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

IRISH JUDGMENT BILL.

Lord WYNFORD asked a question of Lord Plunket
respecting this bill, which was inaudible in the gallery.
We, however, understood the latter noble and learned lord
to say that he was fully cognizant of the various details of
the measure.

The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
read a third time on Friday next.

SMUGGLING ACTS' AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord AUCKLAND moved the committal of the bill.
Viscount STRANGFORD said, in reference to what
had fallen from him on Friday last, he was desirous to fol-
low it up by moving for copies of correspondence between
his Majesty's government and the French authorities, re-
specting the smuggling trade going on in the French ports,
which was so injurious to the English trade.
Lord AUCKLAND considered he had a right to com-
plain of the course pursued by the noble viscount opposite.
He came down to the house on Friday night last to make
heavy charges against his Majesty's government. He
charged them with a neglect of duty ' • with being badly
served by their diplomacy abroad ; and on Tuesday even-
ing he followed up his proceedings, by moving for that
information which would have the effect, he thought, of
convincing himself and convincing their lordships of the
truth of the statements he had made. Now he (Lord
Auckland) thought it would have been more consistent for
the noble viscount to have reversed the order of his pro-
ceedings. He should have moved for evidence first, and
grounded his charges upon that evidence afterwards. He
(Lord Auckland) was enabled to vindicate his Majesty's
government from the charge of total neglect made against
them. Still he regretted lie could not comply with the
noble lord's wishes respecting the papers sought for. Oneof
the accusations made was that they had not obtained
sufficient secret information, and still that secret in-
formation was then moved for. This he would say
was not consistent. It was like a request made in
another place, to know how the secret service money was
disposed of. (Hear, hear.) Noble lords would see the
utter impossibility of carrying on the public business if con-
fidential communications between ambassadors and the
foreign secretary were unreservedly exposed. Such would
cripple the acts of the public servants, and, in fact, render
them of no avail. He would, however, state the substance
of what had occurred, which he hoped would satisfy his
lordship that ministers were not entirely deficient in their
duty. (Hear.) Communications had been made to the
French Government, from which it appeared that a regu-
lation had begun in 1791 for the reduction of the duties on
tonnage of vessels going into foreign ports. That regula-
tion continued in force till 1803, in fact, to the present
period. Smuggling to a great extent had, no doubt, been
the result. But that could not justify the representation
of one Government to another. It was only when the
mask was taken off that remonstrances could be effectually
and unreservedly made. In February, 1833, the Board of
Trade made representations toLord Palmerston on the sub-
ject, who immediately communicated with the Ambassador
in Paris, stating that the Government of his Britannic
Majesty had the greatest confidence in the faith of the
French Government, and felt it could not sanction, directly
or indirectly,. any violation of the law of England by its
subjects. In consequence, our Ambassador had an inter-
view with the French Minister.
Viscount STRANGFORD—When?

Lord AUCKLAND—In September, 1833, every as-
surance had been given, but it was found a matter of much
difficulty, and would require time to abolish a custom of
forty years' standing. A. commission had, however, been
appointed, and a reduction of duty would be the result,
which would leave the profit to the smuggler so slight,
that there would be very little temptation for them to pur-
sue their trade.

--Ni;;;;;CSTRANGFORD explained. The noble lord
had misconstrued what had fallen from him. He had
spoken of the culpable facility given by the French govern-
ment to smugglers. He had not said his Majesty's
formergovernment
evening, Nve
were c heoan;abruetof had
the a de
xaskedt
othemtheme
on
they e a
sys-
tem pursued? The noble earl opposite did not condescend
then to give him an answer. The noble baron had now,
however, given him the information sought. He had
never doubted but representations would have been made
but he was yet to be informed of the effectual steps (if any)
which the government of the French King intended pur-
suing. He would conclude by asking:whether English
cruisers were allowed to enter French ports?
Lord AUCKLAND said that by a regulation, made in
1828, our cruisers could not enter French ports. This
had become necessary on account of the serious disorders
which had previously prevailed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, he certainly had
never heard of the inconveniences complained of till they
were mentioned by his noble friend (Lord Strangford) the
other evening ; and he must say, that the explanation
which had just been given by the noble lord at the head
of the Board of Trade, was perfectly satisfactory to his
mind. The noble lord had shown clearly that his col-
leagues had always remonstrated when any circumstance
came to their knowledge which required them to do so,
He only regretted that the noble lord opposite had not en-
tered into his explanation the other night. He (the
Duke of Wellington) was perfectly satisfied ; for the
noble lord had distinctly proved that many of the inconve-
niences had been put an end to ; that others were in a
course of gradual decay; and the house and the country
would quire more.

Lord AUCKLAND said he had given a general denial
to the charges the other night ; but he distinctly stated he
was taken by surprise in what the noble lord had stated,
and should lose no time in inquiring into the matter.
The motion was then negatived without a division, and
their lordships adjourned at a few minutes after seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 2g.
DUNOARVAN ELECTION COMMITTEE

The house met shortly after four o'clock, and proceeded
to ballot for a Committee on the Dungarvan Election, the
members of which were as follow :
Cilsborne, T. (Chair- Carew, R. S. Crawford, J.
man) I Clayton, Sir W.
IWernyss, Capt.
lister, E. C. Feilden, W. Scott, J. W.
Robinson, G. R.
__ Watkins, J. L. Steuart,: R.

REPEAL OF THE UNION.
f Previously to the opening of the gallery we understood the
following observations were made by Mr. JAMES, on

the presentation of a petition from Carlisle, in favour of a
Repeal of the Union] :
Mr. JAMES presented a petition, numerously signed,
from the inhabitants of Carlisle and its vicinity. The
exact number of signatures, he believed, was 2,100, pray-
ing for a repeal of the legislative union between Great
Britain and -Ireland, and that the latter country might
again possess her own domestic legislature. (Hear, hear.)
The petitioners were all in the humble ranks of life.
They were poor men, but as they were honest and
industrious, he trusted their petition would not be the less
favourably received by the house because they were poor.
and did not belong to the more wealthy and privileged
classes. They had requested him, as far as he conscien-
tiously could, to support the prayer of the petition. As
the gallery was, however, not opened it would be useless,
he feared, to say much upon it. He would remark that if
it were intended to give to Ireland such a parliament as she
formerly possessed, he did not think a much greater
curse could be inflicted upon that country (Hear, hear),
but if the future proposed representatives for Ireland were
to be fairly and freely elected,. he thought it might confer
many advantages upon Ireland, and some upon England.
He thought it would confer a direct benefit upon Ireland,
by enabling the Irish people to make laws. upon many
subjects, such as the formation of railroads, draining bogs,
and other improvements upon which we at this.side of the
channel could not, of course, possess so perfect a know-
ledge as those who were on the spot. It would confer an
advantage upon Ireland indirectly, by taking back to that
country a large number of the absentees, and he apprehended
there was no gentleman but would ailniit that as4enteei sm was
oneof the great causes of the evilswhich unhappily afflicted
that-country. (Hear.) One of not the least advantages
that England would deriVe from repeal would be (and he
said so without intending the slightest disrespect to the
Irish members) the getting rid of those gentlemen out of
that house. (Laughter and cheers.) He thought the
house, as now constituted, too numerous for a deliberative
assembly. If the Irish members were sent back to
their own country, to which he dared to say they would
have no objection, the business of the nation would in
their absence be transacted more advantageously, more
conveniently, and with more satisfaction to the public than
it was at present ; for they all knew that those members were
so eloquent on all occasions, and made such lengthy
speeches, that sometimes an English member could not get
an opportunity of saying all he might wish on some sub-
jects ; but nothing could stop an Irishman. (Much
laughter.) However, the subject was one of too much
importance to )e treated with any thing like levity.
He must confess it was one upon which he had not made
up his mind as to how he should give his vote, nor should
he do so until he had had an opportunity,of having it fully
and fairly discussed in all its bearings. He would beg
leave to bring up the petition. (Cheers. )
Several petitions were then presented by Mr. FINN
for a repeal of the legislative union, and the call of the
house was then proceeded with.
Owing to the call of the house the gallery was not
opened until a quarter past six o'clock, when petitions in
favour of the repeal of the union were presented by Mr.
O'Connell, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. O'Callaghan, Mr. Blake,
Mr. Vigors, Mr. Dobbin, Mr. CLainnan, Mr. D. Roche,
Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Fitzsimon, O'Connor
Don, Mr. W. Roche, Dr. Baldwin, from Cork, signed by
35,000 persons, Mr. H. Grattan, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Shell ;
Mr. d(son, from Kidderminster, and Mr. Ruthven, from
Presto' • and against the repeal of the union by Colonel
Verner 1

Me E. TENNANT said he had a petition from Belfast
against a repeal of the union, and also praying that some
steps might be taken to put an end to mischevious
agitation in Ireland. (Tremendous cheering, which lasted
for some time.) A number of the most opulent,
thinking, and intelligent Roman Catholics, had signed it.
( Renewed cheering.) The number of signatures altogether
were 12,000. If he were asked why, from such a
town as Belfast, there was such a deficiency, he would
have recourse to the very ingenious answer that was
furnished by the hon. and learned member opposite
(Mr. O'Connell), that it was owing to the cholera mor-
bus, and the extreme unanimity upon the subjeet.--(Tre-
mendous cheering:)

Mr. BARROX 'presented a petition from Waterford for
the repeal of the union, and it was laid upon the table af-
ter a few words from Mr. CHRISTMAS.

