Star.
London, England, 1828-03-07 00:00:00

TREATY OR LIIERRICIE.

Sir H. PARNELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move
for the production of a copy of the Treaty of Limerick.
Many of the Catholic Petitions alluded to this docu•
ment, and frequently complained of its violation. His
object then in moving for its production, was to induce
Hon. Members to look at it with attention, and put
such a construction upon it as it deserved. It should
be remembered that up to the period Of the Union Le-
land was quite independent of England, exercising
every jurisdiction independently of her, and only obey-
ing the common Sovereign of the two countries'. The
Hon. Baronet described the events which preceded the
capture of Limerick by King William, and contended
that the Irish conceded their cause while in possession
of strong means for maintaining it, and that by obtain-
ing that concession, William gained great advantages,
and was able to turn his arms against Louis the Twelfth.
The 'article of the Treaty upon which the Catholics
principally depended was the first, and without going
into argument he would read the article to the House.
It ran thus—" That the Roman Catholics of this king
dom shall enjoy such privileges as are consistent with
the law of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the time
of Charles t e Second ; and that their Majesties, so
soon as their affairs will allow them to assemble a
Parliament in this kingdom, shall secure for the Roman
Catholics such measures as shall preserve them from
any disturbance on account of their religion. ° The other
article upon which they rested their claims was the
ninth, which said—" That the oath to be taken by
those Roman Catholics who submit to their Majesties
shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other oath what-
soever." According to their construction of the Treaty,
the oath they were bound to take was the Oath of Alle-
giance, and not the Oath of Supremacy. The Catholics
never lost sight of their claims under the Treaty, but
from time to time had maintained them by a continued
reference to its articles, whenever occasion presented
itself. Their construction of the Treaty had been.sup-
ported by niany high author ities, and, amongst the rest,
Dr. Lawrehce, Lord Plunket, and Mr. Burke. He re-
ferred to a passage in Mr. Burke's works relating to the
Treaty, and recommended the House to examine tile
arguments there advanced before it again decided upon
the Catholic Question, as well as the arguments used
by the different writers on the other side. The Hon.
Baronet concluded by moving, " That an homble Ad-
dress be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be
graciously pleased to order to be laid on the table copies
of the Letters Elicit, wherein are contained the civil
Articles rot the surrender of Limerick in the year 1691,
as ratified and exemplified by King William and Queen
Mary."
Mr. H. GRATTAN seconded the motion. He said
that his Right Hon. Friend would not properly accom-
plish his object without obtaining the Ratification as
well as the Treaty. There were two copies of the Treaty
in existence, the one being an ex. mplification sent to
Ireland a year after the capture in 1692, which letter
patent had been found amongst some works left by Sir
Toby Bader, and having the ratification with it. But
in England another copy was published, containing the
articles only, and omitting that part which contained
the ratification of the Treaty by William the Third.—
Now, it was very easy for the King upon the Throne at
that time to disavow to his English subjects the acts of
his officers in Ireland. The same thing was done in
the time of Elizabeth ; it was done under Lord Staf-
ford's Government, and it, was done in the time of
Charles ti e First. The Graces granted to Ireland,
which were in the nature of a Petition of Right, were
obtained from the Government there, and cost the Irish
nation three hundred thousand pounds. Yet after they
had !Kep so granted, the King refused to give his assent,
and Ireland did not obtain the Petition of Right. The
first article of the Treaty, as had been shown Ly his
Right Honourable Friend, stated that the Roman
Catholics should be placed in the same state that they
were in at the time of Charles. He contended that
there were no laws in existence which excluded them
from Parliament at that time. The only statute which
then existed for disqualifying the Roman Catholics for
holding offices was the 7th of Elizabeth, chap. 1, which
gave the Queen the power of appointing Commissioners
to administer the Oath of Supremacy to all persons
holding offices—naming several, lay and temporal—
or to every person having her Majesty's fees and wages.
Would it be said that this law extended to Members of
Parliament? Bow could that be. unless such persons'
were proved to have received her Majesty's fees and
wages ? In the time of Charles the Second, Roman
Catholics were only excluded firam the House of Com-
mons by a Resolution of the House. He referred to a
Resolution of the House of Lords, to prove that Ro.
man Catholics sat in that House at a later period than
the time alluded to by the Treaty. He appealed to the
authotity of Bishop Burnet, who said, that " those of
Limerick did not treat for themselves alone, but for all
the Roman Catholics of Ireland." The same authority
also declared that the Roman Catholics were accord-
ingly all admitted to the privilege of subjects upon
taking the Oath of Allegiance, without the Oath of
Supremacy. Another cotemporary authority upon
the subject was Lord Orrery, in whose works he found
a postage, stating, that upon a particular debate only
one Roman Catholic attended, bat that several others
were coming up. In another place it was stated, that

