The New York Herald Newspaper, March 14, 1844, Page 3

ity I profess it. How long could I possess this con- lente if did oes a coe by yeas of public activi- ty and energy, and the continuousness of my pub- A conduct, that I deserved it? Gentlemen, I stand before you, having earned that confidence which no man who ever wi to perpetrate a crime could retain. No man could continue to rve it under such circumstances. For near- forty I have held to the p-inciple a’ need” ent my sincerity has been un- mitigated, complete, entire. No, the voige of cqlumny cannot malign me. Oh! gentlemen, you dMer from me in religion. But tell not those whose faith I profess that they have been deceived—tell them not that they would countenance hypocrisy and treachery. You cannot believe it; the blic without will uot believe it; an English jury will not believe it. Europe would be made to startle at the proposition. I, a Roman Catholic, am pl here before a Protestant Jury, in the presence of the monarchs of the earth. you whether you will calmly pause in a matter which includes the interests ng very many Protestants of the highest respectability, or whether you will tar- nish your case by any verdict which shall throw a doubt upon the sincerity of any whole life, 2nd up- on the sincerity of my advocacy of principles which it bas been the pride and boast of my existence to inwene-—sny | cosnfort in my declining ears, and is, and will be my consolation before a igher tribanal? But no!—I do you injustice in supposing euch a case. No, youare incapable of taking such a view as that. Tinay now observe up- on the almost only remaining matter. I doubt,how- ever, whether my sincerity has been impugned—it has never been publicly ieapogpetiedt am quite gure ic ought notto be. Yes, gentlemen, I do say, it is impossible for you to believe that I would desert those principles of which I boast, or that I should forsake that doctrine which has been the very life- blood of ™ political existence, and that I should forsake all and enter into aconspiracy. No: I have been more successful, and I am more success- ful, by acting on the principles of justice, of chari- ty, of obedience to the laws,and a total abhorrence of force and violence. No; you cannot believe that I would desert every principle of my public lite and enter into a conspiracy. No; it would be too grossly ineonsietent with anything which ever yet occurred ia public conduct. But it isnot on this int alone—there are other incidents in my public fits which will enable youto form a better judge- ment of my conduct. ere is not one of you in that who does not remember the frightful state of the combination of the working and trading clagses. You know that before that combinatton was put down lives were sa- eiificed ‘in the public streets, violence was offered to individuals and to property from day to day, and, if death did notensue in recent cages, it was accidental, rather than owing to the strict for- bearance on the part of thecombinators. The pub- lic authorities were insufficient to cope with them ! Now, it is said that I am aman ready to seerifice a Principle to popularity. I could easily have made myself popular among the combinators. I opposed them, I stood alone in my Sppamaticn to them; I did go at the peril of my life. Ata meeting at the Exchange, all these men were opposed to me, and I owed the preservation of eave life to a po- liceman. You remember it all! hat occurred ? I contended with those who were so furiously rainst me, and J opposed the combination. I did all this at the expense of my popularity, and at the risk of my lite. Is it likely that I should take this part in order to play the hypocrite? It was not in that case alone, that 1 acted thus; for whatdo you find recorded of me in the newspapers? Why, my persevering and perpetual opposition to Ribbonism —my condemnation of all secret societies. Have you ‘not seen, and do you not remember my warm enunciation of such societies, to the police—my pabiacly calling upon them to ae the progress of ibbonism’? Oh, gentlemen, if I were a conspira- tor, would I not be glad to be joined by conspira- tors? It my means were applied to what I wished to carry out, would I not have roused the Ribbon- men in various parts of Ireland? I had influence en todo so. I had only to countenance it, and nobody knows how far it would hav: extended had Idone so. Yon have before you over and over again my discountenance of, and resistance to, se- cret societies. Gentlemen, take these things into your consideration, and say, upon your conscience —say, if you can, that that manis a hypocrite! But you cannot say so—you would not so tarnish your consciences. But this point in my po- tical Jife must have struck you:—I am, and have been, opposed to the laws for making provision for the poor. I opposed or laws of every kind. With the influence which possessed, could I not have poverty against pro- rty, and have insisted upon all the poor being fed fy e rich? I was tormented we my friends. was sneered at and jeered by all—by many who had joined me. {consulted my conscience. I saw the real nature of a provision which only makes more destitution than it relieves ; and the effect of which must be to inflict a great burden on the pro- perty of the country. I knew it was unfit for the le, but Tam bound to say that when it passed into alaw { did sot give it the smallest opposition. allowed the experiment to be fairly tried, and many of those who had previously abused me avowed that I was right and they were wrong. T am ready now to facilitate and assist its working in every ey. I can; but I goback to the time when it ‘was w r, and when it was shouted out of so- ciety by those whom I estimated most, and whose, opinion I valued, and I al to that part of as an answer to this foul charge of con- 8 you must also recollect, for it is in evidence, the manner of my answer to M Thiers’ speech and address. You heard that in the evidence of Mr. Bond Hughes; and now, asI have mentioned his name, let me say a word of Mr. Bond Hughes, Gentlemen, f was one of those the most active against that gentleman. because I felt convinced at the time that he ha swom that which was not true. Now, I am gla! his name has been referred to, because it affords me the opportunity which I am proud to avail my- self of, to declare that I never saw a w:tness on the table who gave his evidence more fairly than Mr. Hughes, and I am firmly convinced that it was a mistake, which any honest man might have fallen into, that occasioned the apparent contradic- tionin his evidence. I know this is not a part. of the case, but Iam sure your lordahips will think fet I am not wrong in making this public avowal. it appears by his report, also, how firmly I reject- ed the only ground on which we could obtain sym- pathy from them, and that we declined to take any support from them in the slightest degree dispara- ging to our religion. But that 1s put still more strongly when you recollect my strong denuncia- tions of the American slave owners. You will recollect that at the time large sums of mo- ey were being collected in the slavehold- ing States of the Union. Remittances were in progress, and considerable progress had been made im getting op an association in Charleston, 8. Carolina. Did I shrink trom doing my duty upon the slave question? Did I not use the strongest language ? Did I not denounce asthe enemies of God and man, thoee culorits and criminals? Ind I not compire the associating our- selves with them as an association with thieves, and pickpockets, and felons? Did 1 not resort to language the strongest and most violent to express my denunciation of the horrible traffic in human balay ;,0f the execrable nature of the slave trade — of all the immorality and frightful conse- ences that regulted from that infamous traffic. If wasa hypoerite I might have given them a few smooth words; but I denounced them, and thereby showed that there was nothing of hypocrisy in those public principles I have always advocated, that no afsistance could be accepted by us which should the slightest degree _in- terfere with our allegiance to our Sovereign. Gentlemen, you will recollect also, that we had offers