buried even the ruins of every establishment, religious and political, and from whose womb has sprung that colossal despotism which now frowns upon mankind. What has become of that gallant Nobility? where are the pious Prelates of that ancient kingdom? one by one, and crowd by crowd, they have fallen upon the scaffold, or perished in insurrection. Some-less fortunatedrag out a mendicant exile in foreign lands; and others, condemned to a harder fate, have taken refuge in a Tyrant's Court, and are expiating the patriotism of their early lives, by the servility of their latter days,

My Lords, and Gentlemen, of the Jury-I have digressed involuntarily, I hope not irrelevantly, from the argument, upon the law of this case, to the consideration of the policy of the statute. It was necessary, for nothing has been more misunderstood; it has been foolishly and wickedly asserted, that this statute and these prosecutions have been levelled at the Roman Catholic cause the charge is false; if this act were violated by any other class of men in the state, whether Protestants, Presbyterians or others; I know the fairness and the impartiality, of my Learned and Right Honourable Friend to be such, that the religion which they professed would never have shielded them from prosecution. It has been clamorously urged, that the Government has, declared war against the subjects' right

of petitioning, which Mr. Burrowes has insisted is illimitable, and, like the freedom of the press, not subject to previous restraint, and only controulable for subsequent excess; this is a most mistaken view of the Constitution: there is no such principle known to our Constitution as those illimitable rights; our Constitution exists by its restraints, its controuls, its checks and balances. The Royal Prerogative is defined within a rigid boundary; the privileges of the Nobles are ascertained by jealous limitations, and, if the rights of the people were not circumscribed, woe be to the people, and woe to that Constitution, which has been this day so eulogized, and so much misrepresented; the state would be disorganized, the democratic part would preponderate, and anarchy would be the consequence. The contrary is new doctrine, the growth of modern and licentious times-such was not the opinion of my Lord SOMERS, and the great men, the Whigs of his day, who, in the Bill of Rights, laid the corner-stone of the Constitution in King William's reign. In that second Magna Charta they asserted and established this right of petition, as the birth-right of Englishmen; but they did not venture to establish it, except as subject to the restrictions imposed on it by the statute of Charles II. Your Lordships know, that this has been decided by the highest authority,-that when, upon the trial of Lord George Gordon, another opinion was contended for at the bar,

all the Judges unanimously declared that such was the law. That law was never enacted here, but the misfortunes of our country have made another and a different restriction of the right to petition necessary. Those laws speak a common principle, though a different language. In England, the people are told, that even the inestimable privilege to petition shall not be a pre-. text for a mob; and in Ireland they must be told, that it shall not be a pretext for a convention. No rational man will say, that for the fair and legitimate purpose of petitioning the Parliament, a convention of three estates, consisting of nearly six hundred persons, sitting in a public theatre, without limit or controul, can be necessary; the public peace forbids such an association, and the law emphatically has declared, that there shall be but one Parliament in the country. I repeat it, it is new and unconstitutional doctrine to talk of the unrestrained rights of the people. What is that most precious right of the people of these countries, which the Catholic Committee is about to usurp? The right of representation ! That which distinguishes us from all the nations of the earth! Is it unrestrained, and, until the announcing of this Catholic Committee, was it ever uncontrouled? The rights and qualifications of electors are measured by property, situation and independence. The freeholders of the country alone can exercise them; and some classes are excluded, on account of their supposed depend

ence. The title to be an elector must be ascer tained by registry, and identified by record. The capacity to be elected is confined within necessary restrictions; the law of election is complicated, and nice, and a particular tribunal is constituted to administer it. The King's writ issues to the public officer, and, under the heaviest responsibilities, he obeys and executes it. When the senate is convened, the members are under the controul of their speaker. Their very privilege of speech is definite, and their duration depends upon the King, who can prorogue or dissolve them. Such is the utmost right of representation, which the freest constitution upon earth allows to the people; and, if the popular part of that constitution were not thus restrained, it would degenerate into wild democracy and fatal anarchy. Compare this right of representation with that claimed by the Catholic Committee, and, in the contrast, behold the wisdom of the Convention Act, and the necessity of these prosecutions. See what is the constitution of those self-created Parliaments, which that statute denounces as illegal, and which this prosecution is instituted to put down. What is their law of election? what is their qualification of freeholders? what is their description of candidates? I assert not too much, when I assert, if the legitimate Parliament of the realm were to be assembled, as this Committee has been, that the constitution would not survive the first election. What

is their claim to this monstrous assumption of power? It grows actually out of their numbers, and the Catholics assert it, because they are four or five millions of people. What then are for our five millions to elect? Whose writ summonses them?-what officer in each county is to hold the election?-who is to decide upon the votes?who is to identify the successful candidate? Every man of the four millions is qualified to be an elector or a representative; and in the county of Meath, my Lord Fingall, in the exercise of either character, might be jostled by a beggar or a rebel, claiming a superior qualification. Can it be the Constitution, or the Law, that what is denied to the Parliament, shall be allowed to a Committee, and that all the evils of democracy shall be let loose upon the land; universal suffrage, promiscuous eligibility, and indiscriminate representation.? But suppose this extraordinary meeting to assemble, who is to control them if they run riot? Who is their Speaker? Who is their Serjeant at Arms? Who will have the authority-if any one has the courage--to check licentious and disaffected declamation? Who is the man, of any rank, that would have spirit or power to interrupt or rebuke a factious orator? which of the loyal men in that assembly would venture to chide an inflammatory harangue, offensive to his feelings and odious to his principles?—If, in such an assembly, a rash young man, inflamed by debate, should loudly assert, that the

F