Thomas Davis, Selections from his Prose and Poetry | Page 5

Irish--while they
introduced the Statute of Frauds, and many other sound laws, and thus
showed their zeal for the peaceful and permanent welfare of the People,
they were not unfit to grapple with the great military crisis. They voted
large supplies; they endeavoured to make a war-navy; the leading
members allowed nothing but their Parliamentary duties to interfere
with their recruiting, arming, and training of troops. They were no
timorous pedants, who shook and made homilies when sabres flashed
and cannon roared. Our greatest soldiers, M'Carthy and Tyrconnell, and,
indeed, most of the Colonels of the Irish regiments, sat in Lords or
Commons;--not that the Crown brought in stipendiary soldiers, but that
the Senate were fearless patriots, who were ready to fight as well as to
plan for Ireland. Theirs was no qualified preference for freedom if it
were lightly won--they did not prefer 'Bondage with ease to strenuous
liberty.'
Let us then add 1689 to our memory; and when a Pantheon or Valhalla
is piled up to commemorate the names and guard the effigies of the
great and good, the bright and burning genius, the haughty and faithful
hearts, and the victorious hands of Ireland, let not the men of that
time--that time of glory and misfortune--that time of which Limerick's
two sieges typify the clear and dark sides--defiance and defeat of the
Saxon in one, trust in the Saxon and ruin on the other--let not the
legislators or soldiers of that great epoch be forgotten.
Thomas Davis.
July, 1843.
CHAPTER I.
A RETROSPECT.

How far the Parliament which sat in Dublin in 1689 was right or wrong
has been much disputed. As the history of it becomes more accurately
and generally known, the grounds of this dispute will be cleared.
Nor is it of trifling interest to determine whether a Parliament, which
not only exercised great influence at the time, but furnished the
enactors of the Penal Laws with excuses, and the achievers of the
Revolution of 1782 with principles and a precedent, was the good or
evil thing it has been called.
The writers commonly quoted against it are, Archbishop King, Harris,
Leland; those in its favour, Leslie, Curry, Plowden, and Jones.[5] Of all
these writers, King and Lesley are alone original authorities. Harris
copies King, and Leland copies Harris, and Plowden, Curry, and Jones
rely chiefly on Lesley. Neither Harris, Leland, nor Curry adds anything
to our knowledge of the time. King (notwithstanding, as we shall show
hereafter, his disregard of truth) is valuable as a contemporary of high
rank; Lesley, also a contemporary, and of unblemished character, is still
more valuable. Plowden is a fair and sagacious commentator; Jones, a
subtle and suggestive critic on those times.
If, in addition, the reader will consult such authorities as the Letters of
Lord Lieutenant Tyrconnell;[6] the Memoirs[7] of James the Second by
himself; _Histoire de la Révolution par Mazure_;[8] and the pamphlets
quoted in this publication, and the notes to it, he will be in a fair way
towards mastering this difficult question.
After all, that Parliament must be judged by its own conduct. If its acts
were unjust, bigoted, and rash, no excuse can save it from
condemnation. If, on the other hand, it acted with firmness and loyalty
towards its king--if it did much to secure the rights, the prosperity, and
the honour of the nation--if, in a country where property had been
turned upside down a few years before, it strove to do justice to the
many, with the least possible injury to the few--if, in a country torn
with religious quarrels, it endeavoured to secure liberty of conscience
without alienating the ultra zealous--and, finally, if in a country in
imminent danger from a powerful invader and numerous traitors, it was
more intent on raising resources and checking treason than would

become a parliament sitting in peace and safety, let us, while
confessing its fallibility, attend to its difficulties, and do honour to its
vigour and intelligence.
Before we mention the composition of the Parliament, it will be right to
run over some of the chief dates and facts which brought about the state
of things that led to its being summoned. Most Irishmen (ourselves
among the number) are only beginners at Irish history, and cannot too
often repeat the elements: still the beginning has been made. It is no
pedantry which leads one to the English invasion for the tap-root of the
transactions of the seventeenth century.
Four hundred years of rapacious war and wild resistance had made each
believe all things ill of the other; and when England changed her creed
in the sixteenth century it became certain that Ireland would adhere to
hers at all risks. Accordingly, the reigns of the latter, and especially of
the last of the Tudors, witnessed unceasing war, in