This

that 1,060,792 acres were forfeited to the crown. was the last fragment of the patrimony of the faithful Catholic inhabitants. When King William died, there did not remain to the class which, a century before, owned three fourths of the Irish soil, above "one sixth part" of what their grandfathers held in fee.*

The penal code of Elizabeth and the Stuarts was revived, and new and worse disabilities enacted in addition. By the 7th of William III. cap. 4, no Papist could keep a school, or teach in private families, except the children of the family; no Papist could bear arms, contrary to the express terms of art. vii. of the treaty; by the same statute, to send a child beyond seas was a felony, the case to be tried by a justice, not by a jury, and the burden of proof to fall on the accused. By the 9th William III. cap. 3, mixed marriages were forbidden, and, if either parent were a Protestant, "the children could be taken from the other to be reared in that faith." No Papist could be a legal guardian - the court of chancery to appoint one, and educate the ward a Protestant. By the same statute, rewards were fixed for informers against the violators of those laws, the amount to "be levied on the Papist inhabitants of the county." Such was the way in which King William, of pious and immortal memory, perjured his own soul, and avenged himself on a gallant, defeated enemy.†

The condition of the Irish church at William's death

*Bedford's Compendious and Impartial View of the Laws affecting Roman Catholics. London, 1829, p. 15.

In defence of the intentions of William, it has been stated that he persecuted less from zeal or temper than to propitiate the native bigotry of his new kingdom. At one time he had a proclamation prepared, and even printed, guarantying the Irish Catholics "the free exercise of their religion, half the church establishment, and the moiety of their ancient properties." This document, called "the secret proclamation," was "suppressed on the first intelligence of the treaty of Limerick."Moore's Captain Rock, p. 118, where John Dryden is quoted, as a contemporary witness, that William "was most unwilling to persecute," but was driven to do so by the ultra Protestants, headed by Dr. Tennison, Archbishop of Canterbury. His resistance to the bigots does not seem to have been very vigorous or protracted, and we see no good reason to relieve his memory of the odium that must attach to it on account of Ireland.

was truly lamentable. In 1688 and 1689, it had received a great accession of pastors and religious from abroad. In Dublin, Limerick, and other cities, monasteries had been restored, and churches reëdified. When the military emigration took place, a few of the clergy accompanied it; but the rest remained, trusting to the treaty for protection. Between 1696 and 1699, four hundred and ninety-five secular and four hundred and twentyfour regular clergymen were banished the kingdom, and even the poor nuns had to fly. At Ypres, Lisbon, and Antwerp, they gathered themselves again into community, adding the sorrow of exile to the other mortifications of their lives. Two or three hundred of the clergy only remained, and they were hidden in "holes and corners." The majorities of the sees were administered by vicars, and remained for years without bishops.

But not alone did ecclesiastics feel the practical effects of the violation of the treaty. There was still enough of property left among the Catholics to repay the labors of the new commissioners. "From the report made by the commissioners appointed by the Parliament of England in 1698," says Lord Clare, it appears that the Irish subjects outlawed for the rebellion of 1688 amounted to 3978; and that their Irish possessions, as far as could be computed, were of the annual value of £211,623, comprising one million sixty thousand seven hundred and ninety-two acres. This fund was sold under the authority of an English act of Parliament, to defray the expenses incurred by England in reducing the rebels in 1688; and the sale introduced into Ireland a new set of adventurers.” * These new adventurers were chiefly German Protestants, whose descendants in Munster are known as "Palatines" until this day.

We need not wonder that among the few Catholics of property mentioned in the next two reigns, scarce any (if we except Sir Toby Butler) ventured to protest against the last acts of this national perfidy.

* Lord Chancellor Clare's speech on the Union. Dublin, (pamphlet,)

CHAPTER IV.

QUEEN ANNE'S REIGN.- "ACT TO DISCOURAGE THE GROWTH OF POPERY." SIR TOBY BUTLER HEARD AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. - HIS CHARACTER. 1 IMMENSE EMIGRATION. PRIEST HUNTING. - PRIMATE MCMAHON.

