The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-07 00:00:00

rations, and to el.erci‘a all corporat€ fianthises and im-
munities.

" ' 7th. An Act of Parliament to be passed for ratifying
and confirming these conditions.
Now I think it quite evident that the conditions which
the Roman Catholics then asked for are by no means equal
in importance to those which the Hon. Baronet says were
granted to them by the 9th article of the Treaty subse-
quently concluded. And what does the House suppose
was General Ginckle's answee to them? The proposi-
tions submitted to him were so extravagant that he refused
to mos them. The Hon. Gentleman opposite has said
something about additions made to the Treaty on its ratifi-
cation by King William, of which I heard for the first
time this night with 7Ci'y considerable surprise. I shall
say nothing upon it at present, except that I hope that
hisynotton will include every syllable caunected with this
ratification. I wish that Hon. Gentlemen, before we come
to the discussion of this Treaty, would read the argument
of Sir Toby Butler upon it. rot- they will then find,
that, when Sir 'l'. Butler appeared in 1702, at the bar of
the flenee of Commons, to argue against a Bill, then pass-
ing through it, he did not say one word respecting the in-
justice of excluding Roman Catholics from seats in Perna-
scent. At least such is my present belief. You will find
his argument at length in several publications, in " Plow-
den's History of Ireland," for instance, and also in the his-
torical apology fir the Roman Catholics, which was drawn
up by Mr. William Parnell. 'lhe Honourable Gentle-
man
opposite has referred in the course of his speech '
to the authority of Bishop Burnett, with the intention
of showing that he conceived that the garrison of Limerick
treated not only for themselves, but for all their country-
men in arms. He saes that Bishop Burnett wee high in
the tonfidenee of King William, and that his testimony
was mast Important en that particular point. I must hero
entreat the House to give me its attention whilst I state ouc
fact. In 1992, I think it was, immediately after the ratifi-
cation of the Treaty of Limerick, the oath of supremacy
was requited to be taken in the Irish Parliament by an Act
passed in the English Parliament. I am not now called
upon to say whether such an Act was legal. All I say is,
that it was acted upon in the Irish Parliament. Bishop
Buruett.,---the very Bishop whose testimony the Hon.
Gentleman deems so conclusive,—with a full knowledge
of that circumstance thus commences the third volume of hie
history—' I now begin on the I st of May, I'M, to prosecute
this wurk, and I have now before me the reign of King
William and Queen Mary.' He was therefore at that
time perfectly well aware of the construction put upon the
Treaty of Limerick, and the practice which prevailed nuclei
it. lie states the manner iu which the Roman Catholic.,
had entered into that Treaty, and then he proceeds, after
the quotation which had been made imperfectly by the
Hon. Gentleman, to observe that 'the articles of the ca-
pitulation were perfectly and impartially executed, and
that some doubts, a hich had arisen out of the ambiguous
manner in which the Treaty was worded, had been ex-
piniued in favour of the Irish Catholics.' That is the
construction ;:ut upon the Treaty by a person whose au-
thority is declared by the Hon. Gentleman to be most
cogent, because he was in the immediate confidence of
William 111. If, then, the due execution of the Treaty
se Limerick is to be decided by the authority of Bishop
Burnett, we must conclude that the stipulations of it
were faithfully executed, and that the ambiguous part,
of it were explained in favour of the Irish Catholics.—
I have looked at the subject at different times with great
interest, because I wished to consider it impartially. From
all I have read upon the subject, I have a strong imptes-
Rion on my mind, that at the time of signing time Treaty, it
was not in the contemplation of either of the contracting
parties that the Catholics should be allowed to claim under
it admission into Parliament, or into the high and efficient
officies of the State. I admit that the passing of the penal
laws teas a violation of that Treaty, and that if nut justi-
fied be circumstances at the time, it Was a violation for
which no sufficient excuse could be alleged. But I say, at
the same time, that no privilege is now withheld from the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, which they have a right to
claim in consequence of that Treaty. That is the view which
the Catholics took of their condition in 1793, when the
first act was passed for their relief and benefit, and that is
the view which I believe to be the correct one. Ido nut
mean to say that the ancient date of the Treaty is any bar
to the faithful execution of it at this moment. If I were
satisfied that the object of that Treaty was to admit Roman
Catholics into Parliament on merely taking the oath of
allegiance, I should be so far from thinking that the age of
the Treaty was of no avail, that I should permit it to have
full influence on toy judgment whenever the Reman Ca-
tholics came to this Hors: to ask for the fulfillment of
I their claivns.

