a bill had passed without a division for empowering Papists to lend money on the mortgages of real estates, that it had been lost in England, for what reason he knew not, as he thought the passing of it would have been of great advantage to that kingdom. He contended that at present, Papists could take only personal security for money they lend, which was certainly a great hardship upon them, and, he should endeavour to shew that it was also a great disadvantage to the public. As the public was nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, the suffering of an individual, is a disadvantage to the public in the proportion, which that individual bears to the whole, supposing the suffering of the individual to terminate entirely in himself; now Papists making one part, and a very considerable part too, of that community, it was certain, that the community must suffer with them, supposing their peculiar disadvantages to affect only themselves; but, in this case, their disadvantage affects other parts of the community; if the Papists be prohibited from lending upon such security, as is thought a sufficient indemnification, which, with respect to mere personal security, in such a country as this, cannot be the case, it is certain, that the Protestant is continually restrained from borrowing, and yet borrowing, and lending are mutual advantages. It might, perhaps, be replied, that though the disadvantages, under which the Papists are laid, by what are called Popery laws, are, indeed, disadvantages to the public, yet the disadvantages to the public would be greater, if the Papists were admitted to all the privi leges and immunities of Protestants; that they had in that case the power only of chusing the least of two evils, the different religious opinions of the inhabitants of that country making a certain degree of evil inevitable. But, in answer to this, he observed, that, with religious opinions, any farther than they include political principles, affecting civil government, they had nothing to do. The Protestant religion was founded upon the right of private judgment. They renounced the infallibility of the pope, and it would be absurd, indeed to set up, instead of it, an infallibility of the state; as Protestants they must therefore upon their own principies, admit that the opinions of those, who

ation in the Popery laws, his grace foreseeing in that the probable coalition of Protestant and Catholic in the interests of Ireland, and consequently the sure and immediate overthrow of the English Interest, which he and his predeces sor Boulter, had so effectually reared, cherished, and supported, in direct op position to the native or country interest. The liberality and paternal affections of our gracious sovereign for his Irish subjects, threatened immediate demoli tion to that factitious and monstrous fabric, which under that primate had been supported with the most corrupt buttresses; it is said, that his despair of maintaining the system he had so long and so arbitrarily controlled, contri. buted not a little to his dissolution, which was premature, considering his age and extraordinary strength of constitution.

differ from them may possibly be true; and opinions, that may possibly be true, they had certainly no right to punish. They might indeed, and they ought to keep the power of hurting out of the hands of those whose principles would lead them to exert it; but he thought the Papists a much more formidable enemy, as an inmate, in the possession of ready money, than in the possession of a mortgage deed. Money was always power, and that money which is placed in Protestant hands, upon mortgage, is power in favour of the state; the same money, in the hands of the Papists unlent, supposing the Papist to be an enemy to the state, was power against it. Besides money was not a lo cal, but transitory property; a Papist, possessed only of money, has no local interest in the country, but a Papist mortgagee had; he would be engaged to support the government in point of interest: his security for his money was good, while government subsisted, and in the convulsion, that always attends the subversion of government, it would at least become doubtful; besides, the greater the advantages, which the Papists receive under the present constitution, the more they must desire its continuance, and he would venture to say, that if the Papists were to be admitted to all the privileges of Protestant subjects, there would scarce be a practical Jacobite among them, whatever there might be in theory. I should therefore be glad, that the bill should have another trial, and shall therefore move for leave to bring in heads of a bill, to impower Papists to lend money, on the mortgage of land, and to sue for the same.

