Page images
PDF
EPUB

1691]

Limerick capitulates.

Articles

319

the river on September 22 with fully half his army, for the purpose of destroying the works that commanded the bridge on the other side. Had the Irish been properly commanded, the experiment might have cost him dear. As it was, the works were rushed, and the defenders driven helter-skelter back over the bridge. Fearing for the city, the officer in charge of the gate raised the drawbridge, and in an instant what had been a mere rout was turned into a bloody disaster. Terrified at what had happened the garrison broke from control and called wildly to surrender. Twenty-four hours later a truce was concluded.

The moment for which Ginkel had been waiting had at last arrived, and, rather than lose the chance thus offered him to end the war, he resolved to grant all that his instructions allowed him to concede. On their side, the Irish, naturally anxious to make as good a bargain as possible, submitted as conditions of surrender seven articles, which, besides indemnifying them for their rebellion, would have secured them in the possession of their estates and the public exercise of their religion, and would practically have placed them on a position of equality with the Protestants. Knowing nothing of their legal disabilities, Ginkel would have conceded even these terms; but, at the instigation of those about him, he returned them as incompatible with the laws of the realm, and formulated his own demands in twelve articles. These twelve articles provided the basis for the civil and military treaties of Limerick signed on October 3. By the military treaty it was agreed, that all persons of whatever quality or condition who desired to leave the country should have liberty to depart with their families and portable goods, and that Ginkel should provide the necessary shipping for them. By the civil treaty, it was conceded that the Irish Catholics should enjoy all those religious rights which they possessed in the reign of Charles II, with such further privileges as their Majesties (William and Mary) might with the consent of Parliament in the future procure for them, and that they and all Irish still in arms, who should immediately submit and take the oath of allegiance, should be secured in the free and undisputed possession of their estates as they possessed them according to the Act of Settlement. In other words, the price of the surrender of Limerick was to be a general indemnity and a return to the state of affairs that had existed in the reign of Charles II. In the full belief that the debt would be loyally discharged, Limerick was forthwith surrendered to Ginkel. By the middle of December, the last of the 12,000 men who elected to seek their fortunes abroad had quitted Ireland; and three months later a royal proclamation declared the war at an end.

Ireland was once more at peace; but the peace was one that brought no satisfaction with it. The conquerors, angry at seeing their prey escape them, sulkily protested against being held to an agreement which furnished no guarantee against a fresh rebellion. The feeling that they had been betrayed found open expression in a sermon preached by

320

Legislative independence of Ireland

[1691-3 Dopping, Bishop of Meath, before the Lords Justices Coningsby and Porter in Christ Church, Dublin, on the Sunday after the signature of the treaty. A preacher more agreeable to Government was found in the person of Moreton, Bishop of Kildare, who argued eloquently on keeping faith with the Irish; but Dopping's view of the situation was that generally taken, and his words found an echo in England.

For the English Parliament had no sooner met on October 22, than it passed an Act rendering it compulsory on all members of the Irish Parliament to take the Oath of Supremacy and to subscribe the Declaration against Transubstantiation. This Act was not only a flagrant breach of the spirit of the Treaty of Limerick, but a direct attack on the independence of the Irish Parliament. It, however, so entirely harmonised with the sentiment prevailing in Ireland among the colonists that no exception was taken to it; and the Parliament convened on October 5, 1692, under Lord Sidney, who had succeeded Coningsby and Porter in the government, "paid" as Molyneux admits "an entire obedience to it." But that in doing so the colonists had no intention of recognising the subordination of the Irish Parliament to that of England, soon became apparent. The Parliament had been called for the double purpose of confirming the treaty of Limerick and settling a revenue. Bills to these ends had been transmitted from England, with an intimation that, so far as the Treaty was concerned, it had been sufficiently discussed in England, and nothing further was required beyond a simple confirmation. The Commons took offence at the message. They were willing enough to admit that the Crown of Ireland was inherent in that of England; but Ireland was a kingdom and not a colony, and in their legislative capacity they were independent of England. The treaty as it stood was, they asserted, too dangerous to be allowed to pass; and, though they were ready, under the peculiar circumstances, to consent to the taxes demanded, they were compelled to assert that they and they alone had the right to originate money-bills.

