The Abbé O’Connor fays, in the life of his grandfather Charles O’Connor, the Irifh antiquary, page 330, “that he, doctor Curry, and Mr. Wyfe of Waterford, firft thought of eftablifhing a Roman catholick committee in the city of Dublin, in the year 1757.”

“The firft meeting was held at the Globe coffee-houfe, in Effex-ftreet, and only feven gentlemen attended; Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Wyfe of Waterford, doctor Curry, doctor Jennings, Anthony Mc. Dermott, Mr. James Reynolds of Afh-ftreet, and another gentleman, whofe name I could not find among the original letters now in my poffeffion.”

Their numbers foon increafed, and they affembled and determined with the greateft fecrefy on the beft and moft likely means of procuring a reftoration of thofe privileges which they had been formerly deprived of.

They, at fome period which I cannot afcertain, affimilated to the confederate catholicks, affembled at Kilkenny in the year 1641; for members, duly elected and returned by towns and diftricts, in almoft every part of the kingdom, fat in it; gentlemen of landed eftate had a right to a feat there; and they foon began to regulate their proceedings according to the form and folemnity of parliament.

Thefe particulars are fully proved by the following refolution, which they entered into the fifteenth day of November, 1783: “Sir Patrick Bellew, in the chair.

“Refolved, That we feel ourfelves particularly called upon to declate, that this committee confifts of every Roman catholick nobleman and gentleman of landed property, and of other gentlemen, chofen by their fellow-fubjects of that perfuafion in Dublin, and other principal parts of the kingdom.”

“Refolved, That thus conftituted, we have, for feveral years paft, been the medium through which the voice of the Roman catholicks of Ireland has been conveyed, and the only one competent thereto.”

“At a feffion held by them on the tenth of February, 1791, ftyled a meeting of the general committee of the Roman catholicks of Ireland, they refolved. That the feveral papers now read, containing refolutions and inftructions from this city, and from the principal cities and towns of Ireland, be referred to a committee of eight, who fhall report thereon to this committee, on Friday the eighteenth inftant.”

They affembled again on the eighteenth of February, the earl of Fingal in the chair, when the report was received, and the committee of eight produced a petition, which was to have been presented to parliament, praying a repeal of fome of the reftrictive laws; but after different interviews with Mr. Hobart, the lord lieutenant’s fecretary, it was refolved not to prefent it that feffion.

In a report, made the eighteenth of April, 1791, by the committee of eight, after ftating the interviews and difcufllons which they had held with the lords Fingal and Kenmare, and Mr. Hobart, they caft fevere cenfures on thofe noble lords, as if they had, by their conduct, thrown obftacles in the way of prefenting the petition, which, however, lord Kenmare prefented to the lord lieutenant, on the twenty-feventh of December, 1791, as the addrefs of the Roman catholicks of Ireland, and which contained ftrong expreffions of loyalty, and of attachment to the conftitution.

They refolve in it, to apply to parliament in the next feffion, for a further repeal of the reftirictive laws; and they fay, that they do not prefume to point out the meafure or extent to which fuch repeal fhould be carried, but leave it to the wifdom and difcretion of parliament, confiding in their liberality and benevolence.

It breathed that fpirit of mildnefs and moderation which appeared in all their proceedings, while they were regulated by the nobility and gentry of the Roman catholick perfuafion.

It was figned by the lords Fingal, Gormanftown, Kenmare, doctor Troy, titular archbifhop of Dublin, and by moft of the landholders and refspectable gentlemen of their perfuafion in the kingdom.

On the fixth of January, 1792, the general committee of the Roman catholicks in Dublin, publifhed refolutions condemning the addrefs prefented by lord Kenmare on the twenty-feventh of December, 1791, as furreptitioufly obtained; and not containing the real fenfe of the Catholick body, and they refolved to addrefs the lord lieutenant, to fignify to his

majefty their reafons for withdrawing their fignatures from faid addrefs. They refolved, that lord Kenmare had entirely forfeited their confidence, by his late conduct in procuring, by his own exertions, and thofe of his emiftaries, certain fervile and infidious addreffes, calculated to divide the catholicks of Ireland, and eventually to defeat their juft applications for relief from the grievous oppreffions under which they laboured. They alfo ftruck out his name from the lift of the committee of eight.

