the oath of supremacy." (See History of the Penal Laws, pages 20, 21.)

All the before mentioned laws were in force previous to, and at the time of the capitulation of Limerick, and during the reign of King Charles the Second. The first article of that capitulation stipulates, that the Irish Romanists shall enjoy 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 the Second; and the King promised that he would endeavour to procure them such further security, in that particular, (that is, in the exercise of their religion,) as might preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their religion: which promise he never was able to perform, the parliament absolutely refusing to ratify such promise. But if the King had been able to procure the sanction of parliament in that particular, what privilege would it confer on Irish Romanists? nothing but the exercise of their religion without being interrupted in such exercise. The article was executed as far as it was in the King's power to execute it. What privilege did it confer on them? It put them into the same situation, with respect to the exercise of their religion, as they were in during the time of King Charles the Second; that is, they were subject to great penalties by law for exercising it, if the laws were.

D

put in force; and such their situation respecting the exercise of their religion is admitted, in the History of the Penal Laws, at the time of the capitulation. This history, with notable absurdity, assumes as a principle, that a toleration of any sect of religion, or a liberty of exercising a religion hostile, in an eminent degree to the established religion of the state, is an absolute grant of all the political privileges of that state to the sectaries so indulged; if that be the case, the Jews are qualified for occupying the first places and promotions in the British empire; so are the Quakers, and several others. No person of common sense will assert that such a principle had ever any admission into the British constitution, nor has it ever prevailed any where, save for a short space of time among the frantic anarchists of France, in the beginning of their revolutionary career; and in some states in North America, it is a favourite Jacobin doctrine, but is not to be maintained by any person attached to the British constitution.

As to that part of the said first article, which contains the engagement on the part of the crown to endeavour to procure to Irish Romanists such further security in that particular, that is, in the exercise of their religion, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion, that is, in the exercise of it; the

par

liament did absolutely refuse to ratify it, notwithstanding the endeavours of the crown to induce them to comply with it; and, as it is already proved, it became, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the negotiators of the capitulation on behalf of the Irish Romanists, a perfect nullity.

The deduction, in the History of the Penal Laws, that this first article of the capitulation, was a complete and perpetual exemption of the Irish Romanists from all political and religious disqualifications on account of their religion; or in other words, that it was a repeal of the act of uniformity, and of all the other disqualifying laws, enacted against Romanists from the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, recited in this history itself, leads to the following inevitable conclusions; that a band of routed traitors, the refuse of the sword, put up in a nook, surrounded by the victorious royal army on all sides, hopeless of escape, had obtained terms from their injured sovereign, by implication, more advantageous than they could hope for, had victory in some shape countenanced their rebellion; that the king of Great Britain, by his treaty or capitulation with either a foreign or domestic enemy, can annul and make void all acts of parliament he may think proper, and may at his pleasure engage for the utter subversion of the church

D2

establishment; that King William by this article bound himself so to do, and that the parliament were bound to ratify it; conclusions which are, in themselves, so ridiculous, that they need no refutation; risum tencatis is the only answer they merit. Such reasoning puts me in mind of Swift's account of arguments sometimes used by a lady: Her arguments directly tend

Against the side she would defend.

The free exercise of any religion different from that of the state, consists in permitting the votaries of such religion to repair to such places of worship as they think proper, and to have priests or pastors of their own appointment, to administer to them in their spiritual functions. The Irish Romanists, since the capitulation of Limerick, always had free access to parochial Romish chapels, in the different parishes in the kingdom, and parish priests in their several parishes; sometimes two or more in a parish without any molestation: notwithstanding they were, till within these twenty years last past, subject to all the penal laws which were in force in the reign of Charles the Second, which laws were never, since the capitulation, put in force against them. The only interruption they ever met with, was, for about three weeks in the Scotch rebellion, when their chapels were shut

up by order of government; their avowed hos-: tility to that government being notorious, and their numerous meetings at the chapels giving them opportunities of caballing, and forming treasonable conspiracies. The swarming of friers into Ireland from foreign monasteries has been prohibited, and endeavours used to prevent the importation of such dangerous incendiaries, who extract a living from the poor by propagating disaffection and ridiculous superstitions; but the secular Romish priests have been openly permitted freely to exercise their functions in their different parishes in Ireland, ever since the capitulation of Limerick, save for about three weeks, on the occasion, and for the reasons before mentioned, which deserves not the character of disturbance in the exercise of their religion; so that this first article of that capitulation has been fully complied with, though it never was ratified by act of parliament, and consequently never was binding on the part of the protestant government of Ireland. There is therefore no ground whatsoever for the malicious assertion, that the first article of that capitulation has beenviolated; and the whole charge of the violation of these articles by the protestant government of Ireland, in the History of the Penal Laws, is founded on the supposed violation of this article; and on the ridiculous and unfounded asser