thrown off every outlet of shame, who had wallowed in the blackest stye of a base and profligate sensuality, an avowed and ostentations adulterer, whose harlot had sustained herself by the sale of commissions, and turned footmen into brigadiers. That he, yet hot and reeking from the results of a foul and most disgraceful concubinage, should, without sense or memory, For feeling, before the eyes of the whole empire, with the traces of his degradation yet fresh upon him, presume to call upon the name of the great and eternal God, and in all the blasphemy of sacrilegious cant, dedicate himself with an invocation of heaven to the everlasting oppression of my country-(Loud and continued cheers) This it is that sets me and every Irish Catholic on fire. This it is which rouses, excites, enflames, and exasperates this it is that applies a torch to our passions-this it is that blows our indignation into flame-(cheers); and it is this, which, in the eyes of men who stand cold spectators of our sufferings, and yield us a fastidious sympathy in our wrongs, makes us appear factious, virulent, and ferocious. This it is which makes them think that our mouths are foaming with rabid froth; and that there is poison mixed with madness in our tooth, (cheers.) Well, I will furnish an antagonist with expressions of condemnation; I will assist their vocabulary of insult; I will allow them to heap contumely upon contumely, and reproach upon réproach; I will only answer, that if they were similarly situated, they would feel with the same -poignancy, and speak with the same turbulent violence as ourselves. I shall only say in the language of the great master of human nature: "You should not speak of what you do not feel."-(cheers.) And I say, they cannot feel our condition, or appreciate our injuries to their full extent. I cannot say the same thing of the illustrious person to whom I have alluded. He has been placed in circumstances somewhat analogous. Good God! that such a man should tell us, that we labour under no privation, and are subject to no wrong. What were his own feelings? how did his beart beat when he was driven by the loud and reiterated cries of the English people from his high office? We are told by bim, that an exclusion from the honours of the State is no substantial injury. Did he forget his own letter to the House of Commons, in which he offered up an act of contrition for the consequences of this impure connection, and acknowledging that his heart was almost broken, resigned his office?-(cheers.) Did the sacrifice cost him no pang? Did the oblation which he made to public feeling awake no painful sensation in his mind? Did not his cheek burn -and was not his face turned into scarlet, when he took the pen with a trembling hand-(Sir, it must have trembled)—and with it signed the instrument of his resignation? (Loud cheers). What a palsy must have seized his arin when he let the truncheon fall? (Cheers). And if, in that dreadful crisis, he felt a deep agony of the heart, should he not make some allowance for those who, for no other cause than a conscientious adhe rence to the religion in which they were born, and trust to die, are excluded from those honours which are accessible to every other class of British subjects? (Loud cheers). That is the charge against me, that I have not enough of softness in my character to express a wish that the great obstacle to my liberty should not be removed. My crime is, that I am not a hypocrite so base as to allow a libation to his name to pass without a comment. It was extorted from me, and my observations were not dictated by any cold, deliberate malice towards the individual, but by the feeling of distaste which the announcement of such a toast produced in my mind. The sarcasm was directed to the sentiment, and not the man. With respect to the individual himself, I doubt not that in his pri vate life he is not destitute of good qualities. It is said, that that he is a person of honour, and of a kindly disposition. This I am not inclined to contradict, and it would be an injustice not to add, that, in many particulars, in his official capacity, he is entitled to praise-diligence, punctuality, and an attention to the interests of the inferior class of persons who are placed under his superintendence are among his merits. But what compensation does good nature afford for the denial of liberty? The mistakes of men in his condition are equivalent in their consequent acts of deliberate criminality. Imbecility of understanding and obstinacy of character generate as many evil results as depravity of disposition-and, if I may apply the phrase, tyranny of heart. If I have adverted to conduct which in a Court is called folly, but which, in lower departments of society, is called vice, it is not that I an anxious to exaggerate those weaknesses which expose him to ridicule, to animosity. Those absurdities in life into which be fell should rest in oblivion, if he did not, by talking of the pain to which the Royal Conscience would be exposed, provoke a contrast between his life and his protestations, and make us tear open the tattered curtains of concubinage, in order to draw arguments against him from an adulterous bed. Who is the man who lifts up his hand and exclaims, “So help me God?" Is it a man of unblemished life? Is it a man distinguished for his fidelity to his pecuniary contracts-who never allowed his creditors to be the victims of a licentious prodigality? It is much to be regretted that he has exhibited a solicitude to be hated by the Irish people. He has lost no opportunity to gather about his name the antipathies of this country. He has accepted the office of Grand Master to the Orange Society. What man who has taken an active part in Catholic affairs shall allow his name, when held up as an object of sympathy, to pass without some reprehensive comment. I do not exult in his sufferings if it were in my power, I would alleviate his pain (Cheers). But if I am asked whether I would desire to see the misfortunes of my country prolonged. I answer, the liberty of Ireland is dearer to me than the liberty of a Prince.-(Loud cheers.) TO THE EDITOR OF "THE REPUBLICAN." SIR,. F. P. bas withdrawn from the contest; but his mantle has fallen upon his disciple: eighteen pages of your last Number bear testimony to its virtues. R. H. must not take it as a mark of disrespect if I decline answering his able but lengthy essay. In the first place, I have not sufficient leisure; in the second, I have already written ten times as much upon the subject as I intended, when I took up my pen to vindicate one whom I know and highly respect, from an uncourteous and unprovoked attack; and, thirdly, because it would be a work of supererogation; for the Malthusean speculations, of which R. H.'s article is the concentrated essence, have I understand been already amply refuted by those whose shoe-latchets I am unworthy to unloose. I admire the zeal with which R. H. maintains the Athanasian mysteries and orthodox articles of his sect, but the time of my conversion is not yet come, and I am happy to learn from the gentleman that I have an abundance of companions in my heresy. I repeat, Sir, that the redundant