"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty.

"The humble Petition of the Freemen, Freeholders, and In"habitants of the City of Dublin.

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,

"PERMIT us, your loyal and dutiful sub"jects, with every sentiment of duty and attachment to your "majesty's person, family, and government, to approach the "throne with the greatest respect and humility, to lay a national "grievance of the highest importance to your crown and dignity, "and to the liberties and properties of your people of Ireland, "at your majesty's feet.

"The grievance your distressed subjects thus humbly pre"sume to lay before your majesty, is the present illegal and "inadequate representation of the people of this kingdom in "parliament; illegal, because the returns of members for bo"roughs are not agreeable to the charters granted for that 66 purpose by the crown; and inadequate, because there are as many members returned for each of those boroughs, by a "few voters, as are returned for any county or city in this king"dom.

"Born in a country where your petitioners, from their ear"liest infancy, were taught to believe the laws for their govern"ment passed through a House of Commons elected by the

people, they conceived their liberties founded on the most "firm basis; but finding laws passed, inimical as well to your "majesty's crown as their rights (which are inseparable), they "were led into a minute enquiry of the cause, and discovering "the same to proceed from the present insufficient mode of "representation, and the long duration of parliament, which "render even the few members, who are constitutionally elected, << nearly independent of their constituents, they now most hum"bly beg leave to inform your majesty, that men thus elected "cease to have any weight with your people.

"It is to the grand cause of aristocratic influence (jealous, as "all inordinate power must be, of whatever may tend to shake "its establishment), and to the misrepresentations which have "been transmitted to your majesty of your faithful subjects "of Ireland, that we attribute many arbitrary and alarming pro"ceedings in the last session of our parliament.

"A bill for the more equal representation of the people "(the desire of millions of your faithful subjects), has been "refused even a discussion in our parliament.

"Protection has been denied to our infant trade and manu"factures, which England thinks necessary to the maturity and "vigour of hers.

"A violent attack has been made on the liberty of the press; "that supplement to the laws, and palladium of liberty, a terror "only to tyrants, and apostates.

Alarming restrictions on the commercial and friendly com"munications of your majesty's subjects, have been imposed by "the Post Office Act.

"A general system of prodigality seems to have been adopted "for the purpose of burdening our trade, and damping all spirit "of industry: and emigrations consequently encouraged, are "now encreasing to an alarming degree.

"A manifest infringement has been made on the ancient and "sacred charter of the capital of this realm; and instead of the "constitutional trial by jury, a novel tribunal instituted, from "whose sentence there lies no appeal.

"It is with infinite concern we are obliged to add, that your "majesty's ministers in this kingdom have assisted in all the "measures, of which we thus humbly complain; a circumstance "the more extraordinary, as your majesty has lately thought it "necessary to appeal to the British electors at large, against "the power of an aristocracy, and as your majesty's first minis"ter in England has virtuously declared himself friendly to the "principal measure, which has been here rejected (we mean a more equal representation of the people) convinced, that an "overbearing aristocracy is not less hostile to the liberties of "the subject, than to the prerogative of the crown.

"We farther intreat your majesty's permission to condemn "that remnant of the penal code of laws, which still oppresses "our Roman Catholic fellow subjects; laws which tend to "prohibit education and liberality, restrain certain privileges, "and to proscribe industry, love of liberty, and patriotism.

"Deeply affected by these national calamities, we, your ma"jesty's faithful and loyal subjects, the citizens of Dublin, do "therefore most humbly beg leave to supplicate your majesty, "that you will be graciously pleased to exercise your royal "inclination to adopt with decision and effect, whatever your "majesty shall collect to be the sense of the people.

"That your majesty may enjoy every felicity through a long "and glorious reign over loyal and happy subjects, and that your "descendants may inherit your several dominions till time "shall be no more, is and always will be our sincere and fervent 66 prayer.

66

This petition was presented to the lord lieutenant by the high sheriffs, with an address to his excellency requesting it "might be transmitted; to which they received the following

"AT the same time that I comply with your request, in transmitting to his majesty a paper signed "by you, entitled A Petition of the Freemen, Freeholders and "Inhabitants of the City of Dublin, I shall not fail to convey "my entire disapprobation of it, as casting unjust reflections "upon the laws and parliament of Ireland, and tending to weaken "the authority of both."

These proceedings of the city of Dublin were seconded by other parts of the kingdom; but the whole was frustrated by the interposition of government, and prosecutions by information, &c. were commenced against different persons, by whom such aggregate meetings had been assembled. The high sheriff of the county of Dublin (then Henry Stevens Reilly, Esq.) was sentenced to fine and imprisonment by the Court of King's Bench; however, after a few days' confinement, he was libe rated, and the fine reduced on acknowledging his error, and making a public apology in that court.

