defining the limits of britishness: the "new" british history and the meaning of the...

Defining the Limits of Britishness: The "New" British History and the Meaning of theRevolution Settlement in Ireland for Ulster's PresbyteriansAuthor(s): Patrick GriffinSource: Journal of British Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 263-287Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on BritishStudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/175973 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 11:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The North American Conference on British Studies are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.208 on Fri, 9 May 2014 11:30:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/175973?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Defining the Limits of Britishness: The "New" British History and the Meaning

of the Revolution Settlement in Ireland for Ulster's Presbyterians

Patrick Griffin

Irish historian A. T. Q. Stewart has aptly described the world inhab- ited by eighteenth-century Ulster Scots as one of "hidden" significance.1 Compared to the rise of the Ascendancy and the repression of Catholics under the penal code, the story of Ulster's Presbyterians figures as inter- esting, albeit less significant, marginalia. While a few studies detail the handicaps the group suffered in the years after the Williamite Settlement, their eighteenth-century experience has mainly attracted church historians interested in theological disputes, social historians charting the rise of the linen industry, and students of the '98 Rebellion exploring the ways in which a latent Presbyterian radicalism contributed to the formation of the United Irish movement.2 Explaining who the Ulster Scots were or how they defined themselves has not attracted much scholarly attention, an unsurprising failure given that historians have designated the eighteenth century in Ireland as the period of "penal era and golden age."3

PATRICK GRIFFIN is a doctoral candidate in history at Northwestern University. He wishes to thank the anonymous JBS readers and T. H. Breen, Nicholas Canny, T. William Heyck, Ned Landsman, Philip Morgan, Jim Smyth, and Robert Wiebe for their comments and criticism.

1 A. T. Q. Stewart, A Deeper Silence: The Hidden Origins of the United Irish Move- ment (London, 1993).

2 See, e.g., J. L. M. Haire, ed., Challenge and Conflict: Essays in Irish Presbyterian History (Antrim, Ireland, 1981); Peter Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism: The Historical Experience (Dublin, 1987); W. H. Crawford, "Economy and Society in Ulster in the Eighteenth Century" (Ph.D. diss., Queen's University of Belfast, 1983); W. H. Crawford, Domestic Industry in Ireland: The Experience of the Linen Industry (Belfast, 1972); Stew- art, A Deeper Silence; Ian McBride, Scripture Politics: Ulster Presbyterians and Irish Radicalism in the Late Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1998).

3 Thomas Bartlett and D. W. Hayton, eds., Penal Era and Golden Age: Essays in Irish History, 1690-1800 (Belfast, 1979).

Journal of British Studies 39 (July 2000): 263-287 ? 2000 by The North American Conference on British Studies. All rights reserved. 0021-9371/2000/3903-0001$02.00

263

Defining the Limits of Britishness: The "New" British History and the Meaning

of the Revolution Settlement in Ireland for Ulster's Presbyterians

Patrick Griffin

Irish historian A. T. Q. Stewart has aptly described the world inhab- ited by eighteenth-century Ulster Scots as one of "hidden" significance.1 Compared to the rise of the Ascendancy and the repression of Catholics under the penal code, the story of Ulster's Presbyterians figures as inter- esting, albeit less significant, marginalia. While a few studies detail the handicaps the group suffered in the years after the Williamite Settlement, their eighteenth-century experience has mainly attracted church historians interested in theological disputes, social historians charting the rise of the linen industry, and students of the '98 Rebellion exploring the ways in which a latent Presbyterian radicalism contributed to the formation of the United Irish movement.2 Explaining who the Ulster Scots were or how they defined themselves has not attracted much scholarly attention, an unsurprising failure given that historians have designated the eighteenth century in Ireland as the period of "penal era and golden age."3

PATRICK GRIFFIN is a doctoral candidate in history at Northwestern University. He wishes to thank the anonymous JBS readers and T. H. Breen, Nicholas Canny, T. William Heyck, Ned Landsman, Philip Morgan, Jim Smyth, and Robert Wiebe for their comments and criticism.

1 A. T. Q. Stewart, A Deeper Silence: The Hidden Origins of the United Irish Move- ment (London, 1993).

2 See, e.g., J. L. M. Haire, ed., Challenge and Conflict: Essays in Irish Presbyterian History (Antrim, Ireland, 1981); Peter Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism: The Historical Experience (Dublin, 1987); W. H. Crawford, "Economy and Society in Ulster in the Eighteenth Century" (Ph.D. diss., Queen's University of Belfast, 1983); W. H. Crawford, Domestic Industry in Ireland: The Experience of the Linen Industry (Belfast, 1972); Stew- art, A Deeper Silence; Ian McBride, Scripture Politics: Ulster Presbyterians and Irish Radicalism in the Late Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1998).

3 Thomas Bartlett and D. W. Hayton, eds., Penal Era and Golden Age: Essays in Irish History, 1690-1800 (Belfast, 1979).

Journal of British Studies 39 (July 2000): 263-287 ? 2000 by The North American Conference on British Studies. All rights reserved. 0021-9371/2000/3903-0001$02.00

263



This article argues that a new, more fully integrated approach to the study of Ireland and Britain offers possibilities for recovering the history of the Ulster Scots. Nearly twenty-five years after J. G. A. Pocock issued his "plea" for a "new British history" that would incorporate the experiences of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland within a single narrative by exploring the ways in which each "interacted so as to mod- ify the condition of one another's existence," scholars have finally responded.4 The new British history, with its focus on the development of a British state system, seeks to explore, according to a chief proponent, John Morrill, the ways in which "the political and constitutional relationship between the communities of the two islands were transformed" and the processes through which they gained "a new sense of their own iden- tities as national communities."5 The results have been fascinating, offer- ing invigorated explanations, for example, of how in the eighteenth century Ireland's Ascendancy developed an assertive patriotism and why Scottish patriotism revolved around accommodation to the Union of 1707 and economic development.6

For the eighteenth century, however, new British historians have not explored groups beyond Ireland's and Scotland's elites in depth. The reasons for this failure are clear. Most devotees of the British approach focus debate on the "nature" of English expansion, whether those on the march consented to or contested the process of state formation. Yet few have probed the fundamental question that this approach purports to resolve. By couching the debate in terms of state formation, historians have made it difficult to integrate the experiences of groups that did not make up the "political nation," those few who held the reins of political power in the empire's marches. So, for instance, Irish Catholics disappear from the new British stage by the late seventeenth century when their political voice is lost, not to be seen again in an enduring fashion until the nineteenth century. Similarly, Scottish Highlanders appear only inter-

4 J. G. A. Pocock, "The Limits and Divisions of British History: In Search of the Unknown Subject," American Historical Review 87 (1982): 317. See also Pocock, "Brit- ish History: A Plea for a New Subject," Journal of Modern History 47 (1975): 601-21. His plea has been answered in studies too numerous to mention, but for a view of the state of the field, see A. Grant and K. Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1996); R. Asch, ed., Three Nations-a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c. 1600-1920 (Bochum, Germany, 1994); S. Ellis and S. Barber, eds., Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485-1725 (London, 1996); and B. Bradshaw and J. Morrill, eds., The British Problem, c. 1524- 1707 (London, 1996).

5 Morrill and Bradshaw, The British Problem, p. ix. 6 See Sean Connolly's essay, "Varieties of Britishness: Ireland, Scotland and Wales

in the Hanoverian State," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 193- 207, for a review of this literature.

This article argues that a new, more fully integrated approach to the study of Ireland and Britain offers possibilities for recovering the history of the Ulster Scots. Nearly twenty-five years after J. G. A. Pocock issued his "plea" for a "new British history" that would incorporate the experiences of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland within a single narrative by exploring the ways in which each "interacted so as to mod- ify the condition of one another's existence," scholars have finally responded.4 The new British history, with its focus on the development of a British state system, seeks to explore, according to a chief proponent, John Morrill, the ways in which "the political and constitutional relationship between the communities of the two islands were transformed" and the processes through which they gained "a new sense of their own iden- tities as national communities."5 The results have been fascinating, offer- ing invigorated explanations, for example, of how in the eighteenth century Ireland's Ascendancy developed an assertive patriotism and why Scottish patriotism revolved around accommodation to the Union of 1707 and economic development.6

For the eighteenth century, however, new British historians have not explored groups beyond Ireland's and Scotland's elites in depth. The reasons for this failure are clear. Most devotees of the British approach focus debate on the "nature" of English expansion, whether those on the march consented to or contested the process of state formation. Yet few have probed the fundamental question that this approach purports to resolve. By couching the debate in terms of state formation, historians have made it difficult to integrate the experiences of groups that did not make up the "political nation," those few who held the reins of political power in the empire's marches. So, for instance, Irish Catholics disappear from the new British stage by the late seventeenth century when their political voice is lost, not to be seen again in an enduring fashion until the nineteenth century. Similarly, Scottish Highlanders appear only inter-

4 J. G. A. Pocock, "The Limits and Divisions of British History: In Search of the Unknown Subject," American Historical Review 87 (1982): 317. See also Pocock, "Brit- ish History: A Plea for a New Subject," Journal of Modern History 47 (1975): 601-21. His plea has been answered in studies too numerous to mention, but for a view of the state of the field, see A. Grant and K. Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1996); R. Asch, ed., Three Nations-a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c. 1600-1920 (Bochum, Germany, 1994); S. Ellis and S. Barber, eds., Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485-1725 (London, 1996); and B. Bradshaw and J. Morrill, eds., The British Problem, c. 1524- 1707 (London, 1996).

5 Morrill and Bradshaw, The British Problem, p. ix. 6 See Sean Connolly's essay, "Varieties of Britishness: Ireland, Scotland and Wales

in the Hanoverian State," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 193- 207, for a review of this literature.

264 264 GRIFFIN GRIFFIN



LIMITS OF BRITISHNESS LIMITS OF BRITISHNESS

mittently over the course of the eighteenth century, most visibly during the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745. Chronicling a story of high politics, the new British history in many ways obscures the experience of

groups such as the Ulster Scots.7 This skewed perspective points to a methodological concern. Social

and cultural issues matter only insofar as they have political significance. As a result, we are left with an incomplete picture of the process of state formation and its effects. Certainly, what J. G. A. Pocock recognized as "the increasing dominance of England as a political and cultural entity" influenced more than political relationships within and among the two islands of the archipelago.8 Winners and losers in the scramble for political power in the early eighteenth century also had to redefine identity, and in some cases community, to say nothing of political culture, which often revolved around religious persuasion. Lost also are how groups dealt with the social and cultural costs and benefits of state formation and the ways in which people responded to broad changes in this period. These limitations do not mean that we should abandon the new British

approach. On the contrary, exploring the capacity of groups and individuals to make sense of larger transformations highlights how the effects of and responses to state formation were complex and variegated, involv-

ing a number of issues only one of which was political power. Unlike other groups in the British Isles, Ulster's Presbyterians had

to deal with the problem of continuity in the early eighteenth century. While in England and Scotland Dissenters bettered their lot after the Glorious Revolution, the Williamite Settlement changed little for nonconformists in Ireland. Members of the established church of Ireland continued to control the land and political institutions of the kingdom, and William's defeat of James reinforced Ireland's status as a second-class

kingdom.9 The Revolution, however, heightened expectations for all

7 Nicholas Canny has been the most vocal on these points. See his "The Attempted Anglicisation of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century: An Exemplar of 'British History,' " in Asch, ed., Three Nations; see also Canny, "Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Responses to Centralisation, c. 1530-c. 1640: A Comparative Perspective," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 147-69.

8Pocock, "British History," p. 619. 9 In this essay, I follow Sean Connolly's argument in Religion, Law and Power: The

Making of Protestant Ireland, 1660-1760 (London, 1992) that Protestant elites gained firm control of an Irish ancien r6gime tied together by clientage and deference by the 1660s. After the Williamite war, they sought to reassert, rather than establish, their power in the kingdom. The "long" eighteenth century in Ireland, therefore, began in 1660. See also David Dickson's New Foundations: Ireland, 1660-1800 (Dublin, 1987), which similarly begins its account with the Restoration. Most eighteenth-century histories of Ireland start with the end of the Williamite War in 1691. See, e.g., J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland, 1603-1923 (London, 1966), pp. 139-283; R. F. Foster, Mod- ern Ireland, 1600-1972 (London, 1988), pp. 167-288; and T. W. Moody and W. E.

mittently over the course of the eighteenth century, most visibly during the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745. Chronicling a story of high politics, the new British history in many ways obscures the experience of

groups such as the Ulster Scots.7 This skewed perspective points to a methodological concern. Social

and cultural issues matter only insofar as they have political significance. As a result, we are left with an incomplete picture of the process of state formation and its effects. Certainly, what J. G. A. Pocock recognized as "the increasing dominance of England as a political and cultural entity" influenced more than political relationships within and among the two islands of the archipelago.8 Winners and losers in the scramble for political power in the early eighteenth century also had to redefine identity, and in some cases community, to say nothing of political culture, which often revolved around religious persuasion. Lost also are how groups dealt with the social and cultural costs and benefits of state formation and the ways in which people responded to broad changes in this period. These limitations do not mean that we should abandon the new British

approach. On the contrary, exploring the capacity of groups and individuals to make sense of larger transformations highlights how the effects of and responses to state formation were complex and variegated, involv-

ing a number of issues only one of which was political power. Unlike other groups in the British Isles, Ulster's Presbyterians had

to deal with the problem of continuity in the early eighteenth century. While in England and Scotland Dissenters bettered their lot after the Glorious Revolution, the Williamite Settlement changed little for nonconformists in Ireland. Members of the established church of Ireland continued to control the land and political institutions of the kingdom, and William's defeat of James reinforced Ireland's status as a second-class

kingdom.9 The Revolution, however, heightened expectations for all

7 Nicholas Canny has been the most vocal on these points. See his "The Attempted Anglicisation of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century: An Exemplar of 'British History,' " in Asch, ed., Three Nations; see also Canny, "Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Responses to Centralisation, c. 1530-c. 1640: A Comparative Perspective," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 147-69.

8Pocock, "British History," p. 619. 9 In this essay, I follow Sean Connolly's argument in Religion, Law and Power: The

Making of Protestant Ireland, 1660-1760 (London, 1992) that Protestant elites gained firm control of an Irish ancien r6gime tied together by clientage and deference by the 1660s. After the Williamite war, they sought to reassert, rather than establish, their power in the kingdom. The "long" eighteenth century in Ireland, therefore, began in 1660. See also David Dickson's New Foundations: Ireland, 1660-1800 (Dublin, 1987), which similarly begins its account with the Restoration. Most eighteenth-century histories of Ireland start with the end of the Williamite War in 1691. See, e.g., J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland, 1603-1923 (London, 1966), pp. 139-283; R. F. Foster, Mod- ern Ireland, 1600-1972 (London, 1988), pp. 167-288; and T. W. Moody and W. E.

265 265



groups. Both established churchmen and Ulster nonconformists struggled to secure conflicting visions of the Revolution Settlement that were in line with Britain's. While Anglicans hoped to empower their parliament in Dublin and buttress the confessional state, northern Dissenters placed their hopes on toleration. Fear and suspicion of the Dissenters' aims and tight-knit ecclesiastical structure led elites in Ireland to enact measures that effectively disbarred Presbyterians from the kingdom's political life.?1 This dynamic also had less visible but no less profound effects. The attack on the integrity of the Presbyterian church and the church's disregard for the civil and ecclesiastical courts contributed to a break- down of discipline within Ulster Scot society. Community seemed to fall apart, and identity became more difficult to define.

