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

'`a,.,

kned member had been to prove that Englan had no
Ns,,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 Sowed 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 service
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
svio'er were
otralyke n
as t o uns92pprtehsesy it,
did thnooutgh think wiast truee
sstahrayt
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 the 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 of 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 improvement 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 part 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 right honour-
able gentleman then read a part of the report, from
which it appeared that, instead of there being a surplus
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
occasiona to
m
tth the excellent
poy . (
coinid
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°:ci
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 thtiedtwo
spect
countries, and that report he believed had been
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 reabtY
mortgaged the whole of the territory of Ireland for the
sponsibility of the national debt. Now what was the'
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 las
2,645,0001. and the expenditure amounted to 6,845,09° ;
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_
land 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°°`• ee act
would the house believe that the very first effect ofve
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 181e7ul_reuct
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 furtherasthe
el.
planation.) It was perfectly true that 1815 in Eng
Peffect of the
receipt became a joint conce,,; but
_I _
hpersisted in
measure was as he had stated. 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 England 3,000,0001.,
t. _
its debt in Ireland 1,000,000/., and that by 11:,
act consolidating the exchequers it had only to
the interest of its debt in Ireland, 1,000,000/. (gr. Snit
was understood still to express himself dissatisfied. )
`kith
the year 1815, the deficiency of revenue, as comparea 5
_f
the expenditure in Ireland, amounted to upward.
_l.'o
4,000,0001. ; in 1816 to above 8,000,0001. ' in 1618 and
was a surplus ; in 1819 a surplus of 1,200,000/.
tended'
been
Bea
et2inoo
national
spudtredpblotu:s
intof
ao
nua,gibhtotiv,ete.
alterations
e 0 O ,
takeno O ln t
oeffected.Now'
account,
otni t
,aO,O of
that if any argument was to be drawn from the atni..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 we ot than 1,
if irelar'it woulda
in ()rant e'
had paid. He said, therefore that from the in n cad of
the consolidation of the Exchequers there Was
Itself thea
the two-seventeenths. The empire took upon ;red' as
debt of 103,000,000/. It was quite true that
irebut it bode
part of the empire, bore a portion of the burden;
,_uict te-
no more, and he was quite sure that the house ,".o.as per;
dily see the distinction. Such being the fact, it
fectly and totally preposterous to charge the act co
‘? /relate:l
the Exchequers with mortgaging the territory ;
tehit.e
gor.gin
when it relieved it. Therefore, he said, that if of in
bargain of two seventeenths there had been anYet ,aeing
justice, amplecompensation hadbeenmadeby point to
been relieved from 103,000,000/. of debt. lie the Ouse •
which he wished next to direct the attention ee viol!
and subsequent to it. The account he (Alri;
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'ofite'ial value of I
strictly applicable to the occasion. Thin.° edia,tely prior to
the exports during the fourteen years
;nifthe fourteen yearg
the union was 64,000,0001., and dor- '1'9,000,000/, ahmfti
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 poverty was be Nvoulda'-„r;
that it was difficult to deal with it ; but
hout •
could any one article of export be produced wit „ 10011
and must not that which found employment lc tit fan'
make some return ? It was indeed monstrous to write'
riot or.
as an argument that the amount of exports w the
rion of a nation's progress. But he would turn d
ports. The amount of imports in the first Pner;oool',.'
59,000,000/, and in the second period it was 9:2,' °et
showing an excess of 33,000,0001. in the latter Pe.oriitenOill,
the former. NQW, surely it would hardly be cd-of
that the poverty of Ireland was so extraordinarY; or' to
aestion of his
creased as the people increased the quantity °` refer nil
It had been alleged that he had no right to ref
aettio
the exports and imports as demonstrative of the a
10
110 the
condition of Ireland, but he put it to the open king
s what better evidence he could produce to
pay oint. (Hear, hear. ) If he was excluded fr°, 51.10
to the imports of the country, to the number °' 0 °the
and to the extent of the tonnage of those slinoon .00?
possible principles, he asked, could he res,°,,,igatesa
question of repeal upon the points of trade and ~ubt the
But it would be said that the returns lie ha that' thatce
prod a
his case up to the year 1805, and Sie' to
progress of Ireland had not been quite se fav% 105tte
that period. Now, he would beg to refer, 05 a %,,fts
the paper marked No. 9in his return, witi" 'the atiii
ment showing the annual average amount of tee ieeo
and exports of Ireland for the triennial period„so, 1191„,t
on the sth of January, 1790, 1800, 1810, 18- red "1,,1i014
respectively. From that document it aPPe—•eate'diree
total of the imports into Ireland for the fbreeo'r nor ,thc,
25th of March, 1790, was 3,535,588 L ; ,fg3/. ;, 06tit• '
years ending 25th of March, 1800, 4,299,4 OP 07P
three years ending sth of January, 1810, 6,00`3160,
fir she three years ending sth of January, 11.,,,,ar)Ipticee,,11
for the three years ending sth of .I'""orts "-
7,491,890/. ; showing an increase in the irn,„,Pooo/. nit 0
the periods of 1790 and 1826 of nearly 4,Ortai. ain°,.rei
the same document it appeared that the .L°• or Isseci
exports from Ireland, whether to Great ofll,th
parts, was for the three years ending '2fdi,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 years dia
January, 1810, 5,270,4711. ; for the tbreee,...ars tbe
sth Jan. 1820, 6,291,275/, ; and for the three Yt'n.itinoafred
sth Jan. 1826, 8,454,918/. ; thus showing. irad tuer.eeoce
years 1790 and 1826 the exports of Irelanninnconseclubdig
upwards of 4,000,0001. (Hear, hem'.) Ireland per;
of the custom-house laws of England atil'
e I uses nuo' tilo
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"'