(I speak without disrespect of any) which swarmed through the land in his day, and suppose, on the restoration, it was to be claimed, and a legal process instituted for its recovery, would the decision of that claim, in favor of the original owners, be a proof of bigotry or oppression in the Church of England? Why then should that be called bigotry in one case, which would be an act of justice in the other? Talk of bigotry in France from Catholics to Protestants ! In that country both were alike eligible to places of trust and power in the state; but whoever heard in any of their public assemblies in the Chamber of Deputies of a Lethbridge or an Inglis getting in his place and reviling with coarse epithets the religion of his Protestant fellow-subjects? (By the way, I intended to make a few remarks on the Index Expurgatorius of Sir H. Inglis, but I forgive him.) To those who talked of Catholic bigotry, I would say, let the Catholics of this country be placed on the same terms of equality with their Protestant brethren, as the Protestants of France are, with respect to their Catholic fellow-subjects, and I would rest perfectly satisfied.

up

-

I fear I have trespassed too long on the patience of the meeting, but there were one or two points more on which I would say a word. The bill which the Lords had rejected was accompanied part of the way in the other House, with two measures called its wings. Those measures were condemned by some who were friendly to the great question; but the Catholics of Ireland were not the authors of those measures; they were no party to their origin. Of that bill, which went to make a provision for the Catholic clergy, I would say, that the clergy desired no such provision. They are content to

their flocks for the humble pittance which they now receive. The rewards to which they looked for their incessant and valuable labors, are let every hair of the Bishop of Chester's wig stand on end at hearing it not of this but of another world. It is not the Catholics who desire those measures. They are sought for by the Protestants, who look upon them as some sort of security; and the Catholics are disposed to make some sacrifice to honest prejudices, by acceding to that which they did not approve. It was this feeling which produced those measures, and brought on that ridiculous scene of one of his Majesty's ministers strongly objecting to the "wings," while another was eagerly flapping them on, until, like the tomb of Mahomet, the Catholic bill

hung suspended between the two counteracting influences. As to the second bill, respecting the forty shilling freeholders, it is one which I cannot approve. I am too much of a reformer, and of that class called "radical," to wish for any such alteration. I did assent to it only because it was considered that Protestants desired it. I would much rather have emancipation without it. They are now, however, gone by, and I hope they will never again make their appearance certain it is, I shall never wish for them, unless they are earnestly desired by the Protestants.

-

I now, my lord Duke, take my leave; I fear I have exhausted the patience of this meeting. I am grateful for the attention with which I have been heard; I have spoken under feelings, perhaps, of some irritation - certainly under those of deep disappointment. A crowd of thoughts have rushed upon me, and I have given utterance to them as they arose, without allowing my judgment a pause as to which I should select and which restrain. I now go back to my own country, where I expect to find a feverish restlessness at having insult added to our injuries. Our enemies- perhaps I ought to say opponents have offered this insult; they have barbed with disgrace, the dart of death. It will be impossible not to expect a degree of soreness at the way in which our claims have been met— at this additional insult. It is impossible not to feel disappointed at the manner in which we have seen Lord Liverpool truckle to the nonsense about the coronation oath [some person here said No, no]. I repeat it, he did; and my conviction is that all we heard reported of him in the newspapers was dictated from that quarter. We shall now return to Ireland, and there advise our countrymen to be patient--to bear the further delay of justice with calmness, but not to relax their fair, open, and legitimate efforts in again seeking for their rights. They have put down one association; I promise to treat them to another. They shall trench further on your liberties they shall dive deeper into the vitals of the constitution before they drive us from our purpose. We shall go on, but it will be without anger or turbulence. In that steady course we will continue to use all legitimate means to accomplish our object, until English good sense shall overcome bigotry in high stations— shall put down intolerance in persons great in office- until the minister be driven back to the half honesty which he before possessed, or to that retirement which he rigidly deserves.

SPEECH ON THE TREATY OF LIMERICK, 1826.

On submitting to the Catholic Association, in 1826, the draft of a petitios to parliament, asking that the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick be carried into effect, Mr. O'Connell spoke as follows:

