« PreviousContinue »
The first instance which occurs of a CHAP.
V. proxy in the Lords Journals, was on the 26th of July one thousand fix hundred and thirty-four, when the bishop of Kildare and four lords were allowed to be absent, leaving their proxies, which were entered in the present form; but on the 30th of July one thousand fix hundred and thirty-four, twenty-four proxies were entered, four and five of which were directed to one lord (a practice which was corrected after the Reftoration, and no lord allowed to have more than two). The lord who had the proxy was introduced in the name and place of him who gave it, according to a form which was then settled, with a style of declaration from the lords who had those proxies.
On the 16th of April one thousand fix hundred and thirty-five the earl of Lon
instances of this practice ; since which period it has
CHAP. donderry was introduced by his
rected to the earl of Ormond, according to
On the 20th of March one thousand fix hundred and forty, it was ordered that proxies should deliver their votes in the place of those they represented. Many more instances of this mode of proceeding occur till the 23d of May one thousand fix hundred and fixty-six, when viscount Beerhaven was introduced, according to this form, which appears to be the last instance of this practice, as it cannot be traced after the Revolution, though the custom of entering lords as present by proxy, is evident from the beginning of the Journals, even so low as the year one thousand severi hundred and nineteen ; and possibly had I been more industrious, I might have traced it still lower : but this practice is now obsolete, and no instance of it occurs for above twenty years past.
I have been more particular in tracing CHAP,
V. this custom, because the privilege of protesting by proxy depended upon it, which is a peculiar custom, not to be traced in the records of the lords of England ; and I shall conclude this head with the remarkable case of the earl' of Waterford soon after the Restoration.
John Talbot, the first earl of Shrewsbury, in the time of Henry the sixth, was created earl of Waterford and Wexford in the same reign. He forfeited his estates and titles, by an act of Henry the eighth, known by the name of the act of absentees. Titles were probably in those early days territorial, and appertained to certain lands and jurisdictions.
Charles the second renewed this title of earl of Waterford ; and the earl was introduced by his proxy, assigned to the earl of Clanricarde the roth of July one thousand six hundred and fixty-one; but the lords placed him after the earl of Mountrath, not Vol. II,
CHAP. according to his original grant, but agree
ably to the renewal of his titlc.
On the 5th of December one thousand fix hundred and fixty-one, lord Shrewsbury petitioned against being assessed in a pollbill, though he had no estate in Ireland. This case was referred to a committee, and gave rise also to an enquiry, whether
peers who were not estated in Ireland could give proxies. This is perhaps one of the most curious cases in the Journals of parliament, as it involved many subtle questions, fave only those two which I have cited, of lord Lisle and the earl of Rochford, two Englifh peers, who appear to have fat in the house of commons of Ireland.
Of the orders of the house of lords I have but little to observe. In the feffion of one thousand six hundred and thirty-four, it is very perceivable in the Journals, that lord Strafford frequently interfered, and en
deavoured to render their forms fimilar to CHAP.
V. those of England : the main body of their standing orders were framed in that session, and others have been added since; some of which have been adopted in one thoufand seven hundred and eighty-three, upon the revival of the appellant jurisdi&ion, when the orders were revised with great care and much labour : the classing them in their present form, and arranging those matters which corresponded in a regular series, is an advantage which they possess over those of England; and this is owing to the abilities of one of their most eloquent and best-informed members, the archbishop of Cashel.
The privilege of protesting by proxy, which is unknown in England, as I never heard of it there, nor could trace any instance of it in their Journals, depends upon a practice in the session of one thousand fix hundred and thirty-four, which has been already explained; namely, the custom of lords being introduced by proxy : the