but in the historian's brain. For their separation, and sudden defection, from the public worship of the church of Ireland, necessarily supposes their former agreement and conformity to it; but this he could not suppose of the Irish in general, without a barefaced contradiction to known facts. For so stedfastly did these people adhere to their antient religion in that, and the former reign, notwithstanding the many alluring offers, and terrifying punishments made use of to withdraw them from it, that Chichester himself, who had often employed both means of seduction, was heard to exclaim, in the rage of disappointment, that he believed the very air and soil of Ireland were infected with popery." The barbarous incivility, already mentioned, which the young earl of Desmond met with from his countrymen and followers, after they were convinced of his conformity to the public worship of the church of Ireland, is a sufficient refutation of this mistake.

The king about this time, sent instructions to the state, for ministering the oath of supremacy to the catholic lawyers and justices of peace; and for putting the laws against recusants in strict execution. Accordingly," " of sixteen aldermen and citizens of Dublin, summoned before the privy council, nine were censured in the castle chamber; and six of the aldermen were fined, each in one hundred pounds; and the other three, in fifty pounds each; and they were all committed prisoners to the castle, during the pleasure of the court. It was at the same time ordered, that none of the citizens should bear offices until they had conformed. For which reason the cities and towns were obliged to take up with very unfit persons for magistrates. "In the year 1614, Edward O'Molownie, an al

4 Analecta Sacra.

5 Carte ubi supra, vol. i. fòl. 21. 6 Harris ubi supra.

* "It is notorious," says Abbe Geoghegan," that notwithstanding the severity of the laws made in Ireland against the Roman catholic religion, during the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Elizabeth, even to that of James I. not sixty of the Irish embraced the protestant religion, though Ireland contains more than two millions of souls."-Hist. of Irel. p. 422.

And when the same deputy made a present of a fine horse to the king, being asked by his majesty, whether it was of Irish breed, and being answered in the affirmative, his majesty swore aloud, that then certainly it must be a papist, for that he believed all things produced in Ireland, ever the very animals were papists.-Analect. Sacra.

derman of Dublin, was chosen to be mayor of that city, but because," says my author," he would not go to church, nor take the oath of supremacy, he was laid aside, and Richard Foster, a young man, was permitted to take the office upon him. And when, on the accustomed day, he was presented at the exchequer bar, sir William Methold, lord chief baron, in his speech on that occasion, said among other things," that this mayor had leapt a salmon-leap, for that he saw many grave and grey-headed men there standing about him, whose turn was to have been mayors before him; but he said the cause of their not being mayors, in plain terms was, because they would not take the oath of supremacy, which he was sorry for."7

On this occasion, "all the old English families of the pale, took the alarm, and boldly remonstrated against the severity of these proceedings. They denied the legality of the sentence by which these severities were inflicted, and urged, that by the statute of 2d of Elizabeth, the crime of recusancy had its punishment ascertained, and that any extension of the penalty was illegal and unconstitutional. Their remonstrance was presented to the council by an unusual concourse of people, but the chief petitioners were confined in the castle of Dublin; and sir Patrick Barnwell, their great agent, was, by the king's command, sent in custody into England."**

8 Lel. vol. ii. p. 421-2.

7 Desid. Cur. Hib. vol. ii. p. 284-5. The zeal of this deputy (sir Arthur Chichester) was so intemperate and forward, that even the king and council of England found it necessary to restrain it. In a letter of July 3d, 1606, to him, containing some complaints against his administration by sir Patrick Barnwell (then prisoner in the tower for having made such complaints), viz. the deputy's sending for those precepts under the great seal, to compel men to come to church, the denying private men to see their indictments, and of raising new and excessive fees, they tell him" that they thought it good, before they fall to any usual order with him (sir Patrick Barnwell), to be somewhat cleared in the first important matter, to the intent that when they knew his ground, they might the better pronounce and publish the offence of any that had, or should presume to censure his proceedings; and this they did the rather, because they pre-supposed he would not have taken that course, but that he found there some particular authority by law or precedent, which as yet was unknown to them in England. They add, that to the other exceptions, they send him what sir Patrick Barnwell sayeth, and what he offereth to prove; to which they would have the

The king on this subject wrote to Chichester, " that he thought both the order he had taken for reformation, and the punishment he had inflicted upon some of the aldermen of Dublin, and certain others whom his letters mention, for their contempt, to be not only just, but necessary. And that he conceived hope, that many, by such means, will be brought to conformity (in religion) who perhaps hereafter will find cause to give thanks to God, and him, for being drawn by so gentle a constraint to their own good."

Hard as this treatment of the catholic laity was, amidst "the calmest and most universal peace that was ever known in Ireland,” that of their clergy was still more rigorous. To omit many other instances, the case of Robert Lawler deserves particular notice.* When this poor man was thrown into

9 Desid. Cur. Hib. vol. i. p. 465.

deputy send them some answers, rather for form's sake, &c."-Desid. Curios. Hibern. vol. i. p. 489.

And in another letter to the same deputy, September 2, 1608, they say, "concerning the proceedings of the state in sending forth the mandates (precepts before-mentioned) by the judges, who desire to be spared fill their return from their circuits for giving their reasons; we allow it very well, that they should take their time, it being sufficient for us to know, that they have done it upon good grounds; because all such proceedings in matters of religion, want not captious eyes in that kingdom; wherein, because we did sufficiently let you see within what bounds his majesty wished you to contain yourselves as near as you could, we mean to touch that point no farther at this time, saving only to one part of your letter of the 9th of July, to let you know that if any motion shall be made here for reviving of a high commission, it shall appear that his majesty thinketh the same unseasonable, and therefore, without order from him, we require you to forbear giving any way to it."—Id. ib. p. 496.

