he would be as wise as he is impassioned. I have to do with the practical part of his letter. He advises, for the adoption of parliamentary reform, the abandonment of our petition for reliefhe dwells upon Mr. Canning's resignation-insists that Mr. Plunket shall make no tender of what, by a piece of professional dexterity, he calls the veto-insinuates that the petition already entrusted to Lord Donoughmore and Mr. Plunket ought not to be presented, as some of the petitioners are dead, and because he, forsooth, has changed his mind; and concludes with the singular project of amalgamating (as he terms it) a Quaker into an Irishman. Such are the fashions of January, 1821. Well, then, does Mr. O'Connell really think that you are to be so blinded with all the vapour which he has raised, as to imagine that there exists any connexion whatever between Roman Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform? Whatever may be the sentiment of a Roman Catholic in his individual capacity, upon that topic, what has his creed to do with it? If we cannot obtain relief for ourselves, what shall we procure for others? If the Roman Catholic question cannot pass through the prejudices, will reform overcome the interests of the House of Commons? Mr. O'Connell's reasoning goes to show the weakness of the Catholicswhy then ally their imbecility to the cause of reform? What will that cause gain by Mr. O'Connell's casting a peacock's feather into the scale? Where, too, is the certainty of a reformed parliament passing emancipation? The penal code was enacted by a parliament which set at defiance the authority of the crown. It is notorious that many of the opponents of reform are the advocates of our cause, and it is strange, that even while Mr. O'Connell expatiates upon its necessity, he sets such a high value upon the support of Mr. Canning, who is a zealous enemy to that measure. He even admits that there was lately a mere majority of one against us in the Cabinet, and yet he bids us despair unless his new nostrum be employed. How different was his language, when scarcely one minister was favourable to our views, and when the late king's opposition operated as an insurmountable barrier for a time! How did Mr. O'Connell speak, when our hopes hung like wet osiers, and it was needful to employ a strong and commanding spirit to lift them from the stagnant despondency over which they drooped? If we identify our question with reform, will not the opponents of the latter become our foes? Why cumulate new obstacles in our way? If our question, simplified as it is by plain right and obvious expediency, cannot pass through the needle's eye, will Mr. O'Connell, mounted upon a camel,

!

loaded with the union and parliamentary reform, spur the slow and unwieldy animal through the narrow orifice? The Roman Catholics of Ireland do not feel the least inclination to connect themselves with the reformers. The latter are well aware that we could render them no benefit, and must disserve ourselves. Besides, has it ever occurred to Mr. O'Connell that Catholic Emancipation is to pass the House of Lords as well as the Commons ! And what has the purification of one branch of the legislature to do with the success of the Catholic question in another. haps, however, both houses of parliament may fall within the comprehensiveness of his projects, and his next address is to blow the mitres of thirty bishops into the paradise of fools. Enough, however, upon this new speculation, upon which it was scarcely worth my while to insist at so much length.

Per

"Let us now examine Mr. O'Connell's assertion. that there is no likelihood—nay, that there is no possibility of success. It must have been since the month of July last that he made this discovery; nor has he condescended to state by what process he has arrived at this grand political result. The only fact on which he relies is, the resignation of Mr. Canning. He builds apon this single circumstance his ill-constructed fabric of despair. Even if we did lose a vote in the cabinet, as our question is not made a cabinet measure, the loss would not be of much importance. But how has Mr. O'Connell ascertained that the vacancy is to be filled by an opponent of our claims? He conjectures it indeed, and it is upon his guess-work that the measures of a nation are to be founded? Where are the evidences of hopelessness? Are they to be found in the opening of the army? If this most valuable concession had been wrenched from the ministry-if it had been ushered in with the sound of trumpets, it would be regarded as a great victory-and so it was to those brave men whose laurels had, till then, been blighted by their creed. This was the measure which removed the Whigs from office; and there was, perhaps, a time when it would have been wise to postpone our petition, nor press upon our carnest friends so perplexing a subject. Did Mr. O'Connell, at that time, advise the Roman Catholics to forbear. No! he reserves this novel doctrine for the present period, and spares this ministry the embarrassment of a question which distracts them, and is the only topic on which they differ. But how does Mr. O'Connell act at this juncture? The very moment that he bids you be silent, he is himself most loud. Does he intend to reservo all expatiation upon our grievances to his own cracular

self, and are you to forbear petitioning, that he may continue to address? Upon the remainder of Mr. O'Connell's letter, I need not occupy you long. From the subject of reform he suddenly wheels round to Mr. Plunket; men are not always conscious of their own motives, nor does the mind see itself. The patriotism of Mr. O'Connell may be as pure as amber, but even in amber we may find a straw; Mr. O'Connell could not allow any personal feeling to influence him, where his country is at stake; yet in speaking of Mr. Plunket, he says, 'neither Mr. Plunket, nor Mr. Anything else, shall.' The phrase is a transparent one, and the rushlight, with its feeble and fretful fire is seen behind. It is as clear as glass; it covers, but it does not hide. Mr. O'Connell does not deal very candidly when he says that Mr. Plunket shall not offer the veto. Mr. Plunket has already distinctly stated, that as the Catholics disapprove of the veto, it should be abandoned; as to the particular form in which the question may be brought forward, let me remind Mr. O'Connell, that upon his proposing, at a very numerous meeting, a resolution, expressive of the unwillingness of the Roman Catholic body to accede to any ecclesiastical arrangements, that resolution was carried by a majority of only six, and when it was communicated to Mr. Plunket, he answered, that he should act as he deemed it meet; let him remember that several of the parishes of Dublin confided their petitions to Mr. Plunket, without the annexation of any resolution whatsoever to control him in the exercise of his discretion. Upon that occasion, when Mr. O'Connell revived the unhappy question of the veto, I read several passages from his address of January, 1819, in which, after dwelling upon the value of a silk gown, he advises that the subject of the veto should be buried in utter silence, says that it is not in the power of the Roman Catholics to prevent its real operation, and intimates that it is already in force.