of support from the Republican in France, headed by Ledru Rollin. It is aconsiderable and every powerful party. It 1s that party which hates the English most, with an ir- rational and ferocious hatred, arising most probably from the blow struck at their vanity at Waterloo— that 1s the party headed by Ledru Rollin. Gentle- men, you have hisletter, and you have my answer. Did Tseex his support, or that of his party? Did I mitigate even from the decisiveness of my answer; did f appear nwilling to repeat and readily avow itt’ No, gentlemen—I took a firm tone of loyalty— I rejected their rt—I refused their offer—I cautioned them against coming over here—I refused everything thatwas inconsistent with my allegiance 1s that the way that my hypocricy is provedt, you? But not alone with that party in France dia gor my life piracy. een the Irish fling off all connexion, but even as re artodeacyeesets Monarch of France, we re- ft all, even the slightest sympathy. It hasgone forth to the world—it has been proved to you that I hurled defiance, so far asan humble individual fike myself could, against the Monarch who at present governs the French nation The learned Attorney General, who with a good deal of inge- nuity, introduced to your notice the report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, in 1797, and he told you that we were acting upon that plan. In. 1797 they were looking for ‘rench sympathy and aesistance—they had emissa- ries in France representing them there, and they had probaly persons representing the French here —they were looking for foreign force and foreign assistance, and hetells you that our objects were those of the United Irishmen of 1797! Oh, rentle- men, they were diametrically the reverse. be that we look to the restoration of the branch of the House of Bourbon, known as Henry the 5th, but f shouldbe sorry to wait fora repeal of the union till then. (Much laughter.) Not that I should disparage his title, for I for one believe that Europe will never be hagas safe until that Brauch of the family of the Bourbons is restored restored upon the principles upon which the monar- ehy of 1688 was restored. But I would not dispa- rage the claim that [for a moment laughed at, Bue I paid thi a quarter from whence we refuse the slightest assistance, and I hurled the indignation of mymund against the man who would offer to the chil- it may elder dren of France te be educated by infidel professors, and refused them that religious education their pa- rents wished them to receive. 1 will not, gentlemen, enter further into this point, but you will see from those papers my antagonism to the French govern- ment, But, gentlemen, there is another point in my conduct—my antagonism to the Chartists. You maj remember that when the Association was in full force, the Chartists were in a state of insurrection in Eengland—they were coming in their hundreds thousands and tens of thousands into the man- nigctaring towns of England, and you will recollect further, that there was something facinating in the doctrines of Chartism for the poorer classes, be- cause it proposed in trath and in substance, a viola- tion of all the laws of property. If 1 had meant Ansthin wicked or criminal would I not have belriended and supported the Chartists? On the contrary, did 1 not denounce them—did 1 not keep the Irish in England from joining them, and was there not an ourage scum committed in Manchester on account of the Iris! holding aloof from them? Yes, gentlemea, I assist- ed the constituted authorities in Englaod, by my influence over the Irish residing there. Why was it not given to you in evidence, that the moment a meinber of our Association joined the Chartist in- stitution in England his money was returned to him, and his name was struck out of our books. Now, gentlemen, if my object was popular insur- rection—if L was anxious for a popular outbreak— good Heaven, let any man of you place himself in my situation, and ask what he coul# do, for the present is a charge of a popular insurrection. If I wished for an insurrection would I not wish to have streng’h—would I not wish to have the system of Chartism supported. Did not I, on the other hand, meet it in Dublin—did I not hunt it out ot Dublin, and, if my oath were tuken, I firmly declare ny conscientious conviction that, had | not intertered, Chartism would have pores trom one end of the land to another, But I have opposed that, as 1 have opposed every thing that, is_ inconsistent with the integrity of my political principles. Thank hea- ven, | successfully opposed and resisted it, and while T have a right to make you judge of my actions aad motives, by referring to those leading teatures of my political life, Ushalt ever rejnice that I kept society and property from that invasion. Geotlemen, there is avother part worthy of your coosideration, name Iv, my consistent sworn ollegiance to our Sovereign You find it in oll theee newspapers. Her name is never mentioned but with reepect, aad ulwaye with enthusiasm and delight ; hay, when @ speech was made by her Majesty’s ministers, derogatory to our objects and motives,don’t you find me with most te- dious pertinacity making @ distinction between her Majesry avd her ministers. You have heard it fift times repeated, and at every meeting—I[ omitted it at none, and | made in all these cases a constiru- tional distinction between herself and her ministers, and the Attorney-General has no right to sa that there was one particle of disloyalty to- wards her in my observations upon the epeech. Gentlemer, having taken all these precautions— having repeated these assertions over and over again, almost disgusting those who heard me even to nausea, what then becomes of the Attorney Ge- neral that I spoke disrespectiully of her Majesty? My lords, { thank heaven there is not a particle in this case to taint, in the slightest degree, our loyal- ty or allegiance. Now, my lords, as iG ae = self, lam come that time of life that she can do nothing for me ; but there is not a man in expecta- tion in this court who has taken half the pains 1 have to inspire and win the allegiance of the peo- ple of Ireland. There is one thing I think the At- torney General acted unfairly in. He read the Queen’s speech, and then my newspaper speech, and the scolding ininisters gave me, and then I said: “Judy would not let us go on. He said that I 1e- libata the Queen asa fishwoman. Whatever ecomes of ihe case don’t believe that. I confess that Ifeel annoyed and humiliated that such a charge should be made against me. I speak in no terms of disrespect to the Attorney General; but I utterly repudiate and deny that J ever spoke in disrespectful terms of my Sovereign, ‘and I say it is false to impute to me an intention of applying the offensive expression referred to the speech of her Majesty. I did not treat it as her speech, but as that of her Ministers, who were constitutionally responsible for it. I disclaim, ab- hor, and hate the imputation of offerimg a word of any thing in the least disrespectful towards my au- gust monarch. Upon all occasions I inculcated principles of sincere loyalty to the throne, and I distinctly separated all reference in my remarks b e- tween the person of the Queen and her Ministers, I fear I have detained you longer than I had in- tended in referring to what has heretofore been m public conduct; but, in coming to a proper estimate of my motives, it was necessary to draw attention to my acts, and though my expositions may be fee- ble—though my talents may be sinall, though m energies be decreasing,and though iny strength ony b+ declining, and years increasing, still you will find then as now implanted in my breast a burning love for the prosperity of Ireland, and the liberties of my Hannity, Well, the public meetings did take face Ido not @eny it. ‘Their object was the repeal of the Union. Was that a bad object? I deny that it was. On the con- trary it was a most useful object for Ireland, so much so that before I sit down, I hope to demon. strate to every one in bench of course excepted—the absolute nego for such a measure, and its effects on the property, commerce, and industry, of your native land. | hope that many