The turbulent leaders of that affembly were very much enraged againft Jiis lordlhip, becaufe he had prefented a loyal addrefs in the name of the Roman catholicks of the county of Kerry, containing expreffions of concern, that certain inflammatory writings had appeared, and that affociations had been attempted to be formed, which might poffibly fow the feeds of difcontent among the lower claffes of their perfuafion.*
Parochial meetings were held in different parts of the kingdom, in which addreffes were voted to the general committee, refledting on the lords Fingal and Kenmare, and recommending their expulfion.

The Catholick fociety, compofed of fome difcontented members of the Catholick committee, feceded from them in the year 1791, and continued to act as a feparate body.
They announced that their object was, to obtain a repeal of the popery laws; they invited their fellow-fufferers throughout the kingdom to unite with them for that purpofe; and they aflerted, that it is the intereft of every man in the kingdom, that the entire fhould be aboUfhed.

The lords Fingal and Kenmare, and fir Patrick Bellew, were at the head of the committee, till the beginning of the year 1792, when they, and above fixty refpectable Roman catholick gentlemen, difgufted and alarmed at their intemperate proceedings, feceded.

Some of its demagogues, who had revolutionary defigns, fearing that the moderation and loyalty of thefe noblemen and gentlemen would check them in their furious career, made the committee fo unpleafant to them, that they prudently refolved on retiring from it. Lord Fingal was voted out of the chair, in rather a tumultuous manner, and Thomas Braughall

* Such feditious publications frequently appeared at that timein the publick prints, and affociations were formed in many parts of the kingdom, in order to agitate the popifh multitude.

was voted into it; on which his lordfhip faid, “Sir, I wifh you luck with it.”
I have been affured, that lord Fingal declared, foon after this event, that he fhould be very forry to fee the members of his church put on an equal footing with thofe of the eftablifhed religion.

A writer of their own perfuafion, doctor Mc. Kenna, made the following ftrictures on their intemperate conduct at that time, in which he depicted the committee as it then flood: “If ever there fhould arife among us a ridiculous cabal of men, ambitious of rule, without abilities to regulate, who, actuated by vanity and jealoufy, will endeavour to eftrange from our caufe the men of rank, and difguft its natural leaders, and difcountenance men of letters, its natural auxiliaries; fuch perfons may mean well, but their good intentions will only retard, not avert, what they well deferve, the execration of the body, whofe opinions they caricature, and whofe intereft they injure.”

“I am obliged reludantly to exprefs, (what the entire nation muft perceive,) that the few gentlemen of the metropolis, the fub-committee of catholicks, who have hitherto affumed the direction of bufinefs, ftand in need of coadjutors. I queftion their prudence, not their zeal, not their intentions; but their reflection, forefight, and political fagacity. It is time the caufe of a great people fhould affume the appearance of fyftem. For the laft ten months it has fluduated before the publick in the hands of unfkilful managers, without even the dignity of fleadinefs, advancing and retreating, afferting and retrading, with the giddinefs of fchool boys, and the random of a game of nine pins.”

The proceedings of the committee were then governed by Edward Byrne, John Keogh, Randal Mc. Donnell, Thomas Braughall, John Sweetman, and Richard Mc. Cormick. They had three fecretaries, the two latter and Theobald Wolfe Tone, who turned out to be notorious traitors, and whofe characters I fhall defcribe in the fequel.

The claims of the committee were moderate as yet, compared to thofe which they made a few months after; for at a meeting held the fourth of February, 1792, Edward Byrne in the chair, they declared that they expected no more than,

1ft, Admiffion to the profeffion and practice of the law.
2d, Capacity to ferve on county magiftracies.

3d, A right to be fummoned and ferve on grand and petit juries.
4th, A right of voting in counties only, for proteftant members of parliament, in fuch a manner however as that a Roman catholick freeholder fhould not vote, unlefs he either rents or cultivates a farm of £20 per annum, in addition to his 40s. freehold, or that he fhall be in poffeffion of a freehold of £20 a year.

They faid, that they thus publifh their expectations, in vindication of themfelves; as their enemies, to injure them, affert that they expect more.

In the beginning of the year 1792, there was a correfpondence between Sinclare Kelburn, a prefbyterian minifter at Belfaft, as chairman of a town meeting of its republican inhabitants, held in a meeting-houfe, and Edward Byrne, as chairman of the Roman catholick committee, at that time fitting in Dublin.

