The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-24 00:00:00

- - manner their fixed determination to maintain the" legisanys. union ; that it was Mk enly . for the interest of the empire, but peculiarly for the interest of Ireland, that they should declare that this Imperial Pirlianient had given its best attention in matters of legislation to that country, and in producing measures of the most beneficial nature towards that object. (Hear.) He further thought it was unnecessary for them to accompany this declaration with a resolution that they were determined not to commence a new course with respect to Ireland, but that they were determined to persevere in that course which they had hitherto pursued, of giving their best attention to the affairs of Ireland, and to do for it all they could. That would be a clause of the amendment. He should propose farther, which was probably an unusual step, but one not without precedent, and one which the consideration of this question would perfectly justify, namely, that this resolu tion should be communicated to the other House of Par liament in the shape of an address to the throne, that both houses might express their opinion on the sub ject of the Legislative Union, and that they might re ceive, in due course, as they were likely to receive, the answer from the Crown, approving of the resolution. Let not hon. gentlemen think that this was a course beyond the necessity of the case. Let them not think, because to them the discussion of this question here, or its agitation in Ireland, couldbe accounted for without raising any impression on their minds that the question was likely to be carried, that, therefore, this course was expedient. But when that was made use of for the purposes of agitation in another country (Loud and continued theerinF), they would not do their duty if they did 'ot take the earliest opportunity of recording the , firiet . determination to which they had come upon the we.biect. (Cheers.) The course which he pointed out was similar to tbe, taken by the Irish Parliament in 1782, and therefore they were furnished with a precedent by that Parliament, who, according to the hon. and learned gentleman, had reached the brightest period of its exist !click... Before he proceeded to his own argument, he bened permission to notice some of the topics which had been adverted to by the hon. an& learned gentleman. iliany of his observations had little or no bearing upon the real question at issue. And with respect to his reference to ancient times--his going back to the history of the pe riods of Henry the Third, Richard the Second, and Queen Elizabeth—the only advantage which that could have was to convince those who doubted the fact that in barbarous ages, and during civil wars, great atrocities were com mitted, and extensive devastations of life and property took place. No one but those who doubted these facts could be instructed by what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman; but what would they say if his (Mr. Rice's) hon. friend, the member for Kent, were now to present a petition praying that upon similar evidence the ancient condition of that county should be restored? Would they not treat it as so much nonsense ? But, the object of the hon. and learned member being to enlighten them on the subject of those atrocities,what was the first step he should have taken ? Why, to have moved for the production of the divorce that was obtained by King Breffiny from his wife Eva, whom Morrough, King of Leinster, carried off, for no one could deny that that was an act of great atrocity. The an, and learned gentleman hadreferredtothe trans actions that occurred in the years 1246, 1278, and other periods ; but what was the result of his own showing? Was it not that on the part of the people of Ireland the deepest and must constant anxiety had always existed to be admitted to participate in the blessings of the English constitution and .Bl.itish laws ? Indeed so strong was their desire to accom plish this object that they had even expressed their readi ness to sacrifice the large sum of 800 marks for it, and yet this was one of the arguments put forward to induce that house to repeal the legislative union. But it should be borne in mind that the whole of this was designed to pro duce an effect, and that the scenes of horror and devasta tion recited by Spencer and Morrison were not referred to for nothing. He verily believed that they were used for the very worst purposes, and this he thought could not be doubted when it was asserted by the hon. and learned gen tleman that the policy pursued towards Ireland by Eliza beth and her councillors, namely, to keep that country in a state of misery and weakness, was followed with an un relenting perseverance, and as much alive at the present day as it was in the reign of that Queen. But he would ask them whose policy it could be at the present time to keep Ireland in such a state? He did not believe there was a single member of that house who would give his sanction to such policy, and, what was more, he was perfectly satisfied that the anxious, the unremitting desire I of the British Parliament, was to improve the condition of Irelanc'. Even the hon. member for Middlesex, who was ,1 a sort of Plutus in matters relating to public money, had, notwithstanding his habitual stickling for economy, been induced to vote supplies for Ireland. (A laugh. ) The recital of atrocities and devastations into which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had entered, was, how ever, intended to arouse indignation and disgust elsewhere. (Hear, hear, hear.) But they should use the history of the past for a better purpose than this, and, instead of exciting the bad passions of the people, they ought rather to teach them charity and brotherly love. (Hear, hear.) The great object of the legislature was to strengthen Ireland, and not to weaken her, by the connection with this country. But before he passed from this part of the subject he would read to them a passage from a letter written by Mr. Burke to his son on the state of Ireland, which was directly applicable to the line of conduct which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had pursued. Speaking of persons who followed the course which the hon. and learned gentleman had adopted, Mr. Burke stated that— " For this purpose they revive the bitter memory of every dis sension, which has torn to pieces their miserable country for ages. After what has passed in 1782, one would not think that eecorum, to say nothing of policy, would permit them to call up by magic charms the grounds, reasons, and principles of these ten ibis-, confiscatory, and exterminating periods. They would not set men upon calling from the quiet sleep of death any Sa muel, to sk him by what act of arbitrary monarchs—by what inquisitions of corrupted tribunals, and tortured jurors—by what fictitious tenures, invented to dispossess whole unoffending tribes and their chieftains! They would not conjure up the ghosts from the ruins of castles and churches, to tell for what attempt to struggle for the independence of an Irish legislature, end to raise armies of volunteers, without regular commissions from t he crown, in support of that independence, the estates oftLe old Irish nobility and gentry had been confiscated. They would not wantonly call on those phantoms, to tell by what English Acts of Parliament, forced upon two reluctant Kings, the lands of their country were put up to a mean and scandalous auction in every goldsmith's shop in London ; or chopped to pieces, and cut into rations, to pay the mercenary soldiery of a regicide Usurper. They would not be so fond of titles under Cromwell, who, if he avenged an Irish rebellion against the sovereign au thority of the Parliament of England, had himself rebelled against the very Parliament whose sovereignty he asserted, lull as much as the Irish nation which he was sent to subdue and confiscate could rebel against Parlament, or could rebel against the King, against whom both lie and the Parliament, which he served, and which he betrayed, had both of them rebelled. " The gentlemen who hold the language of the day know perfectly well that the Irish in 1641 pretended, at least, that they did not rise against the King, nor, in fact, did they, what ever constructions law might put upon their act. But full surely they rebelled against the authority of the Pailiament of England, and they openly professed so to do. Admitting (I have now no time to discuss the matter) the enormous and unpardon able magnitude of this their crime, they rued it in their persons and in those of their children and their grandchildren, evert to the fifth and the sixth generations. Admitting, then, the enormity of this unnatural rebellion in favour of the independ ence of Ireland, will it follow that it must be avenged for ever ? Will it follow that it must be avenged on thousands, and per