The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-23 00:00:00

' ♦ He did not see that there was any right pretended previous to 1614. That . period must be fixed on as the real period of the domination of Ireland. From that period it was under the power of the English. But then it existed as an independent country and apart from England. England had her independent Parliament ; Ireland had had her in dependent Parliament. Many crimes were committed, but they were part of the domestic history of the country. James the First tyrannised there, and Stafford, with that craft and cruelty so fatal to his Sovereign and to himself, was felt as a scourge. Still that was part of the domestic history of the country. No distinction could be made by it between the title of the English to the country. There was a difference of harmony occasionally, but still the two countries were separate nations, ,having each an indepen dent legislature. Their Kings were the same—their Par liaments were different. This was the state of the right of England to Ireland until the year 1778. Till that year, England had no other right to Ireland but the right of Sovereignty. Till then the Irish nation had a clear title to their own separate and independent legislature—to a do mestic Parliament. That right, to be sure, was sometimes unjustly contracted, and the contraction submitted to from the weakness of Ireland. Still the country was a separate and distinct nation. In 1778 the first act was passed, relaxing those penal laws, which had long been a grievance to Ireland. What was the result ? The result was, that the trade of the country, which had been unjustly checked for four centuries, righted itself, and free trade existed by the consent of the people and the Parliament of Ireland. Thus, justice was done for the first time to Ireland, in as far, at least, as admitting the principles of free trade, and the country flourished. The accumulating wealth and in creased power which thus accrued to Ireland, made her seek other advantages ; and, in 1782, Ireland worked out those principles which she had so early introduced—of her right to her full legislative and judicial independence. Never was there a revolution so completely honourable and glorious as that of 1782. There was no stain upon it. It was the perfection of human patriotism. It was not a re volution without deliberation. It was a treaty made with the people, and it was founded on a message from the King. It was a wise act ; and well would it have been if it had still been acted upon. The King's message was delivered on the 10th of April, 1782, by commission. It stated that the commissioners had it in command from his Ma jesty to inform the house, that his Majesty was concerned to find that certain discontents and jealousies of great im portance had occurred, and that it was his Majesty's plea sure that the house should proceed to take them into their serious consideration, with a view to their final adjust ment, to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. This was no hasty rebellion (Hear, hear) • yet for what was it the Irish contended ? They contended that, though the coun tries belonged to the same King, the principle had been admitted of their right to a separate legislature ; and in support of that, they showed that the record of the Irish Parliament was as old as that of the English Parlia ment itself. By that act, the powers of the Parlia ment of Ireland were admitted to be co-extensive with that of England ; and if any compact could be sacred, it was this which was solemnly entered into between the King and his people. That act established the right of Ireland to its Parliament, which had never been'denied, though several usurpations had been made. It abolished the ap pellate jurisdiction, which was of itself one of the prin cipal grievances of which Ireland had to complain ( Hear), for if it was on no other account but the delay which must ensue, it was an intolerable hardship. Was it not hard, for instance, that a peasant from Clare or Kerry should be obliged to try his cause in Westminster Hall? It was, in fact, the principal grievance of which Ireland complained ; and it was one of the principal rea sons which induced the Irish to claim their indepen dence. He would now read the opinion of the Irish bar on this subject, in an address presented to the King, and proposed by Henry Grattan. [The hon. and learned member then read the address, which stated that the people of Ireland were a free people, that no other tribunal had a right to make laws for that country but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, and that they assured his Ma jesty that they considered that right the very essence of their liberty—a right which they had acquired with their birth, and would only yield with their lives.] Such was the spirit in Ireland at that period, and when the same spirit was again predominant in the breasts of Irishmen, they would insist (with the assent of that house) on hav ing the same liberty again. The history of Ireland was defaced with many crimes and many atrocities, but he defied any man to point out a single instance in which the Irish had violated their faith with the English. He could point out a hundred treaties made between the two countries, but he de tied any man to point out an instance in which the Irish broke faith. There was one brilliant periodin Irish history. It was that which produced the revolution of 1782. The recol lection of that period was gratifying and soothing. The act of that year was the Irish Charter Liberty. It was impossible to blot that period out of their recollection. It remained fixed in the affections of the Irish people, and the Irish people would insist on recovering it. He thought that he had made out his case, of the right of Ireland to an independent legislature, on the principle adopted in the final adjustment of the question in 1782. He hoped still to see the same independence existing in Ireland; and if he had not that hope firmly fixed in his breast, he should not think existence worth possessing. The improved spirit of the people would never let the question rest, and whe ther he (Mr. O'Connell) abandoned it or not was imma terial, fc r it would neveri be abandoned by the people of Ireland. He had now closed the first part of his argu ment, and he would now proceed to show why the final adjustment of 1782 had been broken through, and how the independence of Ireland had been obscured, though not dropped. Before doing so, however, he would say a few words on another topic, which he did the more willingly, as it was of a cheering nature—he meant the effects pro duced upon Ireland by the enjoyment of that indepen dence. There were those who said— " For modes of law let casuists contest, Those best administered are best." But it was pleasing to him to show what the effects of these good laws were, especially as he understood that multi tudinous calculations were to be brought against him on this occasion, to show the advantages derived by Ireland from its connection with England. He would show what the effect of independence was on that country, from documents which were not fabricated for this occasion, and were even above suspicion. He meant, having shown the right of Ireland to independence, now to show what the - effects of that independence were ; and he would beg to remind gentlemen, that this experiment of legislative in dependence was the most unfavourable that could well be conceived. The parliament of Ireland was not a popular body, but that circumstance more fully declared the advan tage that would be derived from a parliament freely and legitimately chosen by the people. It was a borough mongering parliament ; not less than forty boroughs were created in one day. Besides which, the far greater por tion of the people were excluded from the possession of the elective franchise. It was impossible, then, that a more unfavourable experiment of the advantage of an independent legislature could be than this was. Still, however, it was in an Irish and a national parliament. It was that parlia ment which had been assailed by many, but there could not be greater calumnies than those cast upon it. He admitted it had been guilty of crimes and corruptions, but notwith standing that, it had also excellent virtues. It defied the minister, and out of the number of about three hundred members, there was also a steady opposition of ninety. To illustrate the extent and animus of the opposition, one member had declared he had often voted, but never with the minister, whether right or wrong. He (Mr. O'Con nell) would not say that that opposition was always right, but; at all events, their conduct was not regulated by the extent of the court favours they had received. The Irish house, h o wever, had not been worse than its neighbours. It never voted for such an expedition as the Walcheren one, which was about - as bad as any ever voted. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. member for Cambridge would have died had he seen present when the English parliament of that day committed such a gross violation - of the mul tiplication table as to vote a pound note and a shilling a guinea, at the very moment that outside the door seven and twenty shillings could be got for that same guinea. The gentry who formed the Irish parliament were uni formly more just and correct in their principles on one question at least, than the parliament of England—he meant on the Regency question. The English parliament then virtually resolved that William Pitt should be Re gent, but the Irish parliament, with better judgment, conceived that the King being morally dead, was pretty much the same as if he was physically dead, and accord ingly they declared that the heir to the throne should be Regent. It might be asked, what had this to do with the question of the repeal of the legislative union, but it was not so remote from the question as might be supposed, for by the Act of 33d of Henry VIII., the King of England de facto, became King of Ireland de jure, and if the same rinciple were extended to Re g ent, it might be seen that Ireland had some interest in the question. (Hear, hear.) But whatever the faults of the Irish Parliamentmight have been, it had oss excellent property—that of checking ab senteeism (Hear, bear) which would necessarily al ways be the necessary iegredients of a resident parliament. (Hear, hear.) That the carts of that Parliament were good he had many proofs, and the drat he would bring was Lord Clare, over whose opinions he (Mr, O'C. ) could not be supposed to have any influence. That rioWe lord, in one of his speeches in I'9B, in speaking of the improve ment in the state of Ireland between 1782 and 1798, said there was not a nation in the world which bad advanced so leach in its cultivation, manufactures, and agriculture as trend had done in the same period. Lord Clare had been ghancellor of Ireland ; and there was another Chan, t elfor of Ireland who had given an equally favourable °pi nioD of th. improvements in that country ; that other au was Lord Plunket. He thus brought the living Cice lbority n or to follow the depd Chancellor. 'hie testimony pf tlms one foilowedand confirmed the testimony of the There . was Aamther authority still to bring other, (Hear. ) ng' iorward---ths ifut'iorit Y another Chancellor, though not _ a Lord tßaee T wl oas which he had r, it was a Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, 4lr ; Pitt (Hear.) That s tausmali adopted the language of Mr. Foster, An d made it his . own, respecting the quantity of goods iraPortexl tntO Ireland from Great Britain before the Un io n . pick, efter quoting certain observations of Foster's on this subject, Orl— and he (Mr. O'Connell) begg e d t h e ettentJon of t house - to his statements—to mention that the amount of manu factures imported into Ireland from Great Britain in 1787, was, in round numbers, 1,000,000/. ; while the produce it sent to this country exceeded 3,000,000/. It was true that Mr. Pitt's object in making these statements was very dif ferent from that which he (Mr. O'Connell) had in view. His testimony was, therefore, the more valuable. He might be said to be an adverse witness proving his (Mr. O'Connell's) case. He had another witness to bring for ward ; and who did hon. members think this witness was? He was no other than Lord Grey. ("Hear, hear," from the Irish members.) Yes, let the house recollect that the Lord Grey of the present day was the same person as the Mr. Grey of 1798. Mr. Grey had been taunted on the occasion in question with the prosperity of Scotland. His was, that while he admitted Scotland to be in a highly prosperous state at the period in question, he did not think that country in so prosperous a state as Ireland then was. Here were several testimonies, all of the highest authority, which he (Mr. O'Connell) submitted to the house, to show the prosperity of Ireland antecedent to the union. He had also to invite the attention of the house to the fact, that, in a report drawn up by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. S. Rice) relative to another subject, it was stated, that in 1786 the increase in the consumption of tea was greater in proportion to the population in Ireland, than it was in England. In the article of tobaccothe increase that year in Ireland was 160 per cent. ; in England only 24 per cent. In coffee, again, the increase in Ireland was no less than 600 per cent., while in England it was only 75 per cent. There was a corresponding increase in the consumption of other articles of food and comfort. These facts proved, that as Ireland was at that time making more rapid progress than England in civilization and political freedom, so she was also making a corresponding progress in comforts of every kind. His second topic of legislation was to him (Mr. O'Connell) equally pleasing. He was but young in 1782; it was the first year of which he had any distinct recollection as to public matters ; but he did not recollect very distinctly the prosperity of Ireland at that period. Since then she had grievously declined, both in prosperity and political freedom. He wished to see her again expand to her former prosperity. With regard to the Act of Union which had been the great source of Ire land's wrongs, he (Mr. O'Connell) would fearlessly main tain that that act was not legal. The Irish Parliament had no right to transfer its powers to the legislature of Great Britain. No act of the British Parliament could make it legal to vest the Crown of this country in the hands of Louis Philip of France. Were the legislature of this country to arrogate such power to itself, and to attempt the transfer of the Crown to the King of France, the people would not only be justified in resisting that act as one of tyranny, but they would be called on to resist it from principle. (Hear, hear.) The Irish Parliament, he maintained, had no more right to annihilate the legis lature of that country, as they did by consenting to the Act of Union,—they had no more power or right to transfer their functions to theßritishParliament,thanthe latter had to send one hundred of its members to the Chamber of Deputies in France, and agree to receive into their assembly one hundred members of the Chamber of Deputies in return, to legislate for and impose taxes on this country. (Hear, hear, from the Irish members.) On behalf of the Irish people he (Mr. O'Connell) again asserted that the Irish parliament had no right to pass the Act of Union. But he did not wish the house to depend on any general state ments of his (Mr. O'Connell's) for the truth of the posi tion he advanced ; he would refer hon. members to the authority of others for the truth of his assertion and the soundness of his opinion. He would take up as his first proof an authority greatly respected among the Whigs. The authority to whom he referred was Mr. Locke. He had unanswerably proved that no parliament had the power of annihilating itself. The power of legislating could only be derived from the people ; no legislature had any right to transfer the power so conferred upon them to any other hands. Mr. Locke did not dispute the power of a legislature to alter and modify and remodel itself; what he maintained was, that it could not transfer its functions or powers to any other body. He now came to another authority. That authority had explicitly laid down the position that no act of parliament could make the act of union binding on the consciences of the British people. (Hear.) Who did the hon. members think said this ? Was it some wild agitator who had said it? No. It was one of the most distinguished lawyers of the present day ; one who for twenty years had managed all the government law business in Ireland. The name of the high authority to which he referred was Saurin. He would be glad to learn whether or not Lord Grey had not since been of the same opinion ? Did not his Lordship say in the speech already quoted, that the people of Ireland should wait their opportunity to recover the rights of which they had been deprived by the act of union? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Irish members.) Lord Grey had never, in the whole course of his life, said anything more true. The people of Ireland were waiting, and would wait, for an opportunity to recover their rights. He had one authority more to bring forward. He had already referred to what Saurin had said on the subject of the illegality of the union. Did he make the speech in which he expressed that opinion before he was Attorney- General ? No, he did not. The speech was made five years after. Well, then, did he retract? He never did. He was not a man to retract. He now came to the other authority, of whom he had just stated he was about to speak. That authority had, in the most earnest and elo quent terms, warned " the Irish legislature against passing an Act (the act of union) which would be a nullity, an act which no man in Ireland would be bound to abide by. You are appointed to act as legislators, and not to transfer your powers to any other body ; if you do, you resolve all law into its original element, and no man is called on to abide by your act." The same authority stated that this principle was recognized by the house of Hanover when it acceded to the throne of this country. " Are you compe tent," continues the individual referred to, addressing him self to the Irish Parliament, "are you competent to transfer your power and authority to the French convention ? You are no more competent to transfer it to the British Government. If you so transfer your power, you abdicate the situations to which the people have appointed you ; but you can do nothing more. As well might the frantic suicide suppose that by the act which put an end to his bodily existence he destroyed his soul, as you to suppose that by transferring your power you extinguished, in so far as the question of right is concerned, the Irish parliament." This was the opinion of another Chancellor —the present Lord Chancellor Plunket. (Hear, hear. ) Shortly after he had given expression to this opinion, in terms far more strong and eloquent than any language of his (Mr. O'Connell's) could, he had been made Attorney- General for Ireland without retracting the sentiments so expressed. He was afterwards made Master of the Rolls in England, then made Chief Justice of Common Pleas in Ireland, and last of all he had been made Lord Chancellor, and yet to this moment he had not retracted the opinions he (Mr. O'Connell) had quoted. This was what had been said by Lord Plunket in the days of his unstained consis tency. It had been said by the same authority that the Irish parliament was not dead, but merely slept; and the late Mr. Grattan had very expressively said, that he had rocked the cradle of the Irish parliament, and followed it to its grave. He begged hon. members to recollect how great was the importance which was attached to those so lemn declarations of Lords Grey and Plunket. Lord Grey had told the Irish people to wait for a proper opportunity to recover their rights. (Hear, hear, from the Irish mem bers.) However little his (Mr. O'Connell's) hope was, when he entered that house, of seeing his country men recover their right to a legislature of their own, he trusted thai Parliament would now see that the way to satisfy them, was not by a haughty refusal to grant them the desired inquiry into the consequences which had resulted from the union ; that union was said by some to be a national contract. He (Mr. O'Connell) denied that there was anything of contract in it, so far as the peo ple of Ireland were concerned. He had often been told, since he came to that house, you must perform your part of the contract. No man could be more sensible than he was that a man ought to abide by the contracts into which he had entered ; hat he again utterly denied that, in the Act of Union, there was any species of national contract. He would show the distinction between the union and a contract, in the proper sense of the term. He would show the means by which the union was brought about, and though it might not be skilful in him to make large promises, lest he should not be able to perform them, yet he would engage, if the inquiry he sought was granted, he would prove by what crimes it had been effected—how re ligion had been perverted to the worst and most unhal lowed purposes—how Catholic had been set against Pro testant, and Protestant against Catholic, as if in one uni versal bedlam to get the union accomplished. He had the most ample and conclusive proofs of all this, and it was fitting they should be brought forward. He thanked God that he was furnished with an opportunity of appealing to the people of Great Britain, through their representatives in Parliament, on the subject of the extinction of the Irish Legislature. The objects which the British Parliament had in view in seeking the union with Ireland, were of the most unworthy kind. At that time Gre at Britain was 420,000,0001:in debt; and one objet she appeared to have had in view, was to enable herself to appropriate the reve nues of Ireland to her own purposes. He knew how far he gave the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley) an ad vantage, by making this admission ; but he could not con ceal his belief that Great Britain was anxious for the ac enmulishment of the object he had mentioned, and had carried that object into execution. At the time of the union, Ireland had only a debt of 25,000,000/. ; but be fore he proceeded further with his remarks relative to this point, he would refer to another authority respecting the giving up the Irish Parliament to this country. That autho rity speaks in the most explicit and strongest terms of the in jostice and oppression of depriving the people of Ireland of a Parliament of their own. The auth orit y to which he alluded was Lord Chief Justice Bushe ; and he had not, up to this moment, retracted anything that he had said. He (Mr. O'Connell) knew there was an ignorant and flip pant contempt for every thing regarding Ireland in that house ; still he thought hon. members could not regard, with feelings other than those of respect , the names of the individuals he 444 that night given as his authorities for the positions he had advawd, Lord Chief Justice Bushe had said that the act of union was practically to say that the people of Ireland were unfit or unworthy to govern themselves. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Irish members.) It was a denial of the rights of na ture to a great nation, from an intolerance of Irish pros perity. (Hear, hear.) But it is said—(Here Mr. O'Con nell suddenly paused, and said that as he observed the right honourable secretary (Mr. Stanley) busy taking notes, he would wait until he had completed the one he was then taking.] He then resumed. It was matter of serious importance to him (Mr. O'Connell) that he should argue the question with the high authorities he had quoted. He stood on sure grounds while thus associated with the great lights of the age. Oh, it was an important consideration, that he was able to produce those great au thorities ! Hear, again, what Lord Grey stated with re spect to the circumstances under which the act of union was passed. Almost the whole country (said his lordship in a speech already referred to) petitioned against the union. Twenty-seven counties did so ; and so did Dublin, and almost every town of importance in the kingdom. Se veral of the most influential noblemen, interested in getting the measure passed, used all their endeavours in different places to get up counter petitions in its favour • ' but they were decided failures. In one of the principal counties there were 17,600 names attached to the petition against the union, while all the influence which could be employed could only get 500 persons to sign a petition in favour of the measure. Could there have been a more decided or unequivocal expression of national disapprobation of the union than this afforded ? When Pitt wrote to the Earl of Glengall, to solicit his support in favour of the union, he assured that nobleman that if the union were brought about the Catholics should be emancipated ; and no doubt in this promise the statesman was sincere. ' Indeed, he proved it, by resigning when he found he could not bring about his views on this point. For himself (Mr. O'C. )he had ever protested against the union, and the truth of his as sertion was matter of history; for in A owden's History would be found an account of a meeting, at which he had first showed hostility to the measure—an hostility which remained as decided and warm in his heart up to the present hour. This meeting was one held at the Royal Exchange, ac cording to public notice, and was signalised by that shame ful interference of the military which was resorted to on every