CHAPTER IV.

Retrospect of Irish History.-Cromwell's Invasion, and the Restoration. -No Parliament.-Certain Hereditary Revenues absolutely in the King.-Parliament with the People in the reign of George III.—Lord Sydney's Protest.-Duke of Dorset.-Arbitrary seizure of Revenue 1753.-Private Council originate Money-Bills.-Lord Sydney, 1692. -Lord Townsend.-Violent proceedings.-Parliament Dissolved.— Anthony Malone, honest Chancellor of Exchequer.-His conduct and character.-Papist Relief Bill in 1769.-First concession to the Catholics.-Lost in England.-Foresight of Malone.-Lord Halifax's Government.-Poyning's Law.-Primate Stone.-Malone removed from office-unjust accusation against him.-His personal appearance. Lord Pery.-Summary of Malone's character.-Irish politics in 1753. First symptom of public feeling.-Rejection of the MoneyBill.-Ineffectual struggle.—Irish Judges made independent.-Abuse of Pensions.-Irish remonstrance.-Letters of Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Bedford.

AFTER the death of Lord Strafford, in May 1641, and the breaking out of the civil wars on the 23rd of October following, parliament did not assemble till March, 1647, and only sat until June, 1648. Pending Cromwell's invasion, and the Restoration, it did not meet. In May, 1661, it assembled, and then voted the Quit rents to the Crown, as a compensation for the forfeited lands; the Hearth

money tax, as an equivalent for the Abolition of the Court of Wards; and the Hereditary Revenue of Customs and Excise, in consideration of the Act of Settlement and Explanation. This was voted to the King and his successors for ever; so that the disposal of this Hereditary Revenue was vested absolutely in the King,-his letter and seal being the only Authority for using it.

Having thus parted with their power, the Parliament became extinct, and from 1666 they did not assemble for near thirty years. They met after the Revolution in 1692, in the fourth year of William III. and did nothing until they began to incorporate with the people in the reign of George III. In 1692 they made an effort at display of public spirit, on the subject of a Money Bill, but were quickly suppressed by the Protest and Prorogation of the deputy Lord Sydney, when the opinion of the twelve judges in England, and of the eight judges in Ireland, were given seriatim against the rights of Ireland.

In 1753, under the Duke of Dorset, the Parliament made another attempt respecting the surplus in the treasury, and there the strong hand of power arrested its infantine efforts, and the revenues of the state were arbitrarily seized on and appropriated by the executive.*

"The flames in Ireland are stifled—I cannot say extinguished-by adjourning the Parliament, which is prorogued. A catalogue of dimensions was sent over thither, but the Lord Lieutenant durst not venture to

The altering money bills was long a vexata questio in Ireland, and the House of Commons had uniformly resisted this encroachment on their right. Primate Boulter, in his letters in 1729, writes to the Duke of Newcastle, and states the great opposition then made to the alteration of a money bill: 66 many members will be for losing the bill rather than agreeing to the alterations."

The originating of money bills in the Privy Council was another just and still greater ground of complaint. In 1692 the Irish Commons had rejected a money-bill, and had assigned as a reason that it originated in the Privy Council. Lord Sydney, who was then Lord Lieutenant, sent a protest against this to the House of Lords, denying the right of the Commons, and asserting as he terms it the prerogative of the King,—and then prorogued the Parliament. This was the precedent for the course adopted in 1769 by Lord Townsend when he dissolved the Parliament, and resorted to the same violent proceedings; and this was the measure selected at the outset of the reign, to characterize the administration of Lord Halifax by

put them in execution. The style towards that island is extremely lofty, and after some faint proposals of giving them some agreeable governor, violent measures have been resumed. The Speaker (Henry Boyle), is removed from being Chancellor of the Exchequer; more of his friends are displaced, and the Primate, with the Chancellor, and Lord Besborough, again nominated Lord Justices. These measures must oppress the Irish spirit, or what is more natural, inflame it to despair."-Walpole's Letters to Sir H. Mann.

a gross invasion of the rights of the House of Commons.

A money-bill originating in the Privy Council. was proposed in the first session of Parliament, in 1760, against the advice of Anthony Malone, who had in private sought to dissuade Government from such a measure,---conceiving it to be contrary to law, and the constitutional rights of the House of Commons. Malone was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for his honest opinion he was dismissed from office, and Mr. Hutchinson, who supported the bill, was created Sergeant, with an additional salary of 500l. a-year. This, however, was found to be illegal, and he resigned it, but got a sinecure place-that of Alnager,-a patent place with 10007. a-year salary. The bill passed and the money was granted. This was the first unconstitutional proceeding, and Malone's was the first penalty paid at the outset of the reign for a virtuous attachment to the rights of the people.

Anthony Malone was a conspicuous character in the history of his country. He was prime Sergeant in 1753, in the Vice-royalty of the Duke of Dorset; he sat for the county of Westmeath in the Parliament of 1757, and was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1760. He had the best understanding of the age, and the most benign person; a clear head and a sound judgment; an eloquence graceful and abundant; great general ability; and

a dignity that attracted, not repelled. His intellect was perhaps superior to that of any man of his day;-in fact he and Lord Pery were the only men of that time. He was in office at the period of the altered money-bill of 1753, and voted on the 17th December against the Court, in the celebrated majority of 122 against 117 on the question of the "previous consent." He began with the people, though he afterwards turned to the Court; yet if he feared to stir, it was because he lived at a period when few men dared to make an exertion* on behalf of Ireland, and no one could do it with success. He was a colony-bred man; and if he did not move, it was because he was afraid to bring down England upon Ireland; for he dreaded a contest with her; he knew her hard hand, and that she would have dealt upon Ireland without remorse, and thus he expresssed himelf to his friends

* "What shall one say of the Speaker, Mr. Malone, and the others? Don't they confess that they have gone the greatest lengths, and risked the safety of their country on a mere personal pique? If they did not contend for profit, like our patriots, (and you don't tell me that they have made lucrative stipulations), yet it is plain that their ambition had been wounded, and that they resented their power being crossed. But I, who am Whig to the backbone, indeed to the strictest sense of the word, feel hurt in a tenderer point, and which you, who are a minister, must not allow me. I am offended at their agreeing to an address, that avows such deference for prerogative, that is to protest so deeply against having intended to attack it. However rebel this may sound at your court, my Gothic spirit is hurt. I do not love such loyal expressions from a parliament. I do not so much consider myself writing to Dublin Castle, as from Strawberry Castle, where you know how I love my liberty."-Horace Walpole's Correspondence.-Letter from Mr. Conway, Secretary in Ireland, to Lord Hartington.