It may be seen, that the repeated defeats of the advocates for reform in parliament had not abated their ardour in the pursuit of their favourite object. In despair of any deliberate co-operation from parliament, they had confidently turned their applica tions to the quarter, from whence experience had taught them to look for effectual redress. As government had not hitherto ventured to question the legality of the volunteer associations, the more thinking part of them were astonished and discon tented at the strong disapprobation of their conduct conveyed in the lord lieutenant's answer. Although the resolutions and addresses of the aggregate meeting were strongly, and by some thought intemperately expressed, they were notwithstanding the result of much consideration and temperate deliberation. Such however was the credulous enthusiasm of the

Whilst the business of equal representation was in agitation at a meeting of the convention in Dublin, a pretended letter was produced from Lord Ken. mare, purporting to convey the general sentiments of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in which they were made to express their perfect satisfaction with what had been already done for them, and that they desired no more than peaceably to enjoy the privileges they had obtained. But though this letter were publicly disavowed, both by the respectable person, from whom it was said to have come, and by a general assembly of the committee of the Irish Catholics, who acknowledged themselves to have too great a resemblance to the rest of their species to be desirous of opposing any thing that tended to

majority of them in the cause of reform, that even after the dispiriting and angry answer of the lord lieutenant, they could not be persuaded, that either his grace or his former zealous colleague, Mr. Pitt, had receded from, dropped or renounced the reforming principle they had lately avowed with so much ardour. Accordingly, on the 8th of July, a petition to the king was conveyed to Mr. Pitt, by the inhabitants of Belfast, nearly of the same tenor with that of the citizens of Dublin. In the month of September, Mr. Pitt informed them, in his answer, "That " he had undoubtedly been, and still continued, a zealous friend "to a reform in parliament, but that he must beg leave to say, "that he had been so on grounds very different from those "adopted in their petition. That what was there proposed, "he considered as tending to produce still greater evils than "any of those, which the friends of reform were desirous to "remedy."

The cause of reform received about this time a more fatal blow from the disunion, which broke out amongst the volun⚫teers themselves, on the subject of admitting the Roman Catholics to the rights of election. In an address presented by the Ulster corps to their general, the Earl of Charlemont, after some strong expressions of their detestation of aristocratic tyranny, they hinted at the necessity of calling in the aid of the Catholics, as the most just as well as effectual means of opposing it with success. In answer to this address, the Earl of Charlemont, lamented that, for the first time, he felt himself obliged to differ from them in sentiment. He was free from every illiberal prejudice against the Catholics, and full of goodwill towards that very respectable body, but he could not refrain from the most ardent entreaties, that they would desist from a pursuit, that would fatally clog and impede the prosecution of their favourite purpose.

As this nobleman was highly and deservedly respected, his opinion was eagerly embraced, both by the timid, whose apprehensions were alarmed at the bold extent of the project, and by a great number whose prejudices against the Catholics appear to have been suspended from conveniency or fashion though never conquered by principle. In the month of October, the thanks of the corporation of the city of Dublin were voted him for his conduct on that occasion.

The meeting of a national congress was a measure of too alarming a nature, not to attract the most serious attention of

their relief, and that they should receive with gratitude any indulgence the legislature should be willing to grant them, yet, in the plan of reform digested at that meeting, they were left precisely in the same situation as before.

government; and it appears to have been their resolution to take the most vigorous steps for preventing it if possible. A few days previous to that which was fixed for the election of delegates for the city of Dublin, the attorney general addressed a letter to the sheriffs, expressing his very great surprise at having read a summons signed by them calling a meeting for the purpose in question. He observed, that by this proceeding, they had been guilty of a most outrageous breach of their duty; and that if they proceeded, they would be responsible to the laws of their country, and he should hold himself bounden to prosecute them in the Court of King's Bench, for a conduct, which he considered so highly criminal, that he could not overlook it. These threats succeeded so far as to intimidate the sheriffs from attending the meeting in their official capacity; but the meeting was nevertheless holden, delegates were chosen; and in revenge for the attorney's letter, several strong resolutions were agreed to, relative to the right of assembling themselves for the redress of grievances. Government having once set their faces against the election and assembling of delegates, from denouncing threats, they proceeded to punishments.

Mr. Riley, high sheriff for the county of Dublin, in conse quence of his having called together, and presided at an assembly of freeholders, who met on the 19th of August, 1784, for the purpose of choosing and instructing their delegates, was the first object of ministerial prosecution. The attorney general proceeded against him by attachment from the court of King's Bench. The assembly, and the resolutions they came to on that occasion, signed by Mr. Riley, in his character of sheriff for the county, were both declared to be illegal, and Mr. Riley was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of five marks, (31. 6s. 8d.) and to be imprisoned one week.

This mode of legal process, except for the purpose of bringing persons before the court, to receive the sentence of such court for contempt of, and disobedience to its orders and directions, has so seldom been resorted to, that even the legality of the process itself, on any other ground, had remained a matter 'of general doubt and uncertainty.

In the present case it met with much less opposition than might have been expected. Clamours without doors, and debates within, on the subject, there certainly were, but both too feeble and ill-concerted to promise any success. The new division of the volunteers into parties, took off the general attention to this attack upon the use of juries, which, in any other moment, would not have been so tamely tolerated. Of such import is it, when overstrong measures are to be attempted, to prepare the public for the reception of them by internal disunion or alarm. Government did not confine their prosecutions to