tees to the Catholics the free exercise of their religion, and an exemption from all disturbance on account of it; and each clause of the act has the effect of limiting the terms of the other articles, and depriving the Catholics of the benefit of them, instead of ratifying and confirming them.

The first clause, which refers at once to the second article, explains who are entitled to the benefit of it, and the rights conferred upon them; assuming as a fact, for which there could be no foundation, that this article required explanation. With respect to the persons entitled to the benefit of the treaty, a most remarkable difference occurs between the words of the second article, and those of this clause, in describing them. In the ratification of the treaty by William, there is the following passage: "and whereas it appears to us, that it was agreed between the parties to the said articles, that after the words Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, in the second of the said articles, the words following, viz. And all such as are under their protection in the said counties,' should be inserted and be part of the said article ; Our further will and pleasure is, and we do ratify and confirm the said omitted words." These words, according even to the strict letter of the article, extended the benefit of the treaty to the whole Catholic population of these counties, which certainly was the object of the treaty, as it may be collected from the preamble to it, in which it is stated that the Irish Generals acted in behalf of the Irish inhabitants of these counties. But in this clause of the act of Parliament to confirm the treaty, these words are omitted, and therefore the benefit of the treaty is limited, by this explanatory and confining act, to the Irish army and the inhabitants of the city of Limerick, and a few more garrison towns: a limitation in every respect most perfidious, and wholly unjustifiable upon any plea of ambiguity in the language of the article, even if such a plea could for a moment be allowed.

With respect to the rights conferred by the second article, this clause affords a striking proof of the paltry subterfuges to which the legislature of that day could have recourse, in order to defeat the ends of justice, and to oppress the Catholics. The second article declares, that all those comprised in the treaty," shall hold, possess, and enjoy, all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and all the rights, titles and interests, privileges and immunities, which they, every, or any of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the reign of King Charles II." The clause of the act corresponds with the article except in these most material points; after the word "inheritance" the stop, instead of being a semicolon, as it is in the original treaty, is altered to a comma; and after the words "privileges and immunities,"

the words "to the said estates" are inserted; and thus the meaning of the second article is wholly altered, and the words "rights, privileges, and immunities," made to refer to the estates of the Catholics, instead of to their persons and liberties, to which only, by the original article, they can refer. If any authority were wanting to maintain this construction, a very unquestionable one may be adduced from the speech of Sir Theobald Butler, before alluded to, who was in Limerick when it surrendered, and was the person employed to draw up the treaty.

This act for confirming the treaty, wholly omits that part of the second article which guarantees to the Catholics the exercise of their several trades and professions. It also omits the fourth article. It limits the benefit of the indemnity granted by the sixth article to a period subsequent to the 10th of April, 1689, and enables all persons, who suffered any injuries between the 5th of November, 1688, and this period, to bring their actions for the same until the first of September, 1691, by declaring that the commencement of the war referred to in the article, was the 10th of April, 1689, and not the 5th of November, 1688, and it omits the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th articles. Being in short an act that, under the name of conferring favors upon the Catholics, really placed them in a worse condition than that in which they were before it passed into a law.

2

The other acts of this reign, relating to the Catholics, are, an act to prevent Protestants from intermarrying with Papists,' and an act to prevent them from being solicitors. A clause was introduced in an act for the preservation of game, prohibiting papists from being employed as game-keepers.3

How it is possible to defend William and his ministers from the charge of having acted with perfidy towards the Catholics, it is not easy to discover. That they were guilty of violating the treaty no one can deny. The excuse that has been made for William, that he was obliged to submit to the power of the anti-catholic party, is not sufficient. Why did he not refuse his consent to these laws, on the ground of their being contrary to his solemn engagements to the Catholics? He had exercised this prerogative in the case of one Scotch, and of one English bill. But even this extremity might have been avoided, because the law of Poynings required that every bill should be approved by the King and Council of England, before it could pass the House of Commons; and if a

1 9th William III. c. 3.

3 10th William III. c. 8:

2 10th William III. c. 13.

4 For excluding from any public trust all such as had been concerned in encroachments of the late reign.

5 Concerning free and impartial proceedings in Parliament.

bill was exceptionable, by withholding their approbation, a very common proceeding, it fell of course to the ground.

But if William and his ministers were guilty of perfidy towards the Catholics, his successor far outstripped him. Nor has any succeeding prince been free from the blame of having been an accessary to his crime, in proportion as he has neglected or refused to repeal those penal laws, which are so many glaring violations of the treaty of Limerick, which are a scandal to the boasted good faith of the English nation, and a mockery of that equitable religion, whose precepts are founded upon the purest principles of justice and humanity.

ANNE.

On the 4th of March, 1704, the royal assent was given to the act to prevent the further growth of popery; being the first of those two famous acts, which have most deservedly been termed by Mr. Burke, the ferocious acts of Anne.

By the third clause of this act the popish father, though he may have acquired his estate by descent from a long line of ancestors, or by his own purchase, is deprived of the power, in case his eldest son, or any other son, becomes a Protestant, to sell, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of it, or to leave out of it any portions or legacies.

By the 4th clause, the popish father is debarred, under a penalty of 500%. from being a guardian to, or from having the custody of, his own children; but if the child, though ever so young, pretends to be a Protestant, it is to be taken from its own father, and put into the hands of a Protestant relation.

