CHAP. XVII. The established clergy of Ireland laboured under a particular difficulty on this occasion. AFTER king James's abdication, the parliament of England abolished the declaration, viz.'" that it was not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the king. But this, by some neglect, was still left upon the Irish protestant clergy, under the penalty of forfeiting their livings, and as many of them as came into livings, after the revolution (among whom Dr. King was one), read the said declaration publicly in time of divine service, and were to continue so to do until some parliament took it away. Notwithstanding which, they preached against it, disputed against it, and instructed their congregations against it. And yet, to save their livings, they continued still to subscribe this hated declaration before their ordinaries; and took certificates under their hands and seals, that they had subscribed it; and openly and publicly read the same, on the Lord's day, in their parish-churches, in the presence of the congregation there assembled. They read it in the desk, and preached against it in the pulpit; and when they came out of the church, railed at the parliament that imposed it, and wondered and cursed their hard fate, that this declaration was not taken out of their way in Ireland as it was in England, and wished it was done. In the mean time they would lose nothing by it, they could swallow." Nor was their embarrassment much less, upon taking the new oaths that were afterwards framed. "There never was, proceeds Mr. Lesley, so sudden, so shameful a turn of men professing religion; and their manner of doing it so impolitic as to make it evident, that they took the oaths, at least, with a doubting* and scrupulous conscience. For they did not take * The Irish Roman catholics, "made no scruple to take the oath of allegiance to king William and queen Mary, which was agreed to in the articles of Limerick; and it was generally taken by them all over the kingdom, by the direction of their clergy." Lesley's Answ. p. 125.—“The English Roman catholics, in their chapels at London, prayed publicly at the same time, for king William and queen Mary.”—Lesley, ib. p. 126, them freely, but haggled, and kept off, some to the last day, roaring against them all the while; and then coming about, all at once, with new-coined distinctions and declarations, pointblank contrary to the declared sense of the imposers; they dif fered among themselves; every one had a salvo for his own conscience; some pretended they kept passive obedience still, others that they were never for it. It was a severe jest that the common people had got up against the clergy, that there was but one thing formerly that the parliament could not do, that is, to make a man a woman; but that then, there was another, that is, to make an oath the clergy would not take,"* CHAP. XVIII. The good faith of king William's and king James's officers compared. DR. KING was not ashamed to affirm," that among all the articles into which king James's officers entered, they never kept any to the protestants." Yet these protestants themselves spoke, at the same time, with commendation and honor, of Sarsfield's punctual observation of his articles, when he took Sligo, to omit other instances. General Ginckle owned to major-general Dorington, in the presence of the prince of Wirtemberg, monsieur marquis de la Forest, and several other general officers, the good usage their prisoners had received. at Limerick, and other Irish garrisons; and most of the protestants that belonged to the north of Ireland, did then confess, that the Irish, while among them in the summer of 1689, kept their protections better to the protestants, than the protestant kept theirs to them. Even some of the most zealous sticklers 1 State of the Protest. &c. p. 149, 2 Lesley ubi supra. In the Commons Journal, anò. 1695, I find the following passage: "Mr. Weaver farther reported, that it is the opinion of this committee that to an act in England of the 31st of Charles II. an act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, there shall be added the following proviso, viz. provided that no person or persons shall have the benefit of this act, unless he or they take the oaths, and subscribe the declaration made in Fngland for this kingdom, intitled an act for abrogating the oath of supremacy in Ireland, and appointing other oaths, &c. The question being put that this house do agree with the committee in this resolution, it passed in the negative."-V ́ol. ii. f. 668. for king William's government have complained much, that the articles entered into with the Irish at Carrickfergus, by marshal Schomberg, were not punctually observed, For when that general first landed, he issued proclamations of protection and encouragement to the Irish, who would return to their habitations, and follow their labour; which many accepted, and a great part of the country was thereby planted, some places in as full a manner as before the revolution; but notwithstanding these protections, the protestant army fell upon them, and wasted their whole country; and when the Irish held out their protections, they tore them, and bid them wipe their a--e with them, and none were punished for this breach of protections." Notwithstanding general Ginckle's proclamation,+ printed at Dublin, February 4th, 1690, wherein he assured the papists in their majesties names, "that all of them, who would submit to their majesties government, should be protected as to their religion, estates, and liberties; yet that did not hinder the multitude of outlawries, and other forfeitures and proceedings against those papists,† who submitted to the government 4 Lesley's Answ. "Schomberg," says Macpherson, "invested Carrickfergus ; he sum, moned the garrison in vain; he opened four batteries against the place; he attacked it with the guns of the fleet; one thousand bombs were thrown into the town; the houses were laid in ashes. The garrison, having expended their powder to the last barrel, marched out, on the ninth day, with all the honors of war. But the soldiers broke the capitulation; they disarmed and