Though the word "exceptions" be equally proper, yet, the reason of that propriety may not be generally knowu. The prisoners from Dublin, one excepted, had signed the fatal compact of 1798.

Fortunately, the signatures of the prisoners in Belfast were destroyed, in the rage of Mr. Pollock, as I have related. Consequently, they were unentangled in the acknowledgment of crime, imputed to the former. Hence, the non-subscribers in Fort-George sent a memorial to government, in which I refused to join, as I had formerly done in respect to the compact, stating that they were not comprehended in that compact, and praying liberation, on that account. To this memorial, the phrase "no exceptions" seems evidently to refer; and if so, the intention of government, or the clerks, who usurped the powers of government, must then have been to consign all the prisoners to the same fate; and the end of their deliberations, to determine how that intention might be accomplished; though, as will soon appear, they afterwards relinquished this design, and made an exception, on the very ground of signature, and no signature."

If this be admitted, and admitted it must be, if the words of ministerial clerks be supposed to convey the same meaning, as when used by other men, liberation could not have been our intended

intended fate at that time. Had it been so, there could have been no occasion for delay, deliberation, or arrangement. Hence, as our lives were now out of the question, a presumption arises, that these deliberations were for the purpose of discovering, or devising, some pretext for transporting us with the Dublin prisoners, who had unguardedly signed their own banishment for life.*

It will here be recollected that when Mr. Pollock's paper was presented to me in Belfast, I refused to sign it on the suspicion that my so doing might be construed into an acknowledg ment of crime; and that when my signature was afterwards eagerly sought for, in order to procure the extension of mercy to others, I persevered in my refusal, from an apprehension that cruelty not kindness, was intended; as, if the latter had been the case, it would not have been denied to those who signed, merely because I withheld my name.t These suspicions were consolidated into certainty, a few days afterwards, by a proclamation bearing date,,, August 23d. 1798," and subscribed, G. Nugent, major-general,

commanding Northern district."

In

* This presumption seems to receive a strong confirmation from Mr. Cleland's exertions to have me driven out of Ireland, after my return from Fort-George, as will appear afterwards.

For the writing, "L," and, " my name."
See appendix No. 4.

In this proclamation banishment for life is denominated “ his majesty's pardon ;" and signing the compact, "a title to an equal distribution of the king's merciful and gracious intentions, and the like measure of his majesty's mercy." Surely the guilt must have been heinous, and its acknowledgment considered as explicit and nequivocal, especially as no evidence was adduced to prove it, else such banishment could not be called a "measure of mercy.

It is true there are crimes, under the convic tion of which, it might be called a "mitigation of punishment," and consequently, a measure of mercy." But I conceive that no crime yet has been, or ever can be, committed, or even meditated, by man or devil, of which it can be called "a pardon." If it can, the language of a book, which we consider, not only as correct, but sacred, must be both nonsensical and deceptive. The banishment of the "old serpent, who is the devil and satan," from the realms of glory to a dreary region, there to be locked up in a gloomy cell, loaded with chains, and "tormented for, ever and ever," was not the infliction of a punishment, but the concession of a "pardon,, which he had obtained:" and permitting the' "angels, which kept not their first estate," to emigrate to hell," there to be reserved in chains of darkness, to the judgment of the great day," was allowing them" a like distribution of graci ous intentions, and an equal measure of mercy.'

I have,

I have all along, called the paper, of which I am now writing, "a compact," though the word is not used in the general's proclamation. However, as he states that his excellency has been graciously pleased to accept of the said proposal;" viz of the Dublin prisoners; and "has agreed to the terms thereby offered &c." I hope this proclaimed acceptance and argument fully justify the use of it; particularly, as he adds that said prisoners" had fulfilled the terms to be by them performed, and thereby obtained his majesty's pardon."

Now, if this same paper be admitted as a compact-if the "pardon," and the "measure of mercy," which it implies, were withholden, for more than three years and an half, from those who, as general Nugent proclaims, had actually "obtained it"-if those, who "entitled themselves to an equal distribution, of the king's most merciful and gracious intentions," by signing it in Belfast, and whose signatures Mr. Pollock had outrageously destroyed, were precluded the benefits of said distribution, for a like time-and, if they, in violation of this compact; and I reho had never signed it, against whom a formal charge had never been prefered, or, so far as I ever knew or heard, an official warrant issued, were not only condemned to languish in confinement during that period, but dragged from prison to prison, from land to sea and sea to land, and latterly from one country to another, withont

without any plausible pretext assigned, have I not reason to suspect, nay, to believe and assert, that the delays mentioned were to procure, and the deliberations to devise, matter of excuse for protracting, or extending, the "measure of mercy” which we had hitherto experienced? As to myself, I presume the following facts will supply, not only probable evidence, but direct proof, that this was the true state of the case.

During these deliberations Mrs. Dickson and our two daughters resided in Newtown-Ards, the birth-place of lord viscount Castlereagh, and residence of the rev. John Cleland, formerly private tutor, or rather footman, to his lordship, and then as denominated by his late friends Merry and Newel, master of his croppy-hounds, poin-. ters, and terriers.* With this office he held the agency of the earl of Londonderry, and " that of Nicholas Price Esq. brother-in-law to lady Londonderry,

*I would not have it supposed, for a moment, that this designation of office originated with me. It was commonly used, in 1797, by Mr. Thomas Merry, surveyor of excise, who boasted of being one of his whippers in. Mr. Newel, another of Mr. Cleland's confidential friends, varies the phrase, in his confessions, and speaks of him, only as a dd good hunter, or huntsman; I forget which. The appellation was so hackneyed, and in such a variety of terms that it somehow or other caught the ear of Mr. Curran, and at the Spring assizes in Down, led him into such confusion of ideas, that, from his language, it is very uncertain whether be considered Mr. Cleland, as a huntsman, or a bloodhound-or both.

See appendix No. 5.