The Lord Lieutenant was in a difficult position; but there can be no question that, in causing a protest to be entered on the Journals of the House against their claim to originate money-bills as a breach of Poynings' Law, he acted entirely in accordance with public opinion in England. All the same, the quarrel afforded a very welcome opportunity to the English Parliament for attacking William on his Irish policy. In its zeal the House of Commons even proposed to enquire into the grounds of Sidney's protest; but, on second thoughts, the point was quietly dropped, and in addressing the King the House contented itself with complaining of the encouragement shown to Irish Papists, and the misapplication of the forfeited estates. In his answer the King promised to remedy what was found amiss; but, to put an end to the discussion, he prorogued Parliament. Sidney, however, was recalled, and the administration placed in the hands of Lords Justices, in one

1693-6] Anti-Catholic legislation. - Tory opposition 321

of whom, Lord Capel, the colonists found a man of their own way of thinking.

Two years elapsed. The country was rapidly recovering from the effects of the war; but great distress prevailed among the natives, and as a natural consequence the Tories were much in evidence. Under the pretext that fresh rebellion was hatching, a proclamation setting a price of £5 on the head of every Tory killed in action was published, and did something to abate the mischief, though, as a contemporary historian remarks, "It is to be feared that many innocent persons fell a sacrifice to the temptation of the reward." In their eagerness to keep down the Irish the colonists even yielded to Capel's persuasion to waive their claim to originate money-bills, on being allowed a free hand to regulate matters as they wished between themselves and the Irish Catholics. An understanding on these terms having been arrived at, Capel was appointed Lord Deputy, and a Parliament was summoned for August 27, 1695. Supplies to the amount of £163,325 having been voted, the Commons immediately turned to a consideration of the state of the nation. The causes of the recent calamities they traced chiefly to the long intermission of Parliaments, to the proclamation of March 8, 1672, permitting Papists to reside in corporate towns, and in general to the favour shown them by Government since the Restoration. To remedy these evils the proclamation of March, 1672, was declared void, and Acts were passed prohibiting parents from sending their children abroad to be educated in any Catholic seminary; disqualifying Papists from teaching in schools at home; rendering it penal for any Catholic, except those privileged to do so by the Articles of Galway and Limerick, to carry arms, or to possess a horse worth more than £5; limiting the number of holy days to those marked as such in the liturgy of the Church of Ireland; and rendering all who refused to work on Catholic holy days liable to be fined or whipped. Finally, an Act was passed abrogating all Acts passed in James' Parliament, and ordering the records relating to the same to be destroyed, which was accordingly done on October 2.

This outburst of fanatical legislation did not pass unchallenged. Among the members of both Houses there were some who, much as they disliked and feared the Catholics, felt even a greater dislike for the Puritan nonconformists. The spirit that had animated Bramhall and Jeremy Taylor reasserted itself; and, under the guidance of Lord Chancellor Porter, a party of opposition, to which the titles Tory, High Church, Jacobite were indifferently applied, came into existence, and proved strong enough to throw out a Toleration Bill, with which William had intended to reward the loyalty of the Presbyterians. Parliament was prorogued on December 14. In May, 1696, Capel died and Porter became Lord Justice; but he, too, dying in December, the government was placed in the hands of de Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, and the Marquis of Winchester.

