charged, that an application for the redress of domestic abuses, was a departure from the pledge of satisfaction in the address of 1782. That pledge speaks of constitutional questions between the two nations, which the remarker supposes to mean all commercial questions with England, and all kind of questions with our own government, of any nature whatever; it would secm by this that the people contended for a free constitution, to place the opponents of that constitution at the head of the government; we beg to observe, that that claim, which demanded to be legislated by no power save only the King, the Lords, and Commons of Ireland, did expressly go against a stipulation of satisfaction in a borough representation, to the exclusion of the Commons, and did impliedly go against an acquiescence in the appointment of the present administration; a ministry who had first opposed the rights of their own Parliament; afterwards, by millions or half millions, had rendered those rights inefficacious. With as little reason has the Catholic been reproached, and told, that in point of right he was equal to the Protestant, because he could sit in either Houses of Parliament, if he swore he was not a Catholic. This inequality, which one of the ministers denied, he afterwards justifies by an assertion, (a common figure of speech with those ministers,) that the support of His Majesty's throne was, (we should say his people,) his minister says, a declaration containing an abhorrence of the Virgin Mary, and the abjuration of the real presence; that the Irish legislature, however competent to disfranchise, is incompetent to qualify the Catholic to sit in Parliament, and the King at his coronation, takes an oath against the privileges of three million of his subjects. We have done with the history of His Majesty's ministers and their argument; it is a history of crime, and a refutation of folly.

We have done with the account which His Majesty's ministers have given of the people; we close with the account which they have given of themselves, not in words but in substance they came forward in 1789, and affirmed, that the Parliament of Ireland had exercised a power of independent legislature, which tended to separation; and they desire, for the management of that Parliament, the sale of the peerage, and the use of the treasury; in 1793, the same ministry came forward again, and gave an account of the effect of this operation; and affirm, on the authority, as they say, of a report of a committee of the House of Lords, that the people were so exasperated, as to have determined to reform that Parliament by force of arms. They accordingly demand extraordinary powers for the coercion of the people, as they

had before demanded extraordinary sums of money for the government of the Parliament; they came forth again to report the effect of their second operation; they affirm, on the authority, they say, of a report of committees of both Houses, that matters had become infinitely worse, for that the people of the north had actually enrolled, to the number of above ninety-thousand, for purposes hostile to the government; they therefore desire more powers, and, as law had hitherto proved insufficient for their purposes, they desire to be permitted to act without it, and to let the army loose upon the people; in the course of a year, the same ministry came forward again, and give an account of their third experiment: they state, that they had-lost the affections of the south as well as of the north; that the province which on the former year had displayed its loyalty, had changed its sentiments; that a great part of Leinster, as well as of Munster, in addition to Ulster, had now become organized; and that the French Directory had manifested a disposition to interfere for the separation of this island from the crown, and from Great Britain. Here is their system and its consequences, as substantially stated by themselves.

We conclude our humble representation, by preferring our warmest wish for peace, good order, and tranquillity on all sides; but we think, that the surest method of establishing the peace of the country, is to restrain the violence of its administration, and, with the greatest respect, and feeling all attachment to His Majesty's person and family, we are bold to say, that if time be given for the experiment of conciliation, and if, before an invasion, that experiment be tried soon, and fairly, and honestly; if the removal of the integral parts of the administration, who never possessed the confidence of our country, and are now its bitterest scourge; if an emancipation of the Catholics, on the footing of perfect political equality, seconded by the honest wishes in the government, with an internal reform of Parliament; if a full, fair, and adequate representation of the Commons House, the parent measure of every other good; if such remedies be now resorted to, we submit, that His Majesty will take measures which, in the present tremendous crisis, are the best, the wisest, and the soundest left, both for the strength of the government and the security of the crown.

sons

90

Note in Mr. Grattan's hand-writing.

THIS Conclusion is just the true interest of Ireland is connection with England and not with France there are obvious reaif Ireland separate, England loses her empire, and France prevails against the liberties of Europe. and it is folly to suppose that Ireland can keep her freedom after Europe is enslaved - it is for that reason above all that I have never listened to the idea of invasion or insurrection, because they lead to servitude through a sea of blood- but there is a middle course, such as here is proposed, uniting the two duties - the duty we owe to the country — and the duty we owe to the King.

