The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-29 00:00:00

CATROLIC DISSEXTZOXS.

O'Connell has addressed the following Weer to the Edith? of
Cic Ds! lie Morning Register :
Itlerrion-square, 28d July, 1825.
!...en,-1 have been twenty-three years engaged in the Catholic
sear. Daum; that long period many things have occurred calcu-
wed to mortify. and some to disgust me. But. either the natutal
elasticity of my animal spirits, or some other cause, prevented me
!NHS bang affected by any of the attacks, whether open or insidious,
gado upon me. I must, however, acknowledge that my period of
sp.ithy has terminated. I have at length felt with sensitiveness all
rig Isi'.temess of reproach --and, in the spirit, perhaps, of humiliated
pride and mortifiod vanity, I sit down to reply to a strange, and, I
will add, most unnecessary. public assault, made on me by a very
tevectsble Clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Kineella, of Carlow College.
Until I saw his letter, 1 never felt a sensation of regret at the
patron of my time and property which has been devoted to Ca.
Mei.: 'Tales. It is natural that I should overrate the value of that
e. and be too sensible of the amount of such property. Yet,
till I saw his letter, I never felt regret for the one or the other. But
Mat letter gave rise to feelings of a nature calculated. at least, to
malts rue recollect that one or the most celebrated of Roman pa-
triots died, exclaiming that " public virtue was but a name." And
if this sentiment obtruded itself on a great man, why should not so
useless and obscure an individual as icyself feel a similar pang,
•hea unnecessarily assailed from a quarter to which I would have
:molly looked foe friendship, for protection, fur patronage.
The occasion of winch the I(o,. Mr. Kinsella availed himself
to "rusk into print" against me, was this—A meeting haul been
rolled of St. Audeon's parish, nominally, to petition Parliament,
last three days alter Parliament had ripen ! ! ! In that respect
it was a bind of " privateering after the war ;" but its real
ilijetet might have been, what Mr. Kinsella says it was. /lie
words are, " Now, Sir, at the meeting in Bridge-street, the
vault qacition at tine was, the propriety of Mr. O'Connel's
viaduct in approving of the Bill fur increasing the qualification
of the electors, and of the proposed plan for pensioning the
Clergy."
Perhaps so; perhaps that was the sole question at issue in
Bridge-stmt. 'let such an object was strenuously denied by
twat of the adverse speakers there. They were--Lord love them
__they were, they said, merely talking of abstract questions, un-
iJapeitart to me. But lam apt to believe with the public, that
me Rev. Mr. Kinsella is right. He may, besides, hays private
means of knowing the real sentiments of the movers of the Bridge-
civet meeting which I have not ; and at all events, lie has lent
the aid of his powerful talents and most respectable character to
forward the objects of those who might have intended to " let off"
that meeting at my head.
The cause of the Rev. Mr. Kinsella's letter is—the report of •
speech made by me, in return fur a vote of thralls passed to met
by that meeting.
I helloes there is not a human being amongst the reading classes
of society that is not quite aware of the gross inaccuracy with
which speeches arc reported in the public papers ; such inaccuracy
is hardier to a proverb—indeeil it must be so. How is it possible
fora writer to follow the rapid progress of a speech. or to seise with
minuteaess the arrow flight of another person's ideas / It is, in
truth, surprising that even so much•can be done in that way as is
dose, to give any notion of an unpremeditated speech. But where
thee is any subject of a delicate nature, or any thing like precision
required, nobody, I believe, thinks of fastening the terms of a re-
ported speech on the speaker, without at least a previous inquiry.
With Kara to the speech in question, it was given in a paper
Ilk Naming Register) which, in my opinion, employs the best
reporters in this country. And I say this the more readily, because
1 am bound to add that this report pas singularly inaccurate—it
we inaccurate beyond the usual inaccuracy of newspaper reports.
I ran account for this circumstance by my having apoken from the
Irak ry at a great distance from the reporters, who were seated near
the sitar railing.
I recollect baying had occasion the next day, in a conversation
with a respectable gentleman, to remark on the gross raistatementa j
nisee in that report. The friend to whom I allude said, that it was
lihey that either Dr. Murray or Dr. Doyle would write to me to
kacw if I could have ntade ouch assertions respecting them. My
mese was, that I thought it very improbable they would take that j
livable, as they both knew how little reliance was to be placed on
ash reports, and how utterly incapable I was of giving utterance
hi the untruths respecting Ulan, which the newspapers attributed
. . .

little did I imagine at that time that, without any previous in-
-90,7y. I should be treated in print as the asserter of falsehood, and
prJteit historically and chronologically to be a liar, by a respects.
in. and respected Catholic clergyman.
I did not imagine it possible that there ezisted any man ca-
pable of thinking that, in addition to my other labours, I am bound
is volunteer to watch over the press ; to correct its mistatements,
aid to set myself right rhenever it misrepresents me wilfully or by
taVtake. If this be expected of me, I must confess lam totally
usable to do it.

