on account of their religion. Slight as, according to this construction, the advantage appears to us, its value must be measured by a comparison not with our own situation to-day, but with that of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, at that time, generally, before this declaration, and with that of those Roman Catholics in particular who did not submit to it, and who were accordingly left to make, as they could, their own terms after wards."

On the 23d September 1691, the garrison of Limerick, after an unsuccessful sally, asked for a cessation of hostilities, and on the 27th September sent out their proposals. 1. An Act of indemnity for all offences whatsoever, without reference to their date or quality. 2. Restoration of all Irish Catholics to the estates possessed before the Revolution. 3. A free liberty of worship, and one priest to each parish. 4. Irish Catholics to be capable of bearing employment, military and civil, and to exercise professions, trades, and callings, of what nature soever. 5. Irish army to be kept on foot by their Majesties. 6. The Irish Catholics to be allowed to live in towns corporate and cities, to be members of corporations, to exercise all sorts and manners of trades, and to be equal with their fellow Pro testant subjects in all privileges, advantages, and immunities accruing in or by the said corporations. 7. An act of Parliament to be passed for ratify ing and confirming the said condi

tions.

Now the 6th of the above articles, if it were found singly, includes every thing which the present Roman Catholics profess to require. But De Ginckel, so far from granting such terms, replied, that "these things they insisted on were contradictory to the laws of England, and dishonourable to himself," and ordered a new battery to be immediately erected to the left of Mackay's fort, for guns and mortars! Can there be, asks Sir Robert, a belief in the mind of any man, that De Ginckel, having indignantly rejected terms which directly and specifically secured to the Roman Catholics of Ireland all the privileges which their descendants now require, could have intended, on the very same day, to grant them, by implication, the very same advantages?

Of the articles of the treaty of Limerick, the principal stress is laid

by the advocates of the Roman Catholics, on the first, second, and ninth, as containing their specific rights; and these three, therefore, Sir Robert sifts and winnows, to get the grain of argument free from the chaff.

"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 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?"

The first article provides as follows:-"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 Majes ties, as soon as their affairs will permit, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion." Sir Francis Burdett's attempt to twist this article into a shape favourable to the present claims of the Catholics, appears to have been too puerile to deserve any notice from any body; he was indeed unintelligible-and knew that he was so-therefore let all who can read a simple sentence in the English language construe this First Article for themselves-which is as plain, even to a rebel, as a pikestaff.

The chief point to attend to, however, in this First Article, is the limitation, even as to religion, by the words, "as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles the Second."

Here Sir Robert is excellent

"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 equals 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 period? I will not enter into details : they are well given in the work of Dr Browne, to which the honourable Baronet, the member for the Queen's county, (Sir Henry Parnell,) referred us, in the course of his temperate and candid speech, on a former debate. I will quote no more than four points:-1. Every person in office had, by early statutes, been long previously required to take the oath of supremacy-by the 17th and 18th of Charles II. that oath was further required to be taken even by schoolmasters. 2. At that period the Roman Catholics might not, it is true, have been formally and legally excluded from Parliament; but it is quite clear that, by resolutions of the two Houses (1661), requiring their own members to receive the communion according to the rites of the established Church, the Peers from the hands of the Lord Primate, the Commons from the same, or from any whom he might appoint, the intention of each House was to exclude Roman Catholics. 3. The English Parliament petitioned the King, that no Papists should be admitted Justices of the Peace: that all licenses to

Papists for inhabiting within corporations should be recalled. The King complied, as we read in Leland. It will be recolJected, that the Act of Settlement and Explanation, prohibited them from inhabiting within corporations, unless by special license from the Lord Lieutenant

:

and Council. 4, Roman Catholic Priests were liable to banishment and the Duke of Ormond, when Lord Lieutenant, exercised the power of the law, and banished all the bishops except three. Sir, I state these facts historically, to shew, if one word of comment be necessary, that even the condition to which in matters of religion-the treaty restored the Roman Catholics, was not Uto

pian. I describe the previously existing state of the Roman Catholics, not to defend it. My argument does not require, my inclination would not lead me, to uphold it. It is enough for me to describe, simply, the facts as they stand in history.

