dence of Ireland on the Crown of England; and this as well in right of the grant from Henry II. to his son John, as on the authority of Poynings' law, by which no statutes could be made in Ireland unless certified under the King's hand and the broad seal of England. What he points at as the solecism is, that a people should be bound by laws made without their consent. But the alternative, in his view, does not extend beyond complete legislative independence on one side, and a union on the other. His opinion, indeed, on this latter head, presents a striking contrast to those of the national champions of a later day: :- "The people of Ireland," he 66 says, ought to have their representatives in the parliament of England. And this I believe we should be willing enough to embrace, but it is an happiness we can hardly hope for."

The great change in men's minds on this subject at the close of the century arose out of the gradual approximation to that state of complete independence which, in Molyneux's estimate, was compatible with the security of the empire, and from which a legislative amalgamation with the parent or, as it might then be more justly called, rival country-was as much a descent as, in 1698, it would have been a promotion. Time has exposed the fallacy of Molyneux's reasoning; and the only safe alternative has consequently been adopted. This is, however, a subject which will more properly come under our notice at a later period.

It seems strange, and forms a commentary on the blinding power of inveterate political prejudice, that one so fearlessly ready to do battle in defence of the civil liberties of his country, on the ground of those political maxims he had derived from his great authority, Locke asserting as they did, the natural rights of the whole human race-never by one allusion or inference touches the case of the Roman Catholics, though they constituted the majority of his countrymen. He may possibly have felt that it was imperative on him to avoid the subject, if he would have his tract produce any effect whatever in the quarter he had designed it for. But the probability is, that, with all his philosophy, his

mind was not sufficiently self-sustaining to resist the influences of his birth, education, and position, and that, as an Irish Protestant, he durst not venture farther than to disapprove as he strenuously did-of any violation of existing laws and treaties respecting the Papists, while he quieted his conscience as to their further rights by the usual argument of danger to the public weal, if any concessions were granted in that direction.

Molyneux's book came upon both the Irish and the English public by surprise. In doctrine, in argument, in style, it was so superior to anything that had ever emanated from Ireland upon an Irish subject, that men felt a reflected consequence derived from the qualities of their advocate. The lofty tone assumed with England was as flattering to the national pride as the plausibility of the argument was sti mulating to its ambition. Everywhere the author was hailed as the champion of a nation's rights, and Molyneux found himself in an instant raised to the summit of popularity, and ranked amongst the benefactors of his country.

The effect in England was very dif ferent. In proportion as the flame of independent nationality blazed up in Ireland, did that country exhibit symptoms of alarm. She believed that the doctrines thus popularly disseminated, were the dragon's teeth out of which nothing but mischief could arise. With all her energy, therefore, she set herself to cry down the new opinions, of which, indeed, Molyneux's book was scarcely more than the vivid reflection. In this agitation, the English House of Commons was foremost. We are informed by the Bishop of Derry, that they presented an humble address to the King, wherein they spoke of "the dangerous attempts lately made by some of his subjects in Ireland, to shake off their subjection and dependence upon England, taking also particular notice of the bold and pernicious assertions of this writer."* And he adds, that "several dabblers in English law and politics looked upon themselves as called to arms." The first draft of the address was couched in still stronger language. It gave great offence to the Protestant party

The

in Ireland, which considered this interference as highly unwarrantable and unconstitutional. Plowden makes it a merit in the Irish Catholics of the period, that they made no attempt to repudiate, or even to question, their dependence on the Crown of England. But it may be fairly doubted which this negative loyalty was most the result of feeling, or of total disorganisation and prostration of energy. The scattered remnants of a defeated cause are not the more likely to unite cordially with their conquerors, that they abstain from interfering in their quarrels amongst each other. snake is torpid till it is warmed. It is not human nature to suppose that the descendants of the ancient possessors of the soil, who had been attacked, betrayed, outraged, and enslaved, could indulge any very strong feelings of kindness towards the race which still deemed it inconsistent with their safety to admit them to the least of the privileges they themselves enjoyed as citizens of a free country. We accordingly dissent, on this head, from Plowden, and refuse to draw any conclusion from the mere fact of an absence of open disaffection on the part of the Catholics within ten years after the surrender of Limerick. The value of negative evidence in such matters is tolerably plainly shewn from the fate of positive protestations in more recent times. The history of the last century, as regards that body, is little more than the constant renewal of pledges and the constant infraction of them. The lesson to be derived from it is this, that no voluntary obligation will ever permanently restrict the aspirations of a section of the community towards the attainment of a participation in the privileges enjoyed by the rest; and that the point at which pledges first become secure, is that at which they first become needless.

