I have no right to sit in judgment on the motives of the hon. member who has just sat down. The secrets of his heart and the springs of his conduct must be left to the great Searcher of hearts; but by his public actions his public character is to be judged, and on those I will beg leave freely to comment. He has stated his reason for refusing to concur in the amendment of the hon. baronet to be, that it would pledge him irretrievably against the measure of a Legislative Union: how would that concurrence pledge him more solemnly than the amendment of the last session, proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. G. Ponsonby), in which he then concurred? That was a resolution, that we would support our free constitution as finally established in 1782. This is a resolution declaring that we are in possession of that constitution, and that it is the wish and interest of his Majesty's Irish subjects to remain in possession of that constitution, and in the state of union and amity with Great Britain which we now enjoy. What has happened to change the sentiments of the hon. gentleman? I have heard that when he was elected to the dignified situation which he now fills, representative of the university of Dublin, he declared to his constituents that only one possible event could make him harbour the idea of an Union, and that was, to save this country from a separation.Cries of hear, hear, from the treasury benches.

I am glad the new friends of the hon. gentleman have found an excuse for him which he did not suggest for himself; if they do not furnish him with an argument, they must relieve him from an anxiety — he was much alarmed, because he knew his opinions would be unpalatable to both sides of the house: but whatever sentiments they may have excited amongst us, they certainly have been received with acclamation by the minister. The hon. gentleman departs from the pledge which he entered into to his constituents, not because he apprehends any separation between the countries, but because so much corruption has taken place in parliament, in the course of the last session, and so many bad laws have been passed, that he really feels the constitution not worth preserving. Will the hon. gentleman recollect, that in the last session he not only declared against the measure, but argued with much ability that parliament was incompetent to adopt it. What has done away their incompetence? Their corruption! He then believed them incapable of sanctioning this measure, and he now rises to pronounce a libel on the parliament; and on the strength of their iniquities, for which he arraigns them, he declares them armed with authority to dispose of the liberties of Ireland. Not of his country — I rejoice that he has no claim to the name of Irishman. He has been raised into station by the bounty of the country, and he shows his gratitude by conspiring for the destruction of her liberties. So much for the hon. gentleman — to the comfort of his own reflections, and to the gratitude of his constitnents I consign him. But whilst I express an honest indignation against those who have left our cause, and whilst I turn back to shed a tear of regret over the tomb of an honourable and honest man who is now no more (I mean Colonel O'Donnell, the late member for Donegal), I must congratulate the relations of that gallant man that a phoenix has risen from his ashes — I must congratulate the country on that splendid blaze of eloquence with which his successor has this night delighted and illuminated the house.

Sir, I feel no ordinary sensation on this question being again introduced to the consideration of parliament. It was ushered into the last parliament with the same boyish boasting which now accompanies it, and rejected with the same contumely which ultimately awaits it. Without any change in the circumstances of the country, without the production of any new argument, the same men who fled like detected thieves at the close of the last session, and who in the precipitance of their flight stumbled over and overturned all public decency and parliamentary decorum, now exhibit themselves to challenge the national observation, and to brand with the name of faction every man who has honesty and courage to spurn their degrading purposes. What change has taken place? Has the measure changed its nature, or the minister his objects, or the countries their relations? No, you shall know the changes which have taken place — I will unmask the men who have dared to come into the midst of parliament and people to pamper their liberties by sordid bribery and to subdue their spirits by lawless force, and if I cannot excite the feelings of honour or virtue in their hearts, I will call the blooming blush of shame into their cheeks.