If the Revolution's unrevolutionary nature brought problems for U1- ster's Presbyterians, it also provided the language with which they could respond to these problems. To negotiate their provincial status, Ulster Scots relied on a number of discourses. In the early years after the Revo- lution, they made pleas for toleration based on their service during the Williamite war. By the 1720s they had transformed their rhetoric. Young ministers trained in Scotland and instructed by English Dissenters fused older articles of the Reformed tradition, such as sola scriptura and the rights of private conscience, with emerging natural rights theories and latitudinarian ideas. They honed this new composite discourse in a church debate over the merits of subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, publishing pamphlets espousing a latitudinarian theology and championing the inviolability of individual rights in order to contest church prerogatives. The rhetoric used in the struggle over subscription also provided Ulster Scots with a powerful language to challenge Ire- land's Protestant elite. In 1730, Ulster's Presbyterians initiated a campaign to undo their civil disabilities by printing pamphlets in Ireland and Britain decrying the discrimination they faced as an infringement on the

rights of freeborn Britons. Indeed, the reasoning they invoked to repeal disabling legislation resembled the arguments used by Irish landed elites to assert their rights to govern Ireland through their own parliament in Dublin.

Adopting the language of the Revolution Settlement, although the Revolution had not changed their status in any substantive way, offered Ulster Scots a viable means of making sense of a world transformed by

Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, vol. 4, Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 1691-1800 (Ox- ford, 1986).

10 The most comprehensive examination of the relationship between churchmen and Dissenters in the eighteenth century is J. C. Beckett's Protestant Dissent in Ireland, 1687- 1780 (London, 1948).

groups. Both established churchmen and Ulster nonconformists struggled to secure conflicting visions of the Revolution Settlement that were in line with Britain's. While Anglicans hoped to empower their parliament in Dublin and buttress the confessional state, northern Dissenters placed their hopes on toleration. Fear and suspicion of the Dissenters' aims and tight-knit ecclesiastical structure led elites in Ireland to enact measures that effectively disbarred Presbyterians from the kingdom's political life.?1 This dynamic also had less visible but no less profound effects. The attack on the integrity of the Presbyterian church and the church's disregard for the civil and ecclesiastical courts contributed to a break- down of discipline within Ulster Scot society. Community seemed to fall apart, and identity became more difficult to define.

If the Revolution's unrevolutionary nature brought problems for U1- ster's Presbyterians, it also provided the language with which they could respond to these problems. To negotiate their provincial status, Ulster Scots relied on a number of discourses. In the early years after the Revo- lution, they made pleas for toleration based on their service during the Williamite war. By the 1720s they had transformed their rhetoric. Young ministers trained in Scotland and instructed by English Dissenters fused older articles of the Reformed tradition, such as sola scriptura and the rights of private conscience, with emerging natural rights theories and latitudinarian ideas. They honed this new composite discourse in a church debate over the merits of subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, publishing pamphlets espousing a latitudinarian theology and championing the inviolability of individual rights in order to contest church prerogatives. The rhetoric used in the struggle over subscription also provided Ulster Scots with a powerful language to challenge Ire- land's Protestant elite. In 1730, Ulster's Presbyterians initiated a campaign to undo their civil disabilities by printing pamphlets in Ireland and Britain decrying the discrimination they faced as an infringement on the

rights of freeborn Britons. Indeed, the reasoning they invoked to repeal disabling legislation resembled the arguments used by Irish landed elites to assert their rights to govern Ireland through their own parliament in Dublin.

Adopting the language of the Revolution Settlement, although the Revolution had not changed their status in any substantive way, offered Ulster Scots a viable means of making sense of a world transformed by

Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, vol. 4, Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 1691-1800 (Ox- ford, 1986).

10 The most comprehensive examination of the relationship between churchmen and Dissenters in the eighteenth century is J. C. Beckett's Protestant Dissent in Ireland, 1687- 1780 (London, 1948).





the expansion of the British state. The group's experience, therefore, seems ideally suited for the new British approach. Ireland's northern Dis- senters, as much as any group, embraced the new revolutionary British state, particularly its promise of equality for loyal Protestants. Yet, as second-class subjects in a second-class kingdom, Ulster Presbyterians found that their expectations often outpaced reality. It is this disjunction, apparent only as we explore the story of Ulster's nonconformists within a British context, which ultimately reveals the ambiguous nature and limitations of Britishness.

* * *

That Ulster Scots redefined ideology in the wake of the Glorious Revolution comes as little surprise. This period represented, according to Morrill, a "defining moment" for the British Isles, an era in which relationships among kingdoms and between groups were fundamentally altered." These years witnessed the culmination of a centralizing drive- initiated by the Tudors in the sixteenth century-to impose English institutions and an English notion of sovereignty, premised upon the King- in-Parliament, on a multiple state. William's accession to the throne laid the foundations for the modern British fiscal-military state and the groundwork for the construction of British nationalism, both of which transformed the constituent societies of the Atlantic archipelago. In the years after the Revolution, England came to dominate the peripheries, leading to union with Scotland in 1707 and a declaratory act for Ireland

subordinating its parliament to England's. The Glorious Revolution, whether understood as "sensible," "conservative," or "liberating," new British historians believe, "quickened and nurtured a distinctive

phase of British historical development," requiring all-including, pre- sumably, Ulster Scots-to rethink who they were and to reevaluate their place in a burgeoning empire.12

Certainly for Dissenters in other kingdoms, the Williamite Revolu- tion heralded substantive change. Although Catholics made up a small percentage of England's population, fears of a Papist fifth column forced Anglicans to look beyond the traditional belief that Dissenters repre-

1 John Morrill, "The British Problem," in Morrill and Bradshaw, eds., The British Problem, p. 19.

12 John Morrill, "The Sensible Revolution," in The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact, ed. J. Israel (Cambridge, 1991), p. 104; D. W. Hayton, "The Williamite Revolution in Ireland, 1688-91," in ibid., p. 186; Alex- ander Grant and Keith Stringer, "The Enigma of British History," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 8-9; John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 (New York, 1989); Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New Haven, Conn., 1992).

the expansion of the British state. The group's experience, therefore, seems ideally suited for the new British approach. Ireland's northern Dis- senters, as much as any group, embraced the new revolutionary British state, particularly its promise of equality for loyal Protestants. Yet, as second-class subjects in a second-class kingdom, Ulster Presbyterians found that their expectations often outpaced reality. It is this disjunction, apparent only as we explore the story of Ulster's nonconformists within a British context, which ultimately reveals the ambiguous nature and limitations of Britishness.

* * *

That Ulster Scots redefined ideology in the wake of the Glorious Revolution comes as little surprise. This period represented, according to Morrill, a "defining moment" for the British Isles, an era in which relationships among kingdoms and between groups were fundamentally altered." These years witnessed the culmination of a centralizing drive- initiated by the Tudors in the sixteenth century-to impose English institutions and an English notion of sovereignty, premised upon the King- in-Parliament, on a multiple state. William's accession to the throne laid the foundations for the modern British fiscal-military state and the groundwork for the construction of British nationalism, both of which transformed the constituent societies of the Atlantic archipelago. In the years after the Revolution, England came to dominate the peripheries, leading to union with Scotland in 1707 and a declaratory act for Ireland

subordinating its parliament to England's. The Glorious Revolution, whether understood as "sensible," "conservative," or "liberating," new British historians believe, "quickened and nurtured a distinctive

phase of British historical development," requiring all-including, pre- sumably, Ulster Scots-to rethink who they were and to reevaluate their place in a burgeoning empire.12

Certainly for Dissenters in other kingdoms, the Williamite Revolu- tion heralded substantive change. Although Catholics made up a small percentage of England's population, fears of a Papist fifth column forced Anglicans to look beyond the traditional belief that Dissenters repre-

1 John Morrill, "The British Problem," in Morrill and Bradshaw, eds., The British Problem, p. 19.

12 John Morrill, "The Sensible Revolution," in The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact, ed. J. Israel (Cambridge, 1991), p. 104; D. W. Hayton, "The Williamite Revolution in Ireland, 1688-91," in ibid., p. 186; Alex- ander Grant and Keith Stringer, "The Enigma of British History," in Grant and Stringer, eds., Uniting the Kingdom, pp. 8-9; John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 (New York, 1989); Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New Haven, Conn., 1992).

267 267



sented a threat to the constitution of church and state. When James II issued his Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, churchmen reevaluated their views of dissent, alarmed by the possibility of an alliance between disgruntled Papists and nonconformists. Because nonconformists were a small minority-they composed little more than 5 percent of the English population and an even smaller percentage of the gentry and aristoc- racy-and because they played important roles in a developing mercan- tilist economy, the benefits of toleration outweighed the costs. Toleration, it seems, amounted to a small price to pay for political stability. The Corporation and Test Acts still stood in the way of unfettered access to political power; only occasional conformity offered Dissenters a direct voice in government. Moreover, toleration in practice proved limited in scope, a far cry, for example, from comprehension-or absorption- within the established church, upon which some Presbyterians pinned their hopes. Nonetheless, after 1689, churchmen could no longer recreate the confessional state.'3

Scottish Dissenters fared even better. Although Episcopalians held much of the land and had enjoyed established status before the Revolu- tion, Presbyterians supplanted them as churchmen as part of the Revolu- tion Settlement in Scotland. Undoubtedly, the unwavering support of Presbyterians for William's cause and the numerical superiority of Pres- byterians among Lowlanders influenced the government to look the other way as they purged Episcopalians from the Convention Parliament. The fear of Jacobitism, however, ultimately allowed Presbyterians to repeal the Act of Supremacy of 1669 and to abolish prelacy. The government's need to obtain a supply to maintain a standing army because of the threat posed by Jacobitism and the Jacobite sympathies of the Episcopalian clergy determined the direction of the political and ecclesiastical settlement in Scotland.14

When comparing their situation to that of Dissenters in Britain, Ul- ster Scots believed they merited toleration, perhaps even comprehension. There was little that was glorious about the Revolution in Ireland. The only major military campaigns of the period were fought in Ireland, en- suring that the Irish chapter of the Revolution was anything but blood- less. For their part, Ulster Scots from the very start backed William's

13 John Spurr, "The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689," English Historical Review 104 (1989): 927-46; W. A. Speck, Reluctant Revolu- tionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 167-87; Richard Brown, Church and State in Modern Britain, 1700-1715 (London, 1991), p. 109.

14Ian Cowan, "Church and State Reformed? The Revolution of 1688-9 in Scot- land," in Israel, ed., The Anglo-Dutch Moment, pp. 163-83; W. Ferguson, Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 4, Scotland, 1689 to the Present (Edinburgh, 1968), pp. 1-10.

sented a threat to the constitution of church and state. When James II issued his Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, churchmen reevaluated their views of dissent, alarmed by the possibility of an alliance between disgruntled Papists and nonconformists. Because nonconformists were a small minority-they composed little more than 5 percent of the English population and an even smaller percentage of the gentry and aristoc- racy-and because they played important roles in a developing mercan- tilist economy, the benefits of toleration outweighed the costs. Toleration, it seems, amounted to a small price to pay for political stability. The Corporation and Test Acts still stood in the way of unfettered access to political power; only occasional conformity offered Dissenters a direct voice in government. Moreover, toleration in practice proved limited in scope, a far cry, for example, from comprehension-or absorption- within the established church, upon which some Presbyterians pinned their hopes. Nonetheless, after 1689, churchmen could no longer recreate the confessional state.'3

Scottish Dissenters fared even better. Although Episcopalians held much of the land and had enjoyed established status before the Revolu- tion, Presbyterians supplanted them as churchmen as part of the Revolu- tion Settlement in Scotland. Undoubtedly, the unwavering support of Presbyterians for William's cause and the numerical superiority of Pres- byterians among Lowlanders influenced the government to look the other way as they purged Episcopalians from the Convention Parliament. The fear of Jacobitism, however, ultimately allowed Presbyterians to repeal the Act of Supremacy of 1669 and to abolish prelacy. The government's need to obtain a supply to maintain a standing army because of the threat posed by Jacobitism and the Jacobite sympathies of the Episcopalian clergy determined the direction of the political and ecclesiastical settlement in Scotland.14

When comparing their situation to that of Dissenters in Britain, Ul- ster Scots believed they merited toleration, perhaps even comprehension. There was little that was glorious about the Revolution in Ireland. The only major military campaigns of the period were fought in Ireland, en- suring that the Irish chapter of the Revolution was anything but blood- less. For their part, Ulster Scots from the very start backed William's

13 John Spurr, "The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689," English Historical Review 104 (1989): 927-46; W. A. Speck, Reluctant Revolu- tionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 167-87; Richard Brown, Church and State in Modern Britain, 1700-1715 (London, 1991), p. 109.

14Ian Cowan, "Church and State Reformed? The Revolution of 1688-9 in Scot- land," in Israel, ed., The Anglo-Dutch Moment, pp. 163-83; W. Ferguson, Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 4, Scotland, 1689 to the Present (Edinburgh, 1968), pp. 1-10.





cause, withstood the sieges of Derry and Enniskillen, and suffered severe deprivation at the hands of James's Irish army. With William's victory, Ulster's Presbyterians hoped to improve their position under the law in line with the religious settlement in Britain and expected that the persecu- tion that they endured during the period of the Restoration was coming to an end.15 "Without the prospect of any other particular Advantage to themselves," recalled a minister, Ulster's Presbyterians "did not barely roar and foam against Popery, but effectively stemm'd the Torrent of it." 16 Indeed, Ulster Scots asserted they had an especially powerful claim for toleration by virtue of the group's service during the Revolution and their unequivocal opposition to Catholicism. Religious disabilities, they argued, "evidently cross and counteract the spirit, principles and design of the revolution," especially for a people who had "signalised their loyalty to King William and their zeal for the Revolution."17 For their part, all they sought was "Liberty to worship God . . . without being prosecuted for it, a Liberty not denied to Dissenters in other parts of the Kingdom."18 Therefore, repealing disabling laws, in their eyes, would repay "a Debt . .. for the Expence of their Blood and Fortune." 19

The same pressures that allowed Dissenters in England to gain toleration and Presbyterians in Scotland to claim supremacy, however, could not be brought to bear on either the Irish or the English government to grant comprehension or toleration in Ireland. Unlike the English case, few British leaders feared that Presbyterians in Ulster would form an alliance with the Catholics of Ireland. In Ireland, where Catholics composed three-quarters of the population, few Protestants saw common cause with popery. Ulster Scots also lacked political leverage in a king-

15 P. Tesch, "Presbyterian Radicalism," in The United Irishmen: Republicanism, Radicalism, and Rebellion, ed. D. Dickson, D. Keogh, and K. Whelan (London, 1993), p. 34; Ian McBride, "William Drennan and the Dissenting Tradition," in ibid., p. 56. R. L. Greaves examines the role of the establishment in the Restoration period in "'That's No Good Religion That Disturbs Government': The Church of Ireland and the Noncon- formist Challenge, 1660-1688," in As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland since the Reformation, ed. A. Ford, J. I. McGuire, and K. Milne (Dublin, 1995). For the Presby- terian response, see P. Kilroy, Protestant Dissent and Controversy in Ireland, 1660-1714 (Cork, Ireland, 1994), pp. 225-43.

16 J. Boyse, Remarks on a Pamphlet Publish'd by William Tisdal, D.D. (Dublin, 1716), p. 15.

17 Memorial Relating to the Presbyterians in Ireland, Re: Imprisoning Minister in Drogheda, 1708, Wodrow Papers, T 525, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (here- after PRONI).