"But it may be asked, what, then, did the Roman Catholics gain by this first article? They gained for themselves, and for all the people of Ireland, so far as De Ginckel could grant it, so far as their Majesties could confirm the grant, (the limitations I will presently state,) the right of the private exercise of their religion-a right, as I have already shewn, denied to Waterford, and in the case of Galway scarcely granted; and when it is recollected, that the benefits of the terms so granted to Galway were confined to its inhabitants and garrison; when it is recollected, that Cromwell, in his Irish wars, had directed his generals never to admit any fortress to stipulate for any parties, except those within its walls; and when it is seen, that the defenders of Limerick stipulated for the whole kingdom, as well as for themselves,the distinction is sufficiently marked between this, and any other treaty made in Ireland."

The

The First Article in the Treaty of Limerick, then, related to religion; the Second only to property. terms of the first article, whatever they were, extended to all the Roman Catholics of the kingdom; the terms of the second Article were limited to the parties therein described :-" 1. The inhabitants of Limerick, and of any other garrison in the possession of the Irish. 2. The officers and soldiers then in arms. 3. The officers detained in their Majesties' quarters, that are treated with, and who are not prisoners of war, or have taken protection, and shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience. These several parties, and all their heirs, shall hold their estates of freehold and inheritance, and all their rights, titles, and interests, privileges and immunithem held, enjoyed, or were rightfully ties which they and every or any of and lawfully entitled to in the reign of King Charles the Second, or at any time since, by the laws and statutes that were in force in the said reign of King Charles the Second."

Here, it appears, Sir Francis Burdett made a dead halt-closed the book from which he had read to the House the above passage-and exclaimed-with all the apparent since

rity and earnestness of a patriot, "Can there be any doubt as to this treaty? Is it not clear that it restored and secured the unrestrained exercise both of political and private immunities to the Roman Catholics, as they enjoyed them in the reign of Charles II.? Could any Tory draw any other conclusion? For my part, I do not see how it is possible for words more expressly or directly to stipulate for the enjoyment of all rights, public as well as private, by the parties to the treaty and their heirs."

Sir Robert says that he was almost induced to interrupt the honourable Baronet at the moment ; so far at any rate as to request him to read on; for if the whole construction of the article be not completely changed by the next two lines, he-Sir Robert-will own himself utterly incompetent to draw any conclusion of law, or of common sense from any thing whatever. Why, the words which follow define the rights restored to be Rights of Estates; they provide that the parties described shall be put in possession, by order of Government, of SUCH OF THEM as are in the King's hands, or the hands of his tenants, without being put to any suit or trouble therein; and ALL SUCH ESTATES shall be freed and discharged from all arrears of crown-rents-quit-rentsand other public charges incurred and become due since Michaelmas 1688." "I ask," continues Sir Robert, 66 can there be a doubt that the rights here referred to were manorial rights, seignorial rights, and other purchases con nected with PROPERTY, and not with PERSONS, and which, as such, might be seized or again restored by the Crown? Upon the construction of this article I would appeal fearlessly to the judgment of any jury in Eng land, if my whole property depended on the issue."

The remainder of the article provides, that the parties therein described shall and may exercise their professions, trades, and callings, as freely as in the reign of Charles II. provided that they, and all parties seeking the benefit of this article, shall take the oath of allegiance. And the third article extends the benefits of the first and second to parties absent beyond the seas, if within eight months they shall return to the kingdom.

But it was on the ninth article that

Sir Francis chiefly relied, and on the alleged breach of which the orators of the Association have most clamorously insisted. It provides, " that the oath administered to such Roman Catholics AS SUBMIT TO THEIR MAJES TIES' GOVERNMENT shall be the oath abovesaid, and no other." Now, it is obvious that the meaning of the whole is, that those whose estates are restored or confirmed to them-those who, laying down their arms, live peaceably in future-those who exercise their professions, trades, and callings quietly-shall not be required to take any other oath than the oath of allegiance to the government. For who in his senses could suppose that such an article gave to the Roman Catholics of the whole kingdom a right by implication to eligibility to all civil functions and privileges of corporations, of the bench, and of Parliament, an eligibility which had been asked distinctly by the same parties, and had been refused decisively, the very same day, by the same victorious general?

