The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-07 00:00:00

ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THIZEE PAPERS, Morning, Noon, and Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.

HT, IGH AND SOCIETY OF LONDON.
A GENERAL COURT of this CORPORATION will be
held at the Freemasons' Tavern. on SATURDAY, the 17th instant.
Pinner at a Quarter before Seven precisely.
Field Marshal his Itoyal Highness the DUKE of CAMBRIDGE,

THE TOILET of BEAUTY. furnishes innu-
merable proofs of the high' estimation in which GOWLAND'S
LOTION is held by the most distinguished possessors of brilliant
Complexions. This elegant preparation comprehends the preserva-
tion of the Complexion both from the effects of cutaneous malady and
the operation of variable temperature, by refreshing its delicacy and
sustaining the brightest tints with which Beauty is adorned.
ROBERT SIIAW, London, is in white letters on the Government
Stamp, without which none is genuine. Prices 2s. 9d., ss. 6d.,
quarts Ss. 6d. Sold by all Perfumers and Medicine Vendors.

PUBLICATIONS.

SUPPLEMENTS GRATIS,
WITII THB DISPATCH.
In consequence of the immense demand for the DISPATCH:
and SUPPLEMENT of Sunday last, containing a full Report of 31r.
Sheirs most brilliant Speech, the Proprietors of the ,Dispatch,
apprehensive that numbers of persons, who may he desirous of
obtaining copies of their Journal, may be disappointed,
unless provision be made to meet such demand, have
printed a great number of extra papers to keep on sale ; and
as, when these are disposed of, others will not be obtainable, an
early application is suggested, as the Supplement which accom-
panied the Dispatch of February 4, will be necessary to bind
with those Supplements that are to follOw ; so that when the
great national trial is concluded a perfect history of the affair
(including a biographical sketch of Mr. O'Connell), which may
be bound, or otherwise preserved as a matter of reference, will
be in the possession of every purchaser of this Journal, the
proprietors of which, anxious to render the account perfect, will
present (gratis) a Supplement each Sunday during the progress of
the trial, and another at the conclusion, containing all the proceeding
up to the Supplement given on Sunday last. That of Sunday next will be
comprised in 48 columns, the same size as the Dispatch, and contain
a verbatim report of the most eloquent speeches of Mr. Whiteside and
of Mr. O'Connell.
Orders for the Dispatch are received by every News Agent and
Bookseller in the kingdom ; and by Mr. Wood, at the Office, 139;
Fleet-street.

PUBLICATIONS of the SOCIETY for the,
EMANCIPATION of INDUSTRY.
Now Ready.
AN ESSAY ON MONEY, ITS ORIGIN
AND USE. By JOHN TAYLOR, Author of " Junius Men=
fled." Third Edition, revised. Price 2s. 6d.
AN ESSAY on the STANDARD and MEA.•
SURE of VALUE. Second Edition. Price 2s. 6d.
`CURRENCY FALLACIES REFUTED, and
A...) PAPER MONEY VINDICATED. Second Edition. Price

2576 d.
CATECHISMS of the CURRENCY and
CHANGES. A new Edition, Enlarged. Price 4s. cloth; or,
separately, The Currency, 2s. • Exchanges, 2s.
TUE MONETARY POLCY of ENGLAND
and AMERICA. Price One Shilling.
" It is necessary your gold should be coined, and have the king's
stamp upon it, to secure men in receiving It, that there Is so mud;
gold in each piece. But it is not necessary that It should have a
fixed value set on It by public authority."—Locke.
THE MINISTER MISTAKEN; or, THE
QUESTION of DEPRECIATION ERRONEOUSLY STATED
by Mr. HUSKISSON. Price One Shilling.
" Our forefathers, who sought comfort in proverbs, used to say,
when the people's talc of bricks is doubled, Moses is at hand."-
Niebuhr.
CURRENCY EXPLAIN ED;
in REFUTATION of the LAST FALLACY of " THE
TIMES," Nov. Bth, 1843. By VESUS. Price One Shilling*.
London : Samuel Clarke, 13, Pall-Mall East, and to be had (by
order) of all Booksellers.

THE MIRROR of LITERATURE, AMUSE-
MENT, AND INSTRUCTION.
The SECOND VOLUME of THE MIRROR, for the Year 1843, is
now completed. It is splendidly Illustrated, and will he found to
comprehend a vast variety of Historical and Scientific Information ;
while 'Original Fictions of great interest, Voyages and TravelS,
Poetry and Satire, are not wanting. Some of the most striking
Historical Talcs which the season has produced, tales not composed
of maudlin sensibilities, but valuable illustrations of the annals and
manners of former days. Translations of Standard 'Works of French
and German Authors by the ablest hands, for " The Mirror" ex.-
elusively, have also within the same period adorned its columns.
It may safely be affirmed that the Volumes of " The Mirror" for the
year 1843 present more rational entertainment and solid information
combined—more to gratify the eye, and improve the mind, than any
rival publication. The general varieties which, for more than twenty
years, have received the stamp of public approbation—historical
facts, amusing anecdotes, graphic descriptions of remarkable loca-

lities and celebrated edifices, ancient and modern, will successively
appear, with Embellishments of a superior order.
All communications to be addressed to the Editor, care of Mr.
Mortimer, Adelaide-street, Trafalger-square ; where books for
review and advertisements are received.

ONDON AND COUNTY BANK.
G. STURT informs his Friends and all interested, that he lids
survived the attack made upon him by W. A. Coombe, Esq., df
Gravesend, and W. Ilawes, Esq., the Chairman of the London and
County Bank—(vide report in " Ilerapath's Railway Journal
and in a few days will return the compliment with interest. In
the meantime his position appears to be this—that he has published
various charges reflecting upon the practices and position of the Bank
in question, which every six months, for the last three years, have
been declared to be false : it is now officially admitted that his state-
ments have brought down the Shares upon which 151. has been paid
to 71. Ergo, his falsehoods are believed before the Bank officials'
truth ! ! !

attempt to effect, even a legal object by means that are con-
sidered illegal; and thus a •'conspiracy" is spelt out by the
construction put upon the means that are used to attain

the object sought, however legitimate that object may be.
It has been admitted, even by the Crown, that in this case there is

no privacy—no secrecy, no definite agreement to do anything
whatsoever; but, above all, tin secret agreement—no secret society
—no private information. It has been admitted by the Crown
that there has not been even one act of private communication,
that everything was openly avowed, published to the world, that
this " secret conspiracy" has no secrecy at all. What a monstrous
thing it would be to hold that that was a conspiracy which every-
body knew of—everybody heard of, and three-fifths of the people of
this country were engaged In ! And what was the evidence of
those conspirators assembling together? That Mr. Such.an.one

attended at such a meeting—that Mr. Barrett attended at a certain
meeting, and that Mr. Duffy attended once or twice—that I,
myself, attended; and this is the way the charge of conspiracy is
to be spelt out! Is it common sense that this could be denomi-

nated a conspiracy ? Conspiracy! 11,;;;;;;; it made 9 --"11l;n
was it made ? How was it made ? Was it made in winter, or in
summer, in spring, or in autumn ? Was it made on a holiday, or
on a Sunday, or on week-day ? Tell me the hour—the week—
the month the year it was made ? In which of the three

quarters of the twelve months did the gestation of this conspiracy
commence ? Who proposed it ? Who seconded it ? Who was
present at it ? I don't know whether it was said that I was present
at the concoction of this conspiracy, or this agreement, private Or
public, or who else was there. Whrn and where did it take place?