18 Petition of Francis Iredell, 25 August 1713, T 780/67, PRONI. 19 Presbyterian polemicist quoted in W. Tisdal, A Sample of True-Blew Presbyterian

Loyalty in All Changes and Turns of Government (Dublin, 1709), p. 3. See J. Kirkpatrick, An Historical Essay upon the Loyalty of Presbyterians in Great Britain and Ireland from the Reformation to the Present Year, 1713 (Belfast, 1713), for the Presbyterian plea of merit.

cause, withstood the sieges of Derry and Enniskillen, and suffered severe deprivation at the hands of James's Irish army. With William's victory, Ulster's Presbyterians hoped to improve their position under the law in line with the religious settlement in Britain and expected that the persecu- tion that they endured during the period of the Restoration was coming to an end.15 "Without the prospect of any other particular Advantage to themselves," recalled a minister, Ulster's Presbyterians "did not barely roar and foam against Popery, but effectively stemm'd the Torrent of it." 16 Indeed, Ulster Scots asserted they had an especially powerful claim for toleration by virtue of the group's service during the Revolution and their unequivocal opposition to Catholicism. Religious disabilities, they argued, "evidently cross and counteract the spirit, principles and design of the revolution," especially for a people who had "signalised their loyalty to King William and their zeal for the Revolution."17 For their part, all they sought was "Liberty to worship God . . . without being prosecuted for it, a Liberty not denied to Dissenters in other parts of the Kingdom."18 Therefore, repealing disabling laws, in their eyes, would repay "a Debt . .. for the Expence of their Blood and Fortune." 19

The same pressures that allowed Dissenters in England to gain toleration and Presbyterians in Scotland to claim supremacy, however, could not be brought to bear on either the Irish or the English government to grant comprehension or toleration in Ireland. Unlike the English case, few British leaders feared that Presbyterians in Ulster would form an alliance with the Catholics of Ireland. In Ireland, where Catholics composed three-quarters of the population, few Protestants saw common cause with popery. Ulster Scots also lacked political leverage in a king-

15 P. Tesch, "Presbyterian Radicalism," in The United Irishmen: Republicanism, Radicalism, and Rebellion, ed. D. Dickson, D. Keogh, and K. Whelan (London, 1993), p. 34; Ian McBride, "William Drennan and the Dissenting Tradition," in ibid., p. 56. R. L. Greaves examines the role of the establishment in the Restoration period in "'That's No Good Religion That Disturbs Government': The Church of Ireland and the Noncon- formist Challenge, 1660-1688," in As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland since the Reformation, ed. A. Ford, J. I. McGuire, and K. Milne (Dublin, 1995). For the Presby- terian response, see P. Kilroy, Protestant Dissent and Controversy in Ireland, 1660-1714 (Cork, Ireland, 1994), pp. 225-43.

16 J. Boyse, Remarks on a Pamphlet Publish'd by William Tisdal, D.D. (Dublin, 1716), p. 15.

17 Memorial Relating to the Presbyterians in Ireland, Re: Imprisoning Minister in Drogheda, 1708, Wodrow Papers, T 525, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (here- after PRONI).

18 Petition of Francis Iredell, 25 August 1713, T 780/67, PRONI. 19 Presbyterian polemicist quoted in W. Tisdal, A Sample of True-Blew Presbyterian

Loyalty in All Changes and Turns of Government (Dublin, 1709), p. 3. See J. Kirkpatrick, An Historical Essay upon the Loyalty of Presbyterians in Great Britain and Ireland from the Reformation to the Present Year, 1713 (Belfast, 1713), for the Presbyterian plea of merit.

269 269



dom where land and religious profession determined access to power. "The body of our dissenters," a government official noted, "consist of the middling and meaner sort of people, chiefly in the north, and in the north there are not many of them estated men when compared with those of the Established Church."20 Moreover, although by the time of the Revolution Presbyterians could claim as many congregants as Anglicans in Ulster, churchmen outnumbered them throughout the whole island. Finally, as opposed to the Scottish example, established churchmen in Ireland counted few Jacobites in their number. All Protestants supported William.21

Indeed, on all fronts the Revolution Settlement reinforced the old order. English policy makers had the same concerns about stability and revenue in Ireland as they had about stability and revenue in England and Scotland. Maintaining a large standing army and bringing solvency to the treasury, however, entailed giving churchmen a free hand in or- ganizing Irish society-the path of least resistance-which allowed An- glicans to secure a greater hold over the kingdom. In the years after the Revolution, members of the Church of Ireland increased their share of the land at the expense of Catholics, who saw their holdings dwindle from almost 25 percent during the period of the Restoration to 14 percent by 1704.22 The Glorious Revolution, in fact, is better conceived, as Sean Connolly argues, as "counter revolution defeated."23 With the collapse of James's cause in Ireland and the flight or suppression of leading Cath- olics, Anglicans found themselves in a position to reassert the power they had been exercising in the kingdom for more than thirty years, with the result, as Jim Smyth explains, that "ultimately all state-individual and state-community relationships were defined by religious confession."24 The changes that did not occur in Ireland in the wake of the Revolution, therefore, proved just as important as those that did.

Ireland's constitutional relationship with England also failed to change in any substantive way. To be sure, the enactment of penal laws, designed to destroy the power of Catholics, necessitated an unprece- dented expansion of state authority into Ireland on several fronts. As more English placemen took over the administration of government and

20 Henry Maxwell to -- , 9 April 1716, T 448/280, PRONI; Hayton, "The Wil- liamite Revolution in Ireland," pp. 199-201.

21 J. I. McGuire, "The Church of Ireland and the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688," in Studies in Irish History Presented to R. Dudley Edwards, ed. Art Cosgrove and D. Macartney (Dublin, 1979), pp. 147-49.

22 Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 147, 309. 23 Ibid., p. 33. 24 Smyth, "The Communities of Ireland and the British State, 1660-1707," in Mor-

rill and Bradshaw, eds., The British Problem, p. 249.

dom where land and religious profession determined access to power. "The body of our dissenters," a government official noted, "consist of the middling and meaner sort of people, chiefly in the north, and in the north there are not many of them estated men when compared with those of the Established Church."20 Moreover, although by the time of the Revolution Presbyterians could claim as many congregants as Anglicans in Ulster, churchmen outnumbered them throughout the whole island. Finally, as opposed to the Scottish example, established churchmen in Ireland counted few Jacobites in their number. All Protestants supported William.21

Indeed, on all fronts the Revolution Settlement reinforced the old order. English policy makers had the same concerns about stability and revenue in Ireland as they had about stability and revenue in England and Scotland. Maintaining a large standing army and bringing solvency to the treasury, however, entailed giving churchmen a free hand in or- ganizing Irish society-the path of least resistance-which allowed An- glicans to secure a greater hold over the kingdom. In the years after the Revolution, members of the Church of Ireland increased their share of the land at the expense of Catholics, who saw their holdings dwindle from almost 25 percent during the period of the Restoration to 14 percent by 1704.22 The Glorious Revolution, in fact, is better conceived, as Sean Connolly argues, as "counter revolution defeated."23 With the collapse of James's cause in Ireland and the flight or suppression of leading Cath- olics, Anglicans found themselves in a position to reassert the power they had been exercising in the kingdom for more than thirty years, with the result, as Jim Smyth explains, that "ultimately all state-individual and state-community relationships were defined by religious confession."24 The changes that did not occur in Ireland in the wake of the Revolution, therefore, proved just as important as those that did.

Ireland's constitutional relationship with England also failed to change in any substantive way. To be sure, the enactment of penal laws, designed to destroy the power of Catholics, necessitated an unprece- dented expansion of state authority into Ireland on several fronts. As more English placemen took over the administration of government and

20 Henry Maxwell to -- , 9 April 1716, T 448/280, PRONI; Hayton, "The Wil- liamite Revolution in Ireland," pp. 199-201.

21 J. I. McGuire, "The Church of Ireland and the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688," in Studies in Irish History Presented to R. Dudley Edwards, ed. Art Cosgrove and D. Macartney (Dublin, 1979), pp. 147-49.

22 Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 147, 309. 23 Ibid., p. 33. 24 Smyth, "The Communities of Ireland and the British State, 1660-1707," in Mor-

rill and Bradshaw, eds., The British Problem, p. 249.





church in Ireland, it became clear that public patronage would be based on English political considerations. England's Parliament also asserted its power by limiting Ireland's legislative independence and restricting Ireland's trade. In 1691 it had insisted that the Irish Parliament present it with heads of bills, and it soon seized control of Ireland's budget and revenue collection. The upper house also asserted its prerogative, snatching ultimate appellate jurisdiction from the Irish House of Lords. Moreover, beginning with the Act of 1696, Parliament curtailed Irish trade with the North American colonies and a year later attempted to

suppress the burgeoning Irish woolen industry. The government of George I officially sanctioned these ad hoc measures by passing the "sixth of George I"-the Declaratory Act-which confirmed the kingdom's full legal subordination to the Parliament in London.25 Although these measures proved bitter pills to swallow for Ireland's Protestant elite, they were not without precedent. The moves merely cemented the relationship between the two kingdoms. England's parliament had already legislated on a number of occasions for Ireland and restricted its trade, most notably with the Navigation and Cattle Acts. If anything, the constitutional relationship was clarified in the years after the Revolu- tion.26

In this context, the only revolutionary changes in the years of the Revolution Settlement involved Protestant expectations. This dynamic determined the form the Revolution Settlement took in Ireland and forced all to redefine relationships. On the constitutional front, members of the Ascendancy looked enviously at the example of Scotland while reevalu- ating the issue of parliamentary subordination. They responded in two ways to this example. First, some hoped an invitation to union would

25 Before the Revolution, England's government maintained an Irish policy of "drift." Elizabethan and Cromwellian armies had subdued the native Irish, but effective English rule proved ephemeral and inconsistent. An Irish Parliament legislated for the country without much English interference. Only the crown, which ratified Irish bills, intervened in Irish affairs. The English Parliament, on the other hand, chose not to exercise its influence very often. See N. Canny, "The Marginal Kingdom: Ireland as a Prob- lem in the First British Empire," in Strangers within the Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire, ed. B. Bailyn and P. Morgan (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1991), p. 37. See also Canny, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560-1800 (Baltimore, 1988); Moody and Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, 4:8-16, 138-39; L. M. Cullen, An Economic History of Ireland since 1660 (New York, 1972), pp. 34-43; and Hayton, "The Williamite Revolution in Ireland," p. 211.

26 T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, and F. J. Byrne, A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland, 1534-1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 397-400, 443-44.

church in Ireland, it became clear that public patronage would be based on English political considerations. England's Parliament also asserted its power by limiting Ireland's legislative independence and restricting Ireland's trade. In 1691 it had insisted that the Irish Parliament present it with heads of bills, and it soon seized control of Ireland's budget and revenue collection. The upper house also asserted its prerogative, snatching ultimate appellate jurisdiction from the Irish House of Lords. Moreover, beginning with the Act of 1696, Parliament curtailed Irish trade with the North American colonies and a year later attempted to

suppress the burgeoning Irish woolen industry. The government of George I officially sanctioned these ad hoc measures by passing the "sixth of George I"-the Declaratory Act-which confirmed the kingdom's full legal subordination to the Parliament in London.25 Although these measures proved bitter pills to swallow for Ireland's Protestant elite, they were not without precedent. The moves merely cemented the relationship between the two kingdoms. England's parliament had already legislated on a number of occasions for Ireland and restricted its trade, most notably with the Navigation and Cattle Acts. If anything, the constitutional relationship was clarified in the years after the Revolu- tion.26

In this context, the only revolutionary changes in the years of the Revolution Settlement involved Protestant expectations. This dynamic determined the form the Revolution Settlement took in Ireland and forced all to redefine relationships. On the constitutional front, members of the Ascendancy looked enviously at the example of Scotland while reevalu- ating the issue of parliamentary subordination. They responded in two ways to this example. First, some hoped an invitation to union would

25 Before the Revolution, England's government maintained an Irish policy of "drift." Elizabethan and Cromwellian armies had subdued the native Irish, but effective English rule proved ephemeral and inconsistent. An Irish Parliament legislated for the country without much English interference. Only the crown, which ratified Irish bills, intervened in Irish affairs. The English Parliament, on the other hand, chose not to exercise its influence very often. See N. Canny, "The Marginal Kingdom: Ireland as a Prob- lem in the First British Empire," in Strangers within the Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire, ed. B. Bailyn and P. Morgan (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1991), p. 37. See also Canny, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560-1800 (Baltimore, 1988); Moody and Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, 4:8-16, 138-39; L. M. Cullen, An Economic History of Ireland since 1660 (New York, 1972), pp. 34-43; and Hayton, "The Williamite Revolution in Ireland," p. 211.

26 T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, and F. J. Byrne, A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland, 1534-1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 397-400, 443-44.

271 271



also be extended to Ireland.27 Second, because union amounted to, in the words of William Molyneux, "an happiness we can hardly hope for," many embraced a patriotic discourse, clamoring for Ireland's political autonomy and a sovereign Irish parliament. As early as 1698, Molyneux challenged the right of English statesmen to dictate for Ireland. Drawing from the Whiggish rhetoric of the Revolution Settlement, Molyneux argued that "to tax me without Consent is little better, if at all, than down- right Robbing me." Jonathan Swift assumed Molyneux's mantle in the 1720s in the wake of Ireland's Declaratory Act. In his "Drapier's Let- ters" Swift summed up Ireland's reward for loyalty to Britain as "the Privilege of being governed by laws to which we do not consent."28

The disjunction between rising expectations and harsh reality also affected relations among Protestant groups. In particular, the growing northern Presbyterian menace appeared as one more threat to the Ascen-

dancy's control of the kingdom, which was already imperiled by the continued loss of political power to the English Parliament. Especially alarming to churchmen were the ways in which Ulster Scots rooted their identity in the church. At the time of the Williamite war, Ulster's Scots had just completed a period of consolidation. With the plan of James I to plant Protestantism in Ulster, Scots began migrating to the province. As migration continued throughout the seventeenth century, settlers initiated a "Presbyterian revolution" by establishing a tight-knit church organization akin to the one that they had left in Scotland. As settlers erected congregations, they created sessions in which elders resolved disputes within the community, scrutinized church attendance, and dis- pensed charity and justice. They then established presbyteries to adjudi- cate disputes the session could not handle, to ensure that ministers fulfilled their responsibilities, and to admonish congregations to pay ministerial stipends. The creation of the Synod of Ulster in 1690 completed the process.29

27 Jim Smyth, "'Like Amphibious Animals': Irish Protestants, Ancient Britons," Historical Journal 36 (1993): 785-97.

28 William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (Dublin, 1698), pp. 97-98, 27, 170; Jonathan Swift, "The Fourth Dra- pier's Letter," in The Drapier's Letters and Other Works, 1724-1725, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford, 1941), p. 55. On Ascendancy patriotism, see J. G. Simms, Colonial Nationalism (Cork, Ireland, 1976); R. Eccleshall, "Anglican Political Thought in the Century after the Revolution of 1688," in Political Thought in Ireland since the Seventeenth Century, ed. D. G. Boyce, R. Eccleshall, and V. Geoghegan (London, 1993), pp. 36-72; David Hayton, "Anglo-Irish Attitudes: Changing Perceptions of National Identity among the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, ca. 1690-1750," Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 17 (1987): 145-57.

