may lament it, we make no rash declaration, when we say, the two races cannot exist together on equal terms under our government and our institutions."

O'Connell's reply to the slave-breeders of Cincinnati (dated Corn Exchange-rooms, October 11, 1843) contains this characteristic paragraph :

“As to the odour of the negroes, we are quite aware that they have not, as yet, come to use much of the otto of roses, or eau de Cologne. But we implore of your fastidiousness to recollect, that multitudes of the children of white men have negro women for their mothers; and that our British travellers complain, in loud and bitter terms, of the overpowering stench of stale tobacco spittle as the prevailing odour amongst the native free Americans. It would be, perhaps, better to check the nasal sensibility on both sides, on the part of whites, as well as of blacks. But it is, indeed, deplorable, that you should use a ludicrous assertion of that description, as one of the inducements to prevent the abolition of slavery. The negroes would certainly smell, at least, as sweet when free, as they now do, being slaves."

The following extract of a letter, addressed by Mr. N. P: Rogers, editor of the New Hampshire Herald of Freedom, and one of the most devoted abolitionists of slavery in America, to a Mr. H. C.

Wright, an American abolitionist, residing in England, gives an interesting critique on O'Connell's oratorical abilities:

"You have seen O'Connell. Is he not a chieftain? Did you ever see a creature of such power of the tongue? I never saw any one who could converse with an audience like him. Speeches may be as well made by other men, but I never heard such public talk from any body. The creature's mind plays before ten thousand, and his voice flows as clearly, and as leisurely, as in a circle round a fireside; and he has the advantage of the excitement it affords to inflame his powers."

He was fond of discussing the Puseyite movement. He looked on the Puseyite leaders as the advanced guard of the Catholic religion in England. I think that I have elsewhere mentioned, that he termed them the "the pioneers of Catholicity."

Speaking of the Established Church in Ireland, and the contrast between its past and present ministers, he related an incident illustrative of episcopal "good nature." A Mr. Barry, brother of Lord Barrymore, had, in the course of the last century been desirous to qualify himself, by taking orders, for the enjoyment of an excellent living in the gift of his lordship. The bishop to whom he applied for ordination had expressed some fears that Barry's theo

logical knowledge was not sufficient for the ordinary duties of the pulpit, and recommended further study to the postulant. Not long afterwards, Barry was ordained, and appointed to the living. A friend who knew him intimately, asked how he had contrived to get over his examination? "Oh, very well indeed," replied the Reverend Mr. Barry. "The bishop was very good-natured, and did not puzzle me with many questions." you?" inquired the other.

"But what did he ask

"Why, he asked me

who was the great Mediator between God and man, and I made a rough guess, and said it was the Archbishop of Canterbury."

It is satisfactory to think, that at the present day it would not be easy to find such a specimen as this of episcopal "good nature."

Talking of modern works of fiction, he highly praised Bulwer's "Night and Morning." "I like that book," said he; "I read it with very great interest. I think it is the only one of Bulwer's novels in which a w▬▬▬▬▬▬ does not figure as one of the leading characters. That is a decided improvement. But he has made a great legal blunder. He requires his reader to suppose that Philip Beaufort has no mode of establishing his own legitimacy except by producing the certificate, or the registry, of his parents' marriage. Here is a great mistake. Philip's

mother would have been a sufficient witness in her son's behalf. Philip need only have levied distress on the estate for his rents; and if his right to do so had been contested, his mother's evidence of his legitimacy would have been received in any court of law as conclusive in establishing his right. It is a great mistake. This comes of men writing of matters they know nothing about. Sir Walter Scott was a lawyer, and always avoided such errors."

CHAPTER XXIX.

Carlow Agitation-Methodist Confessions-St. Mullins-The Contract for Coffins-Father Sheehy-The Carlow Election-Pathetic Appeal from an exasperated Agitator.

IN June, 1841, O'Connell, Steele, John O'Connell, and Mr. Thomas Reynolds, went down to the County Carlow to canvass the electors for the Liberator's youngest son and Mr. Yates. They remained several weeks. I joined the canvassing party for four or five days, and then returned to Dublin to assist in the management of the Repeal Association.

During my short stay in the County Carlow, our party proceeded to agitate the barony of St. Mullins, a remote and secluded corner of the county, into which the canvassers had not previously penetrated.

This barony is situated about twenty miles from the town of Carlow, and the road passes through scenes of wood, and hill, and valley, as beautiful as