1689.

allegiance to

haps the most critically important, and requires the

The duty of chastest colouring. The various acts by which James James lasted abdicated the crown of England, viz. by surrendering longer in Ireland than in the executive power, disbanding the army, burning

England.

the writs for convening a parliament, casting the great seal into the river, abandoning his post, flying the kingdom, and leaving the invader in possession of the throne, as well as the affections of the majority of the people, formed no precedent for Ireland, which then was an absolutely independent kingdom. Every thing was here in the reverse. The presence of the sovereign, or his deputy, summoning all his liege subjects to their allegiance, bad defiance to all speculative grounds for dispensation or cessation of their former oaths: the resistance made against the attempts of an invader with an army of foreigners, left it no longer dubious, on which side the duty of loyalty called forth every subject of the King of Ireland. In order to appreciate the civil duty of the Irish of that day, we must divest ourselves of the impression, which must have been produced by the then uncertain success of the revolution of 1688. No man, admitting Ireland to enjoy the same constitution as England, formed upon the Whig principles, upon which the revolution in England was effected, can aver, that an Irishman, who had sworn allegiance to King James, summoned by him to defend his person, crown, and country from the invasion of the Prince of Orange, and a foreign army under marshal Schomberg, willing, like the majority of his countrymen, that the crown of Ireland should be worn by its hereditary monarch, should, in

thus obeying its natural sovereign, become guilty of 1699. rebellion and treason, whilst that natural sovereign continued to wear his hereditary crown within his own kingdom. Such historically is the case of the Irish, who were legislatively declared rebels, and punished

*The parliaments both of England and Ireland have declared the acts of the Irish parliament, that sat under James, to be acts of rebellion and treason. The substance of the Irish act of 7 Wm. III. c. iii, declaring all Attainders and all other Acts made in the late pretended parliament to be void, is both historical and legislative. The preamble sets forth, that Forasmuch as since the happy accession of his Majesty King William, and the late Queen Mary of blessed memory, to the imperial crown of England, whereunto this kingdom of Ireland is inseparably annexed, united, and belonging, no parliament could or ought to be holden within this kingdom, unless by their majesties authority; yet, nevertheless, divers persons, during the late war and rebellion in this kingdom, did, on or about the seventh day of May, one thousand six hundred and eighty-nine, assemble themselves at or near the city of Dublin, without authority derived from their ma jesties, and in opposition thereto; and being so assembled, did pretend to be, and did call themselves by the name of, a parlia ment, and, acting in concurrence with the late King James, did make and pass several pretended acts or statutes, and did cause the same to be placed and recorded amongst the records and proceedings of parliaments; all which pretended acts were formed and designed in manifest opposition to the sovereignty of the crown of England, and for the utter destruction of the protestants and the whole protestant interest in this kingdom, and are and were null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever; and whereas their said majesties, out of their pious and princely care of and for their dutiful and loyal protestant subjects of this kingdom, and for their better security and relief, by an act of their parliament of England, made at Westminster, in the first year of their said majesties reign, were graciously pleased to enact, and declare, "That the said pretended parliament, so as aforesaid as

1689.

Purity of

the Irish

as traitors for obeying their sovereign, whilst he continued the functions of the executive within the realm of Ireland.

On this severe trial of the subjects' duty, the allegiance. allegiance of the Irish to their sovereign was pure and unalloyed. Although their natural monarch professed the same religion as the majority of the Irish nation, yet was he far from being in personal favour with them. The conduct of the Stuarts to the Irish had already weaned them from all personal affection for that family. The dastardly flight of James from England, without even attempting a stand against his rival, filled with indignation a people of quick sympathy and natural bravery. James's natural character was reserved and rather austere; when he was in Ireland it was rendered morose and petulant from misfortunes; qualities ill-calculated to gain the warm and grateful hearts of a people supereminently sensible of confidence and favor. James had imbibed an unaccountable dislike to the Irish; and dislikes are generally reciprocal. As little also were the principles, judgment, and feelings of Tyrconnel in unison with those of his sovereign. The Irish, pre

sembled at Dublin, was not a parliament, but an unlawful and rebellious assembly; and that all acts and proceedings whatsoever,had, made, done, or passed, or to be had, made, done, or passed in the said pretended parliament, should be taken, deemed, adjudged, and declared to be null and void to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever." For which the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in that parliament assembled, did return their most hearty and unfeigned thanks to his most sacred majesty,

serving their allegiance, availed themselves of the 1699. personal presence of their sovereign, to attain the object of their wishes in a constitutional manner; and in these they rather insisted upon than requested the concurrence of their sovereign *. The several acts therefore of that parliament are to be considered rather as the acts of the Irish nation, than the wishes of James. They are noticed to trace the prospects

A singular illustration of this observation is to be found in Lesley, p. 104. "It is a melancholy story (if true) which Sir Theobald Butler, solicitor general to king James in Ireland, tells of the Duke of Tyrconnell's sending him to King James with a letter about passing some lands for the said duke; he, employing Sir Theobald in his business, gave him the letter open to read, which Sir Theobald says he found worded in terms so insolent and imposing, as would be unbecoming for one gentleman to offer to another. Sir Theobald says, he could not but represent to the duke the strange surprize he was in, at his treating the king at such a rate, and desired to be excused from being the messenger to give such a letter into the king's hands. The duke smiled upon him, and told him, he knew how to deal with the king at that time; that he must have his business done: and for Theobald's scruple, he sealed the letter and told him, now the king cannot suppose you know the contents, only carry it to him as from me. Sir Theobald did so, and says he observed the king narrowly as he read it, and that his majesty did shew great commotion, that he changed colours, and sighed often, yet ordered Tyrconnell's request, or demand rather, to be granted. Thus says Sir Theobald. Many particulars of the like insolence of these Irish to king James might be shewn, but I would not detain the reader; what I have said is abundantly sufficient to shew how far it was from his own inclinations, either to suffer or do such things as were thus violently put upon him by the Irish in his extremity."

1699. of national happiness and prosperity, in which the catholics at that time placed their hopes.

Nature of the contest between James and William.

The chief of these acts were the Act of Attainder, and the Act for Repeal of the Acts of Settlement*.

* These acts are given in the Appendix to my Historical Review, No. XLVI. and No. XLVII. as historical documents; to neither of which it appears King James was himself disposed. Circumstances would not permit him then to exercise the veto against the general wish of his Irish subjects. Leslie thus speaks of James's conduct in Ireland: (p. 99.) "And even 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, chiefly 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 the Act of Attainder, and the Act for Repeal of the Acts of Settlement; and desired, that he and the 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 all the Roman Catholic lords to stop them. To which the duke replied with an oath, that the king durst not let them know that he had a mind to have them stopt. I farther appeal to that noble lord, the Earl of Granard, whether the same day, that the news of the driving the protestants before the walls of Derry came to Dublin, as his lordship was going to the Parliament House, he did not meet King James, who asked him where he was going? His lordship answered, to enter his protestation against the repeal of the Acts of Settlement: upon which King James told him, that he was fallen into the hands of a people, who rammed that and many other things down his throat. His lordship took that occasion to tell his majesty of the driving before Derry; the king told him, that he was grieved for it; that