haps hundreds of thousands, of those whom they can never trace by the labours of the most subtle metaphysician of the traduction of crimes, or the m st inquisitive genealogist of proscription, to the descendant of any one concerned in that nefarious Irish rebellion against the Parliament of Eng•and ? If, however, you could find out these pedigrees of guilt I do nos think the difference would be essential. History records many things which ought to make us hate evil actions; but neither history nor morals nor policy can teach us to punish innocent men on that account. What lesson does the iniquity of prevalent factions read to us ? It ought to lesson us into an abhorrence of the abuse of our own power in our own day, when we hate its excesses so much in other persons and in other times. To that school true statesmen ou g ht to be satisfied to leave mankind. They ought not to call from the dead all the discussions and litigations which formerly inflamed the furious factions which had torn their country to pieces. They ought not to race into the hideous and abominable things which were done in the turbulent fury of an injured, robbed, and persecuted people, and which were afterwards cruelly revenged in the exe cution, and as outrageously and shamefully exaggerated in the representation, in order, an hundred and fifty years after, to find some colour for justifying them in the eternal proscription and civil excommunication of a whole people." He would take the liberty of observing that of allthe com mentators on history it had ever fallen to his lot to know the hon. and learned member for Dublin was the least im partial. He used it for his purposes where it suited him, and everything likely to have a contrary effect was dis missed as untterly unworthy attention in the most,convc nient manner. Thus all the enormities committed in Ireland in the times of James I. and Charles 11. were mere matters of domestic history. But if, in the discus sion of this question, they were to go back into the horrors of Ireland, the list would be by no means confined to the number or the period dwelt upon by the hon. and learned gentleman. But he would not follow the bad example of the hon. and learned gentleman, but would only observe that he had omitted, as if "by particular desire," all reference to scenes and acts of violence which occurred in Ireland during the periods which he sought to represent as being tranquil and prosperous. He would take the very times and events selected by the honourable and learned gentleman himself, and make them .the foundation of his case ; and even upon those he could undertake to make out an answer to the motion. The first inference the lion. and learned member had drawn from his historical commentaries was that England had no rights superior to those of Ireland. He had laboured, and as he (Mr. S. Rice) thought with different effect, because his labour was unnecessary, to prove that England had no right of do mination of the sister Country. Why, was there ever such a waste of argument resorted to ? It was true there was a time when England had exercised and contended for it, but it was an usurpation, and he would show that he had been the recognised cha racter of her conduct in the very words of the act of the union itself. But that was not the question now. Did England now claim any such right ? (Cheers.) Would any man be found to say that England had any such right? Who governed Ireland now ? Who legislated for Ireland now? Why, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not the English Parliament. (Cheers.) A parliament in which he was sure the hon. and learned member for Dub lin could not say that the talent and influence and power of the Irish people were not ably and fully represented. (Hear, and a laugh.) But the object of the hon. and '` a,., kned member had been to prove that Englan had no N s,,iys Nefrright. There was no occasion - for this. Th ct of 178'2, chap. 24, declared against any such rights , a as serted that Ireland could be bound only by such la as were made by her own legislature, which declaration was said to be " hereby established for ever." (Cheers from some members.) Here, then, was a declaration that a British Parliament had no right or power over Ireland, and therefore all that part of the hon. and learned gentle man's speech was a waste of time and mere rubbish which went to contend that England had no such right. He now came to a point upon which he fully concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, and that was the terms of glowing reverence and admiration in which he spoke of the revolution consummated in 1782. No man felt more strongly than he did the deepest veneration for the great men who were engaged in that bloodless triumph of the liberties of their country, because they were pursuing a strictly legal object, which was, that Ireland, not being re presented in the British Parliament, had no right to be bound by any law passed in that Parliament. He admired those great individuals for that which they effected ; but he admired them almost as much for their discretion and wisdom in abstaining from the attempt to do more than was necessary. Let them see how such men as Lord Charlemont, Mr. Grant, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Brownlow, and all the great minds engaged in thoseproceedings actedwhen they had accomplished their patriotic object. The house, too, should recollect, in viewing the conduct of those great men, that the revolution they effected was carried on under circumstances the most alarming ; yet that, guided as it was by them, it ceased to be the alarm and became the ad miration of all Europe—he meant the general arming of the population. The object for which the arming had been resorted to having been accomplished by the solemn recog nition of the principles of Irish independence, the volunteer corps sought to continue their body in existence, and to control by intimidation the course of the Government. The Irish capital presented the anomaly of the Assembly of the Delegates sitting armed and in uniform at the Ex change in Dublin while the Parliament was sitting in Col lege-green, where Mr. Blood was sent to make his mo tion, with the intimation that the volunteers would conti nue sitting until the motion was disposed of. A more open and undisguised attempt to overawe the deliberations of a legislature was never perpetrated, and the most fatal con sequences must have followed upon its success. But, however, by the prudence and firmness of Lord Char lemont and others they were persuaded to that course, and the danger was arrested. And the moment the great object they had professed was attained none amongst those truly great men would consent to keep up agitation for any other purpose. (Hear, hear. Against them even calumny itself had never cast the imputation of a stain.—( The right hon. gentleman then read a description of the transaction he had referred to from Mr. Edgeworth's papers, who was Secretary to the association, and also a statement to the same effect from Lord Charlemont's Memoirs.) All this proved that the contest carried on in Ireland before 82 was a contest for liberty against usurpation. There could be no such contest now. (Cheers.) No such rights were claimed by Eng land, and it was impossible by any shifts or sophistry to place the contest upon such grounds. After reading some further passages from the same work, the right hon. gen tleman said he had done so because they illustrated the state of things which arose even under that improved con stitution given to Ireland by the act of 1782. There was independence for Ireland secured, and there was a federal union of the two countries bound by the link of one crown, though governed by separate local legislatures. Well, what were the effects of this happy state of affairs upon which the hon. and learned gentleman had dwelt so fondly and with so much lamentation for its decease ? First, there was the affair of Portugal. The difference between the separate legislatures was very near producing the effect of a war being declared by the King of Ireland, and not by the King of England. The feelings of the Irish people being warm upon the matter, and the English caring little about it, as not affecting their interests, things had nearly reached that point. Next came the affair of the Re gency. The parliament of Ireland determined upon one thing respecting the Regency, and the English parliament determined upon another. Why, then, the next step was that if the two bodies had the power of determining differ ently as to the right of the Regency, it was clear that they might decide upon different persons to be invested with the Regency. Thus the world might have seen a Duke of York Regent in Ireland and a Prince of Wales Regent in England at the same time. He _ should like to know by what process, either of metaphysics or of figures, the hon. and learned gentleman could show