Sir Robert then shews that this article, thus understood, conveyed so much more to the Roman Catholics of Ireland than the Protestants of the empire thought them entitled to receive, that it gave great displeasure. There is an address of the House to King William (4th of March 1692) complaining of it; but in that address there is not one word said about the grievance of power being granted to the Roman Catholics; there is not an allusion to any thing but property restored; so that, within a few months after the date of the treaty, the House of Commons of England present an address to the Crown, recording their deliberate condemnation of that treaty, but say nothing of that aggravation of the evil which would have been felt, if, by any article of it, any Roman Catholic could have claimed political power in Ireland. A few years afterwards, in 1697, the whole Parliament of Ireland concurred in the same conclusion; and by the act passed for the continuation of the Articles of Limerick, distinctly proved, that, in their judgment, political power was not, and could not be, conveyed to any one, or by all of its articles, to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The other great party, too, King James II. speaks with satisfaction of the favourable terms which his garrison had ob

We have not room to follow Sir Robert through all this part of his speech, but ourabridgement is sufficient to shew, that his overthrow of Sir Francis Burdett's sophistry, if indeed it deserve the name even of sophistry, on the treaty of Limerick, was complete and triumphant. He was well entitled indeed to finish this part of his subject in a high tone.

"I think, Sir, I have proved sufficiently that the Treaty of Limerick was never intended to bear the weight which has been hung upon it: with that weight it has broke down ; and it now overwhelms the Honourable Baronet, and the cause which he designed to shelter under it. There the ruin may remain: the materials are not worth picking up again; nor should I linger upon the spot for another minute, if it were not to remind the House of the pomp and circumstance with which the fabric had been erected, the importance attached to it, and the character of solidity and value given to it in the speeches of those who so lately supported it."

Having thus settled the Treaty of Limerick, Sir Robert proceeds to drive Sir Francis, and all others, from their next position, taken up in defence of the claims of the Roman Catholics; namely, the Pledge given to them at the Treaty of Union.

No one ever asserted that such a pledge could be found in any article of the act of Union, or in any speech either of the King or the Lord Lieutenant. The fact is, that there was not only no official pledge given publicly by the Government at the Union, in respect to this matter; but there was scarcely any demi-official declaration by which the public mind in IreIand could be led in any direction at that time. Sir Francis quoted something or other from a pamphlet, which he regarded as the manifesto of the Government on the occasion of the Union; but Sir Robert states, that it was merely the production of the late Mr Cooke,

then private secretary to the chief secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. But what says the celebrated speech of Mr Pitt on the Union? It was regarded as the authoritative exposition of the principles of the administration in respect to that measure; and the Speaker of the Irish House complained that the influence and power of Government had been employed in circulating it, and that 10,000 copies had been printed by the King's printer,but nowhere is there to be found in that speech so printed and so circulated, any pledge, or even much encouragement, to the Roman Catholics. What were the words of the Speaker of the Irish House?

"His words are these: 'I will only observe upon it, that Mr Pitt's language is of such a nature, that one would imagine he had the two religions on either side of him, and one was not to hear what he said to the other. He tells the Catholic in his speech, that it is not easy to say what should be the Church Establishment in this kingdom; and his fifth resolution states that the present Church Establishment is to be preserved. He tells them, that the time for discussing their situation must depend on two points, when their conduct shall make it safe, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable;' and Mr Dundas adds, if ever such a time shall come." This was Mr Foster's construction of Mr Pitt's speech. He, at least, did not conceive that Mr Pitt was circulating any distinct and positive pledge to the Roman Catholics: he, answering Mr Pitt at the time, did not collect from that speech any assurance on the part of Mr Pitt to that body, that, if they would support him in his object, he would supLet the House port them in theirs. judge from Mr Pitt's own words :

"By many I know it will be contended, that the religion professed by a majority of the people should at least be entitled to an equality of privileges. I this House; but those who apply it withhave heard such an argument urged in out qualification to the case of Ireland,

forget, surely, the principles on which English interest and English connexion has been established in that country, and on which its present Legislature is formed. No man can say that, in the present state of things, and while Ireland remains a separate kingdom, full concession could be made to the Catholics without endangering the State, and shaking the constitution of Ireland to its centre.