29 For an extended discussion of the Scottish exodus to Ireland, see M. Perceval- Maxwell, The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I (London, 1973); see esp. W. Macafee and V. Morgan, "Population in Ulster, 1660-1760," in Plantation to

also be extended to Ireland.27 Second, because union amounted to, in the words of William Molyneux, "an happiness we can hardly hope for," many embraced a patriotic discourse, clamoring for Ireland's political autonomy and a sovereign Irish parliament. As early as 1698, Molyneux challenged the right of English statesmen to dictate for Ireland. Drawing from the Whiggish rhetoric of the Revolution Settlement, Molyneux argued that "to tax me without Consent is little better, if at all, than down- right Robbing me." Jonathan Swift assumed Molyneux's mantle in the 1720s in the wake of Ireland's Declaratory Act. In his "Drapier's Let- ters" Swift summed up Ireland's reward for loyalty to Britain as "the Privilege of being governed by laws to which we do not consent."28

The disjunction between rising expectations and harsh reality also affected relations among Protestant groups. In particular, the growing northern Presbyterian menace appeared as one more threat to the Ascen-

dancy's control of the kingdom, which was already imperiled by the continued loss of political power to the English Parliament. Especially alarming to churchmen were the ways in which Ulster Scots rooted their identity in the church. At the time of the Williamite war, Ulster's Scots had just completed a period of consolidation. With the plan of James I to plant Protestantism in Ulster, Scots began migrating to the province. As migration continued throughout the seventeenth century, settlers initiated a "Presbyterian revolution" by establishing a tight-knit church organization akin to the one that they had left in Scotland. As settlers erected congregations, they created sessions in which elders resolved disputes within the community, scrutinized church attendance, and dis- pensed charity and justice. They then established presbyteries to adjudi- cate disputes the session could not handle, to ensure that ministers fulfilled their responsibilities, and to admonish congregations to pay ministerial stipends. The creation of the Synod of Ulster in 1690 completed the process.29

27 Jim Smyth, "'Like Amphibious Animals': Irish Protestants, Ancient Britons," Historical Journal 36 (1993): 785-97.

28 William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (Dublin, 1698), pp. 97-98, 27, 170; Jonathan Swift, "The Fourth Dra- pier's Letter," in The Drapier's Letters and Other Works, 1724-1725, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford, 1941), p. 55. On Ascendancy patriotism, see J. G. Simms, Colonial Nationalism (Cork, Ireland, 1976); R. Eccleshall, "Anglican Political Thought in the Century after the Revolution of 1688," in Political Thought in Ireland since the Seventeenth Century, ed. D. G. Boyce, R. Eccleshall, and V. Geoghegan (London, 1993), pp. 36-72; David Hayton, "Anglo-Irish Attitudes: Changing Perceptions of National Identity among the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, ca. 1690-1750," Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 17 (1987): 145-57.

29 For an extended discussion of the Scottish exodus to Ireland, see M. Perceval- Maxwell, The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I (London, 1973); see esp. W. Macafee and V. Morgan, "Population in Ulster, 1660-1760," in Plantation to





While church of Ireland clerics struggled to raise money and hold together small congregations, Presbyterianism in the north flourished. The strong position of Presbyterians in Ulster was further consolidated by a large influx of Scots into the region iti the 1690s. By contemporary esti- mates, as many as fifty thousand men and women migrated, initiating a new period of growth.30 In 1689 Ireland had eighty-six Presbyterian ministers, most of whom lived in Ulster. By 1702, the number of ministers had grown to 130.31 Described by Queen Mary at the time of the Revolution as "the worst in Christendom," the established church by 1728 could support only six hundred beneficed clergymen and two hundred curates throughout the whole kingdom, many of whom ministered to a number of parishes.32 About this time, nearly 140 Presbyterian ministers worked in Ulster alone.33 Comparing the record of the two churches, it was not unreasonable to claim, as one churchman did, that if unchecked, the highly organized Presbyterian system would "extend to Dublin, and cross the kingdom to Galway ... [and] soon stretch to Cork and Kerry."34

Communion services epitomized the corporate identity the Presbyte- rian church fostered in Ulster. Most congregations held these services once or twice a year. A week before the communion service, elders were dispatched throughout the bounds of the congregation to "bring a list of the names of the communicants . . . that they may be considered" and to inquire into any scandals.35 The session then called miscreants who had "offended God and his people" to remove the scandal.36 Elders

Partition: Essays in Ulster History in Honour of J. L. McCracken, ed. P. Roebuck (Bel- fast, 1981). On the growth of the Presbyterian system in Ireland, see R. Gillespie, "The Presbyterian Revolution in Ulster, 1660-1690," in The Churches, Ireland and the Irish: Papers Read at the 1987 Summer Meeting and the 1988 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiasti- cal History Society, ed. W. J. Sheil and D. Wood (Oxford, 1989); and R. L. Greaves, God's Other Children: Protestant Nonconformists and the Emergence of Denominational Churches in Ireland, 1660-1700 (Stanford, Calif., 1997). On the Presbyterian church and identity, see P. Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 60-62, 89.

30 L. M. Cullen, "Population Trends in Seventeenth-Century Ireland," Economic and Social Review 6 (1974-75): 157-58.

31 David Hayton, Ireland after the Glorious Revolution (Belfast, 1976), pp. 7-9. 32 Ibid. Although Sean Connolly tries to resurrect the fallen reputation of the church

of Ireland, even he concedes that it "was an institution torn between an exalted vision of its potential role and a circumscribed, demoralizing, and, in places, sordid reality" (Religion, Law and Power, p. 171).

33 See 1725 session in The Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Records of the General Synod of Ulster, 1691-1820 (Belfast, 1890), 2:82-84.

34 Sir Joshua Dawson to Southwell, 23 January 1712-13, T 780/48, PRONI. 35 Burt Session Minutes, 12 August 1696, Union Theological College, Belfast. All

session minutes detail the elaborate preparations for the Lord's Supper as well as collections taken. For a good example, see Templepatrick Session Minutes, 15 August 1693, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI.

36 Templepatrick Session Minutes, April 1705, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI.

While church of Ireland clerics struggled to raise money and hold together small congregations, Presbyterianism in the north flourished. The strong position of Presbyterians in Ulster was further consolidated by a large influx of Scots into the region iti the 1690s. By contemporary esti- mates, as many as fifty thousand men and women migrated, initiating a new period of growth.30 In 1689 Ireland had eighty-six Presbyterian ministers, most of whom lived in Ulster. By 1702, the number of ministers had grown to 130.31 Described by Queen Mary at the time of the Revolution as "the worst in Christendom," the established church by 1728 could support only six hundred beneficed clergymen and two hundred curates throughout the whole kingdom, many of whom ministered to a number of parishes.32 About this time, nearly 140 Presbyterian ministers worked in Ulster alone.33 Comparing the record of the two churches, it was not unreasonable to claim, as one churchman did, that if unchecked, the highly organized Presbyterian system would "extend to Dublin, and cross the kingdom to Galway ... [and] soon stretch to Cork and Kerry."34

Communion services epitomized the corporate identity the Presbyte- rian church fostered in Ulster. Most congregations held these services once or twice a year. A week before the communion service, elders were dispatched throughout the bounds of the congregation to "bring a list of the names of the communicants . . . that they may be considered" and to inquire into any scandals.35 The session then called miscreants who had "offended God and his people" to remove the scandal.36 Elders

Partition: Essays in Ulster History in Honour of J. L. McCracken, ed. P. Roebuck (Bel- fast, 1981). On the growth of the Presbyterian system in Ireland, see R. Gillespie, "The Presbyterian Revolution in Ulster, 1660-1690," in The Churches, Ireland and the Irish: Papers Read at the 1987 Summer Meeting and the 1988 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiasti- cal History Society, ed. W. J. Sheil and D. Wood (Oxford, 1989); and R. L. Greaves, God's Other Children: Protestant Nonconformists and the Emergence of Denominational Churches in Ireland, 1660-1700 (Stanford, Calif., 1997). On the Presbyterian church and identity, see P. Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 60-62, 89.

30 L. M. Cullen, "Population Trends in Seventeenth-Century Ireland," Economic and Social Review 6 (1974-75): 157-58.

31 David Hayton, Ireland after the Glorious Revolution (Belfast, 1976), pp. 7-9. 32 Ibid. Although Sean Connolly tries to resurrect the fallen reputation of the church

of Ireland, even he concedes that it "was an institution torn between an exalted vision of its potential role and a circumscribed, demoralizing, and, in places, sordid reality" (Religion, Law and Power, p. 171).

33 See 1725 session in The Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Records of the General Synod of Ulster, 1691-1820 (Belfast, 1890), 2:82-84.

34 Sir Joshua Dawson to Southwell, 23 January 1712-13, T 780/48, PRONI. 35 Burt Session Minutes, 12 August 1696, Union Theological College, Belfast. All

session minutes detail the elaborate preparations for the Lord's Supper as well as collections taken. For a good example, see Templepatrick Session Minutes, 15 August 1693, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI.

36 Templepatrick Session Minutes, April 1705, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI.

273 273



took up collections for widows and orphans, but portions of the money often went to help Presbyterians outside of the congregation, as, for example, in Antrim in 1687, when congregants contributed to "a collection for James Watson, now a captive with the Turks, for his relief."37 More- over, members of other congregations attended, and neighboring ministers assisted and delivered sermons. At a communion service at Belfast, for instance, Ulster Scots from around the area heard nine sermons in four days, beginning on Friday the Fast Day and culminating with three sermons on the Sabbath.38 The numbers of Ulster Scots at these services impressed-and alarmed-authorities. One churchman noted that Ulster Scots "gather together many parishes to make a great shew at their sacra- ments to which people come sometimes forty miles and 3 or 4000 at a time."39 The greatest fear of Anglicans, then, represented the greatest strength of Presbyterians, that these services served as an outward sign of Presbyterian unity. Corporate liturgies reminded all, according to Ray- mond Gillespie, that "the church was not limited to one parish but com- prised a wider Presbyterian community."40

Fear and suspicion defined the ways in which Ireland's landed elite viewed northern Presbyterianism. The northern Dissenters' disregard for ecclesiastical courts, the taint of radicalism associated with Presbyterian- ism, and the fact that the Kirk had supplanted Anglicanism as the established church in Scotland led the Ascendancy to view Ulster Scots as dangerous rivals for supremacy in the kingdom. More alarming still, the Calvinist William III doubled the royal grant or regium donum to Ulster Presbyterians, who were members of a technically illegal church.41 On a visitation to the north in 1700, a churchman reported to Bishop William King how "the dissenters increase . . . in the north by new accession of people from Scotland, that they have settled many of their ministers where none were before the troubles," adding that "they make it their

37 Minutes of the Antrim Meeting, February 1687-88, Presbyterian Historical Soci- ety, Belfast (PHS), p. 389.

38 Daniel Mussenden's Book of Sermons and Themes, August 1704, D 1759/2B/2, PRONI.

39 Reeves Copy Book of Visitations of Armagh Made by Bishop William King, 30 August 1700, Armagh Public Library, KH II 6.

40 Raymond Gillespie, "Dissenters and Nonconformists, 1661-1700," in The Irish Dissenting Tradition, ed. Kevin Herlihy (Dublin, 1995), p. 25. Also see Marilyn West- erkamp, Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety and the Great Awakening, 1625-1760 (New York, 1988), pp. 66-67.

41 Ian McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," Bullan 1 (1994): 73-86; Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 161-68. Toby Barnard, "The Government and Irish Dis- sent, 1704-80," in The Politics of Irish Dissent, 1650-1800, ed. Kevin Herlihy (Dublin, 1997), pp. 21, 27. See Kilroy for an examination of the doctrinal differences between the Presbyterian Church and the church of Ireland (Protestant Dissent and Controversy, pp. 171-203).

took up collections for widows and orphans, but portions of the money often went to help Presbyterians outside of the congregation, as, for example, in Antrim in 1687, when congregants contributed to "a collection for James Watson, now a captive with the Turks, for his relief."37 More- over, members of other congregations attended, and neighboring ministers assisted and delivered sermons. At a communion service at Belfast, for instance, Ulster Scots from around the area heard nine sermons in four days, beginning on Friday the Fast Day and culminating with three sermons on the Sabbath.38 The numbers of Ulster Scots at these services impressed-and alarmed-authorities. One churchman noted that Ulster Scots "gather together many parishes to make a great shew at their sacra- ments to which people come sometimes forty miles and 3 or 4000 at a time."39 The greatest fear of Anglicans, then, represented the greatest strength of Presbyterians, that these services served as an outward sign of Presbyterian unity. Corporate liturgies reminded all, according to Ray- mond Gillespie, that "the church was not limited to one parish but com- prised a wider Presbyterian community."40

Fear and suspicion defined the ways in which Ireland's landed elite viewed northern Presbyterianism. The northern Dissenters' disregard for ecclesiastical courts, the taint of radicalism associated with Presbyterian- ism, and the fact that the Kirk had supplanted Anglicanism as the established church in Scotland led the Ascendancy to view Ulster Scots as dangerous rivals for supremacy in the kingdom. More alarming still, the Calvinist William III doubled the royal grant or regium donum to Ulster Presbyterians, who were members of a technically illegal church.41 On a visitation to the north in 1700, a churchman reported to Bishop William King how "the dissenters increase . . . in the north by new accession of people from Scotland, that they have settled many of their ministers where none were before the troubles," adding that "they make it their

37 Minutes of the Antrim Meeting, February 1687-88, Presbyterian Historical Soci- ety, Belfast (PHS), p. 389.

38 Daniel Mussenden's Book of Sermons and Themes, August 1704, D 1759/2B/2, PRONI.

39 Reeves Copy Book of Visitations of Armagh Made by Bishop William King, 30 August 1700, Armagh Public Library, KH II 6.

40 Raymond Gillespie, "Dissenters and Nonconformists, 1661-1700," in The Irish Dissenting Tradition, ed. Kevin Herlihy (Dublin, 1995), p. 25. Also see Marilyn West- erkamp, Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety and the Great Awakening, 1625-1760 (New York, 1988), pp. 66-67.

41 Ian McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," Bullan 1 (1994): 73-86; Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 161-68. Toby Barnard, "The Government and Irish Dis- sent, 1704-80," in The Politics of Irish Dissent, 1650-1800, ed. Kevin Herlihy (Dublin, 1997), pp. 21, 27. See Kilroy for an examination of the doctrinal differences between the Presbyterian Church and the church of Ireland (Protestant Dissent and Controversy, pp. 171-203).





business to obstruct and destroy the discipline of our church." He also charged that by holding sessions and presbyteries they "exercize . . . discipline over their people [and] marry them."42

Churchman scoffed at arguments about supposed Presbyterian "loyalty." According to William Tisdall, vicar of Belfast, Ulster Scots saw their church as "Superiour to, and independent of all Authority of the Civil Magistrate." In Tisdall's estimation, northern dissent was a "Grand Political Machine that subverted the Constitution."43 In particular, as the bishop of Down complained, "they proceed to exercise jurisdiction openly and with a high hand over those in their possession." Ulster Scots not only placed themselves outside of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, but also outside the bounds of the political and ecclesiastical status quo. Their behavior, some believed, could spell doom for the church of Ireland: "When their Power and Numbers are increased, they will employ their Utmost Strength, and most Vigorous Endeavors to Overturn (now their hand is in) this Truly Apostolical Government of the Estab- lished Church."44

In response, authorities attempted to check the growth of the Presby- terian church and its presumption to regulate the everyday lives of its adherents. To do so, churchmen harkened back to the Restoration by enforcing old laws on the books. Local bishops declared rites such as marriages and funerals performed by Dissenting ministers null and void, an ignominy not even reserved for Catholics; indeed, by law Ulster churchmen were not recognized as Christian clerics. One minister re- counted how "some officials in this part of the kingdom . . . pursu[ed] both ministers and people in their Courts for their non-conformity to the rites and ceremonies of the Church." He added that voiding marriages had the effect of making "their children incapable of succeeding to their estates and of divers other privileges as being bastards."45 The established church by "rigorous methods" also collected tithes from northern nonconformists, a group that, according to Archbishop Hugh Boulter, "it

42 Reeves Copy Book of Visitations of Armagh Made by Bishop William King, 30 August 1700.

43 Tisdall, A Sample of True-Blew Presbyterian Loyalty, pp. 5, 23. 44 Copy of a Petition from the Bishop of Down to the Lords Justices of Ireland,

September 1698, Wodrow Papers, T 525, PRONI; Tobias Pullein, A Defence of the An- swer to a Paper Entitled the Case of the Dissenting Protestants of Ireland (Dublin, 1697), p. 8.