the possibility of main taining a connection between two countries where the system of government admitted of two Regents as the re presentatives of one King. These reasons, then, he con fessed, as growing out of the system established in 1782, were not likely to induce him, nor did he think it would induce many other Irishmen, to wish for the return of those days. Undoubtedly the armed associations directed by Lord Charlemont and Grattan, and other great and good men, did accomplish great services to their country. But were such powers always guided by the same honour and the same prudence? (Hear, hear.) Was it not possible that if a parliament were now sitting in College Green there might also be meetings elsewhere which might ex ercise some little influence upon its deliberations? (Cheers.) Might it not happen that masses of the popu lation might be induced to assemble in the county of Kil dare, and, armed with sticks or other weapons, to march over to Dublin and assist the legislature in its labours? (Cheers and laughter.) They had indeed been very lately told that one of the advantages of a local legislature would be that the population would have more influence over it than when it was at a distance. But they were told that no harm could result from armed associations in these times, and the people might be allowed to assemble in arms in Dublin now with safety. In 1782 the case was different. Then there were such men as Charlemont, and Grattan, and Brownlow to render a popular movement dangerous. Now we had no such enemies to their coun try ; but the people were led by such great and good and constitutional and wise men (Cheers), that that which might have produced mischief in 1782 could bring none in its train now. The leaders of the people now called upon the house to place reliance• in their discretion and prudence, and to be under no alarm. (Hear, and laughter.) There were some other individuals, however, who reasoned dif ferently upon the past and present state of things in this respect. For himself, indeed, though he felt great respect for the hon. and learned member for Dublin, whom he saw very assiduously taking notes (A laugh) ; yet he was not prepared altogether to select him as a person in whom to repose confidence, or on whose moderation or principle he should choose to rely. (Cheers.) Another argu ment of the hon. and learned gentleman was founded on the services rendered to Ireland by her separate Parlia ment. He said that the Parliament of Ireland before the union was not very corrupt. He was sorry to say he could not concur with the hon. and learned gentleman in this, although he hardly thought the Irish nation should be held strictly or singly responsible for the corruption which took place, because they were not the seducers. He feared, however, that it must be admitted that they were seduced, and that it was too much to say that they were not corrupt. First, they certainly had a knack of voting money to themselves. He did not mean to say that this was peculiar to the Irish Parliament or to the Par liaments of that day. The present Parliament had no doubt voted money not strictly for public purposes. An hon. friend of his, whom he saw in the gangway (Mr. C. Ferguson), did not come down, certainly, and ask them to vote money to himself, but he persuaded them to vote it to his friend, Captain Ross. (A laugh.) In like man ner the hon. member for Middlesex did not ask for a grant to himself, but he moved a vote for the purchase of his ,friend Mr. Marshall's book. (Loud cheers and laughter.) These things were done more directly in the Parliament of Ireland, and especially by one committee, well known by its title of the " Scrambling Committee," where every gentleman professed to scramble for himself, and many of them certainly scrambled to good effect. (Laughter.) Their votes, however, did not appear to be of that cha racter. Some of them professed to be for the encou ragement of manufactures, and all professed to have pa triotic objects. Let the house see what they were, and from that they might judge of the benefits de rived by Ireland from her own Parliament, which had been the subject of the honourable and learned gentle man's panegyric. He would first produce the evidence of Dr. Lucas, who said that in the scrambling committee a large sum was given to the proprietor of a glass manufac tory, to encourage the manufacture of glass. The gen tleman, however, as soon as he had got the money, in stead of blowing green-glass bottles, immediately blew up his whole shop and decamped. (A laugh.) Another grant was made to a cambric manufacturer, who had no sooner received it than he stopped payment, and became a bank rupt. (Laughter.) A third case was that of Mr. Bel lamy, the roadmaker, who had a grant to encourage him in his improvements of the public roads, and thereupon retired and never made another. From these facts the house might understand how it was that manufactures had flourished in Ireland, in the manner described by the hon. and learned gentleman, under the fostering care of her domestic legislature. (Laughter.) There was another incident with which he would trouble the house upon this subject, because he thought it might relieve a little the - dulness of the general discussion of the question. In this scrambling committee a word was once uttered, the very sound of which produced an indescribable confusion. That word was " job.' It was no sooner spoken than a num ber of members rose up and protested against all know ledge of its meaning and origin, and the word was voted disorderly and inadmissible into their proceedings. This, however, created a debate, in the course of which a speech was delivered by a member, who undertook to give an ac count of the whole ancestry and pedigree of the job family, and that he would read to the house. [The right hon. gentleman here read a humourous assage, through which we were unable to follow him.] This job family, he was happy to assure the house, was not extinct, for the motion now before it was a proof that it still survived, and that the hon. and learnedgentleman who had brought it forward inherited all the original dignity and honour of its greatest progenitor. (Loud cheers and laugh ter.) Yes, this motion, brought forward as it had been, sinking the real question, and only going so far as to prove its descent from the family of the jobs, was an insult to all those who really believed that the repeal of the union would be an advantage to their country. It was like in- viting them to a beefsteak, and eying them a wafer f their dinner. ..k Hear, hear, and laugNr.) Another pr he should offer that Ireland had S owed vary little to her i dependent Parliament would refer to a later time, to the period after the revolution of 1782, and the witness he should call into court was one whose name still lived in the honourable recollection of both England and Ireland, for he made the empire his country, and of Europe, which he made the temple of his fame—need he add the name of Henry Grattan ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle man then quoted a speech of Mr. Grattan's delivered in the Irish Parliament on the 26th of February, 1787, in which he described the renewed constitution as having produced nothing but evils, and concluded by asking, " Where will all this end ?" Whatever might have been the expectations of that great man at the time, he believed it never could have entered into his mind that " all this" would end in the last night's pa negyric which that house had heard upon the very parliament he had so eloquently condemned. But that was not all. In 1791 Mr. Grattan, in a speech delivered upon the same subject, said, " Here are the effects of innovation. It has reduced you to the condition of a province, and pre vents you from having either the substance or the shadow of a kingdom." So that it was under this independent parliament that that great man regarded Ireland as in the condition of a province. He had been told recently that she was a province, when the assertion was no longer true. He would say that Ireland was not a province. (Hear, hear.) Was Scotland a province ? Was England a pro vince ? Was Wales a province ? No ; they were an united empire (Cheers), and he had as much right to claim to be a subject of that empire as any Howard that ever breathed in England. (Cheers.) It was, therefore, a delusion, and it was a delusion created for a mischievous purpose, to raise up in the minds of the people this notion of Ireland being a province. (Loud cheers.) Upon looking at the history of Ireland it was very plainly seen that two distinct, and only two, lines of policy had been practised in pursuance of her federal union with this country. This first line of policy was a sort of !mechanical one, where force and compulsion were the chief implements of authority. When the repeal of Poyning's Law took place, an agency of another description, which he was as