Above : Picture Of Lord Brouncker

The Hopes of the Catholics are not Realised : Laws against them are Made, but are not Strictly Enforced.—Various causes, however, notably the Catholic reaction of the Continent of Europe, conspired to alter James’ views. In July, 1605, he issued a Proclamation directing the strict enforcement of the Sunday fines, and the banishment of all Catholic clergy, both secular and regular.

From the very first, although there were isolated instances of extreme severity exercised towards priests, and some were even, we hear, put to death, it seems to have been recognised that to carry out this general decree of banishment would be impossible ; nay, that even to attempt it would be most imprudent, and might result in a serious revolt. Of this the English Privy Council was so convinced, that we find them intimating to the authorities in Ireland that, although priests, if discovered, should certainly be shipped out of the country, it would be as well not to take much trouble to look for them. Brouncker, President of Connacht, appears to have feared that his exertions against the ” Jesuits, seminaries and massing priests ” would not be regarded with favour, nor indeed were they ; the King himself expressed the opinion that his zeal was ” excessive.”

The number of priests in Ireland at the time of the Royal Proclamation was large, and it does not appear to have greatly diminished afterwards. We hear that Mass was said, the sacraments administered as before. The towns were full of priests, and ” a man may as familiarly salute a Popish priest in even the streets of Dublin as a preacher.” Some convents of regulars continued to exist. Lyons, the Protestant Bishop of Cork, speaks of two in his diocese, one of which Lord Barry protects.

In November, 1610, James ordered the Deputy to republish the decree of banishment against the priests, but very soon after this comes an exhortation that the law is to be executed with moderation, and that priests are not to be proceeded against merely for saying Mass. In 1612, there was an outburst of severity, and Cornelius O’Deveney, Bishop of Down and Connor, and a priest named Patrick O’Loughran, were executed ; while a reward of £500 was unsuccessfully offered for the apprehension of Eugene Matthews, the Archbishop of Dublin. Yet, at about the same time, there was, we are assured, in almost every parish throughout the country, a priest who was regularly maintained by the people.

To the enforcing of the part of the Royal Proclamation which concerned the laity, and required their attendance at the Reformed services on Sunday, much more attention was devoted by the authorities. By the statute of 1560, the only penalty that could be inflicted on those who failed to attend church was a fine of a shilling for every absence without valid excuse.

This, even when swelled by costs to ten shillings, as it sometimes was, could not force compliance from people in fairly good circumstances, and it was such persons precisely whose obedience the Government specially desired to obtain, in the belief that their example would be followed by those of inferior social station. In November, 1606, Chichester issued an individual summons to certain prominent Dublin citizens, ordering them to attend the Reformed Church on the following Sunday. As they did not comply, they were summoned before the arbitrary tribunal, known as ” the Court of Castle Chamber,” and heavily fined.

Similar courses were adopted on many other occasions. Sir John Davys went on a regular progress round Munster to endeavour to enforce the Government decree, but he met with little success. Waterford signalised itself by stubborn resistance ; of 162 persons to whom summons to betake themselves to their parish churches ” the next and all succeeding Sundays ” were issued, but one complied. In Cashel, it appeared that the children of the Protestant Archbishop, Meiler McGrath, were all ” recusants,” and went to Mass. Though, at first, as we have seen, the measures taken met with little success, some result was finally achieved. In Wexford, we hear, many have conformed ; 500 citizens have gone to Church in Cork (1607) and 200 in Drogheda, including 10 aldermen. In Youghal, 600 attended the Reformed Services.

There is, however, a good deal of difficulty in inducing magistrates to carry out the law, or juries to find verdicts against recusants. For refusing to do this, juries were sometimes punished by fines or imprisonment. The Oath of Supremacy was supposed to be required from all who held public office or sought a University degree, as well as from wards, who, on attaining their majority, desired their property to be delivered up to them by their guardians (” suing out their livery ” the process was called), but it was not consistently enforced. Some mayors were deprived of their position, and some would-be graduates denied their degrees, for a refusal °f the Oath ; but, on the other hand, to many well known to be Catholics it was never tendered.

On the whole, we may conclude from the extant evidence that, though against individual clerics the persecuting laws were sometimes brought into play with savage cruelty, and though individual members °f the laity were interfered with in various ways, and subjected to fines, and even imprisonment, at no period during this reign was the persecution general over the whole country, nor was any attempt made to enforce steadily and consistently the terms of the 1605 Proclamation. In the period from 1614 to 1622 the laxity increased. James had conceived the idea of bringing about the marriage of his only surviving son Charles with a Spanish princess, and this made it imperative to give as little cause for complaint as possible to her co-religionists in Ireland.

An absolute repeal of the anti-Catholic laws would not have been tolerated by English public opinion, nor probably desired by the English King, but they could be quietly allowed to drop into abeyance, and this was what was generally done. The Sunday fines continued indeed to be fitfully exacted here and there ; they had come to be regarded as merely a sort of tax; but this was all. A report made to the Government declares that there are 1,150 (? secular) priests in Ireland, and seven ” Mass-houses ” in Dublin, but we may be sure that this list is far from complete. There were Catholic barristers practising in the Courts, and there were Catholic Justices of the Peace.