352 o’CONNELL on THE coaacrox mu.

.Mr. O’Connell (who had been repeatedly called on before) said, that in rising to support the amendment, he wished, in the first place, to observe that the question on which they had that night to decide was “that the word ‘ now,’ stand part of the question,” that was whether this bill “ be read a first time or not?” So that a good deal of pleasantry might have been spared, ' reat deal of observation been avoid- 'scussing the amendment, if gentle- recollected that the subject which ad to decide on was “ whether this ' .” He was ad to say that he thought the amend- ent was extremely well calculated to . elicit the real nature of this proceeding a (the attempt to destroy the constitution in ' Ireland), by holding out to the public the ; certainty of this fact—that one fornight’s I delay, it was felt, would be fatal to this .5, measure, which was as unnecssary as it . was unjustifiable. He begged to call the serious attention ofthe House to two ques- tions which that legislature had to decide. The measure then before them was one of _vital importance to every part ofthe British empire; it was one that was intimately con- nected with the nature of the future go- vernment of Ireland. He would ask’, then, , were they to follow the precedents of for- .mer British governments with respect to '_ their conduct towards Ireland? Were they to continue the old and oppressive system? Or were they at length to allow 5 Ireland to be part of the British empire? 3 He would respectfully implore gentlemen " to consider well the next question. Had ‘ Ireland, he demanded, ever benefitted by her connexion with England? Let gentle- : men ask themselves and say, what benefit she had derived from the connexion?

[Hear, hear.] Ifshe had been totally se- parated from England, could she have, by w possibility, been thrown in a worse situa- ” tion than that in which she was placed at . present? He could show that the most % horrible atrocities, that the deepest treach- “ ries that ever stained the annals of any ‘country in reference to its dealings with ‘another, had been perpetrated by England towards Ireland. They had always pre- , ferred the interest of a party to the people at large; when a change came in religion, fl they adopted that faith which was not the faith of the people. In corroboration of his statement he would read a passage from the speech ofan individual whom he should by-and-by name. It is stated that the con- duct of England towards Ireland had been all along in violation of the laWs of civi- ized nations; that if the wars from the 'me of Elizabeth had been directed against ~ n enemy, the inhabitants of the conquered untry would, at all events, have retained , ir property in submission to the victors, ' what was the case with respect to Ire-

THE BRITISH AMERICAN.

land? The property of the people was conferred on an English Colony, three sets of English adventurers, at the end of three successive rebellions, being enriched, by confiscations, at their costs. Whose lan- guage was that? It was the language of Fitzgibbon, Earl ofClare, used in the year l800, and bringing down this atrocious system of misgovernment from the earliest period of English domination to the date of the union. What were they doing now? Had the system of wrong termina- ted? Was Parliament offering to Ireland reparation for injustice? Was it extend- ing to that country the benefits of the Bri- tish constitution? No, no; this precious act was presented to Ireland instead of the constitution. (llear.) It was no dis- paragement to the right hon. secretary to be compared to the Raleighs or l‘lssexes of Elizabeth, but he was sorry to say that in some cases the greatest men had often proved the greatest tyrants, and without personalities it might be added, that there were cases in which little men might envy that bad distinction. [Hear. hear] Surely the legislature must wish, ifit could, to pro- tect the cause of freedom. Let English members consider how they would feel if this were their own case; they would then excuse any warmth that might appear in the conduct of men who felt themselves on they verge ofa dungeon, awaiting the fiat ofthe legislature to hurl them into it. He would not detain gentlemen by reading pas:- sages from the former speeches of some of the supporters of the measure—he would not dwellon the inconsistencies of men in high places—be would not drag the House through the mud or the mire of political tergiversation—though the character of public men were of importance not only to themselves but to the country, and it should be well understood that politicians could not be allowed with impunity to hold one set of opinions when outof place, and an opposite set when in otfice. It was mostjustly said that trial byjury preceded the right of the King to his throne—that the monarch reigned, the hereditary peer- age was maintained, the House of Com- mons assembled. the army was supported, in order that we might see twelve men in a box and ajudge super-intending their de- liberations for the protection of life and propertv against injustice. [Hear.] But he protection of triil by jury was now to be annihilated by means of this bill—the first act ofthe first session of a reformed Parliament. [Hear, hear.] From the moment this act passed, no man in lre- land dared to offend a powerful neighbour, without having occasion to tremble at the probable conseqences; no woman in [re- land—but he would not follow up the sub- ject. Read the section in which it was enacted that it should be a geod and suffi- cient return to a writ of habeus corpus that the party suing forth the same was de-

120.45

tained by virtue of the powers conferred under this act, and then say whether per. sonal liberty was not altogether done away with. This bill took away trial by jury personal freedom, the right to complain, and it annihilated the liberty of the press; for any man discussing the question of tithes, for instance. in a newspaper, and expressing sentiments obnoxious to the ex. isting authorities, was liable, according to the Whiteboy Act, which was referred to in this bill, to be pronounced guilty of a transportable offence for inciting to the commission of crime, “ by words, gesture, or writing He repeated, that under the provisions of the bill, his would be a trans- portable offence, or at least a high misde- meanor. to be punished accordingly in a disturbed district. Here, then, was an end to the liberty of the press. Why did the reigning supersede the former royal fa- mily, and why had that been cashiered ?— because it ventured to interfere with trial byjury, and the right of petition. [Hear.] Parliament was reformed that it might lis- ten to the petitions of the people, and its very first act annihilated the right of peti- tion at a stroke. [Hear, hear.] He hoped that every gentleman who had heard him, and had to answer to his constituents, would recollect that the bill did all this. The right hon. Secretary shook his head as if denying his statement. He asked the right hon. gentleman whether any meet- ing could be held to petition without the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant? That was all he said. In the first place there was the utmost looseness in the terms and phraseology of the act ; he had never read an act of Parliament so untechnical and in- definite in it sphraseology. The 14th section enacted, “ that every person charged with any of the offences hereinafter mentioned or referred to, may be, and such persons shall be, summarily tried by and before such court martial,” so that any oflence referred to and afterwards by the bill con- stituted a subject for the decison of these euurts martial. The 19th section was equally vague. The 225th made any man to whom a prisoner under this bill was committed his legal guardian. The 28th made the only return to the writ of habeus corpus and affirmation that the party was detained under this act. So that by means of these two sections you,” had a power of confinement. Where? Was it in the King’s gaols, in which the sherriff’s were accountable for the care and custody of the prisoner? or in the gaols of the corpo- rations, which also had their responsible ollicers? No—bnt in any place. The prisoner, under this act, might be confined in the black hole of abarrack. (Hear.) Could he be blamed if he found it difficult to preserve his temper when examining the details of such an enactment? He again asked the Reformed Parliament whether this was to be their first bill—this