You are told with puny sophistry that you ought at least to discuss the question. What is meant by this? That you should discuss the principle? You have already done so; no principle ever underwent a more ample discussion in parliament, and after examining it for two entire days in all its relations, and after supposing all the details the most favourable which possibly could be offered to Ireland, the principle was rejected by a majority not only free from any influence, but resisting every influence. If by discussion is meant that we should discuss the detail without examining the principle, I utterly refuse it. We now stand on the high ground of national independence, secured by solemn compact; and we are called on to declare our readiness to surrender that independence and relinquish that compact, for the purpose of treating about we know not what possible advantages, and this is called discussion. In answer to this demand, I say, first, you have not stated any one definite advantage which Ireland can gain, or evil which she can avoid, to induce her to relinquish guaranteed independence. The measure has now been agitated above a year, and we have not to this hour heard stated in definite terms, such, as a plain understanding can comprehend, any one specific advantage which we are to gain, or any one evil which we are to escape, by its adoption. We have heard a deal of lofty language — increased resources and consolidated strength — wealth and morals of England imported — present benefits from England secured — possible evils deprecated — corruption of our own parliament destroyed — to be made partakers with the most dignified assembly in the world — danger of separation to be avoided — and political und religious differences closed for ever. This all sounds magnificently; but analyse it, and where a definite meaning can be extracted, no man pretends to say how an Union can forward the thing meant.

Again, I will not admit the principle, because it is a barter of liberty for money, even supposing your advantages as real as they are visionary. The nation which enters into such a traffic is besotted. Freedom is the parent of wealth, and it is an act of parricide to sacrifice the constitution which generates and nourishes your commerce for the supposed improvement of that commerce. This is, indeed, under all its circumstances, the most extravagant demand ever made by one nation from another. Ireland, a happy little island, with a population of between four and five millions of people — hardy, gallant, and enthusiastic — possessed of all the means of civilization — agriculture and commerce well pursued and understood — laws well arranged and administered — a constitution fully recognised and established — her revenues, her trade, her manufactures thriving beyond the hope or example of any other country of her extent, within these few years advancing with a rapidity astonishing even to herself; not complaining of her deficiency in any of these respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity — is called on to surrender them all, to the control of whom? To a great and powerful continent, to which nature intended her as an appendage? To a mighty people, totally exceeding her in all calculation of territory and population? No, but to another happy little island placed beside her in the bosom of the Atlantic, of little more than double her territory and population, and possessing resources not nearly so superior to her wants; and this, too, an island which has grown great, and prosperous, and happy by the very same advantages which Ireland enjoys — a free and independent constitution, and the protection of a domestic, superintendent parliament. The wealth, and power, and dignity of Great Britain (of which no man rejoices more sincerely than I do) are the most irresistible arguments against an Union.

A little clod of earth, by the enjoyment of freedom, has generated strength, and wealth, and majesty. She has reared her head above the waters, and has dictated to the unwieldy, lethargic despotisms, and to the unripened, fertile dependencies of Europe. And does she therefore call upon Ireland to cast from her her constitution, and to resign the same never-failing means to the same ends? No. I must take leave to consider the example of Britain more persuasive and more disinterested than her advice. Further, we are called on by this sister island not to connect ourselves in alliance with her; we have already done so in the most indissoluble way; the crown of Ireland necessarily annexed to the crown of England, and the responsibility of the British minister as a pledge for their continuance; not like Scotland, where the crowns were accidentally united in the person of the reigning monarch, and where the parliament had proceeded to sever that solitary bond of connexion; not like Scotland, where a Jacobite parliament had proposed to appoint a king not only different from the king of England, but actually claiming title to the English throne against the lawful monarch; not like Scotland, thus put into a state of war with England, with her shores blockaded, and her trade interdicted; but with full and perfect alliance, founded on unity of executive, unity of interest, and similarity of constitution; and all of them not only uninvaded by, but uniformly strengthened and secured by, the parliament of Ireland.