Ought I not, at all events, to have the advantage of being able to
prove an alibi ?—(Laughter.) No, but you must go over nine months
and toss up which time or place you may select. I want to know
whether this agreement was in writing or in mere parole ? I want
to know ha, any person told you, Gentlemen of the Jury, if an ac_
tion at nisi pries was pending, and you were to try it, and that that

_ .
action was for the recovery of a 10/. contract, could it be possible
you could find one way or the other upon such vague evidence as
that adduced in this case? I remember it was said of a Judge who

has long since passed away, that, in a case for the recovery of 10/.
before him, one of the counsel,observed that, although the evi.
dence was not sufficient in a civil case, it would be quite sufficient
in a criminal case, in iliS Lordship's Court.—(Laughter.) Do you

not believe that if there was a conspiracy, it would be proved, and
that the only reason it was not proved is because it did not exist ?

The Attorney-General told you it did exist—that it must have

existed ; but this is all imaginary, and you are called upon to find
me guilty if you " imagine" that this agreement was entered into.
I don't want to speak of the talents of the Attorney-General. I
admit the ingenuity—the talent and the industry with which he
conducted this case, He was eleven hours—eleven mortal hours—
(A laugh)—detailing the facts of it to you. What did he tell

you the conspiracy consisted of? He made a long statement, and
when he came to the end, he told you to go back to the beginning,

find out the conspiracy, and what it consisted of.—(Laughter) I

say, Gentlemen of the Jury, without the least affectation, if any
gentleman could have found evidence of a conspiracy, it would have
been found by the Attorney-General. Yes, he took eleven hours
to throw all that garbage into your box. " There." said he, "is
the Pilot and the Nation for you, and make out a conspiracy." I
remember, on the Munster Circuit, the celebrated Mr. Egan was
once engaged for a defendant. The case had been stated by a Mr.
Hoare, a gentleman of dark appearance. Egan was sure of his jury
—(A laugh)—and on behalf of his client he merely said—" Gen-

tlemen of the jury, you are not, in deciding this case, to he influ-
enced by the dark oblivion of a brow.''—(Laughter,) A Learned
Friend rittitig near him said, " Why, Egan, what do you mean ?
that is nonsense you have been speaking." "To be sure it is,"
said Egan, but it is good enough for the jury.''—(Laughter.)
So eleven hours are good enough for the jury. It is nonsense to
speak of satisfying them as to the fact of a conspiracy. I remem.
ber, after Hardy was tried for high treason, the anniversary of his
acquittal was for a long time celebrated by a dinner; and one of
the jury, whose health was regularly proposed, always made the
same speech. " Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen," said he, " I
will tell you why I acquitted Mr. Hardy. Mr. Sergeant Scott
took eleven hours to state the case ; and ten days were spent in
endeavouring to prove it. Now, I knew no man could be guilty
whose guilt it took such a long time to show."—(Laughter.) Re-
member that, in this alleged conspiracy, there is no secrecy im-
puted—nothing is left to conjecture--the entire Is before you ;
and, therefore, as you know it all, there never was a cause in
which the Attorney-General was less entitled to the benefit of any
surmise by a jury. Why, before the trial, the hall of the Courts
was full of rumours of the existence of a dark conspiracy and of
the disclosures made by persons who were said to have betrayed
the conspirators. No less than seven persons were pointed out to
me as having betrayed the secrets and plans to the Government.
One was pointed out as having been seen going to Mr. Kemmis,
the Crown solicitor, another as having been to the Castle, and a
third, as having been at a certain house, not far from your (Mr.
Brewster's) residence in Merrion-square—no lessa than seven
persons suffered in their cha-acters by these rumours of
treachery on their parts. I merely said, " Don't mind these
reports—what can they disclose when there is nothing to
betray ? They may invent, but they have no secrets of ours
to disclose." Now, I ask you, when you carne into that box,
did you net expect to have heard something you had not
heard before ? Did you not expect to hear some conversation—
some plan of the traversers influencing and contradicting the na.
ture of their public sots ? If you did expect it, was there ever dis.
appointment so complete and unmitigated ? Why, throughout the
city, in the clubs, when the Attorney-General's case was closed,
everybody said " Is that all ?—why, we knew all that before."
'Ti, a conspiracy! Yes, Gentlemen, what has become of these se.
cret plans, the proofs of this dark conspiracy, these " Gorgons,
hydras, and chimeras dire"—what has become of them ? They
have not been exhibited to you, because there was nothing to dis-
close. This is not a case merely confined to the charge of conspi-
racy ; it is a Ministerial trial, to see whether this Ministry, with

their conciliation policy—with their proposal for an extended fran-
chise in Ireland, are to retain office, or whether we arc to have the
Whigs again, promising a good deal and doing nothing ?—(Laugh.
ter.) This is the real question to be tried. You, therefore, see
that no men could have stronger motives for proving their case to

