James II
have resided within the rebels' quarters, or to have corresponded with any person residing within those quarters, should in itself be considered as an act of treason97; and this example the Irish Parliament was unfortunately induced to follow. Lastly, a clause very creditable to the sense and moderation of the legislators provided that "whereas some meriting persons, who are to lose considerable estates by this Act might by the foregoing rules be entitled to small or no reprisals, your Majesty may in such special cases set forth and grant reprisals to such meriting persons."
In the Lower House the Bill met with little opposition; but the speech delivered in the Lords by Anthony Dopping, Bishop of Meath, contains perhaps the ablest statement of the case for the new owners, and deserves careful study.98 After a violent attack upon the principle of the bill, and a scurrilous invective against the assembled nobles, which proved, if it proved nothing else, that far greater freedom of speech was tolerated at Dublin than at Westminster, the Bishop proceeded to argue that the proposed reprisals were worthless. "As for the reprisals, I hear the name of them in the bill, but I find nothing agreeable to the nature of them." He laid down three conditions as essential to a
176