45 The Humble Petition of the Presbyterian Ministers and People in the North of Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant, 1708, Wodrow Papers, T 525, PRONI. On the issue of marriages and other discrimination that the group faced during this period, see Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 162-64; Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 116- 23; McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," p. 74.

business to obstruct and destroy the discipline of our church." He also charged that by holding sessions and presbyteries they "exercize . . . discipline over their people [and] marry them."42

Churchman scoffed at arguments about supposed Presbyterian "loyalty." According to William Tisdall, vicar of Belfast, Ulster Scots saw their church as "Superiour to, and independent of all Authority of the Civil Magistrate." In Tisdall's estimation, northern dissent was a "Grand Political Machine that subverted the Constitution."43 In particular, as the bishop of Down complained, "they proceed to exercise jurisdiction openly and with a high hand over those in their possession." Ulster Scots not only placed themselves outside of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, but also outside the bounds of the political and ecclesiastical status quo. Their behavior, some believed, could spell doom for the church of Ireland: "When their Power and Numbers are increased, they will employ their Utmost Strength, and most Vigorous Endeavors to Overturn (now their hand is in) this Truly Apostolical Government of the Estab- lished Church."44

In response, authorities attempted to check the growth of the Presby- terian church and its presumption to regulate the everyday lives of its adherents. To do so, churchmen harkened back to the Restoration by enforcing old laws on the books. Local bishops declared rites such as marriages and funerals performed by Dissenting ministers null and void, an ignominy not even reserved for Catholics; indeed, by law Ulster churchmen were not recognized as Christian clerics. One minister re- counted how "some officials in this part of the kingdom . . . pursu[ed] both ministers and people in their Courts for their non-conformity to the rites and ceremonies of the Church." He added that voiding marriages had the effect of making "their children incapable of succeeding to their estates and of divers other privileges as being bastards."45 The established church by "rigorous methods" also collected tithes from northern nonconformists, a group that, according to Archbishop Hugh Boulter, "it

42 Reeves Copy Book of Visitations of Armagh Made by Bishop William King, 30 August 1700.

43 Tisdall, A Sample of True-Blew Presbyterian Loyalty, pp. 5, 23. 44 Copy of a Petition from the Bishop of Down to the Lords Justices of Ireland,

September 1698, Wodrow Papers, T 525, PRONI; Tobias Pullein, A Defence of the An- swer to a Paper Entitled the Case of the Dissenting Protestants of Ireland (Dublin, 1697), p. 8.

45 The Humble Petition of the Presbyterian Ministers and People in the North of Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant, 1708, Wodrow Papers, T 525, PRONI. On the issue of marriages and other discrimination that the group faced during this period, see Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 162-64; Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 116- 23; McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," p. 74.

275 275



may easily be supposed do not pay tithes with great cheerfulness."46 Finally, during the abjuration crisis, authorities arrested three Presbyte- rian ministers for refusing to condemn the Jacobite cause because for them it meant acknowledging the supremacy of the established church.47

On another front, Irish Tories lobbied their allies in England to enact discriminatory legislation. While it remains unclear how it transpired, in 1704 Tories in Britain inserted a sacramental test clause into an Irish

"popery bill." The resulting legislation, which required all civil and military officials to receive communion in the church of Ireland, effectively barred Dissenters from office under the crown and drove them out of municipal corporations, which controlled most parliamentary elections. Although Dissenters still held the right by law to vote and sit in Parlia- ment, the Test Act served as a de facto exclusion from public life.48 As Archbishop of Cashel Theophilus Bolton explained in 1730, "the government here is entirely by the constitution in the hands of the members of the established [church]" and "among the Lords there is not one dissenter, nor much more than one in 100 among the Commoners."49 In 1714, Tories in Britain also pushed to extend the Schism Act to Ireland- in an effort to place all educational establishments under the control of the church of Ireland-and in the same year suspended the regium donum. Far from the experience of Presbyterians in England and Scotland, the fallout of the Revolution Settlement left Ulster Scots without toleration and with the Test Act.50

Parliament's hostility toward northern dissent during the later years of Queen Anne's reign proved the exception to the rule. When Whigs controlled Britain's Parliament, as they did under William and Mary and later under George I, Ulster's Presbyterians received a sympathetic hearing. In both 1692 and 1695, northern ministers solicited the English government for help in gaining toleration. They also asked Scottish Presbyte-

46 G. Faulkiner, ed., Letters Written by his Excellency Hugh Boulter, Lord Primate of All Ireland (Dublin, 1770), p. 290.

47 Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 64-69. 48 Moody and Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, 4:xlviii, 24-25; Kilroy, Protestant

Dissent and Controversy, p. 192. On the formulation of the Test Act, see D. W. Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation: The Impact of the Sacramen- tal Test on Irish Dissenting Politics," in Herlihy, ed., The Politics of Irish Dissent, p. 54; J. G. Simms, "The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c. 6), 1703-4," Irish Historical Studies 12 (1960-61): 105-18.

49 Rough Draft for a Pamphlet in the Handwriting of Theophilus Bolton, 1730, Mas- sereene Papers, D 207/3/8, PRONI.

50 Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation," p. 54. On the High Tory assault against Ulster Presbyterianism, see Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 60-61.

may easily be supposed do not pay tithes with great cheerfulness."46 Finally, during the abjuration crisis, authorities arrested three Presbyte- rian ministers for refusing to condemn the Jacobite cause because for them it meant acknowledging the supremacy of the established church.47

On another front, Irish Tories lobbied their allies in England to enact discriminatory legislation. While it remains unclear how it transpired, in 1704 Tories in Britain inserted a sacramental test clause into an Irish

"popery bill." The resulting legislation, which required all civil and military officials to receive communion in the church of Ireland, effectively barred Dissenters from office under the crown and drove them out of municipal corporations, which controlled most parliamentary elections. Although Dissenters still held the right by law to vote and sit in Parlia- ment, the Test Act served as a de facto exclusion from public life.48 As Archbishop of Cashel Theophilus Bolton explained in 1730, "the government here is entirely by the constitution in the hands of the members of the established [church]" and "among the Lords there is not one dissenter, nor much more than one in 100 among the Commoners."49 In 1714, Tories in Britain also pushed to extend the Schism Act to Ireland- in an effort to place all educational establishments under the control of the church of Ireland-and in the same year suspended the regium donum. Far from the experience of Presbyterians in England and Scotland, the fallout of the Revolution Settlement left Ulster Scots without toleration and with the Test Act.50

Parliament's hostility toward northern dissent during the later years of Queen Anne's reign proved the exception to the rule. When Whigs controlled Britain's Parliament, as they did under William and Mary and later under George I, Ulster's Presbyterians received a sympathetic hearing. In both 1692 and 1695, northern ministers solicited the English government for help in gaining toleration. They also asked Scottish Presbyte-

46 G. Faulkiner, ed., Letters Written by his Excellency Hugh Boulter, Lord Primate of All Ireland (Dublin, 1770), p. 290.

47 Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 64-69. 48 Moody and Vaughan, A New History of Ireland, 4:xlviii, 24-25; Kilroy, Protestant

Dissent and Controversy, p. 192. On the formulation of the Test Act, see D. W. Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation: The Impact of the Sacramen- tal Test on Irish Dissenting Politics," in Herlihy, ed., The Politics of Irish Dissent, p. 54; J. G. Simms, "The Making of a Penal Law (2 Anne, c. 6), 1703-4," Irish Historical Studies 12 (1960-61): 105-18.

49 Rough Draft for a Pamphlet in the Handwriting of Theophilus Bolton, 1730, Mas- sereene Papers, D 207/3/8, PRONI.

50 Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation," p. 54. On the High Tory assault against Ulster Presbyterianism, see Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 60-61.





rians for advice in approaching potential sympathizers. Similarly, in 1708

English Dissenters contributed funds to a new campaign for repealing the Test Act. In each of these cases, the British government tried to per- suade the Irish Parliament to undo disabling legislation. These attempts, however, met with overwhelming opposition from Ireland's Lords and Commons, Whig and Tory alike. In the face of such intransigence, Brit- ain's government backed down. With a Whig administration in power under George I, the British government again favored the cause of Dis- senters in Britain and Ireland, repealing the Schism and Occasional Con- formity Acts in England and instructing the lord lieutenant to pursue a

repeal of the Test Act in the Irish Parliament.51 In 1719, the Irish government finally relented, passing a toleration act allowing Dissenters to practice their religion openly. The act, though, was little more than a preemptive measure supported by the established clergy to forestall any substantive reform. Northern Dissenters remained subject to ecclesiastical courts and still had to pay tithes. And, of course, the sacramental test stood unchanged.52

Historians have long debated the ways in which the Test Act affected Ulster Scot political life. Although these effects are admittedly difficult to gauge, some historians claim that the test had little impact on Ulster Presbyterian political activity. Few Ulster Scots, the argument goes, had served as M.P.s before the Revolution, and their purge from municipal corporations had a negligible effect on their voice. The rhetoric of disability in no way reflected the reality of their situation.53 Other scholars argue that the practical effects of the Test Act were more debili- tating than historians have suggested. Presbyterian rhetoric at least under- scored the stigma the test represented, and in Belfast and Derry the exclusion from local office permitted fewer Presbyterians to assume positions of authority.54 Finally, some historians claim that the application of the test alternated between ferocity and leniency. Ultimately, as Toby Bar-

51 Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 162-66; Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 31-38, 48-49, 71-79.

52 Sean Connolly argues that the Toleration Act of 1719, which only allowed Dissent- ers to practice their religion openly-something they had been doing for some time- was "introduced to block any attempt at real concessions" (Religion, Law and Power, p. 175).

53 Until recently, most historians have claimed that these hardships appeared more onerous than they were in reality. Ulster Scots, or so the argument goes, used the theme of religious disability to angle for more power in the kingdom (see Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland).

54 In "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," Ian McBride takes a more idealist approach, suggesting historians should not be so suspicious of the handicaps Ulster Scots claimed they suffered.

rians for advice in approaching potential sympathizers. Similarly, in 1708

English Dissenters contributed funds to a new campaign for repealing the Test Act. In each of these cases, the British government tried to per- suade the Irish Parliament to undo disabling legislation. These attempts, however, met with overwhelming opposition from Ireland's Lords and Commons, Whig and Tory alike. In the face of such intransigence, Brit- ain's government backed down. With a Whig administration in power under George I, the British government again favored the cause of Dis- senters in Britain and Ireland, repealing the Schism and Occasional Con- formity Acts in England and instructing the lord lieutenant to pursue a

repeal of the Test Act in the Irish Parliament.51 In 1719, the Irish government finally relented, passing a toleration act allowing Dissenters to practice their religion openly. The act, though, was little more than a preemptive measure supported by the established clergy to forestall any substantive reform. Northern Dissenters remained subject to ecclesiastical courts and still had to pay tithes. And, of course, the sacramental test stood unchanged.52

Historians have long debated the ways in which the Test Act affected Ulster Scot political life. Although these effects are admittedly difficult to gauge, some historians claim that the test had little impact on Ulster Presbyterian political activity. Few Ulster Scots, the argument goes, had served as M.P.s before the Revolution, and their purge from municipal corporations had a negligible effect on their voice. The rhetoric of disability in no way reflected the reality of their situation.53 Other scholars argue that the practical effects of the Test Act were more debili- tating than historians have suggested. Presbyterian rhetoric at least under- scored the stigma the test represented, and in Belfast and Derry the exclusion from local office permitted fewer Presbyterians to assume positions of authority.54 Finally, some historians claim that the application of the test alternated between ferocity and leniency. Ultimately, as Toby Bar-

51 Connolly, Religion, Law and Power, pp. 162-66; Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland, pp. 31-38, 48-49, 71-79.

52 Sean Connolly argues that the Toleration Act of 1719, which only allowed Dissent- ers to practice their religion openly-something they had been doing for some time- was "introduced to block any attempt at real concessions" (Religion, Law and Power, p. 175).

53 Until recently, most historians have claimed that these hardships appeared more onerous than they were in reality. Ulster Scots, or so the argument goes, used the theme of religious disability to angle for more power in the kingdom (see Beckett, Protestant Dissent in Ireland).

54 In "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," Ian McBride takes a more idealist approach, suggesting historians should not be so suspicious of the handicaps Ulster Scots claimed they suffered.

277 277



nard argues, "a notion of the Protestant Interest" ensured that the full measure of the test was never realized.55

Although the direct effects of the sacramental test and the enforce- ment of conformity remain unclear, the offensive against northern dissent clearly did influence the integrity of the Presbyterian system. During the early eighteenth century, the cohesiveness of the Presbyterian system was breaking down. At this time, when deviants attended the session-usu- ally after a congregant turned them in on suspicion of wrongdoing- many refused to submit to the authority of the assembly; others began to treat the session with contempt. In 1715 one congregant from Down, for example, believed his minister "more like a Mountebank than a minister" who neither could "read the word of God, study, nor know it." 56 Three years later a parishioner from Lisbur claimed that the session was made up of "kneaves, roogs and liars," and another said "he will be shot before he will stand publickly before the congregation."57 Some Ulster Scots refused to remain silent if they did not receive a fair hearing, arguing, as one man from Burt did in 1709, that the "session [was] unjust in their proceedings with him more than heathens and pagans and the conclave of Rome."58

To a great extent, disregard for the session stemmed from the existence of other civil and ecclesiastical systems. Church officials, for example, complained that too many young couples began to rely on Anglican curates and "Popish priests" to witness marriages. In 1706, the Broadis- land session warned that those who married outside of the congregation were "to be proceeded against as scandalous and censured." In a similar vein, in 1724 the sub-Synod of Derry implored its people to "guard against having any fellowship with popish priests in their marriages."59 Most miscreants sought out Catholic and Anglican priests to avoid the critical gaze of ministers and elders for marriages arranged without pa- rental consent or made in haste. In 1707, for example, Agnes Clark of Broadisland, who was betrothed to Samuel Hathore, "the day before marriage . . . went away with John Gillman ... in order to be married with some of the established church." The following year, Hugh Henry

55 Toby Barnard, "The Government and Irish Dissent," p. 9. Barnard takes a middle- ground approach, arguing that the application of the test alternated between "forbearance and vindictiveness" (p. 27). On the political effects of exclusion from municipal corporations, see Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation." 56 Minutes of the Presbytery of Down, February 1714-15, PHS, p. 370.

57Lisburn Session Minutes, 23 January 1717-18, 2 June 1720, MIC/1P/159/8, PRONI.

58 Burt Session Minutes, 22 November 1709, Union Theological College, Belfast. 59 Broadisland Session Minutes, 9 January 1705-6, CR 3/31/2, PRONI; Minutes of

the Sub-Synod of Derry, 12 May 1724, PHS, p. 91.

nard argues, "a notion of the Protestant Interest" ensured that the full measure of the test was never realized.55

Although the direct effects of the sacramental test and the enforce- ment of conformity remain unclear, the offensive against northern dissent clearly did influence the integrity of the Presbyterian system. During the early eighteenth century, the cohesiveness of the Presbyterian system was breaking down. At this time, when deviants attended the session-usu- ally after a congregant turned them in on suspicion of wrongdoing- many refused to submit to the authority of the assembly; others began to treat the session with contempt. In 1715 one congregant from Down, for example, believed his minister "more like a Mountebank than a minister" who neither could "read the word of God, study, nor know it." 56 Three years later a parishioner from Lisbur claimed that the session was made up of "kneaves, roogs and liars," and another said "he will be shot before he will stand publickly before the congregation."57 Some Ulster Scots refused to remain silent if they did not receive a fair hearing, arguing, as one man from Burt did in 1709, that the "session [was] unjust in their proceedings with him more than heathens and pagans and the conclave of Rome."58

To a great extent, disregard for the session stemmed from the existence of other civil and ecclesiastical systems. Church officials, for example, complained that too many young couples began to rely on Anglican curates and "Popish priests" to witness marriages. In 1706, the Broadis- land session warned that those who married outside of the congregation were "to be proceeded against as scandalous and censured." In a similar vein, in 1724 the sub-Synod of Derry implored its people to "guard against having any fellowship with popish priests in their marriages."59 Most miscreants sought out Catholic and Anglican priests to avoid the critical gaze of ministers and elders for marriages arranged without pa- rental consent or made in haste. In 1707, for example, Agnes Clark of Broadisland, who was betrothed to Samuel Hathore, "the day before marriage . . . went away with John Gillman ... in order to be married with some of the established church." The following year, Hugh Henry

55 Toby Barnard, "The Government and Irish Dissent," p. 9. Barnard takes a middle- ground approach, arguing that the application of the test alternated between "forbearance and vindictiveness" (p. 27). On the political effects of exclusion from municipal corporations, see Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation." 56 Minutes of the Presbytery of Down, February 1714-15, PHS, p. 370.

