Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:19:28.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Securing the Protestant interest: the origins and purpose of the penal laws of 1695

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Charles Ivar McGrath
Charles Ivar McGrath*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The origin and the purpose of the Irish penal laws have always been subjects of contention. These laws have often been viewed as a ‘rag-bag’ of legislation, lacking in government policy, without precedent or forethought, motivated by rapacity, unfavoured in England and yet tolerated in return for concessions by an Irish parliament greedy for Catholic land and wealth. However, in the context of the first two Irish penal laws of 1695, and most specifically the disarming act, this generality does not hold good. It is the aim of this article to show that the two penal laws of 1695, for disarming Catholics and prohibiting foreign education, were the result of a definite policy which existed in Ireland from the time of the Williamite war. This policy was built upon a previous tradition of English statutes and Irish proclamations. The pressure for this policy came not only from Irish Protestants, but also from English ministers and from the crown. And the prime motive was security of the Protestant interest.

Victory at Limerick in October 1691 did not end the threat to the Williamite Protestant interest in Ireland. Fear of Catholic Europe remained constant as long as William III was at war with France, a fear that was heightened by the activities of privateers and rapparees. In the search for greater security, a policy developed for disarming Irish Catholics, which was actively supported by William III and his executive and legislature in England, was implemented by the executive in Ireland, and was encouraged and promoted by the Irish Protestant interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 117 , May 1996 , pp. 25 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Connolly, S.J., Religion, law, and power: the making of Protestant Ireland, 1660–1760 (Oxford, 1992), pp 263–313 Google Scholar; Wall, Maureen, Catholic Ireland in the eighteenth century: collected essays, ed. O’Brien, Gerard (Dublin, 1989), pp 1–60 Google Scholar; Lecky, Ire., i, 140–41; Froude, Ire., i, 219–31; Murray, R.H., Revolutionary Ireland and its settlement (London, 1911), pp 348-9Google Scholar; Burns, R.E., ‘The Irish penal code and some of its historians’ in Review of Politics, xxi (1959), pp 276–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Irish popery laws: a study of eighteenth-century legislation and behaviour’ in Review of Politics, xxiv (1962), pp 485–508. For a discussion of the differing views of historians on the penal laws see Bartlett, Thomas, The fall and rise of the Irish nation: the Catholic question, 1690–1830 (Dublin, 1992), pp 18–20 Google Scholar.

2 Bosher, J.F., ‘The Franco-Catholic danger, 1660–1715’ in History, lxxix (1994), pp 5–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 644.

4 Barlett, Fall & rise of the Irish nation, p. 20.

5 Connolly, Religion, law & power, p. 267.

6 See McGuire, J.I., ‘Government attitudes to religious non-conformity in Ireland, 1660–1719’ in Caldicott, C.E.J., Gough, Hugh and Pittion, J.-P. (eds), The Huguenots and Ireland: anatomy of an emigration (Dublin, 1987), pp 267–71 Google Scholar; Beckett, J.C., The making of modern Ireland, 1603–1923 (London, 1966), pp 151–2 Google Scholar; Froude, Ire., i, 219–31; Lecky, Ire., i, 140–41; Simms, J.G., ‘The case of Ireland stated’ in Farrell, Brian (ed.), The Irish parliamentary tradition (Dublin, 1973), p. 131 Google Scholar.

7 Connolly, Religion, law, & power, p. 17.

8 Miller, John, Popery and politics in England, 1660–1688 (Cambridge, 1973), pp 52–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Stat. at large (London, 1763), vii, 162–74; Miller, Popery & politics, p. 55.

10 Stat. at large, vii, 162–74.

11 Ibid., p. 321.

12 Ibid., ix, 15–18.

13 Miller, Popery & politics, p. 56; idem, Charles II (London, 1991), pp 76–7.

14 Miller, Popery & politics, pp 90, 93, 121, 125, 163; idem, Charles II, pp 175, 178, 191, 199, 203; Norman, Edward, Roman Catholicism in England (Oxford, 1986), p. 38 Google Scholar.

