bishops attended. Tyrconnel packed the Commons with his creatures to the number of two hundred and fifty, scarcely any of the Protestant religion being amongst them. There were no materials for debate, even had there been ability and learning in the House, because there was little room for difference of opinion. The Parliament of James met in May, 1689, where the Four Courts now stand, on which then stood a building devoted to the law, called the King's Inns. These men were so insane as to repeal the Act of Settlement. Then an Act of Attainder, affecting three thousand innocent persons, was passed-the iniquity of which could only be exceeded by its folly. Their properties were confiscated, and they were to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, unless they appeared by a given day; and it was made impossible that they should so appear, because the sentence pronounced upon them was concealed as well as their names. This unjust Parliament, which King James packed through Tyrconnell's arts, sat from 7th May till 20th June, and during that period continued to perpetrate more acts of injustice and oppression than had ever been committed in the same space of time by any legislative assembly in the world. The particulars of the proceedings of this preposterous assembly are given more fully by Archbishop King, in his book entitled, "The State of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's Government,” than in any history with which I am acquainted. We are thunderstruck in reading the list of persons attainted and deprived of their estates, for no crime whatever, save that they were Protestants. I agree in the words of King:-"Perhaps it was never equalled in any nation, since the time of the proscriptions in Rome. And not then either, for here is more than half as many condemned in the small kingdom of Ireland, as was at that time proscribed in the greatest part of the then known world. Yet that was esteemed an unparalleled cruelty." A great body of instructive matter is collected in the volume I have referred to; and especially worth reading is the speech of Dr. Dopping, Bishop of Meath, in the appendix, spoken manfully in the Lords, against the repeal of the Act of Settlement. The infamous manner in which the University was treated, need not be mentioned. To the honour of that body, it should be stated, that although their property was seized and their College invaded, they could not be intimidated. Nor was James just to his Roman Catholic subjects, who had risked everything to restore him to the throne. He even impeached their courage at the Boyne, and falsely; but he provoked the retort of Captain O'Regan, a brave Irish officer, who had witnessed the heroism of William and the poltroonery of James, and who answered, "Please your Majesty, if we could exchange kings, we would fight the battle over again." Surely, when you admit the gallantry with which the followers of King James fought at Aughrim, Limerick, and the Boyne, the heroism displayed at Londondonderry and Enniskillen will never be forgotten by the Protestants of Ireland. No modern romance equals in exciting interest the tale of the siege of Derry by Lord Macaulay. We seem to behold the livid cheeks of the besieged worn by famine and sickness, but undismayed. We almost hear their hoarse shouts of joy when their brave countryman, Micaiah Browning, burst the boom, and gave, while he heroically perished, life and deliverance to his exhausted but undaunted countrymen. We may conceive what a Sabbath-day was the 6th July, 1690, when William rode in state to St. Patrick's, and, with the crown on his head, returned public thanks to God for victory. The magistrates attended. The Archbishop (King) preached, with fervid eloquence, on such a theme as preacher seldom had before-the deliverance of a nation. Had we lived then, we too would have decked ourselves in holiday attire, and swelled the choir with loud songs of praise and thanksgiving. not. It has been remarked how different the feeling with which the conflict waged in Ireland and in Scotland, for the Stuarts, has been regarded. The Scotch, to-day, boast that they nearly won back the crown for "Charlie." They forgave the despotic acts of James in the person of his descendant. The Stuarts were their own: the House of Hanover they knew Last autumn I witnessed the martial dances and games, and heard the national music of the Highlanders, within a few miles of the field of Culloden, where their forefathers had fought in vain for Charlie; and in the same district, this day, many descendants of the old families boast how their ancestors risked all for the Stuart. Sweet voices may still be heard to sing "Charlie is my darling, my darling, my darling, The pipes played loud and clear, 'Charlie is my darling, the young Chevalier.'" So difficult is it in these islands to dethrone a king-so difficult to dispossess the hereditary monarch. The difference of feeling arises from the different circumstances which, unhappily for us, existed in the two countries. The national element prevailed in Scotland; the religious element prevailed in Ireland. The efforts of the Scotch, in 1715 and 1745, to expel the family on the throne and restore the Stuarts, sprung from their love of monarchy, and from loyalty to the ancient race of their kings. The efforts of the Irish were directed to establish the supremacy of their religion, and to recover the lands which had been wrested from their forefathers. They cared little in the abstract for the Stuarts. Reason prevails at last over prejudice, and but one voice can now be heard alike from the victor and the vanquished, of loyalty to the throne, and devotion to the person of the gracious Sovereign who adorns it. The character of William has been painted by Macaulay in colours almost too bright: it has been drawn by Miss Strickland in colours too dark. The brilliant Whig worships his hero: the fair advocate of despotic rulers looks coldly on the ungracious and ungrateful little Dutchman, who gained a crown, but who had "no regard for Christian civilization of any kind." According to the convictions of all that are good and wise in the nation, the Revolution-however to be regretted as a Revolution-established justice and imparted freedom. cording to Miss Strickland, it effected neither of these things. But no candid inquirer can well believe that William on the throne, and Holt on the judgment-seat, can suffer by comparison with the tyrannic bigot, James, and his unjust judge, the blood-stained Jeffreys. In reading history, we should inquire, before we begin the book, the bent of the writer's mind, and make allowance accordingly for the author's prejudices. A character of William was sketched by Lord Plunket, in the Bottle Conspiracy case, which seems to me to be drawn with a happy impartiality : "Perhaps, my lords, there is not to be found in the annals of history, a character more truly great than that of William the Third. Perhaps no person has ever appeared on the theatre of the world who has conferred more essential or more lasting benefits on mankind-on these countries, cer tainly none. When I look at the abstract merits of his character, I contemplate him with admiration and reverence,-lord of a petty principality; destitute of all resources but those with which nature had endowed him; regarded with jealousy and envy by those whose battles he fought; thwarted in all his counsels; embarrassed in all his movements; deserted in his most critical enterprises— he continued to mould all those discordant materials—to govern all those warring interests; and merely by the force of his genius, the ascendancy of his integrity, and the unmoveable firmness and constancy of his nature, to combine them into an indissoluble alliance against the schemes of despotism and universal domination of the most powerful monarch in Europe, seconded by the ablest generals, at the head of the bravest and best-disciplined armies in the world, and wielding, without check or control, the unlimited resources of his empire. He was not a consummate general; military men will point out his errors; in that respect fortune did not favour him, save by throwing the lustre of adversity over all his virtues. He sustained defeat after defeat, but always rose adversis rerum immersabilis undis. Looking merely at his shining qualities and achievements, I admire him as I do a Scipio, a Regulus, a Fabius; a model of tranquil courage, undeviating probity, and armed with a resoluteness and constancy in the cause of truth and freedom which rendered him superior to the accidents that control the fate of ordinary men.' It has been made matter of surprise, that when William conquered King James, and had Ireland at his feet, he did not imitate the policy of Cromwell, and incorporate the Parliaments of the two kingdoms into one. That the idea of a union was then broached amongst political men is certain. Amongst the MS. letters of the Arch |