years ago in New York, says regarding Gen. Sullivan, whose name has been frequently mentioned in these pages:

"There is in King's Chapel, School Street, Boston, a mural tablet to his memory, bearing the arms of the family, with an inscription in the Gælic tongue, the Irish language."

Regarding Gen. Stark, he says:

"Gen. John Stark was the son of an Irish farmer of New Hampshire. He inherited a good fund of mother-wit, and a brogue as mellifluous as if he was born and reared on the banks of the Inchigeelah, in the county Cork."

"The Great Expounder," Daniel Webster, used to imitate, with great unction, Stark's voice. He was one of the oldest of the Revolutionary generals. It was he who said before the battle of Bennington that "Mollie Stark," his wife, "would be a widow, or the English would be defeated."

Lossing and other American writers state that on one southern battle field of the Revolution seven Irish Gastons lay dead or wounded. The same authorities state that it was to Col. Wilson, an IrishAmerican, aged eighteen, that Cornwallis surrendered his sword at Yorktown. When D'Estaing attacked Savannah, and with his American. allies advanced to the assault, one of the French columns was led by Count Dillon, and the bulk of the American regulars present were recruited in the Irish settlements in North Carolina. When Greene and Morgan, pursued by Cornwallis, commenced their retreat from the Catawba to the Dan, the Irish element was well represented in both commands. That march and masterly retreat has not been excelled by any general in America, with the exception of Sherman's great march to the sea. Morgan had fought and won the battle of the Cowpens. He had defeated Tarleton with the loss of six hundred men, and, without waiting at the Cowpens to rest, pushed on for more than one hundred and fifty miles to form a junction with Greene, then pursued by Cornwallis. Butler, Ford, Lynch, and Hughes were conspicuous in the battle of Guilford, and greatly distinguished themselves by their daring and bravery. At Hobkirk's Hill the brave and patriotic Ford sealed his devotion to the republic with his blood, and Armstrong at Ninety-Six. At Eutaw Springs, when Greene issued his terrible order, "Let Williams advance, and sweep the field with bayonets," it was the Maryland and Virginia riflemen that Williams led to the charge. The Virginians were Morgan's celebrated rifle corps, and among the Marylanders were the Irish-American Catholics of Baltimore. At the siege of Yorktown Knox commanded the artillery as usual; under him were Stephens and Corrington. The Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania troops participated in all the battles, skirmishes and sorties that occurred from the beginning to the end of the siege. The Sappers and Miners were under the command of James Clinton. When the English surrendered and marched to the field of humiliation at Yorktown, and threw down their arms, they were met by their conquerors, an army of Irish and Irish-American patriots.

"The court of Versailles, having concluded at Paris a treaty of amity and commerce with the United States of America as an independent power, early in February,

Like the

1778, the result was necessarily a war between England and France. gallant Lafayette a number of the Irish military in France anticipated its government in taking up the cause of America. Among them there were, so early as 1776, several of the Supernumerary, or reformed officers of the Irish Brigade. 'As this corps,' says the announcement of the sailing of those gentlemen for America, 'is known to contain some of the best disciplined officers in Europe, there is no doubt but they will meet with all suitable encouragement.' When hostilities between France and England broke out the Irish regiments in France, who considered themselves entitled to serve before other corps against the English -a claim more especially advanced on this occasion by the regiment of Dillon were not long left unemployed."—

History of the Irish Brigades in the Service of France.

Washington's Life Guard was formed in 1776, soon after the siege of Boston, when the American army was encamped on Manhattan Island. It consisted of a major's command, one hundred and eighty men. The terms of enlistment into the guard were the same as those into any other corps of the regular army, except in the matter of qualification. They were selected with special reference to their physical, moral, and intellectual character, and it was considered a mark of peculiar distinction to belong to the commander-in-chief's guard."— Lossing, etc.

In the muster roll appear many distinctively Irish names, such as Daily, Dougherty, Moriarity, Hennessy, Driscoll, etc.

To show how the English people despised the Bostonians during the Revolution we quote the following from Dr. Johnson, "the leviathan of English literature."

"If the Bostonians are condemmed unheard, it is because there is no need of a trial. If their assemblies are suddenly dissolved, what was the reason? Their deliberations were indecent and their intentions seditious."— Dr. Johnson.

"If we take the resolute part, they (the Americans) will, undoubtfully, prove very meek. Four regiments sent to Boston will be sufficient to prevent any disturbance." General Gage on the American War.

Gen. Grant, a Scotchman, delivered a speech in the House of Commons, at the outbreak of the Revolution, and declared his unqualified contempt for the Americans. "Give me three thousand British soldiers," he exclaimed, “and I will march through all America and conquer it."

Here is the testimony of a distinguished Englishman regarding the services of the Irish in the Revolution:

"My lords, consider, in God's name, in time what you owe to gallant and impoverished Ireland. Suffer not your humiliating proposal and offerings to be laid at the feet of the Congress, in whose front of battle the poor Irish emigrants performed the hardest service. Let us consider Ireland a part of ourselves; open the Irish channel to our best service: avail yourselves of her excellent ports; cramp not their industry for purposes I will not mention."- Lord Townsend.

"You lost America by the Irish!"—Lord Mountjoy in the English House of Lords, 1783.

But why quote any more facts regarding Ireland in the Revolution? American and English history teems with them. Local histories of the thirteen colonies prove that they, the Irish, were the beginning and the end of the Revolution. The Scotch and English settlers, with some honorable exceptions, were opposed to Washington and liberty, and were loyalists, tories, or cowboys. They are the same to-day, and in New York, Boston, and Chicago celebrated Victoria's jubilee, and sung "God save the Queen" in the same spirit of loyalty as their grandfathers

sang "God save the King" in 1776, for George III. But Irish and American valor triumphed over them, then struck them to the earth in the Revolutionary days, and destroyed forever their power on this continent. To-day they are endeavoring to do by falsehood and intrigue what they could not do by arms in '76.

