Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 3 - Section VIII
Sec. 8. — The Earl of Galway’s Government of Ireland from 1697 to 1701.
The Peace with France was signed at King William’s Palace of Neuburg House, close to the village of Ryswick, on the 30th October 1697. In honour of it, the absentee Lord-Justice of Ireland, Viscount Villiers, was made Earl of Jersey, and sent envoy to the Hague.
The peace establishment had now to be settled. Lord Galway had submitted to the king a plan for counteracting the theoretical mania for an immense reduction of the army. To reduce the estimates, as the theorisers must have desired, and at the same time to moderate their craving for a rash disbanding, his lordship proposed to diminish the full pay of officers in Ireland. He received the following letter, dated from the king’s favourite residence in Holland:—
“Loo, October 18, 1697.
“The peace being now made and ratified, it must be considered what forces to keep on foot. I much approve the project you sent me of keeping in Ireland twenty battalions of infantry, four regiments of dragoons, and eighteen troops of horse, and reducing the pay of the officers. I have imparted this project to none but Lord Portland, whom I am going to send into England, and with whom you must correspond about this matter, and let me know what public orders will be necessary to be given for the execution of this affair. My design is to disband most of the regiments of foot and dragoons now in Ireland, and to send thither some of those that are in Flanders. I also intend to send thither your regiment of horse, and the three French regiments of foot, incorporating some officers, who have served in Piedmont, of the four regiments which are on the Rhine, and which I am going to reform, and to take all the French Protestant soldiers, and put them into the three above-mentioned regiments. Be always assured of the continuance of my friendship.
“William R.”[1]
“P.S. — I think to reduce Wolseley’s regiment to three troops, and yours to six, to remove all jealousy in England.”
I now revert to the parliament which began in the end of July. From the “excellent speech” of the Lords-Justices I need extract one sentence only. “We think the present occasion so favourable for inviting and encouraging Protestant strangers to settle here, that we cannot omit to put you in mind of it, especially since that may contribute to the increase of the linen manufacture, which is the most beneficial trade that can be encouraged in Ireland.” One reason for this hint was, that the exportation of woollen manufactures from Ireland to England was viewed by the English with great alarm and indignation.
To show the difficulties attendant on the proposed establishment, I insert an extract of a letter to John Locke, from William Molyneux, Esq., dated from Dublin, 26th Sept. 1696:—
“About the year 1692 (I think), one Monsieur Du Pin came to Dublin from England, and here, by the King and Queen’s letter and patents thereon, he set up a royal corporation for carrying on the linen manufacture in Ireland. Into this corporation many of the nobility and gentry were admitted, more for their countenance and favour to the project than for any great help could be expected, either from their purses or heads, to carry on the work. Du Pin himself was nominated Under-governor, and a great bustle was made about the business: many meetings were held, and considerable sums advanced to forward the work, and the members promised themselves prodigious gains. And this expectation prevailed so far (by what artifices I cannot tell) as to raise the value of each share to £40 or £50, though but £5 was paid by each member at first for every share he had. At length artificers began to be set at work, and some parcels of cloth were made; when, on a sudden, there happened some controversy between the corporation here in Ireland, and such another corporation established in England by London undertakers, and in which Du Pin was also a chief member. Much time was spent in managing this dispute, and the work began in the meantime to flag, and the price of the shares to lower mightily. But some little time before this controversy, some private gentlemen and merchants, on their own stock, without the authority of an incorporating patent, set up a linen manufacture at Drogheda, which promised and thrived very well at first; and the corporation at Dublin perceiving this, began to quarrel with them also, and would never let them alone till they embodied with them. These quarrels and controversies (the particulars whereof I can give you no account of, for I was not engaged amongst them, and I can get no one that was who can give any tolerable account of them) grew so high, and Du Pin began to play such tricks, that all were discouraged, and withdrew as fast as they could; so that now all is blown up, and nothing of this kind is carried on, but by such as, out of their own private purses, set up looms and bleaching yards. We have many of these in many parts of Ireland; and, I believe, no country in the world is better adapted for it, especially the north. I have as good diaper made by some of my tenants nigh Armagh, as can come to a table, and all other cloths for household uses.
