THE UNIVERSITY 0 ^ ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the collection of James Collins, Dr\imcondra, Ireland. Purchased, 1918. 342415 Oc5t' Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. University of Illinois Library Hug ICC 0 li !987' Ci V . c " 4 - /d 4" - ^ / . OAIC ST, ED3F 1 u I C /y-^^ r'/x^^Tyt f Oy > n, ' - f '■ > T » - ' "■V>- I INSTRUCTIONS ^ £ 0 ^ the APPOINTMENT OF MPEj^ WARDENS oe^trt^ COLLECTORS OF THSIrEPEAL FUND, THEIR DUTIES, &c. * , .-.f DUBLIN: PRINTED BY J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-ST. 1843, N.B, — Each person having paid up one shil- ling, is entitled to be enrolled as an Associate Repealer. Each person having paid one pound, is entitled to be admitted a IMember. Each pet^son having collected twenty shil- lings, is entitled to be admitted a IVIember, (pro- vided he is himself a contributor of one shilling or more to the Repeal Fund.) Each person subscribing ten pounds, is enti- tled to be enrolled a Volunteer. Each person collecting ten pounds, is entitled to be enrolled as a Volunteer, (provided he be Iiimself a subscriber of one shilling or more to the Repeal Fund.) In each and all of the above cases, the individual must be moved and seconded at a Public Meeting of the Association. Repeal Wardens and Collectors of Ire- land ! — upon you depends the success of the great constitutional struggle in progress for the restoration of our country’s Legislative Inde- pendence. In your hands are placed the future destinies of Ireland. If you neglect your du- ties, Ireland must continue in the capacity of a wretched and ill-treated province. But, if you discharge those duties with zeal and active patriotism, Ireland shall again be a Nation ! It is for you, then. Repeal Wardens and Collectors, to answer this plain, but all-im- portant question : Shall Ireland continue to he an ill-used province ? or, shall Ireland he again a NATION ! possessing a Parliament, freely chosen by her own people, and making laws for the protection and benefit of the EIGHT MILLIONS of her brave, moral, and industrious inhabitants ? Speak, then. Repeal Wardens and Col- lectors! Will you, through apathy, suffer 4 your country to continue what she is, — a neg^ lected and pauperised province ? ^vhen it is in your power, by constitutional exertion alone, to elevate her to the position and dignity of a HAPPY, CONTENTED, and PROSPEROUS NA- TION ! ! In order effectually to repeal the baneful Act of Union, there is only one thing neces- sary to be done, and that one thing is — to per- fect the legal and peaceable organization of the great majority of the Irish people, and to haye their names enrolled in the books of the Loyal National Repeal Association. — Such was the simple but successful plan, whereby Catholic Emancipation was extorted from the grasp of a reluctant British ministry ! We have told you, that there is only one thing necessary to be done, in order to enable Irishmen to regain their Legislative Independ- ence ; and that one simple thing is, — to have Ireland legally and peaceably organized ! We shall now proceed to point out the mode by which this constitutional organization is to be completed ; and for this purpose we shall consider, in the first place, — what are the ne- cessary Qualifications of Repeal Wardens and Collectors ; — . 5 First — And above all things — ^the Repeal Wardens and Collectors should be men of good moral character. Secondly — They should enjoy the respect of their clergy, let them be of what religious denomination they may. * Thirdly — They should possess an intimate knowledge of the district to be collected by them. Fourthly — They should be men determined to exert themselves strenuously in enrolling Members and Associates. Fifthly — They should be persons disposed to reason calmly with such as refuse their co- operation in the Repeal cause at present — but to avoid all strife, and never to reproach those who differ from them in opinion. Sixthly — They should be persons who under- stand the principal arguments in favour of Repeal — who are able to explain to those who may want information on the subject, the strictly legal means by which Repeal is to be gained — the advantages that should re- sult to Ireland from the re-establishment of her Native Parliament — what has been the rapid - decline of Irish trade and manufac- ture, and what the increase of Irish poverty and destitution, since the baneful Act of Union was forced upon this country, against the expressed will, and in opposition to the decided interests, of its inhabitants. A 2 6 We shall next describe the mode in which Wardens and Collectors are to be ap- pointed. The First mode we recommend, and in- deed the wisest and best, is, to have pro- per and efficient persons recommended to the Association by the parochial Clergy, for the various streets, townlands, or other districts, into which their parishes are to be divided. Secondly — Should the Clergy not interfere, the persons to act as Wardens should then be recommended at a public Meeting ; but in ei- ther case, their names must be transmitted to the Repeal Association in Dublin, and their ap- pointment regularly moved ; for the National Repeal Association alone is competent legally to appoint the Wardens — other persons, bodies, or meetings may recommend^ but they cannot appoint ; the power of appointment to these of- fices rests with the Association alone legally — but every reliance may be had that, unless for lome very strong reasons, the recommendation >f the persons named will be confirmed by the Association. When each Repeal Warden is thus duly appointed, he will receive a written notification from the Association, and when he shall have completed remittances to the amount of £5, he will be presented with the handsome diploma recently designed. 7 DUTIES OF THE REPEAL WARDENS. The first duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to divide the parish or place into districts of con- venient size, and each to take upon himself the care of one district. The second duty of each Repeal Warden is, to appoint as many Collectors as he may deem necessary, to act with him, and to collect the Repeal Fund regularly within his district, from each individual willing to contribute a farthing a-week, a penny a-month, or a shil- ling a-year — taking care to make every person favourable to the Repeal understand, that un- less he contributes to the amount of a shilling a-year, his name cannot be enrolled as a Re- pealer, and therefore he will be calculated upon by the enemies of Ireland as against the Repeal ! The third duty of each active Repeal Warden is to supply the place, so far as he possibly can, of any Repeal Warden who shall through ill- ness, or other cause, neglect having his district collected, and to complete the collection in such neglected district, as though it were his own, reporting such neglect to the Association. The fourth duty of the Repeal Wardens of each parish or district will be, to select the most efficient amongst them as an Inspector. In every case where oxl-a or all of the Parochial Clergy can be prevailed on to act in that capa- city, they should be selected without hesitation. 8 But should the Parochial Clergy be disinclined to act, the Wardens ought then name some zealous and intelligent person of their own body, to act as such Inspector, always taking care to transmit the names of such individuals in the first instance to the Association, for appointment. The fifth duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to transmit to the Secretary of the Repeal Association In Dublin, if possible weeldy, and, if not weekly, at as short periods as possible, the amount collected, and the names and re- sidences of the Contributors, that they may be enrolled as Associates, or admitted Mem.bers, as the case may be, and their Cards duly for- warded accordingly — The Wardens are to be careful in keeping copies of these lists, to faci- litate the collections. The sixth duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to procure Signatures to the various Petitions agreed to by the Association, or by any Repeal Meeting, and to take special care that none but genuine Signatures are affixed thereto ; or when persons cannot write, to obtain their authority for affixing their names ; and also to transmit such Petitions either to the Secretary of the Re- peal Association in Dublin, or to the Mem- ber of Parliament fixed upon to present them. The seventh duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to promote the Registry of Parliamentary, Mu- nicipal, and Poor Law Electors, on the Liberal Int?erest, by ascertaining the names and quali- fications of all such persons, not registered, who ^re qualified, and inducing them to take the 9 necessary steps to have their franchise estab- lished. The eighth duty oi. the Repeal Wardens is, to promote the encouragement of Irish Manu- factures in their several districts, to the exclu- sion of all foreign made articles. The ninth duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to take care that there shall he transmitted from the Association to each locality a Weekly Newspaper for every two hundred Associates, or a Three-day Paper for every four hundred, enrolled in such locality, as the case may be. The sum of Ten Pounds collected and for- warded to the Association, entitles the Repeal- ers of the district whence it comes, to a Weekly Paper for the entire year gratis ; and the sum of Twenty Pounds entitles them to the PiM’ or Evening Freer^an^’ Newspaper for the same period, if they prefer either to two Weekly Papers. The tenth duty of the Repeal Wardens is, to have the Newspapers to which each Parish or district may be entitled, put into the hands of such persons as will give the greatest circu- lation to their contents ; so that each Paper may be read by, and its contents communicated to, as many people as possible. For the purpose of circulating the proceed- ings of the Association and other Repeal news, by access to the Newspapers, and also for the purpose of tiansacting general business, such as arranging accounts, paying in subscriptions, transmitting the receipts to Dublin, &c., we 10 would recommend that wherever there is a sufficient number of Repealers enrolled, the Wardens and Collectors should provide a convenient room to meet in ; such a room can be hired for a mere trifle weekly, in any town or village ; hut the Wardens are in every such case to consult the Association in Dublin pre- viously. The office of Repeal Warden, though highly honourable and eminently useful, must be purely ministerial. They must not he, or be considered, as Representatives or Delegates. It is plain that, in point of fact, they are not so. But they must not assume or pretend to be so, nor must any of them violate the law in any respect. We are quite satisfied that nobody will be recommended for the appoint- ment, but one who is thoroughly convinced, that whoever violates the law, strengthens the ene- mies of Ireland ; this is an axiom of the most undoubted truth. — It ought, we repeat it, to be engraved on the mind of every Repealer, that ‘‘ WHOEVER VIOLATES THE LAW, STRENGTHENS THE ENEMIES OF IRELAND.” The Repeal Wardens are not to be, nor to consider themselves to be, nor to act as a se- parate or distinct body from the Repeal Asso- ciation, but are in fact local Committees of that body, and subject to its control. Neither are there to be established separate Associations or Branches, distinct from the Association in Dublin, but all are to belong to, and form part 11 of, the one Association in Dublin. The Loyal National Repeal Association could not act in connexion with such separate bodies, which thus, instead of being an assistance to the cause of Repeal, would become a source of weakness by division. The eleventh and last duty we shall point out to the Repeal Wardens, is one of the greatest possible importance. It is to use all their in- fluence and timely exertion to have all Meetings perfectly peaceable, and on all occasions to pre- vent riot or disorder of any kind. Above all tilings they should endeavour to detect and bring to justice any wretch wicked enough to venture to administer a secret oath. He who would administer a secret oath, would likewise sell his unfortunate victim the moment after he succeeded in duping him to take it. The Repeal Wardens must also prevent the formation or continuance of any Secret Society whatsoever. Hemember that “he who coxxunits a crime g^ives strength to the enemy.” In conclusion we call firmly upon the Re- peal Wardens to do their duty, to perfornt the glorious task allotted to them. The suc- cess of the Repeal Agitation depends princi- pally, if not entirely, upon their exertions. If we can get Repeal Wardens in every parish to act energetically, and, above aU, perseveringly, the Repeal of the Union is certain. 12 Let every Repeal Warden recollect, that upon his own individual exertion may depend the greatest possible quantity of good to his native country. The office of Repeal Warden is one of the highest utility, and of the most honorable im- portance, but of course gratuitous. REPEAL WARDENS, do your duty, and Ireland is free ! DANIEL O’CONNELI.^ Chairman of the Committee. Corn Exchange Rooms, May, 1843 . :» :[ A I I PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LOYAL NATIONAL REPEAL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND. SPEECH OF THE VERY REV. DOCTOR SHEEHAN, Vicar • General of the Diocese of KUfenora^ AT THE GREAT REPEAL MEETING, HELD AT ENNISTYMON, COUNTY CLARE, On SUNDAY, the 22nd JANUARY, 1843. In proposing the first resolution the Very Rev. Gentleman spoke as follows : — We need not now regret our being obliged, from inclement weather, to adjourn, since this day is so fine as if nature were smiling on our efforts, and afford- ing the amplest opportunity for the imposing display of such countless numbers ! What a pity we have not Mr. Ray to-day, the respect- able and respected secretary of the Repeal As- sociation, to behold this vast assemblage of peo- ple — one of the most splendid demonstrations which has yet taken place in our county in con- nexion with the Repeal movement. What a pity he is not here to make the scene still more interesting, by hearing from his lips the mea- sures which his matured experience and prac- ticed judgment enable him to propound for the peace and prosperity of our native land — 2 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN the happiness and well being of our common country. We have assembled to contribute the contingent of our exertions towards the most noble purpose which could engage the atten- tion of a public meeting — the promoting the best Interests of our country, and pushing on, as far as In us lies, to their utmost consumma- tion, the fortunes of Old Ireland (loud cheers). Yes, the feelings and sympathies of Irishmen are now In earnest appealed to ; they are asked, do they not feel ashamed of their state of tute- lage — degraded and humbled by having their affairs managed by others ? Or do they not swell with pride at the thought that they have it in their power, by becoming Repealers, to remain ’prentices no longer, but to manage for themselves ? (cheers) None but Idiots, or lu- natics, or children under age, are deprived of the management of their own affairs — and are we to be for ever treated like those ? Are we never to be allowed to turn those faculties and attributes of our nature to account ? Are we never to be allowed to apply them as heaven destined, In advancing the great mass of self-go- vernment ? Are we ever to be under the lash, under the stern surveillance of guardians and tutors ? Is the term of our apprenticeship never to be expired ; and In spite of our mature reason, our growing Intellect, and expanded sense, shall we be ever considered no better than the child or heir In whom those faculties are not yet developed, and who on that account must remain, by the provisions of the law, for a ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 3 certain time, under the tuition, and guidance, and wisdom of others ? Nations and states are confederated, and their power and interest mu- tually sustained by one another ; there is be- tween them a principle of coherence as friends and allies, to maintain what is called the ba- lance of power, to prevent any one of them from gaining any dangerous preponderance incon- sistent with the independent existence of the others — there are established between them compacts and alliances for mutual protection against external invasions or internal decay ; but for one nation or state to hold another under its grasp, deprived of inalienable rights for centuries, from a spirit of domination, or lust of conquest, or motives of self interest, is not, to say the least of it, any striking evidence of the improved state of those social compacts by which the affairs of the world are at present regulated, or of the advanced civilization of the nineteenth century (hear and cheers). Europe now boasts of being civilized — there are no hordes of barbarians issuing from the north, to overrun, like locusts, the richer countries of the south. No barbaric conqueror can pour out, on any devoted state, the ravages of war, trampling on the rights of a free people, and smiting them with famine, and pestilence, and the sword. Society has gained its proper level — Governments are charged with the noble des- tiny, for which alone they are entrusted with authority, of contriving the best means of con- sulting for its greater happiness ; and in such 4 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN a state of things, when rights are so well un- derstood, and privileges so settled, and prero- gatives so sacred, shall we he still excluded from forming an independent portion of such a system — shall we alone be debarred from mov- ing within its orbit, and receiving warmth and strength from its glowing principle of vitality and heat ? Shall we be still kept denational- ized, the victims of the encroaching spirit of dominion, which caused the thunder of the Bri- tish men-of-war to he heard booming along the coasts of China, and their broadsides to sink and scatter over the deep the war junks, and shake to their foundation the batteries and forts, of the Chinese ? Must we still, in this advanced era of the world, be doomed to expe- rience the withering effects of that aggressive lust of conquest, of which the modern history of Affghanistan affords such a melancholy evi- dence, in the desolation brought upon it, in the overthrow of its fairest cities as by an earth- quake — in the destruction of its best produce and mulberry trees — and, more than all, in its extensive surface being converted into one vast bleach-green, for the bones of the dead, of the victors and the vanquished, mingled up in me- lencholy confusion together ? Are we to be ever the victims of that unsated policy which prompted and enforced the second capture of Ghuznee, with all its concomitant horrors and loss of life — which made it a point of honour to effect the sacking and the plunder of Cahul, the dismantling of its citadel, and the decimating ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 5 its inhabitants — which left the‘44th Regt. the al- ternative of falling like warriors at the post of honour, with the snow their winding sheet, and which caused so many heroes to meet the death of the brave in the famed pass of the Kjber. Our objects are not narrow-minded or secta- rian, or for any species of ascendancy ; no, ’tis for a nobler purpose we struggle, to snap asun- der the connection between master and slave, and place it on a more just and equitable foot- ing; ’tis to avail ourselves of all the advantages which nature and nature’s God intended we should enjoy ; ’tis to ameliorate the condition of all Ireland, and add to the well-being of its universal people ; ’tis to become once more a NATION, or, in other words, to procure what you are impatient to hear, a REPEAL OF THE UNION! (immense cheering). And who would not be a Repealer, when the objects are so glorious ? Don’t be surprised that a poor man, who himself wanted charity, forced on the collector a shilling Repeal money. He said he was anxious to have a Repeal card along with his medal, which he would keep to- gether in close companionship, as endearing mementoes of his country and his pledge : for he is a teetotaller, and has the same devotion to the medal that the martyrs had to the cross, which, if they had not about them in the dread conflict for divine love and for heaven, they had it at least indelibly engraven on their hearts, where the frown of the tyrant could not reach it, and whence it could not be wrenched by all A 2 6 SPEECH OP THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN the terrors of the rack (cheers). Oh, but for our poverty, in which we live and move — but for the misery in which we are steeped to the very chin, misery which has brought on a torpor from which it is hard to rouse the poor, from the very despair of their being ever able to better their condition ; but for this wretched- ness, and the political numbness growing out of it as a sad consequence, O’CONNELL would have in one week, not three millions, but six millions of Repealers (cheers). There is hitherto, but it is wearing off, a difficulty in getting the masses to rise above the effects of this despair, to shake off the morbid apathy brought on by bad government, or to stand up at all in the attitude of freemen, and look eagle-eyed at the mighty prospects now lying before them. They say, or used to say, we are afraid, it is all in vain, and that we must ever remain unrighted and our grievances unre- dressed. Until of late our people had the same slavish feel and cringing awe before the land- lord class, that has been described by travellers as perceptible in the conduct of the modern Greeks before their independence, whenever they came into the presence of the Turkish Governor, who himself was a mere slave, and the keeper of the Seraglio. But, thanks to agitation, the dawn of a brighter epoch is beaming upon us ! Why should you die, O house of Israel, and the Lord so merciful,” was the pathetic exclamation of the prophet. Why should you despair, O my countrymen. ON THE KEPEAIi OF THE UNION. 7 says O’Connell, and the signs of the times so ominous of good, and Heaven so rich in mercy, and so abounding with justice (cheers) ? The events and mysteries long and darkly wrapped up in the womb of time, are at last being gra- dually developed, and already springing into the full maturity of joyous being. The designs of Providence as regards our own dear island of sorrow, are every day more and more illus- trated in the increasing embarrassments of England ; in the tottering state of her depen- dencies ; in the decrease of her revenue ; in the decline of her commercial prosperity ; in the de- cay of her manufacturing glories ; in the con- tempt of her foreign policy in the East ; in the execration of her AfPghan invasion, and spolia- tion, and massacre, until the curses of hate, and the hisses of scorn, might be said to burden the very winds of her skies ; in the spread of So- cialism, and Chartism, and Infidelity, over all her towns, and cities, and hamlets ; but, more than all, in the religious fidelity, in the moral superiority, in the growing virtue, in the social peace, in the teetotalism of Ireland ! (immense cheering) Is not this a source of national pride — a subject of exultation, not at the fall or difficulties of proud Albion, but at the rise of Erin of the green sward, and ivy-crowned tur- rets, and daisy-clad hills ? (cheers) The flame of patriotism is now-a-days lighted up with more than usual activity ; we have only to feed and cherish its blaze by the union of our en- deavours with those of our countrymen, and the 8 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN nations will admire the steadiness and bril- liancy of its burning. The swelling tide of the Repeal movement is rolling on majestically in its course, like the mountain torrent, bearing down and precipitating itself over every obstruc- tion in its progress — it will be soon at its full, at the spring tide of its grandeur, when we have but to throw ourselves upon it, and it will lead us on as a people, to fortune, to prosperity, and to glory. Why should we be taunted, and accounted fools, and reviled, because we stand up for Erin, and her cause, and her lost conse- quence, and her nationality (hear, and cheers) ? Things cannot remain as they are, at the low- est ebb of depression — the effects of the Tariff ruinous — taxes not abated, but increasing — rents advancing — poor-rates swelling — our towns fading away, and their business declining — a certain process of decay and inanition going on, until, from so many sources of ruin, a fearful crash, like the fall of an avalanche, comes on, sweeping away, and overwhelming proprietary and tenantry, rich and poor alike, in one pro- miscuous gulf of bankruptcy and beggary (hear, and cheers). For how can the landlords expect to escape, if the tenants are ruined ? Are not their interests reciprocal ? Is not the fate of both, for good or for evil, linked up in- dissolubly together ; and if your neighbour’s house is on fire, and the conflagration making head, must you not tremble for the safety of your own ? For all those evils which are preying like a cancer on the vitals of our coun- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 9 try, and soaking its blood like a vampire, there are different remedies proposed. Some say that Ireland must be re-conquered, and kept twenty- four hours under water to make her quiet. What do you think of that cure ? Some are of opinion that more editions of the bible must be published to make the land more biblical. Some require what they call repose, the ab- sence of agitation, the return of the penal code, and the olden times of sectarian ascendancy. But we, the people, as much above those quacks in the sublimity of our views, as the eagle soars above the feathered tribe, propose, and recommend, and insist, on a Repeal of the Union! (great cheering.) Is not the time of the Repeal agitation fast ripening, and events set- ting in in its favour, and accelerating the suc- cess of the movement — nations becoming more enlightened — the reciprocal obligations of rulers and subjects more discussed and fixed — their mutual privileges more respected and in- telligible — knowledge advancing — ^teetotalisni spreading, and making men more sober, more thinking, and more wise ? Is not this a state of things calculated to brighten our prospects and to fill us with hope ? Is not the right of property, and the conditions on which it is held, as well as the duties attached to its pos- session, now better understood ? and is not the formidable principle, that a man can do what he likes with his own — that is, make thousands miserable, and throw them adrift, helpless, homeless, on the world, if he likes — is not this A 3 10 SPEECH OF THE V. KEV. DR. SHEEHAJf cursed principle, so fraught with mischief, ex- ploded and execrated by the better sense of mankind, and scouted and almost annihilated by the growing intelligence of the age, by the onslaughts of the press, and by the other mighty engine brought to play upon it — ^the power and force of public opinion? (cheers.) This, then, is our time to agitate — and what did we ever get without agitation? Was it by remaining quiet, with our arms folded, we gained the election of ^ 28 , beat down all the influence of the Cabinet of St. James’s, conquered Wellington, outwitted Peel, and acquired for Clare a name that is imperishable on the proudest page of our history ? They submitted, they said, to expediency, and with God’s assist- ance, they must yield again I (cheers.) Those men, formidable as was their opposition to Catholic concessions, and to the claims of the Irish millions, had at last to bow down before this expediency and necessity — words of flip- pant signification in the mouths of statesmen, by which every blunder in politics is glossed over, every inconsistency reconciled, and prin- ciple daubed over with as many and changeable hues as the colours of the cameleon. We gain nothing by remaining quiescent, but an increase to our buiiihens. ’Tis by the bold front and determined attitude of Irishmen, that any, the slightest particle of justice was ever wrenched from the reluctant grasp of the unfriendly par- liament of England. Was there ever any con- cession made but on the same grounds ; — when A 3 ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 11 England was straitened, and wanted to have ns conciliated ; — when the right arm of Ireland was necessary for her defence, or her existence as a first-rate power? When did the first relaxation of the penal code take place ? Was it not when the French republican eagles were making desperate flights, and every where triumphant ; — when the star of Napoleon was beginning to be in the ascendant, and by its lurid glare casting a deep gloom over the thrones of despots, and striking terror into the hearts of tyrants ? Was it not when the mili- tary adventurer of Corsica, the future hero of Marengo, was about to be transformed into the invincible chief of the immortal army of Italy ? No nation ever became great but through its own exertions, and in what we are now looking for there is nothing strange, or surpassing, or new. The country from one extremity to the other is one continued mass of poverty and misery, and where will this wretchedness end, or how will it be repaired? The old man in the fable, who saw the urchin in the tree steal- ing his apples, and not being able to fetch him down with grass, resolved at last to try what virtue there was in stones : ’tis so with us ; in the failure of every other means, or expedient to relieve our wants, or to have us righted, we are determined in the long run to try what virtue there is in the soul stirring measure of REPEAL (hear, and cheers). Surely their are many difficulties in our way — the cause of the Repealers is beset with many lets and obstacles 12 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN. — we may be often and for a long time worsted, but by perseverance we will at last succeed — such hallowed aspirings as ours, cannot but be successful. Buonaparte was beaten at Marengo for a long summer’s day until six o’clock in the evening, and the following morning saw him master of Italy. Up to that late hour his squadi’ons were repulsed, his flanks turned, prodigies of valour in vain exhausted, and French chivalry smote to the ground at the point of the bayonet by the Austrian grenadiers ! No matter how long we may contend for our rights in vain — though we should be defeated to a late hour in the evening of our agitation, by persevering efforts we will in the end be triumphant (cheers). Some are frightened out of their wits, and think the sky will fall if we agitate for Repeal. Was it not so before Emancipation? The bigots and intolerant spi- rits opposed to that measure had ominous bo- dings ; they dreaded, if it were granted, that some deordination would take place, that some crash of nature would follow, that days and nights would no longer succeed one another, and that nothing but disorder would be found in the world (hear, hear). In spite of them Emanci- pation was carried, and the sun rose the follow- ing morning as brilliantly as ever, and poured the same flood of light and glory on the earth, as when first he started into new existence at the bidding of the Almighty. Let Repeal be now granted, let us have a Parliament in Dub- lin to legislate for us nearer home, and no evil ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 13 consequence will come of it, but much good ; the seasons will roll on as usual in the same order of succession; the Ursa Major will con- tinue to revolve round the North pole; and Charles’s Wain will keep its usual track in the heavens, and unerringly perform its nightly evolutions. Let it not be said ’tis innovation ; if it be, it is a salutary and a good one, and for the better. ‘‘ Let there be no innovation but what is handed down by tradition,” is a maxim of the Catholic Church, to shew the immutability of her doctrines; but this principle does not apply to civil governments, that are ever liable to the fluctuations inseparable from the changes which time produces in the social state. Is not the history of man a series of innovations? Was not the Revolution, which Englishmen call glorious, innovation? Was not the Refor- mation, the boast of Protestantism, innovation ? Was not the Reform bill, the celebrated mea- sure of the Whigs, innovation? Was not the Emancipation of the Catholic, innovation? and with the blessing of God, Repeal will be the last, the greatest, the most glorious innovation ! (great cheering) We gained nothing by the Union but the pleasure of paying Tithes by compulsion — nothing but Absenteeism, to make us a bye word of reproach, as if Ireland was not worth living in — nothing but the liability of being taxed by England as she pleases. Has not the Union failed to benefit Ireland,, though long and sufficiently tried ? and is it not the part and property of human institutions to 14 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN go to decay, when they no longer serve the end for which they were established, or to he sub- ject to those renovations which the altered circumstances of society require? (hear, hear) The feudal system would now be considered barbarous, and the laws that suited the manners of the dark ages, of the tenth and eleventh cen- turies of the Christian era, would not suit the more refined civilization of the nineteenth. Did not the Roman empire fall to pieces, and numberless independent kingdoms spring up on its ruins, though its greatness, durability, and power were foretold by one of the greater prophets? and shall a simple act of parliament claim indissolubility — a privilege not granted to great empires, that were the objects of pro- phecy, and destined to fill up a large space in the grand march of historical events (hear and cheers). By the Union we have lost all our greatness — our pride as a nation is gone. After the disastrous retreat from Moscow, when the French General Caulincourt was asked, ‘‘Where is the army?” he replied, lifting up his eyes to heaven, “’Tis gone it perished in the pas- sage of the Beresina, in the snow storms of Smolensko. If you ask, where is our native parliament to protect us from further decay, I say, ’Tis gone, ’twas swept away, with every other hope, by the blighting act of Union. Never were there more praise-worthy objects than those contemplated by the Repeal agita- tion, which are to raise our destiny, to procure Fixity of Tenure, to improve the relations be- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 15 tween Landlord and Tenant, and put a stop to the system of extermination now-a-days so rife, and wdiich would be a disgrace to any Christian country on the face of the globe. Where else but in Ireland could you witness the sickening spectacle, enough to make the heart sad, of whole families thrown out on the world, ejected from the dear spot of their birth, of which they were fond, from the place where their fore- fathers lived for generations, and where they themselves, in spite of their poverty, expected to close their eyes in peace? What other se- curity have we against an evil so appalling and so shameful as this tendency to exterminate ? How else can Fixity of Tenure be got, to secure to the poor man the peaceful possession of his little farm, and to prevent his being ejected, if he be honest, industrious, and willing to pay his rent, at least without fair and equitable compensation. If the tenant be good, is it not well to have a law to prevent any man from turning him out of the holding which he im- proved by his labour, and on which he expended the sweat of his brow. Formerly ^twas sought to exterminate the priests ; now Tis come to the turn of the people. Edicts were once issued against the Irish Priesthood so bloody and exterminating, as to be a disgrace to the names of Nero or Caligula. If a Priest was to be found in this the land of his birth after a certain day — yes, in his own land of poetry, of the bard, and of the harp — he was deemed guilt j ef treason, was then hanged, quartered, and 16 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN burned ; a reward of five pounds was set upon Lis head, and whoever gave him shelter had his property confiscated, and was himself put to death without hope of mercy. If any one knew where a Priest lay concealed, and did not give information, he was publicly whipped, and had his ears cut off as a public example, (sensa- tion.) This is Irish history, and that is exter- mination with a vengeance ; and yet the Priests triumphed over the exterminators, and here we are to-day battling by your side for Ire- land’s independence (immense cheering). Our hierarchy, like the sacred band of Thebes, was never broken, and both prelates and clergy came out of the persecution more numerous, more fresh, vigorous, and invincible, than when first exposed to the dread ordeal through which they had to pass, though contending with the united terrors of the rack, the gibbet, and the sword, (loud and long continued cheering.) And why not hope that the people will come off similarly triumphant, among whom, though many victims may be made. Repeal will at last put a stop to the oppression? But all landlords are not exterminators — if so the burst of the popular passions would break through every control, and the outbreak would be more terrible than the explosion of a volcano (hear, hear). If one has a right to exterminate, all the rest have, and if all acted on the terrible right, would it not be dreadful? It would be like the irruption of red-hot lava into the ocean, encreasing the tumult of the angry element ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. l7 into which it plunged. If the Prophet J eremiah mourned over the desolation of the Jewish nation, when its greatness was gone, and the daughters of Sion had to weep over its ruins, when the glory of the temple was transplanted to Babylon’s tow’ers, have we not reason to mourn over the lamentable condition of ours. The Roman emperor Augustus was inconsola- ble upon hearing that three of his legions were cut off in the wars with the barbarians. When the intelligence first reached him, he fell into a melancholy — it preyed upon his spirits — he called upon the general, through whose fault they perished, to bring them back : and, whe- ther asleep or awake, he was heard to exclaim — “ Terentius Varro,” ‘^restore me my legions.” What signifies the destroying of an army to the injury a nation sustains when it loses its political existence — the life-spring of its nationality? — and how much more intensely ought we cry out, ‘‘ Castlereagh, restore us our Parliament.” Why does the world execrate the aristocrat of the North ? Is it because he is a despot, and keeps his subjects enslaved ? Is it because he consigns the fervid aspirings of the patriot, to experience the chill of death amidst the eternal colds and the gloomy clime of Siberia, and converts half of his empire into one vast prison- house for the other ? Is it because he stifles the free breathings of the generous spirits, who are indignant that nature’s bliss should be tainted by tyrants ? Is it because he has ban- ished freedom from his kingdoms, and contra- 18 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN venes the laws of the great God, whose oracles proclaim, “that where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ?” No ; but because he dena- tionalized Poland ; because he murdered the countrymen of Kosciusko, the inheritors of all the valour of Sobeiski ; because he smote down, like another Attila, or scourge of God, all that was grand and glorious in Sarmatian chivalry; but, above all, because he is responsible for all the blood that was spilt at the taking of War- saw, and that dyed to the very ocean the waters of the Vistula (sensation). And if you change names, is not this a description of our- selves ? And have we reason to bless the man, or his memory, who provincialized ourselves ? or how can we but curse the fatal Union, stained with all the blood that flowed in ’98 — that fatal year, when the darling verdure of the shamrock looked bloody, and its triple leaf was so tinged with gore — the fatal year which wit- nessed the most tragic scenes ever performed under the sun. We want to pour Lethean waters over those angry reminiscences — to bring England and Ireland to be more closely united in the bonds of reciprocal interests, not of parchment. But is it to be borne, that a Catholic people must continue to pay tithe to the professors of a different creed — to the clergy of a small portion of the Irish millions — to a Leviathan church establishment, fat, bloat- ed, and pampered, from which nothing is had but abuse, and rancorous hostility, and obloquy, in turn — and yet the Repeal is impracticable ? ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 19 And wliat prospect is there of getting rid of this evil — oppressive as the night* mare — which is now mixed up with the rents, and, by an ingenious device, made perpetual ? Are not the landlords become tithe-proctors, taking upon themselves all the unpopularity of the tithe system ? — and why not unite with us in wiping away such an ugly stain on their charac- ter, such a foul stigma on their escutcheon ? (cheering.) And is not the payment of them humiliating, because it is against our will — because it is an injustice — because it reminds us of our state of subjection, knowing well that if we refuse to pay them, we will be forced to do so in spite of us, without caring a rush how galling such an instance of conquest, such a proof of subjugation, may be to our feelings or to our pride ? (hear, and cheers.) Is it to be borne, that the absentee drain must ever go on, until the country is attenuated and worn away, like a sick person dying of consumption ? — Is it to be borne with, that our trade and commerce, and all manufacturing encourage- ment, should be checked and stifled by those foreign rival interests, so jealous of Irish pros- perity ? — and yet must the Repeal be imprac- ticable ? Is it to be borne with, that no place of trust can be filled, or no appointment even to the police take place, but through English patronage? — and yet, indeed, the Repeal is im- practicable ! (cheering.) When was an Irish- man Lord Lieutenant, or Chief Secretary, or even Poor Law Commissioner, except in a sub- 20 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN ordinate capacity ? — and yet, forsooth, the Re- peal is impracticable ! (hear, hear.) There are not many states in Europe more populous, or no people fonder of learning, and yet if a stranger were to ask how many Universities have we, he would be told not one — and still, indeed, the Repeal is impracticable ! Yes, there is one solitary University, erected and richly endowed for exclusive, for sectarian, for proselytizing purposes ; but not one for the millions that constitute the population of Ire- land (hear, hear, hear). The little petty king- doms of the Continent are dotted over with Universities — England has its flourishing Uni- versities — Scotland may make the same boast ; but Ii eland, with all the marks of antiquity and former greatness to be seen in her very ruins, — Ireland, in the map of the world, is the solitary exception ; and yet, they say, the Repeal is impracticable ! There is one Uni- versity, but it is the hot-bed of proselytism — its portals are closed against the people, and seldom does a Catholic enter them, without being caught within the vortex of its anti- Catholic prejudices — without suffering the shipwreck of the creed of his fathers — without leaving his religion at the gates, and losing sight of the venerable associations engrafted on his thoughts by the early initiation into the mysteries of the ancient faith (cheers). There is one solitary University, but it is the recep- tacle of all that is anti-Irish in politics, or pre- judiced in religious sentiments, or anti-national ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 21 in spirit and party views. Where can our youth graduate ? Where take out degrees of doctors of divinity or law ? Trinity College is closed against them, and no countenance there, unless they become perverts, unless they become Friday men, unless they sadden the dying hours of their parents by their apostacy — unless they sneer at all that is venerable in Catholic practices, all that is holy and worth looking for in the ancient religion — all that is precious and heavenly in the Catholic faith, (cheers.) How many of our youth, of the finest order of mind and transcendant talent, would like to ennoble themselves with Collegiate distinctions and University honors, and would be ornaments to the literary taste of the age, but who shudder at the idea of getting inside the walls of old Trinity, for fear of becoming branded with the stigma of apostacy, and undergoing a metamorphosis more degrading than that of the companions of Ulysses, who were changed into swine by the dread potions of Circe. Is there a calumny against the Catholic religion or its ordinances belched out in the madness of spleen, by any furious fanatic, is there a blasphemy against the truth uttered by any wholesale libeller of the Irish or their character; is there a stale antiquated legend hurtful to our reputation, or any way deroga- tory from our claims to antiquity — all will be found amalgamated, and carefully scraped to- gether on her dusty shelves, and watchfully preserved among her records, and their praise ^2 SPEECH OF THE V, REV. DR. SHEEHAN lustily echoed along the domes of Trinity Col- lege. Is not this a monstrous grievance, a provoking nuisance on our soil ? and yet is the Repeal impracticable! (cheers.) Are not the worst calumnies of Ledwich, who denies the existence of St. Patrick — of Cosin, who calls the mystery of the Real Presence a tale of the twelfth century — of Lesly, who followed in the same track — are not those slanders and calum- nies on what we care most about, transfused into the class books, and perpetuated, and re- peated, parrot-like, in spite of every refutation, by each succeeding generation of the stu- dents of that University (hear, and cheers). But there are some splendid exceptions, and only the more remarkable as they are rare ; there are, and have been, such men as Sands, and Stock, and Sadlier, and others whom I forget, who have risen above every prejudice, who are an ornament to the land that bore them, who were not, or are not, infected with Saxon antipathies to their country and their caste, and whom we esteem, and revere, and honor ; but we denounce the exclusiveness of the establishment itself — the bigoted tenden- cies of its constitution— and complain that it will not extend to us the rights of Scholarship, of Fellowship, of Citizenship, in our own green isle, even now not less celebrated by the bravery of Wellington or the lyre of Moore, than in bye-gone days by the heroism of Fin- macoul or the muse of Osian (great cheering). What avails it if classic literature or Grecian ON THE REPEAE OF THE UNION. 23 lore should be transplanted from the shores of the Pireum to the banks of the LifPey — what avails it that the works of Herodotus, of Thucidides, or Demosthenes, those master-minds of Grecian renown, should be cherished, and an acquaint- ance with them be cultivated with as much de- votion within the walls at College-green, as in the halls of the Academus — is it not all a sealed fountain? — is not this well of knowledge vigilantly locked up, and watched as if by a dragon, and no approaching it but at the risk of losing what we hold dearer than life — the sacred treasure of which the gospel says — “ That the man who found it, sold all that he had to secure its possession?” (cheers.) Talk of the corn-law monopoly, of the landlord monopoly, of the bank monopoly — ^here is a worse and a more atrocious monopoly — a mo- nopoly of the works of art, of the productions of genius, of the treasures of science, of the undying emanations of the immortal mind. The one is a monopoly of the bread that pe- rishes, and necessary for man only in his animal capacity — the other is a monopoly of the food of the decayless spirit, which outlives the wreck of time and never dies. The one is a monopoly of animal sustentation — the other is a monopoly of the intellectual aliment which conveys encr eased enjoyments to the spiritual- ised glories of the human soul ; and this mono- poly we are still enduring, and after all must the Repeal be deemed impracticable! (great cheering.) Is it not monstrous, is it not more 24 SPEECH OF THE V. REV. DR. SHEEHAN, &C. than shameful, this time of day, to be stigma- tised with this exclusion on account of oui: religion — on account of the religion of St. Patrick, of St. Malachy, of Brian Boirholme. Let this close borough be opened ; let its gates be thrown open to the universal people, and it will be no longer called the dumb sister, but it will send forth a noise that will stun the na- tions, and the reverberations of its fame will be heard over all the earth (great cheering). Let us, above all. Repeal the Union, and we will have Universities of our own. We can expect nothing from the imperial parliament — it will neither attend to our grievances or listen to our complaints. In the rushing of many waters the purling of the rivulet is un- noticed and unheard. Justice to Ireland is laughed at — our petitions slighted — our re- monstrances scouted — our supplications to the powers that be, passed over with contempt — and what are we to do ? By all that is sacred in love of country — by all that is noble and generous in efforts to raise it from a province to the rank and dignity of a nation — by our attachment to O’CONNELL and confidence in him, let us help him to strike for Repeal (immense cheering). J. Browne, Printer, 36, Nassau-street, Dublin, i ’■j k ■ in the shape of “ prepared provisions before assuming that all that did not go out alive were eaten at home. I hasten to supply the omission. So much of my argument as relates to sheep, remains untouched. Ballinasloe alone had for sale 77,000 head in 1799 — with an export yVom the whole of Ireland of only 800 — while in 1835 there were at Ballinasloe but 62,000, with an export from all Ireland of 125,000 head. No provisions are “prepared” for ex- port from mutton : therefore the fact stands of a valuable home market for the sheep-breeder in 1799. As to cattle, I showed that, taking Ballina- sloe as a fair test, Ireland had for sale in 1799 a greater number than 1835: while her export in 1799 was only one-seventh of what it was in 1835 — being 14,000 head in the former year, and 98,000 head in the latter. I have now to state the relative proportions of the export of “ prepared provisions ” Parliamentary returns give these as 278,000 barrels in the first pe- riod, and as only about 140,000 in the second. 24 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, Pork not being distinguished in tSiese state- ments from beef, the export of swine becomes an ingredient in the comparison Yrs. Export of Cattle. Swine. Beef & Pork, brls. 1799 14,000 4,000 278,000 1835 98,000 76,000 140,000 The export of provision is, of course, more valuable to a country than that of live cattle ; as the preparing of the former gives so much employment. There has then been, since the Union, a decrease of the more valuable export, and an increase of the less valuable. Besides this general loss to the country, there has been the particular and ruinous loss to those en- gaged in the provision trade ; and the grazier in his turn has suffered, having no longer a customer at his own door, in the provision merchant. As the diminution of the number of barrels of beef and pork will not, by any means, ac- count for the great increase of the live export — while the whole number of cattle produced in Ireland in 1835 was, at any rate, not greater than in 1799 — it follows that much of the excess of live export in 1835, must have been by de- duction from the number previously consumed at home ; and, therefore, that the home con- sumption in the latter year was considerably less than in the year before the Union, notwith- standing the great increase of population. Now, Sir, was there any forcing of a market ON THE liETEAL OF THE UNION. 25 to account for this greater demand for our “provisions” before the Union, than since? So far from that being the case, there was actually a duty upon their export — small in amount, indeed, but still a duty. But I think I hear you say, that the war forced a demand in 1799 . There was no war, however, in the years 1787> l788j and 1789? and the average export of those years was 227?564 barrels. The English provision merchant was as anxious then as now to monopolize the preparing busi- ness ; but the capital of Ireland was at home^ and in activity, and the Irish dealer was able to stand the competition. I remain, dear Sir, Your very faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Duhlirii Nov 2Sih, 1842. No. IV. To the Edito7' of the Sligo Champion. My dear Sir, As I designed these letters to be, in some sort, a continuance of the business of my late Repeal tour in Connaught, and during that tour did not visit your county, I intended to have begun the series by addressing you, as the recognized popular organ of Sligo. The necessity, however, of meeting some sud- den objections thrown in my way from other 2G LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, quarters, diverted my purpose; and it is only now that I can intrude myself upon you. So far as the respectable minority in your county, who are not co-religionists of ours, may allow my humble voice to reach their ears, I would assure them that by us. Catholics, the repeal of the Emancipation Act would he pre- ferred to a Catholic ascendancy. Any con- nexion with the state is an injury to a church. It lessens the zeal of the pastors — weakens the intimate ties between them and their flocks— and makes the church a sharer in the unpopu- larity that attaches to the ruling power in every country. If our Protestant fellow-countrymen will still give way to this unreasoning fear, and put no credit in our declarations, and those of our revered clergy, let them point out any rational guarantee that they can desire from us, and it shall be given. At the same time, we do not, and never did conceal, that we are determined upon religious equality — that is to say, that we should no more be compelled to pay to their church, than they to ours. Let them not plume themselves upon English support. England yielded ere now to the demands of the Irish people. When the latter shall again raise their voices, she will prepare to yield again; hut, in her aver- sion to give up power, will throw us every thing else, before she gives up the Union, In this spirit she will abandon the temporalities of the Protestant Church in Ireland ; and in her anxiety to enhance the concession, and thereby ON THE RETEAL OF THE UNION. 27 bribe us, as it were, from the pursuit of Repeal, she may give little thought to reservations of any kind, however justly due to existing in- terests. I trust that we shall never commit the national sin of injustice to those interests : hut England is only too likely to throw the temptation in our way. Our desire is — ought to be — and, I trust, ■will ever be — to see the amplest and the se- curest provision made for existing incumbents : but, after them, let every man pay his own pastor. Religious equality once established, no sub- ject for contention can remain between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, save as to which shall better serve their common country. Both know and feel its wants, its miseries, and its degradation. Both have had to swallow as they might, the insult of being told that they were unfit to manage even the doling out of relief to their own poor — of having the labo- rious and pains-taking report drawn up by Irishmen upon Irish distress, flung in their faces — and the poor laws — those raws which NEVER YET HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ENGLAND of which the English history is but a record of evils, of complaints, and of change upon change — ^those grinding and ruinous laws imposed upon their country, on the charlatan recom- mendations of a stranger, after a six weeks’ post- chaise tour ! All the frightful consequences — renewal of religious dissension by collisions in the workhouses — inevitably progressing and 28 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, fearftil increase of rates — tlie breaking down of small ratepayers — ^the approaching bank- ruptcies of whole parishes — ^the breeding-up of a young population, with no tie to bind them to the rest of society: but with the feelings of imprisonment, coercion, and grudged support rankling in their bosoms — the enriching of English and Scotch officials, who despise the country they fatten upon — and the shedding of hlood — all these recklessly, wantonly, and insultingly entailed upon the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland! Catholics and Protestants would have found their best Poor Law in the opening up of abund- ant sources of employment, and the giving of a healthy and permanent stimulus to industry by the return of millions of our capital now drained from us. The Repeal of the Union would have prevented the enactment of poor laws — the Repeal of the Union alone can now render safe their abrogation. I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin^ Dae. 5, 1842. No. V. To the M, P’s for Connaught. As I have been kindly received in your pro- vince, in my assumed capacity of Repeal ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 29 Inspector,” will you permit me to consider myself so far connected with it as to be enti- tled to address you? Similar appeals will, I trust, be made to the M. P.’s for other pro- vinces. Newspapers from every part of Great Bri- tain are just now clamouring for a repeal, or great reduction, of the Income Tax, in conse- quence of the check given to “ extraordinary expenses” by the recent successes in the East. Not a word do they say of our right to any portion of this relief, although our money and our blood have gone to achieve those successes ! The following tables are put forward to show the grounds on which this reduction is claimed : — No. 1 . — What Sir R. Peel had to meet. Excess of expenditure, year ending April 5, 1843 ... £2,460,000 Supposed additional expense, China ... 800,000 Overdrafts expected from Australia ... 100,000 Loss from reduction of Coffee duties ... 171,000 Loss on Timber duties ... ... 600,000 Total ... ... £4,131,000 No. ll. — His Ways and Means. Income Tax Irish Stamp Duties ... Irish Spirits Duty on export of Coals £3,770,000 160,000 250.000 200.000 ... £4,380,000 B 2 Total 30 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, No. HI. But events are providing othervdse for tlie discharge of No. I. viz. — First instalment of Chinese tribute ... £1,200,000 Overcharge for China ... ... 300,000 Overdrafts, Australia, not incurred ... 100,000 Overplus beyond estimate of Income Tax, and upon the Tariff changes ... . 1,000,000 Future saving on Army and Navy ... 500,000 Total ... £3,100,000 Leaving a balance of £1,031,000, which is expected to be covered by the saving from the conversion of the three-and-a-half per cents. The discharge” being thus effected, and all external expenses cut down by the peace, taxation may safely be reduced by two or three millions. Shall we. Irishmen, allow Great Britain to take the whole of this relief, with- out, at least, making a fight on behalf of our own over-burdened country ? In my second letter of this series I showed that, at the most moderate computation, Eng- land makes us, at the present moment^ pay to, at least, £5,400,000, on account of her debt contracted before the Union — a debt towards which, according to the articles of Union, we were never to contribute one penny. Now, our financial ability being to that of England ON THE KEPEAL OF THE UNION. .SI about as one to eleven, tbis our forced con- tribution amounts to nearly half a million a year : and, therefore, exceeds what Sir Robert Peel expected from the new spirit and stamp duties. Hence, when the budget comes on, we shall have two solid grounds for claiming at least their abolition: 1st, Because of our undue payments to more than their amount. 2nd, Because the Eastern successes, whicli are said to justify reduction in England, were achieved at our expense as well as at hers. Consult parliamentary papers, numbers 190, of 1834, and 305, of 1842, on the subject of reduction of taxation in the diiferent parts of the empire since the Union, and you will find that Great Britain’s reliefs amount in the ag- gregate to about forty-two millions annually; while Ireland has had certainly not more than £2,300,000 of relief. Ought w^e not to rally next session, to procure a redress of these gross injustices ? I am, respected Colleagues, Your faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublhiy Dec. 12, 1842. 32 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, No. VI. To the Editor of the Sligo Champion, My dear Sir, I beg to thank you for your excellent and most touching answer to my letter in your paper of the 10th instant. Yours is the case of thousands of other benevolent minds, who have been bitterly disappointed in the results of Poor Law systems, when theory came to be tested by practice. I will venture a sad prophecy: the more acquainted you be- come with any and all of those systems, the more will you be disappointed and disheartened : until full experience, working by startling and inevitable facts, shall have convinced you that there is something radically wrong in Poor Laws — that their principle is unsound — and that wise laws of general policy — such as will give perfect freedom and security to industry, lessen and more equally apportion the public burthens, create the soul” of commercial en- terprise and activity — “ under the ribs of this death” of our present condition — offer the only means of hopefully encountering, efficiently checking, and finally defeating the armed giant of poverty. I regret that you should consider the Sligo Conservatives totally dead to national feeling. Events ought to be fast bringing upon their minds the same conviction that is upon ours — namely, that our intestine divisions have played ON TILE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 33 ‘game of England, and that the appalling wretchedness of our common country is the result. To your liberal Non- Repealers, he they few or many, I would suggest that Repeal is, in fact, but a following out and a furthering of the principles of Reform. What real influence over legislation can a people have, whose repre- sentatives are a miserable minority in the legis- lative body ? Extension of the suffrage in such a case is but the extension of a mockery ! But, “ our members may he increased.” — How so ? England grumbled most loudly at the small increase of five, by the Reform Bill. What would she say to an increase of hundreds, which would be necessary to put us at all upon an equality? And, without that equality, shall we not be continually subject to such cruel constraint as now, when, despite the liberal majority of our members, the Tories are seated upon our necks. Let me put this reflection once again! Of what use to a people are extended franchises, if their influence in the legislative body remain as before ? What hope is there of the relative proportions of representation being so altered as to give Ireland her proper influence, in case of differences of opinion between her members and the British ? Her proportion now is less than as one to five. She is one -third of the empire in importance, and ought, at least, to have one-third of the whole number of repre- sentatives — which would give her 219, at the 34 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, same time reducing the British contingent to 439* Speak to an Englishman of such an arrangement as this, and he will laugh in your face. And yet, even under such an arrange- ment, Great Britain would, of course, still have an overwhelming majority to nullify our will, and constrain us, upon each and every of the subjects of international difference, that will at times occur between nations the most in- timately connected . — Have ive not a right to our opinion, as well as England to hers ? I am, my dear Sir, Your obliged and faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin, Dec. 19> 1842. No. VII. To the Editors of Liberal Newspapers in Connaught, Gentlemen, I trust I may address you — and I wish I could at all venture to address your Conservative contemporaries — ^upon a topic of the gravest and most instant importance to all Ireland — ^viz. the Poor Laws. The present system is condemned partly because of the arbitrary conduct of the* Com- missioners. But the loudest complaint is, of the grievous amount of the rates, and of the ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 35 strong likelihood of their increase. Recent events warn us against slighting these com- plaints, and yet, what is to be done ? To revert to the old English plan of paro- chial or local management, would indeed remove the first. But the inquiry of 1833, which laid the ground-work of the existing system, clearly demonstrated the inevitable mischief of local management. A too great facility of disposition — a vain desire to be styled the poor man’s friend ^^ — or a dread of the pauper’s threat — induced a great amount oF improper relief, and thereby enormously swelled the burthens of the ratepayers : while the vari- ance of scales of relief rendered parishes liable to mutual invasions — from whence sprang the superadded evil of protracted and ruinous liti- gation. The establishment of a central authority obviated much of this, and has, therefore, been so far of benefit to England. But in Ireland, v/here no Poor Law system previously existed, the evils of the present one come out unsoftened by contrast. Shall we adopt any of the pre- vious systems that have been condemned in England ? If not, what is our remedy to be ? I reply — abolish the Poor Laws, and Repeal the Union ! All and every Poor Law system has failed, and must fail, because those laws are wrong in principle. They tend to contra- vene the decree of Heaven — that man shall earn his bread with the sweat of his* brow. They damp and check private benevolence, and, 36 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, under the name of charity, engender an enor- mous amount of the worst uncharitableness — the relief they provide being as thanklessly received as it is grudgingly given, and rate- payer and pauper coming to look upon each other as enemies. I do not think that the general mind in Ireland is as yet imbued with these convictions I wish it were, as we should thus he saved much very perilous experimentalising. I think, however, that all who feel them are bound to speak out — especially when they can indicate so truly safe an opportunity for getting rid of them, as that of the Repeal of the Union. The emancipation of our Parliament in 1782 at once checked absenteeism, without an ab- sentee tax, by making it men’s interest to live at home. In these times the large proprietors would feel it even still more their interest to do so, the Reform Bill having so much weak- ened their old influence over parliamentary representation. The diffusion of the millions of capital their return would restore to the country, would of itself create a favourable moment to abolish compulsory charity. I need not point out the additional favourable circum- stances from the cessation of our liability to England’s enormous debt, and the consequent reduction of taxation- — as well as by the revival of manufacturing and commercial enterprise, that would ensue from the return and* econo- mising of our capital. Houses for the recep- tion of those affected with incurable diseases. ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 37 and for the maimed, might still be kept up: as in that class of applicants, there is little likeli- hood of attempts at fraud : hut all other paupers should take their chance in the revived pros- perity of their country, and the once-more active charity of their fellovr-countrymen. If these be extreme opinions, where is the safe middle course ? England has tried every conceivable Poor Law system, and without success. Are we to run through the same gamut of misery, with the same fearful accom- paniment of ever-increasing rates ? I am. Gentlemen, respectfully. Your obliged and faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Duhlin^ Dec.2Sf 1842. No. VIII. To the Editors of the Liberal Newspapers in Connaught, Gentlemen, You will have seen that my father has recommended, as a temporary allevi- ation of the Poor Laws in Ireland, the levying of the rate in the form of a tax on incomes from £500 a year up. It is for the country to pronounce upon this plan. The government are said to purpose charging the landlords with the rate. The landlords 38 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNADuHT, will make the tenants repay them, and thus another source of ill-feeling will be created to disturb still more the already dangerous state of the relations between those classes. It is said, too, that begging is to be repressed — a matter found impossible in wealthy England. To attempt it in impoverished Ireland must lead to an enormous additional burden on the rate-payers, and may lead to other and most terrible consequences. In spite of the warnings of England’s expe- rience, many in this country are calling for ^‘out-door relief” for the poor — a species of relief which (to some extent at least) would appear inevitable, if poor laws be to continue. Let me quote you some established opinions upon this system. ^ * * As soon as a man gets out-door relief, his maximum of earnings is fixed. He knows that if they exceed the guardians’ estimate, his relief will be proportionably di- minished, and his increased labor be only a saving to the rate-payers. * * * The desirable object of implanting in the rising generation an unwillingness to receive legal relief is frustrated by out-door relief being given to families: the habit of dependency being thus taught and encouraged in the chil- dren. ^ ^ * It is doubtless more ex- pensive to relieve a whole family in the work- house, than to give a small out-door relief, but on the other hand, for one family that would avail itself of the workhouse, hundreds would ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNIOxN. 39 seek the other species of relief, and so outbalance far the expenditure in the former case.” The foregoing is from the Poor Law Report of 1839* I could fill your columns from tho reports of 1833-34, with accounts of the mon- strous and inevitable frauds occasioned by the system of out-door relief, as well as of its in- evitable and rapid tendency to swell the rates. Have not the opponents of poor laws some grounds at least for their opposition, when they can thus find nothing but failure in England ? What greater likelihood of success is there in this impoverished country for any of the exploded English systems ? Our people are most charitable : but they naturally like to dispense that charity themselves, as they can give in kind better than in money, and get in return the prayers of those whom the relieve. Their forced contribution to the poor rate they do not consider as absolving them from the great Christian obligation ; and so have volun- tarily to tax themseives in addition to the com- pulsory burden. I have no more space at present than for the following account of American experience of poor • It is from a report of the Com- mittee in r£ adelphia upon that subject in 1825: “A compulsory pro^^'sion for the poor in- creases pauperism, entaiis an oppressive bur- den on a country, and promotes idleness and licentiousness. Poor laws have done away with private charity, have been onerous to the 40 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT. community, and every vray injurious to the morals and independence of that class for whose benefit they were intended. The only effectual relief from their evils is the total re- peal of those laws. In this country, where ALL CLASSES HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, AND POPU- LATION IS FAR FROM PRESSING ON THE MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, IT IS, INDEED, ALARMING TO FIND PAUPERISM PROGRESSING WITH SUCH RAPIDITY. We are fast TREADING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OP England!” Let us take care we do not hurry into those mischief-marked footsteps of England — ^foot- steps which she has herself so much retraced. I am, Gentlemen, Your most obliged servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin^ Jan. 2, 1843. No. IX. To the Editors of Liberal Newspapers in Connaught. Gentlemen, During my Repeal Tour, one of your most respected clergymen — a thorough Repealer himself — did me the favor of sug- gesting that the agitation should embrace the showing (to all doubters) how Repeal is attain- able without civil war. His suggestion struck me as eminently valuable, were the following ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 41 of it out to do no more than to remove from the mind even of one timid, good man, the objec- tions that may have hitherto kept him aloof from us. Peaceful legal, constitutional agitation ought — and, according to Earl Spencer, must — suc- ceed again as it did before. England was at heart really as adverse to Emancipation as to Repeal. Yet, without the concurrence of any great disaster or any foreign war, she yielded to the combined demand of the people of Ire- land. The same peaceful combination is grow- ing up into the same strength once again ; and opportunities of its success are ‘‘casting their shadows before.” England has indeed won bar- ren triumphs in the East ; hut nearer home her position is full of difficulties and dangers. America is pacified, but only for a time ; the unlimited concessions made to her being likely to have little other effect, than the sums given by men who are made the victims of extortion, have upon their persecutors, viz., to encourage a fresh and larger demand. Passionate France is seeking about for a point of Vantage, which the very irritability of England is hut too likely to give her. Internal discontent is ravaging the very vi- tals of the country. Magistracy, and all the machinery of local and central authority, re- press it for a time ; but the tide only boils, and tosses, and works the more fearfully below ! And it is a hopeless discontent ! — hopeless, because of the refusal of the English themselves 42 LETTERS 'fO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, to adopt sane und rational methods of ameliora- tion. Darkly foreboding, indeed, is the failure of the recent attempt in Birmingham to com- bine middle and lower classes in constitutional agitation : a failure, because of the tyrannous intolerance and invincible wrong-headedness of the latter. The desponding Morning Chro^ nicle truly says, that such conduct alienates from the popular cause the indispensable assist- ance of the middle classes — they becoming afraid of all and every measure that would put power into such hands. The dangerous state of England is forcing itself even upon the pride-inflated heart of aristocracy. Take, without comment of mine, these words of the London Morning Post : — We have been heaping up riches, and neg- lecting the nobler duties of humanity ; and the result is, that our country has become precisely that imagined by the poet — ^ where wealth accumulates, and men decay.’ This truth is forcing itself upon the minds of statesmen, and we trust that, ere it is too late, the welfare of the people may become their study, rather than the wealth of the nation. ^ ^ ^ To show the spirit moving among rich men of high station, let us cite a remarkable speech made some weeks ago, by the Hon. Sydney Herbert, M. P. — ‘ The truth is,’ said he, ^ none of us feel sufficiently the responsibility of wealth, and the duties which the possession of property entail upon us. Let us look to the state of t)N THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 43 society in England, and we must be struck with the necessity of making ejfforts equal to the urgency of the case. * * * Great changes have, and are taking place at the two ends of the social scale — wealth being at one end, enormously on the increase, and poverty as rapidly increasing at the other. * * * This has defied all petty devices by which its progress might be averted. Whatever be its causes or remedies, it is a most dangerous state of society. It may right itself ; but if it should produce some convulsion, marked, as political convulsions usually are, by crimes, we may be found deeply responsible.” In the midst of these gloomy predictions comes the ominous news of the increasing and disastrous failure of England’s resources ! A decrease on the year of £1,174,000 in the Excise alone — ^that test of a people’s prosperity and comfort — and out of that amount no less a sum than £7l7?000 during only the last three months ! Truly we are at “ the beginning of the end.” In the affections of conciliated Ireland, Bri- tain may soon have her best hope for her institutions, perhaps for her national existence ! I am. Gentlemen, Your obliged servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin, Jan, 9? 1843. 44 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHTj No. X. To the Editors of the Liberal Newspapers in Connaught. Gentlemen, The dark clouds gathering about England should warn us, Irishmen, to consider for our own country. If we must go down with England, let it, at least, not be with our hands tied, and without the power of making one effort to save her and ourselves. When, in 17S2, she freed us before, did we strike out from her side and leave her to perish ? No ; conciliated Ireland at once voted abundant supplies in men and money, and strained herself in the effort to give assistance. Ireland con- ciliated once again — ^because enfranchised once again — would act as she did before ; and, so acting, would take all the revenge she covets upon England for old hostility and persecution. The saddest thing to witness in this country is, the disposition of so many of the richer classes to think only of England. I do not particularly allude to the Tories, their’s is a business transaction — they barter the rights and interests of Ireland for political ascendancy and plunder. I allude chiefly to Liberals — Protestants and Catholics. Converse with one of these, and you will hear moving laments for the decline of manufactures. This has a patriotic sound, and you are on the point of expressing your delight at his sympathy for the ON THE REPEAE OF THE UNION. 45 starving artizans of the Liberty, when you find that he has been thinking of the capitalists of Lancashire and Yorkshire! It would he “bad political economy” to think of Irish manufac- tures ! Speak to these Liberals of the decayed state of Irish commerce, and they will, perhaps, give a cold assent ; but, upon the casualties of the commerce of the master-land they are eloquent 1 Talk of the ruinous drain of absen- teeism, and they will tell you that individual liberty must not be controlled ; and then, per- haps, will proceed to bewilder themselves with an attempt at the exploded sophism of McCul- loch upon the subject. But, if after these rebuffs you still have courage to go on, and shall ask the common-sense questioi> — why Ire- land should be dragged into every mire of unjust wars, and every slough of consequent taxation that England chooses to flounder through, you are stared at as if you spoke high-treason, and asked — ^have you no care for “ the national honour ! ! The rights which Canada sought, by insane revolt, to preserve from unjust invasion, have been lately yielded to her unconditionally by England, and so the enormous expenditure in crushing the mad rebellion that England’s in- justice provoked, has been gone to for nothing. We in Ireland are forced to bear a heavy part of that expenditure, for it was ^‘for the national honour Syria has been rescued from one barbarism to fall into a worse ! All authority has been B 4 46 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT. set there at defiance, and, thanks to English interference, Christianity was once more sub- jected to persecution, until the Christians have been driven to take up arms in self-defence. Here, also, we have had to pay— for, as we are told, this case, too, concerned out national honour The abominable atrocities in Afighanistan cannot be dwelt upon. For them, too, we pay —they being « FOR THE NATIONAL HONOUR!!!” Yes, all disgraces, all expenses, all losses, all miseries, Ireland must suffer in silence, because England wills it, and it would he had taste'^ to protest against her will 1 Oh ! what hope would there be for poor Ireland, were not her people the noble race they are ! I am, Gentlemen, * Your obliged servant, JOHN O’CONNELL, Duhliny Jan, 16, 1843. No. XI. To the Editors of the JAheral Newspapers of Connaught. Gentlemen, The near approach of the Par- liamentary Session warns me to conclude these letters. I had hoped to have made them in ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 47 some sort a continuance of the agitation which, as “ Repeal Inspector,” (so-called,) I took upon me to endeavour to promote in your province. The shortness of the time, and my own want of powers, have prevented me as well from dealing with half the topics I had originally intended, as from making much impression by those I did bring forward. Still I will hope that some matter may have been thereby sup- plied for thought and discussion. The subjects dealt with were in themselves of much importance, even in my hands. It is well to keep present to the mind the established fact — that our graziers and provision merchants had a better market at home before the Union, than they have abroad now ! The statements on this subject are in Letters I. and III. It is deeply, and instantly^ important to us to consider our present grievous burden of taxation, and whether we have not a right to relief, instead of the threatened increase of that burthen. Letters II. and V. bore upon this subject. In them, I trust, that I shewed that we pay, upon the very lowest possible computation, at least half a million — that is, one-fourth of our whole acknowledged taxation — together with aU surplus moneys whatever, the moment they arise — towards the debt of England, con- tracted before the Union 1 But matters are not to stop here. England's revenue has so fearfully fallen, that the deficiency to be an- nounced in next budget cann<^t be less than 48 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT, two millions, and may be much more, notwith- standing last year’s new taxes. Sir R. Peel will have to increase the per-centage of the odious Income Tax in England, shutting his ears against the urgent clamours there preva- lent for the abolition of the vexatious impost. Think you will he spare Ireland f He said last year that he would if this year there should be a deficiency. Oh ! but I am remind- ed of his confession, that an Income Tax in Ireland would not pay the collection. True : but the same ‘‘ staff” would serve to collect both that AND assessed taxes” England has lately clamoured against our exemption from assessed taxes. Pier clamours will be attended to next session, if w'e be not up and stirring. In Letter IV. I endeavoured to impress on our Irish Tories a conviction of the sin- cerity of us. Catholics, in our earnest and une- quivocal repudiation of all idea of “ Catholic ascendancy” in case of Repeal. We should, indeed, be forsworn and faithless — and enemies to the true interest of our own blessed religion — did we ever seek, or accept ^ such ascendancy. I also warned our Tories that on some fine day they would find themselves quietly thrown overboard once again by England, as they were in 1829* In Letter VI., I respectfully asked our Re- formist-non- Repealers to consider of how little avail extension of the suffrage would be, with- out extension of our representation in Parlia- ment. And high treason might be safer spo- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 49 ken in England than a suggestion of adding to the number of Irish members ! The other Letters, especially Nos. VII. and VIII., upon that topic of really awful import- ance — namely, the Poor Laws — I will briefly recapitulate in my next and concluding letter. I am, gentlemen. Your faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin^ Jan. 23, 1843. No. XII. Concluding Letter. 1 resume and finish my recapitulation. Letters VII. and VIII. mooted the fearfully- important question as to what Poor Law sys- tem we, in Ireland, shall adopt, in place of that so unanimously denounced at present. One of the thousand evil consequences of our having been so long unaccustomed to the business of legislation is, that whenever im- portant measures for Ireland are in agitation, there come forth, under the guise of new and admirable panaceas for admitted evils, many of the old, exploded, and abandoned experi- ments of countries that are practised and ex- perienced in law-making. Thus, now, when parliamentary interference with our present poor law is inevitable, we have the condemned b j LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN CONNAUGHT. and cast awa/ plans of England’s former times raked out of the rubbish of obsolete legislation, furbished up to look “as good as new,” and pressed upon us by benovelent men, who are unaware of their tested and proved inefficacy for goody but fearful efficacy for lasting mis- chief ! My deep convictions have caused me to speak, perhaps too loudly, upon this subject, for one to whose opinions so little weight is given. But ere I cease, I venture at every hazard to address all who are seeking thus to commit the country, and to implore of them to bear this constantly in mind, that, under every poor law system yet tried, one complaint has invariably existed, viz. — the continual increase of the rates. Still increasing — still increasing, on they have ever gone — on they ever do go — on they ever and most inevitably will go ! If we are to have a poor law — if we must enter upon this bitter experience — at any rate let the first step be to exempt the poor man from the rate. Let this be established as the basis — if there is to be any hope for the super- structure. Let this be neglected, and thence- forth we are doomed to ever-recurring phases of complaint, discontent, and miserable disap- pointment, until the heart-wearing series shall be suddenly and terribly broken by the wildest and most ruinous insurrection ! In Letter IX. I laboured to repeat the ar- guments used by those who are abler advocates of Repeal than I am, to show lis safe practica- ON THE REPEAL. OF THE UNION. 51 bllitj. England yiedded in 1828 to our com- bined voices, and sbe at peace with all the world. European peace at present is as the water-logged ship that may float for hours, but also that may suddenly go from under our feet. England, in distress, was ever attentive to Ireland; as, in prosperity, she was ever in^ tolerant. In Letter X. I spoke of that degradation of feeling, the result of our provincial degrada- tion, which makes so many Irishmen think only of English interests. England, by her supe- rior capital, crushes our manufactures. “No matter,” (says such Irishmen,) “she lets us take her’s — we ought to be grateful ; and it is well to support our English poorer brethren.” You ask what is to become of our Irish bre- thren ? “ Oh, let them go to England,” is the reply. They go, and if the natural preference there for natives allow them to get employ- ment, they must submit to exile, until their strength, and health, and usefulness are spent, when they are carted to the sea coast, hurried into a steamer, left exposed upon the bare deck during a stormy passage, and then landed penniless and friendless at some port in Ireland, hundreds of miles away from the place they originally belonged to, but which “ knows them no more !” Had we our own manufactures, how differ- ent the story! Employment at home — money circulating at home — comfort and independence at home! And the multitudes that cannot go 52 LETTERS TO FRIENDS IN GONNA OQHT. to England would be no longer, as now, bid- ding against each other for a miserable holding, and thus tempting the landlord’s cupidity, and supplying him with new victims for extermi- nation, when the last penny is squeezed out. They, too, would find employment and abundant wages in the factories, while the agricultural population would not only be thus relieved from ruinous competition, but would find an active and increasing home demand for their produce, consequent upon the growing pros- perity of their brethren, the artizans. But England thinks we ought to remain solely an agricultural country” — and whatever she thinks ^‘is right” with too many of our richer coun- trymen. England does not wish our commerce to interfere with her’s — therefore we must ac- cept our foreign goods through her, and be bound by all her tariffs. Individual liberty ought not to be restrained ” — therefore En- gland must have the benefit of our three millions and a- half of absentee rents. England, in 1816, took on her the burthen of our Irish debt of 1 1 2 millions (unjustly created for her purposes and under her management) — there- fore we ought not to murmur at her making us liable in every penny of money, and every foot of land, for her 700 millions of debt — for the cost of all her extravagant public estab- lishments — for her lavish colonial expenditure — for the charges of her unjust wars — and in short, for everything that she pleases ! ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 53 Plundered, insulted, miserable Ireland, must not dare to think for herself! She must hang on the will, the breath of England, and con- tinue so for ever ! Such is the doctrine of too many of our “Liberals” in Ireland. Such is NOT the doctrine of the “Repealers and therefore, is not your doctrine, people of Connaught, nor that of him who is proud to subscribe himself, Your much-obliged And most faithful servant, JOHN O’CONNELL. Dublin^ Jan. 30, 1843. INDEX Greater Prosperity of the Grazing Interest > of Ireland before, than since the Union, J LETTERS I. II. Prosperity of the Provision Trade of Ire- 7 land before the Union, J in. Unjust Taxation of Ireland, II. V. 111 success of Poor Laws in every country 7 where tried, and under every form, J VII. VIII. General Subjects, . IV. VI. X. Recapitulation, . XI. xn. J. Browse, Printer, 36, Nassau -stroeet, Dublin. REPEAL OF THE UNIOI, SPEECH ALDERMAN HAYES, ON THE DISCUSSION IN THE TOWN-COUNCIL OF CORK, UPON THE MOTION TO PETITION PARLIAMENT FOR A REPEAL OF THE UNION, ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL mii, 1843. Edited for the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland, BY WILLIAM O’BRIEN. DUBLIN: PRINTED BY J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-ST. 1843. INTRODUCTION. Soon after the triumphant result of the dis- cussion in the Town- Council of Dublin had become known in the South of Ireland, by which the injustice and misery entailed upon the country by the Union, were so ably and convincingly demonstrated, as well from the statements and arguments of those among the Municipal Body who introduced and supported the motion, as by the unwilling avowals of those who opposed it, — the public feeling on the subject became aroused and excited in a much greater degree than at any previous period since the commencement of the Repeal agitation. It was acknowledged, that apathy on a question of such vital import to the welfare and prosperity of the country had been too long indulged in ; and the spirit of national independence thus called into action, soon IV INTRODUCTION. manifested itself in the general expression of public opinion in favour of the great cause which had received such a mighty impulse from the successful issue of that discussion — looked forward to with so much anxiety and interest by the intelligent and patriotic people of Cork. True it is, that feelings of disappointment and annoyance pervaded that section of the local community, whose narrow-minded {Preju- dices and selfish interests had ever influenced their course of action in matters of public policy ; and equally true is it, that many who wished to be considered as the friends and advocates of liberty and independence, re- garded the step thus taken in the metropolis with apprehension and anxiety, lest the sin- cerity of their political professions should be put to a test which their indecision would prompt them to shrink from — or, by meeting which honestly and unequivocally, they appre- hended that their interests might be more or less prejudiced. Notwithstanding, however, the existence of those influences and prejudices, it was felt and admitted that the time had arrived when the sentiments of the Elective Body should be expressed through their repre- INTRODUCTION. V sentatives in the Council ; and when an avowal of the opinions and feelings of that body — chosen to protect the rights, and promote the interests, of an extensive and important com- munity — was demanded by what was passing around them in reference to the all-absorbing question of national regeneration. Impressed with this feeling, and sensitively alive to the necessity of seeking for a means of alleviating the distress which had so long pre- vailed^ and which was every day increasing, among the many thousands of his humble fel- low-countrymen who sought in vain for em- ployment, while the ample resources of a fertile and highly gifted country remained unde- veloped, Alderman Thomas Lyons intimated his intention, at a meeting of the Town- Coun- cil, previous to the Assizes, of moving, in that body, the adoption of a Petition, praying for a Repeal of the Legislative Union. From the time this was announced, until the formal notice was given by Mr. Lyons, at the meeting of the Council, on the 5th of April, the anxious and general feeling of the bur- gesses in favour of the motion, was expressed by their having, in seven wards, out of the eight which constitute the borough, called A 2 VI INTRODUCTION. upon their representatives in the Council to attend on the day of the discussion, and support the motion of which Mr. Lyons had given notice. The usual weekly meetings of the Council are held on Thursday, and at the first meeting after the Assizes notice was given, that at the ensuing weekly meeting the motion would he brought forward ; hut some who were favour- able to it, fearing that the discussion might extend to the following day (Good Friday), thought it more advisable to have it fixed for the next Wednesday, the 12th April; and though this was resisted, and a division had upon the question, it was carried that Wed- nesday following should be named for that purpose. A special meeting was accordingly con- vened for that day, and a most numerous assemblage of burgesses and citizens gene- rally had attended in open court for the purpose of hearing the discussion — it being understood that no persons but Members of the Council could take any part in it. In the mean time the ingenuity of the op- ponents of Repeal had been actively at work, and seeing that no better or more creditable INTRODUCTION. Vll mode of meeting the question could be devised, a technical quibble was resorted to, in order to thwart, if possible, the object of those who had, with characteristic manliness, come for- ward to support it. It was ascertained that a bye-law — which, by the way, had been fre- quently departed from in former proceedings— required that one full week’s notice” should be given of any subject brought under the consideration of the Council, and the Mayor, in delivering his judgment on the point, having ruled that “ seven full days and seven full nights should elapse, in order to constitute one full week,” Mr. Lyons renewed his notice of motion for that day week, when the attendance was even more numerous than on the previous occasion. When the roll was called over, it was found that a number of the Council had absented themselves, particularly on one side, while on the other all were in attendance. The chair having been taken by the Mayor, Mr. Lyons introduced his motion with some very excellent and applicable observations, and having quoted some remarkable passages from Mr. O’Con- nell’s Memoir of Ireland, concluded by pro- posing that the Council should petition Parlia- Till INTRODUCTION. ment for a Repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland. He then stated that the motion would be seconded by Alderman Hayes, and as he had taken the trouble of drawing up the Petition, which he (Mr. Lyons) intended to move, he would call upon him to read it to the meeting. Mr. Hayes having read the Petition, pro- ceeded to deliver the observations which will be found in the following pages, which were specially reported with a care and accuracy, which it is hoped will be acknowledged by all who had an opportunity of hearing them. Corlk^ May 1843. W. O’B. COPY OF THE PETITION. To the Right Honourable and Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ire- land in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council of the Borough of Cork, in special Court convened, Respectfully Sheweth, That your Petitioners approach your Honourable House under the solemn and deliberate conviction that the time has arrived when nothing short of the restora- tion of their domestic Legislature can .stay the progress of the wide-spread and fearful wretchedness of the Irish people. Your Petitioners are aware of the difficulty of obtain- ing from your Honourable House, constituted as it now is, the calm and careful examination of any Irish ques- tion ; and they feel this disadvantage largely encreased in reference to the subject of their present prayer. Your Petitioners w^ould, however, respectfully impress on your Honourable House, that the progress of opinion, in re- ference to the Repeal of the Act of Union, has been gradually but widely extending; that it has in many cases been unwillingly yielded to, and adopted solely from the conviction, forced on the Irish People by the experience of the last fourteen years, of the utter hope- lessness of any real measure of relief from an English Parliament. Convictions so formed, and so universal, cannot, your Petitioners submit, be long disregarded, without seriously endangering the best interests of the Empire. That the condition of Ireland is one of peculiar and unexampled difficulty. There are vast evils to be re- medied, arising from past misgovernment, and from the A 3 10 COPY OF THE PETITION. nature of its present social and political relations. Its natural resources have to be developed, its manufac- tures to be revived, its perishing population to be pro- vided for, without involving the ruin of existing inter- ests. With ends of such magnitude to be accomplished, requiring, from their importance, consummate care and wisdom, your Petitioners represent that for no country in the world is there more imperatively required a pa- tient, fostering, paternal Government ; in a word, a Do- mestic Legislature, than for Ireland. That, without such superintending care, it is evident Ireland cannot be prosperous, but must sink into rapid and deeper ruin. That care an English Parliament cannot bestow — even if the Imperial Parliament were willing to discharge their solemn duties to this country, the affairs and interests of England, and of this vast empire, would not allow them the power. The Par- liamentary Session is scarcely sufficient for the general business of the country, and the interests of Ireland, however important, must be disregarded, even if other hostile influences were not constantly operating against their being even superficially considered. That your Petitioners, while they state these reasons, as conclusive of the necessity of a Domestic Legislature for their country, do also claim the ancient Constitution of Ireland as their sacred and inalienable right — inas- much as the abolition of the Irish Legislature in 1800 violated every legal and constitutional principle, was carried by the grossest and most scandalous corruption, and follow^ed by results the most disastrous. It was a deed heralded by the scourgings and gibbetings of a profligately-fomented rebellion — sealed by wholesale bri- bery, and fitly succeeded by wholesale ruin. That the Act of Union was illegal ; for the Irish Par- liament had no power over that Constitution under which it was elected. The members were not elected to make or unmake Legislatures — but Laws ; and the assent, even if unanimous, of the Irish Parliament, to the abolition of the Constitution, was, and is, a nullity — as the rights of a People cannot be forfeited without their own full and deliberate consent. COPY OF THE PETITION. 11 That, so far from such consent having been obtained, even by implication, the Act of Union was carried, while mai’tial law had, for the express purpose, been brought into operation to abolish for the time all public liberty, and while 40,000 bayonets had been employed to restrain the free expression of public opinion. That, notwithstanding lawless violence, open intimi- dation, and wholesale corruption, the greatest and best names of Ireland, together with the bulk of the Irish Nation, protested against the measure as a robbery; and in a packed House of Commons it was at was at length carried by a majority of only 162 to 120, there being in that majority 116 placemen and pensioners, besides offi- cers on the staff, and others who did not possess one foot of land, or one feeling of interest in Ueland. T o prove the ruinous consequences that have resulted from this most disastrous measure, your Petitioners need only refer to the various Reports on the condition of Ireland, that have been made to your Honourable House within the last few years, from which it will appear that the manufactures of this country, which were numerous and flourishing before the Union, are at present almost extinct — that while the population has nearly doubled since 1800, the consumption of duty-charged articles has actually decreased — that extensive emigration has failed to check the appalling growth of pauperism — that the enormous drain of absentee rents continues and is increasing — and that unless wise and speedy measures of relief be adopted, the interposition of the Legislature may be too late to save the remaining interests and exist- ing institutions of the country. That, while your Petitioners are convinced that a Domestic Legislature is indispensable for Ireland, that it w^ould check great evils and achieve great good, they do not presume to determine what the particular form and attributes of that Legislature should be. They feel that in such details many and grave questions are in- volved. They only pray your Honourable House to recognise and adopt the principle of a Domestic Legis- lature, as the means of regeneration for Ireland. The particular form and constitution of such a Legislature, 12 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES if at all worthy of the name, can hardly interfere with the good it would accomplish, in imparting new life and developement to the energies and resources of Ireland, and in confirming, through her prosperity, the general stability of the Empire. Mr. HAYES, having read the Petition, which was received with reiterated applause, said — Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen, it now becomes my duty to present myself to this Council, as the individual, however humble in station, on whom the honor of seconding the proposition of Mr. Lyons has been conferred. He has introduced my name in a most complimentary manner, and he has spoken of my capability to deal with this subject in a manner so flattering, that I cannot but feel myself entirely unworthy of it. (No, no.) I do not possess that elo- quence or power of argument which, I might flatter myself, would induce you to rely on my statements as of sufficient weight in reference to this great question ; but feeling that it is a question of deep importance to you all, and of national importance, as regards the present condition of our country, however humble may be my opinion of my own capacity — and I as- sure you no one can entertain a lower estimate of it than I do — I feel it an imperative duty on me to give my best support to a proposition made by one so estimable as my friend Mr. Lyons, and whose worth is so deservedly re- garded, as well among his own community as by the general public of Ireland. (Cheers.) It is to me, Sir, a very high honor to be se- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 13 lected as the seconder of that proposition ; and if I shall be so fortunate as to submit to you, any course of reasoning, or any facts and cir« cumstances which will produce a conviction on the minds of this Council, or on the public mind through them, of the necessity and justice of a Repeal of the Legislative Union — if I shall even gain one convert to Repeal — I will feel that I have done something worthy of my country and worthy of my cause. (Hear, and cheers.) I cannot promise myself that out of my own resources I may be able to address myself with sufficient effect to this question ; but in dealing with it I shall refer to authori- ties of more weight and influence than any assertion or opinion of mine could possess. I shall begin with an authority, the value and importance of which cannot be denied. It is that of the late King of England, William the Fourth, wffio pronounced that doctrine to which I shall refer, in a speech to both Houses of Parliament, and it is one which I think re- markably applicable to our present purpose. He was communicating, not alone to Great Britain, but to all Europe, the opinions he held on a certain subject, which was to be brought under the consideration of the Houses of Lords and Commons, when he said, “It is the undoubted right of every people to manage their own affairs.” (Hear, hear). He held that opinion in the year 1831, when referring to a struggle which was then going forward between Belgium and 14 SPEECH OP ALDERMAN HAYES Holland. It is an opinion material for the weight that could be attached to it, and T cer- tainly attach very great weight to it. It is quite unnecessary to define whether, when enunciating that proposition, he spoke the sen- timents of his own breast, or merely gave ex- pression to the dictates of the great Council of the Nation, which then administered its affairs ; in either case, be the sentiment his own, or be it suggested by that council, it must be regard- ed as one in which he and they concurred, and therefore I am entitled to ask, on behalf of my country, for the application to her of that doc- trine which came from such an authority, and which was sanctioned and supported by the great men who then took a part in the Govern- ment of England. (Hear, hear). I am entitled to say to you, that when my Lords Grey and Landsdowne, and Brougham, and Richmond, and many others of equal influence and autho- rity, concurred in a proposition that it was the undoubted right of every people to manage their own affairs — when that sentiment was echoed by each and every Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons — I say that I am entitled to regard it as a sentiment adopted by the entire British nation, and concurred in by the nations of Europe. (Cheers.) Therefore, re- garding it as a proposition which was concurred in by almost every rank and class and commu- nity in the civilised world, will it now be con- tended that eight millions of people shall be denied the right of managiag their own affairs ? ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 15 — or can it be asserted that it is consistent with any principle of justice or of reason, that a Parliament of England shall continue to make laws for the Irish people? (Cheers). That is the material question on which we are now at issue. That is the point on which we take issue to-day with the opponents of Repeal. (Hear, hear). Whether we are to deliver our- selves over, bound neck and heels, to a foreign power and authority — (hear, hear,) — for, in point of fact, it is a foreign power and autho- rity — the Parliament of England cannot be looked upon in any other light in relation to our domestic affairs — (hear, hear) — or whether we shall, according to the plain and fair inter- pretation of that doctrine, be permitted to man- age our own concerns ? (Cheers). It may* be alleged that we are not competent — ^that we don’t know how to conduct our own business ; but let me ask the people of this country, will they submit to be told that Englishmen are better qualified to administer the affairs of Ire- land, than those whose interests, whose feelings, and whose sympathies are identified with the prosperity of their country? (Cheers.) Will they acknowledge that, after the sad experience they have had of the blighting evils which were invariably the result of English domina- tion? Did England ever show any respect to the feelings or wishes of the people of Ireland ? (Cries of “ never.”) Wi.ll it be contended here to-day, or can even the most prejudiced among our opponents allege, that either before the 16 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES Union, or subsequent to it, England has ever been just, or generous, or kind in her dealings with this country? (Cheers.) No, she never has. She never admitted the right of the Irish people to a participation in the benefits which she claimed for herself. She has denied them that which they claimed as their unquestion- able right, a full and fair participation in the management of the national concerns. She has transferred from your country the controul of your public institutions, and having clutched them within her grasp, she has stocked that miserable portion of them which still exists in the country, with Englishmen and Scotchmen, and placed them in most instances under their domination and controul, to the exclusion of men far better qualified by intellectual attain- ments and moral worth, for the efficient perfor- mance of the duties attached to them. [A VOICE. — The Poor Law Commissioners.] (Groans.) Yes ; take the Poor Law Commis- sioners, for instance, and see how Irishmen have been treated. (Hear, hear). I think, then, it will be conceded to me, so far as we have already gone into the merits of this question, that England should not have an authority over Ireland in the management of the affairs of this country. I shall now show you that many eminent and high official personages enter- tained a somewhat similar opinion. The ques- tion of the policy of your proceeding to-day, must hinge, in a great degree, on the general history of your country’s condition before the ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 17 Union and after it. It is not my intention to ask you to travel back’ to the period when op- pression, and rapine, and plunder, were made use of to assert an arrogant domination over you in your own land. I shall not attempt to excite your feelings upon these points ; but I shall content myself by dealing with the simple question before us, in reference to the Act of Union. That subject being a matter of public policy, was, of course, propounded and consi- dered by the English ministry long before it took the form of a substantive proposition to the Irish people. It never emanated from them. It was bruited among the interested parties in England for years before they ventured to in- troduce it into this country, and I shall now proceed to shew you with what views, and for what purposes, the proposition of effecting a Union between Great Britian and Ireland was ever entertained. I will not go further back than the middle of the last century, and I find a writer upon trade, in 1751, Sir Mathew Decker, who says : — “ By a Union with Ireland, the taxes on Great Bri- tain would be lessened.” There is a plain and distinct proposition for you. Now, let us ask any man of common sense, if he is in debt to another person, can that debt be lessened, if he has not the means of paying it himself, unless he robs another person to pay it? (Hear, hear.) In the year 1750, the people of England began to think the public charges a little too onerous upon 18 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES them, and they at once took up this opinion, that if they could get a dominion over the re- venues of Ireland, they could make the Irish people bear a large portion of their burden, and thus relieve themselves at the expense of their neighbours. (Hear, hear, hear.) At a later period, in 1767? Postlethwaite, a v^riter on “ British Commercial Interests,” thus pub- lishes : — “ By the Union, Ireland would be enabled to pay a million a-year towards the taxes of Great Britain.” — “ This, with an addition of a million more on the part of Great Baitain, might be appropriated as an inviola- ble debt-paying fund.” If the former authority left any doubt at all as to the object of England in seeking for a Union, his successor has removed all doubt upon the matter. They were in debt in England ; in Ireland you were not in debt, and this honest man says, “ Let us crib from the people of Ireland one million a-year, and pay our debts with it.” It was certainly a most convenient way of paying their debts ; but let us ask ourselves to-day, why we are to suffer that England shall still compel us to pay her debts out of our re- sources ? (Hear). But I shall go on with Mr. Postlethwaite, for he is a very plain spoken man. He says — “ As England does already possess no inconsiderable share of the lands of Ireland, so the Union would prove an effectual method to vest the rest in her ; for as the riches of Ireland would chiefly return to England, she ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 19 continuing the seat of empire, the Irish Landlords would be little better than tenants to her, for allowing them the privilege of making the best of their estates.” You see he did not mean to stop at the million a-year ; but to take every thing else you had from you after. Well, some years after that had been broached, it was proposed to send to this country, as Lord Lieutenant, a Lord Roch- ford, and he was to be charged specially with bringing about this measure, which was to take one million a year from us, and all our property besides. (Hear and laughter). A great deal of discussion on this policy, took place between his Lordship and the Minister of the day, but the substance of it was published in 1776, in a book entitled “ Dalrymple’s Memoirs,” and in which Lord Rochford, conversing with the Minister, says : — “No Union should be attempted, unless the wish for it came from Ireland, and not even then, unless there was a sufficient body of troops to keep the madmen in order.” If you carry in your mind what was intro- duced into the petition that was read to you, you will find that Lord Rochford’s advice with respect to the bayonets, was not thrown away. He then sowed the dragon’s teeth, and they sprung up armed men in 1798. (Hear, hear). I allude to this only to shew how that Union was effected, and to demonstrate our right to demand now from the plunderers a restoration of their ill-gotten booty. (Cheers.) In the year 1785, a distinguished writer, with whose name 20 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES most of you are familiar, Adam Smith, says in speaking of this country, “ Ireland has been uniformly degraded and depressed.” If Adam Smith could be permitted to return to this world, what a similitude he would find in the state of affairs which he laid down as existing in his time between England and Ire- land, and their position at the present day. In the year 1785, Mr. Pitt submitted certain commercial propositions to the English House of Commons, and when he wanted to carry the house with him, in some little concession tow- ards the commerce of Ireland — a very strange affair, by the way, in an English Parliament — he used these remarkable words in submitting his proposition : “ The uniform policy of England had been to deprive Ireland of the use of her own resources, and to make her subservient to the interests and opulence of the English people.” Another authority which I shall quote on this head — and be it remembered that I am now quoting from their own writers — is a name familiar to every body, though perhaps many may not have caught the exact passage in his works — Doctor Johnson, referring to the pro- posed Union, says, “Do not unite with us — We should unite with you but to rob you — We would have robbed the Scotch, but they had nothing of which we could rob them.” (Hear, hear and laughter.) He did not concur in the policy of a Union between the two coun- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 21 tries, for he distinctly says to the Irish people, “We should unite with you but to rob you.” He was a plain speaking man ; there was no mistaking him. He says, “ We would have robbed the Scotch if they had any- thing to be robbed of.” [A voice in the gallery — They had nothing but their petticoats. (Cheers and laughter.] I do hope that as we have now amongst us some of the descendants of those Scotchmen, whom the English would have robbed if they had anything to be robbed of, that they will give us the benefit of their assistance in preventing any more of this plunder and spoliation from being carried on. (Hear, hear.) I am glad to see them here. I am glad to find some of them in this Council. I am glad to think that any man who comes to reside among us, no matter whether he he English, Irish, or Scotch, should be dealt with in this community accord- ing to his merits and actions, and not in refer- ence to his origin or his country. (Cries of hear, hear.) I shall give you the authority of ano- ther gentleman on this point. Mr. Cooke, who was Under Secretary tor Ireland in 1798, says — “An Union was the only means of preventing Ireland from growing too great and too powerful.” “When one nation is coerced to unite with another, such Union savours of subjection.” You see that the fellow sometimes let out a little honestly, though I believe he was a great 22 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES scoundrel. I think those who have read much on the subject, must have at once seen that the Union which was. effected, was a Union of co- ercion and not of choice. I shall come to authorities hje-and-hye, to prove that fact. That before the Union you were prosperous, there can be no doubt at all. The history of your trade, even under the harsh and oppres- sive legislation which English jealousy brought to bear against you, convincingly attests your prosperity. In the course of the discussion which took place on the measure, the Union- ists themselves — the high and leading members of the administration — admitted that you were a prosperous and flourishing country, but they asserted that in the proportion of your pros- perity then, you would be doubly or trebly prosperous after the Union had been effected. It is for you to determine whether that predic- tion has been fulfilled or not. (Cries of It has not ; we know it to our cost.”) Where are the signs or marks of your prosperity to be met with ? — I know not where to seek them. I cannot recognize them in your restricted com- merce — declining year after year — in your once flourishing manufactures, which have been de- caying until they have almost become extinct, since the enactment of the Union. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I cannot discover them in the vast and accumulating amount of pauperism which unfortunately exists in the country, and which is professed to be relieved by a costly and cumbrous machinery, the operation of which is ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 23 oppressive on the rate-payer, and distasteful to the miserable recipient of public bounty, from the mode in which it is administered. (Cheers.) I now come to the authority of Lord Clare, and what is his testimony as to the condition of Ireland at that period? He says — “ There is not a nation on the face of the habitable globe which had advanced in cultivation, in agriculture, in manufactures, with the same rapidity in the same pe- riod, as Ireland.” Lord Plunket says in the House of Com- mons, in describing the state of Ireland at that period, 1798, and previously — “ Laws well arranged and administered — a constitu- tion fully recognised and established ; her revenues, her trade, her manufactures thriving beyond hope, or exam- ple of any other country of her extent — within these few years advancing with a rapidity, astonishing even to her- self ; not complaining o^ deficiency in any of those respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity — she is called on to surrender them all to the control — of whom.” — To an island which has grown great, and prosperous, and happy, by the very same advantages which Ireland enjoys — a free and independent constitution, and the protection of a domestic superintendant Parliament. % (Cheers.) My next step in addressing you to- day, Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, will be to draw your attention to some passges in your coun- try’s history immediately connected with the passing of the Act of Union. On that head I shall deal, as I have done in the other cases, more upon high authority than upon my own opinion or assertions, and I will endeavour to convey to you some feeble notion of the means employed to obtain that end ; of the frauds, the 24 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES intrigues, the cheating, and the tyranny used to carry that measure. (Cheers.) I will begin by quoting the words of one whose memory must ever live in the affections of his country- men, and whose opinions must be always res- pected. I shall quote for you the words of Henry Grattan. (Hear, and cheers.) No doubt, many of those passages which I am about to read, are familiar to the members of this Coun- cil, and to many besides who now hear me ; but if they were known, not merely to some, but to every one of you, it could, I think, hardly be denied me to avail myself of them on this occa- sion, and I feel that 1 do not do any thing incon- sistent with the legitimate mode of discussing this great question, in thus making use of them. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The first authority, then, to which I. shall refer you on this head — and no authority can be stronger than that which is supported by the greatest and best among the friends of Ireland, at every period in her history — says : — “The peerage was sold — the caitiffs of corruption were every where — on the lobby — in the street — on the steps, and at the doors of every parliamentary leader, offering titles to some, offices to others, corruption to all.” “I will put this question to my country; I will suppose her at the bar, and I will ask her — Will you fight for a Union as you would for a Constitution? Will you fight for that Lords and that Commons, who, in the last century, took away your trade, and in the present your constitution, as for that King, Lords, and Commons who have restored both?” Again — referring to the proposition of sending ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 25 100 members to the British Parliament to protect Irish interests — God help them — he says, “ They will be in situation, a sort of gentlemen of the empire — that is to say, gentlemen at large, absent from one country, and unelected by the other — suspended between both, and belonging to neither.” . There’s a description of our Irish Members of Parliament, drawn in a prophetic spirit ; and I assert, meaning no disrespect whatever to any of our county or city Members, or to any of the Irish Members of that House, that it is a true picture of what they really are at present (hear, hear) ; and I avail myself of this occasion to say, that I am proud and happy to find that they are becoming sensible of the figure they make in the English House of Commons — of the wretched and paltry figure they cut, in a political point of view, in the estimation of the other members of it — and that they are staying at home among their constituents, for they really have no business there. (Hear, hear, hear, and loud cheers.) Mr. Grattan says : “What we dread is, that the market of St. Stephen will be opened to the individual, and the talents of the country, like its property, dragged from the kingdom of Ireland to be sold in London. The native honor of these men may struggle, but from their situation they will be adventurers of the most expensive kind — adven- turers wdth pretensions — dressed and sold as it were in the shrouds and grave clothes of the Irish Parliament, and playing for hire their tricks on her tomb, the only repo- sitory the Minister will allow to an Irish Constitution ; the images of degradation, the representatives of nothing. Come, he has done much — he has destroyed one Consti- B 26 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES tution, he has corrupted another — and this corrupted constitution he calls a parental Parliament.” — “ What he cannot reconcile to your interests, he affects to re- concile to your honor. He, (the Minister,) his bud- get crammed with corruption, proposes to you to give up the ancient inheritance of your country, to proclaim your utter incapacity to make laws for your own.people, and to register this proclamation of incapacity in an act which inflicts on this ancient nation eternal disabi- lity ; and he accompanies these monstrous proposals by undisguised terror and unqualified bribery ; and this he calls no attack on the honor and dignity of the kingdom — the thing he proposes to buy is what cannot be sold — Liberty.” Referring to the promises made, and the In- ducements held out, he asks, “ What security has Ireland for this contract ?” He (the Bri- tish Minister) answers “ English honour !” — English Honour I (Groans.) What is English honour ? Would any of you take it as a secu- rity for a small loan paper. (Cries of No, no,’’ and great laughter.) Would you, sir, turning to the Mayor, take it as security on a loan pa- per for £10? — aye — for ten shillings, or ten farthings? (Cheers and laughter.) No, I am sure you would not, nor for ten half farthings, and yet that was the security that Ireland was to get for the rights and privileges of her an- cient constitution. (Cheers.) But Mr. Grattan says — “Now when the liberty and security of one country depend upon the honor of another, the latter may have much honor, but the former can have no liberty.” — “ The constitution may be for a time lost, the character of a country cannot — The Minister of the Crown will, or may, perhaps, find that it is not so easy to put down ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION, 27 for ever, an ancient and respectable nation, by abilities however great, and by powers and by corruption how- ever irresistible : liberty may repair her golden beams, and with redoubled heart animate the country ; the cry of loyalty will not continue against the principles of liberty ; loyalty is a noble, a judicious, and a capacious principle ; but in these countries loyalty, distinct from liberty, is corruption, not loyalty. The cry of the con- nection will not, in the end, avail against the principles of liberty. Connexion is a wise and a profound policy ; but connexion, without an Irish Parliament, is con- nexion without its own principle — it is peril, it is sub- jugation, not connexion.” (Cheers.) Perhaps I am trespassing on your attention ; if I am, a word will stop me. (No, no, go on, and renewed cheering.) Well, we now come to the authority of the late Chief Justice Bushe, who says, in the House of Commons — “ I rely on the noble Lord’s own authority (Lord Castlereagh), and from his mouth I pronounce that this Parliament is incompetent to pass this measure.” “ The noble Lord has stated to you, that the present constitu- tion of Parliament is corrupt, and venal, and unconsti- tutional ; that it is a borough representation, “ which requires to be purified.” And he subsequently asked — “ Shall then the noble Lord be indulged in such in- consistency as to state in one and the same breath, that the Parliament is, as to its frame, corrupt, and as to its power, omnipotent.” — ‘‘He is about to carry the Union against that part of the Parliament which he allows to be pure, and by the instrumentality of that part which he alleges]^to be corrupt.” Mr. Bushe admitted the corruption — “ The basest corruption and artifice were exerted to promote it. All the worst passions of the human heart were entered into the service, and all the most depraved 28 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES. ingenuity of human intellect tortured to devise new contrivances of fraud.” Mr. Saurin, (yoM all know who he was,) in speaking of the members who voted for the measure, says — “ It was a majority consisting almost entirely of gen- tlemen holding offices or places at the pleasure of the crown — of adventurers from the bar” — (they are there yet, and they will be there) — (Hear) — “ of adventurers from the British army ; of men who would have no scruple to subject the property of this kingdom, in which they have no share, to a foreign parliament ; to traffic the independence of Ireland for a personal independence for themselves.” — “ If anew Constitution should be im- posed on this nation by open force, would any man say that the nation would be bound to submit to it. Would it not be a question of prudence and necessity, whether it should be submitted to ? If the nation should be per- suaded that a new Constitution was imposed on it by fraud — on what foundation will such a Constitution stand ?” “You may make the Union binding as a law ; but you cannot make it obligatory on conscience. It will be obeyed as long as England is strong ; but resist- ance to it will be in the abstract a duty ; and the exhi- bition of that resistance will be a mere question of pru- dence.” Thomas Goold, Master in Chancery, in the House of Commons, says — “ The question I dare to argue with any man, how- ever fertile his genius, deep his learning, or persevering his industry, is — that this House is not competent to vote the Act of Union.” “ Had the voice of parliament been the voice of the people, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer had, perhaps, never proved the successful enemy of Ireland.” “If the Parliament have lawful authority to change the constitution, it may do it in any way, and for whatsoever purpose it may think proper ; because such a right must be considered as a principle, ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 29 and not as an expedient.” “ It may, if its authority be supreme, pass an act by which this country shall be in- corporated with the Cisalpine Republic.” Again — “ What are the very words of our ancestors ? The Acts of Parliament made against the fundamental laws of the land, are, ipso facto, void.” Can any language be stronger than this ? What says Lord Hobart ? — “Whatever is against natural reason and equity is against law ; — nay, if an Act of Parliament were made against natural reason and equity, that Act would be void.” “ Lord Coke says, “ Nothing can have the force of law that is contrary to reason.” What a true picture was drawn of an English Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days by Mr. Goold. He was at that time the enemy of Ireland, and at this day he is the same, as I shall endeavour to prove before I have done, if strength is left me. (hear, hear, and cries of “ Glory to you.”) Sir John Parnell, in refer- ence to this question, in the year 1799> says — “ The only pretext (for the Union) is to tranquillise. Will the powers of Parliament make the principles of discord the sources of submission, of tranquillity, and of affection?” “ The next consideration is our trade — trade is of a delicate nature ; if diverted from its chan- nels, it may wander into other countries, or cease. The trade of Dublin does not necessarily seek the ports of Waterford or Cork ; it may find an asylum in Liver- pool, or probably find no home.” Where, I ask you, is the trade of Dublin now ? Its artizans are now even more impoverislied than you are yourselves. Its trade is passed B 2 30 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES away — it has no home (hear, hear). Arthur Moore, afterwards a Judge, says in 1799 — “ However men may abandon their principles, or dis- regard their duty, there is no prudence in this proceed- ing. If they will have the Union, they had better have it with the appearance at least of honesty and fair deal- ing. Fraud and deception will be unsteady foundations on which to place a new constitution, formed out of the ruins of an old one. I have many times repeated my abhorrence of the abominable means by which this mea- sure has been forwarded, but I could not conceive, that dexterity, depravity, or desperation, could suggest the wicked notion of cheating the Parliament out of the means of information.” “ Do not let it be known, that the members who have voted for its rejection, are unplaced and unpensioned, and speak the real sentiments of the people of Ireland. Do not let it transpire, that contracts have been made for the sale of the representation of this house, and that corruption, whose reptile course was hitherto concealed behind the veil of mystery and dis- guise, now appears amongst us, openly, avowedly, and actively practising its enormities.” “ What we demand at present is but a reasonable and just request ; it is that the representatives of the people, before they pro- nounce the judgment of death upon the Parliament, shall see the evidence on which they are to decide.” “ But it is hopeless to urge the noble Lord further ; he cannot delay ; he, no doubt, has his orders from the other side of the water, and he must obey.” Mr. Plunket, afterwards Lord Plunket, says — ■ “ I boldly assert, staking whatever professional cha- racter I may possess as a constitutional lawyer, that if the Parliament pass this measure against the consent of the people of Ireland, their act will want all the attri- butes of law.” “I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of Parliament to do this act ! I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on the Constitution. I tell you that if, circumstanced as you are, you pass this Act, it will be a nullity, and that no man in Ireland will ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 31 be bound to obey it. I make this assertion deliberately. I repeat it, and I call upon any man who hears me to take down my words. You have not been elected for this purpose ; you have been appointed to make laws, not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the constitution, not to enter it. You are appointed to ex- ercise the functions of legislators, not to transfer them ; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the govern- ment ; you dissolve society into its original elements, and no man in the land is bound to obey you. Are you competent to transfer your legislative rights to the French Council of five hundred ? Are you competent to transfer them to the British Parliament ? I answer ; no — when you transfer you abdicate, and the trust re- verts to the people from whom it issued. You may ex- tinguish yourselves ; but Parliament you cannot extin- guish. It is enthroned in the hearts of the people ; it is enthroned in the sanctuary of the constitution ; it is im- mutable as the island it protects. Again, I therefore warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on the consti- tution ; it is above your power.” Sir Laurennce Parsons, afterwards Lord Ross, in the House of Commons, on the 15th January, 1800, said — • 0- “He charged the Government that they had packed a Parliament to deprive Ireland of her ancient constitu- tion.” “ They had employed means to carry the Union, which must pollute any benefits it could produce.” “ They had prostituted the prerogative of the Crown to pack the House of Commons.” “ They had proposed the measure when martial law was predominant, where- by the exercise of public opinion was precluded.” Charles James Fox, in the House of Com- mons in 1806, says — “ The Union was atrocious in its principle, and abo- minable in its means. It was a measure the most dis- graceful to the Government of the country that was ever carried or proposed.” 