The facts stated in this article cannot be gainsaid. They will be found in every American history. They are only a few out of the hundreds we could adduce. Should occasion arise we will adduce others, and show to our contemporary, The Transcript, that the Scotch did not fight for American Independence, but fought in the ranks of the enemy against it. Our next paper will deal with the Irish signers of the Declaration of Independence, and show what they did for Amercan liberty.

We must confess the truth: we are poor creatures, capable of very little that is good; but God, who is infinitely good, is content with our poor labors, and finds acceptable the preparation of our hearts. — St Francis de Sales.

III.

I AM now, I fear, going to utter a politico-economical heresy. I have great respect for political economy. I entirely believe as you may have seen in the law of supply and demand and free exchange and safety of capital, which are the first conditions of industry; but there is one point on which, I am sorry to say, I am a very lame political economist, and I cannot keep pace with others. I find political economists denouncing all interference, as they call it, of Parliament with the supply and demand in any form of any article whatsoever. They argue that as a reduction of the price of bread gives the poor more food, and as the reduction of the price of cloth gives the poor more clothing, so the reduction of the price of intoxicating drink gives the poor a greater abundance of comfort. Now, gentlemen, I do not introduce this for the purpose of giving any expression on the Permissive Bill. I have done that at other times and elsewhere; this is not the place for it, neither was I invited for that purpose. But I give that instance to show that the principle of free trade is not applicable to everything. Why is it not applicable? Because it is met and checked by a moral condition. There is no moral condition checking the multiplication of food and the multiplication of clothing-the multiplication of almost every article of life which is not easily susceptible of an abuse fatal to men and to society. Well, now I am afraid I am going to tread upon difficult ground, but I must do so. I am one of those, which is of no importance, but Mr. Brassey is also one of those, and that is of a great deal more who are of opinion that the hours of labor must be further regulated by law. I know the difficulty of the subject, but I say the application of unchecked political economy to the hours of labor must be met and checked by a moral condition.

If the great end of life were to multiply yards of cloth and cotton twist, and if the glory of England consists or consisted in multiplying without stint or limit these articles and the like at the lowest possible price so as to undersell all the nations of the world, well, then, let us go on. But if the domestic life of the people be vital above all; if the peace, the purity of homes, the education of children, the duties of wives and mothers, the duties of husbands and of fathers be written in the natural law of mankind, and if these things are sacred, far beyond anything that can be sold in the market, then I say, if the hours of labor resulting from the unregulated sale of a man's strength and skill shall lead to the destruction of domestic life, to the neglect of children, to turning wives and mothers into living machines, and of fathers and husbands into — what shall I say, creatures of burden? - I will not use any other word, who rise up before the sun, and come back when it is set, wearied and able to take food and to lie down to rest; the domestic life of men exists no longer, and we dare not go on in this path. I am not going to attempt a perscription: I should fail if I were to attempt to practise in an art which is not my own, but this I will say: Parliament has done it already. Parliament at the instance of Lord Ashley, now Lord Shaftesbury, whom all men honor for his life of charity, has

set the precedent. Lord Shaftesbury, about the year 1834-5, as I remember, obtained a committee by which he brought to light-he unearthed and brought on the surface of the earth, under the light of the sun-all that was hidden in the mines, and Parliament forbade the employment of the labor of women and of children. Parliament has again and again interposed to forbid the employment of children in factories before a certain age. In some they cannot be employed as 、whole-timers till after eleven years of age; in others not until after fourteen years of age; in agricultural labor not before ten years of age. Parliament has interposed over and over again with the freedom of labor. More than this, Parliament has interposed to prevent fathers and mothers from selling the labor of their children. It has forbidden it, and Mr. Walpole, the other day, extended to other trades the acts by which the employment of children in certain noxious trades is limited or forbidden altogether. It has forbidden even the parents themselves to employ their children in those trades. They may not use the labor of their own children to enrich themselves if the employment of that labor be injurious to the child. Do not let it be said, therefore, that Parliament has not interposed in the question of labor and in the question of the hours of labor. I will ask, is it possible for a child to be educated who becomes a full-timer at ten or even twelve years of age? Is it possible for a child in the agricultural districts to be educated who may be sent out into the fields at nine? I will ask, can a woman be the mother and head of a family who works sixty hours a week? You may know better than I, but bear with me if I say I do not understand how a woman can train her children in the hours after they come home from school if she works all day in a factory. The . children come home at four and five in the afternoon; there is no mother in the house. I do not know how she can either clothe them, or train them, or watch over them, when her time is given to labor for sixty hours a week. I know I am treading upon a very difficult subject, but I feel confident of this, that we must face it, and that we must face it calmly, justly, and with a willingness to put labor and the profits of labor second - the moral state and the domestic life of the whole working population first. I will not venture to draw up such an Act of Parliament further than to lay down this principle.

I saw in my early days a good deal of what the homes of agricultural laborers were. With all their poverty they were often very beautiful. I have seen cottages with cottage gardens, and with scanty but bright furniture, a hearth glowing with peat, and children playing at the door; poverty was indeed everywhere, but happiness everywhere too. Well, I hope this may still be found in the agricultural districts. What may be the homes in our great manufacturing towns I do not know, but the homes of the poor in London are often very miserable. The state of the houses-families living in single rooms, sometimes many families in one room, a corner apiece. These things cannot go on; these things ought not to go on. The accumulation of wealth in the land, the piling-up of wealth like mountains in the possession of classes or of individuals, cannot go on if these moral conditions of our people are not healed. No commonwealth can rest on such foundations.