by which the estates of persons who had been killed in "rebellion," or had died in foreign service, were to be included in the forfeitures. He went even much further, for he was willing to give up the omitted clause in the Articles of Limerick, if Parliament would confirm the remainder. When Parliament opened, "An act to confirm the Articles of Limerick" was prepared; it should rather have been called "An Act for the frustration of the Articles of Limerick," for, besides leaving out, with the sanction of William himself, the omitted clause in the second article, it omitted the first clause, and curtailed the others to such an extent as practically to annul the treaty. The third reading of the Bill in the Lords was carried by a majority of only one. While the Bill was in the Commons, a petition from the representatives of the native Irish, praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House before the measure became law, was presented to the House of Commons; the petition was unanimously rejected. About the same period "a petition of one Edward Sprag and others, in behalf of themselves and other Protestant porters in and about the city of Dublin, complaining that one Darby Ryan, a Papist, had employed porters of his own persuasion, having been received and read, was referred to the committee of grievances, that they should report thereon to the House."1

Seven bishops and seven lay peers made a protest against the Bill for the confirmation of the Articles of Limerick, which was entered on the Journals of the House. According to this protest, the articles were not fully confirmed "The Act as it passed left the Catholics in a worse condition than they were in before; . . . the additional clause was most material, and several persons who had been adjudged within the articles would now be excluded from the benefit of them."

A new Outlawries Bill-the first one having been withdrawn in consequence of the opposition of the Lords-came back from England. It was intended to prevent any further reversal of outlawries and close the matter once

1 Commons Journals, vol. ii. p. 679.

1699]

THE OUTLAWRIES BILL

25

for all. It exempted by name a number of peers and gentlemen whom the lords wished to favour, and so secure its passing. The preamble is a masterpiece, like those of most of the colonial Bills. All outlawries and attainders on account of the late war not already reversed, or affecting persons comprised within the Articles of Limerick, or persons exempted by name in the statute, were declared to stand good for ever, any pardon from the king or his heirs notwithstanding. Papists who had died in "rebellion" before the peace were adjudged traitors ipso facto, and their estates passed from their families.1 The custom of calling every war in which the Irish were belligerents "a rebellion" was a most convenient way of securing a verdict without argument and by anticipation. It led, however, to some curious and puzzling results.

The Ascendency party were not satisfied with the partial repudiation of the Articles of Limerick which they had effected in the so-called Act for their confirmation. The majority of the Protestants were of Dr. Dopping's opinion, that no terms should be kept with the Irish; but they lacked the moral courage to act upon it, so they determined to proceed piecemeal, and thus preserve their "honour.' By the first Article of Limerick, it was provided that the Irish should enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II. Nevertheless an Act was passed for banishing all Papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all regulars of the Popish clergy out of Ireland. The object of this Act was to keep out the religious orders, and sanction only the secular priests, who in time were expected to die out; as no bishops were to be allowed to remain in the country or come into it, no means of keeping up the succession would exist. This method of exclusion proved successful in England in a comparatively short time; in Wales it proved successful, though only after a considerable time; in Ireland the circumstances were wholly unlike what they were in England or Wales, and it did not and could not possibly succeed.

1 1 9 Will. III. c. 25, Irish Statutes.

In the same session the Ascendency took another step in the elaboration of a code of laws for the destruction of religious freedom, and the debasement and ruin of the Irish people, by the passing of "An Act to prevent Protestants intermarrying with Papists." After reciting the mischiefs resulting from Protestant women marrying Papists, or Protestant gentlemen marrying Popish wives, it enacted that any Protestant woman, being heir apparent to or possessed of any estate or interest in land, or in possession of £500 of personal property, who married without a certificate of the minister, bishop, and a neighbouring justice (or any two of them) to the effect that her husband was a known Protestant, should be deemed dead in law, and the property went to the next of Protestant kin. Such Protestant woman and her husband were incapable of being heir, executor, administrator, or guardian to any Protestant. The penalty for joining a Protestant woman in marriage with a Papist without the required certificate was a year's imprisonment, and a fine of £20 to the Crown and the prosecutor. A Protestant marrying a Popish wife without a certificate was deemed a Papist or Popish recusant, and lost his civil rights. Soldiers marrying Papists were thereby withdrawn from the king's service; and any one marrying a soldier without a certificate was liable to a fine of £20.

