« PreviousContinue »
would be but a short lived triumph, the county was now roused, and no lord or lady either, however respectable or wealthy could or should control the independent resident gentry of this county. Of the resident gentry eighteen out of twenty were favourable to Mr. Denny, (some cries of no no.) Well will you deny that fifteen out of every twenty are in his favour? You are silent; you admit fifteen out of twenty, and I re-assert that there are eighteen out of twenty in his favour. The preference given to the knight of Kerry by the independent interest was quite natural His conduct in Parliament commanded their suffrages. For twenty three years he has represented this county. For three-and-twenty years he has never given a vote in Parliament save one, with which his constituents could be dissatisfied. With that single exception his conduct must be described in one single word,“patriotism.” The exception was the vote for the union. mention it readily, though a very sincere admirer of his talent, as well as of his patriotic labours. I mention it because it is the right, as well as the duty of the elector to express his disapprobation of the measures of his representative. But, I am, in point of justice bound to add, that I know he has long and bitterly repented of that vote; and that the delusion and deceit which were practised to procure that vote from him have long since been exposed, and that he now ardently longs for an opportunity to make reparation, by anxiously endeavouring to repeal that odious and detestable measure, the union--(much cheering). In Parliament, the Knight of Kerry has constantly
posed the wasteful and profligate expenditure of the public money, he has voted uniformly for every practicable retrenchment and economy, he has been the decided enemy of the infamous system of road jobbing, and lent his best exertions to ameliorate that system which is so universally a source of complaint and oppression. He has also sedulously and ardently endeavoured to mitigate the horror of the tithe system, and to snatch the potato pot of the cottager from the gripe of the rapacious tithe proctor. He has the merit of having proposed to Parliament an exemption which was resisted there, as trenching on the rights of the church; but which has been
generally conceded in this county by the individual liberality of the Rev. Mr. Kyde, and of other respectable clergymen. He has opposed from the beginning the acts of gagging the people of England, and for suspending the Habeas Corpus act there He has opposed the Peeling bills, and those for suspending the constitution of Ireland. He has always voted for a thorough reform in the Commons House of Parliament, and he goes back to Parliament the decided advocate of parliamentary reform. Such is the short and true abstract of his conduct. The enemy of every species of waste-jobbing; the decided friend of every practicable and constitutional reform. Has he not obtained your approbation? Does he not deserve your suffrages? (Loud cheers). Yes, we are, and we ought to be proud of such a representative. Let him stand forward in contrast with any, or all of the othe: Irish members. Where can Ireland boast of so constant, so faithful, so disinterested a guardian of the public rights and liberties? Good God! Sir, what benefits may not result to this wretched and obscure province of Ireland, if every county would but return even one such a member? It is with much regret, Sir, that I return from this portrait, to one of a far different description. To Colonel Crosbie, I have not, indeed I cannot have any personal ill will. On the contrary, I am as ready as any man to give him praise, where praise is due; I freely and cheerfully admit, that he is a very respectable country gentleman, that he is possessed of an hereditary property, entitling him to look to the representation of your county, that his manners are courteous and affable, and that in his conduct and dealings as a private individual, he is honest and honourable. All this I readily allow; but I deny, I utterly deny his fitness to be our representative. Speaking of him as a public man, I should exclude him from Parliament for two reasons; first, for his want of capacity for that station ; secondly, for his want of purity. Yes, Sir, from his want of capacity to do the business of Parliament with an efficacy, it is quite necessary that the member should be able to explain his sentiments in public. I do not desire to have all the members great orators, to have them all
distinguished speakers; but no man should attempt to go to parliament who cannot deliver three sentences in public. How could the honourable Colonel put the house in possession of any of the grievances of this wretched country? How could he show the propers remedy for any mischief? Alas! Sir, it was with difficulty he got through the few sentences, which he appeared to me to read to this assembly, and before men with whom he is familiar. If you want an advocate before a jury
