Affociation for the peace-delegations for redress---clubs for fociety, as all voluntary conventions, without feal, certificate, or incorporation. Parliament cannot know them by that defcription which they give themfelves, does it follow that the law would punish them as an unlawful affembly? The object of thefe meetings has in general been to propofe matter for petition, or to collect or combine the public mind to one specific mode of remedy, and not in the perfon of delegates to approach the legislature and it is against this proceeding the bill is directed. The bill leaves the county meeting free-all its defigns is to prevent the communication of county with county, and city with city, on the fubject of public redress, and the reform of parlia ment above all other fubjects: and the reafon is very obvious;-the refolutions of fuch county or aggregate meetings have proved generally effectual; but the resolutions formed on reprefentative or delegated meetings have generally proved effectual; the bill leaves the people fuch refources as have been abortive, and only takes away all which have been fuccefsful. It has been faid in fupport of this bill that the preamble contains in it no point of law whatsoever, but is one propofitition, only ftating a matter of fact; this I must deny; the preamble contains two propofitions, the one, matter of fact, or rather prophefy, which is pofitive, the other matter of law, which is implicative.-It defcribes an unlawful affembly in these words-" an affembly purporting to reprefent the people."---(but it does not ftop here)" or any defcription or number of the people, under pretence of preparing or presenting petitions, complaints, remonstrances, or declarations to the king or parliament for alterations of matter in church or ftate, alledged grievances or other public concernment": but if there was any doubt whether the preamble implied, there can be no doubt but that the declaratory part expreffes that any affembly of delegates from any defcription or number of his Majefty's fubjects for the purpose of procuring by petition, or in any other manner, an alteration in matters established in church or ftate, is unlawful.---Let me ask gentlemen of the bar, what was the committee of lawyers corps in 1782; was not that very affembly, a delegation from a certain defcription of his Majefty's fubjects to procure an alteration in matters established in state---á delegation to confider à public concernment--a delegation purporting to promote the redrefs of grievance? There is not a defcription in the act that delineates an unlawful affembly, under which that committee does not come. Who appointed that committee ?---A certain numerous description of his Majesty's subjects--- What was the object of their delegation ?---To confider matters of state then fettled by the law---that is, to report whether the measures taken by the parliament of the two kingdoms were as unanimously alledged by the parliament of Ireland adequate in point of law to liberate this kingdom from the legislative interference of Great Britain.---And what. was their determination ?--In direct contradiction to a fettlement concluded by both Houfes of parliament. They reported that the remedy which our parliament had deemed fufficient, was inadequate, and they concluded with a redrefs of their own, namely, that a bill of renunciation ought to pafs in the parliament of England, and a bill of right in the parliament of Ireland. Here is a delegation taking into confideration every thing which this bill forbids---public concernment---redress of grievance, and a particular matter, vitally affecting the ftate, and juft fettled by the law, and here is a report of that delegation opening that fettlement to procure an alteration .therein. There There were, indeed, two circumftances which diftina guish this delegation from others which the bill describes and declares to be unlawful---the committee were delegated by an armed body, to impeach the fufficiency of a parliamentary settlement Do. I wish to reflect on their motives ? No; they thought the independency of this country was a matter of state, too invaluable, though settled by law, to be left entirely to any body of men, even the House of Commons or to any individual of that Houfe, however well difpofed. It was an occafion in which zeal, and even suspicion, was commendable. I differed from the members of that committee in the doctrines they then advanced against the proceeding of parliament. I differ from fome of them in the doctrines they now advance against the proceedings of their own committee---and it is by a fingular fatality that it should fall to my lot to refift, and to theirs to fupport a bill whofe preamble and whofe declaration do, in the fulleft and leaft equivocal manner, pronounce their committee to have been an unlawful affembly, and their conduct to have been illegal. While I combat the argument, I must give every due praise to the abilities of the learned gentleman who advanced it--for tafte as a fcholar, knowledge as a lawyer, and extenfive, liberal, and deep erudition. It has been said that the bill does not affect committees appointed bona fide to prepare petitions or other matter, but only fuch as make peti tion a pretence for delegation---ridiculous! The bill goes against all delegation for public matter, and provides that the pretence of petitioning fhall not cover the tranfaction, Gentlemen having in my humble apprehenfion miftated the law, proceed to my certain knowledge to mistate the fact--and they infift that in England no convention or com mittee mittee fuch as the bill defcribes has taken place, and this they affign as a reason why in England there is no prohibitory statute. I mentioned yesterday one delegation this moment existing in England---a delegation from no lefs a description of his Majefty's fubjects than the Proteftant Diffenters in England, appointed for the exprefs purpose of procuring an alteration in a matter by law eftablished in church and state---the repeal of the test act. I beg to remind gentlemen of another delegation that took place in London; It was a delegation from that defcription of his Majesty's subjects which comprehends the manufacturing intereft of England, and was deputed to confider matter that related to the state of both kingdoms---the commercial propofitions. I beg leave to turn the recollection of gentlemen to other conventions in England---to those that fat in London in 1780, confisting of a deputation from above fixteen counties, delegating reprefentatives for the purpose of forming Committees of correfpondence, to procure an alteration in matters touching the state---or in other words to frame petitions for thefe feveral counties for the reduction of the expences of the government; and further to promote the objects of those petitions, among the number of those delegates were fome from the city of London, appointed by an act of the corporation, attended with a refolution, that the Recorder of London fhould be affiftant to the delegation, a man of great celebrity and knowledge both as a lawyer and a conftitutionalist. There were other moft refpectable names members and chairmen of these committees, the Duke of Portland, Lord Spencer, Mr. Fox-the name of Cavendish, and most of the whig intereft of England. The Duke of Rutland was chairman to one of the committees. There was our Burke; there were others; there was the Marquis of Buckingham and Mr. Grenville. I do not find any proceeding ceeding against thefe meetings as unlawful affemblies, and yet all these came within the letter and spirit of this bill; they came within the letter of your act, for they were delegations from certain descriptions of his Majefty's fubjects to procure an altertation in matter touching the state, viz. the expences of the king's government; they come within the fpirit, because the object of these committees was to procure, as that of the bill is to prevent, concertconcert among the people, in redreffing those abufes in the ftate, which a Houfe of Commons, as it is now returned by boroughs, and influenced by minifters, will not attend to, except when fuch concert out of doors, as happened in counties in almost all great questions, and did happen in the cafe of these very committees, renders it neceffary to attend and concede. I have fhewn you the practice in England, and that the advocates of the bill in matter of fact at least are entirely mistaken. I think it has been already fhewn that they are fo in matter of law, and I beg to ask whether it is reasonable to fuppofe that fuch practice, fo general, fo repeated, and fo countenanced, is illegal, and whether fuch doctrines as the advocates of the bill have advanced, unfupported by ftatute, unwarranted by adjudication, and in the face of such a number of precedents, indeed of daily experience, and of their own memorable example, is law? I must therefore conclude this part of my answer by obferving, that the arguments of this bill do not appear to have the fupport either of the law or of fact. As to the expediency, I beg to fpeak a few words. This bill is faid to be an expedient to restore peace ;-why, then, is it a reflection? why do the preamble and thẹ declaration pronounce every man who has been a delegate -all the volunteers, the delegates at Dungannon, the delegates of the convention, the committee of the lawyers corps, |