length, the sentiments embodied in the Remonstrance. But his arguments were addressed to a hostile auditory. Edmund O'Reilly, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh 1—who had been obliged to leave the country at the Restoration-now reappeared; and presented to the Synod various official communications from the Nuncio and others, all condemnatory of the paper which had created so much controversy. O'Reilly was an adept in the chicanery of the Jesuits: he had induced the Lord Lieutenant to believe that, if suffered to come to Ireland, he would support the views of Peter Walsh; 2 and, deceived by his fair professions, Ormonde had given him permission to return: but, when he presented himself before the Synod, he threw off his disguise, and most energetically denounced the Remonstrance. The document was, in consequence, condemned, and another formula of allegiance adopted; but, though this new protestation seemed to be very satisfactory, some of the proceedings of the Synod were fitted to awaken the suspicion that; after all, implicit confidence could not be placed in the loyalty of Romanists. When it was moved that such of the clergy as had rendered themselves obnoxious to the laws during the civil war should

1 O'Reilly was R. C. Primate of Armagh from 1654 to 1669. If we may believe Peter Walsh, he was one of the most contemptible of mortals. Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 608-9. See also an account of him in O'Conor's Hist. Address, part ii. 172-192. The following letter to Ormonde, in which he supplicates for leave to visit Ireland, is a specimen of his servility and low cunning:

"MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

"I am the Publican standing afar off, not daring to lift up mine eyes to the heavens and your Grace; but knocking my breast, humbly pray your Excellency be pleased to be favourable to me, and make me partaker of his Majesty's unparalleled mercies: promising in the sight of God and his angels that I will endeavour to comply in all points with his Sovereign Majesty's most gracious will, and your Excellency's commands, as far as shall become a modest, faithful and thankful subject. If otherwise, who am I? but a worm, the reproach of mankind, the vilitie of the people, a dead dog, a flea.

"And yet, my gracious Lord,

"Your Excellency's most humble servant,
"EDMUND ARMAGH."

PARIS, August 31, 1665.—WALSH's Hist. of the Remonstrance, p. 611.

2 Leland, iii. 461.

3 See a copy of this document in Brenan, appendix v., 676-7.

VOL. II.

L

In these troubled times the Presbyterians occupied a peculiar and, often, not very comfortable position. Ever since the arrival of the Scottish army in the Northern Province after the breaking out of the Rebellion, they had been busily organizing congregations in Ulster; their ministers had preached in the parish churches; and, where settled, had been recognized as the established clergy; but now they came into collision with the ruling powers in England. Regarding the execution of Charles I. as a proceeding in every way unjustifiable, the Irish Presbytery, assembled at Belfast1 in February, 1649, proclaimed their detestation of it in a document which obtained extensive circulation. They had the boldness to denounce the regicides as guilty of "overturning the laws and liberties of the kingdom," of "rooting out all lawful and supreme magistracy," and of "introducing a fearful confusion and lawless anarchy."2 "With cruel hands," said they, these men have "put the King to death-an act so horrible as no history, divine or human, ever had a precedent to the like.” This paper was forthwith laid before the remnant of a Parliament then in London; and was deemed of so much consequence that the Council of State employed no less distinguished a writer than John Milton to prepare a reply. The great poet could soar high on the wings of fancy; but, when he took up the polemic pen, he often seemed to be inspired rather by the Furies than the Muses. Some of his controversial publications are among the most scurrilous in our literature. The Presbytery of Belfast, when giving vent to their abhorrence, had described the execution of the King as an act of unprecedented atrocity. They here certainly expressed themselves incautiously-as the broad page of history may afford a parallel to almost any deed of enormity; and Milton knew well how to take advantage of such an unguarded statement. His reply is otherwise most sophistical. Knox, the apostle of the Scottish Reformation, had inculcated the constitutional principle that, in a case of extremity,

1 In his reply Milton speaks of Belfast as a barbarous nook of Ireland." It was then an inconsiderable place.

* The paper now published by the Presbytery may be found in Reid's Hist. of Presb. Church in Ireland, ii. 88-95. See also Milton's Works, pp. 260-2.

the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ardagh, is said to have been mainly instrumental in their multiplication. Nor was he very fastidious in the choice of those whom he admitted to the priesthood. It is reported of him, by a respectable witness, that "a vast number of all sorts of most illiterate, and otherwise too in all respects contemptible persons" were ordained by him; whereby, it is added, "the order of priesthood is now despised, even amongst those of the Roman Catholic profession."1

Ever since the accession of Charles II. to the throne, the Romish party had been using their influence at the English Court in favour of their Church in Ireland. For years the King was prevented by prudential considerations from giving them very open encouragement; but at length, in 1670, he ventured on a more decided policy. In the month of May of that year Lord Berkeley became Viceroy. The new Lord Lieutenant, in his public instructions,2 was enjoined to use all his influence for the support of the Established Church, and the discouragement of Popery; but it was soon manifest that he was not disposed to act up strictly to the letter of these requirements. It was believed that he had received secret orders quite different from those openly acknowledged—an impression which was strengthened by the fact that his administration was very favourable to Romanism. Its adherents acted with a boldness which they had not exhibited since the days of the Confederation. Provincial councils and diocesan synods were held by the Romish prelates throughout the kingdom; and those of their clergy who had signed the

1 Walsh's Hist. of the Remonstrance, pp. 748-9. In 1673 we find Archbishop Plunket himself complaining that the priests were "too numerous." "Every gentleman," says he, "desires a chaplain; and is anxious to hear mass in his room, under pretence of fear of the Government."-MORAN's Memoirs of Plunket, p. 86.