15 Miller, Popery & politics, pp 67–93, 106.

16 Connolly, Religion, law & power, p. 21; Fitzpatrick, Brendan, Seventeenth-century Ireland: the war of religions (Dublin, 1988), pp 231, 258Google Scholar.

17 Disarming proclamation, 8 Nov. 1673 (N.L.I., MS 1793); Miller, Charles II, pp 210–11.

18 See N.L.I., MS 1793; H.M.C., Ormond, ii, 352–9.

19 Connolly, Religion, law, & power, p. 22.

20 Miller, Popery & politics, pp 126–7.

21 Connolly, Religion, law, & power, p. 21. On the opposition of the Irish government to permanent penal measures see H.M.C., Ormond, v, 313; Egan, Seán, ‘Finance and the government of Ireland, 1660–85’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College, Dublin, 1983), pp. 110–13 Google Scholar.

22 McGrath, C.I., ‘Securing the Protestant interest: policy, politics and parliament in Ireland in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, 1690–1695’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University College, Dublin, 1991)Google Scholar, passim.

23 Beckett, Mod. Ire., pp 150–51.

24 Connolly, Religion, law, & power, pp 236–7.

25 Hayton, D.W., ‘Ireland and the English ministers. 1707–16: a study in the formulation and working of government policy in the early eighteenth century’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1975), p. 20 Google Scholar; Bosher, ‘Franco-Catholic danger’, passim.

26 Moody, T.W., Martin, F.X. and Byrne, F.J. (eds), A new history of Ireland, ix: Maps, genealogies, lists (Oxford, 1984) (henceforth New hist. Ire., ix), p. 510 Google Scholar; Ball, F.E., The judges in Ireland, 1221–1921 (2 vols, New York, 1927), ii, 51 Google Scholar.

27 Richard Cox, ‘A discourse on the methods necessary to be observed for the speedy reduction of Ireland’, 2 Dec. 1689 (T.C.D., Southwell papers, 1180, ff 67–73); aphorisms relating to the kingdom of Ireland submitted to the convention at Westminster, 12 Jan. 1690 (ibid., 1181, ff 29–35).

28 King, William, The state of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James’s government (London, 1691), p. 239 Google Scholar.

29 ’Discourse concerning the securing the government of the kingdom of Ireland to the interest of the English nation’ [by one of the Southwell family] (B.L., Add. MS 28724, ff 1–12).

30 Sidney to Nottingham, 3 Sept. 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 199).

31 Sidney to Nottingham, 9 Sept. 1692 (ibid., p. 201 ).

32 Address of the English House of Commons to the king, 4 Mar. 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 55–6); Nottingham to Sidney, 18 Mar. 1693 (ibid., pp 71–2); Sidney to Nottingham, 30 June 1693 (ibid., pp 203–4).

33 Capell to Shrewsbury, 13 June 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 494); Shrewsbury to Capell, 20 June 1695 (ibid., p. 502).

34 ’An account of all the men and horses that have been transported out of Ireland from 31 July 1691 to 31 March [1694]’ (B.L. Add. MS 18022, ff 62–3). Simms estimates the figure at 12, 000 ( Moody, T.W. and Vaughan, W. E. (eds), A new history of Ireland, iv: Eighteenth-century Ireland, 1691–1800 (Oxford, 1986), p. 630 Google Scholar). For government fears see Cal. S.P. dom., 1690–91, pp 385–6; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 176, 178–9; H.M.C., Finch, iii, 302.

35 Memorial of what Ginkel submitted for the king’s definite orders, 22 May 1691 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1690–91, pp 385–6).

36 Cal. SP. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 178–80, 183-8; Cal. S.P. dom., 1691–2, p. 512; Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 3, 105; B.L., Add. MS 18022, ff 62–3; N. A.I., Wyche papers, 1/2/25, 1/3/28.

37 Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 205–6; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 55–6, 176; Beckett, Mod. Ire., p. 151.

