But I am not a mere doctor. Many years ago I retired from the laborious practice of the profession. I preferred to reside on my own land, the greater part of which I inherit, and for which I pay no rent. For more I pay a small chief rent, and for the rest, all of which I hold in perpetuity, I pay the fair value. Altogether I have as much as I want, a surface of nearly two thousand acres, a good deal of which is waste. I have set some in farms to tenants; I give leases of three lives or thirty-one years, whichever shall longest last. I keep about three hundred acres in my own hands, and intend that so much shall always be attached to the family residence. I set some of this for grazing by the year. I do not allow any house to be erected on it; whatever improvements are required I make myself. I have drained a large surface of land, and planted a good deal, so that I have given an improved character to the entire country in my immediate vicinity. I live on good terms with my tenants. I do not wish to exterminate the labourers, of whom I employ a good many. They are all Catholics, decent, respectable, hard working people-orderly and obedient. I respect their creed, and they never think of finding fault with mine. I advise them to attend to their duties, and to conform to the directions of their clergy, as being the persons best qualified to advise them. I disapprove of the distribution of tracts offensive to Roman Catholics. I do not subscribe to the Bible Society. My principles are rationalistic-that is, they are those of Protestantism carried to their legitimate extent, according to the strict rules of logical ratiocination.

An Irishman, it is my right to express my opinion upon any public question connected with Ireland. Of what value would the freedom of the press be to us, if we were not permitted to inquire into and fully discuss the justice and wisdom of the dealings of England with our country? If our complaints of English misrule are well founded, their cause may be removed by the mere fact of their exposure. If they are groundless, the good sense of both nations will render them powerless for mischief. Therefore, under any circumstances, proper freedom of discussion should be encouraged, it being understood that,

however conflicting the inferences, the facts shall always be_correctly stated.

But independently of any private preferences of my own, I have been requested, nay urged, to state my views on some of the more important subjects by which Ireland has so long been agitated-and this by persons of all creeds. I have therefore felt it a duty to make the effort, and this the more willingly, because I shall thereby have occasion to refer to measures which I formerly recommended, and which, had they been adopted, would assuredly have placed Ireland in a more prosperous condition than that which she now occupies.

This consideration alone, however, might not have influenced me to take a prominent part in the assertion of my country's rights, if I had not been impelled by a feeling personal to myself, and upon which I had determined to act on the occurrence of the first favourable opportunity. Having been deprived of the commission of the peace by Lord John Russell, and by his Irish subordinate, ExChancellor Brady. I complain, of the unconstitutional means employed to divest the magistrates of all independent power, and cause them to become the submissive agents of the Russell party. I look upon an English minister as the people's servant, paid by the people, and bound to do their work in the manner most conducive to the general good. Ireland owes nothing to Lord John Russell, except abhorrence of his faithless policy—a policy true to no principle but that of preserving himself and his retainers in office, and this not by legislating for the benefit of the people, but by encouraging agitation for the purpose of "making Ireland too hot to be governed by the Tories." I disapproved of this most unprincipled and dangerous policy. I refused to be a party to it. I spoke against it from the bench, and for thisfor this was the chief cause,-I was dismissed from the magistracy. Against this act I have repeatedly but in vain protested, and therefore I now refer to it in justice to Ireland, and also to give as much publicity as I can to the system of reckless agitation so long countenanced by Lord John Russell, and by none more effectually promoted than by Chancellor Brady.

My first difficulty with the Chancellor commenced in this way. The Chancellor, immediately on his elevation by O'Connell to the highest law office in the gift of the crown, possessing little experience and not much judgment, issued an edict that no medical practitioner should be appointed to the Commission of the Peace. The entire profession regarded this as an outrage not to be submitted to. I held the commission at the time. Of course, in common with my brethren, I resented this uncalled-for attack, as tending to degrade us in the public estimation. I called on the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons to interfere. Both bodies refused to take any action in the matter. I then resolved to fight the battle myself. I remonstrated with the Chancellor; I threatened to throw up my commission; I appealed to the public. Public opinion was on my side. I compelled Chancellor Brady to rescind his order, and to give the commission to every medical practitioner who had a claim to it.

