Ginckle. It was granted. The next day find, that, when sir Toby appeared in the they submitted their proposals to him in year 1702, at the bar of the House of the seven propositions following :- 1st. Commons, to argue against a bill which That their Majesties will, by an act of was then passing through it, he did not Indemnity, pardon all past offences what- say one word respecting the injustice of ever ; 2nd. All Irish Catholics to be re- excluding Roman Catholics' from seats in stored to the estates of which they were parliament. At least such is my present seized or possessed before the late Revo- belief. The House will find his argument lution ; 3rd. To allow free liberty of re- at length in Plowden's History of Ireligious worship, and one priest to each land ;' and also in the Historical parish, as well in towns and cities as in the Apology for the Roman Catholics,' by country: 4th. Irish Catholics to be capable Mr. William Parnell. The hon. gentleman of holding all employments, civil and opposite has referred to the authority of military under the Crown, and of exer- bishop Burnett, with the intention of cising all trades, professions, and callings showing that he conceived that the garriwhatsoever ; 5th. The Irish army to be son of Limerick treated not only for themkept on foot, and received in their present selves, but for all the rest of their countrycondition into their Majesties' service, in men who were in arms. He says that case they be willing to serve their Ma- bishop Burnett was high in the confidence jesties against France or any other enemy; of king William, and that his testimony 6th. The Irish Catholics to be at liberty to was most important on that particular reside in cities and towns corporate, to be point. I must here entreat the House members of corporations, and to exercise to give me its attention whilst I state all corporate franchises and immunities ; one fact In the year 1692, I think 7th. An act of Parliament to be passed it was immediately after the ratification for ratifying and confirming these con- of the Treaty of Limerick, the Oath of ditions.' –Now I think it is quite evident Supremacy was required to be taken in that the conditions which the Roman the Irish parliament, by an act passed in Catholics then asked for are by no means the English parliament. I am not now equal in importance to those which the called upon to say whether such an act hon. baronet says were granted to them was legal. All I say is, that it was acted by the 9th article of the Treaty which upon in the Irish parliament. Bishop was subsequently concluded. And what Burnett—the very bishop whose testimony does the House suppose was general the hon. gentleman deems so conclusiveGinckle's answer to them? The pro- with a full knowledge of that circumstance positions submitted to him were so ex- thus commences the third volume of his travagant that he refused to grant them. history—'I now begin on the 1st of May He said that, though he was almost a 1705, to prosecute this work, and I have stranger to the laws of England, he could now before me the reign of king William see that they were equally inconsistent and queen Mary.' He was therefore at with those laws and his own honour. that time perfectly well aware of the conHaving rejected them for these reasons, struction put upon the Treaty of Limerick, he ordered a new battery to be erected and the practice which prevailed under it. against the town, and at the same time He states the manner in which the Roman sent in twelve propositions to the be- Catholics had entered into that treaty, sieged, stating that he would grant them and then he proceeds, after the quotation those terms and no others. The hon. which had been made imperfectly by the gentleman opposite has said something hon. gentleman, to observe that the about additions made to the Treaty on its articles of the capitulation were perfectly ratification by king William, of which I and impartially executed, and that some heard for the first time this night with doubts which had arisen out of the ama very considerable degree of surprise. biguous manner in which the treaty was I shall say nothing upon it at present, ex- worded, had been explained in favour of cept that I hope that this motion will in the Irish Catholics.' That is the conclude every syllable connected with this struction put upon the treaty by a person ratification. I wish that hon. gentlemen, whose authority is declared by the hon. before we come to the discussion of this gentleman to be most cogent, because he Treaty, would read the argument of sir was in the immediate confidence of William Toby Butler upon it. For they will then ! 3rd, If, then, the due execution of the

-a

Treaty of Limerick is to be decided by Mr. Spring Rice said, he claime equal
the authority of bishop Burnett, we must credit for sincerity with the right hon. gen-
conclude that the stipulations of it were tleman, when he declared his firm belief in
faithfully executed, and that the am- favour of a different construction from that
biguous parts of it were explained in which the right hon. gentleman had put
favour of the Irish Catholics. I am un- upon the articles of this great national
feignedly sorry, that the hon. baronet, who stipulation-a treaty, not contracted, as
brought forward the motion, and also the lawyers would say, without a consideration,
hon. gentleman who seconded it, have but which at once transferred to king Wil-
entered at present into argument upon the liam the full possession of the kingdom of
construction of the Treaty; for the subject Ireland. How happened it, that when the
embraces topics, and is connected so right hon. gentleman depended so much
closely with documents that appeared at upon bishop Burnett's authority in behalf
the time of the treaty, that it is im- of his opinion that no violation of the treaty
possible to discuss it as we ought, without had taken place, he had overlooked the
some previous deliberation. I have looked strong fact, that at the very time the bishop
at the subject, at different times, with great was writing, in 1705, some of those penal
interest and attention, because I wished to laws, which were infractions, had actually
consider it fairly and impartially. From been enacted ?
