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

have not presented a picture which would make it the duty of every
honest man to rally with me to remedy those evils by a restoration
of that Parliament ? You have now seen distinctly my objects, and the
objects of the men who are combined with me to obtain a repeal,
which is our proud boast ; but that we are in a guilty combination
we reject with scorn. We want to restore to Ireland the authority
and prerogative of the Queen in the creation of the peerage,
to the Irish peer his proper and hereditary judicial authority, and
to the representation of the people the right of making their laws.
You have a right to ask me the mode of obtaining this measure;
you have a right to ask me, and I will answer it, One of our
modes is not to use sectarian means in labouring for repeal; and
while upon this subject I wish to call your attention to what has
already occurred on the part of those who laboured with me. We
never sought to sacrifice our country for any sect or party ; on the
contrary, there cannot be more strong proof of anything than our
utter abhorrence of such means, or of those who profess such to be
their object. The Roman Catholics of Dublin he'd a public meet-
ing in Francis-street on the 9th April, 1795, where they declared
that, feeling sincerely attached to their native country, to its rights
and liberties, and so fatal did they consider the union between
Great Britain and Ireland to be, that they were determined to re-
sist it to the utmost, even though their own emancipation was of-
, fered them as a compromise. That was the way in which the Ro-
man Catholics of Ireland Met the question of the union of 1795.
(Mr. O'Connell then read a passage from the first speech he ever
made in public. It was delivered on the 13th of January, 1800,
and represented the opinions of the Catholics of Ireland then to be
so hostile to the union, that even if they were offered the alterna-
tive of the union or the re-enactment of the penal code, with all
its honors, they would prefer the latter, and, even if emancipation
was offered to them for their consent to the union, they would
reject it with scorn and indignation.) That (continued the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman) was my first political
speech. These were the sentiments of myself and the Catho-
tics of Ireland, with reference Ao the union. Why, then,
should we be charged with sectarianism ? Gentlemen of
the Jury. you cannot but be all well aware that the case of
the Protestant Dissenters of England was warmly advocated by
me—that I presented a petition in their favour, signed by 28,000
Roman Catholics, and adopted at an aggregate meeting of Roman
Catholics. That petition was not on the table of the House of
Commons six weeks when the Protestant Disienters of England
were emancipated. I scorn, therefore, and treat with the most
sovereign contempt and indifference the idea of sectarianism. It
has been said, that I have made violent speeches; if I have,
would it net be but fair to allow me the opportunity of showing
how far these speeches were accurate or inaccurate, or what was
explanatory er mitigatory, and not reserve them for so remote a
period as this is, from the time some of them have been delivered.
But no ; there has been no violence on our side ; if there has been
any violence, it is entirely upon the part of our opponents. I
will now read you an article which appeared on the 2d of August,
1841, in an English Paper, the Cheltenham Chronicle, which cir-
culates very generally thyough Bath and Bristol, Shrewsbury,
and the other great towns in the south and west of England.
(The Learned Gentleman .tl(en read the article.) After de.
scribing the condition of Ireland, it went on to say that the people
were a wild, savage, uncivilised race, the slaves of O'Connell—
that every Irish priest should be secured and exiled for life—
( Laughter)—and not permitted to return to Ireland on penalty of
death . That that could be achieved only by a Conservative Go.
vernment.—(Renewed laughter.) It could only be done by Sir
Robert Peel and his colleagvies. I now wish to say one word on
the subject of the Arbitration Courts. I need not tell you that
there are no oaths in these Courts, and that there could be none.
I do not know whether A strikes you that this was arm advantage
in these Courts. I presume you participate in the horror With
which I have viewed the flippant profanation with which oaths
are administered in the several departments of the State, and
that as Christian men you desire that they should be less fee.
quent. In one year alone, in 1832, no less than 172,000 oaths
were administered in the Customs, and 158,000 oaths were
administered in the Excise Department. This was an un-
necessary profanation, for the parties who swore were
not trusted. They were as strictly watched as if they
bad not taken an oath. Lord Nugent asked me, I recollect,
to assist him in bringing in a BM substituting in all revenue cases
declarations for oaths. I did assist him, and the Bill is now the
law of the land. I would extend its principle further, and apply
it to cases 'of property. You can place no value on the oath of a
man who would tell you an untruth about property. An oath
cannot be binding on a mind of that description. When the time
is ripe—and I hope it is fast coming—l hope to see, as in the case
of the Quakers, the declaration of every Christian taken in all mat.
tors ; and, if in this we only imitate what is already done by reli.
gious communities, do not describe us as conspirators because we
act in a similar way. Well, it being conceded that these meet-
logs were peaceable in their origin, conduct, and designs, what, let
TIM ask, has the Crown read foe you as evidence of the mode in which
Repeal is to be carried ? The first evidence read for that purpose
was the regulations of the Repeal Association.—(The Learned Gen-
