form of worship in which he was born, in which he had lived, and in which it is his best hope to die. He was convinced, that he had the authority of the clergy of his own church to warrant him in that con-viction, that the system of which Dr. Trench is the advocate, is incompatible with the essential spirit of the Catholic religion. He looked upon the itinerant hawkers of a new-fangled Christianity as the emissaries of dissension, and he saw that religions raucour, and all the fury of theolo gical detestation, marked the steps of these vagabond apostles wherever they appeared. With these impressions he attended the meeting at Ballinasloe. He spoke, and his right to speak was not disputed. He was guilty of no greater offence than that of vindicating the Roman Catholic clergy from the accusations which Mr. Pope and Mr. Gordon had cast upon them. He avoided all angry recrimination. He did not, in auswer to the charges brought against the Catholic clergy, lift the veil from the abuses of the Establishment-he did not, when the Catholic priesthood were charged with profligacy, say one word about Dr. Trench. When the calumniators of his church went back to the distance of centuries for instances of depravity in Catholic bishops, Mr. M'Donnell did not allude to the execrable misdeeds of no very remote occurrence, on which Protestants should reflect before they bring their charges against the poor and unendowed clergy of the Catholic church. Île did not, in discussing the propriety of circulating the Scriptures among all classes, without distinction, inquire whether some details contained in the history of a sensual people, were fit for the perusal of boyhood and a virgin's meditations. He did not put any one argument, or make an observation which would excite the prejudices, or alarm he sensitiveness of the most enthusiastic of his hearers. He was coutented with the vindication of the Catholic hierarchy and clergy from the most foul and false aspersions, and remonstrated, in the language of subdued expostulation, on the evil effects of the system which the London Hibernian Society employed its emissaries to promote; and yet, for this, for no more than this, a body of infuriated police are let loose upon the people. They are halloed on by this regimental divine. The Roman Catholics are assailed with every species of insult and of outrage, and Mr. M'Donnell himself is thrust out of the assembly, amidst the shouts of Dr. Trench's myrmidons, with the grasp of ruffianism on his neck, the sabre over his head, and the bayonet at his back; and shall I be told that Mr. M'Donnell received no provocation? There is not a man with a drop of manly blood in his veins, who would not be fired, and almost maddened by it. The doctor, indeed, swears there was a riot. True it is that he did himself engender and create a frightful tumult. But what evidence is there that before he drew the Riot Act out of his pocket, there was any, the least symptom of distur bance? Was a blow given? Was a menacious gesture used? Was there a threat in attitude or in words? He does not venture to suggest it. This court ought not to be satisfied with general allegations that a riot existed, without having the precise facts and circumstances before it, which are the ingredients of the offence, and which constitute its legal essence. I impeach the doctor's affidavit upon two grounds.

First, that he does not state any one fact which goes to establish that there was a riot, and secondly, that he did not afterwards take any proceedings against any one of the alleged rioters. Was a single person arrested? Were there informations lodged? Was any step taken by this enraged magistrate to punish the offence which had induced him to uncage all the ferocious passions of the police and set them upon the people? I have argued this case as if the charges brought against the doctor were wholly unfounded, and insist that the impropriety of his conduct disentitled him to a criminal information. But, my Lords, Mr. M'Donnell has in his affidavit justified the accusations which he has preferred, and it was my duty to comply with his instructions, and read not only his own affidavit, but those of the numerous witnesses by whom he is corroborated. I will not go so far as to say, that truth affords a complete defence, but I do say, that there is a manifest distinction between an indictment and an information. In the former, truth is no defence-but as an information is entirely in the discretion of the court, the truth of the charges will be taken into consideration, and will be thrown into the balance in order to adjust it. I am free to admit, that if the accusations are unfounded, Dr. Trench is most aggrieved, and justice ought to rise up in indignation in his defence. I do not say that the charges are well founded—it is not my province to decide that question-but if they are, (and your lordships will weigh al the probabilities) you will pause before you grant a favour to Dr. Trench, and decide whether he is the best qualified person to superintend the morals of Ballinasloe. What, then, are the charges against him? They are threefold It is alleged that he is not a fit person to preside over the education of youth-first, because he was a man of licentious habits-secondly, because he has inflicted the greatest misery upon the unfortunate peasantry under his dominion-and thirdly, that he is a man of the cruel propensities, which created for him an appellation with which the most shocking images of horror are associated. With respect to the first charge, (and I again repeat that I am only arguing hypothetically, and in obedience to my client's positive instructions) Mr. M'Donnell has sworn that the doctor, since he became a clergyman has led a most immoral life. His miscellaneous amours are set forth with minuteness--and the progeny of his indulgences are also specified. Mr. M'Donnell has, indeed, given as particular details of the reverend gentleman's sacerdotal frailties as your lordships could require every thing has been done by him to remove any disposition to incredu lity with which charges against an archdeacon ought to be received. It may be objected that these statements are made upon belief. Mr. M'Donnell, however, has encountered this objection; but when I was about to read the affidavit of an unfortunate female, containing some particulars calculated to satisfy your lordships, if you entertained any doubt of the fidelity of Mr. M'Donnell's delineations of debauchery, the counsel for the archdeacon stopped me, and insisted that the affidavit was filed too late, and was not admissible. The court decided that i. was not, and therefore I shall not even state what that affidavit se forth. But I shall be permitted to say, that it does strike me as extras