the fullest extent. Why, then, did they fail in producing evidence
to show the secret plans of a conspiracy ? The reason was clear--
because they had nothing to betray. It is impossible the Govern.
ment could have failed to discover all the secrets and plans, if any
existed. They had influence enough to induce persons to betray.
They had the patronage in the Post-office, in the revenue police,
and especially in the constabulary, to offer for information. Yet
they procure none. Why ? Because there was nothing to betray
—and you know it. Well, then, what is the evidence? Well, if
there was nothing new, what was the old evidence ? The life of an
old coat, they say, is a new button.—(Laughter.) They have stitched
up their case with the newspapers which they have flung before
you. If you had heard it charged that I had entered into a pri-
vate conspiracy, you might have said that I had entered into a
private conspiracy in my old days, calculating on being raved by
the secrecy and fidelity of m
co-conspire:ors. But there is
nothing of a private conspiracy charged against me. I therefore
ask—not only those who know my sentiments better than you can—
but I ask you, who know me principally by the calumnies of those
opposed tome—if, from your opinion of my
character, you deem
me such an idiot or blockhead as to enter into a conspiracy to the
ru n of a cause dear to my heart, and for which I refused, my
Lords, the appointment of Master of the Rolls P It was a ques.
tion whether [ had not refused the office of Chief Baron before it
was offered to mc—(Laughter)—but as to my having been offered
the appointment of Master of the Rolls there is no dispute. No ;
it was not to he supposed I would compr,mise the cause to which
I am devoted, now just at the CloginZ years of my life, and on the
eve of entering into eternity, where I shall receive that awful
judgment which cannot now be
long postponed. You cannot be.
liege that I would have the cruelty to enter into a conspiracy—the
folly to enter into a conspiracy—the absurdity to enter into a
conspiracy—l ask you as Irish gent emen to put your hands to
your hearts, and say if you can believe it of me. No;
your verdict may imprison mee-but it will not take from me the
consciousness of my own innocence, and the conviotion that there
is not a man would pronounce that verdict who would not be
convinced of his mi-take. Perhaps the Attorney-General wants
You to believe this —that I was a
conspirator
without knowing it. I
say without knowing it, for there it was in open day. YCS, you
must, to believe anything against me, believe that I was a con-
spirator ignorant of the conspiracy ; and that is the question
for which you arc selected to try me. In the technicalities of
law I could say, even in that there could be no guilt, for there
is no guilt without a guilty intention. But I scorn to make
points of law upon matter se plain to common sense—so obvious,
and, I trust I may say, so irresistible. There is something curl.
ous in this sweeping conspiracy of the Attorney-General. Gen-
tlemen, it has been so powerfully put to you, that I should
not retreat it—that there would be an end to every great move-
ment of human institutions if you were to concede to the At-
torney-General that conspiracy which he has neither stated nor
proved. It is a new kind of conspiracy. Some exceedingly saga-
cious person has dreamed of it—this imaginary conspiracy rest-
ing upon your conscientious imagination, but having no other so-
lidity whatsoever. NVould the slave-trade have be. 'n ever abolished
if the present Attorney-General's doctrine of conspiracy had been
law—if the Judges sitting in the King's Bench had given their cane-
t ion to it ? Never did a more formidable party exist than the West
Indien party. Government might have searched all the newspa-
pers of the day and found evidence of their runt, of their accumu-
lated guilty. If their nets had been a Iconspirac eby were they
not indicted for a conspiracy ? Why vas not Wilt erforce ind cted
for a conspiracy ? lie might ha ,•e stood, as the humble Individual
before you stands now, accused of a conspiracy, because he put an
end to the slave-trade. Blessed be 'leaven : the measure was not
suffered to be carried until I had some part in it. Well, next to
abolition of slavery, what was done? What would have become
of Reform in Parliament P Is there a mars of the Whig aristocracy
—were there not meetings held in Birmingham and elsewhere—
were there not hundreds of meetings held—would the reform in
Parliamelt have gone as far as it had done—would the additions
promised in the King's speech have gone as far as they have gore,
if the meetings had not assembled in several thousands, to petition
for it ? There is then Catholic emancipation. There was a most
eminent lawyer at the head of the profession at that day; and the
present Attorney-General will not suppose that I mean arty d.s.
respect to him when I say that he was superior to him—cer-
tainly he was his equal. He was an eminent, lawyer, and he
had as conscientious an antipathy to Catholic emancipation
as any man could have. I do not believe there was a more
decided opponent to that measure-1 do not believe there
was a more decided opponent to it than was William Seurin. Its
was an eminent lawyer, and he watched and saw, as he thought, the
law violated. Ile WAS defeated in one trial, but succeeded in
another ; but did the wildness of his imagination call Catholic
emancipation a conspiracy ? I was prosecuted for words spoken
by me ; my Learned Friend near me ( Mr. Shell, who sat next to
Mr. O'Connell) was prosecuted far words spoken by him ; but that
Attorney-General never dreamed of terming the alleged offence n
conspiracy. Yet were not the ingredients uses! in agitating for
Catholic emancipation the same as for repeal ? I lad we not our
county meetings, our provincial meetings, and a simultaneous meet-
ing ? On the 13th of January, 1829, did not all the Catholic
parishes in Ireland meet on one day P Why, indeed, that could
have been wrested into evidence of a conspiracy, if anything could.
for upon one day, every parish in Ireland met, and upon one day
they all expressed their determination to persevere in their exer.
lions until they obtained religious equality.
No man dreamed of
turning that into a conspiracy. It was reserved for the glory of the
present Attorney-General to introduce this doctrine. lie has found
out what none of his predecessors could possibly find nut. At the
present moment there is a very serious question in agitation in Eng.
land. Theta was the A utt-Corti League; they say, and I say, that
their object was to produce cheap bread for the poor, and to in-
crease the number of persons employed. But lam not going into
that question, we have enough of our own; we know that they
and the Anti-Slavery Society collected money from abroad, as well
as at home—that they have used the boldest language, language
for which he said that the Rev. Mr. Fisher accused them of two
eriines_pioinoting assassination and ineentliarism.
we are free front even the accusation of this. lint what is this
precedent to be given for? Is it to be said men with the autho-
rity of this Court, or any pelt of the Court, are to be sent over to
England to put down the glorious struggle there, which
would give men markets, and give corn in exchange for
manufactures, and give cheap bread to the poor ? Is that to

be turned into a conspiracy ? Ah, no! The Englishmen were
safe in the glorious integrity of the jury. box. There there would
not be a single juror sworn upon such a trial as this who had been

educated in strong opposite opinions to the accused. In England,

whoever differed with violence and upon principle with the tra.

vergers would not be sworn upon the jury. No, they are safe..

The angers wing mounting from the pure jury-box protects
them from it. I should be mocking you in telling you that
the English would be in danger; and do you protect us as an
English jury would protect them, and I will be satisfied. Now let

us come to the machinery of the evidence brought forward to sus.
tain this case. I told you there were two classes of evidence—if
I am not wrong in using the word—brought forward by the At.

torney-General—monster meetings and newspaper publications. I
wilt take each separately. lam not here to deny that those meet-

ings took place—on the contrary, I admit that they did, and that
they were monster assemblages, consisting of tens and hundreds of
thousands. It has been somewhere said, that the magnitude et a

meeting alone would make it illegal ; but I give so little of weight
to such an assertion, that, not thinking it worthy of refutation, I
shall not stop to discuss it. But lat once admit that those meet.
ings took place, and I will ask you, Gentlemen of the Jury, was the
life of any man, woman, or child—nay, of any animal—lost at
them ? You unanimously answer there was not. Was any one
struck or injured in the slightest degree at those meetings ? You
unanimously answer " No." Was any female, young or old, ex.
posed at them to any outrage or indelicacy of conduct ? You
answer, " Not one." Was there one shilling's worth of property
belt nging to any individul destroyed or injured? You also answer
unanimously in the negative. Oh yes—l forgot—l have, perhaps,
exaggerated here ; for a policeman, in coloured clothes, was put on
the table, who swore that at Tara the crowd went near committing
the violence of overturning an old woman's gingetbread-stand.—
(Laughter. ) Now, is it not strange, an extraordinary thing, to tell

me that I infuriated the people to such an extent by those assem.
blages, that they were on the very verge of rebellion, while their con-
.

duct is so exemplary, and their courtesy to each other such, that not
even an accident occurred on any of those occasions ? There is
not, Gentlemen, a country in the world, except our own, where such

meetings could have taken place with the same results ; and there
is not in the world a people who could have condutsted themselves
in such an exemplary manner, except the persecuted and calum•
niated people of Ireland—that " filthy and felonious multitude,"

