code against the Irish Catholics, and the commercial restraints against Irish industry, which form the capital facts of Irish history in the generations that immediately followed the Revolution. It will, perhaps, be convenient, instead of following a strictly chronological method, to consider these two systems of legislation as connected wholes, examining the relations between their many parts, and their combined and most fatal influence on Irish life.

In order to judge the penal laws against the Catholics with equity, it is necessary to remember that in the beginning of the eighteenth century restrictive laws against Protestantism in Catholic countries, and against Catholicism in Protestant ones, almost universally prevailed. The laws against Irish Catholics, though much more multifarious and elaborate, were, on the whole, in their leading features, less stringent than those against Catholics in England. They were largely modelled after the French legislation against the Huguenots, but persecution in Ireland never approached in severity that of Lewis XIV., and it was absolutely insignificant compared with that which had extirpated Protestantism and Judaism from Spain. The code, however, was not mainly the product of religious feeling, but of policy, and in this respect, as we shall hereafter see, it has been defended in its broad outlines, though not in all its details, by some of the most eminent Irishmen in the latter part of the eighteenth century. They have argued that at the close of a long period of savage civil war, it was absolutely necessary for the small minority, who found themselves in possession of the government and land of the country, to fortify their position by disqualifying laws; to deprive the conquered and hostile majority of every element of political and military strength. In as far as the code was directed to these objects, it was, it has been said, a measure of self-defence, justified by a

plain and urgent necessity, and by the fact that it produced in Ireland for the space of about eighty years the most absolute tranquillity. It has been added that long before these laws were abolished, large portions of them had been allowed to become obsolete, and that some parts which were retained on the statute book were retained only as giving the Government a reserve of power which in times of great public danger might become very valuable.

A candid judge will, I think, acknowledge that these considerations have much weight, and that they may be fairly urged in defence of some portions of the code. He will at the same time acknowledge that the code went far beyond the necessities of self-defence; that it was continued long after all serious danger had past; that if it was not largely due to religious fanaticism, great parts of it bear clear traces of the passions produced by civil war, and of the monopolising, selfish, and oppressive spirit which is the natural result of uncontrolled power; that it produced more pernicious moral, social, and political effects than many sanguinary persecutions, and that a great portion of it constitutes a flagrant breach of public faith.

At a time when the war was going decidedly against the Catholics, but was still by no means terminated, when Limerick was still far from captured, when the approach of winter, the prospect of pestilence arising from the heavy floods, the news of succours on the way from France, and the dangers of another insurrection at home made the situation of the besiegers very grave, the Irish generals had agreed to surrender the city, and thus terminate the war, if by doing so they could secure for their people religious liberty. The consideration they offered was a very valuable one, for the prolongation of the war till another spring would have been full of danger to the unsettled government of William, and

6

the stipulations of the Irish in favour of religious liberty were given the very first place in the treaty that was signed. The period since the Reformation in which the Irish Catholics were most unmolested in their worship was the reign of Charles II.; and the first article of the Treaty of Limerick stipulated that the Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their 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 Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion.' The ninth article determined that the oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their Majesties' government shall be the oath of allegiance, and no other.' These articles were signed by the Lords Justices of Ireland, and ratified by their Majesties under the Great Seal of England.

6

Such a treaty was very reasonably regarded as a solemn charter guaranteeing the Irish Catholics against any further penalties or molestation on account of their religion. It is true that the laws of Elizabeth against Catholicism remained unrepealed, but they had become almost wholly obsolete, and as they were not enforced during the reign of Charles II., it was assumed that they could not be enforced after the Treaty of Limerick. It is true also that the sanction of Parliament was required for some parts of the treaty, but that sanction could not, without a grave breach of faith, be withheld from engagements so solemnly entered into by the Government, at a time when Parliament was not sitting, and in order to obtain a great military advantage. The imposition upon the Irish Catholics, without any fresh provocation, of a mass of new and penal legislation intended to

restrict or extinguish their worship, to banish their prelates, and to afflict them with every kind of disqualification, disability, and deprivation on account of their religion, was a direct violation of the plain meaning of the treaty. Those who signed it undertook that the Catholics should not be in a worse position, in respect to the exercise of their religion, than they had been in during the reign of Charles II., and they also undertook that the influence of the Government should be promptly exerted to obtain such an amelioration of their condition as would secure them from the possibility of disturbance. Construed in its plain and natural sense, interpreted as every treaty should be by men of honour, the Treaty of Limerick amounted to no less than this.' The public faith was pledged to its observance, and the well-known sentiments of William appeared an additional guarantee. William was, indeed, a cold and somewhat selfish man, and the admirable courage and tenacity which he invariably displayed when his own designs and ambition were in question were seldom or never manifested in any disinterested cause, but he was at least eminently tolerant and enlightened, and he had actually before the battle of Aghrim offered the Irish Catholics the free exercise of their religion, half the churches in the kingdom, and the moiety of their ancient possessions.2 Such

I may here quote the opinion of Burke. Having quoted the first and ninth articles, which I have noticed above, he proceeds: 'Compare this latter article with the penal laws as they are stated in the second chapter, and judge whether they seem to be the public acts of the same powers, 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 "from any disturbance on account of their religion," 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.'-Tracts on the Popery Laws.

2 See a letter of Sir Charles

an offer is alone sufficient to stamp him as a great statesman, and should have saved his memory from many eulogies which are in truth the worst of calumnies. It must be observed, however, that William, who repeatedly refused his assent to English Acts which he regarded as inimical to his authority, never offered any serious or determined opposition to the anti-Catholic laws which began in his reign.

It must be observed also that the penal code, which began under William, which assumed its worst features under Anne, and which was largely extended under George I. and George II., was entirely unprovoked by any active disloyalty on the part of the Catholics. It is surely absurd to describe the Irish Catholics as having manifested an incurably rebellious and ungrateful disposition because, in the contest of the Revolution, they took the part of the hereditary sovereign, to whom all classes had sworn allegiance, whose title when they took up arms had not been disputed by any act of an Irish Parliament,' and who, whatever might have been his misdeeds towards other classes of the community, had at least given no provocation to the Catholics of Ireland. And, at all events, after the Treaty of Limerick had been signed, during the long agony of the penal laws, no rebellion took place. About 14,000 Irish soldiers had at once passed into the French service,