Theobald Butler, before alluded to, who was in Limerick when it furrendered, and was the perfon employed to draw up the treaty. This act for confirming the treaty, wholly omits that part of the second article, which guarantees to the Catholics the exercise of their feveral trades and profeffions. It alfo omits the fourth article. It limits the benefit of the indemnity granted by the fixth article to a period fubfequent to the 10th of April, 1689, and enables all perfons, who fuffered any injuries between the 5th of November, 1688, and this period, to bring their actions for the fame until the 1ft of September, 1691, by declaring that the commencement of the war referred to in the article was the 10th of April, 1689, and not the 5th of November, 1688, and it omits the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th articles, Being in short an act, that, under the name of conferring favours on the Catholics, really placed them in a worse condition, than that in which they were before it paffed into a law. The other acts of this reign, relating to the Catholics, are an act to prevent Protestants from intermarrying with Papifts, and an act to prevent * * 9th William III. c. 3. them them from being folicitors.* A claufe was introduced in an act for the prefervation of game, prohibiting Papifts from being employed as gamekeepers.† How it is poffible to defend William and his ministers from the charge of having acted with perfidy towards the Catholics, it is not eafy to discover. That they were guilty of violating the treaty no one can deny. The excufe that has been made for William, that he was obliged to fubmit to the power of the anti-catholic party, may easily be proved to be a mere pretext. In the first place, the Parliament which paffed these laws was under the controul of William; besides he encouraged them, by a speech from the throne, to strengthen the Proteftant interest. The preamble of the act for confirming the treaty, states they were recommended by William to confirm only a part of the articles. But why did he not refuse his confent to these laws, on the ground of their being contrary to his folemn engagements to the Catholics? He had exercifed this prerogative in the case of one Scotch, and of one English F 2 * 10th William III. c. 13. † 10th William III c. 8. For excluding from any public truft all fuch as had been concerned in the encroachments of the late reign. English bill, But even this extremity might have been avoided, because the laws of Poynings required that every bill fhould be approved by the King and Council of England before it could pass the House of Commons; and, if a bill was exceptionable, by withholding their approbation, a very common proceeding, it fell of course to the ground, But if William and his minifters were guilty of perfidy towards the Catholics, his fucceffor far outstripped him. Nor has any fucceeding prince been free from the blame of having been an acceffary to his crime, in proportion as they have neglected or refused to repeal those penal laws, which are fo many glaring violations of the treaty of Limerick, which are a scandal to the boafted good faith of the English' nation, and a mockery of that equitable religion, whofe precepts are founded upon the pureft principles of justice and humanity, ANNE, * Concerning free and impartial proceedings in Parliament. ANNE. On the 4th of March, 1704, the royal affent was given to the act to prevent the further growth of popery; being the first of these two famous acts, which have most deservedly been termed by Mr. Burke, the ferocious acts of Anne. By the third clause of this act the popish father, though he may have acquired his estate by descent from a long line of ancestors, or by his own purchase, is deprived of the power, in cafe his eldest fon, or any other fon, becomes a Proteftant, to fell, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of it, or to leave out of it any portions or legacies. By the 4th claufe, the popifh father is debarred, under a penalty of 500l. from being a guardian to, or from having the custody of his own children; but if the child, though ever fo young, pretends to be a Proteftant, it is to be taken from its own father, and put into the hands of a Proteftant relation. The 5th claufe provides that no Proteftant fhall marry a Papist, having an estate in Ireland, either in or out of the kingdom. The The 6th claufe renders Papifts incapable of purchafing any manors, tenements, hereditaments, or any rents or profits arifing out of the fame, or of bolding any leafe of lives, or other leafe whatever, for any term exceeding 31 years. Even with refpect to this advantage restrictions were impofed on them, one of which was, that if a farm produced a profit greater than one-third of the amount of the rent, the right in it was immediately to cease, and to pafs over entirely to the first Proteftant who fhould difcover the rate of profit. The 7th claufe deprives Papifts of fuch inheritance, devife, gift, remainder or truft, of any lands, tenements or hereditaments, of which any Proteftant was, or should be feized in fee fimple, abfolute or fee tail, which, by the death of such Proteftant, or his wife, ought to have defcended. to his fon or other iffue in tail, being Papists, and makes them defcend to the nearest Protestant relation, as if the Popifh heir and other Popish relations were dead. By the 10th clause, the estate of a Papist, for want of a Proteftant heir, is to be divided, fhare and share alike, among all his fons; for want of fons, among his daughters; and, for want of. daughters, |