These instructions may be found in Cox, Charles II., pp. 9-11.

3 Cox, Charles II., p. II. Even in the Protestant parts of the country the priests at this time seem to have enjoyed perfect impunity. In a letter written by Oliver Plunket, the R.C. Primate, and dated the 23rd of February, 1671 (2), it is stated that three priests sent to minister in the Hebrides by the Marquis of Antrim would not consent to remain there because they had "good parishes in the County Antrim."-Hill's Macdonnels of Antrim, p. 345.

Remonstrance were excommunicated. Deprived of the means of subsistence by the loss of their situations, they could not well avoid starvation, except by submitting to their spiritual dictators. Those of them who fled into foreign countries did not much better their position, as they were in danger of being denounced as heretics, and of falling into the hands of the Inquisition. The Lord Lieutenant had been ostensibly directed to support them; but when they appealed to him for protection they could obtain no redress. Even when the Protestant primate complained of the harsh treatment they experienced, the Viceroy turned a deaf ear to his remonstrances.2

It might be said that in matters of spiritual jurisdiction, Government had no right to interfere; but, in this case, such an argument was scarcely relevant, as the question in dispute related to the encroachments of the Pope on the rights of temporal sovereignty. If any church, or its representative, claims prerogatives which are subversive of civil freedom, the State is clearly bound to interpose, and sustain those who uphold its independence. On this occasion, had Government been anxious to succour the Remonstrants, it might, without travelling beyond the bounds of its legitimate province, have found means to shelter them against oppression. But it had no desire to afford them aid. The Executive at this time gave grievous offence to the Irish Protestants by other proceedings which at the present day would be quite proper; but which, as the law then stood, involved its open violation. In various places Romanists were introduced into corporate towns, were permitted to become aldermen or common councillors, and were entrusted with the commission of the peace. The manner in which Peter Talbot, the Roman

1 The R. C. prelates were aware that Walsh would experience no sympathy from Government. In June, 1669, the R. C. Bishop of Meath could boast that he was obliged to leave Ireland; in the preceding May it was affirmed in Rome that "if the new Viceroy found Peter Walsh in Ireland on his arrival he would send him to the scaffold."-MORAN'S Memoirs of Plunket, pp. 4, 25.

2 Mant, i. 654; Leland, iii. 463.

3 Sir Wm. Petty in his Political Anatomy of Ireland, written in 1672, states that "the number of sheriffs and sub-sheriffs, sheriffs' bailiffs, high and petty

Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, was suffered to deport himself, created still greater dissatisfaction. This ecclesiastic, who had so recently been appointed to his office by the Pope, was expected by his patron to employ all his authority in crushing those who had ventured to subscribe the Remonstrance. But he did not confine himself to the supervision of his own clergy. He announced that he had received special powers from the English sovereign: intermeddled in politics ; and contrived in some cases even to overawe the Lord Lieutenant. The King, as afterwards appeared, had privately entered the Church of Rome prior to the Restoration; and Peter Talbot had been the officiating minister on the occasion of his admission. He had subsequently been well received at the English Court; he belonged to a highly respectable Irish family; and, as he was distinguished by activity and tact, he possessed a large amount of social influence. His knowledge of the grand secret of the King's conversion inspired him with confidence and led him to pursue a course on which he would not have otherwise adventured. On one occasion he had the assurance to appear before the council at Dublin in his archiepiscopal vestments-an act which involved a direct violation of the law-and yet the Lord Lieutenant overlooked this public defiance of authority. On another occasion he proposed to celebrate mass in the Irish metropolis with extraordinary splendour: and applied to Sir Ellis Leighton3 for the use of some hangings and plate, which formed part of the furniture of the castle, that they might grace the solemnity. The obsequious secretary complied with the request-expressing, at the same time, his hope that

constables, are about three thousand persons, whereof not above one tenth are English or Protestants.”—Tracts, p. 379. We may infer from this that Romanists must have had far more than their fair share of public offices.

1 Leland, iii. 402-3. In April, 1762, we find the K.C. Bishop of Waterford, Dr. Brenan, stating that Peter Talbot and his brother, Colonel Talbot, were seeking to procure for Berkeley a continuation in his office of Viceroy."MORAN'S Memoirs of Plunket, p. 223.

66

2 Carte, ii. 172; Renehan's Collections, p. 203.

3 He was brother of Archbishop Leighton, so well known in Scotland after the Restoration. Ellis became a convert to Popery. describes him as a very immoral and worthless man.

He died in 1684. Burnet Hist. of his own Time, i. 189.