The SPEAKER then called upon Mr. O'Connell to
proceed with his motion for the. •

REPEAL OF THE UNION.

Mr. O'CONNELL, having deliberately arranged his
books and papers upon the table, addressed the house. He
said that it had happened to him a few days ago to be
speaking to a member in the lobby, when he was accosted
by a gentleman who had before been in conversation, and
who asked him when the question of the repeal of the
union was to come on. He (Mr. O'C. ) was about to re-
ply, when he was interrupted by the gentleman, who ob-
served, " The Canadas are endeavouring to escape us—
America has escaped us, but Ireland shall not escape us."
He believed the hon. member for Wiltshire, not now in
his place, would recollect that last year, when the Coercion
Bill was under discussion, amember, with something very like
an oath, declared to him in the library, that Ireland should
not escape. (Cries of " No, no," and " Name," answered
by cheers. The Speaker emphatically enforced order. )
It was a little too soon to begin with that. (Hear, hear. )
He was convinced that the feeling of superiority—that ge-
neral notion of the right of domination by England over
Ireland, had been the greatest bane of both countries : it
had been a main source of all the evils England inflicted
upon Ireland, and of many of the calamities that for cen-
turies had visited England. He did not believe that there
ever existed a greater mistake than the supposition that
England had any right of dominion over Ireland, or that
Ireland had been rightfully subjugated by her. He would
wish gentlemen, when they came to reflect' upon
this great question of the restoration of the Irish na-
tional legislature, to divest themselves of every feel-
ing but this, that the subject was one of the highest
national importance, and demanded, therefore, the ut-
most impartiality. (Hear.) The spirit of domination to
which he had referred had prevented the fair and legitimate
discussion of this and other questions in which any British
interest was adverse in any degree to the interest of Ire-
land. His first and greatest anxiety, therefore, was to de-
monstrate that England had no right to Ireland by subju-
gation. Had that title existed, it would have been derived
at one of two periods—either before the Union, or by
means of the Union. He intended to canvass both, and
he would do so as briefly as he could, consistently with the
magnitude of the subject. The first point was to consider
the title that England could have before the Union to look
upon Ireland as a subordinate part of her dominions, and
not as another and distinct country, subject indeed to the
same King, but totally independent in its legislature. He
said again that he should be as brief as he could, for it was
quite clear that no man ever yet rose to address a more un-
willing auditory. He had been interrupted in his very
first sentence, and that which he might almost call inde-
cent occurred even before he began. He had a great and
important duty to perform ; he might be mistaken as to the
impulses which induced him to come forward, but he obeyed
the call of nature, of his country, and of posterity. In dis-
charging this duty, he was addressing men who were to
relinquish the power they now possessed, to give up domi-
nion they had long held, to give up the pride and power of
dominion, which was infinitely more difficult than to induce
them to bandon the lesser inerests which appeared to be
involved in the continuance of the Union. He would be-
gin with 1174, when the first regular treaty was entered
into between the inhabitants of Ireland and a British mo-
narch ; bnt only about 250 years had elapsed since Ire-
land was recognized as an independent portion of the
dominions of the crown of Great Britain. It was in
the year 1614, and not earlier, that the distinction be-
tween an Irishman and an English subject—between an
Irish enemy, for so he was by law considered, and an Eng-
lish subject--was destroyed; in 1614 they were considered
distinct inhabitants, and the Irish were recognised as a
distinct and separate nation. No title by battle had ac-
crued before or since—no right by reason of conquest—
nothing which jurists and writers upon international law
would consider established a claim—no submission by the
Irish as subjects—and, above all, no recognition of the
Irish as subjects, He was not speaking merely for the
present hour—he was not addressing the house for the
present pacification of Ireland, but he was making the first
step toward national independence, and he was bound to
lay his foundations broadly, distinctly, and, as he thought,
irreversibly—he was bound to have recourse to some an-
cient documents to prove the perfect accuracy of what he
had advanced, viz., that there was neither submission nor
recognition by or of the people of Ireland, as subjects.
The first document was dated in 1246, in the reign of
Henry 111. He knew how unwilling the house always
was to listen to documents of any description, but more
especially to those which contained no matter of present
or immediate interest. In the reign of Henry 111. a num-
ber of Irish had applied for the benefit of the English law,
of the English constitution, and to be recognised as sub-
jects, The King, therefOre, issued a inandate, under the
great seal, requiring eight English barons, who possessed
part of the territory of Ireland, to permit the Irish to be
governed by the laws of England. The English barons,
however, thought that the effect of it would be to con-
trol their oppressions--to limit their exactions upon aliens
for the furnishing of their petty wars—to restrain their
rapine and massacres, since they might be exposedto the
visitation of a more severe tribunal. succeeded.
therefore, in getting the King'e, t.undate 'Withdralre, and
this was the first proof he adduced to show that the Irish
well 113 theft re6ogniscd '44 subjectsZ 411 tll Vett-

