Would the penalty have been less had the Irish not Revolted following the defeat of James II?

Historians (see:Curtis) generally feel that had the Irish N O T engaged in a second rebellion following the surrender of James II they would not have been punished so severely by Parliament (which found the cost of the rebellion to be very high!).

 Any consideration of the Nature of the political consequenses should reflect upon the following points:

1.Penal laws legislated against Catholics extended not only to Ireland but to the whole of England. It is incorrect to assume that the Irish were singled out for persecution. Additionally, other religious groups thought to be dangerous to national security were also made the subjects of the penal laws.

2.These laws were NEVER uniformly enforced but existed largely on the books to deter.

 3.Catholicism in the 17th century was not purely projected as a religion but as a political orientation which supported the dominance of the temporal power of the Papacy and other Catholic governments. Catholic groups in the period made no attempt to blend in as citizens of England. Quite the contrary- they had over centuries attacked the state often on behalf of foreign governments. It is quite clear that antagonism of the government was not the only path available to the Catholic population. Following the death of Elizabeth and into the reign of James I catholics possessed significant wealth and considerable power which could have come to the aid of the government in times of crisis. This power was unfortunately erroded as a result of perpetual confrontations with the government and futile attempts at rebellion such as the Gunpowder plot.

4.Penal laws had been on the books throught Britain prior to 1690.

 5.The Irish who supported James II in the Rebellion were all Catholics. While supporting James these same Catholics stood by as he removed Protestants from government and the army and later moved to further limit Protestant Rights and freedoms. The support of this reverse descrimination marked the group as one hostile to the best wishes of the country as a whole.

 6.Imposition of the Penal Laws was NOT supported by King William III. This is a typical example of the Legislative branch of government being less enlightend than the Executive a problem which plagues Democratic Governments to this day. One might ask however, who should be made to pay the costs of an unsuccessful rebellion both financially and in terms of lack of trust other than the group which so absolutely and completely supported and perpetuated the costly rebellion?

 7.The tightening of Penal Laws in Ireland was a sanction taken into consideration by those who chose to support James II. It is clear that the risks were known and yet the rebellion moved ahead.

The tightening of the Penal Laws in Ireland following the Rebellions was a REACTION to a very real ACTION. By choosing to support the leaders who supported James II the Irish people CHOSE to threaten and attack England. The cause of the Penal Laws was therefore their CHOICE. Had they not chosen to support James II and to continue with a second Revolt there would have been no tightening of Penal Laws and infact, there might have been a reward stemming from greater trust in the form of the abandonment of existing Penal Law legislation or at least a lower level of enforcement.

I do not think that England was responsible for the tightening of Penal Laws but that:

Perhaps a consideration of the words of John Locke written in the same year as the battle might shed some light upon contempoary political thought and philosophy:

From: Second Treatise of Government
-John Locke

 Sec. 93. In absolute monarchies indeed, as well as other governments of the world, the subjects have an appeal to the law, and judges to decide any controversies, and restrain any violence that may happen betwixt the subjects themselves, one amongst another. This every one thinks necessary, and believes he deserves to be thought a declared enemy to society and mankind, who should go about to take it away. But whether this be from a true love of mankind and society, and such a charity as we owe all one to another, there is reason to doubt: for this is no more than what every man, who loves his own power, profit, or greatness, may and naturally must do, keep those animals from hurting, or destroying one another, who labour and drudge only for his pleasure and advantage; and so are taken care of, not out of any love the master has for them, but love of himself, and the profit they bring him: for if it be asked, what security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler? the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you, that it deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has power to do more hurt and wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity. This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions. From: Second Treatise of Government-John Locke

To Return to the Consequences Section click here
To Return to the Main Menu of the Orange Pages click here