and the repealers the thing was conclusive, for there was nothing which afforded a more striking contrast between the Irish and the Imperial Parliament, than this very question of the state of education in Ireland before and since the Union. The contrast was as great as between darkness and light. He dwelt upon this part of the case to show the extreme unfairness of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman in omitting all mention of this subject in his speech. Now as to the Reform Bill, let him contrast the constituency of Ireland before the Union and what it now was. He might, perhaps, be told that Ireland had gained nothing by that measure,-that she was only insulted with the show of Reform; but he thought it would not be denied by any of the gentlemen (the repealers) opposite that she had got an improved constituency. Indeed, it was evident that many of them owed their seats to the change which had been made in that constituency. What was the state of that constituency as described by Mr. Grattan in 1793? He said that, of a House consisting of three hundred Members, two hundred were returned by individuals, and from forty to fifty by ten persons. Several boroughs had no resident electors; some had but one; and on the whole, two-thirds of the House were returned by less than one hundred persons. What was the case now? There was now a constituency of ninety thousand two hundred and eighty-six electors. Why should this have been omitted from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's statement? [Hear.] Was it not a strong contrast to the state of things before the Union? It might be said that though the two countries were united in one Legislature, we had not given to Ireland English laws in every respect. It was true that there did exist some difference between the laws in the two countries; but in what did those differences consist? The variation would be found to have been made by the Imperial Parliament for the benefit of Ireland. He would select a few instances:--First, he would take the charities; for instance, the fever hospitals. In these the founders of the charities were declared to be entitled, in aid of the charity, to as much from the public treasury as they had raised by private subscription. In no county in England was the same aid given. Now, in making roads (and he would beg the attention of English gentlemen to this fact) the Government advanced sums of money, free of interest, to be repaid by twelve yearly instalments. Nothing of this kind was known in England. In the erection of prisons the same principle was adopted. With respect to public works, the difference between the two countries was as great. In England a loan only was made; but in Ireland there was a permanent grant of 500,000l. In questions of contested elections there were commissions granted for taking evidence in Ireland, the expense of which was in part charged to the public. In the survey and valuation the expenses were more than tripled with respect to Ireland, by the enlargement of the scale, and making the vote applicable to local purposes. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had raised this questionwhat had the Imperial Parliament done for Ireland? It had, forsooth, given them the power of distraining, and given them increased facilities in tithe collections. That was a question which he had supposed the discretion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would have preserved him from putting, but presently it would be more convenient that he should direct the attention of the House to that which the Im perial Parliament really had done for Ireland, and that which it had not. Before he went further, he wished to correct one statement which the Honourable and Learned Member made respecting the documents and returns laid by him (Mr. S. Rice) on the Table of the House, or supplied on his motion. Did, or could any Honourable Member suppose that his object in obtaining those papers was to serve any purpose but of affording information to all equally, or had he the slightest advantage from their possession? He should content himself with merely making that observation, and leaving it to the consideration of the House to say how far any such argument could avail the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. He should now come to another of his remarks, which might be estimated at pretty nearly the same value, for it amounted to nothing more than this— that whereas certain taxes were remitted in England, Ireland was thereby grievously injured. Why, there was not a man who had the most superficial acquaintance with the business of taxation and its effects, who did not know that it was perfectly possible to repeal a tax in England, and that repeal, so far from proving a disadvantage to Ireland, would be productive to that country of the greatest advantage. The same argument was applicable to any species of relief which the people of England might experience. It was a great mistake to imagine that the repeal of a tax would not be equally felt in both countries. He would take as a striking example the case of printed cottons, and he would appeal to the manufacturers and consumers of Ireland to bear him out in the statement that there never was an alteration which afforded more relief to the Irish people than did the same repeal of the duty on printed cottons. It might