little prepared to deny as the former one, was adopted by the government, who sought by means of the most lavish and open corruption, the most prodigal use of money and honours, added to all the attractions of a splendid Viceregal Court, to support their influence in the country. Such were the implements employed in the hands of successive Viceroys from the above period down to the time of the union, with one single exception, in the person of Lord Fitzwilliam, who was too good and too honest a man to lend himself to such a line of conduct. With this single exception history showed that, up to the time of the repeal of Poyning's Law, Ireland was governed bye. system of coercion ; and that immediately afterwards, as soon as she became politically free, she was governed by means of corruption. He now came to another point in the hon. member's address, wherein he denied the com petency of the Irish House of Parliament to pass the Act of Union, and passed some further observations upon the means by which that measure had been carried. Now, first, as to the legality of this Act of Union, which the hon. and learned member denied. Let us see what followed from this position of the hon. and learned member. If the Act of 1800 was passed by an incompetent authority, it fol lowed that many of the hon. members whom he saw sit ting opposite to him as representatives of Irish constituen cies held their seats without authority ; and he (Mr. S. Rice) had fully expected after this assertion of the hon. and learned member that the Sergeant-at-Arms would have been called upon to remove them from seats which they had improperly usurped. (Hear, hear, andlaughter. ) But this was not all. If the Irish Parliament was incompetent to pass the Act of Union, what became of all the acts which had been passed since by the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom? They were all obviously null and void ; and the country would thus find itself at once deprived of the Reform Act, the Roman Catholic Relief Act, and others which they agreeably cherished. (Hear, hear.) If the argument of the hon. and learned member was correct, these positions were equally correct. But this argument might be pursued still farther. If it were to be an admitted doctrine that a parliament had no right to dis solve itself, the Scottish parliament had no more right to do so than the Irish ; and every law that had been passed by the legislature of the United Kingdom during the last century and a half became a nullity. The hon. and learned gentleman must have been very much pressed for an ar gument in support of his case when he adopted such a one as this. But the hon. and learned gentleman might say, " Non meus hic sermo," that it was not his own opinion, but the opinions of Lords Plunket and Grey and Mr. Sau rin, upon which he advanced that argument. That house was not assembled to deliberate, much less to act upon the sentiments of Lords Grey and Plunket and Mr. Saurin ; they had nothing to do with those opinions. It should be recollected, also, that those opinions were delivered in a time of great excitement, when the feelings of all parties in the country were highly wrought up ; though for his own part he must say that, even if all these arguments were now to be repeated by the very individuals who had uttered them, he should have no hesitation in throwing them overboard. The question was now to be considered in a deliberate and temperate manner, as a question of in ternational policy, and totally divested of such vulgar trash—he could call it by no other term—as that by which it was attempted to be bolstered up. (Loud cries of " Hear.") He had already alluded to the Scotch union. He would now try to draw the attention of the house to some documents to show that that union was assailed with the very same arguments in 1713, as those now urged against the union with Ireland. He did this merely to show how over zealous persons, with the best possible in tentions, might sometimes be mistaken. He would refer the house to the motion made in the above year in the House of Lords by a noble Scotch earl for the repeal of the union with Scotland. He would beg the house to ob serve that the repeal of the Scotch unionwas demanded upon still stronger grounds than those now put forward for the re peal of the Irish union. It was only argued against the union with Ireland that it was an illegal contract, and a bad bargain. But the arguments against the Scotch Union were not only that it was an illegal and a bad bar gain, but that that very union had been violated by Eng land, by the undue imposition of taxation upon Scotland. In the debate in the House of Peers to which he had first alluded, the Duke of Argyll was reported to have said that unless the union was dissolved he should not be able to re tain a single parcel of his property in Scotland. Another Scotch peer said that unless the union was dissolved Scot land must become " the worst country under the face of heaven." Now it happened that declarations of precisely the same import were daily making by hon. members for Ireland in reference to the union with the latter country. But was there a single Scotchman out of a lunatic asylum who would now come forward with such assertions ? Was there a single Scotchman who would now cry out to his countrymen, " You are too large a people to remain a pro vince; rise up and become a nation ?" Yet such were the inflammatory speeches now used by Irish members to ex cite their countrymen against their present political con stitution. He did not wish to trouble the house by pur suing the arguments he deduced from the history of the Scotch union. The whole annals of that country showed that it was utterly impossible for two nations to go on hap pily joined by the link of the crown alone. He would now endeavour to show that there were benefits derived to North Britain from that union. He liked the term North Britain better than Scotland, and he would also like to use the expression West Britain when speaking of Ireland. (Loud cries of " Hear," from members on the Opposition side.) But he would not quarrel upon that head. He was proceeding to state that there had been advantages procured for the Scotch nation from the Imperial Parlia ment which she could never under any other circumstances have obtained. How, for instance, could she have broken up the ancient system of clanships and hereditary privileges without a convention like that which attended the political union of the two countries? There were cases in which calm and experienced minds could do more essential ser vice than the parties who were themselves most warmly and deeply interested, and in the situation of Ireland he did be lieve such cases to exist. The hon. and learned member had referred to a variety of authorities, but, in his opinion, he had omitted one of the very highest that could be ad duced upon Irish affairs. The authority of Locke had been adduced ; but he (Mr. S. Rice) would now appeal to Mr. Molyneux, the early friend of Locke, whose work was or dered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, on account of its anti-English doctrines. Yet what did Mr. Molyneux say in that very work ? Why, he said that if Ireland was to have laws from the English parliament, she should at least have the right of sending representatives to that parliament, but that " that was a happiness which could hardly be hoped for." (Hear.) The house would indulge him with a patient hearing whilst he cited one more authority against the high names which had been ar raigned by the hon. and learned gentleman on the other side. He held in his hand a letter from Lord Charlemont, in which, during his travels abroad, he related that he had had an interview with Montesquieu, in the course of which the latter, in speaking of the legislative union with Ireland, said it was a highly advantageous measure, which, were he an Irishman, he should have highly approved. Mr. SHELL (interrupting the hon. member) —Lord Charlemont was against the union. Mr. S. RICE resumed—Yes; Lord Charlemont was against the union at the time. But, again, he would say that such arguments did not bear upon the case as it now stood. Grattan had opposed the union, and urged against it that Roman Catholics were not to be allowed to partici pate in the rights of legislation. But now the case was different. Roman Catholics were admitted to the privi leges of Parliament. And though he did not go so far as to pretend that he should have had Mr. Grattan's voice in favour of the union at the present day, it was very evident that such arguments as the above against the measure were perfectly inapplicable. It was not fair, therefore, to say that every one who held a different opinion upon that ques tion to that which they might formerly have expressed were guilty of gross inconsistency. He held in his hand a paper containing the sentiments of Mr. Foster upon the question of Catholic