all I have read upon it, I have a strong Mr. Peel.—“Bishop Burnett was, you
impression on my mind, that at the time know, only writing the history of William
of signing the treaty, it was not in the con- and Mary.”
templation of either of the contracting Mr. Spring Rice said, that was true,
parties, that the Catholics should be but in point of date, the bishop was en-
allowed to claim under it admission into gaged in writing the work after 1704, when
parliament, or into the high and efficient some of those penal acts had actually
offices of the State. I admit that the passed. That horrid act against the edu-
passing of the Penal-laws was a violation cation of Catholic children — the most
of that treaty, and that if it were not wicked that ever disgraced a statute book
justified by circumstances at the time, it-had previously passed under the cogni-
was a violation for which no sufficient excuse zance of bishop Burnett. Both the law
could be alleged. But I say, at the same and the fact were upon this point against
time, that no privilege is now with held from the historian. But the bishop was good
the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which authority in another part of his work,
they have a right to claim in consequence where he spoke of the occurrence of direct
of that treaty. That is the view which facts under his own eye, and stated, in
the Catholics took of their condition in plain terms, that so intent was the govern-
1793, when the first act was passed for ment to obtain an end to the war in Ire-
their relief and benefit, and that is the land, that the commissioners were in-
view which I believe to be the correct one. structed to keep their terms in good faith
I do not mean to say that the ancient date (alluding to this very treaty), “ to the no
of the treaty is any bar to the faithful exe- small grief,” says Burnett, "of some Eng-
cution of it at this moment. If I were lish who wished to ruin the Irish for their own
satisfied that the object of that treaty was purposes.” The passage in Burnett was as
to admit Roman Catholics into parliament follows:-"When they came to capitulate,
on merely taking the Oath of Allegiance, I the Irish insisted on very high demands,
should be so far from thinking that the which were set on by the French, who
age of the treaty was of no avail

, that I hoped they would be rejected; but the should permit it to have full influence on my king had given Ginckle secret directions judgment, whenever the Roman Catholics that he should grant all the demands they came to this House to ask for the fulfil-could make that would put an end to the ment of their claims. I am, however, war. So every thing was granted, to the satisfied, by reference to cotemporary great disappointment of the French, and to documents, that the Roman Catholics of the no small grief of some of the English, Ireland have no claim upon us from the who hoped this war would have ended in Treaty of Limerick ; and that being my the total ruin of the Irish interest. Those opinion, I shall not say one word on the of Limerick treated not for themselves general question, until it is brought regu- alone, but for all the rest of their countrylarly under our consideration.”

men who were yet in arms. They were indemnified, and restored to all that they gentleman opposite,“ did not the original had enjoyed in king Charles's time. They rejection of the Irish proposals involve were also admitted to all the privileges of a striking contradiction of the supposed subjects upon their taking the oath of al- construction which was now contended legiance to their majesties without being for?" Certainly not; for what were the bound to take the oath of supremacy.” By original propositions? The Irish proposals the first article of the treaty of Limerick, rejected by Ginckle were, free liberty of or of Ireland as it was more properly de- worship; Papists to be eligible to all emscribed, the Catholics were restored to all ployments civil and military; Irish army the privileges which they had enjoyed in to be kept on foot and paid; corporations the time of Charles 2nd, to be admitted opened, and a public establishment of a to all the privileges of all the other subjects, priest for every parish. These were what without taking any other oath except the Ginckle rejected ; and surely they were Oath of Allegiance. All the privileges very different from those for which the constituted a comprehensive description, supporters of the Treaty of Limerick now and necessarily included the right of sit-contended. ting in parliament-a right subsequently Mr. Peel." No; what General Gincand violently taken away, by the enact- kle said, was, that these propositions were ment which added two oaths to the quali- contrary to the laws of England.” fication by the Oath of Allegiance. The Mr. Spring Rice resumed and said, so articles in the Treaty were these :—“1. it was, to have an Irish priest established The Roman Catholics of this kingdom in every parish: if he did not mistake, the shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise right hon. gentleman had, on a former ocof their religion, as are consistent with the casion said the same; and sure he was laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the that the earl of Liverpool had made such reign of Charles 2nd, and their majesties, a declaration, when the motion was made as soon as their affairs will permit them to for assigning a stipend to the Catholic summon a parliament, will endeavour to clergy. That noble earl had then said, procure the said Roman Catholics such that such a demand went to the overthrow further security in that particular, as may of the Protestant religion, and to a breach preserve them from any disturbance upon of the coronation oath. Turning to the conthe account of their said religion."