32 SPEECH OF AEBERMAN HAYES Lord Farnham, in the British House of Lords, says — “ He knew the base and unconstitutional means which were resorted to, to carry it through.” I now come to Lord Grey, and with his testi- mony I will close this branch of the subject. He said — - “ It was said in his Majesty’s speeches, that the con- sent of the people of Ireland should be a preliminary ingredient in the measure ; and in support of this we are told, there were a number of addresses in its favor ; but as not one of these addresses v/as ever laid before Par- liament, or the public, we know not by whom, or by how many, or how few they are signed ; not one of them, however, was from any public meeting regularly con- vened, but they were obtained by the force of 40,000 bayonets, martial law, and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Whereas, considering the present state of Ireland, (convulsed after an insurrection,) there are pe- titions truly miraculous at the other side, from twenty- seven Counties and eighteen Cities, Towns, and Corpo- rations, duly convened.” “ There are 120, mostly County and City Members against it, and 162 in its favor, of whom 116 are placemen and pensioners, be- sides English Generals on the staff, possessing not an acre of land in Ireland, and introduced into Parliament by means of 63 vacancies, created for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of voting away a Parliament in whose continuance they had no interest.” “ Though you should be able to pass this Act, which I doubt, you may rely on it that the people of Ireland will only wait for an opportunity of recovering their rights, which they will say were taken from them by force.” ‘‘No means could have been more corrupt than those by which the Union was carried.” — “ There were not in fact above two or three honest votes for the measure.” There is a detail of the means which the Minis- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 33 ter had recourse to to carry out his project. The influence of British money was brought to bear to accomplish it — aye, and the aid of your own money too ; it was extracted from you, it was plundered out of your resources, to effect the ruin and destruction of your national inde- pendence. (Hear, hear, and great cheering.) — It was used to aid in the destruction of the constitution, against the opinions and protes- tations of 707,000 persons who signed petitions against the Union, and yet they were plundered and insulted to carry out the wicked measure. (Cheers). Now that I have touched on some of the means by which it was carried, I will endeavour to treat you to some of the promises — never performed — by which, perhaps, those two or three honest votes which Lord Grey adverted to might have been influenced in giv- ing their support to it. Mr. Pitt, telling the people of England, and of course the people of Ireland too, what the Union was to do for them, says — “ It would ensure a connexion for the immediate interest of both countries, with many advantages TO Ireland in particular !” — “ It would give Ire- land the means of improving all her great natural re- sources, and give her a full participation of all the bles- sings which England enjoys.” “ It would infuse a large portion of wealth into Ireland, and considerably increase her resources.” “ It would maintain order, encourage industry, diffuse throughout society the exertion of ta- lents, with which no country is more pregnant than Ire- land. By it England would sacrifice £700,000 a year in favor of Ireland, guaranteed to her irrevocably. In the commercial transactions between England and Ire- 34 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES land, there would be an advantage of £3,000,000 an- nually to Ireland.” Mr. Lyons read for you some passages from a work of Mr. O’Connell’s, in which the manner of carrying out those promises was faithfully recorded, and which detailed many of the political and national advantages which England obtained for herself since the Union, every one of which was denied to Ireland ; and yet Mr. Pitt, in making his promises, told you that Ireland was to have a full participation in all the blessings and advantages of English institutions. He told you that the Union would infuse a large portion of wealth into Ireland. How has it done so ? — Is it by taking it out of it — for such has been its plain and obvious effect. (Hear, hear, hear.) How has England sacrificed £700,000 a year, ‘^guaranteed to Ireland irrevocably No doubt, we occa- sionally get the loan of a little money from England, for which she is at this moment ex- acting interest from us at the rate of 5 per cent., while she can borrow it with the great- est facility in the London market for per cent; so that instead of sacrificing £700,000 a year in favor of Ireland, she actually makes a profit equal to 3^ per cent, on the sums she lends us for public purposes. (Cheers.) What the Ministers of that day were, fraudulent and false as I have proved them to be, they are surpassed by the Ministers of the present day, in reference to their uniform disregard of the interest of Ireland. I now come to the autho- rity of Lor^d Castlereagh. He says — ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 35 “ The Union was a sacrifice of money made by Great Britain to her own loss, and to the advantage of Ire- land.” “ By it Ireland would be taxed considerably less than if she remained separate from England.” “ In respect of past expenses, Ireland was to have no concern whatever with the debt of Great Britain.” “ It would give Ireland a community of property in the territorial revenue of Great Britain which would amount to £60,000 annually.” “ From the proofs he had offered, it would be seen that the proposed Union would give Ireland, in aid of her establishment, £50,000 annually.” Notwithstanding this, what has been the bene- fit extended to this country ? Is it not noto- rious that we do not get one halfpenny of that revenue from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, nor ever did. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Again, hear what Lord Clare says — “ He felt most happy to commit Ireland to the sober discretion of the British Parliament, even though she had not a single representative in it.” — “ The people of Great Britain, if they once understood the solid inter- ests of Ireland (he had no fear) would attend to them.’’ I confess, for my part, I would as soon commit Ireland to the sober, or drunken, discretion of the British Parliament without one single re- presentative there, as if she had 100 : for whe- ther sober or drunk she is still, and still will be, Philip of Macedon (hear, hear). However, hear what more he says — “ Ireland would participate in British capital and Bri- tish industry.^ — By the Union the resources of Ireland must necessarily increase and augment most rapidly. It would elevate her to her proper station in the rank of civilized nations, and advance her from the degraded 36 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES pest of a mercenary province to the proud station of an integral governing member of the greatest empire in the world. It would not drive (more than were then driven) the nobility and gentry from Ireland,' nor impoverish the metropolis, nor render the evil of emigration greater than at this day. The Union would be a fair prospect of peace, wealth, and happiness for Ireland.” Mr. Cooke, whom I mentioned to you before, says — “ The same laws would be enacted for Ireland as for Middlesex or Yorkshire. — From the increased security and advantages Ireland would derive from the Union, absenteeism would be considerably lessened. As Dub- lin would continue the chief seat of revenue it could not suffer. A great decrease of taxes and burdens would take place. A great increase of Trade and Commerce must ensue from a Union, and Ireland would be raised to a full equality with England.” (Hear.) Now, is it not unfortunately noto- rious to us, that this chief seat of revenue” has at present no more than the remains of a Cus- tom-house Establishment there, with a paltry few Custom-house and Excise Officers getting from £60 to £100 a-year each ; and that is the whole extent of this chief seat of the Revenue of Ireland (hear, hear). I have now endea- voured to shew you what means were used, and what inducements held out ; what condi- tions, expressed and implied, existed between the two countries on which to found this Act of Union. I will now admit for a moment, that if that Act was an honest contract — based upon the faithful performance of those terms and conditions — that you would in some degree be morally bound to maintain it, unless some very ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 37 strong adverse cause was shown ; but if — as I distinctly proclaim it was — that Union was achieved by fraud, by corruption, and by vio- lence ; if the influence of 40,000 bayonets was required to effect it ; if every means that could degrade a country or disgrace a party was had recourse to, to work out the object of those who sought to effect that Union, then. Sir, I assert that the legality of such a contract becomes a question for some competent and constitutional tribunal to dispose of (cheers). I ask whether in private dealings any such contract would be recognized or sustained ? (hear, hear.) I ask is there not a remedy provided to redress the party agrieved in so foul and so false a bargain? (Cheers). I ask the gentlemen of the legal profession, whom I see before me, whether a contract based in fraud and in injustice, is not to be remedied in any court of law ? Shall not, then, public justice be extended to revise the violations of a solemn public contract ? (Hear and cheers). Is there no power in the public policy of the law to cancel this fraudu- lent bargain, and compel the wrong-doer to jus- tice ? Is public justice and public morality to form no ingredients in public contracts ? or shall we be bound by the buccaneering princi- ple, that “ They shall take who have the power, And they shall keep who can ?” (Cheers.) The question now stands thus : Shall England be permitted to deprive you of your just rights, and having deprived you of them upon c 38 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES this atrocious principle, shall she be allowed to retain them without any other reason, save that she thinks she can do so ?” (Cheers, and cries of she shall not, she has kept them too long.) It resolves itself into that proposition, and it now becomes a question of time and opportu- nity between you (hear, hear, and prolonged cheers). The authorities that I have quoted shew you that it is so ; and they tell you far- ther, that it can only exist so long as England is able to maintain it, because it is opposed to the eternal principles of justice and honesty. (Hear, hear, hear.) It will be necessary now to show that there is not in the law of the land, or in any law of civilized nations, any power or authority to contravene the opinion of Lord Plunket — and which I am here to-day to advo- cate — that a contract of this description is, in point of fact, not sustainable, either under the administration of your own own laws — (hear) — or under any rule which can be supported by the authority of public writers on the constitu- tions of any country. Fonblanque, a distin- guished writer, in his Treatise on Equity, says : “ A contract that is merely the spoliation of one party to the caprice, folly ^ or monopoly of another, ceases to he binding, though deliberately entered into,'' And it is a feature of law, identified with the principles of the English Constitution, and one on which I firmly rely, that a fraudulent con- tract is not to be sustained when the fraud is apparent and proven (hear, hear). Grotius, ON THE REPEAL OE THE UNION. 39 in a treatise entitled Rights of War and Peace^^ writes thus — “ If supreme poiver shall really attempt to hand over the kingdom, or put it into subjection to another, I have no doubt in this it may be lawfully resisted!* And PuFFENDORF, in his work, entitled “ Laws of Nature and Nations f says — “ That the supreme power is in a vain pursuit, if it endeavours, by its own authority alone, to transfer the Government to other hands, and that the subjects are not bound by such an Act of their Government, but that such a thing requires, not less the consent of the people than of the Government ; for as the Government cannot be lawfully taken from the Governors without their consent, so neither, without the consent of the peo- ple, can another Government be obtruded upon them.” (Hear, hear, hear.) I think that exactly meets our case. Those that I have quoted are foreign authorities ; hut I shall now give you an Eng- lish authority, and a very eminent one. Locke, writing ‘‘ On Government f says — “ The delivery of the people into subjection of a fo- reign power, either by the Prince of the Legislature, is a dissolution of the government.” “ Whensoever, there- fore, the Legislature shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the laws, liberties, and estates of the people — by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new Le- I gislature (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security!* Again — “ The Legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others!* 40 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES We might almost suppose that Mr. Locke con- templated the very proceedings that have been taken by England in reference to this country, when he penned that very clear, emphatic, and distinct sentence. He says, again — The power of the legislature being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that grant conveyed ; which being only to make laws, and not legislatures, the legislature can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.” Now it is perfectly plain that this Parliament, which in 1800 delivered you over to the future Government of England, was not elected by you for any such purpose. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) They were returned in l797j and at that period not a word was breathed at any of the elections which then took place, of the con- templated Act of Union. Silent as the grave was the wily Minister, until the elections were over, for he well knew that if it transpired, the popular mind would rise up against it, and by the influence of its action crush the earliest indication of so fearful an inroad on the public rights. (Hear, hear.) He well knew that even in those days, notwithstanding the limited na- ture of the franchise, and the almost absolute and despotic controul which the landlords ex- ercised over their tenantry, yet such was the universal execration in which such a measure would be held in Ireland, that there was not a hustings in the kingdom which would have sanctioned or permitted the return of a single ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 41 member favourable to it. (Hear, hear). And yet, that was the Parliament, which having no such right or privilege confided to it by the elective body — having its functions and attri- butes clearly defined — still, for base lucre, or under abominable intimidation, transferred the right of managing the affairs of Ireland to a power as foreign to its relations as the Council of Five Hundred, or the Cisalpine Republic. (Cheers.) England was as foreign to your domestic relations in the management of your affairs as France was, and your Representatives might at the time have as legitimately united your Parliament with one as with the others I say there is abundant authority for contesting the validity of that compact. It is right and necessary to re-open it, to re-discuss it in the public mind, and to come to new terms with those who now hold the rod of power, and who sacrificed every principle to plunder the consti- tution of this country, to serve their own pur- poses, and by appropriating to themselves its revenues, to lighten their own burthens. (Hear, and cheers.) I assert that it is now competent for this country to re-open that question, and if England shall refuse to accede to it, why I say then, as I said before, that it is just a ques- tion of time and opportunity. (Cheers). [A voice in the gallery, The sooner the better’^] Yes, England very well understands that it is a ques- tion of time and opportunity. She has, in all i her dealings with you, given you to understand I that it was to time and opportunity you were I c 2 42 SPEECH OE ALDERMAN HAYES indebted for every concession, however trifling', which you obtained. (Hear, hear.) In 1782 she took one step in the path of justice in her deal- ings with this country; but what was the state of things then that compelled her to it ? In 1782 the thunder of an enemy’s cannon re- echoed on her shores, and Ireland, from end to end, bristled with bayonets in Irish hands. (Hear, and cheers.) You got something then from England ; but you got it because England dared not have refused it. (Hear, hear). It was from no sense of justice she conceded it ; it was from no feeling of affection towards you, but it was because she knew and she felt that she could not then refuse it. (Hear, and cheers.) In 1793 she granted another concession to a portion of the Irish people which she had before denied them. I shall not touch on any topics of religious grievances now, in connexion with this part of the subject ; but I may ask when did she liberate that class from the disfranchise- ment in which she had previously kept them ? Not until a time when every despot in Europe was trembling on an ill-sustained throne. (Pro- longed cheers.) Again, in 1806, she opened her markets to let in your corn and provisions ; but why did she do so? Was it for love or affection to you? No, but because she was then starving, and she required your aid. In 1829 she made another step in concession to- wards you ; but I will leave it to the Peel and the Wellington of the present day to say why that was granted, or by means of what influen- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 43 ces it was reluctantly extracted from them. Then, as ever, it was from terror, and not from aflPection, that she yielded any portion of your rights. Taking this view of her past conduct, and of her present prospects, I think we have no reason to despair of success in our present movement. (Hear, hear.) I don’t des- pair of it. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen are fre- quently calling on me to explain in what shape Repeal is to be carried ; men who will not join us until we define exactly what sort of a mea- sure we look for. Some of them say, Oh ! Repeal is impracticable ; it can never be ob- tained but I deny that, and I tell them, for their information, that it will and it must be granted. (Prolonged cheers.) Yes, it will be obtained upon the same terms, and under the same influences, that other privileges and rights were conceded to you ; not through any feel- ing of regard or affection, for deep and eternal is the hatred in which the English hold you ; but there are symptoms in the times which give you good promise of success, and therefore it is that I see no reason whatever to despair of our attaining it. (Cheers.) Hitherto, when allusion was made to Repeal, there was not to be found a single Journal in England to give it the slightest attention, or to refer to it with any serious expression ; but what do we now find ? What said the Morning Chro- nicle^ one of the most respectable and influ- ential papers in the kingdom, in reference to the Repeal question, a few days since. It 44 SPEECH OF AEBERMAN HAYES acknowledges that we are gone beyond the power of England to manage us ; that we have outgrown her power, and it has this significant and remarkable expression, that a population of nine millions is too great and too important to be dragged at the tail of any other nation/^ (Continued cheers.) That is exactly your po- sition now ; England cannot manage you, and if she is wise she will concede it to you in time — ^if she is unwise, quos Dens vult pevclere prius dementat. I have at present only gone as far as the mere act of Union in addressing you, but I w^ould now go a little farther, and ask you to give me your attention while we re- view the consequences which have resulted from that Union to Ireland. If I shall shew to you, and satisfy you from the best authorities, that a certain state of prosperity and comfort existed in the country previous to the Union, and that the very contrary has prevailed since it was enacted, and that the one was under the protection of a domestic legislature, and the other occurred in the absence of it ; that in one state of things you increased in trade and com- merce, and that happiness and prosperity was general amongst you, while with the other you had misery, pauperism, and degradation to con- tend with ; I think I shall have done sufficient to satisfy you that that state of things should no longer exist, and that you cannot too soon or too strenuously endeavour to effect its alter- ation. Year after year you have been growing worse and worse. Lord Clare said that your ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 45 absentees would not increase ; but I believe they have increased very considerably, and, I believe, it is admitted by every public writer that they are a serious injury to a country. I beg the Scotchmen’s pardon ; there was one Scotch writer argued that Absentees were no loss to any country — (laughter) — but with that excep- tion I never heard an intelligent man stand up and argue an Absentee Landlord was not an injury to the country from which he drew his income, without spending any portion of it there. What was Swift’s definition of the word Ab- sentee ? He says it was “ a term invented to designate a mass of Irish proprietors.” An Absentee lives well in England on Irish es- tates.” Nothing could be more true than this. No matter whether their incomes are the fruit of plunder or industry, they are taken out of the country, they are spent out of it, and are con- sequently as much a drain on your industry, and a bar to your prosperity, as if you were com- pelled to pay a tribute of equal amount to the Grand Turk. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In fact, the word Absentee appears to have been made expressly for Ireland, as if there was no other country in the world — as I verily believe there is not — in which such a thing as a syste- matic Absentee could be found — (hear, hear) — and that that systematic Absenteeism springs entirely out of your connexion with England is as plain to my mind as that the sun has risen this day. (Hear, hear, hear.) The ancient law of this country imposed a tax on Absentees, and 46 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES compelled them to compensate for the abstrac- tion of the sums which they derived out of the country, by paying a contribution towards her general expenditure, and, I believe, the same practice existed in many counties in Europe, and may at the present day. At a very late period in the history of our own House of Commons the principle was laid down, for in 1773 Mr. Flood proposed, that an income tax of 12^. in the pound should be levied off all rents and profits of landed property in the hands of those who did not reside for six months in the year. The project was opposed, and in his reply, the honorable gentleman said — “ I am surprised that gentlemen can be so inconsider- ate as to agree to tax 3,000.000 of the useful and in- dustrious natives of Ireland, rather than five great men, who are its bane And on a division the motion was lost only by a majority of 122 to 102 (hear, hear). Again, in reference to absenteeism, Adam Smith says — “ Those who live in another country, contribute no- thing by their consumption towards the support of the Government of that country in which is situated the source of their revenue” — “ This inequality is likely to be greatest in a country of which the Government is, in some respects, subordinate and dependent upon that of some other. The people who possess the most exten- sive property in the dependent, will, in this case, gene- rally choose to live in the governing country.” Ireland is precisely in this situation, and we cannot, therefore, w^onder that the proposal of a tax upon absentees should be so very popu- lar. Absentees have increased in the last cen- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 47 tury considerably. Present drain for them is £4,000,000. Swift, referring to the causes of Irish misery, speaks of the folly, vanity, and ingratitude of those vast numbers who think themselves too good to live in the coun- try which gave them birth — and still gives them bread — and who rather choose to pass their days and consume their wealth, and draw out the very vitals of their Mother Kingdom AMONG THOSE AVHO HEARTILY DESPISE THEM.” Sir Mathew Decker in his Essay on Fo’- reign Trade^^ says — “ It is computed that one-third of what Ireland gets centres here at last.” Sir JosiAS Childs, in his Discourse on Trade, says — “ A great part of the estates in Ireland are owned by absentees, and such as draw over the profits raised out of Ireland, refunding nothing."' Sir Cecil Wray said in the House of Com- mons in 1745 , “ The true grievances of Ireland were the Pension List, the Sinecure Offices, the Roman Catholic disabili- ties, and the Absentees." Thomas Prior, writing of absenteeism, says — “ One of the greatest evils which can befall any coun- try, is to have the gentlemen of estate and employment desert it, and spend the profits thereof abroad.” “ If allowed to continue to an encreasing extent, it must utterly destroy a country.” “No country labours under so wasteful a drain of its treasure as Ireland does at pre- sent, by annual remittances, without the least consider- ation or value returned for the same ; this is so great a burden on us, that I believe there is not in history an in- 48 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES stance of any one country paying so large a yearly tri- bute to another.” Sir William Petty says — “ That a great part of the estates, both real and per- sonal, in Ireland, are owned by absentees, who draw over the profits received out of Ireland, refunding nothing, and that Ireland, exporting more than it imports, doth yet grow poorer to a paradox.” I shall now refer you to some later authorities on this subject, among a great many others which I have by me, but which I think it un- necessary to trouble you with. The Duke of Wellington, addressing the House of Lords, says — “ The miseries of Ireland were mainly attributable to their Lordships utterly abandoning that country ; and if they returned home, and expended their immense for- tunes on their Irish estates, they would soon see the true effects of the Emancipation bill.” And Mr. Madden, an Englishman, in a work entitled the “ Evils of Ireland^’’' says — *‘If Ireland be not impoverished by Absenteeism, neither could England or Scotland; and if expending the owner’s share of the produce out of the country does not impoverish it, the United Kingdom would not be a whit the poorer if every acre of its surface, and all under its surface, were the fee-simple of foreign land- lords.” The ancient law of Ireland gave two-thirds of the profits of lands of Absentees to the King, while the owners were absent. Offices were vacated, if the officers went out of the kingdom. An Act in the reign of Charles 1st appropri - ated the profits of benefices to the public ser- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 49 vice of Ireland, where the incumbents did not keep residence continually in their proper persons in said landP An Act in 1715, charged salaries^ profits of employments^ fees or pensions in Ireland,” four shillings in the pound, ‘‘ unless such person should reside within the Kingdom for six months in every yearT Ten years after Mr. Flood’s proposal to tax Absentees, a similar motion was brought forward by Mr. Molyneaux, with no better success, and about the year 1796 by Mr Van- DELEUR, for the purpose of raising £150,000, which was only rejected because of the delay that would arise in preparing the machinery necessary for carrying such a measure into operation ; but the principle was not at all contradicted or dissented from in the House. I shall now endeavour to give you some idea of the drain which was going out of Ireland by absenteeism ; and I pledge myself to you, that in what I now state, I am stating from the best and most authentic sources of information to which I could have recourse. The facts and figures may be disputed with me ; I cannot help that ; I have honestly and accurately extracted my figures. In 1729, I find the computed ab- sentee drain was £627,000. In 1779, it was over one million. In 1804, according to a report of a committee of the House of Com- mons, it was £2,000,000. In 1825, according to the Kdinhurgh Keview, it was £3,500,000. In 1827, Lord Cloncurry puts it down at £4,000,000, and, in 1828, Mr. Nicholas 50 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES Philpot Leader, father to the late candidate for this County, and a very accurate statist, estimates it at the same ; while a still later authority estimates it at £4,650,000 annually. (Cries of Oh ! oh !”) So, that from about twenty years before the Union, when it was estimated at one million, it increased in four years after it to over two millions. In twenty- live years after it, it had increased to three and a^half millions, shewing you in the strongest possible light the loss which this country has suffered by Absenteeism, which, I contend, was encouraged and fostered, and greatly increased, by the Act of Union. (Hear, hear.) To this absentee drain, we may add the drain of public taxation, which will give us the following state of things as the actual position of the public drains out of Ireland, and the returns that have been made to her in lieu of them : — Absentee drain, as shewn above ... £4,650,000 Kevenue drain, as per public accounts of 1830 ... ... ... ... 4,660,983 Duty paid in England on commodities im- ported from England — estimated at 2,000,000 £11,310,983 Deduct salaries, public grants, and expen- diture ... ... ... 2,310,983 Actual drain out of public sources in Ire- land per annum ... ... £9,000,000 I think. Gentlemen, that after that exposition, you cannot hesitate in agreeing with me and my friend Mr. Lyons, that such a drain of the ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 51 wealth of the country should not be suffered to exist, and that it behoves all who feel an inter- est in its welfare, or wish to see its prosperity restored, or its sinking industry rescued from destruction, to give their best aid in bringing about some practical measure of relief for such a state of things. (Cheers.) Therefore I now call upon you to sustain this proposition by every moral and constitutional means you can. I call upon you to combine in a peaceful, orderly, and constitutional struggle, to obtain the only effectual mode of relief we can look forward to — a Domestic Legislature. (Hear and cheers.) I am not here to excite you into any rash or violent course of proceeding. (Hear, hear, hear.) I warn you against any breach of order or propriety ; but I ask you to go with myself and my friend, and with all the true friends of your country, in seeking for the restoration of that which we demand as our inalienable right — a Domestic Parliament. (Prolonged cheers.) I do not ask you to com- promise yourselves by any thing beyond a peaceable and constitutional effort, and if you confine yourselves to that, and persevere deter- minedly in it, your success is as certain as the light that shines. (Hear and cheers.) It is now my duty to call your attention to the man- ner you have been dealt with in relation to your income and expenditure since the passing of that act. I am conscious that I am tres- passing upon you (‘‘ no, no”) ; but the subject is really one of such magnitude, that it is 52 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES utterly impossible for any man to go into the consideration of it, if he shall not be allowed a considerable portion of time for laying his con- victions and conclusions before you. (Cheers, and cries of “Go on.”) The charge for pub- lic expenditure to which Ireland was liable for the fifteen years before the Union, was £41,000,000 ; but for fifteen years after it, when we were in the hands of the English, her charge for the public expenditure was £148,000,000. (Oh, oh.) That was the* way things were managed for Ireland when her affairs were taken out of her own hands. They made use of your revenue to pay off their own debts. If the argument in favour of the proposition before you rested on that single fact, it should be enough, in my opinion, to carry every man with me in asserting our just claim to have this contract reconsidered, and rediscussed, and finally to have it established on some honest principle. (Hear.) See what an amount of money this was to take out of Ireland, £148,000,000. Why, it is so vast a sum, that I dare say the imagination of many persons could not embrace it in one comprehensive view. The expenditure in Ireland of the public revenue was yearly decreasing, until it had almost come down to nothing, while the public charge had increased in that unjust and frightful propor- tion. (Hear and cheers.) For fifteen years before the Union the taxes in Ireland amounted to £31,000,000 ; in fifteen years after they were £78?000,000. This was the result of English ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 53 management of Irish affairs, and it could not be otherwise, for there is no honest principle in the heart of the man who claims a right of control over the property or liberty of another. (Hear, hear.) He cannot sustain himself against the corruption of his own nature, when once he assumes to himself that right. The remission of taxation in England from 1815 to 1 830 was £30,000,000 ; in Ireland, within the same period, it was only £250,000. The in- crease of taxes from 1800 to 1815, according to a report of a Finance Committee of the House of Commons, was in England, in the proportion of twenty-one to ten, while in Ire- land the proportion was forty-six to ten. (Hear, hear.) There are many opinions in respect to the debt of Ireland ; some persons argue that she owes a large sum of money, while others contend that a very large sum is due to her ; but I will give you some facts from which you may draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine, and I shall only say in respect to them, for the present, that they are very strong in- deed. At the time of the Union Ireland owed £17j000,000 at the outside ; that must be con- ceded, for there are authorities equally strong to prove that it was much less ; but we shall take it now at the highest amount. In 1799 England owed £420,000,000, and yet you were made to take your proportion of that debt, for which the English people, according to their construction of the Act of Union, would hold you responsible. England did not, within a given number of years, even double her own 54 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES debt ; but when she had the management of your affairs she contrived to treble yours, thus carrying out the principle laid down by Postle- thwaite, that you should be made to contribute towards she discharge of her debts. (Hear, hear.) In l799j the debt of Ireland, according to one return to Parliament, was £13,000,000, according to another it was £l7j000,000, while the debt of England in 1799 was £420,000,000. In 1 832 the debt of England was £800,000,000, and the debt of Ireland £134,000,000 ; so that the increase of debt against Ireland was in proportion of eighteen to one, and against England of two to one. (Hear, hear.) The debt of Ireland in 1817 was £44,888,355, and the credits, if computed according to the con- ditions and promises made when the act passed, was £54,587 j 000 ; so that there would, accord- ing to this calculation, have remained due to to Ireland in 1837? the enormous sum of £9?699?000. (Plear, hear.) And I shall just call your attention at this stage to the opinion of,^another authority, which applies to this part of the subject — General Cockjburn says, A more iniquitous act of injustice and robbery never was equalled in all the plundering atrocities of nations.” (Hear, hear, hear.) I will now advert to a sample of the justice which she has done to this country in regard of the expenditure of public money in it, and I take my authority from the calculation of Mr. Staunton, an uble and intelligent gentleman, who has de- voted much of his talents and his attention to those matters. His authority has considerable ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 55 weight with me, for as it has not yet been con- tradicted or questioned in any shape, I am entitled to use it for my argument now, and I am fully warranted in saying, that so long as England legislates for Ireland we can expect no better or more favourable results than we have now before us. (Hear, hear,) Accord- ing to the estimates of 1831, the sum put down for public works, contingencies, and salaries, was <£*3975160 ; and how much of that do you suppose was appropriated for improvements or public works in Ireland? Why the pitiful sum of £4,000, for some improvements in Drogheda Harbour — (Loud cries of “ Hear, hear, hear !”) There was the miserable frac- tional proportion of equality, which the plun- dering Parliament of England allowed the Irish people. We have the authority of Sir Henry Parnell for this fact, that before the Union we had untouched resources for a ten years’ war — (Hear, hear !) I am not very conversant with the expenses of carrying on a war, but I can have very little difficulty in understanding that we must have had a very large sum at our disposal, to be in a position to carry on a war for ten years. We have been frequently told that the intentions of Englishmen towards us are very good, if we would only be content to let them carry them out ; but for my part I can never hear that, but it brings to my mind a proverb, “ that hell is paved with good in- tentions,” and I cannot help thinking that a great deal of the pavement of that region 56 SPEECH OF AEDERMAN HAYES is composed of English manufacture — (Hear, hear, and laughter). The intentions of the English people towards you may he good, sure enough ; but they have really a very curious way of shewing them. I am sure no man will assert, that public works have been promoted in Ireland since the Union. If you have had any public works, you have been obliged to provide the means of carrying them on your- selves. You got no grants towards them from England. Carrying out her good intentions towards you, she appoints Parliamentary Com- mittees to investigate, to report, and to enquire into every thing connected with Ireland. The money paid to all those Committees and Com- missioners since the Union would amount to over two millions sterling. These gentlemen sat on the Committees, and made their enqui- ries, and sometimes made a very good report, too, as in the case of the Railway Commis- sioners ; but although over two millions of money was expended on enquiries and reports, yet, not half a million was laid out on the country in carrying them into effect — (Hear, hear, and cheers). Would it not have been a great deal better to give us that two millions which was thus expended, than to have thrown it away in that manner upon a parcel of schem- ing vagabonds — (Cheers). It is nothing hut scheming : it is a project of recent growth to fiil the empty pockets of those needy adven- turers, who are hanging on the Government in expectation of place and pay — (Hear, hear !) — ON THE REPEAT OF THE UNION. 57 Formerly they used to appoint a Committee of the House of Commons to investigate those subjects ; hut since they discovered the new plan, nothing can be done without a Com- mission of enquiry, and when the object of its appointment is accomplished, we hear no more of any practical good resulting from it, I have not yet said one word about Trade or Commerce. Will you allow me a chapter upon them ? (Hear, hear, go on.) There is a curious feature enough in the way in which our argu- ments in favour of Repeal are encountered by those who are opposed to it. They argue, from the state of exports that prevailed before the Union, and since, that the prosperity of Ire- land has been augmented by the measure ; and I’ll tell you how they make that out : — Before the Union there was no official value set on the property exported from Ireland. In the year 1805, when prices were high, that official value was first fixed ; and it appears from this scale of official value, that the exports, which were low before the Union, were made to ap- pear considerably higher after it ; and from that the opponents of Repeal argue that your trade has been increased, and the way they make that out is by contrasting this official value after the Union, with the real value before it ; and in proportion as this official value exceeds the real value, they assert that your trade has been in- creased since the passing of the Act of Union. Now, we may concede that there is more trade in one sense, but certainly there is not more trade 58 SPEECH OP ALDERMAN HAYES giving remuneration, and that is the chief point for us to look to. (Hear.) I have stated this to shew how those who oppose us falsify facts in the arguments they use — if they can he called arguments — and how they stop at nothing to carry out their purposes. But I shall now enter into a detail respecting some very import- ant articles of general consumption, and we shall see how the facts really stand, as between us and our opponents. In January, 1797? Mr, Pitt said — that the manufactures received in Ireland from Great Britain, amounted to one million sterling per annum, while Great Bri- tain, on the other hand, imported manufactured produce from Ireland to the amount of between four and five millions sterling. Is this proportion of exchange in manufactured goods preserved to this day, or has it not been sadly and totally re- versed? (Hear, hear.) The consumption of Malt in Ireland was, in 1794, 4,956,000 bushels, and, in 1830, it was only 2,011,895 bushels. What it was in 1842 I have no means of ascertaining, but I dare say it is very much less than that. Of Tobacco, in 1 800, the consumption was 6, 737,0001b.; in 1827 it was 4,041,1721b. Of Wine, in 1800, 1,024,000 gallons were consumed, and in 1825 the con- sumption had decreased to 952,000 gallons. Of Sugar, in 1800, the consumption was 355,000 cwt. ; in 1825 it was 328,286 cwt. Of Tea, in 1800, it was 2,926,0001b. ; in 1828 it had fallen off to 2,5 15,0001b. ; and, let it be borne in mind, that while the consumption of ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 59 those several articles had thus diminished, the population had increased some millions in num- ber. Of Cotton, in 1800, the consumption was 4,249j000lbs, and we had then numerous cotton factories in Ireland, where at least 100,000 persons were employed. They were establish- ed at Celbridge, Prosperous, Malahide, Bal- briggan, Drogheda, Belfast, Clonmel, Cork, Kilmacthomas, Mountrath, Bandon, and many other places. I know not what the quantity of raw cotton imported at present may be, but I dare say there are many gentlemen in this Council who can inform me. Indeed I believe no one can tell it better than Dr. Lyons. Dr. Lyons — There is scarcely a pound of raw cotton imported into Ireland at present. Mr. Hayes — I believe so. The only place where those manufactories are at work now, are Belfast and Portlaw, and I am informed that what they import is not the raw material, but a prepared article called cotton twist. Now, even supposing the same quantity to be imported now as was then, the fact of its being brought into the country in a prepared state, deprives us of the amount of wages which were formerly paid for labour alone in that depart- ment. (Hear, hear.) I am very sorry that the Messrs. Murphy are not here to give us some further information respecting cotton and woollen manufactures ; but as they are not, why we must endeavour to do without them. (Hear, hear.) I have stated that be- fore the Union there were cotton manufactur- 60 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES ' ing establishments in various parts of Ireland, and from tbat it must appear plain to you, that in that branch of trade we were tolerably well off ; whereas, at present, that trade, instead of giving employment to upwards of 100,000 per- sons, does not now employ probably one -tenth of that number: In the year 1790 the con- sumption of raw Silk in the manufactories in Ireland was 92,000lbs ; in 1797 it increased to 145,0001bs. ; in 1818 the consumption fell off 83,0001bs., and in 1830 it was only 3,190lbs, showing a progressive increase during the pe- riods I have named before the Union, and a fearful decrease subsequent to it. (Hear, hear.) The value of the gross imports of Tea, To- bacco, Spirits, Wine, Sugar, and Coffee, in 1800 was £12,400,000. In 1827 it had fallen off to £9?800,000. The duty paid on those articles in 1800 was £1,200,000, and in 1827 the duty had increased to £1,885,000 ; thus charging and levying 50 per cent, more duty upon a quantity, and value diminished 25 per cent. ; and this is done under the parental care of an English Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The exported products of Ireland in 1799 were re- turned at £5,784,375, while if set down at the official value, as the latter exports were, they would have amounted to £7?5 1 9?7 07 . On sun- dry articles the duty charged in 1807, produced £4,069,600 ; and in 1 822 the same articles, charged at a higher duty^ produced only £3,250,900. I shall now come to Woollen Goods, and I find that in 1640 there was an ah- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 6 1 solute export trade of woollen manufactur- ed goods from Ireland to the amount of £70,000; and if you had gone on since, in- creasing in prosperity as you did in population, the exportation of Woollen Manufactures would have kept pace with your increased population. (Hear, and cheers.) To a certain period of time you did increase in prosperity as in popu- lation, for in 1793 the value of Woollen Manu- factured goods exported from Ireland amounted to £350,000, of which £1 16,000 was paid for la- bour alone, showing, in this branch also, a pro- gressive increase from £70,000 to £350,000, or five-fold the amount, which was much more than equal to the increase of population within that time. It is also of great importance to consider this with reference to the amount of labour employed in this trade, and the manner in which that occupation was given. In every house through the country the females a.nd children of the family found plenty of remuner- ative employment in dressing, preparing, or spinning wool. (Hear, hear, hear.) Let a search be made through the country now, and I ask what amount of labour is employed in the manufacture of Woollen Goods ; or even what proportion of remuneration do those who are employed get, compared with what they got at that time ? It is quite certain that the value of labour rises and falls with the prosperity of a country, or otherwise. I cannot employ la- bourers unless I have a trade or business which will enable me to pay them, and so it is with 62 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES the manufacturers. They must have an exten- sive and prosperous trade to be enabled to em- ploy a large number of hands, and to pay them a high rate of wages. The whole surface of the country derived a benefit from that species of domestic employment to which I have referred. (Hear, hear, hear.) Happiness, cheerfulness, comfort, and contentment prevailed among the people. Whether you can now, by a restora- tion of your Domestic Legislature, get back this state of things, I am not bound to answer. It is no part of my duty to show that you will ; but I have shown you what the state of your trade was before the Union and since. It w^as extensive and valuable then ; it is declining into misery and wretchedness now ; and I think you can have little difficulty in saying what that is to be attributed to (cheers). In 1800 there were in and about Dublin sixty woollen manu- factories, with several of silk and cotton. In 1821 there were forty-five ; and in 1830 there were no more than ten. In those manufacto- ries there were employed in Dublin 30,000 tradesmen at an average wages of about 25 5. per week; there are not now 10,000 altoge- ther, and their average rate of wages does not exceed 12^. per week ! In Kilkenny there were 4,000 tradesmen employed — there are not now 100 ! In Youghal there v/ere 200 — there are not now 12 ! Those connected with the cloth- ing trade, will, I am sure, go with mfe in saying that you made Stockings at that time, and you wore them yourselves, while there is now ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 63 over four or five hundred thousand pounds sent annually to England for Stockings alone. In Dublin six hundred persons were employed in the manufacture of stockings, at an average rate 255. to 305. per week ; in 1830 only from fifty to sixty w^ere so employed at the rate of 85. per w^eek ! Before the Union there were fifty es- tablishments in that trade alone — there are now only six ! Hats were manufactured in great abundance before the Union — aye, and you absolutely exported your Irish Hats then — how do you stand with regard to them now ? Dr. Lyons — The County of Cork alone pays ^200,000 a year for Hats at present ! Mr. Hayes — And before the Union we ex- ported them to the amount of £50,000 annu- ally. (Hear, hear, hear.) In the manufacture of Gloves, we employed in Cork alone, before the Union, 3000 women. At present, I am informed, there are no more than 30 ! We had a very large export trade of Soap then, and we used no English soap ; but we now import large quantities of it for our home consumption. In 1783, we exported, according to Lord Shef- field, 50,000 barrels of herrings annually ; we now import them to a very large amount. I now come to Provisions, and I find that in 1790 we exported 227?000 barrels and tierces of salted and cured provisions, while in 1831 our export, exclusive of contract provisions, had fallen to 27? 190 barrels and tierces. Now, on this subject of provisions, I shall venture to 64 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES dwell a little. A public writer, Paley, writ- ing on the effect to a country of the export of raw material, says: — “ The last, the lowest, and most disadvantageous spe- cies of commerce, is the exportation of raw materials for wrought goods, as when wool is sent abroad to pur- chase velvets ; hides or poultry, to purchase shoes, hats, or linen cloth. This trade is unfavourable to population, because it leaves no room or demand for employment, either in what it takes out of the country, or what it brings into it.” On the same subject, in IT^, Lord Sheffield writes : — “ The provision trade is infinitely more advantageous to Ireland than seemed generally to be imagined, and there cannot be worse policy than her exportation of live cattle ; whilst, on the contrary, she should slaughter her own cattle, and cure the beef for exportation. It is as much a manufacture as linens.” I am now speaking under the correction of gentlemen who, from their experience and ac- quaintance with the trade, must be better in- formed on the subject than I am ; yet it is so simple a history, that probably my version of it may be received and confirmed by them- The case made by Lord Monteagle against the Repeal, hinged entirely on the amount of pro- duce exported from Ireland since the Union, and in that he of course included live stock. Now the statement I have made proves this — that where you once exported cured provisions, you now export the live cattle ; and Mr. Rice assumed those exports of live cattle to be equal in value, in a national point of view, to the ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 65 export of salted provisions. He never would dare to state the naked fact, that the export of live cattle was equal to that of cured provi- sions, but he takes the value of those live cattle so exported, and sets that down in support of his argument. Let us now suppose that a large number of pigs are bought up alive at the dif- ferent markets through the country for export- ation. I believe it may be fairly stated on an average, that the cost of labour in exporting them in that way, might be about 2\d. per pig — or we shall say 4c/., which would be the highest. We will take it that the pig weighs two or three hundred weight. If that pig was killed and made up into provisions at home, it would produce about a barrel or tierce of salted meat, besides leaving a valuable portion of offal for consumption at home. (Hear, hear.) Now, if that barrel of provisions was prepared and cured in the country, it would produce an ex- penditure among our own operatives and labour- ers, between cooperage and other expenses, of eight shillings. (Cheers.) I believe I am about right there. Mr. John Gould — Perhaps about six shil- lings. Mr. Hayes — Well, granted. In one case you would be a gainer of six shillings for your labour, and in the other you get 2^c/. (Conti- nued cheers.) And yet Mr. Spring Rice would make it a weighty argument in the scale, that a pig exported in the manner I have told you, produced a vast benefit to the country, and was D 2 66 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES a very strong point against a Repeal of the Union. The same argument applies to beef ; probably the expense of exporting the live ani- mal is less than in the other case, for we all know that the pig is a more contrary brute, and requires a great deal more trouble to make him go along the road — particularly when he is leaving his own country. (Laughter and cheers.) There is the disadvantage to a country of ex- porting the live stock, which my Lord Mont- EAGLE brings forward as his principal argu- ment. Before the Union we had extensive Glass manufactories in the country ; subsequent to it, they decayed almost to nothing ; and in 1831, the relative duties paid to the revenue, on the manufacture of that article alone, stood thus — England, ... ... £650,000 Scotland, ... ... 68,000 Ireland, ... ... 