The 5th clause provides that no Protestant shall marry a Papist, having an estate in Ireland, either in or out of the kingdom.

The 6th clause renders Papists incapable of purchasing any manors, tenements, hereditaments, or any rents or profits arising out of the same, or of holding any lease of lives, or other lease whatever, for any term exceeding 31 years. Even with respect to this advantage restrictions are imposed on them, one of which is, that if a farm produced a profit greater than one-third of the amount of the rent, the right in it was immediately to cease, and to pass over entirely to the first Protestant who should discover the rate of profit.

The 7th clause deprives Papists of such inheritance, devise, gift, remainder or trust, of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, of which any Protestant was, or should be seized in fee simple, absolute or fee tail, which, by the death of such Protestant, or his

wife, ought to have descended to his son or other issue in tail, being Papists, and makes them descend to the nearest Protestant relation, as if the Popish heir and other Popish relations were dead.

By the 10th clause, the estate of a Papist, for want of a Protestant heir, is to be divided, share and share alike, among all his sons; for want of sons among his daughters, and for want of daughters among the collateral kindred of the father.

By the 15th clause, no person shall be exempt from the penalties of this act, that shall not take and subscribe the oath and declaration required by this act to be taken.

By the 16th clause, all persons whatsoever, who shall receive any office, civil and military, shall take and subscribe the oath and declaration required to be taken by the English act of 3d Wm. and Mary; and also the oath of abjuration required to be taken by another English act of 1st Anne; and also shall receive the

sacrament.'

The 23d clause provides, that no Papist, except under particular conditions, shall dwell in Limerick or Galway.

The 24th, that no persons shall vote at elections without taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration.

And the 25th clause, that all advowsons possessed by Papists shall be vested in her Majesty.

The Catholics, who had submitted in silence to all the unjust transgressions of the last reign, felt it necessary, when this act was first brought before Parliament, to use their utmost exertions to prevent it from passing into a law. They, however, appealed in vain to the English Cabinet to respect the solemn engagements of the treaty of Limerick, and were obliged to have recourse to a petition to the Irish Parliament.

Sir Theobald Butler was heard, as counsel for the petitioners, at the bar of the House of Commons, on the 22d February, 1703. He stated, "that the bill would render null and void the articles of Limerick; that those articles had been granted for the valuable consideration of the surrender of that garrison, at a time when the Catholics had the sword in their hand, and were in a

Upon this clause of the bill Bishop Burnet makes the following observations: "A clause was added (in England) which they (the Roman Catholics) hoped would hinder its being accepted in Ireland: The matter was carried on so secretly, that it was known to none but those who were at the Council, till the news of it came to Ireland, upon its being sent thither. It was hoped, by those who got this clause added to the bill, that those in Ireland, who promoted it, would be less fond of it, when it had such a weight hung to it." Hist. v. 2. p. 214.

This clause has since been called the Sacramental Test, the first imposed on dissenters in Ireland. It was repealed without any opposition in the Sessions of 1782.

condition to hold out much longer; and when they had it in their power to demand and make such terms as might be for their own future liberty, safety, and security: that the allowing of the terms contained in these articles were highly advantageous to the government to which they submitted, as well for uniting the people that were then divided, quieting and settling the distractions and disorders of this miserable kingdom, as for the other advantages which the government would thereby reap in its own affairs, both at home and abroad, when its enemies were so powerful, both by sea and land, as to render the peace and settlement of these countries a circumstance of great uncertainty: that these articles were ratified by their late Majesties, for themselves, their heirs, and successors; and the public faith thereby plighted to all those comprised in these articles, in the most binding manner it was possible for faith to be plighted, and than which nothing could be more sacred and solemn : that, therefore, to violate and break those articles would, on the contrary, be the greatest injustice possible for any one people of the whole world to inflict upon another, and contrary to both the laws of God and man." He then proceeded to show that the clauses of the bill which take away from Catholics the right to purchase, bequeath, sell, and inherit estates, were infringements of the 2d article of the treaty; that the 9th clause of the bill, imposing upon Catholics new oaths, was another manifest breach of the articles, for that, by the 9th article, no oath is to be administered to, nor imposed upon, such Catholics as should submit to government, but the oath of allegiance, appointed by an act made in England in the first year of the reign of their late Majesties; that the clauses for prohibiting Catholics from residing in Limerick or Galway, from voting at elections without taking certain new oaths, and from possessing advowsons, were likewise infringements of the treaty. "For if," concludes Sir Theobald Butler, "there was no law in force in the reign of Charles II. against these things, as there certainly was not, and if the Roman Catholics of this kingdom have not since forfeited their right to the laws that then were in force, as for certain they have not, then, with humble submission, all the aforesaid clauses, and matters contained in this bill, entitled, An Act to prevent the further growth of Popery, are directly against the plain words and true intent and meaning of the said articles, and a violation of the public faith."

In consequence of the passing of this act, and of those other acts which were passed of a similar tendency in the reign of George the Second the Catholics were deprived of all those privileges and immunities, which they trusted had been secured in consequence of a

'Sir Theobald Butler's speech.