rary, it appeared that the King had intended to recognise
them, but that his intention waCdefeated by a party inte-.
rested in preventing the establiihnisint of, a uniform sys-'
tem of government in IrelanchoeWsecond'docinnenteil-
lustrative of the same point, wis:ian offer made in the
year 1•278 by a number of IrisWef- ne less -=than 800
marks to be given to King Edward L-fcir the enjoyroe_nCif
of the English laws, and the establislitueut;of ire-giatf.
government in Ireland. In this instegigeW
issued a mandate, stating that the eomniffintrerlieland
had tendered 800 marks for this purpose; and he suggested
the propriety of consulting such of the prelates and nobles:
of the land as were well affected to his government upon
the subject ; the grant was to be made or withheld accord-•
ing to the decision of the majority. In this case, as well
as in the former, the wishes of the Irish were disappointed,
and their application was rejected. The next document,
establishing the correctness of his position, was a similar
application through Thomas of Lancaster, in the reign of
Richard 11., which was attended by a similar result. The
same course had been repeated in the reign of Henry VIII.,
by Sir Lionel Grey and Sir Arthur Chichester; but with
no better success. The policy of the Crown of England
was illustrated in the next demand in the year 1584, dur- •
ing the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was
.on the death of
the Earl of Desmond, and when Sir Henry Sydney and
Sir John Bennett were interested in the affairs of Ireland.
The Queen and her Council were apprehensive that if Ire- '
land were allowed the benefit of equal laws and
liberal treatment, she would become too strong for
the government of England. It was the policy of
England to keep Ireland down—a line of policy
which she had since pursued with the most unre-
mitting perseverance—as much to-day as in the reign of
Elizabeth. In the period to which he had referred, the
right of Ireland to a separate parliament was recognised ; '
the parliament of the Pale was formed—a parliament of
British subjects was formed. In that interval the first at- '
tempt was made to have representatives for Ireland to sit in
the parliament of England ; they were summoned in the
reign of Henry 111., but the people took care in returning
the members to deprive them of the power of granting-
money : they were, therefore, quite useless, and the at-
tempt entirely failed. Thus up to the time of James 1.,
there was an obvious anxiety on the part of the Irish to he
governed by British laws instead of their own, while on the •
part of the British government there was a constantresist-
ance to and refusal of the request. It might be said that
he was thus anticipating proofs that might he adduced out
the other side, but it showed that during the period to
which he alluded, no little had been acquired by subjuga-
tion, and that there had been no acknowledgement of the
Irish as subjects. They had evinced a disposition to submit
as subjects, but not to submit to the mere rule and autho-
rity of the monarch, but in order and " curlity" (such was
the word employed) as the subjects of a distinct country.
During the greater part of that period a parliament had
been sitting in Ireland. Why were the wishes of the Irish
resisted? Because the English settlers were desirous of
snaking the Irish objects of plunder and robbery—because
they could carry on a land war by which they enriched
themselves at the expense of the inhabitants—because the
power of the crown was lessened, and the power of the
individual was augmented. He thought he should be able
to show, before he sat down, that the disposition was to
allow individuals, one after the other, to encroach upon the
property of the natives. Thus they obtained an entire com-
mand of the wealth and resources of Ireland, and they became
the objects of rapacious cupidity. Means were taken, and j ustly
and properly taken, to restrain the atrocities of the Eng-
lish ; it was the desire of the Irish to become subjects of
England, but it was the invariable disposition of the
ruling powers in England and Ireland to prevent it. At
length, in the reign of James 1., the entire inhabitants of
Ireland were amalgamated under one government ; and
.this event grew out of crimes, at the bare mention of
which humanity started with horror. The dominating
party had resorted to all expedients—they fomented pri-
vate feuds—they supported the O'Donnells against the
O'Neals, and maintained the cause of the illegitimate
'brother against the legitimate brother : when the legiti-
mate brother had established himself in his possessions,
they invaded his territory and deprived him of his rights...
seizing the whole county of Tyrone, under the pretence of
forfeiture. By this cruel policy, to which he reluctantly
referred, because lie was bound to do so, inroaAls were
gradually made upon the property of the native Irish in-
habitants ; and at last the English settlers obtained the
entire rule of the country. He begged to inform the
house that this dominion was obtained not by voluntary
submission, but by a series of the most horrible cruelties
that one class of men ever inflicted upon another. The
stories of the barbarities of the Spaniards in South Ame-
rica were moderate compared with the atrocities of the •
English in Ireland, particularly during the reign of Eliza-
beth. Upon this point he might extract passages from
Irish historians, not Catholic writers, after the distinction
had been made, but from authors whose authority could not
for a moment be disputed. He charged upon that period
of English domination the greatest cruelties that ever
disgraced humanity. This was evident from Moryson'g
History of Ireland, who related the most horrible
massacres committed on the peaceable Irish gentry.
The Catholic historians bore testimony to the same fact.
A great part of the county of Down was obtained in
1593 in the following manner :—" In the beginning of the
year 1593, or about this time, a northern lord, Mac-
guire, began to declare himself discontent and to stand on
his defence upon the execution of Macmahown, and the
jealousies then conceived by the northern lords against
the English. This Macguire, chieftain of Fermanagh,
avowed that he had given three hundred cows to free his
country from a sheriff, during the Lord Deputy's govern-
ment—and that notwithstanding one Captain Willis was
made Sheriff of Fermanagh, having for his guard one hun-
dred men, and leading about some one hundred women
snl boys, all which lived on the spoil of the country,
Hence this barbarous lord, taking his advantage, set upon
them, and drove them into a church, where he would
have put them all to the sword, if the Earl of Tyrone
had not interposed his authority, and made composition
for their lives, with condition that they should leave the
country." In 1590 the county of Monaghan was thutt
obtained—" About this time Macmahown, chieftain of
Monaghan, died, who in his lifetime had surrendered this
his country, held by Tanistry, the Irish law, into her
Majesty's hands, and received a re-grant thereof, under the
broad seal of England, to him and his heirs male, and for
default of such, to hisbrother Hugh Roe Macmahown, with
other remainders. And this man dying without heirs male,his
said brother came up to the state, that he might be settled
in his inheritance, hoping to be countenanced and cherished
as her Majesty's patentee • but he found (as the Irish say
that he could not be admitted till he had promised to give
about 600 cows (for such and no other are the Irish bribes),
Afterwards he was imprisoned (the Irish say for failing in part
of this payment), and within a few days again enlarged,
with promise that the Lord Deputy himself would go to
settle him in his county of Monaghan, whither his lordship
took his journey shortly after, with him in his company.
At their first arrival, the gentleman was clapt in bolts,
and within two days after, indicted, arraigned, and exe-
eehfooludned rsraoildty dratb y a,
of sety ei
tem
cuted, at his own house, all done (as the Irish said), by
such officers as the Lord Deputy carried with him for tleat
Ireinshaesmaideo, heor freeholders,
was
purpose.sol soldiers, T
but The
eo
g
four English soldiers were suffered to go and come at pleas
sure, but the other being Irish kern, were kept straight and
starved, till they found him guilty. The trews' for which
he was condemned, was because some two years before he
pretending a rent due unto him out a the Ferney, upon
that pretence levied forces, and se marching into the Fer-
ney in a warlike manner, made a distress for the same
(which by the English law may perhaps be treason, but in
that country, never before subject to law, it was thou s'a
no rare thing, nor great offence). The greatest net° of
the country was divided between lour gentlemeee of that
name, under a yearly rent to the Queen, and fr.., they said)
not without payment of a good fine underhaeeee, But the
further progress of this rebellion was re,arked by. crimes
of a higher nature than these. It was produced
on the part of the English
by wilful fire raising,
by hiring bands of am_
g':;ins to come and exaspe-
rate the people, and 'ay the total devastation of the
country. It was aTeseful duty which fell to him to recite
those facts, but painful as it was, he considered it a duty
incumbent to lying forward the history of atrocities prac-
tised in..ehtaining that country at this part of his address,
in order. to show that he had proofs of the necessity of the
motion which he should submit to the house. From 1580
to 1590'the same system was pursued, and Moryson, in
speaking of that period, says that the atrocities committed
were too horrible—too shocking evert to be recounted.
What must they have been when even an enemy declared
that he could net eecoent them In another part he
mentions the state to which the country was reduced, and,
among other horrible scenes, describes one where three
children were seen feeding on the carcase of their own
mother ; and beyond that, multitudes of people lying deed,
He added, that it was lamentable to find that in the course
of a few months no less than 3,000 human beings had died
of starvation. And thus it wee that the spirit of the Irish
nation was broken, There was another document given
by Moryson, which showed the cruel nature of that species
of petty warfare Which was then carried on, in which it
was stated that notwithstanding the province of Munster
had then been free of war for a year and a half, still the
people looked like anatomies, anti as if they had risen from
their graves. He was gild to have such documents to refer
to, as they would show how ignorant persons in this
country were of the woes and sufferings of Ireland, and of
the indecent audacity and cruelty of its conquerors. Su-.
were the acts which gave authority to the English * .41
Ireland, He did not mean not?in
to say that a similar f
that was the feeling in the present day toward ce mg to
y o.wards Ireland.
No, the good feeling of the present day wee •
id prevent any
such barbarities. He felt it
as a painful 4lity to go through
t hose atrocious acts, but they were wit of little consequence
as they showed the manner
in which the ce-xquest was
made, and the successful stem plundensued.
This part of the history or Ireland h which
bo
it should be the besle
referred to because
some - his argument. There were
some present in that house -
who woud now hear for the
first time et. these atr-
ocities, in the brief outline which he
shouldle ehab' •
to gi • . He knew that these quotations
would tecapt te make Le unfavourable impression, hut he
..tought it right that they should be given, in order to sc t
the qnestion of right between the two countries on an
in-
telligible footing. It was proper that the people of both
countries should know the real foundation of that right, -

'

