36 hostility. This was the most conclusive and satisfactory answer to the move. In The Right Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to say that he should now address himself to the amendment, which it would be his duty to He had said that the present was not the occasion to meet the motion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman with a direct negative. The first clause of his amendment would go to assert the importance of the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland. [Hear, hear.] the next clause the House would be called on to state, that the Imperial Parliament had devoted its anxious attention to the interests of Ireland, and that remedial measures, before which all the anti-union projects shrank as nothing, had been passed for its advantage. He thought it right to couple this declaration with another, not that the Parliament would take a new course, but that we were determined to persevere in the course that had hitherto been followed. [Loud cheers.] He should also another amendment, which was not, although unusual, altopropose gether without precedent-that they should communicate these resolutions to the other House of Parliament in the shape of an address to the Crown; and after both Houses had joined in this address, he had no doubt that they would receive, as in due course they were likely to receive, the gracious answer of the Monarch concurring in the same sentiments. [Hear, hear.] Let not Honourable Members think, however, that the agitation on the repeal of the Union would stop here. [Loud cheering from a portion of the Irish Members.] But, however, that might be, their duty at least, whenever any man proposed to dismember the empire, to deprive it of its weight and authority, was to give such a proposition their most decided, distinct, and unequivocal opposition. [Loud cheers.] No objection could be raised to the course he proposed; the Parliament of Ireland—the praised and vaunted Parliament-did precisely the same thing. But before he proceeded further, with all respect to the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, he would observe, but concisely, upon the reference he had made to ancient times. If there was any man who doubted that in periods of barbarism, in England as well as in Ireland, in the midst of a civil war, great atrocities had been committed-if any man doubted that [A laugh], why he was much enlightened by the statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. Suppose a man was to go back through the history of England to the times of the Norman conquest, and to raise political inferences from those times applicable to the year 1834, would it not be thought that, however deep, and learned, and erudite he might be, he was quite unfitted for all the purposes of practical legislation? He wondered the Honourable Member had not gone back to the divorce of Ky Briffin and his wife Iva. [Much laughter.] He was no lawyer, he had not that honour; but he believed that when a man read part of a document he made the whole of it evidence. He did not know whether that was good law; he was sure it was good common sense. In 1246, and again in 1278, there was the most deep and constant anxiety on the part of the Irish kings to be admitted to the privileges of the English subjects, and one of them was ready to give 800 marks for that privilege. [Hear.] And yet the Honourable Member argued in favour of the repeal of a Union, which gave to all Irishmen the privileges of English subjects. But he saw there was an intention on the part of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman beyond what appeared at first sight. We heard of these scenes of devastation and carnage chronicled in the writings of Spenser and Morrisson, not without an ulterior object. All this would appear connected by a link framed of the worst materials, forged at the worst fire, and intended to lead to the worst consequences. [Hear.] It might be gathered even from a passage in the speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman last night, to the effect that the Queen (Elizabeth) and her councillors were aware of the benefit, to Ireland, which would arise from the operation of the just laws of the country, but the British subjects in Ireland were apprehensive that their application would make Ireland too strong, while it was their policy to keep her as weak as possible-a course of policy followed with as unrelenting a perseverance, and as much alive in the present day as in the reign of Elizabeth. Now, he would ask, who was disposed at the present day to commit his name and character by such proceedings? Whose principles, whose policy was it to keep Ireland weak? [Much cheering.] Certainly those principles and that policy could not be attributed to either of the contending parties in that House. During the whole time he had sat in that House, whether on that or on the other side, he had never seen the slightest inclination shown to make Ireland weak. Even the economical soul of the Honourable Member for Middlesex was touched. Pluto was moved; iron tears did not roll, indeed, down Pluto's cheeks [a laugh], but more was gained; they got supplies from him. The bloodshed, the rapine, and the cruelty which the Honourable and Learned Member had quoted from history, were mentioned, not to soothe but to excite indignation and disgust. [Hear.] We ought to look to history for better things than crimes and violences. It should be looked into to promote feelings of humanity and brotherly love, not to excite the passions, not to weaken an indispensable connexion, not to undermine the strength of the empire. [Cheers.] He would now relieve the House from the fatigue of listening to arguments proceeding from so inconsiderable a person as himself, and would read them a passage from a great man no more, which would fully repay the House for their attention. It was contained in a letter from Mr. Burke to his son "They revive the bitter memory of every dissension, which has torn to pieces their miserable country for ages. After what has passed in 1782, one would not think that decorum, to say