymen.

Queen Anne’s death determined the existing appointments, and Sir Constantine Phipps was no longer Irish Chancellor,

On the accession of George I. a change of Ministry took place, and one of the first acts of his Majesty’s reign was to create by patent, October 1, 1714, Alan Brodrick the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, into which high office he was sworn October 14. He was raised to the Peerage by patent dated April 13, 1715, as Baron Brodrick of Midleton, and on November 12, at the opening of Parliament, on his Majesty’s accession, took his seat In the House of Peers.

Lord Midleton was repeatedly constituted one of the Lords Justices to administer the government of Ireland during the absence of the Lord Lieutenant. He was advanced in the Peerage by patent dated August 15, 1717, creating him Viscount Midleton.

Soon as the Duke of Bolton was appointed to the Viceroyalty of Ireland, the Presbyterians renewed their efforts to obtain a repeal of the Sacramental Test, which, from the liberal policy of the King and his Ministers, they hoped to be able to effect. A draft of a Bill for this object was sent to Ireland by the Government for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland previous to the opening of Parliament. The Viceroy consulted the Lord Chancellor and others of the Council with respect to it, and the result of their opinion is stated in the following extract from his Grace’s letter to the Secretary of State in London, which is now published in the favour of the Dissenters, and find it to be an entire repeal of that part of the Act to prevent the further growth of Popery, which requires persons who are to be admitted to offices to receive the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, and that it gives the Protestant Dissenters the like toleration, as I choose to call it, or, as others will term it, establishment, as those of the Episcopal Communion in North Britain enjoy, by virtue of the Act made in the tenth year of the late Queen. You may remember that I told my Lord Sunderland, my Lord Stanhope, and you in February last, when you were discussing the expectations which the Dissenters in Ireland had of something being done in their favour in the Parliament of Great Britain, that if they proposed, or expected, an entire repeal of the Sacramental Test it would be found to be a matter of the greatest difficulty, if not impossible to be obtained; and that it would turn to the dishonour and prejudice of the Government if anything of the nature should be attempted without success. These were my thoughts at that time, and my Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Alan Brodrick) expressed himself to the like effect. I have, since my coming hither, endeavoured to inform myself, by discoursing those in whom I could best confide, and whose judgment may be depended on, whether I had made a just representation of the temper and disposition of the people here in relation to these matters, and find no reason to alter the opinion I have formerly been of, but many to confirm me in it. That it would not be advisable to send over from England a Bill to repeal the Sacramental Test, which I think will not pass here, however recommended or endeavoured to be supported. I have consulted my Lord Chancellor and the Speaker (Mr. Connolly) of the House of Commons, who strongly espouses the Dissenters’ interests in the House of Commons, and in whom they entirely rely and have entire confidence, so is best able to judge how far will give satisfaction to the reasonable part of the Dissenters, and what in probability may be obtained here for them. He told me on Saturday last, and as often as I have discoursed him, he was of the. same opinion.’

The Government were thwarted in their efforts to relieve the Dissenters, and one of the most prominent members in opposition to toleration was Mr. Brodrick, the Lord Chancellor’s eldest son, When the Lord Lieutenant was writing to the Secretary of State, he assured the Secretary that the Chancellor was sincerely in favour of the Government measure, and was doing his best to forward it, but he was unable to induce his son to concur in his views: ‘though,’ adds Dr. Killen, [History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, vol. iii. p. 222.] ‘one would think that, if his lordship had been very anxious for its success, he might have persuaded his son to abstain from appearing as one of the responsible promoters of this counter Bill, however zealously he might support it by his vote and interest.’ [The course properly adopted by the Chancellor of not interfering with the freedom of action in his son, was followed in later times, when the first Sir Robert Peel, in 1819, presented a petition signed by many leading merchants of London, praying for the rejection of the Currency Bill introduced by his son on May 24, 1819. In doing so the father said, ‘To night I shall have to oppose a very near and dear relation; but while it is my own sentiment that I have a duty to perform, I respect those who do theirs, and who consider that duty to be paramount to all other consideration.’ These remarks elicited -equally characteristic observations from the son. Alluding to the difficulties he had to meet, ‘Among them’ he said, ‘is one which it pains me to observe, I mean the necessity I am under of opposing myself to an authority to which I have always bowed from my youth up, and to which I hope I shall always continue to bow with deference. My excuse now is, that I have a great public duty imposed upon me, and that whatever may be my private feelings, from that duty I must not shrink.’ - Vide The Peels of Manchester, London Society, vol. ix. p. 175.] The result of the opposition was, the Government were forced to abandon this measure, thus showing the Lord Lieutenant had judged rightly of the party who constituted the majority in the Irish Parliament.

Chancellor Index Chancellor 37 Home.