occasion by the disgraceful administration then in office. While the assembled patriots were waiting for the selection of a chairman, they heard the clash of arms, and found they were surrounded by a powerful military force. Some of the assembly fled through the broken windows or doors, as they best might ; others, among whom was him self, remained ; the officer commanding the soldiers came forward, and said that his orders were to break up the meeting. The officer, however, consented to stay pro ceedings while a message was forwarded to the Lord Lieu tenant, humbly praying that he would be graciously pleased to allow the meeting a permission to speak. (Hear, hear, hear, hear, and a laugh.) Leave was graciously given, and the meeting proceeded to discussion. " Among those who spoke," said Plowden, "was Counsellor O'Connell" (A laugh), whose speech was accordingly given in that his tory ; and as he (Mr. O'Connell) had already read some other people's speeches, he might, perhaps, be allowed to read his speech so delivered. The hon. and learned gen tleman then read the speech, which in forcible terms ex pressed the speaker's bitter and eternal hostility to the Union, his feeling that rather than consent to the Union it would be better for Catholics to remain unemancipated, to consent to 'the re-enactment of the penal code, and to throw themselves on the tender mercies of their Protestant brethren. " The Catholics of Ireland," it proceeded, " would remember that they had a country, and would submit to every torment—to death— rather than lose the proud consciousness that at least they still were a nation." At this meeting a series of resolutions were passed, which showed that these senti ments found a responsive chord in the heart of every Irish man present. Such were his sentiments then ; such were they now. The feelings, however, of the Irish nation had been held as nought—had been hailed with the most galling contempt. The violence of the military was day after day augmented : the public meetings held by the Irish were interfered with in the most arbitrary and insolent manner ; the Rebellion, in short, was fomented and brought to a head by every species of tyranny and oppression. Give him a committee and he would prove it ; he would prove, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that there would have been no rebellion but to carry the Union. (Hear, hear.) He would prove this fact by damning proofs. (Hear.) It was a Jacobin Revolution at the outset, for it began among the Presbyterian population of Belfast ; the Govern ment had fomented it into the revolution it became. He had proofs of this ; he had unquestionable evidence of all the arts resorted to to fan it into a flame—to make it ex plode into the revolution it ended in being. The whole people, by every act of cruel, bloody tyranny and oppres sion, were goaded into acts of rebellion. The house had heard of the free quarters, of the tortures inflicted on the peasantry (Hear, hear), of the picquetings, and of all the other cruelties practised by the orders of Government by their satellites, who, if they had been hired for the express purpose of getting up a rebellion, would have acted pre cisely as they did (Hear, hear, hear) ; and they were hired to get up a rebellion (Hear, hear, hear), and they did get it up, and they alone. (Hear, hear, hear. ) What said Sir R. Abercrombie when he assumed the chief command in Ireland, in 1797? Did he not expressly state that he found the army in a state of the most dread ful turbulence and disorganization? (Hear, hear.) Had he not stated that " the army had become formidable to every one but the enemies of the country ?" (Hear, hear, hear.) In fact, the intention to get up a rebellion as a means to an end, and that end the union, had not been denied even in the Irish House of Commons ; for he him self (Mr. O'Connell) had heard, from the gallery of that house, the confession unblushingly made. More than that, he had in his possession the report of the secret com mittee of that house, made in the year 1798, with the seve ral documents attached thereto ; in that report were ac counts of the information received by the committee from a man of the name of M'Guan (as we understood it), who was a member of the provincial and county committees, and a colonel of the United Irishmen, and, as such, present at the different meetings which took place among the patriots, whose proceedings and plans he as regularly communicated to Government, through the Rev. Mr. Cleland. Thus, then, for one or two months, Government, by means of this spy, were in full possession of all the plans and proceedings of the rebels. Could any reason - be given why the admini stration had not at once proceeded to annihilate and put an effectual stop to the rebellion ? (Hear, hear.) Yes, there could be given a reason ; and that reason was, that the Government wished the rebellion to explode. He had proofs of this ; and if they would give him a committee, those proofs were ready. A rebellion was considered ne cessary, in order to enlist all the feelings of religious hatred and animosity in favour of the union. The Nero of Ireland determined on rebellion, as the only plan he deemed likely to bring about the union. The sufferings which he had remorsely inflicted on that country would never pass from the memory of Irishmen ; their youth should read of them : their men should meditate on them. The union was generated in blood : in the blood of Irish men. The ark of union was floated into the temple of the constitution on a sea of Irish blood. Was he (Mr. O'Con nell) the only man whose soul had revolted at this blood thirsty transaction? Surely not. Lord Plunket had, in 1799, in the Irish Parliament, boldly charged the govern ment with their accursed deeds. " .Bad and wicked," had that nobleman declared, "as was the object proposed, the means used to effect it were more flagitious and abo minable. Within the last six weeks a system of black corruption has been carried on within the walls of the cas tle (of Dublin), which would disgrace the worst annals of the worst period of the history of either country. In the most express terms, I deny the authority of Parliament to do this act. I tell you that if you pass this act, it will be a mere nullity, and no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. I makethe assertion deliberately, and I repeat it : you have no right to transfer the functions of legislators ; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the government, and you resolve society into its original elements, and no man in the land is bound to obey you. Sir, I thank the administration for this measure, they are, without intend ing it, putting an end to our dissensions. Through the black cloud which they have collected over us, I see the light break ing in upon this unfortunate country. They have composed our dissensions, not by fomenting the embers of a lingering and subdued rebellion—not by hallooing the protestant against the catholic, and the catholic against the protestant —not by committing the north against the south—not b y inconsistent appeals to local or party prejudices—no ; but by the avowal of this atrocious conspiracy against the liber ties of Ireland, they have subdued every petty feeling and every subordinate distinction ; and I tell them they will see every honest and independent man in Ireland rally round her constitution, and merge every other considera tion in opposition to this ungenerous and odious measure. For my own part, I will resist, to the last gasp of my existence, and with the last drop of my blood ; and when I feel the hour of my dissolution approaching, I will, like the father of Hannibal, take my children to the altar, and swear them to eternal hostility against the invaders of their country's freedom." Such, the hon. and learned member (Mr. O'Connell) continued, were the glorious sentiments expressed by Lord (then Mr.) Plunket, and most trium phant was it for him (Mr. O'Connell), when thus plead ing, perhaps uselessly, for his country's freedom, to show that the opinions of such men as Lord Plunket had been those contained in the speech just quoted from. The act of union could not be looked upon as one passed under cir cumstances which reflected much credit upon it. It Was passed at a time when there was no such thing as a consti tution in Ireland ; when that country was inundated with soldiers, each of whom was constituted a judge, and ac ted as he pleased ; when trial at the drum was held as valid and legal as a trial in the Court of King's Bench ; at a time when it had become no longer a glorious distinction for a