1 8,000 We had in this city extensive and important Glass Works ; I need not tell you that now they are in ruins. (Hear, hear.) With res- pect to the Distilleries, I can say for the per- sons engaged in that business, that they are a very aggrieved and afflicted body ; and if it is not offensive to my Total Abstinence Friends, I shall have a little to say about them. (Hear.) I know the griefs of Distillers do not generally meet the sympathy of those I am addressing ; but if it shall be proved that, either legislatively or administratively, they are wronged as a class, I contend that their wrongs form an ingredient ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 67 in those general and abounding grievances which, under this head, justify the claim of the Irish people to a domestic legislature. (Hear.) The Act of Union by its sixth article provides. That all articles, the growth, produce, or ma- nufacture of either country, (not herein after enumerated as subject to specific duties) shall from thenceforth be imported into each coun- try from the other, free from duty, other than such countervailing duties on the several arti- cles enumerated in the schedule as are therein specified.” Under this provision, spirits im- ported into England or Ireland respectively, being the produce or manufacture of either, should be chargeable with duties equivalent to the duties charged on the spirits produced in the importing country, and no more ; and any fiscal regulation which imposed, directly or in- directly, any greater charge, was a virtual vio- lation of this Act. The Irish Distiller claimed that under this article he had a right to send his spirits to England in that state in which he produced them, and that he should sell them in England to any licensed party, paying duty at the rate charged on English spirits. The Eng- lish Treasury and Excise Boards, with a view to check any encroachment on the English mar- ket, compelled the Irish trader, who produced his spirits at 25 degrees over proof, to reduce them on the English guage down to 7 degrees under proof, and this operation, effected gene- rally by the infusion in each cask of twelve or fifteen gallons of foul water, rendered the spi- 68 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES rits unmarketable without the intervention of a particular trade, namely, the Rectifier, who for taking the dirty water out of them, and cleansing the spirits so as to render them a marketable commodity, obtained a remunera- tion, at the cost of the Irish Distiller, equal to six-pence per gallon ; in fact, making the tax on the Irish trade, when entering the English Market, to that extent beyond what should have been chargeable under any honest inter- pretation of the law. In this way, for twenty five years subsequent to the Act of Union, was the Irish trader dealt with ; after that lapseof time an act was passed which, according to the latter, abated this grievance — but yet the deadly hatred of the English Fiscal Boards contrived a new process whereby to some ex- tent a similar injustice was perpetrated, that of practically charging Ireland a higher rate of duty than was charged in England. It was ef- fected in this way : The English Distiller per- mitted and delivered his spirits by weight ; no cask of his was ever guaged, and to those who know the trade, it will be obvious that in this way he delivers three per cent, more than he is charged with. On the other hand, the Irish distiller is subjected to the strictest account by guage, and his delivery must be by weight. In this way he is practically charged with three pence per gallon more than the Englishman. There are many other features connected with this trade tending to the same result — all op- pressing the Irish and protecting the English ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 69 interest. So galling had those matters been found to the trade at Cork, that the whole body of distillers in our locality, including Wise’s, and Walker’s, and Murphy’s, and Daly, in- structed me to draw up a final remonstrance against the practice ; to declare the utter hope- lessness of obtaining justice, and that they felt themselves at length under the necessity of joining in the demand, then first assuming form and consistency, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union. (Hear, hear). Yes, Sir, I drew up a document to that effect in 1831, and the Messrs. Murphy, Hewitt, W'^alker, Wise, Daly, and Lane, freely signed it. Have those gentlemen had any remedy applied to their just complaints since ? Has Whig or Tory government done them tardy justice ? No ; their wrongs have not been redressed ; justice is yet halt and lame, but the spirit of aggression has not been inactive. In 1840 the English Chancellor of the Exchequer made up his Ways and Means in part by an additional tax on spirits, and his honest purpose and practice had this re- sult ; the duty levied on the whole of the English distillers amounted to £972 ! on the Scotch, to £13,000!! on the Irish — the poor, the unfortunate Irish — this financial impostor levied £ 92 , 000 !! ! (Oh, oh.) Yes, from the poor he plundered the enormous sum of ninety- two thousand pounds ! Upon the rich his levy did not amount to one ! And yet some of those distillers, those Repealers of 1831, are Anti- Repealers to-day. Some of them are on this 70 SPEECH OP ALDERMAN HAYES Council, and have absented tliemselves to-d^y — Mr. J. J. Murphy and Mr. Lane only attend — Mr. N. Murphy, and Mr. Daly are absent, and I am told they are opposed to Repeal. I think they are bound to tell us why they are so, if the fact he as stated ; I make no special claim myself to the information, but I think Mr. Daly is bound to Ills brother trader, wLom I see before me, (Mr. Lane,) to say what it is that the government have done for him since 1831 that has not been done for others. Has he been settled with exclusively ? If so, I say he deals unjustly by his brother traders to keep the secret to himself. I carry, my demand for explanation beyond the distil- lers. I hold that every man who took a leading part in the agitation of 1 832, is bound in duty to the people, whom be led and excited at that period, to stand by the agitation of this day, or to explain upon what grounds he now acts so diametrically opposite to the course he then pursued. No man is justified in rousing the feelings and passions of the people upon great national questions — in leading them to a dan- gerous eminence of enthusiasm ; and when he has rendered them almost frantic under the sense of the wrongs, oppressions, and injuries they have sustained, it is an act of treachery to leave them to the guidance of those fierce pas- sions which he has been so instrumental in exciting. If he has reason to offer to the peo- ple to account for the change in his opinions, an honest policy would avow^ the change, and ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 7 1 such a course would tend to uphold his con- tinued influence with them, and would prove the best service to his country. If he shrinks from this plain duty, he is answerable to society and to his country for all the consequences that may ensue. I am not absolutely wedded to opinion, but upon a great question, such as we are con- sidering to-day, I cannot change my opinion because another has done so, unless he shows me good reasons for the change. I say the people must be similarly influenced. If those who heretofore led them, will now explain the grounds on which they would have this agita- ' tion stopped, and that those grounds are honest, intelligible, and politic, the people will yet stand by them. If they will not do so, again I say they are guilty of treason to the people ! (Prolonged cheers.) The export of Linen from Ireland in 1796, was valued at £3,1 13,000, and in 1830 it had decreased to <£1,500,000. We manufactured Linen extensively before the Uni- on — in fact it was the staple trade of the coun- try ; now we grow the flax, and our export is chiefly yarn or dressed flax, which frequently returns to us in manufactured cloth. In the year 1800 we exported but 1,689 cwt. of flax; all besides, that had been grown in the country, was manufactured in it, and that accounts for the great amount of exported linens ; while in 1825 our export of flax amounted to 54,900 cwt. In this w^ay the country has been de- prived of all the value to accrue from the ma- nufacture of that flax into cloth. In 1801 the 72 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES linen yarn exported was 2,600,000 lbs.; in 1825 the export was but 391 >000 lbs.; which proves that while the export of raw material had in- creased, that of varn and cloth had diminished. It is unnecessary to dwell on this in proof of diminishing employment following close on the Union. (Cheers.) Before the Union Ire- land exported raw and tanned hides to the value of ^70,000, and we had a profitable trade in shoes to the West Indies, and several parts of Europe. The export of hides, and their ma- nufacture into leather, was co-extensive with our trade in provisions; but now our tanning trade is altogether dependent on the import of foreign hides. In various other articles we carried on a lucrative trade with the West Indies, America, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and other countries, and in the preparation and export of those commodities our people were fully and profitably employed. Are they em- ployed now? Or rather, let me ask, are they not importunately soliciting in every quarter of the country the smallest pittance, in exchange for labour, wTiereby they may escape the hor- rors of a work-house domestication — that do- mestication which England would exchange with them, as an equivalent for a Domestic Legislature — (Hear, hear !) I have already shewn you how little England felt herself bound to conform to the letter or spirit of that Act of Union, which she would make so rigidly binding on us. Yet, I cannot refrain from stating another instance of its violation. When ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 73 she would have us united with her, the faithless miscreants, whom she employed, promised that our Linen trade, in particular, should be secured and fostered. Sail-cloth is a branch of that manufacture, and some having found its way to England under the provisions of the Act, the Imperial Parliament — that parliament of Eng- lishmen, to whose sober discretion” we had been committed — enacted a law, which charged sail-cloth imported into England from Ireland, with duty, and, as if to prove to us at once that we should not be claimants on them for justice, the same act granted a bounty on sail- cloth exported from England to Ireland— (Hear, hear !) Having now gone through these details, and perhaps occupied your atten- tion for too long a time in dwelling on them — No, no !”) — it only remains for me to say, that it is quite obvious, if the population of a coun- try increase, without any increase in the means or material for giving them employment, that an increase of pauperism must naturally be the result. We have at present in this country, unhappily, two millions of paupers, and all be- cause of the miseries that have been brought upon it by the legislative Union with England — (Hear, hear !) For my part, reviewing this sub- ject to the best of my ability, I cannot attribute the condition we are reduced to, to any other cause than the effects of that Union — (Hear, and cheers). I then ask you, are you willing that England should continue to mismanage your affairs, and sacrifice your best interests to her 74 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES ambition ? — No, no !” and cheers.) Are you willing that England should regulate your so- cial institutions, even if she were to deal with you as she does by her own people ? No ! you are not. I am satisfied, you are not, and that you will not be indifferent to your own position any longer — (Cheers). When did we get any good results from our dealings with her ? I would say , — never I — (Cheers) but I will shew you that she is not able to produce good re- sults even among her own people, though she claims the right of legislating for you. I will take the testimony of my Lord Ashley, and I will shew you from it, to what a pitch of de- pravity and moral degradation the Government of England has reduced her population ; and I will then ask you, are you willing to deliver yourselves over to the controul of a nation, when her own people are reduced to such a position from the effects of her bad govern- ment? So late as the 28th of February last. Lord Ashley brought forward a motion in the House of Commons, to consider the condition of the working classes of England, and the picture which he drew of them, from official returns and other authorities, presents such an exhibi- tion of depravity as would naturally shock any one who regarded virtue or morality in their proper light. He says, quoting from the se- cond Report of the Childrens’ Employment Commission, in reference to Manchester : — “ By these returns it appears that the number of mns taken into custody was 13,345. Discharged by ma- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 75 gistrates without punishment, 10,208 ; of these, under 20 years of age, 3,069 ; ditto, females, 745. Returns of ditto to July, 1842, (six months,) taken into custody, 8,341. This w’ould make in a whole year, were the same proportion observed, 16,682.” “But could the house be surprised at this, when the means for supplying crime and debauchery were so abundant ? It appeared that there were in Manchester — pawnbrokers, 129 ; beer houses, 769; public houses, 498; brothels, 309; ditto, lately suppressed. 111; ditto, where prostitutes are kept, 163 ; ditto, where they resort, 223 ; street- walkers in borough; 763; thieves residing in the borough who do nothing but steal, 212; persons following some lawful occupation, but augmenting their gains by habitual viola- tion of the law, 160 ; houses for receiving stolen goods, 63 ; ditto, suppressed lately, 32 : houses for resort of thieves, 103 ; ditto, lately suppressed, 25 ; lodging- houses where sexes indiscriminately sleep together, 109.” f “He had now to take the town of Birmingham, and it would be seen by the police returns for 1841, that the number of persons who had been taken into custody was 5,556. Of these the males were 4,537, and the fe- males 1,018. Of these there could neither read nor write, 2,71 1 ; who could read only and write imperfectly, 2,504 ; read and write well, 206 ; having superior in- struction, 36.” “He might now be allowed to state what were the number of places to be found in the same town for the practice of vice. From the police returns for 1840, it appeared that the number of these places was 998, and they were thus distributed : — Houses for reception of stolen goods, 81 ; ditto for resort of thieves, 228 ; brothels where prostitutes are kept, 200 ; houses of ill-fame, where they resort, 110; number of houses w^here they lodge, 187 ; number of mendicants’ lodging- houses, 122; where sexes sleep indiscriminately toge- ther, 47 ; — 998. Add to this, public-houses, 577 ; beer- shops, 573.” He should next take the town of Leeds, and there it would be found that the details were very nearly similar to those stated for Man- 76 SPEECH OF AEBERMAN HAYES Chester and Birmingham. The Rev. Mr. Li- VESEY, the Minister of St. Philip’s, having a population of 24,000, which consisted almost exclusively of the labouring classes, said — “ Moral condition of children is, in numerous instan- ces, most deplorable. * * * Sunday afternoons it is impossible to pass along the highways, &c. beyond the police boundaries, without encountering numerous groups of boys, from twelve years and up- wards, gaming for copper coin * * the boys are early initiated into habits of drinking. But the most revolting feature of juvenile depravity is early con- tamination from the association of the sexes. The out- skirts of the town are absolutely polluted by this abomi- nation ; nor is the veil of darkness nor seclusion always sought by these degraded beings. Too often they are to be met in small parties, who appear to associate for the purpose of promiscuous intercourse, their ages being apparently about fourteen or fifteen.” Charlotte Kirkman, a poor woman, aged 60, observed — “I think morals are getting much worse, which I at- tribute in a great measure to the beer-shops. * * There were no such girls in my time as there are now. When I was four or five and twenty, my mother would have knocked me down if I had spoken improperly to her. * * * Many have children at fifteen. I think bastardy almost as common now, as a woman be- ing in the family- way by her husband. ♦ * ♦ Now it’s nothing thought about.” One gentleman, whose opportunities of ob- servation were unequalled, spoke of the present existence of a higly demoralised mid- dle-aged and rising generation, worse and more debased than, I believe, any previous ge- neration for the last three hundred years. ON THE KEPEAL OF THE UNION. 77 But (said Mr. Hayes) I shall not occupy your attention by going through any more of these disgusting details. There are accumulated evidences in the noble lord’s statement to the same effect ; hut I shall not dwell upon them. It must however he evident, that when Eng- land cannot keep her own people from so de- based a condition as this picture exhibits, that she is not capable of governing you so as to produce better results. What better evidence can you have of the worth of any man, than the condition in which you find those who are immediately under his domestication ? You will find those who are under the management and care of a worthy and respectable man, en- joying happiness and comfort ; whereas, under the dominion of a profligate or worthless cha- racter, the very contrary results to those in the other case will be found. (Hear, hear.) The same principle then that prevails in private life applies to Governments, and the same results must take place in the social and moral condi- tion of the people under their charge. Do not then, I say, trust to England^ trust only to yourselves ; your only hope is in a Domestic Legislature, (Cheers.) You have no safety for the present, nor hope for the future, except through it. (Hear, and cheers.) Do not lose sight of the principle, in whatever shape it may come before you, that Englishmen are not fit or worthy to manage your concerns. I confess that I am prepared in some degree to sacrifice my political predilections to my feelings of na- 78 SPEECH OF ALDERMAN HAYES tionality. If I were a Dublin man I would not have voted for Lord Morpeth against his oppo- nents. Neither would I, if I was an elector of the Borough of Athlone, vote for the English- man, Collet, against his opponent, Beresford. The name of Beresford may be unacceptable enough to you ; nevertheless, I believe that it is fitter that an Irishman should represent Irish feelings and Irish interests, than those who can have no real identification with the true pros- perity of the country. (Cheers.) You should send no person to speak your opinions, or to express your sentiments, who does not advocate that measure which you have now to look for- ward to as your only hope of regeneration — A REPEAL OF THE UNION. The cheering which ensued on Mr. Hayes resuming his seat was most intense and pro- tracted, and it was continued at intervals for several minutes after he had closed his obser- vations. The opinions of some other members having been expressed, a poll was called for, when there appeared, on a division — For Alderman Lyons’s motion ... 30 Against it ... ... ... 9 Majority ... ... ... 21 The announcement was received with the most deafening acclamations, which continued for several minutes. ON THE HEPEAL OF THE UNION. 79 The following is the FOE THE John Morrogh Doctor Curtin Patrick Riordan Edward England Richard Dowden William Casey Joseph Hayes Edward Hackett Michael Delay John O’Connell James Lambkin John Gould James Carmichael Thomas Jennings Stephen Hhyes James Roche Nicholas Vincent Joshua Hargrave Richard Exham William Clear order of voting : — MOTION. Patrick M. Kelly William B. Hackett Richard Gould John M‘Namara Jeremiah J. Murphy Jeremiah E. McCarthy Augustus R. M‘Swiney Andrew F. Roche Francis Lyons, (Dr.) Patrick Walshe Mark Collins Edmund Gould William Corbet Thomas Lyons Maurice Lane. ST IT. Alex. F. M‘Namara John Hodder William James Shaw James Carnegie DECLINED TO VOTE. John Sullivan, Joseph Dunbar. ABSENT. William Fagan Charles Sugrue Denis B. Bullen, (Dr.) Nicholas Murphy Martin H. Conway Thomas H. Hewitt Michael Murphy Charles Beamish James Denny Paul M‘Swiney Bryan Gallwey The Assembly soon after peaceable manner. John M‘Donnell Thomas Rochford John Harley James Daly Robert Honan John Shea George Crawford Jerh. Stack Murphy Stephen Herrick Daniel Murphy William Harrington, separated in an orderly and I LETTERS W. J. O’NEILL DAUNT, ESQ. IN ANSWER TO WM. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, ESQ. ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. REPUBLISHED BY ORDER OF Ci&e itosal Rational Mcptal ^ssottation. DUBLIN: J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-STREET. 1843. 3 . f. I J S f' ■ I i) V- f ? ,■• '■ '.' -o' ...A - - ■-%^'- ;. P . . ■ 'h-'- MR. O’NEILL DAUNT ON REPEAL. LETTER I. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PILOT. Dublin^ October y 26, 1841. Sir, Permit me to offer a few comments upon Mr. Sharman Crawford’s recent letters against the Repeal agitation. The first thing that struck me, after an attentive perusal of these letters, was a very remarkable and important omission on the part of Mr. Crawford. He has not, in the en- tire of his voluminous production, so much as once asserted that the Union has produced a single good to Ireland. He has not asserted that it will hereafter produce any good to Ire- land. He has not denied the thousand times repeated allegation made by us, the Repealers, that the Union has produced great evils to Ireland. And yet, with all the evils undenied, and without so much as the assertion of one single good resulting from the Union, Mr. 4 Crawford calls upon us to submit . to that Union, and abandon the struggle for the Repeal ! I shall now proceed to examine the force of his objections to our agitation, availing myself of the facilities of reference afforded by the numerical arrangement of Mr. Crawford’s pa- ragraphs. Numbers 1 and 2 being merely declaratory of the necessity for enquiry and argument, call for no comment. Number 3 contains the following words : — I oppose the present Repeal agitation, be- cause I consider it a mere delusion in every sense of the word. Under the specious pre- text of raising Ireland to the dignity of a nation, and the powers of independent legis- lation, it is swamping her practical weight in the imperial parliament^ and preventing the prospect of its increase.” This is precisely the reverse of the fact. The Repeal agitation, so far from diminishing whatever practical weight Ireland may possess in the imperial parliament, has served to pro- tect Irish legislative influence from utter ex^ tinction, by arousing our people to those con- stitutional efforts, to which any minor object would have been an inadequate stimulant. It was, moreover, the Repeal agitation which eli- cited in 1834, from King, Lords, and Commons, the formal pledge to redress all the grievances of Ireland — a pledge which, though shamefully violated by the parties who gave it^ yet demon- 5 strates the salutary force of the agitation whereby it was extorted. Number 3 goes on — It is following a shadow.” Whether our prospects of Repeal are mere shadows, we will examine by-and-by. Mr. Crawford proceeds — “and losing the sub- stance.” Pray, what substance have we lost by our agitation ? — Of what substantial advantage has it deprived us ? Mr. Crawford points ^out none ! He does not state one single boon, not one solitary instalment of “justice to Ireland,” which magnanimous England would, in her generosity, have given us, if she had not been deterred by our agitation. He then proceeds to arraign the Repeal movement for “increasing Ireland’s legislative dependence upon her irritated superior, and in this way creating a greater degree of pro^> vincial degradation*^ It is important here to mark Mr. Crawford’s admission of the fact, that the Union places Ireland in a condition of “ legislative de- pendencd^ upon England, and of provincial degradation*^ This admission, on his part, is not novel. I find strong and copious additional testimony to the same effect in a pamphlet written by him in 1833, and entitled, “ The Expediency and Necessity of a Local Legisla- tive Body in Ireland, supported by a Reference to Facts and Principles.” In page 27 of this pamphlet, Mr. Crawford thus writes ; — “ Sad A 2 6 experience now proves to Ireland, as on for- mer occasions, that England's freedom is Ireland's slavery — that England^ s prosperity only dooms Ireland to a more depressed state of misery and political degradation. She finds the same abuses retained — the same dis- regard of her complaints ; and what renders the case still more hopeless is, the general apathy and indifference of the British nation^ and the worse than indifference of the Scotch, towards matters connected with Irish policy (p. 27.) In another passage Mr. C. says, that “ when Britain extorted the last charter of her own liberties by the reformation of the House of Commons, she denied to Ireland a just and proportionate extension of representative rights ; and Ireland has since felt the conse- quences.” — (p. 28.) Mr, Crawford, in a subsequent passage, de- clares his conviction of England’s unwillingness to augment the number of the Irish represen- tatives, and adds these words : — Is not the reluctance of the Imperial Parliament, to hear Irish members or Irish business, too plainly manifested at present, to offer any prospect that England would desire or consent to increase their influence ? Thus, in any event, certain and accumulating discontent must arise from the present state of the legislative connexion between the two coun- tries ; and these evils, which are prospectively inferred as possible, from the formation of a 7 local legislature, are now commenced^ and must unavoidably progress under our present system of united legislation^ — (p. 51.) I quote one passage more : — We ex- perience,” says Mr. Crawford, “ at this present moment, the consequences of being governed by another country, which neither understands nor identifies itself with the interests or feel- ings of the country which is dependent on its mercy. Is it not certain that such a state of things must lead to ruin, to degradation, to poverty, to internal distraction f Does not the experience o/* 700 years teach us this lesson f — and has not the reformed parlia- ment of England confirmed it ? — and have not the proceedings of that parliament forced a conviction, on many of the most attached friends of British connexion, that the union OF THE NATIONS CAN ONLY BE UPHELD BY THE SEPARATION OF THE PARLIAMENTS?” (p. 53.) The above extracts are long, but I would not abridge them. Mr Crawford has never, that I know of, retracted one single statement they contain. His own hand attests the disas- trous results of the Union, and the peril it entails upon the imperial connexion of the kingdoms. Now, just see the position in '^which Mr. Crawford is placed by his recent denunciation of Repeal. We hear him saying to the people of Ireland, England’s freedom and prosperity are yourfieLWCY'^ and misery ; the British peo- 8 pie and their legislature regard your wants with apathy. Britain grudges and denies you your full share of representative rights. We have no hopes she will do otherwise. That she thus can insult and oppress you is owing to the Union. She has the will already, as we know from 700 years’ experience; the Union has invested her with full possession of the 'power. These evils must progress whilst the Union continues ; they must render your na- tional prosperity impossible. And this Union, so pregnant with mischief, must endanger the connexion of the countries. All this, and much more to the same effect, I, William Sharman Crawford, have proclaimed to you. I have never retracted one word of it all ! But I now exhort you to support this fertile cause of your own slavery,” “ misery,” ‘‘ legislative de- pendence^^ and ‘^provincial degradation^ Yes ! sustain that measure which I have de- clared to be the source of your disgrace and wretchedness ! Continue to imperil the im- perial connexion ; hurrah for “poverty^ “ in- ternal distraction/^ and “ ruin/’ (p. 53,) and down with the Repeal !” Now, Sir, this is literally Mr. Crawford’s incongruous homily. I do not thus array Mr. Crawford against himself, merely for the pur- pose of exhibiting the inconsistency of the man ; but in order to show how utterly destitute of value are any attacks upon the Repeal agitation proceeding from such an authority. In No. 4 of Mr. Crawford’s recent letters, 9 lie thus proceeds : — “ I deny that it is possible for Ireland to possess an independent parlia- ment in connexion with the British crown. The parliament of the greater country must control the crown, and the parliament of the lesser country must submit or separate,^ I assert that it would be quite possible for Ireland to possess an independent parliament in connexion with the British crown. Mr. Crawford talks as if independence meant om- nipotence. The independence of nations, like the liberty of individuals, must be understood with a limitation. That limitation is to be found in the rights of their neighbours. In the event of Repeal, each parliament would have a distinct local sphere for the exercise of its separate independent power. Let Mr. Craw- ford bear in mind, that Repeal would demolish the great element of discord between the two countries ; namely, the power of England to irritate by intermeddling in the domestic local policy of Ireland. Direct and overt influence, exercised by England over the Irish parlia- ment, Mr. Crawford does not, I believe, appre- hend ; and indirect and covert influence would be rendered impossible by re-establishing the Irish constitution on the broad extended basis of popular representation. The English par- liament would, of course, control the crown within the limits of its own legislative juris- diction. The parliament of Ireland would exercise a similar constitutional control within its own legitimate sphere — namely, Ireland. A 3 10 The English parliament would possess no power to control the crown in dts local and internal Irish policy. Thus, with the rights of each parliament defined ; with the sphere of the jurisdiction of each parliament distinct ; and with the aboli- tion, by Repeal, of the leading cause of mutual animosity, what is there to prevent both par- liaments from enjoying that limited inde- pendence which alone is compatible with rational liberty ? I pass over numbers 5, 6, and as contain- ing nothing requiring an observation. In No. 8, Mr. Crawford proposes to the Irish people a somewhat startling argument to induce them to support the Union — namely, that an Irish parliament would not have placed a Tory ministry in power ! How thii^ consideration is to reconcile us to the Union, I do not pretend to understand. In order that I may not mis- represent Mr. Crawford, I quote his own words. Speaking of the power exercised by the representative body over the executive, he says — This power could not be possessed by an Irish parliament under the crown of Eng- land, in case of variance with a British parlia- ment. The crown must yield to the pressure of the more influential body. The late events furnish me with an illustration of my reasoning. If the Irish representatives had been sitting in a separate Parliament, the vote which has placed a Tory ministry in power would have heen rejected in that pa^diament.^’ 11 No doubt it would ! A Tory ministry would never have been voted into power by an Irish parliament. But what sort of patriot is Mr. Crawford, to enumerate the honest anti- Tory sturdiness of Ireland among the difficulties which make him dread Repeal ? He has ex- pended much excellent eloquence in denouncing the tyranny and the crimes of Toryism ; one should, therefore, suppose that he ought to desire the restoration of a legislative body that would avert from Ireland the evils of Tory misrule ! Ah ! but on this point he has doubts. J ust hear him : — “ I ask, then,” he says, “ could the Queen have retained her late ministers, in accordance with the vote of an Irish parliament, in opposition to that of the repre- sentatives of England, assembled in a separate parliament ? The most ardent Repealer must answer in the negative.” Mr. Crawford seems totally to forget that, prior to the Union, each country had its own separate ministry. He seems to suppose the co-existence of two parliaments with but one ministry. This was not the case before the Union ; it would not be the case after its repeal. Such a preposterously awkward ar- rangement would be wholly incompatible with the despatch of public business. If the English Parliament and the people be enamoured of Toryism, let them, by all means, be ruled upon Tory principles, and elevate a Tory ministry to power. But let Ireland — hating Toryism, 12 and loving the principles of rational liberty — enjoy, at the same time, the privilege of being ruled upon the principles congenial to her peo- ple ; and let her have the privilege of exalting into power a ministry willing and able to carry out those principles in the government of their own country. It is, in truth, the monstrous and unnatural effort to deny to Ireland the free choice of a congenial ministry and government — the effort to rule her by principles to which she is hos- tile, and which are inapplicable to her condi- tion — the effort to chain her to the political chariot-wheels of England, and to make the same ministry, the same parliament, and the same set of principles suit the widely dissimilar circumstances of both countries — it is this de- nial to Ireland of her legitimate control over her own concerns — it is this systematic appli- cation of an anti- Irish spirit to the government of Ireland, which ever has produced, and which ever will produce those ruinous internal dis- tractions so eloquently deplored by Mr. Craw- ford in the extracts I have quoted from his pamphlet. These evils can have only one cure, and that is the Repeal of the Union. Mr. Crawford, proceeding on the romantic supposition of two parliaments concurrent with but one ministry, imagines a struggle between the parliaments for the construction of this solitary ministry. In his train of imaginings he brings the international quarrel to a point 13 at which the Irish parliament “ stops the sup- plies,” in order to embarrass the government. “^But,” he then asks, “would this stop the ma- chine of government, and compel the crown to submission ? No such thing. The crown would have supplies from another quarter. How im- potent would be the puny wrath of an Irish parliament stopping the supplies — not more than one-tenth of the revenue — when the British parliament would vote the other nine- tenths ! The British parliament would vote the supplieso What then? — Behold the ex- ample of Canada. The British minister would put his hand into your Irish treasury — he would pay the state charges without the vote of your parliaments^ If Mr. Crawford had consulted history before writing the above passage, he might perhaps have shortened the flight of his imagination. To suppose that “the British minister would put his hand into the Irish treasury, and pay the state charges without the vote of the Irish parliament,” is to suppose the occurrence of a piece of tyrannical dishonesty which never did occur ^ even during the periods when the Irish parliament was the most powerless, and the most coerced by British usurpation. I quote the following statement from the excellent report drawn up by my able friend, Mr. Staun- ton, on the fiscal injustice of England towards Ireland.^ * First Series of Repeal Reports^Dublin ; 1840. 14 ‘‘ It has,” says Mr. Staunton, “ been observed by an English writer avowedly favourable to the Union, (Wakefield, ii. 283,) that notwith- standing the servile state in which the Irish legislature was held, it seems to have preserved its independence in taxation. No British par- liament, it appears, ever assumed, or ever claimed, the right of imposing taxes on that country ; and several instances are recorded in which it manifested its jealousy on this point in a spirit worthy of the national character. In 1690 , the Commons of Ireland rejected a money bill, because it had not originated in their house. In 1709> a money bill was re- turned from England with alterations, and on this account it was rejected by the Commons. A similar circumstance took place in 1768. The effect of this jealousy was, that, at the commencement of the French war, Ireland owed a debt, funded and unfunded, of only £2,254,000.” Contrast, now, the historical fact with the prophetic dreams of Mr. Sharman Crawford. The Irish parliament, at the period of its greatest weakness^ jealously guarded the na- tional purse. Mr. Crawford fears that an Irish parliament, in the hour of popular strength^ would be unable to protect that purse from British rapacity 1 Mr. Crawford intimates that the British minister would plunder Ireland as easily as Canada. Was ever anything more absurd ? What analogy exists between the capacities 15 of self-protection possessed by Ireland and by Canada? Canada,' in the late rebellion, never was able to bring 3,000 men together. The British empire easily concentrated 30,000 troops in Canada. I would whisper to Mr. Crawford this fact, that none of the troops of the line who were employed to coerce panada were native Canadians. Let him ask at the Horse Guards how many Irish are in the army?^ No, no. “ Hands off is fair play.” In Switzerland ever^ man is armed with musket, bayonet, and sword. — Every man is armed, yet they never fight with each other. Why so ? Because every man is armed, Hands off is fair play.” The notion that any British minister would be mad enough to declare a war of injustice and robbery against the Irish nation, having their parliament at their head, and inhabiting a country admirably calculated by its natural features for military defence — ^this notion might, indeed, be expected from the insane ; but when it proceeds from a man of Mr. Crawford’s abilities, we can only ascribe it to that blinding * Since the above passage was written, additional force has been given to the argument by the signal triumph of the Canadians. If Canada, with a smaller power of self-protection, was yet able to extort full justice from England, it follows, a fortiori, that Ireland with her greater strength, and possessing a freely-chosen legislature, could not possibly have anything to fear from British enmity, cupidity, or jealousy. 16 bias of party which operates with peculiarly stultifying force when mixed up — as I fear it is in the present case — with personal rancour. In No. 10, I find the following sagacious queries “ I would ask,” says Mr. Crawford, “ which parliament is to govern the colonies ?” I answer at once — the colonies were estab- lished by Great Britain, and the British Par- liament would, therefore, be entitled, by right, to advise the crown with regard to theii* management. “If,” says Mr. Crawford, “ the colonial legis- lation is to be given up to the British par- liament, would this be no sacrifice of Irish independence ?” I answer — not the least! The independence of the Irish parliament would no more consist in the power of legislating for the colonies, than it would in the power of legislating for Yorkshire ? Mr. Crawford’s sensitive concern for “ Irish independence” is really ludicrous ! At present, the most insignificant turnpike bill for Ireland cannot be passed into law without the consent of English Lords and English Commons, to whose legislative control we were handed over by the Union. Ireland now seeks, by repeal- ing that Union, to recover her own inde- pendent control over her own concerns. “ Stop 1” cries Mr. Crawford, “ if you recover your domestic parliament, you will lose your independence — for then you will not he able to legislate for the colonies /” 17 He might just as well cry, “you will lose your independence, for you will then cease to legislate for Yorkshire !” But, although the exquisite absurdity of Mr. Crawford’s fears on this head may excite a passing smile, the subject is too serious for merriment. In sober truth, he could scarcely have discovered a more infelicitous specimen of the “ benefits” of the Union, than may be found in the bearings of the British colonial interests, on the interests of Ireland. I shall content myself with a single illustration. Before the Union, at a period when the Irish parliament was the sole power competent to regulate the duties upon all articles of ex- port and of import, Baltic timber, of the finest quality, was imported into Ireland at a cheap rate, contributing at once to the healthfulness and durability of the edifices in which it was used. After the Union, when Ireland was sur- rendered to the management of the British legislature, that legislature placed an enormous duty on this excellent and durable Baltic timber, in order to compel the importation into Ireland of inferior timber from the British colonies ; so that Ireland is constrained, by the operation of the Union, to pay for soft, perish- able Canadian timber, more than double the price which she formerly paid for the sound and durable timber of the Baltic ! And Mr. Crawford can gravely tell the Irish people, that the measure which would emanci- 18 pate their pockets from the rapacious grasp of the “ coloniaV^ interest, would be a sacrifice of Irish independence /” We really are not quite such fools as he seems to suppose us ! Our “ share in the imperial control of the colonies^^ has not availed to protect us from being sacrificed to the Canadian timber mer- chants. Whereas our own domestic parliament, possessing the exclusive regulation of Irish commercial duties, would be amply sufficient to afford us this protection. Here I close my first letter. I do not wish, as well for the sake of the public as for my own, to extend a single publication to greater length. I shall address you again, in a day or two. I trust that the public journals which have given circulation to Mr. Crawford’s epistles, will also publish this my reply. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, W. J. O’NEILL DAUNT. 19 LETTER II. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PILOT. Dublin 30th Oct* 1841. Sir, I resume my observations upon Mr. Crawford’s anti-Repeal arguments. In No. 10, Mr. Crawford asks — If the two parliaments disagree about their political or commercial relations with foreign states, what is to be the result ? Could the crown adopt the views of the Irish parliament against the British ? This is a very vague and indefinite sort of inquiry. Mr. Crawford feels it much safer to entrench himself in generalities, than to come to particulars. Accordingly, he does not state any particular case of variance between the two parliaments which could generate the difficulty he apprehends. Until he shall thus enlighten me, I am totally ignorant of any possible inconvenience that could arise from a disagreement about the commercial relations of these islands with foreign states. “ Com- mercial relations” are principally questions of imports and exports ; and, as I demonstrated, in my Reply to Mr. Crawford, in January last, no practical evil or inconvenience could pos- 20 sibly arise from each country adopting such regulations respecting its own foreign trade, as might best suit its own interests. This, in fact, is a subject upon which it is not easy to conceive how the two parliaments — each having its own local sphere of jurisdiction — could come into collision with each other at all. If, for example, England thought proper to ex- elude any article of foreign produce — say, French wines — I ask, what injury or incon- venience she could sustain from the admission of such article into Ireland, at the same time ? Manifestly none whatever. Or, if England should think proper to admit French wines, how would she be injured by their exclusion, at the same time, from Ireland ? Yet, here would be a disagreement in our commercial relations with a foreign country, which, however incapable of generating any practical inconvenience, would, nevertheless, be quite sufficient to justify a fantastic politician in perpetuating upon the people of Ireland all the slavery’^ — the ‘‘misery^’ — the ‘Apolitical de- gradation^^ — all the causes of “ ruin^^ and “ poverty and “internal distraction,^^ which he himself has declared are inflicted on this country by the Legislative Union. Evils of great magnitude — evils, grinding and intolerable — Mr. Crawford would entail in perpetuity upon the people of Ireland, lest the Repeal of the measure which admittedly pro- duced these evils, should, perhaps, produce a distant, doubtful, and extremely shadowy in- convenience. 21 “ Could the crown/’ says Mr. C. adopt the views of the Irish parliament against the British ?” Acute inquirer ! Why this is a case in which neither parliament could press its views against those of the other. The parliaments would move in different orbits. The English parliament would have no more to do with the foreign commercial relations of Ireland — the Irish parliament would have no more to do with the foreign commercial relations of Eng- land, than I have to do with the domestic economy of Crawfordsburn ! But the parliaments,” continues Mr. Craw- ford, ‘‘might disagree about their political relations with foreign states.” Mr. Crawford, equally vague upon the polu tical as on the commercial point of difference, does not particularise any case in which the apprehended disagreement might arise. But I do not seek to shelter myself under his silence. I come at once to the consideration of the very strongest case of disagreement which could possibly occur between the two parliaments — namely, a variance of opinion on the subject of war. On this point I now beg to quote — as I did before, when replying to Mr. Crawford last January — the following passage from a speech made by me at the Repeal Association, on the 31st August, 1840. The following are the words I then used “ It is frequently said that the two parliaments might differ on the policy of war, and that, therefore, the Irish 22 parliament ought to be extinguished. Why, the Crown and the British House of Commons may differ on the policy of war ; but is that any reason for abolishing the Crown? The British constitution empowers the Crown to proclaim war ; it also empowers the House of Commons to refuse the supplies ; and, there- fore, if a possible difference of opinion on a war question be a good reason for extinguish- ing the Irish parliament, it is just as good a reason for extinguishing the crown ! There are, in the British constitution, repellent ele- ments ; but there are, also, attractive ele- ments ; and the balance of antagonist principles produces practical harmony and safety. Again, war is a very serious evil, and should be always averted when it is possible. If the existence of two parliaments diminished the chances of war, by opening up a more extended field for the discussion of its evils — why, then, I should say that, on this account alone, the existence of two parliaments would be an invaluable blessing ! But war is sometimes unavoidable ; and if war should be requisite for England’s safety, I can conceive no reason for supposing that Ireland would refuse her sanction and her aid. Self-interest and self-preservation — of all motives the most powerful — would impel her to assist Great Britain with her treasure and her blood. England could not be endangered, and Ireland remain safe ; England could not fall, and Ireland continue in security. The instinct of self-preservation, then, would im- 23 peratively urge us to drive from the shores of Britain the common foe. But I will now sup- pose the actual occurrence of collision, on the policy of war, between the two parliaments. It is highly improbable in practice ; but as it is theoretically possible, the opponents of Re- peal make a handle of it. Suppose, then, this dreaded difference of sentiment actually should occur, what would be the amount of the actual evil produced? Just this, and no more — the Irish parliament could withold a certain sum of money from the government ; it could not withhold men, if England tempted them by payment. And, when the comparative revenues of Britain and Ireland are remembered, the amount thus withheld would be too unimport- ant a consideration to weigh in the scale against the great imperial interests that de- mand Repeal.” Upon this last point I am fortified by Mr. Crawford’s own admission. He says, in the very letter to which I am now replying, that “ the wrath of Ireland stopping the supplies would be puny and impotent ; that Ireland’s contribution would be only one-tenth, whilst that of England would amount to the other nine-tenths ; and that our refusal to vote mo- ney would not stop the machine of govern- ment.” In the name of common sense, then, why start a difficulty as arising from an opposition which he designates as puny” and “ impo- tent 24 Mr. Crawford, on the one hand, intimates that terrible results would follow from the formidable opposition of the Irish parliament ; whilst, upon the other hand, he tells us that this same opposition would be puny and impo- tent ! Never, certainly, did politician entertain visions more thoroughly incongrous than those of Mr. Crawford ! He threatens the English government with an Irish opposition, which is to be at once “puny” and formidable I “ irnpo^ tent '^' — ^yet terrible ! ! creating vast and un- imagined difficulty — ^yet “ unable to stop the machine of government ///” I now come to No. 11, in which I find the following sentences : — “ Difficulties equally great would arise with reference to home policy. The commercial relations of the two portions of the empire would produce instant causes of contention. The views promulgated at the Repeal Associ- ation and the Irish Board of Trade, render it manifest that if an Irish House of Commons existed at this present moment, the hon. leader would make a declaration of war against Bri- tish manufactures ; a tariff of exclusive duties would be proposed, and thus a commercial warfare between the two countries would be instantly commenced, the consequences of which might be of the most disastrous na- ture.” Mr. Crawford cannot be ignorant of the disastrous consequences actually resulting from 25 the Union to the manufacturing interests of Ireland. I ask him, whether any consequences that might arise from tariffs of exclusive duties, could be half so disastrous as the withering decay in many places, and the absolute des- truction in others, of our native manufactures ? Great “ difficulties^^ (says Mr. Crawford in his letter) would arise from the Repeal, with reference to home policy. But (says Mr. Crawford in his pamphlet) the consequences of being governed by unsympa- thising England must lead to ruin’’ Whereupon Mr. Crawford denounces the Repeal, and would uphold the Union. Thus, in order to avoid contingent, doubtful “ difficulty,” he embraces positive ' and certain “ruin!” Verily the learned gentleman’s pre- ference does not seem a very wise one ! Let me take a brief and rapid glance at the manufacturing condition of Ireland before the Union, as contrasted with her present state. In 1785 — just fifteen years before the Union — we had a balance of exported over imported manufactures, to the amount of half a million sterling. Even at the period of the Union, Ireland, although for three years shaken to the centre by dissension and fomented civil war, yet con- tinued (according to the statements of John Foster) to export to Great Britain a larger amount of manufactures than she imported from that country. This balance of exports shows that she had outgrown the necessity for B 26 a tariff of duties to protect her manufactures ; inasmuch as the export of manufactures de- monstrates that the manufactures are cheaper in the exporting country than in the country to which they are exported. Let Mr. Crawford note the melancholy change exhibited by the present aspect of our affairs. Our manufactured exports are now insignificant indeed. And our export of linen yarn depends at this moment, not on any Irish or English tariff, but on the tariff of France. The result is this : that our export of linen yarn is liable to be at any time annihilated by the French government. Now, if we had an Irish parliament, we could coerce France into the reception, at a low duty, of our linen yarn, by the simple retaliatory operation of placing a high duty upon French articles imported into Ireland, should France lay a heavy duty on our linen yarn. Has Ireland this power of self-protection now ? No — for she is governed by imperial legislation. And, accordingly, we find that, in the late negociations for a commercial treaty with France, the interests of the exporters of Irish linen yarn to that country were overruled by the interests of various classes of English manufacturers. The Union, by enormously augmenting the absentee drain, and by enabling England to abstract from us a large amount annually of surplus taxes, has’ drained away the wealth of Ireland, and prevented it from settling into 27 national capital. It has immensely diminished the domestic market, and, in many cases, totally destroyed it, by withdrawing a large class of wealthy consumers from Ireland ; and it An-- glicised the minds of most of the remaining gentry, who, accordingly, patronised English, to the exclusion of home manufacture. Ireland, thus despoiled and denuded, was thrown at the feet of the English manufacturing capitalists, who, of course, were enabled to establish and preserve a complete monopoly of the Irish market. The hideous result Mr. Crawford may see in the destruction of various branches of Irish manufactures in Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny, Car- rick-on- Suir, and numberless other places in the kingdom. And with these horrible and ruinous consequences of the Union staring him in the face, he yet can talk of^the commercial difficulties” that might possibly arise from the Repeal — just as if possible “ difficulties” were not infinitely preferable to actual destruction. It is perfectly true that a tariff of protection may be necessary in the commencement of the patronage, by an Irish parliament, of Irish manufactures — it may be necessary, in order to check the frauds of the makers of English fabrics. But that nursing period — in itself inevitable — would soon pass over ; and, when once our manufactures had established them- selves into strength and solidity, they might well be left to battle out their own prosperity. If Mr. Crawford had any rational ideas upon 28 this subject, he would see these truths — 1st, that the Union is so iniquitous in its operation, that it has blighted and blasted Irish manufac- turing industry, and deprives us, at this mo- ment, of the means of reviving that industry ; 2ndly, that the necessity for a tariff of protec- tion is created by the weakness and inanition of the Irish manufacturing interest, directly resulting from the Union ; 3dly, that the Re- peal of the Union is, upon this account, vitally necessary ; 4thly, that the international tariff of duties between England and Ireland, which Mr. Crawford deems an objection to the Repeal, is not only unobjectionable, but the sole re- maining hope of manufacturing salvation for Ireland. It is commonly said by the Unionists — Oh, if Ireland enjoyed repose from agitation, Bri- tish capitalists would establish manufactories here.” This is a very absurd notion. In our intervals of repose from agitation, British capitalists have not settled here, although there is scarcely a corner of the globe besides in which they have not expended capital ! The reason is simply this — ^the Union has given the market of Ireland to the English manu- facturing capitalist. Having thus the mono- poly of our market, he has got all he wants ; the expenditure of his capital amongst us would be a perfectly superfluous speculation ! Thus the Union directly operates to pre^^ rent the introduction of British capital into Ireland, 29 I pass Numbers 12 and 13, as not contain- ing matter of importance. In number 14, Mr. Crawford, after enumer- ating certain topics of international discussion, pointedly mentions the reg:ency question. “ I think, says Mr. Crawford, “ that the hon. gentleman [Mr. O’ Connell j has proposed to obviate this last evil by surrendering all power on this point, and permitting the Sover- eign or Regent of England to be ipso facto Sovereign or Regent of Ireland, thus surren- dering the independence of the Irish parliament on this vital point.” I do not see how the independence of the Irish parliament would be one whit more com- promised by an ipso facto identity of the Regent, than it would be by the ipso facto identity of the Sovereign ; and I never yet heard that this latter identity was deemed in- compatible with the parliamentary indepen- dence of Ireland. In fact (as I observed in my answer to Mr. Crawford, in January last), the identity of the Regent would seem to follow as a necessary consequence from the principle of the law that requires the identity of the Monarch. Mr. Crawford terms the regency question “ a vital point.” So it is — vital to the imperial connexion of the kingdoms ; and therefore it is that we Repealers, being ardent friends of the imperial connexion, are desirous to incor- porate with the Irish constitution a provision for the identity of the Regent. But the ques- B 2 30 tion of the Regent’s person, however important to the connexion of the countries, is a matter of very inferior importance as affects the gen- eral welfare and the every day comfort of the people — the administration of justice — ^the prosperity of trade — of manufactures — of com- merce. These are the matters of really vital importance to the people — matters which require all the care of a resident, well-construct- ed popular parliament. Give the people of Ireland such a parliament as this, and they can well afford to leave to a British ministry the selection of the Regent’s person. The following passage furnishes a very characteristic specimen of Mr. Crawford’s ar- gumentative peculiarities. Let it be observed that he is contending for united legislation, as affording to Ireland a balancing power in the imperial councils, in the selection of a Regent : — “ If,” says Mr. Crawford, “ by any fatality, we were to be deprived of our present estimable Sovereign, would it he right that Ireland should have no power in the appoint- ment of the Regent In the very next sentence, however, Mr. Crawford demonstrates that Ireland would now have no power at all in such appoint- ment ! Here are his words : — If that case unfortunately arose at the present moment, is it not manifest that the parliament of England would select a Tory Regent, as they have now selected a Tory administration ?” Quite manifest, Mr. Crawford ! They would 31 crush the influence of Ireland upon a regency question, in the imperial parliament, quite as effectually as they have now crushed that in- fluence upon the question of the administration. Observe the logical connexion of Mr. Craw- ford’s ideas. Firstly — He tells us that our national dignity requires that Ireland should have some influence in the appointment of the Regent. Secondly — He tells us that we must, in order to possess this influence, he represented in the English parliament. Thirdly — It is, he acquaints us, quite “ manifest/’ that in that parliament our Irish influence would go for nothing ! ! ! I confess that I do not understand the value of this inoperative “ influence.” Mr. Crawford thus goes on : — This regency would last for a series of years ; and would an Irish House of Commons patiently submit to this infliction ?” So, then, the great advantage of the Union is, that we are placed under the control of a Tory British legislature, which would visit us with “the infliction of a Tory Regent, and which would sympathise with Tory tyranny 1” The appointment of a Tory Regent would render a domestic legislature more than ever requisite, in order to mitigate the horrors of Tory oppression. A popular Irish parliament would stand between the people and oppressive laws, and compel that most valuable of all pro- tections — the honest and impartial administra- tion of justice throughout the land. A popular Irish parliament would keep the bench free 32 from bigoted and Orange judges. It would hold over all judicial officers, the salutary terrors of parliamentary impeachment. A Tory judge might justly laugh to scorn an impeach- ment in the united parliament. I repeat, that the appointment of a Tory Regent would ren- der the protective influence of an Irish House of Commons pre-eminently requisite. Mr. Crawford thus proceeds : “ On the other hand, if the Irish House of Commons had an equal right” (which right he is aware that w^e do not seek), ‘‘ a different Regent would be appointed, and separation must be the inevitable consequence ! How is this to be avoided except by an imperial representation, giving to each minor portion oj" the union a balancing power in determining imperial interest^ A balancing power ! when the honourable gen- tleman but a moment before had declared that if the Regency question now arose, Ireland would have no power at all in the appointment of the Regent ! How much more simple, practical, and ra- tional, is the plan of the Repealers, than Mr. Crawford’s involved and contradictory specula- tions ! One topic more, and, for the present, I have done. Mr. Crawford says, the Repeal is only attainable through a struggle of blood, and that he will not be a party to a delusive ag’itation. We, the Repealers, on the contrary, believe that the Repeal can be attained without a sanguinary struggle. Against the unbelief of Mr. Crawford I array the admission of the 33 present Earl Spencer, when leader of the House of Commons — that if the Irish members should demand Repeal, that measure could not be refused. The elements of our success are — 1st. The perfect truth and justice of our case. We are thoroughly, perfectly, intensely in the right. 2nd. The crimeless resolve, the peace- ful, popular determination of the Irish people. The firm resolution of a great nation is not to be lightly passed over. It was this which won emancipation. It was this which rendered it inexpedient to withhold that measure, and coerced a hostile ministry and parliament into concession. Our rulers saw that the empire was insecure, while that great instalment of the rights of Ireland continued to be denied. Self-legislation is as much a right of Ireland as Catholic emancipation was ; and the Irish people are deeply impressed with this fact. You may array against us vast parliamentary majorities ; you may array against us a for- midable phalanx of English prejudice and bigotry ; but these all will again give way, as they did in the former memorable instance ; they will yield to the pressure of political ne- cessity — to the constitutional perseverance of Irishmen, animated and inspired by the sense of right and justice. In 1826, a large majority of English representatives were returned against emancipation; yet, in 1829> that mea- sure was triumphantly carried. I will not believe that British statesmen are such fools 34 as always to resist the conviction that the best and surest mode of establishing the power, prosperity, and stability of the empire on an imperishable basis, is to grant to Ireland her natural and indefeasible right — -the right of making her own laws to regulate her own con- cerns. They may want us for another Water- loo. If we spill our blood in defence of their greatness and their power, they must first pay the price of our devotion. That price is the restoration of our national right of legislating for ourselves. I shall comment upon Mr. Crawford’s ignh fatuus of a new distribution and equalisation of electoral disticts over the united kingdom, from which he anticipates so much benefit to Ireland. He has not, in England, the mate- rials of a useful agitation for Ireland. In 1833, he pronounced Great Britain apathetic and indifferent to Ireland. What has Britain done since 1 833, to alter that impression ? She has returned a large Tory majority, who were borne into parliament by the influential opera- tion of a bitter and malignant anti- Irish howl. Strange evidence this of friendlier sentiments towards Ireland ! Of Mr. Crawford’s attacks on Mr. O’Connell I say nothing ! Mr. O’Connell can afford to bear Mr. Crawford’s censure. And of Mr. Crawford’s defence of his own consistency^ it will be time enough to speak, when it can be shown that any rational inhabitant of her Majesty’s dominiors, arrived at the years of 35 discretion, believes Mr. Crawford to be a con- sistent politician. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, W. X O’NEILL DAUNT. Browne, Printer, 36, Nassau -street, Dubliiu m ■ ' ' tk. . 'iJ A'' S P E E C H OF THE YEN. ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD, ON THE REPEAI OF THE UNION, DELIVERED AT A MEETING IN BALLINGARRY, COUNTY LIMERICK, On SUNDAY, 29th JAN. 1843. Printed by Order of the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland. DUBLIN: J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-STREET. 1843. 4 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD The chair was occupied by James M. Lynch, Esq., of Grenagh, who was called thereto amid loud and long-continued applause. A large platform was erected, on which were — the Venerable Archdeacon Fitzgerald, P. P., Dr. Ambrose, Mr. M^Coy, Mr. William F. Hartnett, Mr. T. Hartnett, Mr. Eames, Rogers, Edward Thomas Fitzgerald, Rev. Mr. Molony, Rev. Mr. O’Shea, Rev. Mr. Hogan, Rev. Mr. O’Flanagan, &c. &c. &c. The Chairman addressed the meeting in an excellent Speech on the important subject for which they were assembled, and spoke at con- siderable length on the wrongs inflicted on Ireland by the Act of Union. He expatiated on the many great advantages, social and poli- tical, of which this country had been remorse- lessly plundered by that cruel and devastating measure — he quoted the observations of Mr. O’Connell, &c., and concluded, amid loud cheers, by impressing on the minds of those who were assembled, the necessity of firmness, moderation, and determination. A letter was read from Mr. Ray, the Secre- tary of the Repeal Association, regretting his inability to attend, and stating, at the same time, that the Liberator was highly gratified ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 5 with the sterling patriotism of the people of Ballingarry, the more particularly as the meet- ing was spontaneous on their part. Archdeacon Fitzgerald then came forward amid the most enthusiastic applause, and in proposing the first resolution, spoke as follows : Mr. Chairman, I shall not address you on the signal benefits which may be anticipated as the certain consequences of the REPEAL OF THE UNION. I am well aware that all around me have made up their minds on the subject. I have just heard your singularly able and eloquent address from the chair, and in that address — in the published repq^ts of the speeches of the Liberator — and in those soul- stirring manifestoes which he has addressed, from time to time, to the Irish people, there is contained a more full and clear exposition of the advantages consequent on the Repeal OF THE Union, than it is possible for me, or, indeed, for any ordinary individual whatsoever, to convey. It is true, that in the exposition of those advantages, results have been indica- ted rather than processes. In fact, the work- ing out of the details of this great and mo- mentous measure is a subject too vast and too complicated for ordinary minds ; — and duly to estimate the length, and the breadth, and the height, and the depth of all the glorious ad- vantages of the Repeal, is a task worthy the gigantic grasp of mind and colossal intellect of the Liberator himself. The advantages con- A 2 6 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD sequent on the Repeal of the Union, I need not say, must be chiefly of a public and poli- tical nature. The Repeal of the Union will make Ireland take her place among the nations — it will raise her from the rank of a pitiful province — It will enable her to legis- late for herself, independently of England, and bind her to her haughty sister by no other chain than the golden link of the crown. How far those political advantages may be accom- panied by an amelioration in the condition of the bulk of the people, and particularly of the humbler classes, is a question into which I am not prepared to enter. I am aware that poli- tical changes of the most momentous impor- tance have taken place in these countries, within a period of twelve or fourteen years, without any very decided improvement in the condition of the people of Ireland, not to speak of the other portions of the empire. Being a warm admirer myself of honest, old-fashioned Oliver Goldsmith, I have, perhaps, less faith than others in political arrangements as the means of diffusing hearts’ ease and happiness among the masses of mankind. But so far as legislatures or governments, “laws or kings,” are capable of diffusing comfort, and wealth, and happiness, it would seem to an ordinary observer that a parliament, occupied exclu- sively in attending to the interests and neces- sities of this particular portion of the empire, ought to exercise far greater influence on the well-being of all classes, than a legislature over- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 7 loaded with the vast concerns of the whole Bri- tish empire, with all its varied and wide-spread dependencies in every quarter of the globe. The British empire seems too vast and too unwieldy to be regulated by a single legislature. One would imagine that British statesmen them- selves ought to be delighted with a lightening of the intolerable toil and drudgery to which they are subjected during the session of parlia- ment. And it is clear that the concerns of both portions of the empire would be likely to receive more deliberate and careful consider- ation, by having two parliaments to legislate separately for each of these too great and far- famed island kingdoms. Let us then, in God’s name, endeavour to procure a parliament for Ireland. There is not in all Europe a nation numbering a population of nine millions, that has not an administrative and legislative power within itself. And why should Ireland be the solitary exception ? Even as regards the colo- nies and dependencies of the British empire^ there is a parliament in Newfoundland — there is a parliament in Canada — a parliament in Jamaica. And if these petty dependencies have parliaments, why should Ireland, forming an integral and important portion of this great empire, and in population and resources, far exceeding some of the most flourishing States in Europe, not have a parliament of its own ? It is true, that the parliaments in the colonies are subjected to the paramount control of the imperial legislature^ whilst we require an inde- 8 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD pendent parliament, and will be satisfied with nothing less. — (immense applause and cries of nothing less.’