IRELAND.

The National Association met on the 10th instant. There was a very large attendance of gentlemen of wealth and influence. It was agreed that Mr. O'Connell, who was expected to be present for the first time since, the death of Mrs. O'Connell, should be received in solemn silence. Accordingly, when the Liberator entered the room, the whole assembly rose and took off their hats. Mr. O'Connell was much affected.

Mr. Finn then proposed the admission of John Reilly, a pauper peasant, who had been imprisoned six weeks as a "rebel," but dig. .charged that morning by Baron Pennefather, on account of his ex- treme poverty. Reilly (the particulars of whose case are mentioned -elsewhere) was admitted, Mr. O'Connell paying for him the usual subscription of 1/. The amount of subscriptions announced for the week was 693/. Mr. O'Connell presented the chair of the old Catholic Association to the National Association—as a loan, not a -gift, for he valued it too highly to part with it.

. Mr. O'Connell then addressed the assembly, with the most impres- sive solemnity. He was entering, he said, on a new career—he was isolated, and had more leisure. Every energy he possessed he was pre- pared to devote henceforth to the undivided service of his country. He would not now be satisfied with half measures—he would have full Justice for his country. No 6th or 7th of George the Fourth would suffice now. A full and satisfactory settlement of the Tithe question, and a complete measure of Corporate Reform, must be had. He described the nefarious policy of the Tories towards Ireland ; and dwelt upon the hostility towards his country displayed by Sir Robert Peel and his father, who was the active opponent of measures for Opening the trade of Ireland. He reminded the Irish of their national

bravery, and the ignominy of submitting to their oppressors. The Government of Lord Mulgrave, and especially the recent appointment of Mr. O'Loghlen to the bench, he highly eulogized ; but he attacked Lord Plunket, whom he charged with filling the Magistracy with Omngenien and Tory opponents of the Government.

" I am not here (he said) to calumniate or flatter—I am here to speak the truth. It is not worth my while to stain my lips with any deviation from the fact, or shrink from any avowal of every transaction. What is the state of the Magistracy, I would ask ? It may be laughed at, but from this spot I ask Lord Plunket what he is doing, and say, lie betrays the Government to which he belongs. I don't menace. No man could be more anxious than I am to sus- tain the present Administration ; but I say that Lord Plunket is betraying it, as long as the Magistracy remains in its present state. A great cry is made if a Liberal Magistrate is appointed ; but Lord Plunket puts as riders upon his back two or three of the worst Conservatives. I ask Lord Plunket why does he do this? lie was the advocate for Catholic Emancipation.I won't enter upon that topic too minutely ; but I give his Lordship all the credit he deserves. It is his interest to keep the present Administration in power. There is a po- litical timidity about him. There is that about him which has ruined every effort—that creating of enemies and abandonment of friends—that policy which hurled the Stuart family off the throne of England, and should be treated with execration and contempt wherever found. The people have been most foully tricked by Lord Plunket. There is nothing so important as the Magistracy. I heard Lord Manners himself say, that the last thing George the Third said to bim when coming to Ireland was, • Lind Manners, remember that we hear the greatest complaints of Irish Magistrates, and recollect that your first duty is to purge the Magistracy. Purge—purge—purge.' ( Laughter.) The physic, heaven knows, has been a long 6ml:inoperative. Who forgets the speeches of Spring Rice upon the Magistracy, the declarations of Lord Grey ? Who doubts the determination cif Loi d Mulgrave to support Lord Plunket if he had a mind to do his duty? The fault rests with Lord Minket alone."

Mr. O'Connell concluded by giving notice of his intention to move on the following day that Mr. Sharman Crawford be added to the Standing Committee, to which he intended to move that Mr. Craw- ford's plan for settling the Tithe question should be referred. It was the rule of the Catholic Association to discuss in Committee questions on whieh there was a difference of opinion, and that regulation was found useful in preventing divisions.

