The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-12 00:00:00

intercourse, and so on; but these were all matters which
might be settled independently of the Bill, either before
or after it was passed. As, ati the union, the articles
were embodied in a separate treaty, so the articles of the
repeal might be separately agreed on. In his view the Irish
Parliament ought to be constituted before these tern's and
treaties could be fairly entered into. But if it were held
' that the treaties should first be settled, some such Bill
as this would be necessary as a groundwork. Therefore
no technical objections of this kind ought to avail.
support of the demand of Ireland for a separate legisla-
ture, he had to arraign the union, which now existed for
forty-eight years, as unjust, injurious, and unwise. It
began in injustice because Ireland was no consenting
party to the union. It protested against that Act. He
had the authority of Lord Plunket and the late Earl
Grey for that statement. There were 707,000 petitioners
against the union, and only 3,000 in favour of it. That
measure was passed by means of the greatest corrup•
tion and intimidation. There were forty peers, twelve
bishops, and nine judges made with a view of carrying
it. One person had 8,000/. fur his vote, and some be•
sides the money had got other substantial advantages.
He would not allude to the rebellion of 1798, although
there was abundant evidence to prove that the Govern-
ment connived at and encourageu that rebellion, in order
to effect the union.—(Hear.) But he denied that the
Parliament had the capacity of voting the union. It
was commissioned, in the words of lewd Plunket, to
make laws, and not to supersede constitutions. There
was no doubt that the union e as commenced in injustica,
and that it was continued in injustice.—(Hear, hear.)
Even at the time of the union Lord Castlereagh declared
that Ireland was entitled to 108 Members, but there they
were, even with the Reform Bill, with three Members
short of that number.—(hear, hear.) The truth was,
the Irish Members bad Do power in the House. Ali
other interests were attended to in it. The West India
interest had lately had a Committee granted to inquire
into their grievances; hut there was no hope of a Com-
mittee to inquire into the grievances of Ireland. Another
great disadvantage was, that the seat of Legislature was
too distant from Ireland. Public opinion in Ireland bad
too far to travel before it reached that house, and it was
utterly weak when it had to contend with English pre-
possessions. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth, and the Noble Lord, both declared that Ire-
lnnd should be placed on a footing of equality with this
country. He believed that they were both sincere in that
declaration, but the fact war, that they could not carry
out their intentions in consequence of the difficulty of
getting English Members to give their attention to the
case of Ireland. They were too much afraid of an Eng-
lish majority to be able to do substantial justice to his
country. Ireland was still subject to numerous anoma-
lies, electoral and municipal. And it, the poorest coun-
try in the world, was saddled with a rich church to which
the great body of the people did not belong. If, accord.
ine• to the maxim of the constitution, representation was
to be based on taxation and r opulation, Ireland was at
least entitled to 230 Members, while England would
be entitled to 419. The Act of Union had, more-
over, inflicted on Ireland the greatest financial in.
justice. The whole expenditure of the government
of Ireland had been defrayed since the Union
from the revenues of Ireland, and a balance
of 20,000,0001. had been moreover remi•ted to this
country. He admitted that Ireland ought to pay her
share of the Imperial burdens, besides her own expen.
diture for local purposes, but she ought, also, to partici
pate in the benefits arising from Imperial expenditure.
That was not the case however. Ile thought he had
shown that the union had been productive of continued
injustice to Ireland. He would now come to the next
point, and would show that the union had been injurious
to Ireland. lie would first produce testimony of the
state of Ireland before the union and after the union.
