THE STORY OF IRELAND

New Zealand Tablet, 31 March 1921, Page 7

THE STORY OF IRELAND

(By A. M. Sullivan.)

Chapter LXIII. — How the Treaty of Limerick was Broken and Trampled Under Foot by the “Protestant Interest/' Yelling for More Plunder and More Persecution. •v. There is no more bitter memory in the Irish breast than that which tells how the Treaty of Limerick was violated; and there is not probably on record a breach of public faith more nakedly and confessedly infamous than was that violation. None of this damning blot touches William—now king de facto of the two islands. lie did his part; and the truthful historian is bound on good evidence to assume , for him that he saw with indignation and disgust the shameless and dastardly breach of that treaty by the dominant and all-powerful Protestant faction. We have seen how the lords justices came down from Dublin and approved and signed the treaty at Limerick. The king bound public faith to it still more firmly, formally, and solemnly, by the issue of royal letters patent confirmatory of all its articles, issued . from Westminster, February 24, 1692, in the name of himself and Queen Mary. We shall now see how this treaty was kept towards the Irish Catholics. The “Protestant interest” of Ireland, as they called themselves, no . sooner found the last of the Irish regiments shipped from the Shannon, than they openly announced that the treaty would not, and ought not to be kept! It was the old story. Whenever the English sovereign or government desired to pause in the work of persecution and plunder, if not to treat the native Irish in a spirit of conciliation or justice, the “colony,” the “plantation,” the garrison, the “Protestant interest,” screamed in frantic resistance./ It was so in the reign of James the First ; it was so in the reign of Charles the First; it was so in the reign of Charles the Second; it was so in the reign of James the Second ;, it was so in the reign of William and Mary. Any attempt of king or government to mete to the native Catholic population of Ireland any measure of treatment save what the robber and murderer metes out to his helpless victim, was denounced —absolutely complained — as a daring wrong and grievance against what was, .and is still, called the “Protestant interest,” or “ our glorious rights and liberties.” Indeed, no sooner had the lords justices returned from Limerick, than the Protestant pulpits commenced to resound with denunciations of those who would- observe the treaty; and Popping, titular Protestant bishop of Meath, as Protestant' historians record, preached, before the lords justices l themselves a notable sermon “the crime of keeping faith with Papists.” - ~ • ~ , ■ ; 'p The “Protestant interest” party saw with indignation that the king meant to keep faith with 1 the

capitulated Catholics; nay, possibly to consolidate; the country, by- a comparatively' conciliatory, just, and generous policy: which was, they contended, monstrous. It quickly ocurred to them, however, that as they were sure to be a strong majority in the parliament, they , could take into their own hands the work of “reconstruction,” when they might freely wreak their will on the' vanquished, and laugh to scorn all treaty faith. There was some danger of obstruction from the powerful Catholic minority entitled to sit in both houses of parliament; but, for this danger the dominant faction found a specific. By an unconstitutional, straining of the theory that each house was judge of the • qualification of its members, they framed test oaths to exclude the minority. In utter violation of the treaty of Limerick—a clause in which, as we have seen, covenanted that no oath should be required of a Catholic other than . the oath of allegiance therein set out—the parliamentary majority framed a test oath explicitly denying and denouncing the doctrines of transubstantiation invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as “damnable and idolatrous.” Of co^ SB J t l he Catholic peers and commoners retired rather than take these tests, and the way was now clear for the bloody -work of persecution. In the so-called “ Catholic parliament”—the parliament which assembled in Dublin in 1690 and which was opened by King James in person—the Catholics greatly preponderated (in just such proportion as the population was Catholic or Protestant): yet no attempt was made by, that majority to trample down or exclude the minority. Nay, the Protestant pi elates all took their seats in the peers’ Chamber, and debated and divided as stoutly as ever through- ° + ff v Ol1 ’ While 110fc a Catholic prelate sat in T. , Catholic parliament” at all. It was the Catholics day of power, and they used it generously magnanimously, nobly. Sustainment of the king suppression of rebellion, were the all-pervading sentiments. Tolerance of all creeds— of conscience t nd C'. Catholic— the watchwords in tnat Catholic parliament.” And now, how was all this requited? Alas We have just seen how! Well might the Catholic in that hour exclaim in the language used for him by Mr. cle V ere in his poem : J W ®’* o0 > L d our , day—it was brief: it is ended— When a king dwelt among ns, no strange kin* but ours; . x b & When the shout of a people delivered ascended, And shook the broad banner that hung 011 his tow rs, ° We saw it like trees in a summer breeze shiver ~We read the gold legend that blazoned it o’erp y j7i 10W ° r never! To ' da y and for ever!” U Cod! have we seen it, to see it no more? How fared it that season, our lords and our masters 11 ? S^rmg ° f our freedom . how fared it with Did "asters?' y °"'' faMl? Did we mock your disW had r tlT» . b T b hiS ° WII l ° the leal a " tho true. But aS “ ° f tem P esta nd troubles, dil™f 3 dreW ~ot the ye had t too e dTpmfd7h e e met b bUt y ° Ur P relate a >'d nobles Stood up mid the senate in ermine and lawn ! It was even so indepd tuw- v TT , irast? 'strangers L of * ?- justice or compassion, thl SK the work of proscription wholesale. The kina throneh Lord Justice Sydney, offered ,0.1.0 fesistace Jught William tha^/V/T/ 6 supplies,They soon their design A ftl / ad be “f ’interfere with « unconcealed disgust Ur * 7 7 he H elde d