patriot to die in asserting his country's rights ; for however high and glorious the object sought, he who offended against the arbitrary will of the government was con demned to a disgraceful death as a " rebel" and "traitor.'' This was the sole excuse which the Irish people had for surviving that national disgrace, the Union. (Hear, hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) reiterated his charge, that the rebellion was created, fostered, and fondled into a sufficient growth by the then administration, for the sole purpose of effecting the Union. This was clear, when it was remem bered that although government, by means of their spy, were some time in full possession of the names of the chiefs and the plans of the insurgents, they took no steps either to arrest the one, or to put a stop to the other. These were facts, and there was no columns of figures which could blot it out. Nor had the government been content with employing the engines of violence and insult, or with fomenting rebellion ; but they employed means of another kind—bribery to the grossest and most shameless extent ; and here he could not butrejoice inthe recollection of how great and glorious an instance of disinterestedness had been displayed by the really Irish members of the Irish House of Commons in 1792. (Hear, hear, hear.) Of the 300 members of that house, 120 had opposed the Union ; and the greater portion of these were county . members. (Hear, hear, hear.) Of the 162 who voted in favour of that measure 116 were English placem en, officers in the army, &c., who had not a rod of land in the country, and who had no other dependence than upon the English go vernment. (Hear, hear.) Lord Plunket had not been the only nobleman who attacked themeasures of government on the occasion of the Union. Lord Grey had characterised their proceedings as founded on the basest corruption and artifice, and carried on with the most tyrannical cruelty and oppression. Chief Justice Bushe, too, had described it as " the revival of the odious and absurd title of con quest—as the renewal of the abominable distinction be tween mother country and colony, which had lost us Ame rica—as the denial of the rights of nature to a great nation, from an intolerance of its prosperity—as a measure intended to create a species of provincial despotism." Titles, offices, and money had been lavished on those members of the Irish House of Commons who betrayed their country. Henry Grattan told Lord Castlereagh to his face that his lordship had said he would give three millions to secure the union ; nor had that noble lord dared to controvert the statement ; if he had, it would have been no less true. There had been.no less than thirty-seven peerages confer red upon different members for their subservience ; four marquisates, six earldoms, five viscountcies, and twenty two baronials. Five other members were made judges of, though no more fit for that situation than they were for Hebrew Professorships. (A laugh.) He would not go into further details, but if he were allowed a committee, he could incontrovertibly prove all these facts, and some others ; among which was, that twelve members had re ceived bishoprics for their votes on this occasion ; the num ber of professional men who had received captaincies, or had been promoted in the same ratio for the same kind of service, was frightful. He could give all their names if allowed a committee of inquiry. Besides this mode of proceeding, another plan adopted was the gift of 15,0001. to each proprietor for his respective borough. Among other proprietors, Lord Shannon had re ceived 75,0001. as payment for five boroughs ; Lord Blay ney (as we understood) the same, for five more, and so on. Now here was a gross fraud, a robbery on the people (Hear, hear), for the different proprietors--forty-five of whom were Peers—had no more right to the money than they had to stop people on the highway. (Hear, hear. ) Had the present administration made such compensation to any of the proprietors of rotten boroughs whose " pro perty" had been lately taken from them? (Hear, hear. ) If such had been justly withheld, on the same principle the Irish proprietors were entitled to no compensation ; if the latter were justly allowed a compensation, the neglecting to allow a similar compensation to the English proprietors lately deprived was a robbery ; and " oh ! gentlemen rob bers, Russell and Grey, and the rest of you," exclaimed the hon. and learned gentleman, " come forth and confess your offences." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But there was no such right existing, and the proprietors of the Re form Bill were not called upon to compensate. He defied any man to prove that there was any contract between the people and the government. He had shown that there was no contract ; he had also shown that there was no compact. The union had been accomplished by a series of offences of the blackest description. He would assert that there was no offence in the English catalogue of crime which was not resorted to in Ireland, for the purpose of attaining that great object, He had gone through the administration of affairs in Ireland, and had shown the effects of the independence of that country ; he had shown the incompetence of the Irish parliament to pass the act of union ; he had shown, also, the horrid means by which that union was effected. He came now to terms, and these were as abhorrent as the mode of obtaining them was inconsistent with every feeling but those that degraded and disgraced human nature. He came first to the finan cial terms, and his proposition was, that there never was anything more unjust. Amongst their other evils, they had given rise to most ridiculous calculations within the last week. This part of the case might be quite consist ent with the union being a valid compact ; but he protested against his reference to it being taken as an admission that he considered the compact valid. The first thing he would observe was, that in arranging the financial compact on the terms of the union, no commissioners were appointed to make that arrangement ; no committee even was appointed to institute any previous inquiries, though they now had committees and commissioners to investigate in abundance, to investigate and arrange matters comparatively insigni ficant in importance. It must occur to every rational mind that the terms were most grossly unjust. The pro portions of the debt were calculated, and 2-17ths were set clown for Ireland, and 15-17ths for England. In 1800 the British debt amounted to 420,000,000/. ; he would take the amount of the Irish debt at 26,000,000/. The question to be decided was, how much of the joint expen diture each country ought to pay. Now upon what basis should that have been calculated? England had been get ting in debt for more than a century, and at this time owed 400,000,0001. Ireland owed 5,300,0001. If he were going into partnership with an individual who owed 420,0001., and he (Mr. O'Connell) owed 91,0001., what proportion ought he to contribute to the future ex penditure ? If these debts could be turned into capital, assuredly they would give the advantage to him who had the most capital, but the very reverse was the case in this instance. Ireland was to take her share of the ex penditure, calculated between one who was so little in debt, and one who was so much in debt. The fair way, then, would have been to take a portion of the said debt, more particularly as the Irish people were to lose the Irish Parliament, which, if it had continued in existence, might have protected their financial interests. If a man gave himself up for ever, he ought to stipulate for a liberal ar rangement. But it was otherwise. Ireland, as he had stated, was charged with the two-seventeenths. The fair proportion would have been one-seventeenth, and they would find that they must redress the grievance of the original compact, by going back to that principle. They had professed to act honestly towards Ireland, the fact being that they dictated the terms. The Irish anti union lords, in one of their protests, made the following comparison, founded on calculations, the correctness of which was not to be denied : England. Ireland. The balance of trade 29 Current cash Revenue l3 The result of this was one-eighteenth for Ireland, instead of the two-seventeenths fixed on. Such were the terms which this country dictated, because our name was Lion, and we had the power. (Cheers.) Ireland, they were told here, benefitted by the union. Ireland had been un able to pay the two-seventeenths. (Hear, hear, hear. ) The two Exchequers were