. .
as the Tits called them. Gentlemen of the Jury, they will abide
your verdict patiently. They may disapprove of it, as men usually

do of a verdict adverse to their feelings and wishes; but there will
be no violation of the law, whatever your verdict may be, and
whatever may be the fate of the humble individual who addresses
you, and who boasts that he is the educator of the Irish people in
the lesson of legal, peaceable, and continuous political exertion. But
it is said, Gentlemen of the Jury, that large meetings necessarily
lead to intimidation. Do they? Gentlemen, ask yourselves that

question. Were not all the magistrates of the various districts in
which those meetings occurred witnesses of them, and most of those
who remain in the commission of the peace, and unfavourable to

repeal ; and why were they not produced ? Why were not all
the clergymen of the Established Church—why were not all the
most timid persons, whether in pantaloons or petticoats, produced
to bear testimony to this intimidation? Why, because they
could not conscientiously swear that they had endured the
slightest apprehension. Thus, with the most ample opportunities
of adducing the most abundant proofs of intimidation if it existed,
there was an utter absence of evidence, and did not that absenee of
evidence speak trumpet.tongued ? I tell the Attorney-General,
that having at his command witnesses of the most unimpeachable
character, if those meetings were productive of any dread to any
portion of the public, he utterly neglected his duty in not producing
them, if they could have deposed to such a statement. But not a
particle of such evidence has been produced, for the sufficient
reason—that it did not exist. If those meetings were dangerous to
the public peace, why not proclaim them? If we were seditious,
why not warn us? And, when they were at length proclaimed,
after having been permitted for months to proceed without a hint
of illegality, was not the proclamation at once obeyed ? Yes, we
were branded as conspirators—yes, conspirators, obeying the law
and enforcing it. These meetings were not illegal ; they were
peaceable meetings, suited to the purposes for which they were con.

vened. It it had been at one, or two, or three, or ten of these
meetings this peaceable conduct was observed—if it had been
only at a few of them that this conduct distinguished the be.
haviour of the people—it might be said to be casual. But,
no, it was the same at them all; they were peaceable by de-
sign. We have received the same answer—peace----in reference
to every one of them. The Government knew of those meetings ;
everybody knew of them ; and why were they not impeded if they
were illegal ? I am not one of those who say that the Attorney-
General endeavoured to entrap persons into criminality. I say no
such thing. Ido him more justice. Ido not say that he did not
prosecute or interfere, because there was no ground for prosecuting,
because there was no ground for interference. Ido not utter one
word of reproach or calumny to him. lam told, my Lord, that a
few minutes ago I used the equivocal word " design," in reference
to the peaceableness of those meetings, but I only used it in its
true meaning. The design to be peaceable existed before one of
those meetings took place. It exists now, and it will continue to
exist on the part of the people. When I spoke of design, I spoke
of the education of the Irish people—that education which taught
them that the only way to obtain valuable ameliorations was by
acting peaceably and in strict conformity with the law. I have now
done with those meetings, and I ask you, Gentlemen of the Jury,
what evidence are they of the existence of a conspiracy ? I leave that
matter to your consciences—to your integrity, as my countrymen.
What care I about your political opinions—what care I about
your political sentiments ?—you all know that you must
answer before your Maker for your verdict. Well, as I said be.
fore, I will leave those meetings and come to the next evidence as
to this conspiracy, which is, the newspapers. Don't imagine I

•am going to detain you canvassing the sentences in them; that
has been very ably done already. There is not the least proof that
I ever saw any one of those newspapers—there is not the least
proof of any connexion between me and any of those newspapers.
It will be seen by their dates that at the time the very harshest
paragraphs appeared in them I was not even in town. But it is
proved that at the Association I distinctly disavowed that any news.
paper was the organ of our body. It is said that we circulated
those newspapers, but the effect of that evidence amounts to this
only—that those who subscribed a certain sum of money allocated
a part of that money to the choice of a newspaper—they selected
what newspaper they pleased. The newspaper sent to them was
their own choice, and you will recollect, Gentlemen, it was that pro.
claimed that not one of them was the organ of the Association. It
is also said they contained libels; if they did, why were not the
proprietors of them punished ? You will recollect, my Lords, when
we sent those newspapers, according to the directions given to us
by the parties, those newspapers were subject to the libel
law ; if there was libel in them, it was the province of the Attor-
ney-General to prosecute the publishers : but it is not proved that
we circulated that which was libellous. The fact is, the Attorney.
General would have prosecuted in these cases, if he had thought
it worth his while, and he did not. What, after all, have those
newspapers done? Of what have they been guilty P Of pub.

lishing a parcel of speeches, which I question if any of them
would be remembered if it was not for this trial. It is giving
fictitious and absurd importance to these newspapers. But they
are charged with exciting the people to riot, violence, and tumult.
Did they ever produce it ? Was it proved that it flowed from
any of them ? No; they stand in that respect acquitted. The
Attorney-General himself has admitted the peaceable nature of my
intentions, and nothing could be more fair than the reading of
those portions of the newspapers which showed this. My mottoes
of peace were proved over and over again in this Court. I
belong to a Christian persuasion, the principle of which is, that
no quantity of advantage—no quantity of profit to Church or
State, not even Heaven itself was permitted to be attained at the
expense of any one crime; and that no sin could be Justified
or palliated by any amount of advantage, however consider.
able. My Lords, it has been proved sufficiently in the news
papers—and, had it not, it is perfectly well known—that no
man ever possessed so much of public confidence as I do.
I will say " possess it." No man has so unremittingly as I
have obtained the confidence of the Catholic laity of every
class—not only those who are our party, and may look to a
change for amelioration, but the Catholics of the middle classes—
the higher orders, the Catholic clergy, and the Catholic episcopacy.
I have obtained their confidence by the assertion of the principles
which I have stated—by the sincerity with which I have enter.
tamed and announced them. A Catholic, I am pleading before a '
Protestant jury, in the presence, I may say, of the monarchs and
people of the earth ; and I implore of you to consider whether
you will tarnish all your fellow-countrymen, including many Pro.
testants of the first respectability, by any verdict which would
seem to doubt for a moment the perfect sincerity of the doctrine
of my whole life—the pride and boast of my existence—the corn.
fort and consolation of my declining years, and my hope for a
higher and more awful tribunal. You, therefore, cannot believe
that I would desert every principle of my life, and enter into a
conspiracy utterly inconsistent with everything that has yet oc-
curred in my public conduct. But it is not upon these grounds
alone that I rely. There have been other incidents in my politi-
cal career which will enable you to form a better estimate of my
intentions and sentiments. There is not one of you, Gentlemen of
the Jury who does not, I presume, remember the fearful system
of combination which prevailed eight years ago in Dublin. It
is said that I am ready to sacrifice principle to popularity—
who dares to say it ? Could I not have easily made myself '
popular with these combinators ? I opposed them publicly
—I stood alone—l opposed them at the peril of my life; and I owe
the protection of my life at the meeting held in the Royal Ex-
change, at which many operatives differing from me in religion and
politics attended, to the protection of the police. You will find, too,
my perpetual opposition to Ribandism. Has not my condemnation
of Ribandism been read over and over again ? Have not my warn-
ings to the people—my denunciations to the police, calling upon
them publicly to stop the progress of the evil system—been pub.
Rifled to the world? and, if I were in a conspiracy, should I not
have been glad to have been assisted by other conspirators ? If my
object and my end were iniquitous, should I not have had an ad-
vantage in that iniquity by rousing the Ribandmen upon my behalf
in the various parts of Ireland ? t had great influence, and I could
have used it in this particular. You have the fact that I did not
do so before you. It has been read to you over and over again. My
discountenancing the Riband societies is notorious,—nay, more,
my resistance to all secret societies—my constant denunciations of
them, are before the world. Take these things into your considera.
tion, and say, if you believe in your consciences that the
man is a base hypocrite who, without any worldly motive what.
ever but adherence to principle, opposed and flung away all
the instruments that could tarnish his cause, however useful
they might be. There Is another point, if you have remarked my
public life, must have struck you perhaps differently, but you
must have observed that I opposed it at the risk of my life and the
loss of my popularity—the present system of poor-law. With the
influence 1 possess, could I not have raised the poverty of Ireland
against its property if I chose, and insisted that all those who
were rich should feed those who were poor ? No; I saw the
danger which the measure threatened to property, and at the risk
of p polarity —taunted by many and many a sincere friend—bit.
a
terly sneered at by many men who had joined me, I consulted my
conscience, I consulted the real nature of a provision that snakes
more destitute than it relieves, and is at an expense so enormously
great that the very expenditure itself would give poor-law relief.
I knew it was not appropriate to Ireland; but am bound to say,
that since it passed into a law, I have not given it any opposition.
I look back to the time when I was unpopular with those whose
favour I was most anxious to conciliate, and in whose estimation
I was most desirous of standing high. To this part of my life de I
Appeal in answer to this foul charge which has been breught
against me. You recollect—for it was given in evidence—the
manner in which I answered young Mr, Tyler. You reinetn-
her, too, the manner of that answer, and you saw the nature
of it, from what was given in evidence by Mr. Bond Hughes.
And here, my Lords, let me say a word with respect to
that gentleman. I was among the number of those who took
steps against Mr. Ilughes, convinced, as we then were, that he had
sworn falsely. (I am delighted I mentioned his name, for it gives
me this opportunity of doing him justice.) I now openly state
that I never saw a witness give evidence in a more manly, straight-
forward manner ; and I ani thoroughly convinced that it was a
mere mistake which he committed, and into which any honest man
might have fallen. This declaration is not part of the case, but I
trust your Lordships will not think it quite irrelevant or unneees.