“As to the law for the encouraging the linen manufacture, ’tis this. In the 17th and 18th of Car. II. there was an Act of Parliament made, ‘obliging all landlords and tenants to sow such a certain proportion of their holdings with flax, under a great penalty on both, on failure; and empowering the Sheriffs to levy £20, in each of their respective counties, to be distributed at the quarter sessions, yearly, to the three persons who should bring in the three best webs of linen cloth of such a length and breadth, £10 to the first, £6 to the second, and £4 to the third.’ This, whilst it lasted, was a great encouragement to the country people, to strive to outdo each other, and it produced excellent cloth all over the kingdom; but then it was but temporary (only for twenty years from passing the Act), and is now expired. But that part of the act ‘ordaining landlords and tenants to sow flax’ is perpetual, and I can give no reason why ‘tis not executed. Only this I can say, that the transgression is so universal, and the forfeiture thereon to the king so severe, that, if it were inquired into, I believe all the estates in Ireland would be forfeited to His Majesty; so that now the multitude of sinners is their security. This statute you will find amongst the Irish Acts (17th and 18th Car. II., cap. 9).
“England most certainly will never let us thrive by the woollen trade; it is their darling mistress, and they are jealous of any rival. But I see not that we interfere with them in the least by the linen trade; so that that is yet left open to us to grow rich by, if it were well established and managed; but by what means this should be, truly I dare not venture to give my thoughts.”
In accordance with the Lords-Justices’ speech, the Parliament passed two resolution in favour of the commercial object recommended to their fostering care. The first was an Act to continue for ten years longer, and with additional privileges, the Act of 1692, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, and for securing to them the free exercise of their religion, and liberty of meeting together for the worship of God, and of hearing Divine Service and performing other religious duties in their own several rites used in their own countries. The second was, a resolution (which was acted upon) praying the Lords-Justices that a Foreign Protestant minister might be appointed at a reasonable salary, in every parish where fifty of such Protestant strangers might be settled.
That Colonel Upton might not have occasion to say that Irish Presbyterians received nothing but courtiers’ promises, a resolution was passed with regard to the penalties incurred by those who did not attend their parish churches. The House of Commons resolved that the penalties should not in future be enforced against any one who should subscribe the declaration required in the room of the Oath of Supremacy. This was also in 1697.
It was because the king knew that the French refugees and their regiments were unpopular in England, that he planned their establishment in Ireland under the wing of Lord Galway. It was politic to hint that as regimental keepers of the peace they might be dispensed with in course of time. Luttrell mentions, under date 2d Nov. 1697, that the French refugees living on charity in England were ordered to go to Ireland, where they would be encouraged to follow their several trades; also, that the French refugee regiments were to be ordered there, perhaps to be gradually disbanded, and settled upon grants of land.
The parliamentary session ended on the 3d of December. Before the intelligence could reach England, the king had written to Lord Galway:—
“Kensington, (Nov. 26) Dec. 6, 1697.
“I refer you to what Lord Portland will write to you about the forces, by which you will learn my intentions. I assure you that I am very much troubled to find things here run so high against the poor refugees. This has struck me; but you know these sorts of things pass here very easily. Be ever assured of my esteem.
William R.
“P.S. — I hope you’ll be able to put an end very soon to the parliament of Ireland.”
The next session was important as following in the wake of the parliament of England. There was a feeling among some parties in Ireland that England kept their country too much in subjection. And it found expression in a pamphlet or book of 174 pages, dedicated to the king by the author, William Molyneux, of Dub-lin, Esquire, who is known to the admirers of Locke as one of his most intimate correspondents. The title of the tractate was, “The Case of Ireland being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated.” Its doctrine was that an English Act was not in force in the sister country, unless re-enacted by the Irish Parliament. The treatise was purely argumentative and free from personalities. Mr. Molyneux says in his Preface, “I have not any concern in wooll or the wooll-trade. . . . I think I am as free from any personal prejudice in this cause as ‘tis possible to expect any man should be that has an estate and property in this kingdom, and who is a Member of Parliament therein.” He argued that a charter, recognising free parliaments in Ireland, had been granted by Henry III. in the first year of his reign. And perhaps the following thrust was intended as an argumentum ad hominem for Lord Galway, “We have heard great outcries, and deservedly, on breaking the Edict of Nantes and other stipulations; how far the breaking of our constitution (which has been of five hundred years’ standing) exceeds that, I leave the world to judge” (page 172). The English Commons in May 1698 examined and censured this pamphlet, and addressed the king praying that in a parliamentary way the dependence and subordination of Ireland to the imperial crown of England might be preserved and maintained — also, that his Majesty would take all necessary care that the laws, which direct and restrain the parliament of Ireland in their actings, be not evaded but strictly observed. The king promised the desired prevention and redress; but was anxious that nothing should be transferred into the journals of the Irish Parliament. Vengeance had been taken on the printed paper of Molyneux’s book, but the author’s death had already put him out of the reach of terrestrial courts.[2]
In consequence of an address from the English House of Lords, the king desired that the Irish woollen trade should forthwith be interred with decent silence. He wrote accordingly to Lord Galway:—
“Kensington, July (16) 26, 1698.