The publication of this paper I have stopped, on account of the sad disturbances in Ireland, least this might inflame instead of allaying or reconciling.

29th May 1798.

REFERENCES IN THE PRECEDING
PETITION.

KING'S speech to his English Parliament, in 1774.

Act of the English Parliament, imposing a tea-tax on Ireland, in 1779.

Publication of a speech in the name of the Chancellor*, in January 1793.

Ditto, in the spring of 1793.

Proclamation for laying an embargo on the export of Irish provision, without the consent of Parliament, in 1776.

See rejection of the petition of the Catholics, in 1792.

Of the petition of the Presbyterians in 1792.— Irish Journal. See rejection of motions on reciprocal commerce, see debate of 1787.

For new Parliamentary provisions in the administration of 1768, see the establishment of 1770, 1771, and 1772.

For those of 1789, see the establishment of 1798.

LETTER

ON THE

CONDUCT OF CERTAIN BODIES IN
IRELAND IN 1798.

SIR,

To the Editor of the Courier.

I RESORT to your paper to communicate a letter to certain description of persons in Ireland, who have been extremely busy in their attacks on me, and who deserve not absolute silence, nor yet much notice. *

I choose to begin with that rank which I respect most, the merchants; and were those persons using the name of that corporation the mercantile body of Dublin, I should be sorry indeed; not because I allow that the whole body, much as I respect them, could, by a scandalous proceeding, bear down my character, but because I should be afflicted that by such a proceeding they had forfeited their own. I feel myself so linked and connected with every thing which belongs to the great body of the people of Ireland, that a comprehensive description of them could not, by any injustice, disgrace itself, without involving their natural friend and advocate in their degradation. Happy am I, however, that the persons in question are no more the merchants of Dublin than they are the people of Ireland; on the contrary, that they are an inconsiderable gathering, actuated by what folly or faction I care not, who have, in the charge against me, uttered not only what cannot be true, but what is recorded to be false: they have said, that they have legal evidence that I was concerned in the late rebellion, and the only matter they could have had before them was the report of the Committee of the Irish Lords, which is no legal evidence of any charge whatever against me: and which, if it were, is not evidence of that crime; so that those men, calling themselves the Guild of Merchants of

* Mr. Grattan's name had been erased from the Privy Council and the Guild of Merchants.

Dublin, have asserted, published, and sealed, a self-convicted falsehood. I lament to be forced to use such words, and yet they are the mildest words such a conduct deserves, and must be understood by them and applied to them in a sense the most unmeasured, and the most unqualified.

To the Corporation of Dublin I wish to say a word: they are not the citizens of Dublin; they are not even a considerable part of them, and they never spoke their spirit nor their sentiments; but as they have the honour of appertaining to the city, they are entitled to a degree of attention; and the best method of showing it, is by advising them to be less fond of displaying themselves on every occasion. There are cases where their exertions are proofs of their folly, and where their repose would be an argument of their wisdom. All ministers, all men in power, all clerks, and the whole mob and rabble of the court, have been so sweltered with their charms, that it now requires a more than popular appetite to encounter their embraces; but very little share of philosophy to endure their displeasure. They ever wait on the wink of power to praise or persecute, and to blemish a reputation by unjust calumny, or unmeaning panegyric. With respect to them, with respect to the other corporation, with respect to all persons adopting similar proceedings, I am inclined to attribute much less to malice, and much more to folly; a good deal to influence, a good deal to servility, and to that low, impotent, persecuting spirit, by which the slavish mind shows its devotion at the expence of its understanding.

I ought not to be angry with these men, because I am one of the few of His Majesty's subjects, whom their charges, even if they were echoed as they are reprobated by my country, could not affect, and who might receive a thousand such shafts on the shield of character, not with indignation, not with contempt, but with calm and pointed forgiveness, the result of a proud superiority, founded on my services and their injustice. To be angry with such men were to be degraded. On the subject of the charge I will make no explanation to them. I have said thus much to them, and they deserve much more; but I am not in the habit of reproaching any portion of my fellow citizens; if their mortification were the wish of my heart, I would refer them to the invectives of some of His Majesty's ministers.

Were it not robbing Heaven of their time, I would say a few words to the doctors.* They have judged, they have con

The University of Dublin had removed Mr. Grattan's picture from their hall, and put in its place that of the Earl of Clare.