sary. Again, with regard to American assistance, what was my
conduct ? I informed the Americans that the Irish people would
not take any support from them which could in the slightest degree
prove disparaging to their allegiance to the Sovereign of these
realms ; this will be still more strongly impressed upon your minds,
when you recollect my conduct on the slave question, and when
you have heard my indignant denunciations of slavery. The ad.

vocates of that horrid traffic were on the alert—the Southern
States were collecting subscriptions, and large sums of money
had been accumulated in Carolina to assist the Repeaters. Did
I shrink from doing my duty on the slave question then ? Did
I not denounce as enemies to God and man—as culprits and
criminals—the infamous upholders of that trade ? Did I not
compare to pickpockets and felons, and express in the most
forcible language my denunciation and abhorrence of those
who carried on an execrable traffic in human beings ? Oh,
Gentlemen, If I were indeed a hypocrite, should I not have given
them a few smooth words, or glossed over them in the language of
conciliation 7—but my heart is, and ever has been, actuated by a
love of liberty and humanity, and they do not speak the truth who
say that I am, or ever have been, a hypocrite. You have had it
in the newspapers, Gentlemen, that we were offered assistance from

France. You have heard that the democratic party in France,

headed by Ledru Rollin, proffered us their assistance and support.
That party hates the English nation most of all—the ferocious
hatred of England, which, perhaps not without reason, when they
remembered Waterloo, the French nation entertained, is concen-
trated in the party of Ledru Rollin. Did I ask the support of his

. .
party, or frame the answer in such a way as could he construed
into encouragement P No, I took the firm tone of allegiance and
loyalty. I rejected his support—indignantly rejected it. I
cautioned him strongly against coming over to this country. Is
this the way to prove my hypocrisy ? Should I have so acted had
I been indeed a hypocrite P Even the present Monarch of

France I have not attempted to win over. I have refused the
slightest assistance from him; nay, more, have hurled defiance
at him. The Attorney-General, with great ingenuity, intro.
duces a report of a secret committee of the Irish House of Com-
mons, in the year 1797, with respect to the United Irishmen, into
the case before you, to show that we were acting on then plan.

Was there the slighted comparison between them and the Repeal.
ers ? Assuredly not. The United Irishmen were looking to assist-
ance from France—had emissaries there ; whilst, perhaps, French
emissaries were travelling through this country, acting on their
plan, looking for French aid, looking for armed force and violent
revolution ! Oh! Gentlemen, it was directly the reverse of ours.
It may be said that I speculated upon the restoration of the elder
branch of the Bourbons to the throne, and that I expected Henry
V. to be king; but really, Gentlemen, I should be very sorry in-

deed to wilt for the repeal till that event takes place.—(Laughter.)
I do not conceal my opinion that Europe will not be perfectly safe
till that branch of the family be restored to the throne. They have
a better title than any other monarch. No, a better title than that
of our gracious Sovereign does not exist; but they have a better
title than the present King of France. From that King I have
refused the slightest assistance. Nay, more, I hurled my in-
dignation against the man who had delivered over the chil-
dren of France to be instructed by infidel professors. You
have now seen my antagonism to the French—'tis capable of
proof. You have seen my conduct with respect to the
li►artists. They were in arms—up in insurrection through-
out England—crowding in thousands and tens of thousands through
all her manufacturing towns—their doctrines were spreading—
their disciples increasing, for there was something fascinating for
the poorer classes in the principles of the Charter. It purposed a
violation of all property—its followers were numerous—they
offered me aid. If I were a hypocrite, should I have refused it ?
I denounced them—l denounced their doctrines—l drove them
from Ireland—the people were so much opposed to it, that the
Chartists absolutely committed an outrage upon the Irish at Man.
chester. It has been read to you that the moment we discovered
that a Chartist had joined toe Association, his money was returned

to him, and his name struck off the list of members. If my object
were Insurrection, think you I should have acted so ? Gentlemen,
do place yourselves for one moment in my situation. Good Heaven!
if you wished for an armed outbreak and insurrection, would you
not wish for strength t Would you not conciliate those who were
the advocates of force ? Did Ido so with the Chartists ? Did I