"One would have hoped that after these opinions, deliberately set down in all the permanence of ink, Mr. O'Connell would hardly have ventured upon a resuscitation of the topic. But inconsistency has no terror for him. In his present address, indeed, he states that he firmly believes in the Roman Catholic religion -I presume he also believed in it in 1819-I hope, too, he does not enjoy a monopoly of faith; nor will the public be inclined to think that such a man as Lord Fingal affords less practical evidence of his creed than any of its more clamorous professors.

"Mr. O'Connell (and that I take to be the gist of his address) intimates that the petition, which has been entrusted to Lord

Donoughmore and Mr. Plunket, ought not to be presented by them. He says, 'of the numerous persons who signed that petition some must be dead-is it the petition of the dead men? Really when we read arguments of this sort, knowing the ability of the advocate, we must think lamentably of the cause. It is the drowning grasp of a sophist in the agonies of confutation. Even in an ordinary action, the death of one of several parties shall not abate a suit; and shall the imperial cause of Ireland perish in the death of John Stiles? He also says that some of the petitioners are abroad, and therefore have no interest. What has become of Mr. O'Connell's patriotism? He gives in this opinion a bad sample of the Irishman into which he wishes to transmute every sect. Does he mean to say that an absence from this country would wash all its sufferings from his memory? It is said that an orator of antiquity had a flute-player always beside him to sound the key by which his voice was to be pitched. It were well if Mr. O'Connell would, before he pens his next address, renovate his languid love of country, with the Exile of Erin.' Mr. O'Connell also says that he has changed his mind. If, in the midst of a debate upon a petition of thousands, a single individual was so rash before the House of Commons, and exclaim, 'I have changed my mind-I disclaim the petition though I have signed it;' should this person, by throwing a pebble into the stream, stop the whole current of a great proceeding. Let Mr. O'Connell remember that all these arguments of his are as applicable to every former petition as to the present. Our petitions were generally submitted to Mr. Grattan, seven or eight months before they were presented. Did Mr. O'Connell ever allege that some of the petitioners were dead, or absent, or had changed their minds? Mr. O'Connell insists that the resolution entrusting our petitions to Lord Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan, contained a clause that they would be. presented forthwith, or immediately, he forgets which." A person who builds an argument upon a word, and does not remem ber it, shows what sort of validity he sets upon it. Does Mr. O'Connell really mean to non-suit the Catholics of Ireland; and is it with a 'forthwith' that he is to upset the cause of his country? But neither Mr. O'Connell, nor Mr. Anything else,' to borrow his own phraseology, shall dictate to the Catholic body; and I must inform him that he wants the power to do ill. The petition was given to Lord Donoughmore and to Mr. Plunket, that it might be presented as soon as possible, and it was not ossible to present it during the last session, when the queen's

01.56

To this Mr. O'Con

blocked up all the avenues of the State. nell, however, pays no attention, nor does he affect to know that the question at that time before the legislature was of so absorbing a character as to render every other topic, for the moment, of comparative insignificance. It is not in the shocks of an earthquake that a house is to be repaired. But to oppose arguments of this sort is to combat with shadows. Neither Lord Donoughmore, our faithful advocate, nor Mr. Plunket, the legitimate successor of Mr. Grattan, will be swayed by such futilities. The latter gentleman knows the value of all the points of law made by Mr. O'Connell. He will not be much disturbed by any splenetic pleading. He is placed upon an eminence which Mr. O'Connell's addresses and harangues cannot reach.

'The murmuring surge,

That on the unnumbered idle pebbles chafes,
Cannot be heard so high."

"Mr. Plunket well knows that Mr. O'Connell does not speak. the sentiments of the Roman Catholic budy; once, indeed, by following he appeared to guide. By a flexible accordance between his sense of public duty, with his love of popular praise, he serve for some time to indicate the varieties of popular excitation. should be loth to compare him to a sort of political vane by which all the veerings of the breeze might be determined, but it were as idle to imagine that the currents of air on, which the balloon is borne, are regulated by the painted machine that floats upon them, as to suppose that a person swelled out with the very inflammable patriotism of Mr. O'Connell, and raised by the very levity of his opinions, should create the vicissitudes of passion on which he ascends. That gentleman was certainly elevated in & very gaudy vehicle, embellished with every diversity of hue, He had risen with the shout of the multitude, and after throw ing out all his ballast, and waving his green flag he very skilfully adapted his course in this aerial voyage to all the mutations of impulse, which agitated the stormy medium through which he passed, until at last, in attempting to rise into a still more lofty region, he has allowed the thin and combustible materials of his buoyancy to take fire, and comes tumbling in a volume of fiery vapour, composed of the Veto, the Union, and Parliamentary Reforma.

"RICHARD SHIKL."

1