The Hon. Gentleman then read statements of the late
Lord Clare, the chief artificer of the union, and Lord
Plunket, which represented the progress of Ireland
in material prosperity before the union as
unprecedented and astonishing. The Heineueabia
Gentleman then quoted the evidence taken before va-
rious Committees of that House, showing the misery
which existed in Ireland since the union. She was
never in so distressed a state as at the present mo
ment. List year there were 4,000,000 of persons re-
ceiving alms; 1,000,000 had perished from the face of
the earth; a quarter of a million had emigrated, and of
these 30,000 had died. He hoped, therefore, that he
would hear no more of the argument that the union had
been productive of benefit to Ireland. Ho was prepared
to show that the union was the cause of the wretched
condition of that country, because it drained away its
money which was the sinew and life blood of the body
politic. It deprived her of trade and commerce, and
left her population totally dependent on the land—the
competition for which was one of the greatest
evils of Ireland. Her outgoings in the shape of
absentee rents, payments for manufactured goods, &c.,
amounted to 17,750,0001, whilst the value of corn, linen,
manufactures, and cattle exports did not amount to
more than 12,500,0001., 1 caving a balance against the
country of more than 5,000,0001. He contended that
the union had occasioned the drain from Ireland
of her corn; and other articles of consumption, year
after year, and this at times when in Ireland herself the
people were famishing for want of the very food thus
taken from her, The union, too, had occasioned the
curse of absenteeism, which had inflicted such evils upon
Ireland. Ile complained that Ireland was most unfairly
taxed towards the expenses of the empire, considerine
the limited character of her resources, as compared with
those of England. Since the union the Imperial Parlia
ment had relieved England of taxation to the extent of
31,230,0001., but Ireland only to the extent of
2,900,0001.; while during the same period the revenue
of England had increased from 37,000,0001. to
54.000,0001., that of Ireland had only increased from
3,709,000/. to 4,600,0001. He admitted that England
paid 12,000,0001. per annum of separate taxation, but
this was less than the amount which, oven at the
time of the union, its advocates declared that Eng-
land should fairly pay in the way of separate taxation.
He contended that if the union were repealed the effect
would be so great upon the condition of Ireland, her
prosperity would so speedily and so largely be raised,
that she would be able ere long to contribute a far greater
amount of taxation to the resources of the empire than
she ever would while she remained united. He was
convinced that she would be able to contribute fully
7,000,000 to the general exchequer, and thus relieve the
Right lion. Gentleman opposite from any necessity for
new taxes. The fact was that Ireland was impoverished
from having every acre of her land mortgaged for the
enormous debt of Great Britain, which weighed down
her energies like an incubus. In calculating the impo
sition of taxes, it had been the custom of the Imperial
Government to estimate the proportion of Ireland at one-
ninth of the whole, whereas, did the prosperity of Ire-
id,
aa
equal the prosperity of England,
hern proportion
be that of her population, one-
third. He contended, in the third place, that the union
was not only nationally injurious to both parties, but
Ire-
land,it shou
should
should do,
politically unwise, as a measure which kept Ireland
in a constant state of excitement and discontent, and
rendered her a constant source of anxiety and alarm to
this country. He would admit his belief that the Go-
vernment would be able to put down the existing agita
rion, which injudicious or mischievous men were
but he would put it to the
Government
e immense expenditure, not
creating, o r
wellrather
to
wefomenting;g ht
the
simply:of blood, but of hard cash, which they must
inevitably incur in the struegle. How infinitely better,
by the timely concession of just claims, to avert this
tearful crisis, and secure for ever the affections of the
Irish people. That
.people had no desire to evade the
contribution of their fair 'Aare of the burdens of the
empire; all they asked in this respect was to be enabled,
to provide the means out of their own soil. He urged
•hat England should take timely measures to se-
cure Ireland from throwing herself in her des-.
peration into the arms of a foreign power.
Such a course on her part—which might God avert—
would, no doubt, prove her ruin; but it would also
be a most destructive blow to England. He con-
tended that Ireland had a clear statutory right to de-
mand an independent Parliament. As to the argument
that the restoration of the Irish Parliament would be
an injury to the Irish people, from the corruption which
past experience had shown to pervade an Irish Parlia•
went—this, at all events, was a matter for the election of
the Irish people, and they all preferred a Parliament of
their own, even were it a corrupt and boroughmongering
one, such as that of former periods—which need not at
all be the case—to an Imperial one, which paid no heed
hatever to the natiomal interests of Ireland. As a
Catholic, he would even add, that he would prefer the
revival of the penal laws to the permanence of a system
which forbade Ireland to legislate for her own affairs.
