650

DEPENDENCE OF THE IRISH

CHAP. XVIII.

been merged in those of religion, partook in large measure of the spirit that was poured out on the advocates of liberty and the revolution in the sister kingdom. Their parliament was always strongly whig, and scarcely manageable during the later years of the queen. They began to assimilate themselves more and more to the English model, and to cast off by degrees the fetters that galled and degraded them. By Poyning's celebrated law, the initiative power was reserved to the English council. This act, at one time popular in Ireland, was afterwards justly regarded as destructive of the rights of their parliament, and a badge of the nation's dependence. It was attempted by the commons in 1641, and by the catholic confederates in the rebellion, to procure its repeal, which Charles I. steadily refused, till he was driven to refuse nothing. In his son's reign it is said that "the council framed bills altogether; a negative alone on them and their several provisoes was left to parliament; only a general proposition for a bill by way of address to the lord lieutenant and council came from parliament; nor was it till after the revolution that heads of bills were presented; these last in fact resembled acts of parliament or bills, with only the small difference of 'We pray that it may be enacted,' instead of 'Be it enacted."" They assumed about the same time the examination of accounts, and of the expenditure of public money.

Meanwhile, as they gradually emancipated themselves from the ascendency of the crown, they found a more formidable power to contend with in the English parliament. It was acknowledged, by all at least of the protestant name, that the crown of Ireland was essentially dependent on that of England, and subject to any changes that might affect the succession of the latter. But the question as to the subordination of her legislature was of a different kind. The precedents and authorities of early ages seem not decisive; so far as they extend, they rather countenance the opinion that English statutes were of themselves valid in Ireland. But from the time of Henry VI. or Edward IV. it was certainly established that they had no operation, unless enacted by the Irish parliament. This, however, would not legally prove that they might not be binding, if express words to that effect were employed; and such was the doctrine of lord Coke and of other English lawyers. This came into discussion about the eventful period of 1641. The Irish in general protested against the legislative authority of England as a novel theory which could not be maintained; and two treatises on the subject, one ascribed to lord chancellor Bolton, or more probably to an eminent lawyer, Patrick Darcy, for the independence of Ireland, another, in answer to it, by serjeant Mayart, may be read in the Hibernica of Harris. Very

few instances occurred before the Revolution wherein the English parliament thought fit to include Ireland in its enactments, and none perhaps wherein they were carried into effect. But after the Revolution several laws of great importance were passed in England to bind the other kingdom, and acquiesced in without express opposition by its parliament. Molyneux, however, in his celebrated 'Case of Ireland's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated,' published in 1697, set up the claim of his country for absolute legislative independency. The house of commons at Westminster came to resolutions against this book; and, with their high notions of parliamentary sovereignty, were not likely to desist from a pretension which, like the very similar claim to impose taxes in America, sprung in fact from the semi-republican scheme of constitutional law established by means of the revolution. It is evident that while the sovereignty and enacting power was supposed to reside wholly in the king, and only the power of consent in the two houses of parliament, it was much less natural to suppose a control of the English legislature over other dominions of the crown, having their own representation for similar purposes, than after they had become, in effect and in general sentiment, though not quite in the statute book, co-ordinate partakers of the supreme authority. The Irish parliament, however, advancing as it were in a parallel line, had naturally imbibed the same sense of its own supremacy, and made at length an effort to assert it. A judgment from the court of exchequer in 1719 having been reversed by the house of lords, an appeal was brought before the lords in England, who affirmed the judgment of the exchequer. The Irish lords resolved that no appeal lay from the court of exchequer in Ireland to the king in parliament in Great Britain; and the barons of that court, having acted in obedience to the order of the English lords, were taken into the custody of the black rod. That house next addressed the king, setting forth their reasons against admitting the appellant jurisdiction. But the lords in England, after requesting the king to confer some favour on the barons of the exchequer who had been censured and illegally imprisoned for doing their duty, ordered a bill to be brought in for better securing the dependency of Ireland upon the crown of Great Britain, which declares

"That the king's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the people and the kingdom of Ireland; and house of lords of Ireland have not, nor of right ought to jurisdiction to judge of, reverse, or affirm any judgment, s decree given or made in any court within the said kingdom

652

PATRIOTIC PARTY IN 1753.

CHAP. XVII.

all proceedings before the said house of lords upon any such judgment, sentence, or decree, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." 8

The English government found no better method of counteracting this rising spirit of independence than by bestowing the chief posts in the state and church on strangers, in order to keep up what was called the English interest. This wretched policy united the natives of Ireland in jealousy and discontent, which the latter years of Swift were devoted to inflame. It was impossible that the kingdom should become, as it did under George II., more flourishing through its great natural fertility, its extensive manufacture of linen, and its facilities for commerce, though much restricted, the domestic alarm from the papists also being allayed by their utter prostration, without writhing under the indignity of its subordination; or that a house of commons, constructed so much on the model of the English, could hear patiently of liberties and privileges it did not enjoy.

§ 33. These aspirations for equality first, perhaps, broke out into audible complaints in the year 1753. The country was in so thriving a state that there was a surplus revenue after payment of all charges. The house of commons determined to apply this to the liquidation of a debt. The government, though not unwilling to admit of such an application, maintained that the whole revenue belonged to the king, and could not be disposed of without his previous consent. In England, where the grants of parliament are appropriated according to estimates, such a question could hardly arise; nor would there, I presume, be the slightest doubt as to the control of the house of commons over a surplus income. But in Ireland the practice of appropriation seems never to have prevailed, at least so strictly; and the constitutional right might perhaps not unreasonably be disputed. After long and violent discussions, wherein the speaker of the commons and other eminent men bore a leading part on the popular side, the crown was so far victorious as to procure some motions to be carried, which seemed to imply its authority; but the house took care, by more special applications of the revenue, to prevent the recurrence of an undisposed surplus. From this era the great parliamentary history of Ireland begins, and is terminated after half a century by the Union: a period fruitful of splendid eloquence, and of ardent, though not always uncompromising, patriotism, but which, of course, is beyond the limits prescribed to these pages.

8 G. I. c. 5. This bill passed by 140 to 83.

Bacon (sir Francis, lord Veru-
lam), his praise of the laws
of Henry VII., 8. His ac-
count of causes belonging to
the Court of Star-chamber,
30. Disliked agreeing with
the House of Lords on a
subsidy, 144. His advice to
James I. on summoning a
parliament, 172. Acquainted
with the particulars of Over-
bury's murder, 181. Im-
peached for bribery, 183.

(sir Nicholas), abilities of,
60. Suspected of favouring
the house of Suffolk, 68. His
reply to the speaker of the
House of Commons, 130,

Balmerino (lord), tried for trea-
son on the Scottish statute of
leasing-making, 601.
Bancroft (Richard), archbishop

of Canterbury, endeavours
to increase the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, 165, 166. Puri-
tan clergymen deprived by,
Defence of episcopacy,

ib., 203.
Bangorian controversy, 557.
Character of it, ib.
Bank of England, its origin and
depreciation of its notes, 493.
Banks (sir John), attorney-

general, his defence of the
king's absolute power, 224,

Barebones'