Page images
PDF
EPUB

become due since Michaelmas 1688, 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 them belonging, and remaining either in their own hands, or in the hands of any persons whatsoever, in trust for, or for the use of them, or any of them: and all, and every the said persons, of what profession, trade, or calling soever they be, shall and may use, exercise and practise their several and respective professions, trades and callings, as freely as they did use, exercise and enjoy the same in the reign of King Charles the II.: provided, that nothing in this article contained, be construed to extend to, or restore any forfeiting person now out of the kingdom, except what are hereafter comprized: provided 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.

III. All merchants, or reputed merchants of the city of Lymerick, or of any other garrison now possessed by the Irish, or of any town or place in the counties of Clare or Kerry, who are absent beyond the seas, that have not bore arms since their Majesties' declaration in February 1688, shall have the benefit of the second article, in the same manner as if they were present, provided such merchants, and reputed merchants, do repair into this kingdom within the space of eight months from the date hereof.

VII. Every nobleman and gentleman comprized in the said 2d and 3d article, shall have liberty to ride 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.

'IX. The oath to be administred to such Roman Catholicks as submit to their Majesties' government, shall be the oath abovesaid, and no other.

X. No person or persons, who shall at any time hereafter break these articles, or any of them, shall thereby make, or cause any other person or persons to forfeit or lose the benefit of the same.' pp. 1-8

Upon the first article we shall only observe, that the laws of Ireland,' as they stood in the reign of Charles II., were utterly incompatible with the free exercise of the Catholic religion in that country, and unless an undertaking to get them repealed was implied in the terms of the latter part of that article, it was a mere nullity-a form of words not intended to have any real meaning. It is hardly necessary to say, that not only were those laws not repealed, but the Irish parliament added to their number, acts for depriving the Catholics of the means of educating their children at home or abroad, and of the privilege of being guardians to their own, or to any other person's children. The parliament also banished the Catholic priests, and, in point of fact, removed numbers of them from Ireland. Thus the first article of the treaty was much more than violated-it was reversed.

These acts were passed too by the same parliament which undertook to confirm such parts of the treaty of Limerick, as required the sanction of the legislature. But they did something more. In confirming this treaty, they altogether omitted, besides others not

necessary to be mentioned, the seventh, ninth, and tenth articles, which we have copied above; and they garbled the second article in such a way as to neutralise its provisions. In the ratification of the treaty by William, the words, " And all such as are under their protection in the said counties," are authorised to be inserted in the second article, after the words Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork and Mayo, as they had been omitted in the engrossed treaty, through the error of the copyist. Not only were these words left out by the parliament in the act of confirmation, but also that part of the article which guarantees to the Catholics the free exercise of their several trades and professions. Thus did the Irish parliament take upon itself to re-model a treaty which, by the constitution, it was and is competent to the crown alone to negotiate, to conclude and ratify.

It is admitted that the king is not authorised to ratify a treaty, which contains provisions inconsistent with any preceding law. But it is his peculiar province to make war or peace: he is the sole treaty-making power acknowledged by the constitution, and there is no branch of the legislature legally entitled to rescind or alter his contracts, when they do not violate any pre-existing law. In the United States, the treaty-making power is vested in the president, by and with the consent and advice of the senate. But with us, the power is entirely confided to the executive.

Admitting this doctrine even in its strictest sense, we find that the laws in force against the Catholics of Ireland, passed in the reign of Charles II., did not exclude them from sitting in parliament, nor from voting at elections. The oath of supremacy was not then necessary to qualify a person in Ireland to discharge either of these functions. It was indispensible, indeed, where the person was to fill an office under the crown, or in a corporation; and from such offices the Catholics were thus excluded by law. But it was clearly the intention of the ninth article of the treaty, to relieve them from this oath, since it promised, that the oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their Majesties' government, shall be the oath above said (of allegiance), and no other!' Nothing could be more simple than the terms of this oath. "I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their majesties King William and Queen Mary." The parliament was, undoubtedly, competent to confirm or reject this article; because it was inconsistent with laws already in existence, taking the doctrine of the constitution in its strictest sense. But on the other hand, the King was bound to use all the influence of his power, in order to get those laws repealed, which militated against his treaty. He certainly did no such thing. Not only was the oath of supremacy continued, but the parliament proceeded to disarm the Catholics, and to pass other laws, calculated to affect the Catholics in every relation of life.