It has

What feeling this may have produced in the mind of the Chancellor with regard to me, I cannot say. Most probably it was unfavourable. It is very likely he considered me a troublesome agitator—a person who ought to be looked after. Doctors are dangerous people. They bring the seeming dead to life, they put people in a trance, and make them talk and sing, or do whatever they please. been said, perhaps the Chancellor believed it, that with a few grains of a certain powder known only to himself, a doctor could set the Liffey on fire, and burn the Four Courts, scattering the lawyers, and thereby subverting all law and order. Be this as it may, Lord Chancellor Brady certainly considered the doctors a dangerous set, and that none of them ought to "be entrusted with the Commission of the Peace."

Unluckily it fell to my lot again to be brought under the notice of the Chancellor. It was arranged between the English and Irish reformers, that a great aggregate meeting should be held in Dublin to form a liberal party in the House of Commons. I was invited to preside at this meeting. The resolutions to be proposed were strictly legal and constitutional, but subject to the objection that they denounced the policy of Lord John Russell as ruinous to Ire

land and to the empire. It was a monster meeting, a mighty gathering of the people. My old schoolfellow, Fergus O'Connor, represented the English reformers. The followers of Cobbett-Dissenters from England-Catholic and Presbyterian clergy from every part of Ireland were there, to aid in forming a union between all sects and parties throughout the empire, for the removal of our common grievances. Speeches, of course, were made. It was said that one of the speakers sympathised with the leaders of a recent attempted insurrection. I did not hear any observation of the kind-perhaps it was never uttered; and because I did not call the speaker to order for saying what I did not hear him say, the Lord Chancellor removed me from the magistracy.

I have not forgiven this insult. I have fought it out to the end, with that tenacity of purpose which has always governed my conduct in seeking redress for a wrong inflicted without cause, and for which no excuse or apology has been offered.

I petitioned Parliament for an inquiry into this proceeding, so subversive of the right to meet, to petition, or to express any opinion in opposition to the ruling powers. Lord John Russell, in the House of Commons, caused this petition to be rejected, and defended the act of the Chancellor. Thereupon I published the petition and other documents connected with it. They excited some attention, were briefly noticed in one or two papers, and were then forgotten; but as they illustrate the ministerial policy of the Russell party, I now reprint them in the shape of an appendix to this work.

And here I find myself not a little embarrassed, for on looking over those papers, most of which had passed out of my recollection, I find I expressed myself of O'Connell in relation to his connexion with the Whigs, in stronger language than, on more mature reflection, I feel I was justified in using. I wish to retract, or at least to modify what I then said, and I hold myself bound to acknowledge the correctness of the letter of Maurice Leyne, who, as a relative of O'Connell, must have been better acquainted with the circumstances of his public life.

I hope no Irishman can believe I would wantonly cast

a stone on the grave where lie the remains of the mighty leader of the people, who by his matchless eloquence could excite the passions or control the movements of countless multitudes. If O'Connell did not obtain for Ireland all that was expected at the time, I now believe he accomplished as much as was in his power. He was encompassed by difficulties, and the wonder is how he succeeded in overcoming so many-the treachery of pretended friends-the caprices of an unreasoning mob-the secret enmity of the English Minister.

On this subject I must be more explicit, and make known to Catholics especially, how it was that O'Connell ceased to possess the confidence of the Protestant reformers, both of Ireland and England. The last time I stood by his side in public was when he seconded my resolution that we would never pay one shilling of tithes. To this principle all the Protestants in Ireland and all the Dissenters in England were pledged. We had resolved to disendow and disestablish the Church altogether. Under the flag of civil and religious equality we had banded ourselves together, and we thought we were certain to succeed, when without our knowledge a compromise was entered into by O'Connell and the Ministry. By means of this arrangement the tithes were converted into a permanent rent charge, payable by the landlords. The tithes no doubt were abolished, but the money charge was continued, and the Church was better off than ever.

Then came a violent reaction. Everyone blamed O'Connell, and by none was he more blamed than by the parish priests. Their open disapproval, however, lasted but a short time. The bishops ordered them to soften down the matter, by telling their people that if the anti-tithe agitatation had been much longer continued, there would have been a general insurrection, which they could not have prevented, and which would have ruined the country. With Protestants the case was different. They refused to acknowledge him any longer as their leader. In England, the Dissenters who had subscribed to the O'Connell rent demanded back their money. The treasurer, Hume, refused to give it to them. He also refused to hand it to O'Connell, but, having failed to secure his return to Par