From Treaty of Limerick to Penal laws.

jonniebgood1

The treaty of Limerick began progressively.

1. The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles the second: and their majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion.http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E703001-010/index.html

The question is how did we get from this first part of the treaty where William promised a type of freedom or 'privileges' to Catholics on the first hand, to the implementation of the harshest of the Penal law measures such as the education act in 1695

687. Education. No Catholic was to teach school or teach scholars in private houses; no Catholic to send his child abroad to be educated. Penalty: forfeiture of all goods, and ineligibility to fill any office, such as guardian or executor, or to accept any legacy. These measures altogether deprived Catholics—as such—of education.

688. Arms and property. All Catholics were to deliver up their arms: magistrates might break open the houses of Catholics and search for arms. But gentlemen having the benefit of the Treaty of Limerick might keep a sword, a case of pistols, and a fowling-piece. No maker of arms could take a Catholic apprentice.

689. No Catholic to keep a horse worth more than £5 (equal about £30 of our money): if a Catholic had a valuable horse, any Protestant might take it by tendering £5.

690. Religion. The Catholic parish clergy, i.e. the existing parish priests, were not disturbed; but all had to be registered, and should give security for good behaviour. All bishops, Jesuits, friars, and monks were ordered to quit the kingdom by the 1st of May 1698. Any who returned were guilty of high treason: punishment death. For any priest landing in Ireland, imprisonment, after which transportation to the Continent. No person to harbour or relieve any such clergy. Any priest who turned Protestant to get a pension of £30. No burials in churchyards of suppressed monasteries. No Catholic chapel to have steeple or bells.

691. Social position. Catholics and Protestants were not to intermarry. If a Protestant woman married a Catholic, her property was forfeited to the next Protestant heir. A Protestant man who married a Catholic was to be treated as if he were himself a Catholic.

A Catholic could not servo on a grand jury, and an attorney could not take a Catholic clerk.

This was the first instalment of the penal code; but it was followed by much worse. http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Penal.php

.

Was there any particular reason that the English parliament did not abide by the treaty?

Peregrinus

At the time of the treaty William III needed peace in Ireland, and he had an interest in placating European Catholic opinion. Britain had joined the League of Augsburg, an alliance of European powers whose aim was to limit the expansion of France under Louis XIV. The League was definitely an ecumenical affair; it included such Catholic powers as Austria, Spain and the Holy See. Hence William didn't wish to appear to be gratuitously anti-Catholic. Plus, he wanted peace in Ireland to free up military resources for the League's campaigns.

But the power-politics shifted in 1693, when the papacy recognised James II as rightful king. Thereafter William was less interested in placating papal opinion, and genuinely concerned that the loyalty of his Catholic subjects was suspect. Hence the change of policy.

thecommietommy

Peregrinus wrote: »

At the time of the treaty William III needed peace in Ireland, and he had an interest in placating European Catholic opinion. Britain had joined the League of Augsburg, an alliance of European powers whose aim was to limit the expansion of France under Louis XIV. The League was definitely an ecumenical affair; it included such Catholic powers as Austria, Spain and the Holy See. Hence William didn't wish to appear to be gratuitously anti-Catholic. Plus, he wanted peace in Ireland to free up military resources for the League's campaigns.

But the power-politics shifted in 1693, when the papacy recognised James II as rightful king. Thereafter William was less interested in placating papal opinion, and genuinely concerned that the loyalty of his Catholic subjects was suspect. Hence the change of policy.

Excellent post. Not only were Catholics discriminated against, but also Protestant dissenters such as Presbyterians, though not as badly as Catholics it has to be said.

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Excellent post. Not only were Catholics discriminated against, but also Protestant dissenters such as Presbyterians, though not as badly as Catholics it has to be said.

It is clear that Catholics were discriminated against. For example

693. If the eldest son of a Roman Catholic father turned Protestant, he became the owner of his father's land, and the father became merely life tenant. If any other child became Protestant, a Protestant guardian was appointed, and the father had to pay for separate maintenance and education.

694. If the sons were all Catholics, the land was equally divided among them when the father died: this was for the purpose of gradually impoverishing and weakening the old Catholic families. http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Penal.php

To what extent were the measures against Presbyterians applied in comparison to the long list of other laws dealing with Catholic rights. Furthermore I am interested in the dealings of the The earl of Wharton?