-" 9. duct of general Ginckle, it would be seen, The oath to be administered to such Ro- that on the 1st of August, 1691, the man Catholics, as subjects to their majes- government had addressed a letter to him, ties' government, shall be the oath afore- urging him, in the strongest terms to put said (of allegiance) and no other.”—He an end to the war in Ireland. The letter would here take the opportunity of refer- from Coningsby to Ginckle, of the 1st ring to a curious tract which threw some of August, 1691, represented how absoadditional light upon this subject. It was lutely necessary it was for the affairs of entitled “Great Britain's Just Complaint Christendom, that the war in Ireland for late Measures and present Sufferings," should be ended this summer. He reprea Jacobite tract, by W.J. Montgomery, sented how averse people were generally printed by Ralph, and reprinted in Lord from giving the Irish any conditions, but Somer's Tracts : -" The prince has taken that such persons did not consider the as large and broad steps towards a dis- misery of the country, and less understood pensing power as any that can be charged the circumstances of affairs abroad. At on king James. The Irish treaty furnishes that time there were two contending parus with a convincing proof of this, where ties in the field-councils of the different such indulgences were granted to them armies. There were in the Irish camp a solely and singly by his own authority, with French party, urging them on to extreme relation to the exercise of their religion, demands; while with Ginckle there was dispensation from oaths, &c., as were di- an English party, insisting that the Irish rectly contrary to the laws of the land,"and should receive no terms short of confiscathe safety, rights, and privileges of the tion. Between these two inflamed parties protestant subjects of that kingdom. This the Irish government were desirous of motreaty I do acknowledge was afterwards derately mediating. “But,” said the right ratified by parliament, but the new life hon. gentleman, see the length of time commenceth only from the date of their which elapsed before any complaint of this sanction," " But,” said the right hon. kind was made respecting the alleged infraction of the Treaty.” To this assertionment was not then powerful enough to he would reply, that so far from no com- enable him to consult in this particular plaint having been made, the very earliest instance his feelings of justice. The goopportunity when a question arose was vernment of William was well described taken by sir Toby Butler and sir Stephen by Somerville, as composed of persons asRice, when the privileges secured by the sociated in administration, and placed in Treaty were denied to the Catholics. Sir responsible offices, but alienated from Toby Butler was heard against the clauses each other by former animosities, and acof the act prescribing the declaration and tuated by incompatible interests, they enoath of abjuration contrary to the 9th ar- tered not into any previous concert, and ticle, and he said, that “the 15th prevented often differed publicly in opinion. Hence Catholics from voting for members of par- arose procrastination, inconsistency, and liament unless they take the oath of ab- feebleness, in the executive branches of gojuration, which to oblige them to is con-vernment. “ Potestne in tam diversis trary to the Liinerick articles, which says mentibus pax aut amicitia esse ?" He that the Oath of Allegiance and no other hoped there was no government subsisting shall be imposed on them. And if there at this time deserving the same character. was no law in force in the reign of Charles For if there were, neither the English, the 2nd against these things, "as there certainly Irish, nor any other class of his majesty's was not, and if the Catholics have not since subjects, could expect any very strong or forfeited, as for certain they have not, these useful measure to emanate from their clauses are against the articles, and a vio- hands. He was as ready as the right lation of the public faith.” This was an an-hon. gentleman to praise many of the swer, and a complete one to the right hon. great names who had figured in king Wilgentleman's statement, that they had made liam's government. The master of the no complaint fresh upon the infraction of the Mint, for instance, of that monarch was Treaty. If there was no law, as there cer- the illustrious sir Isaac Newton. Still, tainly was not, in the reign of Charles that government was paralyzed and per2nd, to exclude Catholics from parliament, plexed by contending difficulties, and comand if they had not since, as was equally pelled to be neutral in many instances clear, forfeited their rights under this where they ought to have been more just. Treaty, then the case was clear in their He had trespassed thus long upon their atbehalf, and the articles of the Treaty had tention, from his deliberate conviction, that been violated. This doctrine had, he re- his construction of the Treaty of Limerick peated, been broached at the bar of that was the only just one. One of his own wicked parliament which had violated the ancestors had been engaged in preparing immutable principles of justice, as well as it, and his fellow-countrymen claimed the the solemn faith of treaties. Notwith-fair benefit of so solemn an enactment. standing such a departure from right and Respecting the Oath of Supremacy, be law, the speech of counsel remained on begged to say a few words. That oath record as a protest against the injustice. was never enjoined to be taken, according The right hon. gentleman said, why did to any law, by any member of the Irish not the Irish at the time appeal to the parliament. Resolutions of the Houses English throne, or parliament? Who ever had been certainly voted, but these in heard of the voice of the weak and the themselves did not constitute law. In the prostrate being raised against the strong reign of Charles 2nd, the parliament had in the zenith of their