Again, sir, I will not admit the principle of Union, because we are not only called on to abandon our tried prosperity and the free constitution which gave birth to it, and without any necessity for so doing, or any specific advantage to be derived; but we are called on to do so on the faith of compact, and by the very persons who, in making the demand, violate the most solemn of all possible compacts, I mean that of 1782. The minister acts consistently in arraigning that settlement. It is at variance with all his plans, and in contradiction to all his sentiments. That settlement acknowledged the independence of the Irish parliament on this sound principle, That the two countries were united by sameness of interest and similarity of constitution; that the strength and security of the one mutually affected the other; that they stand and fall together. You now avow to us that we have no sameness of interest; that we never had and never can have the British constitution; that there are no principles of union in our connexion, that the elements of hostility are essentially intermixed with it; that our weakness is your strength; that our subjugation is your safety; and that you cannot stand unless we fall, and are trampled on. Consistently, therefore, do you arraign that settlement, and candidly do you tell us that it was no compact, but a delusion; that on our part it was an arrogant claim, taking advantage of the weakness and distress of Great Britain, and that on your part it was a political finesse, humouring our childish insolence, yielding to our accidental strength, and that you will resume in the hour of force what you granted in the hour of feebleness.

Act your part in its full extent — resume it; but do not resort to the mockery of calling on us to relinquish what you tell us we have no right to retain. Do not insult us by offering compacts, when you avow that no compact can bind. Do not hold out to us the taunting pledge of faith and sincerity, when you boast of your total want of faith and sincerity in the compact of 1782. It is not merely by your licensed scribblers that the fraud of 1782 has been fiated. Posterity will scarcely believe the page of history, when they see it recorded by the British minister. In 1782 you pledged the royal word, you pledged the solemn honour of the parliaments of both countries. You called on Almighty God to witness the truth and sincerity of that final adjustment; and you now call on us, by the pledge of the same royal faith, by the authority of the same parliament, and under the same religious sanction, to enter into a new treaty whose basis must be the violation of the former one.

Who is to guarantee it? If by your own authority you claim a right to violate a compact made amongst equals, and you call on us not to contract with, but to surrender to the same persons who have overturned it; if that treaty is not binding on you whilst we are both alive and strong and able to support our mutual pretensions, will this treaty of 1800 be binding when we are extinct by the terms of it, and you survive alone to expound and to enforce it — call down whatever sanction of king or parliament or God on your new contract, and how will it be treated twenty years hence, in an imperial parliament? If they wish to extinguish your 100 representatives and make you a province in form as well as substance, may they not then with some colour say, we told you in 1800 that you had no constitution: your pretended compact you then gave up, we admitted you to our parliament by courtesy and for a time, and we now at our pleasure dismiss you from it. Would that act of 1820 be so shameless a violation of the articles of 1800 as these articles of 1800 would be of the compact of 1782.

I say, therefore, I will not quit the vantage ground of freedom and compact to admit the principle of an Union.

But it is said we press the discussion — that no mention of Union has been made in the speech, and that it is unbecoming in us to urge the rejection of a measure which has not been announced. Sir, this is very idle talk. If gentlemen do not feel a due respect for themselves, they should at least have some for the representative of majesty. Is it not more than ludicrous that the lord lieutenant should at the close of the last session propose the measure of Union, when parliament could not answer him, and that he should be utterly silent on it at the commencement of this session, when parliament is ready to answer him? You well know the reason of this inconsistency. You wait to have your troops recruited. You do something more than conjecture how those members mean to vote whose seats have been vacated since the last session of parliament. This trick is of a piece with the rest, and the conduct of the measure from first to last is the true expositor of its merits. May I be indulged in taking a very short review of it?

It is admitted by the minister that the alleged necessity of Union flows merely from the constitution of 1782. From Henry the Second until that time Great Britain never suggested the idea. It then was suggested not as a measure to be granted on the constitution of 1782, but as a substitute for it. It was found that no man could be hardy enough to utter the sentiment in this country, and it was abandoned. You thereupon acknowledged our independent constitution, and said that all grounds of constitutional disagreement between the two countries were thereby for ever precluded; and yet you now tell us that thereby, and thereby only, they were created. In 1785 commercial differences arose; there were long negociations between the two countries, yet the name of Union never hinted at; They broke off; still Union never hinted at. At a later period they are renewed and settled, and still Union never hinted at; in 1789 the question of regency arose, and Union never hinted at. And it is worthy of remark, that at those latter periods both countries were in profound peace, foreign and domestic, and nothing existed to prevent the fair sense of every man in this kingdom, in or out of parliament, being had upon the subject. At last, in 1795, we see the measure peeping out of the British cabinet, and the propriety of its adoption mentioned as the reason for dashing the hope which had been held out to the Catholic. The admission of the Catholic, says Lord Carlisle, would deprive the empire of advantages greater than any which she has derived since the revolution, at least since the Union! And it is to be observed, that the Catholic claim is rejected in order to enable the minister to effect Union, and not Union adopted for the purpose of rejecting the claim. Still, however, the scheme is not ; avowed to parliament or people, we only discover it by the accidental disclosure of a ministerial correspondence.

