William, writes, that his majesty was so sensible of the necessity of collecting and uniting his whole

tinue at this day, an oppressive system, and may, for four hundred years to come, to eradicate opinions which, by the same violent means, they had been for four hundred years endeavouring by every means to establish. They compelled the people to submit, by the forfeiture of all their civil rights, to the pope's authority, in its most extravagant and unbounded sense, as a giver of kingdoms: and now they refuse even to tolerate them in the most moderate and chastised sentiments concerning it. No country, I believe, since the world began, has suffered so much on account of religion, or has been so variously harassed both for popery and protestantism.

"It will now be seen, that even if these laws could be supposed agreeable to those of nature in those particulars, on another, and almost as strong a principle, they are yet unjust; as being contrary to positive compact, and the public faith, most solemnly plighted.

"On the surrender of Limerick, and some other Irish garri. sons, in the war of the revolution, the lords justices of Ireland, and the commander in chief of the king's forces, signed a capitulation with the Irish, which was afterwards ratified by the king himself, by inspeximus under the great seal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the whole body of the Roman catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to the security of the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. What the latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day of much less public concern. The former are two, the first and ninth. The first is of this tenor: The Roman catholics of this kingdom (Ireland) shall enjoy such privileges, in the exercise of religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II.; and their majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parlia ment in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman catholics still further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of religion.'. The ninth article is to this effect. The oath to be administered to such Roman catholics as submit to their majesties' government, shall

force against the formidable power of France, that in order to put a speedy period to the Irish war, he

be the oath aforesaid, and no other, viz. the oath of allegiance made by act of parliament in England, in the first year of their then majesties, as required by the second of the articles of Limerick. Compare this latter article with the penal laws, and judge whether they seem to be the public acts of the same power, and observe whether other oaths are tendered to them, and under what penalties. Compare the former with the same laws, from the beginning to the end, and judge whether the Roman catholics have been preserved agreeably to the sense of the article, or rather whether, on that account, there is a single right of nature, or benefit of society, which has not been either totally taken away or considerably impaired.

"But it is said that the legislature was not bound by this article, as it had never been ratified in parliament. I do admit, that it never had that sanction; and that the parliament was under no obligation to ratify those articles by any express act of theirs. But still I am at a loss how they came to be the less valid in the principles of our constitution, by being without that sanction. They certainly bound the king and his successors; the words of the article do this, or they do nothing; and so far as the crown had a share in passing these acts, the public faith was unquestionably broken. In Ireland, such a breach on the part of the crown was much more unpardonable in administration than it would have been here. They have, in Ireland, a way of preventing any bill even from approaching the royal presence in matters of far less importance than the honour and the faith of the crown, and the well-being of a great body of the people. For, besides that they might have opposed the first suggestion of it in the house of commons, it could not be framed into a bill, without the approbation of the council in Ireland. It could not be returned to them again, without the approbation of the king and council here. They might have met it again in its se cond passage through that house of parliament in which it was originally suggested, as well as in the other. If it had escaped them through all these mazes, it was again to come before the. lord lieutenant, who might have sunk it by a refusal of the royal

had sent instructions to the lords justices to issue a proclamation, assuring the Irish of much more fa

assent. The constitution of Ireland interposed all those checks to the passing of any constitutional act, however insignificant in its own nature. But did the administration in that reign avail themselves of any one of those opportunities? They never gave the act of the 11th of Queen Anne the least degree of opposition in any one stage of its progress. What is rather the fact, many of the queen's servants encouraged it, recommended it, were in reality the true authors of its passing in parliament, instead of recommending and using their utmost endeavour to establish a law directly opposite in its tendency, as they were bound to do by the express letter of the very first article of the treaty of Limerick. To say nothing of the ministry, who, in this instance, shamefully betrayed the faith of government, may it not be a matter of some degree of doubt, whether the parliament, who do not claim a right of dissolving the force of moral obligation, did not make themselves a party in this breach of contract, by presenting a bill to the crown in direct violation of those articles so solemnly and so recently executed, which, by the constitution, they had full authority to execute?