It had been very unfairly urged that the Irish Perna-
meet had always been a truckling Parliament to the
English Legislature. True, it had been so; but never-
theless it had always
protected the purses of the
people, and had prevented the finances of Ire-
land from being unjustly burdened. In 1724 there
was a surplus revenue, and the Irish Parliament,
fearing that the English Minister would seize on
it for the purposes of England, resolved to prevent this
by expending it on works executed for the sole benefit of
Ireland, in canals, bridges, and public buildings. This
had been the cause of the charge brought against the
memory of the
Irish Parliament, that it had been corupt
and extravagant in the disposal of the public money;
but even admitting that such was the case, which he
would not deny, still the cause arose out of good mo-
tives. Besides, if the old Parliament of Ireland had
been ever so corrupt, why should it continue to be so?
Why could it net be reformed? Was reform to be con-
fined to the present House? Notwithstanding, however,
all its corruptness, he repeated ho was willing to have
that Parliament again, rather than continue to submit
to the united legislation, The old Irish Parliament,
besides, rendered two of the greatest services that could
be offered to the British empire,—that, namely,
of repelling the French invasion of Noche, and
of putting down the Irish rebellion of 1798. Those were
services never to be forgotten. He thought he had estab-
lished the strong claims of that Parliament, corrupt
es it was, to be re-established as a Legislature in Ireland.
There now only remained the second objection to bo
disposed of, namely, that urged on the supposition that
future disagreements would take place between England
and Ireland in case repeal were granted and carried into
effect. As far as the most recent events which preceded
the union could show how little such a fear ought to
prevail, he might refer to the regency question on the
occasionof George 111., when the Irish Parliament
tookthe
the constitutional course of vesting the powers of
Crown in the next heir, rather than in the hands of
the Ministry; and this fact showed that no apprehen-
sion of jealousy or dissension on questions of real mo-
ment to the empire could be fairly entertained. What
were the real points of jealousy and mutual distrust be-
tawndeen England and Ireland? Chiefly commercial
manufacturing questions. In these matters,
two countries,
there had arisen differences between the
countries, they arose out of the conduct of
England, who
shut Ireland out of her colonial
and carrying
trade, as well as the trade between
England and Ireland. But in 1792 colonial free trade

f
ri
• Ttwhahase
agndremaxnt
tst
sepidon
inn toto ronle
sn.
hi ,epharl
ntohdbonj uea
cagti oa
ntnhdet
cdn:uart
nieepus
of
aaiclmt
raoedsa e
bdi
e n on
nnn
England were maintained for many years afterwards.
raised was that of war; and on this he must say that he
thought an Irish Parliament ought not to be bound to
approve of a war with any foreign state, unless it was
of opinion that such was just; but this could never con-
stitute a subject of difference. He now came to the con-
sideration of the money contribution which Ireland
ought in fairness to be called upon to make towards the
expenditure of the empire. The same arrangements
might be adopted in this respect that had been enforced
in the fiscal contribution settled between the two coun-
tries. The policy of England in this, as in other re-
spects, had been distrust of Ireland. The enormous re-
sources of that country were not known to England.
The resources of Ireland had been on the constant in-
crease during the last forty-five years; and the increased
prosperity which would flow from the development
of the resources of 'relatd, and the awakening of her
internal riches, and the industry and manufactures of his
country, would soon enable her to contribute in a much
larger measure than at present to the wane- of the lm.
perial Government. Many of the most eminent states-
men of England had scouted the idea that England could
legislate better for Ireland than she could for herself.
