The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-08 00:00:00

Did they ever produce it ? Was it proved that it flowed from
ny of them ? No; they stand in that respect acquitted. The
Attorney-General himself has admitted the peaceable nature of my
intentions, and nothing conld 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 nhe 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-
tained and announced them. A Catholic, lam 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 com-
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
atone 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 m y 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.
lished 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 ? I bad 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 considers.
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-lave. With the
influence I 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 popularity—taunted by many and many a sincere friend—bit-
terly sneered at by many men who had joined me, I consulted my
conscience, I consulted the real nature of a provision that makes
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 do I
appeal in answer to this foul charge which has been brought
against me. You recollect—for it was given in evidence—the
manner in which I answered young Mr. Tyler. You rernem.
ber, 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. Hughes, 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 am thoroughly convinced that it was a
mere mistake which he committed, ang 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 unneces-
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 reeollect 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 One alert—the Southern
States were collecting subscriptions, and large sums of money
had been accumulated in Carolina to assist the Repeaters. Did
shrink from doing my duty on the slave question then ? Did
I mot 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 ?—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 1
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 ? 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 ? Even the present Monarch of
*Prance I have not attempted to win over. I have refused the
&lightest 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 their plan.
Was there the slightest comparison between them and the Repeal.
era ? 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 wait 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
Chartists. 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 tine 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 ? 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 That I kept Ireland free
from this pollution. There is another matter to which I wish to
call 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-Generel'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 opens for him to comment on that
'vetch ; 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 f• Judy took an unfair advantage of use' in speaking
of her Majesty. Now, I said it was the Ministers' speech—and it
was of the Ministerial scolding 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 mum) 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 console.
sign. I have detained you longer than I thought respecting my
pulstic conduct. To you I leave it, but having in reserve the
y means
consolation of knowing, that though m
may be feeble, my
and ray energies declining,
indents confessedly small,
ardent,
my enthusiastic, and burning love of Ireland and
y u
quenchable; it is a portion of my very vitality,
and fokrins th -
Y e
entire of my political interests. Well, public meetings' t
they must have an object—and so they had their object ace;
repeal of the union. That it was a bad or injurious
object,
utterly deny ; it was a most useful object, and I shall Pr
you that there is not a man in this Court—the neutralityonfv'
ttre
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
daughter.) 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 ? I shall now
tell you what I mean to do. I mean first to demonstrate that the
ii,nglish Parliament has, from the remotest period at which she
possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow, jealous, re-
etrictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis, 1 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 upon the Irish people against their
consent, by the most criminal means. I 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 sts.
tote, and that there is no probability—l think no possible means—
of restoring prosperity to this country, or of avoiding ultimate sepa-
-WPM 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 I scarcely think it worth while detaining
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
the 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 1 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 is,
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 impo.
verished, and this is owing to their proximity to England." There
is a disinterested historian giving this melancholy picture of cen.
tunes 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, who, 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 1 could not put it so power-
fully or so strongly ; and by what expressions has it been followed
up? In the Government pamphlet published in the year '9B, 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 union, 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 ifhe were here this
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 too powerful, if not ridden down by the union." These topics
had passed by and were nearly forgotten ; but I am obliged to the
Attorney-General for giving me an opportunity of reviving them.
And while on this subject there is another author I shall refer to,
to proTe the same views upon behalf of the Government, which is
also a matter of history. I mean the letter from Primate Boulter,
dated January 19, 1750, in which, amongst other passages,
he says, " I made it my duty to talk with the leading
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 Englis domination which I complained of; and I
ask you, have I tint proved what 1 promised from Bushe, Pitt, and
Boulter ?—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 British 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. Lieute.
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 ? No ! for it
gave them a firmer hold on England—redoubled their allegi.
ance to the Croxn, 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 ! and I 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. How 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 3,000,000/. worth of provisions and cattle, besides
other products, while she imported little more than 1,000,000/.
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/. worth 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 in that condition she was called upon to surrender
her Parliament to people of another little island, placed beside
her, and scarcely double her size."
The Court here adjourned for half an hour. On resuming,
Mr. O'CosNELL 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 Parliamentary document showed that from 1785
to the period of the union the increase in the consumption of teas
in Ireland was 84 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 is 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 ag:.inst Repealers. They were charged with seeking a dis-
memberment 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 disposition to
break the connexion, if' placed in similarly prosperous
circumstances ? What would she do it for ? I could
understand dismemberment as an object 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
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 so.
It was that intolerance of our prosperity that induced the destruc-
tion 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 Plunket and by Bushe
with having fomented the rebellion until it was deemed safe that it
should explode. The Hon. and Learued 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." He 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 3,000,000/. 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 todetain you for as short a time as I
can, by showing to you the evidences of the evil results ofthat measure.
Gentlemen, in the year '94 the Irish debt was only 7,000,000/. ; 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 23,000,000/. in 1811, 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
the terms of the union ? That England was to bear the burden of
those 446,000,000!., and a separate taxation of 17,000,000!., and
that Ireland was not to be chargeable with those 446,000,000/.
You will ask, were those conditions complied with ? No, of
course they were not, and Ireland is chargeable now with every penny
of the cntire 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 beta,
and to the relief of England, I refer you to the Financial Report of
Public Expenditure of 1815. 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
gneenveerrehlaydreeb epee.;
tat
yme of vier
epiraoht
de ctthi va en
iPtawr lai
was.
elnt tketooththeeccoomumnterrycoeuatnodf
debt. The English Parliament were running into debt with lavish
kh
ea
eni,lish,
gwdheitel then
the
public
i e
dPeahrtß Parliament,
nowth ri fltayyahnedthecreoneou micastatements will lwere
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 60 per cent. more than at the union. You find Eng.
land increasing the taxation of Ireland by 4,000,000 per annnm of
new taxation, and what prospect could the country have when wi th
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 41,085,202 t, while in Ireland the reduction amounts only

PitlOES OF SHARES