Mr. SPRING RICE claimed equal credit for sincerity
when he declared his firm belief in favour of a different con-
struction from that which he (Mr. Peel) had put upon the
articles of this great national stipulation-_a Treaty not con-
tracted, as lawyers, would say, without a consideration, but
which at once transferred to King William the full posses-
sion of Ireland. How happened it, that when the Right
lion. Gentleman depended so much upon Bishop Burnett's
authority, in behalf of his opinion that no violation of the
Treaty had taken place, he had overlooked the strong fact,
that at the very time the Bishop was writing, in 1703,
.otne of these penal laws, which were infractions, had ac-
tually been enacted?

Mr. PLEI--" Bishop Burnett was, you know, only
writing the History of William and Mary."
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that was true, but in point
of date, the Bishop was engaged in writing the work after
1701, when some of these penal acts had actually passed.
(Hear.) That horrid Act against the Education of Ca-
tholic children—the most wicked which ever disgz aced a
Statute Book—had previously passed under the cognizance
of Bishop Burnett. Both the law and the fact were upon
this point against the historian. But the Bishop was
good authority in another part of his work, where he spoke
of the occurs sues of direct facts under his own eye, and
stated in plain terms, that so intent was the Government
to obtain an end to the war in Ireland, that the Commis-
sioners were instructed to keep their terms in good faith
(alluding to this very Treaty), " to the no small grief," says
Burnett, "of tunrin English who wished to ruin the
Irish for their own purposes." The passage in Burnett
was as follows When they came to capitulate,
the Irish insisted on very high demands, which were
set cu by the French, who hoped they would be rejected ; but
the King had given Ginckle secret directions that he should
grant all the demands they could snake that would put au
end to the was. So every thing was granted, to the great
disappointment of the French, and to the no small grief of
some of the English, who hoped this war would leave ended
in the total ruin of the Irish interest. Those of Limerick
treated not for themselves alone, but for all the rest of their
countrymen who were yet in arms. They were indemnified,
and restored to all that they had enjoyed in King Charles's
time. They were also admitted to all the privileges of
subjec.ts upon their taking the oath of allegiance to their
Majesties, without being bound to take the oath of supre-
macy." By the first article of the Treaty of Limerick,
or of Ireland as it was more properly described, the
Catholics were restored to all the privileges which
they had enjoyed in the time of Charles 11., to be ad-
mitted to all the privileges of all the other subjects,
without taking any other oath except the oath of alle-
giance. All the privileges constituted a comprehensive
description, and necessarily included the right of sitting
in Parliament—a right subsequently and violently taken
away, by the enactment which added two oaths to the
qualification by the oath of allegiance. The articles in the
Treaty were these —" 1. The RomanCatholies of this king-
' dons shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their re-
ligion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as
they did enjoy in the reign of Charles 11., and their Ma-
jesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon
a Parliament, 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 "—a 9. The oath to be administered to
such Roman Catholics, as subjects to their Majesties Go-
vernment, shall be the oath aforesaid (of allegiance) and no
other." He would here take the opportunity of referring
to A curious tract which threw some additional light
upon this subject. It was entitled " Great Britain's
Just Complaint fur late Measurei and present Suffer-
inga," a Jacobite tract, by W. J. Montgomery, printed
Icy ROO, and reprinted in Lord Gower's Tracts :—" The
Prince hag taken a large and broad steps towards a dis-
pensing power as any that can be charged on King James.
The Irish Treaty furnishes us with a convincing proof of
this, where such indLlgences were granted to them solely
and singly by his own authority, with relation to the exec.-
, cise of their religion, dispensation from oaths, &c., as
were directly contrary to the laws of the land, and the
safety, rights, and privileges of the Protestant subjects of
1 that kingdom. This Treaty Ido acknowledge was after-
wards ratified by Parliament, but the new life commeneeth
only from the date of their sanction." " But," said the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, " did not the original
rejection of the Irish proposals involve a striking contra-
diction of the supposed construction which was now con-
tended for ?" Certainly not; for what were the original
Propositions? The Irish proposals rejected by Ginckle
were, free liberty of worship; Papists to be eligible to all
employments civil and military ; Irish army to be kept on
foot and paid ; corporations opened, and a public estab-
lishment of a priest for every parish. These were wheat
Ginckle rejected, and surely they were very different front