38 Copy of the lord lieutenant’s warrant for discharging the Irish out of the army, 30 May 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 160–61).

39 Ca1. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 380–82, 374-5, 389; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 59.

40 Lords justices to Nottingham, 1 Feb. 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 178).

41 Cal. S.P. dom., 1690–91, pp 230–32, 385-6; H.M.C., Le Fleming, p. 281; P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/14/29; Berwick, Edward, Rawdon papers (London, 1819), pp 338–9 Google Scholar.

43 Instructions to the lords justices [Capell, Wyche and Duncombe], 26 June 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 196).

44 Proclamations against tories, 14 Dec. 1674, 10 June 1675, 7 July 1675, 21 Feb. 1687 (N.L.I., MS 1793); lords justices to Nottingham, 19 Aug. 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 277).

45 Printed proclamation, 18 Aug. 1693, enclosed with lords justices’ letter to Nottingham, 19 Aug. 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 277). Some justices of the peace felt they were not covered by law to carry out arrests of priests and relations, which only served to strengthen the argument for permanent legislation against tories (see P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/29).

46 Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 41–2, 57, 59, 94.

47 Lords justices to Trenchard, 27 Aug. 1694 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 227); Porter to Coningsby, 19 Nov. 1694 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/29).

48 Printed list and proclamation, 10 Dec. 1694 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 353–4); Porter to Coningsby, 17 Dec. 1694 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/32).

49 Capell to Somers, 15 Aug. 1965 (Surrey Record Office, Somers papers, 371/14/4); newsletter, 2 Apr. 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 320).

50 B.L., Add. MS 28880, f. 261; Bodl., Carte MS 76, f. 723; H.M.C., Downshire, i, 710.

51 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99); Col. Philips to Capell, 19 July 1694 (ibid., p. 105); Porter to Coningsby, 13, 19 Nov. 1694 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/28, 32).

52 First transmission of bills, 17 June 1695, and third transmission of bills, 24 Oct. 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 9715, ff 22–3); Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 661, 800–01; Stat Ire., iii, 321–5.

53 P.R.O.N.L, De Ros papers, D638/14/45, 46, 48, 49, D638/18/2; H.M.C., Downshire, i, 509, 529, 534–5; H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 163–5, 169-70, 187, 205.

54 For the concerns of the Irish government, and their endeavours to deal with French privateers between 1691 and 1695, see Bodl., Carte MS 170, ff 129, 172; B.L., Add. MS 28940, ff 78–9; Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 238, 251, 413; Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 94, 434; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 37, 45, 182, 185, 188, 193–4, 204, 251, 265, 280, 319–20; P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/14/56, D638/18/6, 9; H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 183–4.

55 B.L., Add. MS 28940, f. 144; Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 364, 418; Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 76–7, 94, 117–18, 154.

56 James, F.G., Ireland in the Empire, 1688–1770 (London, 1973), p. 22 Google Scholar.

57 McGrath, ‘Securing the Protestant interest’, ch. 1.

58 CapeIl was appointed as a lord justice on 26 June 1693, and as lord deputy on 9 May 1695 (New hist. Ire., ix, 490).

59 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99).

60 McGrath, ‘Securing the Protestant interest’, chs 4–5.

61 Disarming proclamations, 8 Nov. 1673, 2 Nov. 1678, 12 Dec. 1678 (N.L.I., MS 1793). The issuing of these proclamations during the reign of Charles II ensured that the disarming policy pursued by William III and his governments did not really contradict the sense of the articles of Limerick, as Irish Catholics had looked to the reign of Charles II as a model for religious toleration when negotiating the articles. Thus William Ill’s desire to uphold the terms of the Limerick agreement did not necessarily mean that he wished to maintain a benign policy towards Catholics.