of the Jury whom I address, will be induced from the strength of the case f shall put before them to join in calling for the Repeal—(a dane _,It is my duty to put the facts before you, and I will be able to show to demonstration that the Engli@ Parliament has, froma remote period, governed I®land with a narrow jealousy of Irish progperity, and in a grudging spirit of its independ- ence. Then I will first refer you to the history of our woollen manufactures, and to what did chee: pen in the reign of a monarch whose memo probably hold in very great esteem. now call your attentions to the of 1782, which was looked upon as a final ad justment of the relations between the two coun- tries, and when an Irish Parliament was declared to lust for ever. I will next direct my observa- tions to rove ie ae prosperity which followed as the resuli of legislative independence. show you tat the measure of the Uuion was forced upon the Irish people. I will demonstrate the mani- fold evils flowing from it, and the bad effects on our trade and commerce, and will refer you to the existence of vast distress and misery throughout the land; and I will prove to you that the only remedy for its cure, and for avoiding separation from England, is to be found in the restoration of our native Parliament. Now, as to the ill-treatment of Ireland by England, the fact isso confessedly true that it is scarcely necessary for me_ to adduce any proof of it—it is scarcely necessary for me to detain sage by any remark wpon this part of the case, am brought here by the Attorney-General cause I have agitated to bring about the greatest you possible blessings to my countrymen. My defence | and raise 18 that the Repeal of the Union would relieve all e duatriss and imisery which we behold, and in the performance of my sacred duty to the Irish people | will place their case triumphantly before ou. Ihave said that it was my duty—I am bound y gratitude also. Once I have represented the county of Clare, with a population of 250,000 inhabitants. Once I had the honor of representing the county of Waterford, with its 300,000 inhabi- tants. Once again I have been returned for my native county Kerry, containing a population of two hundred and sixty thousand Sahabitanta. Once for Meath, whose people amount to 300,000; and I now stand the representative for the County of Cork, with a population of 750,000 inhabitants. Besides this, I have twice had the honor of being the member of the city of Dublin, and once for Kilkenny It is, therefore, my bounden duty—and from motives of gratitude to those who have shown me such marks of favor to do all I can to promote their comforts and prosperity. { am their hired servant. I admit it. I am their paid servant, and though it may take away from the chivalry of my station,I avow that I receive their wages, and [ am teady now to earn it. I begin by showing you the system of misgovernment pursued by England at all times towards this country, and I shall quote for ag the views put forward by an eminent French istorian—one of the literati of his day. Mr. O°Con- nell here read an extract from the work of M. Thiers, in which it was stated that the English government had for five centuries governed Treland in a spirit of jealousy of its Hide pia bre ol describing the fertility of the soil—the blessings poured on it by nature, but the wretchedness of itspeople. That was a melancholy picture of the manner in which ims country was governed for five hundred years, and of the baneful influence of English govern- ment. Have I the authority of Theirs alone? No. T have also the authority of Mr. Pitt for the advan- tages possessed by Ireland; and I find him, in dis- cussing the commercial propositions of 1945, ad- mitting that it was the uniform policy of England to depress Irish interests, in order to. advance their own. That is not my language, it is the language Court—the neutrality of the 2 T will now | Sained by the legislative independence. I will te! transactions | You upon what evidence 1 will demonstrate cial or unconstitutional. She has never conceded point to you which she could avoid, or granted favor which wasnot boomer my ? distilled. They have been all wrung from her like drops of her blood."Gentle- men, have I ever used longuage half #0 strong, halt so powerful, or ha fo eioqueat,as the passage Ihave read? There was this caudid admistion made by Mr. Secretary Cooke, the author of the pamphlet— gamely, that the intention of the Britivh guvera- ment was only to prevent Irelaad from growing too and powert There was another passage in itto the effect that England wage xtorting,ia the mo- ment of her strength, those rights whieh she wou'd likely concede in a moment of her weakness—that it was the denial of the rights from one great nation to another, fr in antolerance ot its prosperity. When in begi 1% to addrees you (resumed Mr. O’Connel ) I said that { would be able to show you that it was an intolerance of Irish prorperity that hud created the Union ; and if the author of this sentiment were here in court, he shoud have avowed every word of what he hed said, for he spoke it in the sincerity of his heart I (think I need not. go muchlurther to prove to you that it was the imolerance of the British f dante ment for the Irish prosperity which had influenced the measnre of the Union. Gentlemen ofthe Jury, mark the words, for you have this avowal from an authority you cannot doubt. These are topics which cannot ever be forgotten; and I feel much obliged to the learned Attorney General for giving me the opportunity of reviving them. I must refer ou next, gentlemen of the Jury, to a letter from rimate Boulter, at the same period, referring to the same subject, in which the learned prelate charged the British Government with pursuing an infamous policy towards Ireland, in making the most odious distinctions between the different sects and religions in Ireland, and setting one in actual hostility towards the other, forthe purpose of com- pleting their own unjust intentions, and that such a policy must be deprecated as a very great valami- ty. Have J not proved what I have said, (continued Mr. O'C.) from the evidence of such men as Pitt, Bushe,Primate Boulter,and others. I shall now,gen- tlemen, invite you to consider with me transactions of 1782, and I will detain you but a very short time on this point, because every thing connected with that period must be familiar to the Irish mind. That nena Snes bright spot in the history of Ireland, a green island, agit were, amid the sterili- ty of the world—an oasis of intoerit amid the mass of misrule and tyranny which had surround- edus. The transactions of 1782 cannot be forgot- ten, and the prosperity of Ireland at the time, asit appeared, was of the most consummMate advantage to England, who assailed America and was defeat- ed. She endeavored to crush the forces of Aime- rica, but America resisted, and America from re- bellion obtained a revolution, England then want- ed the assistance of Lreland.. She had not then sufficient troops to support her demands and to maintain, if she were opposed, her connection with this country. Did Ireland then think of separating herself from England? Oh no, that was always a thought which wasforeign to the Irish mind. ey sought not for separation, but they sought for the assertion of Irish rights. The Irish obtained free trade, and they demanded legislative independence. It was not then safe for England to refuse her just demands ; it wasnot prudent to treat Ireland with discersits England willingly conceded those de- mands. [na letter written about that tune from the leader of the government were cunia: hose words: ‘*Will nobody stop that madman Grat- tan?’ Nobody did attempt to stop the demands of Grattan ; and the revolution of 1782 obtained for Ireland those rights which she laid claim to. Gentlemen of the Jury, it is part of hastory that the monarch of that day, from the throne, declared this to be a final adjustment, and that there was no quesuon left open for further discussion. Itis a fact in history, that the English House of Lords, and the English House of Commons, had respectively declared that this was a final adjustment. The Lord Lieutenant from the throne, in the Irish House of Parliament, had declared the same. Both houses declared it to be final. But how was this got rid of ? I will come to that presently. I will show you, gentlemen, what the opinions of certain statesmen were with respect to this sub- ject. Charles James Fox, in April, 1782, said “So far was he from thinking that Great Britain had a right to govern Ireland if she did not choose to be governed by us, that he maintained that no country that everhad existed or did exist, had a right to hold the sovereigaty of another against the will and consent of that other.” And in another passage, in May, 1782, he says—‘‘He desired gen- tlemen to look forward to that happy period when Treland should experience the blessings that attend freedom of trade and constitution; when, by the richness and fertility of her soil, the industry of her manufactures, and the increase of her population, she should become a power tul country; then might England look for powerful assistance to seamen to man her fleets, and soldiers to fight her battles. England renoun- cing all right to legislate fer Ireland, the latter would most yy support the former asa friend whom she loved. If this country, on the other hand, was to assume the power of making hws for Lreland, she must only make an enemy instead of a friend, for where there was not a community of interests, there the party whose interests were 80 sacrificed became an enemy.”—2 vol. p. 60.— Such was the principle upon which the great settle- ment was broughtabout. I would ask you, gentle- men of the jury, did you ever in your lives know a single individual volunteer of 1782, who, to the last moment of his life, did not boast of having participated in the vee eee then took place.— t was clear that up to this time Ireland had pre- served her allegiance and had gained tranquility in, connexion with it—that she, in fact, clung with firmer hold to her connexion with Eng- land while she obtained those salutary results, I may be asked, gentlemen, whether I have any proof that the prophecy of Mr. Fox was realized, that the prosperity promised to Ireland had been ey facts. The first authority I shall refer you to is, Pitt in 1799, when proposing the measure of the Union. He should quote the following from the anti-Union Evening Post:—“Pit’s case at the Union would be strong if he could have shown tha I will then | Ireland was declining and impoverished under her own Paliamert. But the facts were too powerful for him to wrestle with, and he was unable to meet them in that wey And what, therefore, was his reasoning. ‘AsIreland,’ he said, ‘was so pr r- ous under her own Parliament, we ean calculate that the amount of that prosperity will be trebled under the British legislature.’ He first quoted a rech of Mr. Foster's, in 1785, in these words— The exportation of Irish produce to England amounts to two millions anda half annually, and the expor- tation of British produce to Ireland amounts to one million. He gives another quotation from Foster, in which itis said- “Britain unports annually $2,- bas 500,0001. of our produc’s, all, or very nearly all, du- ty free, and we import almost a imillion cf ners, a revenue on almost every article of it.” this relates to the year 1785. Pitt goes on to say— “But how stands the case now? (1799.) ‘The trade at this time is infinitely more advantageous to Trelund. It will be proved from the documents Thold in my hand, asfaras relates to the mere in- terchange of manufactures, that the manufactures exported to Ireland from Great Britain in 1797 very. little exceeded one million sterling (the articles of roduce amount to nearly the same oe whilst Great Britain on the other hand imported from Ire- land to the amount of more than three millions in the manufacture of linen and linen yarn, and be- tween two and three millions in provisions and cat- tle, besides corn and other articles of produce.” You have heard proof of the prosperity of Ireland from authority which cannot be questioned. | We at that time exported three million’s worth of linen and linen yarn, besides our exports in provision, which amounted to a million and a half. hat were our imports of English manufactured goods at that time? ‘Athalf the amount of what we exported. How does'the case stana at present? You all know too well indeed; I may say that some of you has had sad experience of the fact; that almost every thing we use now is imported from England, and all our manufactures are gone, and our people who lived upon the wages whi are always derived from that source, are famishing. When we exported three millions and a half of manufactured goods, you are aware that a very large proportion of that amount consisted of wages paid to the laborers and artizans employed; and that money was again expended with the farmer and the shop-keep- er; thus went on increasing comfort and prosperity throughout-the land. But, alas! what is the case now? Wretchedness and misery prevail where wealth and happiness once had their abode. And should the man be punished who has no other ob- ject under Heaven but to restore his country to her former state—independ*nce and prosperity. I have given you the authority of Foster and Pitt, and [ will now come to give you the authority of another man who never was very favorable to the Irish people, Lord Clare. His lordship, in a speech made by him in_ 1798, made use of those remarkable words; and I beg to call your particular attention to of Mr. Pitt, avowing openly the policy pursued by England towards Ireland. I now come to another authority, which, in this Court, atall events, will carry great weight. I mean that of the late Chief Justice Busche. Listen, I beseech ‘ou, to the words of that gifted man:— “You are called upon to give up your in pendence ,and to whom are you called upon to give it up? Toa nation which for six hund ed years has treated you with uniform oppression and injustice. The Treasury Bench startles at the assertion—non meus hic sermo est. Ifthe Treasury Bench scold me, Mr. Pitt willscold them; it is his assertion in so many words in his speech. Ireland, says he,has been always treated with injustice and illiberality. Treland, says Junius, has been uniformly plundered and oppressed. This is not the slander of Junius, nor the candor of Mr Pitt—it is history. For cen- turies have the British Parliament and nation kept you down, shackled your commerce, and paralyzed your exertions—despised your character, and ridi- culed your pretensions to any privileges, commer- them .“There is not,” said his lordship, ‘‘a nation on the habitable'globe which has advanced in culti- vation, civilization, agriculture, and manufacture. with the same rapidity,in the same period ,a¢lreland had,from 1772 to 1798.”’ I will call your attention to Lord Grey’s speech on the Scottish Union,in 1799. “Tn truth,” said the nobleman, ‘ for a period of more than een after the Scoteh Union, Scotland exhibited no proofs of increased industry and rising wealth.” Lord Grey, in continuation, stated that—* Till after 1748 there was no sensible advance of the commerce of Scotland. Several of her manufactures were not established till sixty years after the Union, and her principal branch ot manufacture was not set up, I believe, till 1781. The_abolition of the heritable jurisdictions was the first great measure that gave an impulse to the spirit of improvement in Scotland. Since that time the prosperity of Scotland has been con- siderable, but certainly net so great aa that of Ireland has been within the same period.” I wilt now refer you to Lord Pluaket, who, in in giving a description of Ireland in a speech in Parliament in 1799; in.one of hie efforts of oratory, speaks of of alittle island with a ation of four or ffve millions of people,hardy, gallant and enthusiastic of all the means of civilization Jagrieulture, and commerce, well pur- sued und understood; a constitution fully recog- nised and established; her revenues, her trade, her manufactures thriving beyond the: hope or the ex- ample of any other country of her extent—within these few years advaneing with a rapidity astonish- ing even to herself; not complaining of deficiency in these respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity (hear, hear.) She is called on to surrender them all to the control ot—whom? Is it to a great and powerful Continent, to whom nature intended her as an appendage—to a mighty people, totally exceeding her in all calculation of territor orpopulation ? No! but toanother happy little island, placed beside her in the bosom of the Atlantic, of lit- tle more than double her territory,and population and possessing resources not nese so superior to her wauts.”” _ At this stage of the proceedings, the Chief Jus- tice said that the court was becoming so intolera- bly hot that one of the windows should be opened. Mr O’Connext—Very well, my Lord, and [ shall take advantage of this opportunity to go eut for a moment. The Court then adjoumed for a few minutes, _ When the Court resumed, Mr. O’Connell said —Gentlemen, when the adjournment took place I was in the act of reading for you several authori- ties, showing how much Ireland progressed under an independent parliament, I have a few more, I think, to corroborate and bear out and, if possible to extend the proof of that prosperity. You hear how in the year 1810, a meeting was held in Dub- lin to petition for the Repeal of the Union, which, at that time, was discussed also in the corporation end other places. I will now read for you the speech of Mr. Hutton made at the corpor- ation—who then belonged to a respectable house that still holds a high character in the city. “Some of us,” said he, “remember the country as she was b-fore we recovered and brought back our constitu toa in the year 1782, We are reminded of it at the present period’ Then, as now, our merchants were without trade—our shopkeepers without customers —our workmen withsut employmeat—ther, es now, it became the universal feeling, that ncthing but the recovery of our righ's would save us. Our rights were recovered, ard how soon afterward:, indwed, as it by magic, plenty smiled on_us, and we soon bs eime prosperous and happy ” Gentlemen, in the year 1798, when the Union wastalked of, the Bank- ers of Dublin had a meeting, and in the chair was the head of the Firm of Latouche. That was on the 18th of December, 1798, when the following re- solutions were passed —‘* Resolved —That since the renunciation of Great Britain, in 1782, to legielate for the commerce and prosperity of Ireland have emi- neatly iscreased. gResolved—That we attribute these blessings, under Providence, to the wisdom of the Irish Parliament. I have, in addition to these, from a most unquestionable authority (an authority incapable of deceiving or of bebe deceived), the re- Jative increase in England avd Ireland of the con- sumption of tea, tobacco, wine, sugar, and cc! from 1785 tothe Union, which is as fotlow . «Increase in Ireland. . . 84 per cent. Increase in England. 49 per cent. From 1786 to the Uni Tobacco. . .Increase in Ire 100 per cent. Increase in E: 64 per cent. From 1787 to the Union: Wine... ...Increase in Ireland. . . 74 per cent. Increase in England 22 per cent. From 1765 to the U Sugar... . Increase in Ireland 87 per cont. Increase in England 53 per cent. Coffeo. . ...Increage in Ireland 600 per cent. Increase in Englend 76 per cent. L hope to demonstrate, gentlemen, that there is no country can ever surpass in prosperity the ad- vancement made b: Treland fram the period of 1782 to the union. There isa cant word often used by many people, ‘dismemberment of the empire,” which I will prove to be an absurdity. Ireland with her own parliament, increased in prosperity, during her connexion with England; and why should she require a dismemberment? I cannot understand the term dismberment, unless from a state that is in the depths of poverty, not with one in which she increased in prosperity, as Ireland did with England, when she had her’ own Parlia- ment, and aa i fervently believe will again eperi- ence under her own domestic legislature. We lost our own Parliament by means of corruption: the means were certainly those best suited to the na- ture of so deleteriousan object,and everything that the worst passions could eflect were arraigned to accomplish it. How was it carried? The Attor- ney General has referred to the report of a Secret Committee of the House Commons, in ’9 d 97. Iwill now refer you to the report of t Committee of the House of Lord, wherein it is stated that it was accomplished the foment of the Rebellion to such a pitch, and that the Government's fastening it, was the first ingredient of that vile and nefarious plan. A person named M’Guane, attorney, gave informa- tionto the government: he was a Colonel in the United Irishmen, as well as a_ county deputy. He attended allthe meetings of the county deputies; amd, oa the 4th of May, 1797, he got into the pay o! overnment, and transmitted to ther (through a Mr. Clelland, agent to Lord Londonderry) the naines of all persons who attended,the returns made and the time and place forthe next meeting. So that the government was in full possession of the entire proceedings, knew the names of the colonels and county deputies, and where they were to be found at a particular time; so that if they had been so disposed they could have had them all arrested, and thereby crushed the rebellion at once, but, instead of doing so, they let it go on for the pur- pose of carrying the Union. I will now refer you to another authority, which you will find in the li of Grattan, 2d volume, page 145, itis as follows:— The entire country rose against the measure; but they were controlled and checked by the military, aswell as the dissentions that existed amongst themselves. Mr. Plunket made use of these word Planket—“I accuse the government of foment- ing the embers of a lingering rebellion; of halloo- ing the Protestant against the Catholic, and the Catholic against the Protestant; of arttully keeping alive domestic dissensions for the purposes of sub- jugation.” It ismanifest, therefore, that the Union was carried against the will of thelrish people; and it would have been much more manifest if the people lad an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. What were the words of Burket “The basest cor-" ruption and artifice were exerted to p:omote the Union. All the worst passions of the human heart were enlisted in the service; and all the most depraved ingenuity of the human intellect tor- tured to devise new contrivances for fraud.” Mr. Grattan thus reports the Janguage of Lord Castlereagh in reference to the cor- ruption which might become necessary to carry the Union; I will now read a passage from a epeech made by Lord Grey in the year 1800, on the repug- nance of the Irish nation to the Union :—* Twenty seven counties,” said his lordship, ‘have petition- ed against the measure. ‘The petition trom the county of Down is signed by upwards of 17,000 re- spectable Independent men, and all the others are in a similar proportion. Dublin peisasa under the great ae the city, and each of the corpora- tions init followed the example. Drogh tioned against the Union; and almost ev town in the kingdom in like manner te: disapprobation. Those in tavor of the measure professing great influence in the country, obtained a few counter petitions. Yet, though the petition from the county Down was signed by 17,000, the counter petition was signed only by aaah there were 707,000 who signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declared in favor o} did not exceed 3,000, and many of these only prayed that the measure might be dis- cussed, If the facts I state are true (and I chal- lenge any man to falsify them), could a nation in more direct terms express its disapprobation of a political measure than Ireland has done of a legis- {ative Union with Great Britain? In fact, the na- tion is nearly unanimous, and this great majority 18 composed, not of bigots, fanatics, or jacobins, but of the most respectable of every class in the com- munity.” Let, me now request your attention to a description given by Lord Plunket, of the mode in which the Union was carred—‘I will be bold to say that licemtious and snptans France, inall the unrestrained excesses to which anarchy and athe- isin have given birth to, has not committed a more insidious act against her enemy than is now attempted by. tne ones champion of the cause of civilised Europe against a friend and ally in the hour of herealamity and distress—at a moment when our country is filled with British troops, when the loyal men of Ireland are fatigued and exhausted by their efforts to subdue the re. bellion—eflorts to which they had succeed before those troops arnved—whilst the habeas corpus act was suspended—whilst trials by’ court martial are n many parts of the kingdom—whilst people are taught to think they have no right to meet or to deliberate—and whilstthe great body of them are so palsied by their fears, or worn down by their exertions, that even the vital ques tion is scarcely able to rouse them from their le- thargy, ata moment when we are distracted by domestic dissensions, dissensions artfully kept alive aa the pretext ef our present subjugation, and the instrament of our future thraldom.”