^) — But independent legislatures and independent nations may, by mutual conces- sion and compact, bind that independence, or at least some portion of it, in the silken ties of amity and alliance, so as to preclude every chance, nay, every possibility, of collision or discord. In the Imperial Legislature, as at present constituted, the Lords and Commons are co-ordinate estates, perfectly independent of each other. Hundreds of times have they difPered — hundreds of times have they met in conference in the painted chamber, when the painted chamber existed — mutual concessions were made ; or the one or the other House gracefully gave up the point in dispute ; and we do not find that the perfect independence of the two Houses, as regards each other, was attended with the slightest inconvenience at any period except when the constitution was wholy overthrown during the usurpation of Cromwell. Indeed it would appear that in the old Scotch parliament, where the Lords and Commons sat in one House, there was more of tumult, heat, and recrimination, than was ever found in the English parliaments, where the two estates stood in a position quite distinct from each other, and quite independent as to their votes, proceedings, and privileges. Follow- ing the same analogy, I cannot see why two independent parliaments should not co-operate in perfect, at least sufficient, harmony, in watch^ ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 9 ing over their respective portions of this great and mighty empire. We have, in fact, abun- dance of precedents on the file. The Scotch and English parliaments co-existed under the same King for more than a century, from 1603, to 1707 ; nor, as far as I can discover, was the slightest inconvenience felt from the perfect independence in legislation exercised by each. And yet, during that period, the most insane attempts were made by three successive Kings — the three first Stuarts — to force down the throats of the people of Scotland a form of church government, which they hated with a hatred such as only Scotchmen may feel. In- deed, for anything that appears to the contrary, these two parliaments might have continued to legislate down to the present day — the one at Hollyrood, the other at Westminster — without the slightest inconvenience, and probably with great benefit to both nations. But it was thought fit to effect an union in 1707? and that union, like our own, was effected by the most profli- gate and barefaced bribery. Again, the two independent nations of Sweden and Norway, both actuated, as I am led to believe, by strong national antipathies and prejudices, have been united under one King for the last thirty years. The next will, I should suppose, be the thirtieth session of the Storthing of Norway, and of the Swedish Diet, under a common sovereign; and yet, the perfect independence of these two national legislatures, has not, that I have heard, led to the slightest inconvenience. But the A 3 10 SPEECH OE ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD example which appears to me the most striking, and the most analagous to the circumstances of Ireland, is that of Hungary, which has existed for ages as an independent kingdom, joined to the empire of Austria by the golden link alone of the Crown of St. Stephen. Austria has no Parliament or Diet. A clever old gentleman. Prince Metternich, saves her the trouble of law-making. But Hungary has a Diet of its own, with supreme legislative power, and an administration of justice entirely independent of Austria. This brave and high-spirited peo- ple were nearly goaded into separation by the tampering of that imperial empiric, Joseph the Second, with their national rights; but the generous and prudent policy of Leopold con- ciliated Hungary ; and when the revolutionary hurricane soon after shook the Austrian empire to its centre, happy it was that there was within the wide scope of that empire scarce a single mal-content. No! Justice, the cheap defence of empires, had given to Austria mil- lions of men ready, if opportunity served, to emulate the devoted loyalty of Andrew Hofer. In that deadly struggle, as on all former occa- sions, Austria found her best stay and support in the devoted bravery of the Hungarians — the sword of the Fiery Hun’’ has been ever ready to fly from its scabbard at the call of his sove- reign. About a century since, Maria Theresa, the Empress Queen, overwhelmed by powerful enemies, appealed to her Hungarian subjects. She appeared in the Diet with her infant son ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 11 in her arms. The Hungarians exclaimed with enthusiasm, ^^We will die for our King, Maria Theresa.” “ Moriamur pro Rege nostro, Maria Theresa.” In national character and political circumstances, there is a striking resemblance between the Hungarians and ourselves ; and if ever our gracious Queen will appeal to her parliament in College-green, she will find that never were Irishmen more ready to shed their best blood for the glory of this great empire, and in the service of their sovereign, than when marshalled under the banner of Irish Indepen- dence — (loud cries of hear, hear, and enthusi- astic cheering.) These examples, not to speak of our own independent Parliament during the eighteen years that preceded the Union, clearly shew that the co-existence of two independent legislatures is perfectly consistent with the union of two independent nations under one king, and perfectly consistent too with the most chivalrous and gallant efforts on the part of the smaller and weaker confederate to main- tain with generous rivalry, the common weal, and the common sovereign. But I will be told that during the eighteen years of Irish indepen- dence, it happened that on a certain occasion the two countries differed as to the choice of a Regent, and that one of the two countries had nearly proclaimed war on Portugal, the other island still maintaining friendly relations with that country. But I answer, that the appoint- ment of Regent is capable of being regulated like the succession to the crown, by a funda- 12 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD mental law. I believe it was so fixed by the French charter of 1814, and limited to the first prince of the blood being of full age. At the worst, regents are not kings — the king of both countries would be still the same — Queen Vic- toria is still the head of the empire, notwith- standing that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governor of Canada, and the High Com- missioner at Corfu, are different persons. In the same way I cannot but think that the integrity of the Empire might be quite con- sistent with the sway of two different regents, one in England and one in Ireland, though it is evident that such extreme cases are placed far beyond the limits of ordinary probability. Again, I do not think that the integrity of the empire would be in such extreme danger as some imagine, though Ireland should enjoy peace and plenty, whilst England happened to be engaged in foreign wars. Ireland is empha- tically a Christian country. There is no nation in Northern Europe in which the baleful effects of infidelity are so little known or felt as our own. Ireland would therefore engage in no unjust, no unchristian warfare. Ireland, under the guidance of her own independent parliament, would carefully shun all participation in any war which England might undertake for the mere purposes of vengeance or ambition. But when war was rendered necessary by hostile aggression — by the necessity of maintaining the honour, the independence, or the strictly just rights of the sister kingdoms, then would ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 13 Ireland Bend forth her gallant sons — they would be as heretofore foremost in danger. But they would march no more under Saint George’s banner. Then our own national flag should float gloriously above their heads — Waving high, wrought in gold and green, The Harp of Erin’s minstrelsy. (immense cheering). But I will be told by some aristocratic Catholic who writes J. P. or M. P. after his name, tha.t Repeal is impossible. Impossible, indeed! Buonaparte in 1809 en- tered Spain at the head of 200,000 veteran soldiers, determined to subjugate that country, and to drive the unfortunate Sir John Moore and his army to their ships. On a certain occasion he found his advance impeded by the most difficult mountain pass in Spain, the Puerto of the Somosierra, which was occupied by the Spanish army in great force. He was told that the pass was quite impracticable — that it was so commanded by the cannon and musquetry of the enemy — that the attempt to force it would be utter madness. In a word, he was told that the thing was impossible! He answered proudly that there was no such word as impossible in his vocabulary. He ordered the Polish cavalry to charge at full gallop after reaching a certain point, and the pass was car- ried with comparatively little loss. A career of stupendous and unexampled success, which had proceeded without interruption for fifteen years, had inspired Napoleon and his followers with unbounded confidence. But has the Na- 14 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD poleon of politics, Daniel O’Connell, achieved no triumphs? — has he overcome no obstacles during the last fifteen years that should com- mand, nay, extort, the unshrinking and un- hesitating confidence of that people whom he has so often led to bloodless victory, and from whose neck he has removed the yoke and the heel of the oppressor? And let me assure all those who hear me, that I exaggerate not — that I avail myself of no rhetorical artifice — that I mean to speak dispassionately, and in the accents of calm and severe truth, when I state my sin- cere conviction, that the adjective impossible^ cannot apply to any political undertaking to which Daniel O’Connell shall in right good^ earnest apply his mighty mind — his mighty energies, and his boundless control over the hearts and minds and whole being of millions of Irishmen (immense cheering). From the days of John Keogh down to our own, the Catholic aristocracy of Ireland have been al- ways remarkably clear-sighted in foreseeing the utter hopelessness of every scheme devised by abler men than themselves for the benefit of the Irish people. However slenderly gifted some of your high Catholics may have been in other respects, the gift of prophecy seems never to have forsaken them. But Daniel O’Connell, who has as good pretensions to gentle birth as most of them, would seem born to mar the predictions of these Irish prophets. The Catho- lic gentry in 1814 were almost, to a man, ready to predict, if not to swear? that Catholic Eman- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 15 cipation could never be had without giving to the Crown of England a veto on the appoint- ment of Catholic Bishops. O’Connell predicted the direct contrary, and he proved a true prophet. The Catholics are emancipated, and Catholic Bishops are appointed as before by the Pope, and by him alone ; and the Queen, God bless her, is never troubled on the subject. Again, in 1821, the Catholic gentry devised another beautiful plan, and the only one, ac- cording to them, by which Emancipation could be secured — a board nominated by the Crown was to sit in the Castle of Dublin to determine the weight of wig, and length of crozier, that to their wisdom should seem best fitted to shew off a Catholic Bishop to advantage. You must all well remember how zealously your Catholic lawyers, and Catholic country gentlemen, en- tered into this beautiful plan. Their zeal for the good of the church was edifying in the extreme. Possibly some of your lawyers were thinking how neatly a judge’s wig would sit on their own wise heads, or how much more graceful a pleader would look in silken drapery than in a mere stuff gown. It was said that some Catholic gentlemen in the country parts felt a strange itching in their fingers’ ends for the High Sheriff’s wand of ofiice, or thought that of all the mutes and liquids in the alpha- bet none was so euphonious after a name as the two letters M. P. Whatever their motives may have been, certain it is, that the aris- tocratic Catholics of days gone by, were ready 16 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD enough to hand over the Church their fathers loved, bound hand and foot, a captive in the midst of its enemies; and amongst the many splendid benefits which O’Connell has conferred on the people of Ireland, it is not one of the least, that the religion of their fathers will go down to their posterity, not only unshackled by persecution, hut also untrammelled by any de- grading connexion with court intrigues, with kings, or with ministers. When one of her own bishops offended Elizabeth, the royal virago is said to have exclaimed, “by G — I’ll unfrock you.” Queen Victoria, God bless her, is very different in nurture and dispositions from the good Queen Bess; hut still, let our gracious Queen unfrock her own Bishops if she will; with all our devoted loyalty to her person, crown, and dignity, we cannot permit her to lay so much as a finger on a button in the black coat of one of our Bishops. Again in 1828, O’Connell thought it right to take the bull by the horns — to anticipate matters a little, and in the teeth of a statute 150 years old, and which bigotry had hitherto deemed part and parcel of the constitution, he started for the represen- tation of Clare. Your Catholic gentry were ready to make affidavit that the cause was lost for ever, and O’Connell, according to their wise calculations, was on the high road to Swift’s hospital. But O’Connell was on the high road that led to the emancipation of millions. In the pride of fastidious royalty, George the fourth affected a seclusion almost oriental. ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 17 But the shouts of the Clare freeholders pene- trated the inmost recesses of Windsor Castle. He, like another Sardanapalus, awaked from “pleasure’s soft dream” to be told that the Irish Arbaces was thundering at the gates of the Constitution, and the Iron Duke himself was the messenger, to announce to his royal master, that the choice lay between concession and civil war — a war in which the result might be doubtful, but in which victory would be dis- aster to the empire, and disgrace in the eyes of the whole civilized world. The Iron Duke himself, though perhaps with little appetite for the task, was employed in doing the work which O’Connell had rendered inevitable. The Duke worked hard to carry the measure through, and as you all remember, actually fought a duel in its defence. I should think that this exam- ple ought to teach the wise men of the Catholic aristocracy, those soothsayers and seers, and dreamers of dreams, to hesitate before they pronounce on the absolute impossibility of any thing that Daniel O’Connell shall seriously undertake for the benefit of Ireland. Let me tell them with all respect, that minds infinitely beyond theirs have had their calculations won- derfully disarranged by the eccentric move- ments of a certain comet, which has long blazed over the political horizon, and which the great body of the Irish people still look up to as the star of their hope, despite the prognos- tications of aristocratic astrologers. There died in England some fifteen years ago, a 18 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD statesman of deathless name — perhaps the most remarkable and highly-gifted minister that ever presided over the councils of England. Byron pronounced George Canning a poet, an orator, an universal genius. By the force of that genius he raised himself from comparative obscurity to the summit of power, in spite of the frowns of that aristocracy of England, which, at that period, monopoly and borough- mongering had rendered all powerful; yet, let me ask you, was Canning, with his matchless talents — with all his penetration, his foresight and sagacity — was he able to foresee a tithe of the wondrous changes and transformations that have taken place, as if by magic, in the laws and constitution of this empire during the fif- teen years that he has slept among other men of renown in Westminster- Abbey. If Canning could be permitted to ^‘revisit the glimpses of the moon,” and to review all that has passed since he composed himself down to his long rest, how miraculous, how surpassingly won- derful would the things appear which habit has taught us to look upon with indifference! In Ireland he would find the Catholic disabilities, which he left flourishino: in all their rankness and vigour, gone for ever. He would find the Beresfords in Waterford — the Fosters in Louth — ^the Fitzgeralds and O’Briens in Clare, as politically powerless as the humblest freeholder who hears me. He would find tithes abolished wholly in name, and to a great extent in reality. He would find church-rates abolished. He ON THE REPEAE OF THE UNION. 19 would find the Irish church establishment pared down — two archbishopricks and ten bishop- ricks gone for ever. He would be shown a certain public document — an address I think to a Lord Lieutenant — in which the name “John, Archbishop of Tuam” was written at the top, with an ornamental flourish that would have made the fortune of a country schoolmaster, and “ Thomas Tuam,” subscribed below, in a very subdued “pot-hooks and hangers’’ style of calligraphy. Passing over to England, he would find a statute gone, which, in his days, was considered a sort of Siamese twin-brother to its cotemporary the habeas-corpus act. He would find those great bulwarks of our happy constitution, the test and corporation acts, gone for ever. He would find the reform in Parlia- ment, against which he had so often pointed the thunder of his eloquence, carried to an ex- tent, which the “sagacious Cartwright” and the “ revered and ruptured Ogden” never dreamt of in their wildest speculations. He would find that what he was in mockery accustomed to call the “ Constitution of King Hugo the Great,” was the established law and constitution of the land, not only in England, but, to a considerable extent, in Scotland and Ireland. He would learn with astonishment that there was not left within the wide scope of the British empire a single nomination borough, and more wonderful still, that in spite of all those sweeping changes, the constitution and the monarchy still flour- ished, and that, in the balance of powers 20 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD between Crown, Commons, and Peers, the democratic influence had no more than its just weight in the scale, perhaps scarce so much as to some might seem desirable (hear and cheers). He would find that the Corporations throughout the empire had been opened to all the rated inhabitants of the respective cities and towns, and that contrary to what was the rule in his time, and a rule that seemed fixed as fate, the Tories in England, and the Orangemen in Ireland, were the minority of every municipal council within the limits of both kingdoms. He would hear of Catholic Mayors in Cork, in Limerick, and even in York. He would enter the House of Commons, and there he would behold a portly Irish gentleman, some- what elderly, in the rather unusual costume of a frieze jacket; and peeping from under the cape of the frieze jacket, he would discern the somewhat incongruous ornament of the gold chain of Lord Mayor of Dublin. He would naturally ask who it was that had thus united in the adornment of his person, the somewhat ill-assorted elements of gold chains and Irish frieze jackets; and he would be led soon to recognize, with some natural surprise, his old acquaintance and humble servant to command, Daniel O’Connell, known in his time as a sort of Irish Old Bailey lawyer, with some little forensic reputation to be sure, but chiefly dis- tinguished as a mob orator and agitator, and above all, the last individual of the human race whom the Corporation of Dublin would ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 21 have chosen as their Lord Mayor. Won- derful enough would all this appear, but something still more wonderful would remain behind — this frieze jacket would prove to be the mantle of the Lowthers which had descended on the shoulders of the Irish agitator, and which he had cut down to its present somewhat gro- tesque dimensions to suit certain tastes which were growing fashionable in Ireland. He would find that the honest gentleman in the frieze jacket, who would have spurned office, still exercised a power in the state far greater than had been exercised by the Lowthers, the Beresfords, and the Ponsonbys, in their most palmy days. It would be found that the bulky Irish gentleman in the jacket had held for at least six long years the scales between the two great parties who contended for the govern- ment of the greatest empire on earth — that if he had been a malignant or vindictive man he might, for most part of that period, have at any moment left that mighty empire without any administration whatsoever — that for six years he had the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and his colleagues from the treasury benches at a moment’s warning. In a word — that the minister of proud and palmy England held office for six years or more, by the mere sufferance of an Irish gentleman in a skirtless jacket, and a jacket that seemed in its other proportions to have been cut with a close view to economy in the use of that very costly material, Irish frieze. Whilst filled with astonishment, amazed, and 22 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD bewildered, the illustrious shade would ask who had brought all these stupendous changes to pass. He would be told that it was the same magician — the gentleman in the frieze jacket — who had taken his own oppor- tunities to pronounce the words of action, Heigh, Presto, come.” In a word, that it was Daniel O’Connell, with no other magic than his own transcendent talents, and the cordial support of millions of Irishmen, who had been directly or indirectly the great and leading- agent in effecting all these wonderful changes — changes which Vould still have slept in the dark womb of futurity, if Daniel O’Connell had died in childhood, and slept in some green churchyard within hearing of the surges of the Atlantic (cheers). Who is it, I ask, who will maturely weigh all these things, and not pause before he will venture to pronounce, that any undertaking is impossible which Daniel O’Con- nell and the millions of Ireland shall set their hearts on achieving ? It may be said that I have ascribed to Mr. O’Connell, more than his just share in the achievement of the momentous and fundamental changes which have been effected in the laws and constitution of these countries since the death of Canning. No doubt, there were concurring causes and agen- cies, particularly as regards the English mea- sures. Cobbett, among others, had fostered in the English mind a desire for change. The Sailor King, more remarkable for the goodness of his heart than the strength of his under- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 23 standing*, affected popularity — perhaps secretly wished to rival Louis Philippe in that clever Frenchman’s particular line of kingcraft ; the Belgian and French revolutions accelerated the crisis, perhaps by some years. But in what school did the English reformers learn the tactics of agitation? — from whom did they learn the principles of the art of war against monopoly, oligarchy, and exclusion ? — who was it taught them to concentrate their moral strength, so as to bear down all interested opposition? — who taught them how to force governments and legislatures into the path of justice and rightful concession, without violence, without crime, without bloodshed, without the application of any other forces, any other ener- gies, than those which the constitution itself fur- nished ? — who is the Watts who invented this mighty moral engine, by the force and pressure of which such tremendous effects have been wrought in the British islands within the last fifteen years ? I say, Daniel O’Connell. And, therefore, I advance it as my opinion, advisedly, deliberately, and with perfect sincerity, that if O’Connell had perished in the womb, all the stupendous changes in our national institutions that have fallen out for the last fifteen years, would still lie buried in the darlmess of futurity. And who will venture to assert, that Daniel O’Connell may not yet carry the Repeal of the Union, by the skilful application of the same tremendous engine, which has already wrought such stupendous effects ? Many of those who 24 SPEECH OF AKCHDEACON FITZGERALD now hear me, were present at the great meet- ing at Newcastle, on Thursday week (hear, and cheers). We saw assembled there at least fifty thousand of the male inhabitants of the Con- nelloes — yet there was not a trace of drunken- ness, of disorder, or indecency of any kind, in that vast concourse of human beings. The streets, the roads for miles, were choked up with multitudes, eager to catch a glimpse of the Liberator. But all who were present on that occasion, must admit with me, that there was not a gesture, an exclamation, nor, as far as one could judge from outward appearances, a feeling or a sentiment in all that vast multi- tude, of which the angels of God might not approve. I never saw the Irish character dis- played to such advantage among the humbler classes of my countrymen. It was evident to my eyes, that the ardent and generous impulses of the Irish heart, were chastened and tem- pered down on that occasion, by the purifying and beautiful influences of deep religious feel- ing. O, how different was that gathering from the well-known and memorable assemblage on Penenden Heath 1 How different the demean- our of our glorious peasantry, from the savage brutality of Penenden Heath — from the inde- scribably filthy practices of that Westminster mob, to whose ruffian violence a brave and dis- tinguished officer. Sir Murray Maxwell, fell a victim some years since. Let those who deem themselves raised by rank and station above the humbler classes; above that patient and ill- ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 25 used, but still religious, generous, and brave- hearted Irish peasant, who is delighted to share the shelter of his hovel and his last potato with the poor stranger ; let those who look upon themselves as the mind par excellence of Ireland, though the fragment of that mind which has fallen to their lot, may chance to be a very small one ; let all such hear, mark, and inwardly digest, what I am now about to tell them — if O’Connell will, in the course of the next spring and summer, make a progress through Ireland, as he has declared his inten- tion of doing, there will not be a town or vil- lage that he shall visit, at least in three of the provinces, that will not find its streets and its lanes choked up by ninety-nine out of every hundred of the male Catholic population for many miles around — and in the immense masses which will be thus assembled, there will not be found one out of five thousond who will not be more devoted to O’Connell than was ever High- land clansman to the chief of his race — there will not be found one whose heart will not beat high with boundless attachment and devo- tion to O’Connell, and who will not be disposed to prefer the influence of O’Connell to every other human influence whatsoever — nay, who will not be eagerly, enthusiastically, and, if you will have it so, madly prepared and prompt to ■follow wherever O’Connell leads. Happy it is that we can rely on the pure and disinterested patriotism, and on the incorruptible, because God-fearing, integrity of this extraordinary B 26 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZOERALD man. He has acquired over the warm, suscep- tible, and confiding hearts of Irishmen, an in- fluence such as political leader never acquired in any country, and such as, I trust, a political leader after O’Connell will never again acquire in Ireland ; for it is an influence which in other hands than O’Connell’s would be most unsafe, and most capable of being made an instrument of boundless evil. Under these circumstances, Mr. O’Connell is on the high road to the en- rolment of millions of Repealers. Let not those who look upon themselves as the repre- sentatives of the mind of Ireland, deceive them- selves. The mael-stroom of agitation will soon draw within its eddies many who now deem Repeal an empty sound. The tide of popular opinion is setting in strongly, rapidly — nay, furiously — let those who sleep within hearing of the roaring surge awake — the waters are rising fast, and the tide at flood will float mil- lions on its topmost billows — (loud and long- continued cheers). — It is true, there will be still a large minority of those who are hostile or indifferent to Repeal. This minority will be a powerful one. It will comprise nearly the entire of the aristocracy, without reference to creed or party. It will embrace nearly all the baronets, the nobility, the landed interest, the magistracy, the law, the Protestant clergy of all grades, with all those who hold office or emolument of any kind under the government. It will embrace all or nearly all the Protestants and Protestant Dissenters in Ireland — in fact, ON THE REPEAL OFJCHE UNION. 27 it will be a compact and formidable phalanx; and it will be essential to the carrying out of the Repeal question, that so formidable an opposition, embracing so large a proportion of the w^ealth, rank, and education of Ireland, should be broken down and numerically re- duced by at least 75 or 80 per cent. This reduction should be principally effected in the upper grades, for if you gain over the officers in great numbers, the common soldiers will follow of themselves. And how, my friends, is this formidable obstacle to be overcome ? I wdll tell you in two wo*rds — by force. By force, however, I mean to indicate the only force which Daniel O’Connell has ever em- ployed, or ever will permit Irishmen to employ against each other — the force of reason — the force of truth. Are not our opponents Irish- men ? Have they not the same interest that we have in the prosperity of our common coun- try ? Have not many of them by their rank and property a vast stake, a deep interest, in the advancement of Ireland, and the improve- ment and stability of her government ? And when Daniel O’Connell will have clearly con- vinced them that all those evils which now afflict Ireland would be effectually redressed by the Repeal, that the Repeal will banish from our land all those asperities, religious and political, which now poison social intercourse and sever the bond of brotherhood and nation- ality — when he will have persuaded them that under the new order of things property will 28 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD retain all its security, all its rights, all its just preponderance — that our peers restored to their legislative functions will enjoy, in public and private life, securely and firmly, all the pre-eminence, weight, and authority, which the constitution meant to bestow.upon them— when they will be satisfied that democratic influences shall not have more than their just weight — that all vested interests shall be scrupulously respected — that the Protestant clergy, without being a burden to their Catholic fellow-subjects, will enjoy incomes such as befit gentlemen of birth and education, and the religious teachers of the upper classes in society — when it will appear that the Repeal will bring back the old kindly and affectionate relations between land- lord and tenant — that your humane and kind landlords, your Lismores, your Dunravens, your Clares, will no longer be viewed as Whigs or Tories, as Reformers or Conservatives, but as Irish peers and Irish landlords — that with the liberalizing progress of public sentiment, the sons of the nobility will be preferred to spout- ing and needy adventurers in the county re- presentations. In a word, when Daniel O’Con- nell will have succeeded in removing the mist from before the eyes of our opponents, you will see the obstacles to Repeal effectually over- come. O’Connell is the man to effect difficult tasks, and he will yet unite Irishmen of every grade, of every creed, and of every shade in politics, in one common and heart-thrilling sentiment of enthusiastic nationality, (hear, ON THE REFEAL OE THE UNION. 20 hear, hear, and continued cheering). .But I will be told that England will never consent to the Repeal of the Union. But they who pro- phesy thus, calculate on the unchangeable and unanimous determination of England. But were English governments never persuaded to change their mimls or their measures within the last twenty years ? Are there not now, as of old, different parties in England ? Are there not Whigs and Tories, Chartists, Radi- cals, and Corn Law Leaguers ? Are there not grumbling agriculturists and starving oper- atives ? And may not some of these come to make the discovery, that their own party pur- poses might be greatly promoted by enlisting O’Connell, and a million or two of his enthusi- astic adherents, at their side ? May not the good and the wise among the statesmen of England be brought to persuade themselves, that the Repeal may not be after all that ter- rible calamity to Great Britain that some imagine ? Was not England great amd power- ful before the Union? There was a parlia- ment in Dublin when Nelson conquered at the Nile — annihilated the navy of France, and compelled the hero of Italy and Egypt to skulk as a fugitive on the face of the deep ? Did not Camperdoun, Cape St. Vincent, and the glorious first of June, attest that Britannia might rule the waves in spite of a parliament sitting in Dublin? Did not the Bayard of England, with a few gallant followers, repel from the avails of Acre the veteran armies of B 2 30 Si^KECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD France, headed by the most celebrated general of modern times — that young hero whose brows were encircled with the still green and living laurels of the three most glorious cam- paigns that the military history of the world can furnish ? Did not England put down the mutiny at the Nore — the rebellion in Ireland ? Did she not subsidize the Continental Powers, and raise up coalitions at her pleasure ? Did she not stem that tide of revolutionary aggres- sion that bore down the defences of the most powerful states on the Continent ; and yet Ireland had her independent parliament the while ? On the whole of these considerations I am led firmly to believe, that the Repeal of the Union, though a great and difficult under- taking, is by no means impracticable or impos- sible (hear, hear, hear). It is hard to set bounds to what may be achieved by a whole nation determined and unanimous, and guided by a leader whom his very enemies must ac- knowledge to be one of those extraordinary men who seem destined by Providence to achieve extraordinary things. What such men can achieve is not to be measured by ordinary rules or ordinary standards. Colombo was regarded as a madman and an enthusiast. They who looked upon themselves as the mind of Spain,” doomed this great and good man to years of heart-sickeiiess, disappoint- ment, and poverty ; yet he crossed the Atlantic in its widest part in a half-decked boat — he opened the portals of a new world, and he ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 31 bequeathed centuries of greatness to his adopt- ed country. In the early part of the fifteenth century the fairest portion of France was in the possession of the English. The lawful king was reduced to the condition of a fugitive and a pretender ; and these haughty islanders determined to drive the descendant of St. Louis out of the kingdom, had laid siege to Orleans, the Athlone of France. A simple country girl declared herself commissioned from Heaven to humble the pride of England, and to cause the rightful king to be crowned at Rheims. They who deemed themselves the ^‘mind of France,” looked upon her as a mad-women. But she kept her word, and a few short years saw the English confined within the walls of Calais, without a foot of territory on the soil of France. If this simple maiden was able to restore its king and its parliaments to this chivalrous and gallant nation, what may we not hope from the consummate abilities of that great and ex- traordinary man, who has been raised up by Providence, and gifted with talents, powers, and capabilities, so singularly fitted to qualify him as the leader, the champion, and the de- liverer of a nation struggling against oppres- sion ? Yes ! he has been already the victor of a hundred fights in the cause of Ireland — not the brutal and blood-stained conflicts of physi- cal forces and energies, but the keen contests in which he has borne away the palm of wisdom, the palm of eloquence, and proved himself superie^r in intellectual powers^ resourcefi, and 32 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD energies, to the master spirits of the age. For forty years he has fought the good fight — the struggle of truth, justice, and freedom, against oppression, persecution, and inveterate wrong. The forum, the senate house, the assemblies of the people, have been the “fields of his fame from these fields he has reaped a harvest of imperishable glory. For among the oppressors of his country or his kind, with whom he ever waged successful war, were but too often to be found the “ giants of those days,” the “ men of renown” of two generations. Yes, the Liber- ator has already opened the Orleans of the Constitution to his countrymen, not at one of its gates only, but at all its avenues ond en- trances ; and I confidently hope, that he will yet cause our Queen to be crowned in Dublin. I do not speak of the mere ceremonial pageant, though that too is within the limits of. pos- sibility ; but I speak of the heart-felt and loyal homage which Irishmen will render to their Queen, as the third estate of an independent Irish Parliament. And who, I ask you, shall be the Speaker of our Irish House of Com- mons ? — who, the first Commoner of the res- tored realm of Ireland? — who? (shouts of “ Daniel O’Connell.”) Yes, Daniel O’Connell, and no mistake ! (long continued cheering for several minutes.) ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 33 Mr. Ray read the following letter from Archdeacon Fitzgerald : — ‘‘ Ballingarry, Co. Limerick, Feb. 11. Dear Sir, I beg to enclose my mite to- wards tlie Repeal Rent. It is owing to a mistake on the subject of Repeal cards that I am not enabled, on the present occasion, to forward the patriotic contributions of the Re- pealers of this district, which I trust, however, will not be delayed beyond a week or two. “ I have learned by the Limerick Reporter of this day, that the Liberator had done me the honor of mentioning my humble name in the Association, in terms so kind and flattering as would have turned the head of a younger man than myself. He has, however, in one instance at least, ascribed to me a merit to which I have no claim — ^that of having been engaged in controversy with some lay Pro- testant neighbours. On the principle that made Sir Geoffrey Hudson, the dwarf, affect the reputation of having fought with tall men, I beg to state, that the only controversies in which I was so unlucky as to be engaged, were with two Protestant clergymen, both divines of some note in their own church — ^the present Dean of Ardagh, and the late Prebendary of Bally- cahane. It happened that my superiors re- moved me from the parish of Dromcoloher, in 1824, and from the parish of Askeaton, in 1837? and on both occasions the Protestant 34 SPEECH OF ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD gentry of each of these parishes respectively, without a single exception, subscribed public addresses to me, couched in terms of neigh- bourly kindness — indeed, some of the Protestant addressers on both occasions were among my kindest and most intimate friends. “ I perceive that in moving for the publica- tion of the observations which I felt it my duty to offer on occasion of the Repeal meeting of this town, the Liberator is disposed to expunge those passages in which I have attempted, in a small way, to describe the splendid services which he has rendered to his country and to his kind. As these are evidently the passages best calculated to deserve the approbation of every honest Irishman, and also the very foun- dations of whatever attempts I have made to prove the possibility of Repeal, I most respect- fully deprecate the proposed omissions. Indeed it would be to announce the play of Hamlet^ with the part of Hamlet omitted, by special de- sire. It is clear to men of sense and reflection that Ireland, considered with reference to the Repeal question, contains at this moment within its womb two nations struggling for mastery. Considered with reference to nume- rical strength and moral and intellectual worth and energy, O’Connell has a nation for multi- tude, like the sands of the sea, already enrolled, or on point of being enrolled, as Repealers ; but, considered with respect to rank, property, wealth, and influence, there is opposed to Re- peal a host of mighty strength, with a numeric ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 35 cal basis that might well rank as a nation ; and until these two nations are under the auspices of our great leader, ‘ like kindred drops min- gled into one,’ it is clear that the Repeal will be attended with difficulties which, to all but his master-mind, might well seem insuperable. We, Repealers, form, or will soon form, a de- cided — a vast majority. But yet will the mi- nority for some time to come continue to be so large and influential a body, and composed of elements so weighty and so valuable, that it would be scarcely deemed wise to effect a great national change in the teeth of the decided op- position of such a minority ; and even if we were disposed to make light of such an opposi*- tion, it seems clear that England would not en- ter readily into our views. But if Ireland, like Norway or Hungary, could unite her sons, of all ranks and parties, in one unanimous demand for Repeal, it is clear that that measure should and w ould be at once conceded by her haughty sister. Now, to fuse down the discordant and opposite elements, political and religious, of which that opposition is composed, into one pure stream of patriotism — to evaporate the poison- ous fumes of intolerance, of prejudice, of inve- terate distrust and hatred — to separate the dross of cowardice, of self interest, of the thirst for ascendancy, from the pure metal, so that the bright silver of nationality might run below — ■ to effect these grand transmutations is a task on which one might look despairingly, if O’Con- nell were not the artificer, that unrivalled poli« 36 SPEECH OP ARCHDEACON FITZGERALD. tical alchymist, who has already overcome the most appalling difficulties, and who has so often moulded the most un tractable and unpromising elements to his purposes — purposes ever direct- ed to the happiness of his country and his kind. As these are the views which I have made a feeble attempt to develope in the address which has been honored with the notice of the Liber- ator and the approbation of the Association, I respectfully request that no curtailment may take place tending to weaken its effect and strength, however puny and dwarfish that strength may be. I have the honour to remain, ‘‘ Your obedient servant, Michael Fitzgerald. T. M. Ray, Esq. &c.” y. illl !' "f/. ‘ ' yoiT.yy?8A Jimif . . . % . : . ■ • i r, ^ ' ;- . 'v. r,.. ; ’ : ■; ; . ' :r '.i. J iAt aA?f>a:H-2T^ A •„ V ,<.'...l:.X . OKA ' , 't':uJo;^7r:^!5Ki;' aoo,i 7"iy:uAa mu I'tat VO fijoH ii^/irniaM .K.rs.a^^a's' as^' vjjvia.ra '. .,0 .iili’i);. f‘ > >v.rAHo MR. DAUNT’ S SPEECH AT THE REPEAL ASSOCIATION, IN REFUTATION OF THE ANTI-REPEAL FALLACIES ADOPTED FROM SPRING RICE AND OTHERS BY LORD SHREWSBURY. ALSO, MR. DAUNT^S SPEECH AT THE MEETING HELD IN EDINBURGH FOR REPEAL. DUBLIN: J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-STREET. PRINTED BY ORDER OP THE REPEAL ASSOCIATION. 1843. Tiol beinhqo'f oib 8ef{D^9^q8 ^ni7/olIol sehT 8B ^aiolBSK-pil 9xli .lagooVflXi noilBli/O'ib iB’cpns^ Lsiitmd'sdns niBixioo toLt fasist rgitoo ^i ii orfi oi ,anol iBliiqoq biixi b hi ^aiowanB soiiBaioybA eill io anoil^ofdo siroibiani ^aoffs /. dBoqeil lo The following Speeches are reprinted for general circulation amongst the Repealers, as it is considered that they contain substantial answers, in a brief and popular form, to the most insidious objections of the Adversaries of Repeal. n a3«3VU30 H333ie ' ' ' ^ . .KJueswxiiHg aaoj ■ O'),’.,; ■■ C Oc-ii.;;'/ -i:'r6 ^ . iii; rfilcjid yf r.;,|’ ■-sBliJ y/j' jjulS ■^‘ i -i ^ nJ (bf)!inkp.Q '^■tm :m gi -'■-''i Y-^v '^-r^wa^T?'^ -^o ^ OJ. ■■iwt.Ji.t i .-r "ji'ohj-viivtn ^ -i ‘ - ■ --^-Y ^ V . . rrA :^n^y.r cr^^. .i Y ti ' ' -*' dial ^:if n.fi l:^^iS?.nomeb ^Jdiu djl.. i„ .:/ ■ v:.‘.t »-^v ;*? . fcl> .1 , ,vi < ■';. ., ti: ft } ■. , J j’f? vt>'.i.T i : ”: ■ a iri .',/ ; ».'jisV ,: .. .',; j'i .-: *38 '-ijr-.v/ .i- iiij -^r.>';.;/ i:.‘:m n fkm!^/r Yjlstot bnn xhh^ao-ioib si ml ibidYf lo S3;*fdx*? S* A SPEECH DELIVERED Bl MR. DAUNT, IN REPLY TO LORD SHREWSBURY, AT THE REPEAL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND ON THE llTH DAY OF APRIL, 1843. Mr. Daunt said — I wish to call attention to Lord Shrewsbury's most recent attack on the cause of Repeal. Each successive day affords fresh demonstration of the utter hopelessness of any other remedy for Ireland. The impotence of the arguments wherewith the Repealers are assailed, furnishes fresh proof that their cause is established on an impregnable basis. The Earl of Shrewsbury has recently been ma- king stupendous exertions to demonstrate that a great lord may be a great blockhead ; and it is due to his lordship to admit, that in this demonstration he has been superabundantly successful. (Loud cheers and laughter.) His last voluminous epistle against the Repeal, affords a remarkable specimen of the confidence with which a man may sit down to write upon a subject of which he is thoroughly and totally A 2 6 MR. D aunt’s speech IN REPLY ignorant. The Lord Mayor had scarcely deem- ed the production worth a passing laugh ; and the Lord Mayor was right, if the amount of notice were to be measured by the merits of the book ; but I conceive that Lord Shrews- bury’s book is highly useful, as afPording an illustration of the ignorance, the prejudice, the curious distortion of mind with which English- men will set themselves to lucubrate upon Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Lord Shrewbury, for example, works hard to show that Ireland ha# made astonishing strides in prosperity since the legislative Union. He quotes tables, pur- porting to exhibit an unparalleled increase of the national wealth since that period. But in page 139> his lordship, with exquisite simpli- city, illustrates the prosperity he has laboured to establish, by quoting the Poor Law Com- missioners, to show that a full fourth part of this superlatively prosperous nation are actual paupers ! (Hear, hear.) Now I fearlessly chal- lenge Lord Shrewsbury to show that one-fourth of the people of Ireland were paupers before the Union, I would challenge him, or any other man, to demonstrate that one-tenth of the Irish population could be included in the category oF paupers, from the period of Ire- land’s independent constitution down to the ex- tinction of her Parliament. Yet here we have this English lord asserting that Ireland has progressed in prosperity since the Union ! (hear, hear.) The next specimen that strikes me of Lord Shrewsbury’s felicitous mode of TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 7 rendering deductions altogether independent of premises, is the method he takes to overthrow Mr. O’ConnelFs assertion that 50,000 annual murders of the persecuted peasantry are com- mitted by means of the extermination or clear • ance system. Our most logical earl denies his belief that these annual murders are committed. Whereupon he fills from page 93 to page 117, with quotations from witnesses upon the state of Ireland, of which I beg leave to read you a few specimens : — “ The process of extermination (he is quoting from Lord Donoughmore’s evi- dence) commenced soon after the conclusion of the war, but was infinitely aggravated by the passing of the Emancipation act in 1829? after which the gentlemen began to clear their es- tates of the forty-shilling freeholders, who had been done away with by the act.” Here we have the fact of the extermination stated. Lord Shrewsbury next quotes Mr. Bicheno, to prove that the people ‘‘ were swept out like vermin, with as little compunction, and as extensive devastation.” The results of these vigorous operations are such as might naturally be ex- pected. Lord Shrewsbury quotes Mr. Cahill, civil engineer, who, in speaking of the eviction of 1,126 persons in a batch, says, “ A great many of them died of hunger.” His lordship quotes the report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1830, which asserts that “ vast numbers of the ejected tenantry perish from want, after having undergone misery and suffering such as no language can describe, and 8 MR. daunt’s speech in reply of which no conception can be formed without beholding it.” Now, pray recollect that these extracts are made by Lord Shrewsbury, in immediate connexion with his denial that 50,000 persons perish annually from the consequen- ces of extermination. He quotes my friend Barrett to show that masses of the population are driven to the ditches to live upon weeds, or rather to die by feeding upon them.” He quotes the Blorning Chronicle to show that the exterminating landlords “put the tenants even to death by thousands.” He adds a large mass of corroborative evidence demonstrating the destitution arising from the clearance sys- tem. Here are the facts, thus collected by Lord Shrewsbury himself. The last population returns exhibit a deficiency of 50,000 annually in the comparative increase of the population for ten years. Our paragon of premier earls supplies us with copious details of the mur- derous effects of the extermination system, and yet starts some fanciful theory that this proved and admitted deficiency of 50,000 annually, is caused by a merciful dispensation of Providence ! (Hear, hear.) I will not be guilty of the absur- dity of arguing against such a preposterous proposition (cheers). If we had it not before our eyes in black and white, it would seem too absurd and extravagant for belief, that a sane man could seriously ascribe to God’s mercy the diminution in the numbers of our people, result- ing from the grinding persecutions and the famines of which he has himself adduced such TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 9 unimpeachable evidence and proofs. But I have a strong’ idea, that if we had a Parliament in College-green, we should not see this heart- rending persecution (hear, hear). I have a strong notion, that if we had an Irish Parlia- ment, we should not see our people cast forth to perish in myriads by the ditch side. I tell Lord Shrewsbury that we are indebted to the Union for this fiendish persecution of our peo- ple (hear). The very existence of an Irish Parliament strongly tended to infuse a national spirit into the minds of the Irish aristocracy. Notwithstanding the defects of its construction, the Irish Parliament enacted a large number of popular measures. Had that Parliament con- tinued to exist, there is no man who looks at the subsequent progress of popular organiza- tion, but must admit that the spirit of the Irish senate would have every day become more popular. Every fresh constitutional acquisition made by the people, would have more and more disarmed their tyrants and enemies, of the power to oppress them — would have tended, by the natural progress of events, to blend and identify together the interests and feelings of the people and the aristocracy. The aristocracy, in order to preserve their weight and influence, should have necessarily popularised themselves (hear, hear). Then we should not have heard of the clearance of estates (loud cheers). But the Union destroyed this tendency to Irish feeling; it destroyed our nationality ; it linked up our great proprietors and lords with Saxon connex- A 3 10 MR. BAUNT’s speech IN REPLY ions and Saxon associations ; it gave them En- glish Toryism to fall back upon ; it infused into them Anglican prejudices, and cut the ties of nationality that bound them in one interest with the population of their native land. The trans- ition was easy to open hostility and murderous extermination. I tell Lord Shrewsbury that both the disposition and the power to extermi- nate, may clearly be traced to the accursed Union. (Loud cheers.) I now. Sir, turn to another of Lord Shrewsbury’s arguments. He ushet*s in a table of tonnage and exports, by proclaiming that it will exhibit the immense commercial improvement of Ireland since the Union. It purports to show an enoimous augmentation of exports from 1801 to 1835. There are, I believe, errors in this table ; but I am content to take it as it stands. It sets forth an enormous increase of the export from Ireland of all the prime Necessaries of Life — cows and oxen, sheep, swine, wheat, barley, oats, wheatmeal, flour, potatoes, bacon, pork, and butter. Now, no man will more readily admit than I will, that the export of agricul- tural produce is a proof of agricultural pros- perity, provided the producers of that food are^ in the first instance^ comfortably fed^ and clothed^ and lodged. But no man knows bet- ter than Lord Shrewsbury, that this is not the case in Ireland. The producers of the food thus exported, are shown by his lordship to be miserably fed and clothed, and to be liable to that fate which so many of their number ex- TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 11 perlenoe — namely, to be turned out to perish by the ditch -side ! (cries of hear, hear .) The export of a surplus agricultural produce is a proof of prosperity. It shows that the agri- cultural population have enough, and to spare. But the export of agricultural produce, while the labouring population who produced it, are starving — whilst many of them actually die of hunger — is a proof, not of the prosperity, but the wretchedness of the country, since it shows that the inhabitants cannot afford to consume the food of their own raising. It is not a profitable export, but a starving export. Lord Shrewsbury’s table, then, demonstrates that in 1801 the Irish people were able to consume more of their own agricultural produce than they were in 1835. (Loud cheers.) Next we come to the export of soap and candles. On his lordship’s showing, this export (which being one of manufactured articles would be profi- table to Ireland) has been altogether anni^ hilated. In 1801 he acquaints us that Ireland exported 15,557 cwts. of soap and candles ; in 1825, 42 cwts*; in 1835, none at all! The next article adduced by his lordship to prove the benefits accruing to Ireland from the Union, is the export of — what do you think ? — Eggs ! In 1801, it seems that we eat our own eggs, and exported none. In 1835, it appears that 52 millions of Irish eggs crossed the channel to the land of the Saxon. But what in the name of Nemesis, had the Union to do with the matter ? Can Lord Shrewsbury point out 12 MR. daunt’s speech in reply wliat clause in the Union act has stimulated the procreative propensities of the Irish hens ? (hear, hear, and loud laughter.) We next come to hides and calf-skins, wool, flax, and tow. Of these there was no export in 1801. Why? Because the Union had not at that period yet destroyed our native manufactures ; and we .wrought up our raw material into ma- nufactured goods at home. (Loud cheers.) But in 1835 liis lordship displays an enormous export of these raw materials. Why is he enabled to do so ? Just because the Union had then developed its evil influences in the vast diminution in many places, and the anni- hilation in many more, of our native manufac- turers. The manufacture market of Ireland was thrown by the Union at the feet of the British manufacturing capitalists ; and domestic manufactures being thus either partially injured or wholly destroyed, the people were compelled to export the raw material, which, under hap- pier circumstances, they would have worked up into manufactured goods at home (great cheer- ing). I next approach the export of spirits. This export rose from one to about three and a-half from 1801 to 1825, and fell something less than one- third from the maximum in 1835. Whatever be the benefit of the spirit export, the Union is entitled to no credit upon that head. The export of Irish-made spirits to England has heretofore been encumbered with a duty, which protected the British distiller against the Irish. Lord Shrewsbury next talks TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 1 3 of the increase in our export of cottons. It is perfectly true there has been an increase, but it forms a miserable substitute for the many other branches of our native manufactures which are utterly destroyed — a substitute how miserable you will judge, when I tell you that the estimated value in 1 835, according to Lord Shrewsbury’s table, amounts to less than £150,000. (Hear, hear.) We next approach a most important item — the staple of Ireland — the linen manufacture. (Hear, hear.) Lord Shrews- bury states that in 1835 the linen export of Ireland amounted in value to £3,730,854. For this export he would have us believe that we should thank the Union. I beg to acquaint him that in 1796 the export of Irish linen amount- ed, according to John Foster, to £3,113,687 sterling. From the period of Ireland’s ac- quisition of free trade and free constitution, the linen manufacture had advanced with great rapidity. In 1783, for example, the value of the linen exported from Ireland — I speak on the authority of Foster — was £1,069,313. In 1796, as I have said, it had risen to £3,1 13,687 . Thus, in Ireland, with a resident Parliament, it had trebled itself in thirteen years. But take now Lord Shrewsbury’s statement, and see whether in Ireland, without a resident Parlia- ment, it had trebled itself in thirty-five years ? (hear, hear.) No. Well, had it doubled itself? No. Well, had it increased by one-half? No. By one-third? No. The fact was, it had barely increased about one* fifth, after an inter- A 3 14 MR. D aunt’s speech IN REPLY val of great depression ; and its revival was mainly ascribable to the increased cheapness of production arising from the introduction of spinning mills into Ulster. (Great cheering.) Lord Shrewsbury’s next items are silk and woollen manufactures. He conlch have scarce- ly hit on more unhappy illustrations of the benefits of the Union. If I read his table aright, he represents the export of these arti- cles as having had no existence in 1801 ; but as having amounted in 1835 to the value re- spectively of £21,740 for silk, and £40,128 for woollen manufactures. Now the real fact — as you all well know to your cost — is, that we had a flourishing manufacture of silk and woollen articles before the Union, and a brisk home market for it. In 1800 there were in Dublin 91 master manufacturers in the woollen trade, employing and supporting 4,938 persons. In 1 840 the master manufacturers had diminished from 91 to 12, and the hands employed from 4,938 to 682. In Carrick-on-Suir there were employed in the woollen manufacture in 1799 five thousand persons. In 1840 the number employed had sunk from 5,000 to 100. I take these details from the excellent report com- piled by our invaluable secretary, Mr. Ray. All over the kingdom we find, with rare excep- tions, similar results. It is with the silk manu- facture as with the woollen. I cannot weary your patience with details : let it suffice to say, that in 1799 the silk and woollen manufactures of Dublin alone, with a home demand, pro- TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 15 duced more profit and more employment than the entire amount of Irish silk and woollen exports paraded by Lord Shrewsbury for 1835. Now let us succinctly review this miraculous table of Lord Shrewsbury, which he promised would demonstrate the stupendous improve- ment of Ireland since the Union. Firstly — it shows that between seven and eight millions’ worth of human food is annually exported from Ireland — whilst those who produce that food are starving at home. ‘‘ Immense improve- ment,” quoth his Lordship, ‘‘and great ad- vantage derived to Ireland from her vicinity to England.” Next, our soap and candle export, which really was a profitable one, is, upon his Lordship’s showing, annihilated. Thirdly, the Union Act proved a powerful stimulant to the Irish hens to lay eggs ! the connexion of cause and effect in this case Lord Shrewsbury leaves involved in mystery. Fourthly, we export raw materials to be manufactured in England, in- stead of, as formerly, manufacturing them at home. A vast improvement! says Lord Shrews- bury. Fifthly, our spirit export has, it seems, advanced, in spite of a prohibitory duty. Many thanks to the Union for that ! Sixthly, in a population of over eight millions, and amidst the wreck of almost all other manufactures, there is the magnificent amount of £150,000 of an export of cottons 1 Hurra for the Union, cries Lord Shrewsbury ! Seventhly, the linen manafacture has been little more than sta- tionary, whilst the population has largely 16 MR. daunt’s speech in reply increased since 1801. Eighthly, our silk and woollen manufactures are all but annihilated. Yet this record, which embodies so many proofs of national misery, is puffed forth by this asinine Lord as a triumphant demonstration of enormous national improvement ! The real fact is, that a table of exports and imports (as my able friend Mr. Staunton has trium- phantly shown, affords, at best, but a fallacious test of national prosperity. F'or example, fifty years ago we manufactured our own cloth. At present we get cloth from England. Fifty years ago one hundred pounds’ worth of corn, sent from Tipperary to Dublin, was consumed in Dublin, and paid for with one hundred pounds’ worth of cloth made in Dublin. Here was a transaction which occasioned no imports or ex- ports. Contrast this transaction with the pre- sent condition of affairs. The hundred pounds’ worth of corn goes from Tipperary— not to Dublin, but to England. It is paid for with one hundred pounds’ worth of cloth* made in England. An item is furnished to Lord Shrews- bury’s table of exports and imports, and his lordship cries out, “Oil have a triumphant proof of Irish prosperity !” But how stands the fact ? In the former transaction, which ex- hibited no imports nor exports, the Irish corn fed the Irishman, and paid for Irish manufac- tures. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) In the latter transaction, the Irish corn fed the Englishman, and was paid for in English manufactures, while the Irish operative perished for want of employ- TO LORD SHREWSBURY. l7 ment. (Cheers.) So much for the infallibility of the tests of imports and exports. Lord Shrewsbury next tells us our tonnage has enor- mously increased since 1801. Heaven help him ! He might just as well tell us from what point the wind blew, for anything tonnage has to do with prosperity. Much of this tonnage arises from the starving export trade. Is that prosperity ? Much of it arises from the im- portation of English manufactures, our own having been destroyed. Is that prosperity ? Much of it arises from the line-steamers, which indicate little or no traffic of any sort. Is that prosperity ? Much of the tonnage appertains to vessels that come in with ballast, and go out with emigrants. Is that prosperity ? Some of it appertains to vessels that take shelter from foul weather. Is that prosperity ? Tonnage a test of prosperity ! Why the man who pa- rades it as such, must either be exceedingly ignorant or exceedingly impudent (loud cheers). In order to show how utterly fallacious is the inference, that a large amount of tonnage ne- cessarily implies a corresponding amount of profitable commerce, let me call your attention to the following table, showing the number of vessels cleared out to foreign ports from the port of Dublin, in the years 1832, 1833, and 1834. It is as near perfect accuracy as the materials (in the absence of official informa- tion) permit : — In 1832 there were about 130 vessels cleared outwards to foreign ports from Dublin. Of 18 MR. daunt’s speech in reply these 43 were in ballast, (timber ships) and 52 with passengers. Thus, 95 out of 130 represented no profitable commerce. Again, in 1833, there were about 180 vessels cleared out to foreign ports. Of these 90 were in ballast, and 30 with passengers. Thus, 120 out of 180 represented no profitable commerce. Again, in 1834, there were 150 vessels cleared out to foreign ports. Of these 64 were in ballast, and 49 with passengers. Thus, 113 vessels out of 150 betokened no pro- fitable commerce. (Hear, hear.) Will Lord Shrewsbury insist upon tonnage as a test of commercial prosperity now ? (Hear, hear.) Two more positions of our Saxon philosopher are all that I have to notice. In page 132 this sagacious lord threatens Ireland, in the event of Repeal, that England will not continue to take Irish eggs, corn, cattle, and butter. What? Does he tell us that the English nation will reject food wherever they can get it? (hear, hear, and cheers.) Their complaint at present is, that they have not got food enough. Does Lord Shrewsbury think his countrymen such fools as still further to dimin- ish their supply by shutting out the produce of Ireland? Secondly — His lordship says, that her commerce with England cut off, Ireland is at TO LORD SHREWSBURY. 19 fault at once. Heaven help him ! he does not know that the mutual interests of both countries would compel them both to continue an honest international commerce ; and that before the Union Ireland worked out for herself free trade with all the world. In conclusion, Sir, I will reiterate what I have frequently before advan- ced. I will state the mode in which the Union has destroyed the manufactures of Ireland ; it has enormously augmented the absentee drain — it has enabled England to abstract from us a large annual amount of surplus taxes. Thus it has drained away the wealth of Ireland, and prevented it from settling down into national capital. It has immensely diminished the do- mestic market, and in many instances destroyed it, by withdrawing from Ireland a large class of wealthy consumers; and it has anglicised the minds of most of the remaining gentry, who have consequently patronized English, to the exclusion of home manufacture. Thus you were thrown at the feet of the English manufacturing capitalist, who was easily ena- bled to monopolize your market ; and this foul, degrading, withering curse, is what English writers term Irish prosperity ! If you bear it, the fault is your own. (Great cheering.) jmiM .k*fi 'm emvu3G amfs :i‘KW i7^ 3: ■: g'TOMn -»•' hr;--, pTT f.„.f,;^p, ,.tM .’■i ’.- 5'?# 'i; ,i ,•)/,:. 'j.