consolidated because Ireland could not pay the two-seventeenths. (Hear.) The Government of this country corrupted the Parlia ment, and having obtained the power, we put our hands into the pockets of the Irish. We played the part of pick pockets and felons. That the union was a fraud could be demonstrated to the most ordinary capacity. The right hon. gentleman insisted that the union had improved Ire land ; but let him show, if he could, that shehadbeenable to pay her proportion. That a fraud was contemplated, was proved by a provision of the Act of Union, by which it was stipulated that Ireland should go in debt to make her liable to a greater amount of taxation ; yes, by going into debt, she was to arrive at that happy consummation. Eng land had got into debt gradually ; Ireland was forced into a gallop of debt to overtake England. Such, he repeated, was one provision of the union. Ireland was never a sharer in the entire amount of the debt of this country, and he would ask, did not this fiscal arrangement speak volumes to the right of Ireland to have a protecting legis lature? He was lately somewhat amused by hearing one of those vicious declarations as to the advantages derived to Ireland by her connexion with this country, which hon. members had been so prone to utter. He did not know how many millions it was said that England was obliged to pay for the relief of Ireland. How was it that England was obliged to make these sacrifices in favour of his country? It was pretended that England had spared Ire land. Was it by this process that Ireland had become un able to bear her fair share of the burdens ? This country spared Ireland—did it ? Why we taxed her as much as we possibly could; it added 5,000,0001. to her taxation, andby so doing even went to the extent of rendering her revenues un productive. Such was the effect of the additional burden of taxes that the revenue fell off to the amount of 500,0001. The reason then why England was called upon to pay more was simply because she plundered Ireland too fast. They heard of her Christian charities, but she was in fact a delinquent, who found less than she thought to find. She expected, like the robber, to feast ; the result was, that we had to pay the difference out of our own pockets of that our calculation. If Sir Joseph Yorke's plan had been adopted, and Ireland had been put under water, not for twenty-four hours, as he recommended, but for twenty four years, we should have had that taxation to pay for ourselves which Ireland had paid for us. The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to remark on some returns that he moved for in June last, not having been furnished till Wednesday or Thursday last. Some very important returns were moved for last week by the right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge (Mr. Spring Rice), which did not come out till Friday or Saturday last. (Hear, hear.) He would ask,_ was it fair to pro duce these documents just on the eve of this debate, when, of course, there was not time to examine them as to their correctness ? Those he moved for in June did not appear till last week, but those the right hon. gentleman moved for last week were furnished in a day or two afterwards. Was it not evident that they were prepared, and that the right hon : gentleman had the opportunity of deriving every possible advantage from them ? This was a specimen of the financial tricks that were played. These complicatec accounts came out to delude the people of England into a belie that the propositions he had to submit were of a most bane fu. tendency. If there was any feeling of modesty or shame, hi thought that those who so acted must blush on the pro- duction of these returns. He could anticipate the use that would be made of them. He saw how they might be perverted to furnish statements favourable to the views of his opponents. These partial quotations, so obtained, would, no doubt, be received with cheers and triumphant hallooing—with shouts of " Hear, hear !" that would echo from side to side. (Laughter.) Even such was the con duct by which this motion was to be opposed, and he would refer to it as another specimen of the desire that existed to do justice to the wrongs of Ireland. On referring to pages 23, 24, and 25, he found some beautiful specimens of the fairness of the returns. The accounts gave a ba lance to Ireland of 35,000,0001., and were made up thus : —The pure necessaries of life bearing taxes, were placed in columns. The taxes Ireland paid since the union were placed in the first column ; the amount of revenue occu pied the second column ; and in the third column was stated what would have been the amount of the taxation had it been equal to the taxation of England. Now that was a fraudulent account. No one knew better than the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) that when he gave the taxation he could not add the revenue. But suppose the result were as it was represented, this would be deci dedly favourable to his argument, and of course would make directly against the case of the right hon. gentleman. The tables would show them that from the time of the union there had been a reduction of taxation in Ireland, this consequence of the union appearing in each coming year. Ought not the rents of absentees to be considered ? Ireland yielded rents, the produce of the land, and they went out of Ireland to increase the revenue of Eng land against Ireland. Everything that the absentee rents produced were taken to the credit of the treasury of Eniz land, and Ireland was taxed the more. Now, surely, in making the bargain at the union, if the interests of Ire land had had proper protectors, they would have said, " The rents are spent in England, and you shall not have the second advantage." He contended that Ireland ought to have credit for the rents expended in this country. As further evidence of the correctness of the tables, he would inform the house that there appeared an excess of six millions in the treasury of England unaccounted for, and there were discrepancies amounting to forty-four millions in other treasury accounts. He likewise found in these accounts the sum of 1,500,000/. set down under the title of union compensation. Was this an item to be so placed? Was it fair to charge Ireland for this? To buy her first, and then make her pay the purchase money of the bar gain ? Surely this was an item which should be placedat the opposite side of the account, and made to tell the other way. There was another misstatement to the amount of 1,648,0001., but as he had mislaid the documents relating to it, he would not press any observations concerning it upon the house. The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to a letter written by a former Chancellor, and dated London, 1823, from which he said the inference was irresistible that Irelandhad a claim to a remittance of taxation, far beyond the proportion accorded to her. Some of the taxes laidon in England, so far from being in any way serviceable to Ireland, had, on the contrary, in their effect been ruinous toher. Among these he would only refer to the taxes laid upon printed cottons and soap. The latter of these had been particularly injurious to her by reason of the drawbacks and the frauds committed through them. The consequence was that it annihilated the manufacture of soap in Ireland, and gave the entire market of that country to England. Why did he detain the house by entering so minutely into these details ? He did so to show the house hownumerous the evils were which sprung from the original injustice committed in the basis of the financial contract. Hence arose all the other errors. He had now gone through his fifth proposition, and felt satis fied that he had proved, beyond the possibility of contra diction, the gross injustice of the financial terms of the ex isting union. Having done this he would proceed to show that the legislative terms were equally unjust. Even Lord Castlereagh in his calculation, though much below the real standard, admitted that the legislative terms should be greater. He put his calculation of population at 202, of , exports at 100, of imports at 93, and of revenue at 39, making in all 434, which would give the number of re presentatives at 108. Here commenced:the first injustice, and even Castlereagh's average was reduced by eight. Here was a reduction made from an admitted unfavourable a et v AA: e retce r r,:\fri, e s,aoa , ennas for it was well known that the revenue, instead of being put at 39, ought, on a calculation of the propor t tion left in the hands of Hector Foster, to be put at 42, which . would