spectable members of the Committee who had left it, however, went back to it, believing, perhaps, the existence of it was useful to the cause, their presence was a restraint upon the rest, and a Committee was from that circumstance not interfered with until the close of their sittings. The meeting of the 9th of July was composed of some of the members who had been guilty of the greatest excesses. It is impossible not to conceive, however, that there was a portion of well meaning men amongst them. It was then held out to the loyal Catholics of Ireland, that their attention was merely called to the Petition, and for that purpose it was necessary to elect a Catholic Convention-but see what the substance of the Petition is, which was thus made a pretence of assembling this Convention. In order to shew what little deliberation is necessary to frame a petition, I will state to you, what the state of the Catholics was in the year 1778, and what it is now. month? Because there is a Rebel party and a party of United Irishmen at work, and who now endeavour to effect by artifice what they could not do by force in 1798, and in 1803-they may have an object in calling a National Convention, because such desperate, wicked and factious persons always sway such assemblies. How was this Convention to act but by the example of that Committee, out of which it was to spring?-What rules or orders were to govern them? Our Parliament cannot meet but by order of the King, and cannot sit a moment longer than he pleases. But this Convention, self-created, has no law but its own discretion-such an assembly can never be tolerated under any form of government. This is no contest between the Govern ment and the Catholics.-I deny it.-It is a contest between the law and the violation of the public peace. Government would be unable to stand, if it was obliged to submit to such things. The Press says the right to Petition is attacked-it is no such thing. Because Government stops a National Convention, can it be said they stop Petitioning? Because the Catholics cannot have a Parliament of their own, do they complain of not having he Right to Petition? The Attorney General then adverted to the origin and necessity of the Convention Act, which was adopted in consequence of intended meetings proposed by the North of Ireland. He then proceeded with great ingenuity and ability, to comment on the Convention Act, and its applicability to the case of the Traverser, but we must defer the remainder to allow ourselves time to detail the evidence. [Here the Attorney General went into a statement of what the penal laws were at that period, and their gradual repeal, and what the restrictions were which still continue. In running over the list of penal laws he mentioned one which encouraged the son to rise up in rebellion against the father, one which dispossessed a Catholic of his horse if it was worth more than 51. &c. &c. &c.; and when he ended a narrative of this description, a smile of contempt at the bigotry of those disgraceful times, spread through the court, and created a temporary interruption. The Attorney General, when this subsided, proceeded].-Let it not be understood that I mean to speak lightly of these matters; I acknowledge the repeal of them are laudable objects for men of rank and talents to pursue.-But what is the object of the Petition? Those restrictions can be expressed in a narrow and confined compass. Persons capable of reading and writing could form a Petition at once, and without difficulty; and therefore to talk of collecting a National Convention for the purpose, is an imposi-wan address the Chair, and make a motion upon common sense. Their Petition has been again and again presented to Parliament; it has been discussed by Parliament, and has never been rejected for want of form. Why has it therefore been now thought necessary to summon a Convention to deliberate upon it: to call a Convention of 500 persons, to act in the capital, day after day, and month after John Shepherd was the first witness called, was examined by the Solicitor General. He said he was a police officer. He attended at Liffey Street Chapel on the 31st of July last according to directions. He knew Dr. Sheridan. Meeting was large, but he could not take upon himself to say how large. Dr. Sheridan was in the chair. Heard Mr. Kir The tion for a petition to the Prince Regent and both houses of Parliament for a Repeal of the remaining disabilities which affect the Catholic body. The question was put upon this motion by Dr. Sheridan, and it was carried unanimously. He recollected another motion for appointing a Committee of five, to represent that parish in the General Committee-he omitted those particulars, appointing a Committee | to prepare and present a petition, and transact the business of the Meeting in the General Committee. It was not in his recollection that this motion was put in consequence of any former Meeting. The motion of appointing five Delegates was put by Dr. Sheridan. There was some difference as to the mode of electing the five: it was proposed at length that seven persons should be appointed to select five out of a list which was furnished. The proposal was carried, of the seven persons who retired two alone, as he could perceive, for he was in a situation to command a general view, returned. One of the persons returned, handed a slip of paper to Dr. Sheridan. He believed Dr. Sheridan handed the slip of paper to another, and from