C. M. H. V.

21

322

Woollen industry destroyed

[1697-9

Parliament, after several adjournments, reassembled on July 27, 1697. The situation was practically unaltered; and, having voted a supply of £150,000, the Commons proceeded to gratify their craving for further protection against Roman Catholicism. But when a Bill limiting the reversal of the outlawries following on the Rebellion was submitted to them, they broke with Government in a way quite inexplicable to the Lords Justices. The question was one that, in their opinion, touched the disposal of the forfeited properties; and they were highly dissatisfied with the way in which William had disposed of them. Better, they insisted, that the properties should remain in the old families than be squandered in that fashion. Forced to withdraw the Bill for one of a less sweeping nature, and safeguarding the interests of a number of the old nobility and gentry, Government hoped that, in its new-found zeal to protect the victims of the Revolution, Parliament would at last consent to ratify the Articles of Limerick. But here the current of anti-Catholic feeling ran with irresistible violence; and, instead of a full confirmation of the Articles, a Bill was passed (though it escaped rejection in the House of Lords by only a single vote) confirming, as the preamble to it expressly admits, only so much of them as consisted with the safety and welfare of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland. Whether in doing as it did Parliament acted within its constitutional rights or not, is a moot point; but there can be no doubt that its repudiation of the treaty was as politically unwise as it was morally unjustifiable.

Meanwhile, a certain measure of commercial prosperity had returned to the country; and in 1698 Ireland possessed a quite flourishing woollen industry, a no less flourishing provision trade, besides a number of smaller industries, of which linen, glass, iron, fisheries were the most noticeable. But it was on the development of the woollen manufacture that the hopes of the commercial prosperity of the nation rested. Unfortunately, the success with which it had been attended had aroused the jealous fears of the English manufacturers, and there were not wanting warning voices to point out the political danger likely to accrue to England by allowing Ireland to attain a position of wealthy independence. Still, it was not an easy matter to invite the Irish to assist in the destruction of their own commercial prosperity; and, in preparing a Bill for laying additional duties on all woollen fabrics exported from Ireland, great care was taken to represent it as an encouragement of the linen industry. To the surprise of the Lords Justices, the Irish Parliament, on reassembling in the autumn of 1698, agreed without much discussion to a Bill placing duties of from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. on all woollen goods (except friezes) exported from Ireland for a limited period of three years and three months, beginning on March 25, 1699. It is probable that these duties were regarded as countervailing and not prohibitive, and it is evident that in limiting the duration of the Act the Parliament only consented to an experiment. But, before it had time to test its

1699-1700] The forfeitures. Act of Resumption

323

working, the English Parliament clinched the matter by an Act expressly forbidding, under the severest possible penalties, the exportation from Ireland of all wool and woollen goods except to England, and even this only under duties which were intended to be absolutely prohibitive.

Having thus, as it supposed, sufficiently safeguarded English commercial interests by an unblushing infringement of the privileges of the Irish Parliament, the English House of Commons proceeded, with an equal disregard of the prerogative of the Crown, to call it to account for the way in which the Irish forfeitures had been disposed of. A commission of seven members was appointed to enquire into the matter; and, on the strength of a report signed by four out of the seven, it was unanimously resolved that a Bill should be brought in to apply all the forfeited lands in Ireland, and the grants thereof since February 13, 1689, to the use of the public. A Bill for the resumption of all grants, and for vesting the disposal of the forfeited estates in the hands of thirteen trustees, with a clause protecting the interests of the Irish included in the Articles of Galway and Limerick, was accordingly passed; but, in the well-grounded apprehension that it would be rejected by the Lords, it was adroitly tacked to a Bill of Supply. The manœuvre succeeded; but it led to a fierce passage of arms between the two Houses, and the measure was only allowed to pass on William's intervention (April 10, 1700). It proved a failure. Instead of the £1,699,343, which it had been confidently asserted would accrue to the Crown after all legal obligations had been met, less than half (or £724,501) was recovered, and this only after compromising the public faith, insulting the sovereign, inflicting incalculable mischief, both of a public and private nature, and in the case of the Earl of Galway directly infringing an Act of the Irish Parliament, confirming the estate granted to him by William for his services during the war.

Historically, the Act of Resumption closes the chapter which opened with the Act for the plantation of Leix and Offaly. For nearly one hundred and fifty years the process of confiscation and colonisation following on rebellion and conquest had continued with little intermission, till at last there was practically no more land to confiscate. The Ireland of the O'Neills and Fitzgeralds, of the wild Irish and the gentry of the Pale has passed away for ever. With the eighteenth century, we enter on a new and, to most of us, more familiar period of Irish history.

« PreviousContinue »