§ Mr. Spring Ricerose to present a Petition from the Roman Catholic Bishop, and between 80 and 90 Roman Catholic Clergymen of the diocese of Limerick. It stated, that the Petitioners are ready to testify in any manner that may be required of them, their unbroken and undivided allegiance to his majesty: that there is no language too strong or too significant to express the sincerity of their disclaimer of foreign authority; but they objected, on religious grounds, to the second bill which had been lately introduced into the House. They stated their objections temperately, but firmly, casting themselves, however, on the judgment and impartial justice of parliament, not to pass a law which may be a violation of conscience. There was no individual more entitled to respect and deference, than the prelate who had signed the petition, and no class of the community had proved themselves more deserving than the Catholic clergy. He would take that opportunity of setting himself right with the House, with regard to what fell from him on a former occasion. He had then stated, that by the capitulation of Limerick, Catholics would have been protected from all the disabilities of which they had now to complain. He had stated, that those articles had been violated, and that to their infraction, all the sufferings of the Catholics might be traced. When he made this assertion on a former occa- 154 sion, he was told, that such an argument was wholly untenable, that it had never before been heard of, and that it had been properly disregarded by the right hon. mover, and the right hon. member for Liverpool. He felt anxious to prove the correctness of his statement, and would do so by showing, that at the time of the treaty of Limerick, Catholics were eligible to parliament, and that they were afterwards incapacitated, contrary to that treaty. It was the declaration against transubstantiation, not the oath of supremacy, which excluded Catholics; but that declaration was not in force in Ireland at the time of the treaty of Limerick. No act analogous to the 30th Charles 2nd, was then in operation, and the oath of supremacy, then the only legal test, did not keep Catholics out of parliament; therefore they were eligible. The treaty of Limerick provided, that no oath but the oath of allegiance should be required of Catholics; and yet the English parliament was guilty of the bad faith of passing an act introducing the declaration against transubstantiation, and thereby excluding Catholics from office, parliament and the bar. He referred to a passage in a valuable work of Mr. Butler's, in which he stated, that at the "passing of 1 William and Mary, Irish Roman Catholic Peers had their seats and voted in the House of Lords, and were eligible to the House of Commons, and to all civil and military offices." The assertion, that this subject had never before been so argued, was also erroneous. It had frequently been so brought under the consideration of parliament, and it had been particularly relied upon by the right hon. mover of the bill, in his memorable speech of 1813. He then stated, that "Roman Catholics were admissible to parliament and to corporate offices for 100 years after the oath of supremacy; that at the time of the capitulation of Limerick, Roman Catholics were not excluded from parliament nor from corporations. On the faith of these articles, all of which were punctually performed by the Catholics, they surrendered their town. The stipulation of William was against any additional oaths, and in favour of additional securities. What was done? The act of William and Mary was passed, giving them no additional security, but excluding Catholics for the first time from parliament, from office, and from the bar." He trusted he had 155 now made out his case, arid shown that the Catholic disabilities were in violation of the articles of Limerick; that this argument was supported by respectable authority, and specially by the authority of the right hon. member for the University of Dublin.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.