The fudden union and fraternity of two fects, who were formerly as hoftile to each other as they were to the ftate, muft have had a questionable appearance in the eyes of every perfon interefted in its prefervation.*

Kelburn was an active demagogue at Belfaft, the mafs of whofe inhabitants are prefbyterians; and his conduct as an agitator was fo flagrant, that government found themfelves under an indifpenfable neceffity of having him committed on charges of a ferious nature, in the year 1797.

This man, as chairman of the town meeting at Belfaft, wrote to Edward Byrne, then at the head of the Catholick committee, to fend him a declaration of the religious tenets of Roman catholicks, that he might read and explain them to the members of the town meeting, ufually held in his meeting-houfe.

The leaders of the confpiracy for fubverting the conftitution, well knowing the antipathy which had always exifted between the prefbyterians and papifts, and that they could not indulge the moft diftant hope of effecting a revolution without the concurrence of the former, ufed their moft ftrenuous exertions to reconcile and unite the two orders, who were well inclined individually to fubvert the conftitution, and they began with the factious demagogues of Belfaft, the focus of republicanifm, as they had very great influence over the prefbyterians of the north.

* This flirtation between John and Peter, began during the American war, as I before obferved.

Edward Byrne having affembled the leading Roman catholicks of Dublin on the twenty-third of March, 1792, they framed a declaration of their tenets, which their chairman forwarded to Kelburn, and he read it in his meeting-houfe to his levelling sectaries, who expreffed their approbation of it by acclamation.

This declaration was figned by doctor Troy, titular archbifhop of Dublin, Edward Byrne, and Richard Mc. Cormick.*

In the rebellion which broke out in the year 1798, the Romanifts violated every principle which they pretended to maintain in it, and followed and reduced to practice the old deleterious doctrines which they affetled to renounce.

The popifh inhabitants of Belfaft and its vicinity, in imitation of thofe in Dublin, affembled on the fixth of April, 1792, James Mooney in the chair, adopted their declaration, and fent it to Edward Byrne, Theobald Wolfe Tone, and Todd Jones. Tone, the fecretary and agent of the Catholick committee, was detected in a confpiracy with the reverend Mr. Jackfon, in the year 1794, for bringing the French into Ireland; but was permitted, through the miftaken lenity of government, to tranfport himfelf, and even obtained a fum of money for that purpofe.
He was afterwards taken by fir John B. Warren, in a French fquadron, on the northern coaft of Ireland, on the twelfth of October, 1798, being attached as an officer to a body of French troops, who were coming to invade Ireland. He was tried and convicted of high treafon; but put a period to his exiftence before the fentence of the court could be executed.

Mr. Jones, a member of parliament, was a fanguine advocate for the Romanifts in the houfe of commons, fo early as the year 1792; he accufed them afterwards in the Belfaft News-letter, of having withheld a confiderable portion of the money which they had flipulated to pay him.†

* Tranfported for being a traitor.
† It is not improbable that they had many hired agents in a great affembly, from the intemperate zeal which fome gentlemen shewed in their caufe. It is well known, that the Romanifts often levied money on every individual of their order; and when fome poor people in the province of Munfter complained to me of the fums which were extorted from them. Talked them, to what purpofe it was to be applied? and many of them iaformed me, they were told that it was to bribe the parliament.

When the Roman Catholick committee affembled on the twenty-third of March, 1792, to frame a declaration of their tenets, a debate took place, which shewed the defigns and the rafhnefs of that body.

A Mr. O’Sullivan faid, “That they did not lament the abfence of the landholders, nor did they wifh for their prefence, till they had repented of their political fins. If they were prefent, the affembly would be contaminated by a fet of felf-interefted hypocrites, who preferred their private advantage to the good of the community to which they belonged; hypocrites, who had not courage to act right, and who were afraid to fpeak the truth.”

Many grofs untruths were uttered there, to impofe on the publick, and to inflame the popifh multitude.
John Keogh, who had chief fway in the committee, and guided all their movements, faid, that a gentleman of high rank told him a few days before, that he was obliged, with great regret, to tranfport whole villages,* to prevent his lofing his election: Now I will take upon me to fay, that no inflance can be proved of a papift being deprived of his farm, for the purpofe of fubftituting a proteftant.

Mr. Mc. Laughlin faid, “By this declaration, fanftioned by our moft refpectable prelate, will our proteftant brethren be refcued from fears and fuperstitious prejudices, which, however ill-founded, muft have made too deep an impreffion on their minds, as having imbibed them from their earlieft education.”

