Downloaded on 2017-02-12T13:40:55Z DP"1916 Q~-£~ Lh( 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Title Archbishop William King (1650-1729) and the Constitution of Church and State Author(s) O'Regan, Philip Publication date 1996 Original citation O'Regan, P. 1996. Archbishop William King (1650-1729) and the Constitution of Church and State. PhD Thesis, University College Cork. Type of publication Doctoral thesis Link to publisher's http://library.ucc.ie/record=b1254669~S0 version Access to the full text of the published version may require a subscription. Rights © 1996, Philip O'Regan http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Embargo information No embargo required Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1626 from Downloaded on 2017-02-12T13:40:55Z DP"1916 Q~-£~ lh( 2. Table of Contents Page Volamell Chapter 6: 1708-1714: '••••• parties wonderfully hinder business•••••' 264 Chapter 7: 1715-1718: '••••• this new scene of life•••••' 329 Chapter 8: 1719-1720: '••••• the worst we feared has befallen us•••••' 403 Chapter 9: 1721-1729: '••••• one foot in the grave•••••' 462 Conclusion 536 Bibliography 540 CHAPTER' 1708-1714: '.••.. parties wonderfully hinder business....• '1 King had entered parliament fifteen years previously confident ofthe benefits to be derived from the political process by both church and country. But by 1707 this optimism had evaporated in the light of the cumulative disappointments of recent sessions. The determination of the London parliament to press its legislative and judicial claims had thwarted any hopes he had harboured that the authority of the Irish Lords might be reasserted. His frustrations on this point had been compounded by the unwillingness of either parliament or government to support the various legislative and administrative initiatives which he believed necessary to encourage change within the church. This disillusionment with the political process had been exacerbated by other developments. Ever since the Glorious Revolution politics in England had been characterised by the emergence of various political factions or 'parties'. This phenomenon had quickly spread to Ireland where the terms Whig' and 'Tory' had become commonplace. In England these parties reflected genuine divisions in the body politic. Whigs were generally seen as champions of a Revolution Settlement which had increased the power of parliament and diminished that of the crown. But they were portrayed by Tories as latitudinarians who were overly sympathetic to non-conformists. Tories, for their part, presented themselves as defenders of the Anglican Church and the monarchy. They were, in tum, vulnerable to Whig charges that .they were I King to Crow, 15/11112, TCD Ms. 750/4/1167. crypto-Jacobites, opposed to the Protestant succession.2 The problem with the application of these terms in an Irish context was that they did not do justice to the political divisions which existed in the country. While Whigs and Tories in England disputed the importance of the revolution, all Protestants in Ireland were 'hearty for the revolution to which they owe their lives, liberty and all that is dear to them in this world'. A related, but even more unifying feature of the Irish political landscape was a dread of any return of the Stuarts. The result was that the terms Whig and Tory took on different connotations once they crossed the Irish sea. Thus, while Tories in England baulked at the anti-popery laws, and Whigs at the Test clause, the majority of the Anglo-Irish political nation wholeheartedly supported both.3 King understood this quite clearly: 'I think it impossible to set the two parties on the same foot in Ireland as in England', he wrote to Swift, who was increasingly inclining towards the Tory fold, 'for our division is founded on the right of our Estates which are all claimed by the forfeiters and nothing can restore them but the Pretender nor anything take them from us but bringing him in, whereas all your contests so far as I understand them have no other foundation, but who shall have the ministry and employments. The gaining these has no connection with the Pretender. You may have them without him or under him. But you see the case is widely different with us and here is the true source of the zeal and violence of the Protestants of Ireland. Remove the fear of the Pretender and you may lead him [sic] like a dog in a string. Indeed, it was because he believed that parties which had emerged in response to conditions peculiar to Britain were introducing an unnatural dichotomy into Irish politics, that the gradual polarisation of Irish politics along these lines 2 Jones, Country and Court; England 1658-1714, London, 1978. 