the Catholics could only command ten rote
Honourable Member then referred to another
containing a list of sixteen Catholic Peers &-
Parliament in 1681, two of whom were the
taken for the performance of the Treaty of
He should say no more, because no more was
to prove that they had a right to all the
under the faith of a solemn tierty. The H.
Member then deprecated every thing calculate,
fluence the passions in the discussion of such
and concluded by a wish to see Catholic and
meet together at one common altar, where,
strifes and differences, t"ey would unite in ot.
the incense of their sincere svisiaes for the good
common country—(Hear).
The Motion having been put from the Chair'
Mr. Secretary PEEL rose—Sir, whatever
Honourable Member who has just sat down
to himself for hit desire to avoid all appeal
passions or the feelings of the House, with ref
the motion which he has seconded, I do
he can claim that credit as arising out of the
have just heard. He appeared extremely di
obtain it—and I believe I quote air own wor
state his declaration to be, 44 it is not my i
appeal to men's feelings or to men's passions.
leave the House to decide. whether or not.
parted from the determination to which he
himself anxious to adhere, and whether or n,
nervations have not been in direct opposit
avowed is ish and object. I shall not, hostevc
yoked by any thing he has said, to travel ou,
course. I shall•not attempt to follow him in •
angry sentiments; but I shall follow the Hon.
who introduced to the (louse the motion whit?
considering, and who stated that a better or
would be afforded of fully discussing its meri
with the Hon. Baronet that a better opport'
occur, and I think that, on the whole, his wi
would have been to have simply moved that
of the Treaty of Limerick be laid on the tab(
have deferred his speech, as well as that of
Seconder, until a more fitting occasion had c;
forth. Str, in the motion of the lion. Baron/
acquiesce. To the production of the
which he moves, I can have no objection ;
Hon. Member had been satisfied with viler
for it, it would have been granted without a :
f comment, much less of opposition, fi
I am perfectly ready to grant him the
for which he asks ; but while 1 thus a,
the motion he has made, I must beg ti
be clearly understood as saying, that have
..0
considered this . document, and having
all the best authorities which refer to it, it is
conviction of my niinclahat no privilege irno,
from the Roman Catholics, to which they c.
any claim grounded upon that Treaty. Si
question which I shall be prepared to discuss,
1 may be called upon so to do. I repeat
resorted to, 1 believe, all the authors who h,
upon the Treaty of Limerick—that I have,
delit erately consulted the important docui
and that the strong and decided impression
,mind is, that no privilege has been withhel
Roman Catholics, which can be claimed
'Treaty. That, Sir, is my firm conviction,
conviction I shall be at all times ready to d.
Hon. Baronet has described a cia:a c.f poi
consider this Treaty as out of date, and wt
contended that whatever were the stiptilati
contained, the Roman Catholics had no rigl
their fulfilment because of their age. Sir, 1
of those who so argue; my view of the
different. I will not say that reference sh told
to institutions which have since grown up, or I
stances that may now have, but then had not.
—or that such changes might not have mad,
for not carrying those stii-ulations into effect
argument 1 have now nothing to do—but
that my opinion of the claims of the IL
tholics would be much altered if I were
that one hundred and forty years since
conferred advantages on an opposing party,
of advantages to be received by them. 1
state my interpretation of that Treaty, as
articles of it to which the H.,nourable B,
especially referred, to be very different to th;
tation which he, and those who think with
given it; 1, of course, stand free from any ,
this ground. lam ready to acquiesce in thi
the Honourable Baronet, but not upon tie
which he has laid down. He has made pr
ference to two Articles of the Treaty of Li.

