was directed was revived, and very generally practised in those counties."

"With a view to excite the resentment of the Catholics and to turn their resentment to the purposes of the party, fabricated and false tests were presented, as having been taken to exterminate Catholics, and were industriously disseminated by the emissaries of the treason throughout the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught Reports were frequently circulated amongst the ignorant of the Catholic persuasion, that large bodies of men were coming to put them to death. This fabrication, however extravagant, was one among the many wicked means by which the deluded peasantry were engaged the more readily in the treason."

"The measures thus adopted by the party' completely succeeded in detaching the minds of the lower classes from their usual habits and pursuits; insomuch, that, in the course of the autumn and winter 1797, the peasantry in the midland and southern counties were sworn and ripe for insurrection."

From this account of the progress of the treason in 1797, in the south of Ireland, the following inferences may be deduced:-1st, That the Catholics of Ireland were unconnected with the system of rebellion which had extended over the whole of the Protestant province of Ulster; 2dly, That the peasantry of the south were corrupted by emissaries sent amongst them by the leaders of the treason in the North, and not by the Catholic clergy or Catholic aristocracy; and, 3dly, That the organization of the south was not a distinct effort of a distinct body of people, but a measure subsidiary to the original organization of the Protestants of the North, conducted by the same party, and having the same object in contemplation.

Then it follows, that the leaders of the rebellion being the same in 1798 as they were in 1797; the object of it the same in 1798 as it was in 1797; the means for carrying it into effect in 1798 the same as the means for carrying it into effect in 1797, there can be no more grounds for calling it a Catholic rebellion in 1798, than there were for calling it a Catholic rebellion in 1797; and, therefore, as there were no grounds for affixing this character to it in 1797, neither are there any for calling it a Catholic rebellion in 1798. In direct contradiction, however, of such a conclusion, and of the statements of the secret committee, it has been asserted by those who are interested in calumniating the Catholic character, and believed by those who are ignorant of its true nature, that the rebellion of Ireland was a Catholic rebellion; that the designs of the Catholic body went to the massacre and destruction of every

The Protestant United Irishmen.

Protestant in Ireland; and that all their other plans were wholly subservient to that of establishing the Catholic religion.'

As to the conduct of the Catholic clergy of the county of Wexford, it is now well known, "that not one of them who had a flock, not one parish priest was implicated, or had any concern in fomenting, encouraging, or aiding the rebellion; nay, it is certain, that they abhorred, and detested, and shuddered at it as the most wicked, scandalous, and abominable event that they had ever witnessed."

2

The supposition that the establishment of the Catholic religion was one of the objects of this rebellion is proved to be unfounded, by the evidence of the principal leaders, Emmett and M'Nevin.

The following are their answers, given before the committees, to the question, " Whether or not they would set up the Catholic religion?"

M Nevin.- -"I would no more consent to that, than to the establishment of Mahometanism."

Emmett.-"I do not think the Catholics would wish to set up a Catholic establishment, even at the present day. Perhaps some old priests, who have long groaned under the penal laws, might wish for a retribution to themselves but I do not think the young priests wish for it; and I am convinced the laity would not submit to it; and that the objections to it will be every day gaining strength." Two circumstances more only remain to be taken notice of regarding the conduct of the Catholics as a body in this rebellion. One of them, the indisputable fact, that, of the twenty-four leaders of the rebellion who were banished to fort St. George, only four of them were Catholics, twelve were of the Church of England,

These are the propositions which Sir Richard Musgrave has labored to maintain. His work professes to do that which the secret committee of the House of Commons was appointed to do, namely, to give a faithful account of this rebellion. A discerning public will at once see to which authority they ought to give a preference. Sir Richard dedicated his first edition to Lord Cornwallis. Upon reading it, however, Lord Cornwallis directed his Secretary to write the following letter to him:

SIR,

Dublin, March 24, 1801.

I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to express to you his concern at its appearing, that your late publication of the History of the Rebellions of Ireland has been dedicated to him by permission. Had his Excellency been apprized of the contents and nature of the work, he would never have lent the sanction of his name to a book, which tends so strongly to revive the dreadful animosities which have so long distracted this country, and which it is the duty of every good subject to endeavor to compose. His Excellency, therefore, desires me to request, that, in any future edition of the book, the permission to dedicate it to him may be omitted.

I have, &c.

E. LITTLEHALES.

2 See Dr. Caulfield's Reply to Sir R. Musgrave, sold by Keating and Co. Duke-street,

and the remaining eight were Dissenters. Well indeed, then, might Mr. Pitt say, in the House of Commons, in 1805, whose opinion is the other circumstance alluded to, "I do not consider the late rebellion in Ireland to have been a Catholic rebellion.""

Facts, reason, and authority, therefore, it appears, all coincide in the condemnation of the calumny, which a few blind and mistaken men have had just talent enough to propagate amongst the ignorant and prejudiced. The magna vis veritatis will, however, prevail on this, as well as upon all other occasions, and sooner or later bring forward the unfortunate and much injured Catholics of Ireland to the view of their English fellow-subjects, as highly deserving of their confidence and their affection.