In the month of February, 1792, a petition was prefented to the houfe of commons, on behalf of the Roman catholicks, ftating, that they expected no other extenfion of their privileges, than what was announced by their committee on the fourth of February. It was conceived in fuch difrefpectful and indecorous terms, that the gentleman who prefented it requefled permiffion to withdraw it.

The committee were fo much ashamed of it, that they attempted to fubftitute another petition, more decent and temperate, in its place, which they had printed in many newfpapers and magazines; but the original was publifhed in the Northern Star of the twenty-eighth of April, 1792.

Another petition, prefented foon after, was rejected. The numbers for its rejection were 202, for receiving it 25.

* Meaning of Roman catholicks.

The honourable Denis Browne, who gave it the warmeft fupport, expatiated largely on the loyalty and the peaceable deportment of the Roman catholicks, whom he and his family vindicated and panegyrized on all occafions; but in the rebellion which broke out in the year 1798, they experienced an. extraordinary degree of ingratitude from them.

On the third of March, 1792, at a poft affembly held in Dublin, confifting of the lord mayor, the fheriffs, commons, and citizens, they voted their thanks to the 202 members of the houfe of commons, who rejected the petition of the Roman catholicks, for obtaining the eleftive franchife.

On the twelfth of the fame month, the Catholick fociety, Theobald Mc. Kenna in the chair, Thomas Braughall, fecretary, condemned, in rather fevere language, the refolutions of the poft affembly; and thanked the minority in parliament, who fupported their claims. Not only the grand juries at the fubfequent affizes, but the Proteftant and Roman catholick inhabitants of many counties and towns affembled, and followed their example; the former, thanking the majority in parliament, and declaring their determination to maintain the conftitution as it then ftood; the latter, the minority, and refolving that they will perfevere in afferting their claims; by which the paffions of both parties were very much inflamed.

About the fame time, parochial meetings were held in different parts of the kingdom, where the loweft orders of Roman catholicks affembled, debated on their rights, cenfured the conduct of the grand juries, and applauded that of their delegates in the Catholick committee, which engendered univerfal difcontent and diifatisfaction among the popifh multitude.

The reader may form an opinion of the fpirit of commotion which their leaders endeavoured to excite among the popifh multitude, fo early as the month of January, 1792, when their warm and uniform advocate, fir Hercules Langrifh, faid, in the houfe of commons, “That, notwithftanding my prepoffeffions in favour of the Roman catholicks, I was checked for fome time in my ardour to ferve them, by reading of late a multitude of publications and paragraphs in the newfpapers, and other publick prints, circulated gratis with the utmoft induftry, purporting to convey the fentiments of the catholicks. — What was their import? — ‘they were exhortations to the people never to be fatisfied at any conceffion,

till the ftate itfelf was conceded: they were precautions againft publick tranquillity; they were invitations to diforder, and covenants of difcontent; they were oftentations of ftrength, rather than folicitations for favours; rather appeals to the powers of the people, than applications to the authority of the ftate; they involved the relief of the catholick, with the revolution of the government; and were diftertations for democracy, rather than arguments for toleration.”

At this time the Irifh Roman catholicks had more civil liberty than the moft favoured fubjects of any ftate in Europe, except England, and much more than the proteftant fubjects of any Roman catholick ftate.

A Calvinift teacher, if detected and convicted in certain provinces in France, was punifhed with death; and thofe who gave him a fupper or a bed, were fent to the gallies for life.

On the fourteenth of April, 1792, the general committee, Edward Byrne in the chair, Richard Mc. Cormick, fecretary, voted an addrefs of thanks to Mr. John Keogh,* which was to be prefented by a committee of five. They affert in it, “that his conduct, refolute without rafhnefs, and firm without obftinacy, has reftored the general committee to the fenfe and practice of their duties; and the Catholick community to the knowledge and affertion of their rights.”

In the feffion of parliament in 1792, the following privileges were granted to the Roman catholicks:
That, after the twenty-fourth of June, 1792, they may practife as barrifters and attornies; that proteftants and papifts may intermarry; that popifh fchool-mafters need not obtain licenfes from the ordinary to keep fchool; and all reftrictions as to foreign education were removed.

