The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-10 00:00:00

"?- • • / feZ;

spio.
10 the Taity of Linurick, Oas 41 that Weight and irnpor.
tallow to be attached that it was attempted to connect with
them. The principal articles of the treaty on which stress
was laid were the Ist, 2d, and 9th, but they afforded no
reasonable grounds for the present measure if the whole of
the treaty was taken into consideration. This . was the
course adopted by his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, in opposition to the argu-
ments made use of by the advocates of the Roman Catholics,
who grounded their construction upon an examination, not
.f the entire treaty, but of particular parts of it. Could
it be believed that in a treaty, one article of which g; ve
Roman Catholic Noblemen and gentlemen the right eu
liberty " to ride with a sword and case of pistols," and
" keep a gun in their houses for the defence of ti e
same, or for fowling"—could it be believed that in such
treaty it was intended to confer on the Roman Catholics all
the political rights and privileges now demanded cn the
faith of it? The first article parented to the Roman Ca-
tholics such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were
consistent with the laws of Ireland. It ran as folloics
" That the Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall en -
joy 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 11. ; and their Majesties, as
soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parlia-
ment 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 account
of their said religion."
Now it hail been well observed that the privileges ern
joyed by the Roman Catholics 10, the reign of Charles IL
were very different from those that fell to their lot in the time
of James 11. The distinction between the two periods was
wide indeed, as it respected the rights and imerranities en-
joyed by the Roman Catholics in either; and if the words
" James II." had been substituted for " Charles II." in
the treaty, the meaning to be attached to its stipulations
must necessarily be -much more favourable to the cause of
the Roman Catholics. The Hon. Baronet last night dis-
tinguished between what he denominated the first and se-
cond clause or division of the first article--.the first part
guaranteeing the privileges of the Rorean Catholic religion ;
as they previously existed at the time of Charles II ; the
latter member of the article promis ng " such further stet
curity in that particular as may preserve them from aoy
disturbance en account of their said religion." Not . this
evidently referred, not to civil rights, but to religions pri-
vileges. What was the state of the Roman Catholics in
Ireland in the time of Charles 11. ? By the 17th and 18th
of Charles 11. the oath of supremacy was required to In
taken even by school-masters and entre variety of civil
officers. At that period the Roman Catholics might .
not, by statute indeed, have been formally and legally ex-
cluded from Parliament, (although it was his impression
that the Act of the 2d Elizabeth, had the effect of exclude
ing them), but it was clear, that the two Houses of the
legislature then required their Members to receive the Com-
munion of the Lord's Supper on taking their see.ts. Thte
was a virtual exclusion of the Boman Catholics frntn Par_
liament. In the same times Roman Catholic lawyers were
prevented from practising at the bar. P,oman Catholic
priests were liable to banishment, and the Duke of Or-
mond exercised the power and banished them. It ap.
peered from this, that the privileges which the Roman
Catholics enjoyed in the reign of Charles 11. were not
very extensive. But, to come to the second article of
the treaty, that on which the Honourable Baronet chiefly
relied in his address to the House last melt. It pro,
vides that " all the inhabitants or residents of Limeriek,
or any other garrison now in the possession of the Irish,
all officers and soldiers now in arms under any commis-
sion of King James, or those authorized by him, to parcel
the same in the several counties of Limerick, Clare,
Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the com-
missioners, officers in their Majesties' quarters, that belong
to the Irish regiments now in being, that are treated with,
and who are not prisoners of war, or have taken protec-
tion, and who shall return"—the House will pay particu-
lar attention to this part of the article relative to the sub-
mission of the parties to the authority of the Crown—" and.
submit to their Majesties' obedience, and their and every
of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy all and every
their estates of freehold and inheritance"—thes,s words, to .