the first and to the ninth, which, he conten,
the Roman Catholics every privilege to •
could become entitled by merely taking
allegiance. Now, how the Honourable
deduce such arguments horn such grr:und
loss to say ; or how he could conceive that '
of King William, in ratifying this Treaty,
to :he Roman Catholics all those advantag,
the Honourable Baronet describes them as

is impossible for me to say. A copy of those
now hold in my hand—they have been pv
various ways, and are of easy access to an
us aow see then what this first Article of the
It begins by stating that
" The Roman Catholics of this Kingdom shall enjoy
leges in the exercise of their religion, as are conslster—
of Ireland ; or as they did enjoy in the reign of Kin,
And it then goes on to say, that
" Their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will perm)
summon a Parliament in this Kingdom, will endeave-
the said Roman Catholics such further security in
as may preserve them from any disturbance upon
their said religion."
Such, then, are the words of the first A.
Treaty; those of the 9th Article are as foil
" The Oath to be administered to such Roman Cat*.
mit to their Majesties' Government, shall be the Oath
and no other."
This clearly means the oath of allegiance
what class of the Roman Catholics does
refer? Certainly not to the whole of the
tholic populdtion, but to such of them as
to in Articles 2 and 3. The second Anil
sets torch that such " as shall return any
their Majesties' obedience," shall be entitled
such privileges; buu the term " oath of
which follows this sentence in that Artici.
and distinctly refers to those, and to those
shall " return and submit." They shall Or
" All the rights, titles, interests, privileges, and inn
they, and every or any of them held, enjoyed, or
and lawfully entitled to, in the reign of King Charles
Then follows the portion of the Article