The English House of Commons, filled, as we have seen, with surprise and apprehension, appointed a committee to examine and report upon Molyneux's book. On the 22nd of June, 1698, this committee reported the passages containing the dangerous opinions, together with their views as to the causes which had produced these new doctrines. Whereupon the House voted the book a dangerous one, reasserted the subordination and depen

dence of the kingdom of Ireland, and strongly condemned the recent attempt of the Irish parliament to re-enact an English statute, naming Ireland by express words. An address to the King was prepared and presented; to which his Majesty replied, “That he would take care that what was complained of should be prevented and redressed as the Commons desired."

It was plain from all these proceed. ings, that England would not allow the principles of the Revolution to take effect in Ireland. The truth is, she could not. To do so would be to neutralise all that had been doing for securing the country, and would inevitably end in a civil war, and the possi ble break-up of the empire. Such was the natural consequence of the false position in which the two kingdoms stood towards each other; in which everything upon the surface was fictitious and artificial, and everything be neath it studiously kept out of view. To call Ireland a kingdom - the Irish a nation the Houses of Lords and Commons, with the Viceroy at its head, a parliament its institutions popular-its people free-in the English sense of these words, was a delusion. To have called it a conquered province, though it manifestly was dealt with as such, would have justified the measures of government at the expense of its safety. The party which, a century later, went such dangerous lengths in the direction of distinct nationality, had this to excuse them, that they took names which they found lying meaningless in the constitution, and endeavoured to give them vitality and significance; though it must be recollected that they well knew they were never supposed or designed to possess them. The revolutions in England had sharply defined the import of certain words. They had explained the terms King, People, Prerogative, Liberty, beyond the possibility of further misapprehension. Accordingly, when Ireland asked to have them interpreted in her case, the imposition so long practised was exposed. England was driven to say we have determined on one fixed point, united sovereignty. Reason shows that in order to protect this point from disturbance, there must be either a community of institutions, or a subordination of what is kept distinct. Ireland, as such, never has had,

and cannot have, anything uncontrollably her own. This truth slumbered long-you have awakened it. You have forced us to tell you what we always knew, and what you ought to have known. You have liberty; but it is the liberty to do, not as you please, but as we please. And you are happy in possessing the best guarantee for your safety and prosperity, in the name you are not entitled to, and the institutions you do not possess.

It was by such arguments as these that Molyneux was answered, when argument was used-for abuse was much more commonly had recourse to. Two individuals stood prominently out in this encounter

- one a barrister, named Attwood; the other a Bristol merchant, of the name of Cary. This latter gentleman boldly maintained from the outset, that the English Government in Ireland was a Colonial one, and that the Parliament was simply a council for the regulation of internal concerns.* Contrary to expectation, in the contest Cary exhibited powers the man of law could not lay claim to, which gave occasion to the Bishop of Derry to remark, that the merchant argued like a council - at law, while the barrister strung his small wares together like a shopkeeper." At the same time, with regard to the former polemic, we may perhaps be permitted to form our own opinion as to the qualification of one whose best claim to the confidence of the country whose affairs he meddles in is based on such pretences as are put forward in the following passage:-"I am sure I want not good will to the people of Ireland, and I believe no man that hath no concern there can wish them prosperity more than I do." Considering that the ingenuous politician had concern in the rival and (on this occasion) hostile country, the admission is much. A very little argument went, however, a great way. The whole feeling of England was against the claim of Ireland; and the Protestant, or Parliament, party in the latter country were too dependent upon English connexion to press the matter to an open rupture.

