commission, constituting the chief governors, was opened and read; and the two earls having been sworn in the usual manner, were complimented by the Privy Councillors and several other persons of quality. The Duke of Bolton remained for a time in England. Hackworth, his country seat, was only a few miles distant from Stratton Park, so that Lady Russell had an opportunity of hearing how Lord Galway stood his toil and trials. She wrote to Mr. Thornton on the 16th July, “The Duke of Bolton came very kindly and dined with us; his duchess is coming over.”
What is now interesting in the coming of Lord Berkeley to Ireland is, that he brought with him as his chaplain, the Rev. Jonathan Swift, afterwards the witty and furious Dean of St. Patrick’s. Such a Williamite statesman, as Lord Galway, worked well during a long course of years for the wages of Swift’s resentment, and to be immortalized as an opponent of that starving and reckless pamphleteer. The abusive epithets of such a writer tend to corroborate the many direct proofs that Lord Galway was vigorous in his government, select in his friendships, and steady in his opinions. The comic utterances of malignity are worth quoting. For instance:—
“I was pleased with the humour of a surgeon in Dublin, who, having in his apprehension, received some great injustice from the Earl of Galway, and despairing of revenge as well as relief, declared to all his friends that he had set apart one hundred guineas to purchase the Earl’s carcase from the sexton whenever it should die, to make a skeleton of the bones, stuff the hide, and show them for threepence, and thus get vengeance for the injuries he had suffered by its owner;” and again, “Ruvigny was a deceitful, hypocritical, factious knave — a damnable hypocrite of no religion.”
The commission on forfeitures, to which the king alluded, proved to be a great blow to Lord Galway. It was appointed early in 1699. In a former session, a bill for its creation, which passed the Commons, was thrown out by the Lords. But during this spring the House of Commons “tacked” it to the land tax, and thus concussed the House of Peers into passing it. By this Act of Parliament a commission was given to seven persons named by the House of Commons, to inquire into and take an account of all estates within the kingdom of Ireland that have been forfeited for high treason during the late rebellion within that kingdom. Burnet says, “When I saw afterwards what the consequences of this act proved to be, I did firmly resolve never to consent again to any tack to a money bill as long as I lived.” The king again alluded to the commission in a letter to Lord Galway in autumn:—
“Loo, August 14, 1699.
“In reply to your inquiry about passing the three grants which I made before leaving England, namely to Scrabemoer, Larue, and Ash, it is necessary that you should get them passed as soon as you can, as they were given before the Act of the English Parliament which appointed that fine commission, which I doubt not will occasion me much vexation and mortification next winter, for it has no other object; and I see from the proceedings of the commissioners that they will carry out admirably the purpose for which they have been sent.
“William R.”
Of the seven commissioners, only four would sign the report. As a financial stroke, the measure was a failure. The Commons had coveted the purchase-money to pay the debts of the nation; and they were tempted by a representation that the sum realised would be £2,037,287. It turned out, that leaving all incumbrances out of the question, the value was only £780,000, and deducting incumbrances, the entire balance was £400,000, English currency. The proprietors had been willing to pay £300,000 (English) into the exchequer for a parliamentary confirmation of their title-deeds. Three or four years after this date, the Irish Parliament declared that the proceedings had been instigated by designing men, “to promote beneficial employments for themselves” (a circumlocution for the monosyllable “job,” by which more modern critics would have characterised the business).
The three dissentient commissioners were not heard; and on the 17th December 1699, it was resolved that a bill should be brought in to apply to the public service the Irish estates forfeited since 15th February 1688. Further, the House refused to receive petitions against the measure, but referred complainants to a body of trustees, who would hear their cases. On the 18th of January 1700, they censured those who had procured and passed those grants — a resolution which they communicated to the king on the 21st of February. The king returned the following reply:—