The penal code was enriched the following year by an Act to prevent Papists being solicitors. Popish solicitors were especially obnoxious to the Protestant interest, as they were supposed to be always engaged in evading the law, and securing the landed property of Catholics, and getting hold of that of Protestants. They were, in the language of the Act, common disturbers." No one could act as solicitor without taking the Oath of Allegiance, the Oath of Abjuration, and making the Declaration against Transubstantiation, under a penalty of £100 to the prosecutor, and the loss of certain civil rights. They were also to educate their children as Protestants. Any one who practised as a solicitor under Charles II., or who was covered by the Articles of Limerick, was exempt.

The plot to murder William, or more probably only to

1699]

ALLEGED PLOT AGAINST WILLIAM

27

seize his person, very naturally aroused great indignation in England. In addition to passing an Act which, in the event of a similar conspiracy succeeding, would defeat the object of it, an association originating in the English House of Commons was formed. The roll of association was very largely signed throughout England and Scotland. The members of this association bound themselves to stand by each other "in defence of the King and English liberty against King James and his adherents." A bill for the same purpose, probably identical with the English Act, was sent over to Ireland, and a copy of the association bond. With the purpose of stimulating the zeal and exciting the fanaticism of the Protestant interest, a common device was resorted to of putting forward some plot or conspiracy. On this occasion it was a paper containing "a project for the extirpation of all the Protestants in Ireland," asserted to be in the handwriting of "an officer of King James's army." It served its intended purpose. The Commons passed a series of resolutions, in which it was asserted that ever since the Reformation the Papists had endeavoured to subvert the Protestant religion by conspiracies, massacres, and rebellions; that they still had the same intention, and desired to separate Ireland from England. Then came the real object-the necessity of more stringent laws to make the Protestant interest secure by force where reason and natural laws had failed. Catholics should be deprived of the right of voting at elections for members of Parliament; the oaths prescribed for all holding public offices should be more strictly exacted; and, lastly, a law should be passed making it high treason to deny William III. was lawful king.

The resolutions were adopted by acclamation in the Commons, and the Bill sent from England was passed by a majority of twenty-four, though many spoke against the clause that required all persons, under a penalty of a præmunire, to renounce the superiority of any foreign power in ecclesiastical or spiritual matters within the realm. the face of the fact that the great majority of the inhabitants of the country were Catholics who believed in the spiritual

supremacy of the pope, the Lords, while admitting that the Catholics would, if they could, overthrow Protestantism, and that severer laws were needed, deemed it unfair and illogical to exact the Abjuration Oath from persons who were at the same time acknowledged to be Catholics, and threw out the Bill. It seems that this conduct was deemed disloyal, and some think it was the cause of the adoption of the measures for the suppression of the Irish woollen trade,' which were passed immediately afterwards.

The Irish Council were directed to prepare a similar Bill for the next session. Some members thought that some respect should still, if only for form's sake, be paid to the Articles of Limerick, and that such Catholics as had been covered by them should be exempted from the Abjuration Oath, and a clause was added to this effect in the heads of the Bill sent to England. The Lords Justices' correspondence with the Duke of Shrewsbury on the subject is instructive. They considered that the arguments in favour of those who came under the Articles of Limerick, if valid, applied equally to all Catholics alike: if any Catholic could take conscientiously the Abjuration Oath, all ought to be required to take it; if not, none. The Lords Justices, however, had no scruples on the theological question, and thought that any one who intended to be a true subject of the king might take it. Their Excellencies, however, having decided the theological question, left the solution of the problem to the Council in England. The latter struck out the clause, and returned the Bill in the form in which the Lords had rejected it. In the meantime, however, the Commons had altered their opinions on the subject, and threw out the Bill by a majority of ten.

The anger and disgust of the English politicians, and, indeed, of the public, were intensified by another event which was but the beginning of a new development. The colony, fungus-like, had spread its fibres through the country, concealing the true nation and assuming its appearance. The great majority of the inhabitants had no legal existence, and, like the helots and slaves in ancient and 1 Froude, op. cit., vol. i. p. 261.