emancipation, which he had opposed. [The hon. member read this extract, in which Mr. Foster spoke to the effect " that if some score of Roman Catholics should find their way into that house, and feel the infe riority of their position, they would seek to increase their power by the addition of numbers to their side, and advo cate the repeal of the union ; that he felt the full force of such an argument, and trembled for the consequences."] (He would now read another document, to prove that if there were those who had opposed the union at the time of its being carried, but who supported it now, there were others who had changed their oipnions and their ex pressions in an equally remarkable manner. [The hon. member then read an extract from a discourse, in which the speaker recommended the measure of Catholic emancipa tion as one calculated to " consolidate the entire system of the legislative union, and making it a union at once cordial and complete."] Would the house believe that that extract contained the sentiments of one friendly or adverse to the union ? Would they believe that those sentiments were contained in the evidence given upon oath by the hon. and learned gentleman who now brought forward this motion ? There was the evidence of a Catholic seeking for emancipa tion. The hon. and learned gentleman had said that the union was not in the nature of a contract, and had made reference to the means by which that measure had been carried. He begged to repeat again that he did not intend to defend or discuss the latter point of the subject. The question was, not how the measure had been carried, but as to the propriety of retaining it now it was carried, and had existed so many years. This wasthe light in which every legislative enactment should be considered, purely as to its utility, not the means of its origin. As to that matter, he believed that the Habeas Corpus Act, the importance of which to the liberty of the subject nobody would deny, was carried by a majority of one, simply by rea son of a very fat man passing through the bar on the divi sion, and being counted for two. ('Laughter.) Look also at the revolution of 1688. No one could pretend to justify the defection of the Princess Anne from her own father, yet the salutary effects of the revolution were not to be im pugned on account of the unworthy circumstances which might have attended its fulfilment. In like manner, on looking at the union with Scotland, though he did not wish to hurt the feelings of any Scotch member,. yet he had no doubt, if the many accounts of that period were to be exa mined, there would be proved to be fully as much bribery and unfair influence as in the case of the Irish union. There was another point in the hon. and learned gentle man's speech which he could not pass over without com ment. The hon. and learned gentleman had asserted that rebellion had been fomented and blood made to flow for the express purpose of carrying through this measure. The hon. and learned gentleman had used some caution in mak ing this assertion, and had only referred to one document, No. 14 of the Secret Committee Report, to the effect that government had received intimation of the proceedings of the rebels a twelvemonth before they interposed to stop them. That was the only document the hon. and learned gentleman had chosen to cite; but " give me my committee,' he said, "and I will substantiate what I advance." Now he would say that no assertion of the kind had ever been made on lighter grounds. There was an authority of great weight upon this question, which it was curious to remark was to be found in the book which the hon. and learned gentleman had quoted, and yet he had not chosen to take it. He alluded to the declaration of Theobald Wolfe Tone, the founder of the society of United Irishmen, in answer to the above report of the secret committee, in which that individual declared the object of the society to be to subvert the ty ranny of Government by which they were ruled, and en tirely to sever their communication with England. Here was the authority of the great concoctor and, in the end, one of the great guides of the Irish Rebellion, that the great object of the United Irishmen was to abolish the distinctions of creed in religion or politics, and merge all considerations in the great absorbing name of Irishmen. Those sentiments, which were cherished by the self-con stituted directors of the Irish people, were now to be put forward as the rules on which the English Legislature should act. They were to be made the guide for the direc tion of the Irish people, and the standard by which the British Government should regulate its conduct towards the Irish nation, and fix the exact amount of concession to be extended. He (Mr. S. Rice) would protest against such a doctrine. He would never recognise the defunct fiat of the old United Irishmen delegates to be the rule of dominion over the councils of the British Government. What was the tendency of the resolutions and declara tions of that society but that the English Government was hostile to the Irish people, and that any ulterior measures that would flow from that Government or its dependent branch, the Irish Executive, would be le velled at, and would be designed for, the humiliation of the Irish nation ? The tyranny of the Irish government and the future consequences of the perpetuation of that government, as an emanation of the English executive, they stood against boldly and steadfastly. If the union were abolished to-morrow, would it not be abolished in the spirit of the resolutions of the lodges of the revolution ary junta of 1797 and 1798, and was there any chance that their code of legislation would not be adopted? Why, let the union be repealed, and the Presbyterian of the North would be pitted against the Catholic of the South, num bers against property, and allegiance against turbulence, until the whole country was made one arena of civil and reli,gious contention. From the destruction of the tyranny of the English people, as they termed it, they would pro ceed to that of the Parliament, and from that of the Par- liament they would soon learn to strike at the destruction of the throne. (Hear, hear.) Why should the hon. gen tleman attempt to say that there would be no mischievous tendencies to flow from the repeal of the union, which he stated to have been carried on by the worst and most un constitutional means, when he himself must know the bad and pernicious qualities of mind and heart that were called forth on the several occasions antecedent to that measure, and that called as a salutary remedy, for the union ? The hon. gentleman ,talked as if the government had shut its eyes to the progressing spread of the rebellion, and for its own purposes encouraged it. But could he be ignorant that in 1796 the most prompt measures s vi o 'er were o t r a ly ke n as t o u n s 92 ppr t e h s e s y it, did thnooutgh think w i as t true e ss t a h r a y t to interpose their authority or exert their vigilance. Did they not indict Wolfe Tone, Hamilton Rowan, Col. Butler, and others, at that period, for high treason? Was that no evidence of their disposition to bring the originators of the turbulence of those times to condign punishment ? The fact which the hon. gentleman stated, that the go vernment fomented and encouraged the rebellion, was triumphantly refuted by their own acts in bringing to trial every man detected or proved to be concerned in any act of sedition. Could the hon. member show one proved culprit that was not arraigned? Could he point out an instance in which a person regularly convicted of treason to the country, or even by probable implication involved in treason, was sheltered by the law or the government ? He (Mr. S. Rice) had no connection with the great authors of sedition or change, or with the government, in those times ; but he could not help saying that there was some exculpation. He did not mean to defend Castle reagh or Pitt, for to defend men would be to defend their general acts. But he came to support the integrity, not of the men, but to uphold the policy of the present time. The hon. gentleman asked what did parliament for Ireland? and answered it by a dexterous and snappish sneer that it gave an additional power over the distribution of the crops. Now that was not an honest answer, for it showed a dis creditable effort to sink the whole agricultural and pro ductive portion of the community into the mean and vulgar rank of farmers' clodboys. Well, but to leave that part of the question open to discussion, he would ask, did not the committee of inquiry appointed by the government show to what the result would tend? (Here the right hon. gentleman enumerated a long list of the items, but from the peculiar and inaudible tone in which they were uttered he was not clearly understood.) The King's pre rogative was endangered by the reputed tendency of the measure alluded to. The provisions of the