3 King to Robert Calder, 25/11112, TeD Ms. 2532f72; Hayton, Ireland and the English Ministers, pp.120-149; idem, 'The beginnings of the 'Undertaker System", in Bartlett and Hayton, ed., Penal Era and Golden Age, pAl. 265 caused King such concern: parties 'arise not among ourselves, but are brought from you,' he complained to the Archbishop ofCanterbury, 'If a man go over to London in never so good a temper he commonly returns influenced one way or the other so that it is some time before he can be brought to cool ..... there can be no parties here but what are raised by government.'4 His own response to this situation was to attempt to remain aloof from any overt show of loyalty to one particular party or faction. Convinced that Ireland should not be 'much concerned in parties', and fearful also of the emergence of an Irish church party as had happened in England, he urged a similar course on others, particularly churchmen. 'It would cut me to the quick to see a parcel of little inconsidering fellows blowing up faction and sedition', he informed Southwell, alluding to those amongst the lower clergy who inclined towards the Tory party, 'when all wise men are doing their endeavours to extinguish it'. If churchmen felt an urge to align themselves with any party then he was 'sure we ought to stick to the crown and make that our only party', since in the 'long run' it would undoubtedly do both church and country 'more service than any party.,s However, his various political and ecclesiastical responsibilities meant that he would not be able to remain entirely independent. While he might believe that 'as to oppressing Ireland a Whig and Tory parliament and ministry are much as one', it was imperative, particularly for the sake of the church, that he establish a modus operandi which acknowledged the influence these parties would wield for the foreseeable future. The result was that for the next few years it became his practice to bestow a guarded blessing on whichever party, 4 King to Swift, 1311/14, Swift Carr. ii, p.3; King to Wake, 27/8/13, TeD Ms. 2532/199-200. S King to Crow, 19/6108, TeD Ms. 750/3/2/215-6; King to Southwell, 1612/09, TeD Ms. 2531161-2; King to Cloyne, 15/11112, TeD Ms. 2532/67-8. 266 group or administration came closest to promoting his own agenda. This had the effect of seeing him alternately clash with and support the several policies of successive ministries. It also saw him refuting strenuously any accusations of partiality. When the Bishop of Cloyne hinted that he was displaying Whiggish' tendencies he countered that he 'never was a friend, that I knew, of anything but Truth and Justice and I hope I never will'. He was delighted when Swift wrote to tell him that whenever anyone suggested to him that he might ever have acted out of party loyalty, he would 'not allow it ..... [for] I conceive you to follow the dictates of your Reason and Conscience, and whoever does that will, in public management, often differ as well as from one side as another. '6 Swift had, however, mastered the none too difficult task of flattering King. In fact, the historical record would suggest that King did incline, if not wholeheartedly, towards the Tories. Suspicious of the Erastian and latitudinarian tendencies of many ofthose who supported the Whigs, he viewed as critical the Tory espousal of the rights of the established church to the exclusion of non-conformists, as expressed in their support for the continuation of the Test clause. He was likewise sympathetic to Tory advocacy of a peaceful settlement with France. By 1713, willing to accept that they no longer intended to undermine the Protestant succession, he was happy to support their cause, canvassing openly for several Tory candidates in the election of that year. It was ironic, therefore, that in the wake of the Hanoverian accession he would come to be identified as a man who had done more than most to frustrate Tory attempts to consolidate their position in Ireland. 6 King to Crow, 215/13, TeD Ms. 25321150; Swift to King, 31/12113, Swift Corr. i, p.426; King to Annesley, 615/18, TeD Ms. 2535/160-1. 267 I Political developments in England in the aftermath of union with Scotland saw Godolphin, Harley and Marlborough increasingly dependent upon Somers, Sunderland and other members of the Whig ministry. One of the immediate consequences for Ireland was the removal of Ormonde as Lord Lieutenant. The ministry's nominee for the position was Thomas, Earl of Wharton. However, the queen, who considered Wharton too extreme, insisted on the more moderate Earl of Pembroke, who was duly appointed. Nevertheless, the Whig ministers were in a position to influence policy for the Irish parliament which was due to convene in July 1707. A central element of this was to be a determined bid to remove the Test clause.' Annesley wrote in April to inform King of the ministry's intentions.