During the administration of Lord Camden, of whom I wish to speak with every degree of personal respect, a system was adopted certainly not calculated to soften religious animosities, or to endear the parliament to the Irish people. I do not mean to comment on the propriety of those measures, but when I reflect that the British minister had hatched the plan of Union before they were adopted, and when I see the supposed alienation of people from parliament in consequence of those measures, and the religious and political animosities excited by them used as the instruments for effecting that plan, I cannot divest my mind of the suspicion that the plan was adopted to effect the purpose. During the administration of that nobleman the most extensive, deep, well-planned, and wicked conspiracy that ever nation escaped from was hatched, matured, and prepared to burst upon, the country. It was detected in all its parts, and published in all its details, and the energies of the nation called out to resist it, by the vigilance, information, and resources of a resident, superintending Irish parliament. If this wicked plot of Union had then been effected, and our parliament at Westminster, every vestige of British connexion would have been swept off the face of the land. Well, sir, this rebellion burst on the public with hideous and unexampled atrocity, and it was substantially put down by the resident, loyal men of Ireland; by native valour and native honour, before any reinforcement had arrived from Great Britain; and it is because the connexion has been preserved by the wisdom of the resident parliament, and by the valour and loyalty of the resident gentlemen of Ireland, that you now propose to banish both. In the summer of 1798 Lord Cornwallis arrived in this country, a man of high character and great military fame, not for the purpose of repelling invasion, not for the purpose of subduing rebellion, but to apply all his character and all his powers to the achievement of a political purpose. I will not dwell on the glories of his military campaign; I mean him no personal disrespect; but this I must observe, that whilst the military lord lieutenant was in the field, with an army of 60,000 men to support him, history will have it to record that we are indebted to a gallant Irishman (Mr. Vereker), at the head of about 800 native troops, for having withstood the enemy, and prevented the capital of Ireland from being entered in triumph by a body of not one thousand Frenchmen.

I do not wish to inquire too minutely why the embers of an extinguished rebellion have been so long suffered to exist; I do not wish to derogate from the praise to which the noble lord may be entitled for his clemency. Its very excesses, if they do claim praise, are at least entitled to indulgence; but when I see that all the rays of mercy and forbearance are reserved to gild the brow of the viceroy, and that all the odium of harshness and severity is flung upon the parliament; when I see the clemency of the chief governor throwing its mantle over the midnight murderer; when I see it holding parley with the armed rebel in the field; and when I see the task of making war against the victim in his grave and the infant in the cradle thrown by the same government upon the parliament, I cannot avoid suspecting that there is something more than the mere milk of human kindness in the forbearance on the one part, and something more than mere political caution in the severities of the other. But, sir, this rebellion was subdued by the parliament and people of Ireland; and before the country had a breathing time, before the loyalist had time to rest from his labours; before the traitor had received his punishment or his pardon; whilst we were all stunned by the stupendous events which had scarcely passed; whilst something little short of horror for all political projects had seized the mind of every man; whilst the ground was yet smoking with the blood of an O'Neill and of a Mountjoy, the wicked conspiracy was announced which was to rob their country of its liberties and their minor children of their birthright. With a suspended Habeas Corpus Act, with military tribunals in every county, the overwhelming and irretrievable measure of Union was announced for the free, enlightened, and calm discussion of an Irish parliament, and with all these engines of terror still suspended over their heads it is again submitted to them.