The next great event belonging to the Catholic question is the measure of union, not as having, in any way, altered the political condition of the Catholics in respect to the penal laws, but as a measure concerning which a compact was virtually entered into between them and the English Government. For though it is true, that no regular articles, like those of Limerick, can be produced to prove this compact, still there is circumstantial evidence of such a nature as is sufficient to bring conviction to every candid mind, that, on the one hand, the Catholics did agree to support the union, and, on the other, that the English Government, on their part, did indirectly agree to secure to them, in consideration of that support, the measure of emancipation.

This evidence is to be collected, 1st, From the speech of Mr. Pitt, on proposing the union articles to the House of Commons; 2dly, From the act of union; 3dly, From Mr. Pitt's speech, and the letters of Lord Cornwallis and him concerning the change of administration in 1801.

1st, Mr. Pitt's speech-"I am well aware," says Mr. Pitt, "that the subject of religious distinction is a dangerous and delicate topic, especially when applied to a country such as Ireland; the situation of which, in this respect, is different from every other. Where the established religion of the state is the same as the general religion of the empire, and where the property of the country is in the hands of a comparatively small number of persons professing that religion, while the religion of a great majority of the people is different, it is not easy to say, on general principles, what system of church establishment, in such a country, would be free from difficulty and inconvenience. By many I know it will be contended, that the religion professed by the majority of the people would, at least, be entitled to an equality of privileges. I have heard such an argument urged in this House; but those who apply it without

Debates on the Catholic petition, (sold by Cuthell and Martin,) p. 166,

qualification to the case of Ireland, forget, surely, the principles on which English interest and English connection has been established in that country, and its present legislature is formed. No man can say that, in the present state of things, and while Ireland remains a separate kingdom, full concessions could be made to the Catholics without endangering the state, and shaking the constitution to its centre."

Is not this as much as to say, that, after an incorporate union shall have taken place, these FULL CONCESSIONS could be made without endangering Ireland? Could these words be understood in any other way by the Catholics? and are they not an indirect offer, on the part of Mr. Pitt, to the Catholics to make these FULL CONCESSIONS, provided they would enable him to make them without endangering the state? But the language which he next employs is stronger and still more in point. He immediately proceeds, "On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon or how late it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are indisputable -1st. When the conduct of the Catholics shall be such as to make it safe for the Government to admit them to the participation of the privileges granted to those of the established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be favorable to such a measure; when those events take place, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an United Imperial Parliament, with much greater safety than it could be in a separate legislature. In the second place, I think it certain, that even for whatever period it may be thought necessary, after the union, to withhold from the Catholics the enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the Protestant legislature were no longer separate and local, but general and impartial."

The speech, from which the foregoing is extracted, was circulated gratis by Government, throughout all Ireland. It was considered by the Catholics as a tender of emancipation; it was anxiously read by all who could read; at the Castle it was explained, to those who sought for explanation, as an unequivocal offer of every concession; and, in the result, the Catholics opposed their own Parliament, and gave their support to Mr. Pitt; and, by the aid of this support, he was enabled to contend with a majority in the House of Commons, and to carry the measure.

We come now to the evidence to be collected from the Act of Union.

Many of the leading Catholics have not hesitated to declare, that the oath prescribed by this act, to qualify members of parliament to take their seats, was framed under an arrangement, that, VOL. XXI.

Pam.

NO. XLI.

I

immediately after the measure was passed, they were to enjoy the privilege of sitting in Parliament. The act runs thus: "That every one of the Lords and Commons of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and every member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, in the first and every succeeding Parliament shall, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths as now enjoined to be taken." Do not quibble with us," the Catholics say, "concerning terms and formalities; it was clearly understood between us, that if we co-operated to bring about the union, as we actually did, you would effect the emancipation. To give a coloring to this engagement, you inserted in the articles of union an intimation of a proposed change of the oaths in our favor when, behold! now you roundly tell us that this alteration never shall take place, and that we must make up our minds to wear our shackles till the end of time.”

The third head of evidence is Mr. Pitt's speech on explaining the cause of his resignation in 1801. "As to the merits," Mr. Pitt said, "of the question which led to my resignation, I am willing to submit them to the House. I and some of my colleagues in office, did feel it an incumbent duty upon us to propose a measure on the part of Government, which, under the circumstances of the union so happily effected between the two countries, we thought of great public importance, and necessary to complete the benefits likely to result from that measure; we felt this opinion so strongly, that, when we met with circumstances which rendered it impossible for us to propose it as a measure of Government, we felt it equally inconsistent with our duty and our honor any longer to remain a part of that Government. What may be the opinion of others, I know not, but I beg to have it understood to be a measure which, if I had remained in government, I must have proposed."

Why must Mr. Pitt have proposed this measure? To this question one answer alone can be given, because his honor, as a statesman, was substantially engaged to the Catholics, that, if they supported the union, he would propose emancipation.

We now come to the written communications which, at this time, were made to the Catholics by Mr. Pitt and Lord Cornwallis, and which were given by Lord Castlereagh to Dr. Troy :

Mr. Pitt to Lord Cornwallis,

"The leading part of his Majesty's Ministers finding insurmountable obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body, whilst in office, have felt it impossible to continue in administration under the inability to propose it with

Dr. Milner's Inquiry, p. 68.

2 Debret's Debates, 14, 161.