—That is Lord Blunket's description of the means by which the Union was carried, and ie is only @ partial account. One million two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds were spent in pur- chasing rotten boroughs. Three millions be- sides in hard cash were paid in direct and actual bribery to persons who voted or their connexions. "There was no office, even. from the highest in the church, to the lewest in the eonstabulary—no,that force did not then exist—but there was no situation, from the highest to the low- est, sacred or profane, which was not in the mar- | ket. There was nothing of contrace—nothing of ar- gument in the carrying of the Union, al! wae shame- leas fraud more of moral public transact. d undisguised corruptios volving mity than ever accompanied any . Gentlemen of the Jury, you can easily imagine what were the result of such a measure, 90 carried; you feel them in your daily avocations of business ; you see them in the state of your streets; you know them from. the position o, your trade and commerce, T have shown what has wen the general spirit of the English govern- ment, whenever it had power, from date of the final settlement in 1782. I have established that there was an extraordinary advance in pro- pery under the Irish Parliament. I have short- ly described the means by which the Union was carried, and I shall now; roceed,with as much brevi- ty, as 1 can; but I fear atgreater length that I could wish to lay before you evidence of the evil results of the Union as affecting Ireland. In 1794 the Irish debt was only seven millions, the debt of England at the same time 350 millions. At the time of the Union the Irish debt was twenty-one millions. I know it has been since stated that it was 23 millions; but that was it &@ resolution of the House of Commons of England, passed in 1811 by which it was resolved that the seperate debt o Ireland should be charged with all the expense ot carrying the Union. Well, the Irish debt was 21 millions, the English, 446 millions. Or the 17 mil- lions of annual interest upon this sum, it was agreed that Ireland should not be charged any thing, for the principal. Were those terms complied with ? No. Ireland is charged with every penny of that 446 millions, principal and interest, in spite of the promises of Lord Custlerengh and the lands, the industry, the labor of the nation are mortgaged for its payment. As a proof of the total mismanagement of our finances, detri- mental to Ireland, and to show the progressive ac- cumulation of our debt, I willread an extract— “Half a million or more were expended some years since to break an opposition—the same, or greater sum, may be necessary now,” and Grattan added, “that Lord Castlereagh had said so in the most ex- tensive sense of bribery and corruption. The threat was proceeded on—the peerage sold—the caitifts of corruption were everywhere—in the lobby, in the streets, on the steps, and at the door of every parli- amentary leader, o! ering titles to some, office to others, vorruption to all.” This is the way 1 which our affairs have been managed. The [ri Parliament had an interest in keeping the Irish nation outof debt. The, best proof of this is, that Ireland owed but 14 millions when England owed 350 millions, and only 21 millions when England owed 446 millions. The Irish Parliament has been often assailed; but I fearlessly ask, could snything have been more protective than to keep the people out of debt 1 hilst the Eng- lish was squandering profusely, the Irish were thrif- ty ; but from the moment were placed under Eng- land the proportion of increase went on in such a manner that whilst it was for England as 16 to 10, it was for Ireland as 43 to 10, Hear now the lan- guage af Sir John Newport in 1822 :—** Ever since the Union the Imperial Parliament had labored to raise the scale of taxation in Ireland as high as it was in England, and only relinquished the attempt when they found it was wholly unproductive. For twelve years he had retmonstrated against this scheme ; and had foreseen the evils resulting from it, of a beggarly Beaty and a ruined peasantry.— Ireland had four millions of nominally increas- ed taxes, while the whole failed as a system of revenue, and the people were burdened with- out any relief to the treasury. (Hear, hear.)— It would be found, as it was in some other countries, that the iron grasp of poverty had para- lysed the arm of the tax-gatherer, and limited in this instance the omnipotence ot Parliament. They had taxed the people; but not augmeated the sup- plies; they had drawn on capital—not income ; and they, in consequence, reaped the harvest of discontent, and failed to reap the harvest of reve- nue.” It was objected to Lord Lansdowne that the effect of his proposition would be to make Ireland the rival in trade and manufactures of England and Scotland. He was accused of this. He disclaimed any such intention, and now T ask you, could this eccur in an Irish Parliament ? ‘What must have been the spirit of the assembly where it became necessary to disclaim, as some- thing outrageous, atrocious, aud abominable. the idea of making Ireland the rival in trade and man- ufacture of England and Scotland? Do you not, gentlemen, perceive the fatuity, the folly of leaving your affairs to the management of those amongst whom itis considered a reproach to seek a rivalry with othercountries. Oh, this declaration speaks trumpet tongued. I hope it will thunder in your ears and excite in your minds a spirit of just indigna- tion that any attempt should be made, through the medium of a court of law, to prevent the uprising of that peaceful power of public opinion which will procure for our country a Parliament to legislate for her interests. Ishall now read an extract inreference to the proportion of the English and Irish debts. You have seen how the Irish debt was kept down by the Trish Parliament; but in sixteen years after the Union the Irish debt had increased 230 per cent. whilst the British in the same time only increased 60 percent. These factsare so little known, and so much intervenes to prevent a knowledge of them that I feel delighted at the opportunity of again cir- culating them. (Laughter. “The enormous excess of British over Insh debt at the Union left the British minister no excuse for their consolidation, and accordingly it was arranged thatthe two debts should continue to be sepa- rately provided for. The active expenditure of the empire (i. e. the expenditure elear of charge of debt=) was to be provided for in the proportion of two parts from Ireland to fifteen for Great Britain. ‘These proportions were to cvase, the debis were to be con- solidated, and the two couatries to contribute indiscrimi ately by ¢qual taxes, 0 soon as the said respective debts should be brought to bear to each other the proportions of e contributions—viz: as 2 to 15; provided also that the al ability of Ireland should be found to have increased, jow, the 2 to 15 rate of contribution wax denounced at the time by Irishmen as too high for Ireland, and afterwards #0 admitted by the British ministers themselves. Its con- sequence was, to exhaust and impoverish herto such a de- gree that her debt in sixteen years increased 220 per cent while the British only increased 66 per cent. This dispro- portionate and unjust increase of the Irish debt brought the 2 to 15 proportion between it and the British deb Advantage was taken of that single branch of the contingen contemplated in the Union act, although tl inch of the contingency—viz: the increase of lity had not only eccuirred, but, by the confession ofthe Eng. lish ministers themselves in 1816, the very contrary had i had become poorer then hefure Advantage, we say, wax taken of that single branch of the contingency to consolidate the debts, to do away with all measure of proportionate contri! lace the purse of Ireland, without res'riction or limit, in the hands of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, theneeforward to take from it, and opply as he liked, every penny it did then and might at any future time contain, and rob Ireland of all chance of benefit from any surplus of revenue thenceforward and forever GENERAL ABSTRACT OF TAZKS REPRALED OR REMITTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Great Britain. Ireland. £635,200 $66 630 152,609 13,198 Property Duty Windows, 179,408 53 678 Hearth. 