How was it brought forward? A hireling of the Castle employed to traduce parliament and insult the country; hopes held out to the Catholic that he should be established if he adopted; threats to the Protestant that he should be annihilated if he rejected; the constitution of 1782 openly treated as a system of force on our part and of compulsion on the part of England, and the right to resume it openly asserted. Whilst this impolitic insult was circulated through the country by the authority of government, the lord lieutenant sent to some of the principal gentlemen, merely to request their attention to the subject, but at the same time to assure them that he did not wish it to be carried unless by the uninfluenced opinion of the wealth and sense and loyalty of the country. What was the first parliamentary step? The chancellor of the exchequer and prime sergeant turned out of office because they ventured to declare an opinion against it. The measure was brought forward without hinting at the opinion of the people, but, on the contrary, asserting the full competence of parliament to decide without them. An insidious speech prepared by the minister and delivered from the throne, affecting to advise merely general strengthening of the empire, but which the secretary was compelled to avow meant Union, and Union only. What followed? The measure was justified by the noble secretary on account of the poverty and wretchedness of Ireland, and the necessity of separation flowing from the constitution of 1782. The principle of influence which had been exerted was justified, and the intention fairly avowed of following it up to the full extent of prerogative. The question was discussed for two days in all its relations, the principle examined and the details supposed the most favourable which possibly could be granted to Ireland, and after that full discussion, in despite of the calamities and terrors of the times, in despite of the surprise with which it was brought on, in despite of the influence exercised and avowed, the preliminary principle was rejected by a majority not only not acting under any corrupt influence, but against all corrupt influence.

I need not remind you of the transport with which that determination was received in every corner of the kingdom. Whatever might have been the former errors of parliament, they were lost in the virtue and splendor of that event. What, sir, was the consequence? In opposition to the declared sense of parliament and known wishes of the people, you were told, by one whom I may, without offence, call, if not a boy, at least a very young man, that you were all in error; that you should hereafter implore as a blessing what you now deprecated as a curse; and that he would never lose sight of the measure, but would govern you for the purpose. I ask, was such language or conduct ever ventured on by a defeated minister; or would this insolence have been dared, if you had been considered as a free parliament or a free people. What was the conduct of Great Britain? Exactly corresponding in contemptuousness with that of their minister here. On the very day of the defeat in the Irish parliament, the minister of England, confiding in the dark promises of his partizans here, and taking our acquiescence to the surrender of our constitution as a thing of course, announces the measure to the British parliament, and gains their ready assent — no reluctance on their part, as when the free trade was obtained — no reluctance as on the repeal of 6th of George, or on the renunciation, or on the Commercial Propositions, which we thought so bad that we rejected them, although they acceded to them with regret, as much too good for us. No, sir, knowing that Union would make them masters, their ready acquiescence is procured. Well! by the temerity and boasting of a very young man, the parliament of one country is committed against the other. What is done by the minister when the disappointment is announced? Is he overwhelmed with shame? Anxious to extricate himself? No; he proceeds with as much composure as if he had our complete assent; he treats us like silly, passionate children, and goes on to adjust the terms. He makes a lofty, turgid speech, talks in high-sounding general terms of increased resources and consolidated strength; a couple of powdered lacquies of epithets waiting upon every substantive. Whatever we may think of the wisdom or justness of the oration, we cannot but admire its fashion and its pomp; and after all this absurd jargon, which has been so often exposed, he proceeds to inform the British house, that he is satisfied an enlightened majority must proceed to adopt the measure; and after the great leviathan has concluded his tumblings, a young whale puts up his nostrils, and spurts his blubber on this country, and tells a British senate, that when he came over to Ireland to put down the rebellion he discovered the true character of the country, and that it is best summed up by Swift's verses on the town of Carlow, High church and low steeple, poor town and proud people; and all this to the great admiration of the wisest and most liberal assembly in the world. Give me leave, sir, here to advert to the declaration made in the House of Lords on the same subject by my Lord Auckland, who had been an Irish secretary in the administration of Lord Carlisle, and he declares, that he knows enough of the theatre of action, and of the principal actors on that theatre, to do them the justice to believe, that their resistance will give way to the commanding voice of reason and of truth. Whoever remembers the administration of that noble lord in this country, when he was Mr. Eden, would be able to comprehend the full force and delicacy of the strain of irony in which he proves the candour and docility of the Irish parliament.