add another member. But even this was infinitely reducing the proper and fair legisla tive terms of the union, as it has since been shown by Newnham's Tables that 165 members were the number which Ireland had a right to claim, admit- Iting the grounds of representation to be her population, imports, exports, and revenue. What have the Irish people gained gained in point of legislation from the United Parliament as an equivalent for the absenteeism which it thus fostered land increased? Why that Parliament granted to the ab sentee landlords, by one law, the power to distrain the growing crop ; and by another, the power of ejecting the poor tenant for a few shillings' arrears. Why was this? How was it that the interests of the people were so little watched over? Merely because the Irish members in that house connected with sagh:l t teeoha h ti.:Ne e nio. lasfapaspnoemelvdoapoepeenl again ra l et e cdAi inet w cdusuteenrdpudf from r e ieo e rdpemm n epe t trreh i e s r dlle e ti nBBs l hi y 2goe49ns t .o.Attoo Insurrection few g n t o e had been the state of Ireland since the union? and a u lg s t B a ao a l i n u , c: h a ut r r no y o d n le c i Br o c Her his -1800 to 1805 she was under the Insurrection Act and Mar tial Fro From 1825 tSoheA 1828 . as Then came the crowning tyranny—the Coercion Bill. These were the happy fruits of the Union to Ireland. For twenty years out of the period which had elapsed since that measure, the British Constitution had been repealed in Ireland, and that country had been deprived of its privi leges and benefits. (Hear, hear, from the Irish Mem bers.) What had the country got in its stead? Insur rection Acts, Martial Law, Algerine Acts, and Coercion Bills. And this was union—this ! Yes, it was the union of slave and tyrant, of oppressor and oppressed. By one bill the United Parliament took away the right to carry arms—they even took it away from Protest ants, the only persons then looked upon in the light of freemen • and in addition to this, after having deprived the subject of his right to carry arms, they saddled a permanent police establishment upon the country. But these were the natural consequences of the primary injustice committed in the legislative terms, the practical injury followed of course. Having said thus much on the injustice of the terms, he would now proceed to the effects of the Union. One of the first and primary injuries consequent on the measure was the increase of absenteeism. He did not deny that this cause of complaint existed in a great degree before that measure was carried, but since then it had proceeded to a degree which had caused the extreme of poverty and destitution, notwithstanding that those who advocated that measure promised it would be attended with relief. But whilst he admitted that there was absenteeism and its consequent poverty, he would, at the same time, insist that a gradual improvement had been taking place since 1782, which had not then reached its extent, but which, if the independence of the Irish legislature had continued until now, would have been obviously evi dent. On this point he would meet the most determined unionist and rest his case. The independence of Ireland in 1782 must be admitted ; on this head he defied a denial. It must be admitted that the means adopted to carry the Union were most dishonest ; that it was effected by the grossest bribery and the most unblushing corruption. Was there anybody who would have the hardihood to deny this ? Oh, but they say Ireland has been prosperous since the Union, and then, with the true post hoc propter hoc sort of logic, they attribute that prosperity to the Union. But he denied that Ireland had prospered in her propor tionate degree. In the thirty - fou r years which elapsed e s b i et yut stohi in the a rt U h i e n f o osm n a m , I te r h e (ii l se a g rnbdee being h a sg o utlhdeh Englandcaa case, eeincreased e (llaesa r in re hear)pa prepared pros ;ed to prove an absolute declension on the part of Ireland. An exception might perhaps be made on the part of Belfast, but with regard to the rest of the country, the general decay was but too manifest. He would not let this matter stand upon his mere assertion, but bring illustrative facts to prove it, and show the folly or fallacy of those who va poured about the advantages accruing from the union. Again he would say that absenteeism existed before the union ; but it had fearfully increased since, and if any man had the hardihood to deny it, with that man he would re fuse to argue. The next thing to which he would call the attention of the house, was the increased scale of taxation, with respect to Ireland, since the union of the legislatures. In England taxation had been, since then, as 20 per cent., in Ireland it had been as 80 per cent., and this upon the main necessaries of life. (Hear, hear.) Let the advocates of the union here mark its value to Ireland in her increased taxation. On the Marquis of Lansdowne's motion on the state of Ireland, in 1822, it was admitted, that the increase of revenue in Ireland was enormous. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Bar.") He admitted that there was tediousness in these details, but they were necessary to the making out of his case. Sir John Newport admitted, that the Irish people were in such a situation as made them as little to be feared as they were to be envied, and described them as a beggared gentry, and a ruined tenantry. These were the words of the boasted Sir John Newport, and he (Mr. O'C. ) was curious to know whether this statement was to be confronted by a page of Cocker, and routed by a column of calculations ? In the Report of the Board of Trade, for the 26th of March, 1830, England had relief to the amount of forty-one millions, whilst Ireland had only 1,225,000/. ; even this could not be called relief granted to Ireland, inasmuch as it included an item of 153,769/ under the head of union duties, which were, in fact„ bonus granted to British manufactures. In addition to these causes of complaint, the revenues of Ireland were changed from Irish to English currency, which made the advantage on the score of taxation still greater to England. Another boasted saving had been said to have been made in the diminution of expenses. These were no savings to Ireland. The establishment of the Lord-Lieutenant was reduced from sixty-eight to sixteen millions, and this by which an expenditure of 1,000 /. pe r week was lost to Dublin ; this they called a saving. To show the difference since the union and before, he would state the compara tive increase in consumption in England and Ireland be- fore and.since the union in certain articles of general con sumption. ! ,, INCE THE UNION. In England. InDec rease... _ in Irelan d. Tea tz Coffee...l,Boo Sugar... 26 Tobacco 27 Wine .... 27 .............. In Ireland, before the union, consump tion was mereas ing during the independence of her Parliament. .... 37 is Ireland. England. Tea B 4 Coffee 6OO Sugar 57 Tobacco lOO 64 Wine 74 Pe r/ In the article of raw silk, the value of the int - into Ireland in 1800, was 78,450/. ; in 1823, 45, 32 ° 1 " '- being a decrease of 33,1301., whilst in England the/re 'e wt , s an increase during the same period of 364,216. il l of tanning was 174,411 cwts. ; in 1823, 115,4 41, 1800 the quantity of bark used in Ireland for the purpo!e man lier England it had materially increased. The hon. entered into further details (which, owing to his low t( . ole of voice, were not audible) for the purpose of shorni that the consumption of these various articles in previous to the union was rapidly on the increase, as more so than in England, whilst since the union it ha" - rapidly declined. Hon. members could not forget the re- , port of Dr. White as to the state of Dublin. I t sc l stated the consumption of meat in Dublin had fall ee , o " , when compared with the consumption of forty yea" though it was then much less populous than at prese t ' towo g _ and this was the case generally with the large Could they forget the letter of Dr. M'llale, Which de scribed in nt such striking terms the state of Connag ' In dee d, the report of Major Miller, from Skibberreen ? he could desire no better evidence than the report of the Poor Laws Commissioners. Ireland, whilst wa sexP erting. I cattle and food, left herpopulation f d Ther e f own un e • nnar a o. a passage in the speech of the President of the es Control in 1822, in which he described the Irish 11. 