• -.. ''' 't..• .• ._ .
~-
•• . '.,
t+P •-• .1k 4 , •
• I
I), 1 . , i
. , • • :,..s. •
• .., , , ~...
'' . - • 4.. • 4
1 42.0406 •• A
k !
. .
[PRICE SEVENPENCE.
1 . t
only command ten rotes. The
then referred to another work,' i '
xteen Catholic Peers who sat iii t i
wo of whom were the hostages r ' I
once of the Treaty of Limerick. J
.e, because no more was necessary ' f
ad a right to all they claimed,
olemn t•eaty. The Honourable 1 s
ted every thing calculated to in-
the discussion of such subjects,
ish to see Catholic and Protestant
ll
:ommon altar, where, forgetting
ti•ey would unite in offering up , ,s.
Icere wishes for the good of their
fear). . •A
put from the Chair, , 1' '
L rose—Sir, whatever credit the I
who has just sat down may take lii.'-
sire to avoid all appeals to the . , t
sof the House, with reference to , s
e has seconded, I do not think is
lit as arising out of the speech we
e appeared extremely desirous to
we I quote ibis own words when I ,
to be, "it is not my intention to f- 1
gs or to men's passions." Yet, I
lecide. whether or not. he has de- I
•mination to which he expressed 'il -i t
here, and whether or ryst his 4 ob-
been in direct opposition to his • • w
,c, 1 shall not, however, be pro- .
le has said, to travel out of my
ttempt to follow him in any of his • •
it I shall follow the Hon. Baronet I . • ,
liouse the motion which it is now is..
,1• -
i stated that a better opportunity
fully discussing its merits. I agree 4ii'
net that a better opportunity will - ! i
;at, on the whole, his wiser course
~s .
have simply moved that " a copy 4.
!rick be laid on the table," and to . ',
ecli, as well as that of his Hon.
.e fitting occasion had called them 14' I
)(ion of the lion. r Baronet I readily Y , •
•! ,
production of the Treaty for
~-. . •,
i v? 1
in have no objection ; and if the Vs
‘,
een satisfied with merely moving ,i 1 . !
seen granted without a single word a •
i
less of opposition, f• can me.— fl 14 is
y to grant him the document 14.
; but while I thus acquiesce in 11. • 0
s• ,
a i •
made, I must beg to say, and
t' •
14
d as saying, that having deeply
scument, and having consulted .t
s which refer to it, it is the strong
d,ihat no privilege issiow withheld t , ,
holies, to which they caw advance
upon that Treaty. Sir, this is a / '.',
I be prepared to discuss, whenever k '
•
i so to do. I repeat that I have 14,. • '
, •
, all the authors who have written • r :
.irnerick—that I have, of course. r A 4
'
I the important document itself, . ,i, , .
rod decided impression upon my f 1 i •
vilege has been withheld from the f lo•si
• •
filch can be claimed upon that s,l
• l
is my firm conviction, and such tti )
at all times ready to defend. The ;fir
described a class of persons who 1,1,,,' •
as out of date, and who therefore ir-e','•
l la
ever were the stipulations therein ,e 1 w
in Catholics had no right to claim :lii. ± ,
ice of their age. Sir, I am not one ;
;ue; my view of the case is very - r.• .
" . •
ay that reference sh sold not be had
• it s•
have since grown up, or to circa m- - • 4, •
r have, but then had not, existence , ~ l 1
es might not have made out a case t a'
e stii•ulations into effect. With this _ 1
r nothing to do—but 1- will say,
f the claims of the Roman Ca- • II r`;...
uch altered if I were convinced i I'.
and forty years since they had 4;4 '
s on an opposing party, on the faith V
e received by them. But when I -
,
ion of that Treaty, and to those
• 14
ich the I-Lnourable Baronet has
obe very different to that interpre- If') f"
I those who think with him, have ; t i
we, stand free from any pledge upon •
ready to acquiesce in the motion of • so
.onet, but not upon the principle
)w n . He has made particular re- 't
. 1
l , '
les of the Treaty of Limerick—to 4 .. ,
ninth, which, he contends, open to . 111
. . _ •
ics every privilege to which they
led by merely taking the oath of w i ,
• •
low the Honourable Baronet can f ';
rents hom such grounds, I am at a
be could conceive that the intentioa
ratifying this Treaty, was to give i i
sties all those advantages to which .
, 11.
onet describes them as entitled, it • i
to ray. A copy of those Articles I , 1 •
.nd—they have been published in ;
ire of easy access to any one. Let •
at this first Article of the Treaty is. .
that
..
tics of this Kingdom shall enjoy such privi-
.-
heir religion, as are consistent with the laws ,
id enjoy in the reign of King Charles II." •,
on to say, that ~ .Ii ~
I soon as their affairs will permit them to •/..
n this Kingdom, will endeavour to procure
i ' .
cc such further security in that particular . I,
1f..1 t:
front any disturbance upon the account of 1
•'
he words of the first Article of the s
I 1
e 9th Article are as follow : ';P • '
1, i
nioistered to such Roman Catholics as sub- fl.:
Government, shall be the Oath abovesaid, :lc
k 1 i
Ins the oath of allegiance ; but to Irl :
Roman Catholics does that Article
it
t to the whole of the Roman Ca- IF .'
' .•
ut to such of them as are related .., . • .
13. The second Article expressly w o,
) " as shall return and submit to k
,
lience," shall be entitled to such and l• a. •
ust the term " oath of allegiance," s, s
sentence in that Article, expressly
rs to those, and to those only, who t,. o'.l ' ' • .-:'t
übmit." They shall then enjoy •
„.
s,interests,privileges, and humunities,which .•
of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully
, in the reign of King Charles the Second.'
w portion of the Article which state., is
I •
li
I
Ii;
, 1..
,_