At a meeting of the Whig Club, May 7, 1800, at the
Crown and Anchor Tavern, in London, Mr. Fox in the
chair, supported by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Holland,
tee., &c., Mr. Fox said—" The whole scheme (union)
than that
a
t
went upon that false and abominable presumption, that
we could legislate better for the Irish than they could do
for themselves—a principle founded upon the most
governor,
11,
rnnncnoe)
ofa
nTherepolitics
that
tat
at
ho ought
was
a
morearrogant
wclear axiom
n
ownt nna l nto legislate for himself. No other being could enter into
his feelings, or have anything common in aympathy with
iat arthd
his nature; and therefore the legislature of a people must
flow out of, and he identified with, the people themselves.
It was idle to talk to Ireland of the word union, since there
could be no such thing as a real union, on an equal footing,
between countries so disproportionate and unequal. Could
the Irish believe that in this connexion they were to have
an equal and availing voice in legislating fur England,
as the English were in legislating for Ireland? There
was no maxim more true in philosophy or in politics
than the groat moral doctrine, Do as you would be
done by.' Examine the measure by that rule. Can the
Irish bring themselees to believe that they will have any
share or influence in legislating for England? Take it
on the other side. What Englishman would submit to
se e his destiny regulated and his affairs conducted by
persons chosen for Belfast or Limerick? He believed
that even in the present temper of the people of England
they would not submit to the project of the union, if
hey thought that the Irish Members were to have any
influence on the British Legislature. What, then, we
could not suffer we ought not to impose. We ought not
to presume to legislate for a nation in whose feelings and
affections, wants and interests, opinions and prejudices,
we have no sympathy. It can only be atteleipted on the
principle of the most arrogant despotism. It was an attack
on the pride of a gallant nation, and was calculated to
reduce them to the state, as many of their own patriots
had said, of a dependent province; and it was, in his
?pinion, a most audacious attempt, after all that appeared
in that country, since it was adding insult to injury to
call it a measure in which the Irish acquiesced." That
great man's speech deserved to be written in letters of
gold. Now, truly, had not the result of forty.eight
years' experience of the legislative union proved Mr.
Fox's prediction to be strictly and literally correct ?
Ireland under her own Parliament had been prosperous
and happy, and under the legislative union had offered
the world an example of misrule and misery heretofore
never witnessed among civilised nations. If the Parlia-
ment of England refused to restore her rights to Ire-
land, that country would shortly exhibit a scene of con-
fusion and anarchy unparalleled; whole armies would not
suffice to restrain her within the bounds of moderation;
and the consequences., if timely concession was not made,
would be frightful in the extreme. The people of Ireland
felt they were called upon to obey lae s which they had
no hand in making, and which were odious to them. Ireland
was as dear to Irishmen as England was to her own
sons. The repeal party was anxious and willing to come
to any arrangement that did not involve the continuance
of the present system. Any concession would now he
taken as a grace, and would for ever conciliate the
people of Ireland. lie conjured them to be wise in time,
to be just in time, and not alienate from them men who
had as strong an interest in the welfare of the United
Kingdom as themselves. Then they might use with
truth those lines from the Latin poet which had been
quoted in mockery et the period of the union—
" Paribus se legibus ambie
Invictx genies aeterna in fcedera mittant."
