bably, through the bounty of that good-natured man, Napoleon, he might be a king; for we should recollect, that his sister was indebted to the Emperor Napoleon for the title of Queen." When such claims are founded upon this treaty, when such consequences are drawn from it, it becomes important to shew the fallacy of the one: it is scarcely necessary to expose the absurdity of the other.

By reciting the terms allowed to Waterford in the preceding year, and to Galway during this same campaign, and the terms refused to Limerick, I have, I trust, prepared the House to follow me in the fair and inevitable construction of the terms actually granted by De Ginckel in this memorable treaty.

The Articles, then, on which the principal stress is laid by the advocates of the Roman Catholics, as sustaining their specific rights, are the first, second, and ninth. I will proceed to examine them in detail; but the whole treaty should be examined to see how utterly impossible it is that any one part of it, or the whole together, can bear the weight now attached to it. Is it to be believed, for instance, that any one article of the treaty can have been intended to convey to the Roman Catholics an equality of civil rights with the Protestants, when another article gives to the noblemen and gentlemen

'

'In another passage, he says, "all the blessings of her glorious Revolution,' as she calls it,--England owes to the honour and trust-worthiness of the Irish. I arraign her not only of perfidy, but of ingratitude." Speeches, p. 52.

comprised therein, "liberty to ride with a sword and case of pistolls if they think fitt, and keep a gunn in their houses for the defence of the same, or for fowling." Can any other inference, on the contrary, be drawn from this very article, than that it was the intention of the victor, (an intention admitted by the vanquished) to disarm all who were not specifically excepted? Can it be contended, that all which is now asked, was guaranteed by any general terms in the treaty, if it were necessary to frame a special provision, as was done in the seventh article, without which no Roman Catholic gentleman, not even the Earl of Lucan himself, could legally have kept a fowling-piece in his house?

To proceed1: the first article provides as follows.

1 The treaty to which the Roman Catholics appeal, is called "the Civil Articles of Limerick :" but there proceeded, pari passu, between the same parties, another convention, called 'the Military Articles," referring more immediately to the transport of the army to France. The first article, however, is quite general. It certainly shews no intention, on the part of the contracting parties, that the Irish were to be favoured, or even placed on any equality with the other subjects of the King. Whether this were just or unjust, prudent or imprudent, is not the question: we have now only to decide the fact. "Art. I. That all persons, without any exception, of what quality or condition soever, that are willing to leave the kingdom of Ireland, shall have free liberty to go to any country beyond the seas, (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND EXCEPTED), where they think fit, with their families, household stuff, plate, and jewels." Art. II. relates to the officers and soldiers; and also to the Rapparees. Story, ii. 239; Leland, iii. 627. It appears, by this article, that the Irish were scarcely considered subjects of the same

"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles the Second; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance account of their said religion."

upon the

The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster, last night distinguished between what he denomi nated the first and the second clause, or division, of this article; the first clause guaranteeing the pri vileges of the Roman Catholic religion as they existed in the time of Charles II.; the second promising such further security as might preserve the parties accepting these terms, "from any disturbance, in other words, any civil disabilities, on account of their said religion."

Now admitting, what I will scarcely, even for the sake of argument admit, that there is an ambiguity in the latter member of the sentence, which, taken singly, might be open to the interpretation of the Honourable Baronet and the Petitioners, I contend, that, though he may thus collect totidem literis, the sentence which he desires

king; at any rate, not in pace Domini regis, but rather as outlaws, permitted to transport themselves. It is curious that Charles I." in his humiliation," (says Leland, iii. 75.) should have granted this, among other demands of his Irish Parliament, viz, ❝ to allow all Irish subjects to repair to any part of his dominions without restraint."

to find in the treaty', the context of the first member of the sentence will disprove his inference, even if I had not already shewn how utterly incredible it is, that De Ginckel would have granted, by implication, in the evening, when he was dictating the terms, what in the morning he had indignantly refused, when the terms were proposed to him, and when this particular provision was asked in direct words. The truth is, that the very words

1

My Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peel), brought forward, in a subsequent part of the debate, an argument of great force, which had not occurred to me, from the analogy of the treaty with Ormonde. There, where both parties had distinctly in their contemplation civil rights, they used legal words unequivocally conveying them. See particularly Arts. I. III. VIII. IX. The treaty was not ratified; but that point does not bear upon the argument. It is enough to shew-in fact the terms brought forward by the Irish in Limerick have shewn-that the Irish knew sufficiently the value of direct and specific words, when legal privileges were to be secured: they used them in the treaty with Ormonde: they tried to use them in the treaty with De Ginckel; and those terms being distinctly rejected by De Ginckel, cannot be held to have been re-instated by him on the same day, by any vague and circuitous inference. The treaty with Ormonde is curious, as illustrating the manners of the people at the time. One of the first measures of Strafford's government was to propose a bill, prohibiting the ploughing by the tails of horses. The Irish Parliament passed the act, [10 and 11 Car. I. c. 15.]; and the Irish, in treating with Ormonde, distinctly required, by Art. XXII., the repeal of this very statute. See Milton's observations on it, Milton's Prose Works, ii. 362. It may be added, that even so late as the year 1780, Arthur Young found the practise lingering, I think, in the centre of Ireland.

in the second clause, " in that particular," obviously connect it with the words of the first clause, viz. "in the exercise of their religion," and both together confine, accordingly, the meaning of the First Article of the Treaty of Limerick to the free exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion.

The second article provides more specifically for certain civil rights.

But, before I proceed to the examination of it, I will stop to inquire into the limitation of the first article, even as to religion, by the words, "as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles the Second." It was well observed, on a former occasion, by the honourable and learned member for Dublin, (Mr. George Moore) that the construction would have been very different, if the period referred to had been the reign of James II. instead of Charles II. The reign of James was the more obvious point of reference, if the article had intended to grant to the Roman Catholics of Ireland many privileges, even in the exercise of their religion: in that day they were legally equal, and practically more than equal, to the Protestants. But the victor deliberately fixed on the reign of Charles II. as the period, the privileges of which he was willing to concede to the Irish. Now, what was the state of the Roman Catholics in Ireland at that period1? I will not enter into details: they are

1

Father O'Leary, in denying any obligations of the Roman Catholics to the House of Stuart, speaks thus of Charles II.