power? and to whom nothing at heart so much as the exclusion could they have appealed ? To that par- of Catholics. On the 14th of May, 1661, liament who had heard Molineux's cele- a committee was appointed to consider brated book ordered to be burnt, who had how the oaths of allegiance and supremacy voted the Irish linen trade a nuisance. To may be taken by all who are or may be the parliament of Ireland he had shewn hereafter members of this House. On the they had already appealed. Was it to king 15th May, 1661, a committee was apWilliam, whose situation was so difficult pointed to attend the lords justices to pray at the time, that he could scarcely venture the issue of a commission to administer to do justice to the Catholics of Ireland the Oath of Supremacy. On the 21st of without encouraging the Jacobites in Eng-May, 1661, a committee was appointed to Jand, who were seeking to sap the foun- request the primate to appoint persons to dation of his throne ? Williain's govern- administer the sacrament to the members of the House. On the 3rd of March, 1662, should be construed in favour of the a committee sat to prepare the heads of a weaker party; he appealed to the British bill disenabling members to serve in par- parliament to give the descendants of liament that shall not take the oaths of al- those who had so faithfully observed their legiance and supremacy, and also heads part of the stipulations the benefit of their of a bill against popish hierarchy; and on contract. He appealed to that great milithe 17th of March, 1662, heads of a bill tary captain who was at the head of the against popish hierarchy, were reported present Administration, and who was consingly; also English laws against popery versant with treaties made in the field, for referred to a committee. On the 10th of his aid in doing justice to his fellow counApril, 1663, major Ormsby reported the trymen. From the days of king William heads of a bill enjoining oaths of supre- to the present the violation of this Treaty macy and allegiance; and there followed had been complained of, and he, lastly, a petition to the duke of Ormond, that the implored justice for those to whom it had provision made by law, in England, hath been so long denied. tended to the preservation of the peace, Mr. G. Moore said, he did not mean, in &c.; and that since the government is the discussing this question, to inquire whether same, the necessities of both the same, the the Treaty had been punctually fulfilled, reasons of state the same, and such as doth but he would view it as res integra as if it require the same laws; in consideration were a question coming for the first time whereof we offer to your Grace the heads before the House. He would not conof a bill declaring who shall take the Oath | sider it as a question for a jury, nor of Supremacy. On the 21st of May, 1663, would he decide it by any strict and techthe prorogation continued to the 26th of nical construction; but would view it as a October, 1665; and in August, 1666, the great political question, which it was comparliament was dissolved. So that up to petent to judge, not by the literal meanthe declaratory law of 1782, none of these ing of the words, but with reference to acts had received the sanction which was the intentions of the parties. He would necessary to make them binding. It was first call the attention of the House to that a curious thing to find the Irish parliament part of the subject on which so triumphant endeavouring to enforce an English statute an answer had been given by his right hon. as binding, while they were at the very time friend, as to the ninth article, by which it inquiring what other laws of England were was provided, that all the Roman Catho

, fit to be re-enacted: thus, in the one case, lics who submitted to king William should adopting, as a matter of course, to serve a take the Oath of Allegiance, and no other. particular passion, what in the other they He contended that, if the provisions of the were determined only to have after it had Treaty had been so extensive as the hon. received their own legislative sanction. He gentleman who spoke last, and the hon. concurred with the right hon. gentleman baronet, were disposed to contend, it would in wishing that there existed any great have been wholly unnecessary to make adlegal tribunal before which this case of the ditional provisions for those numerous Treaty of Limerick could be tried. If any classes of Catholics whose situation was man doubted the construction for which particularised and provided for in the other he contended in behalf of his country, let articles of the Treaty. Jf the provisions of him consider the relative positions of the the articles to which he alluded were so parties who were at the time engaged in extensive, then he must say, that the prothe conflict. The one the weaker party, visions of the second article, granting to who had, with honourable and scrupulous all trades, professions, and callings of the fidelity, fulfilled its hard terms, though at Catholics the free use and enjoyment of the very moment had they agreed to this ful- their respective rights, must be considered bilment, a French reinforcement had arrived wholly superfluous, if the parties themin the river with succour: yet, notwith- selves were of opinion that they came fairly standing this solemn adherence to their within the operation of the ninth article. plighted faith, at the same moment a pre- The hon. gentleman then proceeded to late was found, from the pulpit of a church argue, that the whole of the articles, not

a in Dublin, to inveigh against keeping faith withstanding all that was said to the conwith the Irish, because they kept no faith trary, must be considered as referring themselves. It was always a principle in solely to religious liberty, and not to polithe construction of treaties, that they itical privileges. In support of this opinion