14

And in truth his excellency, in this expedition to Waterford, appears, at first sight, to have acted the part rather of a meek and zealous protestant missioner, than that of an incensed leader of an hostile army. For, upon the citizens coming forth to pay their respects to him in his camp, he immediately required them to bring unto him one Dr. White, a famous Jesuit of that city," with whom," says Morrisson," he disputed against some erroneous positions of popery; all which," adds my author, "his lordship did (as no layman, I think, could better do) most learnedly confute." It is but justice to observe, that his lordship, at the same time, did as learnedly confute an erroneous position in the citizens' charter, granted by king John; by which they supposed themselves privileged to deny his soldiers entrance into their city. For his lordship told them roundly, without entering into the merits of the matter," 16 that if they did not presently open their ports to him and his army, he would cut king John's charter in pieces with king James's sword; and that, if he entered the town by force, he would ruin it, and strew salt upon the ruins,"*

14 Morris. ib.

15 Id. ib.

16 Morrisson, ubi supra.`

lin, with the picture of Christ about his neck, for having carried the same before a dead friend at his funeral."-Id. ib. p. 118.

"I ask" says my author on this occasion, " if any should hang the king's picture upon the gallows, whether he should incur the king's, or his subjects ill will, or no, by referring herein the indignity of abusing his picture to the king's own person? Certain it is, that one of the principal articles. against O'Rorke, an Irish nobleman, who was executed in England for high treason in the former reign, was his having caused queen Elizabeth's picture to be fastened to a horse's tail, and afterwards dragged about and defaced, in scorn and derision.-Cambden's Elizabeth, p. 589.

"But this storm," says an adverse writer," as soon as the lord deputy presented himself with an army before their walls, was appeased; and not long after, larger liberties and immunities were granted unto them, than formerly they had." Desid. Curios. Hibern. vol. i. p. 416.-Such privileges were afterwards granted them, "that the justices of assize having no authority to hold their assizes there, the laws of religion (against recusants) could not be executed."—Ib. vol. i. p. 359,

CHAP. II.

A general act of oblivion

KING James had succeeded to the English throne without opposition; and his catholic subjects, throughout the three kingdoms, made signal rejoicings on that account. Upon this occasion, he not only confirmed Tirone's pardon, but also received him in England, (whither he was conducted by lord deputy Mountjoy) with singular marks' of favour; and soon after sent him back with honor, to take possession of his estates in Ireland; having set forth a proclamation, forbidding all persons to reproach him, at any time after, with the rebellion formerly raised by him, and then happily suppressed.

But although, by the suppression of this rebellion, the minds of the people were broken, and prepared to obedience, yet the state, upon good reason, did conceive, that the public peace could not be settled, till the hearts of the people were also quieted, by securing them from the danger of the law, which most of them had incurred, one way or other, in that great and general confusion; therefore, by a general act of state, called the act of oblivion, published by proclamation under the great seal, all offences against the crown, and all particular trespasses between subject and subject, were to all such as would come in to the justices of assize, by a certain day, and claim the benefit of this act, pardoned, remitted, and utterly extinguished,† never to be revived, or called in question. And by the same proclamation, all the Irishry, who for

1 Morris. ubi supra.

2 Sir John Davis's Historical Relations.

Tirone's reception by the people of Beaumorris, where he landed, was very different. "For no respect to the lord deputy," says Morrisson, " in whose company he rode up to London, could contain many women in these parts, who had lost husbands and children in the Irish war, from flinging dirt at him, with bitter words. And when he was to return, he durst not pass by these parts, without directions to the sheriffs to convey him, with troops of horse, from place to place, till he was safely embarked." Morriss. History of Ireland, fol. 296.

Happy indeed had it been for the proprietors of six entire counties in Ulster, had this solemn promise of oblivion been faithfully observed; or rather not so scandalously broken, in a few years after, as we shall presently see it was.

the most part, had no defence, or justice from the crown, were received into his majesty's immediate protection. "This," continues my author," bred such comfort and security in the hearts of all men, as thereupon ensued the calmest, and most universal peace, that ever was seen in Ireland.”

Yet in the midst of this most calm and universal peace, his majesty, quite unmindful of all his former promises of favor to his catholic subjects, ordered a proclamation to be published, strictly forbidding the exercise of their religion to those of Ireland, banishing their clergy, and inflicting severe penalties on all such, as should be found to harbor, or entertain them; enjoining also the immediate and strict execution of the act of uniformity of the second of Elizabeth; which act, though pretended to have been passed in the Irish parliament forty years before, was then first solemnly published.