42,993 71,086 77,904 £41,086,202 £1,684,211 The taxes repealed or remitted in Ireland being one twenty-sixth part of those repealed in Great Britain.” These figures, gentlemen, will tell you that England i creased the taxation of Ireland by fur millions, and w was the result ?—why, 8 was to be expected, the actual revenue fell upwards of 00,0001, so that the attempt to tax us four millions actually cost England one belf « mil- lion, They increased onr debt 235 per cent., while they increased their own only 60 per cent. New, gen‘lemen, presrechy can we expect, what manegement allow me to ask you what prosperity can we have w of our monetary affairs to be ted in strangers? Can webe [sa TO! ‘hile the of our revenue is in the hands of the English ge Would any of you leave the management of your affairs Inthe hands of 4 atranger?—er wou you not expect that any man doing #0 would soon find himself a beggar? As it is with individuals, so it is with nations. I may be told that there has been a diminution of taxation. Yer, gen- tlemen, there has been a diminution of texation since the ce ; but, in what way has it been done? England has Been relioved to the amount of 41,592,001, while Ireland has obtained a diminution of her taxes to the amount of only 1,644,001, or in the proportion of one on to 41. That, gentlemen, is the justice with which we treated. But, gentlemen, this is not all, for by the change which was made in 1526 in the currency ef the country, they added at least one fifteenth to the debts of Ireland. So much, gentlemen, for the justice with which we have been treated. Let me ask you, gentlemen, how can we rosper while we allow the hands of others to rummage 4 our pockets? An Irish Parliament, while I Id every shilling that i« honestly due, it would at the time save tts {rom the folly of paying thax which is due by England alone. Now, gentlemen, { mean to leave th part of the case, trusting that I shown you the evil mercantile effects which the Union had on our common country, | will now, gentlemen, call your attention to the protest of the lords against the Union. | will net weary you by bees | all the document. I will content myself with citing the 10th re: of the noble lords, which says, “Because when we consider the weakness sure was brought ile we allow the of this kingdom at the time that the m forward, and her inability to withstand the destsuctis¢ designs of the minister, and coupled with the act itself, the means that have been employed to accomplish it, such as the abuse of the place bill, for the purpose of corrupt: ing jament, the appointment of sheriffs to prevent county meetings, the dismissal of the old sterifast friends of constitutional government, for their adherence to the constitution, and the return of persons into parliament who had neither connexion nor stake in the country, aud were therefore aclected to decide upon her fate when we consider the armed force of the minister, added to bis power and praetices of corruption—when we couple there things together, we are warranted to say that the lasest means have heen used to accomplish ‘his great innova. tion, and that the measure of Union tends to dishonor the ancient peerage for ever—to dismember both houres of Hiament, and subjugate the pe nd for ever Bch ciraiunstances, we apprehend, will be recolleoted i nd will create jealousy between the h which for #0 many ement of their union.” This pro- w ned, Leinater, Meath, Charlemont, Ko., and by the Bishops of Dewn and Lismore. This is the authentic declaration of the peers of Joel certain that their descendunts of the be proud of the deed of their ancestors, and that they Zit ussiat in carrying out the intentions lors and yet take their seats in their places Green. Amongst the other evils to which the rise, none was £0 op) jive as the totul ini the representation of Ireland in the Imperial i si ade aud the great deficiency of voters created by the igi the registry. 1am the point fect, Decatbe | Gt that there ie how |. dlapae concede upon the point. They are now w! something iu respect to the franchise; but } 4 me long has the injustice becn allowed to exir’ / Let your attention to the following documes i trumpet-tongued of England's injustice:— “ PINST REPORT ON THE FRANCHIOK IN CoUNTIRGE “ The result of the injustice done to the eal se. as are land by the restriction of the elective franchise, is made manifest by a contrast between the population of the seve ral counties in England, and the number of registered voters therein, with the population aud number i iis E t statement of numbers from the parliainentery re by compering the least populous counties in England with the most populous in ILeland—Westmo: and Cork, for inatance—we find the followiwg result:-‘the rural population of Westmoreland is 48,404, and its now- ber of registered voters after the reform ast, amounted te 4,392. Nearly one out of every ten inbabitents. Where- 4s, in the county of Cork the population is 708.716, and the number of clectors registered after the Irish reform act, was ouly 3,835, being scarcely one out of every two hundred of the inkubitants “ We ask, therefore, is this to be endured ? “ Here is Westmorcland, with less than one-fourieesth of the population of Cork, and yet it bas an absolute rity of 557 registered voters! ‘Is this to be called tele * Again, take the county of Bedford, w lation of 18,624 inhabitants; its registered vs reform act were 3.980, whilat Antrim, with @ population of 316,909, had only 3,487 registered voters—that is, Bede ford had an absolute majority of near 40 voters ayer Antrim, notwithstanding the enormous disproportion im the number of its inhabitants, ’ * Hertford, with a population of 96,977 inhabitants, had 5.018 register d voters; while Galway, with 391,564 inhe bitants, had only 3,061 electors. e * Rutlandshire, the smallest county im England, with only 19,395 inhabitants, had 1,298 voters, while Longford had only 1,294; absolutely two less than Rutlandshire “ Again, Huntingdon, with @ population of 47,779 imhe- bitants, had 2,647 voters; while Donegal, with « population of 259,149, had only 1,448 voters; and Limerick, one ef the wealthier counties in Ireland, with an opulent ogri- cultural population of 244,901 inhabitants, had only 4,466 electors. wen the Isle of Wight, with only 28,731 inbupi tant: 1,167 voters, while re! with 366 328 inhabi- tants had only 1,240 voters, and Pretestant Tyrone, with @ population of 310,000 inhabitan’s, had oy 1,151 electorgy, atwolutely 16 voters lesa than the Lsle of it. “ ‘The island of Anglesea also, 38,003 inhabitants, had 1,187 voters; 108,428 inhabitants, had only 1,112 voters; gud Kerry with 260,126 inhabitants, had only 0,16 voters, just, 56 lation «, ile Kiliase wit voters lvss than the Anglesea, and six hess than the Isle of Wight. vero err ‘ ‘Even if we compare the largest counties in both coun- tries, Yorkshire, with an agricultural population ef 913,738 inbohitanta, and Cork, with a population of 703,716, we will & st the English county had $3,164 electors, while the Irish one had