_ _

The Hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to
bring in a Bill to repeal the legislative union between
Great Britain and Ireland, and to enable her Majesty to
summon her Parliament of Ireland.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN seconded the motion.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said he rose with consider-
able regret to oppose the motion of his Hon. Friend who
had just sat down, because it was one which he felt con-
vinced had largely engaged the sympathies of the Irish
people.—(Hear.) This was not the time to conceal facts,
and therefore he freely and at once confessed that the
question of the legislative union was one which largely
engaged the sympathies of the people of Ireland. He
was himself a living instance of the truth of that asser-
tion, for he believed that if it were not for the feelings of
personal regard and affection entertained for him by his
constituents, he would not at that moment have the
honour of a seat in Parliament.—(llear, hear.) But he
had this consolation in pursuing the course which he
felt it his duty to pursue, that it was a course which he
had always followed. He had always opposed any
motion for dissolving the unio❑ between England and
Ireland, not from his interest in the Imperial Legis-
lature, but because he believed that repeal would be
most detrimental to the interests of Ireland. It was
not his intention to dwell upon, or to follow, the long
array of facts and figures which his Hon. Friend had
introduced, neither should he discuss the means by
which the union had been carried. He believed that the
people of Ireland, if happy and prosperous, would never
have wasted a thought upon those subjects; but being
dissatisfied and unhappy, they readily laid the blame on
bygone acts, which they were told had deprived them of
their prosperity. Now, here he thought was the fallacy
under which the Irish people laboured; and it was that
part of the statement of his Hon. Friend, which he had
listened to with the greatest surprise. His lion. Friend
had detailed the condition of the people of Ireland pre-
vious to the union, describing them as happy and con-
tented, with no poor, their commeree flourishing, their
artisans employed—in short, a perfeot picture of national
prosperity.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL—I said they were progressing
towards those results.
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE was sorry if he had
misrepresented his Honourable Friend; but ho thought
a greater fallacy was never pronounced than the
assertion that the people of Ireland were con-
tented and happy previous to the union.—(Hear,
hear.) He :regretted deeply the state of poverty in
which that people were sunk at the present moment ;
but he believed that, leaving out the famine years, their
condition had been worse before the union than ever
it was since. He would read to the hcuse a few
instances of the condition of the artisans and labourers

of Ireland previous to the union, and let it be remem
tiered that all his proofs were drawn from the period
between 1780 and 1800, which his Honourable Friend
had quoted as being the period of Ireland's growing
prosperity. In 1781 a petition was presented from-
Cork representing the artisans of that :city to be in the
deepest distress, and immediately ratter a similar
petition from Wexford. In 1783, the lord mayor
and corporation of Dublin petitioned for restric-
tions on imports, to revive the drooping manufactures
of the city. In 1786, Mr. Edwards of Oid Court peti-
tioned for Parliiamentary aid to enable him to bring
over weavers to make finest cloth, and petitions of a
similar nature were continuously presented between
1782 and 1800, with reference to the woollen, linen,
and silk trades, all representing the ruined credit and
impoverished condition of the parties concerned. Search
through the whole records of the Irish Parliament and
the same picture would be found.—(Hear, hear.)
Perhaps Hon. Members who advocated the repeal of the
Union would think it hardly fair to go farther back than
the period he had indicated; but he believed that the
report of Lord Devon's Commission would be equally
applicable, whatever period of Irish history was
selected. He would further say, that if there was any-
thing for which the independent Parliament was espe-
cially to blame, it was the utter neglect with which they
had treated the Irish poor.—(Hear, hear.) From that
neglect they were now suffering, and would continue t
suffer for many years. He blamed them on that account,
lecause he held it, that the true mode of governing any
c uatry was to provide for the prosperity and comforts
of the poor, and in that material point both the inde-
pendent and united Parliaments had been lamentably
deficient.—(Bear, hear.) It was not until within the
last few years that this truth began to be impressed on
the minds of gentlemen in that House, and it was only
during the last year that any remedy for the national
distress had been tried. He opposed the motion, be-
cause he thought it would be politically and socially
detrimental to Ireland. His Hon. Friend had asserted
that the union had reduced Ireland to the condition of a
province. His (Sir W. Somerville's) notices was, that if'
you repealed the union, he, as an Irishman, would at
once become provincial.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend
had said that every Irishman came into that House as a
slave, and in uttering that sentiment had put himself
forward as the representative of the Irish people. He
had said " we," as if those who differed from him had no
right to have the feelings or the pride of an Irishman.
