The History of Ireland,

Treaty of Limerick.-Violated or not?-Arguments of Macaulay. Dr. Dopping, Bishop of Meath. No faith to be kept with Papists.-First act in violation of the treaty.-Situation of the Catholics.

-Charge against Sarsfield.

The same Macaulay, in his estimate of the chances of Ginkell's success, thus sums them up

"Yet it was possible that an attempt to storm the city might fail, as a similar attempt had failed twelve months before. If the siege should be turned into a blockade, it was probable that the pestilence which had been fatal to the army of Schomberg, which had compelled William to retreat, and which had all but prevailed even against the genius and energy of Marlborough, might soon avenge the car

THE Articles of Limerick were signed on the 3rd October, 1691, and the city was surrendered to the army of King William, who was then, for the first time, recog-nage of Aghrim. The rains had lately nised by the body of the Irish nation as King of Ireland: and when the Irish forces, who had held Limerick and Galway so gallantly, were shipped off to France, pursuant to the capitulation, there was not left in all Ireland the slightest semblance of any power capable of resisting or troubling the new settlement of the kingdom. The timely surrender had also enabled William to bring to a close this most troublesome and costly war, at a moment when it was urgently needful for him to concentrate all his force against the great power of France.

It is therefore evident, and has always been admitted, that in return for the engagements of the treaty purporting to protect Catholic rights, the king and the English colonists received most valuable consideration. "In Ireland there was peace: the domination of the colonists was absolute." These are the words of Lord Macaulay, who, of all modern historians, has uniformly exhibited the most inveterate malignity against the Irish

nation.

Before proceeding to narrate in detail the manner in which the articles were observed on the part of the king and the dominant colony of English, it will be well to exhibit some other facts proving what a very valuable consideration the Catholics gave for the poor guaranty they thought they were receiving on their side. At the beginning of October the winter was closely approaching, and the army of Ginkell was almost certain to be forced to raise the siege on that account alone.

been heavy. The whole plain might shortly be an immense pool of stagnant water. It might be necessary to move the troops to a healthier situation than the banks of the Shannon, and to provide for them a warmer shelter than that of tents. The enemy would be safe till the spring. In the spring a French army might land in Ireland-the natives might again rise in arms from Donegal to Kerry-and the war, which was now all but extinguished, might blaze forth fiercer than ever."

This historian, whose work enjoys much more popularity than credit, does not mention a circumstance which made it, in fact, certain that the war would soon have blazed forth fiercer than ever, beyond all doubt. It is that, before the signing of those articles, assurances had been sent from France to the defenders of Limerick that a considerable expedition was then on its way to their aid, under command of Chateau Renault; which re-enforcement did actually arrive in Dingle Bay two days after the treaty was signed, "consisting," says Harris, in his Life of King William, "as appears from the minutes of a letter from the lords-justices to the king, of eighteen ships of war, six fire-ships, and twenty great ships of burthen, and brought on board eight or ten thousand arms, two hundred officers, and three thousand men." Whether the Irish commanders were or were not justified in surrendering a city which they were still capable of defending, and while in daily expectation of so powerful a succour, is a question which need not here be discussed. The sequel of the story will

show that they had soon cause to regret not having held out to the last extremity, though they should have been buried in the ruins of their ancient city.

It was afterwards known, too, that William was himself so sensible of the necessity of finishing this struggle and bringing his troops to re-enforce his army on the continent, that he had sent instructions to the lords-justices to issue a proclamation assuring the Irish of much more favourable conditions than they afterwards obtained by the Articles of Limerick. And the justices actually framed these instructions into a proclamation, afterwards called the secret proclamation, because, though printed, it was never published; for their lordships, learning that the defenders of Limerick were offering to capitulate, hastened to Ginkell's camp, that they might hold the Irish to as hard terms as could possibly be wrung from them. So that, as Lord Macaulay complacently observes, the Dutch general "had about him persons who were competent to direct him."

statement on this subject, it seems needful to give a precise view of the real purport and limitations of the engagements taken towards the Irish Catholics upon this occasion. Independently, then, of the royal promise of future parliamentary relief to" protect Catholics from all disturbance," there was the general engagement for such privileges to Catholics in the exercise of their religion" as were consistent with the laws of Ireland; or, as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II." And also the ninth article of the treaty, that "The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their majesties' government shall be the oath above-mentioned (namely, the oath of allegiance), and no other." These provisions were applicable to all Catholics living in any part of Ireland. Other articles of the treaty, from the second to the eighth inclusive, related only, first, to the people of Limerick and other garrisons then held by the Irish; second, to officers and soldiers then serving King James, in the counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo; third, to "all such as were under their protection in the said counties," meaning all the inhabitants of those counties. These three classes of persons were to be secured their properties and their rights, privileges, and immunities (as in the reign of Charles the Second), and to be permited to exercise their several callings as freely as Catholics were permitted to do in that reign. We need not, at this day, occupy ourselves at great length with these latter specific stipulations; but attend to the general proviso in favour of all Catholics. What, then, were the rights of Catholics under King Charles the Second?-for this seems to be what is meant by the other phrase, "consistent with the laws of Ireland."