tleman read the regulations, which have been already published.)—
This, gentlemen, is the plan of the Repeal Association. It holds
out hest the alternative of those acts of justice to Ireland;
it holds out, then, the looking for repeal in the manner prescribed,
with the expression of their full fidelity and allegiance, and de.
dares the peaceful and legal means, with their full avowal of a
determination to look for repeal in that way, and in no other.
Under those circumstances you have the combination that comes
before you called a conspiracy. Well, in order, however, to carry
it further, the counsel for the Crown have read another document.
It is the reconstruction of the House of Commons—" the renewed
action of the Irish Parliament." The Learned Gentleman then
read extracts from the second document, entitled " Plan for the
renewed action of the Irish House of Commons, stating that Re.
pealers recognise and acknowledge the right of her Majesty Queen
Victoria, her heirs and successors, to all the rights and privileges in.
herent in the Crown of Ireland ; that they would bear their most faith.
fill allegiance to her Majesty, her heirs and successors ;*and that they
acknowledge they would maintain all hereditary privileges of the
Peers of Ireland, as before." This, Gentlemen, is the evidence
fer the prosecution, this is the evidence to prove a conspiracy and
illegal means and objects. Gentlemen of the jury, we did not call
for this evidence, though I admit that it contains an admirable
defence for us ; hut it is produced by the Attorney. General, and on
that he calls on you to find us guilty. There is the plan of repeal,
and what fault do you find with it ? It discusses, and I insist on
my right to discuss, the great constitutional question as to the com-
petency of the Irish Parliament to pass the Act of Union. That
question was discussed before the union was thought of, if I may
so speak. la the work called " Locke on Government"—a trea-
tise written to prove that William was the lawful monarch, by rea.
son of the occurrences which had taken place—a beok which, at
the time of the union, was a class-book in Trinity College, al.
t hough since withdrawn from the course—but still a book of autho-
rity, and, undoubtedly, one of the instruments by which the revolu-
tion of 1688 was achieved—a revolution which no one admires
more than I do—in that work occurs a passage to which I demand
your serious attention (Mr, O'Connell read the passage, which
has been frequently quoted during the trial), in which it is
laid down, that Parliament had the power of making laws,
but not Legislatures, and that it could not delegate that
power to others. He also read an extract from Mr. Saurin's
speech, delivered en the 15th of March, 1800, in which that gen-
tleman asserted that the union would be a nullity, if forced on the
Irish people against their *lt ; and another passage in a subsequent
speech in which Mr. Sauria gave it as his opinion, that although
they might make the union binding as a law, they could not
Make it obligatory on conscience, and resistance to it in the ab-
stract would become a duty. My Lords, I insist on the truth of
that constitutional doctrine. I take the qualification that has been
laid down by Mr. Saurin that the Act is binding as a law, while it
continues to have form and shape, but it is not binding on con.
science, on principle, or on right. It has been said that I pro-
nonoced the Acts passed since the union to be void. I did not say
so ; for, if they were void, the Act of Catholic Emancipation
must be void as well as the rest. But give me the repeal of the
union, and we will soon come ,o terms about that. I would then
make you a present of the Emancipation Act. I may be wrong
in my position, but I have a right to argue these questions—
every man has a right to argue them. Gentlemen of the jury,
the point arose in 1782, and the Irish Parliament then de-
clared that no power on earth could bind the Irish people but the
king, lords, and commons of Ireland, and an Act was passed to
that effect. The consequence of that was to do away with all the
laws in reference to Ireland made in England. But they went
even further, and passed laws which deranged the whole property
of the country. That state of things was not permitted to exist an
hour; for Chief Baron Yelverton brought in a Bill which provided
that all laws passed by the British Parliament, whether with regard
to Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, should apply
equally to both countries. It has also (said Mr. O'Connell) been
said, that this was inconsistent with allegiance. I deny it. If
the authority exists in the Queen, it can be exercised by the
responsible Minister. lam now nearly drawing to a close ; but I
must first go back to the evils of the union, and show the necessity
of every man exerting himself to obtain repeal. I ask you, first,
would it not cure the hideous evil of absenteeism ? A very talented
gentleman, Mr. Hayes, of Cork, has calcu'ated that 9,000,000/.
surplus revenue passes out of this country every year. Time railway
Commissioners reduce- it to 6,000,0001. I take the reduced amount,
and I ask, if ever any country suffered so much as this from the
drain consequent upon absenteeism ? We don't want English
capital; give us our own 6,000,0001., we want no more, we have
enough for own purposes, If it is only allowed to remain with us.
The surplus revenue, gentlemen, is another exhaustion of the re.
sources of Ireland. It amounts in some years to two millions. Last
year I think it was so low as 700,0001.; but whether one amount
or the other, it is drained out of this country never to return.
Again, the Woods and Forests department get 74,000/, a year in
quit rents and Crown rents out of Ireland. How has that been
spent fur the last ten years ? Why in making the Thames
Tunnel and beautifying Trafalgar.square. We want arm ad
. _ _