57Lisburn Session Minutes, 23 January 1717-18, 2 June 1720, MIC/1P/159/8, PRONI.

58 Burt Session Minutes, 22 November 1709, Union Theological College, Belfast. 59 Broadisland Session Minutes, 9 January 1705-6, CR 3/31/2, PRONI; Minutes of

the Sub-Synod of Derry, 12 May 1724, PHS, p. 91.





from Down "marryed according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and without the consent of the parents of the woman to whom he is married." 60 While in Lisbum, where this problem reached

unmanageable proportions, Mary Rathell "professed her grife and sor- row for her being married to an Idolater and also offending her parents," and another woman in Lame in similar straits "remained insensible of the sin of it."61

Some Ulster Scots, however, discerned a more troubling trend. Many congregants were beginning to shun the session for redress, appealing to the civil magistrate or the Bishop's Court to clear themselves of

charges of libel, adultery, and theft, issues over which the session claimed jurisdiction. Clearly, Ulster Scots did not attend these courts out of duress or through pressures imposed by authorities. Most congregants who appealed to ecclesiastical and civil courts apparently did so as an alternative to the ster discipline of the session. Some preferred these courts because, as one man explained in 1713, attending the session "would prejudice him in his worldly interest."62 At courts run by Church of Ireland clerics and justices of the peace, men and women had an op- portunity to purge themselves by oath without facing witnesses called

by the session or declaring guilt before the entire congregation. If the session wished to pursue a matter, men and women could "go forthwith to swear before the magistrate" if necessary.63 James McIlroy of Tem- plepatrick, for example, "refused to make public confession (for his sin of fornication) before the session and saith he can gett more easie off" from another court.64

For those who believed they were marginalized within Ulster Scot society, the courts offered leverage. As early as 1696, Mary Frisall of Donegal approached the civil court to censure Robert Allen, a married man, for committing adultery with her. She chose this route because the session was reluctant to press the matter against Allen.65 If the man claimed he was innocent, as William Ogilvie did in 1728, the woman could pressure him to change his testimony if "she had made oath of

60 Broadisland Session Minutes, 25 March 1707, CR 3/31/2, PRONI; Minutes of the Presbytery of Down, October 1708, PHS, p. 105.

61 Lisburn Session Minutes, 6 August 1716, MIC/1P/159/8, PRONI; Larne Session Minutes, 20 August 1721, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. In the congregation of Lisbum, under the strict control of Alexander McCracken, it was not unusual for the session to deal with two scandalous marriages per meeting. See the session minutes throughout 1716 and 1717, especially those for 15 August 1717 and 28 January 1717-18.

62 Burt Session Minutes, 9 July 1713, Union Theological College, Belfast. 63 Carmoney Session Minutes, 20 June 1716, MIC 1P/37/5, PRONI. 64 Templepatrick Session Minutes, 4 February 1699-1700, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI. 65 Burt Session Minutes, 22 October 1696, Union Theological College, Belfast.

from Down "marryed according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and without the consent of the parents of the woman to whom he is married." 60 While in Lisbum, where this problem reached

unmanageable proportions, Mary Rathell "professed her grife and sor- row for her being married to an Idolater and also offending her parents," and another woman in Lame in similar straits "remained insensible of the sin of it."61

Some Ulster Scots, however, discerned a more troubling trend. Many congregants were beginning to shun the session for redress, appealing to the civil magistrate or the Bishop's Court to clear themselves of

charges of libel, adultery, and theft, issues over which the session claimed jurisdiction. Clearly, Ulster Scots did not attend these courts out of duress or through pressures imposed by authorities. Most congregants who appealed to ecclesiastical and civil courts apparently did so as an alternative to the ster discipline of the session. Some preferred these courts because, as one man explained in 1713, attending the session "would prejudice him in his worldly interest."62 At courts run by Church of Ireland clerics and justices of the peace, men and women had an op- portunity to purge themselves by oath without facing witnesses called

by the session or declaring guilt before the entire congregation. If the session wished to pursue a matter, men and women could "go forthwith to swear before the magistrate" if necessary.63 James McIlroy of Tem- plepatrick, for example, "refused to make public confession (for his sin of fornication) before the session and saith he can gett more easie off" from another court.64

For those who believed they were marginalized within Ulster Scot society, the courts offered leverage. As early as 1696, Mary Frisall of Donegal approached the civil court to censure Robert Allen, a married man, for committing adultery with her. She chose this route because the session was reluctant to press the matter against Allen.65 If the man claimed he was innocent, as William Ogilvie did in 1728, the woman could pressure him to change his testimony if "she had made oath of

60 Broadisland Session Minutes, 25 March 1707, CR 3/31/2, PRONI; Minutes of the Presbytery of Down, October 1708, PHS, p. 105.

61 Lisburn Session Minutes, 6 August 1716, MIC/1P/159/8, PRONI; Larne Session Minutes, 20 August 1721, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. In the congregation of Lisbum, under the strict control of Alexander McCracken, it was not unusual for the session to deal with two scandalous marriages per meeting. See the session minutes throughout 1716 and 1717, especially those for 15 August 1717 and 28 January 1717-18.

62 Burt Session Minutes, 9 July 1713, Union Theological College, Belfast. 63 Carmoney Session Minutes, 20 June 1716, MIC 1P/37/5, PRONI. 64 Templepatrick Session Minutes, 4 February 1699-1700, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI. 65 Burt Session Minutes, 22 October 1696, Union Theological College, Belfast.

279 279



the same (viz.) that he was the father of her child before a magistrate."66 The poor also came to seek redress from wrongs. A Templepatrick man accused of stealing food from a wealthy neighbor preferred to take his case before the magistrate because the session deemed him "not repen- tant."67 Congregants understood that the wealthy did not face the same scrutiny as the indigent before the session. As early as 1694, a Let- terkenny man, Joseph Semple, accused his minister of "causing poor people to stand publickly for scandale . . . [and] caused some of meaner cappacity in the world to give publick satticefaction, while others of greater substance, he took pryvate satticefaction of."68 Nine years later, another Donegal man declared that "no justice had [been] done to him but injustice" because, as he claimed, he was a poor man. Alternative courts, where defendants and complainants enjoyed a certain level of anonymity, could not be less just.69

Appealing to civil or ecclesiastical courts, Ulster Scots realized, provided a venue to clear themselves or press their cases beyond the reach of Ulster Scot society. Sessions were reluctant to question the rulings of civil or ecclesiastical courts. When, for instance, Elizabeth Morton of Carmoney "obtained a warrant to apprehend" William Johnston, who then "went to the consistorial Court ... and then satisfyed that Court," the session "could not safely proceed." Two years later, the case still unresolved, Morton again approached the elders and minister at Carmo- ney for justice. The session refused to open an inquiry, declaring that "we are not willingly to tamper in a matter which may occasion clashing with any of their courts."70 Just as women sought redress in civil courts to pressure men to admit to illicit sexual relations, men used the same courts in a preemptive manner to assert their innocence. In 1725, although John Houston "cleared himself in the Ecc. Court by compurga- tion," Margaret Gilbert still declared "he was guilty with her." The session, however, was reluctant to touch the case, nor would it "allow her to own the same in publick Least the law take hould fit by reason he hath purged himself as aforesd."71 Although ministers reminded their congregants that "you have a special call, to obey them that have the rule over you," and that "the Synod, Presbyteries, and church sessions, are Judicatories of Jesus Christ," Ulster Scots realized they had choices.72

66Larne Session Minutes, 16 March 1728, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. 67 Templepatrick Session Minutes, 19 August 1706, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI. 68 Minutes of the Laggan Meeting, August 1694, PHS, p. 55. 69Burt Session Minutes, 24 May 1703, Union Theological College, Belfast. 70 Carmoney Session Minutes, 11 January 1706-7, March 1709, MIC 1P/37/5,

PRONI. 71 Lame Session Minutes, 25 July 1725, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. 72 Minutes of the Sub-Synod of Derry, 12 May 1724, PHS, p. 91.

the same (viz.) that he was the father of her child before a magistrate."66 The poor also came to seek redress from wrongs. A Templepatrick man accused of stealing food from a wealthy neighbor preferred to take his case before the magistrate because the session deemed him "not repen- tant."67 Congregants understood that the wealthy did not face the same scrutiny as the indigent before the session. As early as 1694, a Let- terkenny man, Joseph Semple, accused his minister of "causing poor people to stand publickly for scandale . . . [and] caused some of meaner cappacity in the world to give publick satticefaction, while others of greater substance, he took pryvate satticefaction of."68 Nine years later, another Donegal man declared that "no justice had [been] done to him but injustice" because, as he claimed, he was a poor man. Alternative courts, where defendants and complainants enjoyed a certain level of anonymity, could not be less just.69

Appealing to civil or ecclesiastical courts, Ulster Scots realized, provided a venue to clear themselves or press their cases beyond the reach of Ulster Scot society. Sessions were reluctant to question the rulings of civil or ecclesiastical courts. When, for instance, Elizabeth Morton of Carmoney "obtained a warrant to apprehend" William Johnston, who then "went to the consistorial Court ... and then satisfyed that Court," the session "could not safely proceed." Two years later, the case still unresolved, Morton again approached the elders and minister at Carmo- ney for justice. The session refused to open an inquiry, declaring that "we are not willingly to tamper in a matter which may occasion clashing with any of their courts."70 Just as women sought redress in civil courts to pressure men to admit to illicit sexual relations, men used the same courts in a preemptive manner to assert their innocence. In 1725, although John Houston "cleared himself in the Ecc. Court by compurga- tion," Margaret Gilbert still declared "he was guilty with her." The session, however, was reluctant to touch the case, nor would it "allow her to own the same in publick Least the law take hould fit by reason he hath purged himself as aforesd."71 Although ministers reminded their congregants that "you have a special call, to obey them that have the rule over you," and that "the Synod, Presbyteries, and church sessions, are Judicatories of Jesus Christ," Ulster Scots realized they had choices.72

66Larne Session Minutes, 16 March 1728, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. 67 Templepatrick Session Minutes, 19 August 1706, CR 4/12B/1, PRONI. 68 Minutes of the Laggan Meeting, August 1694, PHS, p. 55. 69Burt Session Minutes, 24 May 1703, Union Theological College, Belfast. 70 Carmoney Session Minutes, 11 January 1706-7, March 1709, MIC 1P/37/5,

PRONI. 71 Lame Session Minutes, 25 July 1725, MIC 1B/1A/1B, PRONI. 72 Minutes of the Sub-Synod of Derry, 12 May 1724, PHS, p. 91.





Indeed, as one historian argues, the allure of conformity, encouraged by appeals to alternative jurisdictions, had a greater effect on northern Pres- byterianism than did the disabilities of the Test Act.73

* * *

In many ways, the Ulster Scot response to the group's status in the wake of the Revolution proved as complex as the problems confronted. Northern Presbyterians continued making pleas on merit, but as these appeals fell on deaf ears, they fashioned arguments based on the language of the Revolution Settlement in Britain. A group of ministers-"New Lights," as they came to be called-led this shift in discourse. After the Revolution, Ulster Scots encountered new secular ideas that complemented certain aspects of the Reformed tradition. All Reformed Protes- tants drew upon such Reformation concepts as sola scriptura and the sanctity of conscience to champion the unmediated relationship between God and individual. By the early eighteenth century, some began to fuse these notions with natural rights theory and latitudinarian ideas to challenge the constraints of predestinarian interpretations of Calvinist doctrine. Ulster's ministers paid close attention to the Bangorian Controversy in the church of England and the Salter's Hall Controversy among En- glish Dissenters. In these heated debates, innovators such as Benjamin Hoadly called the basis of church polity into question while exalting individual conscience and the right to private judgment.74 Moreover, many northern ministers encountered similar ideas in Scotland, where most Ulster clergymen went for theological training. Several Ulster Scots, most notably Francis Hutcheson, studied under the innovative Ger- shom Carmichael, Glasgow's first professor of moral philosophy. Carmi- chael, credited with the introduction of the natural law tradition into his subject, was the first instructor to use Locke's Two Treatises in any Brit- ish university and often lectured on the works of Whig political theorists. Here many also studied under divinity professor John Simson, a latitudinarian who worked to provide the teachings of the church with a rational basis and de-emphasized the saving power of grace while stressing the role of human action in effecting salvation.75 Salvation was not achieved

73 Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation," p. 73. 74 Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 74-82; McBride, Scripture Politics, p. 44. 7 Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 72-81. C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century

Commonwealthman: Studies in the Transmission, Development and Circumstance of En- glish Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 169-70; L. Stone, "The Results of the English Revolutions of the Seventeenth Century," in Three British Revolutions, ed. J. G. A. Po- cock (Princeton, N.J., 1980), pp. 72-74.

Indeed, as one historian argues, the allure of conformity, encouraged by appeals to alternative jurisdictions, had a greater effect on northern Pres- byterianism than did the disabilities of the Test Act.73

* * *

In many ways, the Ulster Scot response to the group's status in the wake of the Revolution proved as complex as the problems confronted. Northern Presbyterians continued making pleas on merit, but as these appeals fell on deaf ears, they fashioned arguments based on the language of the Revolution Settlement in Britain. A group of ministers-"New Lights," as they came to be called-led this shift in discourse. After the Revolution, Ulster Scots encountered new secular ideas that complemented certain aspects of the Reformed tradition. All Reformed Protes- tants drew upon such Reformation concepts as sola scriptura and the sanctity of conscience to champion the unmediated relationship between God and individual. By the early eighteenth century, some began to fuse these notions with natural rights theory and latitudinarian ideas to challenge the constraints of predestinarian interpretations of Calvinist doctrine. Ulster's ministers paid close attention to the Bangorian Controversy in the church of England and the Salter's Hall Controversy among En- glish Dissenters. In these heated debates, innovators such as Benjamin Hoadly called the basis of church polity into question while exalting individual conscience and the right to private judgment.74 Moreover, many northern ministers encountered similar ideas in Scotland, where most Ulster clergymen went for theological training. Several Ulster Scots, most notably Francis Hutcheson, studied under the innovative Ger- shom Carmichael, Glasgow's first professor of moral philosophy. Carmi- chael, credited with the introduction of the natural law tradition into his subject, was the first instructor to use Locke's Two Treatises in any Brit- ish university and often lectured on the works of Whig political theorists. Here many also studied under divinity professor John Simson, a latitudinarian who worked to provide the teachings of the church with a rational basis and de-emphasized the saving power of grace while stressing the role of human action in effecting salvation.75 Salvation was not achieved

73 Hayton, "Exclusion, Conformity, and Parliamentary Representation," p. 73. 74 Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 74-82; McBride, Scripture Politics, p. 44. 7 Brooke, Ulster Presbyterianism, pp. 72-81. C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century

Commonwealthman: Studies in the Transmission, Development and Circumstance of En- glish Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 169-70; L. Stone, "The Results of the English Revolutions of the Seventeenth Century," in Three British Revolutions, ed. J. G. A. Po- cock (Princeton, N.J., 1980), pp. 72-74.

