Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/235

 in transcribing the fair copy which was actually signed left out the italicised words and all such as are under their protection in these counties. The mistake was discovered the next day, before the actual surrender had taken place, and Sir Theobald Butler drew Clarke's attention to it. But by this time the actual signed copy had gone with Ginkell to the King; and the Lords Justices, while acknowledging the mistake, thought it "inconvenient with the respect they owe to His Majesty" to rectify the matter before they received his answer. This seems a perfectly consistent and credible story; its truth was admitted afterwards by the Lords Justices and William himself. There seems to be no reason to suspect that the omission was in any way intentional; but equally there seems to be no reason to suppose that there never was any omission, and that the whole story of the omitted words is an invention.

It is curious to see how modern historians have treated this point. Macaulay omits all reference to it. Murray declares that of the civil articles two only, the first and the twelfth—both, be it said, dealing with religion—are concerned with the fate of the Irish. And he does not quote the second article at all. But he devotes a page to Clarke's story of the omission mixing up with it however at the end the question of religious toleration. Then later on he alludes to the clause as if instead of being an omission it had been added. Thus on