HE question is narrowed to a single point, and to any one reviewing the facts which history presented, it was impossible to deny that the treaty has been foully and flagitiously violated. The penal code was a violation of it, and while a particle of that code remains, so long the solemn compact entered into between the English government and the Irish people is a disgraceful monument of British perfidy. That treaty was a solemn, deliberate and authorized agreement. It was signed by bishops and commanders, and it was signed by Ginkle, who had the command of his government to give even better terms than it insured, and to make peace on any conditions, no matter how favorable to the people of Limerick, and of course to the whole people of Ireland. Who is it, who looks at history, that can be surprised that the wish to effect a peace should exist on the part of the English? At the time of the war England was split into parties and dissensions. William had the adherence of the Whigs to his cause, but the Tories, who ? were the more numerous, though not so powerful, were arrayed against him. The Torics were like the cowardly Orange faction of the present day; they were meau and dastardly, and took especial care to keep themselves from every enterprise in which their persons would be endangered. The Scotch highlanders, a brave, hardy, and chivalrous race, who were Catholics, were devoted to the house of Stuart, and so were those of the lowlands too. The Calvinists of that country were in the same situation with the Irish of the present day; their consciences were oppressed - their religious liberty was restricted. They fought however in the field for their

religion. Their efforts, although courageous and adventurous, wera not suited to the meek spirit of Christianity. I would not fight for religion, because religion does not inculcate nor sanction such an act; but for my civil rights, I trust in God, there is no man who has a more sincere regard for their value, or who would make greater sacrifices and efforts for their defence. In England there were many enemies against William, and his situation was precarious. In Ireland his prospects were bad and discouraging: the Irish forces, though in part unsuccessful, were not discomfited, and they were learning those rules of discipline, without which an army is no more than a mob. The battle of the Boyne was lost not by the inferiority of the Irish forces, but by the paltry, pitiful cowardice of James. He only appeared once in the battle on that day. He made only one appeal, and that was when the soldiery of England were being cut down by the troops of Ireland under Hamilton-then he exclaimed, "O spare my English subjects?" Like another Duke of York he took up his position in the rear, and the races of the Helder had a glorious prototype in the races of the Boyne. "Change generals," exclaimed the gallant Regan, in the evening when the battle was done, "Change generals, and we will fight the battle over again!" Three thousand were wounded in that battle and but three hundred were taken prisoners! How illustrative of the humanity of the conquerors! Still Clare was open, and its batteries were in possession of the Irish. The fortifications of Limerick were yet at their command-French succors were daily expected the war between England and France was already declared-and with such opposition, were it not for the treaty of Limerick, William would have been driven back into Holland, if even there he would have found a refuge from the French. The winter was fast approaching. His armies consisted of some Dutch and some Brandenburg troops, and some that were called Irish on whom no reliance was placed: they were the Enniskillen and Londonderry regiments. Oh! what regiments these were! Schomberg, in speaking of them, was only puzzled to decide which of the two regiments was more thievish, because both the regiments were much less remarkable for their valor than for their propensity to rob and steal. Their officers were peasants — plebeians who had advanced themselves by their baseness, and like the Orangemen of the present time, they were for

midable only to an unarmed people. It was not unlikely that Mr. Dawson was the descendant of one of these peasants. The pleasure he felt in reverting to those times might probably be thus accounted for. This Mr. Dawson, who, if he were not a clerk in affice, would not be worthy of contradiction, asserts many extraordinary things. respecting this country. He felt no interest in preserving its character, because, like his brother Orangemen, he was not indigenous to the soil. They must certainly be exotics, for if half their venom was natural, the influence of St. Patrick would be effectual in banishing the reptiles from among us. But the reptile still lives, and here are its hisses.

Mr. O'Connell here took up a printed report of Mr. Dawson's speech.

Mr. Dawson tells us that the history of Ireland is a mere waste not a spot in it to vary the dismal scene but Londonderry, that furnished the robbers to Marshal Schomberg, "Let us trace," says he, "its dark and bloody progress. When a foreign foe invaded, it shrunk at the foot of an insignificant conquerer." And this is what Mr. Dawson said of a country to which he boasts of belonging. Let me tell him this country was never beat. It was by Irishmen she was always ruined. Their treachery and disunion were the cause of her defeat. Four-fifths of the Irish troops joined the Cromwellian invaders under Dermot, and it was to their desertion, and not to the superior arms of her enemies, that her conquest was attributable. Mr. Dawson proceeded -"continued insurrection, intestine wars, bloody massacres, treacherous treaties." Treacherous trea ties! Come forward, Mr. Dawson, with your native host of Orange men, and prove infraction of one single treaty on the part of the Irish. I ask but one. But he takes care to make the charge general. Oh! that is the way in which libels and malignant imputations are uttered and circulated; for he knows he cannot substantiate it. "Versatur in generalibus." Oh! how fatally true the Irish were to their treaties may be read in that of Limerick. The treaty was signed before communication was had to the other part of the army, which were, Mr. Chairman, under the command of an ancestor of your own. Before it was completed, the French fleet with men and arms arrived at Dingle. Some argued that the treaty was not binding --- that it had been agreed upon only in the South. What was