—" That no person whatsoever shill hateritlol. Itsithenefit of
this Attick, that shall n lea or Mime tot e the oath of allegiance
made by Acted* Parli gland, in the first year of the
n their pjesent Majesties, when thereunto required."
•
tst as it intended tes admit the Catholics, generally.
to all kinds of privileges, upon merely taking the oath
of allegiance? Surely not ; for in so doing King Wil-
liam would have placed the Catholics upon a more ad-
vantageous footing than his Protestant subjects, from
whom the oath of supremacy was of course exacted.—
Now, let the House for a moment consider the meaning
and effect of the 7th Article of the Treaty. It is as
follows:
" Every Nobleman and Gentleman, comprised in the said second
and third Articles, shall have liberty to tide with a sword and case
of pistols if they think fit ; and keep a gun in their houses for the
defence of the same, or for fowling."
Now, is it to be supposed that the Catholics, who found
it necessary to ask for and obtain such a privilege,
should conceive they were to be admitted, without ask-
ing or obtaining, to the full enjoyment of every other
privilege whatsoever, and to be so admitted upon
merely taking the oath of allegiance? Let the House
recollect what was the state of Ireland at that period,
and for some time before it. I wish to avoid entering
into this question, except as one of law, and it is my
object to discuss it temperately, as I would any other
question which involved any disputed point of law.—
Now it is contended, that the first Article of the Treaty
admitted Catholics to power; but my opinion is, that
neither party expected to receive,nor intended to give,any
such advantages by that Treaty. But what, Sir, was the
state of Ireland at this period and previously to it ?
The Treaty was signed in 1691. and let us bear in mind
what had taken place two years before, in 1689—and if
we do so, is it possible to conceive that it was ever
contemplated by King William's Government to admit
Catholics to full power upon merely taking an oath of
allegiance? Be it remembered that the Parliament of
Ireland—the Parliament of King James—was actually
sitting in Dublin in the year 1689—and of whom did
this Parliament of King James consist? It was com-
posed of 241 Members. Ido not mean to refer to the
Acts of that Parliament, because, be they right or
wrong. it is of no importance to consider them
now; but when this Parliament met, out of the whole
241 Members, there were no more than six Pro-
testants. Is it possible, then, that King William,
with this experience, and the full knowledge of this
fact, could ever have been prepared to have admitted
the Catholics into such a power, as would have given
them absolute Government, upon no other security than
that of taking the oath of allegiance? It seems
to be the greatest absurdity to imagine that under such
circumstances Catholics could have been intended to be
admitted to Parliament. If such an intention were
contemplated, is it possible that a m Atter of such im-
portance could have been settled at once, without any
discussion, and merely by the introduction of the words
44 Oath of Allegiance?" If not, why were the words
" admission to Parliament" introduced into the Treaty ?
Why, when the Catholics stipulated for the " enjoy.
ment" of such privileges in the exercise of their religion
as were consistent with the " laws of Ireland,"did they
not also stipulate for the distinct recognition of that
privilege which they have appeared to consider as so
paramount? The Hon. Barcfnet has quoted the
authority of Sir Tuby Butler in defence of his argu-
ment—but to that very authority I will refer him to,
learn what were the terms which the Roman Catholics
of Limerick insisted upon previous to capitulation. It
is, of course, well known that the Catholics sent into the
English camp certain proposals, to which they received
a reply the Lest day. Tne following are the seven
propOsirions:
st. That their Majesties will, by an Act of Indemnity, pardon
all past off:aces whatsoever.
•4 2i. All Irish Catholics to be restored to the estates of which
they were seised or possessed before the late Revoiution.
" ad. To allow free liberty of religious worshif, and one Priest
to each Parish, as well in towns andchies, as in the country.

"4th. Irish Catholics to be capable oe holding all empfoyments,
civil and niihtsry, under the Crows, and of exercising all trade%
professions and callings whatsoever.
`• sth. The Irish As my to be kept on foot, and received in their i
present condition into their Majesties service, in case th-y be
wilting to serve their Majesties apinst Prance, er any other enemy.
• " litb. The Irish Catholics to be, at liberty to reside in Citiesand
Towns Corporate, to be Alembere of Corporations, and to exercise
all Corporate franchises and immunities.
6'7th. An Act of Parliament to be passed for ratifying and con-
&egg those condition s."
Now, Sir, all that the Cobol:: of Limerick them-
**Nee demanded, as the terms on which they would submit,
did not antount to that which the Honourable Baronet con-
tends Was afterwards granted to them. What, then, was Giukle's
Ottawa* to these propositions? • He stated the propositions to be so
"extravagant, that, although be was comparatively a stranger to the
laws of England, he understood them so far as to perceive that
such propositions were contrary to their spirit and meaning, and
'to-grant which would, therefore, be dishonourable to himself.
Me therefore rs jicted them, and immediately ordered a new bat- •
tery to be raised against the town; but at the request of the Irish
•theanseives, sent them twelve propositions, which formed the
ground-work of the Treaty that was afterwards entered km—.
Now, Sir, when (in 1702) Sir Toby Butler made his celebrated
appeal, did he say one word about the admission. of Roman Ca-
tholics Antis Parliament, grounded upon this Treaty? The
Treaty, I will observe, is published in a great vatiety of works;
I have referred to it in " Plowden's History of Ireland," and in
" An Historical Apology for the Irish Catholics," written, I be-
lieve, by the brother of the Honourable Baronet opposite. But,
Sir, the Honourable Member for Dahlia has referred to an an-
tkority which very much surprised me-4 allude to the authority'
of Bishop Barnet—and I confess I am at a loss to know how be
could, for a moment, conceive that the authority of this
Learned and Reierend Prelate supported his view of this question.
The Hon.• Member described the Rev. Prelate as. being In the intl-