On such grounds as these, in defiance of our proceedings, the crown is addressed, and the father of his people is made to say, that he will take the first opportunity of laying before his Irish parliament the same principle in the detail which they had already rejected in the general.(Here it was said from the treasury bench, that his Majesty's expression was not the first, but a proper opportunity.) I thank the noble lord for the correction; we shall see presently in what the propriety of the opportunity consisted. Has the royal word been kept in that respect by the minister? The resolution passed early in the session. The Irish parliament was adjourned at the request of the noble lord, for the express purpose of our being apprized of the result of the English deliberations. And yet, during the whole course of the session not a word is said upon the subject. The proper opportunity had not arrived; but the noble lord was certainly not remiss in his efforts to create that opportunity; he proceeded to accomplish the predictions of the British minister and of himself; to endeavour to corrupt and pack the parliament, so that an enlightened majority should pass the measure, and so to govern the country, that they should implore Union, or anything rather than remain as they were; how effectual the latter part of his plan has been you perceive, from the declaration of the hon. member (Doctor Browne), who declares that he is made a proselyte to the measure by the abominable proceedings of the minister and the parliament. The minister in the meantime proceeded to execute his threats of dismission from office. Every man, whether in a confidential situation or not, who had dared to express his free opinion was dismissed. When men would not be base enough openly to apostatize — their resignation was purchased — the place bill, which had been enacted to preserve the liberties of the subject, converted into an instrument to oppress them; and no man suffered to vacate his seat, unless he would stipulate an Unionist for his successor. The same lord lieutenant who first had declared his intention to submit the question to the uninfluenced sense of the country, frankly avowed his determination to abuse the prerogative for this scandalous purpose; and the noble lord who had declared, in full parliament, that he never would press the measure, even with a majority, against the free sense of parliament, heard himself publicly branded with his shameful departure from that promise, in the case of Colonel Cole, without having the hardihood to deny it! The British minister thought this last act too indecent even for the meridian of Ireland, and the parliament was the next day prorogued.

The public will not easily forget that memorable day, when the usher of the black rod was stationed within the doors of the commons, to watch the instant at which the house assembled. The public will not easily forget the indecent precipitation with which the message from the throne was delivered, without allowing time even for the ordinary vote of thanks to you, sir, for your conduct in that chair. They will not easily forget, not the absence, but the disgraceful flight of the minister of the country, to avoid the exposure and the punishment of guilt. When the functions of this house were thus superseded, his excellency, for the first time, thought proper to inform them of the resolutions of the British parliament and he was further pleased to insinuate, that it would be a great satisfaction to him in his old age, if we would be so good as to adopt this measure of an Incorporating Union.

I must, for one, beg to be excused from making quite so great a sacrifice, from mere personal civility, to any lord lieutenant, however respectable he may be. The independence of a nation, I must own, does not appear to me to be exactly that kind of bagatelle which is to be offered by way of compliment, either to the youth of the noble lord who honours us by his presence in this house; or to the old age of the noble marquis, who occasionally sheds his setting lustre over the other. To the first, I am disposed to say, in the words of Waller — I pray thee, gentle boy, Press me no more for that slight toy;The poem is by Sir John Suckling. and to the latter I might apply the language of Lady Constance — That's a good child — go to its grandam — give grandam kingdom — and its grandam will give it a plumb, a cherry, and a fig — there's a good grandam.

I hope, therefore, sir, I shall not be thought impolite if I decline the offer of the constitution of Ireland, either as a garland to adorn the youthful brow of the secretary, or to be suspended over the pillow of the viceroy.