Mr. Le Hunte said, that he thought the bill proposed, would eventually make Papists proprietors of great part of the landed interest of the kingdom, which would certainly extend their influence, and that it was dangerous trusting to the use they would make of it, upon a supposition, that their interests would get the better of their principles. That the act mentioned to have passed the last sessions, did not pass without a division, there being a majority of no more than twelve in its favour, and that it would not have passed at all, if it had not been for some artful management, it being brought in the very last day of sessions, when no more than sixty-two members were present. He therefore begged, that the honourable gentleman would postpone his motion till Monday, as the house was then thin, and gentlemen would thus have time to consider the subject, which was of very great importance. He added, that as there was reason to suppose it to be the general sense of the house, that such a bill should not pass, he thought it would be better, that no heads of such a bill should be brought in, as it was cruel to raise expectations, which would probably be disappointed.

Mr. Mason consented to postpone his motion. Accordingly on the 3d of February, 1764, Mr. Mason presented to the house, according to order, heads of a bill, to ascertain what securities may be taken by persons professing the Popish religion, for money lent or to be lent by them; and also what remedies they may have recourse to, for recovery thereof; which were received and read. When a motion was made, and the question being put, that the said heads of a bill be rejected, the house divided, 138 for the rejection, and 53 against it. Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that leave be given to bring in heads of a bill to enable Papists to take securities upon lands, but in such manner, that they might not meddle with the possession thereof, which was immediately negatived by a majority of 44. I have been the more particular in detailing the failure of this first effort to break in upon the penal system, in order to draw the reader's attention the more closely hereafter to the rapid and wonderful progress of the public mind, when once the dense fogs of bigotry, prejudice, and fear had been cleared away.

We are now fast approaching to that period in the Irish history, to which Lord Clare alluded in his memorable speech for the Union, when he said, that the system built by the intrigues of that ambitious ecclesiastic would beat down the most powerful nation of the earth, when the government of England at length opened their eyes to the defects and dangers of it; when they shook the power of the Aristocracy, but were unable to break it down. Whilst Primate Stone,* whose primary view was to realize his own system of politics, lived, the party, which he commanded could ensure any question whatever. Thus they often tantalised the public by consenting to preliminary popular motions, which it was intended ultimately to resist and reject: so upon the motion of Mr. Bagnall, leave was given to bring in heads of a bill for better securing the liberties of the subject.f

Of this prelate and of his political situation, power, and system, the Rev. Dr. Campbell, an ingenious and enlightened author, thus spoke, in 1777 (Survey of the South of Ireland, p. 55): "Stone was a man of considerable abili tics, but more of the politician, than the prelate; he devoted his life to the supporting a party in the Irish parliament. It is said, that when he went "over to London, to consult the gentlemen of the faculty on his state of health, "he very candidly said to them, 'Look not upon me as an ordinary churchman, "or incident to their diseases, but as a man, who has injured his constitution "by sitting up late, and rising early, to do the business of government in Ire"land.'

"They consider his death an ara in the polity of this kingdom; for had he "lived till now, he would have been always one of the lords justices, with the power of the whole; and of course business would have been conducted in "the usual way. Administration would have continued to throw all its power "into his hands."

Such rejections of the most constitutional and necessary proposals for the civil liberty of the subject were no novelties to Ireland; for soon after

What those heads were, no where appears: nor do we find the patriotic sentiment ever after followed up; although the nonresistance of the motion in the first instance occasioned an intemperate effusion of public dissatisfaction. Inexpressible, though silent, were the grief and disappointment of the Catholics at the failure of this application to the favour of the legislature, not in fact for any new favour or indulgence, but for assuring to them a continuance of a capacity to take real security for their money, which the astute attempts some of their enemies had only lately began to question. Thus was the healing draught of leniency and mercy dashed with relentless harshness from their eager lips; and all their flattering prospects of being received into the fostering arms of their king and constitution at once defeated. Their despondency was not of long duration: their oppression formed the base of the then Anglo-Hybernian system of government: the deaths of Primate Stone and the Earl of Shannon, in December, 1764, put an end to that system; and from thence a new scene opens itself to our view. To this mo ment of Irish history it is, that Lord Clare alluded, when he said, "the government of England at length opened their eyes to "the defects and dangers of it: they shook the power of the Aris66 tocracy, but were unable to break it down."

the Bill of Rights had passed in England, the following heads of a similar one for Ireland were presented for transmission by the Irish parliament to Lord Capel, then Lord deputy of Ireland, on the 14th of October, 1659, of which no more was heard:

Heads of a Bill of Rights.