ceeded-to/practise) freely the doctrine of “no faith to be kept with Papists.” Of course they began with confiscations. Plunder was ever the beginning and the end of their faith and practice. Soon 1,060,792 acres were declared “escheated to the Crown.” Then they looked into the existing powers of persecution, to see how far they neie capable of extension. These were found to be atrocious enough; nevertheless, the new parliament added, the following fresh enactments“l. An Act to deprrvo Catholics of the means of educating their children at home or abroad, and to render them incapable of being guardians of their own- or any --other pel son s children; 2. An Act to disarm the Catholics; and 3. Another to banish all the Catholic priests and elates. Having thus violated the treaty, they gravely brought in a Bill 'to confirm the Articles of Limerick. ’ ' The very title of the Bill/ says Dr. Brooke Taylor, ‘contains evidence of its injustice. It is styled, “A Bill for the confirmation of Articles (not the articles) made at the surrender of Limerick.” And the preamble shows that the little word ‘ the ” was not accidentally omitted. It runs thus;—‘That the said articles, or -so much of them as may consist noth the safety and welfare of your Majesty's subjects m these kingdoms, may be confirmed.” etc.' The parts that appeared to these legislators inconsistent with the safety and welfare of his Majesty’s subjects/ as the hist article, which provided for the security of the Catholics from all disturbances on account of their religion ; those parts of the second article which confirmed the Catholic gentry of Limerick, Clare, Cork, Kerry, and Mayo, in the possession of their estates, and allowed all Catholics to exercise their trades and professions without obstruction ; the fourth article, which extended the benefit of. the peace to certain Irish officers then abroad ; the seventh article, which allowed the Catholic gentry to ride armed ; the ninth article, which, provides that the oath of allegiance shall be the only oath required, from Catholics, and one or two others of minor importance. All of these are omitted in the Bill for ‘ The confirmation of articles made at the surrender of Limerick.’ Ihe Commons passed the Bill without much difficulty. The House of Lords, however, contained some few of the ancient nobility and some prelates who refused to acknowledge the dogma, that no faith should be kept with Papists/ as an article of theircreed. The Bill was strenuously resisted, and when it was at length carried, a strong protest against it was signed by Lords Londonderry, Tyrone, and Duncannon, the Barons of Ossory, Limerick, Killaloe, Kerry, Howth, Kingston, and Strabane, and, to their eternal honor be it said, the Protestant Bishops of Kildare, Elphin, Derry, Clonfert, and Killala.” ’Thus was that solemn pact, which was in truth the treaty of the Irish nation with the newly-set-up English regime, torn and trampled under foot by a tyrannic bigotry. (To be continued.)