♦

He did not see that there was any right pretended previous
to 1614. That. period must be fixed on as the real period
of the domination of Ireland. From that period it was
under the power of the English. But then it existed as
an independent country and apart from England. England
had her independent Parliament ; Ireland had had her in-
dependent Parliament. Many crimes were committed, but
they were part of the domestic history of the country.
James the First tyrannised there, and Stafford, with that
craft and cruelty so fatal to his Sovereign and to himself,
was felt as a scourge. Still that was part of the domestic
history of the country. No distinction could be made by
it between the title of the English to the country. There
was a difference of harmony occasionally, but still the two
countries were separate nations, ,having each an indepen-
dent legislature. Their Kings were the same—their Par-
liaments were different. This was the state of the right
of England to Ireland until the year 1778. Till that year,
England had no other right to Ireland but the right of
Sovereignty. Till then the Irish nation had a clear title to
their own separate and independent legislature—to a do-
mestic Parliament. That right, to be sure, was sometimes
unjustly contracted, and the contraction submitted to from
the weakness of Ireland. Still the country was a separate
and distinct nation. In 1778 the first act was passed,
relaxing those penal laws, which had long been a grievance
to Ireland. What was the result ? The result was, that
the trade of the country, which had been unjustly checked
for four centuries, righted itself, and free trade existed by
the consent of the people and the Parliament of Ireland.
Thus, justice was done for the first time to Ireland, in as
far, at least, as admitting the principles of free trade, and
the country flourished. The accumulating wealth and in-
creased power which thus accrued to Ireland, made her
seek other advantages ; and, in 1782, Ireland worked out
those principles which she had so early introduced—of her
right to her full legislative and judicial independence.
Never was there a revolution so completely honourable and
glorious as that of 1782. There was no stain upon it. It
was the perfection of human patriotism. It was not a re-
volution without deliberation. It was a treaty made with
the people, and it was founded on a message from the King.
It was a wise act ; and well would it have been if it had
still been acted upon. The King's message was delivered
on the 10th of April, 1782, by commission. It stated
that the commissioners had it in command from his Ma-
jesty to inform the house, that his Majesty was concerned
to find that certain discontents and jealousies of great im-
portance had occurred, and that it was his Majesty's plea-
sure that the house should proceed to take them into their
serious consideration, with a view to their final adjust-
ment, to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. This was
no hasty rebellion (Hear, hear) • yet for what was it the
Irish contended ? They contended that, though the coun-
tries belonged to the same King, the principle had been
admitted of their right to a separate legislature ; and in
support of that, they showed that the record of the Irish
Parliament was as old as that of the English Parlia-
ment itself. By that act, the powers of the Parlia-
ment of Ireland were admitted to be co-extensive with
that of England ; and if any compact could be sacred, it
was this which was solemnly entered into between the King
and his people. That act established the right of Ireland
to its Parliament, which had never been'denied, though
several usurpations had been made. It abolished the ap-
pellate jurisdiction, which was of itself one of the prin-
cipal grievances of which Ireland had to complain
( Hear), for if it was on no other account but the delay
which must ensue, it was an intolerable hardship. Was it
not hard, for instance, that a peasant from Clare or
Kerry should be obliged to try his cause in Westminster
Hall? It was, in fact, the principal grievance of which
Ireland complained ; and it was one of the principal rea-
sons which induced the Irish to claim their indepen-
dence. He would now read the opinion of the Irish bar
on this subject, in an address presented to the King, and
proposed by Henry Grattan. [The hon. and learned
member then read the address, which stated that the people
of Ireland were a free people, that no other tribunal had a
right to make laws for that country but the King, Lords,
and Commons of Ireland, and that they assured his Ma-
jesty that they considered that right the very essence of
their liberty—a right which they had acquired with their
birth, and would only yield with their lives.] Such was
the spirit in Ireland at that period, and when the same
spirit was again predominant in the breasts of Irishmen,
they would insist (with the assent of that house) on hav-
ing the same liberty again. The history of Ireland was
defaced with many crimes and many atrocities, but he defied
any man to point out a single instance in which the Irish
had violated their faith with the English. He could point out
a hundred treaties made between the two countries, but he de-
tied any man to point out an instance in which the Irish broke
faith. There was one brilliant periodin Irish history. It was
that which produced the revolution of 1782. The recol-
lection of that period was gratifying and soothing. The
act of that year was the Irish Charter Liberty. It was
impossible to blot that period out of their recollection. It
remained fixed in the affections of the Irish people, and
the Irish people would insist on recovering it. He thought
that he had made out his case, of the right of Ireland to
an independent legislature, on the principle adopted in the
final adjustment of the question in 1782. He hoped still
to see the same independence existing in Ireland; and if
he had not that hope firmly fixed in his breast, he should
not think existence worth possessing. The improved spirit
of the people would never let the question rest, and whe-
ther he (Mr. O'Connell) abandoned it or not was imma-
terial, fc r it would neveri be abandoned by the people of
Ireland. He had now closed the first part of his argu-
ment, and he would now proceed to show why the final
adjustment of 1782 had been broken through, and how the
independence of Ireland had been obscured, though not
dropped. Before doing so, however, he would say a few
words on another topic, which he did the more willingly,
as it was of a cheering nature—he meant the effects pro-
duced upon Ireland by the enjoyment of that indepen-
dence. There were those who said—
" For modes of law let casuists contest,
Those best administered are best."
But it was pleasing to him to show what the effects of these
good laws were, especially as he understood that multi-
tudinous calculations were to be brought against him on
this occasion, to show the advantages derived by Ireland
from its connection with England. He would show what
the effect of independence was on that country, from
documents which were not fabricated for this occasion, and
were even above suspicion. He meant, having shown the
right of Ireland to independence, now to show what the
- effects of that independence were ; and he would beg to
remind gentlemen, that this experiment of legislative in-
dependence was the most unfavourable that could well be
conceived. The parliament of Ireland was not a popular
body, but that circumstance more fully declared the advan-
tage that would be derived from a parliament freely and
legitimately chosen by the people. It was a borough-
mongering parliament ; not less than forty boroughs were
created in one day. Besides which, the far greater por-
tion of the people were excluded from the possession of the
elective franchise. It was impossible, then, that a more
unfavourable experiment of the advantage of an independent
legislature could be than this was. Still, however, it was
in an Irish and a national parliament. It was that parlia-
ment which had been assailed by many, but there could not
be greater calumnies than those cast upon it. He admitted
it had been guilty of crimes and corruptions, but notwith-
standing that, it had also excellent virtues. It defied the
minister, and out of the number of about three hundred
members, there was also a steady opposition of ninety. To
illustrate the extent and animus of the opposition, one
member had declared he had often voted, but never with
the minister, whether right or wrong. He (Mr. O'Con-
nell) would not say that that opposition was always right,
but; at all events, their conduct was not regulated by the
extent of the court favours they had received. The Irish
house, however, had not been worse than its neighbours.
It never voted for such an expedition as the Walcheren
one, which was about- as bad as any ever voted. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. member for Cambridge would
have died had he seen present when the English parliament
of that day committed such a gross violation-of the mul-
tiplication table as to vote a pound note and a shilling a
guinea, at the very moment that outside the door seven
and twenty shillings could be got for that same guinea.
The gentry who formed the Irish parliament were uni-
formly more just and correct in their principles on one
question at least, than the parliament of England—he
meant on the Regency question. The English parliament
then virtually resolved that William Pitt should be Re-
gent, but the Irish parliament, with better judgment,
conceived that the King being morally dead, was pretty
much the same as if he was physically dead, and accord-
ingly they declared that the heir to the throne should be
Regent. It might be asked, what had this to do with the
question of the repeal of the legislative union, but it was
not so remote from the question as might be supposed, for
by the Act of 33d of Henry VIII., the King of England
de facto, became King of Ireland de jure, and if the same
rinciple were extended to Regent, it might be seen that
Ireland had some interest in the question. (Hear, hear.)
But whatever the faults of the Irish Parliamentmight have
been, it had oss excellent property—that of checking ab-
senteeism (Hear, bear) which would necessarily al-
ways be the necessary iegredients of a resident parliament.
(Hear, hear.) That the carts of that Parliament were
good he had many proofs, and the drat he would bring was
Lord Clare, over whose opinions he (Mr, O'C. ) could not
be supposed to have any influence. That rioWe lord, in
one of his speeches in I'9B, in speaking of the improve-
ment in the state of Ireland between 1782 and 1798, said
there was not a nation in the world which bad advanced so
leach in its cultivation, manufactures, and agriculture as
trend had done in the same period. Lord Clare had
been ghancellor of Ireland ; and there was another Chan,
telfor of Ireland who had given an equally favourable °pi-
nioD
of th. improvements in that country ; that other au-
was Lord Plunket. He thus brought the living
Cicelbority
nor to follow the depd Chancellor. 'hie testimony
pf tlms one foilowedand confirmed the testimony of the
There
.was Aamther authority still
to bring other, (Hear. )
ng' iorward---ths ifut'iorit
Y
another Chancellor, though not _ a Lord tßaeeTwloas
which he had r,
it was a Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, 4lr;
Pitt (Hear.) That stausmali adopted the language
of Mr. Foster,
And made it his. own, respecting
the quantity of goods iraPortexl tntO Ireland from
Great Britain before the Union. pick, efter quoting
certain observations of Foster's on this subject,
Orl—
and he (Mr. O'Connell) begged the ettentJon of t house

