disposed to defend those restrictions as necessary for the protection of our Protestant institutions, will at least admit that they were not calculated to excite any kind feeling towards those institutions in the breasts of those who suffered by them. Those restrictions have, it is true, been removed; but Mr. O'Connell was fifty-six years of age when that removal took place, and at such an age the character of any man is not easily altered; and we should not be surprised that his hatred towards Protestants still remains in undiminished force.

But a new generation is now growing up which has sustained no wrongs, to whom, on the contrary, the profession of the Roman Catholic faith has been of temporal advantage, and who will be utterly inexcusable if they feel any hostility to their Protestant brethren. As an instance of the advantage which it is now to be a Roman Catholic, we may observe, that although the Protestant barristers are more numerous than the Roman Catholic ones, and the proportion is still greater among those who are in great business or of high standing; yet of the five judges who have been appointed in the last five years, three have been Roman Catholics, and only two Protestants. Of those five two were chief and three puisne judges; and both the chief places were given to Roman Catholics, one to Sir M. O'Loughlin, a retired attorney-general, in preference to Perrin, who had been attorney-general over him, and to Richards, the attorney-general of the day, the other chief's place was given to Woulfe, the attorney-general of the day; in preference to Richards, who had been attorney-general over him. Any consistent principle must have given one of those chief's places to a Protestant. It was not in favour of superior professional abilities that this latter promotion took place; for Woulfe, the Roman Catholic chief-baron, never was in high practice or possessed any character for skill in his profession; and it is universally admitted by the profession, that if he had been born a Protestant he would never have been a judge. We do not complain of this preference shown to Roman Catholics, which will have at least this good effect, that it renders it impossible for the Roman Catholics of the rising generation to view with hostility the institutions of thecountry, or to entertain the feelings and sentiments of an injured party.

But it is against the aristocracy, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, that M. De Beaumont would chiefly

direct the anger of the populace; and he makes the vain attempt to excite hatred against the gentry of the present day by identifying them with the authors of the crimes and oppressions practised against the poor by those who, in older times, possessed wealth or power. It is absurd in such a country as this to endeavour to excite the different classes of society into a hereditary feeling of hostility against each other. In the revolutions of property caused by the industry or extravagance of different individuals, it must often happen that the poor man can trace his descent through a long line of noble or wealthy ancestors, while he sees their vast estates enjoyed by a family whom prudence and economy have raised to opulence within the present century. Is this poor man to nourish hatred against the rich on account of the supposed oppressions formerly committed by his own ancestors against the present ancestry of the aristocrat of the present day. M. De Beaumont would readily give the Irish aristocracy a long lineage, in order to hold them responsible for every act of oppression related falsely or truly of the ancient nobility: but he would again deprive them of that high descent, lest with it they might inherit that respect which the prejudices of men attach to an ancient origin. "Presque tous étaient d'ailleurs d'une noblesse nouvelle, et par conséquent sans racines dans le pays," p. 156. Moreover, they were nearly all of a new nobility, and consequently had no root in the country." M. De Beaumont (if he be the real author of the historical introduction, which we much doubt, we are more inclined to believe that it was written by an Irish Radical, and translated into French by M. De Beaumont) has shown as little regard to fairness in his reasonings as in his statements. He has merely given, with some additions of his own to the same effect, a compilation of the most outrageous statements that have, from time to time, been put forth by the most factious and seditious speakers, pamphleteers, and historians of the party. Their improbability and inconsistency ought to have prevented them from imposing on him, particularly as his opinion of Irish veracity is by no means flattering to the people. In his preface he avows it, p. xiii. Celui qui, dans ce pays, cherche le vrai avec le plus de zèle et de bonne foi, a bien de la peine à le saisir; tout le lui dispute et travaille à l'égarer; tout est menteur in Irlande, depuis le riche qui cache son égoïsme jusqu'à l' indigent qui exalte sa misère." "He who in this

country searches for truth with the greatest anxiety and sincerity has much trouble to obtain it. Every one argues with him and seeks to set him astray. In Ireland every one is a liar, from the rich man who conceals his selfishness, to the poor man who exaggerates his distress."

