ENGLISH ENCROACHMENTS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 181, 15 September 1876, Page 12

ENGLISH ENCROACHMENTS.

Under cover of eloquent debates in Parliament, England has been silently pushing on the work of encroachments on whatever remnant yet exists of the ancient rights and privileges of our country. The most recent act of this kind is the oppressive privilege assumed by English Courts of dragging Irish traders over to Westminster, there to adjudicate upon any difference these may have with English customers. Under this system a shopkeeper in Cork, Sligo, Derry, or any other remote or near town, may be forced to take a number of witnesses over to London, at a great expense, to keep them there for weeks at great expense, to fee English lawyers at great expense, and return — ruined ! — and all because of some trivial discrepancy in an account. This is a matter of the gravest importance, and not the less so because it is one of historical antecedents. It is a pallid parallel of a former famous usurpation. One hundred and eighty-eight years ago an English society, which had secured the monopoly of rich tracts of land in Ulster for the purpose of " planting," had a dispute with the Protestant Bishop of Derry. The case came before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Ireland— the Irish House of Lords. It decided in favor of the Bishop. Whereupon the Londoners had the insolence to lodge a complaint with the English Parliament, in 1688, against the conduct of the Irish Parliament, and the English Lords declared the Irish Lords were not judges in the case. The Irish High Court of Parliament was thus declared to be a mere servitor to the English, and .ts judicial power was usurped from it. 1 Then appeared the " Case of Ireland Stated" by Molyn«ux, in which the author upheld the right of Irish jurisdiction in an unanswerable manner. Unable to reply, by any exertion of intellect, the English Parliament, with weak spite, ordered the book to be burned by the hands of the common hangman. They were as fond, in England, of burning books as of burning persons. The Irish Lords were not dismayed by this conflagration. They had, in those days, the spirit of men. Hence they met, pa^^d a series of firm resolutions, and protested solemnly against^%s attempt at usurpation. A few years later, in 1703, the case of Lord Ward against the Earl and Countess of Meath came before the public. An order of the English House of Lords evicted and dispossessed the Earl and Countess of their property in Ireland. The Irish Peers, however, having had cognisance of the case, immediately asserted their rights, repudiated the English order, and replaced the Earl and Countess in their estates. In the same year another, and still more memorable, case came vp — the famous Annesley case. Maurice Aane4ey appealed from the decision of the Irish Lords to England, and the English Peers reversed the judgment of the Irish Court. Then matters were pressed to extremities, and a conflict of authority began. The London House directed the Barons of the Exchequer in Ireland to enforce their order. The Sheriff point blank refused to recognise the usurpation, and the Irish Peers protected him. Then the Irish Peers resolved to place a representation of the matter before the King — an error of j idgment, from one point of ' view, for the King's council, being English, were tolerably sure to support the English Peers. They did so, and, in order to put an end to Irish rights in the matter, they sped an Act, 6th George 1., through fchij English Parliament, declaring that the King, Lords, and Commons of England had power to make laws to bind Ireland, and that the House of Lords of Ireland had no jurisdiction, and that all proceedings before that Irish court were void.

We find a similar pretension put forward by the present Ministry I S3 regards Canada — for it has been officially declared that the laws , made in London override the acts ot* the Canadian Legislature — which, consequently, is only a mock Parliament ! In a very brief space we shall hear this pretension rejected by Canada with indignation. The inhabitants of that country will undoubtedly imitate the conduct of Ireland on the occasion. For it was this act of high-handed usurpation which Ireland answered in Eightytwo, when she proclaimed the independence of the Irish Parliament. The question, of jurisdiction preceded the question of independence then — perhaps it may bow once more be the herald of greater things. Irish traders have already been dragged over to London. But one Irish trader has taken the manful resolution of xefusing to obey the order of the English Court. He has determined to try the question, and we think his conduct and case deserve the most earnest and moat active attention of Irish representatives, who should have guarded against this encroachment, and are now bound to endeavor to withstand it. " I admire that public-spirited merchant " (Alderman Horan), said Grattan, on a somewhat similar occasion, " who spread consternation at the Custom House, and, despising the example which great men afforded, determined to try the question, and tendered for entry what the British Parliament prohibits the subject to export, some articles of silk, and sought at his private risk the liberty of his country ; with him, lam convinced, it is necessary to agitate the question of ri^rht. In vain will you endeavor to keep it back — the passion is too natural, the sentiment is too irresistible ; the question comes of its own vitality — you must reinstate the laws." — ' Irishman/