Religion, and accordingly expected favours from him upon his accession to the Throne of England. Mr. Osborne, in his works, says, "It is certain that the promise made by King James to the Roman Catholics, was registered, and amounted so high at least, as a toleration of their Religion,"

But the Catholics were not the only people who were taken by James's duplicity," for though he most heartily hated the Presbyterian elergy, he dissembled his resentment, until he could shew it with safety." Notwithstanding all the rudeness with which he had been treated by his Clergy, in the General Assembly at Edinburgh, 1590, he stood up with bonnet off, and his hands lifted up to heaven, and said, "He praised God, that he "was born, in the time of the light of the Gos"pel, and in such a place, as to be King in such "a Church, the sincerest [purest] Kirk in the "world. The Church of Geneva keep pasche and ઠંડ yule, [Easter and Christmas,] what have they "for them? they have no institution. As for our neighbour Kirk of England, their service is an "evil said Mass in English; they want for nothing of the Mass but the liftings. I charge you my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, "gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your pu"rity, and to exhort the people to do the same; "and I, forsooth, as long as I brook my life shall "maintain the same." (Calderwood's Church History of Scotland, p. 256, fol. Edinburgh, 1680.)—–— And in his speech to the Parliament, in 1598, he tells them, "he minded not to bring in Papistical "or Anglicane Bishops," (Id. p. 418.) and in 1602, he assured the General Assembly," that he "would stand for the Church, and be an advocate "for the Ministry."-(Spotswood, p. 468.) Yet while he was thus deceiving the Puritans, he was playing a deeper game of treachery with the Roman Catholics, who seem to have been doomed by Providence to be the dupes of designing villains.

66

In

But whatever hopes the Catholics might have placed on the promises of Jaines, his conduct, and that of his Ministers, "completely destroyed, very soon after his accession to the English throne 1602 he became King of England, and on the 4th of July 1605, a Proclamation was issued in England, commanding all Jesuits, and other Priests, to depart from the Kingdom; and a similar Proclamation was immediately after published in Ireland. In the outset of the Proclamation, James seems to betray some consciousness of the breach of his promises to the Irish. It commences with stating," that whereas His "Majesty was informed, that his subjects of Ire"land 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 which he always professed himself, by which means it has happened, that many of "his subjects of that Kingdom had firmly resolv"ed to remain constantly in that Religion. "Wherefore he declared to all his loving subjects "of Ireland, that he would not admit any such liberty of conscience, as they were made to expect by that report. The Proclamation then goes on to command all and each of Majesty's subjects, for the time to come, to frequent their respective churches, chapels, &c. thus strictly enjoining the execution of the Act of Uniformity, the second of Elizabeth, which though passed, as it is asserted, in a packed Parliament, upwards of forty years before, was then first solemnly published.

66

66

To enforce the penalties for a breach of the Act of Uniformity at this time, as well as the strict observance of the Act of Supremacy, was uncalled for and unjust. It was well known that both those Acts were imposed upon the nation by force and fraud. The assembly of persons called,

a Parliament, that passed those Acts were not considered as a Parliament legally convened, ten only of the counties being summoned to send their representatives to that Assembly, and the cities and towns that sent representatives, were mostly those that were under the influence of Government. But constituted even as this Parliament was, it was with difficulty, and by trick, the Acts were carried. Leland tells us, "the Lords "and Commons met on the eleventh day of Ja "nuary, 1550, fully apprized of the purpose of "convention, but not universally well disposed "towards the intended regulations. Such various "establishments, with respect to religion, had "been inade and reversed in the reigns of Henry, "Edward and Mary, that the numerous partizans

of Rome affected to lament the distinctions "which had followed the first revolt from the an"cient system; and urged, that to give rest to the "minds and consciences of men, it was absolutely "necessary to resist all further innovations......... "So much had Sussex been alarmed by the oppo"sition he had encountered in this Parliament. "that he dissolved it in a few weeks; and repair

ing to the Queen, entrusted the Irish Govern"ment to Sir William Fitz-William." (Leland Hist. Ireland, vol. II. p. p. 224, 226.)

But the dissatisfaction occasioned by the enacting of those offensive Statutes was not confined to opposition members in the Parliament, it extended all over the nation, and every mouth inveighed against the Queen, and the junto by whose intrigues the measure had been accomplished.— Hence it was that the Act of Uniformity was never ventured to be either generally or strictly enforced during the entire of Elizabeth's reign.

But notwithstanding that this Statute was suffered to remain nearly as a dead letter, during the

b

reign of Elizabeth, the ministers of James, regardless of the odium it must throw upon their master, thought the enforcing of it now might be profitably undertaken. The profit, however, it appears, was not intended either for the benefit of the State, or of the poor of the several parishes, to whose relief the Act provides the fines to be imposed should be applied. Mr. Carte, in his Life of the Duke of Ormond, (vol. I. p. 523,) tells us that the fine of 12d. Irish, for being absent from Church on sundays and holidays, "had never been levied but on particular occasions, and for the private gain of Ministers, and then had always occasioned a clamour abroad, of a terrible persecution." That these fines were applied in that manner, at the period we now treat of, is shewn by the 18th Article of the "Disorders and Abuses in the Civil Government," laid before King James, by the Agents of the Roman Catholic Lords, Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, who sat in the Irish Parliament in the year 1613. That Article states, "The Statute made the second of "Elizabeth, laying a penalty of 12d. every sunday " and holiday, for not going to Church, is put "strictly in execution in many places; but the said "money being a great matter of value over the "whole Kingdom, is not employed upon the poor, "according to the Statute; but how they dispose of it, "the Parishioners or Church-wardens know not." (Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, Dublin, 1772, vol. I. p. 249.)

Part of the answer of Chichester, the Lord Deputy, to this article is at least curious, if not as satisfactory as ought to be expected from one in his state, and lying under such heavy charges. His Excellency tells his Majesty, that indeed "The "Statute of Recusants hath of late been put in exe"cution," and "that as touching the monies levied "in the County of Dublin, it is indeed left in the

"hands of the Clerk of the Crown, by a special "order from the Lord Deputy and Council, to be "employed in repairing of Churches and Bridges "and like charitable uses." And why? good reader guess. But you cannot. Let the Deputy answer." Because the poor of the parishes, "who are not yet indicted, are not fit to receive "the same, being Recusants, and ought to pay "the like penalty.”—(Idem, p. p. 274, 275.)

Still, notwithstanding this persecution of the Roman Catholic Priesthood and Laity, James did not attempt to deprive the Catholics of their right to sit in both Houses of Parliament. But preparatory to the meeting of the Parliament in 161%, he thought, by a stretch of the royal prerogative, to secure the attendance of his friends, that would out-number the Catholics in the House of Commons. For this purpose he created a number of new Boroughs, and made Freemen of persons who were masters of no property, nor possessed of a sod of land in Ireland. And to deter the Catholic members from coming to, or giving opposition to the matters to be proposed in that Parliament, Chichester was charged with having drawn armed men, out of several garrisons into Dublin; and numbers of the Protestant party appeared in the House, armed with swords, while the Catholics were "for the most part in gowns, without any weapons."--(See Desiderat, Curios. vol. 1. p, 356, 357.)

Of these irregular proceedings the Roman Catholics complained to the King, but their complaints went for nothing. After a long investigation, in which there was an ostentatious appearance of impartiality, the "Pedantic King" made a speech to the Roman Catholic Agents, in which, though he was compelled to acknowledge some of their complaints were well founded, yet he declar