Thomas Davis, Selections from his Prose and Poetry | Page 9

England. Yet, King describes this man as "detected of
forgery," one who was brought from gaol to the woolsack--one who
had not appeared in any court--a stranger to the kingdom, the laws, and
the practice and rules of court;--one who made constant needless
references to the Masters to disguise his ignorance, and who was
brought into power, first, because he was "a convert papist, that is, a
renegade to his country and his religion;" and, secondly, because he
would enable the Irish to recover their estates by countenancing
"forgeries and perjuries," which last, continues the veracious
archbishop, he nearly effected, without putting them to the trouble of
repealing the Acts of Settlement. King staggers from the assertion that
Fitton denied justice to Protestants, into saying it was got from him
with difficulty.
Thomas Nugent, Baron Riverstown, second son of the Earl of
Westmeath, was chosen chairman of committees. King, who is the only
authority at present accessible to us, states that Nugent had been "out"
in 1641, but considering that he did not die till 1715, he must have been
a mere boy in '41, if born at all; and, at any rate, as his family,
including his grandfather, Lord Delvin (first Earl of Westmeath), and
his father, carried arms against the Irish up to 1648, and suffered
severely, it is most improbable that he was, as a child, in the opposite
ranks.
The Irish had never ceased to agitate against the Acts of Settlement and
Explanation. Thus Sir Nicholas Plunket had done legal battle against
the first, till an express resolution excluded him by name from
appearing at the bar of the council. Then Colonel Talbot (Tyrconnell)
led the opposition effort for their repeal or mild administration. In 1686,
Sir Richard Nagle went to England, as agent of the Irish, to seek their
repeal. But the greatest effort was made in 1688. Nugent and Rice were
sent expressly to London to press the repeal. Rice is said to have shown
great tact and eloquence, but Nugent to have been rash and confused.
Certain it is, they were unsuccessful with the council, and were brutally
insulted by the London mob, set on by the very decent chiefs of the
Williamite party.

Of the eighteen prelates, ten were Englishmen, one Welsh, and only
seven Irish. Several had been chaplains to the different lords lieutenant.
Eleven out of the eighteen were in England during the session. Of these,
some were habitual absentees, such as Thomas Hackett, bishop of
Down, deprived in 1691 by Williamite commissioners for an absence
of twenty years. Others had got leave of absence during '87 and '88.
Some, like Archbishop John Vesey of Tuam, and Bishop Richard
Tennison of Killala, fled in good earnest, and accepted lecturerships
and cures in London.
There was one man among them who deserves more notice, Anthony
Dopping, lord bishop of Meath. He was born in Dublin, 28th March,
1643, and died 24th April, 1697. He was educated in St. Patrick's
schools, and won his fellowship in T.C.D. in 1662, being only 19 years
old. He led the opposition in the parliament of '89 with great vigour and
pertinacity. He resisted all the principal measures, and procured great
changes in some of them, as appears by "The Journal." He had a
fearless character and ready tongue. He continued a leader of the Ultras
after the battle of the Boyne, and quarrelled with the government. King
William, finding how slowly the Irish war proceeded, had prepared and
sent to Ireland a proclamation conceding the demands of the Roman
Catholics, granting them perfect religious liberty, right of admission to
all offices, and an establishment for their clergy.[19] While this was
with the printers in Dublin, news came of the danger of Limerick. The
proclamation was suppressed by the Lords Justices, who hastened to
the camp, "to hold the Irish to as hard terms as possible. This they did
effectually." Still these "hard terms" were too lenient for the Ultras,
who roared against the treaty of Limerick, and demanded its abrogation.
On the Sunday after the Lords Justices had returned, full of joy at
having tricked the Irish into so much harder terms than William had
directed them to offer, they attended Christ Church, and the bishop of
Meath preached a sermon, whose whole object was to urge the
breaking of the treaty of Limerick, contending (says Harris, in his Irish
Writers in Ware, p. 215) that "peace ought not to be kept with a people
so perfidious." The Justices, and the Williamite or moderate party, were
enraged at this. The bishop of Kildare was directed to preach in Christ
Church on the following Sunday in favour of the treaty; and he

obtained the place in the privy council from which the bishop of Meath
was expelled; but