Meantime, the man who had stirred

the controversy was himself removed from the scene of strife. Molyneux had never seen Locke. He had, however, confidentially consulted him in the progress of his work; and the feeling of respectful admiration with which he had always regarded the philosopher of the Human Understanding warmed, under the influence of this constant intercourse, into an ardent desire to meet him and enjoy the privilege of his conversation. His constitution had for some time suffered under a painful chronic malady, for which the surgical science of the period afforded no palliative, and within six months after the publication of his tract, even the journey to England was judged too much for him. Nevertheless, his desire to meet Locke overcame the prudential remonstrances of his advisers and friends, and he crossed the channel in the month of July, 1698. The pleasure of this visit was purchased at the expense of his life. He returned to Ireland in September; on the 9th of October his sufferings caused the rupture of a blood-vessel, and on the 16th he breathed his last. Of this honourable and distinguished Irishman it is not our province to speak at large; but the man whom Locke "was proud to call his friend" was not given to an ungrateful country. The name of Molyneux has been held in esteem, up to the present time, by Irishmen of every political and religious opinion, for it was unimpeached by a single discreditable imputation, as it was marked by a conspicuous act of fearless and disinterested, if mistaken, patriotism. While his memory was thus consigned to an enduring fame, his book was handed over to the flames of intemperate reprobation. But it was by these clumsy and inappropriate efforts at posthumous persecu tion that the ideas which could not be burned out gained an added currency and vigour; they rose like incense off the altar of sacrifice, and refused to be dispersed by elements less subtle than themselves.

In the uneventful period which followed the publication and condemnation of Molyneux's book, the policy of the Government, as administered by successive Lords Justices, may be

best gathered, in the almost total silence of direct authority, from the legislative measures these functionaries promoted in Ireland; while the disposition of the English people towards that country may be pretty plainly ascertained by reference to one Act passed in the English Parliament relating to it. It was felt that the success of a particular branch of industry, the woollen manufacture, interfered with English interests. The object was to remedy this evil, not by encouraging English manufactures, but by discou raging Irish. Something, however, Something, however, was to be substituted, and accordingly efforts were made to introduce the linen manufacture in the place of that of woollen. In 1697, the Marquis of Winchester and Lord Galway, the Lords Justices, had strongly recommended to Parliament the encouragement of Protestant settlers in the country, with a view to the increased production of this fabric, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes having caused the emigration from France of a body of skilled artisans of the reformed religion, who only needed to be directed towards a settlement, to aid in this industrial reform, now that the destruction of the woollen trade was inevitable.* Sir Thomas Southwell, following in the steps of Sir Richard Cox, lent his best assistance to the movement. His pen and purse were unceasingly devoted to promoting the cultivation of flax, and a voluminous correspondence is yet extant testifying to his practical ability and indefatigable industry in these patriotic efforts. To his instrumentality Lisburn is indebted for the settlement there of the father of the modern linen manufacture, Lewis Cromelin, founder of the respectable northern family of that name; and, at a later period, a number of Germans of the Palatinate, who had fled from the miseries

of a war-wasted country, found protection on his estates in the county of Limerick, and in himself a judicious as well as generous patron.‡

In England, Parliament took an early opportunity of manifesting as well its sense of the new Irish doctrine of Parliamentary independence, as its estimate of the King's management of his Irish acquisitions. A commission of inquiry was appointed to examine into the forfeited estates. These estates had been considered by the king, notwithstanding an alleged promise to Parliament, a convenient and appropriate fund out of which to recompense and reward those who had made sacrifices or achieved successes in the cause, as well, perhaps, as to confer favours upon his own personal friends. He had accordingly disposed of most of the lands declared the property of the Crown, in extensive grants to his principal adherents. Now, however, that the Whig Ministry had become unpopular, they felt no scruple in making an effort to reinstate themselves in the public favour by a sacrifice of the King's personal feelings and sense of honour. It had been the general opinion from the first, that at least a portion of the Irish forfeitures ought to have been set apart, to reimburse the Exchequer the serious expense incurred in the suppression of the late Irish rebellion, as it was called. This expression of opinion now swelled into an outcry, and the demand on the part of the nation was not only for a portion, but for the whole.