army and the State, and the security of the Government, were matters of consideration and attention. Why should it be said that the united legislature of the country disarranged the con tinued legislative operations of the country, when it was found that th e continued exertions of the people were not in unison with the accredited will of the people ? One ground was for the British parliament to come to a deci sion, that the British legislature proposed measures from 1801 to 1833 that no previous history of the Irish parlia ment could furnish a parallel for. What was the case? He (Mr. Spring Rice) would state that the case was to be found in the reclaimed lands, in the cultivated bogs, and in the innumerable projects there were for the improvement of the country. Now from the year 1801 to 1833 there were 61 public committees and 114 reports. What was the result of their decisions ? Why, Catholic emancipa tion was virtually forced on the house and the country by the testimony adduced on that occasion ; and if the hon. member now complained of the effects of the union, he should recollect that it was a system of legislation produced by that measure of which he complained that gained for him all the advantages that he pos sessed, and were likely to preserve for him the perpetuity of his fame. (The right hon. gentleman here recapitu lated the main principles of the arguments he had be fore advanced.) He would now come to facts. The cross-channel trade was made a coasting trade. The butter trade was amended. ( The hon. member then enumerated a great many bills which were, he said, passed by the British parliament, calculated to work good for Ireland—the Subletting Act, the Tithe Composition Bill, the Grand Jury Bill, with many others.) As a proof of the utility of the Tithe Bill, he would say that it was in perfect unison with the proposition of Grattan in 1789 'which was so much eulogised. Could it to said that the British parliament was hostile to the interests of the Irish people when they carried Catholic Emancipation, when they carried the Reform Bill, those two grand measures that struck down the domination of party, and enabled freedom to strike deep her roots throughout the land? (Here the right hon. gentleman detailed almost all the im portant financial retrenchments that were made for several years past, especially since the present ministry came into office, and which must, from a perusal IA all the financial discussions in the House of Commons, have been fami liar to the public.) The general protection and benefi cence of parliament was not limited to those modes of legislative improvement, but extended even to local in stitutions. There were under the imperial parliament established the savings banks, the poor schools, the fever hospitals, the house of industry, the boards of health, the friendly societies, with several other institutions. To show the difference between the present con dition of the Irish people from their former condition, and the disposition of the present government from the disposition of former governments, he (Mr. S. Rice) would say that such an appeal as Orr made in 1798 for a grant for the education of the people, when he said that " for lack of knowledge the land perished," would not be made in vain to the Imperial Legislature ; and the acts of the Legislature were his (Mr. R.'s) best evidence. (The right hon. gentleman here entered into a calculation to show that education was much more encouraged now in Ireland than under the Irish Parliament, and that several Boards for the improvement of the country were esta blished. A continued interruption in our part of the Gal lery for some minutes prevented us from hearing some of the right hon. gentleman's illustrations.) He had thus gone through some of the subjects upon which the Impe rial Parliament had legislated wsth respect to Ireland ; he had shown what that Parliament had done ; and having so stated the case, however imperfectly, to the house, he would ask, how stood the answer to the question put by the hon. gentleman, and was the answer just as given by the hon. gentleman ? The hon. gentleman had asked what had the Imperial Parliament effected for Ireland, and he re plied that all it had done was distraining crops, and assist ing in the collection of tithes. Was there in such an an swer one particle of justice ? (Hear.) He then came to the question of taxation. And he could not but remark upon the effeet produced by the returns which he had caused to be laid before the house. Never indeed before had any columns excited greater consternation and amaze ment than had his columns ; and, indeed, they had utterly prevented the line deployed against them from producing any effect. He had before stated that his object in framing those tables was to put hon. members in possession of the nature' of some of the arguments he meant to use upon this occasion, and to give them the means of judging whe ther or not those arguments were based upon sound data. He would also state that in calling for those tables he had further intended to supply an antidote to the statements of the hon. member. He had certainly wished to confront those statements with the real statistics of the case. But his tables had been quarrelled with. They had been cha racterised as intended to delude the house. Now, to any one at all acquainted with financial statements it was quite evident that no statements upon such a question could be framed which would not be to a certain extent a delusion. They must of necessity suppose a case, and upon supposi tion frame conclusions. But that remark, it would be remembered, applied not exclusively to his tables, but to all that could be framed under the circumstances. It had been said that in the case of hops the tax was paid by Ire land to the extent Ireland consumed that article, and that, therefore his table was inaccurate in calculating the amount of revenue produced by the duty on hops as exclu sive taxation on Great Britain. He admitted the justice of that remark, but it would affect the result come to upon his tables in only a small degree. And, having made that concession, he must call upon the house to bear in mind that the same reasoning ought to be applied to the calcu lation of the hon. member, when he set forth that taxa tion to the amount of 43,000,0001. a year had been repealed in England. There were many cases in which the repeal of a tax was beneficial to the empire at large, and not merely to Great Britain, although it had been wholly collected in England. He would take the very case of hops. If the tax upon that article were repealed it would of course benefit Ireland in the propor tion of the quantity of hops consumed there. But, fur ther, he would instance a case of actual occurrence, the repeal of the duty upon printed cottons. Now that was a tax wholly levied in Great Britain, and yet he would take upon himself to assert that never had there been a tax re pealed in Ireland, reference being had to its amount, which had given greater relief. (Hear.) The repeal of the duty on printed cottons had invigorated the trade and manufactures in Ireland, and been of essential service to the consumer. He was only using these arguments in order to prevent the possibility of the house being deluded by the statements of the hon. member as to the amount of taxation which had been repealed in Great Britain, and to prove that repeal of taxation was not always what at first sight it appeared to be. But were there no taxes upon Ireland prior to the union? He held in his hand a copy of a speech made by Mr. Grattan in 1783, in which that authority stated that the only tax which was paid by the poor of Ireland was the hearth tax, and that that tax was a great affliction. " But," said Mr. Grattan, " why is that the case? Is it a boon to the poor of Ireland? No such thing ; it is simply and solely because the poor of Ireland arc so poor that the articles taxed in England do not enter into their consumption." He (Mr. S. Rice) therefore contended that it was undeniable, according to the authority of Mr. Grattan, as he spoke in 1783, that the Irish poor were in a more prosperous condition now than before the Union, if at the present moment they were more heavily taxed. (Hear, hear, hear.) One great object he had in framing his tables was to show the enor mous amount of taxation, in proportion and in rate, which had been paid by Great Britain over and above what had been paid by Ireland since the year of the Union, 1800. He was aware that some errors had crept into,those tables, but he had endeavoured to rectify them. The amount of the duty derived from salt had been charged twice, and that defect he had remedied. The argument of the hon. gentleman had been that Ireland had been un justly treated with respect to taxation by the Imperial Par liament. Now he would take the stamp duty as levied in the two countries. Would it be contended that property, 1,000/. in