which the Hon. Baronet particularly referred, occur a little •
further on, and if lam not fully prepared to answer hie
argument, grounded upon their tenour and effect, then am
I most grossly deceived—but the article proceeds--" and
all their rights, titles, and interest?, privileges, and immu-
nities, which they and every or any of them held, enjoyed,
or were rightfully and lawtullt entitled to in tie reign of
King Charles 11., or at any time since, by the laws and
statutes that were in force in the said reign of King
Charles ll"—the Hon. Baronet stops here, and endeavours
to apply the stipulation to political rights and privileges;
but let us proceed a little further—" and shall be put in
possession, by order of the Government, of such of them as
are in the King's hands, or in the hands of his terants,
without being put to any suit or trouble therein"—now to
what can this clause apply except to the restoration and
free enjoyment of the rights of property?—" and all such
estates shall be freed and discharged from all arrears of
Crown rents, quit rents, and other public charges incurred
and become due since Michaelmas, lfiSS, to the day of the
date hereof ; and all persons comprehended in this article
shall have, hold, and enjoy, all their goods and chattels,
real and personal, to them or any of tem belonging ann
remaining, either in their own hands or the hands of any
persons whatsoever, in trust for, or for tie use of them, m-
any of them ; and all and every the said persons, -of what
profession, trade or calling soevee they be, shall and may
use, exercise and practice, their several and respective pro-
fessions, trades, and callings, as freely as they did use, exer-
cise, and enjoy the same in the reign of King Charles the
Second ; provided that nothing contained be construed to
extend to or restore any forfeiting person now out of the
kingdom, except what are hereafter comprised ; the:melded
also, that no person whatsoever shall have, or enjoy, the
benefit of this Article, that shall neglect or refuse to take
the Oath of Allegiance made by Act of Parliament in
England, in the first year of the reign of their present
Majesties, when thereunto required." It was unnecessary
again to say all this applied strictly to private privileges
and the rights of individual property. Could any man
of common tense, after reading the words of the. Arti-
cle, doubt that such was its object ? After that, was it
possnele to pretend that the construction put upon the
Treaty by the Honourable Baronet was the true one?
It should be recollected, that the History of Bishop Burnet
was not published until fifty years after the period to which
he was referring; and it should also be borne in mino, ths.t
he inserted an article in the treaty which was not to be
found in it. Bishop Burnet was not, therefore a com-
petent judge upon this subject. But. what was the inter-
pretation put upon that treaty by the English Perliamene
in Ifi92 ; they considered that the seemed article of that
treaty referred exclusively to estates of freehold inheritawet
and that the whole of the treaty included none of those.
rights which were now claimed. What, he wcmuld ask,
was the opinion of James 11., a good autherite, no doubt
as to the intent and purport of this treaty. He stated that
the besieged when in a hopeless situatietz had the courage
to insist on and obtain articles of security, articles o-hich
secured to their country the iree exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion, as under the reign of Charles 11., at'`!
which restored to them their estates, and their goods aims
chattels, as they existed before the war. If then James
wer in Inland, 11. considered that the Irish had secured to themaelti"
.for
their kingdom, privileges such as were now otntef,:w..,..,
was it possible that he could have omitted it "i, this did '
Inglis)not
ten resod of his opinions. He (Sir R.
iliac defend the penal laws, but he thought tlii"tett
0',7,1111. ota
fairness, when we remembered the enacnottmet ttit eteve,
we should also remember the conduct of l Irish Parlia-
-0„, Parliament which
amlmenotstimdmesetdroi;t:dly
construction If'
however, the treaty did bea the n which had
dee that those
been put upon it, writerreaty knew W 1,1" proposed,,
t mat
1. it was to be
and those who signed th3tf a hi} her
subjected to the decision
retole against the (The Hon.
Baronet procee,'ed to 4- u propriety of consi-
dering Catholic claims the Romeo. ms supported Iy the Treaty
consequence thPereePedrointegstethel te
of Limerick ; hat ntl, anee of his sitting under the
previous to the thtion of England e.eit
gallery, shamequen"Y ur?PPing his voice, we were uneble
accurately j ,
• owl fleet]. Stdted, he observe
eb
du
t ie
every(
stpoilie.gdßrgae.n
Leland, had held out certain pledges to tire people of thee
to ft°ll,l::vi::.. Pitt, prey
t them
he
eht
hadua thought h
gv
country
which
iiencnth..Atiihrei‘.),,,:n.iotitr,viitltacdh:orareuadidneedneniii_t,
pledge the Kith
th nor could he pledge the British Parlia-
ment to the adoption of any particular course. All that
was contemplated by such a pledge was, that the indivi-
dual giving it, ehon1;1 be prepared to redeem it by any per-
sonal sacrifice. This Mr. Pitt was unquestionably pre-
pared to do. On the ground, therefore, that any pledge
Was given at tire time of the Union, he could not consider
the Catholics justified in claiming
those concessions tyhich
they now called upon the British Parliament to make. If.
then, an the ground of national right they could demand
nothing—if, then, by the Treaty of Limerick they could claim
nothing—and if on the grounds of any understanding at the
time of time union they could expect nothing—the whole
question became one of expediency, and he considered that
resistance to those claims was the duty of the House. He
confessed that he was old and fastidious enough to attach
some importance to the objection that had been raised to
the granting of those claims un the ground of the corona-
tion oath, and he did not see how the King of England
could take that oath, and yet concede to the demands of the