. No peer was
disposed to entrust Roman Catholics with political power. Nay, it seems
that no peer objected to the principle of the absurd and cruel rule
which excluded Roman Catholics from the liberal professions. But it was
thought that this rule, though unobjectionable in principle, would,
if adopted without some exceptions, be a breach of a positive compact.
Their Lordships called for the Treaty of Limerick, ordered it to be read
at the table, and proceeded to consider whether the law framed by
the Lower House was consistent with the engagements into which the
government had entered. One discrepancy was noticed. It was stipulated
by the second civil article, that every person actually residing in any
fortress occupied by an Irish garrison, should be permitted, on taking
the Oath of Allegiance, to resume any calling which he had exercised
before the Revolution. It would, beyond all doubt, have been a violation
of this covenant to require that a lawyer or a physician, who had been
within the walls of Limerick during the siege, should take the Oath
of Supremacy and subscribe the Declaration against Transubstantiation,
before he could receive fees. Holt was consulted, and was directed to
prepare clauses in conformity with the terms of the capitulation.

The bill, as amended by Holt, was sent back to the Commons. They at
first rejected the amendment, and demanded a conference. The conference
was granted. Rochester, in the Painted Chamber, delivered to the
managers of the Lower House a copy of the Treaty of Limerick, and
earnestly represented the importance of preserving the public faith
inviolate. This appeal was one which no honest man, though inflamed by
national and religious animosity, could resist. The Commons reconsidered
the subject, and, after hearing the Treaty read, agreed, with some
slight modifications, to what the Lords had proposed. [151]

The bill became a law. It attracted, at the time, little notice, but
was, after the lapse of several generations, the subject of a very
acrimonious controversy. Many of us can well remember how strongly the
public mind was stirred, in the days of George the Third and George the
Fourth, by the question whether Roman Catholics should be permitted to
sit in Parliament. It may be doubted whether any dispute has produced
stranger perversions of history. The whole past was falsified for
the sake of the present. All the great events of three centuries long
appeared to us distor