ditional bridge here, and why should we not have that 74,0001.
to erect it? Have we not as good a right to it as the

citizens of London If we had an Irish Parliament sitting,
would we permit these continual drains ? No and gentlemen,
bill you give your consent, your votes I will say, to the sending
over of all the money to ornament Trafalgar square ? or will you
raise your voice on behalf of those who honestly contend that Ire.
land should have the benefit of her own resources ? There are

other evils contingent with this drsin upon our country. I heard
in Parliament quoted a work by a Mr. Young, a political econo.
mist, who travelled through Ireland in 1778, and who, in writing
en the, subject of the increase •f the population, observed that all
the children grew up to be men and women, and he accounted for
that by their never-failing bellyful of potatoes. Was that the

case now ? Had not the condition of the people and of the coun-
try declined ? Are you not affrighted at, and your country de-
seeded by, periodical famines, six or eight of which have oc-
curred since the union ? Quantities of provisions were ex-
ported to England at the very moment the people here were
expiring from famine. The history of distress in the report
of the Poor-law Commissioners was appalling; and the Population
Commissioners' Report, which has just come out, exhibits the
evil in an aggravated shape. The gentlemen who framed it,
Captain Larcom, reports that 30 per cent, of the population of the
cities and towns in Ireland are in a state of the most abject po.
verty, and, that 70 per cent. of the agricultural population are in a
like condition. Where is the perpetual bellyful of potatoes now,
and where is the advantage of the union when such a state of
things is in existence ? And are these grievances to remain
Are we who seek a remedy for them to be hunted out of society
as conspirators, and those smiling and exulting in the honours
of office, to be supported, praised, and sustained, while the friends
of the poor, those whys desired that they shoyld receive wages,
net alms, and that industry should be rewarded, are differently
treated ? I speak nit of their being charitable and hu.
mane—but I take up the public principle, and I ask whether
these who seek to relieve the enormity of distress are
to be prosecuted or perseeuted. We are looking out for the
means of relieving the distress of which our country complains.
We have all the natural resources for prosperity. Examine our
stand—it is one of the most fertile upon the face of the globe-
There is no country in the world which is so well circumstanced—
possessing so many harbours and excellent estuaries. It is an old
historical fact, that the Irish harbours arc better than those of Eng.
/and—her waters carry vessels of 500 tons burden into the very
centre of Ireland—the island is indented at every side by havens
which are secure from every wind that blows during the twenty.
four hours. No country has such power as Ireland—the machinery
of the world might be turned by it; and, oh: what a difference
there is between machinery and manufactures carried on in the
free air and wholesome atmosphere which surround a water- ,
. . .

power—and all the hideous filth and unwholesomeness which ne-
ce4sarily belongs to the factory system in the sister country. There is
not a spot in Ireland Which is more that 30 miles distant from a

good harbour. Take the map of the country, and this will be seen.
Why is not the country prosperous ? Did I not read of the untold
. . _ . .

—unheard of magical prosperity which followed from the existence

of a native legislature, from the writings and observations of men
most adverse to Ireland, and whose business it was to conceal the

condition of the country before the union ? Had I not read this
vidence of the increasing prosperity of Ireland under her Par.
lianieot. What happened once will surely happen again. This
struggle is to recover the poor from poverty, to enable those
who are idle, from want of wages or occupation. to keep the
revenues of the country in it, to retain the nobility of the land.
I Jettye the case with you ; I utterly deny that I have said or done

anything to warrant the imputation that lam a conspirator. I

reject the accusation with contempt. I acted in the open day, in
the presence of the Government, of the magistrates, and I said