were almost incredible, they conceived it most prudent to defer the petition until next session, when they were determined not to leave ministers the opportunity of slurring over the grievances of Ireland.

They would then attack them in detail, and upon such disqualifications as were more immediately felt, and upon which they would offer strong and irresistible evidence. They would petition week after week, as if those who had the power persisted in refusing to remove the fetters, their ears should, at least, be dinned with the clanking of their chains, and the great object of the Catholic Association would thereby be attained—that of exposing to the world the present iniquitous and barbarous policy of a vacillating, inefficient ministry.

The mockery of a Commutation Tithe Bill, wholly impracticable, if not otherwise objectionable, would meet its deserved fate in the House of Lords. No operative measure to do away the grievance of the present tithe system is likely to pass the legislature this session, and the clergy will have the benefit of the Composition of Tithe Agistment Bill, without having commuted the tithe of potatoes. Mr. O'Connell here declared he knew no greater evil existing than that, nor did he think the imposition of local taxation was foreign to their purpose, as they found in it a compost of manure that nourished and preserved the existence of that hot-bed of bigotry and persecution, the Dublin corporation; who, protected by Mr. Goulbourn, might now triumphantly glory in having jobbed and squandered so many hundred thousand pounds to keep alive the cry of intolerauce and persecution.

He assured the meeting they would be prepared with materials for next session, that would create for them in the minds of the British people, at least consideration, if not conviction.

MOTION OF THANKS TO HENRY BROUGHAM.

THE next speech we shall quote had reference to one who, though still prominent og the public scene, has long ago ceased to merit such testimonials as that which follows.

The speech was on a motion (made July the 12th) of thanks to Henry Brougham, who then did appear to merit the glowing eulogium Mr. O'Connell pronounced upon him, but who now has sunk himself almost below contempt.

MR. O'CONNELL rose. He did not consider it would be neces

sary, upon the subject of his motion, to address the meeting at any length.

The petition complaining of the administration of justice in Ireland, was the first which the Catholics thought advisable not to place in the hands of any but an Irish member, and the result was proved, that the choice on this occasion was as judicious as happy, while the discussion itself, forming a new era in the history of Irish grievances, was also matter for congratulation.

It afforded an opportunity to the Catholics for the exposure of corruptions and abuses which would astonish even those who, stood unawed by conscience, and unsubdued by shame. The Catholics, when preparing this petition, did not think it expedient to enter into a detail of facts which would necessarily provoke the ire of individual feeling, and elicit a premature defence of personal character. There were, besides, many recent cases in which the right of property has not been finally decided, and the decisions of which may be material to the support of their allegations, and if they thought it right to go before the house with their petition, complaining in general terms in the first instance, it was not, he would assure the quibblers, for want of materials of evidence, to prove the frequent and glaring acts of partiality in the administration of justice, where Catholics were concerned, and which were so notorious, that they did not expect any man possessing character or intellect could have the hardihood to deny; but though the Catholics, from thinking too favourably of human nature, may have miscalculated the opposition to their complaints, perhaps their error was a fortunate one, as having caused a challenge which they (the Catholics) most willingly accepted from a confidence in their ability, if not to satisfy, at least to confound their opponents.

But that was a subject which they should adjourn until next vessions of parliament, when he could promise their pledge should be redeemed.

To the people of Ireland, the debate itself afforded important instruction, teaching them what they were, to expect from the perfidious friendship of members who assume an affected liberality, in which to shroud their mercenary ambition and unworthy projects, until the moment of the minister's necessity, when the liberties and privileges of constituents, the country's rights, and the nation's interests, are bartered for the patronage of a county, or the appointment of some dozen of gaugers. (Hear hear).

After the debate was opened by a speech (than which there

VOL II.

P

never was one more powerfully eloquent pronounced in that house), Mr. Goulbourn, from his official station, undertook to reply (though certainly not by argument). He condescended to quote what fell from so humble an individual as himself (Mr. O'Connell), when, in alluding to the judges, he instanced the honesty and ability of those who preside in the Court of King's Bench. Now, had the right honourable gentleman meant to rely upon that opinion, as contradicting the averments contained in the petition, he showed that he (Mr. Goulbourn) was quite mistaken in its operation, for, in their capacity of petitioners, they did not make any allusion generally to the judges, so neither could a compliment paid to any partial number of them, serve to exculpate the whole; and as to what fell from Him (Mr. O'Connell) respecting the judges of the King's Bench, he could, with great certainty, declare it was not the incense of flattery, but an expression of honest feeling extorted from him by a conviction of the intrinsic merits of the distinguished individuals. (Hear, hear.)