281 281



only through grace but by what one minister described as "Enlighten'd Judgement.'"76

These ideas resonated with one group of Ulster Presbyterians in particular. In 1705 John Abernethy and James Kirkpatrick founded the Belfast Society. Kirkpatrick cited the "improvement of Christian Knowledge" as the reason for the organization's existence. But he added that many "have Wrote and Publish'd Elaborate Discourses upon, the Rights of Conscience, the Rights of Private Judgement, Christian Lib- erty," as well as "the Essential Principles of Protestantism, and the Scriptural terms of Christian Concord and Unity."77 Ulster's New Lights maintained, according to a contemporary, "a free and friendly correspondence with some of the schismatics on the other side of the water." Both Abernethy and Kirkpatrick studied in Scotland with Simson. More- over, one of their allies, Samuel Haliday, attended the debate at Salter's Hall.78

Latitudinarian ideas first emerged in Ulster during a debate over subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith as the terms of ministerial communion. In 1698, during the heady days before the Test Act was passed, Ulster Presbyterians had followed the example of the Church of Scotland in recommending subscription to the Confession for all licen- tiates. After the turn of the century, the Synod began insisting that local presbyteries enforce the measure in response to the growth of heterodoxy in the three kingdoms. Subscription, some ministers came to believe, provided the surest means to check heresy and demonstrate the orthodoxy and unity of northern dissent, thus improving the group's chances for gaining toleration and repealing the test.79 Confounding this rationale,

76 J. Aberethy, A Sermon Recommending the Study of Scripture-Prophecie (Belfast, 1716), p. 20.

77 J. Kirkpatrick (originally attributed to V. Ferguson), A Vindication of the Presbyte- rian Ministers in the North of Ireland: Subscribers and Non-subscribers (Belfast, 1721), p. 13. On the Belfast Society, see Stewart, A Deeper Silence, pp. 74-77.

78 William Livingston to Robert Wodrow, n.d., Livingston-Wodrow Correspondence, MSS 30, Magee College, Derry, pp. 26-27.

79 For a more detailed account of the subscription controversy, see J. S. Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1867), 3:81-83, 110-217. Brooke ex- plores the theological issues of the debate in Ulster Presbyterianism (pp. 81-92). On theology, see also A. W. G. Brown, "A Theological Interpretation of the First Subscrip- tion Controversy," in Challenge and Conflict: Essays in Irish Presbyterian History and Doctrine, ed. J. L. M. Haire (Belfast, 1981); R. Finlay Holmes, "The Reverend John Aberethy: The Challenge of New Light Theology to Traditional Irish Presbyterian Cal- vinism," in The Religion of Irish Dissent, 1650-1800, ed. K. Herlihy (Dublin, 1996); and R. B. Barlow, "The Career of John Aberethy (1680-1740), Father of Nonsubscription in Ireland and Defender of Religious Liberty," Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 399-419. M. Westerkamp (Triumph of the Laity) and E. Nybakken ("New Light on the Old Side: Irish Influences on Colonial Presbyterianism," Journal of American History

only through grace but by what one minister described as "Enlighten'd Judgement.'"76

These ideas resonated with one group of Ulster Presbyterians in particular. In 1705 John Abernethy and James Kirkpatrick founded the Belfast Society. Kirkpatrick cited the "improvement of Christian Knowledge" as the reason for the organization's existence. But he added that many "have Wrote and Publish'd Elaborate Discourses upon, the Rights of Conscience, the Rights of Private Judgement, Christian Lib- erty," as well as "the Essential Principles of Protestantism, and the Scriptural terms of Christian Concord and Unity."77 Ulster's New Lights maintained, according to a contemporary, "a free and friendly correspondence with some of the schismatics on the other side of the water." Both Abernethy and Kirkpatrick studied in Scotland with Simson. More- over, one of their allies, Samuel Haliday, attended the debate at Salter's Hall.78

Latitudinarian ideas first emerged in Ulster during a debate over subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith as the terms of ministerial communion. In 1698, during the heady days before the Test Act was passed, Ulster Presbyterians had followed the example of the Church of Scotland in recommending subscription to the Confession for all licen- tiates. After the turn of the century, the Synod began insisting that local presbyteries enforce the measure in response to the growth of heterodoxy in the three kingdoms. Subscription, some ministers came to believe, provided the surest means to check heresy and demonstrate the orthodoxy and unity of northern dissent, thus improving the group's chances for gaining toleration and repealing the test.79 Confounding this rationale,

76 J. Aberethy, A Sermon Recommending the Study of Scripture-Prophecie (Belfast, 1716), p. 20.

77 J. Kirkpatrick (originally attributed to V. Ferguson), A Vindication of the Presbyte- rian Ministers in the North of Ireland: Subscribers and Non-subscribers (Belfast, 1721), p. 13. On the Belfast Society, see Stewart, A Deeper Silence, pp. 74-77.

78 William Livingston to Robert Wodrow, n.d., Livingston-Wodrow Correspondence, MSS 30, Magee College, Derry, pp. 26-27.

79 For a more detailed account of the subscription controversy, see J. S. Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast, 1867), 3:81-83, 110-217. Brooke ex- plores the theological issues of the debate in Ulster Presbyterianism (pp. 81-92). On theology, see also A. W. G. Brown, "A Theological Interpretation of the First Subscrip- tion Controversy," in Challenge and Conflict: Essays in Irish Presbyterian History and Doctrine, ed. J. L. M. Haire (Belfast, 1981); R. Finlay Holmes, "The Reverend John Aberethy: The Challenge of New Light Theology to Traditional Irish Presbyterian Cal- vinism," in The Religion of Irish Dissent, 1650-1800, ed. K. Herlihy (Dublin, 1996); and R. B. Barlow, "The Career of John Aberethy (1680-1740), Father of Nonsubscription in Ireland and Defender of Religious Liberty," Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 399-419. M. Westerkamp (Triumph of the Laity) and E. Nybakken ("New Light on the Old Side: Irish Influences on Colonial Presbyterianism," Journal of American History





New Lights challenged the Synod's push to impose the Confession of Faith as the basis for communion, arguing that man-made creeds represented an infringement on religious liberty and the Protestant right to

private conscience. "Every man," John Abemethy declared in 1719, "should be left to their own Freedom, and not Compell'd by Methods of Violence to act with a Gainsaying or Doubting Conscience."80

To be sure, Abernethy rooted his understanding of conscience in the Reformed tradition. He believed that "it is the subjection of the soul to the Light of Conscience, that is, the Laws of God as we understand them, and regulating our actions by it, that pleases God," adding that "the Divine Authority directly obliges the Conscience, and he who does not conform to its light, equally rebels against God."81 Similarly, another nonsubscriber, Haliday, declared "by the Laws of Christ, Christians are

obliged to search the Scriptures ... and to judge for themselves concern-

ing the Sense of the divine Oracles."82 No church government had the

power to circumvent conscience, which, according to Abemethy, "has a supremacy in it self, I mean so far as not to be subject to any Tribunal

Upon Earth; it acknowledges no Superior but God ... if it were other- wise, our Obedience wou'd not be to God but to men." In fact, unless checked, church authority tended toward "Church-Tyranny and the de- struction of Christian Liberty."83

These ideas took on new, radical meanings as New Lights coupled them with emerging secular discourses. As Ian McBride explains, nonsubscribers found that "biblical revelation" complemented "enlightenment rationalism."84 Echoing commonwealthman scruples over the issue

68 [March 1982]: 813-32) offer narratives of the controversy as well as the parallels between it and America's Great Awakening. 80 J. Abemethy, Religious Obedience Founded on Personal Persuasion: A Sermon Preach'd at Belfast the Ninth of December, 1719 (Belfast, 1720), p. 7.

81 Abemethy, Personal Persuasion, pp. 19, 22-23. On the reformed tradition in Ire- land and across the British world, see P. Kilroy, Protestant Dissent, pp. 8-9; David Hall, "On Common Ground: The Coherence of American Puritan Studies," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 44 (1987): 193-229.

82 Samuel Haliday, Reasons against the Imposition of Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Belfast, 1724), p. 39.

83 Abernethy, Personal Persuasion, p. 29, and A Letter from the Presbytery of Antrim (Belfast, 1726), p. 10.

84 Ian McBride, "'When Ulster Joined Ireland': Anti-Popery, Presbyterian Radical- ism and Irish Republicanism in the 1790s," Past and Present, no. 157 (1997): 68. H. T. Dickinson argues that these ideas were representative of a "country" ideology in Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London, 1977). Pocock constructs a typology of what he labels "varieties of Whiggism." See Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1985). Ian McBride charts this influence through the Ulster Scots to the United Irish movement and the Scottish Enlightenment (see "School of Virtue: Francis Hutche- son, Irish Presbyterians and the Scottish Enlightenment," in Boyce, Eccleshall, and

New Lights challenged the Synod's push to impose the Confession of Faith as the basis for communion, arguing that man-made creeds represented an infringement on religious liberty and the Protestant right to

private conscience. "Every man," John Abemethy declared in 1719, "should be left to their own Freedom, and not Compell'd by Methods of Violence to act with a Gainsaying or Doubting Conscience."80

To be sure, Abernethy rooted his understanding of conscience in the Reformed tradition. He believed that "it is the subjection of the soul to the Light of Conscience, that is, the Laws of God as we understand them, and regulating our actions by it, that pleases God," adding that "the Divine Authority directly obliges the Conscience, and he who does not conform to its light, equally rebels against God."81 Similarly, another nonsubscriber, Haliday, declared "by the Laws of Christ, Christians are

obliged to search the Scriptures ... and to judge for themselves concern-

ing the Sense of the divine Oracles."82 No church government had the

power to circumvent conscience, which, according to Abemethy, "has a supremacy in it self, I mean so far as not to be subject to any Tribunal

Upon Earth; it acknowledges no Superior but God ... if it were other- wise, our Obedience wou'd not be to God but to men." In fact, unless checked, church authority tended toward "Church-Tyranny and the de- struction of Christian Liberty."83

These ideas took on new, radical meanings as New Lights coupled them with emerging secular discourses. As Ian McBride explains, nonsubscribers found that "biblical revelation" complemented "enlightenment rationalism."84 Echoing commonwealthman scruples over the issue

68 [March 1982]: 813-32) offer narratives of the controversy as well as the parallels between it and America's Great Awakening. 80 J. Abemethy, Religious Obedience Founded on Personal Persuasion: A Sermon Preach'd at Belfast the Ninth of December, 1719 (Belfast, 1720), p. 7.

81 Abemethy, Personal Persuasion, pp. 19, 22-23. On the reformed tradition in Ire- land and across the British world, see P. Kilroy, Protestant Dissent, pp. 8-9; David Hall, "On Common Ground: The Coherence of American Puritan Studies," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 44 (1987): 193-229.

82 Samuel Haliday, Reasons against the Imposition of Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Belfast, 1724), p. 39.

83 Abernethy, Personal Persuasion, p. 29, and A Letter from the Presbytery of Antrim (Belfast, 1726), p. 10.

84 Ian McBride, "'When Ulster Joined Ireland': Anti-Popery, Presbyterian Radical- ism and Irish Republicanism in the 1790s," Past and Present, no. 157 (1997): 68. H. T. Dickinson argues that these ideas were representative of a "country" ideology in Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London, 1977). Pocock constructs a typology of what he labels "varieties of Whiggism." See Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1985). Ian McBride charts this influence through the Ulster Scots to the United Irish movement and the Scottish Enlightenment (see "School of Virtue: Francis Hutche- son, Irish Presbyterians and the Scottish Enlightenment," in Boyce, Eccleshall, and

283 283



of consent, Haliday asserted that "I do not find, that the Reverend Synod in Ulster, nor, indeed, that any Assembly, Synod, or Council whosoever, have received Authority for Christ, to make new Laws binding his Sub- jects, which he never made." Much like natural rights theorists who claimed that the state could not in theory abridge rights not delegated to it, nonsubscribers argued that the church could not infringe upon a

person's conviction. Excluding an individual from communion for base- less reasons, therefore, abridged "the Rights, which Jesus Christ has ex-

pressly granted to his Subjects," most notably a person's prerogative "to Judge for himself in all Matters of Religion," which Haliday viewed as an "essential and unalienable Right of every Man."85 Others went so far as to take these conceptions to their logical conclusions. "No Sett," James Kirkpatrick argued, "of Uninspired Men have a Legislative Au- thority, in and over the Church of Christ in Matters of Conscience." He believed that "all Christians have a Right by the Laws of Christ, to Communion with his Body . . . and therefore to Deprive them of their Christian-Birth-Right-Privileges is unwarrantable."86

Although the doctrinal dispute led to schism in the church in 1726 with the erection of the nonsubscribing Presbytery of Antrim, through the controversy Ulster Scots discovered a powerful language to challenge government and a new means to negotiate their provincial status. Rheto- ric that New Lights used to contest church mandates could apply to government prerogatives as well. "Magistrates," declared John Abernethy, "have no more Authority than any of the rest of Mankind . . . in the Matter of Conscience." Just as the church could not impel subscription, authorities could not coerce Dissenters through laws. Thus, Haliday argued that "I cannot obey those Laws, out of Conscience without betraying true Liberty of Conscience," adding "that to require of me an absolute blind Obedience to such Commandments is to destroy Liberty of Conscience, and Reason also."87 Moreover, even if individuals were so inclined, they did not possess the right to abrogate conscience. An- other clergyman argued that "nothing can be more evident that this liberty is one of the most essential unalienable rights of human nature, which no man, nor body of men have authority to deprive us of, ...

Geoghegan, eds., Political Thought in Ireland, pp. 49-61; and Ian McBride "William Drennan and the Dissenting Tradition," in Dickson, Keogh, and Whelan, eds., The United Irishmen, pp. 73-99; see also Stewart, A Deeper Silence, p. 72).

85 Haliday, Reasons, pp. 7, 38, 39. 86 Kirkpatrick, A Vindication, pp. 21, 22. For Kirkpatrick's subsequent elaboration

on these points, see An Essay upon the Important Question, Whether There Be a Legisla- tive, Proper Authority in the Church, by Some Non-subscribing Ministers in the North of Ireland (Belfast, 1737).

87 Abernethy, Personal Persuasion, p. 34; Haliday, Reasons, p. 28.

of consent, Haliday asserted that "I do not find, that the Reverend Synod in Ulster, nor, indeed, that any Assembly, Synod, or Council whosoever, have received Authority for Christ, to make new Laws binding his Sub- jects, which he never made." Much like natural rights theorists who claimed that the state could not in theory abridge rights not delegated to it, nonsubscribers argued that the church could not infringe upon a

person's conviction. Excluding an individual from communion for base- less reasons, therefore, abridged "the Rights, which Jesus Christ has ex-

pressly granted to his Subjects," most notably a person's prerogative "to Judge for himself in all Matters of Religion," which Haliday viewed as an "essential and unalienable Right of every Man."85 Others went so far as to take these conceptions to their logical conclusions. "No Sett," James Kirkpatrick argued, "of Uninspired Men have a Legislative Au- thority, in and over the Church of Christ in Matters of Conscience." He believed that "all Christians have a Right by the Laws of Christ, to Communion with his Body . . . and therefore to Deprive them of their Christian-Birth-Right-Privileges is unwarrantable."86

Although the doctrinal dispute led to schism in the church in 1726 with the erection of the nonsubscribing Presbytery of Antrim, through the controversy Ulster Scots discovered a powerful language to challenge government and a new means to negotiate their provincial status. Rheto- ric that New Lights used to contest church mandates could apply to government prerogatives as well. "Magistrates," declared John Abernethy, "have no more Authority than any of the rest of Mankind . . . in the Matter of Conscience." Just as the church could not impel subscription, authorities could not coerce Dissenters through laws. Thus, Haliday argued that "I cannot obey those Laws, out of Conscience without betraying true Liberty of Conscience," adding "that to require of me an absolute blind Obedience to such Commandments is to destroy Liberty of Conscience, and Reason also."87 Moreover, even if individuals were so inclined, they did not possess the right to abrogate conscience. An- other clergyman argued that "nothing can be more evident that this liberty is one of the most essential unalienable rights of human nature, which no man, nor body of men have authority to deprive us of, ...