-

to his statements—to mention that the amount of manu-
factures imported into Ireland from Great Britain in 1787,
was, in round numbers, 1,000,000/. ; while the produce it
sent to this country exceeded 3,000,000/. It was true that
Mr. Pitt's object in making these statements was very dif-
ferent from that which he (Mr. O'Connell) had in view.
His testimony was, therefore, the more valuable. He
might be said to be an adverse witness proving his (Mr.
O'Connell's) case. He had another witness to bring for-
ward ; and who did hon. members think this witness was?
He was no other than Lord Grey. ("Hear, hear," from
the Irish members.) Yes, let the house recollect that the
Lord Grey of the present day was the same person as the
Mr. Grey of 1798. Mr. Grey had been taunted on the
occasion in question with the prosperity of Scotland. His
was, that while he admitted Scotland to be in a
highly prosperous state at the period in question, he did
not think that country in so prosperous a state as Ireland
then was. Here were several testimonies, all of the highest
authority, which he (Mr. O'Connell) submitted to the
house, to show the prosperity of Ireland antecedent to the
union. He had also to invite the attention of the house to
the fact, that, in a report drawn up by the hon. member for
Cambridge (Mr. S. Rice) relative to another subject, it
was stated, that in 1786 the increase in the consumption of
tea was greater in proportion to the population in Ireland,
than it was in England. In the article of tobaccothe increase
that year in Ireland was 160 per cent. ; in England only
24 per cent. In coffee, again, the increase in Ireland was
no less than 600 per cent., while in England it was only
75 per cent. There was a corresponding increase in the
consumption of other articles of food and comfort. These
facts proved, that as Ireland was at that time making more
rapid progress than England in civilization and political
freedom, so she was also making a corresponding progress
in comforts of every kind. His second topic of legislation
was to him (Mr. O'Connell) equally pleasing. He was
but young in 1782; it was the first year of which he had
any distinct recollection as to public matters ; but he did
not recollect very distinctly the prosperity of Ireland at
that period. Since then she had grievously declined, both
in prosperity and political freedom. He wished to see her
again expand to her former prosperity. With regard to
the Act of Union which had been the great source of Ire-
land's wrongs, he (Mr. O'Connell) would fearlessly main-
tain that that act was not legal. The Irish Parliament
had no right to transfer its powers to the legislature of
Great Britain. No act of the British Parliament could
make it legal to vest the Crown of this country in the
hands of Louis Philip of France. Were the legislature
of this country to arrogate such power to itself, and to
attempt the transfer of the Crown to the King of France,
the people would not only be justified in resisting that act
as one of tyranny, but they would be called on to resist it
from principle. (Hear, hear.) The Irish Parliament,
he maintained, had no more right to annihilate the legis-
lature of that country, as they did by consenting to the Act
of Union,—they had no more power or right to transfer their
functions to theßritishParliament,thanthe latter had to send
one hundred of its members to the Chamber of Deputies
in France, and agree to receive into their assembly one
hundred members of the Chamber of Deputies in return,
to legislate for and impose taxes on this country. (Hear,
hear, from the Irish members.) On behalf of the Irish
people he (Mr. O'Connell) again asserted that the Irish
parliament had no right to pass the Act of Union. But
he did not wish the house to depend on any general state-
ments of his (Mr. O'Connell's) for the truth of the posi-
tion he advanced ; he would refer hon. members to the
authority of others for the truth of his assertion and the
soundness of his opinion. He would take up as his first
proof an authority greatly respected among the Whigs.
The authority to whom he referred was Mr. Locke. He
had unanswerably proved that no parliament had the
power of annihilating itself. The power of legislating
could only be derived from the people ; no legislature
had any right to transfer the power so conferred upon
them to any other hands. Mr. Locke did not dispute the
power of a legislature to alter and modify and remodel
itself; what he maintained was, that it could not transfer
its functions or powers to any other body. He now came
to another authority. That authority had explicitly laid
down the position that no act of parliament could make
the act of union binding on the consciences of the British
people. (Hear.) Who did the hon. members think said
this ? Was it some wild agitator who had said it? No.
It was one of the most distinguished lawyers of the present
day ; one who for twenty years had managed all the
government law business in Ireland. The name of the
high authority to which he referred was Saurin. He would
be glad to learn whether or not Lord Grey had not since
been of the same opinion ? Did not his Lordship say in
the speech already quoted, that the people of Ireland
should wait their opportunity to recover the rights of which
they had been deprived by the act of union? (Loud cries
of " Hear, hear," from the Irish members.) Lord Grey
had never, in the whole course of his life, said anything
more true. The people of Ireland were waiting, and
would wait, for an opportunity to recover their rights.
He had one authority more to bring forward. He had
already referred to what Saurin had said on the subject of
the illegality of the union. Did he make the speech in
which he expressed that opinion before he was Attorney-
General ? No, he did not. The speech was made five
years after. Well, then, did he retract? He never did.
He was not a man to retract. He now came to the other
authority, of whom he had just stated he was about to
speak. That authority had, in the most earnest and elo-
quent terms, warned " the Irish legislature against passing
an Act (the act of union) which would be a nullity, an
act which no man in Ireland would be bound to abide by.
You are appointed to act as legislators, and not to transfer
your powers to any other body ; if you do, you resolve all
law into its original element, and no man is called on to
abide by your act." The same authority stated that this
principle was recognized by the house of Hanover when it
acceded to the throne of this country. " Are you compe-
tent," continues the individual referred to, addressing him-
self to the Irish Parliament, "are you competent to transfer
your power and authority to the French convention ?
You are no more competent to transfer it to the
British Government. If you so transfer your power, you
abdicate the situations to which the people have appointed
you ; but you can do nothing more. As well might the
frantic suicide suppose that by the act which put an end
to his bodily existence he destroyed his soul, as you to
suppose that by transferring your power you extinguished,
in so far as the question of right is concerned, the Irish
parliament." This was the opinion of another Chancellor
—the present Lord Chancellor Plunket. (Hear, hear. )
Shortly after he had given expression to this opinion, in
terms far more strong and eloquent than any language of
his (Mr. O'Connell's) could, he had been made Attorney-
General for Ireland without retracting the sentiments so
expressed. He was afterwards made Master of the Rolls
in England, then made Chief Justice of Common Pleas in
Ireland, and last of all he had been made Lord Chancellor,
and yet to this moment he had not retracted the opinions
he (Mr. O'Connell) had quoted. This was what had been
said by Lord Plunket in the days of his unstained consis-
tency. It had been said by the same authority that the
Irish parliament was not dead, but merely slept; and the
late Mr. Grattan had very expressively said, that he had
rocked the cradle of the Irish parliament, and followed it
to its grave. He begged hon. members to recollect how
great was the importance which was attached to those so-
lemn declarations of Lords Grey and Plunket. Lord Grey
had told the Irish people to wait for a proper opportunity
to recover their rights. (Hear, hear, from the Irish mem-
bers.) However little his (Mr. O'Connell's) hope
was, when he entered that house, of seeing his country-
men recover their right to a legislature of their own, he
trusted thai Parliament would now see that the way
to satisfy them, was not by a haughty refusal to grant
them the desired inquiry into the consequences which
had resulted from the union ; that union was said by some
to be a national contract. He (Mr. O'Connell) denied
that there was anything of contract in it, so far as the peo-
ple of Ireland were concerned. He had often been told,
since he came to that house, you must perform your part
of the contract. No man could be more sensible than he
was that a man ought to abide by the contracts into which
he had entered ; hat he again utterly denied that, in the
Act of Union, there was any species of national contract.
He would show the distinction between the union and a
contract, in the proper sense of the term. He would
show the means by which the union was brought about,
and though it might not be skilful in him to make large
promises, lest he should not be able to perform them, yet
he would engage, if the inquiry he sought was granted, he
would prove by what crimes it had been effected—how re-
ligion had been perverted to the worst and most unhal-
lowed purposes—how Catholic had been set against Pro-
testant, and Protestant against Catholic, as if in one uni-
versal bedlam to get the union accomplished. He had the
most ample and conclusive proofs of all this, and it was
fitting they should be brought forward. He thanked God
that he was furnished with an opportunity of appealing to
the people of Great Britain, through their representatives
in Parliament, on the subject of the extinction of the Irish
Legislature. The objects which the British Parliament
had in view in seeking the union with Ireland, were of the
most unworthy kind. At that time Great Britain was
420,000,0001:in debt; and one objet she appeared to have
had in view, was to enable herself to appropriate the reve-
nues of Ireland to her own purposes. He knew how far
he gave the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley) an ad-
vantage, by making this admission ; but he could not con-
ceal his belief that Great Britain was anxious for the ac-
enmulishment of the object he had mentioned, and had
carried that object into execution. At the time of the
union, Ireland had only a debt of 25,000,000/. ; but be-
fore he proceeded further with his remarks relative to this
point, he would refer to another authority respecting the
giving up the Irish Parliament to this country. That autho-
rity speaks in the most explicit and strongest terms of the in-
jostice and oppression of depriving the people of Ireland
of a Parliament of their own. The authority to which he
alluded was Lord Chief Justice Bushe ; and he had not,
up to this moment, retracted anything that he had said.
He (Mr. O'Connell) knew there was an ignorant and flip-
pant contempt for every thing regarding Ireland in that
house ; still he thought hon. members could not regard,
with feelings other than those of respect, the names of the
individuals he 444 that night given as his authorities for
the positions he had advawd, Lord Chief Justice Bushe
had said that the act of union was practically to say that
the people of Ireland were unfit or unworthy to govern
themselves. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the

