CHAP. IV.

Penal laws to prevent the further growth of popery,

IT is worthy of particular notice, that about the time of passing this first act to prevent the further growth of popery, several members of the house of commons resigned their seats, desiring that writs might be issued to chuse other members in their room. And these resignations became then so frequent, that the house found it necessary to resolve,'" that the excusing of members, at their own request, from the service of the house, and thereupon issuing out new writs to elect other members to serve in their places, was of dangerous consequence, and tended to the subversion of the constitution of parliament." But the humour of resigning still continuing, it was afterwards "unanimously resolved, that it might be made the standing order of the house, that no new writs for electing members of parliament, in the place of members excusing themselves from the service of the house, do issue, at the desire of such members, notwithstanding any former precedents to the contrary.", So many, and such unusual resignations, evidently shew, that several members, even of that parliament, were ashamed of their proceedings, and unwilling to be thought to have been any way concerned in them.

In 1703, when the Irish commons, in a body,* presented to the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, the first bill to prevent the further growth of popery, to be transmitted into England, his grace was pleased to give them his promise, which, indeed, he punctually performed, " that he would recommend it in the most effectual manner, and do every thing in his power to prevent the growth of popery."

3

There is no room to doubt of the duke of Ormond's having always professed himself a zealous and stedfast protestant. But

1 Ib. f. 296.

2 Ib.

3 Ib. f. 201.

* « The commons (says Burnet) offered this bill to the duke of Ormond, pressing him with more than usual vehemence, to intercede so effectually, that it might be returned back under the great seal of England. It came over warmly recommended by the duke of Ormond, &c."-Hist. of his own Times, vol. ii. f. 214.

what evidently shews, that his civil orthodoxy was not, therefore, the more to be relied upon, is, that he afterwards deserted his protestant king, and adhered to a popish pretender to his throne. For which the Irish commons unanimously voted him "guilty of high treason; his estate to be vested in the crown; and that a reward of ten thousand pounds should be offered for apprehending him, in case he landed in any part of Ireland." So that he who, in 1704, had been addressed by them with particular marks of love and veneration, on account of his having procured this barrier to the protestant religion, as that law was then, and has been since called; became afterwards, in 1715, the public object of their aversion and contempt. For in their address to the king, on occasion of the rebellion which had then broke out in Scotland, they told his majesty," that it was with the utmost concern, they found that this country gave birth to James Butler, late duke of Ormond; a person who, in despite of his allegiance, and the obligations of repeated oaths, has been one of the chief authors and fomenters of that wicked and unnatural rebellion."

But, indeed, what better could these commons have expect ed from a person, "who, regardless of public faith, and the articles of the capitulation of Limerick, had procured to be enacted, a penal statute, through which there runs such a vein of ingenious cruelty, that it seems to be dictated rather by some prætor of Dioclesian, than by a British or Irish nobleman ?" It was a singular circmstance in this duke's fortune, that although in his expedition on the coast of Spain, his soldiers committed many outrages, and profanations of what was held sacred by the inhabitants; yet after the bill of attainder had passed against him, he fled for protection to that country, where he had connived at the sacrilegious excesses of his army; and afterwards retired to Avignon, a territory belonging to the first prelate of that church, which he had treated with so much cruelty.

7.66

Upon the return of this bill to prevent the further growth of popery from England, Nicholas, lord Kingsland, colonel John Brown, colonel Burke, colonel Robert Nugent, major Allen, captain Arthur French, with other Roman catholics of 5 Id. ib. f. 21.

4 Com. Jour. vol. iv. f. 64. • Consid. Pen. Laws.

7 Com. Jour. vol. iii. f. 173.

Ireland, and persons comprized in the articles of Limerick and Galway, petitioned to be heard by counsel against it; which was granted."

This returned bill had a clause inserted in England, which gave great offence to the whole body of dissenters in Ireland; many of whom, then in the house of commons, were persons of considerable power and influence. For this reason it was expected,* that it would have been totally laid aside; and the rather, because the dissenters had lately received no small disgust by a resolution of a committee in October 1703,8" that the pension of one thousand two hundred pounds per annum, granted to the presbyterian ministers in Ulster, was an unnecessary branch of the establishment."