Ile did not feel himself a serf; ho looked upon himself as
being a Member as independent as any Englishman pre-
sent.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, his notion was, that if
you repealed the legislative union, you would transform
him from a Member of the Imperial Legislation into an
Hon. Member of an Irish provincial parliament.—(Hear,
hear.) His Hon. Friend had said that an Irish w multi
not be an independent parliament, and in tl: assertion
his Hon. Friend was correct. Up to 1782, what with
the help of Poyning's law, and other contrivances, the
machine was somehow made to work, but after that
it was no longer an independent machine, but one
kept moving by the grossest and most extensive
corruption. That being the case, provincialism would
soon become intolerable. They must either take steps
to become re-united, or they would be forced in justice
to themselves, and in order to fulfil their own prophe-
cies, to attempt complete independence.—(Hear, hear.)
The same arguments now brought forward for repeal
would then be urged with equal energy for separation.
—(Hear, hear.) A fresh career of agitation would be
commenced, disappointment would add fresh venom to
that agitation, and the prosperity and tranquillity of the
country would be indefinitely, postponed. He felt that
these statements vv.suld be unpalatable in many parts of
his country, but standing there in the position lie dio, he
felt bound openly and honestly to state his sentiments.

These were the salient points of objection; but further
he would ask, would Ireland, if independent to-morrow,
be able to stand alone?--(" Hear, hear," from Mr. S.
O'Brien.) Could she undertake the functions of Govern-
ment, the maintenance of an army, or the payment of
her share of the debt now chargeable on the consolidated
funds—(" Hear," from S. O'Brien.) They had been told
of what had been done, and what had been left undone,
by the Imperial Parliament during the previous year,
but he asked confidently, could an Irish Parliament have
done half as much ?.—(Hear, hear.) What had they
done in the terrible famine of 1748. when so many of
the people perished ? They passed an Act for the
more speedy recovery of rents.—(Hear, hear.) He said,
then, that to bring about so vital a change at such a mo-
ment as the present, would be only to aggravate the
miseries which even now oppressed the country. Not-
nithstanding what had been said by his Hon. Friend,
ho helicsed Inland had made rapid strides towards
prosperity, until the occurrence of the late famine. If
any class were exempted from that prosperity it was
the labouring' class, and it was the discomfort of that
unfortunate class which had always been the great
difficulty of Ireland—it had been the difficulty of former
Goverrnents as it had been of the present. Complaints
had been made that remedial measures had not been
introduced. He did not undervalue that. A Bill had
been introduced by his lion. Friend the Member for
Rochdale, to extend the tenant right of Ulster ; that
the Government had thought it its duty to oppose. They
were, however, in no wise disposed to interfere with
the tenant-right of Ulster, and he wished this to be
distinctly understood; that they believed that rny en-
deavour to legal;ze that right would not be to confer a
benefit on the country generally. The Hon. and Learned
Member tMr. O'Connell) had said that the course of
Government in this respect had indisposed the people of
Ulster to the continuation of the union: he (Sir W.
Somerville) did not believe one word of it. Then the
Hon. Member Toren( d to the evils of absenteeism; but it
was scarcely to be expected that men would remain in a
country in which neither their properties nor their lives
were safe; and it spoke but little for the sincerity of
those who made this complaint, that the Hon. Member
for Kerry, one of the most determined denouncers of
absenteeism, at the late election, had brought down to
oppose him (Sir W. Somerville), who spent the greater
part of his time on his property, a gentleman whose only
recommendation was that he was an absentee.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. O'CONNELL—I own the soft impeach-
ment.—(A laugh.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE had only referred to this to
show that this was not a very practical mode of carrying
out the denunciations which the Hon. Gentleman and
others had indulged in against absenteeism. They had
heard of the possibility —of the alternative should repeal
be refused—of a Republic being established in Ireland.
