Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 1.djvu/376

 Irish Chancellor, but also a Lord-Justice. However, even Methuen shrank from facing a parliament, and it was thought better that he should remain as Lord Chancellor only. Lord Galway was for a short time the sole Lord-Justice. This was a kind of interregnum, during which he visited England. His visit is alluded to in a letter from Lady Russell.

Lord Galway was now promoted to the rank of Earl of Galway in the Peerage of Ireland. His patent is dated 12th May 1697, and styles him Comes de Galloway in regno nostra Hibernian. He also received a grant of supporters for his armorial bearings — namely, “two savages crowned and girt with laurel, each holding in his hand a club, and on the same arm as the club a shield with the arms of Ireland.”

Lord Galway founded Portarlington as a town. He built and endowed two churches and two schools. The liturgy in the French language was used in the French Church (or St. Paul’s) until the beginning of the present century. The schools taught the purest pronunciation of French, and Portarlington for more than a century was the most fashionable seat of education in Ireland. Originally the boys at Lord Galway’s schools had a costume resembling the dress still worn at Christ Church. In an old account-book they are called ye blewbois (the blue boys). English settlers were encouraged by the erection of the English Church (St. Michael’s). This church contained a slab, on which were engraved Lord Galway’s name as the founder, and the appropriate quotation from the Prayer-book Psalter, “The righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance.” The author of “Jus Regium” states that Lord Galway’s tenants, “by the encouragement they had from the compassion and goodness of that lord, built about one hundred and thirty neat tenements.” Lord Galway’s leases were and are renewable for ever. The following is a specimen of the tenure by which lands in the Portarlington estate are held in the present day:— “Lease, dated 13th September 1699, from the Earl of Gallway to Colonel Daniel Le Grand Du Petit Bosc, for the term of three lives, renewable for ever, on payment of half a year’s rent as a renewal fine on the fall of each life — the last renewal whereof bears date the 28th February 1850, from the Earl of Portarlington and others, to Mrs. Elenor Newton, for lives of Lessee, the King of the Belgians, and Prince Albert.”  

On May 25th, the Marquis of Winchester, eldest son of the Duke of Bolton, was gazetted as a Lord-Justice of Ireland, in conjunction with the Earl of Galway. A third name was added, but it was only a name, as Viscount Villiers never came to Ireland, being constantly employed as an envoy in Holland. A regular cavalcade attended the two Lords-Justices on their departure from London, en route for Chester. Luttrell says: “The Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Galway, and Lord Chancellor Methuen, were attended out of town by the Earl of Bridgewater, Lord Lucas, &c, with eight coaches and six horses.”

After their arrival in Dublin, it was decided that the Parliament should meet in July. Such an event having become a rarity, the opening proceedings are recorded in stately language in the Journal of the House of Lords:—

“Tuesday, 27 July 1697. — Charles, Lord Marquis of Winchester, and Henry, Earl of Galway, Lords-Justices and General Governors of Ireland, entered the House with the usual ceremonies of grandeur. The Lords-Justices, making their congé to the cloth of state, seated themselves in the chairs under the canopy, all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal standing in their places uncovered. The Lord Chancellor, as Speaker, kneeling, confers with the Lords-Justices, and then ordered the gentleman usher of the black rod to acquaint the Commons that it is the Lords-Justices’ pleasure they should attend them in the House immediately. The Commons enter the House. The Lords-Justices made an excellent speech.”

The union of civil and military administration, which was usually Lord Galway’s lot, now characterised his Irish career. But before recording what he did, I shall occupy the remainder of the section with apologising for what he did not do. Dr Reid expresses just regret that the toleration of the Presbyterians was not embodied in a law at this time, and for a moment he leaves the reader to infer that Lord 