ordinary that the clergyman who comes into this court with such ostentations claims to sanctity, and who demands a reparation for the injury done to his character, should seek a shelter from investigation in mere Forms of law, and rely upon the tardiness with which the affidavit has come in, as a ground for withholding the facts from the court. If the charges are untrue, why not iszol them with the scorn with which conscious virtue should always encounter the accusations of malignity? The doctor enters the temple of justice as proudly as he would mount the steps of his own church, and with a lofty demeanour demands redress; but the moment proof is offered of the charge, he shrinks into the first dark hiding-place of the law where he can find a refuge. HavNg said thus much upon this suppression of a most material affidavit, I think it an act of justice to Dr. Trench to say, that the charge to which I have adverted relates to his former life; but, that although for many years after he entered the church he persevered in those addictions which he had acquired in a less ascetic profession, he has lately reformed his conduct, and allowed time to apply its moralising influence to a fiery and impassioned temperament. But men of vehement characters engage in the pursuit of virtue with the same excessive ardour with which they obey the allurements of pleasure, and the transition in excesses is not uncomnon. The doctor's letters to the parish priest, asking his leave to preach in the Catholic chapel, afford evidence of this. It is not easy to imagine a more extraordinary composition than the following." Dear Garret, dear fellow-servant, have we not the same Master over us-oh, how long and how often have I perverted his gifts, abandoned his works, and done despite to the spirit of his grace, and truly it is high time to wake out of sleep. Let us cast away the works of darkness and put upon us the armour of light. I have a long account to settle-an account of twenty years' standing, at which time, as his ministering servant, he delivered to me his goods. Gracious God! what an awful prospect is before me, and if he hath in mercy snatched me as a brand from the burning, am I still to continue the same wilful, disobedient, rebellious, slothful servant as before." This letter is accompanied by others in the same strain, and in one he applies to the aforesaid Garret Larkin, to allow him to usurp his functions in the chapel, and from the altar to denounce the errors of his religion. This proposition might only excite a smile, if we did not recollect that the very man who indulged in these effusions, was invested with the power of inflicting readful oppression. It is positively stated, that the doctor posted up notice, in his own hand-writing, and signed with his name, denounc ing vengeance on all those who should not obey his fanatical injunc‐ ons, and send their children through that process of apostacy which be had devised. He carried his menaces with a frightful fidelity intc xecution. Look at the example of Catherine Heney, for instance, who swears, that having, in obedience to the parish priest, refused to send her five children to the anti-Catholic school kept by the doctor, she was turned out of her cabin, with her starving and shivering orphans, and when her house had been thrown down, was obliged to ¡eck refuge in a pig-stye, where she lay upon heaps of filth in a fever,