-.i-J--' :ij JO'O 3ToJli I SItip,uT> Yfri’^i/(iif>xit *•■'’•' "5-/odT 'io nnbsosip orfi /T-,f.fr., , 3iiT ,T ov rr, Slid .terf# trasinJ'; u:? lo-oad^ja ^i :AyA;i'r;w /{fOfi Lii-L'-if fiiia Iirr,;[^na Oj ■iio.Tfof) yd f;:ro9d^f'i> Y .soft-ix;,! ^ynYt^wi-rMioc. I^^rsq- 00 'i'1.07?- nor ’jjft d&T',, <;d.t Jj;di ■fj.titenJ's teioK^B £> 0 d?v.u-» 80 V/ ■•} -mt>nJ &di o.t Ifjj t« iiodi' vf8Yu'.n-;;i i),;-ti;i!/"i «i ;r . :; .+frf) 30 oj ij'odj fi)O0f adt f gf j{ ..hi-wdoo 0^1 adT -T..f iniir (A;d> rd 'd , 0 or.[|;iria. :- .' tii-.^Kinox 0'- ■*.. od' ' ll-J? mt/ fUCl.'i'a/ d? fi •■...' :! i>,.j r^vjf . id jd; SPEECH DELIVERED BY MR. DAUNT, AT THE GREAT REPEAL MEETING HELD AT HERIOrS BRIDGE HALL, EDINBURGH, ON THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 1842. Mr. O’Neill Daunt said — I will read the resolution I have got to propose, and will then lay before you the observations which it sug- gests. Mr. Daunt then read the first resolution. There is no subject, continued Mr* Daunt, so thoroughly misunderstood in Great Britain aa the question of Repeal. There is no questior that has been more misrepresented. The Unior is familiarly spoken of in Britain as a treaty to which England and Ireland both were free contracting parties. I will begin by demon- strating that the Irish nation \^ere no partj at all to the Union. It was enacted againsi their consent ; it is continued against theii consent. It is right I should tell you the mode in which that Union was achieved. The go- vernment of England fomented a Rebellion, b] raising the hopes of the people of Ireland te the highest pitch. Lord Fitzwilliam was sem 22 IRISH UNION CARRIED RY over there as a viceroy in the year 1795, with promises to emancipate the Irish Catholics. Their expectations were thus excited to the utmost, when Lord Fitz william was suddenly recalled ; the cup of hope was dashed from the lips of the people, and measures of coercion were resorted to in the various districts of the kingdom by the local tools of government. The people were thus exasperated. They were goaded to rebel. The rebellion was fomented by the government. How this system of fomentation was carried out into practice, may be a matter of some curiosity to Scotchmen of the present generation. Among numerous evi- dences, showing the hideous details of the mode taken to goad the Irish people, I will, for bre- vity’s sake, content myself by selecting the fol- lowing passage from a speech delivered by Lord Moira in the British House of Lords, on the 22nd of November, 1797 : — I have known a man,” said Lord Moira, ‘^in order to extort con- fession of a supposed crime, or of that of some neighbour, picketed till he actually fainted ; picketed a second time till he fainted again ; and, when he came to himself, picketed a third time till he once mere fainted ; and all this upon mere suspicion. Men had been taken and hung up till they were half dead, and after- wards threatened with a repetition of this treat- ment unless they made a confession of their imputed guilt. These were not particular acts of cruelty, but formed part of the new system.” And that system, Sir, (continued Mr. D.) was COERCION AND TORTURE. 23 to paralyze the strength of Ireland, in order that when prostrate, the Union might be forced upon her. The government had a guilty know- ledge of the rebel machinations which their own vile tools thus contributed to promote. For ten months before it exploded, the govern- ment had one of the rebel colonels in their pay, and this wretch minutely informed them of every movement contemplated during that period by the insurgents. Thus, for a period of ten months the government had it in their power, at any moment, to crush the rebellion in its bud, without bloodshed, by the simple arrest of its leaders. They could, with the utmost ease, have prevented its explosion alto- gether, but that was no part of their plan. (Hear, hear.) They wished it to explode, in order to furnish themselves with a legiti- mate pretext for prostrating the constitutional strength of Ireland by enforcing martial law ; and at the same time to terrify the Protestant party into acquiescence in the Union. (Hear, hear.) Their diabolical plan was triumphantly successful. Rivers of blood were poured forth. Seventy-seven thousand British bayonets were sent into Ireland to overawe the people, thus rendered powerless by the premature explosion of a fomented rebellion. Martial law was pro- claimed. The soldier and the sword were everything — law and justice were extinguished. It was during the paralyzation of Ireland’s strength, thus procured, that the measure of Union was proposed. This was in 1799. In 24 BRIBERY A MEANS. that year the Irish House of Commons rejected the measure by a majority, which, though small in itself, yet seems astonishingly large, when the unlimited profusion of bribery within doors, and the terrorism without, are considered. But martial law was still in force, the country was still in a state of the utmost exhaustion, and Pitt was resolved to try his chance again. In 1800 the measure was again proposed. Bri- bery was redoubled. The mere amount of money bribes was about a million and a half. The peerage was put up to sale. Bishoprics, seats upon the bench, commissions without limit in the army and navy, were given in re- ward of votes for the Union. Many members for the rotten boroughs, who were themselves reluctant to extinguish the Irish legislature, were yet bribed to vacate their seats, and to let in Englishmen and Scotchmen to vote away a parliament in whose continuance they had no interest. Only for the rotten boroughs in the Irish parliament, the Union could never have been carried. There were one hundred and sixteen placemen and pensioners in the Union majority. The members for the coun- ties and large towns, who were really returned by the people, opposed it almost to a man. (Hear, hear.) The meetings of the people to petition against it were in several instances dispersed by military force. Thus, by the joint agency of the most flagitious corruption, and the most ruthless bloodshed, was the mea- sure of the Union forced upon Ireland. But UNPOPULARITY OF THE UNION. 25 it may be said, what have the means to do with the measure ? May not the measure be excellent, although the means whereby it was achieved were execrable ? I reply, that the means have a great deal to do with the merits of the mea- sure ; first, because they demonstrate irre- fragably that the measure was in utter hostility to the will of the people ; and in any country, boasting even the shadow of a free constitution, no measure can possibly be good which is thoroughly abhor ent to the people’s will. (Loud cheers.) Notwithstanding the machinery of terror and corruption brought to bear against the Irish people, yet no less than 707>000 signed petitions against the Union, whilst the utmost arts of government were unable to obtain fully 5,000 signatures in its favour. Next, the abominable means demonstrate this : that the contrivers of the Union could not have intended to do good to Ireland. They did not shrink from spilling oceans of Irish blood ; they did not shrink from corrupting Ireland's senators. Are these the deeds of benefactors — of men who are anxious to benefit a country ? (Loud cries of No, no.) Then, if the framers of the Union demonstrably did not intend to do good to Ireland, it is the most unlikely thing in the world that good could result from that measure. (Hear, hear.) Let us see how the fact stands. We were promised that British capital should flow into Ireland. Has this prophecy been realized ? The fact is the other way ; British capital has not come in, and B 26 IRELAND ROBBED BY THE UNION. Irish capital has flowed out. (Hear.) The absentee drain, consequent on the removal of the parliament, is estimated at four millions per annum. The drain of surplus taxes raised in Ireland, and shipped to England, is about a million and a quarter. These two items make a drain of five millions and a quarter per an- num. Average this drain four millions yearly since the Union, and you will have, upon these two items alone, the enormous sum of one hundred and sixty-four millions sterling drained out of Ireland by that execrable measure. There has been also another drain. The mo- ney is taken away ; it cannot settle down into national capital — the affections and sympathies of Ireland’s aristocracy are also weaned away by their residence in England. And what do we get in return for these grinding evils? Nothing — absolutely nothing. I defy any man to point out one single good. Spring Rice paraded a catalogue of alleged benefits ; of these, some were curses — not blessings— for example the food-drain ; and as to any boon the united parliament can give, why, I defy any man to show that it can give anything that an Irish parliament could not have given — (hear, hear) — while, upon the other hand, a resident parliament could do much that an absentee parliament could not possibly effect. Thus the balance of good is wholly on the side of domestic legislation. Before a Unionist can give the Union credit for any beneficial laws (God knows they are few !) conferred on Ireland DECAY OF MANUFACTURES. 27 by the imperial parliament, he is bound, in the first instance, to show me that an Irish parlia- ment would not or could not have enacted such laws. No man can do this. Thus, we had no- thing to gain, and all to lose, by the Union. (Hear, hear.) Let me give a few specimens of the natural results. Prior to the Union, 5,000 persons were comfortly supported by the wool- len trade at Carrick-on-Suir. How many live there now bv the woollen manufacture ? About 1 00 persons derive a precarious support from its lingering relicts. At Rathdrum, in the county of Wicklow, there were 1000 persons supported by the same manufacture. How many are there now ? Not one ! In Cork, before the Union, the woollen trade furnished 2,500 per- sons with constant and remunerative employ- ment. Where is the Cork woollen trade now? Gone ! In Dublin, prior to the Union, there were thirteen master-manufacturers of carpets, employing a large number of persons. Now there is but one — Mr. Sheridan. How truly did John Foster, the last speaker of the Irish parliament, exclaim — “ Where the parliament is, there will the manufacturer be also.” I do asure you> Sir, that the specimens I have given of the decay of trade are not isolsted instances picked out to suit my purpose — I could take you to Kilkenny — ^to Galway — ^to Bandon — from North to South, and from East to West, and furnish you with overwhelming demonstra- tions of the self-same melancholy fact through- out Ireland. Mr. Daunt then alluded to the 28 THE UNION A STIMULANT church-infliction on the Irish people, contend- ing that Repeal would necessarily remove the insulting anomaly of quartering an Anglican establishment on a Catholic people. He then said — There are popular objections to Repeal upon this side of the water, which I feel it my duty to examine. We are stigmatized as sepa- ratists. We are accused of intending separation from the British Crown. I not only deny the charge, hut I retort it. We wish, by obtaining Repeal, to prevent separation — it is the Union- ists who are the real separatists. The Union is pregnant with all the grossest and foulest injustice. Injustice is the most powerful stimu- lant you can give an Irishman to seek separa- tion. The Union gives to England legislative power over Ireland ; and England has abused that power. Is not that a strong stimulant to separate ? (Hear.) Can there be a stronger stimulant to separate, than a constant pressing sense of the marked and invidious disparity between the privileges, the franchises, the ofii- cial and legislative pecuniary expenditure — in short, the whole fiscal and political manage- ment of the two countries ? These are the only causes that could possibly inspire men with a wish for separation ; and I beg to im- press upon you all, that for the continuance of these causes to the present day we may thank the legislative Union. When an Irishman sees four millions per annum exported to Eng- land in absentee rents, would it be miraculous if he should wish to be separate from a country TO SEPARATION. 29 that sucks up his wealth like a sponge ? — When he sees a million and a quarter of Irish surplus revenue annually drained ofP to England, is it not just possible that the desire to get rid of this annual robbery might suggest the desire for separation from the robber ? When he sees every engine of hatred and calumny at work to abridge his scanty privileges, and to blast liis national reputation, is it not natural that a desire to separate from the enemy of his free- dom, and the bitter calumniator of his nation, should animate his mind ? — When he is de- nounced as an alien in the British parliament — when he sees that parliament presenting seve- ral successive majorities, actuated by a rancor- ous spirit and determined hostility to his con- stitutional rights, is it strange if hatred should beget hatred, and inspire the wish for separa- tion? (Great cheering.) Now, these are all the real elements of separation. These, and such like intolerable grievances, are the only real stimulants to separate. (Hear, hear.) I reiterate that all these stimulants can only co- exist with the Union — not one of them could survive the Repeal. We are not separatists ; and therefore it is that we seek the Repeal of the Union — in order to destroy these potent stimulants to separation. England could not rob us if the Union were repealed, because we should then have the exclusive control of our national purse. British hostility could not then affect our franchises, because 500 English gen- tlemen and about 400 lords, who are now em- B 2 30 THE REPEALERS THE BEST LOYALISTS. powered to meddle with our internal concerns, would then lose the privilege of doing us legis- lative mischief ; and as to the foul and brutal calumnies with which the Tories and the so- called Evangelicals” incessantly assail us — why, if we had our parliament in Dublin, they might vituperate, and forge, and falsify till doomsday, without being able to injure us, for we should then have escaped from the control of the class whom alone our revilers are able to influence. Thus, mark it well — the Repeal would take away every stimulant to separation, by removing every prominent and glaring in- justice and grievance inflicted by the Union upon Ireland — and therefore do I feel impelled, by a sentiment of intense devotion to our gra- cious Queen, to struggle for the Repeal, as being a mighty and comprehensive measure of justice due to her subjects in Ireland — the con- cession of which, I repeat once more, would render separation impossible^ by destroying all the stimulants to separate. (Hear.) No! The Unionists are the real separatists. The Repeal- ers are the real friends of the imperial connex- ion. A burning love of Irish legislative inde- pendence is strictly compatible with the utmost fidelity to the throne of Great Britain. In the noble language of our fathers, the Irish Volunteers of 1779? — “We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal — we know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free.” (Tremendous cheering.) I will now take notice of another empty, yet plausible, objection; that THE WAR QUESTION CONSIDERED. 31 is, plausible enough to impose upon blockheads ! It is often said that Repeal would endanger the empire in time of war, as the two parliaments might take opposite views of the policy of war. (Hear, hear.) I assert, on the contrary, and will prove, that Repeal would afford the best security to the empire in time of war. (Hear.) The argument against it is briefly this — a dif- ference might occur between the two parlia- ments respecting a war; therefore, abolish the Irish parliament. There is the argument in its most condensed form. But mark my reply. A precisely similar difference might, as matters now stand, occur between the crown and the British House of Commons; so that, if the argument be good for abolishing the Irish pgir- liament, it is equally as good for abolishing the crown. (Hear, hear.) As the law and consti- tution at this moment stand, the Sovereign has the power of proclaiming war ; while the House of Commons has, at the same time, the power of refusing the supplies. The constitu- tion contemplates the possibility of collision upon this very subject, between the crown and the houses of parliament ; but I ask you whe- ther such collision, although theoretically pos- sible, is not amongst the most improbable things in the world in actual practice? (Hear, hear.) The real fact is, that in the British constitution, as in the solar system, there are repellant prin- ciples, but there also are attractive principles. The sublime economy of the great Author of na^ ture is characterised by this exquisite equipoise, 32 THE WAR QUESTION and the balance of antagonist principles is found in practice to produce the unbroken and magnifi- cent harmony of the whole universe. (Cheers.) But look closer, now, into this notable objection of our adversaries, and let us see what practical mischief could arise. Suppose, now, that a parliament sat in College-green ; suppose, also, that the crown desired to proclaim war against some foreign nation. War is at all times an enormous evil, which every wise statesman, and every good Christian will avoid, so long as it is possible to avoid it. If the existence of two parliaments diminished the chances of war, by opening up a wider field for the discussion of its evils, why, then, I will say, that on that very account alone. Repeal would be a blessing of the very first magnitude. (Hear, hear.) Again, let us suppose that the war were a neces- sary war ; let us suppose it essential to the protection of England. I will ask you, in the name of common sense, what possible motive could an Irish parliament have for withholding its sanction and support from such war ? Self- interest is the magical impulse that guides the actions of men, and would it not be in the highest and most vital degree the interest of Ireland, in the case supposed, to make common cause with Britain ? Bound up with Britain as we should be, by the identity of imperial in- terests, and by the identity of the crown, could England, I will ask, stagger and reel beneath the blow of any foreign nation, and could Ireland at the same time be safe ? (Loud CONSIDERED. 33 cries of hear, hear.) Would not England’s fall be the certain precursor of our own ? The most cogent of all possible motives, then — the motive of self-preservation, would infallibly im- pel us to spend our best treasure and best blood, in driving from our shores the common foe. (Loud cheers.) But let us now suppose the actual occurrence of the dreaded collision between the two parliaments ; let us suppose that the English parliament sanctioned a war which the Irish parliament refused to sustain ; what, I ask, would he the actual amount of the mischief? Just this, and no more ; a certain sum of money would be withheld by the Irish House of Commons from the government. The Irish parliament could not withhold men, if England tempted them with payment, and if the men themselves were willing to enlist. (Hear, hear.) And when we remember the comparative revenues of Ireland and Britain, the amount of the sum thus withheld would be too insignificant to weigh in the scale against the great imperial interests that de- mand Repeal. I have now sifted to the bottom this formidable objection ; I have shown, first, that it is highly improbable the dreaded col- lision between the two parliaments should occur at all ; and secondly, that if it did occur, it could not produce the enormous mischief our opponents anticipate. This, I trust, I have shown. But I undertook to do more. I under- took to show that Repeal is the best, perhaps the only chance that England has of obtaining 34 THE UJflON PERILOUS TO Irish military aid in time of war. (Hear.) I would ask those gentlemen who are afraid^ that in the event of Kepeal Ireland would withhold her military aid from Britain, whether they ever reflect that without any Repeal at all, Ireland has the power of doing precisely the same thing — not, indeed, by a legislative vote, but by an equally eflective popular resolution ? Do these gentlemen know that at this moment recruiting is at a discount in Ireland? Do they know that the recruiting parties get no men? Do they know that my countrymen are resolved to let England fight her battles with- out their assistance, precisely because they feel that England foully wrongs their country by the plunder and oppression consequent upon the execrable Union ? (Hear, hear.) Do these gentlemen reflect that the incentives to Irish- men to withhold their aid from England, are at this moment a thousand times stronger than they could possibly be, if Repeal removed inter- national jealousy, by enabling Irishmen to do that justice to themselves which an English parliament will not, perhaps cannot, grant them? ( Great cheering.) Recollect the Irish military aid is not to be sneered at. One-half your army are Irish. Two-thirds of your navy are Irish. Look about you in time, and ask where will you obtain fresh recruits as the old hands become superannuated. You see that at this moment your boasted Union scarcely en- ables you to get a single man in Ireland. The iron of your injustice has entered into the souls THE IMPERIAL CONNEXION. 35 of the people. They cannot discover why they should peril their lives for the glory of a nation that denies them their natural right of domes- tic legislation. (Hear.) But repeal the Union — restore to Ireland the control of her own resources, and then, if the enemy dares to threaten your shores, oh ! you will command the enthusiastic millions of stout arms and bold hearts, that so often heretofore have borne the proud flag of England triumphant through the red blaze of battle. (Immense cheering.) My solemn conviction is — that if you do not peace- ably repeal the Union now — come it soon, or come it late, a violent and sanguinary separation must at some future time be the result. What inducement does the Union give the people of Ireland to assist Great Britain ? It has given England the power of putting her hand into our purse ; and like all those who get their hands into their neighbours’ purses, she is ab- stracting the contents as fast as she can. Again, the Union makes us feel that England cherishes in her bosom the calumnious vipers of Exeter- Hall, who would sting the character of Irish- men to death if they were able. Are these things inducements to Irishmen to fight Eng- land’s battles for her ? (No ! no ! no !) It may be said, of course, that our own interests would necessarily prompt us to assist Britain. Quite true, provided that you repeal the Union. True, to a great extent, whether you do or not. But let our statesmen remember that a corroding sense of wrong has often merged even the in- 36 THE SCOTTISH UNION stinct of self-preservation in the desire to pun- ish the insolent oppressor. It is human nature, from the days of Sampson downwards. (Great cheering.) I point out these dangers, not (God forbid) with a desire to accelerate their reali- zation, but for the purpose of averting them by the only solid lasting bond of the imperial connexion — namely, justice to Ireland, in an Irish parliament. I now, Sir, approach another topic, on which I understand a wish exists that I should address you. The Scottish Union has been advanced as an argument in favour of the Irish Union. There never was more prepos- terous logic. Pardon me — bear with me, my friends, if I give utterance to the feelings with which my visit to Scotland has impressed me. My foot never pressed your shores until last Tuesday, and I never felt more thoroughly at home in my life than I do in Auld Reekie. (Hear and cheers.) For Scotland I cherish a filial sentiment — there flows a warm current of old Scottish blood through my veins — I claim with pride a maternal descent from some of the proudest of your ancient Scottish chivalry — your Crawfords and your Hamiltons — I want words to describe the thrilling sentiments with which I rushed to explore the far-famed wonders of your noble old city, consecrated as every portion of it is with the deep historical associations of Scotland’s ancient glories. (Im- mense cheering.) Yes, may God bless old Scotland — ^for myself I can but say, that if I were not an Irishman, I should desire of all CONSIDERED. 37 nations on the earth to he a Scotchman. (Con- tinued cheers.) Now for your Union. We sometimes hear it said — Scotland has prospered immensely by her Union with England, there- fore Ireland ought to be satisfied with her own Union. This is something like telling Paddy he ought to be content to do without his dinner, because Sawny has got something to eat. I see not the force of this logic. (Laughter.) We, the Irish people, demonstrate by the most ir- resistible facts and conclusions, that the Irish Union has been a source of grinding and un- mitigated evil to Ireland. We defy — we chal- lenge contradiction. In the name of common sense, then, what sort of brains can people have, who allege the prosperity of Scotland as a rea- son why Irishmen should rest contented with grinding and unmitigated evil ? Was there ever a more perfect non-sequitur ? But hearken — perhaps I entertain a doubt or two that the Scotch Union did you all the good that is ascribed to it by some folks. Your country has greatly improved since the Union of 1707* I know it : I know that your trade has in- creased four-fold, eight-fold, ten-fold ; I know that fertility covers tracts which were formerly unproductive wastes : I know all this. But allow me to doubt that all this is attributable to the Union. (Hear, hear.) A century and more has passed since then. Is nothing to be ascribed to the industry and energy of Scotch- men during that long period ? Would Scot- land alone have remained stationary, whilst the c 38 THE SCOTTISH UNION other nations were careering* along in the race of improvement ? Scotsmen — what is the cha- racter of you people — what the capacity of your country ? Are you not a brave, a saga- cious, a hardy, an intellectual, - a persevering people ? Is not your country possessed of great natural advantages — ^has she not mines and fisheries — are there not, in the Lowlands especially, extensive tracts well adapted for agriculture ? Would such a people, inhabiting such a country — would their great physical and mental endowments, and the natural capa- cities of Scotland, all have run to waste, if a Scottish parliament had continued to sit in Edinburgh, managing your national interests ? Is there such a magical benefit in the extinction of parliaments — in the abolition of self-legis- lation — ^that the royal recipe for national pros- perity is to extinguish the power of the nation to make its own laws ? (Hear.) You, too, in Scotland, have a large amount of absenteeism to complain of — you have, according to Sir John Sinclair, an annual drain of four millions to pay in taxes to the English treasury. Think not that I am ignorant your Union Act gua- ranteed to you free trade. But do I not forget that we in Ireland worked out free trade for ourselves without any Union at all. (Hear, hear.) I know not why Scotchmen might not have achieved for themselves the same benefit, even though their parliament had remained in Edinburgh. This I know, it was the Irish parliament that battled out free trade for us in CONSIDERED. 39 Ireland, long before the Union was thought of. (Loud cheering.) The man who claims for the Scotch Union the merit of free trade for Scotland, is bound to shew me that the Scotch could not have acquired free trade, as the Irish did, without any Union at all. Oh ! but they got it some fifty years sooner ! Yes, they did, upon parchment! Look at your history, and it will tell you that so unpopular was the Scotch Union, that its unpopularity extended even to the boon which it contained ; and nearly half a century elapsed ere the Scotch in general began to avail themselves of the commercial benefits unfolded by the Union. (Hear.) And, after all, compare the advance made by Ireland, while the latter country had her parliament. Pitt’s tool, Dundas, in a speech recommendatory of the Irish Union, said, “ Oh, look at the com- mercial blessings conferred upon Scotland by the Union! From 1707 to 1796, her linen trade has increased in the proportion of 23 to 1.” “ Aye,” replied John Foster, the speaker of the Irish parliament, ‘‘but has the Irish linen trade been idle in that period? From 17 07 to 1796, the Irish linen trade has increased in the proportion of 88 to 1.” (He^r, hear.) Thus you see, my Scottish friends, that the staple manufacture of Ireland increased beneath a native legislature four-fold in amount beyond the increase of the Scottish linen trade for the same period, without a Scottish parliament. (Hear.) Ah ! I have great and incurable doubts of the benefit resulting from these legislative 40 THE SCOTTISH UNION. Unions. (Hear, hear.) I strongly suspect that a good large portion of your prosperity exists rather in spite of your Union, than in conse- quence of it. But this I distinctly admit, that your Union has not proved such a bitter afflic- tion to Scotland as ours has proved to Ireland. Several mitigating circumstances operated, which I have not now time to particularize. One only I will mention. Scotland does not pay tithes to the church of a small minority of the Scottish people. But do you thank the Union for that ? No, truly, but your ain gude claymores. (Immense cheering.) I have been asked since I came here, what effect the Repeal of the Irish Union would have upon Great Britain. I reply — the best possible effect in cementing the imperial con- nexion of the empire. No human wisdom can foresee at what juncture of political convul- sions throughout Europe, foreign myriads may assail the British empire. Provide against the evil day — secure the devoted assistance of Ire- land, by the only means whereby you best can reckon on it — namely, by conceding to Ireland her full natural right of making her own laws to regulate her own concerns. When we w’on the independence of our parliament in 1782, what was our very first act? We voted £200,000 sterling to raise seamen for the British navy. So much more productive,” said Grattan, “are the wild, free offerings of liberty, than the squeezings, the eviscerations of power.” Then, how would the Repeal REPEAL BENEFICIAL TO BRITAIN. 41 afFect your commerce ? Favourably — favoura- bly beyond question. Why ? Because it would make Ireland rich. The richer your neighbour is, the better customer you will find him for your market. (Hear, hear.) I ask any Scotch merchant or shopkeeper who may hear me, whether he would prefer that his neighbours were paupers or people of wealth ? From which of the two classes would he derive the most beneficial custom ? And mark, the en- richment of Ireland by Repeal, would not arise from the abstraction out of Britain, of any wealth that Britain honestly enjoys. It would arise from the developement, by an Irish Parlia- ment, of the vast national and natural resources of Ireland herself. While the American States were provincial to England, they only took from England between two and three mil- lions worth of manufactured goods annually — whereas the very first year of American inde- pendence, America took from England thirteen millions worth of her manufactured goods. (Hear, hear.) The poverty entailed upon Ire- land by the Union has sent among you countless thousands of my own poor countrymen to lower the price of labour in the British market. The wages of the working man are grievously pulled down. Finally, permit me to say, that whatever is morally wrong, cannot be politically right. And there never was a fouler complication of all crime and all disaster than that which has attended the concoction, the achievement, and the practical results of the Union to Ireland. 42 MODE OF ORGANIZATION. I have now thrown feebly and faintly before you the leading motives which make the people of Ireland Repealers. Scotsmen, if you be lovers of justice — if you be zealous for imperial security and strength, turn them over in your sagacious minds — they are not unworthy of your deep consideration. Irishmen in Scotland, it now becomes my duty to apprize you of the machinery whereby your co-operation will he rendered effective. Mr. Daniel, one of our Repeal Wardens, as ardent a Repealer and as honest an Irishman as any in existence, has arrived here from Dublin, for the purpose of organising the districts in Edinburgh on the Dublin model. O’Connell has a thousand times declared, that with three million of shilling contributors to the funds of the Repeal Asso- ciation, the triumph of the question is certain ; its success depends upon our co-operation. Think you not that the moral weight attached to the enrolment of three millions of Repealers would give an irresistible momentum to our cause ? Know you not the enormous influence which three millions of shillings, £150,000 sterling, must confer upon any political society possessing such a well-stocked treasury ? What vast facilities the possession of that sum would afford us of difiusing our principles through every quarter of the empire ? — of availing our- selves of every legal and constitutional mode that our beloved and illustrious leader, O’Con- nelll, can so ably point out ? Oh ! but there be those who doubt, or who affect to doubt. MEANS OF SUCCESS. 43 our success ; they look only at the magnitude of the question, they forget that co-operation among the Repealers will give us means of commensurate magnitude to carry it — but what do I say to the doubters ? Why this, if you think Repeal in itself a good measure, your doubts don’t exonerate you from the obligation of contributing your aid ; you are not such a pauper that a shilling in the year, a farthing in the week, will break you outright ; if we fail you are only a shilling per annum the worse ; but if we succeed, oh ! what a glorious purchase will your shilling have made, the restoration of old Ireland’s legislature and prosperity — (loud acclamation) — and succeed we will. (Hear.) We occupy the impregnable position of justice, righteousness, and truth ; our hearts are bold and ardent, our energies untiring, indefatigable. Our leader’s name is an omen of triumph — the confidence of Ireland reposes in his long-tried sagacity and unswerving integrity — the hearts of Irishmen overflow with affection for the man whom God seems expressly to have called into existence, to lead them on to peaceful moral victory. (Tumultuous cheering.) Rally, then, for Ireland — rally for the recovery of those natural, indefeasible rights which were snatched from us in the moment of our weakness — rally for the Repeal in the name of the God of all justice and truth, and with his blessing, the oldest man amongst us may hope, ere he descends to the grave, to see the blasting 44 MEANS OF SUCCESS. withering Union trampled in the dust be- neath our feet. Sir, I now move the resolu- tion. (Mr. Daunt sat down long and vehement- ly cheered.) Browne, Printer, 36, Nassau-street, Dublin. ^^."■' 'iViO'.Oii :-* -'I |i/? ieiriy ojK> m b^^lgmisi:? a-nnli y-. rv. U v' Ksyhi;ot Off? sv'om won I ^ ilP ,i{vi^ i “JiK>nii»f{oY bnj(i guol nyrob jns .hwa^, ,^T.' ;'j ' - ^ ( h^'W-Kh ■ J " } OPENING OF THE CONCILIATION HALL, ON MONDAY, 23rd OCTOBER, 1843. SPEECH OF JOHN AUGUSTUS O’NEILL, OF BUNOWEN CASTLE, ESQ., FIRST CHAIRMAN, LATE J. P. (resigned) FOR THE COUNTY OF GALWAY, AND FORMERLY M.P. FOR HULL, YORKSHIRE. (A corrected Copy from the Freeman’s Joarnal.) DUBLIN: PRINTED BY J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-ST. BY ORDER OF THE LOYAL NATIONAL REPEAL ASSOCIATION. 1843. Nearly 5000 persons were present on this occasion, and by an unanimous vote of the Association Mr. O’Neill was requested to select the best report of his Address, and (if necessary) correct it for publication in this form. It is but justice to the Reporter of the Freemans Journal y to state, that his full and excellent Report re- quired very trifling correction. SPEECH OF JOHN AUGUSTUS O’NEILL, ESU., AT THE OPENING OF THE CONCILIATION HALL, On Monday f October 23 , 1843 . The Chairman, on taking the chair, said — My friends, there is a cordiality of feeling arising out of the cause we have all embarked in, which leads me to dispense with the ordi- nary form of addressing you, and enables me to greet you as friends. (Cheers.) The pressure from without has hut united us more closely. I have accepted, with gratitude, the honour you have conferred on me in electing me your first President in the temple of the consti- tution, for here its bloodless battle must be fought. (Loud cheers.) Those who did me the honour of asking me to take the chair, are aware that I expressed great reluctance to accept it, from a conviction that I could not do justice to the importance of the sta- 4 tion, and from well knowing the difficulty of connecting all the subjects that bear on the great question of Repeal. There is one portion, however, of my duty which I can perform with ease, and which I do with pleasure. I bid you, from my soul, welcome to Conciliation Hall. (Loud cheering.) It is, however, in vain we shall endeavour to conciliate those who are opposed to us, unless the words in which we express our feelings of conciliation be faithfully and fully reported by those who are opposed to us, as well as by that portion of the press which is on our side. I address myself to the reporters, without mean- ing to cast any reflection upon the press ; an instance of individual incorrectness cannot shake our confidence and respect for the press of the British empire. I particularly address myself to papers professing neutrality y and I ask them, be my observations of considerable or little moment in their opinion, no matter how they regard them, to let them go unaltered before the public. I should not make this request, did I not observe that they were extremely indulgent to anonymous writers. I find in a morning paper a letter misrepre- senting Ireland, that would spread over three columns ordinary newspaper press, signed “ Philalethes,” and I regretted to perceive that expressions which, as chairman of the last meeting,^ I made use of, and which were likely * Mr. O’Neill, on the day after the Arrests, went to 5 to conciliate my Protestant fellow-countrymen, a portion of this nation whose opinions I shall ever regard with the deepest respect, were either perverted or omitted in these channels. They were but the words of an humble indi- vidual, yet they bore out the feeling of every man that heard me on the occasion. One of those expressions was, that no earthly con- sideration should induce me to embark in the cause of Repeal, if I thought it would be pro- ductive of injury to any class of men on account of their religion ; and it is not fair to suppress such an expression from a man hold- ing the situation I did on that day — the repre- sentative of the people of Ireland for the time being. (Hear, hear.) Another of these ex- pressions was, (and it, together with all my remarks to the same effect, was enthusiastically cheered by the Association,) that I and every man in that Association would support with our lives and property the present Protestant succession, as by law established. (Cheers.) Those declarations coming from so humble a person as I am, could be of no weight, but the chair which I filled gave value to them. I find in the morning paper I allude to, a very long letter with regard to Ireland — able as far as language ; incorrect as to facts. It began with a mis-statement of fact, and it the Corn Exchange, and volunteered to take the chair, to which he was voted by acclamation. — He stated that it was the first time he ever attended a political meeting. A 2 6 terminates with a profession of attachment to veracity. The profession is made in Greek — it is signed “ Philalethes,” a lover of truth, hut the English does not bear out the Greek. (Loud cheers.) I shall make no reflection on the gentleman who wrote that letter. I only regret that he did not remain longer amongst us, and that he did not look further than the surface. (Hear, hear.) When papers admit such long letters, misrepresenting Ireland, they ought to give full reports of what is uttered by her defenders. Allow me to refer to an article in another paper, for it is right that your Chairman should place himself in a proper position before you and the public. It is an article in the Even- ing Mail. The editor has selected for publica- tion a paragraph from an English paper I feel it necessary to comment on. It is not so much on my own account that I notice it, but that it shows the utter hopelessness of con- ciliating some of those that are opposed to us, by whom our efforts at conciliation are called cowardice. When we use strong expressions we are called bullies and ruffians — when we are courteous, we are called cowards. This article is written by an Englishman, or at least by a person supposed to be English, for some of the English newspapers, and finds its way back through the opposition press. On last Monday when I took the chair, the whole of my object was to carry out, as far as I could, the great principles that have actuated the 1 Liberator and every lover of Ireland — obedi- ence to the law, and conciliation — in that spirit I came and spoke. I utterly disregard what the writer says with regard to my using sedi- tious language; my speech is before the public, and I defy any man to point out one seditious passage. When I am guilty of sedition, the law officers of the crown will not appeal to this English gentleman for advice. (Hear, hear.) It is morally impossible for me to speak sedi- tion, it has no place in my heart, though I may be accused, and so may any man. At my inter- cession the Liberator gave up the word Saxon, which had offended many persons, and my de- parted wife’s family being English, I had an opportunity of knowing English feelings. With the Liberator’s usual kindness, he granted my request publicly. My first essay in conciliation was to get rid of that offensive term, and what is my reward? — An anonymous Englishman, after I solicited my friend to give up a phrase that offended his nation, calls me a dog — he has no better name for an Irish patriot than a dog. I forgive him. Men who write anony- mously are not to be much noticed. I will not retaliate bad language, but I will point it out to this meeting, and I call upon the gentle- men of the press, deliberately and advisedly, not to curtail a sentence of what I say. I res- pect, but I do not fear the press. I call on the gentlemen of the press to notice well, that it is of little avail, provided an Irish gentleman dare entertain any opinion^of his own different 8 from an English political opponent, in what language he may express that opinion, he is met with gross abuse. My utmost crime was, that I dared to entertain an opinion that Repeal was a good measure for the empire at large. After balancing for ten years I came to that resolution, and. I am misrepresented from be- ginning to end of my speech at the Exchange, by that English writer ; it is important I should dwell upon this subject, for I know that amongst the persons I associate with, there are individuals who make harsh observations on my old class-fellow in Trinity College, Mr. Steele, and on others, for using severe language. I have known him for many years, and I know that a milder or better-hearted man, or better tempered man, never existed ; but I know well, from my own feelings now, in the commence- ment of my political career in Ireland, how a man may be goaded into forgetting himself, and into using strong and harsh expressions, by insults and gross imputations. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Who commenced it with me ? Englishmen commenced it — ^they gave battle, and assailed an humble individual for exercising his judgment ; and they not only call me a dog, but they worst description of dog — a corrupt dog ; but they do not put their names to this attack. They say I sold myself to the Associ- ation, and that I mean to take a stipend from them. If I had, as my friend had done, sacri- ficed my whole property to the public service, I should not be ashamed to become a pensioner 9 on public gratitude. But such a thing can never occur. I do not desire to go further than the gentleman who edits the Mail, (but I can appeal to any gentleman in Dublin,) and I will stake my existence, that he will not affix his name .to, or put that article in as an editorial article. I hope he values truth too much, and though I don’t want him to contra- dict the article, I defy the Editor of the Mail to say that John Augustus O’Neill would sell himself to any party. (Cheers.) With regard to insults offered to those with whom I act, it is right I should delay you to refer to them, before I enter upon the business of the day. There is not one of you who now hears me that is not branded as a coward ; and for what ? For obeying the law of the land, and a higher law — the law of God« You abstained from attending the Clontarf meeting, not from fear, but in obedience to the law, which you respect, and to the instructions received from the man you love, and the clergymen you venerate, and from veneration for the mandate of the Almighty, which forbids violence, (cries of hear, hear.) But I will not, humble individual as I am, let it be said that my countrymen were intimidated by soldiers. 30,000 sol- diers — note my words, I will stand by them when and where you please — may be sufficient, or more than sufficient, to put down mere rebels, if such there be, in Ireland, but one hundred thousand men will not be sufficient to silence the cry for Repeal, (cheers.) I am not sorry a3 10 to see the British soldiers ; we have a friendly welcome for them, and respect them when they do their duty temperately. I have to call your attention to the fact, that some are so weak as to fancy they owe their security to soldiers, and they estrange themselves from this movement, not for want of patriotism, but because they have got it into their heads that it is a religious question. Every thing is tortured into a religi- ous question, to the ruin of our country. I call upon you to make a demonstration to Pro- testants, and to join with me in saying, with a cheer, that an act of oppression shall never be done by a Catholic to his Protestant fellow- countryman. (Here the Liberator rose, took off his hat, and the whole Association rose, and the cheering and waiving of handkerchiefs continued some minutes.) Mr. O’CoNNEiiL — We never did, and never will. (Cheers.) This is our first act in Conciliation Hall — The people of Ireland have watched with much anxiety the progress of this building, and it is due to the contractor to state, that all which assiduity the most unwearied, thorough knowledge of his profession, and devoted interest in our cause, could achieve in getting up this building, has been done by Mr. Martin and his assistants. (Cheers.) There is yet one deficiency, that is, the want of the decorative part. Our labours are also unfinished ; we want the ornamental part too — we want the Aristocracy, but, like 11 the ornament of the building, the aristo- carcy will never come to the people until the rough work is done, and then they will glide in, and take easy possession of the very best places. But the building can do without ornament, as you see it to-day in its rough state, and the people can dispense with the aristocracy. Nevertheless, it will give us great gratification to see both in their proper places. There is an aristocracy we could not dispense with — an aristocracy before which prince and peasant bow with equal reverence. Woman is with us. (Loud cheers.) Woman, who restrains our rashness, soothes our sor- rows, and cheers our hopes. (Cheers.) The patriotic ladies of Ireland at least are with us, and I hail their presence here to day as a bright and beautiful omen of future success. (Cheers.) They were not Irishmen who passed the Salique law, excluding female succession to the throne. It is very well for us that we are now under female dominion. No man repines at being under a Queen ; so, with every respect for the Duke of Cumberland, and the rest of the royal family, long live the Queen. (Loud cheers.) I have spoken with a kindly feeling of the aristocracy, and I sincerely hope the name of this Hall will have some charms for them. The Irish aristocracy have served no less than six apprenticeships to conciliation. For 43 years they have been waving the olive branch to the British parliament, and in vain. 12 (Hear, hear.) It is now almost leafless ; I hope they will turn their eyes to their native land, and plant it there. We offer it a place in the national conservatory ; there it shall be fostered with affectionate respect, however late it comes. We must make great allowances for the aristocracy, even though they should yet abstain from joining us, for they have many prejudices to surmount before, they can reconcile themselves to our views ; it is not to be expected that prejudices which were accumulating for years, should be got rid of in the course of a few -months. (Hear, hear.) We must undermine their prejudices temper- ately, in fact, we must disarm the aristocracy. That is an unpleasant word in these times ; but when I use it, I do not use it in reference to weapons of the flesh. We must disarm them of suspicions as unw’orthy of themselves as they are dishonouring and undeserved in regard to us. We will “disarm” them of these prejudices without introducing any act of parliament,^ and will “ register” them as patriots without “ branding” them for the errors of the past. (Loud cheers.) The struggles of a nation for a good system of government are always laborious, but seldom ineffectual. I can cite the words of a very high authority to inspirit you to perseverance and energy in your great struggle. I can * A bill recently passed which is almost a bill to dis- arm the Irish, its provisions give so much trouble and present so many difficulties, as arms to be branded, &c. 13 quote one who united in his own person two characters which are not always found com- hined^ namely, those of a patriot and a prime minister of the crowm— I allude to Charles James Fox, who, w^hen the subject under de- bate, was the alleged impossibility of carrying the question of Catholic emancipation, because it w^as knowm that the sovereign was opposed to it, expressed himself in the following lan- guage : — “ I cannot then allow this objection to have any force ; nor can I at all go into the idea, that because there is no prospect of carry- ing a measure, it is not on that account to be proposed. If such a principle as that had been acted upon, then not onQ of those measures, the beneficial effects of which we feel this day — not one of those acts which have illustrated and se- cured our liberties — would have been carried ; for surely, sir, it is needless to impress on your attention, and the attention of the house, that almost every great constitutional measure has been carried through parliament only after severe and successive exertions.” That was the opinion of a great statesman, and is ex- ceedingly applicable to your present political position; for we know that one of the greatest difficulties alleged to exist against Repeal is said to be comprised in this fact, that some per- sons in high places have made up their minds not to grant it. Now, mark the words of the emi- nent statesman to whom L have already alluded shall ever be the first man to support his Majesty’s lawful authority, but I will not suffgr 14 the name of that authority to be improperly or indecently introduced, to prevent full and fair discussion on a subject the most interesting that could be submitted to the consideration of parliament. He who would advise the king to do an act contrary to his coronation oath, must be a traitor ; but those who, on a subject of this sort, attempt to poison the royal ear, and by false representations create impressions unfavourable to the Catholic claims, flatter the sovereign only to betray him.” The cause which Fox was pleading at the time was then opposed by the government of the day, and by the reigning monarch ; yet that measure sub- sequently received the. support of government, and the royal assent. There can be no doubt whatever of this fact, that neither Whig nor Tory are favour- ably disposed towards Repeal ; but you must permit me to speak well of my old friends and associates, and I have no hesitation in declaring, that if a great public . measure is to be granted, it will be probably granted more nobly, and with better grace by the Tories than by the Whigs. (Cheers.) I never will turn on those men with whom I acted, and voted for years, and many of whom, however widely they may, by prejudice, be led astray from the path of liberty, I know to be as honest and as disinterested as any members of the Repeal Association can possibly be. ( Hear, hear.) But we who compose that society are not associated together to unseat Tories 15 or establish Whigs in political power. (Hear.) A very distinguished civilian has declared that Rome lost her liberties by striking at men, not at measures. We should take warning from the fate -of Rome, and take care that it is at measures we strike. Keeping this maxim studiously in view, let us persevere unremit- tingly in promoting our glorious cause. Only violence and illegality can possibly destroy what is based on justice and on truth. If we reject all agencies unworthy of ourselves, and of a cause so just as that in which we have embarked our fortunes and our hopes, success is certain, though not immediate, (Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The obstacles now opposed to us will ultimately give way before prayer to Him, who is sure in the end to dispense justice to nations as well as to individuals — ^before firm and temperate remonstrance to our fellow- beings, and, above all, before unanimity and perseverance amongst Repealers themselves. Nothing can be more irrational, than to ex- pect that the people should always agree with the cabinet. A reference to the history of the political world for the last fifty years, fully warrants this assertion. Cabinets do not agree with one another, and why should it be ex- pected that the people can agree with them. The first thing that every administration does on getting into power, is to declare solemnly that if they had not come into office, the pre- ceding cabinet would have ruined the country. The first four or five months of every admi- 16 Til strati on are invariably consumed in abusing' the last, and in. congratulating the country on the escape it has had from the destructive policy of their predecessors. (Cheers and laughter.) Cabinets very frequently do not agree amongst themselves, much less agree one with the other, and why then should they be surprised, if their proceedings do not always find favour in the eyes of the people. What would be the consequence if the people were to change their opinions as frequently as the cabinet ? But grant it that two cabinets, Whig and Tory, are equally averse to Repeal — what then ? . Is that the reason why the people should desist from their noble struggles to ob- tain a domestic legislature ? Surely not. I have known members of cabinets differ amongst themselves and from themselves. I have known ministers hold one opinion to-day, and another to-morrow.’ (Hear, hear.) That distinguished man, the Duke of Wellington, for instance, in the year 1819? was of opinion, that if Catholic emancipation were granted, the next step .on the part of the Catholics would be, to demand the restoration of all the forfeited lands. Now I happen to be one of the' landed Catholic gentry, and* I can trace from father to son my claim to forfeited property to the amount of fully one hundred thousand pounds per an- num, in the county Kilkenny, in the Queen’s County, and county of Westmeath. I, and men similarly situated, scornfully repudiate any such intention, and I think that we are 17 better authorities than the Duke of Wel- lington upon that point. Before a man could hope to obtain the lands his ancestors were deprived of so long ago, he must make up his mind to become a robber and a mur- derer. I do not mention the fact of my being a lineal descendant of a chieftain dispossessed, as an idle boast, but merely to show that I am one of the class against which the Duke of Wellington made so strong a charge, and I emphatically repudiate the intention which alarmed the noble Duke. Repeal is also ob- jected to under this unfounded fear. I had a seat in the House of Commons in the years 1827 and 1828, and I heard Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn make what I considered two convincing speeches against Catholic emancipation in 1827. My much respected friend, the Chief Justice, who at that time was solicitor-general, made a power- ful speech in favour of Catholic emancipa- tion ; but Sir Robert Peel’s speech appear- ing to me at the time to be the most con- vincing, I and other members voted with the ministers against emancipation. We did so to little purpose, for next year Sir Robert Peel came down to the house, took up the Chief Justice’s speech, delivered it over again for himself, with some additions, and actually brought in the very measure which twelve months before he repudiated and denounced — (cries of hear) — and I opposed the minister, and voted to the last against the government 18 and the bill. 1 do not mention this change of ■ opinion as a reproach to ministers. I know it was a conscientious act, and does honor to the men who had the moral courage to per- form it. Having shown that it is impossible for a nation to change with the opinions of minis- ters and cabinets, ' I shall now show you that it is equally impossible for a country to be always of the same opinion with the sove- reign. It is a fiction of law to say that kings can do no wrong. The history of na- tions affords ample evidence to show that kings have done wrong, and have paid fearful penal- ties for their transgressions. I am not alluding to present times ; my object is to show you that you ought not to be disheartened at op- position, come from what quarter it may. Not long since it was debated by ministers, whether a king would be guilty of perjury in signing the Catholic Emancipation bill — and there was much discrepancy of opinion on the point. One ministry said it would be perjury — another ministry said it would not, and made the king sign it. Both could not be right, though both might be conscientious. When we see that on one of the greatest questions there was such vast difference of opinion amongst men in high places, we should not despair, even though we may find that an equally strong opinion prevails against us on the subject of Repeal (hear). W^e have a right to expect every thing liberal, beneficent, and amiable, from a Sovereign 19 brought up as our Queen has been under the tutelage of so just-minded a personage as the Duchess of Kent, (cheers.) The Queen ha- ving been educated under the Duchess of Kent, leads us to hope for a maternal government. Ministers recommended to her Majesty’s con- sideration, the opinions of some of her royal uncles. The opinions of King William were selected as good and sound opinions by which to regulate the royal conduct. King William was an amiable prince ; but her Majesty had other relatives, whose opinions respecting Ire- land it was imperatively essential should be impressed upon the royal mind, [hear.] For instance, the Duke of Sussex, than whom there never existed a more liberal-minded man, nor a sincerer friend to Ireland, [hear, hear.] Nor was he the only member of the royal family who looked with a friendly eye upon this country. Would that my words could reach the royal ear ! It is my object to direct at- tention to the fact that amongst the members of the royal family, Ireland had some sincere and honest-hearted friends. I allude, in par- ticular, to one illustrious member of the royal family, and as what I am about to say in respect to him is of importance, I should be glad that the government reporter, if there be such a gentleman present, should take down my w'ords. Mr. O’Connell — There is a gentleman con- nected with Mr. Gurney’s establishment pre- sent. 20 The Chairman continued — Suppose that let- ters were in existence, and could now he pro- duced in Dublin, showing the deep interest that a certain member of the royal family felt in the cause of Ireland, even to the extent of desiring at a very critical moment to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant here, and expressing his deep regret that any unjust prejudices should be entertained by any of the Loyal family against the Irish people, towards whom, he himself entertained sentiments of affection, confidence, and regard — if, I re- peat, such documents be in existence, I think that a knowledge of that fact should reach the royal ear (hear, hear). The illustrious personage to whom I am alluding, and who endeavoured to stand between Ireland and oppression, was no other than the Duke of Kent (hear, hear, and cheers) ; I hope that the government will do me the favor of in- quiring whether I have it in my power to prove my assertion. I now distinctly declare that there are at present in Dublin, in the hand- writing of the Queen’s father, letters breathing a spirit of the deepest attachment towards Ire- land, and affectionately commiserating the con- dition of the Irish people (hear, hear, and loud cheers). If the opinions of King William were of such value as to have been submitted for the adoption of her Majesty, I hold it to be the solemn and imperative duty of the ministry to lay before the crown the opinions of the Sovereign’s Father. His Royal Highness was 21 most anxious to govern Ireland himself as Lord Lieutenant (cheers, and cries of hear, hear). The letters are in the hands of an honest, worthy Tory of the old school, and I say here that there was an offer made to bring those letters under the consideration of her Majesty, at a moment when a reverse of fortune affected the family of the Duke of Kent’s intimate friend, and that a Whig minister of the crown declined doing it (hear, hear). I hope I shall be called on to prove my assertion. Now what use do I wish to make of mentioning these documents ? I make the statement at a time when the people of Ireland are under the im- pression that they have received a grievous — I will not use a stronger expression — a grievous insult, and it is at such a time that I bring under your consideration the fact that the il- lustrious personage who fills the throne, has a hereditary claim to all our loyalty [cheers]. Now is the time for Irishmen to show, while they are smarting under such a harsh act, that nothing can swerve them from the feel- ing of loyalty which the Liberator and all loyal Repealers have so long inculcated in their bosoms (hear, and cheers). Our opponents are extremely anxious to know our plans. We might answer them in the v/ords of Edmund Burke, “ Times, occa- sions, and provocations will teach their own lesson.” But we have no secrets to conceal ; our acts are open, and we shall be happy to give all who wish to join us an opportunity of knowing what are our plans ; we will eyen give converts a place on our committee, where they can get behind the curtain if they think we have any thing going forward that will not bear the light* It is rather a trial of patience for them to say to us that we have lost nothing by the Union. It is very hard to deal with men by argument, who boldly assert that by losing two-thirds of our legislature we have lost nothing at all ; (hear, hear,) and even if we did, they say, you cannot convince the government and thirty thousand troops.” That is a great mistake. You can convince a govern- ment of rational and well-meaning men, and I am one of those who think that the present Lord Lieutenant is a rational and well-mean- ing man, notwithstanding the act of the other day, which probably was not his own. You can convince such a government by the moral force of public opinion, and as for the thirty thousand soldiers, we will tire them out by giving them nothing to do ; we will do more, we will convert any angry feeling which persons, evil disposed, might be endeavouring to inculcate amongst them towards us, into a feeling of a different nature ; we will win the respect of the soldiery by our obedience to the laws. We do not seek to tamper with the military, as it is not our principle that any man should swerve from his allegiance to join Repeal, for Repeal has in it the principle of allegiance. (Loud cheers.) r 23 I said that they tried our patience, who told us that we lost nothing*, because, say they, your constitution was defective, I am bound to show you how they^ err. They say we lost a defective constitution, and that that was not a loss. It was not the constitution but the legis- lative code which was defective, and they took away the constitution which gave us the means of reforming the code. What have they given to us in exchange for two working thirds of the constitution ? They have given to eight mil- lions of people a representation, including both Lords and Commons, of 137. They have given us — I can scarcely call it a per-centage on voters — they have given us ^ per cent, on the rural population, or one vote out of every 400 persons, while the franchise is possessed by 25 per cent, in England. They have an aggre- gate when they come to vote against Ireland of 1061 against 137. They call that a consti- tution : but do they know what a constitution is ? It is a form of government adopted by an intelligent free people, having due regard to the precepts of God and the rights of man. Have we that sort of constitution? (Hear, hear.) Have we not always been obliged to give up a right, in order to get rid of a deep grievance ? Unbind the Catholic — destroy the franchise ; make tithe less plundering — bring in a coercion bill — ease the pressure of the poor law job — bring in an arms’ bill — a good measure is surely followed by a bad one — barter, always barter. Now, the sort of con- 24 stitution under which a nation is happiest, is that in which liberty may be said to be univer- sal — not merely for the aristocracy. It is not a contradiction to call liberty restrictive and universal, as it means that all are to share and none to encroach. (Hear, hear.) Was the Union no encroachment ? It was ; and it re- sembled that which is spoken of in the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy : Cursed is he who removeth his neighbour’s landmark.” The landmark of a nation is a constitution, and that was taken from us by the Union. We will not curse those who deprived us of ours, but pray that their hearts may be turned. ( Cheers.) The ablest civilians and writers have laid down as a rule, that the summum jus, or highest right, is in the people. There is no appeal from the people, but there is an ap- peal from parliament to common law. Lord Coke uses the strong expression, ‘‘ proxies cannot make proxies” — therefore the Irish parliament had no right whatever to appoint any other persons to make laws for Ireland, This is borne out by the historical fact, that in the time of King Richard II. an attempt was made both by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to delegate their duty to a portion of their own bodies, but the people were indignant, and the very next parliament pronounced every such act illegal, and repealed every act done by that proxy parliament. (Hear, hear.) Junius, who 25 is a very high authority, speaking of par- liament, says, “ They are trustees — the fee is in us. They cannot waste — they cannot alienate — they cannot destroy.” (Hear, hear.) No civilian who has written on the subject, anticipated an atrocity parallel to that which was perpetrated when men, called gentlemen, sold the Irish parliament. (Hear, hear.) But there are two sorts of sales — fair and fraudulent, and I need not trouble you with a long detail, every man now admits that the sale of the Irish parliament was a fraudulent sale. (Hear.) That is the second view I have taken of the Union, The third view is a mean one — the money view. Has Ireland compounded a felony? (Hear, hear.) Are the wages of corruption paid up ? Are the chains gilt, and is the slave fatter ? Come with me and examine the slave’s condition, and try if it pleases you. You have, no doubt, compared the deserted state of your streets with their appearance in former times. (Hear, hear.) You have now your best houses unlet — you have industry paralyzed — you have hands in multitudes unemployed — you have agricultural produce sold at unremunerating prices — you have manufactures destroyed and commerce annihilated — but you have a large stock of prosperity pamphlets — you have abundance of gentlemen who undertake to tell you that Ire- land is extremely prosperous ; the Poor Law Commissioners differ from them, and say that there are two millions of paupers in Ireland. B 26 Nothing grieves me more than when I hear a class that I particularly respect, and many of that class I, no doubt, now address — namely, the shopkeepers of Dublin — upholding the doctrine, that the Repeal agitation has im- poverished Ireland ; I speak now of the Unionists of that body. There never was a more egregious mistake. