meet on the false pretence of procuring an alteration of matters established by law. Look at the words, "under pretence of petitioning for, " or in any manner procuring, an alteration of "matters established by law in church and "state." If pretence means false pretence, in the first part of this sentence, which relates to petitioning, it must, in the second, which relates to procuring alteration, and then the meaning will be, that all assemblies are unlawful, except the Parliament, which pretend falsely to procure such alteration, and the necessary inference must be, that all assemblies, except the Parliament, are lawful which profess truly to do so. This absurdity must follow, unless pretence, in the same sentence, shall be held to have two opposite meanings.

I come now to Mr. BURROWES's first argument, which, as well as I can understand it, is, that there is a distinction between general representation, and delegation for a particular purpose; and he has endeavoured to establish that distinction, by reading the proceedings of some assembly, against which, he says, this sta tute was levelled, and which announced an intention to usurp legislative authority, and to change the fundamental laws and establishments of the country; and he says, that such an assembly would be within the act, but that an assembly, for the exclusive purpose of peti

tioning, would not. I apprehend that his argument is built upon a sophism, and a mistake of the principles of this law. It is not, as he would suggest, a law against bad objects, to be achieved by the assembly when met. It is a law against the very act of assembling. It is a law founded on the same principles as the Whiteboy Acts, in which that rage for associations, which always has been the characteristic of all ranks in this country, is denounced, by declaring it a high crime and misdemeanor, for persons assuming any name, or badge, or denomination, not usually assumed by his Majesty's subjects, to assemble, although no act has been committed, or no arm raised. It is a law to prevent mischiefs, not to punish them when committed-it is a law passed on the recollection of the various conventions, and assemblies, and associations, which had, from time to time, threatened the peace of the country. I go not back to former centuries-the Dungannon Meeting, the Volunteer Convention at the Ro tunda, the meditated Parliament at Athlone, are fresh in the recollection of many of us. In contemplation of those mischiefs, which representative associations are calculated to produce, was this act framed; and the crime, denounced by it, is complete, whenever a representative body is elected, with the view of procuring a change in matters established by law, though the mode of doing so should be by petition.

E

Mr. BURROWES seems to think, that in order to complete this crime, legislative authority must be usurped. Does he mean to say, that no assembly is within this act, unless it displaces Parliament, and enacts laws, and imposes taxes? Does he mean to argue, that the Legislature has declared that to be a misdemeanor, which the law had before declared to be high treason? Must the act, which speaks of petitioning Parliament, only apply to assemblies, which have displaced Parliament ? What would Mr. BUR ROWES say of an elected and delegated assembly, if such a one should exist, which, professing to prepare a petition, should sit from July to February, and, day after day, and week after week, assemble and debate, and do every thing but petition,-which should publish inflammatory and incendiary discussions, upon all political topics; which should mimic and travesty all the proceedings of Parliament,-appoint committees and receive reports; which should supersede and bestride the Legislature, by the discussion of public, and the courts of justice, by the discussion of private grievances? If such an assembly should exist, would he say that, because it abstained from imposing taxes and enacting laws, it would not fall within the Convention Act;—that its innocence should depend, not upon what it did, but what it did not;-that its members should not be guilty of a misdemeanor, because they were innocent of treason?

I think, if he said so, he would much mistake the law; I think, if I said that their guilt consisted in such acts as I have supposed, I should mistake it too-we should both be wrong, and our common sophism would be, that we tried the legality of the assembly by the test of its acts, and not by the test of its constitution. The framers of this law well knew the tendency of such associations as it prohibits-they well knew that worthy and honourable men might engage int them, as I have no doubt that worthy, and honourable, and loyal men would engage in the Cutholic Committee, with the purest and the best of motives. But the policy of the law is pointed at the probable mischiefs, and the very preamble of the act is directed to the dangers, which, in the language of the statute, may ensue. What man can answer for the intermixture of those very different characters which must find their way into such an assembly? I know that the Catholic Nobility and Clergy, amongst whom are to be found the most respectable of men, were to be constituent parts; but I know that every county was to send ten, and every parish in this City to send five members. Who will answer for the description of persons that must find their way into this motley congregation? It is not from such men as Lord Fingall, and Lord Southwell, and Sir Edward Bellew, and the other honorable men of the Catholic persuasion, that such danger is to be apprehended-short lived, indeed,

would be their influence.

Perhaps the worst men would not be the most numerous in this assembly-it signifies not; a small minority of agitators is always sufficient for mischief. The history of mankind shews that they have always prevailed-in every such assembly they float, and the good are precipitated. But the policy of this act is not merely pointed at the intermixture of bad, but the degeneracy of good characters. What man can answer for himself, in going into a selfconstituted political society? his first steps are. deliberate; his first motives are good; his pas sions warm as he proceeds; the applause, never given to moderation, intoxicates him; the vehemence of debate elates, and the success of eloquence inflames him; he begins a patriot, he ends a revolutionist. Is this fancy or history? I well remember, who can forget- the first National Assembly of France? Composed of every thing the most honorable, gallant, venerable and patriotic in that kingdom; called together for the noblest and the purest purposes, the Nobility and the Prelacy, united with the representatives of the people, and the three estates promised the regeneration of the country. What was the result? The wise, and the good, and the virtuous were put down, or brought over by the upstart, and the factious, and the demagogue; they knew not the lengths they were going; they were drawn on

an increasing attention,-step after step, and after day,-to that vortex in which have been