the one country ought to bear a different burden to what it did in the other ? Assuredly not ; and yet how stood the fact? On legacies the iniquitous Imperial Par liament had laid a duty in Great Britain of 100 per cent. more than in Ireland ; probates 50 per cent. ; admi nistrations 120 per cent ; receipts 65 per cent ; newspapers 100 per cent. ; almanacks 50 per cent. ; fire assurances 20 per cent. ; and advertisements 50 per cent. (Hear. ) It was therefore monstrous to pretend to say that the Im perial Parliament had dealt unjustly by Ireland in that re spect. If any great capitalist, as Mr. Adair, realised his fortune and land in Ireland, what inducement could the legislature have in taxing his property less than if he had lived in England but a desire to benefit Ireland? But the difference, so great and so favourable to Ireland, was not confined to the imposts on property , ; it was remarkable also in other matters, and he would enumerate a few. The right hon. gentleman then read rapidly from a list the tax on land, beer, bricks, candles, laths, and other articles, but said it must be unnecessary to go all through the items, or indeed to do more in reply to the statements of the hon. gentleman than to refer to the tables of which every hon. member had been put in possession. It would be fully suf ficient for him, then, to state the summary of the result which would have been produced had Ireland been taxed with respect to those articles after the same rate as Great Britain. Had such been the case Ireland would have had to pay more than she had paid, no less a sum than 91,248,086/. But he knew it would be said, and it had been said by the hon. member, that had Ireland been so taxed an increased revenue would not have been the con sequence. He admitted that increased taxation did not ne cessarily produce increased revenue. But, if the mode he had adopted of comparison was objected to, there was another system free from objection. He would calculate what was the sum England had paid more, in proportion, than Ireland, supposing the duties in the two countries to have been the same. And, doing so, he found that Great Britain was in excess over Ireland the sum of 618,287,048/. : and that amount, added to the sum which had been levied in Great Britain by exclusive taxation, viz., 478,176,627/., raised the excess paid by Great Britain in comparison with Ireland, and supposing the taxation in the two countries to have been upon the same basis and rate, to a greater amount than the whole of the national debt. He knew perfectly well that this calculation was open to difficulties and exceptions; it must of necessity be to a certain extent a delusion ; but the same difficulties and character applied to the calculations of the hon. gentleman, and he was content to place the true statements in opposition with the defects he had ad mitted, and to leave them to the judgment of the house on this only condition, that he claimed accuracy for the figures upon which he had arrived at his result. He was sorry to weary the house, but he must yet have a few words more as to what the imperial parliament had done for Ireland. It was said it had done nothing. Nothing ! Were all the sums it had advanced for the improvement of Ireland nothing? Let them see what it had done with respect to harbours. It had given for the improvement of Howth 540,000/., Kingstown 304,000/., Donaghadee 132,0001., Portpatrick 125,000/., Dunmore 79,000/., Hobbs Point 23,000/. ; and, in fact, the total amount was 1,010,170/. Now where, he would ask, was the slightest proof that the Irish parliament would have bestowed upon Ireland any such boons ? But the advantage was not con ferred only upon Ireland with respect to her harbours. The case was similar with respect to her charitable and literary institutions, no less - a sum than 4,225,750/. having been granted for their maintenance by the imperial parliament. Again, for the encouragement of agriculture and manufac tures 1,340,421/. had been granted. Also for public works and employment of the poor, 3,072,160/. The whole giving a total o f 8,638,3311. And yet it was con tended by the hon. and learned gentleman that the Im perial Parliament had done nothing for the improvement of Ireland. Let gentlemen turn back to the labours of the standing committee of the Irish Parliament, and see whe ther there was a shadow of likelihood of its having afforded any such assistance. (Hear, hear.) He thought he had observed some dissent as to the effect produced in Ireland by the conduct of the Board of Works. He knew very well that when the plan of that board was first proposed considerable objections had been taken to it. It had been said that it would be inoperative ; that, in fact, the re strictions were so numerous that practically the board would not operate. But the board had now been some time in existence, and they might speak upon experience. Grants to the amount of 39,249/. had been applied for, and actually made to the amount of 27,595/., which had put actually into operation for the improvement of Ireland the sum of 276,000/. Further, if hon. members would examine into the question they would find that, in addition, loans charged upon the Consolidated Fund, some bearing in terest and others not, all for the improvement of Ireland, to the amount of 6,900,000/, had been advanced ; that 2,800,000/. had been repaid, and that there was at present advanced and in operation4,l4o,ooo/. These were facts not to be disputed, and he defied the lion. gen tleman and any hon. member to show that it was not, in fact, to the imperial Parliament that Ireland was indebted, for all the improvements which had been effected since the union, or that the Irish parliament had given any proof whatever of its ability, whatever might have been its dis position, to promote and bring into existence such im provements. In fact, so great had been the assistance given by the legislature, that every man whose property had been improved, owed that improveme nt to the ar liament, and every labourer who had received employment through those improvements, was also indebted for that employment to the Parliament. And there was one other subject connected with the improvement of Ireland and the Imperial Parliament upon which he must say a few words. He alluded to the improvement of the crown lands in Ire land. That improvement had been undertaken upon the principles that the crown, as a landlord, was bound to set a good example to the other landlords. It was an error, however, to put that as a question affecting the crown only. It affected the revenue of the country. For the produce of the Crown lands was as much a pa rt of the ge neral revenue, as was the produce of any tax whatever. It was in 1832 that the plan now in operation was resolved upon, and there was a report upon the table, although not yet in the hands of hon. members, which showed what result had, as yet, been produced. [The righ t honour able gentleman then read a part of the report, from which it appeared that, instead of there being a sur p lus of labour, the agent of the Board could only procure labourers at the general market price. during about five months in the year, the whole of the labourers during the other months being in demand by the firmers and others ; and that statement had reference to t 3 the counties of Cork, Kerry, Limerick and TipperarY. The agent also stated that he could not conclude his report without expressing whom he h s admiration had occasion a to m tth the excellent poy . ( co i n i d of the labourers etuahrcet, hear. ) That was another result to be attributed to Imperial Parliament. " But," said the hon. " all this is nothing compared with the advantage, P ° :c i sessed by England. It is like Falstaff's halfpennvwer`, of bread to his gallons of sack." But he (Mr. s." ice/ said no ; it was a mass of benefits conferred by and entirely proceeding from the Imperial legislature. And thatbrought, him to a very complicated question, and one which ha" been very much relied upon by the hon. gentleman ; meant the proportion of the burdens to be borne by lie land, according to the compact at the union. That pro" .portion was two-seventeenths, and the hon. gentlemal contended that it was grossly unjust to Ireland, that it hen made Ireland bankrupt, and that to do ustice to Ireland the whole bargain of the union must be given that po up, or tion of it r • d evise . Now, whether that bargain was right ° I. wrong, just or unjust, did not appear to him properlY enter into the question, for he was prepared to prove that it no longer existed, andthat it had been departed from wholly for the benefit of Ireland. He said, therefore, that if he could make good that position, and he was confident lie cot :4 all the arguments of the hon. gentleman as to the '" ere justice of two-seventeenthsbeing imposed upon Irelands"' of no use whatever to his cause. Here[ some slight in- gentleman, ,terruption occurred.] He was aware that he was drawing very largely upon the patience of the house, but the im portance of the subject must be his excuse, and this so was it part of it to which he was particularly anxious to lic attention. (Hear.) He held in his hand a copy of the report of a speech made by the hon. gentleman with re.; c spect to the consolidation of the exchequers of tht ie d two spect countries, and that report he believed had be en by the hon. gentleman himself; at all events its accuracy had never been denied, and even last night the statemert.iret it contained had been nearly in substance repeated. 