We have spoken of the strict doctrine of the constitution as to treaties. But in the particular case before us, that doctrine should be construed in the most beneficial sense for Ireland. The garrison of Limerick was surrendered upon the most solemn pledge that a sovereign could give, of the faithful performance of the terms mentioned in the treaty. It is admitted by the very title of the treaty, that the Irish officers signing that document, represented the inhabitants, of at least the five counties therein mentioned. So much territory, therefore, yielded to the king's arms, upon the terms specified in the compact, and the Irish army ceased to exist as such. After the document was signed, there was no longer a competent, or at least an acknowledged, authority in Ireland, to insist upon the due fulfilment of its stipulations. The Irish who signed, as well as those whom they represented, became ipso facto subjects of William, and were no longer in a situation to treat with him. They relied upon his royal word. The parliament, therefore, according to all the notions of honour and justice, or at least of generosity, that we are acquainted with, looking to the consideration which had been actually paid, should have scrupulously carried into effect every syllable of a treaty made under such circumstances. Had the garrison of Limerick held out three days longer, as it was perfectly able to do, it would most probably have separated Ireland for ever from the British crown. For the third day after the treaty was signed, the French fleet arrived in Dingle Bay, and the besieging army would have been easily destroyed.

The guilt, however, of violating this treaty, belongs not only to William and his parliaments, but to every one of his and their successors, down to the present hour. For this treaty remains unexecuted, while we still write, and must so remain, as long as any political oath shall be tendered to the Irish Roman Catholics, other than the oath of simple allegiance. Were there no arguments in favour of Catholic emancipation, save those only which arise out of this treaty, they appear to us, we own, abundantly sufficient to convince any reasonable man of the justice of that mea

sure.

Had the treaty been honestly adhered to from the period of its ratification, how different at this moment would have been the condition of Ireland! Had there been no causes of discord and discontent among the people of that country, is it to be doubted that the growing capital of England would have long since found its way thither, and have spread manufactures and commerce over every part of that fertile territory? No year has passed, since the first penal laws were enacted against the Catholics, that the people of Ireland have not grown poorer and poorer, and more disaffected to the rule of this country. And why, it may be asked, is this system of hostile legislation pursued ?-Does it benefit England? On the contrary, it brings a grievous burthen upon her. Whom then does it serve? We feel no hesitation in saying, that

[blocks in formation]

it is beneficial only to the Orangemen of Ireland-in other words, to a few families, whose interests, it seems, the government of Great Britain, for some undiscoverable reason, prefers to those of the great body of the Irish community. Is this just? Is it politic?

We agree with the author of Three Months in Ireland,' a Protestant of high respectability, whose reflections confer great credit upon his discernment and wisdom, that the great majority of the opponents of the Catholic claims in England, and a large share of those in Ireland, are influenced by none but pure and honourable motives.' His distinction between Anti-Catholics and Orangemen, as elucidated by the evidence of Colonel Verner and the Rev. Mr. Waring, shews, that although he spent so short a time in Ireland, he was enabled to form a very accurate notion of the state of parties in that unhappy country.