slate confidence -of King William, sod consequently io possession

of his Monarch's plans and intentions; this testimony, therefore,
spots this matter is, as the Hen. Member described it of great
weight and impottencm Nor, I entteat the attentldn of the House
to this fair, that la the year 1611, after the Treaty of•Limmiek had
Jives 'lg:redoing when the Oath of Supremacy was required to be
takomin the Irish Parliament by an At of Parliament, which Act
was acted upon in the Irish Parliament—now, Bishop Bernet
being well acquainted with this fact, being well aware of the intent
sod meaning of each situate Article in the Treaty of Limerick, and
!plowing well that no Catholic thee sat in the Irish House of Par.
wariest; speaking of the Treaty of Limerick, says.-. 4 The Articles
of that Capitulation were monetually executed, and some differences-
.xerhicik arose, out of certain ambiguous words, were decided in
• *yaw of the Irish." That is the expressions's/Id let Bishop Bur.
set, open whose authority the Hon. idemborutolieneo to rely, in
defence of his argument. Sir, it is upon those•grounds that I differ
from the Hos. Moser and the Hun. Seconder of that motion now

before the Itiouse. The subject ensbnoes so many topics that I
cannot now attempt to enter am it at length; I can only repeat
that I have given it the best consideration in my power, and that
the strong impression upon my mind ls, that at the signing of the I
' Treaty of Limerick, it was not contemplated by one party to de-
mend, or by the other party to grant, even those privileges which
the Irish timilles haste since obtained. I admit that the Penal
TAWS which were matted ender Queen Mme and George the
First—(span the question of abets being, or not beinguecossary, I
do opt, of cootie, meanto ante:l—were enacted in violation of that
Treaty, but I. contend, that the Catholics can now claim nothing
whh they de not peons, grounded upon the faith of that Treaty.
Sir, fam not one of those who think that the Articles by which one
party'desired an essential advantage front the ether, ought to be,
• or can he, set aside besause of their . age; but- if I can be coll'
Mated that it was the intention of both parties that the Roman
Catholics should be admitted to Parliament merely upon taking the
salmi( allegiance, I emu, far from thinking old Treaties are of ne
ay* that I should certainly permit it-at will not say to settle my
Amiga on-tie subject, but I will say; to base much weight von my
Welitd• in 00014eriag the great question -which it 111 snaiseially
*aim. U an advantage bed been actoalbr liven by riewparty to
weber, with the, uoderstandiag that a corn:speeding and specific
advantage should be granted by that other in return, it would have
onosidee able effect with me in determining the course I should put-
one I bat, feeling *VI do, that the Catholics sea now make no Otini

gemmed vs. that Treity. I can only state that soak Treaty wifl
in no way influence me I. the view which I take of the question, of
which it is intro:Need ss's principal branch.
Mr. S. RIQE said, that in giving every Credit to the
Right Hon. Gentleman for the sweerity of his opinion,
he must claim an equal portion for his owls 6tm belief
that the construction which ought in justice and in fair-
ness to be put upon the Treaty of Limerick, was di,
redly the reverse of that stated by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. He contendtd that the authority of Burnet
was in favour of his view of the Treaty. He found it
asserted in that writer, that in conformity with the at-
tides, the Roman Catholics 4, were restored to all they
enjoyed in King Charles's time, and admitted to all the
privileges of subjects upon taking the Oath of Alle-
giance to their Majesties, without being bound to take
any other oath." Was it then no privilege of the sub-
ject to have the right of sitting in Parliament, to con-
troul the Government, and watch over the affairs of
the country?—(Here the Hon. Gentleman referred to
a political pamphlet written by Sir James Mono-
, null, a Jacobite, charging King William with having
entered into that Irish Treaty—for so was it called).
Was it because General Ginkle had rejected an article
in the Treaty, which provided that in each village a
Catholic Priest should be kept up at the expense of the
Crown—was it to be inferred that, ex necessitate, the
Irish army was not to be supported?