The commissioners, who were seven in number, set about their labours without delay. It was easy to see that the Parliament had secured a majority of them in its interests. They found that the number of persons outlawed in Ireland since the 3d of February, 1688, was 3,921. That the lands forfeited by them amounted to 1,060,792

facture.

VOL. XLVII.-NO. CCLXXVII.

F

acres, worth £211,623 per annum. That some of these lands had been restored to the old proprietors by virtue of the Articles of Limerick and Galway, and by his Majesty's favour, and the reversal of outlawries and Royal pardons obtained (so the Report_ran) chiefly by gratifications to such persons as had abused his Majesty's royal bounty and commission. Besides these restitutions, which they did not undertake to interfere with though they thought them to be corruptly procured, they gave an account of seventy-six grants and custodiams, under the great seal of Ireland, valued by them at £1,699,343 14s. Od.,* exclusive of a grant of no less than 95,000 acres, valued at £26,000 per annum, to Elizabeth Countess of Orkney, being the entire of the private estates of King James.

Out of the seven commissioners it turned out that four were in the interests of Parliament, and three in that of the Crown. These latter wholly repudiated the finding of the report, and refused to sign it. One of them, indeed, Sir Richard Levinge, was charged with having circulated calumnies respecting the motives of the majority, which drew forth a vote of approbation of their conduct upon the inquiry, and led to Levinge's committal to the Tower. So strenuous was Parliament in supporting its commissioners, that the Commons passed a vote, that they could not even receive any petition concerning the grants, and then proceeded to address the King in strong terms against them. His Majesty, in his reply, stated that inclination and justice had united to induce him to reward those who had been faithful to his cause-an answer which was supposed by the Commons to insinuate a reflection upon their late acts, and accordingly drew forth a resolution to the effect that whoever had advised it had done all he could to create a misunderstanding and jealousy between the king and his people. † Upon the report of the commissioners an Act of Resumption was passed. By

it the estates were vested in thirteen trustees named in the Act, among whom the four commissioners who had signed the Report were included. It contained provisoes for exempting certain estates from its operation ; but these cases were few; and, as a general rule, all grants of lands, reversions and pensions, made since the year 1688, were rigidly resumed. It may easily be imagined how deeply the pas sing of this Act must have wounded the already irritated sensibilities of William. With Romney, who had been the first to lay the Crown of England at his feet, Parliament did not dare to interfere; but Keppel and Bentinck, associates of his perils as of his triumphs having shared the former and contributed to the latterand De Ginckle, to whose constancy, skill, and courage, was due the final subjugation of the kingdom out of the forfeitures of which he, if any one, might fairly claim his share, were now, in a few sweeping clauses of hostile legislation, deprived of the reward due to services such as no king and no nation had perhaps ever been called upon to recompense. It was with great difficulty William was prevailed on to give his royal sanction to the bill; but, once it was passed, he exhibited no outward signs of his displeasure. A haughty silence at the prorogation of Parliament alone gave tokens that the affront was felt.

The blow, nevertheless, was a sore one to William. He can scarcely be said ever to have completely recovered it. It still further exasperated an irritable temper, and made him moody, morose, and inaccessible; nor was his indignation allayed by the demeanour of the trustees themselves. Constant complaints reached the royal ears of their conduct, as being arbitrary and imperious. Petitions were addressed to him, setting forth, in the strongest terms, that the Act of Resumption had a tendency to injure the Protestant interest, and had been obtained by gross misrepresentations. The whole Privy Council joined in the endeavour

† Smollett, vol. 9, ch. vi. sec. 25.