naturally be inquired, what had that to do with the question then under consideration? His answer would be, that he merely adverted to it as an illustration of the fallacy which lay in that attempt at reasoning by which the Honourable and Learned Member professed to show that Ireland suffered by the repeal of English taxes. Really the whole case appeared to have been argued as if there never had been in Ireland any taxes before the Union. What would Honourable Gentlemen say, when they found that the tax of all others which most oppressed the poor man, was a tax imposed by the Irish Parliament, and repealed by the Imperial Legislature—it was a tax felt by every cottage in Ireland? Let Honourable Members but just listen to what Mr. Grattan had said upon the subject: "I am convinced that the man who has but 57. in the world, who pays 30s. for his house, ought not to pay hearth-money. The strongest argument for his relief is the bare statement of his condition. What benefit does the State confer on such a man, that it should have a right to tax him? In what property do your laws protect such a man—a man who has no property? It is true that it is the only tax the peasantry pay. That is because they are so extremely poor, so very wretched, that they cannot afford to consume in any great degree the articles which are taxed in this country, where almost everything is taxed, where soap, candles, and tobacco are taxed." If the House would take the trouble to look at the only criterion by which this part of the question could be fairly tried, they would see the enormous amount of taxation paid by Great Britain as compared with Ireland. He would begin with the stamp duties. Now, if a transfer were to be paid for according to the value of the property transferred, it did appear to him a matter of the most perfect indifference, so far as strict justice was concerned, whether that took place in England or in Ireland-the principle was the same, and every reasonable and impartial man must acknowledge, that the country which in that respect happened to be the most largely burdened, was to that extent at least severely dealt with. From the line of argument adopted by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, it might be supposed, that in speaking of a suffering country he could mean no other than Ireland. But what was the fact? England here proved the more heavily burdened, as witness the differences between the imports of the one country and the other in the following particulars : STAMP DIFFERENCES. Return shewing the difference in the rates and amount of Stamp Duties in Great The total amount of Stamp Duties raised in England In Scotland In Ireland £181,232,000 In England and Scotland the duty on deeds and other written instruments is 80 per cent. higher than in Ireland. It was absurd and preposterous to say, with such evidence as that before them, that any degree of injustice was done to the Irish people, but the exact contrary, in the apportionment of taxation; and if the House would look to the returns laid on the Table, they would see that in most of the articles subject to customs and excise they were treated in the same way. The Honourable Gentleman was then proceeding with other references to the various documents before him, when Mr. SHEIL made some remark across the Table. Mr. S. RICE said, that if the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would leave him to manage his figures of arithmetic, he would never interfere with any figures of rhetoric with which the House might be favoured by the Honourable Member for Tipperary. [A laugh.] In reply to all this it might be said, that the whole was based on a fallacy. What fallacy could there be in this? The taxation of England on all important objects of taxation much exceeded that paid by Ireland, not merely in the positive, but in the comparative amount. Before he dismissed this topic, he would call the attention of the House to one other statement then before him, of the sums granted by the Imperial Parliament for the improvement of Ireland, and which, therefore, proved in a double sense an influx of wealth: Howth Dunmore Hobbspoint : £345,194 304,335 132,672 125,379 79,175 23,422 £1,010,177 The expense of Holyhead harbour was not included in this state Such a management of the financial affairs of a great country presented a very striking contrast, indeed, to the manner in which business was conducted in the celebrated Scrambling Committee of the Irish House. But the legislation of the Imperial Parliament was not only more liberal, but more judicious, than even any single case which could be quoted in favour of the native Parliament of Ireland. Many instances suggested themselves to his mind; he would mention one-the 500,0001. granted for loans in Ireland; loans repaid, and employed again and again for the improvement of the country, and for the reproduction of wealth. There had been He would entreat the House to compare measures of that nature with the doings of the blessed Parliament of 1782, so much the boast of the advocates of the dissolution of the Legislative Union. In perfect accordance with that was the measure adopted in reference to the Crown lands of Ireland. From a remote period, that country, it would seem, had enjoyed the blessings of a legislature of its own; during eighteen years that legislature was independent of the British Parliament, and