not meet them and hunt them out of Dublin—of Ireland—although
there were none of the dangers in their doctrines, none of the
penalties attached to Ribandism ? My Lords, I do firmly declare
that if I had not opposed Chartism it would have passed
over and spread from one end of Ireland to the
other. Thank Heaven that I did resist it; and, whatever be-
comes of this trial, I shall ever rejoice fhat I kept Ireland free
from this pollution. There is another matter to which I wish to
ca❑ your attention—my constant, consistent allegiance to the
Sovereign—that you find in all the newspapers. Her name is
never mentioned but with respect ; and when I had to make a
speech in some degree derogatory to the respect due to a Royal
lady—you find me making a distinction between her and her Mi-
nisters. I made that clear distinction, that constitutional dis-
tinction, and I do complain somewhat of the Attorney. General's
conduct here. He had no right to say that there was a particle of
disloyalty in those remarks. If I did not make any distinction at
all, it would have been quite open for him to comment on that
speech ; but what becomes of the assertion that I have been guilty
of disloyalty in the remarks that I made, when I did draw a marked
distinction so often that the repetition was almost nauseating?
Thank Heaven: there is nothing to attaint my loyalty, nor has the
attempt ever been made. That I have proclaimed in language
which admits of no dispute. I have come to that time of life
at which it could do me no good, or procure anything for me,
to boast of my loyalty ; but there is not an expectant in
this Court, who could have more frequently or strongly expressed
it. Ido complain that the Attorney-General behaved unfairly in
the remarks he made on this subject. He read the Queen's speech,

and also, on the authority of a newspaper, stated that I had used
the expression Judy took an unfair advantage of us," in speaking
of her Majesty. Now, 1 said it was the Ministers' speech—and it

was of the Ministerial seolding I spoke, when I used that expres-

_ .
sion ; to that I referred, and nothing else ; and I did say, that,
in not allowing us to reply, " Judy was unfair—she did not let us
make an answer," speaking of the Ministers and of their speech.
I have to complain here that I have been badly treated. I mean
the Learned Gentleman no discourtesy, I do not wish to say any-
thing harsh—but I tell him that it is utterly false that I ever used
such a word with reference to her Majesty. I disclaim, abhor, and
hate—despise the man who could use such language with reference
to her Majesty. I have never been accused of discourtesy to the
gentler sex, who form so much of our happiness ; and, least of all,
could I apply such terms to one who is at once our beloved Sove-
reign, and of a sex which forms our chief comfort and consola.
tion. I have detained you longer than I thought respecting my
public conduct. To you 1 leave it, but having in reserve the
consolation of knowing, that though my means may be feeble, my
talents confessedly small, and ray energies declining, my ardent,
my enthusiastic, and burning love of Ireland and of liberty is un.
quenchable; it is a portion of my very vitality, and fonds the
entire of my political interests. Well, public meetings took place;
they must have an object—and so they had—their object was a
repeal of the union. That it was a bad or injutious object, I
utterly deny ; it was a most useful object, and 1 shall prove to
you that there is not a man in this Court—the neutrality of the
Bench alone excepted—that ought not to become a Repealer. Be.
fore I sit down I hope to make Repeaters of some of you.—(Great
laughter.) lam quite sure of this—that it is your duty, and if it

is your duty, will it not be your pleasure, to join me P I shall now
tell you what I mean to do. I mean first to demonstrate that the
English Parliament has, from the remotest period at which she
possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow, jealous, re.
strictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis, I would
just beg of you to recollect the history of the woollen manufactures
of Ireland in the reign of a Monarch whom you are not dis.
posed to condemn. I shall next demonstrate in succession

that the transactions of 1782 were intended to be a final
adjustment, and that it was then intended and agreed that
the Irish Parliament should be established for ever ; that
the greatest prosperity followed from the protective influence
of that Parliament, after having achieved its independence, and
that the union was forced ❑pon the Irish people against their
consent, by the most criminal means. 1 shall next show you in
detail the many evils that resulted from the union, and the gross
injustice of the enactment of that statute. I shall show you the
increasing distress and destitution which have arisen from that stir
tute, and that there is no probability—l think no possible means,
of restoring prosperity to this country, or of avoiding ultimate sepa.
ration from England, save by the restoration of her Parliament.
The ill-treatment of Ireland by England is so confessedly true as
matter of history, that 1 scarcely think it worth while detain►ng
you on that part of my subject; yet, having been brought here by
the Attorney-General by reason of my agitation for repeal, I must
defend myself, and my defence is, that instead of looking for any.

thing evil, destructive, or injurious, I am, and have been, perform.
ing the sacred duty of endeavouring to procure the greatest possible
blessing to Ireland--the protection of her own Parliament. lam
too much devoted to the people of Ireland not to be devoted to them
at all risks. I have represented the county of Clare, with 250,000
inhabitants; Waterford, with 300,000; Kerry, with 200,000; Meath,
with 300,000 ; and stood representative of 730,000 inhabitants of
tke county of Cork. I have twice represented the city of Dublin,
and once that of Kilkenny, Duties then fell upon me that belong
to few. My gratitude to the people is boundless. lam their hired
servant. Yes, lam their paid servant. It may derogate from the
chivalry of my situation ; but I avow it, and am ready to earn my
salary. I shall begin by showing you the scheme of misgovern-
ment that was pursued by England towards this country, and my •
first proof is from a French historian of great reputation at the
present moment—one of the first of the French literati—M.
Thiers, who in his history of the conquest of England by the Nor.
mans says—" The conquest of Ireland by the Anglo-Normans
perhaps, the only one that has not been followed by a gradual ame-
lioration of the conquered people. In England, the descendants of
the Anglo-Saxons, although unable to free themselves from the
dominion of the conquerors, advanced rapidly in civilisation, whilst
the natives of Ireland, after live centuries, exhibit a state of uni-
form decline, and yet they are endowed by nature with the most
remarkable aptitude for everything intellectual. Their soil is fer.
tile, but unprofitable—their descendants have been gradually irupo.
verished. and this is owing to their proximity to England." There
is a disinterested historian giving this melancholy picture of cen.
turies passing away without improvement, of poverty and des-
titution increasing, all owing to the baneful influence, he says,
of the English Government. The next authority I shall
cite is that of Mr. Pitt, who, in discussing a commercial
proposition in 1785, made this admission—" The uniform policy
of England has been to deprive Ireland of the use of her own re-
sources, and to make her subservient to the interests and opulence
of the English people." That is not my language,but read from news.
papers against me, avowing distinctly that the policy of England
was to use Ireland for her own purposes. My next authority is a
Lord Chief Justice of this Court, whe, in opposing the union in
'99, said—" You are giving up your independence. To whom ?
To a nation which for 600 years has treated you with uniform op-
pression and injustice." These are the words of Bushe; and if
I had the arranging of this language I could not put it so power-
fully or so strongly ; and by what expressions has it beets followed
? In the Government pamphlet published in the year 'O4, I
find this admission made by Mr. Secretary Coote—" That the
union was the only means of making Ireland too great and too
powerful ;" which showed that what Bushe said was perfectly true.
I have, Gentlemen, that great man, in another part of his speech,
in opposing the onion, saying, " that when he stripped the measure
he saw but one question in it, namely, would they give up their
country? It was, he considered, a measure which went to
degrade the entire nation, by saying it was unfit to govern it-
, self—a measure which was nothing less than a renewal of the title
of conquest, and the total denial of the rights of nature to a great
nation from the intolerance of its prosperity." When I began to
address you, I said I would show you that it was" the intolerance
of Irish prosperity" which passed the union; and if he were here this
I day he would have avowed every word of it, for he spoke it in the
perfect sincerity of his heart. Therefore, I need not go further in
showing you that the best authority, both foreign and domestic,
proclaimed the misgovernment of this country by England, and the
Government's open avowal that the Irish would become " too great
and ton powerful, if not ridden down by the union." These topics
had passed by and were nearly forgotten ; but 1 am obliged to the
Attorney-General for giving me an opportiniity of reviving them.
And while on this subject there is another author I shall refer to,
. to prove the same views upon behalf of the Government, which