“Though I have fully explained to the Chancellor of Ireland my sentiments upon Irish affairs, I wish to write to you, to tell you that it never was of such importance as at present, to have a good session of parliament, not only with respect to my affairs in that kingdom, but still more with respect to my affairs here. The chief thing is to prevent the Irish parliament taking notice of what has passed in the English one; and that you make effectual laws for the linen manufacture, and to discourage, as far as possible, the woollen; these are two of the most material points you have to accomplish. And the third is the necessary supply for the maintenance of the army, of which you know the importance, and to try to get as much as you can, since after this session I should be very glad not to be obliged for a good while to have another parliament in Ireland. I have sent orders for embarking at Ostend the five French regiments, and instead of my own regiment of Eppinger’s dragoons, I will send you two regiments of foot, which will be much the same as to expense. Blathwayte [Secretary-at-War] will write to you about the establishment and appointment of the pay of the forces.
“I must tell you I am well satisfied with the Chancellor of Ireland. At his first coming here to the parliament he committed a great oversight, which has got him many enemies, and all the ministry here are much incensed against him, as well as the Whig party. But in Ireland it is just the contrary, it is the Tories; so he will find it hard to behave in such a manner as not to be involved in difficulties. If bad success attends you in parliament, it is certain that here the blame will be laid upon him. I thought it necessary to inform you of this circumstance, that you may take your measures accordingly. Be ever assured of my esteem.
William R.
“P.S. — I shall set out in two days for Holland. I send you back the Prince of Conti’s letter, and approve much of your answer to him. I had not an opportunity to let you know before.”
The Prince of Conti, Francis Louis de Bourbon, was one of the most brilliant Lieutenant-Generals of France. As a hunter after vacant dominions, he had been disappointed of Poland in the preceding October. Probably his eye was at this time turned to the Principality of Neufchatel, possessed by the Duchess de Nemours. William himself was a prospective claimant, and prevailed on Louis XIV. to decide about a year after this, that France should be neutral until the Duchess’s death. The Prince of Conti had thus to quit his hold of Neufchatel also, and to return uncrowned to Paris. In 1698 he may have sounded Lord Galway as to the likelihood of King William’s claim being pressed. The Prince died in Paris in 1709, aged forty-five.
The Parliament of 1698 was very agreeable in the matters about which the king felt anxiety. The Lords-Justices in their speech said: “The linen and hempen manufactures will not only be encouraged, as consistent with the trade of England, but will render the trade of this kingdom both useful and necessary to England.” The English Parliament had already passed Acts to encourage both the Irish linen manufacture, and the importation into England of unmanufactured wool from Ireland. The Irish Parliament now passed an Act for laying additional duty upon woollen manufactures exported out of Ireland. And the division of trade came into practical operation accordingly. Whatever material prosperity Ireland enjoys, may be said to be due to the refugee manufactures, and to the Acts for their encouragement under Lord Galway’s administration. The Linen Bill was planned and drawn up by James Hamilton, Esq., of Tullymore.
The House of Commons, otherwise so complying, enlivened the pacific monotony by one or two divisions. On or before the 15th September, a motion being made to go into a committee of supply, an amendment was proposed, That an Address be presented to the Lords-Justices to intercede with his Majesty that the five regiments of French Protestants should be disbanded. These were the Earl of Galway’s regiment of Horse, and the Marquis de Miremont’s regiment of dragoons, and the infantry regiments of the Comte de Marton, Monsieur La Meloniere, and Monsieur Belcastel. The house divided, when there appeared for the amendment, 72; against it, 101. Another amendment for delay was rejected, there being, for delay, 55; against it, 105. On the 15th of September the supplies were granted according to the estimates. No division being expected, the opposition divided the house; the numbers were, Yeas, 98; Noes, 64. (See Secretary Vernon’s Letters.)