it were read the following names; Dr. Sheridan, Thomas Kirwan, Henry Edmund Taaffe, Francis Sweetman and Richard Shiel. Dr. Sheridan was removed from the Chair, and Dr. Burke took it and put the question of Dr. Sheridan's election, which was carried unanimously. Dr. Sheridan then resumed the Chair, and all the new nominations were carried unanimously with the exception of one. Mr. Kirwan, and Mr. Taaffe returned thanks for the honour of their election. Mr. Sweetman was not present, but some person spoke for him. Mr. Shiel was in London, and this was the reason of an opposition being made to his nomination. Dr. Sheridan left the Chair and Mr. Taaffe took it, when the thanks of the meeting were voted to Dr. Sheridan. The motion was carried unanimously, and Dr. Sheridan merely thanked the meeting. Liffey-street Chapel is in the parish of St. Mary. No other business done but what he relatedcould not swear that he was at Fishamble street on the 9th of July. Cross-examined by Mr. Burrowes-Ile was of the Established Church. Did not go to Liffey-street Chapel as a member of the meeting. It was open to every one. No concealment. There was no abuse of any individual or government. He could discover no sedition at the Meeting, from the respectability of the persons who attended he would be surprised to find any thing of a seditious tendency. He believes the Meeting met to Petition Parliament and to Petition Parliament alone. He believes the resolutions were read from a written paper. [Here he was shewn a brief containing a resolution; he believed ness. it was the first. He read another which he said was like the second; but it was not at all so full.] He swore positively to the word represent-oh! he begged pardon, he meant prepare or present. When he said prepare or present he did not mean to say represent. He did not doubt but a written document would give a better account of the proceedings than he did. He again said he thought the only object of the meeting was petitioning. Did you not,' said Mr. Burrowes, talk of transacting other business.' [In answering this the witness seemed to have a confusion of ideas.] Five delegates were appointed, but he believed that petitioning was the object of the meeting. There was no business but about petitioning. Did not recollect where they said would transact' business. He believed Liffey-street included the parishes of St. Mary's, St. Thomas's and St. George's. He took a memorandum of the proceedings of the meeting, but has it not now. He had it ten days ago; knew then he was to appear in this case as a witHe was not desired by any one to leave the memorandum at home. He does not know but it is in his desk. If he had it he would bring it. He looked in his desk and could not find it; yet it may be in his desk. He was sent to this meeting as to others; and he told those he had a right to tell what took place. He believes he gave his report to the Magistrates. He does not know to whom he gave it. Alderman Pemberton, Counsellor Hare, and Major Sirr, were present when he gave it. He thought that Major Sirr and Counsellor Hare were together when he gave it in. He said he had General Orders to attend the Meetings. "Those General Orders did not come from Heaven," said Mr. Burrowes," and from whom did they come?" Sometimes from the Magistrates, and sometimes from the Chief Constables. He acknowledged he swore informations against Dr. Breen on hearing of his name. All he swore was hearing of his name. He swore the information before the Chief Justice. He did not sec Dr. Breen. The Second Clerk of the Police Office swore against some others; it was not on his information Dr. Breen was arrested. This meeting did not last half an hour. James M Donough, examined by Serjeant Ball. He is a clerk in the head police office. Was on the 9th of July at Liffey-street Chapel with Shepherd.He heard Mr. Kirwan move five persons to present a petition and to represent that parish in the General Committee. [He answered the matter of course questions without differing from the other witness.] Cross-examined by Mr. Burne-Shepherd and he went together by order of the Magistrates, either Hare or Sirr. Is a clerk. Took notes of the proceedings according to order. He does not know what became of his notes. He saw them [like the other] ten days ago. He did not give his notes to any Magistrate; nor was he asked for them ouly once by Mr. Hare. He did not give them then, but the informations were grounded upon them. He did not see them since he looked at them last. He does not know on what occasion he looked at the notes. He be lieves they are in his desk or elsewhere. (He was asked to repeat the Resolutions; and he seemed to be as undecided as the other witness on strictness of expression. He believed the word "We present" or something like it, was in the Resolutions.) He believed the Resolutions were on paper; and that the Chairman spoke from a written report. He did not see Dr. Breen though he swore an information on which he was arrested. He heard the name of Dr. Breen mentioned. FRANCIS HUDDLESTON, commonly called Captain Huddlestone, was next examined and cross-examined. He is now, it appears, a news paper reporter, has been a Captain in the army, has been in the Barrack Department. He gave an account of what passed at the Meetings of the Catholics in Dublin; he stated the purport of the resolutions that they entered into; and gave an account of the part which the defendant took therein.Here