~~,~~

.csc)
also a. natter of history. I mean the tette*. frcm Primate Muller,
dated January 19, 1750, in which, amongst other passages,
he says, " I made it my duty to talk with the lending
men, in Parliament, and I find that the people of every
religion and party are set against the union, which will have the
very bad effect of bringing them together on terms of intercourse
and friendship." Here, Gentlemen, we have an honoured prelate
saying that it is a most unhappy thing that the Papists and Whigs
should come together on terms of intimacy and conciliation. This
is the spirit of English d >mination which I complained of ; and I
ask you, have I sot proved what I promised from Bushe, Pitt, and
13oulter ?—and I conjure you, above all things, to remember the
declaration of the first of these men, who said the union was pro.
posed from " the intolerance of Irish prosperity." I will next
bring you to 1782, and detain you but a short time upon the sub-
ject, which, lam sure, is one familiar to every Irish mind, as the
only bright spot in our history—the only green oasis in this desert,
in the rule of misconduct which surrounds us. The transaction of
'B2 was of the most consummate advantage to England ; she
assailed America—America was disaffected and resisted, and
from her rebellion formed a revolution which made Ireland's
assistance necessary for her safety, for she had not troops to
garrison the country. Did the Irish nobility or gentry then
talk of separating from England ? No ; the idea was foreign
from every Irish mind, but they required the assertion of
their rights—free trade and legislative independence. It was not
prudent to refuse them, for they were loyal bit determined.
England conceded at the very time when the letter was written
, to Ireland calling Grattan a madman, who effected that glorious
revolution. This is but part of the history of the Brltish mo-
narchy, which declared that adjustment of 1782 final, in order
to leave no question open for future discussion. The King,
Lords, and Commons of England asserted, and the Lord Litute-
nant in Ireland declared the same in the Irish Parliament ;
but how is it attempted to be got rid of ?—for Mr. Fox said on the
Bth of April, 'B2, " that no country had a right to hold the so.
vereignty of another country without the will of that other."
such were the principles upon which the settlement was brought
about ; and did one of the gentlemen he addressed know a vo-
lunteer of 'B2 that did not glory in the victory P No ! for it
gave them a firmer hold on England—redoubled their allegi-
ance to the Cro vn, and the connexion which existed by
reason of that salutary action. I may be asked if the pros.
perity of Ireland was gained by her Legislative independence ?
and my reply is—that it was I and 1 will give you my evidence for
saying so. The first is from Mr. Pitt, who, in page 99 of his work,
openly stated it to have been the cause of Ireland's prosperity.—
(The Learned Gentleman then read some passages from the work
he alluded to in conformity with that opinion.) It would have
been part of Mr. Pitt's cue to show that a separate Legislature had
worked badly, but the facts were too powerful to be altogether
overlooked, and he, with a virtuous ingennity, availed himself of
the increasing prosperity of Ireland as an argument to prove that

it would be still more prosperous if her Parliament was united
with that of England. flow pressed he must have been when he
was left no other resource to sustain his argument but the glowing
absurdity which he thus used:—(Mr. O'Connell then read passages
from Mr. Foster's speeches in 1785, detailing, at great length,
the amount of Irish exportations and importations, and showing
that in the interval between that period and 1782, Ireland's pros.
perity had vastly increased; that within those three years she export..
ed to Great Britain more than 3,000,000!. worth of manufactures
in linen, and 3,000,0001. worth of provisions and cattle, besides
other products, while she imported little more than 1,000,0001.
worth of English manufactures.) How is it now ? At present
we import English manufactures very largely, and the greatest part
of the price of those manufactures consist in wages paid, of course
to the population of England. Why should we not recollect that
fact, and, above all, recollect that the people of Ireland were earn-
ing wages upon those 3,000,000/. wort of manufactures exported
to England while they consumed only 1,000,000/. of English pro.
ducts ? Nearly all our manufactures are now imported from
England, and we export nothing but our cattle. The time for
talking of the remedy for that has not as yet arrived. I have
quoted Pitt and Foster, and I shall now give you the authority of
Lord Clare, who, though not very friendly to his country, said in
1785, " There is no country in the world which has advanced so
much in her manufactures and her agriculture as Ireland has
within the same period." And in 1799 Lord Plunket described
Ireland as " a little Island, with a population of 4,000,000 or
5,000,000, advancing in prosperity beyond any other country on
the earth, and its that condition she was called upon to surrender
her Parliament to people of another little island, place4l beside
her, and scarcely double her size."

The Court here adjourned for half an hour. On resuming,
Mr. O'CosNert. continued to quote authorities in supporting the
opinion that Ireland had prospered under her own Parliament, the
principal of which were the resolutions of a meeting of bankers in
1799, at which the head of the house of Latouche was in the chair,
and the declaration of Mr. Hatton, a coach manufacturer, of this
city, in 1810. A Parliamentaty document showed that from 1785
to the period of the union the increase in the consumption of teas
in Ireland was 54 per cent., while it was only 45 per cent. in Eng.
land. The increase in tobacco in Ireland was 100 per cent., in
England 64; in wine in Ireland 74 per cent., in England 52 ; in
sugar 57 per cent. in Ireland, and in England 53; in coffee in
Ireland 600 per cent., in England 75. No country ever so rapidly
improved as Ireland did in that period. There was a cant word
used agninst Repeaters. They were charged with seeking a dig.
mernberment of the empire. The absurdity of that charge it was
scarcely necessary to demonstrate. If, when Ireland prospered under
her own Parliament, in connexion with England, she showed no
disposition to separate, why should she entertain a di.position to
break the connexion, if placed in similarly prosperous
circumstances ? What would she do it for ? I could
understand dismemberment as an objeet attributed to
a state of poverty and destitution, but it is absurd
to suppose such a disposition to exist with the prosperity
which Ireland enjoyed under her own Parliament, and which, I
trust, she will experience under her own Parliament again. I
regret that opening should have closed on Ireland, and that those
fiends and monsters who closed it should have been able to throw
Parliament under the feet of a party who, in the words of Mr.
Bushe, were intolerant of the prosperity of Ireland. Yet it was co.
It was that intolerance of our prosperity that induced the destruc.
Lion of the Irish Parliament, and the means taken to effect that
destruction were suited to the nature of so deleterous an object.
You have the authority of Mr. Fox, in 1806, that the union was as
atrocious in principle as it was abominable for the means by which
it was carried. The Attorney-General had referred to the Report of
the Secret Committee in 1797-1 refer you to the Report In 1798,
in which the Government were charged by I'lunket and by Bushe
with having fomented the rebellion until it was deemed safe that it
should explode. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read pas-
sages from Lord Plunket's speech on the union, in which his Lordship
said, " I accuse the Government of fomenting a languishing rebellion
a rebellion of Catholics against Protestants and Protestants against
Catholics.'' Ile next read passages from Grey's speech, stating
that " it had been said that all were Jacobins who opposed the
carrying of the union, but the fact was, that those who signed the
petition for it were in the power of the Lord-Lieutenant." He
next read passages from Mr. Bushe's speech, stating that " the
basest corruption and artifice were resorted to to promote the
union." Such, Gentlemen (continued Mr. O'Connell), is the
description given of the means by which the union was carried ;
but they are only a part of them. You know that there were
17,275,000/. actually spent in the purchase of rotten boroughs.
You know that there was near 3,000,0001. beside expended in
actual payment of the persons who voted for the union. You know
that there was no office in the State, from the highest in the
Church to the lowest in the constabulary, that was not used as a
bribe. In short, there was nothing sacred or profane that Was not
made use of. Having shown you briefly the means by which the
union was carried, I come now to detain you for as short a time as 1
can,by showing to you the evidences of the evil results ofthat measure.
Gentlemen, in the year '94 the Irish debt was only 7,000,0001. ; in
the year '9B it was 14,000,0001. ; and after that period the debt
increased to 350,000,0001. At the time of the union, the debt
of Ireland amounted to 21,000,000/. It is stated since that it
was 23,000,0001. in 1511, as Ireland should be chargeable with all
the expenses of carrying the union. But her debt was really only
21,000,0001., and that of England 446,000,000/. Now, what were

