IRELAND. 
were not only tones, but alfo Jacobites, they were more 
efpecially objects of vengeance to the whigs, who were 
predominant during great part of the reign of Anne. 
The violence of party alfo added to the number of in- 
itances of unconftitutional interference of the Englitli 
parliament in the affairs of Ireland. Decifions of the 
Irifh peers were reverfed by the Englifh houfe of lords; 
but at length, in February 1708, the former entered into 
refolutions declaring the judgment of their houfe to be 
final, not reverfable by any court whatever; and that, if 
any Irifh fubjeft fhotild appeal from their jurifdiftion, or 
execute an order from any other court contrary to their 
determination, he fhould be deemed a betrayer of her 
majefty’s prerogative, and of the rights of the fubjefts of 
Ireland. A few years afterwards, under Geo. I. this 
afforded occafion for a warm contention between the up¬ 
per houfes of both countries. In 1719 a caufe relative to 
an eftate betwixt Hefter Sherlock and Maurice Annefley 
was tried before the court of exchequer in Ireland. Here 
the latter obtained a decree in his favour; but, on an 
appeal, the fentence was reverfed by the lords. An¬ 
nefley appealed from them to the Englifh peers, by whom 
the judgment of tliofe of Ireland being reverfed, he was 
put in poffellion of the fubjefl in difpute. Sherlock ap¬ 
pealed again to the Irifh lords, and the matter became 
very ferious. It was propofed to the confideration of the 
judges, Whether by the laws of the land an appeal lies 
from a decree of the court of exchequer in Ireland to 
the king in parliament in Britain. This queftion being 
determined in the negative, Sherlock was again put in 
poffeffion of the eftate. A petition was fome time after 
prefented to the houfe by Alexander Burrowes, fheriff of 
Kildare, fetting forth, e< That his predeceffor in office had 
ut Sherlock in poffeffion of the premifes; that, upon 
is entering into office, an injunction, agreeable to the 
order of the Englifh peers, iffued from the exchequer, re¬ 
quiring him to reftore Maurice Annefley to the pofTeffion 
of the above-mentioned lands ; and that, not daring to 
aft in contradiftion to the order of the houfe, he was 
fined. In confequence of this, being afraid lelt he fhould 
be taken into cuftody, he durft mot come in to pafs his 
accounts ; and for this he was fined 1200I.” His cor- 
dufl was applauded by the Irifh lords, who commanded 
the fines impofed upon him to be taken off; and, a fhort 
time afterwards, drew up a memorial to be prefented to 
his majelty. In this they fet forth, that, having fub- 
mitted to Henry II. as their liege lord, they had from 
him obtained the benefit of Englifh law, with many other 
privileges, particularly that of having a diftinft parlia¬ 
ment. In confequence of this conceffion, the Englifh 
had been encouraged to come over and fettle in Ireland, 
where they were to enjoy the fame privileges as in their 
own country. They farther infilled, that, though the 
imperial crown of Ireland was annexed to that of Britain, 
yet, being a diflinfl dominion, and no part of the king¬ 
dom of England, none could determine with regard to 
its affairs but fuch as were authorifed by its known laws 
and cuftoms, or the exprefs confent of the king. It was 
an invafion of his majefty’s prerogative for any court of 
judicature to take upon them to declare, that he could 
not, by his authority in parliament, determine all con- 
troverfies betwixt his fubjecls of this kingdom; or that, 
when they appealed to his majefty in parliament, they 
did not bring their caufe before a competent judicature : 
and they reprefented, that the pradlice of appeals from 
the Irifh parliament to the Britifh peers was an ufurped 
jurifdiftion affumed by the latter; the bad confequences 
of which they pointed out very fully. This reprefentation 
being laid before his majefty in parliament, it was re- 
folved, that the barons of exchequer in Ireland had afted 
with courage and fidelity., according to law, See. and an 
addrefs was prefented to his majefty, praying him to con¬ 
fer on them fome mark of his royal favour, as a recom- 
penfe for the injuries they had fuftained from the Irifh 
legiflature. This was followed by a bill for the better 
527 
fecuring the dependency of Ireland upon the crown of 
Great Britain. By this it was determined, “ That the 
houfe of lords of Ireland have not, nor of right ought t® 
have, any jurifdiftion to judge of, affirm, or reverie, any 
judgment, fentence, or decree, given or made in any 
court within the kingdom; and that all proceedings be¬ 
fore the faid houfe of lords, upon any fuch judgment or 
decree, are utterly null and void to all intents and pur- 
pofes whatever.” It was alfo determined in this bill, 
that <( the king’s majefty, by and with the advice and 
confent of the lords fpiritual and temporal, and commons 
of Great Britain in parliament affembled, had, hath, and 
of right ought to have, full power and authority to make 
laws and llatutes of fulficient force and validity to bind 
the people of Ireland.” 