Thefe favours, which parliament granted with a good grace, were certainly obtained through the mediation of lord Kenmare; but they loaded him with opprobrium, fpurned at them, and refolved to fucceed by a fyftem of terror in the whole of their ambitious defigns.

At a poft affembly, confifting of the lord mayor, fheriffs, commons, and citizens of the city of Dublin, held the eleventh day of September, 1792, they condemned the object of Edward Byrne’s circular letter; and

* He has confiderable abilities, and was the moft ambitious and enterprifing member of the committtee; And, it is believed, advifed the expulfion of the nobility and gentry from it.

refolved, in fpirited refolutions, to maintain the conftitution in church and ftate. See them in Appendix, No. III.

The proteftants were encouraged to adopt this procedure, by the fpirited and determined manner with which the government rejected the demands of the papifts; and the affurances which they received from its leading members, that the Romanifts never fhould obtain any fhare of political power, induced them to fpeak out, and with firmnefs, by which the two sects were committed. Soon after, government having fwerved from their opinion, and conceded the whole of what they had peremptorily refufed, encouraged the Roman catholicks to rife in their demands, particularly becaufe they were thought to have been influenced by terror, as the defenders were at that time defolating many parts of the kingdom, and were terrifick in the environs of the capital. To this fyftem of terror, fucceeded by conceffion, we may in a great meafure impute the rebellion.

The general committee having got rid of the nobility and gentry of their perfuafion, refolved, by every means, however unwarrantable, to obtain a total repeal of the popery laws; and thinking that they might intimidate the government, by putting the mafs of the people in motion, Edward Byrne, by their order, iffued writs to every county, and to many towns and diftricts, defiring certain perfons therein to hold elections, and to choofe reprefentatives, who were to be returned forthwith to Dublin, for the purpofe of forming a convention; and he fays, in his circular letter, that their chairman had actually left Dublin, with an intention of going through a great part of Ireland to promote this defign.

The elections were to be held (according to the plan adopted by the republicans in France,) in the Roman catholick chapels in every diftrict.

He fays, in his circular letter, that frequent confultations were held, for the laudable purpofe of reuniting to the committee lord Fingal, and the other gentlemen who had withdrawn from it; and yet he fays, that the plan enclofed was fanftioned by lord Fingal, and thofe very gentlemen who had left the committee in the month of January preceding, by which he was guilty of a grofs inconfiftency.

We may conceive, how much the femibarbarous popifh rabble, tumultuoufly affembled in their refpective chapels, muft have been agitated by fuch a procedure.

The writs were obeyed, the elections were made with the utmoft celerity, the convention affembled, and began its feffion on the third of December, 1792, and was ridiculoufly called the Back-lane parliament; becaufe it fat in Tailors-hall in that ftreet.

As the Roman catholick committee refolved on the fifteenth of January, 1753, that the Roman catholicks of Ireland were fully and completely reprefented in that affembly, we fhould be inclined to think, that this new plan of election would have been unneceffary, and that it was brought about merely to put the popifh multitude into a ftate of commotion, to alarm and overawe the government.

A member of the Back-lane parliament, who quitted it on account of its rafh and intemperate proceedings, affured me, that on their firft meeting they refolved, not to petition parliament as Roman catholicks, but as Irifhmen. This was done with a view of inducing the prefbyterians to unite with them; by infinuating, that they had no particular object on the ground of religion, but were actuated by a pure and difinterefted love of liberty.
The proteftants were fo much alarmed at this bold and extraordinary procedure of Edward Byrne, in iffuing writs for electing a popifh convention, that the grand juries, at the fummer affizes of 1792, entered into ftrong refolutions, condemning it in fevere terms; and declaring, that they would maintain the conftitution, as it then flood, againft all hoftile attacks, particularly againft the dangerous effects of democratic principles; and fome of them vindicated the lords Fingal and Kenmare, and the refpectable Roman catholick gentlemen who had feceded from the committee, from the afperfions which had been caft on them in the publick prints.

The latter end of the year 1792, and the beginning of the year 1793, the popifh houfekeepers in many parifhes affembled, and voted addreffes to the general committee, in which they vilified thefe noblemen and gentlemen, and ftrongly recommended the expulfion of lord Kenmare.