population doctrine is a tub to the whale; but if R. H. thinks that by this figurative expression I intend to impute unworthy motives to either him or my former antagonist, he gives us but a poor specimen of the powers of that "comprehensive mind" which he contends is necessary to "view fully" the science in which he proclaims himself an adept. I have no doubt that my opponents are both firm and honest believers in the doctrines which they promulgate; but, though they have read Smith, Malthus, Mill, and Place, yea, even though they had written, Smith, Malthus, Mill, and Place, they must not assume political infallibility, nor hold themselves authorized to tell those who doubt their theories that they are “ sadly deficient of information," "full of deep-rooted prejudices," and "incapable of taking an extended view of any subject." If they do, I for one, shall only pity their want of courtesy and pertinacity of selfdeception. It is much to be lamented too that persons of R. H.'s lofty pretensions, however much their zeal may outrun their discretion, should have recourse to such discreditable expedients as misstatements of their opponents' arguments: if any one will take the trouble to turn to page 329, paragraph 3, and then to page 381, paragraph 1, he will perceive that R. H. has so done: he will see that I did not say that it was probable that there were 30 millions of people in this country 2000 years ago," but that it was "quite as probable as that the population would double itself in 25 years. And, if not equally discreditable, it is extremely amusing to see what straws a system-monger will catch at to support his "darling theory." In page 382, R. H. refers to an extract from Swift, to prove that it was the prevailing idea at that time that there were too many people. To prevent the trouble of reference, I shall copy the extract with the remarks that precede it. "In reading Gulliver's Travels, I find, though written nearly a century ago, that the author was not unacquainted with the principle of population, and the evils resulting from it, when allowed to go on unchecked. Indeed, I have frequently found allusions to it in works which are not ostensibly political. The principle is so evident, and the bad effects so clear, that I wonder a contrariety of opinions can be maintained. But, to Gulliver. The witty author, be it observed, is satirizing, under the form of travels, the vices, follies, and absurdities, into which human beings somehow manage to fall. He conducts the reader into various remote nations, the last of which is the Houyhnnyms, where the only reasonable beings are in the shape of horses, and these, we are informed, regulate the extent of their population in this manner: When the matron Houyhnnyms have produced one of each sex, they no longer accompany with their consorts, except they lose one of their issue by some casualty, which very seldom happens: but in such a case, they meet again; or when the like accident befalls a person whose wife is past bearing, some other couple bestow on him one of their own colts, and then go together again till the mother is pregnant. This caution is necessary to prevent the country from being overburdened with numbers. But the race of inferior Houyhnnyms, bred up to be servants, is not so strictly limited upon this article; these are allowed to produce three of each sex, to be domestics in the noble families.' Now, Sir, if this be not evidently and merely a satire upon the notorious conjugal infidelity of the higher classes, I bow to the superior discrimination of comprehensive minds. But there is one 66 new view of things" in R. H.'s essay which discovers such a fearless and sublime disregard of "the prejudices of uninformed people;" such a magnificent expanse of intellect, that I should be guilty of extreme injustice to my opponent were I to pass it in silence. In page 371, paragraph 3, it is thus written : "And be it remembered, that political economists are philanthropists, and calculate upon the powers of man when exempt from war, famine, disease, and DEATH. They wish their fellowcountrymen better things than these, and their object is to teach them how they may be obtained!!" Ought we not to rejoice, Sir, that we live in such an enlightened age-that our patriots and philanthropists, disdaining the petty expedients of representative government and freedom from. taxation, aspire to teach us how we may avoid death! Blessings on their heads! Now is come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in political economy! Wishing both F. P. and R. H. success in every undertaking that may be really calculated to benefit the community, and thanking you for your ready and impartial attention to the contributions of one who seldom writes for the public eye, I take my leave.. J. F. This is a defective sentence. It should have been premature death, and it is so written at the bottom of page 374. But as the sentence stands, it is evident that death was only used to express the consequence of war, famine, and disease.— R. H. 395 A QUESTION. to throw conviction on my CAN any one tell me truly, so as mind-Why the man, who labours hard, is always little more than half-fed, is generally like a dog always hungry; and like a pauper is clothed in rags; while the man who labours none, and is almost killed with excess of idleness, fares sumptuously every day and is clothed in splendid garments? This is such a simple question, that it must not be answered by sophistry. There is nothing logical nor metaphysical in it. It is a material case derived immediately from facts; and powerful must that argument be which can prove the practice just, or the cause unimpeachable. SHEBAGO. GREECE AND IRELAND. run on lines com THESE two unfortunate kingdoms seem to pletely parallel to each other. Their proceedings are similar and there is a striking affinity in their history. I shall mark or point out some of the prominent features of both and make such observations as the subject may naturally lead me to. I believe them to be at the present time the two most forlorn and wretched, nations on the face of the earth and that their miseries spring from the same root, namely, religion and conquest, By the way, I must observe, that religion always prepares a country for domestic tyranny and oppression, or devotes it to foreign conquest. Yet conquest in both the above instances seems but a secondary consideration, and only falls in as a matter of course, or only as a natural concomitant of the invading. and degrading principle of torturing and destructive religion. Nothing more is necessary to enslave a nation and prepare it for any yoke than the pernicious dogmas of the Christian doctrine. It falls, like a cast net round the circle of society, and folds mankind close into the very focus of irresistible despotism. History, before the Christian superstition, inspires us with the most exalted ideas of ancient Greece. We know not which to admire most, the heroism of their chiefs; the wisdom and integrity of their legislators; the diversity and beauty of their arts; the majestic elegance of their architecture; the inimitable genius of their poets; the impartial candour of their historians; the ge |