On the motion of Mr. O'Connell, the Association then adjourned to the next day ; when it reassembled. Mr. O'Connell moved the reading of a letter from Mr. Carpenter, of London, begging to be admitted, along with Mr. Cleave, a member of the Association. Mr. Carpenter took the opportunity of expres- sing his dissent from Mr. O'Connell's assertion that the people of England were hostile or indifferent to the claims of their Irish fellow subjects : on the contrary, Mr. Carpenter said, that the movements of the Association were watched with intense anxiety, and that the cooperation and support of the "productive millions" of England might be depended upon in any effort to obtain justice for Ireland.

After the letter had been read, Mr. O'Connell eulogized the honesty, patriotism, and talents, of Messrs. Carpenter and Cleave ; but said that he did not like the style of the letter. He then proceeded at great length to demonstrate that from the time of Edward the Third to the present day, the aristocracy and a large portion of the gentry of England had been hostile to his country. He admitted, that at present there was a very large minority of Englishmen ready to do justice to Ireland, and that the majority in Scotland were the decided advocates of good and equal laws for Ireland. Ile adverted to the state of parties, and declared his firm belief that next session would see Radicals and Whigs united in firm opposition to the Tories. But then, he would tell Ministers, that they should determine what it was their business to do—to meet the Radicals halfway.

They ought to know that it is their duty to open every question of general liberty to the House of Commons. They know that they cannot conciliate the Lords; they might as well seek to tame sucking tigers. The Ministry have avoided a conflict with the Lords—the House of Commons avoided, while Lord Lyndhurst sought for collision. How base and inconsistent it is to sup- pose that men will submit to oligarchical tyranny—to those who are irrespon. sible to any human being for their acts—that the safety of the State, that all its concerns, are to be brought to a stand by a set of men over whom public opinion has no control whatever. Why are we to have a House of Commons at all, if the Lords can defeat every good act that it proposes? The Lords alone are irresponsible. Hitherto they have concealed that irresponsibility, by reason of their dominion over the House of Commons. They would still rule the country, as they hitherto have done, by their caprice. The time has come when there is the greatest clanger to reform in Parliament. It only requires on the part of the Tories an ascertained a majority in the Commons, to put an end to reform, and to return to all the abuses of the former system that prevailed in these countries. I entertain no apprehension of a division between the Ra- dical Members and the Whigs, and see a disposition in the Ministry to act fairly. They could not, in Ministers of the Crown, originate measures; but when the public sentiment is expressed, it is their duty to obey it. When that is distinctly expressed, I conceive it to be their duty to follow and obey it. So much, then, for the Whigs and the Radicals I know that excellent friends of mine, the Whig-Radicals, will support a Government determined to do jus- tice to Ireland—toot they will support an Administration which has sent Lord Mulgrave here to act as he has done."

But there were Tory-Radicals, who were always talking of the faults of the Whigs ; and the Whigs had many faults, but then how much good they had accomplished!

" Who was it that forced the Whigs to concede liberty to the English Dis- senters? It was the Whigs, led on by Lord John Russell. When Lord John Russell proposed the concession of their demands, Sir Robert Peel stalked out of the House in a manlier that was as undignified as it was indicative of his hostility to such concession. Who was it carried Emancipation? We did so; but it was with the help of the Whigs. It was this room that carried Eman- cipation; but we had the assistance of the Whigs, and the decided hostility of the Tories. We became too strong to be sore for the Tories; and Wellington was compelled to truckle to us, not from want of valour, but influenced by most excellent prudence. Who was it put an end to slavery? Was it the Tories ? No; but the Whigs. Who was it that in our colonies gave liberty to eight hundred thousand human beings? Who was it put on end to the East India monopoly? The Whigs. Who was it reduced the price of tea for the poor man nearly one-half? The Whigs. Who was it gave to the People of England an interest in the management of the affairs of their own country ? The Whigs. Who was it passed the Reform Bill ? Who was it abolished, in one sentence, fifty-six rotten boroughs—boroughs by which 112 Members were scot into the I louse of Commons on the nomination of eighteen or twenty persons ? The Whigs. I put it to every honest Radical, do we not owe Schedule A to the Whigs? I may be told that the Reform Bill was not

sufficiently extensive. I agree with those who say so; but are we to forget that we have been paid fifteen shillinss in the pound, and that the instalment has been tendered to us by the Whigs? It is an absuidity, then, to talk of an honest man being a Tory and a Radical ; and yet there ale some who believed themselves to be so."