There was no . country in the world to which
republicanism was so ill suited as Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) His belief was that ere long the pre-
sent storm would blow over. He believed there was
more loyalty and a greater determination to uphold the
Constitution and the connexion between the two coun-
tries in Ireland than was generally supposed.—(Hear:)
He relied much on the exertion of the Roman Catholic
clergy—(Hear)—who had always been the advocates
of peace, that they would be the mediators on the
present occasion between the Government and the ex-
cited passions of the people —(Hear.) His Hon. Friend
(Mr. O'Brien) hed held out a threat that the property
of all Irish proprietors who did not join the repeal move-
ment might be confiscated.—(hear, hear.) Was not that
threat made ? Was he to understand that if he
should think it more advantageous for Ireland herself
that the union should be maintained than that it should
degenerate into a province, that therefore his property
was in danger of confiscation ? Did his Hon. Friend
consider the mischief and alarm that such threats occa-
sioned ?—(Hear.) Notwithstanding these threats he
should continue to devote his exertions to the welfare of
his tenants, and he had the gratification to believe that
should those threats even be carried into effect his
tenants would not thank the Hon. Gentleman for the
change of masters.—(Hear.) He had at all times been
the advocate of an extension of the liberties and fran-
chise of the Irish people, and had ever used his best
efforts to place them on an equal footing with the people
of England —(hear)— and he was still prepared to use
his best exertions to obtain for Irishmen every privi-
lege which Englishmen enjoyed. Further than that ho
could not go. He could not on the part of Ireland, after
she had assisted England to attain the height of pros•
perity, consent to forego the advantage which she was
entitled to, and hich through the union only could she
obtain.—(Hear.) With these feelings he could not con-
sent to any proposition for repealing the legislative union
between the two countries, nor to permit the question to
ba tampered and coquetted with by consenting to the in-
troduction of a Bill for that purpose. He must, there-
fore, oppose the motion.

MajOi• BLACKALL thought that in the present feel-
ing of Ireland it would not be safe to pass a Bill for re-
pealing the union of the two countries at this moment.
At the same time it could not be denied that from the
ignorance of the Imperial Parliament of the circum-
stances and wants of Ireland, laws were passed which
did not tend to the prosperity of that country. This
evil would be obviated if the Parliament met eccasion-
aly in Ireland. England derived some advantage from
the presence of Irish Mc tubers in London during Parlia-
ment, and it was only reasonable that Ireland should be
similarly benefited by the money which would be spent
in Dublin were the Parliament occasionally held there.
the reasons advanced by the Right Honourable Baronet
the Secretary for Ireland against the motion of the
Honourable Member for Limerick did not apply to the
proposition which he (Major Blackall) now submitted to
the House in the shape of an amendment, namely, that
an humble address be pres'ented to her Majesty, praying
her to convene the Imperial Parliament in future for a
certain number of months in each year in Dublin for the
dispatch of Irish business.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL opposed the amendment and
supported the original motion. In reference to what
had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secre-
tary for Ireland respecting his election for Drogheda, he
explained that he had introduced Mr. L. Murray not
as a stranger or absentee, but as a repealer, in compli-
ance with a request from the people of Drogheda, whose
suffrages he had himself solicited 15 years ago. Upon
the main question he contended that Ireland had gained
nothing from her connexion with this country, and that
instead of being a source of strength to her, she was an
eyesore and a weakness. The Right Hun. Baronet had
talked of the degradation of Ireland being a province,
but what signified a name if the people were contented
and happy, which they never had been since the union,
and which he believed they never would be until their
legislative independence was restored to them. He con-
tended that Englishmen were not fit to legislate for Ire-
lard, and cited in proof the fact that a . Noble
Lord to whom he had spoken that evening did not
know of the existence of such a place in Ireland
as Bandonbridge. (Cheers and Laughter.)He
besought the House to consider the present condition
of Ireland: the people there had made this ap-
peal to Parliament, and they were preparing another
in the shape of an address to her Majesty. The Go-
vernment of Lord Clarendon, so much lauded here, had
alienated the Irish people from this country. Fresh
adhesions to repeal were continually pouring in; and if
the moment for conciliation was not seized, the conse-
quences might be perilous to Ireland, and perpetually
detrimental to the welfare of this great empire. He said
this not as a threat, but as a warning; and he hoped
the House would give the Irish people some ground to
hope that their appeal would be listened to. The dis-
closures. with reference to the pike manufactures had
created an immense sensation in Ireland, and had made
many converts to repeal. A large force was concen-
trated in Dublin; regiments were marched in, and
marched outeagain after a few days; and it was ru-
moured the reason was that repeal had found its way
into the army. He had left Dublin the preceding night,
and had been informed by a gentleman just before
leaving that on Sunday evening last the troops were
fighting amongst themselves in the yard of the
Linen Hall—repealers against anti-repealers. On
the same night a battle of the same kind took
place between the troops on the quay, and some of
the combatants were flung into the river. Let this be
a warning to those who would not listen to the requests
of the Irish people, who blindly and madly refused all
concessions.