QUEEN ANNE Succeeded William in 1702. In the next year, according to the law of Poynings, "the heads of bills" were prepared by the Irish Parliament, to be sent over to England. Among those was the infamous "act to prevent the further growth of Popery," which provided that the eldest son of a Catholic, on becoming an apostate, might turn his father's estate into a tenantry for life, and take the fee simple and rental to himself. By the same statute, if a Catholic inherited property, he should conform within six months from the date the title accrued, or the estate be forfeited to the next "Protestant heir." By statute of the same year, (2 Anne, cap. 3, sec. 7,) if an unregistered priest was detected, a heavy fine was to be levied on the county in which he was found, and the proceeds paid over to the informer. or detective. Against this bill, when first proposed at Dublin, the few remaining Catholics of influence, head.ed by Viscount Kingsland, Colonels Brown, Burke, and Nugent, Major Pat, Allen, and Arthur French, petitioned. The Parliament proceeded, and the bill was returned from London with the approval of the queen and her council. The Catholics, advised by Sir Toby Butler, who, with a few others, had been tolerated in the profession of law through family interest, renewed their opposition to it.

On the 22d of February, 1703, Sir Toby, with whom were Sir Stephen Rice and Counsellor Malone, appeared at the bar of the Irish House of Commons, against the bill "to prevent the further growth of Popery." The abstract of his speech on that occasion is one of the most remarkable documents of the age. It is full of interest and information. We copy from it at length:

"Sir Theobald Butler first moved and acquainted the "house, that, by the permission of that house, he was 66 come thither in behalf of himself, and the rest of the "Roman Catholics of Ireland comprised in the articles "of Limerick and Galway, to offer some reasons, which "he and the rest of the petitioners judged very material, ' against passing the bill, entitled An act to prevent the "further growth of Popery; that, by leave of the house, “he had taken a copy of the said bill, (which he had "there in his hand,) and, with submission, looked upon "it to tend to the destroying of the said articles, granted 66 upon the most valuable considerations of surrendering "the said garrisons, at a time when they had the sword "in their hands; and, for any thing that appeared to the "contrary, might have been in a condition to hold out "much longer, and when it was in their power to de"mand, and make for themselves, such terms as might "be for their then future liberty, safety, and security; "and that, too, when the allowing such terms were "highly advantageous to the government to which they "submitted; as well for uniting the people that were "then divided, quieting and settling the distractions and "disorders of this then miserable kingdom, as for the "other advantages the government would thereby reap “in its own affairs, both at home and abroad; when its "enemies were so powerful, both by sea and land, as to "give doubt of interruption to its peace and settle"ment.'

"That, by such their power, those of Limerick did, "for themselves, and others comprised, obtain and "make such articles, as by which all the Irish inhabit"ants in the city and county of Limerick, and in the "counties of Clare, Kerry, Cork, Sligo, and Mayo, had "full and free pardon of and for all attainders, outlaw"ries, treasons, misprision of treasons, felonies, tres66 passes, and other crimes whatever, which at any time "from the beginning of King James II, to the 3d of "October, 1691, had been acted, committed, or done "by them, or any of them; and by which they and "their heirs were to be forthwith put in possession of,

"and forever possess and enjoy, all and every of their "freeholds and inheritance; and all their rights, titles, "and interests, privileges and immunities, which they " and every of them held and enjoyed, and by the laws "in force were entitled unto, in the reign of King “Charles II., or at any time since, by the laws and "statutes that were in force in that reign, &c.; and "thereupon read so much of the second article of Lim"erick, as tended to that purpose.

"That, in the reign of King Charles II., the petitioners, " and all that were entitled to the benefit of those articles, were in such full and free possession of their estates, "and had the same power to sell, or otherwise to dispose, or convey them, or any other thing they enjoyed; "and were as rightfully entitled to all the privileges, im"munities, and other advantages whatever, according "to the laws then in force, as any other subjects what"soever, and which, therefore, without the highest in"justice, could not be taken from them, unless they had "forfeited them themselves.

"That if they had made any such forfeiture, it was "either before or after the making of the said articles : "if before, they had a full and free pardon for that "by the said articles, &c., and, therefore, are not ac"countable by any law now in force for the same, and “for that reason not now to be charged with it; and "since they cannot be charged with any general forfeiture of those articles since, they at the same time re"mained as absolutely entitled to all the privileges, ad"vantages, and benefits of the laws, both already made " and hereafter to be made, as any other of her majesty's "subjects whatsoever.

66

"That among all societies there were some ill peo"ple; but that, by the 10th article of Limerick, the whole "community is not to be charged with, nor forfeit by, the "crimes of particular persons.

"That there were already wholesome laws in force "sufficient, and if not, such as were wanting might be "made, to punish every offender according to the nature "of the crime and in the name of God let the guilty