so long tasted of the luxuries of popularity, he could not consent that the chalice should pass from his lips.  Agitation had, perhaps, begun to be necessary to his existence:  a tranquil life would have been a hell to him.”  It would seem that Mr O’Connell’s earliest recorded manifesto on Repeal was on the 3d June 1829, previous to the Clare election, on which occasion he said—­“We want political excitement, in order that we may insist on our rights as Irishmen, but not as Catholics;” and on the 20th of the same month in the same year, 1829, he predicted—­listen to this, ye his infatuated dupes!—­“that BEFORE THREE YEARS THERE WOULD BE A PARLIAMENT IN DUBLIN!!!” In the general elections of 1832, it was proclaimed by Mr O’Connell, that no member should be returned unless he solemnly pledged himself to vote for the Repeal of the Union; but it was at the same time hinted, that if they would only enter the House as professed Repealers, they would never be required to VOTE for Repeal.  On the hustings at the county of Waterford election, one of these gentry, Sir Richard Keave, on being closely questioned concerning the real nature of his opinion on Repeal, let out the whole truth:—­“I will hold it as an imposing weapon to get justice to Ireland.”  This has held true ever since, and completely exemplifies all the intervening operations of Mr O’Connell.  It has been his practice ever since “to connect every grievance with the subject of Repeal—­to convert every wrongful act of any Government into an argument for the necessity of an Irish Legislature.”  Can it be wondered at that the present Government, thoroughly aware of the true state of the case—­knowing their man—­should regard the cry for Repeal simply as an imposture, its utterers as impostors?  They did and do so regard it and its utterers—­never allowing either the one or the other to disturb their administration of affairs with impartiality and firmness; but, nevertheless, keeping a most watchful eye upon all their movements.

    [35] pp. 43, 50.

At length, whether emboldened by a conviction that the non-interference of the Government was occasioned solely by their incapacity to grapple with an agitation becoming hourly more formidable, and that thus his schemes were succeeding—­or impelled onwards by those whom he had roused into action, but could no longer restrain—­his movements became daily characterized by more astounding audacity—­more vivid the glare of sedition, and even treason, which surrounded them:  still the Government interfered not.  Their apparent inaction most wondered, very many murmured, some were alarmed, and Mr O’Connell laughed at.  Sir Robert Peel, on one occasion, when his attention was challenged to the subject in the House of Commons, replied, that “he was not in the least degree moved or disturbed by what was passing in Ireland.”  This perfect calmness of the Government served to check the rising of any alarm in the country; which felt a confidence of the