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) They say it is a want of capital that is destroying the country, and that the Repeal agitation keeps English capital from flowing in upon us. I deny it. I say to those Dublin shopkeepers, it is want of union and of patriot- ism keeps capital out of Ireland. (Hear.) I know England better than most of them, and I know that an English shopkeeper, who could purchase half a street of shops here, only thinks he is beginning business, when Irishmen would consider that they had a fortune made ; as it is not alone for himself but for his children that the Englishman labours, and he is never satisfied with merely living from hand to mouth, as the homely but expressive phrase is. (Hear.) I know that in addressing the shopkeepers of Dublin I speak to a most respectable class, whose aid, if we could once convince them, would prove of great value. It is indeed afflicting to hear them say, ‘‘You cannot think how much mischief O’Connell has done. He kept away the Queen, and our stock of goods remains unsold.” The man who says so, I trust, misrepresents his Sove- reign. (Hear, hear.) I should be sorry to say anything so derogatory, as that Her Majesty 27 could be deterred from visiting* any portion of her dominions from a dread of receiving the petitions of her people ; it is putting the Sove- reign in a very unfavourable light, and Union- ists do this. (Hear.) But even if it were the case that the Queen was so prevented, is it not bearing out what I before said ? It shows that the shopkeepers of Dublin would be con- tent with a trifling gain for a brief time, instead of looking to futurity, and considering how much better it would be for them to have a parlia- ment sitting constantly in Dublin, than to have an occasional visit of that nature. (Hear.) Opposition I can account for, but apathy at present is absolutely criminal. I saw recently an address signed by 200 or 300 tenants of a noble- man in Connaught, begging to assure the public “that they had not formed an opinion about Re- peal.” That is an extremely degradingavowal to any man who calls himself an Irishman. No kind- ness on the part of a landlord warrants him in re- ducing human beings to that state. (Hear, hear.) He may lower his rents and do every- thing that is kind and courteous, but he should not purchase the intellects, or crush the opinions of his fellow-man. I intend no harsh reflection on the person I allude to ; he bears an excellent character as a landlord ; but I think that suppressing the opinions of his tenantry is straining his influence grossly. Another address has been also got up to another nobleman in the north, from a tenantry whose . ancestors were distinguished patriots in 82 ; 28 it says, My Lord, we pledge ourselves to put down the Repeal by force.” It was addressed to an Irish peer ; what was the meaning of that ? It was, that they pledged themselves that he should never be a real lord,” but should always remain a nondescript thing, having no political weight in any part of the empire, and that he might go back to Bath, which he contested at an election and was beaten, or anywhere else in England, where he would find a ploughman, or a pugilist, on a perfect level with him at elections ; for an Irish peer ranks in England as a commoner, and must sit in the Commons if he aspire to be a senator. (Hear, hear.) The writers of the address might as well say, “We will keep you like Mahomet’s coffin in mid air.” The com- moners of Ireland cannot by law, and the peers of England will not admit you among them. The commoners of Ireland cannot admit you as a juror, grand or petty, and you cannot enter the lords as a peer. I know of no state more degrading except getting into the House of Lords by votes like a commoner, thus for- feiting hereditary rank. I mean no disrespect to this dignified order. I only desire to stimulate them, if it be possible for so humble an individual to do so. I entreat the aristocracy to reflect, and contrast their conduct and their position with that of their tenantry, (hear, hear.) Which is now strug- gling to restore Ireland to its place amongst nations, to its independence, and its pro- r 29 per form of government? Which is it that wishes to see the British army in an infinitely more respectable position than acting as police, or as an army of observation on ’a hostile fron- tier ? (Hear, hear.) Which is it that desires that the gentlemen of Ireland should remain at home, and fill those stations which their rank in society entitles them to occupy ? And which is it that wishes them to go to England to look for that rank second-hand ? Which is it that wishes to restore the peerage of Ireland to its hereditary dignity ? And which is it that wishes to leave those peers outside the railing of the British House of Lords, with hat in hand, to hear English peers decide on the rights and liberties of Irishmen ; which, I say with sorrow, though an aristocracy, resembles the private soldiers of Hannibal at Capua, steept in vain pleasures whilst their nation’s glory is at stake, and which, though a peasantry, emulate the brave British barons at Runnemede. I hope that the Irish peers, and all the Irish members of parliament, will at last exhibit some feeling of nationality, and will seek to wipe off the stigma of disloyalty that has been cast on the Irish people. They should remove from Ireland that stigma, and convey an assurance to Her Majesty, that it was totally unnecessary to act as the government has done on a recent occasion ; for we, as Repealers, shall ever be as re'ady to uphold the laws as any government can be. (Cheers.) I wonder much that the cultivated and hu- B 2 30 mane mind of Sir Robert Peel could not find a better mode of animating our loyalty than through the medium of a large army, or a better mode of governing the country than by sending a numerous body of troops into it. There is a sentence in Juvenal which bears upon our case — Juvenal observes, that he was the best administrator of the laws who held the opinion that they could be sup- ported in the most difficult times by unarmed justice. (Hear, hear, and immense cheering.) He was speaking of a prefect or magistrate, and Juvenal, though an advocate for severe justice, uses this expression : “ Quorum optimus atque interpres legum sunctissimus omnia quanquam temporihm diris tractanda puta.- hat inermi justitia^ The Irish have received an expression of sympathy from France, and France loves Ire- land ; but it was not received so sanguinely as could have given any man reason to suppose that we look to France for assistance in our national struggle. (Hear, hear.) I know from my own knowledge, from living in France, and being partly educated there, the feelings of the French people towards Ireland. There are four parties in France, and if the streets of Paris were deluged in blood, by collision of the whole four, I have only to say I am an Irishman, and I should be safe in Paris. (Cheers.) Apropos, I am happy-to state that the distinguished Rollin Ledru has been acquitted, and I suggest that an address of warm con- 31 gratulation, and assurances of cordial good wishes, be forwarded to that champion of popular rights in hVance. The Liberator re- ceived the demonstration from France in a manner creditable to his loyalty. It appears that the French Court Journals have taken the trouble to attack the Repeal movement, I shall therefore take a short view of the state of France. (Hear, hear.) There are four parties there — there is the Loyal party, the Carlists, who look on the present King as a rebel, and as a King of rebels ; now, England expended much blood and treasure even to almost making herself bankrupt, to place the Carlist branch on the Throne of France; and yet a recent compliment was paid to the rebel king, not a visit of condolence to the expelled monarch. The next is the Repub- lican party — that I believe to .be the strongest. The third is the Buonaparte section — few in numbers. The fourth is a remnant of tbe peo- ple, who, at a venture, elected Louis Phillipe King. I say a remnant, for there is discontent in a large portion of that bold and intelligent people. There is such a balance held between these four parties at present, that the King finds him- self safe ; but if any two of the first three uni- ted, there would be a different result! (Hear.) If there be no discontent, why is Paris fortified ? It is almost a degradation to Paris — Paris, the capital of Europe — to be fortified. Is it done from fear of the nations abroad? If so, that , 32 would look like cowardice; and no one will accuse the French of that. Is it from fear of the people at home ? If so, there is misgovern- ment. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) There were others also who actively sympa- thised with the people of Ireland, and those were the noble people of America, in whose hemisphere, though western, the sun of liberty never sets. (Hear and cheers.) A million of English malcontents — bold, patriotic, but without prudent leaders— sympathised with us. How were all these advances received ? They were respectfully declined. (Cries of hear, hear.) The words of the Liberator, if con- veyed in classic phrase, might have been trans- lated in these words : — Non tali auxilio nec defensorihus istis. We thank you gratefully, said the Liberator, but we respectfully decline your offers. Could Sir Robert Peel himself have done more? Was it fair to have ex- pected any more at our hands ? (Hear, hear.) The offers were rejected in a spirit of dignity and of loyalty, but at the same time with a feeling of gratitude and affection towards the men who had volunteered to serve us ; surely it was not to be expected that we should be uncourteous or ungrateful to them. England selected a strange time for sending an army into this country, just at the very moment when we had repudiated all foreign assistance. This was undoubtedly, to say the least of it, an ungracious proceeding. It was a singular mode of thanking us for 33 our loyalty, to send us the vote of thanks by 20,000 soldiers. For my own part, I have no objection to see the army in Ire- land ; far otherwise. I never hear of the pouring of troops into this country, that my old soldierly feelings do not take fire, and F exclaim, “the more the merrier.” (Cheers.) There is ample accommodation and welcome in Ireland for them all. I am one of those who, like O’Connell, think that there are bright prospects in store for Ire- land, though she be turned into a depot for troops. And I have little doubt that ere long a union and community of feeling will arise between Ireland and a large section of the English people, and from this circumstance I am inclined to augur the happiest results. There is one great truth gratifying to reflect on, which I am most anxious to impress on your minds ; it is this — that no matter what negociations may be set on foot to obtain the legitimate and constitu- tional co-operation of any body of men what- soever, the rights of Ireland will never be compromissed by Daniel O’Connell ; (loud cheers,) and I am perfectly certain that noth- ing definite will be concluded without a refer- ence to the people. Our enemies allege that we have made a sacrifice of our independence, because mention has been made of a federal or dependant parliament. I maintain that we are not compromising ourselves one jot — no, not one tittle. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and cheers.) I used the word “dependent,” so did 34 the Liberator ; but it appears to be misunder- stood ; dependent has no standard meaning ; I simply applied it as conveying our dependency on the Imperial Crown, ^ just as England is a dependency of that Crown ; I did not mean to convey that either parliament was to be de- pendent on the other. Those who talk about a federal parliament, and take us to task for ha- ving used the term, ought to take heed that they understand the etymological derivation and true purport of the phrase. Federal being de- rived from the Latin noun fcedus^ means no- thing more nor less than a treaty ; and surely there is no rational or loyal subject who would repudiate the idea of entering into a treaty with England. The meaning of the word ‘‘ federal” is faithfully conveyed in these terms by the best Lexicographers of ancient and modern times i fcedus est quod jussu populi et senatns autoritate fei^iehatur — a treaty is that which is confirmed by the order of the people and the authority of the senate : surely there can be no objection to our entering into such a compact as this with the sister country. (Hear, hear.) Unionists regard the Repeal agitation with great horror ; they fancy it is a religious move- ment, because the Catholic clergy have joined * The Liberator, when afterwards addressing the Chair, said — “ as the Chairman has well expressed it, England and Ireland connected by the golden link of the crown.” 35 in it — let the aristocracy come forward, and the clergy will gladly leave the toil to them. If Unionists desire that the legislative con- nexion between the two countries should remain undisturbed, why did they not make an effort to secure justice for Ireland? why did they not endeavour to redress our grievances, and, have tried to supersede the necessity for Repeal ? (Hear, hear.) When Mr. Smith O’Brien’s motion was under the consideration of the house, why did they not come forward and say, We will not grant Repeal, but we will give you something — we will grant an in- quiry into your causes of complaint, and we will redress your grievances ?” But no — they refused to do this — they refused all relief, or even enquiry ; they shut every door against us — they suggested nothing like redress — in a word, they left us no hope of political salvation but Repeal, and now they censure and perse- cute us for clinging to that hope. (Hear, hear.) Our rulers may inundate the country with troops, but I implore of them to reflect on this truth — that the affections and confidence of the people form a stronger basis for govern- ment, than that which can be supplied by inti- midation through the display of armed force. (Cries of hear, hear, and cheers.) I conjure them from this chair to-day, and I know the the state of Ireland better than they do — I could have told them their soldiers would not be necessary the other day, but I can tell them their soldiers will be necessary if they do not alter their measures. No doubt they can fire on a crowd and kill hundreds, but what will that excited, maddened crowd do ? they will scatter ruin and desolation in their flight ; we know too well what an excited multitude will do when fired on ; houses will be burned, property destroyed, and slaughter committed by the frenzied fugitives. I implore the govern- ment not to allow this dreadful crisis to take place. They are now as unreflecting as the heed- less Swiss herdsman who builds below an ava- lanche, which has formed a temporary barrier to the mountain torrent. It requires no con- vulsion of nature to remove this, the sole ob- stacle between him and ruin — natural causes effect its removal — it bursts, and carries with it destruction and death. And I, as a loyal man, would beseech government to save Ireland from this consummation of ruin. “ I heard some of my fellow-townsmen say, the Liberator is beaten, he dare not now hold up his head ; the troops were at Clontarf, and what cowa^rds the people showed themselves These are the words of bullying cowards, who were crying out for soldiers, and would like now to see, but not enter into, mortal strife. I ask, is it not treason to God to hurry on an injured people, and by branding them as cowards, urge them into crime. (Hear, and cheers.) I sincerely hope, knowing the kind disposi- tion of some of her Majesty’s government, though I regard their course as mistaken, that they will extend their views and reflect how slight were the concessions for which America in her humility petitioned, in her sorrow be- sought, in her despair battled, and in her victory spurned. (Cheers.) I beseech them to turn their eyes to Belgium — Belgium groaned under oppression — Bel- gium rebelled, and in that perhaps did wrong, for time would have wrought what blood bought. — Belgium rushed into combat. The Prince of Orange — as brave a man as ever lived, finding that matters had assumed a dangerous complexion, offered to put himself at the head of their political movement — Je me mets a la tete de votre mouvement politique — said the prince — it was too late — Belgium, soaring on the young wing of liberty, would no longer stoop to the royal lure ; but Belgium was the weaker power of the two, and must have suc- cumbed, had not France — noble, glorious France — that nation which has read such awful lessons to people and to kings, bared her gigantic arm, crimsoned with a thousand con- quests, and bade the prostrate province rise and take its place amidst the nations of the earth — a diademed kingdom. ( Cheers.) And what was England’s part in that great drama where sovereigns were the dramatis per- sons ? Her part was to send a king to the rebels ! But trust not to foreign aid. Each day our prospects are better. Do not dream of trusting to anything but God and Ireland. Few commanders were less prodigal of 38 blood, or more kind to the nations through which they marched, than the Duke of Wel- lington ; but if he were so forgetful of the law of God and man, as to think of dyeing his laurels in the blood of those who placed them on his brow, the Queen might address the rash minister in the words the immortal bard of her country — “ Beware — take heed how you impawn our person, How you awake the slumbering sword of war, I charge you in the name of Heaven take heed. For never two such nations did conteVid Without much fall of blood — whose guiltless drops Are every one a woe. A sore complaint ’Gainst him whose wrong gave edge unto the sword That makes such waste on brief mortality.” (Great cheering.) My opinion is, that Repeal forced in the hour of England’s weakness, would be revolu- tion, that Repeal postponed too long will cause national bankruptcy — that Repeal conceded in time will produce peace and prosperity, and the most indissoluble union with England. But if a collision should take place — if the Almighty in his anger should withdraw his protection from the people of this empire, the gazette which proclaims England’s last victory over her twin sister, will announce to the world that one nation is depopulated, and the other totters on the verge of inevitable ruin, a helpless wreck. I beseech, I implore of you let no act of violence lay this ruin at our door. Interests far dearer than your own are em- barked in the cause. Your children’s interests r 39 are involved in Repeal. Oh ! peril not their prospects by impatience or rashness : and still more, peril not your own souls by deeds of wrath, and with the blessing of Almighty God, the sun of Ireland’s prosperity, now above the horizon, will yet in meridian splendour illumi- nate this temple which you have reared to national independence and imperial concord. Mr. O’Neill resumed his seat amidst the most enthusiastic acclamations. Browne, Printer, 3G, Nassau -street. / 1 I ADDRESS TO THE SHIP-WEIGHTS’ SOCIETY OF LIVERPOOL, AND THE WORKING AND UNEMPLOYED CLASSES OF ENGLAND, WALES, AND SCOTLAND, IN GENERAL. bV JOHN A. O’NEILL, (Late J, P. for the Co. of Galway ^formerly M.P. for Hull.) DUBLIN : PRINTED BY J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-ST. 1843. TO THE SHIP-WRIGHTS’ SOCIETY OF LIVERPOOL, &c. &c. JBunowen Castle, Galway, September 20 , 1840 . Gentlemen, Having represented the princi- pal sea-port in the north-east of England, and having in my possession letters of thanks for close attention to everything which could pro- mote the shipping interests in particular, and the interests of a maritime town in general, I take leave to offer a few observations to members of a body, to whom T was principally indebted for my return for Hull, and whom I faithfully served, and shall ever respect and regard ; for they, though landsmen, partake of some of the best features in the noble character of British seamen — their constant companions — natural and close allies — and have besides many claims of their own, on the good will of their countrymen, the lives of many thousands of whom depend on their skill. I have read in the newspapers with feelings 4 of regret, and had I been addressing a less respectable class of men, I should add disgust, but I shall now say with surprise, that some of the Ship-wrights of Liverpool, tendered their services to act as police, to prevent their Irish fellow-subjects, resident in that splendid town, the prop of English trade, from assembling to petition parliament to give Irishmen leave to settle the business of Ireland in Dublin, in- stead of in London. You are egregiously deceived if you fancy that the Legislative Union adds to the wealth of Great Britain. That which impoverishes Ireland, never can have a beneficial effect on England. We are England’s best customers, and it is not the Union which makes us buy there. Were we richer, we should still more increase our dealings. What do you gain by preventing Irishmen from settling Irish busi- ness in Dublin ? Did you support the slave- trade and oppose the reform bill ? — if not, how is it that you wish to see your Irish fellow- subjects oppressed, bullied by a standing army, and denied at the bayonet point what you value and enjoy, and would sooner shed the last drop of your blood than yield — a House of Repre- sentatives ? If you be so enamoured of freedom and independence yourselves, why do you threat- en with extermination your Irish fellow-sub- jects, who only ask for SIMILAR RIGHTS ? Is your love for liberty so impure, that you are jealous lest an Irishman should enjoy it ? Above a million of Chartists, your own 5 countrymen, now complain of misrule, of long parliaments, of defects in the basis of freedom — the elective franchise, and in the mode of taking votes ; these are the sources of misrule. Why do you blame the Irish nation for echoing that complaint, and from sharing in the sorrow of your countrymen, some of them the most intelligent men in England ? On what prin- ciple did you desire to prevent a few thousand Irishmen (most of them toiling for a livelihood in your town) from meeting to discuss their grievances, and to petition your own legis- lature ? Was it from respect to the constitution ? You violated it, when you volunteered to pre- vent your fellow-subjects from an equitable share in it. Was it from respect to the law ? You proposed to violate it, when you tendered your services to interfere with the right of petition — secured by law to all the Queen’s subjects. Was it from love of peace ? Do you fancy that peace ever can result from violating the constitution and breaking the law ? And this you proposed to do, if you tendered your services to prevent your Irish fellow- subjects from meeting to petition parliament ; an offer which, to the credit of the magistracy of Liverpool, was wisely, justly, and humanely rejected. They add folly to tyranny, who desire to prevent the Irish nation from seeking to have a fair share in the constitution. The time of your parliament is almost wholly taken up with Irish misrule. The business of Ireland A 2 6 is shamefully mismanaged, and the business of England retarded or neglected — many of your own representatives tell you so, and all Ireland knows it to he true. Is it just to send to Ireland twice as many troops as you at one time sent to fight the French in Spain ? And you send these to try to intimidate the people, for no reason whatso- ever (this your rulers admit) but that they assemble in large bodies, soberly, orderly, and quietly, to petition for a better system of government — for one which alone can place on a just, a rational, and therefore permanent basis, the mutual interests of the whole empire. Do you not know, or did you ever meet a man so hardened in falsehood, as to deny that two millions of British money were fraudu- lently taken from your own coffers, the trea- sury of England, to bribe and corrupt two hundred Irish Jack Sheppards, (a famous rob- ber was so called,) to break open the doors of the constitution, and steal two-thirds of the Irish legislature (the Lords and Commons) from the hard-working Irish, most of them then bread-earners in their native land, but now, alas ! only bread -seekers. Hundreds of thousands of them wanderers in search of a livelihood all over the civilized world. If you meet any well informed impartial man, who says that my assertions as to the bribery and corruption by which the Irish lost their house of representatives, are not true, then put down Repeal meetings in England ; 7 but do, I implore you, satisfy youselves of the well-known facts, that the votes of the mem- bers who sold and abolished the Irish parlia- ment were notoriously bought — some at £2000, some at £4000, some as high as £8000 ; that some voters were purchased by making the perjured wretches, lords ; other votes by gi- ving them lucrative places ; that in one case a member who offered his vote for a peerage, was refused, because the minister thought he should not want him ; that this member, three hours before the division took place, which sealed the ruin of Ireland, made an excellent speech against the Union; that the minister got alarmed, called him out of the house, promised him the peerage, and he again rose in the house the same evening, said he had changed his mind, made a speech in favor of the Union, voted for it, and in a few weeks got his title, and was made Lord A. You will see this anecdote and a list of the prices paid and rewards given to the sellers of their country, in the able work of Sir Jonah Bar- rington, member of the Irish parliament, and judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland ; it is called The Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation^ The Irish always clung to England — the insurrection of the year 1798, was fomented by the British government, for the very pur- pose of having some pretext for bringing about the sale of the Irish House of Commons. The English Commander-in- Chief in Ireland, Lord Carhampton, openly declared that the minister 8 had a deep and insidious scheme in hand to bring about a rebellion, and his lordship nobly refused to act, and resigned his command. The virtuous Earl Fitz william, who would not be a party to such infamy, was re-called. Free quarters to the troops were ordered, to exas- perate the people. — Free quarters allow the officers and soldiers to be despotic masters of every man’s home. Oh ! if you knew what the Irish were made to suffer to goad them to insurrection, you would not now volunteer to perpetuate misrule ; nor countenance the fla- grant injustice of taxing you to keep up a stand- ing army, to prevent the Irish from seeking the restoration of their plundered rights. We are eight millions — you are but fourteen millions, that is not two to one — and yet you have nine hundred and thirty-two men in par- liament — 471 commoners, and 461 peers — and this exclusive of the representatives of Scotland and Wales; and we have but 137, and of these, about 17 are government men, or are returned on government interest. You have nine to one when it comes to voting, and you call this giving us our share of the constitution. You have 100 to 1 the best of the franchise, which gives 100 to 1 a better chance of electing bet- ter representatives. Suppose the population of England assem- bled in groups of four hundred, the glorious voice of freedom exclaiming, stand forth free- men ! One hundred out of every four hundred Englishmen would, in conscious pride, spring forward. I wish it were three hundred and 9 ninety -nine. Freedom then turns to Ireland, gives the same cheering command, and behold one miserable creature crawls forth out of each four hundred, to represent the British constitution in Ireland. This is just the per- centage on the votes of the rural population here — one quarter per cent. — the one -fourth of a man to each hundred! — Will you call this just and fair? You have 25 per cent. As to religious matters, Have no fears on that score — we only desire that every man should be allowed to worship God according to the best of his judgment ; that no religion should have ascendancy ; that is to say, that equal protection should be extended to every sect, and that no one should make his religion a trade, to get him preferment in office, or a seat in parliament. The English nation makes legislators of their clergy, converting bishops into members of parliament. The Irish nation, if it had a parliament, would do no such thing. It does not seek for the Catholic religion any ascendancy but what God pleases to give it The Irish are quite content that their creed, should stand or fall on its own merits, and not by aid of worldly institutions, such as a stand- ing army and tithes. Their religion, be it right or wrong, is the very same your own forefathers died in, only three hundred years ago ; and as Christianity was preached in Great Britain, 1200 years since, it then follows that your forefathers were papists for 900 years, and our only crime is, that we have continued to 10 prefer the old religion to the new one. God alone knows which is right. Will you volunteer to act as bludgeon men, a grade far below the police, who are respect- able, in order to keep up an iniquitous curtail- ment, if not a total annihilation, of the rights of free-born men, intermarried amongst you ? Nothing is more entitled to respect, than such legally constituted portions of the execu- tive, as perform their arduous duties with hu- manity, prudence, and courage. The military, the municipal and rural police, are amply sufficient in all ordinary cases to preserve the public peace, and they fulfil their duties in a manner highly creditable to them. They are all responsible to the laws, and know them well from codes made for their particular instruction and guidance, which they are obliged to study ; and they are amenable to punishment in a greater degree than volunteer or amateur bludgeon men, for they will lose their liveli- hood for misconduct. They have seldom pas- sions or prejudices to struggle with in them- selves, and they are, therefore, the best persons to be guardians of the public peace, which amateur bludgeon men are most likely to disturb. You are brave men. You could not be English if you were not; but your bravery would become questionable if you were to dis- play it, knowing that you are about 40 to 1 Irishman in Liverpool. There are two classes on perfect equality in cowardice ; those who run 11 away from equal numbers, and those who seek to quarrel when they are in an overwhelming majority. I do not mean to cast any reflection on your countrymen, but I must ask you to recollect that when Englishmen think themselves ag- grieved, they break out into insurrection, whilst the Irish only assemble to petition for redress. Look at the bold measures of the Welsh people now ; and recollect the serious breaches of the peace, and destruction of property and of life which took place not long ago, and at various other periods within the last twenty- five years, in your own county or the counties next to it. Did you volunteer then to assail your ag- grieved countrymen, though they were excited to a pitch of great violence? If not, why should you flesh your maiden swords on a few hundred Irishmen, meeting peaceably to make an humble appeal to your representatives. Brave men of England, you would despise the Irish nation if they were cowards ; and you wdll not be offended at a manly declaration on their part, from an Irishman who can ap- peal to two or three of your countrymen, high in the British army, to prove, that when some overbearing individuals attempted to intimidate him, he did not shrink from collision ; on the contrary, he compelled those parties to retrace their steps. This is no vain boast, and allusion to such matters is now made solely lest you should suppose this appeal to you for peace^ 12 came from some coward who trembles for his individual safety. You are addressed by one who lived many years in England, and who knows the English people well, who had the high honour of re- presenting above 30,000 of them in parliament, and has in his possession, and prizes them in his heart, unanimous votes of thanks from the ship-owners’ society, from the ship-wrights’ society, who supported him to a man, and from every public body in your great northern sea- port, Hull, for which he was twice, since he retired from public life, asked to become candidate. Even at the risk of being misinterpreted — of being called presumptuous, I will beseech you not to degrade your manhood, by turning out to attack a handful of hard-working warm-hearted fellows, who carry into exile a feeling the most honourable to human nature — a love of native land. At the same time there has been a great deal of vain boasting, and wicked readi- ness to resort to force to deal with popular grievance, evinced both in England and Ire- land by small portions of the people, who have descended to become the train-bearers and hirelings of a partially corrupt aristocracy,^ both in England and Ireland : these would-be police, cry out, Lead us against these petition- ers, we will put them down, we will disperse them.” Now though we know that the English * I make no charge against any whole class, nor against any whole party, whether of Tories, Whigs, or Radicals j there are many worthy men amongst all. 13 are as brave men as any in Europe, and though they are 14 to 8, and though there are some ill- disposed to Ireland amongst us, yet if all these were not backed by a large standing army, horse, foot, and artillery, and a splendid navy, they would find it a very difiicult, and very different task from what it now is, to deprive Ireland of any vested right. And even if the Irishmen in the British army were drafted from it, it w’ould not be very formidable. But the Irish have not the remotest idea of resorting to violence. I am one of the con- stitutional multitude which clings to peace. If the English merely want an admission that fourteen millions of Englishmen, with the aid of the finest army and navy in the world, can beat eight millions of unarmed, undisci- plined Irish — accept that admission. But with this comment, that the experiment would re- flect dishonour and disgrace on the conqueror. If England wants an admission that she could conquer Ireland without her army, be- cause she is 14 to 8, I will not be the man to give it, because it is not an absolute certainty, though a possibility from superior numbers. But we have now learned the value of a constitution by its loss, and w’ould not allow any nation on earth to deprive us of it without exterminating life with liberty. The issue of such a contest would be very doubtful ; but if England did exterminate our population, the total destruction of her own by exhaustion, would be only a question of time — both nations would perish. Away then with 14 boasting on either side — it is a wicked and sin * ful boast that we could ruin each other. Away with threats to defenceless men, whilst those who threaten are basking in the rays of British bayonets. Meet us in bloodless encounter in any place where justice presides. We would willingly leave our case to the hearts of the people of England. We would die fighting by their side against any of their foreign foes. Did we ever desert England ? Did an Irish Re- giment ever forsake her in the field of battle ? We respect our Queen. We uphold our em- pire ; and would to Heaven, I could add, we will support our constitution ; but we have no con- stitution to support. It is an insult to common sense, to say we have a fair share in the British constitution. Men of England, rest assured that the dis- cipline by which spaniels are taught to be faithful will not succeed with human beings. You never can beat men into affection, fidelity, or respect for you. It is quite clear that you think your glory and your safety depend on having Ireland on your side. We Irish think so too. We know too, that our welfare is involved in yours. We wish to keep England on that towering eminence where she sat in judgment on the affairs of Europe. But, men of England, be so good as to recollect that that eminence or mound is composed of the bodies of Irish as well as of English sol- diers, and cemented by torrents of the blood of both nations, shed in the same places, and at 15 the same hour, combating the same foe in the same cause. You get all the glory, and honour, and rewards. It is always “ England did this.” “ England won that.” Not a word of Ireland. Keep all the honour, all the glory, all the re- wards ; but let us have a domestic government, let us settle our own domestic affairs in our own town. We shall continue to deal with you — that is a matter of interest and convenience, and for our own sakes we shall do so ; and we will continue to anticipate your calls for sol- diers and sailors, defenders, allies, friends ; but if you want slaves, with the ‘‘assistance of Divine Providence,” as ministers said in the Queen’s Speech, you will have to look else- where. Never trust slaves, they will turn on you. When men think that a victory or de- feat will only change the names of the oppres- sors, but the oppression and misrule will be nearly the same, they will not fight very hard against new tyrants for old ones. The most frequently repeated argument, as it is miscalled, against a Repeal of the Union, is, that it happens to have been forced by Mr. O’Connell and several of the Catholic Clergy, on the attention of those who were too indo- lent to take up the question themselves. It is called an O’Connell, Priest, and Papist movement. Against a measure with which the Liberator is identified, there is enlisted that false pride which causes men to shrink from joining and aiding, under any circumstances, an individual whom they have been all their lives abusing, 16 and charging with corruption. I often con- curred in suspecting Mr. O’Connell when I took a superficial view of his conduct ; and I frankly admit, that it was extremely discredit- able to me to fancy, that wherever there was a money fund, patriotism could not be disinter- ested — it was taking a very degrading view of human nature. Those who suppose that Mr. O’Connell and the priesthood have raised a contented people, have not observed the signs of the times. Though the Catholic Clergy take a prominent part at Repeal Meetings, they neither taught the people to feel the want of a Domestic Legislature, nor created the strong desire to obtain it. The people have long been, and could not be otherwise than, discontented — else why was there an Arms, why a Coercion Bdl, and such like enactments ? Courtesy and res- pect ofiered clergymen places at the head of bodies seeking redress of their own grievances, and they accepted those places from a warm attachment to the interests of their country, and from a perfectly natural wish to promote an object which, if attained, would undoubtedly be a means of putting an end to the exasper- ation — the blasphemous vituperation — with which the national religion is assailed, and to the gross and shameful insults inflicted daily on its clergy, to the danger of the peace of the whole empire, and the disgrace of those in power who permit, and of the persons who perpetrate, such outrages. Mr. O’Connell has not taught the people to 17 feel that they were misgoverned — -they knew it well ; he has but pointed out the sole remedy — REPEAL, and has shewn them the advantage of acting in one body, instead of manoeuvring in small parties. It cannot create much surprise that Repeal is opposed on what are called religious grounds, when it is recollected that the abolition of drunkenness, through God’s blessing, by the agency of the worthy and Rev. Mr. Mathew, met the same opposition, for the same reasons, from many of the same party. Respect for all religion, and courtesy to- wards every one, assigns to objections made in the name of religion, the term ‘‘ conscientious,” and entitles them to very delicate treatment, even though they should approach towards suicidal monomania ; and all Irishmen, who now oppose a Domestic Legislature, approxi- mate to that state. Repeal certainly involves the principle, that the arm of flesh clothed in a scarlet garment, and holding a sabre, should not give preponder- ance to any creed — and that it is the province of Almighty God alone to give ascendancy to any religion — and that any ascendancy enforced by a standing army, is an usurpation of a divine attribute, a degradation to the creed so sup- ported, however otherwise pure, and a very serious infringement on human liberty. The Catholics of Ireland abhor the idea of Protestant or Catholic ascendancy ; their sole desire is equality, and forbearance from the insult and abuse daily lavished on their clergy 18 and creed; and be their religion the true or untrue one, abuse will make no converts. Your press, not less powerful than your artillery, is against us at present ; but knowing it to be as honest as it is fearless, we trust time will shew it that we are not unworthy of its support, or unfitted for a domestic legislature. Men of England, come forward and declare that you would consent to the following state of things : That if the King of England chose to reside in Ireland, and to take with him the Lords and Commons of England, and oblige them to go there to transact your business, quite extin- guishing your Houses of Parliament — you would consent to it. The case of Ireland is similar. Or, that if you were opposed to this, and that the King’s Irish Ministers, anxious to please him, and to get patronage for themselves, bribed your present House of Commons to sell you and themselves, and made the foul transfer against your will, under the protection of an Irish army — you would not even petition to set aside the sale. This is Ireland’s case. That if some priests and Papist bigots went about calling you idolators, worshippers of Henry the Eighth, insulting your sacraments, and calling your clergy every gross and infamous name that the vocabulary of bigotry — the filthiest vocabulary in print — admits of, you would cheerfully pay those priests for their abuse. Ireland gets this abuse daily — not in churches, for we never object to anything said in church — but by Protestant clergymen and laymen formed 19 into societies, wlio placard the walls with abuse and insults. But to continue — suppose this illegally con- stituted parliament declared you were unworthy the rights of freemen, and would let only one man out of every four hundred of you vote, and passed an act to that effect ; you would sit down contented in your loss of freemens* rights, and in your consequent degradation. All these are Ireland’s positions. Come forward, men of England, and declare before God and Europe you would endure this state of things, and Repeal shall be expunged from freedom’s glorious vocabulary. But if you would not, what is the difference between us and you? Nothing, except that you are fourteen to eight, and have a standing army. God and justice and your own admissions are with us — Numbers, and troops, and arms with you. I, and every friend to England — dear, noble, gallant England — want to put an end to the present dangerous state of things. You do not see it — we do, and dreading dismember- ment of the empire, wish to apply the sole remedy for the existing evil. How many like me, are half English at heart — my children are half English by descent — the being I loved best, my departed wife, English. O reflect how much more closely England and Ireland are united by ties of blood such as these, than by geographical position, or by a parchment Union. How many inter-marriages have taken place ? How many of your own blood are our B 20 own blood — natives of Ireland — the children of your sisters and of your daughters ? Gal- lant men of England, fellow Christians, friends, brethren, will you slaughter us for asking a Parliament, not even quite as powerful as your own. We offer to take a dependent parliament. The power of making war against any foe, and other powers, on that score, shall be vested in a combined Imperial Parliament — the right to declare war is vested in the Sovereign. And we shall be by your side in the day of trial as we ever were, but ten times more devoted, because we shall then have a share in the imperial constitution, as well as in the imperial glory. O remember that despair and justice on our side reduce very fearful odds, and turn with horror from the thought of murdering the Irish, because they aspire to freemens’ rights. Look at all your glorious wars — what was the professed object of them ? Was it not always to succour the oppressed, to raise prostrate nations — why, why then do you deal less kindly less nobly, less justly by Ireland, than by any other nation on the surface of the globe — why trample on her ? In the records of government, is there any thing more galling or undeserved, than the stigma cast on the Irish people last week. The Government have suffered Repeal meet- ings to take place all over Ireland, and within two miles of Dublin, during the last year, and never intimated the remotest intention to put down these lawful meetings. 21 Clontarf meeting was publicly announced three months ago, though the day was not fixed until about a month ago. The meeting was fixed for mid-day on the 9th inst., and up to 5 o’clock on the evening before, not the slightest intimation of the in- tended opposition of government was given. At dusk the very night before the day of meeting, the government issued the Procla- mation then for the first time stating their intention to suppress it ; and at day-light next morning three thousand soldiers, horse, artil- lery, and infantry, took up positions command- ing the roads and place of meeting. The troops bivouacked in the same way they do in regular warfare ; the dragoons carried forage, and the men their rations. A regiment in reserve or ambush, which could shoot the fly- ing petitioners, took possession of a large school- house commanding the two principal entrances to Dublin. The government took no timely means to warn the people ; they delayed their proclamation until such an hour, that by no possibility could the people have had sufficient notice of it. I do not here question the right of the government to issue what proclamations they please ; but I ask you, Englishmen, did the Irish people deserve to receive so gross an insult, as to have cannon pointed at them, when it is notorious that they have implicitly obeyed the civil authorities without a murmur, and that no act bordering on violence ever occurred at any Repeal meeting. The Duke of Welling- ton declared, a few weeks ago, in the House 22 of Lords, that the people had not been guilty of a single act like an intention to break the peace ; and yet the government placed these poor people in a position, the most likely of all others, to have led them to some act of pas- sion, which must have been followed by the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of inno- cent human beings, men, women, and children, totally unconscious that they were violating any law. Why should l^he government evince their anger against Mr. O’Connell by stig- matizing a loyal people. Mr. O’Connell and the best legal authorities told the people, and they, the government, did not attempt to contradict this, that those meetings were lawful, and government allowed the people to hold these meetings within two miles of Dublin Castle ; still they never told them that those meetings were illegal. At Donnybook, just a mile from Dub- lin, an immense meeting took place a short time since, arranged nearly as the intended meet- ing at Clontarf ; a few police attended, but not a single act like outrage or offence to a human being took place there, and government gave no indication of displeasure. Englishmen, what is Ireland's case to-day may he yours to-morrow ! and you will deserve it, if you do not express your disapprobation of the principle of calling out an army, to dis- perse, without full previous notice, and previ- ous clear indications of insubordination, a long- announced popular meeting of unarmed loyal men, assembling to assign reasons for petition- ing parliament to repeal or alter a legislative enactment. Your own liberty, and your cha- 23 racter as a nation, will suffer, if you, by your silence, sanction the course pursued to your Irish fellow -subjects. (Hear, hear.) Had the people of Ireland dared to violate, or refused to obey any known law, I should reprobate their conduct, and admit the justice and propriety of the principle of intimidating them by means of the army. But what more could the government have done, had the people been armed and in rebel- lion. There were the • soldiers — there were the cannon, and if the petitioners were not there to be shot, it was not owing to full and fair w^arning from government. Half of the excellent Dublin police force, superintended by their chief, who is univer- sally esteemed and respected, (Lieut.- Colonel Browne,) circulating some copies of the procla- mation, would have been amply sufficient to have kept order, and to have prevented the people from assembling. Englishmen, be just — review our conduct, place yourselves in our situation, aud then pronounce to parliament your opinion, whatever it may be, either that you approve or disapprove of the course pur- sued towards your fellow-subjects here. I have said that the English, as a nation, never countenanced oppression in other coun- tries towards the dependants of those coun- tries ; on the contrary, you have been quite chivalrous in attacking all nations which mis- governed their dependants. Ireland is the ex- ception to your rule ; your chivalry, your keen sense of justice, or sensitiveness against mis- rule, all perish, when the case of Ireland is submitted to you. 24 You said Spain should be free; your blood, your treasure, our blood, our treasure, flowed profusely — but Spain was freed, and obtained a proper constitution. You said Greece should be free, though under the dominion of your old ally, the Sultan ; and you caused her to be freed, and obtained for her a king. You said that the rebel Belgians — rebelling against another of your old allies, the King of Holland — should be free and become a nation, and she yf AS freed, and you gave her a king too. Ca- nada complained — was unheeded ; rebelled — was attended to ; demanded a better form of government ; shot some of your troops, and got what she demanded. God forbid the Irish nation followed that sinful example — violence destroys even a just cause. You make nations of rebel provinces belonging to other monarchs, and give them kings ; and you will not give humble, peaceful, Ireland, your own Ireland, that has shed drop for drop of blood beside you fighting your foes^ — you will not give her a par- liament, you are ruining her and yourself by refusing her leave to transact her own busi- ness at home. Ireland’s representatives must go to London, and hand over Irish business to be bungled by men who never saw that coun- try ; and this delays and confuses your own business. What sort of representatives have you left Ireland the power of sending? are they popular representatives ? no, they are not. You have, by destroying her franchises, de- prived her of the power of returning patriotic men as members for her counties, with very few exceptions. It were fairer to have an- nihilated her franchise, than make it appear 25 that she is represented, when the very reverse is the fact ; she is misrepresented. Were this address five times as long and tedious, it would not suffice to contain the grievances of Ireland, which aristocratic policy has brought you to believe are ideal, not real. Many will say — how dare this man, who is only an Irish private gentleman, presume to ad- dress the English nation, or even any portion of it. My friends, William Cobbett was only a private soldier, and he told you more truths than all the crowned heads in Europe ever dreamed of. I shall only say, that I am not an adventurer — that I was a Graduate of the University of Dublin — was an officer of Dra- goons, and am possessed of a landed estate of considerable value, descending for 200 years from father to son. The humblest and least gifted individual may have the good fortune to place truth in a more striking light than a great and talented person. I trust I shall not offend you, and I assure you that my heart acquits me of any thought unbecoming a Christian or a subject of these realms. My object is to see a false Union annihilated, and a true one established;, and as a preparatory step, I would contribute my humble efforts to promote a good under- standing between the people : I emphatically say the people of both nations, that they may give peaceful but zealous aid to the legitimate objects of which each stands in need. You want vote by ballot, short parliaments, extensive franchises, abolition of corn laws — 26 We want Repeal, to enable us to effect the same objects. Accept our fervent prayers for your success, and grant us your sympathy, to console us under oppression and cheer us into hope. I laid this Address before the whole Repeal Association, it was unanimously approved, and passed without a single alteration, and is printed and circulated by the Association. I volun- teered to take the chair of the Association the day after the arrests — took it by acclamation. I respectfully refer you to my speech, which is in the hands of the Repeal Wardens, in the principal towns in the empire. In it I spoke of your country, and of your respected religion, and every friendly allusion to it was received with enthusiastic cheers. I have been requested to take the chair at the opening of the Con- ciliation Hall, on Monday, 23rd October, and with the Divine blessing, mean to do so. Thus, you see, I speak the sentiments of about seven-eighths of the adults of the Irish nation, amounting to upwards of three millions of human beings. I have the honor to remain. Gentlemen, with all due loyalty, with deepest attachment to old England, and with respect and esteem for all classes of her population. Your faithful Servant, JOHN A. O’NEILL, Late J. P, for the County of Galway, Resigned after 23 years service, to join the Repealers, _ " . "■ - ' ■ J Vxij.A'! ■\'f'i)i>''''i .-* r : !-!» r* :m’ ' • ,5; i:;.-/ ‘I I' i^hni . ;: cr? f'f:B ;;8b"X T7'n;\/i i-ii; ' ^ r/;W 'O'jJbf! >n'v:s aiiohot^^ b-:. vB won < 0 ?.i‘l<.{tur 8 'io c'^i- J ;t\;;jv'fj'AUO‘> ■ iiiff ; ., ■■•1.. . "T ' fr'mC'r <; rhhl yy'* .. - e;;:- r,i; <^Uw f -ik'^vr j Hwa-'r b krri^ -no^m^di oi ,q1I *' : ' * : \A fiF 3al];*irfi‘ i!r^‘*> n jf'Ofi.' .‘'n*»^l . ■: ■-,> br'j’lo l-.-n.^.M'U-: r--i /v.,-->-iiif) ’ j ‘3.1: ’’O £ioxloano!r.T •;d? v. ■ ••\ ‘y- p^rr*Ah' • F” :1.>ldv/' iftO A >A >3'^ t.'.li , • r,r ■•'i'^- av?a-^dDx-a '•gxiiixixx^-t ■: ' '•■ ^ J. dlt ;, ' SPEECH DELIVERED BY MR. DAUNT, AT THE GREAT REPEAL DEMONSTRATION, HELD IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL, 12th SEPTEMBER, 1843. Mr. Daunt rose and said, that he was de- lighted with the glorious scene before him ; hut his delight was unaccompanied hj any feelings of surprise, for he had now a tolerably long experience of his countrymen in Great Britain, and he had invariably found that wherever Irish exiles garrisoned a British town, their bosoms burned with the same noble fervour for the welfare of their absent home, which was manifested in the present magnificent and animating scene. (Hear hear.) He had come there to cheer them on, and also to receive from them fresh impulse in his own career. He had another object — it was to state, for the information of the English pub- lic, the grounds on which Irishmen insisted on resuming the exclusive legislation of Ire- land. (Hear, hear.) He was emphatically anxious to disclaim in the first place the inten- A 2 MR. D aunt’s speech tion of separating from England, or of dismem- bering the empire, which the calumnies of the enemies of Repeal imputed to the Repealers. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, the fact was, that the only source whence separation and dismemberment could eventually arise, would be found in a foolish and desperate persever- ance in upholding the Union, which the ex- perience of the Irish people taught them was the fertile source of nineteen- twentieths of the misery which overspread their native land. (Hear, hear.) He stood there to tell the Eng- lish people, that the Legislative Union might be faithfully described as an act the better to enable England to oppress and plunder Ire- land.” (Hear, hear.) That was a more ac- curate description of the purpose of the act of Union than the formal title in the Statute-book. If he were now addressing a merely Irish au- ditory, he would deem it quite needless to ad- vert to the diabolical means whereby the Union was achieved. Those means were familiar to the fireside of every man in Ireland. But he would, for the information of his English hearers, state, that never was the destruction of a nation’s liberties achieved by a more pro- fuse expenditure of crime. The people were driven to rebel by the connivance of the Govern- ment : and in order that the present assembly might understand the provocation which was given to the Irish nation to rise en masse against oppression, he would begin by read- ing the following description of their sufier- ings, from. an Address of Lord Gosford to the AT LIVERPOOL. 3 Armagh Magistrates, printed in the Dublin Journal of the 5th January, 1796. ‘‘A per- secution,” says Lord Gosford, accompanied with all the circumstances of ferocious cruelty, is now raging in this country. Neither age nor sex, nor even acknowledged innocence can excite mercy. The only crime which the wretched objects are charged with, is the pro- fession of the Roman Catholic Faith, A law- less banditti have constituted themselves judges of this new delinquency, and the sentence they denounce is equally concise and terrible. It is nothing less than confiscation of property, and immediate banishment. It would be pain- ful to detail the horrors of this proscription : a proscription that exceeds, in the number of its victims, every example of ancient and modern history. For when have we heard, or read, of more than half the inhabitants of a populous country being deprived of the fruits of their industry, and driven to seek shelter for themselves and their families where chance may guide them ? These horrors are now acting with impunity^ There was the evi- dence of Lord Gosford. He (Mr. Daunt) would just remark, that at the time his Lord- ship spoke of, the Orangemen were armed by the Government. (Hear, hear.) If the atro- cious persecution described by Lord Gosford, failed to drive its victims into resistance, those victims must have been as spiritless and insen- sible to wrong as stocks and stones. The Government that armed the Orangemen, and permitted the unpunished perpetration of those 4 MR. BAUNT’s speech hideous crimes against the Irish people, did so for the express purpose of goading the Irish people, unarmed and undisciplined as they were, into a premature and abortive rebel- lion, in order to facilitate, at whatever expense of human life, their ultimate object of carry- ing the Union; which they well knew could never be accomplished except at a juncture of national weakness, terror, confusion, and dis- trust. The general description given by Lord Gosford was particularized into detail by Lord Moira, who made, from his personal knowledge, the following statement, in a speech delivered in the British House of Lords, November 22, 1797. “ I have known a man,^ says Lord Moira, in order to extort confession of a supposed crime, or of that of some neighbour, picketed till he actually fainted — picketed a second time till he fainted again, and when he came to him- self, picketed a third time, till he once more fainted ; and all this upon mere suspicion. Men had been taken and hung up till they were half dead, and afterwards threatened with a repetition of this treatment unless they made a confession of their imputed guilt. These were not particular acts of cruelty^ hut formed part of the new system.^ Now he (Mr. Daunt) especially prayed his hearers to remark — firstly, that Lord Gos- ford declared that these abominable outrages were committed with impunity ; secondly, that ^ Lord Moira asserted they were regularly formed into a system. Other instigations to AT LIVERPOOL. 5 rebel,” were profusely administered to the people. In short, no means that fiends could suggest, or reckless men put in practice, were omitted, to drive the people of Ireland to re- sist the government. That resistance formed a pretext for the pouring in of 137>590 well armed, well appointed troops, to slaughter the untrained and unarmed masses of the Irish people. When Ireland was thus laid prostrate, the application of enormous bribery within the parliament effected the destruction of her na- tional legislature. (Hear, hear.) Thus w^as the Union carried. He would now ask, could that Union be popu” lar in Ireland ? Could the infernal mode of its achievement be over effaced from the popular mind ? (Loud cries of never ! never !) The memory of that mode was branded on the souls of the Irish people as with a red-hot iron. The Irish, he continued, were no parties to the Union — it was forced upon them. (Hear, hear.) Was this the sort of Union that they ought to love? Was this the sort of link that could bind two nations in the bonds of amity ? (Cries of hear, hear.) He would put it to his English hearers thus : — he would say, just make our case your own. Suppose that France had been enabled to treat England, as England has treated Ireland — suppose that French gold had bribed a packed majority in the English House of Commons, and that French bayonets had coerced the English people into a legisla- tive Union with France — that your English A 2 6 MR. DAUNt’s speech parliament at Westminister was abolished-— that you got in lieu thereof a miserable mock- ery of representation in the united parliament at Paris — that your English lords and great proprietors, attracted by the magnet of the legislature, became almost universally absen- tees — that millions of your English rents were annually drained away to France, to swell the magnificence of Paris — that you were governed by a parliament of alien feelings, alien sympa- thies, ignorant of your condition, and con- temptuously indifferent to your necessities ; that after supporting such public establish- ments in England as your Gallic masters might think proper to leave you, a large surplus of your taxes was annually transmitted to the French exchequer — that a marked and insult- ing disparity in franchises and political pri- vileges existed against England, and in favour of France — that a Catholic priesthood mono- polized the whole church property in this Protestant land, and that the legislative Union with Catholic France was alleged as a valid reason for perpetuating that monstrous injus- tice — suppose that such a state of things ex- isted — would Englishmen endure it ? (No, no, never.) Well, that was the case of Ireland, and he would assure his English hearers, that Irishmen never would be guilty of the baseness of quietly enduring it. (Immense cheering.) But Englishmen seemed coolly to take it for granted that God Almighty had made them a present of Ireland. It was inconceivable the amount of popular ignorance about Ireland AT LIVERPOOL. 