In return for this full and final surrender of the last fortress which held for King James, and of the whole cause of that monarch, the Irish Catholic leaders stipulated, it must be confessed, for but a poor measure of civil and religious freedom, when they put their hands to the clause engaging 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 King Charles the Second." But it is probable that, placing more reliance on the good faith of King William than events afterwards justified, they believed themselves secured by the remaining words of that article- "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 upon the account of their said religion." All which was duly ratified by their majesties' letters-patent. Sarsfield and Wauchop then, with their French brother-officers, in marching out of Lim-in practice so general a toleration as allowed erick, thought that they were leaving, as a barrier against oppression of the Catholics, at least the honour of a king.

The whole history of Ireland, from that day until the year 1793, consists of one long and continual breach of this treaty.

But as there has been, both among Irish and English political writers, a great deal of wild declamation and unwarranted

Now, it is true that penal laws against Catholic priests and Catholic worship did exist in Ireland during the reign of Charles the Second: Catholics, for example, could not be members of a corporation in Ireland, nor hold certain civil offices in that reign. But there was no law to prevent Catholic peers and commons from sitting in parliament. There was also

Catholic lawyers and physicians to practise their professions. At the very lowest, therefore, this practical toleration must have been what the Catholics thought they were stipulating for in the Articles of Limerick. Neither did there exist in the reign of Charles the Second that long and sanguinary series of enactments concerning education, the holding of land, the owning of horses, and the like, which

were elaborated by the ingenuity of more modern chiefs of the Protestant Ascendency. The first distinct breach of the Articles Limerick was perpetrated by King William and his parliament in England, just two months after those Articles were signed.

cising liberal professions, and of becoming members of municipal corporations. How is it possible to believe that he would of his own accord, have promised that the House of Lords and the House of Commons should be open to men to whom he would not open a guild of skinners or a guild of cordwainers? How, again, is it possible to believe that the English peers would, while professing the most punctilious respect for public faith, while lecturing the Commons on the duty of observing public faith, while taking counsel with the most learned and upright jurist of the age as to the best mode of maintaining public faith, have committed a flagrant violation of public faith, and that not a single lord should have been so honest or so factious as to protest against an act of monstrous perfidy aggravated by hypocrisy ?"

diverted from a political question about which they were in the wrong, to a historical question about which they were in the right. They had no difficulty in proving that the first article, as understood by all the contracting parties, meant only that the Roman Catholic worship should be King William was in the Netherlands tolerated as in time past. That article was when he heard of the surrender of Limerick, drawn up by Ginkell; and just before he and at once hastened to London. Three drew it up, he had declared that he would days later he summoned a parliament. rather try the chance of arms than consent Very early in the session the English that Irish Papists should be capable of House of Commons, exercising its custom-holding civil and military offices, of exerary power of binding Ireland by acts passed in London, sent up to the House of Lords a bill providing that no person should sit in the Irish parliament, nor should hold any Irish office, civil, military, or ecclesiastical, nor should practise law or medicine in Ireland, till he had taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribed the declaration against transubstantiation. The law was passed, only reserving the right of such lawyers and physicians as had been within the walls of Galway and Limerick when those towns capitulated. And so it received the royal assent. This law has given rise to keen debates; especially during the Catholic Relief Agitation; the Catholics insisting that disabilities imposed by law on account of religion, are an invasion of those priviliges in the exercise of their religion, which purported to be secured by treaty; the Ascendency Party arguing that the first Whereupon it may be remarked that article of the treaty meant only that Ca-mere toleration of Catholic worship was tholic worship should be tolerated. The not understood by all the contracting parCatholics pointed out that by Article ties, as being all which was meant by the Nine, only the oath of allegiance was to treaty, inasmuch as many Catholic peers be imposed on them, while this new law and commons did attend in their places in required those who should practise law or the Irish parliament the very next year sit in the House of Parliament, to take a after this law was passed in London; and certain other oath, which they could not the slavish Irish parliament then, for the do without perjuring themselves. The first time, excluded them by resolutions in Ascendency Party replied that on taking obedience to the law enacted in the Engthe oath of allegiance alone, Catholics were lish Houses. As for the argument which tolerated in their worship and that this was seems intended to be conveyed in the all they had stipulated for; that it still string of questions contained in the above belonged to the Legislature to prescribe extract, we answer that "it is possible to suitable formalities to be observed by those believe" almost anything of the men and who aspired to exercise a public trust or a the times we are now discussing; and responsible profession. It is apparent that this narrative will tell of many other that on this principle of interpretation, things which will seem impossible to beparliament might require the oath of sup- lieve, and which any good man would remacy from a baker or a wine merchant as wish it were impossible to believe. well as from a lawyer and doctor, and then it would be lawful for a Catholic to go and hear Mass, but it would be lawful for him to do nothing else. As might be expected, the Baron Macaulay takes the Ascendency view of the question, as will appear from this specimen of his reasoning.

Macaulay, indeed, before quitting this question, does admit, as it were incidently, and in the obscurity of a note, that although the Treaty of Limerick was not broken at that particular moment, nor by that particular statute of the 3rd William and Mary, c. 2, yet, "The Irish Roman Catholics complained, and with but too much reason, that at a later period the

« Previous Continue »

Books

The History of Ireland,: From the Treaty of Limerick to the ..., Volume 1