the most part, had no defence, or justice from the crown, were received into his majesty's immediate protection. "This," continues my author, " bred such comfort and security in the hearts of all men, as thereupon ensued the calmest, and most universal peace, that ever was seen in Ireland."

Yet in the midst of this most calm and universal peace, his majesty, quite unmindful of all his former promises of favor to his catholic subjects, ordered a proclamation to be published, strictly forbidding the exercise of their religion to those of Ireland, banishing their clergy, and inflicting severe penalties on all such, as should be found to harbor, or entertain them; enjoining also the immediate and strict execution of the act of uniformity of the second of Elizabeth; which act, though pretended to have been passed in the Irish parliament forty years before, was then first solemnly published.

By this act, all catholics are obliged to assist at the protestant church-service, every Sunday and holyday, on the penalty of twelve pence, and of what, indeed, was infinitely more grievous, the censures of the ecclesiastical courts, for each default. A method of proceeding very inconsistent with the fundamental principles of that religion, which this act was intended to introduce, viz. freedom of conscience, and the right of private judgment. Dr. Heylin has justly observed another

Some consciousness of this breach of promise appears in the proclamation itself, which was published on the 4th of July, 1605, and sets forth in the beginning," that whereas his majesty was informed, that his subjects of Ireland had been deceived by a false report, that his majesty was disposed to allow them liberty of conscience, and the free choice of a religion, contrary to that which he always professed himself, by which means it has happened that many of his subjects of that kingdom had firmly resolved to remain constantly in that religion-wherefore he declared to all his beloved subjects of Ireland, that he would not admit any such li berty of conscience as they were made to expect by that report. And then orders all, and each, of his subjects, for the time to come, to frequent their respective churches and chapels, &c.

There was another severity attending the execution of this statute. Roman catholics of condition, under the title of Inquisitors, were particularly appointed by the state, to watch and inform against those of their own communion, who did not frequent the protestant churches on these days; which, when thro' a scruple of conscience they neglected, or refused to do, they were grievously fined, and condemned to a long and irksome imprisonment.-See Analect. Sacr. Rivnis in Analect. p. 25.

absurdity in this statute. "The Irish," says he," were obliged, under several penalties, to be present at the reading of the English liturgy, which they understood no more than they did the mass; by which means, they were not only kept in continual ignorance, as to the doctrines and devotions of the church of England, but also were furnished with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in such a language as the people did not understand."* On account of the great scarcity of such ministers, as could either preach, pray, or administer the sacraments in the language understood by their flocks at this time, this act was forced to dispense with itself; for it says, that "forasmuch as in most places of this realm, there cannot be found English ministers to serve in the churches, or places appointed for common prayer, or to administer the sacraments, in such language as they best understand—we therefore beseech your majesty, that it may be enacted, &c. that in every such church or place, where the common minister or priest hath not the use or knowledge of the English tongue, it shall be lawful for the same to say and use the matins, even song, and celebration of the Lord's supper, and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in the latin tongue, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book (of common prayer) established by this act, any thing before expressed, and contained in this act to the contrary notwithstanding." There were no more but the representatives of ten counties summoned to this parliament,

* To remedy this inconvenience," In the reign of James I. it was or dered, that the bible and common prayer should be translated into the Irish language; which was done; and every parish church was obliged to pay ten shillings for an Irish bible, when not one amongst an hundred could read, or understand it. And therefore," adds my author, " an Irish protestant bishop did laugh at this strange kind of alteration, and said to some of his friends, "in queen Elizabeth's time, we had English bibles, and Irish ministers; but now we have ministers come out of England unto us, and Irish bibles with them." Most of the benefices and church livings in Ireland, were bestowed upon English and Scottish ministers, not one of them having three words of the Irish tongue."-Theatre of Cath. and Protest. Religion, p. 245.

viz. those of Dublin, Meath, Westmeath, Louth, Kildare, Catherlough, Kilkenny, Waterford, Tipperary, and Wexford.s

CHAP. III.

Some observations on the statutes of supremacy and uniformity.

THE execution of the penal act last mentioned, and of the preceding statute of supremacy, was the more grievous and unjustifiable, as they were both well known to have been imposed upon the nation by force or fraud, though under the plausible appearance of parliamentary sanction.

As for the statute of supremacy, there is no question but the Irish chieftains were previously awed, and broken by a military force, in order to gain their consent to it. "Lord Leonard Gray, to prepare the minds of the people to obey this statute, began first, (says sir John Davis,) with a martial course, by making a victorious circuit round the kingdom, whereby the principal septs of the Irish were all terrified, and most of them broken; and then, after this preparation thus made, he first propounded, and passed those laws, which made great alteration in the state ecclesiastical."

the

Of the statute of uniformity of the 2d of Elizabeth, all the Irish writers at, or near, that period, unanimously affirm, that it was surreptitiously or forcibly obtained. Mr. Lynch, in his Cam

5 Lel. Hist. Irel. vol. ii. p. 225.

Sir John Davis's Historical Re!.