As M. De Beaumont held very little intercourse with the Conservatives in Ireland, we must presume that this remark is only intended to be applied to the party with whom he associated, and of whom only he could suppose himself competent to form any judgment.

But we fear that we have taken up too much space with our observations on the historical introduction, and we shall therefore proceed to lay before the reader a sketch of the body of the work, in which M. De Beaumont gives his account of Ireland since the year 1800, almost commencing, as the reader will naturally anticipate, with the oft-refuted falsehood, that Catholic emancipation was promised as an accompanying measure of grace, to soften the severity of the act of union. His grand proposition is, that the religious sects are arrayed against each other in Ireland with a hostility that will never cease. He thus speaks of Connaught, page 194: Depuis ce temps, le Connaught n'a pas cessé d'être le foyer d'Irlande catholique. Nulle part le souvenir des guerres civiles n'est aussi vivace ; nulle part l'Anglais et le protestant ne sont détestés d'une haine plus religieuse et plus national." "Since that time Connaught has never ceased to be the focus of Catholic Ireland. In no part is the memory of the civil war so fresh. In no part are the English and the protestant detested with a more religious and national dislike." The whole book is founded upon this assertion, repeated in every possible form, that in Ireland the Roman Catholics hate the Protestants, and the poor hate the rich, and that they will continue to do so, for their hatred is natural and wellfounded. We have seen what his opinion is of the feeling of the Roman Catholic towards the Protestants, but he thinks the poor dislike and dread the rich still more, page 381: "Quoique l'esprit de parti religieux soit encore. bien fort en Irlande, il y a un esprit de parti plus grave en ce moment; c'est l'esprit de parti du pauvre contre le riche, de la démocratie contre l'aristocratie. Au jury l'accusé irlandais récuse bien plus le riche que le protestant; it aime mieiog le protestant pauvre que le Catholique

riche." Although religious party feeling is still very strong in Ireland, another party feeling has at present more influence there, the party feeling of the poor against the rich, of democracy against aristocracy. The Irishman on his trial objects more to the rich than to the Protestant on his jury, he prefers the poor Protestant to the rich Catholic." This important admission is at variance with the entire argument of M. De Beaumont's work, which is merely the repetition of the following propositions in a thousand forms, supported by a thousand falsehoods.

That there are but two classes or ranks in Ireland, the extremely rich and the extremely poor, page 198: "Ainsi du même point s'offrent à l'œil deux aspects absolument opposés; ici l'extrême richesse, la l'extreme misere: c'est l'image de l'Irlande. On ne voit en Irlande que des châteaux magnifiques ou des cabanes misérables; point d'édifice qui tienne le milieu entre le palais des grands et la chaumière de l'indigent, il n'y a que des riches et des pauvres." "Thus from the same spot one views two prospects exactly opposed to each other-here extreme wealth, there extreme destitution. It is a miniature representation of Ireland. One sees nothing in Ireland but magnificent mansions or miserable cabins. There is no building which holds a middle place between the palaces of the great and the hovels of the pauper. There are only the rich and the poor.'

That this wretchedness is the lot of the Roman Catholic, and this enviable wealth is the condition of his unsympathising Protestant landlord. "Le protestant est riche; le catholique pauvre. La religion protestante, signe de la fortune, l'est aussi de la puissance. Non seulement le Catholique est pauvre et le Protestant riche, mais encore chacun d'eux semble penser que telle est la condition naturelle de l'un et de l'autre; le Catholique accepte son humble destinée et le Protestant est de bonne foi dans son orgueil; celui-ci met dans ses rapports, avec le Catholique un peu de cette supériorité que l'Europeén établi dans les îles montre envers les personnes de couleur dont l'origine Africaine est encore apparente."-p. 195.