nothing of policy, would permit them to call up by magic charms, the grounds, reasons, and principles of those terrible, confiscatory, and exterminating periods. They would not set men upon calling from the quiet sleep of death any Samuel, to ask him, by what act of arbitrary monarchs, by what inquisitions of corrupted tribunals, and tortured jurors; by what fictitious tenures invented to dispossess whole unoffending tribes and their chieftains; they would not conjure up the ghosts from the ruins of castles and churches, to tell why the estates of the old Irish nobility and gentry had been confiscated. They would not wantonly call on those phantoms. If, however, you could find out these pedigrees of guilt, I do not think the difference would be essential. What lesson does the iniquity of prevalent factions read to us? It ought to lesson us into an abhorrence of the abuse of our own power in our own day-when we hate its excesses so much in other persons and in other times. To that school true statesmen ought to be satisfied to leave mankind. They ought not to call from the dead all discussions and litigations which formerly inflamed the furious factions, which had torn their country to pieces; they ought not to rake into the hideous and abominable things there. The Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin had wasted a great deal of time in declaiming against atrocities committed in horrible times, which had really no reference whatsoever to his present object, and whilst doing so he had passed very lightly indeed over certain portions of Irish history. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman seemed to have quite forgotten the days of James I. and Charles I.; and yet when a man was talking of passages in a horrible period, there were events in those times which might be well alluded to. He (Mr. Rice), however, would not allude to them, because, were he to do so he should be guilty of the same fault which he condemned in the Honourable Member for Dublin. He made the remark only to show the inconsistency of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, and to observe how the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had taken upon himself to omit these periods" by particular desire." It appeared that at all times there was the greatest anxiety upon the part of the Irish people to obtain the same rights and privileges with the English people. [Hear, hear, from Mr. Ruthven and Mr. F. O'Connor.] He heard the cheers of the Honourable Gentlemen. Perhaps the proposition he had just enunciated might make against his view of the question, but he was not aware that it would, nor indeed did he see how it could. He now came to that period at which the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin had laboured, and in his opinion laboured with very little effect. The Honourable Gentleman said, that England had no right of domination over Ireland, and this he argued at great length. But surely this was a mere waste of argument. England, undoubtedly, had claimed and exercised domination in Ireland, but it was usurpation. [Cheers.] This he would prove from fair reasoning on the case, and from the declarations of England itself. And did England claim, or argue that it had a claim, to such a right now? Who governed Ireland? Who legislated for Ireland? The Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not the Parliament of England. [Cheers.] And certainly he could not imagine that the Honourable Gentleman opposite would dream of denying that Ireland was now fully, and fairly, and ably represented. [Laughter.] But to proceed: the Honourable Member for Dublin wanted to prove that England had no such right—why, the fact was the Legislature itself declared so, in an Act of 1783. He saw the Honourable Member (Mr. Ruthven) was taking notes, and he was anxious to give him his best assistance. He would find it under this head-Act of 23 George III. c. 28. [Here the Honourable Gentleman read an extract from this Act.] There was a declaration on the part of the British Parliament that it, as such, had no right to legislate for Ireland; therefore the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's elaborate argument on the subject was all waste of time and rubbish. He now came to a part of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's speech, in which he concurred with him. He (Mr. O'Connell) stated in glowing terms his admiration of the great and noble men who acted as leaders in the revolution of 1778. There was no individual who could feel more sincere admiration for those illustrious men than he did. The object for which they were contending was strictly legal. They were contending that, as Ireland was not represented in the British Parliament, that Parliament had no right to legislate for Ireland. But greatly as he admired those distinguished persons for what they had effected, he, if possible, admired them still more for their prudence and discretion in not doing more. Yet even when Charlemont, and Grattan, and Brownlow were at the head of the popular party in Ireland, there was much danger to be apprehended-a danger that, however, was happily averted by their moderation and wisdom. There was then an armed confederation of volunteers, but this formidable engine was so conducted as not to produce those evils which might well seem to be inevitable. In 1782 the independence of Ireland had been asserted, and so the object of the volunteers had been accomplished; but still they had a view to ulterior measures, and they sought to overawe the Parliament. An extraordinary occurrence-a most dangerous one-took place at this time an assembly of delegates from the Irish volunteers was sitting at the Exchange in Dublin at the same moment that the Irish Parliament was sitting in College-green; and it was moved and carried that Mr. Flood should go to the House of Commons in his uniform as a volunteer, accompanied by a body of armed volunteers, and make his motion for reform in Parliament, the delegates having determined to sit until it was disposed of. A more dangerous attempt to overawe a Parliament never