In July of this year, says Luttrell, the Marquis of Winchester and the Earl of Galway went to visit most of the maritime garrisons, and to furnish them with what necessaries they want, and to take a view of the camp at Clonmel.
During the next two years no meeting of parliament took place in Ireland. Certainly some of the bulls of the English parliament of that period were Irish enough, as I will now demonstrate. The majority of the House of Commons voted along with a few enthusiasts, that a standing army was dangerous to liberty. In order to deprive the king of an army, of which it was his pride to be the chief, the policy was to keep only a very few regiments in pay, and to rely mainly on the militia and the navy. Having reduced the army, they resolved, in the same rude spirit, that there should be no foreigners in it.
As all this is well known to readers of history, I shall give the facts (mingled with gossip and misinformation) from letters written by the French Ambassador, Count Tallard, to Louis XIV.[3] The count and his royal correspondent naturally felt special curiosity regarding the bearing of such events upon Lord Galway.
“London, 1st January 1699 [In the House of Commons]. — By a second resolution it was determined to admit none [into the English army] but natural born Englishmen; the Scotch, and even the Irish, are excluded. Monsieur de Schomberg, though a Duke and Peer of England, can no longer have the command of the army, he who had been accustomed to command the troops during the king’s absence. No French refugee, and no foreigner, can hold even a lieutenancy. In Ireland there can be no troops but Irish and Scotch. Lord Galway ceases therefore to command the army in that country, though he may remain regent.”
“London, January 2d. — The Duke commanded the troops in this kingdom during the king’s absence, as did Lord Galway in Ireland. Having so much confidence in them, he believed that he could safely leave the kingdom; but could he venture at this time to go to Holland, when no one remains in this country upon whom he can depend?” — “P.S. — Since writing my letter, I have learnt that the Bill for the reduction of the troops has been read a second time in the House of Commons, and that instead of the words ‘subjects born in England,’ the expression, ‘subjects of England,’ has been substituted, by which Irishmen are qualified to be among the troops.”
“London, January 14. — What has passed to-day gives no reason for believing that there will be any change in favour of foreigners in the Bill, which has already been read twice. It is even thought that Lord Galway will be personally attacked. He thought fit to speak in rather a high tone in the Irish parliament, and in return the latter takes the affirmative. The whole nation declares against him, and people begin to believe, not only that he will no longer command the army in Ireland, but even that he will not continue Lord-Justice.”
“London, January 15. — The Parliament made a considerable change yesterday in the Bill for the reduction of the army. Instead of ‘subjects of England,’ they agreed to insert ‘subjects of the king, or naturalized.’”
“London, January 22. — It will also be considered whether Lord Galway shall be attacked or not, for I hear they will not have him remain in Ireland. As they have reinstated those who are naturalized, and he is of that number, he is safe on that score. Your Majesty will be perhaps glad to know that there are not more than thirty Frenchmen who are so.”
“London, January 24. — The king is preparing to disband the troops, even before the Bill has passed. Like a skilful man, he desires to do himself honour by what he has not been able to prevent. He has gained the naturalized foreigners; and this is much, for it preserves the command of the troops for the Duke of Schomberg and the Earl of Galway.”
Amid this turmoil Lord Galway ventured to address a letter to the king, to which he received the following gracious reply:—
“Kensington, (Jan. 27) Feb. 6, 1699.
“I received some days ago a letter from you without date, by which I see you are uneasy at the proceedings of the Parliament here against the foreigners. I think you have too much cause to be so; though, as yet, nothing has passed about you, and I have good reason to hope you will be left undisturbed. At least you may be assured I shall do my utmost that nothing be done to your prejudice, for I am satisfied with your conduct, and you are useful to my service. You may be sure that I will not recall you, unless I am forced to it, which I hope will not be the case. It is not to be conceived how much people here are set against the foreigners. You will easily judge on whom this reflects.