Irish members.) It was a denial of the rights of na-
ture to a great nation, from an intolerance of Irish pros-
perity. (Hear, hear.) But it is said—(Here Mr. O'Con-
nell suddenly paused, and said that as he observed the
right honourable secretary (Mr. Stanley) busy taking
notes, he would wait until he had completed the one
he was then taking.] He then resumed. It was matter
of serious importance to him (Mr. O'Connell) that he
should argue the question with the high authorities he had
quoted. He stood on sure grounds while thus associated
with the great lights of the age. Oh, it was an important
consideration, that he was able to produce those great au-
thorities ! Hear, again, what Lord Grey stated with re-
spect to the circumstances under which the act of union
was passed. Almost the whole country (said his lordship
in a speech already referred to) petitioned against the
union. Twenty-seven counties did so ; and so did Dublin,
and almost every town of importance in the kingdom. Se-
veral of the most influential noblemen, interested in getting
the measure passed, used all their endeavours in different
places to get up counter petitions in its favour • ' but they
were decided failures. In one of the principal counties
there were 17,600 names attached to the petition against
the union, while all the influence which could be employed
could only get 500 persons to sign a petition in favour of
the measure. Could there have been a more decided or
unequivocal expression of national disapprobation of the
union than this afforded ? When Pitt wrote to the Earl of
Glengall, to solicit his support in favour of the union, he
assured that nobleman that if the union were brought
about the Catholics should be emancipated ; and no doubt
in this promise the statesman was sincere. ' Indeed, he
proved it, by resigning when he found he could not bring
about his views on this point. For himself (Mr. O'C. )he
had ever protested against the union, and the truth of his as-
sertion was matter of history; for in A
owden's History would
be found an account of a meeting, at which he had first
showed hostility to the measure—an hostility which remained
as decided and warm in his heart up to the present hour.
This meeting was one held at the Royal Exchange, ac-
cording to public notice, and was signalised by that shame-
ful interference of the military which was resorted to on
every occasion by the disgraceful administration then in
office. While the assembled patriots were waiting for the
selection of a chairman, they heard the clash of arms, and
found they were surrounded by a powerful military force.
Some of the assembly fled through the broken windows or
doors, as they best might ; others, among whom was him-
self, remained ; the officer commanding the soldiers came
forward, and said that his orders were to break up the
meeting. The officer, however, consented to stay pro-
ceedings while a message was forwarded to the Lord Lieu-
tenant, humbly praying that he would be graciously pleased
to allow the meeting a permission to speak. (Hear, hear,
hear, hear, and a laugh.) Leave was graciously given,
and the meeting proceeded to discussion. " Among those
who spoke," said Plowden, "was Counsellor O'Connell"
(A laugh), whose speech was accordingly given in that his-
tory ; and as he (Mr. O'Connell) had already read some
other people's speeches, he might, perhaps, be allowed to
read his speech so delivered. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman then read the speech, which in forcible terms ex-
pressed the speaker's bitter and eternal hostility to the
Union, his feeling that rather than consent to the Union
it would be better for Catholics to remain unemancipated,
to consent to 'the re-enactment of the penal code, and to
throw themselves on the tender mercies of their Protestant
brethren. " The Catholics of Ireland," it proceeded,
" would remember that they had a country,
and would submit to every torment—to death—
rather than lose the proud consciousness that at
least they still were a nation." At this meeting a series of
resolutions were passed, which showed that these senti-
ments found a responsive chord in the heart of every Irish-
man present. Such were his sentiments then ; such were
they now. The feelings, however, of the Irish nation had
been held as nought—had been hailed with the most galling
contempt. The violence of the military was day after day
augmented : the public meetings held by the Irish were
interfered with in the most arbitrary and insolent manner ;
the Rebellion, in short, was fomented and brought to a
head by every species of tyranny and oppression. Give
him a committee and he would prove it ; he would prove,
beyond the possibility of a doubt, that there would have
been no rebellion but to carry the Union. (Hear, hear.)
He would prove this fact by damning proofs. (Hear.)
It was a Jacobin Revolution at the outset, for it began
among the Presbyterian population of Belfast ; the Govern-
ment had fomented it into the revolution it became. He
had proofs of this ; he had unquestionable evidence of all
the arts resorted to to fan it into a flame—to make it ex-
plode into the revolution it ended in being. The whole
people, by every act of cruel, bloody tyranny and oppres-
sion, were goaded into acts of rebellion. The house had
heard of the free quarters, of the tortures inflicted on the
peasantry (Hear, hear), of the picquetings, and of all the
other cruelties practised by the orders of Government by
their satellites, who, if they had been hired for the express
purpose of getting up a rebellion, would have acted pre-
cisely as they did (Hear, hear, hear) ; and they were
hired to get up a rebellion (Hear, hear, hear), and they
did get it up, and they alone. (Hear, hear, hear. )
What said Sir R. Abercrombie when he assumed the
chief command in Ireland, in 1797? Did he not expressly
state that he found the army in a state of the most dread-
ful turbulence and disorganization? (Hear, hear.) Had
he not stated that " the army had become formidable to
every one but the enemies of the country ?" (Hear, hear,
hear.) In fact, the intention to get up a rebellion as a
means to an end, and that end the union, had not been
denied even in the Irish House of Commons ; for he him-
self (Mr. O'Connell) had heard, from the gallery of that
house, the confession unblushingly made. More than
that, he had in his possession the report of the secret com-
mittee of that house, made in the year 1798, with the seve-
ral documents attached thereto ; in that report were ac-
counts of the information received by the committee from
a man of the name of M'Guan (as we understood it), who
was a member of the provincial and county committees, and
a colonel of the United Irishmen, and, as such, present at
the different meetings which took place among the patriots,
whose proceedings and plans he as regularly communicated
to Government, through the Rev. Mr. Cleland. Thus, then,
for one or two months, Government, by means of this spy,
were in full possession of all the plans and proceedings of
the rebels. Could any reason -be given why the admini-
stration had not at once proceeded to annihilate and put an
effectual stop to the rebellion ? (Hear, hear.) Yes, there
could be given a reason ; and that reason was, that the
Government wished the rebellion to explode. He had
proofs of this ; and if they would give him a committee,
those proofs were ready. A rebellion was considered ne-
cessary, in order to enlist all the feelings of religious
hatred and animosity in favour of the union. The Nero
of Ireland determined on rebellion, as the only plan he
deemed likely to bring about the union. The sufferings
which he had remorsely inflicted on that country would
never pass from the memory of Irishmen ; their youth
should read of them : their men should meditate on them.
The union was generated in blood : in the blood of Irish-
men. The ark of union was floated into the temple of the
constitution on a sea of Irish blood. Was he (Mr. O'Con-
nell) the only man whose soul had revolted at this blood-
thirsty transaction? Surely not. Lord Plunket had, in
1799, in the Irish Parliament, boldly charged the govern-
ment with their accursed deeds. " .Bad and wicked," had
that nobleman declared, "as was the object proposed,
the means used to effect it were more flagitious and abo-
minable. Within the last six weeks a system of black
corruption has been carried on within the walls of the cas-
tle (of Dublin), which would disgrace the worst annals of
the worst period of the history of either country. In the
most express terms, I deny the authority of Parliament to
do this act. I tell you that if you pass this act, it will be
a mere nullity, and no man in Ireland will be bound to obey
it. I makethe assertion deliberately, and I repeat it : you
have no right to transfer the functions of legislators ; and
if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the government,
and you resolve society into its original elements, and no
man in the land is bound to obey you. Sir, I thank the
administration for this measure, they are, without intend-
ing it, putting an end to our dissensions. Through the black
cloud which they have collected over us, I see the light break-
ing in upon this unfortunate country. They have composed
our dissensions, not by fomenting the embers of a lingering
and subdued rebellion—not by hallooing the protestant
against the catholic, and the catholic against the protestant
—not by committing the north against the south—not by
inconsistent appeals to local or party prejudices—no ; but
by the avowal of this atrocious conspiracy against the liber-
ties of Ireland, they have subdued every petty feeling and
every subordinate distinction ; and I tell them they will
see every honest and independent man in Ireland rally
round her constitution, and merge every other considera-
tion in opposition to this ungenerous and odious measure.
For my own part, I will resist, to the last gasp of my
existence, and with the last drop of my blood ; and when
I feel the hour of my dissolution approaching, I will, like
the father of Hannibal, take my children to the altar, and
swear them to eternal hostility against the invaders of their
country's freedom." Such, the hon. and learned member
(Mr. O'Connell) continued, were the glorious sentiments
expressed by Lord (then Mr.) Plunket, and most trium-
phant was it for him (Mr. O'Connell), when thus plead-
ing, perhaps uselessly, for his country's freedom, to show
that the opinions of such men as Lord Plunket had been
those contained in the speech just quoted from. The act
of union could not be looked upon as one passed under cir-
cumstances which reflected much credit upon it. It Was
passed at a time when there was no such thing as a consti-
tution in Ireland ; when that country was inundated with
soldiers, each of whom was constituted a judge, and acted
as he pleased ; when trial at the drum was held as valid
and legal as a trial in the Court of King's Bench ; at a
time when it had become no longer a glorious distinction
for a patriot to die in asserting his country's rights ; for
however high and glorious the object sought, he who offended
against the arbitrary will of the government was con-
demned to a disgraceful death as a " rebel" and "traitor.''
This was the sole excuse which the Irish people had for
surviving that national disgrace, the Union. (Hear, hear,
hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) reiterated his charge, that the
rebellion was created, fostered, and fondled into a sufficient
growth by the then administration, for the sole purpose of
effecting the Union. This was clear, when it was remem-
bered that although government, by means of their spy,
were some time in full possession of the names of the
chiefs and the plans of the insurgents, they took no steps
either to arrest the one, or to put a stop to the other.