By this act, all catholics are obliged to assist at the protestant church-service, every Sunday and holyday, on the penalty of twelve pence, and of what, indeed, was infinitely more grievous, the censures of the ecclesiastical courts, for each default. A method of proceeding very inconsistent with the fundamental principles of that religion, which this act was intended to introduce, viz. freedom of conscience, and the right of private judgment. Dr. Heylin has justly observed another

Some consciousness of this breach of promise appears in the proclamation itself, which was published on the 4th of July, 1605, and sets forth in the beginning, "that whereas his majesty was informed, that his subjects of Ireland had been deceived by a false report, that his majesty was disposed to allow them liberty of conscience, and the free choice of a religion, contrary to that which he always professed himself, by which means it has happened that many of his subjects of that kingdom had firmly resolved to remain constantly in that religion—wherefore he declared to all his beloved subjects of Ireland, that he would not admit any such liberty of conscience as they were made to expect by that report. And then orders all, and each, of his subjects, for the time to come, to frequent their respective churches and chapels, &c.

†There was another severity attending the execution of this statute. Roman catholics of condition, under the title of Inquisitors, were particularly appointed by the state, to watch and inform against those of their own communion, who did not frequent the protestant churches on these days; which, when thro' a scruple of conscience they neglected, or refused to do, they were grievously fined, and condemned to a long and irksome imprisonment.-See Analect. Sacr. Rivnis in Analect. p. 25.

absurdity in this statute. "The3 Irish," says he, "were obliged, under several penalties, to be present at the reading of the English liturgy, which they understood no more than they did the mass; by which means, they were not only kept in continual ignorance, as to the doctrines and devotions of the church of England, but also were furnished with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in such a language as the people did not understand.”* On account of the great scarcity of such ministers, as could either preach, pray, or administer the sacraments in the language understood by their flocks at this time, this act was forced to dispense with itself; for it says, that "forasmuch as in most places of this realm, there cannot be found English ministers to serve in the churches, or places appointed for common prayer, or to administer the sacraments, in such language as they best understand—we therefore beseech your ma jesty, that it may be enacted, &c. that in every such church or place, where the common minister or priest hath not the use or knowledge of the English tongue, it shall be lawful for the same to say and use the matins, even song, and celebration of the Lord's supper, and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in the latin tongue, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book (of common prayer) established by this act, any thing before expressed, and contained in this act to the contrary notwithstanding."+ There were no more but the representatives of ten counties summoned to this parliament,

an

To remedy this inconvenience, "In the reign of James I. it was ordered, that the bible and common prayer should be translated into the Irish language; which was done: and every parish church was obliged to pay ten shillings for an Irish bible, when not one amongst an hundred could read, or understand it. And therefore," adds my author, Irish protestant bishop did laugh at this strange kind of alteration, and said to some of his friends, " in queen Elizabeth's time, we had English bibles, and Irish ministers; but now we have ministers come out of England unto us, and Irish bibles with them." Most of the benefices and church livings in Ireland, were bestowed upon English and Scottish ministers, not one of them having three words of the Irish tongue."-Theatre of Cath. and Protest. Religion, p. 245.

H

viz. those of Dublin, Meath, Westmeath, Louth, Kildare, Catherlough, Kilkenny, Waterford, Tipperary, and Wexford.

CHAP. III.

Some observations on the statutes of supremacy and uniformity.

THE execution of the penal act last mentioned, and of the preceding statute of supremacy, was the more grievous and unjustifiable, as they were both well known to have been imposed upon the nation by force or fraud, though under the plausible appearance of parliamentary sanction.

As for the statute of supremacy, there is no question but the Irish chieftains were previously awed, and broken by a military force, in order to gain their consent to it.' "Lord Leonard Gray, to prepare the minds of the people to obey this statute, began first, (says sir John Davis,) with a martial course, by making a victorious circuit round the kingdom, whereby the principal septs of the Irish were all terrified, and most of them broken; and then, after this preparation thus made, he first propounded, and passed those laws, which made the great alteration in the state ecclesiastical."

Of the statute of uniformity of the 2d of Elizabeth, all the Irish writers at, or near, that period, unanimously affirm, that it was surreptitiously or forcibly obtained. Mr. Lynch, in his Cam

5 Lel. Hist. Irel. vol. ii. p. 225. Sir John Davis's Historical Rel.

* Yet even when it came to be proposed in parliament, “ lords and commons joined in expressing their abhorrence of the spiritual authority assumed by the king." Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 165.—" But fear," says the same writer," served to allay the violence of those, who could not be persuaded." However, “ in despite of legislative authority, they still opposed that law with indefatigable zeal. Several incumbents of the diocese of Dublin, chose to resign their benefices, rather than acknowledge the king's supremacy." And so formidable, at least so considerable was this party," that the archbishop (Brown) would not venture to fill up their benefices until he had consulted his patron lord Cromwell." 7d. ib. p. 167.—These incumbents objected to the legality of that statute, because," two proctors from each diocese, had been usually summoned and claimed to be a member of the legislative body, and to have a full right of suffrage in every question; and because, in this case, their claim was rejected."-Ib. p. 165-6.