Mr. Secretary PEEL—What Irish army?
Mr. SPRING RlCE—That Irish army which re-
turned to France—that Irish army which afterwards on
the Continent fought against us—that Irish army from
which sprung the Irish Brigade—that Irish army which
on so many occasions snatched the laurels from the
grasp of British soldiers.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. Secretary PEEL begged the Honourable Gentleman would
not understand him as intending to am the slightest reflection upon
that army. He had said, that tinkle's objection to these terms
was, that-they were contrary to the Constitution of England. Now
be (Mr. Secretary Peel) shuttle( like to know what was the objec-
tion to the King's taking into kis service a portion of his own
subjects?
Mr. S. RICE.—The establishment of Roman Catho-
lic Priests, and of the Roman Catholic religion, was,
in fact, the grand objection. For that he had the autho-
rity of the Right Him. Gentleman himself—the autho-
rity also c,f Lord Liverpool—that if such measure were
to be enacted, it would be a violation of the King's

Coronation Oath. Ginkle's mind was, perhaps, con-
fined to the observation of what was passing before him,
and he was therefore more likely to concede than ethers.
It so happened, that about the Ist of August, 1691. a
letter was addressed to the Dish Gi.vernment by Gen.

Ginkle, representing how absolutely necessary it was
for the peace- of Europe that the Irish war should be
terminated. In short, while there was in the Irish army
a French party. anxious (or the continuance of resistance,
there was in the English army anEnglish patty which was
desirous that no ter ms should be made with the Irish,

hoping, in the event of their defeat, to benefit by the for-
feitures and confiscations thatiwould, no doubt, ensue.—
The Government, however, stepped in, and, by conclud-
ing the Treaty,did that which no other party could. If the
Terms of the Treaty were so objectionable, how did it
happen that for so many years no complaint was made
of them? When, in fact, did the first notice of them
take place? When Sir Toby Butler was heard in the
House of Lords against tie patsies of an Act which
went to deprive the Catholics of many of their best
privileges—that Act which first took away from the
Roman Catholics the elective franchise. That Act
was, therefore, a gross violation of the Treaty of Lime.
rick. Sir Toby Butler thought so, and on that precise
ground had he argued against the 15th section of the
Bill, which took from the Catholics the elective flaws.
chise. Therefore, instead of its being a new doctrine
in favour of the repeal of the Catholic disabilities, to
refer to that Treaty, it was an old doctrine, a doctrine
of lawyers, brought forward within the walls of Parlia-
ment; and although Parliament had rejected it—for
fortunately the speech of Sir Toby Butler remained, and
showed that the feeling existed among persons who were
cotemporaries of those who had been parties to the
Treaty. The Right Hou. Gentleman asked why, if
that Act had been a violati not the Treaty of Limerick,
the Irish Catholics had not appealed to the British Par-
liament? What ! were they to apply to that Parlia-
ment which bad just declared the Irish wool-trade a
nuisance, and had add' essea the King, requesting of him
to discourage it ? Headmitted that in the government
of King William there were to be found many distin
guished names ...alll mg others, that of one, an orna
merit to the sciei,ce and literature of the country (Sir
Isasc Newton), who was the then Master of the Mint—
(A laugh). Many other.most excellent persons held office
under that Government—but neutralized as that G.:•
vernment had been, he would ask, was it not quite vain
to say to us that we hadn't justi.e at our side, because
in King William's time no appeal had been made? He
was sorry to have ono uded at so much length upon the
patience of the Hi us ; but, representing as he did that
place in which the Treaty had been concluded—repre.
senting persons, every one of whom knew that Treaty
by heart—having also a sort of hereditary right to
contend for the observance of that Treaty—he should
not have been doing justice to them and to himself had
he refrained from presenting himself io the notice of
the House on that occasion.—(Here the Honourable
Gentleman referred to the situation of the Catholics in
the reign of Charles IL when the first attempt was made
to exclude Catholics from Parliament, and to the ma.
nagement of the Duke of Ormond, who had, first by pro.
roguing, and after wards by dissolving that Parliament,
got rid of the Bill, the heads of which declared its object
to be the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament, and
the Duke of York from the succession to the Crown). In
fact—and a most temar kable fact it usts--that it was
not until 1782 that Catholics had been really disenabled.
to sit in Parliament. From the moment the Irish Par-
liament had declared that the English Parliament had
no right or title to bind his Majesty's subjects of Ireland
—from that moment the right of England to impose an
oath respecting the admission of members into the
House of Commons ceased. He wished there a ere a
legal tribunal before which the question was to be des
cided, and he would gladly and with pleasure join issue
upon the construction of the Treaty of Limerick.—
If any Honourable Gentleman still continued to doubt
on the subject, he entreated of him to recollect the na•
cure and the situation of the parties to it. That the Irish
were the weaker party could not be doubted ; yet, al-
though Previous to the conclusion of the Treaty a
reinforcement of 18,000 men arrived to their assistance
from France, the Irish refused to avail themselves
of them, and remained faithful to the preliminary ar-
itkles—(Hear, heat). At that very time too a Prelate,
from the pulpit, in Dublin, in a political sermon,
declared that no faith ought to be kept with the Irish. It
was a principle uniformly recognised, that wherever,
in the construction of the terms of a Treaty, any doubt
111706 f, to interpret them in favour of the weaker party;
and bearing that principle in mind, and looking at the
subject under all its circumstances, he was quite sure
those Members would come to a. sonelusion different
from that of the Right. Honotiiabie Geittleman. They
had now at the head of the Government a great mill•
tary character—a man conversant with sieges and with

