BOOK II. 1697 and friars, must take themselves away before the following May; if they returned, or were found in Ireland after that time, they should be held guilty of high treason. The virus of Romanism lay in the religious orders, and in the presence of prelates able to continue the succession. Deprived of these elements it might be left to linger and die at last a natural death. A second act in the same direction, the first of a long series on the same subject, attempted to provide against intermarriages between Catholics and Protestants.2 Protestant heiresses had given themselves and their estates to Papists. Protestant gentlemen who married Popish wives, if not converted themselves, had allowed their children to be educated in their mother's faith. The Parliament considered that Almighty God was thus dishonoured, and the Protestant interest prejudiced. Thenceforward a Protestant woman having real property, and married to a Papist, was pronounced dead in law, and her estate was made to devolve on the Protestant next of kin. A Protestant man marrying without a certificate from a bishop or magistrate (and such a certificate was only to be given in case of his marriage with a person of his own faith) was held to have become in law himself a Papist, to lie under all the disabilities of his creed, to be unable to sit in Parliament, or hold any office, military or civil.3 19 William III. cap. 1. 2 Difficulties were raised ineffectually against this bill also in England. The draft of it was first sent over from Ireland in July. On the 12th the Lords Justices write to the Duke of Shrewsbury: Mr. Vernon having acquainted us that in the bill for preventing the intermarriages of Protestants we with Papists now lying before the I. Both these measures were unwillingly conceded by CHAP. William, who, had he been able, would have carried out in Ireland the principles of religious equality 1697 which had been adopted into the constitution of the United Provinces. Unfortunately for a good understanding between the two countries, where England was tolerant Ireland was severe. Where England was most jealous and susceptible, Ireland, impregnated with Jacobitism, was suspiciously lenient. The discovery of the Catholic plot for the murder of the King in 1695 had awakened in all classes of Protestant Englishmen a profound indignation. The Parliament, following the precedent of 1584, had passed a bill which, in the event of any such conspiracy succeeding, would defeat the object of it; and an association, originating in the House of Commons, had been signed almost universally throughout England and Scotland, those who enrolled their names binding themselves to stand by one another in defence of the King and English liberty liberty against the late King James and his adherents.' It was thought good to give Ireland the same opportunity of displaying its loyalty. A bill came over, identical, probably, with the act passed in England for the security of his majesty's person,' with a copy of the Association Bond, which the Irish Parliament was invited to ratify. Coincidently with the introduction of the bill, there was laid on the table of the House of Commons a letter, in the handwriting of an officer in James's army, found among Bishop Tyrrell's papers, described as containing a project for the extirpation of all the 17 & 8 William III. cap. 27. English Statutes. BOOK 1697 Protestants in Ireland.' The Commons, making no difficulty so far, passed a series of resolutions, to which they invited the Lords to agree. The Papists,' they said, 'ever since the Reformation, had endeavoured to subvert the Protestant religion by conspiracies, massacres, and rebellions. They retained the same purpose, and designed, if possible, to separate Ireland from the Imperial crown. Other laws, more stringent, were therefore absolutely required to assure the reformed religion and the connexion of the two realms. The Catholics must be excluded from voting at elections for members of Parliament; the oaths, which were the condition of holding office under the crown, must be exacted more regularly; and a law must be made, that it should be high treason to deny King William to be lawful sovereign.' The resolutions passed by acclamation. The bill sent from England and the Association Bond were passed also by a large majority, although dissentient voices were found to urge that it was unfair, in a country like Ireland, to exact generally an abjuration of the Papal power.3 In the house of Lords the general allegations of the evil intentions of the Catholics were not denied. It was admitted that, if they could, they would overthrow Protestantism, and that stricter laws were 1 'Resolutions of the House of Commons, November 19, 1697.' French. MSS. Ireland. Record Office. Cf. Commons' Journals, November 29. 2 Commons' Journals, Nov. 29, 36 of any foreign power in ecclesiastical or spiritual matters within the realm when required by the justices at their Quarter Sessions, and for that reason opposed the bill; but it passed by a majority of twenty-four, and has been carried to the House of Lords.'-' The Lords Justices to the Duke of Shrewsbury, November 24, 1697.' MSS. Dublin Castle. needed. Individually they subscribed the Association Bond. But a stand was made on the clause, which had been opposed unsuccessfully in the Commons. A motion was made in committee to strike it out; and finally, on a division, a bill, the rejection of which, under the peculiar circumstances, could not but be construed into an avowal of disloyalty, was altogether lost.1 To this unlucky vote is to be attributed the consent of England to the measures which immediately followed for the destruction of the Irish woollen manufactures. Ireland, it seemed, was determinately disloyal. Even the Protestant Peers were determined to throw a shield over the inveterate Jacobitism of the High Church men. The only resource, therefore, was to keep her weak and miserable. The deepest resentment was conceived, and was loudly expressed. A letter was addressed to a member of the English House of Commons, making no distinction of creed or race, involving the Irish altogether in a common censure, and expressing a hope that 'the House would make them remember that they were conquered.' 2 Another chance was allowed to the Irish Parliament to redeem their mistake. Unhappily they added to their offences. The Irish Council were directed to prepare a similar bill for the session of the next year. To soften the objections, some members proposed to exempt such Catholics from the oath as were included under the Articles of Limerick; and, when the heads were sent for revision to England, a clause was added to that 1Lords Justices to the Duke of Shrewsbury, November 29.' MSS. Dublin Castle. 2 Answer to a Letter from a effect. The Lords Gentleman in the Country to a CHAP. I. 1697 BOOK IL Justices admitted that if the reasons alleged were of weight, they applied not to the Article men only, but to every Catholic in Ireland: if any Catholic could conscientiously take the Abjuration Oath all might be required to take it; if not, 'it seemed reasonable,' the Lords Justices pleaded, 'that it should not be demanded of any.' They left the decision to England, intimating however at the same time their own belief, that the oath1 might be taken by every one who was resolved to be a faithful subject.2 The English Government was in no humour to consider the tenderness of Irish consciences. The Council struck off the proposed exceptions. They returned the bill in the form in which the Peers had rejected it-to be thrown out again, and this time by the House of Commons. Petitioners were heard in objection at the bar. After some hours' debate it was carried by a majority of ten, that the clause enjoining the oath and expressing the penalties should not be admitted.' The eager resolutions went for nothing, where words and deeds so ill corresponded; and, in the eyes of all loyal Protestant Englishmen, the unfortunate country had made a public declaration of Jacobitism.8 1 'I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other whatsoever; and I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.' By the English act any person might be required by a magistrate to take this oath, and, on refusing, was reduced to the condition of a Popish recusant. 6 2 The Lords Justices to the Duke of Shrewsbury, August 1698.' MSS. Dublin. 3 Ibid. October 15, 1698. Ibid. |