The terms, it is true, are often confounded by violent demagogues, or in common conversation; yet nothing can be more essentially distinct. The one opposes from fears for the Protestants, the other from hatred to the Catholics. The one wishes to prevent farther concessions, the other to recall those already granted. The one is an honourable antagonist, the other a malicious enemy; and while the one may be convinced by reasoning, the other will constantly remain deluded by passion. There are, in fact, very few Orangemen in England-they are reserved for the sister country, which they long ruled with tyranny, and still agitate with faction. Their fatal effects may be traced in every department of the state, in every institution of the law; but fortunately, they are now almost reduced to fruitless rancour and impotent malevolence. Unable to persecute any longer, they must content themselves with calumniating their former victims. It is they to whom we owe the enactment and support of the penal code; it is they to whom all the abuses of the magistracy, the mal-administration of justice, the peculations and cruelties of the charterschools, should mainly be ascribed. After fomenting and exciting the rebellion of 1798, they now avail themselves of it, to charge their adversaries with sedition and disloyalty. How widely, thank Heaven! does this character differ from the conscientious and public-spirited feelings, which, generally speaking, are the motives that induce any Englishman to oppose the Catholic claims! When we convince his judgment, we at once obtain his support; whilst the Orangemen are too often actuated by the same ignorant and unconquerable zeal that induced, as I understand, one of their leaders lately to admit, that not even the descent of an angel from heaven would be sufficient to convince him.'-pp. 24, 25.

We have hitherto considered this question as one relating only to Ireland. But many of our readers will probably be surprised to hear, that there are, according to a recent calculation which we have seen, nearly one million of Catholics in England, whose condition is still more painful than that of their brethren in Ireland. For instance, Catholics in Ireland can vote at elections, can be magistrates, can hold situations in the excise; while in England they are deprived by the oath of supremacy, not only of these, but of all other rights and privileges which their fellow subjects

enjoy. A still more glaring anomaly is this, that in Ireland the marriage of Catholics by a Catholic clergyman is valid in law, whereas if it were so celebrated in England, it would have no legal effect whatsoever.

But perhaps the case of the English Catholic peers, is, of all others, the most severe and unjustifiable. These peers are, we understand, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Surrey, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Clifford, Lord Arundell, Lord Stourton, Lord Dormer, Lord Petre, and Lord Stafford. These noble lords enjoy their estates and their titles by virtue of their birth; to those estates and titles are annexed the right of sitting and voting in the house of peers; but this right they are prevented from exercising, because they will not take the oath of supremacy, or because, in other words, they will not disavow their religion. Now is not this a grievous oppression, that eight noblemen of the oldest families in the country, shall be stripped of their most precious hereditary rights, simply because they adhere to the religion of their ancestors! By a curious anomaly, which demonstrates the injustice of these disqualifications, the Duke of Norfolk has been enabled, by a special bill, to exercise his hereditary office of Earl Marshal of England. That is to say, he is qualified by law to stand upon the right hand of the King, at his coronation, and to tender to his Majesty the fealty of all the peers of the realm, of whom his grace is the first; and yet this same noble individual is not deemed fit to be trusted with a vote in the house of peers. He may sit at the foot of the throne, but if he were to pass the brass railing which separates the throne from the body of that house, he would incur a premunire! It is obvious that there can be no just cause for perpetuating a line of distinction which has already been reduced to such a hair's breadth by the legislature itself. And if there be no good reason for continuing it with respect to one Catholic nobleman, surely it would be the height of injustice and insult, to continue it as to the rest.

With respect to the mass of the Catholics in this kingdom, they are placed, as we have seen, in a situation much more degraded than those of their brethren in Ireland. It is true, that they are not absolutely disturbed in the exercise of their religion; but, like the Protestant Dissenters, they cannot be said to enjoy toleration. Upon this point, the reasoning of Lord Nugent seems to us unanswerable.

'It is said that the Roman Catholics "enjoy perfect toleration, because they are permitted to worship God in the manner the most agreeable to the dictates of their own conscience." I should admit that this is " perfect toleration," could we conclude the sentence thus," without thereby incurring penalty or privation." But here lies the whole matter of complaint. A man is clearly not left to do that which if done subjects him to punishment. The Catholics, then, are not free to exercise their religion. No syllogism, as it appears to me, can be clearer than this.

'But let us not be mistaken. It is not toleration only that we ask for

« PreviousContinue »