took place; but by the prudence of those great men appealed to by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the danger was arrested. After they had attained their legitimate object, not one among them wished to continue agitation to keep up excitement for indirect purposes or for selfish views. They were men against whom calumny never could prevail. They were men on whose great names there was no blot or blemish. They formed the capital of the Corinthian pillar of their age. He would now beg to read from 'Edgeworth's Memoirs' a passage descriptive of the circumstances to which he had alluded. The appearance of Mr. Flood, and of the delegates by whom he was accompanied, in their volunteer uniforms in the Irish House of Commons, excited an extraordinary sensation. Those who were present, and who have given an account of the scene that ensued, describe it as violent and tumultuous in the extreme. On both sides the passions were worked up to a dangerous height. The debate lasted all night. "The tempest-for towards morning debate there was none—at last ceased." The question was put, and Mr. Flood's motion for reform in Parliament was negatived by a very large majority. The House of Commons then entered into resolutions declaratory of their fixed determination to maintain their just rights and privileges against any encroachments whatever; adding, that it was at that time indispensably necessary to make such a declaration. Meantime an armed convention continued sitting the whole night, waiting for the return of their delegates from the House of Commons, and impatient to learn the fate of Mr. Flood's motion. One step more, and irreparable, fatal imprudence might have been committed. Lord Charlemont, the president of the convention, felt the danger, and it required all the influence of his character, all the assistance of the friends of moderation, to prevail upon the assembly to dissolve, without waiting longer to hear the report from their delegates in the House of Commons. The convention had, in fact, nothing more to do, or nothing that they could attempt without peril; but it was difficult to persuade the assembly to dissolve the meeting, and to return quietly to their respective counties and homes. This point, however, was fortunately accomplished, and early in the morning the meeting terminated. The same statement was made in Hardy's Memoirs of Lord Charlemont. After speaking on reform in Parliament, he said: "Parliament now became the theatre of popular exertion. Whoever was present in the House of Commons on the night of the 29th of November, 1783, cannot easily forget what passed there. I do not use any disproportionate language, when I say that the scene was most terrific. Several of the minority, and all the delegates who had come from the convention, were in uniforms, and bore the aspect of stern hostility." But now he should be glad that the House turned its attention to the practical subject before them. The object should be to illustrate the state of things which arose under the improved constitution of 1782. The Honourable Members opposite surely would admit that Ireland had a good constitution then-perfect independence for Ireland was secured by it. The union between the countries then was a federative union; they were bound together by the link of the Crown, but their Legislatures were separate. Well, what happened under this excellent system of things? First, there was the affair of Portugal, and here the following event had all but taken place,—namely, that the King of Ireland should be at war with Portugal, while the King of England remained at peace. This strange state of things was within a hair's-breadth of being brought to pass. The next point was the affair of the Regency, which the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin passed over very lightly. Ireland determined on one thing, England on another. Honourable Members opposite would admit the facts; he trusted they would also admit his inference from them, and he contended that they might just as well -that they were as fully entitled to select different persons as regents, as to select each the same individual, conferring on him different degrees of power. The one capability, he maintained, on the part of the Irish Parliament involved the other. So that if it had so pleased them, they might have appointed the Duke of York Regent of Ireland, with the full authority of a King, while the Prince of Wales acted as Regent of England, with limited powers. Thus would they have had two regents in these countries, acting upon different principles, and invested with different degrees of authority. In addition to these facts, the working of the constitution of 1782 was not so very favourable as to induce Irishmen to revert to the times in which it existed with any thing like pride or pleasure. There was then an armed assembly out of doors to control the Parliament. That assembly, to be sure, was guided by Lord Charlemont, by Henry Grattan, by Forbes, and Brownlow. But did they not think it possible that an Irish Parliament might be controlled by an assembly out of doors now? Was it not possible that the men of Kildare might be exhorted to take up their sticks and make the Dublin Parliament do what it ought to do? But certainly now they had a security which the people of that day could not boast of. The volunteers were led by such wild enthusiasts,— such selfish agitators as Lord Charlemont, Henry Grattan, and their friends; but now the popular assemblages would be guided by the prudent, discreet, and calm counsels of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] It was impossible that the mischief which happened under the auspices of Lord Charlemont and Grattan in 1782 could be repeated under the wise control of the Honourable Gentleman. There could be no danger; and yet he knew not how it was, but he had not exactly the same reliance upon the wisdom of the Honourable Member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) as he might have had upon that of Lord Charlemont. He next proceeded to observe that the Irish Parliament in those days |