"1. That the pretended powers of suspending of laws by regal authority, "without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of "laws by regal authority, as hath been assumed or exercised, is illegal.

"3. That levying money for, or to the use of the crown, by pretence of pre"rogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner "than the same is, or shall be granted, is illegal.

"4. That it is the right of the subject to petition the king, or the chief go"vernor or governors of the kingdom, for the time being, and all commit"ments or prosecutions, or threats for such petition, are illegal.

"5. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their de"fence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

"6. That the freedom of speech, and debates on proceedings in parliament, "ought not be impeached, or questioned, in any place out of parliament.

“ 8. That juries ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and juries which "pass upon men in trials for high treason, ought to be freeholders.

9. That all grants and promises, fines, forfeitures of particular persons "before conviction, are illegal and void.

"10. That for redress of all grievances in this kingdom, and for amending, "strengthening, and preserving the laws, parliaments ought not to be dis"solved, as they have been in the late reigns.

"11. That the free quartering of soldiers on any of this kingdom, in time "of peace, is arbitrary and illegal."

This Aristocracy is thus described by Dr. Campbell (Phil. Surv. p. 56): "In this nation are three or four grandees, who have such an influence in the

4381

Although the deaths of two of the lords justices made an opening to many great events, no immediate effects ensued of sufficient importance to arrest the reader's attention. The Lord Chancellor Bowes, and Mr. Ponsonby, the speaker of the House of Commons, were created lords justices, to whom afterwards the Earl of Drogheda was joined; and from the change of system they were the last lords justices ever appointed. Lord Viscount Weymouth was appointed lord lieutenant, but he never went over. The Earl of Hertford met the parliament in 1765.

In December, 1765, died, at Rome, the famous Chevalier de St. George, only son of James II. he was the subject of the political fable of the Warming Pan: he supported a long life of misfortunes, sufferings, and retirement with great Christian forbearance and equanimity. As his attempt to recover the British throne, in 1715, and his son's effort to the same end, in 1745, had made no sensation in Ireland, little is it to be wondered, that his death was scarcely known or thought of in that country; although many of the then existing generation, through every part of the British empire, had taken an active share in the attempts to replace him on the throne of his ancestors.

Although by the management and power of the British cabinet the number of the patriots in the Irish parliament had been greatly reduced, their spirit was not subdued: they again returned to the charge of the pensions; and on the 6th of December, 1765, a motion was made, and the question being put, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to assure "him of their inviolable duty and zealous attachment to his person and government. That it affected them with the deepest sorrow to find, that the pensions in general on the estab

"House of Commons, that their coalition would, at any time, give them a clear "majority upon any question. It has, therefore, always been a maxim of go"vernment to disunite these factious chiefs. And, still further to disable op"position, it has been thought expedient to disengage, as much as possible, "the followers from their leaders. This was attempted by Lord Chesterfield, "so early as the year 1745, but his stay was too short to effect it.

"Formerly, these principals used to stipulate with each new lord lieutenant, "whose office was bien mal, and residence but for six months, upon what "terms they would carry the king's business through the houses; so that they might, not improperly, be called undertakers. They provided, that the dis"posal of all court favours, whether places, pensions, or preferments, should pass through their hands, in order to keep their suite in an absolute state of "dependance upon themselves. All applications were made by the leader, "who claimed, as a right, the privilege of gratifying his friends in proportion

"to their numbers.

"Whenever such demands were not complied with, then the measures of "government were sure to be crossed and obstructed; and the session of par"liament became a constant struggle for power, between the heads of parties, "who used to force themselves into the office of lord justice, according to the "prevalence of their interest."

8 Journ. Com. p. 64.