Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

bounties of their king."133 This statement from lord Orrery, of the situation of the children of the Roman Catholics, who were "sold in the market" to the highest bidder, deserves the most marked attention; and, coming from the pen of a most rancorous enemy, establishes this point beyond controversy, and exhibits a species of oppression of which probably the world has beheld few examples.

Independent of the education of the heirs, the court of wards had a control over their marriage, of which they made a most iniquitous use; and frequently degraded and dishonoured them, by marriage with persons wholly unsuitable in point of character and family.*

In the Trim Remonstrance, the Roman Catholics make the most severe complaints against the exactions, injustice, and oppression of this court,

"The wardship and marriage of the heir were likewise reserved to the crown. These lands and wardships were usually granted to favourites, and men of power and interest, who, though they gave security to the court of wards to take care, as well of the education and maintenance of the heir, as of the good condition of the estate, too often neglected both; destroyed the woods, and committed horrible waste upon the lands; brought up the heir in ignorance, and in a mean manner unworthy of his quality; and, SELLING HIS PERSON TO THE BEST BIDDER, matched him unequally in point of birth and fortune, as well as disagreeably with regard to the character, qualities, and figure of the person that was picked out to be the companion of his life."134

133

Orrery, I. 59.

134 Carte, II. 248.

whereby the heirs of Catholic noblemen and other Catholics were most cruelly and tyrannically dealt withal, destroyed in their estates, and bred in dissoluteness and ignorance."*

To the same effect bishop Burnet writes of this court, that "families were often at mercy, and were used according to their behaviour. King James granted these guardianships generally to his servants and favourites; and THEY MADE THE MOST OF THEM; so that what was before a dependence on the crown, and was moderately compounded, became a most exacting oppression, by which several families were ruined."13

*Extract from the Remonstrance of the Catholics of Ireland, presented to his majesty's commissioners at Trim, March 17, 1642.

The fourth item of their grievances, was

"The illegal, arbitrary, and unlawful proceedings of the said Sir William Parsons, and one of the said impeached judges, and their adherents and instruments in the court of wards, and the many wilfully erroneous decrees and judgments of that court, by which the heirs of Catholic noblemen and other Catholics were most cruelly and tyrannically dealt withal; destroyed in their estates, and bred in dissoluteness and ignorance; their parents' debts unsatisfied; their younger brothers and sisters left wholly unprovided for; the ancient appearing tenure of mesne lords unregarded; estates valid in law, and made for valuable considerations, avoided against law; and the whole land filled up with the frequent swarms of escheators, feodaries, pursuivants, and others, by authority of that court." 97136

135 Burnet, I. 16.

136 Plowden, I. App. 84.

The ostensible object of this iniquitous and oppressive court, was to educate the heirs of the great Catholic families in the Protestant religion, and thus "prevent the growth of Popery :" and their efforts to accomplish this grand object, reconciled the zealots of that period to the infraction of all the principles of justice and equity, and to the demoralization and ruin of the unhappy objects of their care.

POINT IV.

Disabilities.

The fourth point which I have undertaken to prove, is that the Irish Roman Catholics, as such, laboured under most severe and grievous restrictions and disqualifications.

The oath of supremacy is a virtual renunciaation of the Roman Catholic religion; as it declares that the king of England is the supreme head of the church. It will not be denied, that this is as complete an abjuration as would be the oath of a Calvinist, that the Pope was supreme head of the Christian church.

Nevertheless, no person could, at that "blessed" period of "peace and security," when "not a single man could say that he had suffered any prejudice or disturbance for his religion," without taking this oath,

I. Act as magistrate in any corporation;

II. Take any degree of learning in the university;

III. Be admitted to plead at the bar in any of the courts;

IV. Fill any of the great offices of state;

V. Sue out livery of his lands, or ouster le main out of the hands of the king.*

These disqualifications, it is true, were not always enforced: indeed, in many cases, necessity constrained the government to connive at the non-enforcement of them. There were various parts of the kingdom, where the great mass of the people were Roman Catholics, and where there were so few Protestants fit for filling offices,

*"Nobody could be preferred to any degree of learning in an university, nor sue livery of his lands, or ouster le main out of the hands of the king, or do him homage in order to have possession of his estate, without first taking the oath [of supremacy.] In consequence thereof, no peer or great man who refused it, could be admitted to the dignity of a privy counsellor, or be advanced to any office of state that might give him any share in the government of the kingdom. Nobody could legally act as a mayor or magistrate in a corporation, without previously qualifying himself for those charges, by the taking of this oath."137

"The recusant lawyers, a powerful body of men, were angry that they could not take degrees in law, be made judges, or regularly admitted by any court to plead at the bar, without taking the oath of supremacy; though they probably gained as much by their private advice and chamber practice, with less trouble to themselves, and less hazard to their reputation, as they could have done by the displaying of their eloquence in public."138

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

that they were obliged to admit Catholics into them. But the disqualifications were constantly in existence,-constantly held up in terrorem over the whole body,-frequently enforced with rigour, and, in a word, called into operation, or suspended, just as suited the purposes of the rulers and their minions. The cases already stated, of fining the aldermen of Dublin, and of seizing "the REVENUES and liberties of the city of Waterford," for the offence of choosing magistrates who would not take the oath of supremacy, independent of numberless others to be found in the history of Ireland, in almost every page, bear me fully out in these propositions; and prove the sacred and delicate regard to truth, and the fidelity and research of lord Clarendon and Dr. Warner, when they state, that "not a single man could say that he had suffered any prejudice or disturbance on account of his religion."

Carte, to palliate the injustice and severity of the disqualifications of the recusant lawyers, offers a most extraordinary idea, in mitigation of the disadvantages arising from them. He informs us, as may be seen in the prefixed note, that they "probably [very probably, truly—and very wisely said] gained as much by their private advice and chamber practice," as they could have gained by being admitted to the bar; and (more consolation!) "with less hazard to their reputation."

It is hardly necessary to point out the absurdity and futility of these opinions, and how desperate

« ForrigeFortsæt »