The Roman catholicks affembled in feveral counties, diftricts, and towns, defended Edward Byrne’s plan of election, and retorted with much acrimony on the refolutions of the proteftants. On the feventeenth of September, they fubmitted a cafe to two barrifters for their opinion, to know, whether the plan adopted by Edward Byrne, for fummoning a

popifh convention, was loyal and conftitutional? and they anfwered in the affirmative. Thefe opinions and anfwers were publifhed in the publick prints, in order to give confidence and courage to the demagogues of the party, at that time very active in many parts of the kingdom in agitating the people.

The Back-lane parliament continued to fit and debate for fome time, with the doors of the room in which they affembled, clofed; and they framed an addrefs to the king, containing an exaggerated ftatement of their grievances, which they forwarded by five delegates, fir Thomas French, Chriftopher Bellew, James E. Devereux, Edward Byrne, and John Keogh, efquires.

Having gone round by Scotland, attended by their fecretary Tone, a noted traitor, they met with a very kind and warm reception from the republican levellers of Belfaft, who regarded the object of their miffion as conducive to promote their wifhes of overturning the conftitution.

The following account of their arrival appeared in the Northern Star, a noted vehicle of treafon:
Belfaft, December 12th, 1792.

“At nine o’clock this morning, the delegates from the catholicks of Ireland, who were elected to prefent their petition to the king, arrived at the Donegal arms in this town, on their way (by Portpatrick) to London, Immediately on their arrival being known, a number of refpectable inhabitants waited on, and breakfafted with them. They remained here about two hours; and, on their departure, the populace, who had affembled in the interim, took the horfes from their coach, and having faftened ropes to it, dragged them throughout the town, quite over the long bridge on the road to Donaghadee; and then permitted the horfes to be put to, amidft the loudeft huzzas of “fuccefs attend you,” “union,” “equal laws,” and “down with the afcendancy.” The delegates politely returned thanks for this ftrong mark of affection; declared their determination to maintain that union which formed the ftrength of Ireland: and proceeded on their way, accompanied with three cheers.”

His majefty was pleafed, in confequence of the addrefs of the Roman catholicks, to recommend to parliament in his fpeech, in January, 1793, to take into ferious confideration the fituation of the Roman catholicks; and, in compliance with his majefty’s benevolent intentions, they repealed the whole of the reftrictive laws, except thofe which. excluded them from

fitting in parliament, and from about thirty great offices of ftate, which are immediately concerned in the confidential departments of the executive government.

We fhall find, in the fequel, that thefe very liberal conceffions by no means fatisfied the Roman catholicks.
The debate which took place in the houfe of commons, on the bill for granting thefe conceffions to the Roman catholicks, will remain a lafting monument of the depravity and frailty of human nature; for, though the defenders, a popifh banditti, encouraged by the Catholick committee, were committing murder and robbery at that very time in many parts of the kingdom, fome members praifed them for their fteady loyalty, their peaceable deportment, and refpect for the laws.*

The refolutions of a numerous body of diffenters, affembled at Crofarule, in the county of Cavan, on the third of February, 1793, throw an oblique cenfure on the inconfiftency of thefe gentlemen in parliament. They ftate and complain of “the enormities committed by the defenders, in plundering the houfes of proteftants of arms, and other property, as if they meant to compel the legiftature, by intimidation, to grant a relaxation of the popery laws, which they were on the point of conceding from motives of liberality.”

In moft parts of the country, the prefbyterians held the defenders in fuch abhorrence, and were fo unwilling to commit any outrages, that they often joined and affifted the king’s troops, who, at different times, were wantonly attacked, when on their march, by this banditti. But the republicans of Belfaft laboured with unceafing fedulity, and at laft; with fuccefs, in corrupting great numbers of them.

On the twenty-fifth of April, 1793, the general committee of Roman catholicks affembled at Tailors-hall, and agreed to an addrefs of thanks to his majefty for the benefits they had received, to the lord lieutenant, and to both houfes of parliament; and, after tranfacting fome bufinefs, they refolved, that with pleafure and gratitude they obferved, that the houfe of commons had unanimoufly taken into confideration parliamentary reform; and they moft earneftly exhorted the catholicks of Ireland, to cooperate

* Though there iffued a proclamation on the thirteenth of February, againft the defenders who were defolating many counties, it is ftated in the preamble of the act of parliament for their relief, “that from their peaceable and loyal demeanour, it is fit that the reftraints and difabilities fhould be difcontinued.”

operate with their proteftant brethren to carry into effect a meafure fo effential to the freedom, happinefs and profperity of Ireland. After which, they diffolved themfelves.

