264 



IRELAND. 



Uinocy. and the members had declared their resolution not to 

 y ^" transgress the convention act, by any thing like dele- 

 gation ; the government of course did not interfere 

 with them. But it was alleged that the committee of 

 1810 acted upon very different principles: it called an 

 aggregate meeting of the Catholics, which came to the 

 resolution, that the committee should have the power to 

 manage, not merely the Catholic petition, but the Ca- 

 tholic affairs generally. A committee of grievances 

 was afterwards appointed, which met weekly, and imi- 

 tated all the forms of the House of Commons. Go- 

 vernment took the alarm, and even some of the most 

 respectable Catholics thought that the committee, by 

 proposing a delegation of ten members from each coun- 

 ty, had exceeded its powers. A circular letter from 

 Mr. Wellesley Pole, secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, 

 was addressed to the sheriffs, and the chief magistrates 

 of all the counties in Ireland ; they were required, in 

 pursuance of the convention ac^ to cause to be arrest- 

 ed, and committed to prison, unless bail shotdd be 

 given, all persons within their respective jurisdictions, 

 who might be guilty of having been in any way con- 

 cerned in issuing notices for such election or appoint- 

 ment ; or of having attended meetings for such pur- 

 pose. Before this letter was written, the opinions of the 

 Lord Chancellor, and the Attorney and Solicitor Ge- 

 neral had been taken ; and the letter itself had been 

 drawn up by the Attorney General in such a manner 

 as he hoped would bring closly before the eyes of the 

 Catholic committee the tendency of their proceedings 

 to violate the convention act. This letter was dated 

 Catholic the 13th of February 1811, and, on the 23d, two ma- 

 committee. gistrates of Dublin were directed by the Lord Lieute- 

 A.D. 1611. nan t i n council, to repair to a house where the Catho- 

 lic committee assembled. This they accordingly did ; 

 and Lord Ffrench, who was in the chair, demanded by 

 what authority they entered the room ? the answer 

 was, that, by order of government, they were come to 

 disperse the meeting, as, being a meeting of the Catho- 

 lic committee, it was illegal. After some conversation, 

 the particulars of which are differently related, one of 

 the magistrates went to consult Mr. Wellesley Pole; 

 and, on his return, he said, that as Lord Ffrench had 

 given them an assurance that it was merely a meeting 

 of Catholic gentlemen for the purpose of signing a pe- 

 tition to parliament, and not a meeting of the Catho- 

 lic committee, government had given directions that it 

 should not be interrupted. 



The letter of Mr. Pole was made the subject of some 

 conversation in parliament; and afterwards motions 

 were made in both Houses for the production of copies 

 of all the dispatches to and from the Lord Lieutenant, 

 relative to this business, which were negatived. 



On the 20th of May, the petition which the Catholic 

 committee had drawn up, was presented to the House 

 of Commons by Mr. Grattan: on the 31st he moved 

 that it should be read, and also the votes of the House, 

 conveying thanks to the armies under Lord Wellington 

 and General Graham ; from these he took occasion to 

 point out, with great eloquence and force of argument, 

 the claims of the Irish Catholics of those men who 

 had contributed so essentially to atchieve those victo- 

 ries, by which the glory of Britain had been so highly 

 exalted, and the safety and independence of Europe 

 so essentially benefited. On a division, there appeared 

 for the motion 83, and against it 146. The Catholic 

 petition was also introduced into the House of Lords 

 by Lord Donoughmore, who moved that it should be 



Fate of 

 their peti- 

 tion. 



referred to a committee. This motion was negatived 

 by 121 to 62. 



The Catholics of Ireland^were not cast down by the 

 result of the motions respecting their petitions; -nor were 

 they intimidated by Mr. Wellesley Pole's letter, and 

 the measures of government thereupon. On the con- 

 trary, they resolved to persevere with increased zeal 

 and assiduity in nominating delegates. On the 9th of 

 July, an aggregate meeting was held at Dublin, for the 

 appointment of delegates to the general committee of 

 Catholics, when five persons were apprehended by a 

 warrant from the Lord Chief Justice, for a breach of the 

 convention act. One of them, Dr. Sheridan, was brought 

 to trial ; but the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty, 

 upon which the Attorney General declined prosecuting 

 the others. The verdict gave great encouragement to 

 the Catholics, as well as great satisfaction to many Pro- 

 testants, not only because they were friendly to the 

 claims of their Catholic brethren, but because an at- 

 tempt had been made and defeated, of perverting the 

 Jaw to the violation of the liberty of the subject. On 

 the 1,9th of October, nearly 300 gentlemen, who form- 

 ed the new committee of delegates, held a meeting, at 

 which a petition to parliament was read and approved. 

 The police magistrates did not arrive till the meeting 

 was broken up ; but on the second meeting of this 

 committee, on the 23d of December, it was dispersed 

 by a magistrate. On the 26th of the same month, the 

 aggregate meeting was held, when the proceedings of 

 the Irish government were severely censured ; and it 

 was resolved not to submit to them in silence. The 

 only other circumstance relating to the history of Ire- 

 land that took place this year deserving of record, was 

 an act passed, to enable the crown to interchange the 

 militias of Great Britain and Ireland. In this act was 

 a clause, to confer on the Irish Catholics serving in Eng- 

 land, all the civil, military, and religious exemptions 

 which they enjoyed in Ireland. 



Early in the session of 1812, the claims of the Irish 

 Catholics were again brought under the discussion of 

 both Houses of Parliament. On a subject so frequent- 

 ly examined, little or no novelty could be brought for- 

 ward. It may be mentioned, however, that the Mar- 

 quis of Wellesley and Mr. Canning, though they pro- 

 fessed themselves decidedly Convinced that the claims 

 of the Catholics were supported by justice and policy, 

 yet were averse to conceding them while they were de- 

 manded in such a menacing attitude. The motions 

 were lost in both Houses; but, in the House of Com- 

 mons, the majority seemed on the decline. 



From this circumstance the Catholics took heart. The 

 tables of both Houses of Parliament were loaded with 

 petitions both for and against their claims. On the 

 25th of February, 1813, Mr. Grattan moved for a com- 

 mittee of the whole House of Commons, to take into 

 consideration the state of the laws thf.t affected his Ma- 

 jesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and 

 Ireland. On a division, the motion was carried by a 

 majority of 40. A committee was then formed, when 

 Mr. Grattan moved, that the Catholic disabilities should 

 be removed, and that the establishments in church and 

 state ought to be effectually secured. The first motion 

 was carried by a majority of 67. On the 30th of April, 

 Mr. Grattan introduced a bill, which enacted, that it 

 should be lawful for persons professing the Roman Ca- 

 tholic religion, to sit and vote in either House of Par- 

 liament, provided they took a prescribed declaration or 

 oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, ancj 



History. 



Arrest f 

 the dele- 

 gates. 



Interchange 

 of ra.litias. 



Catholic 

 petitions. 

 A.D. 1813. 