I would rather suffer any infliction than Ise driven icto constant
lo.battles with newspaper reporters. Besides, if I were of my
knee motion to correct them in one instance, I would thereby incur
the liability of a tacit admission of the accuracy of all which I did
not correct. I have, therefore, co.:latently in my speeches, and re-
peatedly in pint, and more than once, in the columns of the Morn.
leg iitgister, disclaimed any responsibility for any publication not
stymie), m name.
If any evil' could occur front my Inattention to the reporters, the
remedy is the most easy at.d simple in the world. It consists in
at. application, either verbal or written to myself. If the Rev. Mr.
:Kismet's condescended to write to me one line hefine he wrote a
long letter to the Dahlia Errain Post, all would have been set
yleee and I would have authorised him to publish, or I myself
'lava its element. at hisrequest, have published such a come.
rendered it tanneeneary,
•,ret of the Report as ro:::!"1!
s well, indeed, as impossible, for hint to onste.::.: Ynidrt hnfiect
accents of undeserved prose, with the foul names of Ha and calum-
r ator.
That the Report contained a falsehood was perfectly clear. How
tare I deserved that he should fix it upon me, without an in-
quiry ? Would not courtesy have required that an enemy thould
or asked, whethet be really was guilty, before his guilt was pro-
!teemed certain ? Alas ! my vanity and foolish pride made me
think I deserved more than courtesy. It made me believe, that,
before a Catholic clergyman joined in print the Bridge-street gang.
as they have been celled, and the mime calumniators, in assailing
me. he would not pet my certain conviction on the mere hazard of
my contradicting or not newspaper reporters; but would give him-
self first, the kind and considerate trouble of asking me how the
tact really was..
Nay, if I had really used the word attributed to me, I would
have expected the contlesceneion of a private expostulation ; and
the opportunity of myself publicly retracting, before I was met
in hastile array, by a gentleman, whose sacred charamer and
station make his hostility Justly appear to be of itself an absolute
cond. =anon.
Let me not be mistaken ; let me not be supposed to titter re-
pent-hes ; but I have a right, in the bitterness of sorrow, to
ieaelain, that at such a period as the present those who, no matter
tent whet motives, seek to destroy that unanimity, to which
mainly our chance of success depends, should be able to wield the
none, and use the labours of as truly excellent a person es the
Ray. Mr. Kinsella against me, and against those who, with ins,
are struggling to keep our forces together for the day of constitu-
tional battle against the common enemy.
lied the Rev. Gentleman, on reading the report in question, the
Li thins towards me, and the condescension to write to me, I tell
you, Mr. Editor, what would have been my reply.
should have expensed my sincere pleasure at becoming
the correspondent of &gentleman, :o whom, as a scholar and a di.
star, the Catholics are se much indebted, during the memorable,'
and to him, as well as to the Catholic maw, mpstleonourable Bible
battle in Carlow.
:..seoratly-1 would have expressed, as I now cheerfully express,
my respectful affection, as well as my profound veneration, for the
digeitied Prelates to whom allusion is made, and declared, that I
wiz delighted to have a 4;6mile opportunity to do awry apy pos-
t.ely suspicion that I would have spoken of either of them in any
et), calculated to derogate from their high and venerated chime.
it:.. I would have reseectfully alit gratefully thanked the Rev.
Mr. Kinsella for giving me that opportunity.
'Ehirilly-1 would have distinctly disclaimed the accuracy of the
neon. I would have taken up loth the passagesquoted in his let-
ter, aid shown him, in detail, that they contained most gross mis-
tiees of ivy meaning.
I should have proceeded in these or similar words :—The second
passage you have quoted, Rev. Sir, demands my attention la the
firs. instance. It is this—l use your own words—" He says of the
B shops, they may have been taken by surprise. The purity of
Melt own motives, and the consciousness of their own integrity,
may have exposed theta to the artifices of designing per ionse but
the period will never again arrive when thee will be unprepared foe
say measure the Govemeteet rnay propose."
I did use the language sufficiently similar to this passage 'to
enable me to ii7ol, the passage itself. But I think you will be
• taken by surprise" when you hear the simple fact, that I was
sneaking, not of the year Mee but of the year 1799--not of his
Grace Dr. Murray, or the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle, but of Prelates,
many, nay most of whom, are long since dead—not, in short, of the
measure of making a provision for the Catholic Clergy, but of the
I
The matter occurred thus :—One of the speakers against "the
CIEs" actually went the length of arguing that a State provision
tar our Clergy, in the event of Emancipation, was a branch of the
Veto. He said that the laity should watch over the subject, as
the Prelates hadlbefore beets induced, at one time, to sanction the
Vero.
It was as a reply to that remark that I applied the sentiment
at toes:tea. 1 threw some ridicule on the assertion of there be-
me a connexion between the two m moues, and showed that.
Othocgh in 1799 some of the Catholic Prelates had been deceived
tote a qualified assent of a manna of the Veto, yet, that from the
chiracter and roused vigilance of our present Prelates, there was
no apprehension of any recurrence of mistake or surprise on that
stihject.
I then spoke as I think of the existing etas of Catholic Prelates
in Ireland. I poured out my heart: in the expression of the stn.
tim,ats I enter:win of all the Prelates who attended in London
in the present year, and of the two Prelates in question I spoke, as
.Nery Catholic must speak, in terms of the most unmixed and un-
mitigated approbation. I relied upon their unblemished characters
as the surest and strongest proof that any measure to which they
iixt given an assess, Hociant or otherwise, could not be Vetoisu-
cd. I asserted that, it it were Vetoistical, no earthly connidera•
tem could have indseed them, nor any human terrors could compel'
them, to assent to the measure. I alluded to the evidence of Dr.
Leyte. as conclusive against such an unworthy supposition.
I was thus naturally html to the part I took in the details of
the " provision" for the Catholic Clergy. I did then assert, and I
repeat the assertion, " that in all the communications I had with
the persons who patronized that providon, I did not do anything,
or assent to any one detail, which had not the assent, and, as such,
the unction, ut the wand Prelates In question." In this asertion,