7 that existed in England. Three or four days since, an honest Irishman at Leeds had sent over to Mr. John O’Connell a couple of num- bers of the Leeds Mercury^ containing elabo- rate articles against the Repeal, which were a perfect curiosity, from the enormous quantity of gross ignorance and false reasoning which the writer had contrived to compress into two or three columns. He (Mr. Daunt) had brought over the papers with him to Liverpool, inasmuch as the writer had partly addressed his productions to the sensitive selfishness which he assumed to exist among the people of Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Mercury alleges that before the Union the government of Ireland was for centuries in the hands of the English and Protestants. This was, to a great extent, true, but was it any reason why the whole Irish people should be debarred for ever from national self-government ? The government of England was for centuries in the hands of the Norman aristocracy; but was that circumstance any disqualifier of the Eng- lish people from the natural right to partici- pate in the power of the state ? The writer in the Leeds Mercury goes on — Ireland never had a parliament which was really inde- pendent, though for a few years, from 1782 to 1800, it was so nominally and partially What an exquisite reason that was, if true, for upholding the Union. He (Mr. D.) freely admitted that the undue intermeddling of Eng- land in the councils of the Irish parliament had been disgraceful to that body and highly 8 Mli. daunt’s speech injurious to Ireland. That intermeddling had been facilitated by the number of close bo- roughs — of Irish Gattons and Old Sarums, that returned members to the Irish parliament. But if evil arose from the partial inoculation of the Irish parliament with the virus of Eng- lish influence, that evil was increased a thou- sand fold by the utter prostration of Irish influence in Ireland accomplished by the Union. In the former case it was partial disease ; in the latter it was political death. The defec- tive construction of the Irish parliament was a valid reason why that parliament should have been reformed and thrown open to the Irish people — none whatever why it should be extin- guished. If a man be sick he ought to be cured, not to be killed. But the Mercury says, that its object in stating the restrictions on the Irish parliament was not to discuss the expediency of Repeal, but simply to point out that the sort of connexion existing under a restored Irish parliament, with an extended popular constituency, would be diflerent from that which had previously existed under the old Irish parliament with all its close boroughs. The difference would just consist in this — that the Irish parliament would be a reformed in- stead of an unreformed body ; and that differ- ence, he would tell the Mercury^ would be all in favour of the stability of the friendly im- perial connexion of the countries. (Hear, hear.) Short accounts made long friends, and the less that England had the power to irritate, by intermeddling in the domestic and exclusive AT LIVERPOOL. 9 concerns of Ireland, the better friends, depend upon it, the two nations would be to each other. (Cheers.) Sweden and Norway illus- trated this. Norway, united to the crown of Sweden, possessed nevertheless her own par- liament, perfectly independent of Swedish con- trol, governing the Norwegian people with parental care and wisdom, expending the re- venues of Norway for Norwegian purposes with judicious economy, keeping Norwegian money in Norway, and promoting a high state of national prosperity. Yet the crown of Sweden had no where more loyal subjects than the Norwegians. Ere he quitted this part of the subject he would briefly correct an erroneous impression into which the Leeds Mercury had fallen, namely, that the Irish parliament of 1782 was not as supreme in Ire- land as the existing parliament at present was in England. It was perfectly supreme in point of law and constitutional right ; but, as he had stated, the close boroughs enabled England to undermine that supremacy in 1800. (Hear, hear.) He now begged leave to read the following passage : — There is,” says the Mercury^ ‘‘ the strong- est reason to fear, that if Great Britain and Ireland were under two independent legisla- tures, even supposing the change could be introduced without a civil war, the two coun- tries would soon become jealous, unfriendly, and even hostile.” Good Heaven, what language was this ? — 10 MR. BAUNT’s speech Jealous, unfriendly, and even hostile!” Were they not at this moment unfriendly ? Did not the hostility already exist? Was not the very production on which he was commenting, ad- dressed to the jealous fears of the people of Yorkshire and Lancashire? (Hear, hear.) And was not this unfriendliness, this hostility, caused by the crime committed against Ireland by that English government that robbed her of her parliament ? Thus it was, that our opponents predicted as prospective evils to result from Repeal, the very hostility and jealousy which existed at this moment, and of which the execrable Union was the real cause. (Loud cheers.) The Leeds Mercury next says, that two hostile nations could not continue under the same sovereign., Then he (Mr. D.) would say, in God’s name put an end to the perilous hostility by repealing the Union, for it was totally out of human nature that our interna- tional feelings could be otherwise than hostile, when one party had inflicted on the other such a monstrous wrong as the destruction of their national legislature. (Hear, hear.) He felt it his duty to say, not as a reckless threat, but as a solemn warning, that if the Union were not peaceably repealed, come it soon, or come it late, a sanguinary separation of the countries would be the inevitable consequence. (Hear, hear.) The history of Europe was not yet ended — no man could foresee when Eng- land might be engaged in foreign war ; and should such an event occur, it was painful to AT LIVERPOOL. 11 every honest friend of the connexion, to con- template the probable results of the total alien- ation of the Irish people from England, directly resulting from the Union. No human wit could devise any measure better calculated to gene- rate international hatred and consequent impe- rial ^veakness than the Union. It inflicted upon us an absentee drain of four millions a year — a drain of surplus taxes exceeding a mil- lion and a quarter — an annual drain of two mil- lions and a half, arising from the destruction of our manufactures. The gross annual total be- ing somewhere about eight millions per annum. Strike off three millions from this amount, to avoid all cavil, and average the annual drain at five millions a year for the 43 years the Union had lasted ; that would make 215 mil- lions of pounds sterling drained out of Ireland by the direct operation of the Union. Could Ireland love the nation that inflicted such a ruinous and degrading measure on her people ? The Mercury asked whether a Union be- tween a poor and a rich nation must not neces- sarily benefit the former ? He wmuld answer, certainly not, if the richer nation makes use of the connexion to plunder the poorer one : and this was the accurate statement of the case between the countries. He now approached the Mercury^s appeal to the presumed selfishness of the Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacturers and people. These wxre his words : ‘‘ The effect of a legislative separation, and of that war of tariffs which Mr. O’Connell threatens, and which would be 12 MR. DAUNT’s speech % certain to occur, would be two-fold ; first, it would lessen the demand for the woollens, stuffs, and cottons of Yorkshire and Lanca- shire ; secondly, it would lessen the supply, and raise the price of food in these districts.” — Now this was a signal example of short- sighted selfishness. The fears of the Mer- cury proceeded from the notion that what Ire- land would gain England would necessarily lose. It was perfectly true that an Irish par- liament might find it requisite to impose duties, not amounting to any any thing like a prohibi- tion, but sufficient to protect the Irish manu- factures in their infant stage. But let them now carefully examine whether upon the whole England would gain or lose by the new state of things. In the first place, Ireland would become far richer than she is, and therefore better able to become a customer for English goods. She would become richer, not by tak- ing away from England anything which Eng - land rightfully possessed, but by the power which a domestic parliament alone could give her, of working out into national wealth the great natural resources now lying dormant in Ireland, for the want of a National Legislature to call them into action. (Hear, hear.) Eng- land, he emphatically repeated, would have a wealthy customer at her door, instead of the comparative pauper which Ireland was at pre- sent. (Hear, hear.) You, no doubt, have got a monopoly at present of the Irish manufacture market, such as it is ; but Repeal, by enlarg- ing the wealth of the Irish people, would enor- AT LIVERPOOL. 13 mously enlarge that market ; so that although England would no longer possess the monopoly of it, her actual traffic would, in all probability, be immensely increased. Look at the Irish rural population now, their frieze coats, and their miserable dress — what advantage are a frieze-wearing population to the Leeds or Man- chester manufacturers of broad cloth ? But elevate that population into purchasers of broad cloth for Sunday and holiday wear ; enlarge their capacity for the acquisition of personal comforts, and forthwith you enlarge your own markets, for it is utterly impossible that the home manufacturer could for many years supply the home demand. Experience corroborated these views. While America was a paltry colony of England, she only took three millions worth of English manufac- tures within a certain period immediately pre- ceding the establishment of her independence ; but within a precisely similar period imme- diately succeeding that event, instead of three millions she took thirteen millions worth of English goods; so true it was, that constitu- tional freedom was the parent of commerce, and that in international politics, as in every- thing else, honesty was ever the best policy. (Loud cheers.) There was another striking illustration of this truth, derivable from the example of Norway, to which he had already alluded. Whilst Norway was a pitiful province of Denmark, prior to 1814, its commerce was indicative of its provincial bondage. By the 14 MR. DAUNT’S speech Sound Lists it appeared, that in 1814 they paid duty for only 83 ships ; but in 1832, after the blessings of a free domestic parliament had developed themselves, they paid duty for 1,535. So much for the results of national self-govern- ment and constitutional liberty upon the in- terests of commerce. He would now say a word to the Lancashire and Yorkshire operatives. The plunder of Ireland by the Union drove her pauperised sons in crowds to England to pull down the wages of labour in the British markets. (Hear, hear.) Thus your oppression of Ireland has recoiled upon yourselves ; the Irish operatives were literally taking the wages out of your pockets and the bread out of your mouths. The mention of “ bread” reminded him of an insane threat of the Mercury^ namely, that if English manufactures were saddled with a duty by Ireland, the English parliament would in- fallibly retaliate by excluding Irish agricul- tural produce from England. He (Mr. D.) would reply, that the English parliament would be no such fools, and if they were inclined to be such, the English people would never per- mit them. What! keep food out of England? The cry at present was, that food was too dear and too scarce, and a threat to increase that dearness and that scarcity, was truly charac- teristic of the wiseacre in the Mercury, It was, in fact, the very sublimity of balderdash. (Loud cheers.) There were but one or two points more worth notice. The writer said, If Ireland AT LIVERPOOL. Id is fitted by nature for manufactures, there is no law to hinder her.” It was true that no expressly prohibitory statute existed, but the Union was fully effective to prevent the growth of Irish manufactures by destroying Irish capital. He had already shown that 215 millions of money were drained out of Ireland by the Union. With the monstrous annual blister of the various drains, Irish wealth could never settle down into Irish capital, and with- out Irish capital you cannot have Irish manu- factures. (Hear, hear.) Ireland was eminently calculated by nature for a manufacturing coun- try ; her water pov^^er was probably greater than that of any other land in Europe. With respect to protecting duties he (Mr. D.) held modified opinions ; but he would remind his auditors that English manufactures had grown into their greatness and their universally ac- knowledged excellence, under a system of pro- tection. He would next entreat their notice to the following extremely imaginative sketch, in which all the powers of the writer’s fancy were taxed, to convince the Irish people that they would be utterly ruined, by having the control of their own affairs. Our belief then,” says the Mercury y is, that Ireland would be no gainer, but a very great loser, by separation from England. Instead of being an important part of the first empire, and richest commercial country in the world, partaking the benefits of its wealth, its markets, its manufacturing skill, its power, and its free institutions, it would be 16 MR. D aunt’s speech a feeble kingdom or republic — torn by in- ternal dissensions — wanting employment for its crowded population — beggared — without markets — without commerce — without colonies — without a single ship of war — either over- awed by its powerful neighbour, or carrying on a most unequal contest with her — possibly the battle field for England and France — and at lengthy either returning to the English union, or joining itself to France, and find^ ing disadvantages and humiliation immeasure- ably greater than it had even fancied in the union with England !” This was one of those curious effusions, of which it was impossible to pronounce whether the falsehood, the ignorance, or the impudence was the greatest. Ireland a loser by Repeal ! Why, Ireland is a loser by the Union, to the amount of eight millions per annum. It is false, that Ireland partakes (as the writer alleges) of English wealth. As to the English markets, we do not thank the Union for them — we thank the decrees of necessity, and the self-interest of Englishmen. Next, we are told we should be torn by internal dissensions. How? Is it by getting rid of that malign English influence, which actually at this mo- ment, foments our internal dissensions, on the principle of ‘^divide et impera?^^ Next we are told we should be beggared — as to that, we are beggared already. This prophecy has little terror for a people, of whom every fourth inhabitant is a pauper. (Hear, hear.)- Then we were threatened with being the battle-field AT LIVERPOOL. 17 for England and France ; but, the process whereby this affliction was to fall on the land, was still unrevealed by the prophet. He had threatened us, indeed, with a union with France, just as if Ireland had not a sufficiently bitter experience of one Union, to deter her from risking another, and a worse one ; or just as if Ireland must necessarily fall into the grasp of France, although we see near a score of independent states in Europe, infinitely our inferiors in all the national and natural quali- ties which enable a country to sustain a dis- tinct independence. (Loud cheers.) He had kept for the last, the most startling blunder, made by the Mercury. He talked of the profit derived by Ireland, from her export of agricultural produce. So profoundly igno- rant is he of the condition of Ireland, that he tells you the Irish export corn, cattle, &c., to the value of several millions annually, beyond what they themselves consume or require — the real fact being, that millions of the population never taste the better description of food they raise, but subsist wholly upon potatoes, whilst a large portion of the price paid by England for the corn and cattle is shipped off again, in the shape of absentee rents. The report of the Poor Law Commissioners gives 3,285,000 as the number of paupers in Ireland, for thirty weeks in every year. Famines are in Ireland of periodical occurrence. The people starve, whilst their food is exported ; and yet the Mercury has the incredible ignorance to call 18 Mil. daunt’s speech. tlie export of food from Ireland a surplus export! Now this public instructor is about as well informed upon Irish subjects, as are the large majority of the English parliament. Could words sufficiently express the disastrous condition of a country exposed to the legislation of such utterly ignorant law makers ! In conclusion, he begged to utter his solemn protest against the notion, that any concessions whatever, short of Repeal, would satisfy Ire- land. (Hear, hear.) He had come there, not to beg for miserable morsels of justice as a boon, but to proclaim to them, that Ireland was finally determined to work out the resto- ration of her legislature as a right. Her hopes were bound up in it — her soul was sternly resolved upon it — her prosperity depended on it — her honour was committed to it — her loyal zeal for the imperial connexion of the kingdoms impelled her to it ; every motive which could stimulate a loyal, brave, generous, moral, high- spirited, and suffering people, was in force to keep the Irish nation steadily and perseveringly in the path which their rights, their interests, and their honour alike marked out for them. They would deserve to be blotted from the map of nations, were they capable of desert- ing the sacred cause of their country’s inde- pendence. Mr. Daunt resumed his seat amid loud and long continued cheers. Browne, Printer, 36, Nassau-street, Dublin. / r' .. ^ . • tv^o-Tfeaooija- c t/^'::^:,r3 0ZAn^A JADSVl %0 fea^^IaToUV TUAMl au MIATIM TAMO .aASHSM aaT-iA ■ .Si'SJ' n;iSI JIG ,li«H jQEOiisiliOiiop ■“‘V. -' 'V ■> ■' ■■f^C^»v '' '^'i . '" '■> -» ’ ’ ■ ^ .5 irja.ua *" T£ j ?vr:aAn ,96 ,3KWOfla I Ya anmini SPEECH OF J. O’CONNELL, ESQ. M.P, SUGGESTING OUTLINES OF FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AFTER REPEAL. Deliyered in Conciliation Hall, on 13th November, 1843. Ordered by the Association to he printed. DUBLIN: PRINTED BY J. BROWNE, 36, NASSAU-ST. 1844. / V . V7?- ^ >IToL ,."iM '. 1 ^. ■ ■‘•'■■: '■ ^‘-'■' ■ '. vt'f ;:J^^?'>l'>'r^'<^j j{f ': f n '.’■■>■:{ trniiiUfo -•*.»• 7 af^lf^hoaf.A -. • ■'■ : : ' 7 ,r.-.„ : :'-,."v ikerjO ao r'^rf- ^ k ii."' V - •• V>^/|/^Oi> *30jfO' I ". ■.■• g ^ ’t-* •;’.i’. ’**■ ‘i/‘. ,y. V ij.w tio'Xtft p:', ^^ • - ■ ■ ^ > . • ■ ' I, ;:• • - •• V ■•' , t. Si idu ^.>jb , I . >r I ■■ ■ i ' ■ • '-'v .-:i j-j-on •><♦1 .? vr«o*.?j‘2 -. ; - ■ . i l..^.*- ■‘J'i; , ' * ' V-i - •• ■ • ■) •'.. >.-ir 'r.^f.(:^i^y:' ■ ^ <■• • '.t r..,h Ixi ■ ■' - 7 ; ' ''•> 7 . ■. 7 -.;^ ' “ ^ t " rr* 7.' >7 rr-..-' 7 Vv!' ; ■■•-I 770 of. • ■ ;...^,I'.'' V <:* *•- ■ ■'•■■I 7r -oV? "'lo ,! ■' •',♦ .,,.1 il7 fl Jif.i -'f7fh;I|.(i ?| •^•’': . .,-u .i!'d ->;.ciR’ 7 V ^; ,'5 1 . ., ' ,.:.:7 w v' J FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Mr. John O’Connell rose and said — Sir, in rising to redeem my notice of submitting to the Association the outlines of a plan, for a mutually satisfactory financial arrangement be- tween Great Britain and Ireland after the Repeal, I at once confess that my proposal must wear something of a paradoxical appear- ance. It has, I doubt not, been said : If the Repealers be right in their assertion of mon- strous fiscal grievances inflicted upon Ireland by the Union, the only satisfactory arrange- ment to that country must be one which shall relieve her of the monstrous burthens com- plained of, and throw the latter upon England, who is not likely to be very well content to assume them. To this objection I answer, that while I do not abate one jot in my denunciation of the unfairness and grievousness of the fiscal burthens put upon Ireland by the Union, nei- ther do I abate in my expectation that no reasonable person in Great Britain will, on a 4 full consideration of the circumstances of the case, consider that the arrangements I con- template would be of any real injury to his country ; but, on the contrary, that they would ultimately and not very remotely be productive of far greater benefit than can possibly he ex- pected under the present state of affairs. I do not indeed pretend to maintain that full, entire, and immediate relief to Ireland in these premises, would not involve a heavy and griev- ous increase of taxation to our fellow-subjects in Great Britain. But I hold that there are circumstances to impede the pressing of our claims to their full extent. The first of these impediments is of a sufficiently formidable na- ture — it is simply that England would never consent to our doing so. She never would consent to exonerate us at her own expense, especially at a timedike the present, when her resources would seem to have lost their spring under the extreme pressure of taxation. Per- haps, like the gentleman who said he had eighteen reasons for not paying his debts, and that the first was, that he had no money, I ought to be content with stating this one most sufficient bar to our total relief in financial matters. But there is at least one other, and I confess I consider it not to be without some potency. It is, that this country, although most decidedly not a consenting party to the Union, did in some degree incur its penalties. The execrable Union never could have been carried had not the rebellion occurred. That 5 rebellion put us in the wrong*, and enabled England to carry the Union. In the same way now would a rebellion put us in the wrong, and enable England to maintain the Union. We are warned however now, and will not be guilty of such madness. (Hear, hear.) We are warned by the sad and bitter experience of forty-three years of in juries, oppression, and insults, which we should have escaped, had we not by the re- bellion given our enemies the pretext and the power to crush our independence. I do think, Sir, that Ireland’s right to full and immediate relief from the injurious consequences of the Union has been thereby to some degree im- paired, although her right to the restoration of lier native ])arliament is not thereby affected in the least, but remains as strong as ever. — However, Sir, although for the reasons I have stated, I do not consider that we are in a posi- tion to insist upon the last farthing of our pe- cuniary claims, I have not the least fear that this opinion and declaration of mine will bring me into any disfavour with my countrymen. Throughout the ])resent mighty movement for the recovery of their rights, they have shown by far too much high-mindedness to make me for one moment suppose that they would allow mere considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence, to come in the way of a peaceful and amicable arrangement and final settlement of the exasperating dilferences now subsisting be- tween them and their British fellow-subjects. And I promise them that they will find that A 2 6 whatever may be the arrangement which I pro- pose as to details, that I do not suggest the concession or compromise of one single iota of principle ; nor can the results of my plan be otherwise than eminently useful and eminently beneficial to Ireland, and indeed also to Great Britain. My plan will, further, be found to have this recommendation to the lovers of social order, that it proposes to disturb the ex- isting state of things as little as possible, con- sistent with the doing of justice in financial matters, as in all others, to the people of Ire- land ; and that if it affect at all the interests of the public creditor in either country, it does so only in so far as it would render them more stable and secure. This is quite enough of preface, Sir, to delay you and the meeting with, and so I shall proceed at once with the matter of my subject. I propose first to show what is the existing state of things — what are the grievances under which Ireland labours at present, in financial points. I will then sug- gest my remedies, and labour to show the benefits I believe they would produce to both countries. The present state of things then. Sir, may be summarily stated as follows : — The act of Union protected Ireland from lia- bility to the debt of England previously con- tracted, and also from the raising of her taxa- tion to the high standard then existing in Great Britain, until either the debts of the two countries should be paid off, or that they should be brought to bear to each other the 7 proportion of two to fifteen — that is two parts for Ireland to fifteen parts for Great Britain. An additional and indispensable requisite in this second contingency was, that the cir- cumstances of the two countries should ap- pear to admit of uniform taxation, which they confessedly did not at the Union. The first contingency, namely, the payment of the two debts, need not be discussed, as it has not arrived yet, nor does it seem very likely. The second contingency was most unjustly held to have arrived in 1816, when the two- to-fifteen proportion between the two debts had been attained solely by the monstrous in- crease of the Irish debt ; and the requisite I have spoken of as to the ability of the two countries to bear equal taxation, was so far from being fulfilled, that the measure then adopted of subjecting Ireland to all the liabili- ties and all the taxation of Great Britain, was introduced with the strongest declarations by the English ministers themselves of poverty and approaching insolvency of Ireland. This measure, namely, the consolidation act, thus introduced in 1816 under the strange pretext of relieving Ireland from the Union burthens, then declared unjust and improper, did in reality give no relief ; as though the nominal liability to anything beyond a comparatively small amount of debt was taken away, yet there was also taken away at the same time all re- strictions on the power of the imperial parlia- ment to add to the taxation of Ireland, and to 8 take from her every shilling that could possibly be squeezed out ; and the consequence has been precisely, that every shilling that could in any manner be squeezed out of us has been taken and spent in England, no more being spent here than barely sufficed for the expenses of keeping and misgoverning the country. Now, Sir, I contend that the consolidation act of 1816 was utterly and plainly illegal, inasmuch as the contingency which, according to the act of Union, could alone have justified it, had not occurred, by the confessions of the then mem- bers of the English government themselves — We stand, therefore, in this position : — Ac- cording to the very same authority, namely, that of members of the then government, some of whom, in particular Mr. Goulburn, are members of the present government, we had been done injustice to at the Union, by the imposition on us then of too high a proportion of contribution to the imperial expenditure. I will not delay here to quote the actual words of Mr. Goulburn and his colleagues when making these confessions ; but any gentleman who wishes to see them will find them in the report I had the honour of drawing up lately for this association on ‘‘the Taxation Injustice.” Well, we have it on all hands confessed, that the Union act did us injustice in these particulars. Then comes the consolidation act of 1816, abrogating, indeed, the former injustice, but abrogating all provisions of the Union Act that gave us any shadow of protection against the 9 extremest stretch of taxation, and thus remov- ing* one grievance only to inflict another and a more permanent one. I must here go into a few figures to demonstrate the evil working of these two acts, viz., the act of Union and the act of Consolidation. First, as to the act of Union. I have already stated what its provi- sions were as to debt. As to the future com- mon expenditure, clear of the charges of debt, it provided that Ireland should contribute two parts to that common expenditure for every fifteen parts contributed by England. This proportion was much too high for the ability of Ireland, according to the confessions I have before mentioned, and the consequence was an increase of her debt during the next sixteen years far exceeding the increase of the British. Not to embarrass my subject with more figures than are absolutely necessary, I will take the annual debt charges in either country, to repre- sent their respective debts. I begin with the state of the debts at the commencement of 1801, although an unfair statement for Ireland ; I am compelled to do so because the Union propor- tions of contribution, whose evil effects I am about to show? only then commenced their operation : — British Debt-charge, funded and unfunded. On 5th January, 1801, £17,000,000 \ or 66 per cent. On 5th January, 1817, 28,288,416 J increase. Irish Debt-charge, same period. On 5th January, 1801, £1,244,464 ? or 230 per cent. On 5th January, 1817, 4,104,514 J increase. A 3 10 Professedly to relieve us from this monstrous accumulation of debt under which the country was sinking, the consolidation act was passed. In the Repeal debate in the House of Commons in 1834, Mr. Rice (the present Lord Montea- gle) boasted that this act took off our shoulders all but the comparatively insignificant amount —of our debt on which dividends were payable in Ireland : an amount which, with our unfunded debt, was no more on the 5th January, 1817? than £1,323,775. This was a very fallacious representation. It is true so far as that we paid the above sum specially out of the reve- nues of Ireland, and have since similarly paid out of the revenues of Ireland, the debt bor- rowed in Ireland. But this has obtained', not by reason of any specific clause in the consoli- dation act (the 56 Geo. 3, c. 98), enacting that we should pay only to that particular debt, and exonerating us from all further liability ; but simply because of the obvious convenience of the thing. And Mr. Rice suppressed the fact that we were made to the fullest extent respon- sible for and liable to the whole debt of Great Britain, which responsibility and liability have deprived us, and, till the whole of that enor- mous debt is paid off (or we get rid of the re- sponsibility otherwise), must continue to de- prive us of the benefit of any surplus that ever has accrued, or may accrue, at this side of the water ! The briefest perusal of the act of con- solidation wull show that this hardship to us was enacted by that measure. It did away 11 indeed with the two-to-Jifteen proportion of contribution, so unanimously condemned as too high for Ireland’s payments to imperial ex- penditure, clear of the charge of debts. But if it did, it left her without any protection against the utmost exactions that she could be at all got to stagger under. Thenceforward Ireland was to contribute, and has been made to contribute, simply whatsoever the English Chancellor of the Exchequer might please to consider as her ability ! Now, Sir, the con- secpience has been that, on an average of the 2G years since 1817 ? we have been made to pay nearly two-twelfths^ certainly more than two- thirteenths, of the common expenditure, instead of the much smaller proportion of 2-l7ths, which yet had been admitted by Great Britain herself to be too high for our ability! At first sight it would appear that the latter must have increased ; otherwise, how could we pay in so much higher a proportion ? But this is not the case. The amount of the common expen- diture has been much reduced since 1816 — re- duced considerably more than half- — and thus we have been able to pay this high proportion. Had the consolidation act not passed, we should only have to pay to 2-l7ths of this re- duced expenditure, and so have had some sur- plus-monies. But by reason of that act, every shilling of ours has been taken, and if our pe- cuniary ability were to increase even beyond that of Great Britain, the consolidation act ivould make us pay away every shilling into the 12 hands of the English Chancellor of the Exche- quer, to he by him disposed of as he shall think fit 1 1 will give this calculation of averages in figures from the annual finance -accounts, from 1816 up to and including the present year. I premise that I subtract from the average of British income, and add to that of Ireland, the sum of £400,000 for Irish uncredited revenue ; being partly made up of the duties paid in England on foreign goods imported through that country into Ireland, partly spf the ' sums by which the British exchequer profits from the annual expenditure in England of over three millions {at the least) of Irish absentee rents, and partly of the a,nnual amount of the Irish quit and crown rents, viz , between £60,000 and £70,000 per annum. Making, therefore, this deduction in the one case and addition in the other, the following are the averages for 26 years ; — British In- come. Irish Income. United Ex- penditure. Charge of the United Debts. £ 49,542,791 £ 5,016,019 £ 53,276,315 £ 29,365,91 1 Now the particular debt-charge of Ireland dur- ing these years averaged something under what I have stated it at in 1817, but taking it at the latter amount, viz., in round numbers, £1,300,000, and deducting it from the Irish income, there will remain the sum of £ 3 , 716,019 applicable to the imperial common 13 expenditure. The latter is found by deducting’ the united debt charge from the total of united expenditure given above. This leaves the sura of £23,910,404 as the average imperial expenditure clear of the charge of debt. A moment’s calculation will show that the £ 3 , 716,019 of Irish income remaining over after payment of Irish debt-charge, is nearly two-twelfths of the twenty-three millions in question. But that it would delay the meeting too long, I would throw these calculations into another form, and show that even supposing it were right that we should be charged with a very large proportion of the confessedly unjust increase of our debt between 1800 and 1817> still on the average we have paid to the com- mon expenditure in at least the proportion of the Union rates of contribution, although the act of 1816 condemned and pretended to relieve us from so high a rate. I will not, however, delay on this, but satisfied that I have shown that the consolidation act has given us no relief, I will go on to the question of the indulgence with which it is said that we are treated by Great Britain, in not having to pay all the taxes that she does. On this point we say, that if Great Britain pays exclusive taxes she does so of right, in consequence of the excess of her debt contracted before the Union over our debt similarly contracted. I will state this in figures, and also what she actually pays ex- chisively : — 14 British debt-charge at the Union, £17,000,000 Irish do. do. 1,244,460 Excess of British debt-charge,... £15,755,540 Now this is a separate liability, and how does it meet it ? SEPARATE TAXATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, YEAR 1843. Income tax £5,500,000 Land and assessed taxes 4,489,806 Differences in Excise duties, see finance ac- counts, &c 2,900,000 Total separate taxation of Great Britain, ... ... ... 12,889,806 Which falls short of her liabilities by £2,865,734 This sum of £2,800,000 not being separately defrayed by Great Britain, has therefore fallen in the common expenditure of the two coun- tries, and Ireland therefore has most unjustly been made to contribute to its discharge. The case was considerably worse for us before the income tax was imposed in England. It would occupy too much time to go into full calcula- tions of the amounts of England’s deficiencies as to her separate liabilities in former years. — Lord Monteagle, indeed, in his speech in the Repeal debate in 1834, so far from admitting 15 such deficiencies, boasted of her generosity in having up to that time from the Union paid an aggregate sum of £1,096)463,472, to one far- thing of which, according to him, she had not called upon Ireland to contribute. He did not say one word however as to her separate liabilities, and whether they were covered or not by the sum in question. And yet her sepa- rate liabilities during the thirty -three years up to the time he spoke had amounted, on the sin- gle score of excess of her debt contracted before the Union over that of Ireland, to an aggregate sum of no less than £519,932,820, which at once struck down half of his boast. — And this was not all her separate liability. By the act of Union she was subjected to a rate of contribution to the imperial common expendi- ture in the proportion of fifteen-seventeenths of that expenditure. Ireland’s proportion being two seventeenths, the excess of the English con- tingent was thirteen seventeenths. Now in the sixteen years from the Union to 1817, we see, by the report of the Imperial Finance Commit- tee in 1828, that the common expenditure of the two countries amounted in the aggregate to the sum of £789,074,986, of which sum thir- teen-seventeenths would be £603,410,275, and this added to the five hundred and nineteen millions stated before as excess of debt-charge, will show that Mr. Spring Rice’s exaggerated estimate — for such he half confessed it to be — of the separate taxation of Great Britain, ac- tually fell considerably short of what she ought 16 lavvFully to have paid separately, even taking* the account of her lawful excess of contribution to the imperial expenditure no farther than the year 1817* In my financial report gentlemen will find the calculation carried on and brought up to the present time, showing that the effect has been to make Ireland contribute unduly to considerably upwards of sixty millions, includ- ing interest ; that being about her proportion of payments to the very large sum thrown upon the common expenditure of the country during the last forty-two years, by the failure of Great Britain fully to discharge her annual separate liabilities throughout that space. I have now, Sir, I trust, given with sufficient distinctness the chief features of our grievances in matters of finance. We were made bankrupt in 1816, by the confessedly unjust rate of contribution imposed on us by the Unions The consolida- tion act of 1817? so far from relieving us, has really made us pay away every shilling that was not indispensably necessary for the reduced government expenses of the country. This drain of course increases and much aggravates the drains before existing, viz., the millions remitted to absentees, and the sums that go to England for manufactured articles, which we produced at home when our money capital was at home. Mr. Alderman Hayes, in his admira- ble speech at the Cork corporation debate on Repeal, estimated the entire money drain from Ireland as nine millions annually. His pre- mises were rather different from mine ; but in 17 the result we agree ; namely, that about nine millions of our money are drained away and lost to us ! I believe that we understate the drain even at nine millions ; and nothing is more idle than the pretence that we have been in any way compensated for these losses. A favourite assertion with the Unionists is, as to the amount of public money spent here. Now there was a return moved for in 1839? with the confessed intention of demonstrating how well we have been treated in this respect. I give its statement, and add what is necessary to bring it to the present time : — Returns of all sums, from whatever source a,nd under whatever description, voted or ap- plied either by way of grant or loan, in aid of public works in Ireland since the Union, in- cluding the expense of all commissions and surveys, and all sums advanced for roads and for employment of the poor.” Total amount in 1839 •• ... £8,828,141 Additions up to 1843, as per finance accounts, parliamentary paper 5,40 of 1839 .. .. 340,000 Total Ireland .. £9?168,141 I moved for a similarly worded return last year for Great Britain, and the amount for that country was £15,662,000, notwithstanding se- veral very glaring omissions. Of the loans to us, included in the above, we have paid back over six millions, and for the rest of the money 18 on loan we pay 6 per cent. On the other hand, Great Britain has repaid but four millions, and several of her loans are at 3 per cent., and some, particularly the £300,000 to the Thames Tunnel, and a large amount for Highland roads and bridges, have borne no interest at all. Then, as to relief of taxation, a recent parliamentary paper gives the totals in this re- spect for both countries since the Union, and we find that Great Britain has had taxes, the annual product of which would make forty- four millions taken off her since the Union, while we have had a relief of barely two mil- lions. I feel, Sir, that it is. needless forme to go on with these details, and that I have estab- lished my position of the financial grievances Ireland has suffered under the Union. What then is my remedy ? What is the plan whereby I propose to give her relief, and yet not further burthen England ? I will state the general principle of this plan, and then go into a very few details on the subject. The principle then is, to have the money of Ireland spent at home. I have already said that every shilling that can be gleaned from this country, and that can be spared from the reduced go- vernment expenses, which are still requisite and unavoidable here, is taken away to Eng- land. Stop this outgoing. It ought to be stopped by an immediate reduction of our taxes, which would be the best mode ; and which is due to us for all that we have been plundered of. But in the present state of the 19 empire, even if we had the power, as we most decidedly have the right, we would not press too fast for this reduction. But let England apportion more equally the necessary expendi- ture of the empire. (Cries of hear, hear.) — Let her send a division of her and our fleet — for it is ours as well as hers — let her send a portion of it to our noble and secure harbours. Let us have a proper contingent of the army assigned to us to maintain at home and abroad. Let the government establishments of various kinds which have been removed from Ireland, and consolidated with those in England, be again restored here. The imperial economy, if any, that may have been effected by such transfers, has been a direct and dead loss to Ire- land : for not a tax was therefore lightened, all' savings going to the interest of the English debt. Centralization is a beautiful theory, but practice has proved it injurious in most states of Europe, but particularly so in one made up of three different and distinct kingdoms, as is the British empire. We are ready to defray all the expenses of the restored establishments and of the contingents we suggest. We don’t want to have any saving at present out of our income. All that we suggest is, that whereas now so much of our money goes to England to assist in defraying imperial expenses there, let such portion of the government establishments, &c., as require an amount of money equal to what we now send away, be removed here, and we will maintain them to the last penny of our 20 money, and of course England can be no loser, (hear, hear.) Nay, if, as I believe, that a part of what we send over is employed in the pay- ment of interest of debt, let England assign over that portion of her debt to us ; we will readily undertake it ; it would be no new hard- ship to us, for the British Chancellor of the Exchequer at present pays the interest on it with our money, without asking our consent ; and if it became Irish funds, of course the ad- ditional facility for investment of money would, to a certain extent, be a gain. I now. Sir, in order to throw more light on the details of the plan, will lay before you two calculations I have taken from parliamentary papers. I will show you first what portion of the imperial ex- penditure Ireland pays at present ; or rather I should say, did pay in the year 1841. I am obliged to take that year, because the latest specific return of Irish payments in detail is one that I moved for,in 1842, and is of course for the preceding year. I will next show you what her actual ability is, and for this purpose I must take the finance accounts of 1842, as one of my items of calculation there, is that of “ stamps,” which were then first equalized in both countries. The year 1841-2 is here taken, as the last for which Irish proportions have been specified. What proportion of the imperial expenditure does Ireland pay ? 21 Items of Imperial Ireland’s Pro- Expenditure, year Total Amount. portion, AS ended 5th January, Paid. 1842. £ £ Civil list, annuities," pensions, salaries, allowances, diplo- matic salaries and pensions, courts of justice and mis- cellaneous charges on the consolidated ■ 2,411,114 575,981 fund J A rmv. . 1 6,418,421 1,815,132 946,981 110,420 Ordnanoe Miscellaneous on an- ] • nualgrcnts 1 2,927,660 331,738 Charges which ap- pear in the Impe- rial but not in the Irish accounts, but against which Ire- land has a set-off : Navy £6,489,074 ' Canada 117,153 j 7,006,227 *1,392,089 China 400,000 ] £20,578,554 £3,357,209 * This sum of £1,392,089 is got at thus: — The finance accounts for 1842 state the Irish income in 1841 as £4,144,192. To this we add the un credited taxation of Ireland mentioned before, viz. : £400,000, making a total of £4,543,192. From this deduct the amount of her debt-charge, and of the four first items in the above account. The remainder is the £1,390,000 in question. That is to say, that nearly one-sixth of the im- perial expenditure- (clear of the charges for 22 debt) is provided for by Ireland. The debt^ charges for 1 84 1 were as follows : — Account No. 4, of Parliamentary Return No. 305, of 1842, states the Irish debt-charge, of both kinds, to have been £1,186,983, and that sum subtracted from the total debt-charge in the finance accounts leaves £28,263,131, as the British debt-charge. Now what is Ireland’s ability ? Her taxes are equal under the heads of Customs,” “ Stamps,” and “ Post-Office,” and are nearly so under that of ‘‘ Excise^^ United Kingdom. Ireland. £ £ Customs ... 22,771,314 Credited Uncredited"] ..2,221,494 1 i. e., paid 1 on foreign | goods com* 1 ing from England. 1 > 278,506,about 1 Stamps 7,367,948 531,035* Post-office . 1,610,480 132,429 Excise 14,339,345 1,300,000 £46,089,087 £4,463,464 * The year 1842-3 is here taken, as stamps were then- for the first time equal in both countries. That is to say, between the one-tenth and the one-eleventh part of the imperial payments under these four important heads. Now, as this would appear the ability of Ireland, while, as we have seen, her total of payments (after discharging her own debt) amount to a sum between the one-6th and the o(ne-7th of the im- 23 perial expenditure, clear of all debt-charges, it follows that, taking these proportions respec- tively as one-1 1th and one-7th, for the sake of convenience, the difference between the amount of one- 11th of the said imperial expenditure (clear of debt-charges), and the amount of the total payments of Ireland in the other table, (which total payments, as we have seen, are equal to one-7th of the said imperial expendi- ture,) is equivalent to a payment by Ireland towards the excess of the British debt over that charged to Ireland. In figures it would stand thus : — The Irish one-seventh in the first table we have given, is . . £3,357,209 But one-eleventh of £20,578,554 amounts only to • • . • 1,870,441 Therefore Ireland paid in 1841 ^ towards the British debt- > £1,486,768 ! charge, no less than about j I will make no comment upon the extent of the grievance to us, which these tables show, further than to say, that I think Ireland would fairly barter for more of the active expenditure and less of the dead weight. But however that may be settled, there is no doubt the ma- terials for an arrangement may be found in these calculations. Let the two countries ami- cably consider all the premises, and apportion between them the expense of the state. Let Ireland have her due share of the government 24 expenditure, to wliicli she contributes so evi- dently to the utmost of her power. The absen- tee drain will he checked after the Repeal, by the necessity the absentees will find themselves under of looking after their own interests at home. The revenue drain will be checked by the arrangement I propose. The stoppage of these two drains will cause nearly six millions of money to be at once spent here at home, whereas they are now spent elsewdiere, and lost to us. It will be so much added to the na- tional capital ; and as the latter increases, so will the ability of Ireland increase ; until in the progress of, perhaps, not very many years, Ireland will be able cheerfully and readily to contribute double what can be screwed from her at present. To provide for this contin- gency, an arrangement could be made similar to that in the act of Union, which enacted periods of revision of the rates of contribution then established. The first revision might be appointed, say, after a period of five years, and then, if Ireland’s ability should be found to have increased, she, at length in possession of, and secure in the enjoyment of the full be- nefits of the constitution, would readily consent to increase her contribution. There is an ap- parent difficulty as to the precise specification of the common expenses and the proportions on each item ; but as that difficulty is now got over single-handed by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not see that it could not be as easily, and for Ireland much more satis- 25 factorlly, settled by an annual commission for the purpose, say to consist of the Chancellors of the Exchequer for each country, the Lord Chancellor of either, and the Speaker of the House of Commons of either. Of course the business of this commission would be only with details, the groundwork o£ the arrangement being laid down by the international treaty at the time of Repeal. Of course, too, the con- stitutional power of the Commons to refuse supplies on cause arising should be saved intact. The British parliament would never consent to any arrangement that would interfere with those powers ; and we ought not to consent to any limitation of them in our own case. I have now. Sir, suggested my remedy, and gone enough into details to make it, I hope, be dis- tinctly understood by those who have done me the honour of attending to me. I hasten to conclude. In doing so, I would ask of my fel- low-countrymen calmly to consider what I have advanced. They will find, I trust, that in no respect do I propose the compromise of a particle of principle ; and, that the forbear- ance which I venture to enjoin, from pressing for the full amount of our claims in fiscal mat- ters, is perfectly compatible with immediate great benefit and advantage to our general in- terests. Let us have but the management of our own affairs, the use of our own money, and w^e shall care little for our state burthens. At present our condition is little better than that of a man Avho, wxak from exhaustion and w^ant B i 26 of food, staggers and falls under burthens that, when restored to health and strength, he would laugh at. Our parliament returning will bring with it the restoratives we want ; and not only we ourselves, but the empire, will feel the benefit of our renewed vitality and vi- gour. The same .calm consideration do I soli- cit from England of the matters I have now advanced. The plan of which I have now given the outlines is one that cannot inflict any present loss to her — cannot increase her pre- sent burthens — and promises much future be- nefit. Under the present state of things she is ruining us for exertion on any great emer- gency* Already she has seen it, by the con- fession of her ministers, that Ireland was una- ble to bear a proportion of the grievous income tax. Let her not even tacitly assent to the blasphemy against Providence, that our lawful prosperity could possibly be an injury to her. On the contrary, she would reap abundant and overflowing benefit from it — benefit not only in the increased money aid which Ireland would be able to give in moments of necessity, but the far higher benefit of our grateful and devoted attachment. Let England, then, fear not to do justice — let her concede to us the rights we demand — let her enter with us into the friendly arrangement we propose — and she may be assured that, in the wildest visions of her gigantic ambition, she never yet imagined to herself that pitch of prosperity — that pitch of security — that pitch of greatness, to which she 27 can attain when Ireland is her friend. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded, amidst loud and continued cheers, by proposing the outlines of a proposed financial arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland after the Repeal. OUTLINES OF A PROPOSED FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, AFTER THE REPEAL, ETC. 1st. That the principle of the arrangement he, that the revenues of Irelend be spent at home. 2nd. That the first charge upon her reve- nues be her debt, as it stands at present. 3rd. That her contribution to the imperial active expenditure be, as now, according to the full measure of her ability, as shown by a comparison of the products of equal taxes in both countries, or such other elements of com- parison as may be agreed upon. 4th. That a revision of the proportion of contribution of either country respectively do 28 take place at such periods as may be agreed upon ; the first to be within five years after the Repeal. 5th. That if it be deemed expedient at the time of Repeal, that Ireland should be charged with any debt beyond what appears charged to her in the public account, such debt be trans- ferred from the English to the Irish funds. 6th. That the various items of active impe- rial expenditure be apportioned between the two countries, in such manner as to obviate all necessity for the revenues of one country being spent in the other. 7th. That the control and management of the Revenues of Ireland, subject to the fore- going rules, be with the Parliament of Ireland, and that nothing herein contained be deemed or assumed to impair the constitutional right of that Parliament to stop or limit the supplies, on constitutional cause arising. SPEECH OF JOHN O’CONNELL, ESQ. M.P. IN CONCILIATION HALL, On Monday, 18th December, 1843, IN ANSWER TO THE GLOBE NEWSPAPER, ^ Mr. John O’Connell was sorry to be obliged again to trespass on the time and attention of the association ; but having seen in a recent number of the Globe newspaper some remarks having reference to certain observations of his upon the financial aftairs of both countries, he wished to offer a few words in reply, in order to shew their English friends that they (the Repealers) had reason for the faith that was in them. In the Globe of Saturday last he found the following passage : — “ Whether a country of eight millions and a half of inhabitants, whose contributions hardly equal that of Scot- land, with a population under' three millions — whether a constituent member of the United Kingdom, exempt from assessed and income taxes, be over^ or under taxed, we leave to the judment of impartial readers.” Now he (Mr. O’Connell) would also readily leave it to an impartial judgment — could there be a B 2 30 greater proof of the poverty of Ireland than in the very fact of the money amount of her con- tributions being small ? The state of things is this — call the united expenditure 54 millionSo British separate taxation, that is to say, land, assessed, and income taxes (with two or three items of excise duties), amounts to about 12 millions. The remainder of the expenditure, viz., 42 millions, is contributed to by both countries, by equal taxes — taxes identically the same. Now, as Ireland is one-third of the empire, if her ability were proportionate to that of Great Britain, she ought to pay at least one-third of those 42 millions, and thus her revenue would be 14 millions. But so poor and distressed is she, that all that those equal taxes can produce is very little more than four millions ! The amount is small, not because of her being exempted, or in any way fa- voured, so far as liability to these 42 millions, but because her population is so poor, that a comparatively very small proportion of them can afford to be consumers of the articles, the taxes on which go to form the revenue. [Hear, hear.] Let me tell the Globe that here is the great mistake that England makes. [Hear, hear.] If she treated Ireland with fairness — if she allowed her the use and control of her own resources, it is not a paltry sum of four millions, or even of fourteen millions, that we would be able to contribute ; but I would not despair of seeing our revenue increase five or six-fold in a very few years. As to our ex- 31 emptions from assessed and income taxes, the former were taken off declaredly because fail- ing of production, and the latter, Sir Robert Peel declared, would not pay the expenses of its collection here ! But, as I before said, the twelve millions of exclusive taxation paid by Great Britain is less than what she ought to pay exclusively. Her debt-charge before the Union exceeded ours by fifteen millions, and she does not pay more than twelve millions ex- clusively. And it is only since 1 842 that she pays near so much, the income tax then im- posed producing 5^ millions ; so that before 1842 she unduly evaded a rightful separate lia- bility of over eight millions ! But the Globe goes on to put the following questions to me : — Will Mr. J. O’Connell say that the benefi- cial share which Irishmen at this moment en- joy in the expenditure of the empire does not exceed the proportion which they pay towards it ? Will he say that Ireland independent^ could furnish herself with the establishments necessary to independence, a.t the present rate of taxation ? Then what is the meaning of the clamour about over-taxation for our purposes, when, after all of the whole of the small reve- nue of Ireland, only £1,300,000 is annually remitted to England for expenditure out of Ireland, but not therefore for expenditure in which Ireland has no interest, unless we are to be told that Irishmen find no advantages in Great Britain and her colonies?” [Hear, hear.] Now, Sii*, to the first of these questions I re- 32 ply distinctly in the negative. What beneficial share do Irishmen enjoy in the expenditure ? The expenses of government are as small as they possibly can be ; every office is removed to England and consolidated there that can possibly be removed- And as to Irishmen serving in the army, which the Globe referred to in a former paper as a proof of the benefit Irishmen had from the imperial expenditure, let the Globe recollect that we pay more than our proportion towards the army expenditure, and that we did so before the crowding in of troops this present year. The total imperial charge for the army in 1841 was £6,418,421, out of which Ireland paid £946,981, or more than one-seventh ; while, as I shall presently show, the actual financial ability of Ireland is no more, owing to her poverty, than as one to ten as compared with that of Great Britain. — Besides, if there be a large number of Irish soldiers in the army, don’t they give value for it in their good bone and sinew, and their blood in England’s wars? [cheers.] As to the imperial distribution of high salaries and good situations. Irishmen are in a miserable minority. The Orange Evening Mail shall be my authority for that, as I find it quoted in Mr. Smith O’Brien’s admirable speech last session. Mr. O’Brien said — “ Let me first ob- serve that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is an Englishman — the Chief Secretary is an Eng- lishman — the Lord Chancellor is an English- man — the Archbishop of Dublin is an English- 33 man — the Chief Administrator of the Irish Poor Law is an Englishman — the Paymaster of Irish Civil Services is a Scotchman — the Chief Commissioner of Irish Public Works is an Englishman — the ‘ Teller’ of the Irish Ex- chequer is an Englishman — the Chief Officer of the Irish Constabulary is a Scotsman — the Chief Officer of the Irish Post-Office is an Eng- lishman — ^the Collector of Excise is a Scotch- man — the head of the Revenue Police is an Englishman ; the second in command is a Scotchman — the persons employed in the col- lection of the customs, &c., are English and Scotch in the proportion of thirty-five to one. But the Times may perhaps observe, Hrue, but all this is only the elucidation of our plan for unbarring the gates of preferment unspar- ingly, impartially, and honestly.’ Scotchmen and Englishmen are placed in office in Ireland, and Irishmen in return in Scotland and Eng- Ihnd, in order to draw closer the bonds of union between the three united nations. Again, let us see how facts actually stand — ^there are ca- binet ministers, Englishmen, 1 0 ; Scotchmen, 3 ; Irish, 0. The Duke of Wellington is so much denationalized that I believe he scarcely considers himself an Irishman, and certainly cannot be called a representative of Irish inter- ests in the cabinet. Lords of the Treasury, Englishmen 4, Scotchmen 1, Irishmen 1 ; Clerks of the Treasury, Englishmen or Scotch- men 112, Mr. Fitzgerald (query an Irishman) 1 ; members of the Lord Steward’s and Lord 34 Chamberlain’s departments of the Royal House- hold, Englishmen and Scotchmen 225, Irish- men 4 ; British Ministers to Foreign Courts, Englishmen and Scotchmen 131, Irishmen 4 ; Poor Law Commissioners, Englishmen 3, Irishmen 0. We presume,” adds the editor, ‘‘ that these facts show that the natives of the three kingdoms are all placed upon an equal footing, the chances of access to preferments to an Englishman or Scotchman in Ireland being in the few instances that have occurred to us while writing, as 6 to 0 ; while the pro- bability of an Irishman obtaining place in England, appears from an analogous calcula- tion, to be in the proportion of 491 to 10, or as 1 to 50.” If we look at it as Catholics matters are even worse. In the army, for in- stance, there is no Catholic higher than the grade of captain. In the navy there is no Ca- tholic of the rank of post-captain, and only one so high even as that of a commander. In its concluding remarks upon our revenue, and the money we remit for expenditure out of Ireland, the Globe treats the sum of £1,300,000 as small and miserable. It is, however, a very large sum to us, amounting, as it does, to much more than one-fourth of our revenue — It is to us what 13 or 14 millions would be to England, and the very contempt with which she looks on an amount to us so large and heavy, proves how unjust it is to apply the same measure and rule to two countries so very dilferent in their circumstances. In order to 35 give the Globe the proper means of judging of our real financial ability, and the exactions from us, I must here refer to the two state- ments I put forward in this room a month ago (see pages 21 and 22), and which are compiled from the annual finance accounts and other parliamentary documents. I respectfully request the writer in the Globe calmly and attentively to consider the sche- dules above referred to. Is there not injus- tice and grievance to Ireland here ? Now, after all, what was my proposition the other day, when I went into a detail of the financial grievances we have suffered from the Union ? Was it that taxes ought at once to .be taken off us, or compensation made us for what has been unjustly drained away, for a long series of years ? No ; I said, we don’t want to save a penny, only if there are to be expensive go- vernment establishments, let Ireland have the benefit of their expenditure as well as England. We have a large portion of the army, let that be specially assigned to us. Let a proper proportion of the navy be sent over to our no- ble harbours. Follow out this principle in all the departments of public services, and we will be content, until the affairs of the empire im- prove enough to admit of a general and fairly apportioned reduction of taxation. The arti- cle in the Globe concludes with a quotation from the German traveller. Kohl, who has re- cently done us the honour of writing a book about us. If that traveller had taken the 4 ? 36 trouble to inform himself on the matters he wrote about, he would know that the improve- ment of the Shannon is carried on with our own money, and that wherever Ireland has received loans of public money she has regu- larly paid a high interest for it, and at this moment has repaid over six millions of princi- pal out of about nine millions due, while Great Britain has not repaid to the imperial exche- quer quite four millions out of sixteen or seventeen millions lent to her within the same time. [Hear.] Browne, Printer, 3G, Nassau-street, P r ,J|; H ^ ' r: PRESgnyAXK>N REVIEW