Page:Confiscation in Irish history.djvu/236

 page 250 he speaks of the "addition made in the second article of the civil treaty of Limerick."

But it is Froude who gives the most extraordinary account of this transaction. According to him, William's express statement in his declaration of February, 1692, that the words had been accidentally omitted is false: the omission had been a deliberate one on the part of the Lords Justices who had arrived before Limerick between the settlement of the original draft on September 28th and the actual signature of the Treaty on October 3rd. Further on he speaks of the "extended form" in which the King had ratified the articles, and finally treats what at first he puts forward as a hypothesis as if it was a fully established truth, for he actually speaks "of the features which had been surreptitiously introduced into them (the articles)."

He gives no real reason for such extraordinary behaviour on William's part; nor does he explain why the Lords Justices who, according to him, had deliberately omitted the words, afterwards declared that the omission was due to an accident. We can test the reliability of Froude's theories on one point, and on that it decisively breaks down. He says "The estates of those who were absent, and yet were compromised in the insurrection, were in the counties thus carefully particularized, and thus it might be said that nearly every Catholic of consequence, with a disposition to be dangerous, would be covered by the broad vagueness of the word 'Protection.'"