Ireland, and persons comprized in the articles of Limerick and Galway, petitioned to be heard by counsel against it; which was granted."

This returned bill had 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 1703,8" 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 above-mentioned clause, complained, "that, to their great surprise and disappointment, they found a dause inserted in the act to prevent the further growth of popery, which had not its rise in that honorable 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 rights 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whose zeal against popery was so credulously blind at that juncture, that upon a promise given them of having it repealed on the first opportu

8 Id. vol. ii. f. 76.

9 Presbyterian Loyally, sub finem.

"A clause was added (in England), which they (Roman catholics) hoped would hinder its being accepted in Ireland. That matter was carried on so secretly, that it was known to none but those who were at the couneil, till the news of it came from Ireland, upon its being sent thither. The clause was to this purpose, that none in Ireland should be capable of any employment, or of being in the magistracy of any city, who did not qualify themselves by receiving the sacrament, according to the test-act passed in England; which before this time had never been offered to the Irish nation. It was hoped, by those who got this clause added to the bill, that those in Ireland, who promoted it most, would now be the less fond of it, when it had such a weight hung to it."-Burnet's Hist. of his own Times,, vol. ii. f. 214.

nity, 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 sacramént, pursuant to the said act, was, by such neglect, become vacant.”“ In `short, notwithstanding the most strenuous and repeated efforts ever since made by the dissenters, to have that disqualifying clause repealed, it still remains in full force against them;* although its execution has been either artfully evaded, or be nignly connived at, since the accession of the present royal fa mily to the throne of these kingdoms.

CHAP. V.

The same subject continued.

ON the 23d of February, 1703, pursuant to leave given by the commons,' sir Theobald Butler, counsellor Malone, and sir Stephen Rice (the two former in their gowns, as counsel for the petitioners in general, and the last without a gown, as only a petitioner in his private capacity), at the bar of the house of commons. Sir Theobald Butler, the first and principal speaker on this occasion, demonstrated in a long and pathetic

1 Account of the Debates on the Popery Law of 2d queen Ann. This clause was repealed without any opposition in the sessions of 1782.

speech,* that almost every clause in the act then before them, relating to the Roman catholics of Ireland, was a direct infringement of one or other of the articles of Limerick which he, at the same time, held in his hand. 66 Articles," added he, solemnly engaged to them, as the public faith of the nation! That all the Irish, then in arms against the government; had submitted thereunto, and surrendered the city of Limerick, and all the other garrisons in their possession; when they were in a condition to have held out, till they might have been relieved by the succours then coming out of France; that they had taken such oaths to the king and queen, as by the said articles they were obliged to take; that their submission was upon such terms, as ought to be then, and at all times, made good to them; and that therefore to break those articles, would be the greatest injustice for any one people in the whole world to inflict upon another, being contrary to the laws of both God and man. That the case of the Gibeonites, 2 Sam. xxi. I. was a fearful example of the breach of public faith, which, above an hundred years after, brought nothing less than a three years famine on the land; and stayed not until the lives of all Saul's family atoned for it. That even among the Heathens, and most barbarous of nations, all the world over, the public faith was always held sacred and binding, and that surely it would find no less regard in that honorable assembly."

The same and other arguments, against the passing of this bill, were suffered to be pleaded at the bar of the house of lords; but were equally disregarded by both houses. The petitioners were told,3" that if they were to be deprived of the benefit of the articles of Limerick, it would be their own faults, since by conforming to the established religion, they would be entitled to these and many other benefits; that therefore they ought not to blame any but themselves; that the passing of that bill into a law was needful for the security of the kingdom at that juncture; and in short, that there was nothing in the articles of Limerick, that should hinder them to pass it."

This answer of the commons needs no commentary; the former part of it evidently exhibits nothing else but downright mockery, and a public insult to national faith. And by the fatter, besides the notorious falsehood of it, a maxim seems to be adopted, that tends to destroy all trust and confidence among men, viz. that the most solemn engagements between parties may be violated or set aside by either of them, upon a feigned or groundless apprehension of danger from the other, by keeping it. I call the apprehension of danger, in this case, feigned or groundless; because I think, I may venture to challenge the ablest and most zealous sticklers for this law, to produce even one instance of such misconduct of the Roman catholics of Ireland, from the year 1691, when the articles of Limerick were signed, to the year 1704, when this first act to prevent the further growth of popery was passed, as could occasion in the government any apprehension of danger or dis. turbance from them. That no such instance could be then produced, appears from hence, that one of the principal objec tions to their conduct was, "their not having congratulated her majesty queen Anne, by a dutiful address, on her acces sion to the throne, as her protestant subjects had done;" which, as it may be reasonably accounted for, from their distressed, persecuted, and desponding condition at that juncture; so, haď they actually addressed her majesty on that occasion, in the most humble and dutiful manner that could be devised, most probable it is, that their very accusers would have considered and represented it, as the meer effect of adulation and hypocrisy; if not of insolence and presumption in them.

Thus on the 4th of March, 1704, the royal assent was given to an act, which, besides its being a violation of national faith, has been hitherto productive of every species of private, as well as public injury; by stripping men of their property, for not parting with their integrity; by fining and imprisoning them, for conscientious dissent from settled forms of worship; or for holding tenets merely spiritual, and totally foreign from

"We agree," says Dean Swift, speaking of the catholics," with our fellow dissenters, that persecution, merely for conscience sake, is against the genius of the gospel. And so likewise, is any law for depriving men of their natural and civil rights which they claim as men. We are also ready enough to allow, that the smallest negative discouragements for

any interference with the civil government of the state. So that our courts of justice and equity resembled, in these respects, the Roman tribunal punishing the primitive christians. for not disavowing the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and embracing that of human institution.

Soon after this act was passed, the commons entered into such wild and intemperate resolutions, concerning the execution of it, and of other penal statutes which it revives and confirms, as shew them to have been as little influenced and directed by the dictates of common sense, as they were by those of common humanity. On the 17th of March, 1704, they resolved unanimously, that all magistrates, and other persons whatsoever, who neglected or omitted to put them in due execution, were betrayers of the liberties of the kingdom." In June, 1705, they "resolved, that the saying or hearing of mass, by persons who had not taken the oath of abjuration, tended to advance the interest of the pretender." And that such judges and magistrates, as wilfully neglected to make diligent enquiry into, and discover such wicked practices, ought to be looked upon as enemies to her majesty's government." And least the judges, if not the inferior magistrates, should be somewhat ashamed of executing this new office of enquiring into, and discovering these wicked practices of saying and hearing mass, on account of that infamy which is commonly annexed to the trade of

uniformity's sake, are so many persecutions. Because, it cannot be denied, that the scratch of a pin is in some degree a real wound, as much as a stab through the heart. In like manner, an incapacity by law for any man to be made a judge, a colonel, or justice of peace, merely on point of conscience, is a negative discouragement, and consequently a real persecution. For, in this case, the author of a pamphlet [Reasons for the repeal of the Sacramental Test], puts a very pertinent and powerful question : That if God be the sole Lord of the conscience, why should the rights of conscience be subject to human jurisdiction? Now to apply this to the catholics: The belief of transubstantiation is a matter purely of religion and conscience, which doth not affect the political interest of society as such. Therefore, why should the rights of conscience, whereof God is the sole LORD, be subject to human jurisdiction? And why should God be deprived of this right over a catholic's conscience, any more than over that of any other dissenter."-Swift's Works, vəl. viii, p. 56,