surrounded by the miserable offspring for whom she was no longer able to procure acurishmcat. It may be urged that she is not deserving of belief, because her evidence is tainted by her poverty-but let it not be forgotten that the parish priest swears, that he attended her when she was driven from her house, and gives his confirmation to her statement. Your lordships will not say, that the affidavit of a Catholic clergyman of respectability is to be discredited, for no other reason than that it contains imputations upon a Protestant archdeacon. The affidavit of Catherine Heney is sustained by a vast number of other depositions to similar instances of oppression. Dr. Coen, the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocess, has made an affidavit, in which the general conduct of the archdeacon is described. He represents Dr Trench as managing and directing a barbarous and most heart-rending persecution. The next charge against him is expressed in the alleged libel in the following words: "I never was charged with bringing a female to the triangle." In answer he states, that he never exercised any power vested in him with cruelty, and that he never did bring a female to the triangle, and he proceeds to put your lordships in possession of the circumstances under which he admitted that he did preside over the public military torture of a female in the barracks at Cork.—He states that he was adjutant of the Galway militia, from the year 1797 to the year 1799, and that he was present, in his official capa city, when the sentence of a court-martial was executed upon a woman, who had been detected in stealing some articles belonging to the soldiers of the regiment, to the best of his recollection. To the best of his recollection! I do not think that he should have any very obscure or imperfect remembrance of such an incident in his life as this. it ought to have been burned into his memory in colours of blood, which the years, which have made his head white, ought never to have effaced. At that time it appears there was a great tendency to pilfering, and this female propensity in the regiment it was deemed advisable to Scourge out. The doctor tells us, that so efficacious was the example given by the flogging of a woman in the barracks, that the crime was, to the best of his recollection, suppressed. She was sentenced to twenty-five lashes, he says, but very few were applied. What does he call a “few?” It would have been condescending of him to have stated his notions of number, but he does not enter into that trivial particular, nor does he mention the name of the commanding officer, nor that of a single member of the court-martial; he does, indeed, say that General Lake approved of the sentence, and proceeds to pronounce a gratuitous encomium upon the general's humanity, which, I suppose, includes a atent panegyric upon his own. The woman was flogged in his presence. His narration does not precisely correspond with that or an eye-witness to the scene. Patrick Muldoon, a soldier of the 13th regi ment, states, "that he was in it for twenty-five years, and was sergeant for seven years, and has now a pension of £35 for his service; that before he went into the line he was in the Galway militia, and remembers that a woman was flogged in the barrack, when Archdeacon Trench was adjutant; that the archdeacon was the only officer that was

4

present that the woman ves tegged for having stolen a brass candletick-that he saw the woman stripped down to the waist, and flagged in the usual way between the shoulders." This affidavit is corroborated by that of Edmund Melody, who says, “That Winified Hynes, the wife of a private in the regiment, was accused by Richard Marmion, of having pledged o candlesticks, his property, whereupon the said adjusant, the Hon. Charles Le Poer Trench, ordered her to be put into the guard-house, where she remained the whole night, and on the next morning, when the regiment was on parade, said Winifred was, by order of зia »djutant, brought out, guarded by a file of soldiers, and in the presence of the regiment, which was formed into a hollow square to witness her punishment, the said Winifred Hynes was tied up hands and feet to the triangles, and the said Winifred Hynes having made vehement struggles to avoid being stripped naked, for the purpose of punishment, the said adjutant went up to the drum-major, cursed and damned him for not tearing off her clothes, and in a great passion, giving him a blow with a stick, ordered the said drum-major to tear and cut them off, upon which the said druro-major, with a knife, cut open said Winifred's gown, and then tore her ether covering from her shoulders, down to the waist, after which she received fifty lashes, on the bare back from two drummers, in the usual way of flogging soldiers. That during said horrid exhibition, a Mr. Davis, an officer in said regimeut, went up to the said adjutant and told him, in the hearing of deponent, that Peter Hynes, the husband of the said Winifred, was absolutely fainting in the ranks, at seeing his wife exposed in such a manner, and begged of said adjutant to allow Peter Hynes to retire to his room, upon which the said adjutant answered, he might go where he pleased, and he did not care if the devil had him. Saith that after said flogging, the said Winifred, with her back still bleeding, was publicly drummed out of the barrack-yard, to the tune of the rogue's march. Saith he never heard, nor does he believe, that said Winifred Hynes was tried by any court-martial, but was punished, as aforesaid, by the sole order and authority of the said adjutant, the Honourable and now the Rev. Charles Le Poer Trench, who, on account of his many severities, and particularly of the said flogging of said Winifred Hynes, was called in the regiment by the name of 'skin tim alive."" I make no comment for the present on the facts stated n this affidavit, except that they completely bear out the allegation of Mr. M'Donnell, and merely submit it to your consideration, whether that gentleman has, in this transaction, at least, very greatly misrepre sented this merciful teacher of the word of God. But it may be said, that the conduct of Doctor Trench was very essentially and amiably different, after entering into holy orders-that notwithstanding the identity of person, no identity of character existed between the adjutant and the archdeacon, and that the doctor presented, in his subsequent demeanour, a christian and interesting contrast. The following incident in the doctor's ecclesiastical life, which is stated by Mr. M'Donnell in his affidavit, throws some light upon his disposition, and will enable the court to judge how far he is right in his conceptions of himself, for