which they abhor the unnatural ufurpation of the Prince of Orange, and the treafon of those who joined with him in England and Ireland; and profefs to king James with their tongues and hearts, that they will ever affert his rights to his crown, with their lives and fortunes, against the faid ufurper and his adherents, and all other rebels and traitors whatsoever." CHA P. Anfw. to King, p. 103. • That William's motives for invading England, were very different from what they are commonly thought to have been, viz. a glorious heroic zeal to deliver thefe kingdoms from popery and flavery, will appear from the following paffage. In the treaty of peace at Ryfwick, "as William trusted not his three plenipotentiaries at the Hague with his agreement with France, mankind juftly concluded, that a fecret of the last importance had been for fome time depending between the two kings (Lewis XIV. and him), time has at length unravelled the mystery. Lewis unwilling to defert James, propofed that the Prince of Wales fhould fucceed to the crown of England, after the death of William: the king with little hesitation agreed to the request. He even folemnly engaged to procure the repeal of the act of fettlement, and to declare by another, the Prince of Wales his fucceffor to the throne. The fifty thousand pounds a year fettled as a jointure on King James's Queen, was agreed to be paid, though the money was afterwards retained upon various pretences. Thofe (adds my author) who afcribe all the actions of William to public fpirit, will find fome difficulty in reconciling this tranfaction to their elevated opinion of his character. In one conceffion to France, he yielded all his profeffions to England; and by an act of indifcretion, or through indifference, deferted the principles to which he owed the throne. The fuppofed fpuriousness of the Prince of Wales's birth, had been only held forth to amuse the vulgar, and even these would be convinced by the public acknowledgment intended to be made by the very person whofe intereft was moft concerned in the fupport of that idle tale." Macpherf. Hift. of Great Britain, vol. ii. p. 122-3-4 CHA P. XVII. The established clergy of Ireland laboured under a particular difficulty on this occafion. AFTER King James's abdication, the parliament of England abolished the declaration, viz." that it was not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the king." "But this, by fome neglect, was still left upon the Irish proteftant clergy, under the penalty of forfeiting their livings, and as many of them as came into livings, after the revolution (among whom Dr. King was one), read the faid declaration publicly in time of divine fervice, and were to continue fo to do until fome parliament took it away. Notwithstanding which, they preached against it, difputed against it, and inftructed their congregations against it. And yet, to fave their livings, they continued ftill to fubfcribe this hated declaration before their ordinaries; and took certificates under their hands and feals, that they had subscribed it; and openly and publicly read the fame, on the Lord's day, in their parish-churches, in the presence of the congregation there affembled. They read it in the desk, and preached against it in the pulpit; and when they came out of the church railed, at the parliament that impofed it, and wondered and curfed their hard fate, that this declaration was not taken out of their way in Ireland as it was in England, and wished it was done. In the mean time they would lofe nothing by it, they could fwallow." 2 Nor was their embarrassment much lefs, upon taking the new oaths that were afterwards framed. "There never was, proceeds Mr. Lefley, so fudden, so shameful a turn of men profeffing religion; and their manner of doing it fo impolitic as to make it evident, that a they took the oaths, at least, with a doubting and fcrupulous confcience. For they did not take them freely, but haggled, and kept off, fome to the last day, roaring against them all the while; and then coming about, all at once, with new-coined diftinctions and declarations, point-blank contrary to the declared fenfe of the impofers; they differed among themfelves; every one had a falvo for his own confcience; some pretended they kept paffive obedience still, others that they were never for it. It was a fevere jeft that the common people had got up against the clergy, that there was but one thing formerly that the parliament could not do, that is, to make a man a woman; but that then, there was another, that is, to make an oath the clergy would not take." CHAP. 'State of the Protestants, & c. p. 149. 