ended the proceedings on the 20th of November. On the 22nd the Trial was resumed, when the Chief Justice called on Mac Donough, a Clerk in Major Sirr's Office, to explain certain parts of his evidence which, in his Lordship's mind, were contradictory and inconclusive. The witness was examined by the Court, and appeared very much dashed and confounded. He was asked, whether among these persons sworn to in the information he had mentioned Doctor Breen as present. He could not actually say that Doctor Breen was in the Chapel at Liffey street-heard his name to the best of his recollection mentioneddid not see him in the Chapel-knew his person, and heard that he was one of those concerned in the delegation. Mr. Justice Osborne. But in the infor mation before us, you do not speak as to your belief-you swear positively that Doctor Breen was one of the persons chosen. Chief Justice-Then you swore positively to a man whom you did not see. Witness ordered to retire. Mr. Burrowes then addressed the Jury. The Learned Council began by arraign ing the conduct of the Crown in the formation of the Jury. He lamented to have witnessed that more decency, or the appearance at least, if it was no more, of justice on the part of the Crown. He did not lay any blame to his Majesty's Attorney General. It was notorious that on the Jury, there was not a single Catholic, in a cause, in which the Catholic Interest was so deeply concerned. He reflected upon the circumstance with pain, not unmixed with a considerable portion of dismay, that in a City, nine-tenths of whose inhabitants consisted of Catholics, not one was to be found on a Jury in which the Catholics were to be tried. It was, he feared ominous for the Country, when Government had recourse to such paltry artifices. Nay, the only Catholic on the pannel was instantly objected to-but that was not enough for the Crown-it was not content with objecting to the solitary Catholic-but in the spirit of liberality which so very honourably distinguished the Administration of the Country, it objected against twenty-two_Protestants upon no grounds whatever. These Protestants, it should seem, were under the suspicion of being suspected as friends to the great Catholic Cause. But the very circumstance of these shameful challenges put the present Jury in a most delicate and awful situation. The eyes of the Country were on them. From the partiality evinced by the Crown to their selection from among so many of their excellent and liberal fellow citizens, it would naturally be concluded that they were prejudiced, and illiberal. He did not insinuate that they were, he believed in his heart that they were not-but see the situation in which they were placed by the Crown-a situation he would contend not only indelicate but almost unconstitutional.-They would, however, he felt convinced, risk themselves from the peculiarity in which they were so unhandsomely placed, as contradistinguished from the remainder of their fellow-citizens. -Mr. Burrowes then, at great length, went into the subject matter of the trial before the Court. As we have already said, it would be impossible for us, to enter into any thing like a detail of this admirable forensic display. He first addressed himself to the facts, then to the Law-next to the History of the Catholics of Ireland, and finally to the Policy of the Irish Administration. In all these divisions, Mr. Burrowes was super case of Walter Cox, in which Lord Norbury and Baron George decided against Serjeant Moore, who essayed a reply. Mr. Perrin stated the particulars of the case, in which the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, said that the right of the Attorney General was a personal right and could not be transferred to his brother. Mr. Justice Osborne was rather against the practice. Mr. Justice Daily thought that it was es eminently, supremely happy. But we Mr. Justice Day was rather inclined with his brothers. Mr. Bellew argued acutely against the right claimed. The Chief Justice did not think the case in Lord Kenyon went to the present instance. Mr. Burton said that perhaps the Crown would wave the right and allow the case to go to the Jury. The Solicitor General rose to reply. Mr. Goold objected on the ground of usage, that the Crown Lawyers, except in cases when evidence was tendered on the part of the Traversers, had no right to reply. The Attorney General insisted on the right. Justice Osborne wished for precedents to establish the right. Mr. O'Connell said that Mr. Justice Day ruled in the case of Williams (we think) on the last Munster Circuit, against the right claimed by the Crown in those cases. Mr. Justice Day assented. Mr. Bellew said, that Mr. Justice Osborne ruled a similar case at the Assizes of Waterford. Mr. Justice Osborne assented. Mr. Byrne cited a case from reports made in the time of Lord Kenyon, in which that able Judge had strongly reprobated the practice which Crown Lawyers assumed of speaking when no evidence had been produced by the Traverser. Mr. O'Connell immediately read the passage, and in corroboration, cited the Mr. Ball insisted on the right of the Crown. Mr. Solicitor General would not give up that right. The Attorney General coincided with the Solicitor, and insisted on the right. The Chief Justice at length determined in favour of the Crown. Mr. Burton then asked whether since two Crown Lawyers were allowed to speak where no evidence was adduced on the part of the Traverser, another Counsel