Viscount MORPETII said, the long period during
which he had filled the office of Chief Secretary for
Ireland, the deep interest he felt in its welfare, and the
strong gratitude he bore to it, induced him him to offer
a few remarks on this question. He should deeply de-
plore the repeal of the legislative union, from the con-
sequences it would entail on Great Britain and the
empire at large, as substituting for the present daily and
hourly intercourse and interchance of commodities the
establishment of jealous regulations, perhaps hostile
tariffs, total prohibitions, or even hostile aggressions',
between the two sister nations—perhaps, indeed, as had
been hinted last night, a hostile republic on either side
of us. Disastrous as would be such a separation to the
unity, tranquillity, and safety of the glorious country to
which we belonged, yet did he believe the repeal of the
Union would be beneficial to Ireland itself, abate the
fearful sufferings which there prevailed, or give any
security for rest and contentment, he could hardly
stand there and express his opinion, and give his vote,
for a forced continuance of the legislative union.on._
He believed that a repeal of that union vv
be most disastrous to the best interestse of
Ire-
land.—(Bear.) Two of the darkest feahteurr
psooinr, thatand
country's history were the suffering%oeir
one who had
the contentions of her inhabitants.
known Ireland must be thoroughly
sufferings of the poor.
greatAlwaisbeen seriously increased
Every
o n
ns
degreeconversant w i h
andthe
wide in extent, that distress had
by the famine or dearth o
etawaaah
ayd ears.
been
rNeVlii hr oe
du
,t
raanids i ng
laining of the want of gratitude
whetherthequestion,
—or
of England might not have
how trhtahtedliasstrt
the fact that from the Imperial Exchequer
done more
with which the assistance had been reccive d—he still
recognised
some of
pounds had bee en_ (
u e contribute,ar
hear.) in two
T o
years tenfor
m theilrelief w
what other country could Ireland look in similar circum-
stancesn s
o t Irish ffe
ring
fur the pitying look or the helping hand? If she
established herself as a sore in our vitaki, she could not
expect either the same disposition or the same means of
relief 0) exist here. Would she look to France, whence
it was said 50,000 men were to come to the assistance
of Ireland? Ile thought it would have been extremely
difficult to obtain from that country 50,000/.—(Hear,
hear.) And he much doubted whether the million
of dollars said to be promised from the United States
would be readily forthcoming.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Member fur Limerick alluded to the case of
Sicily, but he did not think the analogy was complete,
because in Sicily there were but little or no diversities of
race, and there were no distinctions of creeds. The re-
volutions which were now taking place on the Continent
w,.:tre of a social rather than of a political character. He
would not take ill-on himself the task of critkising the
landlords of Ireland. They had inherited great difficul-
ties, and had to cope with many disad rantages.—(llesrp