These were facts, and there was no columns of figures
which could blot it out. Nor had the government been
content with employing the engines of violence and insult,
or with fomenting rebellion ; but they employed means of
another kind—bribery to the grossest and most shameless
extent ; and here he could not butrejoice inthe recollection
of how great and glorious an instance of disinterestedness
had been displayed by the really Irish members of the Irish
House of Commons in 1792. (Hear, hear, hear.) Of the
300 members of that house, 120 had opposed the Union ;
and the greater portion of these were county. members.
(Hear, hear, hear.) Of the 162 who voted in favour of
that measure 116 were English placemen, officers in the
army, &c., who had not a rod of land in the country, and
who had no other dependence than upon the English go-
vernment. (Hear, hear.) Lord Plunket had not been the
only nobleman who attacked themeasures of government on
the occasion of the Union. Lord Grey had characterised
their proceedings as founded on the basest corruption and
artifice, and carried on with the most tyrannical cruelty
and oppression. Chief Justice Bushe, too, had described
it as " the revival of the odious and absurd title of con-
quest—as the renewal of the abominable distinction be-
tween mother country and colony, which had lost us Ame-
rica—as the denial of the rights of nature to a great nation,
from an intolerance of its prosperity—as a measure intended
to create a species of provincial despotism." Titles, offices,
and money had been lavished on those members of the
Irish House of Commons who betrayed their country.
Henry Grattan told Lord Castlereagh to his face that his
lordship had said he would give three millions to secure
the union ; nor had that noble lord dared to controvert the
statement ; if he had, it would have been no less true.
There had been.no less than thirty-seven peerages confer-
red upon different members for their subservience ; four
marquisates, six earldoms, five viscountcies, and twenty-
two baronials. Five other members were made judges of,
though no more fit for that situation than they were for
Hebrew Professorships. (A laugh.) He would not go
into further details, but if he were allowed a committee,
he could incontrovertibly prove all these facts, and some
others ; among which was, that twelve members had re-
ceived bishoprics for their votes on this occasion ; the num-
ber of professional men who had received captaincies, or
had been promoted in the same ratio for the same kind of
service, was frightful. He could give all their names
if allowed a committee of inquiry. Besides this mode
of proceeding, another plan adopted was the gift of
15,0001. to each proprietor for his respective borough.
Among other proprietors, Lord Shannon had re-
ceived 75,0001. as payment for five boroughs ; Lord Blay-
ney (as we understood) the same, for five more, and so on.
Now here was a gross fraud, a robbery on the people
(Hear, hear), for the different proprietors--forty-five of
whom were Peers—had no more right to the money than
they had to stop people on the highway. (Hear, hear. )
Had the present administration made such compensation
to any of the proprietors of rotten boroughs whose " pro-
perty" had been lately taken from them? (Hear, hear. )
If such had been justly withheld, on the same principle the
Irish proprietors were entitled to no compensation ; if the
latter were justly allowed a compensation, the neglecting
to allow a similar compensation to the English proprietors
lately deprived was a robbery ; and " oh ! gentlemen rob-
bers, Russell and Grey, and the rest of you," exclaimed
the hon. and learned gentleman, " come forth and confess
your offences." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But there
was no such right existing, and the proprietors of the Re-
form Bill were not called upon to compensate. He defied
any man to prove that there was any contract between the
people and the government. He had shown that there
was no contract ; he had also shown that there was no
compact. The union had been accomplished by a series of
offences of the blackest description. He would assert that
there was no offence in the English catalogue of crime
which was not resorted to in Ireland, for the purpose of
attaining that great object, He had gone through the
administration of affairs in Ireland, and had shown the
effects of the independence of that country ; he had
shown the incompetence of the Irish parliament to pass
the act of union ; he had shown, also, the horrid means
by which that union was effected. He came now to terms,
and these were as abhorrent as the mode of obtaining them
was inconsistent with every feeling but those that degraded
and disgraced human nature. He came first to the finan-
cial terms, and his proposition was, that there never was
anything more unjust. Amongst their other evils, they
had given rise to most ridiculous calculations within the
last week. This part of the case might be quite consist-
ent with the union being a valid compact ; but he protested
against his reference to it being taken as an admission that
he considered the compact valid. The first thing he would
observe was, that in arranging the financial compact on the
terms of the union, no commissioners were appointed to
make that arrangement ; no committee even was appointed
to institute any previous inquiries, though they now had
committees and commissioners to investigate in abundance,
to investigate and arrange matters comparatively insigni-
ficant in importance. It must occur to every rational
mind that the terms were most grossly unjust. The pro-
portions of the debt were calculated, and 2-17ths were set
clown for Ireland, and 15-17ths for England. In 1800
the British debt amounted to 420,000,000/. ; he would
take the amount of the Irish debt at 26,000,000/. The
question to be decided was, how much of the joint expen-
diture each country ought to pay. Now upon what basis
should that have been calculated? England had been get-
ting in debt for more than a century, and at this time
owed 400,000,0001. Ireland owed 5,300,0001. If he
were going into partnership with an individual who owed
420,0001., and he (Mr. O'Connell) owed 91,0001., what
proportion ought he to contribute to the future ex-
penditure ? If these debts could be turned into capital,
assuredly they would give the advantage to him who
had the most capital, but the very reverse was the case
in this instance. Ireland was to take her share of the ex-
penditure, calculated between one who was so little in
debt, and one who was so much in debt. The fair way,
then, would have been to take a portion of the said debt,
more particularly as the Irish people were to lose the Irish
Parliament, which, if it had continued in existence, might
have protected their financial interests. If a man gave
himself up for ever, he ought to stipulate for a liberal ar-
rangement. But it was otherwise. Ireland, as he had
stated, was charged with the two-seventeenths. The fair
proportion would have been one-seventeenth, and they
would find that they must redress the grievance of the
original compact, by going back to that principle. They
had professed to act honestly towards Ireland, the fact
being that they dictated the terms. The Irish anti-
union lords, in one of their protests, made the following
comparison, founded on calculations, the correctness of
which was not to be denied :

England. Ireland.
The balance of trade 29
Current cash
Revenue l3
The result of this was one-eighteenth for Ireland, instead
of the two-seventeenths fixed on. Such were the terms
which this country dictated, because our name was Lion,
and we had the power. (Cheers.) Ireland, they were
told here, benefitted by the union. Ireland had been un-
able to pay the two-seventeenths. (Hear, hear, hear. )
The two Exchequers were consolidated because Ireland
could not pay the two-seventeenths. (Hear.) The
Government of this country corrupted the Parlia-
ment, and having obtained the power, we put our hands
into the pockets of the Irish. We played the part of pick-
pockets and felons. That the union was a fraud could be
demonstrated to the most ordinary capacity. The right
hon. gentleman insisted that the union had improved Ire-
land ; but let him show, if he could, that shehadbeenable
to pay her proportion. That a fraud was contemplated,
was proved by a provision of the Act of Union, by which
it was stipulated that Ireland should go in debt to make her
liable to a greater amount of taxation ; yes, by going into
debt, she was to arrive at that happy consummation. Eng-
land had got into debt gradually ; Ireland was forced into
a gallop of debt to overtake England. Such, he repeated,
was one provision of the union. Ireland was never a
sharer in the entire amount of the debt of this country,
and he would ask, did not this fiscal arrangement speak
volumes to the right of Ireland to have a protecting legis-
lature? He was lately somewhat amused by hearing one
of those vicious declarations as to the advantages derived
to Ireland by her connexion with this country, which hon.
members had been so prone to utter. He did not know
how many millions it was said that England was obliged to
pay for the relief of Ireland. How was it that England
was obliged to make these sacrifices in favour of his
country? It was pretended that England had spared Ire-
land. Was it by this process that Ireland had become un-
able to bear her fair share of the burdens ? This country
spared Ireland—did it ? Why we taxed her as much as we
possibly could; it added 5,000,0001. to her taxation, andby
so doing even went to the extent of rendering her revenues un-
productive. Such was the effect of the additional burden of
taxes that the revenue fell off to the amount of 500,0001. The
reason then why England was called upon to pay more
was simply because she plundered Ireland too fast. They
heard of her Christian charities, but she was in fact a
delinquent, who found less than she thought to find. She
expected, like the robber, to feast ; the result was, that we
had to pay the difference out of our own pockets of that
our calculation. If Sir Joseph Yorke's plan had been
adopted, and Ireland had been put under water, not for
twenty-four hours, as he recommended, but for twenty-
four years, we should have had that taxation to pay for
ourselves which Ireland had paid for us. The hon. and
learned gentleman then proceeded to remark on some
returns that he moved for in June last, not having been
furnished till Wednesday or Thursday last. Some very
important returns were moved for last week by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge (Mr. Spring
Rice), which did not come out till Friday or Saturday
last. (Hear, hear.) He would ask,_ was it fair to pro-
duce these documents just on the eve of this debate, when,
of course, there was not time to examine them as to their
correctness ? Those he moved for in June did not appear
till last week, but those the right hon. gentleman moved
for last week were furnished in a day or two afterwards.
Was it not evident that they were prepared, and that the
right hon: gentleman had the opportunity of deriving
every possible advantage from them ? This was a specimen
of the financial tricks that were played. These complicatec
accounts came out to delude the people of England into a belie
that the propositions he had to submit were of a most bane fu.
tendency. If there was any feeling of modesty or shame,
hi
thought that those who so acted must blush on the pro-