would not be allowed to his clients. To this the Court after some hesitation assented. Mr. Goold then touched upon all the leading topics of this great cause. The Solicitor General replied. The Chief Justice, after recapitulating the evidence, proceeded to define the Law. After about an hour and half's charge, the Jury retired. Mr. Byrne rose and enquired whether the indictment on which the traversers were tried, was handed up to the Jury. The Chief Justice said that it was not usual nor necessary. Mr. Justice Osborne thought that the indictment might have been read to them, if they wished it. Mr. O'Connell contended that the Jury should have a copy of the Indictment on which they were to decide. While the point was mooting, Mr. Geale, the Foreman, and Mr. Pepper, returned into the Box and requested a Copy of the Indictment. He took occasion at the same time to inquire whether 5. John Duncan, Esq. 9. Robert Armstrong, Esq. 10. Edward Clibborn, Esq. 11. Charles Pentland, Esq. 12. John Hamilton, Esq. the Court could bring in separate verdicts | professing the Roman Catholic Religion, for the two counts laid in the Indictment. meaning such Committee as aforesaid, -He was answered in the affirmative, and should be appointed, and requested to the Clerk of the Crown having enlarged cause proper Petitions to both Houses f the issue, the Jury again retired. In Parliament to be forthwith framed, for the about an hour and a half, the Jury re- repeal of the Penal Laws, meaning the said turned with a verdict of NOT GUILTY. laws so remaining in force in Ireland, and The names of the Jurors are these: to procure signatures thereto in all parts 1. Benjamin Geale, Esq. of Ireland, and to take measures for bring. 2. Peter D, Latouche, Esq. ing such Petition under the serious consi3. Leland Crosthwaite, Esq. deration of the Legislature, within the first 4. John Orr, Esq. month of the ensuing Sessions of Parlia ment; and that said Committee should consist of the Catholic Peers, and their eldest Sons, the Catholic Baronets, the Prelates of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and also ten persons to be appointed by the Catholics in each County in Ireland, the survivors of the Delegates of 1793, to constitute an integral part of that number, the Catholic inhabitants of each parish in and also of five persons to be appointed by Dublin, meaning each district so called a parish, as aforesaid, and that Edward Sheridan, late of Dominick street, in the County of the City of Dublin, Doctor of Physic, being a person professing the Roman Catholic Religion, and divers other persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, to the said Jurors unknown, well knowing the premises, but being ill disposed persons, and unlawfully contriving and intending to aid and assist in and towards the constituting and forming of such Committee as aforesaid, on the 31st day of July, in the year 1811, at Liffey-street, in the County of the City of Dublin, in order The following is the substance of the Indictments found against Messrs. Kirwan and Taaffe. County of the City of] Dublin, to wit. The Jurors of our Lord the King upon their oath present, that, on the 9th day of July, in the year of our Lord, 1811, at Fishamblestreet, in the County of the City of Dublin, divers persons, to the said Jurors unknown, assembled themselves together, and being so assembled, and then and there contriving, and intending to cause and procure the appointment of Persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, to exercise an authority to represent the inhabitants of Ireland professing the Roman Catholic Religion, under pretence of causing Peti-to comply with such resolutions, and to tions to both Houses of Parliament to be framed, for the repeal of all laws remaining in force in Ireland, by means whereof any person professing the Roman Catholic Religion is subject to any disability by reason, or in consequence of his religious tenets; and also, under pretence of procuring an alteration of the matters so established by law, did then and there, amongst other things, enter into certain Resolutions of and concerning such Committee, and of and concerning said laws so remaining in force in Ireland, and of and concerning certain districts in the City of Dublin, called Parishes, and used as such for the purpose of public worship, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Religion, of the purport and effect here following: that is to say, that a Committee of Persons aid and assistin and towards the constituting and forming such Committee, did meet and assemble themselves together for the purpose of appointing five persons to act as Representatives of the Inhabitants profess ing the Roman Catholic Religion, of and in one of the districts in the city of Dublin aforesaid, commonly called the Parish of St. Mary, in the said Committee so proposed to be formed, and that at and in the said Meeting so then and there held for the said purpose, one Thomas Kirwan, then and there being a person professing the Roman Catholic Religion, was then and there unlawfully appointed by the said persons so then and there assembled to act as one of the Representatives of the said Inhabitants of the said district in the said (To be continued.) Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden :-Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Malt, LONDON:-Printed by Ti C. Hansard, Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street, |