Geoghegan, eds., Political Thought in Ireland, pp. 49-61; and Ian McBride "William Drennan and the Dissenting Tradition," in Dickson, Keogh, and Whelan, eds., The United Irishmen, pp. 73-99; see also Stewart, A Deeper Silence, p. 72).

85 Haliday, Reasons, pp. 7, 38, 39. 86 Kirkpatrick, A Vindication, pp. 21, 22. For Kirkpatrick's subsequent elaboration

on these points, see An Essay upon the Important Question, Whether There Be a Legisla- tive, Proper Authority in the Church, by Some Non-subscribing Ministers in the North of Ireland (Belfast, 1737).

87 Abernethy, Personal Persuasion, p. 34; Haliday, Reasons, p. 28.





nor are we our selves at liberty to make a surrender of it."88 Just as God gave individuals a conscience that no one could dominate, they believed, he also endowed societies with a right to consent to their rulers. Embrac- ing this logic, John Abemethy had argued that "as the Consent of the People is the only Just Foundation of Government; the Right of the Per- son Governing must be deriv'd from the same Spring," a liberty that he claimed was "the Undoubted Right of the People."89

Armed with this reasoning, Ulster Scots launched an attack on the foundations on which their provincial status rested, the privileged position of the Ascendancy. Like Anglicans who viewed Scotland's constitutional settlement with envy, New Lights continued to compare the position of Ulster Scot society to the status of nonconformists in Britain. "The Northern Dissenters," claimed a government official, "were not at all satisfied with such a toleration as the Dissenters in England enjoy, but insisted on and expected the same allowance of the exercize of their religion and ministry as those of the Episcopal communion enjoy in North Britain."90 To be sure, Presbyterians still employed arguments fo- cusing on just rewards for service rendered. But increasingly, ministers of a New Light persuasion on behalf of the Synod petitioned the king and the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland and lobbied the lord lieutenant by relying on patriotic discourse. Men such as Aberethy clamored for equality with all other British Protestants, arguing that they labored under "Grievances and Incapacities which are inconsistent with the common Rights of Subjects.."91 Abernethy in 1730 led the effort to overturn the Test Act by publishing a series of pamphlets. In his appeal, Abernethy stressed the issues of individual conscience and consent by claiming that the Test Act represented "a manifest infringement on Natu- ral Rights and Liberty."92 In his Nature and Consequences of the Sacra- mental Test, Abemethy contended no government possessed the prerogative to abridge the group's rights "by Acts of Parliament, by Temporal Rewards and Punishments, and in Matters purely of Religion and Con- science."93 Inevitably, Ulster Scots called the basis of the Irish confes-

88 R. Craighead, The True Terms of Christian and Ministerial Communion Founded on Scripture Alone (Dublin, 1739), p. 11.

89 J. Abernethy, The People's Choice, the Lord's Anointed: A Thanksgiving Sermon for His Most Excellent Majesty King George (Belfast, 1714), pp. 9, 5.

90 Duke of Bolton to - , 27 June 1719, T 519/147, PRONI. 91 J. Abernethy, The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test Considered,

with Reasons Humbly Offered for the Repeal of It (Dublin, 1731), p. 11. 92 J. Abernethy, Scarce and Valuable Tracts and Sermons (Dublin, 1751), p. 28, cited

in McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," p. 80. For Abernethy's campaign, see Records of the General Synod of Ulster, 2:157, 158, 168, 197; Beckett, Protestant Dissent, pp. 83-96.

93 Abemethy, Sacramental Test, p. 32.

nor are we our selves at liberty to make a surrender of it."88 Just as God gave individuals a conscience that no one could dominate, they believed, he also endowed societies with a right to consent to their rulers. Embrac- ing this logic, John Abemethy had argued that "as the Consent of the People is the only Just Foundation of Government; the Right of the Per- son Governing must be deriv'd from the same Spring," a liberty that he claimed was "the Undoubted Right of the People."89

Armed with this reasoning, Ulster Scots launched an attack on the foundations on which their provincial status rested, the privileged position of the Ascendancy. Like Anglicans who viewed Scotland's constitutional settlement with envy, New Lights continued to compare the position of Ulster Scot society to the status of nonconformists in Britain. "The Northern Dissenters," claimed a government official, "were not at all satisfied with such a toleration as the Dissenters in England enjoy, but insisted on and expected the same allowance of the exercize of their religion and ministry as those of the Episcopal communion enjoy in North Britain."90 To be sure, Presbyterians still employed arguments fo- cusing on just rewards for service rendered. But increasingly, ministers of a New Light persuasion on behalf of the Synod petitioned the king and the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland and lobbied the lord lieutenant by relying on patriotic discourse. Men such as Aberethy clamored for equality with all other British Protestants, arguing that they labored under "Grievances and Incapacities which are inconsistent with the common Rights of Subjects.."91 Abernethy in 1730 led the effort to overturn the Test Act by publishing a series of pamphlets. In his appeal, Abernethy stressed the issues of individual conscience and consent by claiming that the Test Act represented "a manifest infringement on Natu- ral Rights and Liberty."92 In his Nature and Consequences of the Sacra- mental Test, Abemethy contended no government possessed the prerogative to abridge the group's rights "by Acts of Parliament, by Temporal Rewards and Punishments, and in Matters purely of Religion and Con- science."93 Inevitably, Ulster Scots called the basis of the Irish confes-

88 R. Craighead, The True Terms of Christian and Ministerial Communion Founded on Scripture Alone (Dublin, 1739), p. 11.

89 J. Abernethy, The People's Choice, the Lord's Anointed: A Thanksgiving Sermon for His Most Excellent Majesty King George (Belfast, 1714), pp. 9, 5.

90 Duke of Bolton to - , 27 June 1719, T 519/147, PRONI. 91 J. Abernethy, The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test Considered,

with Reasons Humbly Offered for the Repeal of It (Dublin, 1731), p. 11. 92 J. Abernethy, Scarce and Valuable Tracts and Sermons (Dublin, 1751), p. 28, cited

in McBride, "Presbyterians in the Penal Era," p. 80. For Abernethy's campaign, see Records of the General Synod of Ulster, 2:157, 158, 168, 197; Beckett, Protestant Dissent, pp. 83-96.

93 Abemethy, Sacramental Test, p. 32.

285 285



sional state into question. As Haliday suggested, Ulster Scots would never rest easy as long as "the Established Church can be said to impose her Liturgy and Ceremonies .. . [and] the Civil Magistrate will arm the Imposers with a coercive Power."94

To the Ascendancy mind, such arguments did not bode well for the established church; indeed, forthright appeals such as these for disman- tling the Test Act ipso facto bespoke treason. "These very schismatics," Swift wrote, "are now again expecting, soliciting and demanding (not without insinuated threats, according to their custom) that the Parliament should fix them upon an equal foot with the established church." Such pleas to repeal the test struck at the heart of the Irish confessional state in which religious denomination determined access to political power. For Swift, the issue boiled down to "whether those people, who in all their actions, preachings, and writings, have openly declared themselves

against regal power, are to be safely placed in an equal degree of favour and trust."95 Their notion of conscience, he believed, would destroy the

rights of all. "As to the Presbyterians allowing liberty of conscience to those episcopal principles," he argued, "when their own kirk shall be

predominant ... I believe no reasonable churchman (who must then be a dissenter) will expect it."96

Swift had little choice but to appeal to old Ascendancy fears; in fact, Ulster Scot rhetoric left him with little room to maneuver. Like Protestant elites who drew on metropolitan discourse to challenge a Brit- ish parliament's intrusion into Irish affairs, men such as Abernethy used the language of the Williamite settlement to attack the privileged position of the Ascendancy. Like other British groups, Ulster Scots began at this time to situate their identity in abstract ideas that defined Britishness. They, too, identified with a Revolution Settlement that celebrated liberty and individual rights, sought to control the prerogatives of unfettered

power, and mandated consent as the basis of government.97 Ulster Scots at times also voiced discontent with British intrusion into Irish affairs. Presbyterians in Derry, for example, protested an Englishman's minting

94 Haliday, Reasons, p. 4. 95 J. Swift, "The Presbyterians Plea of Merit in Order to Take off the Test Impartially

Examined" (1731), in The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift, D.D., ed. John Nichols, vol. 4 (London, 1801), pp. 306, 311.

96 J. Swift, "The Advantages Proposed by Repealing the Sacramental Test, Impar- tially Considered" (1732), in ibid., p. 319.

97 The phrase "emulative patriotism" is Colin Kidd's. See Kidd, "North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms," Historical Journal 39 (1996): 361-82. T. H. Breen applies this to America's Revolutionary generation in "Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising," Journal of American History 84 (1997): 13-39.

sional state into question. As Haliday suggested, Ulster Scots would never rest easy as long as "the Established Church can be said to impose her Liturgy and Ceremonies .. . [and] the Civil Magistrate will arm the Imposers with a coercive Power."94

To the Ascendancy mind, such arguments did not bode well for the established church; indeed, forthright appeals such as these for disman- tling the Test Act ipso facto bespoke treason. "These very schismatics," Swift wrote, "are now again expecting, soliciting and demanding (not without insinuated threats, according to their custom) that the Parliament should fix them upon an equal foot with the established church." Such pleas to repeal the test struck at the heart of the Irish confessional state in which religious denomination determined access to political power. For Swift, the issue boiled down to "whether those people, who in all their actions, preachings, and writings, have openly declared themselves

against regal power, are to be safely placed in an equal degree of favour and trust."95 Their notion of conscience, he believed, would destroy the

rights of all. "As to the Presbyterians allowing liberty of conscience to those episcopal principles," he argued, "when their own kirk shall be

predominant ... I believe no reasonable churchman (who must then be a dissenter) will expect it."96

Swift had little choice but to appeal to old Ascendancy fears; in fact, Ulster Scot rhetoric left him with little room to maneuver. Like Protestant elites who drew on metropolitan discourse to challenge a Brit- ish parliament's intrusion into Irish affairs, men such as Abernethy used the language of the Williamite settlement to attack the privileged position of the Ascendancy. Like other British groups, Ulster Scots began at this time to situate their identity in abstract ideas that defined Britishness. They, too, identified with a Revolution Settlement that celebrated liberty and individual rights, sought to control the prerogatives of unfettered

power, and mandated consent as the basis of government.97 Ulster Scots at times also voiced discontent with British intrusion into Irish affairs. Presbyterians in Derry, for example, protested an Englishman's minting

94 Haliday, Reasons, p. 4. 95 J. Swift, "The Presbyterians Plea of Merit in Order to Take off the Test Impartially

Examined" (1731), in The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift, D.D., ed. John Nichols, vol. 4 (London, 1801), pp. 306, 311.

96 J. Swift, "The Advantages Proposed by Repealing the Sacramental Test, Impar- tially Considered" (1732), in ibid., p. 319.

97 The phrase "emulative patriotism" is Colin Kidd's. See Kidd, "North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms," Historical Journal 39 (1996): 361-82. T. H. Breen applies this to America's Revolutionary generation in "Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising," Journal of American History 84 (1997): 13-39.





of Irish coins, the so-called Wood's Halfpence, with such vehemence that Bishop William Nicholson feared a "general conflagration" in that city. Some even hesitated to petition the parliament of Great Britain to repeal their disabilities because, as the Presbytery of Monaghan explained, "by making application to have things done with them that prop- erly and de primo lye before our own Parliament . . . [we] so expose ourselves to that charge of betraying the Privileges of our Native Coun- try."98 Indeed, the Ulster Scot experience in some ways seems to parallel that of Protestant elites, who over the course of the eighteenth century came to view the link to Britain with increasing ambivalence.

The "badge of slavery" the sacramental test represented, however, precluded widespread empathy with the Ascendancy. Inhabiting a kingdom where religious persuasion represented not only a marker of identity but also a means to power or a justification for the exclusion from it destined Ulster's Presbyterians to second-class status in a second-class kingdom. The structure of the Irish political and ecclesiastical settlement, premised upon the confessional state, also determined the religious form taken by appeals for rights. Not surprisingly, ministers led the charge against the test using arguments of religious toleration. Although they employed a language that formed the foundation of the eighteenth-century British state, they tailored it to their position in the kingdom. The Ulster Scot response to the Revolution Settlement, therefore, reflected, challenged, and, in some ways, reinforced the confessional nature of the Irish state.

Clearly, the process of British state formation, the touchstone of the new British history, affected Ulster Scots as much as any group in the British Isles. Even though the Williamite Settlement in Ireland did not amount to a watershed, it did create new crises-which resembled older ones-and opportunities, largely because of heightened expectations. For Ulster Scots, this was the rub. The Revolution Settlement figured promi- nently in their construction of identity-indeed, it has all the hallmarks of a "defining moment"-because it did not represent a watershed. This dynamic-the cant of continuity-challenged community and identity, as well as political fortunes. But it also provided the means for Ulster Scots to construct a new sense of themselves and new bases for the group's integrity. Their experience of state formation, then, generated neither sustained conflict nor enduring consensus, but ambivalence. If the Ulster Scots do not fit comfortably within the new British paradigm, it is because Ireland does not as well.

of Irish coins, the so-called Wood's Halfpence, with such vehemence that Bishop William Nicholson feared a "general conflagration" in that city. Some even hesitated to petition the parliament of Great Britain to repeal their disabilities because, as the Presbytery of Monaghan explained, "by making application to have things done with them that prop- erly and de primo lye before our own Parliament . . . [we] so expose ourselves to that charge of betraying the Privileges of our Native Coun- try."98 Indeed, the Ulster Scot experience in some ways seems to parallel that of Protestant elites, who over the course of the eighteenth century came to view the link to Britain with increasing ambivalence.

The "badge of slavery" the sacramental test represented, however, precluded widespread empathy with the Ascendancy. Inhabiting a kingdom where religious persuasion represented not only a marker of identity but also a means to power or a justification for the exclusion from it destined Ulster's Presbyterians to second-class status in a second-class kingdom. The structure of the Irish political and ecclesiastical settlement, premised upon the confessional state, also determined the religious form taken by appeals for rights. Not surprisingly, ministers led the charge against the test using arguments of religious toleration. Although they employed a language that formed the foundation of the eighteenth-century British state, they tailored it to their position in the kingdom. The Ulster Scot response to the Revolution Settlement, therefore, reflected, challenged, and, in some ways, reinforced the confessional nature of the Irish state.

Clearly, the process of British state formation, the touchstone of the new British history, affected Ulster Scots as much as any group in the British Isles. Even though the Williamite Settlement in Ireland did not amount to a watershed, it did create new crises-which resembled older ones-and opportunities, largely because of heightened expectations. For Ulster Scots, this was the rub. The Revolution Settlement figured promi- nently in their construction of identity-indeed, it has all the hallmarks of a "defining moment"-because it did not represent a watershed. This dynamic-the cant of continuity-challenged community and identity, as well as political fortunes. But it also provided the means for Ulster Scots to construct a new sense of themselves and new bases for the group's integrity. Their experience of state formation, then, generated neither sustained conflict nor enduring consensus, but ambivalence. If the Ulster Scots do not fit comfortably within the new British paradigm, it is because Ireland does not as well.

98 Correspondence of William Nicholson, Bishop of Derry, T 1910/3, PRONI, p. 135; Minutes of the Monaghan Presbytery, 12 January 1708-9, PHS.

98 Correspondence of William Nicholson, Bishop of Derry, T 1910/3, PRONI, p. 135; Minutes of the Monaghan Presbytery, 12 January 1708-9, PHS.

287 287



defining the limits of britishness: the "new" british history and the meaning of the...

Documents