11 (Mr. Rice) was then addressing the jury try the question. He threw himself on the country ; and he entreated that attention which was essential to the fo!'-: mation of a just judgment. The subject was a most dill' cult one, but he would endeavour to simplify it as much as possible. The charge made by the hon. gentleman was that the Imperial Parliament, by the way in which it had consolidated the exchequers, had nominally relieved Ire' land to the amount of some millions, but had in reab t Y mortgaged the whole of the territory of Ireland for the sponsibility of the national debt. Now what was t h e ' financial condition of Ireland in 1801, the year after th union, and in 1817, when the exchequers were consoli . dated? In the year 1801 the public income of Ireland l as 2,645,0001. and the expenditure amounted to 6,84 5,09° ; so that the deficiency was no less than 4.900,000/., or nearly double the amount of revenue. Now in the year 1817 s° material a change had taken place that the deficiency not more than as great as the amount of income. , hßu that was not the question they had then to try, toe had been the assertion of the hon. gentleman that Irelandby the con mortgaged for the payment of the national debtthe interest . solidation of the exchequers. Prior to the 2,300,000/., and in Ireland 1,300,000/. • union_ l an d was who had to payable by Ireland upon the debt incurred in Engl. S. , m in ' 1817, in land 2,600,000/., and in Ireland 1,000,000/. ; , Now , England 3,000,000/., and in Ireland 1,000, 0 ° ° `• e e a ct would the house believe that the very first effect of ve which had consolidated the exchequer had been to 11 of the in e Ireland from the separate and exclusive payment av,o, terest of the debt, 3,000,000/. incurred in England, le• 1, it only liable to the 1,000,0001. in Ireland ? Such wa.s_ton:: fact. (Some of the members for Ireland dissented.) lie members thought he had fallen into an error ; but rin spoke from figures not to be controverted. Up, to 181 e 7 u l_r e u ct land had exclusively to pay the interest of the debt in rr terest in its name in both countries ; in England that in amounted to 3,000,000/., and in Ireland to I,OOOYT and after the consolidation of the exchequer Ireland only to provide for the interest on its debt incurredi land. (Mr. Sheil was understood to require further asthe e l . planation.) It was perfectly true that 1815 in Eng P effect of the receipt became a joint conce ,,; but _I _ hpersisted in measure was as he had s tated. s • • ) He had only avoidedgoing desiring further exp.anation. the house. into further details from a fear of wearying chequers were consolidated the generaitisce.xsooennditure and He repeated that in 1817 Ireland was bound to pay as and ort interest on its debt in En g land 3,000,0001., t. _ its debt in Ireland 1,000,000/., and that by 11 :, act consolidating the exc he q uers it had only to the interest of its debt in Irel and, 1,000,000/. (gr. Sn it was understood still to express himself dissatisfied. ) `k ith the year 1815, the deficiency of revenu e, as comparea 5 _f the expenditure in Ireland, amounte d to u pward. _ l. ' o 4,000,0001. ; i n 1816 to above 8,00 0 , 0001 . ' in 1618 and was a surplus ; in 1819 a surplus of 1,200,000/. tend ed ' been B ea et2inoo national s p u dt r ed p b l ot u : s int of ao nua,gibhtotiv,ete. alterations e 0 O , takeno O ln t oeffected .Now' account, ot n i t ,aO , O of that if any argument was to be drawn from the atn i.. l - 0 ,,1y had result derivable from the facts that the debt of III; year and the unfunded to 83,000,000/. Now, 1:316, the funded debt of Ireland amounted to I° ° ' I had still continued exclusively responsible for that dehiji.'oderstoo.t the hon. member 15,000,000/. more of have had to pay to the present time (as w e ot than 1 , if i r elar' it wo uld a in ()ran t e ' had paid. He said, therefore that from the i n n ca d of the consolidation of the Exchequers there Wa s Itself thea the two-seventeenths. The empire took upon ;red' as debt of 103,000,000/. It was quite true that ire but it bode part of the empire, bore a portion of the burden; ,_ u i c t te - no more, and he was quite sure that the house , " .o.as p er; dily see the distinction. Such being the fact, it fectly and totally preposterous to charge the act co ‘? /relat e: l the Exchequers with mortgaging the territory ; t e h i t. e g or.g in when it relieved it. Therefore, he said, that if of in bargain of two seventeenths there had been anY e t , a eing justice, amplecompensation hadbeenmadeby point to been relieved from 103,000,000/. of debt. li e the O use • which he wished next to direct the attention e e v iol! and subsequent to it. The account he (Alr i ; was the trade and manufacture of Ireland befgr . held in his hand had been drawn up at the s but it waS, right hon. friend Sir John Newport long a ' ofi t e 'ial value of I strictly applicable to the occasion. T h in. ° edia,tely prior to the exports during the fourteen years ;nifthe fourteen yearg the union was 64,000,0001., and do r- '1'9,000,000/ , ah m f t i immediately following the union it '4:Knew it might be 01 ing an increase of 15,000,0001. and really the hon• ge!..,, that the exports were no criterion; so extraordinf,' tleman's definition of Irish po vert y was b e Nv ould a ' - „r; that it was difficult to deal with it ; but hout • could any one article of export be produced wit „ 1 0011 and must not that which found employment l c tit fan' make some return ? It was indeed monstrous to wr ite' riot or. as an argument that the amount of exports w t he rion of a nation's progress. But he would turn d ports. The amount of imports in the first P n er ;oo ol ',.' 59,000,000/, and in the second period it was 9 : 2, ' ° e t showing an excess of 33,000,0001. in the latter Pe .o r i it enO i ll, the former. NQW, surely it would hardly be c d-of that the poverty of Ireland was so extraordinarY; or' t o aestion of his creased as the people increased the quantity °` r efer ni l It had been alleged that he had no right to ref aet t io the exports and imports as demonstrative of the a 10 1 1 0 t he condition of Ireland, but he put it to the open king s what better evidence he could produc e to p ay oint. (Hear, hear. ) If he was excluded fr°, 5 1 .1 0 to the imports of the country, to the number °' 0 ° t he and to the extent of the tonnage of those slin o on . 00 ? possible principles, he asked, could he re s , ° ,, , iga t e sa question of repeal upon the points of trade and ~ ub t t he But it would be said that the returns lie h a tha t ' tha t ce prod a his case up to the year 1805, and Si e ' to progress of Ireland had not been quite se fa v % 10 5 t te that period. Now, he would beg to refer, 0 5 a %,,fts the paper marked No. 9in his return, witi" ' the ati i i ment showing the annual average amount of tee ieeo and exports of Ireland for the triennial period„ s o , 119 1 „, t on the sth of January, 1790, 1800, 1810, 18- re d " 1 ,,1i 014 respectively. From that document it aPPe—•eate'diree total of the imports into Ireland for the fbr ee o ' r n o r ,t hc , 25th of March, 1790, was 3,535,588 L ; , f g 3/. ;, 06tit• ' years ending 25th of March, 1800, 4,299 ,4 OP 0 7P three years ending sth of January, 181 0, 6, 00` 3 160 , fir she three years ending sth of January, 11 . ,,,,ar)I pti ce e ,, 11 for the three years ending sth of . I '"" o rts "- 7,491,890/. ; showing an increase in the irn,„,P o oo/. ni t 0 the periods of 1790 and 1826 of nearly 4,Or ta i. ain ° ,. r ei the same document it appeared that the .L ° • or I s sec i exports from Ireland, whether to Great o fll ,th parts, was for the three years ending ' 2 f di ,g 01; 1790, 4,125,333/. ; for the three years 01 frill, 0' March 1800, 4,015,9761. (being a decretaiYing last calculation) ; for the three year , e yea rs dia January, 1810, 5,270,4711. ; for the tbreee,...ars t be sth Jan. 1820, 6,291,275/ , ; and for the thre e Y t ' n .itino afr ed sth Jan. 1826, 8,454,918/. ; thus showing. ir ad tuer . e eo ce years 1790 and 1826 the exports of Irelanninnconseclubdig upwards of 4,000,0001. (Hear, hem'.) Irelan d per; of the custom-house laws of England atil' e I uses nu o ' t i l o placed upon the same footing in 18'25, t- e n beY-iile to ceive he was unable to continue his calcularuoisi year 1826 ; and he regretted much it was P"'