“I design very shortly to send into Ireland five regiments of foot and two of horse, and soon after, three more of foot — eight in all. I will send you in a few days orders to disband Wolsey’s regiment of horse and nine regiments of foot, intending to keep only Hanmer’s and Hamilton’s. I design also, when the parliament rises, to send you your regiment of horse, and the three French regiments, and perhaps Miremont’s dragoons; but that must be very secret, though I much fear my design is already suspected here. I am in doubt whether I shall send likewise into Ireland Eppinger’s regiment. All this together would amount to eighteen battalions of foot, three regiments of horse, and five of dragoons, reckoning Eppinger’s as two. This would in a manner be agreeable to your project, and, according to my calculation, the expense no greater; but if it should be, something must be retrenched, on which I should be glad to know your sentiments. You will easily perceive how necessary it is that all this be kept secret. I thought it requisite to give you early notice of my intention, that you might take your measures accordingly: mine must be regulated according as things go in parliament, of which there is no being sure till the session is over. There is a spirit of ignorance and malice reigning here beyond conception. Be always assured of my friendship.
“William R.”
In the above gracious letter the king says, “Nothing has passed about you.” Lord Galway was personally respected and much liked by all parties. The Jacobites, because he was not a Jacobite, called him a Whig; but he was an Orange Whig only, and had neither the tone nor temper of a partizan in the politics of his adopted country. The Duke of Ormond (the grandson of the Duke who had favoured the refugees) disliked foreign Protestants in general and Lord Galway in particular; and he may have misinformed the French ambassador as to the feeling of the country towards his Excellency, the acting Lord-Justice of Ireland.
The king’s bountiful intention towards the refugee regiments was soon knocked on the head. The Commons of England, on the 24th of February, voted £34,813, 5s. to clear the arrears due to Lord Galway’s Horse and the other French regiments, “which are to be disbanded.”[4]
Being in the meantime unmolested, Lord Galway remained in Ireland. In the month of May, Count Tallard thought that an opportunity for removing him had arrived. The Marquis of Winchester, through the death of his father, was now Duke of Bolton, and had come over to England to arrange his family affairs. The speculation was that he would not go back to Dublin, and that Lord Galway would be superseded by a Lord-Lieutenant. Luttrell states, under date May 31, “The Duke of Bolton, having given his Majesty an account of the affairs of Ireland, was graciously received, and some talk of his being made Lord Chamberlain.” All these guesses were wrong, as there was no intention of superseding Lord Galway. Mr. Vernon wrote to the Duke of Shrewsbury on the 6th June:— “I believe the Duke of Bolton does not think of going into Ireland till towards next spring. He intends his duchess shall come over and meet him in Yorkshire in August. I think he is in good humour, and willing to do right both to my Lord Galway and Mr. Methuen.”
The acting members of the Viceregal Board were re-gazetted, the Earl of Berkeley being added to their number, as appears from the following most interesting letter from the king to the Earl of Galway:—
“Kensington, (June 1) 11, 1699.
“I have not written to you all this winter, by reason of my vexation at what passed in parliament, and because of the uncertainty I was under to know what to send you. It is not possible to be more sensibly touched than I am at my not being able to do more for the poor refugee officers who have served me with so much zeal and fidelity. I am afraid the good God will punish the ingratitude of this nation.
“I could hardly get the estimates of Ireland passed, as they will be sent to you. There are retrenchments which I was forced to make, though I like them not; and doubtless some of them must be changed. The Duke of Bolton seems pleased with you, but not with the chancellor (Methuen). I have this day despatched a new commission for the Lords Justices of Ireland, by joining with the Duke of Bolton and you the Earl of Berkeley, who is an easy man, and will be agreeable to you.
“I am perfectly satisfied with your conduct; and I hope now you will be left undisturbed, since in the last parliament nothing was said of you, though you were much threatened. I fear the Commission given here by the Commons for the inspection of the forfeitures will give you a great deal of trouble, and me no less, next winter. Assuredly on all sides my patience is put to the test. I am going to breathe a little beyond sea, in order to come back as soon as possible. I think it for my service to change the commission of the treasury in Ireland, where I believe the revenue is not well managed, on which it is necessary that you let me know your sentiments immediately. The estimates of the next year must absolutely be reduced, that my ordinary revenue may serve to pay it; and a parliament in Ireland must not be thought of so soon. This you ought instantly to consider, and take your measures for the future. Be always assured of my friendship.