But as the right honourable gentleman was merely a hired advocate, whose official duty obliged him to act as protector of abuses in Ireland, even to the plunderers of the corporation (great applause and continued cheering), he might be excused for trying to make the most of a bad case. Gentlemen might, perhaps, recollect Jeremy Bentham, talking of liberty, described the several authorities in the state as a series of checks upon each other; and as the judge, he says, is a check on the jury, so the Lord Lieutenant is a check on the judges; and as liberty consists of checks, so Mr. Goulbourn was sent to be a check over the Lord Lieutenant, fearing his excellency would be too favourable to liberty (laughter, and hear, hear), if not under the control of a gentleman serving his apprenticeship as a statesman, and who was frequently reduced to the dilemma of the barber who cut his finger when shaving a beggar, for which he cursed the poor wretch's thin cheek. (Laughter.) So did Mr. Goulbourn often cut his finger when defending the respectability of an Orange odge, or the selection of a jury composed of twelve brothers, sworn to root out the Amalekite over whose life or property they hold the law's control.

Mr. Goulbourn, for aught he knew, might be a very honourable gentleman, though placed in one of the most unpleasant situations, and obliged to support and defend every measure of the cabinet to which he was attached. He had the authority of Falstaff for saying, that it was no crime for a man to labour

in his vocation. As an advocate, the right honourable gentleman could not have worse clients.

The Catholic petition was encountered by the qualms of the immaculate Colonel Barry's conscience; they were all aware how he shuddered at any, the least imputation, upon the honesty of juries; how the preserver of Magna Charta and patron of Orange grand juries, gave loose to his virtuous indignation at any insinuation against the administrators of justice in Ireland; and then the honesty of his zeal, and the success of his efforts for the preservation of our constitutional privileges deserved, as they would be, to be transmitted to admiring posterity; and those who have heretofore toasted Lord Erskine, and trial by jury, would henceforth vociferate "huzza” for Colonel Barry, and the honesty of jurors! Long life to Colonel Barry, the preserver of justice. (Laughter and cheers.)

And oh! how their admiration for the lover of juries must be heightened by the recollection, that in the newspapers of 1798, it is stated that a gentleman then named Barry Maxwell made proposition to the Irish House of Commons, for the creation of an ex post facto law, authorizing THE TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL Of a number of unfortunate men who had been some time in confinement, owing to the difficulty of proving their guilt, but whoin he alleged it was necessary to dispose of (hear, hear)—a proposal which even Lord Castlereagh's government refused to entertain, and protested against !

How it came to be the same person, who, in the English Commons, was so tenacious of a jury's rights, he (Mr. O'Connell) could attribute to his improvement from an English education, aud, indeed, he could hardly believe that the present Colonel Barry was the apologist of the enormities of the year 1798, and who now raised his voice in support of the juries, though he could well believe him the person who wishes that Catholics should be excluded from juries that were to decide upon Ca-` tholic life or property; but that is a mere matter of taste with the gallant colonel, in which he (Mr. O'Connell) differed from him.

In alluding to the Galway memb.rs, Mr. Richard Martin, and Mr. Blake, he (Mr. O'Connell) was not a little embarrassed in endeavouring to restrain his indignation within those limits necessary to guard the expression of his feelings.

[Here a gentleman exclaimed, include Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. O'Connell, in a very earwest tone, replied, indeed I will not, and I shall give you my reason by-and-by.]

The learned gentleman then resumed. Why, he would ask, were the Catholics not long since emancipated? because those whom they return to parliament, under the guise of Catholic friends, proved their most insidious enemies, ever ready to coalesce with the bitterest opponents against any practical or substantial good being extended to them, and took care to parade on the side of liberality, when they knew their services would not be available. Such men were the real enemies of the Catholics, for, like treacherous allies, they elude the precautions that would be adopted against the avowed, but less dishonourable enemies of religious toleration-the Orangemen, and should the Catholic electors of Galway neglect to mark their disapprobation in the most effectual and decisive manner, they would be degraded amongst the meanest of mankind, and unworthy of possessing the privileges of freemen or electors.

He now felt, he assured the meeting, an indescribable dread in mentioning the name of Hutchinson, lest a word escape him that might be construed into any thing like disrespect; a man to whom Ireland and the Catholics owed a debt of gratitude, which they should not feel the less, because of their inability to acquit themselves of it. (Hear, hear, and applause.) At the period of Ireland's suicide, when the family of Mr. Hutchinson assisted in the degradation of their country, he it was who, sacrificing the dearest affections of the heart, which are inseparable from refined feeling, and soften the chagrins of existence, separated himself from those connexions, and stood forward as the eloquent, able, and independent advocate of his country (hear, hear), and has since remained the active and energetic guardian of her few remaining rights.

Could the Irish peasant forget his exertions on the subject of tithes and though he has been in a situation in which a minister never thinks a patriot disinterested, has he purchased a country's patronage at the expense of his vote? No, he stands on a pinnacle of virtuous independence, removed at an immeasurable distance above the reproach of dishonour. To him are the Catholics indebted for having secured to them not only the return of two real friends, but the exclusion of an Orange representation. On the subject of this petition, Mr. Hutchinson voted with Mr. Brougham; but he at the same time expressed his opinion of a particular class of persons whom he sought to relieve from the charges made by the petitioners.

In that opinion he certainly was mistaken. He forgot the Case of TODD JONES; he also forgot, that when an inhabitant