Thus ended that never-to-be-forgotten session. What has since been done? During the whole interval between the sessions the same barefaced system of parliamentary corruption has been pursued. Dismissals, promotions, threats, promises. In despite of all this, the minister feared he could not succeed in parliament; and he affected to appeal to what he had before despised — the sentiment of the people. When he was confident of a majority, the people were to be heard only through the constitutional medium of their representatives. When he was driven out of parliament, the sense of the people became everything. Bribes were promised to the Catholic clergy — bribes were promised to the Presbyterian clergy — I trust they have been generally spurned with the contempt they merited. The noble lord understands but badly the genius of the religion in which he was educated. You held out hopes to the Catholic body, which were never intended to be gratified; regardless of the disappointment, and indignation, and eventual rebellion, which you might kindle — regardless of everything, provided the present paltry little object were obtained. In the same breath you held out professions to the Protestant, equally delusive: and having thus prepared the way, the representative of majesty sets out on his mission, to court his sovereign, the majesty of the people.

It is painful to dwell on that disgraceful expedition — no place too obscene to be visited — no rank too low to be courted — no threat too vile to be employed — the counties not sought to be legally convened by their sheriffs — no attempt to collect the unbiassed suffrage of the intelligent and independent part of the community — public addresses sought for from petty villages — and private signatures smuggled from public counties. And how procured? By the influence of absentee landlords; not over the affections, but over the terrors, of their tenantry. By griping agents and revenue officers. And after all this mummery had been exhausted; after the lustre of royalty had been tarnished by this vulgar intercourse with the lowest of the rabble; after every spot had been selected where a paltry address could be procured, and every place avoided where a manly sentiment could be encountered; after abusing the names of the dead, and forging the signatures of the living; after polling the inhabitants of the goal, and calling out against the parliament the suffrages of those who dare not come in to sign them till they had got their protection in their pocket; after employing the revenue officer to threaten the publican, that he should be marked as a victim, and the agent to terrify the shivering tenant with the prospect of his turf-bog being withheld, if he did not sign your addresses; after employing your military commanders, the uncontrolled arbiters of life and death, to hunt the rabble against the constituted authorities; after squeezing the lowest dregs of a population of near five millions — you obtained about five thousand signatures, three-fourths of whom affixed their names in surprise, terror, or total ignorance of the subject: and after all this canvass of the people, and after all this corruption wasted on the parliament, and after all your boasting that you must carry the measure by a triumphant majority, you do not dare to announce the subject in the speech from the throne.

You talk of respect for our gracious sovereign. I ask, what can be a more gross disrespect than this tampering with the royal name — pledged to the English parliament to bring the measure before us at a proper opportunity — holding it out to us at the close of the last session, and not daring to hint it at the beginning of this. Is it not notorious why you do not bring forward the measure now? Because the fruits of your corruption have not yet blossomed; because you did not dare to hazard a debate last session, in order to fill up the vacancies which the places bestowed by you, avowedly for this question, had occasioned; and because you have employed the interval in the same sordid traffic; and because you have a band of disinterested patriots waiting to come in and complete the enlightened majority who are to vote away the liberties of Ireland.

Will you dare to act on a majority so obtained? Fatal will be your councils, and disastrous your fate, if you resolve to do so. You have adopted the extremes of the despot and the revolutionist; you have invoked the loyal people and parliament of Ireland, who were not calling on you; you have essayed every means to corrupt that parliament, if you could, to sell their country; you have exhausted the whole patronage of the crown in execution of that system; and to crown all, you openly avow, and it is notoriously a part of your plan, that the constitution of Ireland is to be purchased for a stipulated sum. I state a fact, for which, if untrue, I deserve serious reprehension; I state it as a fact, that you cannot dare to deny, that £15,000 a piece is to be given to certain individuals, as the price for their surrendering — what? Their property? No; but the rights of representation of the people of Ireland; and you will then proceed in this, or in any imperial parliament, to lay taxes on the wretched natives of this land to pay the purchase of their own slavery. It was in the last stage of vice and decrepitude that the Roman purple was set up for sale, and the sceptre of the world transferred for a stipulated price; but even then the horde of slaves who were to be ruled would not have endured that their country itself should have been enslaved to another nation.