only 3,38, “We find, therefore, that England, in her rural popule- tion of 6,336,000 inhubitants, had 344,564 county vote while Ireland, in a similar proportion ot 7,021,608 ipbape, tants, had only 60,607 registered electors, SECOND REPORT ON THE FRANCHISE IN CITIRG AND TOWRA. “The conseqnence of all these defects in the Irish re form act is, that the disproportion between the number of electors in English and Irish cities and boroughs, when compared to the relative population, is as great as inthe counties. For we find from the same returas that, afer the reform act, Exeter, with a population of 27,932 inhabi. tants, had 3,426 votera—Hull, with 35,746 inhabitants, hed 4.275 electors—while Waterford, with a population of 96,- ah inhabitants, had only 1,278 clectors, being in the ratio of 3 tot, “ Agai ing the largest cities and boroughy in Pp Ireland, with the smaller gnes in England, we find the following resulte:— “Worcester, with a population of 27,318 inhabitaste, has 2,608 voters, while Limerick, with @ population of 66,564 inhabitants, has only 2,860 electors. ster, With only 21,363 inhabitants, har no leas than rs, while Belfast, the wealthiest and most com- in Ireland, with 8,000 inhebitants, had only rs “ The city of Cork, with 110,000 inhabitants, had ont 3.650 electors, including the non-resident freemen, whale Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with a population of 42,260 inha- bitents, had voters. Preston, with a latéort of 33.112 inhabitants, hud 4,204 clectors—both of them more than Cork, which last city has more than treble the aum- ber of inhabitants of either of the other two; and Bristel with 104,338 inhabitants, not equal to the population ,of Cork, has 10,347 voters, being three times the constituency of the Irish city. “If, too, we compare thi those which barely escaped ing fr 3,000 in ita, have more electors than the boroughs in Ireland ed by the Act of Union, with from 10 to 12,000 jn. nts. ‘or example, Wallingford, Launceston, Worsham, Arundel, have all under 3,000 inbebitants, while the eleo- toral constituences jn ull exceed 300 veters, However in Athlone and Bandon, with over 10,000 inhabitants in each, the voters do not exceed 250, and in mui hers, such as Kinsale, Coleraine, and New Ross, the available constits- ency fails far short of 200 voters, “If also we compare the metropolitan constituencies of both countries, where an equality in household value may be expected, we will find that Dublin, with a population of 210,000 inhabitants, had only # 081 voters, including a the bad freemen lately manufactured by the Corporation, while the city of London, with a population of only 122,- 000 inhabitants, had 18,514 electors, and only 17,816 houses above 101. value. Nothing can more clearly illustrate the disadvantages unter which the Irish cities lator, with respect to the 101, household franchise, than the comparison of the num- ber of houses of 101. a year clear valu London, and the number of electors upon that qualification, with the number of similar houses in Dublin, and of similar electors. “These facts appears from parliamentary returns. The number of 101 houses in the city of London are 17,915, and the number of electors appear to be 18,684; whilst im Dublin, the number of houses of 101. value, accerding to Sherrard’s valuation, amounted to 14,106, while the num- ber of electors only amount to 9,061, Thus in the city of London, there are more electors than 101. heuseholdé rs, wherens in the city of Dublin the aggregate of electors does not amount to within one-third of the number of 1¢. househelders.” “WALES COMPARED WITH IRELAND, “Wales has a population of 800,000. In Cork the rural population is 718,715. How are they respectively repre- sented 1 Wales has twenty-eight members; Cork, with nearly the ame population, has but two. “ Here is @ parli Oe Reg} it wee published im 1992, and the seasional number is 206 It states the rela tive amounta of the Eng Scotch, Welsh, and Irieb revenue in that yea there is no similar paper of s later date that I am aware of -— ‘The Irish revenue was £4,302,000 The Welsh revenue was 348 000 This is the exhibition which the return makes of what the hon. member considers the superior wealth of the princi- Vrctd of Wales. That principality, in point of fact, falle low Ireland in any of those pretensions to representa tion founded upon wealth. I have looked inte the amounts of the revenue collected in igle portof Cork, and they exceed that af the principality of Wales. There are no annual reeords to be referred to in such a case, but 3 find that in one year the custome of Cork amounted to £263,000, and that in another year the excise amounted te £272,000, These amounts give, I believe, a feir average view ofthe revenne collected in the pert of Cork, and their total is £585,000, The receipts of Wales are only £248,000. Cork, then, is entitled to more members than the entire principality of Wales, on these very grounds on which Great Britain justifies her overwhelming nume- rical superiority in the House of Commons If Wales have ool s representation disproportioned to her wealth, Cork ought to return 43 members to Parliament ” The honorable and learned gentleman having closed his speech, the Court adjourned to ten e’clock to- morrow. Farr Gane !—Mrs. Polly M. Woodcock of Low- ell, has petitioned to the * General Court” of the old Bay State for permission to call herself Mrs. Mary M. Wood. It seems that Woodcocke are not allowed to be caught during certain months inthe year in Masssehu setts. and cote petitioner 19 @ young and pretty widow, the doesn’t like to have name the obswele in the way of her happiness. —New Plaven Courter. tries together, we find th: achedu . with populations Tree Brrtu —The wife of Hat Dixmont, Maine, last Wednesday mornin, ind all do! three good sized’ Yankee boys Sixcunar Taste.—An ish gentleman of edu cation, and, so far as we know, of irreproachable character, left England some eighteen months #! ith the intention of spendin, one of our prisons. He a) Dat was denied admir po : the cells, and while he averred that be abborred the idew of committing acrime, stated that he would do so te insure the accomplishment of his wishes He was, of eourse, arrested upom his threat, and reqnired, by the Mayor, to ive bail. In default of bail he was committed to the Joyameneing prison, where be has remained for thirteen, months. The prison doors ore, and have long been open- #1 to him, but he refuses to laave hie cell; and, an ha hor supports him, he is permitted to remain. He ceny labor Fes Pulties, is cheerial, and is inthe full possesion of bis f performs all thelitor of an ordinary convict. Bot though engaged ten hours rach day at the loom, he pursnes Inahematical and other studies with great perseverance and energy. He converses with grent intelligence, and is oby.ously, from education end association, a gentle This is a singular instance of voluntary and velf , ifsuch it be; and the satisfac hie «to confer upon its subject, proves that | {that excellent institution ia far from cruel — Ps. hia Forum. Session OF PARLIAMENT. he beliefseeme to gain gfound that the next Session of Parliament will be hekt ft Kingston. The cause arises from the impoambility of obtaining suitable premises at Montreal to carry on the machine of Government, on any thing like reasonable terms Rents hove risen mest enormously, The Mov- treallers complained that the Kingston Landlords shaved the Johnny Newcomer, but it sppetts, that when they have the chance, the extortions of Montreal hear no com parison with those of this good town. They go the whole hog there with a vengeance—£800 por anntim for a miserable shanty, three miles from) the city King ston (Ca) Whig, March. Posrties iw Canana.—The editor of the Kings ton Statesman states that Mr. Merritt, Mr. Steel, Mr. Bowell, Mr Roblin, ond other M.P. P's from Upper Canada, who formerly supported the late Ministry, nave signified their intention of adhering forthe fature to Sir Chas, Metcalfe. Syart Pox. This loathsome and dreaded ease, saya the Louisville Journal, is all erownd Seighboring towns, and We may foon expect it in our city. Every body shoul ' vaecinnate without delay