This bill was looked upon by tbe Irifh to be equi¬ 
valent to a total annihilation of their liberties; and they 
were flill farther exafperated, in the year 1724, by the 
patent granted to one Wood, an Englifhman, to coin 
halfpence and farthings for the ufe of Ireland. In this 
affair Wood is faid to have afted very difhonourably; 
infomuch that the intrinfic worth of a fhilling in the 
halfpence he made was fcarcely a penny. Great quan¬ 
tities of this bafe coin were fent over; and it was ufed not 
only in change, but accounts were likely to be paid in 
it, fo that dangerous confequences feemed ready to enfue. 
The Irifh parliament, in an addrefs to the king, repre¬ 
fented that they were called upon by their country to lay 
before his majefty the ill confequences of Wood’s patent, 
and that it -wao likely tO bp attended with a diminution 
of the revenue, and the ruin of trade. The fame was 
fet forth in an application made to his majefty by the 
privy-council. In fhort, the whole nation feemed to 
unite their efforts in order to remedy an evil of fuch 
dangerous tendency, the effeft :3 of which already began 
to be felt. Among the controverfial pieces which ap¬ 
peared on this occafion, thofe of Dr. Swift, the celebrated 
dean of St. Patrick’s, were particularly diftinguifhed. 
His D-ra pier’s Letters are to this day held in grateful 
remembrance by his countrymen; but he was in danger 
of fuffering deeply in the caufe. He had been at parti¬ 
cular pains to explain an argument ufed by the Irifh on 
this occafion, that brafs moiiey, being illegal, could not 
be forced upon the nation by the king, without exceed¬ 
ing the limits of his prerogative. Hence the oppofite 
party took occafion to charge the Irifh with a defign of 
carting off their dependence on Britain altogether: but 
Swift, having examined the accufation with freedom, 
pointed out the encroachments made by the Britifh par¬ 
liament on the liberties of Ireland; and afferted, that 
any dependence on England, except that of being fub- 
jefts to the fame king, was contrary to the law of reafon, 
nature, and nations, as well as tp the law of the land. 
This publication was fo difagreeable to government, that 
they offered a reward of three hundred pounds for the 
difeovery of the author, but, as nobody could be found 
who would give him up, the printer was .profecuted in 
his Head ; however, he was unanimoufly acquitted by a 
jury of his countrymen. 
The Irifh continued to be jealous of their liberties, 
while the Britifh miniftry feemed to watch every oppor¬ 
tunity of encroaching upon them as far as poffible. Ap- 
prehenfions being entertained of a defign upon Ireland 
by the partifans of the Pretender, in 1715, a vote of cre¬ 
dit to government was palled by the houfe of commons 
to a considerable amount. This laid the foundation of 
the national debt of that kingdom, which was quickly 
augmented to feveral hundred tboufand pounds; for the 
difeharge of which a fund had been provided by admi- 
niftration. An attempt was made during the adminiftra- 
tion of lord Carteret (who governed Ireland from 1725 
till 1731) to veft this fund in the hands of his majefty 
and of his heirs for ever, redeemable by parliament. 
This was oppofed by-the patriotic party; who infitted, 
that .it was inccmfiftent with the public fafety, and un= 
- constitutional 
