in short, that all the generals of the British army were Protestants. Why that was the grievance, and not the fault, of the Catholics. General Ambrose was prevented by the oppressive and base injustice of the Penal Code from dedicating his talents to the service of the state. This obliged him to go into a foreign service. He went, not relying on the advantages of a high,and powerful connexion, as the Duke of Wellington, but entered as a sub-lieutenant in the Austrian service, and by his own personal bravery and merit, rose from rank to rank, until he reached the degree of general. He had been thirty-nine years in the army, and had seen thirty-four campaigns. (Cheers.)

Was it politic in the British government to reject the acquisi tion of such talents, which General Ambrose would gladly have devoted to their service, and to transfer the benefit of them to foreign powers? The taunts of The Courier were so absurd, that they could only have proceeded from a perfect insanity of falseLood and slander. It was the madness of Orangeism to assert falsehoods of so glaring a character as to be liable to instantaneous contradiction. Was The Courier ignorant that there was no foreign service of which the Irish Catholics were not at the head? Was The Courier aware that when Maria Teresa instituted the Order of the Cross of Military Merit in Austria, of the first fifty individuals who were promoted to that honour, forty-two were Irish Catholics? (Cheers.)

It was an extraordinary fact, but he would pledge himself to procure the names of these distinguished individuals. The proportion of Irishmen in the Austrian service, could not, of course, have been more than as one to three hundred, and yet we find forty-two out of fifty whose merit was rewarded with a signal promotion, to be Irishmen. He (Mr. O'Connell) had no fewer than six relatives who had attained the rank of general in foreign armies. His father's cousin was Governor of Prague, and Chamberlain to the Emperor of Austria. His uncle had (before the Revolution) been a general in the French service. But such had been the good effects even of the partial relaxation of the Penal Code, that of thirty-seven relatives of his, within the degree of second cousin, who, before the Revolution, had been in the French service, not one was now in any foreign army, but many had perished in securing the triumphs and establishing the glory of the Wellingtons and the Packs. (Cheers.)

It was, therefore, clear, that the want of Catholic generals in the British army did not proceed from any deficiency of talent or bravery in the Catholics. but from the emaciating cruelty o

VOL. II.

2 F

the base and infamous Penal Code, which rejected their services, and left them exposed to the impudent audacious insults of the lowest and most contemptible vermin in the world, the mercenary writers for a degraded press.

DFPUTATION TO ENGLAND.

MR. DAVID LYNCH presented the following report from the committee, and moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, that its suggestions should be carried into oiect.

That it be recommended to the Association to resolve that a deputation do proceed to England for the following purposes :

1st. To visit the Catholic Association in Liverpool, and such other Catho lic Associations as they deem meet, on their way to London.

2d. To endeavour to concert, as weil with the country as the London Catholic Associations, the means as well of bringing the Catholic question before parliament in the most advantageous manner, as of laying before the English people the sufferings and merits of the Catholics of Ireland.

3d.-That Messrs. O'Connell, Sheil, and Bric he requested to form such deputation, and that Mr. Bric do take the duty of secretary to the delegation. 4th. That the deputies be requested to reach Liverpool on the 29th inst.

-

MR. O'CONNELL rose to say, that he accepted, with great satisfaction, the proposed honour; because he thought the measure likely to be one of essential advantage to the country. It would be a mission of peace. The object was, to explain to the well-disposed people of England, what it was that the Catholic Association desired, and what the people of Ireland wanted; and to convince them, in spite of the studied calumnies of the press, that it was the interest of England, as well as of Ireland, that justice should be done to the latter nation—that the wishes and the views of the Irish people were to confirm and consolidate the constitution, to secure the throne, and to bind the connexion of the two countries with the inseparable links of regard and affection, and prevent it from being a source of endurance and misery on the one side, and of persecution on the other. It was right that the Association should know, that they (the deputation) would travel at their own expense, without infringing upon the funds of the Association. (Immense cheering.) It certainly was a considerable sacrifice in a professional point of view, to eave town at that juncture; but he (Mr. O'Connell) was happy to have an opportunity of making such a sacrifice to the inte rests of his country.

A letter was here read from Mr. Lawless (Jack Lawless), proprietor of The irishman (Beifast paper), complaining of Mr. O'Connell's strictures on a former occasion, upon the politicians of Belfast.

MR. O'CONNELL.-I avow every word that was set down for me in the paper alluded to; the report is substantially right. but the sentiments are expressed in better language than any in which I could clothe them. Upon the most mature delibera. tion do I say, that the liberality of Belfast is affected, and that I have the most thorough contempt for the affectation.

I never denied there was some liberality in Belfast. 'It is the claim to great generosity of sentiment; it is the assertion to superiority; it is the proud and vain boasting which I condemned. This letter contains nothing to change my mind. The strongest proof it gives of liberal sentiment is, that my excellent friend, Lawless, has been supported in his professional capacity in this pretending town. I attribute his success to his talents and his honesty; he has no competitor in the town in any thing that claims the respect of the independent or intelligent mind.

But, in this same liberal town, forsooth, the Liberals have lately set up three Presbyterian parsons to manage a paper, called The Northern Whig, and who borrow, as far as I can understand, their best inspirations from the "mountain_dew," known by the vulgar appellation of "potteen." (Loud laughter.