“William R.”
Lord Galway had remained at his post, with the Archbishop of Dublin as a tenv porary coadjutor. In July Lord Berkeley arrived. He was the second carl of his family; his wife was a daughter of Baptist, second Viscount Campden, and half, sister of the first Earl of Gainsborough; his son, James Berkeley, Viscount Dursley, was a distinguished admiral. The Irish Privy Council met forthwith, when the new 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:—
“Gentlemen, I was not led by inclination, but thought myself obliged in justice to reward those who had served well, and particularly in the reduction of Ireland, out of the estates forfeited to me by the rebellion there. The long war in which we were engaged did occasion great taxes, and has left the nation much in debt; and the taking just and effectual ways for lessening that debt and supporting public credit, is what in my opinion will best contribute to the honour, interest, and safety of this kingdom.”
With the latter sentence we are not now concerned — indeed the king’s friends do not defend it. At to the first, let us hear Lord Macaulay:—
“To whatever criticism William’s answer might be open, he said one thing which well deserved the attention of the House. A small part of the forfeited property had been bestowed on men whose services to the state deserved a much larger recompence, and that part could not be resumed without gross injustice and ingratitude. An estate of very moderate value had been given with the title of Earl of Athlone to Ghinkel, whose skill and valour had brought the war in Ireland to a triumphant close. Another estate, with the title of Earl of. Galway, had been given to Ruvigny, who in the crisis of the decisive battle, at the very moment when Saint Ruth was waving his hat and exclaiming that the English should be beaten back to Dublin, had at the head of a gallant body of horse struggled through the morass, turned the left wing of the Celtic army, and retrieved the day. But the predominant faction, drunk with insolence and animosity, made no distinction between courtiers who had been enriched by injudicious partiality, and warriors who had been sparingly rewarded for great exploits achieved in defence of the liberties and the religion of our country. Athlone was a Dutchman — Galway was a Frenchman — and it did not become a good Englishman to say a word in favour of either.”
The Resumption Bill passed the Commons on the 2d April “tacked” to the land tax. On the 4th the Upper House agreed to the second reading by a majority of seventy to twenty-three — only eight peers (including the Duke of Bolton) protesting against it. But on this occasion the Lords made amendments in committee, and sent the amended bill to the Commons, who returned it without remark. Committees being appointed, the two Houses through them held conferences both on the 9th and on the 10th of April without result. On the latter evening, the Commons, being exasperated, locked their doors and proceeded to consider both the report on the Irish forfeitures and the list of privy councillors. The king, alarmed at the ferment, sent a message to the House of Lords to pass the original bill without the amendments. Their Lordships then divided on the question of adhering to those amendments, when the votes were equal, forty-three against forty-three. Another question was then put, “to agree to the said bill without any amendment,” which was carried by thirty-nine against thirty-four, and intimation was sent to the Lower House that the bill was passed. Twenty-one peers formally protested, signing a copy of the reasons which had been so long insisted on in conference with the Commons’ committee.[5]
The House of Commons, still violently excited, continued to examine the list of the members of the privy council. Though the leaders failed to pass an address, praying that Lord Somers might be removed from the king’s presence and councils for ever, they carried another address to his Majesty, “that no person who was not a native of his dominions, except his Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark, be admitted to his Majesty’s councils in England and Ireland.” Cotemporaries wondered why Ireland was added to the motion, as the addition could affect no one but Lord Galway, whose government of that kingdom gave satisfaction to both sides of the House. The conjecture which they accepted as most probable, was that it was intended to please the Duke of Ormond. The English councillors, to whom the address applied, were Schomberg and Portland. To prevent such an address being presented, the king came down to the House of Lords next day (April 11), sent for the Commons, gave the royal assent to the bills that had passed both Houses, and prorogued the Parliament.
Although no address for Lord Galway’s removal was thus ever presented, the king thought it was necessary to yield to the tempest, and intimated this as tenderly as possible in a letter to the hero himself:—
“Hampton Court, May (2) 13, 1700.