"On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon, or how late, it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are indisputable: First, when the conduct of the Catholics shall be such as to make it safe for the Government to admit them to the participation of the privileges granted to those of the Established Religion, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable to such a measure; when these events take place, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an united Imperial Parliament with much greater safety than it could be in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it certain that even for whatever period it may be thought necessary after the Union to withhold from the Catholics the enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the Protestant Legislature were no longer separate and local, but general and impartial.""

But there were,-quoth the Knight of Kerry,-private pledges given by the Irish Government to the Roman Catholics, in order to secure their support to the Union. He was himself a member of that Government at that time, and was not merely cognisant of the fact, but a party to it. Well-be it so. What then? This proves nothing, except the obligation which such pledges imposed upon those who gave them,-they left surely no obligation upon the King or upon Parliament? This part of Sir Robert's speech is so excellent-so unanswerable-that we shall quote it without omission of a single word-it lays the bother of a pledge asleep-no more to be awaken ed even by the shrieking of a Shiel, or the bellowing of an O'Connell.

"Sir, in the first place, there was no official body to whom pledges of a public nature could be given; there was no recognised organ of the Roman Catholics, with whom the Government could communicate all the intercourse was from individuals to individuals. The nearest approach to an assembly supposed to act for the Roman Catholics, was the meeting of the Prelates of that Communion then sitting in Dublin; and, though they deliberated on the question of a stateprovision for the Roman Catholic clergy, it does not appear that the larger subject ever came before them. In the next place, the Roman Catholics could do little in the matter, if, in return for any

pledges made to them, they had been disposed to exert themselves in support of the Union. They had not then sitting a rival Parliament, or Association, the resolutions of which might have been accepted by their brethren throughout the Island.

"In the last place, Sir, Mr Plowden, one of their own Church, and no mean authority on the subject, says distinctly, that though they generally gave all the weight they could command to Mr Pitt's proposition for the Union,' 'though the predominant interest of the Catholics was certainly in favour of the Union, no public act of the body ever passed upon it: many Catholics in Dublin entered into very spirited and judicious resolutions against that fatal measure, and several of the most independent and best informed Catholics individually opposed it. Of all the King's subjects, the Irish Catholics had eminently the most reason to oppose the Union, by which they lost their own consequence. If, therefore, any pledge had been given, it does not fully appear, that the condition on which only, by the argument, it is assumed to be binding, was, on their part, fulfilled.

"But, Sir, no pledge was or could be given, except by individuals; and no pledge was given, even individually, by many whose names are quoted on these occasions. The late Lord Auckland, referring, in his speech on the Roman Catholic Question in 1805, to the Union, he states himself to have been much enin the arrangement of which measure gaged, distinctly declares that he never heard of any such pledge; nay, more, that if the concessions were in the con

templation of the Government, they were industriously concealed from him and others of their associates. Above all, in 1805 Mr Pitt as distinctly denied that any pledge was given by him.

"The utmost which can be made out is briefly this, that Mr Pitt was not directly and in words, and to the Roman Catholics, but by conviction, and to his own conscience, pledged to bring forward his measure for their relief. That mea sure he found that he could not bring forward with the authority of Government; and therefore he resigned his office, and thus redeemed his pledge.' Let no man accuse Mr Pitt of breach of faith to the Roman Catholics: every expectation which they were entitled to form, as raised by him, he realized at a cost to himself greater almost than any mind except his own could measure. What greater object could there have been to a mind like Mr Pitt's, than to have closed this war which