"The Protestant is rich, the Catholic is poor. The Protestant religion denotes the power as well as the fortune. of the individual. Not only is the Catholic poor, and the Protestant rich, but each seems still to think that such is the natural condition of both. The Catholic submits to his humble lot,

and the Protestant honestly displays his pride. The latter assumes in his intercourse with the Catholic some of that superiority which the European resident in the West India Isles displays over the coloured inhabitants, whose African descent is still evident." The primary radical permanent cause of all the misery of Ireland is, according to M. De Beaumont, a pernicious aristocracy. The vice of this aristocracy is, that it is at once English and Protestant. The heading of his second chapter, page 211, expresses briefly his opinion on this point," Une mauvaise aristocratie est la cause première de tous les maux de l'Irlande. Le vice de cette aristocratie est d'etre Anglaise et Protestante." This text he expands at great length, and endeavours to prove by a variety of the usual exaggerated charges that are daily made against the gentry and clergy of Ireland. The cause is in his opinion this the landlord being a Protestant and an Englishman, has no sympathy with his Irish Roman Catholic tenants, and therefore oppresses them without mercy. For the same reason the Protestant clergyman is a harsh and cruel oppressor, and the magistrates, judges, and juries, and all persons connected with the administration of justice have such feelings of dislike to the poor Irish Catholic as to leave the latter as little hope of justice as he has of mercy.

We readily admit that there is some shadow of truth, or at least of plausibility in the above statements; but the truth is generally so much exaggerated, as to work all the mischief of absolute falsehood. Thus the want of a middle class between the rich and the poor is frequently lamented in Ireland; but it is invariably overstated, although we believe never to such an extent as by M. De Beaumont. The fact is, that every class in Ireland is poorer than the corresponding class in England. So far from the Irish aristocracy possessing that enormous wealth against which M. De Beaumont would direct the current of popular envy and hatred, we are certain that if the rich of the two countries were arranged in the order of their riches, it would be found that the hundredth in the English list would possess a larger income than the tenth in the Irish list. Ireland is a poor and England a rich country, and this contrast is visible, whatever be the class to which we direct our view. No one passing through England can fail to observe with admiration the number of splendid mansions and domains; of the splendid palaces,

with parks and woods and lakes attached to them which M. De Beaumont describes as so numerous in Ireland, that a single nobleman frequently possesses not one only, but several, there are probably as many in one county in England as in the entire of Ireland. The Irish gentry are as poor as the Irish farmers, when compared with the corresponding class in England. Even M. De Beaumont must admit a pretty numerous middle class in Ireland, when he dwells so much upon the evil of the middlemen, whose numbers, however, he considerably exaggerates. Surely, he does not imagine that those middlemen dwell in the miserable cabins which he describes in a manner more worthy of the novelist than the historian. It is true, and to be regretted, that there are in Ireland such cabins as he describes, or some nearly as wretched. But after describing, in a most picturesque manner, the most miserable hovel to be found in Ireland, and heaping, in one description, all the marks of want and misery that exist in any of them. He adds :"Cette demeure est bien misérable; cependant, ce n'est point celle du pauvre proprement dit. On vient de décrire l'habitation du fermier irlandais et de l'ouvrier agricole." "This abode is truly wretched; but it is not that of the poor, properly so called. I have been describing the dwelling of the Irish farmer and the agricultural labourer." Of the paupers who are every year in danger of starvation, he says, that there are nearly three millions; but this is not all. "Besides these three million paupers, there are several millions of unhappy creatures, who, as they are not dying of famine, are not counted." For these atrocious exaggerations, he cannot find excuse or authority, even in the works to which he refers, viz. :-Dr. Doyle's Evidence; Wakefield on Ireland; and the Irish Poor-Law Inquiry. The last-named work we have before denounced as the most worthless trash that has ever appeared in Ireland. Its authors are ashamed of it, and have never ventured to refer to it as an authority. A few gentlemen travelled through different parts of the country, and held stations in the poorest districts, where all who chose came before them, and made the most exaggerated statements of the distress of the people, which were swallowed without examination. The Irish peasantry are still far removed from that degree of comfort which we desire and hope to see them enjoy; but they are equally far removed from that abject misery

