king himself by _inspeximus_ under the great
seal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the whole
body of the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to the
security of the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. What
the latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day of
much less public concern. The former are two,--the first and the ninth.
The first is of this tenor:--"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom
[Ireland] 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 their Majesties, as soon as
affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will
endeavor to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security in
that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the
account of their said religion." The ninth article is to this
effect:--"The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit
to their Majesties' government shall be the oath abovesaid, and no
other,"--viz., the oath of allegiance, made by act of Parliament in
England, in the first year of their then Majesties; as required by the
second of the Articles of Limerick. Compare this latter article with the
penal laws, as they are stated in the Second Chapter, and judge whether
they seem to be the public acts of the same power, and observe whether
other oaths are tendered to them, and under what penalties. Compare the
former with the same laws, from the beginning to the end, and judge
whether the Roman Catholics have been preserved, agreeably to the sense
of the article, from any disturbance upon account of their religion,--or
rather, whether on that account there is a single right of Nature or
benefit of society which has not been either totally taken away or
considerably impaired.

But it is said, that the legislature was not bound by this article, as
it has never been ratified in Parliament. I do admit that it never had
that sanction, and that the Parliament was under no obligation to ratify
these articles by any express act of theirs But still I am at a loss how
they came to be the less valid, on the principles of our Constitution,
by being without that sanction. They certainly bound the king and his
successors. The words of the article do this, or they do nothing; and so
far as the crown had a share in passing those acts, the public faith wa