duction of these returns. He could anticipate the use
that would be made of them. He saw how they might be
perverted to furnish statements favourable to the views of
his opponents. These partial quotations, so obtained,
would, no doubt, be received with cheers and triumphant
hallooing—with shouts of " Hear, hear !" that would echo
from side to side. (Laughter.) Even such was the con-
duct by which this motion was to be opposed, and he would
refer to it as another specimen of the desire that existed to
do justice to the wrongs of Ireland. On referring to
pages 23, 24, and 25, he found some beautiful specimens
of the fairness of the returns. The accounts gave a ba-
lance to Ireland of 35,000,0001., and were made up thus :
—The pure necessaries of life bearing taxes, were placed
in columns. The taxes Ireland paid since the union were
placed in the first column ; the amount of revenue occu-
pied the second column ; and in the third column was
stated what would have been the amount of the taxation
had it been equal to the taxation of England. Now that
was a fraudulent account. No one knew better than the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) that when he gave
the taxation he could not add the revenue. But suppose
the result were as it was represented, this would be deci-
dedly favourable to his argument, and of course would
make directly against the case of the right hon. gentleman.
The tables would show them that from the time of the
union there had been a reduction of taxation in Ireland,
this consequence of the union appearing in each coming
year. Ought not the rents of absentees to be considered ?
Ireland yielded rents, the produce of the land, and they
went out of Ireland to increase the revenue of Eng-
land against Ireland. Everything that the absentee rents
produced were taken to the credit of the treasury of Eniz-
land, and Ireland was taxed the more. Now, surely, in
making the bargain at the union, if the interests of Ire-
land had had proper protectors, they would have said,
" The rents are spent in England, and you shall not have
the second advantage." He contended that Ireland ought
to have credit for the rents expended in this country. As
further evidence of the correctness of the tables, he would
inform the house that there appeared an excess of six
millions in the treasury of England unaccounted for, and
there were discrepancies amounting to forty-four millions
in other treasury accounts. He likewise found in these
accounts the sum of 1,500,000/. set down under the title
of union compensation. Was this an item to be so placed?
Was it fair to charge Ireland for this? To buy her first,
and then make her pay the purchase money of the bar-
gain ? Surely this was an item which should be placedat
the opposite side of the account, and made to tell the other
way. There was another misstatement to the amount of
1,648,0001., but as he had mislaid the documents relating
to it, he would not press any observations concerning it
upon the house. The hon. and learned gentleman then
referred to a letter written by a former Chancellor, and
dated London, 1823, from which he said the inference
was irresistible that Irelandhad a claim to a remittance of
taxation, far beyond the proportion accorded to her. Some
of the taxes laidon in England, so far from being in any
way serviceable to Ireland, had, on the contrary, in their
effect been ruinous toher. Among these he would only refer
to the taxes laid upon printed cottons and soap. The latter
of these had been particularly injurious to her by reason of
the drawbacks and the frauds committed through them.
The consequence was that it annihilated the manufacture
of soap in Ireland, and gave the entire market of that
country to England. Why did he detain the house by
entering so minutely into these details ? He did so to
show the house hownumerous the evils were which sprung
from the original injustice committed in the basis of the
financial contract. Hence arose all the other errors. He
had now gone through his fifth proposition, and felt satis-
fied that he had proved, beyond the possibility of contra-
diction, the gross injustice of the financial terms of the ex-
isting union. Having done this he would proceed to show
that the legislative terms were equally unjust. Even Lord
Castlereagh in his calculation, though much below the
real standard, admitted that the legislative terms should be
greater. He put his calculation of population at 202, of ,
exports at 100, of imports at 93, and of revenue at 39,
making in all 434, which would give the number of re-
presentatives at 108. Here commenced:the first injustice,
and even Castlereagh's average was reduced by eight.
Here was a reduction made from an admitted unfavourable
aetvAA:eretcerr,:\fri,es,aoa,ennasfor it was well known that the revenue, instead
of being put at 39, ought, on a calculation of the propor-
t
tion left in the hands of Hector Foster, to be put at 42,
which. would add another member. But even this
was infinitely reducing the proper and fair legisla-
tive terms of the union, as it has since been
shown by Newnham's Tables that 165 members were
the number which Ireland had a right to claim, admit-
Iting the grounds of representation to be her population,
imports, exports, and revenue. What have the Irish people
gained gained in point of legislation from the United Parliament
as an equivalent for the absenteeism which it thus fostered
land increased? Why that Parliament granted to the ab-
sentee landlords, by one law, the power to distrain the
growing crop ; and by another, the power of ejecting the
poor tenant for a few shillings' arrears. Why was this?
How was it that the interests of the people were so little
watched over? Merely because the Irish members in that
house connected withsagh:ltteeohahti.:Neenio.
lasfapaspnoemelvdoapoepeenl
again
raletecdAi
inetw
cdusuteenrdpudf
from
reieoerdpemmnepettrrehi e
srdlleeti
nBBslhiy2goe49nst .o.Attoo Insurrection
fewg nt oe
had been the state of Ireland since the union?
and
aulgstBaaoali
nu,c: hautrrnoyodnleciBroc Her his-
-1800 to 1805 she was under the Insurrection Act and Mar-
tial Fro From 1825
tSoheA 1828. as
Then came the crowning tyranny—the Coercion Bill.
These were the happy fruits of the Union to Ireland. For
twenty years out of the period which had elapsed since that
measure, the British Constitution had been repealed in
Ireland, and that country had been deprived of its privi-
leges and benefits. (Hear, hear, from the Irish Mem-
bers.) What had the country got in its stead? Insur-
rection Acts, Martial Law, Algerine Acts, and Coercion
Bills. And this was union—this ! Yes, it was the
union of slave and tyrant, of oppressor and oppressed.
By one bill the United Parliament took away the right
to carry arms—they even took it away from Protest-
ants, the only persons then looked upon in the light of
freemen • and in addition to this, after having deprived
the subject of his right to carry arms, they
saddled a permanent police establishment upon the
country. But these were the natural consequences of the
primary injustice committed in the legislative terms, the
practical injury followed of course. Having said thus much
on the injustice of the terms, he would now proceed to the
effects of the Union. One of the first and primary injuries
consequent on the measure was the increase of absenteeism.
He did not deny that this cause of complaint existed in a
great degree before that measure was carried, but since
then it had proceeded to a degree which had caused the
extreme of poverty and destitution, notwithstanding that
those who advocated that measure promised it would
be attended with relief. But whilst he admitted that there
was absenteeism and its consequent poverty, he would, at
the same time, insist that a gradual improvement had been
taking place since 1782, which had not then reached its
extent, but which, if the independence of the Irish legislature
had continued until now, would have been obviously evi-
dent. On this point he would meet the most determined
unionist and rest his case. The independence of Ireland
in 1782 must be admitted ; on this head he defied a denial.
It must be admitted that the means adopted to carry the
Union were most dishonest ; that it was effected by the
grossest bribery and the most unblushing corruption. Was
there anybody who would have the hardihood to deny this ?
Oh, but they say Ireland has been prosperous since the
Union, and then, with the true post hoc propter hoc
sort of logic, they attribute that prosperity to the Union.
But he denied that Ireland had prospered in her propor-
tionate degree. In the thirty-four years which elapsed
esbi et
yut stohi
in the
a rtUhi
enf oosmna
m, Iterhe(iilseag
rnbdee
being
ha
sgo utlhdeh Englandcaa
case,
eeincreased
e (llaesa
rin
re
hear)pa
prepared
pros-
;ed
to prove an absolute declension on the part of Ireland. An
exception might perhaps be made on the part of Belfast,
but with regard to the rest of the country, the general
decay was but too manifest. He would not let this matter
stand upon his mere assertion, but bring illustrative facts
to prove it, and show the folly or fallacy of those who va-
poured about the advantages accruing from the union.
Again he would say that absenteeism existed before the
union ; but it had fearfully increased since, and if any man
had the hardihood to deny it, with that man he would re-
fuse to argue. The next thing to which he would call the
attention of the house, was the increased scale of taxation,
with respect to Ireland, since the union of the legislatures.
In England taxation had been, since then, as 20 per cent.,
in Ireland it had been as 80 per cent., and this upon the
main necessaries of life. (Hear, hear.) Let the advocates
of the union here mark its value to Ireland in her increased
taxation. On the Marquis of Lansdowne's motion on the
state of Ireland, in 1822, it was admitted, that the increase
of revenue in Ireland was enormous. (Hear, hear, and
cries of " Bar.") He admitted that there was tediousness
in these details, but they were necessary to the making out
of his case. Sir John Newport admitted, that the Irish
people were in such a situation as made them as little to be
feared as they were to be envied, and described them as a
beggared gentry, and a ruined tenantry. These were the
words of the boasted Sir John Newport, and he (Mr. O'C. )
was curious to know whether this statement was to be
confronted by a page of Cocker, and routed by a column
of calculations ? In the Report of the Board of Trade,
for the 26th of March, 1830, England had relief to
the amount of forty-one millions, whilst Ireland had only
1,225,000/. ; even this could not be called relief granted
to Ireland, inasmuch as it included an item of 153,769/
under the head of union duties, which were, in fact„
bonus granted to British manufactures. In addition to
these causes of complaint, the revenues of Ireland were
changed from Irish to English currency, which made the
advantage on the score of taxation still greater to England.
Another boasted saving had been said to have been made
in the diminution of expenses. These were no savings to
Ireland. The establishment of the Lord-Lieutenant was
reduced from sixty-eight to sixteen millions, and this by
which an expenditure of 1,000/. per week was lost to
Dublin ; this they called a saving. To show the difference
since the union and before, he would state the compara-
tive increase in consumption in England and Ireland be-