I my allusion was to the details constituting the ptincVe justly put
forward by the Rev. Mr. Kinsella, on behalf of the Right Rev,'
Dr. Doyle, namely, " that It was not to be a Rsgiunt donum, or
made to depend on an annual vote of the House of Commons,"
but " that it should be a permanent provision established by law."
These details, Rev, Sir, were what I alluded to ire that part of '
my speech which gave rise to the first passage you Tune. mime.
curate as the report is, yet it does not, as I respectfully submit,
bear eau the inference you draw from it. There certainly is not a'
word in that passage respecting " the freehold wing," and what-
ever there be to justify your inference extending it to the " free-
hold wing," there certainly was nothing in my speech to justify the
Reporter au that respect.
I solemnly declare that I did not say one word connecting, di- I
rectly or indirectly, the name of any Catholic Pre:ate, or the
opinion of any Catholic Prelate, with my support of (if you choose
to call it support), or, as I should say, my acqniescence. in " the
freehold wing."
I could not have said it with respect to Dr. Murray, or Dr. I
Doyle, without being guilty of what you, Rev. Sir, really
foolish owl- I
bute to me—namely, a and absurd falsehood.
With respect to his Grace the Archbishop, I do not know what
his opinion may be with regard to this wing—or whether he has
any opinions at all on the subject. It he have. I certainly respect
them—but I never beard him utter them. Nay, if I had asked
bun his opinion on " the freehold bill," I really believe his reply
would consist in a smile, and a repetition of my question—" And
pray what is your own opinion ?"
AR to the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle. I was quite aware that his
published sentiments were very different from mine. I was also
i aware that he avoided, whilst in London., any interference with that
subject. lie seemed to consider it as foreign from the duties whi7h
he had to perform there--and, at all events, I never consulted him
on this topic—l considered our opinions as opposite—and, whilst
on every thing connected with religion, I should pay the most
deferential and unqualified respect for his judgment, I certainly
would, and do respectfully differ from him on the forty shilling
freehold system in Ireland. I have not the foolish vanity to corn-
pare my mental faculties with his—but I have had professional, and
other opportunities to watch the system in all its workings, and to
ascertain facts relating to it with which Dr. Doyle is probably un.
acquainted.
But under these circumstances nothing could be further from my
mind than to allege that either Dr. Murray or Dr. DI le had given
any sanction to my opinions on the " freehold wing."
I have, Rev. Sr, only further to assure you, that I never ex-
ressi.d any " horror" at the " freehold wing," or at the " provi-
sion wing." For my own opinions on the former I storm and stand
on my own judgment. For my acquiescence in " the principle"
of the latter, I did and do claim the benefit of the assent to that
principle given by Catholic Prelates of the first and highest esti.
matfett.
That principle pre.suppoms Emancipation. It pre-suppoam a
paternal and fostering government—not ruling for the protection of
a faction, but governing for the strength and security of ali the
petiole.
The mode in which such a paternal government should be'
cherished by the Irish people, is indeed widely different from any
thing we have hitherto experienced.
I cannot, Rev. Sir, conclude without assuring you, that I con-
cur with those who think shut ourcaune was retarded, not advanced,
by " the wings," and to express my determination not to ccusent
in future to connect the fate or fortune's of the Catholic cause with
any extraneous measures whatsoever. Our friends cannot blame
a determination which experience justities--our enemies cannot li
calumniate a determination which their own conduct has sanc-
tioned.

Such, M. Editor. would have been my reply to the private
letter of the Rev. Mr. Kinsella. If it be any pleasure to him to
know that he has grieved and humiliated me, I give him the ad-
vantage of knowing the fact. But, although goaded by more pain-
ful feeling than I ever before experienced, I trust I have not said
one word inconsictent with the reverence I bear to his sacred
functions, and the respect 1 entertain for his personal and individual
character.

I have the honour to be, your very obedient servant,
DANIEL O'CONNELL.
P.B. Since I wrote the greater part of the above letter, I have
seen my Mend Cobbett'e last publication. %Chat strange ern.
ture it is ! If I had leisure I think I would laugh a little at him
by way of reply; I wish he would deprive me of my " Leader.
ship" amongst the Catholics. I assure him it is a very trouble.
some commodity ; but I cannot lose it on allegations, which hap.
pen to have the poetical quality of invention, or the less amiable
one of complete distortion.