This Northern Whig appears to me to be a fair specimen of the hypocrisy of political principles in Belfast. They invoke the name of liberty, while they assail the ardent friend of freedom. They affect a generous sympathy with the oppressed, while they are as stout and persevering calumniators as the best trained dealers in virulent falsehood to be found in the entire Orange gang. They charge me, for instance, directly and by name, with the guilt of an inveterate hostility to Sacred Writ and the perusal of the Word of God. They know this to be false. They knew in their hearts that neither I nor those individuals who act with me have any feeling towards the Sacred Scriptures but such as becomes the Christian; that we revere the Word of God, whether written or unwritten; that we submissively and zealously concur with the Catholic Church in recommending the reading of the Sacred Scriptures in the be fitting spirit of calm acquiescence in the wisdom of that Holy Church, to whose care the custody as well as the interpretation of the Word of God was committed, by the Divine Founder of Christianity. They knew well that the question is not upon the reading, but that it is upon the private interpretation of the Scriptures that our objection is not to the reading, but to the

private and individual interpretation of those Scriptures(Cheers.)

Upon this question the Protestants may be right, which I certainly do not think, and we may be wrong, which, I am convinced, is not the case. But, at all events, it is uncharitable and unchristian to misrepresent the nature of the question.— (Applause.) Yes, these Liberals of Belfast, swelling in the noxious heat of the "regium dorum," labour week after week in their favourite vocation of misrepresentation and calumny; and are only solicitous in fighting under the mask of liberality, that the vizor should not be lifted upon which they vainly rely for the concealment of their moral and political deformity.(Loud cheers.)

And what mighty proof is it of Belfast liberality to maintain The Irishman, when the same very liberal town supports, still better, two or three other papers of as contemptible a class in politics as can well be imagined? The next topic my friend Lawless urges, relates to the memorable period of our annals, which showed the volunteer strength of the empire.

It is asserted that Catholics were first admitted into Volunteer corps in Belfast. This assertion has been often made, and it is the repetition of the assertion which provokes me. I totally deny my worthy friend's history; Catholics formed the majority and in some instances, the entire of several Volunteer corps in the South, before they were allowed to join a single corps in the North. In Connaught the distinction never existed; and, even. ın Dublin, at the boasted period of northern liberality, there was an entire corps of Catholics, called the Irish Brigade, under by the way, the present illustrious head of the Irish government, the Marquis Wellesley. (Cheers.) So much for the boast of liberality as to the volunteering system.

It was a great and glorious cause, and it ultimately combined all classes of Irishmen for their common country. But it should not be distorted to flatter the empty, barren, and useless vanity of Belfast into a belief of more merit than was possessed.

The next topic brings us down to a later period; to the times of the classic, the elegant, and the ill-fated Tone and the United Irish. I will not conceal my conviction of the utility of the admixture of the republicanism of the Dissenters, with the monarchial elements of the constitution. I agree with Junius, that however monarchial it may seem wise that we should be in practice, we should never lose sight of republicanism, at least in theory. An union of monarchists and democrats I hold to beauspicious to the national cause but I will require demo

1

eracy to be placed under the control of these wise restraintz provided by our constitution. The Presbyterians of the north thought otherwise at the period alluded to. They laid the founiation of the secret society which produced the Rebellion of 1798. That disastrous revolt originated with the worthy liberals of Belfast. They allured some of the Catholics from the paths of duty and, when they made offenders of them, they were the first, not only to abandon the dupes of their own artifices, but to enter the ranks of the Orangemen ; yes, the identical Northern Liberals, who first stimulated to rebellion, were also, when the hope of success faded, the very foremost in the Orange ranks. (Loud cheers.)

And are there not, amongst the worst and wickedest of the Orangemen to the present day, to be found many Presbyterians and other Dissenters? Is not Belfast itself-the boasted Belfast -to this day crowded with Orangemen ? Do not we read still of Orange processions in Belfast? Is it not, therefore, both preposterous and provoking to be taunted with praises of Belfast liberality, where the Orange still flourishes, and nothing but empty words are given to the supporters of better opinions? Even admitting that some creditable things are to be told of the Dissenters who flourished in Belfast in the Augustan days of Ireland, does that show that the people of the present time, in the particular town in question, are any better than mere pretenders to liberality, who are to be disregarded and laughed at ? It really appears to me, that Mr. Solicitor-General Joy, whose father was, I believe, a United Irishman, and proprietor, I believe, of The Northern Star—and whose uncle was, I believe, another United Irishman, and proprietor of The Belfast News-Letter, could claim credit for liberality on these grounds, with as great justice as the Belfast Dissenters of the present day could on the grounds relied upon by my friend, John Lawless.

But, bring the matter to the test-I would ask, what are the proofs, as exhibited in their actions, of their possessing a tolerant spirit? My friend gives them the credit of having been the authors of the requisition to Alderman M'Kenny. I wil not consent to his taking the credit of that measure from the Duke of Leinster. (Hear, hear.) The noble duke does so very little for Ireland, that really he cannot afford to be thus stripped of his honours by my friend Lawless. (Hear, hear, and loud laughter.) It is ridiculous to talk of the requisition to Alderman M'Kenny, originating in Belfast. This, surely, is a dream -when my friend (Lawless) came to Dublin, and until after we