1. Freedom in the exercise of their religion. 2. Security of person.

3. Security of property. And

4. A fair representation in Parliament.

If the Irish enjoyed these solid advantages, when the insurrection commenced, then they deserved all the horrors inflicted on them, in the varied shapes of confiscation, proscription, pestilence, famine, and indiscriminate slaughter: and the writers whom I have quoted are justified completely in their assertions. But if they were, as I hope to prove, persecuted for the exercise of their religion, insecure in their persons, despoiled of their property, and mocked with a corrupt, packed, prostitute parliament; then are the statements of this host of authorities destitute of credibility: and they will in this instance, as in so many others, stand convicted of carelessness, credulity, or imposture. Their assertions, though propped up by the imposing titles of their noble and reverend authors, will, or, were they supported by the whole house of peers, including the bench of bishops, would, have no weight with men of independent minds, among whom, it is hoped, this work will find many readers.

I shall examine these items separately; and commence with a view of the state of religious freedom in Ireland.

I undertake to prove,

I. That the law imposing penalties on persons refusing to take the oath of supremacy, or not

attending service in a Protestant church on Sundays, was rigorously enforced.

II. That juries, who would not find bills of indictment against Roman Catholics for this nonattendance, were brought before the Star-Chamber for the offence, as it was termed, and subjected to the injustice and severity of that odious tribunal.

III. That the heirs of Roman Catholics were torn from the protection of their natural guardians, and delivered to strangers, frequently worthless and profligate, who neglected their education, suffered them to grow up in abandoned and dissolute habits, and depredated on their property.

IV. That the Roman Catholics suffered a number of most grievous and oppressive disqualifications, in consequence of their adherence to their religion.

V. That the Roman Catholic clergy were banished the kingdom by proclamation.

VI. That, in the exercise of their religious worship, they were assailed by a band of soldiers, by order of the lord deputy, their altars sacrilegiously destroyed, and their church property feloniously purloined.

VII. That their chapels were rapaciously seized by the government, and one of them razed to the ground, in the city of Dublin, as a punishment for their attendance on public worship.

POINTS I. & II.

To prove these points, I refer first to Leland, who states, that "when bills of indictment were presented against recusants, and were not found by the grand juries, those grand juries were cited to appear in the Star-Chamber, and punished."*

The good doctor informs us, with great gravity, and an appearance of astonishment, that this severity "only increased the clamour." It is truly wonderful, and displays, beyond all question, the very refractory temper of the Irish, that they should have "clamoured" against such a mild exercise of the prerogative, as punishing grand juries, with the ordinary clemency of the StarChamber Court,^ for the heinous offence of not finding bills of indictment against persons refusing to take the oath of supremacy, or attending on a species of worship contrary to their consciences!

The doctor further informs us, that the deputy, Oliver St. John, being actuated by peculiar zeal against Popery, or perhaps provoked by the insolence of the recusant party, "proceeded to a

* "The rich, when PRESENTED AS RECUSANTS, enjoyed too much of favour from their countrymen, for any jury to find a verdict against them; and when jurors who found verdicts, in direct opposition to the clearest evidence, were called to the star-chamber, (or castle-chamber, as it is sometimes called) the severity only served to increase the clamour."123

123 Leland, II. 516.

vigorous execution of the penal statutes against them."*

We are left to conjecture what was the species of insolence that thus led this amiable first magistrate to the "vigorous execution" of these mild statutes.

It was, perhaps, that they had the audacity to celebrate divine worship openly, or were guilty of some other crime, equally atrocious. But it is unimportant to our present purpose to inquire into the cause. All I desire to establish, is, that these penal statutes were "vigorously executed," in order to disprove the allegation that the Roman Catholics had for forty years "the undisturbed exercise of their religion," or even "fully enjoyed the private exercise of it." But I do not, although I might, rely wholly on Leland. To support the reverend divine, I appeal to Carte, who informs us that Oliver St. John " caused presentments to be made, in different parts of the kingdom, of such as neglected coming to church on Sundays."124 It is not difficult to calculate what a harvest of penalties was reaped by pettifogging magistrates, and by the pimps, spies, and detestable race of informers, from these "present

"Whether provoked by the insolence of the recusant party, or that his nature and principles disposed him to treat them with less lenity than they had for some time experienced, HE

SOON PROCEEDED TO A VIGOROUS EXECUTION OF THE PENAL 7125

STATUTES.

124 Carte, I. 34.

125 Leland, II. 540.

ments in different parts of the kingdom," or what scenes of depredation were perpetrated on those Catholics, of whom Clarendon and Warner have been misguided enough to state, that "no man could say he had suffered prejudice or disturbance on account of his religion !!!”

Chichester's administration commenced with an extreme degree of severity. He had received orders from James I. to put the laws in force against recusants, with which he cheerfully complied.* "Gentle means failing to have any effect, sixteen of the most eminent of the city

"In the beginning of king James's reign, the penal laws were put in execution against recusants, and indictments exhibited AGAINST THEM FOR NOT COMING TO CHURCH. 19126

"The chief governor and council were determined to revive those statutes which were insulted with such confidence." [That is, in plain English, the miserable worm, man, was insulted by his fellow-worm worshipping the living God differently from the mode prescribed by law!] "They began by enjoining the magistrates and chief citizens to repair to the established churches. Repeated admonitions and conferences served but to render them more obstinate; THEY WERE FINED, AND COMMITTED TO PRISON."127

Magistrates and officers of justice were strictly required to take the oath of supremacy: and as the city of Waterford had obstinately chosen a succession of recusants for their chief magistrates, who all in turn refused to take this oath, and in other particulars discovered an aversion to conformity; a commission issued, TO SEIZE THE LIBERTIES AND REVENUES of a city which had formerly and frequently been obnoxious to the state."128

125 Carte, I. 140. 127 Leland, II. 495. 128 Idem, 540.