They alluded to the debate which took place in the month of January, on a motion for an addrefs to his majefty, when the heads and reprefentatives of the principal families of the kingdom declared in the houfe of commons, in the moft unequivocal manner, their willingnefs to facrifice their parliamentary intereft and influence, in conforming to the wifhes of the people, for reforming the houfe of commons. Their weaknefs and pufillanimity on that occafion afforded peculiar pleafure to that intriguing body, the Catholick committee, as they hoped that it would lead to their favourite object, the eftablifhment of a republick.

The extraordinary inconfiftency of the Irifh parliament, in rejecting with indignant contempt the claims of the Roman catholicks in the year 1792, and the tamenefs with which they now conceded, much more than they had at that time demanded, joined to their fears and imbecility in expreffing their wishes to renounce their power and pre-eminence to gratify a democratick faction, muft convince every Irifhman of fpirit and common fenfe, that fuch an affembly, conftantly ofcillating between one extreme and another, and convulfed by party zeal, was incapable of promoting the peace and profperity of his native country; and that he mull depend for its accomplifhment on nothing but the firmnefs, the wifdom, and difintereftednefs of an Imperial parliament.

As exclufive falvation, of all the doctrines of the Romifh church, is the moft fatal to the peace and fecurity of fociety, doctor Duigenan, a gentleman of great fagacity, extenfive erudition and of diftinguifhed firmnefs and integrity of mind, propofed that a claufe of the following tenor fhould be inferted in an oath of allegiance, prefcribed by the law which was then paffing through the houfe of commons, for relief of the Roman catholicks: Nor do we believe, that any other fed of chrifhans are, of courfe, to be doomed to eternal damnation hereafter, and that they may not enter into a ftate of falvation, becaufe they happen to differ from us in religious tenets. But all their ecclefiafticks, and the leading members of the laity declared, that the fundamental principles of their religion rendered fuch an oath inadmiffible.

The reader may judge of the sincerity of the Roman catholick committee, from the following tranfaction:

It appears by a report of the fecret committee of the houfe of lords, publifhed in 1793, inftituted for the purpofe of inveftigating the origin and caufe of the fpirit of treafon and difaffection, which the defenders manifefted in many parts of the kingdom, that falutary meafures might be adopted to prevent the progrefs of it; that John Sweetman, fecretary of the Roman catholick committee in Dublin, wrote letters to a perfon in Dundalk, of the name of Coleman, of confiderable opulence, and of the Roman catholick perfuafion, relative to the defenders, numbers of whom were then imprifoned in that town; and in one of them, dated the ninth of Auguft, 1792,* he, in the name of the Roman catholick committee, directed enquiries to be made, touching the offences of which the culprits were accufed. By this report it appears, that the Roman catholick committee were warmly interefted about the defenders; and that the perfon to whom the letter was addreffed, did employ, at a confiderable expence, an agent and counfel, to act for feveral perfons, who were then in prifon under an accufation of being defenders.

They were well able to do fo; for in the years 1792 and 1793 they levied an immenfe fum of money on the members of their religion, in every part of the kingdom, which appears by a circular letter, dated the fifth of February, 1793, pubifhed in faid report of the houfe of lords, in which they fay, that the object is, the raifing a fund to defray the heavy and growing expences of the committee, in conducting the affairs of the catholicks of Ireland. See thefe letters. Appendix, No. IV.

It is obfervable, that in the letter of the ninth of Auguft, 1792, the name of one Nugent, a defender then in prifon, is mentioned.

The Roman catholicks of the city of Dublin, affembled in November, 1792, ftated in their declaration, that they never will forego the hopes of emancipation; that they defy the malice of invention to produce any one inftance of their having ever made any efforts in favour of a popifh king, or French connections, since they confented to a Revolution in 1691; and that their inclinations are not to fubvert any one eftablifhment. They admit, “that from the moment the proteftant began to make conceffions, the Roman catholick began to extend his claims; and in their addrefs prefented at St. James’s in January, 1793, they fpeak of their unvarying loyalty, peaceable demeanour, and fubmiffion to the laws, for one hundred years, and their determination to perfevere in the fame.”

* Report of fecret committee, Appendix, No. I. », 3.       †Ibid. [no ref. in text.]

At this time they enjoyed more extenfive privileges than the Roman catholick fubjects of any proteftant ftate in Europe, and by far more than proteftants living under any popifh government.

