of a seminary, and £5 of an ordinary mass priest. This proclamation was undoubtedly illegal, for the English statute, 27 Eliz., had never been adopted by an Irish parliament. Some servile lawyers suggested that Poyning's Act could be so construed as to make laws subsequently passed in England, binding on Ireland but this position could not be seriously maintained.

The Lord President continued to govern Munster in this fashion for nearly three years, when the English Council were obliged to tell him that he was acting imprudently and without warrant of law, and to bid him stay his hand. Even while writing this, my lords were careful to guard against the supposition that they were favourable to toleration, and to point out that expediency was their sole guide in the matter. The effect of Brouncker's vigour, which was little abated by these rebukes, created a great many sham proselytes who bowed themselves for a while in the house of Rimmon. Poor Sir Richard Moryson, who administered the province after Brouncker's death, complained bitterly that these pliant subjects had reverted to the old ways.

On the 4th of July, 1605, a black day in the Irish calendar, King James put forth his famous proclamation against liberty of conscience. All priests of papal ordination were ordered to leave the kingdom by the 10th of December, and not to return. After that date all officials were to arrest them and their harbourers. There was no means of escape left but by conforming and going to church. The proclamation was not allowed to remain a dead letter, and legal ingenuity devised a novel means of giving it due effect. Sir John Davys was now the junior lawofficer in Ireland. Once he had opposed Monopolies from his seat in Parliament, but

"As bees on flowers alighting cease their hum

"So Whigs in office suddenly grow dumb;"

and there was a great gulf fixed between plain Mr. Davys, the popular M.P., and Sir John Davys his majesty's Solicitor-General. Arbitrary power generally finds a converted opponent the most efficient of instruments. A form of mandate under the Privy Seal was drawn up and put to various recusants, in which the king is made to charge his subjects" on the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to us, and by authority of our prerogative royal (all excuses and delays set apart) upon the next Sunday, after sight hereof, &c.," and on all other Sundays and holidays to attend the parish church and remain during the whole service. The alternative was to attend the mayor to the cathedral, and to stay through the service in sight of the Lord Deputy and Council. The recipients of these mandates are finally exhorted to obey them "upon pain of our high displeasure and indignation, and of such further punishments as are to be inflicted upon contemners of our laws, statutes, proclamations, and royal prerogative."

Among the citizens of Dublin who received this royal gift were five aldermen, two merchants, and a gentleman named Bassett. The provincial presidents were ordered to proceed in the same manner, and Brouncker made free use of the power in Munster. One of the Dublin aldermen, by a singular coincidence, bore the name of John Elliott, another was John Skelton, or Shelton, who had been mayor, and had been superseded for refusing the oath ex-officio. All declined to obey, alleging that they had been brought up in the Romish religion and that it was against their

conscience to go to church, or to hear service and sermons. The aldermen were fined £100 each, and the merchants £50, half to the use of the Protestant church and half to the king, and were imprisoned during pleasure. Mr. Philip Bassett, " being English and a principal persuader of others to recusancy," was fined £50, and ordered besides" within thirty days to withdraw himself or be sent into England, to be governed under the laws under which he was born, and never to return again into this kingdom." Sir Charles Calthorpe, the Attorney-General, was satisfied with what had been done, or perhaps he did not really like the business. There is no more lamentable sight than a weak attorney general, coupled with a strong solicitor, and the difference was very apparent on this occasion. Calthorpe contented himself with a perfunctory discharge of his duties, but Sir John Davys was so much in love with the proclamation and mandates that he made a long speech, attempting to justify what had been done by an array of precedents which were nothing to the purpose, though they served to display his learning. Neither Sir John nor any one else could show that the kings of England, though they might resist papal encroachments, had ever been grand inquisitors.

While presiding in the Star Chamber on this occasion, Sir Arthur Chichester received a letter from Salisbury announcing the discovery of the Gunpowder plot. The incident was most opportune, and the Lord Deputy immediately ordered the news to be published in every direction. This conspiracy was very unfortunate for the Irish Roman Catholics, and in some degree paliiates the severity of the Government. It is indeed tolerably certain that no Irishman was concerned; but Garnet, the provincial of the English

Jesuits, was implicated, and Ireland was full of members of that order. It was perhaps suspiciously remembered that there had been a stir among the priests in Connaught just before St. Bartholomew, and that the massacre had found many sympathisers there. sympathisers there. There was, therefore, good cause for suspicion. The proclamation had, however, been issued, and the mandates promulgated before the detection of Catesby and his associates. Within a week five more recusants were fined and imprisoned in the same

way.