stripped the inhabitants, without any regard to sex or quality; even women stark naked were whipt publicly between the lines."Hist. of Gt. Brit. vol. i. p. 570. The journal of the most remarkable transactions in this war, published at that juncture of time, thus relates this breach of articles at Carrickfergus, with respect to the inhabitants: "The Irish in that town, when reduced to one barrel of powder only, made soldier-like terms; marching out with their arms, colours flying, ball in mouth, and other usual ceremonies in war; to be attended by a convoy, until they were within three miles of Newry. Yet the articles, though signed by Schomberg himself, were nevertheless barbarously violated by the soldiers; who, without regard to age, or sex, or quality, disarmed and stripped the town's Reople, forcing even women to run the gauntlet stark naked." "By the report laid before the English house of commons, by Mr. Annesley, in 1700, it appeared that three thousand nine hundred and on that assurance.* As to their religion," adds Mr. Lesley, "they did not complain, for king William was very gracious to them in that respect; but as to their persons, estates and liberties, they cried out heavily of breach of public faith, and great oppression." Mr. Lesley had before attempted to prove that these forfeiting Irish were not guilty of rebellion," how could they," 5 Id. ib. twenty-one persons had been outlawed by king William since the 13th of February, 1689 [the report made by the commissioners says, 13th Feb. 1688]; that all the lands belonging to forfeited persons, amounted to more than one million and sixty thousand acres ; that the most considerable grants were made to persons born in foreign countries, to Kepple, to Bentick, to Ginckle, and to Rouvigny: who had been all dignified with peerages, in one or other of the two kingdoms. That besides, a grant had passed the great seal, to Elizabeth Villiers, now countess of Orkney, a woman peculiarly favored by William, of all the private estates of the late king James, containing ninety-five thousand acres, worth twenty-five thousand nine hundred and ninety-five pounds a year: And that, upon the whole, the value of Irish forfeitures amounted to three millions, three hundred and nineteen thousand, nine hundred and forty-three pounds."— Macphers. Hist. of Gt. Brit. vol. ii. p. 161-2. There were not three thousand protestants named in the act of attainder, passed by king James in Ireland, 1689; and they were all quickly restored by king William: whereas the Roman catholics attainted by king William, lost all for ever, notwithstanding they were to be reinstated by the articles of Limerick.-See King's State of the Protest. p. 133. The above 1,060,792 acres, were worth per ann. 2,11,6231. 6s. 3d. total value 2,685,130l. 5s. 9d. (besides the several denominations in the said counties, to which no number of acres can be added, by reason of the imperfection of the surveys); " which we humbly represent to your honors, as the gross value of the lands forfeited in Ireland, since Feb. 13th, 1688."Rep. Commissioners ubi supra. The impatience of William's English adherents only served to confirm the Irish in their aversion to the new government. And by a shameful disregard, and almost perpetual violation of his protections, granted to the peasantry, they forced this order also to crowd to their old leaders, and to take arms for their security."-Lel. Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 574. The Irish "saw their religion on the point of being utterly extinguished, and their remains of property ready to be seized by strangers; no security in submission, no reliances on any promises of pardon." Lel. ubi supra, · p. 576.—At Chapel-Izod," William was employed in receiving petitions and redressing grievances, arising from the perpetual violations of his protections.”—Id. ib. says he, "who adhered to king James, be made rebels to king William, before they had submitted to him? If you say he had a title to Ireland, by being king of England, because Ireland is an appendix to the crown of England; I answer, from the beginning it was not so; and the government of England being dissolved, as Dr. King says, by abdication, and returned back to the supposed original contract, or first right of mankind, to erect government for their own convenience, of consequence the tye which England had upon Ireland was dissolved, and Ireland left, as well as England, in its supposed original freedom, to choose what government and governors they pleased; besides all this, Dr. King's principles freed them from king William; because of the presumptions they had to think, that the king intended to invade their property, lives, and religion." "The desertion (says Mr. Macpherson' on this occasion) upon which the deprivation of James has been founded in England, had not existed in Ireland. The lord lieutenant had retained his allegiance. The government was uniformly continued under the name of the prince, from whom the servants of the crown had derived their commissions. James himself had, for more than seventeen months, exercised the royal function in Ireland; he was certainly de facto, if not de jure, king. The rebellion of the Irish must therefore be founded on the supposition, that their allegiance is transferable by the parliament of England. A speculative opinion can scarce justify the punishment of a great majority of the people. The Irish ought to have been considered as enemies, rather than rebels." "The kingdom of Ireland," says the same author7 (Macpherson)," ever since its reduction in 1691, exhibited one continued scene of oppression, injustice, and public misery. The government of James, with all its disadvantages, his own bigotry, the insolence of the papists, combined with the fears of the protestants, were all more tolerable than the administration of William, ever since the surrender of Limerick. Coningsby and Porter, the lords justices, rendered themselves 6 Hist. Gr. Brit. vol. i. p. 622. 7 Id. vol. ii. p. 26. • An order of the lords justices Porter and Coningsby, to Samuel Booth, esq. high sheriff of the county of Kilkenny, dated 19th November, 1691, |