"Robert Lawler had obtained from the court of Rome the title and jurisdiction of vicar general of the See apostolic within the archbishoprick of Dublin, and bishopricks of Kildare and Ferns. Upon his first examination, after he was apprehended in Dublin by the lord deputy himself, he acknowledged that he was a priest, and had accepted the title and of fice of the pope's vicar general, and had exercised spiritual jurisdiction in foro consciencia. And in sundry other points he maintained and justified the pope's authority; only he said he was of opinion that the pope had no power to excommunicate, or depose his majesty, because the king is not of the pope's religion. The name and reputation of the man, and the nature of the cause, drew all the principal gentlemen, both of the pale and of the provinces that were in town to the hearing of the matter: he was

prison, for exercising the function of a Roman catholic priest, he, in order to remove all suspicion of his maintaining, or teaching any seditious doctrines, made the following confession, before the lord deputy and council, and afterwards confirmed it on oath, viz. "That he did acknowledge his sove. reign king James to be his lawful chief, and supreme governor, in causes as well ecclesiastical as civil; that he was bound in conscience to obey him, in all said causes; and that neither the pope, nor any other foreign prelate, or potentate, had power to control the king in any causes ecclesiastical, or civil, within that kingdom, or in any other of his majesty's domi nions." Yet this extreme condescension could not, it seems, prevent his condemnation. The only pretence for this severity was, his having denied privately to some of his friends, who visited him in prison, that he had ever made such confession as was derogatory to the spiritual authority of the Roman pontiff; for, he told them," that he had not acknowledged that the king was supreme governor in spiritual causes, but in ec

10 Sir John Davis's Reports in fine.

not a little abashed at the publishing of his examination and confession in the hearing of so many gentlemen to whom he had preached a contrary doctrine; and therefore said, that the shewing forth that confession was altogether impertinent and beside the matter; howbeit he could not deny, but that he made it, and signed it, and swore it, as it was testified by the lord deputy and the rest. Upon his being questioned about his distinction between spiritual and ecclesiastical causes, he answered, that indeed he had said to some of his friends who visited him in the castle of Dublin, that he had not confessed or acknowledged that the king was his supreme governor in spiritual causes; for that the truth is," adds my author," in the confession there is no mention of spiritual causes, but of ecclesiastical; and upon being further asked by the attorney general, what difference he made between spiritual and ecclesiastical causes, he answered, that that question was sudden, and unexpected at that time, and therefore he would do well to take another day to dispute that point.”—Sir John Davis's Report, from p. 84. to p. 96.

"Cnohor O'Duana, bishop of Down and Connor, was apprehended in July, 1612, and committed to the castle of Dublin, wherein he lived in continual restraint many years; but having at last escaped out of prison, and having been afterwards taken, he was hanged, drawn and quartered on the 1st of February."-Theatre of Cath. and Protest. Relig. p. 578.

The chaplain of this bishop, Bryan Carrulan, John O'Onan, Donoghow M'Reddy, and John Luneas, priests, suffered also, in Ireland in this reign."-Id. ib. p. 586.

clesiastical." Whether this distinction, calculated for the pri vate satisfaction of his friends, was well or ill founded, I shall not take upon me to determine; but certain it is, that it cancelled all the merit of his public confession.

CHAP. V.

The conspiracy and flight of the earls.

THESE severities not having produced the desired effect, which, probably, was a new insurrection, and consequently new forfeitures; another expedient was made use of which had been lately successful, viz. private information of an intended conspiracy of the Irish, by means of an anonymous letter. But that there was in fact no such conspiracy, and that this letter was merely a state-trick, to ensnare the innocent, by forged accusations, we have as good proof, as can possibly be had of a negative, in the manifest absurdity and contradiction of the different accounts which have been left us of it.

*This was then thought to have been a contrivance of Secretary Cecil, whom Osburne calls "an adept in state tricks," and who, two years before, found the like expedient to have succeeded in the affair of the gunpowder treason. (See an essay towards a new history of that treason.) "Cecil," says Mr. Dodd," was an adept in framing fictitious plots, and has left instructions behind him to succeeding ministers, when and how to make use of them against catholics. The original of these instructions, in Cecil's own hand-writing, was formerly in the keeping of the infamous judge Bradshaw, by whom it was shewn to sir William Percival, who communicated it to a gentleman of great worth, who died anno 1697, and left it among other papers of remarks upon the times."-Ecclesiast. Hist. vol. iii. fol. 196.

The traditional account of this forged conspiracy is adopted and thus related by that learned English divine James Anderson, D. D. in his book, entitled Royal Genealogies, and dedicated to his royal highness the late prince of Wales, p. 786. &c. published anno 1736: “ Artful (secretary) Cecil employed one St. Lawrence to entrap the earls of Tirone and Tyrconnel, the lord of Delvin, and other Irish chiefs into a sham plot, which had no evidence but his. But those chiefs being basely informed, that witnesses were to be hired against them, foolishly fled from Dublin, and so taking guilt upon them, they were declared rebels, and six entire counties in Ulster were at once forfeited to the crown, which was what their enemies wanted."