Meanwhile the gentry of the Pale, the old English, who, in the darkest days of Scotch invasions and Irish encroachments, had remained faithful to the Crown, had taken fright at the attack on their religion. They had borne great and unequal taxation to support a Government, which could plunder but could not protect them. They had known the horrors of unpaid troops at free quarters, whose services by no means made up for their extortions. But this new oppression was more than they could bear, and they resolved to petition the Lord Deputy for some relief. A paper was accordingly drawn up by Richard Netterville, with the advice and help of Lords Gormanston and Louth, of an old lawyer named Burnell, and above all of Sir Patrick Barnewell. When the petition had received the last corrections the signatures of five peers and two hundred and six gentlemen were appended, and it was presented to Chichester, not by its principal contrivers, but by four of the subscribers, a Dillon, a Sarsfield, a Finglas, and a Nugent. The document, having been drafted some time before, contained no allusion to the Gunpowder plot, but disclaimed the notion that the priests had attempted to tamper with the petitioners' civil allegiance,

or that the latter would have listened to such insinuations. In respectful language the King was asked to make further inquiry before interfering with the private conscience of faithful subjects, and this prayer was followed by an earnest and solemn declaration of unswerving loyalty.

To our ideas nothing seems more proper than such a petition, but this was not the opinion of Chichester and Davys. Those who presented the paper were sharply reproved, and were then dismissed until the ringleaders should have been examined; some of them were afterwards imprisoned. Lord Gormanston and Sir P. Barnewell, with Netterville, Burnell, and Flatsbury, came before the Council and defended themselves boldly. They were then committed to prison until the next meeting of the Star Chamber. Lords Gormanston and Trimleston who signed the petition, and Lords Killeen and Louth who appear not to have done so, in the meantime wrote a joint letter to Salisbury desiring his interference. They declared their loyalty, protested against a conscientious refusal to go to church being treated as an outrageous contempt or heinous riot, complained bitterly of domiciliary visits most harshly conducted, and of an innovation in the practice of the Star Chamber, which had never before been used as a spiritual consistory. Lord Gormanston, who was young and of high courage, pressed the Irish Government for an answer to the petition; but this was held a further contempt. Sir Patrick Barnewell, who from henceforth took the lead, wrote to Salisbury from his prison in the Castle, protesting against the new fangled practices of the Star Chamber, prophesying most truly that they would lead to a rebellion at some distant date. He ascribed the mischief

largely to the machinations of Sir James Ley, the Chief Justice, "a man generally behated," who had denied copies of their indictments to accused persons. Chichester and his advisers of course held their agis over the Lord Chief Justice, whom they found useful, but I do not find that they clear him of this serious charge. There is an affi davit couched in very solemn language from nine citizens of Dublin, who declare that they had themselves been refused copies of their indictments by Ley, and expressing some apprehension lest "terror and fear of the threats and rigour used at these times" should prevent those present from corroborating their testimony. Two of these witnesses did, nevertheless, sign the affidavit.

The English Council on learning these events advised Chichester to proceed with more moderation. To grant any toleration would indeed be most offensive, dangerous, and repugnant to good conscience. But considering how deeply rooted Romanist superstitions were in Ireland it would be wise to temporise. Priests and friars were to be got rid of if possible, but the search for them was not to be too curious. An example might be made now and then, but argument was on the whole preferable to brute force. The lords and gentlemen in prison might be released, but Sir P. Barnewell was to be sent to London. This important paper is signed by no less than seventeen Privy Councillors, including Ellesmere, Salisbury, and Popham. It was not the first nor last time that the larger wisdom of imperial statesmen has modified the action of an Irish Government. But these grandees, who sat at home at ease, were but lookers on; they might see more of the game, but had not to bear the burden and heat of it. The Irish Star Chamber went on fining and imprisoning recusants, aldermen of

Dublin being the chief victims. But these attentions were not confined to office holders. Any man in a good social position was in danger, the object being to strike down the tall poppies. It was thought that if the leaders of the people could be brought low, the fine of a shilling a Sunday might be sufficient argument for the rank and file. But new difficulties arose daily. It was found that those who incurred the frown of power very generally made conveyance of their goods to children, servants, or friends, not reserving even their clothes and antedating the deeds so as to give them an appearance of authenticity. There were thus no goods upon which the sheriff could make his levies in satisfaction of the Star Chamber decrees. The jury empanelled to value property for the purpose of these decrees found that the deeds were good. Whereupon the Star Chamber took another bold step, and of its own authority declared the conveyances void against the king. Sir John Davys considered this "the best precedent and example that had been made in that kingdom for many years."