Iii reference to the desire of the Radicals of Newcastle to have Sir William Molesworth for their Member, he said-

" Sir William Molesworth stands in the highest rank amongst the English gentry, and the pliwe that returns him to Parliament will do honour to itself. I may remark here, the ingenuity of the Whigs in sowing party dissension. Why should Sir Colman Rashleigh seek to put out Sir William Moleaworth? He says Sir William is too much of a Radical for him. Why, the Radicals do not seek to put out the Whigs. We in Ireland have never done so. But Sir Colman Roshleigh—and I must say that he has a surname that seems to be ominous—comes forward to create division ; he comes forward to oppose Sir William Alolesworth because he is a Whig Radical, although Sir William was supporting the Whigs, the party of Sir Colman itashleigh. This is particu• lady ungracious, especially when it is recollected that Sir William Alolesworth stood two contests ; and it is a most serious thing to stand a contest for an English county. This, however, he did when he could have been easily re- turned alone; hut he preferred a contest, in order that he might have as a col- league that excellent representative Sir William Trelawney. What, then, is the gratitude of Sir Colman Itashleigh? He refuses to support Sir William klolemworth ; and the latter like himself, :gives up the county, lest by a divi- sion he might disturb the return of two Liberal Alembers. I do hope that an abundance of constituencies will be found to keep Sir William Alolesworth in Parliament. I do not speak upon this subject merely to show my anxiety for the return of Sir William Alolesworth, but to show that we Radicals are in this respect superior to the Whigs. In the sacrifices that we have made, and are ready to make, we never will sacrifice principle. Anxious as Inns to main- tain the Ministry, yet when the question for the Ballot was proposed I voted for the Ballot and against the Ministry."

Ile insisted on the necessity of extensive organization, and of peti- tions signed by millions for the total abolition of Tithes, a thorough Corporate Reform, Extension of the Suffrage, the Ballot, Shorter Par- liaments, and the abolition of the Parliamentary property qualification- clause— "We must have branch associations in every county, barony, and parish in every county. We mint have men in these associations to keep the peace and preserve order—to combine and put down, by moral influence, every enemy to the public peace, and to maintain by their own combination every friend to universal freedom, and to preserve every man and his right allegiance to the throne, founded as it is upon the basis of giving happiness to the people at large. We must have petitions multiplied. We must have men in every parish re- sponsible for the total absence of every act of violence in those parishes. I pro- posed for this purpose before, in the Catholic Association, the appointment of Catholic Churchwardens. The plan was then found to operate extremely well We will not have belonging to us exclusively the machinery of any church ; but what is to prevent us 'laving parish pacificator., giving to the clergymen of the most numetoua congregation in the parish the nomination of one, aid to the people of the other. Weekly newspapers can be sent to these; and let those men forfeit their office, and be degraded from their situation, if in their parishes

fight occurs at a fair, a patron, or a mass place. Let us make them respon- sible for the peace of that parish. They will aeon organize the votes in that parish, and the voters will soon have thrown around them the protec- tion of the public. I throw out these things, to show that there is plenty of work to be done by us. We must begin in Ireland to have a complete organization of the popular power—we must have ' normal schools of peaceful agitation.' The Lords declared that they would not give us Corporations, for fear that we would agitate. Heaven help them ! I told them in the House of Cammons, that I was a mere tyro in the science of agitation compared with the house of Lords—that they were my unworthy masters. They have, indeed, perfected agitation. We must proceed with it—we must put an end to the possibility of all violation of the law. We must put the powers of the People in complete and active energy, so Coat they look with scorn upon every enemy to their country. No man can bear the blighting scorn of his fellow countrymen. Every man who is excommunicated of his kind is unhappy. The beings thus excommunicated will not be denied tire and water —the absolute necessaries of life will not be denied them ; but all nodal inter- course with them will be at an end—they will be treated as enemies. No in- jury will be done to them—we will not, as the Quaker did with the dog he sought to destroy, call mail dog after them ; but we will make them as unhappy as any dog that ever ran though the country."

Mr. Easthope, of the Morning Chronicle, was admitted a member, on the motion of Mr. O'Connell; and Mr. Sharman Crawford was placed on the Standing Committee.