The battle seemed to be won, when Conolly, the Presbyterians' especial supporter, was elected speaker by a large majority. The speech from the throne recommended such unanimity as might end all distinctions, save those between Protestant and Papist.' The Commons, after a passionate censure of the late Tory Ministry, charging it with having brought the Protestant interest to the edge of destruction, took into consideration the heads of a bill for the security of the King's government, in which, among other provisions, was a clause indemnifying the Presbyterians who had accepted commissions, and declaring that, for the future, Nonconformists might hold rank in the army and militia without danger of prosecution. A measure of relief so small and tentative, so obviously politic and just, was not carried without violent opposition. It was carried, however, and was sent to the Upper House. At once the animosities which had broken up the last Parliament revived in all their fury. The Bishops and clergy had been unable to prevent the establishment on the throne of the House of Hanover, the symbol of the principles which they most feared and hated; and disappointment made them furious. So violent were the clergy, that few of them could be found to mention the names of the King and the Royal family in their prayers before their sermons.2 The Peers and Commons formed themselves into a loyal association for the protection of the King's person. The Bishops could not refuse to participate 1 Commons' Journals, November 14, 1715. 2 'Most of the clergy neglect to mention his majesty and their CHAP. III. 1715 BOOK II. 1715 without confessing themselves traitors; but the Primate, after a three days' struggle, when everyone but himself had signed, at length attached his name with an ill grace on the margin of the page, from which it could be cut off when the Pretender came to his own.1 1 To men in such a humour the Dissenters Relief Bill was as oil on the fire. Perceiving that the clause would be carried in the Lower House, the Archbishop of Dublin anticipated its appearance by introducing the heads of a second Indemnity Bill of his own, holding the Dissenters harmless for what they had already done, but maintaining their disabilities for the future as rigidly as ever. Everyone of the Bishops supporting him, he carried his point, and, instead of considering the heads which came from the Commons, the Lords sent in the Archbishop's bill by the side of the other, for the Council to digest them into one, and transmit it to England. In the Council the question was rediscussed, and the Duke of Grafton laboured hard to bring about a compromise. The Bishops condescended to admit that they did not wish the Dissenters to be prosecuted for having taken arms when called on by the Government to defend the country. They agreed at last that commissions in the militia should be opened to them then and always; but the regular army, in Royal Highnesses in the prayers 1 The Primate signed at the might be cut off in time convenient. He did it, but with a very ill grace, two or three days after everybody else.'-'Delafaye to Stanhope, January 24, 1716.' MSS. Record Office. The bond with Lindsay's name attached, as Delafaye describes, is in the Record Office. III. the fear that admission to military service would be CHAP. a prelude to future demands, they were determined to keep for ever closed against them.' A proposal by one of the Council, that Nonconformists should hold commissions in the army during the continuance of the rebellion, was carried only in a full board by a majority of one. Unless the Church was disestablished, or unless the Archbishop of Canterbury could be persuaded to interfere, the Duke of Grafton was obliged to tell Lord Stanhope that no measure of relief, which was not a mockery, could be carried through the Upper House as at present constituted. As qualified by the Council the bill might pass. If returned in the shape in which it left the Commons, it would be infallibly rejected.2 The resolute obstinacy, three parts disloyal and one part bigotted, of the Irish hierarchy explains the subsequent practice, which has been made a subject of such bitter reproach by Irish patriotic writers, of 1 Swift frankly explains the reason: 'However indifferent men may be to religion,' he says, 'they know if latitude was allowed to Dissenters, the few such employments left us in cities and corporations would find other hands lay hold on them.'-'Address to both Houses of Parliament by the Drapier.' Works, vol. vii. 2 'The House of Lords, to render the good intentions of the House of Commons ineffectual, have passed another bill with the same title and to the same purpose, but without the above clause. Both are now before the Council to frame one bill out of the two. We hope the clause may be carried; but it is more than 1715 BOOK 1716 filling so many vacancies on the bench by English- A way out of the difficulty was suggested, which shows in its very structure how proof against the plainest monitions of prudence and justice was Irish High Church prejudice. 1 A remarkable letter was written at this time by some Irishman of consequence to Lord Molesworth, and by Molesworth forwarded, without the writer's name, to Stanhope. The Archbishop of Tuam is like to die. You know this country, and our unfortunate condition in relation to gentlemen of that rank. There is not one that can justly be called a Whig, not among those that were made since the King's accession. Yet several were as hearty Whigs as you and I before they were made Bishops. I mean they seemed so. It would be very good if we had three or four eminent staunch Bishops that would not be shocked, and would stand in the gap against the majority. This would bring the clergy round. One clause in the Security Bill they are fighting against would give liberty to at least a hundred thousand able-bodied entirely well-affected men. These are they that bravely kept footing in Ireland when other Protestants fled the kingdom-that fought naked for King William, our liberties, our religion, and all that was dear to us. We cannot expect them to fight our battles if we do not let them rise above common soldiers. We are now raising thirteen regiments here, and I dare aver it, unless four parts in six be dissenting common soldiers, the most won't be Protestants. . . . I am rather of opinion, therefore, that Bishops should be sent from England. I used to wish only Irish to be chosen; but, after being disappointed so often, it seems hopeless to expect that the most promising Irishman will remain Whig.'-MSS. Ireland. Record Office, March 27, 1716. เ III. 1716 'There must be no law,' wrote Henry Maxwell, CHAP. a distinguished member of the Irish Parliament, to Lord Molesworth, to hinder the Protestants of this country to unite against one common enemy. The body of our Dissenters consists of the middle and meaner sort of people, chiefly in the North. Not many of them are estated men compared with those of the Established Church; so that, when these disabilities are taken off, want of fortune and interest will always hinder them from coming into the militia in dangerous numbers. Pass that part of the law, and you will do nothing but good. As to the army, it would be highly to the prejudice of the King and his service if that clause should pass. The number of Dissenters in our House does not exceed, if it reaches, to the number of six. In the late Parliament they came to but four. They can never have an interest to reach to ten, and they are of little weight when they are there, for their education is generally narrow. In the House of Lords there is not one Dissenter of weight; so that if the clause come over, it will divide and break the King's best friends in our House, and will give the King's enemies, which is the only thing they want, a handle of clamour; it will widen and perpetuate our divisions, which, if that law do not pass in your Council, are in a fair way of being healed. Reject it, and it will be a handsome compliment to the Church, and things will go easily in both Houses."1 Consistently anxious to remove entirely these pernicious disabilities, Stanhope and Sunderland declined to act on Maxwell's suggestions. The 1 H. Maxwell to Lord Molesworth, April 9, 1716.' MSS. Ireland. Record Office. |