62 Disarming proclamation, 25 Feb. 1689 (ibid.). This proclamation did not refer specifically to Irish Protestants.

63 Disarming proclamation, 31 July 1690 (ibid.).

64 Instructions to the lords justices of Ireland, 4 Dec. 1690 (Cal. S.P dom., 1690–91, pp 179–80). The lords justices were Henry, Viscount Sidney, Sir Charles Porter (lord chancellor) and Thomas Coningsby.

65 Disarming proclamation, 31 July 1690 (N.L.I., MS 1793).

66 Sidney returned to England at the end of 1690, leaving Porter and Coningsby as the two lords justices. See Cal. S.P. dom., 1690–91, p. 192; McGuire, J.I., ‘The Irish parliament of 1692’ in Bartlett, Thomas and Hayton, D.W. (eds), Penal era and golden age: essays in Irish history, 1690–1800 (Belfast, 1979), pp 10–11 Google Scholar.

67 Lords justices to Robert Colvill, 26 Oct. 1691 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 42).

68 Enclosure, lords justices to Nottingham, 14 May 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 187).

69 Lords justices to Nottingham, 14 May 1692 (ibid., p. 186). For the preparations for a Franco-Jacobite invasion, March-June 1692, see Wauchope, Piers, Patrick Sarsfield and the Williamite war (Dublin, 1992), pp 286–91 Google Scholar.

70 Lords justices to Colvill, 6, 14 May 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, ff 46–7).

71 Lords justices to Colvill, 6 May 1692 (ibid., f. 46).

72 Lords justices to Colvill, 14 May 1692 (ibid., f. 47; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 187). The exemption was granted in order to avoid a breach of the articles of Limerick.

73 Warrant to Capt. McCartney from Governor Colvill, 19 May 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 50); Colvill to Secretary Davis, 17 June 1692 (ibid., f. 57).

74 Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 22; Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 41–2; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 192, 196, 198; H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99.

75 New hist. Ire., ix, 490.

76 Instructions to Sidney, 3 Mar. 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1691–2, p. 169).

77 Lords justices to the lords of the council, 21 July 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 192).

78 Sidney to Nottingham, 3 Sept. 1692 (ibid., p. 199).

79 McGuire, ‘Irish parliament of 1692’, pp 17–18. Porter believed that the majority of the Irish parliament regretted rejecting ‘that security’ of the militia bill ‘upon such silly notions’ (Porter to Coningsby, 18 Nov. 1692 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/2)).

80 Warrant issued by Robert Nevin, 10 Dec. 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 62); Porter to Coningsby, 23 Nov. 1692 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/3).

81 Warrant issued by William Crafford, 10 Dec. 1692, endorsed on the back, 11 Jan. 1693 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f.67).

82 W. Lesley, Charles Stewart and [Galland?] to Colvill, 30 Dec. 1692 (ibid., f. 71); Porter to Coningsby, 20 Dec. 1692 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/6).

83 Lord lieutenant and council to Colvill, 17 Dec. 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 69).

84 A short review of the Roman Catholic grievances, 1693 (Cal. S.P dom., 1693, p. 444).

85 The new lords justices were William Duncombc, Sir Cyril Wyche and Henry, Lord Capell.

86 Lords justices’ instructions, signed by the queen, 26 June 1693 (Cal. S.P dom., 1693, p. 195).

87 Privy council minutes, 22 Apr. 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 63).

88 Capell toTrenchard, 14 July 1694 (ibid.. p. 99).

89 Wyche and Duncombe to Trcnchard, 14 July 1694 (B.L., Add. MS 21136, ff 25–6).

90 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 100).

91 Capell to Shrewsbury, 8 Aug. 1694 (ibid., p. 115); Philips to Capell, 19 July 1694 (ibid., pp 104–5); Brodrick senior to Capell, 5 Aug. 1694 (ibid., pp 110–11).

92 Commons’ jn., 12 Jan. 1694, quoted in James, Ireland in the Empire, p. 22; address of the English House of Commons to King William, 4 Mar. 1693 (Cal. S. P. dom., 1693, pp 55–6).