which M. De Beaumont describes, and their condition is every day improving. There are in Ireland, at the present moment, hundreds, and even thousands of farmers who live in good slated houses, with commodious offices attached, and who possess three or four hundred pounds of capital; and the number of those substantial veomen is every day increasing, as the landlords perceive and feel the advantage of having such a tenantry, rather than middlemen paying an inadequate rent, or pauper cottiers not able to pay the extravagant rent they offer. In this respect all the changes tend towards improvement. An estate once let to good solvent tenants, never falls back into the hands of middlemen or paupers; and, every day, more estates are submitted to these improvements. The race of middlemen will soon become extinct, as the subletting act enables landlords to enforce covenants against underletting, and the owners of the soil are now generally convinced of the impolicy of permitting the sys

tem on their estates.

It is an equal exaggeration to assert, that the protestant is invariably rich, and the catholic a pauper. It is, indeed, true that, as a class, the protestants possess more wealth in proportion to their numbers than the Roman Catholics. But, even this the latter scarcely admit, when it suits their purpose to deny it; and M. De Beaumont, familiar as he is with the pamphlets and speeches of the Irish radicals, must have met many contradic tions of his statements in the works to which, on other points, he yields implicit faith. On such authority, forgetting his previous assertions, he states that, in 1829, nine-tenths of the funds of the Bank of Ireland belonged to Roman Catholics, (v. 2. p. 82.) There, after giving an exaggerated account of the wealth of the Irish Roman Catholics, he adds:-" Cependant, c'est un phenomene, strange en Irelande, et, peut etre, particulier a ce pays, qu'en meme temps que de nouvelles fortunes y sout crées, le nombre des nouveaux riches ne s'y accroit pas en proportion. C'est que souvent, apres que la fortune est crée, le riche s'en va et ceci s'explique par l'etat social et politique de I'Irlande." "Nevertheless, it is a strange circumstance, and, perhaps, peculiar to Ireland, that while new fortunes are acquired there, the number of rich upstarts does not increase there in the same proportion. The reason is, that often after the fortune has been acquired, the rich man leaves the country, and this is explained by

the social and political state of Ireland."

We shall not for the present concern ourselves with his explanation of the phenomenon; our own more simple explanation of the matter is, that he received from the party an exaggerated account of the wealth they were acquiring, while on the other hand, those in the actual possession of fortunes were rather anxious to conceal than to display the lateness of the acquisition. Thus M. De Beaumont admits, and even exaggerates the increasing wealth of the Roman Catholics. We cheerfully admit that the disparity in wealth between them and the Protestants is every day decreasing, and indeed it is almost a demonstrable truth, that there is in the nature of things a strong tendency to distribute the wealth of the country between those two parties in a fair proportion to their numbers. In the daily changes that take place, the properties lost by each party will be in proportion to the properties possessed by it: the properties gained will be in proportion to the numbers employed in the pursuit of riches, i.e. nearly in proportion to the total number of the party. Formerly this tendency was counteracted in a great measure by the state of the law and the state of the country. We will not provoke discussion by asserting that the Protestant religion was more congenial to the rich man, from his superior education and cultivated understanding, while, on the other hand, the Roman Catholic religion, appealing to his fears more than to his reason, was better suited to the superstitious ignorance of the Irish poor. It is enough for our purpose to remark, that the penal laws pressed with much more severity upon the rich man than upon the poor, and that the former lay under a stronger temptation to free himself, by conformity, from those disabilities which prevented him from assuming that place in society to which his rank and wealth entitled him. The superior learning and education of the clergy of the Established Church gave the Protestant religion an influence with the rich, which it did not possess over the poor, who could not appreciate those qualities. On the other hand, the state of the country enabled the Roman Catholics to exercise a more cruel tyranny against the poorer Protestants, who were grievously oppressed by the numbers and the union of their adversaries. The poor Protestant found his life endangered at every fair and place of public resort. His cattle and crops were destroyed, and the morning never rose that he did not examine his pre