Why they rofe in their claims, fo moderate at firft, may be accounted for in the following manner:

Knowing that Mr. Edmund Burke, a warm favourer of popery, had in a high degree conciliated the efteem of our gracious fovereign, and the government of England, by his ingenious and energetic writings againft the extravagant theories and frantick proceedings of the French republicans; they refolved to employ his fon, an over-weening, petulant young man, to be their agent, in forwarding their pretenfions; hoping thereby, to enfure the weight and confideration of his father for that purpofe. They then fent one of their body to London, in September, 1791, to Mr. Richard Burke, who, through his father, rendered them the moft important fervices;* and foon after having gone to Ireland, he made a moft extenfive circuit there, and in the courfe of it, vifited many of the nobility and gentry, and endeavoured to conciliate them to fupport the claims of the Roman catholicks. As he was their hired agent, we are not to impute his conduct to difinterefted and generous motives; though we may infer that he had a predilection for popery, from the ftrong attachment which his father had to it, and becaufe his mother was a moft rigid papift. Though he did not attain the object of his miffion, he awakened the ambition of the Roman catholicks, and gave them the ftrongeft affurances, that a fteady perfeverance in their claims would finally produce a total repeal of the popery laws.

The fuccefs of the French on the continent, to whom the Irifh Roman catholicks were, on former occafions, very much attached, and the invitation of the former, to the fubjects of every nation in Europe, to rife againft their refpective governments, elevated their hopes, and filled them with expectations, that the parliament would be impelled by motives of fear, to grant what their policy and prudence might have refufed. To thefe caufes we may impute the fudden rife in their demands, and their condemnation and renunciation on the fixteenth of January, 1792, of the addrefs prefented by lord Kenmare, to the viceroy, on the twenty-feventh of December preceding.

* This was ftated by Mr. John Keogh in his fpeech.

It appears by the fpeech of Mr. John Keogh, in the debate of the Roman catholicks, affembled on the twenty-third of March, 1792, in Dublin, that there was an interior cabinet in the Catholick committee, with the fecrets of which the nobility and gentry had been unacquainted; for he calls them, who figned the loyal addrefs prefented by lord Kenmare, “fixty-eight dupes, many of whom were totally ignorant of the negotiation going on at the foot of the throne.”

Mr. Keogh faid, “That, from the negotiation in London, there was every reafon to expect, that though a great and vaft catalogue of reftrictions would be retained, yet fufficient would be removed, to afford protection to all the claffes of our people.”

“I now come to what is more pleafing; that is, to ftate my opinion, that the time is not remote, when we fhall meet to join with heart and voice, in the fincereft gratitude to parliament and to government. When that day arrives, and it will foon arrive, you will then prove your juft and unfeigned gratitude to your deliverers, to government, to the legiftature, to the illuftrious men who efpoufed your caufe in parliament, to the virtuous, patriotick, and enlightened citizens of Belfaft, the firft (let it never be forgotten) who came forward as a body to apply to parliament for our relief.”

From the confidence with which Mr. Keogh expreffed himfelf, we may infer, that he knew that their ambaffador in London had received fecret affurances from high authority that they would fucceed in their expectations; but it is to be lamented, that their attainment did not fatisfy them, and prevent their body from proceeding afterwards to defperate exceffes.

As a very large fum of money had been levied on the Roman catholicks, it is not improbable that their ambaffador, who repaired to London in the year 1791, applied, with the affiftance of Mr. Burke, a large portion of it to very good purpofes; for otherwife how can we account for the extraordinary and fudden change which took place in the opinion of the adminiftration of England?
Mr. Keogh faid in that debate, fhould we look to America, to France, to the Netherlands, to all Europe, and afk each other why it is that we, as faithful fubjects as any king in Europe can boaft of, are reduced to flavery.

The invitation of the Roman catholicks to the proteftants to fraternife with them, and to extend civil and religious liberty equally to both orders, reminds us of James II.’s reign; for that monarch announced, on his arrival in Ireland, that his chief care was to fatisfy the minds of his proteftant fubjects; and that the defence of their religion, their privileges and property, concerned equally his care with the recovery of his own rights; and the popifh parliament, which he affembled in 1689, paffed a law for a general liberty of confcience; though it is well known, and the act of attainder againft all proteftant landholders unquestionably proved, that they fecretly aimed at nothing lefs than a total extirpation of proteftants.