“It is a good while since I writ to you last. The reason is that, being always uncertain of the issue of last session of Parliament, I was unwilling to answer any of your letters. You may judge what vexation all their extraordinary proceedings gave me, and I assure you your being deprived of what I gave you with so much pleasure was not the least of my griefs. I hope, however, that I shall be in a condition to acknowledge the good services you have done me, and you may depend upon it I shall earnestly seek occasions to do so. It ought to be some satisfaction to you, in the just resentment of what concerns you, that nobody could blame your conduct; on the contrary, all appeared satisfied with it; and the vote, which passed in anger the last day, concerned you but indirectly. And I can assure you, that you were in no way the occasion of it. There have been so many intrigues in this last session, that, without having been on the spot and well informed of everything, it cannot be conceived. It will be impossible for me to continue the commission of the Lords-Justices in Ireland as it is at present; so I have resolved to send thither the Duke of Shrewsbury as viceroy, and that you command the army under him. Do not think this will be a degradation; nobody here will take it to be so, and I know that every one wishes it and believes it absolutely necessary for my service. I am fully persuaded, as I hope, that you will not refuse to accept of this command, nor relinquish my service. I assure you I never had more occasion than at present of persons of your capacity and fidelity. I hope I shall find opportunities to give you marks of my esteem and friendship; and I would not engage you in this, were I not assured that no hurt can happen to you from it; but I know it will meet with a general approbation, and doubt not your friends will say the same, and I am glad to tell you you have a great many, and among all parties.
“William R.”
Lord Galway, whose loyalty nothing could shake, acquiesced in the king’s resolution. His most excellent Majesty, being unable as King of England to reward him, put forth his generosity as Prince of Orange. Luttrell says, 27th June 1700, “The Earl of Galway is made General of the Dutch forces and Colonel of the blue regiment of foot-guards lately commanded by the Duke of Wirtemberg, now general of the Danish army.” The king also wrote to him:—
“Hampton Court, July (2) 13, 1700.
“Of all the proofs you have given me of your attachment to my service, I do not reckon as the least the spirit of resignation you evince to me with respect to your office in Ireland. I assure you that you could not have done me a greater service at this juncture, and one which I shall regard as quite a particular favour. You will have doubtless heard that the Duke of Shrewsbury has excused himself from going to Ireland. I shall make no change in the government till after my return from Holland, whither I set out the day after to-morrow.
“William R.”
“Loo, August 15, 1700.
“It is some time since I received your letter of the 13th of July, in which you desire to know on whom I have cast my eyes for the government of Ireland; and as I am sure that what I write you will be secret, I scruple not to tell you that I intend to give it to Lord Rochester, and to declare it at my return to England; but he will not go to Ireland till the next spring. You will easily conceive the reasons of it. I shall expect your thoughts of a matter that concerns you, and you may always rely on my friendship.
“William R.”
On the occasion of the loss of his Irish estate, the author of “Jus Regium” in 1701 specially mentioned the Earl of Galway — “the services of that noble person in Piedmont and Ireland, his piety towards his distressed countrymen, the greatness of his title, and the smallness of the fortune which he has to support it” (page 60).
Lord Galway, with the greatest urbanity and cordiality, did everything in his power to prepare the way for the Lord-Lieutenant and for his personal comfort in entering upon the government. Along with Lord Berkeley, he carried on the civii government until April 1701, and as long as it was necessary he did the duties of the Commander of the Forces. Lord Rochester having written to him in such terms as were no more than due to his signal ability and fidelity, Lord Galway replied in a letter,[6] dated from the “Chateau de Dublin,” 23d January 1701:—
“My Lord, — I have received the two letters with which your Excellency has been pleased to honour me. I esteem myself happy that you are kind enough to approve of my conduct; it is a mark of the friendship which you have accorded me for many years, and which I hope you will continue to me. I could justify my intentions during the whole time I have served the king, and particularly in this kingdom; but I confess I have not the same opinion of my capacity, the defects of which I have endeavoured to compensate by great application to business, and by willingly listening and attending to the advice of such as I thought capable of giving it. I was greatly assisted by the counsels of Major-General Erie while he was here. I am persuaded that the two brigadiers will take great care in all things, and that they will act with intelligence; they are good officers, zealous for the king’s service. We shall together make provision, as we believe to be most proper, for maintaining the army in such order as may satisfy your Excellency when you arrive in this kingdom, whereof I will render you an account when I have the honour of seeing you.