93 McGrath, ‘Securing the Protestant interest’, ch. 4.

94 See Hill, B.W., The growth of parliamentary parties, 1689–1742 (London, 1976)Google Scholar, ch. 2; Horwitz, Henry, Parliament, policy and politics in the reign of William III (Manchester, 1977)Google Scholar, ch. 6; McGrath, ‘Securing the Protestant interest’, ch. 4.

95 New hist. Ire., ix, 490.

96 Capell’s instructions (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 459).

97 First transmission to English privy council, 17 June 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 9715, f. 22).

98 Capell and council to English lords justices, 17 June 1695 (ibid., Add. MSS 40771, f. 33).

99 Stat. at large, ix, 15–18; H.M.C., Portland, iii, 432, 434, 440-41; H.M.C., Le Fleming, pp 274, 328–9, 331.

100 H.M.C, Portland, ii, 54, 161, 163.

101 Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 153; H.M.C., Downshire, i, 488–9; B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 37; H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 197.

102 Shrewsbury to Capell, 2 July 1695 (H.M.C, Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 198).

103 Vernon to Capell, 4 July 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 39).

104 Porter to Trumbull, 3 July 1695 (H.M.C, Downshire, i, 493).

105 Ibid.

106 Shrewsbury to Capell, 6 July 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 42).

107 Ibid.

108 Warburton to Ellis, 19 Sept. 1695 (ibid., Add. MS 28879, ff 138–9). For views on this clause see Shrewsbury to Capell, 6 July 1695 (ibid., Add. MS 40771, f. 42); Capell to Shrewsbury, 10 July 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 12); Porter to Trumbull, 9, 15 July 1695 (H.M.C., Downshire, i, 499, 507).

109 Warburton to Ellis, 19 Sept. 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 28879, ff 138–9).

110 Gerald [Borr] to Ellis, 7 Sept. 1695 (ibid., f. 108).

111 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99).

112 Disarming and dismounting proclamation, 25 Feb. 1689 (N.L.I., MS 1793; H.M.C., Ormond, ii, 392–3); order for seizing horses, 6 Sept. 1651 (B.L., Egerton MS 1761, ff 44–5).

113 An account of all the men and horses that have been transported out of Ireland from 31 July 1691 to 31 March [1694]’ (B.L., Add. MS 18022, ff 62–3).

114 Lords justices to Nottingham, 1 Feb. 1692 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 178).

115 Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., pp 182, 184, 188.

116 Order to seize all serviceable horses of papists, issued by Colvill from his residence at Gollgorme, 27 May 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 53).

117 Lords justices to Colvill, 4 June 1692 (ibid., f. 54).

118 Lords justices to Colvill, 14 June 1692 (ibid., f. 56).

119 Warrant signed by Robert Nevin, high constable of Antrim, 10 Dec. 1692 (ibid., f. 62); Porter to Coningsby, 23 Nov. 1692 (P.R.O.N.I., De Ros papers, D638/18/3).

120 Stat. Ire., iii, 260–67; Stat. at large, ix, 18.

121 Warrant signed by Robert Nevin, high constable of Antrim, 10 Dec. 1692 (T.C.D., MS 1178, f. 62).

122 Lords justices’ instructions, 26 June 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, pp 194–6).

123 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99).

124 Col. Philips to Capell, 19 July 1694 (ibid., p. 105).

125 Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, pp 255, 493; H.M.C., Downshire, i, 493–4; Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 &Add., pp 357–8.

126 Commons’ jn., 12 Jan. 1694, quoted in James, Ireland in the Empire, p. 22.

127 Minutes of the proceedings of the lords justices of England, 12 July 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 15).

128 Porter to Trumbull, 8 July 1695 (H.M.C., Downshire, i, 496).

129 Minutes of the lords justices of England, 12 July 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1695 & Add., p. 15); Porter to Trumbull, 8 July 1695 (H.M.C., Downshire, i, 496).

130 Warburton to Ellis, 19 Sept. 1695 (B.L. Add. MS 28879, ff 138–9).

131 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99).

