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