“The order for issuing the new Commission has arrived, but my Lord Chancellor (Methuen] having taken his departure before the order for naming the Keeper of the Seals had come, the Commission cannot be sealed.
“We have received commands to leave the papers here that have passed through our hands while we have been in the government; as to this, we reply to Mr. Vernon to-day. I have always thought that it would be exceedingly useful for the service of the king and the welfare of Ireland, to establish an office where all such papers might remain for the use of those who should be, or might have been, in the government, and for private individuals for their interests. If the king should not be advised to establish this office, I believe, my lord, that you will approve our causing copies to be made to be placed at your disposal, and that we may keep the originals for our own justification. I hope that we shall have no need of them; but it appears to me that there is some prudence in retaining possession of them. In this view we shall bring them to England, to do there whatever you think most proper. — I am, with respect, &c,
“Gallway.”
Often in those old times, opposition to the statesmen in power was so furious, that on their removal from power impeachments for treason were threatened. The retiring ministers, therefore, carried off all the official papers, and thus the State Papers of the kingdom were scattered among the private mansions of noblemen and gentlemen. The first suggestion of a State Paper Office for Ireland was made by Lord Galway in the above letter. He left Ireland with a good conscience, and with an excellent reputation as a man, a statesman, and a Christian nobleman. The Societies for the Reformation of Manners acknowledged his countenance of their well-intentioned labours. Their “Account,” published at that period, stated that they had several societies in Dublin, which were spreading into several parts of the kingdom, and were encouraged by his Excellency the Earl of Galway. He was also a patron of rising talent. The ennobled descendants of Richard Malone, who was called to the Irish bar in 1700, sent the following information to “Playfair’s Family Antiquities” concerning their ancestor, “This very distinguished person, while he was yet a student at the Temple, was employed, by the interest of his early friend Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, as a negotiator in Holland.” I conclude this section with an extract from Evelyn’s Diary (Evelyn’s son had been a commissioner of revenue in Ireland from 1692 to 1698): “1701, June 22, I went to congratulate the arrival of that worthy and excellent person, my Lord Galway, newly come out of Ireland, where he had behaved himself so honestly and to the exceeding satisfaction of the people; but he was removed thence for being a Frenchman, though they had not a more worthy, valiant, discreet, and trusty person on whom they could have relied for conduct and fitness. He was one who had deeply suffered, as well as the Marquis his father, for being Protestants.”
- ↑ The Letters from His Majesty to Lord Galway on the Government of Ireland are taken from Grimblot’s Letters of William III. and Louis XIV. and their Ministers, in two volumes.
- ↑ Although it seems that some persons would have replied to Mr. Molyneux by coarse penalties only, yet there were others who met him on the literary arena. An anonymous writer published, “An Answer to Mr. Molyneux His Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated, and his dangerous notion of Ireland’s being under no subordination to the Parliamentary Authority of England refuted by reasoning from his own arguments and authorities.” London, 1698. This was followed by "The History and Reasons of the Dependency of Ireland upon the imperial crown of the kingdom of England — Rectifying Mr. Molineux’s state of the case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England. By William Atwood, Barrister-at-law.” (afterwards Chief-Justice of New York). London, 1698.
- ↑ Grimblot’s Letters of William III., Lou’s XIV., and their Ministers.
- ↑ Some of these arrears were of old standing, as appears from the following extract:— “Saturday, 28 Nov. 1696, a petition of the troopers of the Rt. Hon. the Lord Galwaye’s regiment of Horse was presented to the House, and read, relating to their Irish arrears.” — Journals of the [English] House of Commons.
- ↑ The Resumption was protested against in a pamphlet (from which I have already quoted) entitled, “Jus Regium, or the King’s Right to grant forfeitures and other revenues of the Crown fully set forth and trae’d from the beginning; his Majesty vindicated as to his promise concerning the disposal of the Forfeited Estates; the manifold hardships of the Resumption, and the little advantage we shall reap from it, plainly demonstrated. London, printed in the year mdcci.” At page 60 Lord Galway’s estate at Portarlington is spoken of. One of the anticipated hardships, however, did not take place, because the purchasers respected Lord Galway’s leases, and did not turn out his tenants.
- ↑ The Earl of Rochester being the brother of the second Earl of Clarendon, the papers relative to the Irish government of the former are printed along with the Diary of the latter.