132 Capell to Vernon, 18 June 1695 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 500).

133 Lecky, Ire., i, 156–69; Wall, Catholic Ireland in the eighteenth century, pp 9–18; Beckett, Mod. Ire., p. 159; Dickson, David, New foundations: Ireland 1660–1800 (Dublin, 1987), p. 43 Google Scholar.

134 Banishing proclamations, 27 Apr. 1674, 16 Oct. 1678, 6 Nov. 1678, 26 Mar. 1679 (N.L.I., MS 1793); Dickson, New foundations, p. 13.

135 Capell to Trenchard, 14 July 1694 (H. M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 99).

136 Wall, Maureen, The penal laws (Dundalk, 1961), p. 16 Google Scholar.

137 Bosher, ‘Franco-Catholic danger’, pp 20–25; Wauchope, Patrick Sarsfield, pp 286–90.

138 Capell to Shrewsbury, 24 Nov. 1694 (Cal S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 344); Shrewsbury to the lords justices, 8 Dec. 1694 (ibid., p. 352); Shrewsbury to John King, 8 Dec. 1694 (ibid.); Shrewsbury to the lords justices, 23 Mar. 1695 (ibid., p. 410).

139 Memorial of Sir Richard Levinge, solicitor general of Ireland, to the lords justices, 24 Oct. 1693 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1693, p. 377).

140 Lords justices to Nottingham, 7 Oct. 1693 (ibid., p. 357).

141 Lords justices to Queen Mary, 7 Oct. 1693 (ibid., pp 357–8).

142 Nottingham to the lords justices, 2 Nov. 1693 (ibid., p. 388).

143 Memorial of Sir Richard Levinge, solicitor general of Ireland, to the lords justices, 24 Oct. 1693 (ibid., p. 377).

144 Blathwayt to Shrewsbury, 31 July-10 Aug. 1694 (H.M.C., Bucccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 108).

145 Capell to Shrewsbury, 24 Nov. 1694 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 344). Wyche and Duncombe held similar views: see Wyche and Duncombe to Shrewsbury, 24 Nov. 1694 (Bodl., Carte MS 170, ff 160–62).

146 Shrewsbury to the lords justices, 8 Dec. 1694 (Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 352).

147 Shrewsbury to John King, 8 Dec. 1694 (ibid.).

148 “Shrewsbury to the lords justices, 23 Mar. 1695 (ibid., p. 410).

149 Warrant for pardon, 7 Apr. 1695 (ibid., p. 420).

150 Capell and the privy council to the lords justices of England. 17 June 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 33).

151 On the threat of France and Catholicism to England and Ireland see Bosher, ‘Franco-Catholic danger’, pp 5–30.

152 Vernon to Capell, 29 June 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 37); see also H.M.C., Downshire, i, 488; H.M.C., Buccleuch & Queensberry, ii, 197; Cal. S.P. dom., 1694–5, p. 513.

153 Porter to Trumbull, 3, 8 July 1695 (H.M.C., Downshire, i, 493, 496–7).

154 Shrewsbury to Capell, 6 July 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 40771, f. 42).

155 Vernon to Capell, 9 July 1695 (ibid., f. 44).

156 Ibid.

157 Warburton to Ellis, 19 Sept. 1695 (B.L., Add. MS 28879, ff 138–9).

158 Porter to Trumbull, 3 July 1695 (H.M.C., Downshire, i, 492–3); Rev. Dr. Burridge, , A short view of the present state of Ireland — with regard particularly to the difficulties a chief governor will meet with there in holding a parliament (published 1708), pp 17–18 Google Scholar; Hayton, D.W., ‘The beginnings of the “undertaker system’” in Bartlett, and Hayton, (eds), Penal era & golden age, pp 40–44 Google Scholar; McGrath, ‘Securing the Protestant interest’, p. 227.

159 I wish to thank Mr James I. McGuire, Dr David Hayton and Dr Kevin Whelan for their time, effort and positive criticism of this article in draft.