"It may be further objected, that when the Irish requested the ratification of parliament to those articles, they did, in effect, themselves, entertain a doubt concerning their validity, without such a ratification. To this I answer, that the collateral security was meant to bind the crown, and to hold it firm to its engage, ments. They did not therefore call it a perfecting of the security, but an additional security, which it could not have been, if the first had been void; for the parliament could not bind itself, more than the crown had bound itself. And if all had made but one security, neither of them could be called additional, with propriety or common sense. But let us suppose that they did apprehend there might have been something wanting in this security, without the sanction of parliament. They were, however, evidently mistaken; and this surplusage of theirs did not weaken the validity of the single contract, upon the known principle of law, Non solent, quæ abundant, vitiare scripturas; for nothing is more evident than that the crown was bound, and that no act

vourable conditions than they afterwards obtained by the articles of Limerick. The justices formed

can be made without the royal assent. But the constitution will warrant us in going a great deal further, and in affirming, that a treaty executed by the crown, and contradictory of no preced. ing law, is fully as binding on the whole body of the nation, as if it had twenty times received the sanction of parliament; because, the very same constitution, which has given to the house of parliament their definite authority, has also left in the crown the trust of making peace, as a consequence, and much the best consequence, of the prerogative of making war. If the peace was ill made, my Lords Galway, Conningsby and Porter, who signed, were responsible, because they were subject to the community. But its own contracts are not subject to it; it is a subject to them; and the compact of the king, acting constitution, ally, was the compact of the nation.

"Observe what monstrous consequences would result from a contrary position. A foreign enemy has entered, or a strong domestic one has arisen in the nation. In such events, the circumstances may be, and often have been such, that a parliament cannot sit. This was precisely the ease in that rebellion in Ireland, It will be admitted also, that their power may be so great, as to make it very prudent to treat with them, in order to save the effusion of blood, perhaps to save the nation. How could such a treaty be at all made, if your enemies or rebels were fully persuaded, that, in those times of confusion, there was no authority in the state, which could hold out to them an inviolate pledge for their future security, but that there lurked in the constitu tion, a dormant but irresistible power, who would not think itself bound by the ordinary subsisting and contracting authority, but might rescind its acts and obligations at pleasure? This would be a doctrine made to perpetuate and exasperate war; and on that principle, it directly impugns the law of nations, which is built upon this principle, that war should be softened as much as possible, and that it should cease as soon as possible, between contending parties and communities. The king has a power to pardon individuals. If the king holds out his faith to

those instructions into a proclamation, afterwards styled the secret proclamation, because, though

a robber to come in, on a promise of a pardon of life and estate, and in all respects of a full indemnity, shall the parliament say, that he must nevertheless be executed, that his estate must be forfeited, or that he shall be abridged of any of the privileges which he before held as a subject? Nobody will affirm it. In such a case, the breach of faith would not only be on the part of the king, who assented to such an act, but on the part of the parliament who made it. As the king represents the whole contracting capacity of the nation, so far as his prerogative, unlimited, (as I said before), by any precedent law can extend, he acts as the national procurator on all such occasions. What is true of a robber, is true of a rebel; and what is true of one robber or rebel, is as true, and is a much more important truth, of one hundred thousand.'"

"To urge this part of the argument further, is indeed, I fear, not necessary, for two reasons. First, that it seems tolerably evident in itself; and next, that there is but too much ground to apprehend, that the actual ratification of parliament would, in the then temper of parties, have proved but a very slight and trivial security. Of this, there is a very strong example in the history of those very articles. For though the parliament omitted, in the reign of King William, to ratify the first and most general of them; they did actually confirm the second and more limited, that which related to the security of the inhabitants of those five counties, which were in arms when the treaty was made."

It has been so often urged by the enemies of the people of Ireland, that the privileges which they are now claiming, are more a question of expediency than of right, that we felt it our duty to put the reasons on which the rights of our country are grounded, in the strongest and most unanswerable manner that the great powers of Burke could exhibit them. That this task has been performed with his usual strength, will not be denied by any attentive reader. That the sophist who has the audacity to defend the outrageous violation of the articles of Limerick, should yield to the reasoning of Burke, will now be admitted by the most ardent supporters of monopoly. The people of Ireland,