* Yet even when it came to be proposed in parliament, “ lords and commons joined in expressing their abhorrence of the spiritual authority assumed by the king." Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 165." But fear," says the same writer," served to allay the violence of those, who could not be persuaded." However," in despite of legislative authority, they still opposed that law with indefatigable zeal. Several incumbents of the diocese of Dublin, chose to resign their benefices, rather than acknowledge the king's supremacy." And so formidable, at least so considerable was this party, "that the archbishop (Brown) would not venture to fill up their benefices until he had consulted his patron lord Cromwell." Id. ib. p. 167.-These incumbents objected to the legality of that statute, because," two proctors from each diocese, had been usually summoned and claimed to be a member of the legislative body, and to have a full right of suffrage in every question; and because, in this case, their claim was rejected,"-Ib. p. 165-6.

brensis Eversus, informs us, "that it was passed by the artifice of one Mr. Stanyhurst, of Corduff, then speaker of the Irish commons, who being in the reforming interest, privately got together on a day when the house was not to sit,* a few such members as he knew to be favorers of that interest, and consequently, in the absence of all those, who, he believed would have opposed it. But that these absent members, having understood what had passed in this secret convention, did, soon after, in a full and regular meeting of parliament, enter their protests against it; upon which the lord lieutenant assured many of them, in particular, with protestations and oaths, that the penalties of that statute should never be inflicted; which they too easily believing, suffered it to remain as it was. This, adds my author, I have often heard for certain truth, from many antient people, who lived at that time; and I am the more inclined to believe it, because the lord lieutenant's promise was so far kept that this law was never generally executed, during the remainder of queen Elizabeth's reign;" which was more than forty years; that is, until all, or most of those members were probably dead, to whom such promise had been given.t

"In the very beginning of that parliament, January 12th, 1559, most of the nobility and gentry were so divided in opini on about ecclesiastical government," says sir James Ware, that the earl of Sussex, then lord lieutenant, thought proper

2 Annals.

"In this house of commons, we find the representatives summoned for ten counties only; the rest, which made up the number of seventy-six,were citizens and burgesses of those towns in which the royal authority was predominant. It is therefore little wonder, that in despite of clamor, and opposition, in a session of a few weeks, the whole ecclesiastical system of queen Mary was entirely reversed."—Lel. Hist. of Irel. vol. ii. p. 224.

+ Sir Christopher Nugent asserted publicly before the king, the tradi-` tional report of the Irish, that this statute was passed in the fraudulent manner above-mentioned.-Analect, Sacr. p. 431.

On the passing of this act (2d Elizabeth) "the clergy, who refused to conform, abandoned their cures; no reformed ministers could be found to supply their places; the churches fell to ruin; the people were left without any religious worship, or institution. Even in places of most civility, the statutes lately made were evaded or neglected with impunity."—Leland's History of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 226.

This earl, had been lord lieutenant of Ireland in the preceding reign of queen Mary, and had procured all the acts passed under Henry VIII, Lo

to dissolve it, in the beginning of the following month." W find also, that his excellency, upon dissolving the parliament, went to England, to consult her majesty on the affairs of the kingdom; that, in a few months after, having returned to Ireland, he received orders to call an assembly of the clergy, for the establishment of the protestant religion: and that, after this assembly had dispersed themselves, William Walsh, bishop of Meath, not content with what offers her majesty had proposed, was, for preaching against the book of common-prayer, first imprisoned, and afterwards deposed, by order of her majesty."

Now, as under the words, " ecclesiastical government,” the whole purport and tendency of this act of uniformity are plainly comprehended, may we not reasonably conclude, from lord Sussex's dissolving the parliament, on account of the jarring opinions of the members concerning that statute, and from the order which he soon after received, to call an assembly of the clergy, "for the establishment of the protestant religion," (which order, had that act been duly and legally passed, would have been needless, if not absurd) that the statute in question was not openly and regularly carried, but that it was forcibly and clandestinely imposed, in the manner before-mentioned ?*

3 Annals.

the prejudice of the Roman catholic religion, in that kingdom, to be repealed.-Analect. Sacr. p. 430.

We are told by a contemporary historian, that a similar artifice was successfully made use of, the year before, to get the like of uniformity passed in England; which, probably, was considered as a good precedent for passing the Irish act in the same manner. "The bill," says my author, "met many rubs and lets among the members of the commons; whereupon by watching an opportunity to summon the favorers of it together, at one unexpected hour, when the opposers were likely to be absent, viz. early in the morning, before the ordinary hour of resort of knights, citizens and burgesses to the parliament house, and upon a day unlooked for, the statists procured the said bill to be suddenly, and most unjustly (though not without some difficulty) passed by the greater number of voices: the rather because of the absence, and subtle circumvention of the rest of their fellow-members."-History of the Roformation, vol. i.

A grave contemporary writer has left us the following curious anecdote concerning the first steps towards the reformation of religion in England; "of which," says he, "I have seen a daily relation (of what passed in parliament) gotten from Mr. Cambden by a protestant bishop, and lent by