4 santry as being the most wretched people in Europe , elle w hilst perhaps the Polish. He describes their whole se a of existence as the lowest possible, whilst the 11,g; certain crops of potatoes subjected them t° sa ge miseries of periodical famine. In another Pas the right honourable gentleman passed a big-' chid the he would say a just eulogy on this much injured ra ee° men. Such were the people who were the victims of thet Union. Such were the people to whom they could not venture to give even the benefits of the lave—to t • e could deal out no measure save insurrection and Algerttle acts. They did not know Ireland. (Hear, and they tried them not. Ireland was not intrusted with constitt; did not think they willfully ill-treated Ireland, but - tional liberty. He had referred to the emigration returns it would appear how infinitely_ more miserable was to Canada for the last three years, and from those retu rns the e e s rei _ of the Irish than that of the English peasantry. Th gration during that time was From Scotland England Ireland 90, 000 veri 4 What then had the union done for Ireland? H ad it gi Ireland tranquillity ? Had it given her British freedom: Had it given her prosperity ? It had given none of therie There had been no increase in her manufactures. A) , 4, was prepared to show in committee that if a foreign had despoiled and desolated Ireland from the •d of th e period union, its manufactures could not have been m ore aetj c i injured, nor its prosperity more diminished. There ld not been any increase of valuable trade. Its impor ts Its exports, indeed, had increased—but what were they „ exports were of raw material, and its imports of inanolae-e tured goods. There might have been a spurt in the „, trade for the last few years, and perhaps a little inerld; in the spinning mills—and that miserable thing He 'l4. he supposed, he brought forward against him. s- ore posed they would also be told that Ireland must breernased. prosperous because the tonnage of her ship 7 S At itTat rate But did prosperity depend on tonnage • - t Evew Newcastle was a more thriving port than 'Liverpool _ m rce of 1r( within the last four years the foreign cer n- , b e ing land was diminishing, her imports in I "''' or t9 in 1832 were 635,000/., and in 1834, 1,491,000/., and in 1834, 1,300,0001. ; whilst the exP 1822 Sir J. Newport ridiculed Lord Castlereagy for ing about the prosperity and watching the rising gr," to ness of Ireland. But he would not enter into details if show further the wretchedness of the Irish pecan wo uld the question were discussed in Ireland, eircurnspice be the only answer. Men were labouring in on 410,000/. Ervee,,l,l: for twopence, threepence, and fourpence per add}', them these were the effects of the union. He would show what were the effects of indepen dence. The .L to e,, influence of the union did not confine itself land ; it extended itself to English labourers artisans—it increased English poor-rates --it threwn•_et•. prejudiciale m ian tsreducedffee effect on lish agricultural labourers out of employ. The influx tn lri e s s h t What, he would ask, would be the consequences of cone. nuing the union? He c alled for an inquiry as to !" 0 ,: the course wine!. point. He called for an inquiry a s to it was the wisest policy to pursue. It was, course, matter of prophesy. No man could speak osh wages the subject with confidence. But he would wish t i house to recollect, that there was not a man in Ireltaer evs_er i k n in E g n e g i l a a s n se d; o a f n d Ent,lo3 : : , : , , who did not know the benefits Ireland would derive f an independent legislature. The remembrance of the ro i e! h by which the union was produced must eve r rankle breasts of Irishmen. He highly prized the connexion ye, Great Britain. It was said that he sought separation.evi',c did not. He was for repeal, because repeal would deism .e separation. He could tell the advantages to be eaxv from a parliament in Ireland; but he knew °f n : 60 0 tages to be derived from the dissolution of the eonr ie , i , o ti with England; but he saw great advantages to be le seek from the continuance. Why, then, was the taunt 7 thing ing a separation thrown out against them ? The eti,tepeal• that could endanger a separation was the refusal be e • This was not only his opinion, but it a ppeared, t ; t l: rahl,;;; the opinion of Earl Grey, who had said, that "A - by am ore 7 sters effected the union of Ireland with Eog n i i i i,i ' g li means (which they did), he could conceive °°"'„"co likely to endanger the connection between thecae two Ca ll e d tries. Lord Plunket had also said, that if he ~..c or t,.; on either to sacrifice the independence of his con e i a t °eV connection between England and Ireland, he Still fee', fling that connection to the winds. This was still :eon: ing in Ireland, and this feeling would operate if tl : l o . e f i t t he pelled the Irish to make their selection. It tier t hat perhaps, happen in his time, but he had 110 dOUbt tio 0 continuance of the union would lead to the seP a n a e ecti e : the two countries. He proposed that the e e- o t a s s t should exist as it existed before. He propo sed it tb resolution, but that was what he looked to, vi o l PI federal connection which would give a great shar e , i id s t ',4 4 tection to each country. (Hear.) Ireland " 3 , continue to export cattle and produce to Eng'a-eort'e England would still find in Ireland an extensive n f IP, for her manufactures. He proposed the restorationi'ools, Irish Parliament. Ireland had her Viceroy and h er f all she wanted was the constitution of her House efisrPaer mons. This it was in the power of the Englik.tioo ment to do. They might arrange the represenotee Ireland on the basis of the reformed Parliament, 9.9(bvii;j proceedings would be sanctioned by justice, a° ev gratitude of the Irish people. This was what he tbe i ; for ; this was what he demanded. He had s bnn . ,"ajoo,,, that Ireland was entitled to independence. He ha`` e 'th e s, them the effects of independence. He had show rot e e t the incompetency of the British Parliament V I away. Ile had shown them that the union was a e",•0 which was carried by a mass of crime unparalleldtb-at history of any country. He had shown them financial terms of the unio n were avowedly °lto t r ' e , confessedly ruinous to Ireland. He had show'', of the legislative terms were equally unjust, ancl,,i e e ileT h ei sults, full of mischief. He had shown them thou, an",;Lia the union, in depriving Ireland of her constitutn;,, t 'ibe people of the means of existence. He had ' 1 ;:ily that English labourers and artisans" suffereddliat these -acr, poverty of Ireland. He had shown them f i rl al ?„ith, quence of continuing the union would be the t hen th e tion of the two kingdoms ; and he had shown once what facility this great questioninight be arranP-a 0 0 00 . basis of right and justice. Since the union they ha at isfae t t i enabled to govern Ireland, even to their ow eland' ne,;so. For two-thirds of that time they had ruled Irel a " t i e sp°' o o l, ' the ordinary laws, but they had governed her hY Doi de' They had not made Ireland prosperous. li beY t ly, h e r treated her with justice ; and, as the only retn e The mended, in the name of Ireland, the restoratioleet,,)ce'f dependent parliament. (Cheers from the ReP e nect i c h t he hon. gentleman concluded by moving for a mittee, " to inquire and report on the means "Y„ffecte;', dissolution of the parliament of Ireland wa• ; v on ja d the effects of that measure upon Ireland, an d d o oni t .„, - oiPt l bourers in husbandry and operatives in ma n f coe - England ; and on the probable consequences to an' the Legislative Union between the two countrilired oe- Mr. SPRING RICE said he was quite Pr e c rissar',!,,ch,e,', swer the hon. gentleman ; but as he must !J e tt to sa , t o. cupy them some time, it was in their disereti„ e ‘, Add e OA' ther he should then proceed. (Loud cries in et to The hon. gentleman then moved an ddjo urnole nesday, which was immediately carri ed. „o' be CHURCH RATES. lit t „ r e The report of the committee was brour fee lided lution was read a second time, and a so` ordered to be brought in. &seaa of, The other orders of the day were then e a ' the house adjourned at twelve o'clock. __---- hi $ seL '; The cost of a passage to America t b, jo , son is so low as 30s. a head. Within one 111°11tocrie elapsed, eight large vessels for the North Am O e colonies, from this port, have fully number of passengers, and more are coming, il l 00; than there are berths to accommodate. hose f I ' l ' 4 grant adventurers are, for the greatest Par t, ° ,,,;i%‘' completteo too! agricultural labouring class, encumbered with..e, .0) 01 r and children, and very little means beyond sent outfit.—Linierick Chronicle. 14; I Ns,