,Treatiti—aud be (Mr. S. Ricci would ask, if this ha'
been a Treaty by which the Government of Spain we'
conveyed to her legitimate rulers. would it not No
recognised and enforced by the aid of all the Posner:
in gurnpi?—(Hear, hear. hear.) 1
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained.
Mr. MOORE rose to express his dissent from the
views taken of the Treaty of Limerick by the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) and some others who ha
preceded him in the debate, and contended that thel
construction put upon that freaty by those Honourablol
Members had been a forced and unjust construction.
'The operation of that Article extended only to those
Catholics whose submission was required. The first
,Article provided, that the Catholics should enjoy the
undisturbed exercise of their religion, and such other
:privileges as were consistent with the laws of Ireland,
and such as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles 11.
not of James, which was just past. Those privileges,
enjoyed in the reign of Charles If: must have referred
to the exercise of their religion, as in that reign the
restrictive laws of Ireland against Catholics were less
severe than the English Statutes; tor instance, the Act
of uniformity, and that was the season why the Catho-
lics, who were a party to the Treaty, sought the privi-
leges consistent with the laws of Ireland ; they could
not have referred to the reign of James 11. as in
that time the Catholics not only enjoyed the antis-
turbed exercise of their religion, but steps bad been
taken in that reign to raise the Catholic religion
to the highest splendour and power. That the ex-
ercise of their religion was all that was intended to
be conceded to the Catholics by the Treaties of
Limerick and Galway, would appear from a document
alluded to by en historian who was eyewitness of the
events (the Rev. George Storey), namely—the Procla-
mation of the Chief Justices, promising to such of the
rebels as should submit, " that they Should not be pro-
secuted or disturbed on account of their religion." If
the first article merely referred to the exercise of poll-
tical privileges, where was the necessity of introducing
those latter words of the Proclamatiotisinto the Treaty?
The lion. Member concluded by expressing his hope
that the Right Hon. Gentleman, in moving for a copy
of the Treaty of Limerick, would mr.ve also 1,4 a copy
of that Proclamation of It e Chief Justices.
Mr. A. DAWSON denied that the Irish Parliament,
two years before the Treaty of Limer.ck, consisted ex-
clusively of Catholics—it was impossible that the Ca-
tholics could have had a majority in the Commons, as the
greater portion of the property was in the hands of the
Protestants and in the House of Lords. The Protestants
were to the Catholics as 79 to 32. Neither the Lords
Justices then, nor General Ginkle, felt any apprehen-
sions from the admission of Catholics to Court, and
Military Offices, for this reason, that they knew
the Catholics already bad the power of sitting in
Parliament, and that they enjoyed that privilege would
appear from a regulation of the Irish House of Lords,
which ordered the Protestant Peers to attend prayer s at
four o'clock, on forfeiture of one shilling, and directed
that the Catholic Lords should enter the House at a
quarter-past four (when prayers might be supposed to
be over), or pay a similar fine for non-attendance at
that hour. He trusted that if any argument used by
him, or the speakers on his side of the question, should
raise a doubt in the minds of their opponents, the House
would give the benefit of those doubts to the weaker party.
The motion was then put to the vote, and agreed to without op-
position.