might be allayed by time. Natural duty and allegiance might return, if the revolutionary party were not committed in unpardonable excesses, that would make them dread retaliation from the loyalists, and shudder at the thought of a counter revolution. The perfidy and cruelty, experienced by Irish, Scotch and English Jacobites, so called, may, therefore, have proceeded more from the policy, and imperious influence of party, than from the natural disposition of their leader. One would be the more confirmed in this opinion, from an attentive survey of Irish history since the English invasion. The unexampled invariability of evil it exhibits, can scarcely be attributed to the individual characters of kings, during so long a succession of kings, and changes of dynasties, constitution and religion. For example, during half the time, the Roman empire, in changes of masters, experienced great diversity of character. 'Tis true, that vast portion of mankind were sometimes afflicted and disgraced by such monsters as Nero, Tiberius, Caligula; but, in recompense, they were consoled, adorned and protected, by the virtues and abilities of the Antonines, Marcus Aurelius, Nerva, Trajan, Titus, and a few others. As for Ireland, the chain of her sufferings was unbroken, uninterrupted by any treatment emanating from principles of humanity or sound policy. Their shocking calamities, on enquiry, will find their real source, in the national antipathy and hatred of the English people. This made it the policy of so long a catalogue of their rulers, to deal perfidiously and inhumanly with

the Irish. It was a ready mode of allaying public discontent, of screening public delinquency or inability. For all crimes of statesmen and factions, Ireland must be the scape-goat, chased and cursed with the whole load of their sins, into the wilderness of desolation, war and famine. "All the penal laws of that unparallelled code of oppression, which were made after the revolution, were manifestly the effects of national hatred and scorn towards a conquered people, whom the victors delighted to trample upon, and were not afraid to provoke.”*

This revolution, and its leader, made very different impressions in England and Ireland. William was thwarted, and often grossly offended, in the former country; who gained the dominion of the sea, and universal commerce, by the event, In the latter, stript by the revolution of manufactures and commerce, he was worshipped, by a party frantic with intolerance, false zeal, and party malevolence. Strange, that any being, pretending to rationality, should solemnize annually, with every demonstration of joy, the downfall and impoverishment of their country. 'Tis a striking proof, that logicians defined man wrong, when they called him a rational animal.

William was succeeded by Anne, princess of Denmark, daughter of James II. The sufferings of the catholics, under this last Stuart that wore the crown of England, were not diminished by their peaceable submission to all the inflictions

* Burke's Letter to Sir H. Langrishe.

of tyranny and perfidy. On the contrary, their quiet, humble demeanor seems to have provoked, rather than abated the rancour of their enemies. The duke of Ormond, in 1703, acquainted the parliament, that her majesty expected a revenue equal to the expences of government, and provision for paying the debt of the nation; that his views were the same as theirs, the promoting of her majesty's service, and the welfare of his native country. This welfare he and they endeavoured to promote, by the utter ruin of the majority of the inhabitants. It was a persecution as wanton as violent, over a fallen, oppressed people, without the least plea of state necessity, or public insecurity. It was the wanton abuse of triumphant, irresistible power, to crush and destroy, without shame, fear or remorse. The commons, in a body, presented to the duke of Ormond a bill to prevent the further growth of popery; pressing him to intercede so effectually, that it might be returned under the great seal of England. He promised, and punctually performed, that he would recommend it in the most effectual manner; and do every thing in his power to prevent the growth of popery.

That many of the members of this parliament were ashamed of the violent persecution carried on by public authority, appears from the numerous resignations of seats to avoid being concerned therein. These resignations became so frequent, that the commons resolved," that the excusing of members, at their own request, from the service of the house, and thereupon issuing

out new writs to elect other members to serve in their places, was of dangerous consequence, and tended to the subversion of the constitution of parliament." But the resignations continuing, it was afterwards unanimously resolved, “ that it might be the standing order of the house, that no new writs for electing members of parliament, in the place of members excusing themselves from the service of the house, do issue, at the desire of such members, notwithstanding any former precedents to the contrary."

The bill was returned with a clause inserted in England, which gave great offence to the whole body of dissenters in Ireland; many of whom, then in the house of commons, were persons of considerable power and influence. For this reason it was expected, that it would have been totally laid aside; and the rather, because the dissenters had lately received no small disgust by a resolution of a committee in October 1703, "that the pension of one thousand two hundred pounds per annum, granted to the presbyterian ministers in Ulster, was an unnecessary branch of the establishment."

The dissenters, in their petition to the commons on occasion of the abovementioned clause, complained, "that to their great surprize and disappointment, they found a clause inserted in the act to prevent the further growth of popery, which had not its rise in that honourable house; whereby they were disabled from executing any public trust, for the service of her majesty, the protestant religion, or their country; unless,

contrary to their consciences, they should receive the Lord's supper, according to the rites and usages of the established church.”

This clause has been since called the sacramental test, then first imposed on the dissenters of Ireland; whose zeal against popery was so credulously blind at that juncture, that upon a promise given them of having it repealed on the first opportunity, they readily concurred in passing, together with the clauses against popery, that mortifying one against themselves. But their friends in parliament afterwards wanting either the power or the inclination to make good their promise, that clause was not only left unrepealed, but also put in frequent and strict execution, during all queen Anne's reign. In October 1707, these commons entered into such severe resolutions against dissenters, as plainly shewed how little confidence their brethren ought to have placed in the promise they made them in 1703. For first, they resolved, that, by an act to prevent the further growth of popery, the burgesses of Belfast were obliged to subscribe the declaration, and receive the sacrament according to the usage of the church of Ireland. And secondly, upon the non-compliance of some of these burgesses, that the burgessship of the said burgesses of Belfast, who had not subscribed the declaration, and received the sacrament, pursuant to the said act, was, by such neglect, become vacant. In short, notwithstanding the most strenuous and repeated efforts made by the dissenters, to have that disqualifying clause repealed,