mises with the dread that some invasion of his property may have left him a ruined mau. Exposed to such assaults and depredation, the Protestant farmer was not able to pay that rent for his land which the Roman Catholic was ready to promise, and the blind selfishness of landlords too often led them to expel their Protestant tenants to make room for Roman Catholics who would promise a higher rent. The former departed with the remnants of their property, to seek in a foreign land that protection which was denied to them at home. This species of persecution has not yet ceased, indeed it never raged more violently than during the last few years, while it enjoyed the countenance of Lord Normanby's go vernment; but its influence in leading to an expulsion of Protestant tenants has been on the decline, since landlords have discovered that the prosperity and security of their property depend upon their giving a due protection to their Protestant tenantry. A Roman Catholic farmer will never give up a farm of which he has once obtained possession. It is no matter whether his lease be expired, or his rent unpaid, or what laws or what contracts he violates by keeping possession, he will not give it up until compelled by force of law, and if compelled, the vengeance of his party will be displayed in deeds of sanguinary violence against the person and entire family of the man who cultivates a farm which its former possessor had been forced to relinquish. If the poor Protestant engages in a small trade, suited to his means and capabilities, his religion affords an invincible impediment to his success. The Roman Catholics, banded together under the guidance of their priest, refuse to deal with him, and his trade, for want of customers, yields him no profit. Even of many of those articles which the rich consume, their servants, who are principally Roman Catholics, are the immediate purchasers. Hence it happens that the small retail trades, which alone are within the power of the poor to conduct, cannot be undertaken by a Protestant with any prospect of success. This was strongly exemplified at the last Dublin election, where, of 11,406 votes polled, Mr. O Connell had a majority of only 95, and yet the numbers on the whole constituency being thus equally divided, they stood thus on the smaller tradesmen:- Hucksters and provision dealers, West 15-O'Connell 229; Dairymen, West 1-O'Connell 156; Publicans, not including grocers or tavernkeepers, West 5-O'Connell 198; Butchers and poulterers, West 16

O'Connell 109. Thus O'Connell had a majority of 693 to 37 of those whose customers are either the poor themselves, or the rich, through the medium of their servants, and this in a city where one-third of the inhabitants are Protestants. This system of exclusive dealing has at length awakened the attention of the rich Protestants to the situation of their poorer brethren, and if persisted in will probably provoke them to retaliate, by adopting a similar system themselves. With all these disadvantages to contend against, the number of the Protestant poor and middle classes is increasing daily, and with this increase the power of exercising this persecution is gradually withdrawn from their adversaries.Thus the falsehood of M. De Beaumont's assertions, that the Protestant enjoys extreme wealth, while the Roman Catholic is plunged in an abyss of poverty is every day becoming more glaring, and the evil consequences that might flow from such a state of things need not be apprehended.

We would try M. De Beaumont's abuse of the aristocracy, and of its English and Protestant character, by this fair and simple test. Are the te-: nants of Roman Catholic landlords of Irish descent happier, or, in their circumstances more comfortable, than those of the English Protestants, or even of the Irish Orangemen. Do these latter show their want of sympathy for the poor Roman Catholics by demanding more excessive rents, or by being less just or liberal in their dealings than if Roman Catholic landlords were in their place. We boldly assert that the direct contrary is the case, and that it is notorious that the best and kindest landlords in Ireland are Conservatives and Protestants, and that the few wretched cottiers whose condition approaches to that which M. De Beaumont describes as the general lot of the Irish farmers are only to be found on the estates of the most violent Radicals. This will not appear a paradox to those who consider what disposition is most likely to produce a Conservative or a Radical, a good landlord or a bad one.

It is most natural that the same man who deceives the people should also oppress them. But we need not inquire into the cause; the fact itself is undoubted, that the poorest districts in Ireland are those in which the soil belongs to Radicals.

M. De Beaumont considers every act and every feeling of a Protestant to spring from a dislike to Ireland or to the Roman Catholics. In page 300 he assigns as a reason why poor laws were not established in Ireland, his one