Do not persuade yourselves that a young, gallant, hardy, enthusiastic people like the Irish are to be enslaved by means so vile, or will submit to injuries so palpable and galling. From those acts of despotism you plunge into the phrenzy of revolution, at a time when political madness has desolated the face of the world; when all establishment is staggering under the drunkenness of theory; when in this country, which it is said has been peculiarly visited by the pestilence, even the projects, which the noble lord may recollect to have been entertained by the Northern Whig Club, have been necessarily suspended, if not abandoned; when you have found it necessary to enact temporary laws, taking away almost every one of the ordinary privileges of the subject of a free constitution; with the trial by jury superseded, and the whole country subject to martial law — a law, by which the liberty and life of every man rest merely on the security of military discretion; a law which you have not yet ventured to repeal, and the necessity of whose continuance is strangely hinted in the speech from the throne; with a bloody rebellion only extinguished, and a formidable invasion only escaped; you call on this distracted country to unroof itself of its constitution, and having been refuted by the wisdom and virtue of parliament, you desire the rabble of every description to array themselves against the constituted authorities, and to put down the parliament, because parliament would not put down the constitution.

Are the people of Ireland cured of their frenzy — Take off their fetters — restore the Habeas Corpus — give back the trial by jury — repeal the martial law bill — let the ordinary laws resume their course. Are they maniacs, and are they manacled? — do not erect them into law-givers and judges. Do not insult them by a mock appeal — do not at the same time trample on them as slaves and worship them as masters. These, sir, are not the times for theory — let us cling to experience; it tells us we can exist with a common king and separate parliaments, because we have done so for ages; and therefore, when I see a modern Solon taking to pieces the different parts of our constitution, like those of a watch, and asking, If you have a common king, would it not be better, a priori to have a common parliament, I laugh at his visions. Will he answer to me, that if the people are called on to pull down the parliamentary part of their constitution, they will stop precisely there?

I ask him further, what is there in his theory of equal value to the proof from experience, that a common king and separate parliaments produce a good practical system of liberty and connexion. The two parliaments may clash! So in Great Britain may king and parliament; but we see they never do so injuriously. There are principles of repulsion! Yes; but there are principles of attraction, and from these the enlightened statesman extracts the principle by which the countries are to be harmoniously governed. As soon would I listen to the shallow observer of nature, who should say there is a centrifugal force impressed on our globe, and, therefore, lest we should be hurried into the void of space, we ought to rush into the centre to be consumed there. No; I say to this rash arraigner of the dispensations of the Almighty, there are impulses from whose wholesome opposition eternal wisdom has declared the law by which we revolve in our proper sphere, and at our proper distance. So I say to the political visionary, from the opposite forces which you object to, I see the wholesome law of imperial connexion derived — I see the two countries preserving their due distance from each other, generating and imparting heat, and light, and life, and health, and vigour, and I will abide by the wisdom and experience of the ages which are past, in preference to the speculations of any modem philosopher.

Sir, I warn the ministers of this country against persevering in their present system. Let them not proceed to offer violence to the settled principles or to shake the settled loyalty of the country. Let them not persist in the wicked and desperate doctrine which places British connexion in contradiction to Irish freedom. I revere them both — it has been the habit of my life to do so. For the present constitution I am ready to make any sacrifice. I have proved it. For British connexion I am ready to lay down my life. My actions have proved it. Why have I done so? Because I consider that connexion essential to the freedom of Ireland. Do not, therefore, tear asunder to oppose to each other these principles which are identified in the minds of loyal Irishmen. For me, I do not hesitate to declare, that if the madness of the revolutionist should tell me you must sacrifice British connexion, I would adhere to that connexion in preference to the independence of my country. But I have as little hesitation in saying, that if the wanton ambition of a minister should assault the freedom of Ireland and compel me to the alternative, I would fling the connexion to the winds, and I would clasp the independence of my country to my heart. I trust the virtue and wisdom of the Irish parliament and people will prevent that dreadful alternative from arising. If it should come, be the guilt of it on the beads of those who make it necessary.