return a man that was dumb ? If you want an attorney, would you employ one who could not write? Why then should an intelligent country employ a legislator who cannot express one single argument either for or against any law whatsoever ? I mean the honourable gentleman no disrespect, but I must say in melancholy candour, he is totally incapable of serving us in Parliament. But, Sir, if he possessed the talents of his colleague, the Knight of Kerry, I should still object to Colonel Crosbie for his want of political integrity. There is a very false notion of morality abroad on this subject. The man, who, like him, would not behave with the slightest disregard to principle in private life, at once casts off, as a public character all regard to principle. My accusation against him is that he has been in Parliament only to obey the mandate of a minister. Through thick and through thin, he has voted for the minister; good, bad, or indifferent, he has voted with the minister, I do not know whether he took the trouble of listening to any debate, but he was present at the division. What measure of the nister did he not support, from Croker's war salary job, to the great job of suspending the British liberties? All their taxes; all their profligate waste and expenditure of the public money; all the aggressions of the minister on individual safety and public liberty, had the vote of the honourable member. He was always found to swell the ministerial majority. and no clerk in office ever attended with more punctuality to pour in his vote at the sound of the division bell against the property and liberties of the people. The division bell was his constant monitor ; that new badge of slavery and degradation, by which the minister summons his servants to the note, as the keeper of a tavern summons his menials to their servile duties. The division bell supplies the place of argument and reason, and the well-trained majority mock the nation's sufferings, by attending to it, as a pack of hounds obey the huntsman's call. Let it not be imagined that the people have no interest in this ministerial profligacy; they deeply feel the wanton waste of public money, in the taxes which we are obliged to pay to supply their waste. Yes, Sir, the poorest of them pay taxes for every article they wear, from the shoes which occasionally protect their feet, to the hat, which they sometimes wear on their heads.
The price of the grain of salt which is so often the only miserable zest to their miserable food is tax. Yes, the very poorest of the people pay in taxes a higher rent, merely for leave to live, than they pay to the most oppresive and griping landlord, for house and land. Have not the people a direct interest to exclude from parliament those men, who are ready to vote as many taxes as the minister pleases, on the iniquitous terms of being allowed to share with that minister a portion of the puble plunder ? Yes, I do confidently appeal to the honourable member to say, whether such conduct be just—is it honest ? He is about to be again a legislator, he will have again to concur in making those laws, which doom the miserable sheepstealer to death for stealing a few sheep. But, of what value is the theft of an entire flock compared with the breach of the bighest and most important trust, the violation of the most sacred duty ? How can those legislators punish the lesser crimes, while they themselves perpetrate the greater? Does not morality revolt, when death is assigned as a punishment for a small violation of property, and honours and rewards are conceded to those who violate the property of the nation, plunder the country wholesale of its money, and rob it of its greatest wealth, of its liberties, without measure, compunction, or remorse? It is, Sir, of this inattention to his constituents' interest that I arraign the honourable member this day. He has again become a legislator, but he has (let him jl.
rely upon it) become so for the last time, unless he alters his course, abandons the ministers, when they are wrong, and votes for the rights and liberties of the people. So far am I from feeling personal enmity to him, that if he shapes his course according to the spirit of the constitution, I here publicly pledge myself to give him my vote and whatever interest I can command or influence at the next election : at that election, if I live so long, I shall meet him, and if he again claims our votes, I will then ask him, have, you sir, in parliament voted for economy and retrenchment? Let him not answer, Oh! no; for if I did, I should not have obtained an office in the excise for my near relation. Have you, sir, I will continue, voted for the diminution of the standing army, and the abolition of the sinecure places and undeserved pensions ? Let him not meet me with a reply, that if he did so, he could not have procured the collection of the customs for a near connexion. Such replies may be good-natured, but they are utterly inconsistent with his duty; and he may rest assured that there is too much of the spirit of independence in this country, to allow its representation to become a matter of traffic or barter for any family. I cannot conclude without alluding to a topic which the honourable Colonel has introduced into his address to the electors of this county. He has accused the Catholics of this county of ingratitude, he asserts that he has done much for them and met with no requital. I will examine each branch of assertion and I think easily refute both, I deny his services, I deny his want of obligation to the Catholics. Let us examine the latter first. Is he really under no obligation to the Catholics ? By whom has he been elected three times for this county? I will tell him, by Catholic electors, of the freeholders who have voted for him at any election, I am quite safe in saying, that not above three in a hundred were Protes tants. Indeed, giving two per cent, for Protestants would probably be too high a ratio. Who then is under the obliga. tion? But perhaps, he may say, that it was not the Catholic freeholders, but the Protestant land-owners who returned him.