These assignments of property in fraudem domini regis were not the only devices of the persecuted recusants. Richard Netterville, who, on account of his age, had been confined in his own house, had mass said there by a priest hidden behind a curtain, so that he might be able to swear he had not seen the proscribed cleric. Netterville was then sent to the Castle, and Thomas Luttrell, of Luttrellstown, a name of sinister note in the later history of Ireland, was also committed. Chichester admits that after all his trouble he had not driven one priest out of the country; it was in vain to search, "every town, hamlet, and house, being to them a sanctuary."

Sir Patrick Barnewell meanwhile declined to make any submission. Being brought before the Council, Chichester told him there was good reason to suspect that some men in Ireland were privy to the Gunpowder plot, and that the great concourse of recusant gentlemen to Dublin was caused by a scheme to seize the Government in case the plot succeeded. The fact is, as we know from Davys, that people were at this time beginning to resort to Dublin for social purposes, to talk and to hear the news; a change caused by the peaceful state of the country. Barnewell answered that the "Deputy's speech was wiredrawing and without probability or likelihood."

Archbishop Jones, now Lord Chancellor, next took him in hand, pressing him as to his theological opinions, and incautiously calling Anglicanism" the king's religion."

"That," said Sir Patrick, "is a profane speech," and it must be owned that he hit the Archbishop hard.

Chief Justice Ley then attacked him with threats of the king's displeasure. Barnewell hated Ley, and promptly told him to "leave his carping," bringing down his hand emphatically at the same time on the cushion which lay before the Lord Deputy. He was too much for them all, and though Sir John Davys was of opinion that his imagination was a little crazed either out of malice or out of an immoderate estimate of himself, there was certainly nothing crazy in his manner of conducting the business in hand.

Chichester and his council were not sorry to send Barnewell over to London, where his expenses were paid by the country. £1,200 was said to be the sum required-a very large one in those days. While Salisbury was making up his mind. how to deal with this formidable

recusant Sir John Davys went circuit in Munster, where he was associated in the commission with Chief Justice Walsh. The only part of his very interesting account of this journey, which now concerns us, is that at Limerick a jury were bound to appear before the Star Chamber for failing to agree in an important case. Many hundreds were fined under 2 Eliz. for not going to church in all parts of the South, and at Limerick the money thus raised went to repair the cathedral the convicts had to build the walls of their own prison.

Not long after Barnewell's arrival in London, he was committed to the Tower. His more crafty sympathisers gave out that he was under no restraint, but staying voluntarily in the capital for the furtherance of Catholic interests. The priests collected money for him all over the country-a foretaste of the "rent"-and the Irish Government urged the Council to severe measures. The advice was taken. Some of the English judges

not

-those probably who were certain to say what would please the Courtwere consulted and gave an opinion favourable to the legality of the mandates. But the prudent Cecil knew better, though he covered his retreat thus. Sir Patrick was released from the Tower, and after being kept for a time at large in London, and suffering a short detention in the Fleet, was allowed to return to Ireland, after giving his bond to appear before the Lord Deputy within four days of his landing.

There seems to be some doubt whether he was really employed as an agent by the Irish Roman

Catholics. The English Council thought not, or he would hardly have been so anxious to get home. £32 had been collected for him in Waterford alone, and Sir R. Moryson

was of opinion that if other places contributed at the same rate, Barnewell would probably not care much how long the negotiations lasted. Both views may have been right; Sir Patrick's friends in Ireland may have been anxious to make use of his agency, while he himself did not wish to stay in London to the neglect of his own affairs. There was a discrepancy between his own account of what had taken place, and that given by the Lords of the Council. They said he had made his submission; he said he had made, and would make none, though he appeared before the Lord Deputy according to agreement. Chichester could make nothing of him, and had to confine himself to vague accusations of popularity-hunting and of attracting attention by an unusual train of attendants. Sir Patrick retorted that he had but his usual half-dozen servants, and that the fact of such a trifle being brought up against him showed a disposition to prejudice his case. Chichester at last seems to have determined to let him alone, the mandates were quietly dropped, and Barnewell was molested no further.

Four years later, in 1611, he was engaged in the settlement of the county of Longford, and seems to have been on pretty good terms with the authorities. A paper in Sir George Carew's handwriting, giving an account of the meeting of the Irish Parliament in 1613, mentions him as taking a forward part against the packing of the House of Commons by a wholesale creation of new boroughs, as formerly against the mandates; and that he had written letters declaring that the new modelled legislature would reduce Ireland to perpetual thraldom. In the same paper it is noted that Sir Patrick was the first man of fortune in Ireland who had sent his sons to be educated abroad. The