The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1843-07-06
NO. 2.
D. S. MURRAY, PRINTER.

settles the succession Of the Crown
upon the basis of those rights and
liberties Of the subject. Her Maies-
TVS title, therefore, to the Throne is
based upon the right of petition
and the statute expressly declaros-
"That all commitments and prose-
cutions for such petitioning are lille
gal, The deprivation of the COM
mission Of the peace may not be
technically prosecution. But it is
intended as a punishment; and pun
lshment without prosecution would
make the act ofthe Lord Chancellor
only the more criminal. mean to
lnsst-and | think the argument will
have weight with an Irish parlia-
ment freely and fairly elected-that
the act of the Chancellor necessarily
ondangers the stability ofthe Throne
and the security Of the connection
between both countries.
"The commission Of the peace is
of very small importance to me, who
never acted more than once under
that commission. But the principle
upon which the Chancellor acts, I
utterly protest against, as being in
its essential nature disloyal, and
dangerous alike to the Throne and
the people.
That the repeal meetings to Pc
tition parliament are not illegal, is a
proposition admitted in your letter
TO Lord French; and really you
must permit me to say that it is in
no slight degree absurd TO alleee
that these meetings have an inev-
table tendency 10 outrage !!"-
Why, meetings have been held-as
everybody in Ireland knows, or
ought to know, as numerously-aye,
and as peaceably-before the pas
sing of the Emancipation Act as du-
ring the present repeal aa:tation,-
! here have been within the last
three months more than 20 of these
multltudinous meetings to petition
without having caused a single Of
fence. How, then, they can have
an inevitable tendency" to outrage,
without having ever produced a sin
gle outrage, is not within the COM
prehension of a mere Irish LAWYER,
although it may be within the sa9ac-
lty OF an English Chancellor
How can the Chancellor be of
opinion that meetings to petition are
not within the spirit of the constitu-
ton, when the constitution itself rec
ognises, sanctions, ay, and cnlo1ces
the right so to petition? And as to
the notion OF their becoming dan
gerous to the safety of the state, the
danger TO the state would in reality
consist in suppressing the groans Of
the people; in compelling them to
brood in silence over their wrongs
and their suf1erings and a more
wronged and suffering people exist
not under the face Of Heaven than
the Irish people. The danger to the
state would consist in suppressing
the expression Of popular opinion;
in damming up the constitutional
channels of relief; and in thereby
driving the people to the wild and
hideous "justicc of revenge" in
stead Of leaving them to the fair
hopes of relief from the houses of
parliament and from the throne.
CAS- to the argument used in your
letter TO Lord French with respect
to the inability Of the magistrates at
tending meetings to repress violence,
it bears dramatically the opposite
way. For no individual could posi-
bIy have SO direct and personal an
interest in preventing violence and
SURPRISING outrage as magistrates
who are parties to, and responsible
for, the calling together of such
meetings.
"With respect to your assertion
that her Majesty has, like her
predecessors, expressed her determ-
lnation to prevent the carrying of
the repeal Of the union," it has filed
me with the most utter and inexpres-
sibo astonishment. You must know
and indeed much fear you must
have known when you made that as
sertion-that it was utterly unloand-
ed; in fact, Sir Robt. PEEL has him
self admitted the falsily orthat state
ment. Her Majesty, whom the peo-
pie Of Ireland affectionalely revere,
has made no such declaration; and,
indeed, must say it enhances the
criminalily of the Lord Chancellor
that he has permitted the putting