yet during the whole of that long period there was not a single instance of a grant of money made by Act of Parliament. It was reserved for the Imperial Legislature to take a lead in the improvement of the Crown lands. What was the result of the experiments made on that subject? He would refer them to a report; the following extract from which was read by the Right Honourable Gentleman : In my last report, laid before Parliament in the month of June, 1831, I had the pleasure to describe the great improvement which had then taken place in the moral habits and industry of the inhabitants of the mountain country, which is mainly attributable to the opening of these new roads. In the year 1822 the district was the focus of disturbance and bloodshed; in 1831 it presented an example of peace and prosperity; and I have now the gratification to state that it still maintains the same character, and that each year new enclosures are made, and large tracts of hitherto unprofitable land are brought into a state of cultivation. Previously to the commencement of the roads, in the month of October, 1832, the Crown estate may be said to have been inaccessible to wheel carriages; and in consequence no lands were in cultivation beyond what were absolutely necessary to supply the population with potatoes and a small quantity of oats, the chief part of which must have been ground in quernes or hand mills, there being no mill accessible excepting by back roads on horses. As might be expected under such circumstances, the land remained nearly in a state of nature, for the farming system of the estate, as well as that of the whole of the surrounding country, did not extend to draining for the improvement of pasture or meadow land. The only difficulty I anticipate as likely to retard the rapid progress of the proposed improvement, is the want of a sufficient number of labourers, for, notwithstanding the great outcry which is made respecting the poverty and destitution of our peasantry from want of employment, I have found that our active operations are confined to about four months and a half in the year-namely, to the months of February and April in the spring, and between the 1st of July and the 15th of September in the summer. During the remaining part of the year the peasantry find abundant occupation in agricultural employment, excepting perhaps in the month of January; and unless I were to raise the wages above the usual prices of the country, and thereby injure the farmer, I could not force the works excepting at those periods, and this statement is not made from occurrences which have taken place during the last or preceding year, but from constant experience during the last twelve years in the counties of Cork, Kerry, Limerick, and Tipperary. Extraordinary, therefore, as, from preconceived notions, it may appear, the only apprehension I entertain of being able to cultivate and otherwise improve a large portion of the Crown lands, is the want of a sufficient number of labourers at the periods most required. I feel this report has already attained an unusual length; but I cannot conclude a subject in which I feel great interest, without expressing my admiration of the industry and docility of the people who have been employed by me during the last year and a half, both on the new roads, and on the Crown land improvements. Not a complaint is made, nor a murmur heard, but all is zeal and anxiety to perform the duty allotted to each. Thus had the measures of the united Legislature met the want of demand for labour, and yet, with facts like those before them, there would not be wanting those whose aim it would be to neutralize the effect of such evidence, by saying that the whole of the improvements would but go towards the increase of funds which must eventually augment the wealth, not of Ireland, but of England. Would it be necessary for him to point the attention of the House to the fact that the revenues of the Crown lands stood in a totally different position from any other income arising out of land? The advantages which Ireland derived from this portion of the public expenditure made on her behalf, had been represented as nothing more than a picking up of " the crumbs which fell from the great man's table," as bearing such a trifling proportion to the sum withdrawn, that it might be likened to the little bread which Falstaff put in his enormous quantity of sack. But that was the way in which the whole question had been argued, without the slightest regard to the real bearing of the facts. Need he repeat that the income arising from Crown lands was part and parcel of the general revenues of the state, and in truth it afforded no more argument against the Union than could be derived from the Customs or the Excise? The next topic to which he should request attention was the question of the 2-17ths, to which, according to the Act of Union, Ireland had become liable. Of that the Honourable and Learned Member had grievously complained. Ireland had since then become bankrupt, and that was the ground upon which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman called for a committee, and desired a revision of the conditions upon which the arrangement had been made. Would it be believed that that well-known arrangement of the 2-17ths, whether right or wrong in its origin, had long since ceased to exist, and that the termi |