The dissenters, in their petition to the commons on occasion of the above-mentioned clause; complained, "that," to their great surprise and disappointment, they found a clause inserted in the act to prevent the further growth of popery, which had not its rise in that honorable house; whereby they were disabled from executing any public trust, for the service of her majesty, the protestant religion, or their country, unless, contrary to their consciences, they should receive the Lord's supper, according to the rights and usages of the established church."

This clause has been since called the sacramental test, then first imposed on the dissenters of Ireland; whose zeal against popery was so credulously blind at that juncture, that upon a promise given them of having it repealed on the first opportu

8 td. vol. ii. f. 76.

9 Presbyterian Loyalty, sub finem.

« A clause was added (in England), which they (Roman catholics) hoped would hinder its being accepted in Ireland. That matter was carried on so secretly, that it was known to none but those who were at the council, till the news of it came from Ireland, upon its being sent thither. The clause was to this purpose, that none in Ireland should be capable of any employment, or of being in the magistracy of any city, who did not qualify themselves by receiving the sacrament, according to the test-act passed in England; which before this time had never been offered to the Irish nation. It was hoped, by those who got this clause added to the bill, that those in Ireland, who promoted it most, would now be the less fond of it, when it had such a weight hung to it."-Burnet's Hist. of his own Times, vol. ii. f. 214.

nity, they readily concurred in passing, together with the clauses against popery, that mortifying one against themselves. But their friends in parliament, afterwards wanting either the power or the inclination to make good their promise, that clause was not only left unrepealed, but also put in frequent and strict execution, during all queen Anne's reign. In October 1707, these commons entered into such severe resolutions against dissenters, as plainly shewed, how little confidence their brethren ought to have placed in the promise they made them in 1703. For first, they "resolved that, by an act to prevent the further growth of popery, the burgesses of Belfast were obliged to subscribe the declaration, and receive the sacrament according to the usage of the church of Ireland." And secondly, upon the non-compliance of some of these burgesses; "that the burgessship of the said burgesses of Belfast, who had not subscribed the declaration, and received the sacrament, pursuant to the said act, was, by such neglect, become vacant."" In short, notwithstanding the most strenuous and repeated efforts ever since made by the dissenters, to have that disqualifying clause repealed, it still remains in full force against them ;* although its execution has been either artfully evaded, or benignly connived at, since the accession of the present royal family to the throne of these kingdoms.

CHAP. V.

The same subject continued.

ON the 23d of February, 1703, pursuant to leave given by the commons,' sir Theobald Butler, counsellor Malone, and sir Stephen Rice (the two former in their gowns, as counsel for the petitioners in general, and the last without a gown, as only a petitioner in his private capacity), at the bar of the house of commons. Sir Theobald Butler, the first and principal speaker on this occasion, demonstrated in a long and pathetic

1 Account of the Debates on the Popery Law of 2d queen Ann. This clause was repealed without any opposition in the sessions of 1782.

2 18

speech, that almost every clause in the act then before them, relating to the Roman catholics of Ireland, was a direct infringement of one or other of the articles of Limerick which he, at the same time, held in his hand. "Articles," added he, solemnly engaged to them, as the public faith of the nation! That all the Irish, then in arms against the government, had submitted thereunto, and surrendered the city of Limerick, and all the other garrisons in their possession; when they were in a condition to have held out, till they might have been relieved by the succours then coming out of France; that they had taken such oaths to the king and queen, as by the said articles they were obliged to take; that their submission was upon such terms, as ought to be then, and at all times, made good to them; and that therefore to break those articles, would be the greatest injustice for any one people in the whole world to inflict upon another, being contrary to the laws of both God and man. That the case of the Gibeonites, 2 Sam. xxi. I. was a fearful example of the breach of public faith, which, above an hundred years after, brought nothing less than a three years famine on the land; and stayed not until the lives of all Saul's family atoned for it. That even among the Heathens, and most barbarous of nations, all the world over, the public faith was always held sacred and binding, and that surely it would find no less regard in that honorable assembly."

The same and other arguments, against the passing of this bill, were suffered to be pleaded at the bar of the house of lords; but were equally disregarded by both houses. The petitioners were told,3" that if they were to be deprived of the benefit of the articles of Limerick, it would be their own faults, since by conforming to the established religion, they would be entitled to these and many other benefits; that therefore they ought not to blame any but themselves; that the passing of that bill into a law was needful for the security of the kingdom at that juncture; and in short, that there was nothing in the articles of Limerick, that should hinder them to pass it."