2 3 Id. ib. * The Irish Roman catholics," made no fcruple to take the oath of allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, which was agreed to in the articles of Limerick; and it was generally taken by them all over the kingdom, by the direction of their clergy." Lefley's Anfw. p. 125. "The English Roman catholics, in their chapels at London, prayed publicly at the fame time, for King William and Queen Mary." Lefley, ib. p. 126. In the Commons Journal, ann. 1695, I find the following paffage Mr. Weaver farther reported, that it is the opinion of this committee, that to an act in England of the 31st of Charles II. an act for the better fecuring the liberty of the fubject, there fhall be added the following provifo, viz. provided that no perfon or perfons fhall have the benefit of this act, unlefs he or they take the oaths, and fubfcribe the declaration made in England for this kingdom, intitled an act for abrogating the oath of fupremacy in Ireland, and appointing other oaths, &c. The queftion being put that this houfe do agree with the committee in this refolution, it paffed in the negative." Vol. ii. f. 668. 1 CHA P. XVIII. The good faith of king William's and king James's officers compared. DR. 2 R. King was not afhamed to affirm,'" that among all the articles into which K. James's officers entered, they never kept any to the protestants." Yet thefe proteftants themselves "fpoke, at the fame time, with commendation and honour, of Sarsfield's punctual observation of his articles, when he took Sligo, to omit other inftances.' General Ginckle owned to Major General Dorington, in the prefence of the Prince of Wirtemberg, Monfieur Marquis de la Foreft, and feveral other general officers, the good ufage their prifoners had received at Limerick, and other Irish garrifons; and moft of the proteftants that belonged to the north of Ireland, did then confefs, that the Irish, while among them in the fummer of 1689, kept their protections better to the protestants, than the proteftant kept theirs to them. Even fome of the moft zealous fticklers for king William's government have complained much, that the articles entered into with the Irish at Carrickfergus, by Marshal Schomberg,' were not punctually obferved. For when that general VOL. II. State of the Proteft. &c. p. 149. 2 Lesley ubi fupra. 3 Id. ib. "Schomberg," fays Macpherfon, "invefted Carrickfergus ; he fummoned the garrifon in vain; he opened four batteries against the place; he attacked it with the guns of the fleet; one thousand bombs were thrown into the town; the houses were laid in afhes. The garrifon, having expended their powder to the last barrel, marched out, on the ninth day, with all the honours of war. But the foldiers broke the capitulation; they difarmed and ftripped the inhabitants, without any regard to fex or quality; even women ftark naked were whipt publicly between the lines." Hift. of Gt. Brit. vol. i. p. 570. The Journal of the moft remarkable Tranfactions in this War, publifhed at that juncture of time, thus relates this breach of articles at Carrickfergus, with refpect to the inhabitants: "The Irish in that town, when reduced to one barrel of general first landed, he iffued proclamations of protection and encouragement to the Irish, who would return to their habitations, and follow their labour; which many accepted, and a great part of the country was thereby planted, fome places in as full a manner as before the revolution; but notwithstanding these protections, the proteftant army fell upon them, and wafted their whole country; and when the Irifh held out their protections, they tore them, and bid them wipe their a--e with them, and none were punished for this breach of protections." Notwithstanding General Ginckle's proclamation, * printed at Dublin, February 4th, 1690, wherein he affured the papifts in their majefties names," that all of them, who would fubmit to their majefties government, fhould be protected as to their religion, estates, and liberties; yet that did not hinder the multitude of out-lawries, and other forfeitures and proceedings against thofe papifts, who fubmitted to the govern of powder only, made foldier-like terms; marching out with their arms, colours flying, ball in mouth, and other ufual ceremonies in war; to be attended by a convoy, until they were within three miles of the Newry. Yet the articles, though figned by Schomberg himself, were nevertheless barbarously violated by the foldiers; who, without regard to age, or fex, or quality, difarmed and ftripped the town's people, forcing even women to run the gauntlet ftark naked." b"By the report laid before the English house of commons, by Mr. Annesley, in 1700, it appeared that three thousand nine hundred and twenty-one perfons had been out-lawed by king William fince the 13th of February, 1689 [the report made by the commiffioners fays, 13th February, 1688]; that all the lands belonging to forfeited perfons, amounted to more than one million and fixty thousand acres; that the most confiderable grants were made to perfons born in foreign countries, to Kepple, to Bentick, to Ginckle, and to Rouvigny: who had been all dignified with peerages, in one or other of the two kingdoms. That befides, a grant had paffed the great feal to Elizabeth Villiers, now Countess of Orkney, a woman peculiarly favoured by William, of all the private eftates of the late king James, containing ninety-five thoufand acres, worth twenty-five thousand nine hundred and ninty-five pounds a year: |