ven days after the insult was
received, and eight days after explanation was demanded and refused,
this misled gentleman was advised to send a message. He addressed a
letter in the following words:--

"Sir--_Carrick's Paper_, of the 23rd instant, in its Report of the
Debates of a Meeting of the Catholic Gentlemen, on the subject of a
Petition, states that you applied the appellation of _Beggarly_, to the
Corporation of this City, _calling it a beggarly Corporation_; and,
therefore, as a member of that body, and feeling how painful such is, I
beg leave to inquire whether you really used or expressed yourself in
such language.

"I feel the more justified in calling on you on this occasion, as such
language was not warranted or provoked by any thing on the part of the
Corporation; neither was it consistent with the subject of your Debate,
or the deportment of the other Catholic gentlemen, who were present;
and, though I view it so inconsistent in every respect, I am in hopes
the Editor is under error, not you.

"I have further to request your reply in the course of the evening--and
remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

"J. N. D'ESTERRE,
"11 Bachelor's-walk, 26th Jan. 1815.
"To Counsellor O'Connell, Merrion-square."

* * * * *

"Sir--In reply to your letter of yesterday, and without either admitting
or disclaiming the expression respecting the Corporation of Dublin, in
the print to which you allude, I deem it right to inform you, that, from
the calumnious manner in which the religion and character of the
Catholics of Ireland are treated in that body, no terms attributed to
me, however reproachful, can exceed the contemptuous feelings I
entertain for that body in its corporate capacity--although, doubtless,
it contains many valuable persons, whose conduct, as individuals (I
lament), must necessarily be confounded in the acts of the general body.

"I have only to add, _that this Letter must dose our Correspondence on
this subject_.--I am, &c., &c.,

"DANIEL O'CONNELL.
"Merrion-square, January 27, 1815.
"To J. N. D'Esterre, Esq.,
11 Bachelors-walk, Dublin."

Mr. D'Esterre was advised to persist in the correspondence, and
addressed another letter (but directed in a different hand-writing), to
Mr. O'Connell. It was returned to him by Mr. James O'Connell, inclosed
in a letter couched in the following terms:--

"Sir--From the t