sized window, the same frontage; I believe, thè same fish!"

On the 8th of May, a visitor asked him whether the debate on Lord John Russell's Corn Bill would probably be over on the following Wednesday. "I hardly think it will," he answered. will give us three mortal hours; then

66

will get up, and he never can speak for less than an hour. Then Peel will take two full hours at least. Stanley will give us three hours; and there are some other long-winded fellows. You see, sir, each man thinks that he is himself the wisest person in the House, so they all will bestow abundant tediousness upon this question, to give us the full benefit of all their wisdom."

66

'And, Mr. O'Connell," interposed the visitor, "pray how long will he speak upon the question?"

66

"Oh," answered he, "I make it a rule to condense, as much as possible, all I have to say in the House; and at the bar, too, I always endeavour to condense. Why, at the last Galway assizes, I replied to a speech of three hours, and to three days' adverse evidence, in a speech of two hours and a half! And what was still better, he added, raising his fore-finger, and with a humorous expression of sly triumph in his face, "I got the verdict. Ah, a

good speech is a good thing, but the verdict is the thing after all!"

On the 14th of May, we attended a meeting of Repealers, at the Crown and Anchor. O'Connell was attacked by an impudent, illiterate Chartist, named Martin. While he was speaking in reply, a gentleman, who sat next to me,* exclaimed,

"What nonsense, to allege that Dan is a dishonest politician. If he had not been thoroughly honest, his whole family might now have been quartered on the public, at the rate of many thousands a year. Look at Dan's family, and look at the Hannibals. And yet Lord Plunket, the sire of the Hannibals,† never enjoyed one-tenth of the political influence wielded by O'Connell. Dan might have made his own terms with any government, if he had not been incorruptibly honest, and incapable of bartering his influence for wealth or station.”

A Catholic priest connected with Athlone, had come to England to collect subscriptions for the erection of a Catholic church. He applied, for this purpose, to an English Catholic peer.

"I

"Sir," replied his lordship, " I will never give a

* Dr. Dillon, formerly of Brighton; then residing at 34, Alfred Place, London.

†The incomes enjoyed from public offices by the members of Lord Plunket's family, have been estimated to amount in the aggregate to £27,000 per annum.

penny towards any purpose for the use of the Irish." "Why so, my lord?" demanded the priest. "Because," replied the peer," they subscribe 14,000. a-year to that O'Connell for coming over here to create riot and disturbance."

Soon afterwards we learned that this peer was Lord Petre.

66

"The ungrateful fellow !" exclaimed O'Connell. Only for me, he would not have been emancipated. And, moreover, I saved him 30,0007. last week, by insisting that the Committee for making the railroad through his property should adhere to their original engagement with him, instead of procuring a new Act of Parliament to enable them to obtain his ground for 30,000l. less than the valuation first agreed upon."

This circumstance was one amongst the many proofs that convinced me that the English hostility to Ireland was less directed against our creed than against our nation. "No Popery" meant, in point of fact, "No Irishry." The fact that the Irish were principally Catholics, elicited English enmity against Catholicism. Had the Irish belonged to any other religious persuasion, then some other rallying cry against us would have been adopted. No nation which hates another is fit to legislate for the party thus hated. The jealous hatred evinced towards

Ireland by a powerful faction in England, although not the leading reason why Ireland sought the Repeal of the Union, was yet undoubtedly a strong stimulant to Irishmen in the pursuit of self-government.

On the 31st of May, a procession of Methodists walked at an early hour along Pall Mall, bearing banners, upon one of which was a portrait of the Methodist apostle-John Wesley. This banner was borne high aloft, and the disciples of the personage whose likeness it displayed formed a numerous and very imposing array. Just as they reached Waterloo Place, they were met by a Catholic procession of teetotallers, bearing an enormous banner, upon one side of which was a full-length picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary; St. Patrick, in pontificals, figured on the other. The Rev. Dr. Magee, seated in a coach, which was drawn by six greys, called at Pall Mall to take up O'Connell, who accompanied the procession through the city. The collision suggested ludicrous ideas; it seemed like "John Wesley versus Saint Patrick." Notwithstanding the proximity of the somewhat incongruous elements of Popery and Methodism, the respective parties passed each other quietly; the Methodists filing off into Regent Street, while the Catholics took the direction of Trafalgar Square, on their city-ward route.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Abolition of Slavery-Visit from Dr. Hare, an Advocate of Slavery-Atrocious Cruelty-A" Good-natured" Bishop.

O'CONNELL'S aid was eagerly sought by the advocates of the abolition of Slavery. Joseph Pease (senior), who, with Joseph Sturge, of Birmingham, Thomas Clarkson, and others, took a prominent part in the good cause, appreciated most warmly the powerful and zealous assistance of O'Connell. I was amused one day at an effort made by a Doctor Hare, an American, to induce O'Connell to relax his anti-slavery agitation. Doctor Hare was a stout thick-set Yankee, with a cadaverous face, grizzled hair, and an easy intrepidity of manner that nothing could daunt. He commenced by declaring that, although not a native of Ireland, he had ever entertained the warmest affection for the Irish. He had known and admired in especial, a young Irish girl, who was quite an epitome of all the warm