:he terns of the union ? That England was to bear the burden of
those 446,000,0001., and a separate taxation of 17,000,000/., and
that Ireland was not to be chargeable with those 446,000,0001.

You will ask, were those conditions complied with ? No, of
course they were not, and Ireland is chargeable now with every penny
of the entire amount ; and notwithstanding the distinct promise of
Lord Castlereagh, the lands, and property, and industry of Ireland
are all mortgaged for the entire debt. To show you how totally
mismanaged, to the detriment of Ireland, the finances had been,
and to the relief of England, I refer you to the Financial Report of
Public Expenditure of 1813. Mr. O'Connell then read the Report
to show the increase put in the debt on the side of Ireland. And
continued—The Irish Parliament had often been assailed, but there
never had been a more protective Parliament to the commerce and
general prosperity of Ireland than it was. It kept the country out of
debt. The English Parliament were running into debt with lavish
hands, while the Irish Parliament, thrifty and economical, were
keeping down the public debt. I will now lay before you statements
as to the financial robbery perpetrated on this country since the
union. It was arranged that Ireland should be accountable for two
parts of the debt, and England for fifteen parts, and that proportion
as regarded Ireland was admitted to be too large, yet soon after the
union the Irish debt had increased 230 per cent., while that of Eng.
land was but GO per cent. more than at the union. You find Eng-
land increasing the taxation of Ireland by 4,000,000 per annum of
new taxation, and what prospect could the country have when with
those new taxes it was paying off not its own debts, but those of
England ? In England there has been since then a decrease in tax-
ation of 41,065,202/., while in Ireland the reduction amounts only
to 584,0001. ; in other words, a proportion of one-half to 41. I will
now read to you a document of much importance, as showing the
opinions of those most competent to judge, respecting the means re.
sorted to to carry the union. It is the protest of nineteen Irish
l'ecrs against the union. A number of resolutions and reasons are
included in this protest; but I shall give you only two or three of
them. (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman read the9th, 10th, and I I th
clauses ef the protest, in which the dissentients stated that they con.
sidered the union a breach of trust, the settlement of 'B2 having
established the exclusive legislative authority of the Irish Parlia-
ment, without being liable to the interference of any other, and the
basest means, including the exercise of force and corrui tion,
having been employed to carry it.) Among other injuries resulting
from the union is the total inadequacy of the representation of Ire.
land as contrasted with that of England, and in particular the in.
finitely less voice the people of this country have, by reason of the
deficiency in the Parliamentary registry of voters. This is apparent
from the Parliamentary returns. The population of Wales is
800,000, and that of Cork, as I said before, is 703,716, and yet
Wales sends 28 Members to Parliament, and Cork only two. With
regard to revenue also, the deficiency in the amount of which, in
Ireland, was an argument used against giving her a greater num-
ber of representatives, I find in Parliamentary papers, published
in 1832, that the revenue of Ireland amounts to 4,392,0001.;
whereas the revenue of Wales only amounts to 346,000/. I
have looked into the statements of the amount of revenue col.
lected in the single port of Cork, and I find that, in one year, it
amounted to 263,0001., and in another to 272,0001. ; and yet the
great disproportion I have stated in
.the number of representatives
between that county and Wales is permitted to exist. Another
complaint has been made, and justly made, of the inadequacy of the
representation of Ireland. Ireland, as you are aware, has only
105 Members in the House of Commons, and I am prepared to
show that upon Lord Castlereagh's own calculations we ought to
have 150 Members at least. Thus it is demonstrated that Ireland
has been defrauded in her franchise, defrauded In her represents.
lion, defrauded even in the details of her finances, and defrauded
in every one of the details of the union. Are you not aware that
a considerable mitigation of the expenditure of the country has re.
stilted from the different revenue boards existing in Ireland ? Are
they here now P NVhat has become of the Treasury Board P It
has been transplanted to England. The Customs, and Board of
Excise ? Transplanted to England. The Stamp-office and other
offices, which have bean greatly diminished in numbers, and are
near extinction. The entire expenditure which mitigated the
taxation of Ireland has been all centered in England ; even the
Old Man's Hospital is expiring. I ask you, is it lair or reasonable
to the country to have centralization operating against us, and in
favour of England? (The Learned Gentleman then read docu-
ments to show that an unfair proportion of Englishmen and
Scotchinen had been appointed to situations in Ireland over the
heads of Irishmen, and that the exports and imports from and to
Ireland had diminished since the union, and also one respecting
the number of looms working, and men employed in the liberty,
which had decreased to a great extent, and proceeded to say, there
is no trade of which I could not read you similar lists, showing
the decrease of employment, and of master manufacturers who
were reduced to poverty, together with their families, by the
union.) House property had fallen to a most melanoholy
for in the best and most iashionable streets in Dublin the finest
house could be purchased for a very inconsiderable sum. It is
not the want of materials that prevents me going further into
this detail, but there is no necessity for it;
yourselves, Gentlemen, these mansions where wealth and splendour
for you can see
formerly resided, and was concentrated, ruined and nog'
lected ; and the question is, will you, endeavour toto prevent
those who are struggling to makie,
documents,
show
you
it I have "w gone
thratgh
tirre;enwil before the
the prosperity ihat existed
and inequality; and I nose ash you —lappeal to you -whether I
the ail the
a 111:g meanstftbsyl ,ev 11)171i: ieta ryas taken from her—of it injustice

VI

„, F 4 (11.1*,/